DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Paulie is a fantasy of a littler girl or perhaps her recollection of what her youth was like growing up.

Tony Shaloub executes a flawless performance as an Russian Scientist (PhD) who cannot find decent work in America. He befriends an isolated parrot while performing meanial duties of a janitor at a behavioral science lab.

The chief Doctor is a bitter man, as Paulie, who can speak and fully comprehend language and learn, embarasses the Doctor, who later banishses him to the lower levels of the building, where Mikail (Tony S.) finds him.

Paulie recants his life with Marie and how they lost each other. The quest begins to reunite Paulie with Marie, only more than 20 years has passed.

The movie ends, some will say predictably, with Mikail reuniting Paulie with Marie. The story closes with the three entering Marie's home, where you can make the final your own choice.

Great family film!

Sentiment: positive
I'm amazed that I have a real affection for this one inasmuch as I'm not an action and adventure lover. But hey... It's pretty tough to go wrong with a Robert Carlyle film. I've read several poor or temperate reviews on this film, pulling it apart for it's period errors or unlikely plot development, but no one seems to mention the rather intriguing character transition which features how a hardened, down-on-his-luck scoundrel (Carlyle) transforms into a rather noble, selfless hero and how the pretty-boy, cowardly vagrant (Miller)develops a real taste for the life of a highway man once he "gets the feel of it." Filled with lots of bad-boy humor, lavish scenes (particularly the use of "fireworks" by former apothacary Plunkett) and a charmingly ecclectic musical score, Plunkett & Macleane is a fast-paced,highly enjoyable piece of film making. It's certainly worth your viewing time FOR THE CLIMAX SCENE ALONE! Shoot 'em up, boys!

Sentiment: positive
I cannot believe someone gave this movie a 1 rating!!! and it is only a 3. average... What is not to love about this film? It is original, it has lots of scare scenes that actually made me jump out of my seat, and it has some great special effects. The story is fresh, there is some nudity, and it is very campy. The killer was scary in his own demented way and the end is very unexpected. I must admit that I really love this film, one of Spain's best horror films ever. If you consider yourself a true horror fan you need to get out there and try to find this film. You will be pleasantly surprised to do so.

Sentiment: positive
Famous movies are subject to Freudian analysis: Possessed, The Matrix, The Birds, Psycho, Vertigo, Duck Soup, Monkey Business, The Exorcist, The Testament of Dr Mabuse, Alien, Alien Resurrection, The Great Dictator, City Lights, The Tramp, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, Dr Strangelove, The Red Shoes, Fight Club, Dead of Night, The Conversation, Blue Velvet, Solaris, Stalker, Mulholland Drive, Lost Highway, Persona, In The Cut, Eyes Wide Shut, The Piano Teacher, Three Colours: Blue, Dogville, Frankenstein, The Ten Commandments, Saboteur, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief, North by Northwest, Star Wars, Dune, Kubanskie Kazaki, Ivan The Terrible, Pluto's Judgment Day (Walt Disney), Wild at Heart.

You may wonder how the Marx Brothers come into play. According To Slavoj Zizek, the host and analyst of this intellectually tickling tour de force, Groucho is the superego, Chico the ego, and Harpo the id.

Scenes from the above listed films are used to illustrate concepts: the role of fantasy in shaping reality and vice-versa, the father figure, male and female libido, death drive, etc. Here are some of Slavoj utterances (most as paraphrases): "desire is a wound on reality", "fantasy realized is a nightmare", "music is the opium of the people" (borrowing from K. Marx), "of all human emotions, anxiety is the only one that is not deceiving". The whole is bracketed by an intro that declares "you don't look for your desires in movies, instead cinema tells you what you should desire" and concludes with the cineaste view that "cinema is needed today so that we can understand our current reality" -- I say, as long as censorship doesn't derail it.

The three part subdivision is merely mechanical, possibly with TV screening in mind. For the theater goer it is irrelevant.

Sentiment: positive
As I was watching this film on video last night, I kept getting these tingles that told me this one will endure. I've a feeling I'll be watching this again and again for years to come.

It's got all the timeless qualities you could ask for in a story/film. And even though some cultural references are obscure for me, a Western viewer, at the core this is a universal tale.

Sentiment: positive
If there is one film which is the worst of this year- it's TASHAN The first promo gave an indication that the film will be a boring Dhoom 2 style film, and well i knew first only it would be a bad film whatever it maybe Because of it being a Yashraj film Or maybe seeing the cheesy promo But this film gave me a shock, it was even worst then Dhoom 2 and what i expected First Saif's introduction which is boring Then Saif- Kareena meet, Kareena is so artificial and then Anil Kapoor oh god, what he is doing in such a weird film? What kinda role it is? What acting is he doing? His first scene is alright but then his act gets repetitive and he overacts Then came Akshay who provided some nice scenes, but then the film became more boring and with all the outdated stuff Childhood romance, overdose of childish Rajnikant style action scenes and all boring scenes The ending is another joke

Vijay Krishna Acharya would have got 3 films more to direct, if this film had worked, thats the strategy of yashraj, only money nothing else So Vijay is another addition to their list of crap filmmakers Music( Vishal Shekhar) is ordinary

Performances Akshay Kumar comes in the film as a whiff of fresh air, he actually provides some engaging moments Saif Ali Khan is irritating, Kareena is equally bad Anil Kapoor hams outrageously and spoils the show even more Rest are okay

Sentiment: negative
This agonizing comedy-drama got surprisingly sterling reviews upon its release in 1979. I remember opening the movie-section of the L.A. Times and looking at a 2-page advertisement for "Chapter Two" filled with glowing captions like: "Better than 'The Goodbye Girl'!" and "Neil Simon does it again!" What does Neil Simon do? He takes an autobiographical situation (remarrying too soon after the death of a beloved spouse) and makes it rusty, unpleasant and--worst of all--unfunny. James Caan plays Neil--er..that is, George--a writer who can't seem to get back into life after losing his wife; enter spirited Marsha Mason (real-life Mrs. Simon...soon to be ex-Mrs. Simon) who attempts to love George despite his moods and general melancholy. Mason is very appealing here and might've saved the day were it not for Caan's indifference (not to mention a sub-plot concerning painfully-thin, blonde Valerie Harper which brings the proceedings to a screeching halt). I liked Mason's outburst at the end ("I am wonderful! I am NUTS about me!"), but I saw no happy ending for these two people...and time proved me right. ** from ****

Sentiment: negative
I wonder sometimes if maybe Meryl Streep has become so accepted as the most impressive, versatile actress since, well, maybe just about the beginning of the sound era that maybe her talent is now taken for granted. There are probably about three tics that she relies on consistently throughout her performances (most noticeably a pinched lip), but other than that, her performances are amazingly variable and original and fresh expressions of internal workings. Even though "Sophie's Choice" and "A Cry in the Dark" and "Silkwood" may be showier, her work here and in "Bridges in Madison County" is remarkable, too - just more subtle. In "One True Thing", she is mostly sweet and in love with her domesticated life, and Streep makes what could be routine, even boring, seem attractive and charming. I think that she must work out these mini-theses for each character and find what things make this person real and interesting. She works from the inside out with each character, and maybe it's this essential quality that has evoked the main criticism of aloofness or self-consciousness. I don't think she's cold at all, but instead has thought out her character's unique qualities. I think her critics are confusing self-consciousness with intelligence. Not too many other actors would be so complexly thoughtful and creative as to make Kate Muldrun lightweight and carefree within her beloved, homey environment, only to later reveal unprecedented depth because of her genuine attachment to that homey environment. Her performances are of an unsurpassed consistency, she rarely does anything wrong. I wonder if it's conceivable for any of Streep's pictures to not seem diminished because of her presence... Anyway, Kate loves her home, and her affection for her "family life" is as endearing as her new conflict within the home is jarring. When all of this comes together, and Kate starts to recognize that she can no longer function in the same capacity, and she breaks the pie dish and screams out that she is not handicapped, it is painfully sad to watch because this has not been someone prone to emotion. Streep is smart enough and generous enough to recognize how much better everything works because she has felt out the dramatic validity of Kate and it's really the only scene when she allows her character to go. But how refreshingly true it is to see a character who can really surprise you by displaying something that you wouldn't have thought possible. Once again, Streep's character has at least three dimensions... God, this sounds like a thesis itself, but as an actress, Streep just has a special kind of intelligence, incredible empathy and great expressive skills. The movie itself is probably somewhat mediocre. I suppose William Hurt is meant to be an unlikeable jerk, and he does pompousness very well. I think Hurt is really kind of creepy, though. Script is quite standard - another tribute to Streep that she was as touching and believable as she was.

Sentiment: positive
Hobgoblins is a very cheap and badly done Gremlins rip-off. That's the best thing one can say about this stinkpile. Pretty much everyone in the cast was chosen for their looks and not their acting ability. It was very painful to watch.

Avoid this one at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
I've never actually seen this film but can tell you one thing about its production. While a comedy/oldies radio DJ in 1988, I got a call from the production company. They asked if I'd write and record a bit they'd drop into the soundtrack as sounds eminating from a TV (the television screen itself would never be shown). I said sure, wrote a parody of '50s sci-fi monster clichés, rounded up some sound effects and called in another DJ, Pam Landry, to play the female part. As she happened to be on the air at the time, she put on a long song, joined me at the mike in the production room and we cut the voicetrack in a single take. Giggling, she then went back to her show while I mixed in the goofy sound effects. We'd have never done it if we'd known that "Woodchipper Massacre" was going to be such a turkey -- but, then again, we never got paid for our efforts, either! -- Gary Theroux

Sentiment: negative
A blatant rip-off of "Air Bud", this movie is REALLY about parents worrying too much about parenting. All the foibles of the characters (eg; adult coaches who dont know the game) are taken to the extreme- so much so that they are totally unbelievable, not funny.

There is no semblance of reality here, folks and you'll not develop sympathy for ANY of the characters.

The best thing about the movie is the good looking kits (uniforms) of the opposing team in the first game the dog plays. Perhaps chosen because the setting is supposedly near Arlington Heights, IL, the home of the Columbus Crew's franchise player, Brian McBride.

Sentiment: negative
Am I the only one who thought the point of this film was the graphic violence? I knew nothing about Leigh Scott when I rented it, and would not have done so if I had known that most of his previous films were horror films. I am not into that at all, I was just expecting an informative docudrama of the 9/11 report.

Instead, I got an almost incomprehensible, violent movie. The only good thing about it for me, was that it made me want to read the report, to figure out what the heck this movie was about.

I wrote this because I am shocked that we have become so immune to violence in films and on TV, that it was not even worth commenting on by the bloggers whose reviews that I read.

Sentiment: negative
Billy Wilder is co-credited for the story, and his unsentimental touch is noticeable in this quite original tale of ghostwriting songwriters who both work for burnt-out music legend Oliver Courtney. The obvious misunderstandings are gotten out of the way quite quickly, thank heaven, and what remains is a witty and breezy concoction with some fine songs (and some more forgettable ones), Crosby at his most charming, a great turn by Broadway legend Mary Martin and Basil Rathbone and Oscar Levant providing most of the cynical barbs (Levant is in rare form and his quips haven't dated at all). A delightful surprise, and recommended for all fans of the genre.

Sentiment: positive
This was a pathetic movie. The Alien was decent, but the movie itself gave a new meaning to pitiful. The plot is something that's been done over and over again! However, this one does it the worst! The acting was c**p, the scenes were often too dark to get what was going on. No one developed any concern for the main character. The movie was far too slow paced, and the murder scenes that there were were foolishly crafted and ended up looking no more interesting than the rest of the movie. There are some movies which "suck" but can still be enjoyed because of there total outrageousness, but this doesn't even have that!! Whoever made this film thought that they could make something good and they failed miserably. There is nothing this movie has to offer except a headache. Avoid it!

Sentiment: negative
With some films it is really hard to tell for whom they were made. Huevos de oro seems to aim at the well educated Spanish middle class. There must be many inside jokes in this movie which you will not understand if you are an outsider. This can be pretty annoying.

Symbols and references to art and popular culture abound, the movie alludes to the work of Salvador Dalí, Luis Buñuel and the Surrealists in general, a certain infatuation with bidet baths seems to point to Duchamp's ready mades. What's more, the main character has also a knack for karaoke tapes with songs of Julio Iglesias. But why all this is mixed together in a rather pretty but also gratuitous way simply eludes me. I can only guess that it all serves to highlight the vital, impetuous, boorish vulgarity of the main character who the director seems to admire and despise at the same time. How all the really pretty women run after him (the main character, I mean) is slightly disconcerting.

The movie has three parts. It starts in the Spanish enclave of Melilla in Africa, where Benito, the main character, does his military service, apparently in the corps of engineers. Then it moves on to the resort town of Benidorm in Spanin where Benito just wants to build the highest skyscraper of the place and become a vulgarized Howard Roark. For the last part a defeated Benito moves to Miami, Florida, presumably in order to start a new life". But the change of places is not really explained satisfactorily. It is also somehow irritating that there is no character development and that the movie descends into a soap opera modus without being convincingly ironic. It must be said that Javier Bardem acquits himself very well playing the young stud who grows limp and deflated.

I purchased this movie because I am interested in townscapes. And Benidorm is a kind of a special place, townscapewise. In this aspect Huevos de oro satisfied me only partially. In Jess Franco's She Killed In Ecstasy (1970) this specific location was used in a more rewarding way.

Sentiment: negative
A great idea: 11 stories about 11 September. 11 directors from different countries with different results. Ken Loach talking about an immigrant (as usual) is just brilliant (as usual). The Frenchman does a very good job also, while the Burkina Faso film was a nice surprise. However, the Israel film was a bit boring, and the Mexican guy, well, he should quit directing and work in a Mexican restaurant. 8/10

Sentiment: positive
The Quick and the Undead is, finally, the first movie to actually render its own storyline null and void. It is, essentially, one gigantic plot hole.

Aside from that, the acting was quite bad, character motivations nonexistent or unbelievable and there wasn't a single character worth hanging our hat on. The most interesting cast member (who had great potential to be a dark horse protagonist) got snuffed halfway through the proceedings.

What the Quick and the Undead DOES serve as is an excellent example of how to do good color-timing. It looked excellent, when you take into account budget considerations.

Unfortunately, it plays out like a guy got his hands on a hundred grand and watched a few westerns (most notably The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) and then just threw a bunch of elements haphazardly into a movie... "you know, they have movies where characters do THIS! Does it fit here? No, but who cares! They do it in other movies so I should do it here!" 

Maybe a good view for burgeoning cinematographers and colorists (first-year film-schoolers). Otherwise, a must-miss.

Sentiment: negative
Even die hard John Wayne fans will have to concede that this film is a mess. Wayne's character, John Tobin is after the gang that killed his parents, led by half Apache, half white renegade Pandro Zanti (Earl Dwire), posing as a Mexican. 

There are almost too many silly plot points to count, but those that stand out include Sheriff Williams (Jack Rockwell) cuffing a captured Zanti around his boot, so all Zanti has to do to get free is remove his boot! Tobin's friend Dusty (George pre-Gabby Hayes) takes a thrown knife in the back, and comes back good as new for the rest of the story. In a chase scene, Tobin rides a makeshift log flume through a drainage trough surrounded by log walls in the middle of a desert, and missing his mark, chases (actually walks after) Zanti on foot through the desert. Zanti seeks relief and drinks from a pool of water, but OOPS!, he didn't see the sign above the waterhole that states "Don't Drink Poison". As Zanti collapses dead, Tobin resumes his chase after the remainder of the gang, and captures the whole lot by blowing up a rock wall that seals a secret passage into Dusty's cabin - how convenient.

In the closing scene, the new Sheriff Tobin is seen on the phone talking to the new Mrs. Tobin (Sheila Terry), Dusty's daughter Ruby, who earlier in the film was a kidnap target of Zanti's gang. Apparently, the studio was intent on Wayne's getting the girl in virtually every film they made with him, as this type of ending is completely predictable for almost all of Lone Star's films.

Sentiment: negative
Endless repetition about the evil World Bank, IMF, Globalization, and the Americans are blamed for all of Africa's problemsand the movie is long, about two hours, but it seems longer. The French actually occupied Mali, the country in which the movie takes place, for centuries, but are only peripheral bad guys.

One doesn't learn enough about any of the characters to really care what's happening to themthey are completely marginal to the preaching, which goes on and on and on. There's no plot, no character development, no humor (except for a few pokes at Bush and Wolfowitz, but that's almost cheating it's so easy) and the production values are mediocreno redemption there.

It is amazing that a movie can spend two hours preaching about such a big topic and convey utterly zero real information. The Irish ballad "I was dying, and then the famine came" has more content.

The movie is boring, the sub-titles are tough to read, there is no real content about the subject of the film, and the propaganda is relentless.

Skip this one.

Sentiment: negative
The last (I believe) of the movies The Boys made with Hal Roach, this is also the last truly funny film they made, before going to 20th century fox, which so famously misued their talents. Although there are weak moments - the business with the "lung tester", for instance, is a bit, ah ... overblown (but worth having, just to see "Dr." Jimmy Finlayson) - but on the whole this flick is a good summary of what the boys brought to the screen. Richard Cramer (uncredited) appeared in other L&H flicks, and he is delightfully threatening here as the convict Nick Granger. The scene where The Boys have to eat their own synthetic meal ("Looks good, smells good, and it probably tastes good. Eat it.") is one of my favorite moments in the oeuvre. Stan & Ollie will always be pleasant companions in the lives of their millions of devoted fans.

Sentiment: positive
I wasn't alive in the 60's, so I can't guarantee that this movie was a completely accurate representation of the period, but it is certainly a moving and fulfilling experience. There are some excellent performances, most notably by Josh Hamilton (of With Honors), Jerry O'Connell (Sliders), who play brothers divided by the war. Bill Smitrovich, a character actor who has been long ignored by many, gives a heart-filled performance as their strict father, who is forced to question his own beliefs and values as one of his sons makes him proud by going to Vietnam but returns empty inside, while the other is exactly the opposite. All in all, this is a powerful and heartwarming film that I hope everyone gets a chance to experience.

Sentiment: positive
Having just got the "Loony Tunes Golden Collection"(which i HIGHLY recommend, by the way), I'm going to try to comment on most if not all of the cartoons individually. As such the starting statement might seem redundant for those whom read multiple reviews of them, for this i apologize.

Rabbit Seasoning is the middle short in a trilogy of like-minded shorts (the other two being "Rabbit Fire" and "Duck! Rabbit, Duck). Bags and Daffy argue about who Elmer Fudd should short. It makes me laugh EVERY SINGLE TIME!!! On the DVD it has a commentary, featurette, & option to play it music only.

My Grade: A+

DVD Extras: Disk 1: an introduction by Chuck Jones; The Boy of Termite Terrice part 1; clips from the films "Two Guys from Texas" and "My Dream is Yours", both with Bugs cameos; Bridging sequences for an episode of "the Bugs Bunny show"; the Astro Nuts audio recording session; 2 vintage trailers; "Blooper Bunny: Bugs Bunny 51st and a half anniversary" with optional commentary with writer Greg Ford & stills gallery

Sentiment: positive
There are many film now on DVD, but producers had forgotten some tittles of importance to many moviegoers. The Egyptian, along with El Cid and other favorites of the era of the wide screen, big budget epics had merit. Many people from my generation learn a lot about history of Egypt, medieval Spain and even the Incas, (The first time I heard from them was a very cheap adventure movie with Charlton Heston called The Treasure of the Incas), same happened to me with Egypt, or Rome seen many "bad" epics of the era. many production values, excellent use of color (The De Luxe color was more Brigit and sharp that the ordinary Technicolor), maybe the cast was wrong but in any case, the film did manèged to give us idea of the life in ancient Egyptin and was in a way the motor to go out and buy the novel, my Mika Waltari, one of the best, if not the best historical-novel ever published. Also oust anding was the superb score by Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann. I saw this film many times when I was a boy, it was not the big box office hit that Fox studios wanted to afther The Robe enormous hit, in CinemaScope and Stereo was a wonderful eye popping sp4ectacle. I have the Lasser Disc version.m the only way to see Ito its wdisescreen format. Soon i Hope will appeared.

Sentiment: positive
This has got to be the worst horror movie I have EVER seen.

I hated it so much I wanted to come here and complain about how bad it was. Normally bad movies are no big deal, but something about this one if you hated it.. you really hate it.

If anyone liked this you probably enjoyed Baby Geniuses, I thought I could never find a movie that was worse then that one.. I guess not.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie on mystery science theater when it was called "It lives by night". That title is much less misleading than "Batpeople". In fact it would more accurately be called Batperson. This movie is about a doctor who studies bats I am thinking because he wants to make a better cure for rabies. This is not really clear. What is clear is that he and his wife take a tour of a cave and he gets bitten by a bat. Why a scientist needs to take a tour to study bats is beyond me. Shouldn't he be able to go in by himself. Well after being bitten he and his wife go on their honeymoon where he starts having fits. They go to the worst doctor ever. The guy stays in the hospital and kills a nurse. In the end the guy kills 3-4 people and his wife stands by him and you are supposed to be rooting for him instead of the sheriff investigating the murders.

Sentiment: negative
The phenomenon Helge Schneider defies easy description or quick categorization. Yet, for the international audience not acquainted to him, one could say he's something like a crude mix of Weird Al Yankovich and Andy Kaufman, adding a foible for Jazz music and 70s outfits. While his stage performances already are eccentric, his movie works are simply hilariously outrageous.

"00 Schneider" is, in my opinion, Helge's best movie. He stars in the two leading roles - police detective "Kommissar 00 Schneider" and murderer-villain "Nihil Baxter", and also in a precious smaller role as physician "Dr. Hasenbein".

In the opening scene, we see how modern-art-loving Baxter accidentally kills the circus clown Bratislav Metulskie, from whom he has bought a malfunctioning used Jaguar, when a beloved sculpture slips out of Baxter's hands, fatally hitting Metulskie. Upon reading about the incident in the newspaper, 00 comes back from retirement to investigate the case with the support of his loyal sidekick, Lt. Koerschgen, who is played by an elderly actor bearing the same name. They pick up Baxter's track quickly, and interrogate him at his weirdly decorated mansion (one of the movie's best scenes!), but initially fail to gather any proof. The story winds through many turns, with several scenes that don't always really contribute to the progress of the plot but are hilariously funny, such as a daydream by 00 (including the most unusual view on a running man's brief-clad crotch in movie history), a police-department party during which Koerschgen gets into a row with the chief and has to be hospitalized, and a visit at the already mentioned Dr. Hasenbein's. Baxter, then, is finally caught attempting to escape to Rio de Janeiro on a plane.

Always worth special mention is Andreas Kunze who in this case plays 00's wife, as he's usually appearing in drag performing women's roles in Helge's Movies.

So all you folks out there looking for new laughs, I strongly recommend this movie. The catch? You have to understand German (as I doubt there's an English version around)...

Sentiment: positive
NO SPOILERS.

I love horror movies, but this has got to be the poorest attempt to make one ever. Calling it "a movie" is also a stretch. This "random-clips-of-obviously-fake-and-tacky-violence-and-an-ugly- woman-trying-to-act-sexy-edited-poorly-together" is not worth watching.

Watching this is about as interesting watching as some random family's holiday pictures, and it has about the same quality you would expect when you send your ten year old son into the woods with your new vid-cam, and tell him to make a movie.

Terrible.

Sentiment: negative
I've often wondered just how much CASPER was meant for children...with all the issues revolving around his identity (in this film we are lead to believe that he is the spirit of a dead child, as his home is a cemetery plot), as well as the disturbing message brought by this particular film. Maybe Casper was meant more as a morality play, or Famous Studios felt like breaking new ground in 'reality' cartoons.

THERE'S GOOD BOOS TONIGHT is a well-animated project-no doubt there. But, the plot development involving the fox (who becomes Casper's friend, but meets a tragic end) is a concern.

Give Famous Studios credit--they tackle death with respect...but, the stark image of Casper's mourning is rather graphic and disturbing for children (though the denouement does offer a happy ending, but I won't give away the ending), and the violence is rather steep, even for 1940's standards.

This might be a good cartoon for parents to use in helping explain death to children--but I wouldn't pop it into the VCR for a perky cartoon break.

Sentiment: positive
As Roger Corman has said in an interview, low-budget film-making enables film-makers to take chances on offbeat ideas. Well, you'd be hard pressed to find a film that thrives on the offbeat as mightily as George Barry's "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats".

The film does have a back story to it, and it's an interesting one at that. I'll forgo relaying any sort of details so you can hear them for yourself if you take a chance on watching it. Suffice it to say, the title item of furniture has an insatiable hunger, consuming the unwary with a bubbling yellow foam that dissolves its victims like acid.

"Death Bed" is an eerie, haunting little flick that plays out its absurd premise in such a way that it transcends the usual assortment of schlock fare. It occupies its particular dream world in such a way that it was possible for me to take it seriously. It's a truly strange and unconventional horror flick. It dabbles in exploitative ingredients - there's some tasty dollops of female nudity - and yet is also art, albeit art with a completely skewed sensibility.

The special effects are not too bad for a film with a microscopic budget, and Barry gives the film a good and atmospheric "midnight movie" quality. The acting from the cast is as uninspired as one could imagine, although Patrick Spence-Thomas lends a reasonable amount of gravitas as the artist / narrator, and one definite point of interest is seeing one familiar face on hand: future 'Boy Meets World' father William Russ!

This film might not have even found the small cult following that it does have were it not for pirated copies making the rounds; this certainly has to rank as one of the instances where such a practice ultimately ended up helping the film - even if the exposure took years to take hold.

If you have a taste for truly bizarre obscure items, "Death Bed" may be just what you've got in mind.

7/10

Sentiment: positive
The original story had all the ingredients to make a thoroughly gripping Film. But failed miserably in this version as even Cherie Lunghi was a pale imitation of what she was to become - so much so that I suspected that she must turn out to be an accomplice right to the end. Sherlock Holmes was turned into a warrior quite unlike anything every suggested by Sir Arthur Conn Doyle ? In fact it was Doctor Watson who showed what little common sense that was going. The boot blacked midget from the Andoman islands looked as though he could not fight his way out of a paper bag and what the villain was doing taking tea in Baker Street for a denouement was beyond anything that the old Scotland Yard could ever have dreamed up. So consign this TV Film to their Black Museum please.

Sentiment: negative
This is an excellent film, full of complexity, themes and great dialogue. The characters are well drawn, with Phil the biggest loser of all time.

Adam Haddrick's character is the most vicious thing I've seen on screen since Alec Guinness's portrayal of Adolf Hitler in 'Hitler: The Last Ten Days.'

I just wish they'd all got away with it. But without giving too much away, there are some situations you just cannot lie your way out of.

Sentiment: positive
The film gets my stamp of approval. The scene in the museum demands acting without dialogue. This is one of the most interesting and unique scenes in the history of film. Dickinson's character Kate is very well developed and her performance is felt throughout the entire film. The best work Angie Dickinson did since Point Blank!

Sentiment: positive
I could have liked this if I didn't like Diane Arbus.

Didn't really capture Arbus unique visual aesthetic(as Stanley Kubrick did in "The Shinning", with the twin girls in the hallway, a direct homage to one of Arbus most famous photos, and one with haunting qualities none of this movies images have), and certainly none of her character(outgoing), likeness(thin and Jewish, not wasp Queen Kidman), or life, save some very superficial similarities, she was a fashion who later photographed "freaks" and "outsiders", among many things. This film focused on the "freak", as her symbol for artistic and personal empowerment, in a really shallow and predictable fashion. Outside of that, it might have been an interesting movie about middle class fetish, but I was too annoyed to care.

Perhaps if Arbus name had been left off, this might have been less annoying, but had it not had her name in the title there would have been nothing to make me interested in seeing in this in the first place. A letdown from "Secretary".

Sentiment: negative
Pre-adolescent humor is present in large quantities. The acting and story are wonderful if you can stomach the concept. Those with weak constitutions will have some difficulty since the "worms" are realistic enough to cause churning of more than a few in the audience.

Tom Cavanagh and Hallie Kate Eisenberg stole the spotlight, but the young Ty Panitz could get some serious time on screen over the next few years.

Miss Eisenberg has developed from a cute face into a strong young actress with charm and wonderful comic delivery. 

The story does a spectacular job in dealing with bullying, friendship, and fairness. It creates an opportunity to discuss these topics in an open and frank manner while recalling some "gross" scene from the film.

Sentiment: positive
This movie explores the difficulties that strain hopes, dreams, love and friendship, and incorporates humour beautifully. Along with a stunning cast and brilliant filming, the sound track enhances and amplifies the atmosphere and mood of this work of art. All actors and actresses give an extremely good performance, surpassing expectation in every way. Parminder Nagra is brought on to the big screen for the first time in this film, and she is exceptional, capturing the vividness and vitality that this movie is all about. Keira Knightly also works well with her co-stars, and this is her best work so far.

All in all, this is brilliant film, and one that everyone should make the effort to see at least once.

Sentiment: positive
Tarzan and Jane are living happily in the jungle. Some men come looking for ivory and to take Jane back to civilization. But Jane loves Tarzan and refuses to leave. One of the men falls in love with Jane and is determined to take her back...even if that means killing Tarzan.

This is a rarity--a sequel that's better than the original. "Tarzan, the Ape Man" of 1932 was good but had some dreadful special effects and sort of dragged. This one has MUCH better effects and is a lot more adult. There is tons of blatant racism (a black man is shot to death point blank--and no one really cares) but this was 1934. There's also plenty of blood, gore and violence (for a 1934 movie) and uncut prints have Jane doing a lengthy underwater swim totally nude! There's also obvious sexual content and Tarzan and Jane are wearing next to nothing and (it's implied) they sleep together and have sex--without being married. This wouldn't bother anyone today but in 1934 this was pretty extreme.

That aside, the movie is well-directed, very fast-moving and full of adventure and excitement. Seeing Weissmuller in that skimpy lion cloth is certainly a treat for the eyes and Jane's outfit is pretty revealing too. I still think Maureen O'Sullivan is bad as Jane but Weismuller is perfect as Tarzan. Everybody else is OK.

This is easily the best Weismuller--O'Hara Tarzan out there. WELL worth seeing but not for kids!

Sentiment: positive
To me, this review may contain spoilers, but I like watching movies with NO idea of what is going to happen, so therefore I think many of the other reviews here of this movie contain spoilers!

I just watched this movie again, and I must reiterate that it has the BEST ending to any movie. Ever. Ever. Ever. The real translation, 'The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings', is oddly not used as the translated title. I suppose they thought most Americans wouldn't know what Chaos Theory is (except for those who saw or read "Jurassic Park"). The movie is based on chaos theory, and how one small event can affect the outcome of seemingly unrelated events, which all lead back to one event. The movie is a whirlwind of wondrous cause and effect, as we follow the chain of chaos as it intertwines between several characters (about 20?). In a way, the ending seems inevitable despite this, but if you think about it, it is a perfect ending. Think to yourself, "what else needed to be said"? It is at the same time a very brave ending. Too bad we have to go overseas for a gem like this one, but an ending like this would NEVER come out of Hollywood.



Sentiment: positive
This is a smart drama about the way of life in a Texas honky tonk in the early 1980's. John Travolta and Debra Winger turn out two very believable performances as Bud and Sissy Davis. This film really opens up the country music scene and helped introduce America to the mechanical bull. If you love a good romance film, then you will love this movie.

Sentiment: positive
I have a feeling that Dr. Dolittle was intended for an audience composed entirely of children. I think I would have had a better time if I sat at home and watched a sit-com. My favorite characters in the movie were the pet hamster and the two alley mice.

Sentiment: negative
I have never read the Bradbury novel that this movie is based on but from what I've gathered, it will be interesting (when I finally do read it and I will). My comments will be based purely on the film. As soon as I saw the trailer I knew I had to see it and was so excited but when I finally did, I was so disappointed it hurt. This is because the movie itself felt so amateurish. The actors were not well cast (though Robards and Pryce are both good actors - just not here). The kid actors, it seemed, were merely asked to show up, get in the characters' clothes, say the lines and make the faces. The set and props were cheap and unrealistic. The direction was surprisingly bad. I was so surprised at the awfulness of it that I had to go online and check who directed it, just to see the kind of work he had done. The editing was cut and paste and the plot (screenplay) was just that as well (even though the author had been involved himself, irony?). The building up of the tension, fear and suspense was so mild it was ineffective when the climax finally came.

I've read some of the comments on this movie and find it hard to believe people actually like it. What hurts the most is that the content is interesting and fun and intriguing. It had so much potential. Unfortunately, the film was so technically bad it takes away from the brilliance of the story.

Sentiment: negative
We just saw this movie in Austin Texas at the Alamo South Lamar yesterday afternoon. It had me laughing out loud many times! The scene about Albert Einstein's thoughts on humanity hit me over and over and I couldn't stop laughing. It's too bad it's not in more theaters, I know a lot of friends that are dieing to see this movie! "Welcome to Costco, I love you." ... great work to all involved! Also, if you see it, make sure to stay until the end of the credits as well! I'm going to take my family to see it again this weekend for sure! If you're a fan of OFFICE SPACE and BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD then you have to go see this movie. It's a classic and no one knows that it's out! So if you're in the mood to see something funny this weekend, definitely check it out.

Sentiment: positive
I'm not much for "cop" movies, but this one is supposedly a classic & when I found it cheap I bought it and stuck it on a shelf, only to finally get around to watching it yesterday, and I LIKED it! Now, you can have New York City, but as a setting for a film like this, in the winter months, it's perfect. Roy Scheider is a member of an elite police task group called The Seven Ups, which are 5 guys that fight crime undercover. In an opening scene they recover a shoebox full of money from an antique store by distracting the crooks with a "bull in a china shop" routine. But that's only the beginning. Seems that there are two guys, posing as cops, that are kidnapping mob types and holding them for ransom. Richard Lynch happens to be one of these sleaze-bags, and he's as creepy as ever. When one of the Seven Ups, who is posing as a limo driver at a funeral, gets his cover blown, he's beaten and stuffed into the trunk of a car, which then leads to perhaps one of the most exciting car chases I've seen. Amazing though, how light traffic in NYC is for chase scenes, but still this is rather amazing as Scheider follows the two kidnappers through what I'm guessing is the Bronx and then onto a turnpike and then eventually, Scheider's car comes to a screeching halt in one of the most heart-stopping finales to a chase scene that I've ever witnessed. Anyway, since the cop ends up dying, Scheider and his men are under suspicion because the police commissioner knows so little about their activities he wonders if THEY'RE on the make by kidnapping mobsters, so of course this kind of thinking needs to be nipped in the bud & Scheider is relentless getting to the bottom of things. Overall a decent cop action/drama, not really my thing but I liked this one. Look for Joe Spinell (Maniac) in a small role. 7 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
This isn't the comedic Robin Williams, nor is it the quirky/insane Robin Williams of recent thriller fame. This is a hybrid of the classic drama without over-dramatization, mixed with Robin's new love of the thriller. But this isn't a thriller, per se. This is more a mystery/suspense vehicle through which Williams attempts to locate a sick boy and his keeper.

Also starring Sandra Oh and Rory Culkin, this Suspense Drama plays pretty much like a news report, until William's character gets close to achieving his goal.

I must say that I was highly entertained, though this movie fails to teach, guide, inspect, or amuse. It felt more like I was watching a guy (Williams), as he was actually performing the actions, from a third person perspective. In other words, it felt real, and I was able to subscribe to the premise of the story.

All in all, it's worth a watch, though it's definitely not Friday/Saturday night fare.

It rates a 7.7/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Sentiment: positive
this is one of the more poorly made movies I've ever seen. One has to take anything by Truffaut seriously; it's not just some B-movie cranked out by hacks.

evidently Truffaut couldn't decide whether he was making a noir or a sentimental chick flick. and neither could Deneuve, whose dozen (?) character flip-flops are simply unbelievable -- not even badly acted; just not acted at all. Among other things, how a woman as beautiful as Deneuve could be a person such as Julie/Marion is simply beyond anyone's ability to suspend disbelief; the role absolutely demands someone not so beautiful. Belmondo's acting also suffers although imho his character is not quite as unbelievable as Deneuve's. The cliché ending (which I won't describe) is unfortunately all too appropriate for this complete mistake.

Sentiment: negative
Can we say retarded? This girl has no talent what so ever, nothing but complete garbage. You people are just marking 10 stars because you know most people hate this pathetic woman, if its such a "great" show then why did it get canceled after 6 measly episodes? exactly. People that support her, please seek help you do NOT know what is funny. Her stand up comedy is just so stupid, seriously how do you find this trash funny? The show tries to poke fun at stereo types and other things that are not funny at all. Carlos Mencia is funny and to that stupid poster, he actually has fans and his show is on the air so I'm sorry your a redneck who doesen't get his jokes. Please give me my 20 minutes of my life back.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is S-L-O-W. Spent most of the movie actually waiting for it to 'begin'.

The setting was bleak, the script was bleak, the cinematography was bleak, the plot was bleak, the budget was low (not that all low budget movies are bad, but this one had no redeeming features).

The plot was more consumed with a vengeful, slightly deranged hunter than the actual Wendigo which made a very brief appearance toward the end of the movie. This in itself was disappointing as this 'Wendigo' was just a bizarre mix of a tree and a stag. Everything about the movie was uninspiring.

The parents of the little boy appeared to be rather aloof and at times seemed completely detached from their son. Whether this was down to bad acting or a bad script I'm not sure, but it only heightened my disappointment and boredom levels.

There was no food for thought, nothing to pique an interest. With no real intrigue or chill factor, this movie creaked along so painfully, you just couldn't care less what happened by the end.

Wendigo's ambiance reminds me of the dull movie shown at the awards ceremony toward the end of 'Mr Bean's Holiday': a movie which is artistic and nonsensical, trying too hard to to be deep and meaningful, but coming across as pretentious and boring.

I would never want to watch this again. I only watched it to the end in the vain hope that something interesting might happen ... but it didn't.

Sentiment: negative
Deathtrap runs like a play within a movie about who did what to whom, as it primarily takes place on one set. The premise is that an accomplished playwright, whose star is falling, receives a magnificent manuscript from a former student and so he plans to off his protege and appropriate his play, to the (loud) protests of his wife. Or so you think, for the first half of the movie. Past the halfway mark, Deathtrap begins to throw in twists and surprises that turn its premise on its head, then right around, and then in a mad spin, all the time keeping its title appropriate. It's an excellent mystery movie soaked in wit. 

Michael Caine, as the senior playwright, plays himself in this movie - a slightly loony and very dramatic Brit. No surprises here - he does his usual good work. He gets the best line of Deathtrap, which he executes perfectly: "What is your definition of success, being gang-banged in a state penitentiary?" 

Christopher Reeve, on the other hand, juggles comedy and drama in a surprisingly strong performance playing the ambitious (and psychopathic) young playwright. He also gets to show off his very toned body, which he must've retained coming off the Superman movies. 

Caine and Reeve have collaborated in another movie that's one of my favorite comedies - Noises Off. It similarly revolves around a play as well, although this time Caine is the director and Reeve is an actor. They are joined by comic veterans Carol Burnett, John Ritter, Marilu Henner (Taxi) and Mark Linn-Baker (Perfect Strangers). Together, they demonstrate the calamities that befall the bed-hopping cast and crew of a play. On the surface, the movie looks to be mostly slapstick but upon watching you find that they are many subtle jokes that require more than one viewing to catch. Wish this underrated movie was available on DVD.

Sentiment: positive