DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
A beautiful, sensitive film that brings home the futility and cruelty of wars no matter what the so-called reasons. The performance of Cage and Cruz were quite impressive, but it is to the older Greek characters that go the highest praises. Irene Papas is as gorgeous as ever! Though some scenes seems a little long at times, this film will be a heavy Oscar contender.

Sentiment: positive
Being the sci-fi fan that I am, I was always curious about this film. So I was excited to see Journey to the Far Side of the Sun finally get released on an affordable DVD (the previous print had been fetching $100 on eBay - I'm sure those people wish they had their money back - but more about that in a second).

Anyway, the premise of this film (just like Twilight Zone's "The Parallel") is that there is an undiscovered planet resembling Earth on the "other side of the sun". This planet is of course exactly like ours except that it's inverted. This basically means their letters are reversed and people drive on the wrong side of the road.

Sound intriguing? Well that's basically all there is to this film. The first hour or so is dedicated to the preparations for the journey to this other planet. It's just tedious scenes of switches being pressed, banal dialog, etc. There's no point to it whatsoever. Gerry Anderson managed to find the most boring British actors in the history of cinema to play most of the roles. I mean they are so dull I'm surprised the crew was able to stay awake to finish the film.

Anyway, once the crew FINALLY lands on the planet (after an interminable sequence of the astronauts sitting and literally sleeping in the cockpit), Roy Thinnes notices the copy is all backwards on a bottle of cologne and hops back on another ship to tell people about what he has discovered. Oops he never gets to do it as he crash lands and dies. The end! Oh wait, there's a bonus scene of one of the space executives hurling himself into a mirror in his wheelchair at the end. I guess he wanted out of this film too.

I'm really surprised a film like this could get made even back in the 60s. Rent if you must. DO NOT BUY.

Sentiment: negative
This film is in no way entertainment but more of a look deep into the depths of the darkest side of human behaviour. Loosely linking a half a dozen stories of the worst kind of depravities, perverted sex, greed, violence and intolerance. All the action is played out over a few very hot and sticky days during a heatwave in Vienna and the heat is maybe responsible for some of the anger and hate in the film. For me the treatment of the retarded girl by the security equipment salesman was about the worst episode, closely followed by the scenes of drunkenness and perversity in the 'slags' flat. You will be gripped and I hope horrified by this film. I hated it but I felt compelled to see it through. 1/10 for 'fun' 8/10 for displaying 'man' as he sometimes is.

Sentiment: negative
May (Anne Reid) and Toots (Peter Vaughan) are paying an apparently infrequent visit to their son Bobby (Steven Mackintosh) and his family in London. Even as the visit begins, Toots suffers a fatal heart attack, leaving May adrift, unsure, and questioning her life and future. Finding herself attracted to her daughter's boyfriend Darren (Daniel Craig), her actions lead to inevitable consequences.

Beautifully filmed, but for all its heralded realism and acclaim, The Mother offers a collection of mostly unpleasant, even repellent characters, and asks the viewer to engage with them. Reid shines as May, and it is her skill and commitment as a wonderfully understated actor that salvages the film from a completely depressing mire, but Michell and Kureishi have allowed Craig, Mackintosh and Cathryn Bradshaw to create such utterly obnoxious characters, that it becomes increasingly difficult to care what happens to May. As written, the characters played by Mackintosh and Bradshaw are in fact so utterly selfish and cold-hearted that one begins to wonder what exactly was Kureishi trying to say. As directed, they are either unwilling or unable to lift Bobby and Paula above the two dimensional in their ghastly selfishness. 

Worth seeing for Reid's performance, but little else. A crying shame...

Sentiment: negative
The Hookers was to me a great everyday people story, Like someone you might have known. Just trying to make it, my big shot is right around the corner. Then Life's little temptations creep in, the spoiler, stumbled again. How much, can your love take, and give, to the guy who's really not so bad, after all, just Human. I liked it, I was also a paid extra in the movie. Played the drums in the bar shots, with the band, did several walking shots, my green 66' corvette was in the motel party shots. Wonderful cast and crew, first rate people, down to earth movie. I had lunch with James Coburn, on Mother's Day, what a wonderful man, just like I've known him for years, I'll never forget him. My father spent the day with Slim Pickens, and swapped horse stories, Slim also was really down to earth, love those guys, we really miss them. Real people making movies about real people, Thanks Levy, Gardner, and Laven.

Sentiment: positive
Serious HOME ALONE/KARATE KID knock off with enough bad character stereotypes to have the writer sued and then shot. You could see blatant stunt man usage in almost every scene. Oh, and the acting sucks too. Although I must say that the line: "Sorry, dude, I have to take a major dump big time" made me laugh my ass off.

Sentiment: negative
Rarely will anyone deny that Hitchcock remains one of the most creative, inventive and prolific directors of all time, because he is arguably all of these things. It takes true genius to scare generations of film goers out of taking showers and wearing neck ties. Saboteur, however, is not creative or prolific at all. Rather, Hitchcock set out with the soul intention of creating a film to muster "American Pride," a certain call-to-arms, support-our-troops title which was a popular theme of the time. With that in mind, Hitchcock severely underplayed other important aspects of the film, including but not limited to a logical plot, characterization, believable dialog, and a fluent, running storyline. 

Typically Hitchcock does great with espionage films, only a few years earlier achieving cinematic greatness with The Foreign Corespondant and The 39 Steps, but seemingly lost his stride in creating Saboteur and merely recycled the same once-thrilling story lines both his previous excursions readily provided. Without going into any great depth here is a list of a few of this films major problems: 

1. Despite having his face plastered on every newspaper across America, the only person who recognizes Kane is blind.

2. At the dinner party, Kane and Patricia don't want to run for the door because the bad guys might grab them and tell the party they were "gate crashers." Logically, what prevents the spies from grabbing them and saying this at any point during the evening? Besides, does anyone need to be reminded Kane is a wanted terrorist?

3. Since when can a fan belt cut through handcuffs? 

4. Nobody recognizes him...his face is on EVERY NEWSPAPER!!! 

5. The spies catch up with Kane in the ghost town and assume he's the man Freeman sent to work with them...shouldn't't he have some sort of credentials? I know spies don't run around with name tags and photo IDs but a secret handshake maybe? 

6. Cop picks up Kane escaping from Freeman's house, still seems no one recognizes this guy.

7. How exactly does the FBI come to believe Kane with no evidence? They don't even show Kane talking to the FBI, the scene simply fades in and we are forced to assume everything is now kosher.

8. When the cops search the Carnival Caravan how do they know Kane is now with a woman? The blind man believed Kane's story thus logically would not have reported his daughter missing, kidnapped, or even more importantly running with Kane. Why does this movie not employ logic?

This is a running list. The movie is not exciting, the plot makes no sense, and the world is full of people who willingly take wanted terrorists into their homes and cars everyday because its no big thing. Hitchcock fails miserably on this one.

Sentiment: negative
Something somewhere must have terribly gone wrong right at the time when the director was perceiving this plot. The movie, that was supposed to be the remake of one of the most loved movies in cinema, fails to deliver in every aspect of movie making. The best of the artists could also not pick up the tuning, that simply goes on to show that the movie in itself was a grave mistake.

The editing is poor. Direction is crap. Acting is out of this world(omg)! The characters who are supposed to look scary force people to laugh on the stupidity of their dialogues and costumes.

I wouldn't watch the movie even if someone paid me the cost of the tickets or even gave me a free burger with it.

Sentiment: negative
The only positive thing I can think of regarding this utter piece of garbage is that now I finally have a good answer ready if anyone ever asks me what the worst movie I ever saw was called.

It would have taken such little effort to make it more watchable...a lot more effort and it could have been brilliant even. 

Why would anyone want to produce such waste? 

I refuse to believe that a director could be so ridiculously untalented. 

Making a completely intolerable movie must have been the point. 

Anything else just doesn't make sense.

Sentiment: negative
The whole exercise is pointless. Why make the film at all? The lighting is ghastly, but the sound is just a joke. Like a high-school production. Whoever put the budget together for this film should be drawn and quartered for allowing it to be made without the proper budget for soundmen with equipment fit for recording.

So much dialog is unintelligible due to losses in echo or the lack of proximity to the mic. Economy should have been made on any other area. The whole production is lifeless and just LAME with such amateurish half-arsed production. It lacks warmth, clarity, and has no design to it.

Sentiment: negative
Zentropa has much in common with The Third Man, another noir-like film set among the rubble of postwar Europe. Like TTM, there is much inventive camera work. There is an innocent American who gets emotionally involved with a woman he doesn't really understand, and whose naivety is all the more striking in contrast with the natives.

But I'd have to say that The Third Man has a more well-crafted storyline. Zentropa is a bit disjointed in this respect. Perhaps this is intentional: it is presented as a dream/nightmare, and making it too coherent would spoil the effect. 

This movie is unrelentingly grim--"noir" in more than one sense; one never sees the sun shine. Grim, but intriguing, and frightening.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the Stooges best shorts. It was the only one of their shorts to be nominated for an oscar. In this short the Stooges play doctors, who cause some trouble as usual. This short has non-stop sight-gags, puns, and jokes. The part at the end, where the Stooges are breaking apart the machine. This is definitely a classic. I would highly recommend this Three Stooges short.

Sentiment: positive
I literally ran to watch it, expecting a film that will make me cry, or touch my heart.

What I found was not heart-rending, but a lame exploitation of 1 strong human character.

Interwined between a pair of young lesbians and an obese man.

In a setting that is substantially devoid of sound not to mention acting of the most common.

It was not entirely BAD, as I have seen worst - and I left the cinema $10 poorer but wiser - that a FILM well advertised is not the same as a FILM WELL-MADE.

Sentiment: negative
This was touted as a sequel to Crash Dive, which was a very good film in the low budget category. I assumed this movie would be good also, but boy was I wrong. First, this movie has nothing to do with Crash Dive other than they both take place on submarines. Secondly, the plot can be slow, tedious, and in some cases, totally preposterous.

This movie will not hold most people's attention. (I remember reading a book during the slow, boring scenes.) There will be scenes that are supposed to be used for dramatic effect that will make the viewer laugh out loud. The corkscrew scene is definitely one. After I got over my initial shock that anyone would slip this in and not know people would not only disbelieve it but laugh at the sheer silliness of it, I was able to find humor in it.

If you want to see MD in a good sub flick, watch Crash Dive and leave this lame film on the shelf.

Sentiment: negative
The combination of reading the Novella and viewing this film has inspired my wife and I to new levels. Recently I was pondering a statement made by the artist Thomas Kinkade in one of his inspirational books; He states: "You and I were not designed to breathe the fetid air of five o'clock traffic. Nor do I think God had banal television programs, media hype, worthless purchases, and soul pollution in mind when he created the universe..." I hadn't seen "A river runs through it" in a couple of years, but after pondering Kinkade's statement something drew me to watch the film with a spiritual eye. I watched it and saw a whole new world to the film and it inspired me to read the book (a must read). I have always been frustrated in Southern California but somehow got caught up in its materialistic society. The film really puts into perspective of how we should really experience God's creations. A combination of Macleans story and my desire to move back to the Northwest has driven me to move to Montana. I want my future kids to be able to rome the landscape, go fly-fishing with me, ride horses into nothing but open land and serene lakes set in the mountainside. A place where you seldom worry about crime. I look around SoCal and all I see is shopping malls, rude snarling people in their Mercedez Bens, miles of vehicles on congested freeways, gangs, racial turmoil on the verge of violent eruption, and everyone skeptical of each others intentions.

Anyway the movie is very inspiring with brilliant acting and a deep story about the fragile connections of loved ones. There is a lot of deep thinking in this film. The scenery is worth seeing alone and actually helps relieve tension. You should finish this film relaxed yet full of insights to your own life. It takes a compassionate, intelligent, and spiritual person to really grasp the meaning. If you don't understand the art of cinema and how a director achieves his goals through dialogue, tone, light, colour, scenery, camera angles/movement, etc. Then this film is probably not for the crowd that thinks "The Fast and the Furious" is the greatest film. Granted it was entertaining but shallow.

The bottom line: This film helps to realize that life is not about how much money you have or what things you posses. Rather it is about your relationships with family and friends and the experiences you share together. QUALITY NOT QAUNTITY

Sentiment: positive
First I have to say that I really love Udo Kier and have always had respect for Armand Assante but nothing could save this train wreck of a movie. Udo does not even appear till much later in the movie and the acting from Everyone is just terrible. The script is all over the place, the dialog is wooden, the "action" is laughable and the plot could be summed up on a dirty cocktail napkin. I really wanted to find something redeeming in this movie but found myself holding my hands over my eyes, shaking my head and repeating over and over to myself, "Oh Udo.....why???....Why?????..". If you are a fan of Udo or Armand, please don't watch this movie. It will only make you sad for them.

Sentiment: negative
I am a Christian and I say this movie had terrible acting, unreal situations and a completely facade front for Christianity. You might as well watch "Remember the Titans" and at least not mix Christ in a football film like a formulaic steroid for losers. Let me make some really pressing comments of what bothered me in this film.

1. The school was in Georgia and was a white academy school. I did not notice a single black student or player in the school. I deal with the White "Christian" Academies in the south and they were built for no other reason than to reestablish segregation. This is troubling when the movie is about Christianity and Christ changing lives...how about changing the hearts of segregation? (note: I loved the token black coach; like it made up for the entirely white team and all the black 'Giants' players.) 

2. The uncritical acclaim by everyone Christian about this movie. Can I get a couple people to say that it was bad acting, bad filming, bad writing and in short poor compared to other movies. If we were to compare this to another football movie, would it have the same charisma and energy? 

3. The half-baked Christianity which was shown made even less sense to me than the unrealistic ending. If Christianity is about simply reading a little scripture and praying to begin a complete life change, then don't wonder when no one will listen to what Christians have to say. We want to sell Christ as a cure-all. He doesn't need sold and He doesn't need to be attached to such whimsical lifestyles. No wonder everyone considers Christianity to be anti-intellectual with this unreal presentation.

I recognize this film may be inspirational to a few people. To most, it will not be. It will not give a real picture of struggle and heartfelt tension. Most importantly to me, it is not Christian by any means or stretch. It has values but it falls short as a 'pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps' message as shallow as positive thinking. If you live alongside people who struggle and/or those in third world living conditions, this movie will be hollow as most churches are today in their religion.

Sentiment: negative
Accepted is one of the best teenage comedies I have seen in a long time. It has an original script, talented cast and it delivers an hour and a half of pure unadulterated fun.

It tells the story of a high school graduate Bartleby "B" Gains (Justin Long) who is not accepted in any of the collages he applied to, so to avoid his parents' disappointment he creates a fictional collage. In the attempt to fool his parents completely he creates a fake website and turns an old psychiatric hospital into a school. Everything goes smoothly until a lot of other "accepted" students turn up on his doorstep. Now he and his friend have to figure that collage thing out not only for themselves but for the others too.

Justin Long as a lead man is absolutely brilliant, his character is as natural as he can be and the supporting acts are outstanding- Jonah Hill as Sherman Schrader, Columbus Short as Hands, Maria Thayer as Rory, Adam Herschman as Glen and Lewis Black as Uncle Ben.

The humour is fresh and simple and most importantly funny, right from the start to after the credits .The plot develops so easy that by the time you stop laughing at the last joke you start giggling at next other. Along with all the fun the movie brings a very common subject to our attention i.e. the collage education. If usually the students in the movie are united against the school government, in this case they are united by the mutual desire to go to school and learn.

Yet the movie doesn't brand all other schools as wrong, it just shows that there is another way. You what they say "If there is a will there is a way.And may be sometimes the children know better what they need than their parents.

This movie is an unmissable little story about the great opportunities in life wrapped up in the best format possible.

Sentiment: positive
i am totally addicted to this show. i can't wait till the week goes by to see the next showing. it's a great story line and it has the best actors and actresses on the show. i will tune in every week to watch it even if i am not home i always have my vcr set to tape monarch cove. simon rex is the best actor on the show. it is suspenseful and exciting. i think this show should stay on the air and i believe everyone should tune in to watch it. i saw the very first episode and actually i wasn't going to watch it but i was watching lifetime one day and i decided to watch it because it was on and i absolutely love it and right now it's my favorite show. i am really mean it.

Sentiment: positive
One of the less widely lauded of recent Asian period action affairs Gojoe is an at first slow and often curious but overall pretty terrific offering, exciting, layered and beautiful. I'm sad to say I know virtually nothing of the Buddhist philosophy or Japanese history and legend that surrounds this film so its deeper meanings are lost on me, but even without contextual knowledge this is still rich fare, taking a traditional fantasy structure into a, impactful higher plane. The story is of Benkei, a warrior monk and perhaps demon who seeks enlightenment by destroying the demon of Gojoe Bridge: Prince Shanao, himself a mortal seeker after his own higher plane but this time the power of demons. Thus the film becomes a matter of illusions and in Benkei's case, indecision, a conflict in which the real goal is self knowledge, for Benkei to come to terms with his true nature and for Prince Shanao to come face to face with the nature of what he seeks to become. Benkei is even more hampered here by the fact that his dark nature makes him fundamentally at odds with the world, even when not in open conflict he is never at ease. Director Sogo Ishii handles this one as an epic, with measured pace, camera work always stylish and often frenzied, without neglecting the need for more sedate moments to let the location sink in, there is also great use of lighting and fog to give an ethereal atmosphere, there is an air of fantasy to much of the film but outside of the overtly supernatural moments it is a down and dirty fantasy with more period fell than flights of fancy. The cinematography of Makoto Watanbe is important here, vivid and detailed, a richly evocative affair. Actingwise Daisuke Ryu is dignified and powerful with a mysterious savagery as Benkei, while Tadanobu Asano has a driven, cold arrogance as Prince Shanao. Of the leads Masatoshi Nagase rounds things out as an ordinary man, smart and cynical but still unaware of just exactly what the stakes are. The film all fits together well, it is however a touch flabby at times, it begins slowly, some shots are a little drawn out and the epic fight scenes at times go on longer than strictly necessary. As for the fighting it is filmed frenetic rather than for actual moves, it has artistic impact but may disappoint regular action fans, often obscured by objects, flashing blades and fast moving individuals, whirling with deadly force through their adversaries are the order of the day, it is invigorating to watch but in the end I could have done with a little more traditionalism. There is some unfortunate cgi bloodshed as well, it somewhat works in the context but is still distracting. Overall though I found this to be a pretty great film, its not one for regular action fans or swordplay enthusiasts seeking another Azumi, rather a deeper and more mystical beast, its ending in particular will not go down well with fans of the more generic wing of such fare. But as for myself it really hit the spot and for those more adventurously inclined it might do so too. Well recommended at any rate.

Sentiment: positive
Pulling in 2.6 million viewers, one has to wonder what everyone's opinions on the storyline/plot is.

Reading the run down over at lifetime, I was led to believe that this would be an edge-of-your-seat thriller about a single mother being stalked and finally confronting the stalker. Sadly I was mistaken. While the main plot is interesting enough - Single mother run off road one night, then is stalked by same guy, the reasoning behind the stalking left nothing but a really bad taste in my mouth.

Laura Leighton plays the victim, and she does it well. Whether it was all those years on Melrose Place or not, she does well in this movie, playing a mother who would do anything to protect her son from harm, and she's looking pretty good too these days.

Leighton is really the only good thing about this movie. I think many people will identify with the main character, after discovering why the stalker is stalking, it will be a view-only-once type of movie.

Sentiment: positive
I thought this movie was pretty good. Some parts were corny but that's understandable since it was made more than 55 years ago. I thought the best performance in the movie was given by Michele Morgan who played Millie convincingly. Jack Haley is also really good as Mike O'Brien. Even though I'm not a big Frank Sinatra fan, I think he was very good in this movie. If your have a craving for a silly, over the top musical comedy, Higher and Higher is the movie for you.



Sentiment: positive
As long as you go into this movie knowing that it's terrible: bad acting, bad "effects," bad story, bad... everything, then you'll love it. This is one of my favorite "goof on" movies; watch it as a comedy and have a dozen good laughs!

Sentiment: positive
What a muddled mess. I saw this with a friend a while ago and we both consider ourselves open-minded to the many wonders of cinema, but this sure isn't one of them.

While there very well could be some good ideas/concepts and there are certainly some good performances (under the circumstances), it is all buried under random nonsense. Sir Anthony draws way too heavily from the same gene pool as Natural Born Killers, U Turn and similar films as far as the editing is concerned, or maybe he watched himself in Nixon for inspiration. Say what you want about David Lynch, but at least he more often than not has a method to the madness.

His quote of stating that he made the film as a joke says it all. It's not worth your money, bandwidth or time.

Sentiment: negative
With nothing better to do I decided to check out "Aztec Rex" (as it was being billed) for the hell of it.

The silly story might have played better if the dinosaur effects were convincing. They actually looked like animatics (those rough designs that artists later use to finish the CGI effects, adding more details, smoother movements, etc.) Absolutely awful-looking dinosaurs, which is the only reason you'd probably want to sit through this anyway.

The one redeeming factor was the lovely Dichen Lachman as Ayacoatl. She kept my interest; if only the budget had been ramped up and some convincing dinosaurs could have been used.

Disappointing. At least the cast and crew got a free trip to Hawaii, where the movie was filmed.

Sentiment: negative
Stephen King adaptation (scripted by King himself) in which a young family, newcomers to rural Maine, find out about the pet cemetery close to their home. The father (Dale Midkiff) then finds out about the Micmac burial ground beyond the pet cemetery that has powers of resurrection - only of course anything buried there comes back not quite RIGHT.

Below average "horror" picture starts out clumsy, insulting, and inept, and continues that way for a while, with the absolute worst element being Midkiff's worthless performance. It gets a little better toward the end, with genuinely disturbing finale. In point of fact, the whole movie is really disturbing, which is why I can't completely dismiss it - at least it has SOMETHING to make it memorable. Decent supporting performances by Fred Gwynne, as the wise old aged neighbor, and Brad Greenquist, as the disfigured spirit Victor Pascow are not enough to really redeem film.

King has his usual cameo as the minister.

Followed by a sequel also directed by Mary Lambert (is it any wonder that she's had no mainstream film work since?).

4/10

Sentiment: negative
Bank heist / Cop thriller sounds OK right?

Chaos looks good: nicely framed, good production values, high concept action heist... 

But...

The plot has the unique achievement of being both smart and incredidly, blatantly implausible in the "how we actually got the money" mode and overcomplicated in the "who done it and why" section at the same time...

In addtion, Ryan Philippe shouting is NOT, seriously NOT either tough or scary...and he is especially not tough or scary when throwing a tizzy fit. Honestly, his great outburst is the only really funny scene in the whole film. Must make him thrilled that he turned down the role of Anakin Skywalker and is now doing this.... 

Stratham is normally good as the tough but silent hard nut with the self-deprecating humor, but here, the extra relationship lines are so laughably bad that even he looks uncomfortable saying some of the clichéd mush required. More silent seems best? 

Snipes is actually OK in a typecast way, but another nail in a talented actor's coffin: he needs an actor's role not an action hero rehash. Perhaps that business with his taxes will allow him to break that mold and the public and critics will let him on the sympathy vote. It would be good if he wasn't so typecast all the time.

The lines these guys speak when they're not doing the plot development and detective work can be summed up in one word.... pheeeuuuh.

The film feels all out of whack and it never gels: I found it irritating for the first 45 minutes, and the tighter last part was passable. It should /could have been good but it just can't redeem the awful lines, the overwhelming score, and the general level of irritation with the levels of plausibility. 

Overall I nearly didn't make it through: incredibly irritating, and Ryan.... please, please, please get rid of the goldilocks....

Sentiment: negative
Hollywood is one of the best and the beautiful things that had occurred in my life. I admire and am very much fascinated by the way Hollywood generates ideas and implement them. It makes me wonder about the scope of human brain. I saw Flatliners a long time back but the story, direction, cast and of all acting is still fresh in my mind. The story begins with our lead actor Sutherland saying during sunrise "what a beautiful day to die." For all of us, It's a story which shows emotions that are sometimes withheld in our mind during our entire life. Never able to understand few things in life. It shows us to get motivated and to improve our quality of life. Anyway I suggest it to all that watch it once.

Sentiment: positive
I caught this movie on the Horror Channel and was quite impressed by the film's Gothic atmosphere and tone. As a big fan of all things vampire related, I am always happy to see a new variation of the vampire mythos, in this case, a ghoul-like creature residing in a Lovecraftian other dimension. The director has done a brilliant job of conveying the dark mood of the subject, using the decadent art scene as a backdrop to what is essentially a tale of love spanning time and space- the pure love of friendship opposed to the lust for blood and life by the vampires in the story. The characters in the story are transported to another dimension by the means of a mind-altering substance, where a shape-shifting vampire creature appears to grant them their hearts desires, whilst draining them of their life essence. There are some analogies to drug addiction and loss of control, and how this affects a group of friends in an artistic circle. I enjoyed watching the 2 main male characters in the story, Chris Ivan Cevic and Alex Petrovich, who were very attractive hunks, always a plus point in a vampire story for the female viewers! The special effects make up and creature effects were well done, and the set design of the vampire's dimension was very effective. All in all, an enjoyable take on vampire myths, and recommended for anyone who likes their vampires with some intelligence and not just action. The only thing missing to make it even better would have been a bit more eroticism and nudity, as it would have suited the plot and themes.

Sentiment: positive
I'm a fan of arty movies, but regretfully I have to report this movie to be pretentious drivel. Agonisingly slow to develop a non-existent plot based on a promising premise, the experience is, shall we say, trying. Even after bad movies I feel that I learn something, or enjoyed some aspect, but there there was nothing to appreciate. The premise was not uninteresting, but the movie starts and ends there. The acting was OK, though the characters were utterly boring. For the protagonist to aim at such an audacious goal, she is mightily empty. Pity. I usually enjoy movies that are unformulaic, but lack of formula should not be confused with zero content.

Sentiment: negative
it is of course very nice to see improvements on Turkish movie industry, however, i would have expected something more creative from Togan Gokbakar. starting from the script, which i believe it was not a wise written one as some may think. especially the cheesiness of the dialogs, which were putting the audience in a position that, as if they were not smart enough to understand the situations, which, most of the times makes the movie unbearable. it also has an obvious ending; you can easily guess the murderer from the beginning. the weakest part of the scenario is that the impossibility of seriously mentally ill patients to act like normal people, like professionals right away!!!did they ever search for the possibility of patients who are on heavy medicals, to act like professionals and use all the medical terms that even normal people cannot use?????!!!!!!also in the scene where staff was searching for the most dangerous patient, with out any weapon to protect themselves was another weird point of the film. and that scene was so suitable for "Dikkat Sahan Cikabilir" title!! those are not the only weak parts of the movie. there were also a lot of preciosities in the film. the depiction of the most dangerous patient was an exact copy from Hannibal, also appearance of Togan in the very end is obviously the worst mistake that he could have done in his first movie! the fuss about the greatness of the movie and the interviews that actor's gave just made people to be curious and force them to see it. Gen is a total disappointment. i would have wonder, if Sahan was not this famous, would Togan be able to shoot this movie, with this much of budget amount?? i hope Togan would realize that it is not fashionable to play in a role as a director as he said in an interview. it was Hitchcock who did it wisely and Night Shyamalan continued it successfully! he should be aware of the fact that he is not Hitchcock nor Shyamalan yet!!!!hoping him to be more careful and creative next time in this big industry!

Sentiment: negative
I saw this film shortly after watching Moonlight & Valentino with Elizabeth Perkins, Gwyneth Platrow, Whoopi Goldberg and Kathleen Turner. There are a lot of similarities between the two films. They both have great casts and good acting. They both have stock characters of sisters who are very different, an offensive stepmother, a woman friend/confidant, an emotionally unavailable father, a dead mother and a surprise lover. Both films have the characters experience life-changing realizations and both films suffer from a kind of 'love conquers all' sentimentality. They both add a little titillation with Cameron Diaz in black underwear and a partial back shot of Gwyneth Paltrow naked.

Both films seem contrived, as if the writers of the works the films are based on did market research and said, "Ok, there's a market for stories about relationships between women, so I'm going to write about two sisters with an offensive stepmother" In other words, instead of the drama emerging from the truth of the relationship, the relationship is invented to fit the dramatic situation. It seems forced, the characters don't seem real, the relationships are unbelievable.

The resolution of the tensions between the characters is simplistic with simple apologies completely whisking away years of acrimony leaving everyone feeling warm and fuzzy ever after. It's just not real. Romantic fantasy.

The characters in In Her Shoes are a little more overblown than Moonlight & Valentino, especially the stepmother part. Sydelle Feller is so evil that it is difficult to believe that the father would stay with her, or even marry her in the first place.

If you liked Moonlight & Valentino you will probably like In Her Shoes as well. Enjoyable performances in both, in fact, the actors bring depth to their parts that goes way beyond the contrived sentimentality of the scripts.

Sentiment: negative
This Spanish-Italian co-production tells an interesting and weird story about Dr. Bannister, a woman that not only has the best years behind her, but also has a scarred face that makes her look like a freak. But in Madrid, a professor she knows has conducted some experiments on animals with a substance which regenerates cells. The experiments were successful, but the animals became aggressive. Because the professor won't allow Dr. Bannister to be the first human guinea pig, she kills him and consumes the substance. She becomes a beautiful young woman, but also a vicious killer when it comes to keep her secret a secret.

The plot of the film is great fun, but Piero Vivarelli had not enough skills and money to make a cool movie out of it. Also, the film becomes boring after a good start and doesn't manage to regain a fast pace even though the film's running time doesn't exceed 83 minutes. And as the setting changes to Swiss city Geneva for the last third of the film, it sometimes even looks like a vacation movie as we see how beautiful Geneva is (which it is indeed - but it doesn't help to push the plot forward...). So, with a more talented director, better actors and a bigger budget, "Satanik" could have become an obscure Italian classic. But, as it is, it's just a lacklustre and boring crime film that isn't really worth looking for. Rating: 3 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
I had long wanted to watch this romantic drama (with a WWII setting) and, now that I have, all I can say is that it's a veritable masterpiece of Russian cinema! 

Soviet films are known for their overzealous propagandist approach but, thankfully, this one's free of such emphasis - with the interest firmly on the central tragic romance between a promising artist and a vivacious girl, doomed by the outbreak of war for which he gladly volunteers but from which he'll never return. The girl (a remarkable performance from Tatyana Samojlova) is also loved by the young man's cousin and, when she doesn't receive word from her boyfriend, gives in to the latter and marries him. He, however, is an aspiring concert pianist bitter about the war having curtailed his chances for success and, knowing too that the girl's still devoted to the soldier, begins to neglect her. Finally, word reaches the girl of her loved one's death but, by the end of the film, she has learnt to accept this as a sacrifice to their native country and is content to live with her memories of him.

The film features some truly amazing camera-work which makes extremely judicious use of the screen space and, by frequently adopting tracking, tilted and high or low angle shots, renders great power to the unfolding emotional drama. Individual sequences are equally impressive - two in particular: the stunning scene, frenetically edited and sped-up to boot, in which the girl saves an abandoned boy from being trampled by a truck; and the young man's premature demise in an unfortunate incident at the front, undoubtedly one of the best of its kind I've ever watched (with the sun moving away from him, symbolizing the life that's seeping out of his body, as he imagines the wedding day he'll never have!). Also notable, however, is the scene where the girl goes to look for her parents in her home that's been hopelessly devastated during an air raid; as is her final violent capitulation to the concert pianist - which she tries to resist by repeatedly slapping him in the face - taking place during a later air raid and making particularly effective use of a set of billowing curtains!

Disappointingly, the R1 DVD of this outstanding film is a bare-bones affair (the RusCiCo edition features a few supplements but, being an export, tends to be heavily overpriced and hard to track down to boot!); Criterion released it in conjunction with another war-themed Russian classic, BALLAD OF A SOLDIER (1959) - which my pal at the local DVD rental outlet has told me is forthcoming... 

The only other film I've watched from this director is the Arctic epic THE RED TENT (1969; albeit via the much-shorter U.S.-release version!), a star-studded international production based on true events; given the unmistakable artistic quality of THE CRANES ARE FLYING, I regret missing out now on his famous documentary I AM CUBA (1964) a number of times when I was in Hollywood late last year: apart from receiving a one-week theatrical run, it was shown more than once on TV accompanied by a feature-length "Making Of"!!

Sentiment: positive
There are a whole lot of movies, primarily from the 80s, that are so terrible that you can't help but love them. The Last Slumber Party is one of those. I hate this movie so much, but it still remains one of the most watched movies in my collection. I have watched it countless times and get a huge laugh out of it every time. It is the prime example of how in the 80s, ANY movie could get released.

Our killers name is Maniac Randles. (Scary, huh?) Randles is an escaped psychopathic killer running around in doctor's scrubs and a doctor's jacket hacking off people with a scalpel as he goes along. He ends up coming across a house of girls that are having a slumber party. One of the girls is the daughter of the doctor that tried to operate on Randle's, and Randle's ended up pulling him down in some kind of sexual position. (lol just watch the movie to know what I am talking about.) Now I know what you must be thinking at this point: This must be another cheesy low budget hack and slash flick like Slumber Party Massacre, or Valentine's Day Massacre, right? NO! This movie is HORRIBLE! First off, the quality of the film changes off and on throughout the film. Sometimes it will look like it could have been filmed this year, but other times it is so grainy and blurry that it isn't even watchable. The funny thing is that certain specific camera angles will be blurry and grainy, and other specific camera angles will be clear and perfect, which is absolutely ridiculous and proves that they did not care at all.

The director played the killer (as if that wasn't funny enough) but because of the fact that he wasn't talented enough to act and direct at the same time, he just filmed one shot of him walking toward the camera with his scalpel, and then just replayed that clip over and over every time someone is killed.

The characters in this movie are completely ridiculous and unlikable, and these people who are suppose to be ages 16-18 look more like they are 25-45. I know that slasher films commonly use adults as teenagers, but I have never seen a movie where it was THIS obvious. My guess is that the reason none of them are still in the film industry today is because they have all died of old age... Or maybe it was just because this movie was so horrible that they never wanted to show their faces again, and that is a good thing because I highly doubt that they could have gotten into any more movies even if they tried. All I can do is hope that Tyler will one day make THE LAST SLUMBER PARTY 2: THE FINAL CONFLICT and have all of the original actors return. I'm sure everyone would love that.

The movie was directed by Stephen Tyler, (No, not the singer) who never went on to direct again, and it was released by B&S (which I am sure stands for bull and ****) Productions. Bull&S only released one more film, "Forever Evil," which was pretty awful, but not near as bad as Last Slumber Party.

A horrible, horrible, horrible film... Highly recommended.

Sentiment: negative
The filming crew did not have good access to the occupied territories, so filming of the Israeli side dominated. I was struck by the nearly completely opposite points of view of the mothers. The Israeli mother lost a child who had the possibility of a life of tremendous happiness. The Palestinian mother lost a child who had only the possibility of a life of privation and despair. With such completely different viewpoints, any meeting had no real chance of any meeting of the minds. The word "peace" did not have the same meaning to each of them. Peace to the Palestinian was freedom. Peace to the Israeli was security. With such an abyss, is this sort of film really worth much? I finished with the feeling that I had watched pointless propaganda -- both sides were unconvincing.

Sentiment: negative
Out of the first five episodes of Hammer's short-running "Hammer House of Horror" series, this fifth episode with the wonderful title "The House that Bled to Death" is arguably the creepiest one. As a great fan of the Hammer Studios' Gothic Horror films for many years, I wonder what took me so long to finally start watching the series quite recently. So far, I've only seen the first five episodes, and I have a strong feeling that the best is yet to come, but even if the series stays as entertaining as the first five episodes are, I will be satisfied. Whereas the second and third episodes were great to watch for their morbid and ingeniously dark sense of humor, this fifth entry is definitely the one out of the first five that delivers the most genuine Horror. The episode begins when an elderly man murders his wife out of unknown motivations. Years later, William (Nicholas Ball) and Emma Peters (Rachel Davies) move in the house with their little daughter Sophie (Emma Ridley). Soon after moving in, however, the family have to find out that there is something terribly wrong with the house, which is seemingly haunted... The second episode directed by Francis Megahy is a lot better than his mediocre previous entry, "Growing Pains" (Episode 4), and the fairly unknown actors deliver good performances. The film is also well-made in terms of effects, cinematography and score. "The House that Bled to Death" is a solid episode that delivers the elements that my fellow Hammer-fans should like to see in a Short Horror tale. The film delivers a creepy atmosphere, genuine scare moments and intelligent twists, and is suspenseful and highly entertaining from the beginning to the end. Overall, this is highly recommendable to Hammer fans.

Sentiment: positive
This is a funny, intelligent and, in a sense, realistic comedy about a 14-year-old trying to live her first love while on vacation, and also about the complex, sometimes amusing, sometimes touching, relation between a divorced father and her growing daughter... and about how far a women (not only Nicole, the teen-ager) can go to get the man she loves! I laughed a lot with this lively scenario that never drags.

Sentiment: positive
Fred Gwynne, Al Lewis, Sid Caesar, and Yvonne De Carlo star in this funny, funny movie. The late Fred Gwynne is truly wonderful as Herman Munster who lives with Grandpa Munster (Al Lewis), wife Lily (Yvonne De Carlo), and his son and daughter. Sid Caesar is hilarious as the owner of a wax museum that has a whole section dedicated to the Munster family. When the wax figures of Herman and Grandpa begin to terrorize the town everyone blames the two. The two now have to clear their names before it's too late. You'll laugh out loud just like I did.

Sentiment: positive
Mark Hamill should have felt mighty embarrassed with CORVETTE SUMMER! This time, he uses a new kind of "force" to regain the possession of his dream machine, a bright red 'Vette. It looks like another sour teen-age flick the first half-hour and does a U-turn in heading for the wrong direction. The writing and directing jobs are dreadfully done, with a few scenes you can't hardly take. You're expecting this to happen anyway, and you're also sniffing the smell of late-70s hodgepodge. Only a former newcomer like Annie Potts would easily steal the show and save this poor movie from the repo creeps! Her impractical but delightful personality holds on to your interest for good, and this is the finest chance to see her in a swimsuit. Hooray for Annie! Sorry, Mark! I guess the Force wasn't with you this time around.

Sentiment: negative