DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
...this would have been what you got.

Words alone cannot describe how bad this is. If you're having trouble sleeping pop this in and I guarantee you'll be out in fifteen minutes.

Robert Lowery was a pretty good actor in the 40s-- but he's phoning it in here. In an interview, Johnny "Duncan" Robin said that in one scene he and Batman had to run from the car to the house and that Lowery was doubled over out of camera range because his girdle was too tight! Duncan himself looks more like a motorcycle hood than a boy wonder-- in fact he's more like a guy in his thirties waiting for Lowery to kick off so he can wear the big cape.

Driving a Batmobile that looks like it rolled off Honest Al's Used Car lot at below sticker price-- the Dynamic Duo don't put a lot of effort into hiding the fact that it's Bruce Wayne's car they're driving-- in fact it's noted by several characters throughout the serial.

The acting is wooden-- the sets are cheap-- the dialogue is horrendous and if there was even a script they were following I'm sure it read along the lines of "Batman says something here" because it certainly seems like they're making it up as it goes along.

Batman's Utility belt is made out of thin fabric with no apparent pouches to hold his gadgets-- in one scene when Batman needs a full size blow torch the producers just tuck one in as the scene starts-- never to be seen again. His cowl is so bad he can't even see out of it and his ears look more like flopsy mopsy the disgruntled easter rabbit than they do anything batlike.

In one scene (I am not making this up), Batman substitutes counterfiet radioactive money that will burst into flames the second it is exposed to air as a payoff to some hoods. It's radioactive so he can trace it-- the reason it's so highly flammable isn't explained. Well, unfortunately the thugs open the package in a cardboard warehouse-- we know it's a cardboard warehouse because Batman sneaks in and pushes these boxes that look to weigh about six ounces on the hoods to knock them out-- and soon the whole place burns to the ground. Thanks Batman!

In another scene after the Batmobile is disabled, Batman flags down a passing motorist in the middle of nowhere and takes his car-- leaving the man to fend for himself and telling him not to worry because if Batman smashes up the car the police will surely buy him another one! Yes, you guessed it, said car careens off a cliff within a few short seconds. Not that it matters much to the motorist who has probably died from exposure trying to hoof his way back to Gotham City.

There is a tired subplot with Lois Lane clone Vicki Vale who is convinced Bruce Wayne is Batman-- she must have noticed the Batmobile parked outside of Bruce's house-- or maybe she saw Batman and Robin running up the walk in the clearly densely populated suburban neighborhood.

Everything about this serial is bad-- and all but the youngest in the audience will want to hurl toast at the screen. IF you're looking for bad cinema you could not hit a better mark-- if you want entertainment, try the Burton Batman films, the Adam West Batman TV Series or the earlier Lewis Wilson Batman serial.

Sentiment: negative
When I heard the plot for this movie I simply had to see it, I mean whole cities being wiped out by killer tomatoes! Sadly the title is about as funny as it gets.

Led by Detective Dick Mason, a special team of military and scientists (including Greg Colburn who never takes his SCUBA outfit off and Lt. Finletter who is never pictured without his parachute trailing behind) 'Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes' is a parody of B-Movies, in particular Japanese horror of the 1950's. The film begins with a standard sized tomato being discovered by a women washing up in her kitchen before we find ourselves in a middle of a crime scene as the tomato has supposedly murdered this lady, and let me tell you it doesn't get any saner as the film progresses! To be fair there are a couple of funny moments, for instance anytime the Japanese scientist Dr Nokitofa speaks his voice is dubbed over in an American accent, or when disguise expert Sam Smith infiltrates the tomatoes 'hey, can somebody please pass the ketchup?'. Equally this film was probably a lot funnier in 1978 with the whole so bad its good concept. Unfortunately for 'Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes' spoof films such as the 'Airplane' and 'Naked Gun' series have been released and done this kind of comedy a lot better since.

The acting is atrocious; there is zero continuity in the editing and it just feels genuinely slow and lacking energy. For a parody film to work you need a lot of things happening at once, one gag after the over. The singing in the film seems pointless and the adverts for the furniture store that flash across the screen are damn right bizarre, even for this film. Ultimately, however, you can see why this film is a cult one; I can't see many people being indifferent to it. Unfortunately terrible would be the way I would sum this up.

Sentiment: negative
Aah yes the workout show was a great. Not only did many women get in shape, but many teenage boys got a great workout as well. I am not saying that the show was in any way not appropriate for family viewing, but if you check the other works from the shows producer, you will find more adult themes in his works, which are also excellent. Many of the viewers looked forward to the show, men and women alike all gained good information and a wonderful release,from the workouts. The girls were perfect, and Beautiful, the show is a classic and should do well in syndication. The show should still be on, as there are never enough choices to view when it comes to health and beauty.

Sentiment: positive
Sorry, folks! This is without a doubt the worst film I have ever seen. Sometimes when a movie is really bad you can joke about it and have a good laugh (like Plan 9 from outer space), this movie is so bad you can´t even enjoy it on an ironic level.

Sentiment: negative
Although Stardust seems to be a fantasy film with predictable ending and average performances, it is certainly not. When i saw the movie, i knew it was going to be one of my favorite movies. And i was right. 

Stardust is more of a fairytale than an adventure film. It has this magical 'aura' from the beginning to the very end of the movie. The storyline is well written , and it keeps you on the edge of your seat. Like every tale , it has some short of morality. Therefore we know in our hearts that the evil brothers won't take the throne but the innocent boy who manages to overcome every obstacle and difficulty he encounters during his journey. We also know that the true love is Yvaine and not Victoria , the material girl who is shallow and manipulative. 

I have to give extra credits to Claire Danes. She literally shines in this movie. Her eyes have this sparkle that fit totally in her character. Moreover, she and Cox do have chemistry which makes the romance in the film even more notable. The rest of the cast are well known actors and actresses which of course make Stardust an interesting and ''high classed'' movie

Overall , the movie is FANTASTIC, the locations magical and the plot interesting.I was very disappointed that the film didn't get nominated for more awards. I have to give at least 9/10 stars for this.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film in a Cinema-Club in Germany in 1970. Most of the attendees were from the local private school at which I was teaching. I had seen a few Godard films previously while I lived in France, and, though they hadn't been my favorites, I could at least make sense of them. Being able to speak French helped.

The fairly innocuous beginning of "Le week-end" soon turned into a kaleidoscope of images, very well, maybe too well photographed, that soon made no sense to me. For me, films, like books, must have some clear sort of meaning. This didn't for me. I suppose I'm not "into" artsy films. Images still haunt me from the film. To this day I refuse to eat rabbit meat, well-loved by the French. Those who've seen the film might realize why. Yes, the theme of materialism came through, but the cannibalism, the car wrecks, and all the other scenes of destruction and horror only sickened me. I'm not sure if I walked out before the end, but I certainly felt like it. I promised myself that I'd never watch another Godard film, and I haven't and never knowingly will.

My rating: nothing. It was the most disgusting film I've ever seen. Others may have been more inept, silly or stupid. I've forgotten those while scenes from this one will haunt me forever.

Sentiment: negative
Warning Might contain spoilers

i just sadly spent 5 bucks on this movie on amazon and i wish i never spent it. I have never seen suck horrible special affects, or acting. I mean Jack-0 is just a laughable monster and his costume looks like something u could buy at a Halloween store or make yourself. The acting is just horrible especially Sean Kelly i mean come on he is so pathetic with his little lines "COme get me PUmpkinman" low i laughed so hard on this its just stupid. I mean the movie is so awful they had to put a few minutes of nudity in it just for people not to shut it off low. I think the most laughable scene is when the woman sticks a butter knife in the toaster and gets electrocuted. I mean come on that looked so fake and the dummy i could buy that at any Halloween store or make it myself. Well I recommend not watching this cheesy movie cause it will be time you will never get back.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie thinking that it would be one of those old B movies that are fun to watch. I was so wrong! This movie was boring and obviously aimed at males who like looking at corpulent women. The story was so ridiculous and implausible that it lost my interest altogether. It seemed to be in the same genre as the Ed Wood films - bottom of the barrel.

Sentiment: negative
Even if I had never seen or heard of Georgetown, CO, this would be a sweet little movie. But my dad was born and raised there, and those are my uncle's horses you see pulling the sleigh! So this movie is very special to me. A lot of the interiors are shot in buildings and houses I recognize, and are very realistic. The story is a little hokey, but Georgetown is that kind of magical place where things like that COULD happen. John Denver was a better actor than a lot of people give him credit for. Mary Wickes plays the kind of "common-sense lady with a lot of sass" she played so well in many other films, most notably "White Christmas". I usually don't get to go out there in the winter, so I like to see this movie at Christmas time to "tide me over" until my next trip!

Sentiment: positive
This review contains some small, yet significant, spoilers.

---

I just finished watching my copy of Noroi...

...and it was GREAT! This might sound cheesy, but several times during the film I forgot it wasn't real XD The acting is convincing, although the acting from Masafumi Kobayashi (playing himself, I think...) seems a bit hokey at times. Marika Matsumoto (Yuka in Takashi Shimizu's Rinne) seemed to change levels of believability throughout the movie: sometimes she's REALLY good, then the next moment she's really cheesy (especially at the end's exorcism and subsequent re-possession.

A character that was ridiculous at first was Mr. Hori, a man covered in tinfoil believing "ectoplasmic worms" are coming to eat everyone. He provides unintentional comic relief at the beginning (acting like the stereotypical alien abduction-type victim) but near the end has some really creepy scenes.

The plot was very interesting and really kept me wondering how everything tied together. There are some things that aren't really explained (like a mass suicide in a Tokyo park and where the reincarnated Kagutaba-boy came from) but everything else turned out fine. The ending has GOT to be one of the most unnerving, if not the scariest, sequences I've ever had the pleasure to witness.

All in all, Noroi is a very fun way to spend 2 hours and the new Hong Kong R3 DVD provides great picture and sound (most importantly the English SUBTITLES- Engrish free!) for a great J-Horror experience. I highly recommend picking it up.

Sentiment: positive
Rita Hayworth is just stunning at times and, for me, the only reason to watch this silly film. Despite the overdone 1940s lipstick, Rita was one of the all-time glamor women of Hollywood. In fact, for a couple of years I can't imagine anyone that looked better, except maybe Elizabeth Taylor in her prime.

Anyway, the co-star of the show, Gene Kelly, does not play his normal likable, at least the kind of guy we all know him from in "Singin' In The Rain." Here, Kelly's "Danny McGuire" pouts much of the time. Phil Silvers, who I loved on TV at "Sgt. Bilko," is so stupid in here as "Genius" you will just cringe listening to his dumb jokes....and they are stupid.

The visuals are good with great Technicolor, which almost looks terrific. You get to see a lot of pretty women in here, too, not just Hayworth. Unfortunately, the story isn't all that much. It centers around Hayworth deciding about a career choice. Along the way, we get the normal shabby treatment of marriage and we get an insultingly-dumb ending. All in all, an unmemorable film, except as a showcase for Hayworth's beauty.

Sentiment: negative
This film is one of the best of 1986 with creepy, yet intriguing performances from Crispin Glover and Dennis Hopper! The Reagan years were pretty bleak for a lot of people, not just teenagers, but this flick really captured the desperation and despair. Well-directed with great script (apparently based on a true story), I don't really see any weaknesses in this. The opening shot was brilliant.

Keanu Reeves was decent for a change and Miss Skye was right on the money. Hopper had three other great performances that same year (Blue Velvet, Texas Chainsaw II, and Hoosiers). I imagine this has a cult following and I wonder how this picture would fare if it was re-released. Super stuff!

Sentiment: positive
This is a great film. If this is any indication, than Hong Sang-Soo really is "Asian cinema's best kept secret". It's very similar in style to Tsai Ming-Liang and Hou Hsiao-hsien, and covers a lot of the same ground as them thematically, but I think I actually enjoy this more as a whole than any single one of their films. The overt minimalism is slightly less pronounced here than in their work, although it still completely fits that style (the camera never moves even once), and somehow I found the film less self-consciously "slow" than Tsai Ming-Liang or Hou Hsiao-hsien, which I think is part of the reason I enjoyed it more. Plus, it doesn't keep it's subjects quite as detached as Hou does. I felt like the film was also somehow more "complete" and less open-ended (just barely) than some of their work, although that's not to say it had much of anything resembling a forward-moving plot. I would have a hard time believing that Sophia Coppola wasn't directly influenced by this film for "Lost in Translation" (scenes of a young woman wandering around by herself, and languishing in her hotel room wearing punk panties can't help but seem familiar).

Sentiment: positive
I was under assumption that this was the cat and mouse duo but it wasn't instead it was something that shouldn't have been made not even for its time. They disguise themselves in the "blackface" fashion because they fly to Africa and they even act like Stepin Fetchit and all the others rolled into one. There are some cartoons that are racist but they are classics, being a mixed woman I have the right to say this, but if you are into the historical aspect of these cartoons try Merrie Melodies "Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs" or "Angel Puss" you won't find them on DVD because the distributors promised not to put them in the mainstream, but you can find them on a site as YouTube. I don't recommend little kids seeing this but if you want to see how early America was racist and ignorant these are better suggestions, not to mention this particular cartoon has poor animation, i know it was 1932, but I have seen better for its time.

"Plane" unnecessary. -1 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
This was such a waste of time. Danger: If you watch it you will be tempted to tear your DVD out of the wall and heave it thru the window.

An amateur production: terrible, repetitive, vacuous dialog; paper-thin plot line; wooden performances; Lucy Lawless was pathetically hackneyed.

Seriously flawed story, completely unbelievable characters. The two worst concepts in film and t.v. are: (1) the evil twin, (2) amnesia. There are no twins.

The plot "twist"? Outrageously simplistic and obvious - like watching a train coming down the track in the middle of the day on the prairies. It doesn't even resolve properly. The evil is not punished for the original crime.

Please, please, please - don't watch this even if its free and your only other choice is to go to a synagogue.

Sentiment: negative
Yes, Giorgio, is a feel good movie. A little romance, great music, beautiful scenery, comedy, (a great food fight), and a little taste of bittersweet are the ingredients of Yes, Giorgio. Any movie buff would enjoy this film. Those who require massive special effects, should look elsewhere. Most of us need a little escape now and then, and how better to do this, than with a feast for the eyes, ears, and heart? A must see!

Sentiment: positive
"Two Hands" is an entertaining, funny story about Australian lowlifes. The screenplay contrasts the world of fast money and deadly acts with the inexplicability of fate and circumstance. In a subtle way we are asked to ponder the concept that major events in our lives are sometimes generated without our being fully aware of the root causes. The forces of fate and circumstance take Jimmy, the main character, into situations that bring about the realization of his shallow dreams and, ultimately, an understanding of a more personally promising world.

The clueless Jimmy, portrayed with acumen by Heath Ledger, is a kid who grew up without opportunity. The high paying world of crime offers the greatest appeal to his blunted senses. The love and help of friends guides him to a higher plateau.

The film is well-directed and well-acted. The band of criminals teeter between likable and despicable, keeping us interested in their crazy antics all through the film.

Sentiment: positive
Just finished watching 2FTM. The trailers intrigued me so much I actually went to see it on opening weekend, something I never do. Needless to say I was very disappointed. The story has so much potential and it's frustrating to see it get screwed up. I really feel the problem with the movie was the directing and Matthew McConaughey. First off I am not a MM hater, I thought he was awesome in both Reign of Fire and Lone Star. I enjoyed his performance in those movies without having to see him with his shirt off 3-4 times. Yes we all get it that he a good-looking guy with a nice body, but I think most people knew this 10 years ago when he came on the scene in A Time to Kill. Showing him with his shirt off pumping iron like a sweaty madman 3-4 times in the movie is totally unnecessary. I think one time would have been sufficient. It wouldn't surprise me if they threw those unnecessary scenes in so girlfriends and wives would be willing to tag along with their significant other, no woman wants to see a movie about sports gambling, unless......Enough about that, let's get into his role. I feel his acting was very forced and he didn't seem very comfortable. I know his character was supposed to be this charming southerner, but his lines were corny and cheesy. It was almost like he was referencing Days and Confused lines a few times! In short, I didn't like his character even though I was supposed to. The accent, his shirt off, corny pick up lines, weak sales pitches. His character was just too much of a tool, as Brandon or Jonathan. Pacino and Assante were great, but that' no surprise. Piven is fun to watch as Arie....oooops I mean Jerry. I just feel this movie was very commercial and put together poorly. It's insulting that they could take a great story, and throw in crap ingredients to try and make it a box office success. 1. Cool story that appeals to the male man 2. Hunky Hollywood actor for female women (make sure he has numerous scenes with shirt off lifting weights) 3. Al Pacino with 4 great speech scenes, and 25 great one liners 3. Every character shall be dressed in thousand dollars suites and have an extremely dark tan 4. Jeremy Piven to play the same character he did in Entourage and Old School 4. Throw in Armand Assante to seal the deal 5. Plot, good writing, character development, and intelligent casting are unnecessary

This will be good enough for most people, but not me! Anybody who disagrees with me, ask your self this. Would this movie be much better if: A. Directed by Sodeberg B. DeCaprio or Ed Norton as Brandon instead of MM

I will probably be part of the minority in thinking this movie sucks. I realized this when the woman next to me started crying during the ridiculous ending scene of Pacino shedding a fake tear while embracing Russo. The financial success of this movie will ensure one thing. The movie going public gets what the movie going public wants, big budget crapola.

Sentiment: negative
I only rented this movie because of promises of William Dafoe, and Robert Rodriguez. I assumed that upon seeing RR's name on the cover (as an actor) that this movie would be good. It sounds like a movie that Rodriguez would of made so if He's going to lend his name to it, than it has to be good right? WRONG WRONG WRONG. By far the worst editing since "Manos Hands of fate". The way it was edited made no sense and made the movie impossible to follow and after the first 30 minutes you wont even want to try to follow it anymore. I have no idea how Dafoe and Rodriguez got involved in this film, maybe they owed somebody, but they are way to good for this. Besides they were only in this movie for a couple minutes apiece and Rodriguez didn't even talk. So if you wanna see a movie with Poor editing, poor acting, and confusing storyline than be my guest but don't say you weren't warned.

Sentiment: negative
The plot is about a female nurse, named Anna, is caught in the middle of a world-wide chaos as flesh-eating zombies begin rising up and taking over the world and attacking the living. She escapes into the streets and is rescued by a black police officer. So far, so good! I usually enjoy horror movies, but this piece of film doesn't deserve to be called horror. It's not even thrilling, just ridiculous.Even "the Flintstones" or "Kukla, Fran and Ollie" will give you more excitement. It's like watching a bunch of bloodthirsty drunkards not being able to get into a shopping mall to by more liquor. The heroes who has locked themselves in, inside the shopping-mall to avoid being eaten by the hoodlums outside, are not better either. Even though they doesn't seem to be drunk, they give the impression of being mentally disabled. Save your money instead of spending it on this!

Sentiment: negative
There is something kind of sad about seeing someone who is so good at doing something try to do something very different ... and end up being mediocre. I was thinking about Jordan playing baseball, but the same applies to Steve Martin.

This movie is reasonably well acted and directed, but the script is a stinker. Martin did a great job adapting a classic story into a comedy in "Roxanne", but this effort to bring a Victorian drama to the contemporary scene smacks straight into a wall of implausibility. If you want to see an old story updated with some style, best to rent "Great Expectations".

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie as part of the Midnite Madness at Sitges. Set in 18th century England, the plot covers the life of Arthur Blake from his first outing as an apprentice grave robber to his final confession on the eve of his execution.

The plot moves along via a series of misadventures involving Arthur and his partner encountering various unsavory characters and bizarre situations.

The first thing that strikes you about this movie is how accurately they managed to capture the look of the Hammer period horrors, the atmosphere is set with lots of fog laden graveyards, rowdy tavern scenes and excellent set/costume design.

For a movie titled I Sell the Dead, I was expecting the emphasis to be mostly on horror  don't get me wrong there are some jumpy moments and gore, but the tone is very much comedic, driven by the situations the characters get themselves into and their dialog. The closest comparison to the scenes between the two leads (Larry Fessenden and Dominic Monaghan) is the character interaction seen in the classic English comedies Only Fools and Horses, the Two Ronnies and Morecambe and Wise.

The acting is strong and the casting of very familiar faces in Ron Perlman and Angus Scrimm lift the movie above many of the others on view in Sitges.

Overall the movie offers something very different to the current crop of mainstream horror and will leave a smile on your face.

Sentiment: positive
At first look of the plot tagline I figured it could have been a decent film. Could I have ever been more wrong? The beginning of the film makes it look like a bunch of freaks got together and decided to make a low budget film. For the first 10 minutes you don't notice the cheesy acting, horrible sound and god-awful special effects, but then it gets worse. Just about 20 minutes into it I was asking myself, "What was the plot again?" I could only ask that question when I wasn't busted out laughing from the sheer lameness of this film. The main actor has one setting for emotions and he sticks to it throughout the entire film, even though he was supposed to go through love and hate and everything in-between. The flashback scene almost made me vomit because it made me re-live one extra minute of footage from earlier in the movie. Now we hit the middle of the film where they are obviously trying to rip off Morpheus from "The Matrix," although he is doing just a horrible job. The actor's talking about "Star Wars" and fortune cookie phrases is almost unbearable. Now at the end of the movie you don't realize that it's the end of the movie because you actually think the plot is finally developing. The "Morpheus" character dies, the ONLY good thing about the movie. He utters a couple words and the credits roll. What is this? No plot, bad acting, cheesy everything, it couldn't get any worse. Please, if you value human decency, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!

Sentiment: negative
When i started watching "Surface"for the first time i was hooked.It had everything i wanted in a show suspense,action,mystery,great plot,and a great cast of characters.My whole family loved to watch the show.It seems when there's a great show on TV the network usually cancels it like they seemed to do with this show.They go by the Nielson rating system which i think is stupid because there is a lot of junk that they seem to watch which the networks keep on the air.If only there was a way for everyone to vote on a show then maybe the good shows won't get canceled.When i watch TV now i only watch good shows so right now thats not watching a whole lot of TV.I hope that the network brings the show back but when they make up there mind with a dumb decision they seem to stick to it.I hope there's a lot of people out there that feel the same way.

Sentiment: positive
This is an excellent B-film horror movie that borders between horror and comedy. It is about a genetically mutilated scorpion in outer space. Can it get more unreal? It is a hybrid between "Alien" and "Chain Saw Massacre." The movie was shot in Stockholm with a mixed cast of Americans and Swedes that interact beautifully. Director Martin Munthe does a great job finding the comical highlights in this script and gets a few good laughs out of the audience. The movie was shot with little or no money and it is inspiring to see what can be done with limited resources. Stinger has all qualities of a B-film horror movie. It is comical and scary at the same time and the cast and crew are dedicated to their cause. It is great to see that movies like this can still be made! I would recommend seeing it if you like this type of films.

Sentiment: positive
This was essentially a remake of "Diagnosis Murder" minus Victoria Rowell, Scott Baio & Charlie Schlatter. Dick is playing a college professor who teaches Criminology 101 and can't even find his own classroom. Barry is now a private eye, not related to Dick. This lets Barry shoot at guys speeding away from him, which a cop can not do. Barry still gets the girl in the end. Tracey Needham portrays the girl. She is the prime suspect and Dick and Barry believe she's innocent and prove it. That's all the spoiler you get. The ending is sufficiently unexpected that you don't already know it half way through the movie.

Don't take it seriously. Don't critique it. Just sit back and enjoy Dick and Barry Van Dyke.

Sentiment: positive
12 year old Arnald Hillerman accidentally kills his older brother Eugene. His feelings are arrested by the fact that his family can not interact with him (or feel it is not the right thing to do). His ONLY refuge is his grandfather, who is the ONLY one who seems to have compassion on him. The Realism will captivate "true-2-life" movie lovers, but will not satisfy those that desire action & thrills.

Sentiment: positive
i couldn't help but think of behind the mask: the rise of leslie vernon (a massively more amazing film) when watching this because of the realistic feel to it as well as the great innovative idea. this could have been a GREAT film. the acting is...from some of the actors alright. from others...it's downright horrible.

that aside the idea is great and the format is great. the story is pretty good as well, though suffering often from big blows to the logical mind.

nevermind that though right? it IS a horror movie after all.

i really want to see this remade...i really want it to be the fantastic film that it wants to be.

however (and you can't really fault the minds behind the movie for this) this is obviously built upon a shoe string budget. and the fx really hurt the film overall.

great movie. ...if you were to swap out for some better acting and slightly better fx.

whoever wrote it should keep going though, great idea here.

Sentiment: negative
This movie has the look and feel of having been put together in a matter of days-kind of like Plan 9 From Outer Space. In spite of this, it's still a classic-ranking among my favorite Creature Features. *****POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD******* Count Dracula and Larry Talbot; aka Wolfman, arrive at the laboratory of Dr. Edelman seeking a cure for their nocturnal anti-social behavior, such as killing people. In the meantime, kindly Dr. Edelman discovers the body of the Frankenstein Monster. Becoming obsessed with bringing it back to life( a common character trait among scientists, mad or otherwise), he goes against his better judgement, resulting in monster mayhem and madness. One of the final Universal classics of it's time (Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein followed 3 years later), it rates a 10 with this reviewer. Onslow Steven steals the show as good doctor gone bad after being infected by the blood of Dracula and becoming a half- werewolf/vampire creature, coming to a tragic end. At 1 hour 7 min. it packs quite a punch. A worthy addition to my video collection.

Rating: ***** out of *****

Sentiment: positive
Leonard Nimoy directed Star Trek III, which wasn't half bad. Maybe William Shatner thought seeming as how Nimoy did it he could. After seeing this film he should have reversed that decision.

Star Trek V The final Frontier is the worst in the series. The acting from all involved and that includes those like Shatner and Nimoy is bad and washed out and making them seem as old as they look in real life, the special effects are tacky like when Spock has to rescue Kirk on a jet pack when he falls down from a mountain.

The attempts at humor were pitiful and story is so awful it dosen't bear thinking about which basically involves a Vulcan stealing the Enterprise to find god (seriously) I just didn't care about any of this film and oh not to mention Uhura does a belly dance to distract male guards. She looked like she was taking part in a granny competition. If they meant to make her look sexy. They were wrong. She looked grotesque.

How this got to production or even written...well it dosen't bear thinking about. The only place good for this film is in the garbage. The worst one of the series.

Sentiment: negative
That's how I was when I walked (staggered) out of this "film". I couldn't leave, because it was at a film festival and the cinema was full of people. I was stuck in the middle. Trapped.

The tiny fragment of original footage which attempted to bind this film together features some of the worst acting ever to grace the big screen. The daughter was a stand out performance - stand out in the bad sense.

Thge cinematography was hideous, consisting of disjointed framing and some of the oddest lighting I've witnessed.

As for the stock footage... well at first one...

Wait.

Why am I reviewing this film? Why do I acknowledge its existence? Please, don't watch it. Do something useful with two hours of your life and go watch some paint dry.

Sentiment: negative
i cannot believe i wasted 80 minutes of my life watching this terrible film i kept hoping it was going to get better by the end but boy was I wrong. The plot was abysmal , the acting was extremely poor and the special effects were awful. Not even the 2 beautiful girls could revive my interest in this boring and bloody mess. However i cannot lie ,some of the lines in this film were quite memorable such as when the Asian boy says '' i lost my virginity to the babysitter so f**** stereotypes ''

please do not waste your time with this crash unless u are prepared or want to have a good laugh .. maybe that way u can watch it to rip this movie with some mates

Sentiment: negative
All I have to say is that this movie is the bomb. You are going to cry when you see this. I mean, this is a reminder for everyone how hard and easy it is to fall in love. It reminds you of the days during your youth when you were carefree and everything that was bad for you was washed away with a single kiss. Even though I am still a teen, this is how I live my life. When I am with that certain someone, everything that was negative in my mind was erased. So, I give this movie a 10 for it's heartfelt message and touching plot. Actors Josh Hartnett and Chris Klein I also give a 10 for having a cute face.

Sentiment: positive
In her autobiography,Laureen Bacall reveals that Bogie told her that she should not make such dud movies as this one or something like that.At the time,Douglas Sirk was labeled "weepies for women",actually,he was restored to favor,at least in Europa,after he stopped directing.And when he filmed "written on the wind" ,Sirk had only three movies to make:"tarnished Angels","A time to love and a time to die",his masterpiece,IMHO,and finally" Imitation of life"(1960).Then there was silence. Actually Bacall and Hudson characters do not interest Sirk.They are too straight,too virtuous.Dorothy Malone -who was some kind of substitute for his former German star Zarah Leander-and her brother Robert Stack provide the main interest of the plot.A plot constructed continuously ,most of the movie being a long flashback.The instability of the brother and the sister ,from a family of rich Texan oil owners,is brought to the fore by garish clothes,and rutilant cars that go at top speed in a derricks landscape. Malone's metamorphosis at the end of the movie is stunning :suit and chignon,toying with a small derrick:she's ready for life,the rebel is tamed. Now alone,because she's lost Hudson (but anyway,he was not in love with her).This end is a bit reactionary,but melodrama is par excellence reactionary;three years later,in "imitation of life",Sarah-Jane (Susan Kohner) will be blamed because she does not know her place.

Sentiment: positive
I have fond memories of watching this when it came out. It's one of those films that you know is rubbish, even when you're a kid, but at that age you overlook the ludicrous acting, special effects and plot (so there's a race of big-busted nymphets living underground, huh?) and just enjoy the campy monsters for all they're worth.

Sentiment: positive
Debbie Reynolds toe-taps, tangos and, yes, tap-dances her way through this ordinary thriller which has a distinctly fabricated '30s atmosphere. Two ladies, brought together when their sons commit a murder, try starting their lives over by running a tap-dance school for tots in Hollywood. Trouble is, one of them is plagued by neuroses. Can you imagine this thing 10 years earlier with Robert Aldrich directing Bette Davis and Joan Crawford...? Nahh, Bette never would have allowed Joan so much screen-time to strut her stuff, and I can't imagine Bette Davis in the other role, tap-dancing her heart out. This is a purely bogus piece of macabre, written by a slumming Henry Farrell (whose idea of a good "shock" is to stage the mass-murder of a group of rabbits!). Not an ounce of honest fun in the whole tepid package. *1/2 from ****

Sentiment: negative
Given the nature and origin of the 11 filmakers it is not surprising that this film is at best neutral in its stance towards America. Probably the most 'anti' segment comes from Ken Loach who is definitely not towing the British New Labour party line. Although those events of a year ago are shocking and painful to most Americans and most spectators who saw them unfold live through CNN etc. the majority of the writers and directors choose to show that tragedy is not an American monopoly. Should anybody be surprised that these 3000 deaths are given the same weight elsewhere as the West gives to thousands Tutsi, Tamil, Bosnian, Chilean, Kurdish (need we go on) victims. If this was a 'wake-up' call for the States then it is equally tragic that in the subsequent 12 months the Israel/Palestine impasse is further from a solution while George Bush Jnr. would rather wreak revenge than make the world a safer place. I think many of the contributors wonder where the idealism of the Founding Fathers went, and why America orignally built as a bastion of freedom, justice and tolerance now sees its self-interest paramount while the Third World wonders where the next drink, meal or bullet is coming from.

Sentiment: positive
I watch lots of scary movies (or at least they try to be) and this has to be the worst if not 2nd worst movie I have ever had to make myself try to sit through. I never knew the depths of Masacism until I rented this piece of moldy cheese covered in a used latex contraceptive. I am a fan of Julian Sans, but this is worse than I would hope for him.

On the other hand the story was promising and I was intrigued...for the first minute and a half while the credits rolled and I had yet to see what pain looked like first hand. Perhaps there are some viewers out there that enjoyed this and can point me in the right direction, but then again I know of those viewers who understand if not commemorate me, especially when we had to turn the video off, and that simply is NOT done with our watching (we had to make one exception obviously). 

If it were up for a remake, I'd give it a chance so long as they had at most 1% of the original incorporated into it. That's all.

Sentiment: negative
...but of course I was wrong.

Now, I never expected to like the first movie. I'm not sure what's up with Disney's marketing group, but it seems that every trailer they make for an animated film ends up turning me off as too childish, or silly, or stupid, and yet the movies themselves are usually anything but. And no movie looked worse to me in the trailers than The Emperor's New Groove, which is why I was quite surprised to actually find myself quite enjoying that film when I finally broke down and saw it. I entered with zero expectations and came out pleasantly entertained.

Despite Disney's track record with direct-to-video sequels, I had nonetheless hoped for a better experience with Kronk here... but in the end I was nothing but disappointed (and unfortunately not exactly surprised that I felt that way). There's almost no humor targeted towards adults. The original songs are uninspired and sickly cute. The animation, while not bad, still doesn't come close to Emperor (which was no Lion King to start with).

The main plot, as such, is astoundingly "minor" and is comprised mainly of a sequence of mini-plot flashbacks - in fact the while thing felt more like a sequence of pilot episodes for a Saturday morning cartoon series than a well conceived single entity.

David Spade gets about four lines throughout the entire movie and there isn't exactly a lot of John Goodman either, so overall we're just left with far too much of Patrick Warburton's Kronk - who was entertaining as a secondary character in the first movie but is completely inappropriate as the main lead here.

Although kids might find it somewhat fun, the only thing Kronk's New Groove managed to do for me is make me want to go back and watch the far superior original.

Sentiment: negative
USA The Movie is like this: You take a nap on a long hot Sunday afternoon. It feels great to close your eyes and let your worries drift away. Soon you're lost in one of those intense lucid dreams where you know you're dreaming but you still can't wake up--not that you want to. You go with the flow, and soon you're in a kind of weird Alice in Wonderland story complete with characters you didn't think you could dream up. They're telling you all kinds of crazy stuff about war and peace while taking you through a trip into the past and even the future. 

The dream starts to get heavier and you feel like it's going down a path you can't control. Maybe you want to wake up so you try to open your eyes but you can''t . Now there's destruction and sadness and confusion and scary voices telling you what could be truth or could be lies. You're seeing images that flicker and change and then get clear, but do you even want to see what you're brain is creating for you? 

Finally you're lost in a myth world and you realize the end has come. The end of the world and the end of the dream. It's over. What do you wake up to? What do you do next? 

Maybe you'll write down that dream because you know dreams like don't happen too often-- and when they do you better pay attention. 

Or maybe you'll crack a beer and forget the whole thing. Bad idea. Don't forget.

Sentiment: positive
Oh man is this movie bad. It flows horribly. The story is about a race car driver who is in love with himself, and then has to promote a chicken fast food chain and while doing this, doesn't love himself. He tries getting out of the contract and horrible, painfully unfunny gags ensue. Jim Nabors seems as if he's sleepwalking, not acting. You'll miss such Burt sidekicks as Dom Deluise and Jerry Reed while watching this stinker. Loni Anderson's hair is downright scary, proving that tons of hairspray didn't go out in the sixties. Or maybe that was a wig. Speaking of, Burt's wig wasn't bad in this film. His worst "wig day" was in "Smokey and the Bandit 2". Anyhow, this movie is the worst Reynolds car movie, ever, ever, right up there with "Cannonball Run 2". The original "Smokey" and "Cannonball" (and "Hooper" which, thankfully, had no sequel) are great, funny films. This one isn't. Even Ned Beatty, who is a great actor, stinks. You'll long for a Jackie Gleason type villain who is fun to hate. And mind you, this isn't one of those fun movies to bag on. It's lousy, pure and simple. Even the outtakes at the end were tiresome and boring, and worst of all, unfunny. And least I forget, "Stroker Ace" was one of the first heavy nails to seal Burt's coffin before his somewhat-revival years later in "Boogie Nights", another film that, like "Deliverance" years earlier, shows that the man can act quite good when he has a decent platform to do so.

Sentiment: negative
If you can make it thru "classic Meyer" titles/intro, you can wade thru anything. But would you want to? I did not find a lot there to dig my teeth into. I suppose if you go into it with low enuff expectations you will be delighted (a la Charlie's Angels.) But for my money I'd like a little something more, more visual, more moving. More. I feel like I'm begging for gruel @ the foot of the master . the mans got the goods . but he just won't share.

Sentiment: negative
The Human Tornado is a campy 70's Blaxploitation movie starring nightclub comedian Rudy Ray Moore in perhaps his most endearing role to date. The movie tells the tale of Dolemite, a bad ass pimpin' hustler who gets on the wrong side of a white, racist sheriff by sleeping with his wife. Dolemite barely escapes, and journeys to sunny California to visit an old friend, a nightclub owner (and Madam to Dolemite's 'ladies') named Queen Bee. However, it seems that a rival nightclub owner with Mob connections is trying to muscle in on her racket, so Dolemite takes matters into his own hands. Rudy Ray Moore showcases many diverse talents in this landmark film, including strong dramatic skills, a mastery of Kung Fu, an impressive singing voice (he provides two of the songs on the soundtrack), a touching, compassionate side with the ladies, and an overall compelling charisma and keen sense of comic timing. This film has it all, people: A deep plot, blistering action, laugh-a-minute comedy, beautiful women in distress, a slam-bang ending...what more could you ask from a movie? Run, don't walk, to your local video store and rent The Human Tornado today. And be sure to share it with your family.

Sentiment: positive
Without Kirsten Miller this project needn't have been completed. However with the awe inspiring beauty and talent that is Miss Miller I would definitely recommend it. It looked as if the other actors were only playing to her strong performance. Wagner's dismal attempt to honor this film was a bit disappointing, but his few scenes didn't detract from being entertained. Mostly my criticisms are with the writing and plot line, the group of talent assembled did a heroic job of salvaging what should have been a disaster. The charismatic Miller delivery and timing were impeccable and believable. She plays that fine line between assertive and bossy but never offensive she is in fact the structural engineer she claims to be. I wish I had seen this on the big screen but alas I was fortunate to rent it before it was lost.

Sentiment: positive
Honestly, this is the best reality show anyone has ever come up with. In order to win the money you have to actually be INTELLIGENT. Not only that you've got to be brave, athletic, cunning, etc. It actually requires skill. Not like some lame-ass shows that are on these days. And yet, they only have two seasons of it! Bull..they need to bring this show back!! 

Although, they'll have a hard time pulling Anderson Cooper away from CNN. He was great.

But seriously, it was an amazing show. You never knew who would be going when. And it was so much fun trying to figure out the mole yourself! It was a show you could actually play yourself if you wanted to!

BRING BACK THE MOLE!!!! BRING BACK THE MOLE!!!!

Sentiment: positive
I watched the un-aired episodes online and I was so sad that the show won't be back. It had the best cast of mature, talented actors and an amazing chemistry. It seemed like all the actors are personal friends in real life. Towards the end the show became engaging, sexy and highly watchable. Of course, some of the story lines are not realistic, so what... The characters are all likable and you root for them. The show reminded me a cross between 2 other favorites: "Sex and the City" and "Felicity". Big kudos to all the cast. Note to ABC execs: Nielsen ratings reports do not show you true results. The show audience will mostly record it. I've been very disappointed with major networks for flooding us with reality-TV or teenage oriented shows. Why to get a mature, thoughtful, well-acted material we have to switch to HBO or FX? I can only thank the network for putting the rest of the episodes online. The new stream media will gain more and more popularity among viewers.

Sentiment: positive