DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
While this film might not be the next Evil Dead ( Hell who knows maybe it will, it has only been out for a year) It is worth a look. Don't expect a $10 million film. cuz you'll be disappointed. DO expect to be entertain, to laugh, and to enjoy the experience.All in all this film is MUCH better than many if not all of the low budget horror films out there. I have seen films that spent more than 10 or 20 times what this film cost to make and turned out 10000000000 times worse. The effort that was put into this film far out weighs the set backs it faces by having a limited budget. Movies are meant to entertain, and this movie sure does that. In fact this film might even open up new doors for you in movie watching. It's available on Netflix if not your local video rental store. So watch it, then decide.

Sentiment: positive
This is an action Western. James Steart leads an all star cast in the scenic Northwest, which is filmed in great splendor. The scenery and costumes are great. There is action and adventure. Stewart plays a wealthy cattleman who runs afoul of a crooked government in the old Nothwest.

The main drawback is the stereotypical cynic that Hollywood has always made into a hero. Even when this movie was made, the cynic was the stereotypical hero, and the one Stewart portrays really has few saving graces. He is kind to his two partners, and that does give him an extra dimension of credibility and likability.

However, he is so piggish to everyone else, it is hard to really care for him, or to accept him. He is much like the one dimensional spaghetti Western characters (cut not that bad).

Still, the minor characters are quite enjoyable. Walter Brennan, Royal Dano, Harry Morgan, and others make this worth watching.

Sentiment: negative
Take a SciFi Original Movie and mix in a little alternative/revisionist history, and you get "Aztec Rex." Apparently Hernand Cortes, before conquering the Aztec empire, had to first conquer a Tyrannosaurus Rex and her mate. That's the thrust of this movie. Given the plot it could have really sucked; the fact that it only kind of sucked is a tip of the cap to the writers. There are a few problems. For starters, Cortes is played by Ian Ziering. Even with a black wig, Ziering as Cortes is about as convincing as Axl Rose playing Gandhi. And though Cortes conquers the indigenous peoples of Mexico, the Aztecs here seem to be played by an all-Hawaiian ensemble. Casting aside, the T-Rex(es) look reasonably good, though every time one of them gets shot it just oozed CGI. And they die too easily; I suppose if a T-Rex were around in real life they probably could be felled or at least wounded by some rather rudimentary, 16th-century weaponry. But it takes something away from the movie. There are also some graphic T-Rex-swallowing-human scenes, which is surprising, but in this context I thought they worked OK. There's plenty of action, and the whole colonization angle is prevalent throughout but doesn't overwhelm the dinosaur angle, unlike the other recent SciFi Original dinosaur movie "Warbirds." Overall, a mediocre (but decent by SciFi Original standards) movie that rates a modest 4.

Sentiment: negative
I have no clue as to what this was shot on but you can definitely tell that they had no budget. Bad acting, horrible cinematography, and lame plot and some decent special effects do not make a good movie. The WWF style cinemtography will make you cry...where's the tripod?! The filmakers aimed high, but sorely missed their mark.

Sentiment: negative
Excellent movie, a realistic picture of contemporary Finland, touching and profound. One of the best Finnish films ever made. Captures marvelously the everyday life in a Central Finland small town, people's desires and weaknesses, joys and sorrows. The bright early fall sunshine creates a cool atmosphere to this lucid examination of people in a welfare society. Lampela is indeed one of the most promising Finnish filmmakers. He shows that it is possible to make gripping movies without machine guns and bloodshed. His next film Eila is also worth seeing although the story of cleaning women fighting for their jobs is not quite as universally appealing as the destinies in Joki.

Sentiment: positive
[I saw this movie once late on a public tv station, so I don't know if it's on video or not.]

This is one of the "Baby Burlesks" (sic) that Shirley Temple did in the early 1930s. It is hard to believe that anyone would let their daughter be in this racy little film which today might just be considered this side of "kiddie porn".

Shirley Temple stars in a cast which probably has an average age of 5. They are all in diapers, and are in a saloon which serves milk instead of alcohol. The "cash" is in the form of lollipops.

Shirley playing a "femme fatale" sashays up to the bar and talks to soldiers who make suggestive comments about her (!). But Shirley doesn't need really their lollipops/cash because her purse is full of ones from other "men".

Meanwhile a little black boy does a suggestive dance on a nearby table (!).

What a strange film . . . infants using racy dialogue playing adult roles in a saloon. Who thought up this stuff any way?

Sentiment: negative
I suppose that to say this is an all-out terrible movie would be unfair, but it's pretty bad. The sub-Disney storyline involves dogs playing soccer and falling in love (aw, how cute!) The acting isn't bad, but definitely could be better, especially that of young Canadian actor Kevin Zegers, who, during the whole movie, looks embarrassed, like he doesn't even want to be there. Anyway, kids will love it, but parents beware!

Sentiment: negative
A long-defunct prison, shut down for over 20 years, is re-opened and Ethan Sharpe (the late, great character actor Lane Smith), once a guard there, is put in place as warden. As the prisoners are put to work fixing the place up, they're instructed to break into the old execution room. This unleashes a fierce spirit that wreaks merciless havoc upon both guards and prisoners; cool-as-can-be low-key prisoner Burke (Viggo Mortensen, showing real poise in an early role) is thrust into the role of hero.

I know it's a no-brainer to praise the film for its atmosphere (it was shot in an actual abandoned penitentiary near Rawlins, Wyoming), but it elevates this horror film to a higher level. It's got a great sense of foreboding, established right at the outset. Director Renny Harlin made his fourth directorial effort here; it got him the "Nightmare on Elm Street 4" directing gig and effectively began an impressive career in mainstream action movies, thrillers, and horror films.

It may have stock characters, but it's got a capable cast bringing them to life: Chelsea Field as the young woman vying for prison reform, Lincoln Kilpatrick as weary veteran convict Cresus, Tom Everett as restless con Rabbitt, Ivan Kane as the outgoing Lasagna, Tommy "Tiny" Lister as soft-spoken giant Tiny, and Arlen Dean Snyder as Captain Horton. It's also worth noting as an early acting credit for Kane Hodder (as the vengeful spirit) that helped *him* land the gig of playing Jason Voorhees in the "Friday the 13th" series.

Decent special effects, moody lighting courtesy of prolific genre cinematographer Mac Ahlberg, spooky music by Richard Band and Christopher Stone, great visuals, the incredibly gloomy location, and an overall flashy and intense presentation help to make it quite entertaining. It's nasty, gruesome, and good fun for a horror fan.

8/10

Sentiment: positive
First of all, I was expecting "Caged Heat" to be along the same lines as "Ilsa, The Wicked Warden". Boy, was I wrong! In no way is this film 70s exploitation, "chix in chains", or "women in prison". Sure, the plot consists of a bunch of women in prison, who wear street clothes btw (quite comical), but NOTHING happens.

There aren't strong rivalries, no one tries to seduce the warden or doctor in order to try and escape, and no inmates make out. There are 2 shower scenes, that I suspect is just recycled footage, but no fights breaks out / no one is seduced here - or anywhere for that matter! Aside from the lack of plot, unconvincing, unsympathetic, and flat characters, a couple of inmates that do manage to escape actually return to the prison in order to "free" their fellow inmates??!!

PUH-LEASE, the movie should have just ended off with the escapees riding off into the sunset...as opposed to letting this mess continue!

I feel scammed.

Sentiment: negative
CONTAINS SPOILER With the possible exception of John Wayne, no other actor sat taller in the saddle in Westerns than James Stewart, and this movie proves it. This superb tale of revenge centered around a Winchester rifle,has only one weak spot I can think of: the casting of Will Geer as a very unEarp-like Wyatt Earp. The casting of the villains was good:Stephen McNally, as surly Dutch Henry,Dan Duryea as Waco Johnny Dean, and John McIntire(versatile at playing both good guys and bad guys) as a slick gun runner. The showdown between Stewart and McNally on the cliffs is great! I'd stack this Western against the whole crop of Westerns made today. They wouldn't stand a chance!

Sentiment: positive
Well, it's safe to say that Subconscious Cruelty is one weird film! Supposedly an insight into the human mind, Subconscious Cruelty is comprises four macabre and bizarre tales of the extreme. The first segment, entitled 'Ovarian Eyeball' is really just a warm up, but it's good in that it gives the viewer an idea of what to expect from the next three segments. It simply sees a naked woman laid out on a table, while another woman cuts into her abdomen and pulls out a human eyeball! I've got no idea what the point is, but it certainly makes for visceral viewing. The following story is the best of the bunch, and takes in the "old favourite" sick movie theme of incest. The segment follows a man who lives alone with his pregnant sister. He's repulsed by her pregnancy - yet he wants to have sex with her anyway, and naturally he gets his way. This story stands out because of the monotonous and 'matter of fact' narration, as well as the ending - which doesn't fail to deliver the shocks. This segment is well acted, well filmed and easily the highlight of Subconscious Cruelty.

Naturally, the next two sections aren't as good as the second one; so the only way from there is down, but director Karim Hussain still manages to pull something out of the bag before the film ends. He doesn't do it right away, however, as the third segment is the weakest of the film, and simply sees a lot of people have sex with the ground. It's very surreal, and therefore memorable for that same reason; but there doesn't seem to be a lot of point to it, and I was in the mood for something a bit more morbid after the second section. The film ends on a high, however, as while I'm not entirely sure what the point was - the final segment features the film's best imagery. This segment focuses on religion, and certainly isn't for anyone that values it! Director Karim Hussain has achieved something here - as while this collection of four 'extreme' stories doesn't come together as a complete whole, the film almost feels tasteful as it's shot in such an eloquent and eye catching manner. The director would seem to have been imitating the highly respected surreal director Luis Buñuel, albeit with gore, rape and incest; and if you ask me, he hasn't done a bad job at all. Not for everyone, but certainly worth a look for extreme fanatics!

Sentiment: positive
This is one of may all-time favourite films. Parker Posey's character is over-the-top entertaining, and the librarian motif won't be lost on anyone who has ever worked in the books and stacks world.

If you're a library student, RENT THIS. Then buy the poster and hang it on your wall. The soundtrack is highly recommendable too. I've shown this film to more library friends than any other -- they all fall in love with it.

Sentiment: positive
When the movie was released it was the biggest hit and it soon became the Blockbuster. But honestly the movie is a ridiculous watch with a plot which glorifies a loser. The movie has a Tag-line - "Preeti Madhura, Tyaga Amara" which means Love's Sweet but Sacrifice is Immortal. In the movie the hero of the movie (Ganesh) sacrifices his love for the leading lady (Pooja Gandhi) even though the two loved each other! His justification is the meaning of the tag-line. This movie influenced so many young broken hearts that they found this "Loser-like Sacrificial" attitude very thoughtful and hence became the cult movie it is, when they could have moved on with their lives. Ganesh's acting in the movie is Amateurish, Crass and Childishly stupid. He actually looks funny in a song, (Onde Ondu Sari... )when he's supposed to look all stylish and cool. His looks don't help the leading role either. His hair style is badly done in most part of the movie. POOJA GANDHI CANT ACT. Her costumes are horrendous in the movie and very inconsistent. 

The good part about the movie is the excellent cinematography and brilliant music by Mano Murthy which are actually the true saving graces of the movie. Also the lyrics by Jayant Kaikini are very well penned. The Director Yograj Bhat has to be lauded picturization the songs in a tasteful manner. 

Anyway all-in-all except for the songs, the movie is a very ordinary one!!!!!!

Sentiment: negative
Hillary Swank is an unattractive piece of work in this unattractive piece of work of a film. Pat Morita, desperate for work, any kind of work, agreed to reprise his role as the "Karate teacher" and bring his brand of Karate to the silver screen once again, except this time, Hillary "skank" Swank is the student.

I can just see the Hollywood writers getting excited about the idea of having a "tormented, spoiled brat" female take the role from Ralph. The film does not work on any level and it's boring on every level. There's nothing interesting here and not even a lesson for anyone to hold on to. The film was made without any thought of making money because it's just so bad.

I would gladly spit on all the actors in this film for having been involved with it and have the writers black-listed for their miserable and insulting efforts.

Sentiment: negative
The hysterical thing about this movie is that, according to the director, it has difficulty finding a distributor in the U.S. because most of them that viewed it couldn't reconcile the seemingly conflicting messages of Christianity and American angst. The thought of anyone seeing this as a religious film in anyway is laughable.

Because a minister at a mission prays with the homeless or wishes someone "Godspeed" this makes it a "Christian" movie? One could interpret that it is actually mocking religion for in the "Land of Plenty" with all of its material excess, the best an organized mission can do is hand out a bowl of soup and a bible verse. Plenty of unfortunate or downtrodden maybe? Plenty of useless homeless missions? How about plenty of psycho Vietnam vets? As a pill-popping delusional survivor of agent "pink" are we to think America is a "Land of Plenty" of paranoid patriots? Maybe we have plenty of psychiatric patients? Certainly we don't have plenty of people concerned about Palestine politics based on the main characters phone conversation in the film. Of course if you worked in a German homeless shelter the unfortunate there would be much more concerned about peace in a distant land than their own personal survival as the world knows how Europe is the "Continent of Plenty" when it comes to sophistication.

Indeed I agreed with the title in the end as the United States is the "Land of Plenty" and in this particular case it refers to the abundance of poor scripts, amateur acting and dispassionately directed films. Life is too short and one, even an American, doesn't have "plenty" of time to waste watching this piece.

Sentiment: negative
I would recommend this film to anyone who is searching for a relaxing, fun-filled, thought-provoking movie. The absence of sex, vulgarities and violence made for a most pleasant evening. I especially enjoyed the Buffalo scene, but that's probably because I live a short distance from there. Even so, this film could have been produced in any city; it's the theme that's so important here. I'm just grateful that Manna From Heaven dropped down on us. Try it...you'll like it!

Sentiment: positive
Once again John Madden has given us a magnificent film. A simple but beautiful story located in a real paradise and the music can't be better, Stephen Warbeck delights us once more, and good actings but.........why on earth is Penelope Cruz in this film? I asked myself that same question while watching this movie. Of course her greek accent is not believable, she's uncapable of acting decently not even in one scene. Not even at the end she did a good job, after so many events, after years she finally gets to see Corelli again and she couldn't change the same face of stupidy we had to bear during the whole film. Anyway, Cage was very good in one of his best characters; Hurt also is great in his and the rest of the cast all did a great job, so the final result is a movie that really is worth of watching. This is a beautiful film that not even Mrs. Cruz was able to spoil. So far I think it's Madden best work so no fan will be disappointed.

Sentiment: positive
This review took longer to write than I took to watch this film. It's just plain bad. The plot is terrible in comparison to the TV shows. It is flat, unfunny and boring.

It is clear that the LoG ran out of ideas long before this film was green lit. Viewers should read this as an example of not knowing when to stop.

Bad editing, bad music, bad acting. Zero dynamism, zilch chemistry.

A film that doesn't know what it is, made without any love to some mysterious end that leaves you depressed and feeling kind of angry that so much money was wasted.

The LoG obviously were made an offer they couldn't refuse, or perhaps their egos have simply got the better of them. It's a bleak marketing push that perhaps would have been better when the LoG were fresher and more inspired.

I however, did know when to stop, and did.

Please! Someone try to convince me of this film's finer points!

Sentiment: negative
I knew full well when I rented this DVD that it could very well be one of the worst movies I've seen in my life. But to say that it was one of the worst movies I've ever viewed would be putting it lightly. I'm wondering if there isn't some legal action that can be taken against the individuals that allowed this film to produced. I mean, the financing had to come from somewhere, someone had to put up money for this to be produced!!??

I'd pinpoint several production values that led to the failure of this film, but this film violated every production standard in the universe. I couldn't make it thru the entire movie, as I started getting dizzy the from horrendous filming techniques. I also can't tell you how many scenes I just ended zoning off during because of the inexplicably horrific dialog.

I feel like I've been permanently scarred for life. If you viewed this movie before getting this warning, you should think about starting a support group with me for the poor people who did view this monstrosity.

Sentiment: negative
ever watched. It deals so gently and subtly not only with Aids (which is only alluded) and gay life, but also with old age, dying and death. It's a deep and beautiful movie, (also visually), of a very special director. Highly recommanded1

Sentiment: positive
... Brian? what the hell were you *on* when you signed to do this?

I saw this recently at a festival, and it was greeted by howling laughter throughout. By the time the credits rolled, tears were streaming down the faces of many of the audience. 

The plot is a clunky melding of 'E.R.' and 'The X-Files'; as cynically aimed at the TV audience as is possible to get without being sued. The sequences involving the abductions are hilarious- both Yuzna's staging of the 'floating from the bed' and 'Screaming Mad George's pathetic plastic aliens drew gales of disbelieving, derisive laughter. 

Limp, camp and stupid. My only hope is that it was an aberration- As awful as 'Return of the Living Dead 3' was good.

Steev

Sentiment: negative
Madhur Bhandarkar directs this film that is supposed to expose the lifestyle of the rich and famous while also providing a commentary on the integrity of journalism today.

Celebrities party endlessly, they like to be seen at these parties, and to get due exposure in the media. In fact the film would have us believe that this exposure MAKES celebrities out of socialites and the newspapers have a huge hand in this. IMO there is much more synergy between the celebrities and media and it is a "I need you, you need me" kind of relationship. However, the media needs celebrities more and not vice versa. Anyhow, in this milieu of constant partying is thrown the social column (page 3 of the newspaper) reporter Konkana Sen Sharma. She is shown as this celebrity maker, very popular at the social gatherings. She has a good friend in the gay Abhijeet and in the struggling model Rohit (Bikram Saluja). She rooms with an air-hostess  the sassy Pearl (Sandhya Mridul), and a struggling actress - Gayatri (Tara Sharma). The editor of the newspaper is Boman Irani and a firebrand crime beat reporter is played by Atul Kulkarni. The movie has almost too many plot diversions and characters but does work at a certain level. The rich are shown to be rotten to the core for the most part, the movie biz shown to be sleazy to the max with casting couch scenarios, exploitation of power, hunger for media exposure. Into all this is layered in homosexuality, a homosexual encounter that seems to not have much to do with the story or plot, rampant drug use, pedophilia, police "encounter" deaths. In light of all this Pearl's desire to have a super rich husband, a socialite daughter indulging in a sexual encounter in a car, the bitching women, all seem benign ills.

The film has absolutely excellent acting by Konkana Sen Sharma, Atul Kulkarni has almost no role  a pity in my opinion. But the supporting cast is more than competent (Boman Irani is very good). This is what saves the film for me. Mr. Bhandarkar bites off way more than he can chew or process onto celluloid and turns the film into a free for all bash. I wish he had focused on one or two aspects of societal ills and explored them more effectively. He berates societal exploitation yet himself exploits all the masala ingredients needed for a film to be successful. We have an item number in the framework of a Bollywood theme party, the drugged out kids dance a perfectly choreographed dance to a Western beat. I hope the next one from Madhur Bhandarkar dares to ditch even more of the Hindi film stereotyped ingredients. The film is a brave (albeit flawed) effort, certainly worth a watch.

Sentiment: positive
John Travolta was excellent as "Michael" in the movie by the same name. I don't think a better portrayal could have been done. The movie was funny, yet touching. Michael is a very "human angel" (If their is such). Andie MacDowell is superb in her role as a reporter, as she goes from disbelief to belief. Bill Hurt and Robert Pastorelli are great as fellow reporters, each bent on proving the hoax of the angel on earth. Each of the supporting cast is wonderful, especially the older woman (I do not know her screen name), who plays Michael's mother! One of the cutest movies I have seen in years... I could watch this movie dozens of times!

Sentiment: positive
I've known about Bettie Page for many a year now. The soft-core porn images of her from the 1950's have since become iconographic and still have a strong draw even today. The "Bettie Page" look is also still hugely popular within the hetero fetish world and remains as distinctive today as it did then. So I watched this film with quite a bit of familiarity to begin with. The result did not disappoint.

Among other things, it was hugely entertaining to see the movie's recreation of actual figures like Irving Klaw, John Willie, and Bunny Yeager  all consider trailblazers today. Mary Harron did an excellent job creating the desired ambiance of sexual repression and hypocrisy in 1950's America along with a sexuality that, by today's standards, was innocent in the extreme. I particularly liked the use of monochrome versus color as a visual shorthand for the emotional and spiritual climate Bettie found herself in.

I think that Gretchen Mol did an excellent job of presenting the character of Bettie in all her innocent sexuality and all her utter naiveté. Bettie loved to look pretty, loved the attention, saw nothing wrong with nudity, and enjoyed dressing up in "silly outfits" for the camera. The underlying sexuality and deeply fetishistic desires all that evoked were completely lost on her. To this day she still doesn't understand "what all the fuss was about" when it comes to her pictures or the S&M content of them.

This isn't to say she's uneducated or too simple to understand it's just that she simply doesn't "get it" about fetishism and never will. No harm there. Bettie Page is simply being who she is. The film captured this quite nicely.

The social atmosphere of the 1950's depicted by Ms. Harron and written by her along with Guinevere Turner makes me truly glad I live in the day and age that I do. The hypocrisy and repression combined with the massive ignorance about our sexuality all combined to a frighteningly stifling world. The film well captures this and brings to cheering as Bettie endures it all with her unshakeable faith and her unchangeable naiveté.

This film was a bit slow at times but hit all the points Ms. Harron attempted and hit them well. I'd recommend this film even for those folks with little to no knowledge of who Bettie Page was and what effect she had on American culture. For those with such interests, then this film is a must see.

Sentiment: positive
I first saw APOCALYPSE NOW in 1985 when it was broadcast on British television for the first time . I was shell shocked after seeing this masterpiece and despite some close competition from the likes of FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING this movie still remains my all time favourite nearly 20 years after I first saw it 

This leads to the problem of how I can even begin to comment on the movie . I could praise the technical aspects especially the sound , editing and cinematography but everyone else seems to have praised ( Rightly too ) these achievements to high heaven while the performances in general and Robert Duvall in particular have also been noted , and everyone else has mentioned the stark imagery of the Dou Long bridge and the montage of the boat traveling upriver after passing through the border 

How about the script ? Francis Ford Coppola is best known as a director but he's everyway a genius as a screenwriter as he was as a director , I said " was " in the past tense because making this movie seems to have burned out every creative brain cell in his head , but his sacrifice was worth it . In John Milius original solo draft we have a script that's just as insane and disturbing as the one on screen , but Coppola's involvement in the screenplay has injected a narrative that exactly mirrors that of war . Check how the screenplay starts off all jingoistic and macho with a star turn by Bill Kilgore who wouldn't have looked out of place in THE GREEN BERETS but the more the story progresses the more shocking and insane everything becomes , so much so that by the time reaches Kurtz outpost the audience are watching another film in much the same way as the characters have sailed into another dimension . When Coppola states " This movie isn't about Vietnam - It is Vietnam " he's right . What started off as a patriotic war to defeat communist aggression in the mid 1960s had by the film's setting ( The Manson trial suggests it's 1970 ) had changed America's view of both the world and itself and of the world's view of America 

It's the insane beauty of APOCALYPSE NOW that makes it a masterwork of cinema and says more in its running time about the brutality of conflict and the hypocrisy of politicians ( What did you do in the Vietnam War Mr President ? ) than Michael Moore could hope to say in a lifetime . I've not seen the REDUX version but watching the original print I didn't feel there was anything missing from the story which like all truly great films is very basic . In fact the premise can lend itself to many other genres like a western where an army officer has to track down and kill a renegade colonel who's leading an injun war party , or a sci-fi movie where a UN assassin is to eliminate a fellow UN soldier who's leading a resistance movement on Mars , though this is probably down to Joseph Conrad's original source novel

My all time favourite movie and it's very fitting that I chose this movie to be my one thousandth review at the IMDb

Sentiment: positive
I found this movie hilarious. The spoofs on other popular movies of that time were some of the funniest I have seen in this sort of movie. Give it a try. If you saw the movies that this movie is spoofing, and you get the humor, you should enjoy the movie.

I (and the others who watched the movie with me) felt the funniest part in the movie (this is not a spoiler because I will NOT tell you what actually happens) was a scene with the "flashy thingy" from MIB. When they first discover the device and do not know what it is does... and then again later in the movie... you'll understand when you get there.

My only complaint about the movie is that I have never been able to find it in DVD so that I could buy a copy.

Sentiment: positive
The opening scenes move as fluidly as frozen velveeta. The attempt at dramatic dialogue only makes me wish I had better control of the fast forward control. Vampires are usually portrayed as sexy and intelligent or mangy disgusting creatures. This vampire tries to seduce his prey by imitating a lost puppy. I usually tally a body count, so there was a cat (which doesn't count) a bum, a girl who fell out of the sky with a sword in her (whatever that was about) and then the plot. Foley artists are respected for using celery to create the sound of a broken arm, but using the sound of biting into an apple for a vampire biting a victim is just plain silly. I liked Warlock, but this movie just stunk so bad that we turned it off, and it was so forgettable we rented it a year later only to turn it off again.

Sentiment: negative
Generally, I've found that if you don't hear about a movie prior to seeing it on DVD, there's probably a good reason for it. I hadn't heard about this movie at all until I was in a Blockbuster the other day and saw it on a shelf. Since all the good movies had already been rented out (the ones I wanted to see, anyway), I figured I'd give this one a shot.

It's really not much different than other movies in the genre, such as The Singles Ward or the R.M. If you're into those type movies, you'll probably enjoy this.

However, if you're not a mormon, this movie probably won't appeal to you. There's no way to avoid the overtly religious (mormon) message contained within, and at times it comes across as sappy and cheesy. Ultimately, if you don't fall within the mormon demographic, you're probably better off watching something else.

Admittedly, there were some very funny moments in the film, but I didn't think that it was enough to salvage the movie overall.

Sentiment: negative
A conversation about how Jan-Michael Vincent is a lush led me to foolishly re-visit this mid-90s DTV entry. A kid is traumatized when he sees an Ice Cream man gunned down in the 1950s and he grows up to be a psycho Ice Cream man (Clint Howard). Something happens and people disappear and end up in the ice cream. Blah, blah, blah. 

Director Norman Apstein (credited as Paul Norman) made a career of doing porn before this and went right back to it afterward. That is what you get for having all murders happen off screen. And for casting a skinny kid as a fat kid and making him wear a fat suit. Just cast a fat kid! Also, there is a scene where Vincent stoically reacts to a group of escaped loonies surrounding him. He was either totally drunk and was frightened for his life or the filmmakers captured his "Have I really sunk this low?" shame full on. Despite being low budget trash, this did line up a few good names including David Naughton, Olivia Hussey, David Warner and THE PEOPLE COURT's own Doug Llewelyn. How you can make a boring slasher with that cast is beyond me.

Sentiment: negative
I've been watching "Dick Tracy" for years, and as a result it's become a vital part of my life - it was with me throughout childhood and I used to see it quite often. Seeing it now, as an adult, it's still a very good movie - dark, satiric and incredibly misunderstood. About the only thing that can be said is the Oscar nomination Pacino received - other than that it is rarely discussed and didn't make much of a fuss when it came out.

Pacino is over-the-top but to good effect as he's clearly having loads of fun. Beatty is great as Dick Tracy and behind the camera manages to capture the atmosphere of a film noir comic book better than any other film, possibly, I have ever seen. Just taking a look at one scene from the film is breathtaking. The lighting, velvet overtones and smog/smoke combine to create a great effect.

There are some really funny cameos including one by Dustin Hoffman as "Mumbles," and I don't think there are any flaws at all in terms of acting - even the mandatory kid-character is far better than expected.

Overall, a really fine movie that has become misunderstood over the years since its release and is incredibly underrated with only 5.7/10 average on IMDb. The critics' reviews are very positive (check out RottenTomatoes.com) and after seeing the film once again it's not hard to see why - this is a perfect example of capturing the essence of a comic book, from style to eccentricity.

Highly recommended. 4.5/5 stars.

Sentiment: positive
This is a dry and sterile feature filming on one of most interesting events in WWII and in history of warfare behind the front line. Bad drama composition is worst about this film as plot on killing Hitler suppose to be pretty dramatic event. There is no character development at all and idea that Tom Cruise suppose to play a high rank commander that questions his deepest inner thoughts on patriotism and treason is completely insane. I believe that Mister Bin would play it better. Generally speaking, film pretty much looks as a cheep copy of good German TV movie "Stauffenberg" from 2004, but can't get close to that film regarding any movie aspect whatsoever. However, movie obviously gets its financial goal with pop-corn audience that cherishes Hollywood fast-mood blood and shallow art values.

Sentiment: negative
Wha-BAM! Someone surely had fun devouring a whole truckload of acid-mushrooms and then subsequently scripting this crazy excuse for a motion picture! Writer Howard Cohen expands the "Sword & Sorcery" concept with a couple of extra S's, like Sex, Silliness, (more) Sex and Sheer Stupidity! This isn't just a movie, this is every juvenile pervert's dreams & fantasies come true! "Deathstalker" has it all: blood, violence, trolls, female mud-wrestling, attempted rape, successful rape, life-sized pigs (!), awful hairstyles, hideously oiled muscular bodies, multi-sexual orgies, gay warriors, tournaments-to-the-death, delirious witches, dismemberment, laughable villains and boobs, boobs, BOOOOOOOOOBIES!! "Deathstalker" literally wipes the floor with its obvious role-model "Conan: The Barbarian" when it comes to terms of cheesiness and sheer flamboyance. The story is, evidently, of minor importance. Lone and gay (only he doesn't know it yet) warrior Deathstalker goes on a mission, as commanded by an annoying witch, to gather the three notorious elements of creation or something like that. On his journey he combines forces with a troll-turned-human, a fighter who's even gayer than he is and - last but not least - a luscious lady who doesn't really seem to be a big support of the concept of bras. Together they head for the kingdom of the ultimately evil Munkar where they'll participate in a warriors' tournament and conquer no less than two out of three elements. Munkar is bald guy with half a spider's web tattooed on his skull and an impressive harem that would even make the wealthiest oil sheik jealous. Okay, granted, "Deathstalker" is a pretty damn awful and at some times even unendurable movie. The fight sequences are lame and the costumes and make-up effects are downright pitiable. For a moment, when beholding the opening sequence, I actually feared I was watching "Troll; the Prequel". The monsters look incredibly cheesy and the complete opposite as menacing, but it's undeniable entertainment if you're in an undemanding mood. I presume this isn't a favorite amongst feminists, as the overall portrayal of women is somewhat umdiscriminating. Most of the gals exclusively serve as eye-candy in the harem. They're allowed crawl over the floor naked and play around in the mud, but strictly forbidden to open their mouths. The two "leading" ladies (Barbi Benton and Lana Clarkson) are ravishing but - in all honesty - if it wouldn't be for their continuously exposed racks, they would hardly be worth mentioning, either.

Sentiment: negative
Pakeezah has a very interesting history (which is well documented in the 'Trivia' section) about how it came to be. It seems as if destiny conspired to test Kamal Amrohi (the director) while at the same time secretly desiring to see him complete his masterpiece.

Pakeezah rides on metaphors, poetry and visual elocution. As a result the intensity with which emotions come out achieve a dimension which may not be very real but are very effective and leave an impact on the viewer.

Meena Kumari lives the tragedy of Nargis and Sahib Jaan like her own. The other stars of the film, besides her, are Ghulam Mohammed (the music director), Lata Mangeshkar, Naushad (background score) and Joseph Wirsching (the d.o.p). Their music and cinematography leaves you spell bound.

Pakeezah is a classic in world cinema. It reveals new layers to you every time you watch it again. Kamal Amrohi is one of the rare poets of cinema and he left us all a gift.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is mostly chase scenes and special effects. It is very weak on plot. Most of the computer talk was just mumbo-jumbo. I watched this because I was a big fan of the original War Games movie which was based mostly on computer fact and real computer terminology. This movie had none of that. Most of the computer scenes were not only impossible and highly unrealistic of real computers and networks, but just lame. It is like it was written by somebody who has no comprehension of real computers.

The ripley game was lame and was essentially just an arcade game. No real hacking, so what was the point? Movie was boring. Lame sequel.

Sentiment: negative
The genius that is Stephen Sondheim was never more prominently displayed as it was in his 1979 "Musical Thriller" SWEENEY TODD, a Gothic, gory, grisly, yet delicious musical concoction about a demented barber who returns to London to exact revenge on the evil Judge who not only had him permanently exiled from London, but who is also raising his daughter as his own and plans to marry her to "shield her from all the evils of the world." The barber finds love,sympathy, and assistance from a lonely pie shop owner who has her own agenda where Todd is concerned. This musical rocked Broadway and won nine Tony Awards, including Best Musical and Best Actress in a Musical (Angela Lansbury). The production was filmed in its entirety in 1982 with Angela Lansbury recreating her Broadway role as Mrs. Lovett, the daffy pie shop owner who finds a practical use for the heads that Todd makes mincemeat out of. George Hearn, who replaced Len Cariou on Broadway, is electrifying in the title role, so much so that you have to wonder why he wasn't originally cast in the role. Lansbury and Hearn are riveting from start to finish and commit 100% to their ghoulish characters aided, by a first rate Sondaheim score, probably the closest thing Sondheim has written to an opera. Lansbury shines on "The Worst Pies in London" and "By the Sea". George Hearn stops the show with "Epiphany" and is also compelling during "Pretty Women", a duet he sings with Judge Turpin, the man he has sworn revenge on. Cris Groendahl is vocally impressive as Antony, the young sailer who rescues Todd and falls for his daughter Johanna. Betsy Joselyn is a little over the top as Johanna and really pushes vocally to the point that during "Green Funch and Linnet Bird" she actually drives her voice off-pitch during a couple of moments. The rest of the cast is first rate, especially Edmund Lyndeck as Judge Turpin who gets to perform "Johanna" in this production, which was cut from the original production and Ken Jennings as Toby, whose gorgeous tenor fills the auditorium on "Not While I'm Around." But it is breathtaking musical score by Stephen Sondheim and the mesmerizing performance by Lansbury an especially George Hearn that makes this night of Gothic musical theater an experience that stays with you long after curtain call. Not for all tastes, but if you're game and have strong heart, SWEENEY TODD is a joy for all music theater lovers and a must for fans of Stephen Sondheim and Angela Lansbury.

Sentiment: positive
Another awful movie about hockey. I if never watched hockey and saw Hollywoods version, I would hate the game. This movie doesn't make Canada look that great either. I can laugh at it and not take it too seriously. All the same this movie is awful, with every thing you can put in a 80's movie. In the end don't even watch it on TV. 4/10

Sentiment: negative
This is one of those Tweety and Sylvester cartoons that made this legendary pair second only to Bugs Bunny in terms of Looney Tunes popularity.

Besides having all of the stock situations for this duo (Sylvester feeding out of garbage cans, the "I tawt I taw a putty tat" line, etc.), Tweety's S.O.S also stars Granny, who is one of those types of supporting characters that these Warner Bros. classics had in abundance to enrich the color and flavor of them. This time out the cat and bird are aboard an ocean liner and the gags that are extracted from this situation are creative and lively.

What a day that was in cartoon history when Friz Freleng decided to pair his Sylvester with the departed Robert Clampett's little yellow bird.

Sentiment: positive
I normally have no problem walking away from a bad movie, however this was an unique case. This movie was so bad that I actually sat through the whole thing almost praying it would have one minute of good movie time to justify the hour and a half that was wasted. Needless to say I was brutally disappointed. Set at a beach house where a group of college friends are celebrating vacation, this movie suffers from numerous problems making it not worth seeing. First, there are gaping plot holes. Second, very few of the C-list (i don't even dare call them B) actors can act worth a damn, so any scenes that have potential fail miserably. Third, the rate of the film is very choppy and awkward to watch most of the time making suspense building very difficult, leading to very few surprises for the audience. Fourth and most importantly, the ending is completely anti-climatic partially because of how it ends (setting/who the killer turns out to be) and partially because the dialog is just atrocious. To the films credit, it is the only movie that I will ever say is the worst movie I have ever scene, and i've seen a lot.

So, just like a bad joke you would have been all the happier never hearing, the next time someone asks you if you want to know a secret you will be yelling no, you really don't as you run in the opposite direction.

Sentiment: negative
They say that it is always better in horror movies to leave things to the imagination of the viewer- to hide certain details from the audience in order to tickle their sense of imagination, dip into their fears and let that give birth to their darkest thoughts.

That was not the case when I watched Bakjwi, under the American title Thirst. Now playing at select theaters near you. Seems like the film makers did not want to spare you any details. There WILL be blood in this film and you WILL try to look away.

For rest of review please visit http://without-terebi.blogspot.com/2009/08/thirst-aka-bakjwi.html Thanks and hope you enjoyed reading above.

Sentiment: positive
I think the film is educational. However, it fails to treat the issue which sparked so much controversy: plural marriage. Also, the film fails to reveal what the LDS church espouses. Big opportunity was missed to tell the world what they actually believe. I could not get a clear idea of what it is LDS views are on central topics of religion.

I have many LDS friends and they are nice people. Would have been nice to get a clearer picture of how they view their prophet's more controversial statements. Maybe these statements are just too controversial to be treated in a film format, but it would have been great to hear the whole story of Joseph Smith's truly interesting life. After all, it gives insight into American thought on religion in the 18th century. Hope they do some documentaries on this fascinating subject, allowing historians to comment on Smith's life. We may have a Mormon president some day. After all, Smith ran for president.

Sentiment: positive
Human Body --- WoW.

There are about 27,000 Sunrises in human life....

Hardly one thousand Sunrises will be watched by 90% of Humans on this planet....

Our days are limited...

Excellent movie for all women.... makers of human body...

Thanks and Regards.



Sentiment: positive
The major flaw in this Spanish slasher/shocker is within it's script. For the first half hour it's an okay effort, building some suspense and an atmosphere of fear and dread. We even get some nice killings too! Then it goes completely downhill and turns into a whole catalog of "your basic slasher clichés". I must admit that I was quite disappointed because the trailer promised so much more. The final thirty minutes consists of some killings and a lot of running around in an abandoned convent. It should have been so much better (although the final scenes in the flooded room is quite okay)!

First of all, we have the dialog. It's awful most of the time (there was quite a few giggles in the audience here and there when I saw it) and merely adequate elsewhere. It is also barely audible during a lot of scenes, drowning under the pressure of sound effects and the soundtrack (however that might not be such a bad thing after all considering the stupid lines we have to listen to!). There is one line in the whole movie that makes a reference to the "I know what you did last summer"-movies, indicating that the film makers wrote it all as one big joke, but I doubt it.

And the ending...well, some will hate it, others will dig it. For me, it was mostly a question of the former because the final twist comes from out of nowhere! If the audience had been given some clues to the girls mental status, I might have thought otherwise. It also throws all logic out of the window, because the murderer could never had been in place for some of the kills! But as an avid horror fan I have learned to live with these inconsistencies in Spanish and Italian movies.

But all is not bad. The movie has a big budget appearance, mainly due to the excellent cinematography (the scenes from past times really shines here), tight editing and an atmospheric soundtrack. Even though most of the actors are pretty bad, Anita Briem is an exception, making the most of what she has to work with. Real screen presence!

And, like I mentioned before, the killings are gory enough for the fans of such stuff and they are usually accompanied by very good special effects involving images of water (but the "water theme" tends to get tiresome in the end though).

So, to end this review, it's a movie that is quite fun in a "so-bad-it's-good" kind of way and it's also pleasing to the eye. But don't expect too much because it doesn't deliver as you probably think it will, judging from trailer and plot descriptions.

Sentiment: negative