DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Any Batman fan will know just how great the films are, they've been a major success. Batman Returns however is by far the best film in the series. A combination of excellent directing, brilliant acting and settings makes this worthy of watching on a night in.

Tim Burton, who directed this movie, has specifically made sure that this film gives a realistic atmosphere and he's done a great job. Danny Devito (Penguin man) is a man who has inherited penguin characteristics as a baby, and grown up to become a hideous and ugly...thing! Michelle Pfiffer plays the sleek and very seducing 'Catwoman' after cats had given her there genes from being bitten. The result in both the character changes is excellent and both Catwoman and Penguin man play a very important role in this excellent film. The mysterious Catwoman is great fun to watch - her classic sayings and a funny part in which skips with her whip in a jewelry shop adds such fun to the film. Danny Devito also does well, his ability to impersonate some strange creature was vital, and he adds a great atmosphere to the film that takes us back to the dull sewers where he lives.

You can't forget Batman though. Micheal Keaton once again pulls of a comfortable performance, and shows us a different side to Batman. His affection is let loose when he confronts Catwoman at the end of the film, and his meetings with her when she's a normal person, Selina Kyle, result in him being seduced badly in his own home. There's a clever part after this when they leave, and the film is full of great scenes. Its worth noting that Bruce Wayne's Bat mobile is not used as much as in the other Batman films, as close combat and story telling scenes make up this film.

The winter setting is created perfectly in Gotham City with most of the scenes being set at night, and with the town being filled with snow. Therefore, if you watch this film during the summer like I have, it doesn't feel the same. Best watch it during the winter.

Overall, its an amazing movie. All the credit goes to Tom Burton and the cast, they've done an incredible job.

Sentiment: positive
I am a big fan of the Spaghetti Western Genre, and I usually also like most of the cheaply made ones. Infamous Director Demofilo Fidani, however, is rightly known for some of the cheapest, trashiest, and, well, worst contributions to the genre. The plots of Fidani's movies were usually very weak, and since his talent was quite limited, he usually tried to sell the movies by adding famous Spaghetti Western names like "Django" of "Sartana" to the titles. I the particular case of "Giù La Testa... Hombre" of 1971 he just took the title of Sergio Leone's "Giù La Testa" (aka. "Duck You Sucker") and added 'Hombre'. The movie can be found under various titles ("Fistful Of Death", "Western Story"...), I personally bought it under the name "Adios Companeros", which this movie shares with another Fidani film with almost the same cast, "Per Una Bara Piena Di Dollari", which is also entitled "Adios Companeros" in the German language version.

The plot is rather weak, it basically follows a guy named Macho Callaghan (Jeff Cameron) and his involvement with two rivaling outlaw gangs lead by Butch Cassidy (Jack Betts) and Ironhead (Gordon Mitchell).

The leading performance by Jeff Cameron is, kindly stated, not very convincing. Neither did I find Jack Betts very good as 'Butch Cassidy'. B-movie legend Gordon Mitchell, however, is always worth a try, and although he probably wasn't a very good actor, I always found his performances in the Spaghetti Westerns quite funny and original, and he actually saved some of Fidani's movies (such as the rather crappy "Django And Sartana... Showdown in the West").

There is one very funny and original thing about "Giù La Testa... Hombre" - the great Klaus Kinski is playing a priest! I could have imagined Kinski in any role, but before seeing this movie I would never have guessed that anybody would cast him as a priest. Kinski is, once again, great, although he has only little screen time, and one scene, where he breaks up a fight, is probably the only good scene in this. One more interesting thing about this film is that the legendary director and king of sleaze Joe D'Amato did the cinematography.

"Giù La Testa... Hombre" is a cheap, crappy film, but nevertheless, it has some funny moments. Being a Spaghetti Western enthusiast, I found it fun to watch, but if you're not, never mind this movie, or watch it only for the purpose of seeing Kinski play a priest. 3/10

Sentiment: negative
Riggs and Murtough are back but the magic of the first film has disintegrated. The story line is just awful! I mean really, South African diplomats smuggling the mythical Krugerrands into the U.S. It's just painful! And the accents are absolutely abysmal! Can no one get an Afrikaans South African accent right? Or will we forever hear the British or Americans making them sound like drunken Hollanders? The only guy who got the Afrikaans accent right was Tim Robbins in Catch A Fire. Another thing about this movie that i disliked was when Danny Glover so artlessly describes an Afrikaans accent as being shitty! I mean what a slap in the face to the Afrikaans. There's also enough hypocrisy in this film to make me vomit. I mean Mel Gibson's character is like so against the diplomats but then sleeps with their P.A. type! Don't waste your time watching this rubbish non-researched film. If you want to see a film that doesn't completely insult a cultural group then rent Die Hard 2.

Sentiment: negative
In a series chock-full of brilliant episodes, this one stands out as one of my very favorites. It's not the most profound episode, there's no great meaning or message. But it's a lot of fun, and there are some fine performances.

But what makes it really stand out for me is that it is, to my knowledge, the *only* Twilight Zone episode with a *double* snapper ending. The Zone is rightly famous for providing a big surprise at the end of a story. But this time, you get a surprise, and think that's that, but it turns out there's *another* surprise waiting. I just like that so much, that this is probably one of my two favorite episodes (the other being a deeper, more message-oriented one).

Sentiment: positive
Hobgoblins... what a concept. Rick Sloan was a master with this film. He had the brilliance to produce a film with actors that couldn't act. On top of that, he chose to write a script based on some sort of bad acid trip gone serriously wrong. Put it together, you end up with a film that sucks more than a warehouse filled with suction cups and vaccum cleaners. This movie was very painful. The pain it caused is about equal to the pain caused by having your genitals carved out with a spoon, and then having the entire wound covered with salt and Hydrochloric acid.

Sentiment: negative
There's really not a lot to say about Las Vegas Lady. It's harmless enough, but it is little more than a dull heist film from the 70s. The movie is neither as clever nor as sexy as it strives to be. The plot is a retread of the tired old casino robbery storyline that's been done to death. Except in the case of Las Vegas Lady, I think the robbery plot was designed by a 3 year-old. The plan involves three women  one to unnecessarily and in plain view scale the outside of the Circus Cicus building, one to pose as a waitress only to blow her cover at the first opportunity, and one to stand around exposing her cleavage. That's pretty much it. Intricate, huh? Other than Stella Stevens and her aforementioned breasts, the other women involved in the plot aren't particularly memorable. Las Vegas Lady co-stars Stuart Whitman. When not pawing Stevens, his involvement in the movie is highlighted by one of the most idiotic gun fights ever put on film.

I really wanted to like this movie. It does have that 70s feel to it that I always enjoy and some nice shots of Las Vegas circa 1975. But the movie itself is too dull to rate any higher than a 4/10  and that's probably overstating it. In the end, Las Vegas Lady is a waste of some perfectly good cleavage.

Sentiment: negative
DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is one of Fulci's earlier (and honestly, in terms of story-line, better...) films - and although not the typical "bloodbath" that Fulci is known for - this is still a very unique and enjoyable film.

The story surrounds a small town where a series of child murders are occurring. Some of the colorful characters involved in the investigations - either as suspects, or those "helping" the investigation (or in some cases both) - include the towns police force, a small-time reporter, a beautiful and rich ex-drug addict, a young priest and his mother, An old man who practices witchcraft and his female protégé, a mentally handicapped townsman, and a deaf/mute little girl. All of these people are interwoven into the plot to create several twists and turns, until the actual killer is revealed...

DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING is neither a "classical" giallo or a typical Fulci gore film. Although it does contain elements of both - it is more of an old-fashioned murder mystery, with darker subject matter and a few scenes of graphic violence (although nothing nearly as strong as some of Fulci's later works). This is a well written film with lots of twists that kept me guessing up until the end. Recommended for giallo/murder-mystery fans, or anyone looking to check out some of Fulci's non-splatter films - but don't despair, DON'T TORTURE still has more than it's fair share of violence and sleaze. Some may be put off by the subject of the child killings, and one main female character has a strange habit of hitting on very young boys, which is also kind of disconcerting - but if that type of material doesn't bother you, then definitely give this one a look. 8.5/10

Sentiment: positive
Don't really know where to start with one of the worst films I have had the displeasure to watch in a very long time. From the setting which was quite obviously and very clear to anyone who has visited London for even 1 day will agree...was not London. To the much unexplained way how Snipe's character managed to escape the country back to the US without a single problem. Then he convinces the girl and grandmother to visit him in America, how on earth did Grandma agree to that...he's an assassin! Well that's the ending how about during the film, well unfortunately that didn't fare much better. We have British cops driving an amazing range of cars, I'm sure it was an eighties Vauxhall Belmont which chased the taxi after the assignation, but a modern Subaru Imprezza escorting the prison van in a few scenes prior. SO19 or whoever the gun toting arm of the Met they were trying to portray was happily running around the streets with their guns out chasing after Snipe's along with the CIA. There were children walking around, but the police were still stating they had a clear shot to shoot him, does this happen in London? No it doesn't, I live there. We also have the very implausible travel from central London to the airport (let's say Heathrow for arguments sake) within 5 minutes of receiving a call. We also have terrible American accents, a young girl who's posher than the Queen, but lives in Elephant & Castle. What does it say for British police when helicopters and a number of officers at Snipe's location can't find Snipe's and he manages to evade capture by hiding behind some stairs? The train station was obviously not even on UK soil and the fight scene sound effects were terrible. The plot was also extremely poor, boring and been written and filmed a lot better a thousand times before. But there were a few notable actors cast in this film, what were they thinking and please don't let that sway you to watch this film! This film didn't seem to know what it wanted to be, if you are going to concentrate on the dramatic aspects from the aftermath of an assignation then you need a strong rigid plot with plausible scenery and setting, this is something the viewer has time to take in and appreciate and if you do it wrong then you notice it. If you want an all out action film (which this is not) then continuity and scenery can be put to the side.

Sentiment: negative
Although I have enjoyed Bing Crosby in other movies, I find this movie to be particularly grating. Maybe because I'm from a different era and a different country, but I found Crosby's continual references to the Good Old USA pleasant at first, trite after a while and then finally annoying. Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-American whatsoever - but it seemed that the English could do no right and/or needed this brave, oh so smart American visitor to show them the way. It's a "fish out of water" story, but unlike most movies of this sort, this time it's the "fish" who has the upper hand. To be fair to both myself and the movie, I have watched it a few times spaced over a few years and get the same impression each time.

(I watched another Crosby movie last night - The Emperor's Waltz - and that, too, produced the same reaction in me. And to my surprise even my wife - who for what's it's worth is American - found the "in your face" attitude of American Crosby to be irritating. One too many references to Teddy Roosevelt, as she put it.) 

As for the premise of the movie, it's unique enough for its day and the supporting cast is of course very good. The scenery and the music is also good, as are the great costumes - although I agree with a previous reviewer that the wig on William Bendix looks horrid (picture Moe of The Three Stooges).

All in all for me this would be a much more enjoyable picture without the attitude of Bing Crosby but because he is in virtually every shot it's pretty hard to sit through this movie.

Sentiment: negative
"Little Man", now on DVD, is a Wayans Brothers flop. It's the tale of a smaller than a midget criminal played by Marlon Wayans, who hides a diamond in a lady's purse after a heist. He and his partner Tracy Morgan cook up the genius plan to disguise Marlon as a baby and plant him at the lady's home. He then goes through all sorts of "Home Alone" or "Child's Play" like mayhem to get the jewel back and be treated like a baby. I was surprised by how low the humor was in this film. The jokes have been done in other places so many times, that they aren't cute or funny. I almost think the movie might have been funnier if they didn't use CGI and used the small actor who Marlon's face was pasted over. In watching the deleted scenes (minus CGI) this actor was funny in a Mini-me like way, but they chose a different route. A few cameos and Tracy Morgan make some funny scenes..Spend your rental fee $ on Borat if you want some real laughs these days.

http://mcmusicnotes.blogspot.com

Sentiment: negative
At last, a great film that doesn't have to be edited for profanity or sex! It's a fun film that the whole family can enjoy. Willis is great, as always. "Rusty" was delightful. Just enough action to keep interest going.

Sentiment: positive
I just witnessed a movie that by all rights should have been fodder for a second rate MOW on Lifetime...but trust the Irish to keep it from being anything but saccharine. The set-up all but SCREAMS "Here's a message concerning what's TRULY important in life" but the execution was way into the "Let's see just what we can get away with, here."

It helps to have two fantastic actors in the leads -- James McAvoy (as Rory) and Stephen Robertson (as Michael). While Rory is offered up as the near saintly one -- never mind the language and attitude, he's the "life force" in this piece and could easily have been insufferable in his ultimately "caring" attitude -- McAvoy keeps him sharp enough to keep him from being too sweet. But the revelation is Stephen Robertson as Michael. Not since Leonardo Di Caprio in "...Gilbert Grape" has anyone so perfectly captured a person with an affliction that I began to believe he really was an actor with cerebral palsy. And his eyes...my God, he can rip you apart with them.

This movie is, to paraphrase Rory, f****n' amazing. Go see it. Take a box of Kleenex and enjoy every well-earned tear...and laugh.

Sentiment: positive
Watching this movie brings several words to mind: "sophomoric", "ridiculous", "improbable", "self-indulgent" and finally (and fatally), "boring". Badly directed, badly photographed and badly acted, the film is a confusing mess with plot lines (if one can call them that) veering in all directions. Someone may have used a five-year old's finger painting as a template. As punishment for this childish crime of a movie, this cast of "stars" should be spanked soundly and sent to their respective beds without dinner. . All in all, it seems like George needed an excuse to get together with his little buddies for a paid summer vacation and we're the suckers paying for it. Bad George! Bad!

Sentiment: negative
There are other movies about boarding schools and the antics of the students and staff, but "The Belles of St. Trinian's" towers above them all! The plot has been thoroughly summarized by other posters, so I won't cover the same ground. I just want to say that it's a shame that it's FINALLY out on DVD, but in a format that can't be used in the U.S.! :-( 

Enjoy, fellow fans in New Zealand and Australia! And if anyone reading this has any pull in such matters, PLEASE help get it released on DVD with Region 1 encoding! Also, is it possible to be notified via e-mail when (I won't say "if") it is released on DVD in the United States? Thanks!

Sentiment: positive
This movie bewilders me. It may be that I'm just a stupid American, but I really just don't get 400 Blows. Everything I've read about this movie has been a total rave, but I just couldn't stay interested. I'm sure that it was as revolutionary in film-making as all the critics say, but when it boils right down to it, it's just really really boring. Maybe it's the language barrier, may I'm just not "sensitive" or "artsy" enough, but whatever the case is, I hated this movie. The story itself isn't bad; it's about a young French boy who is treated unfairly by his parents and his teachers, and eventually he ends up in a juvenile facility. That in itself ought to be interesting, and it was, at first. There was nothing wrong with the dialogue, but then again it's hard to say because half of the conversations weren't subtitled and for no apparent reason, so I didn't always know what was going on. But for the dialogue we could understand, it made enough sense. The actors were believable enough, but it's hard to say what a real person would do in these situations. So you feel for the main character, but only in the sense that when he gets into trouble you think, well that sucks. The plot isn't even your typical plot. Each time he gets in trouble, he gets into more trouble than the last time, but the reasons never vary too much. And through the entire film you realize that there's nothing the main character can really do about it. So it's more like just waiting to see how it ends. The ending, by the way, was completely over my head. It's way too artsy for me, and I just didn't get it. Leading up to the end was easy enough to follow. The structure was certainly there, and it made sense as well, but everything was really drawn out. For the amount of dialogue and significant moments, the movie could have been an hour shorter. It just didn't end. Part of it was the unnecessarily long shots, none of which were especially memorable; for example, the ending was a clip of the main character running down a country road that lasted a good thirty seconds. Now, I'm sure that had some deeper meaning in it somewhere, but for the average viewer, I'd rather have gotten up to get some more food during that time. Or at least done something a little more useful than sit and watch this boy running, like doing my laundry, or taking a nap. 

Final Verdict 

The feeling throughout the whole movie was that this probably would be very moving and just amazing and that it would teach me some great life lesson, if I could only get what the director was trying to say by his unique decisions. As it was, I just felt cheated out of a good two hours of my life.

Sentiment: negative
This is not the true story. It is the darkest possible fiction derived from the events. It endorses suicide, morose obsession with death, a totally gratuitous sideswipe at organized religion in general (and the Anglican Church, in particular) and generally provides a nihilistic, pointless world view from which filmgoers, I suppose, are intended to walk away, richer in their poverty and more hopeful in their hopelessness.

Utter trash, though attractively performed by a capable cast. That anyone would suggest this is a true rendering, however, is very much false advertising. You want the real story? Rent 'Fairy Tale'. That's the real story. See if you can find any correspondence between the facts presented in either case. I only found one: the girls who made the original photographs were pre-pubescent.

Sentiment: negative
Simply great movie no doubt about it. Great story and superb performances, be it Amitabh, Akshay, Shefali, Priyanka, Boman or Rajpal. Hindi film industry is going shameless with Mallika and Co, this movie is totally vulgarity free and therefore bound to fail in vulgarity addicted our Indian society. But the message and concept this movie carries are absolutely superb. Anu Malik(boring copy-cat) could have been avoided and Ismail Darbar or Himmesh Reshmmiya could have been used as musician. I think Vipul Shah should have given little bit Gujarati touch particularly in music also. Anu Malik is worst musician around and he thinks himself popstar but this is not the movie where is presence was required-He looks only good with Govinda style songs. I felt some nice serious music with couple of good Ghazals or sad songs could have made this movie more memorable.

Sentiment: positive
"Ardh Satya" is one of the finest film ever made in Indian Cinema. Directed by the great director Govind Nihalani, this one is the most successful Hard Hitting Parallel Cinema which also turned out to be a Commercial Success. Even today, Ardh Satya is an inspiration for all leading directors of India.

The film tells the Real-life Scenario of Mumbai Police of the 70s. Unlike any Police of other cities in India, Mumbai Police encompasses a Different system altogether. Govind Nihalani creates a very practical Outlay with real life approach of Mumbai Police Environment.

Amongst various Police officers & colleagues, the film describes the story of Anand Velankar, a young hot-blooded Cop coming from a poor family. His father is a harsh Police Constable. Anand himself suffers from his father's ideologies & incidences of his father's Atrocities on his mother. Anand's approach towards immediate action against crime, is an inert craving for his own Job satisfaction. The film is here revolved in a Plot wherein Anand's constant efforts against crime are trampled by his seniors.This leads to frustrations, as he cannot achieve the desired Job-satisfaction. Resulting from the frustrations, his anger is expressed in excessive violence in the remand rooms & bars, also turning him to an alcoholic.

The Spirit within him is still alive, as he constantly fights the system. He is aware of the system of the Metro, where the Police & Politicians are a inertly associated by far end. His compromise towards unethical practice is negative. Finally he gets suspended.

The Direction is a master piece & thoroughly hard core. One of the best memorable scenes is when Anand breaks in the Underworld gangster Rama Shetty's house to arrest him, followed by short conversation which is fantastic. At many scenes, the film has Hair-raising moments.

The Practical approach of Script is a major Punch. Alcoholism, Corruption, Political Influence, Courage, Deceptions all are integral part of Mumbai police even today. Those aspects are dealt brilliantly.

Finally, the films belongs to the One man show, Om Puri portraying Anand Velankar traversing through all his emotions absolutely brilliantly.

Sentiment: positive
Unremittingly bleak and depressing, the film evokes as well as could be desired the legendary misery and emptiness that characterised Houellebecq's controversial novel of the same name. Like many French films, its manner is one of wistful profundity but it is painfully slow - or should that be, slowly painful? While this is an excellent and challenging film, it is not an enjoyable one and its difficult to think of any time when one might be in the 'right' mood to see it.

Sentiment: positive
Quick summary of the book: Boy, Billy Tepper, about 12 years old is school's main trouble maker, and if he gets kicked out of one more school he'll be sent off to boarding school. His upscale boy's school in Switzerland (or somewhere like it) gets taken over by Arab terrorists, why I'm not really sure. Billy has no friends, and likes to use his laptop to hack into his school's database. He, with the help of two teachers thwarts the terrorists' plans, and save the entire school. The book wasn't bad, but was sooooooo cliché.

Now about the movie; they switched Arab terrorists to Cuban terrorists, and make Billy about 17 and the leader of his group of friends. They like to get into trouble, but normal teenage stuff. This movie was believable. Maybe not realistic, but the characters are real. You can watch Billy, Joey, and the rest of the guys and see real kids acting out the way they did (or at least wanting to).

Great action scenes. Not everything goes as planned for either side. Overthrowing the terrorists was messy, and good guys did get hurt. I won't say who, but it is heart wrenching (I know, I use that word a lot). Sean Astin is excellent. As a teenager he usually played the dopey best friend. This movie proved once again that he could play the leading man, kid, whatever. The only performance that may have upstaged his was Wil Wheaton's, who played the only son of a New Jersey mafia man. He hated his father, and everything he stood for. (A far cry from Wesley Crusher) Usually this genre of film is one I watch for the soul purpose of making fun; but not Toy Soldiers. The story line flows, the dialogue is usually believable. I can't think of a single moment where I found myself shouting at the TV "Oh that would so not happen" Great movie that should be in everyone's collection.

Sentiment: positive
As much as we might welcome a film that deals with people who have different challenges in the area of romance, I cannot shake off the feeling that this movie was intended as a direct-to-video grade-C porn movie in which either A) the actors backed out of doing the explicit scenes or B) the producers ran out of money to hire for the inserts (an amazing thing if it were true).

I had to go back to Blockbuster to figure out why on earth I had rented it, which was due to an admittedly amateurish gullibility regarding the cover blurbs, which seemed to imply a seditious John Waters-style humor-fest with a sexual theme. Okay, I laughed a couple of times and it definitely has a sexual theme (although most of it can't be described as stimulating in any way). But, on some movies you might rewind to make sure you heard the dialog correctly--on this one, you fast-forward because you already know what they're about to say. But there's nothing to fast-forward to, so just fast-forward past it on the shelf.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is another Christian propaganda film in the line of The Omega Code. Not that that is necessarily bad but for the fact that most propaganda films sacrifice sincerity and realism for the message they wish to deliver. If you enjoy a styrofoam portrayal of life on the streets and the way the Gospel can change a life, than perhaps you may enjoy this movie. I say, save your money and rent The Cross and The Switchblade or The Mission. When will Christian directors learn that sometimes people say bad words? It was frustrating to see criminals depicted who are not allowed to swear (huh? criminals say bad words?) and flat characters I really could not relate to. Also, it would've been great if the movie had shown some T&A. Now that would be something I'd like to pay to see. Who was the blockhead who compared this communion wafer-thin story of a movie with The Boondock Saints and The Sting?

Sentiment: negative
Cuba Gooding,Jr. will win the Oscar for BEST ACTOR in 2003.And Ed Harris will win for BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR. What a beautiful and poignant film it is but be sure to bring along a box of tissues because if this film doesn't get to you, then you have ice water in your veins.

It was 1976. The setting was in South Carolina and the Civil Rights Act was about ten years old. We have a white high school football coach and teacher, Ed Harris. Then there is a black retarded frightened but pleasant fellow, Cuba Gooding, whose greatest possessions, including a radio, are piled into a shopping cart which is also used as his bicycle.

Ed Harris takes a keen interest in the fellow for a reason explained much later on in the film. He gives Cuba the nickname "Radio" and what follows is an absoutely riveting, engrossing, poignant exploration of the human soul.

The movie is nothing short of a masterpiece.

Sentiment: positive
I vowed a long time ago to NEVER, EVER watch a movie that has ANYONE who EVER was a regular cast member of "Saturday Night Live". I didn't rent "Corky Romano" but I was forced by my unfailing good manners to watch it for half an hour. Then my good manners failed. Stupid, not funny. Tedious, not hilarious. Bad, not good. That in a nutshell is all I can say for this video.

Sentiment: negative
Always fancied this film from the video cover. Eventually got round to buying it for a fiver in a sale and boy what a film. A simply stunning performance from all of the case and it's filmed so beautifully. Even at times from a distance so you can barely hear what the dialogue is, as if you really are that distance away picking up bits of the tale. It's really moving, frequently amusing and very watchable. Not much dialogue but is filmed in such a way that you feel so much throuout. A 9/10 from me. A must see.

Sentiment: positive
I give this a 10 out of 10, not because the plot was hard to uncover because it wasn't... but because it leaves one caring for the characters. The acting, by all the cast, is superb, especially Joan Hickson, and it's a marvellous episode because of it's heart. 

Miss Marple is called upon by Jason Rafiel's dying request to investigate, and solve, a murder that happened some seven or eight years previously, and she has to discover who, why and when as she goes along. Mr Rafiel is the same Rafiel as was in A Caribbean Mystery and so there is a sense of a connection here. 

Nemesis is definitely one for the amateur psychologists among us, and if you are one of those who is only happy with lots of blood, guts and rip-roaring action sequences, then you won't like it. But if you are like me, one who loves knowing about PEOPLE and discovering what makes them tick, then Nemesis is the one for you.

Sentiment: positive
Misfits at a military school? Hmmmm, sounds funny, maybe offensive to some. You have the characters there, the Arab thief, the sex crazy teen, the smart mouth, the pot smoker, and not to forget, the guy who burns things. Throw in a strict no nonsense Sergent, a homosexual Sergent and one sexy ammunition teacher and it makes one crazy film adventure.

I have seen this film and it is funny, because the comedy is revolved around the fact that if you try to work together, things get done.

These band of misfit students at Weinberg Military school have been placed in here because, as Sgt Liceman quotes "because you are outcasts, embarrassments to your families and communities, disgraces." One of Ralph Macchio's earlier performances before the Karate Kid and My Cousin Vinny, with appearances from Barbara Bach as well, this film appeals to teens and young adults.

Great soundtrack keeps the film moving.

Sentiment: positive
Yeah, unfortunately I came across the DVD of this and found that it was incredibly awful.

First of all, the characters suck. I mean, come on, if some dork in an orange hat who calls himself 'Orange Sherbert' is the best creative idea these guys could come up for a character, then they should definitely not be in the film-making scene. Poor "costumes", bad "interviews", and basically there is not one "wrestler" on this whole disc with any shred of charisma.

The "wrestling" in Splatter Rampage Wrestling is nothing more than these idiots gently and playfully bouncing together on a trampoline. They make sure to giggle together all the while, too, making the experience seem more like a toddler's playtime than a "wrestling deathmatch".

Basically, Splatter Rampage Wrestling is a pretty lackluster Backyard Wrestling clone. Only, instead of blood, weapons, mayhem, and WRESTLING, we get a trampoline, giggling kids, TERRIBLE audio, and some guy called Orange Sherbert.

Wrestling fan or not, avoid this DVD. It's awful.

Sentiment: negative
Women have never looked so attractive and pathetic as in Salazar's film Piedras. Although editor's cut here and there might help the film, it is exciting and enjoyable with an intense mark from Pedro Almodovar's latest films. 5 different women are coping with their male partners and families. Beginning with several different stories bound to meet as the plot goes on, Salazar portraits his women characters in the same neurotic and border-line behaviour familiar to Almodovar. A kleptomaniac high society lady with a fattish to smaller shoes, a burlesque house madam taking care of her disabled daughter, a drug addict dancer obsessed with her former boyfriend and a taxi-driver taking care of her late husband's disturbed kids, all roaming the streets of Madrid in well designed scenes. Using some of Almodovar's familiar actresses, the director succeeds in it's first film to give depth to all the characters sharing the film, and to create genuine sympathy with each of them. The women controls the plot line, and the men are bound to be left with each other, eventually... Surprisingly good for a first film, and worth the time in any standard. It is noticeable that Salazar hesitated in some needed guidelines to the actresses, but an impressible act is shown anyway on the screen, especially by Monica Cervera, which played in his former short film.

A must to all Almodovar's fans, and enjoyable to all.

Sentiment: positive
Charlie Chaplin's Little Tramp or Little Man character wins World War I, called The Great War at the time, single handedly, even capturing the Kaiser, something the entire Allied armed forces were unable to do. Too bad it all turns out to be a dream, which is somewhat of a cop out and the weakest part of this mesmerizing silent short (almost a feature film at 46 minutes).

There are inventive gags galore including Charlie having to put on a gas mask to eat Limburger cheese sent from home, then using the cheese as a weapon against the Germans; Charlie sleeping underwater in a flooded trench next to a soldier he continues to annoy; Charlie disguising himself as a tree--one of his best sketches ever--and Charlie pretending to beat up his friend who has become a POW, then hugging him when the enemy is out of sight.

One amazing feature is how much Charlie, when he is behind enemy lines dressed as a German, resembles Hitler over ten years before Hitler and his Nazi thugs rose to dominate German politics. Obviously Hitler patterned his appearance after Charlie's from this film.

Sentiment: positive
I would reccomend this film to everyone. Not only to the fans of the rocker Luciano Ligabue, but to all film-buffs. Because it's sincere, moving, funny and true. Because Ligabue is a born storyteller and a film lover, and every frame of his film is made with love and care. Because his characters are loved and ask to be loved. Because most of the Italian debut films are lousy and this one, done by an outsider, is a real joy to watch and to listen at. Because Stefano Accorsi is gorgeous and reminds me of Andrea Pazienza, who was, like Freccia, beautiful and talented and good and lost his life because of the heroin, that Ligabue shows as it is, unglamorous and ugly, without indulging in easy moralisms. Because it's a film that speaks to our heart, our ears, our souls. And because I lived the experience of the FM radios and it was exactly like that. Thanks, Luciano!

Sentiment: positive
I love the mockumentary format that Chris Guest and crew have developed over the years. I actually like this and "Waiting for Guffman" better than "Spinal Tap", which was the first of the group (and made by Rob Reiner but starred Guest and several other of his mockumentary regulars). This humor is not for everyone. IT's rather subtle and not too physical, so some people may not relate. However, as a dog lover (and a dog show fan), I loved this movie. There are so many funny lines in it! My daughter and I quote them to each other often. I find it amazing that these people can ad lib so much funny material for each movie! What a fun bunch they must be. I highly recommend this to people who prefer their humor on the cerebral side.

Sentiment: positive
This film moves the Cinderella story forward to the early 1950s and makes good, if eccentric, use of the Isle of Man as a background. The Ugly Sisters have become wildly glamorous upper-class English girls, and together with Kathleen Turner as the stepmother they flounce about in various wonderful period costumes. The story is altered a little from the traditional version: early on it is oddly combined with the plot of "King Lear", and in later stages Cinderella is rather more assertive than is usual. It looks splendid and works on the whole pretty well, but does go over the top at times.

Sentiment: positive
Andy Milligan, the independent movie maker from New York, directs this little "treat" as his version of the Sweeney Todd legend. Sweeney slits the throats of customers in his barbershop and his cohort Mrs. Lovett turns them into meat pies. Thankfuly I was well-informed of the plot prior to seeing this film travesty. Milligan, for my money, has to indeed be running in the lead of worst directors of all-time race. Ed Wood looks like Orson Welles in comparison. This movie is so bad in oh so many ways. Let's take Milligan's direction for starters. The film quality is grainy. The sound quality is grainy. Many scenes look as if Milligan was using a camcorder to film. The credits say "Photograped and directed by Andy Milligan." He wants to take credit for ceilings showing up after a death scene? How about the atrocious musical score selected for the film? The film cuts with one poor transition after another. Little logic is used in the creation of the plot. The story has little to do with the actual legend of Todd. The murder scenes are plentiful but not horrifying in any way. Hands, legs, and other appendages are cut with the skill in which the editing was done: choppily! And let's take the breast in the pie scene. Yes, it is in there. The pie maker didn't know that an entire breast with nipple filled an entire pie crust? Later we hear from our characters that they "have been careful not to get caught" for the 200 plus murders they have done. Obviously they are a couple of boobs not able to keep abreast of what is going on(sorry it was too tempting). The actors are not too terribly bad to be honest. Some even have glimmers of talent, and all seem to be genuine English articles. Many non-erotic nude scenes are forced throughout. Milligan seemingly has some issues regarding sex. Plot strands are left untied. The ending is almost unwatchable due to poor camera work. I could go on and on. Did I like anything about the film? Not much to be truthful. I have a high level of acceptance for films of this ilk in terms of low budgets and marginal talent, but this film lacks any real purpose other than to be crude and sick.

Sentiment: negative
This thing is horrible. The Ben Affleck character is self-centered and gleefully sadistic--punch-you-in-the-nose fratboy sadistic. And he's the romantic HERO! His cartoonish character does not change from beginning to end, but his money ultimately allows him to buy happiness.

If I were a Socialist, I would screed beyond belief, but I'm not a Socialist.

We capitalists like a little Christmas magic from time to time. This ain't magic. I don't know what it is. It's just awful. And it's a horrible waste of talent. O'Hara has been making me laugh hysterically since the late '70s. Gandolfini. Applegate. These people were all underused. If Ben was out of the equation, these folks might have dreamed up something excellent.

Sentiment: negative
My family goes back to New Orleans late 1600's early 1700's and in watching the movie I knew it was a history my grand-parents never talked about, but we knew it existed. I have cousins obviously black aka African Americans and others who can "pass" as white and chose not to. It's a hard history to watch when you realize that it's your family they're talking about and that Cane River is all a part of that history. It makes me want to cry and it makes me want to kick the 'arse' of my great grandfathers who owned those plantations and wonder in awe of how my great grandmothers of African heritage lived under that oppressive and yet aristocratic existence...And at the same time had I not come out of that history, I probably wouldn't be the successful business woman I am today living successfully in a fairly integrated world. The acting was both excellent and fair depending upon the actor, but it is a movie that NEEDED to be made. Anne Rice is incredible and I ask myself, why is she 'symbolically' writing about my family and I'm not. I recommend this movie to everyone. Leza

Sentiment: positive
I am a chess player and I wanted to like this film. Trouble is, the content could have been fitted in a 30-minute documentary.

There were lots of shots of corridors being walked down and Kasparov gazing out in the hall where he won the World Championship. There were other shots of Kasparov being walked round the site of the 1997 match and being told where he sat and where Deep Blue was located. This just looked like filler.

Also, I didn't find it interesting to see in detail where Deep Blue was now and seeing an IBM techie trying, unsuccessfully to 'open' it. What would we have seen of interest inside anyway - a little grandmaster?

Also, the recent match against Karpov. I no longer follow professional chess enough to know when and where this was. It would have been nice to have been told: was this a one-off 'just for the money'? Was it part of the world championship cycle? What was the final score? The nub of the film was the play in game two. Could/would IBM let Kasparov see 'inside' the machine? That's where the focus should have been.

Sentiment: negative
I first saw "Breaking Glass" in 1980, and thought that it would be one of the "Movie Classics". This film is a great look into the music industry with a great cast of performers. This is one film that should be in the collection of everyone and any one that wants to get into the music industry. I can't wait for it to be available on DVD.

Sentiment: positive
while mind of mencia could be summed up as nothing more than a clone of chappelle's show, it is really worse than that. first of all, Carlos mencia is a jacka** that is as funny as he is original, which isn't saying much. the show contains lame spoofs of American television ads and political issues, and mencia's "comedic" insight on politics adds to the low quality of this show. on top of it all, mencia tosses in more lame ethnic jokes and stolen Jeff foxworthy lines than i can count on one hand. while every once in a while Carlos gets a cheap laugh, the rest of the time he spends insulting everyone in sight, which does include exploiting his own audience members. with the exception of south park, drawn together, and Friday night stand-up, this show marks the end of the chappelle's show glory days, which for those of you who haven't heard, was before he went to Africa.

Sentiment: negative
Not only is this film entertaining, with excellent comedic acting, but also interesting politically. It was made at the end of the Soviet Union, but makes fun of the soviet mentality through and through. The story is set during the early days of the soviet union, and it questions the rationale behind the revolution both in cultural and practical terms. Of course, by the late 80s and early 90s, the bizarre strictures of soviet society are already relaxed, but the ideology and mentality is still alive and well and ready for some well-deserved deconstruction. Happily, all this deep philosophical commentary is wrapped in a funny and entertaining package!

Jur

Sentiment: positive
Whoever thought that ANOTHER Home Alone film would be a good idea should have their head examined... Same plot, different kid, more villains (which leads to MORE endless stupidity in the traps). The other two films were bad enough, and this is where it hits rock bottom. People may as well watch the other films for plot, as it's all identical.

Sentiment: negative
The worst ever Korean movie! The plot is ridiculously complex, unbelievable, and the film creates not a single shock. It builds up suspense well enough then leaves you agitated providing no shock or jumpy moment. Whenever there is a chilling moment you are not bothered by it as you're still trying to work out who is who and what is going on! It goes something like this: a modeling company recruit 4 people for a modeling career. but the owners are not what they seem, they have model dolls of everyone and a strange girl is seen walking about the place and the owners have no recognition of a girl. It turns out that everyone is there for a reason and thats as much as i could grasp. The ending is a muddle of killings and you don't know who's a doll who's real and who's dead! i don't recommend it to fans of Korean/Asian horror films.

Sentiment: negative
i never made any comment here on IMDb, but as i saw this movie, i cant be quiet. i just set up my account here only because this horrible movie. in two words, this movie is PURE CRAP. the movie has no sense at all! Nothing makes sense in this movie. Watching this movie was pain all the way. I don't understand why Val Kilmer agreed to do this movie. He plays a minor role as a gang leader, says few words, and he is there like 5 minutes total.

I bought this DVD based only because of Val Kilmer name on the box and the interesting pictures on the cover.

As was stated in other review, Moscow Zero stole my money and I want it back!!! The title of the movie itself brought the clue about the rating everyone should give it: ZERO

Sentiment: negative
There is an inherent problem with commenting or reviewing a film such as this. I remember feeling the same way after disliking Dogma. If you do not like a film that is odd and controversial like Mulholland Dr., you are seen as "not getting it." Of course for those who have already seen this film you know that the entire point is not getting it anyway.

I have heard from several different sources that the unique and likable aspect of this film is a dream-like quality it has. In other words, the plot isn't structured like other films. With the case of Mulholland Dr., it seems more like an unfocused collage made by a third grade boy who procrastinated until the last second to do his art project. It doesn't make sense, it isn't supposed to, but I know it was to be a TV series at first. It appears Lynch had a stack of unused film and decided to mash it in with a bunch of new stuff. You will notice that toward the end the nudity, sex and foul language increase. All things he would not have filmed for television.

For a better film not told in a traditional, linear fashion, rent The Thin Red Line from 1998. That was a great film, this is not.

Rating: 2 out of ten

Sentiment: negative