DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
To sum it all up, skip End of Days and watch rent Roman Polanski's The Ninth Gate instead. This movie is the perfect stereotypical American movie vs Ninth Gate being the perfect stereotypical European movie.

Ninth Gate: Noir-ish, intelligent, nicely scored, atmospheric, excellent acting (Johnny Depp, esp), beautiful scenery, good cinematography, funny one-liners, intellectual, minimal foul language, thought-provoking. The only fault is it that a few people didn't understand the open-ended ending and said the movie was "crappy" because of that and there were a couple of questionable scenes.

End of Days: Overly violent, liberal use of foul language, NO musical score except for a poor attempt at a commercial soundtrack that was only heard when Gabriel Byrne stalked around NYC as Satan (but all you could pick out was Korn's Jonathan Davis unintelligible screaming), sex that had nothing to do with the plot, violence, incredibly predictable, violence, and did I mention lots more violence? I guess some of the special effects were good but that's about it.

Well, maybe I'm wrong but I thought Ninth Gate was far more interesting, quirky, original, and intelligent. But maybe Americans don't need need that. *dripping with cynicism* Even though I am an American, sometimes I wonder.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this on Mystery Science Theater 3000, and even that show couldn't really make this movie bearable. I could make a better movie with a broken camcorder and action figures. Of course, you expect terrible special effects with a movie this old, but I've seen silents that were better. The storyline has enormous gaps that leave you trying to figure out why they are even at certain scenes. The cameraman apparently doesn't know what a tripod is, and had too much coffee, or something harder maybe, because the camera is ALWAYS shaking around. I couldn't even follow the plot, but suffice it to say, this is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen in my life.

UPDATE: I saw "Epic Movie" a while back and have decided to give this movie a 2. It's NOT the worst movie I've ever seen anymore!

Sentiment: negative
action packed,with my favorite type of creature.I won't give any of it away if you have'nt seen it,cause it's worth taking the time to sit down and unravel in the mystery of things as presented in this film.It did gets slow at times and those were the moments my mind wondered which does easily anyways but moist of it kept me quietly thrilled,where you keep it in your head instead of letting it out,probably the mood I was in at the time.Special effects and action sequences you could feel made up for the occasional lulls.Of course there'es a duschload of movies out there exactly like this,the film still has it's own style and flavor,which I respect from underground independent horror movies anyways.

Sentiment: positive
One type of western I greatly enjoy is when the apparently weak, which is reluctant to fight and answer the challenge of the strong, finally decides there is no other way. There is a great moment in this film when John Parrish (Glenn Ford) goes into the saloon and decides to stand up to the gunfighter Wade Matlock. It is the type of scene that makes the audience applaud. In my opinion The Violent Men is a great western, I would rank it among the best. It makes great use of the wide screen, a spectacular scenery of the mountains. The women have a crucial part. Caroline (May Winn) is engaged to Parrish, but you feel that she is only using him as a means of getting out of there and moving east. She wants him to sell the ranch no matter what price. Martha (Barbara Stanwick), is tired of helping her crippled husband Lee (Edward G. Robinson) but she will do anything to have an always bigger ranch and more power. Meanwhile she is betraying her husband with his brother (Brian Keith). Her daughter Judith (Diane Foster) is seeing all that happens but feeling impotent to react because she does not want to hurt her father. Parrish unites all the small farmers and uses the strategy he learned in the army to go against the Anchor ranch. Like he had warned Lee, "Don't make me fight because you won't like my way of fighting".

Sentiment: positive
Not as bad, as it's credited to being (Hooper's done far worse) more so disappointing for me. Such an imaginative concept, which is never really tapped in to by Hooper with his economical direction and even less so in the smoky (excuse the pun) writing. It goes so sinister and over-the-top in a dead serious tone, becoming ridiculous and unfocused letting the whole pessimistic mystery / conspiracy-laced narrative being easily telegraphed to end on something completely abrupt. Because of that, the pacing goes on to be rather sluggish and Brad Dourif (cool to see him in a leading role) seems to struggle with an off-balanced performance, despite etching out a bemusedly quirky intensity to his off-colour character. Even though it's cheaply done, there's a competent technical attitude to it. However it doesn't seem to go anywhere out of the ordinary with its idea and wants to plaster in nasty jolts (which some do work) and strikingly steaming special effects (flames, flames everywhere) instead. Hooper does display some stylishly frenetic imagery (more so towards the latter end), and the camera-work is swiftly manoeuvred and the beaming score is titillating. The performances are bit all over the shop with the appearances of William Prince, Cynthia Bain, Dey Young, Jon Cypher and Melinda Dillon. Also Geroge Buck Flower and John Landis have small, but amusing cameos especially Landis. Nothing surprises, but it's passably engaging.

Sentiment: negative
With a title like that, it's above and beyond my comprehension how this movie just did NOT appeal to me. Granted, there's a few decently sleazy moments and a little gore, but the way in which the movie was shot and the overall storyline just struck me as an idiotic and lazy attempt at profuse "shock" tactics... The inconsistent plot starts with a guy raping and murdering a woman stranded at the side of the road. He and his abetting brother are imprisoned up until the brother breaks out and arranges to meet his girlfriend out in the woods. He ends up forcing her into a house where they screw and he later shows her a collection of kidnapped guys in the basement. The heavily drugged captives consist of her old boyfriend who raped her, a "grabby" neighbor, and her sexually abrasive boss. He explains to her that he is going to kill them all. She winds up killing HIM and then turning her focus towards the men (or pigs) whom she tortures and kills, herself... Most of the violence and humiliation has to do with sh!t eating and genitalia destroying - all of which are far from disturbing and essentially mild. The best scene is a graphic broom handle masturbation followed by some painful man-rape... Surely, "I Spit on Your Corpse, I P!ss on Your Grave" was intended as an unofficial sequel to "I Spit on Your Grave" - based on, mainly the title, and a reference the main character gives - suggesting her mother was Camille Keaton. I personally consider that to be a wildly blasphemous assertion! This movie is a boring, amateurish mess that strives for shocks but failed miserably...

Sentiment: negative
An apt description by Spock of an all-powerful fop into whose clutches fall the crew of the Enterprise. This was one sector of space our starship should have avoided: first Sulu & Kirk simply disappear off the bridge; a landing party follows them to the surface of an unknown planet and encounter Trelane, a seemingly aristocratic man dressed in attire from an Earth of many centuries past. But he demonstrates abilities of someone or something far beyond human and doesn't register on McCoy's medical tricorder. The officers manage to escape back to the ship but, like some bad cosmic penny, Trelane keeps popping up. He brings them all back, including some female companionship, to continue his games. The dilemma now takes on elements of 'The Most Dangerous Game' out in space and there's an exasperating, even infuriating aspect to the crew's utter helplessness before such unbridled power.

What really makes this a great episode is the memorable performance by guest star Campbell as the overpowering but not all-knowing alien. His character is obviously an early version of Q, who was introduced 20 years later in the pilot for the TNG series. Trelane's confrontation scene with Spock stands out among all the strange drama which unfolds. As usual, Kirk quickly begins to look for possible weaknesses in his new nemesis, despite being quite outmatched. The answers to exactly what or who Trelane is are right in front of us the whole time so, when we do learn the truth, it makes complete sense in view of Campbell's pitch-perfect acting. He indulges himself constantly, preening before some unknown audience, remarking on things with a flair which is infectious but not quite right - we can't quite pin it down at first, but there's something missing here. Every few minutes, his tone becomes sinister and the crew now appears to be in serious danger. In a way, you can't take your eyes off him, always waiting to see what he does next. Actor John de Lancie captured that similar tone as Q on the Next Generation series.

Sentiment: positive
I could not watch more than 10 minutes of this movie. It has set the standard. I will never again give a movie a 1, unless it was as horrible as this one. I fully agree with the other comments about this film. But, since I'm Dutch, I watched it with Dutch translation. Apparently, they didn't have money for a proper translation, so they decided to babelfish it. With sometimes hilarious results.

Don't smoke, don't drink, don't do drugs, don't watch Demon Summer.

I was surprised that the actors (Wow, I can't believe I just said that.) didn't hold the script (Was there any?) in their hands while shooting. I think they also did a good job on... Well... Uhmm... No, they didn't do a good job at all.

Sentiment: negative
I still wonder why I watched this movie. Admittedly, before I viewed this film, I knew practicly nothing about the beatles. I didn't even know all their names! All I knew was that they had a ton of fans, they had some albums that some people claim to be the greatest ever, they broke up, John married Yoko Ono, and John was murdered.

Also, VH1 isn't even my favorite music station, MTV is. Still, for some reason or another I decided to watch it, not expecting much. Surprisingly, I enjoyed it very much! The dialogue was written and handled very well with the occasion of a slight accent mess up. This is very important, because John and Paul talking is pretty much the whole film, allthough they are taken outside to explore more possibilities, and to keep you watching. Jared Harris and Adien Quinn give good performaces,overall.

The ending was also very smart. I enjoyed how the movie gets you excited about the SNL performace, and then slaps you over the head and makes you realize that it would be better if they just let it go, and end it on a good note. My favorite moment is probably the touching rooftop scene.

Overall, I recommend this film to almost everyone. It is a very good way of settling your curiosity of what could have happened if 6 years after the break up Paul just showed up on John's doorstep. Which is probably the main reason of my viewing this film, settling my curiosity on who the beatles really were and what could have happened to them after the breakup.

Sentiment: positive
So after years and years I finally track this film down! I was dying to see how it lived up to my memories. I distinctly remembered the shots of the ghost boy running down the mine, then waiting behind two planks of wood crossed in the mineshaft, just staring out with a pale white face. This single shot was probably the most chilling shot of my childhood, I remember chills running down my spine. Watching it now, its obviously nowhere near as scary, but quite subconsciously strange to see the same images again. If anyone wants a copy, private message me.

The story itself is fairly standard BCFF stuff. Its strange though that the message is pretty unclear this time around - there is no real moral as such (except that 'ghosts are here to help us?' or 'don't be prejudiced against ghosts!') There wasn't even a greed/capitalist angle in terms of wanting to profit from the mine. However, a massive act of irresponsibility from the captain, encouraging the two kids to actually follow the vague implications of a ghost not only into a mine, but into a new mine hole, which is totally dangerous. The captain then encourages the children to climb down a huge ladder, deep into the mines, simply because he thinks the ghost wants them too. Its also a bit odd that the ghost chooses the boy to help the trapped adults, and not just help the trapped adults direct. Oh well.

Sentiment: positive
Personally, I don't like a lot of b/w movies, but there's something magical about this movie. 

The movie starts with Elizabeth Lane (Barbara Stanwyck). "Liz" writes a magazine column about how she's the 'Martha Stewart' of Connecticut. Of course, she's lying. This becomes a problem when her publisher, Mr Yardley, asks her to play host to a NAVY sailor over Christmas. In addition, Mr Yardley, who's going to be alone for Christmas, invites himself up to the farm for the Christmas party. From there, things just go crazy.

Since the movie is set on a New England farm, the movie has a warm holiday feeling. Plus, the characters are hilarious. Mr. Yardley is always shouting orders, and Liz's friend Felix is always yelling 'Catastroph!' when things go wrong. Finally, the movie ends the way a Christmas movie should end; a jolly fat man laughs and shouts "What a Christmas!" 

In short, no matter what age you are, you will love this movie.

Sentiment: positive
There is a lot of talk of torture these days. That's all this movie is. It's about a good person who makes a bad decision. Because of his kindness, he becomes vulnerable to two psychotic women. From then on its a just-for-kicks assault on him. I don't know at what point you do something about it. There is a wife and child out there somewhere; he has great feelings of guilt and fear. But there should have been some times when he could have acted. The movie seems to be somebody's joke. I suppose in the wake of the Manson murders, we had a bit of a fixation on the likes of these two. Nevertheless, why would someone make a film like this? What appeals does it have except for sadism. The conclusion is totally unsatisfying, but that could have been remedied with an obvious plot twist. Oh, well. Another hour and a half of my life.

Sentiment: negative
"Imaginary Heroes" is a 2004 film starring Sigourney Weaver, Jeff Daniels, Emile Hirsch, Michelle Williams, and Kip Pardue.

The story concerns a dysfunctional family that becomes even more dysfunctional when the oldest child (Pardue) commits suicide.

"Ordinary People" has been mentioned often in relation to this film; it's sort of "Ordinary People" with a role reversal. The mother in this case, Sandy Travis (Weaver) is more accessible than the father, Ben (Daniels) who is clearly devastated and unable to cope. Like "Ordinary People," the younger son Tim (Hirsch) is the focus of the film.

For me, the film was absorbing enough to keep watching but has a curious detachment about it. There were some wonderful interactions - mother and son, mother and neighbor, brother and sister (Williams) and some good offbeat moments. What never clicked was Ben being any part of that family or having any chemistry with Sandy. This seems to have been the goal of director/writer Dan Harris. In one scene in a grocery store, the checkout kid assumes Sandy is "about 30" and gives her his phone number. In almost the next scene, Daniels asks Sandy if she wants plastic surgery for her birthday. Weaver was 55 when this film was made, actually probably 54, and looks phenomenal. So what is Ben looking at? However, there's something askew about Ben's complete detachment because the viewer doesn't really see how Daniels ever WAS attached to that family.

The end has a couple of twists and also some very touching scenes. Everyone is very good, with Weaver and Hirsch being the standouts.

There's not a tremendous amount of dialogue in this movie and lots of stares. The script could have been sharper. But "Imaginary Heroes" is a good effort.

Sentiment: positive
Patsy Kensit and some random Australian bloke star as a duo of wannabe tough coppers in the middle of investigating a series of art-gallery related murders, but in between they can still find the time to shoot juvenile shoplifters and suspect the brand new wife of the male cop of being adulterous. The serial killer suddenly isn't important anymore when the supposed lover of the wife (who's basically just a co-worker of hers) is found murdered and the male cop becomes prime suspect. "Tunnel Vision" is a really dull, implausible and tension-free Aussie thriller that obviously imitates popular sex-thrillers like "Fatal Attraction", "Disclosure" and "Basic Instinct". The characters are extremely one-dimensional and pretty much every good-cop/bad-cop cliché is extendedly described in the script. The struggling position of police women in a corps full of men, the shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality, alcohol problems through stress, etc etc Even the unhealthy eating habits of cops are a running gag. Yawn! Kensit really tries her best to make this film more bearable, but she lacks the credibility and talent of a real cinema heroine. The end-twist is more or less interesting (not at all original, mind you) but, by then, you stopped caring for the characters a long time already. The scenes filmed inside the sex clubs look ludicrously fake and Clive Fleury's directing is completely uninspired. What a total waste of time

Sentiment: negative
I had a chance to see a screening of this movie recently. I believe that it will be in theaters in Canada some time around Mother's Day. If it is in a theater near you... GO! It's not a funny feel-good movie - it's more along the lines of a feel and think movie.

The director does an excellent job of character development - letting you into the heart, mind and hurts of Hagar little by little. At first, her attitudes and behaviors don't make much sense. As her story unfolds, she becomes someone you can understand. As in life... understanding brings empathy. I found her likable by the end of the movie - particularly when she opens up her heart to the young man in the shack by the lake.

Hagar's relationship with her two sons is painful - and reflective of so many of our own experiences in this world. Her youngest son, John, who is full of life and adventure takes the viewer to the very edge of their seat - and into the kind of raw emotion that is so authentic and rare.

It's fun to see Ellen Page acting in this movie. She is so very different than the young woman that she plays in Juno. It gives me an even broader appreciation for her acting ability. If you loved her in Juno, you'll love her in The Stone Angel.

Of course, there is Ellen Burnstyn as Hagar. There is likely no way of expressing the power of acting as strongly as the ability for the actor to make you forget every other character they have ever played. Never once in the course of this movie did I ever think of Ellen Burnstyn - I always and only thought of Hagar. She swept me into her character - hook, line and sinker.

Kari Skogland's capacity to capture on film this renowned book by one of Canada's most cherished authors is impressive. She brilliantly brings to the screen both the stoney and angelic parts of this complex woman, Hagar - the stone angel.

Sentiment: positive
Anything Park Chan-wook creates is guaranteed to be unique, brilliant, and very twisted at a minimum. Well, anything that isn't I'm a Cyborg at least. Park's newest film titled Thirst is a vampire romance-erotic-thriller-dark comedy-drama  yes, that is a lot of adjectives  inspired by the 19th century French novel by Emile Zola titled Therese Raquin. Park creates a uniquely Korean, and uniquely Park, vision of the vampire mythos and asks the audience to explore the dilemma of a Catholic priest discovering himself having a thirst for blood and the moral and spiritual crisis that would develop. Park delivers on the elements you would hope but definitely falls short of masterpiece quality like Oldboy or even that of Lady Vengeance. Heavily bloated with a narrative that often loses itself much less the audience, Thirst desperately needed another trip through the cutting room. It crawls when it should be running but luckily brings it back home before losing the audience completely. As negative as it may sound the positives definitely outweigh the negatives and another volume has without a doubt been added to the dark and twisted Zeitgeist of Park Chan-wook film.

Check out the rest of our review at www.thefilmstage.com

Sentiment: positive
The film is annoying.

Technically, there are too many times you see unfocused and very roughly edited scenes. One could easily get a cleaner film using a decent amateur camera and 100$ video editing software. Down to earth, man on the street doesn't mean sloppy editing. Unfocused scenes that don't contain important statement should have been deleted. The same goes for making sure that the object's head/hand/others stay in the frame. My 8 years old son knows that by now.

The film is way too long. The main point (anti globalization) is understood after 30 minutes, why bother with all the rest. After the interview with James Suckling I pressed the "stop" button. What a waist of time.

The main theme just doesn't work for me anymore. I've seen too many small wineries which produce mediocre, commercialized wines and many big wineries that produce great and unique wines. The movie identifies the small producers as the ones that are producing wines with more Identity, or terroir. The bigger ones are accused of producing "internationalized" or "commercialized" wines. The film is trying to make a black and white statement in a world full of gray tones. However, the movie hasn't proved this claim. They look at a couple of sporadic examples, "tie" some of the big producers (Frescobaldi) with fascism and provided "interviews" with key people. Well, did all the small producers spent WWII in the resistance? Is it relevant to see that Parker has a thing with Bulldogs? The movie is very manipulative and unconvincing.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie with an open mind, not knowing what to expect. I was pleasantly surprised to see that this movie was written, directed and acted in such a manner that every minute of it is a delightful watch. The people don't seem like they're acting, more like they are real people who really train dogs and lead the lives portrayed in this movie. There are some wonderful moments where you laugh or chuckle, some jokes may be dry but are presented in a very viewable fashion. Highly recommended!

Sentiment: positive
The only reason I don't give this movie fewer than 3 stars is because it isn't quite on par with a movie like Manos: The Hands of Fate. This movie's greatest crime is the fact that it is head-meltingly boring & terribly, unforgivably British. The premise of this movie sounds potentially promising, the whole teleporting concept, but the direction they went with it was completely uninteresting. It was more a movie about research funding and bowties than projecting lasers. The actors were wooden, unemotional, and aloof. As was the love affair between the two scientists-- which was anything but intriguing. I never was able to tell what the attraction was between them as the chemistry was non-existent. Nor did I really understand why the melty-faced main guy decided to slaughter everyone he met. At least now I know that I should always give someone a fair hearing before I cut off their research grants, else they go rampaging about, killing wantonly with goofy hand gestures.

Sentiment: negative
I would have rated this film a minus 10 but sadly it is not offered.

Why I didn't walk out in the first five minutes of this movie I cannot say. I should have gone with my instinct and left immediately!! Several people in our theater did and sadly I didn't follow them out.

The story lacked all criteria for a movie. NO plot. Awful acting! Even Robin Williams was so disappointing that I may never see another film he is in. Not a single relationship in the story went beyond parlor talk. I did like the tazer scene. Too bad it didn't shock some meat into the senselessness of the plot. Someone needs to tazer the writer and director of this film!

Sentiment: negative
This film is justly famous as one of the most horrible examples of propaganda ever produced. The insistent equation of Jews with disease is simply

pathological, and even worse it almost becomes believable for brief seconds

through its sheer repetition. The fact that something this crude works, even

briefly, is an object lesson in itself. You have to have a strong stomach and a firm grip on yourself to sit through this, and I wouldn't recommend trying unless you have a good reason.

Sentiment: negative
I had never heard about this film prior to coming across it as I was perusing the shelves at a local rental store. Having just watched the latest Harry Potter installment, I was intrigued by Rupert Grint and wanted to see more of his work. Reading the description on back about "an overzealous, evangelical Christian do-gooder," and identifying as an evangelical Christian, myself, I thought, "Ooohthis should be interesting." And so it was. I found Mr. Brock's story beautiful in both words and images; and sadly enough, all too familiar. The contrast he drew between Ben's parent's interpretations of what it means to be a Christian was a poignant commentary on how Christians view themselves and the impact that perception has on those around them. On the one hand, we have Ben's mom stating, "Whatever happens behind these walls, Ben, we're God's ambassadors. We show the world a smiling face." On the other hand is Ben's dad discussing truth in his sermon at the beginning of the film. At the end of his monologue, he states, "The more a person parades their Christianity for the benefit of others, the less I am inclined to trust the Christianity they claim. God tells us true faith is the freedom to choose truth. Now, how you express that, the way, the manner, the means at your disposal, these things are of no consequence, be you Christian or atheist, unless in your heart you are true." If only our churches were full of Christians who ascribed to this latter definition of what it means to be a follower of Jesus, rather than the former. What a difference that would make! As a Christian and a psychologist, I would want an imperfect yet authentic faith over a perfectly polished image any day. What a tragedy  to feel like I always need to play a role when, really, I just need to rest in the freedom of being completely who God made me to be. I think Mr. Brock provides a refreshing glimpse of what this freedom in Christ looks like. I recommend this film for anyone who desires a fresh look at faith.

Sentiment: positive
History and experience over the past couple of decades has shown us that intellectuals talking about sex is about the unsexiest and unintellectual thing anyone can do, but this wasn't quite as obvious back in 1986. Basically, the idea in this film is that these characters insatiable drive to find comfort, security, and pleasure in sexual acts is actually the unhealthy motive that makes them so unbearable to themselves--which they hide from themselves with more sex. This drive is linked to "the decline of the American Empire", as expressed in an early interview within the movie.

So the idea is that relatively detestable people talk about sex, and that that talk is supposed to reveal how detestable they are as people. Arcand at least keeps giving it drive and momentum by doing interesting things with the camera such as isolating most of the characters in single frames, revealing their ultimate loneliness, and cutting rapidly between them, showing how they are more at war with each other than they are at agreement. And to give Arcand credit, this is pretty much what intellectual life is, a constant struggle with other intellectuals to stand out, even when everyone knows that standing out means standing alone.

But yeah, the characters and action are unsexy and kind of pathetic. I think this film is much more an aspect of its time than it is something meant to last, which makes it kind of dated. It's also the exact type of mental buffing in dialog and references to people like Susan Sontag that makes art-house films so unpopular around the populist entertainment moviegoers. In all, I'll take it anyway--it has its place basically among the exact type of people the characters are--it's just that it's not really interesting or important to anyone who isn't those characters.

--PolarisDiB

Sentiment: negative
I once lived with a roommate who attempted suicide, and our apartment was in a building where you could get a fifty dollar noise violation for sneezing after midnight - so, needless to say, I can easily relate to Polanski's "The Tenant." 

But I also enjoy the film for other reasons. I'm not sure that it works, on the whole - the Polanski character's descent into paranoia and madness, which takes up the final half hour or so, seems rather jarring and bizarre. Ebert, for one, was totally unconvinced, and he slapped the movie with a vicious one-star review. But I think that individual scenes and moments work beautifully, so even though I don't quite understand the whole film - what does Egyptology have to do with it, for example? - I still have an overall positive impression of it.

I love the obnoxious friend portrayed by Bernard Fresson, for example. God, how many times have I settled for having stupid friends like that instead of no friends at all! I love the movie theater scene - the funniest "making out" moment in the history of film, I'd say. And boy, do I love Isabelle Adjani - she's so foxy in this movie, it's almost unbelievable. And she gives a great performance, as always.

Polanski is a good actor, too; I don't agree with the occasional disparaging remarks made about his performance here. His character is supposed to be low-key and thoughtful, so his low-key performance fits. I, for one, found him perfectly sympathetic - though he did lose me a bit when he started dressed in drag for no clearly discernible reason.

Yes, the movie's obscure. And slow. But it captures the alienating qualities of apartment living - something I've done entirely too much of - so I dig it. It's funny how all you need is a common reference point, and suddenly a weirdo movie like this becomes deeply significant! Definitely worth picking up for pocket change on DVD.

Sentiment: positive
This is easily the worst adaptation of Greek mythology I've ever seen. It utterly fails as an adaptation of the original myth, inventing silly plot twists and reducing the 12 labours to... 3 or 4, I think. It makes up utterly needless things to try to integrate other myths in clumsy ways which bring into question the writers' having ever read the myths, like changing birds to harpies, lions to sphinxes, the Oracle of Delphi to Tiresias, and bulls to a pedantic version of Proteus, even integrating aspects, never seen outside of Sam Raimi's entertaining series, concerning his first marriage, to a woman with the co-opted name of one of the Furies so it sounds appropriate to the period.

I could accept much of that, but it also fails completely in pure film standards; most painful is the dialogue, leaden, portentous pseudo-Shakespearean tripe. It is a poor re-interpretation of the myths, making a sad attempt at the kind of post-modern revisionism that Crichton's "The 13th Warrior" attempted in regards to the Beowulf legend, while still including the strictly mythological elements such as clear interference from the gods and magical super-strength. A sad, sad failure of an entertainment experience, who I'm sure many of the quality actors involved regret deeply.

Sentiment: negative
My local PBS station WHYY Philadelphia recently showed "The Elegant Universe." After three hours of watching it, besides having my brain hurt, I learned all about wormholes, quantum mechanics and parallel realities and alternate universes.

The last hour of the show was about "String Theory" Physics, a semi-new branch of physics which makes many of the the ideas of science fiction not only possible, but PROBABLE. With the "String Theory" it sounds like wormholes, alternate realities and alternate timelines ARE possible and it could just be a matter of time until we get the knowledge to use them.

Although it may not have given new information to someone familiar with the topic, I found the show VERY interesting and informative. It was very understandable to anyone who is just being introduced to this subject.

Sentiment: positive
I cringed all the way through this movie. First of all, the idiotic plot has little to do with Parson's own story. Hollywood has attempted to create a kind of comedy car chase movie. Imagine "Englebert Sings Hendrix".

Do not take anything about this movie to be accurate. The name Parsons in the title and stealing of his body is just used as springboard for a low budget chase movie, a blatant attempt to grab a few bucks from the Parsons legacy and his fan base. Gram's father had long since been dead in 1973, the other global characters are fictional, none of this has anything to do with Grams life or death.

If you are a Gram fan, I advise you to not see this movie. I wish I hadn't. It's saddening to see something special be treated as such disgracing fodder. I'd swear I could hear Gram turning in his grave while the movie was playing. If you are not familiar with Gram's life and legacy, do not take anything in this movie as being representative of Gram.

I cannot say enough bad things about this movie. If Gram were alive and saw this movie, he would kill himself. Then again, maybe he'd be afraid to if he knew this movie were to result.

Sentiment: negative
*spoiler alert!* it just gets to me the nerve some people have to remake (and i use the term loosely here..) good movies. in the american version of this dutch thriller, someone decided the original ending wasn't pasteurized enough for american audiences. so what do they do? they create a new one! a stupid, improbable, i-pretend-i'm-dead-but-come-to-life-again-so-the-good-guy-can-kick-my-butt- some-more kind of ending. do yourself a favor and get the original one.

Sentiment: negative
This is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the scariest and most intriguing episodes of Doctor Who. This is a thrilling psychological ride and you will probably find your own beliefs being thrown into question. Riddled with spine-chilling moments, this is an episode no "Who" fan can afford to miss.

Starting from when the pit was opened after the events in "The Impossible Planet", the Doctor and Ida are trapped and are running out of air. With no other alternatives, they decide to find what lies at the bottom of the pit, an event which surpasses even The Doctor's expectations. Whilst there, the Doctor is forced to make what he considers to be the ultimate sacrifice...

Meanwhile, Rose and the other members of the Planet try to find a way to fend off the Ood, whose minds have been poisoned by the Beast. Also, is Toby Zed truly cured of his possession by the Beast?

Sentiment: positive
Second part (actually episode 4-8) of the hit Danish tv-series is slightly inferior to the first one, but has plenty of laughs and scares as well. This time, Udo Kier plays two parts, as the monster baby and his demon-like father. Other standout parts this time are Søren Pilmark´s Doctor Krogshoj, who must face the horrible revenge of Dr. Helmer, and once again, patient Mrs. Drusse tries to solve the mysteries, Miss Marple-style. Ends on a cliffhanger and following the deaths of lead actors Ernst Hugo Järegård (Dr. Helmer) and Kirsten Rolffes (Mrs. Drusse), you wonder how they´re ever going to be able making Part III, but I hope Von Trier will give it a shot. Sadly, Morten Rotne Leffers, the Down´s Syndrome dishwasher #2, died shortly after, as well. Look for Stellan Skarsgård in a cameo. ***

Sentiment: positive
At last, a film to rival 'El Padrino' and 'Darkness Falls' in terms of sheer and utter dullness. This is actually the first film I've ever given 1 out of 10 for on IMDb, and with good reason.

For one, the cast is nothing special. That's usually not a problem for me except that the only character that's in anyways interesting or different from all the rest is Grand L. Bush's Harrington. Secondly, the production values a substandard - television sci-fi such as 'Stargate' has more convincing sets, and all of the underwater scenes NOT handled by the SFX teams are filmed on dry sets with 'falling particles' that aren't very convincing. This film is literally 'drydocked'. The worst part though is that this film is BORING. For the first 45 minutes, I felt as if we were going round and round in circles: "It's a prehistoric shark." "Bullsh*t." "No really." "Bullsh*t." "I'm not making this up." "Bullsh*t." "There it is now!" "I didn't see anything." "Let me guess?" "Yup. Bullsh*t." After then it picks up ever so slightly for about twenty minutes or so. Then we're back to the dialog run-around. Dialog is not a bad thing, but that's all this film has. Characters talking. That too, is not a bad thing, except this film isn't very good at it. The dialog is often contrived and clichéd, and is not very interesting to listen to. I don't see any point slandering the special effects; this film has worse qualities.

The sets are small and unrealistic. The acting is sub-par. The script - oh Lord, the script - is worse than a garbage of sci-fi television has to dredge up. It makes you wonder where the budget of this film is or was.

Yet another awful, awful addition to the 'Megaloadon' (there's about four) series of films. Bring on Steve Alten, please...

Sentiment: negative
The slasher sub-genre has been pretty much exhausted - in fact, even by 1979, just one year after the supposed 'first slasher', Halloween (which was released seven years after Bay of Blood), was released; the sub-genre wasn't far from being exhausted; but Tourist Trap represents one of the more original outings. The film follows the same basic formula as most slashers - i.e. madman murders a load of kids, but draws its originality from the fact that madman is shown from the beginning (as opposed to an unseen assailant or a man in a mask) and we actually get some insight into his character. The fact that this killer also has telekinetic abilities, including being able to control the wax dummies that fill his house, adds to the originality. We kick off with a great opening sequence, which sees a young man fall foul of having a flat tire after finding himself in a gas station of terror. The scene is amazingly creepy, as the wax dummies taunt him and things fly from the shelves - and it gives the audience a great insight into what is to come; namely, a very creepy horror film! 

The acting credibility is as non-existent as you would expect from a seventies slasher, but to be honest; it's not all that bad. The girls look hot, the boys don't really matter; and Chuck Connors is more than adequately creepy in the role of the psycho. He's not exactly Anthony Perkins; but still, good enough. It's not the acting that's the star of the show, however, and as you might expect - the creepy atmosphere takes that prize. Wax models, as proved by the likes of House of Wax (Vincent Price version...) are very creepy; and the film makes best use of that fact. There are very few things in cinema that can be frightening by simply being there - but wax statues are definitely one of those things. The killer's special ability could easy have gotten in the way of the atmosphere, but the film makes best use of this fact, even, by having various things fly off shelves and it goes well with the rest of the movie. On the whole, this is a very good film. While Tourist Trap might not be absolutely essential viewing; it's well worth seeing and I can recommend it.

Sentiment: positive
I'm a huge lover of really bad B movies. And I especially love alien/scifi movies. I say the cheaper, cheesier, and campier the better. A low budget and a hokey idea are fun enough for most bad B movies, but this movie is so bad that I really felt embarrassed for the people who made the movie and for the schlocky ad-lib actors. First off, there's no real plot, it's all sort of situation "comedy" (if it can be called that). The "comedy" in this movie is more about characters saying, in essence, "look at me, I'm in this crazy situation! Isn't this funny?", but it's only pathetic because nothing anyone's doing is that funny. There's no comedic acting skill, nor any kooky plot to carry all the very un-imaginative scenarios through this dreary turd.

The bad comedy and lack of anything remotely comical is only worsened by the bad ad-lib acting, actors saying really stupid things over and over again (perhaps trying to ape for catch phrases, perhaps just b/c everyone in this is so bad), really unattractive women being played off as hot chicks, and people barfing and passing out in bathrooms.

There was one middle aged actor toward the end of the movie who I could tell had some acting chops and was kinda' convincing in his role. He was as out of place as a solid BM in a weekend detox unit's bathroom. Corey Feldman was filmed for about 3 minutes in total (thankfully we didn't have to put up with him any longer), and he was filmed off site -- probably outside his apartment on the way out somewhere. He said a few really un-funny things about aliens and having sex with aliens and that was the extent of his appearance.

If you value your life and the 90 minutes (and years of pain in remembering) you'll lose by watching this garbage, avoid it. If you do a lot of drugs, like Adam Sandler's comedy stylings (and thus have no standards whatsoever), and are considered mentally slow you might like this movie. 

P.S. I think the people who raved about this must work for Troma or something, b/c I can't believe people can be so lame as to actually enjoy this movie. (Do drugs really ruin your judgment that much?)

Sentiment: negative
George Armstrong Custer is known through history as an inept General who led his rgiment to their death at the battle of Little Big Horn. "They Died with their boots on," paints a different picture of General Custer. In this movie he is portrayed as a Flamboyant soldier whose mistakes, and misdeeds are mostly ue to his love for adventure.

Errol Flynn plays George Armstrong Custer who we first meet as an over confident recruit at West Point. Custer quickily distinguishes himself from other cadets as beeing a poor student who always seems to be in trouble. Somehow this never appears to bother Custer and only seems to confuse him as he genuinely does not know how he gets into such predicaments. In spite of his poor standing, he eventualy graduates and becomes an officer in the United States Army. Through an error, Custer receives a promotion in rank. Before this can be corrected, he leads a Union regiment into battle against the Confederates. His campaign is successful and Custer becomes an unlikely national hero. Custer returns to his hometown, marries his sweetheart, Libby who is played by Olivia De Havilland. Libby is a very supportive understanding wife who steadfastly stays by his side and follows him into the frontier as he assumes leadership of the Seventh Regiment of the Cavalry. Custer becomes a man of honor who strives to keep peace with the Native Americans. To prove his intentions, he enters into a treaty with Crazy Horse, the leader of the Sioux . When that treaty is jeopardized by a conspiracy to spread a false rumor of gold being found in the Black Hills, Custer sacrifices his own life as well as the lives of the men under his command to prevent the slaughter of thousands of innocent settlers.

Errol Flynn dominates each scene in which he appears. He successfully portrays Custer as being flamboyant, arrogant, romantic and funny depending on the mood of the scene. Olivia De Havilland's depiction of Libby Bacon Custer as the love of his life lets us see his tender, more gentle side. The Chemistry between DeHavilland and Flynn, who had acted together in several other movies, is so smooth and it almost makes the viewer feel like they are playing themselves and not the parts of Custer and his wife. The other actors portrayals of their characters truly enhance the performances of Flynn and De Havilland. Anthony Quinn as Crazy Horse, Sidney Greenstreet as General Winfield Scott , Arthur Kennedy as Edward Sharp are among the other actors whose roles have made this movie entertaining.

The reviewer would rate this a 4 star movie. While it is not historically accurate, it is very entertaining. The movie has a little bit of everything. It has adventure, comedy and romance, so it appeals to a large variety of audiences. The casting of the characters is excellent and the actors give believable performances which makes you forget it is largely based on fiction instead of fact. The reviewer especially likes that the Native Americans were not shown to be the bad guys but just showed them as wanting to protect their sacred land.



Sentiment: positive
This has to be one of my favourite movies of all time. The dialogue, with the constant use of puns is very tight, the cast are superb, and the plot is highly original.

Don't take my word for it - watch this movie and enjoy it for yourself.

Sentiment: positive
A few words for the people here in germen's cine club: The worst crap ever seen on this honorable cinema. A very poor script, a very bad actors, and a very bad movie. Don't waste your time looking this movie, see the very good "mutantes verdes fritos anarquia radioactiva", or any movie have been good commented by me. Say no more.

Sentiment: negative
'Flood' is a prime example of how throwing good actors and cgi at a film will do little to compensate for a rubbish script. The basic premise is fine: what if a freak storm threatened to send the sea straight over the Thames flood barriers and engulf London so fast that most of the inhabitants would probably never get out in time? It's basically the New York segment of 'The Day After Tomorrow', but that shouldn't make it any less of a film. However, the script just isn't there. It's merely functional, flat, and lacking in depth. Great British talents like Robert Carlysle and David Suchet to name but two do their level best with what they've got, but their characters are two-dimensional cyphers, like something out of an old Marvel comic. and it'd be frankly easier to turn back the tide. Not that every actor gets let off the hook - Tom Courtenay seemed capable of only one emotion throughout the film, but then he wasn't given much of a challenge.

I applaud any opportunity to see some non-Hollywood disaster flicks for a change, and I don't expect zillions of dollars spent on rendering ultra- realistic graphics. However there's no excuse for shonky writing - especially from a country that has produced some of the best science- fiction ever made on next to no budget at all. This is the kind of half- hearted B-grade fluff the Sci-Fi channel produces, and that's hardly a target to aim for. If like me you are such a fan of disaster films you're still tempted, do yourself a favour and watch it with some friends. Better still; don't bother.

Sentiment: negative
A very potent drama of Faulkner's small town south dealing with an innocent black man's murder of local ne'er do wll. Striking cinematography and good narrative (via flashback) take us through the uneasy relationship between the suspect and the son of his lawyer. A still powerful story that predates the Sidney Poitier films of racial prejudice. Porter Hall has a great role as the murdered man's father. Trivia: this was actually filmed in Faulkner's home town of Oxford, Miss. with many of the residents used as extras.

Sentiment: positive