DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I'm not usually into dark/psychological thriller type things. However, SEIZING ME is really an amazing piece of work. The story, acting, filming, psychological themes, erotic quality and spiritual understanding are all really quite complex and compelling. Rose plays the complexities and shifts of a psychologically disturbed woman really quite accurately. My partner was particularly impressed with the sophisticated way the power exchange issues were handled. It was so intense for us to watch that we found ourselves leaving it three quarters through to "get tea" and I felt compelled to have a shower. The story was gripping but we were clearly unable to handle all the energy in one straight shot. (It delves into the gritty and grimy side of people, but doesn't leave you there). I thought about the characters and deeper meanings for a long time. I would highly recommend this one. Still be prepared for an experience you might not be expecting.

Sentiment: positive
Although there's Flying Guillotines as part of the title of this movie, it has no connections to the original Flying Guillotines (1975) and its sequel Flying Guillotines II (1978). The two originals are masterpieces of kung-fu movie and still stands out as a classic. This is a much inferior copy of the original, and even as a regular kung-fu movie, it's below average.

First of all, this movie doesn't have much acting. It's one senseless fight scene after another, and flying guillotine doesn't even play a major part in them. Story is about some Shaolin monks who are tracking down some villains who've took off with a sacred book, and an evil prince who owns part of this book is part of the plot. The same evil prince has plans to lure the monks in and use the flying guillotines on them.

There are four movies with Flying Guillotine as part of its title. This in my opinion is of least quality. The design of the flying guillotine in this movie is different from the other three indicating that this movie was produced by a different entity from the other three.

The movie has no chemistry asides from being unintentionally funny due to poor production. 

Best skip this and watch the two originals.

Sentiment: negative
I had high hopes for this one until they changed the name to 'The Shepherd : Border Patrol, the lamest movie name ever, what was wrong with just 'The Shepherd'. This is a by the numbers action flick that tips its hat at many classic Van Damme films. There is a nice bit of action in a bar which reminded me of hard target and universal soldier but directed with no intensity or flair which is a shame. There is one great line about 'being p*ss drunk and carrying a rabbit' and some OK action scenes let down by the cheapness of it all. A lot of the times the dialogue doesn't match the characters mouth and the stunt men fall down dead a split second before even being shot. The end fight is one of the better Van Damme fights except the Director tries to go a bit too John Woo and fails also introducing flashbacks which no one really cares about just gets in the way of the action which is the whole point of a van Damme film.

Not good, not bad, just average generic action.

Sentiment: negative
my friends and i watched this movie last night. it was pretty incredible. by all means, this was probably the worst movie i have ever seen. at first, it was tolerable. it stunk of BAD IMPROV but it was pretty friggin hilarious, despite the scenes being too long & drawn out and the terrible quality (i read $400 budget above... sounds about right) of the film itself.

the biggest problem came from the lack of a script; with a background in improv, i know how hard it can be to keep scenes short & efficient. what happened in this film was that the actors were left to improvise the scenes and they didn't know when to stop, they just kept going for ages on stupid topics. at first i thought this was because the movie was short and they needed long, useless scenes to flesh it out. as the movie progressed, i realized it was just a really bad movie.

there were a lot of parts where i could see that the film maker had a really good idea for a shot but not the resources (or talent!?) to pull it off effectively. a lot of the scenes were taken from a single shot (cause, you know, improv) for what felt like a really long time. so boring! if you can stand to put up with and hour and a half of terrible improv, watch it. it's really funny at parts but also really stupid and annoying. the acting ranges from alright to absolutely terrible. it seemed like the only good parts were the parts that really had nothing to do with the main plot; the ballsy kid who swore lots, the barbershop, etc etc.

but yeah. painfully bad. like, i was literally hurting. after an hour or so, my friends and i just got bored and left.

Sentiment: negative
OK, I'm Italian but there aren't so many Italian film like this. I think that the plot is very good for 3/4 of the film but the final is too simple, too predictable. But it's the only little mistake. The Consequences of Love in my opinion have great sequences in particular at the beginning and great soundtrack. I'd like very much the lighting work on it. The best thing on it is a great, great actor. You know, if your name were Al Pacino now everybody would have still been talking about this performance. But it's only a great theater Italian actor called Toni Servillo. Yes, someone tell me this film and this kind of performance it's too slow, it's so boring, so many silences, but i think that this components its fantastic, its the right way for describing the love story between a very talented young girl, the grand-daughter of the Italian actress Anna Magnani, Olivia and the old mysterious man Toni. One of my favorite Italian films.

Sentiment: positive
It's easy to make really general comments about a film like this. The fact that it's one of the only remaining Japanese films from this era causes people to say that it "started Japanese cinema" and was "unlike anything the west ever made." The latter of these two comments is particularly false as Kinugasa himself admitted to ripping off "Caligari" on more than one occasion. But style was meant to be imitated, and doesn't take away from this film's importance. What we have here is experimental themes and composition built on already established visual styles, opening the doors for a truly brilliant layering of narratives and realities. For this purpose, the madhouse is the ideal setting, and the writers knew this. This is a landmark film, and every effort should be made to track it down.

5 out of 5 - Essential

Sentiment: positive
Agustus and Call really did Nothing? Why are they Hero's they did nothing other then get to places after the bad guys where dead. What was the point of this show? I was very very Disappointed. I expected more action, more story, and to see the birth of Heros and Great Deeds. Instead I saw very little, it seemed like Agustus and Call where just side story's for the great Indian Chief. 

I'm not even sure that the history is even very close. They did very little to show why the Texans and Comanche fought against each other.

The only good part about this movie was Zhan who played Gus very very well and is a great actor. A lot of good story that could have been gone to waste. It was sad and I wish that I had not watched it.

Sentiment: negative
I found this to be an utter waste of time, effort and money. I know Disney always displays lack of creativity when making "straight-to-video" films - but rehashing the plot of the original film with a "new perspective" is an all-time low...soon they'll just be re-releasing the original films with new animation and new songs and be calling it a "new version of the movie we all love." Nathan Lane surprisingly returns to his role of Timon yet again. Timon and Pumbaa the animated animals from the world of the original "Lion King" embark on a narrative journey to tell us the original story the way it REALLY happened...as they see it.

Of course Timon is now the hero of the story, yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah...

The musical sequences are lame and the animation is crap. The vocal talents are impressive for a video feature, but then again, when was the last time you remember Matthew Broderick, Whoopi Goldberg or Nathan Lane being in anything of real commercial substance? Overall if you liked the original you'll hate this. It's insulting because it's unfair to children and adults alike. And that about sums it up.

Sentiment: negative
"Scientists at a remote lab experiment on (insert scaly creature here) and create out of control monsters. In the meantime a crack military team/the scientist's daughter/bank robbers find their way to the remote place and are menaced by the giant critters. One by one they're eaten, all during an "exciting" race to not be blown up by the forces who initially created the monsters..." The sad thing is that this sounds like about a dozen movies which have appeared on the Sci-Fi Channel. I have to wonder just what is going on? Sure... I like bimbos and Hollywood-Hunk wannabes be eaten by CGI critters as much as the next person... but where's the plot or originality? Granted, there are times when Sci-Fi Channel Shines. Battlestar Galactica, if a bit dark, can be very good. Writers have continued to pump life into the various Stargate offerings, and the latest BBC import of Doctor Who is surprisingly good.

Even in the various "giant animal" movies on Sci-Fi, the animation seems to be getting better all the time. Compare the kommodo in this film to the rather clunky version in the first giant kommodo film on Sci-Fi.

But goodness... how about a different plot? Maybe some -different- giant critter? On a whim, I started searching around the internet. Among the litter I found a few interesting stories which might appeal to SF fans and out of work Russian CGI animators at once. I offer http://www.macrophile.com/~arilin/archive/metamorphosis-day to the network with a suggestion that they contact the author for the story rights. (The story contains violent images generally on a par with those of various Sci-Fi channel offerings).

The story has subplot, ethical and moral comment on the nature of humanity and ends not on one of those horrible "did they REALLY kill all the monsters???" moments, but rather leaves you guessing completely and in an entirely different mindset.

Which is generally what science-fiction is supposed to do, no?

Sentiment: negative
Flavia the Heretic is an undeniable work of art and probably my number one recommendation to state that the euro-exploitation cinema is severely underrated and not to be ignored. This is an intelligent and complex film, beautifully realized and  surprise  pretty damn accurate! This is more than just meaningless sleaze or gratuitous violence and it's about time those prudish film committees who categorize Flavia as forbidden trash reckon this as well. Flavia is a beautiful 14th century adolescent, forced to live the life of an obedient nun in a strict convent. She refuses to accept her being inferior just because she's female and she curses her fellow sister for being so tolerant about this. After a fruitless attempt to escape, she befriends another rebellious nun and she even guides a troop of bloodthirsty Muslims into the walls of the convent.

Flavia is a downright mesmerizing film! Almost impossible to believe that director Gianfranco Mingozzi managed to make it appear so realistic and so disturbing. I challenge you to come up with a title that centers on the topic of pioneer-feminism more intensely than Flavia does. Several sequences are quite shocking (on the verge of nightmarish, actually) as the camera zooms in on brutal rapes, torture and mutilation. Yet all this raw footage isn't just used to satisfy perverted gorehounds, mind you. I'm strongly convinced that they're part of the statement 'Flavia' is trying to communicate: Humanity (the Catholic Church in particular) historically proved itself to be a hypocrite and discriminating race and there's no use in denying it any further. Films like "Flavia, the Heretic" have the courage to question and openly condemn our precious ancestors and I truly admire them for it. Flavia is an outstanding and fundamental exploitation film because of its substance, but it's even brought to an higher level by the wondrous cinematography, the glorious costumes & scenery and a breathtaking musical score by Nicola Piovani. Florinda Bolkin is very convincing as the ambitious and headstrong nun but it's María Casares who steals the show as Sister Agatha. She's a man-hating and loud-mouthed nun who likes to urinate in the open field! Amen, sister!

Sentiment: positive
Motocrossed was fun, but it wasn't that great. I guess I just didn't understand a lot of the Motocross racing "lingo" (and there was A LOT of that in the film)! The plot wasn't what I expected from the Disney Channel previews, so that could account for some of my disappointment.

Sentiment: negative
I was hoping that Pulp would be a interesting movie, but was profoundly disappointed.

Pulp has very little storyline, and what there is never holds your interest. It was a real struggle to keep watching it. When its over you say to you self "huh? that's it?!?". This is one where you think after watching it - why did they ever bother?

Its too bad since Michael Caine is a good actor. I was also hoping to see the great Lizabeth Scott in this, but she only appears on screen for a total of perhaps one minute. Scott is one of the all time great film noir femme fatale girls and this was her last film.

Oh well...

Sentiment: negative
I'd just like to say that i've seen this film twice now and i love it! The acting is great and even though it is a similar plot to "Raise Your Voice" I think that the plot never gets boring for people who like that kind of thing. It has some great lessons in it and shows us that we can do anything if we try. An incredible film. I am sure that this is one i will be watching for a long time to come. Even though Britney Spears write the book it is quite a realistic plot, maybe not about the falling in love part, but the part about being different and struggling but coming out best in the end is very true to real life. The only minor criticism is why is the main girl in these films always beautiful? Do you really think that Holly would have met the perfect guy of her dreams if she was ugly or average? I doubt it..

Sentiment: positive
I don't leave IMDb comments about films but this.... this film was bad. very bad. I fast forwarded through most of it, stopping where I hoped the acting had improved since the last scene, only to continue with the fast forwards. Formula plot -- once the obvious murderers were discounted, there was only the one left. And that was in the first five minutes. Scene by scene it felt as though I'd already read the script before because there were no surprises, no mystery. The Tori character... bad bad acting. A true waste of time on DVD and a definite 'let's go to bed early' option if it's the only thing on television. If you watch this film, you will find yourself realising you'll never be able to get back the time you've just wasted.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is horrendous. The acting is cheesy and laughable. If you know anything at all about Rugby the match action is boring. In fact any episode of Power Rangers contains more realism than this movie. The 'action' consists of no more than one pass and a shot of guy landing over the try line or being tackled without the ball and hectic hand held shots of who knows what. It's impossible to tell. There is nothing of the excitement, skill and construction of try scoring that real Rugby contains. As for the haka, this is a bunch of yanks trying to imitate a tradition they know nothing about, much like the white rasta character that should have been left out of the film. Next time there's a Rugby movie made we can only hope that people who know Rugby make it.

Sentiment: negative
If you delete the first twenty minutes or so of this film, you will be left with a fantastic comedy. As it is, I still found it to be a pretty good movie, which is no small feat considering the coma I was put in by the opening scenes. To put it mildly, this film has a dreary beginning that wasn't even remotely funny, or even upbeat. Once things get sillier, however, you are left with a comedy that still holds up well after more than three decades. Definitely worth checking out, especially if you're a younger fan of Lemmon and Matthau who wants to see their earlier work.

Sentiment: positive
Since starting to read the book this movie is based on, I'm having mixed feelings about the filmed result. I learned some time ago to see the movie adaptation of a book before I read the book, because I found that if I read the book first I was inevitably disappointed in the film. This would undoubtedly have been true here, whereas in the case of Atonement, which is probably the best filmed adaptation of a book I've ever seen, it would probably not have mattered.

I'm trying to figure out what the cause is, and I suspect that I have to point my finger squarely at Michael Cunningham. Much as I respect him for The Hours (which I have not read but which I saw and was awed by) I cannot escape the feeling that he not so much adapted Susan Minton's book as he did take a few of the characters and the basic premise and write his own movie out of it.

It's not that I dislike the movie. I actually love the movie, which is why, since I started reading the novel, I'm feeling disturbed about the whole thing. I feel disloyal to Ms. Minton for enjoying the movie which was so thooughly a departure from her work. Reading it, I can understand why she had such a struggle adapting it. Unlike what one reviewer of the movie said, it's not so much that some novels don't deserve to be a movie; it's more like some books just can't make the transition. Ms. Minton's novel operates on a level so personal and intimate to her central character, so internally, that it seems impossible to me to place it in a physical realm. Even though a lot of the book is memory of real events, it is memory, and so fragmented and ethereal as to be, I feel, not filmable. I think that Ms. Minton's work is a real work of literature, but cannot make the transition to film, which in no way detracts from its value.

I cannot yet report that Evening, the film, does not represent Evening, the novel, in any more than the most superficial way, since I'm only halfway through, but the original would have to make a tremendous leap to resemble the film that follows at this point. I guess I'm writing this because I feel that if you're going to adapt a novel, adapt it, but don't make it something else that it's not. I'm not sure if Michael Cunningham has done anything wholly original, but from what I can see so far the things he has done are all based on someone else's work. We would not have The Hours if Virginia Woolf had not written Mrs. Dalloway, and we would not have Evening, in its distressed form, if Susan Minton had not had so much trouble doing what probably should not have been attempted in the first place. But it's too much to say that it would be better if Ms. Minton had left well enough alone, because Evening, the film, is a satisfactory and beautiful work of its own.

Thus my confusion, mixed feelings, sense of disloyalty, and ultimate conclusion that, in this case, the novel cannot be the film and vice versa, and my eventual gratitude to both writers for doing what they did, so that we have both works as they are.

Sentiment: positive
OK,but does that make this a good movie?well,not really,in my opinion.there isn't a whole lot to recommend it.i found it very slow,tediously,in fact.it's also predictable pretty much through and through.number one and two were somewhat predictable,but not as much.i also felt this movie was quite campy at times,which i didn't really think fits this series and the character.Jeff Fahey plays the main bad guy in this installment.he's a decent enough actor,but i felt he played his character too over the top.i guess that fit with the tone of the movie,which would have been great if i had liked the movie.plus,there were some pretty bad one liners.Arnold Vosloo returns in the title role,but is given little to work with in this movie.the character has not really evolved,as i had hoped.oh well.this is just my opinion.anyway,for me,while this movie is not abysmal,it is pretty bad.my vote for Darkman III: 3.5/5

Sentiment: negative
Fast Times it ain't. But check this movie out, it has a heart. Pour yourself a drink and enjoy. It's loaded with a slew of just-beginning stars. Sherilyn Fenn has her first on-screen credited cameo. Chris Penn, Lea Thompson, Eric Stotz, Jenny Wright, Rick Moranis, etc.--they all look so young. Oh and if you look closely the cop's wife is Nancy Wilson from the rock band Heart.

Sentiment: positive
There's something rotten about this film, and basically the way it turns a sinister and twisted character into a hero by exploiting our sympathy with his admittedly horrible situation. Sampedro, like many who have lost hope, chooses suicide. The fact that he has been contemplating it for more than 26 years probably makes his condition worse, but the belief that we should do whatever anyone asks, even if it means ending a life is in my opinion profoundly wrong. What a contrast to the uplifting example of the scientist Stephen Hawkings, who suffered a far worse condition for far longer! Yet with the morals upside down, the film revels in hero worship, and the people who disagree with are painted in simplistic idiotic terms. There's little room for subtly especially in the encounter with the priest(deliberately manipulating the real life encounter which was with a much younger priest). In that way I suppose the film is on a par with Riefenstahls Triumph of the Will. The insidious idea is that everyone should have to right to take their life, when they feel they cannot live it anymore. It makes no difference whether you are physically or psychologically damaged, there are people evidently who believe you have the right to choose. The same people are likely to make a case for abortion. Its all part of the current trend to get the suffering or sufferers out of sight, brush it under the carpet, mammy will say its. OK, and we all feel very happy with ourselves. So we go down the slippery path of believing that some lives, just ain't worth living, and then we'll decide that as some people can't really decide for themselves then we'll bring in the state to decide for them. Enter Adolf Hitler straight from that other Oscar contender "der Untergang". Hitler of course believes that he carrying out exactly what Nature does in disposing of the weak. Under his regime, there were forced abortions among the "weaker" strains", the mentally handicapped were quietly put away and the Jews were "humanely" liquidated by using gas. He would have applauded this film, and why not for it is in line with his philosophy..."some lives are just not worth living". I differ from Ramon Sampedro, Hitler and all the people involved with making this film. Human life is sacred, it is not a right, it is a gift and an obligation. Nobody chooses to be born. Then who can choose death. Its not about religion, its about protecting the weak and helpless, something this film does a lot to undermine!

Sentiment: negative
'The Fox and the Child' is the new film by French director Luc Jacquet, who brought us the Oscar-winning documentary 'March of the Penguins.' It focuses around a young girl (wonderfully played by Bertille Noël-Bruneau) and her blooming friendship with a fox.

There are some truly mesmerizing moments here; badgers mucking about, a lynx chasing the fox through a snow-littered forest; one scene in particular when the fox is being tormented by a pack of wolves is quite intense and even frightening at times. However, there's simply not quite enough of them.

Beautifully shot; the cinematography is dazzling. The bubbly kind of look of the film is wonderful. It's undeniably a very lush production.

The English version is narrated by Kate Winslet, but what little dialogue there already is has been very poorly dubbed. The score is also far too fluffy, or at least it is for my liking; and the screenplay, while subtle, seemingly jumps from one scenario to another, ultimately leaving me almost baffled.

While there's a nice moral at the heart of the film, and the rather quiet performance from Noël-Bruneau is quite lovely, the real star is the fox. Those captivating moments focusing solely around our furry little friend are tremendous. However, again, there's simply not nearly enough of them.

- To keep up to date with all the latest in film, including reviews, news, discussions and more, be sure to visit www.mybluray.com.au

Sentiment: negative
De Sica is becoming one of my favorite directors, but this one was a hit-and-miss for me. A grinning idiot youth becomes the leader of a community of illegal settlers in a deserted area outside Milano. It is a detailed and sparkling story of the innocent poor masses, complete with evil capitalists and trigger-happy police forces, but slowly it evolves into a magic fantasy tale, as the boy wonder Toto develops unlimited superhero powers. I had it up to here with the ever-smiling Toto after 10 minutes, and when the magic took over, I was left in the dust. There were so many wonderfully orchestrated shots, so many good characters among the settlers, that I kept thinking it was a waste the movie wasn't more serious with its material. The coupling of neorealism and fantasy comes out more as an experiment of the "look-what-we-can-also-do-mum" sort than as a fully developed piece of work/art.

Sentiment: positive
This film is so bad. I mean, who commissions this stuff? And the costume designer deserves an award for making everyone look like they had just stepped out of 1983. A bloke puts a female wig on and fights....nuff said.

Sentiment: negative
A study in BAD. Bad direction, bad acting, bad writing and f/x that´ll teach you that you´d better upgrade your computer before filming. It´s the kind of flick you used to do totally drunk in your cellar with Dad´s camera when you were young at heart. But YOU certainly would not show it in public when you´re sober again, would you? YOU wouldn´t even view it. Avoid at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
Asia Argento is a sexy beautiful woman who likes to run around naked which isn't a bad thing in it's self, but, when her character talks about all the guys she serviced, and to see her with Michael Madsen and an Asian guy in the present tense of the movie, it made me feel like I needed a condom over my eyes to watch this movie, like a disease was going to rub off on me or something.

The movie felt like it was going for a love triangle/drama/action/??? plot, it just seemed to go everywhere and nowhere at the same time. The acting was great, the plot, not so great. The director needs to at least pick a genre and practice, practice, practice, before trying to do something as complicated as this again, because they are not very good at it obviously.

Sentiment: negative
Heya Denver fans! The animation is a cartoon's classic & one of my favorite too (and yes, it was broadcast in Europe as well. Including my tiny central-European country, Slovenia! =:) Oh, how I miss the 80's cartoons!! Honestly, they were way better than today's children shows. More imaginative, creative, full of fun with good morals, more substance, great storyline and excellent character voices. Computer animated shows of today lack all of these features. So all of you, who agree and want to bring back all the shows so that the kids of today's generation would see the entertainment that these cartoons brought to us, please log on the side posted bellow and sign a petition for a rerun of the 80's best cartoons! 

http://www.thepetitionsite.com /1/we-want-an-80s-child-cartoon-kids-show-channel

Carpe Denver! =) 

Lejla

Sentiment: positive
Superb movie. Very good photography of 1969/70 Bolton, which seems now to be a different world. Thoughtful and an excellent dramatisation and production. James Mason a real first class star. It is and I would agree with the above comment that this movie is a national treasure.

Sentiment: positive
How do you describe perfection? In-the-Mood-For-Love! Maggie Cheung and Tony Leong practically dance on the screen and give stellar performances that stay with you hours after you've left the theatre. Every scene in the film resonates with the powerful combination of superb cinematography and shot selection, top-notch acting, and the sensual soundtrack. Nat King Cole singing in French absolutely sets the tone for the whole movie. Maggie and Tony look marvelous, with Maggie slinking about in some truly glorious cheongsams and Tony always looking dapper. I've seen this movie several times already, and everytime I see it I find something new to rave about. Love it!

Sentiment: positive
Begins better than it ends. Funny that the russian submarine crew outperforms all other actors. It's like those scenes where documentary shots...

--- SPOILER PART ---- The message dechifered was contrary to the whole story. It just does not mesh.



Sentiment: negative
This, I think, is one of the best pictures ever made. It's so pure and beautiful. It really touched me. I'm glad David Lynch proved that a film doesn't necessarily need SFX, a twisting, complicated plot or flashy images. Way to go,Dave. I'd like to see Cronenberg do that!

Sentiment: positive
Watching this movie was the biggest waste of time and 2 bucks for rental in my life. If nothing catastrophic happens before I die, this will be the biggest regret of my life. Who ever even thought about this movie, or financed deserves a kick between the legs, because that's where they were thinking when they made this movie. It's about an overweight guy who is a hopeless romantic, and writes pretentious drivel that tries to pass off as poetry. He joins his amorous friend in a trip to the coast. Where they meet girls and such. Only the fat guy doesn't get a girl. Skin flicks don't annoy me, I take 'em for face value. But this movie tries to be more than a skin flick. It's about Fat guy looking for love in some girl, but then meets another bikini silicone girl that enjoys his poetry. He finds his talent for volleyball which gets money for his family and impresses the ladies, only he has his lady anyways. The dialogue is super-horrible for even a C movie. It supports a ton of black stereotypes, no character development, it's a glorified porno movie, without any porn in it. Never ever watch this movie.

Sentiment: negative
Yes, Kazaam is one of those horribly bad movies that almost reminds one of everything that is wrong with not just kids movies, but with humanity. Here we have Shaq as a rapping genie- yes, a RAPPING genie- where he does everything from making bad puns to dressing in ridiculous outfits, all ending in him in a Christ-like pose with lots of light surrounding him. So, yeah, expect really cheesy bits, including the first wish being a lot of junk food falling down from the sky (and, regrettably, not knocking out the two main characters, particularly the kid). What might not be expected is that a film with a kid and Shaquille O'Neill would be so incredibly schmaltzy! The main plot of the film involves this kid, played in that all-too-typical and annoying-kid fashion by the great-grandson of Frank Capra (where in which the kid is yelling out his dialog angrily), who comes upon a genie who's been trapped in a boom-box. Then "hiarity ensues" as the kid makes the Shaq-genie his quasi-slave as he waits on his last two wishes as he tries to make amends with his shady-gang-type absentee father.

This really sappy, contrived son and father story would be bad enough, as there are certain lines that have been uttered in a million other movies (i.e. the "two chances in life" speech from father to son). But it's Shaquille O'Neill who is both the reason to watch the film (ironically), and the obvious sinking crux of it all. His plot line involves him, when not getting the over-talky treatment from Capra, to rap within the dialog and also start off his blossoming recording career. On top of this, he also kicks ass and takes names with the main bad guys who want him back in the boom-box. So is there a camp factor to the movie? Up to a point, but this is even squashed by all of the mushy scenes and 'heart-felt' moments that have really no business with the rest of the material. One might ask if the people making the movie, who were obviously doing it at the behest of the popularity of a BASKETBALL player who wanted to go on the Michael Jordan acting bandwagon, if it would be anywhere near decently entertaining or convincing. I'd hope that they too knew they were just getting paid. But I'd hope even more that they felt at least a little guilty afterwords for feeding the Shaq-machine.

So, if you want to have a fun night of Shaq as genie-turned-rapper-turned-wisecracker, all the more fun to you. Hell, it might even be interesting to have a Shaq movie night with this and his other critically acclaimed effort Steel. But if you're hoping to keep a few brain cells, stay away from what is very likely the worst flick of 1996, and a candidate among many others for worst of the 90's.

Sentiment: negative
I find it terribly ironic that "left wing" Hollywood continues to hedge its bets, making these awful lukewarm movies that neither condemn the war on terror nor embrace it.

If you're a Sixties survivor and a committed pacifist, and you're hoping for an all-out condemnation of war like BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY or ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, this movie will really feel like a rip off. None of these soldiers actually question this war, or any war, or the idea of war. They just gripe about having to do another tour.

On the other hand, if you're a patriotic American who wants to see a story of courage and honor, this movie will really feel like a rip off. None of these soldiers loves America, or even loves the service. The way they pout and sulk makes them come across more like suburban teenagers than blue collar tough guys. It's not WE WERE SOLDIERS, and it's not SANDS OF IWO JIMA. It's not even mindless action, and the war scenes are less RAMBO and more BUFFY.

Ryan Philippe so completely cannot carry this kind of movie. Though he's devastatingly sexy, in a rough trade, men's room, bisexual sort of way, it's hard to picture him as a slow-talking' Texas boy who wants to stand up and be counted. This is no Sgt. Croft in Mailer's THE NAKED AND THE DEAD. He's more like Joel in Truman Capote's OTHER VOICES, OTHER ROOMS. He can't sell you on the idea that he's been in combat and done his bit, OR that he wants his woman and wants her right now. He fizzles on the battlefield and in the bedroom scenes, looking as if he would much prefer to bend over and take a good stiff attack from the rear.

Sentiment: negative
Like many of you I am a great fan of the real thing - the 1940s noir films - but Red Rock West was a real treat for all of us longing for the past. The term 'neo-noir' has been so often used inappropriately in the last ten years that it has lost its meaning and its impact. John Dahl's film on the other hand, truly deserved to be described as such. The casting is perfect all around and would have felt right at home with Tay Garnett or Jacques Tourneur. The plot is so tight that you are hooked within the first fifteen minutes. James M. Cain would have appreciated it. Many contemporary films leave me wondering why they don't make them like they used to, and I'm not even that old. Movies such as Red Rock West give us hope for the future while paying tribute to the past.

Sentiment: positive
Really, average is the only word that comes to my mind when you see this.

The acting was average (maybe a bit above average), the camera usage was average (actually below average. The picture was so shaky and the colors were grainy and blurry.) The plot was a good one but moved at such a slow pace and wasn't put to good use.

This could've been so much more if it didn't go at a snail pace and we saw more into the characters backgrounds.

All we see are flashbacks here and there of Alice and how her home life is so "bad" (her mother is a working class woman trying to make end meet for her and her daughter.) We see a flashback of her of when she was in high school and her friend says to her "tell your Mom to make some better food" and "everybody says it's your mom." Yeah that's embarrassing but why would you run away from it. 

I could definitely see if her Mom was a drunk or somebody was abusing her but nothing was wrongwith her home except she was embarrassed by it. How immature! 

We're not even given a glimpse of what the couple's lives have been like (except that they've been prostituting for awhile and the woman, forgot her name, gave her baby up when it was 9 months old.) This really could've been so much more. It could've had Alice who was abused by her drunk mom go down to Florida with her friend but then becomes a prostitute. Or something along the lines of that other then the real plot of this movie (that is) Alice, a girl with a home life of probably 90% of America's population (WORKING CLASS) runaways to Florida but then gets sidetracked by turning into a prostitute.

I don't see why it won an award at Sundance (it must've been up against some really weak competition to have won that one award.) 

Also to me, Alice's Boston/New England accent seemed forced. It didn't seem genuine. (I should know, I was born and raised in Boston, but now live in Georgia.) 

4/10 Not really worth your time in my opinion.

Sentiment: negative
Unhinged follows the typical plot of the early 80's slasher trend. Pretty Young Girls In Peril. I have to give it up for the filmmaker who used a helicopter for some of the early road-trip shots, you actually think for a second there's going to be quality in the production. Watching "Unhinged" was like seeing an amateur acting class go through it's warm-up. Some of the most awkward, badly lit, overlong scenes are played out with the gusto of a Valium overdose. I wondered why they didn't just put the cue-cards on camera so the actresses wouldn't have to constantly shift their gaze. The two main girls were obviously chosen for their T&A factor rather than talent. Laurel Munson as the main chick Terry is as exciting as watching paint dry. Two nude scenes make for an adolescent thrill. Janet Penner and Virginia Settle as the crazy/creepy daughter and mother the chicks find themselves stranded with compete for Worst Acting Ever. Long pauses, weird expressions, emphasis on the wrong word, it's all there and is a delight for those of us out there who love bad films. The scenes shift suddenly with long black-outs you could drive a Mack truck through. Cartoon lightning crashes across shots without even bothering to show the sky. Eighties eyeshadow assaults the viewer. But ya know, it grew on me. I felt sorry for it. I wanted to hug it, kiss it's boo-boos and make it better. The ending doesn't make up for the damage it's caused but I grinned anyway. I have my own theories regarding the whole "banned" hype and hope that anyone who chooses to view this film does so with substantial substance abuse and a sense of humor. Otherwise pass.

Sentiment: negative
First one was much better, I had enjoyed it a lot. This one has not even produced a smile. The idea was showing how deep down can human kind fall, but in reference to the characters not the film-maker.

Sentiment: negative
The movie starts something like a less hyper-kinetic, more pastiche Dead or Alive: strange underground activities are done while bodies are discovered by police officers. But when a police officer is killed, one Tatsuhito gets involved... and when he discovers that his brother Shihito is also involved, things get bloody quite fast.

An earlier work of Miike's, Shinjuku Triad Society is still filled with his usual in the ol' ultraviolence and sadistic sex acts, though it's not one of his more eclectic or flamboyant pieces. Rather, it's a pretty well crafted bit of pulp fiction, as Tatsuhito digs his way through the underground, a maze that leads him to a gay Triad leader who sells illegally gained body organs from Taiwan and keeps an almost-brothel of young boys (one in particular the character who kills the cop at the beginning). Tatsuhito's brother is getting involved with said society, so Tatsuhito himself is forced to become a dirty cop and use similarly violent and sadistic tactics to penetrate into this sordid realm.

What's mainly interesting about this little bit of work is the relationship Tatsuhito has with his nemesis, Wang. Tatsuhito is a Japanese born in China, later moved back into Japan, and alienated for it. Wang is a Chinese who felt alienated in China, so killed his father and developed a crime wing in Japan. Wang also is a surprisingly Shakespearian character, which is weird enough as it is, much less that you actually begin to feel sorry for him by the time his ultimate showdown with Tatsuhito comes to be. And Tatsuhito himself is a similarly tragic figure when he's forced to contend with his lack of ability to control his brother. While it would be rude to state that Miike's movies are successful mostly on their shock value, it is true that sometimes it's easy to lose track of how well Miike can create bitter, dis-impassioned characters.

--PolarisDiB

Sentiment: positive
I've read all the rave reviews here and am impressed with the imagination of those who loved this film. I can't say that I found much to recommend it. The Leonard Cohen sound track is not only excessively heavy-handed but dreary beyond measure. The film looks authentic enough, but something's got to happen for it to work, and nothing much does: a cursory plot (not a real problem for me), not much character development, nothing thematically. It just slogs along. Flawed as it is, Cimino's "Heaven's Gate" has some moments of genuine wonder and is a film I'd sooner watch again. For a brilliant reconception of the West, HBO's "Deadwood" is much superior to "McCabe."

Sentiment: negative
A Vietnam vet decides to take over a backwater town run amok, and anyone who steps in his path is eliminated (including women). Released to theaters just prior to "A Star Is Born", which turned his career around, this action-drama mishmash starring Kris Kristofferson is wildly off-kilter, thoughtless and mean-spirited. Filmed in Simi Valley, CA, the results are truly unseemly, with redneck clichés and mindless violence making up most of director George Armitage's script. Armitage has gathered a most curious '70s cast for his film, including Jan-Michael Vincent, Victoria Principal, Bernadette Peters, and, in a bit, Loni Anderson; however, the center of the whole thing is Kristofferson, who is gruff and rude throughout. It deserves points I suppose for being a completely unsympathetic drive-in thriller, but the bad vibes (and the ridiculous climax) coat the whole project like an ugly stain. *1/2 from ****

Sentiment: negative
Robert Colomb has two full-time jobs. He's known throughout the world as a globetrotting TV reporter. Less well-known but equally effortful are his exploits as a full-time philanderer.

I saw `Vivre pour Vivre' dubbed in English with the title 'Live for Life.' Some life! Robert seems to always have at least three women in his life: one mistress on her way out, one on her way in, and the cheated wife at home. It helps that Robert is a glib liar. Among his most useful lies are `I'll call you tomorrow' and `My work took longer than planned.' He spends a lot of time and money on planes, trains and hotel rooms for his succession of liaisons. You wonder when this guy will get caught with his pants down.

Some may find his life exciting, but I thought it to be tedious. His companions, including his wife, Catherine, are all attractive and desirable women. But his lifestyle is so hectic and he is so deceitful, you wonder if he's enjoying all this.

Adding to the tedium is considerable footage that doesn't further the plot. There are extended sections with no dialogue or French-only dialogue. We see documentaries of wars, torture, and troop training interspersed with the live action. When Robert's flight returns from Africa, we wait and wait for the plane to land and taxi to the airport terminal.

Annie Girardot is the standout performer in this film. Hers was the most interesting character and she played it to perfection. It was also nice to see Candice Bergen at the beginning of her career. I can't find fault with Yves Montand's performance of what was basically an amoral bum.

I enjoyed some of Claude Lelouch's novel techniques. In a hotel room scene, the camera pans around the room as Robert and his mistress argue. We catch sight of them briefly during each pass around the room. In another scene set on a sleeping car of a train, Robert is lying on the upper bunk while his wife is on the lower. Robert is giving his wife some important but distressing news, but we hear only parts of it because of the clatter of the train. I sensed that his wife was also unable to absorb every word due to the shocking nature of the news. I also liked the exciting safari scenes in Africa. The cinematography of those scenes and of those in Amsterdam was superb.

I reviewed this movie as part of a project at the Library of Congress. I've named the project FIFTY: 50 Notable Films Forgotten Within 50 Years. As best I can determine, this film, like the other forty-nine I've identified, has not been on video, telecast, or distributed in the U.S. since its original release. In my opinion, it is worthy of being made available again.



Sentiment: negative
Robin Williams is a genius. One of the best comedians in the world. He really shows off in this one, cracking jokes left and right as the talk show comedian Tom Dobbs. From the previous this looked like it would be a side-splitting laugh fest. And it was funny. But there were a lot of serious parts in the movie that I was not expecting. I would describe it as a drama/comedy. But it's still worth the money to see, and I still found it to be almost everything that I expected. Robin Williams is at his best, along with the famous Christopher Walken. They play a very good team in this movie and I was actually shocked to see how well the two were able to work together. I recommend it to anyone who is looking for a light-hearted movie.

Sentiment: positive
Seeing as the vote average was pretty low, and the fact that the clerk in the video store thought it was "just OK", I didn't have much expectations when renting this film.

But contrary to the above, I enjoyed it a lot. This is a charming movie. It didn't need to grow on me, I enjoyed it from the beginning. Mel Brooks gives a great performance as the lead character, I think somewhat different from his usual persona in his movies.

There's not a lot of knockout jokes or something like that, but there are some rather hilarious scenes, and overall this is a very enjoyable and very easy to watch film.

Very recommended.

Sentiment: positive
I loved the original, I watch it every year. but the second is a piece of garbage and it never should have been made. The second could have worked if there was a different location. The son was not an original or didn't even act like one of Eddie's kids. Third was too smart for Eddie which downplayed his father role. None of the other kids where in it. It just could of been a lot better. I don't know why they even tried to make this movie. There was no continuncy from the first movie. I will pretend that this one doesn't even exist. It is sad that the actors didn't even see that they where made fools of. A really bad movie. I just think that i wasted an hour or more on a bad movie and i really love all of the national lampoon films.

Sentiment: negative