DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Creature Comforts in America should have been released on a different network, or at least been given the chance to have its full run of episodes. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Given that American audiences (seemingly) have the attention spans of a gnat when it comes to the humor that does not consist of profanity laced diatribes, or has a preoccupation with scatological functions (both sound and smells), shows like this will be few and far between. One of the main problems was that however brilliant it was, it was made for a rarefied audience who knew what to expect but was viewed by an audience and board rooms that did not have a clue at to what they were watching. Which is sad, but not unexpected. I would have liked to have seen at least three more seasons of this show even if it was produced for direct DVD release. The material and the interactions between the creatures were rich with sub context and there were other conversations just waiting to be had under the surface. But thanks to Political Correctness, such conversations take place only in my mind.

Sentiment: positive
One of the latest (disaster) movies from York Entertainment, "El Chupacabra" excels in making its viewer want to die after having wasted two hours watching it. This movie appears to have been filmed with a spare camcorder normally used for birthday parties. The only reason I could tell that it wasn't was because of certain scenes where the cameraman's shadow is in the frame.

Just about every aspect of cinema is plagued by this movie, and I'm sure that it has set the film industry back another ten years. The actors are borderline retarded, often pausing while they wait for the off-screen cue-card to change. The actor that plays Navarro not only slurs and skips word in his dialogue, but stumbles through the swiss-cheese plot line with a squinting and confounded look on his face. Other actors break the forth wall and overall show the acting skill of a twelve-year old kid doing a science project in his backyard.

My friends and I purposefully search out the worst possible movies, and this one gave us more than we bargained for. The humorous parts are unfunny and the rest is riddled with horrible clichés and plot holes. As one friend so humbly put it, this movie is the aborted fetus of the industry. I would highly suggest this film for people like me that purposely search for these movies, but for all others, beware!

Sentiment: negative
Don't let the wildly varying reviews of the movie deter you. You'll love it or hate it according to your own tastes. However, if for no other reason, see "Greystoke" to experience the excitement of a great actor grabbing your heart as he breathes life into his role. Ralph Richardson was not a great actor for how perfectly he could handle Shakespeare; rather, he is to be remembered for his sensitive treatment of every character he portrayed. He was never indifferent to his responsibility as an actor. His reading of the part of the Sixth Lord of Greystoke, his last performance, is to be cherished by all who love the theatre.

Sentiment: positive
It's always tough having a sibling doing better in their life than you, always a struggle to get out from under that shadow and not let bitterness keep you away from your family. So, imagine that your older brother is Santa and then imagine how tough that must be. That's the premise here.

Vince Vaughn plays the titular Fred, an embittered loser who spends a lot of his energy making sure that people don't go around expecting good things to happen to them or giving his brother, Santa (played by Paul Giamatti), too much praise for simply being the limelight-hogging, fame-hungry, slightly creepy guy that Fred would want to portray him as. Then, wouldn't you know it, Fred needs a financial favour and so has to make up for it by helping his brother on the run up to Christmas. And hilarity and life lessons ensue.

Well, that's what should happen. The reality is that we get a Christmas movie featuring a few good moments of Vaughn's patented fast-talking, a ridiculously out-of-nowhere music video moment, Kevin Spacey playing an auditor out to close down Santa's operation (and he's one of the weakest baddies I have seen in some time), not enough of the gorgeous Elizabeth Banks in a lush Christmas outfit, too much of John Michael Higgins in his elf outfit (to be fair, he's a highlight though) and a movie that's too swimming in bitterness to feel like good seasonal fare yet too schmaltzy in it's latter half to feel like a fun poke at all the bad things about the commercialism of the time.

Rachel Weisz is along for the ride too, as is Kathy Bates, but it's really nothing more than a movie for Vaughn and if you like his style you will find something to enjoy here. Unfortunately, there's very little else to recommend this seasonal stinker. Outside of Vaughn's rantings the script barely throws up anything decent with the exception of one particularly good scene involving a hilarious support group dealing with a very specific problem.

David Dobkin's direction is as mediocre and staid as the 20p Christmas card that you send the auntie you haven't seen in 10 years and he seems to think that simply putting the ingredients together without a good mix or decent care taken will guarantee a delicious Christmas pudding. Nope, we get a burnt, bland lump with too much sugar on top. Forget this and stick the hilarious Elf on again if you want a great, modern Christmas comedy.

See this if you like: The Santa Clause 2, Santa Baby, The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause.

Sentiment: negative
How offensive! Those who liked this movie have probably never opened a bible. I can imagine those at NBC saying, "OK. Let's make a movie to appease those pesky Christians, but they'll never know the difference if we don't have anything factual or in the correct chronological order." Well, they were wrong. Anybody associated with this atrocity needs to find a church and repent for their involvement in this blasphemous atrocity. I only gave this movie a 1 because I couldn't give it a 0.

Sentiment: negative
this movie is a very relaxed, romantic-comedy, which is thoroughly enjoyable. Meg Ryan does a very good job as the genius niece of Albert Einstein, though she does believe in her own skills. Tim Robbins does an equally good job as the mechanic who falls in love with her when she comes into his shop with her fiancé after her car stuffs up. I loved Walter Matthau as the one and only Albert Einstein. This movie just has a very relaxing feel to it, while still keeping some sort of seriousness to it (if that is actually possible, it happens here).

I personally found this movie extremely entertaining, especially the old scientists - i thought they were fab and hilarious! This movie seems to have been underestimated beyond comprehension. If you have a cheeky sense of humour, this is the movie for you!

Sentiment: positive
This TV-series was one of the ones I loved when I was a kid. Even though I see it now through the pink-shaded glasses of nostalgia, I can still tell it was a quality show, very educational but still funny. I have not seen the original French version, only the Swedish. I have no idea how good the dubbing was, it was too long ago to remember.

The premise of the show was to show you how the body works. I swear, school still hasn't taught me half of what I know from this show. It also tied in other things, like what happens if you eat unhealthy food and don't exercise, with nice examples within the body. Who wants to have another bar of chocolate when you know miniature virus tanks can invade you? :D The cartoon looked nice, very kids friendly of course, but done with care. Cells, viruses, electric signals in the brain, antibodies and everything else are represented by smiling cartoon figures, looking pretty much how you'd expect what they should look like in the animated body.

This, and the series about history(especially the environmentally scary finale) were key parts of my childhood. I'm so happy I found them here.

Sentiment: positive
I can still remember first seeing this on TV. I couldn't believe TVNZ let it on! I had to own it! A lot of the humor will be lost on non-NZ'ers, but give it a go! 

Since finishing the Back of the Y series Matt and Chris have gone on to bigger and better(?) things. NZ's greatest dare-devil stuntman, Randy Campbell has often appeared on the British TV series Balls of Steel. Yes, he still f^@ks up all his stunts because he is too drunk.

Also the 'house band' Deja Voodoo have since released 2 albums, Brown Sabbath and Back in Brown. The band consists of members of the Back of the Y team and singles such as 'I Would Give You One of My Beers (But I've Only Got 6)' and 'You Weren't Even Born in The 80's' continue their humor.

The South-By-Southwest film festival also featured their feature length film 'The Devil Made Me Do It' which will be released early 2008 in NZ.

All up, if you don't find these guys funny then you can just F%^K OFF!!

Sentiment: positive
Stone has tried another type of movie. Any Given Sunday falls short of a the above average The Last Boy Scout and the below average Against all Odds. Stone can be fantastic, see The Doors, Natural Born Killers or Platoon but he can also repeat himself see Nixon or Born on the Fourth of July. His real brilliance is realized in the Michael Caine perfection, The Hand.

Sentiment: negative
Evil warlord puts a town through pain and suffering. Not long before they call upon giant stone samurai Daimaijin for help. Daimaijin soon comes and really gets the warlord with all his viscious might. The revenge climax is really funny as Daimajin squashes guys under his feet and crushes guys with his fist and even drives a spike though a man's heart.

Sentiment: positive
I remember the first time I saw this movie -- I was in the office working over the weekend & the TV was on for background noise. But I gradually found myself more & more engaged in this movie I'd never seen or heard of, until I was completely absorbed. A Matter of Life & Death (the British title -- Stairway to Heaven in the US) is delightful, compelling, whimsical, & moving, all in one superbly-written, well-acted, perfectly-directed package. It's a classic that really does rank right up there with Casablanca, It's a Wonderful Life, Gone With the Wind, Citizen Kane, & Chariots of Fire. WHY has it never received the same public notice & video-store prominence? Fortunately, SOME knowledgeable critics HAVE put it on their "Top 100 of all time" lists. There IS hope -- 1940's Fantasia wasn't a hit 'til the '60s, & the Wizard of Oz was a dud at the box office, but made a hit by TV. Buy it -- rent it -- watch it -- demand it! You WON'T be disappointed!

Sentiment: positive
I first saw this at a foreign film festival. It's a beautifully paced nail-biter about a plot to relieve the Estonian treasury of a billion or so in gold. It's all shot in a gritty, grainy style that Hollywood rarely uses --- but it captures the atmosphere of the newly emancipated Baltic states beautifully (note: Tallin was actually looking a lot less grim in 2003 when I was there).

There's a lot of humor and some romance, too. I don't want to spoil a number of startling yet logical surprises, so I'll just say this heist film starts from a great script, and the directing and performances are top notch. DARKNESS IN TALLIN is simply the fastest and most nerve-racking example of its genre --- I'd put it up against RAFIFI, TOPKAPI, and it's miles ahead of the new OCEAN'S 11, though (deliberately) not as glossy. RENT OR BUY IT NOW.

Sentiment: positive
Imagine turning the American national anthem into a cartoon. Throw in a couple of cute animals, some terrible puns and a pair of roller skates and you'd find yourself with almost an exact replica of this film.

I remember seeing this when I was younger; I made my Mother rent it from the video shop about 5 times. The story itself isn't too bad, it's just that any Marxists watching would certainly have something to complain about.

If you don't like America you won't like this film.

Sentiment: negative
Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood) is being harassed by Mitch Leary (John Malkovich), a bomber terrorist who literally believes he will not be caught. In the opening is everyone's favourite modern serial killer, "John Kramer" (Tobin Bell) from the Saw series. Through clever planning and influence, Frank is able to make the arrest of Mendoza (Bell).

From thereafter, its a series of cat and mouse chase. Malkovich is a tremendous actor and incredibly versatile. Once again showing a different role in this film, he astounds me with his ability to interchange his characters with the next film.

I've watch Malkovich play in Con Air as a menacing insanely smart Cyrus, in Of Mice and Men as the tragically challenged bunny lover Lenny, to name a few. He plays a very smart bomber terrorist who is very sane but is deluded into thinking he can elude his captures.

Clint Eastwood is no one special me. He's too old to really do much action in films so the only thing he can really astound you with is his ability to create dramatic scenes. The characters he plays are simplistic and one-dimensional.

Rene Russo plays Eastwood's love interest in the film and captivates me with her supporting actually being a bigger role, to me, than Eastwood's.

While this might seem like an action blockbuster, it's relatively slow paced and plays on anticipation. You have to wait for the build up and the ending and it will pay off in the end. Along the way, you'll be mesmerized by Malkovich and Eastwood's chemistry and their scenes of cat and mouse.

Sentiment: positive
I haven't any idea how commentators could regard this as a decent B Western. Or how one commentator said the plot was more cohesive than most. Nothing could be farther from the truth! This movie is one HUGE non-sequitur! It is an affront to the noble B Western films of the '30's. I have seen many of Wayne's early Lone Star and Republic westerns, and this one is easily the worst.

The bad guy is known as The Shadow - for crying out loud! Initially, The Shadow's scheme is holding up open-sided stage coaches. Simultaneously, his gang rustles all of the cattle in the territory. Then they decide to move on to bank robbery. To do this, they need to shoot up the town with a machine gun - no explanation of why that's necessary or how he got that neato little toy!

No single scheme is revealed in enough detail to suggest a plot here. The Shadow is obviously just a generally bad guy with all kinds of generally evil schemes. 

He imparts his instructions to his gang through a fake wall-safe. (Knock-knock, who's there?) He is apparently clairvoyant, because whenever his henchmen need to talk to him, they knock on the wall, the safe opens and - PRESTO - he's there. (I can just imagine that he has met them face-to-face and says,"I have some secret, nefarious instructions to give you about our next evil deed - meet me at the wall-safe and I'll give 'em to you.") Just why the Shadow requires the safe to communicate with his army of outlaws is, like most of the elements of this mess, never explained.

He has a nifty tunnel to the ol' hollow stump across the street from which vantage point, various of his baddies perform assassinations. He also has a hidden panel NOT in his secret lair behind the fake safe, but out in the main room.

When not behind the safe, he hangs out on his cow-less ranch, masquerading as rancher Matlock. We learn that he has murdered the true owners of the ranch - two brothers - and assumed the identity of one. The daughter of the dead brother has recently arrived from 1930's NYC (judging by her wardrobe), and she apparently never met her real uncle, because he dupes her, too!

If you thought that bad guys always wore black hats and good guys white hats, you need to see this movie. Here, the good guys all ditch their hats in favor of white head-bands that make them look like they have all suffered head wounds before any shots have been fired! It's like a game of pick-up basketball - only Wayne has them tying bandanas 'round their heads instead of just taking off their shirts.

Perhaps the weirdest of all is the ending. Immediately after subduing the Shadow and his gang, we jump far enough into the future to see Wayne and his wife (the erst-while niece) on the front porch of their home. (Never mind that there has been scant romance.) There, Yak is playing with Wayne's 3-4 year old son, dressed up in Injun garb! (Hiyoo, skookum fun!)

No thanks to this nonsense, Wayne went on to become a screen legend. Only a super-star (packer or not!) could surmount this entry in a film resume. Long live the Duke!

Sentiment: negative
here, let me wave my hands over the keyboard, i'll tell you what salad she's going to order. over and over, works like a charm: he's such a genius, omg how does he do it? my bullshit detector freaks if i even pass this show when i'm scanning channels, I have to be very careful (these days it's useful far too often, so I don't need it getting broken on idiotic crap like this...careful with that remote!). is this supposed to be some fascist propaganda to make people believe in some invisible realm of uberman control and mastery? or what? why does it exist??

this is THE most inane show, completely unbelievable and contrived, and I cannot understand why it's still on the air. so may geeks give SO much better shows such a hard time (Sarah Connor Chronicles, True Blood), but give this nonsensical drivel a pass. shows like Firefly (if there were any like that) fall away after a season, but mindless stuff like this that makes zero logical sense just keeps marching on. yeccch.

Sentiment: negative
Although the beginning suggests All Quiet on the Western Front, this silly and superficial version of war falls far astray of its much better contemporary. This depicts the funnest war ever fought, with the first hour and a half devoted to romance and good times.

When we finally see some battle, it is lame: An enemy plane flies over? Shoot it down (in one shot). Sniper in the tree? Kill him before he gets a shot off. Enemy soldiers in the woods? Not to worry, they gladly surrender. Ho-hum.

Tepid, turgid, predictable...



Sentiment: negative
Of course I was watching BG. I loved S1, I liked season 2, season 3 was OK, and loved the final one. Yay, there is a spin-off show! I didn't know about this at all, one of my friends told me about this. I was really excited.

I watched the first 3 episodes... What a piece of rubbish! Teenage girl drama fest. There is no science fiction... well, hardly any. At the end of every episode we can catch a glimpse of a Cylon. That's all. Who cares this? Did they decide that the next show's target audience will be females under 18? Boring religious nonsense talking, moaning, bitching... and some more.

It is just sad that there is nothing out there at the moment to watch. Stargate ruined, BG over...

Sentiment: negative
The word "boring" gets thrown around way too often when referring to exactly how bad a low-budget Horror movie might, or might not be. I've seen many a B-movie. Many horrible, terribly inept B-movies. Some with a production value of a few hundred bucks. Does ineptness, lousy acting, worse continuity, and embarrassing budgets really make a movie unwatchable? Some would no doubt way yes. Most of which are probably huge fans of The Matrix. Well, I hate big-budget movies, so I say no. Bad can sometimes be funny (Blood Freak), sometimes even mind-blowing (Troll 2), but Boring will always be unwatchable... Hey, kinda like Bloodthirsty Butchers, which reminds me, I'm writing a review for this pile of garbage... Uh, yeah, anyway. This is one of late British director Andy Milligan's many alternatives to sleeping pills. This one is based on Sweeney Todd... Great. Milligan takes a boring story, and still manages to "butcher" it. Hey, that's pretty funny, I said bu... sorry, I keep getting distracted. This isn't exactly easy. On second thought, I'll make it easy. No gore, no scares, no entertainment, just unlikeable, annoying people having incoherent conversations. that's Bloodthirsty Butchers. Oh yeah, and something about a barber killing people, and something or other about meat pies. I don't know, it's not important.

For something a little more rewarding from Andy Milligan, there's always the only other one I've seen, The Rats Are Coming, The Werewolves Are Here. Yeah, you heard me. But hows about we forget about this Milligan guy all together, and pick up something sweet like Sick Girl or Teenape Goes To Camp. Whatever you decide, just know, Bloodthirsty Butchers sucks, possibly even more than any other version of this already lackluster tale. And that, B-movie fans, is really saying something. 2/10

Sentiment: negative
I think that the shots and lighting were very poor. When I watched it for the first time I thought it was the old version(1956). When I really found out the true year of the film I was shocked. I didn't know that there could be such a bad film made so recently. Thats really all I wanted to say. This film had a good plot though, nothing you couldn't miss out on if you would simply read the novel that George Orwelll wrote. All I really want to say has already been said except for this: I can't believe that this film could have possibly received so many awards and nominations.I gave this film a One (awful), because I felt that it was very badly made. Well that is all. So long

Sentiment: negative
I have to differ from the other comments posted. Amid sporadic funny moments, there are a lot of actors trying too hard to be funny. The strain shows. I watched this with two friends on another friend's recommendation- none of us were thrilled.

Sentiment: negative
All I can say about this movie, is it is absolutely boring. The intro to the movie is quite possibly the worst intro to a horror film I have ever seen, I mean a angry chick hitting a guy in the head with a frying pan isn't at all frightening which is what I assume the director was aiming for, but in fact it was "mildly" funny. 

The acting in this picture was beyond pathetic; a note to directors, if your making a horror film, please hire some good actors, not some popular teen soap star who has no idea how to act.

The death scenes in this movie were beyond boring... no gore, and i'm sorry but horror movies without gore, or good suspense are just cheesy. I mean this girl gets killed by hair wrapped all around her in the middle of Tokyo, and not one person sees it happen, they just declare her as "missing", wow thats awesome!

In conclusion if you and your friends want to see this movie, make sure u bring some sleeping pills, because I guarantee you won't make it to the end.. Me and my friend walked out cause we didn't even care what happened at the end.

Cheers

Sentiment: negative
Not only was the plot of this film contrived with the ease in which the two psychos are able to kidnap a pregnant woman without breaking a sweat but it was a terrible rip-off of 'Misery'. However, the main reason I gave this film such a low rating was because it absolutely disgusted me.

I'm not someone easily shocked by what film-makers dish out and have always had a love for horror flicks but this film went too far purely in terms of violence and torture just for the sake of getting points in the shock factor.

I think most people, when watching just the first ten minutes of 'Hide and Seek', will find themselves reaching for the remote.

Sentiment: negative
I'm a fan of Matthew Modine, but this film--which I stumbled upon on cable--is absolutely witless. I see that the screenwriter and director were one and the same, so there was no one around to check her worst instincts. There are no surprises, no original lines, and no original characters. The goldfish was basically the most sympathetic character. What a waste of all this acting talent. Given how expensive it is to film in New York these days, I have to wonder how this got made in the first place. And if you're wondering why I watched it at all, it came on after a film that I like on cable and I left it on while I worked at the computer. It's not a very demanding picture!

Sentiment: negative
I bought this DVD after seeing it highly ranked here. It's just a short 20 minutes zombie film. Nothing special about it except for the music perhaps.

Don't buy it! Not even really worth spending 20 minutes to see it. Only if you're really bored...

Sentiment: negative
Most people are totally unaware that this movie exists. Fox, which paid Judge to make it, has kept it in the can for quite awhile and then spent nothing to promote it. I guess that made many people think it was one of the garbage movies being flushed in late summer. Well, I am here to tell you that this is a funny and rather frightening look at a future that is not that hard to believe. Basically, Judge puts forward the notion that the stupid are outbreeding the smart by a wide margin. Then these stupid are getting more stupid, by basically spending all of their time watching TV and having sex, which produces more stupid people. By 2500, a person of average intelligence today, will appear to be a genius, that talks "all faggy." Seriously, is this really that hard to believe. Oh sure, this future is painfully funny and ridiculously stupid, but still plausible. Luke Wilson is great as the time traveling army guy, hopelessly trying to get back to a more comfortable time. Where this story will gain its cult status is with the numerous funny one-liners, like "can we family style her" and "hey man, I'm 'bating here!" This is a funny movie and a rather sharp social commentary on an American society that seems to be fatuated with self pleasure, comfort and stupidity, and I guarantee you that I will be buying this on DVD the first day it comes out and watching it over and over.

Sentiment: positive
I really enjoyed this thriller! I wanted to see it again as soon as it was over. The cast was excellent, the plot was suspenseful and entertaining, and it was just an overall enjoyable movie! I would rate this as one of the best thrillers I've ever seen! The girls in it were really cute also, especially Denise Richards. She was very ornery throughout the movie and gave her character some OOMPH!

Sentiment: positive
Someone told me that Pink Flamingos was, in a word, "insane". Now I'm doubting whether this guy actually ever saw it, because that isn't the way I would summarize it in one word. Disgusting, absurd, um, more disgusting...would do it. Every time you think it can't get any more filthy, it does. One of my particular "favorites" was when Divine had her birthday party and when the cops came to bust it up, they were butchered and eaten by the guests. I admit that it's one of those movies where it's so grotesque you simply can't look away, but this is by no means a creative work of art. It's pure shock value.

On the upside, it makes the Jackass guys look like a bunch of pussies.

Sentiment: negative
I watched this movie "miniseries" on television back in 1989 and it was an amazing movie. I would love to track down a copy of it just to watch it again and again. It's been 15 years since I watched it and it still sticks out in my mind.

 From the beginning, it draws you in. The characters and plot line keep holding you. The ending was superb. The feeling and rage that the son displayed when finding out the truth about his father are unforgettable. The suspense on how it will turn out and how he will confront his father is really intense.

If you can get a copy of this movie, you will thoroughly enjoy watching it.

Then, email me and tell me where I can get a copy.

Sentiment: positive
Contrary to the comment posted directly below, The Big Trail (1930) was not filmed in a three-camera process "much like the later Cinerama." That was the finale to Napoleon (1927), a different film entirely! The Big Trail was simultaneously shot in both 35mm and 70mm (Grandeur) versions, and both versions are shown on Fox Movie Channel from time to time, so it's easy to compare one with the other. The Grandeur version (broadcast in letterbox @ approximately its original 2-1 ratio) is more impressive cinematically with its wide angle panoramas, but suffers from the same problem that beset early CinemaScopes, a lack of close-ups forced upon director Raoul Walsh because of focus problems. Scenes involving individuals rather than crowds or long shots are much more effective in the standard version because the camera can move closer to the players thereby achieving a greater sense of involvement for the viewer. Watching the two versions simultaneously, one gets an accurate idea of which shots Walsh chose to shoot close-up, in the standard version, but could not, in the Grandeur version. There are also a couple sequences involving El Brendel: a shell game with Ian Keith, and some business with his wife & a jackass, which are in the Grandeur version, but missing from the standard version.

For the record, The Big Trail is the only one of three Fox Grandeur films which has survived in its original wide screen format. (The other two are Fox Movietone Follies of 1929, completely lost, and Happy Days, which survives only in standard format.) Other studios also experimented with wide film at this time, but the only other one still known to exist in both formats is The Bat Whispers, filmed in both 65mm and 35mm, and released by United Artists. Other wide films were MGM's Billy the Kid (1930) and The Great Meadow (1931), RKO's Danger Lights (1930), and WB's The Lash (1930), all of which can be seen in their standard format versions on Turner Classic Movies. WB's Kismet (1930) was also filmed both wide and standard, but seems to have completely disappeared; it is rumored to be lost.

Why did wide film fail in 1930? Theaters were reeling (pun intended) under the impact of the stock market crash of October 1929, and the spiraling costs of installing sound equipment, and so were adverse to taking on the added expense of installing additional new projection equipment and new wider screens to accommodate just a handful of films, photographed in a variety of different systems that were not even always compatible with each other. It would not be until 1953 when Fox, now Twentieth Century-Fox, would try again, and this time succeed, with the introduction of wide screen CinemaScope.

Sentiment: positive
If you played "Spider-Man" on the PS version, then you've seen it all. To truly experience it you should get the DC version. Simply put it's a much graphically superior game; the textures are sharp, levels are easy to navigate, and it has much better sound then it's PS cousin. I bought this game back in late '00s and it still holds up even till this day. Well, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance is a much superior and strategic game but if you're a fan of 'ol Web Head then you owe it yourself to pick this up for your gaming library. Swinging around the city as Spidey has never looked this good and dead-on in a video game. If you have a Dreamcast, snag this up for cheap. The DC version is simply incredible.

Sentiment: positive
Jack-O (1995) was a really bad movie, we are talking snoozefest x 100, no entertainment value whatsoever, no budget, no gore, Z-grade actors etc etc, this film was an awful addition to the horror movie industry and shouldn't have been made!!! The only reason i purchased this movie was because i knew Linnea Quigley was in it, and sure enough, she does her obligatory nude shower scene, which is lovely yes.

But as for the film itself........ i fell asleep at the 40 minute stage and had NO desire at all to finish it, it's just bigtime lame OK.

I love horror movies, i'm an avid fan, a MASSIVE fan, i love low budget horrors, i love it all, but i hated this rubbish, so i think that will tell you all you need to know about "JACK-O".

I give this movie 2/10, the "2" is for the 2 minute Linnea shower scene, the movie itself is a total ZERO!!!!

Sentiment: negative
I love Das Boot. I hoped for something along similar lines -- a realistic war movie, portraying soliders and civilians on both sides as real people, with both the joy and pain of combat.

Unfortunately, Stalingrad appears to have been written by a third grader and directed by a fifth-grade student. Major pieces of the movie simply appear missing, leaving it completely disjointed. The dialogue in translation is ridiculous, but appears no better in the native tongue; you only have to watch the actors' faces during the bad moments of dialogue to realize just how bad this movie is.

Sentiment: negative
The box for "To Die For" suckered me in -- a shirtless hunky guy and the promise of some laughs and sex. There was plenty of Thomas Arklie (Simon), who's easy on the eyes, but no laughs and little sexiness.

The couple, Mark and Simon, have allegedly been together several years, but neither character is interesting enough to care about, so it's hard to imagine that they care about each other. The fault seems to lie in the script, not the performances; both actors do the best they can with what they're given. 

The ending is sappy and unaffecting (well, not totally unaffecting; I felt relief that it was over). 

If you're looking for a movie about gay relationships and AIDS that's funny, "Parting Glances" is far better.

Sentiment: negative
I wonder how the actors acted in this movie. Annette Bening was really herself, half in and half out, was she faking or being natural? It didn't make any difference considering that even if she had been walking on the ceiling it would not have changed the pattern of the film. Brian Cox acted really well. I almost thought that he had always acted this way, tricky, dishonest, in a dirty surrounding where nobody really cared about hygiene. As for Gwyneth Paltrow, the question is what she was doing in this film.

This film is quite sickening and disgusting. Who would pay to see such a crap?

Sentiment: negative
What a great movie!! It's a touching story about four high-school friends who grow up in the 1960s. Throughout the decade, the friends are somewhat separated, but they mnnage to see each other occasionally. There are many tragedies, but there are also a lot of happy moments that make you laugh and smile. It's a heart-filled tale of life, love and friendship. Definitely a must see for drama fans.

Sentiment: positive
A woman asks for advice on the road to reach a mysterious town, and hears two ghoulish stories from the local weirdo, both zombie related. But perhaps fate has something nasty in store for her too...

The Zombie Chronicles is absolutely one of the worst films I have ever seen. In fact I must confess, so bad was it I fast forwarded through most of the garbage. And there was a lot of that, believe me. It runs for just 69 minutes, and there is still tons of filler. You get some skinhead doing a lot of push ups, plenty of dull kissy-kissy scenes between goofy teens (that rhymed, tee hee) and some fine examples of why some people should never become actors.

As for the title characters, they barely even have a footnote in the film. Why, you get more undead action in the intro than you do the preceding feature! Though, considering how pathetic the eyes bursting out of sockets and the eating of brains sequences are (amongst other 'delights'), maybe that's a blessing in disguise.

And to top it all off, it looks likes it's been filmed on someone's mobile phone for broadcast on Youtube. Jerky camera-work, scratches on the print, flickering lights... I had to rub my eyes when I realised it was made in 2001, and not 1971. Even the clothes and fashioned look about three decades out of date!

If you think I'm not qualified to do a review of Chronicles having not seen the whole film, then go ahead. YOU try sitting through it, I betcha you won't even make it to the first appearance of the blue-smartie coloured freaks before making your excuses and leaving. It is truly laughable that anyone chose to release it, and honestly you'll get far more fun resting your drink on the disc than actually torturing your DVD player with this gigglesome excuse for horror. In fact, don't for surprised if it packs it's bags and leaves in the morning, leaving you doomed to watch VHS tapes for the rest of your life. You have been warned... 0/10

P.S What kind of 18-rated horror has the woman keep a massive sports bra on during the obligatory sex scene?! See, the movie can't even get that part right...

Sentiment: negative
Very, very humdrum movie fare here with Stella Stevens taking directions from someone in disguise(it didn't take me long to guess who it was) in Old Nevada Town outside Vegas for a money heist in the Circus Circus Hotel in Las Vegas. Stevens leads her girl gang of three, and they find out that they must act much quicker than had been anticipated. Despite some neat looks at Las Vegas in the 70's, very average yet credible acting from most involved, and a plot line with potential, Las Vegas Lady lays one big boring egg. It seems forever for the film to kick into gear,and when it does it just sputters here and there and never really speeds up. I was somewhat disappointed with this film. Sure, I wasn't expecting anything great, but I at least thought this might be one of those neat exploitation films from the 70's or something like it. Not even close. No one dies. There is a lame gunfight between creaky Stuart Whitman and officious George DiCenzo, one year prior to his grand performance as the prosecuting attorney Bugliosa in Helter Skelter. The gunfight has all the suspense of watching a waterfall. There is one punch and one head hit with a blunt instrument. Beyond that nothing in terms of action. And as for the girls, don't expect much there either. Stella and her girls(both very mediocre yet pretty talents, get in a sauna and a bath. What do we see? Nothing but a fleeting side profile. Stella wears these nice open blouses accentuating her real talents, but I wish she would have been a bit more open with her performance. That way I could write one thing that would recommend the film. Alas, it was not to be, and I have little to say in this film's favor. It isn't a horrible film in any way, it just has nothing going for it either. YAWN.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was hysterical. I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. I mean, it's not "Good Will Hunting," but was it supposed to be? I actually went into the advanced screening expecting a lot less and was pleasantly surprised. The comedy hits hard and is fairly constant. Amanda Peet is hot and awesome. The entire audience that I screened it with seemed to be enjoying the film as much as I did.

Sentiment: positive
Corey Haim plays a kid who teams up with a dog to take out a giant troll and OSA hit-man (Michael Ironside) with a 30/30 and homemade bombs (Which plays plausible considering Haim) Oh and he also protects his mother and girlfriend as well in this watchable yet disappointing adaption of a decent story. Corey Haim is terrible, of course but the movie's sheer momentum as well as Ironside's imposing presence make this at least a modestly effective film. Still the plot is ridiculous and it would've been nicer if we could've seen a monster or at least more gore. At least it's something different. Also it's fairly likely that this film will be the last teen movie for awhile to show a teenager making pipe bombs.

Matt Bronson 2/5

Sentiment: negative
Late, great Grade Z drive-in exploitation filmmaker par excellence Al Adamson really outdoes himself with this gloriously ghastly sci-fi soft-core musical comedy atrocity which plumbs deliciously dismal and dopey depths in sheer celluloid silliness and jaw-dropping stupidity. In the grim totalitarian future of 2047 sex has been deemed an illegal act by the Big Brother-like impotent bumbling idiot the Controller (an amusingly goofy Erwin Fuller). However, sweet'n'sexy Cinderella (radiant blonde cutie pie Catherine Erhardt) remains determined to change things for the better. With the help of her effeminate Fairy Godfather (a flamboyantly campy Jay B. Larson), Cinderella attends a grand gala ball with the specific plan of seducing handsome stud Tom Prince (the dorky Vaughn Armstrong) and teaching everyone that making love is a positive, pleasurable and wholly acceptable activity.

Adamson directs this ridiculous yarn with his customary all-thumbs incompetence, staging the incredibly awful'n'inept song and dance sequences with a totally sidesplitting lack of skill and flair. The uproariously abysmal "We All Need Love" number with people in absurd animal costumes awkwardly prancing about the forest is a hilariously horrendous marvel; ditto the equally abominable "Mechnical Man" routine featuring a bunch of clumsily cavorting robots. Louis Horvarth's crude, static cinematography, the tacky plastic miniatures, Sparky Sugerman's groovy throbbing disco score, the copious gratuitous nudity (ravishing brunette hottie Sherri Coyle warrants special praise in this particular department), the brain-numbingly puerile attempts at leering lowbrow humor (Roscoe the Robot law enforcer is especially irritating), and the uniformly terrible performances (Renee Harmon's outrageously hammy portrayal of Cinderella's wicked overbearing stepmother cops the big booby prize here) further enhance the strikingly abundant cheesiness to be savored in this delectably dreadful doozy.

Sentiment: positive
A Christmas Story Is A Holiday Classic And My Favorite Movie. So Naturally, I Was Elated When This Movie Came Out In 1994. I Saw It Opening Day and Was Prepared To Enjoy Myself. I Came Away Revolted And Digusted. The Anticipation that Rang True In A Christmas Story Is Curiously Missing from This mess. A Red Ryder BB Gun Is Better to get than a chinese top.And It Is Not Very Funny At all. Charles Grodin Is Good but the Buck Stops There. Bottom Line:1 Star. Don't Even Bother.

Sentiment: negative
This, along with "Hare Tonic," ranks as one of the best Bugs cartoons, indeed one of the best Bugs, ever. There are some comments about how Bugs in these cartoons is "basic," meaning, I guess, that he is as yet not fully developed. I actually prefer this "basic" version from the mid-40s (Chuck Jones' was the best version) who is actually more rabbit-sized and far more amusing than the eventual long-legged version who towered over Yosemite Sam and Daffy Duck. The latter-day Bugs came to be too suave and sophisticated for my liking. Also check out "Hair Raising Hare" (1946) and "Rabbit Punch" (1948) for great examples of classic Bugs and classic Chuck Jones.

Sentiment: positive
A few things to touch on as a response to the earlier person's comment. You just have to pay attention to what is going on in the film.

(I guess they are spoilers)

The red stuff under David's mouth? Poison ivy, the wife says not to scratch it or else "it will spread".

David goes "insane" because the stranger is telling HIM to get out of the house, which probably proves David's theory of an affair happening between the wife and stranger; he runs after the man. 

David does not lose him in the woods, he simply hits the stranger a couple of times and leaves it to his wife to pick up the pieces.

Only the wife eats the mushroom. 

I must say, after that one point with the wife and stranger, I began to feel disappointed. But the ending made up for the entire film.

And for that and the very last scene... this is one of my favorite movies ever. I should have put it together earlier, but let myself get sidetracked. I was really surprised, honestly.

This film is interesting, to say the least. But if you are not watching this for the performances that the actors give, I'd say you better let this one go, because that is all that keeps this certain film together.

Sentiment: positive
I think that the movie was really good. Subject, acting and Nusrat Fateh ALi Khan's music were marvellous. Although the director has succeeded in showing the status of women in rural areas and how they suffer at the hands of male-dominated culture, he has neglected Phoolan's character a bit and has focussed more on the violence faced by her.

Sentiment: positive
This is a film of immense appeal to a relatively well-defined group (of which I am not a part). I went to a preview of this movie not knowing what to expect - I ultimately found it disappointing. The history of a dreadfully dysfunctional (oftentimes downright "twisted") Hungarian Jewish family is not my cup of tea. An epic saga like this should really provide its viewers with something more in the end. Ultimately, pictures such as this are about the human condition - this picture cast almost no new light on any of its more meaningful facets.

Sentiment: negative
First of all, I'd like to say I'm just an amateur in commenting movies and that English is not my native language, but that I felt a strong feeling compelling me to write about such movie; possibly as a way to thank and congratulate C. Jay Cox, the cast and the crew for such a brilliant production.

Yesterday I watched "Latter Days" for the first time.

At first I thought it might be similar to the movie "Priest", which I liked very much for showing a gay priest out of the closet. But "Priest", maybe due to its restrict Catholic Ideological notions, didn't supply my spectator's needs by revealing a profound sad end.

"Latter Days", on the other hand, broke that concept (and some other ones as well, such as the Mormon's principles); presenting a tender and cheerful story, leading it to a happy and emotive end, and yet arousing a feeling of God's blessing and hope. A great movie indeed!

Somehow "Latter Days" made me feel L.A. as a city of angels. 

I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes astoundingly beautiful gay love stories!

Sentiment: positive
This movie has the distinction of being the worst movie I have ever seen, and the only film I have ever given a 1 out of 10 on imdb as of yet. I was fooled into renting it because of the cool H.R. Giger cover art on the box. This cover art is the only thing the least bit good about this steaming pile of...

It was about frat boys fighting "freaks" in a strange but not the least bit interesting post apocalyptic world where the cities are in ruins/chaos, but apparently the suburbs are still a safe and wonderful place for young men to haze other men into braindead frat organizations. The most uninspiring performances by boring characters, not so special effects, dreary, un-original scenery and just generally extremely poor quality in all production aspects make this lemon the all time loser on my list.

FINAL RATING: 1/10 I wish I could give it a zero.

Noob Aalox

Sentiment: negative
This movie gets both a 6/10 rating from me, as well as a 9/10. Here is why: As a standard horror movie for the standard horror crowd, where action and gore and scares are taken into consideration, this movie WILL bore you. It's basically a family drama similar to what you'd see on the Lifetime channel, but put in a horror universe. The story and formula are age-old, retreaded hundreds of times. If you're looking for any originality in the plot structure or the minimal conflicts, you'll be disappointed. Take away the zombies and you'll have something just as melodramatic as A Beautiful Mind, tripping on cheese. This is the 6/10.

However, the basic synopsis and idea is pretty original and over-the-top. It's literally something you and your friends would joke about when you're half-drunk . . . but that joke actually got a theatrical release. The idea gets a 9/10 from me. The only reason it isn't perfect is because they could have taken it even further, but they didn't.

The mix of both is mixed. I thought it was funny, but as with most all comedies, it wasn't THAT funny. I had my mom and little sister watch it with me and the jokes we made about it were funnier than the jokes scripted. There were moments of utter genius, but there were also moments of pure boredom.

I sincerely hope that other movies take this kind of over-the-top risk and original ideas. I just can't say it was perfect, or even near it, because of the lack of originality to the plot.

A GREAT family movie. A great movie to watch with a bunch of guys (or girls). A great movie to watch with anyone . . . but if you watch it alone, it will be a bit boring. Other people always make this kind of movie funnier and richer.

4/10

Sentiment: negative