DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Fascinating downer about a would-be male hustler in New York City forced to live in a condemned building with a crippled con-man. Extremely bleak examination of modern-day moral and social decline, extremely well-directed by John Schlesinger (who never topped his work here) and superbly acted by Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman. Packs quite a punch overall, yet the "fantasy" scenes--some of which are played for a chuckle--are mildly intrusive, as is the "mod" drug party. The relationship that develops between the two men is sentimental, yet the filmmakers are careful not to get mushy, and this gives the picture an edge it might not have had with a lesser director than Schlesinger. Originally X-rated in 1969, and the winner of the Best Picture Oscar; screenwriter Waldo Salt (who adapted James Leo Herilhy's book) and Schlesinger also won statues. ***1/2 from ****

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the best and most under rated teen movies ever made.

I saw this growing up and it was, and is one of my favorites, maybe not as popular as "Fast times" but just as great.

There is a serious side to this movie, as mentioned by other reviewers it starts as a comedy and morphs into a drama about halfway through. That's the beauty of it though and what sets it apart. You get it all. Humor(not unlike that of "Fast times" ), Drama, and a GREAT GREAT soundtrack.

I personally think every kid about to enter high school should see this, it would give an idea about the journey their about to embark on. Cmon-what kid watching this, wouldn't be able to relate to SOMEONE in the movie? The fact that it becomes so serious halfway though is also cool and just superbly well done.You don't even see it coming. Definitely a lot of surprises.

SPOILERS:DON'T READ ANYMORE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW.

Great, knee slappping humor.(who could forget the scene between Gary and Camilla?). I can still hear it:"Oh my big strong burrito!!" Priceless!!

Some of the scenes between Gary and Karin are hard to watch(particularly the final scene of coarse). There are SO SO MANY women like Karen out there who would have made the exact same choice she did. Think about it-how many women reject men with hearts of gold(like Gary) for jerks? I know I've done it-and so have many females I know. This movie will inspire discussion and, despite the countless times I've seen it, still leaves me filled with admiration for the film makers and performers. Everyone will find someone to relate to in this movie or what's more likely more then one person.

Lastly, the music used is just great(a lot of Cars, u2,lots of obscure(now) songs from the 80's.-an 80's purist's dream.)

But make no mistake, it is not the music that makes this movie unique, it is the story itself, plain and simple. One of the best of it's kind and a teen movie classic.

Sentiment: positive
This is a bit of a first for me, the first time I have ever been disappointed in a Tim Burton film. POTA isn't a bad film (great sets, costumes and the odd great performance) but it could have been made by any off-the-shelf hollywood director. The pacing was very odd, the last third was just spent waiting for the film to end, by myself and the cast. Tim Roth was excellent, probably the only pleasure in the film. Come back Tim.

Sentiment: negative
What can be said about such a pathetic movie ? 

- Very bad acting ! The main actress seems to know only one facial expression : fear mixed with weakness. Like a poor beaten dog... The other actress (the one who plays the evil) looks like the female double of Ozzy Osbourne, with an awful red wig. The other actors are so pitiful that they don't even worth being described. 

- There's absolutely no plot. The story begins with possibilities but goes nowhere : we don't know anything about the meaning of "11:11", nor who Rayden really is, excepted the simple "she's evil" or "she's a child of Apocalypse"... which is not an explanation. We don't know why the parents have been killed, what kind of danger is growing and why Sara was chosen. As the film goes on, we just watch pseudo-scary scenes, with a bad music. Moreover, the end doesn't tell anything : we just see two possibilities as if one of them was a bonus scene or the director's cut... There's no plot, so no possible interpretation. 

- "11:11" is just full of clichés ! It is so obvious that i couldn't help laughing. For example : the deserted library or the bathroom scenes, ghost silhouettes walking with a blast of wind, ... there's even the fashionable "little scary girl" as in "Dark Water" or "The Ring". Of course, the main character is bullied at school and looks like a stereotyped Gothic girl (dark hair, red lips, skinny, black clothes). Is it an obligation to make her credible ? I don't think so. The psychology of Sara is so few developed and so typical that it doesn't make her credible, nor endearing.

- Terrible direction : as i said, nothing original, everything has already been seen a thousand times and is used here without any real purpose. 

- There are some funny incoherences. For example, i don't know if "ghost science", "paranormal course" or whatever is taught in American universities... In Europe it is really not the case : teachers talking about negative energies or using "unmaterial" creatures sensors... ridiculous. Also : how can you watch a movie shot in the sixties with a Super-8 camera on a computer screen without spending hours of your time for a digitalization (in the movie they watch it immediately on the computer screen) AND how can you, on this old film, isolate a tiny detail then zoom in and see a perfectly identifiable face ? I wonder if the director has ever tried to digitize an old analogical film...

Eventually, "11:11" just worths being watched if you like to laugh at silly movies, or maybe if you want to fall asleep on your couch... But it's an expensive way to fall asleep !

Sentiment: negative
I'm a fan of good, plausible, action movies. And I'm a huge fan of the elite military units such as the Navy SEALs. Finally, I'm a huge fan of Michael Biehn. Sadly none of those allowed me to really enjoy this movie at the time. I gave it another chance more recently when I bought the DVD. Here's the problems with this movie in a quick list: 1. It's a poor mans top gun, for example including a virtual music video of the SEAL team playing golf with a soundtrack of "The Boys are Back In Town", which concludes with Charlie Sheen doing an inane chase to get his towed car back.

2. This is quite simply a Charlie Sheen movie, when Sheen was trying to be famous before he started doing stuff like Hot Shots. Reports I've heard indicate that Sheen was a baby on the set and it affected the roles and Direction the rest of the actors in the movie got.

3. Biehn is the head of the SEAL team yet Sheen seldom obeys him. Any SEAL showing the lack of discipline that Sheen's character does, or who endangered the team as he does, wouldn't even have made it through BUDS training let alone gotten on a team.

4. SEALs are cross trained on weapons. Yet in one part of the movie a SEAL has to "figure out" how to use a U.S. Stinger Missile.

There are a few good scenes in the movie. The assault entry at the beginning, Bill Paxton as "God", and some of the footage in what was supposed to be Beirut at the time. Overall though this movie is a loser.

Sentiment: negative
What an original piece of work. I've always enjoyed Liev Schreiber the "actor", but now one must appreciate the man on a multi-dimensional level . How did he get that field of sunflowers? Was it computerize, it sure looked real. And how do you audition a dog knowing you are going to get that kind of performance? Does the academy have a category for animals? I guess what I'm saying is that I really, really enjoyed this quirky, offbeat, little indie film. From the excellent cast (one would never know Eugene Hutz was not a pro actor) to the cinematographer (some beautiful shots) the music (bought the CD when exiting the theater) and of course the two "D's" (direction and the DOG). All in all a "10".

/

Sentiment: positive
A very tired looking Burt Reynolds plays a mercenary battling his former employers for some gizmo these non-heroes plan to sell to "the Iranians." Low-rent video nonsense by the producers of "Silk Stalkings" offers some decent action footage and a lot of ineptly staged "drama"...a lack of logic and truly dreadful dialogue are the defining aspects, although the final twists and allegiance shifts could've been a nifty end to a better movie. Burt still has presence, although it also means you notice more when he mouths insultingly half-baked "one-liners".

Sentiment: negative
Filmmakers made a rather boring everyman's story look interesting and complex by focusing on his wife back at home. At the same time, we're exposed to a truly original, existential French loner. 

The film is more than a documentary. Hardly ever do I feel that I've experienced something that's accidentally profound, which makes it all the more profound.

Film has visually interesting interior moments. Absolutely loved the journey the filmmakers took me on. (Quite a lot of Europeans in the credits). Hopefully, PBS will screen this so that it reaches a wider audience in the USA.

Sentiment: positive
All ambiguity about Michael Myers has withered away thanks to this series' chronic habit of arseholing about with its continuity and pulling relatives out of nowhere. This entry introduces the potty angle that he's not just a psycho killer but is actually controlled by runes, which appear as a star constellation every Halloween, and a cult is using him to... erm, well, this film is far from coherent and I lost track of the plot after a while. The movie hemorrhages credibility so profusely it doesn't have a drop left by the end. Why does Michael put one victim's clothes in a washing machine? Why does an otherwise empty corridor have a deadly spike sticking out of the wall? Does getting electrocuted really make your head explode? And so on. It's left to Donald Pleasence, in his penultimate film role, to produce some wonderful little moments from the pile of dreadful dialogue he's given.

Sentiment: negative
A very funny east-meets-west film influenced by the closure of GM's Flint, Michigan plant in the eighties and the rise and integration of Japanese automakers in the US. Set in western Pennsylvania, it features great performances by Michael Keaton, Gedde Watanabe, and George Wendt. Music by blues legend Stevie Ray Vaughan.

Sentiment: positive
Walerian Borowczyks La Bete (1975) was obviously received in different ways: Some were appalled, some were shocked others applauded the courage. I however am completely untouched, bored and cannot stop asking myself why the display of incoherent, inconsistent images which vaguely orbit around a central theme are considered an intellectual journey.

What was this movie actually about? Growing sexuality in a woman? I've seen great films on this subject, but this is not one of them. How can one attempt to portray a growing sexuality in a girl without at least trying to characterize her as a person not only as a narrative device to dream (in the nude) of beasts. Where there are no characters, there is no character study. The woman persecuted by the beast was not adolescent, the girl having sex with the black butler (is he also characterized as a beast?) has a very grown up attitude to sexuality, so where is the consistency? Is it a movie about religion? If yes we would need a bit more thematic material than a priest without function, character and charisma, but with a strong desire towards two young boys.

Is it about bestiality? The metaphoric feel of the movie forbids any realistic examination of bestiality, especially as realistic examination requires realistic characters. So no real bestiality here. Some mythic beast and two priests talking to each other about the sin of bestiality. Enough for a college essay on the topic? I don't think so.

Is it about sex? Is it about anything? I don't know. I only know that showing a fired gun doesn't make a film a war movie. Dealing with a topic must mean more than displaying its own associations with the theme.

So look across the controversy. Don't be scared by the bestiality, nudity, ejaculations, masturbation and stuff. I am not. Look at it as you look at any other story and you might discover that this is a poorly made, poorly edited, poorly acted, really poorly written (okay, some pictures are quite nice, and the main character is a really good looking girl) cerebral masturbation of a director who thinks beating around the bush in a hypnotic slow manner will make a story intelligent. It doesn't. It makes it boring.

Sentiment: negative
I too like Dafoe as an actor but i wasted a few hours of my life actually watching this film, I still cant believe i managed to watch it in its entirety. Was there actually a point to the film?, and the ending, well, Im glad i never paid to see this awful pointless piece of pathetic excuse of a film!

Im not sure without hunting the facts out but is Dafoe married or seeing the awful actress in this film in real life, if so was it an attempt to kick start her career?, if so im afraid it must have failed..

I post this in the hope i can actually put someone off watching this film, even if 1 person takes heed of my comments and decides they would much rather watch paint drying i will feel i have made some good in the world, if only i had had the same advice...

Sentiment: negative
0.5/10. This movie has absolutely nothing good about it. The acting is among the worst I have ever seen, what is really amazing is that EVERYONE is awful, not just a few here and there, everyone. The direction is a joke, the low budget is hopelessly evident, the score is awful, I wouldn't say the movie was edited, brutally chopped would be a more appropriate phrase. It combines serial killings, voodoo and tarot cards. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. It is not scary at all, the special effects are hopelessly lame. laughably bad throughout. The writing was appallingly bad. The cinematography is real cheap looking, and very grainy sometimes, and the camera-work is dreadful. Again, what really does the movie in is how badly all the actors are. Cheesy.

Sentiment: negative
I have been a Jodie Foster fan ever since we were both kids, from her Disney years. I loved her tomboy antics in films like Candleshoe.

"Foxes" was such a huge departure from all of that.

Where other young female actors of that era turned to sexual puerility disguised as comedy ("Little Darlings", anyone?), Jodie went for a depressing and tragic tale of teens dragged to their demise by the powerful allure of temptation and addiction.

This was not Disney. This was not Porky's. This was not "Halloweed". This was a dark & powerful story of the destruction of young lives. Sadly it's a tale that still plays out on a daily basis all over the country, this film could be replayed (with a current soundtrack) and still be wholly relevant.

It's not the best film ever made, it is tired at some parts, not all the performances are particularly outstanding. But Jodie Foster continued to show her chops as a real adult actor (a trend started when she was very young in Taxi Driver).

7 out of 10 Barky

Sentiment: positive
A vastly underrated black comedy, the finest in a series of grand guignol movies to follow 'Baby Jane'. Reynolds and Winters are mothers of young convicted murderers (a nod to 'Compulsion') who run away to hide in Hollywood. They run a school for would-be movie tots, a bunch of hilariously untalented kids attended by awful stage moms. Debbie, in her blonde wig ('I'm a Harlow, you're more a Marion Davies' she tells Winters) leads the tots at their concert and wins a rich dad, Weaver. She also does a deliciously funny tango and, over all, gives an outstanding performance, unlike anything she'd done before. The atmosphere is a fine mix of comic and eerie. It looks wonderful with great period detail (30's). Lots of lovely swipes at Hollywood and the terrifying movie tot. Micheal MacLiammoir has a ball as the drama coach: 'Hamilton Starr', he purrs, 'two r's but prophetic nonetheless'. See it and love it.

Sentiment: positive
Be careful with this one. Once you get yer mitts on it, it'll change the way you look at kung-fu flicks. You will be yearning a plot from all of the kung-fu films now, you will be wanting character depth and development, you will be craving mystery and unpredictability, you will demand dynamic camera work and incredible backdrops. Sadly, you won't find all of these aspects together in one kung-fu movie, EXCEPT for Five Deadly Venoms!

Easily the best kung-fu movie of all-time, Venoms blends a rich plot, full of twists and turns, with colourful (and developed) characters, along with some of the best camerawork to come out of the 70s. The success of someone liking the film depends on the viewers ability to decipher which character is which, and who specializes in what venom. One is the Centipede, two is the Snake, three is the Scorpion, four is the Lizard, and five is the Toad. Each character has different traits, characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses. Therein lies the hook, we learn along with the student character, finding out who these different men turn out to be. We are in his shoes (so to speak), and we have to pick who we trust, and who we don't, just like he does. We learn along with him.

Not only is the plot, the characters, and the camerawork great, it's also fun to watch, which in my book makes it more valuable than almost any other movie of it's kind. It's worth quite a few watches to pick up on everything that's going on. Venoms is a lesson on what kung-fu can really do...just don't expect many other kung-fu films to live up to it's gauntlet.

Sentiment: positive
Jack Frost is Really a Cool Movie. I Mean....Its Funny. Its Violent. and Very Enjoyable. Most People Say that it Is B Rated, But That Couldn't be Farther from the truth. It has Great Special Effects and Good Acting. The Only Weird thing is of Course, The Killer Snowman. I Think this Movie was Actually one of The Best Films of the Late-Nineties. Most Films these Days lack the Criteria of A Clive Barker Master Piece. That is, Be Original and Give the Viewer What they Do not Expect. Jack Frost is Very Cool. 10 out of 10. Grade: A+. Ed Also Recommends The Movie Uncle Sam to Fans of Jack Frost.

Sentiment: positive
Words fail me whenever I want to describe my feelings about this movie (and the sequels)... Does it have flaws? Sure it does... Starting with the "Subspecies" themselves,which were not executed well enough for a special effect.So why do I glorify these movies??? For the herd of movie mass-consumers out there,who care more about quantity than quality,about cheap fun more than about depth, crap like "blade" (it doesn't even deserve a capital letter),"underworld","Dracula 2000","dracula 3000" and so on are good movies to munch popcorn to and drink a couple of cokes... What makes Subspecies a superior effort for anyone claiming to be a Vampire fanatic,on the other hand,is obvious: The Vampire Himself is Romanian,the story is set in Transylvania (the scenes filmed on location are more than convincing),and the atmosphere is not based on any "action-packed" chases or expensive orchestral music.Radu Himself is the source of the atmosphere... This is what a Vampire should look like and this is how He should behave! Add a breathtakingly gloomy castle with dark passageways situated in Romania,include some typical Vampiric elements ( such as the movement of the shadows on the walls when the Vampires take to flight) and you have a work of art! In short,if ,like me,you 're fascinated with Vampires and feel that their appearance as well as the setting should be sinister and dark,there's no better place to look in than in a Subspecies movie... Or in Vampire Journals,the brilliant spin off of the former...

Sentiment: positive
OK by the time you read this I MIGHT have stopped crying. This movie was so horrible as to be quite vexing. The creatures are kinda cute, but the only really good thing about the movie was the growing attachment among the prisoners and their guard after getting marooned on this daffy island. Even seeing Barbara Bach with her hair all riffled was no payoff for buying this sterling bit of poop. She goes about with a whispery I've-never-used-my-voice-before breathiness that just don't wash when one is screaming bloody murder. (Hey the leading man was cute too but I'm still not assuaged.) This is a cry-into-your-beer ripoff of the good ole Island of Dr. Moreau. Poor Richard Johnson, who was surely born for better things, is just unrelievedly bad as the bad guy. I mean, HOW bad can a BAD guy BE? (Ask Richard Johnson). Joseph Cotten tries hard not to look embarrassed as he staggers through his cameo appearance. In the name of all that's holy, don't rent this darned bomb.

Sentiment: negative
Russell T Davies has been tasked with re-creating a slice of my childhood: hiding behind the sofa, watching scary monsters battle with Dr Who. He, and his crew, are clearly all true devotees of the original series.

In much the same way as the Star Trek movies used their budget to make the Gene Rodenberry's original concept far more believable, Russell T Davies has both money and the advantages of excellent CGI to create the best monsters ever. I am sure that this series was made with a budget that anticipated both export and DVD sales and it really feels as if no expense was spared.

The accompanying series Dr Who Confidential shows the work that goes into each episode which is a really useful behind the scenes insight. Interviews with the cast and writers help retell the story from each characters perspective and are far more useful than simply watching the whole programme over again.

How does David Tenant rank in the pantheon of his illustrious predecessors? Time will tell but tonight, seeing Billie Piper play alongside Elisabeth Sladen, who was the Doctor's companion in the 1970's confirm that she has both the acting ability, screen presence and script to be the No. 1.

Sentiment: positive
Director/lead Larry Bishop tried way, way too hard with Hell Ride. The movie wants to be edgy, witty, provocative, outlandish, biting all of this, seemingly in a Quentin Tarantino/Rob Zombie style. But it's not edgy. The references seem forced. The dialog tries to be clever and fails. The humor is never funny. Nice try setting a gritty tone but we'd have to care about the characters or the story for it to remotely succeed.

What you're left with are cool Harleys and pretty girls surrounding a bunch of tired, old and out of shape "bad boys" in what looks like an attempt to do a modernized Sergio Leone western. If this movie can make newer generations interested in 60s and 70s films, kudos for it. But on its own, it is rather boring and irrelevant. I do believe there is a place for style over substance. But this movie is not it.

Sentiment: negative
This series when the Dinosaurus lived for 65 million years ago. The Dinosaurus looks very real and are very realistic when they moves. It is also very interesting how the climate changes.

I am very interesting in how the dinosaurs lived and died. I am also interesting in how the dinosaurs behaved.

The color of the dinosaurs is also interesting to see and discovered. They think which color they had.

The most interesting is why the dinosaurs died and what happened after that.

BBC have made a brilliant series how the dinosaurs lived and died!

Sentiment: positive
Gamera vs Viras was made lazily and much of it suffers as a result.

Space Aliens try to take over Earth and are stopped by Gamera. So they send another ship that manages to kidnap two young boys. The aliens then take control of Gamera and get him to attack mankind.

First of all I must say that I really enjoyed the monster fight at the end between Gamera and Viras. Viras looks like a big squid with a beak. He has no energy weopons and does not shoot any rays out but he can close the apendages on top of his head to make a sharp pointy weopon. SO overall this is not a bad monster for Gamera to fight and is decent. Viras really injures Gamera badly by stabbing his underside of his shell with his pointy head and I am surprised Gamera was able to survive this.

Unfortunately Gamera vs Viras decided to use footage from previous Gamera films to fill time for this film. They re show the battles between Gamera and Barugon and Gamera and Gaos when the aliens look at Gameras past battles. However when they show Gamera's battles with Gaos they show the battle between Gamera and Gaos in the city first, then they show the final battle between the two. After they show re used footage of the final battle between Gamera and Gaos they show the FIRST battle between Gamera and Gaos!!! Talk about showing the battles in non chronological order. THey did not even need to show the first battle they should have just stopped after they showed the final battle between the two.

Another issue is that they decide to re show footage of Gamera attacking cities when the aliens order him to attack Tokyo. So they show the scene from "Gamera vs Barugon" where he destroys the Dam. After the show scenes from "Gamera The Invincible" which is a huge issue for me. Mainly due to the fact that "Gamera The Invincible" was in BLACK AND WHITE!!!! Using stock footage from a black and white film in a COLOR film is really lazy and that is not a good thing.

Also the dubbing is bad once again. The two little kids are not that annoying but it would be nice to see a Gamera film that did not involve little kids.

So the over use of footage from other Gamera Films is a deterrant to this film. The final fight is awesome so basically I recommend skipping to the final ten minutes and watching this film. The rest is something that has already been seen before.

Sentiment: negative
I watched this film a long time ago (aprox 10 years or so) and liked it then. I remembered it the other day and decided to watch it again. The second time around was not pleasant. The acting is 'so,so', the plot is illogical, unreasonable and predictable.

The acting...I'm sure it wasn't a stretch for those actresses to play those characters. The plot...there's no way in hell those women would have gotten away with the first robbery much less the 2nd. (side note: Why did TT not realise that even if she came up with a load of money for her court date they would ask where she got it and she would have no logical answer! Ding, Ding...we have a crook!). It horribly stereotyped black women in saying basically that the only way black women can 'beat the system' or obtain a large amount of money was to steal it and not use their intelligence or other resources. It plays too much on sympathy b/c all of them die in the end (bar Jada) but it's not sad (you're thinking 'They were so stupid; they deserve to die). You just don't really care about the characters unless you're a shallow person.

I can't believe this film rates over a 5.

Sentiment: negative
I wouldn't rent this one even on dollar rental night.

Sentiment: negative
It's a long time ago I saw this movie and still it's one of the worst I've ever seen. I like lots of kind of movies; sci-fi, action, drama, thrillers and sometimes even horror. Not a combination of two. This could have been a wonderful movie, but they all blew it up. I didn't want to see this movie, but friends of mine insisted to watch it. I didn't know it was such a crap. I loved the first part, in which Clooney and Tarantino drove through Texas, killing everybody on their way (especially the scene with the liquor shooting was excellent), but at its turning point, in the titty twister bar everything changed. Stupid Vampires took over the place and what could have been a perfect gangster movie became a stupid horror movie like 'Nightmare on Elmsteet'. If you like horror, watch a real horror movie. And when you love bloodstolling thrillers don't watch it at all, you will be very disappointed at the end.

Sentiment: negative
Not all movies are Oscar worthy but let's face it, sometimes these types of movies are more fun to watch and leave a longer and lasting impression. This one left me smiling and happy and I couldn't wait to hug my own son. Anyone who has had a pet (no matter what type) knows what it feels like to lose one. I believe most people would identify with Buddy almost losing his best friend who he raised from birth. Bruce Willis was great as the tycoon turned nice guy and Joey Lauren Adams was convincing as a good mother. The little boy who played Buddy had a cherub face and his sister and friend Edgar played terrific backup roles. Liked the movie a lot and it was something the whole family could enjoy. Thanks!

Sentiment: positive
Yes, I felt like I had been gutted after first seeing it. But not until the next day did I begin to see the true brilliance of this creation. I won't repeat much of what has already been said by those who appreciate the film, but there is one new area I want to touch on... **SPOILERS** Why exactly did the teacher put the broken glass in the student's pocket? Most reviewers have noted that it only reflected her cruelty and reaction to an unsatisfactory performance. I must disagree. Watch the scene again. Huppert is moved to tears as she watches her student playing on stage. The student is quite an expressive girl (crying & vocalizing her fears)- just the opposite of Huppert's character. There is a scene later in the film, after the girl is injured, when Huppert discusses the accident with the girl's mother. The mother, visibly upset, states "We gave up everything so she could study piano" and Huppert immediately snaps "You mean SHE gave up everything, don't you."

So it was my thought that Huppert was simply saving this young expressive student from her own destiny. She didn't want the girl to end up like HER, repressed & hardened, condemned to a life of recitals...gradually killing the soul in the pursuit of perfection. Maybe she saw herself on the stage years ago, before things grew bad. Maybe she wished she had escaped when she was that age. Is she ruining the student's life, or simply freeing her?

For me, that realization made all the difference in what I experienced through this film. Brilliant.

Sentiment: positive
Nobody could like this movie for its merit but, if you have a sense of humor and enjoy schlock movies for their MST3 quality, then this is for you. It ranks up there with "Road House" for its preposterous characters, sets and story line. The bad writing really cracked me up: "I want you to dust those guys off" instead of ". . . dust those guys." F-14s take off from the carrier but, when they get into formation, they're F-16s! Without a hint of anger or skepticism, Segal goes back to work for the general who, only minutes before, was overseeing a covert "mind wipe" on Seagal. Segal runs out of bullets and resorts to a knife to kill the guards. So naturally, the guards all drop their guns and fight with knives too! The hand grenade is a dud but explodes anyway. The little stealth fighter can fly all the way from California to Afganistan without refueling. Then Segal flies it back to California - the long way, i.e., by way of Europe - even though there's a carrier giving him air support 20 minutes away in the Arabian Sea. The CIC in the carrier consists of 3 black PCs, 2 flat screen TVs and pictures of gauges and maps on the walls. What a hoot!

Sentiment: negative
Every country which has a working film industry has some sane (and maybe some insane) artist which make movies that you can only completely understand when you're a part of this country. I guess Hundstage is such a movie.

You see the lowest level of Austria's society, dirty, disturbed, weird, hateful. But they still have enough money so they can afford tuned cars and big houses. And they are definitely doing a lot of strange things here which maybe seems for them 'normal' because they're doing it through their whole life. From a normal human viewpoint you can now easily follow the movie and be disgusted or fascinated and watch a fine piece of Austria's art movies.

But if you LIVE here and you know the people you see the characters in Hundstage as the tumor of the society. A society that is going more insane from day to day, creating their own rules that nobody else can understand, cave the social system from within. And you SEE the people. Sitting in the park, standing at the opposite street corner, queuing in the same line. Maybe you meet 'em in a bar or a disco you may visit. Maybe you even work with them in your job or they are living next to your house. You start to hate them without exactly knowing why. You'll try to get away - but you cannot. Maybe you'll end up like them. But it seems 'normal' for you because you're doing it through your whole life now...

Life isn't so bright though Austria is one of the richest countries in the world. It has beautiful people... but some are also ugly. There are a lot of hard working persons trying their best... but there are also some riding on the back of others and destroying everything that the folk of Austria has built up so far.

A very pessimistic movie.

Sentiment: positive
It just so happens that IVAN THE TERRIBLE, PARTS I and II both had entries in the 50 Worst Movies book by Harry Medved. Now, I do think that declaring they are among the worst movies ever is an overstatement, though they are still both pretty poor films--particularly the first one, as it featured more eye rolling and "googly eyed looks" than I have ever seen before!! Director Eisenstein and an awful lot of other people out there thought this made the film "artsy and profound"--and since I am legally sane, I must say that I hated this first film!! The second, while still very incomplete-looking, is a vast improvement, as eye rolling is minimal, though overacting and long boring scenes are present in this film just like in part 1! While part 2 looks pretty incomplete and needed at least another hour (especially since it never gets to Ivan's insane behavior later in life--like killing his son and heir while in a fit of anger). Since both parts 1 and 2 were commissioned by Stalin to both excuse his own murderous reign and glorify him, it's no surprise that Ivan's life story is left very incomplete. Even without all the truly awful behaviors of Ivan, apparently the supremely evil Stalin STILL didn't like the film and wouldn't allow its release during his lifetime. Maybe he didn't allow this because he was more worried people would see what a HUGE waste of money and resources the film was instead of seeing Stalin as a crazy guy just like Ivan! 

By the way, there was one segment of this tedious film that was just so cool that the film merits a 4 (without it, a 2)--and that's the scene with Prince Vladimir at the banquet! It is well-done and pretty funny in a dark way. And, the scene was done in a Russian version of 2-color Technicolor. This is VERY odd, by the way, because by the mid-1930s, a vastly improved true color process was developed by Technicolor that no longer made everything look all orangy-red and greenish-blue. So, this film during the color sequences looks a lot like a silent or early sound color film. Very odd indeed for the 1940s.

Sentiment: negative
I really liked this version of 'Vanishing Point' as opposed to the 1971 version. I found the 1971 version quite boring. If I can get up in the middle of a movie a few times(as I did with the 1971 version) than to me, it is not all that great. Of course, this could be due to the fact that I was only nine at the time the 1971 version was brought out. However, I have seen many remakes, where I have liked the original and older one better. I found that the plot of the 1997 version was more understandable and had basically kept true to the original without undermining the meaning of the 1971 version. In my opinion, I felt the 1997 version had more excitement and wasn't so "blase".(Boring)

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the worst pieces of cinema I have seen in some time. This is also my first review so you can tell I must hate this film at lot.

Don't get me wrong, I like my serious films. I don't like Hollywood too much, I tend to like French, Italian, offbeat US or anything that tries to communicate something sensible.

But this was awful. Why? 1. The plot (such as it was) was entirely unbelievable, even though the director seems to be hinging everything on a feeling of realism.

2. The main character has nothing to recommend him. Does he smoke for coolness or to show us his angst? For goodness sake this guy is meant to be an ex-dodgy mafia lawyer. Are we meant to care more because that he is also one of the meanest unfriendly people you could ever meet? And he smokes...so he must have deep personal issues. Pop psychology at it's best. In the final moments, I almost cheered as he gets buried in the cement. Best place for him. And I thought that was about the only good scene. Or maybe that was because it was so close the final credits.

3. The entirely tired and unbelievable interest in the main character from the beautiful girl. She was there simply because beautiful girls always have odd sexual relationships with old, old men with a deep and meaningful personality (as demonstrated by smoking). Happens all the time. In really bad films that is.

4. The pace was so leaden. I like slow, I like careful. But this was just deathly.

5-50 a bunch of other stuff that I really can't be bothered to write.

Awful.

Sentiment: negative
You know how everyone jokes about the acting in porno movies? Well if you've always found the plot line of a porn to captivate your interest, then this movie is for you. It truly was like a porn without the sex. Or if that analogy is not to your liking, imagine you and your drunk roommate found a movie camera abandoned on a park bench. This is the movie that you would make. -Horrible acting -bad camera work -Music done on a casio keyboard This movie has it all, and more. For those who are masochists in the crowd, this is a premiere piece for your collection. 

All I can figure is that the only people to submit reviews for this dripping pile of movie, were people who 'starred' in it. 

Their movie career is over before it started.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is quite possibly one of the most horrible horror flicks I've seen. The length wasn't nearly long enough to include a good storyline. Also, the way the foster parents died was just plain ridiculous. The mother suddenly dies from falling through a shower after tripping over an action figure, and the dad is shot by a police officer? I can see where some originality might have been what they were going for, but it could have been better. Also, the cheesiness of it all made me want to press stop before it was over. After hearing all of Lucy's name and figuring out it was 'Lucifer', I wanted to gag. Yes, it's interesting that Lucifer was a woman, but look at the name. It's a male's name. It should be given to a male character. All in all, the movie was a bore, and could have used a better plot.

Sentiment: negative
I went into this movie after having read it was a drama about a man with a supernatural gift, who was made into a monster by society. Suffice to say I was expecting something entirely different from what I got. But it was a happy surprise. My friend and I both thought the movie was very romantic (the fact that the male lead isn't bad to look at surely helped), and there was enough plot development, action and even humor (the fact that it takes them until the 3rd part of the movie to now each other's name had the whole movietheatre laughing) to keep you entertained and invested in the story. So in short: Not what I expected, but a very good surprise indeed. I'll definitely buy this movie when it comes out on DVD.

Sentiment: positive
I awarded this presentation 4 stars. They are all for the script, which has been butchered beyond recognition in places. What can possibly be said? They took one of the finest plays written in the last century and methodically robbed it of its heart, humor and humanity. I don't really blame the actors, who are probably doing their best with shoddy direction and incomplete characters (because the very complete characters of the stage version have had their insides -- and insights -- ripped out). I do very much blame the director, who seems to strain to find ways to undermine the script. There are so many awkward pauses, awkwardly re-staged moments and awkwardly re-imagined line readings in this TV movie that at times, I forgot ever loving the play. I'm not one of these people who thinks that genius plays are automatically inferior on film (quite the contrary), but this particular genius play has been tremendously under-served by this outing. Now I hope they'll make a *real* film of this play. The world deserves it.

Sentiment: negative
This is a film with a lot of potential, well done and acted, with a rather week and inconsistent script. A young woman with two children moves to her mother's cramped apartment, because the husbands flat on top of the workshop where he cuts up stolen cars is aggravating their son's asthma.Husband ends up in jail when an ex pat's stolen car is traced to his shop, ex pat ends up being kind,generous and naive shmoe(and rather cardboard and we learn next to nothing of him ), but ends up with the girl, who "trades up" despite being sexually satisfied only by her husband. I expect this film to be successful in Czech, where it will be welcome due to its obvious premise - "Them ex-pats may have money, they may even get our women, but they're old, soft and our women want to be satisfied,we may be poor, but ... . Now if only could Evzen keep Marcela satisfied so she would not need to play with herself, or if he already had an existing family in Italy ... but that would complicate things.

Sentiment: negative
Sure this movie is not historically accurate but it is great entertainment. Most DeMille pictures especially the later epics are slow and plodding but the action here moves at a clip. The story is basically a series of peaks with very little quiet moments. The action takes us from an Indian raid on a cabin; one of the best parts of the movie with Jean Arthur excellent while attempting to appease the war-painted natives. This is followed by her and Cooper being taken to the war camp and being tortured. Later comes a protracted battle with the Cheyenne. The whole thing is ridiculous but great fun and entertaining from start to finish. Jean Arthur is one of the best actresses of this era and she shines here.

Sentiment: positive
Nothing Carson Daly has EVER said or done on this show has EVER made me laugh, or even smile a little. I DO NOT understand how this show has survived for so many years.

Even the "funny" band member is just like one of those kids in high school who thinks nobody is good enough to even look at him. Daly and that dude are just arrogant frat boys. It seems like they don't even try to be a little funny.

AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL show.

It makes my soul cry.

I just cannot stress enough how AWFUL this show is. Don't watch it. But if you absolutely have to, I recommend clawing your eyes out and clogging your ears with cement beforehand.

Sentiment: negative
This is a pretty obscure, dumb horror movie set in the 1970s Everglades. It is really stupid and lame for the first half, then it actually starts to get good for the last half. There is a scene with the hero running to save his friends interspersed with shots of a church group singing, I don't know. It is mesmerizing. I was impressed with the night time scenes, because it actually looked like night, unlike most low budget horror films where it still looks like daytime. I feel like the director was really talented but was working with a miniscule budget and a tough schedule. There are a few scenes towards the end, the one mentioned above and also the end credits that are extremely cool. This movie could have been a genuine classic if it left its Scooby Doo conventions behind and went straight for the throat. I was surprised at how good this movie turned out to be. I couldn't take my eyes off of it, and I had to ask myself "why?"

Sentiment: positive
I picked this film up based on the plot summary and critics' quotes on the back of the box. I'm not big into foreign films, and didn't know what to expect. I don't really care for subtitles either. But I absolutely loved it! It has a simple, lovable quality that leaves you feeling good about life. I found myself laughing out loud repeatedly. I'd recommend this picture to anyone, even those who abhor foreign films with subtitles. This one makes it worth the effort.

Sentiment: positive
This 1977 cult movie has two crazed lesbians (Sandra Locke & Colleen Camp) appearing at the home of wealthy socialite Doctor George Manning (Seymour Cassel), in hope of help in locating a residence they can't seem to find. But these two have other plans in mind, when they find out George's wife is out of town, they end up taking control of the residence, tying up the George, killing a delivery boy while destroying the place all in one evening. Bizarre and disturbing movie, but the two get there just reward in the same bizarre way as the movie ends. Most will either dislike it right off or get caught up in this ludicrous movie after about 30 minutes into it. Either way some even consider this a cult classic.

Larry Dodson

Sentiment: negative
Dakota Incident is a curiosity for several reasons. It will be obvious from the start that it was made long before anyone ever thought of political correctness. Although, the Ward Bond character softens the edge with "maybe we can communicate with them, after all they're humans, too" type of dialogue. His part stands side-by-side with the preacher attemtping to communicate with the Martians in War of the Worlds. In fact, it's uncanny. The title is curious too. Use of the word "Incident" contributes an importance and sophistication to the film that probably didn't hurt boxoffice. The contrived assortment of characters and Linda Darnell's fancy dress and hat are wonderful dated touches that make Dakota Incident a cool western artifact from the mid-fifties.

Sentiment: positive
Marlene Gorris has established herself as one of the world's great directors. This sensitive, visually beautiful film is based on a story by Vladimir Nabokov and captures well that writer's dark irony. John Turturro gives what I consider to be his finest performance (I am usually not a fan of his); and Emily Watson is brilliant as well. Well worth seeing.

Sentiment: positive