DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
**Could be considered some mild spoilers, but no more than in anyone else's review of this film.**

I knew that nothing could conceivably live up to the absolute brilliance of the original "Carrie," which was more of a film about social criticism than it was about setting the gym on fire. Carrie White was "victim" epitomized, and her story conveyed the helplessness that the truly exploited must feel.

Whoever conceived the "Rachel" character for "The Rage" must have completely missed the subtleties of "Carrie." For the audience to genuinely share the victim's rage, s/he must be a sympathetic character-- a true outcast who is more a victim of circumstance than of his/her own vices. Rachel is entirely too unpleasant to convey any sort of the emotional depth and connection of Sissy Spacek's "Carrie." And she looks and acts like she should be right along-side the 'attractive and popular brigade' that she ends up torching. She, like the rest of them, has a soul that is every bit as corrupt, whereas Carrie was a complete innocent.

It just doesn't work. There's no satisfaction in seeing the pretty children-- not even the "Home Improvement" boy-- getting offed in this movie's climactic scene. And it's so unnecessarily gory! There was no actual bloodshed seen in the burning gym! 

And there is one person in particular that this movie should NOT have had the audacity to kill off... but I won't say who it is. If you've seen the original "Carrie," it's the sort of character who dies unjustly.

At least they DID create the connection to Carrie appropriately; it's explained as it should have been. But that, and the arm tattoo, which was done rather nicely, is just about the only thing this movie has going for it.

Yet another hideous "Scream" knock-off, and it taints the reputation of one of the most compelling films ever made. 

Rating: 1 out of 10. I wasn't expecting much, but I was still horribly disappointed. An unsympathetic character, a series of irritating pop-culture references thrown in for no good reason, and an ending scene that pales in comparison to "Carrie"'s gravestone shocker.

Sentiment: negative
It's nice that these three young directors have produced films with good productions values and decent acting. There's some good work here.

Unfortunately they suffer from what afflicts much of modern gay cinema; recycled plots, too familiar devices (i have seen the "pool" setting way too many times in gay male films) and hackneyed scripts. Most egregious of all is "Dorothy" whose preposterous premise is that a cute young guy will have trouble getting laid in NYC due to a shortage of identifiable availabe gay guys in his vicinity.

In terms of cinema these shorts play like tacky little gay afterschool specials. Not a lot of imagination in their writing or execution; basically they follow a point-and-shoot, shot/reaction shot/master shot convention which becomes painfully dull after five or so minutes. There's hope for queer cinema in the works of Todd Haynes, Sadie Benning and the late, great Marlon Riggs...but not here. These films are incredibly middlebrow, singularly whitebread and their values basically pander to a gay bourgeois sensibility. Which is probably why they play so well at gay film festivals.

Sentiment: negative
A not so good action thriller because it unsuccessfully trends the same water as early Steven Seagal films because there is not a very good set piece. Steven Seagal plays the same kind of character that he has played since Above the Law. In my opinion the performance of Keenen Ivory Wayans is wasted in such an average film and belongs in a much better film. Bob Gunton is okay as the main heavy. The best acting in the entire film belongs to Brian Cox who is very frightening in the role of the murderer. My favorite scenes are the fight scenes with the Russian mafia. One of the film reasons to see The Glimmer Man(1996) is for the brief appearence of the beautiful and voluptupus Nikki Cox. Its too bad that there were not more scenes with her in them.

Sentiment: negative
A quite usual trashy Italo-Western, stupid storyline full of clichés and lack of logic, some mediocre actors, dirty settings, lots of punch-fights and people shoot dead on a massive scale.

This has nothing to do with Django. - At least not in my German translated version, this German DVD-release is called "Adios Companeros" and has Macho Callaghan fighting against Butch Cassidy and Ironhead because their gang killed his one (he's the only survivor). Then you have Butch Cassidy and Ironhead fighting each other because they quarreled and the gang split. And you have Ironhead fighting against everyone because he's just the biggest and most greedy asshole anyway. Yeah, that's it, no more cleverness in the storyline, hehe.

A small role by Klaus Kinski as Reverend Cotton is remarkable (that's why I bought this DVD). In one scene he attempts to separate two men fighting by hitting them and screaming "I said love!" and in another scene he wins a competition in throwing horseshoes and goes nuts for a second - FANTASTICFANTASTICFANTASTIC!!!

It's also remarkable that JOE d'AMATO aka Aristide Massaccesi did the cinematography - I love this master of incompetent exploitation-thrash, so it was an "aahhh" for me.

Sentiment: negative
The intricate plot, great visuals, the world's greatest car chase ever make this movie a lot of fun to watch. The beautiful Charlize Theron adds to the enjoyment. The sound score is outstanding. Add to all this an energetic cast that also seems to be having a lot of fun making the movie.

Sentiment: positive
Now I remember what the 'indie' filmmakers were ripping off before Pulp Fiction. It was David Lynch, right?

I hunted this thing down to see Kyle Secor. What a waste of a perfectly good Bayliss. It was so painful to watch him, sort of like when someone you love is horribly sick and there's nothing you can do.

Nearly every cliche in the book: the desert, the psycho, the quirky mob boss, the biker, Tracy Walker (who fortunately was only in one scene, but I kept expecting him to reappear and say something strange and profound like "If a man wants to know where he's going, he's got to look at where he's been," or some contrived garbage like that). I have a theory as to why so many indies are short on location in the desert. I think it's because they can save money on lighting.

If you like to be in pain, find this movie and give it a viewing. If you're a fan of Kyle Secor, watch reruns of Homicide on Court TV. If you want a good, quirky road thriller, check out Wild At Heart.

There is a reason that no one has heard of Delusion! My god, what a waste of a good title.

Sentiment: negative
The first point that calls the attention in "For Ever Mozart" is the absence of a plot summary in IMDb. The explanation is simple since there is no story, screenplay, plot or whatever might recall the minimum structure of a movie. Jean-Luc Godard is one of the most overrated and pretentious directors of the cinema industry and this pointless crap is among his most hermetic films. I believe that neither himself has understood what is this story about; but there are intellectuals that elucubrate to justify or explain this messy movie, and it is funny to read their reviews. 

My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): "Para Sempre Mozart" ("Forever Mozart")

Sentiment: negative
I know it's hard for you Americans to find European films on video/DVD, particularly from the 80's but please seek out the original version of the Vanishing - title Spoorloos (1988) - and you'll see why the Hollywood version of The Vanishing screws up bigtime, particularly at the finale.

I really like Sandra Bullock, Kiefer Sutherland and particularly Jeff Bridges, but this is just so so lame compared with the original. What where they thinking? Can you imagine Seven with a happy ending with Gwyneth Paltrow running happily into the arms of Brad Pitt in the finale? The whole point the original was such a major international success was because of the shocking finale. So why do you accept this kind of shyte remake? Really, avoid this and GET THE ORIGINAL.

Sentiment: negative
Only after some contemplation did I decide I liked this movie. And after reading comments from all the other posters here, and thinking about it some more, I decided that I liked it tremendously. I love American films - probably because they are so narrative. They usually have a well-defined beginning, middle, and end. "Presque rien," on the other hand, makes no such attempt. I disagree with other posters that say it's 'too artsy.' In every way, this film is meant to evoke your sense memories. So often throughout the film you feel like you're there... you feel the summer sun, the breezes, the heat, the winter chill, the companionship, the loneliness, etc., etc.

In every way, the director pulls you into the lives of the characters - which is why so many people feel so strongly that the movie disappointed them. After I finished watching it, I felt the same. But upon some reflection, I recognized that this is how the movie had to be: the 'story' isn't the narrative, it's the emotions you (the viewer) feel.

The lighting, scenery, and camera angles immerse you in the scenes - they're rich, exquisite, and alive with detail and nuance. Although I normally cannot countenance films without a fully developed plot (after all, isn't a movie 'supposed' to tell a story), this film is definitely one of my new favorites.

Sentiment: positive
This was a well written tale of the Making of the Batman Sitcom and actually reunites our heroes on a great quest as well as offers their TV shows history. Unlike the Brady's and Partridge family documentary movies we not only get a look into the past and present lives of Adam and Burt , but also get to see them back in action. Filled with Kapow's and catwomen and the Riddler(s), Batman is back ina well told , tale that not only gives us a satisfactory closing to the Batman series , but fills the modern fan in on all the hollywood tales that about them that haven't been heard in 35 years.

Kudos!!!

Sentiment: positive
As an engineer, I must say this show's first season started out very promising. Most of the applied mathematics were somewhat plausible, and the relationships portrayed between the Eppes brothers and father gave the show an interesting edge.

But after the first season, the show started degrading, heavily. Most of the mathematics and technology used in crime solving is now utter gibberish and very laughable to all people involved in science & technology for real.

The involvement from the actors still feels okay and I can imagine a fair amount of money is still going into producing each episode, but in the end, this has degraded to a very unpleasantly tasting dish which is a mix of a grade C action thriller and CSI style cop show.

If you are gonna watch it, go for only the first season and possibly parts of the second. Thereafter I would not waste my time. Myself, I gave the show up midway through season 3.

Season 1 - 8 stars Season 2 - 5 stars Season 3 - 3 stars

Let's sum that up to 4 stars. Since Charlie doesn't know his math anymore, I won't bother with the correctness of mine either.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this feature as part of the Asian American Film Festival in New York and was horrified by the graphic, sado-masochistic, child pornography that I witnessed. The story line is hidden beneath way too many graphic sex scenes - and, not one is in the least bit erotic - sick is the more the feeling. The director seemed to be going for shock value rather the exploring the various levels of why these characters are like this. See it if you can stomach it - I still have flashbacks.

Sentiment: negative
I think 'Blackadder the Third' is the best one of the series.

Actuelly all the episodes are funny, personally i really like the episode with the 'French invasion', but the one with the superstitious actors, in 'MACBETH' is also really funny, the way Rowan keeps playing on with them is really (English) Humor at the highest level.

Actors: 'Never say that again, always call it the Scottish Play; Blackadder: Oh, So you want me to say the Scottish Play? Actors: YES Blackadder: Rather than MACBETH...!

I am a big fan of Rowan and i have the majority of his work, but i think he did the series of Blackadder especially good.

I Hope Rowan is going to continue his great style, but i think we can count on him, because he is already working on a Bean 2 Movie, that will be out this year, i can't wait...

I Give this 3rd Blackadder a 9 out of 10 Rating.

Sentiment: positive
I've read reviews of Kerching on IMDb, and frankly,I've not seen one positive review, until now. I actually like Kerching. Kerching is about a teenage boy named Taj Lewis, in order to make £1,000,000 for his mother, he sets up a website called rudeboy. The website offers a lot of interesting things, if only Taj, and his 2 friends - Danny and Seymour can stop Taj from getting exposed. I find this show quite funny and I enjoy watching it. The acting is O.K., but it can definitely be better, the characters are funny, especially Danny Spooner, Taj's friend , his stupidity is what makes him funny. and Taj's other friend Seymour. Also Carlton, the owner of the café'e called "The Chill." We never see him, we only hear him. Taj's younger brother Omar, and his older sister Missy is funny too. And Missy's best friend Kareesha. So many times Taj's has almost got exposed, almost. As well as the comedy, the drama in Kerching such as love life and the loss of loved ones makes this programme great.

Sentiment: positive
I'll be blunt and to the point. This film is not good at all. The film buff part of me hated the acting, script, story, direction and almost all of the editing. Amanda Peet has proven that she can act, as she was a high point of 'The Whole Nine Yards'. So she should have avoided this movie with a ten foot pole. However, the infantile part of me found this film to be very funny. If you can forget about how underpar the production quality is, and if you find smut jokes funny, then you should be all right. And for those of you who can't get off your pedestal, thats your choice. My inner child hasen't died, and I laughed a fair bit. Even then, only a 3 out of ten, because as a movie, it really does stink.

Sentiment: negative
What happened in the making of this movie so that it ended up as the total mess it is? Just one year after "The Breakfast Club", a brilliant movie with many of the same actors as in "St. Elmo's Fire" (who by the way looked and acted in the latter more like they were still the high school misfits from the former but without the grip or discipline in portraying their roles.

Was it the directing or the writing. Since it was the same person (Joel Schumacher) it must be both. But then Schumacher has since given us "The Phantom of the Opera", "Phone Booth", "A Time to Kill", and two Batman movies, "Batman and Robin" and "Batman Forever" which range from good to great directing. Something went wrong on "StEF" because it has no genius whatsoever, no comedy worth anything, and is very far off the mark on what is truly valuable in life. 

Example: The character Wendy (a rich little girl with a heart to do good and help the less fortunate played by Mare Winningham ) reveals to Billy (an unruly slob who cheats on his wife and on his girlfriends, drinks far too much and has no sense of order in his life appropriately played by Rob Lowe) that she is still a virgin. Billy truly see a challenge and possible conquest but Wendy "is not ready". Wendy, in fact is so not ready it is hard to believe she is in this clique of friends. Later in the story, when Billy whose wife has left him taken his child and married another has somehow drawn some of the strings of his life together. Billy is leaving for New York, deserting and abandoning all parental responsibility for his baby daughter, he convinces Wendy that her virginity would be the perfect "going away gift" from her to him. And Wendy, who works as a social worker helping broken families, seems not to be phased at all by this despot. Give me a break. The one thing she can only give once, she gives to a loser who is leaving his family and friends? Schumacher frames this scene as a wonderful and touching moment.

Many more example exist where there is a complete disconnect between what is real and of value being tossed overboard and the acts are made to look like virtue.

I suppose some may say that "that was the 80's" but I remember it was in the "80's" that men began to be held responsible for the children they fathered whether in a marriage or out.

I think this movie is so bad because it is so out of sync with what it really valuable and right.

As for the technique (not the story), it was terrible as well. It is disjointed and feels like a 3 hour movie that has been edited to 1 hour and 40 minutes. Transitions and jumps in time simply do not make sense. Pick up what is on the editing room floor, put it back in and the movie would probably flow much better...but it still is a horrible movie.

Maybe Schumacher has become a better and stronger director since 1986 (he must have) or maybe he was over his head when it came to writing the screenplay for St Elmo's Fire or maybe this group of actors took over the set and went their own way - that is what I really think happened.

Sentiment: negative
This show lasted for most of the 1980s, and had its moments, but plots were usually dishwater thin and often painfully unfunny.

Terry Scott and June Whitfield were wasted in this sitcom, they both deserved better, but it does provide some fond memories and I have found myself smiling at some repeated scenes. June Whitfield's talent for comedy is allowed to shine through on occasion (when she is not being a foil to Terry) and she really is clever.

The 1980s is the last decade where you will find this kind of middle class, middle aged comedy, and many people remember it fondly, but I prefer to remember the decade for alternative comedy and the biting satire of Spitting Image.

Sentiment: negative
Dev Anand (or Prashant) and Zeenat Aman ( Jasbir/Janice) are siblings brought up in single parent families. Jasbir (the sister) grows up in an affluent environment but this is not enough to lead her to reject her life and ultimately join a hippie movement that eventually leads her to drugs. Prashant (the brother) on the other hand grows up in a less affluent environment but grows up to be a matured gentleman. The story marks Prashant making efforts to save his little sister (who is perpetually in a trance) from a hostile hippie environment. This movie stands the test of time, commenting that cults and hippie groups are a place for those who give up on their lives when they should instead stand up and be counted in the face of adversity. Great music compositions in this movie that mean different things in different situations and to different people, and the director brings forth an eerie feeling to it.

Sentiment: positive
Hilarious hardly begins to describe this one of a kind genuine tour-de-Star-Wars-force (Luke: how strong? Vader: the strength of a small pony), in which, being the master he is, he doesn't even break a sweat, ingeniously sparing himself mascara leakage.. -and that's with almost 2 hours of whirling his way thru history, its birthplace, Europe, and more.

From Heimlich's middle-of-the-night, "I've invented a maneuver!" to the British Empire's "..do you have a flag..?" and ancient deadbeat gods, "Jeff! The God of Biscuits!" and many more, this is fish-flop-on-the-floor-to-jumpstart-your-lungs funny.

And I confess to having passed on this video dozens of times over the years, seeing as a British transvestite standup, vogueing on a chair, is one longshot of a rental after all, especially one going back 10 years now. And yet, the material is not only timeless but almost oracular, turning present day into nothing more than an amplified, funnier/sadder version of where we were at a decade ago, although come to think about it, that may just be a coincidence.

Sentiment: positive
I didn't personally know Karen Carpenter, nor, Richard for that matter, so I must go by how the movie portrayed her. I think a better person to ask about it's accuracy would be her brother Richard. However, from what I did see and learn of Karen, I felt her pain, share her sadness, and she was a very special person to me growing up. I know that I wasn't born until 1965 so I didn't get to know her as much as some of you older fans but I definitely grew up listening to her music and I have fond memories of her music. I remember the song about the "Radio" (every sha la la la every whoa...so fine,) etc and I remember "We've only just begun! As a matter of fact, I memorized many, many of her songs and some people (quite a few) tell me that my voice sounds almost identical to her!!! ( I am not joking on this). I also used to be anorexic during high school and part of college (1978-1987) to be exact and weighed anywhere from 82 pounds to eventually 120 pounds in 1987. I developed some pretty serious health problems from that which helped me to identify with the actress portraying Karen in the movie. The mother (Agnes) was very MUCH like my mother in many ways and I could also feel the pain that Karen must have experienced. For, my mother was often unfeeling, critical, and disapproving as Agnes was (if this was true to accuracy). The movie was helpful in identifying and getting to know Karen on a more personal note by not just hearing her music but by seeing what she was going through. It is quite difficult to portray a person's entire life in 2-3 hours and recount every single detail perfectly so I would have to say that there is probably no biography that is that accurate. I will give this story an 8 though! I wish I did know Karen personally! I would have DIED to meet her!! I would have loved to have shook her hand, given her a hug, or talked to her. I feel her warmth and love every time I hear one of her songs and she is greatly missed.

Sentiment: positive
My title above says it all. Let me make it clearer. If you have seen the BBC's "Planet Earth" , which I am sure most of you have , then you are not gonna like this movie too much. And I own all the discs of "Planet Earth" I had seen the rating for this movie very high , and read good reviews about it. I was excited to check it out.

Alas, I went to the theater and the movie started , I saw it was a Disney movie with production companies listing BBC and Discovery. And when they started the first scenes about the polar bear, I recognized them from my DVDs at home of "Planet Earth".

The movie continued and went on and on and on , me and my friends kept on recognizing the scenes were all from "Planet Earth".

We were very very disappointed , as I think 90% of the footage is from "Planet Earth" . I am saying 90% , because some of the scenes I didn't recognize. I have a feeling that I simply didn't remember them.

So finally what this movie really is , is a compilation of different footages from the different discs of "Planet Earth" , with a narration aimed at kids. Yes, the narration is quite kiddish. Let me give you an example. When they show the polar cubs walking away from the mother cub , the narrator says "The polar cubs are not like human kids. They don't always listen to their mothers" ( I don't remember the exact words , but this is how it is ) So in a nutshell. This is condensed "Planet Earth" for kids !

Sentiment: negative
From the acting, direction, scriptwriting and art direction this film is just entirely ill conceived and the money would have been better spent on shoes for land mine victims. When did we get so sad that they have to fill a a children's movie with sexual innuendo to keep the parents attention.

Dr Suess is rolling in his grave right now, what with the "dirty ho" "S.H.I.T" and fake erection scenes etc etc etc. Its shameful how they trade on the name of Suess to get the parents to bring their kids, throw in the profanities to try for the teens and a few sad parents who won't watch a a film with their child if there is no T & A. Greed greed and more greed.

Compare this to the classic children's films and we can get a disturbing view of world is turning into. These guys should stick to making MTV videos. How on earth this movie got >400 votes as a perfect 10 is beyond me. (unless its the directors family)

Sentiment: negative
80's comedies (especially ones with John Cusak) are awesome. Almost all are hillarious and instant classics and this film is no exception. Plenty of nods to other films (i.e. Godzilla and Jaws) through out the movie that are so hillarious you'll be laughing for hours. Some may complain that the movie is a little corny at times but hey it was the 80's and things were always a little cheesy. Throw in a young Demi Moore and an even louder Bob Cat and you have a laughfest on your fans. If you haven't seen this, you better soon!!!!!!

Sentiment: positive
Yes, I couldn't stop yawning, nor could my partner. Incredibly boring - 90 minutes seemed to stretch to at least 3 hours - and I'm not even a fan of action films, but this just falls asleep on its feet - unless you are a 70's polo neck sweater fan! 

** SOME SPOILERS FOLLOW ** If you were expecting ANYTHING to happen, don't hold your breath - it doesn't! 

But seriously, it totally fails to convince or involve the watcher. It's like a long, boring and rather disjointed dream. Frederic floats through it, able to leave work whenever he wants, and with attractive secretaries bringing tea and messages constantly. Obviously not real life! And an office with virtually no paper or files - just a giant calendar to let you know that the film really is taking 6 months to watch. 

Frederick never seems to be touched by any real emotion, neither does his wife, and the children behave like rag dolls - in stark contrast to any real life. Even Chloe, despite her strong views, never gives the appearance of really feeling anything. The only 3 seconds of any real feeling occur between a couple overseen in a cafe, and have nothing to do with the plot.

Okay, so maybe there are some moral considerations, but if it's entertainment, or even good cinematography you are looking for, I think this film is incredibly over-rated by most other viewers.

Sentiment: negative
In 1988, Paperhouse was hailed as a "thinking man's horror film." Wow, you might say, sign me up. This thing is a mess. It features a one time young actress who has a range of like 1 to 2. G. Headley with a bad British (dubbed) accent, and a story with no chills, thrills or spills.

It isn't even interesting psycho-babble. One will only laugh at its cheap effects and long for a showing of Leprechaun 5.

The story involves a girl with glandular fever who escapes in her dreams. WHat you get isn't good horror, art house or even a decent after-school special. I found myself after the two hour point saying..where did my two hours go.

The direction is uninspired and I wished it could even be pretentious...something interesting..it seems like the producers were on lithium.

Even in the dream world things are boring.

A short no on this one.

Sentiment: negative
This movie had lots of potential, beautiful women, cute guys, a beach, beer, a hot tub, a mansion on the beach, a swimming pool, a sexy maid who hates her job, and really nice cars. However, the movie had one thing that doomed it to failure... a full length script and a bunch of sexy women who want to give acting a try because they think it would be a cool idea.

Let's put it this way...

If you find yourself at a party and you have a choice between watching this movie or a childs potty training video from the 70s, choose the potty training video.

Sentiment: negative
I'm not looking for quality; I'm just trying to get through the 74 famous video nasties that were banned in Britain. This one was initially banned and re-released in 2001 with a whole 10 seconds cut.

Some college kids spend their Christmas vacation preparing a dorm for renovation. There are some creepy characters lurking about along with the four kids. Which of them is the slasher? The actual killings are not very gory, so this video nastie is not really nasty. There is the requisite flashing of the boobies, but it has nothing to do with the college kids.

I had a suspect very quickly and I turned out to be right. Maybe I've seen too many of these. The end twist was clever; I have to give the writers credit for that bit of originality.

Sentiment: negative
What really amazed me about this film was that it ringed so false. First of all, who in the late 80's (when the film takes place)lived like this family? A college professor wouldn't make enough money to support the lifestyle I saw on the film. Hence, he and his stay home wife would be plagued by financial woes, especially when she gets cancer. Second, Streep is my age, and most women, particularly in her class (educated, white, well off) experienced the feminist movement. Yet this woman seems oblivious to her anachronistic behavior. I actually felt that she was a very controlling woman who kept her husband an emotional child by taking care of his every need.

The fact that so many people were moved by the film is amazing. I have admired Carl Franklin's films in the past, and I actually like Meryl Streep, but gad, what a manipulative and lying film this is.

Sentiment: negative
My mother told me not to go to see "Kadosh" -- but who ever listens to one's mother? 

I was so turned off by it while I was watching I thought I must have lost my feminist credentials on the way into the theater, so I checked with card-carrying feminists the next day. No, they also thought it was much more an anti-Orthodox screed than a pro-feminist statement, painting the Orthodox as equal to the Taliban.

While this Israeli movie is careful to show that the sect the story is about is the ultimate ultra-Orthodox Messianists, it is so nasty as to be unbelievable (plus that the non-fanatic Orthodox rock-'n'-roller(!) one of the sisters is in love with is incredibly sexy--even in Israel that must be fantasy).

The theater was quite crowded, so there's a pent-up curiosity to see Israeli movies; too bad this vicious movie is the one getting wide distribution. This was almost enough to drive me back to insipid Hollywood romantic movies. 

(originally written 4/29/2000)

Sentiment: negative
A team of amateur journalists and tree-huggers catches wind of a secret government project, Project Carnivore, on a remote South Pacific island. The scientists there are producing giant-sized corn, but the genes are spreading to other species, creating abnormally large Komodo dragons and a cobra (one that's bullet-proof and swims underwater). With the help of the scientist's daughter, can they escape the island and tell the world? Even if i hadn't seen this film on the Sci-Fi Channel (which, sadly, i did) it would scream "Sci-Fi Channel" with its low production value, weak acting and some of the worst special effects in history. The effects here are comparable to another creature film, "Raptor Island", although not nearly as bad. I would suspect that there must be at least a handful of people that worked on both films, but I haven't bothered to confirm that and probably won't. It will be a sad day when I see either of them films again.

Which is not to say it's not enjoyable. I watched it at two in the morning with my sister's boyfriend and I can't speak for him, but I thought it was a pretty good use of time. As bad the whole thing is, it's a fun picture if you like to make fun of movies and the scientist's daughter is attractive enough to carry the film (I believe the actress' name is Michelle Borth). Michael Pare also appears as a ship captain, and his poor choice of roles here actually makes his work on "Furnace" look respectable (even if that movie is intolerably bad).

I can't be too hard on this film simply because it was more or less exactly what I thought it would be. Bad effects? Low budget? No-name actors? I didn't have any higher hopes. Yet, this doesn't mean that it's awesome, either. Coming in at par is nothing to be proud of and this one will slowly fade into the distant memory department. For the one fan who likes this film (and calls it "KvC"), hold on to your copy because you'll have a heck of a time getting a replacement.

Sentiment: negative
Pretty awful but watchable and entertaining. It's the same old story (if you've lived through the 80s). Vietnam vets fight together as buddies against injustice back in the States. A-Team meets Death Wish, my favorite!

Time goes on, the soldiers go home, and years later a friend is in trouble. No, wait -- in fact, the friend is dead and it is his dad that's in trouble. Our first hero, Joey, is killed by an exceedingly horrifying (super pointy) meat tenderizer as he tries to defend his father's small store from the local "protection" gang despite being wheelchair bound from the war. Desperate for help, the father talks to Sarge, the leader of Joey's old unit from Vietnam, when Sarge shows up for the funeral.

Well, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the old gang saddles up for the city. You can pretty much imagine most of the rest of the movie.

The one thing that drove me crazy is that Sarge keeps haranguing his men about planning, and about how they're really good at what they do when they plan ahead. But Joey wouldn't have been put in a wheelchair by a gunshot in Vietnam in the first place if the unit hadn't been messing around! Then when things are going really well in the city as they battle the gangs, they do it again. For no reason at all, they completely bypass their plan and try to nail the gang without everyone being present. Phh!!!! I raise my hands in disgust. Foolishness!

There is also a suspicious moment when all present members of the unit make sure to try out the heroin they snatch from the gang to make sure it's real. EVERY single one of them. Hmm....

What are you going to do? Keep watching, I guess. The movie isn't too horrible to watch, but it IS a tease. There are all these climactic moments when nothing actually winds up happening. The most dramatic things that happen are those at the beginning of the movie -- the explosives in Vietnam, Joey's death battle, and the gang brutally kicking an innocent teddy bear aside (poor Teddy!).

I guess my main beef with this movie is that I feel let down by it. Even the confusing subplots with "mystery helpers" and their bizarrely cross-purpose motives wasn't enough to save it at the end. But someday maybe it'll all come right and they'll make a sequel. Ha ha ha ha!!!

Sentiment: negative
An example of genius filmaking. The epic story of three major stages of life for a young boy told with eloquence and raw fearlessness. Rarely does a film come along that causes me to out loud say during most of the viewing, "this is a really good film...." again and again. That is exactly what happened when I watched this film. I really do not understand how anyone could not like it. I found myself at moments crying and laughing at the very same moment, unable to control how I felt about the scene. The acting is outstanding. Eric Mabius- why is he not all over movie screens? He was really extraordinary. His seemingly effortless attempt on the screen impacted me in deep visceral ways. I thank him. In my opinion, Eric Schaeffer is one of the best filmakers around, and I hope he continues to rise to the challenges that he faces while trying to give us art in the face of ferocious commercial filmaking.



Sentiment: positive
One of the most unheralded great works of animation. Though it makes the most sophisticated use of the "cut-out" method of animation (a la "South Park"), the real talent behind "Twice Upon a Time" are the vocal characterizations, with Lorenzo Music's (Carlton from TV's "Rhoda") Woody Allen-ish Ralph-the-all-purpose-Animal being the centerpiece. The "accidental nightmare" sequence is doubtless one of the best pieces of animation ever filmed.

Sentiment: positive
This movie has several things going for it. It is a "feel good" story. The characters and actors are likable, realistic and present fine performances. Most important, I believe, is that Dennis Quaid knows how to grip and throw a baseball. Robert Redford looked good both throwing and swinging a bat in "The Natural, and so did Kevin Costner in "For Love of the Game" and "Bull Durham." In "Major League," Tom Berenger and Charlie Sheen looked like they knew what they were doing, but many of the others did not, and that picture was pure silliness - and not very funny. 

So many earlier baseball movies, even where the stories might be interesting, presented such a lack of baseball ability on the part of the leads, they were ludicrous in this respect. In "The Stratton Story" and "Strategic Air Command," Jimmy Stewart looked about as believable as a professional baseball player, as your overweight, non-athletic, elderly uncle in the softball game at the family reunion. Other virile and physically robust stars (e.g., Gary Cooper as Lou Gehrig; Robald Reagan as Grover Cleveland Alexander; and Dan Dailey as Dizzy Dean) also exhibited a degree of baseball ability that would put them in the late rounds while "choosing-up" for a game at the Sunday picnic (even if coed, and even if your uncle were involved). 

The scenes of Quaid's high school team he coached, the ones where he attends his tryout with the Devil Rays, and those with him playing in two minor leagues and in the American League, all ring true. The participants are believable and capable. In addition, he is an engaging actor who always delivers a talented and appropriate characterization (except, to a degree, some of his "over-the-top" scenes, and his forced accent, in his portrayal of Jerry Lee Lewis). But he's definitely on-target here, and this movie is a "9," as good, or better, as any others of this genre, except for "The Natural."

Sentiment: positive
Well, if it weren't for Ethel Waters and a 7-year-old Sammy Davis, Jr. (here billed without the Jr.), Rufus Jones for President would be one of the worst representations of African-American stereotypes I've seen from the early talkie era and wouldn't have been worth seeing because of that. Ms. Waters is excellent here singing "Am I Blue?" and "Underneath Our Harlem Moon" while Mr. Davis shows us how his childhood experience in showbiz prepared him for his superstar status as an adult. He's so good tap-dancing here that for awhile I thought he was a little person with decades of experience. So if you're willing to ignore the negative connotations here, Rufus Jones for President should provide some good enjoyment. P.S. This marks the fourth time today I've seen and heard the song, "I'll Be Glad When You're Dead You Rascal You" performed on film, this time by Davis. Must have been a very popular song about this time.

Sentiment: negative
When you have waited years to see a film that you have heard on the grape vine about obviously your expectations are high right? f**k yeah!But when this baby dropped through my door little did i know what f***ed up visuals would grace my TV and warp my fragile mind. First off Karim Hussein is a film fan like all of us growing up on a diet of Argento/Fulci/lynch etc.....and it shows in this film, but in a good way. Although i didn't really know what the hell was going on on my first watch of this gem i was just amazed by the visuals,the lighting and of course the performances from everyone who was involved Karim must have truly believed that he was going to push the boundaries in film-making(which trust me he does)and that he was going to have a hard job convincing the actors to do the same........

So what can i tell you about "subconscious cruelty"?Well without spoiling it....its a deep insight into the human psyche with images of violent and sexual madness which toils into madness.....a truly unforgettable experience.......

keep you eye on Karim Hussein he can only go onto better things.....

I viewed the full uncut print of subconscious cruelty on a double disc DVD from Infliction films which is loaded with extras.....please note there is a censored hong Kong release out there avoid this version.

Sentiment: positive
Well, Dude Where's My Car might be at least a novelty as one of few Hollywood films that seems to have been written, cast, filmed & edited in less than a day. I honestly can't believe this got made (or that I allowed my friends to make me sit through the entire thing). The jokes are too stupid and predictable to be "dumb-funny", and the actors involved don't seem like they would be capable of pulling off any kind of funny had the script actually provided it. Oddly enough, unlike most mindless slapstick comedies, this movie actually has TOO MUCH plot - every scene seems to introduce a new moronic and uninteresting subplot. Of course, they were obviously going for moronic, but it doesn't work on any level whatsoever...There is only one aspect of this film I enjoyed: Donkeylips from the old Nickalodean show "Salute Your Shorts" has a very small role. This is the role that will turn him into the next Richard Gere though, you just watch...

Sentiment: negative
One would think that anyone embarking upon a followup to the groundbreaking Naked Civil Servant of 30-plus years ago would at the very least try to honor the original with some kind of inspired vision, but no. Here we have a sort of biopic of one of the most stylish people of the late 20th century that itself boasts no style whatsoever. True, the filmmakers have assembled some outstanding actors - and handed them a chipped mug of drab gruel to work with. Everything in the infrastructure of this film is wrong, starting with the script, which is another one of those TV-movie condensations of great lives wherein every other line is a "famous quote" by the subject and every other scene is an in-your-face introduction to the next pivotal character in the subject's life. We get Swoozie Kurtz as a PR maven who promotes Crisp as a stateside entertainer; Denis O'Hare as the editor of a gay periodical who hires Crisp as film reviewer, becomes somewhat alienated from him when he appears indifferent to the passions of 80's AIDS activists, and then returns to the fold as a compassionate friend of the dying octogenarian; Jonathan Tucker (in a fine performance) as a shy, insecure painter of gay-themed canvases who is befriended by Crisp; and finally Cynthia Nixon as performance artist and Woman-About-Bohemia Penny Arcade who, intrigued by Crisp's persona, offers him a spot in her traveling cabaret act. Nixon is a persuasive and gifted performer but is given no chance by the script to embody the down-to-earth and streetwise Arcade. Crisp spent the last 20 years of his life in a one-room flat in an old tenement building in Manhattan's East Village. He famously said that he never cleaned because "after a few years the dust doesn't get any worse," or something like that. But looking at the depiction of that flat in this film you'd never get the flavor of that dustiness. He frequented a local coffee shop on a busy avenue and would be seen pretty much each day of the week sipping tea and watching the world go by. In this film we get a diner that looks like something on 12th Avenue by the Hudson River. Most of the "streets of New York" scenes have a sterile, unreal look with no sense of the period. 

The soul of this film is the great John Hurt in the title role. After nearly 35 years he can still grasp the essence of this peculiar post-Edwardian Englishman and put it across to third millennarians. His every line, every gesture is exquisite. In the later scenes he even modulates his vocal projection to suit that of a person whose life is winding down toward death. Crisp wrote shortly before he left this realm that when one grows very, very old one's skin takes on the character of a smelly overcoat that cannot be removed and one longs for death. One senses that feeling in Hurt's performance. So, for him and him alone this film is worth a look.

Sentiment: negative
I may differ from many people on this board but I enjoy watching Mind Of Mencia. The reason I like Mind Of Mencia is the host is not afraid to speak his mind or exploit stereotypes. Carlos Mencia does what we all do with our friends but are unwilling to admit and then some.

Mencia has no problem doing jokes about any race, religion, sex, or orientation. While he gets a lot of flack for this it is a breath of fresh air in these politically correct times. Mencia does not care if he offends anyone but he is not a racist and even does jokes about his own race.

The typical format for the Mind of Mencia goes like this: there will be an open skit making fun of a person or recent event. Mencia then comes out and does a 5 or 6 minute stand up where he talks about various issues. The show then has 2 separate skits divided by commercials. In these skits Mencia does a variety of things such as making fun of people, giving his personal opinions with a funny twist, or simply doing parodies of people, events, or movies. At the end of the show Mencia comes out for a minute with either one final skit or something else to say.

People criticize Mencia for exploiting stereotypes and say his statements are overly offensive. Carlos only does what everyone else thinks of certain races but are afraid to say. As for Mencia being offensive he is only speaking his mind. I find nothing wrong with that.

The show is not perfect. The skits can be not put together the best and sometimes Mencia does go over the line in his jokes. For the most part however it is a show where the comedian says what is on his mind no matter what the consequences and presents in in a humorous matter. So if you aren't afraid to laugh at stereotypes and see someone speak his mind and often say what you have wanted to say then watch Mind Of Mencia. However if you are easily offended you should not watch this show because you will be offended or worse yet you might even laugh.

Sentiment: positive
The French Babbette appears at the modest house of two Danish sisters wet, cold, and alone. Fleeing revolution in Paris, she seeks refuge in an obscure religious community on the windswept Jutland coast.

Unbeknownst to those who so generously take her in, she is a great chef, an artist of food. Babette gives herself to her adopted community through thrift, productivity, and shared faith. She leaves only when she wins the French lottery--10,000 francs. She returns laden with exotic cargo, the makings of a single meal commemorating the birthday of the sister's father, the community's founder.

This meal looms darkly in the minds of the pleasure-denying faithful but its subtleties are translated by an aging military officer who, as a young man in Paris, learned to appreciate the sensory experience unfolding here. The meal is the film's climax, a communion of love in the transitory artistry of food--unaffectedly uplifting about art, love, and the meaning of life.

Sentiment: positive
This is definitely an excellent show. I don't have cable, so I started renting them, because my friend recommended it. I thought it would be a teen soap, you know, who's dating who, that kind of thing. But it was not. It is surprisingly deep. It is also very witty. It moves at a very fast pace, and there are more and more jokes you catch every time you watch it. It is a comedy-drama, which is rare when well done. It is about Rory and Lorelai's relationship. Instead of the classic mother-daughter relationship it is a story of the best friend relationship-- about a mother and daughter. The characters are perfectly cast and all do a superb job. It is definitely the best TV show I have very come across.

Sentiment: positive