DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I don't know much about Tobe Hooper, or why he gets his name in the title, but maybe he shouldn't have bothered. As another commenter mentioned, there isn't really enough horror or erotica to bring in fans of either genre. The plot is incoherent, the Sade sequences are gratuitous, and most of the acting is so-so. Englund was doing his best with weak material, and Zoe Trilling has a really great bottom, but neither is enough to carry this film. This one's a tape-over. Grade: F

Sentiment: negative
A suspenseful thriller that bears some resemblance to Deliverance as for scenery and setting. There are also some very innovatively shot scenes and good music, although the daftness and sometimes seemingly careless attitude of one of the characters is unfitting to the situation, although this is not a mayor problem. It also poses interesting questions about justness of revenge and limits of friendship.



Sentiment: positive
I would have to say this is a great movie. 

Mike Judge has an eye forseeing things that nobody would ever notice hence Office Space. Hemakes a statement about the dumbing down of society and that survival of the fittest is mere pipe dream in 500 years. That pop culture and mass marketing by wealthy companies tend to rule the day. Yes there is a lot of potty humor in it and it is to get the story moving and his point across. But the genuine frustration on Private Joe Bowers face is priceless and some cases we can all relate to it at some point in our lives. 

If you do not enjoy the humor then look at it from a different point of view and watch it again. It took me watching it twice to really appreciate this film for what it isAnd with said after watching it twiceI am going to read a book now.

Sentiment: positive
Obviously Raw Feed Video is smarter than all of us who wasted our money renting this flick! They will make millions from video rentals and their low budget investment is going to pay off big, which will finance "Rest Stop II" (unfortunately). I figure they spent a maximum of a few hundred thousand dollars American to hire the actors, rent the rest stop locale and burn a truck and drag a motorcycle along behind the truck for a bit plus pay for the technical stuff. That's it. We should all be as smart as these guys, I won't knock them for having the genius to promote a stinker into good monetary returns. Premise of the movie was good, and it could have been a really adequate horror movie, but it failed by not delivering a clear story line. I am always looking for a gem from the upstart film companies, but I didn't find it here and neither will you. I'm only sorry I wasted $3.99 plus tax to find out.

Sentiment: negative
Good drama movie about a child custody case with great performances by all the actors.A good example of what an excellent script can do to propel a simple story to a much higher quality.The screenplay was just average though and this is what kept the movie from the list of the all time best dramas.Still,the great acting makes this movie a good one to see if you are a fan of court dramas or a big fan of the lead actors.The movie really should have been a tad longer though for more excellence but that would really be nitpicking......

Sentiment: positive
Onstage John Osborne's adaptation of "Picture of Dorian Gray" is a fine tribute to Oscar Wilde's talents as both novelist and playwright.On screen with some editing it becomes a bit sloppy due to the cutting of 3 crucial scenes from the play (one being an important scene between Basil and Henry showing that time has passed.)The acting however is brilliant. Sir john Gielgud return's to his Wilde roots as lord Henry,and although about a decade too old for the role,he totally becomes the enigmatic,life loving cad and cynic that Wilde brought to life so meticulously in his novella. Jeremy Brett is also strong,offering a touching portrait of the anguished artist Basil Hallward.Peter Firth,while not originally my vision of Dorian, handles the role with style and grace...and later with a convincing strain of cruelty. The supporting cast is equally fine, Gielgud's former 'Importance Of Being Earnest" co-star Gwen Francon-Davies plays his philanthropic Aunt Agatha with dignity and Judi Bowker makes a touching Sybil Vane. The wit,pathos and tension of Wilde's work have been remarkably transferred to the screen. My only other qualm is with the hair styles. Many of them seemed out of place,looking more like 1970's versions of Victorian hairdos rather than the actual style. Overall however,the acting and writing elevates this production to a high level of small screen excellence.

Sentiment: positive
I tend to love everything the great late Paul Naschy (R.I.P.) ever was in. While not all films starring Naschy are great, they all have a specific charm that can be found nowhere but in Naschy-flicks, and they are always entertaining. There is no rule without exception, however, as "El Mariscal Del Infierno" aka. "The Devil's Possessed" (1974) proves. While the film does have the specific Naschy-flick-charm, it sadly drags far too much and gets really, really dull in-between. Naschy stars as the evil Baron Gilles De Lancré, who oppresses the people and uses black magic and bloody rituals to stay in power. When Gaston de Malebranche (Guillermo Bredeston), who fought side by side with Gilles De Lancré against the British, learns about the Baron's evil behavior, he decides to turn against his former comrade in arms and help the people free themselves from the satanic Baron's tyranny...

Directed by León Klimovsky, who is best known for directing Naschy in "La Noche De Walpurgis" ("The Werewolf Vs. The Vampire Woman", 1971), the film was scripted by Naschy himself. Naschy often scripted his own films, and one must say that he mostly did a better, more original job than it is the case here. "El Mariscal Del Infierno" is mostly built up as a historical adventure rather than a Horror film, and it gets quite boring throughout the middle. It often resembles the Sword and Sandal films from the 50s, only that this film is set in medieval times. The Satanic part was probably only added because the great Paul Naschy's name is linked to the Horror genre. The film has its good parts: Paul Naschy giving weird speeches, Paul Naschy looking weird, Paul Naschy doing Satanic stuff, Paul Naschy torturing innocent victims, etc. But sadly, most of the film concentrates on the boring hero and the good guys, and these moments are boring. The female cast members are nice to look at, but, unlike most Naschy films, this one features no nudity and sleaze. There is some gore, but it mostly looks clumsy and isn't as fun too look at as it is the case with most other Naschy films. Overall, "El Mariscal Del Infierno" is only worth a look for my fellow Naschy-enthusiasts. There are dozens of films starring the Spanish Horror deity which should be seen before this one, such as "El Jorobado De La Morgue" ("The Hunchback of the Morgue", 1973), "La Orgia De Los Muertos" ("The Hanging Woman", 1973), "El Espanto Surge De La Tumba" ("Horror Rises From The Tomb", 1973), "Latidos De Panico" ("Panic Beats", 1983), "Rojo Sangre" (2004), or any of the 'Waldemar Daninsky' werewolf films. R.I.P. Paul Naschy. Legends never die!

Sentiment: negative
A pity, nobody seems to know this little thriller-masterpiece. Where bigger budgeted movies fail, "Terminal Choice" delivers lots of thrills, shocks and bloody violence. A little seen gem, that deserves being searched for in your local video shop. That anonymous guy beneath is quite right, when he says, you'll never trust hospitals again... it IS that effective ! Good ending,too, not really a twist, but it doesn't end the way one thought it would. Yep, that's Ellen Barkin in an early role...

Sentiment: positive
The second half of Steven Soderbergh's revolutionary bio on Che Guevara deals with his last campaign to export revolution to Bolivia. In order to maintain his saintly visage of Che Soderbergh conveniently leap frogs the mass executions he presided over after the revolution in Cuba and the folly of his Congo adventure ("This is the history of a failure" he writes in the preface of his Congo Journal) to concentrate fully on Che's attempt to rally support to rise up against the government in Bolivia. It would turn out to be a disaster and Guevara's final act.

What plagued the first chapter follows suit here as Soderbergh slows his film to a crawl to study the beatific countenance of the contemplative Guevara once again being played like James Dean in East of Eden by Bernicio Del Toro. The problem is Guevara has little success in gaining converts and he soon finds himself and his starving comrades being swallowed up in the heart of darkness Bolivian Jungle. Unlike Werner Herzog in the magnificent, Aguirre, the Wrath of God Soderbergh fails to utilize the jungle's metaphorical possibilities to heighten the desperation of the guerrillas. He seems more concerned with keeping Che's nimbus above his head than exploring the panic setting in on the dead enders. There is one Herzogian moment where Che sits astride an obstinate horse kicking and screaming to get it moving but overall Soderbergh's mise en scene remains flat, sloppy and uninteresting. 

In both of his films Soderbergh shows he is clearly a Che groupie and because of it his focus remains myopic and narrow. He spends too much time building his monument to Che and too little in developing his relationships with key players in his saga, especially Fidel Castro. Making matters worse he does it with a slow and dispassionate approach that never catches fire. One would think he was steeped in enough Eisenstein and Vertov to realize that sweeping change is showcased a lot better with sweeping style.

Sentiment: negative
Mr Seagal has apparantly lowered his (already low) standards even more and has now outdone himself in making bad movies. The Foreigner has no substance what so ever in the script. It's director has made an even worse job and the music and score is so cheezy and malplaced that you just don't know whether to laugh or cry. Already 10 minutes into the movie, you just want to turn it off. However, considering Steven Seagal's past movies, you think 'Hey, there might be some cool action-sequences at least worth watching...' ...you are WRONG! It only gets worse as the movie progresses. Everyone (with a few exceptions) seem to kill every person that they talk to, good or bad, innocent or not. The only good thing with the movie is that it that it has an end and that it has a rather short running time. Summing the movie up in two words: STAY AWAY!

Sentiment: negative
For starters, "Hobgoblins" tries to ape the more successful "Gremlins". That's bad enough but they don't even try to make anything that closely resembles a movie here. Instead, it's more like a bargain basement, everything-must-go clearance of embarrassing scenes, inappropriate sound FX, acting as bland as unflavored tapioca and a script that takes everything humans hold sacred in their motion pictures and throws 'em down the old tube-aroo.

The plot? Grrrr.... Meddling kids track down gremlin-like creatures from movie lot before they kill people by projecting their fantasies. Sound cool, does it? Well, see that wall on the other side of your room? Run right at it, top speed, face first. See, THAT is cooler than this movie.

You dare to doubt? Quick, name something else one of the leads has been in other than this. What other scripts have the writers done since "Hobgoblins"? Name another Rick Sloane directoral effort. How many "Hobgoblins" action figures do you have? See? THANK you.

I cannot believe I took so long to write about such a horrible film. I'd rather write about more important things; like the separation of church and state, economic restructuring in Europe, that kind of thing. But no, "Hobgoblins" it is and it is bad - bad like your grandparents' wallpaper, bad as pink flamingos on your lawn, bad like underwear that says "Home of the Whopper"...and I think we'll stop there.

Well, Mike and the robots fight valiantly but try as they might, they can do only so much with "Hobgoblins" before they realize that, yes, the director DOES need kicked in the shin.

Real, real hard.

One star for "Hobgoblins", seven stars for the MST3K version.

Sentiment: negative
This formulaic film (hero's girlfriend marries the villain) just didn't move along fast enough given some of the circumstances of the story. Scott seems too old in this one, and too many times his character turns away from decisive action, deflating the scenes. He responds to the deaths of some of his hands weakly; he escapes from Knox's gang by hiding in a full rain barrel; his escape to the high country and pursuit by John Russell seem superfluous, as does much of the film. The plot could have been tightened. 

High points of the film: seeing "Tennessee" Ernie Ford without a mustache singing "Man in the Saddle"; Alfonso Bedoya's too brief scenes as a cook; the color photography of the high country, and the fight scene there with John Russell.

Sentiment: negative
This is a really sad, and touching movie! It deals with the subject of child abuse. It's really sad, but mostly a true story, because it happens everyday. Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazzello play the two children or Lorraine Bracco, a single mother who just tries to make a home for them. While living with her parents, a man, who likes to be called "The King" comes into their life. He hits the youngest boy, Bobby, but the two brothers vow not to tell their mother. But finally she finds out, after the Bobby is hurt badly. The end kind of ruined it for me, because it is so totally unbelievable. But, except for that, I love the movie.

Sentiment: positive
Stanley Kubrick, a director who I hold in the highest of esteems for his masterpieces (Clockwork Orange, 2001, The Killing, the Shining, Dr. Strangelove, etc) took the film out of circulation, leaving it to be found by only the hardcore fans and completists. After seeing the film for myself, I could see why. At the age of 24, Kubrick had already honed his craft of still photography for LOOK magazine, and had done a few short documentaries. Like many first-time filmmakers that came in the decades after him, his ambition for Fear and Desire was, in short, to just go and make a film, cheaply, more than likely to see if he could do it. On that level, he was successful. However, the film itself definitely is not.

I can't really say that the film is a failure because there was something I did like about it throughout. Even as the film's story went on the wayside, and the actors (whom Kubrick didn't have any idea how to direct, not being a man of the theater), his knack for producing and capturing some great images gets its seeds in this film. At times, there are some shots of close-ups and quick-shots in suspense/action scenes that are eye-catching. Unfortunately, this is all the good I can really say of the film. Although there are a couple of 'name' actors in the film (Frank Slivera, who also appeared in Killer's Kiss, and Paul Mazursky, a director in his own right), the performances overall are dull and very routine.

In fact, that is the film's main demise for me; whenever I watch any Kubrick film, even his early film noirs Killer's Kiss and the Killing, I can tell who made it, as his style by then became distinct, which would continue as he evolved as an artist. It wasn't 'artsy' like I might have pictured (which is usually the case with first-time directors like Scorsese and Spielberg), but watching this film not only did it feel like it wasn't Kubrick, it felt like a lot of the time I was watching some B (or even C) grade movie by a director that time forgot- not quite 'Ed Wood' bad, but close. The music is as standard as can be, the fades are pedestrian, and the plot seems to not really hold that much attention.

In short, as others have said and which I can agree, this is a "doodle pad" of a future ground-breaker, who shows some shots and a few edits that grab some attention (the best scene overall being when the soldiers take the dumb girl hostage), but not enough to really recommend except to those, like myself, who end up seeing everything by Kubrick (or, perhaps, have to see every ultra-low budget war film ever made), if only out of curiosity.

Sentiment: negative
Norm(an)ally I don't mind remakes. There are some pretty good ones out there, BUT this one is a stinker! Considering it was practically scene for scene, it had a good story and great actors. Van Sant copied Al's direction virtually flawlessly, and it added color (I'm not one of those who think it has to be B&W to be classic). It should have been at least a mediocre movie... but it was pee-pee caa-caa! I don't understand how it could have been screwed up so badly. If you must, watch it as a curiosity, but I would suggest that you not bother.

Sentiment: negative
I truly enjoyed this film. It's rare to find a star who can pull off the physical aspects of any sports/dance themed film convincingly and do a first rate acting job as well. In this film you find two stars who rise to the occasion. Both women deliver warm, touching and at times humorous performances. The film also touched on a number of topics, from racial issues to sexual identity. And yet the approach wasn't heavy handed. The production values were also top notch for a small budget film. I saw this at the Philadelphia Gay & Lesbian film festival and went back to see it a second time. It was a real crowd pleaser. Everyone I spoke to seemed to enjoy this film.

Sentiment: positive
Set in Hungary in November 1956, this is the story of a group of foreign nationals who were trying to leave the country at the time of the Uprising.

Once the airport is closed, the titular journey begins on a bus taking them to Austria. As would be obvious, they are stopped on their way which is where they come up against the almost faultless Yul Brynner whose military power as a Red Army Major was marked with loneliness, his internal struggle between right and wrong, his search for the truth and his need to feel emotions for other human beings. He was saddened by the fact that his job had alienated him from his friends and enemies alike and he yearned for social contact.

Robert Morley plays the quintessential stiff upper-lipped Englishman who, no matter how serious the role, manages to maintain an almost light-hearted logical outlook on life while Jason Robards has a stunning movie debut which enforces the reason why he had so many roles throughout his career. Deborah Kerr, as the leading lady, exhibits the grace and femininity we have come to associate with her yet manages to bring over the strength and resolve required for her character.

The film deals with a very tempestuous time in European history but it never ceases to remind us that there is good in all of us and you can never completely judge a book by the cover. Fabulous scriptwriting ensures that for all the seriousness of the subject there can still be great one-liners and comedic instances that add to, rather than detract from the movie. The chemistry in the cat and mouse game between Kerr and Brynner makes you understand why they appeared in more than the one film together.

All in all, a thoroughly engrossing movie which I would definitely watch again. 8/10

Sentiment: positive
I watched this film based on the very favorable reviews that I read about it here by others.

They definitely saw something in this movie I didn't see, that's for sure.

The movie starts off at a good pace, and the first 15 or 20 minutes of it are interesting, then it begins to get logged down and draggy, not to mention completely unbelievable.

Eventually you find yourself saying: "What?!? He's going to do that too? Just how far is he going to go with this thing?"

The plot begins with Jeff Goldblum's character, John, going into a deli to purchase a bottle of wine. There is a robbery and a new store clerk, Auggie Rose, gets killed during the robbery. 

John gets in the ambulance and goes to the hospital with the guy. This seems a little much, but wait, there's more.

John becomes totally obsessed with Auggie Rose. 

For reasons that never make any kind of logical sense, John, who has a very good life, a beautiful, loving girlfriend, a secure, well-paying job, nice house, nice car, expensive suits--decides he wants to be a loser like Auggie Rose was, and experience life in a low paying job, living in a dump with a dippy girlfriend and possible connections with dangerous people.

Why this dim-witted, half-baked film got favorable reviews I'll never know. Sure Goldblum does a good acting job - he always does - and his looks have improved with age -- but unless you have a BIG infatuation with Jeff Goldblum and have to see every film he's in, I wouldn't recommend this turkey. It's approximately two hours of your life you're not going to get back - and believe me - you'll have nothing to be thankful about when those two hours are over, other than being grateful you're not still sitting there watching this film!



Sentiment: negative
If I were to pitch this movie idea to some Hollywood bigwigs, I'm sure it would sound like this: 

ME: "Four boys at a private high school are good friends, AND they are witches."

Hollywood: "That sounds like "The Craft." 

ME: "No, no, I said four boys, not four girls." 

Hollywood: "That still sounds like "The Craft", just with boys instead of girls." 

ME: "OK, but there is this fifth unknown boy that comes into the picture and he wants more power."

Hollywood: "Still not much difference, because one of the girls in "The Craft" also wanted more power.

ME: "OK, OK... I'll make these boys part of the "in crowd", they'll be rich, AND the school is on the east coast.

Hollywood: "Now that sounds original. That is nothing like "The Craft", here's a billion dollars." 

This movie was so cliché and uninspiring. Even the manufactured drama between Chase and the brothers of Ipswich was very blasé. A bunch of rich kids, with their biggest problem being what color Bentley they want for their 18th birthday (and 18th car), don't interest me at all, even if they have powers. Every single kid in this movie looked like they stepped out of a magazine, and of course there had to be the gratuitous male nudity and female 80% nudity just to drive home how out of shape you are. I wanted to rename this movie "The Witches of O.C.". Oooh, rich kids and their problems... let me pretend to care.

This film was completely unimaginative and predictable. The final fight was lame and dragged out and the ending was very anti-climatic. This was a movie best left on the cutting room floor.

Sentiment: negative
Well-known comedians meekly admit they wish they could do real satire like Bill Hicks. Inbetween these pitiful testimonies, we are treated to what an exceptionally talented comedian can achieve when he could otherwise be chasing fame and fortune. He didn't get his own talk show, but at least he was no one's puppet.

Sentiment: positive
"Heaven Can Wait" is a crushing bore and a candy-coated, misogynist lie. I can't imagine anyone but film students sitting through it today. Don Ameche is in almost every scene, and, while he has a mellifluous voice that no doubt contributed to his successful career in radio, he doesn't have the charisma to carry this film. Ameche plays Henry, a womanizer. Lubitsch wants to make Henry's sexual incontinence adorable and amusing, and so he directs Ameche to play the part as blandly as possible. The combination of Ameche's lack of charisma and Lubitsch's insistence on blandness results in a lead character who is both deadly dull and completely icky. You wouldn't want to spend any time with this man; he'd put you to sleep. You wouldn't leave him alone with your daughter, no matter her age. Something creepy would happen.

The movie's look is quite boring. Scene after scene consists of static, overly lighted, diorama-style shots of fastidiously dressed Gilded Age stuffed shirts and bustles lounging in excessively busy, Victorian parlors. There's so many ruffles and frills and curlicues, so much lilac and sky blue and pink, you need Dramamine.

This movie hates women as much as hardcore porn, but it presents that hatred with a candy coating and a sweet little bow on top. The contrast between the content of the message and its delivery is sickening. In one of the movie's most hateful scenes, an elderly woman is sent to hell because she's not physically attractive.

Sentiment: negative
In an attempt to cash in on the success of Universal's horror films Majestic Pictures hired several popular actors from the current genre and put them in this effort that (realistically speaking) is nowhere near as good. With that, this is still worth everyone's time and it's a heck of a lot of fun to view and in my opinion it's better than most of what is supposed to pass nowadays as horror! Story takes place in the small German town of Klineschloss where the bodies have been piling up completely drained of blood and with suspicious puncture marks. Burgermister Gustave Schoen (Lionel Belmore) shouts "It's Vampires" but the local police chief Karl Brettschneider (Melvyn Douglas) thinks it's a madman who's responsible and he vows to catch him.

*****SPOILER ALERT***** The Burgermeister and most of the towns folk think that the local kook Herman Glieb (Dwight Frye) who loves bats and frequently talks to them is the one they are looking for and they chase him until he falls to his death in a cave. The one who is responsible for the killings is Dr. Otto von Niemann (Lionel Atwill) who has created a new form of tissue mass that feeds on blood and he accomplishes this by having some sort of mind control over his servant Emil (Robert Frazer) who goes out at night to collect the blood. Dr. Otto has a pretty assistant named Ruth Bertin (Fay Wray) and an annoying aunt named Gussie (Maude Eburne) but they have no clue what he's up to but Karl eventually become suspicious when one of the murders takes place after Herman's death.

Frank R. Strayer was never confused with being James Whale but he was a pretty competent director who ended up directing most of the "Blondie" films in that series and with this film he uses the same sets from "The Old Dark House" which was also filmed at Universal. I'm the first to admit that this film is downright clumsy at times but it's practically impossible to resist a film that has a cast like this including Frye who is pretty much doing his Renfield role only this time he befriends bats and strokes them and keeps them in his pocket for safe keeping! One thing that just doesn't make sense is the mind control that Dr. Otto has over Emil as the film never explains this and I had a strong sense that this was some sort of nod to "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" but on the other hand it's probably just the weakest part of the script. There are a few other tidbits that I noticed including the chase of Frye to the big caves which is obviously an early shot of the infamous Bronson Canyon where numerous other films have been made and also Wray's brown hair which is her true color. True horror film fans will appreciate this more than others but I think this is a fun film to view for everyone and with a cast as attractive as this it's well worth a look.

Sentiment: positive
man was this hard to watch! it was not at all funny, not well made and it had no point or plot to it whatsoever. the acting was horrible. it was not well made at all. it looked like a bunch of kids my age were just screwing around and making a pointless movie. it is by far the absolute worst broken lizard movie. if you are a broken lizard movie like myself you will disappointed and bored to your death. please skip this pointless movie about ugly guys looking for chicks. you will not regret m advice. by the way, don't say you didn't find this review helpful just because you didn't agree with it. thats stupid, like this movie. the only OK scene was when the main guy was playing rugby and got beat the crap out of. i liked that cause i found his character pretty damn annoying.

Sentiment: negative
The first of the Tarzan movies staring Johnny Weissmuller. The plot has already been summarized so i wont go into it again. Just know that The actors who play Jane and Tarzan were born for the role. If you have not seen this film and you only have the modern day Tarzan films as a reference..you are missing a Real treat. Doesn't matter how far we've come in movie making, makeup set designs...no one will ever play Tarzan as well as Johnny Weissmuller did. He was and is Tarzan.

Sentiment: positive
Rowan Atkinson's creation Mr.Bean has stood the test of time and will be forever etched upon the memory of those who viewed it.

Living alone and appearing not to have a job of any description Mr.Bean goes around doing day to day activities in a rather comedic fashion.The mistake prone Mr.Bean induces heartfelt laughter when put even in the most simplest situations.Though he barely spoke any coherent words his jovial actions more than made up for this.

Even when driving in his beloved Mini Mr.Bean still manages to cause inadvertent chaos.Not very much is known about his background but his ability to draw tears of laughter from the audience at his funny shenanigans is well known.

Before he found fame Nick Hancock can be seen in a couple of the episodes

Sentiment: positive
I was initially interested in this film after reading a synopsis and seeing a few striking screenshots, and the promise was there for a gripping horror film of the Dario Argento style. Admittedly I must say that Argento's films have occasionally been rather incoherent, and some feel like a handful of visually impacting set pieces loosely strung together with a vague connecting plot.

Since Argento is credited as writer for this, I have to say, I'm not really surprised. Even his masterpiece Suspiria, when examined, exhibits the same tendency to string along sometimes unrelated scenes purely for the aesthetic impact. However, Suspiria also had the benefit of a singular main character and clear antagonists, as well as scenes that contributed ultimately to the eventual resolution.

The Church, on the other hand, has none of these things. It has no main character, no protagonist whatsoever; it furthermore has no real plot to speak of, and no crescendo, no climax, no denouement, and no resolution. It is a completely hollow, incoherent work that views as if Argento sat down and thought 'hey, that would make an interesting scene visually...let's do it!' The film is a series of these scenes.

Initially it might be interesting, and Soavi's direction is excellent, I must say. Soavi cannot be faulted for the material, as it is made as compelling as possible. However, such good direction calls attention to the horrible failings of the script, and there is absolutely no sense in it. The attempt at a central unifying plot is nothing more than plagiarism of Carpenter's film Prince of Darkness. Events happen solely because the script wishes them to, and reactions to those events are completely implausible. The narrative flow is irreparably damaged after a point, simply because there is no ability to suspend disbelief; it's too ludicrous. Added to this are numerous factual errors that are so glaringly showcased that it becomes embarrassing.

If it had been more overtly artistic and edited down into a different work, it might have been chilling or tense. If it had been fleshed-out into an actual cohesive narrative, it might have been gripping. But it was none of these. The best it managed was confusing and, at times, infuriating. Plots are introduced but never followed. Characters are forgotten about and altered arbitrarily. No logic is ever applied to any situation. It might have been scary or interesting, but to elicit that sort of feeling takes more effort on the part of a screenwriter...much more.

All in all, The Church is not worth viewing for anyone but total enthusiasts of Italian horror that is more style than substance. This is Argento's style at its worst, and it is a strong justification for the usual criticism.

Sentiment: negative
THE WATERDANCE (1991) The main character of The Waterdance, played by Eric Stoltz, finds himself in a rehab center with some others similarly injured. And there he must face an harsh new life, confined to a wheelchair. It's an interesting, and promising premise, but unfortunately, it fails to deploy. What ensues instead is largely Hollywood schmaltz, with some interesting moments. Certainly the cast (Eric Stoltz, William Forsythe, Wesley Snipes, et al) is brilliant, and perform well here as one would expect, but their talents are wasted. The characters are mainly stereotypes of one kind or another, and most of them are thoroughly unlikeable (the Snipes character being the exception). I suppose this is some kind of attempt to break through people's ideas about the handicapped being "crippled" or "weak", by depicting them, for the most part, as in-your-face pricks, but it makes for an entirely annoying experience. Admittedly it will show you something of what those with permanent disabilities go through, in a way that is not softened or romanticized, which is useful, and a good idea, but while the process being depicted can make one a difficult person to get along with, and that's worth dealing with, it is not part and parcel to that that these characters must be, to varying degrees, despicable. They wouldn't have to be Disneyfied, either; surely there's a middle ground somewhere. By the film's conclusion, the Eric Stoltz character has come to accept his status as a handicapped person, but since he is such a flaming narcissistic monster from the beginning of the film to the end, we couldn't care less. 

In addition to its character problems, the film suffers from that weird syndrome that so many Hollywood movies suffer from; the syndrome doesn't really have an official name, but you might call it "Inexplicable Forgiveness Syndrome". It goes something like this: characters abuse the crap out of each other, and then without so much as an apology, all is forgiven (an especially obnoxious example of this is in the movie The Breakfast Club, in which one character spends most of the film verbally bullying everybody within earshot; as a resultthey love him. In one of the the latest examples, Spiderman 3, supervillain The Sandman lays waste to a chunk of Manhattan, then wails on Spiderman for what seems like about 15 monotonous minutes before being waved off with what amounts to "bye, now"). The most egregious example of IFS in The Waterdance is a sequence in which, after being called the n-word by William Forsythe's racist biker character and his friends in the previous scene, the Wesley Snipes character whoops it up with the same Forsythe character in the next scene, as if nothing had just happened just a short time hence. Again, without so much as an "Oh yeah, sorry about that business back there where I, you know, called you the n-word". It makes me wonder, do these people actually watch these movies before they release them, or do they just film them with their eyes closed, kind of slap them together in the editing room according to scene number, and call it a day's work?

Sentiment: negative
Perhaps many viewers who got frustrated by this film live their lives without ever thinking deeply about life itself. What i want to point out here is that "distant" is not only an art-house film but one of the best art-house films. From all the art-house films I have seen, "distant" is the one that really stands out as a glittering piece of gold. It is even fair to say that this film's cinematography and depiction of human emotion surpass Tarkovsky's Nostalgia. One commentator got it right, that sex, a jaded, common feature among foreign films, is surprisingly lacking in "distant" and in a good way. What is most remarkable about "distant" is that it captures the details of life we usually ignore and the rich essence of our existence that often gets buried under the din and visual extravaganza of our commercialized world. Fortunately "distant" doesn't have that much to spare the audiences and what we see on the screen is a bare portrait of human beings.

Sentiment: positive
I rented this film yesterday mostly due to the good-looking art and the summary given on the back of the jacket. After popping it into my DVD player I re-examined the jacket cover and even though I took the cover out of from the plastic viewer, I STILL could not read any of the production detail information about the film. This film is entitled Evil on the Jacket and had to locate it by going to Faith Films website to find out any linkage to it here on IMDb.

The filming and special affects done in the film looked quite good ... THEN, a line-reading actor spoke. Oh dear ... this actor's reading sounded like some pimple-faced high school jock whose voice just managed to change pitch, and no attempt given to go beyond reading the lines from the script. At first I thought I got a bad disc out of audio sync, then had to surmise it was a foreign film since I couldn't read the jacket... English dialog dubbed. If they'd casted the right person for dubbing the dialog, this film MIGHT have been decent. I gave it a chance of about 20 minutes before ejecting it when I discovered the bad line reader wasn't going to get killed off, but stay as the constant main fixture. Yes, it is THAT bad! The jacket cover art and the art done in the film are great, so gave the one star, but minus 1,999,999 stars for the rotten dialog. I do not recommend this one!

Sentiment: negative
This movie has been promoting in everywhere in Spain with a huge publicity campaign, after watching it, you realise that someone has stolen your money. Paz Vega is horrible as Carmen, she´s not natural at all and she looks like she´s making a fashion magazine cover in all the shots ("the best" is when she as an andalusian woman ...¡can speak basque and fluently¡, Leonardo Sbaraglia is much better than her as Jose, but the story is very slow, the plot don´t work, and the screenplay is really very very bad...I think Penelope Cruz (the film was written for her)would have been a much more credible and sexy Carmen.

What a waste of time and money

Sentiment: negative
Boy, this was one lousy movie! While I haven't seen all of the Burton/Taylor collaborations, I can say with confidence that this is the worst. This rich but ill woman (Taylor, of course) owns this beautiful island in the Meditteranean, ruling over a put-upon staff when she's suddenly visited by this traveling poet, who mouths platitudes. In fact, the whole film is just a talk fest, with much of the talk making no sense. Even in 1968, no one could make heads or tails of this pretentious nonsense, and the passage of time makes that even more clear. If it weren't for the beautiful cinematography and scenery, it would deserve a negative rating. The only thing this film is good for is its unintentional laughs at the expense of the stars.

Sentiment: negative
FUTZ is the only show preserved from the experimental theatre movement in New York in the 1960s (the origins of Off Off Broadway). Though it's not for everyone, it is a genuinely brilliant, darkly funny, even more often deeply disturbing tale about love, sex, personal liberty, and revenge, a serious morality tale even more relevant now in a time when Congress wants to outlaw gay marriage by trashing our Constitution. The story is not about being gay, though -- it's about love and sex that don't conform to social norms and therefore must be removed through violence and hate. On the surface, it tells the story of a man who falls in love with a pig, but like any great fable, it's not really about animals, it's about something bigger -- stifling conformity in America.

The stage version won international acclaim in its original production, it toured the U.S. and Europe, and with others of its kind, influenced almost all theatre that came after it. Luckily, we have preserved here the show pretty much as it was originally conceived, with the original cast and original director, Tom O'Horgan (who also directed HAIR and Jesus Christ Superstar on Broadway).

This is not a mainstream, easy-to-take, studio film -- this is an aggressive, unsettling, glorious, deeply emotional, wildly imaginative piece of storytelling that you'll never forget. And it just might change the way you see the world...

Sentiment: positive
If it were not for the "Oh So Gourgous," Natassia Malthe, this B- movie would not have been worth one sector of my Tivo disk space! In what low rent, back lot warehouse was the supposed space port filmed in? "Continuity People!" It's a basic principle in real movie making! By night an alleged space port and by day (night and day on a space station?) a warehouse!??!? People Please! The only thing I will commend this movie for, is the wardrobe dept. for continuously, keeping Natassia in those tight shape revealing outfits! Even the women who saw this bomb had to appreciate the outfits that she obviously spent some time getting into, each day of filming! The Sci-fi channel would have been better off showing SpaceBalls! At least there would have been some real humor in watching something so unbelievable.

P.S. Michael Ironside, please Fire Your Agent ASAP! You are so much better of an actor, to be even associated with this level of movie making.

Sentiment: negative
Let's face it-- if you rented a STDVD sequel of a forgotten 80's gem, and expected it to be better than the aforementioned, then you are an idiot. Wargames: The Dead Code joins the long running list of unnecessary sequels that the DVD market has filled so easily. Movies like this don't need spoilers, because YOU already know them.

The "plot" for this "film", is as follows: Nerd meets girl; girl likes nerd; nerd likes girl; nerd gets accidentally involved with Top Secret Government computer; nerd and girl go to another country; nerd and girl end up being persecuted by Government suits in the other country; nerd and girl meet some important old guy that dies at key point in the "film"; nerd and girl are captured; the Top Secret Government computer gets crazy; nerd is hired to beat Top Secret Government Computer; nerd beats Top Secret Computer by using the same old Top Secret Computer from the first Wargames "film"; nerd saves the day; nerd gets laid. 

The end.

The acting, script, effects, score, and cinematography are what you would expect-- B-grade. Some familiar faces are in here, and unless you are a mega fan of Colm Feore, then you should avoid this one. Granted, the movie won't make you insane enough to eat your own toes by seeing it, so if you like cheap looking STDVD sequels, then you are right at home.

Sadly, Mathew Broderick was too involved with some "masterpiece", that he couldn't even do a five second cameo in this one. But can you blame him?

Sentiment: negative
What are the movies? I mean.. what are movies made for? Shootings? Killings? NO. They are made for life stories and this is what this movie does. It presents how the life has changed between two ages. The father and a son, the father being in a need of a job and asking the son for help.

Although there is another generation, there are some characteristics which remain including the caress for the family.

The main subject is, in my opinion the love of the son to the father and vice-versa.

The movie is consisted of ONLY one dialog but that dialog is more than I could ever wanted. This movie is a pure art! Once again, after "Marfa si Banii", Cristi Puiu delivers us another beautiful movie. Well done !

Sentiment: positive
Don't get me wrong. I really love the "arena-martial arts genre", and I get more and more surprised over how many films like this there are out there. This one is one of those, and it's not even close to be one of the best. With Mathias Hues in it, I thought it would be good. He can't save this movie though, and to be honest, he wasn't very good either. Just don't pay attention to what other people say; The fighting scenes in this movie are NOT good at all. I really know what I'm talking about, since I have seen so many movies like this. There are also a bunch of scenes that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot whatsoever. I guess they added these only to make the movie last a little bit longer, in addition to manifest the bad guy as,uuuuuuh.......bad (like we didn't know that already).

Sentiment: negative
Shakalaka Boom Boom is a rip off from the movie Amadeus. I personally rate Amadeus as one of my favorites not only because it is about music, which is my favorite subject, but also because it tells us the real story of a musical genius who is not only remembered for the voluminous works of beautiful music he produced during his life-time, but for his own self-destructive nature and his tragic death at a young age of 35, being virtually uncelebrated during his life time because of the politics played by some people, particularly Saliere, the Italian composer, who was jealous of him.

Personally, I was shocked to see Shakalaka.., as the director has invariably cut-pasted most of the scenes from the movie Amadeus. I see the worst kind of plagiarism in this movie and am skeptic about the kind of movies Bollywood keeps on churning day by day. The movie is a disaster, the two musicians in the movie don't give you any feeling of being realistic, the film is tasteless, meaningless and total failure on every count. The only person who makes an impact is Bobby Deol, who at least knows how to act. Otherwise, the whole cast looks like a bunch of amateurs.

The irony is that while watching the movie, the first screen in the movie says that all characters in this movie are fictitious and that any resemblance with anyone is purely coincidental which is a blatant lie, because all resemblances are very much clear and they are very much intended. I wish I could take Darshan and Co. to court not only for Copyright Infringement, but also for mutilating a beautiful work of art.

Sentiment: negative
It could be easy to complain about the quality of this movie (you don't have to throw cartloads of money at a movie to make it good, nor will it guarantee that it is worth watching) but I think that is totally missing the point. If your expecting fast cars, T&A or a movie that will spell itself out for you then don't watch this, you'll be disappointed and dumbfounded.

This movie was thoroughly enjoyable, kept us on the edge of our seats and made us really think. The writer obviously put a lot of thought and research behind this movie and it shows through the end, just remember to keep an open mind.

Note: the school scenes were all filmed at McMaster University and most of the rest was done in Toronto.

Sentiment: positive
I enjoy the show Surface very much. The show is very entertaining and it's a clean show. A Show like surface is interesting. It keeps my attention. It has compassion and suspense. I love all the cast members that are on the show. They are all very good choices. i think it is very important to have the right cast of Any show because thats what makes any show a success and of course the scenes and the show itself. Television has changed so much over the years. It has changed in good ways and in bad. I love to watch some comedy,action, suspense and romance. And scifi. But Surface is a show that I hope comes back for many seasons because it is a great show and its something that families can watch. My children are grown, but my husband and I enjoy watching these types of shows. I appreciate your time and letting me comment my opinion. 

Thanks.

Paulette Blackwell

Sentiment: positive
This movie is not schlock, despite the lo fi production and its link to Troma productions. A dark fable for adults. Exploitation is a theme of Sugar Cookies, and one wonders if the cast has not fallen prey to said theme. A weird movie with enticing visuals: shadows and contrast are prominent. Definitely worth a look, especially from fans of Warhol and stylish decadence. Through all the cruelty and wickedness, a moral, albeit twisted, can be gleamed.

Sentiment: positive