Upload 203 files

.gitattributes

@@ -53,3 +53,4 @@ saved_model/**/* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
 *.jpg filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
 *.jpeg filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
 *.webp filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+test/labeledBow.feat filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text

test/labeledBow.feat

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:7fa9b4023774d0e748053c2be24f91f5d5812c3ae74cde663183908caf63f9ac
+size 20205283

test/neg/10096_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Worst movie ever seen. Worst acting too. I cannot imagine a movie worse then this. Nothing to see. No acting at all.T hey (actors) should look for another job. I cant't understand who was stupid enough to actually put money into this movie.<br /><br />I'm sorry for Eric Roberts. Must be tough...I cannot imagine how HUUUGE his mortgage must be to justify taking the job!<br /><br />The ladies in the movie...perhaps they better stick to XXX.<br /><br />As for the LEADING MAN...what a lead! He better be put on a lead and stay there! I can see him being more successful at barking rather than acting. <br /><br />Overall rating: Do NOt rent...DO NOT BUY!

test/neg/10131_3.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+THE AFFAIR is a very bad TV movie from the 1970s starring the then-husband-wife team of Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood as hesitant lovers. She has polio and leads a reclusive existence as a pop song writer. He's an ambitious lawyer who is very outgoing and absolutely smitten with her. Their affair, such as it is, is doomed from the start, and she knows it, but goes along with it anyway. Two things to watch for if you are trapped into watching this: Wood's Jane Fonda hairdo that is never mussed, no matter what, and a tune she sings early in this dreadful flick. She sings it for four or five or six minutes, so you know it's classic padding between commercials. It also is one of the worst songs ever written, and the woman doing Wood's singing voice should have been shot and put out of her misery. Also, keep an eye out for all the peasant tops and dresses. By comparison, Wagner looks relatively timeless, with close-cropped hair and sporting a series of classic suits.

test/neg/10275_3.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+I know my summary sounds very harsh, but this film has very limited appeal. The average Joe out there would have a hard time sticking with this film. The entire film consists of animated loggers doing their jobs and dancing on floating logs. This is all done with very splashy and artsy colors and the film might be great to show to patrons in an art museum. However, unless you really love this sort of art or are a Canadian who loves films about your native land, then this is probably going to be next to impossible to finish. I have a rather high tolerance for this sort of thing and even I had to force myself to watch after a couple minutes. I can respect the work that went into it, but it's just not compelling.

test/neg/1027_4.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Technically abominable (with audible "pops" between scenes)and awesomely amateurish, "Flesh" requires a lot of patience to sit through and will probably turn off most viewers; but the dialogue rings amazingly true and Joe Dallesandro, who exposes his body in almost every scene, also gives an utterly convincing performance. A curio, to be sure, but the more polished "Trash", made two years later, is a definite step forward. I suggest you watch that instead. (*1/2)

test/neg/10309_2.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Don't worry when looking at the cover of the DVD, Sandra Bullock only appears at most 5 minutes in total in this cult classic. The entertainment value here is very high. <br /><br />To name but a few of the many highlights that should be paid attention to:<br /><br />- The doubled evil voices of the chief bad guys - The special gun cam - The weird masks and outfits of the hit killers - The showy ways to catch a bullet and hit the ground - The abundance of bottom-up shots - The spacey scene in which Bullock falls unconscious on the street - The over-cliché Italian mob guy Moe (LaMotta) - The cheap synthesizer background music - The mesmerizing overdone gun fetishism<br /><br />And last but not least: the super corny fist-fight scenes. Wish there would have been more of those...<br /><br />Extra point for the successful attempt at making me laugh out loud.

test/neg/10397_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Dante would of been mortified, if he knew that his masterpiece was being ACTED OUT PUPPETS!!! Also the actors who played the puppets are sell outs. Due to the fact that playing a puppet is not acting it is just basically doing nothing. No one really will care who the puppet was. people only care who played a major role in like an actual movie. this is just annoying how you could mock such an amazing man and his belief, by this dumb little movie. This should be a crime and.... I cant believe you would ruin a book like that. I thought the movie was absolutely ridiculous and should be destroyed!!!! It totally ruins what your suppose to be getting from reading it. Your just making it a big joke.

test/neg/10828_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Right... so you have a dam, tons of water (that seems to flow really really slowly) and a small town that happens to be right underneath the dams path of destruction. Throw in a profiteering glutton, an apparently mentally unstable and disgruntled architect and his son, and then to spice things up you add a weak plot and bad acting. All in all, when you have a look at this film from a paying customers point of view... I would feel extremely peeved off if this was a pay-per-view film. If you want a laugh... then you really need to watch this film.

test/neg/1082_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Well, how to start? I saw The Italian Job for the first time some years ago and visiting a rental shop I couldn't quite remember why I had a bad feeling about it. Now I do.<br /><br />After voting for the ratings for this film I saw the statistics. Apparently this film appeals most to under 18 girls. No wonder. They didn't pay enough to Charlize to flash and I guess some girls magazine has rated Mark Wahlbergs abs "AWESOME".<br /><br />Other than that this film is completely predictable, the actors are mainly forever B-stars and even the good ones are being misused horribly, the film is filled with obvious product placement and imagine this: it even manages to repeat itself without doing a sequel! The first 15 minutes are the best part of the film and it's all downhill from there and once they figured this out they decided to use the finest hour again in the end repeating-to-detail their gold heist. All in all, lots of noise about nothing.<br /><br />I think Charlize Theron is good and Ed Norton could be more as he's been before. Apart from Donald Sutherland's "look, I'm here too" appearing in the beginning I'd say this movie ought to have a "pass if you're above 18" all over it.

test/neg/10890_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+I only comment on really very good films and on utter rubbish. My aim is to help people who want to see great films to spend their time - and money - wisely.<br /><br />I also want to stop people wasting their time on garbage, and want to publicize the fact that the director/producer of these garbage films can't get away with it for very long. We will find out who you are and will vote with out feet - and wallets.<br /><br />This film clearly falls into the garbage category.<br /><br />The director and writer is John Shiban. It's always a bad sign when the writer is also the director. Maybe he wants two pay cheques. He shouldn't get any. So remember the name - John SHIBAN. And if you see anything else by him, forget it.<br /><br />I won't say anything about the plot - others have already. I am a little worried by how much the director likes to zoom in to the poor girl's face when she is crying and screaming. These long duration shots are a little worrying and may say something about the state of mind of Mr. Shiban. Maybe he should get psychiatric help.<br /><br />Enough already. It's crap - don't waste your time on it.

test/neg/11094_3.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Even Sophie Marceau's presence and the few (very few) good French gags are unable to save this otherwise slow and boring movie! A disappointment. The story is weak and so is acting. This movie was advertised as the French version of The Mummy, but the Mummy has at least spectacular and enjoyable effects...

test/neg/11196_4.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+The summary was promising but watching the movie was a huge disappointment. Nothing happens in this movie. Plot is linear and without surprise. Normal characters stay normal until end of the film, weird characters stay weird until end of the film. There is even not a single tentative to foul the viewer into thinking that the bad guy is someone else than the most obvious candidate. On the positive side, actors play quite well, and there is a tiny bit of atmosphere in the movie, but much too little to be any significant.<br /><br />People who vote 10 for this movie either didn't see it, or are member of the movie production team ! 4 is well paid.

test/neg/1127_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+To quote Clark Griswold (in the original Christmas Vacation): "WORSE? How could things get any worse? Take a look around here, Ellen. We're at the threshold of hell." Little did Chevy Chase know that he was describing the "sequel" to one of his best films. Christmas Vacation II sets a new high (or maybe it should be LOW) in bad movies. My wife bought this DVD thinking it would actually be a sequel to the original, but we were severely disappointed. This film is LAME. It bears no resemblance to the original, is an absolute waste of film, and an embarrassment to the otherwise good actors who had the misfortune to be part of it. It must have set a record on IMDb for the most bad reviews. I really think we have a good case to win a class action lawsuit to recover the money we consumers wasted on this movie.

test/neg/11332_4.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Nice movie and Nicholle Tom does a fantastic job playing the "guy in the girl's body", she really does it well.<br /><br />A sort of teen version of many other movies, but well done.<br /><br />Well casted, from "Matt" to "Matt2".

test/neg/11377_4.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+I was hoping to like this movie, to settle in for an evening of goofy fun. I like Judy Davis and Juliette Lewis, and the premise seemed off the wall enough to be entertaining.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I found myself dozing over and over again. Judy Davis gave a fine performance, but had very little to work with. Juliette Lewis was fabulous as expected, but had very little to do. The plot was full of "twists" that were just plain silly, and as so often happens in movies of this type, nobody acted the way a real human being would act. And, personally, I thought Marcia Gay Harden was totally miscast.<br /><br />The movie also seemed to shift about midway from a black comedy with touches of farce to a total farce with touches of black comedy. One reviewer here notes that other reviews seem to want this movie to be something different, and therefore decried it. All I can say is that I would have settled for the movie being *something* and sticking with it. This one feels like the director had some grandiose ideas but wasn't able to pull them all off. I give it a 4 out of 10.

test/neg/11400_3.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+As a fan of author Gipharts lightheaded and humorous books (of which Ik Ook van Jou is not the best one), I was looking forward to see this film. I didn't catch it in cinema though, and after seeing it on to tv I'm terribly happy I resisted buying it on video. Out of a good book, they managed to make one of the worst movies in Dutch film history. All the good parts have been left out, the story is changed, not to its benefits. All humour has been cut out. What's left is a bad-acted, over dramatic, non-consistent film that I do not want to watch again ever.<br /><br />I condolate Giphart with this result, and am happy that Robbert Jan Westdijk did a hell of a better job on Giphart's topper Phileine zegt Sorry. Go see that one!

test/neg/11402_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+One of the movies i just DIDN'T want to see. I got it in the sneak-preview, but damn, the acting was very bad! At the end of the movie (i still am surprised i watched the whole movie..) i wondered why i watched the movie.<br /><br />Also here in the netherlands, the writer of this movie (it's filmed from a book of Giphart) thought it was very bad, and was disappointed that his movie came out like this. Next time he wants a role in choosing people for the cast.

test/neg/11447_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Aaran is one of the movies where you find the loop holes in Indian Cinema. Here is one good example to show how excellent writers, directors and actors succumb to the producers. Here is one of the most wonderful actors, Mohanlal, acting in a movie about a real story in Kashmir. The seriousness of the film is slaughtered with sub standard comic scenes and songs. There is this character, Havaldar Jaykumar, who in reality, is the son of the producer of the film. Hence, he doesn't have a hair cut despite his officer asking him to do so. This kid doesn't know what is acting and he is the "hero" of the movie. God Help Indian Cinema with such producers.<br /><br />This movie is a pathetic display of what happens in Kashmir. A sensible viewer can intuitively understand the constraints of such wonderful writers, actors and directors who want to share their real life experiences. But the unfortunate part is that a movie about the highest ranks in Indian Militia turns out to be a pathetic display that only makes one think that the movie was stupid.<br /><br />We should oust such producers in the film industry and pave way for good cinema.

test/neg/11558_3.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+this was made in that beloved age known as the 80s and shot in my hometown of New York City. actually, this has become one of my favorite b sci-fi movies. Oh, sure, it really stinks to high hell, but there's so much to make fun of, laugh, and enjoy that it becomes more tolerable after every viewing.<br /><br />Such as:<br /><br />Try to find the similarities between this and...well, OK, there is nothing similarly bad as this. Well, except Castle of FuManchu.<br /><br />Sock puppets can be dangerous to your health<br /><br />Create supense by describing through voice over rather than showing any imagery<br /><br />Have leading villainess "Valeria" (played wonderfully by Angelika Jager) deliver some of the most riveting lines ever!!<br /><br />Lots of men and women in post apocalyptic fashion (aka leather bikinis, loin cloths, and dead animal fur)<br /><br />Do be horrified by the end!<br /><br /> I'm off to have a salad. Toodles!!

test/neg/1162_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+I got this movie for fifty cents at a going out of business sale. I want my fifty cents back. Bad acting, poor script writing, lousy direction, historically inaccurate, even the sound of the film is awful. It's not the subject matter that offends. I'm one of the many who find suspense films and true crime films very interesting. The subject matter could have been treated more seriously, with much more attention to detail and accuracy, and the lack of respect shown for the victims and their devastated friends and family is enough to puzzle anyone. Also, there is little to no attention paid to what could have caused someone to begin the bizarre behavior that Ed Gein was displaying in acting out these horrible crimes. <br /><br />Save your time and sanity. Don't watch this awful film. If you bought it, you have my sympathy. It's not a total waste though...you can throw away the disc and make use of the plastic case!

test/neg/11746_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+OK, first of all, who in their right mind would remake Hitchcock and second, who would do it shot for shot? I admit I had no intention of ever watching this movie for that very reason. The original Psycho is one of my favorite films ever and this just seemed like a degrading photocopy of it. I did watch it because my girlfriend wanted to compare it to the original and we both agreed less than five minutes into this crap that it was awful. First, as mentioned, they did it shot for shot. Where's originality? Why remake a movie that is almost perfect EXACTLY the way it was done the first time? Why remake such a movie to begin with? If you ARE going to remake something, remake something that doesn't work and make it BETTER!<br /><br />Second, they used the exact same script from the 1960 version. The dialog no longer works. It works fine and sounds perfect for the 1960 version, but seems odd and stilted coming out of modern actors. Why not update the dialog? Hitch didn't write the script, you could have rewritten. <br /><br />This film had some very good talent and they were wasted by imitation of the original actors. The actor who played the car salesman seemed like he was just playing John Anderson's performance as the car salesman in the original. All the actors seemed like the only direction they were given was be the characters from the original movie. Vince Vaughn may have seemed a little creepier than Anthony Perkins, but in doing so, you loose the sympathy you are supposed to have for Norman. Having Norman masturbate while watching Marion undress was going too far and lost the innocence of the character that I think Tony Perkins captured so well in his performance. Viggo Mortensen's accent was annoying and Rita Wilson was far too old to play Caroline. Her lines came off as someone desperate rather than just young and fun like Patricia Hitchcock's performance. <br /><br />The only good thing I saw about the film was that Gus Van Sant was able to open the movie with the shot Hitch had envisioned. Hitch wanted to open with 1 long shot going over Phoenix but couldn't at the time so he had to settle for a series of shots cross-dissolved together. This film fulfilled that vision with a helicopter shot going into the window of the hotel. After that, though the film became a worthless waste of celluloid. <br /><br />If you are curious about how to destroy a wonderful film, watch this, but do NOT under any circumstances watch this BEFORE you watch the original. This is a faded photocopy of the original and should never have been green-lit. Stick to the master's film, not the imitation.

test/neg/11828_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Ah Animorphs. I loved the book series and eagerly devoured each one in middle school and when I heard that there was a television adaptation, I was very excited.<br /><br />Boy what a let down the final product was. I think for me, this was the moment when Nickelodeon stopped being about cool programming and more generic.<br /><br />So what was wrong with the series? Let me count the ways: 1. The characters were HORRIFICALLY miscast. In the books, the Animorphs were somewhere between 12-14, the television cast were at least 18. I remember being horrified when I first saw the cast photos.<br /><br />2. Horrific acting/bad writing. I dunno which was to blame so I'm lumping into the lumpy mass that it was. Perhaps it was the fact that the accelerated age of the cast hampered the humor that is at least cute coming out of a 13 year old because Marco - not funny. In fact, I don't remember a single comical moment from the group and there were a few. The actors were certainly not helped by the writing which was bland at its best and head smackingly pathetic at its worst.<br /><br />3. My lord they were stingy with the budget. The final result of the Andalites alone should have convinced Viacom to pull the plug...Their heads had clefts that clearly showed which was the helmet.<br /><br />4. Back to the cast - Rachel by far was the biggest let down, far from being the warrior woman in the books, the best equivalent in the TV series was "scarecrow". Also, I know Cassie was an idealist but there is a difference between "idealist" and "idiot".<br /><br />5. One of the worst opening titles ever. Did the music have to be THAT obvious? 6. Answering question 6, "yes" because everything else was dumbed down so why shouldn't the expectedly less intelligent viewers receive a thick as a brick song from a lame rap-rock rip-off or whatever the hell that was.<br /><br />Since then, there have been bigger let downs (Iraq, 2004) but in case I haven't made myself clear - this show sucked and was an abomination to the book series it was supposed to be based from.

test/neg/11890_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+I was forced to watch this film for my World Reigonal Geography class. This film is what is wrong with America today, instead of figuring out the best way out of hard times or situations we would rather complain about how it is someone else's fault. This film goes through the downfall of Flint, Michigan and blames it 100% on General Motors. In the process of doing so Moore goes to great lengths to make the executives of General Motors out to be villains just because they are doing their job in a capitalist society. Moore films several evictions throughout the film and does not ever even ask once if the person is being evicted because of a GM layoff. Additionally, he never interviews the landlords of the tenants filmed. Moore goes to great lengths to twist historical events to fit his political agenda in this film of pure propaganda.

test/neg/11937_3.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+I had high hopes for this film when I saw the listing and decided to watch it on TV, uninterrupted by commercial breaks. I've liked Lee Van Cleef in many movies but I'm afraid that having the other characters call him Chris repeatedly doesn't turn him into even a reasonable facsimile of Yul Brenner's Chris.<br /><br />I found this movie to be a complete disappointment - the music sound track tried to impart the magnificence portrayed in the original but it too failed to bring the film up the the standard of the original. The rich textures of the characters in the original were mostly missing from this film. I guess if you haven't seen the original it would be okay. Too many clichés and too little depth to the characters. I missed the humanity and compassion and the three dimensional characters of the original.

test/neg/11990_4.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+There is only one reason this movie is watchable. Till Schweiger. He is such a good actor the movie isn't completely terrible. Uwe Boll please take up another career. The special effects and action are acceptable. All other aspects were very disappointing. All I can say is that Kevin Smith (An evening with...) talked about Tim Burton not ever reading the Batman comics and it showed. Uwe Boll must not have ever played the video games that he keeps making movies about. If you two ever want to know how it is done go see Andrzej Bartkowiak. Doom was one of the best video games to film adaptations ever. Some people may disagree, but if you watch the movie you can see that the guys at ID had a lot to do with Doom. It doesn't seem like anyone at UBIsoft was even near this production.

test/neg/119_3.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Technically I'am a Van Damme Fan, or I was. this movie is so bad that I hated myself for wasting those 90 minutes. Do not let the name Isaac Florentine (Undisputed II) fool you, I had big hopes for this one, depending on what I saw in (Undisputed II), man.. was I wrong ??! all action fans wanted a big comeback for the classic action hero, but i guess we wont be able to see that soon, as our hero keep coming with those (going -to-a-border - far-away-town-and -kill -the-bad-guys- than-comeback- home) movies I mean for God's sake, we are in 2008, and they insist on doing those disappointing movies on every level. Why ??!!! Do your self a favor, skip it.. seriously.

test/neg/12044_4.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+It's unlikely that anyone except those who adore silent films will appreciate any of the lyrical camera-work and busy (but scratchy) background score that accompanies this 1933 release. Although sound came into general use in 1928, there are no more than fifty words spoken to tell the story of a woman, unhappily married, who deserts her husband for a younger man after a romantic interlude in the woods.<br /><br />The most vividly photographed scene has the jealous husband giving a lift to the young man for a ride into town, proceeding to drive normally until he realizes the man is his wife's lover. In a frenzy of jealousy, he drives at top speed toward a railroad crossing but changes his mind at the last moment, losing his nerve. It's probably the most tension-filled scene in the otherwise decidedly slow-moving and obviously contrived story.<br /><br />HEDY LAMARR is given the sort of close-up treatment lavished on Marlene Dietrich by her discoverer, but her beauty had not yet been refined by the cosmeticians as they were when she was transported to Hollywood. Her performance consists mostly of looking sad and morose while mourning the loss of her marriage with only brief glimpses of a smile when she finds her true love (ARIBERT MOG), the handsome young stud who retrieves her clothes after a nude swim.<br /><br />The swimming scene is very brief, discreetly photographed, and not worth all the heat it apparently generated. The love-making scene, later on, is also artfully photographed with the sort of lyrical photography evident throughout most of the film--artfully so. More is left to the imagination with the use of symbolism--and this is the sort of thing that has others proclaiming the film is some kind of lyrical masterpiece.<br /><br />Not so. It's disappointing, primitively crude in its sound portions (including the laborious symphonic music in the background) and certainly Miss Lamarr is fortunate that Louis B. Mayer saw the film and on the basis of it, gave her a career in Hollywood. He must have seen something in her work that I didn't.<br /><br />It's apparent that this was conceived as a silent film with the camera doing all the work. The jarring "workers" scene at the conclusion goes on for too long and is a jarring intrusion where none is needed. It fails to end the film on the proper note.

test/neg/12059_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Camp Blood is an absolutely atrocious slasher film. We're mixing Friday The 13th with the Blair Witch Project and adding....a killer in a clown mask.<br /><br />The budget for this film must have been very low, some of the actors played multiple parts and the camera used produced a picture equal to the colourised version of the original Night Of The Living Dead, which if anybody has watched that version will back me up that it is poor.<br /><br />This film was just so bad. There is nothing in the film even worth watching. The very fact I watched this all the way through stunned me. Just take my advice and don't buy or rent this film. It is appalling.

test/neg/1224_3.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Lonesome Dove is my favorite western second only to The Searchers with John Wayne. I watch Lonesome Dove about every 6 months and never get tired of it. I have read all the LD books, although I cannot remember much of Comanche Moon. I too looked forward to this mini-series and decided to tape it on our DVR so we could fast forward through commercials. Unfortunately, I messed up and didn't record the first part, but decided to watch the other parts and try to pick up.<br /><br />There is nobody that can ever compete with Robert Duvall or Tommy Lee Jones, and I was expecting to be disappointed and I was.<br /><br />Although there were so many things that didn't ring true, the most apparent to me was when Nellie died the day before and Gus was out on the range, it switched over to Clara writing him a letter from Nebraska telling him how sorry she was to hear of her death. How in the world could she have known the next day way out in Nebraska? Additionally, it was supposed to be 7 years later after her leaving and her children looked to be about 6-7 years old, maybe a little younger, yet more time went on before they actually moved to Lonesome Dove, and in Lonesome Dove they had been there about 10 years or longer before leaving to Montana. When they stopped at Clara's in Nebraska, which probably took another 6 months on the trail, the girls looked to be about 10-13, since they were playing in the yard like little children. The math just does not add up.<br /><br />I agree that the man who played Gus had a lot of his mannerisms and looked a little like Gus may have looked as a young man.<br /><br />I am also a little confused about one thing. The captive white girl that they brought back - was she the one they captured when they raided Austin? They said she had been captured 25 years ago, but if she was the one captured in Austin, it was only 7 years later when this took place in the movie. Was she captured earlier? I remember seeing a captive girl after they raided the town and don't know if this is the same one. If someone can explain since I missed Part 1. If it had been 25 years, she would probably be over 40 years old when they found her since she looked to be grown lying on the ground. Also, the way they were ravaging her when they captured her, it is hard to believe she would have lived to go on to be married and having Indian children.<br /><br />I have to admit though, nothing is worse than John Voight playing Call in the sequel to Lonesome Dove or the unbelievable marriage of Lorena to Pea Eye in the McMurty sequel to Lonesome Dove, which was never explained either. Also, the way he killed Newt off was I hear from spite for them doing the sequel with John Voight without his approval.<br /><br />If anyone can clear up these discrepancies, I would appreciate.

test/neg/12300_4.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+'The 4th Floor' is a decidedly mediocre film starring Juliette Lewis as a young interior designer with a heck of a problem neighbor. Jane (Lewis) has recently inherited a terrific 5th floor apartment from her grandmother, and per agreement with the landlord, gets a ridiculously low renting rate. Her boyfriend (William Hurt as a creepy weather man) wants her to move in with him, but she wants her own space. So she moves in, and weird stuff starts happening, and because this is a B-grade horror flick, there's a dumb, not-to-be-found-in-reality reason why. As the none-too-intriguing Jane keeps trying to tell others- her boyfriend, the police, coworkers- what's going on, everybody thinks she's losing it. So, of course, she has to face the problem- the lunatic living right below her- alone. Neither scary nor interesting, The movie's single saving grace is Lewis. She's a very fine actress but poorly used here, which is not to say she isn't the best thing about this flick- because she is. She has feral charisma and holds the screen better than a dozen of the silicone bimbos that routinely populate this type of movie. This type of movie, though, is not worthy of her- which is ironic, given that she's probably the only reason anyone would see it.

test/neg/12345_4.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+For the first forty minutes or so, Luna is a real pleasure to watch. The characters and their situation are interesting and the photography and locations are beautiful to look at. Then Jill Clayburgh discovers her son Matthew Barry is using heroin and the movie starts to unravel and then becomes outright laughable in its sickness.<br /><br />Clayburgh asks him why and when he started using the drug and she nor the audience ever get a straight answer, which would be a bit helpful. He mentions not caring about anything but that's not right because we see clearly in the amazing early scenes that he has a good deal of interest in his mother's singing, baseball, sex, and apparently cared enough to turn down marijuana. This movie is for people who think junior gets into hard drugs because mom and dad were workaholics who missed his piano recital. I think such a dangerous and emotionally volatile drug like heroin was chosen as some sort of intellectual catalyst for the later scenes of incest. There's a lot of discussion about the mother's love for the son but it's really about Bernardo Bertolucci being pretentious. Luna would have been great as a quaint little family drama.<br /><br />How old was Matthew Barry in this movie? I was more concerned over the bizarre things he had to do as an actor for this film than for anything his character was going through. ** out of ****

test/neg/12383_2.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+This is almost Ed Wood territory. Yeah, that ridiculous wreck of a flying monster looks like a cross between a turkey buzzard and a bad day at the dentist's office. And that sound effect screech makes fingernails across a blackboard sound like Mozart. And why The Giant Claw when the goofy critter gobbles its victims with a mechanical jaw. We get big close-ups of the ugly chicken foot, but nothing more. I guess the producers thought a more appropriately titled Big Mouth might suggest a Jerry Lewis comedy. And speaking of comedies, all that "anti-matter" gobbledy-gook is funnier than anything in a Lewis movie. I guess the scripters were stuck for a reason why an ordinary duck hunter couldn't take care of a 1950's flying menace, so they concocted a real whopper-- anti-matter from another galaxy. Yup, this fugitive from KFC is supposed to have flown in from another galaxy behind a shield of anti- matter as explained in excruciating detail by one of the film's resident geniuses. In this case, it's Jeff Morrow a pilot who I gather in his off-hours advises Einstein on the secrets of the universe. <br /><br />Unfortunately, it's also Morrow who keeps the ridiculous proceedings out of the bad-movie Hall of Shame since he actually delivers his lines with a straight face. What's more, he even sounds as if he believes them. This is a movie acting triumph of the first order. To heck with the Oscars, Morrow deserves a combat medal for performing above and beyond the call of duty under the most extreme bad movie circumstances. Watch leading lady Corday, then you can gauge his fortitude under fire. She looks like she just woke up inside a bad dream and maybe if she stands stock-still, no one will notice her. I barely did. Oh well, the first time I saw this drive-in disaster was through a beery haze in the back row of what's now a housing development. I should have learned my lesson and broken out another 12-pack this second time around.

test/neg/12416_2.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Probably the biggest thing about Wild Rebels that hurts it the most is the hero. He's got LOSER written all over him, but that doesn't stop him from "getting the girl." Probably one of the world's worst race drivers imaginable, he decides to stop racing after he crashes his car. Well, his new job is racing still, as a bunch of biker types pick him to drive their getaway car as they commit crimes. There's nothing really to endear you to Rod, even the situation he's thrown into is pretty stupid. In the end, at the lighthouse scene, you'll wish that Rod gets killed with all the bikers. Get this: He's shot twice, once in the arm and once in the leg, and still manages to crawl up the stairs a little. If only Jeeter had better aim...<br /><br />Avoid this one unless you're watching the MST3K version.

test/neg/12430_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+**Possible Spoilers Ahead**<br /><br />Whenever fans of bad movies congregate for more than a few minutes, a name that invariably comes up is that of Larry Buchanan. This amazing director has given us remakes of other turkeys (ZONTAR THE THING FROM VENUS), cheap-jack crime dramas like A BULLET FOR PRETTY BOY, and tawdry conspiracy flicks like DOWN ON US and GOODBYE NORMA JEAN. THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a humdinger to say the least. Overlooking the fact that Loch Ness is extremely long and narrow, Larry filmed this howler on a wide and round California lake. Early on, the film boasts some dazzling (for the budget) underwater photography and creates some atmosphere in spite of itself. Then it degenerates into windy dialogue uttered by no-name actors with lapsing Scottish accents, not to mention a soundtrack that will do nothing for the much-maligned bagpipe. At one point, campers sing "You Take The High Road, I'll Take The Low Road," just to throw in one more Scottish cliche. If Scottish people ever decide to jump on the Political Correctness bandwagon they'll sue Larry Buchanan over this film, his surname notwithstanding. The monster looks like a giant papier-mache puppet and it makes the dragon in Beanie & Cecil look terrifying by comparison. In one unforgettable scene Nessie takes to land and, to evade some patrolling soldiers, the fifty-foot long critter tries to hide behind a tree-and the soldiers don't see it! THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a true mind-boggler that must be seen-several times--to be believed.

test/neg/12453_2.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Jane Russell was an underrated comedienne and singer (see SON OF PALEFACE and GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES), but you'd never guess it from her display here. A real stinker, produced by Howard Hughes in his all-too-successful effort to kill off RKO Radio Pictures.<br /><br />The movie kills its first opportunity to show off sexy Jane when it places her in a bubble bath and then has her chastely singing "I'll Be Switched (If I Ain't Gettin' Hitched)"--and it's all downhill from there. In her autobiography, Russell apologized for the movie's number "Lookin' for Trouble" because it was supposedly so risque--nowadays you could show it on The Disney Channel. (By the way, said autobiography has a jaw-dropping photo of Russell in a bikini, far sexier than anything

test/neg/1326_4.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Do people rate this movie highly because it's a foreign war movie???<br /><br />To me it's nothing more than a bad Hollywood war movie in German.<br /><br />This movie is so bad on so many levels. To even mention it along with Platoon or Full Metal Jacket is absurd. The battle sequences are pathetic, the dialog and acting atrocious.<br /><br />This so called group of "storm troopers" are regulars in the Wermacht. Not SS troops. There is so much wrong with this movie it's sad. Bad editing, bad acting. It's got it all.<br /><br />The movie goes on and on and on as though the audience should be made to suffer as much as the soldiers did.<br /><br />I read in a review that the this film had a $20 million budget.<br /><br />For real? Where was it spent? In the fake train car sequences? In the pathetic "special effects"? Ugh.<br /><br />As a WWII history buff, and WWII movie fan, I found this movie to be a serious disappointment.<br /><br />For an excellent alternative war movie check out "The Beast". (Not a WWII movie, but still outstanding)<br /><br />Don't bother with this one.

test/neg/1383_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+The tagline for this show is, "He's speaking his mind. We're hiring extra lawyers." If you look back in time, any classic raunchy comedian never prided himself in being controversial. Richard Pryor's tagline wasn't, "I'm Crude, Racist and Daring." That's basically how Comedy Central is marketing this show - in your face, non-PC and "honest" - but how can a television show pride itself in being this way? Where's the humility and humbleness? And what suddenly has made Carlos Mencia this huge figure for Comedy Central? Let's start at the beginning - Dave Chappelle cancels his show (which became UNEXPECTEDLY popular and controversial) and Comedy Central is looking around for someone new to push. They hire this guy named Ned who claims to be a Mexican, even though he isn't. They splatter his face on a few TV ads and make it look like they're being "daring" by unleashing him upon the public.<br /><br />I've seen a lot of hateful topics on the forums for this show, and I don't agree with "Mencia's" detractors. This is not an awful show. It had me crying in laughter a few times. When it's funny, it's very, very funny. Yes, it's juvenile - but so was Chappelle's.<br /><br />The problem with Carlos is that he uses a lot of the same material over and over. And he's too obvious. The overt marketing put aside, "Carlos" has now said beaner so many times I have lost count. He's trying to make it the next famous line (like "I'm Rick James, b****!") but it's way too obvious.<br /><br />In terms of repeating himself, Carlos uses many of the same jokes over and over. For example, on one episode he said he'd love it if all Mexicans disappeared from America overnight. He'd wake up and an American guy would be saying, "Room ser'vuce!" in a southern accent.<br /><br />He used this exact same joke - verbatim - when he appeared as a guest on Adam Carolla's talk show. It was a great deal less funny the second time around, because he seemed more desperate.<br /><br />Is "Carlos" funny? I think so. There are some outrageous moments on his show. But he focuses too much on TRYING to be controversial rather than just going with the flow and letting his comedy naturally progress. Repeating silly little catchphrases over and over again coupled with goofy faces and loud vocal screams does indeed get old quite fast...I just hope Carlos - or his writers - can give a new edge to this show, because right now it's starting to dwindle in repeat hell.

test/neg/1416_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+How is it possible to make such a bad movie with such actors? Were they forced into it? The plot has nothing to do with an idea of how things would turn out if a comedian ran for president. They don't even try to give an impression of that. Just when you thought you were watching a comment from famous liberals on DC politics (the first five minutes), the movie runs off the road and into B-film drama about 1) a computer voting error, 2) the regular evil corporate suits who wants to cover it up with the most unoriginal lines in history, and 3) a neurotic but extremely pretty female programmer who tries to tell the coming president about this. She's soon the victim of the evil X-files master-lords of the computer company, who - instead of killing her - drug her to make her seem untrustworthy. But, when she gets to DC, she doesn't tell him. In fact, the movie then changes from B-film drama, to idiotic B-film-love-drama. Up to now, we are so far off the original starting point of the movie, that most people turn it off. I almost did. If it just could've been INTELLIGENT love drama, but no! It's not! It's the kind of "oops I'm so nervous I'm being stupid all the time, so please love me for it"-kind of love drama. All with a slow, slow pace, that has nothing to do with either the political plot of the movie, the X-files plot of the movie, or the comedy plot of the movie. All plots fail on all levels, which every annoying bit of meaningless dialog reminds you of. The love part has to be the result of deciding during a drinking binge "hey, there has to be a dynamic of love between the president candidate and the extremely pretty female programmer, yeah, that'll work! Stick it in there!"<br /><br />Meanwhile, Lewis Black is castrated and put into a role where he doesn't come up with one single Lewis Black line. The Lewis Black anger is replaced by a hope for it to surface sometime in the film, which it never does. And Christopher Walken is thrown into a hospital with heart trouble, to duplicate the dramatic effect of the heart attack of the President's closest aid in Westwing. Watching Christopher Walken being castrated like Lewis Black in roles that constantly struggles uphill to sound casual and Westwing-ish, but fail like Titanic every time, is like watching a great blue whale dying on a beach. Heartbreaking.<br /><br />And then, enter the low point of the whole movie: It raises the mindbogglingly, enormously difficult ethical question: Should Robin Williams go on to be president, knowing that he got elected because of a computer glitch? The American Dream And All Good prevails as he turns down the presidency on live TV, like Lassie the dog would. With the usual Patriotic Glamor Of The Presidency and the we're-so-smart-that-we're-making-history-atmosphere that Westwing cultivated in sickening abundance for the next million years.<br /><br />The director and screen writer, Barry Levinson, is now on my personal list of writers and directors I'm staying away from forever. This film must be seen as a symptom of a faulty production process, where people (inlcuding Barry Levinson) got to spend production money due to their personal relationships, and not their skills. This is a project made to satisfy poorly skilled people's wish for career success, and the formerly mentioned great actors were tricked into participating in it. That's the only explanation there can be. <br /><br />PS: The voting error in the computers was due to the double letters in Dobbs, Kellogs and Mills. Of course it was, what else could it be when you write a script and can't tell a computer from a dish-washing machine.

test/neg/1789_2.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+A handful of nubile young college sorority sisters decide to go camping with a professor. A giant druid want to sacrifice them to prevent the apocalypse come the year 2000, they also have to contend with bikers, an Indian and a loch ness monster type thing. Worth watching for only 3 reasons, George 'Buck' Flower (a sadly unsung B-movie staple) is on hand as a hobo and the other 2 belong to the stunning Savannah (in one of only 3 non-porn roles she had). Both have very small roles. Too bad everything else in the movie is horrendously bad.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />Retromedia DVD Extras: Original Trailer <br /><br />Eye Candy: 4 pairs of breasts, 2 asses

test/neg/1821_4.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Alan Rickman & Emma Thompson give good performances with southern/New Orleans accents in this detective flick. It's worth seeing for their scenes- and Rickman's scene with Hal Holbrook. These three actors mannage to entertain us no matter what the movie, it seems. The plot for the movie shows potential, but one gets the impression in watching the film that it was not pulled off as well as it could have been. The fact that it is cluttered by a rather uninteresting subplot and mostly uninteresting kidnappers really muddles things. The movie is worth a view- if for nothing more than entertaining performances by Rickman, Thompson, and Holbrook.

test/neg/1879_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Cronica de un desayuno combines the worst defects of mexican cinema, a rare feat nowadays.<br /><br />It's pretentious: it wants us to believe that it is deep, only because some scene is out-of-focus, another is pseudo-surreal, yet another plays with the Eisenstein-Infante-Caifanes tradition of laughing-crying faces, the edition is fragmented, and it is all so solemn.<br /><br />It has a weak script: the main story hardly develops, so it has other three smaller, needless stories, stuck into it. They are only good to make the film last longer.<br /><br />Most of the acting is bad. A true feat, baring in mind that many of the best known mexican actors were cast.<br /><br />There is an abuse of unnecesary foul language. To the point that the character of Paloma, who symbolizes the dreams of freedom of a child, uses it throughly.<br /><br />It is homophobic. The character played by Eduardo Palomo is the sorriest, and most punished, representation of a transexual I have ever seen.<br /><br />It is very boring. I ended up envying the people that left the theater before the end of the film.<br /><br />Whatever it tries, it has been done better, in Mexico and elsewhere.<br /><br />In other words: "Para partirte la madre, nada como una mala película"

test/neg/2008_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Well it is about 1,000 years in the future and we have finally breached traveling the vast distance between galaxies!! But sadly we still use guns that shoot bullets, black men are still calling each other brothers, and getting high, stoned, fighting etc.. Common stereotypical urban black men are still getting the short end of the stick! Babes in tight black rubber pants that look like they're from Baywatch share close quarters with the captian and crew. Crippled people still require wheelchairs to move, no fancy cures, implants, or robotic legs. Dracula still looks and acts gay. Need I go on... In short this move was shot on a typical sci-fi set low budget props, actors, and no real special effects to speak of. The beginning, the middle, and the ending was pathetic. I have to go off and shoot myself now there is nothing left to live for.

test/neg/218_3.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Unbelievably disappointed. The pace was slow. The characters unbelievable and throughout the film as a whole just let me feel bored and unfulfilled. There was no real plot that could keep you revolving around the film and keep you interested. The heist itself never offered any excitement and didn't seem very well though through.<br /><br />There was not enough depth or background to any character and Laurance Fishbourne's character was one I eagerly awaited for, unfortunately Laurance has no idea how to play the thuggish brut and is much preferred as a likable character. Columbus short one of my favourite actors (in stomp the yard) let me down with his performance, his character was dark and you could hardly see what drove his reasoning.<br /><br />The only character I think offered anything to the film was Milo Ventimiglia (Peter Petrelli in Heroes). Though his character quite small and insignificant I think his touch added to an all around dull film.<br /><br />In Conclusion buy the DVD if you want to find a new way to waste your time.

test/neg/2351_4.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Subspecies is set in Romania where two American college students Michele (Laura Mae Tate) & Lillian (Michelle McBride) arrive to study local folklore with the aid of local friend Mara (Irina Movila). There they rent rooms in a hotel & become curious about the mysterious ruins of a nearby castle, it turns out that a powerful & evil Vampire named Radu (Anders Hove) lives there who has stolen the Bloodstone from his father King Vladislav (Angus Scrimm). Radu takes a fancy to the three girls & starts drinking the blood of Mara & Lillian, meanwhile Michele falls for a guy named Stefan (Michael Watson) who just so happens to be Radu's brother. Michele & Stefan decide to team up & rid the world of the evil Radu...<br /><br />Directed by Ted Nicolaou this film seems to be quite highly regarded amongst genre fans & while it's not terrible I certainly wouldn't call it very good & I could't really see anything much to get excited about. Subspecies is a rather slow going film, not that much actually happens & while it does try to stay close to certain classic Vampire lore there's all this nonsense about a Bloodstone & some little monsters that grow from the tips of Radu's severed fingers for some reason. Subspecies could have been a half decent film if not for the fact that it's dull, I really can't remember that much about it, good or bad. The character's are alright but some f the dialogue is silly & there's a scene which bugged me near the start when the girls are at the castle ruins & one says they have to go because it's getting dark yet it's still clearly the middle of the day & very bright. There's also a scene where one of the American girls finds a coffin that hotel's attic & doesn't really seem that bothered by it, I am not being funny but is some bloke whose house I was staying at had a coffin in his attic I would be very, very worried if you know what I mean. I don't think I would ever want to watch it again, there's no real threat, the plot is weak that mixes classic Vampire themes with silly subplots & I was distinctly unmoved by it all. Not the worst film ever but hardly the best either.<br /><br />The film looks alright with nice locations & some local scenery although you feel the look is down to the budget rather than the makers attempt a authenticity. There's not much gore apart from a decapitation & some broken off finger tips. For no apparent reason the makers throw in some average looking stop-motion animated monsters that really don't do anything or have much significance to the story.<br /><br />Filmed on the cheap by Charles Band's Full Moon Entertainment production company in Bucharest in Romania, the production values are alright & better than many later day Band productions. The acting isn't great with many of the cast putting in below par performances while genre regular Angus Scrimm has a small cameo at the start. There's a little bit of style here on occasion with a few scene reminding heavily of the original Nosferatu (1922) in particular the bit showing Radu's shadow coming down the stair with his long claw like fingernails standing out.<br /><br />Subspecies is a film that many seem to like for reasons I don't quite see, I thought it was throughly average at best & overall rather dull. Followed by Bloodstone: Subspecies II (1993), Bloodlust: Subspecies III (1994), Subspecies 4: Bloodstorm (1998) & the spin0off film Vampire Journals (1997).

test/neg/2760_1.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+I was forced to read this sappy "love story" between a German 24 year old POW and a 12 year old Jew. That has "political correctness" written all over it. Its kind of like the movie "SPIRIT" in which a horse wants to be free but those "evil" Americans wont let it because they need it. Well i have good news the Americans are "evil" in The German soldier and his summer book. Why!!! Horses where given to us by god and if the Americans needed a horse the can darn well use it. In the same sense the German had been trying to kill Americans, but this book/movie makes it seem OK! The casting is absolutely awful!!!!!!!!!!!! The girl is Hispanic the mother is white the dad it probubly from mostly white descent and the little sister is "shirley templish." The acting is pretty bad too, the serious parts become comedy! Concluson-Bad movie, bad book, but both have different endings, don't read or see either one!

test/neg/2780_4.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Dark Harvest is a very low budget production made by a bunch of rank amateurs which manages to come off as a kind of semi-professional movie. Unfortunately the poor effects, wooden acting and unoriginal story makes this a very mediocre horror slasher at best. By no means is Dark Harvest the worst horror movie i've ever seen, it just isn't anything special and has nothing in it to warrant a second watch or hope for a sequel. You know a director has doubts about their own horror film when a) there is some pointless nudity and b) the movie's so short they add some rather boring outtakes at the end credits that nobody really cares about because the movie wasn't that good! A slightly better movie which i can't help feeling was the inspiration for Dark Harvest is the eighties movie 'Scarecrows' which is an OK movie but still pretty average.<br /><br />Dark Harvest isn't as bad as some of the other comments say it is but don't think that you will be entertained much either. One thing i also have to comment on is the character of Angela who has a really terrible English accent! What was the point in that?! To maybe give it a certain touch of class? Yeah right! English people do NOT say "WAAHTAAH" when they mean to say "water" and i don't care what part of England they are from! If you can't find a genuine English actress or a non-English actress who can put on a brilliant English accent (not many of them about) then DON'T BOTHER! Sheesh! Final score: 4/10

test/neg/2813_4.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Big D.B. tries to keep peace between the settlers and their red brothers.<br /><br />Boone (an aging Bruce Bennett) has to try and prove to the local Indian chief (Lon Chaney, Jr., appearing to be drunk, as usual) that his son was killed by the tribe's leading jerk who has also been dealing in rifle-trafficking when nobody's looking. Faron Young sings, though he holds his rifle like it's a mop. <br /><br />OK western-adventure directed by two guys, neither of whom has many credits on his resume, but this flick ain't too bad and it has a nice short running time of 76 minutes.

test/neg/2828_2.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+This film is bundled along with "Gli fumavano le Colt... lo chiamavano Camposanto" and both films leave a lot to be desired in the way of their DVD prints. First, both films are very dark--occasionally making it hard to see exactly what's happening. Second, neither film has subtitles and you are forced to watch a dubbed film--though "Il Prezzo del Potere" does seem to have a better dub. Personally, I always prefer subtitles but for the non-purists out there this isn't a problem. These DVD problems, however, are not the fault of the original film makers--just the indifferent package being marketed four decades later.<br /><br />As for the film, it's about the assassination of President Garfield. This is a MAJOR problem, as Van Johnson looks about as much like Garfield as Judy Garland. In no way whatsoever does he look like Garfield. He's missing the beard, has the wrong hair color and style and is just not even close in any way (trust me on this, I am an American History teacher and we are paid to know these sort of things!). The real life Garfield was a Civil War general and looked like the guys on the Smith Brothers cough drop boxes. Plus, using some other actor to provide the voice for Johnson in the dubbing is just surreal. Never before or since has Van Johnson sounded quite so macho!! He was a fine actor...but certainly not a convincing general or macho president.<br /><br />In addition to the stupid casting, President Garfield's death was in no way like this film. It's obvious that the film makers are actually cashing in on the crazy speculation about conspiracies concerning the death of JFK, not Garfield. Garfield was shot in Washington, DC (not Dallas) by a lone gunman with severe mental problems--not a group of men with rifles. However, according to most experts, what actually killed Garfield (over two months later) were incompetent doctors--who probed and probed and probed to retrieve a bullet (to no avail) and never bothered cleaning their hands or implements in the process. In other words, like George Washington (who was basically killed by repeated bloodletting when suffering with pneumonia) he died due to malpractice. In the movie they got nothing right whatsoever...other than indeed President Garfield was shot.<br /><br />Because the film bears almost no similarity to real history, it's like a history lesson as taught from someone from another planet or someone with a severe brain injury. Why not also include ninjas, fighting robots and the Greek gods while you're at it?!?! Aside from some decent acting and production values, because the script is utter cow crap, I don't recommend anyone watch it. It's just a complete and utter mess.

test/neg/2849_3.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Terrible. Absolutely terrible. Long, confusing and unrewarding. After about three hours of this painful mess the ending truly is the final nail in the coffin. Not even the magnificent, sexy, beautiful goddess Francesca Annis can save this poor adaptation of Agatha Christie's work. The plot drags and drags and time goes by slowly and suddenly you realize that you don't even have any idea of what's going on anymore. By the end even with the usual explanation by the villain there's still a lot that's left unexplained and then… it's over. A complete waste of time and without a doubt one of the worst adaptation's to bear the name of Agatha Christie.