DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I have not figured out what the chosen title has to do with the movie. This is another gathering of monsters just like the HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN. Not exactly a masterful plot, but Universal needed to capitalize again.

Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens) is either very ambitious or over the top in the ego department. He is working on the cure to keep Larry Talbot from turning into the Wolf Man. Somehow Count Dracula happens to drop by to get a fix on his vampirism. And rounding out the good doctor's experiments is the restoring of the Frankenstein monster's energy. Along the way, the kind hearted doctor's blood is tainted with that of Dracula.

John Carradine plays Dracula again. This time he is more convincing. Lon Chaney Jr. as usual is the soulful Wolf Man. Glenn Strange is the Frankenstein monster, who has very little to do this outing. Also with mentionable roles are Lionel Atwill and Martha O'Driscoll.

Sentiment: negative
Doctor Who is amazing. It is everyones 'cup of tea'. It must be. The boys will like the monsters and the action and adventure and the girls will like the emotion and feelings that go around. 

Billie Piper was extraordinary as Rose Tyler. She was so emotional and made Rose so real.

David Tennant is also so witty and funny and it is so enjoyable to watch.

But now Billie has left and Rose is stuck on a parallel universe with her on-off boyfriend Mickey and her mother and father (he died when Rose was a baby but this Pete Tyler is from the Parallel universe). It will be very strange with Martha being the new companion, as I have only ever seen it with Rose (Apart from the Runaway Bride with Catherine Tate).

Freema better be good!!!

But nobody can beat Rose!!!

Sentiment: positive
Yes, this movie is a real thief. It stole some shiny Oscars from Avatar just because politicians wanted another war-hero movie to boost the acceptance (support?) for the wars U.S. is still fighting today. I do not really want to go here into politics, but come on, this is more clear than the summer sky. Hurt locker does not really have anything outstanding, no real plot at all. I really feel myself in the 50's of Hungary when the party told the people what to like and what not to like. The same propaganda movies were produced that time, only with the exception that those were black and white. Even if we consider this title a reasonable piece of the "U.S. wars are cool" genre, you surely have much better movies to choose from.

Sentiment: negative
I must preface this comment with a sort of admission: I suppose I just have a soft spot for the original 60s-70s TV series. I think the filmmakers here blew it from the get-go as far as casting: in a supposed remake, audiences would look for reflections of the hip, athletic Linc (Clarence Williams III), or the cool, with-it Michael Cole, and so forth. Instead, we get Giovanni Ribisi as a poor-little-white rich boy who comes off as just pathetic, like he is in all his roles (in the office I used to work in, I amused myself once by creating a fake movie poster, casting various actors as members of the office staff; guess who I cast as the dorky son of the company President?). Danes does OK as the new Julie, but none of the characters have much to do, as the story just sort of sits there, mired in conventionality. So it's quite forgettable, besides. What was I talking about?

Sentiment: negative
The arrival of White Men in Arctic Canada challenges the freedom of a fearless ESKIMO hunter.

W. S. Van Dyke, MGM's peripatetic director, was responsible for this fascinating look at life in the Arctic among the Inuit. His production was on location filming from April 1932 until November 1933 (although some annoying rear projection effects show that some of the shooting took place back at the Studio). While considered a documentary at the time, we would likely term it a 'docudrama' as it is scripted with an intriguing plot & storyline.

The film shows the daily life of the Eskimo, both Winter & Summer, and in fact starts in the warmer time of the year without any snow or ice in sight. The constant striving for food is depicted, and the viewer gets to watch the exciting hunts for walrus, polar bear, whale & caribou. The native language is used throughout, with the use of title cards; the only English is spoken by the fishermen & Mounties encountered by the Eskimo. In fact, it is the arrival of White Men, both good & bad, and the change they make on Eskimo society, which is a major element in the narrative.

This Pre-Code film deals in a refreshingly frank manner with the Eskimo moral code, particularly with their practice of wife-sharing, which was an important and completely innocent part of their culture. In fact, the entire film can be appreciated as a valuable look at a way of life which was rapidly disappearing even in the early 1930's.

None of the cast receives screen credit, which is a shame as there are some notable performances. Foremost among them is that of Ray Wise, playing the leading role of Mala the Eskimo. Wise (1906-1952) was an Alaskan Native of Inuit ancestry and is absolutely splendid and perfectly believable in what was a very demanding part. As handsome as any Hollywood star, he would continue acting, using the name of Ray Mala, in a sporadic film career, often in tiny unbilled roles.

Lovely Japanese-Hawaiian actress Lotus Long plays Mala's loyal second wife; the names of the fine actresses playing his other two wives are now obscure. Director Woody Van Dyke steps in front of the cameras as a strict North West Mounted Police inspector. The two decent-hearted Mounties who must deliver Mala to Canadian justice are played by Joe Sawyer & Edgar Dearing, both longtime movie character actors. Danish author Peter Freuchen, upon whose books the film was based, has a short vivid role of an evil wooden-legged sea captain who unwisely rouses Mala's icy wrath.

Sentiment: positive
The production values for this film make it fall short of Hollywood blockbuster status, and the script makes it fall short of cult status. What is left is a tired formulaic attempt at the disaster movie genre that will disappear with the ebb tide.

A decent cast, are either miss cast, or cannot be bothered.The beautiful Joanne Whalley is unable to bring any gravitas to the role of Police Commissioner Nash who wears the most irritating matching waist clincher above her skirt.

Jessalyn Gilseg plays the heavyweight part of Director of the Thames Barrier with all the conviction of a fairground candy floss. Her Canadian nationality and accent were presumably drafted in to appeal to a transatlantic audience. It, and she, fails.Her initial appearance in a tight fitting pink jogging suit as she arrives at work is risible.

The part of the "Siren old git who was right" is played by Tom Courtenay as though he is acting in his sleep, and the various plot twists that are designed to energise his son, played by Robert Carlyle, struggle to get any response from him.

Nigel Planer looks determined to commit ritual hari kari for his failings as Met Office Director, or for his acting, or both, and only David Suchet emerges with some credit for his role as Deputy PM.

There was enough in the story, and the cast and the effects to have produced a decent effort. Alas that did not happen.

Sentiment: negative
Following the success of the (awful) Gilligan's Island TV movie reruns, a number of TV movies were made in the 1980's reuniting casts from classic shows. Most of these movies completely missed the boat as far as recapturing the humor that made the shows so special. THE MUNSTERS REVENGE is among the most disappointing because it goes for a Laurel and Hardy-type comedy style that really wasn't in the original series. Yvonne De Carlo, a wonderful comedienne and essential to the series, is completely wasted - she has less time here in this 90 minute movie than she did in any single 30 minute episode. And since the roles of "Eddie" and "Marilyn" in this movie are nothing more than cameos, what was the point of making them younger and recasting them? With very little rewriting, they could have used Butch Patrick and Pat Priest. Although seeing some of the Munsters spooky relatives was a nice touch, I didn't enjoy Sid Caesar as the hammy mad scientist mainly because there's too much of him and not enough of the underused Munsters (ironically that very year, 1981, Caesar's old partner in comedy, Imogene Coca, was also inappropriately cast in a major part in a TV movie reunion RETURN OF THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES). Another strange inexplicable bit at the beginning of the film has the Munster family represented as wax figures at a local horror wax museum. Why would they be in there when they are supposed to be a "typical" (if strange) American family, not famous monsters? This was the last Munsters project featuring the original cast in their roles, there was an awful revival of the series in the late 1980's with a completely new cast and a 1990's TV movie which featured DeCarlo, Lewis, Priest, and Patrick in cameo roles as a family dining.

Sentiment: negative
As is frequently the case when Manga is translated into live action, there is quite a bit lost in the translation. However, this remains a highly entertaining film. The premise is unusual and it is presented in the quiet, understated style so prevalent in Japanese films (ha!). The special effects are a little 70s camp but, it adds to the comic book feel of the film. I wouldn't recommend this film to everyone but, if you are familiar with (and enjoyed) other Japanese horror films like "Evil Dead's Trap", this film will appeal to you.

Sentiment: positive
"Yes, Georgio" is a light-hearted and enjoyable movie/comedy that contains beautiful settings and beautiful music. It's not my favorite movie but it is a movie I have enjoyed seeing more than once. Some reviewers suggested if one wished to enjoy Pavarotti, they would likely be better served by picking up an opera DVD. Although, a full opera might be a better representation of Pavarotti's operatic talents, oftentimes, an opera requires costumes and has story lines that completely hide the appearance and nature of the person. "Yes, Georgio" permits Pavarotti to use his speaking voice and to exhibit a personality and character in ways an opera would not.

Many reviewers seemed to find the story unbelievable; I don't agree. Enormously talented people can be both self-centered and charming - charming enough to captivate intelligent and beautiful people. Additionally, people who are very different from one other often gain insights about themselves and grow in positive ways from interacting with people who stretch them or take them in directions they might not have chosen on their own. Both Georgio and Pamela become more open to unexplored parts of themselves in relationship with the other.

Relax and let yourself go into a visually and aurally rewarding film with Pavarotti at the peak of his vocal abilities. The ending scenes from Puccini's Turandot alone are worth the time to get there.

Sentiment: positive
An unusual, revisionist western, well worth watching. Despite a slow start, the film builds  with scarcely any dialogue and no subtitles  an increasingly involving and intense, almost existential portrait of life in the harsh environment of the Western desert. The growth of the lead characters is worth waiting for, and the strong central cast bring a real sense of desperation to the struggle for ownership of the all-important horse. How interesting that this was made by a British director. I hope he's smiling now: I get the impression the film was largely ignored by contemporaries; but time works its usual alchemy, and hidden gold shines out as it inevitably must. One note jarred for me: the revisionism is only carried so far. Sam Waterston as an Indian? - granted he plays his part with real emotion and intensity, but really, couldn't one American Indian actor be found to do the job? But his scenes with Caroline Langrishe have an intimacy which contrasts nicely with the immense landscape around them.

Forget big, bankrupt Hollywood versions of the past, men with big chins and swirling music; this one is all about a primeval struggle between protagonists who, stripped of all the trappings of 'ordinary' life, come to understand what is worth fighting for. Impressive.

Sentiment: positive
This is a wonderful movie with a fun, clever story and the dynamics of culture differences and the running theme of what's important in life make this a very under-appreciated movie. Don't let the cynics of the world deter you from seeing this. Keaton has wonderful moments and I wonder at the fact that comedy is never appreciated, because actors like Keaton make going from humor to serious bits look tremendously easy. Great movie all around!

Sentiment: positive
I did no research on the film prior to my first viewing of it because it was part of a Welles box set I had recently purchased. A box set I chiefly got because I wanted to own A Man For All Seasons and to also re-evaluate Waterloo. So I stick Orson and Rita in the player and I'm treated to class and confusion in equal measure.

On the surface the story seemed a simple one, man meets gorgeous woman and saves her from a couple of thugs, they click straight away and man gets offer of work on a cruise with woman and her famous lawyer husband, and then.............

..well it becomes murder mystery of plotted devilment and much shenanigans. Michael O'Hara (Orson Welles} himself doesn't really know what is going on, he is as confused as the viewer is, and that is wonderful to watch as he is pulled all over the place by pretty much everyone in the film. Obviously being pulled by the heart strings by a femme fatale of such beauty as Elsa Bannister (Rita Hayworth} has its moments, but you just know that things are going to go pear shaped.

So many wonderful things in the film, it has Welles visual style all over it, see a scene in an aquarium that is marvellous and the ending sequences in a fun house is majestic on the eye. The narration from O'Hara is joyously self mocking, and we get good light relief by way of a court case with Everett Sloane considerably lighting up proceedings.

Yet the film is an oddity, and in fact it's a choppy viewing experience, because {as I was to find out after} studio bosses cut the film by pretty much a whole hour, and that is just not only frustrating to us the viewer, but unfair on Welles' vision. I'm positive that a full original cut of this film would have been lauded and revered wholesale, as it is tho, we have a very good and intriguing film, one that sadly only hints at greatness, but remains a fiendishly engrossing film that I'm glad I own to revisit further. 8.5/10

Sentiment: positive
To be clear from the get go, 'The Bagman' is very, very, very bad. It suffers terribly in almost every aspect except for one: the finished product is such an awful film that it's actually hysterically funny to watch. This is a very low-grade film. Budget constraints for the film should be obvious to anyone who watches even just the opening title sequence. I'm not sure if much of the humour in the film was intended or not. For example, the movie takes place in 'Doomsville.' Note to all prospective home buyers: if the town you're moving to is called 'Doomsville,' keep moving. Stephanie Beaton is quick to pull off her top for a pretty enthusiastic sex scene in the kitchen. I couldn't help but laugh because it has intentional humour (she turns on the gas stove ... get it? The sex is THAT hot? get it?) and unintentional humour. The unintentional in this case is the music. It's like the theme music for 'Chariots of Fire' goes Electronica. Break out the computer and the synthesizers! I realize that coming up with music for a small production like this is cost prohibitive. I really feel for them because the work here is so well-intentioned. The problem is that cheap music isn't necessarily good music. I haven't laughed so hard at sex on screen since 'Alone in the Dark' with that 'Seven Seconds' song (I guess they were implying that poor old Mr. Slater was a bit ... quick on the draw?). Even the end credits are hilarious. Intentional or not? You be the judge: a pet dog and cat are part of the credited cast -- and an animal wrangler was on set for them! -- The boom is credited to 'Mr B. Stick,' and the 3rd Unit's wardrobe (Yep, they had a third unit) is credited to K-mart. Maybe it's just me, but I think the hilarity of this more than saves the film. The movie is very, very bad, but the goals of Stephanie Beaton, her friends and family are so well-intentioned in 'The Bagman' that you can't help but like the movie they've produced. 'The Bagman' is bad but not dreadful. In its own sweet way, it even manages to be a bit endearing. It wears its flaws so honestly that you can't help but forgive them. "Better" films that try to hide the flaws are almost worse in a way. I guess this is just a film that knew who its audience was and was produced accordingly.

Watch any number of movies and most of them will probably be a lot better than this. Some of them might look cheaper, or have worse acting, or sillier production value. They may not suffer terribly as 'The Bagman' does from awful editing, sound, and foley effects. Mr B. Stick didn't do a very good job. The special effects look to be where most of the money went. They tend to be more funny than gruesome, although when the 'Bagman' is finally unmasked at the end, the make-up job there is surprisingly well done.

My 4 out of 10 is a little high but the humour helped a lot. This is an ideal movie to track down some night with a few friends and a few beers in hand. Great entertainment is to be had by anyone who seriously considers themselves B-movie or low budget film aficionados. All others should probably avoid with great prejudice.

Sentiment: negative
Charles Bronson is back in his most famous role. In my opinion, this is by far the best film of the series and my favorite movie ever. This movie doesn't take itself seriously, because the filmmakers knew that all the social commentary that was necessary was put across in the first film. Golan and Globus made this film for Bronson fans, not for the critics, and it works. DW3 has been unfairly criticized as "trash" and "a weary entry in a worn out series." These statements would be true if the film was made to be taken seriously or to spread a statement, but it wasn't. If you take it as what it is, DW3 is just a fun, action packed romp, with Charlie doing to street punks what we all wish we could do. The action is non stop, the atmosphere is great, and the movie is just out and out the best Bronson flick ever made. You can tell that the penny pinching Cannon group spent a lot of money on this one. It is believed that Bronson thought this film was too violent, and that was the reason why Winner didn't direct any of the following entries. I can understand his concern, but as is always the case of sequels, you have to push the envelope even further to pass a previous entry. In any case, this movie was no more violent than any other movie made during this time. What makes DW3 the best of the series and my favorite film ever (not the best, just my favorite), is the action, Charlie's presence, memorable villains, and it's ability to get the viewers to jump on the bandwagon. The first film may be the most technically well made, but this one is the most fun. For once, Charlie actually has some clever lines (although he doesn't say much)and a halfway interesting story, photography, action, and direction to back him up. Charlie has never been more intense or super cool than in this one. Yes, it's exploitive, maybe it does promote stereotypes, and maybe it is the same story as before, but Bronson's films always have and always will stand for defending the common man and giving his audience what they want to see. Many argue that the DW series manipulates its' audience, my reply is that the movies don't manipulate us, the fans are the ones in charge. We demand that Bronson blow away deserving scum, and in turn Winner and Co. deliver the goods. And for those of you who still want to put it down, remember a few things. DW3 was the #1 movie in America when it came out and was among the viewing favorites of millions of people on video and television because they realize that not all films have to be epics, they just have to be fun. **********/10 You can't get any better. John Batchelor

Sentiment: positive
Contains Spoiler The movie is a good action/comedy but i don't know if the director cut too many parts but it seems that the bad guy die too fast. The end of the movie come, the bad guy dies and that's it.

The special effects are good and i don't regret paying to see it at the theatre.

Sentiment: positive
Whew. What can be said about Gymkata that hasn't already? This is nothing but pure halarity from beginning to end. If you want a movie that will keep you on the floor laughing, this is the perfect movie to get. From Cabot's wild-style mullet/sweater combo to Parmistan (and it's four billion assorted ninjas), everything about this film reeks of crap.

Directed by Robert Clouse, the infamous mind that brought you the mirror scene in Bruce Lee's Game of Death, he once again showcases his complete lack of directing talent. A few other faces you most likely won't recognize will appear for your enjoyment as well, from Buck Kartalian to Tadashi Yamashita, although you won't remember them or care about them after the movie is done.

Supposedly based on a book called "The Terrible Game," which, if I could find a single trace of it's existence anywhere I would be interested in reading it, to see where this thing went wrong. Instead, the book apparently is a figment of Gymkata's imagination. Probably something Clouse made up in order to sell his lame idea.

Pick this one up and Yakmallah it for yourself. It is easily one of the best bad movies I have ever seen, and that is saying quite a bit.

Sentiment: negative
Plunkett and Macleane is an entertaining, fast-paced and refreshing film. Refreshing because, unlike most other period films, it does not strive to give the audience a history lesson or preach pompously - indeed, historical accuracy is all but ignored. This film does not take itself too seriously, and seeks to entertain rather than enlighten. Plunkett and Macleane is set in the 18th century, yet director Jake Scott offers a thoroughly 90s take. There's action, sex and swearing aplenty, and in the inevitable ball scene the aristocracy dance to disco beats. Jonny Lee Miller and Robert Carlyle are brilliant as always, and the rest of the cast, especially Alan Cumming as a flirtatious fop, are also highly entertaining. The film is visually spectacular in places, and is a mixture of comedy, action and drama, with a love interest provided by Liv Tyler with a shaky english accent. In short, if you're looking for an entertaining couple of hours, this is the film for you. It won't make you think, but it could well put a smile on your face.

Sentiment: positive
Think Pierce Brosnan and you think suave, dapper, intelligent James Bond. In this movie, Brosnan plays against type - and has lots of fun doing so (as does the audience). This is a film about a hired assassin who befriends a harried businessman... and it works!

This is a fun movie, with very good scenes (a riveting, on-the-edge Brosnan and a good, compliant "off"-the-edge Kinnear have some good lines). My only cavil is that Hope Davis, playing the oh-so-tolerant wife ("Can I see your gun?") doesn't appear more often: she could have been a marvellous foil to these men.

This movie is like a matador: it plays with the audience, while "going for a kill". The ending is awesome because a storyline (with a positive moral!) emerges: this is a frenetic, frantic and fun movie, which does deserve a wide audience.

Sentiment: positive
President Harry S. Truman once said that the only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.

Seven years before Richard Rhodes' superb Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", the BBC produced a seven-part miniseries, "Oppenheimer", that was a character study of the people who designed and built the weapon that ushered in the Atomic Age, permanently joining science and technology to the state (and, in particular, the military), not merely making history, but changing the world forever.

The production is impeccable, the casting nothing short of miraculous; not only the main characters, but even secondary characters bear uncanny resemblances to the persons portrayed. In particular are Sam Waterston in the title role of American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, who was based at the Los Alamos, NM, laboratory (the site for which he personally chose); Manning Redwood as General Leslie R. Groves, who oversaw the entire Manhattan Engineering District (the project's formal name); David Suchet as physicist, and ultimate nemesis of Oppenheimer, Edward Teller (who, nearly forty years later, whispered into Ronald Reagan's ear and brought us the Strategic Defense Initiative - "Star Wars") and Jana Sheldon as Kitty Oppenheimer. The attention to detail is uniformly excellent throughout.

Part thriller, part love story - and ultimately a tragedy, this series faithfully recreates a chapter in world history - and that of science - that we dare not forget. Highest recommendation.

(NOTE: Viewers who enjoy this series will also enjoy Jacob Bronowski's 13-part series "The Ascent of Man" and the BBC film of Michael Frayn's play "Copenhagen".)

Sentiment: positive
I saw this "hot" movie when it came out in 1986. It had a X rating for a brief scene involving oral sex but played in mainstream theatres (it was an "art" film). Supposedly it's the first film to ever show a respected actress in an explicit sex scene.

What I saw was a boring tale about a high school boy (Federico Pitzalis) in love (understandably) with an older woman (Maruschka Detmers). As has been mentioned before Detmers is very beautiful with a good body BUT she also gave a very good performance. Pitzalis was (to put it mildly) pretty poor. It's no wonder he never made another movie. Still, despite the infamous sex scene (which is explicit but pretty brief), this a slow moving dull story which bored me silly. The good acting by Detmers only helped to a certain point. Mostly I was looking at my watch waiting patiently for it to end. If it didn't have that sequence this movie would have been forgotten long ago. Dull and slow. You can skip this one.

Sentiment: negative
I had my reservations about watching The Return to Lonesome Dove after seeing and enjoying the original so much. Without Tommy Lee Jones reprising his role as Woodrow Call or Anjelica Huston as Clara, I figured it just wouldn't seem authentic enough. Upon viewing 'return' I can honestly say it's a worthy successor. The actors really make the show with Jon Voight, Rick Schroder, and Oliver Reed all preforming at their very best. I admit the story might not be quite as engrossing as the first, but 'return' definitely has it's share of excitement and captures the romance of the old west in a way that few other films have. Anyone who still has reservations can rest assured that The Return to Lonesome Dove succeeds in capturing the 'feel' of the original and will not disappoint. Do yourself a favor and check it out, Ol' Gus would be proud!

Sentiment: positive
Soon after watching this film you will realize why it didn't even make it to the theaters! This movie does not deserve the "prequel" tag. Instead this is a common theme in Hollywood, rip off previously good movies with disastrous prequels, sequels, etc.

This film's plot was bouncing all over the place like a ping pong ball, and the character development was non-existent. I seriously felt like I was watching a comedy at some points in the movie because the acting was so bad. P Diddy needs to stop tainting movies with his horrible acting, he actually made me laugh every time.

The only good thing that comes out of this movie is Jaclyn DeSantis, who looks excellent in this movie and actually brought some enjoyment from watching this film.

If you are a big Carlito's Way fan, I recommend you not watch this. If you decide to watch it anyway then treat this movie as if it ripped off the original, because that is exactly what it did.

Sentiment: negative
So, what's the reason? Is there some sort of vendetta against this AWESOME show or somebody involved therein? Why would the best show I've seen in years be canceled? I'm addicted. I saw this show on randomly last fall, and immediately loved it, and watched it every week. Then it went away, and I tried to Tivo it, but it wasn't being aired. So I forgot about it for awhile, until I found the episodes on ABC's website. Now I want MORE. I agree with everybody else - with the rest of the junk on TV today, it was refreshing to see something as well-rounded and developed as this. I watch Boston Legal for my eccentric-comedic fix, and House for my intellectual-mystery-jackass fix. My wife loves Grey's Anatomy for its "realism", and I do love/hate the show, but it could not be farther from real for me. WAY too much drama. Everything that can go wrong, does. But for once, there's a drama that's REALLY real. Real people, real problems. Sure, there are some extremes like a former gangster turned good, girl running from the mob, etc., but these people (especially in NYC) are really out there, and I relate to each and every one of them. I can't seem to get enough. I just hope that ABC will get their heads out of their bean-counting butts and continue this show. Get some respect for having a QUALITY drama out there. This could be one of the best shows of all time. If somebody will just let it.

Sentiment: positive
My buddies and I spent the majority of a Saturday afternoon watching a selection of "bad" movies. Among the flicks we watched, the strongest contender (for quality bad-movie fare) was easily Jack-O. It's ludicrous that movies such as "Gigli", "Glitter" and "You Got Served" are listed in IMDBs bottom 100. While they're certainly bad movies, they don't belong in the bottom 100. They're robbing "Jack-O", and "Keeper of Time", etc, of the Bad Movie Greatness they so richly deserve.

So what makes Jack-O so great (in bad movie terms)? For starters, Steve Latshaw, the director, decided to cast his son, Ryan Latshaw, in the role of Sean Kelly. Unfortunately for Steve, Ryan Latshaw was dangerously close to being out-acted by a block of wood. The kid, seriously, has no ability to emote whatsoever. The end result: unintentional comic gold. The kid could be listening to a joke, or just moments away from getting his head smashed asunder, and his expression is one of stony "emotionlessness".

The other aspect of the movie that we found awesome was the sheer number of "double dreaming" sequences. What is a double-dream? Well, it's when a character wakes up from a nightmare, and then something equally nightmarish happens, and then the character wakes up again. Basically: they wake up after dreaming about waking up from a nightmare. Clever device, no? I believe the character of Sean Kelly experienced no less than 3 double-dreaming sequences.

Let's see... what else? Oh yeah! This movie has a veritable cast of thousands. It's truly stunning to see how many speaking roles are introduced throughout the course of the movie. Best of all: almost none of the characters have anything to do with the story. They're either killed by Jack-O, or they serve no purpose whatsoever.

Jack-O himself was pretty sweet. Like most other B-movie monsters, Jack-O has the amazing ability to, seemingly, teleport over great distances. He's invariably hanging-out, somewhere in the background, whenever you're dealing with a major character. What's puzzling, however, is that when he's actually chasing someone he moves at a shambling/stumbling speed, and yet he's able to keep up with people who are sprinting.

That's all for now. Closing remarks: if you're looking for a unintentionally hilarious bad movie, you can't go wrong by renting this beast.

Bad Movie Score: 7/10 Good Movie Score: 3.5/10

Sentiment: positive
I bought this DVD for my young son who loves the ToyStory movies. I never expected it to be in the same league as the Toystory movies but what I got was just another lazy Disney cartoon, way below what I expected from Disney/Pixar. The story is unoriginal, the characters are dull and two dimensional, the animation is below par, even Buzz isn't that great. The movie could have been so much better. I especially hated the paint by numbers storyline. I know it's meant for kids, but even kids know when something stinks to this level lameness.

Although I did enjoy some aspects of the movie, I really liked the opening section of the movie, with the slag mutant monster, it just went downhill from there.

Sentiment: negative
Playing out as a sort of pre runner to The Great Escape some 13 years later, this smashing little British film plays it straight with no thrills and dare do well overkill. First part of the movie is the set up and subsequent escape of our protagonists, whilst the second part concentrates on their survival whilst on the run as they try to reach Sweden. The film relies on pure characters with simple, effective, and yes, believable dialogue to carry it thru, and it achieves its aims handsomely. No little amount of suspense keeps the film ticking along, and as an adventure story it works perfectly for the time frame it adheres to, so a big thumbs to the film that may well be the first of its type ?.

7/10

Sentiment: positive
I am extremely picky about the films I see. I'd heard about Moon Child completely by accident. I've been a fan of L'Arc En Ciel for some time and a fan of Gackt and Mizer only recently.

I finally found out the film was being re-released and picked it up without a second thought.

Being as critical as I am about films, I will admit, the action scenes can be somewhat hokey at times...but they're meant too be, as another user suggested, it's the quintessential calm before the storm, quoting Gary Oldman from Leon...without getting into the spoilers, the film hit me extremely hard, because you realize that the boundaries of friendship are limitless and as they often say, true friendship is loyalty and like marriage, it's until death do you part.

Hyde and Gackt give performances that showcase why they are able to commit such depth to their song lyrics, their passion for music happens onto the big screen and in the process it creates an exemplary film that will reach into one's soul and evoke response emotionally.

Upon seeing the film for the first time, I realized it will probably remain in heavy rotation as far as my collection goes. I want to encourage anyone reading this post to pick up the film if you want to get away from the current Hollywood trend in film...this takes an entirely new direction using classic Yakuza film elements and how can you go wrong with a cameo from Ryo Ishibashi of Takashi Miike's "Audition" and "Suicide Club" fame?

Man..I just can't say enough about this film, but I'll stop here.

10/10

Sentiment: positive
A couple are split apart during a vacation. Early scenes lead us to believe Barney, Jeff Bridges' character, has kidnapped the girl in an unexplained but premeditated abduction. The film plays out some years later where, despite a new love interest, Jeff (Kiefer Sutherland) is determined to solve her disappearance.

The storyline is definitely intriguing but there have been some really bad decisions made during the making of this film, culminating a pretty shoddy piece of work.

OK here we go. The abduction scene - aside from two major continuity errors there is a point where Sandra Bullock and Kiefer Sutherland are made to perform a little signed-pet-love-ritual that's drowned in over-sentimentality to the point of nausea. We know they're in love; the "I do solemnly swear never to leave you" speech only moments prior was ample thank you. Jeff Bridges' robot accent is another example. What is that for? Starman is back and it seems after a decade on the planet, he's turned nasty. The entire plot is then able to be resolved by the introduction of a needless character who, by a rather fortunate twist of fate, has quite miraculous powers of observation. The climactic sequence itself has essentially been done before only much, much better. It's riddled with further annoyances and another blinding continuity blunder. I could go on but something positive needs to be said. At a stretch, Kiefer Sutherland is the only one to save face with a fairly decent performance.

The 1988 original of the same name (changed from the Dutch title 'Spoorloos' for English speaking audiences) was recommended to me, only for an online rental company to send me this later Hollywood version by mistake. I was surprised to find both having been Directed by George Sluizer and would be interested to know his motivation for the remake. I am reliably and thankfully informed it is of a much higher quality in all areas including plot. Horah for that, but it really doesn't take much doing.

Sentiment: negative
"The Gymnast" unfolds in short shots and short scenes, revealing its characters and message over time. The spare editing is accompanied by a beautiful, simple score. This intimate approach is wonderful for feeling like you're on a path of discovery as much as the characters are.

The spare approach is also its drawback; there are a few scenes that are confusing because they don't have enough context. There are some decisions made by the characters that seemed rather flip until I watched the interviews that were in the bonus materials. I'm glad I did, because the actors' descriptions of their motivations gave me a much more well- rounded understanding of the film overall.

Aside from the story itself, it was wonderful to see women so comfortable and strong in their own bodies. The shooting was very tastefully done; very matter-of-fact. One has the feeling of seeing a love story and a life story unfold, not a voyeuristic sleaze film. The physicality of the athletes -- their realness -- is a great contrast to the sometimes ethereal nature of the plot.

Not a film I'll need to see again anytime soon, since the storyline is simple but its delivery is powerful enough to stay with me for a long time.

Sentiment: positive
Roy Rogers and company try to bring "Sintown" back to life - it's a ghost town which may go boom if silver mining is successful. Andy Devine (as "Cookie") slapsticks around. Jane Frazee (as Carol) loses a piece of her bitches to Mr. Rogers' sharp leer. Foy Willing and the Riders of the Purple Sage stand-in (or, is that sing-in?) for the A.W.O.L. Bob Nolan and the Sons of the Pioneers. James Finlayson (from the Laurel and Hardy films) adds to the "slapstick" look of "Grand Canyon Trail". A loose floor board delivers the winning comedy performance. Mr. Devine's mule kicks its heels. There are energetic human performances, too - but, the material isn't Grand. 

** Grand Canyon Trail (1948) William Witney ~ Roy Rogers, Jane Frazee, Andy Devine

Sentiment: negative
A question for all you girls out there : If a man you`ve never met before accidentally phoned you up on purpose and continued to do so at the most indiscreet moments would you be intrigued by him or so freaked out you`d phone the police ? Yeah that`s what I thought so I couldn`t swallow the idea of Marti Gerrard putting up with the unwarrented attention of Connor Hill

***** MILD SPOILERS *****

This is a really dumb story . Connor Hill`s wife is murdered and the plot revolves around the question is Connor phoning Marti so he can have an alibi ? But there`s a massive gap in logic here , couldn`t Connor have employed a hit man ? something the prosecution seem to have ignored . And wasn`t there any forensics at the murder scene ? So why does the whole trial rest on Connor phoning Marti at the time of the murder ? Dumb . Dumb . Dumb . And it`s as predictable as it is brainless .

My abiding memory of this film is that for someone who made the winter Olympics Marti Gerrard is a really crap downhill skier

Sentiment: negative
Seeing a photo of a man being attacked by zombies gave me hope that Lucio "Zombi" Fulci might be up to his old tricks. Unfortunately, other than the close ups of a rotting corpse, there's little to recommend in this story of the murder of a wealthy man and his daughter's quest to figure out who killed him. None of the characters are appealing and by the time you find out how they did it (that twist, at least, was cool), you stop caring. The only good thing I can say is that it made more sense than Nightmare Concert!

Sentiment: negative
Take one look at the cover of this movie, and you know right away that you are not about to watch a landmark film. This is cheese filmmaking in every respect, but it does have its moments. Despite the look of utter trash that the movie gives, the story is actually interesting at some points, although it is undeniably pulled along mainly by the cheerleading squads' shower scenes and sex scenes with numerous personality-free boyfriends. The acting is awful and the director did little more than point and shoot, which is why the extensive amount of nudity was needed to keep the audience's attention.

In The Nutty Professor, a hopelessly geeky professor discovers a potion that can turn him into a cool and stylish womanizer, whereas in The Invisible Maniac, a mentally damaged professor discovers a potion that can make him invisible, allowing him to spy on (and kill, for some reason) his students. Boring fodder. Don't expect any kind of mental stimulation from this, and prepare yourself for shrill and enormously overdone maniacal laughter which gets real annoying real quick...

Sentiment: negative
Saw this film ran in the wee hours on TCM. Several problems with the film were apparent from what I saw. First, the adults did not age when the children did for 10 years. Several parts of the film had continuity problems & for some reason the actor who played the youngest son looked like the oldest when the 10 years passed. 

The copy I saw was missing about 20 minutes or so, at least a huge gap with black screen appeared. It is too bad, because even though the script left something to be desired, Bergman & Russell both did fine in the film in their roles. It is a shame the large chunk is missing, but what is here is watchable.

I just wish it was all intact. The script makes little sense in that Bergman's character is sent away when the kids are small but then brought back to take care of them when they are adults? Some of the time lines don't make sense either. There is a stock market crash that resembles 1929 but the kids grow up to fight in World War 1. All the acting by the support folks in this film is fine. Just wonder what was in the 20 gap of film I could not see as it was missing.

Sentiment: negative
What is with all of the European (especially England) comments here? All i gotta say is that when i saw this movie for the first time when i was like 13 i thought it was great. Of course it's stupid. That's the point. You have to see the movie Dr. Strangelove and Men in Black to get the whole joke behind this movie, but come on people, what did you expect to see? I can think of many movies that are far worse than this, and they were expensive Hollwood films with real actors in them. For what it's worth, Men in White is a very stupid-funny mock of a movie. And with all the stupid-funny stuff that England has been making for the last half century, i am shocked at all the negative comments. Us stupid Americans like our stupid humor. P.S., see 'Team America: World Police" for some true laughs that Europeans will especially like. HA!

Sentiment: positive
I don't think I've ever gave something a 1/10 rating, but this one easily gets the denomination. I find it hard just to sit through one of his jokes. It's not just that the jokes are so bad, but combine that with the fact that Carson Daily has zero charisma, can't set up or finish a punchline, and you've got a late night comedy recipe that will really turn your stomach.

I have watched the show, never in its entirety, but many times still. It just creeps up on me after Conan. I usually watch a minute or two just to see if Carson daily is still the worst talk show host ever.

Actually if you ever do see him interviewing a guest, it's just that, an interview. I feel so sorry every time he has a guest on and their confused smiles try to mask their body language that's screaming, "get me the hell away from this freak!" I do recommend watching the show, not for a laugh, but to ponder, how he got on the air and what he's still doing there. Watch as much as you can, I think you will find its complete awkwardness...interesting.

Sentiment: negative
I really loved the Millenium series, starred by Lance Henriksen, which is why I bought the film. Obviously at some level it was a mistake. Mutant/monster films are usually very bad and this film is no exception.

The basic idea itself is not totally judged to fail (well nevertheless this film would never have been a success, even with a good director & actors), but the way it turns out this is just a B-class movie. The scenes that are supposed to be scary seem more funny to me and the critter is not credible at all.

However, watching this film with group of friends in restless mood makes this film shine as it is so unintentionally hilarious.

Sentiment: negative
Anne Brontes epic novel THE TENANT OF WILDFELL HALL should be studied and read throughout schools and libraries and peoples living rooms. Its a fantastic story and tells the "real" truth on alcoholism and ruined marriages and a mothers fight to keep her son away from her brutal husband. Its so alike todays stories that we see and hear and I believe people can learn a lot from reading this book. Based on possible true experiences that the author had back in the 1840s.

Do watch this film, its a great version of the book and very moving indeed. I'm sure Anne herself would have been happy with the way it was produced.

Excellent acting and great locations.

Sentiment: positive
This film, originally released at Christmas, 1940, was long thought lost. A very poor copy has resurfaced and made into a CD, now for sale. Don't buy it! The film is unspeakably terrible. The casting is poor, the script is awful, and the directing is dreadful.

Picture Roland Young singing and dancing. And that was the highlight.

Perhaps this movie was lost deliberately.

Sentiment: negative
This film was terrible. I have given it the high score of 2 as I have seen worse, but very few.

From the clichéd start of having the end of the film at the start and going back to the start at the end this film used everything in the box of tricks used in film making just for the sake of it, like a kid with too many toys. There was the endless, boring repetitive narration, slow motion, freeze frame, flashbacks and merged images etc - none of which made a dull film any better.

It is called "16 years of alcohol", but there was little drinking or drunkeness and no depiction of withdrawal with the film jumping about all over the place with no coherent sense. The story was badly written and extremely pretentious and the direction was equally poor and it is a shame that people have put up further money for more films by Mr Jobson, previously know for being in a rubbish group and on TV making as much sense as this film does.

I found it a major struggle to see this to the end but in the hope of it getting better I carried on to the bitter but it really was a waste of time and I would have been better off not bothering.

Sentiment: negative