DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
The title pretty much lets you know what you're getting. It's a grade-C howler but not as blatantly funny as I was hoping. Directed by exploitation film specialist Eddie Romero from a story that originally came from Jonathan Demme (long before directing "Silence of the Lambs" and "Philadelphia"), this low-budget 1972 action movie was obviously filmed in the Philippines but set in some anonymous third world country. Playing hooker and small-time drug dealer Lee Daniels, blaxploitation superstar Pam Grier plays the first half of the title role, while long-forgotten Margaret Markov is the other half, Karen Brent, an unlikely Patty Hearst-like political revolutionary looking to partner with her comrades to overthrow the oppressive local government. Naturally antagonistic toward each other, they are in a women's prison camp where they wear inexplicably bright yellow mini-skirts as uniforms. Run by a closeted warden and lecherous matron, the prison is just an excuse for a lengthy shower scene and some half-hearted cat-fighting as Lee and Karen are pitted against each other. Of course, they escape but shackled together a la "The Defiant Ones" and continue the cat-fighting until they attack a couple of nuns to steal their habits.

Meanwhile, various groups of unsavory men are in pursuit - the loutish drug lord looking for Lee who stole $40K from him, the rather passive revolutionaries looking for Karen, and the incompetent police (who suffer the humiliation of exposing their privates to the drug lord). Needless to say, everything eventually comes to a head but not before gratuitous nudity by a number of Filipino women, a dog wears Karen's panties and some of the worst of 1970's men's fashion (one beer-bellied revolutionary wears a leather halter top with a straight face). There is a rather sad ending, but what's truly sad is how much of the potential black comedy is missed entirely in this hilariously preposterous exercise. Sadly, Grier is disappointing in this outing because her character is not allowed much to do beyond dealing with all the "jive", while Markov is an Amazonian blonde whom I am convinced is trying desperately to be credible. Since no one displays any talent for acting, the rest of the cast is not worth noting, except balding, bug-eyed Sid Haig, who uses his standard psycho persona as the drug lord. The 2003 DVD contains only the original trailer as an extra.

Sentiment: negative
Uzumaki has a formidable reputation within Lovecraftian circles and now I know why.

Uzumaki is based on a Manga title (which, unbelievably, is allegedly better than the film) and follows the bizarre events preceeding a typhoon in an isolated Japanese town. I'm not about to tell you anything that happens in this film because it is an absolute must-see movie. I watched it for the first time last night and I was blown away. It shot into the my top movies of all time and leap-frogged Pans Labyrinth as the best fantastic movie (literally and photographically) that has been released in the last decade.

This movie is very Lovecraftian in nature without formally having any direct connection to the Cthulhu Mythos. It has been made in the same way that Lovecraft composed his stories; it exudes power as an aura of 'something's not quite right here' intensifies through a brooding phase to dread and, ultimately, horror through subtle progressive changes in the soundtrack and the cinematography. This is, indeed, a "Weird Tale" par excellence.

Simply stunning.

Sentiment: positive
Enjoyed this film which deals entirely about an average family, so it appears. Ben Travis, (Jeff Daniels) plays the role as a father who is only interested in one son who is excellent at swimming and wins many trophy's, however, he hates it very much and even his father. Ben has very little to say to his other son, Tim, (Emile Hirsh) and even his daughter, Penny, (Michelle Williams) who is fortunate to be away in college. The mother, Sandy, (Sigourney Weaver) tries to hold the family together and even she is completely ignored by her husband also. A very tragic event happens in the family which changes everyone's personality, young and old start using drugs, smoking pot and drinking all the time at parties. There is even a homosexual scene and at the same time there is even room for comedy and of course there is a very dark secret that Sandy Travis finally tells her son Tim.

Sentiment: positive
No reason to bother renting this flick. From the opening credits on, I knew I was in trouble.

It was filmed as though it was a soft porn movie, but there really isn't anything erotic about it. The look into the world of sex addiction is intriguing, but only to a point.

Boring sex scenes, bad plot, and cameos by Ed Begley Jr. and Rosanna Arquette aren't enough to save this film.

Sentiment: negative
As I am a fan of hospital and medical shows, I have found this one gripping and sometimes humorous (especially the scenes with Dr Whitman) which brings a bit la light relief. However, I was looking forward to the last episode because I expected that the bad ones would be punished and the good ones reinstated. Instead of that, the hospital management are making even more fools of themselves in an unbelievable manner and it's getting worse and worse for the good ones. You can't help wondering what the unions are doing or doesn't Rob, Donna and Maria know what unions are there for ? Besides, never seeing the outside, trees, grass, sunlight is a bit oppressive. Anyone understood what the last words were ? i.e. the answer Rob Lake gave to Mrs Strawberry's children question "Why are you telling us all that?" It was very frustrating not to be able to understand it.

Sentiment: negative
Many days after seeing Conceiving Ada, I am still in awe that any group of people would spend so much time to make such an atrocious film.

No one ought see this film in hopes of learning anything of consequence about Ada Lovelock, her colleagues or the product of her endeavors.

Likewise, no one ought to see this film in hopes of being entertained.

As a sci-fi film, this would unquestionably be a horrendous failure. Somehow, the main character manages to bring the past to life and interact with it on her personal computer--with the advice and encouraging words of Timothy Leary. I doubt anyone could suspend their disbelief enough to keep this from seeming absolutely absurd.

As a drama film, this would unquestionably be a horrendous failure. Somehow, the writer/director manages to fill eighty-five minutes with constant, unnecessary, annoying and trivial drama over essentially nothing. I doubt that anyone could feel that all the drama in the film serves only as an irritating distraction.

I find it difficult to fully express my degree of contempt for Conceiving Ada. The circumstances under which I saw it forbid me from leaving the theater but there is no question that I would have otherwise. I am still angry that I wasted the time that it took to see it. Only that I might more effectively criticize this movie, I wish that I were more articulate.

Sentiment: negative
With Matthias Hues on the cover and only $3.00, i had to buy it. I enjoyed some moments, like Hawks annoyance with the pleasure droids, but i only really watched to see Matthias Hues' scenes. I particularly enjoyed the showdown at the end. It was a cross between Clint Eastwood's "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" and "For a Few Dollars More" (a 3 man quick-draw showdown, with a musical pocket watch used as the countdown timer). Apart from that, there's really nothing more I can add. The actors gave good performances, (all except the "Assassin Droid" whose performance was nothing outside of comical) but the movie really lacked depth and purpose; simply not enough to fill up 1hour and a half of standard movie time, so we're stuck with the main characters aimlessly wondering around from place to place for an hour or so, until the ball gets rolling. For example, the main character returns to the same strip club about 4 times, taking up two-fifths of the movie.

The scenery really lacked depth and creativity, probably due to the films budget. I don't think we ever did get to see this "perfect city" of New Angeles that was always talked about, in fact, when the main characters finally reached New Angeles, its set in a factory or warehouse full of pipes and walkways; hardly the kind of "kingdom" the owner/creator of an entire city would dwell in. The "super-high security" of New Angeles was also always talked about, but only a total of 15, maybe 20, security guards were counted, even when the alarm went off; not even close to Matthias' approximation of "at least a hundred men out there".

If you are a fan of any of the actors/actresses in this film, then you may want to watch it, simply to "add it to the list". However, if you value 1 and a half hour of your time, or $3.00 of your money, you may want to give this one a miss.

Sentiment: negative
Why is it that Canada can turn out decent to good movies in every genre, other then action? I caught Dragon Hunt on TV the other day and it was like a train wreck. I just could not change the channel, it's sheer stupidity sapped my willpower. Its pretty telling that the cast IMDb "credits" with this monstrosity apparently never worked again.

Bad acting, bad writing, bad narration, bad music, bad hair, bad cinematography. It just goes on and on. The movie really has nothing to recommend it. If you're looking for bad action films to enjoy by laughing out, there are a tonne of other films that won't require you to scorch out your retinas afterwards.

I hope this film didn't get money from the government for financing, otherwise I'm never paying taxes again.

Sentiment: negative
Tamara Anderson and her family are moving once again, as her itinerant painter father chases his next landscape. Fifteen years old, she is in her rebellious stage. Already angry at her father for their frequent relocations, her anger is exacerbated when her mother is suddenly confined to a sanatorium for tuberculosis. Her mother's absence causes Tamara to lash out at her father and seek comfort in religion, the boy next door, Rusty, as well as the spirit of the dead teenager who used to live in her rented house.

The story is modest to a fault. It's oddly paced, and even during its emotional scenes there isn't any tension. The actors portraying the parents are fine. Alberta Watson is incredibly charismatic as the sick mother, and Maria Ricossa is particularly effective as the guilt-ridden mother of the dead teenager. But Katie Boland, as Tamara, is too amateurish to carry the movie. The dialog is very natural and Boland can't quite pull it off. She has her moments and when she hits them she can be good but there were too many times when she came off awkward. One can see her thinking 'ok this is what my line is and this is the face i'm supposed to make' rather than actually reacting to the other actors. She's not the only one, Kevin Zegers as Rusty and Megan Park as his sister Brenda also suffer from stilted delivery but at least they're in fewer scenes.

If done right, the screenplay could have made her an affecting movie. And it has it moments but much of it is bogged down with an amateurish lead performance and flat directing.

Sentiment: negative
I caught this film at the Edinburgh Film Festival. I hadn't heard much about it; only that it was a tightly-paced thriller, shot digitally on a very low budget. I was hoping to catch the next big Brit-Flick. But I have to say, I was severely disappointed. "This Is Not A Love Song" follows two criminals, who, after accidentally shooting and killing a farmer's young daughter, become embroiled in a deadly game of cat and mouse when the locals decide to take matters into their own hands and hunt them down.

The real problem is that this is yet another example of style over substance in a British film. The camera angles and editing are completely at odds with the story, as are the over the top performances, and the appalling use of slow motion, which only serves to make the whole thing look like an expensive home video. There are repeated attempts to make the film look edgy and gritty, which instead come over as hilarious and over the top(Cue a pathetic, obligatory drug scene, and countless, pointless camera zooms). No amount of cliche's such as this can disguise the fact that this is a pretty bad story.

We've seen this kind of thing many times before, and made a hundred times better, particularly in John Boorman's masterful "Deliverance." But while in the latter film, we actually cared about the characters, in this film, I found myself just wanting them to be hunted down and killed as quickly as possible. Even this wouldn't have been so bad if their adversaries had been frightening or worthwhile, but instead, are merely a collection of stereotypical, inbred-looking countryfolk. Again, another offensive, overused cliche' coming to the fore. Surely there are some nice people in the country, filmmakers?

In its defense, "This Is Not A Love Song" does contain a couple of good, suspenseful moments, but it's hard to see this film doing anything other than going straight to video, or, at a push, getting a very limited cinema release. It's not a patch on last year's Low-Budget hunted in the hills movie, "Dog soldiers". Maybe British Cinema could actually get kick-started again if the right money stopped going to the wrong people.

Sentiment: negative
This movie doesn't have an awful lot to do with it's predecessor "Robot Jox". This must be also the reason why its most common name is "Robot Wars" and not the alternate name "Robot Jox 2: Robot Wars".

"Robot Jox" was basically a fun movie to watch because it had a nice premise of giant robots battling each other in the near future. This concept has been abandoned for this movie and instead it features a totally dull story that besides isn't very original or cleverly written. A shame it tried to be so much different from its predecessor really, for else this perhaps could had been a more fun movie to watch.

Just like "Robot Jox" this is a B-movie but with as a big difference that it's just not a very good one. Perhaps this also has to with the fact that "Robot Jox" got made during the '80's, when B-movies still had a certain bit of charm and class over it, even though the movie got released in 1990. This really can't be said about this movie. It's just lame, badly made, poor looking and not exciting enough. It also has an ending which leaves you thinking 'This is it? That's all?'.

What the movie its story is lacking is good clear main plot-line really. Perhaps a good main villain would had been a good idea and some other stuff such as an actual point to the story, some action, or likable main characters.

Seriously what were they thinking when they picked the actors for this movie. All of them are simply not likable in their roles and especially Don Michael Paul is annoying as the main character, who behaves as if he's God's gift to woman and Mr. Perfect who can compete with anyone. Weren't they even simply able to get the actors from the first movie?

For such a futuristic movie, with a concept of having large battle droids in it, this movie surely is lacking with its action. Had they put some more and bigger action into the movie, the movie would at least had been a more entertaining one to watch. Instead now we have a movie that fails to impress in basically every way imaginable.

You can better watch a "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" episode, for some more action and likability.

3/10

Sentiment: negative
Ettore Scola is one of the most important Italian directors. My parents and I watched together "C'eravamo tanto amati" on a summer night: we liked it, but we didn't love it as we loved "A special day". I believe Ettore Scola is pretty underrated: we often forget to remember him, maybe because his latest films were disappointing. And so, yesterday night, my mum and I sat on our sofa to enjoy this masterpiece. Writing, direction, cinematography, score and production design were sober and accurate, but the thing I liked the most was the chemistry between Loren and Mastroianni. They're both excellent actors and play the main roles of Antonietta and Gabriele. Antonietta is an housewife: married with a fanatic Fascist, she has six children but her husband wants to have another child to get a prize for the huge families. Gabriele is simply an Anti-Fascist. They spend together a special day, that special day of 1938 when Hitler came to Rome visiting Mussolini. I don't want to spoil anymore about the plot: go looking for this film!

Sentiment: positive
What could be more schlocky than the idea of private detectives getting involved with the women they're supposed to be spying on? And most of the dialogue as written is perfectly banal.

But the actors turn the dialog into something that makes sense. You can see real people behind the unreal lines. And the directing is wonderful. Each scene does just what it has to and ends without dragging on too long.

I showed this to several friends in the mid-80s because I was perplexed at how such bad material could be made into such a good movie. The friends enjoyed it too.

Sentiment: positive
Oliver Stone is not one to shy away from a movie or theme for that matter. He is eager to confront people with their fears or show them their ugly faces in the mirror. Look on his CV for proof! This movie is not an exception, quite on the contrary, it is another gem, that unfortunately not many have seen.

As controversial movies go, this is one that you should be thankful for. A movie that should encourage you to think about you, the people next to you. The prejudices that do exist and that everyone of us has in one form or another. Either we like to admit it or not, but it is easier to categorize people and be like "Ah he's 'xyz', yeah he must be like ...". Now I might be reading too much into it, but I don't believe that. I believe that Oliver Stone is a very intelligent filmmaker and that he was aiming for those things. And if that's something you want to explore (as a movie or within yourself), than watch this film and be excited!

Sentiment: positive
Just watched this film on TV and it was awesome. 

had just planned on watching it whilst doing some work however i ended up watching the whole film with out doing work as it was so good! 

Actors my not be very well know but the story line makes up for it. the fact that the actors make are less well known only makes it more believable that the events could occur. i did not feel a biased towards one character as i have no judgement of the types of character as i have never seen any of the actors in a film before which made it even more enjoyable.

would recommend watching it.

Sentiment: positive
On Broadway, A Chorus Line was pure magic. From the second the show opened with a spectacular burst of energy to the truly grand finale, a joyous curtain call of all those chorus members who we grew to love during the course of the show, we were totally engaged - captivated by the intensely personal stories, some funny, some clever, some stirring, of this chorus line. The movie is another matter entirely. The focus is now on the director - and WHAT an ogre he is! Every time the film switches to Michael Douglas, there he is with a bitter, sour expression, barking out questions and orders, screaming and yelling whenever he gets the chance. Yikes!! That changes the dynamics of the story. On Broadway, the director was indeed an imperious offstage presence, but he was also sort of a theatrical device to allow the stories of these amazing strong/fragile/intriguing/hilarious chorus line members to be told with insight and clarity. There is a reason this work won the Pulitzer Prize! And actually in one of the only moments the director appears, he is there to comfort the young Puerto Rican Dancer after we hear that dancer's heart-breaking story. He appears again to ultimately express his genuine affection/ concern for Cassie. But in the movie, from the second Douglas' director starts bitterly barking orders, the chorus line members' stories become secondary. It's like they are in a lousy profession, where a jaded director instead of showing the joy at creating a new exciting theatrical show, is jaded, exhausted, furious at having to audition these chorus members. On stage, there was ALWAYS the excitement of the show. Here in the movie practically from the word go, you feel sorry for everyone involved. During the course of the musical, we desperately wished every single one of those chorus members well, and how happy we would have been if they had all gotten the job! But of course that couldn't happen. But in the Finale when they all came back in glorious costume with those amazing spinning mirrors on stage, sometimes reflecting us in the audience, in our hearts, and we know, also in the hearts of all those chorus members both accepted and rejected, they were on stage forever dancing in a profession they loved so much, bringing magic to the theatre. In the movie, after all the misplaced story lines and emphasis, that magic becomes totally diluted. All we feel (even with the exact same curtain call), is that some of the members got a job with a mean-spirited director. So they all come on the screen and are dancing again. Big deal.

Sentiment: negative
This production of Oliver is masterful in showing layers of evil in the human soul. What makes the story remarkable is a brilliantly bright Unseen Character, who pierces this darkness as he leads an innocent boy through the gravest dangers safely into the hands of his own relative. Yea, though Oliver walks through the valley of the shadow of death, he fears no evil. A rod and staff are there to comfort him. In the end, he is saved from the dregs of humanity. At the bottom is Fagin, the most wicked of the lot. Fagin contemplates repenting of his ways not once, but twice, yet declines because he is unwilling to pay the price. Fagin is worse than Bill Sikes, because he raises little pickpockets who become murderers. In the middle is Oliver. His innocence is unsullied, but untried as well. The best is Nancy. Lacking in judgment, she ignores Bill Sikes' violent nature out of her deep need for love. Yet unlike Fagin, at the probable cost of her own life, she does repent of her sins by saving Oliver from Bill. Things are not as they seem. In my opinion, this quality is what makes art worthwhile - unpredictability. I would give this film a "10," but its '70's made-for-TV soundtrack and ambiance were distracting. Overall, a fine parable and a thoroughly appropriate story for all audiences.

Sentiment: positive
When thinking of the revelation that the main character in "Bubble" comes to at films end, I am reminded of last years "Machinist" with Christian Bale. The only difference between the two films is the literal physical weight of the characters.

An understated, yet entirely realistic portrayal of small town life. The title is cause for contemplation. Perhaps, we, the audience are the ones in the "Bubble" as we are given no payoffs in the films slim 90 minute running time. Audience reactions were often smug and judgmental, clearly indicating how detached people can be from seeing any thread of humanity in characters so foreign to themselves. These characters are the ones people refer to as those that put George W. back in office for a second term.

It's sobering to consider how reality television has spoiled our sense of reality when watching an audience jump to their feet for the exit as soon as the credits role. This film has it's merits, and is deserving of consideration for the things it doesn't say outright.

Sentiment: negative
'Be With Me' is almost the ultimate wallpaper movie. Just leave it running in the background. chat amongst yourselves and return to it whenever you like and at some point it'll end. 

Alas, as I watched it alone, and so I felt like I almost watched the world's worst, longest and most drippingly sentimental beer commercial by the time I just about managed to keep my eyes open as the end credits rolled; and I then managed (just a) a few more moments of wakefulness to witness a 'Thank you' to the movie's sponsors - which included Asia Pacific Breweries. Aha! Methought: How surprising is *that* - given all the shots of Tiger beer interspersed throughout this most forgettable washout of a movie? 

Meanwhile, dialogue spurts between individuals with occasional stabs at depth, but all too usually nothing of any particular advancement to the movie's overall story is said or witnessed. It's as if one could switch off at any moment and return at any later point and you'd really have missed nothing which would have been an unmissable contingency, or part of its plot, as far as the movie's overall progression was concerned. Thus the ultimate "wallpaper movie"!

Well I wonder... What movie were those who positively reviewed this one watching? I wonder and continue to wonder... It certainly couldn't have been this arty to the point of artless Singaporean excuse for a camera's rolling. Allegedly, 'Be With Me' is supposed to be woven around the themes of "love, tragedy and redemption". But all I witnessed was boredom, a half baked screenplay with a smattering of gormless text messages, and the only redemption was that which occurred when this utterly useless movie ended. What a wistful waste of time, it ended up being! It was also said that the characters in this movie were fictitious except for Theresa Chan who is a "remarkable woman who has triumphed over adversities..." Well, no disrespect to Ms Chan, but given that she was such a marvellous & amazing character, why at all did the screenplay have to involve the stories of other characters without the most tenuous attempt to connect their lives together? Yet it still proved to be an almost insufferably boring movie whose highlights included the credits rolling. Rather than tying in the fates of all characters, I really felt that the movie ended up attempting the near impossible and evidently fell between stools as far as any viewer engagement could be concerned.

I am generally an art-house movie fan and don't usually object to slow pacing (of which here there is no shortage, believe you me!!). I hate such movies as 300, Transformers, Fight Club, but consider, e.g., Eric Rohmer as a great film maker. So I hope that puts my criticism into some perspective. Nonetheless, there was no redeemable feature whatsoever in the entire movie's conception and delivery which could prevent one's eyelids slowly drooping downwards as each minute of 'Be With Me' dripped by. Watch this movie if you need to feel like wasting time. Otherwise your life would be none the richer for having missed it. 3/10

Sentiment: negative
Bette Midler is again Divine! Raunchily humorous. In love with Burlesque. Capable of bringing you down to tears either with old jokes with new dresses or merely with old songs with more power & punch than ever. All in All Singing new ballads, power-singing the good old/perennial ones such as "The Rose"; "Stay With Me" and yes, even "Wind Beneath My Wings". The best way to appreciate the Divine Miss M has always been libe - since this is the next best thing to it, I strongly recommended to all with a mixture of adult wide-eyed enchantment and appreciation and a child's mischievous wish for pushing all boundaries!

Sentiment: positive
Sex Lives of the Potato Men is about the sex lives of several men involved in delivering potatoes. So there are no surprises there. It is, in fact, pretty much what you might expect from the title: that is, it's a quirky comedy involving sex and potato men. At times the film works. It's an edgy, sometimes uncomfortable comedy about the lives of some rather unimportant and rather average men who are having problems of various sorts with women. Where the film clearly does not work, and why it failed at the box office, is that the quirky, uncomfortable parts are perhaps just a shade too quirky and uncomfortable. Instead of laughing during the scene of a man suspended from a basement ceiling masturbating over another man while he makes love to his wife, I think most of us just kind of groan awkwardly and wonder what Andy Humphries was thinking. Well, perhaps we are shown what he was thinking all too clearly.

Sentiment: negative
Enigma is a computer part which scrambles Russian messages, so that America can't understand them. They can only be read by the intended recipient. The Americans know that the Russians are going to transmit a message revealing the plans of five political assassinations they want to carry out.

So they send in former defector Holbeck (Martin Sheen) to grab the scrambler and substitute a false part, so they'll be able to decode the message, and block the assassination attempts.

However, as we listen in on the Americans heads of the spy organisation, we find that they already have the scrambler, and they want Holbeck to try to steal Enigma, only to convince the Russians that they don't already have it. They don't expect Holbeck to succeed. That way the Russians, who had stopped transmitting with Enigma, just in case, will begin transmitting again.

Enigma is in the computer in the office of Dimitri Vasilikov. Somehow Holbeck must gain access, and in order to do that, he must find out when Vasilikov will be out. He sends in his former girlfriend Karen (Brigitte Fossey) to seduce Vasilikov, so that she can look through his papers and find out his scheduled movements. Karen is glad to do it, as they tortured her father, a university professor, to death.

Because we know that it's better for the Americans if Holbeck fails, the movie becomes even more intense as a spy thriller. We find ourselves hoping he can survive against the odds, especially as he uses ingenious methods to beat the Russians at every turn.

But what's this? Are Karen and Vasilikov falling in love? Will Holbeck win Karen back, or will she actually end up with Vasilikov? The romantic twist lifts this spy thriller, already worthy of a ten, even higher, for its originality. The writing, the direction, and the acting all combine to make this new and fascinating twist a compellingly realistic one.

You find yourself at the edge of your seat, gripping your armchair, not only for the excitement of the spy story but for the intensely beautiful romantic love story as well. The two themes are interwoven perfectly, right up to the end. You really want both sides to win. So who does win, in the end? You'll have to see the movie and find out, won't you!

Sentiment: positive
This movie is very good. The screenplay is enchanting. But Meryl Streep is most impressive. Her performance is excellent. She brings me to go into the heart of her role.

Sentiment: positive
This is an excellent film for female body-builder & female action fans! I think that Sue Price did a great job in this film series (Nemesis 2,3,4) and proved to be a great fighter. She has a very striking appearance and a will of iron to resist the powerful Nebula (Nemesis 2). Though not a film of great value and Sue Price's acting skills not the best to have met in my life, the movie itself was something awesome, a priceless gem for fans of female body-builder action! Well, some parts of Nemesis 2 have been copied by other famous sci-fi films, such as Terminator or Predator, but that's not the point. The point is that A.Puyn casted in that film a very talented body-builder who put all of her energy and body talent to show us the best she can do. I really enjoyed that film and watched with the same enthusiasm Nemesis 3 (a rather boring sequel) and Nemesis 4 (a much more interesting sequel than 3). What a pity it hasn't shown yet on DVD :-(

Sentiment: positive
I was interested in the title and description of Big Rig while attending the SXSW Film Festival in Austin, TX. However, I was eager to get the heck out of the seats as soon as Big Rig ended. Big Rig is comprised of several "big rig" drivers who set out to deliver goods driven across the United States. The characters are all wonderful people, however the filmmakers never dug deep into the complexity of them as people. Instead, the story meanders as much as the maps in the film are meant to guide, but never do. At most, we get lost. We - the audience - end up going nowhere and, like the direction of the storytelling, end up somewhere but without direction, location, or plot. Why are we here? Where are we? How did we get here? The storytelling is sloppy and the directors' intent on "humanizing" a group of people who they regard as "overlooked" and "invisible" comes across as unconsciously and irritatingly condescending. The problem here here lies in the perspective of the directors instead of the truck drivers. The directors bring their own naive assumptions about truckers forward and then simply edit the film to confirm those assumptions. Overall, the story lacks any tension, the film is entirely too long (should have been a 15 min sketch), the big question of "So what" is never answered, and the entire film is one piece of see-through propaganda that does nothing to further "enlighten" (as the directors claim) the outside world about big riggers.

Sentiment: negative
I have remembered this cartoon for over 50 years - what staying power it has! It was funny and creative; I wish my children and grandchildren could have seen it. It ranks right up there with Winky Dink - another favorite. I was pleased to find out that one of the creators later worked on Rocky and Bullwinkle. These early shows had a lot going for them that todays cartoons for kids don't have. Today's cartoons seem to push the idea that one needs something special, some magic formula or talent to be able to succeed against evil or dangerous circumstances. While the early cartoons didn't address evil very much - it WAS a much gentler and safer time - they allowed us to develop our own talents and character.

Sentiment: positive
I think this movie more than any other shows what a great actress Drew Barrymore is because she plays a ugly duckling in high school which is something I never imagined her being. A great flick with lots of laughs . I don't usually go for those feel good movies but I really enjoyed this one.

Sentiment: positive
I really have to disagree with guy-yardley-rees who (should he have watched the entire film) would have seen some absolutely stunning Scottish scenery (some of the best ever shot in Skye) and found a film with a difficult start come together into a really poignant whole.

This is not a big budget film. Rather it is a film that has a strong community feel.

I can't say how much 'standard' films bore me - pushing out the same polished stuff again and again. Seachd doesn't seem to be about that at all. It really seems to be trying to offer something more real and certainly more Gaelic than any recent Scottish film.

OK, so the acting isn't in the style a blockbuster. That's because the actors are seemingly real people. I actually thought that the key roles of the boy and his Grandfather were really convincing - and at times unusually beautiful.

Seachd really bears a second viewing, since there are many threads that become clearer second time around - that really do feed into the ending.

Overall, the combination of music and (at times) stunning visuals, plus a community approach to the acting and non-normal structure has turned Seachd into quite a distinctive and memorable film. More of these please!

Sentiment: positive
After watching some of HBO's great stuff - Band of Brothers, Rome, etc. - I must say I had pretty high expectations before watching the first episode of "True Blood". Jeez. Often the script seemed to be written by an 8-year-old, some parts are just horribly filmed, (The scene in which she "saves" Bill, I mean come on. She throws a chain at the guy and ow! it goes around his neck and it magically chokes him! That was pretty embarrassing if you want my opinion. Or a few moments before that scene, when she finds out that the couple is gone with Bill, ridiculous. She hears them plan their stuff, and like 5 seconds later, magic! The 3 of them are gone, and without any struggle or noise or anything!

I mean the idea of the show seemed interesting, mysterious, intriguing, vampires co-existing with human in our modern society... but honestly I don't think they really wanted to make more of this than a petty soap show, that the average teen girl watches all the time but that nobody else cares about... Unfortunately, the script is written poorly, mediocre at best. It's shallow and extremely predictable. Often I thought that this was some kind of a joke or something. 

The actors deliver really unconvincing performances, if you want my opinion. They seem to take the show very lightly, as if it were some kind of a regular, low budget family TV show (well maybe thats what it is, if you take away the family part). The only actor that seemed somewhat good to me was Stephen Moyer in the role of Bill, considering the poorly written, extremely short replies he had to say "What are you..." "Can I give you a call sometime...", I think he did good in bringing out the somewhat mysteriously scary part of a vampire that anyone with a vampire role must have, actually. Anna Paquin was okay as well, but not more. But the guy, playing her brother though, jeez, he's horrible. The scene in which he gets arrested is just simply a shame to modern television. The acting is bad, the construction site looks fake to the bone, and the two other guys "Why is he getting arrested? Uh.. I dunno..." That was pretty embarrassing. 

Another thing that I think was completely missed was the way they presented Sookie's psychic powers. They make us hear what people think AND speak both at the same time and thats just wrong. Often it just seems unnecessarily chaotic, as if people's thought were some sort of an annoying radio channel, and that when she comes close to em she hits the right frequency level and has to hear everything that they think. 

And finally, the sex scenes are just plainly unnecessary and that vampire sex tape thing was just totally disgusting. 

Don't get me wrong - I wrote all these comments not because I thought the show was BAD, but because I was very disappointed. I expected quality stuff. I didn't think it was going to be like that. It's definitely not a GOOD show though. Mediocre at best.

Sentiment: negative
BONJOUR, MONSIEUR SHLOMI is simply a wonderful film! Writer/Director Shemi Zarhin has created a story unlike any other and cast it with such consistently fine actors that it remains a puzzle to me that this film has not become an audience favorite throughout the world. It is intelligent, emotional, edifying, and warm, entertaining, and in all categories it is a winner.Shlomi (Oshri Cohen, in a brilliantly understated performance) is a 16-year-old lad who takes care of his highly dysfunctional family: his mother (Esti Zakheim) is about as distasteful a shrew as ever concocted and in a constant state of ill temper because of her husband cheated on her, and because she is stuck working double shifts to support her ailing father-in-law (Ariek Elias, who as Shlomi's grandfather is a bright, funny, wise, loving old man who deeply cares for Shlomi); a married sister Ziva (Rotem Abuhab)who periodically moves back in to the house because of constant spats with her husband who doesn't help her care for their infant twin sons; his brother Sasi (Assi Cohen) whose life is loud electric guitars, braggadocio about female conquests, and the favorite son of his mother. Stir this mixture and the result is the penultimate dysfunctional family unit. Shlomi cooks gourmet meals for them, shops, cleans house, runs errands, bathes and cares for this grandfather and in general leads a life of submission to a family that views him as a 'retard'.Shlomi longs for a girlfriend and practically fails his school because of his lack of time devoted to caring for his family and a lack of concentration. Serendipitously his math teacher Begin (Nisso Keavia) notes his natural mathematic genius on a discarded test, and with the aid of the headmaster (Yigal Nair) the two encourage him to be tested and discover that he is a genius (?with dyslexia?) and arrange for him to try for a special school in Haifa. Shlomi's mother will hear none of it but between fights with Shlomi's absentee father (Albert Iluz) and confrontations with the teacher and headmaster they finally consent to his testing for the school.Meanwhile Shlomi discovers a girl his age Rona (Aya Koren) who has moved in next door and gradually the two become intertwined in a physical and intellectual relationship. Always in the background is the support of Shlomi's grandfather, and when the grandfather dies, Shlomi sets off on the journey to live his life for himself, to realize his gifts, to find his happiness. The manner in which the family comes to grips with this is the peak of the movie and need not be revealed for the sake of loosing the power of the message.The film is beautifully photographed, the musical score is creatively lovely, and the final result is one of exaltation of the human spirit. Highly recommended on every level. In Hebrew with English subtitles.

Sentiment: positive
I think that can sum up this show about as well as anything. Batman TAS may be the worst thing to ever happen to cartoons based on comic books because everything that comes after will be compared to it and nothing has measured up yet. It's just too damn good. Was Batman Beyond good? "Yeah, but it was no TAS." Is Justice League good? "It's not too bad, but it's no TAS."

The Batman is certainly no TAS, either, but I won't hold that against it. It would be unfair and besides, it has plenty of other problems with it.

The concept of a younger, less experienced Batman fighting crime is a fine one, and at times the art is very nice. But all of the rest of the time, the art is worthless Americanime, and this betrays a lot of the flaws of the show itself. It is paced, written, and designed like an Americanime. If I wanted to watch Jackie Chan Adventures, I'd watch Jackie Chan Adventures. Or I could just bang my head into a wall any time and get the same effect. The Joker is a homicidal, mentally unstable clown in a suit who uses his wits, unpredictability, and clever gadgets to fight Batman. When he is forced to fight hand to hand, he will either resort to something cheap or be totally outmatched. He is not meant to be a monkey with dreadlocks who knows kung-fu and can leap into twenty feet into the air, accompanied by speed lines. If they had wanted to do that with a villain, there were other less important characters they could have used or *gasp* they could have created a new one entirely. And it's not that re-imaginings are a bad thing, don't get me wrong. TAS (there I go again) took Mr. Freeze from your standard icegun-wielding B villain and made him into a memorable and morally complex character. Of course Freeze wasn't exactly a classic villain at the time and they performed an upgrade, but the point stands. What The Batman does is it takes everything you liked about Batman comics and lore and takes a large, smelly dump on them. Guess what? They were eating corn.

It's obvious this show can't stand against TAS but stand it on its own legs and it still doesn't work for me. The plots aren't good and they don't develop any better. They've been written for the demographic of children under twelve. Should children be able to enjoy a show? Of course they should. This shouldn't be an adult show with swearing, nudity, and gratuitous violence. But the mark of a truly good show is that it can be enjoyed on different levels by all ages. This show misses that mark.

Is this show a TAS? No, of course not. The problem is it's not even a JLU.

Sentiment: negative
More of a mystery movie with some gratuitous horror elements thrown in; mediocre overall.

It starts with a woman having a nightmare in which her sex partner gets out of bed, goes into the room of her crying child, and kills it. She wakes up. Then, that man is dying in a hospital, spitting up blood. His estranged daughter arrives, and he manages to contact her through her dreams (I think), and he wants her to find out who killed him before his body entirely decomposes in its grave.

There's not too much mystery about who did it, or even how; most viewers will have figured that out long before it is revealed. I'm not sure the way he was killed would really have worked.

Anyway, the horror elements get in through: a gory autopsy, the recurring dream of the man killing the boy, a nightmare in which a plate of eggs turn into eyes which are then cut, and several shots of the decomposing man both in nightmares and actually in his grave.

I was a little surprised to see a dedication in the end by Fulci to Clive Barker! Interesting.

Sentiment: negative
TOM HULCE* turns in yet another Oscar-worthy performance as Dominick Luciano, the brain-damaged garbage man who's helping put his brother (Ray Liotta as Eugene) through medical school.

This is a must-see for all movie lovers and all lovers of life and people!

===========> *From the small studder to the eratic dancing, to the repeated words "Oh, Jeez" whenever Nicky is in a bind, the belieavablitly of Tom's performance is so excellent that you will have to concentrate to remember that it's an actor on screen!

Sentiment: positive
Brilliant film, the next best film to The Drunken Master (Jackie Chan). I recently bought it on an original VHS and i haven't seen this film for 15 years but still as good as it was back then. The acting was terrible and the dubbing was even worse but it those features that make this film (and many other old fashioned Chinese kung-fu movies) great. The choreography is awesome and the storyline is basic. I have never seen the 36th chamber of shaolin but know it is the same film but Gordon liu plays San Te but San Te in Thr Return To The 36th Chamber is played by a different character. It has a lot of comedy value and brilliant kung-fu.

Sentiment: positive
Well then, what is it?! I found Nicholson's character shallow and most unfortunately uninteresting. Angelica Huston's character drained my power. And Kathleen Turner is a filthy no good slut. It's not that I "don't get it". It's not that I don't think that some of the ideas could've lead to something more. This is a film with nothing but the notion that we're supposed to accept these ideas, and that's what the movie has going for it. That Nicholson falls for Turner is absurd, but then again, it is intended to be so. This however does not strike me as a.)funny, or b.)...even remotely interesting!!! This was a waste of my time, so don't let the hype get the best of you...it is a waste of your time! With all that being said, the opening church sequence is quite beautiful...

Sentiment: negative
Vovochka is your everyday hooligan vs authority movie. Vovochka, the main character, is branded early as a bad influence on the children in the neighborhood. With the words of wisdom from a couple of grownups he meets along the way, he finds changing his mischievous ways hard, yet worthy of doing. Personally, I found actor who played Vovochka too annoying to sympathize with, however the change of tone of the movie would allow most to feel the emotional struggle Vovochka has when he wants to be good but bad things still happen. This struggle makes the movie a little different than other movies of the same genre, that's the little flavor I meant. All in all, I did not really care for this movie, although it was most likely aimed for a younger audience.

Sentiment: negative