DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Woof! Pretty boring, and they might as well have shot it in black and white, it was so colorless.

The movie starts with rolling text explaining cryogenics, and asking whether god or Satan is behind it. There are some protests outside a cryogenics lab. Some people rob a bank, and many of the robbers and guards get shot. The father of one of the robbers (I think) arranges to have his son frozen. There's a lot of jumping around in the beginning from scene to scene introducing characters without us knowing how they relate.

There's a power outage, and the cannisters containing the frozen people get struck by lightning, and they emerge as zombies. They're all wearing silver mylar-like suits, and their skin is dark green and wrinkled (no idea why they look so bad - being frozen evidently didn't preserve their looks), and they have silver eyes. They go around killing people, sometimes lurching like zombies, sometimes moving like normal people.

Linda Blair keeps showing up every once in a while, to what purpose I'm not really sure. I think her character works at the cryogenics lab, but she's not very important to the plot, and her role is very small.

The movie ends with some freeze frames with text captions that tell us what happened to the characters next, which are pretty silly.

Sentiment: negative
We get to see who the good guys are. The union. And who the bad guys are, a rich man who steals elections and his spoiled son. The filmmaker forces us to see good from evil. All the characters hate the bad guys so that when watching the film, this can help us along on hating the bad guys. This is the worst kind of film-making - manipulative and childish. The plot centers on a cop who is in-between the good and the bad, and he's stuck in this ugly film. It's boring and pointless. The narration by star Keach is really bad. And a good actor, Don Stroud, overacted to the hilt, playing the guy no one likes, and who we aren't supposed to like. It takes a long time for this bore to take off, and for the title to assert itself; then when it does take off, it crashes a minute later. Boring. One of the worst films ever made.

Sentiment: negative
This was the Modesty that we didn't know! It was hinted at and summarized in the comic strip for the syndicates to sell to newspapers! Lee and Janet Batchler were true Modesty Blaise fans who were given The Dream Job - tell a prequel story of Modesty that the fans never saw before. In their audio-commentary, they admitted that that they made changes in her origin to make the story run smoother. The "purists" should also note that we really don't know if everything she told Miklos was true because she was "stalling for time." I didn't rent or borrow the DVD like other "reviewers" did, I bought it! And I don't want a refund! I watched it three times and I didn't sleep through it! Great dialog and well-drawn characters that I cared about (even bad guy Miklos) just like in the novels and comic strips! I too can't wait for the next Modesty (and Willie) film,especially if this "prequel" is a sign of what's to come!

Sentiment: positive
I was surprised, "Once More, My Darling", had not generated enough votes (at this writing) for a "user rating". It's a "screwy" comedy I have enjoyed many times over the years. Robert Montgomery's mission places him in some very improbable situations, and he's just the man for the job. He maintains his trademark "befuddled" look throughout the film and hysterically, too. Ann Blyth plays his precocious/eccentric pursuer, who assumes a relationship that does not exist. Her character is kooky enough to warrant the unearned nickname "Killer", but remains cute and cuddly.

Among the glut of "B" movies from the late 1940's and 1950's, "Once More, My Darling" is a standout. This one is worth looking for....

Sentiment: positive
What a terrible movie! The acting in this film is about the quality of a high school play, or a story driven pornography film. This is not pornography in this film, but there sure is a lot of gratuitous nudity! This is one of the only redeeming qualities of the film, one of the only things that saved it from receiving a rating on one star. Also there are a million cops that die in this film. Hardly offensive though since the violence is so unrealistic we can only laugh. But breasts pop out and become exposed in the most surprising and hilarious times, if you enjoy really really bad movies check this one out. This is a Bonnie and Clyde type story, where a mother and her two daughters are out for revenge. This film also features a sex scene with two of the oldest people i have ever seen rolling around naked!

Sentiment: negative
This film is not one of those films so bad you get annoyed and mad because it seems to be so up its own arse and yet it completely not funny. It's just that there is nothing of interest in this film. There are no real jokes that make you amused, you just watch for 80 minutes, then turn it off. I bought this on very budget DVD and I'm glad because it's not worth much. This isn't even one of those films that's so bad you can watch it with friends when getting drunk/high and have a good giggle. I didn't hate it like I hate some films, but it is rather boring, and not worth investing any time in.

The only people who voted 10 on the votes for this film must have been connected to it somehow because I cannot imagine anyone actually liking this film other than small children passing time

Sentiment: negative
Lulu (Louise Brooks) works as a typist and is missing something in her life. She enters a Miss France contest against the wishes of her boyfriend Andre (Georges Charlia) and she wins. She sets off for the Miss Europe title leaving her boyfriend behind. She wins again but returns home to Andre because he has asked her to. Once back together, her life becomes mundane again so one night she writes a note to him and leaves to experience the fame that is waiting for her as Miss Europe. Andre follows her.....

This film is a silent film with a piano music-track all the way through. It is also sped-up so everything seems fast. Limited dialogue has been added on afterwards and it is very phony. The cast are alright bearing in mind that it is a silent film. The best part of the film comes at the end but the story goes on a little too long. After watching this, I'm not really sure what the big deal was over the looks of Louise Brooks - she has a terrible haircut that makes her face look fat. I don't need to watch it again.

Sentiment: negative
I was so moved by this film in 1981, I went back to the theater four times to see it again! Something I have never done for another film. No movie evokes the feelings of growing up in the 60's like Four Friends. That it so closely approximated my own experiences in the 60's is probably something that many will share. Jodi Thelen is radiantly beautiful and unforgetable! Why she didn't become a major star after this I will never know. The acting by the entire cast is flawless as is Steve Tisch's script. I always wanted to know how much of the story was autobiographical. But alas, Steve is no longer here to answer that question. I have all but worn out my VHS copy of this great movie! Highly recommended!

Sentiment: positive
Jeremy Irons and Forrest Whitaker are good actors. But this movie was badly written. First of all, during the hijack scene, Irons sits too comfortably in his chair...he appears to be READING something, and rather calmly too! Perhaps the director shot the actor in between takes? Also, the violence at the hijacking was a big letdown. Slow-mo, bullets flying--how his wife and daughter get killed is just not that interesting and the tension is lost. His grieving afterward wasted another 10 minutes. Then he decided to "get revenge" and talk to all his industry journalist friends and ambassadors (he's a journalist for the stuffy Economist rag) and lo and behold, they actually give him tips on where to find the bad guys! How do they know? But what really made me turn the movie off halfway through was when Irons finds his way into a warehouse where baddies are hanging out--BUT NOT THE BADDIES WHO KILLED HIS WIFE--and blows them away anyway. so he's just a murderer. he gets away and, well...I shut it off. I mean I couldn't figure out how his friends knew anything, and also I thought he was after the remaining 2 guys in custody who were the original hijackers. Instead he's going after their friends, I guess, or anyone who hangs out in warehouses and leaves automatic weapons laying around. The suspense was just totally conventional and the dialog was lame ("it's OK son, crying helps," he says to his son. Son says "no it doesn't" and father says "You're right..it doesn't.")Irons takes on questionable roles--like that one dragon movie he did. He was excellent in Brideshead Revisited, which is a completely different animal than this lukewarm thriller.

Sentiment: negative
This is by far the funniest sitcom that has ever aired on TV. I own all 9 seasons on DVD and literally could watch them over and over. Anyone who does not find this show hilarious, heartwarming, entertaining, and laugh out loud hysterical, is crazy! Kevin James is absolutely one of the most talented comedians out there. My boyfriend and I love going to stand up comedy shows in Boston (where we live) and have seen Kevin James twice and his brother Gary Valentine (Danny) once. They are both so unbelievably talented and just plan smart with their work. There are so many comedians out there that are just awful and Kevin and Gary really show the true side of real comedy. Leah Remini, although a snob and bitch in real life (so I have read) is an amazing actress and deserves more credit than any other woman in sitcoms. She truly makes the show...along with Jerry Stiller! This show is a must see and you will get addicted within one to two episodes!

Sentiment: positive
I had never heard of this film until it came to DVD. I was immediately intrigued by everything about it: the actors, the title, the cover, and especially the author. Arthur Miller, you can't go wrong with him, can you? Yep. I haven't read the novel, but I'm going to guess it was a lot better than the film. I had high hopes for this movie. I love Macy and Dern, and it looked interesting. Unfortunately, this film never really rises above cookie-cutter messages about racism and bigotry. If you've never seen any other films that deal with this subject, or if you never knew that America was founded on bigotry, then maybe this film will wow you. Others will probably find it predictable, stale, and overall bland.

Sentiment: negative
I remember watching this film in 1981, when I was 7. It was absolutely brilliant! I found the DVD just a couple of months ago. I was nearly jumping up and down with glee!! I bought it and showed it to my kids. They loved it too. They asked what words the seahorse was singing (I didn't tell them, though, because I don't think telling the words 'gay' and 'ecstasy' to 6 year old kids is very good parenting). The songs are brilliant. I still remember them all. I'll still remember them when I'm 60! There, or near abouts. Tommy Pender is (was) such a brilliant actor. It's a pity he gave it up.

If you find the film, BUY IT! You'll love it!

Sentiment: positive
Unlike another user who said this movie sucked (and that Olivia Hussey was terrible), I disagree.

This movie was amazing!!!!!! Olivia Hussey is awesome in everything she's in! Yeah she may be older now, because many remember her from Romeo and Juliet, but she's wonderful! 

This story line may be used quite often, but it's a unique movie and I'll fight back on anyone who disagrees! I enjoyed this movie just as much as I have any other Olivia Hussey movie. Olivia's "my girl" and I love her work.

I saw this for the first time on Saturday (4/14/07) and fell in love with it. Not only because's it's an Olivia movie, but because of it's unique story line and wonderful direction.

Sentiment: positive
The reason this is such a bad movie is because it is so very badly written, and this is entirely the fault of the hack novelist Robert James Waller, also author of Bridges of Madison County. The writing is bad because the plot is perfectly trite and the dialogue is wooden and implausible. A failing couplea blocked American writer and a pretty Mexican woman with a history of which she is ashamedare swept up by a strong, self-directed criminal, and after a few adventures (mostly terrifically violent) alternating with scenes that show the warmer side of the assassin, she leaves the impotent partner for the killer, who, bad as he is, sees her more clearly than anyone has before. Nothing can help this movie succeed, not even the seamed face of Scott Glenn as the killer, not the appealing latinity of Giovanna Zacarías as Luz, and not even the stalwart performance of Harvey Keitel as the CIA specialist assigned to track the killer down. A serious waste of time.

Sentiment: negative
I will spend a few days dedicated to Ron Howard before I swear off his work entirely. Having, unfortunately, dealt with Lucas at such a young age, Howard is now caught up in so many of Lucas' traits. How else do you explain his rampage of disasters? His only useful film, of course, has been 'Willow'. Everything else, including this, is too reliant on superficial junk.

Some spoilers.

He can't even have semi-intelligent focus like Peter Weir. No, poor Howard so stuck on his Spielbergian knockoff qualities that he will be quickly forgotten. 

Here we have the old adage: "love conquers all, even disease." Too bad for Howard that Lynch already got through the whole subtext with more skill. Heck, even Disney did better than this. Ron even goofs up on the possibilities presented by imagined realities.

Howard's commentary track is just awful. Don't even rent the DVD.

Final Analysis = = Cinematic Dud

Sentiment: negative
In my opinion this movie advances no new thought. seems to me like taking a spear to a spear without looking to the side! the director seems to have an agenda! Duh! I find that his rational is lacking there does not seem to be room for the alternative view. I for one am usually on the side of the naysayer but this movie lacks credibility as it relies on the fantastic observations of the man/woman on the street. really now if you wish to cr5eate a credible alternative to a creed held onto for 2000+ years you have got to make more of an effort allowing the other side to voice their beliefs. I'm not sure but at the beginning of the movie it felt like an attack on the Cristian faith, I for one am a non believer, but allow for the beliefs of others, and would not wish no ridicule them but try to understand and tolerate.

Sentiment: negative
Well, I remember when the studio sacked Schrader and hired Harlin to do reshoots to this film, they were quite right to do so.

Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist is simply a bad movie, it's boring, really it is.

It would be nice to think that the studio put aside a psychological masterpiece and that all those who in such big words condemned Harlin's version and praised Schraders, even if no one had ever seen it, would have been right.

But they weren't.

To put it in a nutshell : Schrader has no idea what a horror film should be, and it shows in a big way.

Droll, boring, unintentionally funny in all the wrong places and bad supporting cast.

Save your cash and your nerves, don't see it.

Sentiment: negative
Vincent Price's follow-up to HOUSE OF WAX (1953), the film which cemented his reputation as a horror icon, similarly revolves around a bitter  albeit resourceful  showman. Though a remake, the former (shot in Technicolor) remains the superior effort; that said, apart from some resistible comic relief, the obligatory resort to cheap gimmickry (it was another 3-D showcase) and occasional narrative shortcomings (whatever happened to the missing bag which supposedly turned up at some police station containing a severed head?), this offers more than enough Grand Guignol-type thrills and overall camp value (Price hamming it up in a variety of disguises as an inventor of illusions impersonating 'missing' star conjurers who had taken advantage of his genius) to stand on its own two feet. Incidentally, director Brahm's involvement here proves no mere coincidence  since the narrative incorporates elements from two horror titles (both starring Laird Cregar) he had previously helmed i.e. THE LODGER (1944) and HANGOVER SQUARE (1945). The young leads are played by Mary Murphy (as Price's ingénue assistant) and Patrick O'Neal (as her police detective boyfriend  curiously enough, he would himself take the lead in a similar piece, CHAMBER OF HORRORS [1966], which I have acquired just in time to serve as an encore to this one). An interesting sideline here is the latter's adoption of a novel detection technique, fingerprinting, which is crucial in bringing about Price's downfall (in a predictable but rather awkward fiery climax)though the persistent snooping of his amateur crime novelist landlady has at least as much to do with it in the long run! Watching the star in a made-to-measure role, the film emerges a good deal of fun  particularly at a compact 73 minutes.

Sentiment: positive
It is very possible that I simply didn't give the movie a fair enough chance because it was so immediately unappealing to me (something similar happened with Triplets of Belleville), but I really should have caught on when I put the film on and my roommate, an exchange student from Japan, immediately started laughing at the movie, saying that it sounded dumb. Now, I don't agree that it is dumb, the animation is very simple but clearly very skilled. It's like classic animation with added layers that add another element of realism to them while remaining strictly in the realm of the surreal at the same time.

But the subject matter is entirely unappealing to me. It has an interesting message about stinginess and greed, but it is wrapped in such an unpleasant package that it is almost not worth learning, especially because you already knew it anyway. The sound effects while the man is loudly gobbling cherries and cherry pits, for example, are indeed repulsive.

There was a clever scene of animation as we kept diving endlessly into the hole that the man finds in his head when he pulls the sapling out of his scalp, but it goes on for so long that it seems to overshadow everything else. There is so much stock put into that one sequence that it is almost like the whole movie is about it.

As I said about Triplets of Belleville, this would have been a great thing for a late night TV program like adult swim, or its Japanese counterpart, but an Academy Award nominated film? It gives me the impression that there is not generally a long list of animated short films for the Academy to choose from.

Sentiment: negative
Just another example of why Stepehn King's books should not be made into movies. (Even Carrie, one of the best, is ruined in the adaptation from book to screen.) The premise of the story revolves around a fat lawyer, always on a diet, who "accidentally" kills an old gypsy woman. In court, with the help of the judge and the local police chief, he gets off, even though the accident was sort of his fault as he was not paying attention as he was driving. The father of the dead gypsy woman places a curse on the 3, with our main character, Billy (the lawyer) getting thinner and thinner by the day. Though the movie kept with the book, for the most part, and has your typical King ending, the acting was stilted and felt forced. We went from one scene to the next without much of anything in between, sort of like reading acts in a play. King himself made a cameo in the movie (sort of like Dave Barry), which reinforces my belief that authors should stay just that: authors. Leave the acting to actors. Not that anyone in this movie was that great. I've seen the major characters in movies where they were much better.

Sentiment: negative
This film isn't just about a school shooting, in fact its never even seen. But that just adds to the power this film has. Its about people and how they deal with tragedy. I know it was shown to the students who survived the Columbine shooting and it provided a sense of closure for a lot of them. The acting is superb. All three main actors (Busy Phillips, Erika Christensen and Victor Garber) are excellent in their roles...I highly recommend this film to anyone. Its one of those films that makes you talk about it after you see it. It provokes discussion of not only school shootings but of human emotions and reactions to all forms of tragedy. It is a tear-jerker but it is well worth it and one i will watch time and time again

Sentiment: positive
I just watched the DVD version of BORN BAD and found it to be tense, gritty and, near the end, too graphic for the faint of heart. Justin Walker (Clueless) and Corey Feldman turn in superior performances. For a low budget film, this picture delivers. The depth of character and clever dialogue are two things not usually seen in a Roger Corman picture. Check it out on DVD!

Sentiment: positive
By 1976 the western was an exhausted genre and the makers of this film clearly knew it. Still, instead of shelving the project and saving us from having to watch it, they went ahead and made it anyway. Apparently in need of an interesting thread to get the audiences to come and see the film, they decided to make it as blatantly violent and unpleasant as possible. Hell, it worked for The Wild Bunch so why shouldn't it work here? Of course, The Wild Bunch had the benefit of a superb script but the script of The Last Hard Men is plain old-fashioned rubbish.

 It's hard to figure out what attracted Charlton Heston and James Coburn to their respective roles. Heston plays a retired lawman who goes after an escaped bunch of convicts led by a violent outlaw (Coburn). The hunt becomes even more personal when Heston's daughter (Barbara Hershey) is kidnapped by the convicts and subjected to sexual degradation.

 This is a bloodthirsty film indeed in which every time someone dies it is displayed in over-the-top detail. It's tremendously disappointing really, because the star pairing sounds like a mouth-watering prospect. There's no sense of pace or urgency in the film either. It takes an eternity to get going, but when the action finally does come it is marred by the emphasis on nastiness. All in all, this might be the very worst film that Heston ever made. I'm sure it's one of the productions he is loathe to include on his illustrious CV.

Sentiment: negative
Bette Davis turns in a coldly amusing performance as Mildred Rogers in this 1934 film. The film seems rather dated now in 2003. It is no doubt well worth watching for film buffs and Bette Davis fans but may not have as much appeal for the average movie watcher today. It was startling for me to see how young Ms. Davis looks in this move. The actors turn in performances which are basically sound and the story is meaningful and interesting. Leslie Howard is well cast as Philip Carey, the club-footed medical student. This is a film with a strong message about whom we choose to love and why. However, "Of Human Bondage" didn't seem to have a strong impact on me mentally or emotionally. I felt slightly indifferent and detached about the movie after viewing it. I have an intuition that this may be the reaction that the director was going for. You be the judge!



Sentiment: positive
8 days no script that's what the DVD tells you is how the movie was made. It's shot in blurry video that's occasionally used to good effect, but it's really partially naked women sitting around in a room for most of the running time. It is very well acted and this helps a lot. But the killer only shows up once in a long time and the girls/women sit and mope they don't try to escape or do anything too interesting, so the whole thing grinds to a stand still after about 20 minutes. Would have been a good short maybe even powerful. Even for eight days they do very little. Why? Because they had no script. How many movies have been made without scripts. Not too many. I wonder why that is? How many great movies have been made from bad scripts. Not too many. Why is that? Working against this major problem, the direction tries and does some interesting things but with what is essentially nothing. Topless girls shot in dark grainy colorless video sitting around will keep some going for a while but not for the short but too long feature length. Actors again deserve praise, if only there was a script.

Also the video quality, or lack thereof, is really low end, they try to use it to advantage and at times some shots look they are from Miami Vice, the recent movie that is. But that's not intended to compliment Miami Vice or this failed venture.

Sentiment: negative
When my parents rented this movie, I was expecting a very funny movie as Randy Quaid is very funny in comedy movies. However, this movie is not all that funny and it is somewhat boring too. You can see the surprise coming a mile away and it runs long for a movie that is supposedly only eighty one minutes long. So I can honestly say it is not a movie that is on my favorites list. It may work for some people, but it just did not work with me at all proving to be rather slow in the build-up with virtually nothing that amused me within the entire movie. Randy Quaid is wasted and the rest of the cast is a list of very bland actors and actresses. The premise of the movie had potential, as did the casting of Quaid, but all of it just sputters and the inclusion of the horror element just seems very unnecessary. Granted, the one dream sequence the kid had when he jumped on the bed and it suddenly became a whirlpool of blood was very nicely done and would have worked very well in a movie that was supposed to be pure horror, instead of one that lists comedy as its first genre.

Sentiment: negative
Every time I see a film like this I get sick to my stomach. When I watch a movie I like to see what I see in everyday life. As I go through my day I see blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos etc...How do you cast a film and don't even think of the possibility that other ethnic groups will walk past you? I'm sure they didn't do it on purpose but pay attention. I don't care if it takes place in Kansas or South Central. All I saw was one token black. This was typical in the 80's. Hey! it's 2007, with all the rappers, singers and athletes working as actors Thomas Haden Church could have paid more attention to his cast. Aren't actors supposed to be more liberal?

Sentiment: negative
Now I understand that this took two months to shoot. Really? I'm pretty certain my crew could do it in less than a week. This movie sucked so bad I couldn't even pay close attention. Just more proof that boob bearing women can't always save you from horrible writing, acting and direction. Now I understand it was a no budget endeavor, but there is also no continuity and no real reason to not to turn it off and watch infomercials or foreign news in a language you don't understand. Oh, there are a few decent looking females showing the goods. Still, there aren't enough sexy women alive to warrant watching this travesty perpetrated on the film industry. One of the longest 80 minutes of my life. I trooped it out though with the help of my old friend Jim Beam. Do yourself a favor and get your gun ready cuz you may want to use it after this hack job. Lastly, the individual (moron) who left a comment before mine thought this was a great movie and LOVED it. Just more proof that siblings shouldn't pro-create. Ow, BURN!!! - Captain J

Sentiment: negative
I went to see this with my wife and 3 yr old son. He seemed to like it a lot more than my wife and I did. The writing is surprisingly poor for a pixar / Disney excursion. In fact, I had a very hard time paying attention at all. The movie does look amazing but the story just becomes so weird and long winded that I was hoping my son would fall asleep so I could pick him up and walk out.

Not to say that the film isn't an interesting concept, it's just told so oddly, (bad screenplay?) especially when we "meet the family" for the first time. I know we're supposed to get the impression that the family is wacky but good lord, they could've shortened that sequence by a good 15 minutes (seemingly, I didn't actually time it). By that point I was scratching my head looking for an exit.

Sentiment: negative
What was the purpose of this film? I suggest it was to make a handful of actors and their producers and director a big payday for doing nothing. Even my favorite actor, Bruce Dern, couldn't keep my interest in this boring movie. A braindead ex-pugilist falls in with a weird woman and her relatives. He starts out as a fix-it man for the woman, and winds up beating a man and getting caught up in a kidnapping scheme. It was so confusing I can't even write a decent critique. If you see this one, my sweet, make sure it is after dark so you can go right to sleep.

Sentiment: negative
First off, I've read the comments by the director further down and I'd like to thank him for offering his opinion. I've always wondered what the makers of the films lambasted on MST3K felt about their works being shredded (not to mention how Best Brains acquired the rights). Rissi's comments make me curious, however, as to how much Sci-Fi could have cut the film to make it seem different (now I'm thinking I might rent it from NetFlix). Of course, I've never seen the uncut, non-MST3K version of this film but even having seen it on MST3K, I never thought of it as a bad film or something unwatchable (though I did think it was a pretty funny MST3K episode); certainly not, as Pearl describes it, "skin-peelinging awful"; not after seeing the likes of "Future War" and "Hobgoblins." 

As far as cutting the film, it's been done before on MST3K, at least once. Case in point: the Joe Don Baker flick, Mitchell, in which the subplot involving John Saxon's character is cut in the MST3K version, yet Joel and the Bots comment on Saxon's absence after his appearance in the beginning of the movie. If I may submit a criticism of MST3K, if you need to cut the film for time considerations, fine, but be fair to the film being cut (even if it is a film as lousy as Mitchell). Of course, such criticism is rather pointless what with the show being over, but I think that aspect of the show was kind of unfair. But anyway, if it's the case with Soultaker, it gets my sympathies. 

Still, I maintain that it's an enjoyable MST3K episode though the movie itself, even the version that's been "hacked" in MST3K, is no where near terrible. 

As a final note, in a weird coincidence or perhaps a case of Synchronicity, I happened to watch The Hudsucker Proxy the day Soultaker aired and wouldn't you know it, the guy who played Vivian Schelling's father had a bit part in that movie; one of his three other credited roles, actually. I thought that was kind of weird.

Sentiment: negative
Am I the only person who thinks that the entire Forensics and Scenes Of Crime community in the USA must detest this almighty slap in their faces. A rookie cop is first to a crime scene where her back up is so slow to respond that she has time to send the kid who found the body to the local store to buy a disposable camera. By the time he returns (still no senior cops, SOCOs or other assistance for the lovely Jolie - this is New York isn't it??) it has started raining and she gets to work photographing the evidence, only after she'd stood in front of an Amtrak to stop it disturbing the scene.

I want to know the name of that camera as the photographs were so incredibly detailed that no amount of zooming in distorted the images!! The horror continues:- not in the film itself (pretty ordinary I'm afraid) but in the Lincoln Rhyme character as played by Mr Washington. This man is a highly dedicated Forensic Crime Scene Examiner with years of experience who, instead of the highly trained but invisible local Crime Scene Examiners, entrusts the work to an untrained cop, a rookie cop, who proceeds to find the very obviously placed clues and move them before photographing them thus contaminating every item and making DNA profiling well nigh impossible. Now that was a bright idea eh? I know one should be able to suspend disbelief to a degree but those who say this film is intelligent must have entirely disengaged their ability to think in order to find this film believable.

I have given this film 4/10 for the superb acting of Denzel Washington and for Miss Jolie's lips which are the only items requiring my disbelief to be suspended!

Sentiment: negative
The first was good and original. I was a not bad horror/comedy movie. So I heard a second one was made and I had to watch it.

What really makes this movie work is Judd Nelson's character and the sometimes clever script. A pretty good script for a person who wrote the Final Destination films and the direction was okay. Sometimes there's scenes where it looks like it was filmed using a home video camera with a grainy-look.

Great made-for-TV movie. It was worth the rental and probably worth buying just to get that nice eerie feeling and watch Judd Nelson's Stanley doing what he does best.

I suggest newcomers to watch the first one before watching the sequel, just so you'll have an idea what Stanley is like and get a little history background.

Sentiment: positive
... and I actually gave it a ZERO on my personal 1-10 scale. I have been attending movies since 1952 and have seen well over 1000 in the theater (I don't rate movies that I see only on TV). This is the ONLY movie I have ever rated ZERO.

My wife and I took our four children (then aged 15, 11, 8 and 6) and even the kids thought it was terrible. In fact, it was my daughter (now 26) who alerted me to this site (amazed that the movie was getting an overall rating of 4+).

The animation of the dinosaurs looked amateurish at the time (and is even worse in retrospect), the acting (particularly by Sean Young) is atrocious and the story line is simply silly.



Sentiment: negative
First I bough this movie on VHS than I just had to buy it on dvd, it is on of my favorite movies of all time. I have read the book, but I really think the movie is much better. I loved Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma and Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley was an excellent chose. He was brilliant!

It's a 10/10 movie!!!



Sentiment: positive
Unfortunately, because of US viewers' tendency to shun subtitles, this movie has not received the distribution nor attention it merits. Its subtle themes of belonging, identity, racial relations and especially how colonialism harms all parties, transcend the obvious dramatic tensions, the nostalgic memories of the protaganiste's childhood, and the exoticism of her relationship with her parents' "houseboy," perhaps the only "real" human she knows. We won't even look at her mother's relationship with this elegant man. There! i hope i've given you enough of a hook to take it in, whether you speak French or like subtitles or not. I challenge you to be as brave, strong and aware as La P'tite.

Sentiment: positive
Great music, great dancing, a sexy star (Swayze) and actual sexual desire shown by a female character (a very unusual event!). You rarely see female characters who are motivated primarily by lust and it is a nice change. I also think the movie captures very well what it is like to be a teenager coping with issues of class and of having ideals suddenly come up against reality. Of course, it is sappy at moments - it is, after all, a movie musical - but all in all it is a real pleasure - a fun romance and also politically enlightened. This movie also has one of my favorite all time movie lines: "I carried the watermelon."

Sentiment: positive
While Aeon Flux was mildly entertaining and a slightly better way to spend a Wednesday evening than the pub, i did leave pleased that i had got buy one get one free tickets. knowing nothing about the film as i went in, in fact i didn't even know there was an animated series before i read this site, i was ready for anything, and as some other viewers noted, the trailers showing a well filmed, good looking, and interesting piece of cinema had pulled me in. half way through the film though i was kind of disappointed, it did remind me of the fifth element but i too feel it just lacked the extra bit of depth and left me with the empty feeling. and enough of the pointless and slightly boring gun fights, if you're going to do them, do it with some style, not just loads of explosions and inept guards falling down. personally i'd rather have seen a bit more about the story and the people in the city or got to know more about how the chairman was being undermined, than yet another long and loud gun fight.

Sentiment: negative
DOUBLE EXPOSURE was a tremendous surprise. It contains outstanding acting (particularly from the underrated Callan), fine cinematography and a compelling storyline. In other words, it's one of the finest horror efforts to emerge from the 1980s.

Callan plays a fashion photographer who experiences dreams of murdering his models, at a time when he is reunited with his psychologically volatile brother (who happens to be missing an arm and a leg). When the models Callan dreams about killing actually turn up dead, the photographer begins to doubt his own sanity... but there is more to the picture than he is seeing.

This film never received the praise it deserves. Most critics and filmgoers lump it in with the horde of slasher films released at the same time, but it stands high above the bulk of that sorry lot. It's clever and unique, which isn't something one can comfortably say about most films of this genre, but it's also passionately crafted and performed. DOUBLE EXPOSURE is a gem of its kind.

Sentiment: positive
Wow, alot of reviews for the Devils Experiment are here. Wonderful. My name is Steve and I run Unearthed Films. We just started releasing the Guinea Pig films on DVD for North America. Now before you ask why am I writing a review? Instead ask why some people bash it. I'm writing this review because I love the Guinea Pig films. Why do I love em, it's because they go for the throat and they don't let go. I've seen it all. Almost every horror film known to man, Argento, Fulci, Bava, Buttgereit. from every underground cult sensation to every Hollywood blockbuster. I've seen it all and the films that have stuck in my head over the years was definitely the Guinea Pig films. Why because it doesn't try to hide the reason why we watch horror movies in the 1st place. This review is for the Devils Experiment. I find it devoid of story which is fine by me. Why do I watch horror films? So I can see blood and gore and the torture of people. The Devils Experiment not only delivers but that's all it is. Pure unadulterated violence. Yeah I like a story but sometimes I just want the gore and the Devils Experiment delivers ten fold. Why do people bash it. Cause they like a story, so that the torture and death of a person can be hidden behind a story. It make em feel better about themselves. We all want blood and gore. It's just really hard to justify it if it's not wrapped around a story. The Guinea Pig films have a historical meaning to them and they have created a definitive splash whenever they have been released.

I'm thrilled to be able to release one of the most famous horror series in the world. Maybe I shouldn't have written this review but then again maybe I should. My view is biased cause were releasing them but then again it's not. I've always told people to find them and to watch them way before I started Unearthed Films. Sure it's exploitive and over the top but isn't that why we watch horror films in the 1st place. The Devils Experiment is NOT for everybody. It's for thrill seekers and gorehounds only. If you think Jason movies and Freddy Krueger movies are awesome then stick to those. But if your on the next level and have seen it all then the Devils Experiment is for you. There is a reason why they haven't been released for over 17 years. They are wrong, disgusting and down right freaky and not something to watch with your mom, unless she is totally cool. Good luck, enjoy and never stop living your life.

Sentiment: positive
I wanted to vote zero or lower. I loved the commentary. It IS the worst movie ever made and 'unendurable' is the perfect word for it, unless there is something worse that Roget never thought of. I am also at a loss to think of anything negative enough to accurately describe Bo Derek. The best that could be said of her is, she's consistent.

Sentiment: negative
UP AT THE VILLA fooled me into thinking I`d be watching something similar to GOSFORD PARK . The film opens at a ballroom in 1930s Italy which is populated by vulgar Americans and uptight upper class Brits , but in truth UP AT THE VILLA plays out far more like a Merchant -Ivory production which is very bad news because it`s a very slow , and I do mean very slow romantic drama with some of the romance being very unlikely . If you like slow romantic dramas you might like this movie . I didn`t

Sentiment: negative
The opening shot of the Consequences of Love perfectly sets up this intriguing and absorbing film. A travellator slowly carries a solitary out of focus figure towards the camera, trailing a huge suitcase behind him. Like the central character in the film, we know nothing of him and our initial interpretation of him, his profession, the contents of the suitcase could be way off the mark.

Consequences of Love is that kind of film. From the title you might expect a Bergmanesq dissection of a relationship. What we have instead is a lead character, Titta, living life in emotional exile, seemingly choosing to cut himself off from those around him. If the film can be classified in any way, I would call it a mystery, as we are engaged in working out who Titta is and what he is about. What we know from the start is he is 50'ish, cool, composed and expensively attired. He has lived for the last eight years in a plush looking Swiss hotel, always paying his room fee on time but seldom showing any interest in the staff or other guests.

His only real companions are a couple who he plays occasional card games with. The couple, it transpires, used to own the hotel but have now gambled everything away and have only the room they live in left. Their love of money, antiques and each other was their undoing and Titta seems to identify with their plight. He once had it all, but now is now living as a virtual prisoner in the hotel. His brother, a long haired surf instructor, drops in to see him occasionally, but he sees his visits as more of an intrusion than a pleasure. They talk about the person Titta considers to be his best friend, even though he hasn't seen him for 25 years. This long lost friend is now a telephone engineer, repairing the communication network that brings so many together. Meanwhile Tittas phone calls to his wife and children end quickly when they refuse to speak to him.

Midway through the film Titta makes an uncharacteristic move and begins to open up to a young barmaid from the hotel. With his judgement clouded by emotion he sets himself on a course of actions that will ultimately seal his fate for good.

The slow unfolding of Tittas fall from grace is and beautifully scripted, shot and scored. The thumping techno soundtrack does much to build up the tension as more and more secrets are revealed, the final half hour turning into a taught thriller as Titta lets his mask slip and must once again face the consequences of his actions. The ending, with a visual nod to Felini, is dramatic yet ambiguous and leaves the audience to once more question his motives.

Patrick Bliss, 01/06/06

Sentiment: positive
Ira Levin's Deathtrap is one of those mystery films in the tradition of Sleuth that would be very easy to spoil given any real examination of the plot of the film. Therefore I will be brief in saying it concerns a play, one man who is a famous mystery playwright, another man who is a promising writer, the playwright's wife who is much younger and sexier than the role should have been, and one German psychic along for the ride. Director Sidney Lumet, no stranger to film, is quite good for the most part in creating the tension the film needs to motor on. The dialog is quick, fresh, and witty. Michael Caine excels in roles like these. Christopher Reeve is serviceable and actually grows on you the more you see him act. Irene Worth stands out as the funny psychic. How about Dyan Cannon? Love how Lumet packaged her posterior in those real tight-fitting pants and had her wear possibly the snuggest tops around, but she is terribly miscast in this role - a role which should have been given to an older actress and one certainly less seductive. But why quibble with an obvious attempt to bribe its male viewers when nothing will change it now? Deathtrap is funny, sophisticated, witty, and classy. The mystery has some glaring flaws which do detract somewhat, and I was not wholly satisfied with the ending, but watching Caine and Reeve under Lumet's direction with Levin's elevated verbiage was enough to ensnare my interest and keep it captive the entire length of the film.

Sentiment: positive
Pitch Black is a survival story. It's about how to survive in an hostile, alien world against even more hostile enemies. The task gets even more difficult when the nearest enemies can be found within your own surviving group.

The plot of Pitch Black is quite usual and has been seen several times before in different variations. But what makes this movie shine above others, is it's well-written characters.

The group consists of very different people with few more interesting than the others: Jack, a boy with a secret; Fry, a pilot having hard time with her own conscience; Johns, a bounty- hunter with a drug-habit; Imam, a holy man facing the fact that God is sometimes cruel and Riddick, a convict and a murderer learning to value others, not only himself. Characters start to live in the movie. They aren't only paper like in many other movies of this genre. You start to care for the characters, especially for Riddick though that feels quite odd. He is supposed to be the bad guy. In this movie, the line between light and pitch black is very thin. All characters are familiar with both.

Other thing that works in this movie is the casting. Rarely do actors fit to their roles this well. Radha Mitchell is suitable for Fry. Cole Hauser brings the right amount of cruelness and sense of responsibility for Johns. But the most impressive work is done by Vin Diesel. He does great job as Riddick. In his hands Riddick is quite creepy, definitely very dangerous and also deep character, just as he is supposed to be.

So, how do you survive in Pitch Black? Keep your friends close and enemies even closer.

Sentiment: positive
Can the intensity of a husband's love for his wife lead him to cover up a crime,despite betrayal on many levels? Tom Wilkinson is no brutal Othello, in the setting of modern day England. So, gradually a web of deceit begins to be woven. And, we witness cycles of jealousy and drunkenness and guilt and fornication. And so the web of "separate lies" begins to fail and then hold together again. And life (and death) goes on, despite the bright flame of the husband's love and the deep despair and guilt woven into so many lives. How many webs of deceit are to be displayed in this growing tapestry? The impulse is to prop up sterling reputations and careers and relationships in this most civilized corner of the world. Wilkinson gives an emotional performance, full of grace and discretion and decorum, and yet humanity, of those who have much to hide. Those who desire clarity and openness on the way to justice will be disappointed with the wickedness of so much deception. And yet, who among us, has not something similar to hide about his loved ones? Nevertheless, the viewer may wonder if this web is fated to crumble some day.

Sentiment: positive