DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
From reading all of the comments posted here on IMDb, this movie seems to get ragged on a lot, but I didn't think it was THAT bad. I've seen much worse, actually.

"The House Where Evil Dwells" is a ghost story about a husband and his wife, Ted and Laura Fletcher, and their daughter, Amy, who move into an old house in Japan. Little do they know, a Japanese ninja brutally murdered his wife and her lover, and then killed himself 100 years earlier with a samurai sword. As strange things happen in the house, the ghosts of the previous residents begin to possess the bodies of the living, and plan on re-enacting the bloody murder that took place 100 years back.

I saw this movie and decided to give it a chance, from the cover it looked like a decent ghost story. It was routine, and it was corny, but I've seen worse in my day. The ghost sequences were a little over-done, we get to see the translucent blue-tinted figures randomly pop up randomly around the family, and take over their bodies. To be honest, the ghosts in this movie kind of reminded me of the ghosts in the Haunted Mansion ride at Disneyland. I may be mistaken, but after watching this, it seemed to me that the Japanese horror film "Ju-On: The Grudge" and the American remake of that film ripped this off a little. The old Japanese home where a brutal murder took place, ghostly activity, curses put on the home, etc. But I may be wrong.

To sum it up, this is a pretty corny ghost story. Don't go out of your way to see it, but if you like this kind of thing and it happens to come on TV you can give it a shot. 4/10.

Sentiment: negative
Thanks for killing the franchise with this turkey, John Carpenter and Tommy Lee Wallace. This movie sucks on so many levels it's pathetic. The first VAMPIRES was fun, but this low budget retread makes me yawn.

Jon Bon Jovi (the poor man's Kevin Bacon) drives around Mexico with a surfboard housing a hidden compartment holding his vampire killing gear ala Antonio Banderas's guitar case in DESPERADO. He picks up some lame "hunters" along the way (including an annoyingly feminist infected girl who takes pills to keep from turning into a vampire), and they set out to stop some female master vampire who is given no backstory and so we could care less about her or her quest (to walk in the sunlight by stealing the Black Cross and performing a ritual to allow her to do so). If you've seen the first VAMPIRES, you've already seen this, and done much better.

John Carpenter has been responsible for a lot of bad movies lately. Frankly, I think he's past his prime and incapable of making another horror classic. The only decent film he's done since THEY LIVE (1987) is VAMPIRES. Everything else is complete crap, right up until the unbelievably cheap looking and retarded GHOSTS OF MARS... and now this waste of celluloid. Where are more greats like ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, HALLOWEEN (1), ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK and THE THING?

Carpenter crony Wallace proves he can't write his way out of a paper bag with his paper-thin script packed with yawns, groans and recycled gags from the original. Did I mention I hated every character in the movie? There was not a single memorable character in the whole film. How does that happen? This film has nothing to recommend it. Not even the DVD presentation is good; the menu looks awful.

By comparison, JASON X: "FRIDAY THE 13th IN SPACE" was a masterpiece. Now that is how you make a sequel and (re)energize a franchise, ladies and germs, as well as create an exciting DVD menu.

Sentiment: negative
I'll say this much--This director is all about RAW images...things most of us are not ready to confront head-on. Images of sex, suicide, murder, and people "relieving themselves" are constantly bombarding the viewer, which makes me wonder if the director was trying to communicate the concept of relief or release. Although I don't think that I could ever see this movie again, I will say that the director does have a good eye. There were some really nice shots and "picture moments" in the film (the fans, the wire fish in their hair), but the story left me needing more (strictly in the since that we were left asking ourselves "what the heck did we just see?").

Note: If you have a tendency to gag or vomit easily...don't see this film.

Sentiment: negative
Don't you just hate them slashers that never seem to get started? It sometimes takes them a full hour of lame red herrings before some real action takes place. "Tourist Trap" isn't like that! If it's typically gruesome slashing you want...than it's typically gruesome slashing you'll get! Plenty of it AND constantly from start to finish! This movie contains what is probably the greatest opening sequence in 80's horror cinema when a teenager, on a stroll after engine trouble, is trapped in a deserted house and assaulted by a creepy collection of wax statues. Four other lambs to the slaughter arrive at the house and encounter an utterly insane maniac that looks somewhat like a mixture of Leatherface (from "Texas Chainsaw Massacre") and one of those mad sculptors from old wax-museum movies. "Tourist Trap" is exciting horror entertainment, with some genuine suspense, grisly images, ultimate weirdness, morbid humor and terrific make-up effects. The plot twists aren't always original and the acting is pretty lousy but, seriously, who cares? The fast pacing and the groovy killer-icon caused this "Tourist Trap" to earn a spot amongst my 5 favorite slashers. A bit surprising is the total lack of nudity, though. Too bad, because all the girls look ravishing and after only 10 minutes, the obligatory line "Who needs a bathing-suit?" is spoken.

Sentiment: positive
Is it full moon tonight? OH! It doesn't matter they can change whenever they want cuz of that drug! What was I thinking if its full moon tonight?! Geez

I really like this movie, there's romance, suspense, horror, and hot stuff ;) I like the first half of the movie when the guy saves the girl from killing herself by bungee jumping and catching her. That was really cool. The setting of this movie is in the city of love which is Paris in France. The cemetery scenes are nice, it gives you chills not knowing what will happen there or who's behind the walls. The scenes that makes you jump out of your seat is really cool. Even they got me on that scenes. His friend who died and the girl whom he killed in the cemetery but still shows themselves to the lead character(sorry I forgot his name), was really funny. The actors did a good job plus the make-up crews. The part when they're all partying in an abandoned church, I can't believe people would that because even though that's an abandoned church, that is still God's house. I bought this movie long time ago, and I do not regret buying it. I'm a horror-movie-lover. I give this movie 5 stars out of 6. For the people who are open and loves movies like this, give it a try, you might like it.

Sentiment: positive
I think this is one of the weakest of the Kenneth Branagh Shakespearian works. After such great efforts as Much Ado About Nothing, etc. I thought this was poor. The cast was weaker (Alicia Silverstone, Nivoli, McElhone???) but my biggest gripe was that they messed with the Bard's work and cut out some of the play to put in the musical/dance sequences.

You just don't do Shakespeare and then mess with the play. Sorry, but that is just wrong. I love some Cole Porter just like the next person, but jeez, don't mess with the Shakespeare. Skip this and watch "Prospero's Books" if you want to see a brilliant Shakespearean adaptation of the Tempest.

Sentiment: negative
What did the director think? Everybody who has read the biography of Artemisia is left impressed by her guts to face a public rape trial in Renaissance times and even suffer torture in order to show that Tassi was guilty. That fact shows the real independence and emancipation - in her most terrible hour she stands her MAN. Why do movies depicting Renaissance have to be so clinically beautiful and romantic, are we afraid to see the gritty side of life or has the Hollywood happy-happy-mood won? While I would always defend a director's freedom to create his own reality in a movie I cannot make sense of turning Artimisia's life story on its head. Very disappointing choice by the makers of this film.

Sentiment: negative
I thought it was brilliant! It was great watching the presenter tracking each one of them down. Dwight Schultz still looked the same, he had hardly changed in looks, neither had Dirk Benedict, he still looked just as dishy! I thought that Mr T looked thinner though, but it was still great to see how he looked after all this time. I thought that it took some doing tracking down the other members of the cast, such as the one who played Decker, and the lady who played Amy. It was just a shame that Mr T could'nt make the actual reunion. Also it was a great shame that George Peppard had died, thereby leaving a gap so to speak. I only wish now that I had taped it to keep. Let's hope that they repeat it again.

Sentiment: positive
Well, I am SO glad I watched this on HBO instead of paying for it in the theaters or video store. The movie has some points, but, if you want to make it a worthwhile movie, I suggest that you become what the main characters are called...stoners.

2/10

Sentiment: negative
I caught this movie a few years ago one night, and it was one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. However, since it is supposed to be an action movie, I cannot give it more stars since the humor was unintentional.

Chuck Norris plays a truck driver who comes home from the road to see his family, and within the first five minutes the conflict arises which leads Chuck to seek vengeance for the rest of the film. Good thing too, 'cuz the sub-par acting by everyone involved was starting to get old very fast. Actually, the judge was pretty good, but I can't really describe what makes him work, you'll have to check it out for yourself.

And the custom van Chuck Norris drives is hideously classic!

Sentiment: negative
_Les Acteurs_ is the absurd story of Jean-Pierre Marielle desperately waiting for a cup of hot water, the story of a conspiracy against actors, the story of aging actors whose careers are slowly less active than they used to be, but a stunning tribute to French actors and their cinema.

Supported by a solid reflection about cinema and acting (the fourth wall, the hidden cameras, to play or not to play), the story of this film in which most of those famous actors play their own role (not to be mixed up with living their life in front of the camera - the film is not voyeur) is quite vague, and follows the actors in series of episodes which make the film quite amusing. As André Dussolier quits the film and leaves Josiane Balasko to play his part (great actress, she's hilariously serious especially when, in Dussolier's role, she bitches about herself), as actors run in each other on the street, asking for autographs, as fights and gossip happen, we recognize pastiche of other scenes in which each (or others) have played.

Actually, for whoever does not know the actors (most of them being at least in their 50s) or does not know French Cinema, this movie has less interest, since most of the references will be missed, but it will still offer a good track of reflection on aging, on acting, on public life...

Sentiment: positive
In keeping with Disney's well-known practice of stealing.. I mean.. buying out known properties and bastardizing them, this live-action version of the venerable cartoon classic has got to be one of the worst re-makes in a year of bad re-makes. I grew up on the original cartoon TV series. Any episode of the original cartoon series will give you more laughs than this entire movie. Not present is Penny's cool computer book. Also not present is the gag with the self-destructing orders that always ends up detonating on the Chief. New are a smooth talking Gadget convertible (the original cartoon had a cooler vehicle that could turn into a van or a car) and an element of a typical, unrealistic Hollywood romance. Don't fill the coffers to pay for Disney executives and even their _ex_executives - don't see this movie.



Sentiment: negative
As with many other pop-culture franchise series, this line just didn't know when to quit. Instead of leaving things as they were perfectly ended, they went on to generate this; the first installment of this franchise to fall sorely short of the mark.

This movie should never have happened. It was not intended for there to have been a fourth movie in this line, and it sure shows. The premise is idiotic and the portrayals were the same.

After the wonderful experience which was The Omen, this was a major disappointment which stank of 70's cheese and horrible acting. It was reminiscent of the Amityville Horror in those aspects, and left a terrible, lingering stench long after it was over. 

It rates a 1.4/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Sentiment: negative
Terrible!!! I don't want to be too negative but this film has an IQ of stupid monkey.What a disaster.I just couldn't believe how bad this movie is.The dialogs are just very strange and off topic,the camera work at times just horrible,the music at times like a soundtrack for Lawrence of Arabia,I just watched this film to see how much worse it can get.Some of the side kick "actors" are total disaster.Sorry but all my thumbs and toes and anything that can hang downwards on my body is falling to the ground. Harvey Keitle is a great actor but who knows maybe he is in financial crunch to take a part in such a fiasco film. . . . . this movie should have been presented to all the students in all the film schools just to teach them a lesson of how not to make a film

Sentiment: negative
I went to the movies to see Claudine and loved every minute of it the cast and the soundtrack as well. Diahann Carroll was never better than in this role. We saw Ms. Carroll downplayed her looks barely saw her naked,smoked a cigarette, drank beer and oh she cursed. Whenever this movie was shown on TV and finally cable I would call my friends to watch it. Just the soundtrack from the very beginning of the movie is awesome all thanks to Gladys Knight and the Pips. We saw a black woman struggling to raise her children, dealing with teen pregnancy and everyday life meets a man whom she learns later on has issues himself. Finally this movie made it to DVD and well deserving.

Sentiment: positive
There have been some harsh criticisms of Comanche Moon on IMDb. I think this is for three reasons. First, purists are disappointed that the mini-series is not exactly like the book. Second, it's not as good as the original Lonesome Dove. Finally, people like to complain on IMDb and the greatest films in the world will have bad comments.

I would like to say that no movie is going to be as good as the book. That's just the way it is. Lonesome Dove wasn't as good as the novel it was based on. Additionally, the movie of Lonesome Dove had some things left out ans switched around. That's just they way its going to be with a film adaptation of anything. So its a futile argument when looking at Comanche Moon.

I do agree it's not as good as the original Dove. But hey, nothing is. I know people that guide their lives by the lessons they learned from the Dove. If I was going to compare every book I read, movie I watched, and TV I viewed by Lonesome Dove; I would be perpetually unhappy.

This is a made for TV miniseries based on a prequel to Lonesome Dave (the novel) and sequel to Dead man's Walk, and that's what you get. It's the best TV I've seen in years. It's a fun set up for Lonesome Dove. We get to learn about the history of the Rangers we came to know and love in Dove. Zahn does an amazing job in recreating Gus McCrae. Elizabeth Banks and Linda Forenelli (sp?) also do great jobs as creating characters that help fill in the past of the rangers and Newt.

If/when it comes on again, I promise you'll enjoy it more than some crumby reality show.

Sentiment: positive
After "Beau travail", everybody was waiting for Claire Denis to make a follow-up masterpiece that never arrived. Now it has. Denis makes a quantum leap in this film, an orgy of gorgeous cinematography, elliptical editing and willfully obscure narrative events that feels strange and acts even stranger. There's a nominal plot (derived partly from the Jean-Luc Nancy book of the same name) about a mature man in need of a heart transplant and who seeks a Tahitian son he abandoned long ago; but mostly it's an exploration of the idea of intrusions personal and cultural. It takes a couple of viewings to fully comprehend, and has pacing problems close to the end, but it's still more advanced and gripping than anything else I've seen this year. Miss it at your peril.

Sentiment: positive
Daffy Duck has signs hanging from every inch of every available tree announcing that it's rabbit season. But, you guessed it - it's really duck season. Elmer Fudd appears: he's the only hunter dumb enough to fall for the gag.

He's even dumber than that. When Bugs Bunny strides up to him and asks how the rabbit hunting is going, Elmer admits that he hasn't seen a rabbit yet. This is more than Daffy can stand. He emerges from his hiding place and immediately points to a rabbit: Bugs Bunny. "Shoot him now!" Daffy screams. "You be quiet," says Bugs. "He doesn't have to shoot you now." Daffy insists that he does.

After Daffy returns his blasted-off beak to his head, he is doomed to more arguments infected with "pronoun trouble" which all have the same result. Later, Bugs dresses as a sexy woman and flirtingly asks Elmer for a duck dinner. Will Daffy get the last laugh? "Ha, ha, very funny! Ha, ha, ha!"

What's funny about this classic cartoon? Bug recoils in fright as Daffy screams in his face. Bugs Bunny says "Yes?" while dripping with self-satisfaction. Daffy Duck stands on tiptoes demanding to be shot. Elmer Fudd whines that he "can't wait any wonger." Daffy sees Bugs in women's clothes and makes that little noise with his tongue. Carl Stalling plays "You Must Have Been a Beautiful Baby" during Bugs's drag act. Daffy demands "sheer honesty" out of Bugs. Stalling plays "Home Sweet Home" at an inappropriately appropriate moment. Daffy tells Bugs he's "desthpicable."

In five words: every detail of this film.

NOTE: This short is available on "Looney Tunes Golden Collection, Volume One," Disc 1

Sentiment: positive
The film was okay, quite entertaining. The cast was pretty good, and I'll second what the comment before me mentioned - Glenn Quinn was outstanding and he alone is reason enough to watch this movie. He played the selfish "evil" friend and manager of the band brilliantly!

There are a lot of songs performed by "Beyond Gravity" in this film, but this doesn't really come as a surprise considering the film is a VH1 production. However, if the soft rock/ pop music isn't to someone's liking one might as well flash forward those scenes.

The plot of a band trying to make it to the top in L.A. but having to overcome many obstacles on the way isn't too original, but quite entertaining, with some surprising plot turns here and there.

Sentiment: positive
This film has its share of negative comments and I have to agree with those who consider it one of the worst movies ever made. True, most of the films based on the works of King are pretty bad, but this one goes beyond bad into the realm of horrible. There is not one scary moment in it unless you consider stupidity scary. It is typical King garbage -- myths twisted around that made no sense in the first place, mixed with obvious and belabored so-called "scares" that are about as shocking as PeeWee's Playhouse (which, at least, is entertaining). It is full of ridiculous moments, not the least of which is Alice Krige's character. When she goes on a rampage and starts quipping like the villain in an old Batman TV show, it is so absurd as to be sickening. All the people who had cameos in this (including John Landis)are lucky they still have careers. But the most absurd part has to be the cat costumes towards the end, which look like cheap rubber outfits someone bought at K-mart. The best part of the movie is the appearance of some real cats who actually out-act the people in the movie.

Sentiment: negative
OK the plot is, wait you got me there is no true discernible plot here just a string of optically fogged sex scenes, strung together by scenes of photographers taking pictures of pretty ladies (Sometimes a combination of the two) Then a demon comes around kills the men, rapes and kills the women, and waxes poetic about the meaning of life. Moronic special effects, bad acting and bizarre philosophy aside, you get what you expect from a film with a title like this. I guess it would have to be someone's cup of tea, just not mine as I have yet to see a good Kazuo 'Gaira' Komizu directed film.

DVD Extras: Subtitled Interview with Director Kazuo Komizu Part 1 (Part 2 is on the Entrails of a Beautiful Woman DVD); and Theatrical Tailer

My Grade: F

Sentiment: negative
Maybe it's because I'm no fan of the comics (but if the comics are of the same "quality" as the movie, it's hard to believe there are any), but this has to be one of the worst movies ever made. Non-existent plot, laughable acting, dumb dialogue... This movie is so bad that it hurts. A lot. That some people actually gave this one 10/10 is an insult to any good or at least mediocre (or at least bad) movie. If you hate yourself, then watch Tank Girl! On another thought, if you hate yourself THAT much, maybe you should just commit suicide... My rating: -34/10

Sentiment: negative
This is just one of those films which cannot justify much of anything that happens. These people are going on a trek: the young girl wants to photograph animals. There really are no Piranhas, but I guess the psychotic hunter guy is the real piranha. Anyway, there are lots of animals and there is lots of driving. There is considerable anti-gun talk, but we all know where that is going. Toward the end, there's lots of action and a rape thrown in. Somebody must pay, and they do. It would have been nice to have a couple of piranhas to sort of fill the thing out. There were lots of monkeys. If you fast forward through the dull parts, you have a tight little five minutes.

Sentiment: negative
One night, barkeeper Randy (Matt Dillon) rescues Jewel (Liv Tyler) from her jealous boyfriend Utah (Andrew Dice Clay). He takes Jewel to his home. But Utah comes back and wants Randy to open the safe at Mc Cool´s. Suddenly a shot - Utah´s dead. Then... ...I´ll better stop here to tell the plot. That´s like to explain the story of "Wild things". What I found so interesting, was the fact that the plot (written by Stan Seidel, his first and his last work - he died in July last year...) was told from 3 perspectives - the 3 men that fall for Jewel. Everybody of them sees her from different eyes - like John Goodman as the detective, who tenderly falls in love with her because of being remembered of his dead wife...

No wonder that the guys fall for her! Liv Tyler - she´s a real jewel. She made the big screen shining! She played her role as if she was in a 40´s noir- thriller. Sweet - but in the same time she was the cool vamp who walks over dead body´s and uses the men for her needs. And, of course, Michael Douglas. How could I forget him? Mr. Burmeister, the Bingo-playing killer - he was quite cool!

But in the last 10 minutes there was a little bit too much slapstick for my taste - it weakened the atmosphere. That part began when Paul Reiser (as Randys cousin Carl) putted on his leather dress for Jewel. The "YMCA"-song didn´t fit so much here... ... but altogether, "One night at Mc Cool´s" is a pretty COOL film-noir parody!



Sentiment: positive
I am guessing the reason this movie did so well at the box office is of course Eddie Murphy. I think this was his first movie since "Beverly Hills Cop" so at the time he was hot. Considering that one made over two hundred million and it was R and this one made about 80 million and it was pg does say it was not all that popular. I have never been a big Eddie Murphy fan, so that is probably another reason I didn't care for it much at all. This one has Eddie as some sort of finder of lost kids. He must find the golden child or the world is in terrible peril. The plot is very bad, but as bad as it is it does not compare to the special effects. I had seen better stuff done in the 70's than some of the stuff this one offers, Ray Harryhausen did better stuff. Still the main reason you see a movie like this is because of Eddie, unfortunately he is not very funny in this one at all and it just seems stupid to put him in the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" type scenes. I guess they were hoping for a fish out of water effect, but to me it just did not work.

Sentiment: negative
The cover of box of this movie has Kyle Minogue's name on it, but she has the same destiny as Drew Barrymore did in "Scream." That's the first thing that makes this movie lame; they are trying to market a movie with someone that's in it for 5 minutes.

Of course, we have to have this movie feature young hip college kids that are oblivious that there's a killer going around. To top it all off, Molly Ringwald of 80's teen movie fame is the star of this beautifully written film. It's a good career move for Molly to get some money doing a crappy movie in Australia so she won't get ridiculed in the states.

Either way, this dumb movie is about some dumb horror movie that was never finished because this dumb creature kills everyone that's in it. Throughout the movie, we're supposed to guess who's the killer. Long story short, remember our little friend Molly, she saves the day...or does she?

This move is just plain bad, rent it if you feel like torturing yourself or just break it on the floor of your local video store if you see it on the shelf. Don't spread the horror.

Sentiment: negative
scarlet coat like most revolution flicks wasnt well received but is nears perfection in the art of movie making. a great character study of john andre the heroic redcoat who is revered by both friend and foe for courage,,, scarlett coat also probes the duality of the undercover agent ,,, as a counterfeit traitor maj bolton befriends andre and undertakes a high level penetration of british intelligence yet he defends andre in andre's courtmartial ... the film captures the moral ambiguity of the spy

how much of the spy's world is real ,,, which reality does he belong to the reality of his mision or the reality which the cover story creates

andre's capture and courtmartial is a success for bolton in his mission beyond that whch wahington would have ever demanded ,,, the mission was merely to identify the traitor in us ranks ,,, bolton has knocked out enemy intelligence as well ,,, yet bolton mourns the death of the man he was sent to destroy

ann francis plays a stock american character,,, compliant with the british but willing to engage them in a war of wits

a movie well worth revisiting

Sentiment: positive
I rented this movie last week. I saw Kevin Spacey and Morgan Freeman were on it, so it seemed promising. And it was, until Justin Timberlake came on scene. He is a really bad actor and shouldn't be allowed to make a movie ever again. I mean, he is one of the most boring, uninspired actors I've ever seen. He puts absolutely no emotion to any of his lines whatsoever. Why the hell was he cast for the role of Josh Pollack? I think Matt Damon would have been a better choice.

Kevin Spacey was another big disappointment. His character is so dull, it seems like a bad mix of his character in American Beauty and John Doe in Se7en. It might sound cool, but believe me, it's not.

Now, Dylan McDermott's acting is very good. It's about one of the very few good things about this movie. He is just inspired.

Morgan Freeman is good but nothing special. He has some really cool lines though.

About the story, although it was a bit obvious and exaggerated at times it was good. I was expecting a big twist when Lazerov (Dylan McDermott) was killed, but nothing really happened.

Sentiment: negative
As a horror-movie fan I try to watch all significant novelties of this genre, especially those which are the products of my native cinema. And I can say that that the "Power of Fear" (or "Vedma" as the Russian title of it) is one of the weakest film among them. Firstly, it can't scary even a little kid, it paces so slowly and so predictable that there is no place for the real horror. Frankly speaking, it's bad in all points: from the goofy plot (I don't know why the Russian producers/director decided to transform the classic story about Ukrainian witchcraft into some lame and ridiculous modern-day-America thriller. I absolutely agree with the previous reviewer  it doesn't thrill a bit) and to the terrible and cheesy actors' work. All actors including the leading Valeri Nikolayev and Yevgeniya Kryukova who are quite famous in Russia look like wooden dolls or something like that and it seems to me they didn't even bother to play at all, only spoke their English lines without any expression. And at the end I don't really understand why they filmed this flick in English with Russian actors? I think it was their wrong turn. At least they could cast some American or English actors for the leading parts to make them look more convincing. The same I can say about so called "small American town backgrounds" which were shot in Estonia and look like it. The only positive moment I found in the "Power of Fear" is the visual effects. They are not excellent but rather good for the Russian film. And the music is OK, at least it doesn't irritate me. That's why I give it two stars. Overall, if you want to see good horror film  don't waste your time and money on this boring flick. And if you are looking for something that claims to be a Russian horror I'd advise you to find a copy of "Viy or The Spirit of Evil". It's really the terrific movie based on the same novel as "Power of Fear" but much, much better.

Sentiment: negative
I think this movie is underrated. To me it felt like a gulp of fresh air. Some people complain about the implausibility of the plot, overlong sequences and lack of sex (the latter being, I believe, the main reason for "implausibility"; and how come there are no drunken teenagers talking dirty?!); but it's just not their thing, and good for them if they can't relate to the story. The performances are great; I'd really like to see more of the actors in other movies. The emotions are genuine. The whole unrequited love thing is presented with uncanny subtlety. And it does give you the tingly feeling you expect to get from a good movie.

Sentiment: positive
First of all no adaptation is ever as good as the book, especially when you're dealing with master writer like Tolkien. This ADAPTATION wonderfully synthesizes Tolkien's universe with 1970s psychedelia, aesthetics, and liberal culture. Yes - the animation and background painting is sometimes a little "rough" in its technical execution but it's beautiful none the less, and very evocative in terms of giving a unique "sense of place" to each of the scenes. Beyond the absolute uniqueness in imagery is the absolutely outstanding voice acting - acting that's FAR superior to the acting in the new live action movies. And while the cell animation might not be the most "technically proficient" animation it superbly captures the expressive bodily and facial gestures of the acting while at once not forgetting to be subtle and nuanced. The background paintings vary from traditional "fantasy" motif to outright abstraction, but the transition to abstracted settings is always motivated by the narrative and contributes greatly to the themes of the film. If you're a person who has to have extensive computer rendering in a film so that everything is visualized for you then I can see how you might not like this movie but if you enjoy superior acting, transcendental imagery, and JRR Tolkien then this film is a must see.

Sentiment: positive
Silent Night, Deadly Night 5 is the very last of the series, and like part 4, it's unrelated to the first three except by title and the fact that it's a Christmas-themed horror flick.

Except to the oblivious, there's some obvious things going on here...Mickey Rooney plays a toymaker named Joe Petto and his creepy son's name is Pino. Ring a bell, anyone? Now, a little boy named Derek heard a knock at the door one evening, and opened it to find a present on the doorstep for him. Even though it said "don't open till Christmas", he begins to open it anyway but is stopped by his dad, who scolds him and sends him to bed, and opens the gift himself. Inside is a little red ball that sprouts Santa arms and a head, and proceeds to kill dad. Oops, maybe he should have left well-enough alone. Of course Derek is then traumatized by the incident since he watched it from the stairs, but he doesn't grow up to be some killer Santa, he just stops talking.

There's a mysterious stranger lurking around, who seems very interested in the toys that Joe Petto makes. We even see him buying a bunch when Derek's mom takes him to the store to find a gift for him to bring him out of his trauma. And what exactly is this guy doing? Well, we're not sure but he does seem to be taking these toys apart to see what makes them tick. He does keep his landlord from evicting him by promising him to pay him in cash the next day and presents him with a "Larry the Larvae" toy for his kid, but of course "Larry" is not a good toy and gets out of the box in the car and of course, well, things aren't pretty.

Anyway, eventually what's going on with Joe Petto and Pino is of course revealed, and as with the old story, Pino is not a "real boy". Pino is probably even more agitated and naughty because he suffers from "Kenitalia" (a smooth plastic crotch) so that could account for his evil ways. And the identity of the lurking stranger is revealed too, and there's even kind of a happy ending of sorts. Whee.

A step up from part 4, but not much of one. Again, Brian Yuzna is involved, and Screaming Mad George, so some decent special effects, but not enough to make this great. A few leftovers from part 4 are hanging around too, like Clint Howard and Neith Hunter, but that doesn't really make any difference. Anyway, I now have seeing the whole series out of my system. Now if I could get some of it out of my brain. 4 out of 5.

Sentiment: negative
The plot doesn't offer any new excitements, it even starts the same as cube I. This time there are no other enhancements for the cube machinery, except for having an extra exit, which is not guarded, very ingenious. The characters are also not so well elaborated as in the first episode, they just became "flat" as in a soap opera. 

If somebody makes it to the normal exit, the person would be asked some questions, like "do you believe in god?", its not really creative or original and especially in my opinion it doesn't fit into the mystery of the cube with it traps. Really there is nothing much else to say about it.

Sentiment: negative
Narratives  whether written, visual or poetic epics  generally try to avoid too may characters; readers and viewers, after all, can be too easily overwhelmed by trying to keep track of who exactly is who. This is especially true in film, I think, simply because we cannot easily go back to refresh our memory in a cinema. Viewers like myself, however, don't have that problem because we see all our films on DVD or VHS.

A year ago I was introduced to Audrey Tautou, a French actress, whom I first saw in The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain (2001) and later in A Very Long Engagement (2004), both of which were finely crafted and complex stories with a large cast of characters. This earlier offering exceeds the others in both ways: more characters and more complexity.

Now, other directors have used those techniques before: Robert Altman with The Player (1992), Short Cuts (1993), Gosford Park (2001) and others; Paul Thomas Anderson did the same with Magnolia (1999). Stanley Kramer did it with A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World in 1963, a comedy of almost epic proportions. The difference with this film is, first the director lets us 'see' inside the head of some of the characters and second, some scenes are repeated as means to refresh the viewer's memory as the story flip-flops between different time periods.

The basic  the core, so to speak  story concerns a young woman, Irene (Tautou) who is told, by a fellow commuter on a train, that she will meet her true love on that day. This occurs in the first few minutes of the film. The clever irony at this point is that Irene doesn't realize that the young man opposite (Gilbert Robin) may be that 'one true love'. And, nor does he...

They go their separate ways with neither realizing the potential significance of their close encounter. However, chaos results throughout the rest of the day, not only for the two young people, but for the rest of the characters who appear in a series of cleverly constructed and interwoven vignettes that all seem to be going nowhere, and yet...

If the story were simply that, it could tend to be boring, and even quite predictable. Not so. The script and the director rip into our expectations with a host of innovative scenes that are all too commonplace, but which are turned into believable, extraordinary events that allow the two possible lovers to meet again. For example, the next time some bird poo from the sky drops onto a book or paper of yours, consider your alternatives; two characters make an obvious choice that must occur before Irene and her man of destiny meet again. Or what about a stone chip flying onto your windscreen? Consider again what would happen...

All of that is interesting enough. What was more interesting for me was assessing each new man who came along and trying to decide whether this guy was THE ONE for Irene, or whether it was, in fact, the young man on the train. That kept me guessing for a while.

I'll let you think about that, should you see this delightful romp.

Recommended for all.

Sentiment: positive
....OK, small-town, clueless sheriff? Check. Sheriff's hot daughter? Check? Ne'er-do-well boyfriend of sheriff's hot daughter, whom sheriff hates? Check. Corporate land developer who greedily puts profit over people? Check. Developer's rank-and-file accidentally unleashing a primordial monster, then being pressured to cover it up? Check. Natives warning of mass death and destruction if things are not returned back to the way they were? Check. Amateurish CGI special effects that could have been produced by a Commodore 64 computer? Check. Seriously, virtually all the clichés of your typical Sci-Fi Original movie have been lumped into a classic, so-bad-it's-good movie. The only one that's missing is the scientist/expert trying to impart his knowledge; there is a paleontologist with three students who get ambushed my The Bone Eater fairly early in the movie, but they are basically extras in the movie. And I can honestly say that I predicted virtually all of this; right down to who survives and who doesn't (though I have to say I got the actual death time of one of the characters wrong by about an hour). I swear I could have done this movie myself if they gave me all the characters. Despite all this, the movie is fun to watch, if for no other reason than to play MST3K with your friends. If you're up for some mindless fun, it's a great movie to watch, which is why I give this movie a surprisingly respectable 4, even though for all intents and purposes it deserves a much, much lower rating. But then again you wouldn't tune in to a SciFi Original movie if you were looking for a movie with an actual plot, substantive characters or good special effects, would you?

Sentiment: negative
Don't get the impression from other reviewers that this film stinks cos it's ambivalent about the Japanese whaling industry (which, morally, is no worse than the US meat trade or the Scottish haggis cull), it stinks cos it's pretentious tosh, the sort of up-its-own-behind guff that gets modern art a bad name. That said, there are some stunning images, but there are stunning images in the average bus ride if you use your imagination, so that's no reason to go and see this nonsense. What happens in the film happens very slowly and often accompanied by a soundtrack that sounds like a cat being gutted, and then, just when you thinks it's finished, it starts again. I saw it it in a porn cinema in Rome which had been hired for the weekend to show Barney's film works, which is an admirable and clever way to reclaim what had once been a local fleapit from the dirty-old-men-in-macs brigade, but if the trendy young things and the slightly older beard-stroking Bjork fans were to be honest, everyone might have had a lot more fun if they'd just shown one of the pornoes!

Sentiment: negative
In Lizzie Borden's "Love Crimes" (1992), Sean Young plays a gritty D.A. in Atlanta. She's a loner who gets herself too deeply involved in the case of a man (Patrick Bergin) who poses as a famous fashion photographer and seduces women, takes compromising photos of them, then leaves them.

Naturally, this tough loner decides to enter the phony shutterbug's life by posing as his prey, intending to bring him to justice. They meet, they make love, then the next thing she knows, she is over his lap, getting spanked. (Note: The spanking scene is only in the "unrated" version of this film. The R-rated version omits it and several other scenes that would make the plot more lucid.) This psychological thriller includes several scenes of female nudity and disturbing images, such as Bergin chasing one of his victims around the room, flailing at her with a riding crop.

As a thriller, "Love Crimes" is at its best when Sean Young is playing her cat-and-mouse game with Bergin, trying to catch him in an incriminating act. It's unfortunate that the film doesn't end, it just stops. That's true. Director Lizzie Borden may have just run out of story to tell, but after 92 minutes the credits roll, and we are left with a puzzling "what just happened?" bewilderment.

The unfolding of Young's plan is played out in engaging style, but the lack of a coherent ending will be a turn-off for some viewers.

Dan (daneldorado@yahoo.com)

Sentiment: positive
Dominion tank police is an exercise in contradictive film making. The storyline across the 4 parts blends mindless action, slap-stick humor, touching humanity and thought provoking philosophical questions. It's hard to believe that there was only one director, as the style changes from episode to episode. A must-see movie for anyone who likes anime.

Sentiment: positive
TRICK OR TREAT is a fine example of Hollywood jumping on the "backwards messages in metal music" bandwagon that Tipper Gore and her Washington Wives kick-started in the mid-'80s (other, less successful entries in this mini-genre include the awful BLACK ROSES and silly THE GATE). I was a sophomore in high school when TRICK OR TREAT came out and couldn't wait to see it. It seemed to disappear from video stores by the end of the '80s, but I finally picked up a budget-priced DVD copy a short while ago and it brought back many pleasant metal memories from back in the day. Any teenage metal nerd could relate to the trials of Eddie "Ragman" Weinbauer (Marc Price of "Family Ties")in this film as he is persecuted by the preppie "beautiful" people in his high school for his heavy metal fashions and musical taste. Eddie's favorite rock star is Sammi Curr (who looks a lot like Tommy Lee of Motley Crue), who is killed in a hotel fire early in the movie. Eddie is inconsolable till he receives a test pressing of Sammi's final, unreleased album from a radio DJ (Gene Simmons of Kiss in a brief cameo). Eddie soon discovers that this LP, when played backwards, allows him to communicate with the undead spirit of Sammi Curr himself! Soon Sammi is giving Eddie advice on how to get even with his preppie torturers but when the messages escalate in scariness ("Waste'em ALL... no false metal!") Eddie tries to destroy the album, which results in Sammi coming back to life via Eddie's stereo speakers. Sammi rampages to the big dance at Eddie's high school and takes the stage to rock the crowd and disintegrate a few unlucky "false metallers" before Eddie arrives to save the day and the girl of his dreams. (SIGH) No, it's not terribly scary in 2006, it wasn't even scary in 1986, but TRICK OR TREAT is a movie that will bring a smile to the face of any 1980s metaller and has a kick-ass soundtrack courtesy of the cult band Fastway. Well worth seeking out if you've ever banged your head or have a taste for B-grade horror movies (or both, like me).

Sentiment: positive
tell you what that was excellent. Dylan Moran is simply the funniest actor on screen( and on stage) and with Micheal Caine as your partner ain't to bad either, both are great to watch in a really funny film. true, not all the gags come off but its worth sticking around for the ones that do, but come on its got Micheal Caine in a dress in it( the whole admission fees worth that) and every time Dylan Moran's on screen its more like Bernard blacks movie. the story is two actors(Moran and Caine) who decide to steal money from a group of gangsters by acting out different persona's to fool them all but getting away with it's a different matter. basically "the actors" is a great British comedy that was somehow missed by many, seriously if your a Moran fan(or want to see Micheal Caine in a dress) definitely see this

Sentiment: positive
Style but no substance. Not as funny as it should be. Not as deep as it wants to be.

This is another in the genre of films about the difficulties of filmmaking. A young filmaker is hired to finish a campy 60s sci-fi movie called Codename:Dragonfly. Think Barbarella, or Danger Diabolique.

But Jeremy Davies is an angst-ridden filmmaker. He's no hack he's an artist. The movie he wants to make is a diary of his life. Hardly original.

All the characters outside of Jeremy Davies filmmaker are as thin as rice-paper. Characters that might be interesting, such as his father, his doppelganger, or Jason Schwarzmann as a hack director are introduced and then shown the door without adding a thing.

This movie is full of eye candy but when compared to other films about filmmakers such as Stardust Memories or 8 1/2 it pales in comparison. Those movies are funny, provocative with well-developed characters. Those movies have lessons that apply outside

The movie wants to be comic and campy but its just derivative and there is not one funny scene. The filmmakers describe it as a send-up but what's the satirical target? The actors say it's an homage but I think I would rather a full-length version of Codename:Dragonfly.

Coppola is clearly amused by the setting as is evident by the visual humor of the sci-fi movie within a movie. But he fails to share why we should be amused.

Outside of the sci-fi movie its just a mess. There are continuity errors, the filmmaker chooses a sci-fi weapon after its already been chosen. What?

Just because he has a scene were the filmmaker is confronted by the critics complaining about the lack of story, lack of a point, a scene where he admits empty cleverness does not mean that he has addressed those criticisms.

I guess if your Roman Coppola you can get away with making a movie about an angst-ridden idealistic filmmaker who doesn't know what he wants to say and so ends up saying nothing. In that sense it may be considered autobiograhical.

I would watch it at Circuit City on a wall full of TVs if I had a choice. Watch the 15-minute Codename:Dragonfly movies included on the DVD as extras and then send it back.

Sentiment: negative
To be honest fellow IMDb reviewers, I enjoyed this show a lot. The reason? Well, it didn't try to be more than it is; I mean, a sitcom with regular expectations, with a well known and repeated plot, funny and talented actors, and clever jokes oriented for a post college audience.

This is what Grown Ups is all about: trying to be mature but in a funny way.

Jaleel White is funny as always and delivers some witty, and hilarious sex oriented jokes. The humor is very 90's without taking in account the tendencies of the new millennium and that's the main reason in my opinion why the show didn't have success. It got stuck in the 90's.

Oh and Mrs. Ribisi was really funny and perky.

My favorite show has to be the one that deals with Karma biting the ass! Not a cult classic but I'm sure it's part of regular early 2000's nostalgia.

Sentiment: positive