DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This is Burt Reynolds'"Citizen Kane".Tragically nothing else he was ever involved in came close to approaching "Sharkey's Machine".It seemed to me that he put everything he had into it.It is a movie that is in love with movies.The opening sequence where Detective Sharkey single-handedly rescues a bus-load of hostages is an immensely exciting piece of cinema. Everything moves so quickly once it has started to go wrong that it appears to take on a life of its own,a brilliantly achieved effect. It looks cold,tense and dangerous on Mr Reynolds' streets. The precinct house looks dirty and tired,full of desperate people on both sides of the law,shouting,cursing out,trying to do deals or just stay alive.Into this underworld descends the recently demoted Sharkey - a reward for a bungled drugs bust(caused by a corrupt cop) - he and his team are part of the vice squad.Information they pick up concerning a crooked politician leads them into the world of high-class call girls and ruthless drug barons. Watching the apartment of one such call-girl(Rachel Ward)Sharkey falls in love with her portrait on the wall(I know,I know)and when a woman's body is found with its face shot off in one of the rooms,he thinks its her.(Well,I did say it was a movie that loved movies). The scene where she walks in on him works beautifully,even if you have seen the original. The film is full of good touches,I particularly like Charles Durning's war story,subtly acted and shot in sharp contrast to Sharkey's abduction and torture which is suitably harsh and brutal. I must mention Vittorio Gassman and Henry Silva as two disparate but equally evil brothers with absolutely no redeeming features whatsoever. They are "full on" every time they're on screen and are no loss to society when their time comes,Mr Silva's end being extra special indeed. As has been mention,this is a Clint Eastwood movie that Clint never made.The biggest compliment I can pay "Sharkey's Machine" is to point out that in my opinion Clint Eastwood couldn't have made a better job of it. The soundtrack is of an equally high standard,featuring Sarah Vaughan,Joe Williams,Julie London,Chet Baker and other top class artists. Randy Crawford's "Street Life" plays behind the title sequence,and I can never hear it without ,in my mind's eye,seeing Sharkey striding along the sidewalk. Like other correspondents I have never understood why this film was a bit of a flop.I hope it is due for a critical revision,particularly at a time when so many cop movies and shows without a quarter of its energy , freshness and sheer joie de vivre are lauded from the rooftops. If you're ever tempted to think of Burt Reynolds as a burnt - out one - trick pony,put "Sharkey's Machine" in your video machine.I promise you won't be disappointed.

Sentiment: positive
Definitely one of my favourite movies. The story is good, acting is great, all technicals (especially cinematography) are sharp and the script is clever.

Heath Ledger is terrific as Edward ''Ned'' Kelly. He is gripping as the legendary outlaw, and is supported well by Geoffrey Rush, Naomi Watts and Orlando Bloom. All action sequences are on point

The film is edge-of-your seat stuff right up to to the end. One of my favourite films from the late legend Heath Ledger, who has been the highlight of every film he has starred in. And makes no mistake here.

An excellent film all round.

Sentiment: positive
PROS: Akshay Kumar's performance(is it just me or does this guy always manages to trump AB in their movies together?). Some touching scenes in the 2nd half.

CONS: The whole 1st hour(the jokes were flat to say the least). Every scene involving Rajpal Yadav. Major stupidity in AB's decision making. Let me get this straight, he believes brutally insulting his son's soul in every possible way(that will likely ruin their relationship beyond repair) is a better way for him to make Akshay finally take some responsibility then actually telling him the truth?? WTF? He considers Akshaye is too soft to bear the fact that his OLD father is soon gonna die due to cancer, but thinks insulting him will make him stronger? Am I the only one who doesn't see the logic here? Easily the movie's biggest flaw.

- Akshay becoming a stunt man. LMAO!! We're told he finished 1st in college every year and has a degree in MBA. But when the time arrives to support himself, and his pregnant wife, he becomes a stunt man. LOL!! How abt actually applying for a normal job in ur field? Or Heck, anywhere else where ur life isn't in danger? This is some incredibly dumb writing.

- The ending. I hate this sort of melodramatic crap. Everything is pushed down our throats to feel sorry for AB's character, which I couldn't. The entire thing reminded me a little too much of Srk in KHNH(which I hate). This "please feel sorry for the guy with the illness" crap has run its course. I felt more like puking than sympathy for the OLD man. Couldn't watch the final 20 or so minutes because of it and thus had to fast fwd. the whole thing.

Bottomline: Waqt is just too dumb to be called a good movie. Its obvious director Vipul Shah targeted this at the emotionally fragile chicas and oldies who could care less about a story that actually makes sense. Give 'em some decent song picturizations, fancy outfits, plenty of glycerin-filled scenes and some star power and they'll happily lap-up crap like this.

Sentiment: negative
What can I say?? This movie has it all...Romance, break-ups, rich kids, punks and preps. This is my all time favorite movie that I can recite line for line....I remember when it first came out, I was 14 and couldn't get in....so finally got to see it on cable... I was hooked! Wanted to move to California and be a Valley Girl.. (Hey, I even remember the song by Moon Zappa, do you?) Tried in vain for years to get the never produced soundtrack...now you can find it on rhino records....

Sentiment: positive
With actors like Depardieu and Richard it is really a hard task to make a dull movie. But Weber is a master in setting a slow pace and making supposedly funny scenes without any wits and depth. This movie is high on story but low on character. You never get to know any of the characters except for superficial slapstick. Unfortunately Weber has no idea what slapstick is all about. His style could be described at hit and miss. Of course some people laugh when they see someone slip on a banana peel. Weber directs his humor at this lot. It is a shame how bad he uses good talent. Many good french comedians have been wasted away by mediocre directors.

Sentiment: negative
I don't know what it was about this film that made me react so viscerally against it. Perhaps it was the characters who so unlikable and were not compelling enough to care about. Perhaps it was the disorganized storyline. Perhaps it was the fact that Rob Lowe wore a long dangly earring and eyeliner. Perhaps it was because at some point in the movie they all break out in song. Perhaps it was because the 1980s were never that 80s. Perhaps it was because everything was a garish hyperbole. Perhaps it was because a character pumps his fist while driving away from the camera during a fade out. I don't know what it was that made me hate it so, but if it means trying to watch it again I'm not willing to find out.

Sentiment: negative
Standard "paint-by-numbers" monster fare, filled with a bunch of routine plot devices from big-creature movies. It's like somebody had a deck of cards with plot ideas from other movies written on them, which were shuffled, and dealt. Whatever plot lines and characters came up in the deal were then tossed into the script. 

Characters are so cliché-ridden, that you can play a game of "Guess who ends up as a monster meal" after less than ten minutes into the movie, and probably get every single one right--including the order that they will get devoured. Many of the characters are so obnoxious, that you root for the creature to shut them up. Some of the main characters include: a Billy Idol clone who surfs with sharks, a loudmouth brat who flashes bankrolls, a Capt. Ahab guy with a vendetta, and Ahab's girlfriend who does sleazy dances at a bar. Oh, and a big, big beast in need of anger management therapy.

Along the way, people argue a lot, pretty girls run around with wet t-shirts, couples make out on exotic beaches, explosions occur, ruins of a shrine appear, and greasy-faced pirates drop by. 

Amusing, for the most part, but one thing bothered me: the callousness by characters when other people were killed. After one violent demise, they make one-liner jokes. I could almost hear rim shots.

Overall, OK, if you have 90 minutes to waste, and you want to laugh at a so-bad-it's-good-movie. Otherwise, you may want to skip this one.

Sentiment: negative
Nicely and intelligently played by the two young girls, Mischa Barton as Frankie, and Ingrid Uribe as Hazel, although the plot is rather a stretch of the imagination. Young Hazel running for mayor seems out of place, to be honest.

While the acting is well done by all concerned the movie tends to lack a genuine atmosphere of drama. Perhaps we've grown to expect gritty reality in movies, rather like comparing Pollyanna to How Green Was My Valley! Never mind, each of them are good in their own way.

I do admire Joan Plowright even if her role is somewhat subdued here. Middle of the road entertainment well suited for younger viewers, and how nice at times to be exposed to fine classical music which is almost a rarity!

I find this movie to be a welcomed change as it reflects quieter, thoughtful values for the growing up years, and no violence thank goodness. A warm family film to enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
This is a bad movie in the traditional sense, but taken for what it is meant to be it is quite good. Very funny and well made, although there are a few death scenes that are in bad taste, what with jiggling breasts as a girl suffocates and so on.

Sentiment: positive
this movie I saw some 10 years ago (maybe more), I took it in a rental and never found it to buy even in French sites. The end is very surprising and intelligent. I would like very much to watch it again because I think it's as surpring as the Sixth Sense althogh a completely different kind of movie.

Sentiment: positive
Russell, my fav, is gorgeous in this film. But more than that, the film covers a tremendous range of human passion and sorrow. Everything from marriage to homosexuality is addressed and respected. The film makes the viewer realize that tolerance of other humans provides the route to saving humanity. Fabulous love story between Lachlin and Lil. I replay their scenes over and over again. Anyone who has ever been in love will empathize with these people. All characters are cast and portrayed excellently.

Sentiment: positive
In Paris, a few months before the Nazi invasion, the manipulative actress Viviane Denvers (Isabelle Adjani) uses her former sweetheart Frédéric Auger (Grégori Deràngere) to hide the body of a man killed by her. Frédéric hits the car, the dead man is found and he is sent to prison. When the Germans invade France, Frédéric escapes with another prisoner, Raoul (Yvan Attal), and they become friends. In the runaway to Bordeaux, they meet in the train Camille (Virginie Ledoyen), the young assistant of the physicist Professeur Kopolski (Jean-Marc Stehlé), who is trying to leave France with his research of heavy water. Once in Bordeaux, the group meets Viviane with her new lover, the minister of state Jean-Étienne Beaufort (Gérard Depardieu), and is chased by a German spy, the journalist Alex Winckler (Peter Coyote), while Paris is falling and the population is confused. 

What a delightful and magnificent romantic adventure "Bon Voyage" is! The excellent and complex screenplay has action, romance, war, comedy, espionage, drama and lots of characters, played by a fantastic cast, indeed a constellation of stars; the direction is stunning; the music score is wonderful. I really loved this marvelous film, and I have to finish my review due to my limitation of adjectives to describe such a gem. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Viagem do Coração" ("Travel of the Heart")

Sentiment: positive
I like to think of myself as a bad movie connoisseur. I like to think that the films most people label as the worst of all time I can easily withstand.

But...there are exceptions. I can only recall three movies I have had the misfortune to see that I have repeatedly used the fast-forward button for large chunks of the story. Those movies are The Mighty Gorga, Night of the Seagulls, and this little crap, Deep Blood.

In the world of Jaws ripoffs, this falls off the scale. Deep Blood doesn't have the realistic storyline of the original Crocodile, nor the incredible effects of The Sea Serpent, nor the commentary of Tintorera. No, instead we are treated to a handful of teens from any random failed '80s public access sitcom battling bullies and the local sheriff.

Shark attacks are realized by quick cuts of documentary footage with actors thrashing about in the water, occasionally with a bit of what appears to be orange-ish paint thrown into the water. Not a minute of original shark footage exists in this celluloid waste dump.

Normally, I, or somebody like me, would read a dismal review like this one and say "cool, I gotta find a copy of this!" That's the same thought I had when I read another viewer's review on this very site. How wrong I was.

So...from one bad movie fan to another...let this collect dust on the shelf...grab Up From the Depths or The Great Alligator instead to satisfy your need for something evil lurking in the water.

Sentiment: negative
The film starts with a manager (Nicholas Bell) giving welcome investors (Robert Carradine) to Primal Park . A secret project mutating a primal animal using fossilized DNA, like ¨Jurassik Park¨, and some scientists resurrect one of nature's most fearsome predators, the Sabretooth tiger or Smilodon . Scientific ambition turns deadly, however, and when the high voltage fence is opened the creature escape and begins savagely stalking its prey - the human visitors , tourists and scientific.Meanwhile some youngsters enter in the restricted area of the security center and are attacked by a pack of large pre-historical animals which are deadlier and bigger . In addition , a security agent (Stacy Haiduk) and her mate (Brian Wimmer) fight hardly against the carnivorous Smilodons. The Sabretooths, themselves , of course, are the real star stars and they are astounding terrifyingly though not convincing. The giant animals savagely are stalking its prey and the group run afoul and fight against one nature's most fearsome predators. Furthermore a third Sabretooth more dangerous and slow stalks its victims.

The movie delivers the goods with lots of blood and gore as beheading, hair-raising chills,full of scares when the Sabretooths appear with mediocre special effects.The story provides exciting and stirring entertainment but it results to be quite boring .The giant animals are majority made by computer generator and seem totally lousy .Middling performances though the players reacting appropriately to becoming food.Actors give vigorously physical performances dodging the beasts ,running,bound and leaps or dangling over walls . And it packs a ridiculous final deadly scene. No for small kids by realistic,gory and violent attack scenes . Other films about Sabretooths or Smilodon are the following : ¨Sabretooth(2002)¨by James R Hickox with Vanessa Angel, David Keith and John Rhys Davies and the much better ¨10.000 BC(2006)¨ by Roland Emmerich with with Steven Strait, Cliff Curtis and Camilla Belle. This motion picture filled with bloody moments is badly directed by George Miller and with no originality because takes too many elements from previous films. Miller is an Australian director usually working for television (Tidal wave, Journey to the center of the earth, and many others) and occasionally for cinema ( The man from Snowy river, Zeus and Roxanne,Robinson Crusoe ). Rating : Below average, bottom of barrel.

Sentiment: negative
We have high expectations with this one . . . because its Zombi 3 the official sequel to Zombi 2 and directed by Lucio Fulci . . . however . . . its co-directed by Bruno Mattei (from Night of the Zombies) and not written by Dardino Sachetti but by Claudio Fagrasso (Night of the Zombies) and its shot in the Phillimines like Night of the Zombies and resembles Night of the Zombies (Hell of the Living Dead) a lot. as a result its more like a companion to Hell of the Living Dead than Zombi 2. Fabrazio DeAngelis who produced Zombi 2 and its editor Tomassi (?) and efx gianetto De Rossi gave Zombi 2 its magic . . . Zombi 3 is not magical . . . its like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without the peanut-butter. But over the years, I've grown to accept Zombi 3. I could swear I saw a version where a soldier was bitten on the arm and went to the hotel room . . . there was a senseless Fulci-cut and the Mattei/Fulci-cut is the one on DVD.

Sentiment: positive
The remarkable, sometimes infuriating, often brilliant films of John Cassavetes occupy a unique position in American cinema Low-budget, partly improvised, inspired by cinéma verité documentary, and related to underground film, they have nevertheless frequently managed to reach a wide and profoundly appreciative audience 

After drama studies, the young Cassavetes quickly made his name as an unusually unrefined, intense actor, often appearing in films about disaffected, rebellious youth such as "Crime in the Streets" and "Edge of the City." 

Setting up an actors' workshop, he worked to transform an improvisational experiment into his feature debut The result, "Shadows," taking three years to complete and partly financed by his performances in TV's Johnny Staccato, was a breakthrough in American cinema About the effect of racism on an already fraught relationship between two black men and their sister, two of whom pass for white, the film is impressive for its irregular, seemingly formless style and naturalistic performances Plot was minimal, mood and emotional apparent truth were everything

Sentiment: positive
never before have i seen such a tale of such talentless hangers on been so ungrateful that their golden goose has failed to lay. these spunk monkeys are parasites and bad examples of friends. i felt sorry for troy as he tried to hook up all of his friends with Hollywood gigs, but as soon as things turned sour, they all left troy hanging. overnight was a contrived effort of self indulgent retribution on a man who was going up against the forces of Hollywood to retain story integrity. The simple premise of Overnight is to try an communicate the message, "look at this guy, he blew it all", when in fact he has a strong underground following, dealt with harsh blows from friends and executives all in the name of getting a project done in the way he envisioned it. Quite frankly the only productive par that any of these guys played in the overall execution of the Boondock Saints shoot culminated as nothing more than extra bodies in the first bar room scene, after that all they did was whine why they weren't a bigger deal based on the clambering of their rancid efforts on top of troys shoulders. (the 2nd half of this was written by Adam j farina)

Sentiment: negative
Joan Fontaine stars as the villain in this Victorian era film. She convincingly plays the married woman who has a lover on the side and also sets her sights on a wealthy man, Miles Rushworth who is played by Herbert Marshall. Mr. Marshall is quite good as Miles. Miss Fontaine acted her part to perfection--she was at the same time cunning, calculating, innocent looking, frightened and charming. It takes an actress with extraordinary talent to pull that off. Joan Fontaine looked absolutely gorgeous in the elegant costumes by Travis Banton. Also in the film is Joan's mother, Lillian Fontaine as Lady Flora. I highly recommend this film.

Sentiment: positive
This sad romance is untellable because the director decides to break its narration and to offer the points of view of each characters. So, there are a lot of flashbacks, of re-shooting of the same scene. But, it would be an extraordinary moment of cinema to put all the fragments in order to see the result! 

And it would worth it, because it's for me, just one the best French movie ever made! 

It has everything: 

Cast: first steps of Monica Bellucci and Vincent Cassel! Such a presence and such voices, even for a hard-of-hearing! It's symbolic for them to have fallen in love with this movie!

Directing: his camera is bright, alive, plays with the sets or can be mysterious with long close-up "à la David Lynch".

Cinematography: the light is beautiful, between gold and rust, like their love!

A never-seen before Paris: It's a Paris out-of-time of more accurately, a composite of a lot of districts! Huge search here! It's look like Gotham City, modern and old at the same time! 

Music: Not the big orchestra but in perfect tune with the frames. And the song of Charles Aznavour made me discover this great singer! 

Ah,  the story! As I said, it's a love story but rather tragic: Saying that love can be for nothing, that it doesn't make all people happy or isn't guaranteed for a sweet ending is great because this message isn't often told! Love is passion, which is derivative from the Latin "pain". You can suffer a lot when you are in love! Because of the Why .. ?, of the endless waiting, the lack of courage, the indecision. 

And when you can ease yourself, fate, destiny, god (?), devil (?) can stab you in the back , just because you arrive too soon or too late, and above all, because love means 2 in a world of billions! A lot of things can happen and as much stories can be written! So, what's love? 

Personally, I lived some moments like this: in a car with the dear one. Her mobile rings and you know it's her "special friend" whom she kisses goodbye (and not you, even if we are always together). So, you want to go out of this car to leave them together, to not hear the sweet but cruel words but you can't, because an amazing hard rain just started! 

I found that this movie depicts those moments of tragedy as no one else!

Sentiment: positive
I am disgusted and appalled by the positive reviews this movie is receiving. Not only is it hokey, manipulative, and melodramatic. It's also shamelessly offensive. The character of Radio `Gooding Jr.' is paraded around as a cute little stuff animal, like a puppy that's so cute you just want to take him home.' This mentality is shameless; Radio is never treated as a human being, but as a manipulative device to draw sympathies from its audience. Even more atrocious are the film's numerous moments, in which Radio gets hit in the head/trips/falls over/etc. These moments of slapstick comedy had the audience howling with laughter merely purely because, `it's funny because Radio is retarded' This is shameless, Now I do not feel that the word `retarded' is an appropriate word at all to describe the mentally disabled, but this seems to be the stance the film is taking, `Radio is retarded, but that's okay, because he's cute and we like him.' Gooding's portrayal seems better suited for a John Water's film than an inspiring family drama. To add insult to injury the film is incompetent on every level, Debra Winger is uninspired in the role as the `stereotypical housewives' that the very reminder of her heinous monologues insights laughter in all who see the film. The Score by John Horner is pure sap always overlaying its tear some score over the tired cinematography. Ed Harris is decent in a role he could have slept through, but manages to retain much of the audience's attention throughout the film. In conclusion, if you consider yourself a decent human being, ignore this travesty of a film, read the book, but otherwise skip this dire film on an interesting character from American history.

Sentiment: negative
I'll tell you what happened, some people with money thought it would be nice to ruin one of the best shows that was on TV. Did we really need a big screen re-make? Did they ask the fans? I wonder how all the fans would feel if they did a remake of "Rocky Horror Picture Show" with actors like Ashton Krutcher, Steve Martin, Britney Spears, and Kiefer Southerland, took out all the music, and made it a drama. Do you think they would like that! This movie does not have the same feel to it that the original had. Sure the original was a bit corny at times, but Bo and Luke were always nice, they got into trouble because they were always set up to get into trouble, and their main objective was to help people that passed through town. None of that mattered to the people that made this film, they might have never even seen the original show all the way through. My big question is, what will they ruin next?

Sentiment: negative
This is a very modest, very lovely movie with a great score by Hoagy Carmichael and Frank Loesser with a standout number, We're The Couple In The Castle, that is totally evocative of the period and harks back to Penthouse Serenade just as the opening premise (Hoppity's coming) may well have inspired Fred Saidy and Yip Harburg's opening (Woody's Coming) in Finian's Rainbow six years later. I totally agree with those posters who have noted that were the name Disney appended to this it would by now have achieved 'classic' status rather than have fallen into neglect. It's wonderfully inventive, never more so than when objects barely noticed in the 'real' world assume a much greater significance - both pro and con - in the insect world. Actually it IS a classic, albeit a minor one.

Sentiment: positive
It starts really interesting - the story develops around the main character, who runs a "cleaning business", specialized in cleaning up crime scenes. As a former cop, he runs into some strange situation, when one job does suddenly "offically vanish". Furthermore, he discovers some relation to an investigation into police corruption. His "Columbo Feeling" is justified, the deeper he gets into the background of the story. The good actors (Jackson, Ed Harris, Eva Mendes) play in an suspenseful story with some twists --- but only up to the last 25 minutes. (up to here 7 of 10 stars). SPOILER:::: Suddenly the movie looses its touch and in the end there is a completely unnecessary shoot-out, involving the 14-year old daughter, a betrayal of friendship and a not justified righteousness out of the character development... why not having Cutler giving up his investigation for the sake of the friendship? or having the daughter discovering some facts? or ... many possible much better story finishes are imaginable... a truly wasted ending!

Sentiment: negative
Out of the many films I've seen, Tommy Boy is a rare film where I can watch it over and over and it's still funny. David Spade and the late Chris Farley do their best in this film and is a must-see by anyone who's a fan of the Spade-Farley duo.

Sentiment: positive
If you were ever a fan of MTV"s "The State," then these three guys will be familiar to you. But even if you only stumbled upon them via the internet like I did, you will soon come to appreciate their unique brand of comedy.

Born out of their stand up comedy trio, 'Stella', Michael Ian Black, Michael Showalter and David Wain produced these brilliant vignettes of surreal comedy to display at their shows, and now after being available only to download from two websites, they appear in pristine glory on one DVD.

Think comedy sketch show sans censorship, and you'd be halfway there. No stone of decency is left unturned. But for those who like their comedy rude, self-indulgent and bordering on puerile, (and I mean that in the most flattering way) this is the DVD for you!

I think it's worth the money for the commentary from the two Michaels and David alone, you can't help but take a liking to them as they explain their actions, cringe at their own antics with sex toys and by turn pat each other on the back and hurl abuse.

Fantastic.

It must say something for the appeal of Stella that the likes of Julie Bowen and Paul Rudd are willing to throw themselves into the action so fearlessly. And you should follow their fine example, throw preconceptions to the wind, and prepare to laugh yourself sick.

Sentiment: positive
I had a great time watching Femina Ridens a couple of mornings back, somewhat hungover. For most of the film its pretty much a two hander, showing the games and weird relationship of crazy doctor Philipe Leroy and stunning Dagmar Lassander. I'd seen her before in a couple of Fulci films dying gruesome deaths, but here she is young hip and beautiful. The film is pretty predictable and certainly mild on the exploitation front, but entertaining throughout owing too its marvellous colourful kitsch feel. The set design, music, lighting and cinematography are all classic late sixties Italian style, a surreal feast for the eyes and ears and though the general thread of the plot is not too difficult to foresee there are more than enough unusual events and memorably bizarre sights and sounds to keep things interesting throughout. Both leads are pretty good, and it bears repeating that Dagmar Lassander is really, really fine. The music, by Stelvo Cipriani is gnarly too, perfectly suited to the images. Director Pierro Schivazappa has come up with quite a cracker here, but its not perfect. Though very alluring, there's little substance here and the exploitation elements are about as mild as can be. I guess this gives it a sort of charm and innocence but I can't help thinking that the subject matter could have done with more sleaze, more threat, that sorta thing, especially since its pretty simple to figure whats going to happen. This is I suspect a bit pointless for stronger exploitation fans and certainly not for people wanting sex or much nudity. Its more of a light, fun pop art affair, lovable but insubstantial, like bubble bath. Recommended mainly for those fond of the 60's, Dagmar Lassander, or sweet set designs.

Sentiment: positive
Before I start...let me say that I fully believe in God. I believe in Heaven and in Hell. Kay now that thats out of the way, I just wanna say that What in the world do these morons that call themselves "hosts" think they are doing?? The last time I checked a host doesn't discriminate, spew hatred filled rants on TV, or try to shove their own beliefs down every unfortunate soul that ventures onto the channel. ALl of these that crazy, idiotic, conservitive, bible thumping, Fred Phelps lover Pat Robertson does daily. I am all for free speech, but since when does that cover a guy who pretty much says that if you venture off his ideal way of life you are right away sent to hell? This is just a perfect example of why religion is the cause of SOOOO many problems. One day in my class room we had a substitute teacher in so we decided to watch some TV since the teach didn't give us any work. And we (against many of us's will) watched 700's Club, and of course that jerk Pat was on ranting and raving about the bible, and he said Simon along the lines of "God says Homosexuality is a sin" and I actually heard a kid go "Hmm I guess he's right." WTF??? Seriously, if the host is trying to make people think that someone else's sexual orientation is a huge sin, then they seriously need to take that host, duct tape them, and throw them off of a cruise liner in the middle of the arctic.

Sentiment: negative
Let's not kid ourselves, this atrocity is not Plan Nine or Cat Women. It is bad, period! The performances vary from drama school theatrics (Marla English) to a 'couldn't care less' walk through (Tom Conway). The photography (even in a good print) is so murky it is occasionally hard to see what is happening. The real problem, however, is the aimless, pointless, nearly plot less story and the leaden, paceless direction. At a brisk 77 minutes it still feels endless.

The screenplay is especially inept. There are two story lines that only intersect at the very end of the picture. Tom Conway is trying to create a super race, using voodoo and modern science (although there is little science in evidence) which he can control telepathically. He is keeping his wife prisoner (for no discernible reason). Meanwhile a couple of petty crooks and a white hunter type guide are trying to find the village in which he is working, in the expectation of gold and jewels. When they finally arrive, Tom Conway decides that one of them, the woman, is the perfect subject for his experiments. She is turned into a monster, kills Conway (natch!) and then reverts to normal. She sees a gold statue half drowned in a boiling pool, tries to retrieve it and falls in the water and apparently drowns. The white hunter rescues the wife. In the final shot we see the supposedly drowned woman emerge as the monster again; threatening a sequel (now that really is a scary thought!).

The AIP producer, Samuel Z Arkoff, in a lecture included on the DVD, prides himself on spotting the teenage niche market and satisfying it with ingenious low budget movies. However, it is difficult to see how anyone could think this rancid concoction would satisfy any sort of audience. What appeal do they think it could possibly have? The monster appears so rarely that it could hardly be called a horror film. The jungle action is tepid and tedious. There are no teenagers in it and no characters that teenagers could be expected to identify with.

The producers exposed 77 minutes of film, but they didn't make a movie. This is a con trick and Arkoff should be ashamed of his association with it.

Sentiment: negative
No,

Basically your watching something that doesn't make sense. To not spoil the film for people who actually want to this take a look at the flick I will explain the story.

A normal everyday to day women, is walking down a street then find's herself driving by in her own car. She follows her and many events take place during that time that include her and her family.

I specifically made an account to comment on this film, of how horribly written this was. The acting was great, the events were great, but the story just brought it nowhere - it could of been added to tremendously and be made into a worldwide epidemic. I'm not sure what the writer was trying to accomplish by making this, usually at the end of films most of your questions get answers but this film has you asking, What just happened and 1 hour 20 minutes just passed for nothing.

Spoiler Starts__

They had this area between 2 dimensions (ours and behind the glass) that would come into our world and kill us. It was not elaborated on all during the film, and you never know how it was happening or why it was or when it happened. Nothing gets explained during the film. The main character shouldn't of even been the main character. At the end of the film the guy who finally figures it all out and runs away (her sisters boyfriend) should of been the main character but sadly the movie ends 20 seconds after. 

I bought this movie for $10, threw it out right after.. don't waste your time. I really hope nothing like this is made again.

Sentiment: negative
Unfortunately, this film has long been unavailable (as other posters have noted), but this is one of the essential dramas of the Great Depression, a lyrical and touching drama of love set in a shanty-town. It features performances by Spencer Tracy and Loretta Young that are just about the finest of their careers, and it's a surpassing example of how the director, Frank Borzage, was able to create an almost fairy-tale aura around elements of poverty, crime, and horrendous social inequity, which just proves that how truly romantic and spiritual his talents were. This film shows how love survives amidst squalor and desperate need, and it is totally life-affirming. This is a real masterpiece of the period, and is a movie that deserves to be more widely known.

Sentiment: positive
"Are You in the House Alone?" belongs to the pre-cable TV days when the networks were eager to offer an alternative to popular TV shows. It is well-made thriller with a talented cast and credible situations. Kathleen Beller plays a High School student who gets a series of threatening letters. Everyone seems to think that it is nothing more than a prank but Beller is really scared. Tony Bill and Blythe Danner play Beller's parents, Ellen Travolta (John's sister) is the High School Principal and Dennis Quaid has one of his earliest roles as a cocky rich kid. It's a competent chiller with a still relevant social message. Beller is lovely - if you are 30 or older, you will remember that she was very popular among youngsters. Blythe Danner, who I usually don't like, gives a truly moving performance. Nice little film.

Sentiment: positive
I love Morgan Freeman. Paz Vega is an attractive, appealing and talented actress. I'm sure that this would have been a good movie had anything happened in it. Nothing does. It's short (less than 90 minutes). It was 75 minutes too long. After an hour of frustration, I scanned through the remaining 20-odd minutes. Excruciating.

Freeman plays an actor - who hasn't worked in a while - researching a part that he might play, as a checkout clerk in a supermarket. He visits the supermarket where she works. Nothing happens. She decides to give him a ride home and they go to an Arby's, a Target, a car wash. Nothing happens. They converse about their lives. Nothing happens. Ever.

I don't get it. But I also don't get the Bill Murray flicks "Lost In Translation" and "Broken Flowers". If you like those movies, maybe you'll like this. Lots of people find movies like this whimsical, charming, or - for reasons that escape me - find the dialog fascinating. A common device in movies of this ilk is to have a LONG take of stillness/silence after an actor delivers a line that's supposed to be meaningful. We know it's meaningful because it's followed by two minutes of nothing on the screen. Sorry, I must be a philistine. I don't get it. To me, these kinds of movies aren't funny, or charming, or thought-provoking. They're just boring. Why? Because there's no comedy. No drama. No tension. No laughs. No suspense. No action. Nothing to watch. In short, none of the things I go to the movies for. I can be bored for free. I see oddball/quirky characters in real life. I go to Target, and fast-food restaurants, and car-washes. These elements do not a movie make, even if stars are doing this stuff. I pay to be entertained.

If you're crazy about Morgan Freeman and just like to hear him ramble on about nothing, have fun. If you wanna drool over Paz Vega, you can look and listen to her. But nothing happens, I promise. A total snoozefest.

Sentiment: negative
This is the worst piece of crap I have seen recently. There is nothing good about this movie. The plot is plain stupid, dialogs don't make any sense, humorous scenes never heard anything about the real humor. Actors just don't play, the worse they don't even try. The script itself is somewhat which is in the same league with Ed Wood and Uwe Boll. There is only one good thing in this flick, the fights. They are well choreographed as one would expect of the Hong Kong guys, and are the only reason to watch Prince of the Sun. Although I believe the fights are just supposed to fill the empty space so that the screenwriter didn't have to bother thinking about the storyline. However, this weak and absurd plot may prevent you from watching it to the end. Avoid it unless you are fan of the dragon lady Cynthia Rothrock.

Sentiment: negative
"Icky Flix" is an excellent starting point for anybody with even a vague interest in the Residents. Most of their classic videos are present (although "Earth vs. Flying Saucers" and "Don't Be Cruel" are curiously missing), and the "concentrates" of their various CD-ROM projects offer tantalizing glimpses into how the orbed ones have been spending their time since they realized MTV was no longer putting them in heavy rotation (or, indeed, showing videos period).

All of the videos on this compilation feature striking imagery and idiosyncratic music (with a choice of the original tracks and newly-recorded ones). And two of them -- "The Third Reich 'n' Roll" and "One Minute Movies" -- are in the Museum of Modern Art's permanent collection. Check out this DVD and find out why.

Sentiment: positive
The 70s were without a doubt the golden age of "made-for-TV" horror. This is one of those that was probably churned out as an ABC movie of the week. It's the old story of a house and/or ghost possessing one of the new owners. The movie has promise, but it's never realized. Everything is rushed too much. Tension and suspense need time to build and grow. And there's nothing new. We've seen it all before and one better.

One final thought: I don't understand why Robert Wagner's character would fall for the long dead movie star when he's married to Kate Jackson for goodness sake!!!

Sentiment: negative
The worst Wrestlemania ever.

This had no must see bouts and many crap ones at that. This took place in Las Vegas and WWE made it's employees dress up like Egyptian gods! They even changed Howard Finkels name to Finkus Maximus, which probably doesn't mean anything. The sight of seeing Jim Ross in that terrible gown still gives me nightmares to this day and I'm 21 years old, so you could imagine it when I was 7 years old! Bobby Heenan was funny though.

Matches included The Undertaker vs Giant Gonzales in a p*ss poor match, The Headshrinkers vs The Steiner Brothers in a useless match, Doink vs Crush in a comedy match and a boring match featuring Razor Ramon vs Bob Backlund. Hulk Hogan teamed up with Brutus Beefcake to battle Money Inc. You could clearly see Hogan had a black eye. In storyline purposes Ted DiBiase and IRS beat up Hogan while he was playing poker or something like that in the casinos, which is a poor storyline, but in reality, Macho Man Randy Savage hit Hogan because Savage thinks he's like The Hulk (no pun intended) no not the wrestler but the film character.

The main event consisted of Bret 'Hitman' Hart facing off against Yokozuna in a very boring main event match. Mr Fuji threw salt in the face of Hart and Yoko won, but not until Hogan came down and squashed Yoko in 21 seconds.

Overall Grade - E

Sentiment: negative
Arg. The shuffling dinosaurs are back to take another bite out of our sanity in this all-awful third film. This time, European terrorists(Irish I'd say) hi-jack an army convoy supposed to be transporting uranium. They pull into a shipyard, open the truck and discover our old friends the carnosaurs. Pandemonium comes visiting then when the rubber dinos chomp the terrorists, the cops and some marines. The whole film seems to be (again) largely inspired from Alien(as Carnosaur 2 was) with the pathetic marines going through the "claustrophobic" shipyard? guns at the ready. This third opus is probably the driest and ungoriest film of the lot, with only one spurt of blood when a rubber dino rips a marine's head off. The dinos are stiff, shuffling creatures as usual and the T-Rex sounds like an enraged elephant when it roars(it also appears to have no eyes). One of the goofiest scenes of the film is when the coppers arrive on the scene: they enter the building where the hijacked truck is kept and hear some weird noise coming from another truck. On opening it, surprise! The Rubber Reptile Gang burst out and devour them. Why were the dinos locked up in the second truck after escaping from the first? How did they get locked in as the truck door could only be locked from the outside? What was the point of filming this scene???? Oh bother, who cares? Both thumbs down for the Over-sized Rubber Iguanas.

Sentiment: negative
when you get to the scenes that involve Albert Brooks without his shirt... try not to gag on a fur ball.

I like Albert Brooks. I've seen most, if not all of his movies but it was the first time seeing this one. Modern Romance is an interesting take on the subject of love. There are few movies that handle the desperation of love as well or as overtly as Modern Romance, although 1979's Chilly Scenes of Winter comes very close. They both essentially deal with obsessed men that are too psychologically attracted/obsessed to their respective women.

Where-as Chilly Scenes of Winter borders on the subject stalking, this movie has a more grounded foundation with the subject of love because both people are already in a relationship.. and out of the relationship.. and back in it again.

And because it's a movie that was released in 1981, it is of its time in terms of styles and such. That's the main reason I like this movie. My basic rule when it comes to movies is "If it sucks at least it may have some historic relevance", you know time capsule stuff.

Which leads me to the horrific scenes of Albert Brooks sans shirt.

The man is hair. Very hair. Like he's wearing a black curly fur sweater-hairy. And what's worse is he almost looks burn victim-hairy. It's not a pleasant sight and the scenes with him without a shirt go on and on. Back in the early 80's hairy men were seen as normal and nothing shocking. But in 2009 the sight of something like this is just plain revolting. Sorry, Albert! I wish at some point someone said "hey let's try this scene but with you wearing a simple t-shirt, I mean you might scare people". It's just really bad and I feel sorry for the poor pretty actress that had to deal with Albert Brooks naked body on top of hers. She was probably pulling out his hairs from her teeth for days after that.

Anyway, it's an OK movie. It could have been better if I hadn't see Albert Brooks without his shirt for what seemed like 10 long continuous minutes because that will forever taint my viewing of this movie.

Sentiment: negative
Extremely well-conceived - part whatever happened to, part behind the scenes revisitation, part reunion film - all done in the same campy style that made the original series so much fun. I only wish this had been done 10 years ago to include more guest villains who have passed on.

Sentiment: positive
I guess I have to write something here, although I think my one summary says it all. I'm not a huge Ted Danson fan... nothing against the man, just hasn't "done it" for me. This covers the sides of Swift's novel that were never covered before. You can tell the cast was having a wonderful time filming this.

Sentiment: positive
I vaugely recall seeing this when I was 3 years old, then my parents accidentally taped over all but a few seconds of it with some other cartoon. Then I was about 8 or 9 years old when I rediscovered it and since I was then able to comprehend things better, I thought it was a good movie then. Fast forward to Just a few weeks ago (June 2006) when I re-re discovered it thanks to some internet articles/video clips and it's just not the same movie. I'm sure it's still good with the kids, but to us 20-30 somethings it's definitely got "Cult Status" written all over it. It's a shame that the original production went through a painful process; if Fox gave it enough time it would probably be more recognized in the public eye today. Maybe if they were to remake it with a totally different story and an all star voice cast it could be, but that's for Fox to decide. I'm rambling here, I know. I Still think it's a great film, but it could be better than great.

Sentiment: positive