DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This horror movie, based on the novel of the same name, suffers from flawed production and choppy, amateurish direction, but it's nonetheless strangely compelling. Unlike shocker horror flicks such as The Exorcist, this movie takes the viewer on a slow yet relentless dip into a pool of evil. It drifts into horror, which dawns on the audience with the same dreamlike slowness as it dawns on the poor girl who's been unwittingly chosen to be the next sentinel. Her appointed task is to sit at the gates of hell and prevent evil from erupting into the world. This falls on her in atonement for her attempted suicide earlier in her life.

The story is true to the book, which was riveting, but the way it's edited can lose the viewer. There are subtleties in the plot that are shaved away and never explained satisfactorily, which hurts this film. That's a pity. The Sentinel is not an edge-of-your-seat kind of flick; it's more a watch-and-squirm uncomfortably. Like a bad car wreck, there's a compulsion to look even when it becomes unbearable. This movie isn't all bad, and still has a capacity to shock.

The cast was competent. Christina Raines was captivating as Alison, the vulnerable girl under spiritual attack from both sides, a pawn in the never-ending battle between good and evil. Chris Sarandon was good as her caring but ultimately self-centered boyfriend. Eli Wallach and a very young Christopher Walken are the detectives struggling to unravel the bizarre puzzle they've been handed. Ava Gardner is elegant as the realtor unaware of the horrors lurking in her rental property. The gaunt elderly John Carradine, with his arthritis-twisted hands, is excellent as the dying sentinel who must be replaced. The devil is played to charming perfection by Burgess Meredith; he's so sweet and yet so evil. There are future stars hidden in this film: Beverly D'Angelo and Jeff Goldblum as friends of the poor girl, and Jerry Orbach playing successfully against type as a jerky television director. The damned souls at the end are portrayed by actual sideshow freaks and geeks. Whoever thought to do that was a twisted but brilliant genius.

The horror that pervades the movie bubbles up unexpectedly, such as when Alison opens a door and finds something that evokes a flashback to when she found her father with his two whores. She relives her first suicide attempt, faces a pair of strangely dysfunctional lesbians, and sees a cat cut up as a cake. Time and again, she's yanked back and forth through reality and fantasy, through dreams and waking nightmares, all the while lacking the means to cope. In truth, the devil is trying to drive her insane enough to kill herself before becoming the next sentinel. Will he succeed...? In summary, slow-moving yet indescribably creepy, well-acted but poorly directed, and a very typical 70's horror film before the real shockers cut loose. (No pun intended) This movie may not work for those with a short attention span, but it can still send chills up the spine, and still can provide some low-key shock value. It remains a strangely compelling and entertaining dip into the realm of evil.

Sentiment: positive
The absolute summum of the oeuvre of that crafty Dane Douglas Sirk (born Detlef Sierck), Written on the Wind compels our prurient attention in every gaudy frame. From its justly famous opening sequence, with the leaves blowing into the baronial foyer of a Texas mansion and the wind riffling the pages of the calendar into a flashback, the movie compresses into its 99 minutes all the familial intrigue that was to fuel such later, little-screen knockoffs as Dallas, Dynasty and Falcon Crest over their years-long runs.

The combination of wealth and dysfunction is a theme Americans, in our dollar-based society, find irresistible. Brother and sister Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone are the spoiled, troubled heirs to the Hadly oil fortune; boyhood chum Rock Hudson and new bride Lauren Bacall are the sane outsiders who try to keep the lid on the roiling cauldron. (It's been rumored that the story was based on Libby Holmann's marriage into Reynolds tobacco money.) As always, the misfits get all the scenery to chew -- and the best lines to spit out (Malone, in her Oscar-nabbing performance as the boozing nymphomaniac with a jones for Hudson, gets to detonate a whole fireworks display of them). Hudson, while good, can't compete with all this over-the-top emoting; Bacall starts out strong but grows recessive, a mere plot convenience. No matter; with a succession of set-pieces shot in extravagant hues, Sirk gives an object lesson in how to turn out overwrought melodrama set in the lush consumer paradise of late-50s America. Nobody ever did it better.

Sentiment: positive
I've heard a lot of different opinions about this film and then to find out that Paris Hilton was in it as well didn't give Me the best impression of the film .... then to be dragged to the cinema by a group of my friends and sit there expecting a pile of pants i was shocked to find that i was scared stiff all the way through the film ... it was predictable yes but the build up of the deaths and the whole atmosphere of the film made it REALLY scary for me ... i was watching through my fingers the whole way through. So i say go watch it and decide for yourself and if the fact that its a scary film doesn't convince you to go watch it then it also has Chad Michael Murray in it which can't be bad to watch for a couple of hours eh?

Sentiment: positive
"Shuttle" is/was more than a boring movie that had an interesting start, but after half an hour it ended in the worst imaginable way I ever could imagine. This movie has lost its story, if you can call it a story? ... after half an hour. All the next scenes are totally out of proportion. The driver is some kind of superman because he survives every attack with gun - knife etc.. even after stabbed in his leg he was able to put her in the box. But what a coincidence that there was a box in that garage. I really felt sick and misled when the movie ended. It could have been such a great one if the story was far more better. In my opinion even a kid would make a better story. And why shipping the girl with water and food. I quit with counting the plot holes about halfway through. And when the movie reached its almost admirably sick over-the-top final twist, I had completely given up (better say "throw-up). The worst thing about Shuttle is actually that it can not be even more worse that worse. Maybe writer/director Anderson will learn from this lesson and provide us with a decent thriller next time. Think the better he'll move to a different genre. I Keep my fingers crossed. But from now on I will read the comment on his future movies first before looking. A waste of time.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the most enjoyable teen movies I have ever seen (and that I wished was released to video). It was released the same year as another great comedy in which Tim Matheson played a role "Animal House" (Which is probably why it was overlooked). 

One of the most memorable parts of this film would definitely be the soundtrack, which could have and should have been a formal label release. The soundtrack features a lesser-known 70's act named High Inergy whose song "We are the future", played a marquee role in the movie's Prom scene. I remember purchasing the group's album "Steppin' Out" as a kid mainly because of the look of the girls and not necessarily for their musical talents. 

The closing song is one of the best ballads I have ever heard, and I can still hear it in my head. I wish I knew the group's name so that I could look for it somewhere in cyberspace.

If you liked films such as "Over the edge" and "Rich Kids", I think this is one that you will enjoy as well.

Sentiment: positive
I've read innumerable reviews talking about the superiority of the mini-series. I certainly can't agree on such a blanket statement. If you analyze all of the aspects of a video/film production, there are numerable areas where the film is arguably vastly superior.

Certainly, many of the comments are valid with regard to particular areas of the mini-series. Specifically regarding more threads (customs officers) and more developed threads (such as the Pakistani farmer and family). That said, I found Catherine Zeta-Jones' character much more compelling as the desperate women, from poverty to riches who "won't go back." That's a much more likable character than this cold women who didn't seem to have as much reason for her quick turn to evil. (And yes, I understand...her children. She was desperate; I just didn't see her as being as desperate.)

Further, while I appreciated some of the more fleshed out story threads in the mini-series, Benicio del Toro's character was very compelling. An anchor for the film. That thread was changed (as an alternative to the Pakistani family) in nothing but good ways. A fantastic adaptation. (Of course, I'm skeptical that someone so pure can exist within such a system, but I don't know enough about the politics of the nation to argue).

After watching the first episode of the mini-series, I actually rewatched the film. Why? I kept reading about the fantastic acting. I found the performances in the first episode of the mini-series to be borderline laughable. Certainly, this improved as the mini-series progressed. Now having just finished both versions in a few days, I can't agree that the performances in the mini-series reached the same level as, say, Benicio del Toro, who was brilliant in the film, though Ormand, Paterson, Shah, and Lindsay Duncan were very good. I also feel the police in the film far outclassed the mini-series. I was not impressed with the Germans throughout.

Finally, the dialogue, as delivered in the film, is much more nuanced. Especially in the scenes which are almost verbatim. "Careful, you're beginning to sound like your husband." as opposed to "HAHAHAHA! You sound like Karl." Again, I found some of the acting in the mini- series very unconvincing. This was a prime example.

Other superior aspects of the film, in my opinion: score, cinematography, editing.

Should I complain that the film wasn't longer? No. I think it was a fantastic adaptation given the format. The changes made stood on their own. I mean, would you sit in a theater for 5/ 7/10 hours. Of course not.

Mini-series: 8 out of 10

Film: 9 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
This is truly one of the worst movies ever made--and I don't mean in a so-bad-it's-good kind of way. Eddie Murphy is a great comic, and it is a testament to how bad this movie is that it nearly killed his career. The writing and direction are inept, the sets and staging about as imaginative as a Brady Bunch episode, and the acting shows just how bad a great cast can be when they have absolutely nothing to work with. If it weren't for the costumes--which, aside from Eddie Murphy's ego, seem to account for the major part of the budget--you would swear this thing was slapped together by a bunch of high schoolers wasted on peppermint Schnapps. That anyone could find this travesty in any way funny or entertaining is mind-boggling. It's probably no coincidence that the misguided souls who are praising this stinker are barely literate. But if your idea of hilarity is Della Reese getting her "pinkie toe" shot off, then by all means, put aside your drool cup and go rent this movie.

Sentiment: negative
Additionally titled BURNING MAN and FLASH FIRE for its various releases, this Australian made film, shot in New South Wales is problematic for its producers from its outset due to several personality conflicts and extended shooting time that prematurely uses up its allocated budget, and although the storyline is at times nicely detailed, below standard post-production finishing and overmuch cutting jettisons the affair. Tom Skerritt plays as Howard Anderson, an American entrepreneur with a "passion for building" who is in process of erecting a tourist hotel in the Blue Mountains region, all the while unaware that his business partner, Julian Fane (Guy Doleman) has insured the incomplete structure for ten million dollars, far more than its actual worth, and plans its destruction as corollary to normal summer brush fires in order to collect a handsome sum through fraud. In line with this illicit scheme, Fane arranges for an arsonist to perform the incendiary deed, a young man who also happens to be the boyfriend of Anderson's daughter, and due to the future resort's being in the midst of a critical fire hazard sector (one of the many unexplained elements of the screenplay) Julian has every expectation that his dastardly design will come about without serious hindrance. As the local insurance firm victimized by the crime is majority owned by Fane, the policy's naturally skeptical underwriters, Lloyd's of London, deploy senior investigator George Engels (James Mason) to probe into the nature of the felony, made more sinister because of the death, possibly a homicide, of an insurance investigator (Wendy Hughes) who, in following clues was apparently coming close to the cause of the arson. The setting for the film is the week before Christmas, capstone of summer in the Antipodes, a dramatic background, but the links within the story are not smoothly compounded, resulting in the presentation of events that are rather difficult for a viewer to follow, a problem heightened by erratic editing, the mentioned heavy cutting, and poor sound and picture quality. Skerritt's semi-comatose and droning style is fatally invalidated by this dim sound processing but Mason is very effective, as ever, and enjoys the best dialogue with Hughes impressive as the too early written-out investigator; Doleman wins acting laurels with his performance as the malevolent Julian Fane.

Sentiment: negative
This movie makes several mistakes. a few American actors in Spain , and the Spanish actors speaking English. the 'spaniards' English is OK, but the way the acting is performed it makes it all quite annoying. the dialog through the whole script is very weak; it may have been a Spanish script but translated incorrectly, who knows and who cares. i can only assume that these are famous Spanish actors forced into the English language , they may be good, but not in this flop. you will figure out the movie within the first 5 minutes, thats how pathetic it is. then the rest is just bad . lots of waste of time, lots of UN-necessary plots. Oh did i mention one of the Baldwins' is in this.

Sentiment: negative
...but a lousy film. As Maltin says this was Christopher Lee's attempt to make a serious horror film. Well, it is serious...TOO serious! The plot is silly and slow (something about old people inhabiting the bodies of young children to achieve immortality)...the film is all talk talk talk talk talk talk talk about the same things over and over again. I actually dozed off a few times! The film is sooooo dull! The cast sleepwalks through this with the sole exceptions of Peter Cushing and Lee...but this was probably a labor of love for both (they often complained about horror movies being too violent...well, this has NO violence!). Avoid at all costs...unless you have insomnia...this will put you to sleep!

Sentiment: negative
The line is funnier in England, where, away from Vixen!'s native America, the word "fanny" has a whole new meaning. Sadly, it's the only laugh you'll get in this terrible sex comedy that is neither sexy nor funny.

Oddly unalluring with painted-on eyebrows, Erica Gavin (Acting ability: zero) is a nymphomaniac who lusts after her own brother, but rejects his black friend while making derogatory remarks about watermelons. As if in revenge, he asks her if she would go with a Shetland pony. Reference is also made to "making it with monkeys". Gavin's ability to shake and tremble with orgasmic pleasure at the slightest touch is matched only in it's lack of appeal by her seduction dance  which involves a bonfire and a haddock. Personally, I preferred the haddock.

For '68 this was pretty tame stuff, and belies the controversy it attracted at the time. A character claims to be "getting stoned", though it's only on bourbon, and for one of the original "X" certificates, there's no full frontal nudity. Just six years later we would be getting Timmy Lea and his Confessions, but here we have to make do with topless shots. Only Gavin's final seduction of her own brother really shocks. Another activity for Vixen is where she helps settle the sexual problems between a married couple by sleeping with them both. The two women clearly aren't enjoying acting out their scene together, and make a poor effort to disguise it. After Vixen irons out their disharmony, the romantic husband concludes of his wife "I guess she's got it coming to her!"

The only near-worthwhile segment involves an unusual discussion of Cuban Communism. It seems out of place with the rest of the film, though is spliced with shots of Gavin's breasts to rope it in to continuity. This then leads into a vague anti-Vietnam stance, which is commendable, though dropped in the middle of such a frivolous film it seems trite and insensitive, not to say downright tasteless. Incidentally, the part of would-be Communist Niles Brooke is taken by Harrison Page, the same Harrison Page who played Captain Trunk in amusing comedy Sledge Hammer! Page must be embarrassed by his back catalogue (Which also includes Meyer's Beyond The Valley of the Dolls), though Meyer apologists would have you believe the terrible dialogue, lousy acting, sloppy direction and dire editing are not just part of the charm, but wholly intentional. As a defence, it fails to hold water.

The irritating incidental music  a cross between the tunes they play in cinema restaurant ads and muzak used by TV stations when the transmission breaks down  is omnipresent and intrusive; while even the silly, amateurishly skewed camera angles can't generate interest. A wonderful world of jazz saxophones, where women have been "asking for it", black men  or "shines"  aren't good enough for anyone, and rape is an acceptable form of revenge. Absolutely abysmal.

Sentiment: negative
This movie stinks. The stench resembles bad cowpies that sat in the sun too long. I can't believe that so many talented actors wasted their time making such a hopelessly awful film. Whew!

Sentiment: negative
OK, if you are a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and love to mock movies, then you will have a lot of fun with this. Otherwise, it may really be TOO painful to see.

Plot: Obsessed cryptozoologist sneaks a huge crate containing a Chupacabra onto a cruise ship (apparently not having to declare it at customs, or even mention that he's bringing aboard a live animal -"no really, it's research equipment, the air holes are just an accident"). Some dipsticks he hired to lade it open the crate, figuring he paid bunches of money, maybe there's something to steal. Once the WOOD CRATE is open, the Chupacabra breaks through the STEEL BARS inside and goes on a killing rampage.

Yeah, whatever.

By a stroke of sheer coincidence, a Marshall (I assume a U.S. Marshall, since he was in the gulf war, not just some guy named Marshall) is on board, investigating some money that went missing from the ship's safe. He's posing as an insurance salesman ("Lady, I'm the best insurance you've got..."). Other scintillating characters include the captain (John Rhys-Davies, and sadly his dignity is the first victim of the film), his tae-bo instructor daughter (snicker - Tae-bo), an annoying old stuck-up lady with a tiny dog which should be fed to a cat (guess WHAT eats it...?) and an incredibly unpleasant gigolo who might have been believable in a movie made in 1964, not in anything more recent. Much of the acting was really bad, and the characters were just there so that you can laugh hysterically when they died.

Overall - SCREAMINGLY bad. Bad on many levels. BAD BAD BAD. What??? Bullets don't even make Chupacabra flinch, but the Tae-bo bimbo can punch him and scare him away???? Hey Sci-fi Channel, you desperate for scripts or what?

Sentiment: negative
This is possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. Can somebody please explain the plot of this movie to me? Yes, I know the bus ran out of gas in the middle of the desert, after the driver never noticed that his compass wasn't functioning, but what then? And how did it end? Maybe I'm to stupid to understand this movie, but to me it was an absolute waste of time.

My recommendation? Do not bother, there are far better movies to be seen. This movie ranks with my other all time low-low's (Going overboard - Adam Sandler and Fire on the Amazon - Sandra Bullock)

Sentiment: negative
I expected to enjoy a romantic comedy featuring Hip Hop, but was disappointed on many levels. First of all, the story is so badly recycled as to make it almost unbearable. Second, the setting, acting and story are not very authentic or believable. Third, there are a lot more good black actors to choose from than these standard picks. How about some originality? Third, there were very few Hip Hop songs played in entirity - if any. None seemd really central. Overall, film was a great disappointment, but the editing style was very interesting and almost made the film worthwhile.

Sentiment: negative
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

Yes, this is from Nietzsche's Aphorism 146 from "Beyond Good and Evil". And that's what you find at the start of this movie.

If you watch the whole movie, you will doubt if it was the message that the Ram Gopal Varma Production wanted to pass on. As the scenes crop up one by one, quite violent and at times puke-raking, the viewer is expected to forget the Nietzsche quote and think otherwise. That to deal with few people you need dedicated people like Sadhu Agashe who will have the licence to kill anyone, not just writing FIRs (something unworthy of the police to do, as we are made to believe).

When TADA was repealed and the government wanted to pass newer and even more draconian laws, RGV's "Satya" did the required brain surgery without blood transfusion for the multiplex growing thinking urban crowd whose views matters in a democratic country like India. Within a year MCOCA was passed.

When real life encounter specialist Daya Nayak 'became a monster on the path of fighting them' and was himself booked by MCOCA, "Aab tak Chhappan" was made to heed out "false" impression among the people about this. With it's "you have to be a monster to save your nation" approach.

And people consumed it. No questions raised. Only praises and hopes that they get a Sadhu Agashe in their local police station who will solve all problems and hence let only milk and butter flow all over. Blood? You can ignore.

Every time Israel attacks Palestine or Lebanon, we hear voices like "India must also similarly attack Pakistan". This movie is made for such psychopaths. If you don't give them this, they will probably die out of boredom and LSD and what not.

Hence this game of the passion of hatred.

Sentiment: negative
So I got this from the rental store where I work before it was released (release is 8/21), just watched it today, and now I'm speechless. They could have had a decent movie here, but they screwed it up in some painfully obvious ways.

First of all, the parts with John Krasinski were funny, and are the only reason I gave it above a 3, but they are broken up by bad acting and terrible "serious" reflections on life between the main character (Andrew Keegan) and his girlfriend (the annoying Lacy Chabert). It would have been much, much better as a straight comedy ala Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

I wanted to like it, because I think Krasinski is funny and want to see him do well. The story wasn't bad either, just not very original. But the directing (and a lot of the acting) was terrible. I swear they had trouble keeping peoples faces in the shot and just went with it anyway.

Their carelessness is showcased when the gun expert corrects another character and says that a "Dirty Harry" gun is not a .357 magnum but a .45 (it was, as everyone knows, a .44 magnum).

So see this if you 1- really like John Krasinski 2- like to watch low-budget (and poorly-directed) movies or 3- Have too much time on your hands (this is me!)

Sentiment: negative
Martin Lawrence is not a funny man i Runteldat. He just has too much on his mind and he is too mad which trips his puns pretty early in the game. He tries to make fun of critics, which boils down to "f*** them". Then he goes on to rather primitive sexual jokes on smokers with throat cancer and it just goes downhill from there. 3/10

Sentiment: negative
Of all the reviews I've read, most people have been exceedingly hard on Alexandre. Neither Marie or Veronika ever seemed that they would particularly desperate to keep Alexandre, he being only slightly intelligent though not at all intellectual, as most of us are, however hard it may be for anyone to admit. Alexandre is getting away with life perfectly, being totally taken care of, getting and giving what he wants. the girls are allowing this, veronika loves sex, marie is his patron. is there anything wrong with any of this? is anyone in love? really? i don't think so. Though French New Wave cinema is prone to pretension and so on, it is marvelous simply because of its lack of a need for a plot in order to create emotion. Ease is perfectly lovely and all anyone in Alexandre's position, in an urban area can ask for. I'm looking for a patron, anyone interested?

Sentiment: positive
... Bad at being intentionally bad...

This little gem shot straight onto the MST3k big screen. While it's obvious the movie isn't trying to be taken seriously (Hopefully that their goal, anyway...), the movie is still plain bad. Hell, it makes Leprechaun In Space look big budgeted...

In short: Paint my muscle car prune colored!

Sentiment: negative
By the time this film was released I had seen Chorus Line on stage 4 times, and had been anticipating most eagerly the long-rumored production of a film of the story. My wife and I were in line hours before the box office opened on the day the film was released. It was not just a disappointment, it was a kick in the abdomen. 

First, the story was "moved outside," so to speak, by including scenes not in the confines of the theater. Those confines are a large portion of the meaning and impact of the story. 

Second & Third together (assign your own order): one of the original songs, with very dynamic dance number, was removed; a song which was NOT in the stage production was added. Say what ?? I'm confused! 

The only reason I gave this film 2 stars instead of 1 is my admiration for the talent and hard work of the performers. I've now seen Chorus Line on stage 6 times, and wouldn't mind seeing it 6 more times before I die. It is superbly written, with wonderful music, and heart- wrenchingly true stories. If you want to see a musical which includes a great "cattle call" audition, I recommend All That Jazz. If you want to see the story of A Chorus Line, see it on stage.

Sentiment: negative
If you like your sports movies to be about dignity and the best values then this'll work for you big time. Oversentimental in places? Sure, of course it is - and proud of it. It is the biggest and best ride in the Carnival and should be enjoyed as that. 

Big production values, simple telling, with creative shots: it is not complex, is a very nice and remarkably sweet film. It really feels like a labor of love from Bill Paxton; and I bet his son gets that.

The build-up is slow enough to be enjoyed, the conflicts feisty, and the British vs. Americans handled with a degree of vaudevillian villainy, but the dignity between the two main transatlantic protagonists is always to the fore. I have minor gripes: the score wants to be James Horner but is too overblown, and there are too many close-ups, and panning shots for 2005, but if you want a straightforward, decent, and good-looking sports film then this is it.

So here's the thing, and I feel like I know my film, but I actually liked it more than Seabiscuit: which is a better film, but Greatest Story is simply Disney at its core and hugely enjoyable! Thanks, Bill.

Sentiment: positive
Let's see...I'm trying to practice finding the positive in everything, so what kind thing can I say about the Pallbearer?

I know! The performances were -- no, that won't work as they succeeded in draining all personality from Gwyneth Paltrow, usually so vibrant, and ended up creating caricatures out of Carol Kane and Barbara Hershey...

Oh - how 'bout the story -- nope. That isn't gonna fly either, as it was doze-inducing. What was the genre anyway? It wasn't funny, that rules out comedy. It wasn't interesting enough to be dramatic. Was that a romance between Schwimmer and Paltrow? I have to ask, as I can't be sure - let's just call it "losers in like." I'm sure those behind this film started with a vision, I mean, they must have had one to pitch to the studio suits, but I need help finding it.

Even if I were a patient person who could forgive the pure stupidity of the story, I couldn't in good conscience recommend a film that allows a guy to go into a professional job interview in a windbreaker and messy, fluffy, stupid hair. Speaking of hair -- are we supposed to be amused by the deliberate black roots and platinum locks worn by Hershey?

What am I doing? I already lost 97 irretrievable minutes in the actual watching of the movie -- I cannot devote any more time to this loser.

Sentiment: negative
Ruggero Deodato is often credited for inventing the cannibal subgenre with JUNGLE HOLOCAUST in 1975. But director Umberto Lenzi, usually acknowledged as a Deodato rip-off, directed THE MAN FROM DEEP RIVER 3 years earlier in 1972. Is it a worthy start for the genre? Well....not really.....

A photographer accidentally kills a man in self-defense and while retreating into the jungles of an Asian country, is captured by a native tribe who hold him captive, force him into slave labor, and eventually accept him when he marries the chief's daughter. Throughout the whole film, I never felt this was a horror film. It was more reminiscent of a drama, like A MAN CALLED HORSE, which I liked better. Ivan Rassimov is pretty good as the photographer, but it is Me Me Lai as the chief's daughter who is memorable and great. I have always been a Me Me Lai fan ever since her breathtaking performance in JUNGLE HOLOCAUST and she is never given credit for her acting chops because she hardly speaks in her films. She is still very talented and charming. Lots of real animal mutilation is the one thing about DEEP RIVER that could make it a horror film, but even that doesn't execute well.

THE MAN FROM DEEP RIVER is good to see for those who want to see what started the cannibal subgenre, but as an entry in the genre, is easily eclipsed by Deodato's entries and even Lenzi's own later entries. Recommended only for completists and Me Me Lai fans.

Sentiment: negative
I bought this DVD set, sight unseen, and wish I hadn't. The script needed some serious rewriting as it seems to be completely devoid of any feeling and pales in comparison to the book. The lighting is horrid, very unpolished, but if it was just that I could overlook it. The script doesn't focus enough on the characters...there is hardly an introduction to various characters making it a tad difficult to distinguish who is who(especially in the planes--no idea who dies when).

I have long felt that the key to a good film is in getting the audience to care about the characters; if you don't have that you don't have anything. There was no focus on the characters at all--you never got to know them--who they were, what they liked..what made them do the things that they do. The series is 5 hours long and split up into 6 parts...I bet you are wondering what they did with all this time if they didn't detail the characters---they put a lot of filler in it....I will say at least an entire hour is spent watching them land and take off in their planes LOL (I mean do we really need to see that over and over again???). I would have given this a much higher rating had they just improved our knowledge of the characters.

Sentiment: negative
While not for everyone, Crackerjack is a delight to watch, with tongue planted firmly in cheek. The likeable character of Jack Simpson, played by Mick Molloy, is scamming the local "bowlo" for free parking and making a couple of dollars on the side, selling the parking space to work colleagues. When the Bowling Club members need to raise some money to save their club, they call upon Jack to join their bowling team and play competition bowls.

Filled with Aussie Charm, the laconic wit of Mick Molloy is showing through (he also co-wrote the script) reminding this viewer of his earlier work in Radio. Perfect Aussie casting with Bill Hunter as Jack's bowling mentor Stan Coombes, John Clarke (of The Games fame) as the ruthless businessman and rival bowls club owner Bernie Fowler, with Samuel Johnson as Jack's flatmate Dave, and Judith Lucy as the jaded Journalist, Nancy.

Initially, I figured only fans of Molloy would like this flick but judging by the number of the blue rinse set exiting the cinema chuckling, this is a film for everyone.

Sentiment: positive
Formulaic to the max. Neither title reflects the serial's actual content, "Fighting Nazis in Morocco," (actually, the Iverson ranch). The plot is just to fill in the lulls between fistfights. The packaging claims over 40 'fistic encounters' in 15 chapters. That's at least three a chapter! Aside from seeing Duncan Renaldo cast as a Spanish accented Frenchman, watching how much furniture is overturned, smashed, thrown, burned or blown up is what this serial is really all about. When the protagonists start fighting, you can bet that everything in the room will be in it, too. So, kudos to the fight choreographer, who is the real star of this serial! 

Two positive notes: the characters do sometimes lose their hats during the fights, and best of all, we have the girl side kick (often a journalist, as she is here) actually participating in the mayhem, mostly by shooting and killing the bad guys. Yet to come is Linda Stirling killing the main villain in "Manhunt of Mystery Island" (1945). On the negative side, there are just too many jump out of the way escapes-- before the slab falls, before the car goes over the cliff, before the speedboat explodes, before the building explodes, before the truck hits you, etc. etc.

It is claimed that this serial partially 'inspired' George Lucas to make the first Indiana Jones film, but that is more by implied concept than because of the actual story or the serial's development.

Rod Cameron 'shines' as a moving rock, a role he played in all his films. Other than watching all the furniture getting smashed, there's nothing really going on here, compared to other serials that have fewer fights, more story, better actors and more developed characters.

I give it a 3 for all the furniture smashing.

Sentiment: negative
Wow... just... wow. There are a lot of reviews on this movie already but I wanted to add some comments of my own. I agree with most reviewers who have said this movie has terrible acting, writing, and directing - whoo boy does it ever. However, I think there is some other problems here.

1. Why is Christian belief and the allowance for extraterrestrial life mutually exclusive? The film acts as though you just can't be a Christian and also allow for the possibility? Why? They ever-so-briefly touch on this in the film (i.e. "The Bible doesn't say there is aliens." "Well, the Bible doesn't say there isn't.), but the actual rebuttal is never answered. The Bible really doesn't say there isn't. So how about dealing with the question instead of dismissing it out of hand? Or better yet, acknowledge that this is an infinite universe we live in and if we believe in an infinite God there is the possibility that he made some other life somewhere and has his own plans for them.

2. How come the ONLY two explanations for the abductions that are valid are demons and hoax? What about sleep paralysis and night terrors which have been linked to abduction experiences? What if it's something else entirely? Too bad the film makers already have their minds made up.

3. The film makers claim that all who have had abduction experiences have had ties to the occult. That's a pretty big claim to make without any factual evidence to present. I'm not necessarily arguing that they don't, but if you're going to say something so asinine you'd better have the facts to back it up.

4. Why does the other reporter (not the Greasy Haired Blonde Guy, the other one) always have his hands in his pockets? It's hard to take someone seriously when they're constantly playing pocket pool.

I WISH this had been an exploration of Christian faith and UFO phenomena, but unfortunately the film makers were too concerned with their "Faith Message" to care much about make a thought provoking movie. As a Christian myself, this saddens me.

Sentiment: negative
Well, that was sure a waste of Dave McKean's talents, wasn't it? Don't get me wrong: when it comes to graphic design, Dave McKean may be the best in the world right now. The layered, textured look he can accomplish with just a few pencil lines on rough paper make the efforts of people like Peter Greenaway and David Fincher look like what they are: hackwork. McKean has been the godfather of a revolution in the look of comics, film, even magazine ads which borrow the distinctive collage effect he has pioneered.

But this movie? It's junk. Complete junk. The story, from Neil Gaiman, is, unfortunately, exactly what Gaiman has been giving us ever since he ripped off Clive Barker for the first time: a pseudo-mythic, overblown dreamscape, populated by characters which have Titles in All Capital Letters rather than names. Everything is allegory, to the point that it is impossible to get any human drama, emotion, or empathy from anyone involved. People make pithy postulations, speaking in riddles which bring to mind what Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead might have sounded like if Tom Stoppard had suffered a debilitating stroke halfway through its composition. Really, Gaiman, get over yourself. You're not a prophet. You're a poser.

McKean's directing doesn't help - his pacing is poor, taking fully half an hour to actually rev himself up for the main picaresque plot, and then simply providing a disconnected sequence of events, none of them given any weight. The monsters don't menace because they're not foreshadowed, simply thrown at the screen. The plot doesn't engage because we don't really care about the rancid little protagonists. Half the dialogue, muttered into into shirt fronts and ubiquitous masks, is unintelligible.

Some of the visuals are pretty, and I'm sure the fanboys will lick it up. Pity. Think of the amount of really good work McKean could have produced if he hadn't been stuck with this lame project.

Grade: D/D-

Sentiment: negative
While William Shater can always make me smile in anything he appears in, (and I especially love him as Denny Crane in Boston Legal), well, this show is all about glitz and dancing girls and screaming and jumping up and down.

It has none of the intelligence of Millionaire, none of the flair of Deal or No Deal.

This show is all about dancing and stupid things to fill in the time.

I watched it of course just to check it out. I did watch it for over 45 minutes, then I had to turn it off.

The best part of it was William Shatner dancing on the stage. He is a hoot!!! unfortunately, this show WILL NOT MAKE IT.

That's a given

Sentiment: negative
For a comedy this has a decent and inventive plot and Trey Parker and Matt Stone's comic timing is perfect. There are dozens of funny moments to this fantastic movie. I especially like the multitude of colors and the way the clash in the sports arena scenes. Robert Stacks Unsolved Mysteries spoof is also very amusing.

Sentiment: positive
I was happy to find out that at least now this movie is beginning to get the appreciation it deserves (just view those votes). Not top-class action like "Die Hard" or "Lethal Weapon", but still something like a solid 7 out of 10: fine script, good actors with working chemistry, and a director who knows what he wants (sadly, this was director Harlin's last good film. "Deep Blue Sea" managed to reach 'an OK rollercoaster-ride'- status, but "Cutthroat Island, and especially, "Driven" are well-deserved flops!) Personally I think the turn-off at the box-office might have been the "Woman as an action star"-theme. Well, give her a chance, because Davis does deliver a performance above par. And, after all, this film doesn't concentrate so much on the "feminine"-side, but instead on good ol' action, buddyism (Jackson as a sidekick is given a lot of room in here, plus his share of action- and about a thousand killer wisecracks!) and on the plot (from Shane Black, the writer of "Lethal Weapon" and "The Last Boy Scout". The latter of which as a movie is on very many levels much like this one...the theme, the clever plot, also as good and as underrated!) Overall: if one hasn't seen this one yet, don't forget to rent it for the next quiet Saturday night!

Sentiment: positive
A pale shadow of a great musical, this movie suffers from the fact that the director, Richard Attenborough, completely misses the point of the musical, needlessly "opens" it up, and muddies the thrust of the play. The show is about a group of dancers auditioning for a job in a B'way musical and examines their drive & desire to work in this demanding and not-always-rewarding line of work. Attenborough gives us a fresh-faced cast of hopefuls, assuming that they are trying to get their "big break" in show business, rather than presenting the grittier mix of characters created on stage as a group of working "gypsies" living show to show, along with a couple of newcomers. The film has one advantage over the play and that is the opening scene, showing the size of the original audition and the true scale of shrinkage down to the 16/17 on the line (depending on how you count Cassie, who is stupidly kept out of the line in the movie). Anyone who can catch a local civic light opera production of the play will have a much richer experience than seeing this poorly-conceived film.

Sentiment: negative
If there are people that don't like this movie, I don't think they are human. This film deploys all emotions and shows many sides of Judith Light's character. Made in 1997, this is one of the best movies I have seen and really the film that Judith Light has starred in to make me a huge fan of hers. This movie, although sometimes you want to rattle the son for trusting her so much, is incredibly moving. I cry at the end every time and it takes much to do that to me! The plot doesn't have much to it but the acting provided by Judith Light is incredible. She looks beautiful the whole time and by the end, you don't want the fate imposed by the courts to happen to her. Overall, a movie worth my highest praise! Thank you for making it and redefining my view on the death penalty. I eagerly await this movie to come out on DVD or some other form of media since Lifetime is starting to issue some movies to customers. Although I don't have high hopes for this one because this took place almost 9 years ago, which is still hard to believe, since this movie is STILL ingrained into my head after all this time.

Sentiment: positive
"Iowa" wants to be "Requiem for a Dream" for Midwest meth, but it comes across as a hard R rated "Reefer Madness". 

Yes, drugs are bad, and meth is horribly pernicious, as an addiction and how it destroys people, families and communities. But these characters who are either dumb or ridiculous and the eye-rolling plot won't teach that lesson to anyone. 

While writer/director/star Matt Farnsworth has some charisma on screen, his partner Diane Foster plays a wincibly silly wide-eyed innocent corrupted by drugsas was already satirized by Susan Sarandon in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". I really felt sorry for her for all the totally unnecessary nudity she was put through. It wasn't until the end of the film that I realized I was supposed to think these two were recent high-school graduates to explain some of their naiveté, as we are bombarded by their school photos, but if so, they even looked older than the folks on "The O.C.". While they have good chemistry on screen, they are a pale imitation of a "Badlands"-type couple. 

The guest stars are badly used. Michael T. Weiss, who was so good in TV's "The Pretender", is completely ludicrous as a corrupt parole officer and his brutal violence is just plain crazy, as his character pretty much ruins any social significance for the film. Rosanna Arquette has to be even sleazier than she rolled around for David Cronenberg as a very low rent Livia Soprano. John Savage even has to mouth the old baby boomer excuses about I did pot but this is worse. A Goth chick shows up, with the odd explanation that she's a stripper from Des Moines. The obligatory Latino drug dealer appears - in Iowa? 

With a limited budget, the interior view of meth use is portrayed quite vividly, with quite scary hallucinations. We certainly see them go crazy. 

While the Iowa locations are used very well (including an amusing scene of a propane gas robbery), the accents and church references are confusingly Southern Baptist. Guns seem to be used by law abiding and law breaking citizens here more than in any inner-city drug-dealing movie.

The songs of Iowa's best known bard Greg Brown are used throughout, but oddly are not listed in the credits. I hope they were used with permission.

I caught this at its commercial run in NYC because I missed it at the Tribeca Film Festival where it got considerable-- and inexplicable-- buzz.

Sentiment: negative
The filmmakers were clearly on drugs. That's the only explanation I have. How else do you explain this travesty of a Jane Austen adaptation? Northanger Abbey is a parody of a Gothic novel. But this film was made as if it WERE a Gothic novel. The bizarre music and dream sequences to me suggest drug-induced hallucinations rather than a naive, innocent girl with an overactive imagination, as Catherine of the novel is...

The actress who played Catherine just stands around bug-eyed all the time. Peter Firth looks at least 10 years too old to play Henry and he actually seemed a bit on the gay side to me. I don't see the attraction between him and Catherine. John Thorpe's portrayal was rather odd but Isabella actually wasn't that bad. But nothing could save this PIECE OF CRAP movie! One more thing- This film invents a character not in the book, a French friend of General Tilney's, "The Marchioness." Why exactly they added her is beyond me. Must have been the drugs. She is scary-looking beyond belief, with white foundation, red lips and black lines randomly painted on her face (dimples?).

You'd think this would at least be entertaining in a "so bad it's good" quality but unfortunately, it's not. It's just BAD.

Sentiment: negative
I just went to see this movie with a friend. I quickly looked and read a short synopsis and thought it sounded interesting. We came out the movies not feeling very sure if we liked it not.

The acting was good enough and connection with characters was OK. The main character I thought acted a lot like someone like Van Helsing. Yes it was pretty entertaining.

But the plot I felt like it was used from other movies. The script was a bit weak, I'm not sure why every time something bad happens, the main character says "Oh my god" every time.

The special effects worked well, but (sorry for this spoiler) the main monster at the main climax reminded me a lot of the Balrok out of Lord of the Rings.

Overall, the movie was OK but I felt like it's been done already. Go and see buy all means but don't expect too much.

Sentiment: negative