DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Do NOT avoid this movie. Simply because it is so bad that it is absolutely hilarious. It possibly is the worst movie I have ever seen but it was so bad that my friends and I were able to laugh at every single moment of this film. At times we actually debated whether it was this bad on purpose but we're pretty sure that it is not. Characters appear out of nowhere as if they have already been established, the scenery changes mid scene to this warehouse constantly, and the Vampire Assassin ends up having around 6 climactic fights with enemies before finally getting to the head vampire. You will also be able to enjoy the one and only face of the Vampire Assassin as he never changes his expression despite his obvious attempts to. So if you want to watch a movie that will make you laugh histerically then I suggest this one as long as you go in with an open mind. Don't expect a good movie, expect the worst... and it will be even worse than that. I seriously want to buy this movie and place it atop my comedy movie selection. Right next to Anchorman.

Sentiment: negative
Once a wise man from India once said, "First they will laugh at us. Then they will hate us. Then they will fear us." Know that yes this film's budget was a bit off, but even then with its story still takes our interest many yrs later, regardless of how it may have looked. But know soon, in due time "Masten Thrust" will arise to the big screen once again. Then he and the new redesigned T-Rex will more then shock you. It will scare many for centuries to come!! This film is in current pre-production and will be nothing like anything you have ever seen before! 

This will be beyond THX format.....right into 4-DX format. 

"Be afraid, be VERY afraid!"

Sentiment: positive
Unlike most reviewers here, I hated this movie, simply because the writer/director's bloated ego was in the way of an otherwise potentially interesting topic. Too many film fans equate 'EXTREME self-indulgence' to 'film GENIUS!', but I don't buy into that cult of personality. A film should be about its subject, not its director (unless it's a Woody Allen film, of course). *SPOILER* (which is just as well, save your time...) There is nothing brilliant about of showing you the foot-long porn-star's you-know-what in the last frame- that's actually called a tacky maneuver that SCREAMS film-school hackism. 

The poseur flick has achieved 'great film' status based on its indulgence and pandering to the audience  which, first and foremost, is the writer/director. But the rest of the audience should look down on the surly, brutal nature of the porn biz, too. The flick had an aloof angle to the porn industry, looking down on each and every player it could bash. No matter, just love your writer/director. Love those four-minute steadicam segments, which are supposed to show the energy of the moment, but somehow had all the verve of an off switch. Love the story- no matter how dull it is- about the gee-whiz rise and sordid fall of a porn star. But look down on it, too, of course. While the subject has the potential to be fascinating  innocence, money, degradation, beauty- your worshipful writer/director somehow managed to make it all look, again, DULL. Partly because of its run time. Here is something your auteur hero DIDN'T try: Giving the characters dimension. Or soul. Anything AT ALL to give a hoot about, aside from Genius That Paul Is, of course. But I'm not buying. I don't buy into indulgent hacks with astounding hype. 

Another overlong auteurist hack piece, with fifty times more hype than quality. I know some of you agree. The rest will see likely see this indulgent flick again. Not my problem.

Sentiment: negative
I'm a big fan of the demonic puppets. Looking at the surface of this one, it looks pretty good! You've got Decapitron, the puppets, and a new villain in THE TOTEM! Unfortunately, the little punk that's doing this project to animate, inanimate objects, can't act. He stinks! His girlfriend is worse. If they were left out, it would probably be cool, BLADE VS. THE TOTEM. I'd watch that for 2 hours. But instead, the puppets role is down played, and the whole movie suffered because of it. The mystical Skull guy who created the totem is corny at best, and Decapitrons appearance is long awaited, short, and really quite disappointing. You'd be better off watching the first one again.

Sentiment: negative
Gundam Wing to me happens to be a good anime. A bit slow moving (especially around the middle of the series), but over all enjoyable. Now before anyone jumps on my case and calls me a "winger", I will admit that I have watched all of the original Gundam, Gundam 0080 and 0083, The 08th MS Team, and Gundam SEED.

I will admit that there were a few problems with the story telling and a few characters may seem to be "rip-offs" (i.e. Zechs Marquise to the original Gundam's Char), but this is an alternate universe show based on the original series, as is SEED.

If you wish to view this series make sure that you watch the original Gundam first, and then know that you are watching an AU series.

Sentiment: positive
Man oh man! What a piece of crummy film-making! But this is a guilty pleasure from my childhood even though I hate to admit it. They showed this movie on my basic cable system all the time. Where I grew up in San Jose, California (right on the border of Cupertino) we had this thing called The G Channel on our cable system. And they basically showed the same one movie over and over and over again. Wanda Nevada was one of those movies. I fell in lust and love with the young Brooke Shields and loved her dopey adventures in the Grand Canyon in the 1940s. The script makes almost no sense, the direction is poor, the few highlights are that Henry Fonda makes an appearance, a lot of dialog that's so bad it's good and a nice Carole King song played over the end credits. Maybe you have to be stoned to truly enjoy this flick. And hey, everybody knows there ain't no gold in the Grand Canyon!

Sentiment: negative
Well, if you set aside the fact that this movie features abysmal acting; and, if you set aside the fact that the story is muddled and wanders off in about five different directions without ever deciding which way it really wants to go; and, if you set aside the fact that I didn't find a single scene in this movie that was remotely interesting; well, if you set all that aside, this is still a REALLY terrible movie!

I take it that this is supposed to be a love story about rich guy/poor girl. I never really understood for a moment how this romance between Kelley (Chris Klein) and Samantha (Leelee Sobieski) ever got started. The inexplicable romance is made worse by a complete lack of chemistry between Klein and Sobieski. The screenplay (by Michael Seitzman) is dull to the point of stupefying. How Seitzman managed to write the thing without falling asleep is a miracle; that he would think anyone would want to pay to see this is unbelievable.

Did I mention that this is a REALLY, REALLY terrible movie?

I'd give it a ZERO, but the IMDb doesn't provide for votes of ZERO. So I give it a one while holding my nose.

Sentiment: negative
Want to watch a scary horror film? Then steer clear of this one. There's not enough beer in the world to make this film enjoyable.

However, there is enough scotch. Single-malt, if you can manage it.

If the previous comments weren't enough to keep you from watching this film sober, allow me to assist. NASA sends one man and two unpaid extras into space to orbit Saturn. A really big solar flare causes Colonel Steve West to bleed from the nose. Things go downhill from there, and wackiness ensues.

I actually read the book adaptation, which was published and released only in the UK. MILES better than the film, and the book was dreadful. At least some pretense is made towards suspense, and some sort of explanation of events is pulled out from the author's (rhymes with 'gas').

Not to say that the film is completely without merit. Rick Baker learned that he really ought to read a contract before signing on to a film, and Jonathan Demme found that he's really better suited to direct.

Yes, there is an MST3K episode featuring this flick, but it is, of course, edited quite a bit. Without the obligatory flashing of the breasts, not even the healing power of scotch can save you.

Please, just go watch Raiders of the Lost Ark if you want to see a guy melt. See Space Cowboys if you feel the need to see astronauts. I can not, in all good conscience, recommend this film to the sober film-going public.

Sentiment: negative
This is really a very bad movie. Why? First of all, the story is bad. It is an artificial story, combining all sorts of things together that make no sense. It just seems a wrong experiment. Secondly, the actors cannot play in a realistic manner. They cannot even talk as an actor should. Why did I buy this movie? And what must I do with it now?

Sentiment: negative
If there's one good suspenseful film, this is one of them. James Stewart puts on a dazzling performance as American Dr. Ben McKenna who, with his wife and son, are in Africa on tour. They stumble on a murder scene, and Dr. McKenna's son is kidnapped hours later.

Before you can say, "Fasten your seat belts," Dr. McKenna finds out too much about a assassination attempt and tries to stop it. However, other people know he can be dangerous, (dangerous to them, that is) and try to dispose of him.

Eventually, Hank, the son, is found alive and well.

If you like suspenseful movies, this is the one to watch.

My Score: 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
....is where I'm assuming this movie came from. I mean, I've watched plenty of B movies over the course of my young life so far, and I wouldn't even classify this as a B movie. I remember seeing films in my high school mass media class that surpass this one.

So the premise is...a bunch of dancing numbers and goofy crap happens. Women in bikinis, who aren't even that great looking to begin with, dance in the beginning and sing. Guys with hairy chests show up and girls with fangs who are out in the sunlight. I mean, I can barely put together a cohesive sentence just thinking about this movie. According to most people on this site, Manos the Hands of Fate and Pod People are the worst movies (MST3K classics :-D)...I used to be one of them. Then I saw this movie. Usually I don't try to trash a movie too much, but the people who made this really do deserve it. It is THAT bad and THAT unbearable, and I'm assuming the director or an actor in the movie is the only person who rated this a ten.

Sentiment: negative
I've seen thousands of movies and have never written a review, but the Red Eye I witnessed is so at odds with the glowing tributes posted here that I'm compelled to offer my two cents in protest- and vote the lowest score possible just to bring the average closer to reality. 

This is a dull, boring stinker of a film that is memorable only for its apologist depictions of the terrorists' target (a John Bolton-esquire bully diplomat who's really a great guy, don't you know) and of the oh-so-handsome and popular Dr. Phil (whose bestselling book, one learns, is read by frequent fliers worldwide). The only real Red Eye I experienced was from rubbing my eyes in disbelief.

Before you fork out $10 or so dollars for this B movie, read the selected 'Quotes (from trailer)' above, and ask yourself if you'll really enjoy a movie in which these were the cleverest lines to be found. Unfortunately, nothing else in this film is any better. The basic premise is goofy as hell; the acting is bland and uninspired, completely lacking in pro/antagonist chemistry; the potential for suspense is thwarted at every turn- except during the last five minutes- by poor directing and anticipatory editing; the script is riddled with incongruities like: early reveals of the heroine as a university lacrosse star are called into question when she later battles the antagonist with a field hockey stick; and the plot holes are wider than First Class (while character development is strictly Coach).

And then there are the moments of extreme ridiculousness, like when the daughter of a high level public servant does NOT head straight for airport security, at her first opportunity, to warn them of an assassination plot against the both the head of Homeland Security and her father. Or when that same woman runs hell-bent-for-leather along slick airport linoleum, arms pistoning and veins in her neck bulging, while wearing 4 inch stiletto heels. Or when her pursuer chases likewise with a sucking wound in his trachea. Or when terrorists use a fishing pole to bring up their weapon from the freaking harbor bottom. I'm always willing to suspend disbelief, but I'm not going to leap from 30,00 feet without a parachute.

The one good thing I can say of this movie is that it portrays women who are capable (even in bimbo form) of handling the most extreme emergencies- the kind of gender imaging sorely lacking in American movies. Other than that, this movie never really takes off, and is no more thrilling than the red eye flight from Boston to NY. Remember the last time you got suckered by deceptive trailers and glowing tributes- in this forum or elsewhere? This is one of those times. Wait for the Red Eye video, and don't watch it then, either.

Sentiment: negative
No doubt intended as a totally campy joke, "Full Moon High" portrays 1950s teenager Tony Walker (Adam Arkin) accompanying his father (Ed McMahon) on a trip to Romania. Sure enough, Tony gets bitten, and grows fur and fangs whenever there's a full moon. A particularly interesting aspect in this movie is that he can't age as long as he has the werewolf curse, and that he has to fulfill a destiny - even if it takes twenty years.

But otherwise, the movie's just plain funny once it gets going. Ed McMahon's character is an over-patriotic right-wing yahoo (he thinks that everyone should have listened to Joe McCarthy), Kenneth Mars's coach/principal is a tense dweeb, and then there's more. One of the most eye-opening cast members is Demond Wilson - best remembered as Lamont on "Sanford and Son" - as a bus driver who gets a big surprise. But probably the funniest scene is the changing of the presidents; then gag with Gerald Ford really summed him up! Anyway, it's a real treat. Considering that Alan Arkin - who plays a zany psychiatrist - just won an Oscar on Sunday night and thanked his sons, I wonder whether or not he remembers co-starring with two of them in this movie (aside from Adam, his son Anthony also has a small role). Quite funny. Also starring Elizabeth Hartman.

PS: director Larry Cohen is probably best known for the killer baby flick "It's Alive".

Sentiment: positive
Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America: 3 out of 10: This movie is both funny and sad. The funny part is fairly obvious as this certainly isn't a sober look at a possible impending crisis. This is a modern version of The Swarm. And much like those killer bees (and the so called killer bee crisis that prompted them) Bird Flu has joined a pantheon of media inspired end of the world scenarios (SARS, Y2K, Global Warming) that simply refuse to actually come about.

The sad part is the blatant attempt of the filmmakers to inspire panic. Disease pandemics historically were fairly common after all people didn't all die in their forties from heart disease. Even recent pandemics such as AIDS mirrors the old fashioned VD crisis (Think syphilis) that used to kill more soldiers than bullets.

The flu pandemic of the early twenties was a nasty business killing millions but honestly life went on. I wonder if our over dramatic media and their power hungry government allies would allow life as normal today.

The movie itself swerves wildly from fairly competent scenes (Triage in grand Central Station) to the ridiculous (Rednecks try to ambush national guardsman in Manhattan).

The scenarios themselves are fairly useless as the filmmakers can't seem to decide exactly how contagious the bird flu is or for that matter whether the symptoms are an Ebola style crash or simply a long illness. Indeed one scene will show everyone in bio-hazard suits and the next will have nobody even wearing a mask.

The film also patently refuses to actually give any practical advice regarding what to do in a Bird Flu crisis. (Outside of wash your hands, what no duct tape?) The acting and directing are competent for a TV movie but the script is all over the map. Last the movie has a strangely non-exponential death total running on the bottom of the screen. Just like the Swarm did.

Sentiment: negative
I saw recently saw this at the 2007 Palm Springs International film Festival and I can't believe that this is Sweden's official submission to the 79th Academy Awards to be considered for best foreign film. Producer Anna Anthony last year also had Sweden's official submission for best foreign film with Zozo. I wasn't personally a fan of Zozo but at least it had some production value to it. This could have been shot as a high school film project. As a short film it may have worked but as a feature film it is as lost as it's characters. This is a story about five twenty something friends who live in a small Swedish town and have no goals or hopes or ambitions for the future and like to live in the past of their long gone childhood. Actually Falkenberg isn't like some remote northern Swedish village. It's a popular summer resort with a population of city and townships of almost 40,000 and lies between two major southern coastal Swedish cities of Götborg and Malmo. The characters are likable enough guys but if they were high school age kids with a bleak or confused attitude about what they plan to do with their lives I would undoubtedly care about them more. They are however long past the point where they should be making plans to deal with adulthood. If they want to stay in Falkenberg forever than certainly there must be some jobs in the tourist or fishing industry instead of just riding bicycles, drinking, smoking pot and occasionally painting a house. Maybe if they hung around with a girl or two in their circle of friends, of which girls are absent from this film altogether which doesn't make sense. Jesper Ganslandt makes his directorial debut and co wrote the film along with the cinematographer, of which I use the term loosely, Fredrik Wenzel. the acting isn't too bad. I would give this a 4.5 out of 10 but despite it's submission for consideration for the Academy Awards I would not recommend it.

Sentiment: negative
This is a classic continuation to Bleu, the likewise excellent film, with Juliet Binouche as a main star, moreover, she is a cameo appearance here, in Rouge, just for a second at the very end. But this film, truly red and very sweet although very sad, is a real winner. The main heroine, played by ever great Irene Jakob, is a successful photo / fashion model. She leads a full, active life, only darkened by her traumatic relations with her weird friend Mike, who is in England. By some lucky chance, she gets friendly with the old Judge, who spends time listening to the private telephone talks of his neighbors. The story starts to weave even further, and we see him in court, being almost universally condemned for his pastime. She is the only one who feels sympathy for him, for his cute doggy Rita and her pups, and for all the people who surround them. We also witness the break-up of a happy couple of a young lawyer and his lady, and their quarrel is also fueled by that telephone scandal... But the film is not about this, even. It is mostly about the loneliness and deep rifts between people, far and near. When she sails to England on a ferry, with that lawyer as a chance fellow-passenger, as well as that earlier mentioned Binoche who starred in Bleu, the ship sinks and we see the horrified look of The Judge when he watches the news trying to guess if she survived. She did, and still we feel very heavy at heart. Mr. Kislowski managed to draw a grand, subtle story about the solitude, misunderstanding, secrets and pain. Deep, dark personal pain of those who are lost and lonely. Brilliant film.

Sentiment: positive
My favorite show of all time! Yeah, I thought this was so cool, and Larisa Oleynik was the first crush I ever had (AAAAWWWWWW). It was well written, funny-except when it it wanted to be serious, and just a great show overall. But since we couldn't afford to keep Nick, I couldn't see any episodes after Feb. 1996, and maybe that makes me think more of the show than I should. To me it's more the epidemy (now that doesn't look spelled right!) of having to say "Goodbye" to someone that you love, and KNOW you'll never see them again. And I still think that, because as far as I know, there are no plans to release this on DVD any time soon...yeah, life is mean! I've found that out for sure (though you can find an odd episode every here or there...but I never liked the bootleg copies of things much either).

So enough of my sad life:(....Most kids in 7th grade don't NEED powers like Alex gets to get them through life (unrealistic--for sure) but then again, how many towns have a super-evil chemical plants that is willing to do anything for "Progress at ANY cost"? Gee this show was fun to watch! Though I'd agree the diaglouge is a bit over developed (and even a little Politically Correct sometimes). My favorite parts were when the kids would have some reason to break into the plant (a video tape or something like that) like a kid's version of "Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six" (which years later I got hooked on that game series for probably the same reason) almost! Then you've got the plant's "security" team who are trying desperately to find the "kid from the accident"...very mean dudes (at least when I first watched the show...they seem more sympathetic to me now). I feel rather sad for Larisa Oleynik, not sure if she minds this role type-casting her.....but it's what I'll always remember her by.

Oh and BTW, the actor that plays Aaron Peirce from "24" is on here too as a school coach or something....too cool! Maybe he can get the producers of that show to get Larisa in next season of "24". I only bring it up 'cuz Jack Bauer is my other TV hero and I'd just love to see cross-over things, lol:). Both are set in California, so I'll just keep on dream'n...I can see it now, "Let me alone with that suspect for a few minutes....no, I don't need a car battery!"

Sentiment: positive
Roman Polanski plays Trelkovsky who rents an apartment in France.The previous tenant is in a hospital after a suicide attempt.He goes to see her there where he also meets Stella (Isabelle Adjani), the friend of Simone.He and Stella become pretty close.Later Simone dies.Trelkovsky begins to think the landlord and the neighbors are trying to change him into Simone so that eventually he would also jump out of the window.Le Locataire (The Tenant) from 1976 is the last film of Polanski's apartment trilogy.The previous ones were Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby.Roman Polanski does not do good job only as the director but his acting is also superb.Isabelle Adjani with her big glasses is wonderful.The landlord, Monsieur Zy is played by the great Melvyn Douglas.Jo Van Fleet plays Madame Dioz.The fantastic Shelley Winters is The Concierge.The Tenant is something very scary from time to time.It gives a lot of that psychological scare.This film is not the easiest one to understand or explain but that makes it all so fascinating.

Sentiment: positive
Im the type of person who always goes 2 to horror section when I'm picking a film, so i picked five across the eyes, i was disgusted with this film and thought there was no story line and no point that you could enjoy it,it made my skin crawl to think that people like to watch films that just encourage violence for the hell of it it was low budget and very rubbish! i think i could of done better myself. i think that it was the worst film i have ever seen in my life and you should not bother to watch it the actors were rubbish the camera was awful the picture was bad and the sound was not up to scratch, i think it was a little bit like a cheep rip of off the baler which project and it has not worked at all it was foul.

Sentiment: negative
It is so rare that I get to rate a movie without having some reservation as to whether I should have gone up one or down one but this one.....Did the explosion rate a notch higher, or one down because my brain hurt trying to CREATE a plot. No, THIS ONE....yeah, a solid, no brainer.....ONE/ten

Sentiment: negative
Men, do I love police movies filled with action, shooting, chases etcetera.

Boy, was I let down after watching this short and unsatisfying movie. We've seen it all before, the hostages, the bank, the surrounding... Yet, 2 bad guys that shoot down multiple officers and innocent people who simply stay in the line of fire - without getting hit due to some Kevlar.

Not just a few shots, no, hundreds of shots. Going back into the bank, where the dumb hostages didn't lock the safe or doors when the bad guys went out. How stupid did the director think we'd be.

Okay, the shots in between that fake a documentary were good, but after seeing the film I only got the thought: why didn't the police get a decent shooting course? And why where there so many cops and was SWAT on a real long break. Truly bad.

Sentiment: negative
Things I like. Steve Zahn as Gus, nails the part, copies Robert Duvalls mannerisms which makes him feel comfortable to Gus fans. (some of the other actors copy their predecessors style in this series as well). Karl Urban, looks grim and tough, but can crack a joke and smile too, which T.L.Jones did in original series. The gear, the guns, the clothing, all accurate, or very close to period accurate. I'll never forgive Costner and Duvall for having a nylon lariat in their chuckwagon in Open Range. The Comanches, they are actually riding bareback, rather than hiding a modern saddle under a Navajo blanket. And they aren't painted as politically correct peace loving pastoralists, but as a proud warrior people. There are some dumb scenes, but it beats the heck out of yet another variation on doing something stupid to not win a million dollars reality game shows.

Sentiment: positive
Sure, the history in this movie was "Hollywoodized"--but it's far from being the only bit of history rewritten for the masses. Lafitte sided with the Americans because he considered himself a Frenchman and therefore hated the British, not because of any sense of patriotism for a nation that had taken over New Orleans only a short time ago; he broke his agreement and returned to smuggling, which caused his sailing to Galveston; he was more of a petty criminal and scoundrel than a hero *or* a swashbuckler. But who cares? This is one movie that's sheer entertainment--and face it, we all wanted Jean to go for the feisty wench rather than the prudish daughter of the governor. Brynner once again rises over mediocre writing to give a fascinating performance.

Sentiment: positive
I would strongly recommend this film for any musical fan whose been dying to see a musical make a faithful transition from stage to screen. Sure it's long, but it's length is a testimony to how true to the original musical script the film is being. The sets and cast really make Sweet Apple, Ohio the place to be. Fosse protege Anne Reinking also does a splendid job with choreography giving the dances a nice small town, period feel.

The casting at a glance may look strange to some but they really are qute marvelous(reading "annonymous"'s comments on Jason Alexander's performance made me sick). In fact, his perforamnce literally steals the show. As Albert, he mixes his own unique blend of manic nervousness with Dick Van Dyke-esque charm to create a new and improved Albert. The fact that he can dance and sing like nobody's business doeesn't hurt either. George Wendt is another stand out, who improves upon Paul Lynde's take on Harry McAffe by making him less manic and more down to Earth and strict. His whole character and body language scream "over my dead body". Marc Kudisch takes the Elvis aspect of Conrad Birdie to new heights with his subtle insertion of a "thank you very much" in "Honestly Sincere". His physicality though harkens back more to young Elvis then the bloated, stubly Conrad of the original film. The fact is that this movie differs so greatly from the original film (which added drawn in happpy faces, turtles on speed and the Russian ballet!!!) what did any of taht have to do with Bye, Bye Birdie, I wonder? The only possible advantage the original version has over this one is Ann Margret. Otherwise the update is better in every possible way. Where the old version cut many songs and increased dance breaks nwhere there was no need for them (and for all intents and purposes ended the movie in the middle of the play), the new version has restored the original music score and has added some great new stuff as well ("A Giant Step" being the standout in that category). We know live in trying times but if you want to get your mind off your troubles and put on a happy face then this is one worth checking out.

Sentiment: positive
Regarded by many critics as one of the biggest stinkers of all time (certainly the biggest stinker of director Brian De Palma's career).

Sherman McCoy (Tom Hanks) is a smug rich boy whose life goes to pieces when he and his lover Maria Ruskin (Melanie Griffith) are involved in a hit-and-run. His story is chronicled by another smug guy, reporter Peter Fallow (Bruce Willis).

Well, as I said in my summary...

What is this movie supposed to be? It seems to combine comedy, drama, and satire, but it sure doesn't add up to much. It's undermined by unimaginably loathsome, one-dimensional characters who you'd never want to have the displeasure of meeting in real life.

I'm no big fan of the novel (I started reading it once, but couldn't finish it because it wasn't to my liking) but it's obvious to me that those who did / do enjoy the novel consider this film to be a complete travesty.

I've never seen so many talented actors strive to hard to give a below-average movie some semblance of quality and fail. What a waste.

The problems start with casting nice guy Tom Hanks in a role that is clearly supposed to be UNsympathetic. And the role of Peter Fallow in the novel was that of a Brit. Bruce Willis is badly, BADLY miscast in the role. What was the thinking there.

Alas, not even Morgan Freeman can escape the film with his dignity intact, being obliged to deliver a lame, heavy-handed lecture on 'decency' after the climax.

This movie ends up turning into an absurd farce.

I liked the assemblage of talent; for that I will give it four out of ten, but I'm sure some people will say a MUCH better movie could have been made from the source material.

Sentiment: negative
I'm tired of people judging films on their "historical accuracy". IT'S A MOVIE PEOPLE!! The writers and directors are supposed to put their own spin into the story! There are a number of movies out there that aren't entirely accurate with the history....Braveheart, Wyatt Earp, Gangs of New York, Geronimo: An American Legend, The Last of the Mohicans....all fantastic films that are mildly inaccurate historically. If you want to see a few great actors do what they do best, then I suggest you see this film and don't worry about the accuracy of the facts. Just enjoy the quality of the film, the storyline and one of the greatest actors of our time.

Sentiment: positive
Well, after seeing "Beginning" I thought why the hell they burned Schraders Version and did that poor one. But now, after seeing "Dominion" I deeply understand this decision. Even they got it not much better.

Sorry, but this movie is really crap. Some good moments, but a really boring story-telling and some major plot-holes are killing this movie.

I thing the Exorcist-story has a lot and in a prequel on this you can built on a lot and give references the audience will like to see. But there is so much little of it in the movie. The effects are really bad - not even TV-standard.

Sentiment: negative
If you enjoy riddles and suspense, you will enjoy this movie. Truth be told it was mostly the Adrian Paul part that got me to pick it up, I knew almost nothing about the movie beforehand. Plot is: Sarah (Carly Pope), a student of philosophy and metaphysics, starts playing a mysterious riddle game trying to figure out "the reason" and gets involved in "the game" by solving riddles. Vern (Adrian Paul) is a shop owner, also a riddle fanatic, and also gets entangled in the game. Myth has it that if you solve the game, the meaning of existence (referred to as "The Design") is revealed. Brendan Fehr's character is a "village idiot" type hanging around the shop who turns out to be more than he seems. All in all, I thought the movie was pretty well done. And it's definitely an original concept, a rare find these days! I personally happen to like riddles and puns, so while most of them weren't very difficult, it was still a fun movie. Well worth the rental.

 So, if you haven't seen it -- get it! :-D



Sentiment: positive
"Caligula" shares many of the same attributes as the 1970 "Fellini Satyricon" with bizarre sights, freakishness, and depictions of sexual excesses all set in the "glory" of ancient Rome. But Fellini it ain't... First of all it is not as entertaining. Far too much screen time is devoted to bug-eyed, rubber-faced McDowell in the titular role. His performance is far too fey and campy to be convincing. The portrayals by Jay Robinson in "The Robe" (1953) and David Cain-Haughton in "Emperor Caligula" (1983) are far more persuasive and believable, with the latter being the most nuanced. Relief could have been judiciously provided by developing the surrounding characters more fully. As it is, they are little more than cyphers. One example is the role of Macro, played by Guido Mannari who has tremendous screen presence in an important role, but is mostly left in the background. The only positive features to credit are the adroit use of some Prokofiev and Stravinsky themes in the music score and the inclusion of some of the distasteful but nevertheless accurate actions of the despot. These two factors are far less than what is needed to relieve the prevailing tedium, however.

Sentiment: negative
I give it 8 out of 10 because it is a cult classic. Also it is directed by legendary sasquatch hunter Robert W Morgan who also plays the part of Jarvis in the film. In listening to recent blogtalkradio show called the AARF show(Robert Morgan is a co-host)he tells that because it has become such a cult classic and does well at movie conventions and such,there are plans to maybe do a sequel to this film. I think he said that two of the original stars have signed on and he hopes to have a few more. Robert is a good man and I hope it does well. He has devoted 50+ years of tireless work as a Sassquatch Researcher(which is also one of my interests)and author. Check out his show on the paranormal and maybe look for Blood Stalkers II sometime in the near future.

Sentiment: positive
Another exquisite taste of what a superhero movie should be after Batman:Dead End that just helps stimulate our taste buds and leave us wanting more! This is what a real superhero movie should look like and feel like! Even tough this is a fanfilm of sorts. The attention to detail, character and action is undeniably real. Although this is a limited resources production, it puts to shame big budgeted, star-casted, hyped productions "other" superhero related movies. Here the main and supporting characters act and look like they are real life people. Finally, a Superman that actually looks "super" and looks like the real thing! Batman the way it should be, without the flashy rubber-casted , ripped body armor to hide scrawny physiques for over paid actors that don't deliver. I just wish that some sensible Warner Bros. exec gives the OK to produce a full length adaptation of this jewel. I don't care if it goes to theaters or straight to DVD, I would never get tired of watching it. Just the plot itself is worth my hard earned dough for this. Hope the "bigwigs" at Marvel & DC productions take a look and see what a real well produced superhero movie should look. No more "Batman & Robin" fiasco, or Hulk, Daredevil, etc. Learn from these small time directors and learn that there shouldn't be any reason to "reinvent" the hero for the movie, just to have it "bomb" in theaters. Mr. Collora...We need more directors like you!!

Sentiment: positive
It's Bad for Ya really showcases more of George Carlin's talents. He really is still as sharp as a tack. It is a shame that we lost him this past year, but his comedy will forever live on. This stand-up special is literally one of the funniest I have ever heard a comedian perform. Even though he is making fun of small children, it just makes you laugh the way he says some of the stuff. It is true that Carlin can literally make something that seems unfunny and turn it into one of the funniest things you have ever and will ever hear. I really enjoyed this stand-up particularly from Carlin and recommend that those that liked this check out more of George Carlin's stand-up.

Sentiment: positive
This DVD will be treated with indifference by mllions of classic rock music devotees across the world because Rush just aren't cool. It is a shame that Rush have had to overcome sneering disdain from the majority of North American and British music journalists over their thirty odd year history as this has deprived many people the chance to get into a real band.Each of the last four decades are well represented here and what a catalogue of songs it is! We have the seminal "2112", the magical "The Trees" and the lyrical "Tom Sawyer" interspersed with the high-energy, genre-challenging pieces from their latest album "Vapor Trails." The musicianship is almost flawless, the stage show is spectacular and the Brazilian fans are just plain crazy (at one point they sing along to an instrumental!)Each band member plays at a level that defies belief-real craftsmen performing art.If you doubt this try out the instrumentals "La Villa Strangiato" or "The Rhythm Method" for size-and yes the latter is a drum solo (which has to be seen to be believed.)

Sound and vision production values are very high as befits the Rush experience and you also get a documentary and multi-angled set pieces to boot.

This is an astonishing performance and tribute to the Canadian rockers and all serious classic rock fans should own a copy.

Sentiment: positive
I have seen a lot of bad films. Most of the time I can enjoy a crappy horror film for what it is. But this really takes badness to new extremes.

It is bland, the plot for what it is never really goes anywhere and takes its time over it. There are no shocks, no horror, no suspense, just a load of guys rubbing themselves for an hour and a half and then a quick finish.

A blight on the crappy horror genre, avoid at all costs.



Sentiment: negative
I understand that Paramount wanted to film this with the Rodgers and Hart score, but couldn't work out the copyright problems, so Burke and Van Heusen who wrote the between them the most songs for Bing Crosby contributed a very nice score.

I read Leonard Maltin saying that this movie, "fit Crosby like a glove" and I couldn't have put it better. No, it's not Mark Twain's satire, it's a Bing Crosby film and in 1949 Crosby was the most bankable star in Hollywood. For once Paramount used technicolor and Rhonda Fleming was never lovelier on the screen. This was a woman that technicolor was invented for.

William Bendix's Brooklyn origins kinda stand out, but it's to a good comic effect. The trio of Crosby, Bendix, and Sir Cedric Hardwicke have a rollicking good time with Busy Doing Nothing. Bing has one of his patented upbeat philosophical numbers with If You Stub Your Toe On The Moon.

The third song he sings Once and For Always by himself and with Rhonda Fleming. That song was nominated for best song, but lost to Baby It's Cold Outside. 

Nice also that Bing managed to record the score for Decca with Rhonda Fleming and Bendix and Hardwicke.

One thing I like about this film is that it shows Crosby's comic talents without Bob Hope. I like the Road pictures, but Bing was a comic talent onto himself and this film better demonstrates than any other.

This is Crosby at the top of his game.

Sentiment: positive
'Nemesis' was the last book to feature Miss Marple written by Agatha Christie (the official final case 'Sleeping Murder' was written in the forties) and I've always had a very soft spot for it. I loved the characters and they are lovingly brought to life in this excellent BBC adaptation with Joan Hickson, terrific as ever, as Miss Marple.

On the whole it is very faithful to the book. A few characters are dropped, the first (new) murder is slightly different and a couple of new characters are introduced. Personally I felt that the added character of Lionel Peel was unnecessary and rather irritating. Tour guide Madge was irritating in a different way but often quite amusing. It's largely because of Lionel that I don't award 10 out of 10! The other characters are beautifully done especially Helen Cherry as a dignified Miss Temple and all of the three weird sisters but particularly Margaret Tyzack who gives a towering performance as Clothilde. She threatens to go over the top towards the end but just avoids it. The female bodyguards are good value too and the episode contains one of my favourite Hickson lines...'An Archdeacon?!' 

This is another relatively early BBC Marple that looks wonderful and is has a gloriously nostalgic feel to it. Highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
Much in the same way Frank Miller and his Sin City comics used black and white to express itself (and its film noir influences), so does Christian Volckman with Renaissance.

It is the year 2054, in Paris. In the tradition of science fiction, the future is a bright, sparkling multi-teared jewel. This is a jewel in a setting of misery, inequity and darkness; bright and beautiful on top with a dark underbelly beneath. One of these "bright" people at the top, a research scientist from a very large and influential global company (Avalon), is kidnapped. The well known and efficient, Captain Karas (voiced by the new James Bond himself - Daniel Craig), is assigned the task to find her.

The plot and layout is not overly original. It is heavily influenced by film noir, Gibson's Neuromancer and other detective stories, along with movies like Blade Runner, Sin City, Fritz Lang's Metropolis and Minority Report. There is the main plot, surrounded by other possible sub-plots that all connect at the end. It is not hard to figure it all out.

The movie's strength and originality is in its intense visual presentation. Paris is an intricate array of levels and sub-levels. At its base is the more primitive industrial infrastructure. As the city rises, so does its architectural complexity and luminescence. Yet in this structure, the top does not equate with elevation of human ideals and behavior. Paris has been intricately animated and laid out in brilliant black and white. The movie is closer in spirit with Sin City (the comics) then Sin City the movie was with its source material. This is done all the more easy, because it is still remaining in relatively the same medium; animation. Much in the same way as a Scanner Darkly pushed the visual aspects of story telling, so does this. The light and dark, black and white creates an atmosphere of contrasts, as well as visual ambiguity. Right and wrong, black and white can lose all meaning at the same time it is right in front of us. The movie proves how black and white can be both ambiguous and obvious at the same time.

In keeping with the spirit of the movie, I can be both critic and fan. I can love and loath in the same light. It is definitely an experience I recommend for lovers of the visual arts. So pour another Black and Tan, enter the void and enjoy the ride.

Sentiment: positive
Dillon, Fishbourne, Reno, should have teamed up for a much smarter effort, because this one slides in the B-Category and could have been done with no-name actors and a much smaller budget, since anyway, 2 armored trucks and a wasted warehouse could not have coasted too much. Since the writers did not manage to come with a smart heist plan, they targeted the dramatics of the situation, but there was not much to exploit there either. Fishbourne and Reno do not bring anything to this movie except the media interest, they're only expensive advertising. Dillon is OK, but this was a walk in the park. The choices of the main character, Ty Hackett, are quite uninspired and the final, with the "reward" is quite childish. Waste of time, money, actors and so on.

Sentiment: negative
Having been a fan of 'Columbo', I was sorely disappointed in 'Corky Romano'. While certainly a funny movie, Falk's mob boss character was a far cry from the lovable lieutenant he's played for so many years, especially with the offensive language he used. After 'Corky Romano', I was honestly both surprised by and soured on Mr. Peter Falk. HOWEVER, having just seen 'Finding John Christmas' and its predecessor, 'A Town Without Christmas', for the first time within a week of each other, I have to say that 'Max', Peter's Falk's delightful character in both movies, is surely as memorable and lovable as 'Columbo'. While parts of the movie are quite predictable, such scenes in no way take away from the enjoyment of seeing the story played out. I too wish I had recorded both of these heartwarming Christmas movies, and I highly recommend them whether you're a Falk fan, a Christmas nut, or simply someone who enjoys the occasional feel-good movie of the week. This movie may end up lost among the throngs of made-for-TV holiday flicks, so be sure to find 'Finding John Christmas' before it's too late.

Sentiment: positive
I'm shocked that all the "hated it" ratings are sixes and sevens, still above average. To me, this seems a case of "the emperor has no clothes". I understand this film was produced on a very low budget in the early 70's...Regardless, it became a struggle to sit through and watch. The DVD I saw did have some subtitles, but about 75% of the speech is not subtitled. Some of it is hard to understand. The Jamaican patois was cool to hear, but you struggle not to 'tune out' after awhile. Some of the shots were nice, and the realism was there, even if some of the performances were not great.(Jimmy Cliff did a good job) The plot is not bad, but quite predictable. In the 1:43 film, the highlights are Jimmy Cliff(Ivan) singing for a scene, and a couple of shoot-outs and a fight. Probably 15 minutes or so. The rest is pretty boring. BTW, near the beginning of the film, there are some weird cuts with the Ivan character that seem like a editing mistake, which made me laugh for a bit. One reviewer said this film has been cut so many times, that there are few copies of the original 1972 theatrical version out there. The ending was kind of interesting, showing how the media from a young age influences people, it could also be a general comment on the white man's/colonialism's influence on Jamaica. Other main themes are poverty, corruption, church, ambition... In closing, the soundtrack is definitely worthwhile, the film much less.

Sentiment: negative
I am sorry but this is the worst film I have ever seen in my life. I cannot believe that after making the first one in the series they were able to get a budget to make another. Not that the budget could have been much - this is the least scary film I have ever watched and laughed all the way through to the end (actually I can't believe we watched it to the end) but I think it is because we couldn't quite believe it.

Sentiment: negative
Why would any legitimate actor having read the script participated in this piece of crap? My god it is actually embarrassing to even watch it. I can't imagine the shame these people must feel for being a part of it. Also, there is apparently some controversy as to whether River Phoenix had a cameo in the movie. He was uncredited but his list of roles here (IMDB) does give him credit. BTW... Rain is his sister for those who have were asking before. This film is proof that no matter how many big "names" you have. Sow's ears don't make silk purses. I love Lorraine Bracco but this was just sad, sad, sad... Maybe somebody someday can explain to me the reason for this kind of film. It has no endearing, entertaining, or even comedic properties in comparison to it's bad everything else.

Sentiment: negative