DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I was given a DVD of Public Enemies and was expecting it to be the 2009 version but it wasn't - it was this! Sure, it wasn't the greatest movie I have ever seen - not by ANY means - but, heck folks, it was worth more that 2.8 out of 10! When I saw that abysmal rating on IMDb, I wondered what I was going to get but, since the disc was in the player, I settled down to watch it. As other commentators have pointed out, Public Enemies is NOT a historical movie per-se - and I noted that, unlike the 2009 version (which I haven't seen yet) IMDb doesn't categorise it as such.

Come on people! It's a STORY based on some real people - that's all! If I wanted a history lesson, I'd sit at this computer and read Wikipedia or something. Ma Barker (actual name Arizona - or Arrie - Barker) was NEVER even charged with any crime and, as other commentators have already pointed out, she probably never even took part in her sons' activities. They sent her to the movies when they were "working"! (I hope she wasn't as critical as some of those who watched this movie!) 

Theresa Russell had the never-too-easy task of portraying a woman from the age of 17 right through to her death at the age of 52 - from a young girl running from home to the hardened mother of four hoodlum sons. I think she did it pretty well. The cheeky little smile she used in more than one scene was classical! OK, I will agree with some of the critics that the direction of this film was below par and I sympathise with the actors over that. Theresa should have told the director to forget the topless shots - they didn't contribute to the story. Maybe some bigger-name stars would have managed to inject some of their own expertise into overriding the poor direction whereas the second-graders weren't quite that brave. Who knows? 

But, whilst this was certainly no block-buster, it WAS worth more than 2.8!! I have all my DVDs on a personal database where I score them BEFORE looking at the IMDb score (although that sometimes influences slight changes later). I take what I get on it's own merits rather than holding one movie up against others of the same genre and this one I felt was entertaining enough to get 6.8. (Yep, I'll accept that such a practice does tend to depend on my mood at the time, but then isn't that also true of those who vote on IMDb?) However, you may imagine my surprise when I looked at IMDb and saw the pitiful score it got here.

Given the surprise, I decided to read a few of the other comments in the hopes of understanding the low rating and I noticed that they are quite polarised. I agreed with those who said the movie was worth watching and came to the conclusion that some people are just hard to please. Well, since some were absolutely scathing, why don't THEY get out there and make some better movies? I will look forward to the gems they must be able to turn out! On the other hand, if they can't do that, then why don't they just shut up?

Sentiment: positive
Wesley Eure is young inventor Brian Foster, who's invented a new crime busting security device in the form of a robot dog, the titular "C.H.O.M.P.S." (It stands for Canine HOMe Protection System). C.H.O.M.P.S., who's been modeled after Brian's real dog Rascal, can do just about anything; he's got enhanced speed, strength, X-ray vision, and the like. It's just the thing to save his boss Ralph Norton's (Conrad Bain) security company. Naturally, a slimy competitor, Gibbs (Jim Backus) wants the edge so he tries to get his hands on the secret.

This is the kind of thing that's just too hard to resist. It's got plenty of slapstick (Chuck McCann and Red Buttons play a great pair of bumbling idiots), an upbeat attitude, an engaging cast, and enough good laughs to keep one entertained. The energetic disco-style music gets repetitive but is undeniably catchy; the story is straightforward, and the dogs themselves are absolutely adorable. In one thoroughly odd but side-splitting touch, there's another dog in the film (named "Monster") whose thoughts we actually get to hear; both his dialog and the performer doing the voice are priceless. In fact, he even utilizes some mild profanity and his last words end the film on a positively gut busting final note.

Eure and the cute Valerie Bertinelli are very likable young leads, and their veteran supporting cast plays the material with all the gusto they can muster. Larry Bishop, Hermione Baddeley, Robert Q. Lewis, and Regis Toomey also co-star.

A rare theatrical live-action venture for the cartoon-creating team of Hanna & Barbera ('The Flintstones', 'Scooby-Doo', 'The Smurfs', and so on), "C.H.O.M.P.S." is agreeably silly stuff. I know it left me with a smile on my face.

7/10

Sentiment: positive
Could anyone please stop John Carpenter from continuously and deliberately ruining his reputation? How low can you go? It seems this man has lost any self respect.

This episode looks like it has been done by a film student, it isn't even worth beginning to talk about WHAT was bad, because it was just a borefest, directed by somebody with no talent as a filmmaker or without any motivation...

Come on, Mr. Carpenter, please retire immediately with a rest of self-esteem and stop spilling out trash like this in a bad tradition from Escape from L.A. to Ghosts of Mars.

Get drunk instead.

Sentiment: negative
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning 

A notably bad actor, getting by on his (now fading) looks rather than any strong dramatic talent, Richard Gere has always occupied a rather curious position in the American Hollywood scene, always a sure bet in leading man roles who still holds a notable presence today. But nowadays he seems to have settled more into these sort of direct to DVD/limited release roles and as such maybe seems to be more settled in his forte now.

He has to draw on some stern matter here as hardened, cynical case worker Earl Babbage, one such worker assigned to a few hundred sex offenders in one area of the US, who along with his new protégé Allison Allthrop (Claire Danes) must take to his latest case, delving into the abduction of a young woman while trying to forgive himself for a case he failed on ages ago.

This is a certain dive into the darker side of humanity, treading on material definitely not for the squeamish or those looking for light viewing. And as such it's a pretty strong, compelling film, unflinching and not constrained by it's direct to DVD budget. The only thing really pulling it back is the overly used jittery, fast cutting camera sequences used in the more dramatic moments that look a bit corny after a while. But it's still some of the solidest material I've seen Gere in, relentlessly getting darker and more over the edge as it goes on. ***

Sentiment: positive
Micro-phonies is a classic Stooge short. The guys are inept repairmen working at a radio station, and during some horsing around in a broadcast booth, Curly's perfect mimic of a recording of "Voices of Spring" is mistaken for the real thing, leading to a radio contract and a zany musical party. The trio's mock rendition of the quintet from "Lucia de L'Amamore" is especially entertaining. No doubt this is essential viewing for Stooge fans.

Although the evidence of Curly's failing health is visible in his face and voice, his performance is amazing, and it is probably the last glimpse of the old Curly. Some fans think that "A Bird in the Hand" is the last great Curly short, but his coarse voice and slow movement are just too difficult to watch.

Sentiment: positive
I will start this off by saying I couldn't get all the way through it. I picked it up on a rainy day from WalMart like the rest of the reviewers on this site. I figured there wasn't any way I would regret my purchase. Was I wrong or what? Seriously now, who approved this project? They need to be forced to watch this movie over and over until the end of eternity. That's the only fitting punishment I can think of for releasing something this bad. The shooting reminds me of the movies I used to make for class projects on a big old VHS cam. The acting isnt much better. I think the only difference is that there are a few cool cameos. Yay, who cares... Shecky Moskowitz is unfunny, and the ships comedian is an even bigger loser. That's about as much of the plot as I understood.

Overall it's the worst movie I've ever seen. I own it on DVD and have given it to many co-workers to watch. Each comes back and laughs and says "Wow I didnt think I'd ever say I shut off an Adam Sandler movie 15 minutes in...."

My response is always "Well now you can"



Sentiment: negative
This movie is one of the only historical documents displaying the talents of so many black singers, actors, actresses, and dancers. Many who are no longer with us. Those which we are blessed to be able to enjoy today in 1999, through this film lets us recognize the talents that existed then. This is why those individuals still living today as well those who are deceased are super star icons. Due to the educational history in music, drama, filming, design, singing, etc., this movie alone belongs to the people of this country.

I viewed this movie recently. The sound was excellent! The movie appeared to be complete, color and clarity was fare, but good considering how old this movie is without any repairs on frames. I agree with all prior positive reviews. I do not have any negative views.

I only would like to make one request. Please to whom it my concern, please make this movie available so all can have this historical experience.

Sentiment: positive
This is a sprawling (4 hours) remake of the Rider Haggard story, with the usual added female and an extraneous subplot with Russian soldiers seeking a "Stone of Power" buried along with the treasure of King Solomon. It's very well shot, giving a vivid sense of the wide open spaces of Africa, and very well acted. Patrick Swayze is an excellent Alan Quatermain, and Allison Doody is attractive as Elizabeth Maitland, who hires Quatermain to help rescue her father. Sidede Onyulo as Umbopa, Gavin Hood as McNabb and the leader of the Russian soldiers (not named in IMDb's listing) are also memorable. For all that Hollywood can't leave a good story alone when they adapt it, this one is well told and, except that it's too long, I enjoyed it. 6/10.

Sentiment: positive
I enjoy Ralph Bakshi films ("Wizards", "Cool World" and the underrated animated "Lord of the Rings") and am a Frank Frazetta collector and fan. I am also a sword and sorcery fan who loves the worlds of Edgar Rice Burroughs and Robert E. Howard.

I missed "Fire and Ice's" theatrical release back in 1983 and have looked forward to seeing it on video or at some revival ever since then. Therefore the 2005 release was a dream come true for me. However, I bought it with some trepidation, because I hoped it would not be only worth watching once and then put on the shelf as a "collectible" gathering dust until the day I died. Fortunately my fears were groundless and I was pleasantly impressed with this movie.

As with Frazetta art this is a gritty film that has a physicality and sexuality that is hard to find in most fantasy/sword and sorcery films without being cheesy or dirty. The art is good and you see glimpses of Frazetta at his best. Even my young boys loved watching it with me and ask to watch it again and again. However, my wife has some objections due to the scantily clad princess (very Frazetta-esquire). I don't mind that because it is believable and there is no sex scene.

There is roto-scoping used, but personally I enjoy roto-scoping. It gives more fluid and realistic movements to the characters that is hard to find in animation.

Despite some continuity problems, I recommend this film to all Bakshi, Frazetta, Conan, and sword and sorcery fans. Enjoy!

Sentiment: positive
I'd heard of Eddie Izzard, but had never seen him in action. I knew he was a transvestite, and when I saw he was on HBO one night last summer, I put it on, not knowing how my husband would react. Well, he blew us away. He's better than Robin Williams ever was. He has total control of the audience; when he does the 'Englebert is dead - no he's not', routine, the audience doesn't know what to think by the end. God as James Mason is also an inspired touch, and his version of the Python Spanish Inquisition as carried out by the Church of England - 'Cake or Death?' is priceless. My jaws were aching from laughter by the end of the show. We scoured the TV listings for months after that to be able to see him again, and were lucky enough to tape him the next time he came on. If you get the chance to see this show, cancel everything and tape it, you won't be disappointed.

Sentiment: positive
I felt compelled to write about this movie after i joined IMDb because i thought it was the worst script writing i have seen in a while.

The acting/direction/other-areas of the movie are fantastic. I love brad Pitt with George Clooney. It works. The witty banter was still there too from the first movie. My question is how in the world did they let this script out of the drafting process? I thought that not only did the plot develop like a slug racing to the end of the sidewalk, but that twist? (can i call it that) was so incredibly stupid that i wanted to go demand a refund from the ticket booth. I have never felt so played and used from a movie in my entire life. Here i was expecting something similar to the first movie (good chemistry, good acting, good direction, amazing plot) only to find that they had taking my 8 dollars and made a mockery out of it.

The part that gets me still is that this movie has now grossed more than 125 million dollars.

In summary, I felt that this movie insulted my intelligence. I still feel like the only part the writers concentrated on was that little bit with Julia Roberts acting like Julia Roberts. This movie made me sad and angry.

Sentiment: negative
This is very nearly a perfect film. The ideas would be repeated by Mamet, but never told so succinctly. This is really about the failure of trust, of the human condition. The film weaves the idea that we are all criminals, no one is innocent. Is there anyone alive today who hasn't seen this play out in our own society, every single day? The film is very much structured like a Hitchcock thriller. Except, there are no more innocent characters. The world is now completely polluted, ruined and everyone is participating in the con. Could anything be more true?

Don't miss the soundtrack. It is wonderful.

Sentiment: positive
Just saw this film and I must say that although there was shown in the beginning some effort to produce a decent film, this was absolutely horrible -- but not in the sense that was intended I'm sure.

It was like a child was directing this insult to intelligence with the belief that all would-be viewers are morons OR extremely hard up for entertainment OR both.... Thank God for fast forward! I can't imagine the type of viewer the producer had in mind when making this film. I mean, you have actors trying to be serious, albeit barely, and a script that cries for a total rewrite,.... I just can't say anymore. If Harlequin Romance decided to do horror films, this would be a good effort.

If you found this movie to be entertaining, then I strongly suggest that you seek out some guidance as to the purpose of movies. There is MUCH BETTER fare out there. Join a club, READ REVIEWS, but above all, avoid crap like this.

Sentiment: negative
THE worst movie I've ever seen, and I've seen allot. Acting is horrible, plot is awful, idea is terrible, and no research was done what's so ever! Ok, I admit, `Air Bud' was a pretty good movie, but not `Soccer Dog'. This "dog" is smaller than my cat! How can he possibly play soccer? Even for 10 years old kids it won't be a problem to kick the ball hard enough to brake the stupid dog in half! It's horrible, don't watch this movie.

Sentiment: negative
My personal vision of hell is being locked in a room without the ability to close my eyes or block my ears and have this movie play for eternity on every available surface in that room. The whole notion that Streisand plays a boy/man only begins to scratch the surface of how ridiculous a premise this movie is. The single most important thing about watching any movie is the concept of "willing suspension of disbelief" . . . it is impossible to do that in this movie.

Sentiment: negative
What a shame. This could have been good. The main problems are the script and the star. The film cannot decide whether to be a slapstick comedy (of a very uninspired and routine kind) or whether to be a insightful satire on the old East Germany and its mores. Its attempts at the latter flop totally, however. The film does not hold together well and the ending is very artificial and unbelievable. Any stereotypes one might have about German comedy are sadly reinforced.

The characters are stereotypes one and all, and the leading character, played by Kim Frank, is colourless in the extreme. He just cannot carry the film and appears to have been chosen largely for his baby face. It may not be all the actor's fault (he is a pop singer), as the script does not give him much to work on.

One plus -- the recreation of the East German 'style' and period is good.

The worst thing is that the film feels somehow dishonest and demeaning. The film seems to have been churned out by people who were not necessarily giving it their best and just wanted to make a quick buck from a few cheap laughs. (If they were giving it their best, it is a sad case indeed!) I watched it at the cinema with an East German audience and I felt sorry for them. The GDR regime was awful in almost all respects, but those who lived through it deserve better than this.

Sentiment: negative
Stephen Seagal plays the role of a dude who gets talked into driving an armored car for a bank hold up and drives into everything that comes across his path. However, the police seem to appear on the scene very quickly and Seagal smells a rat who gave the police advanced notice. The story gets into many twists and turns and the money from the hold up has disappeared and nobody knows its new owner. Poor Seagal gets a bit framed into this hold up and naturally he is out looking for the person or persons who are trying to put him away for a long time. In this film, Seagal tries to be a good guy but the forces of evil are against him. Unfortunately, this is not a great film and rather boring and too long.

Sentiment: negative
I gave it a seven only because the acting is good. And of course by that I mean Wilkinson. The other two principals were "decent". But the characters themselves...what on earth was so bad about the character Wilkinson played (James Manning)? I didn't see him behaving like the martinet Emily Watson accused him of being. Bill Bule, on the other hand, was an insufferable jerk who I was praying would meet an extremely brutal and prolonged demise. Who was I kidding? Tom Wilkinson isn't Paul Bettany after all. So what on EARTH did Emily Watson's (Anne) character SEE in him???? She herself admitted he was pretty much a piece of offal in his treatment of her. Why would she even want to be in the same TOWN as him, to say nothing of the same "room".

I noticed some other reviews, one person said she "cried" at the end, to witness James' tragedy. ??? WHAT tragedy? What, you mean losing an imbecile who finds someone like Bill Bule AMUSING???!!! Give us a break.

Sentiment: positive
This 1934 adaptation of Somerset Maugham's novel put Bette Davis on the map as a movie actress. She might have won an Academy Award for her performance but the films was made on loan, so her studio didn't push for her. Her acting in this one doesn't come off well by today's standards. As the heartless waitress who jerks Philip, a sensitive medical student, around and nearly ruins his life, Davis is way too shrill, almost demonic. Director John Cromwell, who usually elicited good performances from his actresses, was perhaps overwhelmed by this one. Davis is watchable, for sure, but so strident and predatory as to seem scarcely human. I imagine the character of Millie as quieter, less feminine than Davis, with maybe a touch of the tomboy. Davis is such a strong, immediate presence that's there's no air of mystery to her, which makes Philip's attraction to her seem more overtly masochistic than it should be.

As Philip, Leslie Howard is excellent. His wan, somewhat wilted good looks are perfect for this failed aesthete. Nor does he impose a personal interpretation on the part, as, say, Dirk Bogarde might have done, which gives his work a rare clarity. He seems completely in control here, as he should be, playing a man with a rational intellect who is in the grip of irrational emotions he cannot manage or even fully satisfy, as the object of his affections moves him in ways he cannot understand. Howard was a fine actor, too often cast in standard romantic parts which compelled him to fall back on charm, which he doesn't use here.

It's been so long since I've read the book I don't feel comfortable commenting on the movie's faithfulness to it. I think it captures the spirit of the story well enough, and that it has in Howard a perfect Philip Carey. The sexual undercurrents are muted, and at times Philip behaves so masochistically that in the absence of strong sex feelings makes one wonder about the character's sanity, surely not Mr. Maugham's intention. Thanks to Howard's performance, Philip remains firmly in focus, as one can see in his various responses to and yearnings for Millie the extremes to which a reasonable intellect will go to understand the irrational, in himself and in others. 

Overall, a very good film, a little stilted at times, due to its age, it evokes London nicely, and is well acted for the most part.

Sentiment: positive
Look, this film is terrible... the "plot" involves twins who are neglected by their self-absorbed parents, and left in the care of a succession of nannies and babysitters, all of whom the children drive away by being completely obnoxious. Eventually the kids engineer ex-convict Beverly D'Angelo to be their new nanny, do you care why? And D'Angelo watches a TV talk show about selling children and decides she will try to sell the twins... and, well, oh, you don't want to know. It's all very unpleasant, and not at all funny. In fact the announcer slated this film before it came on the TV channel I was watching! Just don't bother wasting a single moment of your life on this pile of complete trash, y'hear?

Sentiment: negative
Death bed: The bed that eats.

Judging from the title, you can guess what this movie is about. And yet there is a lot more (background) story to this film then one might suspect.

Okay, so the main plot is about a bed eating people and food, but there are also a few subplots. I won't spoil them for you, but they're a nice touch.

Sadly, the acting in this movie is very mediocre. The fact that most dialog is not even spoken by the actors doesn't really help to improve the quality of the movie as a whole.

Because there is a lot of voice-over work. The thoughts of characters are also revealed to the watchers. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

The effects are fine. Sure, it could be a lot better if you compare it with today's movies. But you really shouldn't; just judge the movie as it is and don't take it too seriously. You have to admit that a killer BED is quite creative. If you are easily spooked, don't watch this movie. You might never want to sleep again...

Death Bed: The bed that eats is a strange horror gem with a low budget, but I'd still recommend it to fans of horror movies.

In conclusion, I give this movie a 7 out of 10 stars for it's creative story and unexpected twists here and there.

Sentiment: positive
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning 

Old Detroit is back, with the giant Omni Consumer Corporation continuing to swallow everything in it's path as construction of the new Delta City continues and a new menace to contend with in the shape of Cain, a cruel drug lord with delusions of Christ-likeness, peddling a deadly new addictive on the streets called nuke. As he continues to struggle with the memories of his former life haunting him, the tin plated hero sets out to bring this villain down- only to wind up getting chopped into pieces of scrap metal. With Robocop out of action, a ruthless OCP business-woman proposes plans for her new android- a stomping, snarling beast of a machine that needs an equally nasty test subject to power it- which Cain fits perfectly. After a brief glitch in his system, Robo returns to bring justice to the streets and settle the score with Cain.

The original Robocop is a film that always manages to astound you each time you watch it, no matter how many times you've seen it, one of those films that just can't be done again. That said, it's not surprising a sequel was made- it's even less surprising that that sequel really pales compared to the original. Empire Strikes Back director Irvin Kirschner has crafted an unpleasant, slightly incoherent and overlong film that can't capture the magic of the first film, no matter how hard it tries. And it certainly does that, the funny ads from the first film running none stop, the corporate satire aiming to be that bit sharper and the action roaring as fast and furious as before, but with blood/gore even meaner than the first film. The first film earned a name for some nasty, blood-soaked violence (including a man's genitals being blown off and a man being blasted to pieces) but while that was more memorable the violence/gore on display here is of a more sadistic and gratuitous nature, with a very unpleasant and mean-spirited tone to it.

But overall, the film leaves you with a feeling of general apathy- why are you watching this when you could be watching the original again instead? **

Sentiment: negative
If you are looking for a cinematic masterpiece, this ain't it. If you are looking for one of those awful movies that are so horrible that they are actually good, then this may be for you. There are so many unintentional laughs in this film, that it could almost be considered a comedy. Let's start with the opening titles, that say "Jack-O", and then add the word "Lantern", as if the viewer wasn't able to figure out the movie was about a pumpkin by the giant pumpkin shown on both the cover and in the opening scene of the movie. After that, the movie goes in about 20 different directions, none of which make much sense. Jack-o is everywhere, he's in people's houses, in the woods, and yet he doesn't ever seem to do much of anything. He does make a few kills, but the long buildup to those killings is so poorly acted and constructed you almost wish Jack-o would take out his rage on you the viewer. Other than that, the plot consists of poor acting, gratuitous nudity, and a ridiculous plot line. The acting in this film is among the worst I've ever seen in my 35 plus years of movie-watching. The boy who is the lead in the film (the director's son) has about as much emotion as a corpse, and just about all of the other actors/actresses are just as bad for numerous reasons (especially the bug-eyed lady with eyes bigger than saucers). But, having said all this, if you take this for what it is, (that is a steaming pile of dung) then you will get a few laughs from this movie. What I also found amusing is that the makers of the DVD saw fit to release a "10th Anniversary Version" of this movie (as if the original wasn't good enough). And someone actually had the idea of making a "behind the scenes" mini film which is also included in the 10th anniversary edition (I'm not sure why).......I'll give this 3 smashed pumpkins out of 10...

Sentiment: negative
I remember when I first heard about Jack Frost. I was in Video Ezy at Miranda with my family on a monthly video hiring tradition. It was at this time that I worked up the courage to venture over towards the horror section of the store. Browsing the various titles, I finally came across Jack Frost. The cover was enough to convince me that the film was beyond my viewing pleasures. Years later the film disappeared, only to be replaced with the inevitable yet unnecessary sequel. I once again ventured to the horror section and picked up the case only to come to one conclusion: the film would be scary but not intentionally.

Jack Frost 2: Revenge Of The Killer Mutant Snowman (quite a title) follows off where it's predecessor left it. Sheriff Sam is seeking counseling after his ordeals and Jack is now in the form of anti-freeze. To escape his past, Sam and his wife head to an island hotel where he is in the company of a wide variety of slasher film stereotypes including busty female models, thick headed sports jocks and Caribbean staff. However, Jack is released from his liquid grave and is back to his icy methods. He heads over to the island and proceeds to kill anyone that would prove to have an awesome death. Only Sam can stop him.

Let me just say that this is a straight-to-video film so it's bound to be bad. But this is terrible even in the eyes of other over the top films. The camera work is poor, using a camera that would make a soap opera look majestic. Half the actors look like they've come out of a porn shoot and the other half look like they've come out of a retirement home, but in actual fact they've actually come out of an asylum. There is an extensive use of special effects used in the film which tends to alternate between bland puppetry and CGI that can be bettered by an infant, and the death scenes are mostly off screen showing us little of what has happened to the hapless, yet deserving, victims. But the film is most memorable for it's killer one liners such as "There's something that needs a little Christmas stuffing" and "I know pronounce you officially f***ing dead!" Ultimately the whole purpose behind a film like this is to make a popcorn flick for those Friday nights of boredom and even it fails at that. To make a sequel to a film that was a poor slasher with a concept that a child would find unbelievable must've taken some nerves of steel or a total frontal lobotomy. To director Michael Cooney thanks for wasting my time. To everyone else avoid like arsenic.

Sentiment: negative
What I liked best about this flick was the chance to see Joan Woodbury, who awe-struck me as one of the several beauties in the Charles Boyer classic "Algiers", in a leading role. She does well as Rita, an orphan who rises to make good as a lady crime boss. Her ascent to the top reminds me of Joan Crawford's characters, e.g. Mildred Pierce, who realize their ambitions by fierce determination and willpower. If you're looking for a film noir classic, better look elsewhere. At several points, it's difficult to know where this story is going. I first got the impression that it was going to encompass Rita's plot for revenge against the father and son who tricked her into taking the rap for a drunk driving death perpetrated by the playboy son. But payback time ended up being only a minor point, and a springboard to the somewhat confusing second part of the film, where Rita becomes increasingly involved in city corruption. Anyway, it's only 72 minutes, so a second viewing should clear up any haziness. My copy is from a Platinum box set called "Mobster Movies". The picture quality is good, but the soundtrack sucks, constantly skipping fragments of dialog. There are eight films in the $5.50 box, making each movie a fair 69 cents. Look for Anne Archer's father, John Archer, as Rita's childhood friend Bob. Alan Ladd doesn't get much screen time. It's definitely Joan Woodbury's picture.

Sentiment: negative
The infamous Ed Wood "classic" Plan 9 From Outer Space features an indignant alien calling the human race, "...stupid! Stupid, stupid stupid!" I'd have to say exhibit A in that trial would probably this movie, a ridiculously silly sci-fi film.

Falling action star Jean Claude Van Damme returns to a hit role for him from the original movie, Luke, a former Universal Soldier who now works making really good universal soldiers. While Van Damme was too big to reprise the role in the first two sequels, he was too small to do much of anything else by the time the fourth film in the Universal Soldier series came around. So, probably cursing under his breath the whole way, he kicks and grunts and scowls through ninety minutes of explosions and karate kicks. You'll find plenty of mindless violence, but I'd advise you get a coat check for your brain at the door when you start watching this thing. Otherwise, you are liable to forget where you left it by the time it's over.

Luke is called into action against more Universal Soldiers after a really really REALLY evil computer named Seth (makes HAL look like Ghandi) turns all the other universal soldiers into evil, remorseless killers. Of course this is what these things are programmed to do, but in this case they are killing their creators, not "the enemy" so that's a problem.

I love the dumb logic of this movie. Logic that believes that a supercomputer would create a body for itself that looks as ashamed as Michael Jai White does to be in this movie. Logic that dictates that the creator of Seth be a blue-haired cyber-stereotype geek who spouts cliches more regularly than Old Faithful does steam. Logic that has a climactic karate fight feature two characters kicking each other though ten separate panes of shattering glass in the span of three minutes of screen time.

The film also features a daughter in peril character, wrestler Bill Goldberg as a wrestler disguised as a Universal Soldier, and a romance so tacked on, I have to think the writers thought tacked on romances were actually a GOOD thing. And when this movie ends, it ends. Not a minute after a gigantic towering finale-style explosion are the credits running. No epilogue, no where are they now, no final kiss, just explosion, hug, over. Even the creators want to get out of this thing as soon as possible.

While it's no Plan 9, US:TR is a silly little trifle of an action movie that would be fun at parties full of rowdy Van Damme fans who enjoy seeing their hero really reaching new depths. Not to be seen on a serious stomach.

Sentiment: negative
I can watch B,B&C and feel all the emotions I felt when I first saw it at aged 18 well,maybe all but one.Certainly Miss K.Novak has lost none of her silky allure in nearly half a century.She was a thinking youth's Diana Dors.All those thinking youths now collecting their pensions can briefly regain the heart - clutching,collar - tightening,blood - pulsing ardour they felt when she gazed directly into their eyes back in the days when they were being told that they had never had it so good. Now,huddled up against the cold and fearful of being mugged by a Hoodie,they scuttle home as fast as their arthritic knees can carry them from the Video Shop,relatively happy in the certain knowledge that within the triple - locked comparative safety of their fourth - floor tower block flat they can regain just a small fragment of their lost youth and perhaps reflect that love truly is eternal. This movie is Miss Novak's Golden Moment.She seized it avidly and gave a performance of awesome voluptuousness combined with a hypnotic awareness of her own sex - appeal and,despite all this,she convinces us that her character possesses a strange and beguiling innocence. She completely dominates the amiable Mr J.Stewart who seems resigned to handing her the movie.Misses E.Lanchester and H.Gingold offer comic relief along with Mr E. Kovacs whose peculiar talents are strictly proscribed.Mr J.Lemmon plays Miss Novak's brother.He is a beatnik,a species that disappeared as soon as it realised that its existence was being acknowledged by the mainstream.Some of the more hardcore beats reinvented themselves as hippies a few years later.Certainly they had become figures of fun by 1958 and Mr Lemmon does not appear overly concerned with restraint in portraying one. But all else is mere frippery,Miss Novak - bathed in a particularly beautiful spectrum of Technicolor - is the sole raison - d'etre for "Bell,Book and Candle".It survives,its reputation enhanced,as the ultimate showcase for one of Hollywood's most beautiful women. Loved by moviegoers,ignored by critics,Miss Novak will continue to captivate with that enigmatic smile all the time thinking old men have the strength to push the "Play" buttons on their DVDs.One day,probably after we are all gone,she will be discovered by a new generation who will - belatedly - realise that it is quite possible for a woman to be fully - dressed and sexually attractive at the same time.

Sentiment: positive
I have to say, its not very good. Polly Bergen is fine in this film.The rest are so so. I'm gay and honestly , there are so many cliché's for this time in history that its just sad. We started watching it then turned it off, then decided it would be fun to make fun of the rest of the film. But all said, the basic idea of the film is good. If it was re-written with less contrived lines and better acting it could have actually been prety good. Over all i would not recommend it. IN additon the this is coo coo thinking line is so lame. On top of that the fight in the hair salon is funny because its so bad. The lesbian sister in the room with them while they are trying to get it on is so weird its sad.

Sentiment: negative
I have seen a few of Fred Carpenter's movies on Showtime, Pay Per View and video/DVD and I enjoyed most of these films especially with a few beers, (Carpenter knows how to entertain)"EDDIE MONROE" and "MURDERED INNOCENCE" are my favorites. I recently Viewed a Promo DVD of "EDDIE MONROE" and everything from the cast to the storyline and directing all worked smoothly. (Doug Brown's Music Score was sensational.) I enjoyed seeing Frank Sivero ("Goodfellas", "New York, New York" and "The Wedding Singer"), he is an amazing and very underrated actor.But I especially liked the performance of Paul Vario who played Uncle Benny, I looked up his acting credits on the IMDb and I found out this was his first starring role. Where has this guy been! Give Fred Carpenter credit for discovering Great New Talent, it's only a matter of time you'll be seeing this guy costarring with Pacino and DeNiro. As I mentioned Carpenter knows how to entertain and when your working with a limited budget it is amazing what Carpenter can Produce.(I read the VENT MAGAZINE interview and Carpenter has never made a movie for more than $400,000.00 dollars.) Before I watched "EDDIE MONROE" I saw "Rocky Balboa" and "The Good Shepherd" both great films. "Eddie Monroe" took me on a ride to a surprised ending because of a very good script, good performances from the entire cast(Craig Morris is a movie star waiting to happen and the lead Actress Jessica Tsunis was hot!) great Cinematography, Direction and Doug Brown's Music Score. As I stated I recently seen "Rocky Balboa" and "The Good Shepherd", if I were to write a comment about those two movies I would be saying some of the same things I have stated about "EDDIE MONROE", the only thing those two very good films don't have in common with "Eddie Monroe", they didn't cost a few hundred grand. Great movie and I didn't even drink a beer.

Sentiment: positive
Recognizing the picture of the diner on the cover of the DVD made me realize that this was a local movie. The word Detroit in the title furthered my suspecions and I did some looking up of things and yes, a local movie it was.

So I picked it up. Someone I knew actually knew some of the producers/director (dont remember which) and said the producers/directors got people to PAY to be in this movie.

Brilliant! What a great idea. The movie makers get some capital to do the movie with, thanks to their cast and crew. Then the investors (cast, crew, others) get some of the profits, I'm imagining.

Profits!

Um anyways. This film totally underwhelmed me. The special effects were special as in special children who ride the small buses to school. The acting was very amusing, not intentionally however. There's a great line where a guy says "well? this bone aint gonna smoke itself!" as a pickup line. Unfortunately that is the only fun part of the whole film. The story? Well, I sort of followed it about 3/5 of the way in, then everything stopped making sense and as we were sitting there watching it, it suddenly ended. I mean as in,..no resolution of anything..like they ran out of time. "Sorry folks, out of time, goodnight!"

We sat there baffled and booing, and threw in another film. Then about 20 minutes later a neighbor of mine showed up..with one of the guys from the movie! We threw it back in and he (the actor) gave us a running commentary, which was awesome because he totally ripped on the movie!

What more could you ask for??

The most absurd scene for me was a motorbike chase scene were it was so dark that it could have literally been a guy running past with a flashlight and not a motorbike at all. That and the jaw droppingly in your face sudden ending is enough to make you howl. In pain! The zombies looked less like zombies than my coworkers do. And I dont work at the morgue either.

So, I recommend seeing this if you can get someone from the movie to come over and give you a running commentary as to all the things that went on behind the scenes and make sure this person hates the movie because that just adds to the fun.

Otherwise, give this one a pass. Rent something like Feeders if you want a jaw droppingly bad in a funny way movie...

Sentiment: negative
Terrible. The only way I could even begin to consider it funny is if it made fun of itself. "Amazing. It's about an ass that fights crime. And he drinks/smokes! How very funny! It's funny because where most people put things in their mouth, he puts them in himself! And now he's getting sexual service from some lady! This show is so great!" That is what I would have to say if I liked the show, though I'm sure you can see the obvious sarcasm. I've noticed some people have been comparing this show to 12 oz. Mouse and Squid Billies. Why would you even try? There's nothing to compare. The other two shows actually have some decent character development. In conclusion, I hate Assy Mcgee. I twinge at the name of it.

Sentiment: negative
A River Runs Through It is one of those movies that deserves to be seen in the theater so that the majesty of its cinematography can be truly appreciated. The acting is wonderful and understated, with every gesture and smile and nod carrying meaning. Brad Pitt gives a radiant performance and Tom Skerrit is powerful as the preacher father. The movie moves like a river, you have to be willing to follow it through ebbs and flows, but it is well worth it in the end.

Sentiment: positive
Cannot believe a movie that can be made that good in 1987 and is virtually unknown in the west. Not to repeat other reviews here. The score is very good and moving. Literally it means "Dawn please never comes" - when it comes, the beautiful ghost and the lover will be apart forever. After 24 years, Joel and Leslie still look great. I enjoyed Joel in God of Gamblers and many movies by Leslie including Better Tomorrow.

Sentiment: positive
Two years later... Bill (Alex Winter) and Ted (Keanu Reeves) are becoming near rock stars in the present future but still needing more work in their instruments. In the future, Bill & Ted are in the public popular history but then a evil man (Joss Ackland) is set to kill Bill & Ted by sending cyborg look-likes to destroy them. Cyborgs are sent to the past present and they actually murder the real Bill & Ted. Now, Both guys are spirits and they have to travel through Heaven and Hell to save themselves and their future.

Directed by Peter Hewitt (Tom and Huck, The Borrowers) made a clever sequel with terrific visual effects. Much more funny and entertaining than the original. William Sadler (The Shawshank Redemption) steals the show as The Grim Reaper.

DVD has an good anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1) transfer and an fine-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has the theatrical trailer and an amusing behind the scenes featurette. This sequel was a Box Office hit like the original but it is also (Believe it or not), one of the best sequels ever made (depending on your point of view). George Carlin reprises his role from the original briefly. Pam Grier also appears in a bit role. It's a enjoyable fantasy comedy. (****/*****).

Sentiment: positive
Jack Frost 2, is probably the most cheesiest movie I have ever seen in my life. The complete title of the film, is Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman. Horror movie fans that have a taste for campy story lines, will be delighted to watch this. This film was straight to video, and for good reasons. Here's why: The acting, was so atrocious, and so terrible, that it could cause one to cry. The main character had no personality, and the actor's bad acting made it all worse. The screenplay was, was also atrocious. Each character always says a cheesy line, and add the cheesy lines to the bad choreography, then you have something bad. Second, the story line isn't really all that impressive, but since this movie was straight to video, it is forgiven. The director, and writer could have turned the idea of a killer snowman, into something cool, but they didn't. They story has lots of plot holes in it. In the beginning, a cup of coffee gets knocked into the fish tank, with the melted Jack Frost. Scientists try to restore his life, but they couldn't. Once the cup of coffee fell into the tank, Jack Frost was completely restored. Now he is immune to anti-freeze. In Jack Frost part 1, the main character's DNA got mixed up with the Anti-freeze that was used to kill Jack Frost. Since the main character is allergic to bananas, Jack Frost is too. Hence, here's my point. They say that Sam's DNA combined with Jack Frost's. But, one of the scientists had some saliva on the cup, so when it fell into the tank, the scientists DNA would have been combined with Jack Frosts. Another thing, the special effects weren't very good either. Here's the good points: Jack Frost 2 has lots of blood, that looks pretty realistic. Even though this movie is flawed to hell, it is still entertaining. Overall, Jack Frost 2 is an enjoyable horror movie. The first one was better though. 7 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
It is a shame that a movie with such a good cinematography as this one had no plot to be supported by the work of Sarah Cawley (cinematography) and Adam Lichtenstein (Film Editing), and above all, no sense of what goes on in Mexico City. The movie tries to be a very realistic depiction of life in city, but it is unable to do it. It is a shame, a lot of film wasted. An American woman tries to find her brother who has been kidnaped. The first account of the story is powerful and interesting, very realistic, but it seems that there was no effort to come with a better narrative of the ordeal, especially when it comes to the issue of the attitudes of the US embassy personnel in Mexico City, when dealing with an issue like this one. Compare, as an example, with Frantic(1988), which deals with a similar issue. Something similar can be said of the role of local authorities. Compare, as an example, with Todo el Poder (1999). The movie is worth watching if you want to get a sense of the looks of the City itself, paying little or no attention to the rather weak "plot" and the many twists that require a rather extensive suspension of disbelief. Who is going to believe that a Mexican patrol from Mexico City is going to go all the way to catch the main characters to the Mexico-US border? And that this policeman is going to be able to use its radio from the border to Mexico City! Only the producers of this movie. It is worth mentioning that unlike Frida and other movies about Mexico at least in these one Mexicans talk Spanish.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is not the scariest of all time, but it is a great example of a campy eighties horror flick -- low budget, no stars, lots of inventive death scenes, and enough nudity to keep the teenagers in their seats. The premise is interesting and fun and the three evil kids play their parts well. A nice starting point for "Just Say" Julie Brown exposing her talents early in her career. This film won't be seen by many, but for fans of 80's horror it's a must.

Sentiment: positive