DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This film is totally unbelievable. The only way a girl would perform this act on a dog is if she had serious mental health issues or had a long history of sexual abuse or was under duress. Yet we are asked to believe that an otherwise 'normal' healthy female just got a bit bored and 'made a little mistake' and oops had a sexual encounter with a dog. What's more it never had any detrimental affect on her ever again except when she tells someone.

Not she was raped by a dog or the dog did something she couldn't resist - she actively initiated oral sex and completed this activity with a pet dog of her own choice. She wasn't on drugs or anything she just 'felt like it'.

The rest of the film seeks to put this action in a light of 'hey it could happen to anyone she's only being honest'.

But really for this to be believed we have to believe that this is a woman who is capable of doing absolutely ANYTHING if she 'just feels like it'. Think about it - could she have considered the rights and wrongs of this action before carrying it out? If she had she would have stopped in her tracks. Human beings have instinctive boundaries for reasons. If we are now to start considering bestiality as a 'cute' little aberration, what is next? Child abuse? Yet the 'heroine' is portrayed as a hard done by, nice girl who had one moment of aberration. If she had been forced to carry out this act by an abuser - the story might have made more sense and I would have been able to accept the storyline. But there is no way that anyone carries out the prolonged activity required and referred to even once - if there is not some deep, disturbance that requires a great deal of psychiatric help. This is NO WAY a one off happening in an otherwise perfect life.

I know this is just a film, but it is through normalising behaviour such as this via the media that society becomes desensitised and more and more awful realities become possible.

I could imagine an abuser showing this to a child to persuade them that it isn't such a big deal and then moving on with their agenda. It could also be used by an abuser to underline to a child not to tell about the abuse - because look how people will react to you if you do.

This is not about truth. The director WANTS people to think it's about truth. This is about degradation and how easily people (the viewing public)can be manipulated into accepting the most appalling concepts if wrapped up in the right way. The watching public are being manipulated, degraded and laughed at.

This is a film in which the actors and the viewers are being humiliated and made fools of in a very sophisticated way by a clever but extremely disturbed film writer.

This film appears to me to be being used as a vehicle for the creator of the film to get off on the excitement of playing with your mind in an abusive manner. I don't know whether it is conscious on their part - but it is the most classic example of Mind F***k that I have ever encountered.

I hope that this doesn't offend anyone too much. But if you watched this film - I don't think there is any room left to be offended by anything any more.

Sentiment: negative
I see alot of movies at the cinema (103 so far this year) and I have to say that this is by far and away the best film I have seen this year, even though it was released back in 1954!

I sat in awe and watched this work of genius and felt quite ashamed that I had never even heard of it before my local art house cinema decided to show it for a week on what looked like a new print. 

The best part of the whole movie has to be the 28 minute break in where there is no speech and no music, merely the sound of the men carrying out the heist. Pure quality. 

Although really dark in places it is lightened with the dry humour.

Not many films score 10 out of 10 but this does and also gets a gold star for effort!! 

If you ever get a chance to see this movie, please do not hesitate, it's a classic. 



Sentiment: positive
It's hard to write 10 lines of copy about this so-so film noir. There just isn't a lot to say about it. It is not memorable enough to add to your collection, and I have a considerable amount of noirs.

Paul Henreid plays a tough guy in here. He's not one I would think of to play this kind of role, but he's fine with it. He's a fine actor, anyway.

Everything, including the cinematography, is okay-but-not memorable. One thing that stood out: the abrupt ending. That was a surprise. It was also a surprise to see this under the heading "Hollow Triumph." I've never seen the film called that. It's always been called "Scar."

If you read about a "tense film noir," etc., don't believe it. "Tense" is not an accurate adjective for this film.

Sentiment: negative
Every Christmas eve I make my kids endure yet another showing of It's A Wonderful Life. I also thoroughly enjoyed Bad Santa. So sue me. I admit it. I like cheesy, schmaltzy movies. I like excellent, intelligent ones too, but as with so many things, variety is a good thing. What would the Christmas season be without the annual cinematic ka-ching ka-ching of Santa in all his guises, from Edmund Gwenn to Billy Bob Thornton? Fred Claus will make no one forget Bedford Falls, but I do not believe a Christmas film should have to reach iconic stature to succeed. "Fred" is a perfectly OK holiday movie, with enough humor for the adults and sufficient charm for the kids. My wife and I laughed a lot, even if most of the humor was obvious and Vince was just being Vince. Paul Giamatti was a top-notch Santa, which helped a lot. Not a great flick, and unlikely to become must-viewing for anyone's annual Christmas traditions. But my wife and daughter and I enjoyed it for what it was, holiday schmaltz with a small dash of spice. There's nothing wrong with that.

Sentiment: negative
This is a true "80's movie": Back then they made maybe 100 times more movies than nowadays, and that makes many of them quite interesting... It was a cultural phenomenon, that don't exist anymore. Nowadays maybe the same kind of people that would have made cheap "straight-to-video"-movies in the eighties, are doing cheap porn. Porn seems to sell. Anyway, this is above the medium trash-movie level: It has good&fascinating story, and it's quite well made I think. In one scene you can even see the microphone swinging on the upper edge of the picture. Of course there are also little cameos by Ozzy and Gene Simmons, but they don't very much contribute to the film "success", although they are good in their small roles. The monster,heavy-singer "Sammi Curr", looks really terrible, especially when he's singing. One of the scariest monsters I've seen in horror flicks. I may have nightmares of him next night. Not recommended for intellectual movie lovers.

Sentiment: positive
A handful of nonprofessional actors are terrorized by a prehistoric creature. This creature appears in about thirty seconds of marginal stop-motion animation, but oh how you will long for that margin when for the rest of the movie the animation is replaced by production assistants waving around an inner tube with teeth. No time for terror when this movie is hijacked halfway through by these comic relief boat rental doofuses, who suddenly become the lead characters; but again you gotta admit watching them try to be funny is better than plodding around after the sheriff. Only at the end one of them gets eaten and the other one is left sitting on a rock crying tears of loneliness - that's no fun!

Sentiment: negative
A stupid young man becomes obsessed with a woman--so obsessed that he loses perspective and common sense. An evil magician approaches him and informs him he can give him great wealth that he can use to win the lady's heart IF he agrees to give him anything he wants that's within their room. The dumb guy agrees and the magician steals the man's reflection out of the mirror--and bad things naturally occur as a result.

If this film had been made just a decade later, I am sure I wouldn't have been so charitable in reviewing and scoring this film. After all, the film's plot is a bit vague in spots and the acting is, at times, a bit stilted. However, when you consider that in 1913 "full-length" films were rare--and often only 20 to 30 minutes long! Plus, the whole idea of a complex story like you get in this film is very unusual--as stories were very short and broadly acted. So, given the limitations of the time, this film is pretty good and is one of the earlier horror films known.

Sentiment: positive
Although Misty Ayers (burlesque stripper) is certainly attractive as the blonde lead, this flick is just an excuse to let her strip down to her underwear a few times (no nudity in 1954 when this film was made; not 1965).

The guy who hires her to work in a whorehouse resembles Bud Abbott of Abbott & Costello. Most of the other woman are unattractive, and the drunken woman is semi-amusing in a creepy way.

A 2 out of 10. Ms. Ayers has a curvacious physique, but you can't judge any acting talent because the ENTIRE film is post-dubbed. Some of these "exploitation films", usually made later than this one, are interesting in some way, but this is really a bore fest. Sid Melton (MAKE ROOM FOR DADDY) directed. There are some Samurai-like facial expressions and interesting apartments, but there's really NOTHING here.

Sentiment: negative
I am a German student so sorry for eventually mistakes (I'm working on it ;) )

The stylistic very interesting converted and with effective sound effects accentuated platitudinous action of the drama deflect in no way from the horrible bad actors (insincere and unnatural moves and expressions of feelings) and makes so the relatively weird and senseless story less better. Just the typical slasher-genre with in this case very odd action. Many by-plays destroy partly the main story and let the viewers up to the end into the dark, create weirdness and let surmise the senses of actions and the point mere hazily. For sure its an hit for slasher-fans but not for me. But although the interesting style of cinematography and adeptly use of light is turned out well.

So not the best one...

Sentiment: negative
Generally I don't like films directed by Sydney Pollack ("The Firm" being somewhat of an exception) and I've never been a Robert Redford fan either. Still, I thought "Three Days of the Condor" must be good because of the number of praising comments it has received.

Although the widescreen cinematography is quite pleasing for the eye and Max von Sydow does a nice job as the sinister professional killer, I found the whole affair tremendously disappointing. The film undeniably radiates paranoid atmosphere, but everything is ruined by the muddled plot which doesn't seem to make any sense.

The film also contains one of the most unsatisfying endings I have ever seen which really leaves the viewer hanging in the air. And what can one say about that absurd romance between Redford and Dunaway? I'd much rather watch any of Hitchcock's films five times in succession than to sit through this piece of waste once more.

Sentiment: negative
There's no denying the first Azumi film was a commercial product; it was an adaptation of a popular manga and had cast of young, attractive actors and certainly wasn't lacking in the budget department. Yet it more than entertained for what it was, and I can't deny I enjoyed it immensely.

"Azumi 2" lacks just about everything that made the original so wonderful. The first thing that should set alarm bells ringing is the absence of the superb Ryuhei Kitamura at the helm. With him, he seemed to take not only his own visual flair and kinetics, but the originals style, beauty and most importantly, its heart. While the first had a simple "hitlist" plot, this one has a corkscrew mess of a story, with too many dull characters stabbing each other in the back so many times the potential for any sympathy or pathos is obliterated. Gone is the effective interplay between the lead characters; Azumi and her cohorts are often reduced to a bunch of stroppy teenagers arguing in a forest. Characterisation is non existent; if anyone watching actually cares who lives and who dies, I'll be shocked. The same applies to the villains here. The final battle - in fact all the battles - are completely devoid of any sort of tension. The fact that they are poorly choreographed and abysmally directed - not to mention few and far between - is made a sideline by their own sheer pointlessness. The villains themselves try far too hard to be campy, and even if they were all combined, they don't come within a country mile of the Pete Burnsian antics of Jo Odagiri in the original.

####Major Spoiler at end of paragraph!##### 

Aya Ueto tries her best it has to be said, and she also managed to keep her hair in good condition between the films. Azumi is now a fully fledged assassin, meaning she can wave her sword around in slow motion; unfortunately, now the character is instilled with a sort of Man With No Name style mysteriousness, Ueto's model looks become even more inappropriate. I know this is supposed to be the point, but this combined with the ineffectiveness of everyone else in the film, the stupidity of the plot and the general ineptness of the film in general means it is downright impossible to get behind her character this time around. The less said about Chiaki "Remember me from Kill Bill" Kuriyama's performance the better; it suffices to say her "turn" from good to evil is about as subtle as napalm.

Overall, this was just a colossal disappointment. Any merits is does have were done ten times better in the first film. A lazy, unsatisfying - and generally downright boring - mess.

Sentiment: negative
With the advent of the IMDb, this overlooked movie can now find an interested audience. Why? Because users here who do a search on two-time Academy Award winner Glenda Jackson can find 'The Return of The Soldier' among her credits. So can those checking out Oscar winner Julie Christie. Fans of Ann-Margret can give the title a click, as will those looking into the career of the great Alan Bates. Not to mention the added bonus of a movie with supporting heavyweights Ian Holm and Frank Finlay. Any movie with so many notables in it is rewarded by the IMDb, given all the cross-referencing that goes on here. So, why isn't this movie out on DVD? Don't the Producers realize the Internet Movie Database is a marketing gift for such a film? And 'The Return of The Soldier' is definitely a gem waiting to be discovered. Get with it, people.

Sentiment: positive
This outlandish Troma movie is actually a very good movie. It is known as their epic and best and most highly rated production. Their version of Shakespeare's play is extremely funny with the usual dose of Troma nudity and gore. Troma has made some very good gore films, one of my favorites is "Street Trash" and of course the Toxic Avenger movies. I have one Troma movie, "Terror Firmer", which has a reputation as their goriest and nastiest movie. I enjoyed "Tromeo and Juliet" so much, that I need to finally watch "Terror Firmer". This is a 2-disc Collector's version with four commentaries and many many features. "Tromeo and Juliet" is an absolute hoot and highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
If you have any kind of heart and compassion for people, this is a tough movie to watch, at least in the second half of it. 

It's in that segment where we see nice little kid get beaten up and then a retarded (mentally- challenged) man go off the deep end after he witnesses this brutal act against the child. It's not pleasant material.

However, it's a good movie and the acting is good, too. The story will sit with you awhile.

"Dominick" is the mentally-disabled guy and is played by Tom Hulce. I think this might be Hulce's best role ever. He's looked after by a med student, "Eugene," played by Ray Liotta, who became a star the following year with Kevin Costner's "Field Of Dreams."

Dominick is a goodhearted garbage man who reads "Hulk" comic books and loves wrestling. He's the type of "slow" guy that you can't help but love and root for to live a happy life. When he freaks out, it's for several good reasons and...well, see the film for the whole story. It's worth your time but be prepared to go on real emotional roller coaster and possibly be very upset at some things you see.

Sentiment: positive
The Lone Ranger & Tonto set out to bring to justice a band of hooded raiders who have killed three Indians for what appears at first to be no apparent reason..that is until the Lone Ranger discovers from a conversation with the Indian Chief Tomache that each man possessed a medallion. The five medallions given by Tomache to his friends as gifts we later learn when combined will provide the mastermind behind the hooded raiders with a map to a legendary lost city of gold. Can the Lone Ranger protect the remaining two individuals in possession of the medallions before the hooded raiders get their hands on it? Is there really a lost city of gold somewhere upon native land? 

Watching this, I kept knowing what was going to happen beforehand and everything seemed really familiar until eventually I realized I had seen this exact same movie when I was but a little kid..suddenly the memories flooded back and I remembered having quite a fun time as a child enjoying this one with a bunch of my friends. As an adult though, the plot is somewhat predictable but you know this, while not quite in the same league as the 1956 film, remains a lot of fun to watch. Clayton Moore is perfect as the Lone Ranger and Jay Silverwheels as Tonto steals a lot of this movie as he's probably in more action scenes than even the Lone Ranger. There's some very familiar faces on hand here including Douglas Kennedy as Ross Brady, headman of the Hooded Raiders gang, Charles Watts as a bigoted Sheriff, and Ralph Moody as a kindly Padre.

Sentiment: positive
This ludicrous and inept film is certainly the most misguided version of "Hamlet" to ever reach the screen. Branagh's approach to the material can only be described as vulgar; going to such lengths as depicting Ophelia in a straight jacket, having Fortinbras' army appear suddenly on the horizon (looking very much like the climax of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail") when the palace is apparently guarded only by Francisco (who shouts the very un-Shakespearean cry of "ataaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack" before being gunned down), and multitudes of star cameos that harken back to the days of Jimmy Cagney's Bottom and Mary Pickford's Kate.

Branagh chose to set his film in an Edwardian setting but at the same time decided to employ an almost uncut text, so that frequently the dialogue that is firmly rooted in Elizabethan mentality makes no sense in the context that it is being performed. And Branagh does not concern himself with such textural subtleties as the ambiguous nature of Hamlet and Olphelia's relationship, treating the audience to a vulgar nude sex scene between the couple that tosses any ambiguity right out the stained glass window.

The uncut text does allow Branagh to indulge in his favorite cinematic pastime: more footage of Kenneth Branagh. This is never so apparent as in the "How All Occasions Inform Against Me" speech that ends the first half of the nineteen hour film (at least that's how it feels), which attempts to play to a dramatic crescendo along the lines of Gone With The Wind's "I'll never be hungry again." This may serve Branagh's ego, but it does not serve Shakespeare or the speech: when I saw the film in the theater, I leaned over to my companion and snickered "Great Moments With Mr. Hamlet." Branagh saves the funniest and most tasteless moment for last, when he attempts to out-do the Olivier film and its justly celebrated death of Claudius by having Hamlet jump from off a high tower onto the monarch, impaling him with a sword. Branagh's Dane does in the king by heroically throwing an apparently magic rapier from across the palace to run through Claudius' heart with a super hero's bulls eye. The only thing that saved the moment from being unbearably maddening was that it was so off-the-wall funny.

While this film has been praised in some quarters as a serious depiction of the tragedy, it is in fact nothing but a star-studded display of a once-talented filmmaker being overtaken by his own narcissism. The Emperor has no clothes, and this Hamlet has nothing to offer but a few unintended laughs and the appalling sight of one man's ego out of control.

Sentiment: negative
I saw the movie in the theater at its release, then watched the VHS tape over the years, and while strolling through Target saw this DVD bundled with "Pushing Tin" for the exorbitant sum of $5.50.

There is something about this comedy that has really clicked with me - how Kelsey Grammar, "with a tattoo on his thing", is an unorthodox commander who inherits a rusty diesel sub and a crew of screwballs and misfits. He's up against the Navy's best - a Los Angeles Class nuclear attack sub - and his old captain (Wm Macy).

Bruce Dern plays the bad guy, Rip Torn the admiral running the exercise - If you don't laugh hysterically during the "run silent" segment with the cook, well, you have a different kind of humor from me.

Towards the end the machinist says "D.B.F." with no explanation - it is apparently some inside knowledge gotten from an old submariner consultant - thanks to Google I learned that with the advent of the nuclear subs the old salts would wear "DBF" pins - Diesel Boats Forever. 

A Navy friend said that many of the technical aspects aren't correct but who cares - it is one of the funniest movies I've seen.

I don't think it takes a clairvoyant to know who will win in this exercise!

Sentiment: positive
I so wanted to believe in this movie after the only form of mainstream comedy this country recognises is slapstick and stereotypes.

Of course, it went completely the other way - let's be cool and edgy - and came out the other side with little to show for it. I bet One Small Seed went nuts for this. I know SL did.

None of the main characters have the comedic chops to pull it off. Even Danny K had better timing. I'm actually being serious. Every time they introduced a bit character I kept thinking, "Darn, this person should have been the lead!".

Independent doesn't mean that the camera work needs to be horrible. Black and white did nothing for this movie - actually with such flat dialogue it hurt this even more by bringing the boredom into sharp relief. The black and white also wasn't crisp. The composition was horrible. The use of music was horrible. Strangely enough I watched Little Miss Sunshine after this movie and the composition on that was superb - maybe that's why the deficiencies in this movie stick out in my mind.

I think Corne (who was funnier than the leads before he even said anything) was speaking to this movie and not David - see it and you'll understand. I bet the guys who organise Oppikoppi were dismayed. One would think nothing happens there at all. I got the feeling it could have been filmed in someone's back garden. I know regular guys who have much funnier, raunchier and wittier conversations than any of these "comics". The dude who they hooked up with end was OK though.

Guess SA comedy's gonna stay in the stone age a little longer. Nice work guys.

Sentiment: negative
Just when you think that you've seen the worst the zombie sub-genre can offer, along comes another budding Romero and his team of no-talent mates to prove you wrong.

I've suffered the Zombie Bloodbath trilogy, endured Death Valley: The Revenge of Bloody Bill, sat semi-comatose through The Zombie Diaries, and laughed hysterically during Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence, and genuinely thought that amateur movie-making could sink no lower. However, having just watched Zombie Planet, a two hour long festering pile of drivel from writer/director George Bonilla, I think I have found the ultimate in awful zombie movies.

In this dreadfully amateurish effort, which is part Mad Max and part Dawn of the Dead (but ALL bad), Frank Farhat stars as T. K. Kane, a tough fighter who kicks zombie ass for a hobby, armed only with knives, a machete, some concussion grenades, and what he obviously perceives to be a really mean glare.

After a desperately unexciting opening sequence in which he takes on a horde of dodgy looking zombies, Kane teams up with a group of survivors who not only have to fend off attacks from the undead, but must also must placate a gang of vicious thugs who have taken control of the area (by searching for and handing over any valuables that they find).

Of course, Kane isn't the type of man to take orders from a bunch of z-grade post-apocalyptic bully boys, and he sets about teaching the bad guys a lesson (mostly by glowering at them in a threatening manner), only pausing to periodically rescue pals from zombies.

Featuring awful acting from almost everyone involved, a dreadful script, laughable effects, and shoddy production values, there is virtually nothing in this film to make it worth a watch. To be fair, I quite like the basic premise that the zombies are the unexpected result of a highly popular slimming drug that blocks cravings for carbohydrates (we learn this when one character conveniently explains the back-story to Kane, who strangely has no idea what has happened), but this is about the only vaguely interesting aspect of the whole production.

I have a certain amount of respect for anyone who manages to fund and make their own movie, but when the results are this poor, that respect is lost when they decide to make it available for public viewing. I would've kept this one under wraps if I had made it.

Sentiment: negative
This movie packs a punch. There are a few every now and then that make me think deeply, and disturb me a lot. I could see myself in this same predicament - passively allowing things to happen around me, not standing up for the right and decent thing, just trying to avoid trouble. How often do we avoid making waves or sticking our necks out? How often does our inaction condone the evil actions of others. We would never join them, we tell ourselves, we recognize that what they are doing is bad, but do we do anything about it? 

Lawrence Newman (William H. Macey) is a low-key, nerdy office worker who has paid off his home in Brooklyn, NY in the waning days of World War II. He rarely gets engaged in what is going on around him, has never married, rarely socializes, just goes to work and cares for his invalid mother. Then a series of events in his very "white" little neighborhood pull him out of his complacent shell into a maelstrom of events. It starts as he witness from his bedroom window the rape of a Puerto Rican girl by the son of his neighbor. Soon after he gets glasses because of poor vision. As he is now better able to see, he becomes less able to deal with the circumstances of his life. The one bright spot is a new love in his life, and he marries, hoping to continue on in his normalcy. Then the virulent anti-semitism on that street catches him, despite his credentials as a Presbyterian WASP. As things spiral further out of control, he discovers he must make an important decision - does he take a stand or does he simply go away.

I cannot how anybody can view this movie without being affected and having to think very much about themselves and what they really stand for. Post war anti-semitism is the setting here, but there is injustice at all times and in all places. It is for the individual to decide where he or she stands.

Sentiment: positive
My Name is Modesty is a low-budget film that tells the story of the origins of Modesty Blaise. It's not that the movie is terrible, it's just not what I was expecting or hoping for. While I've been aware of the Modesty Blaise character for years, I'm not overly familiar with the comic strips or the graphic novels, so I'm coming into this movie as something as an outsider. That may be part of the reason for my disappointment. I was expecting more action and more comedy. The film is dialogue driven. I suppose I was looking for something with a little more camp value. As it is, My Name is Modesty is a deathly serious film. There are very few, if any, "light" moments. The acting, at least from Alexandra Staden, is acceptable but nothing outstanding. As others have commented, she does appear a little too frail to be completely believable in the title role. What action scenes there are in My Name is Modesty are one of the films weakest points. I never bought into the notion that this woman could handle a band of trained killers.

I really hope Quentin Tarantino goes ahead and makes the rumored a big budget film based on the Modesty Blaise character. I'm convinced the concept has a lot of potential and I would very much look forward to it.

Sentiment: negative
I will never go to another Tarantino movie again. The entire film was worthless. My wife and I both regret that we didn't get up and walk out at the first indication of what the film was really going to be about (which is still hard to determine since it was such a ridiculous storyline...blood, guts, and violence seemed to be the only real theme), but we kept hoping there'd be something redeeming just around the corner. Unfortunately, there wasn't because there wasn't anything that made sense! We, along with a lot of the other people in the audience walked out of the theater muttering "that was disgusting", "what a waste of time", "I should've walked out", "where was the comedy", "that was pathetic", etc. It actually made us, the audience, voice our disgust and the feeling that we had just been thoroughly ripped off. The only thing of merit in the film was the costuming and the acting ability of almost everyone in the film....there just wasn't a plot/script worthy of their talents. I rate this a 1 because there isn't a 0. I can't quite understand how anyone could rate this higher than a 0!

Sentiment: negative
... than this ;-) What would happen if Terry Gilliam and Douglas Adams would have worked together on one movie? This movie starts with a touch of Brazil... when, at a certain point, the story moves straight into the twilight zone... bringing up nothing new, but just nothing... and nothing is great fun! When Dave and Andrew starts to explore their new environment the movie gets really enjoyable... bouncing heads? well... yes ;-) 

anyway... this movie was, imho, the biggest surprise at this year's FantasyFilmFest...

Just like in Cube and Cypher Natali gave this one a minimalistic, weird but very special design, which makes it hard to locate the place of the story or its time... timeless somehow...

Sentiment: positive
Eh oui, impossible n'est pas gaulois.

Well paced, highly entertaining film. Pretty good command of the French language and knowledge of modern France (and history) are recommended. I don't think this film really works in any other language. The film is incredibly much better than the previous one (In search of...). Apart from great actors and savvy camera handling it's the wit and firework of allusions, word plays etc. that make for a really great movie. The cartoon vorlage is recognizable but the film is very emancipated. The cost of the film is put to good use. Indeed, all the special effects fit 'naturally' into the movie, you never feel choked by them.

Bref, oui, les 2CVs, ça traîne un peu mais à part cela, Imhotep!

-A neighbour from the other side of the Rhine

Sentiment: positive
This movie is a journey through the mind of a screenwriter caught in his own paradoxical philosophy. He examines the ever illusive question of 'who am I' and 'what is I?' It's a courageous and thought provoking enterprise. There is a shipload of beautiful images, dream-inspired, Escher-like paradoxes reminiscent of the hand drawing itself, or rather, erasing itself. More and more we follow the writer in his agony over what to say and what to film, we see him phoning with his wife who left for Peru, leaving him to take care of their baby, a task he performs with less and less attention until he's so absorbed in his dilemma's that he hardly looks at the child anymore. His wife comes back and makes a scene, destroys his notes and helping him go over the last treshold until he erases him-self. Interspersed with eye-pleasing and I-destructing images, the story is mainly philosophical. It's about the veils of Maya, the world of illusion. The paradox of the movie however, is that it needs a lot of talking and thinking to prove that thinking should stop. During the more than two hours of provocative beauty and rapid philosophising the movie made me long for silence or a shorter movie. If that was the purpose of the maker, he succeeded quite well.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie back in 1954 on a double-bill with "Valley of the Kings." These movies helped inspire a lifelong interest in Egyptology. (In 1975 I visited Egypt!) Seen today, "The Egyptian" suffers from flat dialog and a few gauche touches, but it's a glorious movie to look at -- the sort of thing Hollywood, alas, just doesn't do anymore -- and it has a great story... not just the usual boy-meets-girl or vengeance-is-mine affair. Too bad 20th won't re-issue restored prints of this to be seen on the Big Screen.

Sentiment: positive
I truly love horror films & try to give every one I see as much credit (or sometimes more) as possible, but this is really pushing the ticket...most of the cast were very like-able but hardly any of them could act at all - but then again think about the writing/dialogue of this mess...some good make-up but absolutely ridiculous special fx. All in all I give it 3 out of 10 - & am having second thoughts about that!!

Sentiment: negative
I have nothing at all against Paul Schrader. In fact, HARDCORE (1979) is one of my very favorite films. But some horror movie fans were in a premature uproar when his original version of the EXORCIST prequel (DOMINION; this one you're reading about right now, as it turns out) was scrapped by Warners, and when Renny Harlin was substituted to spruce things up and make a new version that was "more scary". In my opinion, some viewers were prejudiced and became automatically juiced up for hating Renny Harlin's take on the subject (EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING) before the first frame of film was ever even unspooled for them to judge. And I ought to know; because I myself went into the theatrical premiere of BEGINNING with stubborn arms folded, and prepared for the absolute worst, which I was sure had to come. Imagine my surprise when I found Harlin's BEGINNING to be much more serious than I ever could have conceived, with a good performance from Stellan Skarsgard as a young version of Father Merrin, who was struggling with his faith in God. It wasn't a great film by any means, but it was nowhere near the garbage I had prepared myself for, well in advance, sight unseen.

Well, now I finally HAVE seen the true garbage version - and it's Paul Schrader's DOMINION: PREQUEL TO THE EXORCIST. It was relentlessly talky, uninteresting, and insipid. Stellan Skarsgard's troubled priest was nowhere near as interesting as he had been for me in Harlin's film, and the actor himself not as good in the part. For all those who pointed out the obvious CGI effects in BEGINNING, guess what? They're here in DOMINION as well. Remember the silly ending in Harlin's rendition (which I'll also agree tainted the rest of that movie)? Well, you're going to find that this ending from Schrader isn't a hell of a lot less lame.

Let me also say that I resent the nonsense that's been presented by those who appreciate this film better than Harlin's, by saying that we're "retards" or "cannot appreciate subtle film-making". As a person who despises Stephen Sommers' MTV-fashioned MUMMY of '99, and being a true fan of the very suggestive and discreet old horror films of the '30s and '40s, I can assure you this is not the case with me. At least there was "some" degree of terror and Exorcist-type goings on in Harlin's BEGINNING; this one here is just a real exercise in tedium and a great challenge even for the most certified of insomniacs. It's going to be quite interesting to hear horror fans try to convince themselves that DOMINION: PREQUEL TO THE EXORCIST was as good as they'd already made their minds up for it to be in advance; just as they were already pre-disposed to lambasting Harlin's BEGINNING the second they learned Paul Schrader's name was getting soaked with the White-Out.

Sentiment: negative
I watched this because a friend told me it was damn good, and I watched a video on it, so I was really into watching it. I watched it, and, damn, the fighting scenes are REALLY good. If the guys can't fight like that in real life, they sure fooled me. There isn't as much fighting as I would like, I have to say, but the fights that are in the movie are pretty spectacular. They don't show much, but you can tell it's violent and cool. But there's also the plot, that goes around a love triangle between the main characters, though it's a bit twisted. Tae-sung is a carefree guy who seems to love getting into trouble, as well as fights. He's the leader of his school, and is the rival of Hea-won, who's the leader of his own school - a bit of a playboy, hot-headed and a rich boy. Then there's Han-kyung, a girl with not a lot going for her - her father just passed away and she moved back with her mother, the guy she liked is dating her old friend -, and then she meets Hea-won, who goes to her school, and Tae-sung, who calls her "nuna" (older sister). Eventually, she discovers Tae-sung is her brother, fruit of one of her father's affair, and he loves her despite of their blood relation. Meanwhile, Hea-won falls for her, and takes her as his boyfriend. But she is torn between her boyfriend and her little brother, who confesses her love to her. Overall, it's a wonderful movie, but if I was really depressed after the end, and I just couldn't help but think, Damn, are all Korean movie I watch about fighting/death/depressing stuff/incest?? 'Cause that sure was the case with Old Boy, and Temptation of Wolves. It's a very good movie, but people have to be ready to cry at the end.

Sentiment: positive
I have to admit that I had low expectations for this movie. But I was surprised to find it entertaining, interesting, and funny. It's an entertaining thriller and not so much a horror film. There were moments that made my hairs stand up! Even better, though, were the highly amusing, occasionally hysterical, comedic moments in the film (you'll know which ones I'm talking about). There also are a few great special effects (and the humor and the special effects aren't necessarily separate).

The acting, on the whole, is very good--way better than a typical low budget horror film. The lead (Jackie), in particular, and many of the smaller, supporting roles (like the lawyer, the couple living next door, the pizza man) are well acted. If they hadn't been, the film wouldn't have kept my interest and I would have lost my belief in the story. This is a good, interesting low budget thriller and definitely worth a rental!

Sentiment: positive
I just can't believe some of the comments on this show! The show is just genius! Sure it doesn't follow the tried and true, but do we as consumers always want the same things thrust at us over and over again. Shouldn't we have the option to sit back and enjoy something new once in a while. The style is not as realistic as previous "Scooby Doo" shows, but it's not supposed to be. The show it titled "Shaggy and Scooby Doo Get a Clue" what part of that title states that the entire beloved cast of other renditions would constantly join in the action. And nowhere does it say that they'd be solving mysteries, and they can't even stand monsters, so why would they? I'm actually glad that they put some long standing plot points that work into a Scooby-Doo show. They still have running jokes, clumsy hi-jinks, quick-change outfits in chase scenes, the standard hallway gag and even Scooby snacks. In fact I'm glad that this show is out there, because I just love it. I'm even glad they got rid of the rest of the team for a while and concentrated on just two main characters and a villain.

Sure it's ridiculous, it's supposed to be! Sure it's different, it's supposed to be. It's supposed to make you laugh at the villain, and cheer for the idiotic robotic butler to triumph over all intruding vermin, no matter what the size. You're supposed to get the running "Roobi-Roo" joke. The whole thing is just put together so well, there isn't a single thing I can think that is WRONG with it. The writing, the acting, the animation, all top notch. The title music is awesome (my computer plays "GET A CLUE!" when it boots up), and the background music is just gripping.

Sentiment: positive
This is a great show with total freshness and innovation. That usual chair (couch for a woman) host, that mandatory band playing monotonous tunes, the same old jokes, the same pattern copied from the days of Nebuchadnezzer ....probably the pattern of Johnny Carson, copied by one and all, Latterman, Leno, Conan... Daly, this show does not seem to have any of these.

I fell in love with this show within the first 10 minutes and I am going to stick to it. Though it's too early to say that, this show seems to be devoid of any intellectual pretension most talk shows try so hard to project, and I hope that that is what would make this show different from all the rest. I hope that this show will last long!

Returning back after months, I still love this show, and I love his self-deprecating humor (For example, his affirmation that only pothead loners would be home to watch his show at Saturday midnight and thus, the jokes are funny only to the stoned guys) which, however, does not involve the usual monkeying of Conan O'Brien, for example (I know it's a cardinal sin to be repelled by O'Brien's antics; but I do really dislike his style and repetitiveness). 

I again watched it the other night with Tom Arnold in it. Ferensen's spoof of Trading Spouses (and Nanny 911 in an earlier episode) are hilarious. Idiot paparazzi are fun, especially when a security guard cautions them against taking people's pictures, and (if I am not mistaken) they start taking his pictures shouting "Gary Coleman".

Added on 16th April, 2007: Coming back once again, I am left confused by the neighbor and her dog. I cannot decide if it is a joke or a real thing. Either way, it was funny as hell.

I do not expect Spike Feresten to read these pages, but maybe he does. He is crazier than a bunch of monkeys and so, I would better write down my suggestion here for him: I would like him to do a full 30 minute show with Crazy Gideon, the star of late night TV commercial. I would like Crazy Gideon to have an interview in Spike's talk show, sing a song (and play guitar), do a skit in the line of SNL, and also to answer questions from the audience regarding his potential mayorship of Los Angeles (I know, Crazy Gideon may not be aware of this, but there are websites detailing why he would be the perfect candidate for the post of the mayor of LA).

God willing!

Returning back on 14th July, 2007: Someone wrote here that the people who praised Spike's talkshow must be bribed by Spike. I confess that Spike really bribed me, but I must also confess that Rockefeller named me in his will and last night I had sex with Cindy Crowford.

Sentiment: positive
The End of Suburbia, as it should appeal to general citizens & mass consumers alike, is likely to become of cultural reform status. The film uses super-cynical analysis by authors, policy makers, and social philosophers on the paradox created by Suburban-Style living--mainly in the Post-War era.

What we have created in America is a place with "none of the amenities of country life, and none of the amenities of urban city life." This is the prescription that is laid out for suburbia, and the film focus's on the singular idea of "Oil". Basically, in the most general sense, that the world is nearing or at it's peak oil production, and when we realize this in full, major lifestyle changes will be in effect, whether by our best interest or forced violently upon us by a quality of living even the slum-dwellers of Calcutta couldn't describe to us.

If nothing more, the end of Suburbia will siphon the viewer flush in their gut, creating a sickening feeling. This is bound to happen. It's a bleak outlook on our inherent way of life. The ambivalence lies particularly in each respective viewers critical analysis of the film. I foresee many unprepared viewers slandering the film as smug liberal propaganda--like a Michale Moore film. What they fail to consider is that a reaction like this is all too normal when such a message hits so unbelievably hard to the lifestyle of the vast majority of the masses.

This is the truth, and as a student studying City Planning, I can tell you that we better get prepared now, because what slim chance we have of maintaining quality of life in this dwindling cesspool of tampered resources is fading faster than a race of people stricken by the black plague.

Sentiment: positive
John Garfield plays a Marine who is blinded by a grenade while fighting on Guadalcanal and who has to learn to live with his disability. He has all the stereotypical notions about blindness, and is sure he'll be a burden to everyone. The hospital staff and his fellow wounded Marines can't get through to him. Neither can his girl back home played by Eleanor Parker. He's stubborn and blinded by his own fears, self pity, and prejudices. It's a complex role that Garfield carries off memorably in a great performance that keeps one watching in spite of the ever present syrupy melodrama. The best scenes are on Guadalcanal, where he's in a machine gun nest trying to fend off the advancing Japanese soldiers in a hellish looking night time battle, and later a dream sequence in the hospital where he sees himself walking down a train platform with a white cane, dark glasses, and holding out a tin cup, all the while his girlfriend walks backward away from the camera.

Sentiment: positive
The most amazing, spiritually uplifting movie about the restoration of the gospel. Far better than any other film, or movie made about the restoration thus far. If you haven't seen it, hop on a plane to Salt Lake and see it now. You won't regret it! You truly get a sense of what the first saints had to struggle through, putting complete and total faith in there prophet Joseph Smith. You finally get some sort of comprehension of the things the prophet had to fight through and the persecutions he and his people faced. If you have any questions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints and our humble beginnings just watch this movie, it will make complete and total sense afterward.

Sentiment: positive
Hell to Pay was a disappointment. It did not have anywhere near the substance of a B Western movie, and should in no way be compared to a fantastic movie like Silverado. The dialog was dull, the plot was torpid, the soundtrack was overbearingly unnecessary, and the acting was awful. Even the professionals could've taken some lessons from the Sunset Carson School of Acting. The only positive thing about this movie is that it showcased some of the top Cowboy shooters in the nation, but you can see them in a better light in any SASS video. The packaging of this feature makes it very enticing, and the preview is decent, but it's all over after that.

Sentiment: negative
And that's why historic/biographic movies are so important to all of us, moreover when they are so well done, like this one!

Before I saw "The Young Victoria", I knew a few things about Queen Victoria, but in the end I got much more knowledge about it. 

Emily Blunt is simply GREAT as Victoria (Who would guess that!) and She probably will get a nomination at this years Oscar's. Personally, I'm cheering for her...

For technical issues, I am pleased to say that is a very successful production, with wonderful Art Direction/Set Decoration and, of course, like It was expected to be, a terrific periodic Costume Design! 

The one drawback is that I want to see more and know more about this interesting queen, but foremost, incredible woman and mother! 

BRAVO: 9 out of 10!

Sentiment: positive