DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Ugh. Pretty awful.

Linnea Quigley gets top billing, but her character doesn't have a big part. Who is her character supposed to be anyway, the little boy's aunt? Another user commented on her getting nude in a shower scene. While there was a shower scene in the movie, it was a head and shoulders shot. Perhaps there are some alternate versions of this movie.

Quigley does have a bigger part than John Carradine, Cameron Mitchell, and Brinke Stevens, though. Carradine shows up briefly in a monkish robe reciting vague dialog. No other characters are in the scene with him, though he's sort of composited in, or else there are over-the-shoulder shots unquestionably belonging to someone else. There's also a really bad photo of him in a cameo locket (it looks like a bad photocopy), and a decent picture of him in a family bible. He conjured up Jack-O originally, or something like that.

Cameron Mitchell briefly shows up on a TV as a TV horror host. Brinke Stevens is in the movie he's showing "The Coven," in which she runs around a cemetery in a robe. Evidently there's more of the Brinke footage as a bonus feature on the Retromedia DVD double feature Mark of the Witch/The Brides Wore Blood.

Jack-O: what's it about? Darn if I know. A little boy is told a story about a pumpkin-headed demon killer, and he and some other kids are scared by a woman they think is a witch for some reason. She follows him home and offers to help his family with their haunted garage for Halloween (put your hand through a hole and feel eyeballs that are actually grapes, etc.). The pumpkin-headed killer shows up several times to hold onto branches while he watches people, or hold his scythe in front of the camera and pose with it for a while. Sometimes he manages to do more than just stand around holding things, and actually kills people.

There are also some flashbacks to a western or prairie family, with the little boy playing the little boy in that family too: ancestors of his, I think. I think they figure into Jack-O's backstory, but I'm not sure how.

The little boy is ostensibly the main character, but we don't really learn anything about him except that he wears glasses, has nightmares, and will fight bullies even if he'll get beat up in the process. More time should have been spent establishing his character. I couldn't have cared less if he died.

Not recommended, not even for Halloween.

Sentiment: negative
Don't get me wrong, I love action and revenge flicks, I've seen many of them since I was a kid, including Dolph Lundgren's latest "The Mechanik" which is quite good. And Tony Scott certainly know how to use a camera and even might be a genius shooting and editing films.

But with "Man on Fire" (and even more then with "Domino"), Scott shows that rather than using his film-making "genius" skills intelligently, he uses it puposelessly to show off and compensate a lack of substance that his material doesn't offer him. "Man of Fire" is close to 2 hours and half when it really should have been at least an hour less.

The way Scott shot and edited this film also makes you wonder if he really wants you (the audience) to sit through his film because his constant camera moves and flashes really are a torture for the eye and makes you wanna leave the theater or turn it off after 5 minutes into it.

At times where the MPAA and studios have questionable attitudes regarding ratings, violence and making PG-13 movies, I find also suspicious that a $70 million movie is made of a B-movie script with a character who cuts fingers, puts a bomb in a man's ass and blows a guy's hand with a shotgun, all this to avenge the death of a little girl who ISN'T even dead! Go figure then why a studio will pass a better script because of the language or violence... Thus said...

Sentiment: negative
I remember liking this more than Nausicaa of the valley of the winds at an age when that tone of story was too serious for me. Laputa, whose title seems to have affected its release in the U.S. to avoid confusion to its wide Hispanic audiences, has the cartoonish knack of the director's debut production Conan. In fact, Pazu has the thick bones and immortal vitality of Conan--who jumped off a thousand stories carrying his girl in his arms and landed on his feet, then started running. This makes him the most animated and pleasing character to watch. The techie fans of Nausica may be disappointed by the flying bugs and the retro technology through out Laputa--the only exception may be the robot. Unlike Princess Mononoke and Valley of the Winds, the theme in Laputa is not directly connected to environmentalism. If it has a theme at all it's anti-warfare. The importance of living naturally--this is related with the flying castle, is dismissably shortly discussed, and not really followed through. Overall, I now regard the piece as being at an intersection between feel-good and corny.

Sentiment: positive
To get in touch with the beauty of this film pay close attention to the sound track, not only the music, but the way all sounds help to weave the imagery. How beautifully the opening scene leading to the expulsion of Gino establishes the theme of moral ambiguity! Note the way music introduces the characters as we are led inside Giovanna's marriage. Don't expect to find much here of the political life of Italy in 1943. That's not what this is about. On the other hand, if you are susceptible to the music of images and sounds, you will be led into a word that reaches beyond neo-realism. By the end of the film we there are moments Antonioni-like landscape that has more to do with the inner life of the characters than with real places. This is one of my favorite Visconti films.

Sentiment: positive
This movie makes Peter an elf in Robin Hood costume instead of a human boy in probably-not-Robin-Hood-costume and ignores all the persona features in him that really matter. This movie makes Wendy a babbling idiot. And poor Captain Hook a TOTAL clown. And of course as every Disney cartoon must have a character which has had too many hits in the head, they made one of the Lost Boys that one. The only character that has not been disgraced in this film is Tink. The only star is for her.

The story itself then? The Darling parents don't even get the time to notice their kids are gone!!! Probably one of the most significant point in the original story and they ruined it! Also the famous nursery scene between Peter Pan and Wendy is a stunning piece of- There are no thimbles and no acorns - one of the little things that makes the original story such a unique one. It's a wonder he even had lost his shadow and she helped him stick it. (Even though to his shoes and it makes no sense to me.)

Ruining a great story like this just to amuse children should be illegal. So know now if you haven't known it before - this Disney version does not have anything significant in common with the original story - which is not really a children's story but just a great, great story.

This just annoys me to no end.

Sentiment: negative
This has to be one of the most beautiful, moving, thought provoking films around. It's good family entertainment and at the same time makes you think very hard about the issues involved. Every time I see the "ghost of Zac riding the bike through the puddle at the end I can't help but cry my eyes out. John Thaw's performance is so touching and it is a shame he is no longer with us. Gone but not forgotten. A outstanding film. Full marks.

Sentiment: positive
I love this movie. It was one of my favorite movies. The action never stops. The whole movie was done very well. The ending is really good. Ontop of it being action filled, they even have a surprised put in there for you. When i saw what the movie was about on the internet i was kind of not sure if i wanted to see this movie, but sense i am such a big Luke perry fan i decided to give it a chance. I am glad that i did give it a chance because this was a very well though out movie. It was very original. Whoever thought up this movie gets a standing ovation from me. The acting was great. Luke Perry did an excellent job once again. I give this movie the highest rating.

Sentiment: positive
This is a great movie if viewed in the proper context - It was meant to be a parody of teen-horror-devil-worship movies (and the '80s saw plenty of them)! I saw this movie when it first came out, and instantly liked it. Being a big fan of KISS, it was great to see Gene in the movie. And anything with OZZY as a metal-hating preacher can't be all bad! Also, Fastway was already a favorite of mine, so it was great to hear them on the soundtrack.

The original VHS (this was pre-DVD) cover for Trick Or Treat featured an illustration of Sammi kneeling, playing his guitar in a ring of fire with a "demon" looking on. It was a special order, and the price for the VHS copy at the time (circa 1987) was $90! I really wanted the movie, but not at that ridiculous price. The 'OZZY-Gene' cover was only created for the $5 re-release. The company releasing it probably figured Gene and OZZY were the only recognizable people in the movie, so they had better put 'em on the cover! Same thing with the original "Little Shop Of Horrors" - Jack Nicholson was in it for all of five minutes, but now they have him on the cover as if he were the main star.

I have a "Trick Or Treat" web site, and it's surprising how many people believe Sammi Curr was a real person! Fastway helped perpetuate that myth by dedicating their soundtrack album to 'Sammi Curr'.

All-in-all, it was just a good time, rock-n-roll movie. Definitely not to be taken too seriously, but just enjoyed!

Sentiment: positive
I watched this movie recently mainly because I am a Huge fan of Jodie Foster's. I saw this movie was made right between her 2 Oscar award winning performances, so my expectations were fairly high. Unfortunately, I thought the movie was terrible and I'm still left wondering how she was ever persuaded to make this movie. The script is really weak. The story itself may have been somewhat believable if someone like Mel Gibson had played the role of the hit-man. The idea of Jodie running off with Dennis Hopper and his irritating accent was impossible for me to buy into. I did think that Jodie looked great throughout the movie, which was probably the only reason I watched the entire thing. Maybe parading Jodie around with as few clothes on as possible was the only reason the movie was made. I saw a TV biography of Jodie where basically all of her movies were commented on in chronological order, and this movie was the only one never mentioned. After seeing it, I can now see why.

Sentiment: negative
I thoroughly enjoyed this made for TV movie. I was channel surfing, and came across the start of the movie. Boy am I glad I stopped. This movie has a real hot cast, as well as a semi-believable plot. There's drama, comedy, action, and best of all, the human nature aspect of this film is what makes it great. I hope it comes out on Video, because I will buy a copy. Rating...9 out of 10 stars

Sentiment: positive
This was one of the worst Columbo episodes that I have seen, However, I am only in the second season.

The typical Columbo activities are both amusing and irritating. His cigar ashes causing him trouble have been seen before, And the bit where he always identifies in some way with the murderer--in this case cooking ,Tho the scene on the TV cooking show distracted from the main theme.

Also not explained was why the brother at the beginning of the show was cutting part of the wires of the mixer. The reason was never explained ,nor did it serve any purpose. But the part I disliked the most was the death of the bride to be . This was never explained and it is the main reason why I give this episode such a low grade.

Sentiment: positive
Bizarre Tobe Hooper exercise regarding an unfortunate young man(Brad Dourif)with the ability to set people on fire. This ability stems from parents who partook in atomic experiments in the 50's. They die of Spontaneous Human Combustion and it seems that what Sam is beginning to suffer from derives by these pills his girlfriend, Lisa(Cynthia Bain)gives him to take for rough migraines. In actuality, Lisa was told to manipulate Sam into taking the pills by Lew Orlander(William Prince), pretty much the young man's father who raised him from a child. Lew has benevolent plans..he sees Sam as the first "Atomic Man", a pure killing machine in human form. Sam never wanted this and will do whatever it takes to silence those responsible for his condition. As the film goes, Sam's blood is slowly growing toxic, green in color instead of red. It seems that water and other substances which often put out fire react right the opposite when Sam's uncontrollable outbursts of flame ignite. Come to find out, Lisa has Sam's condition whose parents also dies from SHC. Dr. Marsh(Jon Cypher), someone who Sam has known for quite some time as his physician, is to insert toxic green fluid into their bodies, I'm guessing to increase their levels of flame. Nina(Melinda Dillon, sporting an accent that fades in and out)was Sam's parents' friend and associate on the experiments in the 50's who tries to talk things over with him regarding what is happening. And, Rachel(Dey Young)is Sam's ex-wife who may be working against her former husband with Lew and Marsh to harm him and Lisa.

Quite a strange little horror flick, filled with some pretty awful flame-effects. Dourif tries to bring a tragic element and intensity to his character whose plight we continue to watch as his body slowly becomes toxic waste with fire often igniting from his orifices. There's this large hole in his arm that spits out flame like a volcano and a massive burn spot on his hand which increases in size over time. Best scene is probably when director John Landis, who portrays a rude electrical engineer trying to inform Sam to hang up because the radio program he's calling has sounded off for the night, becomes a victim of SHC. The flick never quite works because it's so wildly uneven with an abrupt, ridiculous finale where Sam offers to free Lisa of her fire by taking it from her.

Sentiment: negative
I rented The Matrix Revisited with a friend of mine. We both loved The Matrix and we both love filmmaking so we wanted to see what was going on behind the scenes of The Matrix. It turns out that The Matrix Revisited tells you hardly anything about the art of filmmaking or even how The Matrix was made. It is basically a huge commercial for The Matrix, a movie that the target audience of The Matrix Revisited has already seen!

If you really want to know about the process and the troubles and the stress and the detail that went into making of The Matrix, look no further than the bonus features on the original DVD of The Matrix. There are things they show in those documentaries that I had not even realized had to be done or was done. The Matrix was such a difficult and challenging film to make that it deserves more credit than a "documentary" that's about as informative and interesting as an MTV special.

Sentiment: negative
One of the worst movies ever made. Let's start with the superficial: Joaquin Phoenix is, first of all, too fat to be a rookie fireman. The NYFD does not recruit Pillsbury dough boys. John Travolta has a bad dye job, and the strange gleam in his eye throughout the movie made me think that he was on some sort of extended Scientology bender. The plot hits on all the tropes and clichés of what the average Joe believes life as a firefighter is really like: they all get drunk, get into fights, have a hard time expressing their emotions, their wives all stay at home crying, they all have father issues, everyone has a Boston accent, et cetera. An execrable piece of schwarmerei that plays on our lingering cultural hero worship of firefighters after 9-11 -- which was, by the way, valid cultural hero worship. This film unfortunately presents no believable heroes to worship.

Sentiment: negative
Carly Pope plays JJ, a newly promoted Food Critic whose flamboyant, overbearing mother moves in with her. JJ, aghast at this turn of events, then blackmails restaurant owner, Alex, to entertain her mother in exchange for "maybe" reviewing his dying restaurant. Alex predictably falls for the daughter while warming to the mother. There are numerous problems with this movie, the characters are universally 2-dimensional. JJ is a self-serving, hateful character, her mother superficial and shallow. JJ's colleagues at the magazine are bitchy and opportunistic. The underlying message of an over-50 woman unable to make it on her own, without male assistance is bad, bad, BAD. The acting is uniformly dull, the script uninspired. The films only saving grace is the setting of New York City. I would so NOT recommend this film.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this film on the same night I saw 6 other shorts. This one was leaps and bounds ahead of the others in terms of quality of acting, directing, filming and originality of story. It comes together with a professionalism often lacking in short films.

This is a great short film for the following reasons: 

1. Amazing performances. The 2 actresses are both compelling and believable instantly. Their chemistry is palpable; the depth of their relationship is conveyed, even though the film is 10 mins long. The acting and directing are very powerful.

2. Beautifully shot. The lighting, framing and general filming are striking. The 35mm film sets this movie apart from other shorts. And what a difference it makes. The filming is worthy of this film stock.

3. Strong story. Often short films try to do too little or too much with the time. Or they are trying to tell a predictable story. This is a good balance of telling you an interesting story, without drawing it out too long or leaving you unsatisfied. You wonder what will happen next, while at the same time, feeling you saw something happen.

Nice score, too. Compliments without overpowering.

If you can find this at a festival, make an effort to see it.

Sentiment: positive
I love special effects and witnessing new technologies that make science fiction seem real. The special effects of this movie are very good. I have seen most of this movie, since it's been airing on HBO for the past couple of months. I must admit, I MAY have missed a few scenes, but I'm usually drawn into movies, and have seen some scenes more than once. But every time I see some of "Hollow Man," I feel depressed, almost like a "film noir." I'm not sure why; perhaps it's that I don't want Kevin Bacon to be evil, and there's disappointment in that. But I think it's witnessing just HOW relentlessly evil he becomes. Regardless, I can recommend this movie for excitement (although some parts move slowly), but I do NOT recommend for youngsters under the age of 14 (perhaps 12, if they are mature).

Sentiment: negative
After reading the book, I happened across this DVD at Wal-Mart for 3 bucks and thought, sure, what the hell... I got the DVD and watched it last night. When I started watching it, I checked the run time and it was about 90 minutes. I thought, OK cool... It seemed to run rather slowly, knowing the story and how much of it there was. By the time I got to the actual killings, I was like, "how much time does this have left?" Checked. "One minute?! What the hell?!" I felt incredibly cheated, thinking that the movie only progressed through a third of the overall story.

But then, I happily noticed that the DVD's scene selection menu included a part 1 AND a part 2. I still had another hour and a half to go! I then sat very happily and enjoyed the second half of the movie, even more so than the first.

I admit that I have not seen the 1967 original film (despite my sincerest desire to), I have however read the novel and felt that this was a fairly descent film, for a two-part TV miniseries, that is. I think the casting of the role of Perry was completely wrong and a few minor inconsistencies jumped out at me, but still very well done. The first half drags on a bit, while the second half is much more gripping. I think they should have proportioned the movie more like Capote did his book: 1/3 before the murders, 1/3 after, and 1/3 after the killers are arrested. Instead, the film makes it more 1/2 before the murders, 1/4 after, and 1/4 after the killers are arrested. Again, this makes the second half more exciting, but at the same time, less compelling while making the first half drag on and on...

Now I look back and realize I have just made the same mistake about making things drag on and on, so I will shut the hell up. Go watch the movie and make up your own damn mind! 

Nick Houston

Sentiment: positive
I was expecting this to be the same kind of schlock as the previous Modesty Blaise movie, which is why I left it unwatched for so long, but I was very pleasantly surprised.

Far from being a succession of silly gun battles and car/boat chases, it was an almost thoughtful analysis of how a pretty girl gets to become as hard as nails, with nothing being overstated or over-rationalized.

It's likely that the budgetary constraints actually helped with that: less time and effort was spent on finding ever-stupider ways for stunt men to pretend to die, and more was dedicated to making the movie worth watching. Hell, the biggest gun battle takes place off screen -- and the scene where it is heard is all the better for that background noise, that adds to the suspense -- who's winning? Who's dying?

Alexandra Staden might not be as drop-dead gorgeous as Monica Vitti, but few are, and she certainly has every ounce of class and fire that's needed to make the character work -- and the shape of her face, her hair, and her tall, slender body could have been lifted straight from the comic-strip graphics.

Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau was the perfect choice for a Blaise bad-guy, in that he made the character interesting and enjoyable to watch -- even likable (and I doubt I'd consider taking on many brutal, psychopathic murderers as drinking buddies). I can't think of a single one of Hollywood's "former waiters" who could have pulled the role off that well.

Fortunately, Blaise baddies always die, in the end (no spoilers there!) That's a really good thing, because all the girls who would have spent their time swooning over such a disgustingly handsome and interesting hunk can now pragmatically settle for us ordinary Joes.

Sentiment: positive
How did this ripoff of "Being There" ever get to be so loved? People say it's proof that a decent, honest man can succeed despite lack of intelligence. They're wrong. The movie is proof that luck is everything: hope your friend invests all your money in Apple and not Atari; hope your shrimp boat is the only one out at sea when a storm breaks; hope that you don't die of shock when you're luckily shot in the buttocks and not in the back; hope you don't get AIDS from your wife. This movie is also politically reactionary -- all who rebel against societal convention lose their legs, do drugs, beat their girlfriends, or die young. In addition, the product placement in this film (Nike and Dr. Pepper) is shameless. An emotionally manipulative film that is very, very empty.

Sentiment: negative
I wasn't surprised to read a comment by the director to the effect that she made this film as an antidote to all those "making of" DVD featurettes, as that certainly struck me. I do confess that I have a penchant for "meta," but I found this film to be very accessible and entertaining, and not even in a labored, self-consciously clever way, which is certainly a bit of what you expect in a film about film-making. It is very "French" in that there are a great deal of outlandish, yet occasionally compelling theories about how film-making (and even sexuality) "works," but since the director doesn't quite play herself (using an avatar instead), we're left with a lot of choices (since I'm pretty sure she's constantly contradicting herself). Apparently Catherine Breillat specializes in hard-to-watch films, but I'd definitely say this one doesn't qualify. I really enjoyed the dialog, the balance between the cinematic and the natural, the relationships between the director character and her assistant and actor, and so on. Highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was featured on a very early episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, but when I see this film, I don't think about that wonderful TV series. I believe this was a surprisingly good early 40's horror flick, with very surprisingly good sound and picture for a 67 year old public domain horror movie. I actually enjoyed watching Bela Lugosi and his bizarre staff, including his wife who requires fluid from the glands of young would-be brides, an old hag, and her two bizarre sons, one a giant idiot, the other a comical dwarf(Angelo Rossitto from 1932's Freaks). I also enjoyed the plucky young female reporter, who is kind of a stereotype, but still fun to watch. My only problem with this otherwise decent film is it's plot, even ridiculous and unbelievable for a movie. I don't want to spoil any of this film, so go out and rent it, or, better yet, buy it for a couple of bucks.

Sentiment: positive
Noni Hazlehurst, Colin Friels, Alice Garner, Chrissie Amphlett and Michael Caton- what more could you ask for? Monkey Grip based on the prize winning novel of the same name explores Nora (Hazlehurst, a single mother falling for a heroin addict Jobe (Friels). A simple story is made truly extraordinary through the all round magnificent acting (in particular Noni Hazlehurst) and nice use of the small budget. The only flaw is (if you can pick it up) is that the story is set in Melbourne, although for budget reasons, the film was mainly shot in Sydney, so as a result, in a few scenes you see trams (Melbourne scenes) and then a Carlton post office (Sydney scenes). Other than that, "Monkey Grip" is a must see (excuse the clique, but it is) at least for an award winning performance from former "Play School" and "Better Homes & Gardens" presenter Noni Hazlehurst.

10/10

Sentiment: positive
Remade today, this film would be a very creepy, very disturbing dark comedy. Stalking, obsession, and a web of lies and manipulations are given a 1948 gloss of aren't-they-cute harmlessness. Drake plays the stalker, an unabashed user of people, alternately pathetic and manipulative, Grant plays the stalking victim, alternately angry and oblivious.

Vastly disturbing; I haven't been able to look at classic romances with the same suspension of disbelief since.



Sentiment: negative
Its very tough to portray a Tagore novel along cinematographic lines.And if you forget an obscure production of 1967 then its the first time that chokher bali has been done on a grand scale. Overall the sets looked fantastic with the right touches for making a successful period drama.Prasenjit,so used to doing crass commercial stuff made a good effort.I saw the Bengali version and found that Aishwariya's voice was dubbed,which made her dialog delivery a bit poor. While the director did a good job portraying each of the characters with finesse,yet there was very little in the way of meaningful plot,probably a lack of the story itself.However the development of the characters including those with minor roles seem to be the strongest point.Its tough to make some Tagore stories into films,as only the visual parts seem to get realized.

Sentiment: positive
Totally disgusting and cheap bawdy humor. I loved it!!! It is the most disgusting and totally horribly acted film, except for Nicolas Read, who plays an un-dead Court Jester, to comic brilliance. But being that as it may, I laughed so many times and I have to hand it to the film makers, it wasn't pretentious or ordinary in any way. Raping, fighting, zombies vomitting on their rape victims. What other movie has this? Not for the quesy, but with a pizza, a bong, and a six pack of beer, you got it made, if you have a cast iron stomach and a juvenille sense of humor like myself.

Sentiment: positive
I felt asleep, watching it!!! (and I had tickets for the midnight- premiere) Any questions? The most disturbing scene, as far as I can remember, was the techno-dance-i-dont-know-what-that-was-scene. By the way what an ending!?

Sentiment: negative
I had the good fortune to be at Perris Island in the fall of 1959. The DI showed one evening at the outdoor theater directly in front of our barracks, Plt 162, B Co, 1st Bn, 1st ITR.

Although we hadn't been there long enough to even think about seeing a movie, we could hear those that were laughing. It's one of the many indelible memories of my thirteen weeks at PI.

At some later date, I got to actually see it in a theater. I'm still convinced that, to date, it remains the most realistic portrayal of the experience in the late 1950's ever done. No one has done it better than Jack Webb...

Sentiment: positive
I wasn't impressed with the Graffiti Artist, despite it's artsy (aka. low budget improvisation) appeal. There is little dialog and at least for me, I was disappointed that it didn't give more credit or promote the work of guerrilla artists such as these. Instead, it was a story that covers familiar territory. Two guys who basically do little more than tag buildings become friends, tagging partners, and eventually experiment with a relationship. They seem like opposites, rather uncomfortable together. Little is explained about their backgrounds and the things between the two young men happen at rapid speed (although, this I can understand because it's only 70 minutes or so). There's been countless numbers of similar plots and productions in recent years to the point that the sphere of independent film is starting to become just as saturated with this particular storytelling just as the mainstream has become saturated with this and more.

Much of the film may bore the viewer who needs immediate dialog and purpose. The primary figure of this story (at least extensively), performs his routines with nearly no dialog, no insight, and nothing else to carry the viewer. And, for a short film, I wished they could've gotten to the point a lot faster. That, aside from the typical plot annoyed me. Yet, there was something about a momentary glimpse into the daily habits of at least two graffiti artists, even if most of it was rather unoccupied time.

Recommended if you're tired of the mainstream crap and don't mind an indie picture and have some interested into this underground, urban art form. But, you really have to watch it for yourself, because this seems to be one with a more acquired taste. For more recent indie films centering on graffiti artists, check out Transit.

Sentiment: negative
i found the story to be just enough of a thriller that the wonderful henry mancici music didn't lull me. julie andrews was excellant and i sure don't understand why this movie had problems at the box office when it came out because it just makes me happy at the end to have everybody singing. and i do like happy ever after endings which i think you can say this movie has along with some traditional blake edwards humor...

Sentiment: positive
This series is vastly underrated. Like many others, I came upon Farscape after the series had been cancelled. Bought Season 1 and was surprised to find a smartly written drama infused with a balanced mix of suspense, romance, wit and, of course, sci-fi. Right off the bat it got a 10 for being the first series or movie to satisfy us how our hero - and every alien with whom he comes in contact - speaks English! Okay, a few others have skirted the issue, but Farscape did it the best. The point is, the writers pay close attention to detail to make the show as believable as possible.

With so much bad programming out there, it's a shame that balanced, entertaining series such as Farscape don't get enough exposure and recognition to stay in production. While we enjoy the four seasons and, thankfully, the four-hour miniseries, maybe we can make enough noise to convince the producers to continue the show.

Sentiment: positive
I have never seen the 1973, older highly rated version. I am a Nicholas Cage fan (by the way, fine acting as usual). This movie probably took all of five minutes to hammer out the whole plot (I can see it being done on a cocktail napkin at a dinner party), if you can't figure out the ending of this drool in the first thirty minutes you will probably find this movie entertaining. This is, of late, the terrible rut that Hollywood seems to have dug for itself with the horror/mystery/thriller genre, unable to give the audience enough credit and write a fresh, smart, and tantalizing screenplay, they dish out some creepy music and throw in a couple of things to make you jump a little and then send the final print off to your local theater. At least, it didn't have the jiggling hand-held camera syndrome.

Sentiment: negative
This is the best of Shelley Duvall's high-quality "Faerie Tale Theatre" series. The ugly stepsisters are broadway-quality comedy relief, and Eve Arden is the personification of wicked stepmotherhood. Jennifer Beals does an excellent job as a straight Cinderella, especially in the garden scene with Matthew Broderick's Prince Charming. Jean Stapleton plays the fairy godmother well, although I'm not sure I liked the "southern lady" characterization with some of the lines. Steve Martin's comedy relief as the Royal Orchestra Conductor is quintessential Martin, but a tiny bit misplaced in the show's flow.

As is customary with the series, there are several wry comments thrown in for the older children (ages 15 and up). With a couple of small bumps, the show flows well, and they live happily ever after. Children up to age 8 will continue to watch it after the parents finally get tired of it -- I found 3 times in one day to be a little too much.

Sentiment: positive
The movie starts out as an ordinary comic-hero-movie. It´s about the boy who is picked on, has no parents and is madly in love with the schools #1 girl. Nothing surprises in the movie, there is nothing that you can´t guess coming in the movie. Toby Mcguire shows us that either he is no good actor or that no actor in the world can save a script like this one. Maybe kids around the age of ten can enjoy the film but it is a bit violent for the youngest. You can´t get away from thinking of movies like X-men, Batman and Spawn. All of those titles are better. I almost walked out the last 20 minutes! One thing that could have been good though was the computeranimation, BUT not even that is anything to put in the christmas-tree! So my recomendation: Don´t see this film even if you get paid for it!

Sentiment: negative
I thought the this film had an interesting name and just might have proved thought provoking, but was I wrong. This film was boring, especially in the beginning and the middle parts. I cannot comment on the ending because I just couldn't stand watching the whole film. The premise of signing a student researcher just because he walks into your lab makes no sense. This student had an interesting type of moving robot in his apartment and sadly enough this non living thing is more interesting than the characters in this film. So if you are having trouble with sleep then I recommend that you rent this film.

Sentiment: negative
In order to hold the public's attention for three hours, we were treated not so much to a family's romp through four generations and 120 years of Hungarian history, as to sexual liaisons with a sister, a sister-in-law and other adulteries. Oh yes, there was also a totally gratuitous rape. Having said all this, the first story of the relationship among the children of the patriarch was fresh and sensual - thanks to Jennifer Ehle.

Sentiment: negative
I know that movies aren't necessarily supposed to mirror reality, but this one got on my nerves. It perpetuates ignorant stereotypes about "psychological trauma" and mental illness. The "psycho mom" thing has been done too many times before (and usually done better) and much of the rest of the plot is far-fetched as well. The acting was not horrible but nothing to rave about.

One highlight: I am a long-time fan of General Hospital and it was a trip to see one of the roles played by former GH regular, Jon Lindstrom.

Anyway, if you can overlook the bogus psychoanalytical part of it, in the same way a person must suspend reality / judgment when watching a lot of movies, then this movie might be tolerable. If you have nothing better to do and fairly low standards.

I'm sorry I spent my time watching it.

Sentiment: negative
Although it's an R rated movie, I really doubt that you'll really enjoy it unless you're a teenager

Why? Because there's no real plot, no character development,no funny jokes. 

The only thing that this movie has plenty of is nudity. Tons and tons of naked or almost naked chicks (pretty nice ones I might add) to feast your eyes on.

I really can't understand why this movie has the American Pie title since it's only a bad combination between an erotic movie and a comedy without succeeding in being either of them.

My suggestion is to watch this movie only if you want to see some naked chicks, but you're too shy to rent/buy an erotic movie. 

Gave it 1/10 for the 2 smiles i had in the entire movie and another 2/10 for the nice chicks

Sentiment: negative
Like all cult TV shows, there is a group of people who love The Twilight Zone so much that they rate practically every episode like they are the greatest shows EVER. While several of them are indeed wonderful classics, the truth is for every great episode, there were several that were mediocre and at least one that stank. However, like die-hard Trekkies, these Zone lovers insist that all of them are gold. In fact, this is what initially got me to review some individual episodes of a couple cult series instead of the movies I usually watch.

While this isn't the worst episode ever made nor is it among the very worst, it is poor by any reasonable standard. A widow watches a long procession of Civil War soldiers going past her home. In the end, a very unexpected twist is revealed and there isn't a whole lot of excitement or suspense here.

Sentiment: negative
A group of adventurers travel to the 'dark continent' to try and locate a lost heiress named Diana, who disappeared years before in a plane crash, and who is now believed to be living with a savage tribe that consider her to be their goddess.

Once again, my search for sleazy, European cannibal movies has taken me deep into Jess Franco territorya seemingly endless cinematic wilderness swarming with sub-par scriptwriting, crawling with crap camera-work, and abundant with awful acting (Franco regular Lina Romay taking the prize this time for her pitiful performance as an ailing, elderly woman). It is here, in this hellish place, that I finally stumbled upon Diamonds of Kilimanjaro, an abysmal jungle-based exploitationer so stupefyingly bad that it took me three successive evenings to finish watching it.

Tawdry and unrelentingly dull, even by Franco's standards, this wearisome piece of trash fails on almost every level: the story is a dreadfully dull derivative of Edgar Rice Burrough's Tarzan, albeit with a feminine twist; the film appears to have been filmed in the local botanical gardens, although grainy stock footage is poorly integrated into the film in a pointless effort to convince viewers that the action is really taking place in Africa; and the death scenes are virtually bloodless (Franco can usually be relied upon for some splatter, but despite initial appearances, this isn't a cannibal movie and it isn't that gory).

Where the director does succeed, however, is in his casting of sexy young Katja Bienert as jungle jail-bait Diana. Running and leaping through the undergrowth in nothing but a skimpy loin-cloth, her curvaceous bod belying the fact that she was only sixteen at the time, this nubile beauty makes quite an impression. Franco also throws in some further nudity courtesy of Mari Carmen Nieto as treacherous traveller Lita (who gives us a glimpse of her untamed regions), and Aline Mess as topless warrior woman Noba, thus narrowly avoiding getting yet another rating of 1/10 from me (although I'm sure he'll be receiving plenty more in the futureI have loads of his films yet to see).

Sentiment: negative
First of all, this movie is gross to the point of nauseating, and my advice is to avoid it at all costs if you ever want to eat ice cream again. I tried watching it because it looked like it might be funny, but it soon became quite disturbing with the ice cream made out of body parts and surprisingly graphic effects. It opens with a boy named Greg witnessing the gruesome murder of an ice cream man (Greg subsequently goes crazy and grows up to be the title character) by what appear to be mob assassins. There is no explanation for this murder, making it the biggest WTF moment in the entire movie. Other, lesser WTF moments include the surreal asylum Greg goes to (featuring evil clowns), a woman speaking in tongues because she has been possessed by the Holy Spirit (what this has to do with anything I don't know), and the fact that Olivia "Holy crap has her career tanked this badly" Hussey is in it.

None of these are good enough reasons to watch it. The only reason is for the character Tuna, who is a skinny kid with pillows stuffed under his shirt so that he looks like a fat kid. For some reason this struck me as hilarious. I stayed up far longer into the night than I should have watching this movie just to figure out if there was some reason they couldn't use an actual fat kid for the role. Although I fell asleep before the end, I've gathered from other reviews that Tuna ends up losing the "weight." Okay, so they didn't have the budget to pull this off realistically. Suggestion to the director: how about making the character... not overweight? 

That's it; if the prospect of Tuna has not interested you enough, there is no other reason to acknowledge this film's existence. If disgusting horror movies about ice cream are your preferred source of entertainment, check out the far superior "The Stuff" instead.

Sentiment: negative
A spaceship returns from Mars; about a couple of months earlier, a 4-person expedition had been sent to the red planet. Most of the picture is a flashback to what transpired over there. The picture is saddled by inane, melodramatic dialog, typical of many sci-fi efforts of the fifties & sixties. Note, for example, how the ship's commander (Mohr) tells another crew member to 'stay there' for no reason; as if moving to another spot inside the ship will cause a problem. Later, the commander orders two of the crew to remain in the ship while he and another go outside. The two he ordered to stay say 'no way' and follow out; I didn't have high hopes for the expedition's success by this point. There's much talk of 'ears twitching' and hugging a freeze-ray gun named 'Cleo' (short for Cleopatra, of course). It would at least be pretty funny, unintentionally, if the story didn't drag.

There's a very slow pace to the whole thing; the astronauts spend as much time looking out the ship's window portals (which change color from red to blue), commenting on what they see, as they do outside actually exploring. The martian landscape, advertised as filmed in 'Cinemagic,' usually resembles animation cut-outs, or drawings, shot through an orange-red filter to give the illusion of interacting with the actors, who do take on an odd surrealistic appearance due to the process. But I don't think it fools anyone over 10 years old. The one clever mention I did notice was that the memories of the surviving astronaut would be tinged with unreality, so that would explain the unreal nature of the martian vista. Oh, okay...

I was amused by some of the astronauts' actions as they begin to explore; right off the bat, they test their freeze gun on a plant, killing it, just for the hell of it. Then the female member hacks with a machete at what she thinks is a tree but turns out to be the leg of the spider-rat monster. Nice going, lady. Look up next time. No wonder the 'intelligence' on Mars gets upset and doesn't mind that one of the lower lifeforms, a giant amoeba, attacks the explorers. The acting isn't too impressive. Mohr especially, had a very annoying technique, saying a line and then abruptly erupting into a huge grin which always creeped me out - reminded me of It! the Terror From Beyond Space. The ending is fairly anti-climactic; don't expect any huge revelations beyond the 'no more expeditions' with freeze guns named Cleo.

Sentiment: negative
I enjoyed a lot watching this movie. It has a great direction, by the already know Bigas Luna, born in Spain. And it is precisely in Spain that the movie takes place, in Cataluña, to be more precise.

Luna explores once more the theme of an obcession, in this case the obcession of a young boy for the women's milk. There are some psychological concepts in this story such as the rejection complex that the elder son feels with the birth of his brother. In the movie this is what leads to the obcession of the young boy who suddenly sees all his mother's milk go to the recently born son. So he starts trying to find a breast who is able to feed him. He finds it in a woman recently arrived and from here on the movie is all around this.

This movie lives a lot on imagery, more than the story itself, the espectator captures certain moments (unforgettable moments) and certain symbols (the movie deserves a thourough analyses on almost everything that happens because it usually means something...). The surroundings, the landscapes, typical from the region as well as the surreal behaviors of the characters, also symbolic, and the excelent ambiguous soundtrack by Nicola Piovani transport us to another dimension, not parallel to the real world, but which intersects it from times to times... Worth living in that world, worth watching this movie, even though we may eventually and for moments get tired and a bit sick with the excessive obcession, which is perhaps taken beyond the limits...

I also enjoyed the performance of the protagonist... 8/10

Sentiment: positive
This movie worked for me because I see this movie as an exact opposite of 'Gone With The Wind.' Farm owners instead of plantation owners. Scarlett fights and connives for what she wants; Ada gets depressed and turns inside herself until Ruby, (Renee Zellweger,) shows up to save the day. Sort of, in a round about way. Deserters instead of officers trying to get back to their families, the lists goes on and on. Even the love story was opposite. If this is what the producer and writers were trying to get across it succeeded with me. 

There are only two things I didn't like about the movie, the rest I thought was well done and I liked it enough to recommend it to friends. First, I couldn't see the attraction between Inman, (Jude Law), and Ada, (Nicole Kidman,) as being strong enough for Inman to desert to get back to her. Inman said he only had written to her a few times where Ada wrote to him almost constantly. Second, something or someone getting killed or dying in almost every scene was a little much. I must say it was full of action because of that, but after about the second scene I knew something or someone was going to die in the next scene. I like to be surprised by the next scene, not know what is going to happen before it does.

I thought all the acting was very well done, with Zellweger the best. She deserved the credit she got for it. I thought she played the part of the hillbilly girl very well. She must have done her homework on the part. Zellweger even said in the movie that she was smarter than people thought she was. I think that was true. Law did well with his part with all he had to go through to get back to Kidman. It must have been a lot stronger love to go through all that than I thought it was. Now he showed a lot of emotion in his face during his trials. Kidman's part may have had something to do with the fact I chose her performance after the other two. Except when she was depressed she didn't show much emotion, I don't know if that is how the part was written or if that is how she perceived the part. She still did a good job, I just thought the other two were better. 

I liked the scene with the Zellweger, Kidman and the rooster, even though it was one of those scenes I mentioned above. I thought the 'Home Guard' was exactly as they probably were back then. Even though we don't hear much about them they were a part of that time. I thought the scenery was beautiful. The movie had everything needed to be a good historical romance.

Sentiment: positive