DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Sex,Drugs,Rock & Roll is without a doubt the worst product of Western Civilization. The monologues are both uninteresting and pointless In the rare monologue that captures the audience's attention it is quickly lost through overly long repetition and unnecessary additions (The Hells Angels at McDonalds comes to mind) I guess Bogosian's one man show needed some filler material to give a length that he thought justified the price of admission.

I would rather sleep with my aunt and be hung upside down and drained of my blood than see Sex,Drugs,Rock & Roll again.

Sentiment: negative
Reasons to watch the movie:

1) Bo Derek at 16 looks good and occasionally gets naked. She does a pretty good job playing an immature, insecure 16 year old beauty, in fact

2) Many shots of a pretty Greek island

But:

1) Peter Hooten turns in the worst performance by an actor since Brutus played Caeser's friend in "Roman Senate Proceedings of March 15." He delivers each and every line in a delightful baritone bellow. Turn down the volume whenever he speaks. Preferably all the way down

2) Bo's fantasies are sadly tame, especially by today's standards. A few turns in the bath and as a fully clothed model

3) The plot is skimpier than Bo's costumes

Sentiment: negative
I'll admit that I don't expect much from a Roger Corman film. Generally, I expect a lot of walking and bad scripts. Yet in this case, I am pleasantly surprised.

The Gunslinger is a story of a woman (played by the spunky Beverly Garland) who takes over as sheriff after her husband is brutally murdered. Ms. Garland is a pretty good shot herself, killing one of the murderers the next day at her husband's funeral. Her first task is to shut down the local bar that is violating the town curfew. The bar's owner is trying to buy land in anticipation of being bought out by the (hoped-for) railroad. However, Ms. Garland is a thorn in her plans, and the bar matron hires a man to kill Ms. Garland.

Because of Ms. Garland's plays her role honestly and realistically, there is absolutely no temptation to go to Suzanne Somers "She's the Sheriff" jokes. With the exception of a couple of faux pas (the apartment door that opens OUT from the inside, jeep tracks, and the two horsemen waiting on screen for their cue to ride around a corner), the movie becomes quite passable as movie fare. However, Corman could not resist padding his film with horse riding scenes, much like he does walking in other films.

Sterno says The Gunslinger is a horse opera worth your time.

Sentiment: negative
Do you like stand up? Then stay away from this...

During the early rounds, there are in fact good comics, but unless they got some cute qualities, they got a snowballs chance. Any controversial material and you are OUT! ...and I think I hurt as much as the discarded comedians, when I see who the crooked judges are letting in.

1 out of my top 4 made it further than the preliminaries. Half+ of the finalists have given me 0 laughs. Several of them have lifted their material elsewhere, something the judges doesn't seem to have problems with.

It is more entertaining than a lot of what else is on TV, but incredibly hard to watch without contemplating what it could have been.

If the producers changed the name of the contest to "Last Clown Standing", all my criticism would loose validity. Maybe an idea?

Sentiment: negative
I have been a huge fan of the original crew of the Enterprise since I was eight years old. I watched all the movies and appreciated each one for what they retained from the old series and for further developing the characters (and the Star Trek universe, in general). Even in "The Undiscovered Country" I thought the aging of the characters was well handled and the story worthy of a theatrical release. However, having said that, "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" is easily the worst of the series featuring the original crew. I agree with many that the camaraderie of Kirk, Spock and McCoy is well handled, but the overall script, the direction -- by William Shatner -- and the special effects are not worthy of anything more than a television episode. This is a "buddy movie" and, at times, almost unrecognizable as a Star Trek movie. The action sequences are not sustained and therefore, build little or no tension. The dialogue is weak though it does provide for a few laughs, both intended and not-intended. The Klingon's seem thrown in as an afterthought. The whole "Sha-Ka-Ree" concept is just silly and Laurence Luckinbill, a fine actor in everything else I've ever seen him in, boarders on the absurd in this movie. The scene where Sybok conjures up images of Spock's pain and McCoy's pain shatters the image of the characters as we've known them. Spock would never be party to such stupidity and McCoy, trying to save his father is full of insipid, redundant dialogue and totally wastes DeForest Kelley's acting abilities. The whole scene is wasted and really shows us nothing new and nothing we want to see from these characters. I understand that Shatner didn't have the luxury of working with ILM for the special effects and that the budget for this movie was tight, but that doesn't allow for such a bad story. In some respects, I think this story does fit in with the old series, but the movies, including "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" are all much better quality than this. It's a shame that most of the other characters have so few lines and so little to do with most of this movie. The focus on Kirk, McCoy and Spock is nice, but way over used. The old crew really seems to be out of character. I liked the old Klingon General and the sultry Romulan in the bar. I liked some of the humor and the idea that Spock has a half-brother, but that's about it. If this was a TV episode, I'd be able to accept a lot of the faults. As a movie, this is just bad, uninspired film making. It's a shame too, because I want this movie to be good. Even if it was the level of "Star Trek III" I would be happy, but this movie makes all the other movies in this series seem like works of Shakespeare.

Sentiment: negative
I've watched this documentary twice - and although I'm an major movie buff, most documentaries don't hold my attention. This film however was mesmerizing. Almost every shot is perfect - saying so much more than an audio commentary (which this documentary does not have).

The concept of this film is amazing, I can't praise it enough. Mardi Gras beads - who would have thought?? 

Amazing and excellent choices of interviews - film footage of a factory in China - the film makes you feel like you are actually there.

I'm political aware - and I've read several books on globalization so there wasn't anything in this film that was a surprise to me. However, it's made me think so much. 

I wish so much too, that this world was a better place.

A million kudos to the filmmaker - and thanks for making this film too.

I wish everyone could see it.

Sentiment: positive
An introspective look at the relationship between Hawking and the space/time contingent. This film expores the Gallilean and Newtonian laws and there relation to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

The film is methodically directed, exposing details of the man (Hawking) as well as his work (Black Holes). Interviews with his family are a little too long so sadly there is less development of his theories and ideas. 

A Philip Glass soundtrack superbly compliments the film. Only one other man could compose such haunting instellar melodies (Jean Michel Jarre).

Overall I would highly recommend this movie on the basis of Hawking's 'nuggets of wisdom' and his adequate explanation of an Event Horizon!

Sentiment: positive
One of my favorite movies which has been overlooked by too many movie goers, an observation which mystifies me. Not only directed by the acclaimed Ang Lee,it had many young actors who were to become major stars, e.g., Tobey Maguire (before Spiderman), Skeet Ulrich (before Jericho), Jonathan Rhys Meyers (before Tudors), James Caviezel, Simon Baker, Mark Ruffalo, Jeffrey Wright, Tom Wilkinson, and Jewel. All of the acting was superb and each of the actors mentioned gave memorable performances, especially Meyers who portrayed an evil villain who killed for the sake of killing.

When the biographies and accomplishments of the director ( even when he won an academy award) and the actors are listed, this film is usually omitted from their past performances. I discovered the film on DVD by accident and it became one of my most often watched films. However, it is seldom every seen on cable. I look forward to reading what others suggest are the reasons this film is not well known.

Sentiment: positive
Ugh, what an embarrassing episode last night! It was either a failed script for "ABC Afterschool Special", or the product of an earnest rookie writer, just out of college, making an homage to that classic PC anti-gun homily from 1974, "The Gun". In fact hubby & were disappointed that the closing shot wasn't of The Gun being melted down like in the movie!

No, I'm not some NRA shill. It's just that when the producer of an intelligent & nuanced series gets it in his head that I should be subjected to a didactic dramatization of his personal Cause, I'd appreciate it if the lecture at least wasn't delivered via 2-by-4. Geez!

OK, the sociology lesson is over. The Message has been delivered. The Important Episode has been aired. Now let's get back to some entertaining episodes that try to respect our intelligence.

Sentiment: positive
I rated this movie as AWFUL (1). After watching the trailer, I thought this movie could be pretty cool. "Guaranteed to offend...everyone!" the trailer said. Well...it did offend me, because this movie really sucks. It is hardly a comedy, as I laughed about two seconds during the entire movie. And what's with all the gays in this movie? I'm not gay and I don't have a problem with those who are, but what's the point of adding so many gay-scenes in a so called comedy movie, when these scenes are absolutely not funny? I guess the director is a gay man in denial, or something like that.

So my advice to you is: if you want to waste good money, go rent a good comedy you've already seen a million times, you'll be better off than watching this Mother Of All Lousy Comedy's. It really is total crap.

Sentiment: negative
This is a great story and was just the beginning of equality in the United States. (We are still working on it too.) However despite the fact this is true, it's still a movie and this is a movie site. I realize independent films have a hard time getting good actors, but wow. The only one even mediocre is the excellent Ossie Davis. But even he couldn't make up for all the actors (including the one playing him as a young man) absolutely atrocious acting. Granted the script was terribly cliché, but even then you have got to get some decent actors! I wouldn't recommend this to anybody because it is so poorly done in every category. Read some books about the true story of the U.S.S Mason, because they give these men the respect they deserve.

Sentiment: negative
In the year 1990, the world of Disney TV cartoons was certainly at it's prime. Shows like Chip n Dale Rescue Rangers, DuckTales and Gummi Bears was already popular, and now Disney made another great cartoon and that cartoon brought the birth of the Disney Afternoon. That cartoon is called TaleSpin. It's about old Jungle Book character Baloo the Bear as he gets a job in the plane business. In the series he meets Kit Cloudkicker, former Air Pirate and good cloud surfer, business lady Rebecca Cunningham and her hyperactive daughter Molly. This series is very funny and has tons of great puns that you may not understand as a kid but understand later on in life. This is one cleverly written series and it's great to add to your DVD collection. Parents, buy this for your kids rather letting them watch all of those horrible Nickelodeon cartoons. If you liked TaleSpin, then check out "Darkwing Duck" and "Goof Troop". Spin it!

Sentiment: positive
ERROL FLYNN had one of his favorite roles as the brash braggart from a fighting Irish family who went on to become the heavyweight champion of the world at a time when John L. Sullivan (WARD BOND) went around claiming that he "could beat any man alive." Both Flynn and Ward Bond give what is probably among the best performances they ever gave on screen.

Raoul Walsh has directed the colorful tale with robust style, capturing the family life as well with scenes that are warm-hearted and full of good humor. All the Warner contract players make up the fine cast--including the always reliable ALAN HALE as Flynn's rambunctious father, proud of his son's fighting abilities, and ALEXIS SMITH who makes the most of her role as a feisty society girl who enjoys taking Flynn down a peg with saucy one-liners dealing with his conceited manners.

All of the 1880s atmosphere is captured in glorious B&W, although it's too bad Warners didn't have more faith in Flynn to do the film in color. He was entering a rocky phase of his film career at the time, engaged in a widely publicized rape trial that had all of the tabloids busy sorting things out.

The fighting scenes are among the best ever choreographed for the screen, with Flynn obviously in fine form and making very little use of doubles for most of the action. And the scene where Bond turns over his award plaque to Flynn at a social gathering is one of Ward's finest moments in a long career as a character actor.

Summing up: Maintains interest all the way through, whether you're a sports fan or not.

Sentiment: positive
Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi are both Beautiful films, but this final installment of the trilogy is a major let down. They got too carried away with stock footage and photography, so little content. The executive producer puts his own image in the film... Its just pretentious. Maybe if they had more than $3 million to spend maybe it would have been something. I actually thought Steven Soderbergh directed it because it was so bad, but Godfrey Reggio the director of Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi directed this. I'll have to assume that they just didn't have the budget to make a decent film. You would think that Francis Ford Coppola would have wanted to be a part of this film and help get more money together.

Sentiment: negative
Even though I tried to avoid German films recently, positive reviews lured me into renting this one. There I stand fooled again by German media which has been hyping domestic flicks over and over again. To me it is no wonder no one abroad wants to see this crap. The idea to make this film is no idea at all (I guess some fool read a women's magazine article about speed-dating). In short: The characters (which are none), dialogue and content are so stunningly trivial, trite and cliché-ridden, I continued watching because I could hardly believe what I saw. BTW to call the flat theses mechanically delivered by the figures (certainly from the aforementioned magazines) dialogue, would be simply incorrect. Acting is so over-the-top, I can't remember worse than that on screen in a long time. You have to guess the director had/has no clue at all. Amazingly distributors and producers around the country are still wondering why German films (with rare exceptions) generate no interest world-wide. Why? Because it's waste of time and money.

Sentiment: negative
I was skeptical when I first saw the Calvin Kline-esque commercials, but thought I'd give it a chance. So I've watched it, and all I can say is bleh. This movie was so bad. It's rare that I hate a movie this much. Watching this flick reminded me of those funny scenes in Altman's "The Player," when the writers pitch their bizarre ideas to producers. I'd like to know which MTV producer decided that an hour and a half long music video adaptation of Bronte (but this time Heathcliff's name is Heath and he's a rock star, and Hindley's name is Hendrix) would be a good idea.

Even that might not have been so bad, had they not gotten every other aspect of the film so horrible wrong as well. The direction must have been "you're lonely, pout for me." I laughed out loud during all the "serious" scenes and was bored throughout the rest. The camera work was jagged and repeatedly reminded me that I was watching a bad movie trying to be edgy. My theory is that the sound guy got bored and went down to the beach for a few beers with his boom -- all I could hear in half the scenes were the waves. And in the other scenes, I wish that's all I could hear. And speaking of sound, what they did to the Sisters of Mercy song "More" is absolutely inexcusable, then again, it's inexcusable what they did to Bronte.

On the bright side, there was one entertaining scene -- specifically the moment when Johnny Whitworth licked Katherine Heigl's face -- and if you can tell me what that scene had to do with all the rest of the story more power to you.

Sentiment: negative
How sheep-like the movie going public so often proves to be. As soon as a few critics say something new is good (ie - "Shake-Cam"), everyone jumps on the bandwagon, as if they are devoid of independent thought. This was not a good movie, it was a dreadful movie. 1) Plot? - What plot? Bourne was chased from here to there, from beginning to end. That's the plot. Don't look for anything deeper than this. 2) Cinematography? - Do me a favor! Any 7 year old armed with an old and battered 8mm movie camera would do a far better job (I am not exaggerating here). This film is a tour-de-force of astonishingly amateurish camera-work. The ridiculous shaking of EVERY (I really do mean every) scene will cause dizziness and nausea. 3) Believable? - Oh yes definitely. This is a masterpiece of credibility. I loved scenes about Bourne being chased by (local) police through the winding market streets of Tangier. - I've BEEN to Tangier. Even the guides can't navigate their way through those streets but Bourne shook off 100 police with speed and finesse. Greengrass must be laughing his head off at the gullibility of his film disciples. 4) Editing? - I don't know what the editor was on when he did this film but I want some! - Every scene is between 0.5 and 2 seconds. I felt nauseous at the end of the film from the strobe effect of the "scenes" flashing by. 5) Directing? - Hmmm. This is an interesting aspect. The film appears to have actually NOT had any directing. More a case of Greengrass throwing a copy of the script (all two pages) at the cameramen and told to "shoot a few scenes whilst drunk". - "Don't worry boys, we'll tie the scenes together in the editing room". The editor should be tarred, feathered and put in the stocks for allowing this monstrosity to hit the silver screen 6) Not one but TWO senior CIA operatives giving the tender feminine treatment to the mistreated and misunderstood Jason Bourne. - Putting their lives on the line for someone they couldn't even be sure wasn't a traitor. Talk about stupid nincompoops. (Whilst the evil male CIA members plot to terminate any operative who so much as drops a paper-clip on the floor). (well, all men are evil, aren't they? - Except for SNAGS of course). Yes, this really is a modern and politically correct film that shows the females to be the heroes of the day and the oppressive males as the real threat to humanity. 7) When the you-know-what finally hits the fan, good triumphs over evil (just like it always does, eh?) and the would-be assassin gets the drop on Jason Bourne - he suddenly undergoes a guilt trip and refrains from pulling the trigger (Yeah - right...) - at that very moment, the evil deputy director just happens to turn up - gun in hand and he does pull the trigger. - How did this 60 year old man run so fast and not even be out of breath? Wonders will never cease 8) Don't worry, there's a senate hearing and the baddies get pulled up before the courts. Well, we can't have nasty, politically incorrect, CIA operatives going round shooting people, can we? How lovely to see a true to life P.C. film of the Noughties. -------------The Bourne Ultimatum is utter rubbish.

Sentiment: negative
Somewhere on IMDb there is a discussion about the greatest director of all times (Spielberg, Copolla and others are named there). The greatest argument was around Spielberg and whether he is or isn't a great director. The problem with Spielberg is that while he is a master technician, most of his films lack depth.Saving Ryan is really outstanding from a technical point of view, but its message is dull and while its very entertaining, it doesn't make you think about anything. AN is the best movie I ever saw because it combines great shooting with a deep philosophical perspective on so many things, starting from war in general, the clash of civilizations, the condition of soldier in wartimes (is a soldier a hero or an assassin? Brando says he is neither, the french lady says he is both ...) and many others. The problem with some people is that they try to argue about whether these points are true or false. But a great movie, and a great piece of art in general is supposed to spark arguments, not to solve them ... Maybe Coppola is right, or maybe he isn't, nobody holds the truth anyway. You can watch this movie for its outer beauty, amazing scenes, great acting and memorable quotes and you will be entirely satisfied. But what really make this movie a masterpiece is its inner quality. You can't help but make a comparison with the recent Fahrenheit documentary.Both Copolla and Moore tackle similar issues, but while Copolla presents matters from an outside , objective point of view, Moore takes a very partisan position that really compromises the whole point of a documentary ... It is really a shame that a film like Fahrenheit 9/11 won a prestigious award like Cannes. But anyway, if you want to start to understand a little of the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, the second World War and any war in general, you should definitely see this movie, and not the other one ...

Sentiment: positive
A childless couple (Brooke Adams, Jeff Hayenga) go to a doctor (James Karen) to try to conceive. It works but Adams slowly becomes aware that there's something seriously wrong with the baby...

Pretty interesting idea is thoroughly done in by a lousy script--the basic idea is OK but becomes screamingly predictable towards the end. I saw every "twist" coming. The direction is poor--he seems to have no idea how to shoot a basic scene. The production values are--to be nice--lousy. Very shabby. And, the gore scenes are too unpleasant (I almost turned it off when a pregnant woman started stabbing herself in the stomach) with lousy special effects. The film completely derails at the end when it becomes quite clear they had no idea HOW to end this film.

Some good acting makes it somewhat bearable. Adams, Hayenga and Karen are all good at their roles and kept me watching but that was about it. This film barely got released in 1991 and still remains unknown--it's easy to see why. I give it a 4.

Sentiment: negative
Nothing I dislike more than a kung-fu movie that plays for laughs. It is the main reason I can't stand Jackie Chan (or his lookalikes). He was not always a clown, I must add. "My Young Auntie" is slapstick martial arts of the worst kind. It is a perfect example of how the subgenre was brought down to the mud by endless silly antics and childish behavior. Unless you are 5-year-old, I really don't understand how anyone could find this kind of film funny. But humor is indeed a very subjective thing. Personally, I think this type of approach did permanent damage to the beloved subgenre. I did think leading lady Kara Hui was very good here. But I had such a hard time sitting through this one that I could not enjoy her fine performance. If you don't mind all the silliness, you might enjoy it. I know I didn't.

Sentiment: negative
This film is a calculated attempt to cash in the success of Sex in the City and Four Weddings and a Funeral. In fact, if they'd called it Sex at a Funeral, they might have done better at the box office.

But the film falls between two stools and can't get up. The characters spout improbably bright dialog, but never act in any way remotely recognizable as human. One arbitrary, senseless action follows another to advance what passes for a plot, and one soon tires of the falsity of the whole enterprise.

Andie MacDowell gets points for acting her little heart out, but the performing honors are stolen by Imelda Staunton, as of all things, a police detective (don't they have a height requirement over there?). Ms. Staunton seems unable to make a false move. Would that we could say the same about the writer-director.

If Notting Hill annoyed you as being bogus, stay away from this one. Phonus bolognus on the half-shell.

Sentiment: negative
..."Flight of the Living Dead" sports production values that belie the substandard script from director Scott "I'm a producer, can'tcha tell?" Thomas and two hacks who shall remain nameless because I feel sorry for them having to attach those no-names to this turkey. Apparently actually shot on film, this direct-to-DVD release has almost nothing going for it that you haven't seen or heard a hundred times already.

Despite the presence of a number of recognizable character actors like Richard "Three O'Clock High" Tyson, Erick "Stargate" Avari, and Raymond J. "Little Children" Barry, and a slew of others not so recognizable, "FoLD" is predominantly populated with cardboard, most of which ends up soaked in unconvincing fake blood. There are a few (precious few) gags that work (the umbrella and the zombie trapped in his seat both come to mind), but most of the scripting is pedestrian and comic-book stupid, and I am here to assure you that we're talking pedestrian and stupid. You'll never for a second believe that "FoLD" is anything but a cheap cash-in movie with pretensions of cool. God forbid it ever spawn the sequel its idiotic ending promises.

Strictly freebie viewing, depending on how impecunious your local library is, and otherwise suitable for insomniacs and the indiscriminate only.

Sentiment: negative
I still can't describe what to feel when I received this by the fnac site. Such a rare movie, so little spoken and known, is difficult to find, even to fans, but the contrast betwen past and present is devastating: now I hold a DVD of the movie, with the finest quality possible. As I did in Atlantis, the other rare Besson movie I bought by the internet, I saw this one at home, with all the lights of my dvd and tv turned off, and marveled at the experience. I didn't know what to expect. Wickedly, I always searched some kind of disappointment when I saw a film by Luc Besson I never had seen before. But it never came. This movie was no exception. From the start, I understood that the person who makes a film like this as a first feature is destined to be big in the future. And so it happened. This won several prizes (including the highest prize in a film festival of my country, which makes me proud) and it shows that this movie is preparating many bigger things. This may be the most original after-the-war movie I have ever seen, beating Mad Max in originality and artistic feel. There is not a problem with this movie: its cinematography is genius, as well the perfomances of the actors. I am also proud to say that finally I saw all the movies of my favorite director, and have a copy of almost all of them (Joan of Arc is still waiting for me to buy the DVD). This movie is most of all a work of style and dedication, which makes clear why Luc Besson is a director of my choice: good taste, beautiful framing, excellent use of music (I also marveled at Eric Serra's first feature-length score) and the promise of great achievements. Gaumont did well to bet in its boy-genius, the man who would later change the face of France's and Europe's relation between movies and their public. Let's hope Besson starts working in a new directorial project. I will be the first to cheer it. Until then, I recommend this movie to anyone who need to learn a lesson of how good movies are made with little money. I loved the atmosphere of the movie, which, by its black and white cinematography, suggests us an even more depressed view of the world after the holocaust. This movie works by the sheer magic of movies: showing in pictures what we can't explain by words. And I'm with all the people who wrote comments to this movie and liked it: good choice! A great hug to everyone who sees this and feels that a little of their lives were changed.

Sentiment: positive
The true story of a bunch of junkies robbing a not so honest businessman of drugs, jewelry, guns, and money. Some would say this is the tragic tale of America in the excessive eighties where the high of the peace and free love sixties had crashed into drugs and AIDS. Honestly, this is just regular people with no aim in life who sit around getting high and decide to rob a ruthless man. What is the second part of their master plan? Once they have his stuff...they'll sit around and get high again. Great plan. Even if you don't know the story, there is no suspense in this movie and no surprises. The fact that Cox tries to make some kind of folk heroes out of these characters, with party scenes and a montage of their loot, is weak and insulting. The story was better off with a more straight forward approach. As it is, this is just a sad story of small time drug dealers getting killed by big time drug dealers. The bigger story, in more ways than one, is John Holmes. He is the center of this story anyway. This movie should have been all about him, his life. He was the one in wonderland, with the wonders about to fade away.

P.S. Although it isn't official, Boogie Nights is a better version of Holmes life. It isn't entirely factual, but it's far more enjoyable.

Sentiment: positive
Although inevitably linked to the 70's decade, the concept of "exploitation-cinema" is actually nearly as old as cinema itself. Moreover, Universal Studios practically invented the term with their long running monster cycles Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf Man and The Mummy. Every original classic spawned a couple of sequels, at least, and after a while they even thought up the idea of making genuine monster stewing! "House of Frankenstein", released one year earlier and also directed by Erle C. Kenton, was quite a successful effort with interesting ideas and enthusiast performances, but "House of Dracula" is a little too loony for me to recommend it. The plot suffers too much from extremely irritating 'coincidental' situations, forced twists & dialogs and  most of all  a far too short running time to elaborate the monsters' personalities like they deserve. Onslow Stevens doesn't receive top billing but plays the most fundamental role as miracle a doctor who's challenged to cure Count Dracula (Carradine) from his incontrollable thirst for blood and fix Lawrence Talbot's illness of mutating into a hairy Wolf Man whenever the moon is full. During a nightly walk in some caves, they also pick up the remainders of Frankenstein's monster and the good doctor himself eventually undergoes a Jekyll/Hyde metamorphosis due to a bad blood transfusion. The last invitation to the messy party is a female hunchback (though not of the Notre Dame). Something is very wrong when you're watching a movie that is literally stuffed with horror icons, yet the only character in the whole movie that is able to freak you out is an ordinary villager going by the name Siegfried. The actual monsters are dull and their once-fabulous backgrounds are fully drained. Count Dracula is a whining romanticist, Talbot is a pitiable and also whining old martyr and the Frankenstein creation  well, his share in the plot isn't even worth mentioning. There's a serious lack of atmospheric settings and nifty photography in this Universal film, especially compared to all their other efforts, and the abrupt climax is a disaster.

Sentiment: negative
I rented this thinking it might be interesting, and it might have been an interesting story except that is was told in such an uninteresting manner. Hard to follow, strange editing, disjointed storyline, the characters mumble, all in all a dreadfully dull waste of time. I just couldn't get into it and didn't care what happened to the characters - not even Ian Holm could save this film. Unless you need a cure for insomnia, I'd skip it. 3/10, and that's being generous.

Sentiment: negative
So this guy named George is sitting home alone on his birthday when two women show up. George's wife is at a hospital taking care of their son so when the wife is away George gets in the bubble bath and makes love to both of the girls. It isn't that great of a scene because it really doesn't show anything. After that the birthday boy wakes up the next morning and the girls are still at his house. They make him a nice breakfast but George isn't hungry. George isn't very happy and he tries to ditch them but when he gets home the girls are still at his house. The girls have had enough with old George and no longer want to cook for them. They both turn out to be major psychopaths and use George in their little crazy game. I liked that the girls just did what they wanted and messed up George's house. George wasn't really that great to his two guests. When George said he was a married man, he really didn't seem to mean it. George looked like Tom Tucker on Family Guy. I was for the two girls the whole time.

Sentiment: negative
I've watched the first 15 minutes and I can tell that there was no consultation with any military type personnel. Judith Light's charactor (an officer) has her hair down past her shoulders! One of the first officers that greets her as she walks in to the medical facility she works at is so overweight that his pant pockets gap! No - there was no military advising them on this movie. Even an ex-military enlisted could have assisted here.

Sentiment: negative
What could possibly go wrong with a movie that includes a bunch of Italians pretending to be Flordians, and some vague-lava-octopus-crustacean-thingy as the hell-induced hellspawn-devil-fish?!?!

Everything is what goes wrong I tell you!

This is a very good MST3K episode because the heckling in right on the ball, which without fault, is easy to do considering this movie is a piece of junk with a lousy and boring plot.

9/10 for MSTied version. 1/10 for un-MSTied version.



Sentiment: negative
Although i don't like cricket at all and i have seen this movie 13 years ago, I still think it is one of the best coming-of-age movies ..i remember the day i returned home from my school and sat down to have my lunch, I saw the opening titles of that movie and then....i was so immersed in it that i felt i was there, it really affected me personally. i still remember how i felt when i first saw it ,i felt that the poor boy was a friend of mine, going through the same adolescent experience we were having in those days. what i really liked about that movie is the main theme of a "shy" boy fantasizing about "kissing" his dream girl, no offense but if that was an American movie, you would certainly see-at a certain point, mainly climax- the "shy" boy "making love" to his girl, and i really can't grasp this contradicting concepts till now...i have a simple request ,if anyone knows how to get this movie on a DVD by mail ,please let me know cause i need a shot of memories..Thanks

Sentiment: positive
I had high hopes for this movie. The theater monologue is great and Nic Balthazar is a very interesting man, with a lot of experience and knowledge when it comes to movies. 

I am a fan of a lot of Belgian movies, but this movie is bad. It's completely unbelievable that actors who are 34 are suddenly playing the roles of teenagers. The "linguistic games" were hideous and over the top. Nothing about the film seemed real to me. The ending was way too deus ex machina for me.

I am very disappointed and think I wasted an hour and a half of my life.

Sentiment: negative
Renowned Czech actor Vlastimil Brodský, mostly known in North America for his leading role as Jacob in the original Est German/Czech production of Jacob the Liar (Jakob, der Lügner 1974) gives us a last brilliant performance as a 80 year old prankster who refuses to admit that he is about to die.

Jirí Hubac's screenplay is exquisite. Funny, moving and well-developed. It explores well both the subject of advanced old age and the motivations of characters that are precariously strong and fragile, happy and unsettled.

Frantisek (Vlastimil Brodský) and his best friend Eda (Stanislav Zindulka) are up to all types of shenanigans and are making sure to make the best out of their dying days. Meanwhile, Frantisek's wife is preparing for their death, saving up for funeral money and chastising Frantisek for his endless childishness and irresponsible attitude. Their son is about to take their apartment over and put them into a retirement home, but Frantisek doesn't want to hear any of that. He wants to enjoy life and make people around him laugh. He wants to help and love and give... but at what cost?

Sure to captivate adults of all ages, this fine piece of film by talented director Vladimír Michálek is both touching and funny. It makes you think of how we live our lives and why we live our lives. It brings the simple story of a charming stubborn old man to the forefront and allow us to reflect and feel what life is all about.

After an active career lasting more than 40 years, it is somewhat sombre to know that Vlastimil Brodsk died in April 2002, no longer in the grip of terminal cancer. It is however uplifting to think that he had the chance to be a part of such a moving script and to be the catalyst of this ode to joyful old age that has not even started to make the waves it is about to create in North American repertoire cinema.

After the international success of Jan Hrebejk's "Divided We Fall (2000)", it is starting to be clear that Czech cinema has indeed something to offer to the world. This film at least is a must see.

Sentiment: positive
With Hong Kong heart-throb Andy Lau and veteran star Ching Wan Lau, "Aau Chin" has everything going for it for the beginning part of the movie, unfortunately, the movie falls apart at the end.

Andy Lau plays a sophisticated thief who only has 4 weeks to live, but still has one thing unfinished... He pulls an elaborated scheme tricking the police into helping him... However, the police is hot on his tail.... Can he pull it off before being caught?

The build up of the movie is good. Bits of pieces of clues are left behind for the audiences to try to guess at the real intention. Unfortunately, the build up leads to a disappointed final showdown. It feels as if in the middle of the script, the writer has changed and that all the build-up becomes disconnected.

A 3/10 ....

Sentiment: negative
In a recent biography of Alec Guinness I couldn't find too much about To Paris With Love. I'm sure Guinness did the film to get a free trip to Paris out of it. The film has no other reason for existence.

Paris of course is nicely photographed with that wonderful opening of Guinness and his son driving down the Champs Elysee with the Arc De Triomphe in the background. Unfortunately it goes downhill from there.

There is just no chemistry at all between Guinness and the young girl who he has a brief fling with in Paris. According to the recent biography of Guinness by Piers Paul Read, Guinness positively disliked the girl, found her conduct unprofessional. As to what Odile Vernois thought of her co-star, no record is available. They have as much chemistry as two neutered cats.

Guinness does have a good moment in the film which was straight from one of his Ealing comedies as he climbs a tree trying to retrieve a badminton shuttlecock. But I wouldn't wait through the film for it.

At least Alec got a trip to Paris out of the deal.

Sentiment: negative
There may something poetically right in seeing dentists suffer. Suffer they do, in this dreary, truly dreadful film, but they cause the audience to undergo pain of the non-dental variety too. If you ever wanted to see a movie full of screaming kids, barfing kids, sick kids, lots of long, long meaningful glances, a deadpan wife and a concerned husband: it's all here for you. Boring, overlong, it stands out as one of those examples that scream out: why? Is there a saving grace? Yes, there is. There is a short scene from Nabucco, with some pretty good singing. Save your money, or if it's on TV or cable, save your time. You can always read a book or make an omelette.

Sentiment: negative
I being of Puertorican descent, had mixed fillings about this "documentary". First I was offended that Ms. Perez compared Senor Campos to Che Guevarra. Also just a point of fact,Mr. John Leguzaimo is not of Puertorican descent.His parents came from Columbia. Whomever did research on this was not very accurate. I feel that the future of our race rests on education. This message should have been resounding throughout this film, Education is our road to freedom and power I think any future endeavors of this production team should make this their focus.In my opinion,this film swayed toward an anti-American sentiment.

Sentiment: negative
They constructed this one as a kind of fantasy Man From Snowy River meets Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid, and just for a romantic touch Ned and Joe get to play away with high class talent, the bored young wives of wealthy older men. OK, there are lots of myths about Ned Kelly, but there are also a lot of well documented facts, still leaving space for artistic creativity in producing a good historical dramaticisation. I mean, this is not the Robin Hood story, not the Arthurian legends, not Beowulf, not someone whose life is so shrouded in the mists of many many centuries past that any recreation of their life and times is 99% guesswork. It's only a couple of lifetimes ago. My own grandparents were already of school age when Ned was hanged. 

So it's silly me for fancifully imagining this movie was a serious attempt to tell the Kelly story. Having recently read Peter Carey's excellent novel "The True History of the Kelly Gang" I had eagerly anticipated that this would be in similar vein. But no, the fact is that Mick Jagger's much derided 1970 Kelly was probably far closer to reality, and a better movie overall, which isn't saying a whole lot for it.

Glad it only cost me two bucks to hire the DVD! I'll give it 3/10, and that's only because some of the nice shots of the Australian bush make me feel generous.

Sentiment: negative
This movie surprised me. The box is misleading, the tagline is misleading and the costumes and tone of the film are misleading. The movie is quite gory, well-acted and beautifully shot. The special-effects are top-notch and seem to be ahead of their time, until you realize this movie came out in 1979, not in 1963 like it's tone would suggest. It is a unique take on the Dr. Moreau story, and one of the better versions filmed. The first fifteen minutes are the highlight and the most shocking, but the film doesn't ever really fall apart. Definitely worth-seeing if you are a fan of dramatic costume/horror classics and gore-fests.

Sentiment: positive
A very weak movie, mainly because of a poor story, but also poor acting in the case of Robert Downey Jr., and irrational behaviour by many of the characters. If you are someone who likes to switch your mind off and simply watch a movie for it's creativity or acting criteria, then you may like this movie. Personally I can't do that with a drama and found this too far-fetched.

I'm particularly annoyed when a main character, that is supposed to be an intelligent person, continually acts like a complete imbecile. In this movie, if the main character acted the way a person would normally act in these situations, there would be no movie.

The first highly unlikely act is when the main character, a successful attorney named Magruder, played by Kenneth Branagh, is leaving a party and happens upon a girl, Mallory Doss played by Embeth Davidtz, who is screaming that her car has been stolen. They are standing around in a tropical rainstorm as he badgers her into accepting a ride home.

She tells him about her weird father who belongs to some kind of weird sect and does crazy things. When they arrive at her dilapidated shack in the poorer part of town, they notice that her car is in the driveway. Also the house lights are on and some objects in the house have been broken.

Things are very odd, she's weird (looking like a tramp, she undresses in front of him until she's completely naked  oh yeah!). Also, the father's strange, the house is a wreck -- everything should have told Magruder, "hey this is too weird for me, I'm out of here!' But not Magruder, he sleeps with her and then, motivated by her story and sex, takes up the case of trying to have her father committed. It all screams set-up!

Then, being the top-flight attorney that he is, he arrives late at the office wearing the same shirt he had on the night before, (a fact that all of the women in the office notice). Is it likely that a successful attorney would act like a 16-year-old? Magruder has upset the police in some of his cases so when he goes to the police claiming, with ample evidence, that the father is terrorising them, the police ignore him. I could have believed begrudging assistance. But no help at all -- not likely!

It's just too unlikely.

Sentiment: negative
Yes, it was an awful movie, but there was a song near the beginning of the movie, I think, called "I got a Woody" or something to that effect. I would love to find a sound track of that if there is one available. I saw this song on MST 3K, and as awful as it was, it had it's moments, and that song was one of them.

If you like babes in bikinis, this is the movie for you, but if you don't, then don't bother. It was great material for MST 3K, I have to admit though. I would really love to know where to get a copy of the soundtrack though. Not just that song, but a couple more were really funny, and are classics as far as I'm concerned.

Sentiment: negative
Would it be too trite of me to create a review of just me saying the word "STUPID" over and over again? Probably.

This is arguably the worst movie I've ever seen. Seriously. There are better movies on Mystery Science Theater 3000. I saw this movie for the first time at a friend's birthday party when it was still in theaters. Even though it was actually *with friends* and at one of their *birthday parties,* I had to leave. I actually had to leave. I just excused myself and walked out. Fortunately, some of the parents were doing the same thing, so I didn't look like a total jerk... Anyway, this film is awful. There is nothing to like about it. It's painfully (as in actually causing physical pain) slow, and sickeningly (literally does induce vomiting) unfunny. You almost feel sorry for Tom Arnold, but then you don't because you remember he was actually IN the movie. It really does pain me to even THINK about it.

It was on TV a few months ago, and I decided I had to watch it all the way through, just once. I remembered then why I walked out in the first place, and felt guilty for boosting its ratings by even one viewer. The gags aren't funny, the characters arn't interesting. it's just a senseless mess of pratfalls and stupidity.

There is a small crowd of then-eight-year-old kids who watched the movie when it came out and considered it "brilliant." If you think that having your face removed piece by pece with an ice cream scoop is brilliant, then by all means, go rent it. But if you have any dignity whatsoever avoid this big STUPID mess altogether. SCORE: 0/10 ... maybe a negative 1, actually.

Sentiment: negative
There were a lot of dumb teenage getting sex movies of the 80s and a lot of slasher flicks but there were only a handful that were made with thought, made you laugh and captured the time period right; this was one of them. Cage is Hillarious, so is Forman who from her bio unfortuatley has dissapeared from the Hollywood limelight. I'd love to see this released on DVD with in a special version with commentaries by Cage and Forman. Wishful thinking, I know. Ever want to plan a true 80s movie weekend, rent this, Sure Thing and 16 candles and Breakfast Club. It will take you back to a "Totally Rad" time which it seemed at the time, was a lot more simple. Memo to studios: Time to release the DVD!

Sentiment: positive