DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
If you made the mistake of seeing the movie before reading the book, please don't give up on the series. I bought my first copy of any of the books in May of this year, and already I'm almost finished with book 10. I dare say the movie is a piece of trash that doesn't do the series even a sniff of justice. While "Left Behind: the movie" only vaguely follows the story of the "Left Behind" (the book), the characters aren't even close to accurate.

A few examples: Rayford never acts on his feelings for Hattie (he is about to when he's informed of the vanishings); Buck Williams is a blonde haired, magazine writer, not a TV reporter; Chloe is at Stanford, and a lot of the book details Rayford wondering if she 'survived'; Buck and Chloe don't meet until much later, at a meeting in New York, set up by Hattie; Irene and Raymie are never 'in the book,' rather just in Rayford's flashback thoughts; the roads are so jam packed with wrecks following the rapture that Rayford and Hattie have to helicopter back to the suburbs... etc, etc, etc...

And that's just from the first movie; they're about to release the third. Please, even if you didn't like the movies, give the book series a chance.

Sentiment: negative
I could not, for the life of me, follow, figure out or understand the story. As the plot advances it too stays incomprehensible. I'm going to guess and say that there was a preproduction story/plot problem that never got sorted out. The producers could never separate the many details that the novel, or any novel, has the time and space to create from the other idea, which was to make a movie about a serial killer and the killer's pursuit by the police. They ended up with too many things happening in a proscribed feature film time limit. Too bad really because they had a solid cast, a director who knows how to move things around and excellent cinematography. In fact, a well made movie that one could enjoy and relax with for a couple of hours.

Sentiment: negative
Saw this film on DVD yesterday and was gob-smacked and flabbergasted. The unaffected acting of DDL just blew my mind, and I was surprised by the whole cast and its superb acting. All of the character were so authentic to me, I really took DDL for Christy Burns and Brenda Fricker for his mom. Go and see it! You'll cry your heart out, but you'll experience a wonderful catharsis! Besides, it teaches you one important lesson: Determination is everything. You may be a cripple in the poor suburbs of Dublin, but when you are headstrong enough you will have no problems at all. If you can only operate your left foot you are still good enough to be a painter or a writer. The worst thing you can do when you are mentally challenged is to indulge in self-pity. It won't get you anywhere and the only person who'll pity you will be yourself.

Sentiment: positive
Good footage of World War I-era ships and planes supplement this excellent war drama set in the Adriatic. Walter Huston is excellent as the commanding officer who knows his place and his place has no room for personal feelings. The safety of the ship and the mission must always come first. Robert Montgomery is the Lieutenant who has not yet mastered the role that a leader must play in combat. He makes bad decisions, endangering the submarine and its crew but finally becomes a "real man" after he is court martialed and dismissed from the Navy. Robert Young plays a lieutenant junior grade and Jimmy Durante as a cook. Paralleling the war drama is an equally important wartime love triangle between Montgomery and Madge Evans who plays Huston's daughter and the wife of a tragically injured aviator. Recommended.

Sentiment: positive
I would not compare it to Le Placard, which IMHO had more comic moments, but Romuald & Juliette while being a slow starter certainly kept your attention going throughout the film, nicely paced and reaching a heart warming conclusion :) There were many marvellous comedic moments, some brilliant pathos and realistic situation acting by all actors.

It was a typically French film, in which while confronting prejudices and phobias, which in turn the made the viewer confront his own shortcomings! I am certainly pleased to have this in my library, and will no doubt watch it time and time again, which to me is a mark of a great film.

Sentiment: positive
Visually stunning? Most definitely. I have seen few films look this good in some time. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow uses striking cinematography, computer graphics, and creative futuristic designs to create a world that is historically familiar yet something quite fresh. The time period seems to be the 1930s or early 40s. The movie tells of recent attacks on New York City by mechanized armies stealing generators and the like for some inexplicable reason. Also, mysterious disappearances of relevant scientific minds coincide. Who can stop them and save the world? Alright, it doesn't take a leap of faith to know it is the Sky Captain himself with his wisecracking reporter girlfriend always hot for a lead, and in the wings his trusty, thoroughly competent sidekick. What Sky Captain has in atmosphere and graphics it lacks in storytelling and characterization. The plot for this film is ridiculous. That being said, the film is going for a serial-like feeling of film serials of yesteryear. They had pretty far out stories and bad acting - but none of them, and I mean none of them, had the budget and big names this film had. Two academy award winning performers and Jude Law could keep a film afloat, one would think, but Sky Captain sinks miserably. Despite its fantastic dark look, I found myself wishing the film would just end and I could get on with my life. I had little interest in a story that generated little interest. I didn't care at all for any of the glib portrayals. Paltrow was just awful. Jolie was a joke with a role with virtually no substance. Law cannot carry the one-liner tradition all too squarely on his limited shoulders. I mean, let's face it, he's not Will Smith, Mel Gibson, or even Wesley Snipes. The sad thing about Sky Captain, at least for me, was that it held so much promise yet delivered so little. I was bored ten minutes into the film - waiting for something to hook my interest - and it never came.

Sentiment: negative
I watched this film in a Singapore theatre yesterday (4 February, 2006)and came away with a better understanding of what schizophrenia patients and their loved ones go through.

Ms Aparna Sen must be congratulated for not only taking on a difficult subject, but also treating the mentally challenged with a deep understanding of their predicament that is necessary to help them cope with the trauma of disorientation, hallucinations and the storm of turmoil raging in their minds.

We have had Hollywood movies on this subject such as "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" where Jack Nicholson carried away the honours. Since then research has helped provide more insights into the problem and clearing some misconceptions about treatment. In "... cuckoo's nest," for example shock therapy has been portrayed as barbaric, but in "15 ..." the point has been made that it is not as bad as it has been made out to be.

The other misconception is that abuse in childhood is a cause for schizophrenia. But scholars such as Dr. E. Fuller Torrey have emphasised that studies have shown that childhood schizophrenia is a brain disease and is thought to have some genetic roots.

It is now established that schizophrenia can be treated like any clinical ailment and its advance can be checked if detected early. Even in fairly advanced stages regular medication and counselling can be effective.

The same understanding shown by Ms Sen is evident in the way the actors play out their parts. In keeping with the gravity of the theme, the acting is controlled throughout with Ms Konkana Sen-Sharma's evocative silences and eyes mirroring the helpless confusion of a disturbed mind speaking louder than some of the rantings we are used to in most of the movies that have included mentally challenged characters.

Like me most of the audience in the theatre appeared confused at the abrupt ending. It leaves lot of questions hanging in terms of the plot.

Has Meethi's search ended? Why is she not found in No. 15? Were children actually playing when Meethi strode past the gates with her eyes sparkling with recognition? Can anyone sort out this jigsaw puzzle?

Sentiment: positive
Apparently I am swimming against the tide of the glowing comments on this film. I have not seen it since I was 4 or 5 years old but there is one thing I remember distinctly...

The Bunyip was TERRIFYING!!! Nightmare inducing terrifying. With the creepy music and the little girl and kangaroo running/hopping away for their lives...

As a kid I also remember the animated Hobbit... no worries. Watership down? Didn't blink an eye. Dot and the Kangaroo? It still haunts my dreams. And I have several friends the same age who also think it was massively creepy. Maybe we can get a group rate on therapy.

In short: one freaky film for its time.

Sentiment: negative
I didn't see They Call Me Trinity, but this sequel is really unfunny at all. It has many gags that are supposed to make people laugh. I guess the filmmaker just don't have the talent to do it right. Wonder why it was so popular in the 70s.

Sentiment: negative
As a long-time fan of Studio Ghibli and especially Hayao Miyazaki films, I went to the film right on the opening day. When I went out of the theater I had this strange feeling that something was missing, this "magical" feeling I was experiencing in all Miyazaki films before, but I couldn't say why it failed this time. After I thought about the other Ghibli movies, I may know the reason: this film had most of the elements of a great Miyazaki anime: cute characters, wonderful key animation, a great soundtrack composed by Joe Hisaishi and the warm story telling giving you the feeling of watching a high quality Japanese animation film. However, two elements were lacking: a deep story and dramaturgy. The purpose of this film was obviously to entertain small children with a simple story line as in case of "Totoro", so a complicated story as been told in "Spirited Away" or "Princess Mononoke" is not really necessary, but on the other hand, this story was simply too superficial. I could not connect to the main characters, because there was no character development, dramatic scenes were only limited and did not last very long. I really hate to give only 7 stars for a Miyazaki film, because I would give 10 stars to all previous movies right away, but this time it was simply not this wonderful "ghibli experience".

Sentiment: positive
I´ve seen this at the Fantasy Filmfest in Cologne and left the cinema halfway through this "movie" (with a bunch of other people), so maybe I´m not the right one to comment on it, but I think the fact of leaving "S.C." is reason enough to do so. "S.C." is a different film. People who need a coherent narration, characters or a plotline won´t find anything in this one. It´s supposed to be an experimental film, relying on the power of images. But these images have no power. They are so forced in their intention of simply grossing people out, that they have nothing else to say. The gibberish of the off-narrator is simply boring, the visuals are cheap. OK, the effects are good, but if that´s the only thing, why care? Husseins film wants to be shocking and thought-provoking - instead it is boring and annoying in its non-creativity. Note: Not every movie without a story is art and there is absolutely no creativity in breaking taboos anymore - especially not if everything is executed as bad as in "S.C.". I´d suggest director Hussein should either visit a psychiatrist or a filmschool, before he mistakes crap for art again. Note: I never want to see a baby getting slashed during birth again.

Sentiment: negative
This is my first comment on a movie in here. I have to say that of all the bad films I ever seen, including Braindead for an example, this is really WORSE! I promise. Don't even look at it. It is boring, bad acting, bad script and plot, bad effects the whole movie is one big piece of crap! If I could I would give 0 stars out of 10, but since the lowest is 1 which is awful, I need to vote that. But I would say the movie is worse than awful.

Don't pain yourself by seeing this movie and hoping it will get better because I can tell you already now, it wont! I hoped that there might would come one single scene which would be worth watching. There didn't came any good scene at all. 

What an excellent piece of crap. 

And Coolio as a vampire? LOL! LMAO! YARGH!

Sentiment: negative
To be hones, I used to like this show and watch it regularly, but now (thank god!) I don't understand why did I watch it. Sex and the city is one of the most pointless and insulting TV shows I've ever seen. I really don't get the point of this show, despite of trying. People are saying, that Sex and the city is funny. In what way? By cursing all the time, talking about vibrators and the size of the penis? Give me a break.

I don't understand the plot: we have four girls who are trying to find a perfect man by sleeping with every dork, who comes around. And this show is all about four spoiled chicks, who are sleeping with every man in the city, but in the end they admit the best pleasure comes out of the penis vibrators. And yeah... the show is trying to tell us, that sex is the most important thing in every relationship. If you can have a good sex, you're a good husband (or wife). It doesn't matter if you want to be loyal and having a good heart.. the size does matter.

The biggest problem is also bad acting. The four main actresses (Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattral, Cynthia Nixon and Kristin Davis) are so bad and unconvincing, that it makes me sick just watching this show. Parker is just screaming and complaining all the time, Cattral is showing her old boobs and saying "the f - word" all the time, Davis delivers her smile (and nothing else) and Nixon acts like she is bored all the time. And yes... men are sex - hungry pigs in this show. But, judging by this show, women are not much better. This show is insulting for men and women. The women are shown so primitive and emotionless, like they don't have any heart, just hunger for sex. It's insulting for everyone.

Sex and the city is one of the worst TV shows and I'm glad that the show ended, because it delivers bad acting and pointless stories. The whole world is not all about sex and vibrators.

Sentiment: negative
An atrocious offense to the memory and genius of Welles, this senseless assemblage of self-indulgent improvisation on a grand theme should have been locked up in storage along with a number of other unfinished Welles' projects no one has ever seen. Now we know why! To add additional insult to prior injury, the appalling English language dubbing by amateur America dubbing actors and even the great man himself only heightens all the sloppy mistakes in story-telling and construction. It's as if every weekend some good hearted Spanish soul gave Orson a few pesos, a 35mm camera and some short-ends of negative film left over from some other production and told Welles to drive out to the Spanish countryside and just keeping shooting anything and everything until the film stock ran out. It's true that if Orson had really shaped this film himself instead the notorious Jesus Franco, he might have thrown out 85% of what he shot, but we will never know. As Welles never took the time to edit his own work here, and somewhere along the way he or his heirs sanctioned someone else to do so, he is not entirely blameless for the debacle. Those who wish to prove that in his early days Welles was the luckiest of young men because he surrounded himself with the likes of John Houseman, Herman Mankewiecz, Greg Toland, Bernard Hermann and Robert Wise need no better proof of his adult inadequacies than this mess of a film. In his sad old age Welles was capable of doing anything when he needed a few bucks or pesos, including selling his artistic soul. The devil certainly got his due with this one!

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie when I was a lot younger but it captured me. I loved Orry and George's relationship so much. I was so enraptured in Orry and Madenline's love story. I am a hopeless romantic so it really got to me. I especially liked it when he first met her. I just wish he had more time with her and their baby. So you know in Book three I was so hurt that he died. I didn't really understand that because they had little time together. I just loved Patrick in this movie. I just bought all three books together and I can't stop watching them. My 12 year old son is stuck on it. He likes the fighting in the war. I cry every time. I wish I could meet Patrick and Madeline in person! It was a wonderful movie and cast!

Sentiment: positive
Sure, there's stuff here that the Coens and Elmore Leonard have done before, but so what? If you want entertaining, lusty and smart -- "Judas Kiss" is near perfect. Prudes offended by tongue in cheek porn don't get it (Talk about getting your sex and violence out of the way straight up -- keeps your investors happy. That's independent filmmaking 101). As for the Brits making a bundle, I highly doubt it. This flick is clearly a labor of love and the budget probably not half of Mr. Tarantino's salary. Maybe guys don't like it as much as women. I thought it rocked. Go Coco!

Sentiment: positive
Nobody, but nobody, could chew the scenery like the Divine One, Ruth Elizabeth Davis, and "Elizabeth and Essex" is a great example why. Although she overplays the part at times, watch her when she gawfs about Raliegh writing the lyrics to a song her ladies-in-waiting are about to play: in that one moment, she makes us understand how Elizabeth was able to rule and rule absolutely! At other times, she is done in by the script's sappiness. When Elizabeth has to be vulnerable, she comes off as weak and shrewish. This has the added effect of undermining her authority: when she blows her stack and threatens to dispense justice, it's hard to take her seriously.

Flynn exudes charm, making us see how Essex was able to worm his way into Elizabeth's heart, but he is totally inept at conveying the complexity and sheer evil of the man. It also doesn't help that Essex is badly underwritten. Why is he this hothead who wants to overthrow his Queen - even as he swears fidelity to her - except only that he is more blue-blooded, thus, more "worthy" of rule? And why does Raliegh betray Elizabeth by intercepting her and Essex's letters? He's in no risk of falling out of favor, and we know where Essex (and his head) is headed. So why does he risk his own head by speeding up the inevitable?

What did Curtiz do with all the $$$ he was given? He doesn't even bother to try to hide the fact that his battle scenes are shot on a sound stage. He should've ended it with Elizabeth the first time alone at The Tower; everything else that follows (especially the final scene between her and Essex) is unnecessary. The costumes are fantastic. And is it me, or does Bette look exactly like Susan Sarandon?

Sentiment: negative
I have seen this film many times and I like all bad teachers want to give it ten out of ten but feel that it would be unfair to other good films. However, I do think that this is one of those rare gems: a perfect comedy. It is I would venture one of the greatest comic films of all times. Matthau and Lemmon are perfectly matched and mismatched. The script is so sharp that you need to staunch the bleeding. The story is well known and has already been described in other comments. The two leads give extraordinary performances, the girls are superb and the situations are side-splittingly funny. Not one swear-word in sight (mark that Hollywood, you don't have to swear to be funny, you have to be witty) and the move from stage to film is seamless. They don't make'em like this any more. Timeless.

Sentiment: positive
Delivers great acting and greater Special Effects. Stars David Cronenberg, one of my personal favorites, as Decker. It's special effects on the monsters were so good, you thought they might be really deformed. Clive Barker, however demented, scored a perfect 10 on my list.

Sentiment: positive
An excellent example of what happens when one central body controls everyone. I liked this movie because Glenn Corbett also appeared in Star Trek as Zeffrem Cochrane in 1967. I also liked it because I am a fan of the apollo space program.

Sentiment: positive
I have to be completely honest in saying first that I fell asleep somewhere in the middle, so I cannot give a full opinion about the film until I see it in full. Basically, a group of thieves, including Sid Carter (Sid James) and Ernie Bragg (Bernard Bresslaw), plan to make a fortune stealing a shipment of contraceptive pills from Finisham maternity hospital. This is where title character Matron (Hattie Jacques) works, along with staff members Sir Bernard Cutting (Kenneth Williams), Dr. Francis Goode (Charles Hawtrey), Dr. Prodd (Terry Scott) and Nurse Susan Ball (Barbara Windsor). Patients and their visitors are around too, including pregnant Mrs. Tidey (Joan Sims) and her nervous dad-to-be husband Mr. Tidey (Kenneth Connor). Also starring Bill Maynard as Freddy and EastEnders' Wendy Richard as Miss Willing. This plan by the way is not working out by the way, because all the staff are getting in the way. That's pretty much all can say about the film until I see it again in full. Okay!

Sentiment: negative
This was so bad, I want God to give me an extra two hours of life having had to sit through it.

First off, the acting was uniformly bad. There was barely a plot, unless "Shaggy dog story with a guy in a rain poncho and skeleton mask instead of a dog" counts.

The editing was was all over the place, and the slow-mo shots of the "gore" (red corn syrup flying through the air--doubtless flung using a spoon) got irritating after the tenth time, and infuriating after the hundredth time.

I like Michael Rooker. He's done some good work. This was not good. This was less than good. And by that, I mean that it sucked. Hard.

For god's sake, don't watch this movie.

Sentiment: negative
Slow, boring, extremely repetitive. No wonder the Weinstein Company did not buy this. This Spurlock should eat more McDonalds while filming himself, and quit producing. There is no way you can watch this and enjoy. The preacher is a joke. The whole idea is not funny. You can make a 2 minute film with this idea not a feature. I am so sorry I rented this movie. I will never watch anything with the name Spurlock on it. It is completely garbage. Filmmakers like this should be on youtube and never be granted a distribution deal. The film states that the American Consumers and their shopping are at fault for the current depression when shopping and buying products, making money circulate in the system are the base of a healthy economy.

Sentiment: negative
Ever once in a while I run into a movie that is so embarrassingly bad I wonder why movies exist. This is one of them. This is a terrible attempt to parody The Godfather with annoying cartoon sounds, and bad dialogue. Eddie Deezen is just plain annoying as Tony, an annoying twit who upon his father, Don (William Hickey)'s request, takes over the family business. Tony, as I said, is an annoying little twit. This makes the whole movie a complete mess. The movie is terribly daffy. It's too cartoonish. The main point I'm trying to make is that you can't make a parody of an acclaimed drama like The Godfather with so much cartoonishness. It doesn't work that way. Believe it or not, you have to take a parody of a dramatic movie seriously. If you don't take it seriously, it will feel too much like a parody. The thing about doing a parody is that you can't seem too much like you're doing a parody. You have to make it seem like you're taking the movie at least a little bit seriously. It also feels like they're just mocking Woody Allen, and that's what makes this movie absolutely terrible.

Sentiment: negative
I think this film has been somewhat overrated here. There are some things to admire in it; for one thing it deserves credit for being a science fiction(ish) film which relies on its story instead of special effects and action sequences to carry the day. The supporting cast is good, the set design and cinematography are good, and the ideas are interesting enough (though they are beginning to seem a little tired after the many mediocre Dark City / Memento / Fight Club clones of recent years). But the film is undone by poor characterization, wooden performances from the lead actors, and a laughably bad ending.

The main problem I had was that the protagonist was neither likable nor unlikable. I realize that part of the story dictates that he should be a bit of a (wait for it...) cipher, but I was utterly unable to work up any empathy for a character that just seemed like a boring, anonymous schlub of a man. What character transformation there is for this sad sack is artificially forced on him by the plot. Lead actor Jeremy Northam succeeds in conveying that the protagonist is confused and hapless, but fails at inspiring any sympathy for him. Opposite him, Lucy Liu does what she can with a character who has no real personality of her own, unless being the embodiment of a spy-movie cliché counts as personality.

One of the biggest disappointments of this movie is the ending. I won't give any spoilers here, but I will say that a surprise twist at the end was telegraphed pretty clearly at least 45 minutes before it occurred. Further, after being content to be a quirky, idea-oriented movie for the first hour or so, the last few scenes suddenly and terribly devolve into the worst kind of Hollywood pap, complete with big explosions and special effects. The revealing of the film's McGuffin at the end is poorly done, and at the end the characters seem even less likable than they did before some of the film's main plot threads were resolved.

The movie's not all bad, though. It does manage to maintain a certain low level of tension throughout most of it, despite the slow pacing (although I think I have a higher than average tolerance for slow-paced movies). And there are some moments when the unsettled, paranoiac feeling that director Vincenzo Natali was clearly trying to evoke rises to the surface. But in the end, these elements aren't enough to overcome the flaws in the film's acting and script. There is probably a good movie that covers these same themes and ideas, but this isn't it.

Sentiment: negative
Steven Seagal movies have never been Oscar material but with each passing release they get worse and worse.

This one starts with Seagal getting picked up by the FBI because he killed a few people 'in self defence' he's active military so is saved from jail to rescue a stolen Stealth plane that will be used by the cliché 'evil English villain' that Hollywood is so obsessed with including these days.

Suffice to say the film has terrible dialog that is almost always delivered with a hefty topping of cheese and lack of acting talent. The story isn't interesting and there are segments of it which make absolutely no sense and do not add anything to the story, characters of movie as a whole such as the 'lesbian' interaction between the two main females in the cast which is there purely for titilation to get viewers and yet isn't even titilating just confusing as it makes no sense as to why it happened when it didn't need to.

In short a terrible script with bad dialog, delivered by sub-par actors, boring and at times badly choreographed action scenes, and non-relevant parts that only serve to achieve the near-impossible and make the movie even worse.

Save 98 minutes of your life and give this miss, even if you are Seagal's most ardent fan.

Sentiment: negative
Running Out of Time rests somewhere in the middle of Johnny To's cannon, in the "solid good" category. As a crime thriller it's not terribly original or overwhelming and the action scenes will not blow you away but it has something else going for it. It's a Johnny To film after all, it has to.

Andy Lau has 72 hours to live. He decides to play a strange cat-and-mouse game with a hostage negotiator of the HK police, played by Lau Ching Wan. That's the plot in a nutshell. On top of that To piles layers of twists and turns that keep proceedings interesting throughout. It occasionally becomes too convoluted for its own sake but never lets it get the best of it. However, just as Johnny To is about to hand over a slick and well-made crime flick (which, let's face it, are dime-a-dozen), he slips in bits and pieces that bring Running Out of Time alive as a full emotional experience, providing the soul and heart to the well-oiled skeleton.

The concepts of synchronism and minimalism (staples in his work) are explored in great effect here. Always subtle, letting the images speak for themselves, giving them time to develop with long takes and slow tracking shots, exemplary cutting to the score, it's all here. A small love story in a bus between Andy Lau and a girl is among the highlights of the film and part of the "heart" I'm talking about. So simple yet so powerful. Ditto for Lau's and Lau Ching Wan's car scenes and the bowling-room showdown.

However something stops me from claiming Running Out of Time is a masterpiece. To has all the ability and craftmanship down to a notch but he can also be too workmanlike or bland at times. When he's good, he's REAL good. There are even isolated moment of pure brilliance that are just TOO good for their own sake, leaving a bittersweet aftertaste for the rest of the movie. I'm convinced that if he puts his heart to it, he can make a really great film. As it is, this is another one of his films that is flawed but enjoyable. Underneath the slick HK style, it's the black humour and heartfelt drama that makes this a compelling film. Worth watching, definitely.

Sentiment: positive
STMD! is not a terrible movie, but it IS quite forgettable. The lighting is intentionally poor in many scenes and unintentionally poor in all the rest, so you are likely to come out of a viewing with a headache or eye-strain. Special effects are imaginative, but obvious. The gratuitous nudity essential for teen slasher flicks is there, of course, along with the archetypical teenagers, but the whole movie just doesn't gel. What was needed was some snappier dialogue and more tongue-in-cheek humor.

I can't really recommend that you use your time watching this movie. I often give a nod to a movie based on just a scene or two that demonstrates imagination or humor, but these are sadly lacking in this film.

Sentiment: negative
Mas Oyama was the most successful karate master of the late 20th century. He rejected the "training" of the karate clubs of the time focusing on an intense no holds form of training. He eventually built his system into a huge business empire with hundreds of schools across the world, without compromising his teachings. The testing in the Kyokushin schools are still some of the most physically challenging tests any martial art school requires. One non- physical hardship Oyama faced was prejudice due to his Korean ancestry and he spent time proving that loyalties were to Japan and Japanese Karate. This movie series was part of that effort although anyone who had the chance to meet Oyama (I did) would never question his allegiance to Japan. In this series, Oyama's most famous student, Sonny Chiba, is called upon to portray his master.

Oyama arrives from the countryside where he has been training alone. He challenges and makes short work of the established Karate schools he encounters. Disgusted by the state of karate, Oyama returns to his lone training. He eventually picks up a student, falls in love and gets in the way of gangsters who are allied with the established karate schools. In the middle of this is the legendary bullfight with a mad bull. How much of the film is true is questionable.

That Oyama could kill a bull with his bare hands is true. He was called on to repeat this feat numerous times. There are filmed instances of Oyama actually doing this, although sometimes the bulls seemed to be tethered as Oyama was getting on in years. Sonny Chiba portrays his master with conviction and the karate is quite good. Chiba may not have been the best karate practitioner but, at this point in time, he was certainly above average. 

As a whole the movie is good, much better then most martial art films in the drama department. I always wondered why it's not more well known. Possibly it the very realistic depictions of martial arts. People are shown getting tired and hurt unlike 99% of action film where the hero is a limitless fountain of energy and each blow instantly dispatches an opponent to death. Chiba seems so exhausted at one point that it hurts to watch. Perhaps viewers rather not have their entertainment reflect reality so closely.

Recommended especially for martial artists.

Sentiment: positive
Slow-moving ponderous movie with terrible acting on the whole - but lovely locations & clothes to admire, and, of course, Timothy Dalton, who does a compelling job, as always. I wanted to laugh out loud at the voice-overs - so silly!! But Dalton is always worth watching, even in bad movies, a wonderful actor, older now, but still very handsome and masculine. This movie is worth viewing only to see him....and he seems like he wandered into a bad dime romance novel, poor fellow. Your time would be better spent watching Mr. Dalton in 1970's "Wuthering Heights" or the early 1980's BBC version of "Jane Eyre". Poor Sela Ward, so lovely, but so wooden.... surely she's been better in other movies.

Sentiment: negative
foywonder's review of this cheap STV hits the nail squarely on the head. Make sure you read it. In case you don't, a group of scientists heads off into the deep woods of the Pacific Northwest, to fumble around with a bunch of bones in an animal graveyard. The Big Foot family doesn't take kindly to this, and proceeds to pick off the team one by one, largely offscreen. Big Foot himself has a distinctly ape-like face, but is less scary overall than Harry from HARRY AND THE HENDERSONS. Most of the movie has the wooden, generic actors pretending to be scientists tromping around in the woods and yakking away. This is a no-budget movie in which very little happens, at least on screen. We do get to watch the sexiest of the females take a shower while one of her male companions watches, but nothing comes of this.

Sentiment: negative
Trust the excellent and accurate Junagadh75 review! This film is compelling and moving in that roughest, most brutally beautiful film-masterpiece "way". File under UNFORGETTABLE STRONG MEAT. Or FILMS THAT HOWL AT THE MOON. Pixote gets into your nervous system and elevates you despite the pain on the screen. Here's an unrelated list of films that did the same thing for me, i.e. "engaged, destroyed, transformed,inspired, resonated... this category transcends nerdy film top ten lists that seek film perfection. "A Woman Under the Influence" , "Wiseblood", "Wages of Fear" "Saint Jack" "Funny Bones" "Out of the Blue".

Sentiment: positive
After recently seeing, Cry Uncle, by the same director, I decided to seek this out and am I glad I did!? This is an extraordinarily good film. Far, far better than it would seem likely given the ingredients. How many times have we had to suffer the embarrassment of someone playing a middle class Dad mixing it with the flower children aagh! And yet here thanks to a perfect script it is made believable. Not ideal, not good or bad but believable. Peter Boyle, as the working class, hippie and ni**er hater and Dennis Patrick as the uptight suit, play their respective parts immaculately and I can't remember ever seeing the two classes getting together like this without things getting sentimental. Susan Sarandon is effective as a hippie chick but doesn't have all that much to do in her first film. This is a truly, must see film capturing as it does that very short period in western and in particular US times when the counter culture was about to bust itself wide open.

Sentiment: positive
I love John's work as a singer, but the movie was dull and 'no worth the time' to view. 

I thought he did an 'ok' job at acting his part. When he says, "your having an affair with the ol' man", to his co-star, I kinda chuckled at his facial movements... or lack thereof. 

I would suggest the movie if you like John's music but not as a Saturday night video. 

If you love his music, then the video has a little music from him in it, but not much. 

So so.. at best

Sentiment: negative
I couldn't relate to this film. It failed to engage me either intellectually, emotionally or aesthetically. The dialogue was very dense and uninvolving. I couldn't connect with and hence care about any of the characters and I'm finding it hard to find much that's positive to say about it.

I've read that to understand it properly one needs to be familiar with some of the more obscure aspects of Catholic theology. I'll admit that, as an atheist, I probably am unfamiliar with many of the finer details of Catholicism, but I have also seen many films dealing with religious issues that have touched me because their themes are still universal to the human condition and don't rely on specialised knowledge or beliefs.

Sentiment: negative
It's a bit easy. That's about it.

The graphics are clean and realistic, except for the fact that some of the fences are 2d, but that's forgiveable. The rest of the graphics are cleaner than GoldenEye and many other N64 games. The sounds are magnificant. Everything from the speaking to the SFX are pleasant and realistic.

The camera angle is a bit frustrating at times, but it's the same for every platform game, like Banjo-Kazooie and Donkey Kong 64.

I got this game as a Christmas present in 1997, and since then, I have dutifully gotten 120 stars over 10 times.

Sentiment: positive
First things first, I am by no means a picky movie watcher. I'm not one of those people who gets movies just to pick apart the flaws and criticize, I, like most other people, watch to be entertained. I'll basically watch any type of movie of, no matter how bad anyone says it is (sometimes a movie's so terribly made and written that it invokes a sort of pity humor which i get a kick out of). With all that aside, lil pimp was simply pathetic. I saw it on TV and just didn't know what I was watching. It was too poorly written and cheesy to be an adult movie, and had way too much sex, innuendo and swearing to be a kid's movie, in fact, I doubt even kids would be amused by it. The humor (pretty generous even calling it that) was so pretentious and campy, I couldn't see how anyone with half a mind could even find it funny. The only thing that made me laugh was how people like Bernie mac and ludicrous could put their name and time onto/into something so hurting. Luda's character was such a cheap ploy for laughs, which fell extremely short of its goal. The plot didn't make any sense whatsoever, the storyline has got to be the worst sequence of events ever put together on screen. I could keep going on, but I want to see what people think of my reaction before I start discussing specific instances of pathetic scenes. All I have to say is it really has to make ya wonder how much time these writers spent on their knees trying ta get it made.

J

Sentiment: negative
OK, so I don't watch too many horror movies - and the reason is films like 'Dark Remains'. I caught this on (a surprisingly feature-filled) DVD and it scared me silly. In fact the only extra I think the DVD was missing was a pair of new pants.

However, the next day I was telling someone about it when I realised I'd only really seen about 10% of it. The rest of the time I'd been watching the pizza on my coffee table - nervous that my girlfriend would catch me if I actually covered my eyes. The few times I DID brave watching the screen I jumped so hard that I decided not to look up again.

The film-making is solid and the characters' situation was really compelling. The simplicity of the film is what really captured my jump-button - it's merely a woodland, a cabin and a disused jail - and a LOT of darkness. Most surprising to me was the fact that while this was clearly not a multi-million dollar production, the make-up effects really looked like it was! Also, it's obvious this is a film made by someone with a great love of film-making. The sound design and the music really made use of my surround system like many Hollywood movies have never done. I noticed on-line that this film won the LA Shriekfest - a really major achievement, and I guess that the festival had seen the filmmakers' clear talent - and probably a great deal more of this movie than I managed to.

Turn up the sound, turn off the lights, and, if you want to keep your girlfriend - order a pizza.

Sentiment: positive
If movies like Ghoulies rip off Gremlins, then Hobgoblins sinks to the new low of ripping off garbage like Ghoulies. These barely-animated furbies have some kind of scheme to fulfill fantasies (which involve basically groteque characters' sex dreams - oh joy), but what that has to do with anything is anybody's guess, except to let the director indulge his kinky penchant for erotica. They show this down in the 8th circle of Hell, one suspects. There's no real plot - just "goblins - kill!" and feeble attempts at humor and a mild attempt to arouse the viewing audience.

Sentiment: negative
And with those words one of the great movie publicity campaigns came to a conclusion. 'Garbo Talks' and she spoke those words in her first sound film, an adaption of the Eugene O'Neil play Anna Christie. 

Unlike with some other players and some other studios, MGM took great care in finding the proper vehicle for Greta Garbo. Many players who were fine in the universal medium of silent film would lose their careers because of talkies. Their heavy native accents would get in the way, some didn't know any English. 

It was no accident that Anna Christie was chosen for Garbo. First of all it being authored by one of America's leading playwrights, it was the kind of literary property that would have appealed to her. Secondly since the title role was someone who was Swedish, the accent could be explained. Finally a lot of the kinks from early talkies had been worked out, even though Anna Christie still made use of title cards.

Like most of O'Neil's work it's short on action, but long and deep on characterization. The story takes place on the New York waterfront where Garbo as Anna has come to live with her father George Marion. Marion ran away to sea years ago when Anna was a baby and Marion abandoned his wife. Anna has had to do what she could to survive in the adult world and that includes prostitution.

Marion of course is glad to see her, he even kicks out Marie Dressler, the old waterfront crone he's been living with for years to make room for his flesh and blood. Of course both Marion and Garbo have their problems adjusting to each other, not made easy when they give shelter to a sailor played by Charles Bickford who takes a fancy to Garbo.

Marion is repeating his role from the original Broadway production. The role of Anna on stage was done by Pauline Lord. Anna Christie ran for 177 performances in the 1921-22 season on Broadway. It's one of O'Neil's best known works and one that's revived frequently. 

Of course Garbo's performance with perfect diction even with a Swedish accent was acclaimed and her future in sound films was assured. Greta Garbo received an Oscar nomination for Best Actress and the film also got nominations for Clarence Brown as Best Director and William Daniels for Cinematography. Daniels should especially get a lot of kudos for the way he photographed the waterfront scenes. And Brown created the mood around the waterfront where the film is set.

Eugene O'Neil's work is timeless so Anna Christie even with a lot of the trappings of early sound films does not date the way many films of that era do. Garbo also shows she mastered the subtlety needed to work in the sound medium. Anna Christie is a classic, all the way around.

Sentiment: positive
I have watched this movie twice in the past six months (what I go through so you don't have to).The first viewing left me half crazed and babbling.The second viewing at 5am on a rainy morn was a little better.I only screamed in agony once.

 Seems Pocona (The Aztec Mummy)had the hots for a certain Aztec Princess who was"supposed to keep her maiden".Obviously they gave each other the business and were put to death for it.(Now that is severe!).But before they are the film tries to put us to death with a screeching Aztec ceremony.The singing will make your ears bleed.

 Anyhow there is the usual reincarnation nonsense. Not to mention a treasure map on a breastplate & bracelet guarded by that swathed slob,Pocona.By this time Pocona looks like he's been on a 2000 year bender and is after the defilers of his tomb.His groans & moans sounds like he has a bad case of Montezuma's revenge(or he read the script for this movie).That will make your breath stink.

 An evil Dr Von Krupp appears wanting the Aztec treasure(possibly to finance acting lessons & screenwriting classes for cast & crew).He is called The Bat because in The Curse Of The Aztec Mummy he wore a bat like cape, hat and something like a ski mask over his face.Guess it's better than the Laughing Fat Man.

 The Bat in typical mad scientist fashion wants to rule the world. He stresses this by rolling his eyes,laughing maniacally and chewing the scenery.He has cobbled together an invincible robot.Looks like the 'bot was made from a garbage can, a chandelier and the grill of a 1957 Buick.This will make your eyes bleed.A company even takes credit for making this tin can!

 Well the mighty showdown between Pocona and the Robot takes place in the Mummy's new crypt having been made homeless earlier.

 About half of this movie is culled from "La Aztec Momia"never released in the US in its original form but in a chopped atrocity from Jerry Warren(see my review on "Attack Of The Mayan Mummy") and "Curse Of The Aztec Mummy".The robot is frankly stupid as are most of the characters.If that and the plot doesn't make you howl with laughter nothing will.

 My first impression was so bad it would have gotten a one. But after seeing "Mayan Mummy"(which is a movie deserving of being burned) and watching "Robot" again, it garners a 3.You have to watch this with no expectations at all. Then it can be naively pleasant.

Sentiment: negative
this by far one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. I gave up to watch it after an hour and regretted that hour a lot. the acting is horrible and there is almost no plot. my guess is that someone came up with a strange shape of an animal and started to make a story around of it. borrowing some ideas from movies like Resident Evil and Aliens doesn't result in a movie like them. if this going to be a top Korean movie, I'd rather won't bother to see even a Korean movie trailer...

By the way, this movies is a good reason to believe that not necessarily a high rating means the movie is promising. I think every Korean who has internet for online gaming rated this movie over the 8, even though has no clue what it is about.

Sentiment: negative
While the idea is more original than most Sci-Fi movies, the execution is, as usual lacking. While the practical mummy effects are not bad, and the "Gun Nut" character is over the top giggle inducing, the only real draw is to see Morena Baccarin and Adam Baldwin reunited on the small screen. I suspect that was the idea all along. They do the best they can with what they have but the "must see" moments for me were in the first 40 minutes or so when Morena's character sported some Tomb Raider style shorts. Not high brow cinema I know but you can't deny true beauty when you see it!!! And Adam Baldwin once again hams it up as the guy you love to hate. If you just want to watch a couple of your favorite Firefly characters have a good time with some sub par material then this might be for you. If you want good acting and character development then be advised to look elsewhere.

Sentiment: negative