DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This movie is bad as we all knew it would be. Most times i usually love the bad 80s / early 90s trash-can comedy (haha no pun intended). I list Ski School, Career opportunities, Hot Shots, Summer School and many more made around this time. This even has the classic yet forgotten comedy of Dean Cameron (aka.. ski School section 8 instructor and Party Maniac for Summer School). But this movie is just to slow. It takes almost 30 min to get going and we have to sit through pointless dialog between to half-wits the Sheen boys (E&C). And yes i can hear the bloggers dieing to trash me with "obviously you don't watch 2 and 1/2 men). Well Charlie was not at the level he is now during this flick...not that he's anything worth watching now. Charlie only shines when his co-stars support him and Emilio isn't anymore than an overused wonder bra offering little support. Actually, this movie was written by Emilio and it shows. It has no real ending (come on Emilio, even the Ski School 2 writers barfed out an ending). No idea how any issue brought is solved, no hot babes, no swearing to lighten the bad plot, characters, acting... I'm now tired of this tirade. Just save your time and watch the movies i listed above. You'll enjoy them much more.

Sentiment: negative
Let me start out by saying I'm a big Carrey fan. Although I'll admit I haven't seen all of his movies *cough*the magestic*cough*. Bruce Almighty was enjoyable. None of the other reviews have really gone into how cheesy it gets towards the end, I dont know what the writers were thinking. Somehow I couldn't help but feel like this movie was a poor attempt at re-creating Liar Liar.

On a positive note, The Daily Show's Steve Correl is HILARIOUS and so is the rest of the cast. See Bruce Almighty if you're a big Jim Carrey fan, or if you just want to see a light-hearted (que soft piano music) somewhat funny comedy.

Sentiment: positive
To be honest, the movie was SO HORRIBLE that I loved it. Never in my life have a seen such a TERRIBLE movie. I was in shock. I mean, i don't even know what to say.

The characters couldn't even keep their own guns, one minute a guy had an M16 and his friend had an MP5, then in the next scene they switched guns. (Don't ask, trust me I know my guns)And i will never understand how they got from a place that looked like Vietnam, to an Arizona highway, to my backyard, and then to a chemical plant in California, that is what i took from it.

Why would you be afraid of a guy in a Halloween mask wearing a trash bag for a cape and shot plastic arrows at you? How is that frightening? I wanted to swallow arsenic halfway through the movie. I love how the "skeleton man" randomly decided to go on a killing spree at that particular day. But hey, whoever made this movie should be shot in the knees and fed to a mound of fire ants.

Good day.

Sentiment: negative
The only thing I remember about this movie are two things: first, as a twelve year old, even I thought it stunk. Second, it was so bad that when Mad magazine did a parody of it, they quit after the first page, and wrote a disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying that they had completely disavowed it.

If you want to see great sophomoric comedies of this period, try Animal House. It's so stupid and vulgar it lowers itself to high art. Another good selection would be Caddyshack, the classic with the late Rodney Dangerfield and Bill Murray before he became annoyingly charming, with great lines like greens keeper Carl Spackler's "Correct me if I'm wrong Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers they'll lock me up and throw away the key."

Sentiment: negative
When you get ahead of a film, you know you are wasting your time watching the movie in question. That is exactly how I felt while I was watching "Darkness." I could see anticipate every twist and turn easily. It is a combination of "The Amityville Horror" and a myriad of films that deal with the occult. It is so silly that I almost found endearing its naiveness. I cannot say I was wholly bored but I found the film way too derivative for my taste. Director Balagueró tries to redo his early Spanish hit "The Nameless," but he cannot pull it off. I admit, a few sequences were creepy enough but I just abhor when I can figure out what is going to happen next. Also, I hated to see good actors like Lena Olin and Giancarlo Giannini sweat so much over this piece of dreck. Finally, Anna Paquin as the star of a horror film? This must be a joke. She is cute but she is one of those good child actors that have become a very monotonous adult actor. You can live without watching this one.

Sentiment: negative
I was very impressed with this film from newcomer Dir./Writer Jose Reyes. The cast was excellent. "Jorge Cordoba" executed a powerful

and shocking performance as the lead character of "Rafa". It's inspiring to see independent films with this level of talent. 

It takes talent, courage, and determination to go out and make a quality film.

I admire anyone who can take an idea from concept to conception and go the mile. 

It's easy for people to judge young filmmakers more harshly, but I applaud "Jose Reyes" 

and the talented cast for their successful efforts.

Sentiment: positive
Okay, I saw this movie as a child and really loved it. My parents never purchased the movie for me, but I think I'll go about and buy it now. I'm a sucker for pre-2000 animated films. Anyway, onto the actual review.

WHAT I LIKED: There was an actual portrayal of heaven and hell, one of the few I've seen in animated films. Character development existed! It's easy to classify characters in this movie (i.e.: Charlie is the selfish mutt, Itchy is cynical but believes Charlie, Carface is obviously the relentless villain, etc.). I also loved King Gator's song. I've always loved loud, annoying, flamboyant guys. This song may have been random, but it was so fun. Finally, the detail of the animation was beautiful. You could tell Charlie was all gruff and stuff and the backgrounds were beautiful.

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE: The actual portrayal of heaven: The way Charlie reacted to it, "no surprises whatsoever", made it actually seem very boring. He denied a place in heaven and STILL got to return to it in the end. I remember a few lines of certain songs such as "... you can't keep a good dog down", "... let's make music forever", and "... welcome to being dead" but I can't remember the majority of any of them. The songs weren't that catchy, to be honest. Whippet Angel: She's annoying and that NECK! AUGH!

WHAT PARENTS MAY NOT LIKE: A few very scary (depending on the viewer) images of Hell are shown during the movie. Carface is quite threatening. Beer is also implied, but not actually DUBBED beer. Gambling is a key element in the movie. The good guy dies.

OVERALL: I LOVE this movie, even if it is a bit forgettable at times. The scarier children's animations are always my favorite ones. This was created back in a time when producers and writers weren't afraid to give kids a little scare now and then. Nowadays, this probably would have been rated PG. Kids under the age of 8 (or easily disturbed kids) should not watch this. Other than that, I give it 9/10. :)

Happy Viewing!

Sentiment: positive
In a lot of his films (Citizen Kane, Confidential Report, Touch of evil) Orson Welles gave him the role of an exuberant men. In "The Lady from Shanghai" it's the only time I see him holding the role of the victim. The role of the culprit, he gave it to Rita Hayworth, I guess it's because he was in love with her. Therefore, it's an interesting film. But I find the story excellent too. The direction is genius, as usual with Welles : two scenes are particularly brilliant: the one in the aquarium and the final one with the mirrors. This film is brilliant.(10/10)

Sentiment: positive
this is a film about life, the triumph over adversity and the wonders of the human spirit. I defy anyone not to shed a tear by the end of the movie. This is more than just a tear-jerker, its an engaging, thought-provoking drama with excellent performances from all the cast but especially derek Luke and denzel washington. 7 years on, I'm amazed that Luke is still a virtual unknown and washington only directed one other film. Nevertheless, apart from a slow build-up, the story of this foster child's trials and tribulations and how it still affects him in adulthood is the sort of movie that stays with you long after you have seen it. Like many fox searchlight pictures, this was more of a sleeper hit and didn't get the mass critical acclaim it deserves. The scene where Antwone finally meets his mother summed up the movie for me, there were so many ways that could have been done and it could have been all schmaltzy or it could have been unrealistic but Washington struck exactly the right tone, his mother never said a word and could only shed a tear, while antowne asked simply why. Her overwhelming guilt prevented her from saying anything, what could she say to defend herself? One of the most moving cinematic scenes I have seen.

Sentiment: positive
Clark Gable plays a con man who busts into the life of hard-boiled dame Jean Harlow. He tries to sucker her while she brushes him off with her tough-gal attitude. Despite their cynicism and cons they fall in love. When Gable accidentally kills a man during a sting he runs out leaving loyal Harlow to women's prison where she discovers she's pregnant. Anita Loos' and Howard Emmett Rogers' writing is excellent throughout with many well-drawn and surprising characters (including a Jewish socialist woman inmate and a black woman inmate and her preacher father played with hardly a trace of stereotype). Gable and Harlow show their mettle as actors adding telling nuances and quirks to their characters that send them beyond the typical Gable and Harlow roles. And the direction is much better than you'd expect from Sam Wood. One beautiful shot has Harlow being inducted into the prison, then led out into a surprisingly snowy courtyard as the camera tracks after her. This is one of the best of both the "criminals in love" and "women's prison" genres and has some of the best hard-boiled dialogue ever written.

Sentiment: positive
This show is awesome! I love all the actors! It has great story lines and characters. It is the perfect drama. James Caan and Josh Duhamel have great dialogue. They both can be really funny.I miss Vanessa Marcil on General Hospital, but she's great on here. James Lesure is great! He can be hilarious. Molly Sims plays a dimwit very well. The writing is awesome!They keep up an excellent pace. The show can really leave you hanging, which is one of my favorite elements of a show. I cannot wait until the new season starts. This show makes it to the top ten of all my shows. I hope this show stays on for a really long time. If people know what good is, it will. I never want the show to end. Ever.

Sentiment: positive
This is probably Wayne's poorest movie; at least the poorest in which he had a starring role. It's just incredibly bad. The editing is especially awful; it really appears that the editor (if there was one)literally picked up pieces of film off the floor and pasted them together. The opening has to be seen to be believed. John Wayne must have cringed every time it was mentioned! I know there are "B" films - but are there "H" films? If so, this one's an example. And I say this as a devoted JW fan.

Sentiment: negative
I don't see why all the people are giving this film negative reviews?!?! I loved this movie! Bled is a form of abstract art, and if you don't appreciate art, I can see why you would not like this film. It was a great twist from the average, played out vampire movie. If you are looking for a fresh, new and ingenious new vampire movie, then this is for you. But if you want one of those turn into bats, wolves and melt in the sunlight movies, then go watch your old played out Dracula flicks. Sure, it is a bit on the low budget side, but they did a great job with the budget they had. I'm very happy that I found this movie, because I was about to give up on the vampire genre fro good. I thought this film was brilliant! I give 2 thumbs up to the writer, director and everyone involved in the film.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film a few years ago and I got to say that I really love it.Jason Patric was perfect for this weird role that he played.The director?I don't too many things about him...and I don't care.The screenplay is good,that's for sure.In just a few words I have to say about this movie that is weird,strange,even dark,but it's a good one.I saw it a few years ago and never saw it since then.I want to see it again and again.I know that I'm not gonna get sick of watching it.The scenes,the atmosphere,the actors,the story...everything is good.The movie should have lasted longer.I think 120 minutes should have been perfect.I was hoping for a part 2 for this movie.Too bad it din't happened.Jason Patric:you're the man ! very good movie. the end. :-)

Sentiment: positive
Well this is the first post am ever commenting on IMDb., do you get it, this movie has made me come and warn all the good souls who will stop ever experimenting with movies.

As most of them have given their comments I thought of watching this movie because it seemed to have some decent actors(though having read worst critics against this movie) I thought of experimenting it assuming it to be some comedy flick., Well it all started well with some ahem., comedies.... then it all started going pathetic... man you can believe your self, you wud feel like going and banging your head each and every time the pathetic looking woman called the heroine of the movie is made helpless...Huh~~ Well how much can a person digest a sick all POSSESSIVE witch kinda ghost trying to do all she can to irritate you and stop you from what you are doing.

The next worst thing about the movie is, the "ZOMBIE" Hero, yes as he looses his fiancé he roams around like a Goat, with black marks under his eyes., and with the hero's "terribly stupid" sister.. you wud be bleeding from head to toe if you attempted and succeeded by completely watching this movie~!

Sentiment: negative
This movie was just plain bad. I can forgive low-budget films for being low budget but it wasn't funny, it wasn't smart, it had no redeeming qualities at all unless you really like looking at fake boobs. I don't know what this genre is classified as, possibly erotic horror, but if so-- well, it's neither sexy nor scary. Tying it into the Slumber Party Massacre movies was useless; I'd never seen the previous movies myself, and except for one scene that attempted to tie it together, I had no way of knowing who the escaped psycho killer in 'Cheerleader' was or why they were bothering with including him, especially because (and I don't think I'm revealing anything here) it was really obvious that the cheerleader killer in this film wasn't him. As for the actual murderer? All I can say is, lame. Really lame. When you find out why the killer is offing the cheerleading squad (and the squad's coach, and two stoners who happened to be on the bus trip they're taking, and the bus driver just for the heck of it, apparently) you will sit there and go-- WTF? Worst excuse for a murdering spree ever. The "actors" (two guesses why I added the quotes) generally looked like low-budget porn rejects, which they most likely were. Those poor people, trying to break into "legitimate" film. One of my friends had this to say about the actor who played Buzzy, the bus driver: "He looks like the guy who, you know, gets really into it, and his face gets all red and stuff." We had a good larf at that. Half of the other actors had all the skill and subtlety of the actors in the sixth grade production of "Annie" I just saw. The other half pretty much seemed bored to death (especially in the deleted scene, this one redhead...), and by ten minutes into this movie I was, too.

A note: the DVD contains one deleted scene, which would've put the movie from R-rated to NC-17 if it had been left in. It was entirely gratuitous, and as adult entertainment goes of no quality whatsoever. The only reason to bother with it is to laugh, a lot, at the badness.

Sentiment: negative
SEPARATE LIES is such an elegant, intelligent and thought provoking film and I could have watched Tom Wilkinson forever on the screen. The locations in the English countryside, the marvelous London locations, the interiors, smart wardrobes and of course, the writing and dialog made SEPARATE LIES a thrilling adventure.

With that said, and perhaps this is just an American viewpoint, as the British are so much more sophisticated in handling sexual escapades, I found it hard to watch Tom Wilkinson just stand by, as his wife goes merrily on her way in a sexual journey that really brings her very little joy, creates much despair for her husband, with the cad that is Rupert Everett. Yes, I saw the failings of Wilkinson's character-his aim for perfection, the desire for everything in its place-but in Emily Watson, she should have looked deeper into his true character and solid goodness, to realize what she has thrown away.

Tom Wilkinson makes SEPARATE LIES into a powerful film by watching him experience all the pain, embarrassment, and despair on the screen as his wife goes off with another man. And he himself makes the journey in SEPARATE LIES by understanding his faults, embracing his wife, despite all that has gone on, and leading her back to London. Bravo, Tom!

Sentiment: positive
That this film flopped at the box office, and still struggles for the recognition it deserves today, is a great pity - yet somehow rather appropriate. The commercial suicide the Monkees committed by making this film is mirrored by the metaphorical suicide they commit on-screen. To destroy so brutally their carefully constructed image as a wholesome American alternative to the Beatles is courageous to the point of rashness, as is the admission of being no more than pawns in the entertainment industry, trapped (in the movie, literally) in their own artificiality. The Monkees' television series was not that conventional, but HEAD is utterly plotless...although in the end there is actually some kind of circular logic to it all. Unrestrained by a genuine storyline, the surreal sequence of events is by turns hilarious and rather disturbing. The greatest irony is that the Monkees effectively signed their death warrant as a commercial force at a time when they were reaching their artistic peak. Their exploration into psychedelia reached its zenith with the soundtrack to HEAD (all the songs are memorably woven into the film), which is one of the landmarks albums of the 'sixties. The Monkees began to disintegrate after the box office failure of this movie, but HEAD serves as a noble legacy.

Sentiment: positive
A film, first and foremost, should be good storytelling. It should be entertaining - and entertaining doesn't necessarily mean "laughs", and it doesn't necessarily mean "light". It basically means you're not bored while watching it. 

As brilliant as 2001 may be, it is a difficult film to watch, especially for the current (video-game-playing/iPod fumbling) generation. Its slow pace and the sometimes intolerable amount of time it takes for an actor to perform a single action (e.g. the attempt to rescue the crew member floating in space) will stretch your patience. On the other hand, the cinematography is brilliant, the film cleverly directed, the ending thought-provoking and the score...the score is chilling, especially as the crew in the transporter approaches the artifact on the moon. Boy, I had goose bumps, big time. This doesn't happen often when I watch films, and is a testament to Kubrick's directing skills. 

It IS considered a classic, and many people consider it the best science-fiction film of all time. That alone is a good reason to watch it if you haven't done so yet. However, just because everybody else thinks it's a brilliant film doesn't mean you have to force yourself to like it. You either will (like it) or you won't. Perhaps the slow pace isn't such a bad thing, after all. Directing your attention to something rather static and slow-paced for 2 1/2 hours might teach you a lesson. It will certainly be a different experience to all these fast-moving, fast-paced images we are subjected to these days (whether commercials, music videos or video games). 

I myself think it's a "memorable" film. But not one I'm eager to watch again anytime soon (unless I'm in a particular mood for slow-paced films). 

Hence, 7 stars out of 10 from me.

Sentiment: positive
I've always enjoyed Kenneth Branagh's versions of the Shakespeare classics, as he always does a very good job, but in this movie, the one who lifts the whole movie, is none other than "the-always-great-actor" Laurence Fishburne. Surely he has made some poor choices in films, even though he's a wonderful actor, but in this one we're truly given the real Othello: the passion, the intensity of jealousy as it grows stronger alongside with Fishburne's well portrayed paranoia and, furthermore, we're finally given a black Othello!

I don't think they could have chosen a better Othello. Who else could have given him that blend of sympathy/antipathy, love/hatred and, not to forget, those fiery eyes...? Branagh is good as always, but not at his peak, Iréne Jacob's Desdemona is fairly good but a bit bleak, whilst Laurence Fishburne truly lifts it and makes it a very interesting and enjoyable movie. Do watch it.

Sentiment: positive
I purchased a DVD of this film for a dollar at the big dept store. That's probably the best and kindest comment I have to offer on it. At least it didn't cheat me out of the cost of lunch.

The problem with "Chiller" is Craven's problem as a director. The man has his apologists who claim his traveling papers prove he's a really smart guy and all-around sharp conceptualist. But it's no secret that, as a director, he has never possessed one iota of the visual and story-telling sense of a Hitchcock. As vigorously attested by "Chiller", he's much closer to that legendary flat-foot Hershel Gordon Lewis. What Craven lacks as a director is the main ingredient that would lift him from director for hire to a higher plane of film- making.

Let's be specific. The transitional moments of this film are sleek. The establishing shots give it the feel of a quality production. The film looks professionally put together, in the way a film shot by a TV commercial director would. (A thought: The films only visual distinction, these transitions that at least look professionally handled may very well be the work of some second unit directors.) It's the parts between the bridges and smooth transitions -- the drama -- that fall flat. 

The core of the proceedings are invariably perfunctorily handled. The critical shots (after, say, the departing car drives into the well-positioned camera, then we cut to the night exterior of a hospital, then to the waiting area and hallway, then to the phone booth in the corner that will figure in the next bit of action) are quickly dispensed so we can hurry up and get to the next part. Craven never comes anywhere close to exploding the dramatic or visual possibilities of any moment. The net result of all this misplaced attention to the least important parts, and the fumbling rush to keep things moving, is a film that feels like the work of the fledgling art student who sharpens all his pencils, fussily adjusts his easel and lighting set-up, grinds all his pigments, stretches and primes his canvas ...and then has nothing to say. Craven, like the art student, never gets to the meat of the exercise.

For Craven apologists who will point out that this film was made for TV, I will point to Spielberg's "Duel" and say no more.

Sentiment: negative
The first users comments are very detailed for a very vague movie. Not saying that I disagree, but this summary can be written in a few sentences. To get straight to the point, this is pretty much like watching the making of a really bad amateur porno flick. There are a few funny points in the movie, but with the kind of things that happen in todays youth everyday its actually kind of lame. The main actor in the movie is a pompous jackass and both guy and girl in the film are way too modest to be in a film like this. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS MOVIE. The only reason why I gave it a 4 and not a 1 is that they used at least a somewhat attractive girl in the movie and towards the end you got to see almost full frontal nudity from the girl, thats it, thats the only thing thats worth watching it for. the end

Sentiment: negative
This movie is a crappy and forgettable Sean Connery vehicle. The performances are generally crappy especially by Capshaw, Fishburne, and the usually solid Ed Harris. Connery seems miscast as a Harvard Academic. The movie absolutely gets worse as it goes along. It is a third rate mystery that becomes extremely contrived by the time it unravels. The movie squanders an excellent supporting cast. George Plimpton also turns up in a minor role to add some gravitas to Connery as they debate the death penalty. The violence and the atmosphere pepper a third rate mystery/thriller that is manipulation to the highest degree. The scripting and direction are extremely poor. Connery's charisma and screen presence are the film's only virtue. Manipulative, Violent, and Ridiculous. 2/10 Avoid It.

Sentiment: negative
Less self-conscious and much less pretentious than GUTS OF A BEAUTY, this Kazuo Komizu gore flick is worth a look (at least once).

Sleazy snapshotters escort wanna-be actresses/models to a remote house in the woods in order to sexually molest them. Unfortunately (for the horny boys), a long-schlonged demon, who lives in the woods, has already targeted the girls for fun.

The thing even ends up having fun with the boys -- that's IF you consider beheadings, dismemberment and masturbation with severed limbs "fun".

Once again, it all sounds better on paper than it looks and sounds on film.

Just as Komizu mangled LIVING DEAD AT TOKYO BAY with his ineptitude, he also mangles this effort and is only saved by some audacious violence and some great white panty shots.

Don't buy the hype, though, or you'll be sorely disappointed.

Sentiment: negative
Imagine you have the opportunity to see yourself again as a kid. Now think what would happen if you had the chance to speak with your younger self, or even change him/you. Would you try to influence or try to change your younger self's beliefs in light of your future experience? Or perhaps the encounter would change your older self's perception of life and reality? 

Walt Disney's The Kid tries to engage this complex thought by putting "older self" Bruce Willis in a collision course with "younger self" Spenser Breslin (from The Santa Clause 2 and The Cat in the Hat "fame"). The result is a sometimes funny sometimes touching encounter, which makes you ponder about your own past, present and future  and truly believe it is never too late to change your course.

Sentiment: positive
Jewel Thief is one of those suspense thrillers in which the viewers are left guessing till the end who the villain is. Suspense builds from the very first scene when the jewel thief becomes a national problem and there are cleverly concealed clues in the film so that you can guess who is the jewel thief. The story portrays that Dev Anand (Vinay in the film) and the jewel thief have identical faces. But you get a 1000 watt shock when you finally come to know the villain. There are many surprises and a lot of fishy stuff going on but there is time for romance and six melodious ever lasting songs sung by Lata Mangeshkar, Asha Bhosle, Kishore Kumar and Mohmmad Rafi.

This film was also talked about for its song's videos. Consider the teasing and counter teasing in Asman Ke Neeche. Or the blocking of road by Dev Anand when Tanuja was going out with her friends in Yeh Dil Na Hota Bechara. Or the romantic Dil Pukare Are Are in the beautiful Sikkim. Or the wonderful dance by Vyjantimala in Hotho Pe Aisi Baat. Add to it Rulake Gaya Sapna Mera and Raat Akeli Hain and you will never forget this film for any reason.

Able acting by Dev Anand, Ashok Kumar, Tanuja and Vyjantimala and direction by Vijay Anand (Dev Anand's younger brother) makes this one of the best loved Hindi films of all times even today.

Sentiment: positive
Pathetic NRI Crap.....Appeal to all who are not Indian's....This is the WORST of Indian cinema,made by the worst piece of NRI trash.....The story is boring and clichéd (the way NRIs and westerners view India).....Go for it if u want to be bored to death.

The movie deals with the plight of widows in India before independence.A lot of it is true even now in remote rural areas but not to the extent as depicted (maybe because its a period movie).....

There are plenty of other Indian movies directed by extremely talented directors that are worth savoring...This one is a definite miss...Watch a documentary instead or look up information on the net if you are genuinely interested in the plight of the downtrodden in India.

I wasted my time.

Sentiment: negative
The hip hop rendition of a mos def performance (according to the film's musical credits)...it is an incredible piece of savage consciousness that slams the violence in your heart with each "snap" if anyone can tell me someplace this song, "Live Wire Snap" by Mos Def from "The Ground Truth", an undeniable duty to see as the Americans who might not support the mission but embrace each soul caught inside this savage miscalculation of purpose...they take on the haunting as so many of us can sit back and be angry...

"Live Wire Snap" by Mos Def, where can it be found

desperate to find it :

medically unable to serve

Sentiment: positive
This movie was such a blast! It has that feel-good, yet totally in your face attitude that draws me to a movie. It has a good message (party girl decides she needs a real job) yet she doesn't completely lose all sense of fun. I recommend this movie for anyone who needs some humor, but is also a thinker! :)

Sentiment: positive
A beautiful film. One that made me think of god but not feel guilty nor overwhelmed. Made me think about death but not fear it, think about life but not hide from it. A movie that gave both love for all I stand for and at the same time condemned it to the deepest pits of hell. A movie that made me think of love and all that I have lost, but no sadness graced my eyes, for some strange reason, relief. A child of two worlds, god and theater. And a good bit of wine and irony! I most highly recommend *****

"When The S*** Hits The Fan, Get A Tent" Oh and we should all go camping. Every day.

Sentiment: positive
If it were possible, I would have given this sorry excuse for a movie a ZERO star. It was by far the worse I have ever seen. It was as if it were a home movie that some bored highschoolers decided to make as a joke. The "acting" was horrific. The "actors" didn't even react to the fact that they were being murdered.

Honestly, I bought this movie by mistake. The Spanish title said Jeepers Creepers 3, so I thought hmm maybe it'll be OK. Wrong. It was honestly the worst ever. I didn't get past 20 minutes of the stupid movie. I skipped through chapters and nothing interesting ever seemed to happen.

The cameramen were also terrible. It was like a home movie. I would NEVER recommend anyone to watch this. Terrible terrible moronic movie.

Sentiment: negative
Pros: Nothing

Cons: Everything

Plot summary: A female reporter runs into a hitchhiker that tells her stories about the deaths of people that were killed by zombies.

Review: Never in my life have I come across a movie as bad The Zombie Chronicles. Filmed on a budget of what looks to be about 20 bucks, TZC is a completely horrible horror movie that relies on lame, forgetable actors whom couldn't act to save their lives and gore that's more gross than frightening. How does a movie like this even get made? Simply put, avoid TZC like a sexually-transmitted disease.

My last 2 cents: Humorously enough, this movie was made by a movie company called Brain Damage Films. They're brains must have really been damaged to come up with a craptacular movie like this.

My rating: 1 out of 10(If it were up to me, this movie would get the rating of negative bajillion)

Sentiment: negative
Thunderbirds (2004) 

Director: Jonathan Frakes 

Starring: Bill Paxton, Ben Kingsley, Brady Corbet 

54321! Thunderbirds are GO! 

And so began Thunderbirds, a childhood favorite of mine. When I heard that they were going to make a Thunderbirds movie, I was ecstatic. I couldn't wait to see Thunderbird 2 roar in to save people, while Thunderbird 4 would dive deep into theyou get the idea. I just couldn't wait. Then came August 2004, when the movie was finally released. Critics panned it, but I still wanted to go. After all, as long as the heart was in the same place, that was all that mattered to me. So I sat down in the theater, the only teenager in a crowd of 50everyone else was over thirty and under ten. Quite possibly the most awkward theater experience that I have ever had 

The movie (which is intended to be a prequel) focuses on Alan Tracy (Brady Corbet), the youngest of the Tracy family. He spends his days wishing that he could be rescuing people like the rest of his family, but he's too young. One day, he finally gets his chance when The Hood (Ben Kingsley) traps the rest of his family up on Thunderbird 5 (the space station). This involves him having to outsmart The Hood's henchmen and rescue his family in time before The Hood can steal all of the money from the Bank of England.

Trust me, the plot sounds like a regular episode of Thunderbirds when you read it on paper. Once it gets put on to filmwhat a mess we have on our hands. First off, the film was intended for children, much like the original show was. However, Gerry Anderson treated us like adults, and gave us plots that were fairly advanced for children's programming. This on the other hand, dumbs down the plot as it tries to make itself a ripoff of the Spy Kids franchise. The final product is a movie that tries to appeal to fans of the Thunderbirds series and children, while missing both entirely. Lame jokes, cartoonish sounds, and stupid antics that no one really finds amusing are all over this movie, and I'm sure that Jonathan Frakes is wishing he'd never directed this.

Over all, everyone gave a solid performance, considering the script that they were all given. Ben Kingsley was exceptional as The Hood, playing the part extremely well. My only complaint about the characters is about The Hood's henchmen, who are reduced to leftovers from old Looney Tunes cartoons, bumbling about as, amazingly enough, the kids take them on with ease.

What's odd about this movie is that while I was watching the movie, I had fun. But once the lights went up, I realized that the movie was fairly bad, I was $8 lighter, and two hours of my time were now gone. A guilty pleasure? Perhaps. Nonetheless, Thunderbirds is a forgettable mess. Instead of a big "go", I'm going to have to recommend that you stay away from this movie. If the rest of movie could have been like the first ten minutes of it, it would have been an incredible film worthy of the Thunderbirds name. However, we get a movie that only die-hard Thunderbirds fans (if you'd like to watch your childhood torn to pieces) or the extremely bored should bother with.

My rating for Thunderbirds is 1 ½ stars.

Sentiment: negative
Eddie Murphy spends his time looking for lost children, so when a very special magical child is kidnapped in Tibet, the sexy Charlotte Lewis asks for his help to rescue this child from the clutches of evil itself.

Although the story is a bit silly, it never quite feels corny, despite the hilarity of the comedy throughout the film; Charles Dance off-sets the comedy with his very serious and dark characterisation of the evil that holds the child hostage.

The Golden Child is very funny, action packed and really quite compelling in a charming, almost magical way.

7/10 Great for all generations.

Sentiment: positive
Left Behind is the kind of "we know what we know cause we know it" movie that Christians (and most any other naive person) needs to help them feel like what they "THINK" and "BELIEVE" (not "KNOW") is right. But, at the same time I feel bad for the little guys, because this is not a well made film. It does not help ANY message. I work at a video store, and I KNOW the ONLY reason people went to see this movie was because they were religious and they thought it was. ANYBODY on this earth who THINKS they know what will happen in the future is wrong, unless they think they know that they don't know. I've had about enough (but only after I've had too much) of these people walking around with their noses in the air thinking that a movies starring a semi-talented TV actor means something above me.

Please, if you love yourself you'll stay away. I refuse to go into any detail about this movie (not because A-I didn't see it (because I did), B-it was too shocking for my atheist-self to handle (because it wasn't), or C-I really don't have anything to say bad about it (because I do). The Reason, (which is a word nobody who helped make this movie understands) is that I want this movie out of my head, I want that it was made out of my head, I want that I watched ALL OF IT WITH AN OPEN MIND out of my head, I want the message that Kirk so proudly and coachly gives at the end of the movie out of my head. I only want all the things that were in my head BEFORE viewing this movies there, anything directly connected with this movie that's floating in my head GET OUT! My peaceful rage is ending. I'm sorry that somebody in this world went to the theater to see this movie about what could happen in the future (but won't) when they could have given that Seven Dollars Plus to any number of Human, Animal, or Rain Forest charity. But if they did that then they wouldn't be able to "BELIEVE" in the fact that it's real, they might have to fact what is. LEFT BEHIND ZERO (out of ****)

Sentiment: negative
This is going to be my first review on IMDb and I'm glad that the standard rating is 1 out of 10 because then I don't have to change anything...

First there are awful movies. Movies you can make a laughter out of, like Island City, Battlefield Earth or Conan The Destroyer. That is totally acceptable. They makes a great party enhancer. Then there are the worst movie ever. I cannot believe how utterly crappy this steaming pile of dog turd was.

I found it on a second hand store on VHS and bought it quickly because I like sci-fi, Terminator, post-apocalypse and stuff like that. Everything on the box art was very promising. Then I loaded in the tape quickly when I got home and the first thing that I noticed was... WHAT? There was maybe 10 minutes (or more) of switching between present clips and flashbacks in a very annoying blue effect, with sounds that makes you puke. And it just continues over and over. Then some "acting" kicks in and you wonder why you were ever born in a world, where this abomination of mankind actually exists... And then I realized, THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO PREQUELS. I didn't think about it first, but the title says "3" in it... And I was horrified. But as I actually in great pain and agony watch it to the end, I thought nothing could ever make me feel worse about myself and this universe... But then a little text showed up saying... "Next..." and... NEMESIS 4?!?!?! NO PLEASE NO!!!!!!!!

Sentiment: negative
This is the one movie to see if you are to wed or are a married couple. The movie portrais a couple in Italy and deals with such difficult topics as abortion, infidelity, juggling work and family.

The so called "culture of death" that we are experiencing nowadays in the world is terrible and this movie will surely make you think.

A must see. I hope it gets distributed as it should.

Congratulations on the cast and director.

Two thumbs up and a 10 star evaluation from me!

Sentiment: positive
Boasting some pretty good Rick Baker-esque special effects and Deran Serafian in a small role, this pretty lame Italian movie deserves some recognition. Cerchi gets some credit for still making gore flicks while most of the other Italian directors (Ruggero Deodato, Sergio Martino, Lamberto Bava, and Enzo G. Castellari) have moved on to lower-key TV movies. As for plankton, it's half Piranha - half The Thing, with people turninging into monsters, raping women, and causing general mayhem. The ultra-grimy, sleazy, and over-sexed feel of the film makes it hard to enjoy. Only available in Italian language work-prints floating around.

Sentiment: negative
I drove from Sacramento to San Francisco (and back) to see this movie premiere--and really glad I did. As a big movie fan and a life-long Northern Californian, I was surprised how many Oscar-winning films have been made in the Bay Area. As a fashion designer who really wants to stay in the Bay Area as opposed to going to LA, George Lucas' comments about persistence, community and having a vision really resonated with me. 

Hey, if he and all the other filmmakers can make it in SF, so can other artists. 

Would recommend this film

Sentiment: positive
I suppose that today this film has relevance because it was an early Sofia Loren film. She was 19 years old when the film was made in 1953.

I viewed this film because I wanted to see some of Sofia Loren's early work. I was surprised when she came on camera having had her skin bronzed over in brown makeup to resemble an Ethiopian princess. Surely, today, this would have been viewed as a slur and to be avoided in movie making. It actually became annoying watching Ms. Loren in skin color paint throughout the film.

Yes, this film would have been better made if the real opera singers had made this movie. Then, the singing and the actual facial gestures of the real artists would have been apparent. I discount the comments by others about whether the real opera singers are older and heavier in weight.

As beautiful as Ms. Loren was at age 19 and still is today, the film would have been better received as though it were being performed on the stage. After all, we don't see beautiful young people on stage with "old opera singers" back stage singing from behind the curtain! Do not discount the success of using heavy-weight opera singers. One only has to refer to the most artistically produced television commercial for the J. G. Wentworth Company with the opera singers on stage singing so professionally the praises of the company's product. This is one of the best and entertaining TV commercials produced to date.

The quality of the movie print also makes this production of a somewhat lesser quality. The color ink has faded much and that can not be helped.

To improve this film on DVD the production company should add English language subtitles so that we, who do not speak Italian, can know what the lyrics are saying. It would help the story and teach it more than the narrator giving 30 seconds of introduction to the scenes.

Watch this film not because of the story of Aida nor the fact that this is an opera. Aside from Ms. Sofia Loren none of her co-actors are known nor remembered by this writer. Instead, watch this movie if you are a fan of Ms. Loren and wish to see her at age 19 -- no matter what the production is.

Larry from Illinois

Sentiment: negative
This film is a load of crap. It's quite disturbing to see that anyone is able to say that this is one of the best films of the year. What can I say? Bad acting, bad action scenes which becomes really comical in the end. Pardon me if this was a comedy, then I didn't understand it. If it was I regret laughing of the tent scenes! Do yourself a favor - go to bed instead of watching this! Good night!

Sentiment: negative
Corny and horrible, I was not surprised this short lived show didn't make it. I remember fondly when Tales From the Crypt tried reusing these corny episodes like they were actually scary. Coupled with bad acting and lousy music, I was surprised this crummy showed was ever conceived. It never showed up again, and one can only be thankful for this circumstance.

Sentiment: negative
We also found this movie on the discount rack and made the mistake of purchasing it because Sandra Bullock was featured on the cover. The cinematography was terrible and the back of the DVD box told more about the plot than the movie itself. Oh and I love the Uzi cam....NOT.



Sentiment: negative
This PM Entertainment production is laced with enough bullets to make John Woo say, "Enough already!" Of course, it isn't nearly as beautiful as Woo can deliver but it gets the exploitive job done in 90 minutes. Eric Phillips (Don Wilson) is an undercover cop in the near future. When his wife is framed for murdering the Governor by a team using a look-a-like cyborg, it is up to Eric to clear her name. Wilson gets to pull Van Damme duty as he plays the heroic lead and his evil cyborg doppelganger. Why the Academy failed to take notice is beyond me. Being a PM production, there are tons of car chases, exploding cars (4 in the first 5 minutes!) and shoot outs. I particularly liked the van that flips in midair before it even comes close to touching an exploding truck. My other favorite bit involved a neighborhood girl coming over to perfect her karate in Don's simulator. It is merely a chance to show off some cheapo LAWNMOWER MAN effects circa 1995.

Sentiment: positive
First of all the movie, is an ingenious work of art(movie). The plot was filled with surprises, a little kid pretends to be a grown up inherits one million dollars and how he spends it. I mean how whacked out is this. Walt Disney really outdid themselves this time. The comedy is most of the times expected but the other times unexpected. I mean was this movie OK or was this movie OK. It also teaches a lot about wise youths and I this kid is really wise and a bit time smart pants. But also it sucks. How the heck could a guy like that kid get a hot police babe and his dad let him go free. That's like let a killer get bailed free for ten years. If I were to do that I'd get beaten with a 'suble jack'(a huge stick that stings when used to bench your butts really hard). That kid is really lucky. Back to the story. The movie makers really knew what they were doing when they made this movie but still it's not perfect. The acting was good and bad. The kid and woman had no chemistry neither did the father but the bros were excellent'. The special effects on the other hand was lame. Plus this movie isn't based on reality. I hated and loved it at the same time.

Sentiment: positive
I have just recently seen Heaven's Gate. After i watched this 3 hr 40 min epic western that's not a western, i read the book by Steven Bach. After considering all events and the movie itself, i still think this movie is a complete waste of time. I believe that when someone tells you to watch it, they are, in fact, trying to bore you to death. If for some reason you can enjoy this self indulgent over thought truely bad movie, i have to ask why. Though this isn't a reason to hate it, it is historically way off. It pretends to be about a situation that happened in Wyoming called the Johnson County War. Simply, the cattle barrons of the time wanted to kill all cattle thieves and claimed they were all immagrants. You find that you simply do not care about these people and hope they all get killed because at least then, something would happen. Everybody in the movie talks about things that happen, and it is never shown. After you sit though this giant waste of time you wonder how someone could actually make a 4 hr epic in which nothing happens. Oh and by the way the Johnson County war was not a war, it never happened. The Johnson County war, in fact, was called that because it almost happened, in actual fact, 2 people died. I can't warn you enough off this movie. However, if you're like me the, the idea of watching a movie that ruined careers and put United Artists on the "for sale" lot, sounds like an interesting case to study, then by all means, watch this terrible, narsisistic, movie with no sub-text, and a lot of photography.(which is lovely sometimes)

Sentiment: negative