DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
A doctor who is trying to complete the medical dream of transplantation is experimenting secretly on corpses from the hospital with varying success. His final best chance comes when he lovingly wraps his girlfriend's head in his jacket as he rescues it from a burning vehicle.

I was looking for cheese and with this premise I believed I found it. It has everything everything that bad movie hunters look for - chest and brain surgery with the surgeons leaving with pristine white scrubs, unique camera angles (I always love watching the rear passenger wheels of cars), cheesy clarinet stripper music, and one of the longest death scenes in movie history. But unfortunately these so-bad-they-are-good moments can't overcome the too-bad-they-stink stretches.

Jan in the Pan annoyed me, with her droning monologues in a hoarse whisper, the somewhat less than evil laughter, and the fact she was kept alive with some Columbian home brew coffee and 2 DD batteries.

I couldn't even entertain myself with Dr Bill's horrid overacting and moral self righteousness. Usually such ham makes these movies a must see in my opinion, in this case I was bored with it.

The best part of the movie in my opinion was the 1960's version of "body shopping" and I even found myself nodding off during that.

Don't spend money on this one - there are better bad movies out there to entertain your sick sense of humor.

Sentiment: negative
This is a terrible movie that only gets worse and seems to never end. The acting was bad, the plot was worse, and the special effects seemed to have been created by a 5th grade science class. Dennis Weaver is such a great actor and should have never taken such a part. My advise, DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE!

Sentiment: negative
The supernatural, vengeful police officer is back for a third installment, this time acting as guardian angel for a wrongfully accused female cop. Standard stalk and slash picture, yet well acted and directed, thus making it oddly interesting and watchable, though the violence isn't for the squeamish (especially the director's cut which was originally given an "NC-17" rating).

*1/2 out of ****

Sentiment: negative
I like to think that I can appreciate a movie that is a bit out of the ordinary, and I certainly love a good movie that makes me think.

If you like out of the ordinary movies that make you think, then look elsewhere. This movie is so bad and so disjointed that the only thing you will be thinking after it is over is how it is possible you wasted 90 minutes of your life watching this.

A movie of this kind needs a driver to get buy in from the viewer. Why are we interested in the main characters? What motivates these characters through their existence? Why do they make the decisions they make? This movie makes a very weak attempt at doing these and fails in the process. There is no chemistry between these two actors, both of who are superb in their ability to be comfortable in any role. So why did they fail here? I strongly feel that they didn't know what their motivations were either, and when an actor doesn't know, their audience can't follow.

In sum, I have seen macromedia flash videos that offered more in the way of provoking thought, at least I have more interest in the morphed hamster who likes the moon than why this married family man would risk it all for a "Code 46" violation.

Sentiment: negative
I had never heard of Larry Fessenden before but judging by this effort into writing and directing, he should keep his day job as a journeyman actor. Like many others on here, I don't know how to categorize this film, it wasn't scary or spooky so can't be called a horror, the plot was so wafer thin it can't be a drama, there was no suspense so it can't be a thriller, its just a bad film that you should only see if you were a fan of the Blair witch project. People who liked this film used words, like "ambiguity" and complex and subtle but they were reading into something that wasn't there. Like the Blair witch, people got scared because people assumed they should be scared and bought into some guff that it was terrifying. This movie actually started off well with the family "meeting" the locals after hitting a deer. It looked like being a modern day deliverance but then for the next 45 minutes, (well over half the film), nothing happened, the family potted about their holiday home which was all very nice and dandy but not the slightest bit entertaining. It was obvious the locals would be involved in some way at some stage but Essendon clearly has no idea how to build suspense in a movie. Finally, when something does happen, its not even clear how the father was shot, how he dies, (the nurse said his liver was only grazed), and all the time this wendigo spirit apparently tracks down the apparent shooter in a very clumsy way with 3rd grade special effects. The film is called Wendigo but no attempt is made to explain it in any clear way, the film ends all muddled and leaves you very unsatisfied, i would have bailed out with 15 minutes to go but I wanted to see if this movie could redeem itself. It didn't.

Sentiment: negative
Jerry Angell, owner of zombie-horror's finest mullet, returns for more undead action in the sequel to director Todd Sheets' atrocious home-made gore-fest Zombie Bloodbath. This time around, Jerry plays a sleazy low-life thug who, along with his equally despicable partner-in-crime, some escaped convicts, several teenagers, and a bunch of screaming girls, comes face-to-face with a horde of shambling, flesh-eating corpses.

Obviously having learnt zilch about improving his craft in the two years since Zombie Bloodbath, Sheets delivers another shoddy mess of a film that somehow manages to be even worse than the originala feat that I thought was almost impossible to achieve. The acting is uniformly lousy, the effects amateurish and cheap (most of the gore appears to be nothing more than a selection of offcuts, offal and blood from the local butcher's shop), the story incomprehensible (as far as I could fathom, the zombies rise from the dead because a scarecrow commands them to!!!), and the direction frustratingly laden with cheap looking video effects and completely meaningless cuts to black-and-white.

And as if that wasn't enough to convince you of this film's complete lack of redeeming features, the simply mind-bogglingly moronic ending should do the trick: the few remaining survivors stumble upon an abandoned truck that conveniently happens to have a stash of flesh-eating bacteria laying on its passenger seatjust the thing for dissolving the undead (but, strangely enough, not at all detrimental to the living).

Sentiment: negative
Not all films made in 1931 are this creaky, and the fact that this was "Best Picture" must have given even greater impetus to the development of television.

Typical of all Ferber novels, it isn't possible to bring the entire story to the screen, to say nothing of developing character. Dix -- so stolid in the first third of the movie -- does an about face, but no one knows why and it makes no sense. And what is there about Dunne that makes makes her so stoical? Edna May Oliver's scenes are priceless, as usual.

This film has a role to play in the history of cinema, but it is long and boring.

Sentiment: negative
I cannot believe I sat through this utter waste of time. I was just too fascinated by how unspeakably bad it was that I couldn't move. It reminded me of the feeling when you can't take your eyes away from a horrible car crash or the rotting carcass of a cow. You can't help but look, but you feel sick and nauseated afterward.

Let me elaborate: "Plan 9 from outer space", for instance, is not a bad movie. Not even "Star Wars: Holiday Special" is a bad movie. They both are awful to watch, for sure, but they both have SOME qualities and at least they leave you the strength to reach for the "off"-button.

This "remake" (in name only) of the sci-fi classic left me weeping on my couch, desperately trying to come to terms with why such scripts get filmed, why anyone would soil the memory of the original classic, and whether or not I could resume my normal life without my suddenly acquired longing for the quiet and peace of death.

Although death, I realized, would offer no rest from the horrid memories of this pile of crap, as the poor souls in hell are probably forced to watch it over and over again for eternity...

Sentiment: negative
HOUSE CALLS was an amusing 1978 comedy about a widowed doctor (Walter Matthau) who now wants to play the field but can't help but be drawn to a patient of his (Glenda Jackson) who refuses to be just another notch on his bedpost. Matthau likes the woman but does not really want to make the commitment that she insists upon so he agrees to date her exclusively for two weeks and then make a decision as to whether or not he wants to commit; however, other complications make it difficult for Matthau to make a decision when the two weeks are up, even though he is clearly in love with the woman. Matthau and Jackson have surprisingly effective chemistry as a screen couple and are given strong support from Richard Benjamin, Candice Azzara, Dick O'Neill, and especially Art Carney as the inept and senile Chief of Staff at the hospital where Matthau is employed. Matthau even has a brief scene with his real-life son, Charlie, who appears as Jackson's son. This engaging comedy still holds up pretty well after all these years. If you've never seen it, it's worth the rental.

Sentiment: positive
May be spoilers so do not read if you do not want to Just like watching the TV news , everything is already happened, a great tsunami looms over a city bay and CUT , no more to see, Tokay suffers a large earthquake , did anyone see more than the 5 seconds I saw? If you want to make a love story , make a love story but if you want to use a disaster movie title , do please be kind enough to show me THE DISASTER , pd after watching this movie watch JISHIN RETTO or any GODZILLA film to satisfy the part that was willing to see people screaming and buildings collapsing that did not get a chance to do in this movie. Don t take me wrong I love disaster movies and I love the original Nihon chimbotsu and Jishin retto, I even like the latest Poseidon , not to much of a story there but a very good and graphic disaster sequence , New Nihon chimbotsu looses the point as many times as pearl harbour or the day after tomorrow but at least this two movies do show good disaster sequences, and also enough with the expensive FX that did not show anything , give me fake buildings if you like as long as you do destroy them properly , I know I must sound like a sadistic freak, however I did go to see Love actually when I felt like going to see a romantic film , grrrrrrr even kimpachi sensei makes me cry and this movie didn:t . there is also a TV series called napping chimbotsu made in 1975, I have on DVD and it is much better

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the most underrated movies of the 1990s. If you allow yourself to identify with the Patricia Arquette character, you will find it to be a very moving story of a woman regaining a sense of purpose to her life, and finding a new will to live.

Arquette's performance is brave because it is purposefully "wooden" -- it's a way of defining her character's spiritual death, her complete lack of a desire to be alive. She moves through life like a zombie because her family has been murdered and she can't see the point of living. What is moving is how in the course of the story, she is reawakened -- by the Burmese landscape, by the beautiful quality of its people and landscapes, and by the primal choices she is forced to confront.

Boorman supports this visually (and Hans Zimmer supports it with one of his most gorgeous, haunting scores) with an often static camera and with a propensity to shoot through glass, windows, windshields, etc. We are on the outside looking in, just like Arquette.... until she finds herself deep in the jungle and is forced to choose whether or not to fight for her life.

I recommend the 1954 movie THE PURPLE PLAIN as well. It's a similar story in a similar setting, and makes for a fascinating comparison.

Sentiment: positive
Franco proves, once again, that he is the prince of surreal & erotic cinema. True, much of his work can be viewed as entertaining sleaze but with Succubus (Necronomicon) he shows what he is truly capable of when he lets his warped creativity run riot and gives us a film that is both hypnotic and enigmatic whilst still maintaining the delirious eroticism intrinsic in his work. Jerry Van Rooyen's splendid score pulsates as the viewer is thrown from one bizarre scenario to another as we follow the trials of a striptease artist (Reynaud) who may be schizophrenic, or may indeed (as one mysterious character states) be a devil, attempt to come to terms with the world she inhabits. A beautiful and enigmatic piece of cinema highly recommended to anybody with even a passing interest in alternative cinema.

Sentiment: positive
OK, just what the HELL is all this supposed to mean??? Halloween 6 (let's just call it that, OK?) is, without a doubt, the most CONFUSING film in the series (and from what I've heard, seeing the original "producers cut" doesn't sound like it makes things any less bewildering than the "official" release). What a mess.

This isn't a really bad film, as some have said. It has its scary scenes and some rather intense moments - it just DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE! Don't tell me that Michael was "engineered" from the beginning to be evil and kill and destroy, and blah blah blah. It was bad enough when they turned Michael into Jamie Lee Curtis' brother (just so they had an excuse to keep her in the second film) - this is too much.

It would seem this is another case of the creators of the film trying to be "too smart" by coming up with a new premise that will shock and impress us all. Bad move, guys. We're not looking for an explanation of why Michael kills, so please don't try and feed us this crap. Show me Michael looking menacing and killing a bunch of people. Show me Dr. Loomis trying to track him down and, as always, coming up just short. Don't waste (what turned out to be) the last performance of Donald Pleasance by telling me (in the most confusing way possible) that Michael was "created" by some cult from hell and that his "seed" will be passed on to another and... oh, brother.

Halloween 6 has its moments, don't get me wrong, and we all know there have been FAR worse sequels than this (Hellraiser, anyone?) so get what you can out of it (the scene toward the end of the film with Michael charging down a deep red corridor is particularly effective) and try to ignore the screwball plot. Hopefully one day we can all see the "producer's cut" and maybe get the chance to make (a bit) more sense out of all of this. Till then, this will have to do...

-FTM

Sentiment: negative
Hercules: The TV- Movie Hercules - A very twisted and molted version of the story about the Greek superhero. Paul Telfer makes a good attempt to play this hero. Sean Astin rehashes his Sam Gamgee image by playing Lupin, a thrown in character to make the whole thing a buddy-movie picture. I almost expected his to say at one point "We're in a bad situation Mr. Frodo, uh I mean Hercules. An unexpected good performance comes from Timothy Dalton (one of the lesser James Bonds) as Hercules's father. Herucles's love interest looks like Paris Hilton, something which just turned me off right away. Unfourtunetly someone has twisted and molted the original story into somewhat of a murky and sometimes incomprehensible story. The special effects don't help either. While the Hydra scene does the original story justice, the Nemean Lion and Harpies are just....well lame. I believe the creatures and effects from Power Rangers flashed across my mind at least twice. And the Golden Hind felt rushed and very computer generated. And they took out Cerberus! One of my favorite parts of what was originally a very cool story. The movie can't decide whether it's Greek, Roman, or American. And it almost ruined the original story; a classic epic. Don't bother looking for this one on the direct to DVD. - C

Sentiment: negative
I saw this film purely based on the fact that it was on the DPP Video Nasty list, and while I'm glad I saw it because it's now 'another Video Nasty down' - on its own merits, Andy Milligan's film really isn't worth bothering with. There are, of course, far worse films on the infamous list; but that doesn't make the pain of viewing this one any easier. The film was obviously shot on an extremely low budget, and that has translated into the script; as Blood Rites works on an idea often seen in horror cinema, and doesn't do anything new with it. Basically, the plot centres on three couples who find themselves at a house awaiting the results of a will. It's not long before they start getting picked off...blah blah blah. For most of the film, nothing happens; and then when we finally get down to the scenes that justify the movie being banned, they're so amateurish and silly that they're impossible to take seriously on any level. It's a very good thing that this movie doesn't have a very long running time as otherwise it could have been used as a particularly nasty method of torture. It all boils down to a fittingly tedious ending, which also succeeds in being a non-event of epic proportions. Apparently, this movie is still banned here in the UK; but somehow I doubt it's because of its shock value. Basically, Blood Rites isn't worth seeing and I personally can see no reason to recommend it. Unless, of course, you've made it your business to see everything on the Video Nasty list...

Sentiment: negative
So I was sick with the flu one Saturday and the silver lining was that SciFi Channel was having a marathon of dinosaur movies that day - the "Carnosaur" trilogy, "Pterodactyl," "Raptor Island." Then I flicked ahead on my cable remote to see which movie SciFi placed in its glamorous, Saturday prime-time slot. Some movie I had never heard of before called "Raptor." I was pretty excited. The movie begins with some teens driving around in a jeep, when they get stalked and killed by a Velociraptor. I was like, "Hmmm, that's odd, that looks almost exactly like a scene in "Carnosaur," except it was in the middle of that movie." Then I sat through some really bad acting and then some guy was suckered into walking into an underground research laboratory where he got eaten by a ferocious T-Rex. Now I'm like, "Wait a second, that was also a scene in "Carnosaur." Then, after I saw some scenes blatantly ripped off from "Carnosaur 2", I figured out just what the hell was going on. So basically, Roger Corman & Co. ripped off scenes from the "Carnosaur" trilogy to use as the action scenes, weaved in a basic "dinosaur-runs-amok" plot, and tried to pass it off as an original movie. Shameful. I don't know who I'm more angry at, Roger Corman or SciFi Channel for trying to pass this off as worthy of the prime-time slot. The only reason why this was worth watching to its conclusion was to pick out the actors/actresses who looked like their counterparts in the "Carnosaur" trilogy and guess which scenes would be lifted next. As much as it pains me, being a dinosaur lover, I have no choice but to give this the lowest possible rating because I feel completely ripped off.

Sentiment: negative
The Jaws rip off is the trashiest of the all the Italian 'genres', and director Joe D'Amato is second only to the great Jess Franco in the trash film production stakes. Put the two together and what do you get? A gigantic piece of trash, of course. Unfortunately it's not trash in the good sense of the word either, as Deep Blood delivers more in boredom than it does in hilarity. To the film's credit, it does actually attempt something bordering on a plot; but to take said credit away from the film - the plot is rubbish. It has something to do with a group of friends taking of an oath (of friendship) and then some Indian curse that manifests itself into a shark. Or at least I think that's what was going on. Anyway, the majority of the film is padded out with boring dialogue and 'drama', and the shark itself - which lets not forget, is the only thing we really want to see - finds itself in merely a cameo role. Or not even that since most the shark is actually stock footage! Despite being a trash genre, there are actually a lot of fun Jaws rip-offs; but with this one, Joe D'Amato makes it clear that he couldn't be bothered to even try, and the result is what must be the worst Italian shark movie of all time. Avoid this dross.

Sentiment: negative
Where the Rivers Flow North is a well-told story about two peoples' fight to live their own lives in the face of "progress" and development. Besides enjoying the movie as entertainment, I also learned quite a bit about life in rural New England back in the late 1920s.

The cinematography captured the raw beauty of Northern Vermont and set the stage, while the music brought the movie to life. Very well done for a low-budget, locally-produced film. I found Michael J. Fox's character the weakest in the film, but Rip Torn and Tantoo Cardinal turn in two of the finest performances I've seen in a long time. I was saddened she did not get a nod as best actress that year (I assume the film was too "small" a film to be considered).

Sentiment: positive
To like this movie at most you must be a)strongly in love (without a marriage) b) acknowledge English humor which is about admiring gallant and witty life situations and not just running gags c) be fairly very intelligent, because authors gave an opportunity to laugh and cry over every single minute of this movie, and only if you meet "b" and "c" requirements, you can recognize and enjoy author's input. d) to fully enjoy the movie you must love women like Kirsted Dunst, who is so natural, sweet and irresistible. e)you must admire creative, a little melancholic people with great and remarkable personalities

if you meet all these requirements you'll be likely to rate this movie near 10 points.

I never laughed half(!) as much as from watching this masterpiece. And i even managed to cry while laughing in some moments (i always get sensitive, whenever good things happen to Kirsten Dunst)

Sentiment: positive
As an aging rocker, this movie mentions Heep and Quo - my 2 favourite bands ever - but with the incredible cast (everyone) - and the fantastic storyline - I just love this piece of creative genius. I cannot recommend it more highly - and Mick Jones added so much (Foreigner lead and primary songwriter along with the greatest rock singer ever - Lou Gramm) - I have watched this great work more than 10 times- Bill Nighy - what a voice - and Jimmy Nail - talent oozes from every pore - then Astrid.... and Karen..... what more could an aging rocker ask for!! 10/10 - bloody brilliant.

Alastair, Perth, Western Oz, Originally from Windsor, England.

Sentiment: positive
Paul Lukas played a Russian intellectual making his living as a waiter in

"Grand Slam," directed by William Dieterle (1933). It is a surprisingly funny satire of the building up of celebrity. The waiter and the Russian restaurant's hat-check girl played by Loretta Young become America's sweethearts as bridge partners who do no squabble. With the aid of publicist and ghost-writer 'Speed' McCann (the wonderfully deadpan Frank McHugh) they become walking advertisements

for the "Stanislavsky system," a "system" of bidding whatever one feels like

(since bids are not rational, there is no basis for recriminations about their stupidity).

A duel with displaced bridge guru Cedric Van Dorn (sounds close to Goren, no? and I suspect the choice of the character's name "Stanislavsky" was also a slam at another kind of system), a puffed-up charlatan played very well by Ferdinand Gottschalk, is broadcast on radio stations across America like a prize-fight by Roscoe Karns (another great fast-talking deadpan comic actor of the 1930s).

The bridge players are even in a roped-off square, though the audience is

above them, unlike in boxing "rings."

The wide variety of American types prefigures the comedies of Preston Sturges, though for manufacturing celebrity, "Grand Slam" most calls to mind two better movies from the same (pre-Code) era with Lee Tracy playing fast-talking

publicists: "The Half-Naked Truth" and "Bombshell," but "Grand Slam" has its

moments, especially for anyone who has played bridge with serious point

counters.

Loretta Young was already a clothes horse. (To me, her face seems a bit long

and horsey, too. Another era's notion of beauty, I guess...) The movie

unfortunately all but drops Glenda Farrell, who plays McHugh's forgetful

girlfriend.

Sentiment: positive
I watched this movie once and might watch it again, but although Jamie Foxx is good in the movie, I feel they could have used a 'less funny' character as Alvin Sanders. Foxx's scenes for instance in the jail when he is confronted by Edgar Clenteen (David Morse) are too funny. David Morse again is a wonderful portrayer of a cop. His tough yet mostly quiet features are perfect for his role. Once again Morse meets Doug Hutchinson (Bristol) in the theater. Morse ends up coming down hard on Hutchinson. They are both perfect for this scenario in each film. I personally love that quality in a film, where actors end up in the same situation as a previous film, as these two did in The Green Mile. Overall it was a pretty good movie.

Sentiment: positive
"House of the Damned" (also known as "Spectre") is one of your low budget haunted house horror flicks, filled with mediocre performances and cheap effects. It is about a family that inherits an old Irish mansion, and after moving in begin to experience strange phenomenon and ghostly apparitions, including the ghost of a young girl who was murdered and buried within a wall in the mansion's basement. The couple's young daughter is then whisked away into some other dimension and they seek help from a group of paranormal investigators for help.

The ideas this film borrowed from the 1982 haunted house film "Poltergeist" are obvious. I will say that this movie does have some slightly creepy sequences, but it is sometimes very, very boring. The acting here is nothing special, the mood is alright, the score (which was mostly this dramatic Irish opera music) was somewhat annoying, and the CGI special effects are really horrible. I mean, it was 1996, you would think they could have done a little better than they did. The ending where the house was on fire was the poorest special effect I've seen, very very cheap. But hey, this was a cheap movie.

Also, the translucent monster wolf thing that their daughter sees looks horribly fake. And what was it's significance in the film anyway? What the heck does a wolf-monster have to do with a haunted house? The special effects in here are what really ruined this movie. The acting was pretty bad too. I usually enjoy many low budget horror films, but not this one. "House of the Damned" is nothing special at all, only consider watching it if you have nothing better to do. But you'll probably want to pass on it. 4/10.

Sentiment: negative
A single mom,her son and daughter and their hippie chick friend are camping in the woods.A muscle bound,machete wielding maniac in a yellow ski mask appears.He starts terrorizing and sexually violating the family before murdering them with a machete."Wet Wilderness" is loaded with ugly hardcore sex,forced incest and blatant racism.It's as politically incorrect as XXX roughies get.The score is stolen from seminal Hitchcock's horror classic "Psycho" and also "Jaws".The acting is hilariously awful,the editing is bad and there are some huge lapses in logic.The repetitive nature of the sex scenes grinds the movie after while so the brief running time is a blessing.The scenes of violence are quite nasty for example the hippie girl is stabbed with the machete in her groin and one can see blood on her crotch.3 out of 10 and that's being generous.

Sentiment: negative
This piece of crap doesn't worth a critical review so I'll write some information for those who don't know the background of this movie. First off all it is not the first Saudi movie, they used this wrong info for commercial purpose (they lied!). Second they made it for money not for anything else so they picked the jerk (Hesham) who won Star Academy (like Big Brother) it is a popular show and the jerk Hesham is popular but dumb, cheesy & untalented then picked the famous Kuwaiti actor Mohammed Al Sairafi (also dumb & untalented) but has a popular (count how many times I'll use the word "popular" then email me to get your prize, however..) has popular show and the Jordanian actress Mais Hamdan who appeared in POPular comic show CBM (unfunny) so she is famous * PoPular! Then they picked some Saudi actors for .. blah blah blah. The funniest thing is the director! He is Canadian with Palestinian roots (I believe that the identity of the movie is the identity of its director) .. wait a minute! The screen play was written by an Egyptian screenwriter (very awful one!) with some help from Lebanese critic (famous as critic but actually he is a money collector!). This group of the multi races (money slaves) doesn't know anything about the Saudi culture they don't represent it but when we know who is behind this garbage all our questions will be relieved! Waleed bin Talaal is Saudi prince and (B U S I N E S S M A N) who doesn't care about the Saudi culture or Saudi people he even doesn't live in Saudi Arabia (even if he lives he will live in his own world, his world is far far far away from the real world the people world) so he doesn't know anything or care about anything except raising his endless fortune.

*Not Saudi movie(not anything movie).

Screw them all.

Beep out of 10!

Sentiment: negative
I sought this film out because I'm a new Frain fan and wanted to see more of his work. First of all, his Irish accent is great. He's got a keen ear for dialects, it seems. His acting was marvelous, as usual. James Frain aside, I thought the film was very well done. It showed the conflict in Northern Ireland as the *mess* it really is. Both sides are guilty of grave injustices, and the men drawn into the conflict usually have very little to say about their circumstances.

Also, it is interesting to realise that not every man (or woman) that is supposedly fighting for his country, is really doing *just* that. For example, when Kenny (James Frain) asks Ginger (Ian Hart) why he does "it", Ginger can't come up with a morally acceptable answer. Why? Because Ginger isn't in it for the noble cause of protecting his country or the rights of his fellow Protestants...Ginger is in it for the fun of killing. He's full of blood-lust and it's the perfect job for a guy like him. In a struggle like this there are guys like Liam (John Lynch) who just want to live their daily lives and enjoy their families...guys that see all of the fighting just begats more fighting. There are guys like Kenny that are born leaders full of charisma, and they add fuel to the flames, rather they mean to or not. Also, Kenny genuinely believes in the "cause". He believes what he is doing will make a difference in the future...which is a bit odd 'cause his character seems too intelligent for it all. But, like a lot of other seemingly intelligent men, he is sucked into a gang lifestyle not even realizing it...'til it's too late. Then there is Ginger, a pure psycho who isn't in the fighting for any other reason but for the sheer thrill of it, which in a gangland type war makes him a valued asset, some might argue. However, now, in this film, Ginger has out lasted his worth, and has become a very dangerous loose cannon.

Everything comes to a boiling point, and predictably, the ending is a tragic one. What makes this film worthy is that is shows both sides of this ages old conflict. Being American, I can't begin to fully understand what all struggle is about. But, I do know there has to be a better way.

All in all, a well acted, touching...but troubling film.

Sentiment: positive
(Spoilers galore) This is an absolutely awful film. First of all it has that guy from medium. I guess he's made a career out of playing super doting dads. It was OK the first time he tried to scare his son by pretending to be a monster...but then 10 minutes later they cloyingly did it again! And so it goes, this film moves in excruciating real time. At one point, I started imaging it was days later, until I was reminded that the story line was only at the next day...in the early afternoon still! I'm not really sure who this couple is supposed to be in real life. First of all they are presented as sort of a Manhattan yuppie couple who grew up and had a kid. But they drive an old blue Volvo. Those types stopped driving Volvos decades ago. Today they drive Priuses. But in 2002, I'm sure they still weren't driving Volvos.

OK, then there's Wendigo. A "mysterious Indian man" gives the boy a little magic Wendigo statue and tells him of its powerful magic. C'mon...are we still doing ancient Indian mysteries. Just to drive it home, they pan across every Indian statue in their tourist trap upstate New York town. American Indians are portrayed in a manner not seen for decades in this film! Oh, and about Wendigo. He is not actually the cause of the horror. He doesn't kill the kid's dad which is the most horrible thing in the film...he's just killed by an ordinary hick with a grudge and a high powered rifle. The Wendigo only comes out late in the film to avenge the guy who killed the dad...oh, but wait, it seemed earlier that Wendigo was kind of mad at the dad, maybe because he killed a deer...so then Wendigo must have been happy that the dad was killed...but...

And so it goes...insulting, boring and nonsensical. There is no reason to watch this film at all.

Sentiment: negative
There's not much anyone can say about this flick....the plot is quite simple: Two police officers (who also happen to be lovers) are using a brothel as a stakeout in order to catch a criminal, with the help of the "lady of the house", played by hardcore pornstar Chloe. As anyone can guess, there's a few plot twists and some blurred alliances, but the writing was just horrible, even for a softcore movie.

I've read some previous posts about Nicole Hilbig's accent (she plays the female cop). Yes, it's hard to understand what she's saying at times, but I think I've placed it. I did some sniffing around....I think she's from Germany, hence her odd-sounding accent. She makes an impression even without speaking, however...she's got a great looking body.

There were a couple of "from behind" sex scenes in this movie that were quite graphic for a softcore film....excellent work there. The three-way scene toward the end wasn't bad either.

*SPOILER ALERT*

I kinda knew the female cop was gonna turn into a part-time call girl at the end. She enjoyed her three-way WAY too much.

*END SPOILER*

I'm not gonna nitpick about the story TOO much, seeing as this is a low-budget, direct-to-video softcore flick. However, it just seems like I've seen way too many movies in this genre with a similar type of storyline.

Women: B (Chloe and Hilbig were okay as the eye-candy) Sex: B+ (scenes were kinda short, but good) Story: C (a recycled plot, but whatever works, eh?) Overall: B-

Sentiment: positive
The producers of this film should be sued for the misrepresentation of copyrighted materials, namely the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players' Handbook. Fear and ignorance breed the sort of mindless propaganda that inspire garbage like this film. If any of you have any doubts about the innocence of Dungeons & Dragons, why don't you go to your local hobby store and see about sitting in with a gaming group, so you can see for yourself that D&D is nothing to be afraid of.

Sentiment: negative
Based on Neil Simons play of the same The Odd Couple tells the story of best friends Felix Unger(Jack Lemmon)and Oscar Madison(Walter Matthau)who end up sharing Oscars massive bachelor pad after Felix tries to kill himself.

He had a big row with his wife over his obsessive compulsive cleaning sprees and weird phobias and sends her a suicide telegram.She calls Oscar and lets him know what happened.Felix turns up at Oscar's during his weekly poker game with their friends Vinnie(John Fielder)Murray the policeman(Herbert Edelman)Roy(David Sheiner)and Speed(Larry Haines).After some side splitting hysterics it's agreed Felix will stay with Oscar.

The rest of the film centres on how these two are such completely different characters.As well as looking at if Oscar can stand Felix's truly weird and unique habits and cleanliness and if Felix can stand Oscar being such a slob and his laid back attitude to everything. Really a film about two complete opposites living together and the joys,highs,lows and necessity of the gift that is friendship.With great acting an intelligent and very funny script and the great Monica Evans and Carole Shelley as the British Pigeon sisters who Oscar invites over for a double date.

This one is guaranteed to make you laugh every line is priceless and Jack and Walter are fantastic with a great chemistry.Also made into a successful and equally funny TV series with Jack Klugman as Oscar and Tony Randall as Felix.

Sentiment: positive
Fantastic documentary. A movie within a movie. I'm so glad Block forged on after his Mother's death. Makes one wonder about the time and money spent in therapy. What might have happened if she didn't have that outlet? Did the therapist help her or just foster a dependency that kept his bank account flush? The audience needs to understand that divorce was less of an option in those days. She was a housewife - went to therapy instead of going to college or job training. She seemed to feel trapped by the situation. I wonder if the therapist ever tried to get her to think about what she could have done to change her situation and free herself? Meanwhile, wife #2 was just the opposite. She was out there, working with his Dad; ended her bad marriage, supported herself and appears to be a very confident, giving person. Whatever the state of the marriage, the Blocks did something right in raising 3 kids who could look at their parents' story, be OK with it and share it with us and maybe lead us to start conversations with our parents and spouses.

Sentiment: positive
I used to watch this show when I was growing up. When I think about it, I remember it pretty well. If you ask me, it was a pretty good show. Anytime I think about it, I don't remember the opening sequence and theme song very well. In addition to that, everyone was ideally cast. Also, the writing was very strong. The performances were top-grade, too. I hope some network brings it back so I can see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I'm not sure if I've seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, if some network ever brings it back, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good.

Sentiment: positive
With several name actors (Lance Henrikson, David Warner, Joe Don Baker), why was Jeffery Combs given the lead? Henrikson would have been a perfect fit for the lead, as would Warner, Baker or even others in the movie such as Charles Napier. Combs was miscast in this, and did a poor job of it. Everything he did seemed fake or contrived.

The script is poor. Meaning that if Lance Henrikson (or another) had the lead role, he might have saved the film (removed it from my "waste of time" category), but it still would have been a bad movie. The screen play was completely lacking. The director should have recognized this and helped the movie along.

Sentiment: negative
"Porgy & Bess" was the very first movie my parents ever took me to see. Even at the tender age of 5 years, I was so greatly moved by the drama that I cried aloud at the screen "Crown, PLEASE don't take Bess!" I was fortunate enough to see the one TV broadcast of "Porgy & Bess" so many years ago and now all I have are the great memories (and the record album) to remember this wonderful, wonderful movie. I have been waiting and wishing and hoping that one day I might own a copy of "Porgy & Bess" - but it doesn't look like it will happen. What is the hold up? Obviously, there is enough public interest in this movie to warrant a release. After all these years, I remember it and it sure seems like I'm not alone. This movie is brimming with human emotion - jealousy, lust, anger, bravery, determination. "Porgy & Bess" is a buried gem that deserves to be brought forth into the light for a new audience to admire and an old audience to relish.

Sentiment: positive
This well conceived and carefully researched documentary outlines the appalling case of the Chagos Islanders, who, it shows, between 1969 and 1971, were forcibly deported en masse from their homeland through the collusion of the British and American governments. Anglo-American policy makers chose to so act due to their perception that the islands would be strategically vital bases for controlling the Indian Ocean through the projection of aerial and naval power. At a time during the Cold War when most newly independent post-colonial states were moving away from the Western orbit, it seems British and American officials rather felt that allowing the islanders to decide the fate of the islands was not a viable option. Instead they chose to effect the wholesale forcible removal of the native population. The film shows that no provision was made for the islanders at the point of their ejection, and that from the dockside in Mauritius where they were left, the displaced Chagossian community fell into three decades of privation, and in these new circumstances, beset by homesickness, they suffered substantially accelerated rates of death.

Following the passage of more than three decades, however, in recent months (and years), following the release of many utterly damning papers from Britain's Public Record Office (one rather suspects that there was some mistake, and these papers were not supposed to have ever been made public), resultant legal appeals by the Chagossian community in exile have seen British courts consistently find in favour of the islanders and against the British State. As such, the astonishing and troubling conclusions drawn out in the film can only reasonably be seen as proved. Nevertheless, the governments of Great Britain and the United States have thus far made no commitment to return the islands to what the courts have definitively concluded are the rightful inhabitants. This is a very worthwhile film for anyone to see, but it is an important one for Britons and Americans to watch. To be silent in the face of these facts is to be complicit in a thoroughly ugly crime.

Sentiment: positive
I just happened to stumble to this film and checked IMDb for more information: Score 6,7, well... not so bad. Genre: scifi...good I like scifi. So I got the movie and I was looking forward to have a relaxing Sunday evening watching it. But but...NO.

As in summary, this isn't a movie at all. It is a religious advertisement, including: preatching about Jesus, god, devil, end of the world etc. Movie starts with a epic abduction story: Driving at night, car stops, bright light and so on... Well, actually that was the film. Last of this ..ummm... frankly I don't know what to call it...was dialogue about end of the world and last judgement. Quite a same stuff what these TV-preachers tell you, but they are "good" at it.

Honestly, if you wan't to see a scifi movie or something with UFOs, please stay far away from this "thing". It has nothing to do with them. If you want to hear some cuckoo head's opinion what the bible has to say and what you should do. Then go ahead and watch this "thing", but I still prefer going to the church at Sunday.

This is complete bull. (and evangelical Christian propaganda, as another users said= Well... I should have red another users comments before I got the movie. 

(27% of voters have rated this "thing" as 10. Yeah, right. Please, go somewhere else to do your propaganda)

Sentiment: negative
I had no idea of the facts this film presents. As I remember this situation I accepted the information presented then in the media: a confused happening around a dubious personality: Mr. Chavez. The film is a revelation of many realities, I wonder if something of this caliber has ever been made. I supposed the protagonist was Mr.Chavez but everyone coming up on picture

was important and at the end the reality of that entelechy: the people, was overwhelming. Thank you Kim Bartley and Donnacha O´Briain.



Sentiment: positive
I do not know which one was first released earlier in 1970 . Cannon for Cordoba is an "Europen Western" It was made in Spain. This means this is fairly inferior to Sergio Leone's so-called #Western Spaghetti and to the Real American Masterpieces of John Ford, Sam Peckinpah, Howard Hugues,John Sturges and Anthony Mann, in my order of merit. This order is not to be interpreted as all John Ford Westerns are better than all by Sam Peckipahn's. I think IMDb's 100 Sort them out all pretty well.

The worse about this firm is the Casting. George Peppard is fit for a sergeant's role, Raff Valone for a "Maffia Capo" and Giovanna Ralli to a "puttana" in "Piazza Vennezia" in the sixty's in Rome.

Sentiment: negative
I watched the first series avidly, but wondered whether I'd go back again after a lengthy break from it. However, I tuned into episode one of Series 2 and was hooked all over again. This really is excellent telly; ground-breaking stuff like Mission:Impossible back in the 1960s. The characters are well rounded, and expand as the series goes on, they change as they adapt - some more readily than others - to their new surroundings, but they cleverly remain strictly in character, and yet it is more than possible to have sympathy for someone whom you wouldn't have thought you could ever feel sorry for, when something really crushing happens to them. I hope there will be many years of 'Lost' to look forward to - and I don't actually mind all that much if I never get answers to all the mysteries!

Sentiment: positive
I will commend it in only one respect.. it was innovative. Innovative doesn't mean it's a good film, it means that it can give you an idea of what you can take and implement in your own films.

The simple plot is.. well.. simple. I got to the point where I didn't care if they destroy the building or not. If I had to hear that girl's annoying giggle one more time, I swear I would hurl the DVD out the window. And there's also the protagonist. They try to make him lovable, but he's a freakin pervert! Sniffing the girls bra, sneaking peeks at her when she's naked, putting her bra over his eyes when he sleeps, putting her bra on a blow up sex doll (which she takes her panties off while hes asleep and slips them on his doll.. umm)

What irritates me even moreso is that crappy tinting. In the photo gallery on the DVD, you can see what the film looked liek before they greyscaled it and put in a color tint (digitally too).. The film looked a LOT better without the effect.. so they sacrificed it being a good film just to be artsy... bah. I could understand using gimmicks like that if the film quality was crap..

I think most people who liked this film just liked it because the chick was naked for a good 5 - 10 minutes. This doesn't compare to Delicatessen ( like so many are tryign to do). Delicatessen has characters you can get into and like.. these people here just grunt and giggle.

Lastly, I would also liek to point out that this was also tryign to be like a German Impressionistic film liek the old silents. One of the problems with most foreign, especially artsy, films is that thety focus on making an artsy composition and forget about the 'space' of the scene. It results in the audience not really understanding what;s going on because they don't get a sense of the space of the surroundings.

Anyway, it's rubbish. The short film on the DVD, Surprise, was a heckuva lot better.

Sentiment: negative