DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Taken the idea out of a true diplomatic incident "The Wind and the Lion" is a very good adventure film set in the deserts of Africa.

El Raisuli (Sean Connery) head of an Arab tribe kidnaps an American woman(Candice Bergen) and her two children to obtain some concessions for his country out of American president Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith). Out of this simple plot John Milius gets a very complete and enjoyable movie in the genre.

The outdoor dessert locations, an impressive color photography, very well handled action sequences and perfect settings turn the picture in a sort of epic one with an undeniable sense of greatness. The musical score is also remarkable an fits accordingly.

Sean Connery is very good as the Arab leader and proofs he can handle almost any kind of role. So is Candice Bergen as the woman who shows strength under dangerous circumstances but deep inside is scared and has her weaknesses; she gets to admire Connery and even understand his complete different focus on life arising from their also completely different cultures. Brian Keith plays one of his best roles ever as American president Teddy Roosevelt.

Most entertaining and very good cinematographic sample in the genre. Give it chance, you won't regret it.

Sentiment: positive
im sure he doesnt need the money for a life saving operation or transplant. in all honesty i think this review qualifies as a better movie than 'bulletproof'. thanks for listening.

Sentiment: negative
I don't watch soaps. My grandmother still watches that one with the hour glass. I made fun of them it when I was ten (it was so easy).

But this movie takes parody and spells it a new way. I found the story pretty damn funny. The fashions of the 80's - shoulder pads, sequins, and polyester - just top it off. The huge hair, the high heels, and the histrionics - what a combination.

And all the actors just go to town, chewing up their parts and spitting them out in a big well scripted pile. Sally, Kevin, Elisabeth - wonderful! Whoopi - great! Robert Downey - refreshing to see him back when he had such potential, before the tabloids. And Garry: why did we have to wait so long to see him on film? Leesa Gibbons - hadn't been missing her, but nice to include her as a real life entertainment reporter (and where do you apply for THAT job, anyway?).

Admittedly, I could have done without Sally climbing the drainpipe. Lucy Ricardo did it, how many times?, as has every comedienne from Carol Burnett to I don't know who and I'm so done with it now, I could spit peanuts if I had them. Apparently it's what you do when you're being funny in a tall building in New York. I'm just thankful they didn't pull out the flagpole bit.

But it was cute, it was funny, it had plot twists, it had an after credits ending before that was common, it had clothes worthy of a second glance, it had a great cast and it's got personal memories for me. Really, what more do you need?

Sentiment: positive
Robert Jordan is a television star. Robert Jordan likes things orderly, on time and properly executed. In his world children are to be seen, not heard. So why would Mr. Jordan want to become the master of a rambunctious band of Boy Scouts? Ratings. His staff figures that if learns how to interact with the youth, they will be more inclined to watch his show. Of course watching Jordan cope comprises most of the fun.

Like Mr. Belvedere and Mr. Belvedere Goes to College this one is sure to please.

ANYONE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF THIS FILM PLEASE WRITE TO ME AT: IAMASEAL2@YAHOO.COM

Sentiment: positive
I have to admit, I picked this movie just for the cast, and while Sutherland, Scacchi, and Prochnow were - as usual - great performers, the rest of the movie was such a let down. It feels like it was put together by a team of adolescents with low level scripts, that is, scripts lacking any depth, awful photography and editing, and hilariously lousy score! I can't believe I was able to watch this seemingly long movie until the end... the sad thing is, this could have actually been a great political thriller given the interesting plot. All the potential was there to make it a hit; that is, two main ingredients are there: a great story of national conspiracies, and a great core cast (even though many other actors are pretty much soap opera quality). But maybe I'm missing something; until then it's still not worth more than a 3 in my opinion.

Sentiment: negative
What the heck do people expect in Horror films these days anyway. Does is HAVE to be something grisly like 'SAW' or it's just crap...??? Now, I don't claim to be an all knowing expert, but I'm about 47, I've seen and own literally thousands of films and I honestly think this director really gave this film a good, sincere effort. Believe me, I was getting ready to cringe as soon as the dialog started, ASSUMING it was gonna be awful and I was pleasantly surprised. It's no Mamet script, that's for sure; but COME ON!!! with all the HORRIBLE garbage out there, ESPECIALLY in Horror, I thought this one was WAY closer to the top of the pile than most.

The director used a lot of neat, clever camera angles; the soundtrack was excellent and moody, perfect for the atmosphere needed for this kind of film. The editing and timing were very good. And it DIDN'T resort to the tired, worn cliché of excessive 'slasher' violence; for example ***** MINOR SPOILER ***** During an absolutely delightful and fully gratuitous (but tasty..., uh, I mean tasteful) nude shower scene I FULLY expect her to get sliced and diced; but, AMAZINGLY we just get to enjoy her heavenly loveliness and that's it ***** END MINOR SPOILER ***** Also, the tension was built very well, leading up to a nicely ambiguous ending where you are not quite sure what's what. ***** SPOILER ***** Especially where in the scene where the psychiatrist leaves the girl and Pinnochio alone in the office; WE see the doll actually talking to her, but in the video recording we do not. Also, the Mom sees Pinnochio moving about and being quite nasty; so, are BOTH the Mom AND daughter mentally ill...??? Also there is the original 'killer' and what the Mom had surmised about a possible Evil influence. But even with all that, we are STILL not quite sure WHO was doing the killing ***** END SPOILER ***** So, all in all, I believe that it was a good, strong, sincere effort to create some good ol' Early Full Moon type style and with a LOT of restraint on the violence. And with no typical SLEAZE thrown in for no reason (just the lovely, innocent, beautiful shower scene, which I will remember to the end of my days... : ) Compared to the absolute MINDLESS drivel out there, a DEFINITE, strong 8/10!!!

Sentiment: positive
I was REALLY disappointed with this movie. I had heard some great reviews about it and unfortunately missed seeing it in theaters. As a result of this, I was really excited to see it when it came to DVD. I thought that it was going to be a high-paced horror movie with a lot of scary surprises but instead it was a snail-paced predictable movie. It dragged and dragged without a climax in it and after all the difficulties that those people went through to try and escape, the ending was completely frustrating. I gave this movie two stars for one reason. This is not your typical horror movie with one central bad guy slashing a bunch of people to death. The story makes this movie unique and provides a change for people who watch a lot of horror movies. Even though I don't like this movie, I recommend that all horror fans do see it at least once. You may surprisingly like it. As for this horror fan, all I can say is that I hope there ISN'T a sequel to this forgettable movie.

Sentiment: negative
Great adaptation of the Christie novel. Surprising attention to authentic period details for the time (Many films of the mid-1970s-early 80s that try to do 1920s-early 30s look far too mid-70s-early 80s for my liking, so expected the worst here, and was gladly proved wrong)The costumes and sets are very well done. I liked this production very much  largely due to the adorable Francesca Annis' portrayal of a carefree bright young Lady "Frankie" and James Warwick's charming Bobbie. The pair would go on to portray Christie's Tommy & Tuppence, which is funny as some contemporary book critics compared Frankie and Bobby to her earlier characters of Tommy & Tuppence. The supporting characters were equally well done  the over the top Mrs. Rivington (acted by Miss Marple-to-be Joan H.) and "Badger" is played perfectly as the post WWI, "Bertie Wooster type."

Sentiment: positive
Yeah, there's a "sleeper" watching Sleeper Cell and it was me. After reading comparisons to "24" (like on the cover of the DVD), I expected a fast-paced action romp. But nope... this series just putts along. In my groggy half-awake state I would think, "He's gonna... " and, poof, it would happen... "Guess that van is gonna roll off the... " and there she goes.

And so on.

And why would Darwyn, in extra-deep cover, pursue a babe? Could it be, perhaps, to provide a little T&A? Hey, that works for me, hence four stars rather than three.

This show is no "24". I've watched "24". Sleeper Cell, you're no "24".

Sentiment: negative
Kurt Russell's chameleon-like performance, coupled with John Carpenter's flawless filmmaking, makes this one, without a doubt, one of the finest boob-tube bios ever aired. It holds up, too: the emotional foundation is strong enough that it'll never age; Carpenter has preserved for posterity the power and ultimate poignancy of the life of the one and only King of Rock and Roll. (I'd been a borderline Elvis fan most of my life, but it wasn't until I saw this mind-blowingly moving movie that I looked BEYOND the image at the man himself. It was quite a revelation.) ELVIS remains one of the top ten made-for-tv movies of all time.

Sentiment: positive
This is a pitiful movie. What makes it even more pitiful is the time, effort and money put into a super predictable script and action.

It's about some kind of monsters, by the way, and some kind of insects. Don't expect an explanation of the plot. There is none. That might work, if there was something of interest, or characters we could care about. There isn't. Everything that happens to any person is as predictable as the other movies Sci Fi channel does.

Don't try to understand what some of the characters are saying. They speak gibberish, especially the annoying lead woman, whose accent is a sort of thick British that is harder to understand than any old British movie you may have seen. She's unintelligible.

A lot of money is spent on some great sets and scenery, and that is the major crime of this movie, because it just isn't worth it.

Sentiment: negative
Harrison Ford playing a playing a cop in a crime thriller. The perfect ingredients it SEEMS for top entertainment with Harrison back to his Indy and Han Solo best, protecting a witness from ruthless and merciless murderers. How easy it is to be fooled. If the film concentrated on the main, supposed, themes of crime and suspense instead of putting up barns and shoving ice creams in peoples faces it possibly could have been more worthwhile. Unbelieveably predictable with the best method of despatching of a foe is with corn.

Sentiment: negative
I managed to tape this off my satellite, but I would love to get an original release in a format we can use here in the States. Eddie truly is Glorious in this performance from San Francisco. I don't remember laughing so hard at a stand up routine. My wife and I both enjoyed this tape and his work on Glorious I just wish I could buy a copy and help support Eddie financially through my purchase. We need more of his shows available.

Sentiment: positive
In today's world of digital fabrication, there is no computer than can replace the actor and writer. Alas, this type of "character driven" film is far too rare these days. Duvall's performance as well as James Earl Jones are faithful to their audience's high expectations. I wonder if this movie was made for TV? It has a "close-up" personal quality to the narrative. It is an understatement to say that the performances are all Outstanding. The only thing that keeps it from being a cinema Masterpiece is the lack of a great Cinematographer, but pretty pictures are not everything. How can talent the likes of Jones and Duvall continue to produce such fine work in an age where actors pose for the digitizing?

Sentiment: positive
Crude, some times crass - to me that's the summation of Madhur Bhandarkar's latest work - Page 3. He has no point of view - just shallow, funny digs at stereotypes. What is the movie about?? Is it about reporting a clan of people (so called Page 3 types) who are so busy socializing and progressing their profiles in life - that they have no time for anything else. And you are either in it or out of it. Is it that there is no press at all to report everyday incidents. Madhur Bhandarkar forgets that there is a main newspaper and Page 3 is just a supplement; perhaps an entertainer for checking out who's who and what's what. Don't mix the two. And then there is power play - that would happen in every walk of life. So what have you told at the end of it all - nothing - just a few crude jokes strung together in an otherwise direction less movie.

Sentiment: negative
A poor basketball movie. A gruff coach with a dubious background comes to a small Indiana high school basketball team in the 1950's and coaches the boys to victory by "breaking them down first, and then building them up."

Not a bad subject. Photography OK. But the plot is totally predictable. No real sub-plots. Nothing added to make the movie exciting. You know what is going to happen from the very beginning. Suitable for 4th Graders.

Sentiment: negative
The film "Chaos" takes its name from Gleick's 1988 pop science explanation of chaos theory. What does the book or anything related to the content of the book have to do with the plot of the movie "Chaos"? Nothing. The film makers seem to have skimmed the book (obviously without understanding a thing about it) looking for a "theme" to united the series of mundane action sequences that overlie the flimsy string of events that acts in place of a plot in the film. In this respect, the movie "Choas" resembles the Canadian effort "Cube," in which prime numbers function as a device to mystify the audience so that the ridiculousness of the plot will not be noticed: in "Cube" a bunch of prime numbers are tossed in so that viewers will attribute their lack of understanding to lack of knowledge about primes: the same approach is taken in "Chaos": disconnected extracts from Gleick's books are thrown in make the doings of the bad guy in the film seem fiendishly clever. This, of course, is an insultingly condescending treatment of the audience, and any literate viewer of "Chaos" who can stand to sit through the entire film will end up bewildered. How could a film so bad be made? Rewritten as a novel, the story in "Chaos" would probably not even make it past a literary agent's secretary's desk. How could (at least) hundreds of thousands (and probably millions) of dollars have been thrown away on what can only be considered a waste of time for everyone except those who took home money from the film? Regarding what's in the movie, every performance is phoned in. Save for technical glitches, it would be astonishing if more than one take was used for any one scene. The story is uniformly senseless: the last time I saw a story to disconnected it was the production of a literal eight-year-old. Among other massive shortcomings are the following: The bad guy leaves hints for the police to follow. He has no reason whatsoever for leaving such hints. Police officers do not carry or use radios. Dupes of the bad guy have no reason to act in concert with the bad guy. Let me strongly recommend that no one watch this film. If there is any other movie you like (or even simply do not hate) watch that instead.

Sentiment: negative
- SMALL SPOILER HEREIN! - 

When I looked at the votes for "Creep" today, I was surprised about so many IMDb-users rating this movie "1". I am wondering: what do people expect of such kind of movie? Are there so many people watching a movie without knowing anything about it?

"Creep" is a HORROR movie and it is a pretty good one! This automatically means: it has a absurd story full of holes, outrageous hazards and simple one-side-characters. So why complain about it? Just take some popcorn and coke, make yourself comfortable in your seat and then... ...enjoy to be scared to death! The first 60 minutes when there is almost nothing else than Kate and a lonely subway station are incredibly scaring. There is suspense and fear in every corner of the screen and you will give some jerks just because of a sudden sound of a blinking neon lamp in the back of you. (In my opinion the sound editor did the best job in this movie.)

When Kate meet her pursuer the quality of the movie drops but it still doesn't become a bad movie. The second part of the movie is not scary at all, but the gore effects are well done and the story is quite well developed. (...as long as you keep in mind that it is a horror movie you are watching and not the Discovery Channel!) So, if you want to make yourself a very, very scaring hour. Just watch the first hour of "Creep" and then leave the cinema or turn of your TV. You know the rest of the story anyway, don't you? The bad guy will die and Kate will be the only survivor. But even if you watch this movie up to its end, you will not be disappointed.

...and if you want to push anxiety to the next level, do what I did after watching this movie: leave the cinema by dark night, go to the next subway station and take the last train home...

Sentiment: positive
What a good film! Made Men is a great action movie with lots of twists and turns. James Belushi is very good as an ex hood who has stolen 12 million from the boss who has to fend of the gangsters , hillbillies his wife and the local sheriff( Timothy Dalton).you wont be disappointed, jump on board and enjoy the ride. 8 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
The things that I find irritating on screen, the things I nitpick about and annoy the people who try to watch movies with me are those moment where the writer, director, set-designer, on screen caterer, or whoever, doesn't think it through to the end and, by a single act of omission - or commission - undoes all the other work done by everyone else who has worked on the movie. That moment of "Wait a bloody minute.... What just happened?" that stops the narrative dead in its tracks. (Not that this film's narrative needed a lot of stopping, because anyone who has ever seen it will know that Quintet's narrative drive has pretty well frozen solid before the end of the opening shot.) There are several of those moments in this movie. And you get so long to think about them too. The film is two hours long and the scripted dialogue probably ran to five pages. There's a lot of time to ponder its deficiencies.

The movie is set in a frozen Earth. Another ice age has set in and the whole world is dying. It's cold. Very cold. It's actually very cold on the screen. The movie was shot in Canada in winter and there are icicles and real snow and people's breath misting from their mouths in every scene. Time and again we are reminded how fecking cold it is. People wear big hats and layers and layers of clothes and waddle around like over-dressed Weeble people. Must have been a horrible shoot. My nitpick comes in a sequence when our hero checks into a room of a hotel. Woken up in the middle of the night by voices coming from the room next door, he overhears a conversation of vital importance to the meagre plot through an large grill in the wall dividing the two rooms. I'm not questioning why there is a convenient grill in the wall between the two rooms. What got me annoyed was the fact that the grill had not been blocked up by the long term tenant with the noisy visitor. If you are trying to keep warm the last thing you need is a huge gaping draughty hole in your wall that leads into an unoccupied unheated room. Trust me. I live like this, I watched this film sat on my living-room sofa under a duvet with a hot water bottle. My breath was misting as much as the actors'. If that whacking great hole was in my wall I'd block it up with something. Maybe not the best choice of movie to watch in an unheated room in midwinter but boy did it make me notice the lousy insulation in the film.

Sentiment: negative
This isn't art, it's inner-urban, politically-correct propaganda! Jindabyne's political intolerance is beyond unforgivable... it doesn't see people as individuals, but rather, as members of categories.

This is the most patronisingly offensive Australian movie I can recall ever (and it's up against some pretty stiff competition!). A message movie, every tired theme beloved of the trendy left is there: Aborigines are victims; white men are violent or alcoholics; white women aren't that bad -particularly if they are lesbians - but they're most likely of a depressive nature.

Four men who go away fishing, find the body of a murdered woman (Aboriginal, naturally) and leave her in the river for several days while they catch trout. It's a strange decision taken with almost no discussion, as if the men are animals. The one man who briefly demurs is the goodie... we know this because he's living with a bisexual woman - he likes to hold his baby a lot - and eventually moves to a more fashionable costal location (away from all these beastly bush-dwellers).

This is a film made by those trendy urbanites who live in fear of the Australian landscape and those evil rednecks who reside within. It's ignorance of country life is almost as shocking as its contempt. The film is shot through with long-distance views of the bush backed by foreboding, mysterious music. It's made very clear by the end that Aboriginal people are the only ones at home in this landscape. It concludes with an excruciatingly implausible scene of black-white reconciliation.

In Jindabyne, country life is reduced to little more than a backdrop for a story that by implication proclaims the superiority of the values of enlightened leftist urban dwellers over those of other Australians.

This film was not made by people with real jobs but funded by the Government's Film Finance Corporation. It's a product of the artsy set, that soulless void populated by the beautiful people for whom lavish government funding sustains these patronisingly offensive projects (which are as detached from real life as possible), as opposed to actually making popular films people want to see. It doesn't matter if the film is a stinker, they still get paid.

Spare yourself from wasting time, avoid it like the plague. More jaded social commentary than actual entertainment, this film deserves to pan!

Sentiment: negative
One of those movies in which there are no big twists whatsoever and you can predict pretty much whats is going to happen. Matt dillon was awesome once again, but the rest didn't played a bigger part as they should have.

It was exciting in the beginning but kinda slow paced and predictable in the end.Its one of those flicks in which the good guy wins no matter happens.If you have absolutely nothing to do, you can give it a try I personally found it not worth watching. The story could have been more interesting and the director could have made it less of a B-movie by engineering a happy ending.

Sentiment: negative
If you have ever babysat in a house you didn't know, or if you saw the original and enjoyed it then this will be a good choice. Ignoring the reviews and what was posted here, I went ahead and rented this movie because of the memories of how the original scared me as a teen. This movie has (of course)changed some of the original story to relate to todays teens, such as the babysitter is in trouble for going over on her cell phone minutes and has to take on a babysitting job to pay her bill. However, it sticks to the original story line pretty well. If you can relate to the babysitter, not knowing the house and it's usual pops and cracks it is quite suspenseful. When the killer is shown he is very creepy and you find yourself yelling at the girl to "GET OUT OF THE HOUSE". If you have never babysat or been in a situation like this then you probably will not be able to relate and will not like it. It's all about understanding her fear.

Sentiment: positive
This obviously was a pretty low budget production, but the cast was pretty decent, the basic premise had promise, and something more could have been done with it, but the script wasn't that great- the plot is incoherent and seems almost random at times and the dialog is stilted and terrible.

Basically, a girl's father gets whacked by fellow gangsters, and later she becomes a robber, and wants to avenge his death, and then it goes into a mob protection racket involving corrupt politicians.

Alan Ladd gets top billing but he really plays a very minor role.

I have to say I found it mildly entertaining in its archaic B-grade hokiness but it really is shoddy and pathetic.

Sentiment: negative
Now I myself had previously seen a few episodes of the Leauge Of Gentleman which I found hilarious. When I brought the film I was not sure if I knew enough about the series to get it, boy was I wrong. This is one of the best comedy films I have seen ever and the clever acting of the Leauge makes the film. It has a very good and funny plot as well as using only a few characters at any one time helps because it doesn't make it too confusing which would have wrecked the film. Even If you have never seen The Leauge Of Gentleman get this film it will make you laugh and this is a film that can be watched more then once and is an excellent film to watch with your mates. It truly deserves it review a definite 10 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
This show was incredible, but too esoteric for most people. If you had never truly seen a European variety show in the 70's or 80's (or at least a Mexican one) the entire show would probably be lost on you. If you had, this show was a dead on skewering satire of the phony spectacle and shallowness that these shows dive into at their worst. Helmed by a chain-smoking suave wannabe with a pencil moustache and his ultra-glamorous and immasculating harridan of an EX-wife, "Viva Variety" is a variety show that tries to get off the ground every episode but always descends into in-fighting and acts gone very wrong. The hosts are joined by "Johnny Bluejeans", a dim witted side-kick who seems to have been named because blue jeans are a very popular product in his country and that means the kids will like him, which of course, they don't.

The result was a hilarious spoof of variety shows in general. Imagine the arguing that probably happened BACKSTAGE during the last days of the "Sonny & Cher Show". Now imagine it's happening ONSTAGE in front of you and the stars are trying to keep their composure. Now add cheesy acts and a Euro-riche mentality (tuxedoes, gowns, booze, accents and smokes). NOW you have "Viva Variety".

Have you ever heard a musician whose music was pretty much written for other musicians? Too conceptual? Viva Variety did this for comedians. WAY too esoteric for the standard American audience. It was funny as Hell. And doomed.

Sentiment: positive
I am astounded that so many people find this film even close to good. Let me make it clear that I am a HUGE Hitchcock fan and went out of my way to own as many of his films on video as I could but this one I felt was so below par not only for Hitch's films - aw heck, I'm being far too nice here. This pictured really sucked. I don't care that Hitch did a favor for the very talented Carole Lombard, but I have seen 50s sitcoms with more cleverness and style than this boring turkey. Chemistry between Lombard and Robert Montgomery? Listne I like mashed potatoes and ice cream but I wouldn't want to taste them together. I have seen better chemistry in chemical spills on th highway than here.

If you really love Hitchcock, avoid this film and see any one of his better ones. For crying out loud, the bits Hitch did on the old TV show were funnier than anything this film fails miserably to deliver.

Sentiment: negative
I believe Shakespeare explained what I just read beautifully. Me thinks he (the lady) doth protest too much. The whole thing sounded to me as if the author was trying to convince himself! He sites profane literature (writings from the same time period but not connected with the bible) a number of times however I can think of at least three references off the top of my head which lend historical accuracy to events contained in the bible. Anyone can skew data & prove anything they like but it doesn't make it true. Customs change, word definitions change over time (look at English & German where it is very obviously a common root) nothing stays the same, it's always growing and changing. The bible has many different translations but the King James version is the one I've found to be the best when it comes to any kind of research. In the King James version you will notice there are certain words written in italics. These words have been added by the translators and can be dropped & the mean of the entire verse changes. Writings from around the time of Christ were written without spaces, without punctuation, without paragraphs & without numeric verses. These writings look like one long word & the translators added all of the above. For example how would you read this: GODISNOWHERE do you read it as God is nowhere or do you read it as God is now here? Same string of letters two entirely different meanings. This is why many biblical researchers use a 'Lexicon' to assist them in translation as it provides a word for word translation from the original Arabic, Greek or Hebrew depending on the language in which the scripture was originally written. It's also interesting to note that when translated into symbolic logic you can prove God exists but you can not prove He doesn't exist! In the end I just love listening to people who think they are so smart that they are qualified to judge the almighty. Talk about ego! Putting soapbox away, God Bless Maegi

Sentiment: negative
Sometimes, changes to novels when they're made into films are not only necessary, but a good thing. However, in the case of Northanger Abbey, it's a very, very bad thing. Not only is the story itself ripped to shreds, but the satire is almost completely absent from the film, and it's mixture of romance and intrigue doesn't even touch upon the biting commentary that Austen put into her work. It fails to be amusing or satirical at all, and instead turns the character's fascination with her fantasy world into mostly a drama.

This affects the romance as well. It's meandering and aimless. Chemistry and interest are never established. The reasons Tilney is attracted to Catherine are completely absent from the film, leaving the audience to wonder what it is he sees in her at all.

Hopefully some day soon, we'll get a more faithful version if Austen's satire.

Sentiment: negative
A young couple -- father Ben (solid Charles Bateman), wife Nicky (the lovely Ahna Capri) and their daughter KT (the cute Geri Reischl of "I Dismember Mama" fame) -- find themselves trapped in a small California desert town populated by hysterical lunatics. Worse yet, there's a pernicious Satanic cult that's been abducting little children for their own diabolical purposes. Director Bernard McEveety, working from an offbeat and inspired script by William Welch and L.Q. Jones ("Devil Times Five" director Sean MacGregor came up with the bizarre story), relates the compellingly oddball plot at a slow, yet steady pace and ably creates a creepy, edgy, mysterious ooga-booga atmosphere. Strother Martin delivers a wonderfully wicked and robust performance as Doc Duncan, who's the gleefully sinister leader of the evil sect. The top-rate cast of excellent character actors qualifies as a substantial asset: Jones as gruff, no-nonsense Sheriff Hillsboro, Alvy Moore as friendly local Toby, and Charles Robinson as a shrewd, fiercely devout priest Jack. John Arthur Morrill's bright, polished widescreen cinematography, Jamie Mendoza-Nava's spooky score, and the wild, rousing climactic black mass ritual are all likewise up to speed. The idea of having toys come to murderous life is simply ingenious (the opening scene with a toy tank coming real and crushing a family in their car is truly jolting). Nice eerily ambiguous ending, too. A pleasingly idiosyncratic and under-appreciated winner.

Sentiment: positive
Director John Madden, of Shakespeare in Love fame, gives us another pretty bad film in Ethan Frome. The plot centers around a new reverend coming into the town of Starkfield where he learns the story of the local crippled man Ethan Frome's sick wife and one-time romantic tryst with the maid. Adapted by Richard Nelson from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Edith Wharton's novel, this film isn't interesting in the least thanks to an abysmally weak script and poor direction that turns scenes that are supposed to be poignant into laughable schmaltz. Still, there are other aspects apart of the film that work - the cinematography is well done, Rachel Portman contributes a lovely score, and while no one is at their best, Liam Neeson, Joan Allen, Patricia Arquette, and Tate Donovan work well in their roles. But overall, Ethan Frome is only marginally worthwhile and is easily forgotten.

Sentiment: negative
"This Man's Navy" is, as other comments have indicated, a rare and well-filmed look at Navy lighter than air (LTA) activities. The LTA crews were justly proud that the convoys they shadowed never lost a ship to submarine attack. And the filming at the various NAS locations give a valuable glimpse at a type of aviation that is long gone. However, the first half of the movie is all about Beery, his relationship with his service pals, and him meeting the Tom Drake character and his mother, and getting Drake's leg fixed. Only then does the second film start. The second film is mostly LTAs in action, taking on a surfaced sub, guys get killed and much damage is caused. The look is fairly gritty and realistic, I imagine. Then we shift to Southeast Asia. Did the Navy have LTAs there? Never mind, this part is really wild, with a blimp being used to extract some downed aircrew from the jungle. And the Japs are shooting like mad. Shades of Vietnam, except the getaway is oh, so leisurely. This is a blimp we're talking about. In the end, a feel-good WWII drama about a very unusual part of the war.

Sentiment: positive
Why do I watch movies like this ? - other than I have some weird misguided masochistic belief that one day I will find a true gem amongst all this dross I can't think one one good reason. This movie was dross from start to finish - but semi-hilarious dross. Where else but in a bad Italian dubbed movie could you find heated exchanges of surreal mangled English like this one between a honest military type and the sinister chief of a secret X-files like organisation dedicated to hiding "The Truth":

Man in Black: Silence is best for us until we are able to prove that the UFOs have no bellicose motives.

Military Type: In any event I find your interference abusive.

Man in Black: Whoever has to impose his will is.

I rewound the DVD (you know what I mean) a good half dozen times and I still can't make those lines mean anything sensible. My other fave line was:

"We can be quite hard on those who contravert our interests."

It's English Jim, but not as we know it. 

The other highlights of this dull plonker of a movie for me were the totally spaced out acting of the photographer character at the start. Saddled with the worst haircut EVER in the history of everything, the man just wandered around looking like a stunned fish in a bad wig till kidnapped and forced to look at a piece of Plexiglas by some aliens. The aliens are most effectively not seen as a POV shot - hand held camera with a fish-eye lens - sort of spooky the first time but, used over and over again it lost its power (incidentaly, if it is a Point of View shot, it means the aliens always walk out of rooms backwards for some reason).

The film was set in "England". This meant the Spanish Italian set designers put some British number plates on a couple of English cars and put a Union Jack on our hero's press card... and that was about it. No other attempt to make it look like the UK at all.

Favourite moment? When the Foley artists didn't notice that characters they were foleying (is there such a word?) were no longer walking on gravel but were now on the lawn so their feet kept on making loud "crunch! crunch!" noises. Other than that, another total waste of 90 minutes of my life. I hope they prove those UFOs have no bellicose motives soon...

Sentiment: negative
Watchers is a fun movie if it's not taken too seriously, the novel written by Dean R. Koontz is obviously a lot better but the movie itself is entertaining in it's own way. The film has a lot of changes for the novel Watchers, the one difference is the main character Travis. In the book he was an adult and an retired Delta Force soldier while in the film he's a teenager. Watchers has it's good points, the film does have some gory scenes in parts. I'm a fan of Micheal Ironside and it was cool to see him in this film, he always does a great performance in all his films. The OXCOM costume looks kind of cheesy but the camera never really shows the creature fully until near the end of the film. The dog Einstien was impressive since it was well trained.

The film sees two genetic experiments escaping from a lab, a dog and a monster. Both experiments are linked telepathically since the two animals are part of a military project were the dog would infiltrate an enemy base then the Creature would attack and eliminate them. The Dog finds a teenager named Travis who takes him home and discovers that he's intelligent and so he names the dog Einstein, meanwhile the OXCOM is roaming around killing people and gouging out their eyes, two Government agents are sent to find the two experiments before this incident gets out of hand. Soon Travis learns that his not safe as the OXCOM is drawn to the dog and will stop at nothing to kill him and anyone in it's way, so Travis and his mom go to rescue his girlfriend who's being held at the hospital by the two agents. They then hideout in the woods while the Government agents and the OXCOM are not far behind.

Watchers is not a great adaptation of Dean R. Koontz novel but it is a entraining 80's horror flick, some fans of the book may not want to watch this since it's not faithful to the book but fans of cheesy 80's horror movies may want to check this out.

Sentiment: positive
Komodo vs. Cobra is not going to set the world on fire. It's not a hallmark of cinema history. What it is is a group of underfunded filmmakers trying to make another movie, make another paycheck, and continue to support themselves and their families. As such I give these efforts a lot of slack. I mean, come on, it has to be hard to be a Russian special effects technician. Not a lot of big budget films getting made there. BUT-- they are a dedicated bunch and more than willing to throw their all into whatever lame American monster flick needs affordable SFX. And I get a kick out of looking for the same locations appear time and again in these flicks. If for some reason you find yourself watching this again, look at the sequence where Pare and company are walking through a "jungle." Look at their feet and you'll see paved walkways. And if you happen to still have a copy of "AI Assault" (shown a week or two earlier also on SciFi), you'll see the folks in there tramping through the same ersatz jungle. Come to think of it, I think the helicopters land in the same clearing in both flicks. I can admire the thriftiness of these films. Every dollar really does show up on the screen! Too bad there just aren't enough dollars......

Sentiment: negative
This movie is nothing like "Office Space" except in the premise. Office Space was hilarious. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, as I laughed not once during the entire film. Mr. Cornbluth's self-indulgent tirades quickly become more annoying than 15 Jason Alexanders in the same room. If you decide to see this movie, use a free rental or watch it at someone else's house so you can leave if necessary.

Sentiment: negative
I am a big fan of low budget horror movies like this, but come on! This has to be the worst piece of monkey S@#t I have ever seen! I ignored the reviews posted on this site figuring that it would fall into my taste in horror, but I got bored and turned it off.Let's see:

The wardrobe: Consisted of cheap cameo outfits and painters outfits from home depot. The masks were made from what looks like tin foil. 

The Gore: The Gore was pretty good, I must give it that. But Ittenbach's Burning moon was better for a low budget movie. 

Acting: Was horrible! I didn't mind the dubbing. I find this humorous like in Ittenbach's "Premutos" (great movie). The fighting and action sequences were pi$$ poor.

Bottom line: Don't watch any of Schnaas's movies. There are much better directors like Jorg Buttergeit and Olaf Ittenbach with movies of the same gore and subject matter. Check Premutos, House of blood, Schramm and the nekromantiks.

Sentiment: negative
As a knowledgeable fan I recommend this film as faithful to the facts and well acted. As an 11 year old living in Istanbul I heard some friends talking about a new music sensation that caused girls to scream. I thought hmmmm, if girls like them, they must be crap. My only records until then were Haley Mills, The Everly Brothers & Ricky Nelson. Soon after while on vacation with the family at a military cafeteria in Ismir I heard a song (which I later learned was 'Love Me Do') and was floored by the difference between it and every song I had ever heard until then. When I heard the 'Meet The Beatles' album of my older brother I was hooked for life. Having read the definitive book of their beginnings (by Davis) I was surprised that this movie followed the facts very well with the exception of leaving out most of the sex and some of the drug use (it did touch on the use of methadrine/dexadrine). >

Sentiment: positive
A wonderful cast thrown into modern mystical romances for the intellectual grown ups. Yes, they too need a love story to stir those hidden urges without the Hollywood fluff. This all under the masterful direction of Antonioni and Wenders who both love to pin his characters in exotic locations and have them dwarfed by the surroundings with long wide shots. It is great to see that there is lust in the mid-life crises sector.

Sentiment: positive
Unless you are between the ages of 10 and 14 (except for the R rating), there are very few things to like here. One or two lines from Kenan Thompson, David Koechner (we really should see him more) and Sam Jackson are humorous and Julianna Margulies is as good as she can be considering her surroundings, but sadly, that's it. Poor plot. Poor acting. Worse writing and delivery. The special effects are dismal. As much as the entire situation is an odd and awful joke, the significant individual embedded situations are all equally terrible. If we consider the action portions, well there are unbelievable action sequences in some films that make you giddy and there are some that make you groan. This movie only contains the latter kind. This leaves little left. I'm so glad I did not pay for this.

Despite any hype, I can read and think, so as I sat down to watch, I did not expect anything good. I had no expectations, but was somewhat worried going in. Yet, like a train wreck, one cannot merely look away. And even with no expectations, I was let down. Bad. Not even 'so bad, it's good' material. I'm _very_ tolerant of bad movies, but this makes "Six String Samurai" (which I liked) Oscar worthy.

No, this piece of over CGI'd rubbish is in the same company as Battlefield Earth, Little Man and Gigli. How this is currently rated a 7.2 completely mystifies me. Brainwashing or somehow stacking the voting system is all that I can think of as answers.

I could go on and on but suffice to say that tonight, I witnessed a train wreck. I need to go wash my eyes. 1 of 10

Sentiment: negative
1st watched 3/17/2002 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Mario Pinzauti): Silly, sex-filled master & slave having too many intimate relations movie. This movie seemed to care more about the sex than the story and kind of worked the story around the sex. Laughable dubbing of the original Italian language in the version I watched with ridiculous ending where the attempt is made to give an anti-slave statement(or should I say one line). What a waste of time for everyone who watches this trash.

Sentiment: negative
Critters 4 ranks as one of the greatest films of the twentieth century. The word classic has never been so aptly used as in describing this mind-blowing epic. I agree that the original Critters is the best of the series, but the claustrophobic tension of the space station in which Critters 4 is set really must be seen to be believed. I strongly recommend this to anyone interested in seeing one of twentieth century's major film landmarks.

Sentiment: positive
yeah cheap shot i know, but this movie is a great example of how a collection of signifiers of 'deepness' (political turmoil, love/lust) can be combined haphazardly to great critical acclaim (see also 'american beauty'). kaufman's movie plods along with gratuitous sex scenes interspersed with often painful dialog sequences (in one scene i counted three different 'generic European' accents affected by the actors) and displays of state might run amok, yet fails to tie them together into the coherent meditation kundera offered. and in its over-long three hours it manages almost completely to gloss over franz,the missing fourth piece in the love triangle that lies at the heart of the plot, and in this manner sacrifices the novel's central mechanism of displaying the spectrum of emotions and of power relations that obtain in love affairs. it also fails to even include token screen time for tomas' son, used in the novel to exemplify some of the political points kundera was making in the novel. combined with the overweening soundtrack, these flaws make this movie's three hours unbearably weighty in tone yet light in content.

Sentiment: negative
As to be expected, there's a pretty good reason why this film is so obscure and unknown in spite of dealing with the always-popular premise of zombies and starring the 80's B-movie queen Linda Blair, namely: it sucks! "The Chilling" is trying enormously hard  way too hard  to be a story with depth and factual background, whereas it should have just been a light-headed and gore-packed horror flick about frozen zombies. It takes an incredibly long time before anything remotely interesting or significant happens. There's a lot of drivel about cryogenics, which I learned in my physics class is the study of products and their behavior at extremely low temperatures. So naturally, in this film a bunch of people are studying the behavior of human corpses when deep frozen. Needless to say this is extremely boring, until two dim-witted night watchmen decide, during an electric power failure, that it's a good idea to put the metal-constructed cool cells outside at the heights of a thunderstorm. The coolers are struck by lightening, obviously, and the bodies spontaneously defrost and come to live to go on a murderous zombie rampage. "The Chilling" is a boring and surprisingly (for a late 80's effort, at least) gore-free horror film that doesn't even use up a quarter of its potential. All the painful attempts to build up an atmosphere of suspense and eeriness fail tremendously and I can't think of any reason why the zombie-attacks had to be so bloodless. Even in spite of the low budget available, they could have done better. The set pieces, make-up effects and costumes are pitiable. The research lab, for example, looks like a proper apartment flat whilst the zombies couldn't look less menacing with their green faces and foil-wrapped outfits. How Linda Blair managed to get involved yet again in such an embarrassing low-budgeted horror flick is a complete mystery. She's attracted to lousy B-movies like bees are to honey.

Sentiment: negative