DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This movie was terrible...How can somebody even think that this movie was like the ones back in the "good old days" when Tim Thomerson was not even in it. And to make things worse, they used clips from old trancer movies. Thats just terrible. NO trancer movie is complete without Tim Thomerson.I love Fullmoon films, and i have been watching them since i was 4 years old. I have been through everything they have done and this movie almost made me lose it. Now i got a couple of lines to fill so i will keep going. Their way of breeding new trancers is completely stupid as well as way to send Jack back in time. What happened to the TCL Chamber. AND finally! What happened in the end of trancers 5 where lina says and i quote "Jack Has given me something special" AND her and some other broad looks at her stomach. I don't know...maybe a BABY is in there. There were so many other places of going to, but fullmoon S'd the Bed

Sentiment: negative
Though I saw this movie about 4 years ago long before I started commenting on IMDb, I decided to review it now which is unusual for me since before now I often reviewed something just after seeing it. What can I say? Well, the best performance is that of the late Peter Boyle as the title character who, after finding out about a man's killing the drug-dealing boyfriend of his daughter, wants to bond with him even though he's a Madison Avenue executive who has nothing in common with the very lower-class conservative Joe. In fact, there are plenty of funny scenes of Joe at this guy's party making smart alecky remarks there. Oh, and it should be noted that the actress that plays the daughter who they're looking for after she disappeared from the hospital after overdosing on some drugs is none other than Susan Sarandon making her film debut! This was a pretty hard-hitting movie for the time it was made (late '60s-early '70s) and was compelling work from scripter Norman Wexler (later of Saturday Night Fever) and director John G. Avildsen (later to do Save the Tiger, Rocky, and The Karate Kid). Certainly the ending packs a wallop even today after all these years! Highly recommended for anyone curious about the counterculture of that time. P.S. Among the cultural artifacts seen here are a Raggedy Ann doll, a box of Ritz crackers, a bottle of Heinz ketchup, and, unique for the era, a Nixon poster asking, "Would you buy a used car from this man?"

Sentiment: positive
This film seemed way too long even at only 75 minutes. The problem with jungle horror films is that there is always way too much footage of people walking (through the jungle, up a rocky cliff, near a river or lake) to pad out the running time. The film is worth seeing for the laughable and naked native zombie with big bulging, bloody eyes which is always accompanied on the soundtrack with heavy breathing and lots of reverb. Eurotrash fans will be plenty entertained by the bad English dubbing, gratuitous female flesh and very silly makeup jobs on the monster and native extras. For a zombie/cannibal flick this was pretty light on the gore but then I probably didn't see an uncut version.

Sentiment: negative
"Red Rock West" was far and away one of the best suspense thrillers of the 90's with a superb script (by John and Rick Dahl) that kept you guessing throughout and on the edge of your seat for most of the film. It was brilliantly directed by John Dahl and featured a marvellous cast including Nicolas Cage, Dennis Hopper, Lara Flynn Boyle and especially J. T. Walsh (in a memorable performance) making this a riveting and captivating thriller not to be missed. The film never had much publicity on release (in fact I first caught up with it on TV) and is therefore one of those special little gems that you have to seek out but this unique film is now slowly gaining a cult following.

Nicolas Cage is Michael Williams who is broke and out of work when he finds himself in the small town of Red Rock. Mistaken for a contract killer named Lyle from Dallas he is shocked to be offered $10,000 to murder the wife of bar owner Wayne Brown (the excellent J. T. Walsh). He plays along with the plan and decides he should go and warn Brown's wife Suzanne (Lara Flynn Boyle) but then the plot thickens and there are so many twists, turns and surprises - and double dealings - that Cage is thrown from one crisis to another and finds himself trapped in a terrible situation he can't drag himself out of! Then just to complicate matters even further the real Lyle turns up to carry out the contract killing (played by everyone's favourite heavy Dennis Hopper). When Hopper discovers what has happened he goes after Cage but no one could forsee the surprising events that follow.

Some favourite lines from the film:

Nicolas Cage (to Lara Flynn Boyle): "I hate to see an innocent woman get hurt but it's an awful lot of money".

J. T. Walsh (to Cage): "Michael Williams. Well, Michael, you're going to be spending some time with us till we get to the bottom of this".

Boyle (to Cage): "You're not a killer?". Cage: "That's right, no. But the guy I'm supposed to be just rode into town so you gotta get out of here".

Boyle (to Cage): "O.K. How you're going to explain impersonating a hired killer and taking $10,000 from my husband?".

An extraordinarily entertaining little thriller (just 98 minutes) with a storyline that never lets up and powerful acting by all the principals. Any film featuring J. T. Walsh is O.K. in my book and "Red Rock West" was one of his best. How sad it was that this exceptional actor's career was cut tragically short by a heart attack in 1998. The most prolific period for "film noir" was without any doubt the forties but "Red Rock West" is a good modern example of the genre and has jumped right into my "Top Ten" list of all time favourite films. I look forward to more like this from director John Dahl. 10/10. Clive Roberts.



Sentiment: positive
This could have been the best game ever!! But the game makers just screwed up after 3 assassinations and the ending!! This is a combination of Prince Of Persia, Hit-man, GTA and Age Of Empires II (Saladin).

Yes these four games mentioned above are considered to be one of the greatest games ever made.

You combine the four and you get this game!! It has all the good aspects of the four games like acrobatic skills, stealth assassinations, open world and the HISTORY!! For the first 3 assassinations you feel this game is greatest!! But after the third, things seem to get so repetitive, that you only hope for the GAME to END.

I have played this on a PC and the PC version is horrible with glitches and the stupid side missions are senseless.

MY advice to all. This is a good game but get it EITHER for the XBOX360 or PS3. DON'T get it for the PC.

Lastly, this game came from the creators of Prince Of Persia. Surely the producer is hot, but the game is not hot and it is NOT better than the four games mentioned above!!

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the best TV movies I have ever seen! The title makes it so obvious and predictable but come on, all TV movies are like that!

The story is fantastic. It may seem ridiculous but it is based on an incredibly true story. Gary Cole plays a military man named Dave who feels trapped in his marriage. He abandons his wife and kids and then fakes his death! All so he could be with Alyson (Karen Sillas). How far will Dave go to keep his secret? 

The acting is top notch for TV movies. Gary Cole especially keeps the movie together as a charming, smooth-talking sociopath who has an answer to everything when his wife gets suspicious. Karen Sillas does the best she can as a wife who discovers that her husband is a LIAR and doesn't know what to do about it. Teddi Siddall, who I believe is Gary Cole's wife in real life, plays her part well especially when she cries about the "death" of her husband. Wendy Makkena adds a nice touch as Alyson's sister. Linda Goranson is great in her small role as Dave's mother.

Predictable but the acting and the story take this movie up several notches.

Sentiment: positive
Saw this movie twice at community screenings and really loved it. I work in the Jane Finch community and feel the film really captured some of the essence and flavour of the community - grit, determination, exuberance, creativity, in your faceness with a dose of desperation. The writing, dialogue and acting is solid and I really found myself drawn into the story of the young woman Raya as she struggles to pursue her goals and not lose herself in the process. Great dance sequences and it is not only the bodies that move smoothly and with electricity but the camera moves with great fluidity and intelligence as well. All the characters are multi dimensional - none wholly good or bad and the women characters are admirably strong. This is a film that has a strong beating heart and celebrates the irrepressible spirit of youth, hip hop and communities like Jane Finch.

Sentiment: positive
As I said the idea itself was great and it had plenty potential. I was truly sad of discovering that this was another typical American mass movie: "We are in this for the money..." If only the producers had had more time to actually MAKE the movie. This one was not finished when they let it out...

Sentiment: negative
We have given this film one star for awful, however, it really depends on how you look at it. We are currently watching this on Channel 5 at 3.30am, and we haven't stopped laughing, so perhaps we could give it a 10, just for the entertainment value. Right from the outset, with the 'manic' thoughts of the stalker being relayed in comic fashion, we were laughing. Is it me or does that chick from Knott's Landing look like one of the characters from the Dark Crystal.

I'm not going to spoil it for you, however, you would have to be pretty stupid not to see it coming, i don't think its clever enough for double bluffs.

This has to be the worst/best film we have ever seen, if we'd been playing the 'spot the cliché' drinking game, then we be wasted by now.

Sentiment: negative
This movie had great production values, good lighting, costumes, set, cinematography and acting. But someone, somewhere, took the script, and replaced all the dialogue with grade-school level barely literate writing. I felt my IQ dropping points any time any character spoke.

Did they do this on purpose? Was this just an accident of Brain Dead Studio Executives? At this point, we don't know.

All I know is, this movie was one great mistake from beginning to end. We don't even get to see how the Squad became cops, so instead of any character development, we get what feels like a bad TV-movie leftover from the 60's. Or whenever.

Find the screenwriters, beat them with a sock full of quarters. Everyone else, nice work, but read your scripts next time.

3/10

Sentiment: negative
The price of a dream - and some dreams can be "too" expensive.

Only having viewed the English-translated version, it is perhaps the reason for a low rating from this viewer.

It made the overall film poorer than the story material hinted at...

...and other comments seem to suggest the subtitled version would be better.

But some plot elements remained unexplained, leaving an unfinished feel.

It also leaves the thought "is there a series to follow?".

A pity there was no more (at this stage at least, anyway).

Sentiment: negative
With NBC's "Thank God You're Here", the network may be trying to replicate the successes of ABC's improv sitcom, "Who's Line Is It Anyway?" in which host Drew Carey would judge the performances of a handful of cast regulars asked to improvise scenes of some kind. In the NBC show, Dave Foley and co-host Dave Alan Grier oversee a handful of notable comedians who must improvise their way through various scenes which all begin with "Thank God You're Here." It takes itself far too seriously (why must viewers be repeatedly reminded that the actors have never seen the sets before), both co-hosts seem less then enthused. After watching the continuously sub-par, unfunny attempts by the actors to solicit some laughs, I am left wondering whether the live audience is genuinely laughing at what transpires, or whether they, too, are improvising. Expect this time slot filler to be a very short-lived one.

Sentiment: negative
A terrible storyline (Amis at his worst), pointless and self-conscious 'decadence', obvious shock tactics and patchy acting make this film (rather like "Rancid Aluminium") embody everything that went wrong with the much-vaunted British film revival. The humour is, at best, limp, and the pretentiousness of the whole set-up (including some kind of "internet terrorist group" - ooh, how contemporary) really begins to grate.

Final summary - a half-baked attempt to be 'edgy' that does no-one any favours. Still, it's always a pleasure to see Katy Carmichael on screen...



Sentiment: negative
I'm still new to the Krimi genre and the only one I've seen prior to seeing this one was the earlier and somewhat disappointing 'The Dead Eyes of London', which didn't exactly inspire a great hope for the rest of the genre in me. If I'd seen this one first, however, the feeling would have been different as while The College Girl Murders is a bizarre and rather wacky attempt at a crime flick; it's great fun to watch and it's really hard to hate a film that throws so many weird and wonderful ideas into the script and manages to pull it off with style. The film begins in a lab where a crazy scientist has invented a new and highly toxic poison that kills its victim and makes it look like they died from a heart attack. This poison is used by a mysterious criminal mastermind who breaks common criminals out of jail to carry out his murders using this poison (and then has them put back in jail). As the title suggests, it's a nearby college full of girls that provides most of the victims. There's also a mysterious monk dressed in a red robe who marauds around breaking necks with a bullwhip.

Of course, with a plot like that; this is not exactly a serious affair and the director clearly knows that as there is a very tongue-in-cheek vibe to the film, which does bode well with the plot. The fact that there are so many different sides to the plot does unfortunately mean that everything does not run smoothly; although this isn't a big problem as things are kept ticking over nicely throughout the film and there's always enough going on to keep the audience interested. The atmosphere is superb and the colour scheme on display is great too look at. Of course, the film is based on an Edgar Wallace novel and clearly the man has a great imagination; the locations used are also superb and while a killer's lair decked out with a host of wild and exotic animals might not serve any relevance to the plot, it does help to give the film that extra 'something'. You cant expect a conclusion that fully makes sense after all the stuff that goes on in this film; but the reason for the murders sort of makes sense and is a satisfying way for the film to climax. Overall, College Girl Murders is an excellent little mystery flick and one that comes highly recommended!

Sentiment: positive
I sense out there a mix of confusion and varying degrees of personal taste in the reactions to this film. Yes, there are vampire stereotypes. Yes, there are scientific stereotypes covered here. Even martial arts stereotypes. All well and good, and sure, not all perfectly done. However, I sense one crucial point about this film is being overlooked...the cultural significance of its location. The film is set in Pensacola, Florida, and does not try to avoid saying so. That's a bold move in the film world today, and a rare treat for fans of indy films. And indeed, it may not be the last. Pensacola is world renowned as a Navy town, an aviation town, a lumber town, and sometimes even as a hotbed for political controversy. Rarely is it seen as a growing film town. But that's all changing now. More film companies are coming in to shoot. And more native Pensacolians are discovering the power of cinema for themselves. This film is part of a growing trend of Pensacola-based indy films, and more are on the way. Pensacola is making a big noise in the global film community, and by and by, the world is taking more notice. Watch and listen, world. The Pensacolians are coming. Like a virus.

Sentiment: positive
Living in Edinburgh, and have a great thirst for history, I was very put off by the "libertys" taken. Wrong breed of dog for a start!! Bobbys owner Old Jock was an old single man, who came to Edinburgh and died a pauper in lodgings, not like in the film at all. For anyone coming to Edinburgh and hoping to see sights of the film,you will not find the graveyard in Princes St Gardens!! There were a few moments were a tissues would have been great. The actors were fantastic at padding out a rather flimsy script. I don't feel the poor wee Bobby actually got enough screen time, possibly due to being "lost" at one point. All that said, the film was fine and any 8 yr old will enjoy.

Sentiment: negative
Sacha Baron Cohen is a genius. And this movie is good! Although the film doesn't nearly reach the quality of the tv-show, it's still very funny and has some seriously wicked moments! I've liked Ali G since the first time I saw the material from the show. I think he's one of the best comedy characters of all time.. up there with say, Peter Dragon ("Action") and The Blues Brothers. Biggest surprise with this film was that they've actually got some serious actors to do it (Dance and Gambon). After this I will absolutely respect them even more, for having the good sense to take this chance. I have nothing really bad to say about this film, it's very funny. Very juvenile, but hey, so what?! 

One more thing to mr. G: SEQUEL, PLEASE!

**** / *****

Sentiment: positive
This really was a waste of time...the movie has a weak plot, the story is fragmented and ends very abruptly with many loopholes....though the animation is top notch. 

Once the movie started, I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt by telling myself that it might get interesting in the later stage, but it was never unique. This same plot has been played over and over again, but what made it worse was that the major plot hole was the whole story on how to kill the baddies...The writer could have done so much more with the entire concept, but seemed that he or she did not have their heart in it and wanted to close the movie as soon as it started.

Overall, too much hype but not able to deliver.

Sentiment: negative
Some nameless aliens off on a distant ship from a distant planet have sent the giant robot Kronos to rob the world of its energy. They've got a prototype clanking around Mexico for openers and if he proves successful more will be sent. It would certainly take a lot of time for just this one Kronos to perform that task.

For reasons I can't explain the aliens first capture the mind of leading scientist John Emery who telepathically directs Kronos to his first targets. Since Emery is killed off later and the monster seems to function well enough without Emery as a controller, why the aliens needed him in the first place is a bit bizarre.

In any event scientists Jeff Morrow, Barbara Lawrence, and George O'Hanlon who work under Emery aren't fooled a bit about his nature. And of course they come up with a plan to deal with the raging metal giant.

Kronos is a perfect film for the Fifties, the bad guys are never seen they're just out there looking to undermine mankind. It's a perfect film for the Cold War. And Jeff Morrow assures us we'll be ready for them in the future.

The players look like they're having a grand old time mouthing as many clichéd lines the writers could put in the script. I get the impression that Kronos is the kind of film Ed Wood might have done on a bigger budget with a bit more care.

Sentiment: negative
Another too bad the lowest they can go here is one. Otherwise this would get an easy zero. Truly one of the worst films I have ever seen. In fact were Peckenpah's name not on the thing I would never have guessed he did it. Actually one of the people in San Francisco I know was on the set a lot and from nearly sunup on he says that Sam was just plain snockered. It shows in spades. The laughing bit at the early part of the film is the ONLY thing in this entire mess worth a second look. Not even Gig Young is watchable. This is a true test of masochism. Had I been forced into the confines of a theatre to see it I would have jumped up screaming. And now I truly feel guilty having watched it all from the confines of a very comfortable couch that was just too nice to leave. What a mess, it seemed less written than made up as they went along. It's not only a bomb but a bmob spelled backwards. Yikes!!!!!

Sentiment: negative
Why do they keep making trash like this? because it makes money that's why. Eraser is not so much a film but a string of action set pieces strung together. It's well filmed but predictable and it's all been done before, only better. This is basically a Nineties version of 'Commando'.

Sentiment: negative
The acting, other reviews notwithstanding, was remarkably well-done. Brad Pitt handles the role of an annoying, obnoxious Austrian climber quite well. Other acting is fine. The story could have been riveting, but somehow, it misses - one never really understands or cares for the characters shown, and so the story, which could have been quite dramatic, fails to draw in this audience.

Beautiful scenery and cinematography, a remarkably dramatic true story, important events that shaped the world that we live in - but I could not, try as I might, involve myself in this story. As an unabashed Brad Pitt fan (I consider him one of the top 5 actors of his generation), I expected to *love* this flick - and yet, it left me cold.

It could be a failing within myself, but I tend to point toward the creative end of this movie - direction, scriptwriting, production, editing - somehow, they lost me. It's a shame, because it could have been wonderful.

Good acting, dramatic story, beautifully shot - it should have been magnificent. It wasn't. Probably worth watching, just to make your own mind up on it - but don't expect too much, and perhaps you won't be as disappointed as I was. Mostly, it bored me.

Sentiment: negative
This movie actually hurts to watch. Not only did I not laugh once, I ended up getting a serious headache. At times, I felt so sorry for the actors involved. The best way to sum it up is to note that among sex comedies, it is probably the least funny and least sexy of all time. I'm only sorry I can't give it a vote of less than one. To give this a rating of one is an insult to every movie that scores two or better.

Now I see that they're filming a sequel. Hearing that someone is actually paying these people to make another movie convinces me that there's just too much money in Hollywood. RAISE THEIR TAXES!!! Making a sequel to this movie may very well constitute a crime against humanity; perhaps an international tribunal should be convened, or U.N. sanctions applied to the filmmakers.

In short, it's a really bad movie. Really, really.

Sentiment: negative
i am in a vast minority here. i also didn't much care for the original caddyshack, aside from the chase/murray duo scene and select rodney jokes. okay, break it down: rodney vs. jackie- both jewish and have similar humor. rodney's a bigger name and more distinct. jackie has an incidental and more observational approach to his jokes and is more 'up yours' in this sequel. jackie's attitude toward everything is memorable and in a way, inspirational! his quick lines and over-confidence left me wishing i could express myself in such a way. rodney was good, but there wasn't enough of him, and he was more 'in your face' and dismissive. jackie, in a rare film appearance, makes a perfect sub for rodney (come on, a gun shaped hair dryer?!?!) really, look at the little things!

stack vs. knight- both play snobby yuppies very well. ted knight, despite his wonderful tv/film career, kinda shows his age. but, he does pull off the snobbish demands of the part and we want to see him fall. ted looks kinda weak and is pretty annoying, playing his anger and frustration too slapstick, while stack is more incidentally snide and vengeful; you really hate him and enjoy see him constantly fail. stack wins with me.

murray vs. aykroyd- well, both had great, vintage SNL-like scenes with the ever-present and enjoyable chevy chase (ty webb). i did like the murray/chase one better. murray plays his great, annoying, chatty character with obvious improv skill and is loveable- yet annoying. and the exact same can be said for aykroyd. both get annoying after a while, but it's a tie.

i really loved part 2 over the first. they are 2 totally different mooded films. part one is more drug/bathroom/sex humor with a cast full of great names. part 2 uses golf as a backdrop for a 'stick-it-to-the-rich' type of comedy that makes one feel better about being working class. 80s script? yes. a bit far-fetched? yes, but wasn't the first? an insult to the sport of golf? yes, it's a movie. thin story? yes, it's a comedy with actual humor- not 'dances with wolves'!! besides- part 2 has a much better soundtrack!! PLEASE- DON'T EXPECT THIS TO BE A SEQUEL TO PART ONE!! IT IS 98% ITS OWN MOVIE AND SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE THE NAME 'CADDYSHACK' IN IT. that said, i am a big fan of caddyshack 2 and it is a great exponent of 80s fluff entertainment with quality humor. VIVA JACKIE MASON!!! to all the reducers- lighten up! it's a great comedy of its own. randy quaid was wonderful, jonathan silverman was wonderful, heck, everyone was!! all this chatting and now i feel like watching it! i think i will

Sentiment: positive
This was an interesting study in societal sexuality, as well as the "dark interests" of man.

While I can't say the wife was a strong character - she was the wrong choice for the part, in my opinion - she was a rich kid in search of escaping her drool life. She was a rebel in fact, and never fully matured for her husband, a lawyer (Rickman). It's obvious he married her for her money and to cover his sexual desires, which is taboo. Rickman played his part to a tee, his flirtations with the young man, and very subtle undertones of gayness. The young man was gay to the hilt! When he did Marilyn impersonation that should have told the wife everything. He was perfectly cast as well. He has hustler written all over him.

I was not crazy about the ending, as I knew what was coming. Overall though, the acting from Rickman was great, Reedus was good, Walker was okay but I had misgivings. For a gay themed movie, it was average, but not blatant at least. It's worth viewing if you don't have "Truly Madly Deeply" lying around for a spin.

Sentiment: positive
I have seen romantic comedies and this is one of the easiest/worst attempts at one. A lot of the scenes work in a plug-and-play manner inserted strictly to conform to the romantic-comedy genre. Usually this is okay because we're dealing with a genre, but the challenge generally resides in making it original, new and inventive. This movie fails to do so.

There is no sense of who the characters really are, apart from Sylvie Moreau's (who is the real star of this movie, not Isabelle Blais). They fit into this one-dimensional cliché and they become nothing more than simple puppets serving the purpose of a very light narrative.

The pacing of the movie can become annoying, rhythm lacks, and the editing is filled with unnecessary close-ups. I should also mention the overly stylized decors making some scenes devoid of any naturally, or rather, making the attempt at naturally seem too obvious. Of course, along with that, you have the right-on-cue sappy music which unfortunately often sounds mismatched.

I can't believe that a movie who makes obvious Woody Allen allusions ends up being this deceptive. If you expect a good light-hearted romantic comedy, this is not it. Or rather, this a poor attempt at it. You will only leave the theater wondering why this film has been getting such praise when cinema is now more than 100 years old and there are far superior Quebecois directors making better flicks.

Les Aimants is a good movie for what it is. But it's a bad one if you regard cinema as an art and directors as auteur's.

Sentiment: negative
I still don't know why I forced myself to sit through the whole thing. This "film" wasn't worth the Memorex DVD-R it was burned on; I thought I was watching the end result of a group of middle schoolers stealing their parents' camcorder. This is by far the worst movie ever made. I truly, from the bottom of my heart, want to sue Aaron Yamasato for the two hours he stole from my life.

So apparently, it's supposed to be bad on purpose; However, if you should end up in Hell and are forced to watch this 90-minute coil of doo-doo, you'll see that Yamasato is really trying hard to make an awesome flick. The actors attempt dramatic kick-ass performances comparable to Crimson Tide but come closer to The Marine.

The crap acting is just the tip of the iceberg. The camera angles are awful. The story is C-movie at best-- the plot isn't even good enough to be considered B-movie caliber. The dialogue attempts to be dynamic and witty, but is crap like everything else. Rumor has it that a hard copy of the screenplay actually attracts flies. Plus, the techno score is annoying... not because it's techno, but because it's NON-STOP. That's right, the music plays in the background THE WHOLE TIME, acting as a subliminal reminder of how bad this thing is. I don't care what the disclaimer claims, I don't buy it. BOTS was not made this bad on purpose, because it takes itself WAY too serious for what it was: a joke.

This "film" was very low-budget. But that is no excuse for its record-setting suck factor. Great films are born of substance, not budget. BOTS had neither.

Allow me to further articulate the overwhelming power of this 90-minute waste of time: if I were having a three-way with Jessica Alba and Jessica Biel in front of a TV and Blood of the Samurai came on, I'd be out of there quicker than Steven Seagal in Executive Decision.

Undoubtedly, some people will try to defend the movie. Two, maybe three. They'll say, "it's grindhouse chop-socky!" or "cheesy in a good way!" or "it's so bad, it's good!" Those people are idiots. A movie is either good, or it's bad. There's no such thing as a good bad movie. But there ARE such things as idiots that like crappy movies. Don't get me wrong; there are lots of cornball not-to-be-taken-seriously movies out there that are enjoyable and entertaining. Slither is one. BOTS is not.

This suckfest runs about an hour and a half, and in my humble opinion, it's 90 minutes too long. The best thing about this "film" is the DVD cover, so next time you're near the Wal-Mart DVD bargain bin, take a look at it-- DON'T TOUCH IT, just look-- and quietly walk away.

Sentiment: negative
This is an interesting series that takes real life people (Jesse James, John Wesley Hardin, etc)...and dramatizes part of their real story with a continuing series character taking part in that story. Railroad Detective "Matt Clark" -- takes a role in tracking down famous outlaws from the Old West in stories that are at least partly based on the true accounts. In that sense, it's almost an anthology series, and as someone else pointed out, this odd structure poses some timeline conflicts with the real events, but it's a fun series with plenty of action to satisfy a western-hungry 1950's audience -- and it still holds up pretty well 55 years later. Clark cuts a powerful figure in his western gear as he goes up against some of history's baddest baddies. And his girl-sidekick Frankie is quite a dish. If you're a western fan, be sure to check it out if you have a chance.

Sentiment: positive
Having already seen the original "Jack Frost", I never thought that "Jack Frost 2" would be as absurd as it is. Boy was I wrong! Then again, A-PIX movies have a way of showing unbelievably bad material, even worse than you might expect. I believe this is the first A-PIX sequel, and it may be an indication of what to expect in the future: more A-PIX sequels.

It's hard to watch this without laughing, especially during the later parts of the movie in which Jack Frost's offspring (which are essentially snowballs with eyes, arms, a mouth and sharp teeth) start killing people with the typical comedic dialogue and silly voices to go with it. They are shown both as puppets (with a stick underneath to move them) and as computer animation, which I have to say looks very cheesy. The computer animation surprised me, as the first "Jack Frost" had no such effects.

I'd strongly recommend that you see the original "Jack Frost" before seeing this one (both of which it would be preferable to watch with a group of friends) to get the full amusement out of it, and because it would make more sense ("sense" being a relative term).

Now only if there was "Uncle Sam 2"...

Sentiment: negative
Go see this movie for the gorgeous imagery of Andy Goldsworthy's sculptures, and treat yourself to a thoroughly eye-opening and relaxing experience. The music perfectly complements the footage, but never draws attention towards itself. Some commentators called the interview snippets with the artist a weak spot, but consider this: why would you expand on this in a movie, if you can read Andy's musings at length in his books, or attend one of his excellent lectures? This medium is much more suitable to show the ephemeral nature of the artist's works, and is used expertly in this respect.

Sentiment: positive
Chances are if I watched this again I might get physically sick, the film is so annoying.....unless you believe in psychics, re-incarnation and the other hocus- pocus which this promotes big-time. The "re-cycling of souls," they call it here. Puh-leeze.

This story has been done several times before with such films as "Heaven Can Wait." It's also been done a lot better. Too bad they had to waste the talents of Robert Downey Jr., Cybill Shepherd, Ryan O'Neal and Mary Stuart Masterson.

At least it's a pretty tame film, language-wise. That's about the only redeeming quality of this movie.

Sentiment: negative
The idea behind this movie was great. The story of a little girl facing abuse (both emotional and physical) and trying to deal with it and survive. What makes the movie fall apart is the terrible use of voice overs and the corny dialog. The actors have to point out the most obvious things over and over again. Also, there is very tedious, almost funny, overuse of metaphors in the voice overs. The high point is the acting of the little girl. Nice try, but this one's a stinker.

Sentiment: negative
A group of young adults open a plain of escape for the spirit of Elizabeth Bathory when they recite her poem from a video game supposedly representing a séance. The only one who dies in the game is Miller(Adam Goldberg)who also is found dead the same way he perished in said video game. While the others' characters didn't die in the video game, their reciting her poem has instead unleashed the video game into reality with walking CGI characters stalking and killing each of them, one by one. They must follow certain methods using a mirror and nails to defeat Bathory and save their skin.

If this premise sound stupid, that's because it is. The characters are ho-hum rejects from bad WB television shows, this time allowed to spout profanity. This flick follows the slasher rules, but doesn't show much violence or gore. It stays PG-13 safe with most of the death taking place off-screen. There's a scene where the true hero and heroine are running from video game characters pursuing them. Yes, it's that bad. Nothing at all to recommend. Good-looking cast including Sophia Bush as the appropriately named October.

Sentiment: negative
In it's time, this movie had controversy written all over it (like most of Verhoeven's projects).

Containing very graphic depictions death-scenes; A parachute that doesn't open *smack* guys body on the floor. A guy being eaten by a Lion *chomp* teeth in the throat. And a guy being run over by a speedboat *zoom* bloody corpse going down.

But besides gore, this flick also contains some brilliant (and stunningly beautiful) scenes, filmed in the gray fisher's town that is Vlissingen;

Thousands of rosebuds flying over the screen, in a somewhat irrelevant part of the movie, a beautiful (holy) woman putting flowers in a milk-can, surrounded by slabs of blood-dripping meat and a steamy love scene between two male characters, in a graveyard.

The story is concluded in a frantic, but fulfilling 10 minutes, that don't disappoint, and will leave you sighing a breath of relief.

Of course with the pros come the cons, Some special-effects are too over-the-top, and are obviously done to see how far Verhoeven could push the gore-factor (e.g. the several eyeballs hanging out of their sockets). Also, while the two lead actors, (Jeroen Krabbé and Renée Soutendijk), do an excellent job of breathing life into their characters, the character of Herman (portrayed by the rather un-charming Thom Hoffman) just feels enormously underdeveloped, making him hard to care for, even after his tragic death.

I've done my best to give you a slight idea of what to expect of this amazing movie, and as you can see, it's not easily summed up in words. So do yourself a favor, if you happen to find this movie somewhere, watch it ! And enjoy the unique style and substance of this masterpiece.

Sentiment: positive
After the success of Die Hard and it's sequels it's no surprise really that in the 1990s, a glut of 'Die Hard on a .....' movies cashed in on the wrong guy, wrong place, wrong time concept. That is what they did with Cliffhanger, Die Hard on a mountain just in time to rescue Sly 'Stop or My Mom Will Shoot' Stallone's career.

Cliffhanger is one big nit-pickers dream, especially to those who are expert at mountain climbing, base-jumping, aviation, facial expressions, acting skills. All in all it's full of excuses to dismiss the film as one overblown pile of junk. Stallone even managed to get out-acted by a horse! However, if you an forget all the nonsense, it's actually a very lovable and undeniably entertaining romp that delivers as plenty of thrills, and unintentionally, plenty of laughs.

You've got to love John Lithgows sneery evilness, his tick every box band of baddies, and best of all, the permanently harassed and hapless 'turncoat' agent, Rex Linn as Travers.

He may of been Henry in 'Portrait of a Serial Killer' but Michael Rooker is noteworthy for a cringe-worthy performance as Hal, he insists on constantly shrieking in painful disbelief at his captors 'that man never hurt anybody' And whilst he surely can't be, it really does look like Ralph Waite's Frank character is grinning as the girl plummets to her death.

Mention too must go to former 'London's Burning' actor Craig Fairbrass as the Brit bad guy, who comes a cropper whilst using Hal as a Human Football, yes, you can't help enjoy that bit, Hal needed a good kicking.

So forget your better judgement, who cares if 'that could never happen', lower your acting expectations, turn up the volume and enjoy! And if you're looking for Qaulen, he's the one wearing the helicopter.

Sentiment: positive
Election is a Chinese mob movie, or triads in this case. Every two years an election is held to decide on a new leader, and at first it seems a toss up between Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai, or as I know him, "The Other Tony Leung") and Lok (Simon Yam, who was Judge in Full Contact!). Though once Lok wins, Big D refuses to accept the choice and goes to whatever lengths he can to secure recognition as the new leader. Unlike any other Asian film I watch featuring gangsters, this one is not an action movie. It has its bloody moments, when necessary, as in Goodfellas, but it's basically just a really effective drama. There are a lot of characters, which is really hard to keep track of, but I think that plays into the craziness of it all a bit. A 100-year-old baton, which is the symbol of power I mentioned before, changes hands several times before things settle down. And though it may appear that the film ends at the 65 or 70-minute mark, there are still a couple big surprises waiting. Simon Yam was my favorite character here and sort of anchors the picture.

Election was quite the award winner at last year's Hong Kong Film Awards, winning for best actor (Tony Leung), best picture, best director (Johnny To, who did Heroic Trio!!), and best screenplay. It also had nominations for cinematography, editing, film score (which I loved), and three more acting performances (including Yam).

Sentiment: positive
I just caught an episode about Brad, the crack cocaine addict who turned to a drug addicted life on the streets after his bicycle racing career went to shambles as fast as it started. I have to say that the story about his biking career was more heart-breaking than his drug addiction. Here's this young guy who is winning bike races left and right and is invited to train with an Olympic training team for two weeks, and immediately upon arriving he insults Lance Armstrong, one of the greatest athletes who ever lived, and is generally callous and unfriendly to everyone in general. Understandably, he is soon asked to leave. Most of the show is about his struggle with addiction and how he got his life back, but what I wanted to know was what was wrong with him in the first place to make his act like such an ass?

At any rate, I was confused about how the show was put together, since it shows Brad at the height of his addiction. We see footage of him pan-handling and sleeping in gutters and ditches and even smoking crack cocaine. I didn't even know that was legal to show, but why would a camera crew just follow him around and film that? Do they do that in hopes that this guy will turn his life around and give them some material for a good TV episode?

At any rate, it is an enlightening show, because it shows the effects of various addictions and the total control that they can take over people's lives. Sometimes it's hard to watch because you really see how badly the families and friends suffer in the face of the addict's indifference, although I have to admit that at the end it all seems a little too clean-cut. There are times during the episodes when terrible things happen and everything seems lost, but still, and maybe I should warn about spoilers here, everything has a little too much of a happily-ever-after feel at the end, and I have a feeling that that is a very uncommon occurrence in real life. But still, it's a show about people trying to help other people, and you can never complain too much about something like that

Sentiment: positive
Leonard Rossiter and Frances de la Tour carry this film, not without a struggle, as the script was obviously hurriedly cobbled together out of old episodes. When it came out, this must have been a real disappointment as it's also done on a bus ticket budget. Attempts to move it out of the house - which is jarringly unrecognisable, a bad job all round there - with a picnic, fantasy sequences, rugby and a boxing match in the local gym simply don't work. Most of these are just character-light setups for a solitary not-particularly good gag. That said, the interplay of Rossiter and de la Tour (and anybody else with him) is mostly hilarious; they even manage to make a soda syphon gag work, but you can see the struggle with recycling a literally uninspired script that changes plot half way through. Don Warrington has very little to do except 'be black', and due to the random script hacks Christopher Strauli changes character at least twice. And in the end, as he often did in the TV series (though you might not remember - read the scripts), Eric Chappell lets you down with a 'time's up' ending. Were they that cynical, or just too desperate to be in the film business? Rossiter and de la Tour are always funny but as a film, it's a terrible postscript to a fondly remembered TV series. RIP.

Sentiment: negative
Barbra Streisand in 1964 was still a curiosity, and probably raised more than a few industry eyebrows when CBS signed her to 10-year, $5 million television deal (nothing these days). But more important than that, Barbra and her manager insisted on creative control--and got it. She had this special filmed her way, and for the most part her vision was by turns clever, canny, and incredible. Opening Act I with the title song (not written specifically for her), Streisand races through a classy cast of songs linked with "I'm Late" (from "Alice in Wonderland"!--she even keeps in the line about fuzzy ears and whiskers and "too much time to shave"!); this is a totally charming, if not bizarre, selection--and enjoy it because it didn't make the TWO soundtrack albums released. She slows down for "Make Believe" (which gets perhaps too slow), but the dramatic "How Does the Wine Taste?" is amazing. "A Kid Again" is cute (with Streisand looking tiny in a huge chair--is that where Lily Tomlin got the idea?), as is "Sweet Zoo" ("I'm an alligator--crocodile??--no, alligator!"). "Where is the Wonder" is very cool and elegant, and her "People" number, surrounded by an orchestra who tap for her at the song's close, is stunning. Act II is set in New York City's Bergdof Goodman, with Streisand acting kooky in high fashion get-ups (when she playfully stomps on the mink, the audience watching the tape actually gasps). Act III, before a studio audience (made up of lucky fan club devotees), begins with a powerful version of "When the Sun Comes Out" (Streisand actually looks out of breath at the dramatic close), followed by "Why Did I Choose You?" (probably her best early song), a too-quick "Lover, Come Back to Me" (where she's ultimately drowned out by the orchestra), and a 'Funny Girl' medley. The finale, "Happy Days are Here Again", which reportedly took 12 takes, closes the hour in amazing fashion. Sponsored by Chemstrand (a fiber-making company!), this black-and-white gem moves fast, with jazzy set-ups, terrific cinematography, kicky sets and costumes. They really don't make 'em like this anymore--and that pertains to the special and to La Streisand.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was bad beyond belief. I saw it during the 2004 San Francisco Film Festival. Before it started the owner of the theatre got up and told us how half the audience had left the theatre the night before, which happened to be its "world premiere." I don't think anyone in the theatre understood just how bad the movie was going to be at that point. We all understood by the end. 

Its not a documentary though it was sort of sold as one. Dark Angel was a bad biography and misguided homage to Bettie Paige, in which half the movie is actually just remakes of old Bettie Paige movies. The movie is only 90 minutes long and the content of those 90 minutes is sub par to say the least. A scene would start going then someone would say "wow you're so great Bettie, why don't we make another movie." this would be followed by a 5 minutes of a Bettie Paige remake which was almost as ridiculous as (and even more boring than) the normal part of the movie. by the end of the movie people were laughing every time another Bettie Paige movie remake came up. it was that ludicrous. I heard a lot of laughter in that theatre, but people were not laughing with the movie maker, they were laughing at the movie and its poor content and structure. This was easy to tell as the parts that would get the most laughs were the ones which were supposed to be serious or revelatory. 

I know movies are expensive. I have seen many cheaply made independent films but somehow the cinematography and quality of this movie set it apart from anything else I have ever seen. The movie looks like it was made for $12. The cuts, the graininess, and the lack of a sensual plot made this a memorable experience. This movie makes "Dude, Where's My Car?" look like Citizen Kane. 

My friends and I left the theatre feeling like we had just paid 8 dollars to be tortured. The only redeeming part of the experience was that we got to laugh about the fact that someone had actually made this movie and thought it was good. Apparently, the previous night, the night of the "world premiere" the director/writer/producer had been in the audience and had gotten to witness people laugh at and walk out on his movie. Bettie Paige's movies were destroyed. They should destroy this movie too.

Sentiment: negative