DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
...a film comes along that manages to be absolutely terrible from the opening titles on through to the studio logo tagged at the end of the closing credits. This was such a film - the very type you can not stop watching for fear of missing a moment of its ever-descending quality.

Forget the low budget that's indicated by a slow, monotonous opening sequence that shows secret service agents running alongside a presidential motorcade with no crowds, no traffic or location discernible. Forget the jumbled logic needed to even remotely make the actual plot seem plausible. Forget that Roy Scheider delivers some of the hammiest dialogue whilst completely failing to hide his shame.

This clunker is terribly paced, bombarded by a score that's simply laughable, and seems edited by a third grader. All the while twisting scenarios to cover up the hardest thing about filming a presidential storyline on the cheap: making him seem presidential.

I honestly feel asleep briefly in the last reel, and when I awoke, I ran it back so as not to miss a single excruciating frame. Try this drinking game: take a shot every time you see it blatantly aping another much better film. You'll doze off, too.

Not since 'The Man' w/ Samuel L. Jackson and Eugene Levy have I seen such a delightfully unredeemable project. I may give out copies as Christmas gifts. Zero stars. A thousand laughs.

Sentiment: negative
I have seen this movie twice now on cable. The first time I saw it, it caught me by suprise. The skaters I was seeing were the guys we followed in the pages of Skateboarder magazine back in the late 70's. These were the guys we copied and tried to become while skating. I am glad that a film was finally made that gives an accurate account of how it all came to be. I am almost 40 years old now and I guess a pretty uptight kind of guy with all of life's problems, however; this film did a great job of taking me back. Back to the vacant pools, the backyard halfpipes and the road trips to Cherry Hill NJ. I suspect that in order to really understand this movie and appreciate it, you had to live it. Otherwise, it probably won't have the impact on you as it did me. But for those of you (and you know who you are), who did live it, you know exactly what I am talking about! In any event, I don't care who you are, if you get a chance to see this movie...do it! I give thanks to the Z-Boys of Dogtown for the memories of my youth and thanks to Stacy for making this movie! JOB WELL DONE!

Sentiment: positive
I had a hard time sitting through this. Every single twist and turn is predictable. You're sitting there just waiting for it ... waiting for it ... and yes, there it is! Just as you predicted at the very beginning of the movie. Or 10 minutes out. Et cetera. 

Smart writing? No. 

Torture porn? No, there's no nudity. Other reviews calling this torture porn are most likely written by people on heavy drugs. Unfortunately there's no torture and no nudity (yes, no nudity).

There's no suspense at all in this "thriller". The only good part about this movie is the ending, but I'm not going to spoil that.

I'm giving it a 2/10. A 1/10 would be a horrible B-movie. This movie had better acting.

Sentiment: negative
From everything I'd read about the movie, I was excited to support a film with a Christian theme. Everything about the movie was very unprofessionally done. Especially the writing! Without good writing a movie doesn't have a chance. The writer/director said in an interview that he didn't want to give away how the title relates to the story. Believe me, it was NO big surprise. I kept waiting for the teenage/young adult back-story to unfold, but it never did. As someone who has gone through a divorce, I was very disappointed. This movie would have been NO comfort to me when I first went through the emotional turmoil that divorce can bring to your life as a Christian!

Sentiment: negative
Oh noes one of these attack of the Japanese ghost girl movies... i don't even remember how many i've seen. maybe it sells... but not to me. not scary at all. the japanese horror movies are have been very similar since the first one of these... also the pulling of the kid. i have seen that pulled under scene so many times in so many horror movies. cellphone scene is also nothing new... the dramaticness of the guy getting hit by a train kinda sucked... i mean it lacked all dramaticness... OK this is for kids 14-16 who listen to japanese rock and think they are so unique... we'll let me tell you. there's a million of you =D this is one of them. 3/10 i've seen worse but you won't be missing anything by NOT seeing this!

Sentiment: negative
Even not being a fan of the "Star Trek" movies or universe of shows and books and such, I still find some enjoyment in some of the movies featuring the old cast and in the case of "First Contact" even the new cast a bit. This one though was kind of sad to watch...it seemed to want to be so much, but it failed on so many levels to be one of the worst Star Trek movies. The plot is very far fetched seeming to want to combine three or four stories into one ultimate Trek adventure, but it ends up an unfunny when it tries to be, not tense when it wants to be and not action packed like it tries to be mess of inconsistencies. The whole movie to take a phrase from Spock is illogical. The effects are nothing special as I have seen episodes of Next Generation that are just as good, which is to say it is fine for a television show, but not a major motion picture. The plot is laughable as the gang at first tries to stop Spock's brother then joins him on his quest to find God, yes you read that correctly. The Klingons make a tacked on appearance, which actually will set up the much better Undiscovered Country movie. All in all you know it is bad when the best part of the film is Kirk, Bones and Spock singing row your boat, well Spock was not really singing, but rather questioning the lyrics.

Sentiment: negative
So I turned on HBO which I just got thinking that it would have some quality movies and I saw this. Carrot Top is so unfunny it's nauseating to watch. I've seen unfunny movies before but I think I find this one so impossible to watch because Carrot Top seems to think he's hilarious. Watching this movie is really like watching a movie designed for 5 year olds with crazy, over the top overreactions replete with ultra stupid jokes that only a 4 year old would appreciate.

What is amazing is how some other talented actors actually signed on for this project, such as Larry Miller and M Emmet Walsh. If you've ever seen Carrot Top's absolutely horrible MCI commercials (or whatever they were) then this is more of the same, just worse. It's a slapstick fest that is a waste of a high budget that could have done something, saved homeless people... anything but this. I'm not sure it's in the bottom 50 of all time but for the $10 million spent it's a disgrace.

Sentiment: negative
First of all, the entire script is mostly improv, adding to the fantastic illusion that what we are watching is an actual documentary. Secondly, the actors hired by Watkins were purposefully chosen to represent their true political alliances and backgrounds. The hippies portrayed are actual hippies, the government officials (though not necessarily in the government themselves) are at least actually hearty conservatives within the system, and several of the cops are actual policemen. The interactions of these actors, given the textual freedoms alloted by Watkins, eventually come to a violent head where even Watkins himself is convinced that a cast member had actually been shot. (We hear him screaming "Cut! Cut!" in the background.)

An AMAZING film though American critics were quite harsh in their reviews, one actually reporting that it was the "most offensive" film she had ever seen. This not entirely unexpected as the unveiling of this oppressive communist-like mentality of America during this era would certainly rattle some cages. This pseudo-documentary definitely requires an open mind, though if you are seriously looking for an intensely accurate portrayal of 60s culture, this would be THE film to watch.

Sentiment: positive
Having developed a critical eye for film, and a love for good cinema, I went to see Antwone Fisher with my breath symbolically held. While I am an unabashed fan of Denzel Washington - both of his skill as an actor and of his public persona; I am an honest enough fan to admit the (very few) times when he hasn't quite hit the mark in a film or two. And I could be wrong about those - after all, I am not an actor. But this was different - Denzel would pour his career's experience into, and guide, a film handling one of the most sensitive topics known to man - the abuse of a child. As his directorial debut, no less. And develop the film to point that it would successfully present the triumph of a man. I didn't want to be disappointed.

And I wasn't.

What I did see is a film full of promise that connected diverse audiences, and gave the inexperienced viewer a brief, but truthful eye into the life of a young man whose childhood was a living hell, but who triumphed despite it all. This film did it - and nary a dry eye of any color in the theatre proved it. It takes someone to know the topics in this film to know when truth is presented. It takes a talented filmmaker to tell you the story convincingly when you haven't experienced it. And if he can further draw an audience in, and cause an audience to emotionally respond, without pity, the filmmaker has done his job. In any film. Black, white, purple or polka dotted. That is what makes good cinema. Bravo, Denzel Washington, Derek Luke, Joy Bryant and most of all, Antwone Fisher - you have indeed won.

Sentiment: positive
Being a middle aged mom myself, I very much appreciated seeing a romance between grown-up people that weaves in the many issues that effect us. 

Diane Lane beautifully portrays Adrienne and the sacrifice and conflict that a mother goes through, wanting to do what is right for her children, but still have a happy life herself. 

I am not a big Richard Gere fan, but he always does a good job with the guy who is sort of jerk, but learns something about himself.

Criticism of their romance as unrealistic is hardly justified when compared to most other romantic movies. When Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman fall in love riding across Australia, with barely a conversation between them, its considered high romance. We get so much more here with Rodanthe. She redeems him. He sets her free. Its beautiful. 

The intimacy they create by sharing their deepest insecurity, fans into a flame of passion. How long it takes is irrelevant. Perhaps the movie was a bit too subtle in the point that it was the letters they shared over the following year that deepened their relationship- again another real-life time-honored way to get to know a person.

As much as I enjoyed the plot and themes, the dialogue was not consistent in quality. Some lines rang so true, and other lines were embarrassingly trite and flat. 

I also enjoyed the relationships with Adrienne's teenage daughter and her best friend, reminding us that there are many types of love, not just romantic love.

This is not a lighthearted romantic comedy, more a romantic drama. It does have a very relaxed pace that some might consider too slow. 

The beach house is a work of art- fabulous. Look for the driftwood bench on the porch in the first pan-over the house- very beautiful. I also enjoyed the music and scenery, which combined to create the effect of the location as being the third main character. It was this place away from their regular lives that allowed them to see themselves and each other in a different light.

If you are old enough to appreciate these themes and are in the mood for a good cry- get out the Kleenex and enjoy this movie.

Sentiment: positive
A look at three geishas who are way past their prime. Now they look back on their pasts with fondness and bemoan their present. Kin (played by Floating Weeds' Haruko Sugimura) has sworn off men and has made a good living as a moneylender; everyone on the block owes her. The other two, Nobu and Tamae, wish they could land husbands, but are not foolish enough to believe they ever will. Meanwhile, their children - one has a son and one a daughter - are both about to get married (not to each other). Tamae is irked at how much prettier her daughter has become than her, and bitterly tries to convince her not to marry the man. Nobu's concerns about her son are more legitimate in nature, but they are also (understandably) self-serving. After her son leaves, she'll be alone. A bit into the film, two of Kin's former clients come looking for her, one a man so obsessed with her that he tried to get her to commit double suicide with him, the other one of her handsomest clients. Unfortunately, he comes for her money, not her love. The way I've described the film makes it sound unrelentingly depressing, but it's really not. Sad, but not fatally so. It's more bittersweet. Unfortunately, I only marginally liked Late Chrysanthemums. The story seems better when I look back on it, but it is very slow and dull. I actually nodded off twice during the film, and I wasn't at all tired before I started it. This is the kind of film that I can appreciate more than like; it reminds me very much of my reaction to a couple of Ozu's more famous films. 7/10.

Sentiment: positive
Let me be clear. I've used IMDb for years. But only today I went through the trouble of registering on the site, just so I could give this movie the lowest possible rating. I've seen hundreds of films, some of them bad, a few awful. Never, though, have i seen such a contrast of pretense and incompetence, of high intentions and failure.

Mira Sorvino is horribly cast as the princess, but entirely unbelievable as Phocion, a young boy. Fiona Shaw is always an entertaining character, but the dialogue in the film is much worse, even, than in the insipid French play that is the source (Marivaux never reached Hollywood until now, and we should keep it that way).

To illustrate, for example, that Leontine is a brilliant, passionate philosopher and scientist, she is shown frantically pouring chemicals from beaker to beaker, shouting out names of famous scientists. And the romance between Agis and the princess is played even sillier. For this, the pair should receive a joint 'Clair Danes' award, which in a just world would be awarded for gratuitously anachronistic and uninspired re-interpretation of interesting teens from literature as brats of the 1990's (see Miss Danes in Les Miserables).

Aside from the atrocious plot and dialogue, there are some attempts to introduce artistic tropes into the filming. For example, there are moments when a handful of spectators are faded in and out of view of the action, sitting in chairs, watching the principal characters. The Director wants us to realize she's adapted a play. I get it. But it doesn't happen at all until far into the film. At that point, seeing a crowd of people sitting in chairs for a moment, then disappearing, is creepy and distracting. They're like some sort of un-scary zombie crowd, appearing through the mists, filling us with dread. When you see the horrible frolic and song that ends this movie, you'll want to rouse your own crowd of zombies and kill them all for the grave injustise of poisoning your mind for 112 minutes.

-Matthew McGuire

Sentiment: negative
Take someone you love or want to love and go see this film.

It touches you in all the right places.

All the other reviewers here have said it all.

Perhaps the cynical will not be impressed.

They only seem to like the stuff that leaves you depressed for days.

This film is Ga-run-teed to stay with you for life.

I am so gratified that the Director is not USC trained.

This validates my premise that there is too much mediocrity and conformity in film these days.

It is because of the USC lockstep mentality and inbreeding.

Hooray for Jeff Hare and Richard Marcus, cast and crew. Well Done!

Sentiment: positive
There was a lot of hype of this movie and the commercials made it seem like it would be great. Sadly, like Bring It On 2, Bring It On 3 shamed glory of the original Bring It On. There is shameless stereotyping throughout the film. The lines given to the actors were humiliating for all the races involved in the film. The performance of Hayden Panattiere was sub-par both in terms of acting and cheerleading. There were several scenes in which I literally cringed because I was embarrassed for the cast because the scene (lines, plot, etc) were just so stupid. My recommendation to the makers of any future Bring It On films is that you should hire good cheerleaders and teach them to act because the "acting" of the cast was horrendous and their lack of cheerleading ability made them completely useless to the film. Only great character: Kirresha.

Sentiment: negative
I remember hitch hiking to Spain at 25, getting a lift from, what turned out to be, two fleeing Italian small crooks. They were doing a lot outside the law, but from the other side carrying a little portrait of Jesus in the pocket for their protection...Just and unjust, good and bad, criminal and correct where here in a new combination, outside of the categories I used to know. 'Les Valseuses' gives me, although a film and not real life, a picture close to my own experiences: the intenseness of each moment as soon as you leave 'all behind' and go for the momentous, whatever comes your way, it's another state of mind and also 'dangerous' form of life, because, as we all know, there are people who are not ready for this and willing to persecute you for 'stealing' and so on...This film touches 'values', it's a story about 'what's right and wrong': morals. It's resurrection of the individual fighting him/ herself free against the 'false morals' and conformism...There's danger all the way, because, how far can you go with your own 'freedom' and crossing your own moral borders and that of other people? What to do with people who are willing to hurt you, put you in jail or even shoot at you for the things that you do, like "stealing" some petrol from a multinational oil company for you fifth hand car? Les Valseuses re-awakens these questions in me, because morality, in contradiction to the usual 'media message', is quite complex...

Sentiment: positive
I have decided to flush this show from my memory down the toilet of bad TV show into the obscurity of forgetful, disappointing, pointless, garbage TV show hell.

The Skyler guy who is the host/star/creator of this show is boring, uninteresting, unbelievable, not particularly good looking and not at all funny, in short why is this guy on TV and especially why is he in a comedy show when he's not funny, pretending to be a professional con man when he definitely is nothing but an obvious pretender? Others have said it here already but this guy is a total fake and fraud, if you believe any of these cons I think you should seriously consider going to get your head checked because they're all fake, and the ones that might possibly be true are so pointless, like spending all day to con someone out of giving you an average meal at a restaurant? Seriously this guy needs to go away, glad this show got canned.

Sentiment: negative
I am currently sitting here, forcing myself to finish this. I figure I blew 6 bux on the VHS, might as well suffer for it. I remember about 4 or 5 years ago doing a search on the internet for "War of the Worlds" cause of the rumors of the Spielberg movie at the time, and I missed the old TV series from the early 90's. The website make it out that this was a multi-million dollar budget rendition of the classic book. It was going to be a "perfect translation". Perfect CRAP is more in tune with this film.

First off, the video on this movie was glitched! It looked as if I was watching the Full Motion Video from an old mid-90's PC or Playstation CD-Rom video game. Sadly enough, the color quality was similar. The acting made Shatners classic "dramatic pause" look damn near Shakespearean in quality. The CG rendering of various scenes was horrendous, and green screen sequences were worse than those seen in old Dukes of Hazardd scenes.

Secondly, it is slow and terribly drawn out. I sat thru 45 minutes of the video (no promo's at the beginning) before the cylinder actually Opened to reveal the first alien. After that, the alien was a terribly constructed CG squid. I am now an hour into it and the most of the alien weaponry I have seen is a spinning silver disk (crappy down even) attached to a mechanical arm. The dramatic scenes are murdered with overly done instrumental's. The last thing on that, for an alien invasion in the turn of the century 1900's NO ONE is concerned for their life. It's like they have no concept. Even though media was slow, word of mouth spreads fast and people would have known. The "illusion" of day and night was shoddy at best. Simply changing the color around the people to purple, blue or green does not signify NIGHT TIME. Perhaps some lighting and actual night time shoots would have given a MUCH better illusion. THere is a lot of wasted sequences throughout the film of just watching the "hero" gallop around or walk down silly roads. Get on with the film. I know how people get around, you do NOT need to be so in-depth.

Now, finally an hour and 5 minutes into the film and they show the alien machines. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers had better looking effects. Even the skeletons of vaporized humans looked as if animated by a freshman high school computer app class student. The animations do NOT match up to the scenery at all.

In closing folks, if you want "The War of the Worlds", do one of four things. 1) Watch the 1953 original, 2) watch the early 90's TV series, 3) wait for Spielberg's rendition to be released shortly, OR 4) Read the frikkin book (something we all probably did in elementary English class). AVOID THIS MOVIE. IT IS A WASTE OF YOUR MONEY.

Sentiment: negative
A good, but not great film, "The Great Dictator" is Chaplin's first talkie. It's a good effort, and at times a remarkable satire on Hitler, but unfortunately the moments of Chaplin brilliance on offer here are let down by a tendency to use too much unnecessary dialogue. Yes, Chaplin, the silent screen master, just uses too many words in this film, and his tendency towards writing long speeches and extraneous passages of dialogue would carry over into his other talkie films, such as (better) "Limelight". Still, Chaplin was extremely daring in even making this film and his performance in dual roles is certainly memorable. Paulette Goddard doesn't have the glow she did in "Modern Times" (her off-screen affair with Chaplin was cooling at the time), but she is always worth seeing, and Jack Oakie just about steals the show as a rival dictator to Chaplin's famous creation Hynkel.

Sentiment: positive
After finishing the Zero Woman series, I was looking forward to the Female Prisoner Scorpion series; both based upon comics by Tooru Shinohara. Unfortunately, I was not able to see them in order, as this is the third in the series.

It starts great as The Scorpion (Meiko Kaji) is escaping from the police. Detective Kondo (Mikio Narita) did manage to get a cuff on her, but she proceeded to cut off his arm and get away. If that isn't bad enough, later on a dog digs up the arm and is seen trotting down the street before finding a place to enjoy his treat.

Scorpion might as well go back to prison as life is no picnic on the outside. First, a local Yakuza Tanida (v) threatens to put her back if she doesn't put out; and then the gang leader gets her when she gets rid of Tanida. But, they don't hold her for long before she escapes and is looking for vengeance.

Soon they are dropping like flies. Some certainly deserved it for wearing garish outfits with shirt collars so big they went all the way to the shoulder. The madam (Reisen Lee) turns herself in to avoid getting killed.

The police arrive at her latest kill and trap her in the sewer. She's in there for a week and the cops find out that a friend (Yayoi Watanabe) has been supplying her with food. (The story O Yuki (Watanabe) and her brother is a subplot that is very interesting, but only incidental to the movie.) They try to burn her out, but this is The Scorpion, and she has some unfinished business.

Not the usual mix of sex and violence, this is a slow tale that is beautiful throughout.

Sentiment: positive
What I liked best about this feature-length animated film from 1941 is the great feel it gives for the early 1940s. It's the songs, the clothing, automobiles, buildings lingo of the day, etc. You feel like you've stepped back into time.

From reading some of the reviews here, I see this was a hard-luck film, being released a couple of days before the Pearl Harbor attack. Wow, no one would be interested in going to the movies for a feature-length cartoon during those eventful and shocking days, I'm sure. Too bad, because the folks missed some nice animation would have really impressed back then, almost 70 years ago. The colors are nice, drawings are good and story involving as we root for the bugs led by "Hoppity" and and his beautiful girl "Honey" to make it happily-ever-after and out of harm's way. It's also about all of them finding a grassy spot they can live and not worry about humans trampling them.

There is a nasty villain, though - "C. Bagley Beetle" - and two of his henchmen. Those helpers ("Swat, The Fly" and "Smack, the Mosquito") are comedians, complete with their Brooklyn-ese accents! The story is a familiar one where a nasty old man wants to marry the sweet young thing and uses unscrupulous means to force her hand. The good guy, meanwhile, has the decked stacked against him but in the very end, of course, prevails.

My favorite part - this will sound worse than what it was - was when good-guy "Hoppity" got temporarily electrocuted and he danced in black-and-white. That was fantastic animation! 

You know, it's a good thing I didn't see this as a very little kid; I would have been afraid to play outside and squash all those nice bug-people! You never know what (or who) is in that grass beneath your feet!

Sentiment: positive
This is a perfect series for family viewing. We gather around the TV to watch this on BBC America. It is an up-to-date version of Robin Hood and it appeals to children and adults alike. Our teenager and tween-ager both enjoy sitting with mom and dad and watching Robin's next exploits. We can't wait for the next episode to air each week and are glad for the free "On Demand" viewing.

The wardrobe has a spot of current fashion. There is a moral to each story. It is entertaining. The violence is not over-the-top or needless. The soundtrack is absolutely fantastic with a John William's feel to it. It is an old world tale that is brought to life again with a new world flair.

There is so much garbage on television from brain rotting "reality" TV to senseless violence. You should take this for what it is and that is an updated "Robin Hood" not to be compared with the movie exploits of Errol Flynn. This is a gem to be enjoyed by all. Parents that are concerned about their children watching too much violence will enjoy that Robin has lost his taste for war and bloodshed. He is a Robin Hood that would rather attempt to reason his way out of a disagreement than fight. Maid Marian is also an appealing role model for young girls. Rather than stand by and do nothing, she takes her own role in helping the poor by being the "Night Watchman." The Sheriff of Nottingham is deliciously over the top wicked, just as the Sheriff should be and looks like a cross between Billy Joel and Tim Curry. Guy Gisborne is played by an extremely handsome actor, one that makes most women wish he didn't have portray the role of a bad "Guy". 

The only question we have is "Where is Friar Tuck?"

Sentiment: positive
I liked some of the characters, but our lead relied too heavily on a charming smile. I didn't care two whits about him. He makes bad choices and I really didn't care since he did not seem to either. He seemed rather unintelligent. There were a couple of moments that provided a chance at some human insight (the scene with the whale was interesting), but these are lost in the general malaise of the film. The love interest was acceptable and the other various characters were mildly interesting, but the plot meanders around too much and left me wanting at many points in the film. In the end, I wondered why I stayed so long.

There are some tepidly humorous moments, but ultimately I did not care. I cannot fathom rating the film higher. - 3 of 10

Sentiment: negative
I had watched this film from Ralph Bakshi (Wizards, Hey Good Lookin'), one night ago on www.afrovideo.org, and I didn't see anything racial (I am not stupid), I do admit the character designs are a bit crude and unaccpectable today, but I think it's a satire and a very,very urban retelling of the old Uncle Remus stories that the Black American culture, created right down to the main characters and the blatant nod to "The Tar Baby" and "The Briar Patch." These aren't bigoted stories, mind you, but cultural icons created by Black Americans, and me being a white woman read and love those stories. And I also found it an interesting time-capsule view on the black culture in Harlem, New York in the 70's.

Well to get to the nitty-gritty of this film: This film is a live-action/animated film, which begins in live-action with a fellow named Sampson (Barry White) and the Preacherman (Charles Gordone) rush to help their friend, Randy (Philip Michael Thomas) escape from prison, but are stopped by a roadblock and wind up in a shootout with the police. While waiting for them, Randy unwillingly listens to fellow escapee Pappy (Scatman Crothers), as he begins to tell Randy the animated story of Brother Rabbit, a young newcomer to the big city who quickly rises from obscurity to rule over all of Harlem; you know, to me Rabbit,Bear and Fox are animal versions of Randy,Sampson and the Preacherman. An abstract juxtaposition of stylized animation and live action footage, the film is a graphic and condemnatory satire of stereotypes prevalent in the 70s  racial, ethnic, and otherwise.

So anyway, it is another GOOD Bakshi movie; and should we sweep films like this under the rug? pretend they never exist? hmmm...I think that would be a shame; I think we should watch these films entacted, and learn about what goes on back then, just how far we come since then.

Sentiment: positive
From the beginning of the movie I had a feeling like its a movie about another Jason's from Friday the 13th. And It is... Dispute that the movie starts interesting. But as the times goes by its just a pointless movie about muted, supernatural, silent serial killer. I mean he goes under the guy's bed without making any sound, not seen by anyone. He was supposed to be blind after failed execution but he walks and kills people like he used to. I'm tired of it. For me it's all over the same thing.

In another words - unreal. Too many mistakes and confusing information.

Well scene with tide up woman looked impressive but just at first time :} For that and for intriguing intro 2 stars.

Sentiment: negative
Enter the Ninja (1981) was the first of several "Ninja" films produced by Cannon starring or co-starring Japanese sensation Sho Kosugi. But the star of the first "Ninja" film was legendary tough guy Franco Nero. Sadly not even Mr. Nero or Sho Kosugi couldn't make this film watchable. When you have two bad dudes in an action film and it's neither watchable or fun, somethings amiss. But I digress. Skip this chapter and watch the next films in the series. They're more interesting and a whole lot of fun.

Next is Revenge of the Ninja. Instead of playing the "evil oriental" (I use that term tongue in cheek mind you). He's the star! Strange for a western film. Watch that one instead.

Not recommended except for die hard Sho Kosugi fans or Cannon film buffs.

Sentiment: negative
This film appears to be an exposé of the current trend towards globalization and homogenization in the wine industry. Wineries around the world are more and more either joining large conglomerates (the American producer, Mondavi, in the case of this film) or paying high-priced experts to help them make "the perfect wine"--and as a result, wines are becoming very standard and predictable. To some, this is a good thing (especially since few can afford to pay $50 or more for an everyday wine) and to others this is horrible as the uniqueness of smaller wineries is disappearing. I truly can understand the concerns of both sides and don't think there is a villain or hero in this business. Sure, good and cheaper wine is a nice thing, but like what's happened with beers (with giants like Unibrew and Anheiser-Busch), food (McDonalds), shopping (European shopping malls are almost indistinguishable from American ones) and mega-stores (like Walmart/Asda) are taking away much of the uniqueness of "the little guys". So I definitely was ready and willing to listen to these film makers. However, with a product that is almost two and a half hours long AND a general lack of focus, the film simply became too big a chore to watch and I lost interest. An 80-90 minute focused film would have been MUCH more effective--especially since the average viewer is NOT an oenophile (that's the high-brow word for a "wine aficionado").

On the very positive side, the film makers are smart not to do much talking at all--and simply let those on both sides of the issue do the talking. Plus, the topic is so relevant and timely. However, despite choosing a good style of documentary making, the film simply goes on way, way, way too long and ended up making a very dull film.

Sentiment: negative
I was on my way out one morning when I was checking something on the T.V. and came across this film. I don't ever remember seeing this or hearing of it. What a fun and interesting one to watch. Well, my meeting was pushed back, because I couldn't get out of this film. It had some real interesting things in it that marked it's time in history, and some fun things that they don't have people do in today's film because it's not pretty. Well, there was a lot of realism in it. The acting was good for a 1954 film. Subtle and genuine actions on the part of the characters that had me watching what they were going to do next. That is why I ended up watching it. I don't know why they don't show it more often. I would rather watch this than some films they play more than necessary. For history buffs, people who like period films, and those that are in the film appreciation groups will like this one. "The Egyptian" has a variety of flavors dealing with a lot of things to look at in human nature that has not changed since it's time. What does that say about us? Those that don't like movies that take their time to unfold and tell a good story....are not into film.

I haven't had the time to rent it if it is available, but if I get a chance to see it again, I would probably vote it a 10.

Sentiment: positive
You, the Living (2007)

Mordant. I've never written that word before but it comes to mind here. Let me look it up. Well, it's part of it--corrosive, but also funny as heck. So corrosively funny. This is a dour film, for sure, with so much dry dry dry wit and quirky humor it's impossible not to like it on some level. Filmed in a very spare style, often with a static camera and really balanced, stable compositions, like theater stages, we see a short enactment occur.

But that makes it seem ordinary--which it is not. Ordinary life is shown to be frumpy, ironic, delightful, coy, and depressing. And impossible. We, the living, must live, and since we're alive, we may as well take note. Something like that. I think it was Ebert who said you find yourself laughing and don't know why. Exactly. And the promo material somewhere said it was a cross between Bergman and Monty Python, and what they mean is it has the dry, silent, probing look of Ingmar Berman's famous Swedish films, but it has the zany, somehow touching elements of the British comedians. 

I'd say, definitely, definitely watch at least half an hour of this. There is part of me that thought I was through by then--the rest continues in a similar assemblage of little skits and moments, and they do gradually evolve, but there is no great plot to follow or climax of the usual kind. There are some great moments later, even just the attention to the thunderstorm, which takes us out of the mundane human events nicely. 

The filming is gorgeous in its classical control, almost like a series of Gregory Crewdson scenes (and outdoing the photographer, actually). And the acting, with all its very ordinary, non-glam folksiness, is right on. A startling, beautiful, odd experience.

Sentiment: positive
We all know that special effects cost money, but it seems as if they could have used the money they saved writing the script to get some better shots. The train is obviously a model in most moving shots, the helicopter is obviously computer generated, the alien looks like the one from the end of Spaceballs, except it's a decade later and Spaceballs had an excuse.

The only smart thing they did was blur all of the special effects to make them harder to see.

Not even the actors could compensate for such a poorly written script and it's pretty obvious they didn't really try either.

Please, don't waste your time. Please.

Sentiment: negative
A special unit of four police detectives are dispensing justice in their own unique way in 1950s Los Angeles. Nick Nolte plays Max Hoover, the unit's lead officer and his partners are played by Michael Madsen, Chazz Palminteri and Chris Penn. Also starring are Melanie Griffith, Jennifer Connelly and John Malkovich among others. Quite an impressive list of names. Unfortunately that is the only thing even remotely impressive about this film.

Our story begins when young Allison Pond, played by Connelly, turns up dead in a remote area of town currently under development. Our band of four detectives is called in and it is immediately obvious that Nolte's Max Hoover is going to be taking a very personal interest in this case. We will soon find out that Allison, in addition to knowing Hoover quite well, was also involved with some rather important military and government types who may have had reason to want her dead. But who exactly was involved and why exactly would they want this seemingly harmless woman dead? Hoover and crew set out to find out. Sounds like an interesting premise but unfortunately it goes nowhere.

Despite the impressive array of names, the acting here leaves much to be desired. Nolte is overacting, Madsen seems incredibly bored, Palminteri and Malkovich come off as caricatures, Penn has hardly anything to do and Griffith is dull as can be. By far the best performance is Connelly's in all too fleeting flashback sequences. The dialogue throughout the film is forced and wooden. The sense of drama you would expect from a mystery of this type is missing altogether. Nothing dramatic really happens. In fact nothing at all seems to happen for the bulk of the picture. Instead we just slog along towards a rather ludicrous and incredibly disappointing climax. When the "mystery" is solved you may find yourself saying, "Oh come on now, is that all there is?" But it gets worse as after the mystery is solved we get a completely ridiculous and utterly unbelievable action sequence. And even then we are made to suffer further as another awful, badly acted, completely unnecessary scene is tacked on at the end. And then mercifully it is over. And not a moment too soon.

Sentiment: negative
Basically, "Caprica" is the Cylon origin story. The premise of the show is interesting. However, the writers follow so many story lines and clog it with too many POV characters that it bogs down the storytelling. The plot creeps at glacial speeds dissipating what tension it might have had. In any given episode, little or nothing happens.

Daniel Graystone (Eric Stolz) is a military contractor working on a robotic soldier using a stolen chip. Unfortunately, his only working prototype is driven by the AI version of his dead daughter Zoe, who died in a suicide bombing caused by Soldiers of the One (STO), an underground monotheist extremist group.

Meanwhile, Joseph Adama (father of "Battlestar Galactica"'s Commander Adama) is struggling to hold his family together while searching for the AI version of his daughter (who also died in the bombing) in a Machiavellian virtual version of Caprica (which strongly resembles 1930s Chicago). 

In addition to the vapid writing, Caprica suffers from a similar problem as many origin stories. We already know how it ends (i.e. the Cylons develop their own civilization and rebel against humanity).

Sentiment: negative
This HBO original is pretty straightforward and pretty dumb. Armand Assante, once again doing a poor Stallone imitation, is Ray Wellman a ex-con just out on parole. All he wants is his old girlfriend Lacy, played by a young Marcia Gay Harden, back. Unfortunately for Ray, Lacy has hooked up with stalwart Elliot, played by Sam Neill. Further complicating matters is that Ray's old Cell buddies want some favors and they kidnap Lacy to make sure they happen. Ray and Elliot team up, despite mutual dislike.

What follows is violent and slow, but Marcia Gay Harden shows us why she would win Oscar in the future, she's not as polished here, but her raw emotion, sincerity and some rather explicit nude scenes almost make this worth watching. Almost.

Rent "Fever" (no the title doesn't fit the film) if your a fan of hers, otherwise skip it and be grateful it's stars went on to better things.

Note-this is a hard "R" flick for language, violence and nudity.

Sentiment: negative
I am a huge fan of big, loud, trashy, completely stupid action movies such as The Rock, Con Air etc. All of these are great fun to watch but, when you think about it, extremely silly. IN THE LINE OF FIRE tells a story and it tells it well. With plausibility as well as excitement and suspense it also addressed several important moral questions that really make you think. The last shot of the movie is Eastwood and Russo sitting together on the steps of the White house watching the pigeons to gentle, peaceful music and I felt a deep feeling of satisfaction. This was because I cared about the characters and I was happy for them that their story had come to a happy conclusion. It felt like a true story. As the aging secret service agent tormented by the fact that he failed to protect JFK on that fateful day in Dallas, Clint Eastwood is fantastic. He brilliantly conveys his paranoia and his personal need to stop his adversary. On the other side of the spectrum is John Malkovich, as the creepy predator who tortures Eastwood about what happened in 1963 by openly telling him of his plan to kill the current president. This Oscar nominated performance really gets under your skin. Throughout the movie, Malkovich talks to Eastwood as if they are friends. He doesn't threaten him, he doesn't lie to him, he doesn't laugh at him, but he tortures him with his unbearable friendliness right up to the last moment. As well as this thrilling main plot, there is a charming love story involving Rene Russo, another agent and Eastwood. Despite the age difference, they have superb chemistry on screen and the director wisely does not let this dominate too much but keeps it as part of the backdrop which works nicely. To sum up, I love this film because it has a mind.

Sentiment: positive
Just saw this film at the Fantasy Filmfest BERLIN. i am not impressed.

As far as the story goes. Too girlfriends return from their Mexico vacation. While waiting for their luggage they get to know a couple of boys, who then take the last and of course wrong shuttle bus to the city. On board is also one other older man, so weirdly portrayed that you instantly guess that he is one of the bad guys. The other one is the driver.

The shuttle takes them into industrial wasteland and then one after the other goes done, a little blood, some cut of extremities, some violence, mostly playing with the fear of the girls In the end after some ups and downs, heres and there's, some not too new scary moments, everyone is dead but the driver and the girls. the girls end up in some garage, where one of them is killed, after confessing that she had slept with the other girlfriends boyfriend. The other girl, which is the conclusion, is sold by the left-over kidnapper (yep, weirdo got killed) in some cargo box to asia (a freight harbor being the final picture.) First. Story. Tons of loopholes, questions you ask yourself, loose ends, and a conclusion that is not a good revelation, but a total disappointment. I can't see how such a unprofessional looser is supposed to have abducted dozens of women (as is indicated by a drawer full of drivers licences...aha) Second. Acting. Mediocre at its best.

Third. Scare Factor. OK. but I AM BoRED by torture as a means to nothing but itself. Trade with humans could be a good reason for a horror flick, but it's not used as one, just as a background.

Fourth, Music and Sound. Some nice tries, but the sound possibilities of the industrial landscape, warehouse garage, and truck sounds have not been really explored. Music? Would have been worse without it, but apart from that. Some pseudo moving synth string theme for emotionality when the girls reach their final destination. OK, I guess.

Verdict: AVOID IT!

Sentiment: negative
i don't believe it sixty percent of voters voted this show as ten now how the hell is the rating a five point eight it impossible i don't get it, its totally pathetic i mean how. anyway the show is great the story is great and the characters are interesting, definitely a ten out of ten from me i think the creatures are cool they look great and i wish i had a nimrod great show great cgi hope there's a second series as a lot went unanswered in the first season and when is nimrod gonna get any bigger as the rest of the creatures are huge, again why is the rating so low when the votes were so high 

10/10

Sentiment: positive
Shall We Dance is an excellent film because it shows how something, like dancing, can rejuvenate the life flow in the human spirit.

Dance is seen as the expression of existence, and the birth of individuality. The is certainly the case with Aoki. At work he is a humble office denizen, but place him on the dance floor and all his bottled up intensity is released. Surprisingly, this release is frowned upon in Japan, due to the rigid culture of conformity. At the start of the film, all the characters are ashamed or frightened of their desire to dance. They will be scorned, or deemed perverted, for expressing their passion through dance.

This film is well worth watching to witness the rebirth of human emotions and passions. It will leave a smile on your face for days.

Sentiment: positive
This movie had some andrenaline kickers, but it's an old story that simply could never happen. Navy protocols could never break down that much that a crew much less an XO could ever go that far against the Captain. I'll take Dr. Strangelove any day if I wish to see this plot. Sidenote--the US Navy did not support this film.

Sentiment: negative
It was only on my second viewing, years later, that I realized two things about this movie: 1) I enjoyed it immensely, and 2) that because its execution is decidedly sharper than the premise itself warrants. I had laughed my way through the movie before it occurred to me to renew my initial protests--valleyspeak and loogies and airheadedness (even *good*-natured airheadedness) just aren't inherently funny, especially when drawn out to feature length. But though the movie's momentum does begin to sputter out towards the end, Reeves and Winter and Sadler (and Hal Landon Jr. in an unforgettable scene) display such a remarkable sense of comic timing throughout that even the more clumsily-scripted jokes (e.g. Ted failing to recognize a certain inhabitant of Hell) work as effortlessly as the witter ones (e.g. the challenge). And the teaming of Winter and Reeves clicks so well that the teaming of Bill and Ted (who spend only one scene separated in the entire movie, disaster if they're not well-matched) appears utterly unstrained.

(Side note: I found the first movie to be only sporadically entertaining--sightly different comic sensibilities there, it seems.)

I give it a 7.75. Surprisingly good fun.

Sentiment: positive