DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Brodzki's creation is a great example of how NOT to make a movie. First there was a book written with a great humor. Book that has numerous fans who would be happy to supply help when producers for some reasons decided to employ people who hardly heard of the book in the first place. Then came a script as humorless and full of nonsense as possible. At the same time the script was written in a way to allow only those who actually had read the books to understand anything of the plot. Not that anything in this movie made much sense anyway(ex. "I'm like an ice shard. You can burn yourself" said Yennefer as a word of warning - warning that logic is something this movie seriously lacks). To add to that we have to mention that no matter the amount of money that was supposedly spent on the movie everything looks like an amateur production with two (2) computer effects one of which is a see-through dragon. Even the costumes look as if the were borrowed from a really poor theater. That is the better ones look this way. And to add to that we have a few 'naked scenes' put there only so they will be in the film because they have no explanation in what one may mercifully call plot. The movie has only one strength that can hardly make up for the rest - music is not bad. Though if I was to choose I'd prefer to have it separately. It sounds better if you don't have to look at this failure of super production.

Sentiment: negative
Stylized Hollywood Westerns, full of familiar conventions, seem to have eternal life and this is an avatar. Everything in it seems to have been scraped out of the back of a drawer from 1939, a larger budget applied, and this production its issue.

Gary Cooper has played this sort of role dozens of times -- the displaced Southerner, fast on the draw and firm with honor, though kinda easy going whenever possible. He plays Blayde Hollister who travels to Texas looking for the gang who destroyed his cotton plantation. He wears a buckskin-fringed shirt and packs two ivory-handled six shooters. He speaks with a countrified accent -- "A feller could get hurt doin' this." (Cf., "Sergeant York.") The gang is led by sneering Raymond Massey, who buys and sells land, usually by underhanded means whenever possible. The gang includes Steve Cochran, who cannot play a Westerner though he's very good at scum bags in general. The requisite woman is Ruth Roman, daughter of the Mexican plantation owner, who looks and speaks about as Mexican as a Boston brown betty.

I don't think I'll bother too much with the plot. No doubt someone has gone into it in some detail and it's not worth much more mention. As in any 1939 Western, it's labyrinthine. Everyone except Cooper and his friends are underhanded and there are multiple double crosses and switched identities and hidden secrets.

Everything is retro. The plot, the dialog, the wardrobe, even the music. The score is by Warner's stalwart Max Steiner. He's the guy that scored "King Kong." That was 1932. This movie was released in 1950.

Cooper's name, by the way -- "Blayde Hollister" -- prompted me to look through the records of the RACA -- the Real American Cowboy Associaton -- to see if that name cropped up in their archives, which date from the beginning of time to February 4th, 1911, when the last Real Cowboy passed away due to an unfortunate encounter with a deranged peccary. There has never been a Real Cowboy with the name Blayde. Hollister, yes, but not Blayde. As a matter of fact, there is no record of any Real Cowboy named Wade, Luke, Cole, or Matt either. The most popular names for genuine cowboys, in descending order of frequency, were Clarence, Mortimer, Noble, Nebukadnezzar, Plautus, Pinchbeck, and Hortense.

If this movie had been released in 1939, it would have been routine. In 1950, it is a calamitous monument in the history of human recycling.

Sentiment: negative
This film proves you don't need a Hollywood budget to make something fun to watch. What stuck with me is how the crew from different locations was able to pull together with no promises of riches to make something just because they believed in it. I think anybody who makes low budget movies can relate to certain scenes such as actors who just can't get that one line, being bothered by the police, and having most of the crew disappear after the first week. Nobody got paid for this which says a lot for the people who had to travel cross country and for the long hours spent editing. After watching Stuie sell his personal property, use his own money, and trash his house to make the movie I am a bit curious how close his wife may have come to leaving. Good job to all.

Sentiment: positive
Wow. This is really not that good. 

I would like to agree with the others in that at least the acting is good... it is, but it is nothing special.

The movie is so precictable and i for one am sick of receiving culture info through movies.

*/****

Sentiment: negative
I just read the comments of TomReynolds2004 and feel I have to jump in here. I understand he doesn't like the film, but his reasons are not evident. My feeling regarding this film is that it is not afraid to travel the darker roads of loneliness, failure, disappointment and sorrow. Each of these two people, as portrayed, have plenty of reasons to be bitter and angry, yet find tenderness and comfort in each the other. Only great acting could make this work without becoming an emotional quagmire, sentimental and sappy. I really became interested in these people because of their overwhelming humanity given to them by such strong performances. I have every reason to dislike Jane Fonda for her Vietnam era actions, but personal feelings apart, she is fabulous in this role. Robert DeNiro is superb as a man whose intelligence and goodness begins to fail him in a world indifferent to his abilities. This is the first I have seen DeNiro using tenderness rather than toughness to sell a character and I really like it. This film was a big surprise when I first viewed it and I look forward to seeing it again.

Sentiment: positive
..but unfortunately no one thought about having Van killed in order to save this doomed production. The only positive thing about him in the film is his nice singing voice...too bad the songs are mostly insipid and sappy. Why did I hate Van so much? Well, throughout the film he seemed like he was doing a third-rate Soupy Sales imitation--with lots of mugging, bad jokes and way too much energy spent trying to make everyone laugh. The worst of these moments was when he was "teaching" the class--these kids laughed at EVERYTHING he did. Heck, Van could have read the phone book or showed them autopsy photos and they probably would have laughed! Now Van was not the only bad casting decision in the film--he was just the most obvious. Of course, having John Gielgud (a lovely actor) play an Asian was ridiculous as well as having Michael York play Peter Finch's brother!! The bottom line is that because of these insane casting choices, the film was doomed from the start....and the worst of them was the god-awful Bobby Van. Now in real life, he might have been a lovely person and it's sad that in real life he died so young, but with the material they gave him here I just wanted to rip out his tongue to get him to be quiet.

Now I also mentioned the songs--egad, those terrible songs!! The original LOST HORIZON by Frank Capra was a subtle delight throughout--and not a single song and dance number in the film. So why did they decide to add a bazillion songs that did nothing to help the film? They only served to make it seem like a gooey mess--like the original DOCTOR DOOLITTLE combined with LOST HORIZON. The end result is a sickly sweet children's movie--not one that can be enjoyed by anyone over 8.

Now if you can remove these problems, you have the basis of a decent film. After all, the plot is lovely and is still hidden beneath all the goo. Peter Finch is particularly good (though certainly not the equal of Ronald Colman in the original). But, considering that the original was a near-perfect classic, why bother with this sticky confection. Who wants to wade through the treacle?! 

By the way, this film was included in "The 50 Worst Films" book by Harry Medved. While I, too, disliked the film, it wasn't bad enough to merit inclusion in the book. I think it was included mostly because it was such a huge box office failure and because it was released just a few years before the book appeared. An excellent book--just not one of the best selections to the "hallowed hall" of dreck.

Sentiment: negative
I first saw this movie when it originally came out. I was about 9 yrs. old and found this movie both highly entertaining and very frightening and unlike any other movie I had seen up until that time.

BASIC PLOT: An expedition is sent out from Earth to the fourth planet of Altair, a great mainsequence star in constellation Aquilae to find out what happened to a colony of settlers which landed twenty years before and had not been heard from since.

THEME: An inferior civilization (namely ours) comes into contact with the remains of a greatly advanced alien civilization, the Krell-200,000 years removed. The "seed" of destruction from one civilization is being passed on to another, unknowingly at first. The theme of this movie is very much Good vs. Evil.

I first saw this movie with my brother when it came out originally. I was just a boy and the tiger scenes really did scare me as did the battle scenes with the unseen Creature-force. I was also amazed at just how real things looked in the movie.

What really captures my attention as an adult though is the truth of the movie "forbidden knowledge" and how relevant this will be when we do (if ever) come into contact with an advanced (alien) civilization far more developed than we ourselves are presently. Advanced technology and responsibility seem go hand in hand. We must do the work for ourselves to acquire the knowledge along with the wisdom of how to use advanced technology. This is, in my opinion, the great moral of the movie.

I learned in graduate school that "knowledge is power" is at best, in fact, not correct! Knowledge is "potential" power depending upon how it is applied (... if it is applied at all.) [It's not what you know, but how you use what you know!]

The overall impact of this movie may well be realized sometime in Mankind's own future. That is knowledge in and of itself is not enough, we must, MUST have the wisdom that knowledge depends on to truly control our own destiny OR we will end up like the Krell in the movie-just winked-out.

Many thanks to those who responded to earlier versions of this article with comments and corrections, they are all very much appreciated!! I hope you are as entertained by this story as much as I have been over the past 40+ years ....

Rating: 10 out 10 stars

Sentiment: positive
I am and was very entertained by the movie. It was my all time favorite movie of 1976. Being raised in the 70's , I was so in love with Kris Kristoffersons look and demeanor,of course I am no movie critic,but for the time era,I think it was very good. I very much like the combo of Streisand and Kristofferson. I thought they worked very well together. I have seen the movie many times and still love the two of them as Esther and John Norman. I am a very huge fan of Kris and see him in concert when I can. What a talented singer song writer,not to mention,actor. I have seen him in many movies,but still think back to A star is Born.

Sentiment: positive
Okay, first of all, I missed like the first 15 minutes of the movie, so I missed credits and stuff. SO when I finally got to it, I was like "Who the hell is this dude?". I found out it was Flex like hours after watching the movie. 

Flex didn't look like Michael Jackson. Not one bit. He couldn't dance like him, or move like him, the only thing he almost had was the voice. People commented on Elizabeth Taylor, but I can't really comment on that because I don't know much about her. 

The whole movie was like just plain wack. The dialogue sucked. The cinematography-if it can be called that-sucked. The soundtrack sucked. The acting sucked. Yes even Flex...I'm so upset about it though. I didn't want it to suck. I'm so sad that Flex got told he can get away with it. But the whole thing looked like dress-up. You know? It's like, nobody looked like they were supposed to except for Joseph Jackson. 

The concert sequences just sucked. I'm sorry, but Flex just can't dance like Michael. I mean, like what the hell was VH1 thinking? The makeup didn't even match like the time of whatever Michael was going through. For example, in the movie he was still dark when Neverland got raided the first time around. In real life, MJ was white as hell. There was some sort of stupid delay in his skin discoloring. 

The movie wasn't boring, well for me it wasn't. It wasn't really anything. I was just so upset about everything that was wrong with it. I wanted to see how it turned out and if Flex could redeem himself. He didn't, really. The only part I found like a bit interesting was the whole Lisa Marie thing. When they fell in love. That was nice. But I had to turn my face away when they kissed. Heh. And only two parts made me collapse with laughter. The first time was when they cut from Michael with short hair, you know the Thriller era, to Michael with long flowing hair from the Dangerous era AND HE WAS STILL BLACK! That was funny. The second time I laughed was when they showed all of the posters and memorabilia of Michael but they had Flex's face instead! It was so funny. 

Overall, this movie was cheap trash. It was simply two hours of dress-up and could have been so much better. But no, VH1 is cheap. Watch if you want. But this movie is not funny, considering the ridiculousness of it. I came out of it feeling angry. And when I found out it was Flex, I just started to feel so bad. So...watch if you want.

Sentiment: negative
"The Thief of Bagdad" is impressive in the shape of the evil magician Jaffar (Conrad Veidt). He plots with lies and magic spells to obtain the kingdom from its rightful ruler the young King Ahmad, and a gorgeous princess from her father...

He falls victim in the end, as all tyrants do (in books and legends) to love and of the common man whom he ignored, here embodied by the little thief (Sabu).

The armies of good and evil, black and white, are superbly realized in both visual and literary terms...

The script is poetic, simply and very beautiful... The costumes of the magician and his men rising and falling like the wings of black birds, attacking suddenly in the night to inflict destruction and create terror...

The radiant hero wears white turbans and robes, and his princess is dressed in pinks and pale blues...

For spectacular scenes it matched all that had gone before, while through its use of color, it brought to life a world such as had not seemed possible before...

With flying carpet and flying white horse, with a giant genie (excellently played by Rex Ingram), with evil wizards, and with the good acting of Sabu and Veidt, "The Thief of Bagdad" captures the quality and true atmosphere of the Arabian Nights... 

The 1940 version remains the screen's finest fairy tale!

Sentiment: positive
Nazarin is some kind of saint,he wants to live in life exactly how Christ taught man to do.But it's too late:now the Catholic Church is between the hands of a wealthy bourgeoisie,the bishops live in luxury and don't give a damn about the poor and the sick.That's why our hero can't follow the way his hierarchy asks him to follow.So he divests himself of everything,and on his way to purity,he's joined by some kind of Mary Magdelene and a woman who's attracted by him sexually (the scene between this girl and her fiancé is telling).In Spain (it was the late fifties),they thought Nazarin was a Christian movie!Knowing Luis Bunuel,it was downright incongruous:all his work is anticlerical to a fault.Comparing Nazarin and his "holy women" to Jesus is a nonsense.On Nazarin's way,only brambles and couch grass grow.His attempt at helping working men on the road is a failure,he's chased out as a strike-breaker.All his words amount to nothing.At the end of the journey,he's arrested and offered a pineapple by a woman(Bunuelian sexual symbol). Thanks to "Nazarin" ,Bunuel was allowed to return to Spain (where the censors had not got a clue ) and to direct "Viridiana".

Sentiment: positive
Do not waste your money or time. Terrible movie. Bad acting, plot all over the place. Really, really bad acting. Man, this movie is just plain bad. I shut it off at 7 minutes. The script is bad, the directing is bad, it seems to me that a high school group got together to do a project for their drama class. Yes, it's that bad. The acting is not convincing at all, mind you I saw only 7 minutes of it. How this movie made it to DVD, is beyond me. 

It should have been left in the editing storage room. I saw the cover and thought it was pretty cool, I sure's heck won't do that next time :_)

Sentiment: negative
Heh, if I tell you to compare The Dark Knight with some 18-years-old comics-adapted movie rated 5.9, will you call me crazy? That's just to catch your attention. Everyday I meet people complaining there are no good movies, who seem to only know the recent blockbusters. It's never a bad thing to search and explore old movies, especially those with good artistic values. Dick Tracy is one of those can't be easily outdated, in terms of technology.

The negative reviews mainly complained about DT's "messed up" story. But it appears to me that the storyline is quite clear, and I had no problem following it. I didn't see the comic books, yet I am not a huge US comic fan, but I appreciate the top-notch film-making and performances. Maybe the expectations of most people were too high about the story it would tell. But, if you see a movie casting Madonna and Warren Beatty together, what would you expect. I had some scratches on my head, and can't help but wonder, did we really see the same movie? The title role, although not as competent as it sounds, still was able to pull him up and charm the audiences. Madonna was more express-less than "breathless" in her seductive role, but added a lot of fun to the story. Al Pacino was funny and prodigy to himself. Apparently he's bold enough to go sarcastic on his previously successful roles. We can see a hybrid of Scarface, Michael Corleone, Adolf Hitler and Robert De Niro punching our stomaches to make us laugh. And many thanks to make-ups.

To me it's not bad at all. The surreal feeling really got me.

Sentiment: positive
I watched the this the other night on a local station because I didn't feel like watching tripe like 'American Idol'. Peter Strauss gives a great performance as a convict named 'Rain' Murphy who keeps to himself. He admits to his crime and makes no bones that he feels no shame for it. His cell is bare of any comforts that other inmates have like books and pictures. The only time he feels in another zone is in running. He does it often and can run a mile in under four minutes. When a college coach hears about this, he wants to prime him for a shot at the Olympics. At first, 'Rain' wants no part of this, but when his best friend is killed, he shows interest.

This is a good movie, period. Strauss is very good (What did you expect, anything less?) and Michael Mann shows hints of greatness that would come full bloom years later. This movie had that bit of realism (probably because it was filmed among convicts). It almost feels like this was a true story. The additional casting is good. There is a lot of notable names like Brian Dennehy, Roger E. Mosley, and Richard Moll as well.

My heart sank when some pompous board of directors wouldn't let him run because he didn't feel bad for his crime. His final act made me stand up and cheer. When they took his dreams away, he took them back hard. This was back when TV movies were actually good. 'The Jericho Mile' is a gem of a film. ESPN Classic, PLEASE SHOW THIS FILM!!!

Sentiment: positive
Cult purchasers are unquestionably familiar with the term "video nasties". This was a notorious British list containing all the films that could bring 'damage' to society if viewed by irresponsible audiences (dramatization). For gore buffs, this is an excellent checklist as it contains inhumanly cruel and disturbingly realist movies (Faces of Death, Cannibal Holocaust, Driller Killer) as well as outrageous and ultra-sick horror films (The Burning, Nightmare City, The Toolbox Murders). Keeping this in mind, it's quite unusual to see "Night of the Bloody Apes" listed among the other "nasties". It sure is gorybut the blood and violence are so poorly presented I can't imagine anyone would be offended by it. And the silly plot (about a desperate doctor transplanting a gorilla's heart into the chest of his dying son) isn't exactly what you would call disturbingly real, neither. All that remains is a fairly amusing pulp-horror flick with awful acting and pointless sleaze. The man-ape make up effects are laughable and there's no tension or atmosphere to detect anywhere. Enjoyable only if you're in the right mood, in other words. The few sequences showing detailed matches of lady-wrestling (which one of the lead-actresses does for a living) are very cool.

Sentiment: negative
Tripping Over. I must say at first I was a little disappointed in the first few episodes, but having faith in the show, and Abe Forsythe's unquestionable talent, I continued to watch. I can safely say I'm now glad that I did. The story did develop quite well, and all the characters have a strong base, and most don't have any information missing.

The only thing I can fault in this production is the somewhat annoying voice and pronunciation possessed by the character Lizzie.

Some good acting coupled with a stellar plot really gets this show over the line. Here's to hoping for another season!

Sentiment: positive
If you have any sort of appreciation for character and dialogue, and any sense of American cultural history, you will find a lot of very absorbing material in this film. It probably was originally a play, and that's why it's dialogue heavy, but I can't stress enough how these icons that we only have a shallow understand of are made into truly complex and wonderful characters.

This film is better than any college course for telling you how to create a character-driven story.



Sentiment: positive
This movie is directed by Renny Harlin the finnish miracle. Stallone is Gabe Walker. Cat and Mouse on the mountains with ruthless terrorists. Renny Harlin knows how to direct actionmovie. Stallone needed this role to get back on track. Snowy mountain is very good place for action movie and who is better to direct movie where is snow, ice, cold and bad weather than finnish man. Action is good! Music in the film is spectacular. The bad guy is John Litghow, other stars Micheal Rooker ( The portrait of serialkiller), Janine Turner ( Strong Medicine). The is placed in beautiful place and it is very exciting movie. Overall good movie ****/*****

Remember Extreme ääliöt: special collectors edition, with good extras. Comig soon in Finland straight to video.

Sentiment: positive
Even a awful 1 is to much for this film, everything form start to finish made you cringe. I don't think it would be possible to cram more overly clichéd moments, into one piece of mind numbingly numbingly waste of film.

Prisoner cell block H meets Thunderbirds, hell even Virgil's expressions were more life like than his son.

I haven't even finished watching this and I'm on here now.... Oh no, the cheesy clapping of 3 actors and a backdrop done by a child with adobe premiere. This truly is the end of my "I've started so I'll finish watching it" phase.

Oh joy, the credits have come to rescue me. (and relax)

Sentiment: negative
I think that FARSCAPE is the best scifi since Babylon 5 and is one of the best sci-fi television series of all time (ranking up there with Dr. Who, Blake's 7, Red Dwarf, MST3K and the aforementioned B5). I find the characters and races of Farscape are much more interesting and imaginative than the typical "humans-with-birthmarks" that are found in many series. The effects are quite good and the stories engaging. Despite missing the bulk of season 2 and some of season 1, I find the character development very well done.

Sentiment: positive
Danny is beyond sorry.

He keeps making the same mistakes, and is no longer interesting to watch. At first I could feel for him, as an addict myself. My heart went out to him at the beginning, and somewhere along the line he went over the line. It is almost as if he is continuing this behavior to keep the show going, and at the same time is seriously risking his life, and the welfare of his family, especially his children. It is difficult even to have pity for the poor boy. I think he needs to watch this show, maybe then he might have a chance a saving this marriage. I can't understand how Gretchen stays with him, and I keep wondering how much is just for show, and how much is love. Danny, get a life - a new one that is! ...and don't get me started on Dr. Gary. What is with him and his face? His skin looks like it's stretched to the max. Besides that, looks don't mean a thing, yet he seems not to be particularly impartial. I think, he too, is keeping this going for his own monetary gain and often not in the best interests of either Gretchen or Danny. These people are few confused and each remind me of a dog chasing its tail. sad, very sad. C'mon pull yourselves together.

Sentiment: negative
I watched the MST3K version of the movie, and this review includes minor spoilers.

When I started watching this movie, it looked like it might have promise as a cheesy sci-fi flick, but the more I watched it, the more disappointing it got. The first reason is pretty idiosyncratic - I liked the mousy shy girl with glasses a lot more than the model Wanda became by the end of the movie. More deeply, it was the fact that the loss of glasses and change in clothing replaced any actual character growth. Instead of growing into a character that could take care of herself, Wanda was just as dependent on males to do everything for her as she was at the start of the movie. The acting could have been better (though I got tired of cracks about Ireland's voice - they were even in the movie itself! It's not that bad.) The background was okay, but it was a little hokey (aliens = humans with facepaint), and could have used more explanation.

Maybe it was just that I was interested in the movie itself, but Joel and the bots did little for me. The movie might have been better without them at all.

Overall (for the movie itself, not the MST3K), a 3 out of 10. It was an okay flick, for what it was.

Sentiment: negative
Paul Mazursky's Tempest - Interesting,odd and strange movie about a mid-life crisis.Set in NYC and a remote Greek Island with John Cassavettes as world renowned architect who decides to drop out.He is accompanied by his daughter(Molly Ringwald) and a lounge singer(Susan Sarandon).A beautiful transfer of this 25 year old movie on the DVD- but without any extras-not even the theatrical trailer.Tons of great scenery and razor-sharp dialogue make this 2 and a half hour movie an interesting trip.Raul Julia and Gena Rowlands round out a strong cast.A good drama mixed with comedy and tension and near insanity.This recent DVD release is worth renting. B+

Sentiment: positive
This documentary on schlockmeister William Castle takes a few cheap shots at the naive '50s-'60s environment in which he did his most characteristic work--look at the funny, silly people with the ghost-glasses--but it's also affectionate and lively, with particularly bright commentary from John Waters, who was absolutely the target audience for such things at the time, and from Castle's daughter, who adored her dad and also is pretty perceptive about how he plied his craft. (We never find out what became of the other Castle offspring.) The movies were not very good, it makes clear, but his marketing of them was brilliant, and he appears to have been a sweet, hardworking family man. Fun people keep popping up, like "Straight Jacket"'s Diane Baker, who looks great, and Anne Helm, whom she replaced at the instigation of star Joan Crawford. Darryl Hickman all but explodes into giggles at the happy memory of working with Castle on "The Tingler," and there's enough footage to give us an idea of the level of Castle's talent--not very high, but very energetic. A pleasant look at a time when audiences were more easily pleased, and it does make you nostalgic for simpler movie-going days.

Sentiment: positive
May contain minor spoilers.

Dressed to Kill, having just seen it for the first time the other day, is a movie with some terrific sequences, some decent performances, and a nice, though obvious Hitchcock ripoff, plot twist at the end. It's just too bad certain things, quite obvious, prevent it from being a classic.

Dressed to Kill deals with a mystery of a killer who has slain at least two women (could have been more but the movie never tells us), and the search for the killer by three people: a brainy kid whose mom was a victim, a lively hooker whose the only one who can identify the killer, and a psychiatrist whose patient was the slained brainy kid's mother. There are a host of well done performances including Nancy Allen as the hooker Liz, Angie Dickenson as the sexually frustrated victim Kate Miller, and Micheal Caine as Doctor Rober Elliot whose has more hidden than meets the eye; though by no standard is anyone really outstanding. On the other hand Denis Franz, later to be a great character along the same lines on the hit show NYPD Blue, is embarrassing as an over-exaggerated, ruthless, hateful detective, though he takes little screen time so it doesn't hurt the movie that much. Keith Gordon, the brain child, is decent, but is almost too smart to really be believable.

What sticks with me the most in the film are the tense sequences. The scene with the sexually frustrated mother at the museum is gripping and well done, as is the later sequence leading to her untimely death. I also love the sequence at the doctor's office, that reveals the identity of the killer, which really makes the whole film come together at once. And there's a split screen scene that I thought was almost classic. Still there's another situation when Liz is on a train, running from what may be the killer, that gets taken in directions it should never had with almost embarrassing racial stereotypes. As a thriller it's tense and quite often believable. As a crime drama it often falters, especially with the incomplete, ridiculous explanation of everything that happened in the end. There's also a needless, and way too long, dream sequence at the end, in which they had the audacity to shoot someone's foot for what seemed minutes at a time. This was an up and down experience; one scene would catch me by the heart and mind with enticement, and the next would make me squirm and ask why. At more than 100 minutes this could have been under 90 and been a better film.

Scary movie fans should like this. It still stands as a better film than most of today's slasher flicks. Maybe it was a better film in it's time, but having just seen it recently I can say I enjoy it, and it is worth watching for my three favorite scenes alone.

Sentiment: positive
First of all.....

What the hell? Why in the world are they trying to sell a low budget piece of crap on late night TV with the promise of disturbing, offensive sick garbage that any normal real human being with a soul couldn't watch. 

What the crap is funny about a dog being injured, a grandma getting her head knocked off...a guy getting his hand blown to pieces and two girls going to the bathroom? what in the hell has this world come to that people find comedy in some thing so completely sick. Anyone who thinks this kind of material is funny, should not even be allowed to walk the earth. 

But from what I hear its not even offensive...so...they promise comedy through demented piles of sick garbage...and they cant even pull that off.

Sentiment: negative
Looking for something shocking? Okay fine... the imagery is that. That's about it. This film attempts to make deep connections with the audience through various symbolism and just ends up being annoying. I am not quite sure if the director's purpose was to truly portray some sort of deep message to his audience, or if he just sought to shock the hell out of them with gore, sex and violence. I am thinking that it was probably the first...but in the failed attempt..it simply ended up to be a piece of artsy garbage with lots of blood, some obnoxious characters, and an over reliance on religious symbolism. If you're looking for some independent film to critique for its attempted use of metaphor...have at it. If you are looking for a gore flick that will make you queasy and uncomfortable... here you go... If you are looking for a film that will irritate you to no end because you realize that in the end, the message was stupid...the movie was stupid... and you will never get those minutes of your life back..this is surely the film for you!

Sentiment: negative
This film failed to explore the humanity of the animals which left me with an empty feeling inside. [Spoiler ahead] I was not convinced that Dr. D really had a compelling reason to forego the big buyout deal to help his furry friends. Whereas Babe (the original) bucked the trend of big-budget hits by focusing on the human virtues of the animals vs. their humans counterparts, all the animals in this film were nothing more than comical caricatures which one would gladly stuff in the meat-grinder (even more so if one could understand their pointless babble). Without Eddie Murphy's zany behavior, this film would be a flop.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of those inoffensive and mildly entertaining little movies that strive to make you to like them more. But like so many others, it's material isn't strong enough to successfully fill a couple of hours.

The pitch is promising: three drag queens drive a bus through the Outback from Sydney to Alice Springs. They run into lots of trouble - with homophobic locals, with the engine, with their pasts.

The real trouble is with the dialogue. The leads are fine (though Pearce's continual campness becomes tiresome), but the one-liners and epithets feel forced where they should be casually thrown away. Characters shouldn't laugh at their own gags.

Writer/director Elliott also feels the need to pile on the pleasingly incongruous shots of flamboyant drag costumes against stark desert backgrounds like so much cheap make-up. For a movie about self-confidence and just being yourself, it all seems very insecure with itself.

Sentiment: negative
I actually paid to see this movie in the theater.

It would get a 1-rating, but the fight scenes between the robots are okay, and there's a surprise.

I realize that some movies have larger budgets than others. I don't have a problem with that. Unfortunately, science fiction movies probably suffer the most on a small budget for obvious reasons. But, one way this movie fails is that just about every piece of each set looked cheesy and cheap. I mean, couldn't they even make it "look" good?

The other major reason this movie is horrible is the acting If I watched the movie now and knew what to expect, I might just enjoy it for the cheese-factor, but at the time, I was expecting a good movie and had no clue as to how horrible it would actually end up being.

Thankfully, the experience was over in only 85 minutes.

Sentiment: negative
It's amazing to think that this movie came out only one year before Star Wars but seems a million years behind it in sophistication and special effects. Actually, the art direction and set design (nice Victorian space ship) aren't bad; it's the monster costumes that are the most laughable, resembling the "guy in a rubber suit" monsters from the LOST IN SPACE TV show. The evil cave-man makeup reminded me of some of the aliens from ancient TWILIGHT ZONE reruns.

The script is stilted, and outside of Peter Cushing's comic relief the acting is pretty miserable too. This movie is only recommended if you really enjoy bad kitschy SF. And the music...yikes! A horrible 70s experiment with synthesizers that doesn't fit the time period of the film and which sounds like someone rambling with a Minimoog and a 2-track tape machine.

Sentiment: negative
Well I watch tons of movies and this one really sucked ... BIG TIME. I am sure we are all sick and tired of the low budget ploy to make Vampire Movies using some "Martial Arts Teacher" turn "actor" type of movies. I am also so tired of the guy knowing some form of fighting technique and then able to fight his way through a somewhat boring Movie. I forced myself to watch it and one of the main reasons were that the Lead Actress is quite Pretty (Ha-Ha) Well I hope this helped a bit and if you have time and want to give your Brain a rest Watch it!!! Well hopefully one day this type of movies will not be released but then hey where will all the Low Budget actors go :-) 

The movie also contains many Bloops but that I will leave to you to find because it adds quite a bit of fun while watching and also if you a bit of a perfectionist it will bother you ;-) Cheers!!

Sentiment: negative
So far Miguel Bardem's career it's been one of the more dreadful of recent Spanish cinema. He's made nothing but rubbish... until now. "Incautos" has been quite a surprise: it's a serious film, with rhythm, with a great cast and very entertaining.

The art of robbing, that's what "Incautos" is about. A film much alike to David Mamet's "House of game" and stuff like that. A thousand of twists in the script, and a story where nothing's like it seems.

The weak points in latest Bardem's movie may be the so-American language, that makes some of the characters look rather unnatural (especially Victoria Abril's. She's a hell of an actress, but in "incautos" she looks a little bit forced). Ernesto Alterio is not that bad, but he's not half as good actor as his father... And what to say about Luppi?? Well, he's the MAN.

In short: a good movie. The best that Miguel Bardem has ever made. I hope this is the beginning of a brand new stage in his career.

*My rate: 7/10

Sentiment: positive
There's nothing worse than renting an Asian movie and getting an American movie experience instead.

It's only my opinion, but a good thriller is dependent upon the establishment of likable, intelligent characters. As far as likability is concerned, the protagonists in Say Yes are a quaint married couple. Nicely done. Unfortunately, they are stupid beyond belief. Let us count the ways they mishandle being terrorized by a stalker.

1. After a hitchhiker threatens to kill you, be sure to tell him what hotel you're staying at when you drop him off.

2. Beat the hell out of the stalker in broad daylight and in front of dozens of witnesses, thereby allowing him to press charges of assault.

3. Don't bother telling the police about the stalker and simply assume (for no apparently good reason) that the cops were bribed by him.

4. While trying to escape, let your lady out of your sight as much as possible to ensure that the stalker kidnaps her.

5. After getting help from someone to find the stalker after kidnapping your wife, be sure to send them away as soon as possible so you can face him one-on-one. No point in being unfair, right? 

Now, I'd never expect that any person would be immune to making a few mistakes under these stressful conditions, but the characters in Say Yes are so dense and make so many unbelievable mistakes that it's effectively impossible for the viewer to care about their safety, since they are victims of their own doing. This kills the enjoyability of the entire film. 

In case you were wondering, the scriptwriters didn't stop with dim-witted characters. Since they themselves are surely dim-witted for writing this crapfest, they decided to make situations so absurdly unrealistic that all sense of reality goes out the window.

1. The stalker kills a cop inside a police station  while the protagonist is asleep no more than ten feet away.

2. The stalker engages in all sorts of dubious activities in broad daylight and around tons of people, yet no one other than the married couple seems to notice his odd behavior.

3. The stalker survives an absurd amount of violence that would have killed any human being.

4. The "suspense" scenes had no imagination whatsoever. In fact, some scenes were direct rip-offs from American movies.

The only positive is the decapitation near the end, which was a pretty brutal scene since it was inflicted upon the wife. It's too bad the filmmakers followed it up with an outrageously stupid ending that comes out of left field.

Truly, the Koreans behind the making of Say Yes should be ashamed of themselves. Better yet, they should just move to California and take employment with people who make movies with a similar disregard for quality and intelligence.

Sentiment: negative
On the face of it a film about women wanting to see a football match wouldn't appeal much to somebody with little interest in football such as myself however this isn't about football it is about discrimination and the women's enthusiasm for the sport they love.

The film opens on the day of a crucial World Cup qualifying match between Iran and Bahrain, a girl is trying to get in to Tehran's Azadi Stadium by dressing like a boy, it looks like she will get in until a soldier tries to search her. Once caught she is taken to a small enclosure high up on the outside of the stadium where there are a handful of women who had already been caught, here they are guarded by a small group of conscript soldiers who's leader would rather be back home tending his livestock. We never learn the character's names but we get to know them as people as the girls plead with the guards to let them watch though a nearby gap in the wall and when refused try to get them to at least provide a commentary.

As well as making an important point about the rigid gender segregation in much of present day Iran the film contains many hilarious moments such as the "disguise" one of the girls is made to wear when going to the toilet and the girl who disguised herself as a soldier and was only caught because she chose to watch the match from a seat reserved for a senior officer. The girls enthusiasm for the game is such that by the end the viewer is likely to be on the edge of their seat hoping that Iran will win and thus get to go to the finals in Germany. The soldiers aren't shown as fundamentalists, they are just conscripts who are there because they have to be and when explaining to the girls why woman can't watch men's sports don't seem that convinced by their own arguments.

It is a shame that this film can't be seen in Iran itself but it is good that the wider world can see it and thus see that ordinary Iranians aren't a bunch of fanatics desperate to wage war on the west but normal people with the same passions and concerns as people everywhere. The cast did a great job in making their characters seem like real people rather than mere caricatures.

Sentiment: positive
Travis (James Franco) is a young man riding a train for business reasons (we're to assume) who leaves his beloved phone behind. It gets picked up by a prostitute, Terri (Rachel Miner), and when he goes to her city to pick it up, a series of events occur that are sure to stay with him forever.

Both characters have barriers they've put up to defend themselves from communication. But despite their facades, it's obvious both are eager to bust them down. In total there are about 30 or so spoken lines, but from the way James Franco and Rachel Miner use their faces you might as well turn off the volume, words are unnecessary. A scene to look out for is Terri staring at herself in the mirror. You can just feel her despair permeating the room.

But, the movie isn't perfect. It's mostly filmed using hand-held cameras, which gets a bit distracting. Mainly due to the acting of Mr. Franco and Miner and the photography, the script's flaws don't stand out as much. Still, sometimes it seems as if the story doesn't really know where it wants to go.

All in all, this is the type of film that truly stays with you long after you watched it. An hour after you've seen it, you're still 'what-if'-ing yourself on the behalf of certain characters. It's not flawless, but still leaves you wanting more, wishing it were at least 4x as long.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie on Thursdays night after having a really boring day. I had no expectations, those I had were rather negative. Being that the only movie I've ever watched Jimmy in is the American version of Taxi with Queen Latifah(?)...don't ask why! But seriously..this movie is so cute! Drew Barrymore is always sweet, but I almost fell in love with Fallon's character. Why can't I meet a cute nerd like that. :) Movies like that are excellent. Simple, sweet and necessary. Sunday on a Thursdays. I'm not even a sports fan, but it's something about American movies with baseball that fascinates me. Probably the fact that we don't have that sport here in Norway.

(My first comment ever.) Haha

Sentiment: positive
I have watched Love Jones over thirty times. It is one of the rare films that depict a love story about people who happen to be African-Americans. The dialogue was realistically written, and delivered with honesty. It was so nice to see a film where the story line centered on young professional African-Americans. This is virtually an untapped market. Love Jones was visually captivating as well. The chemistry between Lorenz Tate and Nia Long will bring memories of past and present love. The feeling of the film is jazz and blues, and brings to mine the sensuality of a warm creamy hot chocolate with a splash of Kahlua and Butterscotch. If you hadn't guessed, I loved it!

Sentiment: positive
When, oh, when will someone like Anchor Bay or Blue Underground release this on widescreen DVD??? Le Orme, which I only know because of my rare/vintage video collecting habit, is a film in my collection that I would not only sit through, but actually enjoy watching. The fact that Klaus Kinski is top billed, but is only in small parts of the film, means little to me. (Though several comments expressed disappointment in his rather limited screen time.) I cannot say that this is a good horror film, a good mystery, a sci-fi epic or anything of that nature. It is simply unclassifiable in the "genre" sense of things. It is more like a confusing, frightening (though not particularly violent or bloody) dream, filled with great visuals and mystery. It relies on visuals and emotion, much like Bava's "Lisa and the Devil". Both films are beautiful in almost every sense, but almost impossible to describe in a logical manner; they both occur in such a dream-like atmosphere. Don't be deterred by Force Video's synopsis on the back cover. It is infinitely more complex and intriguing than that. Though Force Video's release from 1986 (the only one in the US, that I know of) is cropped to full-screen on tape, even in that format it is still great. Releasing it remastered and/or letterboxed would make it magnificent (hint, hint... DVD companies).

Sentiment: positive