DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
By the time the Hellraiser franchise was reaching it's forth film the premise was wearing a bit thin. Dr. Paul Merchant (Bruce Ramsey) is a scientist in the future, whom while prisoner regales his captor of the story of how his ancestors (all played by Ramsey) had first built the evil Lament Configuration puzzle-box that sets evil upon the world and how his bloodline had subsequent dealing with said box. The film is a awash with lack of continuity in regards to the other films and lack of coherency in this one. Yes, this could be due to a combination of rewrites, massive cuts in the original version of the film, or what have you. But I'm reviewing the film as is, and not what it was or could have been. And as it is now it's a mess. Sure the franchise will go on indefinitely with direct to DVD sequels, but this one was pretty much a death-nail to it's chances of getting a new one released theatrically ever again.

My Grade: D-

Sentiment: negative
I like underground films when they have something to say, or show, for that matter. I tried hard to like "Trash". I tried to see some artistic achievement, or some interesting representation of New York City life in the early 70's. Or at least being entertained by it? But the movie stinks and can't be called either art or entertainment.

"Trash" is basically an excuse to expose Joe Dallesandro's nude body for 2 hours, while he meets other uninteresting, annoying figures (I agree, that's a gorgeous body, but no excuse for a whole movie about it, right?). Holly Woodlawn, as Joe's girlfriend, provides a few good laughs by the end, but then it's too late to save those wasted couple of hours. Lou Reed's classic song "Walk on the Wild Side" is a better portrayal of those people and that time, even if it's more fascinating than they actually were. 1.5/10.

Sentiment: negative
"Dope Sick Love" is a really remarkable documentary made for HBO about two pairs of heroin addicted lovers roaming the streets of NYC. I managed to catch it one night by accident and found it absolutely mesmerizing. There is no narration and we never see any interviews with the subjects, the camera just follows them around, like a third eye, completely detached. The people being followed don't even seem aware that they're being filmed! (or, at least, they don't seem to care). The footage is amazingly candid. Some of the most candid I've ever seen. This is as real as it gets. The nuts and bolts of what its like to be on the street and addicted to heroin. We watch them score dope, shoot it, make up, hustle, and even impersonate cops to rob people, and about a million other tiny details that less observant documentary filmmakers would leave out.

Some of the footage is truly horrifying. Like watching one guy frantically searching for fix he lost. I found myself praying that he would find it, just so that his misery would temporarily end. And when he does find it, the guy literally dances in the street.

The cyclical nature of drug addiction becomes very apparent while watching this. EVERYTHING is about getting the next score to these folks, yet the next score seems to be well worth the immense trouble they go through. 

I would love to get a copy of this, if anyone knows where it is available. Highly recommended, if you can catch it on HBO.

Sentiment: positive
Two great stars and a legendary Director created a magnificent throbbing love story that is memorable and moving on so many levels.

Henry King directed Jennifer Jones in her first hit Song of Bernadette and he again directs Jennifer Jones in this film and Miss Jones is perfect in this role and gives a edgy, beautiful performance that captures the conflict in the character and Bill Holden who hit home run after home run in the l950's with a series of smash hit films beginning with Sunset Blvd, Stalag 17, Born Yesterday,Country Girl, Picnic, and of course River Kwai is superb in this role.Hard to imagine anyone but Holden in this movie I loved the ending and cry every time I see it. For anyone who has ever loved and lost, you will understand. For those who haven't, you won't.

Sentiment: positive
From the first moment, this "thing" is just an awful sequence of extremely short cuts of blurry camera work. While the overall plot has every potential for a thriller, the story is so badly told that I'm unable to buy it. From the middle of the film, the actions of characters don't make sense to me. Stop reading now to avoid SPOILERS.

For instance, Ed's idea to have Edna make coffee for them after having shot off her son's arm is way below his alleged experience; it's just an extremely stupid idea. Domino not questioning the fragmentary orders she receives from Claremont Williams over a breaking-up phone connection just eludes me; shouldn't she be long suspicious that Williams is turning them in? Those FBI agents seem out of their minds showing up with just one single helicopter to something they have every reason to consider a capital mafia shoot-out. Besides, what they do by withholding and leaking information towards Cigliutti is pretty much incitement to murder; it seems to me like farewell to justice if that's they way the FBI does investigations. In reality, they'd have a case messed up beyond repair if they acted like this. We get to see a car accident which normally would have at least seriously injured if not killed most of the passengers but miraculously leaves all of them with just a few bruises. Quite the contrary, the accident is immediately followed by Domino making love to Choco, which is from Domino's viewpoint in no way founded by previous events but just by being drugged to the eyeballs.

The whole sequence of scenes starting from the phone call of Claremont Williams appears to me just as want-to-be dramatic razzle-dazzle. This combined with the awful, uneasy camera work just makes a piece I hesitate to call a movie. I'm sorry for the wasted effort of the main actors, whose talent is out of question.

Sentiment: negative
I was lucky enough to watch this film in the recently concluded international film festival here. I was actually able to watch another South Korean film (The Power of Kangwon Province) but Christmas in August caught my attention more. The story is simple enough, the usual boy-meets-girl (or shall we say girl-meets-boy?). What made it special for me was how it was rendered. We can say that the movie was quiet and endearing. We don't have flashy and contrived romance here, only two ordinary beings made wonderful by their friendship and unexpressed love for one another. I also loved how the movie used pictures as expressions of relationships past and present. I wished that this was shown here as a regular film. I'm sure it would call out to a bigger audience.

Sentiment: positive
This may be the worst show I've ever seen. Aside from the tastelessness of having a sitcom about Hitler, it just isn't funny or entertaining in any way. It is very similar to a 1950's sitcom in its cornball humor and contrived situations, but while it can be well done like in I Love Lucy, it's just not funny here. I think the show was based around the novelty "look, it's Hitler as a bumbling sitcom figure" but it just fell flat in every regard. The guy playing Hitler is so hammy that its hard to sit through that alone. I wonder what could have possibly made the network think this was a good idea to air. I thought America had some tasteless show, but the Brits had us beat this time. America would never air a sitcom about Hitler, although we did have that show about Lincoln's slave, The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer. Chances are you'll probably never see this show, since it only aired one episode and will probably never be released on DVD.

Sentiment: negative
For Estoninans Finland sometimes seems like a land of dreams. A land where many of us want to go and work there or start a business. Find love, start a new life etc. But... Aku Louhimies has made this brilliant piece which shows that everything is not so good in Finland as well. That Finland can be just as Paha maa (The Bad Land) than any other country. It shows that people there can be just as miserable in their lives than we in everywhere else. That sometimes there's nothing good. This movie nicely shows why Finland is one of the top suicidal countries. It's not easy to live in North. Cold climate changes us. I've become more and more attracted to Finnish movies and this one is very good. The acting is great as well. Jasper Pääkkönnen has become one of the top Finnish stars. Beware of the sex scene (if you have little children) and a little depression that might come afterwards the movie! 8/10

Sentiment: positive
Why didn't critics like this movie?? I don't get it. This is easily my favorite Clive Barker effort. "Hellraiser" is a bit too rough around the edges (the film just never leaves that stupid house) and, lets face it, "Lord of Illusions" doesn't move at all!!! I have loved Barker's writing for years, especially his "Books of Blood". Terrifically entertaining. He has a vicious side to him that is totally unlike a Stephen King. He freely mixes in his own homosexuality and odd religious and occultic elements. I love love love love it. I also realize , however, that Barker is as much a dark fantasy writer as he is a horror writer. And fantasy just isn't my bag. Puts me right to sleep. Always has. I also think Barker works best with short stories. His novels tend to wander a bit. That was my experience when trying to read "The Damnation Game". It started out well. Then 100 pages in I thought "where is this going?" because it wasn't going ANYWHERE.

I read "Cabal" (the book Nightbreed was based on) and thought it was good. I ESPECIALLY like the elaboration on Decker's character. The way the mask talked to him and controlled him. I like the way Barker simply presents it. Black and white. There it is. He gives it a simplicity that's attractive and believable. When asked why Decker kills he says (simply) "Because I like it". Probably something Jeffrey Dahmer said at some point.

But I actually liked the film Nightbreed better than Cabal. I adore the visual attention to detail that Barker gives to his films. ADORE IT. I think it is just beautiful. Lord of Illusions had some of this as well. Some of the drawings in the beginning, during the Nightbreed credit sequence. It's like an entire vocabulary Barker dreamed up just for the Nightbreed world. I'd be curious to know how much was purely his design. I know he is an AMAZING artist who his own style and language as an artist.

Nightbreed is also (I think) BArker's most entertaining film. It moves very quickly. Well edited. It doesn't drag like Lord of Illusions does a little bit. Very quick. Everything in it is just perfect. It also works as a fantastic and scary little slasher movie. The stuff with the killer in the beginning killing the family and later tormenting the old man in the shop is really scary stuff. That mask is frightening. I'd be curious to know if Barker designed that as well. It's not just a hokey Jason or "Scream"-type mask. Something about it is really disturbing.

Anyway, this is a great flick. Definitely check it out if you haven't seen it. Highly recommended. One of my favorite horror films of all time. In my opinion Clive BArker's best. It IS scary and violent though, be warned

Sentiment: positive
i paid $2.00 for this piece of crap, i want my money back. it is a d grade horror movie that isn't so groovy

There are many MANY floors in this film, including the acting, the lack of actual horror, the lack of nudity (which besides the starting Nurse (porno outfit) and the still breathing nude corpse flash, there is none.

The sound track maybe is the best thing because it has some upbeat sorta guitar riffs/tracks.

There are your usual typical characters, the jock, the jocks woman, the nerdy guy (who looks more like a jock), the rookie cop/ranger (who has the biggest gap in his teeth i wanted to slip a few dollar coins into that gap..or go for a field goal) the mysterious fella and the Pure girl.

The make up was pitiful with side views of dr chopper showing a clear "make up line"and natural skin tones, the cover art to the DVD is clearly photoshop/enhanced to make the cover more enticing as Dr chopper looks like an old "plopper" The scraggy women that hang around Dr chopper are not explained and or look convincing like the rest of this movie.

The plot twist was VERY predictable and the abundance of bad looking FAKE limbs was laughable, what did they think,.... um throw some limbs around and some fake blood and you have a horror film.

Dr chopper himself is the most stupid character created I've seen in a while, though original i believe that the creator of this film was strained for ideas and possibly tried to use the rhyme Doctor and chopper (bike) and thought "bingo" ill make a crappy movie about that.

I've seen worse before..... but this is just plain bad.. everything about it is bad... the lack of suspense...the lack of actual horror or character development... the lack of a decent storyline ...the only thing good about this film was when it finished. This film doesn't fall into the category ïts so bad its good" for me either/

Overall 2/10 the director/writer/editor should know better.

Sentiment: negative
The Stunts sequences (as well as the Special Effects) are Brilliant, in this movie. Michael Scherer must be one of Canadas BEST Stunt Co-ordinators of all time. The explosion in the Café, is a wonderful combination of Stunts, Special Effects AND Visual Effects. The Director HAD an idea, that the Crew managed to create on film.

Besides that; Donald Sutherland makes one of his best performances in this film.......

Sentiment: positive
This film would be particularly fun for anyone who has been in the film industry, especially in any indie capacity... those whose inheritance includes a film introduction may not appreciate it quite as much. I am hard to please in the documentary category. This doc is different though- its pleasure comes from an earthy realism of indie filmmaker punks who are a hoot to be around and watch. Whether you've ever wondered what it is like to be in films, in front of or behind the camera, or whether you have worked your way through the sometimes painful and hard but rewarding indie world, you'll certainly get a kick out of this film.

Sentiment: positive
Please give this one a miss.

Kristy Swanson and the rest of the cast rendered terrible performances. The show is flat, flat, flat.

I don't know how Michael Madison could have allowed this one on his plate. He almost seemed to know this wasn't going to work out and his performance was quite lacklustre, so all you Madison fans give this a miss.

Sentiment: negative
One wonders why anyone would try to rehash successful movie plots that have already been seen, like it's the case with this movie. "The Wedding Date" is one of the best examples of why not to even try to remake, under the guise of a new story, something that should have been let alone. If a project like this goes ahead with the studio big honchos' approval, then go all out with big stars and glossy production values, that way, people will come for the stars.

Alas, that's not what happens in this misguided attempt at comedy. The problem seems to be the way the screen writers have transplanted the story to London, when basically, this seems to be a typical American situation that not even the setting will be able to fix. Then there is the problem with the stars. Debra Messing and Dermot Mulrooney? They have as much chemistry as oil and vinegar!

Since the Kat and Nick have no conflict from the start, the viewer is not pulled into the film the way the creators thought they would be. It's clear that Kat will fall for Nick, and vice-versa in this predictable story. Amy Adams, who was the best asset in "Junebug", comes across as a shallow girl who is willing to keep her lie going on and not come clean to the man that loves her and is going to marry her.

For anyone interested, the credits at the end of the film run for almost seven minutes!

Sentiment: negative
What offends me most about the critics following this film is the mentioning of 'originality'. This film does not contain ONE innovating element. If, by 'originality' you refer to pathetic action scenes, overacting, gluttony in violence, blunt humor and a script beyond intellectual belief. Then, 'originality' is something Swedish film can do without.

How Röse and Karlsson can agree to 'act' in this poor excuse for a film is a mystery to me. And how Eva Röse after the making of this film can be seen at breakfast-TV promoting it just disappoints me.

This film doesn't contain a story, the script is illogical, stiff and last but not least, just plain bad. These two young directors have put together a quite disgusting boy-fantasy containing violence, comic-strips and trivialized psychological portraits. I wouldn't be surprised if the scene of DD masturbating in the kitchen over a micro-wave dinner actually is put there to describe the everyday life of these two overgrown cinematic nerds that pose as directors.

I wouldn't show this movie to my worst enemy.

Sentiment: negative
I suppose JEDI is now chronologically to be considered the very "last" entry in the popular saga, and it's a very good one, as were several of these. I liked how directly this sequel took off after THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, and I appreciated the maturity of Luke Skywalker as a character(and also Mark Hamill, as an actor). After hearing so many negative things about the Ewoks, they weren't so bad. I enjoyed the thrilling chase within the woods, and I felt there was a lot of well-realized emotion with this chapter. The ending (with some new additions, I presume?) successfully weaves all 6 chapters into a wonderful tale of fantasy. I know many true Star Wars fans hated George Lucas for changes he made to the original films, but being a relative novice to these movies rather late in life and not missing what I didn't already know, I think he made these 6 movies work perfectly as a whole entity. Oh, and, err -- Carrie Fisher looked quite delicious in her skimpy outfit.

Sentiment: positive
I have walked out of very few movies before they end, but I couldn't finish this piece of garbage. This was the biggest load of racism trying to pass as legitimate film since "Birth of a Nation". The characters were little more than cardboard cutouts. I don't see how any actor would want their name associated with this film. Lee must have better things to do that put out garbage like this. I know that I and anyone with a brain have better things to do.... like watching paint dry. I wish that someone would make a film about interracial relationships that dealt with the topic realistically. There is a lot more depth to this subject the shallow ranting of a bitter director like Lee.

Sentiment: negative
A struggling actor finds the best way to break into Hollywood is to start knocking off the competition. But what makes Break a Leg a real gem is the sardonic look into the existence of the struggling (and not so) LA actor. It brings us into that world with effortless irony and wit. It's also got a polished look and very adept direction under Monika Mitchell. Break a Leg is one of those rare independent films that doesn't compromise its production values at any level. The writing is tight, the dialogue first rate. Cassini is an actor's actor, and the role really shows off his talents. The climactic scene between him and Rene Garcia is an instant classic, and may go down as one of the funniest Hollywood scenes of all time. I saw it at an advanced screening, and everyone in the audience laughed uncontrollably and raved about it afterwards.

Sentiment: positive
The movie had so much potential, but due to 70's technology constraints and also a weak script killed the main plot of the film. The book version of the film was much better, and well conceived. If it had been done right in the beginning with sources from the book, it could have been a very cool classic.

Sentiment: negative
Seriously, I've read some of the reviews on this film, and I have to ask, were you people watching the same movie.

Yes, I give the set directors a lot of credit for being able to recreate 1930 vintage Los Angeles, but so what? 

None of the characters are likable, the story seems aimless, Karen Black is simply not a very good actress. Donald Sutherland is just icky. (and his character "Homer Simpson" makes me wish for the animated version. D'oh!) Then you had the creepy child actor, the creepier Billy Barty, and so on.

This is one of those films cinema buffs love and the rest of us look at each other and go, "What the heck!"

Sentiment: negative
Updated from a previous comment. The great and underrated Marion Davies shows her comedic stuff in this late (1928) silent comedy that also showcases the wonderful William Haines. Davies plays a hick from Georgia who crashes Hollywood with help from Haines, a bit player in crude comedies. They appear together in cheap comedies until Marion is "discovered" and becomes a big dramatic star.

A great lampoon on Hollywood and its pretensions. Davies & Haines are a wonderful team, and the guest shots from the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, John Gilbert, Elinor Glyn, Norma Talmadge, Mae Murray, Rod LaRocque, Leatrice Joy, Dorothy Sebastian, Estelle Taylor, Louella Parsons, Renee Adoree, Aileen Pringle, and Marion Davies (you have to see it) are a hoot. A must for any serious film buff or for anyone interested in the still-maligned Marion Davies! Dell Henderson plays the father. Polly Moran is a maid. Paul Ralli is the slimy leading man.

SHOW PEOPLE was said to have used the career of Gloria Swanson as its model (I think Mae Murray is closer). Davies and Swanson were friends. But this film's story does parallel the rise of Swanson from one-reel Mack Sennett comedies with Charlie Chaplin to STAR in Cecil B. DeMille films of the late teens and early 20s.

Davies and Haines were huge MGM stars and friends. Odd that MGM never teamed them up in a talkie. They're great together! A sweet romance and delightful spoof of early Hollywood. Greta Garbo and Bebe Daniels are mentioned but do not appear.

Sentiment: positive
what ever you do do not waste your time on this pointless. movie. A remake that did not need to be retold. Everyone coming out of the theater had the same comments. Worst movie I ever saw. Save your time and money!!!

Nicgolas Cage was biking down hills, swimming in murky water and rolling down hills while being attacked by bees but yet his suit was still perfectly pressed and shirt crisp white until the very last scene.

Although a good cast with Ellen Bernstein and Cage the acting was just as unbelievable as the movie itself. It is amazing how good actors can do such bad movies. Don't they get a copy of the script first. If you still have any interest at all in seeing the movie at the very least wait for it to come out on DVD.

Sentiment: negative
Let me start by saying I don't recall laughing once during this comedy. From the opening scene, our protagonist Solo (Giovanni Ribisi) shows himself to be a self-absorbed, feeble, and neurotic loser completely unable to cope with the smallest responsibilities such as balancing a checkbook, keeping his word, or forming a coherent thought. I guess we're supposed to be drawn to his fragile vulnerability and cheer him on through the process of clawing his way out of a deep depression. I guess we're supposed to sympathize as he stumbles through a series of misadventures seemingly triggered by his purchase of a dog, but in reality brought on by his own contemptible nature. I didn't get the slightest hint at any point that Solo ever possessed any redeeming character, which became disturbingly apparent when he failed to feed his dog for a few days. No spark of humanity or glimmer of conscience gave me hope that he would ever realize his life is so utterly miserable because he's a self- absorbed, self-pitying lowlife. I didn't develop any connection with this character. He didn't seem to care, and so neither did I. I actually wanted him to get his kneecaps busted at one point.

The dog was not a character in the film. It was simply a prop to be used, neglected, scorned, abused, coveted and disposed of on a whim. So be warned. Even though "dog" is in the title, this film is not a romantic comedy for dog lovers.

Scott Caan's role is amusing and believable as the oversexed best friend/cad. Don Cheadle is sincere and magnetic - I always want to see more of him on screen. Mena Suvari was delightfully repellent. Lynn Collins role of a "stripper with a heart" was well acted, but the character was simultaneously absurd and clichéd, not to mention there was zero chemistry between her and Ribisi.

Romantic? Hardly. Comedy? If you say so.

Sentiment: negative
Let me start by saying that if you're expecting subtle humour, you're in the wrong theatre. It's low-brow and heavy-hitting. But he's not out to tickle your funny bone. He's got the sledgehammer out and he's drawn a bead on the side of your head. But fear not. As movies go, this is a fairly gentle education. Oh, also, heavy on the swearing, but once again, Mike Judge, not Fred Rogers.

Was this movie called 'intelliocracy'? F*** no. The gem, the essence that is Mike Judge is that he has the ability to make people laugh at themselves. Beavis and Butthead was most popular with teen-aged boys, the very people at which it incessantly poked fun.

With that in mind, I don't think the humour in this movie is aimed at the super intelligent. Maybe you are all too smart to get it. But he's not aiming at you. He's aiming at your average Joe. And he's got a message: get your act together and for god's sake, study botany! It is a little disjointed and the narrator gets to be a little irritating after a while, but once again, this movie is meant for people who need a lot of narration ;-) It's funny. It has a message that it wants to make sure that we all understand.

I question the casting of Luke Wilson in the role of a man with a 100 IQ. Sometimes, he's not able to play down (what's he got, like, a 104?) to the level of his character. Slightly forced at times.

Kudos on Dax Shepard in this one. I remember seeing him in Zathura and thinking, "This guys looks like an idiot." In this movie, he makes a great idiot. Maybe I'm psychic.

It took a while to warm up to Maya Rudolph, but I gave her a little leeway. After all, she did have to play straight man to an entire planet. But once she got a little screen time, she made a solid contribution.

Terry Crews played the same psychotic, aggressive character he's played many times before, but he makes a first-rate president none the less.

Another bonus is that the place was practically empty. Counting my girlfriend and I, there were literally six people in the theatre. We could've had a barbecue pit and a mariachi band. So, no annoying people talking, as appears to be the norm in the 'talking-to-the-tv' age.

All in all, a good premise and a competent delivery, given the intended goal. Lots of laughs sprinkled throughout.

What made this movie scary was the fact that when we walked out of the theatre, it was sort of like the movie was still playing. We saw a lot of idiocy in the people immediately around us, maybe made more apparent by the dose we got in the theatre....

They're all pods, all of them!

Sentiment: positive
I honestly didn't think at first that this movie would make me laugh like hell and admire the great gore effects, boy was I wrong! From the very beginning to the very end the film showed some great gore effects accompanied by spoofs from other titles like "Evil Dead" and "Gremlins". This movie could be compared to Peter Jackson's works of art, though this movie isn't as gory as "Braindead", but I sure wait these guys'll make another splatter movie.

Sentiment: positive
How truly friendly, charming and cordial is this unpretentious old serial; I rejoiced in seeing old Lugosi. It is disarmingly friendly and lively. It's the document of a longlost craft. (The best TV series today can hardly compete with these old moderately good serials.) CHANDU is deeply, deeply optimistic and hedonistic . It refreshes the mind. It's not stupid; stupid are those who do not get the terms on which such serials work. CHANDU has an irresistible sense of simple, unpretentious and friendly fun.

Without giving away too muchChandu is an Occidental sorcerer who goes also by this Eastern name and who also loves and protects his niece against a sect of killers.

Chandu exerts his supernatural gifts in a rather discreet and moderate way.

As to the quite sexy niece, Nadji, she is kidnapped by the priest of Ubasti: the sordid Vindhyan. The poor sexy girl is in fact multiply kidnappedin a sarcophagus after being sent asleep with a flower; almost kidnapped from a boat; by a phony policeman; the temple of Lemuria and its strange, creepy ceremonies resemble the KING KONG imageryand are a barbaric mockery of the RCC ceremonies and rituals. 

Would you protect a girl as bravely as Chandu does?

Lugosi looked like an old libidinous and quite heartless, mean drunk, and this only contributed to his performances. He is the prototypical mean drunk uncle, mischievous and cunning and oblique. This might sound like a rather crooked homage to Lugosiyet Burton's biopic of Wood left me this impression about Lugosi and allied to it a strong sympathy for the decrepit actor. I enjoy Lugosi' fancy performances.

This serial is unjustly bashed.

Sentiment: positive
Unless you're twelve, this movie really isn't worth it. It's obviously a low-budget film with B actors, and with a genre like fantasy that sometimes requires intense CGI work that's not good. I knew it would be bad when I rented it. I enjoy laughing at bad movies. I didn't know how bad though. It's bearable, until after hour 2, then it really starts to burn. Fighting styles go between normal fighting that obey the laws of physics, and wire-fighting. There's no real explanation for the transitions. It has a plot, but once again, it's obviously a kid's movie. It seems like there are explicit moral lessons of the day that are being conveyed, like Sesame Street or something. It's bearable. But much better if you're, say, nine.

Sentiment: negative
This has to be some of the worst direction I've seen. The close-up can be a very powerful shot, but when every scene consists of nothing but close-ups, it loses all its impact. 

Tony Scott has some very beautiful scenery to work with, the backdrops of Mexico, the cantinas, the beautiful estate where Anthony Quinn lives, and the dusty towns Costner rolls through on his journey for revenge. Unfortunately we only catch quick glimpses of these places before the camera cuts to a picture of a big, giant head. Even the transition scenes where Costner is driving alone across Mexico quickly cut to a close-up. 

The score is over-dramatic and intrusive, dictating every emotion we should feel. The story itself should have been handled much better. Among other things, too many people pop up out of nowhere to help Costner along - it's just bad writing. 

It's a typical thriller storyline, but many others have taken the same premise and done outstanding things with it. Costner's No Way Out had a somewhat similar storyline, but it was a much better movie. 

The ending was completely anticlimactic and suffered from the most melodramatic scoring of the film. This movie was never going to be great, but if we saw more of Mexico and less of giant heads this film might have been watchable.

Sentiment: negative
eXistenZ is simply David Cronenberg's best movie. All the people compare it to the Matrix. They're not even similar. If you enjoyed Cronenberg's other works just a little bit, you'll love this one...

Sentiment: positive
I'll be honest, this is one of the worst movies ever. If not, then it's VERY close. Ever seen a bad teen soap opera. Well this is like one of those. Except worse. For example: (POSSIBLY SPOILER) girl: I wanna go somewhere else.

guy: all we need is here.

girl: but I wanna take myself somewhere different.

guy: I'll take YOU somewhere else.

... Proceeding this line they have sex. The music is bad pop and bad punk rock. If you've EVER read the book, avoid this movie like the plague. They completely change the personalities of the characters and the events. Additionally, they just get rid of things. Also, the movie ends about before the book finishes. It is an AWFUL movie. So, if you haven't read the book, don't watch it. If you HAVE read the book, burn it (the movie). If you like stupid teen soap operas that are lower quality than your average low quality teen soap opera, go for it. Then again, should we expect anything different from MTV?

Sentiment: negative
This is an interesting, hard to find movie from the early 70's starring Jan Michael Vincent as a young man who doesn't make the cut as a marine. Dressed in 'baby blue' outfits to humiliate them as they are sent home, the failed recruits are sent packing. Vincent stops at a bar and runs into a very young Richard Gere who has just returned from a tour in the Pacific as a hard-core Marine 'Raider'. Gere's character is already jaded and contemplating desertion, and he takes advantage of Vincent's innocence, stealing his 'baby blue' uniform after getting him drunk and beating him in an alleyway. Vincent's character, whose name is Marion, takes Gere's outfit and is suddenly transformed into a Marine 'Raider'. Marion hitch-hikes his way into Wyoming and stops at a little Norman Rockwell-like little town. In the local café he meets Rose Hudkins, who immediately catches his eye. Staying with Hudkins parents, Marion attracts all sorts of attention from the towns folks. Mr Hudkins suspects Marion and wonders how a Marine 'Raider' could still be so innocent. The story also brings up the Japanese Internment Camps, as the towns folks go 'hunting' 3 escapees. Marion is shot accidentally during this hunt. But there's still a happy ending, which befuddled me a bit. I would have preferred a little more drama! Anyway, this captures JMV at the peak of his 70's performances. BUSTER AND BILLIE, BABY BLUE MARINE and WHITE LINE FEVER in the mid-70's were amazingly good JMV performances. He was both an action star and a heart-throb all at the same time!!! He made a lot of quality movies during his career, and continued to do so up into the mid 80's with the great TV show Airwolf. He does a very good job in this as 'Hedge', quietly observing the way people treat him (in his uniform) as he travels across the country. He must have performed some of the stunt work as well- there is a harrowing river scene at the end of the movie-and it looks like he's the guy getting tossed down the river to me! But really, at the height of his popularity, this movie could have done so much more with JMV's talent and his looks. Innocence can only be so interesting. Evil, as explored in "Buster and Billie", is much more dramatic! Anyway, Glynnis O'Connor is delightful as Rose. The whole look of the movie is like a Norman Rockwell painting. The outdoor scenes are gorgeous - must have been filmed in Canada.

Sentiment: positive
The history of TV to film adaptations are littered with aberrations which almost conclusively prove that the tradition should never have started in the first place. There are, however, some examples which manage to pull it off, just. Rising Damp would, at first, appear to be the last sitcom suitable for the big screen treatment as this hilarious series was based within the tiny confines of a northern bedsit. Also the writer, Eric Chappell, wasn't being paid enough to spend time crafting an entirely original screenplay so he harvested a batch of TV episodes and stitched them together to form the body of the film. This, in itself, didn't necessarily mean that the script would fail. David Croft and Jimmy Perry did the same thing with their screenplay for Dad's Army and it worked superbly. Although, the early Dad's Army episodes, with their staid pace and over arcing plot, lent themselves far better to film adaptation. The Rising Damp episodes, however, were high energy affairs from the first scene to the breathless climax. As a result, as one story is concluded and another started, the scenes within the film become disjointed. Another pitfall for the movie version of a TV series is the inevitable comparisons that are made. In this respect the film pales in comparison to Rising Damp's brilliant series. Despite all this, Rising Damp the Movie manages to be entertaining and occasionally uproarious. It is perhaps not surprising that the finest moments occur during sequences written specially for the film. This includes a rugby match where Rossiter does a brilliantly timed pratfall. Indeed, while all the cast handle their roles perfectly (bar a sub standard replacement actor for the late and truly great Beckinsale), it is Leonard Rossiter as Rigsby that shines the most. In fact Rising Damp should have been made as a film just so Rossiter could have been eligible for an Oscar, such is the magnificence of his acting talent. Criminally, he wasn't even nominated. Ultimately, the film fails to match the giddy heights of the TV series while managing to hold its own as a comedy in its own right with some beautifully played moments. Recommended viewing.

One last thing: The opening and closing music is by far the worst in film history.

Sentiment: positive
It seems incredible that the same decade which brought Star Wars to the silvery screen disgorged such unutterable tripe as this and many other 'adventure' movies. I am reminded of the similarly lavish, but equally wretched 'Ashanti' outlined elsewhere.

Whatever motivated A-list actors to sign-on for such wastes of celluloid is frankly beyond this writer. They must have been very, very desperate. To be perfectly candid, Roger Moore's appearance in any movie is the kiss of death. Although extremely handsome in his youth, his entire acting career has been predicated upon an ability to raise one eyebrow. Every emotion from A to B is conveyed by this simple stratagem. His were the dog-days of James Bond. Lee Marvin on the other hand has featured in some very worthy outings, perhaps most memorably 'Paint Your Wagon' and 'The Dirty Dozen'. He has a comic streak, but he is much better when he plays it straight.

The excellent Ian Holm is a throwaway, hardly recognisable blacked-up as a mute African. Everyone else just turned up for their pay-cheques.

The only plausible and watchable element is the German cruiser. It looks like a very large model. But it is believably massive and appears authentic - as do its crew. The rest isn't even hokum. The childish comedy jars with the brutality and violence in a story that meanders clumsily about, as if the script itself had had too many whiffs of Lee Marvin's gin. Here is a director who simply doesn't know where he's going. There are hints of 'The African Queen', a snatch from 'The Pride & The Passion', 'Gold', and one or two other rip-offs from movies who's titles don't come readily to mind.

Strangely, I have seen it 3 times, each occasion it has been shown on television when I have been laid low with a cold or the flu. Perhaps that is influencing my judgement - but not much.

Compare it with any Indiana Jones movie and you will see what I mean.

I have given it two stars; one for the battleship and the other because it finally comes to an end, though heaven knows it takes long enough to do that.

Time for another Lemsip, I think.

Sentiment: negative
This movie has Richard Pryor, Rosey Grier and others. It's a curious WW2 movie, and serves as a statement about racism. It is worth watching to understand the fact that Movies reflect how we feel about the issues when they are produced and not about the period of time they portray. Meaning this is a 70's movie not a 40's movie (WW2). Still, there is some good action scenes of 7 seven black men led by a white captain trying to capture a Dam. The story centers on the Captain learning that these men are soldiers and not just a service company. There is a scene that could be from a Civil War movie and not a WW2 movie that reflects what the movie is all about. The Black Lt. gives a German women a innocent peck on the cheek, and the white Capt becomes upset. I enjoyed the movie from a curiosity stand point since the stars and the Genre were interesting to me.

Sentiment: negative
STEAMBOAT WILLIE is an amazingly important film to our cinema history. This second appearance of Mickey Mouse (following the silent PLANE CRAZY earlier that year) is probably his most famous film--mostly because it was so ground-breaking. This is because it was the first sound cartoon. While you don't yet hear Mickey speak, there are tons of sound effects and music throughout the film--something we take for granted now but which was a huge crowd pleaser in 1928.

Now if this were just an important historical film, it would be worth seeing--especially to lovers of animation. However, after seeing the short again after about 25 years, I was amazed at how timeless the film actually is. While Mickey and Minnie behave a bit odd compared to the characters we have grown to love (thanks mostly to the kooky mind and talent of animator Ub Iwerks), there is an infectious charm about the film. It's just adorable seeing Mickey playing "Turkey in the Straw" in a highly imaginative (if occasionally cruel) way. Clever and a real crowd-pleaser--this film still ranks among Mickey's best films even after 80 wonderful years.

Sentiment: positive
After watching many of the "Next Action Star" reality TV eps TiVo taped this gawd-awful tripe for me. For some bizarre reason - and I only have myself to blame - I watched the whole thing, hoping that there would be *something* unique in the entire movie. After so much hype about Joel Silver's "Midas Touch" with action flicks, he might want to make sure he bones up on his alchemy.

First, the only redeeming value of the entire film was Billy Zane, and even he couldn't lift the slipshod writing out of the crapper. Having said that, Zane's performance falters about 2/ 3rds of the way through, as he doesn't even seem to know what else to do other than look smug. 

Can't blame him here, though. The writing, quite frankly, sucked. Let's take ideas from "Rat Race," "Enemy of the State," "Terminator," "Midnight Run" and any bad gambling film you can think of and simply rehash it. And who's brilliant idea was it to have TWO bridge chase sequences in a ROW?

Sean Carrigan, the "man of the hour" of "The Next Action Star" shows all of the strengths and weaknesses the casting directors mention during the entire run of the series. A one-note johnny, Sean plays the dumb good looking jock very well, but struggles with shouldering the weight of the film. Quite frankly, we never quite seem to care about whether he lives or dies by about mid-way through, as Carrigan fails to provide a reason for the audience to even like him. His dumb-but-lucky routine gets old as there really isn't anything about the character to root for.

But Carrigan is a dream compared to the wooden, rigid Corinne Van Ryck de Groot. Did Howard Fine really tell her to pretend to be a Terminator for the first half of the film? I don't think so. I kept expecting her to quote Arnie. Her character "performance" can be compared only to the dramatic depths of "Freddy Got Fingered," though not nearly as well-developed. The camera loves her in dark, shadowy limousines, but in the harsh light of day her demeanor sucks all energy off the screen. Jeanne Bauer showed more natural life in her five minute bit part than Corinne showed at any part of her screen time.

Ultimately, Sean has the rugged good looks to provide a good lead in an ensemble cast, but shouldn't have been left to do this one solo. It was simply too big of a task for him. "Next Action Star" colleague Jared Elliot may or may not have had better luck with some more dynamic characterization, but it's hard to tell given Jeff Welch's lame script. Someone should take Welch's iMac away from him before he hurts himself or anyone else. And finally, Van Ryck de Groot simply was outclassed and way out of her reach, even for complete shlock like this. 

Joel Silver should be ashamed.

Sentiment: negative
All the funny things happening in this sitcom is based on the main character Jim being either a bad father, a bad husband or generally just enormously selfish. How can that be funny? Of course a character in a sitcom has to be flawed, but Jim's character is flawed in an extremely unsympathetic manner.

And why it that? My guess is that it's because "he should now better". Jim's not a stupid guy, he can take care of things and he's got the opportunities to do so. But he chooses not to. It's a conscious choice he makes, when he chooses to not play with his kids, not go shopping because he doesn't want to buy "lady products" and it's a choice he makes, when he puts down his relatives.

The other characters seems to only be in the series so Jim can have someone to be a jerk to. If the Cheryl character was a real person, she would have left him years ago, and not stay with the deadbeat for 8 years. But alas, she's just a catalyst for Jim's quirky middle-class extreme selfishness.

Sentiment: negative
A desperate attempt to make a "film-noir" sci-fi thriller, but the movie falls short. It has no believable plot, some of the key actors were a joke (NOT Lars Bom, he is cool!). I did like the "access restriction by bandwith maximizing" though. I finished it on principle, but went home with the feeling of having lost two hours of my life...

Sentiment: negative
I went in to see D-War on a whim and with very low expectations. The movie failed to meet them.

I don't mind stories that stretch credulity - remember Reign of Fire? - but I do expect them to be internally consistent. This film leapt from howler to howler without pausing for breath, all interspersed with special effects that lagged far behind the likes of LOTR or even Godzilla.

A shape-shifting mystic warrior from Korea, curiously metamorphosed into a Caucasian antique dealer and popping up like deus ex machina to get the hapless protagonists out of their latest mess. A special agent from the FBI who seems to be completely boned up on ancient Korean folklore because of the Fed's excellent "paranormal division" - which has gone unremarked up to this point. Lovers kissing on deserted beaches where one exclaims "I never meant for this to happen." A reincarnated pair of long dead Koreans who "died like star-crossed lovers." Mystic pendants, faceless hordes of robotic soldiers (that owe a lot to Peter Jackson's orcs) and a serpent who wastes so much time roaring that every time its chosen prey is within reach something comes along to distract it.

The dialogue is appalling, the acting wooden and the effect of the whole was, to be honest, tedious. However, for me the crowning moment was at the end, after the finale, when the music for the closing credits was - Arirang! This is rather like Akira Kurosawa closing "Ran" with a karaoke rendition of My Way - and let me be clear that I am in no way comparing director Shim to Kurosawa.

In short, a self indulgent, lackluster collection of clichés and narrative non-sequituurs which may appeal to the sense of the melodramatic so prevalent in Koran popular culture but should not be worth the price of the ticket to any serious movie goer - or even a not so-serious movie goer. I would suggest that this bypass the movie theaters altogether and go straight to video, but I'm not even sure that it's worth that much.

Sentiment: negative
Highly suggest not to watch this film 'TV' if not mentally mature enough , the film create quite realistic simulation with the steps how they prevent from terrorism if such touch wood incident happened , London suppose a Lovely and chill ful City , while these kind of wars still going on , just wasting the time and money for study and Living, every time passing around P Square, the feeling really obvious, uncomfortable actually , I don't want to vote , the scored means nothing , just 4 'fill in the blank' 

Only Safty and Positive thinking cities encourage better Economy and investors to keep investing Time,Energies and Money

Sentiment: negative