DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Leave it to geniuses like Ventura Pons, the Spanish director, to convince the higher ups in his country to subsidize this misguided attempt of a film. The sad state of the film industry in that country is a product of trying to make a film out of such thin material. Most of the pictures that are made in Spain fall under two categories: those about the Spanish Civil War, that love to present past history as the writers deem fit. The other type of films show the viewer with a lot of gratuitous sex because the 'creators' don't have anything interest to say. 

As the film opens we get to watch Pere's penis as he attempts to cut it off and place it in one of the platters at a party. Later on, Sandra will show all she has been given for the audience to admire. The story of Pere's attraction to Sandra, a married woman that seems to be happily married, is false from the start.

Our only interest in watching the film centered on an earlier, better made picture by Mr. Pons, "Amic/Amat", but alas, it has nothing to do with the mess we are punished to watch in this venture. As far as the comments submitted in IMDb, all the negative votes come from Spanish viewers, which speaks volumes coming from them!

Sentiment: negative
I don't see that much wrong with this movie. Granted, the principal singers might not be Luciano Pavarotti and Maria Callas, but they can certainly carry a tune. Burt Bacharach and Hal David are talented songwriters and I happen to love their songs, especially "The World Is A Circle", "The Things That I Will Not Miss", and "Question Me An Answer". Some people claim that Hermes Pan's choreography is ghastly and that the snowy mountain sets look as if they were made of plastic; I disagree on both counts. I've seen powdered snow before and the snow in those mountain scenes looked realistic to me. And most of all, in this film's defense, it is appropriate for a family audience (at least I remember it being that way when I saw it on Christmas Day a few years ago.) With all the outcry over sex and violence in the cinema these days, I find it refreshing to note that this film deserves its G-rating. And they don't say that naughty "F" word every ten minutes like some films I've seen. Thank God. So although this film may not be everyone's cup of tea, it does have some redeeming value and I give it ten points out of a possible ten. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Sentiment: positive
Honestly, this is one of the BEST horror movies I have ever seen. I was captivated by the story, petrified of Captain Howdy and on the edge of my seat for the whole ride. I do not really understand all the negative reviews.

The set up has already been discussed in depth; Captain Howdy is an on-line predator who sets up meetings with teenagers, abducts them and introduces them to his favorite pastime of body modification and piercing. Dee Snider is Captain Howdy and he is one of the scariest psychopaths ever created; maybe the scariest because he is so human and you get the sense (especially if you are into body modification at all) that there are really people like this in the world.

But the biggest reason I liked this movie and the reason it is so horrific is that Captain Howdy becomes the hero. At the beginning of the movie, the roles are clear-cut; the victims are innocent, the cop is the good guy and Howdy is pure evil. By the second act, however, things have changed a little. You want Howdy to be evil but it turns out that he is really just a victim of circumstance and maybe the good and the bad are not obvious. It is terrifying to find yourself cheering for the "bad" guy.

A couple people have mentioned that Strangeland should have been broken into two separate movies. To be sure, there are definitely two separate "acts" but this movie works so well because the two acts are back to back. The first act is the typical psycho-thriller but the second act is the most disturbing because of the viewers reaction to the situation. I do not think it would have worked quite the same if the second act were expanded and turned into a sequel.

As a big horror movie fan, I highly recommend this film. It is the first horror movie EVER to give me nightmares.

Sentiment: positive
Don't get me wrong , I want to see marijuana legalized as much as the next guy. I shall digress now. The writing, though, was unrealistic. A PTA mom dealing drugs but adamant about her drugs getting into the hands of an underage person. Give me a break. The smugness of very pretty Mary Louise Parkers character was an insult to my intelligence. The characters were not at all likable. Basically, the plot lines went nowhere. I understand its only TV land . The hypocrisy was blatant. Mary Louise Parker is supposed to be a great mom and I am supposed to believe this.... WHY ???? I just got the feeling I was being preached by a show reeking of seediness. Its like saying its OK to cheat on your wife , but with someone of legal age status. OK not exactly the same thing , but I think you people get my point. That save the children stuff is wonderful for campaign trails , I guess, but it does not hold water in a cable sitcom about a suburbanite mom , as the local pot dealer.

Sentiment: negative
The original book of this was set in the 1950s but that won't do for the TV series because most people watch for the 1930s style. Ironically the tube train near the end was a 1950s train painted to look like a 1930s train so the Underground can play at that game too. Hanging the storyline on a plot about the Jarrow March was feeble but the 50s version had students who were beginning to think about the world around them so I suppose making them think about the poverty of the marchers is much the same thing. All the stuff about Japp having to cater for himself was weak too but they had to put something in to fill the time. This would have made a decent half hour show or they could have filmed the book and made it a better long show. It is obvious this episode is a victim of style over content.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the periphery stories told by the Animatrix that isn't directly relevant to the war stopping One glorifying plot of the films, but Trinity, voiced by Carrie, does appear in it. it features a private detective who is hired for big money to look for a hacker named Trinity. we see his search which features other PIs, only one who he meets, who has seemingly gone mad from his own experience trying to track Trinity down. eventually he makes contact with Trinity who he assumes to be a man of course - told in the narrative and something that firmly puts us in his own perspective despite what we already know - on a hacker chat-room, and solves a riddle which forces him in a hurry to catch a train. he forgets his hat but his faithful cat throws it to him in a moment of ludicrousness so absurd it's hilarious.

he meets her on the train but the ruse is thereby revealed when agents attack; the agents were using him to get to Trinity and Trinity was trying to free the PIs sent after her, which he doesn't know of course, and which isn't explicitly stated in the animation itself, something common to film noir titles, which often hint at plenty of interesting back-story, subplots, developments etc. but don't show you more then the core story and a limited point of view to create an extra air of mystery and intrigue.

almost everything in this short is in black and white, the music is reminiscent of film noir and the offbeat, old fashioned yet dedicated detective is the perfect protagonist for a film noir title. the trivia section of this title's entry on IMDb also helpfully presents a few references this title makes to hardboiled literature, something it also borrows heavily from, a genre of mysteries for detectives, gangsters etc. who engage in challenging conflicts readily and often. animated aptly by Studio 4°C and directed by Shinichiro Watanabe, it is an enjoyable variant on the usual matrix story.

Sentiment: positive
The basic plot in this movie isn't bad. A lady makes it big and comes back to her alma mater to be adored. But, despite good acting by Robert Young and Eve Arden, the movie is a mess. The blame for this I place on either Joan Crawford or the director or both, as her performance is just awful. Instead of being a real person, she does a wonderful impersonation of a deer caught in the headlights. In other words, she stares off into space and has a "golly I am SOOOO stunned" expression. After just a few minutes it really became annoying for me. Now this is certainly not the only Crawford film I dislike for her performance, as she had done more than her share of overacting--in films such as JOHNNY GUITAR or many of her later films, such as BERSERK! My advice is to try a different Crawford film--there certainly were better.

Sentiment: negative
The special effects of this movie are, especially for its time, laughable and used in such an over-emphasized way that you can't deny their terrible existance.

The acting redefines the term "terrible overacting" at the hands of Meg Foster and Richard Joseph Paul, where julie Newman and Andrew Divoff just redefine "bad".

***spoilers***

The charm in this movie can be found in two things: First is the excellent casting of Carel "Lurch" Struycken as the mysterious psychic Gaunt, who can sense where and when people will die and is always there.

The second are original finds, the combination SF-Western is obviously original, if terrible, but other finds are more original, like the gunman Zack Stone being able to sense the pain of the people he shoots (though his acting falls short here).

Overal...don't see this movie, except if you love that ol' hunk-o-brutal Carel Struycken, as any self-respecting Dutchman should.

Sentiment: negative
This was a disappointing horror film about a snotty young girl and her nightmares. For a horror or "thriller" film and hype, it's way too tame. There are only a few tense moments in here, not anywhere as near as many as should have been for a film of this genre. Even those "tense" scenes weren't much. The music made them more dramatic that they actually were.

There is a lot of symbolism in here, so the elitist critics label this "a thinking person's horror film." Well, if they think about it, I'm sure they will come to the same conclusion I did - a waste of money at the video rental store.

Summary: a yawner that offers an unlikeable lead character and generally poor acting. Vastly overrated and certainly not what it is advertised.

Sentiment: negative
I found Tremors 4:The Legend Begins, to be dull and boring.All the action scenes were stupid.The so called "GRABOIDS" are reduced to the size of a modern day house cat, if not smaller.The acting was horrendous, and this film was just an unnecessary movie in the Tremor saga, because even though it tells the story of how the graboids were formed, the story is so dumb and useless.Also, if you want to tell a story WAY back in time, make sure you use the SAME ACTOR(Michael Gross), to be someone in the past, when he's someone in the present in the other Tremor movies.Geez...If you haven't seen this film, don't waste your time.Stick to Tremors, 1, 2, and 3, for a good time.This film however, make sure you're remote is sitting right next to you with the STOP button working for a quick retreat away from this nonsense.

Sentiment: negative
Seven Ups has been compared to Bullitt for the chase scene, but does not come anywhere near matching Bullitt. Bullitt has a beginning that builds builds builds. When McQueen leaves the seedy hotel, gets into his Mustang, which is parked under the Embarcadero Freeway (now torn down) and notices the Charger sitting nearbye, you know you are about to see something spectacular. From that moment on, when McQueen starts that car, begins the best car chase sequence ever filmed. Adding to it is a terrific Lalo Schriffin If I remember correctly sound track. This goes on for a long time before you actually hear the first tires squealing. That shot of McQueen's Mustang suddenly appearing in Bill Hickman's rear view mirror is unmatched for visual impact. Hickman's look of surprise and double take really adds to the effect. Then of course, San Francisco is unmatched for the setting of cars racing up and down hills and around bends. Also, Bullitt being filmed in the 60s when cars were still "Hot" (Mustang GT and Dodge Charger) made for a better set of wheels then two boring, smog device laden Pontiacs in the 1970s Seven Ups. Bill Hickman was the driver of the bad guy car in both movies. I saw him sitting at an insider movie preview once on the Univeral lot when I was doing movie reviews for a paper. They gave it a good try in Seven Ups though with the chase scene. Seven ups had a few "jumps" over little hills, (Yawn) but of course they were not San Francisco hills. The Seven Ups chase, where they are actually going fast, is longer than the go fast sequence in Bullitt. But the scene of a single shotgun blast totally blowing the hood OFF of Roy Schieders Pontiac is the height of absurdity. Strictly Hollywood, I would say, except that it was filmed in New York.

Sentiment: positive
I haven't read through all the comments, but at least one poster mentioned that the 30 minute version might possibly be abridged. I'm curious about that myself because the later parts of the film just didn't make much sense to me even when I rewatched them. 30 minutes seems really short for a movie in 1917 also. "Poor Little Rich Girl" which was Tourneur's next film is 65 minutes long and "Pride of the Clan" which was his previous feature was 84 minutes long. So I'm relieved to see that I wasn't crazy, there must be part of this film missing and that's why the resolution didn't make much sense.

It's hard to review or comment on a movie that you're only able to see half of... but I would recommend this film anyway because of the really fascinating view that it provides us of the insides of an East Coast movie studio of the time. It's the earliest film I've personally seen that's based on the movie industry itself. The main character is a movie star played by Robert Warwick, who was later a mainstay Hollywood character actor and appeared in almost all of Preston Sturges' films. He plays a western actor perhaps vaguely modeled on William S. Hart, who Warwick does resemble somewhat. After the really fascinating sequences set in the studio we see them on a location shoot where he discovers a country girl (Doris Kenyon) and convinces her to come to New Jersey for a screen test which goes very poorly. After that point the movie seems to be missing major pieces in the form we have now.

Again, I'd recommend it to anyone who's interested in film history for the documentary value, but in the form we have it doesn't hold up much as a movie and isn't a particularly good example of Maurice Tourneur's work.

Sentiment: positive
In 2005,George W. Bush started with his second period as a President of the United States; North Korea announced its possession of nuclear weapons; Pope John Paul II died after a long illness; and a movie called Into the Blue appeared.The existence of this movie is not as bad as the other things that happened on that year,but the film itself was pathetic and maybe,the worst one from that year.Now,in 2009,the United States have another President,there is another Pope,new Korean nuclear weapons...and the film Into the Blue 2 : The Reef,which is better than the original one...but that's the same as saying : "getting your fingers cut is better than getting your head cut".This sequel is a really bad film which kept me tremendously bored and uninterested.The cast of Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is composed by TV-series actors who completely lack of any credibility and dramatic weight,but who are perfect for showing their bodies.Chris Carmack (The O.C.),David Anders (Heroes and Alias),Laura Vandervoort (Smallville),Marsha Tomason (Lost) and Audrina Patridge (The Hills) bring hollow and boring performances.I have liked some previous movies from director Stephen Herek (Critters and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure specially) but on this movie,he cannot generate even the minimum level of tension,emotion or entertainment.The characters from this movie are not only badly performed,but they are also repulsive.Honestly,I wanted all of them to die.The cinematography from this movie is also lame and it seems to have been made by a technical team who makes promotional videos for Hawaiian hotels.Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is a horrible movie which is better than the original film,but that's the same as nothing,as I previously said.Avoid this crappy film at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
There wasn't much thought put into the story line on many fronts. This is a good action movie but that's about it.

- The movie states that the lycans were kept to protect the vampires during the day. Yet they are kept in cages and have collars on their necks. So they can't turn into their wolf form or do anything any other slave can't do. How does this protect the vampires during the day? Who are they protecting the vampires from? The uncontrollable lycans? The slaves in human form are nothing more than peasants.

- My understanding is that vampires are immortals and don't age. Yet Sonya ages from child to adult. Do they just stop aging at a certain age? I understand that Viktor is old because he was turned (as explained in the second movie). But vampire babies age? Strange.

- I didn't realize that vampires needed torches to see at night. Yet we see them carrying torches throughout the movie.

- Silver was the only thing that was supposedly able to harm lycan. Yet wooden steaks fired from the huge crossbows kill the lycan too.

These are just some of the things that show just a lack of thought put into the story telling.

Sentiment: negative
This has got to be the best movie I've ever seen.

Combine breathtaking cinematography with stunning acting and a gripping plot, and you have a masterpiece.

Dog Bite Dog had me gripping the edge of my seat during some scenes, recoiling in horror during others, and left me drowning in my own tears after the tragic ending.

The film left a deep impression on me. It's shockingly violent scenes contrasted sharply with the poignant and tender 'love' scenes. The film is undeserving of it's Cat III (nudity) rating; there are no nude scenes whatsoever, and the 'love' scenes do not even involve kissing or 'making out'.

The message which this film presented to me? All human beings, no matter how violent or cruel they may seem, have a tender side. Edison Chen does a superb job playing the part of the murderous Pang.

I rate this film 10/10. It's a must-watch.

Sentiment: positive
This moody, creepy horror flick begins on a castle atop a cliff overlooking the sea, a great setting, as a vampire bat flies in and creeps toward a sleeping doctor (Onslow Stevens). The bat changes into a man known as Baron Latos, in reality Count Dracula (John Carradine). He seeks Dr. Edelmann's help to cure him of his vampirism. Eventually the good doctor also wants to help his hunchbacked nurse-assistant (Jane Adams), the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney), and Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange). But Dracula's trickery contaminates the doctor's blood, and he becomes a Jekyll/Hyde vampire himself. This is somewhat better than the prior year's "House of Frankenstein", being less episodic and more exciting visually. There's a haunting scene where Dracula tries to lure the second nurse (Martha O'Driscoll) into his world, where she is initially playing "Moonlight Sonata" on the piano, which soon gives way to terrifying music. Director Erle Kenton uses expressionistic shadows and eerie music to frame many sequences, including a wonderful montage sequence that the studio frequently used in their horror features. Two performers are of note: Stevens, with his wonderful voice, is at first sympathetic, then convincingly menacing. Adams, her beautiful face in alarming contrast to her twisted body, exhibits great pathos and sympathy. It all ends in a slam-bang climax, typical of 1940s Universal horror, a little abrupt, with footage borrowed from "The Ghost of Frankenstein" (1942). I hope Universal releases it soon on DVD (it was left out of their Double-Feature releases).

Sentiment: positive
This review comes nearly 30 years late. Nevertheless, it has to be mentioned that I chanced by a copy of this movie sometime in early 2008 and watched it repeatedly for 4 months straight! I just had to write about it! I got smitten and forgot anything else existed once I saw this movie. How ironic it is to see Literature's ugliest male protagonist portrayed by the handsomest man! yet, what a welcome irony! It suited me perfectly and more so because Timothy Dalton did full justice to his role. He delivered an astounding and triumphant performance! I have never seen anything like it! All the other actors are very good too. The whole movie was put together beautifully. I don't care what anyone says about this movie. I just love it and love it! It made me happy and satisfied. It crushes me a bit to say this but I prefer Jane Eyre 1983 to A&E's P&J, which I believe is the ultimate mini-series. 

The excerpts from Jane Eyre spooked me a little back in school. I never got around to reading the book seriously knowing the story line so well. Seeing this particular production made the story come to life for me and drove me to a near frenzy. The scenes and Mr. Dalton's voice haunted me endlessly and finally led me to read the book seriously, which, of course is a masterpiece. Bravo to the whole team and especially to Mr.Dalton!! This movie is now a part of me.

I give it 10/10 rating.

Sentiment: positive
With that line starts one silly, boring British sci fi film. The Great Vorelli from the movie "Devil Doll" builds a teleportation machine only to have his funding cut off by Blanchard, a bearded man who has a thing for bow ties and men with large eye brows. When his experiment fails, the good doctor learns that Lembach, the man who controls all of the grants in the world, will be staying in London for a few days. He attempts to project himself into the house of Blanchard with the help of his comely lab assistant, Sheila. Needless to say something goes wrong and he winds up looking like a rat. The rest of the movie is devoted to the good orange haired doctor walking around London shocking people with his mutated hand and wearing a diaper on his face. There are some more killings, some modest paper work, and finally, the doctor vanishes to where ever rat faced doctors go. Thankfully no one decided to make a sequel.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the best movies out there and that's saying a lot being that it was for television. I really wish it was on d.v.d.

Helen Hunt gave such a raw performance. She played a rookie cop thrown into serial killer case perfectly. When she falls apart because he kills another kid it was amazing. She is so alone, so he gets to her. When she talks about her mother! WOW!

Steven Weber as the serial killer was so shocking! He really brought her into his dark world. It was Oscar-worthy. When he talks about killing the kids, scary! When he realizes who she really is! What a scene!!

They really don't make them like that anymore. It was a real thriller without being gory.

Sentiment: positive
I tuned in to this movie because there was nothing else to watch. I was immediately sucked in by the characters.

Robin Tunney is nothing less than spectacular in this film. Her portrayal of a mentally ill woman is both moving and 100% believable. Really, this sort of thing is not easy to do. She pulls it off fantastically.

We know early on this film is going to end tragically, but you cannot take your eyes off of it. The characters do stupid things, but unlike most Hollywood movies where people do stupid things because the plot demands it, these people do stupid things because the are not right in the head - and the things they do are completely consistent with their characters.

This is just a great example of film making IMHO. Great writing, great acting, great directing. A film for people who think film can be more than mindless entertainment.

Sentiment: positive
The previous reviewer has said it exactly. I saw it once, was enchanted, saw it a second time when it was re-broadcast within a week or two of the first airing. I still remember some of the scenes. The setting is the opening of the 20th century, the war referred to in the title is World War I. One of the scenes was set in a women-only section of a public place, which was an interesting historical note. The moment when one of the women first touches the other is one of my all-time great movie moments. I don't think of this as a "gay movie," it's an interesting and tender period love story, where the two principals happen to be women. I would love to see this movie again; I would buy this one if it ever came out on DVD.

Sentiment: positive
The play is cleverly constructed - begin with the porter, Rainbow - & let the audience see the background unfold through his eyes. The film follows the play with great faithfulness, working, no doubt, on the simple premise that it couldn't be bettered. Now throw in a host of superb character actors - & the result is a resounding triumph.A definite must-see.

Sentiment: positive
Good lord.

I'm going to say right off the bat, I only watched 20 minutes of this movie. As I am a hardcore Eraserhead fan, the "what, you can't watch a wierd black and white movie with little-to-no dialogue?" defense does not apply. I simply can't watch TERRIBLE weird black and white movies with little-to-no dialogue.

This movie is what happens when you give an angsty goth-child with no talent and nothing to say a camera and budget, and let him/her put as much meaninglessly offensive imagery on screen as possible. It was clear from the start that this film should have been 5 minutes long (assuming it should exist at all). Shots that should last a few seconds drag on for minutes, because the director has "I-Just-Love-The-Sound-Of-My-Own-Voice" syndrome, and refuses to cut to another shot until the entire piece of footage has been viewed. From the moment the girl in the mask started masturbating the corpse of "God" (the opening scene of the film! joy!), I knew it was only a matter of time until I turned off the tape. After at least 10 minutes of a different corpse being pulled around, twitching, on a rope, by a gang of cloaked mystery-men, I knew it was time to give up. Rarely do I give up on a movie. I sat through the entirety of Blair Witch 2: Book Of Shadows, albeit not happily. This did not deserve the 20 minutes I gave it.

If you're an Eraserhead fan, do NOT let simple-minded comparisons to said film con you into renting this piece of amateur trash. Allow me to refer you to Tetsuo: The Iron Man, for a watchable and enjoyable piece of incoherent black and white weirdness.

Sentiment: negative
(Contains spoilers)

People who put a Lonely Heart's ad in the newspaper are often idealists. They try to put into a few words everything they are and expect. The exchange of letters is full of hope...Louis Mahe (Jean Paul Belmondo), owner of a cigarette company on the ile de la Reunion (east of Madagascar) is so affected by the letters of Julie Roussell that he proposes to her. But not the expected pretty brunette comes from board of the "Mississippi", but - Catherine Deneuve. And we know from the start that she is a marriage imposter and that a crime has taken place. She shows no interest in "Julie's" wardrobe (she does not even get her trunk open) and neglects her canary until it dies. But the most basic tricks of seduction (an open zipper) are sufficient to transform Louis into a pliable little dog. First: a joint bank account. And then, when Julie's sister draws attention to herself, the flight. With 27,850 millions of Louis' 28 millions - she would have needed his signature for the entire sum.

Louis and Julie's sister engage a private detective (Michel Bouquet). Louis contrives to trace Marion (Deneuve's real name) in Antibes where she works as taxi-girl - her gangster-lover left her penniless, or rather centimeless. Louis finds himself unable to kill her. She tells her story: Orphan. Precocious. Lesbian experiences. Many sugardaddies. Jail - and soon she leads him by the nose again. The detective turns out to be sly as a fox and tenacious as a blood hound; Louis and Marion bury his body in the cellar. They flee to Paris, where Louis discovers that Marion has a costly taste. She worships money like a deity. He sells his firm at a fraction of its value. But when the corpse of the detective is discovered (a flood) they have to flee again - without the money. Life in a mountain lodge, together with a whining loser - Marion can think of a more cheerful life without this appendage...

A high point in the careers of everybody involved. Belmondo's self-deceit makes him nearly endearing. Deneuve looks beautiful in her wardrobe by Yves St. Laurent, and her performance is delightful: At first she fakes the fragile wifey - too timid to ask her husband for money, that's why the joint bank account is needed - but after being exposed she sounds like Katharine Hepburn in the jail scene of BRINGING UP BABY. The scenery is spectacular - the tropics, the riviera, Paris. Truffaut directs with self-evident aplomb: the sixties were the only decade when european films were head and shoulders above american productions. After this film Truffaut was able to look his idol, Alfred Hichcock, full in the face.

Sentiment: positive
I just saw this movie and all I can say is, where are the drive in's these days. This seems like it would have been a great 2nd feature at a drive in in 1977 (maybe playing with one of those Joan Collins movies), but it's only worth watching now if you're feeling nostalgic for the 70's. Silly plot that is full of holes, but it does remind one of the era it was made in. Interesting to see Melanie Griffith so young and Anne Lockhart is quite attractive, though not much of an actress. In fact, there is not much acting going on in this movie at all. It's sort of a Dukes of Hazzard adventure without a twang or a 1969 Dodge charger jumping over stuff in the Woods. But there is a Mecrury Comet jumping over a garbage dump in this one!

Sentiment: negative
L'OSSESSA, also known as THE TORMENTED or THE SEXORCIST, or the ridiculously titled THE EERIE MIDNIGHT HORROR SHOW, is a forgotten EXORCIST rip-off which contains one of the best horror moments I've ever seen. The scene is when the crucifix comes alive. This great spooky scene is unforgettable and totally effective (great FXs). It's a shame the rest of the movie doesn't maintain the level of creepiness exemplified during that scene.

This is one of the most frustrating movies ever. Imagine the producers deciding to to make an EXORCIST copy but while making it, they actually succeed in creating something truly original (a possessed sculpture of crucified man, which is shocking when you think about it) but then completely forgets their original idea in order to make a boring and uninspired EXORCIST rip-off. Had the film continued with the possessed sculpture concept (with the characters trying to destroy it, etc), this film would have rocked. But once the girl becomes possessed by the spirit of the sculpture, she never tells anyone from where the demon came from. She, and the script, completely forgets the haunted crucifix, which is STUPID!!!

If you like so-called "Euro-cult" movies, the first 45 minutes deliver unlike any other Euro-cult movies. But after the scene when the girl has a vision of being crucified and she gets stigmatas, the remaining 45 minutes SUCK. Boring. It goes nowhere fast as it tries to emulate (badly) THE EXORCIST. So, watch the first 45 minutes of L'OSSESSA and enjoy the 1970s fashions, the sleaze and the amazing statue-comes-alive-to-ravish-the-girl scene but after the first 45 minutes, press stop and eject, and might as well go clip your toenails.

Sentiment: positive
There is a complete copy now available at the Internet Archive - watch it or download it today!

http://www.archive.org/details/The_Mascot_Complete

One of the greatest animated shorts ever made. Starewicz is endlessly inventive and his techniques still astound animation fans 70 years later. We may have computer-generated techniques now, but all he had in 1934 was an imagination that wouldn't take "no" for an answer. Whatever he wanted to see on the screen, he created. 

And he wanted to see some truly bizarre stuff - every imaginable piece of scrap is called up for service: old shoes, chicken bones, utensils, broken glasses, dolls, monkeys, rats....seems like there was nothing that was off limits.

A truly eerie, even unsettling film that should be seen by anyone with even a passing interest in animation. This film must be seen to be believed!

Sentiment: positive
I watched this show and i simply didn't find it funny at all. It might have been the first episode. Lately i realize ABC is playing a lot of stupid shows nowadays and is going down as a station. All the characters on this show are pretty bad actors, but even if they were good the jokes and script are pretty horrible and would still bring the show down. I would say that I believe this show will be cancelled, but seeing as how ABC is doing pretty horrible for quality of shows they are playing, they might just keep this one simply because it's average compared to them.

Sentiment: negative
The story goes something like this: A small-town girl, Katie (Jessica Simpson), decides to visit her boyfriend in the big city. When she arrives she discovers he isn't quite as faithful as he should be. Katie then ends up venturing into the adventure that is New York. Filling in as bike messenger comedic and charming mishaps ensues. She falls into a hole in the ground and thus meets charismatic good-guy Ben (Luke Wilson). It's not love at first sight, at least for her, but destiny and Ben, won't give up quite that easy. Being "just" a small-town girl AND blonde a couple of evil executives at a building firm decides she's the perfect scapegoat for their cunning plan. Misunderstandings with hilarious and sad consequences follow. However, this is one blonde who won't take it lying down!

People being judgmental of this film will soon enough be proved wrong. The jokes are confident and fitting, and the story well developed. The relationship between Katie and Ben feels so natural that it puts anything Godard has created to shame. The multi-talented Jessica Simpson once again surprises with a strong role only she could pull off. Simpson really is the Marilyn Monroe of our day (there's even one scene honoring her!). She balances perfectly between vulnerable and whimsy. Katie really does show us that you can't judge a book by its cover! Luke Wilson is as charming as ever. Even if he was covered in manure that man would be as appealing as anyone. His light touch, puppy dog eyes and laid back manner makes it difficult to resist. Andy Dick plays the role he was born to play, one of the two diabolical executives. He really cannot be underestimated. The strength of the performance lies in his restraint. It's remarkable, because most actors would just run away with it and play it for cheap laughs. Not this guy! 

In conclusion, director Scott Marshall has crafted an intelligent and frequently hilarious comedy that is destined to become a classic alongside masterpieces of cinema like Epic Movie and Norbit. Kudos to everyone involved in this, especially Jessica Simpson. Her sincere smile and whole-hearted laughter would make even the toughest man break out in a big grin. You may be tough, but you're not THAT tough! Warmly recommended to everyone who wants to be swept off their feet and see a romantic comedy that for once, feels honest. Thank you for this film! Oh, and the soundtrack rocks! 

Now if you still haven't gotten it. I'm being sarcastic. 1/10

Sentiment: negative
This movie is widely admonished as being a copy of the Will Smith feature Hitch. That movie was dull.

This movie isn't so much dull as unbearable. Govinda looks way past his prime. He is not at his best doing roles like this. It is similarly unconvincing as his performance in Deewana Mastana.

Salman Khan is at his eye-aching "best". And that's in the few scenes where he remembers to put clothes on. It could only have been through nepotism that this eye-sore's scenes could be saved from the trash bin of any movie's cutting floor.

Another case of Bollywood embarrassing itself with it's shameless cloning. Another case of the Bollywood audience majority embarrassing themselves by making this a hit.

Sentiment: negative
Silly, hilarious, tragic, sad, inevitable.

A group of down-and-outs team up with a "seasoned" crook to elevate themselves out of their poverty. Great idea...if you ignore the screwup factor.

Nice to see George Clooney doing something genuinely funny for a change. The casting is perfect and the acting standards very high. Although it could be said that the motley crew subject isn't new, I think this movie handles it in an interesting and unique way. Sufficiently so that it stands out from what has gone before.

Very well done guys.

Sentiment: positive
I am a Catholic taught in parochial elementary schools by nuns, taught by Jesuit priests in high school & college. I am still a practicing Catholic but would not be considered a "good Catholic" in the church's eyes because I don't believe certain things or act certain ways just because the church tells me to.

So back to the movie...its bad because two people are killed by this nun who is supposed to be a satire as the embodiment of a female religious figurehead. There is no comedy in that and the satire is not done well by the over acting of Diane Keaton. I never saw the play but if it was very different from this movies then it may be good.

At first I thought the gun might be a fake and the first shooting all a plan by the female lead of the four former students as an attempt to demonstrate Sister Mary's emotional and intellectual bigotry of faith. But it turns out the bullets were real and the story has tragedy...the tragedy of loss of life (besides the two former students...the lives of the aborted babies, the life of the student's mom), the tragedy of dogmatic authority over love of people, the tragedy of organized religion replacing true faith in God. This is what is wrong with today's Islam, and yesterday's Judaism and Christianity.

Sentiment: negative
I just watched this movie today and not only is it, terrible and awful but it looks like the director just got a few friends together to make a movie about a sick man. I also think that this movie has the look of a porn video with it's clear crisp just filmed view.

Thank heavens I work in a video store and I didn't have to pay for it cause this movie is crap x infinity..DO NOT BUY OR RENT THIS MOVIE!!!!! You'd have a better time watching Dude Where's My Car than this piece of crap! And that's not saying a lot for that movie either.

The acting is lousy and the movie is just very unwatchable. I was watching this movie and I wanted to kill myself during and after the movie.

I walked home and threw up after watching this piece of dirt movie, I then took a shower and burnt my clothes. 

If I had half a mind I would of took the movie outside and burned it too cause no one should be subjected to it...well maybe members of Al Queda..especially the ones we have in custody and also child rapists who are in prison on life sentences with out parole....just make a set up like a clock work Orange, And then force these cheese head to watch it over and over again.

Sentiment: negative
OK where do i begin?... This movie changed my life! The plot was seamless. James Cahill has out done himself. Initially after a first viewing i was disappointed that i hadn't seen it on the silver screen. However this was before exploring the DVD's many features!!!! Oh my god Jakes Cahill's commentary of the film was almost as flawless as his acting. he told of industry secrets used in the film that you only get with experience.

I was so impressed by the other actors. The scene where the security guard is talking to the girl in the hallway, reminded me of some of my favorite blue (pornographic) movies. I am certainly with Gangsta when he expresses his disappointment with no sequel.

I am still blown away with each viewing of the martial arts skills involved, matched only by the sign indicating the location of the library at the school... and possibly the guy playing a retard! All in all a timeless classic and the best film to come out of Europe in years! where my Oscars at dawn!!!!!!!!!!!

Sentiment: positive
I saw a lot films about Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol. But this one is the best of all! There is an atmosphere which is exactly the same as in the book. The actors (George C. Scott and others) are great! Unfortunately, you can't often watch the film in Germany and Switzerland.

Sentiment: positive
If you're looking for a typical war movie, this is not it, so a note to all the testosterone-pumped carnage-craving war buffs out there, don't bother. Although the film is about Russian characters in WWII, don't expect to see any Nazis, cannons, blood, gore, etc. It's not a film about people who cause a war or who fight a war. It's a film about ordinary people who war happens to and the choices they make in dealing with it.

Acting, cinematography, writing: all perfect 10s here. You'll certainly appreciate it if you're Russian like me, but even if not, you'll probably love it. If you speak no Russian, look for the RUSCICO (Russian Cinema Council) DVD version. It's got subtitles in about 14 different languages, but the English dubbing on this one I'd say is just as good. It's of course not as good as the original Russian track (some stuff is lost in translation), but just as good as the English subtitles. So go check it out, especially if you're studying film in any aspect.

Sentiment: positive
Raymond Burr stars as an attorney caught up in the murder of his best friend (Dick Foran) thanks to his affection for his friend's wife (Angela Lansbury). This was a full year before he started doing Perry Mason, so the movie might be of particular interest to his fans if it was the inspiration for his casting.

There isn't all that much else here that's interesting though. Lansbury is always good, but her character here is very one dimensional and the motives for her crime in the mystery are totally obvious. There's an interesting performance by Lamont Johnson as a painter who's also in love with the "femme fatale", but the Burr character is pretty straightforward. It's frankly bizarre to see an actor like Burr doing these romantic scenes with Lansbury, and his halting delivery does not match his character here very well as it does in most films I've seen him in. There's no mystery at all really, and the whole suspense is supposed to be around the title of the film and the way that Burr's character is setting up the Lansbury character to implicate herself (double jeopardy prevents her being tried again for the original murder, presumably). He does so with a very large tape recorder which she doesn't notice when she comes into the room I guess.

A few perhaps unintentionally fun moments and basically the rest of the thing could have been done for TV.

Sentiment: negative
Norris plays a Chicago cop who stumbles upon a devil's apprentice? who wants to, well, create Armegeddon. He eventually kills the creature by, get this, throwing a solid gold 24 inch spike, not very sharp, about twenty feet, hard enough to penetrate the chest. Unlikely? So is the rest of the movie. Much of it consists of CN and his sidekick driving cars and talking nonsense. The Israeli (or Arab) kid is there ostensibly to humanize CN. OK. Doesn't work, makes no sense, and advances the plot, so-called, not one bit. Also, no cops ever every get invited out of the country to be interviewed by other cops. It is ridiculous as a premise. The whole thing is bad. Unfortunately, it's not so bad as to be entertainingly bad or campy. Just plain bad. But--one can see how Norris was trying to find his way to the successful Walker: Texas Ranger series.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was one of a handful that actually caused me pain. It might be enjoyed by anybody who thinks that it would be funny to see his/her mother in a crowded discotheque full of people half her age "inventing" some totally ridiculous dance in a completely misguided effort to be "hip" (in the parlance of that age). To see Ingrid Bergman stoop to such a pitiful performance on the disco dance floor was hard to watch. I was embarrassed.

To make matters worse, the music in the disco was not realistic at all - it is the bogus idea of some Hollywood director about what pop music was like at the time. That is always a total embarrassment in most films of that era - the ersatz music is canned and bears only a painful, passing resemblance to the music that was actually popular in the 60's.

Mathau is hopelessly miscast as some kind of ladies' man; he just looks lecherously grotesque. Hawn's wide-eyed innocence is just too silly. The handsome neighbor in her apartment is portrayed way too earnestly and seriously. He seems like a Brady kid who got lost in this farce. Painful, pitiful mess.

Sentiment: negative
Watched the director's cut last night...glad it was free rental, even a dollar would have been too much for me to pay to watch this attempt at "film noir". The anachronisms (modern telephones) were annoying to me, not clever, seeming more like budget constraints than anything else. The "non-traditional" casting I also found distracting. If I have to stop following the story to wonder "what the heck is the black chick/drag queen doing there?" then the storyteller has failed me. Again, not clever in my opinion but annoying and irritating, and very film school final project-ish. And for pete's sake if you are going to shoot in black and white at least use some of the techniques used in old films that take full advantage of not having color. There was no use of nuance in the lighting, no shades of gray, no depth, no texture...just black and just white...boring!

Sentiment: negative
How good is this film? Apparently, good enough that they plan to remake it in 2011. Jean-Pierre Melville, who gave us Le doulos and The Good Thief, wrote and directed this film.

The film is almost a silent. These are men of few words, preferring to let their actions speak for them. They live by a code that governs their every move.

There are some great actors in this film - Alain Delon (The Leopard), Yves Montand (Jean de Florette, Let's Make Love), and Gian Maria Volonte (El Indio from A Fistful of Dollars & A Few Dollars More). The film does not shine on them; they are along for the ride that Melville has for them. Melville makes the film; they make it better.

You see Melville's work in the Ocean films, but they just get the idea. The can't make it work like he did. A great loss in the seventies, but his work remains for our pleasure.

Sentiment: positive
By 1941 Columbia was a full-fledged major studio and could produce a movie with the same technical polish as MGM, Paramount or Warners. That's the best thing that could be said about "Adam Had Four Sons," a leaden soap opera with almost terminally bland performances by Ingrid Bergman (top-billed for the first time in an American film) and Warner Baxter. Bergman plays a Frenchwoman (this was the era in which Hollywood thought one foreign accent was as good as another) hired as governess to Baxter's four sons and staying on (with one interruption caused by the stock-market crash of 1907) until the boys are grown men serving in World War I. Just about everyone in the movie is so goody-good it's a relief when Susan Hayward as the villainess enters midway through  she's about the only watchable person in the movie even though she's clearly channeling Bette Davis and Vivien Leigh; it's also the first in her long succession of alcoholic roles  but the script remains saccharine and the ending is utterly preposterous. No wonder Bergman turned down the similarly plotted "The Valley of Decision" four years later.

Sentiment: negative