DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This movie was the most out of line and liberally fed movie i have ever seen in my life. (Besides Farenheit 9/11). All of the information was only supported on the opinion of FIVE scientists while 80% of the Asssociated Press highly criticize the science promoted be Gore. Global Warming is a Mass Media Hysteria and nothing more. Most of the information in the movie was either misquoted or it was wrong all together. THis movie has been investigated over and over again and has been shown evidence against that prove its lies were nothing but lies.

LIBERAL BLINDNESS! An to think that they show this in school proves that the media has brainwashed us into believing this garbage!

Sentiment: negative
This film has a really weird mixture of genres - toilet humour and action in one. It doesn't really pull it off - it should have stuck to one genre. The best thing I can say about the movie is that the dog in it is cute.

The most disturbing sequence is in the middle of the film when Moses (Sandler) and Carter (Wayans) decide to stop off at a hunting lodge/motel. I'm not quite sure what the point of this sequence is - it just seems gratuitous in the extreme. The proprietor of the hunting lodge ("Charlie") is a very nerdy looking guy. For some reason, Moses starts a conversation with Charlie about porno, jacking off, homosexual sex, sex in a threesome... Charlie's photo of his "wife" appears to be Charlie dressed in drag. There is no reason for this really juvenile dialogue and scene. Anyway, the whole scene seems to be directed to the moment when a naked Moses ends up with Carter's gun up his butt and Charlie sees them through the window. It all reeks of school boy humour about homosexuality - horrified and titillated all at the same time - which I don't find funny at all.

I have a friend who is always raving about Adam Sandler movies. This is the first one I've seen - after this, I'm not sure I want to see any more.

BTW, this is my husband's account - he's seen Happy Gilmore, and he tells me it's quite good - maybe I should give Sandler just one more chance.

Countess Skogg

Sentiment: negative
This is a very grim, hard hitting, even brutal film about a death row break that goes awry. It's black and white photography keeps it from being dated. Mickey Rooney is excellent as the twisted, yet strangely sympathetic lead. One of the first movies to portray the psychological desolation of death row. It is also quite poignant.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie last weekend and it is silly and mindless. An ancient curse turns a man into a mummy in his pajamas? The victims are scared senseless and can not run from a slow moving old man. They drop their torches and shiver instead of attempting to ward him off or,duh, burn him. Quentin alias Mr. Fabersham of the Honeymooners is married to Diane Brewster alias Miss Canfield of Leave it to Beaver fame, who is unhappy in marriage. Wow, love plot. The rest of the cast just follows each other in the tombs and wait for screams to react and run to their aid. The Egyptian girl is not bad looking but does not lend much to the film. Where is the mummy? Really just a curse unleashed. This does not hold a torch to Universal Mummy films in the least.Watch this movie if you need sleep, because you will dose off.

Sentiment: negative
It was in 1988, when I saw "The Ronnie and Nancy Show" for the first time (on Austrian television). At that time, I was already a very big fan of Spitting Image (since when it won the bronze rose of the Montreux Film Festival in 1986). Of course I recorded every show on tape and watched it again and again - especially "The Ronnie and Nancy Show". I remember that scene when Ronnie stood in front of a painting of Abraham Lincoln (thinking it was a mirror) and said to himself "I need a shave". Or most amusing of all, when he played ball with his dog - but vice-versa!

It's such a shame, that Spitting Image seems to fall into oblivion; it was one of the most fantastic and most intelligent made TV-shows ever. Compared to other satirical broadcasts it was definitely the best of all. 

Well, almost 20 years have passed since then, and I wish I could see the show again. Is it possible to purchase it from someone... somewhere?

Sentiment: positive
"The Phenix City Story" is a brutal, hard-hitting docudrama about what was once dubbed the "wickedest town in America." The film documents the events that led up to the murder by the Phenix City crime syndicate of Albert Patterson, an Alabama attorney who made a bid for the state attorney general's office as a way to clean up the vice and corruption plaguing his hometown. His son, John Patterson, picked up his father's mantle after his death and won the post, making clean up of Phenix City a primary item on his agenda.

Director Phil Karlson created a film that has the ability to shock even today. The grimness is so relentless that the film is actually difficult to watch. We see the crime syndicate beat and kill in order to get what they want -- the beatings and killings include women and children, and one scene in particular, revolving around the death of a little black girl, is especially disturbing. It's not exactly an enjoyable film, because there's very little payoff at the end to reward the viewer for sitting through the infuriating events leading up to it, but it's a well made film, full of an intense and angry energy.

A 15-minute prologue includes a series of interviews with the actual inhabitants of Phenix City, some of who are then portrayed by actors in the fictional portion of the film. It lends the film a quality of urgency that carries over into the narrative, so that we feel like we're watching a documentary the entire time, a feeling that's helped by Karlson's choice to film on actual locations.

I'm glad I saw this movie, but it's one of those films that fills you with a sense of righteous indignation and then makes you feel helpless because you can't do anything about it.

Grade: A

Sentiment: positive
THE SUNSHINE BOYS was the hilarious 1975 screen adaptation of Neil Simon's play about a retired vaudevillian team, played by Walter Matthau and George Burns, who had a very bitter breakup and have been asked to reunite one more time for a television special or something like that. The problem is that the two still hate each other and want nothing to do with each other. Richard Benjamin appears as Matthau's nephew, a theatrical agent who has been given the monumental responsibility of making this reunion a reality. This warm and winning comedy is a lovely valentine to a forgotten form of entertainment...vaudeville and it works mainly thanks to one of Neil Simon's better screenplays and outstanding work by Matthau, Burns, and Benjamin. Burns won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for this, but I think Matthau walks away with this film with his flawlessly hilarious performance as Willy Clark. Matthau was nominated for Best Actor but didn't stand a chance against Nicholson for ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST; however, in another year, this was an Oscar-worthy performance. Matthau commands the screen and there is not a false note in this beautifully timed performance. The scene where he is auditioning for a potato chip commercial and can't get the name of the product right is a classic. THE SUNSHINE BOYS is a warm and winning Neil Simon comedy which shines thanks to unbeatable chemistry between Matthau and Burns.

Sentiment: positive
The make -or-break of a love story for me is whether or not I like the characters and also if they click with each other. Matt is pretty unlikeable: aloof, braggart, seemingly lazy, and a misogynist. He's been hurt badly by his dysfunctional mom and this makes him a little easier to take. I guess I liked the details of his dysfunction--he was believable. He overcompensates by bragging that he'l nail Amy. He acts so cool around Amy that he strikes out twice. When they do talk he can't show her who he really is. She empathizes and then stonewalls him at just the right moments. She seems so mature and strong that the traits of hers that come out later didn't seem to fit. (For me.) I found her to be incredibly sexy and pretty, . . . girl next door pretty, I call it. So I was going to like this movie unless it really screwed up.

Funny things happen with the coach, but Matt's relationship with the other coach was inspiring. The football scenes at the end were perplexing. Matt doesn't carry the ball but seems to be a blocking back. Folks, he isn't the right size! He's fifty pounds too light for that position. But I thought his acting was skilled. I measure that by the way I wanted to wring his neck a couple of times during his scenes with Meredith Monroe. The film was all right. Meredith M was better than all right.

Sentiment: positive
this was the most costly film, when produced. Sir Alexander Korda and H.G. Wells were both distressed by its poor ratings---for good reason. it was and remains far ahead of its time. aside from the seemingly poor direction, probably editing, at the very beginning, the work moves along to a stunning conclusion.

whether its Sir Ralph Richardson's 'Boss' role, or even better, his wife's, Sir Cedric's, as adversary to space-faring, Raymond Massey's 'John Cabal' center role---all deliver mind-boggling performances.

the scene with mr. Korda's incomparable set, of the small girl-child, running out to an absolutely 'never-to-be-matched' scene, commenting 'Life just keeps getting lovelier and lovelier'? that swiftly brings tears to any parent/grandparent. this is not a film for the young--unless 'experienced' and rather those who have seen 'the horror' it opposes.

sure, the 'phony-parachuting', looks hokey---while using a 'magnetic-cannon', now termed 'mass-driver' may be viewed as ridiculous, vs. rockets---give Sir Korda a break--Mr. Wells made that choice. and at +/- $8 million, this film went way beyond 'over-budget'---so he concentrated on what he could manage.

the true power of this Greatest of cinema rests in 'John Cabal's' final statement of human destiny---his friend 'Passworthy' doubts the wisdom of space-faring, saying, 'We're such little animals.' John Cabal's proper response is,(paraphrased) 'Yes, little animals, and if that is all we are, we must live and die as such.' they are standing under a large astronomical telescope. he sweeps his hand over the night sky. 'Yet we may have all the Universe, or nothing.'---then the final chorus breaks in---'Which shall it be?'---this is not 'Star Wars', 'Blade Runner'---anything you may consider 'Great'---this is the Real Thing.

i remind all of Steven Hawking's most recent address, upon his latest 'Medal of Honor'---'Humanity must leave Earth, or die.'---the very core of this work---i love 'standard entertainment'---yet this 'relic', for the wise viewer, offers far more. 'Which Shall It Be?' be in the proper 'mood'---whatever that takes---this will take your breath away---i 'guarontee'---overall, for humanity? the most significant of cinema. 

since posting, i note many have commented on the poor 'media-quality' of 'surviving' examples. in the 80's i developed a 'proprietary' 'colorization' process which required a 'clean' original. this led me to Michael Korda, who sadly noted all were gone---so we must relish what remains---'sad but true?'

Sentiment: positive
Redundant, everlasting shots, useless shots, useless scenes are what you will find in this film. In other words, it seemed technically poor to me. The musical bits are amateurishly directed (no synchronization in the would-be dancing, badly post-synchronized, bad and obvious improvisation of the actors from time to time, etc). 

The film is long and boring. Eventually, it makes few point and even less sense. 

There are some good ideas though. Some of the comic elements are actually efficient, especially the opening scene. However, the film gets worse and worse so that it is completely unbearable and impossible to understand by the end. 

The trailer I saw was very dynamic, that is not true for the film. That is to say the discrepancy between the trailer and the actual film is something very close to a rip off.

Sentiment: negative
There are so many holes in the plot, it makes you wonder if they knew they had an audience for this and just threw it together. I don't know much about George Zucco, but I've seen him in two movies. Obviously, he has been cast as the loving father, mad scientist, vampire guy. He looks so ordinary. I'm surprised that he ended up in the genre. This is the typical, "I will create monsters that can be used to fight as an army." By transferring wolf blood (or is it coyote) to his hired hand, he turns him into a werewolf. Glen Strange, who was one of Karloff's successor's as the Frankenstein monster, plays the kindly, lovable hired man who is victimized because he trusts the mad doctor. At first the scientist is able to control when Petro (his name) can be transformed. But, like the invisible man, suddenly he starts morphing on his own and becomes a liability. There is a little love story of the daughter and a reporter with kind of a high pitched voice (Golly Miss Brooks). She wants to leave but her father, the doctor, won't allow that. He is also driven by a group of his peers who mocked his research before and now he is going to have satisfaction. The way he plot to embarrass or kill them is pretty far fetched and depends a lot on Petro and the guys sitting around waiting to be attacked. It's not a very good movie. The strong point is atmosphere of the woods as people and monsters lurk around the Spanish moss. Once again, the townsfolk are a bunch of morons, who look like they escaped from a bad western. One thing that stayed with me was that a little girl is the first victim and that seems unusual for a film of this era. There's also a pipe smoking old lady who knows about werewolves but nobody listens to her.

Sentiment: negative
If you're in the mood for some dopey light entertainment, this will pass the time. If you expect one jot of plausibility, don't bother. To me, the dance scene looked like it was exaggerated for comic effect; it didn't look especially hot or skilled.

Sentiment: negative
Rodney Dangerfield is a great. He has done a lot of great works. But this one....is awful. The whole plot is whack. It could have been much better. The jokes in the movie aren't funny....their stupid. This was very not so hilarious. He can do much better than this.

Sentiment: negative
1 How is it that everyone can understand each other perfectly without devices like universal translators or translator microbes? Did the creators of this show realize that people who were taken from different parts of the earth, in different time frames (Attilla the Hun wasn't a contemporary of preliterate Hellenic cultures, nor were the Vikings contemporary to the Pyramid builders) speak different languages and can never develop a language so similar to modern day English(except for the inflections they "do not" use), which has been influenced by Latin, ancient Greek, Danish and French? 

2 Cultural differences can't be overcome so easily, trust has to be won, yet everywhere the team arrives they are welcomed without any suspicion and start ordering people around like they are their appointed leaders. Of course real fans would comment that they are perceived as gods. The people they meet should be shocked by their technology and accuse them of witchcraft and the like.

3 Historical background: none. Visually it might vaguely remind you of Greek or Viking culture, but anyone can dress in a bunch of tablecloths or run to a local costume rental for a plastic helmet with horns and claim to look the part. A small-town theater group probably has better props.

4 Boring! Another lame Canuck production, which inexplicably ran for ten long years. As a kids show it could make the grade, but anyone who has a little knowledge about human behavior and language couldn't bear to even watch the first twelve episodes of season 1, like I just did. I very much wanted to believe I had found a decent sci-fi show, otherwise I would shut it of and cleansed my computer of this refuge after the first five minutes!

Sentiment: negative
This show makes me(and many others) hate their lives. Let's face it, Zoey is perfect; she's bland pretty, gets good grades, everyone goes to her for advice, she's popular, she goes to an amazing school with amazing rooms. Reasons why I gave this show a 3: 1. The acting is horrible.Sometimes I just want to hurt the people who put these untalented actresses(especially victoria justice) on television. 2. The characters are unbelievable and mismatched. You have your typical popular girl. A peppy, shallow, stupid ,stereotypical, girl who is portrayed by a horrible actress. Then you have a typical jock guy who is somewhat normal and actually nice.Then the stereotyped smart girl who is a freak and obviously does not fit in with the perfect popular friends of hers. Then a stuck up rich pretty boy that would be happier gazing into a mirror all day. Then the wanna be actress who is played by another stinky actress. And last a normal nerd person guy. 3. The plot is boring, and lame. 4. I hate how spoiled these characters are. Can't they just be normal! 5. Everything ends up perfect for them, and we all are reminded of how much our lives stink.

Sentiment: negative
The Minion is about... well, a minion. A servant of Satan and whose goal is to get the key that will unlock the door where his master is trapped. He is some sort of demon who possess human beings and when the body dies will possess another. Anyone who happens to be possessed will go on some berserker rage. Dolph Lundgren plays Lukas, a member of a secret order of Templars, who is tasked to keep the key away from the minion. The movie begins a thousand years ago, in the Middle East where a couple of knight templars flee from the minion. Then flash forward to 1999, where the key winds up somewhere underground in New York. An archeologist is assigned to study/dig the place where the key was found. Needless to say, the minion is after the key, and the movie becomes a long winded chase scene between the minion and Lukas and archeologist.

The movie, is just that, a low budget B-movie flick. The movie lacks energy, and just trods along. You'll follow the chase but you won't ever feel involved in the story which willfully takes ideas from previous movies (especially The Terminator films). The fight scenes with the minion is troublesome, in that you never get the sense of how good or how bad a warrior this demon is. It "skillfully" becomes a one-man army when fighting a squad of templars but sucks when it comes to one-on one. And it's supposed to be around for a long time. All this goes to show that any sense of logic is just thrown down the drain for convenience. The whole idea of a secret order of Templars, a door to hell, and the key isn't well explained. We are merely to accept that they just exist. The movie seems to have been made with the feeling there's not much potential to the story but only enough to make a few bucks. Dolph Lundgren sure looks like he wish he were somewhere else.

The verdict: 2 of 5 stars.

Sentiment: negative
Okay, here's the deal. There's this American pilot who's flying along, minding his own business, when suddenly he's outnumbered by evil, cowardly non-American fighter planes (they're Middle Eastern types, but suffice to say they don't like apple pie or Elvis Presley), who proceed to shoot him down. Now this American pilot was doing nothing wrong, but those evil non-Americans didn't care and before you know it he's banged up in a foreign jail and sentenced to death!!

Now, what would normally happen here is that the US Military would carpet bomb a couple of nearby towns until the pilot was released, but not this time. Those evil peace lovin' types probably got involved and managed to stop any kind of retaliatory massacre. As you can imagine, this doesn't please the pilot's family and the evil foreign dictator has this smug, contented look about him. He'll make those Americans pay, oh yes indeed!

But He didn't reckon on Doug Masters, the captured pilots 16-year-old son. You see Doug has been able to fly a plane longer than he can drive a car, (which can't be that long) and decides to fly into that evil, foreign country and get his Dad back. So with the help of his friends, Doug and his wingman, retired pilot Chappy' Sinclair, Doug launches a two man air raid on the foreigners. 

Now you'd think that this plan would be bound to fail, but you'd be wrong. Sure, those Middle Eastern types might be all veteran pilots, but Doug's got an ace up his sleeve, he listens to rock music when he flies! After shooting down a dozen or so enemy planes and blowing up an oil refinery, Doug lands at an airport and gets his now wounded dad onboard the plane. Understandably, the evil, not quite so smug anymore, dictator gets quite annoyed at these antics and takes to the skies himself, in bid to shoot down Doug. But the young lad listens to some more rock music and blows the villain out of the sky. HURRAH!

After Doug and Chappy have shot down 90% of their air force, the foreigners send up their last few planes in a rather poor attempt to shoot Doug down, but in the nick of time, a flight of US F16s turn up and scare them away.

I cannot recommend this film enough. It was the first ever videocassette movie that I brought, and until I was twenty, I kept hoping that my dad would get shot down over a foreign country so that I could rescue him. But he's doesn't like flying, so it didn't happen.

Sentiment: positive
Back in the days before the Toxic Avenger, the low-camp kings at Troma Films tried to take the high (OK, somewhat-less-low) road of producing straight slasher pics. I'd like to think that viewing the results here is what convinced them to give up all pretension and go for self-conscious parody.

Splatter University is another film for the masochists in the audience. As it meanders about through two separate casts and innumerable pointless subplots, it actually becomes painful to watch. Let's see if I can summarize.

After learning that a dangerous psychopath has escaped from a local hospital, the action moves to a Catholic university (I don't recall the name, but in honor of the title, let's call it St. Splatter). The students are listless and sullen, and argue pettily with each other, slackers ahead of their time. Meanwhile, the new professor, Julie Parker, proves utterly incompetent at her job. The kids deal with relationships, infidelity, unwanted pregnancies, lecherous priests, and how to avoid doing any work in class; Julie deals with a creepy boyfriend, the inflexible administration at St. Splatter, counseling unwed mothers, and the blank, expressionless looks of her students. None of it means a darn thing or gets resolved in any meaningful way. Oh, and every once in a while, a POV shot comes along and stabs one of the girls to death, but don't hold your breath waiting for it. There's a Red Herring Killer, and then a sadly anticlimactic confrontation with the Real Killer, then it's back to the asylum and roll credits.

The slow pace and numerous inane subplots seem almost calculated to produce a mounting sense of frustration in the viewer, which is helped along by choppy editing, coffee-can sound quality, and dialog that just doesn't make any sense. And the most agonizing thing about this movie is the killer's fixation on women - the men in this movie are just so deserving. I'd've paid good money to see someone off the jerk with the pregnant girlfriend, or the lunkhead Lothario who was fooling around with his girlfriend's roommate, or any of the creepy priests. There ain't no justice.

Sentiment: negative
this was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I'm still not sure if it was serious, or just a satire. One of those movies that uses every stupid who dunnit cliché they can think of. Arrrrgh.

Don Johnson was pretty good in it actually. But otherwise it sucked. It was over 10 years ago that I saw it, but it still hurts and won't stop lingering in my brain. 

The last line in the movie really sums up how stupid it is. I won't ruin it for you, should you want to tempt fate by viewing this movie. But I garantee you a *nghya* moment at the end, with a few in between. If you have nothing better to do, and you like to point and laugh, then maybe it might be worth your while. Additionally, if you're forced to go on a date with someone you really don't like, suggest watching this movie together, and they'll probably leave you alone after they see it. That's a fair price to pay, I guess.

Sentiment: negative
...when this movie was on.

What a bore. An attempt at humor, but really not pulling it off too well. Some good ideas were cast, and the actors makeup and wardrobe were OK.

I expected a lot more, unfortunately I couldn't sit through any more of it, I switched off halfway through the video, and ejected the tape, went to the rental store to get my money back...

Sentiment: negative
I first came across 'My Tutor Friend' accidentally one or two years ago while TV surfing. Prior to that, I'd never watched any Korean films before in my whole life, so MTF was really the first Korean film I've ever watched. And- what a delightful surprise! I was thoroughly amused from the beginning to end, and had a great time laughing. Its comic style is quite different from those of the Hong Kong comic films (which I've been to used to all my life and hence tired of as well), breathing fresh air into my humdrum film viewing experience. I thought there're quite a few scenes and tricks in MTF that are pretty hilarious, witty, and original too.

I watched MTF the second time a few days ago, and having watched it once already, the surprise/comic effect on me kind of mitigated. That has, however, by no means affected negatively my opinion of the film. Instead, something else came through this time- it moved me- the story about how two young, seemingly 'enemies' who're utterly incompatible get thrown together, and how they gradually resolve their differences and start caring for each other without realizing the feelings themselves, reminds me of the long gone high school days. To me, Su Wan and Ji Hoon ARE actually compatible as they both have something that is pure and genuine inside them, a quality that separates them from people like say, Ji Hoon's sassy girlfriend.

The film is divided into two distinct parts- the 1st part deals with the 'fight' between Su Wan and Ji Hoon, and is more violent and faster in pace. After Ji Hoon gets a pass in his final examination and Su Wan dances the (in Ji Hoon's opinion) provocative dance, things start to change. The pace slows down and... Ji Hoon suddenly realizes he cares for Su Wan more than he could ever imagine. So the 2nd part deals with the development of their mutual feelings, leading of course to a happy ending accompanied by a final showdown with the gang boss.

Just one last comment. I find this to be a bit unbelievable- the fact that a 21-year-old self-proclaimed 'bad boy' would feel embarrassed being almost naked in front of the girl he bullies and loses his 'cool' is just a little... odd. I guess that shows that Ji Hoon is just a boy pure at heart and isn't really what his appearance seems. Btw, Kwong San Woo (Ji Hoon) DOES have a sexy body and perfect figure! ;-) 

MTF is definitely on my list of top 10 favorite films of all time.

Sentiment: positive
Don't get me wrong, I love the TV series of League Of Gentlemen. It was funny, twisted and completely inspired. I was looking forward to the movie, the premise was interesting and I looked forward to see what they had done with the characters and where the bizarre storyline would take them.

It was a total disappointment, for starters the three weakest characters in the series were the leads and it only contained bit parts for the other characters (why not pick mickey & Pauline, papa Lazaro or tubs and Edward for the main parts!?). It was unfunny throughout, half baked gags and poor slapstick humour.

The real clincher was the plain ridiculous period drama / comedy (and i will use the word comedy loosely). It distracted from the main storyline and felt awkward, not to mention painfully unfunny. The direction of the movie is appalling, and often feels that the lines were delivered by the characters within one take. Very rushed.

Then - the three headed Plasticine-esquire monster. What the hell was all that about? plain ridiculous, it felt like the League of gentlemen tagged it on at the end.

All in all I found myself looking at my watch and sighing with disappointment throughout my experience of the film. What was once an amazing Television series has been tainted by a terribly unfunny film. 

If i could give it 0 out of 10 i would. Do not waste your money seeing this.

Sentiment: negative
Christopher Nolan's directorial debut is a memorable one. The film was very well received and help land contracts for making 'Memento' and quite rightfully so. 

Following is an exquisite example of how films should be made. No fancy effects or blood-dripping gore...just brilliant writing and good acting. Nolan manages to captivate us once again with his writing. The actors, all unknowns to me and I suppose most people, did a good job bringing the characters to live. They were all believable and that's all they need to be. The film is confusing because it plays with chronology a lot but it's very rewarding in the end. The film's a little short to be a full-length feature but any additional length would've ruined the style of the movie and the brilliance of the writing would've been diminished. Though short, the film has every aspect that makes a film attractive (IMO): an intriguing beginning, an exciting middle and a surprising end. 

I dare say Following is almost as good as Memento, his best film by far. The scrambled chronology is equally masterful used in both films, the amazing plot twists are present and the acting is very good.

This film was made with a mere $6000 but the quality is much higher than most( almost all) million dollar box-office hits. The use of b&w may be a hard pill to swallow for the big audience, following is primarily Nolan showing off his skills to the studio bosses :-). And what skills they are...rarely have I enjoyed writing so much as in 'Following'. Even Pi doesn't even come close IMO, though it's also very good.

This is a film surely not to be missed by any self-respecting movie-lover. If you liked Memento, 'Following' is definitely for you.

Sentiment: positive
Six months after high-school sprinter Laura dies during a race, a killer begins to murder the rest of the track team using a variety of sports equipment as weapons: that's the daft plot of early 80s slasher Graduation Day, a lacklustre addition to the genre that offers very little in the way of style, originality or decent gore.

What it does deliver, however, are some stunningly awful musical interludes, a few familiar faces (including an early appearance from scream-queen Linnea Quigley), and a smattering of nudity (a prerequisite of any slasher movie!).

So forget the death scenesthey're lame and rather bloodlessand instead enjoy the movie's more memorably crap elements: the rapid editing that can induce migraines and epileptic seizures; the roller disco, which is accompanied by a prolonged heavy rock song, ' Gangster Rock', as performed by the unforgettably awful Felony; an impromptu jamming session by the school's students; Christopher George hamming it up as chief red-herring Coach Michaels; and the cheesy music teacher who letches after his female students (who, for some reason, find him quite irresistible?!?!).

Towards the end of the film, the action picks up a little, with the discovery of the slaughtered kids' bodies under the bleachers, and a quite twisted scene featuring Laura's corpse in her cap and gown, but it all comes way to late in the day to save this film from mediocrity.

Sentiment: negative
Hey, remember when Hal Hartley was brilliant? What a time that was. I'd say the Book of Life was when things really started going downhill, but I will say that at least he went uphill from this one. A movie that looks like it was filmed on someone's cell phone wouldn't have to be a bad thing if it was distinguished by an interesting story and dialog, but alas, those are missing, along with Hartley's spare, quirky dialog. In their place is tedious exposition on themes of Christian end of times and a trite story of a modern Jesus in a quandary, packaged in a trying-to-be-hip modern world where everyone looks like someone out of a Hal Hartley movie. While it picks up a little in its second half, it's never enjoyable, or especially sensible. What the hell happened to you, Hartley?

Sentiment: negative
I would like to submit the following goof.

During the bridge scene, soldiers are seen wading out in the river, asking to be taken away and seeking to escape. Some of the soldiers approach Captain Willard's boat and attempt to board carrying with them suitcases. Soldiers are not issued nor do they ever carry suitcases into a combat zone. They have duffel bags, packs and footlockers but not suitcases. The use of a suitcase in this scene is absurd and out of keeping. Additionally, if you look closely, you will see that the suitcase is floating on top of the water. This is probably a very good indication that it is empty,otherwise it would sink.

Sentiment: positive
if i could rate it a zero i would , coming from someone who likes shock/exploitation films of the time and Waters overall i must say this is useless.

It does nothing , serves nothing , an idiot with a camera and a urge to prove his cleverness by rebeling against social standards is all this comes off as.

Its entirely amateur , both in principle and execution , it doesn't have a point , its digusting for the sake of disgusting ,obscene with the wit of a neanderthal , its useless.

Someone said Waters was probably "chuckling" over all the bad press and disgust others gave with this film , but why? If i made a short film depicting a man in a bathroom taking a sh*t for ten minutes straight surely it would receive the same accomidations but why would i be proud or "chuckle" at that? 

Would it be because i am so unintelligent that i have to resort to this so i can say "HA! Take that censors and mainstream! Im so rebellious ill do whatever i want and film it!" No.

Waters shouldn't be proud of this mess , fans of waters shouldn't watch it , its useless , that is , without any use.

Its doesn't even fit under the criteria of art for arts sake.

To like or defend this movie is to defend something that was designed purposely as being anti-culture to be pushed for the mainstream audience , in modern terms this film is the Hot Topic of films.

Useless and Obsolete. A Poser film that demands it be acknowledged as rebellion .

Sentiment: negative
This movie is one of my very favorites. It's hard to explain why. Maybe it's the innocence of Corin Nemec and his awkwardness paired with the boldness of Cheryl Pollak, but it definitely has something to do with the soundtrack. Also, some of the characters have little lines or movements or moments that are amusing in and of themselves. Finally, the story is one that always tugs at my heartstrings, and the last scene is so bittersweet. All in all, I love this movie; it's perfect for a gooey, sentimental girls' night.

Sentiment: positive
This was an atrocious waste of my time. No plot. The acting was so far below par, it should be used as an exemplar in acting classes of what NOT to do. It is merely a commercial rip-off of the earlier Universal Soldier, which also scrapes the bottom of the acting barrel. Its sad that VD needs to assert his ego every few years, and sadder still that people will pay good money to sit thru it. This kind of schlock gives Martial Arts movies a bad name. By comparison, it makes Segall, Norris, and Arnold look almost talented.

Perhaps VD should take the Leslie Nielson track and do send-ups of his genre. At least then we could be laughing with him instead of at him.

Sentiment: negative
I can not believe I wasted my money to rent this movie. I thought it was a porn flick when it started and it never got any better. The acting, the music drowning out the actors. Horrible. Save your money! You have to read the movie all the way through b\c they knew the music would drowned out the speaking lines. I never got the part about the slaughterhouse or the need to continue to show cows and pigs being butchered. What did that have to do with the "real" BTK killer? I understand why there were no famous actors\actresses in this movie. The script would have turned me away within the first page of reading. You would be better off watching paint dry.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie because it had a giant person and was labeled as a monster movie. I do not understand why it is called a monster movie. The movie is a drama. I was expecting a lot of destruction, but what did I get? Most of the movie was relationship problems and people thinking that a woman was a loony because she saw a spaceship crash with a giant inside for an unexplained reason. The action started a few minutes toward the end. Since the woman was killed, isn't that murder? Couldn't they have done anything else besides murder her? If you watch this because you expect it to have action because it is labeled as a monster movie, don't watch it. It is not a monster movie. It is a drama.

Sentiment: negative
By strange coincidence I've started to watch this move straight after Brice de Nice and the good thing was that not many movies could be worst than Brice de Nice, so I was really looking forward for something better which would make me forget this horrible flop.

Unfortunately OSS-117 again left me disappointed - I don't know, maybe it's just problem with translations, but since "Diner de Cons" I haven't seen ANY French comedy that I would call really good. Even when I look at the reviews on IMDb only people from France are giving the OSS-117 high notes...

For me this movie didn't really work - in some parts is as funny as real Bond movies, in others jokes were a little bit too predictable or too corny.

Sentiment: negative
Hello. This movie is.......well.......okay. Just kidding! ITS AWESOME! It's NOT a Block Buster smash hit. It's not meant to be. But its a big hit in my world. And my sisters. We are rockin' Rollers. GO RAMONES!!!! This is a great movie.............. For ME!

Sentiment: positive
What should have been a routine babysitting gig at a secluded lake house turns into a night of terror, as high school student Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) receives threatening phone calls from a sadistic stalker, while trying to stay one step ahead of him.

The first 20 minutes of the original film were pretty good but it was all downhill from there. The remake takes those first 20 minutes and stretches them into an 80 minute feature film. That's a good idea because its eliminating everything that made the original bad. However, if they wanted this film to work more effectively then they should have hired a better lead actress, better director, writer etc. There's no suspense, everything can be figured out long before it happens and it's a very dull film since not much happens. At least there isn't much to sit through since its less than 90 minutes.

If this premise were to work, then the lead actress has to give a realistic performance. Camilla Belle gives one of the worst performances I have ever seen and throughout the whole movie, she seemed to be reading her lines. You get a lead role in a Hollywood film that will be viewed by millions of people and you give no effort at all! Why did they hire this girl? Sure, she's pretty but she can't act at all yet I suppose this won't matter to the target audience who will most likely eat this film up. The rest of the cast is bland and forgettable especially the woman who plays the maid, Rosa. Even the stranger was lame and his lines on the phone were not effective at all.

This movie reminds me of last years disappointing horror film Boogeyman. That movie was a bunch of cheap scares and false alarms and When a Stranger Calls is pretty much the same. Jill enters a room because she hears a noise but its just a false alarm like a cat or the maid. This type of scene happens over and over again until finally after about 50 minutes, the stranger appears. He has to be one of the lamest killers ever. He carried no weapons and didn't seem to pose much of a threat. The ending is bad but it matches the rest of the film so it doesn't really matter. The film is directed by Simon West and he is really bad at building up suspense. He was using every cliché he could think of and the results weren't very good. The house was amazing and I'll give the film credit for that. It was an isolated house so it was pretty creepy but that's about the only good thing this film has to offer. In the end, if you're not a teenage girl then you should skip the movie. Rating 2/10

Sentiment: negative
First of all, the only reason people keep bitching about this film is because they can't stand a few parts of the true story being "altered". Well guess what? Peter Jackson's film wasn't a perfect rendition either. Well enough ranting. This is a very beautiful film. The backgrounds are gorgeous and taken from well known Tolkein artists. The film covers about half the trilogy (Fellowship of the Ring and up to the battle of Helms Deep in the Two Towers) and moves at a good pace. The voice casting is top notch and the most of the characters look like I imagined they would. Samwise is a bit too ugly for my tastes, but Aragorn looks AWESOME. The film has a great score that completely supports the movie. If you enjoy good fantasy stories but hate reading (the books are even better) give this movie a try, keeping in mind it was made 20 odd years ago.

Also of particular note: Peter Jackson's adaption of Fellowship follows almost exactly the same strand as Ralph Bakshi's (Jackson has said many times how much he admired Bakshi's effort).

Sentiment: positive
Well, i can and will be very short. This is a wrong-balanced, non-convincing film that could have been a little bit better. The script seems to not know which way to go ... from funny to cliche-wise serious... it's a bit silly. That plus too much sentences we have heard before "the hacker is in florida, or no, he is in madrid, no he is in ... , he is screwing the signal". 

4 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
A worn-out plot of a man who takes the rap for a woman in a murder case + the equally worn-out plot of an outsider on the inside who eventually is shut out.

With such an outstanding case, one would think the film would rise above its hackneyed origins. But scene after scene drones by with no change in intensity, no character arcs, and inexplicable behavior.

The homosexuality theme was completely unnecessary -- or on the other hand, completely unexplored. It seemed to be included only to titillate the viewers. When will Hollywood learn that having gay characters does not automatically make a more compelling picture?

A regrettably dreadful movie. When will Lauren Bacall pick a good one? I expected better of her and Kristin Scott Thomas. This one is definitely one to miss.

Sentiment: negative
Halloween is one of the best examples of independent film. It's very well made and has more psychological elements to it than you might realize at first glance. It is a simple movie told very well. The music is perfect and is one of the most haunting scores... If you haven't seen this movie yet, you must check it out. The cast is all terrific. I wish they had never made sequel after sequel. The first one was by far the best and should have ended like it did without having a sequel. It was fun to see Jamie Lee Curtis in the movie. She hasn't seemed to age (she's just as gorgeous today, without the hairdo and seventies clothes). The scenes through the mask are one of the scariest things ever!

Sentiment: positive
In contrast to my fellow reviewers, I always try to find something redeeming in any film I see.Yes, the quality of the dubbing and lighting is abysmal, the acting is wooden and the opening sequence highly misleading what with all those lascivious female lesbian vampires with blood dripping.Something must be lost in the translation of the word "Bloodsucker" from the Italian in the title; almost as if the producers were originally going to film a Gothic Vampire tale and then changed their minds but could not afford to give up their dramatic opening sequence, so tacked it onto the film anyway.

This film made in 1975 has recently been issued on DVD and comes with its own theatrical trailer which in some respects is more daring than seen in the film!Now anyone who buys this film has probably already read its synopsis anyway and knows what to expect - Italian softporn from the mid 1970s.I bought it because I am attracted to Christa Nelli (credited most often as "Krista Nell").The absence of a cast of characters I find most frustrating in a lot of these Eurosleaze films from the 60s & 70s.I had hoped Imdb would show the cast of characters as one hears their names in the film but without a cast list, it is very difficult to link them to the actor concerned.I think Krista Nell played "Cora" but underneath that massive hair style, costume and make-up it is difficult to distinguish her for sure.

There is mostly a two dimensional portrayal by the actors of their parts and no one really stands out.Maybe something is lost in the dubbing process.What were the positive points?Well the music was atmospheric and of course if you're into beautiful lesbian soft porn its there.The external locations used were good and I would like to know where they filmed the castle on its island.It purports to be set in "Ireland" (North or the Republic?)in 1902, so everyone sports period piece costumes.Some of the scenes I found unintentionally funny especially those sex scenes!!Anyway an enjoyable romp.I rated it 4/10.

Sentiment: negative
I love this show. It's clever and very well acted. David Morse and Andre Braugher have great chemistry. The writing is clever and subplots generally give great comic relief. After every new episode, I'm always amazed how thought provoking and at the same time entertaining this show is. My only complaint would be Donna Murphy's absence, at this point, in the second season. As David Morse ex-wife, Heather, she added such character to the show.

I think this show is a credit to the crime/drama genre. With that said - I can not for the life of me understand why this show has such a low rating. Would someone please who gave this show a 1 rating back it up with a critique?

Sentiment: positive
One of the worst theatrical movies of the year, if not all time. Anthony Hopkins belittles himself by even appearing in this joke. I can't believe David Mamet and Ridley Scott's name appear on this travesty. The best career move Jody Foster ever made was turning this one down. Julianne Moore was as emotionless throughout as a female Keanu Reeves. Gary Oldman was of course, his brilliant self. He is a crippled victim of Hannibal and the make-up is so good, I didn't know it was Gary until the final credits. but eaten by trained boars??? Give me a break! Rumor has it that he didn't want his name even mentioned in the credits. And frying and feeding his own brain to Ray Liotta...I was laughing at the absurdity, no make that stupidity of this flick at this point. I haven't seen so many people walk out of a movie since Who's That Girl.

Pay someone else to go for you if you must, but miss this one AT ALL COST!!!

Sentiment: negative
I got a few laughs out of this one, more than a lot of other so called comedies. The big ship was a knockout and getting to see a lot of it's scenery was fun: as was getting to see some of Dyan Cannon's curves. This wasn't the height of Lemmon's and Mattheau's career, but it wasn't a total dog as some suggest.

Sentiment: positive