DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Kevin Tenney's "Night of the Demons" is an enjoyable horror film that reminds me a little bit "The Evil Dead".On Hallowen night,a group of teens throws a party in Hull House,an abandoned funeral home on the outskirts of town.Lead by Angela,they perform a seance-like ceremony and accidentally awaken the evil spirits that inhabit the place.One by one,the uninvited evil force possesses the teens,turning them into bloodthirsty demons."Night of the Demons" is a perfect horror film.It is scary,gory and pretty atmospheric.The characters are well-developed and the gore by Steve Johnson is pretty good.There is a gruesome impaling,a tongue being bitten off,fingers shoved into eye-sockets,etc.The scene,where Suzanne(Linnea Quigley)shoves a tube of lipstick through her nipple is a hoot.Give this one a look.Followed by two sequels.

Sentiment: positive
This story is a familiar one in the long-running Tom and Jerry cartoons, especially in the 1940s, the only difference being that two cats instead of one are threatened to be evicted if they don't catch the mouse (Jerry). Tom has an unnamed buddy ("Butch?") living in the house with him, so this really upsets "Mammy Two Shoes" who can't believe that they have a mouse despite TWO cats in the house.

Anyway, the one who catches Jerry can stay while the other gets the boot, so the competition is on!

Even though it's familiar territory I still enjoyed this because the cartoon had enough original sight gags to make entertaining. You not only had the cats competing against each but Jerry in the equation as well, so there were enough good gags to definitely recommend if you are a Tom & Jerry fan.

Sentiment: positive
This is another notorious Mexican horror film: however, while the original Spanish-language version is quite tame, all sorts of gore and nudity were inserted for the English-dubbed variant (prepared by Jerald Intrator - who did similar duties on THE CURIOUS DR. HUMPP [1967/71] - and, like the U.S. version of that film, had previously been available on DVD through Something Weird/Image)! 

I watched the original first and, while no great shakes, it was fairly engaging - especially with a plot as familiar as this one was: a doctor goes beyond the call of duty in attempting to save the life of his terminally ill son; he even has a hulking, game-legged assistant (played by Carlos Lopez Moctezuma, who had essayed a strikingly similar role - though in a more sinister vein - in THE CURSE OF THE CRYING WOMAN [1961]). I know that several Mexican films mingled horror with the "Lucha Libre" (Wrestling) genre but I had never watched one myself; this element is present here - in fact, the heroine is a wrestler - but the two styles are, perhaps thankfully, kept apart (that said, the wrestling sequences are competently done, with some of the moves proving highly amusing).

The doctor's son is transformed into a monster (looking like The Incredible Hulk with mud splashed over his face!) after having had an ape's heart transplanted into him - but, then, when this is replaced with that of a comatose female wrestler, he stays this way and grows a pair of fangs to boot (shouldn't he realistically have turned into a transsexual...though I guess that wouldn't have been very interesting)!! The climactic rooftop sequence in which the monster kidnaps a child and meets his demise at the hands of the police is reminiscent of THE GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942). My favorite unintentionally funny moments in the film, however, occur when the doctor, trying to comfort his son, tells him that he'll soon be cured - only to turn his back soon after on the verge of tears - and also the impatient look he gives his crippled assistant (as the latter staggers slowly into the car) when they're about to chase the monster who has escaped from the lab.

The alternate nude scenes work for the film (these were actually done by Cardona himself for a racier Mexican version entitled HORROR Y SEXO) but its reputation is largely based on the added material showing over-the-top violence, such as an eyeball being gouged out of its socket, a scalping and even a person's head being torn off. There are also several graphic operation inserts which, however, give rise to a goof: while it's made clear that only two people are involved in the operation, we see a third pair of hands constantly holding an oxygen mask to the patient's face! 

The film is also said to be a loose remake of Cardona's own black-and-white horror film DOCTOR OF DOOM (1962) but, since I haven't watched that one, I can't say how much of it was actually pilfered for NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES...

Sentiment: negative
During the 13 years of schooling I had from Kindergarten through high school, there was only one day that my class took a field trip. When I went to school, you went to school, from 8:30 until 3:30 and filed trips were not taken. But, for some reason I could not recall at this advanced age, we went to see a movie - National Velvet. I do not recall the movie, so, on the eve of my 57th year, I decided to revisit it.

It is a movie about a time that no longer exists. A time when people trusted others and didn't lock their houses. A time when people were given the benefit of the doubt. It was a time when family was the most important thing. This film shows all of that and more. It shows love and trust and caring and the goodness of people.

It would not be a bad thing for every family to view this film once in a while and discuss its message.

It was a treat to see the young Elizabeth Taylor, Mickey Rooney at his best, the Academy Award-winning performance of Anne Revere, Angela Lansbury before Murder, She Wrote, and Donald Crisp, who performed for almost sixty years.

What a movie!

Sentiment: positive
Goldrush: A Real Life Alaskan Adventure is a great tv film for all ages. The movie focuses around "Fizzy" (Alyssa Milano) who wants to go on travel for gold in Alaska. The only person who hires her is Pierce Thomas Madison (Bruce Campbell). What comes next for her is an adventure she will never forget. This tv film was just great. The acting is #1 (especially by Bruce Campbell and Alyssa Milano) and I also learned some information about the Goldrush. I recommend this TV film to all without hesitation. It is also based on a true story.

10/10

Sentiment: positive
(First of all, excuse my bad English) Of course only a movie starring Jessica Simpson can include serious goofs like this.. I'm a norwegian and I felt offended and shocked the makers of this movie did not take the time to do their research upon making this American/"Norwegian" movie. Even Wikipedia is more accurate when it comes to facts about this country.

So I'm posting my corrections out of my frustration: -The Country is named Norway, not Norwegia. -"Da" is Russian, not norwegian. -Norwegian priests never use those black capes with that white paper by the neck as the protestant church is the dominant by far -It's true we have a native traditional folk-outfit (that we only use like twice a year) but the outfit in this movie is more like a German outfit. -I could NOT understand the so called "norwegian" in this movie.. Jessica was not making any sense.. neighter did the "norwegian priests"

The only thing I recognise is the norwegian flag (and the viking hats, but that's so stereotypic what people think about norway - vikings!:O gosh)

Well.. I guess the people who made this film will never read this comment. but at least I cleared some things up and got rid of some of that frustration..!

I'm proud of my country and I'd love if people in the US were less stereotypic and more accurate when they talk about this country.

That was all.. Lenge leve Norge ! ;p

Sentiment: negative
The message of a world on the brink of war is disregarded by the masses; the mythical city of Everytown in 1940 represents England in general, but it could just as well stand for any nation of the world. When war finally does arrive, it's ravages continue not for another five years, but until 1966 at which time Everytown is completely destroyed. Adding to the desolation and toll on humanity is the "wandering sickness", a pestilence that continues for another four years.

"Things to Come" balances both a fatalistic and futuristic world view, where science holds out a hope for a revived civilization. The "Wings Over the World" concept plays out a bit corny, though it's spokesman Cabal (Raymond Massey) is unwavering in his mission and dedicated to his cause. If he fails, others will follow. This message is continually reinforced throughout the film, brought home convincingly in Massey's end of movie speech. Man's insatiable need to test the limits of knowledge and achievement requires an "all the universe or nothing" mindset.

The film's imagery of automation and machinery in the second half is reminiscent of the great silent film "Metropolis". As Everytown is rebuilt and transformed by the year 2036, the spectacle of the city's rebirth strikes a resonant chord, as architecture of modern cities of today suggest the movie's eerily prophetic vision is coming to fruition. Where the movie gets it wrong by sixty seven years though is man's first mission to the moon, but in 1936, a hundred year timetable probably seemed more legitimate than 1969.

"Things to Come" is one of those rarities in film, a picture that makes you think. Which side will you come down on, the forces for advancement in the face of uncertainty or maintain the status quo? It's not a comfortable question, as both choices offer inherent dangers and unknowable outcomes. Those who choose to be bystanders risk being swept away by forces beyond their control.

Sentiment: positive
I was not entirely impressed by this film. It was originally named Sin Eater and should have stayed that way considering that is all that was talked about for the last half of the film. I'm not even sure what the first 20 minutes of the film had to do with any of the rest of it. It was very slow and what was with picking Robocop (Peter Weller) as one of the main actors. That was a sad point.

All in all I would say check this out if you are into things dealing with the Catholic religion but don't expect an Exorcist or Stigmata from this film. It will surely flop after a few days and word gets out.

Sentiment: negative
This film is a lyrical and romantic memoir told through the eyes an eleven year old boy living in a rural Cuban town the year of the Castro revolution. It is an obviously genuine worthy labor of love. 

The names CUBA LIBRE and CUBAN BLOOD are merely attempts to wrongly market this as an action film. DREAMING OF JULIA makes much more sense. It has more in common with European cinema than with RAMBO and the revolution is merely an inconvenience to people's daily lives and pursuits. That fact alone makes the film more honest than most works dealing with this time period in Cuban history.

The excessive use of the voice-over narrator does undermine the story but the film makes up for it with unqualified clips from Hollywood films that say so much more visually than the narrator could.

The comparisons to CINEMA PARADISO and are fair game as the film does wax melancholy about movies, but there is an underlying pain at the loss of a lifestyle that surpasses lost love. 

The revolution, like the film JULIE, never seems to have an ending.

Sentiment: positive
This is arguably the worst film I have ever seen, and I have quite an appetite for awful (and good) movies. It could (just) have managed a kind of adolescent humour if it had been consistently tongue-in-cheek --à la ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, which was really very funny. Other movies, like PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE, manage to be funny while (apparently) trying to be serious. As to the acting, it looks like they rounded up brain-dead teenagers and asked them to ad-lib the whole production. Compared to them, Tom Cruise looks like Alec Guinness. There was one decent interpretation -- that of the older ghoul-busting broad on the motorcycle.

Sentiment: negative
I really enjoyed this movie... In My DVD collection of baseball movies... Reminded me how great the sport truly is... Whether it's here in America or Japan.

Sentiment: positive
This movie had the biggest advertising campaign any movie ever had in Russia. "Epic movie about Russian culture", "Great saga of Russian spirit", endless articles and interviews. For me this movie was the biggest disappointment. The main character played by Oleg Menshikov is a stupid immature boy ready to set up his comrades because of a woman who doesn't even look like a lady. What is there to admire? In the first part of the movie the story doesn't develop at all. People's festival scenes look like boasting about Russian audacity.

I respect Mr. Mikhalkov for his previous works both as actor and director, but this movie just demonstrates his ambitions to be considered the "Tzar" of Russian cinema.

Sentiment: negative
Darr was a Super Hit film, which was loved by many peoples. It tells the story of Shahrukh Khans innocent obsession for Juhi, who loves Sunny Deol. Honestly it was a entertaining movie, but if you look carefully its not too realistic. Shahrukh Khan keeps phoning Juhi and tells her that he loves her too bits. He gives an announcement in college that he Loves her, and gives her some nice surprises like beautiful photos of her. Unfortunately, instead of being flattered that a guy loves her too bits, she gets very very scared. I personally know 100s of people that get pranked by someone, and these people enjoy it, cos they play a long. Yash Chopra gives us a good film that does entertain, widely because of Shah Rukh Khan's character. Sunny Deol is suppose to be the main actor, but Darr belongs to Shah Rukh Khan delivering a Superb performance. Shah rukh Khan is literally the villain of the movie, but i would of been happy if he got the girl, because he loves her so dearly. Sunny Deol gives a decent performance, but he beats up all those guys on his own, and survives a brutal knife attack. Juhi Chawla is cute as ever in a fairly good performance. Some good songs including Tu mere samne being the best.

Sentiment: positive
It was 1983 and I was 13. I watched Valley Girl on HBO one night when my parents were working. After it ended I wanted to talk with someone about it immediately. Turns out my best friend watched it too and it became our favorite movie. Every weekend after that we watched it until we could recite it. We woke her parents up late at night laughing hysterically. We began to worship the main character, Julie, played by the beautiful Deborah Foreman. I am not saying this is a great classic. Although it is for me personally. And I understand that the whole Valley Girl talk becomes annoying but that was the 80's. But deep down at the heart of the movie-it is a love story, and a familiar but good one. Girl meets boy and there are sparks from both sides, an instant connection. Julie's friends don't like him-he doesn't fit in, doesn't go to their school, doesn't have money. They like her better with her ex-boyfriend the football player even though he is a jerk. She makes the ultimate sacrifice-her own happiness for her friends' happiness. And she has these really cool supportive hippie parents. It is one of Nicholas Cage's first movies and his first starring role. One minute he is absolutely hilarious and the next incredibly touching and romantic. His friend Fred is pretty funny too. If you were a teenager in the 80's you will love this movie or at the very least it will bring back memories. It is no longer my favorite movie but it is still one of my favorites, probably in my top 10. I am eagerly awaiting it's release on DVD if they ever release it. You can go to Deborah Foreman's website to sign a petition to get it released on DVD and there are 2 soundtracks from the movie that are must haves if you like 80's music.

Sentiment: positive
Wow! The sort of movie you could watch ten times and still delight in its nuances. Absolutely incredible! If this was Visconti's debut film, i shudder to think what would happen if he got any better from film to film. The only other one of his i've seen (at time of writing) is Death in Venice - which was absolutely incredible: more dazzling visually than Ossessione (Obsession). One of the most beautiful films i've ever seen, but its story was not as involving as Ossessione. If you click on "miscellaneous" on this page's links, there are stills from the movie on those websites. They won't really do justice to the experience of the movie: such graceful camera movements, such beautiful composition, such wonderful faces, such terrific characters, such a great story development, the first movie adapted from James M Cain's "The Postman Always Rings Twice."

I can't believe this was made in 43, eight years before Brando was supposed to have introduced realistic acting to the world with Streetcar Named Desire (1951). The actors in this may not have used the method technique, ie they may not have truly felt everything themselves (i don't know anything about it) - but they're some of the best, most genuine and realistic performances up to this date in cinema. Also, eight years before Streetcar Named Desire brought a new sensuality to the screen, Ossessione was electrifyingly sensual! The most sensual thing since the beginning of cinema! Yes, i'm being superlative, but Ossessione was just that terrific.

The reason Ossessione didn't cause the impact Streetcar did was that it was made in fascist Italy and banned by Mussolini, and re-cut in America. American audiences didn't see its full glory till 59, eight years AFTER Streetcar.

I won't say any more about it - just writing to tell you its one of the best, most beautiful and exciting movies i've ever seen, and tell you to go out and see it! Like another reviewer, i'm going to buy it as soon as i can find it!

Sentiment: positive
My only reason registering to this site was for the opportunity to write a comment to this movie. I felt that I had to get rid of some of my anger by writing it off me. 

The movie "Babas bilar" must be just about the worst film I ever seen. I really do believe that the script may have seen to been able to become a pretty good movie or at least OK, but somewhere on the line something happened. What makes it even more odd is the fact that the cast appears to be quite alright on paper. Put to practice both script and the cast fails to deliver. There are to much action, it happens to much things and you can't help wonder why it happens. And then the cast, the actors make such a poor effort that you almost start to cry. 

If you have to much time at hand I would say you can see it. If not - don't.

Sentiment: negative
I bought this movie from Gamestop's discount used movie bin and the cover caused me to laugh uncontrollably so I bought it for 99cents. The movie itself is retarded and they use like ten different monkeys throughout the whole film that hardly look alike. Not to mention they use a stunt double who is just a short guy in costume making a desperate attempt to impersonate a monkey.

The director more than likely committed a murder-suicide with the chimpanzees after the movie debuted in a preview for some other low rent Warner Bros. film and he ended up owing money to the studio. It also doesn't help that he wasn't even infamous for the terrible job he did, he wasn't even known for producing a poop-chute film.

Why was this movie ever made?

Sentiment: negative
This film seems to be completely pointless. There is no reason why anything that happens in it happens, as if it was written by a small child who got bored halfway through and thought "how can I wrap this up?". And what were Jared Harris and Christopher Walken thinking? Did they do it for a bet? I couldn't tell you the plot, I'm not entirely sure there is one to be quite frank, but if there is it didn't register. Jared and his bird go to Ireland after she falls down the stairs while lashed up, as you do. They go to a house with a very annoying small girl in it, meet Christopher Walken who has dug up some ancient woman preserved in peat. He brings her back to life for no other reason than it continues the story and she shows her gratitude by immediately icing him. From then on it all gets a bit silly. A couple of hours of my life that I'd like back!

Sentiment: negative
There were but two reasons for me to see this film. First of all Stellan Skarsgard and Marisa Tomei were in it (who are both good actors) and I had nothing better to do. While seeing the film though, I immediately thought of something better to do: SLEEP! This film is a complete waste of time. It is a standard ex-cop flick. The ex-copper is the best there ever was, but he was fired. He keeps doing stuff on his own to the dislike of his former buddies and he saves the day. All BIG surprises (NOT!!!). Go to sleep, or if you have insomnia, try this one.

4 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
That's a bad, raunchy, predictable, tacky, salacious soap opera? "The Best of Everything" is just such a guilty pleasure for me, something along the lines of "Valley of the Dolls". I mean, "Best" has everything. Somebody gets pregnant out of wedlock (when's the last time you heard THAT phrase?), there are affairs everywhere, drinking, backstabbing, jealousy, and even a tragic but not altogether unexpected death.

Caroline Bender (Hope Lange) and Mike Rice (the delicious Stephen Boyd) are the centerpieces of the goings-on. Their chemistry is immediate and is the glue that keeps this film from becoming too fragmented.

Suzy Parker, the off-the-chart gorgeous ex-fashion model, appears as Gregg Adams, an aspiring stage actress, a role that, according to any biography I've ever read about her, was apparently not much of a stretch. But Parker does a surprisingly credible job here, more than holding her own in a couple of scenes opposite Louis Jourdan who plays David Savage. Jourdan probably took this role for the money and the special screen credit because he was clearly headed down the aging star/has-been road.

Diane Baker is fine as naive, gullible April Morrison, Martha Hyer as Barbara Lemont has a particularly juicy storyline, and film legend Joan Crawford chews her usual serving of scenery as Amanda Farrow, another role, like Jourdan's Savage, that Crawford likely took for the paycheck.

There is some obviously dated dialog and plot devices (this IS 1959), and the predictability of the soap opera genre. But if you like a good soap as I do, "The Best of Everything" will more than satisfy you.

Sentiment: positive
Despite what others had said (*cough*), this is my favourite movie of all time. I don't know how long I had been waiting to see it, but once I finally did, I immediately fell in love. Sure, it's strange, but that just gives it more of an exciting flavour. For those who don't know, Moonchild is one of Gackt and Hyde's first movies. They haven't done very many at all, maybe 3 or 4 tops each. So, give them some credit. We all know that Adam Sandler wasn't the best at first either. I do believe that they do throw some odd situations in there, but I over look that to find the best points of this movie, the emotions displayed and whatnot. Therefore, I have given, and always shall give, this movie a 10 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
This film was one of the worst I've seen in a long while. 

It's a combination police drama and comedy about two Hollywood detectives, Harrison Ford and Josh Hartnett, investigating a shootout at a hip hop club. 

The plot is contrived and there are way too many side issues going on. Ford is hustling real estate on the side (Martin Landau is one of his clients), Hartnett runs a yoga school where he's hustling chicks in his spare time, the two are under investigation by Internal Affairs, Ford is screwing the ex-girlfriend (Lena Olin) of the IA investigator and she's a psychic who has a radio show, the man who set up the killing at the club is a dirty ex-cop who shot Hartnett's father years ago.

Toss in the obligatory car chases and some lame attempts at humor, and that's about the gist of this turkey.

Sentiment: negative
When I heard Disney had the rights to "Underdog",I figured at the very least it would be a cool Pixar partnership affair,and we'd get a great Adults & Kids film like "The Incredibles". Alas...I forgot how Disney must dumb down classic material for today's dumbed down youth. What were they thinking? "Underdog" was a product of the 60's,your Prime Fanbase is in their 40's and 50's,why would you refocus it to 5 year olds? It should have been done ala "Roger Rabbit",half animated half real. Instead we get characters like Riff Raff ( a WOLF!! ) dumbed into another dog."Underdog" can't have an "energy pill",as we're now so "enlightened" it would obviously be a steroid or drugs reference.The only good casting was Patrick Warburton as "Cad" because he actually sorta resembles the cartoon version. Otherwise,old school "Underdog" fans should avoid this like the plague it is. What next? A live action version of "The Go-Go Gophers" disguised as a re-visionist history lesson? ( My advanced apologies if Disney jumps on this! )

Sentiment: negative
"Undercurrent" features a top-notch cast of wonderful actors who might've been assembled for the perfect drawing-room comedy. Alas, they are pretty much wasted on a 'woman's view' potboiler--and a paper-thin one at that. Katharine Hepburn is indeed radiant as a tomboy/old maid who finally marries, but her husband is deeply disturbed and harboring dark family secrets. Director Vincente Minnelli has absolutely no idea how to mount this outlandish plot, concocted by Edward Chodorov from a story by Thelma Strabel, and the friendly, first-rate cast (including Robert Taylor, Robert Mitchum and Edmund Gwenn) is left treading in murky waters. ** from ****

Sentiment: negative
Kirsten Dunst is terribly overrated as an actress. You can tell always she's just "acting". I like Izzard though. Plot is awfully boring. The viewer has no real connections to the characters, never knowing who to really sympathize with, or even care about. Slow, dull movie, with some laughs, but few and not very funny anyway. Plot is not engaging or suspenseful in the least. You can see each plot turn coming a mile away. What is this movie supposed to be? Comedy? Drama? Who cares? You won't by the end of this film.

Sentiment: negative
A lot of other reviewers here, including many whose opinions I respect, hold this slice of European sleaze horror in high regard. Personally, I didn't like it at all. Its an incoherent attempt at a atmospheric period cross between sex and violence. Jess Franco at his best makes these kinds of films very well. Unfortunately, the infamous exploitation filmmaker Joe D'Amato does not. D'Amato's most well known films are infamous for their high gross-out quotient. This, an early film by him, doesn't have the constant disgusting scenes that his more notorious "Anthropophagous" and "Beyond the Darkness" did. Ultimately, its an incoherent film that doesn't manage to involve the viewer in any way. Without the sleaze factor either, it becomes very boring. As I said, others have enjoyed this film, but I just found it to be a perfect example of incredibly lazy writing.

There are a few pluses for the film. Ewa Aulin (from "Candy") is in it, and she looks pretty hot and is often naked. However, cult film icon Klaus Kinski is completely wasted in a subplot with no connection to the main film. He seems bored with the role and doesn't have the manic intensity he does at his finest. The music score is nice and there are some brief moments of unintentionally funny gore. Still, this is a pretentious and pointless film that manages to be incredibly boring. (3/10)

Sentiment: negative
I liked Batman: Dead End. A dark edgy film-noir setting for Batman was perfect. Batman: Dead End is good. This is not.

First of all let me start off with the acting. None of it is really that good. The best would probably be Clark Bartram as Batman. But that isn't saying much. He is good at first glance, and then you realize he is what he is, a body-builder who happens to be a tolerable actor. But mainly the problem is that Batman doesn't belong in the daylight, he looks like a freak running around in a Bat suit. Instead of a horribly scarred man trying to make up for past mistakes. The daylight also reveals an irritating dorky scowl on Bartram's face which never leaves and unoticeable in Batman: Dead End, probably because of the darkness of short which is so desired in this trailer. Bartram seems to think that scowling and stubbornly shaking his head is acting, it's not, it's quite the opposite. It's called posing, something real actors avoid like the plague.

Something I never understood why Collora casted body-builders as the leads. It makes much more sense to give the role to an actor who can manage it, instead of a bodybuilder who can kinda manage it but HEY HE LOOKS SO MUCH LIKE THE COMIC! Of course, they might have done better if Collora's dialouge didn't leave much to be desired.

The entire trailer (yes, trailer. There will not be a full-length film) is more centered around Superman then Batman. But everything on the Superman side is corny, cloying and amateur. Michael O'Hearn (Superman) is one of the worst actors I've ever seen. He stands around, smiles, says his lines. That's about it. Although I'm not surprised since he is just a bodybuilder they hired and possibly received a few acting lessons. Once again I say to Collora, cast ACTORS. Not bodybuilders. Actors will be so much more compelling that we will forgive the fact they don't look exactly like the comic book.

The costume is what you would expect Superman to wear. As for the Batman suit. Well, I guess it only looks good in the dark. I say this because in some shots the suit looks like something you would buy from a Halloween gift shop.

Superman flies in this movie. But that isn't a good thing. These shots look especially amateur. This and a lot of the entire "film" looks like it was shot in their backyard with a VHS camera.

The best shots are a shot of Superman catching a car in his hands. And the final shot of Two-Face and Batman at the very end. For those of you who have seen the trailer. You know what I'm talking about. Now if only he could have stretched that shot through the entire trailer.

Finally I ask. Why if you're trying to show your ability as a director, would you make a trailer as a short film? This proves nothing when it comes to being an actual director handling story. My only piece of advice for Collora here is, there is a difference between the ability to tell a story and being able to work in marketing.

Batman: Dead End didn't feel amateur. I can't figure out where this went wrong.

Sentiment: negative
As a total movie geek with the fortunate job of video store manager, I tend to watch all sorts of movies, from good to very very bad. This was a movie with so many corn-ball lines, cheesy CGI effects and predictable plot points that I ended up laughing extensively before switching it off after 30-40 minutes. The "creature feature" genre of movies has been putting out some pretty awful stuff in recent years (Godzilla 2000 anyone?), but this movie makes me think the creators weren't even trying. It might be worth checking out just for the "make fun of me" potential (count the gunshots!), but I couldn't in good conscience recommend this movie to anyone.

Sentiment: negative
the photography is good, the costumes are good, but the editing is bad. The various scenes are cut, or stopped at the wrong times, and the conversations are s-l-o-w and tedious. This slowness continues the entire show. It is a very tedious show to watch. . . . I believe that more scenes SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED, but that would make it a longer show. It is very slow-moving. The writers should have made it JUST a 1-night show, and not prolong our agony night after night. There is nothing else on, otherwise I'd change the channel (the first night). I feel bad for the Indians of the time, and am angry at the white-men for what they did to the Indians, but thats our history.

Sentiment: negative
The Concorde:Airport'79, Is for now, the last of the high drama high,camp Airport series, At first glance in the TV guide,or DVD cover you would simply think that the film your about to view is as thrilling as the previous Airport's Think Again! What your treated to is 2 hours And 3 Minutes worth of unintentional laughs courtesy of the worst script ever writing it was even penned by Eric Roth, Who brought the world 'Forrest Gump! well one things for sure the script is not Oscar worthy,It's Razzie worthy! The Executives at Universal in '79,done the right thing by marketing this as a 'comedy' Apart from Charo! the film does have an impressive cast list, It's certainly watchable to say the least,

Sentiment: negative
A pretty obvious thriller-by-numbers, in which the only possible twist turns out to be a hiding to nothing. I was watching principally for the English-language performance by Isabelle Huppert. It wasn't great, but then it was a strange role. I wouldn't be surprised if half her contribution turned out to have been left on the cutting-room floor along with several last minute script re-writes.

The acting is the least appealing thing about this film. Steve Guttenburg looks like he's trying to flesh out his role with the charm that everyone's told him he has. There's a sensationally stupid sequence in which it's suggested that his sexual prowess will be able to help treat PTSD. It's an uninteresting performance. Elizabeth McGovern is more of a draw with genuine charm and character but it's small consolation. 3/10

Sentiment: negative
Overall this movie is dreadful, and should have never been made. One of the problems with this movie is that there is no link to the audience and the characters, for example, if she is about to be attacked, you want to feel, "Oh My God, No!", but you don't in this case, you don't care because there is no link that has been made to know the character. In the trailer, it seemed as though the movie would be great, yet there is no suspense what so ever really. There could have been maybe some mystery but there is not. "All she has is a toolbox." was said on the DVD's back, you would think that it was carefully planned this movie, and cleverly made, but it is not, The ending, was just awful, very straight forward, and pointless too. The acting is either average or below average, maybe even lower. In my opinion it was a waste of an hour of my life. The "Special Effects" and sets were average too, nothing special what so ever. There is not much gore, or bloody violence, not much blood is shown. This movie was advertised to make it sound quite amazing, yet really, its not even worth looking for, I do not recommend this to anyone, unless they are easily satisfied, by a few fights and a boring story.

Sentiment: negative
Also known in a different form as "House of Exorcism," this messy

little film takes itself so seriously as to kill any entertainment value

whatsoever.

The spare plot involves European tourist Elke Sommer who has a

chance run in with Telly Savalas, who looks just like the devil she

saw on a fresco in the square. Sommer is given a ride to a

mysterious house in the country, where Savalas happens to be

butler. There, she is mistaken for a long dead woman, and the real

soap opera theatrics begin. The house's blind matriarch's

husband had an affair with the dead woman, who was the

matriarch's son's fiancee. The couple who gave Sommer the ride?

Well, the woman is giving the chauffeur, uh, "back seat driving

lessons," and the husband knows and does not care. Eventually,

most of the cast is killed, Sommer is drugged and raped,

escapes, and the viewer is taken to a climax on board an empty

airplane...which must have resembled the empty theaters this

thing played in.

The alternate version of this, "House of Exorcism," has scenes

added involving a priest.

The VHS copy of this, from Elite Entertainment, is crystal clear and

letterboxed. There are "extras" after the end credits; deleted sex

and gore scenes.

Mario Bava's direction is fast and furious, but his screenplay is

awful. There are half baked ideas, abandoned plotlines, and

stunning conveniences that do nothing more than propel this thing

in some sort of forward direction. You have life like dummies for

practice funerals, the blind matriarch does not act all that blind,

and Savalas is given the same lollipops he had in "Kojak," (who

haunts ya, baby?).

The project seems like they had two name stars, then wrote the

script quickly, something that happens in Hollywood on a daily

occurrence now. Savalas looks completely lost, delivering his

lines haltingly, and wishing his character had not died in "The Dirty

Dozen." Sommer runs around and screams and gasps a lot, but

her character is a blank, I use the term "character" loosely. The

only thing we know about her is her name.

This is a real weird film, and your reaction to it might depend on

how heavily you are into Eurohorror, and Kojak. I for one cannot

recomment "Lisa and the Devil."

This is unrated, and including all the extras at the end of the VHS

copy, contains strong physical violence, sexual violence, strong

gore, strong female nudity, male nudity, sexual content, and adult

situations

Sentiment: negative
It is incredible!! ..yes, someone before me wrote that it was a time wasting to seat and watch this film.. it is! Don't do so! I'm totally rankled! I liked Wesley Snipes, and I founded funny that he played his name's meaning in a movie. Anyway, I wanted to see this film (at home only of course) but now (just after) I am absolutely disappointed! It was his worst movie ever. Inwatchable!! Bad actor-play! Bad cameraman! Bad scenario! ..Only one good think: that wonderful girl! Must be a manikin surely! Eeeeh!! MB ..10 lines minimum?! I don't want to waste you're time anymore to read my opinion! I hope, i was clear and under-stable, because English is not my native method of speaking. So have grate time, and see good films, like i try too.. Peace!

Sentiment: negative
Uninspired direction leaves a decent cast stranded in a handsome but bland adaptation, in which dialogue seems recited rather than heartfelt, and cash strapped appearances by the ghosts fail to round up any sense of awe or magic; Edward Woodward, as the Ghost of Christmas Present, wobbles around on stilts and seems to be doing an impression of Bernard Cribbins. As Scrooge, George C. Scott is too wry, and he never seems to truly believe in it, which robs his performance of its effect. The scenes in which he's shown his past have as much impact as if he was half-heartedly flicking through his family album. No one else seems to be putting any effort in, except Frank Finlay, who chronically overacts.

Sentiment: negative
If any show in the last ten years deserves a 10, it is this rare gem. It allows us to escape back to a time when things were simpler and more fun. Filled with heart and laughs, this show keeps you laughing through the three decades of difference. The furniture was ugly, the clothes were colorful, and the even the drugs were tolerable. The hair was feathered, the music was accompanied by roller-skates, and in the words of Merle Haggard, "a joint was a bad place to be". Take a trip back to the greatest time in American history. Fall in love with characters and the feel good essence of the small town where people were nicer to each other. This classic is on television as much as "Full House". Don't miss it, and always remember to "Shake your groove thing!!!"

Sentiment: positive
Poor Ivy: Though to the manner born, she had the bad luck to marry a charming wastrel (Richard Ney). As the movie is set in the 20s or 30s, when rigid Victorian ideas of class were starting to fray at the edges, this uncertain status vexes her unduly. The Gretorexes (for so they are called) don't know where their next shilling is coming from but there are yachting parties and fancy-dress balls in posh pleasaunces aplenty to tempt her. When Ivy (Joan Fontaine) makes the acquaintance of a wealthy older gent (Herbert Marshall, who must have been born middle-aged), she sets one of her extravant chapeaux for him. Luckily, one of the beaux she still strings along (Patric Knowles) is a physician whose consulting rooms provide a cache of poison, with which she bids her hubby farewell. The fact that it implicates Knowles doesn't phase her a bit, even as the hours trickle by until he should be hanged by the neck until dead. The turning of the plot depends on police inspector Sir Cedric Hardwicke; Knowles' mother (the redoubtable Lucile Watson); and Knowles' loyal housekeeper (Una O'Connor). Sam Wood adds some subtle touches to this well above average melodrama; Fontaine's luminous face supplies the rest.

Sentiment: positive
I found this film to be an interesting study in cause and effect but little more than that. The basic plot follows the lives of a handful of people and how their actions (deliberate and otherwise) effect the lives of the others. The film's premise holds great promise but I feel it fails to deliver on its promise. Too much time is spent telling the audience about chaos theory and too little time actually showing it. As a result, I never got a true feel for any of the characters and never made a good connection with them emotionally. By the end of the movie, I had a "so what" attitude about all of them. A stronger direction in character development would have made this movie great, but as it stands it is merely so-so

Sentiment: negative
I'm 14, so you probably would think I have never heard of George Burns or Walter Matthau or anyone like that. Boy are you wrong. I had heard that George Burns was in this movie and that he won an Academy Award for it. I have been a fan of George Burns since I was ten. I saw the movie Oh, God recently and loved it. This one was also very awesome. George Burns did a great job. So did Walter Matthau(this is the first time I've ever seen him perform). And even though they had really small roles, Phyllis Diller and Steve Allen did a good job. That special they were filming would have been awesome if it was really done. Let me say this, if you are a fan of George Burns or Walter Matthau, you should see this movie right away!

Sentiment: positive
So what is one to do if you are a porno star with fading looks? I know, become a pop star! This documentary - and I use the term loosely - follows the trials and tribulations of Colton as he tries to transform himself from a gay porn star into a singer of electronic (read: dance) music. I only wish Mr Ford's voice was as muscular as his arms...sorry to say his vocals are painfully thin. There isn't much interesting going on here but Mr Ford and friends are eye candy.

See him record a song that sounds exactly like every other mindless dance tune. See him travel to New York to make "connections." See him go back to L.A. with little success. See yourself look in the mirror and ask, " Why am I wasting time watching this mess?"

Sentiment: negative
Remembering the dirty particulars of this insidiously vapid "movie" is akin to digging into your chest cavity with a rusty, salted spoon. Perhaps "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" (1992) was a bit on the predictable side, but this pathetic excuse for a film is just one of the most shameless bids at commercialization I have ever heard of. A boy fighting off spies/terrorists when he's home alone in a Chicago suburb with the chickenpox? Ridiculous! Why did this film have to be made? I am the kind of person who believes even terrible movies are not wastes of time, but rather learning experiences. However, this is actually a waste of time. It should be avoided at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this film at Telluride Film Festival in 1997, where one of the screenwriters, José Giovanni, was being honored. It ranks highly as a great noir-crime-drama, incredible performances by Belmondo and Lino Ventura. The attention given to every character, and complex psychological portrayals, detailing loyalty, treachery, love, and hope, are tremendous. It is an excellent drama, an excellent thriller, and an excellent film. Up there with the best of Melville. (The title in English 'Class all risk,' in French 'Classe tous risques' is word-play on 'Classe Touriste,' meaning 'Tourist Class'.

Sentiment: positive
... So some people might argue that this can't possible be the worst movie ever made, and no it's not. I have seen movies with weaker plots, worse acting and so on.

So why do I hate this movie über alles? Well, it's basically about a man, who gets kidnapped for many years, and when he comes out, he tries to find out who did it and why, to get revenge. The problem I have with this movie has nothing to do with gore or horror, but

***MAJOR SPOILERS STOP READING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW*** 

our main character basically gets tricked into having sex with his own daughter, and he wants to cut out his own tongue so his enemy won't tell her, because she didn't know. It is so humiliating as he crawls on his knees like a dog in total submission. And why did he deserve this? Because many years ago, he saw a brother and a sister have a tender moment - in the wrong way. He went on and told some people, and as a result she commits suicide. And viola, it's the brother who put our main character through all this just for that. I have wondered: Maybe I hate this movie so much because I think his punishment is way too harsh. Maybe because I feel this movie doesn't condemn incest, but somehow confuses it with love. Maybe it's because I expected something else.

***END OF SPOILERS***

Believe me, nobody deserves what happens to our main character in the end, and I'm very serious; you know how some movies just go under your skin and stay there? Well, I felt goddamn dirty after watching this movie, and I REALLY wish I'd never seen it. It stayed with me for days, and some might ask: well, isn't that the purpose of a good movie? The ability to affect us in such ways? Yes, it can be, but this movie not only made me sick, it made me feel violated.

Sentiment: negative
I thought "puppets making crank phone calls" was pretty low, but I don't believe that Carlos Mencia's show even qualifies as comedy. His main objective is to make the audience incredibly uncomfortable while using the word "beaner" as many times as he possible can. I have never felt compelled to write a review declaring the awfulness of anything on IMDb before, but I really do hope this show is never renewed or rerun.

Mencia is trying to be the next Dave Chapelle, and perhaps he was only hired by the network because they hoped he would fill those shoes. It is obvious right down to the rip of Chapelle's intro (blues guys vs. mariachi band). However, Mencia has absolutely *no* attitude, and does not delve into popular views of the hispanic culture enough to come up with a creative poke at it each time. Instead he sticks to a small number of hardly-shocking nicknames for his fellow latinos and makes "jokes" about immigration. Every once in a while, he'll take advantage of the slight darkness of his skin to make fun of someone else, like middle eastern cultures. These jokes mainly consist of reiterating every joke or stereotype made against the culture, and perhaps some incredibly old topics (such as 9/11), in a watered down, stand-up style, while he laughs at himself to cover up the audience's style. I think he's too afraid of really offending anyone, so it just makes the viewer feel awkward. He also beats jokes to death. If you've ever seen "Why the f*** is this news?" you'll know what I'm talking about. It's funny at first, but he just rambles on and on and becomes Captain Obvious at some point. 

It's a trainwreck that is purely painful to watch.

Sentiment: negative