DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This rather poorly named western series won an Emmy for best syndicated program and is certainly an interesting series. It was produced by Republic, the studio which did action better than anyone, and they put their best into it. Each episode was built around a real historical figure of the old west. A railroad detective named Matt Clark, similar to the later Elliot Ness with the gangsters of the 1920's and 30's, managed to become involved with almost every notorious western outlaw between the middle of the 1800's and WWI. The series' best asset was Jim Davis. Tall, rugged, ruggedly good looking, in prime shape, with an authentic western accent, and great riding skills which made him utterly convincing in the action scenes, Davis was every inch the western hero. He was teamed with two lovely and active co-stars, Mary Castle as "Frankie" during the first season, and Kristine Miller as "Jonesy" during the second. Each worked well with Davis.

What separated this show from its contemporaries and much of what came later was the professionalism invested in the action scenes. Ace action directer William Witney directed 30 episodes. Franklin Adreon the rest. Both filmed the action with polish. Republic's vast store of stock footage from serials and B's was utilized to give scope. The level of individual episodes rose or fell with the quality of the guest stars brought in to the play the outlaws. Among the really good ones were Marie Windsor as Belle Starr, Lee Van Cleef as Jesse James, Fess Parker as Grat Dalton, Jean Parker as Cattle Kate, and Joe Sawyer and Slim Pickins as Butch Cassady and "The Smilin' Kid". The cream of the western up and comers, Pickins, Parker, Denver Pyle, James Best, and Richard Jaeckel, honed their craft. B veterans with decades of experience under their belts, Harry Woods, Glenn Strange, Kenneth MacDonald, Earle Hodgkins, Steve Darrell, and Chief Yowlachie, provided the old leather feel of vintage westerns.

The weakness of the concept was that there are only so many famous western outlaws. By the second season the famous figures were becoming a mite obscure for all by the most dedicated history buff. Nevertheless, a few of the later shows were a match for any, due to the guest stars. Henry Brandon portrayed rustler Nate Champion, and former Republic star Don Barry was outstanding as small-time outlaw Milt Sharp.

Western fans or history buffs will want to see this.

Sentiment: positive
It is nice to see the likes of Oliver Stone, Brian DePalma, Al Pacino, and even Michelle Pfiefer make one monumental piece of cinematic garbage. It is nice to see people so rich and 'successful' wasting their time on one of the most forgettable, trite, and pathetic pieces of film-making of all time. This movie represents the worst of Hollywood.

What is this? Is it based on a true story. Well, they do start with some basic news bites and facts that they read off USA today. But then the movie departs to some fantasy world and a 'cuban' refugee going to make it in the American drug subculture; kind of like Rocky on cocaine. Is it a movie about Cuba or Cubans? For the life of me I don't believe there is a single Cuban in this movie. The accents are totally fake, and scene with Antonio's mother looks like a poster for midwest American values. The whole scene looks like something out of the Dick Van Dyke show. Is this movie about Miami? It looks more like L.A. transposed in Florida. Afterall, a palm tree is a palm tree. Is this a romance novel. The relationship between Pacino and Pfeiffer is so obvious from the getgo, and there is not one shred of possibility that these two characters could ever care for each other. Is this a drug movie? Well, no issues of obsession or addiction are even mentioned. The behavior of the actors after a line of coke is nothing different than had they had a drink of water. Admittedly, the acting is terrible.

Let's get to the rest. The music is disgusting and sounds like latin elevator music or something out of a Lawrence Welk show. I think I heard a polka? The camera work is shoddy with too much movement and far more cranes than could ever be effective. Clearly, the photography budget was excessive. The sound is bleached in a number of spots, and the dialogue seems to be carried out in a warehouse. The writing is appalling. This is one of those movies were the script writes itself. You are dragged from one trite piece of dialogue to the next, each pushing the plot like a sack of bricks.

So I am going to ask, Is this even a movie? It could be a drama series patched together for two and a half hours. But at least a drama series has some kind of focus. Maybe it is just a bunch of poorly acted scenes taped together. Whatever it is, movie or not, it is a piece of crap.

Sentiment: negative
I cannot say this movie is a disappointment because I read some reviews before watching and it did not do as well as I thought it would have. The bar was not set that high, so the fact that my expectations were met is not saying much.

The Good: The city of New York. If you live in the city like me, you'll recognize certain places and understand that the city is supposed to be more than just a setting, rather one of the main characters. There are genuinely tender moments, humorous conversations, and plot twists left and right which all keep things interesting.

The Bad: The first thing I thought after leaving the theater was that I wanted more, but not in the positive "leave them wanting more" fashion. Certainly the good skits/scenes outweigh the bad, but there are a lot of skits that fall within the "in-between" category, too many in fact, which is what ultimately brings the movie down. Also, New York City's diversity, though hinted at though the many distant pans of the city and mentioned in conversation throughout the movie, is never really realized or analyzed to the point of doing the city justice. For example, many of the skits involve well to do middle aged whites. I mean I know the city is home to many of the said demographic but come on, Paris Je'taime's plot and character diversity makes New York City look like Lancaster, PA, or someplace really white. It is just disappointing to see the city shortchanged on its heritage like that.

Still, even after having said this, I would recommend giving New York, I Love You a view. Who knows, maybe you'll disagree with my opinion and maybe you won't. You will never know until you see it for yourself. This review is not meant to deter anyone from watching this movie, as everyone's opinion on art differs. I'm just giving you a very vague heads up on what to expect.

Sentiment: positive
This is without question one of the worst movies I have ever seen. However, it is also one of the most unintentionally hilarious. I like to compare it to Plan 9, in that it can be so bad, so awful,so dumb, and such a waste of time that I find myself laughing out loud.

One of my biggest problems with it is that it's a complete ripoff of Robin Hood, and let be honest and say that I love Robin Hood with Errol Flynn, and Robin Hood: Men in Tights. But let's face it, from the forbidden love between Peck (who is definitely slumming it. Although in all fairness this was still a good few years before the masterpiece To Kill a Mockingbird) and the female character (who is so forgettable, apparently, that I have forgotten her name.), to the final scene where the good guys dress up as monks to fool the bad guys screams "ROBIN HOOD" all over it.

However, I don't think the film isn't worth seeing. On the contrary, I think that this is one of the funniest movies I've seen in years, even if it was unintentional.

Sentiment: negative
There is a certain genius behind this movie. I was laughing throughout. The scene in the phone sex office, discussing how love heals the doppelganger was a nice attempt at this genius/humor. Execution is poor, but you can see the writer's message and they do have some talent. The doppelganger split at the end was like... "ok, wasn't quite expecting that but let's see what the movie has to say". Certainly ridiculous, but a sweet idea and actually very coherent to the story in a strange way.

Is the point of a movie to be logical or is it to be entertaining or communicate on an emotional level? i'm easily bored by many movies, but this one kept my interest throughout.

I think the story may have some auto-biographical roots, but that's just a guess. Horribly bad, but good. I'm looking for other movies this person may have done (with more experience).

Sentiment: positive
I regret every single second of the time I lost while watching this movie, really. Unhappily, I always find it hard to switch off a movie once I started watching it. Especially, when it's such a classic or what people use to call a classic. I think that this is one of those movies every movie-lover should have watched at least one time, so that was why I watched it. Don't get me wrong, I like Humphrey Bogart and his wife Lauren Bacall both as a couple and as actors, but this movie was a big fraud in my opinion. No really good plot, neither an espionage flick nor a romantic love story. Well, not even a convincing mixture of both of these genres. Only thing which caused tension was that it was uncertain whether 'Bogey' and Bacall would stay together in the end or part from one another. I think "To Have and Have Not" is very overrated and Bogart was in many better films during the 1940s.

Sentiment: negative
I must admit that this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I thought Dennis Hopper had a little more taste than to appear in this kind of yeeeecchh. If this is supposed to be funny then I gotta look around for a new sense of humor. If you're thinking of buying this movie you'd better think again.

Sentiment: negative
The acting is bad ham, ALL the jokes are superficial and the target audience is clearly very young children, assuming they have below average IQs. I realize that it was meant for kids, but so is Malcom in the Middle, yet they still throw in adult humor and situations.

What should we expect from a show lead by Bob Saget, the only comedian in existence who is less funny than a ball hitting a man's groin, which is probably why he stopped hosting America's Funniest Home Videos.

Parents, do not let your kids watch this show unless you want to save money on college. Expose your kids to stupidity and they will grow up dumberer.

Sentiment: negative
I love watching steven seagal movies not because of the action of the great plot holes but just because it makes me laugh

oh it makes me laugh so hard this movie totally got no point and is ridiculous compared to this movie Pearl harbor rocks!!! and Ben affleck need no acting school at all just to give a impression how bad it is

first off all there so many goofs and bad acting its just getting worse like when steven is try to get out of jail a chopper lands at first the security notice and they led them land when they fly away all of the sudden a guard start shooting

or when he killed that guy in the car he and treach both walk away you can't see no oil on the ground behind him steven notice that there is oil without even watching treach trows a lighter and the car blows up

and there are plenty of more goofs Steven uses his basic action when someone is pointing a gun at him he grabs it and shoot him totally bullshit!!! like some gangster would let that ever happen.

the acting is also very worse at the fight scene in the jail outdoor place you can see steven clearly wait to come in action just rewind it a couple of time and you notice the bad acting

its just makes me laugh i hope one day it comes to the cinema's here in Holland then i'll go there with as many friends as possible just to laugh my self to death

Sentiment: negative
Gojoe is part of a new wave of Japanese cinema, taking very creative directors, editors and photographers and working on historic themes, what the Japanese call "period pieces". Gojoe is extremely creative in terms of color, photography, and editing. Brilliant, even. The new wave of Japanese samurai films allows a peek at traditional beliefs in shamanism, demons and occult powers that were certainly a part of their ancient culture, but not really explored in Kurosawa's samurai epics, or the Zaitochi series. Another fine example of this genre is Onmyoji (2001). I would place director Sogo Ichii as one of the most interesting and creative of the new wave Japanese directors. Other recent Japanese period pieces I would highly recommend include Yomada's Twilight Samurai (2002) and Shintaro Katsu's Zatoichi: The Blind Swordsman (2003).

Sentiment: positive
Flashdance is one of those awful, stupid movies that you actually kind-of enjoy, just because they're so crap. I just watched it on TV & my friend and I were amazed at how dopey it was. It's true that Don Simpson and the other producers came up with the idea of a fairly cheap, lowbrow flick with lots of sweaty bodies to help sell a soundtrack of (admitedly catchy) pop, so Flashdance is an odd sort of pioneer: the first MTV movie. Adrian Lyne started out in advertising and it shows because Flashdance is almost a commercial for itself. You've already decided to watch it but the movie has this weird, panicky undercurrent, as though it's frightened that you might change your mind at any moment. It keeps selling itself to you over and over, all the way through, using slick commercial-style editing and glossy close-ups of jiggling breasts. The story is wafer thin (I honestly can't think of another film I've seen with less plot) and it never makes much sense, but its a very contrived, calculating movie, so it feels consistent. People say it's dated but Flashdance was always rubbish. Viewers in the early 80's knew it was just cheesy T&A but it does work in its own silly fashion. There's soppy romance for the chick-flick crowd and stacks of oily, writhing female bodies for their dates, all set to a pumping disco beat. How could it fail? It helps that the dialogue is pointless, so you can grab a popcorn without missing anything major and, if this sort of thing isn't your cup of tea, you can always laugh at the 'interpretive dance' on display. The scene where a stand-in for Jennifer Beals convulses/'dances' on stage in front of a TV with a fan in it and a face full of white clown make-up had us in stitches. A genuine guilty pleasure.

Sentiment: negative
Don't let my constructive criticism stop you from buying and watching this Romy Schneider classic. This movie was shot in a lower budget ,probably against the will of Ernest Marishka, so he had to make due.For example england is portrayed as bordering on Germany.BY a will of the wisp Victoria and her mom are taking a vacation to Germany by buggy ride alone.They arrived their too quick. This probably could not be helped but the castle they rented, for the movie, was Austrian. When she's told that she's queen she goes to the royal room where the members of the court bow to her, where are the British citizens out side from the castle cheering for their new queen? Why ISBN't she showing her self up to the balcony to greet her subjects ?Low budget!Where the audience back then aware of these imperfection? I wonder how the critics felt?Durring the inn scene she meets prince Albert but ISBN't excited about it. Durring the meeting in the eating side of the inn your hear music from famous old American civil war songs like " My old Kentucky home" , and "Old black Joe". What? civil war songs in the 1830's? Is Romy Schneider being portrayed as Scarlet?Where's Mammy? Is Magna Shnieder playing her too? Is Adrian Hoven Rhett or Ashley? What was in Marishka mind?Well this add to the camp.It's unintentionally satirizing Queen Victoria'a story. This is the only reason you should collect it or see it 03 11 09 correction Germany and england are connected

Sentiment: positive
Tobe Hooper has made great movies so I was certain this couldn't be BAD. I didn't read any reviews and tried to watch this unintentionally humorous film. At times this made me laugh, sometimes I almost fell asleep, sometimes made me almost CRY for Hooper.

I rated this 3/10 because its 1990 "horror"-movie and many interesting or funny things happened there. Throughout the movie I was thinking something like "they simply CAN'T add more things in this movie..." .. but they did.

Some tell this is some sort of Firestarter clone but truly isn't. It's based on that idea but thats all. This is combination of horror, comedy, weird religion/god things, funny gore, simple effects, drama, horrible acting, unbelievable script..and more.

*spoilers* Story is: Government tries to create ultimate weapon using nuclear power or something and fails, during process child is born for 2 test persons. When mom sings to her child after the birth, both husband and wife burns and it is SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION. Government buries whole thing and leaves this child live amongst other people and ... then after x years this kid is grown up and realizes he has been born for a reason and whoa he can burn things with his brains. Then everything goes unbelievable messy nothing really explains anything and .. Well when The Government realizes "okay now he can set this fire thing to work" they take him to normal hospital where is some nuclear toxic what they are going to use on this man BECAUSE they could kill him, no they can't shoot him no! .. and argh, I guess thats enough to tell, I promise there is 100 more weird things in this movie.

Well if you want good laughs watch this one. Gosh.

Sentiment: negative
I'm giving this movie a 1 because there are no negative numbers in IMDb rating system. this movie was horrible. It was very badly acted, the story was poorly written, the action was unbelievable. I doubt even the Salvation Army could battle as poorly as the troops did in this film. I won't even write any plot spoilers because the movie just isn't good enough for plot spoilers. To write comments on the plot would be pointless. If I were to compare this movie, I'd have to compare it to Reign of Fire, however although I didn't like Reign of Fire either, that movie at least was better than this one. 

Some of the people in the theater left before the movie was even halfway done. The only reason I didn't was because I simply didn't think to do it. I was hoping for a feast of CGI and fighting masterfully done, but that isn't what happened. The martial arts lasted all of 30 seconds and that was from an exercise routine done during the flash-back scene, very disappointing. The CGI was not done well either. One scene comes to mind. During one of the earlier tank battles, the troops are firing away at......nothing. Someone forgot to cue the animation guys on that bit of film so the street was totally devoid of bad guys. I'm also thinking the bad guy's voice was dubbed by the voice-over of Imotep from The Mummy movies. Had that same scraggly echoing thing going on. (Someone owed some royalties, here?) Since I mentioned the fight scene, I'll say yeah that might be considered a spoiler, but only to the purists I suppose.

Don't go see it, don't buy the DVD when it comes out either. You have been warned.

Sentiment: negative
Hey, I know Angel isn't the kind of show that gives people a happy ending, and I know they couldn't just make everything perfect, but I couldn't believe the ending to Angel. I absolutely love the show, it's possibly the best show ever. However, I really hated this ending, as well as the whole way the 2nd half of Angel season 5 went (similar to Buffy season 7). My favorite characters deaths were pretty much pointless and did nothing for the plot. Cordelia was one of the best characters on the show, and once she and Angel were finally going to get together she turned all evil and into a demon. I wanted so badly to have her back, don't get me wrong the episode where Cordelia comes back is fantastic, but I was still really mad she was gone. Then on earth was up with Fred dying, right after she finally got with Wesley? There was no sacrifice, it was pointless, it did nothing whatsoever for the plot, and blue haired demon girl is an awful, useless character. They spent way too much of the end centered around her. Another big problem is they didn't connect the elements well enough. I know those dudes in that black thorn wanted to bring about the apocalypse, but there wasn't even a date set for when it was supposed to happen. The apocalypse should have been carried out and discovered throughout the entire season, rather than just mentioning there are some evil dudes an hour before the season ends. One of the biggest problems is every character who the audience cares about is either dead or has nothing to live for. My three favorite characters died, and Angel, Spike, and Gunn (who I'm not sure even survives) have no office, aren't even back to their helping the helpless, are in the middle of a huge battle, and have lost everyone they care about. Angel and Spike are never redeemed, they lose the girl they care about, and just about everyone's dead, and they still have to fight this weird evil army. I get the whole you never stop fighting, but it was stupid to end it right in the middle. Couldn't there have been some redemption, with knowledge that there would always be many more battles to come. I don't get why this episode is so highly rated, because I think the Buffy ending was 10 times better, and I wasn't even a giant fan of that one. Why did they have to slip at the end, season 3 and 4 and 1st half of five were so amazing, then they went and messed up the show.

Sentiment: negative
With a film starring the Twins, Ekin Cheng and Edison Chen, nobody should expect a masterpiece of cinema. What you do get, however, is a fun film which is easy on the eye and the brain. There are loads of Hollywood-style vampires (no hopping Chinese bloodsuckers here), cute girls, handsome heroes and the occasionally very funny moment. And Jackie Chan.

Sure, the kung-fu relies heavily on wire work and CGI. Sure, the script reminds you of Blade. And sure, the whole affair is instantly forgettable.

But for a truly enjoyable piece of cinematic fluff, you would be hard pushed to find better.

Sentiment: positive
As a Southern Baptist, it pains me that I must give a below average rating to an overtly Christian movie. There certainly aren't so many that I want to discourage film-makers from a genre that's woefully under-exploited. Still, I must honestly say that "Love's Abiding Joy" is a typically low budget, low key, self-consciously Christian film. The plot is predictable, the acting mediocre (I'm being kind), and the editing atrocious. As a TV movie it might have been slightly above average, but as a feature film it leaves much to be desired. Keep trying guys. You've got to have a movie about about real Christians inside you somewhere. Might I suggest you turn to G. K. Chesterton or C. S. Lewis for some inspiration?

Sentiment: negative
Kabei: Our Mother (2008) is a poetic and sublime beauty from Japan. A real weeper! I had heard great reviews for the film and rented it from Netflix. Am I glad I did! In many ways this film reminded me of the old style of Japanese classic film-making from the 1940's and 1950's that I've come to love so much, such as seen in Yasujiro Ozu pictures -- the title credits even begin in the same way, with the Japanese letters (characters) in red against neutral color burlap material. I immediately thought: this director loves Ozu. The same style was used too: mostly indoor sets with only a few outdoor scenes. Even a couple of "pillow shots", as Roger Ebert calls them. The strength of the film is built on the love of the characters for one another.

The story follows the lives of a Japanese family before, and during, and after, World War Two. The mother takes care of her growing girls the best she can after the father (a University professor) is arrested for anti-war sympathies. He's never freed and only has a few brief meetings with his wife in prison before he dies of starvation and disease. Meanwhile a former student of the professor comes by often to help take care of the mother and two girls. He begins to fall in love with the mother and is a substitute father for the two girls. But war starts and he's drafted and they have to say an abrupt farewell. Will they ever express their love for one another? Will he ever return from the war? 

There is so much heart and gentle spirit in the performance of the lead actress, Sayuri Yoshinaga. She's almost a Madonna type, she's so beautiful! Big soulful eyes and flawless skin. The actor who plays the student is phenomenal as well: his name is Tadanobu Asano. What a sensitive performance. There is no macho in him at all; he's gentle and kind. I'd certainly love to see both of these two in other movies. I think I'll check to see what's available for them. The two little child actresses are wonderful too.

The film is just released on NTSC DVD for American audiences, with very easy to read English subtitles. I gave it a 10 out of 10 on the IMDb. I cried almost as much as with the Japanese film classic Twenty-Four Eyes (1954). Don't miss this film!

Sentiment: positive
This film is really a big piece of trash trying to make itself look like a Hollywood production.Poor story outline(stupid robot story)...ultra bad acting by untalented pop idols...and they are trying to"FIGHT"!!!My goodness...those miserable actors uses wires to make them look like they are "good fighters"...:(and I hate that arrogant Edison Chen...the worst actor I have ever seen!!!I will never touch his movies again.AVOID this movie at all costs!!!I wanted to give it a negative value out of ten...not even worth a 0/10.

Sentiment: negative
Even if Ryan wasn't such of an annoying person, this would still be bad, i said even if, where do we begin? "directors log" You will have the urge to snatch his tape recorder and pound it with a hammer or punt it into a lake, a haunted lake of course. Oh how i wish "dead time" was more literal as opposed to what they refer to it as, but alas, no death, maybe a pillow out of place or a "humming noise" oh wait thats the cat. I actually expected to see some sort of evidence or at least something to verify their escapades, don't worry you wont see anything you that you would not see on a normal day.

An entire season and what do they have to show for it, um nothing. No in fact they have less than nothing, they have a waste of time. They took my challenge, the do something for the paranormal challenge. Now in this you actually do something for the paranormal, you could say go on camera and say "i love the paranormal so much I'll draw stick figures of ghosts" or " I love the paranormal so much I'll film hot co-eds pretending to be ghost hunters" you would be wasting film, but wasting it for the paranormal. Or you could say "I'll mess with a demon" but don't say it's name you might get hurt, and you know god doesn't like that, that would be quite a thing for god but he wouldn't like that so don't do that. So i asked them to waste time for the paranormal and they followed suit, they went into an old building looking for "mothman", it was a waste of time, it made no real difference at all, it had no effect, we learned nothing new, it was a waste of time and film.

There amazing detective work is just so uncanny, "well we found your problem" a cat died here so were going to psychically communicate with that cat and tell it to move on, kind of throw some catnip at it, and it'll be OK......directors log...." Captain log star date 541.2 ...oh i mean " directors log, i just brought on a few new investigators, a couple 8's and 9's but this chic is a 10....um yeah....we have a new case... strange things happening.... .......focusing on one of the children.....were going to investigate.." Now we will bring is a psychic, we haven't told them anything this is TV trust us,

Sentiment: negative
This movie is really sick, and funny. I have made my friends cringe describing it to them. I saw it about 8 months ago, and I still have the song 'Shall we Gather at the River' echoing through my head.

So basically, it is a Tromatized Romeo and Juliet, but it goes beyond what you would expect. Let's just say incest, references to child molestation, gore (of course), but unfortunately, has a sort of happy ending...sort of...it's more weird than happy. Cappy Capulet was brilliant! He has this sort of intellectual snobbish tone, he's abusive, but civilised. He quotes more Shakespeare than anyone else in the film...all while engaging in his sadistic role as a husband and father.

The meat guy was pretty cool too. He was Juliet's fiancé, deeply infatuated with her, and soon to be heartbroken because of Tromeo. And Tromeo, a true romantic. He's a handsome, really sweet guy, desperate to find true love. 'She doth make torches to burn brightly!' Unfortunately, Troma just had to resort to that awful fake green vomit and their other antics. They really get carried away with that stuff sometimes. But hey, this film made a great impression on me. How often do I refer to it in real life situations...wow that's pathetic.

Anyway, enjoy!

Sentiment: positive
When it first came out, this work by the Meysels brothers was much criticized and even judged to be exploitation. Luckily, it is now hailed as a masterpiece of documentary cinema, especially now that society has been exposed to real exploitation in what is reality television, and the bad evolution of most direct cinema.

Really, at first, we must say that this isn't really direct cinema, it is more cinema verité. The difference between the two is very slight, but it mainly is the fact that in this documentary, we are made to feel the presence of the Meysels brothers, and they do interact with the characters filmed. This as well makes it clear that it is not exploitation. The Meysels have been allowed in the house, and they are included in what is a very eccentric situation of a very eccentric household. And both Edith and Edie just love the idea of being filmed.

It would have been very disappointing had very been shown only a voice of God narration and shallow interviews. Here, we are given a full portrait of the madness of the house, a madness that does seem to go down well with both Edie and her mother Edith. Their house is a mess, litter and animals everywhere, faded colors and furniture all over the house, and the constant fights that are constant interactions of reality. These two people have lived with each other their whole life, and are not fighting in front of the camera because they want the attention, but rather because they can't help talking to each other this way. They know each other too well to hide their inner feelings, there is no need. In the end, though, even as they blame each other for their lives, they really love each other deeply. Edie says she doesn't want her mother to die, because she loves her very much, and Edith says that she doesn't want Edie to leave her because she doesn't want to be alone.

But the most interesting aspect of the film is that regardless of their old age, the two women can't help be girls. They cannot help being one the singer, the other the dancer. Exhibit all their artistic skills in front of their camera. When Edie asks David Meysels rhetorically "Where have you been all my life?" she is really very happy that she finally gets to show the whole world herself and her wonderful showgirls skills. A beautiful portrait of stylistic importance and a charm that is highly unlikely to be ever seen again, the way only the Meysels and few others could do.

Sentiment: positive
You got to love this movie! I mean, what other Swedish splatter movie could be so evil, bizarre and totally cruel...The whole movie is stuffed with some kind of weird humor, like: The old cencoreguy just blows his head off and the boss just wipes the blood off his glasses and says with a mean voice: - Your fired!!! wouppie!!!

Sentiment: positive
I'm going to be generous here and give it a 3 only because I live in Huntsville and it was great to see how well the city was filmed. That said, this movie was pretty bad. It's like they started off with hardly any script and the director just told the actors to stare at each other meaningfully with a lot of music playing over it. And Billy D. Williams looked like he'd rather be anywhere but in this movie. It's just a mess. I think I could write a script better than the dislodge for this film, and I'm no writer.

There is one thing I've seen mentioned throughout the reviews and message boards--everyone is under the impression that the movie begins around World War 2 and actually it seemed more like it was supposed to start out in the late 1950's/early 1960's. While the military was not segregated by then, I'm pretty sure that any troops waiting to board a train would still be segregated in a place like Huntsville, Al. If the beginning of film was supposed to be the 1940's, then Billy D, Lesley Ann & Rae Dawn would have to have been in the 70's and 80's instead of their mid 50's or early 60's.

Don't waste your time unless you really, really like the actors because the story isn't very interesting.

Sentiment: negative
Love Rosario Dawson, think she's one of the finest actresses of the modern era.

Descent seems to be more about self-empowerment than anything else. It's the consistent undertone in everything in the film. The dialog is flat, the characters seemingly intentionally bland and one sided. The only consistency is the representation of self-empowerment in the characters and Rosario's journey from self empowerment to loss of empowerment and back again.

Pitching this as a rape classic isn't appropriate, and that's probably why so many people don't enjoy the film. The standard 'rape' audience wouldn't particularly like this film, and maybe that's the point? The film asks more questions than it answers, and it does confront it's target audience, whether they like it or not. There's a compelling relationship between the characters and the target audience and while the film doesn't slap the audience across the face with self-righteous audacity it does engage the viewer for what may or may not be, all the wrong reasons.

Descent is a good film which IMHO is severely under-rated.

Sentiment: positive
I thought I read somewhere that this was the last Monogram production, but whether that's true or not it doesn't matter, because if it wasn't, then it should have been. It's a deadly dull affair starring John Carradine with some gray in his hair to make himself appear like an older scientist who is experimenting with the aid of his young apprentice (Robert Shayne) in bringing the dead back to life. Every time their subjects are revived, they seem to have a whitish face like marble as they are lying strapped to the laboratory table (big deal). Carradine manages to restore his faithful dog to life after it's dead, and the mutt gains an unusual ability to walk through walls in a ghostlike fashion (wooooooooohhhh). That's about all she wrote.

For an ultra-cheap Monogram quickie, this thing at least actually utilizes a more fancy-schmancy lab setup than is usually allotted. The funniest running joke in the movie is that the "older" doctor Carradine constantly refers to his "young" assistant Shayne as "m'boy" when, in fact, Carradine was actually 40 and Shayne was 45 when they made this!

Sentiment: negative
This is the best movie I`ve ever seen !!! Thomas Beckett & Richard Miller -two mankinds who want to survive in the "jungle" of violence and madnes, one shot - one killed !!? You must kill, if you getting doubt about something, YOU MUST SURVIVE !!

P.P.- I appologise of my bad / worst/ English !!!

Sentiment: positive
I saw the capsule comment said "great acting." In my opinion, these are two great actors giving horrible performances, and with zero chemistry with one another, for a great director in his all-time worst effort. Robert De Niro has to be the most ingenious and insightful illiterate of all time. Jane Fonda's performance uncomfortably drifts all over the map as she clearly has no handle on this character, mostly because the character is so poorly written. Molasses-like would be too swift an adjective for this film's excruciating pacing. Although the film's intent is to be an uplifting story of curing illiteracy, watching it is a true "bummer." I give it 1 out of 10, truly one of the worst 20 movies for its budget level that I have ever seen.

Sentiment: negative
I ended up watching this movie before even going through any of the reviews, on the request of a female. Just out of curiosity, I thought, let me find out if there are people who actually recommend others to watch this movie. I am quite shocked to find such long and positive reviews on this website that makes me conclude that it's a scam.

As far as my opinion goes, I have to ask,"are these filmmakers retarded or do they assume that the viewers are retarded?" The movie is atrocious on so many levels and I'm not even talking about the story or presentation.

So, these bunch of guys plus one girl (the lead actress) form a Music band; guessing from the constant presence of guitars it is supposed to be a ROCK band. Hell, when did dancers started becoming the part of a Rock band??? Anyway, let me accept it as the-Bollywood-version-of-a- Rock-band, but amusingly enough all the scores which actually had these two guitarists doing all kinds of cool "ROCK GESTURES" and I am assuming they were playing the instruments, the sound of the guitar was completely missing!!! I simply can't comprehend the magnitude of stupidity here....

I am just going to conclude here because it is absolutely not worth pointing out any further flaws in the movie. Bollywood directors seem to have no shame anymore!!!!!!!!

Sentiment: negative
As a movie critic for several Dutch websites, I have to see lot's of movies, and not all very good ones. Some movies are so bad, you won't be surprised that they are released straight on video. With taboo, Iám surprised that it is released on video at all. This is really low budget bad quality bad written rubbish. 

A group of youngsters plays a game of taboo. They write down their most sickening wish or act, and later on people are murdered for their taboo's. The question is, should we believe what we see?

The movie has a potential interesting plot-twist, and I won't give it away here. But what could have been interesting stays stupid, bad acted and without any reason.

Some of the actors have played in bigger titles before, so why on earth did they sign up for this? If you see this anywhere, try to dodge it. There is no logic, no human sense of quality in this movie.

Sentiment: negative
Easily the best known of all the Shakespeare plays, it has been seriously let down here. Shoddy direction, stagnant studio work and erratic performances spoil a fine tragedy.

In the town of Verona, the Capulets and the Montagues have been feuding for centuries but tragedy is imminent when Romeo (Patrick Rycart), a Montague, falls in love with Juliet (Rebecca Saire), a Capulet. Bloodshed soon erupts...

The studio work, especially in daytime scenes, seriously stagnates the energy of the play. It's a story that, with it's energy, deserves to be shot outdoors. Coupled with this the costumes are hideous, with too many tights and ludicrous codpieces. The stage fighting looks horrendous, with far too much stretching and running around to be engaging.

Patrick Ryecart is too lightweight to be a truly effective Romeo. He manages the character's intensity when the plot gets going but his stately accent and bland, often inexpressive eyes limit his range. It is very hard for the audience to relate to this Romeo. Rebecca Saire is too youthful to be a good Juliet - she captures the character's naiveté but a little more sassiness would have been welcome.

The supporting roles don't fare much better. Joseph O'Connor's Friar Laurence is fine but too many of his best lines have been cut. Anthony Andrews' Mercutio belongs on stage and not on camera. He gurns and gesticulates excessively and looks rather ridiculous as a result. Alan Rickman, underplaying his role, has virtually no presence as Tybalt. He did develop an edge and intensity to deliver some fine screen performances in later years, but that isn't in evidence here. The Prince can be a fine role with his brief appearances but actor Lawrence Naismith fails to give the part any authority on camera. Only Micheal Hordern, in probably his best role in this series, comes out of this with any dignity. His Capulet is well-played and a joy to watch.

See one of the other versions of this story instead.

Sentiment: negative
A surprisingly good documentary. My surprise was mainly due to the fact that I was confused by the title. I assumed this was about the influence of the drug culture on film making but no it is a much more far reaching and intelligent film than could have been expected. Demme has done a great job in encapsulating the period from the late 60s to the late 70s. From, 'Easy Rider' and the collapse of studio influence, through all those introspective 'real life' movies, where brilliant young directors tried to express themselves politically, sexually and artistically, through to the beginnings of the blockbuster and the return of the reigns to the money men and their studios. As someone who saw the 'real life' movies of Britain and the rest of Europe through the sixties and then the revolutionary US films of the 70s and is sad that the sequel to the sequel is so much the order of the day, this was a most fascinating film. The interview clips are measured (thanks to DVD the full interviews are available as extras!) and the film clips well considered. Also, as someone who has only just caught up with, 'Joe', I am impressed that this important little film gets its well deserved entry here.

Sentiment: positive
Words cannot describe how asinine, juvenile,and repetitive this steaming pile of a series is. It relies on 3 things: 1. Constant 80s pop culture references 2. the tired "stretch out a joke to the point of awkwardness" bit, and 3. at least 3 or 4 pointless flashbacks per episode. The only reason I can see for this crap fest being as popular as it is for the constant pop culture references which I suppose elicit an "OMG LOL THAT'S FROM SUPERFRIENDS!! THAT IS SO TOTALLY IRONIC, AND I AM SO EDGY AND SMART FOR GETTING IT!!" response from the viewer. The writing is beyond lazy, and panders to its viewers, mostly in their 20s and 30s. Plus there's the character design, which seems to consist of the same three characters with the same bored expressions drawn over and over again, but with different skin colors and maybe a different hairline occasionally. Insulting crap.

Sentiment: negative
Eh. This is a popcorn movie, nothing more. I watched this with a bunch of friends (and though that might NOT be the best way to view a horror movie...) and most of the dialogue and action was laughable.

It left me yearning for a real film. :)

The main problem is the lack of tension in the film. It keeps flashing back to 'explanation' scenes, which dissipates any discernible tension.

And the character relationship 'twists'? Yeah, they suck. I won't say what they are, but they just don't add anything to the film/storyline.

(By relationship, I mean the two main characters.)

Eek. My recommendation is this: watch this movie if you can't think of anything better. Mediocre at best...Maybe not even that.

Sentiment: negative
In a variant of Sholay , Ram Gopal Verma ventures into what can be called an unknown territory where the blockbuster takes a new shape. The Thakur goes south.Mohanlal as Narsimha the police inspector whose family has been killed seeks vengeance Madrasi style. The accent is totally South Indian in contrast to Thakur from the north. The severing of the hands of Thakur by Gabbar is also cut down to the fingers in Aag. So make up costs are cut down because there is no effort to hide the hands instead only a long shouldered Kurta covers up for the cut fingers. Moreso in the climax where the Thakur uses his legs and says"Tere Liye to mere paer hi kaafi hai" here Narsimha uses his finger stubs to fire a gun and kill the villain. Babban, the new avtar of gabbar is also different. He is not from Bihar or UP. He is Bambaiya. Gabbar's infamous laugh is also in two instalments this time and is more subdued. Babban asks for Diwali instead of Holi and romances Urmila the replacement of Helen in Mehbooba. he also dances and enjoys dancing with Abhisheh who plays Jalal Agha in Mehbooba.Babban is more intelligent this time. He tosses the apple and asks the question that made Isaac Newton discover laws of gravitation. Basanti is more verbose than the Auto driver Ghungroo. Nisha Kothari cannot play the auto driver and looks too artificial using words like 'entertain' and 'too much' with gay abandon. Viru was fun whereas Ajay Devgun is a misfit for the role. The God Speaks to Basanti incident and the shooting lessons and the Koi Haseena song and the water tank sequences are painful. The water tank turns into a well and the drunk Devgun is so bad in the sequence that the audience would have wanted him to commit suicide. Jai was composed and serious. Prashant Raj is better than the others because we do not expect anything from him. But he also bungles on the Mausi sequence. He is not as romantic as Jai with the mouth organ . Jaya's role played by Sushmita changes careers. A pure housewife turns into a doctor this time plunging into full time social service after her husband is killed. She too lacks the pain that Jaya displayed. Her flirtations with Jai are more open this time. Samba gets a bigger role this time as Tambe. He does not have to point guns and answer questions of Gabbar this time. He follows Babban wherever he goes and is a bodyguard with more visibility outside the den. Horses give way to Jeeps and auto. The Gabbar's hideout here keeps changing and Ramgarh becomes Kaliganj. All in all it is more of a spoof than anything else. RGV comes up with his own interpretation of the classic. But we remember the original so well even after three decades that our minds refuse to accept stylized versions and changed dialogues. So we call it a spoof. So Mr.RGV(Sholay ) and Farhan Akhtar (Don) and JPDutta(Umrao jaan) stop making remixes and start making originals.

Sentiment: negative
It may be a little creaky now, and it certainly can never have the impact it once had, but this is still a thrilling reminder of what Michael Jackson could once do. Looking back on it now for the first time since its initial prominence, I was struck not by the horror trappings - quaint, but fun, and Vincent Price has never sounded so genuinely, un-camply (sic?) menacing - than its absorption of the horror film, allowing Jackson, behind genre and make-up, to give us a bravely revealing portrait of male sexuality.

Because THRILLER isn't really about horror, in the way horror isn't really about horror: it is about that age-old theme, the sexual awakening of a young woman. The film opens in a cinema, with Jackson's girlfriend uncomfortable with the imagery, and the aggressively gendered response. Of course, she is on a date, and she is less scared by the film than what she knows will be expected by her boyfriend.

The mainstream imagery of the film they watch, the group atmosphere all suggest the socially conditioned expectations. This leads her not only to think of the body in disgust - hence all the decaying ghouls; the loss of her virginity is seen as a kind of death - but the sexual rite is not just about her boyfriend, but her peers, her society, hence its visualisation as a gang violation.

This is brilliant, disturbing stuff, the best thing director Landis has ever done. Jackson, the most popular artist on the planet, was still willing to show that the fixed image of a star contained multitudes, not all of them reassuring. The song itself has held up remarkably well, the creepy, insistent bass rhythms, the extraordinarily salacious lyrics, the beautiful 70s disco ecstasy tailing the chorus, shattering timelessness, revealing the milky desire behind the fear.

Sentiment: positive