DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
If I had never seen the first Road House, then I guess this movie might get one more star, but even then that makes it a 3 star movie. For that matter I was really surprised as to the relatively high rating it currently has.

In reality, I was not able to finish this movie, as it was painful. Where it went wrong (at least the most obvious way) is that it pretty much parallels the original exactly even though the original plot is still referenced. This doesn't really make sense and doesn't work. Also, the acting is weak...I never felt like I was into the movie yet I felt like I was watching people act. Even good actors like Busey don't work out, probably due to the screenplay or maybe the awkward editing. The strangest thing is that the movie feels like a mid 90's B movie, yet is made in 06. I am not sure as to why, but then again, this often seems to happen with sequels for some reason. The music, the look, and the whole overall feel reminds me of movies you saw 10 years ago on Cinemax late at night. The strangest thing of all is that I am also expecting Ja Rule to come in at some point...often it reminds me of more current movies with rappers as actors.

The most irritating thing is love interest girl who's character seems like a total rip off of the Lois Lane character on Smallville which is also quite annoying. And lets not forget the fakest sounding "southern accents" I have heard since Walk the Line. I realize this is common place in movies, but no accent at all would work better than attempting to sound like you are from that universal hick place on TV where anyone from any southern state (or KY and WV) sound exactly the same. Sure, people in desert towns in AZ sound just like people in Southeastern states 2000+ miles away. That was wearing thin 10 years ago in the B movies where technique came from. Why do writers / directors make such decisions? 

Bottom line: I would truly not recommend this if you are a fan of Road House or if you like good movies. Also, if you have not seen it yet, don't spoil it by seeing this version first. The original Road House was one of those accidental classics that people love and watch over and over. It was an unexpected success like American Graffiti, Dazed and Confused, and more recently Office Space, Fast and Furious (only the first one!), and Napolean Dynamite. Why did they spoil it!!!???

They should have never made a sequel to Road House other than a high budget version with the right actors / director. Sure, you can never top the original (ex: Bad News Bears, The Longest Yard, etc.), but at least if you can do it right it will be presentable as is the case with the examples I mentioned. But to make a low budget, off-network, self production of Road House is criminal.

Sentiment: negative
This is the worst movie I have seen for years! It starts ridicoulus and continues in the same way. I thnik when is something going to happen in this film,,,, and the the acting is worse. The ending lifts it a bit and saves the movie from a total flop. Mark Wahlberg is a bad actor in a bad movie. Sorry Tim Burton Batman was good but this one sucks.

Sentiment: negative
Focus is another great movie starring William H. Macy. I first discovered Macy in Fargo and I've seen a few of his films and he hasn't yet deceived me. Macy is the archetypal "nice guy with something to hide". In Focus, he plays the role of Lawrence Newman, a loyal and hard-working stiff, who harbours his handicapped mother at home. The scene is set after World War II, at the height of McCarthyism. Newman is the head of Human Resources for a company which is basically, anti-Semite. After he accidentally hires a woman of Jewish descent, he is asked to buy a pair of glasses, to improve his failing eyesight.

Unbelievably, the simple act of buying glasses has great repercussions on his life and that of Gertrude Hart, his wife (played by a great Laura Dern). As the film unravels, Newman will begin to see a whole different world, where being Jewish is akin to being an animal.

The movie is disturbing in the way it shows that being racist was something fairly normal. The chilling thought is that in some places, it probably still is.

Sentiment: positive
I think its time for Seagal to go quietly into the night. What I have just seen makes all his direct to video releases in the last few years look like his early 90's smash hits in comparison.

A secret bio lab is making a new kind of drug that jacks up a human's adrenaline system to the point where they become psychopathic killers or something. Somehow Seagal is supposed to stop the infection or its the end of the world...or something. Seagal also went through hit squads like jellybeans, every time I look up he was commanding a new face so it kinda got hard to follow character development as well I know Steven's athsma prevent him from yelling at the top of his lungs but even so why is he constantly being dubbed by people who sound nothing like him? Usually the films plot and action sequences can save it from being a total waste of time but this was not even close. Like I said, it was more of a horror movie with a lot of blood and shank stabbing rather than straight up fighting. The problem was it wasn't really scary and Seagal looked completely out of place because the infected people were supposed to have speed of light movement yet the 40 year old 280 lb Seagal killed them all singlehandedly? I guess the lone highlight of the movie was the first 20 minutes where the new recruits ask Seagal to come to the strip club with them.

2 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
I don't really know where to start. The acting in this movie was really terrible, I can't remember seeing so many 'actors' in one film that weren't able to act. Not only the acting was bad, the characters were incredibly stupid as well.

Then there's the action. I believe that even children know that when someone gets shot, there's blood involved. But when someone gets shot in Snitch'd for ten (!!) times, there's no blood at all. Well, I guess that's just me.

To make a long story short (because believe me, I can go on for hours about this film), this is without a doubt the worst film I ever saw. This film should be number 1 in the bottom 100 without a doubt.

Sentiment: negative
Only the most ardent DORIS DAY fan could find this one even bearable to watch. When one thinks of the wealth of material available for a story about New York City's most famous blackout, a film that could have dealt with numerous real-life stories of what people had to cope with, this scrapes the bottom of the barrel for lack of story-telling originality.

Once again Doris is indignant because she suspects she may have been compromised on the night of the blackout when she returned to her Connecticut lodgings, took a sleeping potion and woke up in the morning with a man who had done the same, wandering into the house by mistake.

Nobody is able to salvage this mess--not Doris, not ROBERT MORSE, TERRY-THOMAS, PATRICK O'NEAL or LOLA ALBRIGHT. As directed by Hy Averback, it's the weakest vehicle Day found herself in, committed to do the film because of her husband's machinations and unable to get out of it. Too bad.

Sentiment: negative
Wow. What a terrible adaptation of a beautiful novel. Here are just a few gripes. - The screenwriter eliminated two major characters from the book. - Plot has been grotesquely altered. - Voiceovers sound as if they were directly lifted from written passages (which may read well but are not the same when spoken, especially with Chabon's writing style). - The acting is more wooden than a log cabin. (Esp. Bechstein) - This is supposed to be set in 1983??? Feels more like 2003... 

To be fair I couldn't bring myself to finish watching this movie, so it's possible that it redeemed itself... (sarcasm). I truly hope that no one paid to see this, or at least anyone who read the book hoping for something decent (a la Wonder Boys). I like Chabon as a writer but he should be ASHAMED of this adaptation.

No stars.

Sentiment: negative
Recap: Simon leads a little team of special agents that has specialized in finding and returning missing people, against all possible odds. Their latest mission is about the granddaughter of a friend of them. She seems to have been caught in the web of a particularly brutal criminal and everyone that has gone looking for her has gone missing. But now The Librarians are on the case.

Comments: This is pure B-action, through and through. The key phrase for this is unlimited supply. There is unlimited supply of ammunition, they don't have to reload once. There is an unlimited supply of bad guys, so the heroes have something to shoot at. There is an unlimited supply of breasts, many of them bare, in an vain (and as always failed) attempt to distract from the plot holes. And there is an unlimited supply of bad acting (it is almost like Erika Eleniak's performance shines in this, what about that?), and actors that don't seem to care more than the paycheck (and why should they when no one else seem to?).

And as in most B-action movies there are an unlimited supply of bad gunfights. But these almost seem to be of a ridiculously bad kind. I think I saw more realistic gunfights when I played cowboy as a kid.

But then again I didn't really expect much either, how could I from a action movie named The Librarians? And it actually delivers about what could be expected. 90 minutes of more or less bad action with some scenes to connect the dots between. But I am unsure if I can call it entertaining, it didn't keep my interest very long.

3/10

Sentiment: negative
Enchanting, romantic, innovative, and funny. The vision of this extraordinary film is almost unparalleled, exceeding better known "death romances" such as Ghost. While we know intuitively that Peter and June will find ultimate happiness at the end of that long-long stairway, the joy is in the journey. The moral of the tale, of course, is timeless: love conquers all. But the struggle to achieve that victory is played in a celestial arena of sweeping vision and gripping grandeur. With more than 500 suitably clad extras portraying various ages and cultures, the directors' vision of heaven remains memorable six decades later, far into the CGI era.

Yet for all the cosmic scale, Powell and Pressburger knew an essential truth: the best story is told at the smallest level. The wonderfully, determinedly romantic aspect of "Stairway" is captured with ultimate simplicity: June's teardrop, preserved on a rose petal. 

This film, like the story and the set itself, is one for the ages.

Sentiment: positive
The Lack of content in this movie amazed me the most. First i though that people was going to compare this to Rock On! but i'm really surprised myself to say that this was worst than Rock On! So-so story Horrible cast Ajay Devgan Jamming with Salman Khan and Asin you gotta be kidding me. The music was Okay Khanabadosh was the track of the movie the rest was bad! Vipul Shah hasn't still learn from Singh is King's critically bashed comedy. Now Asin.. where do she come from sorry for Asin's fan out there but she suck*d big time in this movie seriously bad acting she didn't look good at all overdose of make-up! My final verdict go watch Aladin with your family instead wasting your time here.

Sentiment: negative
Chucky (the murderous doll from "Child's Play" and 2 crappy sequels) is dead. But his ex-girlfriend Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly) gets his remains and (using "Voodoo for Dummies") revives him. Then, through circumstances too convoluted to get into, SHE is killed and has her soul put into another doll! Together they fall in love and kidnap a nice couple (Nick Stabile, Katherine Heigl) to take them to Chuck's coffin to get an amulet to make Chucky and Tiffany real people again...

A lot better than it sounds. After the last two sequels to "Child's Play" (both of which were horrible) I was expecting the worst, but this actually was lots of fun. The movie doesn't take itself seriously for a second (seriously--how could it?) and the lines and situations are actually quite funny. Also there are a few VERY gory murders thrown in to satisfy us horror fans and the film never stops moving. The movie also has a few things usually not found in a horror movie--a gay best friend (Gordon Michael Woolvett) who is intelligent and not played for laughs and a sequence in which Stabile has his shirt off just to show his muscular body. John Ritter has a nice cameo too as a sheriff.

The acting is good--Stabile is young, VERY handsome and likable; Heigl doesn't have much to do but pulls it off and Brad Dourif (the voice of Chucky) and Tilly are hilarious as the murderous dolls. My favorite part is when the dolls have sex (don't ask) and she asks for a rubber and he responds, "But I'm MADE of rubber!" The special effects are good (no lousy CGI here) and this is one of the few horror films to mix humor and violence in an entertaining way. Well worth seeing. I give it a 9.

Sentiment: positive
First off, I would like to say that I am a fan of Chris Rock. I like his other movies, but this movie is just like my summary. The Biggest Sack of Crap ever. In the beginning, Chris Rock plays an aspiring comedian who get stage fright at a Comedy Building called the Apollo. On his way home from a gig, while riding his BIKE he sees this woman he likes and is hit by a Truck. A little while later, he chooses the body of an old, white, and selfish millionaire. Then, he dresses up like the music group Outkast while trying to replay the scene from the original where he comes out as a Jockey. Second, he goes back to the Apollo, and tries to be the comedian he tried to be in his previous body and starts dissing the white population and tries to be black. Do you get my drift? This movie is awful it tries too hard to be like the original and in the process comes out looking like a sack of crap. Just take my advice, don't even watch this movie.

Sentiment: negative
I like seeing Linda Blair playing in an actual "horror" movie again. I had been disappointed with her in most everything since the "Exorcist "movies (Which i loved). What was up with all of those nasty "B-movies" she did? 

David Hassellhoff on the other hand, all i could do is laugh. He is not cut out to be a horror movie actor. David needs to stick to "Knight Rider" or "Baywatch".

All around, this is an awesome movie. Even for the eighties, this was an awesome film. It has horror, action, and drama. It is a suspenseful, and I loved the way Linda Blair turned out.

Sentiment: positive
this is one of the stupidest movies ever, not THE stupidest mind you but one of the stupidest. This is 96 1/2 minutes of sleep inducing material. Probably Jim Varney's worst movie ever. The last 30 seconds of the film is the best and funniest part but hardly worth sitting through the whole movie for. On the other hand, if you are a die hard Jim Varney/Ernest fan, then like me, you must add this film to your collection. It does have brief, rare moments of humor, although they are few and far between. The mere fact that this movie is so hard to find makes it a collectors item and a must have for your ernest collection. I was lucky to find this film online at a dirt cheap price a couple years ago. I believe I paid 1.99 plus shipping for it. And it was the only copy I could find anywhere. Even though this is a truly all around horrible movie, it is still a must have if you are a Jim Varney fan and an Ernest movie collector such as I. On a scale of 1 to 10 I give this movie a 2 but thats only because I've never seen a 1 before ;)

Sentiment: negative
If you want a film with the full range of emotion, look NO further; dramatic and funny, and scenes of wrenching emotion; I can safely guarantee VERY few will be able to view this warm and VERY human film without shedding a tear now and then. The acting by the two leads is hard to believe; you would swear the two young men really DO suffer from Muscular Dystrophy (Rory) and Cerebral Palsy (Michael); quite simply, two of the FINEST performances I have EVER seen; these are two very believable characters as well, and you never have the feeling things have just been "tossed in" for dramatic purposes or to evoke sympathy. In the DVD release as "extras" they have "deleted scenes" (including an alternate ending) and an "extended party sequence"; why these clips were not included in the final film is hard to understand, as they tie in with the rest of the film perfectly and are in NO way superfluous. But without reservation I can heartily recommend this film to anyone; one of the very best I have ever seen.

Sentiment: positive
The concept is excellent. The execution typifies the overall quality of the ABC network.

Apart from Peter Jones it appears that the rest of the panel consist of marketing execs. rather than real entrepreneurs.

When I realised that Peter Jones was getting together with Simon Cowell my initial thoughts were wow he's gonna take America by the balls. But it appears that ABC have come along and destroyed the concept.

I was an absolute addict of the Dragons Den in the U.K. and was interested to see that Peter Jones had manipulated the concept that originated in Japan and developed his own show for the States. The result is neither inspiring nor informative.

If you lack drama in your life you have a choice now Jerry Springer or the American Inventor To sum it up: a struggling musician selling out to a media mogul.

Idea: get me! And I'll produce a show worthy of the title

Sentiment: negative
The film is severely awful and is demeaning to rape victims. On the surface, it may be a daring film about rape but if you dig beneath the surface, what lies is a not-so-positive message about rape. Aishwarya the rape victim is shown to be a helpless victim who cannot cope all because she is a WOMAN. She needs a MAN to help her. When the society makes jibes about her and throws comments at her, she does not stand up for herself. It is all left to Anil Kapoor to do all the talking while Aishwarya does all the crying.

The director (Satish Kaushik) went down the wrong path by portraying a rape victim as weak and submissive. What would have been more effective is portraying a strong woman who rebels against her enemies in a courageous way. The director is famous for being chauvinistic. His films are usually full of weak women but he tries to hide them in controversial roles. He needs to learn that just because the role is controversial, it does not mean that the character herself is strong.

The most degrading scene in the film is when Aishwarya 'cleans' herself after just being raped. She does it to please her father who thinks that she is now dirty. Though it is commendable that Shah shows the stigma against rape victims in such a stark light, what he does not show us is whether Ash's father was wrong for making his daughter do such a thing. Thus we are left with a confusing message about rape.

The comedy too is not needed in a strong subject film like this. Even more so, the comedy is simply not funny. Ash is wooden in her role while Anil Kapoor does nothing but shout. The music is mediocre except for the title track, which is beautifully picturised (the only bright point of this film). Sonali Bendre's role is disappointing and pointless. Overall, what could have been a great movie to remember ends up being an awful mish-mash that will give some viewers severe indigestion.

Sentiment: negative
I think that the idea of the plot is perfect for exploring first of all the emotional experiences of the people involved and second, as someone else wrote in a comment, the implications of this kind of relationships (incest and lesbianism) in the romanian society.

so... to begin with the second aspect... to make it short, it wasn't visible at all...

as for the first.. as i said, it had much more potential... i think that those kind of relationships carry much more tension... much more tension... and the potential tension didn't get through...

i think the soundtrack could've been more than those few songs on the background and the theme (wich was nice but not enough and not always in the right moments)... yeah... i could feel the absence of a better soundtrack..

the actors... i think that they were somewhere from 7 to 8/10... not enough sensuality in the key moments...

a total of 7/10.... mostly for the story

Sentiment: positive
Yes, this movie has kids going to space camp and it starts out okay enough as you have the kids meeting one another and learning the ropes. Then they introduce Jinx, a robot that could not possibly exist in 1986 as they do not have anything with that kind of artificial intelligence now. Kid becomes buddy with robot and robot repays the kid's kindness by shooting him and a group of other kids in this camp into outer space with a very limited oxygen supply and radios that do not have the signal to reach into space. This camp is also not very fun as these kids are put to real training and the instructors get all over them for failing missions or not doing the right things. Give it a rest, they are there for fun, not to become astronauts just yet, just give them the experience of space flight not a military like camp. However, you do get to see Joaquin Phoenix in a fairly early role. So in the end a movie that tries to be realistic in some areas, but with the introduction of Jinx and other factors you might as well had the kids battle space aliens on top of everything else that was happening in the movie as that would have made the movie a bit more enjoyable at least for me. Probably for a few others as well, who else would like to see Kate Capshaw's face ripped apart by some strange super alien creature.

Sentiment: negative
... The reason I like this movie so much is because of the spirit it has. It's a genial summer camp movie, so the jokes aren't mean minded in a lasting way that makes one character the permanent butt of ridicule. Pranks do take place, but you get the feeling that the respective fall-guys would be able to look back and laugh, having been dopey enough to fall for them - and without being too cheesy, it's actually kinda nice that everyone still remains friends in the end!

It's an extra special bonus when the ringmaster of all these jolly japes is Bill Murray. For me, he's still looked upon as the comedy god without peer when he gets a chance to cut loose. No one's better at generating a sense of freewheeling wacky anarchy without really hurting anyone. The tone of the entire film has the same style as its leading man, established with a great opening scene showing the Murray way of getting ready for the day. Everything's silly, yes, but more important than behaving like an adult is to have a whole lot of good-natured fun. "Meatballs" promises such and ultimately delivers a nourishing watch.

Sentiment: positive
"A young man, recently engaged to be married, is the victim of a traffic accident and dies as a result of his injuries. His father, desperate to revive his son, agrees to let a scientist friend try his experimental soul transmigration process to save him. After the young man returns to life, the father and fiancée notice a dark and violent change in the young man's behavior, leading them to believe something went horribly wrong in the revival process," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

At one point, Edward Norris (as Philip Bennett) is asked, "What do you think this is, Boys Town?" Mr. Norris should know, since he was in "Boys Town". "The Man with Two Lives " is more like "Black Friday" minus Karloff and Lugosi. You do the math. This film might have been a contender, with a re-worked script; it does feature an intriguing final act. After a tepid "shoot out", hang in for the drama to pick up with a well-played scene between star Norris and pursuing detective Addison Richards (as George Bradley).

**** The Man with Two Lives (1942) Phil Rosen ~ Edward Norris, Eleanor Lawson, Addison Richards

Sentiment: negative
A really funny British comedy from the mid 1950's about a school for girls. The girls are all involved in mischief and mayhem, making bathtub gin, smoking and gambling. Alastair Sim plays Headmistress Millicent in a glorious drag role, as well as playing Millicent's brother. A female police officer goes to the school undercover to see what is going on. This film is funny, having great sight gags and Alastair Sim is great. Just a classic Britsh comedy, lots of fun and not too cruse. Joan Sims ans Sid James, stars of many Carry On films, play small roles, but this film is about the girls. It spawned 3 sequels and a recent re-make. Watch and enjoy where it all began.

Sentiment: positive
This film is based on a true story. The author of the novel bearing the same title, Einar Már Guðmundsson, had a brother, who turned mentally ill. I found this film very moving, following the main character's path down into illness, to see how he tries to cope with life after diagnosis, and how he makes friends at the mental institution, it all is very convincing. There are quite a few splendidly funny incidents also in the manuscript. The title of it gives nothing away concerning the story. You must watch it to understand ... and listen to the music, which is twisting and turning your heart and soul upside down and back as the film moves on. A must-see for everyone.

Sentiment: positive
I looked forward to seeing this movie when it came out, since I was a huge SNL fan. When my boyfriend and I went to see it, the people coming out of the early show were yelling, "Don't waste your money!" But of course we had to find out for ourselves.

While there were a few funny bits (Laser Bra 2000, Root Boy Slim), most of it felt like it could have been severely edited down to an amusing 1 hour show. It was pretty bad.

When the opera singer came on, many people got up and walked out. This made me laugh, because I realized that O'Donoghue was just pressing people's buttons on purpose with this movie. Or else he was just insane. Whatever - you don't need to waste your time watching it, it's that bad.

Sentiment: negative
A recent viewing of THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT has given me the urge to watch many of the classic MGM musicals from the forties and fifties. ANCHORS AWEIGH is certainly a lesser film than ON THE TOWN. The songs aren't as good, nor is the chemistry between the characters. But the film beautifully interweaves classical favorites, such as Tchaikovsky. And the scene at the Hollywood Bowl, with Sinatra and Kelly emerging from the woods above it at the top, and then running down the steps, while dozens of pianists play on the piano, is the best scene in the film, even though the scene in which Kelly dances with Jerry Mouse is more famous. Classical music enthusiasts will no doubt identify the music the pianists are playing. Sinatra then croons, "I Fall in Love Too Easily," before having his epiphany about whom he loves. The color is beautiful, Hollywood looks pretty with its mountains and pollution-free air (Can you imagine Hollywood in the twenties, let alone the mid-1940s?!), and the piano music is absolutely glorious. MGM certainly had a flair for creating lyrical moments like these.

Sentiment: positive
I caught this movie by accident on cable in the middle of it and had to rent it to see it's entirety and I'm glad I did. I was immediately drawn by the storyline and cared about the girls involved. Naive high school graduates, best friends since childhood, take a high school trip and are taken in by a con man named Nick who get them into serious trouble. They are used as sacrificial mules in a heroin smuggling ring. Taken in to custody the girls learn to cope with their incarceration while trying to find a way out of their trouble. Everything that they try to help themselves falls short when the Thai criminal justice system shows shortcomings and the girls end up in more trouble and lose the trust of their American lawyer "Yankee Hank". Hank gives up trying to defend them after he feels betrayed by Alice(Claire Dane). However, the Thai native wife of Hank smells a rat in the case and does some further foot work of investigation and finds out the girls really were victimized. The end of the movie when Alice does a selfless act to save Darlene (Beckinsale) had me in tears. I really enjoyed this movie and would recommend it.

Sentiment: positive
Mexican 'classic' was the third entry in the Aztec Mummy series. As you will soon find out, this movie is anything but a classic, instead, it's more like a movie that deliberately tries to bore you.

Some scientist wants to steal Aztec treasure from a tomb, but guarding that tomb is that walking toilet paper commercial: The Aztec Mummy. Knowing he can't beat the Mummy, he then builds a robot, and a very bad one at that. We only get to see Mr.Robot in the last reel, as he clunks around, and does battle with the Aztec Mummy.

I have seen a lot of lousy Sci-Fi films, hell most Sci-Fi films I see are lousy, but this one, for it's entire duration of 64 Minuites, is the worst movie I've seen, with Fubar coming in a close second....

In conclusion: Don't waste your time.

Sentiment: negative
Antonioni's movies have aged not well. What always surprised me about them is that, besides an unquestionable plastic beauty, there is a dull and didactic "psychology" of the characters and situations. Remember, for instance, the conversations between Mastroianni and the "wicked capitalistic" that wants sing up him in "La notte", or Monica Vitti laughing at the peasants flirting in the train in "La aventura", or Ferzetti dropping the glass of ink at the end of the same film. 

I have reviewed yesterday "Zabriskie Point". In this film there are a lot of nice and elaborate shots of the Rod Taylor office, the streets and highways of L.A., the publicity advertisements, the deserts,etc., that show the fascination of the author in his American journey, in the same way than Wim Wenders years later. Unfortunately, there are too a lot of hippie-leftist clichés that spoil the movie: - The boy leaves the meeting, steals an aeroplane and flies over the desert in order to liberate himself and find "something different". - The executives in grey suites speak all the time about speculation. - The girl looks at the "object women" in the swimming pool and leaves because she wants not to be like them. - The couple of fat middle-class in the caravan speak, in front of the beauty of the nature, of building a hotel and earning a lot of money. - Last but not the least, a lot of couples making love in the desert. What a hippie platitude!

Sorry, today, half a century after the "revolution" of "La Aventura" we can see that the king is naked, and his films (except "Le amiche" and perhaps "Il grido") are only a handful of aestheticism and commonplaces.

Sentiment: negative
This is the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. This is saying quite a bit, considering some of the choices I've made in film rentals.

I got this on netflix based entirely on the fact that someone I went to high school with is topless in it. The topless scene lasted all of about 5 seconds and the rest of the movie was about as much fun as having pungee sticks driven underneath my toenails whilst being forced to listen to Roseanne sing Big Spender.

The "skits" are stupid and consist of the worst kind of juvenile bathroom humor and locker-room gags, and it's such a blatant (and poor) rip-off of The Kentucky Fried Movie that you'll be begging for Big Jim Slade to crash through the wall and save us from the stupidity of "Vince Offer" (whoever that is).

Unless you are a masochist, avoid this pile of rubbish.

Sentiment: negative
I watched SCARECROWS because of the buzz surrounding it. Well, I can't imagine anyone liking this movie because it's just bad, bad, bad.

It's obvious that whoever made this movie doesn't know a single thing about horror. The whole story is an unsuccessful marriage of two genres: action movie (guns and criminals) and horror (living scarecrows). When the criminals are killed one by one by the poky looking scarecrows, the two genres automatically cancel each other out because, first, they're criminals and who cares about criminals, and second, because they're stupid criminals to boot! Having zombie scarecrows go after them just doesn't work here. Where's the horror in that? I wanted the criminals to die horrible, painful deaths.

But the story is so badly constructed that this marriage of genres, which could have been original if handle well, NEVER gels. We're simply left with is a bunch of super dense criminals and a bunch of scarecrows, which are "alive" for whatever flimsy reason the filmmakers thought up. Making things even worse is the fact that the cinematography is terrible (TV like) and, worse offense of all, whole bunches of the dialogue are told on CBs, and we continuously hear inane dialogue spoken over disconnected images as if we're watching some sort of Radio show. This part was really BAD. The director should have been shot on the spot for coming up with such a stupid idea! I can't tell you how annoying that was.

As I've already mentioned, the criminals in SCARECROWS are amazingly stupid. For instance, when someone suddenly shows up, gutted and filled with money and straw (yep, straw) in his huge open wound, the others ask "What drug is he on?" after they shoot tons of bullets in him, unable to kill him (he's been "zombiefied" by the scarecrows. Don't ask...). Get a freaking clue, morons. I've never seen such stupid people in a movie. And then there's the girl. I wished one of the scarecrows had killed her quickly because she was a pain in the butt. When she finds her father nailed to a scarecrow "cross", she actually blames the criminals in an embarrassing scene (bad acting), even though the criminals couldn't have done it. What a dimwit she was! But the scarecrows are the biggest weakness in this very weak flick. They're not scary. Nothing much is explained about them. They're just a plot device in this plot device filled movie.

Mr Wesley, filming the face of a scarecrow for 30 seconds nonstop doesn't elicit anything but sheer boredom. And that scene with the talking head in the fridge. Thanks for the laughter.

All in all, this had to be one of the worst movies I've seen recently (and I've seen a lot of movies these days!) Between the equally woeful SILO KILLER or SCARECROWS, I'd rather watcher SILO KILLER again. Yep, SCARECROWS is that bad.

Sentiment: negative
This ludicrous film offers the standard 1970's "hippie mentality" in a nut shell and bores us in the process. Its an attempt to rationalize absurd marriages of young, innocent women with old age sex fiends and wash ups. A naive young hippy played by the waif-like ( Kay Lenz ) hitch hikes and sleeps with all the wrong guys, and then one day she meets the ridiculous (Holden), already in old age, hard liquor drinking and washed up as an actor, and she decides that she is in "love" with him. If you think that is superficial, the whole film encapsulates such scenes. She keeps saying how much she "loves" him and she only met him, it wears thin and really quick. I couldn't help but laugh throughout the film. Its obvious she's just using him as a meal ticket but the director is immature enough to think we are going to buy that there is actually any love taking place. A disgusting scene is where the two are naked and having sex, I had to fast forward it because it almost inspired me to vomit. A corny offering of music from the 70's is also spread through the film. Avoid this if you can. Grade D.

Sentiment: negative
Joe Don Baker is an alright to good actor in small roles here and there...he was alright in Goldeneye and made a pretty good Bond villan in The Living Daylights and has appeared in various other movies. One thing he can't do is carry a movie as the lead, which he is in this extremely bad revenge movie set in Malta. Joe Don's partner is killed so he kills the killer's brother and escorts the killer to Italy, but some guys cause the plane to set down in Malta and the killer gets away. The rest of the movie is seeing Joe Don chase the killer here and there, Joe Don getting taken into custody various times, Joe Don torturing a bartendar and being interrupted and so on. The movie is quite bad and you won't find yourself exactly pulling for Joe Don's character. You will be amazed at how many times Joe Don the hero gets taken out by one punch and how incompetent he proves to be. The crowning part of the movie comes when Joe Don chases the killer all over Malta with the killer in a priest robe and then they get in boats and he chases them all around Malta. This movie also features one of the worst closing lines to end a movie ever.

Sentiment: negative
An Avent-garde nightmarish, extremely low-budget "film" that has delusions of grandeur. Hard to sit through. I get the message that child abuse is wrong. Wow big revelation. I had no clue it was wrong before viewing this. Yes that's sarcasm. DON'T watch this "film" if you're offended by nudity of either the male or female gender. DON'T watch it if you're the least bit squeamish. DON'T watch it if you care about acting. On second thought just DON'T watch it period.

My grade: D-

DVD Extras:making the movie , the premiere,interview with Kristie Bowersock, deleted scenes, movie stills, Director's commentary, 2 versions of the teaser trailer, music video by The Azoic, & a classroom video experiment

Sentiment: negative
It really amazed me to see that someone would take so much time to assess such a bad movie. The beginning (of the film) had some truth in it. The Partisan "AF" was started in 1943 when two communist pilots from the Croat Ustashi AF deserted, together with their observers, in Breguet 19 and Potez 33, respectively. The aircraft saw some action in strafing and hand-bombing, but didn't last very long. One crew was killed and the other survived, the pilot being killed later while flying a Spitfire Vc. The real Partisan squadrons were established when RAF detached two of its (Yugoslav) squadrons of Spitfire Vc and, Hurricane IIc , respectively, manned by Ex Yugoslav Royal Airforce pilots, and allotted them to Tito's forces on the Island of Vis. Even those were never engaged in air-to-air activities, but strictly for ground support. So the film was one giant cow manure, to put it mildly, and the lowest point for its, otherwise not at all bad, director. By some quirk of fate I was present on the filming of the last sequence of the movie, when dozens of German aircraft were destroyed (Yugoslav 522 trainers, used also in the flying sequences) on the Mostar military airport. The pyrotechnics were impressive, and the Scotch served lavishly by the film crew was even better. Otherwise, the film was a shameless lie was and frequently joked about by the contemporary audience.

Sentiment: negative
This film requires a lot of patience. Because it focuses on mood and character development, the plot is very simple and many of the scenes take place on the same set - in Frances Austen's (the Sandy Dennis character) apartment. But the film builds to a disturbing climax.

The characters create an atmosphere rife with sexual tension and psychological trickery. It's very interesting that Robert Altman directed this, considering the style and structure of his other films. Still, the trademark Altman audio style is evident here and there. I think what really makes this film work is the brilliant performance by Sandy Dennis. It's definitely one of her darker characters, but she plays it so perfectly and convincingly that it's scary. Michael Burns does a good job as the "mute" young man. Regular Altman player Michael Murphy has a small part. The solemn, moody set fits the content of the story very well. In short, this movie is a powerful study of loneliness, sexual repression, and desperation. Be patient, soak up the atmosphere, and pay attention to the wonderfully written script.

I praise Robert Altman. This is one of his many films that deals with unconventional, fascinating subject matter. This film is disturbing, but it's sincere and it's sure to elicit a strong emotional response from the viewer. If you want to see an unusual film - some might even say bizarre - this is worth the time.

Unfortunately, it's very difficult to find in video stores. You may have to buy it off the internet.

Sentiment: positive
I found this movie immensely interesting yet a little jaded, it talks of violence and what there doing, I still don't see the point in becoming terrorists in order to stop the terrorists. We have similar people in the United States and other countries justifying the use of violence and war tactics because they think they are right. Think of the Puritans,and the Christian crusades against the Islamic people during the Medieval times. Lots of blood and death far exceeding the violence of today, the western world has had a negative impact on the religion. I do not justify their actions but western culture in the past has had a very negative effect on some. But still do remember the majority of the Islamic people are PEACEFUL! People of any nation feel some sort of patriotism but to start a war on the fact that I'm right and your wrong needs to be rethought. Again I repeat you cannot stop terrorists by becoming like them.

Sentiment: negative
I'm afraid that I didn't like this movie very much. Apart from a few saving graces, it's nothing to write home about. 

J-horror has boomed for the last five-six years but the films themselves have on more than one account been repetitive and carbon copies of a previous success. This is one of them.

Basically this is a supernatural slasher movie. The beginning is promising with chilling scenes from a morgue where a dead girl has her eyes graphically sewn together, but soon after opens them. However, after that, it's quickly downhill for this flick.

To be kind I will start with the things I like about "Gawi". On the plus side, the visuals are gaudy and the movie looks great for it's type. For those who like their horror movies gory there are a few nicely executed (no pun intended) murder scenes. We also get a few good suspense sequences/set-pieces.

However, there are quite a few drawbacks also...

First of all, and my major complaint about this movie, is that the plot skips and jumps forwards and backwards in time with an alarming intensity. Usually that's not a problem for me, but here, where the students look exactly the same no matter what age they are, I was confused on more than one occasion.

The performances are okay I guess (a little hard to tell when you don't know the language), but seem a little stiff. And for a horror movie, I don't think it was scary enough. For a while I was quite bored actually.

Being a fan of giallo movies, I was expecting quite a lot from "Nightmare", but unfortunately I was quite disappointed.

Sentiment: negative
In recent times I have been subjected to both this movie and "King Arthur", on DVDs chosen by others for an evening's "entertainment" and together they achieve nothing more than bearing out a growing notion I have that the modern movie-watching public totally lacks discrimination, and is content as long as they get "action". Both movies were utter rubbish.

Whatever happened to character development? Whatever happened to meaningful dialogue? Whatever happened to ACTING? And, when watching something that vaguely purports to be "historical", whatever happened to attempting to capture some measure of accuracy, some realistic idea of the "political map" of the time, even some slight flavour of the era, especially in its social attitudes. Why do they all have to display the value set of 21st century America? I have read on the message boards of disclaimers that "little was known" of the dark ages. Not so. Considerable amounts are known, with much learned scholarship on the era, but these jokers simply couldn't be bothered to do any homework.

I only wish I could vote 0/10

Sentiment: negative
When watching little man , you'll spend its running time trying to figure out its many plot holes . And thats not a good sign because this film is supposed to be a comedy ! Your supposed to be laughing at it !! But will you ? Probably not. 

The main problem with little man is its concept- its far too ridiculous to accept (even as a cartoonish comedy ), so when the loud , laboured and over the top jokes kick in , they make the whole thing seem ten times stupider than it already is.

"But its a comedy " some of you might be screaming. Thats true but thats no excuse for such a dumb plot.I mean come on , think about it if you saw a baby with A GROWN MANS FACE , wouldn't you be the least bit suspicious? And if calvin wanted to hide the diamond so badly, why didn't he put it in a nearby shelf instead of a random womans hand bag? And how can a qualified doctor NOT recognise that calvin is a grown man ? i mean seriously...what ? 

"Its not about the plot , its about the laughs" you might be screaming . Well heres the thing see, there are hardly any laughs in little man and that just make the dumb ass plot stand out all the more. 

If you really want to watch a wayans brothers comedy with a belief suspending plot, stick to white chicks because at least that had a few decent laughs.What ever you do steer clear of little man.

Sentiment: negative
Despite the previous reviewer's screed, this is a well paced and interesting documentary with lots of clips from classic 1950s sci-fi films that influenced Spielberg, Lucas and others in their more recent efforts. I agree that Spielberg's films aren't even in the same league as the films discussed here, such as William Cameron Menzies' brilliant INVADERS FROM MARS, to name just one of the many titles examined, but this is still a remarkably good overview of 1950s paranoid sci-fi. Yes, it turns into a commercial for the tepid remake of WAR OF THE WORLDS during the last fifteen minutes; you can turn that off. The rest is surprisingly good, and it's nice to see contemporary filmmakers remember the films that inspired them, even if they can't begin to match the originals.

Sentiment: positive
Mmmm, a previous summary says "if you like aliens and predator you will enjoy this film" i could not disagree more, this film pays no respect to its weighty lineage and has reduced two of the best loved sci fi strands to little more than a teen horror slasher movie, it has none of the tension or foreboding present in previous alien or predator movies and there is no discernible lead character, i really did not care about any of the characters and i positively yearned to see the stereotypical cast die as soon as possible in the vain hope something better would replace them, it really takes super human incompetence to have two of the most fearsome creatures ever invented positively fail to make a gripping thrilling movie, only watch this if you want to see how NOT to do it.

Sentiment: negative
It was life-changing, IT REALLY WAS!!!The Man In The Moon is a breathtaking experience to watch.The acting was fabulous, the story line was great, and this was a perfect start for Reese Witherspoon's career.I don't see how anyone couldn't love this film.Sure, it's not the best movie ever, even though it was close to it, but it was highly amusing to watch, and I even had a big laugh at one of the jokes, and a lot of other little laughs.Of course, there was some cry your heart out moments too, but this movie was enlightening, and it brightens up your day, although you have to get a little depressed from the story every now and then.I can't believe this movie didn't win at least one award, and I also can't believe that it's been seen by so little people on this site.See this movie if you haven't for it is definitely touching.

Sentiment: positive
This is a very bad movie. I laughed once or twice, and the storyline sucks! There is maybe one funny joke, it is stupid and it is boring. Through the whole short movie, I was falling asleep and wondering when it was going to end.

No one acts human, and everyone acts stupid and ridiculous. Rob Schneider acting like an animal isn't something I would pay to see. It looked funny, but the bottom line: DON'T WASTE YOU'RE PRECIOUS TIME ON SUCH A RIDICULOUS AND STUPID MOVIE.

I was wondering when it was going to end, even though it is a short movie. In the beginning we thought it would get better; but it gets worse. Stupid, all the way to the end. I walked out of the theater, and I would remember that movie as extremely bad forever.

The writer and co-producer of this film is a Simpsons TV writer, but this is nothing like The Simpsons (this movie sucks!!!)

Sentiment: negative