DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Erich Rohmer's "L'Anglaise et le duc" makes a perfect companion piece to Peter Watkins' "La Commune (Paris 1871)." Both films -screened at this year's Toronto International Film Festival- ironically illustrate how history is shaped to by the tellers of the tale. Ironic, given the tragic events that were taking place in the U.S. during the festival.

Set in Paris during the French Revolution, the movie, based on Grace Elliott's (Lucy Russell) "Memoirs," is a first-hand account of how she survived those heady but dangerous days. She also details her relationship with The Duke of Orleans (played by Jean-Claude Dreyfus), who, in contrast to herself, is a supporter of the Revolution.

True to form, you don't know whose side of history Rohmer is going to come down on. One of the earliest of the French "New Wave" filmmakers, Rohmer has often been criticized for being too conservative. After all, in the midst of the rebelling-youth-Viet-Nam days of the late 60s and 70s, he was filming romantic little confections like "Claire's Knee." But don't sell the old boy short, folks, he's always been a student of human nature, not an ideologue, and "L'Anglaise et le duc" continues to bear this out.

Rohmer's characters are never the "bad guys" nor the "good guys'; they are first and foremost human beings who are capable of exhibiting a full range of human potentialities -and limitations. That's why his movies are always provocative, and this film is no exception.

Now for the technological nuts and bolts.

Rohmer, though making his way into his 80s, is still on the cutting-edge of cinematic innovation. The look of "L'Anglaise" is like something you've never seen before. You guessed it, the old guy -like several of the festival's directors this year- has gone digital.

All of the movie's exterior scenes look as though they are taking place in their original 1780s Parisian settings. As a matter of fact, you may get so distracted from marveling at the authenticity of the film's look you may have to go back for a second screening to catch the subtleties of the film's psychological -and yes, I'll say it- political insights.

Toronto features some of the world's edgiest young filmmakers this year, as well as some of the world's oldest. And the old masters are standing there on cinema's cutting-edges right alongside the young ones.

Long live youth. Long live old age. And long live Erich Rohmer.



Sentiment: positive
I like Breillat's movies, but this one is the best I've seen at balancing animal warmth with sexual intelligence. Anne Parillaud is electric, and the script is amazing - especially considering it's supposed to take place on the set of another of Breillat's movies. You don't have to agree with her take on everything to get a lot out of this. It made me think a lot about vulnerability and power. Try to imagine a male director with Jeanne's openness - not impossible, but a little mind-bending. The unannounced sexual undercurrents that are always present when humans get together to make anything is held up to bright light here, but not a cold light.

Sentiment: positive
The movie is being televised as I write.

I simply forgot how horrible an experience I had watching it in the cinema.

The whole idea of the movie is flawed. The fact that intelligent Europeans and Americans stranded in the desert forget all concept of morals and civilization within a couple of days is laughable. The madness of Lord of the flies was longer in the making.

Details that annoy are plenty. One is the single African god-like character that mysteriously survives the horrible climate and have done so for ages without losing his mind and he seems to have no supply-problems either. Ridiculous. So too is the rescue attempt from the tour guide, an Indiana Jones look-alike, whose rescue attempt ends in tragedy and death a 5 minute walk from the hut. Then there's the choice of Lear, imposed onto the group by a guru-like joke of an artist. He reminded me of my hippie high school art teacher.

The worst thing though is Levrings choice of Lear. Obviously is an intellectual brain-fart. How that ever was going to be an pass-time is never clear to me.

Positives are few and far between. It's a beautiful movie, but that's never important.

High school intellectualism. Weird for the sake of weird. It's a complete waste of time unless you like thrashing useless art movies.

Sentiment: negative
This film is about a man's life going wrong. His business is failing, and he cannot impregnate his wife despite multiple attempts.

The plot is complete chaos. It simply does not make sense. In fact, nothing in the film makes sense. The story is so poorly told that I simply could not understand it. It is a shame, because the sets and costumes are done well, and are visually stimulating enough. The shots are well composed throughout the film. However, these redeeming features still cannot make up for the bad plot and poor story telling. I am amazed by the big names who agreed to star in this film. It is such a waste of their talents. This film is very bad. Avoid it!!

Sentiment: negative
Vince Lombardi High School has a new principal--the evil Ms. Togar (Mary Woronov). She intends to ban rock and roll music all together. She butts head with Riff Randall (P.J. Soles) who LOVES the Ramones. Also the head of the school football team (Vincent Van Patten) can't seem to connect with any girl--not realizing cute Kate Rambeau (Dey Young) is in love with him.

An instant midnight movie. This was put in general release and almost immediately bombed--but as a midnight movie it was a huge hit and kept playing all through the 1980s. I remember attending more than a few of those when I was in college--it was like a party! People were singing along with the songs, laughing uproariously at every joke and generally just having fun.

Seeing it now as an adult I can't imagine why I loved this so much. The script is juvenile and full of groaners that I couldn't believe I was hearing. Characters change at random and the movie goes jumping all over the place. What saves this are some truly funny lines and wonderful performances by Soles and Woronov (who is REALLY enjoying herself). Also everyone is full of energy and playing their roles WAY over the top (as they should). As for the Ramones...I was never a fan. I DO like the title tune but the rest of the songs never really caught me. If you're a Ramones fan you might give this a higher rating.

SPOILER WARNING!!!! This is mostly for kids (it has a PG rating) who will probably find it silly but fun. I especially think they'll like the end when the high school is blown up! SPOILER END!!!!

So, if you're in the mood for a silly midnight movie from the 1980s you might like this. Otherwise stay away. I give it a 7.

Sentiment: positive
I am not a big fan of horror films, and have only seen a handful of them (and none of the "Halloween"s or "Friday the Thirteenth"s) - but I can appreciate a frightening horror film not because of gore. And I'm pretty sure this isn't scary.

 What's so spooky about a little plastic skull that pops up everywhere? In all of its appearances there are faraway establishing shots, so there's no real surprise in any of this film. (Not that a skull in of itself is that scary anyway, but . . .)

 The plot concerns Claus Von Bulow's third cousin (John Hudson), who marries a Donna-reed look-a-like (Peggey Webber, giving one of the worst performances ever) who begins seeing skulls and hearing the mysterious screams of a group of peacocks on her husband's mansion. Did I mention that her husband lost her first wife in a mysterious drowning incident? OOOOH!!!! Wonder who did it!!!!

 This is the same old plot about a rich boy trying to kill and/or drive their wife insane. If you want to see a well-done version of this stuff, try "Reversal of Fortune". And BTW, Jeremy Irons is one hundred times more talented than John Hudson.

 The MSTing was okay but nothing special; paired with the "Gumby" short, however, it makes for good viewing.

 Two stars for "The Screaming Skull"; eight stars for the MST3K version.

 And now, to paraphrase Mr. Von Bulow himself: "How bad is this film?" "You have no idea!"

Sentiment: negative
Miles O'Keeffe once again assumes the role of the mighty Ator in this the first sequel to the original film.

What can I say? - This pretty much represents B-Movie Nirvana! 

The plot is ludicrous, the script is terrible, the acting is hammy throughout, the special effects....well let's not even go there! - all in all this movie is a veritable delight! 

Highlights of the film include Ator and Thong (his mute companion, not his undergarments) being attacked by invisible assailants in a cave (certainly saved on the fx budget there!), Ator battling what has to be the most unconvincing giant snake ever committed to celluloid, and of course, the infamous hangliding scene! 

There's one question I have though......at the end of the movie we see a huge atomic explosion when Ator supposedly destroys the Geometric Nucleus (as the narrator tells us)......how in the hell did Ator destroy it and manage get out alive?! Did he fashion some form of primitive timer/detonator or something? 

Oh well, such an illogical ending really only adds to the movies overall charm - they just don't make them like this anymore!

Sentiment: positive
I picked up TRAN SCAN from the library and brought it home. We have considered taking a trip out east and thought it would give us a feel of what it was like. The film was a total waste of time, if I went out to buy it I would call it TRAN SCAM when I saw that it costs $49.

The DVD ran for 8 minutes and showed a roller coaster ride across Canada with my stomach feeling ill as they went up and down and around curve with the film at high speed.

There was a lot of footage they probably shot on this and you would think that they could have made a better product. If I would of done this project I would of provided more footage, paused on road signs to let people know where they were and linger in places to view the scenery. To make a film like this it should of been 60 to 90min. Oh yes the case said it was in stereo, the whole film was a hissing sound from sped up car sound, thet could of at least put some music to it.

If you want a good cross Canada film watch The railrodder / National Film Board of Canada starring Buster keaton (the one of the last film he made) in this comical film Buster Keaton gets on to a railway trackspeeder in Nova Scotia and travels to British Columbia

Sentiment: negative
Fulci... Does this man brings one of the goriest and weirdest movies ever made? Answer: yes! Cat in the Brain, also known as Nightmare Concert is Fulci's last masterpiece. Yes it is, no matter what some people will say about it. There are few facts why this movie is one of the best Fulci's movies.

Fulci make a fun of himself and his movies with this one. Lead roll in this movie is no other then Fulci himself, who plays... well horror-splatter-gore director, who thinks he is slowly going insane. It's filled with black humor which unlike in the most of the modern horror movies works here. Being Fulci flick, you need to know it's gory. How much? Well pretty much. I always loved gore in the movies and I never get enough of it, but Cat in the Brain actually stopped my thirst for gore, and believe me, it's a hard to archive. Even the Braindead didn't stop it. CITB is all about gore. Almost every scene revolves about Fulci, who after being hypnotized by *khmmm* evil psychiatrists is seeing all kinds of horrors for everything that happens to him or everything he sees. Some of the scenes involves him accidentally dropping the whiskey, and instead of that he sees rotten corpse lying on the floor, which starts to spit some ooze from it's wounds. Forget the Beyond or Zombie 2, this IS the goriest Fulci movie! Now I like how Fulci manage to apply all those comic parts in the gorefest movie. He is such a brilliant director. Some funny moments and lines happens from time to time, like one where Fulci says "making gore movies is kind of a sickness" Ending is very good considering that Fulci (and most of the Italian horror masters) is know for making ending with no sense or many plot holes. If you are fun of the Fulci, make sure you check it out. If you have a weak stomach, avoid this and repeat "Its only a movie" ps. some of the gore scenes within this movie: Chainsaw dismemberment (full), tongue torn out, eyeballs torn out, maggot infested corpses, zombies, decapitations, face being putted in boiling water, stabs in the shower (to head), throat slit, many parts of the body and organs being toast aside, hammer smashed face...

Sentiment: positive
This is essentially a variation on House Of Wax ,in both the plot and the type of role played by the star of both movies ,Vincent Price.In both pictures he plays a talented artist who is sent toppling over the edge into insanity when his creations are usurped by other,less talented and less scrupulous people .In this movie he plays a designer of illusions for stage magicians who aspires to set out on a performing career himself only to be frustrated when another illusionist ,the Great Rinaldo (John Emery)insists that he honour his contract and give him first choice of any illusions he designs.Price is already ill disposed towards Rinaldi as his former wife is now a paramour of Rinaldi. He deploys his talents as an illusionist and as a brilliant mimic to avenge himself upon Rinaldi and others who thwart his plans for recognition as a performer and a designer.

Price is pretty much the whole show here and gives a well judged star turn as a wronged man whose predicament earns audience sympathy.The rest of the cast are competent if colourless and the weight of the whole venture falls on Price who carries the burden with ease .

Good solid B Movie melodrama , this is a crime movie rather than a horror picture and is enjoyable providing you don't expect a masterpiece .Shot in black and white it is low on gore and is best seen as melodrama and enjoyed for the presence of its star giving an idiosyncratic performance

Sentiment: positive
I'm usually not one to say that a film is not worth watching, but this is certainly an extenuating circumstance. The only true upside to this film is Cornelia Sharpe, looking rather attractive, and the fact that this film is REALLY short.

The plot in the film is unbelievably boring and goes virtually nowhere throughout the film. None of the characters are even remotely interesting and there is no reason to care about anyone. I'm not sure why on earth Sean Connery agreed to do this film, but he should have definitely passed on this one.

The only reason I could see for seeing this film is if you are a die-hard Sean Connery fan and simply want to see everything he's done. Save this one for last though.

Well, if you by some miracle end up seeing this despite my review (or any of the other reviews on this site), then I hope you enjoy it more than I did. Thanks for reading.

Sentiment: negative
when i first saw that this movie was going to be playing on TV, i only new of pauly shore as this joke of a comedian who wore really weird outfits back in the day. i still decided to watch it and i was impressed. shore brings a fresh breath of air to the screen. in this movie, he plays crawl a college adviser that probably needs his own adviser as well. carla gugino, in an underrated role, plays becca, a midwestern "farm girl" with a simple family and a movie-cliché boyfriend travis. when she heads off to ucla, she meets crawl and he quickly turns her into a bubbly, blonde Californian girl. she decides to bring crawl home for the thanksgiving break. when travis decides to propose, becca needs a distraction. crawl then decides to make everyone believe that him and becca are engaged already. this leads to crawl spicing up the romance between becca's parents, befriending her brother, and even getting the dancers at the local bar to get a little loose. i'm not going to reveal the end, but i liked it. anyway, don't rent it if you want a poignant performance; rent it if you want to laugh your butt of and enjoy an often-missed part of 90's humor.

Sentiment: positive
What was the aim here...I started to have a look at it but then I realized that it had no aim...poor acting...no action and no story..i ended up listening to it while i was surfing the web reading about David Beckham's $250 million dollar US soccer Galaxy contract. Do not rent this Don't borrow this NOT WORTH A DOWN LOAD i've seen so many films that I could sense that this was going to be crap from the get go.

War films should be accurate and if possible have some artistic merit and actually not feel like Christian melodrama...This film pales in comparison to any that i've seen before.I must say that Iam truly disappointed at this film..

Sentiment: negative
I'm rating this pretty high just because of Sam Elliott. I could've done without the female nudity but I'd sit through almost any nonsense in order to see Sam strut his stuff. He gets to spout wonderfully cynical witticisms, many of which I agree with, and it's a joy to see him in a role in which he actually gets to emote instead of just standing around scowling and looking virile as can be. My boyfriend opined that this movie is in a couple of ways similar to a film in which Ed Harris had a Hispanic partner (in the police sense of the term!) who was a little overeager to prove himself. You can draw your own conclusions on that score but if you like Sam, you'll like this. You could say I'm biased, but who isn't in some way? I'd buy this on DVD in a heartbeat!

Sentiment: positive
I have seen bad movies before, but this one takes the "Worst Movie of a Lifetime" award by far !! Anthony Hopkins has to be completely mentally ill to have his name attached to this one - anywhere ! I will never see another movie with him in it, directing it, etc., etc. ! I can't believe the other actors & actresses that I liked, (in this picture), that stooped so low to be a part of this disaster ! There must be some great drugs out there ! For anyone to not be embarrassed to be a part of such a film, is beyond me ! Save your money on this one ! HUGE FLOP from beginning to end ! Shame on you Mr. Hopkins ! Also, shame on Christian Slater ! I can't believe you put your reputations on the line for this one !

Sentiment: negative
An overlong, but compelling retelling of the friendship between civil rights leader Steve Biko and Donald Woods. The first half of the film is the strongest where we see the bond formed between the two men, and how they help each other out, but the second half isn't as strong, due to the elimination of the Biko character. Still, its a compelling film with great performances by Kline and Washington, in the film that put the latter on the map. Washington was also was nominated for best supporting actor for the first time. Overall, a well made film that could have been trimmed down a bit. 7/10.____________________________________

Sentiment: positive
The photography is accomplished, the acting is quite good, but in virtually every other department The Greek Tycoon is a dreary bore. Taking its inspiration from the real-life love affair of Jackie Kennedy and Aristotle Onassis, the film is a glossy but absolutely empty soap opera of the kind that can be found on TV all day long. Viewers who embrace the whole "celebrity magazine culture" (paparazzi photographs and gossipy stories about the rich and famous) will undoubtedly find much to whet their appetite here. But those who prefer films with a bit more substance and craft and quirkiness will find the 107 minute running time a butt-numbing slog.

American president James Cassidy (James Franciscus) and his beautiful wife Liz (Jacqueline Bisset) are in Greece on official business. A ridiculously wealthy Greek shipping tycoon, Theo Tomasis (Anthony Quinn), catches sight of Liz at a party at his elegant manor. Despite the fact that both of them are married to someone else, there is an immediate attraction between them. Later, at a private party aboard his yacht, Tomasis makes his desires known to Liz. Some while later, President Cassidy is assassinated whilst out strolling on a beach. Liz is shocked and saddened by his death, but it isn't long before she seeks comfort in the arms of her Greek lover Tomasis. Eventually the two of them are married and their love affair becomes a favourite talking point for the world's newspapers, magazines, photographers and wags.

It is somewhat amusing to note the vigour with which the producers of this film denied that it was a dramatisation of the Kennedy-Onassis story. They wanted the film to be seen as an original story, rooted in fiction. But anyone with a brain can see from where the movie is drawing its inspiration. Even Aristotle Onassis himself knew The Greek Tycoon amounted to his love-life getting the Hollywood treatment (if rumours are to be believed, he actually had a hand in approving Anthony Quinn for the Tomasis role!) J. Lee-Thompson isn't really the right sort of director for this type of movie  he's better suited to action fodder like The Guns Of Navarone and Ice Cold In Alex  but he marshals the proceedings with an uninspired, professional adequacy. Quinn is very watchable as Tomasis; Bisset looks lovely as the object of his desires; Franciscus uses his toothy smile and a façade of integrity to make for a believable politician. Their performances are good on the surface, but there's little for the actors to do on any deeper level. Similarly, Tony Richmond's photography gives the film an elegant surface sheen as it moves from one exotic locale to the next, but the merest of scratches proves that there's nothing behind the film's glossy exterior.

Sentiment: negative
This is a skillfully crafted piece of cinema that deals with a teenage boys confused sexuality.The cut scenes within can be lengthy but the cinematography is beautiful.This film would not appeal to many people, especially those who are queasy about gay teenage relationships, but the more open minded can sympathize with the puzzled protagonist.

Sentiment: positive
I challenge you to watch this film and deny the above statement. That is, IF you can stop looking at her practically flawless face. She also does a bit of fighting and a bit of shooting, but not nearly as much as I was hoping for. The film is extremely slow-moving and low-budgeted, though at least they tried to find an excuse for the spaceship being so underpopulated; nearly the entire crew is on "suspended animation", and the ship moves on auto pilot! And the heroine doesn't rescue any of them, or bring anything useful back "home"; it seems that tricking that evil lady into traveling through space was the only part of her mission that couldn't be more easily accomplished by the missiles that blow up the ship at the end. There are also some long but rather tame soft-core scenes, and a couple of "Alien"-rip-off monsters that kill about 2 people. *1/2 out of 4.

Sentiment: negative
I think part of the reason this movie was made...and is aimed at us gamers who actually play all the Nancy Drew PC games. There's been a lot of movies lately based on video games, and I think this in one of them.

So this movie does not follow any book. But it does follow parts of the games. I buy and play every Nancy Drew games as soon as it comes out. And the games are from HerInteractive and are for "girls who aren't afraid of a mouse!" And some of these games actually won Parents' Choice Gold Awards. They are not only fun but you can actually learn a thing or two while playing.

I took two of my step children with me to go see it and they loved it! The 10 yr. old had started playing her first Nancy Drew game a day before I took her to see the movie, and she was having so much fun playing the game I thought she would enjoy the movie as well. And I was right...she not only loved this movie but couldn't wait to get home to finish her first game and start another one.

My other step daughter is only 7 and she also loved the movie but she is still a little to young too play the games yet, but she enjoys watching her sister play at times just to see what's going on.

The games are based for children 10 yrs and older. All the games usually get pretty descent reviews and are classified as adventure games. For more information on the games just check out HerInterative Nancy Drew games. So personally I thought the movie was pretty good and I will buy it when it comes out on DVD.

Sentiment: positive
This is perhaps the creepiest display of Santa Claus ever committed to any medium, whether it be a book, a picture, or a movie. Santa looks like a perv looking down on the children and the twisted story of bringing Merlin in to help him defeat one of Satan's minions, Pitch, doesn't make things any better. It's laughable to say the least, with bad effects, even for 1959 standards. If a kid were to watch this movie, he'd have nightmares and never want Santa to visit. They'd be scarred for life. Imagine the kid's in "A Christmas Story" when they start screaming after being put on Santa's lap. That's how this would turn out if kid's see this movie.

Sentiment: negative
Such a long awaited movie.. But it has disappointed me and my friends who had gone to see the movie on the first day.. From the trailers it looked like a action movie, but it turned out to be a out & out comedy(a bad comedy). But one thing that deserves appreciation is the acting by these professional actors, they've done their part of the movie very well. Good acting, but i don't think that can save the movie.. India has been shot beautifully. Kerala, Rajasthan, (Ladakh?) were all saturated with color, alright. Nevertheless the way the intrinsic beauty of these places was shot made me want to find out exactly where those places were and when I could go there ;-)

Action sequences were shot very shabbily, no one could make out head & tail of the stunts, they've used Akki(akshay kumar) very well but could've been done much much better..

Animation is the worst i've seen in recent movies(90's movies had better animation scenes i guess(initial scene where the car is falling off 'flying should be better word' the road into lake).

And the movies name has been mentioned nearly every 20 to 30 mins, just to make sure audiences don't forget the movie name i guess..

Sentiment: negative
This an extremely horrible movie. And if your thinking you've seen another horrible movie, exactly like this one before, you probably have. You probably saw Scarecrow 2 made in 2003. Yes thats what I said, Brian (the director) stole the movie idea. And not only did he steal it, he actually might have been able to make it worse. I bet the even the actors were scared to tell people they were actually in the movie. Also I have to mention that the director was trying to make up for the cheesiness by showing as much tits as possible. Also the kissing scenes were put together like a porn movie. In fact that is probably all that the director has ever seen, and tried to put together a decent movie, which will never work.

Sentiment: negative
This is a fantastic series first and foremost. It is very well done and very interesting. As a huge WWII buff, I had learned a lot before seeing this series. One of the best things this has going for it is all the interviews with past individuals back when the war was relatively fresh in their minds, comparatively speaking that is. It is nothing against the men that you see getting interviewed in the programs of today, it is just that most of these men weren't really involved in the upper echelons of what was happening then. One of the best parts is the narrating by Sir Laurence Oliver. I would recommend this to anyone that wants to learn about WWII, but really think only the die-hards (such as myself) will want to buy this or watch it more than once. My only real complaint about this entire series is that some of the facts aren't quite as accurate as we now know. Especially with the information about Soviet Union is exaggerated or just plain inaccurate in places. That information is now different we now know because of the fall of the USSR. Overall a fascinating look at WWII and a must see for any serious WWII historian professional or personal alike.

Sentiment: positive
I saw "Into Pitch Black" on t.v. and so I had to see this. I must say, I was very impressed.

Not only has David Twohy's style improved since he wrote "Critters 2", this film brought to my attention Vin Diesel. Sure, he was there in "Into Pitch Black", but here he was ferocious, scary, and intense. I haven't seen charisma like that since Schwarzenegger in the 80's.

The story is simple enough, but it is the characters that make this film interesting. Then there was what happens with the female lead. Unexpected. The dark humor helps the film move along, the effects aren't grand, but when Riddick fights the alien... it blew all of my complaints out.

Diesel hasn't done a whole lot since this film that I would care about, but I am eagerly looking forward to the sequel.

Sentiment: positive
A call-girl witnesses a murder and becomes the killer's next target. Director Brian De Palma is really on a pretentious roll here: his camera swoops around corners in a museum (after lingering a long time over a painting of an ape), divvies up into split screen for arty purposes, practically gives away his plot with a sequence (again in split screen) where two characters are both watching a TV program about transsexuals, and stages his (first) finale during a thunderous rainstorm. "Dressed To Kill" is exhausting, primarily because it asks us to swallow so much and gives back nothing substantial. Much of the acting (with the exception of young Keith Gordon) is mediocre and the (second) finale is a rip-off of De Palma's own "Carrie"--not to mention "Psycho". The explanation of the dirty deeds plays like a spoof of Hitchcock, not an homage. Stylish in a steely cold way, the end results are distinctly half-baked. ** from ****

Sentiment: negative
Ok I will sum up this movie... A bunch of skanky British women have some disease that basically is turning them into zombies. The whole movie consists of these women talking, smoking, and rarely going out for "meat" Or humans to eat. I swear I had to MAKE myself watch this movie... UGH

Sentiment: negative
The combination of Dan Haggerty (Elves) and Linda Blair (Exorcist) is enough to make any horror fan excited about this movie. And once you see the cover art to this film of a frozen zombie coming out of their cryogenic chamber, you'll think you were in B-Movie Horror Heaven. At least that's the way I approached this film. But boy, was I in for a shock

I love horror movies. I love B-Movies as well. Nothing makes my day more than a cheesy little film about zombies, monsters, murderers, that sort of thing. But to say that this movie was lacking, is an understatement. This movie was pure trash. You'd think the zombies would look somewhat like what the cover-art of the box displays, but instead, you get actors with masks that are clearly sold at any Halloween display counter. Furthermore, the script is beyond pitiful. Our main character, Joseph, suffers the loss of his wife and son and seeks solace in the warm-hearted Mary, played by Blair. Not once do you see any sign of sadness or discomfort on the part of Joseph's character. Instead, we see the head of the cryogenic labs, a man named Dr. Miller, eager to get the dead bodies and experiment with their organs. There is no emotion or anything to make you believe you should give a damn about anyone in this film.

All and all, very disappointing. All the elements to make a great horror film were there. You had your zombies, your decent actors, and your story. But the lack of good writing and little if any sense of direction screwed this one up royally. Overall, 4 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
Honestly, I have to admit that I go and see certain stupid films based on the hype they have generated or are currently generating. This dumb Salman Khan & Govinda feature is one of those stupid films. Okay, by now we've all seen 'Hitch' starring Will Smith as a date doctor trying to help out odd people find true. Then why would we need to see Salman Khan re-enact this? Therein lies the $64,000 question. In case you were wondering, Govinda plays the oddball in search of the love of his life (an unreachable socialite) played by Katrina Kaif.

Lara Dutta is along to play Sallu's Eva Mendes, and Sallu's real-life love Kaif pretty much plays her character like every role you've see her in thus far, no stretch no acting required. And for nearly three and a half hours we get tortured with spoofs of other Bollywood films and characters or better yet we get treated to low rate performances of past hit films. Rajpal Yadav co-stars. F

Sentiment: negative
"Nazarin" directed by Luis Bunuel presents an extraordinary view of religion in Mexico. As written by the director and Julio Alejandro, his notable collaborator, this was a film that put Mexican cinema in the international map after receiving the Grand Prix in Cannes that year. It's a disturbing film because Mr. Bunuel delves deep into what's wrong with the church.

Nazarin, by all reckoning, is a saint. This young priest is seen living a life of poverty in a seedy pension of a city. He doesn't have enough for himself, but he doesn't mind parting with a coin when a beggar appears by his window asking for help. At the same time, he takes into his small room a prostitute that has been hurt in a fight with another woman. Andara, the woman repays his kindness by burning the room and the whole building! Nazarin is seen taking to the countryside begging for food. Andara and Beatriz, two prostitutes from his old town follow him. Nazarin's life parallels that of Jesus. In fact, this saintly figure makes a case for humility.

Of course,Mr. Bunuel had no religion in mind when he and Mr. Alejandro took it upon themselves to create this film. It's ironic how Spain welcomed him after this film was released because they saw it as showing Christian qualities, when in reality, this is an acerbic satire on the catholic church and its ministers.

Francisco Rabal, the Spanish actor, makes a wonderful Nazarin. This was one of his best roles. Mr. Rabal worked extensively in his native country, but also in Mexico and Argentina. Rita Macedo, as Andara, is also excellent. Marga Lopez also makes a valuable contribution with her portrayal of Beatriz.

A great film by one of the cinema's master film makers: Luis Bunuel.

Sentiment: positive
The distribution was good, the subject could have been interessant and comic. whereas, he described the wandering of an old non credible communist looking for loving sensations. Instead of this, the atmosphere is nor lively nor heavy.

Sentiment: negative
I'm not a big fan of musicals, but I was always enamored of Ms. Hayworth's looks, so I thought I'd give it a try.

This may be the best showcase for the multi-talented Ms. Hayworth. She's never looked lovelier in a film (with the possible exception of 'Gilda', where she is sex symbol par excellence).

Rita is more than ably assisted by Gene Kelly and Phil Silvers. The comedy may be dated, but it is still quite amusing. Kelly does one of his tour-de-force dances, dancing with the image of himself from a window.

But Rita drives this whole movie. An excellent cast, featuring Otto Kruger and the always- wonderful, wise-cracking Eve Arden doesn't hurt.

Rita sings, Rita dances, all the while looking impossibly beautiful! The music may be short of classic, but the lyrics to most of the tunes are quite clever.

I find this movie works better than 'Gilda', which I regard as a flawed film. To Ms. Hayworth's credit, she also drives 'Gilda', and Gilda drives any red-blooded male insane.

The film holds up well after all these years. Much leg candy for the male audience is a nice bonus!

Sentiment: positive
If you liked "Blair with" you'll like this one. It has the same lousy camera-work and soundtrack, and it has the same non-existent plot and suspenseful moments.

It also has Tom Savini, so if you like Romero's "Dawn of the dead" or Tarantino and Rodriguez' "From Dusk Till Dawn" you're in for a treat. He is an icon and a very good actor as well.

No, seriously. This movie is definitely the lousiest movie I've seen in a long time, and I've seen quite a few movies -- bad ones as well. I can tell you that I find most horror movies entertaining in some respect, but this was just a pure waste of time.

The only reason why I gave this movie 2 instead of 1, was the naked chicks and the hot action with all the sharp-looking plastic teeth... No, I'm just kidding. I must have missed before I hit "submit" on the vote form.

Stay away, even though it has sexy girls with teeth on the cover!

Sentiment: negative
By mistake, I ordered a series from the BBC, their new version of Robin Hood. Very disappointing in comparison with RoS. Terrible costuming and backgrounds. While I enjoyed the Sheriff, who took cues from the Nick Grace character, the rest of the cast left much to be desired. As a "for instance", Marion's costuming looked suspiciously like it came from Walmart. And Sir Guy, well, he looked a bit like a character from an outer space movie! RoS has stolen the spotlight, probably forever, in the telling of this tale. Cast, costuming, story lines, scenery, filming and soundtrack by Clannad are all superb, as is evidenced by all the continual feedback some 26 years on. RoS is a timeless classic. My thanks to all who made the series.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie because every review I read of it said that it was one of the scariest movies of the new millennium. I really don't understand what all of the hype was about. For one thing, the dialogue in this movie was laughably bad ("What if something strange is going on?"...what????). The acting didn't blow my socks off either. It could have been because the script barely gave the actors anything to work with....the characters are purely 2-dimensional to me and I didn't give a hoot about them at all. Another thing is that the movie extremely boring. Extremely. Sure, there are a couple of "jolts" here and there, but for the movie's 112 minute length, it sure didn't use it's time up wisely. Most of the movie contains characters talking about stuff that had barely anything to do with the plot. What was the point of that??

To top it off, the movie makes no sense. Yes, I believe I understood the intentions of the ghosts, but how that fits into the events that actually occur in the movie is beyond me. Also, much of the movie is played out in little vignettes, which makes the story hard to follow at times. And don't even get me started with the ending. What exactly happened there?

I can give Kurosawa credit for placing some truly frightening images throughout the film. There are very creepy shots of ghosts and other unsettling images. If they reflected more on those images and elaborated on them, it would have made the movie much stronger. But they didn't, and instead elaborated more on social commentary, which was interesting, but again, portrayed in an extremely dull way. Yes, it's a message movie. Okay, fun. I'll just get the message of my review right out here in the open: find a better way to spend your spare time than watching this.

Sentiment: negative
While Hayao Miyazaki's movies have always been hit-or-miss with me with regards to story, they are unequivocally gorgeous to the eye, with characters of simple animation against a backdrop of artistic images. Ponyo sticks to that formula, with a lead character so adorable I want a plush doll of her and scenery so pretty it wouldn't look out of place framed up as a picture on a wall.

The story, on the other hand, I didn't enjoy quite as much as his last two wide-releases, Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle. It was just a tad too juvenile, coming across as more for kids and leaving adults to just enjoy the animation.

I was also disappointed that the score done by Joe Hisaishi, who also the scores for the above-mentioned two movies, wasn't nearly as memorable this time around. While I can't quite recall Howl's score now, I still remember it being one of the most beautiful I had ever heard. Ditto Spirited's - though I only remember it being very complementary to the movie. Maybe it's because Ponyo is more juvenile fare that the score isn't quite as haunting. In any case, this movie is still a must-watch for fans of anime or Miyazaki.

Sentiment: positive
I cannot believe how this atrocity managed to capture the hearts and minds of a cross-section of the 'bright young things' of its era, but I'm certain I wish it hadn't. In my opinion it is an inaccurate, poorly acted, weakly scripted, pretentiously directed piece of gumpf. The brief outings to an imagined reality bludgeon any humour to death. The situations are unsubtle exaggerations which make the the already flimsy characters even more unbelievable and detestable. The romance is dull, the end is unsatisfying and ruins the only sensible drugs message in the film and the simple plot ('Withnail and I,' 'Fear and Loathing') is tested to extremes with the uninteresting motion of the film. In short this film as a blatant visual assault with no hint of skill or initiative. I condemn it to the ash heap of history and pray it stays there.

Sentiment: negative
First off, I would like to make it clear that I voluntarily subject myself to the viewing of terrible movies. I have seen what I thought were the worst of the worst. In my mind, movies could not get any worse than the likes of D.E.B.S., Leprechaun 6: Back 2 Tha Hood, and Terror Storm. Until I saw this movie.

The Pirate Movie, without any exaggeration, is the WORST MOVIE IN THE WORLD. I was informed prior to watching that the movie was, indeed, awful, but I did not believe the allegations. Believe me when I tell you that this movie is simply an abomination to film.

It starts out with a 3 minute clip of a boat of pirates apparently in the middle of a battle with themselves. "The End" splashes across the screen. Unfortunately, it is not the actual end of the movie. The movie is about an unpopular, awkwardly nerdy girl named Mabel, who carries around a ghetto blaster and is attracted to ambiguously homosexual pirate boys. She drowns and has a overly drawn out hallucination in which she stars as a scantily dressed skank who falls in love with Frederic, who happens to have just crawled out of the ocean. He might actually be homosexual. The Pirate King has a ruby and diamond studded codpiece. It honks and squeaks when he squeezes it.

There is singing in this movie. You might have the impression that this is a hilarious musical. It isn't. Trust me. They are the worst songs that you've ever heard, and by the end of the first original tune you will be searching for objects to pierce your eardrums with.

There are "references" to other movies in here. By references, of course, I mean "obvious rip-offs." The inclusion of Indiana Jones, Inspector Clouseau, and the lightsaber were, in fact, anti-hilarious.

The dialogue is, in its better moments, painful to hear. The direction is flat out awful, and at one point you can see the stunt pad in the scene, which isn't very well hidden at all.

In conclusion, if there is even the shadow of curiosity in your mind about this movie, get rid of it. There are times when people want to see how bad something really is, but this movie is not worth it. Put it completely out of your mind and never think about it again. If you cherish your mental capacity then I beg of you, NEVER EVER WATCH THIS MOVIE.

Sentiment: negative
weak direction, weak plot, unimpressive music, i wonder why Udita Goswami is there in the movie world in the first place ? she tried to reveal a lot of her talent (mostly skin) but failed to impress.

music wasn't that impressive as well, only one song "Jhalak Dikhlajaa" was worth listening to..... 

Aksar, the title ? well they tried to justify the title of the movie in the end, but it didn't make sense..

there were many unwanted twists and turns in the story, which made it more boring. however if someone's a Dino Morea fan, please go ahead and watch it.

Sentiment: negative
If this movie should be renamed, it should be "The Jackasses of Hazzard." To sum it up, this movie is nothing but 88 minutes of two immature country punks joyriding the famed 1968 Dodge Charger around town and in the country, chasing the girls and eluding the law.

I have been a fan of the "Dukes" and what tarnishes the movie is the characters are out of key. The overindulgence of profanity, sexual references, and drug use, has made the good name of the "Dukes" into trailer trash.

Side from comparing it to the television show, the acting was horrible. The only actor that got it right was the famed 1969 Dodge Charger named General Lee. The others have exaggerated the character's role which tarnished the movie.

The "Dukes" have been another casualty of the 21-st century Hollywood television-to-big screen transition tragedy. Skip this movie and just buy the television series on DVD.

My grade: F

Sentiment: negative
Ok, I like B movies...I know what B movies are supposed to represent. But this is just awful. I am amazed it got such a decent overall score. The only redeeming qualities of this flick are the (mostly) marginal splatter effects. Don't get me wrong, gore abounds in this flick - but few effects really jumped out at me (like the anal "probe"...that was great!).

I believe this movie was filmed on a camcorder. C'mon - rent a Betacam at least, I've seen porn with better production values (and better acting as well).

Acting - sucked! But not in the Troma or Full Moon sort of way.

Story - contrived! But thats what you get from films like these. Very loose!

Sets & Props - sucked! My 16 year old brother makes more elaborate sets for our house on Halloween.

Dubbing and dialogue - sucked! Horrible voice acting (I shouldn't even call it acting) and every other word is "S**t" or "F**k".

There are tons of good classic and B rated horror / splatter flicks out there and they are not that hard to track down. Do yourself a favor by not wasting time on this crap!

Sentiment: negative
In efforts to make a somewhat comedic yet serious movie about the art of growing marijuana, Stephen Gyllenhaal (director) fell a few bong rips short of a good movie. While the cast is nothing short of amazing, this movie is extremely hard to sit through. The acting of Billy Bob Thornton, Ryan Phillipe, Jon Bon Jovi, Hank Azaria, and Kelly Lynch couldn't even save this movie from failure. It would be wiser to flush three single dollar bills down the toilet then to check this movie out at the local video store.



Sentiment: negative
The '7' rating is not necessarily a smear-- this movie was done on a low budget-- but done well within its limits.

A usual pot-boiler plot-- Ship carrying a prisoner is destroyed in space, people and prisoner escape in pods, land on unknown planet where their presence wakes something up. Mayhem ensues, a lot of ammo is expended.

The special effects were spare and properly done, emphasizing future technology with holographic displays and controls instead of relying on bulky, cheap looking plastic props. Plus the pacing of the story moved without allowing the viewer to lapse into boredom where they start picking things apart.

I peg this one as a lite Saturday afternoon flick. You can get up and hit the fridge without pausing it and it'll still be enjoyable. Even better, your girlfriend can talk all the way through it without damaging your enjoyment-- and she'll be happy: after all, she got to TALK to you! It's THAT type of movie.

Anyways, the actual story line has s few holes in after they hit the planet, but hey, this is a Guns 'n' Ammo action movie. Cohesive story lines are not necessarily required so long as you have Beer and chips at hand. So don't get get yourself into a brain-cramp over the ending.

Sentiment: positive