DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
First of all, yes, animals have emotions. If you didn't know that already, then I believe you are a moron. But let's assume that none of us are morons. We all know that animals have emotions, and we now want to see how these emotions are manifest in nature, correct?

What we get instead is a tedious and ridiculously simplistic documentary that attempts to show how animals are "human". The filmmakers search high & low for footage of animals engaged in human-like behaviour, and when it happens they say, "That monkey is almost human!" (that's actually a direct quote).

Everything is in human terms. They waste time theorizing about what makes dogs "smile", but not once do they mention what a wagging tail means. The arrogance of these researchers is disgusting. They even go so far as to show chimpanzees dressed in human clothing and wearing a cowboy hat.

I had been expecting an insightful documentary of animals on their own terms. I wanted to learn how animals emote in their OWN languages. But instead, researchers keep falling back on pedantic, anthropomorphic observations and assumptions. Add a cheezy soundtrack and images of chimps "celebrating Christmas", and this was enough to turn my stomach.

But it doesn't end there. Half of this documentary is filmed not in the wild but in laboratories and experimental facilities. All the camera shots of chimps are through steel bars, and we see how these monkeys are crowded together in their sterile concrete cages. One particularly sobering moment happens near the beginning (though you have to be quick to notice it) where a captive monkey says in sign language, "Want out. Hurry go."

Obscure references are made to "stress tests" and psychological experiments which I shudder to imagine. Baby monkeys are separated from their mothers at birth and are given wireframe dolls in order to prove that baby monkeys crave a "mother figure". And after 40 years of experiments, the smug researchers pat themselves on the back for reaching their brilliant conclusion: monkeys have emotions.

One chimp named "Washoe" has been in a concrete cage since 1966 for that purpose, and to this day she remains thus. We get a brief glimpse (again through bars) of her leaning against a concrete wall with a rather lackluster expression. Personally, I don't need to see any further experimental data. Washoe, I apologize for our entire species.

Sentiment: negative
why oh why did i ever waste my time watching this film? it was given to me on video by a friend and i thought i'll watch it, it can't be that bad surely. firstly the acting is simply appalling and we're supposed to believe this is real? secondly this film is blatantly trying to copy the Blair witch project (yawn) and does so very poorly. so if you want the fright of your life i would suggest that a Simpson's Halloween special would be far scarier. but, if you just wanted to a laugh then maybe the general crapness of this film would suffice. but overall i would avoid this film at all costs or drink a large amount of alcohol before viewing. the best bit? its only about an hour and a half, thank god.

Sentiment: negative
For those who think of Dame May Witty as the kindly, slightly batty, old lady from Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes, this movie requires an adjustment. Here, she's anything but kindly or batty. Instead, her son, George Macready is the loony one. Just don't give him a knife, otherwise his eyes light up and no furniture cushion in the house is safe. Now we know what he has in mind for the trapped Nina Foch if he can just get out from under Mother's domineering hand.

Really tight little woman-in-danger film that keeps the suspense on high throughout. The script never strays from Foch's dilemma. She's held prisoner in a big old Gothic house on the edge of an angry sea. They're going to kill her, but why. Her predicament makes no sense. The tension mounts as she tries one escape ploy after another, but even strangers seem against her. We begin to feel her helplessness and mounting paranoia as the world turns away from her.

Director Joseph H. Lewis took a big step toward cult status with this film and understandably so. Then too, watch Foch run subtly through a gamut of emotions without once going over the top. Witty too shines as a really intimidating matriarch who knows what she wants and how to get it if she can just keep her wacko son in line. My one reservation is the climax which seems too contrived considering the timing of the events. Nonetheless, it's a good, nerve-wracking way to spend a little over an hour, courtesy Columbia studios.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was talked about in Fangoria where I heard about this, it was interesting to me mostly becuase it was direct-to-video and I recognized two of the stars on the cover, James Marsden of Disturbing Behavior and Christine Taylor from The Craft. And to my surprise on Valentine's Day when I was searching through the horror aisle to find it on the shelf! I immediately had to grab it. Me and my brother and our girlfriends watched it and to my surprise it was pretty good, the tales were interesting and for once they were actually SCARY, unlike a lot of other horror movies being made recently. Some of the plot I do not understand but once I watch it again I bet I'll get it. And to even more of my surprise there were other stars I recognized including one of the girls from the TV show My So-Called Life and Jacinda from The Real World, I'm not sure why this movie was only direct-to-video, with a little advertising this movie could have at least made up for how much money was spent on making it. The only problem I have is that since it wasn't released in theatres I guess I'll never be able to view it in widescreen. You should definitely take a chance and rent this one.



Sentiment: positive
I do not remember, at least in the last ten years or so, a movie that I have liked less than Mama Mia. From the non-existent acting to the atrocious singing, I was cringing at least once per minute. I don't believe I could even recall one brief segment that I tolerated. I do know that I will never watch this disaster again. I cannot believe that with such high expectations due to the talent - Colin Firth, Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, that a movie could be such a flop. But to see the lack of acting skills shown, the seemingly drug-induced dancing, and then, horrors of horrors, to hear the singing of Pierce Brosnan(!), I cannot see how this movie will not make it into the hall of shame. Definitely, a movie that never should have been made, and just in case you missed it the first time, one that I will never watch again.

Sentiment: negative
Am I the only one to notice that the "realism" of the 19th century ship is erroneous. Actually it's a 15th century, right around 1620 if memory serves me, because the "realistic" ship in the movie is the Mayflower, now as far as I know the Mayflower NEVER went to Australia or even attempted a voyage to Australia. I don't know who handled R&D for this film, but using the Mayflower and hoping that no one will notice is a poor job indeed.

They even printed it on the cover art and the DVD. I wonder how may other people noticed this little blunder? Not to mention that the movie itself was just plain awful, I would have expected better from Sam Neill.

Sentiment: negative
Spoken like a true hard-boiled u'an gangsta. The story is no worse than any number of gangster flicks, but never ever confuse this movie with The Godfather I or II, or Goodfellas. It is not in the same league.

But what makes the film periodically painful to watch is all these Italian Americans swaggering around dropping bad gangsta lines in an even worse fake u'an accent. Pacino would have been great if they could just have dubbed him. I was looking forward to see Abrahams and Loggia, but their steenky accents spoiled the fun.

Ah well, the script ain't too hot either. Don Corleone would have made this disappear five minutes after meeting him, smiling and patting him on the back all the while.

Sentiment: negative
Skeletons In The Closet takes the father-teenage son genre to new levels of low. This is a movie that serves no purpose. The plot is layed out in the first few minutes, there is no suspense, the characters are cliché and despite plot twists that try to confuse and obfuscate, everything plays out exactly as you think it will. Halfway through the movie I could no longer stand the snail pace and started fast forwarding. The movie ended exactly as I expected. Linda Hamilton is great as always and the other actors are above average considering there seems to be a complete lack of direction. If you really believe you need to see this uninspired lackluster wannabe whodunit, watch it on fast forward.

Sentiment: negative
I rented "New Best Friend" hoping for a movie similar to enjoyable teen thrillers such as "Gossip" and "The Curve". Instead, "New Best Friend" is much more like "The In Crowd", in which there are no thrills and the acting is incredibly phony. "New Best Friend" is boring, and the events during the movie are the same. Skip this movie...it's a waste of time.

Sentiment: negative
An absoloutely wonderful film that works on several levels. It's a story about a great architect, a son seeking his father, about very loving relationships, and about loss. It's also a great flm about architecture.

Very intelligent and very moving. A real treat.

Sentiment: positive
Okay, this film is about Bedknobs and Broomsticks, it's one of the most charming, delightful movies you'll ever see as a kid. It's the unforgettable movie about two adults and two spunky kids on an adventure for fun. It may be a little deniable to watch, but try it, I neither my mother didn't think it was bad, I was very enthused with the movie and the animation, they were all quite good.

It is a delightfully wondrous comedy for the whole family to enjoy; even the kids. Ages 7 years and up will enjoy this wonderful, musical comedy with you and your family especially the animation. The animation movements and layouts are really nice and deserve a thumbs up. It's a terrifically good musical for the whole family so what are you waiting for? Go to the video store and rent Bedknobs and Broomsticks NOW.

Sentiment: positive
I wish I'd known more about this movie when I rented it. I'd put it in my queue on the basis of Heather Graham and her strong cred as an actress (IMHO). While parts of the movie were charming, much of the movie felt contrived, undeveloped, or otherwise just boring or predictable. Not to mention the ICK factor of so many people thinking the sibs were a couple... I don't care how big a part of the story line that is, it still felt a bit, um, gross. And Charlie, for a zoologist, she certainly doesn't seem to be very attuned to signals from other Homo sapiens. What was it about her (besides her hotness and some common interests) that made Gray fall for her? The story could have been so much more interesting with a little more depth. High points - Molly Shannon (although I do agree with the reviewer who found her annoying on occasion), the cabbie in drag, and the dance sequences (if Sam & Gray were such great dancers, I wish we'd seen more of that, as the bits we were shown were indeed better than most of the rest of the movie). Could have been better.

Sentiment: negative
Good Folks, I stumbled on this film on evening while I was grading papers. My academic specialty is Anglo-Saxon literature, and I can say that no one has ever done the genre the honor it deserves. The Icelandic "Beowulf and Grendel" is the least offensive I have seen, and I did pay $3.00 for my copy. This Sci-Fi version ranks with the Christopher Lambert version. Yuck.

What didn't I like? CGI for one. Amazingly bad. More importantly is the faithfulness to the storyline, not to mention the stilted acting. I am used to both with all the versions I have seen.

Delighted Regardless, Peter

Sentiment: negative
directed by albert pyun in his inimitably awful but strangely hypnotic style, "crazy six" is yet another jewel in the crown for this decade's upscale hugo haas (jess franco?). "Stylish" overdirection, incoherent plotting, time-outs in the middle of action sequences for eurodisco torch -song performances, all these seem to be signifying traits for our man Pyun. Most interesting is how he always gets top-notch b-movie casts, compared to Wynorski or some of the other video directors. Ice-T, Rob Lowe, Mario Van Peebles, & the very strange Burt Reynolds ain't a bad cast, though they often look a bit confused. Check out "Postmortem", "Mean Guns", & "Omega Doom" for more top-notch Pyun mayhem!

Sentiment: negative
This movie causes more unintentional laughter than anything else I've ever seen. Really, if you are a Tolkien fan, rent it just to laugh at it with your friends. I won't be the millionth person to rip apart its flaws... all I will say is that the movie (for me, anyway) lost major points for turning my favorite character, Sam, into a bumbling idiot. Shame, shame... 3/10

Sentiment: negative
In the XXII century an architect by the name of Merchant (Bruce Ramsay) commandeers a space station, which he personally designed. As can be predicted a special force is sent to retake the expensive station and put Merchant into custody. Upon arrival they find him partaking in a weird ritual with the use of a mysterious cubical. During interrogation he reveals that they must let him finish, what he has started or else the hell he has released will bathe in blood... In order to convince the officers holding him captive he reminisces about his heritage, about the toymaker who built the box and about the reasons as to why he is here in space...

The movie that is essentially the same to Hellraiser, that The Quickening was to Highlander. Something to be ignored and forgotten, as so it won't influence the lore of Hellraiser to much. By far the most trashy of the franchise with a much more low-grade feel to it than its predecessors (who let's face it were B or C class films).

Acting at times seems to be influenced by a mid-budget porn-flick with wooden unbelievable performances, that actually have you thinking: So when are they going to undress and start with the intercourse? Surprisingly not much sex in the movie, albeit the introduction of the seductress-demon Angelique (a totally superfluous character that unnecessarily messes with what we know of the world of Hellraiser) offers ample opportunities for the love-making.

Basically the movie consists of three abruptly pasted together separate short stories (one in the future, one in the present and one in the past) which lack focus and are rushed along in amateurish fashion. The end result is extremely poor, basically underlined by the fact you have no interest into what happens to any of the characters in the film.

Some decent gore in the flick, but apart from that an utter failure.

Sentiment: negative
Whether any indictment was intended must be taken into consideration. If in the year 2000 there were still rifts of feeling between Caucasian and Afro-Americans in Georgia, such as shown in this film, obviously there remains a somewhat backward mentality among a lot of people out there. It is rather hypocritical, to say the least, if everyone adores Halle Berry, Whoopie Goldberg, Beyoncé, Noemi Campbell, Denzel Washington, Will Smith, et. al., whilst out in the backs there persist manifest racial divides.

White grandmother suddenly gets black grand-daughter thrust upon her, only to meet up with black grandfather in a very white social backwater. The story is sweet, not lacking tragic overtones, and eminently predictable as in most of these kinds of TV films, though the final scene has you guessing............ will he? won't he.......?

Gena Rowlands in her typical style offers a sincere rendering, and Louis Gossett is a good match for her; the little Penny Bae fortunately does not steal the show.

A `nice' way of relaxing after Sunday lunch without having to force your mind too much, though you might just find yourself having a little siesta in the middle of it.

Sentiment: negative
Now more than ever we need Peace & Love in this world!

This film really showcases the wonderful music of the Broadway show, and the fabulous Choreography of the legendary Twila Tharp! I saw it again after many years, and it still holds up well.

Thank you, MGM/UA for putting this on DVD! I love the option of seeing in Widescreen. MGM rocks for doing this on many of their DVD releases.

Ya gotta love Treat Williams as Berger and John Savage as Claude. They couldn't have picked better actors & actresses for this film! Beverly D'Angelo is such a 'hot mama' in this film--I had forgotten just how hot! WOW!

The supporting cast is absolutely great,

with the late great Nell Carter making a singing cameo in a couple of scenes, as well as the kooky Charlotte Ray (Mrs. Garrett on 'Facts Of Life')

The story gets a little weak toward the end, but the anti-war sentiment of the late 60's still holds up, and is relevant today. 

It's beautifully filmed (quite a bit on location) and is so colorful and lovely and really brings the spirit of 1968 back on the big screen.

I saw this movie when it was released in 1979 when I was 15, and was moved by it then, and it still moves me now at 40. Some other reviews on here say they think it should have been made sooner--I don't think Hollywood was ready to make such a movie back in the late 60's-early 70's.

The Vietnam War ended in 1975, and the whole thing hit a little too close to home, I think for this story to be filmed before it was (like in 1969, 70, 71)

Bravo to Director Milos Foreman! I love this film!!!!!!!

It's nice to see it again, this time on DVD. It never looked better!

Sentiment: positive
This is a good film for die-hard Chucky fans. Okay I'm sure it's not as good as what the Child's Play movie were like, but this can get really funny and enjoyable, Chucky's laughs are hilarious.

(SPOILERS)

Now not one doll, but two, meaning double the impact, Jennifer Tilly played the part really well and definitely pulled off the best kill of the movie.

If you have seen the Child's Play movies this would be a worthy film on your Chucky collection, but if you've never seen the Child's play movies before, this'll will be a new start. Of course you'll not have a clue on how Chucky got into his current state (cause I'm not telling you) but you'll figure out why Chucky is very popular.

Overall a very enjoyable movie.

Sentiment: positive
Here we have the inimitable Charlie Chaplin forsaking his slapstick past to tackle the serious subject of anti-Semitism, and intolerance in general. He portrays two characters - the sweet, innocent Jewish barber - a war veteran, and the raving and ruthless dictator, Adenoid Hynkel. The Jewish ghetto in this country is not safe for long, due to the whims of Hynkel and his armed thugs, who routinely rough up its residents, or leave them alone, dependent upon his mood that day or week. The barber is among them, but is befriended by his former commanding officer, Schultz (Reginald Gardner), who seems to keep things quiet for a while, until Hynkel condemns him to a concentration camp. He seeks refuge with the Jews in the ghetto, most specifically the barber, and the feisty young woman, Hannah (Paulette Goddard). The premise will be - who will be the one among these Jews to put their lives on the line to get rid of Hynkel and his cronies? We needn't guess too hard to know the answer; the barber is a dead ringer for the dictator, and he is outfitted in his image, accompanied by Schultz, also in full military gear. Hannah escapes with several of her ghetto friends to the country of Osterlich, where Mr Jaeckel's (Maurice Moscovich) cousin has a farm, and they can live peaceably for a while. At this point, Hynkel himself has been arrested by his armed forces, thinking him to be the notorious barber. The latter, meanwhile, has been escorted with Schultz to a podium, to make a speech announcing the conquest of Osterlich. The ensuing ten minutes is pure Chaplin himself, speaking from his heart of tolerance, love and freedom, and denigrating greed and hatred. Albeit Chaplin started production on the film in 1937, it can be forgiven some naivete. He was allegedly unaware of the gravity of this persecution and hatred, and said had he known the full extent, he would never have made the film, because he most likely believed it would have trivialized the situation. He has a marvelous supporting cast: Reginald Gardner, Henry Daniell as Garbitsch, his aide-de-camp, the always wonderful Billy Gilbert as the bumbling Herring, Paulette Goddard, Jack Oakie as the dictator Napaloni, his rival for conquest, veteran European actors David Gorcey (Leo's father), Maurice Moscovich, among others. The scene he choreographed with globe, with just a musical accompaniment is sheer, luminous inspiration, and luminous, as well, is Paulette Goddard at the film's end, smiling through her tears. I have seen this film before, but there is always something new in it for me. Last evening, when it finished, I sat there in tears. I defy anyone not to be moved by it.

Sentiment: positive
CAMILLE 2000 

Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (Panavision)

Sound format: Mono

Whilst visiting Rome, an amorous nobleman (Nino Castelnuovo) falls in love with a beautiful young libertine (Daniele Gaubert), but their unlikely romance is opposed by Castelnuovo's wealthy father (Massimo Serato), and Fate deals a tragic blow...

A sexed-up love story for the swinging Sixties, adapted from a literary source (Alexandre Dumas' 'La Dame aux Camelias') by screenwriter Michael DeForrest, and directed with freewheeling flair by Radley Metzger who, along with the likes of Russ Meyer and Joe Sarno, is credited with redefining the parameters of 'Adult' cinema throughout the 1960's and 70's. Using the scope format for the last time in his career, Metzger's exploration of 'la dolce vita' is rich in visual excess (note the emphasis on reflective surfaces, for example), though the film's sexual candor seems alarmingly coy by modern standards. Production values are handsome throughout, and the performances are engaging and humane (Castelnuovo and Gaubert are particularly memorable), despite weak post-sync dubbing. Though set in an unspecified future, Enrico Sabbatini's wacked-out set designs locate the movie firmly within its period, and Piero Piccioni's 'wah-wah' music score has become something of a cult item amongst exploitation devotees. Ultimately, CAMILLE 2000 is an acquired taste, but fans of this director's elegant softcore erotica won't be disappointed. Next up for Metzger was THE LICKERISH QUARTET (1970), which many consider his best film.

Sentiment: negative
> Contrary to most reviews I've read, I didn't feel this followed any of the other rock movies ("Spinal Tap", etc.) The story was more unique, although I feel most people wanted to see the "sex, drugs & rock and roll" vices that the band kept alluding to.

> As an American, I knew a few of the actors - Spall, Connelly & Rea. Surprised to find out "Brian"/Bruce Robinson was in Zifferedi's (<sp?) classic "Romeo & Juliet". Guess I'll have to rent that next.

> "THE FLAME STILL BURNS" - My wife, who hails from Mexico, didn't follow the English/British language too well, missed some of the jokes (which I dutifully explained) but she cried her eyes out at the concert scene. She loves the song so much now.

> Funny that Amazon.com has the soundtrack for $30+usd when I bought the DVD in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart for $5.50usd. Price non-withstanding, I first saw this on late night cable and have been dying to find it ever since.

Sentiment: positive
Well!! the movie has Catherine Zeta Jones in it. It's a Hallmark television movie. It's from a Thomas Hardy novel. It has Catherine Zeta Jones in it. She is by far the only one in the movie who acts better than in my high school theater class. Oh yes it has Clive Owen in it. I'm not British so that means almost as much as being a Thomas Hardy novel. Except he was in "The Bourne Identity", and I liked that. That just about wraps it all up folks. That really all there was. I'm becoming repetitive, but I do like CZJ, so I stuck it out to the end. The computer is telling me that I don't have 10 lines and I keep counting them. I always count 11, but maybe it just doesn't like my style, but that is my opinion of the movie, too.

Sentiment: negative
Where to start...Oh yea, Message to the bad guys: When you first find the person you have been tracking (in order to kill) that witnessed a crime you committed, don't spend time talking to her so that she has yet another opportunity to get away. Message to the victim: When the thugs are talking amongst themselves and arguing, take that opportunity to "RUN AWAY", don't sit there and watch them until you make a noise they hear. Message to the Director: if someone has a 5 or 10 minute head start in a vehicle or on foot, you can't have the bad guys on their heels or bumper right away! time and motion doesn't work that way. It would also be nice to think that a woman doesn't have to brutally kill( 4) men in order to empower herself to leave an abusive relationship at home.

Sentiment: negative
Although this movie (and I use the term loosely) was made in 1997, we just watched it tonight for the first time. My husband commented that a Tommy Lee Jones movie that we'd never heard of made him a little apprehensive. I blithely watched anyway, certain that if Jones was in the movie, it must at least be worth two hours of my time. After all, he has been one of our go-to actors for years. Although Heche isn't one of my favorite actresses, I was additionally reassured by seeing another well-known face. The list of accomplished actors/actresses continued to grow, so I endured more and more of this film, certain that if I pushed through enough clichés and trite social statements, I would arrive victorious on the other side of the plot. Alas, there was no plot. It appeared to be burned by the ever-oozing lava of doom.

The characters were paper-thin. The plot was so chock full of holes that it literally distracted me from most of the special effects and acting in the movie. Was the fee for a brief consultation with an elementary science teacher too much for this film's budget? No acid rain...no toxic gasses (like sulfur or hydrochloride)...no deadly ash...no skin-searing heat just a few feet from the lava. Wow...it's the world's friendliest lava ever! 

The events were no better than the characters. Each incident was so contrived and far-fetched...it's like the writers said "Okay, we need to get rid of the little girl NOW"...and poof, she's splashed by a lava bomb which burns her enough that she has to be carried to safety (not from the lava, but from her own helpless stupor)...but just moments later in the car she is in no apparent pain and soon after is running effortlessly through the (groan!) building that (oh no!) is about to be blown up. After enduring all of this, your reward is the line from the little boy at the end (about all the people looking the same)...which has got to be one of the worst movie lines I have ever heard. Even if it wasn't so painfully scripted, it was ridiculous timing for all the characters involved. Kid and cop aside, as if the mother would still be in the area and just needs to be pointed out because she just isn't speaking up...what...she's hoping to slink off into the shadows and get away from the little brat once and for all? I don't think so. Obviously the child's mother would be missing or dead - or yelling her head off to find her toddler.

The token black gangsta tough hoodlum with a secret soft spot versus the chip on his shoulder narrow minded cracker cop with a secret soft spot scene made my eyes bleed. Even if such pat characters existed, they wouldn't behave as the movie portrays them given the circumstances. Something about imminent fiery death and massive destruction tends to catch people off-guard, ya know? 

There are too many canned movie moments like these to mention...really, it's just an embarrassing movie to watch. Those poor writers...where are they now?

Sentiment: negative
It's a deeply stupid humor... but I loved it. Jean Dujardin is a great actor in this movie. Bérénice Béjo is cute. It makes fun of all the secret agents like James Bond: refreshing!!! It's probably the most hilarious movie I've ever seen. I already saw it three times and I still want to see it again. Buy the DVD as soon as you can. You won't regret it. It's the kind of movie in which you don't need to have a great scenario because it's a parody. The only defect is that OSS 117 is too short. It's a jewel. It's not really frequent to see a french movie get success in the USA but I think that this one has everything to succeed. Trust me!!!

Sentiment: positive
I probably give this more credit than it deserves because it's Halloween, I was just at "Knott's Scary Farm" and I was in a mood to watch a really cheesy Halloween movie.

Oh, and it only cost me one dollar.

Usually I'll ffwd through a movie like this to get to "the good stuff," but I resisted the urge here and I'm still not sure why. It was obvious from the opening shots this wasn't a "real" movie, not even a B-movie. It's more in the category of the DeCoteau "horror" movies like "The Brotherhood" that are shot on film-look video for about 50 cents (in fact, I was half afraid any minute one of his beefy college boys would stagger out rubbing himself in his underpants or something). There were no cutaway shots (too expensive to do multiple camera setups) and flat lighting but...it's hard to pinpoint. There's something refreshing about watching a director with no money pull off a half-decent movie. The fact that he's doing even a half-decent job is commendable, and this movie has it's share of merits--the acting isn't bad, the photography is pretty good (if too bright to be scary), there are some surprises, and the whole thing is sort of...different somehow.

A bunch of college kids are (for some unknown reason) stuck in the warehouse where they are decorating the annual haunted house. A creepy old man gives them a satanic book and they accidentally summon up the powers of hell. This results in the costumed people in the haunted house becoming who they are made up to be, and causing a lot of mayhem and human suffering. Along the way we are treated to an oddly complex and thoughtful lesbian relationship subplot--it's interesting that this couple seems to be the most well-rounded in the movie. Yes, there's a sex scene but it isn't salacious--or at least no more so than you'd find in any legit movie about lesbians that shows them having sex. It's rather unusual for a horror film to take the time and effort to do this without resorting to cheap exploitation. 

The other thing about this that held my interest was how it was clearly trying to emulate the "stupid kids have sex and get killed" vibe of the 80's slashers. It's hard to take that on because there are so many of those films that already exist, the genre has been done to death. I'm not sure if it's good or bad that these filmmakers simply tried to make another entry in that genre, without irony, as if it was still a LIVING genre, but I appreciated the attempt.

Which is why I sat through it; sometimes you just want to watch a mindless, no-budget, "A-for-effort" horror film. There really was too much set up, not enough gore, endless plot-holes, dead-ends and clichés and the unfortunate overall feel of a movie that simply did not have enough money behind it to be the film the producers envisioned...but at the very least the haunted house scenes were pretty cool. I'd pay to go to that haunted house if it existed, and didn't mind paying a dollar to see it on DVD even if I'll never watch this again.

Oh, and **possible spoiler**, but there was great, brief business with the vampire girl in the coffin: "I used to be claustrophobic. But I've changed." Ha ha, good one.

Sentiment: negative
The main problems of 'Saw' are related to the tremendous script mistakes that only a uncritical spectator will just obviate. The main question is what's is the purpose of the killer in his lying in the middle of the floor? The film tries to show that the killer's aim is to cause evil and destruction in his victims, he loves to play with the lives of other people and to feel control over their the fears and debilities. So why does he just pretend to be dead between the two main characters? A tremendous unlikelihood: can a man pretend to be dead for more than one or two hours without moving a single muscle or even without breathing in order not to be discovered by two men who are in the same room? It has not sense at all except to be the final (d)effect of the movie. The killer seems to have always the control along the plot and if it's lying like a dead body this can't be possible. Finally, it doesn't work. The right place for the killer should have been a darker and untouchable shadow behind the false shadow (the male nurse) but not the floor of the white room. The director shouldn't have showed the killer's face and maybe the site where he is hidden. Then, the film would be a quite good thriller. However, 'Saw' is just a fiasco. Hitchcock, please, come back.

Sentiment: negative
So I'm at home, flipping channels one night, and I come across this man wearing heels and makeup, standing in front of a colored background on HBO. Naturally, I did a double-take and decided I'd watch for a little while. I didn't change the channel until he was finished, it was so incredibly hilarious. The next time it was on, I made sure to tape it so I could watch it over and over again, and it has remained one of my favorite things to watch. During the first couple of minutes, you can tell that the audience isn't quite sure what to think, but he quickly wins them over with his incredible humor and wit. While many stand-up comedians mesh together in my brain, Eddie Izzard stands out as one of the best. His style is incredibly refreshing, and it is nice to hear jokes about things like history and puberty when most comedians stick to current events. His show stayed with me afterwards. I went to Italy over the summer, and all I could think about while I was there was how "Italians are always on scooters going 'CIAO...'" 10 out of 10. See it. You won't regret it.

Sentiment: positive
Very strange but occasionally elegant exploitation movie with no real story, but benefiting from its stunningly ravishing lead actress and a handful of nice, gruesome make-up effects. Daniella is a beautiful twenty-something girl, carrying with her the trauma of being raped at the age of 13. Nightmares and hallucinations lead her further into believing she's the reincarnation of a female ancestor who was said to be a werewolf. She kills her brother-in-law during a nightly encounter and gets submitted in a hospital. She escapes again, however, and randomly devours more men whilst on the run for police detectives, doctors and relatives. It's all pretty to look at and listen too (really great soundtrack), but the absence of plot and continuity become irritating quite fast. Luckily enough, leading lady Annik Borel rarely ever wears clothes and she fills up the boring moments by dancing naked around a fire. The film is too long, too weird and too forgettable. The biggest surprise comes at the end, when suddenly and out of the blue, director Rino Di Silvestro tries to make us believe that his movie was based on true facts. Yeah, right...

Sentiment: negative
Ok so here's the basic plot. It is 1933, Peter Sellers is Dr Fu Manchu, a 168 year old Chinese man who has lived quite a long time. The film opens with his birthday in which he celebrates by drinking a special elixir that (even the film never mentions) prolongs his life. Well on this occasion the elixir is clumsily dropped by an assistant (Kato if you remember the Pink Panther movies) and he orders his minions to then go find 6 rare items to make the elixir. This creates a global man hunt in which his henchmen end up robbing museums of diamonds and venturing into London, to meet up with Dr Fu's nemisis, a retired Scotland Yard detective Nayland Smith, also played by Sellers who tries to stop him in what is suppose to be a witty comedic adventure.

This was apparantly Sellers last full length feature film that he made before he died. The terrible tragedy is that he was in it. Sellers who is such a gifted comedian and has had memorable 'funny' roles in the Panther movies and particualrly in the movie 'The Party', is anything BUT that in this film. This film was absolute torture to sit through and I couldn't even finish it. He completly DIES and I kept cringing while watching Sellers performance. After coming of the great work of 'Being There' a year earlier how, I mean HOW can he make this and HOW did this thing even get made??? Like one person mentioned the first 10..15 minutes are ok but then it is ALL DOWNHILL...

Avoid like the plague.

Rating 1 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
I also saw this at the cinema in the 80s and have never forgotten it, even though I have never seen it again anywhere. 

I don't know whether if I did see it now it would seem dated, but remembering the storyline and comparing it to some of the terrible modern films I've seen on Zone Horror I should think it would stand up very well.

I can still remember his coffin sliding out and opening up and all the dead bodies becoming reanimated, and the blue lightning. Having seen hundreds of horror movies and still remembering this one, it must be good.

Sentiment: positive
Apparently none of the previous reviewers,most of whom praise the film for its accuracy, have actually read a biography of Louis Pasteur.The most glaring inaccuracy is in the relationship between Pasteur and Napoleon III.Back in the 1930's the latter was invariably shown in a bad light.While far from an admirable character-he was an inept politician and a self-appointed "military genius" who allowed France to be dragged into a disastrous war,he was not the stupid reactionary depicted here. He had an intelligent interest in science,and like many other people in the 19th century saw a bright future because of the improvements it would bring.Far from exiling Pasteur, he was his PATRON,building him a laboratory and providing him with all the resources that he needed for his research.While the lab was under construction, Pasteur became gravely ill.A bureaucrat, deciding it was a waste of money to build a laboratory for someone who would soon be dead, ordered work halted on his own authority.When the emperor heard about this, his outrage shook the bureaucracy so that there was a flurry of buck-passing, and work promptly resumed.The Emperor personally visited Pasteur to comfort him and reassure him that he would get his lab.The emperor would often bring members of his court to admire Pasteur's projects,and it was obvious to everyone that Pasteur was one of the emperor's favorites.Pasteur's main worry concerning the Emperor was that Napoleon thought Pasteur was virtually a miracle worker who could do almost anything, and was constantly assigning him tasks outside of his previous experience.Pasteur, a very modest man, was always protesting this, but Napoleon would say that he had complete faith in him,and Pasteur despite his misgivings, always came through.They always had a close and friendly relationship,and after the Emperor was overthrown, Pasteur refused to say a bad word about him,grateful to the end of his life.

The part about his daughter having the baby, and Pasteur sacrificing his principles to get a doctor, never happened.The part about the anthrax and rabies, for which he was famous, is generally correct, but the notion that the anthrax experiment raised him from obscurity to fame is false.He was famous and respected at the time this happened.This movie is OK from a dramatic standpoint,but very distorted as biography.

Sentiment: negative
David Duchovney creates a role that he was to replicate somewhat in Californication - the troubled talent. And it is a role he plays well.

This thriller starts off at a good speed and carries you through to the end. Timothy Hutton plays a fine villain and Angelina Jolie pouts. The story of a disgraced doctor finding his way into a criminal world is well scripted. Drug addiction and a desire for the sultry Jolie mix a heady cocktail. Unfortunately towards the end the story gets a little weaker and the relationships between villains and the FBI is muddled and rushed as if it was created only to develop the final scene. But, that aside, a movie worth seeing.

Sentiment: positive
There are so many good things to say about this “B” movie.

“B’ maybe in connections, but not in commission. This is about the best of its genre that I have ever seen. A grade A effort by Universal. The script is well done, imaginative, and without fault. Writing credits: Howard Higgin original story & Douglas Hodges story, John Colton (screenplay). Director Lambert Hillyer handled the complex story and story locations very well. No skimping on the loads of extras and locations. I loved Beulah Bondy (Jimmy Stewarts mother in “It’s A Wonderful Life”. The fem lead, Frances Drake is a beauty and handled her part with grace and pathos for her Karloff husband. Lugosi likewise was correctly underplayed. I think this is the best part I remember seeing him in. As I said there were so many good things: the African discovery of the Radium “X”, the melting of the stone statues ((somewhat reminiscent of the Ten Little Indians in And Then There Were None (Agatha Christie) (the Barry Fitzgerald version)), the glowing of Karlof in the dark. Karloff’s mother played by Violet Kemble Cooper with elegance. And because of all these virtues, I found myself believing in the science it portrayed. I guess that’s the mark of a good piece of art.

Sentiment: positive
Edge Vs. Michaels-Boring in general (loved the sweet chin music into the chair) 4/10 Taker Vs. Heidenreich-One of the worst matches I've seen, predictable as hell 1/10 Tripe Threat WWE match-Why do I watch them, nobody ever wins a championship at the rumble, its not the main event. Liked it when Show drove JBL through the wall. 3/10 World Heavyweight Championship-Pretty OK match, kind of more a beat-down by Tripe H than a match, but I was happy to see it after watching crap. 5/10 Royal Rumble-Good Rumble,Liked the brand showdown,the Hassan thing, and the end. 7/10 Overall still crap. Why does anyone watch the rumble???

Sentiment: negative
If you want to see intelligent, philosophical discussion of human possibility and potential, watch "Waking Life," which is brilliant. "What the #$*! Do We Know" is all over the place in its focus, poorly directed, poorly written, poorly acted, utterly devoid of any art direction and completely annoying. It wasn't thought-provoking or entertaining in the slightest. The inclusion of that rambling freak "Ramtha" in this film is reason enough to avoid it. Isn't it strange how the filmmakers choose to look over the fact that this woman worships some 2,000 year old Atlantian god or something? What a flake that old chick is, and what a total waste of my time and money this movie was. The people responsible for this film should not be allowed to make another movie ever again.

Sentiment: negative
The quintessential housewife and perfect mother, Donna Reed (as Donna Stone) could do it all. Settle spats between the children or neighbors, take care of her hard-working pipe-smoking pediatrician husband, Alex, and still have a stack of pancakes, three types of breakfast meat, and a tall glass of milk and OJ ready for the kids every morning before breakfast.

Over the course of the past fifty years, we've lost sight of the idealistic stay-at-home mom, family meals together at the kitchen table, and preparing dinner for a hard-working husband when he comes home from work.

I wish the show were available on DVD- I'd discontinue my cable altogether!

Sentiment: positive
Oh what the heck, I'll reveal the secret: this movie stinks!

Yeah there are some nifty dinosaur effects that, for their time, were probably really exciting to watch. Now they don't cut it, but they're not terrible. They're just good enough to tolerate without being able to laugh at it. So they just sit there, and i sit watching this, not laughing, not excited, just, well, bored. It stinks!

If I can exercise my Jay Sherman for a moment, the film really does. The box promises cowboys versus dinosaurs, and in very generic sense it delivers. Guys dressed like cowboys fight a couple of big dinosaurs. But really these guys are a bunch of sissies, and the hero is a loser (more on this later) and the dinosaurs are hardly intimidating. The plot is a yawner, and there isn't much technically wrong with it that's there to laugh at. It's all just gray and bland.

After some dreadful night cinematography (Filmed in one and a half colors I called it), we get the plot which involves some people, doing stuff. That was what I caught. Oh and they are at the turn of the century in Mexico, so they at least dress like cowboys even if they don't act like it.

So a bunch of these people, who I think were human, they go in the desert, and they stumble on these dinosaurs (after they find a miniature horse...I don't know, let's just move on). Then the movie degrades into a really pathetic King Kong ripoff in the final act. At that point I had lost the will to even keep my eyes at television level, and I drifted in and out of consciousness.

The "hero" is played by the guy from Beneath the Planet of the Apes who essentially played Charlton Heston's part when Heston decided he didn't want to be in the sequel. He was picked cause, shock o' shocks, he looks exactly like Heston. That's about all he has going for him. I was really upset when he was the hero of the film cause all he does is glower, snear, bag the chick in the film (Who's named T.J...unfortunately she's not a prostitute or finally the origin of the name would have been revealed). Meanwhile his friend kills all the dinosaurs, saves the day numerous times, and what does he get for it? Not recognition, no nothing! And he dies, sacrificing himself for his friends! They don't even wait up for him while they escape!

Boring, long, slowly paced, with little to enjoy until the film decides to carbon copy King Kong's script onto it's own, it's best to avoid this film unless you enjoy pain on the scale of dropping an anvil on your eyeball.

Sentiment: negative