DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Tycoon will never be listed as one of John Wayne's better post Stagecoach film. It's good in spots, has some fine action sequences in the cave in and also in the flood at the climax. But the plot leaves a lot to be desired.

What we have in Tycoon is two men who thoroughly dislike each other and that dislike prevents them from working as a team. Multimillionaire Cedric Hardwicke has hired John Wayne and James Gleason to build a railroad. But then he refuses to give them the needed funds to do the job right.

Things get really complicated when Wayne falls for Hardwicke's daughter, Laraine Day. After a night when they have to spend time alone in an Inca ruin, by convention in South America, Wayne and Day get a shotgun wedding even though nothing happened.

What should have happened is these two should have been locked in a room for 24 hours together to work out their differences one way or another. Their petty spites cause some fatalities among Wayne's crew.

But what Tycoon is most known for is another piece of pettiness. Laraine Day was married to Leo Durocher the manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers when this was being filmed. He was a constant presence on the set, insanely jealous of John Wayne who he thought might be having an affair with his wife. Nothing to it, but he made his wife's life miserable.

Not one of the Duke's better efforts.

Sentiment: negative
How good is Gwyneth Paltrow! This is the right movie for her... too bad she's completely out role. I haven't read the book by Jane Austen, but I can't believe it is so superficial and the characters aren't much more than caricatures. It wasn't probably that easy to reduce in 2 hours of show about 600 pages of the book, but I had expected more than just seeing old pieces of furniture and tea cups. I was taking a sigh of relief every time I saw an actor who didn't overstep the mark of overacting (a couple of times).

Sentiment: negative
I really didn't like this movie because it didn't really bring across the messages and ideas L'Engle brought out in her novel. We had read the novel in our English class and i absolutely loved it, i'm afraid i can't say the same for the film. There were some serious differences between the novel and the adapted version and it just didn't do any credit to the imaginative genius that is Madeleine L'Engle! This is the reason i gave it such a poor rating. Don't see this movie if you are a big fan of L'Engle's texts because you will be sorely disappointed. However, if you are watching the movie for entertainment purposes (or educational as was my case) then it is an alright movie!

Sentiment: negative
The best part of this DVD is the cover. It goes down hill from there. There was no chemistry between the leads, the kisses looked like something I traded with my grandmother.

The sound was so bad that at least I was spared some of the dialoge.

Sentiment: negative
Watching this on Comcast On-Demand.

Every time I see this musical, I am amazed at the songs...one show-stopper after another.

This interpretation is, for me, magical. The songs sparkle...the vocals, orchestrations, and choreography are amazing for a "made-for-TV" movie...better than many stage versions I have seen.

The debate over Bette just doesn't make sense. She is Mamma. Her voice is brilliant and yet full of the pathos of the stage mother living through her daughters. I still get tears at the end when she finally has her moment of glory, no matter how faded that glory is.

The Tulsa/Louise duet/dance is on now. Fabulous.

Stephen Sondheim is the King of musical theatre. His lyrics just roll off the tongue like silk...Styne's music is perhaps the best ever penned for the stage/screen.

Thank God we have this masterpiece of the American Musical Theatre captured on DVD.

Sentiment: positive
It's so sad that Romanian audiences are still populated with vulgar and uneducated individuals who relish this kind of cheap and demonstrative shows, as superficial and brutal as the "Garcea" series or the "Vacanta mare" child-plays... The difference is that Mugur Mihäescu, Doru Octavian Dumitru and other such sub-artisans never presume to claim their shows as "art". Pintilie, who 40 years ago made a very good movie ("Duminicä la ora sase") followed by another one, nice enough ("Reconstituirea"), tries to declare his film-lenghts "art works" - but, unfortunately, he masters at a way too limited level the specifically cinematographic means of expression. As such, "Niki Ardelean" offers again a sample of "HOW NOT" - this being about its only merit.

Sentiment: negative
I'd never walked out of a movie before this one. I'd entertained the idea a couple of times, but this time I did it, snuck in to see the end of another movie, but had to come back and see the end of the Rage while I waited for my friends. They told me I didn't miss much while I was gone, either. I was generally offended by the entire movie, in such a grand way that I can't even describe it. My gut instinct told me to get myself out of the theatre. It was a visceral reaction to a horrible movie. The plot centered around the cruel actions of some reprehensible teenagers against vulnerable and troubled others. There was no ray of light, no resonsible or likeable person to provide contrast. I found that even the "good guys" of the movie did nothing for me, were silly, stupid, whiney, or just plain ineffectual.

The repetitious, graphic suicide imagery was way overdone, unnecessary, and disgusting. (Not in a "I'm easily grossed out" way, but more in the portrayal of disregard for humanity way). And besides the repetition of that scene, in slow motion, from so many angles, the other visual aspects, (interesting camera work, etc) had potential, but just became annoying sometimes. I am a person who loves movies and tries to find good things about them. Usually I can find some good things to counterbalance the not-so-good of any movie. I'm not saying that this movie had nothing good, but I am saying that, whatever that may have been, I can't remember it with all the other crap that drove me mad. I'm really sorry about that, too. Maybe the best parts were the clips from the classic original.

Sentiment: negative
Isaac Florentine has made some of the best western Martial Arts action movies ever produced. In particular US Seals 2, Cold Harvest, Special Forces and Undisputed 2 are all action classics. You can tell Isaac has a real passion for the genre and his films are always eventful, creative and sharp affairs, with some of the best fight sequences an action fan could hope for. In particular he has found a muse with Scott Adkins, as talented an actor and action performer as you could hope for. This is borne out with Special Forces and Undisputed 2, but unfortunately The Shepherd just doesn't live up to their abilities.

There is no doubt that JCVD looks better here fight-wise than he has done in years, especially in the fight he has (for pretty much no reason) in a prison cell, and in the final showdown with Scott, but look in his eyes. JCVD seems to be dead inside. There's nothing in his eyes at all. It's like he just doesn't care about anything throughout the whole film. And this is the leading man.

There are other dodgy aspects to the film, script-wise and visually, but the main problem is that you are utterly unable to empathise with the hero of the film. A genuine shame as I know we all wanted this film to be as special as it genuinely could have been. There are some good bits, mostly the action scenes themselves. This film had a terrific director and action choreographer, and an awesome opponent for JCVD to face down. This could have been the one to bring the veteran action star back up to scratch in the balls-out action movie stakes.

Sincerely a shame that this didn't happen.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie with some Indian friends on Christmas Day. The quick summary of this movie is MUST AVOID. JP Dutta wrote, directed, produced and edited this movie and did none of these jobs well.

The movie tells the story of the attempt by Pakistan in 1999 to capture part of the disputed region of Kashmir from India. Supposedly based on fact, you get a hint from this movie of the difficulty the Indian army had in recapturing the area from the Pakistani troops - who occupied the high ground. But instead of telling what must have been a compelling and heroic story, all this movie does is make the Indian military look laughable and stupid, which I know is not true.

I watched this movie with an almost completely Indian audience, who were very patriotic and clearly wanted to like this movie, but also found themselves laughing at scenes that weren't meant to be funny.

The script was absolutely abysmal. It gave the impression that Mr Dutta knows nothing about how an army operates and was using bad war movies for reference. The result is a script that is brainless and repetitive.

The acting from most of the principals was not stellar, but considering the script they were given, I find it hard to criticise them too much. As for the supporting cast, all I can say is that I hope they were amateurs.

The editing was also pretty bad. It was pretty hard to follow what was going on for a lot of the time, and music would abruptly end at scene changes.

Good things: The cinematography was pretty good, although it was hurt a little by the fact that the movie didn't appear to be colour corrected (the colour balance often varied significantly within scenes). Also, the few songs that were in the movie were quite enjoyable - for the first half a dozen or so verses at least. Unfortunately they went on a LOT longer than they should have.

And the worst crime of all? This mess is FOUR HOURS LONG. There is enough here that a good editor could almost squeeze a good 1.5 - 2 hour movie out of what was shot. Sadly, a good editor was not working on this movie.

Sentiment: negative
Anyone who has said that it's better than Hostel is talking complete crap, believe me I'm not a fan of Hostel but this is just ridiculous. This is just another shot on camcorder, straight to DVD, low on ideas waste of your time, I can't believe how many of these films there are and I'm yet to see a decent one. In the 80's video nasties, gore and horror movies were made with no budget but a great story and a load of new ideas and most importantly the heart and soul of the director who had something to say. Now they just seem to be pumped out in an attempt to trick people browsing in Blockbuster to rent a copy, until people stop doing this then I guess these films will keep appearing. This film is so low on ideas it's just amazing how it ever got made, the acting is also terrible, the location completely unconvincing and the soundtrack is so annoying it beggars belief. This waste of time has absolutely nothing going for it, unless you're on a quest to compile a list of the worst movies of all time. My best/worst part of the film is when a female character is pointing a gun at someone and threatening to shoot them if they don't back off, you can see that she isn't even covering the trigger with her finger just holding the grip. An absolute joke.

Sentiment: negative
This show is my guilty pleasure all the way!! When I first tuned in to America's Next Top Model, I expected to be bored, and to find it very very stupid. I didn't. This show is actually serious fun. I read on one of the other reviews that it makes you wonder if you have what it takes to be America's Next top model. And it so does! Who doesn't love the glamour and excitement that come with being a model? On ANTM you get to see what it's REALLY like. And who doesn't love hearing the girls bitch about each other and get into fights? Or enjoy wanting to throw something at that Janice lady?

Give this a chance. Don't expect something intelligent or a show you can look to for a life lesson. Just enjoy it for what it is. Serious fun!

Sentiment: positive
In terms of quality movies, this isn't one of them. It's actually the first Chuck Norris movie I've seen and I was left pretty underwhelmed. The fight scenes are slow and don't have a lot of variety. Norris just uses a lot of roundhouse kicks on all the bad guys coming after him which makes the fights pretty boring. The movie also is quite short, but for some reason the movie doesn't even seem finished when it ends. It's a pretty anti-climatic ending. All the same though, I've watched a lot of bad movies, and this isn't one of the worst that I've seen. It's worth a watch, I'm guessing especially for Norris fans. There's also nothing like seeing a group of rigs hurtling down the desert which in my opinion was the highlight of the movie.

Sentiment: negative
You could get into the nitty gritty of this film, and say how it couldn't happen, or how could the main character just walk into offices and start using computers etc without someone noticing and really pick the movie to bits...or you could just sit back with a bucket of popcorn and enjoy the story and the acting. Personally, I prefer the latter, I live real life and watch the news with all it's doom and gloom, and so would much rather be entertained by my movies, and see the bad guys get their just rewards. Don't take it too seriously, and you can thoroughly enjoy this film.

Sentiment: positive
I can't say if "The Cavern" is a ripoff of "The Cave" because I haven't seen that. I've seen "The Descent" and that's not terrible but it is very hard to watch and so is this one. Hard to watch, as in, there's very little light and lots of fast motion so you're hard pressed to say what you're looking at. There are times when I guess, you're supposed to be scared, judging from the music, but scared of what? Bad camera work? Poor lighting? If that's the case than this should be the scariest movie made. The story is that a bunch of cave explorers go to a cave in Kazakhstan (home of Borat) and make their descent, but something is (of course) in there with them. And what is it? One guy says it's a wolf/bear hybrid, that is, just before he gets ripped apart, but whatever it is, you can't see it. And just when you think (or hope) the film is ending, since the screen goes dark for a bit, you see the two remaining cavers (the two women) wake up somewhere in Betty and Wilma attire and start trying to find their way out of wherever they are. They do drink some water and start eating SOMETHING until they figure out what it is and start puking....and then the mystery of what's in the cave appears, and you'll just be astounded. Maybe, maybe not. Dumb dumb dumb....I think I'm pretty well done with cave movies at this point, 2 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
'P' (or Club-P) should really be called 'L' for lame. Every festival has a disappointment and this is the one that fails to live up to its much-hyped logline: "Thai lesbians fighting monsters." Rather, this is the tale of a Khmer country girl who's grandmother has taught her a little witchcraft along with a few odd (but specific) rules: "don't walk under a clothesline," "don't eat raw meat," and "don't accept money for your powers." Well, guess what folks, the girl moves to Bangkok to raise some money as a 'bar-girl' and manages to break all the rules granny taught her which subsequently releases an evil spirit that conveniently kills the 'foreign johns' who pay for her services.

While this film can't even be released in Thailand due to it's controversial subject matter most American audiences will find this ho-hum horror pic a cross between "Showgirls" and "Interview with the Vampire" as directed by Walt Disney.

If not for a few scenes with significant amounts of blood the MPAA could probably rate this for pre-teens only. There is literally broadcast TV adult fare, although you'd expect at least a sex scene considering the fact that the film is about a brothel and one of the actresses is a Thai porn star in real life.

As for the 'lesbian' angle, there's one brief smooch and a couple of "I love you's" to prove that the two main stars really are a couple (on brother). And the P-bar has got to be the only exotic dance club on the planet where the girls keep their sarongs on and do carnival stunts (there's a swordsman who cuts cucumbers out of a girl's mouth ... ooh, phallic imagery).

NO nudity, NO real monster (unless you count a five foot high Thai spirit with yellow eyes), and no way any ADULT should ever pay to see this kind of stupidity except on DVD. You've been warned!

Sentiment: negative
Dear me... Peter Sellers was one of the most oddly talented actors there has been. But his choice of films, say, after 1964, was very unfortunate. He didn't seem to realize how to use his talents. He would have been better off working with more of the Kubricks of the film world than the people he did. Of his later films, only "The Optimists of Nine Elms" and "Being There" have impressed me of those I have seen.

That said, the Boultings and Sellers had made a few films prior to this that hardly sound that bad - I have yet to see "Carlton Browne" and "Heavens Above!" - at least in the sense of using Sellers well to a degree. But, "There's a Girl in My Soup" really is a poor film and a dire choice on Sellers' part in terms of character. In his films from 1955-64, you can usually expect at least some very inventive twist and always an enigmatic conviction in his roles. Here, you have Peter Sellers trying to play a typical romantic lead. It's almost Sellers playing a Niven cad without the joviality. He certainly does not convince, try as he might, or create an interesting character. He should have left such parts to masters of suavity such as Cary Grant, and concentrated on those intriguing dramatic and comic roles that he was famed for.

Hawn and Sellers really do not establish any genuine chemistry; this is no easy, genial romance of the like perfected by William Powell and Myrna Loy. It is very artificial seeming, all the way through - I know that it is part of Danvers' character that he is a dry procurer of ladies, but he doesn't really change from that in a way that convinces. Sellers has a very grating way of playing "charm" as well... this character really has no depth, and really does not gain the viewer's sympathy or interest. Sellers goes through the motions in a way one would not think possible when remembering the magnificence of his shifty, iconoclastic performance in "Lolita".

There really is nothing to say about the plot, direction or characters, as frankly they leave little or no impression. This is truly one of the most anaemic, complacent, misguided and lightly dull films I have ever seen. A nonentity of a "vehicle" for Sellers' undisputed talents.

Rating:- * 1/2/*****

Sentiment: negative
For those of us that lived thru those weeks of filming in town and around the Valley - lest we not forget the tedious days of road closures and "film-making". As a reminder to those that live here - locales include Boulder Creek, Bonny Doon, Davenport, Big Basin. etc. The bank was the BC firehouse; chase scenes included Moon Drive off Hwy 236, Empire Grade Rd, and Hwy 1.

Production: Jeffrey Jones was the most approachable, Matt Broderick was above us all - even back then. As far as the film goes - a joke of a script and even a bigger laugh regarding acting and plot - but who cares at this level. A nice time capsule for those that enjoy our coast and valley scenery.

Additional notes; Joe's Bar (Jed's Tavern in the film), original name of the film was Welcome to Buzzsaw - the Old Erba's parking lot was the town square, the backyard shots were off of Grove Street in Boulder Creek; turn off the thinking cap and see a few actors in their early days.

Sentiment: negative
I think "Anyway..." is a kick-ass movie. Really. Tom Barman spent like years making it, and it shows: every scene is polished, has a meaning,... I guess most agree on that. One thing many people tend to criticize is the "lack" of story. I'm afraid that that's an effect of us being overwhelmed with "traditional" storytelling, all the time. I mean: what you can achieve with a book, you can't achieve with a movie, what you can achieve with a movie, you cannot achieve it by just telling it to a buddy. The problem is that we're so used to movies, series,... to be just a filmed version of a story; a visual recording of events -just like when you watch the news- that we expect every movie to have this epic characteristics: a strong storyline with a lot of unusual events. And I stress the idea of "unusual events": most people see on TV in the news, in movies, series,... very unusual things, once-in-a-lifetime situations. And here, in "Anyway...", there are unusual events, but not in the same "hollywood big explosion" kind of way: guy gets fired, couple back together, car gets stolen... and of course very usual things. And that's strong: just being able to appreciate all of that, that universe, that's art. And I agree that especially what can only be achieved in movies, that atmosphere created by the score and the photography is put central. But not like in traditional visual movies (visual blockbusters such as the Matrix); it serves the characters and remains deeply human. I mean, in every shot you feel the love that Tom Barman has for Antwerp and urban lifestyle. And he has no point with this movie, like to "learn" us something; and he has no big story to tell with incredible scenario twists. He just shows everyday people with everyday lives, he shows a city, all with their good and bad sides and says: this is us, that's our city, that's life, let's enjoy it. So basically, "Anyway..." is not only that super groovy movie, it also has a much stronger "message" (it's not explicit, maybe even not intended) than most movies how really intend to pass a message. One drawback: now, we'll have to wait five years to see the next Barman pic, and everyone will expect so much of it...

Sentiment: positive
Everyone's already commented on the obvious fact that the first few comments were obviously from people who either had a stake in the film or had friends/family who had a stake in the film, and that's okay - if I'd made a movie, all of my family and friends would be in there complimenting it, too. In all honesty, there are some good things along with the bad things in this movie. Unfortunately, the bad things far outweigh the good. Good: The overall plot was mildly interesting. The music was overall pretty good. Several of the songs (when you could hear them) were actually pretty cool. The only musical issues I had were: #1) the first suspense scene with some sort of quiet instrumental (it really seemed to take away from the suspense), #2) the song being played when the lead characters went to an outdoor party at a friend's house and #3) the songs that were good were too quiet, especially when a heavy metal song was playing in the background while Danny Trejo hung a man (sounded like a pretty cool song, but it should have ripped out across the scene when Danny Trejo got froggy). Now for the completely bad stuff: The script was atrocious. I mean, HORRIBLE. I've seen smoother dialogue in a Star Wars movie. Advice to the writer from a part-time writer and full-time movie buff: When you write dialogue, ask yourself, "Is this something that people would actually say?" Honestly, the script was laughable. I want to slam the acting, but with that kind of writing, it's hard to know if they have talent or not. The mildly interesting plot was seriously hampered by the crappy dialogue. I know it was low-budget, but words don't cost money - if you have a good script, even semi-competent actors can pull it off. This movie didn't seem to have either, but hopefully the director will get a second shot at making a better film.

Sentiment: negative
Don't see this movie. Bad acting and stupid gore effects. A complete waste of time. I was hoping to see a lot of cool murders and hot chicks,instead the director depended on animal slaughter videos to shock you, the watcher. Disgusting. The murders are pretty lame, basically strangulation. One woman he stuffs worms in her mouth, one he puts raw hamburgers on her face and strangles her. BTK = BTK broiler, burger king's "killer" new sandwich....ha ha. I don't think this movie relied too much on actual facts. I mean, he real BTK killer didn't carry around a bunch of rodents, scorpions and worms..and oh yeah...a slaughtered cow head too. Go figure.

Sentiment: negative
This incredibly overrated anime television series (26 episodes, 25 minutes each) is about a 14-year-old boy (and two of his girl classmates) who pilots a giant robot to defend Japan against invading beings called Angels. There is very little explanation given to the Angels or why their numbers have increased in recent times, and they just seem to pop out of nowhere for no apparent reason (why not attack all at once instead of at spaced out intervals that are convenient for the humans you're attempting to destroy?). The robot fight scenes attempt to employ a variety of obstacles, but the action itself is poorly executed and boring to watch. Almost every episode seems like a waste of space where nothing of interest occurs.

Some might be intrigued by fans who mention the (very few) symbolic references herein, but that's all they are - shallow one-liners to religious or philosophical concepts that are randomly tossed in with zero craftsmanship. As a whole the series is incredibly tedious due to the superficiality of the characters, who are really nothing more than self-pitying crybabies. The psychology is pathetic, with hopelessly simplistic conflicts like "I hate my father" repeated over and over and over and over again with no progression beyond their face value. It's no understatement to say that these characters plunge this series from time-wasting mediocrity to anger-inducing garbage during the final episodes with their endless, angst-ridden diatribes of excessively repetitive psychobabble (some of which is totally meaningless).

I'm not kidding when I say that this series just got worse and worse as it progressed. Every day I'd look at the DVD set sitting on my living room table and say to myself, "Damn, I've gotta watch the next episode at some point. (sigh) I may as well slug through another one tonight." The real kicker was that the episodes were only 25 minutes long, yet they were somehow able to digress into a completely uninteresting borefest within the opening 10 minutes. This is coming from a guy who will happily sit through 150-minute films with glacial pacing, so my criticism of this series is most damning indeed.

Never in my entire life have I despised watching a series as much as "Evangelion." I had already purchased it based off of all the fanatical comments on IMDb, and I certainly wasn't going to let it collect dust after spending my hard-earned money. What followed was 10 hours of pure, unmitigated torture. My love/hate relationship with anime is turning into a hate/love relationship after this highly acclaimed disaster.

"Evangelion" represents everything anime should NOT be - massive quantities of dull, pretentious tripe under the guise of intelligent cinema. The universal acclaim for this piece of crap is simply unbelievable; and the ridiculous assertions by fans that this series as "one of mankind's greatest achievements" is probably the most stupifying comment I've ever heard on IMDb - and I've seen some doozies.

Sentiment: negative
Gentleman Jim not really a boxing film. It is a vehicle for Errol Flynn as Jim Corbett. But having said that, the boxing scenes are a real eye-opener to the modern viewer. There are no 12 round, points decisions here.

Errol Flynn plays the Irish bank clerk who gets a shot at the heavyweight world title. Flynn is well suited to the role of suave but unpredictable Corbett. His opponent John Sullivan is still better however, a bruiser of the old school played by Ward Bond.

The theme of the film is a man pushing for his big chance. Corbett leaves his mundane life behind and builds a new persona as Gentleman Jim. Jim is a chancer who can adapt to any social environment. He is a liar and an egotist. Sullivan the heavyweight boxing champion is portrayed as a simple brute but his honesty and sportsmanship gives a certain contrast to the main character.

There is action and excitement aplenty and a wonderful ending with the requisite redemption for all. And Errol Flynn gets the girl.

Sentiment: positive
I like the shepherd! Sure the acting wasn't good but the fight scenes were nice. Van damme throws some nice kicks and so does adkins. The story was average. A Texas cop battles smugglers. This movie did everything a van damme movie should do which is martial arts and action. Van damme was never a good actor. I think this movie is better than van dammmes last 2. If you're looking for an Oscar winning performance you're not gonna get it here but if you're looking for action and martial arts then this movie is for you. Scott adkins is an amazing martial artist and unfortunately the public has gotten tired of martial art superstars but his movies in this movie are great. Van damme delivers strong kicks and it's good to see him performing martial arts again since he has not in his last 4 or 5 movies. This movie is definitely worth watching if you're a van damme fan.

Sentiment: positive
These writers are trying to re-create the characters they have on "scrubs" in a different occupation however the characters they are stuck with have no charisma or acting ability not to mention the writing seems poor and effortless. These guys are trying to create something that would be good if the writing wasn't so disgusting which is leaving the shows only lifeline to be two attractive teachers that that are barely keeping it alive. The humor in this show seems like it is trying to target an audience with an I.Q. of 40 or below. Another reason why this show is becoming a failure could be that the writing on the show "scrubs" is excellent and this show has to follow it up leaving the viewer in an odd position not knowing whether to cry or to just lose hope in new sitcoms all together. This is just my opinion but i think these guys should stop now before they humiliate themselves anymore than they have already.

Sentiment: negative
Director Lo Wei was known to read the racing papers and take naps on the set - tells us something about his "approach to film-making, huh? The reviews I've read fall into two categories: 1) this is a film so bad it is funny, or 2) this is a film so bad it is boring.

So let's get to the point we all agree on - this film is really bad.

I vote for category 2). The story is almost incomprehensibly complex, and it is further shredded and twisted by the remarkably poor camera work and editing. Yet Lo Wei was so in love with it that he slows the pacing so we can all have a long look at it, whether we want to or not.

Maybe Lo Wei was upset the day (or two) this film was made - he just wanted to make everybody suffer, cast, crew and audiences alike.

Spare yourself the agony.

Sentiment: negative
For those who expect documentaries to be objective creatures, let me give you a little lesson in American film-making.

Documentaries rely heavily on casting. You pick and choose characters you think will enhance the drama and entertainment value of your film.

After you have shot a ton of footage, you splice it together to make a film with ups and downs, turning points, climaxes, etc. If you have trouble with existing footage, you either shoot some more that makes sense, find some stock footage, or be clever with your narration.

The allegation that the filmmakers used footage of locales not part of the movie (favelas next to beautiful beaches) does not detract from the value of the film as a dramatic piece and the particular image is one that resonates enough to justify its not-quite-truthful inclusion. At any rate, you use the footage you can. So they didn't happen to have police violence footage for that particular neighborhood. Does this mean not include it and just talk about it or maybe put in some cartoon animation so the audience isn't "duped"? Um, no.

As for the hopeful ending, why not? Yes, Americans made it. Yes, Americans are optimistic bastards. But why end on a down note? Just because it's set in a foreign country and foreign films by and large end on a down note? Let foreigners portray the dismal outlook of life.

Let us Americans think there may be a happy ending looming in the future. There just may be one.

Sentiment: positive
Sadly I don't remember the book anymore, but I do recall that I was captivated by the stories of Edgar Wallace. This Film represents a typical German Production of low quality. It does not hold my attention - although the story itself is good, it is just badly adabted. At the center of the misery are the characters that are overly simplyfied and exaggerated - they have no nuances in their performances. Even the well known and liked German Actors Joachim Fuchsberger and Eddy Aren't cannot rescue this poor spectacle. However there's hope ... I've been told that the films following this one are getting better and better. So in conclusion I must say that this film doesn't deserve the cinematic screen but may be enough for a lazy afternoon.

Sentiment: negative
I was forced to watch this whole series of films as a young child and I was told they were REAL! Talk about child abuse. I would have been less frightened of Dracula or Frankenstein. This series is only good for people who believe in this ridiculousness and who want to indoctrinate their children into believing the same. Besides the obvious issues associated with brainwashing and indoctrination, there's also the bad acting, bad writing, and BAD "special effects". They are just all around terrible, terrible movies. Yes, believable (and horrifying) to a kid, but I can't imagine a grown-up buying into this shlock. Although, I must say, that I would be interested in seeing them today, as an adult. They might have a certain midnight/cult movie feel to them.

Sentiment: negative
I rented I AM CURIOUS-YELLOW from my video store because of all the controversy that surrounded it when it was first released in 1967. I also heard that at first it was seized by U.S. customs if it ever tried to enter this country, therefore being a fan of films considered "controversial" I really had to see this for myself.

The plot is centered around a young Swedish drama student named Lena who wants to learn everything she can about life. In particular she wants to focus her attentions to making some sort of documentary on what the average Swede thought about certain political issues such as the Vietnam War and race issues in the United States. In between asking politicians and ordinary denizens of Stockholm about their opinions on politics, she has sex with her drama teacher, classmates, and married men.

What kills me about I AM CURIOUS-YELLOW is that 40 years ago, this was considered pornographic. Really, the sex and nudity scenes are few and far between, even then it's not shot like some cheaply made porno. While my countrymen mind find it shocking, in reality sex and nudity are a major staple in Swedish cinema. Even Ingmar Bergman, arguably their answer to good old boy John Ford, had sex scenes in his films.

I do commend the filmmakers for the fact that any sex shown in the film is shown for artistic purposes rather than just to shock people and make money to be shown in pornographic theaters in America. I AM CURIOUS-YELLOW is a good film for anyone wanting to study the meat and potatoes (no pun intended) of Swedish cinema. But really, this film doesn't have much of a plot.

Sentiment: negative
I thrive on cinema....but there is a limit. A NAME isn't enough to make A MOVIE!. The beginning of the movie puts us in a mood to expect the unseen yet. But we remain hungry ( or angry..) till the end . Things are getting so confused that I admit that I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE END or was there an end to this nonesense. The opportunity to make an outstanding movie was there but the target was totally missed. Next...

Sentiment: negative
-So the weak excuse for a story in the generic waste of time involves a guy that wants to be an animator but can't get his career of the ground. His super hot wife is more successful and she doesn't seem to care that he's a loser but the man isn't satisfied with that and wants to make more out of his life. One day their dog brings them a magic mask that changes his life. Unfortunately for him, the god Loki is looking for his magic mask and once he finds the man with the mask he tries to get it back and that's the whole story. If that sounded exciting to you then someone needs to throw some water on you to wake you up 

-This movie is terrible. There's really no other way for me to say it and I just can't stretch it enough. The only good thing about the whole thing was the woman that played Jamie Kennedy's wife who was hot but apart from her there's is nothing about this movie that is worth watching. I know it's meant for kids and that's why it's so idiotic but what about the adults that have to take their kids to watch this trash. Why do we have to suffer through this vile vomit sack of horrid crap. The original mask was a very good movie that had a great mix of comedy and great story telling. This one is a lame attempt by hack filmmakers to cash in on the franchise and judging by the laughable BO gross I'm guessing the franchise won't go on any longer.

-The cinematographer needs to be beaten severely because the sugary colors of the movie will make you feel like throwing up. If there was music, I didn't pay attention to it because I had already punctured my eardrums to prevent myself from hearing the horrid dialog. Then there's the acting or at least what passes for acting nowadays. you could watch an infomercial and see much better acting in that than the one in this movie but I can't really blame the actors since it's the director who deserves the blame for apparently not realizing that the actors needed to do another f**king take. If new line is looking to start a franchise with this then they need to up their game by hiring writers that can actually write and stop thinking that the audience will watch any crap that comes out 

-Bottom line if you're a sadomasochistic and you love torturing yourself then please by all means check this out because it is painful to watch but if you're not and you actually like to watch movies that are good then avoid at all cost

Sentiment: negative
OK, so it was written in 1996, before 9/11, so you can give it a little credit for worrying about terrorists and the idea that the CIA director makes a plot to blow this doomed plane out of the sky before it brings doom to the world, is prescient. That's it. That's the good stuff. The acting...fair. The plot...silly. The "twist"... unnecessary. DOOOOOOOOOOOM It isn't as though no one ever thought of what to do when a plane gets contaminated. Don't you think bureaucrats have a manual for "plagues" and how to contain them? Proper execution of such a plan is always a problem, as we saw after Katrina. But they have a plan. It isn't to send them off to Iceland and then to Mauritania. And if the virus is carried in the air, why was the plane door open and the "shooters' standing there with no protection? In fact, did it ever occur to anyone to shoot her legs? That would stop her. But not as dramatic. I'm a sucker. I always watch a movie to see the end, once I started it. But this was a waste of time, and for the most part, predictable. I saw it using a recorder so I didn't have to watch all the ads, that was a plus. It's a good example of why I watch so little network TV. Rubbish.

Sentiment: negative
You get an hour and a half of braindead i have to save the world action all the way, one liners and a woman somewhere in the equation. This time he plays a guy who help people in the witness protection program. to quote the cover of the movie. He erases their past to save their future. Woppi, this have to be cool :) I bet younger people will like it though but it is a little over the top for my taste. And the one liners are really something else, and i don't mean that in a good way. After killing a crocodile he manage to say. "you're luggage" If you are in the right mood you may enjoy the movie. And as far as braindead action go, this is not very bad. But almost before the movie starts you know exactly what is going to happen. But if you like these kind of movies, you will probably enjoy this one. I rate this movie 4

Sentiment: negative
With part reconstruction and part direct shooting, the directors made a formidably limpid documentary on a coup d'état against President Chavez in Venezuela, organized by a foreign secret service and fully supported by the wealthy Venezuelan minority, the political opposition, the Church (a cynical laughing cardinal) and the US government. It was another chapter in the history of US foreign policy, which Steven Kinzer calls 'Overthrow' or 'sowing democracy American style'. In fact, this foreign backed intervention was not only a coup d'état against President Chavez, but also against the democratic majority which elected him. 

That this is a brilliant documentary is mightily confirmed by the violent reactions for and against it on Internet. As Saint Augustine said: 'Men love truth when it bathes them in its light; they hate it when it proves them wrong.'

This movie is a must see for all those who want to understand the world we live in.

Sentiment: positive
The Williams family live on a ranch located in the middle of the remote desert. They find themselves in considerable peril when the place is suddenly thrust into a time vortex where the past, present and future collide in a wildly chaotic and unpredictable manner. Director John "Bud" Cardos begins the film on a compellingly mysterious note and gradually allows things to get stranger, crazier and more exciting as the loopy story unfolds. Moreover, Cardos fills the screen with plenty of dazzling visuals and does a nice job of creating a genuine sense of awe and wonder. The admirably sincere acting from a game cast qualifies as another major plus: Jim Davis as hearty patriarch Grant Williams, Dorothy Malone as his cheery wife Ana, Christopher Mitchum as the concerned Richard, Marcy Lafferty as his lovely wife Beth, Natasha Ryan as sweet little girl Jenny, and Scott C. Kolden as the gutsy Steve. The funky special effects offer an inspired combo of gnarly miniatures, neat stop-motion animation monsters (said creatures include a tiny spindly hairless guy, a big, lumpy, fanged beast, and a scrawny lizard dude), and nifty matte paintings. Richard Band's rousing full-bore orchestral score really hits the stirring spot. John Arthur Morrill's crisp, sunny cinematography likewise does the trick. A fun flick.

Sentiment: positive
This picture in 1935 walked away with all kinds of Ocars for Best Director, John Ford, Actor Victor McLaglen and music by Max Seiner. Victor McLaglen,(Gypo Nolan), "Call Out the Marines",'42, gave an outstanding performance as an Irish rebel who belonged to a rough and tough crowd who were all fighting for a cause and at the same time getting poorer and poorer with plenty of drinking. Gypo Nolan made a bad mistake when he decided to become an informer for his best friend in order to take a trip with his gal to America and a new way of living. Preston Foster, (Don Gallagher),"Guadalcanal Diary",'43, gave a great supporting role as the leader of the Irish rebellion and was anxious to capture the informer of his group. Gypo Nolan becomes haunted by his betrayal of his friend and begins to feel just like a Judas. Great film for 1935 and wonderful acting by McLaglen, but rather depressing in every aspect of the film.

Sentiment: positive
I love these actors, but they were wasted in this flick.

I can only wonder, what WERE they thinking agreeing to this crap???

Debra Winger just phoned it in; Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard were caricatures. Some people thought it was deep. Well, if you liked "Breaking the Waves", you'll probably like this too. I hated both. 3/10

Sentiment: negative
I saw "Shiner" on DVD. While I was watching it, I thought, "This is a really bad porn flick without the porn." I also thought, "Whoever wrote this has some real issues." Then I watched the director/writer Carlson explain his process as a special feature. Yeah, it was real special.

The emphasis of the film is placed on two alcoholic losers who hit each other to get off. They are marginally attractive. There is frontal and full nudity. These factors probably account for the film being seen at all.

The most upsetting element of the film is the gay bashing and the subsequent further gay bashing of the same victim who tries ineptly to exact revenge from his assailants, the two drunken losers. Not only is the subject handled absurdly and badly from a technical point of view, but the acting is horrendously bad.

Then there's the boxer-stalker theme. This is really insane, not just absurd. This hunky boxer is somehow traumatized by the persistent attentions of a fleshy momma's boy who works at his gym's parking lot. This is in LA, mind you. The boxer is so traumatized that he turns up at the stalker's house, strips in front of him and gets excited in the process.

Well, all I can say is, why would a boxer who is at heart an exhibitionist be so traumatized by the attention of a stalker? It simply makes no sense. And, I'm afraid, some psycho-dynamics actually do make sense, if you take the time to read about them. However, bad scripts seldom make sense at all.

The director/writer seems to have thought that this film represents a considerable minority within the gay community. Well, he may be correct, I suppose. We may never know, since that minority would be so dysfunctional they would hardly be able to get organized enough to ever get to an obscure gay film festival or DVD store, the only two places they could possibly find this turkey. Thank goodness for that.

Sentiment: negative
This experimental silent film, made in Switzerland by an independent British film company, is chiefly remembered as Paul Robeson's first film. It's very artistic, with shots often seeming meaningless to the story, which is difficult to understand anyway because of the lack of enough inter-titles. From what I gathered, Robeson's wife, Adah, is in an inter-racial love affair with a white man called Thorne. It doesn't bother the cigar-chomping owner of the bar/hotel where Thorne lives (and she seems to be having a lesbian relationship with a barmaid), but an old lady expresses the town's point of view in an inter-title: "If I had my way, we wouldn't allow negroes in here." Thorne is also called "nigger lover" by someone in the bar. Adah tries a reconciliation with Pete (Robeson), but eventually leaves him. Thorne's wife, Astrid, goes off the deep end, brandishes a knife, cuts Thorne's arm and cheek, and somehow dies. Thorne must have been accused of murder because we learn he was acquitted. As for Pete, he gets a letter from the mayor telling him it is best for everyone that he leave town. So the film is more about racism than anything, but in an up note, the owner tells Pete "The sad thing is, they think they're right. That's the way we are." The meaning of the title is a mystery. It may refer to Adah being light-skinned (a borderline negro) or to the borderline behavior of of the main characters.

Sentiment: negative