input: As the number of Video Nasties I've yet to see dwindles, this little pile of garbage popped up on my "to rent" list when I saw it was available.

The premise involves a fashion model or something being kidnapped and taken into the jungle to be held for ransom by a motley crew of idiots. Some other goof gets hired to bring her back and is given a sack of money to use as a bargaining chip, though if he returns with the girl and all the money, he gets a significant cut. He's brought a helicopter and pilot with him and, wow, that pilot is one of the worst actors EVER! Granted, they are all totally terrible and the dubbing will make you cry blood. After stealing away into the jungle, we learn that nearby is a cannibal cult whose flesheating earthbound god wanders the woods like a human King Kong looking for tribeswomen to ravage and devour. Now, this fellow is just a naked guy with some of the worst makeup ever, ping-pong balls for eyes and that's pretty much it. His growls and groans are an everpresent feature on the soundtrack, and I found myself muting much of those scenes.

Oh, did I forget to mention the almost constant nudity? This is probably the main reason this film was banned, though there is one specific scene, about one second long, where the god attacks a girl and pulls her guts out, but it's not a redeeming factor for gore fans. Also, Jess Franco goes beyond the usual T and A and shows lengthy close-ups of female genitals, and, sadly, male as well. So, if you want "fair" in terms of exploitation, you got it.

I can't recommend this trash to anyone. It's not even the good bad movie. It's just atrociously padded trash that only a Video Nasty fan will probably view and even then, if you are making your way through the list, leave this for the very last. If you watch it first, you may get the notion that this is the norm for the list, which is certainly not true.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This film is shockingly underrated on IMDb. Like so many films, this isn't Shawshank. But it's a reasonably good, if predictable, dance competition / personal growth film. If you want to spend an hour and a half watching a sort of 8 Mile for a female step dancer, than I think you'll like it.

Judging from the IMDb ratings, my guess is that this movie was approaching the top 250, and was "vote bombed" with many 1s, as happens to so many films that aren't about the mob, don't have special effects, or include non-white or non-straight characters.

It's an American film, but it's not a US film. Set mostly in Toronto the cues are subtle, and some audiences may think it's set entirely in the US just because the final competition is in the border city of Detroit.

I liked the music. I liked the dance (but not convinced it's worth $50,000 ... but what do I know). The characters were easy on the eyes.

I do agree the title sucks. I don't remember anyone in the film saying those words, and it should have an "s". (No, it's not a foreign language).

There's not a lot to hate about this film (and let's be honest, a vote of 1 means you hated it) so I can only assume that it's an expression of hate for the kind of people in it, and that's sad.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: It's been said several times - not least by me - that watching an Eric Rohmer film is like watching paint dry; it seems that Monsieur Rohmer resents this (he doesn't deny it, but then how could he, he just resents it) so much so that his new movie, which may also be his last, Inch Allah, is set so far back in time that it's like watching woad dry. Those wonderful people who gave you the Nouvelle Vague, Cahiers du Cinema have already named it one of the best films of 2007 so that should give you some idea. Reality is not high on Rohmer's agenda so that in 5th Century France we have at one extreme a chateau that would not be out of place in the Loire valley whilst the only other dwelling we see is a rude wooden hut. The story involves nymphs and shepherds and as he often does Rohmer has cast it with unknowns who just happened to be passing so that the overall effect is that the annual class play at a school for Special Needs pupils was captured on film by accident. One is almost tempted to say 'Come back Godard, all is forgiven' but even this woeful production can't make me utter those words.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I personally watched this to see the footage of the 60's and 70's. It was fascinating to learn how the drug movement essentially started and became pop culture and an eventual uncompromising force in life. The interviews of the classic rock stars are titillating and humorous. You feel like you're in on a secret and nodding your head at the same time...because it feels so good and familiar. I loved it, all segments from 60's-present day. I highly recommend this for all aspects, including rock music, the hipper movement, politics and good 'ol history. I check marked the box saying this contains a spoiler, only because I have no idea what some might consider a spoiler or not in this regards, since I discussed what's in all 4 segments, so just wanted to be safe.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
positive