Paper:
While video prediction approaches have advanced considerably in recent years, learning to predict long-term future is challenging -ambiguous future or error propagation over time yield blurry predictions. To address this challenge, existing algorithms rely on extra supervision (e.g., action or object pose), motion flow learning, or adversarial training. In this paper, we propose a new recurrent unit, Long History Short-Term Memory (LH-STM). LH-STM incorporates long history states into a recurrent unit to learn longer range dependencies. To capture spatiotemporal dynamics in videos, we combined LH-STM with the Context-aware Video Prediction model (ContextVP). Our experiments on the KTH human actions and BAIR robot pushing datasets demonstrate that our approach produces not only sharper near-future predictions, but also farther into the future compared to the state-of-the-art methods.

Review:
The paper proposes a type of recurrent neural network module called Long History Short-Term Memory (LH-STM) for longer-term video generation. This module can be used to replace ConvLSTMs in previously published video prediction models. It expands ConvLSTMs by adding a "previous history" term to the ConvLSTM equations that compute the IFO gates and the candidate new state. This history term corresponds to a linear combination of previous hidden states selected through a soft-attention mechanism. As such, it is not clear if there are significant differences between LH-STMs and previously proposed LSTMs with attention on previous hidden states. The authors propose recurrent units that include one or two History Selection (soft-attention) steps, called single LH-STM and double LH-STM respectively. The exact formulation of the double LH-STM is not clear from the paper.  The authors then propose to use models with LH-STM units for longer term video generation. They claim that LH-STM can better reduce error propagation and better model the complex dynamics of videos. To support the claims, they conduct empirical experiments where they show that the proposed model outperforms previous video prediction models on KTH (up to 80 frames) and the BAIR Push dataset (up to 25 frames).
Overall I believe there are serious flaws with the paper that prevent acceptance in its current form.
First, I believe the paper starts from the wrong assumption, namely that current video prediction models are limited by their capacity to limit the propagation of errors and to capture complex dynamics. Instead, it is well known that the main difficulty for longer term video prediction is to manage the increasing uncertainty in future outcomes. Stochastic models such as SVG-LP or SAVP are currently the state-of-the-art in video generation, with deterministic models not being able to generate more than a few non-blurry frames of video. While the authors mention that they do not focus on future uncertainty here, it is not clear how the proposed model helps to generate better longer-term videos when it does not deal with what actually makes long-term video generation difficult. In addition, it's misleading to claim that current models produce high quality generations for "only one or less than ten frames", especially without defining high quality. Models such as SVG [1] or SAVP[2] can produce non-blurry videos for 30-100 frames for the BAIR dataset, for example. 
The experiments are missing 1) SVG as a baseline, 2) metrics that correlate with human perception such as LPIPS or FVD [3] and 3) qualitative samples that compare to stochastic models. Deterministic models can achieve very high PSNR/MSE/SSIM scores but produce very bad samples, as these scores are maximized by blurry predictions that conflate all possible future outcomes. This is highly apparent when looking at samples, and metrics that correlate better with human perception are usually better to compare video prediction methods. Comparisons to SAVP are found in Table 1 and 3 but there are no figures comparing samples from this model to the proposed model. The samples from the proposed model on the BAIR Push dataset for example (found in the appendix) are of significant lower quality than those reported from SAVP or SVG, and at the same time they are not longer-term than the predictions from these models. Consequently, the experimental section does not correctly assess how this model can generate better longer-term prediction than current models and it also does not give an accurate assessment of the model with respect to the current state-of-the-art.
To sum up, the paper does not adequately address how the proposed model allows for longer-term video generation. It is missing critical qualitative comparisons to state-of-the-art models such as SVG and it is unclear how the proposed model is different from a ConvLSTM with attention on previous hidden states.
[1] Stochastic Video Generation with a Learned Prior. E.Denton and R. Fergus. ICML 2018
[2] Stochastic Adversarial Video Prediction. Lee et al. Arxiv 2018
[3] Towards Accurate Generative Models of Video: A New Metric & Challenges. Unterthiner et al. Arxiv 2018
--- Post-discussion update ---
The authors have addressed a number of points raised by the reviewers and I'm raising my score to a weak reject from a reject. There are important remaining issues with the experimental section and the conclusions reached from their results, and therefore I still think the paper is below the acceptance bar.