DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Paul Verhoeven finally bombed out on this one. He became a joke on himself. Once again we have a film which includes sex and violence, immorality, leering at women and lots of attitiude talk between the characters and dollying pans.

Its all for nothing. Because their is no action at all in this film. It fudges all its set pieces. All the actors give the kind of performances form a Verhoeven film. In other words rampant over acting on almost every level. Starship Troopers got away with it because it was such a macho world the characters inhabited. In this scientists are acting the same way. Sorry Paul but Soldiers and scientist are not really made of the same mindset.

One major flaw in the plot was that after escaping for that one night to do evil things Kevin Bacons character then returns back to the science lab where we have already spent more then enough time watching these animated manniquens (Elizabeth Shue excepted) walk and talk. Why not show the extent of what the character could do in the outside world. How could they possibly track him if he could be anywhere at all??? Think os all the different things that could have been done with this concept, both in terms of story and characterisation. Then look at what this film does and you really how badly done and concieved the whole project really was.

More insulting is the Doco on the DVD where everyone is claiming that Verhoeven is some kind of MAd Genius. Well one out of two isnt that bad.

This film has nothing of note in it. Just like the title says.

Hollow!!!

Sentiment: negative
This excellent drama had me in suspense the whole time. I could not take my eyes off the screen for one second because every word kept connecting the pieces to this puzzling murder. This movie really touched me because it showed how sad and hard life can be. I really did cry in the end (which I don't want to give away!) It also let me realize how cruel and sickening people can be when it comes to murder. 

The cast was also very good. The only bad cast member was the actress who played Anne Marie. The actress did a great job, but the director didn't. I say this because he found someone who didn't look a single bit like Anne Marie Fahey herself.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the best comedy ever ! The writing of this parody of soap is brilliant and the cast, well just look at the names of the cast and you'll understand why it is so great. If you're a Kevin Kline fan, he does (as always) an fantastic performance, and Robert Downey Jr is perfect. If you don't laugh while seen this movie, you don't have any sense of humor.

Sentiment: positive
LOVE AT THE TOP--the utterly wrongheaded American title for the superb French film "Le Mouton Enrage" (which means, I think, The Rabid Sheep)-- is such an original movie, the fact that it dates back to 1974 seems all the more astounding. This film was far ahead of its time; even by today's highest standards, it accomplishes things that seem rich and new. Filmed by the hugely underrated director Michel Deville, it rather defies description in the way it combines social critique, comedy, mystery, love, sex and satire into one wholly original mix--leaving for the end a major but subtle surprise to render all that has gone before suddenly sad and more understandable. The cast is splendid, ditto the writing and theme. But it's Deville's delicious tone, keeping you constantly off-balance but enrapt, that pushes this "lost" film to a very high level indeed. (The written interview with the director on the "Special Features" section of the DVD is definitely worth reading if you have the time.)

Sentiment: positive
I never had an inkling while watching the movie that it was meant for the idiot box. I always thought that this was some very good successful movie of the late 90's. But after I saw on the internet that this was meant for the TV, I was shocked because for a television film, it is absolutely fantastic!

The thing that mostly concerned me was the length. I felt that the one on one battle scene should've been removed as it was completely unnecessary. Also, it began to drag towards the end as it seemed as if the adventure was never going to end. 

On the plus side, there is a strong, very interesting and captivating plot with magnificent performances by everyone. I just felt that Patrik Frayze looked a bit haggard. I also felt that Gogool, who looked dementing turned a bit stupid at some scenes.

I was delighted by the beautiful landscapes of Africa. Also, the first half of the movie would have made me give this movie a 9. Still, its a great film for the television. 8 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
Overall, a well done movie. There were the parts that made me wince, and there were the parts that I threw my hands up at, but I came away with something more than I gone in with.

I think the movie suffers from some serious excess ambition. Without spoiling it, let me say that the obvious references to the trial by fire in Ramayana, is way beyond what this movie stands for. The Ramayana is an epic. Not a 200 page book that puts down women in India. The movie is about two girls married into a very distinctive Indian family. While the basic tenets of the "unwritten laws of the family tradition" seem to be that of conservative India, let me assure my reader that I (having lived in Delhi for 12 years) found entire parts that just did not ring those bells. I mean some things and some actions are very true, but some other stuff is just way off the mark. Especially today.

Delhi is complicated. India is complicated. The director tries to simplify both. And fails pretty miserably at that.

Why in English? Can you imagine a movie about American Indians in English. Or the French speaking in English. Seriously jarring. Even the servant spoke in fluent accented English (albeit with a hint of colloquialisms in the language for "believability").

But the chemistry between the leads is palpable. If you like it hot, this is a movie for you. I think that is the biggest saving grace - the development of a true real life love story.

If this film was about Radha and Sita, then it would have got full marks from me. And in being about them, it could have made a subtle statement. But this movie goes out there to say this is what India is, and this is what Indian society is like. And in that respect it succeeds as much as it fails. Just take everything you see with a pinch of salt. The dark secrets of India are not being revealed. Just two girls are falling in love. Just like it happens everywhere else.

Sentiment: positive
I thought the original of this film was quaint and charming as well as having me sitting on the edge of my seat trying to figure it out.

Since I had already seen the original, when I saw this on Sci Fi Channel- I don't know if this remake was deliberately made for Sci Fi - I knew what it was within the first few minutes. Since I like Richard Burgi as a character actor, I wanted to see how he would pull it off.

The writers/producers etc, modernized the film a bit by trying to explain the plight of the "aliens" (They could no longer reproduce their own kind and needed help) using the same pseudo science that has been crammed in our ears in the 90's. Maybe it added a bit of polish to the film, or not.

This film. Film? This production takes on a more sinister edge than the original did- The original ended with a confrontation between the young woman and the alien and an understanding of sorts took place, although no resolution of the Alien's problem.

I sort of remember that in this remake, the woman became rather hostile towards the Burgi/Alien- I think it could have ended better. But the ending is just the ending, and the yarn is a swell yarn, being of the basic 1958 Science Fiction Pulp Stock. Many great science fiction stories were written in the 50's and some of them even made it to film.

This is a swell thing to watch on like a rainy day or something. I rate it highly cos of all the remakes of old 50's Sci Fi, this one came off well. I actually enjoyed this quite a bit.

But if anyone really wants to see this story told WELL, I suggest the original 1958 version with Tom Tyron and Gloria Talbott, directed by Gene Fowler Jr.

Sentiment: positive
Only the Antichrist could have been behind such a disaster. One only hopes that this irony was the motivating force behind the "film"! This movie was so bad, it forced me to register with IMDb, finally, just so I could trash it. What makes this movie all the more tragic is that it had such GREAT source material! I have never seen a movie where all the elements were so grotesquely mediocre as to render the result less than the sum of its parts.

It may seem insignificant, but I'd like to start with the score. As the proud owner of a music degree, I must register my indignation! I was torn between laughter and dry heaves as I listened to what John Scheffer did to Goldsmith's brilliant score; it was far more gruesome than any of the burlesque death scenes, and almost as inadvertently comedic. It was by far the most inappropriate score I've heard since, well, I really can't think of a worse one. Maybe JAWS 4?

As for the plot... I'm sorry. New Age mysticism??? What ever happened to the gritty realism of the original trilogy? In those films (more so in the first two than the third, but still!!) the supernatural was for the most part implied, and it was this subtlety that made the movies so eerily believable. Here we have crystals going black (calling all Skeksis and Mystics!!) and inverted crucifixes galore, even though in certain scenes the crucifux would be perfectly normal but for the camera angle. Gone is the refined psychlogical manipulation tapping the malaise inherent in our collective psyche: in its place a boorish "slap in the face" of recycled cliché and transparent incompetence. Add to that a lead "actress" so unbelievably ANNOYING that you fervently thank the director for those scenes from which she is absent. Never have I seen a little girl so fundamentally irritating since little Stephanie ruined ALL IN THE FAMILY.

Other than that, I have no strong feelings on the subject ;-) Luckily the first three films are sufficiently adroit as to render this train-wreck of wasted celluloid inconsequential or, at the very most, a study in how NOT to make a film. Viewer beware! May induce vomiting if you're lucky.

Sentiment: negative
Gen-Y Cops...since I heard of the film being in release, I have been wanting to see it because I loved Gen-X Cops. I was a little disappointed that A) Nicholas Tse didn't return and B) too much slapstick. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the sequel because it may not be good as the first film, but it is good in its own way.

Stephen Fung returns as the ultracool ladies man Match, who has a steady girl in Oli (NOTE: Where is Haze?) and Sam Lee returns as the insane Alien (this time sporting a mohawk and speaking a lot of English!!!!). The real star of the film is newcomer Edison Chen. He makes a great replacement for Nicholas Tse as...Edison. I also enjoyed Paul Rudd's performance of Agent Curtis...he seems to be the tough as nails, smartmouth FBI Agent you'd love to hate...but soon, you'd like his character.

The fight scenes are a lot better in this one...even though there are very few, but they are great, courtesy of Jackie Chan stuntman Nicky Li.

Look for a cameo from Ron Smoorenburg as a cage fighter who has a teeny little fight with Match. Smoorenburg also is the stunt double for Rudd.

If you liked GEN-X COPS...you'll love GEN-Y COPS!!!

Sentiment: positive
This movie deserved a working over on Mystery Science Theater. Even though it has nothing whatever to do with King Solomon it's worth a watch because it is an unintentional laugh-riot. Really! It's worse than "Destroy All Monsters." Be sure to check out the following: the cheesy medallion (looks like the Shriners have been here), the obviously polyester Norfolk jacket on "Allan Quatermain," David MaCallum's badly done stutter (which does draw attention away from his even worse acting), the incredibly bad process work on all the "monsters," the monsters themselves - the hand puppet which menaces the little girl, the giant snake that menaces Macallum while he sinks in oatmeal, the red-lighted eyes on the motorized crabs, the amazingly hilarious boat (oh, brother!!) which appears to be made of plywood mounted on an old sand dredge and looks like a leftover from a Jr.Sr. prom ("Voyage into the Future with the class of '71"), the Phoenician city - where they wear Roman Imperial armor but which inexplicably has Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions -(the Phoenicians invented the alphabet-come on!),and worst of all, Macallum and Ekland (with her fright wig) playing smoochy-face -oh the horror! The best parts are that the intrepid explorers manage to lose the comic Frenchman ,and the African guy -Snuffleupagus or whatever - evidently chose to die heroically rather than be in any more scenes.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is SOOOO funny!!! The acting is WONDERFUL, the Ramones are sexy, the jokes are subtle, and the plot is just what every high schooler dreams of doing to his/her school. I absolutely loved the soundtrack as well as the carefully placed cynicism. If you like monty python, You will love this film. This movie is a tad bit "grease"esk (without all the annoying songs). The songs that are sung are likable; you might even find yourself singing these songs once the movie is through. This musical ranks number two in musicals to me (second next to the blues brothers). But please, do not think of it as a musical per say; seeing as how the songs are so likable, it is hard to tell a carefully choreographed scene is taking place. I think of this movie as more of a comedy with undertones of romance. You will be reminded of what it was like to be a rebellious teenager; needless to say, you will be reminiscing of your old high school days after seeing this film. Highly recommended for both the family (since it is a very youthful but also for adults since there are many jokes that are funnier with age and experience.

Sentiment: positive
DON'T EVEN TRY to figure out the logic of this story. But do ride along with 10-year-old Gus on the most bizarre road trip ever witnessed. More weird characters and implausible situations than a Twin Peaks reunion! Nothing makes sense, yet it's impossible to stop watching Motorama! Now, where can I find that 'R'????

Sentiment: positive
This is by far probably the worst film Al Pacino could have starred in. The movie had no real plot. It kind of careens into 24 different directions. It seems that the target audience for this film are people from gambler's anonymous.Mat Mcconaughey's character is not believable enough to be Pacino's protégé'. So he won a few bets for some degenerate clients as a sideline to a shitty job recording on a 900 service. Does that automatically supposed to convince an audience of his skills? It was just plain stupid to think of. The trailer did promise to show us how he makes his sure-shot picks but after going through the whole film I have yet to see what skill if any he ever had. If you want skill try looking at Robert de Niro's character in Casino now that is showmanship. At some point in the film, Mat's character picks his winning bets at a flip of a coin. Anybody could do that. Al Pacino seems to talk a lot and I mean blabber mouth in your face dialog. I think that style started with Scent of a Woman and worked for him because he finally won an Oscar but now I think its just irritating. He seems to be always sermonizing. He does do a mean act of portraying a man having unstable angina (that's an impending heart attack) its typically reminiscent of his acting in Godather part 3 which he plays the aging,diabetic mafia don corleone but other than that Pacino's talent is wasted on this film. Rene Russo is just plain eye candy for this film. She's kept in shape and shows it off in the tight clothes she wears throughout. This film is plain crap. Do not waste your money on it. It is much worse than the gambling picks of Mats character in the film.

Sentiment: negative
According to me, a movie can be best rated by the number of 'best scenes' there are. There are probably at least 80-90 scenes in the whole movie that is probably rated as 'best' by somebody or the other.

This movie is a masterpiece. Period. I know many who have called it ahead of its time, probably because it bombed at box-office. However, I think any generation can relate to this movie and have a good laugh through out.

I am personally glad that Mahmood is part of the movie too. His role isn't that 'meaty', however its good to see that he is a part of the cast in the funniest Hindi movie ever.

Sentiment: positive
www.petitiononline.com/19784444/petition.html An excellent TV series that should be captured on DVD. This was a show I rarely missed. I found a petition to bring it back on DVD. I recall one show where this obese lady wore a pair of glasses that let her food talk to her. Needless to say she could not eat her friends so she starved to death. Another episode had an accountant visiting an underground sewer & subway security branch. The accountant wanted to shut down the funding for the project. As it turns out the security branch was underfunded to fight the cannibalistic creatures that lived in the dark. www.petitiononline.com/19784444/petition.html

Sentiment: positive
After the wife of a plastic surgeon dies, he gets his hunchbacked assistant to help him bring her back to life with various parts of other nubile, young, girls. This film wants to be a Hersel Gordon Lewis-type romp, but fails miserably. The acting is beyond bad, the gore effects atrocious (no, not in the good way), the plot almost none-existent and no fun to be had. Skip it. You want to know how incompetent it is? At one point you can actually see a movie slateboard quite obviously.

Eye Candy: Candy Furr gets topless and again in a flashback 

My Grade: F

DVD Extras: Commentary with Jeffrey Hogue and Cynthia Soroka, A second feature "How to make a Doll"; Alternate Title sequence with Hershel Gordon Lewis intro; 2 shorts ("Quest of the Perfect Woman" and "Maniac Hospital"); Cover art gallery with music by the Dead Elvi; Trailers for "Dr. Black Mr. Hyde", "Boots and the Preacher"; "The Doctor and the Playgirls", "the Gruesome Twosome"; "Wizard of Gore"; "Awful Dr Orlof"; "Wacky world of Doctor Morgus"; "Proffessor Lust", "Monstrosity"; "Fanny Hill meets Dr. Erotico"; and "I, Marquis DeSade" 

Easter Eggs: Theatrical Trailer; a scene from "Just for the Hell of It"; and a trailer for "Axe"

Sentiment: negative
Brooke Shields -- in a departure from her "Suddenly Susan" duties -- plays a bitter divorcee who embroils three girlfriends in a "girls only" weekend in Palm Springs. The problem: Brooke is "unattached" and on the prowl, while her friends are all involved. Hence the title implications and emotional backlash their "amoral" weekend causes.

Despite a few laughs generated by Dan Cortese ("Victoria's Closet") and MTV "relationship authorities" Adam Corolla and Dr. Drew Pinsky, this is somber stuff for women only. D.B. Sweeney, Virginia Madsen and Jon Polito co-star.

Sentiment: negative
This police procedural is no worse than many others of its era and better than quite a few. Obviously it is following in the steps of "Dragnet" and "Naked City" but emerges as an enjoyable programmer. The best thing about it is the unadorned look it provides into a world now long gone...the lower class New York of the late 40's/early 50's. Here it is in all its seedy glory, from the old-school tattoo parlors to the cheap hotels to the greasy spoons. These old police films are like travelogues to a bygone era and very bittersweet to anybody who dislikes the sanitized, soulless cityscape of today.

Also intriguing is the emphasis on the nuts-and-bolts scientific aspect of solving the crime...in this case, the murder of a tattooed woman found in an abandoned car. Our main heroes, Detectives Tobin and Corrigan, do the footwork, but without the tedious and painstaking efforts of the "lab boys", they'd get nowhere. Although the technology is not in the same league, the cops here use the dogged persistence of a C.S.I. investigator to track down their man.

The way some reviewers have written about this movie, you think it would have been directed by Ed Wood and acted by extras from his movies. What bosh! I enjoyed John Miles as the gangly ex-Marine turned cop Tobin...he had a happy-go-lucky, easy-going approach to the role that's a welcome change from the usual stone-faced histrionics of most movie cops of the period. Patricia Barry is cute and delightful as his perky girlfriend who helps solve the crime. Walter Kinsella is stuffy and droll as the older detective Corrigan. I rather liked the chemistry of these two and it made for something a bit different than the sort of robotic "Dragnet" approach.

The mystery itself is not too deep and the final chase and shoot-out certainly won't rank amongst the classics of crime cinema, but during it's brief running time, "The Tattooed Stranger" more than held my interest.

Sentiment: positive
Not only did they get the characters all wrong, not only do the voices suck, not only do the writers seriously need to get girlfriends, not only are the drawings really crude, but it seems like it was mainly created for ages 1-6. The only episode I've ever seen of this show that kept me watching, was "A Mattter Of Family", because I liked the Robin character. And sometimes I think it's just a general copy of Batman The Animated Series. Example: In BTAS, Bruce is friends with Harvey Dent, yeah? Over a two episode story, he transforms into the unlikely villain, TwoFace. In the "Show" Bruce is Friends with that Ethan guy, and over a two episode story, he Transforms into the unlikely villain ClayFace. That was just a small example (That may not even be true), but in short, this is the WORST attempt on a Batman series. And That's saying something.

Sentiment: negative
Woman (Miriam Hopkins as Virginia) chases Man (Joel McCrea as Kenneth) for father (Charles Winninger as B.J.). Woman wants to get Man to invest some of deceased mother's money in father's business venture; but, father is notorious for losing money on hair-brained schemes. Little does anyone know, but real evil schemers are posing as Man's best friends in order to steal his fortune...

The production looks engaging, but the story fails to engage. The players don't play drunk well. Notable as Broderick Crawford's first appearance - as gopher "Hunk"; other than running errands, Mr. Crawford gets pinned to the floor by Mr. McCrea. 

*** Woman Chases Man (4/28/37) John G. Blystone ~ Miriam Hopkins, Joel McCrea, Charles Winninger, Broderick Crawford

Sentiment: negative
This is your typical junk comedy.

There are almost no laughs. No genuine moments. No memorable lines. No scenes where you think to yourself, "that was clever". Nothing. The plot is embarrassingly bad. 

It's ugly to look at and boring as hell! There is no substance here. This movie has nothing. It doesn't matter if Farely was in this or not. A crap movie is a crap movie no matter who's involved. 

Also, David Spade is a terribly unfunny comedian who plays the same lousy character in ever movie/TV show that he's in.

This movie was dead on arrival. There is no life here. No fun. No intelligence. There are plenty of other "dumb" comedies more enjoyable that this one. This film is just pathetic. 

2/10

Sentiment: negative
Although I rarely agree with filmkrönikan, I have to say that this film while not awful, just didn't make me care at all... and it all just seemed to be out of place... it had its moments... three or four ones that made me snicker... but most of the time I was just sitting and wondering why? why did the characters do this? even Hot Shots characters felt more thought out and fleshed out...

If you want to see a nice norrlands-film then watch Pistvakt. There it was more than random ethnicities that just walked around shooting each other on the Swedish tundra...

I am so disappointed...

Sentiment: negative
I tried to watch this movie in a military camp during an overseas mission, and let me tell you, you'll watch anything under those circumstances. Not this piece of sh*t though.

The first five minutes set the tone by weak porn-movie quality acting, weird out-of-the-blue plot twists and unbelievable situations and behavior. It gets worse after that. This movie does not have one single saving grace, and yet it is not bad in a way that would make it funny to watch. It's just horrible. I've seen quite many movies in my life and I'm not one of those snobby know-all critics, I mean I'll enjoy most movies to some extent even if they're bad. This one... man.

Steer _well_ clear of this one, my friend.

Sentiment: negative
The movie is not as funny as the director's preceding (and only other) movie, Shanghai Noon. Showtime did have its moments, but it did not satisfy me. Why it needed to be so foulmouthed, I don't know, but I give Showtime **/****

Sentiment: negative
The Commenter before me stated this movie is the worst that was ever forced upon him/her as a child. I have to say though that I loved this movie when was little and I still love it today. The movie has the best running theme of all-family togetherness. Considering the time period the movie was released I thought the movie was acted out well. I only wish I could still find a copy of it somewhere!! Of all the 1980's films I watched as a kid this was on of my favorites. I know I probably watched it at least once a week with my brother and my mom. I would definitely recommend it to anyone I know-or don't know. So if you do find a copy of it I suggest watching it! It's wonderful and heartwarming.

Sentiment: positive
I am so appalled by this documentary. I am deeply embarrassed and ashamed by the way Puertoricans were portrayed. This documentary was not about the culture of Puertoricans. It was about the culture of Nuyoricans. Puertoricans and Nuyoricans are two different cultures. Very different cultures and should not be generalized to the Puerto Rican population. Rosie, before you make a documentary, you need to do the research. You also need to check and make sure your sources are credible. Puerto Ricans are not all loud and they do have class, which is one thing the documentary lacked to show. When I saw Rosie and Jimmie on the View and Rosie on Martha Stewart I was very excited about watching. I even made sure to let my parents know since they love Puerto Rico so much. After the first five minutes I could not believe how the documentary bashed the US and made Puerto Ricans look like a bunch of guinea pigs. You need to go and visit Puerto Rico and you will see that Puerto Rico is not a 3rd world country where more than 50% of the population is in poverty. Puerto Rico has colleges and well known Universities, roads, cars, shopping centers, malls (The largest Kmart and JCPenney's I've ever seen), restaurants, theaters, beaches, hotels(Ritz, Hilton,etc.), casinos, churches, agriculture, Auto Expresso, and restaurants just to name a few. Poverty? NOT 50% of the population is. Puerto Rican culture is about family, music, food, celebrating, and trying to move forward not backward. Oh, and new cousins don't just pop up out of no where. No that is not a Puerto Rican thing, that is a ghetto thing. We are not bastards. Parents of Puertorican descent who would like to teach their children about Puerto Rico should invest in a trip with the family so they can see first hand what Puerto Rico is all about. They will see its beauty, people and culture. Please don't show them this documentary because it will only cloud their minds with negativity. Oh, and please don't tell your American friends to watch this documentary because it will only make the Puertorican people look ignorant.

Yes, I am born and raised PUERTO RICAN from the island. Just so you know!

Sentiment: negative
This movie deserves credit for its original approach. It combines elements of theater, film, and epic storytelling. Unfortunately, it falls flat on all levels. The films biggest weakness is it's unwillingness to commit to anything; it has camp, moralistic, and epic elements without ever committing to any of them. As for the story itself, Chretien de Troyes is spinning in his grave at this horrible adaptation which turns the lovable, unbearably innocent Percival into a most ungallant and rude churl.

Most likely two types of people will see this, francophiles or Arthuriophiles. Speaking as one of the latter, I found the movie unwatchable and an incredibly shabby, disrespectful treatment of a beautiful story.

Sentiment: negative
I am a big fan of cinema verite and saw this movie because I heard how interesting it was. I can honestly say it was very interesting indeed. The two lead actors are awesome, the film isn't ever boring, and the concept behind it (though obviously inspired by the Columbine killings and the home movies of the killers) is really interesting. There are some weaknesses, such as the final 20 minutes which really detracts from the realism seen in the first hour or so and the ending really doesn't make any sense at all. The shaky camera sometimes can be a distraction, but in cinema verite that is a given. But I still think the movie is very well done and the director Ben Coccio deserves some credit.

Sentiment: positive
I read the novel some years ago and I liked it a lot. when I saw the movie I couldn't believe it... They changed everything I liked about the novel, even the plot. I wonder what did Isabel Allende (author) say about the movie, but I think it sucks!!!

Sentiment: negative
When I saw on the voting panel that some people had given this film a score of 10 I assumed they were unaware that the score wasn't out of 100. This is a disaster movie in the real meaning of that term. Poorly written and weakly directed with so-called actors unable to act, but able to grimace when ordered to. For the first 60 minutes the story appears to be going in one direction, then it changes tack and gets involved in a power fight, with extremely poor special effects. Unable to work out an intelligent way for the hero with limited powers to beat the villain with super powers, the "writer" cheats. It is obvious that the father was added to the so-called story-line because it was easier than working out an acceptable denouement. Not that the write would even know the word "denouement." Some movies go directly to DVD. This one should have gone directly to the dustbin.

Sentiment: negative
Summer Holiday is the forgotten musical version of Eugene O'Neill's Ah Wilderness and deservedly so with the Broadway musical adaptation of Take Me Along. With the exception of the Stanley Steamer song, none of the other Harry Warren-Ralph Blane songs are worth remembering and even that one is questionable. 

It was right after the release of this film that MGM let Mickey Rooney go and I don't think it was a coincidence. The film was made in 1946 and released in 1948, so Mickey was 26 playing an Andy Hardy like teenager. He was just way too old for the part of the 17 year old who was affecting radical ideas in a spirit of youthful rebellion.

Rooney made four films for MGM from 1946 to 1948, this one, Killer McCoy a remake of Robert Taylor's A Crowd Roars, Love Laughs at Andy Hardy and Words and Music. In all of them Rooney was playing an adult part. Even in the Andy Hardy film, Mickey played an adult Andy Hardy returned from World War II. Why he was in this Louis B. Mayer only knows. 

Rooney's bad casting makes Summer Holiday all the worse because in the original Ah Wilderness the emphasis is on the father's character played here by Walter Huston. And in the Broadway show Take Me Along which won a Tony Award for Jackie Gleason, the Great One played the inebriated brother-in-law Uncle Sid here played by Frank Morgan and that's the central character.

Gloria DeHaven steps in for Judy Garland as Rooney's sweet and adorable girl friend and Marilyn Maxwell plays the show girl who gives Rooney an adult education. In the original play O'Neill has her as a prostitute, but this was the Hollywood of the Code so all Marilyn does is get young Rooney soused.

A lot of really talented people had a hand in this one and they do their best, but Summer Holiday fades rather quickly into a chilly autumn.

Sentiment: negative
If I could give this movie a negative rating I would. The humor is the cruelest I have ever seen in a film. Horrible things happen to good people and people who have already suffered horribly through no fault of their own. There are 2 plots, neither of which supports half of a film. Where is the "depth" others see in this movie? That no good deed goes unpunished? That only the heartless can succeed? The film does start well and the black and white is very moody and well done. The acting is very good and convincing witch makes the cruel humor even more horrifying. If you think that the 3 Stooges are too nice to each other, if watching the beheading of a kidnap victim with a Bowie knife is a real thigh slapper, if you thought "Schindler's List" was hilarious, then this movie is for you.

Sentiment: negative
I expected this to be a lot better. I love Tim Burton's work, so I was really excited to see these online short films. Well, they weren't at all what I had expected.

I don't really know what exactly it is I don't like. I guess they're just sort of dull. The sound bothers me, and most of the characters, although I loved Roy the Toxic Boy, and Stainboy.

The Match Girl episode probably bugged me the most, although it was pretty funny.

I also don't like the way some of the characters die. Like how Match Girl basically set the gas station on fire, or how the Girl Who Stares died, in general. Roy's death was amusing, surprisingly. Death by a car freshener. Very original ;-) That made me laugh so hard...

There are some things that aren't appropriate for kids. Just some language and gore. That's about all I have to say! 3/10

Sentiment: negative
It is unbelievable that a script as cliché and completely absurd could make any screen even the small one. The dialogue in this movie makes Catwoman seem like a high culture classic. Billy Zane plays the bad ass harmonica playing, Elvis impersonating, gunslinging, martial arts master who gambles on the life of a down-an-out former football player turned gambling addict played by the winner of NBC's craptastic show "Next Action Star." His performance is as cold as ice and not in a cool way. The "film" takes place in Vegas, and since people play poker there the writers felt it was a perfect setting for a movie about a guy trying to survive 24 hours against an omnipresent, wealthy gambler who has offered his target $2.4 million if he can make it through the day. And so the hunt ensues. A hunt reeking with unimpressive explosions, construction yard settings, shoddy cinematography, and one-liners containing the word "bet" or "gamble." The female winner is also tossed in the mix, but for what reason I have no idea. Oh but don't worry "NAS" fans the losers make their memorable cameos as well. The surprise ending will knock your socks off if you love predictability or plagiarism. Joel Silver should reevaluate his decision to sell out even more. I wish he could give me those two hours of my life back.

Sentiment: negative
For fans of Troma or the Cyberpunk genre mixed with a little blood shed then this film for you! There is a good amount of blood shed within the confines of this film, also the effects can be impressionable and awesome. The plot is ridiculous and refreshing, not being chained down to what we as audiences are expectant of from films these days.

Also notable are the little aliens, who I found cute. All in all, it's a good film for fans of the genre. Also recommended are films such as Tetsuo:The Iron Man and Versus for that weird Japanese film approach, filled with wonderful obscurity and bloodshed. Of course, seeing this film you should already have knowledge of the two.

Sentiment: positive
Dire. Just dire. The script is contrived, the acting painful, and the story just drags along. It is, without a doubt, a celebration of Sally Potter and little else. This wouldn't be so bad, but she's the director, writer and star of the film, and so is just self-glorification. I found myself not caring about the developing romance between the principal two characters, and the ending came not a moment too soon. It has two redeeming features. First is that a lot of the shots are really quite lovely, particularly in Paris, and look rather good in black and white. Secondly, whether you're a fan of tango or not, the music is by and large, excellent (except where Sally starts singing). Watch this film at your own risk, or if you need an unintentional laugh. I am sure it appeals to someone. Statistically, it has to.

Sentiment: negative
OK, I just flipped channels and caught DW3. I watched it knowing it would be trash..BUT..as a person who has seen tons of films, this one stands up there as one of the most purely bad films I have ever seen...I'm not kidding. It is so bad you have to watch it, like a bad accident you can't turn away from. Sometimes these kinds of films work, IE, Troma movies...but watching Martin Balsam and Charles Bronson slum it up like this is painful....What's even funnier is I pulled up IMDb to see what other people said and it actually scores a 4.1/10??? I can't believe it made it past 1.5! Equally as funny is this is not even the pinnacle of this series...somehow this garbage warranted part 4 and 5? And to top it all off, some dude's comments on here referenced this as the best of the series and his favorite film of all time??? Statements like that scare me about this world!

Sentiment: negative
OK, aside from the psychedelic background imagery, the info presented here was good. The music I could have done without (not that it was bad music, just that it didn't fit this film at all).

As for the content of the film, the director brings up the often-lacking Pagan perspective on Christ's existence and a startling comparison of the deeds and events of Christ's life vs. the lives of mythological figures/deities such as Mithra and Dionyses. Then he brings up the chronology of Christianity's origins and presents an 'ok' case, but not one that blew me away.

If the director had stuck with the facts and continued on with them, this film would have been good. However, at this point in the film, it disintegrates into a group of personally-gratifying attacks on Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and a Christian private school which the director attended in his youth. During an interview with his old principal, (which during the course of, it comes to light that the director set up under false pretenses) I felt that the director was acting sort of childish. He was asking good questions but, like the film itself, the interview crumbled into an attack on this particular private school's rules, not Christianity.

All in all, if you're just interested in some info, watch the first 30 minutes or so and then shut it off.

Sentiment: negative
Chances are, you'll think this movie is incredibly stupid the first time you watch it. But if, by chance, you watch it a second and third and fourth and fifth time (I'm well into the hundreds by now), you will find yourself spitting a line from it here and there and cracking yourself up! My friends and I have actually thrown Fear of a Black Hat Parties to get more of our friends, "as they say, down with the riots".

Sentiment: positive
Designed only to annoy (or amuse) any self-respecting intelligent person. If the director's intention had been for the viewer to dislike the title character, then it would have been okay, but I know that there is no such thing as a Hollywood director who'd make a critique of America's pro-Marxist 60s movement, especially not a filmmaker from the 70s. There is so much idiotic dialog going on here, that sometimes I wondered if I wasn't actually watching a comedy. You wouldn't be at fault for thinking that this is a satire  that's how naïve the movie appears. Spacek has been in her share of Leftist movies which brings me to the obvious, inescapable conclusion that the redhead hick is one of those Hollywood liberal morons. But, I mean, aren't they all? Nice boobs, but s**t for brains.

Sentiment: negative
Baldwin has really stooped low to make such movies. The script, the music, just about everything in this movie is a waste of time.

The sound FX do not sound real, they stick out way too much (technical gadgets etc.) If they are trying to make a movie about things like this, at least try to get real with it and drop those extra bleeps and beeps, because those gadgets don't really make loud sounds like that. Natural sounds like footsteps and such are non-existent, which gives it a void-like atmosphere.

Directing seems to be OK for such a low budget film (I sure hope it was a low budget production), although it does seem fairly amateurish at times.

Most characters seem empty and false, they simply haven't casted this movie very well. I'd imagine it would've been a better idea to make Baldwin speak some Spanish than to make Spanish actors speak English, when we all know that theirs is the language which is more vibrant and alive, that is why the actors performance can suffer greatly if an odd language is used. I mean, could finally someone realise how stupid it sounds to make international actors speak English with a bad accent? It's should've a long ago buried corpse in movie production. The production team ever heard of subtitles? This movie again manages to depict European police as lazy and corrupt, the societies as vulnerable and helpless. I mean if the plot again goes like "The Interpol can't do jack, so let's call one American to bring down this international syndicate" or whatever.

Sony Pictures treads on the same path as Columbia before it, just producing movies for the hell of it. I'd imagine them to have some self respect also. Are buyers supposed to buy every dirty title just because Sony puts out something good a few times a year?! Maybe they should've used the same team as who were making Di Que Si - Say I Do. It's spoken in Spanish and Paz Vega and Santi Millan do a decent job keeping the movie afloat. Looks and sounds much better! Come on Sony, wake up, produce less, sell more.

Sentiment: negative
New York City houses one man above all others, the possibly immortal Dr. Anton Mordrid. Mordrid is the sworn protector of humanity, using his magical powers to keep his brother and rival, Kabal, chained up so that he may not enslave the human race. Well, wouldn't you know it? A prophesy comes true and Kabal breaks free, and begins collecting elements (including platinum and uranium) for his alchemy experiments. With the help of a police woman named Sam, can Mordrid defeat his evil brother? "Dr. Mordrid" comes to me courtesy of Charles Band in the Full Moon Archive Collection. I had not heard of it, which is a bit odd given that I'm a big fan of Jeffrey Combs (Mordrid) and the film isn't that old. But now it's mine and I can enjoy it again and again. The film certainly is fun in the classic Full Moon style. Richard Band provides the music (which doesn't differ much from all his other scores) and Brian Thompson plays the evil Kabal. We even have animated dinosaur bones! What more do you want? Of course, the cheese factor is high. I felt much of the film was a rip-off of the Dr. Strange comics. And the blue pantsuit was silly. And plot holes are everywhere (I could list at least five, but why bother). And why does the ancient symbol of Mordrid and Kabal look suspiciously like a hammer and sickle? Combs has never been a strong actor, so he fits right in with the cheese. These aren't complaints. Full Moon fans have come to expect these things and devour them like crack-laced Grape Nuts. I'm guilty... I loved this film.

If you're not a Full Moon fan, or a Jeffrey Combs fan... you may want to look elsewhere. But if you like the early 1990s style of movie-making and haircuts, you'll eat this up. Stallone and Schwarzenegger fans might like seeing Brian Thompson as a villain, looking as goony as ever and not being able to enunciate English beyond a third grade level. I did. I wish there was a "Mordrid II", but the company that makes a sequel to practically everything (is "Gingerdead Man 3" really necessary?) passed on this one.

Sentiment: positive
The name "Lucio Fulci" congers up images of graphic death and mutilation in the minds of may fans. Thanks to movies like "Zombi 2", "City of the Living Dead", "The Beyond" and "The New York Ripper", Fulci has a reputation for being one of the goriest directors in history. And although many of his later movies certainly justify his reputation until the release of "Zombi 2" in 1979 Fulci's films did not contain anywhere near the amount of blood and guts he's know for, in fact they were for the most part gore free, instead relying on more traditional shocks and disturbing imagery to work. "Don't Torture a Duckling" hardly contains any gore, yet ranks as his best.

"Don't Torture a Duckling" is set in a small Sicilian town where superstition rules instead of logic. The townsfolk are very distrustful of outsiders as well as anyone different, often shunning them. After a series of child murders though many people descend upon the town, including Andrea Martelli (Thomas Milan) who tries to uncover the truth about the murders while they continue to happen.

This is a remarkable film. It's very well made with an excellent cast filled with many favorites of Italian exploitation cinema. It also contains a solid score as well as many creative camera movement courtesy or Lucio Fulci. But the real draw of "Don't Torture a Duckling" is the disturbing nature of the movie. Little kids, around twelve years old are shown mocking retarded people, visiting prostitutes and being propositioned sex by an older woman. It also contains some very biting commentary on the middle class and the Catholic Church. It is for reasons like this that "Don't Torture a Duckling" was blacklisted throughout Europe when it was first released and never was shown in the United States. Still, "Don't Torture a Duckling" stands as a monumental achievement in giallo cinema as well as Lucio Fulci's best work. I really can't recommend this one enough, check it out.

Sentiment: positive
Another trashy Grade Z quickie from the prolific Albert Pyun. Tim Thomerson´s 13 inch Clint Eastwood-like cop from outer space chases an ugly flying head(!) to Earth and gets involved in a gang war in South Bronx! Mercifully short, but deadeningly dull, with the cheesiest effects since Attack of the 50Ft Woman. They should have fired the continuity guy, too: Note how Thomerson´s sunglasses disappears and reappears in every second shot. Laughably bad, but that´s why we watch these movies, ain´t it? Sequel ´Dollman Vs. Demonic Toys´ is reportedly even worse, if that´s possible.

0 (of ****)



Sentiment: negative
technically, this movie would have had it all: decent actors, a nice landscape, no obvious sights of a lack of budget, a celebrity like richard attenborough. the plot summary also sounded promising, suggesting a satire on silly bureaucracy and common people outwitting it.

however, it never delivers. the plot is simply too illogical. throughout the whole movie, not one person does a single sensible thing. mad politicians, ridiculous soldiers, brain-dead villagers - all just hustle from one incredible situation to the next. what they all do never makes sense in a context beyond the current scene.

of course, this kind of movie has to be absurd and exaggerated. however, it's also supposed to have at least one instance to point out the madness behind splitting a city in the middle. actually, there are (at least) two attempts, which unfortunately fail: the main character, who doesn't seem to have a clue about what's happening to him, and the "writer", who occasionally cracks jokes from the off that might be considered funny by an audience consisting solely of 12 year olds.

what i found most impressing is that the movie tries to be funny all the time, but didn't made me laugh once. i've seen several bad "funny" movies, but until yet every single one of them featured at least 2 or 3 good laughs. so in this sense, "puckoon" is really remarkable.

if you want to see a great movie with a comparable plot, check out "brazil". don't waste your time on "puckoon".

Sentiment: negative