DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Scott is right. The best 2 person sword duel ever put on film is in the middle of this movie. The sword fights with multiple fighters are not the best although quite good. However, the fight in the middle is the best even compared to Japanese samurai movies. Chinese swordplay scenes in my opinion have never surpassed the Japanese in terms of entertainment value. Especially in scenes where one guy must battle a group of enemies, Japanese movies excel, example being the Lone Wolf and Cub series. Even though duels in Japanese cinema last only seconds or a minute at the most, the sheer intensity of those moments made them better. But, this is one example where Chinese swordplay surpasses the Japanese. The scene in the middle of this film was a five minute long fight with the most amazing choreography ever. The other fights in this movie are good too but even if they sucked this movie would get a 7 for that one scene. If you haven't seen it, you have to. John Woo is the man.

Sentiment: positive
Just saw this tonight at a seminar on digital projection (shot on 35mm, and first feature film fully scanned in 6k mastered in 4k, and projected with 2k projector at ETC/USC theater in Hwd)..so much for tech stuff. 18 directors (including Alexander Payne, Wes Cravens, Joel and Ethan Coen, Gus Van Sant, Walter Salles and Gerard Depardieu, among several good French/ international directors) were each given 5 minutes to make a love story. They come in all shapes and forms, with known actors(Elijah Wood, Natalie Portman, Steve Buscemi ..totally hilarious..., Maggie Glyllenhall, Nick Nolte, Geena Rowlands ..soo good..and she actually wrote the piece she was in, Msr Depardieu and many good international actors as well. The stories vary from all out romance to quirky comedy to Alex Payne's touching study of a woman discovering herself to Van Sant and one of those things that happens anywhere..maybe? Nothing really off putting by having French spoken in most sequences (with English subtitles) and a small amount of actual English spoken, though that will probably relegate it to art houses (a la Diva.) Also only one piece that might be considered "experimental" but colorful and funny as well, the rest simple studies of sometimes complex relationships. All easy to follow (unless the "experimental" one irritates your desire for a formulaic story. Several brought up some emotions for me...I admit I am affected by love in cinema...when it is presented in something other than sentimentality. I even laughed at a mime piece, like no other I have seen (thank you for that!) The film hit its peak, for me, somewhere around a little more than half way through, then the last two sequences picked up again. Some beautiful shots of Paris at night, lush romantic kind of music, usually used to good effect, not just schmaltz for "emotions" in sound, generally good cinematography, though some shots seemed soft focus when it couldn't have meant to have been (main character in shot/scene). Pacing of each film was good, and overall structure, though a bit long (they left out two of what was to be 20 films, but said all would be on the DVD) seemed to vary between tones of the films to keep a good balance. Not sure when it comes out, but a good study of how to make a 5 min film work..and sometimes, what doesn't work (if it covers too much time, emotionally, for a short film.) Should be in region one when released, but they didn't know when.

Sentiment: positive
Late night on BBC1, was on my way to bed but curiosity piqued at a contemporary-set Irish film so I stayed to watch for a few minutes and then stayed to the end. I have to admit that the main attraction was the only English actress, Kelly Reilly, who is stunning to look at.

This is billed as a black comedy, which is one of the hardest things to pull off. It should be the perfect blend of horror and horrible laughs so that in the end you don't know why you're laughing - for me Martin Scorsese's After Hours (1985) is the best example. Dead Bodies is more black than comedy but the plot rattles along and spirals down towards further blackness. I didn't spot the final twists in the tale as some other posters here did so I was suitably surprised.

As a snapshot of the Irish film industry in 2003, it all seems rather worthy; it doesn't look like they spent too much on the making of it so it had a chance to make its money back. The script could've been a whole lot sharper but the acting was on the whole pretty good. I'm glad I watched it, flaws and all, tho I don't think I learnt much about Ireland today, especially their policing methods!

Sentiment: positive
This was what black society was like before the crack epidemics, gangsta rap, and AIDS that beset the ghettos in the eighties. Decent, hardworking families that struggled to get by and all the traumas and tribulations they faced. Black America was a different group of people in the seventies. Still full of hope and flying high on the civil rights movements of the sixties, times were hard but still worth fighting for. Keepin' your head above water, making a wave when you can, this show showed how black society struggled to work together as people and families, before they started to prey on each other and everyone else in order to survive the horrors of the ghettos. It is heart-breaking to see what the black ghettos were like then and what they have become now.

Sentiment: positive
How truly sad that this sprung from the same mind as Donnie Darko, possibly one of the best films in this genre. Where do I even begin? I think one of the must infuriating aspects of the film is that we are supposed to be critiquing humanity, and yet we see no humanity in the film. No more than 5 minutes of the film is spend agonizing about the possible death of another human. These are horrible one dimensional cardboard cutouts of human beings. Sadly, that's how they are played with what can only be described as dreadful acting. Is this truly how Kelly sees humanity? Judging from the reaction of viewers, this is a horrible encapsulation of humanity. Why don't the characters in the film ask the questions that all the viewers have? This is not an indictment of humanity. It's an indictment of the straw men that Kelly sets up who bare almost no resemblance to real humans in this situation.

To those who say this was a wonderful thought-provoking film, to what are you comparing it? Armageddon? I even saw someone compare this to the works of Kurosawa. How truly deprived must you be to think that this would promote good existential discussion? For the love of all that's good in film! Even Indecent Proposal is ten times the indictment of humanity that this is. There we see people truly agonizing about greed and the human condition. Yes, even Indecent Proposal puts this film to shame for philosophical discussion and yet it gets 5.3 vs 6.0 for this mindless tripe.

Rarely have I seen a more pretentious, pontificating, and self aggrandizing, film fall so flatly on its face. This has the depth of a high school film project, and a poor one at that. Truly, that's about the level of the discussion promoted by this film. If you want to see GOOD psychological film making, do yourself a favor and check out Das Experiment. If The Box had lived up even to this one goal, I would have been willing to forgive some of the atrocious acting, gaping plot holes, and sheer nonsensical storyline. Sadly, it can't even do that.

The true indictment of humanity is that there are people out there who think this film is a deeply delving introspective look into the human condition. This is not Sartre! This is not even the Cliff Notes version of Sartre! This is a hastily conceived and hack-written 9th grade term paper on Sartre based on some internet message board ramblings. If Sartre were alive, he would sue Kelly for defamation.

Sentiment: negative
This is a witty and delightful adaptation of the Dr Seuss book, brilliantly animated by UPA's finest and thoroughly deserving of its Academy Award. Special mention should be made of the superb music score and sound effects, which are an integral element in helping to make this such a memorable and enjoyable cartoon. Later episodes in the series (of which there were four in total) were not actually based on original Dr Seuss material, although all but the last continued to use his familiar rhyming style. The three sequels were: Gerald McBoing Boing's Symphony (1953); How Now Boing Boing (1954); Gerald McBoing Boing On Planet Moo (1956) - although he also appeared in a later episode of Mr Magoo.

Sentiment: positive
Van damme has done some great films over the years and this one hits a big ten in my books. From the setting of Mexico to the five star fight scenes, this movie was amazing. The film is all about border patrol officers protecting there territory which is the border of Mexico. Ex navy seals are smuggling drugs out of Mexico into the united states of America (USA), Van damme and Scott Atkins give stunning performances as the cop and the villain. Although this film wasn't as good as until death but it still gave the action,acting and the film a five star look. I always look forward to these b grade action films and they keep getting better. keep them coming van damme.

Watch this film if you enjoyed films like - Until death, The hard corps and second in command.

Sentiment: positive
This is a very famous Ninja movie but it isn't a nice movie. If you want to see some ninjas and some figures, want to know some things about Ninjas see this movie. This movie only for ninja fans and who wants to make nostalgia.

First 20 minutes and last 20 minutes of the movie are best. You can just see Ninja figures and fight in this scenes. Between these are below the average, nearly bad as a movie. Acting is bad. Sho (black ninja) is the best actor in this movie. Frank Nero is a good actor and charismatic but he cannot fight good. Scenario is also not good. Its so simple. Franko Nero comes near to his best , old friend from army and war. He also protects him from mafia but he is having sex ( go to bed ) with his wife and his friend knows this but don't say anything to Nero negative. Is this possible in life ? What a friendship !

Finally this movie started a genre ; Ninja movies. Also there is the ninja master Sho Kasugi but some fighting scenes are not realistic and not fast even with shoo. This film is below the average even it is a classic.

Sentiment: negative
I'm no Jane Austen purist but why make a film like this if you have nothing to say.

Billie Piper was so wrong for the part it is difficult to know where to begin-wrong personality,modern make-up,completely wrong hair (there is no way a young lady of her age would have romped around in public with her hair loose and unbrushed like that),she didn't seem particularly meek nor put-upon by the family and I didn't understand why everyone seemed to think of her as particularly saintly or kind.

The picnic(substituted for the ball) was so low-budget it was embarrassing to watch and missing out the Portsmouth section completely destroyed the point of the piece (as well as losing scenes which could have added a gritty counterpoint to that oh-so-claustrophobic pink sitting room.)

To those responsible:-If you haven't the imagination (even the budget doesn't matter so much as the imagination) to do something meaningful with an adaptation please don't pretend to be producing Jane Austen.

It was about 10% Mansfield Park and 90% nothing much at all

PS Edmund was very good

Sentiment: negative
The second episode of the new "Lost" gives you just what its fans were lacking - a fair amount of riveting action. From the very first scene, you keep seeing brand new features you weren't expecting to encounter. It's the best proof that the series, ingoing its 4th season, is still alive and kicking hard.

Although the producers don't amaze us with some more flash-forwards this time, the return to flashbacks is more than satisfying, as it brings some shocking facts. The flashbacks introduce a few fresh characters, and the familiar ones turn out to be connected in a surprising way.

The fresh characters dominate the whole episode and I can't say it does any harm. Their scenario parts and their actors both do extremely well, providing us with a bracing feel - right after the episode, you'll realize that the show really needed people just like that. And here they are.

"Confirmed Dead" is full of gripping action and greatly written dialogues. I'm sure I'll quote the best scenes of the episode for the long time - they're just that good that they remain on the spectator's mind. The episode is entertaining, smart, and perky. You like "Lost", you have to watch it. My vote is ten.

Sentiment: positive
Frank Capra's creativity must have been just about spent by the time he made this film. While it has a few charming moments, and many wonderful performers, Capra's outright recycling of not just the script but considerable footage from his first version of this story, Broadway Bill (1934), is downright shoddy. It is understandable that he would re-use footage from the climactic horse race, which is thrilling. But he uses entire dialogue scenes with minor actors, then brings back those actors and apparently expects us not to notice, for example, that Ward Bond is 14 years older! Unless you want to see one of the last appearances of Oliver Hardy, skip this one and watch Broadway Bill instead.

Sentiment: negative
After watching Stop-Loss, I find myself against disappointed in Hollywood for making such a stinker. Gone are the days of glory of the films of the 1940's that made one proud to be an American, fighting the evilness that desires conquest abroad and death at home. What we are left with is dribble frothing at the mouth of rabid anti-Bush radicals. The story tells of three young men who return home from the war. One descends into out-of-control madness, culminating in his death. The main protagonist deserts his country at a time of war, and destroys his best friends relationship with his fiancé at the same time. The third truly is the hero of the story, electing to continue the fight that was brought to our shores nearly eight years ago. What makes this movie bad, is not the acting, but the premise behind it. We are lead to believe that decorated soldiers are in fact haters of our country. Desertion is akin to treason in a time of war, and the main protagonist flirts with it throughout the movie. This paradox is designed to weaken the audience's reaction to the central act of the movie. We are not supposed to find fault with King, since he wears medals, but his actions don't just merit it, but cry out for it. He is not an anti-hero. In order to accept the movie, the audience must accept the correctness of desertion because the story paints King as nothing else short of a hero. I cannot accept that, since it is like asking me to call the sky yellow on a clear blue day. Furthermore, derision for the real hero is heaped upon, the man who re-enlists and continues to serve his country. I would only recommend this stinker to someone who needs convincing of the decay of Hollywood, as it is a clear example of it. No wonder it fared poorly in the box office.

Sentiment: negative
Straight from the brilliant mind of animation pioneer Wladyslaw Starewicz, "Fétiche", or "The Mascot" as it is known nowadays, stands as a masterpiece of stop-motion animation that sadly, has been almost forgotten by now. Nevertheless, the work of this man deserves to be seen, and in fact, must be seen to be believed because the outstanding way the animation flows is simply unbelievable.

Decades before "Toy Story", Starewicz conceived the idea of moving toys, in "Fétiche", he tells the story of a small stuffed dog that gets makes friends with the sick daughter of his maker. One day, his maker takes him away to sell him, and the adventure begins as he tries to find his way back home. In his Odyssey, he'll travel from Paris to Hell, and will find the other toys that were supposed to be sold with him.

It is a surreal experience to watch this movie, as Starewicz makes every imaginable creature come alive with grace and beauty. The other toys include a beautiful ballerina, who loves a thief, but she also is secretly loved by a clown, forming a love triangle; an old woman, a stuffed cat and a stuffed ape complete the group. every toy is so detailed and very expressive that without words one can understand their motives.

Truly, the surreal atmosphere the whole animation has it is remarkable. It is hard to believe that a work of this magnitude was done in 1934 since it looks even better than most of the current day animation. The influence it has in modern day animator such as Tim Burton and Henry Selick is very significant.

This short is a masterpiece of animation and the outstanding work of one genius who done everything by himself and that has influenced animators for decades. Starewicz's work is an immortal piece of art that should be seen by everyone. This work is not only for kids, adults as well will enjoy it and probably catch most of the subtext hidden in the movie.

It is possible to find it in the "Vampyr" DVD as a bonus feature. Anyone with the slightest interest in animation should give it a look.

Sentiment: positive
I am not one of those who think King is a great writer, his books are fine distractions for a few hours, and often have interesting premises, however they, in my opinion, fall apart pretty rapidly if you give them any serious thought.

This film suffers from being a pretty exact re-telling of King's story. If you have read the book, there are zero surprises, no changes, no altering of scenes or characters. This is a film made by King fans for King fans.

For the rest of us, there is nothing terrible about the film, it is a 'gypsy curse' horror, with its twist being the curse being something many people wish for, to become thinner. The final third has some severe structural problems, and the slightly forced ending seems to break the rules of this genre a little.

There are worse ways to spend 90 minutes of your life, but you might as well read the book, because there is nothing new here...



Sentiment: negative
I have just written a comment to "ACES HIGH" (1976) and that remind me of this film which I watched as kid when it was released; since then I have watched it only once and that was more than enough. As Kevin well says "it is a complete waste of time". Apart from the dog-fights which are nicely done the rest is a sequence of badly patched scenes with actors struggling with a lousy script and equally lousy direction. I do not remember the silly German accents mentioned by Kevin in his comment, but that is another pathetic mistake; if Corman tried to make more convincing the characterization of the German pilots why didn't he use German actors or have those parts dubbed? On the other hand is good example of the appalling Hollywood-style of film-making with their "villains" so clearly identifiable, not only by their cruel actions but also by their grotesque accents.

Talking about "cruel actions" the ridiculous scene were Lieutenant Hermann Goering murders English nurses during an attack on an airbase is an absolutely disgusting piece of propaganda done with "historical hindsight". If you want to a see a factual, moving, very well acted and directed film about the air war during WWI watch "ACES HIGH" (1976) or that wonderful classic "THE DAWN PATROL" (1938) you shall not be disappointed.

Sentiment: negative
When watching this show you are not quite sure whether it is the story or the acting that is more annoying. First of all, the storyline of each episode is very predictable, the writers must have used every cliché possible, you can guess not only the general plot, but the arrangement of the scenes and also the lines of each character, making the show some sort of a collage of every police series out there. On the top of it all comes the "message" of the show, that the good are good and the bad are bad and that at the end of the day the good shall prevail and that we should all love each other, be better man and better citizens, all done in the most ostensible manner. The actors, as the vehicles of this message and nothing more than that, will use a limited set of acting skills: the "I am a good carrying person" smile, the concerned look and the "victory is ours" body posture, while the bad guys have the "I'm a bad one" frowning and the "you caught me" look, followed by the "I'm good for nothing and I should be removed from society" head banding (this kind of also sums up the general development of each show). True story or not, the show is garbage, yet another proof that producers don't give a s**t about viewers, that we are all thought to be idiots. Well this series makes every possible attempt to idiotize the living brains out of you.

Sentiment: negative
There's been a vogue for the past few years for often-as-not ironic zombie-related films, as well as other media incarnations of the flesh- eating resurrected dead. "Fido" is a film that's either an attempt to cash in on that, simply a manifestation of it, or both -- and it falls squarely into the category of ironic zombies. The joke here is that we get to see the walking dead in the contrasting context of a broadly stereotyped, squeaky-clean, alternate-history (we are in the wake of a great Zombie War, and the creatures are now being domesticated as slaves) version of a 1950s suburb. 

It's a moderately funny concept on its own, and enough perhaps for a five-minute comedy sketch, but it can't hold up a feature-film on its own. The joke that rotting corpses for servants are incongruous with this idealized version of a small town is repeated over and over again, and loses all effectiveness. The soundtrack relentlessly plays sunny tunes while zombies cannibalize bystanders. The word "zombie" is constantly inserted into an otherwise familiarly homey line for a cheap attempt at a laugh. 

The very broadness and artificiality of the representation of "the nineteen fifties" here can't help but irritate me. It is so stylized, in it evidently "Pleasantville-"inspired way, that it is more apparent in waving markers of its 1950s-ness around than actually bearing any resemblance to anything that might have happened between 1950 and 1959. There is something obnoxiously sneering about it, as if the film is bragging emptily and thoughtlessly about how more open, down-to-Earth, and superior the 2000s are. 

Because the characters are such broad representations of pop-culture 1950s "types," it's difficult to develop much emotional investment in them. Each has a few character traits thrown at him or her -- Helen is obsessed with appearances, and Bill loves golf and his haunted by having had to kill his father -- but they remain quite two-dimensional. Performances within the constraints of this bad writing are fine. The best is Billy Connolly as Fido the zombie, who in the tradition of Boris Karloff in "Frankenstein" actually imparts character and sympathy to a lumbering green monster who cannot speak. 

There are little bits of unsubtle allegory thrown around -- to commodity fetishism, racism, classism, war paranoia, et cetera, but none of it really works on a comprehensive level, and the filmmakers don;t really stick with anything. 

Unfortunately, this film doesn't really get past sticking with the flimsy joke of "Look! Zombies in 'Leave it to Beaver!'" for a good hour- and-a-half.

Sentiment: negative
Bugs Bunny accidentally ends up at the South Pole while trying to vacation in Florida. Where he meets a little penquin, which he tries to save from an Eskimo. This short tries and the penquin is adorable, but in the end it's a bit too light in the laughs department. The Eskimo isn't really that great of a foil for Bugs and I just seen a lot better Bugs Bunny cartoons frankly, even other shorts when he's paired with other unknown antagonists. So I can't in good conscience recommend this one. However it is nice to see it in it's uncut form. This cartoon is on Disk 3 of the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 1" 

My Grade: C

Sentiment: negative
Where the hell are all these uncharted islands where prehistoric monsters lurk, evil doctors perform their experiments, madmen hold the ultimate karate championship, and the uber-rich hunt humans for sport? I had no idea there were still so many uncharted islands out there, but if you take into account the number of movies that utilize one of these mysterious islands as a location, you'd have to assume that there are at least 50 of these suckers out there. It always winds up feeling so damned convenient and I immediately deduct points from any movie that uses this hackneyed device. Hammerhead is the story of a mad scientist who is conducting experiments on one of these uncharted islands, so the movie already had a lot to make up for before it even began.

The island in this movie used to belong to Dr. Moreau, but has recently been purchased by the Re-Animator himself, Jeffrey Combs. Old Jeffrey is doing some kind of cutting edge stem cell research, which has led him to start working with sharks while searching for a cure for cancer. If that sounds familiar, that's because this is roughly the same basic set-up as the smart shark facility in Deep Blue Sea, not to mention a host of other Nu Image movies. So apparently, Jeffrey's son was dying of cancer which prompted our mad doctor to start experimenting on his progeny. He did some kind of super fancy gene splicing and so forth, turning his son into a shark-man.

William Forsythe leads a crew of unknown actors to the island to look into the doctor's experiments. If someone would have given him a sailor's hat, William would have been a dead ringer for the Skipper from Gilligan's Island. In typical Bond Villain fashion, the doctor decides that all of these intruders would make nice chum for his son. Not chums, like buddies... chum, like shark food. So enter shark-boy who starts stalking the Skipper and his cohorts all over the island. They, of course, make half-hearted attempts to escape and are thwarted over and over again while being chased by a guy in a rubber shark-man suit. 

The movie didn't make up any of the points that it lost for taking place on one of those dastardly deserted islands. It's funny that this movie is called Hammerhead, it made me think of an old joke. Why do you hit yourself in the head with a hammer? Because it feels so good when you stop. That's pretty much how this movie is. The only reason to watch it is because it feels so good when it's over.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this in a preview and it seems to have not been released in the U.S. Nonetheless, it was one of the more enjoyable little comedies. It concerns the rivalry between two funeral directors in a small British town. The plot [of the movie] gets a little out of hand in the third act but the characters are very enjoyable and memorable.

The acting is great across the board. Sure to be overlooked in the crunch of blockbusters, this is a movie worth looking out for. I know I will try to catch this in the theaters again and/or buy the video.

Sentiment: positive
It was 1974 and it starred Martin Sheen.

That alone says what to expect of this movie.

And it was a movie. According to the movie, Slovik had reformed, got a good woman, and didn't want to fight.

In real life, Slovik may have been a naive innocent, or he may have just wanted to manipulate the system.

Whoever Slovik was or wasn't is for history to decide, but this was a movie that dealt with dessertion at a time when a country was questioning why it was fighting, and the movie took sides.

With no regard to servicemen who were in Viet Nam either in 1974 (as Willie Nelson would say, let's tell the truth, it was about the Viet Nam war, not WWII), EoES was as propagandistic as Gung Ho was in the forties.

According to this movie, Slovik stated his position, plain and simple. He had a nervous problem. Heck, I have a clinical nervous condition, and trust me, if I had done military duty, it would have been no problem for me to either just let my nerves go and fail at my tasks and get a demotion or put on KP duty or latrine duty with no problem.

If we believe the teleflick, Slovik didn't have that option, no doubt because of his criminal history.

Whatever the viewer wants to believe is up to the viewer. I've learned that movies from this decade or that decade, in dealing with service or military duty, will pretty much take the same stance over and over.

1940s and 1950s, serve your country.

1960s and 1970s, mock your country.

This is the history.

The whole movie seemed predictably Hollywood to me. He refused to serve and only when he was being strapped up to be executed does he show emotion.

Such an emotional outburst could have easily worked to his advantage in his declaration of his nervous condition, but obviously the movie wanted to show him as a human being and only when he is about to die does he become sorrowful.

I'm not a Catholic, but I thought the recital of the hail Mary by Ned Beatty and Sheen at the end, with the Lord's prayer, was funny as it sounded like they were trying to see who could say it faster.

I don't see how this movie could be watched without realizing it was aimed at Tricky Dick Nixon and the Viet Nam war.

I hope it was all worth it for Slovik and anyone who chose to follow his example.

Sentiment: negative
This was the second Cinemascope spectacle that Fox produced after the Robe. Notice how some of the Roman sets are redressed to pass for Egyptian sets. The film is produced with all first class elements, beautiful photography, stirring soundtrack (Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann - see if you can tell which composer scored specific scenes). However, the principal acting is a bit weak. Edmund Purdom seems to have a limited range of emotions and is uninteresting to watch. The best performances come from Peter Ustinov as the one-eyed slave and Polish actress Bella Darvi as the Babylonian temptress "Nefer". I find this movie in general to be strong on plot which is rare for these large spectacles produced at the time. All in all, the film does an interesting and entertaining job of social commentary on what Egyptian society might have looked like.

Sentiment: positive
I should explain that as far as this trend goes for ripping off Asian horror movies, this Shutter is a head above The Grudge, and Dark Water, while still not achieving the same amount of atmospheric creepiness that The Ring establishes.

Still though movies, like life, don't exist in a vacuum and are therefore up for comparison to other suspense/thriller/horror movies. Honestly, I'm not writing a lengthy synopsis here and will say that this movie attempts to rely on music induced "startle" scares rather than atmosphere and the "ghost" itself really isn't that remarkable. The plot is pretty basic and predictable and isn't anything to write home about either. While there are a few suspenseful scenes that border on creatively scary, most of the movie is pretty vanilla. If you enjoyed The Grudge and it's ilk then you might enjoy this.

Grade: C-

Sentiment: negative
This film is a fine example of why the Shaw Brothers are among the finest directors (probably the best in the Kung Fu category). The movie is well paced, the story is excellent and intriguing, and while the humor may not be in your face, it is nested within the character interactions. Once the story builds up, and the characters begin to assess the situation does the whole tower come crashing down in one of the best fight scenes (tiger, crane and crab Hung Gar are very present). There is even a scene that mocks 18th century Western social events, and ends with clever and entertaining fighting. The movie ends with a sudden, cheesy moment, but if you are a fan of the Shaw Brothers, you'll understand that the cheese is just a topping, and not the main course of the movie.

Sentiment: positive
TV director uses astral projection to kill people taking the form of the blue man.

Dull uninvolving horror film that kind of just sits there before your eyes and makes you wonder why you are watching it. I sat through the film to the end and I really can't give you more than a cursory account of what the film was about because I kept finding my attention diverted by other things.

I can't really recommend this. I think my feelings are best summed up by the fact that I paid a dollar for the DVD as a double feature and I feel kind of ripped off.

Sentiment: negative
Visual creative epic of inimitable style.

This film may neither have the most alternative dramaturgy nor the most artistic acting. But who dares to say this film is no art? I'm not a supporter of the idea, that an important film must be serious, non-commercial or bothering me with questions. Even there are a lot of films, apposite to this attributes, that I like.

Bogus Journey, for sure, is not one of this films. What you get is pure, excessive creativity with a very positive charged, childlike energy. This film doesn't reflect reality. Its friendly-naive and utopian. Imagine the world of the future described by Rufus - for me it would be a pretty nice time-place combination to live in! Except of that music ;- )

Technically, Bogus Jorney is very well made. I always liked the cinematography and the sceneries of this movie. Especially in this point Bogus Journey tops its prequel by far. Also the effects are good, and I think most of them very made without cgi. I generally prefer the good old effects in big budget movies. Sure its 'just another Hollywood movie' out of some peoples view. But I think it is this in a very charismatic way.

A short word to the soundtrack: all the band and orchestral music fits very well into the film. Also the sound design has no lack. I am not a big fan of rock music, but I had to get this track by Winger from the scene 'station' builds the bill and ted robots in the van. I love the unorthodox camera work at its beginning.

Let me conclude saying this:

This film is very naive and very imaginative! It is way better than Panzerkreuzer Potemkin, The Godfather, Eraserhead or Aguirre - the wrath of god. It is absolutely superior to citizen kane, apocalypse now or chris markers sans soleil... ...it is even better than Total Recall... No way!? Yes way!

Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey is simply the best movie ever made.

Who dares to disagree makes himself guilty of "artsie-fartsy behavior" or likes Terminator Salvation (what is the bigger self-defamation)

PS: part 1 is not the better movie. So Bogus Jorney is a superior sequel. Not even Terminator 2 is a superior sequel! Its NOT!

Sentiment: positive
I am amazed with some of the reviews of this film. The only place that seems to tell the truth is RottenTomatoes.com. This film is awful. The plot is extremely lazy. It is not scary either. People out there who think that because it stars Sarah Michelle Geller it is somehow like The Grudge should forget about it. This film is more like Dark Water, except it is even more predictable and slow moving than it. I was extremely disappointed with this film. It didn't scare me nor interest me either. Let's face it , this type of plot has been flogged to death at this stage e.g. the dead trying to contact the living - Dragonfly, What Lies Beneath, Ghost Story, Dark Water, Darkness, The Changeling etc.etc. It seems to me that the only ones writing original horror films nowadays are the Japanese and the Koreans. The films that are coming out of Hollywood, like this, are cynical exercises in money making without a shred of respect for the viewer. They're just being churned out

Sentiment: negative
1st watched 2/18/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Leon Leonard): Fair adventure movie based on a novel by the author of Moby Dick fame, Herman Melville. This movie is about the captain of a ship who had stolen the eyes(that were extremely rare black pearls) from a native tribe's God sculpture and hidden them somewhere that only he knew about before leaving the Island of Tivi. He got very sick and was on a secret voyage to go back to the island to retrieve the pearls for himself while others(like his daughter) thought that he was going back to be treated by the local medicine man. Others didn't know the reason for the voyage. A stowaway actually knew the real reason for the trip -- to return the eyes to their God. The silly part is that the pearls were hidden very close to the statue and all this time the natives ran their tribe without their God having eyes(causing them all kinds of problems). Along the way, we are treated(for some reason) to a short underwater nature show with an electric eel fighting a local octopus(I guess only Herman Melville knows what this was all about). Once they get to the island, the Captain dies but passes the whereabouts of the pearls to his daughter but she also gets the sickness curse as well. One of the bad guys finds out where the God is housed and convinces the daughter to go there and steal back the pearls but at this point the good guys find out what's going on and a fight ensues. I won't tell you the results of the fight or the ending, I'll leave that up to you to find out if you want. As I said earlier, the movie was OK, but some very silly things that I've already mentioned lessened it's impact. I wonder if that new "Pirates of the Caribbean" got some of it's plot from this one ---hmm black pearls, a curse( I wonder) Well, it doesn't matter, those elements didn't make for a very good movie in this case or the other. It seems they would learn they're lesson, but with the money rolling in on that newer movie I'm sure they won't. Oh well.

Sentiment: negative
New York family is the last in their neighborhood to get a television set, which nearly ruins David Niven's marriage to Mitzi Gaynor. Bedroom comedy that rarely ventures into the bedroom(and nothing sexy happens there anyway). Gaynor as an actress has about as much range as an oven--she turns on, she turns off. Film's sole compensation is a supporting performance by perky Patty Duke, pre-"Miracle Worker", as Niven's daughter. She's delightful; "Happy Anniversary" is not. * from ****

Sentiment: negative
By far one of the best sci-fi films out there. However, it does take multible viewings to understand the concept of the film and to be able to appreciate not only the special effect, but the main plot of the film itself. It is my own feelings that this film film got such poor reviews because no one took the time to watch the film the way it was meant to be seen. It does have some moments you wish would hurry up and pass by, but they are few and far between. Hooper, who directed TCM 1 and 2 along with a remake of INVADERS FROM MARS, and THE FUNHOUSE does his best work here. Great score, good acting,and great effects makes this a film to add to your collection, if you get the chance see the widescreen version on DVD, highly recommended to any one who is a fan of sci-fi.

Sentiment: positive
I remember thinking that due to the cast, the subject matter, and the director, I was going to love this movie.

Stepping into the theatre and taking my seat, I was like a giddy schoolgirl as my anticipation for the opening scene built.

I was not disappointed with the opening and felt that I was truly going to love this movie.

If you haven't seen the movie and feel that anything that gives away scenes might be seen as a spoiler, please stop reading. I'm not going to give away anything really important, but it might be seen as such, so that is the warning.

Spoiler may be included below, beware.

I think that the first scene that really hit me as just utterly ridiculous was the Russian space station scene. I mean honestly, refueling a shuttle with no real prior warning, and then to simply show the station as being so fragile that a simple little mistake can cause the entire thing to just explode.

While all of this is possible, it seemed to me to be way over the top. I'm not sure if it was just the situation or if it was the cheesy acting, the silly view of the Russian technology, or just the campy attitude of the scene itself.

It only got worse for me after that because then we endure what seemed like 2 hours of constant super loud explosions in space...you know, that place where there is no sound because it's a vacuum.

But the coup de grace for me, honestly, was the gun scene. (spoiler possibility) - Earlier in the movie, we see Bruce Willis tearing apart their land vehicle (the vehicle that they will use to drive around in when they get there and to help them drill) when he is told that this is what they will be using. He is taking pieces off and complaining about it because much of what's on it is heavy and not required for what they are doing.

So then, as we are wandering onto the asteroids, we see that they have opted to add a massive gatling like gun to the vehicles...you know, standard NASA fare is to have heavy weaponry on all space missions in case, you know, aliens or something.

I could have taken the explosive 2 hours, the silly Russian space station refueling scene, the cheesy love scene near the end, the Bruce Willis character being nothing more than most of his other past characters, but the Steve Buscemi going mad and shooting the space vehicle's gun all over the place and causing havoc/damage, well that threw the entire thing over the top for me.

Save your money and time and avoid this movie. If you want a good meteor movie, see Deep Impact, if you want a fun space movie with awesome special effects, see Space Cowboys, but no matter what, avoid this flick.

Sentiment: negative
Nice movie and Nicholle Tom does a fantastic job playing the "guy in the girl's body", she really does it well.

A sort of teen version of many other movies, but well done.

Well casted, from "Matt" to "Matt2".

Sentiment: negative
The opening of Imamura's masterpiece avoids mere sensationalism in its depiction of the unfathomably horrifying events of August 6th, 1945, in which 90% of Hiroshima and tens of thousands of lives were annihilated in an instant. Instead, Imamura emphasizes the unprecedented strangeness of the catastrophe, focusing on such portentous images as the diabolic mushroom cloud louring silently in the distance and the black rain that spatters a beautiful young woman's face. The rest of the film traces the ramifications of the latter incident, bringing the atomic holocaust and its aftermath (over 100,000 people died of radiation poisoning) down to the intelligible level of the plight of Yasuko (Yoshiko Tanaka) and her small "community bound by the bomb."

The survivors strive for normalcy and continuity, most notably by attempting to find a suitable marriage for Yasuko, but the imminent possibility of radiation sickness shadows every aspect of their lives. Yasuko's potential suitors, naturally enough, shy away from a young woman, no matter how attractive, who might suddenly grow sick and die. Genuine love, when it finally does appear, does so unexpectedly and ambiguously. We are left wondering if love across class lines is more a token of Yasuko's status as "damaged goods" or of a common humanity, thrown into bold relief by harsh circumstances, that transcends class divisions.

The film's classically restrained style intensifies the impact, the spare, eloquent interior shots reminding us that Imamura began his career as an assistant to the great Ozu. Imamura's mastery is evident, for example, in the paired scenes of Yasuko bathing, the first emphasizing her lovely back and legs, the second how her hair is falling out. The shots stand almost as bookends to the narrative's trajectory, distilling its tragic essence. The film's documentary-style realism is violated for expressive purposes several times, perhaps most notably in a scene that lays bare the troubled interior life of a shell-shocked veteran. Both the score by the renowned avant-garde composer Toru Takemitsu and the stunning black and white photography contribute greatly to the film's brooding atmosphere. When, in the final shot, Yasuko's uncle (Kazuo Kitamura), the film's laconic narrator, looks to the vacant sky for a rainbow as a sign of hope and regeneration, the black and white imagery suddenly becomes so poignant that it is almost unbearable. Few films from Japan (or anywhere else, for that matter) could be compared to the great, humanist Japanese masterpieces of the 1950s. This film is one of them. When I finished viewing it for the first time, I sat stunned, unable to move for at least five minutes, overwhelmed as I was by the emotions great tragedy should inspire: terror and pity.

Sentiment: positive
Incredible. Does it get any dumber than this? Not a chance. The stupidity in this movie would shame even Ed Wood, De Palma, and Woo. If the first part in the series had mediocre dialog and the second one had bad dialog, then this one has cretinous dialog. Amazing. But this time the story has been lowered to the level of the dialog, too. In spite of the acting and the dialog, I liked the first two films, but "Cube Zero" will surely kill the franchise. The utterly moronic plot so obviously stems from the pen of a frustrated left-winger.

I sometimes wonder if such leftists even themselves realize just how anti-democracy and pro-dictatorship they are. In this movie they obviously target the US  a democracy. Why don't they target Korea, Iran, Syria, China, Zimbabwe etc. in anti-military movies? Sure, most of these places are hardly likely to produce a cube like this any time soon, but that's beside the point. It's obvious: writers of garbage like this actually admire these kinds of regimes, whether they are aware of it or not. I would even go as far as to say that ANYONE who adamantly attacks US foreign policies all the time, has anti-democratic beliefs in his core.

Back to the movie: apart from being so far-fetched that it isn't even funny any more, the film has many obvious illogicalities. For example, for some reason the two men who supervise the cube have done it for a while and are oblivious to the pain and sadism that the project entails, yet the first one than the other suddenly turn against the system! Anyone who has any idea at all about human nature will see right through this idiocy. Or how about that cretinous character, the one-eyed evil bureaucrat who talks as if he's in a bad Mel Brooks comedy. In fact, as soon as this creature appears the movie loses ALL seriousness and hence any chance of being exciting: it really does become a comedy.

Sentiment: negative
The thirties horror films that are best remembered are always the likes of Dracula and Frankenstein; and there's a very good reason for that, but there were a number of smaller but nevertheless excellent productions, and The Invisible Ray is certainly one of them. The plot is not particularly original and similar plots have been seen many times before (even way back in 1936) but the way that everything is put together is certainly very imaginative and director Lambert Hillyer has created a very nifty little original horror film. The plot focuses on the good hearted Dr Janos Rukh; a man who has discovered a way to recreate the history of the Earth. His discovery leads him to believe that there may be an unknown radioactive element somewhere in Africa and so he sets off along with a team of esteemed colleagues to find it. However, tragedy strikes while on the expedition and the good doctor ends up becoming exposed to the element; which makes him glow in the dark, and also sends him mad...

The biggest draw of the film is undoubtedly the fact that it stars the two biggest horror stars of its day - Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi, and both give excellent performances. Karloff really shows what a good actor he is and his character has plenty of meat for Karloff to impress with. Bela Lugosi has a role which is extremely different from what we're used to seeing him in, and it's a great performance from him also; it's nice to see a bit of versatility from Lugosi. The film does get off to a rather slow start; but things soon start to pick up. The second half of the film is the best and that's really when the film gets exciting and Karloff gets a chance to shine (literally). The film does not put its focus on big special effects and largely relies on the actions of the central character to keep things interesting; and it does work very well. The film remains interesting throughout and boils down to a very decent climax that wraps everything up nicely. Overall, The Invisible Ray may not be one of the very best horror films of the thirties; but it's a very good one and comes recommended.

Sentiment: positive