DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Its almost embarrassing to say I even saw this movie. I mean it doesn't take much to make a good zombie movie besides good special effects, lots of blood and gore, some scary moments and a decent plot. Does House of the Dead 2 do any of these things right? No, not one. Of course, its not as bad as its predecessor, from Uwe Bowle and thats the only thing about this movie that scares me.

The dialog in this movie is notorious, with such lines as "What do you do for a living?" in response "I kill zombies" and "I was never a disk jockey, I was a soldier." The special effects are embarrassing even for a made for TV movie, I mean seriously, the zombies all look like they have bloody lips are hyped up on crack. The army base in this movie, is a parking garage, with a desk and a open gated room. This movie is so low budget that they couldn't even get co-ed locker rooms. In fact it seems like this entire movie was filmed in a middle school.

Also, why is it that the all the female soldiers in this movie are models? And for that matter why is everyone in this movie so clueless at to what is going on that they simply just stand around letting the zombies kill them. Heck one guy even trys to give food to the zombie.

Overall, this movie makes even the worst of Scifi Channel movies looks fantastic.

Sentiment: negative
First saw this half a lifetime ago on a black-and-white TV in a small Samoan village and thought it was hilarious. Now, having seen it for the second time, so much later, I don't find it hilarious. I don't find ANYTHING hilarious anymore. But this is a witty and light-hearted comedy that moves along quickly without stumbling and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

It's 1945 and Fred MacMurray is a 4F who's dying to get into one of the armed forces. He rubs a lamp in the scrapyard he's managing and a genie appears to grant him a few wishes. (Ho hum, right? But though the introduction is no more than okay, the fantasies are pretty lively.) MacMurray tells the genie that he wants to be in the army. Poof, and he is marching along with Washington's soldiers into a particularly warm and inviting USO where June Haver and Joan Leslie are wearing lots of lace doilies or whatever they are, and lavender wigs. Washington sends MacMurray to spy on the enemy -- red-coating, German-speaking Hessians, not Brits. The Hessians are jammed into a Bierstube and singing a very amusing drinking song extolling the virtues of the Vaterland, "where the white wine is winier/ and the Rhine water's Rhinier/ and the bratwurst is mellower/ and the yellow hair is yellower/ and the Frauleins are jucier/ and the goose steps are goosier." Something like that. The characterizations are fabulous, as good as Sig Rumann's best. Otto Preminger is the suspicious and sinister Hessian general. "You know, Heidelberg, vee are 241 to 1 against you -- but vee are not afraid." 

I can't go on too long with these fantasies but they're all quite funny, and so are the lyrics. When he wishes he were in the Navy, MacMurray winds up with Columbus and the fantasy is presented as grand opera. "Don't you know that sailing west meant/ a terrifically expensive investment?/ And who do you suppose provides the means/ but Isabella, Queen of Queens." When they sight the New World, someone remarks that it looks great. "I don't care what it looks like," mutters Columbus, "but that place is going to be called Columbusland."

Anyway, everything is finally straightened out, though the genie by this time is quite drunk, and MacMurray winds up in the Marine Corps with the right girl.

I've made it sound too cute, maybe, but it IS cute. The kids will enjoy the puffs of smoke and the magic and the corny love story. The adults will get a kick out of the more challenging elements of the story (who are the Hessians?) unless they happen to be college graduates, in which case they might want to stick with the legerdemain and say, "Wow! Awesome!"

Sentiment: positive
This movie was a pleasant surprise because I didn't expect much. I didn't know that some of the actors have since become bigger stars in major pix. While moving on to the Matrix is not a plus in my book (hated it), I'm sure it's a career plus for Hugo. James Purefoy is great in this and Jennifer Ehle sweet and wonderful. It seemed sometimes like a Carnaby street romp 30 years later but I enjoyed the thrift shop Janis Joplin clothes mixed up with the modern mindsets of sexual and gender blur. The real estate agent who has an erotic relationship with his listings is loads of fun. The Iron John mens' group meetings are a bit dated but I still loved them. It's a social satire sex comedy in the best way and reminds me a bit of the old "Carry On" movies. The British know how to do sex comedy and it's an old tradition, unlike the United States which is too prudish to really understand that sex is funny.

Sentiment: positive
at first I had the reaction a lot of people left with after seeing this: that shots of fat people sunbathing, etc were cheap shots in a way. OK so he's doing diane arbus meets. . . whatever. . . but it wasn't long before I realized that this wasn't being done in a dehumanizing way, as the images unfold I felt that the problem was entirely the audience's: we are conditioned by Hollywood and also movies from just about everywhere actually to feel that to watch people above a certain age behave in a sexual way is something unseemly, something that ought not to be shown. if this were all the film offered it would be a great deal. however, the story of the woman with the abusive boyfriend and his drunk friend really hits like a ton of bricks: very eloquent storytelling, incredible performances, and to think the scene was improvised. that blonde guy is a genius actor. finally I want to contradict those who say this film is all about how pathetic all these people are. the old man who is on the make with the woman who finally dances for him is completely an a OK character that breaks that mold, so don't oversimplify the film by overlooking him. yes his dog gets killed. this ain't a rosy picture of the world but it's not . . . completely hopeless. anyway I felt really grateful to the filmmaker for making such a beautiful film all in all. I wouldn't say each of the threads were as strong as the strongest, but I say this movie basically kicks ass and would highly recommend it. . .

Sentiment: positive
This isn't a movie. It is a collection of unrelated, ill-conceived and poorly assembled scenes that look like the unedited results of a dim 10 year old with a mini-DV camera. In fact, I have a theory that the extremely abrasive girl in the train corridor - the one with the greasy hair, dead-pan stare, ipod and nervous tic - probably shot it herself in a creative phase.

If you made it further than the ten minutes I did, don't bother trying to fit what you saw into the context of the European Artiste mentality praised above. This is a true and complete waste of time, money and film that would have made William One-Shot Beaudine cringe.

The unfortunate part is that the endless series of vacuum-packed characters is representative of what now passes for much of humanity.

What's next? Six directors shooting social intercourse at the Wal-Mart snack counter?

Sentiment: negative
"How She Moves" springs to life only when its high-energy, talented cast members are kicking up their heels and strutting their stuff for the camera. Otherwise, this stale strive-suffer-and-succeed story is low on energy, low on originality, and low on anything that might make the movie stand out from the dozens of other, likeminded films that have come before it.

Rutina Wesley has modest appeal as the academically gifted inner-city youngster who finds that the best way to raise her private school tuition money is by entering step-dance competitions, but both she and her fellow actors are poorly served by uninspired screen writing and undistinguished direction. As noted earlier, the movie achieves some spark when the performers are up on stage dancing, but such moments are far too few and sadly fleeting.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is possibly the cheapest, cheesiest, and poorest sequel ever made.

Yet, it is the funniest and most idiotic movie by Disney, and will guarantee laughs at the sappy stories and lame plots from start to finish.

It's a group of short stories that seem like bad fanfictions.

*SPOILER ALERT* The first one's all about Beast and Belle being petty over a pathetic argument. Then, three loser new characters decide to patch things up by forging a letter of forgiveness to give to Belle. Part way through this little episode, Belle has wall eyes, which made my siblings and I laugh so hard. Then, she and the Beast fight more over the letter... and later learn the meaning of forgiveness. How old are they??? Certainly old enough to know the meaning of forgiveness.

Then, the next one's all about Lumiere being the world's biggest dope when it comes to romance. This coming from the man who could woo anything female. And they make FiFi a psychotic villainess who tries to kill Belle, and winds up getting off scotch-free by the end of it. What a message to send the kids!

Then, the next one's all about Mrs. Potts being angsty. And the next one after that's all about Beast becoming overly possessive of a bird, to the point where he just seems downright silly.

The animation's so ugly, it kills. There are at least 100 mistakes you can plainly see... and the coloring is awful.

Belle's a simpering sap who blubbers whenever something goes wrong. Plus, she's petty and very different from the usual Belle.

And the side characters are annoying... (I mean, Cogsworth and Lumiere fight almost all the time. I know they did that in the movie, but it was overdone in this.)

But the worst character is Mrs. Potts. She's ruined in this. I can't even describe it. Just buy it and see for yourself.

I give it a 1/10 for the sap, but I give it a 10/10 for comedy.

Sentiment: negative
The cast although nothing special, all do an OK job, the story seems like a good idea, the script is bearable and the end has quite a good twist; so what's wrong with it?

For a start the special effects are really bad (if this was made in the 60's) it might look OK but in 2003 there is just no excuse for visuals as poor as this. It makes me laugh that the DVD cover claims very proudly 'from the special effects creator of Jeepers Creepers'.

Secondly the direction is weak, this film just does not capture the essence of the story, A doctor feeding the hospital inmates souls to the Devil (or demon type creature) should be tense or frightening; it simply isn't.

All in all this is a pretty poor film, and although bearable and at times mildly entertaining, it is still probably best left alone.

A rather sad 4/10

Sentiment: negative
The movie began well enough. It had a fellow get hit by a glowing green meteorite, getting superpowers (telekinesis, x-ray vision, invulnerability, flight, the ability to speak to dogs, superspeed, heat vision, and the ability to make plants grow large and quickly), and fighting crime. From there on it's all downhill.

Meteor Man gets a costume from his mom, fights with the resident gangs, and has many aborted encounters with the gang leaders which serves to set you up for the disappointing, overlong, and stupefying ending.

It wouldn't be so remarkably bad if it weren't like watching a boxing match where the two fighters pretend to hit each other while the audience stands looking onward while the fighters just continue to dance.

Despite all of this nonsense the movie has good points. It states clearly that if you try to take on a gang alone then they'll come back to your home and hurt you. It states that gangs & communities need to see their real enemies (the big bosses that use them for their own ends to crush honest people into a ghetto existence). It also states that people do not need superheroes if they are willing to work as a community do destroy the predators that harm them. The only message it really lacks is that the voters should ensure their elected officials (Rudolph Giuliani, Marion Barry, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, & George H.W. Bush) aren't crooks too.



Sentiment: negative
Julien Hernandez is certainly an attractive and likable on screen persona. In fact, his character pretty much carries this whole film, or what's worthwhile about it. The problem is, with the exception of his gal pal (played by Marisa Petroro) and Paul Lekakis (as a trick/date/ boyfriend for some of the characters) no one else even comes close. Hernandez plays a 30- something director of Cuban heritage, and unknown sexuality, who comes to L.A. and gets a job making a gay documentary. In the process of meeting a group of gay people while finding subjects, he comes out...but very s l o w l y. Even at 88 minutes, the film has obviously been stretched out and padded with various film-school devices, most of which only end up pointlessly interrupting the narrative (which ain't much to begin with) or pointing out the overall amateurish-ness of the film-making. 

Which is a shame, because there's a love story in here somewhere, and the final three minutes, when Hernandez's Sebastien finally clicks with a wealthy West Hollywood party- thrower (nicely underplayed by Lonnie Henderson) and they share some sexy soulful kisses, it works despite all that came before. But we don't really care about any of the other characters or their situations: Why would handsome Dante have a Eurotrash priss for a boyfriend? He wouldn't. And don't even get me started on Sebastien's friend Paulie's "rules" for dating -- no gay man I know, hell no sane person, period, would put such constrictions on himself or others. And please tell me how Sebastien gets a peeled banana (which is normally fairly shmushy, right?) stuck up his butt and has to go to a doctor to get it removed? 

I noticed Hernandez won an award for this film as a "short" -- it probably should have stayed that way. All this said -- I'd look forward to seeing Hernandez on screen again, in a better scripted comedy with more assured direction.

Sentiment: negative
REIGN OVER ME (2007) *** Adam Sandler, Don Cheadle, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Liv Tyler, Saffron Burrows, Donald Sutherland, Robert Klein, Melinda Dillon, Mike Binder, Jonathan Banks, Rae Allen, Paula Newsome. At times affecting and at times middling dramedy about a thoroughly depressed man who lost his family on 9/11 (Sandler in his best role since "Punch-Drunk Love") who winds up re-united with his old college roommate and friend (Cheadle continuing to do impressive work with every role to date), a well-to-do dentist who seems to have it all  family, wealth, happiness  but really sees an ally in freedom with his troubled friend's own personal life offerings. Written and directed by Binder (who co-stars as Sandler's former-best friend and acting accountant) with equal parts humor and genuine heartache the film works best when the two stars share the screen until the last act falls into an almost movie-of-the-week treacle with to tidy a solution to the matters at hand.

Sentiment: positive
I can't understand what it is that fans of the genre didn't like about this film. It was truly a lot of fun. The special effects were wonderful. I generally agree with reviews and with IMDB voters, but not this time. I waited until it came to home video which I felt was another reason that I wouldn't enjoy the film. I believe special effects films need to be seen on the big screen, but again this was not the case. To me the film begs comparison to two films that were released around the same time. Blair Witch and The Mummy. Both films that I thought were terrible. Blair was probably the most overrated horror film of all time. The Mummy made gobs of money and it was pure dreck. People liked it for it's special effects. Films like the Mummy and The Haunting are not rich in character development, they are more like funhouse rides. Well with that analogy the Mummy was a B ticket to the Haunting's E-ticket.

Sentiment: positive
No, I've never seen any of the "Santa Slasher" series, i.e. 'Silent Night, Deadly Night,' the original 'Black Christmas' or this one, 'Christmas Evil.' I've heard all about their reputation, or, MADS (Mothers Against Deranged Santas.) I thought I would rent this one as I've heard it pop up as a reference on a 'Fat Guys At the Movies' segment.

Mothers should be against this, but not for the ooooohhhh "killer" Santa, but for the fact this movie was just plain crap. Boring, long  even at only 92 minutes, crap.

Little boy sees Santa arrive down a chimney in 1947, deliver presents, eat some goodies and miraculously, float up the chimney. Boy goes to bed, but returns to living room to witness Mommy and Santa (sort of) getting it on. Apparently this messed up that kid for the rest of his life, though the scene was about as steamy as when Ralphie's dad got the "Leg Lamp" in 'A Christmas Story.' He was sooo disturbed, he went to the attic and, well cut his own hand.

Fast forward to the future! Now, it's 1980 and messed up boy works in a toy factory. We get a whiff of him being a little off-kilter, and he stalks both kids and parents alike. Who's naughty, who's nice, blah blah. It takes a good two-thirds of the film to get him to finally snap  as if that's not foreshadowed from frame one. NO MOVIE should take that long.

I will admit, this movie had its tension building, but only because I kept expecting him to do something, anything to anyone. When he finally does, well, punish "who's naughty," it's as graphic as a "Garbage Pail Kid" card. And I haven't mentioned the WTF ending. I'm thinking it was a metaphor, but in reality, it's just as weird as the rest of the movie. (Take the brother who's upset his sibling is killing, and his solution isuh, killing.) Don't open this mess, even on Christmas Eve, or Evil. Again, I didn't watch the other "Santa-Slashers" but this one sucked bad. It built up suspense due to the nature of the movie and never once delivered a decent present.

Sentiment: negative
After The Funeral was absolutely superb, and by far the best episode of the season. I was disappointed with Cards On the Table, that started off so well but let down considerably by the last half hour, and I didn't know what to think of Taken After the Flood, though I do remember being confused at the end. After the Funeral as I've said is one of my all time favourite Poirot episodes, up there with Five Little Pigs, Sad Cypress and The ABC Murders. I was afraid that they would ruin the story, but instead it is very faithful to the book. Now I will say I don't mind changes to books, and try not to compare movies and TV adaptations to their sources, except when the book is a masterpiece and the adaptation doesn't do it justice. That's why I disliked some of the Marples like Nemesis and Sleeping Murder, and so far out of the Poirots The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Taken At the Flood and Cards on the Table are the only ones that really did disappoint. Everything else ranges from good to outstanding, even the recent Appointment with Death, despite the many deviations from the book, which I admit isn't a favourite, was surprisingly good, thanks to the marvellous production values, stellar ensemble performances and outstanding music score. Back to After the Funeral, the production values are fantastic. It has a really cinematic feel to it, and the stunning photography and splendid scenery and costumes made it a visual feast for the eyes. The music was very stirring and even haunting, and the entire cast give wonderful performances. David Suchet is impeccable as always as Poirot, and Geraldine James and Anna Calder Marshall are just as terrific. But for me, the standout was Monica Dolan as Mrs Gilchrist, she is up there with Donald Sumpter and Polly Walker as the best supporting actor/actress in a Poirot episode, that's how good her performance was. All in all, a must see, one of the best Poirot episodes by far, and one of the more faithful ones too. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Sentiment: positive
This movie rivals "Plan 9" as one of the dumbest movie ever made. Always be concerned when the same person is the:

1. Star 2. Director 3. Producer 4. Writer 5. Stuntman, and 6. Editor. Unfortunately, Justin Kreinbrink did all 6 jobs! IMDb shows that he and his father were western 'stunt men'. So maybe that was the problem. 

Here's just ONE example from the film: in the film the sheriff has to take a witness to another town for protection. Of course, the bad guys find out and are waiting for them. But, what happens? The good guys are riding along and a shot rings out and hits a tree near them. When the camera shows us the bad guys they're all just sitting on a log, chatting. What's wrong with this picture!

I could go on. Perhaps this film was meant as a comedy. If so, it didn't do that well either.

Sentiment: negative
Christopher Smith is an obvious horror fan and this is made clear in his debut horror flick 'Creep'. 'Creep' although a little bit loose on information, proves itself worthy of a true gory classic. A little less glossy than recent US horrors (Amityville Horror remake, House of Wax remake) this dark and gruesome tale follows Kate (Franka Potente) through the labyrinth of underground tunnels and disused railways as she, and a number of others along the way, try and flee a murderous attacker. Though some bad reviews have slated this film, I truly believe that on a tight budget and for a UK production from first time director Smith that 'Creep' truly does live up to its name. It delivers fast-paced gory action more or less from the beginning, sometimes too fast as the story is patchy in some areas, but with a perfect location and the best character-reaction-at-the-end I've seen in a while, 'Creep' delivers some scenes that are definitely the stuff of nightmares.

Sentiment: positive
I am starting this review with a big giant spoiler about this film. Do not read further...here it comes, avert your eyes! The main heroine, the girl who always survives in other slasher films, is murdered here. There, I just saved you 79 minutes of your life.

This is one of those cheap movies that was thrown together in the middle of the slasher era of the '80's. Despite killing the heroine off, this is just substandard junk.

Both priests and college students get a bad rap here. They are pictured as oversexed, sociopathic morons who have way too many internal problems to deal with what looks like junior college campus life...and the college students come off even worse.

"Splatter University" is just gunk to put in your VCR when you have nothing better to do, although I suggest watching your head cleaner tape, that would be more entertaining.

This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gore, profanity, very brief female nudity, and sexual references.



Sentiment: negative
I can remember reading that Darwin had a pivotal experience in the Galapagos islands, seeing the vast range of animal life there, and intern, penned his theory of evolution. Not according to this movie-it was inspired by the British countryside. OK, and as John Cleese would say-Right-. I also did not think that Darwin was a man suffering from deep personal conflict and someone who suffered dark reveries and flights of anguish. According to this film he was. It is sad that he apparently lost one of his daughters to illness, but I don't think him losing a family member would have impacted on the mans scientific abilities very much. Well, not according to...you get the picture. I think there is nothing worse than when science gets turned into fable, and to an extent this film comes off as trying to debunk evolutionary theory by saying it came from a man who was emotionally unstable, which to me, is just plain gross. I think Charles Darwin was the soul of scientific enquiry, cool and calm, and always thinking logically. This film seeks to dramatize the undramatic and sensationalize clear headed scientific exploration. It is like a Canterbury Tale. I would not recommend it.

Sentiment: negative
I really enjoyed "Doctor Mordrid". This is a low-budget film, which may be off-putting to some, but I have no problem with it. I admire it even more for that, considering it's WAY more entertaining than the drivel that Hollywood churns out every year. Too bad this didn't get a theatrical release; I don't know about anyone else, but I would have went to see it in theatres. `Doctor Mordrid' is a very entertaining science fiction film that just about anyone can enjoy, especially if they're into sci-fi like I am. I don't see why this is a R-rated film; only one f-word is said, and there are no gruesome death scenes, nor is there any blood at all. The timeless rivalry between sorcerers Anton and Kabal (Anton wanted the use his powers to save the human race, while Kabal wanted to enslave them), gave the story a sense of enchantment, while the mythical plotline added charm to the story itself. Basically, this a film that's just plain fun to watch. There is one unintentionally funny thing in this movie, though: seeing Jeffrey Combs keeping a straight face while wearing that silly blue cape and suit. That makes me laugh every time I see it. But I digress... Anyway, the acting is great; the main protagonists (Anton, and his lady friend, Samantha), are very likable; Anton is sympathetic, and hospitable, and Samantha is friendly. Plus, the settings were wonderful. The floating island in the other dimension was very cool setting; we're only given a glimpse of it twice, though; it would have been great to see more scenes take place here. The main setting was also very neat; Anton's apartment is very roomy, and he has some cool devices, especially the monitoring system he uses to keep track of the world's occurrences. He even has a pet raven that he keeps in his apartment named Edgar. Overall, this a great film; it was fun to watch, and the main actors put a lot of feeling into their roles. If you can find anywhere that rents `Doctor Mordrid', you should rent it (or, in my case, buy it. It was definitely money well-spent)!

My Rating: 8 stars out of ten.



Sentiment: positive
Note that I did not say that it is better...just more enjoyable. The lack of social commentary and realism helps keep things moving.

I was actually sort of surprised that this was not a Troma movie, as it has all the Troma trademarks, including spewing acidic liquids, wisecracks from the villain after every murder, a ridiculous bathtub rape scene (which is sort of hard to get upset about, since the rapist is a snowman), and dumb deputies.

There's a lot to love: 

1. A snowman, about whom it is remarked that he has no legs or feet, drives a police cruiser around town.

2. Even though it is supposed to be close to (or below) freezing, nobody's breath shows and there are no signs of car exhaust when cars are running.

3. The snow reminds you more of flocking or Styrofoam peanuts than actual snow.

4. A teenage girl gets the hots for her boyfriend just a few hours after her brother is gruesomely murdered. She talks him into breaking into the sheriff's house, of all places, in order to get it on. But first, she tells him that he has to build a nice fire in the fireplace and open some wine.

5. After teen-aged Jake's head is cut off by a sled runner, his father argues with the sheriff about whether Tommy, the sheriff's son, had anything to do with it. The sheriff maintains that Tommy wouldn't have been fighting with Jake because Jake "is at least two feet taller than Tommy." At that moment, someone in the background chimes in, "Not anymore!" 

6. When the evil snowman finally starts to melt away, the sheriff wrestles with a flat snowman made out of some sort of fabric for an extended period. This is much better than Tarzan wrestling with rubber crocodiles or gladiators wrestling with stuffed lions. If I were an actor, I would not have been able to keep a straight face at this point.

All in all, a fun film. There's not really even that much blood.

Sentiment: positive
Sorry, gave it a 1, which is the rating I give to movies on which I walk out or fall asleep. In this case I fell asleep 10 minutes from the end, really, really bored and not caring at all about what happened next.

Sentiment: negative
Billy Hughes is a mute young lady working for make-up on a cheap horror picture being filmed in Moscow by an American director. One night Billy gets locked in the movie studio. Later that night she hears that someone might be in the building and goes to check it out. That's when she stumbles across a woman being brutally murdered, while being filmed. After escaping the clutches of the murderers, Billy informs the authorities, only to be red-faced when the men show it was an act. Billy knows what she saw and soon her life is in turmoil again from underground figures that believe she has something of importance.

I don't know how this heart-pounding sleeper passed me by, but I thought it was a much older flick. There's one thing though, it's got to be one of the most jarringly, and intense thrillers I've seen in quite a while. It's just a great suspense builder and mostly everything clicks into place! The first half of the feature is surprisingly gripping with taut sequences that have your heart in your throat and clouds us with an atmospherically foreboding environment of alienation. Underling this is a humorously wicked black streak. Faults do pop up in the story, as it does lose that furious grip it held so early and goofy humour (or better putter comic relief) between Fay Ripley and Evan Richard's characters is a hit and miss affair by being too forceful. In the long run, it probably could have done without. Despite some cringe moments, this aspect didn't hinder my enjoyment of it. For me, the soft ending they decided to go with just didn't feel right.

The interestingly mysterious premise was eerie to the bone and packed some unsettling goods. So multi-facet was the context and its thrills, there was something fresh to how this all plays out and the nervy jolts and unbearable tension are weaved into a range of sudden plot turns and twists. Really, they made superb use of the novel idea of this disability and to handicap the situation, by staging it in a foreign place where not too many spoke English and so we are caught up in the confusion too. The delicate Marina Zudina gives a harrowing portrayal of the American mute girl Billy. The way she able to display the erratic emotions through her eyes and actions gave it some gruff and believability. Director Anthony Waller shoots the flick in a rather stylish, well-timed and skillful manner, without loosing that grimy look that eventuates from its rigid surroundings and a powerfully airy music score persistently nags at you. The only real name to make an appearance was small cameo part by Alec Guinness. The performances by the cast were all fine, especially the nail biting turns by Oleg Yankovsky and Igor Volkov as the Russian murderers.

This riveting feature that's mostly made up of unknowns, is way better than your average dark thriller. Highly Recommended.

Sentiment: positive
Have you ever found yourself watching a film or documentary and having to hold yourself back from screaming things like "No! Don't do it!"? No? Well it's time you do. And undoubtedly DEEP WATER is the one to get you started.

The story is based on that of Donald Crowhurst and his entry into the first round-the-world yacht race to be undertaken by individuals in 1968. That word "individuals" is important, as the men who set off on this nearly suicidal escapade head out alone.

Most of the men are well-knowns in the sea-faring communities of England (where they launch from), but one of them is the "unknown dark horse," and his name was Donald Crowhurst. Struggling financially, Crowhurst enlists a backer who can take everything from him should he fail to at least attempt to make it through a large portion of the race. He could take his home, his property, everything.

Crowhurst now finds himself between a rock and ...well ...deep water: either attempt the race with an unproven ship and an unproven captain, or lose everything you own (which was significant since Crowhurst had a wife and several children). You'll note the term "unproven captain" in there, too. Not only was he unproven, he'd never been out on the open sea! Did I mention suicidal? Flicking between archival footage of the pre- and post-race, and those of Crowhurst's friends, family, and acquaintances of today, Deep Water is put together masterfully. Initially seen as a poor sap who got in over his head, the film gradually shows you the limited choices Crowhurst had after months and months out on the water. His ship leaks. Equipment breaks. Psyche stretched to the breaking point (and beyond). Crowhurst finds himself lost in an internal struggle with no successful way out. It is interesting, too, to see the psychological breaks that other racers have as they deal with their solitary confinement on-board their respective boats.

The wave-like emotions that you'll feel as you watch this astounding documentary may make you a bit ill (not unlike trying to get your sea-legs). And you'll probably be frustrated at the choices being made; perhaps just as frustrated as poor Mr. Crowhurst.

The ending is also amazing in that we get to see the actual ship that Crowhurst sailed, sitting deserted and rotting on a Caribbean beach ...not unlike other things that felt deserted and rotting toward the end of this poorly thought-out race.

Incredible.

Sentiment: positive
Naked City: JWAB does a pretty good job of balancing its two A - B stories, eventhough I'm not all that fond of multiple plot movies. And Scott Glen and Courtney B. Vance make a great on screen dual. However, I'm not sure what kind of message a movie sends when two flat-foot country girls can get off scott free with murder, grand theft, and to top it off, win a free flight home (in first class no less--at least from the looks of their attire anyway). Gee, I guess that blue wall of silence is still rather think!

Rating: 8

Sentiment: positive
If this film is an accurate display of J. Smits acting skills, I think he made a big mistake leaving television. Hasn't he watched any films "starring" David Caruso, especially "Cold Around the Heart"? Along the lines of acting ability, what about Mary-Louise, she has done much, much better. Yes, it is a terrible script, ineptly edited, and totally lacking in continuity, but skilled actors can and have overcome similar obstacles. A very big disappointment.

Sentiment: negative
Brides are dying at the altar, and their corpses are disappearing. Everybody is concerned, but nobody seems to be able to figure out why and how this is happening, nor can they prevent it from happening. Bear with me. Bela Lugosi is responsible for this, as he is extracting spinal fluid from these young women to transfuse his ancient wife and keep her alive. Continue to bear with me. Finally, the authorities figure out that somebody must be engineering the deaths and disappearances, but of course, they can't figure out the improbable motive. Let's just ignore the ludicrous pseudoscience and move on... If you can get through the first twenty minutes of this mess, you will be treated to Lugosi whipping his lab assistant for disrespecting one of the brides he has murdered, explaining that he finds sleeping in a coffin much more comfortable than a bed, and other vague parodies of real horror films (the kind with budgets and plots). Anyhoo - a female journalist follows her nose to the culprit (and remarkably the inept police are nowhere to be seen!), and then the fun really starts.

The cinematography and acting are OK. There are a lot of well dressed, very good looking people in this film. The directing is fair, and the script is a little better than the material deserved. Nevertheless, this film fails to sustain the interest of all but the most hardened b-film fan. The best thing about it.... It does eventually end, but not soon enough.

Sentiment: negative
I enjoyed it. There you go, I said it again. I even bought this movie on DVD and enjoyed it a couple of more times. Call me old fashioned but I prefer movies like this to garbage like Die Hard 4 which hold up the box office and get critical acclaim just because you have some old guy saving America. Van Damme moves well for a guy of his age(47 I think), delivering kicks that reminds one of Kickboxer. If you like old school action and and explosions, this is the movie to watch. This is one of Van Damme's best works.

Van Damme and Steven Seagal movies get released theatrically where I live so I never miss a chance to watch our old school action stars on the big screen.

Sentiment: positive
I didn't like this movie for so many reasons I can't even say then all.I thought it was poorly made just because of the whole story line. I mean who is gonna believe that they captured the chupacabra and it broke loose on a cruise liner. LAME!!! It was all right for a lame straight to video movie,but not worth spending money on it. I can't believe someone actually gave this movie a ten. But I guess there are people that like this movie. I gave this movie a 2 instead of a 1 just because it was about the chupacabra and it had the guy off of lord of the rings. If you want to see this movie I would stay home and wait till it comes on sci-fi channel. DON'T waste your money on seeing this movie. Believe me.

Sentiment: negative
I'm not tired to say this is one of the best political thrillers ever made. The story takes place in a fictional state, but obviously it deals with the murder of Kennedy. A truthful and honest district attorney (played by Yves Montand) does not believe that the murder was planned and executed by the single man Daslow (=Oswald) and though all other officials want to close the case he continuous to investigate with his team.

The screenplay is written tight and fast and holds the tension till the end. Just the part dealing with the Milgram experiment about authorities is (though not uninteresting) a bit out of place. The ending sequence - explaining who Icarus really is - partly shot in slow motion and intensified by a Morricone soundtrack is the most powerful sequence I have ever seen in a movie.

Sentiment: positive
I watched the first 15 minutes, thinking it was a real documentary (with an irritatingly overly dramatic "on camera" producer).

When I realized it was all staged I thought "why would I want to waste my time watching this junk??" So I turned it off and came online to warn other people. The characters don't act in a believable way. too much immature emotion. for a guy to travel half way around the world into a war torn country, he acted like a kid. and I don't believe it was because "his character was so upset about the trade center bombings".

very trite and stupid.

have you seen "city of lost children"? french dark fantasy film about a guy who kidnaps kids and steals their dreams... I liked it!

Sentiment: negative
In my analysis of "Trois couleurs: Blanc" I wrote that its tone is much lighter than the tone of "Trois couleurs: Bleu". I think it's the same with this film. This time it's not because of a tragic comedy-element, but much more because of the main character Valentine. Although her boyfriend is living abroad and is ridiculously jealous, she manages her life with lightness and optimism, it seems to me that she might be Kieslowski's image for a carefree youth. The opposite seems to be the judge, who is very pessimistic, a grumpy old man, who experiences big loneliness. In my view, Valentine and the judge are pretty similar to each other, the judge is just much older and has experienced many more disappointments. They share a different kind of naivety and they both discover that they can learn much from the other one. Finally I would like to stress Irène Jacob's performance, she rounds off the run of amazing female contributions to the "Three Colours"-trilogy.

Sentiment: positive
Of course, all this nonsense begs the question 'Does a genre as self-referential as the teen comedy really need another parody movie?' The woeful 'Scary Movie' (I and II) took the formula about as far as it could go - 'Not Another Teen Movie' really doesn't have anything either intelligent or shockingly excessive to add.

The plot, essentially based on fairyfloss teenflic 'She's All That', walks a shaky line between parody and homage ('John Hughes High School'). Everything from 'American Beauty' to 'Varsity Blues' is mined for references. The result is ultimately an unfulfilling viewer experience. The downside of giving us a carbon copy plot of 'She's All That' is that we all know where its going anyway. And if we didn't then the jokes would be meaningless.

There's extremely little to recommend here. The token gross-out scene (an erupting toilet) seems badly out of place here amongst all the 'feel-good' references. There are moments of humour - the song is funny enough and the odd good line is send the audiences way. It stinks, don't watch it.

Sentiment: negative
David Duchovny and Michelle Forbes play a young journalist couple who want to go to California, but can't really afford to, so they 'ride share" with another young couple (Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis) to save on expenses. The idea is for them to stop at various murder sites along the way, sites where serial killers did their thing, since Brian (Duchovny) is a writer and Carrie (Forbes) is his photographer. What they don't know is that Pitt (Earley) and Lewis are serial killer and girlfriend who just goes along with whatever HE says. I don't care for Pitt as a rule but he does justice to psycho roles. The scary thing is that he does them so well; I've actually KNOWN people like him before, no, not killers, but with pretty much the same mindset. Anyway, as the road trip goes along, Carrie guesses that the others are about out of money, but Earley seems to always come up with the cash somehow....never mind that he leaves someone dead here and there to do it though. Lewis does her role well, one that she excels at, a not-too-bright waif that has a good heart but doesn't understand that she doesn't have to put up with being beaten up by Earley when she does something he doesn't like. As things begin to get more unacceptable Carrie insists that the other couple be put out at a gas station, and unfortunately it's at that point where she's inside that she sees a news bulletin that tells her exactly who they've been ride-sharing with, after which things go downhill for them at a rapid clip. This is not the greatest flick in the world, but it's not bad...I watched what was supposed to be the 'unrated' version but I wonder how much was cut out of the rated version, because this seemed fairly tame to me, really...not that this makes it family fare or anything, unless it's maybe the Manson Family. 7 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
Any movie in which Brooke Shields out-acts a Fonda is going to be both an anomaly and a horror. Shields actually is only bad because she's youthful, inexperienced, and clearly not well directed by her co-star. Peter Fonda is bad because, well, because he's bad. I liked him in Ulee's Gold, years later, but Lord above, he's awful here. Not that anyone else is good. There's not a single performance (outside Henry Fonda's delightful cameo) that is even passable. I've never seen a movie with this many bad performances. In the case of Luke Askew, the chief villain, it's clear this is because of poor dialogue and direction, as he's done good work in the past. But his partner, played by Ted Markland, is an embarrassing ham. The writing is just bloody awful, and the actors cannot be faulted for the terrible things they have to say. But they say them so badly! The editing and direction are worse than pedestrian. Shots are held way too long for no dramatic reason, or cut off before the impact of the scene can be realized. This picture was far worse than I'd imagined and would have been utterly forgotten (and probably never even made) without the participation of a couple of famous names. One bright spot: the cinematography in the Grand Canyon is exquisite, capturing the beauty of that area in a way even big-screen Imax productions have not quite done so well. And finally: either this is a bad version of Paper Moon, with a lovable pair of father-daughter types, or it's a bad version of Pretty Baby, with a considerably more icky romantic relationship between a forty-something and a 13-year-old. It suggests more of the latter than the former, and thus is pretty disturbing.

Sentiment: negative
Gods...where to start. I was only able to stomach about the first 10 minutes before I turned it off in disgust. Aside from the actor playing Robin Hood himself, the rest were just terrible. And, I can only stretch my suspension of disbelief only so far.

From the very opening of the first episode, I lost count of how many errors, plot holes, and horrible costumes there were. It began with some poor peasant trying to hunt for a deer to feed his family. All well and good. However, the poor blighter must have been mostly deaf, because a handful of soldiers, in full armour, on horseback, were able to sneak up on him to within about 10 feet.

Then, as he's running away, he goes from having them 10 feet behind him, to a shot where you cannot even see them at all, immediately followed by them about 20 feet behind him again. Then, he runs into some bushes, and is immediately manhandled by two of the soldiers...who just mere seconds before, were galloping on horseback, dozens of feet behind him.

The "armour" on the soldiers is so painfully obviously cloth which they tried to make look like maille, and miserably failed. Not to mention, the lead soldier's "armour" being about 5 sizes too big for the poor fellow. Seriously, he looks like he is a small child wearing his father's over-sized armour! Finally, Robin manages to fire about 5, perfectly aimed shots all around one soldier's hand, in the span of about 2 seconds, from what appears to be a recurve bow. No human alive could make those kinds of shots, in that short amount of time, with a scoped rifle, much less a bow.

After that, they escape the soldiers and stop to help an amazingly well dressed and clean "peasant" with digging a ditch...something that all noblemen were willing to do all the time, right? How this sorry excuse for a series ever got a second season is beyond me. The production costs (at least for what I saw) must have soared in the dozens of dollars (or Euros)...

Seriously - I think a highschool drama class could have put on a better rendition. This was so bad, even that terrible Kevin Costner version of Robin Hood was better.

I highly suggest you skip this monstrosity, and go rent or buy the mid-80's "Robin of Sherwood" series. Much better written, acted, costumed, and produced.

For shame, BBC...for shame...

Sentiment: negative
My wife is a mental health therapist and we watched it from beginning to end. I am the typical man and can not stand chick flicks, but this movie is unbelievable. If you want to see what it is like for someone who is going through these type of struggles, this is the movie for you. As I watched it I found myself feeling sorry for him and others like him. 

***Spoiler*** Plus the fact that all the individuals in the movie including the people in the mental institution were the actual people in real life made it that more real.

A must see for someone in the mental health profession!

Sentiment: positive
Critically, people say that Antz is better. Antz is a good film, but I enjoyed Bug's Life a bit more. I can't remember a Pixar animation, other than the two Toy Story films, that I was laughing so hard. The animation is clean, the story is original and doesn't preach. The voice overs are what make this movie. Dave Foley is an earnest ant that gets himself into trouble a lot. Hopper is a superb characterisation by the always wonderful Kevin Spacey, as is Haydn Panettiere as Dot . There is also sterling support from Dennis Leary, David Hyde Pierce and Madeline Kahn, and I could go on and on. The script is fantastic, so funny and sometimes even touching. It lacks the social messages of Antz, but what we have is rock-solid entertainment. 9/10. Bethany Cox

Sentiment: positive