DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I get the feeling a lot of people liked this movie (not all people, but a lot of them) because they don't want to admit they don't understand it. People of middling intelligence, if you will, who pretend to be ever so avant garde and trendy who think Lynch is a genius.

Lynch, to me, is like Tarantino. They're both great, but neither one is the messiah as so many fanboys want to believe. No director can change the world, so chill out. And both make sucky flicks sometimes, it just happens. Everyone has a bad day. And clearly, since this movie was actually designed as a pilot first and then hack-jobbed into a feature film, it wasn't made with all the passion and forethought one should put into a movie. Face it, much of the movie is gibbering unintelligibility which cannot be understood. We can all make up meanings, Lynch may have his own view, but none of that matters. It was strewn about the screen incoherently. Admittedly, the first portion had the semblance of an intentionally convoluted passingly interesting story, but then it falters.

The cowboy, the mysterious organization of men with their phonecalls, the lawyers... come on. I can almost picture David Lynch yelling cut, forcing the crew to gather around him and explaining to them all "Look how crazy and weird I am! Isn't it great?? It's so weird and crazy!" Weird and crazy works if it's a by-product of your style. However, it's pretentious and tired when you go out of your way to do nothing but that. It's like all those half assed Pulp Fiction throw backs that came out after Pulp Fiction. It's just not cool.

Sentiment: negative
What a terrible movie this was! I made it about 50 minutes into it and started skipping chapters until the end. The plot is nothing special, and the dialog from the movie deviates from the main story so much that your head will explode out of rage. Many useless minutes wasted just listening to characters jabber on about something irrelevant to the plot, AND/OR something that could said in a shorter amount of time. The camera work is shaky, and grainy. It seemed Mr. Milligan needed to take his finger off of the zoom button! I noticed also that at some points during this movie it seemed that Andy was having seizures, and would uncontrollably shake the camera. The splices between scenes were jumpy and didn't flow. The murder scenes were nothing special - incredibly, and laughably fake. Barely any gore, as the title suggests. This movie runs about 1 hour 20 minutes and the murder scenes take up about 1 minute TOTAL of the whole movie - if that. What a wretched piece of garbage this movie was. Andy Milligan is in fact probably one of the worst directors to plague mankind with his talentless directing, and camera-work. Usually, I can make it through really bad horror movies, and laugh about it later. BLOODTHIRSTY BUTCHERS, however, I can't. I am just angry I wasted an hour and a half of my life watching this (what I wouldn't do to gain it back). Take my suggestion, and DO NOT see this movie unless you plan on falling asleep. TERRIBLE.

Sentiment: negative
The Van is a feelgood movie about a guy who tries to lure girls into his new van, in order to seduce them. The only thing this movie doesn't fail at is precisely depicting the van fad in the US in the late 70s. It looks like it was totally made by amateurs. It's trash, but I loved it! I have to admit I am a fan of 70s trash! Hope this one makes it to the IMDB bottom 100!

2

Sentiment: negative
I highly recommend this movie to everyone. My son and I read the book first and then saw the movie. While the book was better (in my opinion) the movie was still great. My son and I agree that while we like the book version the best, we liked the ending of the movie better than the book ending. The scenery is just tremendous and the soundtrack is a must have. The fact that Jimmy Buffett has a small role and provides music is an added plus. Luke Wilson does a decent job in his role of Officer Delinko and is pretty much what I had mentally imagined Delinko would look like when I read the book. I'm surprised that this didn't do better in the theaters, and I'll be waiting for the DVD to come out.

Sentiment: positive
I am a huge Rupert Everett fan. I adore Kathy Bates so when I saw it available I decided to check it out. The synopsis didn't really tell you much. In parts it was silly , touching and in others some parts were down right hysterical.

Any person that is a huge fan of a personality of any type will find some small identifying traits with the main character. (Of course there are many they won't, but that is the point)

If you like any of the actors give it a watch but don't look for any thing too dramatic it's good fun.

I might also mention you can see how darn tall Rupert is. I mean I knew he was 6'4" but he seems even more in this film. He even seemed to stoop a bit due to the other characters height in this. He is tall! I mean tall!!!! And for you Rupert fans there is a bare chest scene...WONDERFUL!

Sentiment: positive
Playwright Sidney Bruhl (Michael Caine) has had a series of flop plays after a huge hit. He receives a play written by a student of his, Clifford Anderson (Christopher Reeve) which is fantastic. It's so good Sidney says he would kill for it. Will he?

A thinking man's thriller. It was originally a play...and it shows. It's mostly on one set and all talk but I was never bored. It's very well-written with plenty of twists and a good cast working full force. Caine is just great as Bruhl--another one of his great performances. Reeve is, surprisingly, very good. I never thought much of him as an actor, but he's really good in this role. Dyan Cannon does wonders with an underwritten role as Bruhls' wife. Irene Worth is also good (and quite funny) as Helga ten Drop, a psychic. However, her accent did get on my nerves. Director Sidney Lumet does very well with his one set. The camera is always moving and keeps your attention going.

EXTREME SPOILER DEAD AHEAD!!!!! My only complaint is that two gay characters in this movie turn out to be raging sociopaths and it also contains one of the most unromantic kisses I've ever seen--but these are mild complaints.

A very good thriller. Critics hate this movie (for some reason) and it seems to have completely disappeared since it premiered in 1982. That's too bad--it deserves better.

Sentiment: positive
Sean, you know I think that you are absolutely the greatest actor in the world, but I can't commend you for this. Comedy just isn't your strong suit.

However, it wasn't all your fault. Some of the stuff was just too hard to understand. Alfred Lynch did a decent job, but you gotta wonder where the lines came from from the beginning.

Once again, Sean... I apologize.

Sentiment: negative
I gave this two stars for the awesome DV shot clarity, which lends to the cold and dark sterility of its character. That was being generous, I know.

This film fails on all accounts. I can not recommend this, for it is neither poetic, nor blunt. Neither dramatic, nor suspenseful. Neither controversial, nor ordinary. It is just a wretched piece of trash that no horror or exploit fan can recommend in good faith.

Do not watch this, whoever you are. . .please, just stay away from this awful product.

Thank you.

Sentiment: negative
I am a huge fan of the $5.50 DVD bin at my local WalMart. Hopefully you have one at your local branch. You can find a bunch of campy flicks, a bunch of trash, and the occasional surprise. This movie is one of the surprises. My friend recently bought this one, and in thinking it would be another cheesy kung-fu laugh riot, I was genuinely surprised at how good it was. I watch a lot of movies, and as a result, I can almost always call how a movie will turn out; and if there's a plot twist, what it will be. Not this movie! The directing is brilliant, the plot is awesome, and the fighting is unbelievably inventive. If you see this one sitting around somewhere at a dirt-cheap price, get it! If you see it at full price, I would still recommend it.

Sentiment: positive
The movie begins a with mentally-challenged girl with bright yellow sneakers looking skyward on a Madrid street corner and being spellbound by a passing plane. The movie examines the life of five womenAdela, Leire, Maricarmen, Anita & Isabelwho have completely different lives and choices of shoes. Their shoes is the first superficial, yet affixed with some glancing meaning, clue we get at their fragile identities. In a theatrically embroidered and embellished way, a podiatrist tries to esoterically reveal the deepest secrets of a woman's souls by the sole of her feet. The premise is risky and slightly contrived, but the tone and depth of the movie takes a daring plunge for the good.

What may have been light-hearted and superficial, quickly switches gear with the a superb dysfunctional couple scene that leaves the viewer riveted for minutes, seeing the love or lack thereof, the pain, the confusion, the hope, the needs and escape mechanisms develop through minutes different rooms of the house and down to the street and eventually below... What a scene (!) , but there will be others as effective to follow and strengthen the strong characterization and directing displayed in this slice of life affair.

Moving along, a woman has lost the husband she loved and inherited his kids and his taxi, while another has completely lost her husband emotionally, sexually, intellectually, but not physically. A ghost, a pending divorce reproach, regret & remorse. A new love? Can you love a mirage? Can you love the person in the mirror? Can you love someone you can't love? Or think you can't love? Can you love and live life even though it will always be somewhat hopeless? Yet isn't it exactly these hopes and dreams that keep us here grounded and in a spectrum of relative happiness? A lot of deep themes emerge and the final act brings people and ideas together to coalesce in an existential crisis with no clear cut solution, definitive decision or effective healing. Maybe a elusive thought, a fleeting feeling, but a lasting appreciation of life and of the artistry and intellect of the film. Live. Live again. Rewind the reel. Unveil the real, the important; the big stones (piedras) of life. The rest is just details.

Sentiment: positive
Rating: 8 out of 10. Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

Tennis star Guy Haines (Farley Granger) meets the mysterious Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker) on a train. Soon afterwards, Guy finds himself drawn into the psychotic realm of Bruno's world. 

Guy is separated from his wife and is now involved with a senator's daughter. Guy is interested in entering into politics after he retires from tennis. Bruno wants to kill his own father but doesn't want to do it himself.

Bruno proposes that he disposes with Guy's wife, while Guy's part of the deal is to eliminate Bruno's father. Guy dismisses this idea since he isn't interested in having his troublesome wife killed. 

Bruno goes ahead with his half of the proposal. While Guy becomes the prime suspect of his wife's murder. As law enforcement continues to investigate Guy, Bruno continues to torment Guy, wanting him to complete the other half of the proposal. 

'Strangers on a Train' has one of the most exciting endings of all Hitchcock movies.

Sentiment: positive
While sleeping, Mr. Eko is assigned by his brother Yemi (Adetokumboh McCormack) in a dream to go with John Locke to disclose the meaning of the "?" symbol. With the pretext of chasing Henry, Mr. Eko brings John with him and they find a second hatch called "Pearl" underground the question mark symbol marked on the field, where a video explains that the other hatch is a psychological experiment and people behavior pressing the buttons of the computer every 108 minutes are actually subjects. Meanwhile, Jack unsuccessfully tries to save Libby.

In this episode, John Locke loses his faith in the island when he finds that they have been monitored in the hatch. The disgusting Michael sees the anguishing Libby wishing that she was dead, while Hurley, Jack, Kate and Sawyer are suffering her pain, in a deep emotional contrast. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

Sentiment: positive
This is a comedy version of "Strangers on a Train". It works pretty well. I am a harsh grader, so the 3 rating reflects mostly on the characters and plot. The performances are extremely good, all of them. Of course, the two stars, DeVito and Crystal, shine most. Each performer acts well enough to play off of. The comedy works in a level just short of slapstick. DeVito characters work best when depraved. His character, portrayed as a writing hack, would probably be more real if he was published and lauded as much as most hacks are. His character would, in real life, have a great agent and multiple solicitations. The characters are one dimensional, which is okay in comedy. But Crystals's character is not written very well. His desire to kill the "moma" all of a sudden makes no sense at all. It looks like a pitiful attempt at humor. The pitiful attempts are not too often, and the movie flows fairly well.

Sentiment: negative
Though Stephen Gyllenhaal is a good TV director with a few good full-length to his credit, "Homegrown" is just a mess in its script and direction. Despite performances from Billy Bob Thorton, John Lithgow, Kelly Lynch, Jon Bon Jovi, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Ted Danson, a cast this good couldn't save the film.

Gyllenhaalics will know that Jake and Maggie are in the film but you don't see Jake very well and Maggie's only in it for 30 seconds as babysitter tipping off Lithgow's character about a bust. It's not even a lowbrow pot comedy as the film was intended to be. It just wasn't funny.

Sentiment: negative
Julia Roberts obviously makes a concerted effort to shake off her cotton wool Pretty Woman persona with this spurious spousal abuse thriller, but it's hard to imagine she'd end up putting in a performance as powerful and convincing (and oscar winning) as she did in Erin Brokovich based on the back of this rubbish. And make no bones about it, it's nothing more than a Julia Roberts vehicle, but unfortunately, her performance is not the most lacklustre thing about it.

The plot has all the markings of a late night made-for-cable, and don't be under the impression that it will offer any insight into the dark world of domestic abuse because non of the characters are sketched out enough for you to really care. 

Ultimately disappointing and unsatisfying, without Roberts' name above the title, I'm sure it would have totally flopped, deservedly.

Sentiment: negative
It is difficult to rate a writer/director's first effort. After all, it is one more movie than I have written or directed. James Hunter wrote a story that was interesting, but suffered from an uneven flow.

After all, the idea that a man (Ja Rule) has to choose between the thug life and going straight is common, and even falling in love with the daughter (Tatyana Ali) of the man you killed has been done. Doing it again demands something that is original, and originality is lacking in this film.

I was drawn by the inclusion of so many favorites: Tia Carrere (Trues Lies, Wayne's World), Pam Grier (Jackie Brown), Frank Langella (Dracula, Good Night and Good Luck), and Ving Rhames (Rosewood, Dawn of the Dead). They did not disappoint in their performances, but they had little to work with.

Direct to video is becoming more and more common, but that doesn't mean it has to be a waste of time. Maybe the sophomore effort of Hunter will be more enjoyable.

Sentiment: negative
This movie fails to offer anything new to a genre that has traditionally shown the cross cultural love story underpinned by the politics mid 20th century / pre-WWII India, where the British and their modern ways are bad and the primitive but honest and true Indians are good. Surely such clichéd depictions of the British are rather passé now.

Apart from the drama that fuels the second part of the movie the narrative is predictable, the acting is pedestrian and two-dimensional, and the directing obvious and unimaginative.

The story really needed to be fleshed out and would certainly have benefited from another half an hour of screen time to give the characters and narrative more depth and give the viewer something to feel some investment in.

All in all, rather uninspiring. Oh and Linus Roache just cannot do tragedy - going cross-eyed with emotional pain just doesn't work for me!

Sentiment: negative
After the initial shock of realizing the guts of Mr Branagh to film this, I was literally shaking with the excitement of having this epic just ahead of me. I was not disappointed. So true to Shakespeare and yet so accessible. It blew my mind. I always enjoy seeing, or rather listening to, Branagh and it made me wonder...is this movie dubbed in other countries? That would be like painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa.

Sentiment: positive
There seem to have been any number of films like this released during the 70's. And the fact that I cannot recollect the title to a single one of them off-hand is a measure of their impact. These are what novelists would call 'pot-boilers'. They are scarcely more than a vehicle for keeping movie-stars in the public eye.

We have Micheal Caine, Peter Ustinov, Omar Sharif, Rex Harrison and William Holden; more than enough names to get bums on cinema seats. Every taste in hero is catered for. Though one suspects that most of the audience still went away disappointed.

Their talents are simply thrown away, and I wonder that stars with so much money and such reputation can be yet so desperate or lacking in good sense. This sort of movie hardly adds gilding to a CV. Sometimes maybe actors should choose their director instead of the other way round.

It was pretty obvious that it would be crap even from the outset. That ludicrously mismatched jaunty-jazz theme music, which also percolated up every time some incidental noise is needed, had all the atmospheric conviction of elevator Muzak. Who imagined employing a jazz band when a scene depicted the steamy jungles of central Africa, or the endless Sahara with camels and palms as a backdrop? Definitely a serious goof-ball. Ennio Morricone would have known what to do; and his results would have oozed enough atmosphere and tension to raise my rating a good two points. This director should have taken the trouble to watch 'Lawrence of Arabia', or even Sergio Leone's westerns; he might have learnt a few things. But then again, probably he wouldn't.

Alfred Hitchcock played the disappearing wife theme to good effect in his film 'Frantic'. It was later remade with equal panache staring Harrison Ford. In each case the confusion surrounding her loss and the tension of the chase was tangible. Here, when Michael Caine might be otherwise compelled to employ a little brain and bravado, Rex Harrison kept popping-up out of no-where like some wily old genii, to put him back on track whenever the narrative stumbled. 

At least the photography was rather good, with excellent use of the often beautiful environment. But then the dumb music must pipe-up and blow to atoms what little ambiance this created.

Action scenes were also contrived and stilted, with such ineptly choreographed fight sequences that they might have been staged in a first-year drama class. And, of course, the players must fight to a jazz accompaniment - as you do.

And that's about as much comment as this item deserves. Except to say that the script was pretty wretched as well.

Stick with your hobby on this one. Even if it contained your favourite movie-stars, you're sure to be disappointed too.

Sentiment: negative
THEIR PURPLE MOMENT 

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Sound format: Silent

(Black and white - Short film)

Two luckless nightclub revellers (Laurel and Hardy) are unable to pay their bill, provoking violent retribution from a hot-tempered waiter (Tiny Sandford).

Typical L&H scenario, less substantial than some of their best work from this period, but worth a look nonetheless. Stan takes center-stage this time round, caught up in a financial dilemma after holding back part of his wages to fund a night on the town, only to find out - too late! - that his aggrieved wife (Fay Holderness) has replaced his stash with worthless coupons. Some of the prolonged closeups of Laurel as he slowly becomes aware of the unfolding disaster reveal his genius for characterization and mime. 1920's morality is represented by Patsy O'Byrne, playing a hatchet-faced busy-body who takes great joy in alerting L&H's respective spouses (Holderness and Lyle Taho) to their husbands' bad behavior. The ending fizzles, but the movie still has much to recommend it. Directed by James Parrott.

Sentiment: negative
'Crossing the Bridge: The Sound of Istanbul' is one of the best music documentaries that I have seen lately and is more than a film about music. It is also a musical love declaration about a fabulous city, one of the greatest city in Europe and the world, one of the most important cities for Europe history and for Islam, the city that may bridge in the future Europe and the Middle East or may signify once again, as is already happened in history the precipice between two worlds.

Then there is the music. The interesting approach that the film takes with regard to music is that it starts from modern music, and we hear a lot of (good) rock and rap in the first third of the film. An then, like a backwards move in time the soundtrack takes us to the roots, to Turkish traditional music, to commercial romances, and to the exotic instruments that are basic elements in the landscape of Turkish music. In such a complex and conflict ridden country as Turkey is the film does not avoid some of the political aspects, like censorship introduced by the military rule in the 80s or the relevance of the songs of the minorities especially the Kurdish one. One of the best musical moments is actually provided by a Kurdish singer with a fantastic voice singing in a cathedral-shaped hamam (Turkish bath).

One gets to love the city and its music by the end of the viewing and hearing of this film. I have never been to Istanbul but after having seen this film I am sure that I want to visit this place soon.

Sentiment: positive
Finally, an indie film that actually delivers some great scares! I see most horror films that come out... Theatrical, Straight-To-DVD, cable, etc... and most of them suck... a few are watchable... even fewer are actually good... Dark Remains is one of the good ones. I caught a screening of this film at the South Padre Island Film Festival... the audience loved it... and my wife and I loved it! Having no name actors, I assume the budget on this film was pretty low, but you wouldn't know it... the film looks fantastic... the acting totally works for the film... the story is good... and the scares are great! While most filmmakers focus solely on the scares, they often forget about story and character development, two things that help to deliver the scares more efficiently. Brian Avenet-Bradley must know that character and story are important. He develops both to the point where you care about the characters, you know the characters, and are therefore more scared when they are in danger.

Watching horror films that cost anywhere from $80 million to $5000 to make, I find "Dark Remains" to be one of the gems out there. Check this film out!

Sentiment: positive
Caddyshack Two is a good movie by itself but compared to the original it cant stack up. Robert Stack is a horrible replacement for Ted Knight and Jackie Mason, while funny just cant compete with Rodney Dangerfield. Ty Webb is funny, being the only character from the original. Most of the other characters in the movie lack the punch of the original (Henry Wilcoxon for example) except for the hystericly funny lawyer Peter Blunt, being played by Randy Quaid. Every line he says reminds me of the originals humor, especially the scene at his office (I don't go in for law suits or motions. I find out where you live and come to your house and beat down your door with a f***ing baseball bat, make a bonfire with the chippindale,maybe roast that golden retriever (arff arff arff) then eat it. And then I'm comin' upstairs junior, and I'm grabbing you by your brooks brothers pjs, and cramming your brand new BMW up your tight a**! Do we have an understanding?). Offsetting his small role however, is Dan Acroyd, who is obviously no replacement for Bill Murray. His voice is beyond irritating and everything he does isnt even funny, its just stupid. Overall Caddyshack II is a good movie, but in comparison to the awesome original it just cant cut it.

Sentiment: negative
Before the WWF became cartoon with Hulk Hoagan leading the way, the events of WWF TV broadcasts of the very early 1980s resembled the wild, wild west with all kinds of grudges and vicious acts of violence performed by some of the wrestlers that are known today to be the WWF's most beloved stars. Some of these seemingly very real moments stand out. A maniacal Sgt. Slaughter whipped then champion Bob Backlund with a riding crop after Backlund showed him up in a fitness test. Welts were all over Backlund! Sarge made the Iron Shiek look like a daycare provider! Slaughter also issued a challenge to anyone who could break his dreaded cobra clutch hold. This led a legendary and bloody alley match with commentator Pat Patterson. Hall of Fame member Blackjack Mulligan with Freddie Blassie came into the WWF with a claw hold that was censored on television. He claimed he was the true giant at 6'7" and challenged Andre long before Big John Studd in 1984. Adrian Adonis used his ominously named "Good Night, Irene" sleeper to take out the competition. A New Yorker clad in black leather, he was an ominous figure. George "the Animal" Steele was far from a crowd pleaser, as well. Even Jimmy Snuka was a fearsome sight as he set out maim opponents until Ray "the Crippler" Stevens delivered a piledriver onto the cement floor leaving Snuka a bloody mess. All these encounters took place a decade before hardcore wrestling was ever spoken of.

Sentiment: positive
Wow! What a lovely, warm, rural film! The story focuses upon Mi Taylor (Mickey Rooney), a young male wanderer, whose journey takes him to a quiet, rural coastal town. There he stays with the Brown family. Velvet (Liz Taylor) their youngest daughter, who Mi subtly befriends, has a passion for horses and wins one at an auction. This horse is a beautiful, maroon stallion; referred by its previous owner as a 'murderous pirate', but Velvet re-names him Pie. Not long later, Velvet suggests to enter him in the Grand National race, Mi and her family are against the idea, but soon agree and Velvet and Mi began to train him for Britain's most famous horse race  This film is a beautiful example of what British films are like. I remember I first saw this when I was eight and on my summer holidays. My parents taped it off the TV and I warmed to it instantly  watching it most days instead of the large collection of Disney films that I owned.

I believe it was one of Liz Taylor's first movies and a good one! Her character is naïve but sweet  her acting is extremely convincing, especially when she portrays her love for horses. It's also a good chance to see Angela Lansbury in one of her early roles; who co-stars as Velvet's older sister, who spends most of her time in the film being smitten with a boy in the town! I must say she was a gorgeous lady when she was younger. Beautiful blonde hair and a rosy cheeked face. Although she doesn't have a major part in the movie, she dose have a number of scenes - so not to disappoint her fans! Parents reading this, I must emphasis  if you can get hold of a copy of this please do! If you're children love animals  I strongly suggest you show it to them! They may find a few scenes boring but you see Velvet riding the horse on many occasions throughout the film and would most defiantly entertain children! A lovely and nostalgic film. I might just go away now and put it on!

Sentiment: positive
I, like many this evening braved the frigid winter and long lines to see what I had anticipated to be one of the best movies of this year. However, I was left sadly wanting in many ways after the credits rolled. But to be fair, there were redeemable qualities (although very few). Let's start with what worked. First, the Lycans: on point in every way  from their terrifying physicality to their sheer ferocity. The action: sublimely visceral  when it did occur. Nighy/Victor and Sheen/Lucian: Perfect. Now, what did not (and there is plenty). This was less a movie and more a collage of sequences (and do not expect to see any supporting characters from the other movies except Raze and Tannis). Profoundly missing was a well written storyline and anything of real substance to bring these pieces of film together. The story seemed to start right in the middle  at the cusp where Lucian had made up his mind to rebel. Therefore, there was no context; no tension; no sense of betrayal  the devices needed to make everything else work. Moreover, it ended at where the climax should have begun (which needed to be after the feud had simmered for a bit). Oh and it was way too short. Purist will also find offense in some liberties taken to certain facts previously revealed in the first two moviesbut judge that for yourself. In the end, this movie lingered to long on what should have been brief "background" scenes (e.g. various council scenes), and as a consequence we never really got to know or care about the principal players...or the movie (ouch). -D

Sentiment: negative
Set in Providence, Rhode Island, Feeding the Masses tries to be a satiric look at the role of the media in government. At best, it could be applied to how the US try to control media during the Iraq War, but it ends up feeling hollow. There's never any really tension in the story and the acting never very good. Worst, the direction of the movie is atrocious, focus more on odd camera angles that fail to convey anything beyond "Isn't this an odd way to hold the camera." Special effects are pretty bad...at one point video of an explosion is green screened over the city, and it's laughable at best.

The film does have a couple bright spots...namely the advertisements for post-zombie services (including a reclamation service and a party bus). But it's far too little to make the film worthwhile.

For a better zombie film, try Hide and Creep. It has the same weak production value, but there's much more wit, humor and talent behind it.

Sentiment: negative
If you've ever listened to any of the James Lee Burke books on tape or CD and the reader was Will Patton you may agree with me that Will is the personification of Dave R.

Tommy Lee Jones is a native Texan (or so I've heard) and no one portrays a Texan better IMHO, but he's not a Cajun. His delivery is all wrong. I lived in the state for several years and I can still hear the strange patois that a Louisiana accent contains. TLJ doesn't have anything like that.

I thought Marry Steenbergen was a good choice for Bootsy, but I missed seeing Cletus (who will be cast in this role? The Rock? Mickey Rourke? whoever, he'll have to be big).

Overall, I thought the movie was only a 4 - the plot flopped around like a fish out of water and didn't have the normal interesting, yet non-linear continuity that the book typically has.

Hopefully, Hollywood will try another JLB book, "Last Car to Elysican Fields" would be a good choice. We'd get to see some of the best villains from JLB ever.

Sentiment: negative
Robert Taylor as the mad buffalo hunter Charlie Gilson is the main character in this film. At the beginning I was thinking that Charlie would end up redeeming himself like John Wayne in The Searchers or James Stewart in The Naked Spur. But as the film goes along Gilson keeps doing more atrocities until you realize there is no hope for him. Stewart Granger is Sandy McKenzie, who wants to stop hunting because he realizes that the buffaloes will soon be gone and he becomes disgusted by the act of killing. Gilson is a natural killer who makes no distinction between animals or human beings. Debra Paget as the Indian girl is a surprising character considering the self imposed censorship of that time. She lies with Gilson in total resignation even though she hates him. The last scene of a frozen Gilson, is unforgettable.

Sentiment: positive
A highly atmospheric cheapie, showing great ingenuity in the use of props, sets and effects (fog, lighting, focus) to create an eerie and moody texture. The story is farfetched, the acting is merely functional, but it shows how imaginative effects can develop an entire visual narrative. This movie is recommended for its mood and texture, not for its story.

Sentiment: positive
I watched pp the other night. I have to say I was very impressed with how real the film seemed. It felt very much like a documentary. I also think that the film presented realistic possibilities. In the film the war in Vietnam escalates to the point where China has become involved. What if that had happened? I think the scenarios would be similar to the one portrayed in the movie. We have had camps before in this country... and still do...

Highly Recommended for everyone...especially radicals...

I kept saying that if I were in the position that those kids were in that I would just lie my ass off. I love America and its grand wars (wink wink)

Sentiment: positive
It's along the line of comedy of errors, mistaken affection transferring from one to another, blossoms and passes onkinda cat and mouse situations Flares of passion, sparks of fire fanned and put outguessing maybe she loves, he loves or they love Circle of emotions, evolving, releasinghiding, yet not hidingwanting to let him know, wanting to let her know, let them know Good ensemble cast in spite of the seemingly confusing mix of emotions from different parties involved. 

It's a refreshing charmer, casual, free and easy and rather down to earth -- not Hollywood glamorous like "Notting Hill", but lots of human feelings, frailty, vulnerability a-flowing. Yes, all revolving around an accidentally (lost &) found love letter. Kate Capshaw as the owner of the town's bookstore, with a variety of characters portrayed by Ellen DeGeneres, Tom Selleck, Blythe Danner, Tom Everett Scott, Gloria Stuart, Alice Drummond and Geraldine McEwan as the seemingly unaffected Mrs. Scattergoods. Romance is in the air, love lurking everywhere. You get to appreciate the talented Kate Capshaw. ("The Alarmist" is another quirky little movie which is fun to watch: Capshaw has a wonderful chemistry with David Arquette, and Arquette with Stanley Tucci).

"Notting Hill" is satisfying in its story revolving around the glittering pairing of Julia Roberts and Hugh Grant, and the wonderful support of his circle of (London) friends. "Love Letters" is delightful in its quirky (Loblolly) small town-ness, and its story involving Kate Capshaw's centrifuged ripple effects on her friends and neighbors. Both maybe fantasies, somehow, the latter felt more attainable if it should happen to you. And if you appreciate words or poetic lines, it could be the movie for you.

Sentiment: positive
How to lose friends and Alienate people came out in 2008. It bombed at U.S. Box offices. It's an absolutely hilarious film with a great cast. Simon Pegg is great playing Sidney Young, who wrote the book "How to lose friends and Alienate people. I know it's not a true story. The only way I know that is because Sidney wants to go out with an actress named Sophie Maes. Sophie Maes doesn't exist, but other than that, the film could be real. How to lose friends and Alienate people is probably the funniest film of 2008, and I think you definitely should see it. As I said earlier, the film has a fantastic cast including: Kirsten Dunst(Spider-Man, The Virgin Suicides) Danny Huston(The Number 23, 30 days of night) Gillian Anderson(The X-Files) Megan Fox(Transformers, Confessions of a teenage drama Queen) Jeff Bridges(The Big Lebowski, The Vanishing) Overall, How to lose friends and Alienate people is hilarious. I think Simon Pegg and Kirsten Dunst do work well together, and I think you should see it. Though there is some odd nudity including Trans-sexuals, it's a hilarious and awesome comedy. One of Simon Pegg's best.

The Plot:Sidney Young, a journalist from England, travels down to New York to work at Sharp magazines. While there, he meets an actress named Sophie Maes and tries to sleep with her before his boss does.

Sentiment: positive
Well, my goodness, am I disappointed. When I first heard news of a remake of Robert Wise's 1963 film, "The Haunting", I had a fear that it would be ruined by an abundance of summer-movie sized visual effects. But, deep down, I had faith. Surely, with such a talented cast intact...De Bont and company will not ruin a film, who's original was a fantastic and frightening movie that understood the delicate art of subtlety. Well, subtlety, where are you now!!?? My fears have manifested...a promising movie has gone wrong. Yes, Eugenio Zannetti's production design is jaw-dropping; the movie is wonderfully photographed; and composer Jerry Goldsmith can never EVER do wrong. But, the script puts it's fine actors to the test..asking them to deliver the kind of stilted dialogue that is only spoken in movies. In the end, the always wonderful Lili Taylor is the only performer to escape with some dignity...and that's just barely. But, the crime of all crimes is that the horror is shown to us. We can no longer use our imaginations, feel that horrible dread of fear of the unknown. No, we get some visual effects to SHOW US what we're supposed to be afraid of...and you know what? As wonderfully realized as they are...the visual effects come off as sort of silly. And the climax is a phantasmogoric mess...but things had gone terribly wrong long before that. 

Everything in The Haunting is overdone and overblown. I'm afraid there are no real thrills or creaks in this old haunted house monstrosity...only groans. Check out the original instead.



Sentiment: negative
It's clear that for this film they wanted to have the story line driven by the characters. But immediately the story line causes you to dislike the new main characters. The fly-over of the island and dinosaurs below lacked any impact at all and almost looked like a cartoon. The all action entrance to the island is merely a rehash of parts from JP 1 and 2. The story-line is predictable to the point of annoyance and it's entirely unsatisfying end left me feeling cheated. This gave me with no option but to award the film 3/10!

Sentiment: negative
I had no problem with the film, which I thought was pretty good. It's the actual LAPD crime scene video that disturbed me. I wonder if Lion's Gate REALLY thought that the general viewing audience would want to see people that were brutally beaten to death and blood all over the place. Sorry Lion's Gate, this was an INCREDIBLY BAD IDEA!!!

Getting back to the film: The cast was excellent, especially Val Kilmer as the late John Holmes. John Holmes was a sleaze ,mistreats the women in his life (Lisa Kudrow as his wife, Kate Bosworth as his girlfriend),and he is hopelessly deep into drugs. His connection to Eddie Nash (Eric Bogosian)creates a spiral that resulted in the infamous Wonderland murders. Exactly how much was Holmes involved in the murders? We may never know the entire truth to the story(Nash is still alive and a free man),but the film does a pretty good job nonetheless.

Sentiment: positive
A great Bugs Bunny cartoon from the earlier years has Bugs as a performer in an window display at a local department store. After he's done for the day the manager comes in to tell him that he'll be transferring soon. Bugs is happy to oblige into he figures out that the new job is in taxidermy...and that taxidermy has to do with stuffing animals. Animals like say, a certain rabbit. This causes a battle of wits between the rascally rabbit and his now former employer. I found this short to be delightful and definitely one of the better ones of the early 1940's. It still remains as funny nearly 60+ years later. This animated short can be seen on Disc 1 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2.

My Grade: A-

Sentiment: positive
I don't normally write reviews, but for this film I had to. I'm shocked at the acting talent in this move going to waste... the script was appalling... the editing awful... and the plot very thin. You spend the first half of the movie wondering who is talking to who and what on earth they are doing. The latter half of the movie slows down slightly, but has no depth or feeling. The only saving grace is the nice, but still limited cgi, and the location being London. I gave 3 stars for that, and the fact the actors still tried to do a good job with the drivel they were given. If you fancy losing a couple of hours of your life with mediocre popcorn disaster movie entertainment, by all means, this is the movie for you. But I would recommend doing something else with your time instead, like watching the real archive footage online! :) http://www.weatherpaparazzi.com/flooding.asp

Sentiment: negative
Someone(or, something thing..)is leaving puncture marks on the jugular and draining victims of their blood till dead. Police detective Karl Brettschneider(Melvyn Douglas, before slipping out of the B-movie horror genre for greater heights)is stumped at who..or what..is behind these notorious crimes. The village is overcome by hysteria and Karl depends on his trusted medical genius, Dr. Otto von Niemann(Lionel Atwill, in yet another effective mad scientist role)to provide some feedback as to what might be causing the deaths of innocents. He also fears for the safety of his beloved Ruth(the lovely Fay Wray who stars for the third time with Atwill after "Doctor X" & "The Mystery of the Wax Museum")who is Niemann's assistant.

Dwight Frye steals the film as a rather loony village idiot who collects bats and carries a demented demeanor wherever he goes..it's easy to see why he becomes a suspect as local paranoia is at a fever pitch. Maude Eburne provides the film's humor as a very naive(..and easily influenced)patient of von Niemann's who believes she has ailments she reads about in books near the laboratory where he works. She's impressionable and often von Niemann just humors her and constant fictional illnesses she feels plagued with. Lionel Belmore returns as yet another frightened, superstitious Bürgermeister.

Creaky, static, but rather entertaining nonetheless thanks to the cast. The film is obviously as low-budget as they come, but this doesn't hurt the film too much since it's put together rather well by director Frank R Strayer and his crew. I'm certain the film's print has seen better days, though. This is the kind of B-horror item you'd find packaged in with 50 other random cheesefests and poverty row programmers. The film's villain..and his motives for feeding a synthetically made biological creature..certainly provides a different take on the Frankenstein formula. Many might be disappointed with the end results as the film strays away from being an actual supernatural tale about a real vampire killer causing the murders.

Sentiment: positive
It has very bad acting. Bad story lines. Bad characters. You should never see this show If you see it on. TURN IT OFF. Or you be cringing for the next 30 minutes. It should have never been aired. It's not great. You should never see it. NEVER EVER EVER. So now, if you ever wanna watch this show, please don't. Turn to the THE CW for Smallville. Or Disney Channel for Hannah Montana, Wizards Of Waverly Place, or Nick for Drake & Josh, Those are much better family shows. So believe me on this, I've watched it before. and It is honestly, and I say Honestly, the worst show I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of TV. So do me a favor, and never watch this show.

Sentiment: negative
I bought this film on DVD despite the "stale" review and that was idiotic... That review was completely accurate and I have never seen any worse "erotic" film in my long life! Even if it partly was lovely filmed and had interesting surroundings, plus a nice cover... But my own Extreme Erotica (c) films are over 100 times more erotic (just in the soft delicious aspect) with probably less than 100 times of this films budget! The story have no logical connection with the first film or the famous book... Or any new (exciting) element of slave training, except some very strange and sad developments... Then did the main male character - Klaus Kinski - not look a bit like the second Master of "O" he try to play... And not even lovely Arielle Dombasle, did look delicious in any scene!

Sentiment: negative
Now the television schedules (in England, at least) are crammed with home improvement, bargain-hunting, house-hunting and cookery shows in the afternoons, the chances of any of the terrestrial broadcasters digging out a complete obscurity like this to occupy a couple of hours of screen time on a slow afternoon are slender, to say the least. But back in the eighties, the BBC did just that, and guess what, I watched it. And it's a testament to the overwhelming weirdness of this Hungarian-American co-production that I can still remember large chunks of it, over twenty years later. To begin with, the eponymous hero appears briefly during the opening titles, only to vanish again for at least half an hour. (Imagine AN American TAIL re-edited so Feivel is nowhere to be seen, and you'll appreciate how confusing this is.) There's a supremely bizarre bit of animation where one of the characters gets his elaborately waxed moustache tweaked and stretched, complete with a boingy sound effect that causes him to go boss-eyed. Probably hilarious if you're stoned, but to a child, quite disturbing. Speaking of which, the infamous 'hippo cull' scene is represented in an abstract manner - clouds in vague hippo shapes are struck by lightning - but it's still pretty unpleasant. In fact, this film is pretty cold and uninvolving throughout, a sad state of affairs hardly helped by the strange-looking production design, all muddy colours, wobbly lines, bloated forms and that uniquely European bleakness reminiscent of Jan Svankmajer, only not as compelling. Then, to cap it all, we get songs by the Osmonds! This isn't so much an awful film as a deeply misguided one, not so much phantasmagorical as a rather bad trip.

Sentiment: negative