DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This movie proves that you can't judge a movie by the awesome artwork on the DVD cover. It also goes to show that you should learn more about a movie before you buy it (or get it for someone at Christmas). The beginning of this movie actually looks somewhat promising. Well, until you meet the characters. Pumpkin Jack (the old guy from down the street) brings the college co-eds a book full of witch's spells that he leaves at their annual haunted house (where the movie takes place). After that there is some drinking, fighting, and soft core porn. Then the action of the movie finally takes place after over an hour.

Overall, Hallow's End was predictable, unsuspensful, and reminiscent of a soft-core porn. This movie is probably best viewed with a group of friends who have nothing better to do, as it is a good movie to make fun of. And for first-time viewers, it is really fun making predictions of the order of people who die.

Sentiment: negative
"Igor and the Lunatics" is a totally inept and amateurish attempt at a crazy-hippie-cult-killing-spree horror movie. Apparently even nearly twenty years later, Charles Manson was still inspiring overenthusiastic but incompetent trash-filmmakers. This is a typical Troma production, meaning in other words, there's a lot of boring and totally irrelevant padding footage to accompany the nonsensical plot. There's a bit of random gore and gratuitous nudity on display  which isn't bad  but it's all so very pointless and ugly that it becomes frustrating to look at. "Igor and the Lunatics" is so desperate that it's even using a lot of the footage twice, like the circle saw killing for example. The incoherent plot tries to tell the story of a hippie cult run by the drug-addicted and Charlie Manson wannabe Paul. One of Paul's lower ranked disciples, named Igor, becomes a little bit too obsessed with the Bible stories and drug orgies and gradually causes the entire cult to descent further into criminal insanity. Just to illustrate through a little example exactly how crazy Igor is: he tears the heart straight out of the chest of a really sexy black hitch-hiker girl! There's an annoying synthesizer soundtrack and some truly embarrassingly lame pseudo-artistic camera tricks, like slow-motion footage and lurid dream sequences. Maybe there's one sequence that more or less qualifies as worthwhile for trash fanatics and that' is when a poor girl is cut in half with a machete. For no particular reason, the camera holds the shot of the blade in the bloodied stomach for fifteen whole seconds.

Sentiment: negative
Here's an excellent Barbara Stanwyck double bill on one disc. The first movie - and believe me the lesser of the two - is MGM's "To Please A Lady" (1950) in which she is paired with Clark Gable. It is essentially a star vehicle with Gable as usual dominating the film with his screen presence. Here he plays a macho racing driver who gets some bad press from feminist reporter Stanwyck and the battle of the sexes begins. Of course after much ado they eventually end up in each others arms and it all comes to a predictable and pleasing close. A bit of a fluff of a move really but Gable and Stanwyck - two icons of the Golden Age - make it watchable!

But the real meat on this DVD is the second feature - a marvellous and quite unknown little thriller called JEOPARDY. Produced by MGM in 1953 this is a wonderful little gem of a movie that hasn't dated one iota! Here Stanwyck plays the wife of Barry Sullivan and mother to their young son Lee Aaker on vacation on a deserted and remote Mexican beach when suddenly tragedy strikes. A dilapidated wooden pier collapses trapping Sullivan under a heavy pylon and guess what? Yes,the tide is coming in. With not a soul in sight and unable to free him herself Stanwyck sets off by car for assistance. After driving some distance the only aid she can muster comes from an unscrupulous escaped convict (Ralph Meeker) who - in return for his help - wants more from her than money or a change of clothes ("I'll do anything to save my husband"). Does she or doesn't she??. 

Meeker runs away with the picture! He turns in quite a brilliant performance! Once he comes into the film you simply cannot take your eyes off him! An actor in the smouldering Brando style he surprisingly never made much of his career in films. Although he gave splendid performances as the unsavoury, disgraced cavalry officer in the outstanding Mann/Stewart western "Naked Spur" (1953) and as one of the doomed sacrificial french troopers in Stanley Kubrick's powerful WW1 drama "Paths Of Glory" (1957) his only real claim to fame was as Mike Hammer in Mickey Spillane's "Kiss Me Deadly" in 1955. His performance in "Jeopardy" should have done wonders for him but he had only a so-so career in films. He died in 1988.

Because of this release "Jeopardy" can now proudly take its rightful place as a classic noir. A memorable, taut and exciting thriller thanks to fine performances, tight direction by John Sturges, the crisp Monochrome Cinematography of Victor Milner and an atmospheric score by Dimitri Tiomkin. Extras, however are no great shakes except for a radio version of "Jeopardy" and trailers for both movies.

This disc is also part of a Barbara Stanwyck box set celebrating her centenary. Hard to believe that the lady would be over 100 years old if she was still around!

JEOPARDY - an MGM winner!

Sentiment: positive
I have not watched every jackass episode. It was mildly entertaining if nothing else was going. But after watching Jackass #2 i was fond of Bam and Dunn. They had a nice attitude in the movie jackass so i figured i'd tune in on viva la Bam. Boy was i mistaken. Seriously, you could pair a bunch of 2'graders, provide them with the same budget and i bet they could knock off something more creative on the screen. I mean, C'Mon MTV!! At 23 where most people are tuned in you give us this rubbish.

Everything seems so forced. You don't know the characters because there's no attitude at all. You can't appreciate Bam or Dunn, or anyone for that matter. If there would just be a tiny tiny doze of thought. Anything we won't forget as soon as next shot goes on.

They finally manage to create a good shot and you like whats going on. You sit there, just waiting for their reaction, and then some jerk closes the scenes with two lame sentences and bang. Was that the close for that shot or what, please?. If i had been there i would freak out and laugh. Do some insane stuff and have my adrenaline pumping but these guys... Just scripted stupid reactions.

Yes they get a few chuckles of the audience by cheap gross jokes, or gigantic jokes which in my opinion are such a waste of cash. 

Many many normal humans which was not taken under the Jackass wing could in a heartbeat write a far funnier script. Or impress with visual camera work. Even spontaneous wannabe cool guys without a script would pull of a better job. MTV could in a whim bring more soothing material on the screen. You just need to fire the writer of this stupid show.

Some scenes actually require a bit of courage and therefore 2 stars.

Sentiment: negative
I agree with msinabottle; this is a great movie. Here are some dialogue snippets:

Raisuli (Sean Connery) to Eden Pedecaris (Candice Bergen): "You see the man at the well, how he draws the water? When one bucket empties, the other fills. It is so with the world. At present, you are full of power. But you're spilling it, wastefully. And Islam is lapping up the drops as they spill from your bucket." 

Raisuli: The English have paid very well in the past. Pedecaris: Well you'll not have your way with the Americans. President Roosevelt will have your head for this. Raisuli: Roosevelt. This President Roosevelt--he would try and take it himself? Pedecaris: He certainly would! He is a man of grit and strong moral fiber. He does not kidnap women and children! Raisuli: What kind of rifle does he use? Pedecaris: A Winchester! Raisuli: Winchester. Winchester. I have no knowledge of this rifle. Pedecaris: You will. 

Teddy Roosevelt (Brian Keith): The American Grizzly Bear is a symbol of the American character: strength, intelligence, ferocity. A little blind and reckless at times, but courageous beyond all doubt. Oh, and one other trait goes with all previous. Newspaper reporter: And that, Mr. President? Teddy Roosevelt: Loneliness. The bear lives out his life alone. Indomitable. Unconquered. But always alone. He has no real allies, only enemies--but none of them are as great as he. Newspaper reporter: You feel this might be an American trait? Teddy Roosevelt: Certainly. The world would never love us. It may respect us. It may even grow to fear us. But it'll never love us. For we have too much audacity. And we're a bit blind and reckless at times, too.

Sentiment: positive
I am very diplomatic in my reviews, and as an academic writer, try to give creative license to TV writers trying to explicate a true story. This story, about Karen Carpenter, could have helped so many, yet due to the directing and editing, does not.

The story, in this case, is not fully addressed, unless one reads psychological journals. While Cynthia Gibb portrays a realistic Karen, it is sad that so much has been edited...Louise Fletcher portrays her mother, and does an excellent job, with limited material and dialogue. In this case, I give the actors credit for surviving this project.

Why is the audience not permitted to see causation factors?....American audiences are quite savvy, and if they have cable, usually educated.

I sincerely feel that I could have written a better story, would not have edited out the truth, and allowed the actors to project the reality.

Richard Carpenter, as director, has seriously underestimated and insulted American audiences. Karen's story is important, and it is sad we will never hear it.

Sentiment: negative
Well, since it's called Porno Holocaust and directed by Joe D'Amato, I went into this film expecting sleaze...and while I somewhat got it, Porno Holocaust was a massive disappointment as it's just so damned BORING. The title suggests that the film will feature porn, and that's not wrong - Porno Holocaust is pretty much just porn, and most of it is just the same stuff over and over again, I was fast forwarding before the end. The first sex scene is between two women and it got my hopes up, but after that it just degenerates into normal porn, and the rest of the film (for the first hour!) is made up of talking, and you can imagine how much fun that is to sit through! The plot focuses on a deserted island where, believe it or not, something strange is going on. Naturally, it's not long before a group of people - made up of a few men and some scientists, who all happen to be sexy women, land on the island. They have sex a few times and some strange things happen, then over an hour later they're attacked by a mutant zombie creature with an eye for the ladies...

This must have seemed like a good idea for an original porno - a zombie who likes to get it on, but unsurprisingly it doesn't work well at all. The film clocks in at just ten minutes short of the two hour mark, and that is far too long for a film like this. I have no idea why Porno Holocaust is as long as it is; if they'd just snipped one minute out of every sex scene, the film would have been under ninety minutes, and that would have made it much more tolerable! The zombie takes what seems like an eternity to appear (it's quite a long time before there's a sex break long enough for them to actually travel to the island in the first place), and when it does finally appear, it's a huge disappointment! I realise that this is low budget B-movie trash, but D'Amato surely could have tried a bit harder and come up with something better than this! I'm not even going to bother mentioning the acting, atmosphere etc, there's no point. Porno Holocaust is basically just your average dull porn flick with a slight sprinkling of horror, and I can't recommend it!

Sentiment: negative
After missing out on this innumerable times on TCM UK, I decided to check it out given its sci-fi/adventure/camp pedigree: I knew I’d be in for a thoroughly silly ride – but it was also astoundingly bad! Anyway, perhaps appropriately given the characters involved, the script rips off many sci-fi titles then of recent vintage – SOYLENT GREEN (1973), ZARDOZ (1974), LOGAN’S RUN (1976; to the extent that it was filmed on some of the self-same sets!), STAR WARS (1977), ALIEN (1979) and MAD MAX 2: THE ROAD WARRIOR (1981)! 

The plot is simple but not exactly engaging: from the title one can deduce that water has become scarce on the planet where all of this takes place – so our ragtag buccaneer heroes take it upon themselves to steal ice blocks from the tyrannical Templar(!) rulers. Also involved is a beautiful princess (Mary Crosby, daughter of Bing!) in search of her father, the deposed king; by the way, the cast includes another famous offspring: Anjelica Huston (daughter of John) as one of the pirate band – thankfully, the actress’ mistake in accepting such a role would soon be forgotten in the wake of her winning an Oscar (under her father’s guidance, no less) for PRIZZI’S HONOR (1985). Since STAR WARS had Peter Cushing as the “Supreme Commander”, the film-makers opted to have a screen legend of their own – 78-year old John Carradine (who’s seen strapped to a sort of operating table during his one brief scene!).

The most notable bits (for all the wrong reasons) are: the alien using the toilet; the castration machine; the clumsy antics (including karate-style combat!) of the inevitable robot companions; the goofy slave/eunuch make-up worn at one point by the heroes; the recurring attacks by the “space herpies” (whatever that is); the climax in which the characters are made to age when going through a time-warp (Crosby becomes pregnant, gives birth, and sees her son grow up in the space of 30 seconds, while leading man Robert Urich himself is replaced by John Ford stalwart Hank Worden for this scene!) – incidentally, the jump-cuts adopted here (intending to denote the rapid passage of time) are not only unsuccessful but downright irritating.

Sentiment: negative
It's a mystery to me as to why I haven't caught up to this masterful 50s caper film  turned brooding noir until now, but I'm certainly glad to report that it didn't disappoint. I haven't seen any of Jules Dassin's American films for several years but based on this I'll probably be going back and re-watching "Brute Force" and "Night and the City" quite soon.

Jean Servais, a name unknown to me but a face rather familiar in its world-weariness and coldness, has recently completed a lengthy stay in prison and as is the way in these films (hey, there wouldn't be a story otherwise) isn't coping well with the straight life. An opportunity presents itself: an easy multi-million-dollar jewel heist that can be done at night with no fear of discovery by a few men. The taut filming of the robbery, half an hour of total silence, is what people most remember about the film of course, and indeed it's pretty remarkable; but I liked the half-completed location of the final shootout, once the robbery has gone sour thanks to the big mouth of one of the thieves; the excellent portrayal gritty sides of Paris in stark black and white; and Servais' channeling of both Eddie Constantine and Humphrey Bogart in his spare but brutal performance.

Perhaps it's a bit too sentimental in the end, but this is one of those classics that really does live up to its reputation just as pure entertainment even if what it has to say about the human condition isn't exactly deep or thought-provoking; George Auric's at turns modernist, romantic, and jazzy score is another highlight.

Sentiment: positive
I was told Jon was for awhile on spiritual experiences. I guessed the film will be interesting.In fact isn't at all. Not so much profound for a such subject. "eternity" never-ending life. Experiences after death and "dejavu". The film is not as a comedy but isn't funny at all, at least not express yet. It's so naive. Charming film but naive film. A must to avoid. The Middle ages sequences seems coming directly from fairy tales and it's not the matter at all. Eileen Davidson is so charming and Voight is doing his best. Normal is a co producer and screenwriter of this movie. The film was launched straight on video so i discovered it on a video store. It's a pity 'cause I well know Voight was seriously involved with spirituality and the film isn't so much profound about it.

Sentiment: negative
I'm not a fan of the Left Behind book series - the books are written at a 6th-grade reading level with a lack of research and understanding of science, technology, and politics. While the books do manage to remain faithful to scripture, their methods of fulfilling prophecy are often ridiculous (an example is their explanation for the Russian/Arab invasion of Israel). Also, the books have an unmistakable preachy tone that will turn off unbelievers rather than bring them to the gospel. Still, I found myself reading these books because of my interest in the events of Revelation. For a similar reason, I watched this film adaptation. I am sad to say that it is a rather mediocre film bordering on poor. The acting is actually rather decent for the most part with occasional bits of poor acting and over-acting. The script is rather bad, though it is hardly unexpected when starting with the novel as a basis. The characters are poorly drawn and underdeveloped. Events feel scattered and disconnected. The dialogue sometimes sounds rushed. At least the book managed to flesh out its hokey conspiracy theory. Here, the viewer is left with an incoherent mess that only makes much sense if one has read the book. The pacing of the film is also very poorly executed with the opening and conclusion seeming extremely rushed, and the middle dragging to an excruciatingly slow trudge that makes it feel padded. The music is schizophrenic. At times, it successfully underscores the mood and sounds fitting for a motion picture. At other moments, it reminds me of sitcom and mini-series music. And still other bits remind me of a poppy MTV soundtrack that just doesn't belong in the film. I can give the film points for the scene of panic on board the plane, but that's it. The other scenes involving the disasters after the Rapture are far from compelling. The film also suffers from the book's preachiness although its message isn't quite as in your face. In all, I found the movie just as disappointing as the series. This is not the film to rally Christians around it. I hope that this film does NOT get any attention at the theaters next year. It would be more unnecessary bad publicity for Christianity. For an example of a compelling, intelligent, well-researched series based on Revelation that presents a realistic and Christian world view without offending the secular reader (who after all should be whom a Christian is trying to reach) read the Christ Clone trilogy by James BeauSeigneur. It's a great read and is a much better choice for unbelievers or believers who appreciate quality.

Sentiment: negative
Wow! I picked this off the rental shelf because I loved Robert Carlyle and Jonny Lee Miller in 'Trainspotting.' This is a phenomenal movie; it has action, romance, suspense, intrigue and wit. When I wasn't laughing, I was at the edge of my seat. This is definitely a film I would recommend to people with an appreciation for intelligent dialogue and a fresh perspective of the 18th century. This film has everything to keep ME happy!

Sentiment: positive
Once again, I fell for it, in my roots I crave a fun and gory horror film, even a vampire one. Even if it's stupid, as long as I get my fun gore in the mix, I'm a happy camper, it doesn't take much. So I saw the cover of "Bled" over at Hollywood Video and was kind of curious what it was about, it looked kind of interesting, so I decided to rent it. Why? Why do I always fall for it? Not only did this movie not fulfill the satisfaction I needed for my gore and senseless violence and nudity, but I was bored out of mind. This movie has the kahoonies to say it's a vampire movie and it's really not! I'm so close to going back to the store and begging for money back because this is one of the rare times I actually turned the movie off.

An artist meets a vampire, I think, dunno, I'm still trying to figure out what the heck he was but his name was Reinfield, so I'm assuming maybe he's a cockroach eating guy who likes to freak people out? I think, I dunno. Anyways, he thinks the artist has a certain flare for darkness, so he gives her a drug to go into an alternate fantasy where a vampire exists and needs blood to become alive? I think, I dunno. So her friends get excited and decide they wanna try the drug too, I think, I dunno. So after they decide to try the drug, things get weird, the fantasies are real, I think, I dunno, and the vampire is now enjoying the will big breasted girls in scandly clad clothing. I think, I dunno. But a couple of the girls really end up being vampires? I think, I dunno.

Sorry for all the "I dunno's", this is possibly one of the worst reviews I'm going to write, but that's because this movie was just awful, boring, and confusing. I love just seeing these wanna be actors who you can tell are waiters looking for that "big break". Not too smart that they fell in the cliché of the horror genre, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, in this case, they really should have read the script. Because the movie, the look, the feel, the acting, everything about this movie was just bad, I really recommend that you just pass the movie if you see it at your video store. This possibly could have been an interesting movie with it's concept of a different dimension, but why did they pick this director to display his "creativity" if he even has any? This was a bad movie, just stay away.

1/10

Sentiment: negative
SPOILERS 

As you may know, I have been commenting on a lot of silent short films in the past months. Now, I have no idea why I am commenting on Steamboat Willie, I guess I was just desperate to comment on anything, so I watched this, and now I am commenting on it. This, or course, is one of the very first cartoons, and I believe it is not the first cartoon with sound. 

Here is the plot. Mickey Mouse is driving a steamboat when Pete throws him off and he drives it. When they stop for cargo Minnie Mouse tried to get on but failed miserably. Mickey gets her up by a crane. Then a goat eats her sheet of paper with Turkey in the Straw on it. They use the goat to make the song. When I say that I mean that they used the goat as a Victrola. Mickey plays the animals on the steamboat for instruments to the song. Then an angry Pete throws Mickey in a potato room and Mickey is forced to peel potatoes for the rest of the day.

Overall, this is yet another groundbreaking silent short film. I mean, this is the third Mickey Mouse cartoon. Yes, the third. Also, this is not the first cartoon with sound. I believe there were two more before this one. Either way, this film is really, really groundbreaking. Mikcey was also more violent than he is mow. I mean, he throws a potato at a bird and may have brutally slaughtered it. 

9/10

Recommended Films: Plane Crazy.

Sentiment: positive
When I first heard about Moon Child, I thought it was a joke. After a few months, I figured I guess it's for real. The few reviews I read that WEREN'T made by squealing fangirls were not very promising.

When I was given the opportunity to watch it, I was fully prepared to groan, wince, and otherwise need to close my eyes to avoid the silliness.

I was more than a little surprised, and in a good way.

Yes, Moon Child has its moments of cheese, camp, and general dorkiness -- I think that's kind of impossible to avoid when it involves Gackt Camui, a man not known for his sanity -- but all in all, it was wholly enjoyable.

No, it is not a work of cinema genius but it is very, very heartfelt, amusing, with fun choreography, a touching score, and a fun cast. I know little of Japanese cinema so I can't really judge the acting but considering the fact that the cast was speaking a language or extreme dialect foreign to them at one time or another and that a couple of them have almost no acting experience, I was rather impressed.

If you can enjoy a good action movie, a good drama, a good comedy, see this film. At least rent it since it's coming to Region 1.

On a side note, there is zero homosexual/homoerotic content in this film. I didn't even see much of a subtext. Don't let people that read too much into things ruin this for you.

Sentiment: positive
I watched the first episode and I found it to be a very wooden performance.

I have watched the original from it's early days on Big Girls Blouse to the last series on Channel seven. Kath and Kim was a great Mocumentary and it's humor is something that most people get.

However in this American version I found it to be dull, Molly Shannon is to fashionable to be Kath Day, Kath's wardrobe is supposed to be stuck in the 80s with her frizzy perm. While Selma Blair's figure hugging clothes isn't as good as what the original Kimmy wore. I also found that Selma seemed to be puffing her belly out a lot, she is obviously a (Australian) size 12 where Kim should be (Australian) a size 16/18.

The exchanges from Molly and Selma is obviously so scripted and there is pauses where there shouldn't be pauses or the pauses are a bit long, as someone suggested there could be a laughter track in there during those pauses. It's like Molly and Shannon are not used to each other, there is no Mother/Daughter chemistry.

Phil was okay he had the eccentric air around him like Kel. However Craig was to handsome and not the sweet plain humble Brett from the Aussie version.

I found watching this was like watching a very bad stage play. The acting was pretty much wooden and the exaggeration of Selma's expressions wore the funny off after ten minutes. Especially her sulking scenes.

To sum up, I find this show to be a waste of time, the script obviously has been dumbed down for Americans which most on the board say they prefer the original. If NBC wanted to show Kath and Kim why not pay the producers the money to screen the original.

All I can add is Magda you are one smart cookie for not letting the producers use your character of Sharon.

Sentiment: negative
I really can't see why people seem to dislike this film. I found it very entertaining (of course the fact that it stars the gorgeous Laura Fraser is a bonus!) When I first heard about it, I thought it would be along the lines of a role-reversed "Weird Science" and, to an extent, this is true, however there is a twist which I really didn't see coming. Having seen the trailer on the DVD (which I hadn't seen before watching the film) I saw that the "twist" is actually shown in the trailer! Very strange.

As the film progresses the "Weird Science" comparison fits less and less, and I think this is the better of the two films. Certainly there are some scenes which don't work wonderfully, but these are made up for by the enthusiasm of the young cast.

In summary, I'd suggest that this is a fine example of a Sci-fi chick flick, and I don't think I've seen many of them!

Sentiment: positive
Bela Lugosi is great as usual but the movie is nothing compared to Dracula. He is probably the only one that played a perfect part in this movie but not even a legend like Lugosi could save the badness of the idea of this movie and unlike most old unspenseful horror films this movie doesn't set the mood very well. Even at its worst any of Bela's movies is only mediocre though.

Sentiment: negative
The copy of this movie that I have seen is not very good. It's grainy and has almost no color in some parts. It switches back and forth between English and French, often in mid sentence, and sometimes even in the middle of a word! To make matters much worse, there are no English subtitles during the French language parts, which I think make up at least one quarter of the film. But, amazingly, the movie is still very understandable and enjoyable, even in this condition, and I think that says a lot about how well-made this film is.

This is a top notch spaghetti western with great acting, an interesting storyline, and an excellent music score. It also has a cool protagonist, a beautiful dark-haired girl, some strange characters and events, and an overall feeling of melancholy. This film has "Euro" written all over it.

I hope there is a pristine negative or print of this film out there somewhere, because it deserves a quality DVD release, and when it comes out I will be one of the first in line to get it!

Sentiment: positive
*Could contain spoilers, read only after seeing last episode season 2* Think about it. The guys on the north pole? Center of the earth? Looking for abnormal magnetic behavior? They also said something about: "did we miss it again?" So there was another abnormality? Of course that was when the plain crashed! I think this whole Island is a setup. Set up by her daddy. She found out about it and is looking for her Desmond. How else can she know what to look for.

So basically it's an Island in a magnetic shield. All of it is fake. All the signs are there. Fake beards, fake doors, fake medicine, fake observations stations, with fake air shafts that lead to nothing. It's a project indeed, and because of the final scene in the season 2 finale I know it has to do something with Desmond, his chick and her dad (and probably Libby, she's weird, maybe she actually has something to do with the plane crashing, OK now i'm drifting off).

Also in this episode, Henry Gail tells Michael to go to some coordinates, and he'll find rescue their. This is probably some sort of door in the magnetic shield. "once you're gone. there is no way back".

I think it's pretty obvious, despite of the numerous questions I still have and hope to get answers for in the next season. If you think back on what we've learned in season 1 and 2, I'm sure we'll get loads of answers in season 3.

Can't wait.

Can anyone agree on this theory? Hope to hear from you...

Sentiment: positive
this is just a terrible 'comedy' -- it really is a bad film. there are no funny elements. no jokes that are funny. i don't know how some people can claim this dismal short film could be 'smartest' or 'quality.' perhaps if its the only film that a person has seen you can make that claim of the brothers. but, i have seen thousands of better films: namely leonard part six (now, that's funny)! i don't know how the brothers is even considered eligible to be listed on the internet movie database: its more like a home video than an actual film.

jokes aside, just skip this film. a root canal is more enjoyable that this cliche-ridden unfunny material.

Sentiment: negative
Basically this is a pale shadow of High Fidelity, which was a witty and wonderfully acted film with several truly winning character turns. Watching the Detectives has none of that.

The premise of a video store geek swept off his feet by a quirky mystery woman is a good one but is never fully or adequately explored, thanks to a very weak script and the miscasting of the leads, not to mention the lack of any real visual story-telling style. I mean, this film is centered around MOVIES, yet is itself incredibly uncinematic! That's a major failing right there.

But the main problem is we simply don't care about the main characters because the script and the actors (Murphy and Liu) fail to make them true or sympathetic in any real way. So the film just becomes a series of episodes involving two people who seem, well, not terribly interesting.

Oh, yeah, another thing: For a romantic comedy? It's not funny. And the romance isn't terribly romantic, either.

So avoid it. Even at its 90-something minute running time it's just not worth sitting through...

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie when I was a child. It blew me away. This was before the days of television, so a movie of this magnitude, could send a young kid into orbit. It so impressed me, that I went to see this movie for twelve consecutive days. The special effects used at this time were far ahead of its' time. Sabu was a real delight, as was Rex Ingram as the Genie. I found myself singing "I want to be a sailor" for months after the film left town. I would recommend this movie to any and everyone. I forgot to mention Conrad Veidt, who was as villainous a character as you'd ever want to meet. Also, June Duprez was never lovelier than she was in this picture. The color was outstanding. Give this movie an AAA!

Sentiment: positive
this 2.5 hour diluted snore-fest appears to be one of the poorest excuses for an adaptation, ever. clearly possessing a budget allowing for breathtaking location shooting in greece, the monies might have been better spent working out a cohesive script with character development and motivations clearly outlined; especially since bill has gone through the trouble of doing this already. the portrayals lacked passion & direction, leaving the viewer debating whether they should bother to care about the demise of the protagonists at all. which brings out another point-the main character of the original work, prospero, is not so named in this rendition despite the fact that most other characters' names are used. enchantment and magic are also markedly absent from this particular piece. in fact, all aspects that made the stage version of 'the tempest' full of wonder and intrigue have been sucked completely from this convoluted version about a self-absorbed, pompous arse who can't figure out how to care about anything beyond the blur of his wealth and power. over all, a lackluster effort at best and a brutally poor imitation of the intended inspiration.

Sentiment: negative
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of many of Woody's movies, obviously his late 70's masterpieces (Annie Hall,Interiors, Manhattan)and most of his late 80's/early 90's dramas (Hannah, Crimes and Misdemeaners,Husbands and Wives) in fact I even liked some of his more recent efforts (Melinda, Anything Else, Small Time Crooks) but this was abysmal, I though it couldn't possibly be any worse than last years Match Point but how wrong I was.

It was lazily plotted - basically a cross between Match Point, Manhattan Murder Mystery and Small Time Crooks,with all the jokes taken out - Woody seems to be on the way out as well, slurring most of his lines and delivering 'hilarious' catchphrases 'I mean that with all due respect...' over and over until the blandness of it all becomes to much to bare.

I know that most actors are queuing up to work with him but they should at least read the script first - Scarlett Johansson and Hugh Jackman are so much better than this - and Woody should really take a more behind the camera role in future, if he has any sense about 20 miles behind it.

It wouldn't be so tragic if we didn't have so many great Woody films to compare this to - but it is clear that his best days are behind him and judging by this effort, Woody should call it a day before he becomes an industry joke.

Embarrassingly bad

Sentiment: negative
I can clearly see now why Robin Hood flopped quickly. The first episode of it is probably the worst ever thing BBC has aired. The opening scenes were about as intense, meaningful and intelligent as two monkeys fighting, Robin Hood had no character, and the sword fight was just laughable. The worst part of the episode was Robin Hood snogging some cow clad in make-up at the beginning of the episode - how many people wore eyeliner in the 12th century? Nobody. The series may have improved drastically since then, but this first episode quickly put people's hopes down, and is essentially a pile of cr*p. A great hero of England has been disgraced.

"Will You Tolerate This?" I won't, that's for sure, unless the BBC start to understand what is a wise investment. 3/10

Sentiment: negative
Making the film as dark and visually fuzzy as possible in order to cover up the budget deficiencies is an often-used strategy in low-budget horror films, but this one takes it too far. It is SO poorly lit and murky (and it takes place almost entirely at night, to boot) that you often end up virtually looking at a black screen (although perhaps the bad video transfer may also have had something to do with that). Alas, "murky" is also the best word to describe the movie's plot. The filmmakers throw in diverse (and unoriginal) horror ideas without any semblance of logic, and halfway through you get the feeling that they just about abandoned the effort to make a good horror film; you know it when you see characters who are supposed to be in mortal danger (or, in some occasions, even dead) making small talk....(*1/2)

Sentiment: negative
If you are the sort of person who can get a kick out of a very bad movie, then I highly recommend this one. If you aren't, stay away. This is an astonishingly cheap-looking movie, and at times you may find yourself wondering if it isn't just a prank someone is pulling on you. The most positive comment I can make about it is that the people responsible seemed to realize that it was super-low-budget nonsense, so there is at least a sense of fun here.

But this is as amateurish as it gets. Their idea of giant killer mushrooms are simply guys covered with beige colored sheets with what looks like trash can covers on their heads. It's obviously not meant to be taken seriously (to say the least), but even with that disclaimer you'll find yourself shaking your head at the awesome cheesiness of it all. Or laughing out loud frequently, as I did.

Sentiment: negative
I am Black American and I loved this soap opera. I watched it dubbed in Spanish on Telemundo, almost 5-7 years ago. The story was a TRUE story about a black slave who's love affair with a white commander led to her leadership and candid, whimsical way of living.

A lot of us could learn a lot from XICA. She took what she had, nothing, and saw her possibilities. Many would argue that she sold herself out - but she was trying to secure her future and that of her future children.

It was such an excellent soap opera, that I thought it would be released on DVD, but it's not being released. This soap opera was the best soap opera EVER. We need for it to be released on DVD or broadcast on TV again. It's playing on Azteca America right now, which is only available in Mexico or in the US by paid cable. We need it released again to Telemundo.

Sentiment: positive
I found this movie in the 'horror' section of my video store. That seems to make sense as most zombie movies have their place there. From Romero's 'Dead' trilogy to '28 days later.' However upon watching it, you can quickly see what this movie really is.

It is actually a music video that goes progressively faster and gets more and more and more gory. There is no horror here folks. Just some half-way decently staged action scenes which soon grow tiresome because they last... and last... and last... and soon you get the feeling maybe you're DVD player accidentally skipped back 3 minutes, but no, this is how they actually made the movie. It's a pity. I think anyone could find a better use for $7 million dollars in the movie industry than make this lump o' crud. Though some of the 360 effects were cool, but once again, they were over used and grew tedious since it was the same stunt over and over again each time, just with a different character.

Also what is ROYALLY annoying is the splicing on of footage from the arcade game. I've played the game. It sucks. So why did they put it in here? Oh that's right, this isn't a movie but a music video, and it's a poor one at that. 3/10

Rated R: a lot of violence/gore, and profanity

Sentiment: negative
Once again Mr. Costner has dragged out a movie for far longer than necessary. Aside from the terrific sea rescue sequences, of which there are very few I just did not care about any of the characters. Most of us have ghosts in the closet, and Costner's character are realized early on, and then forgotten until much later, by which time I did not care. The character we should really care about is a very cocky, overconfident Ashton Kutcher. The problem is he comes off as kid who thinks he's better than anyone else around him and shows no signs of a cluttered closet. His only obstacle appears to be winning over Costner. Finally when we are well past the half way point of this stinker, Costner tells us all about Kutcher's ghosts. We are told why Kutcher is driven to be the best with no prior inkling or foreshadowing. No magic here, it was all I could do to keep from turning it off an hour in.

Sentiment: negative
OK, so this is a complete rip off of the first Karate Kid. However, I think there can never be too many movies like the first Karate Kid. There's something about this type of story that particularly seems to apply to people like me. You get a overall sense of being able to overcome adversity by finding out new things about yourself. In this movie, Hillary Swank is a particular gem as the Next Karate Kid. You can really tell that she has a bright future ahead of her.

Not to say this movie is not without it's problems. Unlike the first one, Mr Miyagi appears to be a little to eager to get Julie to learn martial arts and get her involved in fighting. It almost seems like he forgot what his values were from the first movie. Also, one must have a suspended disbelief when examining the monks. The movie makes the monks appear to have a way too simplistic view of life, and doesn't really explain why they do what they do in the plot-line. The villains are also a bit questionable, even though truly hateable bad guys. I also have a suspicion about Martial Arts movies that end on prom night.

So maybe this isn't a perfect movie. So maybe this wouldn't be the greatest movie to rent on a Friday night. However, in more ways than one, it's a guilty pleasure. Hillary Swank is just so loveable, and the story, even though unoriginal, works. In a genre of movies that seems to be based around nothing other than action and violence, this is a breath of fresh air. Unlike all those Steven Seagal and Jean Claude Van-Damme, this is a movie about the spirit and the heart. There are some people that need movies like this, and we'll take whatever we can get. My rating: 8/10

Sentiment: positive
What a fantastic premise: A movie about the Berlin Airlift. It should have it all. Tragedy. Suspense. Comradeship. Rivals. Berliner Frauleins and tough US pilots. love and Tears. What we've got, is a film with none of the above. Heino Ferch tries to impersonate John Wayne or so, but he fails miserably. He acts so wooden, that at any given moment he should crack. He tries to play the tough guy, instead of being a tough guy! Why would Bettina Zimmermann's character fall in love with him? Cause they were throwing stones in a lake? Cause he brings her coal bricks? The SFX are very, very well done. Too much though. The hundreds or so planes over Berlin, look like an attack-fighter-formation-squadron rather than an organised airlift  as it actually was. Interestingly enough, the White House, the Kremlin, and General Lucius D. Clays office seem all to be one and the same dark and dusty set. Notice the same drapes, hanging deep down the windows, as if a protective shield against nuclear fallout. Why is almost every scene INSIDE dark and dusty? By the way, GENERAL LUCIUS D. CLAY, comes across as a small time, insecure, looser General, who doest trust in his own noble idea the airlift. He was very much the opposite. So you combine all those individual blunders and the result is a film with that builds toward no passion, no suspense and no historic accuracy. Sad, it started out so promising

Sentiment: negative
This is very much overrated. I guess it carries some nostalgic value for many people. It has its moments, but every scene is heavily overacted and the plot is quite shallow. With this cast it could have been much better.

Sentiment: negative
I read one other review that expressed the view that Platoon was a never ending cycle of marines killing people, being killed, taking drugs and talking trash.

I don't agree with that because the film actually had more to it, but it a way, I can see what this person is trying to say: this had no real plot - which is a point i agree with.

It is self-indulgent Stone at his best. He really wanted to show, not only how war leads to death, but also how it is extremely traumatic on those who survive. Unfortunately, the film seems to over "glorify" this aspect and the grand finale is just way too champagne, grand-standing, Oscar-hunting "let's create an enduring image" for my liking.

The problem I have with Stone and other film-makers of his ilk is that they fail to understand this simply concept: depicting the terribly bloody deadly waste that war is DOES NOT PROVE OR EVEN REFLECT ON WHETHER it was an unjust or immoral war. We have seen the same thing emerge at the moment with Iraq. In case you're missing the point, let me put it to you bluntly: if you saw how truly bloody the second world war was and how destructive it was on the lives of the surviving soldiers, would you think it was an unjust war? If that fact alone doesn't convince you that it was an unjust war, then why should depictions of the horrors of Vietnam convince you that it was wrong to go to war in that instance. 

Personally, I do not support America's decision to go to war in Vietnam, but i certainly don't subscribe to the "this war is wrong because people died and suffered" theory. I don't think that motivations are always wrong by default, just because war in itself is terrible.

This says nothing of the fact that the ending or the final big "twist" was a bit stupid. However, this is not Stones first oddball departure. Wall street was a magnificent film, up until the last 30 minutes or so when it made a dreadful "wrong turn." JFK is probably one of the few films Stone did that actually ended very well.

But it hardly matters in this one because there was very little plot up until that point of the film to twist around. And this is why i gave it such a low mark. It was virtually story-less and ultimately boring - unless you fell for the manufactured poignancy.

Sentiment: negative
The final part of Kieslowski's trilogy based on the colors of the French flag finds the director at peace with the metaphysical and transcendent nature of the cinematic image. In Red, imagery is paramount, as well as the obvious but clever color coding. However, rather than adhering to empty aesthetic contrivances based on the 'cinema du look', Kieslowski's Red is a multi-layered, densely plotted meditation on the nature of fate and love. In Red, love and fate are intertwined but complex notions, dictated as much by the whims of human beings as the invisible parallel associations that seems to pass us by. You sense Red is really an allegory, a reenactment of Prospero's omnipresent gestures in The Tempest, yet it is more than its story appears. Red demands countless viewings, and in each viewing something new is discovered that weaves itself into the already immaculately plotted structure.

Although Red stands alone as a masterwork from Kieslowski, it's best viewed as part of the trilogy. Elements of Blue and White are referenced in Red, which knowing viewers will enjoy.

Sentiment: positive