DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
A moderately interesting start, some pretty scenes in sixteenth-century Japan, and a promising idea. But the execution? The comparison that springs to mind after about fifteen minutes is "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death." Really. A specialist in "Oriental history" who doesn't speak any Japanese, walks on tatami without removing her shoes, and is generally dumb as celery? Please. This looks like a student film: the sets are risible, the acting (except, perhaps, for the title character) close to wooden, the plot utterly arbitrary. At least "Cannibal Women" was funny! This is best watched with someone who knows something about Japan, just to watch disbelief repeatedly crawl across their face.

Sentiment: negative
The man who directed 'The Third Man' also directed the 'Who Will Buy' sequence in "Oliver!" Now that is talent.

I raise my hat to Carol Reed.

I know there are 'second units' involved, but still ...

And he had to deal with Orson Welles and Oliver Reed ...

I suppose quality will out.

(It does show in the final scene with Nancy [ avoiding spoiler - everyone has to see Oliver! for the first time sometime ].) How many lines do I need to type.

Encouraging people to type too much is not to be encouraged.

I hope this counts as the "10th line".

Sentiment: positive
Well, this latest version of Mansfield Park seemed to try and take the edginess of the 1999 theatrical version (outright copied some of the ideas from it in fact), but tone things down a bit to bring it more in line with the original story. Unfortunately, the result is a rather lackluster, and schizophrenic, production. And, as with all the other versions of Mansfield Park out there, the character of Fanny Price is no where to be found. Instead there is a strangely child-like, bleached-blond woman running around who never really fully develops as a character. At least in the 1999 movie the character they call "Fanny Price" is firmly established as rebellious tomboy who is too clever for her own good. This "Fanny Price" is a complete enigma. Someday, I would really like to see a dramatization of Mansfield Park that actually includes a depiction of the character of Fanny as she was written by Jane Austen. A sweet, kind, compassionate girl with a timid personality and frail constitution. She is reserved in manner and painfully honest, but also strong in her convictions, unfailingly loyal, extremely intelligent, and remarkably astute. A bit of a late bloomer, it is not until her eighteenth year that she finally begins to make the transition from awkward adolescent to self-possessed young woman. And she wants nothing more in life than to be of some real use to those she loves most. It's a wonderfully complex character that I look forward to one day seeing faithfully portrayed.

Sentiment: negative
(No need to recap the plot, since others have done so already.)

It's understandable that many viewers find fault with the film, raised as we are with the slam-bang sensurround of today's cineplex experience. Against that background, a movie like Ecstasy appears to have wandered in from another planet. I think there are several worthwhile reasons why.

Most importantly, the film unfolds poetically, as the camera pans slowly over surrounding hills, trees, clouds, etc., providing a serene and lyrical sense of a natural world that integrates the man and woman into its fold. Together these reveal a style and dimension almost totally missing from today's technology-driven cinema, where rapid-fire editing works to divert audience attention and not to concentrate it. Additionally, the story is conveyed by eye and not by ear, with almost no dialogue to explain what's happening. This amounts to another extreme departure from today's very literal fare, where visuals only seem to count when they excite the audience. But perhaps most unsettling-- the movie is sometimes eerily quiet, not in the sense that silent films are quiet since we expect them to be. But in the sense that the characters seldom speak when we expect them to. Thus, the burden of the story is shared between the film-maker and the viewer. The former must choose his visuals artfully so as to convey the narrative, while the latter must think about those visuals, since they're not going to be explained.

None of this is intended to belittle today's film-making. It's simply to point out that a movie like Machaty's comes out of a very different aesthetic from the one we have today. I don't claim either to be any better or worse. However, I do claim that Ecstasy represents a perspective sorely missing from today's movie-going experience, where such 'contemplative values are routinely dismissed as slow and boring. 

The film itself is no masterpiece, though at times it reaches artistic heights, as in the beautifully composed beer-garden scene with its final crane shot rising to reveal the exquisite tableau below. The slow pans of the countryside with its pantheistic celebration of life, nature, and regeneration are also wonderfully expressed. These are the kind of scenes that don't overwhelm you, but instead-- given half-a chance-- accumulate quietly into an experience as memorable in its own way as the spine-tingling variety of a "Jaws". 

On the other hand, the film is sometimes heavy-handed, as when Machaty piles on the imagery, particularly in the final, ode-to-labor sequence. It's hard to know what to make of this rather disruptive presence. Perhaps the symbolism has to do with the heroic dimension that hard work holds for the love-lorn hero and people in general-- a theme then being promoted by the influential Soviet cinema. Still, its presence here is rather tediously over-done.

Anyhow, I've got to admit that I tuned in initially to see the gorgeous Hedy LaMarr in the buff. But now I have to admit that in the process I also got a lot more than just a peek-a-boo romp in the woods.

Sentiment: positive
When I was younger, I thought the first film was really good in childhood, so I decided to see the sequel. This is an example of why some films shouldn't have sequels, because the first film is usually best, and it is. Basically now that Ariel and Eric are married they have a daughter who isn't allowed outside the house because they are worried about the sister of Ursula (the octopus legged villain from film one), Morgana getting to her. When the kid gets out she asks Ursula's sister to turn her into a mermaid, like her Mum was. This makes Ariel go back to the sea to find her. The same good voice artists, it's just the story that could have had a bit more thought. Adequate!

Sentiment: negative
and anyone who watches this film will agree. This film was directed in the days when plot, character believability and theme actually mattered.

Jean Peters, Widmark, and Thelma Ritter steal the spotlight. Ritter is in top form as informer "Moe" she survives in the Bowery section of NY, acting as a stool pigeon for NYC police.

The only other film in which I have seen Peters is "Niagara", and she certainly proves her acting ability here, complete with Brooklyn accent. Widmark is appropriately menacing, as the anti-hero who must discern what the right thing is, despite his need for cash.

The photography is brilliant. The neon, the subway station (though it looks cleaner than the real thing!) the harbor shack where Widmark lives as a transient. Excellent use is made of the city, with "Lightning Louie" in Chinatown; the many flavors and appetites of the city are addressed here; the political climate of the time is a haunting backdrop. 10/10.

Sentiment: positive
it's a super movie!!!! i only seen it once but it's very good if you like music like in disco's and don't have problem with drugs.... It's fantastic movie!!!! it's only a little bit to short! but when you watch the movie make sure your sound system is at 100%!!! then you will love the music in the film and the funny things that a guy from the country comes never drink any alcohol and then he is under drugs in the biggest disco's and love the music!!

the only problem is that i want to buy it and i can't find it! so if anyone knows where i could buy the movie pleas mail me!!! 

greets me from Holland

pleas reply me!!

Sentiment: positive
Can't get much eerier than Flatliners. This deep, dark film had my heart pumping throughout. The lighting is dark and will get you in the mood for a death defying experience, literally. Keifer is in top form as he is today in 24. He's a great actor and he plays a very convincing and shocking role you won't forget for years to come. And what can you say for the rest of the cast? An all-star lineup, Julia is hotter than ever, Will, Oliver, and Kevin light up the stage in this thriller that will keep you gripping your seats. It's a refreshing sight to see a true thriller, with top notch professional actors. You won't regret seeing this 2 hour seat bender. -JL

Sentiment: positive
In an attempt to bring back the teen slasher genre that was taken away by spoofs like Scary Movie and Shriek if you know what I did last Friday the 13th, Valentine fails. Why did people like Halloween? Because it was original, new and went beyond anything that's ever been done. Why did they like Scream? Because at least it made sense. Valentine is just a stupid slasher-flick that has hardly any gore what so-ever. The plot is so similar to Halloween and Urban Legend it's not funny. And the moment the killer comes on screen, you know who it is, it's just sssssssssssooooooooooooo predictable. The teen slasher genre is DEAD Get over it!

0 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
***SLIGHT SPOILERS***

A hunchback 15-year-old boy kisses a very cute 15-year-old girl and eventually he has sex for the first time. After the act, he lays in the bed with her not touching her. The next day he concludes that he does not like sex much and does not want to try it again for at least a few years.

This is seemingly a fine opening for a teleplay about a boy discovering his homosexuality, or perhaps a medical drama about a post-pubescent teen with a severe hormone deficiency.

However, as the plot develops what emerges is a story of a 15-year-old father who is supported and encouraged by his overbearing mother.

At one point, his mother preaches to her co-workers who are not as understanding as they might be, "Every step of the way in this, my son has been amazing... I have never been more proud of him..."

The young father's older sister, who otherwise is cold towards her brother, begins to show pride in her sibling, "You have been cool about this," as she gives him an encouraging warm hug.

The 15-year-old father wants to be a father. He wants to be a parent.

Why not? We see the "new" baby a few minutes after birth -- it appears to be a healthy, happy 4-month-old infant. Just as babies were born on TV in the 1960's and 1970's.

Once the young father is a parent, he has found happiness. He insists he will be the one to change the dirty diaper. We see the 15-year-old father sincerely happy holding his baby while the teen's busy=body mother is peaking over his shoulder. Fade to black.

Sentiment: negative
Given that Roger Corman attached his name to this production, I had high hopes for this film. Corman directed many memorable low budget horror flicks in the 1960's. I particularly enjoyed his adaptations of Poe's stories such as `The House Of Usher,' and `The Pit And Pendulum' and `The Raven' which starred the late great Vincent Price. These films had solid acting, atmosphere, suspense, strong characterization, intriguing plot development and delivered some chilling moments. Sadly, `House Of The Damned,' for the most part, sacrifices these qualities in lieu of cheesy low budget special effects, gratuitous nudity and mindless gore topped with cliche fast edits and camera angles.

`House Of The Damned' starts off interestingly with some beautiful location shots in Ireland, but it's straight downhill from here. Unfortunately, instead of spending some time building atmosphere, creating characters we might care about, or building suspense - the director opts to begin running up the body count. After a brief introduction to the lead characters, a young couple and their daughter, the audience spends the balance of the film being bounced from one `spooky' event to another which, in this film, substitutes for coherent plot development. The lead characters are so ill conceived and are so badly acted - the audience doesn't care what happens to them. To make matters worse, the `spooky' events are either utterly cliché or unconvincing due to low tech - low budget special effects. The soundtrack has been lifted from `The Omen.' The plot, what little there is, borrows heavily from `Poltergeist' and `The Legend Of Hell House,' but lacks any of the qualities which made these films convincing.

If you interested in seeing well done haunted house flicks, I recommend you check out classics like `The Haunting (1963),' `The Innocents (1961) or look into Corman's early American International films and pass on `House Of The Damned' unless you're masochistic or mindless.

3 ½ out of 10.

Rob Rheubottom

Wpg, MB. Canada

Sentiment: negative
I saw this again today for the first time in about 6 years. I had forgotten how well acted this movie is. Paul Newman gets the billing, but Dwight Schultz holds his own and shows how good an actor he really is.

Sentiment: positive
I really don't think it's necessary that I write a review on a movie with a title as derisory as "Snake Island", but even in the abstract confines of its own genre, this hit a new low, so my anger must be known. The only reason why I even bothered to watch this unbelievably bad movie is because I knew it was going to be bad, it was really late at night, I could not sleep, and in the past, really bad movies would drain the energy out of me and make me long for slumber. It became very quickly very early on that this movie was going to be awful, but it condescended below even those expectations.

The movie was directed and written by Wayne Crawford, who also stars in the movie as a tourist guide on the African river, who ends up having to strand his team on a remote island called Snake Island until another boat comes down to pick them up. They hang out, get drunk, and then become subject to the onslaught of poisonous snakes who are on a mission to purge their island of human beings.

If your jaw dropped at the last sentence of my second paragraph, don't bother to reread it, you got it right the first time. Frankly, I prefer my creature features when the creature(s) just attack the nonsensically dumb humans out of hunger, not because they have some kind of a mission. These aren't mutant snakes. They're not giants like what you see in "Anaconda." They're just ordinary, everyday African snakes like mambas and vipersonly they have the brains to form armies, take up causes, work together to trap people, understand our language, and even dance! Did your draw drop again? Well, it's going to drop further. Amount midway through this awful B-movie, about the part where I'd already given up, the human characters start drinking around a campfire and then all of a sudden, they break down into some kind of an orgy. And while they dance nude and such, the snakes hunting them all of a sudden stop and start jamming along to it. The combination of this scene and the scene where we discover that snakes, some the most roguish creatures on the planet, have formed an alliance against human beings for some oddball reason, proved just too much for my poor brain. And just when I though the filmmakers couldn't take it to an even lower level, the snakes started to sing.

The people in the movie? Well, let's just say that never before have I rooted for the creatures to kill everybody off so quickly. I just could not stand it any longer.

I really don't think I need to keep going on; you get the picture. If there is anything that makes "Snake Island" any different from its other rivals, it's that it does dare to try to be even dumber and that's not a complimentary achievement. Whyjust whyI continue to subject myself to these really bad movies, I guess I'll never really know. But "Snake Island" hits a brand new low. It's a cheap, trashy excuse for a motion picture that makes "Anaconda," a brainless snake movie, look as brilliant and sophisticated and thrilling as Steven Spielberg's "Jaws." You have been warned.

Sentiment: negative
If this is your first time experiencing the wonders of cinema, if you've never seen a "Moving Picture" before, you'll think this movie is a child of the gods. BUT if you've seen a movie, a TV show, even Barney the Dinosaur, then you won't be very impressed by this film. Heck Barney the dinosaur was even more realistic than the dinos in this flick.

Now I like B movies. I just watched "The Giant Gila Monster" right before I watched this swill, and I liked that movie much better. It works as a B movie. It has lamer dialog,hokier acting, cheesier effects and an honest to gosh real Gila Monster as the monster! Carno 3 just doesn't pack much of a B movie punch. It has some gore, and that Polchek guy comes close to being funny a few times but this movie is underwhelming, almost....flaccid. It's the Little Engine That Couldn't of Dinosaur movies. I'm not saying you shouldn't watch the movie. 

Some people can watch gum drying on a sidewalk and feel entertained. If you're one of those people, then give this movie a shot.

Sentiment: negative
It looks like people involved with this movie are stuffing the ballot box to boost its ratings. The good news that apparently only 18 people have seen it. I suppose that makes me the 19th. I have no involvement with the flick and don't know anyone who did and I'm a long-time IMDb user (check my vote record and reviews over the past seven years), so I promise I'm giving an honest and unbiased opinion. It's coming to you from a 30-year horror fan who has also appeared in a couple of low-budget flicks himself.

Aside from a couple of interesting video effects, "Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare" is incoherent, boring, and technically flawed beyond all reason. It was apparently shot on silent stock and the audio then dubbed in; most of it sounds like it was recorded with a tin can and a piece of string, anyhow. More than three quarters of the dialog is inaudible.

I watched this from beginning to end and have no idea of what the story was, or even if there was one. It seems like the director is mostly impressing himself with long, panning shots of the corners of table and dead black spaces that do nothing but pad the film out. That would be a problem if one were actually developing a plot and making a film that had some sense of pacing. In this case, though, the rule doesn't apply. It doesn't matter how scenes are shot because they don't add up to a story.

Watching this video is an exercise in futility at every level. Whatever people who worked on it are writing and however they're trying to influence the ratings here on IMDb, this is just bad, tedious stuff.

That's the honest truth. If you're thinking of spending your money or time on this one, think again. It's easy to find something better because you won't find much worse.

And that's the unbiased, unvarnished truth.

Sentiment: negative
"Dahmer" is an interesting film although I wouldn't use "horror" or "thriller" do describe it. It's more a minor character study that seems oddly sympathetic of the killer.

Jeremy Renner portrays serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who drugged, murdered and dismembered his male victims. The film centers on the relationship between Dahmer and "Rodney", well-played by Artel Kayàru. 

Rodney is almost the more interesting character: enamored of Dahmer and having once escaped an attack, he returns to Dahmer for sex and survives a second attack.

I think the film is disjointed because it does little to portray Dahmer's formative years, how events may have created the human monster we see on screen and offers no insight into Dahmer's belief that he could create sexual zombies of his victims.

The roles are well played but the story is thin.

Sentiment: negative
I first was made aware of this film when I saw a preview before another movie. I was intrigued but it didn't get to see it before it's short run in theaters was done.

It is not an easy movie to watch multiple times. There is much violence inflicted upon unarmed civilians. There are lessons to be learned here. One of Patricia Arquette's lines sums up on. "To Americans if it didn't happen on TV it just didn't happen" There is a lot of truth to that.

Another is that at one point she thinks that just because she announces she is an American Citizen that soldiers will part and let her pass. It doesn't work that way.

The scenery is beautiful. The acting is all decent. THE PROFESSOR is especially good. Mainly though I care about these characters. Francis McDormand and Spaulding Gray are fine but their appearance is short, so they don't matter much. Patricia has guts. In the hands of a lesser actor this could have turned out very badly. As it is love or hate the movie you should still come away with the idea that there still exist military dictatorships in the world in this century, and until one of our own is hurt we ignore their oppression.

Aung San Suu Kyi, is the female political leader in the movie. In real life she won the Nobel Peace Prize. She was only recently released from house arrest. The W. Bush administration, as of the date I write this, is attempting to pressure the military government to engage in talks with her and re-form the government. The Burmize government was under such scrutiny that is changed the name of the country to the Maynamar Republic. The U.S. Government has yet to recognzie the new name.

If you don't wnat a message in your movie don't watch this one. If you don't mind a little educations with your entertainment then it's a fine one.

Sentiment: positive
Really, They spelled it BRAIN in the credits, not BRIAN.

OK, they didn't have the budget for a spell checker. All the production money went for great old cars. There are at least two Packards visible here. One is a Darin Convertible. A nice yellow Packard convertible.

The scenes of the movie studio show that there was some money spent for costumes and set decorations. Old Cameras, an exterior of Ciro's, street signs and whatever was needed to make a visually pleasing picture was there. Poorly written and directed.

My DVD says it runs for 104 minutes, approximately. It was more like 85 minutes. It came to an end without reaching a conclusion. There was a collision but no conclusion. The movie just smashed up against the credits. 99 cents for this. I paid 99 cents for this. I could have bought 3 cans of cat food and watched my cat's face as he emoted more excitement.

For a few seconds in the Ciro's scene after Darren McGavin gets a phone call, it looked like, maybe... this movie would have a surprise twist that would make for an interesting film. Then it just sat there.

The young Latin actor played by Steven Bauer (Tony Montoya) could have had a much bigger part in all that was going on here. This cast could have made a good film.

I think if they cut Brian's part and use Steven Bauer in his place and change the script and keep the Packards and lose the band and add a Johnny Otis sound alike band, then they got something.

Here Kitty, Kitty...

Tom Willett

Sentiment: negative
'Flight Of Fury' is a shockingly dire but worst of all boring Action Film - I don't expect a lot from a Seagal Film, all I expect is to be moderately entertained for 90 or so minutes with some mindless action -unfortunately this doesn't even achieve that low expectation, The action scenes are few and far between, the plot (which is totally irrelevant in these Films) is needlessly complicated and confusing with huge plot holes throughout, The acting is truly abysmal - bordering on embarrassing with Seagal and his whispering One expression performance being the best among the sorry lot of 3rd raters - I find it hard to believe that anything close to $12M was spent on this dire mess unless $11M of that 12 was Seagal's Salary - I somehow doubt it! The one moment of any interest to Straight guys or gay girls is that out of seemingly nowhere two hot chicks end up in a lesbian sex scene of sorts complete with huge baps on display other than that - It's mediocre stuff which is no different to many of the Michael Dudikoff B-Movies I've endured

1/10

Sentiment: negative
As a reviewer has already commented, this made for tv comedy is up there amongst the best football parodies ever. But....having failed to video it when it was first aired, I now find that it isn't around in any format. OK, so this has only polled 17 votes to date, but a 9+ average does seem to suggest something special. Basically, I suppose it's a case of tough luck if you missed it 'cos it's no longer available to view !! Aaaaaaaargh.

Sentiment: positive
Deathtrap is not a whodunit. It's a who gonna do it to who first. It's so hard to describe this movie without giving anything away so I won't mention anything more about the plot. As far as acting goes it is Cris Reeves greatest role as Clifford, a young playwrite. You really see the range in his acting abilities in this movie from "exhaling cheeseburgers" to downright frightening. Clifford is such a hard role to play and in the stage production of this I have never seen Clifford played well on both ends of the spectrum. The actor plays him as a little puppy or a homicidal maniac. Reeves is the only person I have seen who has the character right all the way through. As for Michael Caine he's.....well he's Michael Caine. One of the best actors of the last 50 years and in this film as good as he has ever been.

Sentiment: positive
The four signs on the road say "If You're Looking For Fun.....You Don't Need A Reason....All You Need Is A Gun....It's Rabbit Season!"

In the woods, we see hundreds of "Rabbit Season" signs posted on every tree. We see more and more signs pointing exactly to Bugs Bunny's hole. Who's putting up all these signs? Daffy Duck!

Daffy puts the last sign up, tiptoes away and says to us, the audience, "Awfully unsporting of me, I know. But, what the hey - I gotta have some fun! Besides, it's really duck season."

From that point, we now see Elmer Fudd, shotgun in hand.....and a war of semantics between Bugs and Daffy with Bugs winning every time. Only in cartoons, thankfully, can we see someone getting shotgun-blasted in the head five times and keep going!

Sentiment: positive
While the movie does feel a bit long at times, it is well worth it. Gordon directs in a style that reminds you of Vonneguts writing styles. Merciless, thoughtful, ironic, quirky, and dark, this is a film which will stay with you for quite a while, begging for answers to impossible questions. Nolte, Goodman, and Arkin are all incredible. Sheryl Lee is wonderful as well, in a role that will remind us Lynch fans of her Laura/Maddy days. Do not miss this one!

Sentiment: positive
First off, to rent or watch this film you are expecting something in the B-horror range. What this film delivers for the astute fan of this genre is quite a hilarious romp via nordic flavor. At times reminding me of the humor of Jackson's Dead Alive and others of a Stuart Gordon flick this little find should have most chuckling throughout. 

The f/x reach a few highs of truly spooky (the first time Ed meets his nemesis) but generally have the feel that this film was put together by a f/x team that decided to use any and all props at their disposal from other films...gremlins, devils, slasher films, etc. to pretty good effect and worked in thru the use of hallucinations. 

The gem of the film is the humor. The gore works most of the time but more for laughs. At its heart its a parody and a fun one at that.

Sentiment: positive
I had before a feeling of mislike for all Russian films. But, after seeing this film I haven´t. This is a unique masterpiece made by the best director ever lived in the USSR. He knows the art of film making, and can use it very well. If you find this movie: buy or copy it!

Sentiment: positive
I watched this show on the basis of it being told it was reminiscent of David Lynch's Twin Peaks - a show which I adore. The show quickly starts introducing us to the main characters and rather unusually the pilot episode is to me the best of the lot, its extremely dramatic and really gets out the whole evil side of the show ready to progress throughout the rest of the season. My one biggest criticism is I felt a little let down by the show - probably not through its own fault, as it got cancelled after a mere 1 season, it seemed to display show much potential and it deserved a lot better treatment than it got. The acting is excellent, and this show has some of the best characters (good and evil) in it I have ever seen that are well developed in a short space of time. There is the odd cheesy effect for the first 5 or ten shows which are a bit overly dramatic, but this is rectified as the season progressed. Well worth a watch, definitely something out of the ordinary!

Sentiment: positive
The sects that capitalise on this film are well known for their claim to take the 'message' of the bible without any alteration or extra-biblical influence. The existence of this film is solely due to the fact that there is no such thing.

If you want to know what the born-again branch of Christianity were harping on about in the seventies just look up the word 'rapture' in a dictionary of cults and sects. It's quicker than sitting through this waste of celluloid.

Poor acting, uneven sound quality and a script that could just as easily have been written by Jack T Chick (paranoid Christian conspiracy theorist for those not familiar with the Evangelical scene). You could not really put this into the 'so bad it's good' category so its only audience are either those with a pamphlet collection looking to branch out or the extremely paranoid.

Sentiment: negative
Disregard the plot and enjoy Fred Astaire doing A Foggy Day and several other dances, one a duo with a hapless Joan Fontaine. Here we see Astaire doing what are essentially "stage" dances in a purer form than in his films with Ginger Rogers, and before he learned how to take full advantage of the potential of film. Best of all: the fact that we see Burns and Allen before their radio/TV husband-wife comedy career, doing the kind of dancing they must have done in vaudeville and did not have a chance to do in their Paramount college films from the 30s. (George was once a tap dance instructor). Their two numbers with Fred are high points of the film, and worth waiting for. The first soft shoe trio is a warm-up for the "Chin up" exhilarating carnival number, in which the three of them sing and dance through the rides and other attractions. It almost seems spontaneous. Fan of Fred Astaire and Burns & Allen will find it worth bearing up under the "plot". I've seen this one 4 or 5 times, and find the fast forward button helpful.

Sentiment: positive
Although I am very familiar with poet Dylan Thomas, I know nothing of his life. Whatever his life and specifically his marriage involved, I would imagine that The Edge of Love (based on the novel) manipulates things a bit, but unless you are a historian or a poet, who cares.

The movie is less about Thomas and more focused on the two most important women in his life. One is his wife Kathrine, and the other is Vera who was his first love. One romantic night on the beach as youths is something that both have tried to put behind them but cannot, now grown up they are good friends. I forgot to mention that this is set during the war. Vera becomes engaged to Captain Will Killing who he gets her pregnant and leaves for war. While he is away, Vera starts to fall for Thomas again, and Kathrine has fallen out of love with him. She is also carrying another man's child. Things get even more emotionally complex when Capt Killig returns

As you can see, it is a very soap operatic plot, and it takes shape in a fairy drab slow manner, with perhaps one too many sequences of sappy dialogue. But all is not lost yet. For a non- Hollywood production, I think that the Edge of Love is about as stylish a picture as one can get. It is certainly more dimensional and intelligent than about 90% of contemporary romances, Hollywood production or not. Some of it has to do with being set during the war, which sets up emotional conflict that feels more convincing and less artificial, a bit like Atonement. this one features acting and cinematography of equal talent to Joe Wright's Oscar nominee, but it is in far greater need for stable pacing and progression. Things are okay at the start and finish, but the middle section is where your attention span may be tested, unless you are deeply and profoundly rooted in the story. 

I doubt if The Edge of Love will have that kind of an effect on the viewer, but is a good film to check. it might even make a good date night movie, considering it is so much smarter than the chick flicks that boyfriends are forced to endure today.

Sentiment: positive
I caught this filmshow about the most unlikely, success? ,from a lower league, football team. The plot is thick and roles out some great tenuous twists and turns. Intercut with shots and commentary from the 70's .I was taken aback by its shear footy fun.

A great cast includes the excellent Tim Healy as the crazed(drunk) manager , bumbling along hanging on to anything that will make his team win...? I keep remembering bits such as the stolen secret file that Don Revie( Super leeds united and england manager-loved by the fans hated by everyone else)has on Bostock United ( the underfelt men) which in its detailed report of their opposition, Bostock United, in this the FA Cup final, merely says "Sh-te".

Lots of other footy gags a long time before the fantastic feature length "Mike Basset - Football Manager" Starring Ricky Tomlinson.

Up there with the, Gung ho English beating Germans, at football. Well morally.Although the score lines says different , of "Escape to Victory" ( I still cheer when England score )

And the thankless eternal grind of following a really bad team in Micheal Palins "Golden Gordon" from "Ripping Yarns" series ( with Terry Jones)the team were called Bostonworth United ,in case your interested.

I've looked high and low for a copy of Bostock's Cup-even Nick Hancock's biography doesn't list it ( probably someone -not mr hancocks- error)

Play it again or sell me a copy- PLEASE....

Sentiment: positive
I'm always suprised on how different all people are and how for almost every movie you get both extremes. People who think it's the best movie and people who think it's the worst.

Stigmata wouldn't be the worst movie I've ever seen, but it's up there. First of all the sound. The producers spent more time on the soundtrack than the editing. It was so loud when the soundtrack was playing and no one was talking and then when Patrica was talking in her monotone voice, she could hardly be heard.

I usually like Patrica and Gaberial, but they were both flat in this movie. Patrica had basically 3 emotions. Quiet, in great pain, or really angry she has stigmata. The first was the predominate one, the second involved screaming pain, the third involving raising her voice. It was loudness that distiguished the three and not emotion.

Maybe I missed a lot of the deep meaning and subplots everyone was talking about, or maybe I was distracted by the terrible filming and MTV like style. When you watch a 3 minute video you need fast cuts and slow motion to convey a quick story, in a 2 hour feature film, it's nauseating. I fail to see the meaning of her seeing that women across the steet and dropping a child. And no Pittsburg does not rain that often!!

I think maybe a real story, with something to say could have been intended, but all the budget was spent on buying music and the equipment to do slow rain drop shots and renting that gorgous apartment that Ms. Arquett lived in that they ended up firing the guy with the story.

Sentiment: negative
It's a shame that such a lame plot should be hung on such picturesque locations, with some documentary style reportage shoved in for extra length. A shorter film may have held the tension a little more, and a more charismatic lead may not have mangled his lines so much. The female lead also, was not allowed to do enough resulting in a pretty but boring affair. It builds towards the end but the lead actor's own redemption is too little too late and should have been revealed earlier in the film. Not awful, just a pity. Unexciting but nice enough to grace TV schedules of the early hours.

Sentiment: negative
Normally, I don't like Chuck Norris films. I appreciate his work as a martial artist, and his fight scenes are usually fairly well-choreographed. Chuck is undeniably one of the martial arts greats. So, in my local used bookstore, I found a film I hadn't seen before and took it home.

While the acting in this movie was worse than most Chuch Norris films, I was hoping to see at least one fight scene. I quickly began to realize that this wasn't a typical Chuch Norris film; rather it was a Christian film, destined to illustrate the "good will win out" paradigm.

There is really nothing on the packaging to indicate that this is a Christian film, with the exception of the label ... Goodtimes Entertainment, which I had never heard of before. I'll certainly keep that in mind the next time I see a film from that company.

I don't have a problem with Christianity ... I do have a problem with sneaky proselytizing. If someone is going to make a religious film, at least have the good sense to indicate to the viewer that such is what they will get. The only redeeming part about the exercise is that I spent only $3.25 to spend 97 minutes to watch a great martial artist not fight. At least it was during supper-time, and I spent some of that cooking and eating.

In short, if you're looking for a mediocre martial arts film, and not hoping for much, don't bother with this film because it doesn't even offer that.

Sentiment: negative
The mere presence of Sam Waterston as an Indian, is enough to put this movie in the must-see category. He is both beautiful and very subtle, with no lines whatsoever. He is tender with his kidnappee, and yet we can see he is among the proudest of all young Indian Men. Martin Sheen is just a dumb cluck who decides to challenge Waterston (White Bull) for a gorgeous white horse. Other sub-plots are really unnecessary. I don't understand the part played by Caroline Langrishe, as the poor girl who White Bull kidnaps...I don't know how she keeps her hands off this beautiful Indian man! It's a lot of fun, though; especially if you're a Waterston fan. Man, he looks GOOD in this one!!! Harvey Keitel's role isn't even worth mentioning, to tell the truth! But, rent it and enjoy! Actually, I do believe that if the music score was better, it would've been a more dramatic film...the music is so bad, it's distracting. Still - there's Mr. Waterston!

Sentiment: positive
I wasted enough time actually WATCHING this chore of a movie, I don't want to waste more writing a big review. Not once did I so much as crack a smile. ALL the jokes were boring, forced and lacked any kind of wit. I kept saying, "wheres the punchline?" Almost every single character was an obnoxious stereotype and all the situations were clichéd and half the time there wasn't even any kind of solution. Things just happened to get to the next scene. For the life of me I can't understand how this got as many good reviews as it did. If you like clunky acting and poorly composed film making Fat Girls is the movie for you.

Sentiment: negative
"El Mar" directed by Catalonian director Agusti Villarona, and based on the novel by Blai Bonet, offers a glimpse of the Spanish history as seen by a Balearic author that takes the viewer back to the days of the civil war in that country. The movie concentrates on three friends, and follows them from those early days during the onset of the war in Majorca, to a few years later as two of those friends meet again when they are at a sanatorium, lost in the countryside.

We first meet three boys that are playing happily. Not everything is what it seems. The tragic death of one of them points out about the cruelty of the one that commits the evil deed. The boys have excluded a young girl, about their age, from taking part in their games.

When we meet the adult Ramallo again, he is on his way to a sanatorium. He seems to be suffering from tuberculosis. To his surprise, Manuel Tur, one of his boyhood friends is also being treated, and the young girl that was not welcomed to participate in their games is now one of the nuns that supervise their health care. It is obvious that Tur looks at Ramallo in a way that only means he is in love with the tough bully. Their relationship will have devastating consequences.

Roger Casamajor does a good job with portraying the older Ramallo. Bruno Bergonzino makes an impression as Tur, the vulnerable youth. Antonia Torrens plays Sor Francisca with conviction. Angela Molina, puts an appearance as Carmen, the wife of the caretaker of the institution. Simon Andreu is perfect as Alcantara.

"El Mar" is a dark film that clearly shows Agusti Villarona's talents in making the novel come alive for the viewer.

Sentiment: positive
... so what's in those missing 10 minutes that were so horrible they had to cut them out from the original film? We were three years into the film production code... Barbara Stanwyck had starred in the original play, but here, Carole Lombard plays Maggie King. Co star Fred MacMurray is probably best known for "Double Indemnity", with Stanwyck, as well as his hit TV show "My Three Sons". Keep an eye out for a young Dorothy Lamour (Bob Hope movies) and the too-fabulous Franklin Pangborn, who spiced up just about every film put on tape. Of course, he works in the beauty salon on the ship! Add the sublime Charles Butterworth and Anthony Quinn. Good timing and clever banter at the beginning. Maggie's buddy Ella is played by Jean Dixon, who was the best friend in "Holiday" and "My Man Godfrey". In "Swing High", Maggie the tourist meets a soldier who is leaving the army. Maggie misses her boat when it leaves port and gets tangled up with the soldier. The dashing 20-something Quinn has a small scene at the local bar in Panama where Johnson (MacMurray) has been playing the trumpet. Maggie, Harry (Butterworth), and Skid band together and try to figure out how to get back to the States. Some good singing by Lamour. Good (but brief) acting performance by Cecil Cunningham as "Murph", the wise, helpful owner of the local saloon in Panama. While others have lamented at how bad it is, it wasn't so awful, and is even a little exotic, with the fake Central America locale setting for the first half of the film.

Sentiment: positive
This two-parter was excellent - the best since the series returned. Sure bits of the story were pinched from previous films, but what TV shows don't do that these days. What we got here was a cracking good sci-fi story. A great big (really scary) monster imprisoned at the base of a deep pit, some superb aliens in The Ood - the best "new" aliens the revived series has come up with, a set of basically sympathetic and believable human characters (complete with a couple of unnamed "expendable" security people in true Star Trek fashion), some large-scale philosophical themes (love, loyalty, faith, etc.), and some top-drawer special effects.

I loved every minute of this.

Sentiment: positive
Bobbie Phillips, who in her own right has amassed a great list of credits as a hard working Hollywood actress, shines in this third installment of UPN and Village Roadshow's Chameleon series. In this installment, the sexual innuendo has been toned down with Kam showing a caring maternal side towards a recently orphaned genius teen. Bobbie delivers this role to the viewers with great panache'. The action and stunts were the best in the series.

Sentiment: positive
After consuming "Human Pork Chop" and properly digesting it, I felt urged and obliged to inform potential viewers, that chewing on this product is NO FUN and its substance of LOW nutritive value.

According to the dull nature of this film, the following is gonna be a WARNING more than a REVIEW. This is the first time I wished, that there is an "I-don't-care-to-rate-this-movie"-button on IMDB, because the only reaction to this boring piece of TRASH is stasis and indifference. Every possible rating would do injustice to all the other items listed here, a "10" is out of question anyway, "1" might persuade some readers, that this is one of those cases where "it's so bad that it's actually REALLY bad and that's kewl!", and "5" is unsatisfying as well, people might think, that it's an OK-flick and alright if you wanna have some cheesy fun, which it is not... Honest to God, it's neither a "10", a zero nor a 5, it's nothing, a black hole, A FUTILE WORK CONCEIVED BY AN EMBRYO. I bought the region 3 DVD, which was cheap (7 bucks!!!) at least and of good picture-quality, I bought it mainly because of the positive and promising reviews posted below my own entry. Oh boy, was I to be DISAPPOINTED. This movie is neither shocking nor disgusting nor unnerving nor... it's not even laughable, it doesn't take itself too serious to be laughed at, but still serious enough so as not to be comic. A truly unpassionate, amateurish effort. The only sequence that I found MILDLY DISTURBING is when two giggling thugs put an ugly dog in a bag and bash it against a brick wall... but even such a cruel premise only lead to a poor execution. The further down cited TOILET SCENE is unrealistic and filmmed without any sense for suspense, suffering or humiliation - the feces look like painted marsh-mellows!!! There is a butchery scene at the end of a loooong 85-minutes where three men dressed in plastic raincoats (a setup which one finds also depicted on the front cover of the DVD) start to dispose of the female body. Reminded me of "American Psycho" and "Shallow Grave", now these flicks are worth watching and true masterpieces.

Let's be REALISTIC for once and not rush to make a myth out of every Asian-wannabe-scary-movie, as seems to happen lately...

If you are looking out for some eastern horror then try Danny Lee's masterpiece of the very same (English) title "Ba Xian fan dian zhi ren rou cha shao bao" (Human Pork Chop) it's from 1992 and has - not without reason I might add - been compared to "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer". There is also a similar film telling the same story by a different film crew called "Ren tou dou fu shang" ("There Is a Secret in My Soup") of the same year, sort of a rival production. It's available as a region 3 DVD and by most regarded as superior to "Peng shi zhi sang jin tian liang". I might add a few more words on the special effects... what special effects?!?... there are a few chopped off limbs, they look awful - in a wrong sense - probably "Made in Hong Kong".

That's about all the info I can share on this subject, hopefully it will prove helpful... ENJOY YOUR MEAL!

Sentiment: negative