DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I have read all of Shakespeare's plays, seen productions of a majority of them and even acted in and directed some. I do not necessarily believe that Shakespeare must be done in the "traditional" fashion, but I hated this movie.

There is nudity that is gratuitous and unnecessary. There is grotesqueness that is far beyond what I believe Shakespeare intended. Some of the dialogue is incomprehensible, and there are those elements, like the singing and dancing that add no meaning to the movie, but replace Shakespeare with the director's self-indulgences.

I am sorry to say that I wasted perfectly good money to buy the DVD of this movie.

Sentiment: negative
From the start, you know this is a Sam Sherman film more than an Al Adamson film because as the credits roll, "A Sam Sherman Production" appears in letters as big as the title credit. Not only that, Mr. Sherman co-wrote the screenplay and it was his idea to use Bob Livingstone, a washed-up, 69 year old Western star of the old Hollywood era to be his male lead in a picture that Sherman thought would capitalize on the recent success of "Swinging Stewardesses". 

Now why would you want to have a wrinkled old man as your male lead in what is supposed to be a soft-core exploitation feature? It defies explanation, but that is Sam Sherman for you. His obsession with old Hollywood colored a lot of his films for Independent International Pictures, and he and Al Adamson frequently tried to get has-been actors for their films (e.g. J. Carrol Naish, Russ Tamblyn, Lon Chaney Jr.,etc.). But Bob Livingstone? Tell me the drive-in demographic knew who this '40's second-rater was; it's ridiculous! 

But then again, "Naughty Stewardesses" was a successful picture for them, so we can't just write this off as a Sherman fiasco. Still, by any aesthetic standard, it's an incoherent mess. Al Adamson wanted out of this picture, and it is easy to see why. First off, it has no genre focus at all and drifts around from super soft core (tits and ass/simulated sex only) to a kidnapping thriller (shades of Steckler's "Rat Pfink and Boo Boo"!) In between, we get subjected to painfully boring sequences of the stewardesses traipsing around Vegas to the hackneyed music of Sparrow, or Richard Smedley and Connie Hoffmann on a photo shoot in San Francisco. Worst of all, we get Bob Livingstone as a Jack LaLanne wannabe in a blue jumpsuit trying to be sexy...gag! (Thankfully, his big sex scene with Connie Hoffmann was deleted, but you can catch him slurping on her titties on the DVD in the Special Features section. Creepy.) 

This is a terrible, terrible movie, but I'll give it three stars for Gary Graver's photography and out of sympathy to Connie Hoffmann for having to make it with "Wrinkles" Livingstone. "Naughty Stewardesses" is for Al Adamson completists and/or scholars of exploitation film as Sam Sherman's commentary offers vital inside info. All others, BEWARE.

Sentiment: negative
Warning: This could spoil your movie. Watch it, see if you agree.

 To think that we as humans can not learn from the past. The futuristic society portrayed glamorized what Hitler believed, obliterate a race of people (in this case men) for the benefit of society. It made me sick to my stomach. Also the plausibility of a Y bomb is insane. Even in war our instinct for self-preservation will prevent the extinction of humanity. We made mistakes in the past ie: Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in '45 but because of that we avoided a bigger mistake in '63 during the Cuban Missile Crisis

Sentiment: negative
The main reason for watching this picture is to savor the brilliant performance of S. Ephata Merkerson. Ms. Merkerson dominates this film with her tremendous presence as Nanny, the woman who believes in doing good, no matter to whom, with no strings attached. This actress clearly shows a range that is amazing.

Thanks to director George Wolf for bringing this distinguished cast of some of the best Black Americans actors together. This ensemble group under his tight direction help create the right atmosphere in which the action takes place.

Of course, none of this would have been possible if Ruben Santiago Hudson hadn't written his wonderful play. Working with Mr. Wolf, perhaps the best theater director of this generation, they have opened the play in a way that it evokes that not too distant past where a child lives under the influence of Ms. Crosby, when his own parents are not around to take care of him. Ms. Crosby becomes the adoring mother of little Ruben; in a way, he represents her reward for having lost her own daughter.

Unfortunately, there is no time to develop some of the characters, as the action solely concentrates in enhancing the relationship between Nanny and the young Ruben, played with such charm by the young Marcus Carl Franklin, who is a natural. The only thing that could have been done differently was the voice over narration that is at times intrusive, as it doesn't clarify, or justify what one is seeing. Frankly, just by watching the interaction of the players, is self explanatory.

In the background there is always music. No matter what hard times these people are going through, but Nanny's house is full of laughter and that glorious music that takes us back to that era.

Aside from Ms. Merkerson, other notable performances are given by Terrence Dashon Howard, one of the rising stars of the moment. Mos Def, Jeffrey Wright, Marcy Gray, Louis Gossett Jr.,Delroy Lindo, Rosie Perez, Carmen Ejogo, Jimmy Smits and the rest.

Ms. S. Ephata Merkerson deserves to be seen by a wider audience. In "Lackawanna Blues", she clearly demonstrates she can do anything she wants because of her enormous talent and charisma.

Sentiment: positive
The plot of 'House of Games' is the strongest thing about it: a successful author and psychologist is conned by a gang of grifters, but in discovering the wicked part of herself that enjoys the thrill of what they do, she finally gets her revenge. That's about the pitch: but someone has to take responsibility for it coming across as being acted by puppets. It has to be the director Mamet: Lindsay Crouse has had a varied and pretty steady TV and film career, so she can't perform this badly all the time. She's supposed to go from uptight, cool, controlled professional to calculating, wicked fast lady having fun, as shown by the change from beige trouser suit (which she seems to wear for three days straight, including underwear) to floppy floral sundress. But everyone seems to be speaking their lines the same clipped, precise way; I imagine Mamet wanting to make sure not a syllable of his scintillating script got missed. The effect is unsettling and spoils the atmosphere of mystery and suspense he is presumably trying to create. At times 'House of Games' loses any connection to how human beings actually behave or talk, and becomes just a mechanism to spin out the plot. The clunky vibes'n'oboe faux-jazz soundtrack doesn't help either. The ultimate result is that the only entertainment to be had is in guessing the outcome, and the sooner you do that the sooner you will get bored with the robotic, two-dimensional performances. And they smoke too much!!!

Sentiment: negative
It has a great name, but thats it and you wont get more than that for your money, in fact the first 30-40mins of the movie you might find it some kind of funny but after that the story goes from one side to another with no particular reason and you just cant understand whats happening until the action its gone.

And yet the producers (Roberto Angel Salcedo) calls him an actor, but i don't think the way he does could be called nothing but overacting!!....period. The little kid who plays as his son has totally no sense of acting and i believe it was just a favor he did or something because he had no clue of what he was doing.

For some reason while doing the casting they thought that by casting comedians they could made it, but they didn't!! and sometimes the tasteless cheap humor its so bad, i don't buy it.

But hopefully this is as bad as it gets. To make people accept those DVD's to the good taste public they will have to offer some food with it, that might work out.

Maka

Sentiment: negative
Those of you who, like me, were disappointed with the original 1995 horror yarn, "The Fear" will find more to be disappointed with in this silly little sequel. It sort of follows a similar plot, but it is impossible to connect to the original, with the exception of the presence of Morty, the mannequin monster made of wood. Here is a brief overview.

Twenty years after Mike Hawthorne (Gordon Currie, in a decent performance) witnesses his father brutally murder his mother and then take his own life, Mike is still suffering from the fear of that day. In hopes of ridding his fear, Mike takes his girlfriend and a bunch of friends up to his grandparents' home. His plan is for everyone to dress up in costumes that represent their fears, and then present the fears to the mannequin Morty. According to an Indian friend, this process is supposed to magically take away one's fear. What Mike doesn't know is that Morty is possessed with his father's spirit, and begins killing off the friends...or is it really Mike himself doing the killings? Who cares?

A have a few troubles with this film. The first lies with Morty. I thought the original made Morty look rather convincing. This time, it is painfully obvious Morty is a man (actor Jon Fedele) in a fake looking suit. This can especially be seen in early scenes, where Morty is still supposed to be inanimate, but if you watch closely you can see him blinking. Another trouble is that most of the characters don't try hard enough. Some of them do, namely Betsy Palmer, of Friday the 13th fame, who was excellent in this film. But most of them don't make the effort or weren't given the chance. Finally, there are the killings. The opening scenes involving ax murders were very convincing. Actually, when I saw them I thought I was in for a good movie. When the second half of the movie arrives, and the killings really start, everything falls to pieces. Deaths are either uncreative, unseen, or foreseen (glimpses of the next scene as Currie has a blackout). One character dies in the end and no one, including the viewer, even notices. While more characterization was needed in the beginning half, it wasn't too bad. The second half was. I think new director Chris Angel got to this point and really didn't know how to shoot the violent scenes, so they turned out real sloppy and pedestrian. A silly ending doesn't help either. Thus, unless you really loved the original and enjoy plucking splinters out from under your skin, you should probably skip "The Fear 2: Halloween Night." Zanatos' score: 4 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is, in all likelihood, the worst film ever made. It is certainly the worst that I've ever seen, and I have seen A LOT of bad movies.

In this, nothing at all interesting happens throughout the movie. One could, literally, start the movie, take a short nap, and then wake up secure in the knowledge that nothing interesting has happened while you are sleeping. And I have seen this movie three times, staying awake throughout. I feel I should be congratulated.

The movie goes as one might expect, according to a formula, with no variation. Hunters capture baby bigfoot, get killed by parent, and the nearby town goes into a bigfoot killing frenzy. This is surprisingly boring for a Troma release.

So please do yourself a favor, and skip this movie. If you have to see it you will understand why.

Sentiment: negative
An interesting movie with Jordana Brewster as a young woman who travels to Europe in an attempt to find out what became of her older sister (Cameron Diaz) who mysteriously died years earlier. Brewster is very good and keeps you involved despite some unrealistic plotting, such as having her amazinly find and start a romance with her dead sister's much older boyfriend (Christopher Eccleston). Still, mostly good. GRADE: B

Sentiment: positive
Simply beautiful. One of the best mind-- umm... screws--- in existence. Both Rickman and Stowe play their roles to the hilt in this tale of a childrens' book writer who-- maybe?-- has written a subversive tract. Moscow could learn a few things from the torture techniques in this film. They could also do worse than hiring Alan Rickman. Five out of five stars, and at present (1-20-2000) #2 on my top 100 films of all time list.

Sentiment: positive
I just sat in the theater bored as hell, i wanted to leave halfway through the movie. The plot is simple 4 Samoan guys wreck weddings. So They have to bring a dates in order to get into the wedding. Yawn.

The thing that peeved me off the most was the so-called crude jokes... They were highly UNfunny, clichéd and thrown in your face, to make you get into the already dull movie. The acting was below-average and i felt this movie just went on and on about nothing but a bunch of unfunny jokes and a predictable plot.

All in all, one of the worse movies i've seen of 2006, unfunny, bad acting, just ugly.

Well thank god a friend shouted me. 

Avoid.

Sentiment: negative
I rented this film about a month ago when I had nothing else to do on a Friday night. All I can say to describe this worthless film is 'TRASH' The acting is so badly done I've seen kids in high school do a better job The whole cast seems like they're just reading their lines out, no feeling, no emotion, and no room to capture the viewer. On another note the special effects were insanely cheesy and the whole thing looked like it had been shot with a camera anyone can buy a radio shack.

The clown himself looks nothing like the one on the video cover. Heck he doesn't even show up in the film until near the end and all he does it hum songs and go around stalking a few characters. There is no real murder shown either so this isn't a real slasher film either Since I've seen it I've questioned a few things 1. If is 'Serial Insane Clown Killer' Wouldn't that be a Serial Killer who kills clowns? 2. If your friend goes missing why would you go out into the woods to have sex rather than look for her? Sad really.

3. Why is it that the only REAL acting sputtered vainly out at the end all of a sudden? Did the cast finally decide to show effort in their jobs? This film is as sad as they come. My advice is to avoid renting it lest you waste an hour or two of your time laughing more than screaming.

Sentiment: negative
You know those films that have you trapped in the cinema? You're stuck there in the best seat in the house, centre of the row in your own special sweet spot that you swapped three times before you got just the right seat - and after about what feels like 13 hours you are still trapped there, uncomfortable and itchy, thinking "When the F*** is this film ever going to END???" (You know the feeling - think of A.I. and The Village).

Well, Visitor Q delivers a weird variant of that feeling. I sat there for the first 30 minutes wondering when the thing was going to f***ing start! It is interminable! So "Arty" it hurts. This is the first Miike Takashi film I have watched. Apparently he makes films by the dozen and, if they are all pretentious w@nk like this, I suspect it will be the last.

I'm not against Pretentious w@nk. David Lynch is up there amongst the top 10 directors for me but Visitor Q is cut-rate, cheap, and nasty pretentious w@nk. 

As you may have worked out by now - I hated it.

Sentiment: negative
brilliant screenplay..

the screenplay is very tight ..that u will be gelled in seat..

this movie is an example for movie can survive only with screenplay and no-story needed..

story is very simple that u can write in one line. but screenplay was amazing..

brilliant performance by Vijay and Prakashraj..

though plot is similar to okkadu.. director adapted only the plot. Tamil version is much fast paced than Telugu.

Movie travels straight without any chance of deviation, though u can understand each and every characters back-drop.

keep going

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie today at the Haifa Film Festival in Israel after hearing rave reviews, but I guess the critics were just sucking up to Willem Defoe and his wife (the director) who were present at the festival. It is definitely the slowest movie I have ever seen with numerous pointless, ridiculously long scenes of nothing. Besides Defoe who was decent, the acting of the two and a half other people in the movie, Defoe's wife Giada included, was ridiculously awful (how they cast the part of the salesgirl at the bakery is beyond me). This movie is pretty much plot less with a lame attempt to be abstract and off the wall. The only scene that stirred any kind of reaction in the crowd was vulgar and came from nowhere as if just to add some kind of shock value to the dullness that is this movie. Sorry for being so harsh, but really this movie is a precious waste of time and money. I appreciate good indie cinema, but this movie is not worthy of moviegoers' time.

Sentiment: negative
simply i just watched this movie just because of Sarah & am also giving these 4 stars just because of her,on the other side This movie was easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Theacting was horrible. The script was uninspired. This was a movie that kept contradicting itself. The film was sloppy and unoriginal. its not like I was expecting a good film. Just something to give me a jump or two. This did not even do that. 

he worst thing is that, the more I think about the overall plot, the less sense it actually makes and the more holes we keep finding. A real shame really, as I'm fairly sure that there was a good idea lurking in there somewhere...

I'm perhaps being a bit harsh giving the film a 4/10 but given the actors involved and again SARA obvious writing talent, this film really should have delivered far more.

Sentiment: negative
before watching this movie my thoughts were like "another israeli typical movie" but i was suprised to watch i great israeli drama. the plot is really good and the actors act great. one of the best isreali movies i saw... so at the bottomline i really recommend this movie. :)

Sentiment: positive
Although I'm not crazy about musicals, COVER GIRL is a delight for classic movie buffs and especially for fans of Rita Hayworth and Gene Kelly. The film may be dated by today's standards and the story and songs may be nothing special, but the musical numbers are magnificently staged and there's a terrific cast to go with the film. Plus, the film is a worthy introduction for fans of Rita Hayworth...she's simply breathtaking in glorious Technicolor.

Despite Jerome Kern's collaboration with the film, his music here is nowhere near as special or memorable as his songs in SWING TIME (1936), yet the songs serve the film well. The dancing is nothing short of excellent, especially coming from Gene Kelly's solo number and my favorite musical number, "Alter-Ego Dance." The amusing Phil Silvers nearly steals the film as Kelly's partner. Otto Kruger, Eve Arden, and Edward Brophy give good performances in their dramatic supporting roles. And Rita plays a sweet, charming girl here; a role that's a far cry from her femme fatale babes in films like BLOOD AND SAND (1941).

All in all, this is a delightful film that's worth watching even if you're not big on musicals. Yet the film's music could have been more memorable if only my favorite period songwriters, Irving Berlin or Cole Porter, wrote the songs for this film. However, it's the glorious Technicolor cinematography and the imaginative dancing that are the real treats of the film's production.

While I was watching Rita Hayworth do her stuff, I don't think I've ever seen a more beautiful or graceful redhead dance on the screen since I saw Moira Shearer in Michael Powell's masterpiece, THE RED SHOES (1948). Just watch Rita in COVER GIRL and fall in love with her.

Sentiment: positive
I just saw "Valentine" and I have to say that it was the best slasher movie that I've seen in years. Unlike the recent trend of 90's horror flicks, this movie is more concerned with being eerie than it is with being self-mocking. For those out there that hated "Scream," there is not one reference to "the horror rules" in this movie (even though the old slasher movie rules do apply here). 

This is the perfect blend of 80's and 90's horror. You get the style, cinematography, and good acting of 90's films and the stalking-slasher madness of an 80's flick. I guess the year 2001 is going to finally give horror fans the kind of movies they were longing for. This is definitely a move in the right direction.

Denise Richards stands out here as a fun character. You can tell she liked her role, and that makes her stand out. I loved her in this movie.

Sentiment: positive
For those of you who have read Rohinton Mistry's highly respected novel, this film will definitely impress you, because of how honorable an adaptation it is . With the exception of one minor subplot, Sturla Gunnarson's feature film debut is an almost dead-on recreation of the book (down to the last line).

For those of you who have not read the novel, this movie might be a little tricky. It is certainly not a large cinematic drama story. Instead it has a strong element of realism to it, but I would not have it any other way. The best way to describe Such a Long Journey to movie fans would be to say that it is a small scale, Hindu version of 'Fiddler On The Roof'. Instead of a Jewish/Russian milkman, the protagonist Gustad Noble is a banker in 1970's Bombay during the time of the Muslim/Hindi war with Pakistan. He is forced to deal with a number of unexpected problems in his life, including his sick daughter, his individualist eldest son, a distant friend who gets him involved with some dirty money, and an unhealthy neighborhood. The Ending is not a happy one, nor is it a sad one, but that is essentially what realism involves. 

Such a Long Journey is a fine little movie, but if you want to see it, then good luck finding it. Unlike the novel, it has received very little release.

Sentiment: positive
This was bad enough. I really hope that there is no sequel. Maybe that is giving away part of the plot to let you know that it is open to the possibility, but no, it really isn't.

There is really not at all special about this movie. Well, the special effect were fairly good, but nothing to write home about.

There were some hot babes in her, especially Elina Madison and Alexandra Ford, but nothing to see folks. PG-13, definitely not an R. That also tells you the slasher aspects were less than spectacular. The shovel to the head was the only thing that was unusual.

Tame scare fare.

Sentiment: negative
The writers of lost have outdone themselves. Season two's finale is even more heartbreaking and intense than the finale for season one. Locke's lack of faith has not only resulted in spiritual consequences for himself, but in tragic physical consequences for the lives of the other castaways. Michael's betrayal resulted in a success for him but can he possibly escape the island? He will have to if he wants to stay alive. I don't doubt that one or more of his former friends would be willing to kill him in revenge. This finale has left more questions than the previous finale; and I can't wait for fall.

A side note: What is the point in posting a review just to write out all the spoilers? Where is the pleasure in ruining the surprise for everyone else? The current review on this page is nothing but a big fat spoiler fest, poorly constructed in barely readable English with the express purpose of making someone mad. Good job.

Sentiment: positive
What can I say? Curse of Monkey Island is fantastic. The story is good and solid, but appropriately silly, the jokes are hillarious, the puzzles are puzzling... you couldn't ask for more in an adventure game. The "You don't need to see my identification" bit is in itself well worth buying the game for, not to mention Murray, who has become the hot topic among many of my friends (only some of whom have played the game). You will love this game. And if you don't, too bad!

Sentiment: positive
I first heard of Begotten when a girlfriend of mine picked it up in a "cult classics" section of my local video retailer. She knew I liked obscure artsy movies so I rented it and brought it home. It sat on my TV for a couple of days and then I put it in the VCR just before going to bed. I thought that maybe I'll see what it's like first then devote more time to it the next day. What followed was that it actually woke me up. I sat through the entire film and loved it. After I went through the closing credits I watched it again. Only after you see the closing credits do you get an idea of who is who. After you know that you can watch it again with renewed appreciation. Don't listen to the people that tear this movie apart. It's not for everyone. If you're someone that doesn't like reading subtitles than this movie isn't for you (not that there are subtitles, there's no dialog at all). If you're someone that actually owns Rush Hour 2 then this movie isn't for you.

This movie is truly original and inspiring. It does what other movies have never done. It looks like nothing else and is bolder than just about everything out there - from 1989 to the current date. You can tell that everyone involved in the making of this movie truly love the art of what they do and understand what can be captured in cinema form.

If you're looking to be "entertained" then the movie isn't for you. However, it is pure escapism in some extreme way and in film form. It's like someone attached wires to my head and taped one of my worst nightmares. But this nightmare makes sense if you really sit and watch the images, dissect the action of the actors, and don't sit there noodling your guitar passively but watch and not blink.

People compare it to Eraserhead but Begotten is so much more. I'm not joking when I say it is my favorite movie. It's an important film, visually stimulating, mechanically inspiring, and hypnotic. One review I read about it is very true though, "no one will get through Begotten without being marked."

Sentiment: positive
The best bond game made of all systems. It was made of the best bond movie of all time. If you don't have the game Goldeneye you should rent it and if you don't have the movie Goldeneye you should rent it also to better understand the game. The best bond game of all!!!

Sentiment: positive
Could this be by the same director as Don't Look Now or Bad Timing? Poorly

acted, clunkily edited. You only have to compare the various accident scenes in this with similar ones in Don't Look Now to see how much Roeg has lost his

touch.

Even the generally reliable Teresa Russell (looking a bit chunky these days, I'm afraid to report) cannot save this one. The plot is pure pseudo-religious hokum, the acting is wooden and Roeg's attempts at his trademark dislocation of time are pitiful.

Avoid this one like the plague.

Sentiment: negative
For all of the Has-Beens or Never Was's or for the curious, this film is for you....Ever played a sport, or wondered what it felt like after the lights went down and the crowd left..this film explores that and more.

Robin Williams(Jack Dundee) is a small town assistant banker in Taft CA., whose life has been plagued, by a miscue in a BIG rival high school football game 13 years ago, when he dropped the pass that would have won over Bakersfield, their Arch-Rival, that takes great pleasure in pounding the Taft Rockets, season after season . Kurt Russell(Reno Hightower) was the Quarterback in that famous game, and is the local legend, that now is a van repair specialist, whose life is fading into lethargy, like the town of Taft itself.

Williams gets an idea to remake history, by replaying the GAME ! He meets with skeptical resistance, so he goes on a one man terror spree, and literally paints the town , orange, yellow and black , to raise the ire of the residents to recreate THE game . After succeeding, the players from that 1972 team reunite, and try to get in shape to practice, which is hysterical . The game is on , Bakesfield is loaded with all of the high tech gadgets, game strategies, and sophisticated training routines . Taft is drawing plays in the mud, with sticks, stones, and bottle caps, what a riot ! Does Taft overcome the odds, does Robin Willians purge the demons from his bowels, does Kurt Russell rise from lethargy, watch "The Best of Times" for one of the BEST viewing experiences ever!

One of Robin Williams best UNDERSTATED performances, the chemistry between Robin and Russell is magic . And who is Kid Lester ???

Holly Palance and Pamela Reed give memorable performances as the wives of Williams and Russell. Succeeds on Many Levels. A 10 !

Sentiment: positive
I thought this movie was excellent,for the fact that Corrine and Sean are newcomers to the business.It was packed with action and a little romance,but there were some points when Corrine didn't speak very clearly (when she threatened Sean with the gun) and she clenched her teeth...maybe she was supposed to?I think the roles of Joseph and Sonny were portrayed very well,and there was an obvious contrast.Also,because i watched next action star,i am certain that Corrine and Sean did their own stunts,which were performed very well.I am looking forward to another movie by the pair,as they make a great team,or perhaps a sequel to bet your life-possibly called 'making it big in the big apple',it could this time be about Carmen..Bet your life is EXCELLENT!

Sentiment: positive
I felt compelled to comment on this film because it's listed as the fourth lowest-rated sci-film of all time on the IMDb. WHAT!?!? Sure, this movie is crappy, but it's HILARIOUS! It's not awful on an Ed Wood level, it's more surreal and uneven.

There are some classic moments in the film. The brain surgery is gross and great- and even nuttier when you consider that the film was rated PG! Gor chasing after his dolly before getting battery acid dumped on his face- "Mine! Gimmee!" Zandor Vorkoff's speeches at the beginning of the film- "Before Amir, Kali was but another weak nation struggling to break free from centuries of stagnant feudalism!" Angelo Rossito also has some great lines- "No, Gor! No!" "You want these keys, don't you, my pretties?" It is absolutely wrong that this is the 4th lowest-rated sci-film on the IMDb because it is ENTERTAINING. No matter how bad a film is, if it still manages to be weird, quirky, unsettling, or entertaining, it has merit and doesn't deserve to be dumped on and dismissed. I won't defend most of Al Adamson's films, but this one, along with Dracula VS. FRANKENSTEIN and BLOOD OF GHASTLY HORROR, are entertaining enough to make up for their awfulness.

Sentiment: positive
This Wrestlemania just didn't do it for me. While some things, such as the battle royal and involvement of celebrities were a throwback to the good old days, so to speak, it seemed to be more of a highbrow "In Your House" than anything else. Above average...worth it for several matches such as the tag team title match, although worthy of note is that the title change meant nothing, as it was reversed the next night.

Sentiment: positive
I thought the movie started out a bit slow and disjointed for the first hour. However, it became more absorbing, fascinating, and surprising in its last two hours. So, while it starts out like a cheap horror film, it evolves into a beautiful and wonderful fantasy film.

Bridget Fonda stands out as the Snow Queen. This was her best performance and it is sad that this apparently was her last performance, as she has not acted in the last 7 years. She absolutely personifies both the beauty and coldness of Winter.

My daughter, age 14, found the film a bit frightening, so if you are showing it as family entertainment, please stay with your child and reassure her or him that it is just a fairy tale fantasy and not to take it too seriously.

It is really one of the best fantasy films that I have seen in a long time, slightly better than "Eragon" or any of the "Lord of the Rings." It is about as good as "The Golden Compass".

Sentiment: positive
Even 20+ years later, Ninja Mission stands out as the worst movie I ever managed to sit through. Scandanavian ninjas silently enter a scene, fire their obnoxiously noisy sub-machine guns with wild abandon, and then silently leave. Wow, how will we find those silent invisible assassins? Just follow the shell casings and smoke!Painfully bad dialog (or was it brilliant and just poorly translated?), not an Asian in sight in the cast, and a whopping total of 3 Asians among the stunt crew. The plot is ridiculous, the acting pretty much non-existent - then again, ninja can't act! Save yourselves - avoid watching at all costs!

Sentiment: negative
I'd never heard of zero budget "auteur" Neil Johnson before seeing "Battlespace" on DVD at Hollywood Video. A few minutes into the movie I realize this isn't a bad thing. Like many straight to video Sci-Fi movies, this is a film dominated largely by overused bad special effects and a constant parade of pretentious sci-fi concepts that fail to create a story.

Viewers are tortured with a religious sounding text introduction, then a spoken introduction followed by a narration by the main character's daughter. To me this seemed like a smoke screen to mask a film with militantly ugly visuals and zero character emphasis. Some people on here seem all too ready to take this film seriously and swallowed it's seemingly new age messages hook line and sinker. These favorable reviews must come from the same kind of people who can delude themselves into thinking that things like "Battlefield Earth" was a brilliant movie, or that Shasta is just as good as Coke.

Those who were lured in by the cheesy cover art can look forward to lousy acting (in small doses, spaced with long blocks of people not talking), rotten computer animated effects (in extra large doses), and irritating talking computers. What you won't get is excitement, emotional stimulation, memorable dialogue, or a good story.

"Battlespace" is impenetrable bull and the constant irritant of the narration proves it. Real science fiction, hell, real film-making, is about characters and their dialogue, not special effects and dull predictions. This is right down there with similar direct to video sci-fi like "Cl.One" and "Recon 2022". If the boredom of "Strange Horizons" and "Alien Visitor" is something you seek out, by all means, watch the crap out of this. If you enjoy good storytelling and hate fake lens flares, you're better off with a real movie.

Sentiment: negative
MASTER PLAN: have the winning team in a deadly tournament. One of several martial arts action pictures that attempted to capture the flavor of the famous "Enter the Dragon" from '73, this one is an effort from South Africa. The villain's stronghold is a bit different, appearing as a white castle-like fortress in the middle of the desert from a distance. The villain himself, a Baron or general, is a slightly more perverse version of the "Dr.No" or Han mold of master villainy, having strange flashbacks to the glory days of Nazi Germany. He does wear the full regalia Nazi uniform at some points. His main ambition in life is to hold an illegal martial arts competition/tournament against his Japanese rival, an extension of their complicity in the 2nd World War (my army is better than your army). It sounds silly and it is, though the suggestion of madness and crazed machismo almost works. The central hero, Steve Chase (Ryan), resembles a white 'Bruce Lee' character, having a similarly lean, lithe physique, though obviously not on the same level of martial arts expertise. I thought he would be some secret government agent here but apparently not. He and his girlfriend have joined the Baron's team of fighters, but decide to quit (what did they think they were getting into?). Of course, it's not that easy. There's an odd sequence of them escaping through the desert using a wrecked car with a rigged sail - those desert winds can do wonders for travel, it seems.

The plot kind of meanders in the 2nd half, as the hero joins the team of the villain's competitor and the girlfriend is held hostage by the villain in a cell, under threat of rape by the hero's rival. The most interesting character turns out to be Chico, a dwarf who is the villain's assistant; he's loyal to the Baron but is sympathetic to the plight of the hero. Much of the fighting utilizes the ballet-like capabilities of the hero, with a lot of leaping and slow motion. The sound FX are also amped up and exaggerated in an attempt to add more impact to the blows. There are a few good fights during the tournament towards the climax, but none really stand out. If one had to pick, I suppose the best involves the brutish muscle man-henchman of the Baron, introduced late in the story (he lifts the back of a car at one point). You wonder how the hero will take him out at the end, since the brute seems to shrug off most of the punches. The acting is very mediocre, descending into camp as far as the girlfriend, who tends to laugh for no reason, as if she's high on grass, though she is very cute. Some of the training scenes are also campy, especially all those guys running over or rolling down the desert sands. And, with such a title, there's surprisingly few actual killings. Ryan, as Steve Chase, returned as a traditional agent in the sequel "Kill and Kill Again." Hero:4 Villain:4 Femme Fatales:4 Henchmen:6 Fights:6 Stunts/Chases:4 Gadgets:2 Auto:3 Locations:5 Pace:5 overall:4+

Sentiment: negative
I'm afraid that you'll find that the huge majority of people who rate this movie as a 10 are highly Christian. I am not. If you are looking for a Christian movie, I recommend this film. If you are looking for a good general movie, I'm afraid you'll need to go elsewhere.

I was annoyed by the characters, and their illogical behaviour. The premise of the movie is that the teaching of morality without teaching that it was Jesus who is the basis of morality is itself wrong. One scene shows the main character telling a boy that it is wrong to steal, and then the character goes on to say that it was Jesus who taught us this. I find that offensive: are we to believe that "thou shalt not steal" came from Jesus? I suppose he wrote the Ten Commandments? And stealing was acceptable before that? I rented the movie from Netflix. I should have realized the nature of the movie from the comments. Oh well.

Sentiment: negative
Nuri Bilge Ceylan's 2002 film Distant (Uzak)- his third feature film (his first was 1997's black and white The Small Town- Kasaba), is a significant step up from his good but flawed 1999 film Clouds Of May (Mayis Sikintisi). The earlier film had potential, but reeked of a small budget and improvised quality in the worst ways- plot holes and wooden acting from amateurs. That Clouds Of May succeeded on any level was a testament to Ceylan's talent as a budding filmmaker. However, Distant is Ceylan's arrival on the international scene as a great artist, one who has many of the same qualities as other great filmmakers like Ingmar Bergman (although his screenplay is not as dialogue-heavy it is just as brooding, and he lacks Bergman's penchant for close-ups- his shots are usually long shots for exteriors and medium shots for interiors) and Yasujiro Ozu (whose penetrating scenes of contemplation Ceylan reconfigures). The bulk of the film takes place in snowy hibernal Istanbul (the fact that it snows in Turkey will likely surprise some), which lends the film a definite Bergmanian feel, as well as reminding one of some of the bleak snowy urban images from Krzysztof Kieslowski's The Decalogue. The natural images invoke the best of Werner Herzog- as they tend to go on a beat or two longer than standard film theory would dictate- which is what makes them even more memorable, while the urban landscapes range from the nearly Precisionist compositions of Michelangelo Antonioni to the cultural hagiography of Woody Allen- one shot of a bench overlooking water is a direct quotation (read steal) from Manhattan, save the lack of the Brooklyn Bridge in the background. In another scene, Ceylan similarly quotes a famous shot of a ship in the harbor from Ozu's Tokyo Story. Yet, like all great artists, Ceylan makes his appropriations his own art, by slightly altering them and keeping them apropos to his own film's needs. Distant is a film whose title suffuses the characterization within the film and the feeling some viewers will have toward them, but it does not describe the film itself, for scenes stay with one long after the film ends. Perhaps the most memorable scene and image of the film comes when Mahmut stalks his ex-wife at the Istanbul airport, and watches her with her new husband as they head to board the plane that will remove her from his life forever. As he watches her, from a distance, we see her catch just a glance of him watching her. Will she leave her husband and return to Mahmut? Not in this film. He pulls back behind a column, and Nazan merely turns her head back to her future. Mahmut is her past, and she knows how to best move on- just keep moving. Mahmut will never get it. Most rarely get such moments of insight into themselves of life. That some viewers will get the film, and that Ceylan gets his own powers of creation, shows that ignorance can teach, as long as one moves about it. Distant does, albeit it at just the right length.

Sentiment: positive
I got to watch this movie in my french class as part of lets say "french culture". I thought the way it was filmed and the editing was real good but mostly it was entertaining especially the guy that played Wendy's brother. Also the story line was really good as well as it was believable and yet adventurous as well.

Favorite Part: When William is making fun of the German guy studying and when he acts out how flies reproduce! :) 

My french isn't that good but with the subtitles i could pretty much get what was going on. 

WATCH IT!

Sentiment: positive
I shudder to think what people must have thought of environmentalists after viewing this piece of overbearing, preachy cinematic trash. Larded with enough Indian-wannabe nuttery and space brother buffoonery to stock a new-age shop, Starlight makes anyone who gives a damn about the planet look like a feather-wearing crystal-fondling idiot.

The plot? Alien Rae Dawn Chong arrives to guide a flute playing underwear model in a mystical quest to avert Earth's impending environmental collapse. But first they must defeat an evil alien who looks nothing so much like a refugee from a Castro street bar. Fortunately, they've got mystical grandpa Willie Nelson along to help (who looks faintly embarrassed by the proceedings, as well he ought to be) along with buckets of cheap F/X and reams of pointlessly swelling music.

Sure, the clunky script helps to obscure the film's trite plot and staggering pace, but that's just the tip of this melting movie iceberg. Everyone concerned with this film should have their union cards revoked until they complete a real course in environmental science.

Sentiment: negative
With 'Twelve Monkeys' you need to pay attention, but if you do that you probably find a lot to appreciate. I know I did. The story is interesting and deals with time traveling. A virus killed a lot of people back in 1997 and a guy named Cole (Bruce Willis) is send back to 1990 and 1996 to find a cure for the virus. In 1990 he is arrested and put in a mental hospital. There he meets Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt), who probably has something to do with the virus. He also meets psychiatrist Dr. Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe) who doesn't believe him in 1990. When Cole disappears from the mental hospital while he is chained and locked in a room and re-appears in 1996 Kathryn starts believing Cole's stories.

The movie constantly plays with time. Cole makes a phone call and leaves a message in 1996, it is picked up in the future and "they" send someone. For Cole that someone appears only seconds after the phone call. Things like this happen throughout the movie and therefore you must keep attention. You could ask some questions but since you can't have an answer yourself it is better to agree with the movie.

'Twelve Monkeys' works as sci-fi, with some great images and a dark atmosphere, and it works as a thriller. You are never certain of what will happen next and that helps the movie. May be it has some flaws in the story, but since it is about a fictional thing like time traveling, you should accept what the movie tells us and just try to enjoy. That was the easy part for me.

Sentiment: positive
I enjoyed this film very much. Many Korean people will feel familiar with this film because many of them have tutors when they go to school. Cinematography was average. The movie would have been better if the angel or the movement of the camera was more irregular. Editing, however, was very neat and unusual.

The acting was also very good. Kim Ha Neul usually played an innocent, weak girl in the Korean soap-opaeras. But this time, she plays a cute tomboy very well. Kwon Sang Woo also plays his role very believable.

What I like the most about this film is, the emotion of the characters are not too exaggerated. There are many Korean romance films that the characters cry river before the audience and I always thought it was very stale. There was no such crap in this movie.

Very funny and well-done.

Sentiment: positive
All Risto Jarva's films are worth of seeing. Some like "Jäniksen vuosi" and "Loma" are best films in their genre and have reached a status of a classics in Finnish cinema-history.

Most people have formed a impression of actor Antti Litja through Jarva's films. Litja acted leading role in three of Jarva's films which all became successes at box office and movie reviews.

It's nice to see that idea of "Jäniksen Vuosi" still lives in commercials (I think it was tele-operator Sonera's TV add where Litja was walking in mountain fell at Lapland with hare in his arms. Everibody who has seen the film knows what I am talking about..) "Jäniksen Vuosi" Is a beautiful film with great actors and good filming locations - like famous small town in Lappland, Sodankylä, where the best Film festival in the world is held - The Midnight Sun Film Festival. I recommend it for all to go there on June - but remember warm clothes and raincoat :)

Sentiment: positive