DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I too saw this movie when it first came out. I was a teenager at the time, and I saw it with my girl friend who later became my wife. I remember the movie made me feel it was possible to beat the odds. The cinematography was very well done if memory serves me correctly. The boy was a little much, but the girl character was very interesting. I thought it was very romantic and that might have been the intro to the first time with my then girlfriend. I have not seen the movie since and I wander why it has gone to the wayside. I would love to watch it again to see if it was as good as I remember. The Elton John sound track was excellent.

Sentiment: positive
This was one of the highlights of ST:TNG's semi-forgettable second season, before they 'grew up' or grew into their own in the third season and beyond. This was not only a showcase for up-and-comers like Bill Campbell and Teri Hatcher, but was also the continuation of Data's search for his 'humanity', this time through the concept of comedy. Still one of my favorite episodes.

On a side-note, I'm still disappointed that there is no credit for the actress with whose character Okona was about to have a tryst(after Teri Hatcher's character) before being rudely interrupted by Lt Worf. I remember watching this episode 'first-run' at my friends comic shop back in the day and we all thought she would've been a perfect Jean Grey/Marvel Girl.

It would be nice to know who this pretty lady actually is...

Sentiment: positive
If you never have read the book and never intend to read it in the future, go on and watch the movie (6/10). It is a nice fantasy movie with well done CGI, nice acting, a beautiful environment and an above-average fantasy story.

If you have read the book like me about 10 times or more and really love it, don't expect too much (or better: don't expect anything at all). The story is totally different from the original book. This may explain that the movie is voted 1/10 from people around 40 or more (like me) and much better from people who most probably never read the book before and thus expect nothing.

Most of the differences between movie and book are not really necessary and change the setting (in my opinion much to the worse): 

- The magic in the book works with rituals for classic magical effects. (Changing weather, creating illusions, transform into animals, ...) In the movie the magic is more like "jedi-school for the middle ages" (TM) (wooden sticks instead of lightsabers). That the devil is looking like emperor palpatine (after part III) doesn't make it really better.

- The mill in the book is not totally cut off the world like in the movie. In the book the story is set near Dresden, which Krabat visits one time with his master and also he visits some nearby villages for festivities. (This part might have been changed to cut costs.) I also don't understand why in the movie the mill is located in the hills while the nearby graveyard is set in the high mountains.

- The whole surrounding is the average run of the mill fantasy medieval style. Lots of mud everywhere, dirty faces, not an orderly kitchen, only very rough houses. The book never suggested such an environment.

- In the book the master tries to make Krabat his successor but Krabat rejects. Krabat is somewhere between admiration, distance and silent rejection. In the movie Krabat rejects the master always openly like a stubborn schoolboy.

- The movie is set in 1647 instead of around 1720. This makes it impossible for the master to tell some stories from his youth probably around 170x. OK, the stories are missing anyway in the movie.

Also some explanations given in the book would have been helpful and would not cost so much minutes: 

- In the book all work done at day is effortless and work in the night is like normal work. This explanation is missing in the movie. Sometimes the boys are sweating and sometimes they are happy.

- The book explains why only a few "Gesellen" try to confront the master: If the master dies by any mundane reasons, the "Gesellen" are free AND keep their magical powers. If the master dies at the confrontation, all will lose their power forever.

Sentiment: negative
Cusack does his best David Niven in this one, although I don't know if anyone besides me noticed it.

When seen with this in mind, its a deliciously over saturated 'wants to be taken more seriously than Austin powers but still be pretty d*mn funny' reworking of an under-appreciated comedy classic.

Hillary Duff does an over sexualized Britney spears lap dance version of Mata Bond. The writers built a little reverse Oedipus twist into the plot - interesting choice.

I never knew how soothing Montel's voice was until this movie... I think he has found a new calling doing nav system voice overs!

Sentiment: positive
This movie is pretty good as it is, but the unreleased Producer's Cut is my favorite movie in the series after the original. Jamie's story is handled differently, the death scenes are done 10 times better, there's more footage of ritual type stuff giving more story about Micheal, Jamie and her baby. There is also an alternate ending which is also better. Why they didn't release this version instead I have no damned clue. If you can find this version, see it.

Sentiment: positive
This was a very entertaining movie and I really enjoyed it, I don't normally rent movies like these (ie. indie flicks) however, I was attracted to the film because it had an incredible cast which included Jamie Kennedy, whom I have loved since the Scream trilogy. The movie director took a risk (and it is a risky risk) in telling the lives of many (and I mean MANY) different people and having the intertwine at various intervals. Taking that risk was a good idea because it's end result is an exceedingly good film. 

The film has a few MAIN characters; Dwight (Jamie Kennedy) - a disgruntled fortune cookie writer whose relationship with his girlfriend is on the rocks because of an argument. Wallace Gregory (John Carroll Lynch) - an airplane loader/technician who has a love for all living things (except, perhaps meter maids) and who despite his good heart has an increasing amount of bad luck. Cyr (Brian Cox) - the owner of a Chinese restaurant/donut shop who is a germaphobe and because of is his fear of germs places his assistant/cook Sung -(Alexis Cruz) under pressure to keep up with his phobia. Ernie - (Christopher Bauer) is married to Olive - (Christina Kirk) who he is convinced is trying to; stop him have fun, look ridiculous, go insane, and not live a normal life. They begin to have petty and almost crazy arguments and Olive seriously begins to have doubts about Ernie. Gordon - (Grant Heslov) is a man whose life isn't going very well, as bad things begin to add up in his life he decides to take it in hand. Mitchel - (Jon Huertas) is convinced that Gwen - (Alexandra Westcourt) is the girl of his dreams and that they are destined for each other, though she is more skeptical. He attempts to woo her every chance he gets and he certainly makes attempts! Johnston - (Michael Hitchcock) has just been fired from his job and has doubts about his role as provider, he takes another job that he just isn't suited for. His wife Annelle - (Arabella Field) is comforting through out his job loss experience until she learns that Johnston wasn't quite the loving husband she thought he was.

All in all I definitely suggest this movie!

-Erica

Sentiment: positive
Overrated and only for those people in their 20's whom wear particularly thick rose tinted glasses, who never actually saw it in the first place because they were to young. Awful animation, dialogue and a tired narrative. A real product of the 80's, the novel gimmick of a puzzle TOY (thats right, TOY not the absurd, pretentious and child alienating "collectors action figurine"), sold on the back of a poor cartoon and other paraphernalia, only matters to those who bought the TOY when they were "actual" children in the period of '84' to '87'. It Has become cult because of those same adults are to immature to let go of their memories. Avoid.

Sentiment: negative
I remember this film as the other person that commented said. I recorded over it but wish I had it now just because it had to be one of the worst movies ever. Funny, in a real bad way. I remember the tag line on the box was "The ultimate frontal lobotomy". I got it from my mom, who got it from a friend at work who said it was the worst / cheesiest movie she had ever seen, so my mom said "My son will probably love it." and the woman gave it to her just to get it out of her possession. I then later taped over it, which I regret. I also remember the "corck screw" thing was one of those ball catcher things.... the yellow cone shaped things, with a red "button" at the end, and when you hit the red thing, it sends a ball flying. Well, they used that with a crank on one end, and a corkscrew in the funnel. When the killer killed they would show him coming forward with the "weapon" and then cut to a close up of what appeared to be raw chicken and fake blood on the victims head. I don't know what else to say about this "gem" except that if you like bad films, it doesn't get any worse than this.

Sentiment: positive
Really, I can't believe that I spent $5 on this movie. I am a huge zombie fanatic and thought the movie couldn't be that bad. It had zombies in it right? Was I wrong! To be honest the movie had it's moments...I thought it was cool when the guy got his head ripped off but that was about it. Overall I think that it would be more enjoyable to slide down a razorblade slide on my bare nutsack into a vat of vinegar then watch this movie again. The movie could have been better if we could see some boob but I had to watch the trailers for the other movies produced by this company to see that. Buyer beware...unless you are into masochism.

Sentiment: negative
When it comes to movies, I don't easily discriminate between crap, pure crap and masterpieces. I believe this movie is an absolute masterpiece and it's hard to keep me entertained for more than 90 minutes. This movie ran SLOWER than Mystic River and Harry Potter 3 combined and I still managed to stay riveted to my seat. For me, it was the passion that Eric Bogosian put into his performance. It's extremely difficult to pull off such a stunt and manage to garner any positive effect from it. Bogosian probably nailed one of the toughest single-man performances in modern cinema. I didn't have any respect for Bogosian until the end of the film. The entire monologue minutes before the inexorable climax was the turning point, it was the key that turned me around. This man hit a point so low that he knew he could never recover from it. The corporate boys congratulated him on the performance. His blistering prose made even the slimiest one in the cavalcade shake his head in awe. It made me realize that personal integrity and hypocrisy don't matter in the world of talk radio, even in the corporate world for that matter. Stone may have been pushing some uber-liberal agenda but it was the actual movie and production that got my attention. Oliver Stone is a minor master of the moody. The final third of the film had probably the best lighting and cinematography I have seen in any film. Stone artfully makes the DJ booth feel like five-by-seven cell in a nineteenth century prison. Visually speaking, it appears that Bogosian's only friend is the black foam that absorbs his routine vitriol. He speaks and it doesn't speak back. It's a sad metaphor considering the way he treats the people who handed him his success. Stone and Bogosian carved out a stunning film of a man who is trapped in both a prison of walls and a prison of self. This man is confined to his own volition and he can never escape it. The scene that made me realize his conundrum was when he was unwilling to his ex-wife back. He preferred his own prison instead of the world on the outside. Every story has a conflict and it came down to the simplest of all conflicts: man versus himself. 'Talk Radio' presents this conflict in an intelligent, gripping, and artful fashion. There are no hidden messages in this film and the progression of events should be expected by any astute viewer. I just leaned back and let my mind be grasped by this film and I loved it. It's unheralded, unseen, and it will never receive its due recognition. Let's hope it stays that way because gems deserve to be found and then hidden again. It's a gem because I found it in the discount DVD bin at my local Wal-Mart store. For $5.50, it was worth the half-hour I spent digging trying to find it. I did and I got more than my money's worth. This is one of the best movies ever made and that is worth ten reasons alone. Ten reasons give a score of ten.

Here ends my rant!

Sentiment: positive
Awful, dreadful, terrible. The actors are bad, the music is ridiculous and the filming pathetic. I rented the DVD and had to force myself to watch it until the end.

My advice: read the book, it is much better and you won't have to put up with all these silly images and ridiculous dreams Catherine has.

I think I have never watched such a bad movie.

Sentiment: negative
I enjoyed this movie extremely. It was the last great Mario Van Peebles movie I know of. It had a hip-hop old west flavor to it. Big Daddy Kane and Tone Loc had major parts. It shouldn't have won any Oscars, but it was enjoyable all the same.

Sentiment: positive
Given the low budget and production limitations, this movie is very good. It is plausible, realistic, and shows how the Csikos (Hungarian horsemen who lived on the plains (puszta) risked their lives to save a downed American pilot from the ruthless and savage Nazis. We are drawn into strong feelings for the young, impressionable, yet highly courageous boy--who admires the American pilot. If you're looking for special effects, superman heroes, and magical endings--this movie is not for you. If you want to feel what it must have been like to dodge the persistent, amoral Nazis and their lack of compassion, then you will be enthralled by this movie. I truly enjoyed it and for those who love horses, dogs, and humble, helpful people who value freedom and those who aspire to that end, this movie will be one you'll remember for a long time.

Sentiment: positive
How on earth can you have such fantastic actors in such a miserable creation? This is one of the most stylized pieces of rubbish I have seen in a long time. Not only is it poorly written, it is a product of shoddy direction and editing. The cinematography is so horribly manipulative and unoriginal and the montage jumbled beyond belief. The actual ideas behind the plots (cloning, toxic waste, climate change) are all fine to begin with but where the production/direction team takes them is a big cesspool of filth, the likes of which are seen in one episode. And this is a Scientific series? I am a physician and all I can say is that the science in this film is utter crap, almost embarrassing to watch. I really felt bad for the actors involved since they were all extraordinary.

Sentiment: negative
(spoilers)Wow, this is a bad one. I did a double take when watching an old Star Trek episode the other day-it was the one where everyone gets infected with that space sickness and then go a bit nuts-and there was Stewart Moss, a.k.a the unlikable 'hero' of It Lives by Night! He played the first crewmember infected, who dies from terminal depression. All I could think was that he'd watched his own movie too many times, that's what caused the depression. This movie is full of truly unlikable people. There is no redeeming character in the film, not one. It's very hard to feel bad about Dr. Beck's turning into a bat(or whatever he actually turned into), because you just don't like him. And you don't like his shrill, bony wife, or the nasty sleazy Sgt. Ward, or Dr. Mustache Love...So why would you invest any time or energy in this movie? Where there is no empathy with the characters, there is no reason to bother caring about it. Not to mention the horrible cinematography, which made it look like they'd filmed the movie through urine, and the five cent bat special effects, many of which appeared to be pieces of paper thrown into a fan to simulate hordes of bats flying. Not the worst film I've ever seen on MST3K, but down there in the bottom ranks, definitely.

Sentiment: negative
Swayze doesn't make a very convincing Alan Quatermain. Compared to Stewart Granger; which growing up was my ultimate hero in films like the 1952 "Scaramouche", the 1952 "Prisoner of Zenda" and the 1950 "King Solomon's Mines"; Patrick Swayze fails utterly. Even the portrayal of an older Alan Quatermain by Sean Connery in "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" was very good in an otherwise big flop. Also Alison Doody lacks the grace of Deborah Kerr in the role of the leading lady, and last but not least the impressive Siriaque in the role of Umbopa makes it very hard for anyone to fill his (shoes)!!! For someone who was disappointed by Richard Chamberlain's 1985 version, I now highly recommend it if you can't get your hand on the granger version.

Sentiment: negative
and possibly closest to the Dickens story line. Although I find the young Ebenezer hard to watch (who's idea was that period hair, surely they could have done better than that!), Scott does an incredible job as Scrooge. His delivery of some of the lines from Dickens finally brought it to life for me. Edward Woodward is everything we expect and more of the Ghost of Christmas present. I find G.C. Scott's Scrooge much more of a believable miser than the more current version done by Patrick Stewart. The scene Christmas Morning when Scrooge realizes he hasn't 'missed it', is enough to convince one that Scott knows how to act versus overact. He's phenomenal here. Nearly the entire cast is incredible. The Tiny Tim in this version of The Christmas Carol is a little tough to look at, almost too sweet. Still the music and the scenery make this a must watch every holiday. Enjoy!

Sentiment: positive
Those individuals familiar with Asian cinema, as a whole, are aware that Japan is renowned, or notorious, for it's hyper-violent films and Korea is now garnering a reputation for viciously brutal films. Dog Bites Dog, while not necessarily getting as hyper-violent as the craziest Miike film, nor is it as unapologetically brutal as some Koreas more ambitious efforts, it is a perfect in between with its own brand of brutality all it's own. The greatest strength this film has though, like the greatest of the Japanese or Korean efforts, is that the brutality, rather than detracting from the film, actually develops the characters, if not, pushing the story forward. The two main characters are both incredibly vicious individuals with their own motivations and emotional underpinning for being as such. Sam Lee's character, for instance, is on the edge from the very start and slowly and surely, amidst various encounters with Chang's character, it is revealed why he is. Without spoiling this part of the story too much, it involves the morally ambiguous nature of his father. Chang's character, on the other hand, has his most primal instincts honed to, if not perfection, brutal efficiency. Surprisingly, Chang's story arch, while not necessarily revealing a more human side, actually reveals a side to our animal nature which many forget about which is the natural ability to recognize a fellow broken animal (and no I am not talking about Sam Lee, rather Pei Pei's garbage dump girl character). Ultimately however, for the first 80 minutes or so, it is a, more or less, straight forward cat and mouse, or Dog chase Dog, film in which every encounter ends in at least one death (seriously, once Sam Lee and Chang Square off, some one will die) and the fun part of movie is you never know who hands will commit the act. Which brings us to the film's one weakness. Unforunatley to delve into it would be yet another spoiler but, to put it simply, it is guilty of pushing one of the main points of the film since, rather then letting the point be made as is 80 minutes into the film, the film goes on for another 20 minutes or so to further emphasize it. Don't get me wrong, if transitioned better from the 80 minute mark to the climax and if the final act wasn't filled with sweet music (in fact if it, like the majority of the film, kept the music to the barest minimum and let the disturbing sound effects do their job), it still could have worked and not detract from the film. As it is though, despite the third act having the most vicious and bloody of the encounters, the way it was handled made it feel tacked on, and almost, insults the viewers intelligence since it felt it had to go this far to get it across. Nevertheless, it is still a breath of fresh air from Hong Kong cinema since even the most bloody of the martial arts films never reaches the level of viciousness and brutality while keeping the the character archs in tact.

Sentiment: positive
Well, the episode I just watched had the older "Gastineau Girl" whining about why people keep mentioning her husband (Mr Gastineau, a famous American Football player apparently). She seems unwilling to accept that he's the only reason she isn't flipping burgers, she married someone famous and that's why she has cameras pointed at her.

When challenged by an interviewer to explain what she actually does, she gave a wonderfully circular reason for why people should pay attention to her: "I work really hard on my reality TV show". Then she said "I'm not a celebrity... I'm a personality."

I'm not quite sure who this series is meant to appeal to, except people who've had all their intelligence removed. It's certainly no role model to anyone except gold-diggers as the two stars do nothing but spend money, and all it tells you about rich people is that they have no money problems.

Sentiment: negative
The French film "Extension Du Domaine De La Lutte" directed by iconoclast film maker Philippe Harel is based on the book of the same name written by a controversial writer Michel Houellebecq.He has also worked on this film's scenario.According to British cinema magazine Sight and Sound,it is also known as "Whatever".This film has been hailed as a breath of fresh air for French cinema due to its not so common theme of sexual politics and its implications on two stupid information technology workers.The film is marred by its much too evident voice over which introduces us to the main character.This makes us viewers feel as if we are watching a book that is bring read. The basic premise of problems related to loneliness due to chronic sexual drought is fine but the film goes out of hand once the hero starts recounting the misery faced by him and his friend.Instead of sticking to its main topic the film veers in other directions leading to its downfall.Beware:some women viewers might find not only the film but even its two heroes as moronic misogynists.

Sentiment: negative
A good friend of mine one said: "A monkey is funny, anytime, anywhere." There is one exception to this: GOING BANANAS. It is quite simply the WORST MOVIE I have ever seen. It's worse than PLAN 9, worse than THE BEAST OF YUCCA FLATS. It is TERRIBLE. The talking monkey gag gets old after about three minutes, and believe me that's all there is. Make sure you have a bunch of people around to revive you after you go into TOXIC SHOCK from GOING BANANAS, the worst movie ever.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie on PBS the first time. Then I bought the video and watched it countless times. Every time I watch it, I can get something else out of it. It's a real testament to wanting to hold onto a life that was good, but now the world is changing. But you don't have to be older to hold onto the past, even the young characters, like Charlotte don't want things to change. The overall tone and mood is excellent. The cast is outstanding with all-stars like Kathy Bates, Beau Bridges and Arthur Kennedy. And its fun to see the upcoming stars before they hit more recognizable feature films, like Kevin J. O'Connor (The Mummy) and Vincent D'Onofrio (Men in Black and Law & Order: Criminal Intent-one of my favorite shows). Its just one of those movies that stays with you.

Sentiment: positive
I rented this obscure aussie relic a few years ago to show at a friend`s place and it was an instant success.The classic tale of the wizard of oz with a decidedly cornball 70`s australian twist.The acting isn`t exactly shakespeare society stuff here,but later ,"Mad max"star Bruce Spence is a beautifully understated surfie/scarecrow and there are some wonderfull comic turns by Gary Wadell and Robin Ramsay as a deliciously 70`s camp fairy godmother/father character.Also note the musical contribution from ex-Daddy Cool frontman Ross Wilson on the title song.In a similar vein to later-day aussie comedies such as "Priscilla queen of the desert".Good fun.

Sentiment: positive
This has got to be the cheesiest, stupidest, most retarded monster film of all time. It's a complete joke that this even surfaced into theaters. This is sort of like watching the Loch Ness monster in rural America. This movie deserves to be thrown in a toilet and completely forgotten. John Carradine, shame on you. The people involved in this moronic pile of trash need to be lobotomized. Wait! Maybe I'm giving them too much credit. I'm sure they were lobotomized before the filming. How else can one explain the utter and sheer stupidity that this bucket of crap contains. Don't waste a minute of your life watching this. Don't even waste your time sending a review.

Sentiment: negative
Hey now, I have never laid eyes on a Manga comic, but apparently this movie is based on one. Ah well, such is life. Anyway, this is a pretty bizarre, to say the least, movie, as things literally spiral out of control in a small Japanese town. People are becoming obsessed with the uzumaki (spiral) and this young girl watches her friend's father videotape a snail, and later in the movie, people start becoming snails? It also seems this boy's dad becomes so obsessed he somehow commits suicide in a household appliance. There is some bizarre humor here that might be at home in a Tim Burton movie, but there is some nastiness & gore like only the Japanese can do with justice. As with a lot of Japanese films though, the ending is the ending, and did anything get resolved? Well, not to my mind, it didn't. There are some hints as to why this is all happening but they aren't explored and there's a lot left to either the imagination or else it wasn't deemed important. Still though, there are lots of things for the eye to feast on and if you aren't obsessed with everything making perfect sense, this is well worth seeing, because it's just so original and bizarre. My favorite was the father with the spinning eyeballs, personally. 8 out of 10 stars.

Sentiment: positive
Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega are the mismatched pair who get in the car and go about doing errands according to the need of one or the other. Morgan Freeman is superbly human, relating with one and all, while Paz Vega is the edgy cashier behind the "10 Items or Less" check out line, intimidating customers and bored out of her mind. Together they explore, discover, and learn from each other. To do that of course they must be vulnerable, interested in change, and have a sense of humour, all of which they both have. I wish this film was realistic, I wish this type of story happened more often, I wish we didn't have to go to the movies to realize that we can indeed connect with each other even if we come from vastly different backgrounds. The film's message is based in the open heart, and makes us wonder about the possibility of another world where we meet each other from there - a world where peace could be a possibility.

Sentiment: positive
Delightful! It never pretends to be a masterpiece, but it's a mini-gem of late seventies British comedy. Given that the producers wanted to sell it abroad, it stars an American (the late character actor Richard Jordan), but at least he isn't the usual dull Hollywood hunk type. Surrounding him is the cream of British character acting talent, led by a wonderfully waspish and superior David Niven.

Niven's Ivan the Terrible naturally gets the best one liners and all the best reaction shots. He also manages to be surprisingly menacing and intimidatingly dangerous. The moment in the snooker club when he drops the charming facade and threatens Richard Jordan will come as a shock to those viewers who think of Niven as being only a light drawing room comedy star. He is filled with genuine power and ruthlessness as we see all at once how Ivan earned his nickname. All the more surprising given how ill Niven was at the time. Shortly after filming this production he lost his powers of speech to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (known as Lou Gehrig's disease). This is the last picture Niven made where you can hear his own voice, being dubbed thereafter by the comic impressionist Sid Caesar.

Alongside him you can spot numerous familiar faces from seventies cinema and television. Elke Sommer (flashing her breasts in true seventies era politically incorrect bimbo mode), Oliver Tobias, Michael Angelis, Brian Croucher, Davy Kaye etc, etc. Davy Kaye gets one of the biggest laughs as he holds up a security guard caught making a phone call. "Who you ringing?!....Bloody Dial-A-Disc! You gormless git!" 

Great shots of London street locations; making the film a period patina time capsule of red phone boxes with chunky round-dial manual handsets, black cabs driven by "Cor blimey, gov!" cockneys, and ladies and gents modelling all manner of deeply dodgy late seventies retro leisure wear and hair styles. 

Unlike the classic Ealing comedies of an earlier era, the 'hero' is allowed to get away with his crime and escape to a life in the sun. How times had changed! The morality code by which crooks in films always had to be seen to be punished had long gone by the seventies, with anti-heroes like Pinky Green earning status through their cheeky anti-authoritarianism and determination to 'cock a snook' at a stuffy capitalist establishment of be-suited fat cat businessmen. We are encouraged to cheer as Pinky makes off, unpunished and free as a bird with his ill gotten gains. Compare that to the ending of The Lavender Hill Mob!

Highly entertaining, quaintly dated in its fashions and attitudes, and the stuff of late night cult viewing. Perfect to watch at midnight after the pubs have shut; if you're of a certain age, are feeling a touch nostalgic, and have always wanted to see David Niven in a branch of McDonalds, silently intimidating an American via the use of a retractable telescope!

Sentiment: positive
A long film about a very important character from South Africa, Stephen Biko. He is one of these Blacks who did not survive apartheid, who actually died a long time before their normal time. The already old film though does not show how important Biko was, what he really represented. His life and his teaching is reduced to little, at best a few witty remarks. The film being from 1987, the objective was to push South Africa over the brink that would lead her to liberation. So the film aims at showing how irrational the South African supporters of apartheid are, in 1987. To show this the film has to look beyond Biko's death, hence to center its discourse not on Biko but on a white liberal journalist and his escaping the absurd system in which he is living. His escape is made necessary because of the victimization he is the victim of, along with his family, and because he wants to publish the first book on Biko, after his death, and that can only happen in England. The film shows a way to escape South Africa, while apartheid is still standing and killing. So do not expect this way to be realistic and true. It could not be. But the film has tremendously aged because it does not show South Africa with any historical distantiation, the very distantiation that has taken place under Nelson Mandela's presidency and that is called forgiveness provided those who want to be forgiven speak up and out. The film is strong and emotional but that very historical limit makes it rather weak today, especially since the film does not mention the third racial community, the Indians. Panegyric books or films all have that defect: they are looking at the person they are supposed to portrait from only one point of view. That explains why the film has aged so much, seems to be coming from so long ago, as if nothing had changed at all. A remake is necessary.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID

Sentiment: positive
This is a low budget stop motion monster movie from Brett (A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell) Piper... and it delivers just what I'd expect from such a production: light-hearted (though cheesy) dialogue, some cute actresses and lots of stop motion critters. That's why I've given the film 10 out of 10 - because it delivers what I expected it to deliver... and a bit more: Brett doesn't penny-pinch when it comes to putting his critters on screen. He hurls lots of bugs at his cast for the finale. And, anyway, I LOVE stop motion monsters which, compared to CGI critters in bigger budgeted movies, just seem to be that much fun to watch.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie for a number of reasons the main being Mira Sorvino. With her on the cast it couldn't be so bad. And it even seemed like it had some mystery and Olivier Martinez was her boyfriend at the time and he was pretty good in `Unfaithful'. The story is set in Spain so it could be an exotic entertaining movie with one of my favorite actresses.

If you're thinking about the same thing let me warn you: this is a truly awful, uninteresting, boring movie. The only adjective that comes to mind is pathetic.

The story is contrived with sub-plots that add nothing to the narrative. They try to build a slasher/thriller with a look at fascism in Spain but fail horribly. The twists have no credibility and the so-called investigation leads nowhere.

The characters are paper-thin! I didn't care about anyone. More than that they're irritating and pretty hateful people.

The acting is atrocious. Mira what is wrong with you? Why Mira? You're an oscar winner! Keep some dignity! Her character was weak but that is no excuse for such an awful performance. She seems to be sleepwalking all movie long. Come to think of it, I actually think I saw her eyes slowly closing in some scenes. I used to think this woman was sexy. Well she isn't here. If you want to look at some skin try Romi and Michelle because there's nothing to see here. And that accent? My god...

Olivier Martinez is even worst. It's too painful to remember his performance to describe it here. Im sorry but I can´t. Ive suffered enough with this garbage.

This whole movie is depressing! It's so bad in every way it's a wonder how it was even made. A lousy team to produce a lousy script and make some money over the actor's name. Don't fall for it.

Avoid it!



Sentiment: negative
I bought my first Zep album in 1974 (at 17) and have been hooked ever since. This DVD has now taken pride of place in my music collection. It is not often that a band can boast 4 virtuosos in their lineup but here we can. Each member made their own contribution to the band but on the stage together, the electricity they generated was bigger than the 4 individuals. This masterpiece covers the band's entire career from Led Zep 1 to Coda and this is captured magnificently on this DVD as each concert shows how the band became bigger and bigger over the years. Recently my copy disappeared, but I'm happy to say was found in my 17yo son's room as the new generation discover just how great these guys were. This is a must have for anyone who has an appreciation of rock music. Long live Led Zeppelin.

Sentiment: positive
There are actually some good reasons, why a person should take the risk of going totally insane by watching this show. The breasts are nice, even though some of them aren't that real, but they usually come in pairs, which is good. Watching the beach on your screen is also a very relaxing experience, as it is an ideal place for just taking it easy and not worrying too much about getting eaten by a rubber shark. It's always good to remember, that David Hasselhoff is a god. Not the god, but a god. It's not so much about his acting skills, since there are none, but his chesthair does a lot of talking. Also, there's no KITT hanging out in this series, which is good, since Mr Hasselhoff told in an interview, that he always thought KITT was gay. Naturally that might make him to look like an idiot, but considering the other statements he has made lately, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

In a nutshell, this is the kind of show, that is totally harmless to people. It gives us a lot to stare at and a lot to laugh at, which is something many intentionally humoristic shows really don't give us. I have to say, it's no wonder that Borat fell in love with Pamela Anderson. I enjoy watching the show. No, it's not a great show, actually it's quite horrible, but I enjoy watching it. It's basically like a B-movie stretched to last for a decade.

Sentiment: negative
So.. what can I tell you about this movie. If you cheated a lot in high school, you do recognize some cheattips...

This is the best thing i can tell you about this film!

If you like American-teen movies, maybe you also like it!

But i don't see this kind of movies as something funny.. sorry to say but if you are older then 10 years, i shouldn't advise you to watch this.

Because there is one shot with a couple of beautiful women (girls.. in this movie) i'll give it a rate of: 2!

so.. deal for yourself! good luck

Sentiment: negative
This is a FUNNY film. It has all the usual Disney components (music, great range of characters, story, appeal), entwined with superb animation and the excellent voice talents of less well known actors as those in say "Antz" and "Price of Egypt".

The characters work really well, and have a strong appeal, and the humour is aimed at a wide level which overcomes generational barriers. The movie is also presented in superb cinemascope format, which adds to the cinema experience.

Call me crazy, but I have seen the film three times, and I intend on taking more friends to see it this weekend. Many skeptics have seen this film on my recommendation and not been disappointed. I work in a multiplex, and I can honestly say that no-one has ever walked out of this movie without a sense of satisfaction.

See it, and don't be put off because it is animated. You are sure to enjoy this movie, and make sure you stay for the end credits! The bloopers and out-takes at the end are the funniest part of the film, which is packed with laughs throughout.

Sentiment: positive
I must warn you, there are some spoilers in it. But to start it off, I got "Spanish Judges" on February I think. It was mention it was the last copy, but as I see, it wasn't back-ordered. But either way, I have it. I thought it was good. I wanted to see this mainly because of the great actor, Matthew Lillard (I'm surprised no one on the reviews mention the scar) although it is kind of low budget, getting enough money to make this film would be worth spending. Man, what a good actor.

The story it about a con artist known as Jack (Matthew Lillard) who "claims" to have merchandises called The Spanish Judges. If you don't know what Spanish Judges are or haven't seen the trailer for this and this is the first review you have read, I won't even say what they are. I figure it would be a big twist of no one knew what it was. He needs protection, so he hires a couple who are also crooks, Max and Jamie (Vincent D'Onofrio and Valeria Golino) as well as a crook that goes by the name of Piece (Mark Boone Junior). He has a girlfriend who won't even tell anyone her name because she's from Mars, as she said. So they (mainly Jack) call her "Mars Girl". Everything starts out fine, but then it turns to one big game. A game that involves some lust, lies and betrayal.

There was some over acting in it (Matt and Valeria, as well as Tamara, were not one of them). There were some scenes they could've done better and the score could've been a little better as well. Some of the score was actually good. The theme they used for the beginning and the end (before the credits) was a good song choice, that's my opinion. The fight scene in the end could've been a little longer and a little more violent, but what can you do? One more comment on Matt: Damn, he plays a smooth, slick con man.

I know this is a review, but I need to make a correction towards NeCRo, one of the reviewers: Valeria Golino is not a newcomer. According to this site, she has been acting since 1983. To me, and hopefully to others, she is well known as Charlie Sheen's Italian love interest in both the "Hot Shots!" movies. But good review.

Although I think it's one of the rare films I've seen and it's really good (which is why I gave it 10 stars above), I will give the grade of what I thought when I first saw it.

8/10

Sentiment: positive
I'm not sure that this comment contains an actual spoiler, but I'm playing it safe, so don't read this if you haven't seen the movie.

I adore this movie, and so does everyone I work with -- and that is the point. I spent a large part of my working life in cinema, without being an actor. Such people are the _sung_ heroes of this movie: the gaffers, the pullers, the on-air directors, the lighters and writers, the costume people etc etc, and the whole thing is told from their point of view, at least to a great extent. Most actors are nuts and self-absorbed to the point of absurdity, which is what this movie spoofs so well, but you have to have worked with actors to recognize that this movie is real-life drama! Possible spoiler alert: in one great scene, the two leads, both actors, are _discussing_ how to _discuss_ something personal, something entirely 'out-of-script', with another actor, and they start making up lines, rehearsing them, and critiquing each other's performance.

Since this movie appeared in, what was it, '91, it has become fashionable to do this, especially on TV. But hardly anyone has done it so well.

Sentiment: positive
A small town is attacked by a horde of bloodthirsty vampires. The only hope is a lone avenger and a group of ragtag survivors.

Released in 1993, "Darkness" garnered something of a cult following upon release. It's easy to see why-it's loaded (and I mean freaking loaded) with gore, and it's energy and enthusiasm, like that found in other no-budget cult horror flicks like "The Dead Next Door" and "The Children of Ravensback", is actually rather infectious.

While that may be true, that's sadly not enough to save it. The film was shot on a Super 8, so the image is grainy and dark, making things very difficult to see (it would have been great if it had obscured the protagonists dreadful mullet.) Also grating is the soundtrack, made up of annoying Casio Keyboard and even more annoying Death Metal (seriously, what is it with these no budget horror flicks and bad Death Metal?) While one isn't expecting Oscar worthy performances, the acting is still strictly amateur hour, as the actors sometimes seem almost confused instead of frightened or threatened.

In the end, I'm sure fans of no-budget gorefests will love this. Everyone else though, will wish there was a little more meat on the ribs.

Sentiment: negative
Hearing about how hilarious this movie is, I finally rent it at

the video store and for 75 minutes maybe I laughed 3 times. This

movie, a collection of skits that make fun of television is an

incoherrent mess. The jokes fall flat, the humor deals with

issues from the 1970's that just aren't relevant anymore, and

the jokes go on way too long (almost like the new SNL skits the

past few years). Yeah, Chevy Chase is in this but maybe of all

about 1 or 2 minutes. I liked the fact that this was very

raunchy and had nudity galore but couldn't it be funny? Do

yourself a favor and rent Kentucky Fried Movie which is a far

superior film made in the

Sentiment: negative
Since the day I saw this film when it came out in 1981, it has been one of my top 3 favorites. The blurb I wrote for Amazon is below, and I'm just thrilled that it's finally coming out on DVD on 10/17/06 - the film's 25th anniversary.

The last credit in this film explains its appeal - "Thank you to the people of Manhattan on whose island this was filmed." A charming and witty romantic comedy, it is a love story written to New Yorkers (Peter Bogdanovich is a native) who can identify every location (West 12th Street, the Ansonia, the old FAO Schwartz, the Plaza, the Roxy, Chez Brigitte, and City Limits which was a country & western club). One gets the impression that the entire ensemble cast clicked as well off-screen as they do on, and this intimacy is clearly communicated. I laughed, I cried, it was better than CATS. Not only an ode to Dorothy Stratten, it was also Audrey Hepburn's last feature appearance (she had a cameo subsequent to this film) and her inner beauty seeps from the screen. Buy it, make a big tub of popcorn, and curl up with someone you love.

Sentiment: positive
Picture this. Someone makes a film about the Columbine or Virginia tech massacre only the film is directed by the guy who did home alone (i know this isn't but bare with me) and stars Sean Astin off of Goonies!! picture the terrorists being overpowered by buckets of water on top of ajar doors and marbles and this is why you need to see the film. unfortunately it doesn't go all the way by actually having the skateboard lying on the floor for the evil Mexicans to trip on but its halfway there you have to give it above 7 for that but not a 9 because it didn't go crazy enough. Pity, its seemed like it would be comical cheesiness, well worth a cult status

Sentiment: positive
All of the X-Men movies were great. And I mean all of them, including the long hated X-Men 3. They had solid characters (Magneto and Xavier were the best ones, in my opinion), and a good story arch.

I was all excited when I heard this movie was on production, and my expectations grew bigger and bigger until I saw the movie. I was so disappointed.

Hugh Jackman is not a bad actor (his best movie is The Fountain, although you won't hear about this movie when they talk about the actor), and his acting is not what screws the movie up.

The whole film is plagued with lots of meaningless characters that add nothing to the plot (like Blob or Gambit), which were tossed there to make fans believe that the film makers had read the original comics.

I am a fan of XMen, I have read many, many of their stories and this movie respected none of them. None. Not even the continuity. It doesn't respect Weapon X project, or the relationship between Wolverine and Sabretooth, or Emma Frost, the motivations for wolverine are plain stupid and seen in millions of movies: Revenge for the death of a loved one.

Oh. What I was expecting the whole darn movie was a Berseker moment for Wolverine similar to the one he has in X2 in the school when Stryker men come in and he alone decimates the enemy forces, but hey, this is Fox, this a family flick and you will not see explicit violence from the most violent and gruesome Marvel hero.

Besides, I had a feeling of constant dejá vù with this movie because Wolverine's Origins are already explained in X2, we already know how he got his adamantium skeleton so it kind of does not make sense to make a movie of something we already know.

I personally believe that wolverine is one of those few characters that does not need a solid back-story because mystery is the nature of the character. Do we really want to know how the Joker got his scars?

Sentiment: negative
There are few movies that appear to provide enterntainment as well as realism. If you've ever wondered about the role of snipers in modern war, take a look at this one. 

I just loved the scene where hundred soldiers get shooting at the jungle, no-one quite sure where that shot came?

And, they nicked one scene to Saving Private Ryan, so it has to have some merit in the scene.



Sentiment: positive