DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Red Eye is a good little thriller to watch on a Saturday night. Intense acting, great villain and unexpected action.

Some might not want to see this movie because it goes for a very short 85 Min's and 88% of the movie is on a plane and just talking. Don't worry they pull it off very well with the smart and witty dialog.

A PG-13 movie seems to be new grounds for director Wes Craven. But surely enough he has fit as much violence as he possibly can into this thriller.

This movies strongest point is its cast. This film needed good actors to deliver the dialog and thrills. If they didn't have those actors the film would have been lost and boring. We had Rachel McAdams from Mean Girls and Wedding Crashers. Cillian Murphy from Batman Begins and 28 days Later. Rounding off this cast is Brian Cox from X-men 2.

The pacing in this film was great. Just when your thinking its going to get boring they throw a twist at you. Luckily this isn't a long movie and doesn't feel like it either. Much better then the other flight movie Flight Plan.

Here is my Flight Plan comment: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408790/usercomments-578

I recommend. Not too long and not too shabby.

8/10

Sentiment: positive
A good picture is worth all the words. This film has the most poetic scene ever dreamed of about people with Down's syndrome. And I won't spoil it by telling you. You'll want to see it yourself.

Pasqual Duquenne is an amazing actor. I did not need to understand a single word he said to understand his meaning.

The film has a magic of it's own. After watching it I understood better that we put too much value on achievement and not enough on the people we love. Passion and simplicity is all we need.

Sentiment: positive
The first time I saw this film, I loved it. It was different.

I am a Christian (Bible believing). I don't go along with the crowd of right wing believers. I dropped out of that atmosphere.

To me in their attempts to take over our government they are doing what Judas tried to do. I call it the Judas Syndrome.

Judas didn't get it, even though Jesus said his Kingdom was not of this world.

This film certainly showed some of that.

I also liked that Jesus enjoyed the simple pleasure of playing games and jokes with his disciples.

Also he was a very gorgeous Jesus.

It's a watch-over and over movie.

Very satisfying.

Sentiment: positive
Movies like this make me wonder what modern horror would be like if someone had (mercifully, for movie fans) put an end to M. Night Shyamalan inside the womb. This garbage is a prime example of what kind of lame, random, uninspired, last minute, generic plot twists have become the norm since movies like "The Sixth Sense" and "The Others" were released. This was an okay movie until the writers took a dump all over whatever of the mediocre script they had written, and decided, "Hey, here's an interesting idea: Lets throw in a wacky twist at the end and make the main character the murderer! That'll throw the audience for a loop!" What an original idea.

Sentiment: negative
A sequel to (actually a remake of) Disney's 1996 live-action remake of 101 Dalmations. Cruella deVil (Glenn Close) is released from prison after being "cured" of her obsession with fur by a psychologist named Dr. Pavlov (ugh!). But the "cure" is broken when Cruella hears the toll of Big Ben, and she once again goes on a mad quest to make herself the perfect coat out of dalmation hides.

This movie is bad on so many levels, starting with the fact that it's a "Thanksgiving family schlock" movie designed to suck every last available dime out of the Disney marketing machine. Glenn Close over-over-over-over-acts as Cruella. With all that she had to put up with in this movie -- the lame script, the endless makeup, getting baked in a cake at the end -- I hope they gave her an extremely-large paycheck.

(Speaking of which, where in the world are you going to find a fur coat factory, a bakery with a Rube Goldberg assembly line, and a candlelight restaurant all located within the same building -- as you do in the climax of this film?) Of course, the real stars of the movie are supposed to be the dogs. They serve as the "Macaulay Culkin's" of this movie, pulling all the stupid "Home Alone" gags on the villains. (Biting them in the crotch, running over their hands with luggage carts, squirting them with icing, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.) I have to admit, the dogs were fairly good actors -- much better than the humans.

Gerard Depardieu is completely wasted in this movie as a freaked-out French furrier. The two human "dog lovers" -- rehashed from the earlier film, but with different actors -- are completely boring. When they have a spaghetti dinner at an Italian restaurant, the movie cuts back and forth between the two lovers, and their dogs at home, watching the dinner scene from "Lady and the Tramp." I thought to myself, "Oh please, don't go there!" I half-expected the humans to do a satire on the "Lady and the Tramp" dinner scene -- as Charlie Sheen did in "Hot Shots: Part Deux" -- doing the "spaghetti strand kiss," pushing the meatball with his nose, etc.

And don't get me started on the annoying parrot with Eric Idle's voice.

The costumes were nominated for an Oscar, and the costumes in the movie *are* good. But they are the only good thing in the movie. The rest of it is unbearable dreck.

Sentiment: negative
This horrible action  sci-fi movie is a crap. I have just spent 90 minutes of my life watching one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The story does not make any sense, there are lots of flaws in the screenplay, the characters are badly developed, the unknown cast is horrible, the lead ham actor seems to be too old for his role. I was induced to buy this VHS, which has a magnificent cover, and see this crap due to the illogical IMDb User Rating and some "ten stars" reviews. I have just checked the authors, and each one of them has just one short review (of "L.I.N.X.") issued in IMDb, and nothing else. Why are they promoting such a garbage? My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): "L.I.N.X. Conexão Letal" ("L.I.N.X. Lethal Connection")

Sentiment: negative
This is by far one of the worst movies i have ever seen, the poor special effects along with the poor acting are just a few of the things wrong with this film. I am fan of the first two major leagues but this one is lame!

Sentiment: negative
This is a very unusual film in that the star with the top billing doesn't appear literally until half way in. Nevertheless I was engaged by the hook of the Phantom Lady. Curtis, though competent as the falsely accused Scott Henderson, looks a little tough to be be sympathetic towards (perhaps he should have shaved his moustache) and his behavior when he first comes home should have convinced the cops at least to some degree of his innocence. While another commentator had a problem with Franchot Tone as Jack Marlowe I found his portrayal of the character to be impressively complex. He is no stock villain. Superb character actor Elisha Cook Jr. is again in top form as the 'little man with big ambitions.' His drumming in the musical numbers added a welcome touch of eroticism. This movie however is carried by the very capable and comely Ella Raines as the devoted would be lover of Henderson, Carol Richmond. She definitely has talent and her screen presence is in the tradition of Lauren Bacall. This is the first of her work I have seen and I am definitely inclined to see her other roles. The rest of the supporting cast is also more than competent. All in all a very satisfying film noir mystery which when viewed today fully conveys the dark and complex urban world it is intended to. Recommended, 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
Count me as being one who is happy to see no Hastings in this episode. The poor-man's Dr. Watson does nothing for me, as he simply drags down every scene he's in. Japp is often necessary to the story as the representative of officialdom, and a little Miss Lemon is fine for seasoning, but Hastings swings from painfully dim to over-mannered in different episodes. If I have to sit through one more vacuous "Oh, I say there!" I'll take the gas-pipe.

As a general rule, the more Poirot you get in a Poirot story, the better. Every line for Hastings is one taken away from Poirot. And I've never read the books, so I really don't care about fidelity to Christie's characters. A lot of viewers/reviewers seem to have a problem with separating the movies from the books. If you want the book as written, then read it. I don't see the point of watching the television version if you know what will come next at every stage. Theatre is not prose - don't expect a transcription.

Sentiment: positive
Beginning with the poster (featuring only Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey), the entire movie was a fraud. One stereotype after another, this movie was about nothing - or nothing new, at least. After 10-15 minutes, you realize that you've just paid to see Justin Timberlake and LL Cool J recite their way through another cop-flick.

Basically, the story is about the corrupt system in some city, all secretly supported by the backbone business and in town, under the watchful eye of some hot-shot politician. The almighty and above-the-law organization is called FRAT and guess what? they've got a kick-ass loony cop shooting and beating at will - suspects, girlfriends, you name it. FRAT cops are corrupt and greedy, so they end up making mistakes that get discovered by a young and talented (!!!) journalist. One hour later, after a series of unbelievably bad-made shooting scenes and more stereotype lines, everything ends happily and we get served the final line : you can't beat the system. Bah! Don't see this waste of film roll. Freeman and Spacey barely have 10 min altogether!

Sentiment: negative
As an early representation of the turmoil of the 1960's that followed, Diane Arbus (Nicole Kidman) can be excused as an early flower child. The film itself deserves no such latitude. The lack of character development, motivation and justification for the character's behavior makes the movie very disappointing. I sat watching and waiting for some explanation of the bizarre actions only to find that Shainberg was letting me peek into a story that must have been someones inside joke. That the few facts presented did not match Diane Arbus' life very much did not help to clarify things either.

The washed out Art Direction in Diane's 'normal' life was nicely contrasted with the brilliant colors in her 'awakening' life with Lionel. And the trap door stairway was a nice demonstration of Diane's attempt to inject her new life into her existing family (However, I don't see how that trap door in the ceiling of her dining room could directly connect to Lionel's apartment which was two flights of stairs up from her's).

Maybe my analysis is a little too literal in looking for some character development and relationship understanding that goes beyond one sentence or one comment. I also would have liked to see at least one of Diane's photos as well. I won't wait for the sequel.

Sentiment: negative
I won't argue with anyone who pronounces this film execrable, as is January Jones's performance, but please check her out, if you haven't already, in the AMC TV series 'Mad Men," starting later this month. She's excellent, as is the entire cast. I'll charitably assume she took on the "Taboo" role strictly for the money, and, realizing what a putrid mess it was going to be, turned in a minimal acting job to avoid starvation. Don't know if that's the case, but I (now) know for sure that she can act.

At first, watching "Taboo," I was convinced her flat delivery was a shrewd choice that would later give rise to some significant revelation about her character or the plot. No such luck. Hard to believe the director didn't suggest to her at least once that not changing expression for 17 successive scenes could cause lockjaw.

Ironically, her winning performance in "Mad Men" comes as a character who, at least in her early appearances, is very repressed, reserved, unsure of herself, and rather colorless, not unlike her "Taboo" role. But as the TV series progressed, she began to blossom into someone who questions her traditional early-60's whitebread Mom role. Can't wait to see where they take her character in the 2nd season.

To sum up, avoid "Taboo" like leprosy, but definitely check out "Mad Men."

Sentiment: negative
Let me first start out by saying 1 out of 10 is too good for this movie. It's unfortunate that IMDb doesn't have tenths of a star... I watched this abortion of a movie in the middle of the night due to insomnia, and it was absolute garbage. The plot was horrible. The acting was horrible. The movie was utterly boring. "malachi" looked like the Shadow with Alec Baldwin (The Shadow is infinitely better than this as well) The character Eve was so undeveloped and 2 dimensional she didn't even grab my attention. I didn't even know her name was Eve. Don was interesting when he kept his mouth shut. The "TWIST" (if you can call it that) was laughable and pathetic. When it came, the movie had done such a horrid job of building suspense or attachment to any character that I simply thought "Who gives a S***." The only thing that made me even lift an eyebrow about this movie was the fact the med. teacher was Dyson in Terminator 2 (Also a movie that was light years ahead of this motion picture massacre.) Anyone who was involved in this movie should be ashamed of themselves for wasting 90 minutes of countless people's time. It's no wonder no actor from this movie ever had a fruitful career. In summary.... This movie is so bad, I feel dirty and need a shower. Worst movie in history, Gigli was better, Prom Night (the remake) was better and dare I say it Saw IV was better...........

Sentiment: negative
I have seen three other movies that are worse than this one, "Plan 9 from Outerspace", "Side Hackers" and the dreaded "Blair Witch Project" There are so many technical errors in this movie that regardless of a decent plot the movie just isn't believable.

Let's start with an AMTRAK train with no skirts or handrails between cars. The killer walks up behind his victim as she moves from car to car and just pushes her off the train.

In one scene a killer sneaks into a woman's apartment. He wants to sneak up on the woman to kill her, so what does he do? He turns up her stereo! If I heard my stereo suddenly get louder I'd be concerned. He kills the women by throwing an electric hair curler into the tub. I was amazed to see that an electric hair curler with a five foot cord could be tossed ten feet and remain plugged in. Plus the apartment looked modern enough to have ground fault outlets in the bathroom and the victim was still electrocuted.

The Boeing 747 is one of the most well known commercial airliners on the planet so this part really amazed me. First the cockpit was not even close to a real 747 and second it wasn't on the top deck of the plane. I watched in utter amazement as the pilot and co-pilot (Where was the flight engineer?) walked right past the spiral staircase and headed forward toward's the nose of the airplane.

I was also amazed that bullets wouldn't penetrate an aluminum serving cart (good thing for our hero), or bathroom doors, but would penetrate the ceiling causing a fuel leak that exited through a small hole in the fuselage. Huh? Watching three guys lengthen a runway by 100 yards in less than a week was pretty amazing as well.

I didn't check, was this a movie of the week or something? It was terrible.

Sentiment: negative
Nemesis 3 is the worst movie what I have ever seen!!! I think that Nemesis 3 was only 30 minutes long. And that movie was so boo-oo-ring. When that movie ends and I saw word: NEMESIS 4... I thought I will...NOT watch that movie never again.

Sentiment: negative
Burt Reynolds came to a point in his career where he appeared to just be going thru the motions. He'd show up, party with his friends on film, and take home a big paycheck. It didn't seem to matter to him that the product he was representing was pure crap.

No film epitomized this more than "Stroker Ace" which makes "Cannonball Run" look like a classic and "Cannonball Run II" look watchable. Save for a few race scenes there is absolutely NOTHING worth seeing here. Even the beautiful Loni Anderson hams it up so bad as a dumb blonde it's embarrassing.

If the thought of Burt hamming it up with Jim Nabors and dressing like a chicken sounds funny then this is your movie. Otherwise pick almost any other film comedy and it won't be any worse.

Sentiment: negative
A young basketball-playing professor of genetics is doing research on the genetic sequence, using human fetuses. He hopes to be able to find a cure for all diseases and aging. He's pressured into concluding his research because he hasn't published, so the university is having trouble justifying funding him (I think).

He does a trial injection on a monkey, which quickly dies. He then tries it on himself. He starts a relationship with the single mother of an extremely annoying little boy; she's the one who had been demanding results from the research.

Initially, he seems to have no effects from the injection, except some new strength. He then realizes that he had some memory loss, and starts recalling what happened. Additionally, he starts to appear very unhealthy.

Since the movie is named metamorphosis, he does eventually change into something else. You won't believe your eyes - either what he turned into, or the absolutely crappy costume the actor is wearing to depict what he's turned into. Incredibly, there's a further change in store - the end of the movie is really, really absurd.

About the only thing this movie has going for it is that Laura Gemser is in it, but she has a very small part.

I'd once seen a the video box for this with a sculpted plastic form glued to the boxcover. Possibly it might even have had some electronics in it at one time, perhaps eyes that light up (the main character's eyes occasionally turn green in the movie). The copy I watched had a box that only showed tear marks where the glue had held on the plastic, which had been removed. The novelty boxcover, if it still had it, would have been the only reason I would have held onto this movie; I'm definitely getting rid of it.

Sentiment: negative
I enjoyed this film. The way these mutants looked, along with the tone of the film, is very good. Plus, David Cronenberg as Philip K. Decker was great! It makes me wonder if his personality is exactly the same in real life (except for the killings of course).

I was impressed with the creatures for this film, although this movie probably had a somewhat low budget, the mutants/creatures/monsters looked great, especially from 1990. This is definitely a unique film and not crap. It makes me want to go find a read the novella it's based off of. This is an interesting film because it shows how humans can be monsters and the "monsters" are the one with humanity.

Sentiment: positive
Despite all of the comparisons to House of Frankenstein, this movie outshines its predecessor and is one of the funnest monster movies in the Universal Monsters series, and sadly, the last. O.k. so it doesn't exactly stack up to something like the Bride of Frankenstein as one a classic to revered by fans of all movies, but with a cast of Dracula, The Wolf Man and Frankenstein's monster (What? no mummy?) you can't help but enjoy this schlock fest! And unlike House of Frankenstein, the monsters in this movie interact a lot more. But this movie also offers some unique story lines for both Dracula and the Wolf Man who both go to Dr. Adleman for cures of their afflictions. While the Wolf Man actually does find a cure, Dracula injects his blood into the doctor and that's when the real fun begins! I highly recommend this movie to fans of classic horror movies. But remember, I never said it was good, just fun.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie when I was a kid and have been looking for it ever since.It rates up there with Cabin in The Sky, Stormy Weather and Carmen Jones as a must see in movies that showcased the awesome talent of African Americans.In the 60s the local Los Angeles TV stations would have a movie of the week and some stations would show the same movie for 5 days.Porgy and Bess was one of them and my whole family would be there all 5 nights in front of the TV and only moved on the commercials.South Pacific,Oklahoma and The Sound of Music are all musical classics that you can pick up at any video store. It would be a shame to let this collection of some of the best talent America had to offer be forgotten or locked in a vault.Please make the film available to the public.

Sentiment: positive
If I could say it was better than Gymkata, I at least felt my money was not totally wasted.

Then I saw Steven Segal's On Deadly Ground.

This movie should see a resurrection though on MST 3K. If Santa Claus Conquers the Martians could make Tom Servo's head explode, one wonders what mayhem this movie could cause.

There is a very good reason why Kurt Thomas never had a movie career.

The writers of this dreck should be forced to wear placards every day of their lives that say "Bitch slap me! I was a writer on Gymkata."

Sentiment: negative
This is without a doubt the most poorly thought out movie in history. The invention gags by Carrot Top are some of the most awful attempts to be funny in recorded history. I am not familiar with his other work, but if it is half as bad as this then I am just going to cry. I give this movie 1 out of 30 billion stars, and may God have mercy on the souls of those responsible.

Sentiment: negative
Bela Lugosi plays Dr. Lorenz who loves his wife so much that he will do anything to keep her young. This film starts off with a wedding as the bride is about to take her vows she suddenly collapses. She is pronounced dead and taken away by undertakers. Trouble is that these are not real undertakers but body snatchers. A wave of bride deaths at the altar and their body disappearing confounds the police. Enter reporter Patricia Hunter to solve the case. She does track down Dr. Lorenz but he also decides to use her youth to keep his wife young also.

Sentiment: negative
This short is a puzzlement. Words fail me here, as this is almost indescribable, Technically exceptional after more than 90 years (the visuals are remarkable and even occasionally amazing), this is not something you watch if you like things that are mundane or "normal'-because it most certainly is not either. This be an odd one, gang. Well worth checking out, but if things like Ren and Stimpy make your head hurt, you may want to skip this. Recommended.

Sentiment: positive
Ladies and Gentlemen,please don't get fooled by "A Stanley Kubrick" film tag.This is a very bad film which unfortunately has been hailed as one of the deadliest horror films ever made.Horror films should create such a fear that during nights people should shiver their hearts out while thinking about a true horror film.In Shining,there is no real horror at all but what we find instead is just a naive,foolish attempt made to create chilling horror.Everyone knows as to how good the attempts are if they are different from reality.All that is good in the film is the view of the icy valley. The hotel where most of the actors were lodged appears good too.A word about the actors Jack Nicholson looks like a lost,lazy soul who is never really sure of what he is supposed to do.There is not much to be said of a bald,colored actor who for the most of times is busy pampering a kid actor.No need to blame the bad weather for the tragedy.It cannot be avoided as the film has been made and poor Kubrick is not alive to make any changes.

Sentiment: negative
The Internet Database lists this as a TV show. And yes, it was a series on MTV shown on the "Oddities" program, after "The Head" and before "Aeon Flux" if I recall correctly. But the version I watched this time was a VHS tape with all the episodes run together into a film without annoying credits in between or having to wait a week for the next fifteen minutes.

You have the story of the Maxx, Julie Winters, Sarah and Mr. Gone. The Maxx is a super-hero or a bum, Julie a social worker or a leopard queen, Sarah a girl who should listen to less of The Smiths and Mr. Gone a guy who can't seem to keep his head on. And then there's the other weird creatures...

I use "or" with Maxx and Julie, because part of the fun is trying to figure out which parts of the story are real and which are dreams. Maybe they're all real or dreams. Maybe one of the characters doesn't exist. Maybe only one exists and dreams of the others. You'll have to wait and find out.

I had the comic books before the show came out, and it was one of my favorites. The artwork was spectacular and the story was original -- unlike anything you'll find in Superman or Batman. It will bend your mind, and has strong adult overtones without being obscene or offensive. And the show used basically the same exact artwork (only now it moves) and the same story... guaranteeing that the beauty intrinsically found in the comic would be faithfully reproduced. This was the best show to appear on "Oddities", hands down.

If you like comics of a darker nature or need a good mind trip, this is a show to check out. It's "Donnie Darko" before there was ever such a thing.

The most astonishing thing is that this never went on to become another movie or television series, but I don't say this in disappointment. By keeping it simple, they have sealed this movie in gold and kept it free from the blemishes brought on by successive failures.

Sentiment: positive
Me and my sister rented this movie because we were in the mood for something trashy and not so demanding to watch. However the movie greatly exceeded my very low expectations.

It is so much more than just a representation of a century. It has very real portrayals of the characters within it and most of the actors do an amazing job. The different stories are baked together with actual footage from the time that gives it a very unique touch. While watching it I really felt that I CARED about what happened to the characters.

I would also like to give endless amounts of praise to Julia Stiles in her portrayal of Katie, she was great in a way that stood out!

I would recommend this movie to anyone..

Sentiment: positive
Despite the overwhelming cult following for this sad "documentary," I must admit to having cordially loathed the film which struck our party as far more a distressing exploitation piece than usefully informative. That said, after seeing the magnificent stage musical drawn from it, one can appreciate what the film might have been in surer hands. 

One suspects that those many of us who actively suffered through the film may have had any campy delights its crueler fans enjoyed destroyed by the uncomfortable suspicion that too many of us - or those we know - are only a misstep or two away from the deplorable plight of the two mad women depicted who live in and contribute to a squalor they seem incapable of controlling or escaping.

The film leaves the viewer desperately wondering how any person could have slid to this level of degradation and, unlike the musical, offers no cautionary clues or explanations, only a horror show unredeemed by humor or insight. 

This soul crushing flatness of the film makes the achievement of the stage version (hopefully to be filmed ultimately for cable) all the more remarkable. Act II is faithful in almost every detail to the film under discussion but strangely, setting the sad inmates' plight to music, raises the human tragedy to art. Even more important, this act is preceded by a fine Act I where we meet the women before their decent into mutually enabled madness, and are offered hints how their isolated purgatory came about. In short, everything which the FILM is lacking.

To the filmmakers' credit (or their successors), the excellent Criterion DVD release includes out-takes and bonus material that partially redeem the main film - behind the scenes photographs, interviews and commentary - filling in some of the blank spots the original editing consciously decided to omit in its drive for unadulterated horror and depression. They can't make the amateurish film itself satisfying, but they can at least make it a bit more comprehensible. 

Ultimately though, it is only the remarkable stage piece inspired by and drawn from it by book writer Doug Wright, composer Scott Frankel and lyricist Michael Korie which raises the rating of the original GREY GARDENS above a single (generous) star.

Sentiment: negative
SPOILERS Edgar Rice Burroughs's famous character was adapted thousand of times for the screen til one's thirst is quenched, notably during the thirties and the forties by Hollywood. Its productors made Tarzan one of the most successful cinema characters. Several years later, Hugh Hudson decided to make a more ambitious version of the monkey-man and it's a more natural, more wild and more down-to-earth Tarzan that he gives away here. Hudson skilfully avoids the clichés that you usually grant to Tarzan such as his famous scream or his friendly pet, Cheetah. Not only, are we far from the designed and invented character made by Hollwood but we are also far from the film set used to make his stories. The movie was partly made in Africa (more precisely in Cameroon). The movie introduces two obvious parts: the first one which takes place in the jungle where Tarzan lives among his adoptive friends, the apes and considers himself as their lord. But he ignores his real origins. The second one in England where Tarzan discovers the English society. Ian Holm epitomizes the link between the two parts and Hudson avoids all that could make the movie falls into the ridiculous thanks to a clever screenplay. Indeed, Holm teaches Lambert basic rules of manners so as to behave correctly in the English society and the result works. Moreover, in the second part, no-one ever laughs at Tarzan and he's even really appreciated. As far as the end is concerned well it's a both bitter and happy end. Happy because Tarzan comes back to the jungle and meets again his adoptive close relatives. But bitter too, because this homecoming means that the Greystoke line won't be ensured and is condemned to disappear... Christophe Lambert finds here, his first (and last?) great role. Sadly, he'll never equal the achievement of his performance in this movie and he'll play in poor and insipide action movies. Nevertheless, as I said previously, a clever screenplay, a performance of a rare quality, some impressive natural sceneries (both the jungle and the English country and we get a gorgeous movie. It's also an excellent rereading from a popular novel. So why is it only rated barely (6/10)?

Sentiment: positive
This is a typical low budget 1970's mess. It's supposed to be a docudrama about a crew hunting Bigfoot through the Pacific Northwest. Every character is a stereotype, from the Native American to the cynical cowboy. The acting and narration are a complete joke. If you're hoping to see a lot of bigfoot footage - keep hoping. There won't be much, and what there is you could do in your backyard with a cheap costume and a camcorder; it would look better than this movie.

It's not that I don't like 1970's low budge fare; I do. It's that this is such a mess of bad acting, bad characters, lousy story and no thrills that you just can't enjoy it. It does not fit into the "so bad it's good" category, nor can you get a laugh out of how bad it is without the help of illicit substances. It's mostly a lot of boring footage of the people camping, hiking, riding horses, and watching wild life. There is a bigfoot attack which is completely stupid; supposedly our friend Sasquatch is throwing rocks down on the campers from above while they fire their rifles back at him. By that point you are rooting heavily for bigfoot to drops some rocks on the filmmaker's heads and stop the whole thing.

Sentiment: negative
I am profoundly grateful to have seen this movie. The acting is astonishing, the movie itself is powerful and clear, and the issues involved are handled with subtlety and depth.

This is an important movie. It could be profoundly transformative.

I would pay good money never, ever to see it again. Because it *is* so good and so complex, it is extremely difficult to watch. I admit that my taste in movies tends strongly toward light entertainment; the visual medium can be so powerful that I tend to avoid it for anything really important. Those of you with greater fortitude than I have may find it easier to handle.

But I strongly encourage people to see it at least once. Preferably with others, so you can talk to each other, and have someone around to remind you that there's more to the world than the movie.

Sentiment: positive
I didn't think it could be done, but something has come along and replaced Open House- a low budget horror about someone killing over the high price of real estate- as the worst film I've ever seen in my short but otherwise sweet life.

It was touted as the best film in Montreal's most recent film festival, which leads me to believe that every other entry must consist of blank-wall shots accompanied by people reading gloomy poetry.

Watching this movie was like a little slice of Hell. It's from Austria, and it attempts to stumble along in the footsteps of Short Cuts and Blue Velvet- scenes about various characters living in a suburban area with a dark underbelly. There's the fat dog owner and his fat maid wife who stripteases for him, the skinny divorcee whose wife still lives with him in a house that includes the untouched room of his dead child, the über-annoying woman hitchhiker who recites top ten lists... The list goes on. Forever. Much like the two hours plus I spent in that theatre.

Yes, the characters interact, but not in a clever or interesting or even relevant way. I couldn't say if they were any good as actors, as, according to the subtitles, they were given lines that were the Austrian equivalent of "You are so lame!" They certainly didn't have to learn many, as each repeated his or her same lines at least three times in a scene.

This is no Gummo, or any of the aforementioned movies. There is no art to discover, and nothing to dwell on afterwards except maybe whether or not you should change your "never walk out during a movie" policy (which quite a few older couples did during a random orgy scene- and if that sounds appetizing, it's not, unless you're one of few who doesn't find the idea of your parents having sex- and with a few local middle-aged couples, to boot- revolting).

This movie was offensive to me. Not the flabby nudity, not the cringe-inducing soundtrack, not the shockless scenes involving guns. I was offended that someone actually spent money to make this when there are capable writers and filmmakers out there looking for funding. I was offended that someone from out of town might have gone to see Dog Days and come out wondering if that was the best us Montrealers could find. Most of all, I was offended that, somehow, the people involved with the festival duped everyone into believing that the emperor had a gorgeous and mesmerising new outfit when it was painfully clear that he was as naked as the fat maid wife doing a striptease.



Sentiment: negative
Joan Fontaine is "A Damsel in Distress" in this 1937 musical starring Fred Astaire, George Burns, and Gracie Allen. The plot, what there is of it, is about a British woman (Fontaine) in love with an American, who is mistaken for Astaire, a musical comedy star.

The film, directed by George Stevens, contains some wonderful Gershwin music, including "Nice Work if You Can Get It" and "A Foggy Day." The best scene is the "Stiff Upper Lip" number, which takes place in a fun house.

Astaire's singing voice sounds more robust in this film than it does in others, and he has a couple of excellent dance numbers. Burns plays his over the top publicist and Allen is Burns' secretary. She's hilarious. The problem, as others have pointed out, is Fontaine, who has to dance with Astaire at the end of the film. Stevens could easily have used a double because he shows the dance in a long shot, and it takes place among the trees. I would have thought it was a double except the dancing was so lousy.

Definitely worth seeing despite its flaws.

Sentiment: positive
I bought this movie sight unseen at a sci-fi convention and I got what I deserved for doing something so silly. Simply put this movie is implausible, boring and unwatchable.

I was so bored and disgusted with the lack of plot development that I turned it off to watch a repeat of Mythbusters. I understand that this was a very low budget move, or least it looked like a very low budget move, but that does not excuse the horrible acting, terrible plot and even worse camera work. It looks like something a group of college students did in between classes and getting drunk.

Maybe if the villain wasn't so laughable and the plot was something that actually could happen in real life with respect to law enforcement it might become so bad it's funny. This movie isn't funny, it's just bad.

Sentiment: negative
This is, arguably, the worst of the major Ava Gardner films. Yes, she is gorgeous. But that can wear thin over time, especially after the corny and predictable movie ending.

In this turkey, Robert Walker has to pretend that he's Eddie Bracken (which surely embarrassed him). Olga San Juan plays the Jane Powell (golly, gee) part. Dick Haymes plays a sort of dim sidekick (!), and Eve Arden plays Helen Broderick (and a host of other wise-cracking female semi-comedians). Yes, the film contains a major popular song, "Speak Low." But check out the other, entirely forgettable, pieces. Dick Haymes sings very well, of course, and so does the uncredited vocalist dubbing for Ava.

The sets are cheap, the script is filled with clichés and failed humor, and Tom Conway looks as though he has been battling with liquor (as indeed he was). In short, if you want to see Ava in her prime, buy a photo and stay well clear of this movie.

Sentiment: negative
I didn't really go into "Reign Over Me" knowing exactly what to expect either from the director or the story. The plot was easy enough to understand, I suppose. This guy's whole family died in 9/11, and he shuts the world out of his life. Alright. I didn't know if it was going to use the attachment of terrorism as a platform to speak on that or other issues relating to it, and it really doesn't on a very obvious level, so if you're scared to be surrounded by political opinions that may be different from yours, I wouldn't worry about it. I think the writing even made a point never to explicitly mention "September the eleventh".

Overall, I was impressed. It was a very moving picture. The movie has a sense of humor, and it is very sharp, but it is definitely a drama where it counts. I typically don't like to think that comedic actors are incapable of actually acting, but sometimes, let's be honest, they are. Adam Sandler is definitely capable of it (and though I think so, you may disagree, Jim Carrey is also very well-rounded.. sometimes). Sandler's portrayal of Charlie Fineman took a character that on the surface seems completely unreal and makes it become absolutely believable. I read many reviews that criticized the writing of Alan Johnson's (Don Cheadle in another excellent role, if not one that seems similar to a few of his more recent pictures)wife, who is played well by Jada Pinkett Smith, calling her static and dull, but that is completely untrue.

She has depth, but some of it gets hidden behind the main story, which does drift in and out of focus occasionally. (Which also brings to mind some very unusual transitions done early in the movie, with a weird "Make everything out of focus" fadeout. After about the first 40 minutes, they aren't used anymore. Maybe it's significant for the characters outlook, artistically, or maybe they just realized how irritating it was.) The film gradually begins to reveal to us the point (one of several, but definitely the most explicit) of the story, which is that sometimes people have to deal with grief in their own way. Maybe it seems unorthodox to us, maybe it seems downright unhealthy, but maybe what some people want more than anything is just to forget. To just exist. The films soundtrack was excellent, and it used music to pursue and amplify moods, rather than establish them, which gives credit to the actors and the writers.

The movie takes it's name from the song "Love, Reign O'er Me", off of The Who's rock opera, Quadrophenia. The song itself is fairly insignificant to the actual story, but it is used powerfully in the movie over the course of the climax, and at the very end. The movie is paced well, and does not feel like it's dragging anywhere in it's length, which is a little over 2 hours. If you can accept Adam Sandler's portrayal of this deeply heartbroken and broken down man, you will enjoy the movie. You will become entangled in the story, and you will genuinely feel for the characters in every minute of it. It is not the best movie of the year, and there's nothing groundbreaking or positively amazing in it, but it's a very enjoyable, watchable movie, all in all.

Sentiment: positive
I'm trying to understand what people liked about MirrorMask. I am an avid film viewer and hobbyist film maker. As I was telling friends during my lunch hour, MirrorMask may well be my biggest movie disappointment of the year. Just like the short Moongirl, the film missed its marks. Several times during the movie it made attempts at humor. It sets you up for the laugh. Instead of making you laugh, it leaves you feeling empty. The jokes reminded one of the recent Star Wars films. They weren't funny unless you were five. And the acting felt similarly terrible. I've seen actors actually act in front of a blue screen. And I've believed it. But not in this film. Not for a second.

This film takes a formula and tries to apply it with pretty artwork And though the script is totally workable and the special effects quite beautiful, it has no heart to it and fails miserably. I left the film shaking my head and considered leaving the theater. I felt hallow and miserable and still haven't gotten the sour taste out of my mouth from it. I love independent film. I encourage people to view independent films to support them. But not this film. This film shouldn't have been made. At least, not like this. Why did the director miss the marks so clearly? They were clearly setup Not just the humor. But the emotions. The drama. Even the lines were poorly timed and delivered. It was like the film walked on three legs instead of four. Its steps are awkward and miss timed. And it could fall over with the slightest push Don't see this film. I don't care who you are. It isn't worth your time.

Sentiment: negative
Ok, first of all, I am a huge zombie movie fan. I loved all of Romero's flicks and thoroughly enjoyed the re-make of Dawn of the Dead. So when I had heard every single critic railing this movie I was still optimistic. I mean, critics hated Resident Evil, and while it may not be a particularly great film, I enjoyed it if not for the fact that it was just a fun zombie shoot-em up with a half decent plot. This however, is pure crap. Terrible dialogue, half-assed plot, and video game scenes inserted into the film. Who in their right mind thought that was a good idea. The only thing about this movie (I use the term loosely) that I enjoyed was Jurgen Prochnow as Captain Kirk (Ugh). While his name throws originality out the window, you can see in his performance that he knows he's in a god awful film and he might as well make the best of it. Everyone else acts as if they're doing Shakespeare. And very badly I might add. Basically the only reason anyone should see this monstrosity is if you a.) Are a huge zombie buff and must see every zombie flick made or b.) Like to play MST3K, the home game. See it with friends and be prepared for tons of unintentional laughs.



Sentiment: negative
If you suffer from insomnia then Radiant would be the best way to send you into a 7-year coma. The film is so preposterously overwrought and mundane that it's hard to imagine that director Steve Mahone could overlook such obvious dullness.

The story has an exiled Doctor (who we never get to see) move out into the desert to create a vaccine that will cure all diseases by filling the hosts full of antibodies that can combat any infection (yes, just like that episode of Futurama). The vaccines don't work and the human guinea pigs become infected with a virus that kills within 48 hours.

Not wanting to be caught by the Government guys in masks the group head into the desert for cover, hoping that the sunshine will kill the virus. All of this is narrated by Michael, the only one of the quartet immune to the infection. And it's the most boring narration ever. They could have cast someone with an interesting voice but instead we get someone with less vocal personality than Clive Owen.

On top of this the editor insists on fade-cutting more than half the movie, giving it a weird dream-like feel and increasing the audiences desire to go to sleep. It's no surprise that half of the audience walked out of this, I was not one of them for some reason. But I bloody well should have.

The ending is supposed to be shocking and clever and foreboding. But it's plain and simply not. A relief yes, but not dramatic in the slightest.

The utter cheapness of this production and muffled sound that renders a lot of the dialogue unintelligible cripples what could have been an interesting sci-fi story if it had better actors, cooler locations and a sense of urgency. As it is, Radiant is a snoozefest.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is a total dog. I found myself straining to find anything to laugh at just so I wouldn't feel like I'd totally wasted my money--and my time. The writing in this film is absolutely terrible. It's a shame it's not up to the standards of other Hale Storm movies.

They should have saved the money on getting D-list actors like Fred Willard and Gary Coleman and spent the money working the script until it was right. Even Gary Coleman wasn't properly utilized for his role.

This movie leaves you wondering what the point of most of the plot was--including the subplots. After viewing this movie, I'm left with the impression that the producers were hoping to capture some kind of Napolean Dynamite-like humor, where it's not so much the lines as the character and the delivery. Unfortunately, this movie fails to deliver the lines, the characters, the delivery or the humor. I should have gone to the dentist instead!

Sentiment: negative
this was one of those $.50 cent deals of yore---and far more complex than most realize---and it was in color! not only are the effects extraordinary, vs. crap like 'earth vs. the flying saucers'---the real 'killer' is the 'universality of plot'---everything hinges on two principles---the ancient concept of a hidden incestuous-thinking father's desire for his daughter, and the idea of what would happen should a world's tech reach the point where all citizen's desires become manifest.

needless to say if everyone we wished dead gets dead, not many, if any left---and that became the fate of the 'forbidden' planet's populace---rather modern, actually. unfortunately the 'gear' of 'The Krell'---wasted by ignorance, remains, and 'Morpheus', the incestuous father, knows how to access such tech---and does so, to prevent losing his daughter to another. ancient plot, beautifully rendered.

and considering its age, it remains a stunning suspense, action, human-emotion classic---and visually very modern---don't pass this one up---it presages all modern sci-fi---and its pscychological content elevates it, beyond any genre---a timeless work---

and the soundtract! you will see/hear no pure 'synth' and perfectly syched Moog background---a 'not miss'---

Sentiment: positive