DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT is everything when one goes to rate a movie. When rating this movie one has to consider the time in which it was made. We didn't really know WHAT the inside of the EARTH was in those days so you can't rag on the movie too much for the plot (based on a much older book). For the era, this was top notch special effects and the production quality was great. I watched this movie in a masterfully restored HD master. For the time the makeup and effects almost make the guys in the rubber suits look plausible as a monster-thing. This is pure movie cheese complete with bad rubber suits, models, and creepy costumes. AWESOME. PS Doug McClure ROCKS!

Sentiment: positive
I should have gone without seeing the movie after reading the review here. I saw the whole movie by fast forwarding and ended in 25 minutes. though its a low budget movie it could have been made better. 

The movie starts more like a thriller and in few minutes it tells you that you should switch off immediately. And why was the movie named "crash landing" when it was landed so well in such a bad climate. 

Without any acting, all the characters where just moving or doing like kids.

And should not forget to comment on the joker - the main hijacker who would have been more suitable if this movie was a full time comedy.

Sentiment: negative
This film is so copy-cat, cliché-ridden, clumsy, and laboured, I find it astounding that anyone could not feel cheated by the experience of sitting through it. 

Here is the range of idiotic clichés, ridiculous psychologising, and simply unfeasible storytelling in this "hard hitting" representation of high school: The tough guy jock is really a homosexual. The A-student is unhappy because his father pushes him and somehow this causes him to commit incest. A teacher is mean to a student who wets his pants in class. A girl who is going out with the above-mentioned jock is really in love with him and "just wants a family".

Maybe the only saving grace is the student counsellor scenes which are vaguely interesting, but most of the devices in this film are so leaden that it beggars belief. 

This film shows me no insight into teenagers and I will not be surprised when it bombs, especially with teenagers. The people who like this film seem to be parents worried about their teenagers, and boy are they barking up the wrong tree if they think this film will help with "understanding" teen issues. I mean, what is the moral of this film? "Hey guys, let's all look out for each other and hug each other" GIVE ME A BREAK. Anyone who thinks you can get through to a 14 year old with that kind of message needs to think back. In the 1980s we were watching Kentucky Fried Movie, Xtro, Porky's, Evil Dead, Terminator, etc. This film will fall on deaf ears. 

2:37 is right up there with another Australian "indepedent" film, 'One Perfect Day,' which was as bad as this utter turkey of a film. Thank god no taxpayers money was spent on this boloney.

AVOID!!!!

Sentiment: negative
I saw this film at the Adelaide Film Festival '07 and was thoroughly intrigued for all 106 minutes. I like documentaries, but often find them dragging with about 25 minutes to go. Forbidden Lie$ powered on though, never losing my interest.

The film's subject is Norma Khoury, a Jordanian woman who found fame and fortune in 2001 with the publication of her book Forbidden Love, a biographical story of sorts concerning a Muslim friend of hers who was murdered by her family for having a relationship with a Christian man. A few years later though, a few journalists started poking holes in the story, leading the public to believe it was fraud. The film covers this quickly but thoroughly in the beginning, and from there we spend most of our time in the company of Norma as she tries to convince us that her novel is more than fiction.

Director Anna Broinowski has found a truly fascinating woman to study, and she conducts endless interviews with Khoury as she seeks the truth. As always in life, the truth is not so easy to find. Norma fears for her life, worried about violent backlash over the unsavoury portrait her novel paints of Jordanian Muslims. She refuses to return to Jordan and show us the facts. Broinowski is not deterred however, and slowly puts the pieces together in front of us.

The result is an incredible look inside the mind of a con artist. Naturally, what we find there makes little sense and is extremely difficult to follow, and ultimately we don't know whether to believe Norma or not. She's either a rather unfairly put-upon woman trying to survive, or a fantastic spinster. The web of lies, truths and half-truths she turns through the film is brilliant.

The film uses much interview footage, as well as dramatisations to tell it's story, and Broinowski uses these dramatisations to show us why people like Norma are able to exist: we want to be conned. We go to the cinema every day and allow ourselves to believe what's happening on the screen is real. That might just be me reading into things a bit too much, it didn't come up in the Q&A with Brionowski after the film, but that's what I took away from it.

This is a great Australian film, and must receive an international release, and a swag of awards if you ask me. Certainly the best film I saw at AFF07.

Go see it, if you get the chance.

Sentiment: positive
The first time you watch this movie you may hate it, but the 2nd time you see this movie I guarantee laughs all around. The owners of the dogs are so ecclectic that you can't help but look at them and laugh. From the littlest toy poodle to the announcer, everything will make you laugh. And you may learn every single nut there is!

Sentiment: positive
I wholeheartedly agree with Greg in Ontario. I saw this movie today with a friend who actually went to the theatre manager afterwards and told him "That was possibly the worst movie I have ever seen." I have seen a LOT of movies with this person, and he's pretty forgiving, so I was actually shocked. (The manager gave him a free pass!)

I was offended by much of the humor in the film (yes, the baked potato scene was on the top of the list!). My friend and I are white and saw the film with a primarily black audience. For awhile I thought, maybe I just don't get this movie because I'm white. Then I realized NO ONE was laughing. The writing was bad; the direction was bad; the timing was almost non-existent.

There were a few funny moments, there was just WAY too much time between them. Even Airplane Two was funnier than this, and that's saying a lot.

I was so dazzled by Snoop Dogg in Starsky and Hutch (as Huggy Bear) that I felt I was sure to enjoy this movie. Nope.

DL Hughley was funny, as usual, but his role was rather small. Tom Arnold had a few funny moments as "the white guy", but most other attempts at humor fell far short of the mark.

Sadly, I was not able to award this film a rating with negative stars.

Sentiment: negative
I haven't seen all of Jess Franco's movies, I have seen 5, I think, and there are more than 180 of them. So maybe it's a bit early to say so but "Necronomicon Geträumte Sünden" (better known as 'Succubus', but that is the cut version) is according to me if not the best, certainly on of Franco's best. Franco is best known (although 'known' might be slightly exaggerated) for "Vampiros Lesbos", a weird cultish movie that got more acclaim in the mid 90's when people found out Jess Franco was also an interesting composer. Through the soundtrack a happy few discovered the man and found out what was to be expected after seeing the video clip of 'The lion and the cucumber' ('Vampyros Lesbos OST'): Jess Franco is an overwhelming director. When the phone rang during 'Vampiros', I let it ring. I just wanted to see more of the movie. Since that moment Franco never could grip me that much. But then I stumbled on this movie. It is even better than "Vampiros Lesbos", I think. Franco is looking for what he can do with a story and a camera. We find out he can do a lot. I certainly didn't expect to find "Necronomicon" that great: its beginning didn't impress me at all. Remember, I had seen "Vampiros Lesbos" before (although chronologically that came only three years later) and both movies kinda start the same. But then the story went on, puzzling and gripping, beautiful camera work and the stuff you would like to see Godard do if he weren't so occupied with spreading his political messages. Later on in the movie I heard a dialogue about which art was or wasn't old-fashioned. The man says that all movies have to be old-fashioned because it takes weeks before the audience sees what got filmed. But the girl replies that "Bunuel, Fritz Lang and Godard yesterday made movies for tomorrow". Janine Reynaud is an interesting lead actress and of course Howard Vernon, a Franco regular, is also there. Luckily the acting is good (something that can spoil a lot of Franco movies for you, but not this one). But certainly watch out for the dummy scene. The erotic tension, the wild directing and the fact that it's a yesterday's movie for tomorrow make it a movie a lot of people should see. The fact that it is a bit more accessible than "Vampiros Lesbos" certainly helps.

Sentiment: positive
Stranded in Space (1972) MST3K version - a very not good TV movie pilot, for a never to be made series, in which an astronaut finds himself trapped on Earth's evil twin. Having a planet of identical size and mass orbiting in the same plane as the earth, but on the opposite side of the sun, is a well worn SF chestnut - the idea is over 2,000 years old, having been invented by the Ancient Greeks. In this version the Counter World is run as an Orwellian 'perfect' society. Where, for totally inexplicable reasons, everyone speaks English and drives late model American cars. After escaping from his prisonlike hospital, the disruptive Earthian is chased around Not Southern California by TV and bad movie stalwart Cameron Mitchell who, like his minions, wears double breasted suits and black polo neck jumpers - a stylishly evil combination which I fully intend to adopt if ever I become a totalitarian overlord. Our hero escapes several times before ending up gazing at the alien world's three moons and wondering aloud if he will ever get home - thus setting up one of those Man Alone in a Hostile World Making a new Friend Each Week but Moving on at the End of Every Episode shows so beloved of the industry in the 70s and 80s ('The Fugitive', 'The Incredible Hulk', 'The Littlest Hobo' etc.) The curiously weirdest bit though was the title sequence. Somewhere between 'Stranded in Space' first airing (under the title 'The Stranger') in 1972 and the MST3K version in 1991 it somehow acquired some footage from the 1983 movie 'Prisoners of the Lost Universe'. So in 1991 the opening credits for 'Stranded in Space' run under a few shots of three people falling into a matter transmitter and vanishing. It's a sequence that has nothing to do - even thematically - with anything that is going to follow.

Just to add to the nerdy B movie confusion, one of the actors in this nailed on footage, Kay Lenz, later appeared in a 1994 movie called 'Trapped in Space'. Knowing this fact could never save your life but it might score you very big points and admiring looks from fellow trash movie enthusiasts - if you could ever work out a way of manoeuvring the conversation round to the point where you could casually slip it in without looking like a total idiot...

Sentiment: negative
By all accounts, this could have been an interesting film. Featuring a score by the mighty Cradle Of Filth, starring their frontman Dani and being hyped up as "the future of British horror", I expected Alex Chandon's gore fest to live up to the hype.

I was wrong.

Everything about this film is either cliche or inept. The short story anthology setup was done to death (and much better) in the seventies and eighties. Admittedly, the idea of 'the sick room' did send a chill down my spine, but as with most of the film was let down by bad script writing and acting.

Chandon cannot write dialogue. Every sentence with the main police investigator is brim full with swearing and insolence (the typical 'cop on the edge' formula. funny, i'm sure i've seen that somewhere else before...) No Chandon, you are not Tarantino. Or Scorsese. It sounds BAD. Add ludicrously OTT acting with very dodgy casting (don't get me wrong, Dani Filth is a great singer and musician, but actor he ain't) and the performances are beyond laughable to the vein burstingly cringing. Give me Bruce Campbell any day.

The visual effects are on the whole poor, with some atrocious CGI, awful gore effects (for goodness sakes, Peter Jackson did better and that was over ten years ago with less budget) and editing filters that shriek OVER-USE! As for the often mistimed use of Cradle Of Filth's score... man, they should sue.

The fundamental problem with Cradle Of Fear is that it takes itself seriously, trying to build atmosphere and incite terror and repulsion within its audience. too many good horror films made in the seventies and eighties do this so much better with far superior gore effects (eg: maniac, zombie flesh eaters, the beyond, suspiria etc), rendering Cradle of Fear, in my mind, second-rate and obsolete.

I hope Chandon can learn from this hideous ghoul of a film and go on to make some quality horror that actually scares.

Better luck next time.

Sentiment: negative
Interesting plot but painfully dull. The script lacks... lacks acting. To me this film compares with "Made for TV" type movies. I was lucky to survive the film without falling asleep in my popcorn. I watched this film with my family. It is fairly safe to watch with your kids. (only 1 semi sex scene)If you wish to see a young Meg Ryan...check out this movie. Very 80-ish. You will like this movie if you like the combination of depressed people at Christmas, booze, super glue and tar. Or maybe you are like me... and have have a higher standard for acting in films. However I did like the way the movie began and ended! Mark.

Sentiment: negative
-may contain spoilers-

Clearly, who ever made this film must have had a lot of connections. I just can't see it any other way. What really surprises me is no one used the name Allen Smithee, and more surprising, everyone involved didn't use this name.

Anyhow, where to begin. The bad dialogue, the crummy costumes, the sorry looking film stock, the unintentional comedy, the over-the-top characters, and more inconsistencies than George W. Bush's college career. I don't know what was funnier, the guy losing his arm because of a snowball, or the slow motion scene where all the baby Jack Frosts' were getting killed. Also, one of the great lines of all time was uttered in this film. "How do we know it's him?" Like there's another mutant snowman who can talk and kill people with snowballs! A great camp film, but a very bad film overall.

Sentiment: negative
My comment would have been added to the RELEASE DATE section, but I couldn't find a place for it. I was really surprised to see that this movie was released in the U.S. in Feb., 1955. I saw it in a "first run" theater in Washington, D.C. in March, 1958. Wonder if it was re-released, or some problem? In my opinion, this movie is very light entertainment, but has some classic characters. John McIntyre does a bang-up job as a corrupt judge/entrepreneur/thief. Walter Brennan does basically the same role he did in Red River years earlier. And, in my opinion, James Stewart gives as fine a performance as he ever did. I have seen this movie a half dozen times or more, and never tire of seeing parts of it again. The photography and scenery are splendid, and it offers a remarkable amount of entertainment in one hour and thirty-six minutes.

Sentiment: positive
I used to enjoy "Happy Ever After", but was absolutely hypnotised by "Terry & June". With Aunt Lucy gone, the emphasis seemed to fall more heavily on the relationship between Terry and June, a middle aged, middle class English couple, and I thoroughly enjoyed it, losing myself quite happily in each episode.

The 1980s were the era of alternative comedy, but they were also the decade of choice - and Terry and June certainly suited more traditional tastes. And mine - and I was a huge fan of "The Young Ones", too! Each week, Terry got into a silly situation and June got pulled in herself and usually ended up having to bail him out. How dated the shows seem now - it was a different world, but it's great fun to see trends of the 1980s featured - such as the CB radio storyline of 1982 (CB radio was legalised in England in November 1981), which saw Terry imprisoned in his car in the back of a lorry! I've been watching the shows again recently on DVD, and I still think they're terrific! Not loved by the enlightened elite - the chattering classes, but a huge hit with the masses! Wonderful!

Sentiment: positive
The plot of the story and the performance of the lead actors are very much down-to-earth! The romance between two teen-age boys on the screen was done in good taste. You can easily relate to their emotions if you are one but if you are not one, you can appreciate the kind of love the film is trying to impart.

Sentiment: positive
Harmony Korrine - hate him or hate him? On this evidence, loathe might be a better word. Not him of course, just everything he does. But it could've been so different because the first ten minutes of this film promises so much including a fantastic idea of a Michael Jackson impersonator falling in love with a Marilyn Monroe impersonator. Fantastic. And set in Paris! This could be great. But unfortunately, Korrine may spark the odd decent idea but because he is an awful writer, the story fails on every level and the audience walkout I witnessed about an hour in is proof positive that he is the most boring and pretentious film-making out there. Apparently the walk-out rate at its premiere in last years Cannes festival was quite shocking. Instead of focusing on the two protagonists, he switches the story stupidly to the confines of a château to introduce a bunch of other impersonators making the whole experience tedious and narratively barren. When will the independent cinema stop funding this upstart?

Sentiment: negative
Because 'cruel' would be the only word in existence to describe the intentions of these film makers. Where do you even begin? In a spout of b*tchiness, I'm going to start with the awful acting of nearly everybody in this movie. Scratch that. Nearly does not belong in that sentence. I can't think of even one character who was portrayed well. Although, in all fairness, it would be nearly impossible to portray these zero dimensional characters in a successful way. Still, the girl who played Katherine (whose name I purposefully don't include - I'm pretending she doesn't exist) remains one of the worst actors I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the guy who played Sebastian. The story was God awful. It attempted to mirror the brilliance that was the first one but failed in so many ways. Pretty much every part of it was pointless - though I will admit (grudgingly) that the plot twist was quite good it its surprise. And the ending was at least slightly humorous. But this film is up there with the worst I've seen. Don't watch it. Just don't. There is absolutely no value in watching it. None. It only takes away the enjoyment of the first.

Sentiment: negative
Susie Q. is one of those rare, and sweet movies that give you a warm feeling. It's bittersweet, but wholesome, and it's characters are fun, and captivating. At first, I thought the movie would be the cliché cuddly movie that would bore me after five minutes, but was I wrong. It made me tear up at times, and it's plot was enticing, making me root for the good guys. I loved the movie, and still remember it today, 9 years later!! I recommend it highly to ANYONE, and the movie is family oriented, so you won't have to worry about unsuitable content. Truly, if Disney would show more movies that are up to par as Susie Q., it would be the most popular family oriented channel in the world. Now if only Disney would show it just ONE more time!^_^ Go Susie Q.!!

Sentiment: positive
At the time I recall being quite startled and amused by this movie. I referred to it as the most important movie I'd seen in ten years, and found myself bumping into people who said similar things. 

Bernhard has an unusually perceptive behavioral notebook. And she has shaped the bitter adolescent personality that we all had, into a corrosive, adult world-view. The two together provide a startling mix which may be too edgy for some viewers. (Hi Skip. I wish you weren't my brother so I could **** you!) 

Bernhards search for herself after returning to LA from New York, results in the immersive trying-on of various personas (all of which fit poorly) for our amusement, but enough of them involve acting out to appeal to a "black imperative" values system that the real barometer of her resituation is whether black culture accepts her. (It's been a while. Nina Simone comes to mind. And she has an impressive, solidly-built black lover in the movie) A pretty black girl attends the shows, and seems to be authorizing Sandra's faux-blackness, but ultimately rejects her.

Just as Catholics deem themselves lucky to suffer for Christ, here Sandra depicts herself suffering at the hands of a black culture in which she craves a place; as if she cherishes her worthiness and her rejection. It's the only value system implicated in the films world, outside of Bernhards arty confusion.

For a nation whose chief issues are racism and money, it's refreshing to see one of the 2 topics dealt with in an atypical way.

Sentiment: positive
Two great comedians in a great Neil Simon movie based on his hit play.

Great combination, especially when the comedians in question are Matthau and Burns. Small wonder why Burns won an Oscar for this; he's as sharp and as funny as ever. And Matthau is every bit his match, if a tad more crotchety.

This is familiar Simon territory: two old vaudeville partners reunite for a TV special but still can't stand one another after all these years.

It's a delight to watch these two pick at each other, their scenes together make this film an absolute delight. Myself, I especially enjoyed the "knock, knock, knock / ENTER!" scene. And if you're a fan of either Burns or Matthau, you'll enjoy it, too.

In fact, you'll enjoy the whole movie. 

Ten stars. Put a little "Sunshine" in your life.

Sentiment: positive
It's interesting at first. A naive park ranger (Colin Firth) marries a pretty, mysterious woman (Lisa Zane) he's only known for a short time. They seem to be happy, then she disappears without warning. He searches for her and, after a few dead ends, stumbles upon some of her abused childhood and sleazy recent past, which may include criminal activity. And then, it seems the filmmakers didn't know what to do with the story. The beginning, while not as suspenseful as it sounds, is at least watchable. Then it ceases to be interesting or even make much sense. And the ending is so lame, so dull, and so devoid of any excitement or intelligence, you'll think the screenwriters didn't know what to do with it and got bored trying. What a sorry waste of a good idea!

Sentiment: negative
I agree that this film achieved its goals perfectly. I saw it on Showtime late at night as a teenager, and again in college. I thought it was funny. And there are boobs everywhere! It seems like in the late 70s and 80s there were loads of this type of film made, from R-rated films like "Porkys" to soft-core "Au Pair Girls"; it's a shame they seem to have fallen by the wayside in terms of popularity. The thing that made HOTS great was that, like the previous two films, it's a hell of a lot of fun. HOTS is like a girl-power version of "Animal House", with the girls forming a sorority of sorts and engaging in campus bedlam. On a side note, whoever designed the "Hooters" girls outfits must certainly have seen this film.

Sentiment: positive
You know, I really hate IMDb's censor system, since my entire review is almost gone if you take out the cursing. But here we go. Editing time!

Holy moley is this bad. I thought it might be a cool little movie, judging by the plot summary, since yknow I've blindly rented such gems as Frailty and American Nightmare before. But this is just abominal. It's about a killer who uses Edgar Allen Poe's works as reference for his murderous exploits, and the story of a detective who has to stop him. Can't these blithering hacks make a good movie without defiling the grave of a great horror writer? I mean, the kills in here are completely devoid of thought or originality, and the references to Poe are hokey and fake, without enough thought put into them. They're shallow, and they put Poe's work to shame. Full of holes, with awful sequencing. The acting is bad too, reminding me of the abortion that was known in some third world countries as "Fear X", what with all the pausing and un-emotional lines.

I realize this is an indie movie, but that's no excuse. I've seen high school kids act better then these morons, and I myself could've come up with better kill scenes and a better plot, given ample time.

This has no reason to exist. Avoid at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
My wife and I thought that with this cast and director, the movie would have to be at least worth watching. We were wrong. In fact, we gave up on it after 45 minutes. The idea that Crawford, Young and Tone are British but speak with American accents was, for me, impossible to get past -- hard to believe this is England when no one talks with a British accent. There is zero chemistry between Crawford and anyone, and to echo a previous comment, the idea that Cooper and Crawford suddenly declare their love for one another without any reason is ludicrous. There is no reason to care about any of the characters, which is why we threw in the towel halfway through. I found it hard to believe that Hawks directed this, as none of the actors spoke with the trademark Hawksian rat-a-tat delivery. So save your time, and skip this one.

Sentiment: negative
Check out the film's website, more time was put into making that than in the writing of the script for this movie. It couldn't be more off in it's boasting. Original story? Original? They must have found the script tucked away between the old testament, or face legal repercussion for that bit of horn-tooting. High-end special effects? Come on, I could do better with an Atari 7600 and a jug of earwax. Stylish cinematography? Oh yes, the America's funniest home video look is still a classic. I'm sure they had little money available for this title, so of course the sf aren't really that good, or a bit bad now and then, or just plain hilarious, but it's the story that makes this film a waste of time and money. 4 stories rolled into one and all of them brainless bits of seen-befores and done-already's.

Sentiment: negative
I must have seen this on the television when it was first broadcast some decades ago. I thought it was brilliant then, and as I remember so much of it now I may have been right. While I have lived in and around London I cannot call myself a Londoner and do not know it at all well - who does other than taxi drivers? Once the viewer understands the premise; that here is a group of men trying to learn the seemingly unlearn-able and rise to the status of demigods, then the rest is sheer joy. The characters are well contrasted, their family relationships are equally diverse, and so differently affected by the events of the film. Don't think this is a documentary - it is pure drama, and The Knowledge is one of the characters. I have never seen anything like this film, before or since. Watch it!

Sentiment: positive
Many of the American people would say...What??? to my opening comment. Yes I know that my comparison is without doubts an insult for the fans of the Master Akira Kurosawa, but if you analyze this movie, my comment is right. We have the peasant who goes to the town searching for help against a band of grasshoppers who wants to steal the harvest of the village. The great difference is the way that the story takes. Our samurais, a band of circus performers as in the original are a very complex mixture of personalities but at the end are what the village needs, HEROES. Please watch again this incredible movie (the Seven Samurai, obviously) and find another movies who has stolen the story and tried to get the same magic effect than the Masterpiece of Akira Kurosawa. A tip is The 13th Warrior with Antonio Banderas, Michael Crichton copied the story to wrote his Best seller's, but he didn't found the third foot of the cat.

Sentiment: positive
Thomas Capano was not Anne Marie's boss Tom Carper, the Governor was. That is the reason the Feds became involved, he called Clinton and asked him to get the Feds involved in the case. I lived outside of Philadelphia at the time so the case was front page news every day. I also read Ann Rule's book and saw the "City Confidential" segment on A&E. Tom Capano was a megalomanic(sp.), an uber-controller and a monster. He claimed to love Ann Marie but all he wanted was someone that he could control. When she wouldn't let him do that anymore he killed her, the ultimate form of control. I think it's a waste of money that he is still alive.

Sentiment: positive
Why was this movie made? Are producers so easily fooled by sadists that they'll give them money to create torture methods such as this so called "film"? I love a bad movie as much as the next masochist, but "Cave Dwellers" is pushing it. It's seriously physically painful to watch. The plot is something about a dude name Ator - a buffed-up numbnuts whom I will refer to as Private Snowball for the rest of this review - who has to fight invisible warriors and rescue a princess in order to beat the bad guy who needs to find a better hair stylist. I might have gotten the plot wrong since it's been a while since I watched this excrement, but really, do you care that much? Oh yeah, Private Snowball also has a mute Asian sidekick (who hasn't?). Who's not funny.

Anyway, Private Snowball fights invisible people, visits some caves, all in the name of a good king so personality-free he makes Al Gore look like Jim Carrey. Then Private Snowball builds a hang-glider (yes, I'm serious) and gets the girl. Yippie-kee-yay. It's cheap, unintentionally silly, and mind-numbingly dull. Why am I not surprised that the director ended up making porn?

Bottom line: AVOID. Ator will steal a part of your life and you will have no funny "so-bad-they're-good" catchphrases to take with you from the experience. Bad Ator! BAD! Aak! *gags*

Sentiment: negative
I saw this film yesterday on TV. I had just finished reading the book in which the movie was supposedly based. In the opening credits it said "This is a free adaptation of Eça de Queirós' novel". I should have turned off my TV at that moment.

Vera Sacramento's idea of "free adaptation" is turning a story about Church's influence over people and the hypocrisy of people claiming morality at the end of the 19th century into a story about sex. In fact, the only thing she adopted from the novel was the sex part, which was only mildly referred in Eça de Queirós' novel. And, of course, the name of some characters.

As of the characters, in the novel, Amélia and João Eduardo were victims of church's influence. Amélia was seduced by Father Amaro and all the time she was controlled by him. João Eduardo, her fiancé, was excommungated by the priests, because he dared to criticize them. In this movie, Amélia seduces every one she meets and Father Amaro is just another victim. João Eduardo is a dealer of drugs and illegal weapons.

Vera Sacramento has turned a novel which criticized moral costumes of an epoch and turned it into just another movie with lots of (bad) sex. Even worse, her story was completely empty of ideas. Two wasted hours! Eça de Queirós surely did not deserve this.

Sentiment: negative
Spoiler alert  although I think this one was spoiled coming out of the can It's hard to even imagine that a film with these stars, from this studio, made at this time period, could be so awful, but it is. It is the film's biggest flaw by far that it just doesn't make any damn sense.

Rich widower American aristocrat Penn Gaylord leaves his small daughter "in charge" and goes off to World War I where he is killed. Then we flash forward to present day (1942) and total confusion. The three sisters are in court where they are said to have spent the last twenty years, and some jerk named Barclay is trying to take their home away from them. This is just the beginning of an endless series of unanswered questions that comprises the script, more holes in it than The Warren Report. What happened to the Gaylord fortune? If the will is worth half a billion, why has the family home gone from an opulent palace to the house on The Munsters? Who the devil is this Barclay clown? And why is he able to take someone's home away from them? The questions just pile on top of more questions.

The usually affable and charming George Brent is playing Barclay, who is inexplicably a total sod tromping all over everyone, taking whatever the heck he wants no matter who it belongs to and without a twinge of guilt; yet no one besides Fiona (Barbara Stanwick) seems to particularly dislike this cretin. Why? None of these questions are ever answered. We instead just follow Fiona's life from one train wreck to another, the evil Barclay takes away her home, her fortune, and even her child. What does she do? Shoot him? Set him on fire? No, too logical. In a completely improbably wrap-up, this woman, who's only prior romantic involvement with Barclay was, save for the technicality of marriage, rape, suddenly decides mid-sentence (literally) that she does not hate him, she loves him. And they're going to live happily ever after. All of a sudden for no reason in the world, this early female role model of independence and authority is transformed into the usual helpless ankle-twisting twit more commonly found in films of this era. Yeah, sure, steal everything in the world that belongs to me and I'll fall in love with you. On what planet does that happen? I can only guess the reason I never heard of this film before I happened to catch it on Turner is that it was as lost on contemporary audiences as it is today.

Sentiment: negative
Okay, I guess I'm pretty much a fan of spindled, mutilated, and destroyed Stephen King stories (when they reach the 'Screen') as any of us sad Masochists out here. I KNOW full well that most of them are done poorly. I EXPECT it. I PLAN on it. I humbly allow for it...

But, THIS time... GEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ... Okay, so I THINK I saw this thing a number of years ago..., fine. I THOUGHT I remembered that it was pretty good... WRONG... Like I'm saying (granted in a wordy, annoying, roundabout way : ) I really wasn't trying to be snobby or expect much, but what was this thing, a Mini-Series? I have only ONE thing to say: D......R.....A.....W......N O.....U.....T How can you POSSIBLY justify dragging the thing out minute by minute, scene by scene of friggin' ENDLESS, completely MEANINGLESS, and mind numbingly SLOW dialog? I mean EVERY bl**dy scene is two people 'DISCUSSING' how they feel and back and forth and D...R...A...G I...T bl**dy well O...U...T After about an hour and a half, which I THINK is about 1/2 of the running time (I didn't check, sorry : ) I FINALLY got totally fed up! After an hour and a half what had happened OTHER than the original accident...? They were running away while the 'Shop' guy was killing eye doctors, news photographers, and LOTS & LOTS & LOTS of meandering dialog.

I'm sorry, I promise that it is not that I have to have non-stop mindless action; I love LOTS of films where not much happens, but in them at least when they DO talk and such MEANINGFUL things are being said and characters are being deepened, thoughts are being conveyed... SOMETHING!!!??? Okay, I admit that the actors in and of themselves were not too bad (except Stephen King, of course : ) I liked the Shop guy, I thought both of the 'older' people were fine. I liked the General and the main woman. It's just if they could have cut out all of the HOURS of filler, that's all I'm saying. I mean, it's SUPPOSED to be a Sci Fi Thriller, sort of..., right? you know what really took the prize when the Shop guy was needlessly making one of his MANY time filling telephone calls, this time he is talking to God knows WHO getting all emotional (for him anyway) and acting like he can't handle it... WTF!!!??? The guy has clearly been shown to be a cold blooded, efficient killer. What the HELL was THAT about??? So, just multiply that by about 500 and that is basically why I finally turned if off about half way through; it was either that or hang myself, I swear! I mean there are other King 'adaptations' out there that are lame, but at least they MOVE ALONG...! Oh well, I guess perhaps if you MAYBE are into the 'story' itself and don't mind crawling along and have the SUPREME & DIVINE patience to wait until the end, it might be worthwhile.

But, I sincerely and humbly doubt it...

I don't write these things very often, but THIS time I just HAD to or I wouldn't be able to sleep at night (like I did DURING the show! : )

Sentiment: negative
Boy this movie had me fooled. I honestly thought it would be a campy horror film with absolutely no humor in it whatsoever, boy I got the cold shoulder that time. This movie was, and I'm truthful, pretty damn good. It was not scary at all but the campiness and the sly humor really mad this movie interesting. Some to the horrible acting and cliché killings were so painful to watch, I almost laughed at how bad it was, but to some extent I enjoyed it. The killings all vaguely relate to snow sports and Christmas, which made things more intriguing. The POV camera angles were awesome.

The movie is about a viscous killer who dies in a car accident collision with a chemical truck while being transported to prison. He is later resurrected in that very same chemical with snow spliced into the mixture. These were the ingredients chosen to make the perfect killer snowman. He than takes his revenge, as the snowman, on the police officer who convicted him.

This movie had such bad acting, with the exception of Christopher Allport, that is was funny. I will say that I am also pretty disappointed that this movie was not a horror, but in fact a dark sitcom. They had a great story with a good plot but it wasn't executed right. All in all I like the movie at first but now it is really annoying. But this movie is way better and darker than the sequel.

Sentiment: negative
I've always liked Sean Connery, but as James Bond I've always favored Roger Moore. Still it was Connery who set the Bond standard and while he had by 1983 established himself as something other than James Bond, the money must have been irresistible for him to make one more appearance as 007 and save the world from the evil designs of Spectre.

And what designs they are in Never Say Never Again. SPECTRE with the help of a foolish young Air Force officer who happens to be Kim Bassinger's brother stole two nuclear missiles during a war games exercise and now SPECTRE headed by Blofeld, played here by Max Von Sydow is threatening blackmail of the world.

Von Sydow's operations guy is Klaus Maria Brandauer who is also courting Bassinger and is a bit on the crazy side. And he's got a female assassin working for him in Barbara Carrera who makes Angelina Jolie as Nora Croft look like Mrs. Butterworth.

But before Sean Connery can even get started he's got to deal with a new 'M' running things at British Intelligence. Edward Fox thinks Connery is old fashioned in his methods and costs the British taxpayers too much money with his violent ways. I really did enjoy Fox's performance, he's like the great grandson of Colonel Blimp.

I also enjoyed Carrera, she's something to look at and quite resourceful in her methods. When she's scuba diving with Connery in the Bahamas, note how she puts Mr. Shark on 007's case.

Will Connery do James Bond again? He was widely quoted as saying who would they cast him as at this point, Roger Moore's father? But I think Connery would still be formidable in a wheelchair.

Sentiment: positive
The supposed writer and director Mr.Dhawan has copied almost the whole plot of the blockbuster Hollywood movie "HITCH" starring Will Smith. Many scenes are also exactly the same. The plot was just copy pasted and some low grade humor(probably mr.Dhawan's own creation) and frequent dancing was added to increase the movie time to local standards.

Although Salman khan and Govinda's acting did give us some smiles, however it does not suit legendary artists like them to be a part of plagiarism, specially when they themselves keep telling people to stop buying pirated discs!

Sentiment: negative
One of the finest musicals made, one that is timeless and is worth seeing time and again. Delicious! The acting, especially by Ron Moody as Fagin, is superb. Costumes are exquisite....even the shabby ones.

The two young lads who play Oliver and The Artful Dodger are wonderfully talented. Oliver Reed does a great job portraying Bill Sykes to where you can't help but hope he comes to a terrible end....which he does. 

The dancing is cleverly choreographed and is mesmerizing. Oliver can hold its own with the likes of My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music, Oklahoma, etc. A film for the entire family.

Sentiment: positive
I went through the highs. I went through the lows...cried, laughed, puked my ever-loving guts out. But through it all, I was made whole. I became a better person for having sat through this experience in self-imposed degradation. It's not every day we can say that we have lived through the worst, and come out the other side with something closely resembling our sanity whole and intact. Friends...neighbors-unite and be as one now. Go out and find this film and languish in its extravagancies. Place it high on the mantel and kiss its polystyrene box. Take it to bed. Take it out with you when you go shopping, or have blind dates with strange people. They will appreciate you all the better for your sublime and uniquely schizophrenic slant on cinema. And then they will throw their beverage of choice in your face (but you will have the last laugh). I ran for Governor with this little beauty under my belt (and you can too!). It is a treat worth having again and again.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is not only a very bad movie, with awful actors --or presumed actors--, a bored direction and a story unattractive, it also copies exactly an scene from the excellent "giallio" "Torso", directed by Sergio Martino in 1973 (two years before), one of the most celebrated psycho-thrillers of Italian cinema and a cult-movie around the world. In "La Sanguinusa conduce la danza", the director replays the bed scene between the black girl and the white girl, with an peeping-tom watching from a window of the bedroom. Naturally, the scene in Rizzo's movie is ridiculous and inferior to the softness and charming in Martino's film. To put another black girl, another white girl and another peeping-tom replaying the scene is simply the most appropriate way of prove that Rizzo's movie has no ideas, no originality, no taste, and nothing at all. I think that such things are an offense to spectator.

Sentiment: negative
I rented this movie the other day b/c I love romance stories, but this has got to be the worst one I have ever seen in my life. I find it hard to believe that Sam would fall in love with Kelley after they've said hardly no more than 2 words to each other when she has a great long-time boyfriend who's devoted to her completely. I thought Kelley was a major jerk throughout the movie, and he never changed at all. The only good thing about the movie was Josh Hartnett. I thought he did a wonderful acting job, and I'm going to start watching more movies of his.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the funniest and most excellent movies ever made! Although I've only seen forty minuets of it and I must say this is a good movie. The plot if funny and because there's sex around pretty much every corner of this movie. It's really funny and I don't see how anyone could NOT like this film. I really really really want to watch the rest of the movie. It has one slightly sick scene in it (trust me, it's not very pleasant) but apart from that this is a great movie. I rate this movie an 7/8 for comedy, 10/10 for sexual content and 10/10 for the plot. PLease if your a fan of American Pie and you want to watch a movie where there's pretty much all sex in it the buy this movie. It WILL please you.

10/10

Sentiment: positive
My girlfriend picked this one; as a southern born and raised African American I found this movie's plot and premise totally without credibility. To believe that class and racial biases would be so easily and comfortably suspended would only come from someone totally unfamiliar with the ante-bellum south. Totally absurd !!! I wonder how they got a good actor like Harvey Keitel and a good actress like Andie McDowell (who being southern knows better) to participate in this crap

Sentiment: negative
This movie gives you more of an idiea how Australians act. Even though The Castle is a great Australian movie, it's a bit out there. This movie is by far the best Aussie flick I have seen (haven't seen Dirty Deeds yet) and probably would be my favourite movie. The point is, if you haven't seen it, go see it. If a crime/action/comedy is your thing.

Sentiment: positive
I got this movie from eBay mainly because I'm gay and I love Til Schweiger. However, it's one of those movies that, when you watch it a second time, you never say to yourself, "Hmm. I forgot about this boring part. I'll go make popcorn." It doesn't have that part. It's a very fluid and constantly interesting film. And, yes, Til Schweiger is worth it, if nothing else. But, it's a great movie even for straight guys.

Sentiment: positive
Truly one of the most dire films I've ever sat through. I've never actually taken the time to write one of these but felt compelled to after witnessing this affront to film-making and feel somewhat aggrieved to be wasting my time on such a piece of turd to be honest. There were so many parts that infuriated me with their complete randomness and lack of sense (e.g. when would the police force ever shoot people with infectious diseases? When would hospitals ever through out such people for lack of a cure? Why was the guy who spotted him spying on his wife wandering around outside in his dressing gown whilst carrying a gun as she rolled around on the bed?). Also, the characterisation - as we've almost come to expect in such films - was awful (e.g. the way the blonde guy - I don't remember his frickin name and don't give a toss anyway - completely turned against his girlfriend and ran off to leave her) and I ended up wanting them all to meet grisly ends! The production was horribly disjointed and the cinematography nothing to write home about.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the few movies I watched twice in the theatre. I really love this movie for its atmosphere and its telling of the life of tragic hero Esteban Trueba. He makes so many mistakes but gets a chance for redemption. Isn't this a rather consoling thought?

When I watched it for the first time, I thought that after the won election, the movie would be over - I didn't know the book. So boy was I wrong when the dramatic climax was still to come! I was literally swept away by the sheer power of the last half hour of the film.

Many people here utterly dislike this movie. I cannot understand that one single bit. Maybe those who read the book first are - as often with screen adaptations of novels - simply disappointed that so many things have remained untold, unseen, unexplained. But as a movie telling a touching story - the story of a family, the rise and fall of a man, the deep compassion of a woman, the strength of love and the insanity of hate (and conservatism) - this movie is simply splendid! Furthermore, the soundtrack is incredibly good and the cast is wonderful as well - especially Winona Ryder and Jeremy Irons.

So definitely one of those films that cinema was invented for!

Sentiment: positive