DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
The Toxic Avenger... 

The idea of this movie is that a person that the common population would call this person a looser and then after being thrown into a barrel of toxic waste, mutated into a superhero that is completely disfigured sounded OK even for 1985. This movie is listed as a horror... I even have read of a cult following with this series.... 

Now this movie even given when it was made was so bad that I couldn't stop watching... the acting is horrible even for an independent film that I think was to be the horror part of this movie...

drug dealing, sumo, Godzilla entrance.... I'm all for movies that promote anti-drugs... heck I even like Godzilla and well sumo... I'm not into it but even still I think that the heights of sumo would love to give this movie the 1000 hand slap and ground salt into the eyes of the people that made this movie... 

Personally I am almost ready to write to the film company that made this and ask them for the 87mins or so of my life back.

To me 1 out of 10 is too high it's too bad that there isn't a 0 (zero) or even negative integers to place on a movie here.

In other words this movie is J-U-N-K...... would rather watch paint dry and deal with explosive diarrhea then have to watch this movie ever again... I would be the first person that would use not only the packaging of this movie as kindling but I would be up for a good'ol movie and script burning.

Sentiment: negative
The autobiography on which this movie is based remains one of the most heart-rending books I have ever read. It tells the amazing stories of two sisters, both who earned devotion and respect working well into their 70's as a teacher and a dentist, then lived another 30 years with dignity. Ruby Dee steals the film with her perfectly nuanced performance as the rebellious "blacker" Bessie, the dentist. She not only expresses her anger, angst, and wisdom well; she lets you know exactly where they've come from using an economy of words. Diahnn Carroll has the feel of the older sister, the teacher, down perfectly, but I'm afraid she never makes me believe that she's over 100. No matter -- the stories are well worth telling. Amy Madigan is a bit too extreme and intrusive in acting overwhelmed and insecure in the first half of the movie as the Caucasian NY Times reporter. This, too, is only a minor distraction. The stories, all true, are the attraction and although two or three get slightly damaged in the translation, most of them make it through just fine.

I recommend the book as essential reading to all people I recommend any books to. I cannot quite but this TV-movie in that rarefied air, but it certainly captures enough of the flavor to be highly worthwhile in its own right.

Sentiment: positive
This film is definitely up there with the worst films I've ever seen, probably in my top 5 of worst films. I laughed once and that was when:

EVAN: "im building something" Evan's Secretary: "i hope its a barber shop"

That was literally the only time i laughed in this 'comedy', awful compared to Bruce almighty which as a big Jim carrey fan...wasn't even that great! 

This movie lacked the humour of having God's powers and was more about family bonding. Id class it solely as a family movie, definitely not a family comedy. 

Seeing a bird poo on someone's shirt is not hilarious, neither is a beard that grows back instant!

I didn't even think the special effects were great, the animals looked really stuck on, it was like watching a film which hadn't been 'glued' together properly

2/10 film - avoid!

Sentiment: negative
Of all the films I have seen, this one, The Rage, has got to be one of the worst yet. The direction, LOGIC, continuity, changes in plot-script and dialog made me cry out in pain. "How could ANYONE come up with something so crappy"? Gary Busey is know for his "B" movies, but this is a sure "W" movie. (W=waste).

Take for example: about two dozen FBI & local law officers surround a trailer house with a jeep wagoneer. Inside the jeep is MA and is "confused" as to why all the cops are about. Within seconds a huge gun battle ensues, MA being killed straight off. The cops blast away at the jeep with gary and company blasting away at them. The cops fall like dominoes and the jeep with Gary drives around in circles and are not hit by one single bullet/pellet. MA is killed and gary seems to not to have noticed-damn that guy is tough. Truly a miracle, not since the six-shooter held 300 bullets has there been such a miracle.

Sentiment: negative
Why? Why did they make this movie? If Timothy Olyphant wasn't shirtless in it several times, there would be ABSOLUTELY no reason to watch this movie, ever. Um...Plot? Nope. Well-defined characters? nope. The only time I laughed was when my boyfriend made fun of the whole she-bang. P.S. Andy Dick? Nope.

Sentiment: negative
Caught this flick as one of a five-for-$5 deal from a local video store, and it was a most pleasant surprise. It's a collection of four interrelated tales built around four kids who've just had a car wreck and are waiting for someone to pick them up. They tell each other these stories to kill time, and are occasionally startled by flashing lights and funny noises which all come together in an O. Henry-esque ending that left me gleeful. A real discovery. Blood (and plenty of it), breasts and beasts round it all out rather nicely...Jacinda Barrett is worth the price of admission alone. This one is a keeper--Jim Bob says check it out.

Oddly enough, "Pumpkinhead" was one of our five choices too, and IMDB recommends that for anyone who likes "Campfire Tales". I'll followup as soon as I get a chance to sit down and watch that one. Joyeux Samhain!

Sentiment: positive
I almost laughed out loud when during the commentary the director said this movie is original with a strong plot line. There is not one... repeat ONE original plot line or special effect in this blah movie. 

The Crows.... Hitchcock did it superbly back before CGI and even with CGI this film falls short of a well done attack scene. The creepy crawly boy... The Grudge did it and did it better. The psycho...done in Cold Creek Manor most recently, however it has been done to death. No pun intended. Disconnected/rebellious teen who no one listens to... about a dozen films have used this one right down to Beetlejuice. The oozy stuff from the basement... can you say Amnityville Horror? Doors opening unbidden... What Lies Beneath did it with much more flair. Creepy farmhouse... too numerous to mention. 

The backdrop of metaphysics-- which should have been the central focus, gets lost once you figure out what is happening, which by the way is pretty early on.

One thing (of many actually) they never even try to explain in the movie is how they explain to the police that their attacker was sucked down the ooze in the basement, so they really don't have a body. 

Overall... DON'T BOTHER

Sentiment: negative
Watching this I mainly noticed the ad placements. DHL, Aquawhite Strips, Rockstar and more. It's one product placement after another. It's quite obvious how this movie got its funding. Jessica Simpson's "acting" is laughable. Any Dick shouldn't ever get work because he plays the same lame character. The "story" is just a backdrop for this very long commercial. I can't believe this movie was even considered for theatrical release. The longer you watch this movie the more you're embarrassed for everyone involved. The only minor saving grace is Larry Miller and Rachael Lee Cook, who gets almost no screen time as Jessica's cousin. I'm embarrassed I watched the whole thing. I would recommend avoiding this one.

Sentiment: negative
In this crackerjack noir thriller from Columbia which is a combination of Panic In The Streets and The Naked City, Evelyn Keyes is unknowingly The Killer That Stalked New York. Evelyn who smuggled some stolen jewels into the country from Cuba also smuggled in smallpox. It gets misdiagnosed by doctor William Bishop and when they do find out what it is the hunt is on for her.

For most of the film the Treasury Department is also hunting Keyes, but for the smuggled jewels. It's not until nearly the end of the film that the health department and law enforcement realize they're looking for the same woman.

Evelyn's on a mission also. Her husband Charles Korvin has left her flat, the unkindest cut of all being that he was fooling around with her sister while she was in Cuba collecting the gems and contracting smallpox. When Lola Albright as her sister commits suicide over the whole affair, Evelyn's on a mission, get Korvin or die trying. And that's not an idle threat given the situation.

The film was mostly shot in New York like The Naked City and its cast is sprinkled liberally with a lot of familiar names and faces. Keep an eye out for good performances by Connie Gilchrist as Evelyn's unsympathetic landlady, Jim Backus as a shifty club owner, and Art Smith as Korvin's fence.

A real sleeper in the noir category, don't miss it if broadcast.

Sentiment: positive
Superb! Even the Author was laughing at the end. And what a "balcony" scene! This film has it all. Wickedly funny and yet strangely faithful to the Bard of Avon. (But NOT for the Faint of Heart!) AND... the Best Credits since Monty Python and The Holy Grail! I am "Troma"Tized!

Sentiment: positive
I found the film Don't Look In The Basement to be very good, with some great characters in it. It is about a young psychiatric nurse called Nurse Charlotte Beale(Rosie Holotik),who is going to start work at a isolated mental asylum. Whilst there, she meets various sorts of different characters including Dr. Geraldine Masters who becomes in charge of the asylum after the the owner of the hospital Dr. Stephens gets killed by one of the patients by hitting him with an axe.

My favourite characters in the film are Mrs Challingham(Reah MacAdams), a very funny little old lady, Allison who is a nymphomaniac, and Sam(Bill McGhee) a young black guy who goes around all Day seeming to be in a world of his own all of the time. The film was a very low budget film but was still a really great film. I know that it was on the 'Video Nasties' list back in the 80's but a did not think that it had a lot of gore in it, Alothough it did have some disturbing senses in it GREAT FILM RECOMMENDED!!!.

Sentiment: positive
Nightbreed blew my mind the first time I saw it. And it's held up quite well over the years. The sets and monster effects work, are some of the best I've ever seen. Nobody I know seems to have seen this film, which I believe tanked at the box office, because of the lack of interest in horror, in the early nineties. It plays like a dark, horrific fairy tale, and is a lot deeper, then you'd think, with a strong message against bigotry, presented by a rich mystical past, that Clive Barker created. What sucks is the film ends on a really cool sequel note, that we'll probably never see. My only minor gripe is that Craig Sheffer is only a passable actor at best, and the the project might have benefited with a better actor in the part. Just a minor complaint though as Sheffer does alright. I had a similar issue with Scott Bakula in Barker's Lord Of Illusions, not really a terrible performance, but I just didn't like him in the role as much as I would have other people.

Sentiment: positive
At least with the teenage geek gets the girl films, the guy is usually unpopular with girls. In the 40 Year Old Virgin he is replaced with a 40 year old guy who is popular with women but somehow has remained a virgin. But then you are not supposed to engage your brain with this film or did I miss the bit about him being comatose for 20 years?

One of a series of films where 40 somethings act like teenagers and women for some reason find this a sufficiently attractive quality that they want a serious relationship with them. I find it hard to understand how a country that has produced such excellent TV comedies seems to think it has to rely on crude and shallow characters for laughs. They've done the gross out movies. They've done the let's act like all Americans have a mental age of 15. Where will they go next? 

This film is crass and crude entertainment with nothing to recommend it.

Sentiment: negative
Midnight Cowboy is not for everybody. It's raw, painful, and realistic but very entertaining. The lead actors Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman who would go on to become Oscar winning actors deliver amazing performances. Voight as the Texas hustler, Joe Buck, who migrates from small town Texas to New York City to become a hustler. He does not apologize for his chosen profession but it is not that easy. The New York City women like the rich lady played by Georgeann Johnson and Cass played by Oscar nominated Sylvia Miles are different than Texas women. Sadly, Buck is trying to escape from his past life in Texas. He was raised by his grandmother, Sally Buck, played by the wonderful actress Ruth White who died in 1969 from cancer. The locations in New York City are wonderful to watch as is the relationship between Fatso played by Hoffman and Buck's characters evolve into a moving male to male friendship. The men are struggling to survive the New York City life by not playing by the rules like getting a real job. As the film evolves, Buck's past comes to the surface and it's haunting but not clear. The film is not for children but compared to today's films and television programming, Midnight Cowboy might be more tame. I can't forget a young Brenda Vaccaro and a party that you can't forget. It's also a tearjerker of a film, so get your hankies out too.

Sentiment: positive
The movie is plain bad. Simply awful. The string of bad movies from Bollywood has no end! They must be running out of excuses for making such awful movies (or not).

The problem seems to be with mainly the directors. This movie has 2 good actors who have proved in the past that the have the ability to deliver great performance...but they were directed so poorly. The poor script did not help either.

This movie has plenty of ridiculous moments and very bad editing in the first half. For instance :

After his 1st big concert, Ajay Devgan, meets up with Om Puri (from whom he ran away some 30 years ago and talked to again) and all Om Puri finds to say is to beware of his friendship with Salman!!! What a load of crap. Seriously. Not to mention the baaad soundtrack. Whatever happened to Shankar Ehsaan Loy?

Ajay Devgun is total miscast for portraying a rockstar.

Only saving grace are the good performances in the second half. Ajay shines as his character shows his dark side. So does Salman as the drug addict. 

Watch it maybe only for the last half hour.

Sentiment: negative
Eleven "great" filmmakers, eleven pieces of garbage. Eleven minutes each of sheer tedium, sophistry, condescension, self-indulgence. Treats for people of all nations. Yussef Chahine of Egypt giving a "hip hip hooray!" for terorism in his amateurish segment. Across the green line we have Amos Gitai of Israel, using his eleven minutes to show a terrorist act and focus on a jerky newscaster. Alejandro González Iñárritu of Mexico concentrated on the Twin Towers but seemed to forget to turn on his camera. Sean Penn not knowing that there were no buildings within the shadow of the Trade Center on 9-11. Shohei Imamura of Japan ignoring the whole thing. Claude Lelouch focussing on a trivial and cliched love affair. Ken Loach of the UK focussing on Chile. Etc. etc.

Sentiment: negative
Just as the whole cast and crew knows f*** all about film making.

This film concerns the adventures and predicaments of a modern day cockney vampire assassin, and an age old spat with her seemingly jaded vampire lover. That plot in itself reeks of clichés and promises of boredom when on as small a scale a film as this, and that's exactly what you get.

First off let me say that I by no means dismiss films because they are B movies, in fact some of my favourite films are B movies such as Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter, but this one misses the mark by a mile.

Anyone with any knowledge of small budget films will know that the acting is rarely gripping and emotional, but Razor Blade Smile creates a whole new dimension of hamming it up on screen. Some of the so called acting is just indescribably bad, with characters spewing cheesy one liners that fall flat, and discourse expressing about as much emotion and conviction as the terminator after a couple of horse tranquillisers.

A vast portion of the film is also taken up by the vampiric characters, the protagonist in particular, unnecessarily flapping their mouths, showing off their ridiculously large vampire teeth and exhaling very loudly. It literally must happen in almost every scene at least once, and quickly became annoying and pointless, as if that many looks of slack jawed supposedly scary vampire faces were used to merely fill a little bit of time and pad out the rest of this turd sandwich of a film.

Contrary to what some of the other reviewers believe on here, I feel this film (the director in particular) is really trying to take this film seriously in many parts. The sheer number of overly dramatic action shots and extreme close-ups seems to indicate to me that the director really wanted people to feel this film and make it legitimate to its genre and not spoof it, and he fails miserably. The attempts at supposedly tasteful sex scenes come out as comic and silly and the action sequences are sometimes just plain stupid.

Also the ending of this film was one of the weakest and most pathetic conclusions I have seen to a film, B movie or not. When films such as this force you to sit through hours of themselves only to be rewarded with a "oh it was all a game" ending it is actually sickening. It the conclusion to the "plot" feels like an afterthought of the director that he figured out on the last day of shooting because they had run to the end of their shoestring budget.

But I have not rated this film as one star despite the overwhelming crappiness, and this is because of the only plus point I can really give this film. Intentionally or not, it was funny. I am fairly sure the parts I found humorous were not intended to be, and I found most of the efforts at genuine gags to be fruitless, but when watched with friends it is a good film to take the mickey out of.

Sentiment: negative
I expect the same excitement as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE but I was let down by just junk how can you even call this a movie ( its kinda of a mini porno) . It made my sick when the guy was made to eat his own business. There is no story line to it at all it jumps to quickly from each murder. If you like seeing a women naked or even mens parts then there's spots in the movie for and there's even a masturbation spot in the movie which makes it a porno and not a movie at all. I have seen some dumb movies in my time but this is number 1 . I want be watching it again at all. The actors even look bored during the movie to me so they probably were in need of money badly to make this movie.

Sentiment: negative
A confusing, senseless script with plot holes the size of the Eiffell Tower. Terrible acting by all involved - no exception! Laughable and cheesy dialogue. Lame attempts at humor and romance. Extremely cheap special effects. All this makes for a giant mess of a film, you'd best avoid.

Sentiment: negative
I just recently watched this 1954 movie starring Vincent Price for the first time on Turner Classic Movies. Price portrays Don Gallico, a magician/inventor who is driven to murder when his boss steals several of his magical inventions (and also his wife, portrayed in a brief role by the lovely Eva Gabor). Even though Price is a murderer, I actually found myself rooting for him, he is a sympathetic character who is driven mad by the greedy people around him who keep taking advantage of him.

Although this movie doesn't have the "horror" factor of some of his more famous roles (such as my favorite, "House of Wax") it nonetheless has enough going for it to keep the viewers interest. 

This is a must for Vincent Price fans.

Sentiment: positive
this movie was downright awful. most of the comedic scenes seem stale and trite, and possibly the funniest scene in the movie had already been given away in previews. the entire premise of the movie is so unbelievable and ridiculous its hard to really get into it. the actors themselves portray the most unrealistic characters. its not just the fact that the movies so hard to swallow, but its how they keep forcing it down your throat expecting you to dumb down and accept it. the plot itself is so shallow and easy to predict. boy somehow gets rejected from every school he applied to(i suppose he completely forgot about attending community college) and decides to create his own school for fellow rejects. all goes well for awhile until the validity of his school comes into question. all the while the dorky character manages to woo his beautiful neighbor into falling for him with his witty sarcasm, which apparently is a skill only he possesses. then comes the final struggle with the students somehow all bonding together and fighting for the survival of the school. of course the main character then persuades the state board of education to allow his school to stay alive with some "inspirational" speech. this movie would have been more fun to watch if i was under the age of 16 and still ignorant of all college matters and issues.

Sentiment: negative
In the Realm of the Senses is a beautifully filmed, well-written, and splendidly acted film. It tells the haunting story of a woman who kills her husband after falling in love with another man. The ghost of her husband continues to haunt her lond after his murder. This film is really good, anyone interested should definitely check it out.

Sentiment: positive
Some aspects of this production are good, such as the performances of Angela Lansbury, George Hearn, Cris Groenendaal, and Sal Mistretta. But am I the only one who is distracted by the horrible performance by Betsy Joslyn as Johanna? She is terrible! She slauters the songs with her screechy voice and overacts in a role she clearly doesn't understand. I also think the chorus isn't up to snuff. They drag the tempo and make the worst facial expressions. Overall, I think this production is okay, but Sweeney Todd can be so much more if done correctly. This production doesn't come near the level this material demands. The concert version with George Hearn and Patti LuPone is much better.

Sentiment: negative
Sorry this movie did not scare me it just annoyed me. It was just so frustrating when I saw the potential and that, all that, fell by the wayside. The children! The father! The premonition! Had so much potential and ziltch! zero, nada! I have heard it all before. Scary! No! I can scare myself alone, here where I sit, than they could in the movie. Are there men writing that figure that women should be so annoying? Huh? This movie was quite atmospheric. Or at least it could have been, had the director/writer bothered to work it. We could have had some good music that would have added to the tension too, if someone had made the effort. What I really want to know is why do they get the money? Just give it to me and save all that hassle. Abandoned?... No we where betrayed

Sentiment: negative
Fay Grim is a true example of what I call a completed puzzle film. It has all the pieces of acting, direction, storyline, and entertainment value. They all fit together and when done so create a masterpiece, Fay Grim.

This film follows a single mother Fay Grim trying to raise her son to not grow up to be her father who ran away from the law and went missing. Soon the CIA contacts Fay in desperate pursuit to find 8 journals of her husband Henry's. These journals were filled with confessions of his long past in the CIA and his involvement with countries and their government doings. Fay is sent to find these journals, in return to release her brother from prison, and is sent on a cat-and-mouse chase all over Europe to recover these journals and learn of the hidden secrets of her husbands past she never knew about.

Parker Posey had already been an actress I liked after I watched her in The OH in Ohio and Best in Show. She brought liveliness to these two comedic roles of hers, but Fay Grim was a far different role than the other two movies. Posey made me believe what was happening on screen, I felt for her, I rooted for her, and I wanted to know more. She grabs you while she is on screen and when she is off you can't stop thinking about what is happening to her.

I haven't seen any other previous works by writer/director Hal Hartley but I believe I will look into viewing some of his earlier films if they are half as good as Fay Grim was.

If you decide to make a smart movie choice next time you decide to rent a movie or purchase a DVD I'd highly urge you to choose Fay Grim. If you have any common sense on how a film should be you will enjoy this movie immensely.

Sentiment: positive
When I saw this film in the 1950s, I wanted to be a scientist too. There was something magical and useful in Science. I took a girl - friend along to see it a second time. I don't think she was as impressed as I was! This film was comical yet serious, at a time when synthetic fibres were rather new. Lessons from this film could be applied to issues relating to GM experimentation of today.

Sentiment: positive
Having not read the book, I was more open to the fresh interpretation that each director gives to their medium (which is film, not "to the letter" reproductions of literature)on this particular film. I was happy that the holocaust that occurred in Russia (and it's neighboring countries) finally received some attention. The Nazis were particularly cruel to Russians and Russian Jews. If you read the histories and see the monuments built in Smolensk and nearby regions you will understand this movie and why many kept silent when they should've spoken up.

It was certainly time for this to be chronicled and I hope that more stories will come out of this. It's high time.

Sentiment: positive
Some movies are repellent but still fascinating (Pulp Fiction); others are simply boring. This movie has an almost unique feature of being both utterly repellent and totally boring. By the end I didn't care about any of the characters, I just wanted all of them dead so I could get out of the theatre.

Sentiment: negative
The visual effectiveness of this film is unmatched by anything I've seen. And the work required to make achieve it must have been incredibly long and tedious (you don't just stick "Kodak Grainy Film" in your camera to get this look). Don't watch this film to be entertained, watch it to be visually stimulated, watch it to be challenged and provoked in your thoughts on film and any other topic that comes to mind, religion will likely be one thought.



Sentiment: positive
Let me start by saying that I totally agree with the basic thesis of the film, that there probably was no historical Jesus and Christianity is a sham. With that said, this movie does a pretty poor job of proving that thesis. It makes good arguments--the gap between Jesus' theoretical life and the writing of the Gospels, filled only by the writings of Paul, who doesn't indicate a historical Jesus--and then utterly fails to convincingly argue them. It makes broad statements without presenting the evidence the statements are based on, and it resolutely ignores counter-arguments presented by Christian apologists. The intellectual dishonesty, emotional manipulation, and lack of serious argument are obvious, and stunning. The only Christians we hear from in the film are the head of the filmmaker's old school--who comes off like a reasonable, rational person attempting to deal with a twit with a chip on his shoulder--and various Christians encountered apparently at random in a parking lot. I'm sorry, but revealing that average Christians don't know much about their religion isn't exactly damning evidence of Christianity's fraudulence. You may as well claim that Jay Leno has disproved the existence of Michael Dukakis on his Jay-Walking segment. The interviews with experts can be interesting, but the film is filled with too much of, let's be honest, the filmmaker just being snarky. Within the first five minutes the film has already conflated Jerry Falwell with Charles Manson and the writers of the Left Behind series with the Branch Davidians. And by the end, the film becomes so self-centered that there's no rational argument left, just an angry former Christian lashing out at the people and places he blames for his messed up childhood. Y'know, maybe that movie could've been interesting, but it's misplaced in a documentary about the historicity of Jesus, and it's so self-congratulatory as to deflate any sympathy. This is a Michael Moore film without the humor or the film-making acumen combined with a Richard Dawkins book without the wit or the intellectual rigor. Skip it.

Sentiment: negative
One of the most definitive gangster films of the 80's, Scarface is very much a film of its time. The first thing you notice when you watch this film is that it is screaming at you, 'made in 1983'. The costumes, the music score and soundtrack, the hairstyles, make no mistake about it this is a film all about crime in the 80's and while it should have dated horribly it hasn't. This is still a superb film. While Georgio Moroder's music has dated a fair bit, it still compliments the story of Tony Montana well thanks to the superb screenplay by Oliver Stone and the first class direction of Brian De Palma, one of two films that he has made with Pacino (the other being the fantastic Carlito's Way). All of De Palma's trademarks are here; the strong language, the graphic violence (more on that later), the stylish excesses such as grandiose set pieces and of course the stylish camera work.

Pacino dominates the film and I mean that literally. He is the dominant star of this film. His performance over the top, this is one of those films were Pacino doesn't so much say his lines as he does shouts them, this time with a superb Cuban accent. However, this is Pacino and he does it fantastically. Only he could go this far over the top and still come away from the film with his acting integrity in tact. While some may complain about his shouting of his lines and the sheer excess of it all, this is an excessive film. Take a look at the production design of Tony's house, take a look at the violence in this film. The chainsaw incident is downright brutal and their is blood everywhere. The shoot out at the end has bodies going down at a rate that is more akin to Schwarzenegger and Stallone in the Rambo films. Take a look at the amount of coke that is displayed in the film so Pacino's performance I suppose is perfect for the film. He is supported by actors who are more akin to saying their lines in a more controlled way. Steven Bauer, in particularly, as Manny, Tony's best friend, is the stand out of the supporting cast. His performance is so controlled and quiet in a De Niro sort of way it is a wonder how he ended up doing straight to video soft porn. Michelle Pfeiffer, of course, adds the glamor, Robert Loggia adds gravitas as usual and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio makes a great debut as Tony's sister.

Of course this is more than just a film about excess. There is more to it than drugs, violence, chainsaw assaults and a big great shoot out. This is a film about the darker side of the American dream. In many ways it puts it on a thematic par with The Godfather films. Tony finds himself coming to America, getting it all, living the American dream and then losing it all in violent fashion, and by saying he loses it all, I mean he loses it all. He kills his best friend, his sister is killed, his empire crumbles, literally, around him and to top it of he is killed in his own mansion, bullets ripping through him. 

Without doubt Scarface is one of the key films of the early 80's. Sure, it doesn't have the subtleties of The Godfather films, but this is still a fine film and one that is worth going to again and again.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film when it first came out in the cinema. We were all looking forward to seeing Mark Hamill relaunch his career, but we came out wishing we hadn't bothered. Many people walked out after about half an hour - I wish I had too. The basic premise seems okay, but the plot was ridiculously involved and tortuous, and runs out half way through. Its completely unmemorable, and not a film you want to have paid money to see. If you're really bored and it's on TV, then it'll help you kill a couple of hours (or help you to nod off!). 2/10

Sentiment: negative
MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD! OK the movie in a nutshell. so this girl goes out buys drugs gets pulled over by a cop, the cops name is Wolf. the cop feels her butt, then he eats her...okay? he beats her up and eats her. then this woman is at home and this guy come with bulging genitals and he does her up. then the woman goes into the other room and this black guy is there and she undresses.....then the movie turns into a porno. he starts sucking on her breasts, then she gives him head. then wolf walks in with blood all over him and says "honey I'm home" then he realizes his wife is blowing some black guy and he kills her, the black guy kills him cuts the girl out of wolfs stomach and the go home. the end and they lived happily ever after. THAT IS THE MOVIE.

now after reading this do u really think there is anything to like about this movie. the only thing i liked in the woman had a nice body. but the performances sucked, the story sucked, the dialogue sucked, THE WHOLE MOVIE JUST SUCKED!!!!!

Sentiment: negative
I first saw this absolutely riveting documentary in it's initial release back in 2001,and it really had a profound effect on me, so much that I bugged several of my friends to see it with me on repeat screenings. The bottom line:none of my friends walked away disappointed (ever!). This stellar film is about Scottish conceptual artist, Andy Goldsworthy,who creates some absolutely beautiful pieces of art using natural materials (wood,water,flowers,rocks,etc.)to create pieces that eventually return to their natural form (a statement in the temporary state of everything?). We get to see Goldsworthy create several works of temporary art,as well as some of his long term installations in major galleries around the world,as well as a few pieces in the natural world,as well. German film maker,Thomas Riedelsheimer directs,photographs & edits this meditation on the creative process that is a real treat for both the eye & ear (with an ambient musical score,composed & performed by Fred Frith,who's music is generally edgy experimental/noise textured guitar,as well as a capable ensemble of musicians). Although this film has been available on DVD for some years now,if you can find a cinema that is highlighting a revival of this fine film,by all means,seek it out (it's easily a film that was composed for the large screen,with a proficient sound system to truly experience this film the right way). No MPAA rating,but contains nothing to offend (unless the live birth of a sheep on screen is destined to offend or disturb)

Sentiment: positive
Another episode from childhood that, as an adult, I look back on with a different perspective. This was one of my favorite childhood episodes, one that really cemented my adoration of this show. However, on viewing this episode after 20 years, I'd say it is definitely one of the lighter ones, played for laughs and amusement, instead of the dramatic and well-constructed story lines in previous episodes in this, their first and best season. Perhaps this episode was written for a little fan R&R too! As Mr. Spock would say, the story just isn't logical but there are some amusing lines like, of course, Mr. Spock's final one at the end--when he asks the Captain, McCoy et al whether they enjoyed their R&R and they answer in the affirmative, he raises an eyebrow and says "Fascinating..." in only the way Mr. Spock could do that. An interesting story line, of course, the idea of an amusement park being actually amusing (instead of the fake and often annoying "amusement" of Disneyland, for example), being able to have one's wishes actually come true. Really, a great idea but not that well executed. And coming from Theodore Sturgeon, another of the great SF short story writers they used in the first season, one wonders how much tinkering was done to the script that Sturgeon turned in.

Now, here is a little trivia I learned on this very site: In 1987, James Gunn established the Theodore Sturgeon Award for best short science fiction story. And I'll quote the rest from this site: In 1968 he {Sturgeon} wrote "The Joy Machine", a third script for the Star Trek TV series {Amok Time the other}, that was never shot. The main reason that it wasn't used in the series is that it contained expensive special effects sequences that would be too much for their budget. However, the script was adapted into a book by Sci-Fi writer James Gunn (Star Trek #80, The Original Series) and published by Pocket Books in 1996.

I'd sum this up to say this episode is still very enjoyable, especially if one doesn't think too much about it. Just laugh and enjoy it and next episode we can get back to the serious stuff of protecting the universe.

Sentiment: positive
I just watched this move for the 5th or 6th time and am still in love with it. It still makes me cry and sing and worry and celebrate.

I almost wrote Bonnie Hunt a letter to tell her how much I love it. David Duchovny's grief scene is so flippin real!!! Minnie Driver is so natural and honest. My favorite line is when Duchovny says "I miss Elizabeth but I ache for Grace". Oh man! I'm crying just thinking about it. ALSO... Bonnie Hunt and Jim Belushi are sooooooooooooo the perfect Chicago area couple!! I know them I swear! I'm related to them I'm sure. 

This movie is in my three times a year rotation!!! I'd watch it once a week but I'm afraid I'd get too used to it!!! I always want to make it a special day when I watch it!!

Sentiment: positive
I get teased all the time by family and friends for my tears over movies, and they were not disappointed when I watched this one. I cried numerous times but believe me it was not over sappiness. I ached for the family and I ached for this man as he tried to redeem himself the only way he knew how. Denzel was fabulous as always, and so was Chris Walkin. Mickey Rourke, I did not even recognized though; the years have not been kind to him. My husband is not one to re-watch movies unless they are historically accurate war movies(snore!!!!) He has watched this movie 5 times now and I am going to have to get the DVD to watch it again because he has worn out the tape and it jumped the whole time I was watching.

Sentiment: positive
This was a very thought provoking film, especially for 1973. At the time it was actually a huge box office success. After the 1970s it appeared to be forgotten, but its central messages were too important to disappear completely.It was actually at least fifteen years ahead of its time...no one had ever heard of the 'greenhouse effect'before 1985, and the controversial subject of euthanasia was rarely brought up.

The sets and special effects might look a little outdated, but big money for sci fi films was a gamble in that period. If you look closely you will see everything usually makes sense. This is a message movie, not for zonked out star wars fans that cant sit through one minute of thought stimulation unless it contains a million bucks worth of explosions.

This was also Hestons last good film, the end of his famous dystopian sci fi trilogy. After that it was all overblown disaster epics and big budget crowd pleasing trash. THis might not be the most amusing two hour movie ever made, and the ending might be creepy and depressing, but its hard to find any film producer with guts anymore who would tackle a subject like this.

Sentiment: positive
A very slick modern (keeping it sensually hip) revamp on the Dracula story (although staying with the traditional customs) with quite an interesting, if not fully grasped back story of the prince of darkness. The first time I tried watching it I could only make it halfway through, before losing interest. Again it gets off to a good start (especially the scenes with the thieves and then their encounters with Dracula), but then for me it got less involving when it hits New Orleans to focus on Van Helsing's daughter. A great place to set it, but never took advantage of its settings (despite etching a paradise in damn, where Dracula could flourish). Produced by Wes Carven (and yeah they throw that name out there), but written / directed by Patrick Lussier. Artistically it had its moments with few dreamlike visuals, but some kinetic editing and cheap jolts don't help. The messy script does get considerably silly. Lussier does a polished job that remains rather glassy, inserting a lot of blood (the make-up is suitably achieved) and a lot of "Virgin" advertising. No I don't mean virgins, it's the music company, as it does get in numerous shots and Helsing's daughter works there too. Oh that wasn't obvious planting. The soundtrack is an amusing choice of rock tunes. Now the performances are all over the shop, but there are few familiar faces to spot (Danny Masterson, Sean Patrick Thomas, Nathan Fillion, Shane West and Lochlyn Munro). Gerard Butler as Dracula just didn't come off, as not much of a presence was formed. He was simply out-shined by the succulent ladies of the night; Jennifer Esposito, Colleen Fitzpatrick and Jeri Ryan as Dracula's brides. The likes of Jonny Lee Millar and Justine Waddell are respectably okay. Christopher Plummer gives out a grizzled turn as Van Helsing and Omar Epps has fun with his role.

Sentiment: negative
This movie, I would like to say, was completely great. I can see how many people would think that it's just a shocker film. This isn't completely untrue, but it's as much of shocker fiction as Chuck Palahniuk's books are. One of my favorite movies of all time, Bijo no Harawata is a certain type of crudely made movie that you can have just about any reaction to. It's scary, funny, silly, gross, full of off-the-top material and to some people, arousing. The fist time I saw this, it was with my friend, and his mother had brought it home for him to see it. He said it was just some screwed up Japanese movie, but I saw so much more of it. It's badly made, yes, but it has a certain type of poignancy as to be beautiful, too. As the Director says himself, this is a shocker movie made for a certain reason. Its like atrophy. If you leave audiences soft, then the entire human race is going to be soft. I think this is a good philosophy, and I agree with it one-hundred percent. Bijo no Harawata is the type of movie that gang rapes the hell out of fitness, yogurt, and all of this new-wave stuff.

Sentiment: positive
10 respected directors each shot a short film with operatic arias as the inspiration (and music). I'll do each one separately:

Nicolas Roeg (dir)--Giuseppe Verdi (music). A story about an assassination attempt in 1931 Vienna. Theresa Russell (Roegs wife) plays a man! Not bad--very beautiful and exotic. Russell is great.

Charles Sturridge--Verdi. No story but there is some haunting black and white imagery that fits perfectly with the music.

Jean-Luc Godard--Jean Baptiste Lully. Horrendous. Pointless, boring, no plot, no nothing. Filled with gratuitous female nudity. The worst!

Julien Temple--Verdi. Buck Henry, Beverly D'Angelo and Anita Morris star in this funny, if obvious, story about a cheating couple. Pretty good.

Bruce Beresford--Erich Korngold. Short, lush and romantic. Very good.

Robert Altman--Jean-Philippe Rameau. Dull. A yawner.

Fran Roddam--Richard Wagner. This has Bridget Fonda in her film debut. Beautifully done love story with a fairly explicit sex scene. 

Ken Russell--Giacomo Puccini. Really strange but OK.

Derek Jarman--Gustave Chapentier. Lyrical look at youth and old age. Very sweet. 

The last is by Bill Bryden doing "I Pagliacci". He has John Hurt (!) dressed as a clown lip-syncing to Caruso (!!!).

When this came out it almost got an X rating (for the abundant nudity and the sex scene). It was given an R with a strict warning attached saying the R rating would be heavily enforced. After the film bombed that warning disappeared.

The idea isn't bad and 6 out of the 10 segments were worthwhile. Worth seeing even if you don't like opera. Just avoid the Godard segment. I'm giving it an 8.

Sentiment: positive
Brilliant and moving performances by Tom Courtenay and Peter Finch.

Sentiment: positive
Terribly disappointed with CITY OF MEN after being swept away by CITY OF GOD. Lost is the exciting and unpredictable storyline, and instead, in its place, is bland predictability with the obvious attempts at audience manipulation by a superficial pretentious production and distribution team. This story ended up feeling like a sappy soap opera rather than a gritty indie feature, which is what is should have been. This is what happens when distributors try to seek a wider audience (ridiculous sweeping shots of the Rio coastline, etc) at the expense of a gripping story and characters. I really couldn't care what happened to any of the characters in this film - they were all so 2 dimensional. In short, sad waste of potential that should have been a slam-dunk following the exceptionally inspired CITY OF GOD. Boo!

Sentiment: negative
La Petit Tourette is a pretty funny South Park episode.Cartman is at the toy store one day and here's a kid swearing out loud but not getting in trouble for it.His mother then tells everyone that the kid has "tourette syndrome".Cartman loves the fact that he can swear without getting into trouble so he tells everybody that he has tourette syndrome.Kyle, however finds out that Cartman is lying and tries to tell people, but they think he is insensitive and is put in a "Tourette sensitivity training" type place.Cartman's tourette's eventually land him a spot on a talk show, however he finds that he cannot control his tourettes and starts saying embarrassing things that happen to him.Meanwhile, Kyle tries to sabotage the show in an interesting way.

Sentiment: positive
It's often said that Tobe Hooper just struck lucky with his grisly 1974 horror film 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' and every time I see another Hooper film - that view is only reinforced. It would seem that Hooper wanted to make his own version of films such as Scanners and Firestarter in 1990 and so we end up with Spontaneous Combustion; a film with a couple of good ideas and a whole load more that are borrowed from other films. Put it all together and you get a messy, boring film that most people would do well to miss! The film leads the audience to believe that it might be half decent initially with an intriguing back story that focuses on some experiments carried out on two young people in the fifties. The couple have a child and shortly thereafter burn to death as a result of the experiments done on them. Fast forward some years and the baby is now an adult named Sam; but naturally he's not a normal person and soon finds when it's discovered that he has the ability to set things on fire at will.

The film stars Brad Dourif, who must have seemed like a good casting choice given his success with Child's Play two years earlier; but actually was an uninspired decision as the central performance is really terrible; and not helped by the terrible supporting performances. The turgid direction and dull script also don't do the film many favours and the trend of lacking in favours is continued by the special effects, which are very unrealistic and have nothing on the films that this one is ripping off; all of which were made some years earlier. The plot is really slow and it's almost an hour before anything of note happens, and I didn't care for it even then. It soon becomes obvious which direction the film will go in and it all boils down to the sort of tedious ending you would expect. The final confrontation is a big disappointment and nothing is really explained during the film. Not that any revelation would have been interesting anyway. Overall, this is a rubbish film and another reason why Tobe Hooper is a long way from being a great horror director. See Firestarter again instead.

Sentiment: negative