DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I am very unpolitically correct guy, so when I say sexist I really mean it reduced the female guest lead, Dr Miranda Jones played by Diana Muldar. in spite of all her supposed brilliance and self control, to nothing more inside but a big, jealous unreasonable baby You prolly got the plot by now, after her technical sidekick Marvik, also a spurned lover, flips out when he tried to kill the Medusan, Ambassador Kollos, out of a jealous rage, but glimpsed first it instead. (You think he could have just walked in to the room with his eyes shut and phasered the box, too easy) he takes the Enterprise into un-navigable space outside the galaxy before the boys could subdue him. Well, the ship is stuck in limbo, at that point they could have gone to the good lady doctor-liaison and discussed it. "Spock has to make a mind meld with the Medusan so we can get home. I mean like beetch do you want to stay adrift until we run out of supplies and die?" But the lady in true Star Trek fashion is a jealous monsters who whines and wails when the idea is broached, even when her Medusan idol told her to shut up & go along with them. So the beetch out of spite messes with the melded Spock causing him to forget to put on his visor which makes Spock go insane. Kirk, naturally, figured out what a total twit she was and shamed her into fixing Spock up with her superior telepathic powers. Of course, at the end the Lady and Medusan leave and all is forgiven. You almost wish the President from Battle Star Galactica showed up to jettison the witch out of an airlock for her destructive stunt. But in Star Trek land, ladies are permitted to be totally unreasonable and cruel, yet at the same time supposedly there is sexual equality. This is what I mean by sexist.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was absolutely terrible. The only explanation I can think of for the good reviews it received from some here is that they were written by people in the cast. It was actually painful to watch this movie. Even my grandchildren (ages 6-13) could not bear to watch it. As far as I know, this movie never made it to theaters and for good reason. It's as if some people were sitting around having a beer and said, "Hey! Let's make a movie. Who wants to be in it?" It's that bad. Besides Luke Perry, who is only in a small part of the movie, I did not recognize a single other actor. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it is in this case. I liked Sandlot (I) and I generally like stupid and silly movies but this movie doesn't have a single redeeming quality. The people who wrote it don't have the slightest clue as to how children think, talk, or act and the movie is a disjointed mess of terribly corny lines and stupid jokes. I rarely write negative reviews but this is the worst movie I have seen since Man's Best Friend and it's definitely one of the ten worst movies I have ever seen in my life. If you rent it, remember that I warned you. The fact that some people actually rated this movie as being good is a sad commentary on their taste and intelligence. I'm not exaggerating.

Sentiment: negative
Basically this is about a couple who want to adopt a second child. At the adoption agency they meet a mouse (Stuart) and they decide to adopt him. If you think that this is stupid, hold it, because it's getting worse.

Stuart arrives to his new home, where he is treated like a human child. (Spare me!) The rest is pretty much the usual cliché, about family problems, jealousy from the elder "brother", and at the end all issues are resolved and they are all a "happy family". Boring and worn out as this is, it is also shown in the most blunt and unsophisticated way.

I don't know if the director believed that he was being creative by introducing a mouse to the cliché, or he was just trying to fill in minutes, but he only upgraded the cliché from boring to abhorrent.

Then why I gave a 3 and not a ZERO? Because of the family cat, who loves Stuart as much as the "brother". And because of some funny gigs, where Stuart makes good use of his small size.

On the overall I believe that the film would work reasonably well if: a. Stuart was a PET and not a "sibling". b. It had kept to the funny gigs, like Stuart trying to outwit the cat, and had left out boring clichés which don't even match with anything else.

Sentiment: negative
This is basically your run of the mill violent biker flick complete with nifty slangs, crashes, and music. OK, so just slangs and crashes. It's a slight notch above much of the other fare featured on MST3K but it's still the equivalent of driving a nail into your kneecap: slow and painful. To give away plot would exhaust my energy so I'll just say you're better off skipping this one.

Sentiment: negative
Generally over rated movie which boasts a strong cast and some clever dialog and of course Dean Martin songs. Problem is Nicholas Cage, there is no chemistry between he and Cher and they are the central love story. Cher almost makes up for this with her reactions to Cage's shifting accent and out of control body language. Cage simply never settles into his role. He tries everything he can think of and comes across as an actor rather than real person and that's what's needed in a love story. Cage has had these same kind of performance problems in other roles that require more of a Jimmy Stewart type character. Cage keeps taking these roles, perhaps because he likes those kind of movies but his own energy as an actor doesn't lend itself to them, though he's gotten better at it with repeated attempts. He should leave these type of roles to less interesting actors who would fully commit to the film and spend his energy and considerable talent in more off beat roles and films where he can be his crazy interesting self.

Sentiment: negative
I was lucky enough to see this at this years Tribeca film festival. I was stunned by how well made and how entertaining this wonderful little film was. Director Griffin Dunne has done a great job assembling this film that has several characters and several story lines that blend so smoothly and seamlessly. The main story involves the family and it is very thought-provoking and entertaining story that involved the viewer in every scene. The film as a whole has credibility and integrity, yet still has that commercial edge - an "indie" movie for the masses if you like. The performances by the cast are all excellent but it is Diane Lane who shines the brightest. Diane Lane is simply sensational in this wonderful film and should be Oscar nominated. Early days I know, but Lane acts her socks off here.

Sentiment: positive
Somehow they summed up the 60's, ten years that radically changed our country, in four hours. And what a painful four hours it was. They trivilized the major events and happenings and they "claimed" it was about two families yet you barely saw the african-american family. If I were NBC I would be ashamed and embarrassed for airing such trash. What was amusing was this happy-go-lucky family you saw in the very beginning was tortured in so many ways, but managed to attend every major 60's event through the country. And the second family was such a non-factor. They devoted maybe five or six scenes total to this family. That poor son... Please NBC, do not make any movies about any other eras....leave that to PBS and the History Channel

Sentiment: negative
It must be a long time ago that I have seen such a bad movie. I have to say it is really hard to make a good and/or realistic movie about air disaster but this movie was such a waste of time and money. Also I think this is an unofficial way trying to get a bad reputation on Airbus. First, the cockpit look a lot like an Airbus cockpit, second you got a stick, third using computers to control rudders/elevators/aileron via "fly by wire". When I saw this movie I thought like the intention of the film was "don't fly with computerized airplanes like Airbus, use Boeing instead they have a direct connection of steering and rudders."

All I can say: Bad story, horrible acting (most of the actors), worst film trick ever...

Sentiment: negative
Wow! I'm shocked to learn that it's a small world and that we are all interconnected. What a waste of 88 minutes. John Dunne put it much better in one sentence. "No man is an island." The acting wasn't bad. The kids gave it all they had but at times the thread got so thin I couldn't follow it and the only real "hero" in the film ends up in jail after being tormented by a meter maid. I don't know. I just don't get it. Oh well.

Sentiment: negative
This is a classic British comedy-thriller I had always wanted to check out but no opportunity had arisen for that until now. It's based on a popular stage play which had already been filmed a number of times previously (most notably in 1931 by the same director but, unfortunately, this version seems not to have survived in its entirety!); for the remake under review, the plot has been updated to the then-current wartime situation.

Anyway, I was mainly familiar with early British comedians through the films of Will Hay: given that this one features a similar plot of legendary hauntings, smuggling and enemy agents, it's very much in that vein (it was actually scripted by Hay's regular writing team of Marriott Edgar, Val Guest and J.O.C. Orton); the stranded travelers element, then, was an equally tried-and-true formula. The star this time around is Arthur Askey (abetted by Richard Murdoch) - none of whose films I had watched before - who is as unlikely a hero as Hay himself and whose personality proves to be just as potentially irritating...but one soon warms up to him, and Askey certainly comes up with a number of witty lines and amusing bits of business throughout to justify the fact that the lead character of the play (and the 1931 film version) was split into two here, with Murdoch acting as the star's straight partner.

The remote single setting (the events of the film largely take place during one stormy night) provides for some wonderful atmosphere; the last half-hour - with the sudden appearance of a mysterious couple (Raymond Huntley and Linden Travers) and eventually the arrival of the titular vehicle itself - is especially gripping and well handled. Also worth mentioning from the remaining cast list is Kathleen Harrison as the stereotypical frightened spinster, with a parrot as her constant companion and who is driven by all the excitement to take her very first drink.

Sentiment: positive
i bought this rental return for $1.99 at hollywood and overpaid. i didn't expect much, but thought it would be something to fall asleep by at least. i quickly noted the very weak storyline, the gross overacting by everyone (no one talks like that except in cartoons), and the seemingly let's-make-it-up-as-we-go-along direction. i know that the participants in this mess must be very embarrassed by it, and i feel certain that it did not help any careers. as for this movie buff of 35 years, it has now provided a ready answer for the worst-film-you've-ever-seen question.



Sentiment: negative
Gurinda Chada's semi-autobiographical film (2002) is a gentle, poignant comedy set in the ethnically diverse community near Heahthrow Airport in West London.

Like the airliners which constantly arrive and depart from overhead, we follow the ups and downs of the two main characters Jess Bhamra (Parminder Nagra) and Jules Paxton (Keira Knightley) as they strike up an unlikely friendship which centres around their mutual passion for soccer and their technical infatuation with David Beckham.

Much of the comedy grows out of the misunderstandings of the families of these two talented girls as they break all the expectations and conventions of their very different family backgrounds.

Somewhere in the middle, as broker, peacemaker and blighted athlete, Joe (Jonathan Reece-Myers) - team coach for the Hounslow Harriers - intercedes in times of crisis, while at the same time remaining the main object of affection of both the main characters.

Eventually, and not without many obstacles and triumphs on the way, we finally see our dedicated and beloved soccer heroines soaring away to realise their dreams.

With great performances from Bollywood veteran Anupam Kher (Mr Bhamra), Shaheen Khan (Mrs Bhamra), Juliet Stevenson (Mrs Paxton) and Frank Harper (Mr Paxton) this really is a film that captures the urgent passion of adolescence and crosses all ethnic frontiers.

Pinky Bamrha (Archie Panjabi) and (Taz) Trey Farley are struggling their own struggles, but nevertheless contribute greatly to our understanding of the main characters in the film.

In it's own special way, this film tells an important story that in quite incidental the football. It celebrates the evolution in the understanding of ordinary people in ordinary families and the innate ability of the young to teach the old.

Sentiment: positive
Chilly, alienating adaptation of Rebecca West's book about an Army Captain returning from duty in WWII with his memory impaired (now there's an original idea!). It seems he remembers old flame Glenda Jackson but not current wife Julie Christie, which should be enough to set off some emotional sparks. This extremely well-cast soaper brings together leading man Alan Bates with director Alan Bridges and co-stars Jackson, Christie, Ann-Margret, and Ian Holm, but the burners are all on low. There are a handful of good scenes (particularly whenever Jackson is on-screen), but Bridges' pacing is unrelievedly sluggish and the film's dulled-out color is enervating. Long on the shelf, this "Soldier" is best left forgotten. *1/2 from ****

Sentiment: negative
Dr Steven Segal saves the world from a deadly virus outbreak. This movie strikes me as foolish earnestness that has morphed into an unintended camp classic (the best kind). Memorable lines include "Knowledge is like a deer. Chase it, and it will run away from you" and "Drink this. It will make you feel better." It is so sublimely bad -- they couldn't have made it any worse if they tried.

Segal tries to convince you that he is 1. sensitive -- by saving a stricken pony; 2. a good father -- by a saccharine cooking scene for his daughter; 3. a man of science -- by looking at a fake spectrum; 4. in tune with nature -- by using homeopathic remedies; 5. politically correct and multicultural -- by having Indian friends; 6. an iconoclast -- by opening a rural practice after a former life in a national research lab; and 7. an action hero -- by being really fat but yet can still fight. ROTFL.

It's good to see on as a late-night Saturday flick, with friends, preferably (but not necessarily!) inebriated.

Sentiment: negative
I believe the production value is OK..probably deserves a 4/10 or 5/10.it's traditionally filmed,featuring good looking people with model quality and a little class..

but the premise let me annoyed..a decent woman would do such dirt? I mean she is gonna marry a man who would have sex with another woman? 

and what's more serious she is also active in the behavior...... only in de Laclos's mind....the film also have many aspects that makes Eastern Europeans seem immoral

after all, it's just movie, if it doesn't intend to degrade women in general, I will give one more point..but obviously, it does

conclusion: a nasty piece of crap with a little taste

Sentiment: negative
I will never forget this film or the events that lead up to Jonestown in Guyana. It just seems so tragic but needs to be told. Powers Boothe give a commanding performance as the leader Rev. Jim Jones from obscurity until total madness. It would have won him an Academy Award easily if it was released in the movie theaters. It is the kind of mini-series you won't forget. You won't forget the images of the cult's brutality, control, and obsessiveness of it's leader. His rise and fall and the threat from the outside world to destroy what he considered to be paradise. The mass suicide is horrifying, almost unreal to anybody's imagination as to why so many people (900+) went willingly or resisted JOnes' orders. They don't make mini series like these anymore where we're left with out mouths open and hungry to know what happened to the others.

Sentiment: positive
This is an in-name-only sequel to "A Christmas Story," originally entitled "A Summer Story." Ralphie narrates his family adventures during the summer when they moved to a small hick-town in the middle of nowhere. Hilarity, unfortunately, does not ensue.

The original worked because of its irreverent nature and honesty - everyone could relate to it. This one is simply stupid and not very funny at all. Charles Grodin's last movie - no wonder! It's one of his poorest roles. I felt sorry for him.

Mary Steenburgen is given little to do, everything's formulaic, and you have to wonder why they even bothered.

And I mean, come on - a competition with spinning tops?! Sadly, it's the best part of the movie...

Sentiment: negative
Alex Winter and Keanu Reeves return as the two dopes from San Dimas who get sent on another trip of a lifetime as someone from the future feels exactly the opposite the way it was presented in the first movie.

The only difference is that their trip is "somewhere" between Heaven and Hell and ends up being both. When they meet the Grim Reaper, they get the chance of an after-lifetime to play him for a chance to return and stop two evil robots from ruining what future they were supposed to have. Besides playing roles they have...er...perfected, they also play (and revive a couple of extra sales in the process) some classic games (I even have my original copy of Battleship in the closet).

The reason I liked this movie better than the original is because it deals with "what it might be like" instead of "what was." Without spoiling the movie, I can't give you anymore information about this (I guess you'll just have to watch them both and decide for yourself! 8 out of 10 stars.

Sentiment: positive
The director of this waste of celluloid specialises in dreadful exploitation films where pretension is all; the previous year he did "Dangerously Close" whose good idea (about gangs getting too much power in school and the school paper editor against them) was submerged in a sea of sloppiness, and he would go on to do "Cyborg," Jean Claude Van Damme's worst film ever (no mean feat). This would-be comedy about a girl - Kathy Ireland in her film debut - who's a total schlump whose inner babe is only awakened after she falls to the centre of the Earth and has a set of badly filmed, impossible-to-follow adventures (chiefly involving a set of dwarves who want her because she has big bones - go figure!) before returning home changed for the better isn't funny, gripping or entertaining in the slightest. And anybody watching this to salivate over Miss Ireland will be put off too - not because of her voice, but because she spends most of the film buried under tons of baggy clothes, with huge glasses to boot. No wonder Cannon, the producers, are out of business. Amazingly, Kathy Ireland has made better films since then...or maybe that isn't so amazing. Next to this, "Barb Wire" is "Aliens."

Sentiment: negative
Separate LIES changed my life. Actually, the Q&A did.

SPOILERS BELOW. Read only if you watch trailers or if you've already seen it:

The Emily Watson character cheats on the Tom Wilkonson character. My first reaction to the puppy-dog-eyed Emily was "It's Over. Dump her. Bad riddance." For some reason, he stuck around. Not in a pathetic way. He just listened. And tried to accept her needs. At times he needed to leave. But he stuck by her and let her live her life. But I still wanted to see her 

Afterwards, Julian, the screenwriter and director, talked about the film. I'm glad he did, because frankly I am too you and was too immature to get the point before he broke it down for me. 

Tom's character loved her, and no matter how much her pursuit of her needs might disagree with what he wants, he would always love her. The relationship and love they shared wasn't a lie, all of a sudden, just because she wanted to be with someone else. The fact that she wanted to be with someone else didn't make her who she was. When you get past fifty, there's a strong chance that finding the love of your life won't come around again, so you can't be as dismissive as you were when you were younger. You have to try and make things work, because the alternative may be much worse.

She needed what she needed, and she couldn't help that. He had to learn to let go of her if he wanted to be the full man he could be. He helped her in pursuit of her lover, even when it hurt him.

Another thing: Julian said that the strongest tool of a controller is guilt. 

Again: The strongest tool of a controller is guilt.

At the end of the film, Tom released her from her burden. He felt a need to let her know that he loved her, but not to in order to get her back; he wanted to let her know she didn't need to feel guilty or think poorly about the relationship, just because it ended in such a terrible way.

It is not my way to review a film based on the message, rather than the execution, especially when I understand that message better when it is explained to me by the director, but I make an exception here, as I feel one more mature than I would benefit from seeing the film.

The execution of the film-making was a nice, British pace. Rupert was slimy and revolting. Tom and Emily were their usually solid, real characters.

Sentiment: positive
I've seen tons of science fiction from the 70s; some horrendously bad, and others thought provoking and truly frightening. Soylent Green fits into the latter category. Yes, at times it's a little campy, and yes, the furniture is good for a giggle or two, but some of the film seems awfully prescient. Here we have a film, 9 years before Blade Runner, that dares to imagine the future as somthing dark, scary, and nihilistic. Both Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson fare far better in this than The Ten Commandments, and Robinson's assisted-suicide scene is creepily prescient of Kevorkian and his ilk. Some of the attitudes are dated (can you imagine a filmmaker getting away with the "women as furniture" concept in our oh-so-politically-correct-90s?), but it's rare to find a film from the Me Decade that actually can make you think. This is one I'd love to see on the big screen, because even in a widescreen presentation, I don't think the overall scope of this film would receive its due. Check it out.

Sentiment: positive
This was my first introduction to the world of Bollywood and I'm now hooked! Okay so it requires adoption of a different mindset to watching US films but once you allow yourself the pleasure of enjoying it for what it is you won't be disappointed. The songs are superb, melodic and very catchy. The actors are visually compelling especially Karisma Kapoor who is surely one of the most beautiful actresses anywhere in the film world. Locations, colour are spellbinding. If you want something different and are looking to be uplifted, cheered up and stimulated I recommend you catch this movie.

Sentiment: positive
With a well thought out cast, this movie was a great comedic relief. The plot is well-written and the cast was knockout. Every bit as good as the reviews suggested (a rarity) and was highly entertaining. Being a huge John Candy fan myself, this movie was no disappointment.

Sentiment: positive
I just saw this wonderfully filmed movie that captures the essence of

high-brow NYC, or any big city of mid-century America. The colors, the

cars, the clothes and the coming of the Womens Movement. It reflects the

comf-cozy attitudes of relationships between men and women in the

corporate world. In some ways, things gave changed and in others, they

haven't changed at all. Women still want what men have today, but they

now have all sorts of laws and equality mandates to get it for them. In

my opinion, beautiful women will still THROW themselves at men in

pursuit of thier goals! The laws we have now against harrassment and

all, were passed by unattractive women who wanted an equal chance to

compete with prettier women who might be getting the positions soley

based on thier looks and puting out! The real competition isn't between

men and women, but women and women! I liked the look and feel of the movie but the world hasn't changed as

far as what real

Sentiment: positive
Since I am so interested in lake monsters i really dug this movie. This movie is worth a see. If you like the so awful they are good types of films check it out. The effects are really good as well just think "Land of the Lost". I originally watched this movie in the early 90's maybe more like 89/90 on a local channel monster show called "Morgus Presents". I didn't scare me but I was 8 and anything B felt more like an A. Years later I seen it on DVD at a local Circuit City and bought it immediately so I can give it a 9 because it has a personal spot in my heart right there with The Monster Squad and Gremlins. Good B movie fun for all ages.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was great. It had everything a true action fan could want. Plenty of people getting shot and/or maimed, minimal romance involving sex, a hero that can be identified with, violence at many intervals instead of pointless plot storing up just one scene at the end, and villains that are just asking for it. Bronson appears to be at his lowest level of tolerancy in this film and it shows. Ed Lauter makes a great cop and was seamlessly worked into Bronson's plot without stealing his spotlight. The movie doesn't involve a plot so boring or over-consuming that you watch this film once and never again. Rather, you want to see Kersey in action and the storyline just juices it up. This is great stuff.

Sentiment: positive
It takes a lot for a movie to reach the already numb particles of my brain which have not already been tapped out due to the overcharge and redoredoredocopycopycopy world of movies. But this movie has made it onto my 'Magic Movies' list. To become a 'magic movie', it must leave every string of my being quivering in that which I can only define as 'bliss' and 'complete satisfaction'. This movie has tapped into the fibers of how my mind thinks and if not for the deeply personal bond my head and the head of whoever made this shares, it would look like another 'dead rave scene' movie from back when the 90's exploded with its Ecstasy craze. This is not how the movie came off to me at all. It's reached into me and pulled up something that I thought was dead for a very long time and pushed me as far as to give it a critique of my own. I forgot how long it's been since I've seen something that left me feeling this good inside. I strongly suggest seeing this movie.

Sentiment: positive
After watching this thing, then reading the summary on the back of the DVD, then thinking back to actual movie....I became a bit dizzy. I thought, maybe I fell asleep and dreamed I was a down syndrome baby waltzing through a never ending forest where people drive 11 miles an hour and stop for no purpose other then occasional tasteless lesbianism. Where (zombies?) come out of nowhere and (vampires?) who (seduce?) pure hearted citizens on their way to save the world. Neither zombie nor vampire notably encounter each other. The only fighting i remember was getting that walrus Bonny Giroux's panties off. Coo Coo ca FAT! All of them! Maybe that was because we were watching it widescreen stretched and were too lazy to change it to its native resolution, but that actually made it more entertaining... In conclusion my trailing thought thesis had more continuity, plot, character development, antagonism, subject matter, and acting then the entirety of this film. It made Bloodrayne look like Citizen F***ING KANE

Sentiment: negative
A very accurate depiction of small time mob life filmed in New Jersey. The story, characters and script are believable but the acting drops the ball. Still, it's worth watching, especially for the strong images, some still with me even though I first viewed this 25 years ago.

A young hood steps up and starts doing bigger things (tries to) but these things keep going wrong, leading the local boss to suspect that his end is being skimmed off, not a good place to be if you enjoy your health, or life.

This is the film that introduced Joe Pesce to Martin Scorsese. Also present is that perennial screen wise guy, Frank Vincent. Strong on characterizations and visuals. Sound muddled and much of the acting is amateurish, but a great story.

Sentiment: positive
Watched this as a late TV movie last night purely by chance. The blurb for the film said something to the effect of mother stays with daughter and goes on romantic journey, as I tuned in there's the carpenter hard at work on a new conservatory - played by Daniel Craig no less - so the plot was immediately apparent.

It turns out that eponymous mother's carpenter love interest is also the daughter's boyfriend, so there's trouble brewing and not too many surprises. But I'd been caught by Anne Reid's compelling performance and I was hooked. The direction allows her plenty of space for staring into mirrors and adjusting scarves, when she exudes sadness.

The sex scenes were fascinating and taboo-breaking. Shouldn't older women's bodies remain covered up? Not here and we're treated to a delicious reawakening in the Mother's sexuality. Even more startling are the drawings she's made that (SPOILER!) once discovered confirm her daughter's suspicion that something's going on here.

Cathryn Bradshaw as the daughter didn't convince me quite as much as the rest of the cast, but that could be me. With her waves of pre-Raph locks I kept expecting to see Julia Sawahla, whose more intense face would have suited the confrontations better to my mind. Bradshaw has a rounder happier face that didn't carry the anger that emerges as the film progresses.

The ending is weak. If the goodbyes for Mother as she leaves in disgrace are so indifferent then perhaps we could see some close-ups of those waving goodbye and see something of their individual reasons. Whatever she's done, she's a recently bereaved widow leaving for the lonely home she shared with her husband for 30 years, and I found the lack of sympathy jarring. For a film so full of emotion (and be warned it's like opening champagne, you'll never get the lid back on) the ending is a cold contradiction.

Sentiment: positive
Sometimes you wonder how some people get funding to create a movie as bad as this one. You can only stand about 5 minutes of this utter piece of garbage before you stomp back into blockbuster and demand your money back. I will now look at Michael Clarke Duncan with apprehension...why....he lent his name to this vermin.

Sentiment: negative
So let's begin!)))

The movie itself is as original as Cronenberg's movies would usually appear...

My intention to see it was certainly JJL being one of my favourite actresses. She is as lovely as usual, this cutie!

I would not say it was my favourite movie of hers. Still it's quite interesting and entertaining to follow. 

The rest of the cast is not extremely impressive but it is not some kind of a miscast star array. ;)

Recommend with confidence!))))

Sentiment: positive
The movie has taken a little flack for playing fast and loose with the facts. But it will put you close to being in a time and place that no longer exist by getting to the *feeling*.

As Keith Richards remarks in Paul McCartney's movie about Holly, there's some Buddy Holly in almost all rock made since his day. The tragedy that took him is dealt with gently, and the rest of the movie recreates the joy of a great music career and a joyful body of music.

Gary Busey does a remarkable, energetic portrayal of Holly, and his performances hint that he really gets into the music. As a long-time Holly fan and rocker, so do I.

Sentiment: positive
While being a great James Arness western, this film has gone down as the worst Alamo film ever made. The story was terrible, inaccuracy all through it, and just downright untruths to boot! Continuity was cast to the four winds. Anybody catch the cannon sequence? The Mexicans were dumb enough to fire cannons that obviously had mud and ramrods still sticking out of the tubes. Come on! Then there is Brian Keith's ridiculous hat! Costumer must of been away or something. Or just out of their mind!

Sentiment: negative
This is not a good movie. It's disjointed, all the acting is bad, and has a lame story you've seen a thousand times done much better else where. Not to mention you can see every plot point coming from a mile away. Worst of all, no one bothered to tell Lonette Mckee she can't sing. But who cares, she's sooooo damn good looking. But I digress, nothing new here. Bottom-line, hot girl group gets taken advantage of, some one gets hooked on drugs, someone gets hooked on a guy, some one gets the hell out, and then the horrible stuff happens. Surprise, surprise. Welcome to the music business. I can't believe so many people out there think this is a good movie. So many of you seem to want to use a sliding scale when it comes to grading Black Movies. I don't play that! If you want to support these films by going to see them - great! If you enjoyed it - super! To each his own. But don't try to tell me it was good. Pleeeease! I wish colored folks would not fawn over these kind of movies just because they feature black actors. Wanna see a good African-American movie? See Love Jones. Ray. Or The Color Purple. Those would be great movies no matter what the color of the actors skin. Why? Because they told compelling stories with great acting, that made you feel something long after you left the theater. Just because it's our experience does not automatically make it a good film. It's only good -- when it's good. Period.

Sentiment: negative
This is a great short. i think every voice is done by jason steele. (you can only just barely tell if you've heard his normal voice though, so don't worry about them sounding the same. they don't.) its about 15 minutes long.

edward the spatula is fighting the war against spoons and he meets some weird people. in fact, everyone he knows seem pretty crazy. 

"edward!" "general peterson, we have to get you to a medical unit!" "no, I'm not gonna make it edward." "dont talk like that, I'm sure you'll be fine." "im a goner edward, and you know it. before i go-" "yes?" "can i just have... one kiss?" "umm, no." "come on, just one, small, peck on the lips?" "im walking away now sir."

there's gonna be movie pretty soon. the date for that is in September, but its probably gonna get pushed back.

Sentiment: positive
Los Debutantes is the story of two orphaned brothers who have moved to Santiago from the South after their mother dies. The confident and streetwise Silvio, the elder brother, gets a job working for a sleazy strip club's owner after taking the naive Victor there for his 17th birthday.

As Silvio blossoms under his boss's tutelage, both brothers get involved with the owner's sexy and manipulative mistress, Gracia. As the film unfolds, characters are redefined as we begin to see the subtle and overt ways that each one manipulates the next.

The film is well made, with good cinematography and fast pacing. It's also pretty sexy, with a lot of nudity and some fairly explicit sex scenes. It uses the now-popular technique of layering different scenes from different points of view, out of chronological sequence. Many people hate movies like this because they don't understand what's going on - Memento, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and many other good films use this device. The plot itself is really nothing new, there are elements of Body Heat, Pulp Fiction, and many other good film noir.

As the different layers are revealed, our understandings of the characters and their motivations evolve. While the plot may be somewhat cliché, it is also clever and entertaining.

I would call it an enjoyable movie, worth watching, but nothing memorable. I haven't seen many films from Chile, and it's always interesting to see film noir from other countries. Other than that, rent it if it's available but don't lose any sleep if it isn't.

Sentiment: positive
CORRIDORS OF BLOOD 

Aspect ratio: 1.66:1

Sound format: Mono

(Black and white)

London, 1840: Whilst attempting to formulate an anaesthetic solution, a dedicated surgeon (Boris Karloff) becomes addicted to narcotics and is blackmailed by local bodysnatchers.

Riding the coat-tails of a Gothic revival occasioned by the recent success of Hammer's THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957), Robert Day's CORRIDORS OF BLOOD is an odd mixture of historical drama and Grand Guignol theatrics. Producer Richard Gordon lured Karloff away from Hollywood - where his movie career had become stalled in a B-movie rut (VOODOO ISLAND, FRANKENSTEIN 1970, etc.) - for a couple of lurid shockers in which good men are thwarted by circumstances beyond their control. In GRIP OF THE STRANGLER (1958), he played a novelist who stumbles onto a horrific secret whilst researching a series of murders from recent history, while in CORRIDORS OF BLOOD, he's a drug-addicted surgeon who falls prey to a gang of criminals masterminded by East End pub landlord Francis de Wolff. Less a horror film than a melodrama with ghoulish trimmings, the movie hedges its commercial bets by including a number of gory thrills (a leg sliced open, a face destroyed by acid, etc.), but the narrative is motivated chiefly by Karloff's altruistic pursuit of an anaesthetic formula that will alleviate the terrible suffering of patients during surgery.

Produced under the title 'The Doctor from Seven Dials', the finished movie went unreleased until 1962 due to indifference by distributors MGM, by which time co-star Christopher Lee had earned a prominent screen credit, despite playing a small - but significant - role as 'Resurrection Joe', a sinister Cockney thug who murders carefully selected patrons of de Wolff's squalid pub and sells the remains to local doctors. Lee filmed this glorified cameo before THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN catapulted him to international stardom, which accounts for his limited screen time, though his intense performance is one of the film's highlights. Adrienne Corri (VAMPIRE CIRCUS) distinguishes herself as de Wolff's partner in crime, and there's a feast of familiar faces in supporting roles, including Francis Matthews (DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS), Betta St. John (THE CITY OF THE DEAD), Finlay Currie and Nigel Green. Superb art direction (by Anthony Masters) and cinematography (Geoffrey Faithful).

Sentiment: negative
After reading some of the earlier nasty remarks, I had to put in my two cents. This show was NOT, despite what that goon in Essex thinks, the worst thing that ever aired on TV. I think most of today's TV is much worse (when is this stupid "reality" fad ever going to end??) and there isn't a current show I can stand to watch. Gimme the stuff I grew up with. I'm a 1965 baby and not ashamed to admit it.

This show has been my all-time favorite for almost 30 years. I was in high school when it originally aired and I think it helped me to hang on throughout those miserable days. I was such a misfit back then, and "Fantasy Island" appealed to my imagination. As I was a budding writer in those days, it provided incredible opportunities for me to practice the craft. What a wonderful premise! I won't say it didn't have its faults. Sometimes the scripts were pretty bad, and some of the problems seemed trivial; but it could be good too, and it was a blast to watch and still is. As for the cheesiness factor, well, I think it's unfair to label every single 70s product as cheesy. There was a lot of great stuff back then and this was among the ranks. (BTW, most of the seasons aired in the 80s!!) My favorite episodes came from seasons 2, 3 and 4 mostly.

To those who disparage Hervé Villechaize for his heavy French accent and his short stature: GROW UP and LEARN SOMETHING! It's so easy to make fun when you're "normal" and "perfect". That man made the best of what he was dealt in life, and if you don't like it, that's just tough. Have a little compassion. He's been dead 15 years, and how easy it is to cut down someone who can't defend himself. There's just no shame anymore.

I love this show. So it looks dated. Hate to tell you this, but we didn't have splashy special effects and Blu-Ray discs. We were lucky to have VCRs. Live with it. Accept it for what it is, and that's just plain fun. "Escapist TV" describes it perfectly, and that's what it was for me -- an escape from my rotten real life. And it's still a lot of fun to watch.

Sentiment: positive
Although it has been a failure in movie theaters because mainly Mylene Farmer, one of the 3 top stars in France had not the first role. Fans had changed their mind after that and were waiting for it on DVD. When it has been released on DVD this year it has have a tremendous success ! The others fails was the slow pace and the incredible length (3h) at that time (1994) that have annoyed critics. But the melancholic story makes mandatory that slow pace and long time. The moral of the film is you cannot escape from the death you are destined for. It is the same theme than in the movie "Final Destination" and makes it a Gothic tale. The atmosphere is very melancholic.

Sentiment: positive
Chucky's back...and it's about time! This time, with the help of Jennifer Tilly and a little spell from Voodoo For Dummies. Well, at least with this installment, the camp is back. This was the more gruesome of this series, so far. It has some good twists and some good action scenes. 

This one was by far, the most fun of the series, and successfully, if unintentionally, bridges the gap between pure horror to horror/comedy. 

I am looking forward to Seed of Chucky. It'll be a hoot!

"Jesus, the music scene's gone to h3ll since I've been dead!" Chucky

We needed the levity, as the doll thing's getting old. The added comedic element, and the better action scenes brings this one back up to equal the quality of the first, when the idea was fresh and new-ish.

6.8/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Sentiment: positive
This movie could very well have been a propaganda movie for the North americian falangist party - or some similar group... The strong man (Kersey) places himself above the law (but not outside the law) and liberates upstanding citizens by killing worthless trash. The only thing that made me think it wasn't made by the KKK was the fact that a jew starred as a good guy... Try watching it again while thinking of it as a propaganda movie for an extreme right wing group - and you'll see what I mean...

It's a tragedy that Jimmy Page actually made music for this movie... :(

Sentiment: negative
---what happened to these unlikeable people. Alan Arkin was, as usual, unfunny and just walks through the role. The kids are all a mess. Mariesa Tomei probably wishes this role had never come her way. And what are Carl Reiner and Rita Moreno doing in this really bad, mean movie? If you enjoy watching losers wallow in their disfunction, and not try in any way to do better, this is your film. All others, take a walk, read a book, or see something else.

Jane

Sentiment: negative
To me this was Colin Farrells best movie evr! He introduced himself to America through this movie and he was great. He really got you into his charictor and made u feel the passion he was putting into his role. In my opinion it is a great movie and my favorite.

Sentiment: positive
I found this film to be the usual French slap in America's face. The camera, all too often, focuses on fat people, on sloppy homes and on tacky rural areas. While the narration seems to sympathize with and admire the small town folks who are introduced to the viewer, the cinematography exploits and demeans them. There were, undoubtedly, thin people to be seen in Glencoe and neat, organized homes, but Malle chose to show us the worst of what was there to be seen. 

I can only hope that some American filmmakers will go to France to reveal to the American public its worst elements. I can assure you, as a frequent visitor to France, that all is not well there. Foreign immigrants are not readily assimilated, thus creating severe social inequities. But Americans are not eager to unmask the French for their prejudice toward their own compatriots and their envy toward the U.S., so we're not likely to see films on the subject.

Sentiment: positive
An interesting slasher film with multiple suspects.

Includes typical girl flashing her breasts (Denise Cheshire) as she changes into her swimsuit, creepy suspect - any one of them could be doing the deed, expected breast baring to get a passing grade (Linnea Quigley), a very unusual forward pass, more bare breasts, a track and field event that will NOT be in the summer Olympics, and a ghoulish secret.

It all comes to a crashing ending. No, there's more. Won't this guy die? I bet Anne (Patch Mackenzie) doesn't plan any more visits home anytime soon.

If you like teen slasher films, can you possible be a pervert, even if all the actresses are over 18?

Sentiment: negative
This is seriously one of the best low budget, B movies that I have ever seen. I am not one to stand up and cheer during a movie, but this one was definitely worth it. Obviously the premise is that there is a bed that eats people, well...eats is a subjective term I guess, it really secretes acid bubbles to suck the victims into itself and dissolves them in it's acidy goodness. The best part of this movie is that William Russ is one of the main characters. The typical family man actually started his career with this movie...and an afro. There is plenty of nudity in this flick, so obviously not for the children, but that should not deter anyone from seeing this movie. It is my belief that everyone needs a little Death Bed in their lives at some point or other, it's best to get it sooner than later.

Sentiment: positive
Before this made for TV movie began, I had relatively low expectations. That's because it was made after the final episode of the series had aired and many of the series originals were gone. There is no President Sheridan, Delenn, Lennier, Londo, Vir, G'kar or Lyta. If you remember, on the second to last episode of the series, all the regulars except Zack, Vir and Captain Lockley left B-5 permanently. Now for this film they did bring back Garibaldi (who was not in the last B-5 movie) to join Zack and the Captain and the Doctor makes a brief and irrelevant appearance. But because so much is gone of the old chemistry, this film already is severely handicapped.

The movie is about a Soul Hunter (Martin Sheen) who is led to Babylon 5 in search of a globe filled with souls that had been stolen from a hidden repository by an archaeologist (Ian McShane). A lot of spooky mumbo-jumbo stuff occurs but frankly it was all pretty silly and pointless. Yeah, yeah, the station nearly blew up but was saved and all, but frankly I felt like it was a case of "been there done that--and done that a lot better in the past".

The secondary plot, provided more for comic relief, was much more interesting, as an entrepreneur installed a holo-brothel and those in command weren't sure what to do about it and when they tried to pressure them to close, they were slapped with a lawsuit. This was fluff, but it did provide a few laughs--something the other dreary plot was surely lacking.

By the way, Sheen at first did a good job playing the Should Hunter--with his wild eyes and bizarre delivery. However, repeatedly throughout the episode he fell out of character. This should have been spotted and corrected.

So the final verdict is this is only for total die-hard B-5 nuts (like myself). Others seeing it might assume the series sucked--which is a great injustice. This is a great example of a show not knowing when to quit.

Sentiment: negative
The original DeMille movie was made in 1938 with Frederic March. A very good film indeed. Hollywood's love of remakes brings us a fairly interesting movie starring Yul Brynner. He of course was brilliant as he almost always seemed to be in all of his movies. Charlton Heston as Andrew Jackson was a stroke of genius. However, the movie did tend to get a little long in places. It does not move at the pace of the 1938 version. Still, it is a fun movie that should be seen at least once.

Sentiment: positive