DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
The original title always struck me as a rather overblown definition for a bunch of gun-toting saddle-tramps. Still; their screen presence was at least underscored by a top-quality group of actors to support Yul Brynner. Most were movie stars in their own right.

However; this first sequel was a pale imitation, with a group now composed of largely B and C list players, who were more mediocre than magnificent. It was a similar set-up. Brynner's 'Chris' had to recruit yet another team of gun-toting saddle-tramps to sort out the Mexican peasants' problems again. Another tyrant was giving them grief.

With the originality and freshness of the first movie now spent, this remake had little else to offer. The budget was evidently very limited. This was reflected not only in the cast, but also in the below-par script, which borrowed much from the earlier classic. It was also more than half an hour shorter than John Sturges' original. Yet we still had a reprise of the agonising and moralising that made even the first a little turgid at times. However, here there was no decent acting, action or location work to balance things up. Filmiing was less expansive. It failed to convey the broad sweep of landscapes that were a great part of the original.

Generally; it just lacked imagination. The first movie had been a smash-hit, and this pedestrian sequel was evidently put together as quickly and cheaply as possible in order to cynically cash-in on former success. And it shows. There's very much a 'made for TV' feel about it.

Not recommended.

Sentiment: negative
The Women is a cute movie about women at all ages (but mostly 30+) and their issues in life. Not just men and infidelity, but also about relationships with friends & family, making time to connect with others, problems with image, compromising your values, accomplishments in life, and finding what will really make you happy.

It's also about being true to yourself. A lot of times, people will give you advice but not really follow it themselves. Sometimes they have created a delusion for themselves, and should you really follow in that same path or react based on your feelings now? I really liked this movie. Granted, it was trying a bit to be like Sex & the City at times, but that probably helped me like it. The difference here is it's kind of like the discoveries after the stage in life that the Sex & the City stars were in -- here, most are married or past the point of trying to find a man. Now, they are trying to find happiness in their marriages and lives.

Obviously it's not an Oscar contender, but it is entertaining and serves its purpose.

And for the men out there, there were an equal share of men and women in the movie theater (most were with their wives/girlfriends), and the men were in fact laughing. :)

Sentiment: positive
(A possible spoiler or two) 

 "Soul Survivors" is quite possibly the worst theatrical released movie ever. Nothing makes sense at all, there's some plot about a girl who has strange visions of people who may or may not be dead. The entire movie is just a bunch of random shots of things that don't really tie together, by the end of the film. 

 Tha acting is non-existent, the camera work is jerky and the script is so confusing, it just makes the movie even harder to watch.

 I kept waiting for something to tie the movie together but nothing came. Definitely the worst film of the year. -****1/2 stars.

Sentiment: negative
One question: Why? First off, the premise is not funny or engaging at all. They use taped interviews, and take the audio to animate ite with animals speaking the parts. First off, the interviews aren't funny or entertaining to begin with, and even if they were, I am sure they would be a lot more entertaining being viewed as they are originally, without being turned into cartoons. How does that add any hilarity to it? I turned on CBS's Monday night sitcom line-up, (which has become a regular way for me to relax after stressful Monday workdays) and found this on. Of course, the sitcom line-up would be reruns anyway, being summer, but seeing those episodes over again would have been more entertaining. I tried to give "CC" a chance. I really did. When it started, I figured, well, maybe it will be funny. Nope. And then it kept going. It was a long half hour.

And I can almost see if there was a purpose, if the interviews were shown in their entirety, and had points to them. But no, it was just one-line clips, cut and pasted together really quick. It was like a horrible dreadful version of Cartoon Network's "Robot Chicken." I wasn't a fan of CBS' now-cancelled sitcom "The Class." WHile that was on, it was one half-hour of the line-up I would struggle through. But if it came down to me deciding a whole season of that or three more episodes of "Creatures"....let's just say I'd take the "Class." Considering it's been a couple hours since it aired, and I come on here to see I am the first to comment...I guess that's a good sign that nobody watched it, and that it won't last much longer. Cartoon roadkill.

Sentiment: negative
The story of the untouchable who acted like a great soldier, saving the lives of hundreds if not thousands, is told in the 1939 film "Gunga Din." Based loosely on the Rudyard Kipling poem, the film is brilliantly directed by George Stevens and stars Cary Grant, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Victor Mclagen. The title role is played by Sam Jaffe, well known in my era as Ben Casey's boss, Dr. Zorba, a name that became synonymous with big, out of control hair. Say "Dr. Zorba hair" to anyone of my generation, and they know what you're talking about.

Set in India at the time of the British occupation, three soldiers - two romantic, dashing figures in Grant and Fairbanks, and McLagen as a big lug - are cut-ups - in reality, three overgrown boys. Gunga Din is the water carrier, treated somewhat meanly - verbally, anyway - by McChesney (McLaglen), but Cutter (Grant) is fond of him. When he catches Din (pronounced Deen) practicing being his soldier walk and salute as he apes the unit during their maneuvers, Cutter gives him a few pointers.

The merry band of musketeers is going to break up when Ballantine (Fairbanks) announces he's about to be married to a lovely young woman (Joan Fontaine) and leaving the service. However, when Gunga Din and Cutter run across Thugees, a murderous cult led by a guru (Eduardo Cianelli), Gunga Din escapes to warn the unit, and Ballantine insists on re-enlisting to help save Cutter. It's a buddy movie after all.

"Gunga Din" starts out lightheartedly, with slapstick and wonderful, broad comedy, particularly by Cary Grant, who is quite funny. Both he and Fairbanks are so handsome, it's hard to decide which one to look at first. Much of the film is made up of huge action sequences which are very exciting. In the last part, the story becomes very dramatic and culminates in a tense, thrilling battle.

Grant has the showiest role, Fairbanks is the lovesick romantic, and McLaglen as McChesney, mostly due to his treatment of Gunga Din, is the most unlikeable character, although one detects his soft heart in his love for his elephant Annie. His softness comes through toward the end of the movie, particularly in the very touching, tear-jerking final scene.

Always a gentle and likable actor, Sam Jaffe gives a beautiful performance as Gunga Din, a simple, brave man with a big smile, powerful imagination and lofty dreams. Without much dialogue, Jaffe conveys Gunga Din's soul magnificently.

This is truly the ultimate adventure film, massive in scope, with good acting, rousing scenes, a wonderful musical score, and some beautiful cinematic images. Another one from that remarkable year, 1939. Highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
When Melville's "Pierre; or The Ambiguities" hit bookstores in 1852, his first publication since "Moby Dick" a year earlier, the public response was similar to that found among the IMDB reviews of "POLA X". Newspapers even published headlines like: "Melville Insane!" which, of course, he wasn't. But, when one compares the writing styles found in "Moby Dick" and "Pierre," one finds in the latter a sharp departure from the simple and often declamatory style found in the former. Clearly, he was mimicking the overly florid style of the now-forgotten Victorian Romances that were easily outselling his immortal "Moby Dick." He was not content, however, to turn out the sort of product that his publishers wanted, and that surely would have sold. His version of a Victorian romance was a twisted, cynical one, perhaps, but brilliant in its synthesis. The alternate title: "The ambiguities" is quite appropriate. As Pierre searches for, and thinks he finds, truth, we become more and more uncertain what and whom to believe. As he searches for happiness, he becomes more and more miserable.

"POLA X" is a fascinating adaptation of this novel, set in modern or nearly modern France. Though, in some ways, it leaves little to the imagination, and shows us graphically the incestuous relations that Melville could only hint at, the ambiguities which make the novel and its message so alluring are perfectly in tact. The questions it raises are ones that few films have thought to ask, yet the answers are left to the viewer.

I recommend a reading of the novel, which is much shorter than "Moby Dick," before seeing this movie. I hope more people discover this tantalizing film.

Sentiment: positive
Has the drama, suspense, and character developments you would enjoy if you like drama that engages you and entertains as well as educates.

The writers know their material and it shows. The direction is always engaging and not blase, and the acting terrific. Why this show didn't win any awards tells me the "powers that be" in Hollyweird don't know drama or much else for that matter. 

There is a plot twist in this episode at the end was a complete surprise and was very well played out. I'm glad it wasn't used as a shock scene for any climatic end to this series which would have been more typical and dull. Rent this series at once! Let's hope its brought back from celluloid extinction.

Sentiment: positive
"Glen or Glenda" was Edward D. Wood Jr's first attempt at directing a feature film. For this he chose a topic near and dear to his heart...transvestism, the "art" of a man wanting to dress in women's clothes. To his credit, Wood tried to deal with subject matter that was largely taboo in 1953. Unfortunately, Wood had neither the budget nor the know how to make the film.

The story opens with a prologue by Bela Lugosi that makes little sense and then moves to the discovery of a dead transvestite Glen/Glenda (Daniel Davis aka Ed Wood). Inspector Warren (Lyle Talbot) with the help of psychiatrist Dr. Alton (Timothy Farrell) tries to understand why a man would want to live (and die) this way.

Glen is engaged to Barbara (Dolores Fuller) and is reluctant to tell her of his obsession. And that's it. We see endless stock footage shots of anything from freeway traffic to soldiers landing on the beach, interspersed with shots of Wood walking down the same street dressed as either Glen or Glenda and looking longingly at women's clothes in a store window. Poor old Bela, who was down on his luck and befriended by Wood, keeps popping in throughout the story. I'm not 100% sure but I think Bela's scenes were added for his name value after the body of the movie was completed.

To add to the confusion of Lugosi's narration, Farrell as Dr. Alton also provides off screen narration. Lugosi keeps saying, bevare, bevare...take care, take care, as well as, some gibberish about snakes and snails and puppy dog's tails.

The story also deals with a transvestite who has a successful sex change operation and tries to explain the difference between that person and Wood's character(s). The dream sequences are laughable. A wedding sequence in which someone dressed as the devil appears is a good example. Wood also gives us an apparent rape scene with the actors(?) fully clothed but leaving little to the imagination, risqué for 1953.

This film along with Wood's other "classics" were so bad that they became embraced by the public as cult classics over the years. For that reason, they have survived to this day.

Sentiment: negative
Well, it wasn't a complete waste. Armand was as usual very good in the movie,,,the whole turks vs German thing was kind of strange because I remember seeing Bulgaria at the beginning of the movie...dint' bother to go back and check...the central theme is about the serial killings with the whole gang warfare loosely woven in. Never saw a movie where the characters looked Italian, supposed to be Turk, taking English(American accent and euphemisms) with German words. The climax was the most intriguing part and there are parts of it that still did not make sense to me. In any case, if you have nothing else better to do, you can watch this movie..

Sentiment: negative
I saw this at the 2004 Stony Brook Film Festival in NY and it was very warmly received. In this pre-WW2 film, a pair of German rocket scientists are working on the Scottish Isle of Scarp as war looms on the horizon. The characters encountered on the island are priceless in their creation and their portrayal. Shauna MacDonald is particularly memorable

After getting up to speed on the "Scootish" accents, the viewer feel right at home with these folk who watch with amusement as the Germans work to link their isle with the mainland via a rocket-based mail delivery. As implausible as it seems, this film was based on an actual story.

All in all, a memorable film that will stay with you for some time thanks to its casting, its story or its scenery.

Sentiment: positive
I always felt that a good film should have a plot. This particular film was missing one, and I feel that it would have been more effective with a plot. This was made even worse by the fact that it seemed to go on forever; I was anxious for it to finally end. However, I just noticed that it was only 123 minutes long; it felt like four hours. Not only was there no plot but the film also lacked a notable conflict. It's not the worst movie I've seen, but I used to say that it was until I saw "The Fast And The Furious". So, don't think this review of mine is from someone who needs nothing but action. I actually hate most action films out today; it's just that this film is all the way on the other side of the spectrum. Not much really happens in this movie. However, the scenery and costumes were nice.

Sentiment: negative
Shes the man is great. its funny, original and made me laugh so much i nearly wet my seat. the day i went to go see it at the movies i wasn't in the best of moods (man trouble)but leaving the movie i had a grin plastered on my face. The story is a bit out there with the whole no-one noticing that she looks way too much like a girl but hey who am i to say whats believable, the jokes are great and some of the one liners in this 2006 hit could go down in history. Amanda B. did a great job as the main role and Channing Tatum looks too good to be true as her opposite as the gorgeous Duke. So girls go see this because its a great laugh and there's a hot guy in it and boys u go see it because you might just learn something about girls! 

All in all a brilliant,fantastic and fun movie which i will be buying on DVD when it comes out.

Sentiment: positive
Oz is without a doubt my favorite show of all time! the best word to describe it is "genius"! the writing, the acting, the story lines .. everything about this show is absolutely amazing! 

I just discovered the show and I became addicted to it right away and I was really surprised that it hasn't gotten the recognition it truly deserves. It is violent, and most of the characters aren't meant for you to like them, but the show is written in such a brilliant way that allows you to look past the violence and the criminals and see them as real people. They are the lowest forms of scum, but it still finds a way to allow you to understand a lot of the characters and even care about their stories.

The violence in the show is necessary for it to be as realistic as possible, but the show isn't about the violence like some people might believe. It really is a work of art and I'm sure who ever gives it a chance will love it just as much as I do.

Sentiment: positive
Kimi wa petto is a cute story about a girl who one day finds a boy inside a box that is outside her apartment one day. She decides to bring him in and fix his cuts. She then leaves a note for him to eats some food she made then go home because she had to go to work. When she gets home however she finds that he is still there. He tells her that he wants to live there with her like a brother or cousin. In desperation to get him to leave she tells him that if he became her pet then he could stay. And as a pet she says that he would have no rights and do whatever she told him. (not in that perverted way!) To her surprise he agrees and from then on he is known as Momo, her pet.

Sentiment: positive
I remember reading the original Balzac story in college French.

I remember Ken Nordine of WGN-TV in Chicago reading it as one of his late night shows.

Always loved the story but never believe they could or would make a movie of it. To my surprise they did and did it VERY well.

Few of any Balzac stories lend themselves to dramatization, which is unfortunate, and -cat lover that I am, I was always hoping it WOULD be filmed without a lot of Hollywood sexing up. This is as close to perfect conversion as could be done.

The theater of the mind is always better than what the eye can see, but this is as close as I think it can come to letting the imagination of reading meet the reality of seeing.

Sentiment: positive
I was really hoping that this would be a funny show, given all the hype and the clever preview clips. And talk about hype, I even heard an interview with the show's creator on the BBC World Today - a show that is broadcast all over the world.

Unfortunately, this show doesn't even come close to delivering. All of the jokes are obvious - the kind that sound kind of funny the first time you hear them but after that seem lame - and they are not given any new treatment or twist. All of the characters are one-dimensional. The acting is - well - mediocre (I'm being nice). It's the classic CBC recipe - one that always fails.

If you're Muslim I think you would have to be stupid to believe any of the white characters, and if you're white you'd probably be offended a little by the fact that almost all of the white characters are portrayed as either bigoted, ignorant, or both. Not that making fun of white people is a problem - most of the better comedies are rooted in that. It's only a problem when it isn't funny - as in this show.

Canada is bursting with funny people - so many that we export them to Hollywood on a regular basis. So how come the producers of this show couldn't find any?

Sentiment: negative
What can you say after watching this movie? That is, if you had the interest and concentration to see it to the end. I was left speechless, due to the amazingly dull story, annoying situations where one American equals that of a fifty or more Iraqis, and boring dialogue. I think that if this movie has something to teach, it probably goes like "Don't screw with US, or we'll come and kick your butts". Plus, this film truly encourages and votes for killing masses of foreigners, in the name of war. I got the image of tackling chess pieces out of the playing board. Except, now it's fast and there's not so much thinking. And on top of that.. no character there has any spirit; then, how can you care at all what happens to any of them. Excluding war movie fans with no taste, I wouldn't recommend this to anyone. There should always be something more interesting to do.

Sentiment: negative
A handful of critics have awarded this film with positive comments. I don't wish to argue with their opinion, but I strongly disagree. When I first watched this film I was mildly impressed. But after comparing it with other films, particularly with the late master, Bruce Lee I quickly changed my mind. In fact, if it wasn't for the title of the film, I would never have bought it. Game of Death 2 doesn't relate to the original Game of Death, (except it shares one character, Billy Lo.)

I was stunned to see how similar Game of Death 2 was compared to Enter the Dragon. The plots have striking similarities: Both Bruce Lee and Bobby Lo are on a mission to avenge a relative. The two locations are similar, in which they both are very isolated and are surrounded by thousands of Blackbelts. There is an element of prostitution in both films (women are sent two the guests rooms in both films.) Both Han (Enter the Dragon) and Lewis's henchman have a hand missing. Their is an underground drug operation in Enter the Dragon, believe it or not, there is one in Game of Death 2. Han has a pet cat in Enter the Dragon, the director has used his imagination and awarded Lewis with a pet monkey! The list continues. 

Regarding other aspects of the film, such as the script and the acting, I felt it was very poor. It seemed to me that the director was looking for a group of martial artists to star in the film and prayed they could act. 

On a positive scale, I cannot deny that the choreography is impressive. Although the fighting sequences have strong elements of acrobatics in them, they are none the less skillfully performed. However, as the plot is insufficient, i couldn't relate to the characters, therefore the fighting sequences were more exhibitions rather than having a meaning to the film. 

In conclusion I would say this film is recommendable to any martial-arts fans, but for those who enjoy a solid action film, with a good storyline and strong characters, I seriously wouldn't recommend this film. My opinions towards this film may seem very bias and one-sided, but when Bruce Lee set a new standard in the martial arts cinema, particularly after his masterpiece: Enter the Dragon, this film failed to rise to these standards. If anything they imitated a truly brilliant martial-arts film, in hope of achieving the same level of fame. 

In reference to my evaluation, awarding this film a very harsh 1 out of 10, the film is barley watchable, and must be thankful that it had the fighting sequences it did.

Sentiment: negative
I really felt cheated after seeing this picture. It felt like I sat watching this movie 101 minutes for nothing. I don't understand what they were thinking when they made this. It hardly gets into Jeffrey Dahmer murdering and it has no ending. It felt almost like they were leaving this movie open for a sequel. It was like watching a television episode of the Sopranos. It ends suddenly, and you know there's going to be another episode next week. It also felt like I just watched part 1 to a two part movie. There are many possibilities for what went wrong here; they got lazy, they ran out of money, they didn't know the rest of the story, they wanted to make a Dahmer 2. After seeing this movie they all sound very accurate. I was watching Jeffrey Dahmer walking through the woods. All of a sudden I hear this music playing, then writing comes on the screen and says how Dahmer served 2 years of his sentence and was attacked by a fellow inmate and killed at the age of 34. Wow, he goes from a walk in the woods to his death in jail. How about showing how he got there. How about showing Dahmer's trial. How about showing some more detail. I can't even explain what happened in this movie because it jumped all over the place. I actually found myself saying in disbelief, "That's it, that's the end?" I want to conclude this review by saying there is still a good Dahmer movie yet to be made. To the filmmakers I'd like to say, if you're going to do it, do it right.

Sentiment: negative
This film may have been the biggest let-down I've experienced in renting movies based on IMDb reviews. Overall, I simply found this to be a second-rate movie.

Leslie Cheung is certainly passable as the antihero and Ma Wu handles his character with cheerful competence. On the other hand, Ma Wu's makeup (facial hair) is so obviously phony that I simply could not take him seriously. He looked like an overweight teenager dressed up for Halloween, complete with the $4.95 stick-on beard.

The special effects were so-so, though the "undead" in the cellar were pretty good. The tree-tongue looked like something from a bad 1950s monster flick, though the POV shots from the tongue's view more closely resembled Sam Raimi's trademark shots in the more recent "Evil Dead" trilogy. The pyrotechnics were ho-hum and the final battle is about as dull as you can get. (In fact, it most closely reminded me of the "Lost in Space" episode where the Robinsons are caught in a sandstorm and....) 

The plot was not particularly original and has been told countless times in the form of European fairy tales. There was no suspense and no plot twists. In fact, you know right away as you are introduced to the characters who is good, who is bad, and who is going to survive.

I just returned this film to Netflix and then I sat down to write this review. The very first thing I did was check the production date. Yep, it says 1987...not the 1967 that I thought it might be. And that pretty much sums it up: The production values and FX are typical of the 1960s. The plot and action seem much older, as Hollywood was actually producing some interesting and challenging films in the 60s.

** out of *****

Sentiment: negative
Terry West had a good idea w\ this movie. He just didn't flesh it thru. There are endless shots of the creepy looking school's exteriors that go on forever and probably to pad the film's running time. Also at this school there are only 2 students. Misty Mundae is good as usual but this film will always belong to Ruby LaRocca (which is the only reason to watch the film in the beginning). If the script centered on her interesting character we'd have a movie to watch. She is so GORGEOUS!! Good news for DVD buyers, Terry West's earlier (and better) film "Blood For The Muse" is a special feature. One thing I'd like to say is that this movie feels like someone who's not good at delivering the punch line at the end of a long joke for the ending feels that very same way. Then again, just watch this for Ruby LaRocca.

Sentiment: negative
Much about this movie was beautiful. The acting, the scenery, and without a doubt, Aaron's cinematography background showed through on the beautiful shots. Definitely worth watching, as your attention will be captivated the entire time, and it ends on just the right note.

The acting by newcomer Jonathan Furr was superb, as one would think he was a pro acting since he was born. He has gone on to act in other feature films, but this starring role will always be remembered.

The film does have that academy award feel to it at times, where it's slow and scenic and quiet, so it's not a movie that a.d.d. kids can sit through. However, the rustic feel of East Bend and Yadkinville played out well as a 1940's era film.

Sentiment: positive
This is definitely one of the greatest Disney movies ever made. It's a real pleaser to anyone. It'll make you laugh, it'll make you cry, and it'll put you into suspense.

Basically, what Homeward Bound is about is three household pets who are sent to live on a farm while their owners go on vacation. They don't know what is going on, and desperately wanting to go home, they escape from the farm and try to find their way home through the wilderness.

This is one of the last movies that Don Ameche starred in. He provided the voice of Shadow, the old, wise and friendly golden retriever. Also starring in this movie was Sally Field providing the voice of Sassy, the Himalayan cat. But seriously, what this movie is all about is Chance! Voiced by Michael J. Fox (my all-time favorite actor), Chance is basically all you'd expect from a dog, lovable, playful, energetic and goofy, and every time I crack up when watching this movie, it's because of Chance; it's like the comedy never ends! 

This movie is also very sad at times. It sometimes reminds people of the times they've been alone or when they lose their pets.

One scene that always puts me in suspense is the scene where the trio is trying to escape from the pound; I especially feel shocked at the part where Chance gets his collar caught in the fence and almost doesn't make it. The movie had other suspenseful moments, but none to me seem more suspenseful than that one.

Overall, it's a wonderful family movie. If you enjoyed this movie, you'll probably enjoy the sequel too. I give this movie a solid 9 out of 10!

Sentiment: positive
Well, I've read the book first and thought: wow would this be cool to see in a movie, than I started searching and found there was already a movie made of it... I bought the movie a week ago on DVD and watched it.. they did it awfully wrong! at first this kid Hapi,who isn't any character in the book, then the mix between the two books ('the river god' and 'the seventh scroll') than Nicolas needing funds while in the book he himself is actually the funder, the whole thing about the Hyksos is wrong also.. Taila is supposed to have invented the lightweight-chariot.. the whole thing about the tomb is also very wrong.. there is supposed to be a channel that has some kind of vacuum-suction around it.. the tomb itself was made in a maze with only a possibility to pass if one knows the rules of the ancient boa-game. There was nothing in the movie about Nicolas being English and Royan was a Coptic-Christian in the book, not a Muslim..This list is endless.. There were only a few things good about the movie, the actors which played Royan, Nahood, Taita, Boris, Mick and Tessay were well-chosen, the rest were just parodies of the characters in the book, Rasfer was the worst, it didn't get even close to the character that was in my head while I wrote the book.. It is such a shame that such a great book is mutilated in such a bad reproduction... I wonder why Wilbur Smith ever gave his permission for this..

Sentiment: negative
Slausen's Lost Oasis. . . a place for food, fun. . . and MURDER! After a guy disappears on his way to a gas station, a group of her friends head out on a trip to search for him. They come across a wax museum where they think their friend might have ended up. Unfortunately for the friends, however, the owner of the roadside attraction possesses the power to control his wax mannequins and use them for evil. One by one, the tourists are stalked down and killed by Slausen and his legion of wax dummies. Can the friends escape or will they fall to the same fate as their lost friend? Following in the footsteps (and twisting them around) of the great classic wax films (House of Wax, Mystery of the Wax Museum), Tourist Trap takes the slasher genre to a whole new level of strange and fascinating with its bizarre story and style. As far as character development, action, dialogue, flow, etc., it seems to be just a basic slasher flick. But, it goes far beyond that as the director takes control of the plot and moves it to the supernatural thriller it is. The acting ranges from acceptable (from the main cast) to very good (from backwoods-showman Mr. Slausen (played by Western-legend Chuck Connors)). The writing moves well and the dialogue is well structured, but there are some flaws in logic as the film moves deeper into the story. Also, some scenes are a bit silly, like the moaning-mannequin attack on Becky. It's nothing, however, that would detract from the effect of the film. As one would expect from a film about wax dummies, it is full of the endless creepiness supplied by the mannequins. It's strange that a (mostly) inanimate object can just sit still and somehow be so unsettling. . . perhaps it's the human likeness, or the blank stare, or the fact that you know it's about to spring an attack. . . whatever it is, the dolls are extremely spooky and that effect is used very well throughout the entirety of the film. As far as slashers go, it's one of the best, and it stands as one of the creepiest films I've ever seen.

Obligatory Slasher Elements:

- Violence/Gore: The film is full of some cool deaths. The gore isn't excessive, but it's done well and leaves it as being realistic.

- Sex/Nudity: There is an extended skinny-dipping scene with the very attractive lead females (though 'very attractive' barely begins to describe the ravishing future-angel Tanya Roberts) but it's all a tease as the girls remain mostly underwater. They do remain scantily clad throughout the film, however.

- Cool Killer(s): Creepy is just the beginning of Slausen and his mannequins. One of the best killers in the slasher subgenre.

- Scares/Suspense: From the opening scene on, the film maintains a great blend of the creepiness of the mannequins, jump scares from the attacks, and a strong level of suspense in the stranded situation. . . it's all very well done to make for a genuinely scary film.

- Mystery: Well, mystery wasn't really the point of the film. . . just the meaning behind all of it is what matters.

- Awkward Dance Scene: All these cute girls and not a single dance. Shame.

Final verdict: 8/10. See this creepy slasher!

-AP3-

Sentiment: positive
I enjoy science-fiction just as much as the next man but what the hell was that? Apparently shot over just three days using excess film stock left over from his previous film, 'Nana (1926),' this Jean Renoir short is a bewildering futuristic satire, produced on a budget that couldn't have been much more than zero. In the year 2028, following a great war, Africa has become the most civilised region on Earth, and what was formerly Europe has been designated "Terres Inconnues (Unknown Land)." An African explorer  played by Johnny Huggins, a Black man dressed up as a White man dressed up as a Black man, if you follow me  travels to the ruins of Paris in his spherical aircraft, and lands outside the lair of a Parisian savage (Catherine Hessling, then the director's wife) and her primate companion, perhaps the creepiest ape-man costume I've ever seen. The savage, as part of some bizarre sexual initiation ritual, starts showing the explorer the Charleston dance, which he is delighted to learn himself.

It doesn't help the film that Hessling, who was wonderful the following year in Renoir's 'The Little Match Girl (1928),' isn't much of a dancer, though the extensive use of slow-motion adds a touch of surrealism to the ceremony. Furthermore, I'm quite shocked that Renoir would exploit his own wife as such a blatant sexual object  it doesn't come as a surprise to learn of their divorce just three years later! On the plus side, I did like the general sci-fi concept behind the film, and the slyly satiric touch of the reversing the racial roles usually typical in such stories as this. However, why Renoir decided to dress up his Black actor as a minstrel will remain a mystery for all of time. Silly, crude and quite pointless, 'Charleston Parade (1927)' is a cinematic oddity from one of cinema's most respected directors, and is perhaps an effort that he would have liked to forget. The DVD version came without a musical soundtrack, but I compromised with a selection of pieces from Dmitri Shostakovich.

Sentiment: negative
My flatmate rented out this film the other night, so we watched it together.

The first impression is actually a positive one, because the whole movie is shot in this colorful, grainy, post-MTV texture. Fast sequences, cool angles, sweeping camera moves - for the moment there you feel like you about to watch another "Snatch", for the moment....

When the plot actually starts unfolding, one starts to feel as if one over-dosed amphetamine. things just don't make sense anymore. i would hate to spoil the fun of watching it by giving out certain scenes, but then again, the film is so bad that you are actually better off NOT watching it.

First you think it is a crime story recounted in a conversation between Keira Knightley and Lucy Liu. WRONG. This conversation provides no coherent narrative whatsoever. Rather on the contrary, Domino's lesbian come on on Lucy Liu's character during the second part of the movie just throws the audience into further confusion.

Then i thought that maybe it is a movie about a girl from affluent but dysfunctional background who grew to be a tough bounty hunter. In any case, that is the message conveyed by the opening scenes. But after that the question of Domino's character is entirely lost to the criminal plot. So in short, NO this is NOT a movie about Domino's character.

Then i thought, it's probably a story of one robbery. A pretty bloody robbery. 10 millions went missing, bounty hunters are chasing around suspected robbers, mafia kids are executed, hands are removed, Domino tries to crack why this time they get no bounty certificates, etc. But soon this impression is dispelled by another U-turn of the plot.

This time we are confronted with a sad story of an obese Afro-American woman, who fakes driver's licenses at the local MVD and at the age of 28 happens to be a youngest grandmother. Lateesha stars on Jerry Springer show, tries to publicize some new, wacky racial theory, and at the same time struggles to find money for her sick granddaughter.

What does this have to do with the main plot? URgh, well, nobody knows. Except that director had to explain the audiences where will bounty hunters put their collectors' fee of 300,000.

Then at some point you start to think: "Oh, it is about our society and the way media distorts things". There is reality TV crew driving around with the bounty hunters and doing some violent footage. The bounty hunters are also stuck with a bunch of Hollywood actors, who just whine all the time about having their noses broken and themselves dragged around too many crime scenes. But NO, this is not a movie about media, they just appear sporadically throughout the movie.

Plus there are numerous other sub-plots: the crazy Afghani guy bent on liberating Afghanistan, the love story between Domino and Chocco, the mescaline episode, the FBI surveillance operation...

Can all of the things mentioned above be packed into 2 hrs movie? Judge for yourself, but my conclusion is clear - it is a veritable mess!

Sentiment: negative
This film can not even be said to be bad for it is sadly, just painfully mediocre. Lacking any real wit or imagination, a thin plot is stretched to the absolute limit and the `jokes' (which are predictable and threadbare) are spun out to such inordinate length that boredom and yawns quickly overtake the viewer. Another notch to mark the sad decline of John Waters and a reminder that what `shocked' or amused us 30 years ago doesn't work quite the same way now. We've seen it all before, and it no longer breaks any taboos because they have long since evaporated. A major miss.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is about a female rape victim/comic book writer from New York that decides to get away from all that awful big city glamor and move to a dirty, run down small town where she finds refuge in a single-wide trailer on a dirt lot in the middle of 12th and nowhere. The townspeople are mentally ill, yet so is she for inviting crazy men into her trailer. Annoying is the fact that she has the ability to do exactly the right thing to place herself in dangerous circumstance after dangerous circumstance. DB Sweeney's performance was high school at best. He's one of those kinda-cute young actors with a sweet grin. Unfortunately career has not been kind and mother nature has been right in tow. To the previous commentator stating that the acting was "so real", well I agree. Actually it wasn't acting. The two main characters really are pathetic, weak and incapable of making mature, healthy decisions. In brief, this movie sucks like no other, rent it to laugh at it. The real crime scene? The atrocious Wood paneling in the trailer - enough to make ME commit murder. And lastly, she's a artist/writer, so couldn't she afford a double-wide trailer and something other than a sun-yellow Chevy Chevette for love of god!

Sentiment: negative
An art student in Rome is possessed...or something. She has dreams of being nailed to a cross and Satan himself raping her. He possesses her (I think) and turns her into a sex addict. That's about all I could take and I turned it off.

A pointless "Exorcist" rip off. I caught this on cable back in the 80s and was horrified...and not in a good way! This movie is supposed to be a horror film but turns into nothing more than a sex film disguised as a horror movie. There's tons of pointless female nudity and the actress playing the lead has to degrade herself more than once. We see her being raped by Satan (a hot-looking guy), masturbating, coming on to her own father...Gotta give her points for bravery. Add to that bad dubbing, editing (the rape scene looks like it was cut a bit), lousy acting and a story that makes next to no sense. The one disturbing sequence (her being nailed to the cross) ALMOST works but the lousy "special" effects ruin it. This is one of the few horror film that was so bad I stopped watching. Skip it.

Sentiment: negative
To me movies and acting is all about telling a story. The story of David and Bethsheba is a tragedy that is deep and can be felt by anyone who reads and understands the biblical account. In this movie I thought the storytelling by Gregory Peck and Susan Hayward were at their best. To know and understand the story of David and his journey to become the King of Israel, made this story all the more compelling. You could feel his lust for a beautiful woman, Gregory Peck showed the real human side of this man who in his time was larger than life. Susan Hayward's fear, reluctance, but then obedience to his authority as her King was beautifully portrayed by her. One could also feel David's anguish the nigh that Uriah spent the night at the gate instead of at home. As well as the sadness when he was killed in battle. Raymond Massey's powerful and authoritative condemnation of the King made me feel his anger. The sets were real enough, and the atmosphere believable. All in all I think this was one of the best movies of it's kind. I gave it a rating of ten.

Sentiment: positive
Although I had some hopes for this film, particularly since I enjoy the acting of Jason Segel (Freaks & Geeks, Undeclared) so much, I must say it was one of the worst films I've seen in recent memory (Loser and Dr T and the Women are also on that list).

Yes, there were a couple of laugh out loud moments, although the movie could have been so much better. The premise was not bad- scam artists cheating their way through college meet their match when they're discovered by someone with a proposition for them. The problem is that the characters were all so unlikable, that I didn't care about any of them. The blackmailer (played by talented Jason Schwartzman) was such a psychopath that it wasn't that funny to watch him- he wasn't deranged in a particularly funny or charming way, he was just a crazy loser, who was actually rather dangerous and not fun to watch. The editing of the movie was hard to follow-- it kept cutting between fantasy and reality and it was often unclear which was which. Only two or three of the gang's scams were really shown, you just had to take it on faith that they were indeed scam artists-- showing their schemes would have made for a better movie. The so-called love story was absurd and unbelievable, in fact it was silly and poorly written and directed throughout. I could go on about the movie's shortcomings, but you get the idea. Not worth the $4 rental or the gas it takes to drive to and from the movie store to rent!

Sentiment: negative
I watched, entranced and mesmerized, by the vocal and physical acting. The roles each character played were done with excellence.The lyrics,the words, every gesture, the sunrise, told it all.The movie spoke to me. It enlightened me to a different perception of a person who believes in mankind. Who believes in peace and gentle behavior. I was also held in disbelieve, by the sacrifices and human dignity was portrayed. Power without grace, is demented and without feelings. To want power at the cost of mankind, is so unbelievable. This movie made me so afraid for the people who are no longer in this world. And, it is with sadness that I think of them. I like this movie for the conversations and face expressions to it all. May this movie be blessed.

Sentiment: positive
I must say, I found this movie very disappointing. Yes, I know Maltin gave it 3 1/2 and others think very highly of it. But, well, the opera sequences were god-awful. I take it Jeannete MacDonald is an acquired taste. Yes, in the short sequences I have seen her with Nelson Eddy, she is immensely preferable to him. But on her own...God, I dislike opera and despise operetta, and she is basically intolerable. At one point I had to cover my ears. Gable is just OK, and Tracy is thrown away. The plot is annoying in the JM never simply tells Gable she loves him and the opera and why can't she do both? Instead she suffers silently (or not so) with the compromises she makes. The supporting cast is distinctly unmemorable. Besides the star three and Jack Holt (and I suppose his mother), they all are just background and forgettable. The EQ sequence is the only thing that saves the movie. And just. Yes, it is fairly spectacular and moving. But the "oh God is great" seems very contrived. I immensely prefer "In Old Chicago" as far as old time disaster spectaculars go. Spare yourself on this one.

Sentiment: negative
What an absolute joke of a movie. The case for this film would have you believe it is Duel meets Jeepers Creepers meets Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Three good films in their own right and you would think, using their blueprint, MM couldn't go far wrong. Well that's what I thought, and I was very, very mistaken! 

We follow two college students as they travel miles across the desert to reach a wedding. They pick up a girl (no she doesn't get her clothes off), then they get chased by a Leatherface rip-off in a Monster Truck, whom they aptly name F**kface (AKA Monster Man).

The Monster Truck I will admit is a very cool vehicle, but the less than suspenseful chase scenes ruin it's potential.

So MM decides he's got a bit of a grudge against these guys and chases them for a bit, they loose him for a while and stop at a bar full of amputees, then they go to a motel where lead character Adam sleeps with hitch-hiker Sarah (though they both wear underwear!). Then they are caught by MM, taken to his home where they escape death and try to kill MM, but fail, hence the set-up for the sequel. Apart from a minor 'twist', that's it.

If you can get past the first 2 minutes  where Adam's friend Harley pops up from hiding in the back of Adam's car to try to scare him, with no explanation as to how Harley even got there, how long ago or how Adam even failed to realise  without thinking you hate it already, then you may just enjoy this film.

Monster Man has very poor cinematography and direction which is immediately off-putting. This is the kind of movie that you'll be able to pick up as one of those films in a box set of 20 horror movies that you've never heard of.

What is so irritating is Blockbuster stock so many of these poor quality films that are shot on digital by some amateur film students, and that's exactly what MM is (though IMDb states this particular director was born in 1961).

The acting throughout this film is atrocious. The script, which the writer obviously considered to be funny, is irritating and childish. You get the impression only one draft was written before they started shooting. In fact, the script is do dire a lot of the film seems improvised, full of those boring, un-entertaining conversations that are only funny or important to the actual people involved. Imagine you filmed yourself and your buddies having a conversation, sure, points are funny  TO YOU, but mostly it's trash. That's what the script for MM is like.

Don't watch it for the gore either  it's fairly minimal and there are much better gory films out there (Bad Taste, Evil Dead et al) 

Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2, even with their cheesiness and plot holes, are far superior to this film. Compare the intro of Jeepers Creepers to the intro of Monster Man and you'll see what I mean.

Sentiment: negative