DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This film was produced and released as a successor to a ghastly - although fairly popular - slapstick Californian beach comedy called Hardbodies, but it has little or no connection with the earlier film and is better assessed completely in its own right. It is certainly better than Hardbodies I, and is more closely related to films such as Venus and Summer Lovers which were also filmed during summer in the Greek Islands. The combination of blissful beaches on blue bays with beautiful bare bosoms makes for seductive viewing, but (except for travelogues just designed to help plan your next holiday) even such films require an adequate story line if they are to hold a viewers attention for more than a very few minutes. Venus was underpinned by the legend of the re-incarnation of the goddess, and Summer Lovers had the viability of a "menage a trois" as its theme. In my view both these films were much more successful than Hardbodies II which has a very tenuous story line and depends too much on simplistic semi-slapstick comedy. The use of slapstick quickly becomes tedious, it usually leads to a series of very short self contained cameo sequences that are hard to integrate into an ongoing story line. Mel Brooks achieved this brilliantly with Silent Movie, but few other films have succeeded in the same way, and Hardbodies II unfortunately does not. There is also the problem that the slapstick sequences do not co-habit happily with the idyllic and peaceful scenario in which the film is set. The final airport sequences were no doubt intended to provide a hilarious ending for this film but in my opinion they are an example of the worst type of overplayed slapstick pseudo-comedy. They are also grossly overlong, so I left the cinema with a bad taste left in my mouth. This is a film which could have been much more successful with a stronger story line and with most of its slapstick sequences very heavily pruned. As it was released it certainly does not warrant a viewers rating higher than 3.

	There is little memorable in the acting, but the cast does its best within the limitations imposed by a meagre story line and poor direction - it is in these latter areas that the failure arises.



Sentiment: negative
Lucio Fulci's "Don't Torture a Duckling" paints an exceptionally unflattering portrait of small-town Sicily plagued by series of brutal murders of young boys.This surprisingly well-directed film(especially in comparison to later Fulci's gorefests)is distinguished by overall atmosphere of perversity,nastiness and two truly grotesque scenes of brutal violence.The soon-to-be-dead children are depicted as casually cruel and budding peeping toms;Bruno's near-seduction by the naked Patrizia(Barbara Bouchet)really has to be seen to be believed.Highly recommended-especially in pair with my another cult favourite "House with the Windows That Laugh"(1976).

Sentiment: positive
Turkish culture is complete with lots of different cultures. different cultures have different styles of music. Istanbul is like the mixture of turkey. it has mostly the same language but different dialects. this documentary shows us these different kinds of music with different dialects and different instruments. you can watch reportings with singers and groups, their performances , their daily life and learn their thoughts of music. the movie includes not only the music of Istanbul but the life in Istanbul , how people communicate and what they eat and drink. the surprising part is although i live in Istanbul i learned lots of things from this movie.

Sentiment: positive
In dramatising Wilde's novel, John Osborne has condensed events, eliminated a number of characters, and generally implied rather than shown Dorian's essential wickedness. If you want a more explicit rendering, see the 1945 film. Wilde and Robert Louis Stevenson lived in about the same time frame, but were certainly vastly different men and writers. This story really treats of a theme similar to Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", but note that Wilde chose to treat his story as fantasy, whereas RLS took the scientific route. Both the protagonists are men in whom good wars with evil, with evil winning in the end.

The actors in this BBC movie, take a different route, too, from those in the 1945 film. John Gielgud says all the same caustic and cynical quips as George Sanders, in his role really projecting Wilde himself, but with a subtle difference. You'll suspect that Sanders really believed what he was saying, but Gielgud may be saying what is expected of him rather than what he sincerely believes. Peter Firth, too, shows the two sides of his character in restrained fashion, but then we don't get to see as many of his escapades as Hurd Hatfield had a chance to display.

It's a very good production, with the dramatisation reflecting the essentials of the novel, if not all of its ramifications.

Sentiment: positive
An actor's first film is usually something one can afford to miss - it's often that first job where the lack of film experience by everyone involved is truly on display, and this film is no exception.

But worse than that, even by 1982 standards this is so bad, it's hysterically funny. Filmed entirely in the Chicago area on an obviously small budget, most of the acting by the entire cast is stiff, wooden, and cartoonish - a cross between a high school play and bad community theater. Noise from nearby traffic often drowns out the dialog, and the dialog is truly bad, very declarative in a way that comes off as forced and expedient rather than natural and organic. Scenes are contrived and choppy, and even though the characters go through a span of years, neither the children nor the adults age at all.

I do believe it's possible to make a Christian film that's palatable to a large, secular audience, but too often the creators of such films are so focused on 'The Message' or in this case, their own autobiographical ties to the project that good film production values are tossed aside. (I'm sure it's no coincidence that the main character has the same name as the producer/director/editor - and cast member.) 

Luckily, Michael Madsen was much more interesting - and believable - to watch in his subsequent films. Careers like his are certainly not built on films like this one.

Sentiment: negative
I have to say this movie is absolutely amazing. I don't understand why it got such a low rating. It has romance, music, darkness and vampires. Also Stuart Townsend did a great job of being Lestat, the acting was great. Also, normally I am not into that music, well sometimes. But I have to say in this movie the music fit it perfectly. If you like dark movies about vampires this is definitely for you or even if you don't there is a love story to this.But,all I can say is one word: Amazing! My Rating is defiantly: 10 out of 10. Anyway, I seriously suggest you watch it. I remember not seeing this for years, I watched it again about a year ago and im addicted to it again. lol. Great movie!!!

Sentiment: positive
I'm not saying that because the production values were so low, but because it was filmed terribly. That shot of the girl washing her hair in the creek? Did we really need to sit there for an overlong shot and watch her do that for 5 minutes in the same spot? It was terrible, the lighting was just plain bad. You could barely see anything and when the characters were talking, you could barely hear what they were saying. Did I watch the whole movie? Of course not I skipped through most of it, and I don't want to hear anyone say I need to watch the whole thing first to judge it. This film was so poorly done and executed that even by independent and low budget standards it's just plain terrible. Awful movie...don't waste any time on it unless you want a good laugh, but even then it's not because of the actors "funny" lines, it's because of how painstakingly bad the production is.

Sentiment: negative
Continuing with the exclusive film programme about complicated relationships in some European courts, last night in the Schloss theatre was shown "Anna Boleyn", a film directed by the great Teutonic film director Herr Ernst Lubitsch. The film depicts the terrible story of the Queen consort of the British King Henry VIII. She was executed by her husband ( well, not exactly, the King ordered the executioners to do his dirty work) not to mention that this marriage caused an important political and religious historical event, the English Reformation.

The film stars Dame Henny Porten, Germany's first screen superstar during those early years and Herr Emil Jannings, Germany's fattest actor in that silent era. Both play their characters in a suitable way; Dame Porten as an innocent aristocrat who becomes progressively interested in the power that the court offers her and Herr Jannings as the unscrupulous, whimsical and womanizing British monarch, a character very suitable for this German actor who overacts appropriately, given the extravagance and excessive personality of the character himself.

In the early film period Herr Lubitsch was known for his outstanding costume films, colossal productions with big budgets ( "Anna Boleyn" cost about 8 million marks, a fortune even for this German count ) taking great care in magnificent decors as can be seen during the coronation procession in Westminster Abbey scene which employed 4.000 extras ( idle Germans of that time were used, causing revolutionary workers to create a fuss when German President Friedrich Ebert visited the set during filming).

Besides the spectacle, one of the most important aspect of this and every film of Herr Lubitsch, even during his epic period, is the complex relationship between the main characters. We experience a game of different interests, double meanings, and the complicated art of flirting but what is treated lightly at first ends in tragedy. The importance of those historical facts is brought to bear in an effective way but Lubitsch is really more interested in the changing relationship between Henry VIII and Anna Boleyn.

And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must take care that one of his fat and rich heiress doesn't lose her head for this Teutonic aristocrat.

Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com/

Sentiment: positive
Kojak meets the mafia. Telly Savales is one of those guys from the past that seems pretty forgettable. I never thought that his show was all that great. This is his one dimensional characterization of a crime boss, with very predictable results. If you take the car chases and the general rambling out, there isn't much plot development or action. I find mafia movies to be dull because I have no respect or interest in common criminals and their actions. Hollywood, and in this case, the Italian cinema, treat these guys as heroes. I saw the film and in a few days I won't remember much about it. Lots of shooting, innocent bystanders dying, betrayal, and that sick loyalty. The film is photographed pretty well and the acting is decent. But the dubbing is so bad (due to voices that just couldn't come out of those bodies), that I almost started looking for Godzilla approaching the bay.

Sentiment: negative
hello there; i would just like to say how much i enjoyed your review and comments about that excellent film 'intruder in the dust'. i believe that the points you made were insightful, intelligent and totally valid. it's also a shame that this film is hardly ever shown on TV these days and that it isn't available on DVD region 2 - i live in england. once again, many thanks for your review. the actor juano hernandez was in another brilliant film, 'young man with a horn', which also starred kirk douglas and lauren bacall. that was a very evocative and stylish film with some superb music. i wish that someone with influence could release the entire back catalogues of films like 'johnny belinda', 'i remember mama', and 'the yearling' on DVD region 2, we love these movies in great Britain. i'm not of pensionable age, i'm still reasonably young and my family and i love classic films!!films like these were so beautifully made and they bring back wonderful memories. anyway...! many thanks for your comments!

Sentiment: positive
I must admit that I have been a sucker for Samurai flicks since I can remember. I used to watch rather indiscriminate, be it "elitist" works like The Seven Samurai or the bloody comic-book variation like Lone Wolf and Cub. I also liked US-/Japanese "Crossovers" like The Bushido Blade. And of course everything containing Sonny Chiba and Hiroyuki Sanada. And I've virtually watched every Samurai at least twice. But not Kabuto.

In 1993 I first watched Kabuto on video, that even Samurai films can be boring. In the beginning I was looking forward to Mayeda reaching Europe and the confrontations that would come from that but by the time he actually reached Spain, I really didn't care so much for the movie anymore.

It wouldn't do the film justice to call it "bad". Technically it's a clean entry into the genre. But there is simply never quiet enough. Sho Kosugi has limited skills as both director and actor and has only a fraction of above mentioned Japanese actors charisma. And speaking of Sho Kosugis son Kane, who appears in almost all Sho Kosugi films as Shos son: he has inherited little-to-none of his fathers limited acting skills. Adding to the minus-points is the absence of the blood and gore that until then was a trademark of all Samurai film. This was obviously intended for a younger US- / European audience.

Lets just say that it's a so-so film for the average historic-action-adventure fan but a bore for hardened fans of Samurai cinema. Fans who are into the "Samurai meets "-genre, should rather go and watch Red Sun (1971), featuring Charles Bronson as cowboy who has to team up with Samurai Toshiro Mifume to retrieve a samurai sword from bad-guy Alan Delon. It pretty much how to do it right and where Kabuto went wrong.

So, even though the film is a mere 100 minutes, it seems like a much longer film.

The reason I gave this a honourable 4/10 points instead of 3/10: First time I saw this film, I saw it in the German synchronized version. In this version, Kosugi can actually be understood. I must admit that his 'Engrish' is at times funny but gets tiresome after about 30 minutes.

Sentiment: negative
Brian Yuzna is often frowned upon as a director for his trashy gore-fests, but the truth is that his films actually aren't bad at all. The Re-Animator sequels aren't as great as the original, but are still worthy as far as horror sequels are concerned. Return of the Living Dead 3 is the best of the series; and Society isn't a world away from being a surrealist horror masterpiece. This thriller certainly isn't a masterpiece; but it shows Yuzna's eye for horror excellently, and the plot moves in a way that is always thrilling and engaging. I'm really surprised that a horror movie about dentistry didn't turn up until 1996, as going to the dentist is almost a primal fear - it's running away from a tiger for the modern world. Dentistry doesn't frighten me, but surprisingly; I would appear to be in the minority. The plot follows perfectionist dentist Dr Feinstone. He has a nice house, a successful career and a beautiful wife - pretty much everything most people want. However, his life takes a turn for the worse when he discovers his wife's affair with the pool cleaner. And his life isn't the only one; as it's his patients who feel the full brunt of his anger...

When it comes to scaring the audience, this movie really makes itself. However, credit has to go to the director for extracting the full quota of scares from the central theme. The fact that he does a good job is summed up by the fact that I'm not squeamish about going to the dentist - yet one particular scene actually made me cover my eyes! The film follows the standard man going insane plot outline, only with The Dentist you always get the impression that there's more to the film than what we're seeing. It isn't very often that a gore film can impress on a substance level - and while this won't be winning any awards, the parody on the upper class is nicely tied into the plot. The acting, while B-class, is actually quite impressive; with Corbin Bernsen taking the lead role and doing a good job of convincing the audience that he really is a man on the edge. I should thank Brian Yuzna for casting Ken Foree in the movie. The Dawn of the Dead star doesn't get enough work, and I really love seeing him in films. The rest of the cast doesn't massively impress, but all do their jobs well enough. Overall, The Dentist offers a refreshing change for nineties slasher movies. The gore scenes are sure to please horror fans, and I don't hesitate to recommend this film.

Sentiment: positive
This should be required viewing for all young people. This is documentary at its best, from the haunting music and terrific narration by Olivier to its unflinching and penetrating analyses, The World at War is unforgettable and irreplaceable for anyone who wants to know about humanity's sorry experience at the nadir of the 20th century.

Sentiment: positive
I truly enjoyed this film. The acting was terrific as was the plot. Jeff Combs has more talent than he is recognized for. The only part of this flick I would change was the ending. The death of the creature was far too gruesome for the Sci Fi Channel.

There were some interesting religious messages in this film. Jeff Combs obviously played a Messiah figure and the creature (or shark if you prefer) represented the anti-Chirst. There were some particularly frightening scenes that had that 'end of the world feel'. I only noticed this after my third viewing of this classic creature feature. I know many people won't get the references to Christianity, but if you watch close you'll get it.

Sentiment: positive
Describing Stalingrad as a war film may be a bit inaccurate. Sure it centers on the longest and bloodiest battle in world history, in the most expansive theater of the most costly war in terms of lives, money, and matériel that has ever occurred. Yes it contains action scenes depicting bitter battles and terrible destruction. The visceral storytelling and harsh images though make it something more than a war film, even more than an anti-war film. Stalingrad is instead a film about absolute and undeniable hell.

The film is fraught with visual descriptions of the worst kind of war, one that is intensely personal and close, where days are spent in taking one city block, only to have it re-taken in a surprise assault. The early form of modern urban warfare that the Germans came to call Rattenkrieg (Rat Warfare) is depicted in brutal and uncompromising terms. The characters war in sewer tunnels, rail yards, and from building to building in the hellish bomb-scape of ruined Stalingrad, only to be defeated by the unforgiving Russian winter.

The film deals with the issue of Nazism and the vilification of Germans in that period in the way that many other films from both Germany and the rest of the world do. Its characters are a group of soldiers swept along by the winds of war and simply attempting to make it out with themselves and as many of their comrades as possible alive. The characters do not fight the Soviets out of any ideological hatred between National Socialism and Soviet Communism, not for any grand dream of Grossdeutschland or racial superiority. They fight only because if they do not the enemy will kill them, and if the enemy does not then their own officers certainly will for refusing to fight. This portrayal adds another layer to the suffocating envelope of trapped hopelessness that pervades the film.

A sort of ground based companion to Das Boot, Stalingrad frames the epic struggle of World War Two in a personal light and from the unexpected perspective of the ordinary German soldier as a sort of hero made tragic by circumstance and a brutal government that would pervert his sacrifice.

Sentiment: positive
For weeks I had been looking forward to seeing this movie only to find myself hugely disappointed after wards. In my opinion, the only good thing 'River Queen' had going for it was the amazing scenery used as backgrounds. The story line was all over the place, Samantha's character Sarah was very difficult to understand and what on earth were all the many close ups of her face for? It brought absolutely nothing to the story-if there was one at all!A better actor for the part of Boy could also have been selected, to me it sounded like he read his lines straight of the script while shooting his scenes.Overall, a real shame as it could have been such a good movie.

Sentiment: negative
Mankind's Self awakening is the theme of "2001: A Space Odyssey", a process that unfolds along a space-time continuum. We "see" our primordial past, and we "infer" a cosmic future. The powers of intuition thus become the doors of perception, in our ongoing collective journey.

From this transcendental perspective, a conventional, egocentric plot seems superfluous. Our frenzied conflicts and self-important dialogue are consumed in evolutionary change, and are irrelevant in a cosmos that is vast beyond comprehension. It's a tough lesson for a vain and aggressive species. Not surprising then that some of us huff and puff about the film's slowness and minimal story. For perceptive viewers, the remuneration is an inspirational sense of wonder and awe.

In this film, which is mostly visual, geometric symbols guide our intuition. Circles and arcs represent nature. Right angles represent conscious intelligence. Some people think the sleek, black monolith is a Von Neumann probe. Maybe. Without doubt, the monolith is a visual metaphor for an extraterrestrial intelligence whose physical form is never shown. Mystery is more profound than explanation.

"2001 ... " is unique among films in content and scope. The cinematography is out-of-this-world, the special and visual effects are breathtaking, and the classical music is sublime. I rarely use the word "masterpiece" to describe a movie. But Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" is art in the highest sense, like Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa", or Vincent Van Gogh's "The Starry Night".

Sentiment: positive
After watching this film I experienced a new sensation. I had watched a film in which the lead actor had put in a performance that almost rivaled the legend Chevy Chase in 'Fletch'. This isn't to say that the performances are comparable, but both give practically flawless delivery of their lines. That actor is Marc Singer! Singer is Jack Ford, the 'Droid Gunner' of the title, grinding out a living collecting the bounty on androids.There are some mutants, topless pleasure droids(!), a Scandinavian smuggler, and possibly a half-hearted attempt to make a statement on class or maybe even globalization or......... well it doesn't really matter. What matters about this film is the dry manner in which Singer delivers his lines resulting in side-splitting humour! What matters about this film is that director Fred Olen Ray seems to realize that serious sci-fi very rarely works, and when your budget is skimpy it is best not to take yourself to seriously. Olen Ray has said that everyone involved in this film had great fun and this transfers onto the film.I dare you to criticize a film that allows itself to portray futuristic Earth as eternally dark and neon-lit and then ends in a 'pipes and valves' warehouse. Self parody is a very redeeming quality. To summarise, Fred Olen Ray is an ambassador for independent film making and Marc Singer the perfect B-movie lead.If only Olen Ray could draft in Tim Thomerson to the equation then we'd have a film on our hands.

Sentiment: positive
okay, let's cut to the chase - there's no way i can give this anything other then 1 out of 10; and yet you have to see it! The acting is bad, but is nothing like as bad as the script, which itself pales before the production values. Cardboard axes? yup, we've got then. Car floor mats painted silver and used as armour? here it is!

The film itself pretends to be artistic, but is just cheap; the same shots are used repeatedly - especially in the drawn out fight scenes; there is (thankfully!) very little dialogue, and there is much 'artistic' music to ram home the horror!

And yet all this awfulness is compelling - you have to watch it through just so that you can say you've seen it. I've not even got onto the barren sets, the 'plot', or the risible special effects; this really is the 'how not to do it' school of filmmaking. This must be viewed - spread the word, and let the world all join together in puzzling over what on earth is happening at the end

The best thing, though, is that they made a sequel.

Sentiment: negative
i found the film a bit predictable and boring but i am 14.

i was really annoyed with my little cousin as she was very hyper that day so i saw a film on the Disney channel and put it on and told her to watch it.

she is 6 and she loved the film, some bits she didn't get like the ending but i didn't get that either y was Eddie the star of the video shoot i thought it was Jordan's video?! but she did enjoy it. 

i noticed the mistakes such as at the end Jordan was not actually playing the guitar, but she never. 

it is definitely a film for if you are seriously bored or 10 and under.

it calmed my cousin down well.

although all she did was sing for the rest of the day then.

Sentiment: negative
I have seen this film on 3 different occasions.On the first occasion,I was bowled over by this film.It appeared as a very kind film to me.I hated this film as a sentimental garbage on my second viewing.However my third viewing reasserted my belief that it is a good film.There is a lot of emotional power in this film especially scenes of emotional confrontation between Mr Kramer and Madam Kramer.There are some scenes in which Meryl Streep appears a cruel person despite the fact that she is a beauty in real life.Dustin Hoffman appears as a lost hero unable to grapple with the recent task of his child's custody.There was even a controversy on the sets of this film.According to the master cameraman Nestor Almendros there was a shot in which he just escaped getting hurt as the character of Mr.Kramer,in order to show the intensity of his anger,decides to break a glass hard.Luckily nothing happened to Nestor.Kramer versus Kramer shows the destruction of a family structure.It also tells how family must be maintained if there are kids involved.

Sentiment: positive
I thought that Mr. Dreyfuss was perfect for his role as the actor and the dictator. His co-star, Mr. Julia, played his role equally as perfect. It was interesting to see how reluctant Richard Dreyfuss was in replacing the dictator against his will. But he became more confident and comfortable with the role as time passed. Since everything happens for a reason in life, I believe he was forced to replace the dictator because he was meant to stay there for over the year that he did. I'm guessing that he stayed because he was supposed to see how good his life was compared to the poverty he witnessed in Parador. I think he took too many things for granted in life and he needed to get a serious reality check by remaining in that country for as long as he did.

But........... anyways........... this is why I gave this film a 7 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
I'm not sure what it is but there seems to be some curse when it comes to films about the elusive Bigfoot. There has yet to be a film that intelligently approaches the subject, nor one that creates any real suspense. Both "Legend of Boggy Creek" (1972) and the first film entitled "Sasquatch" (1978) have become minor cult classics, but neither were very memorable. Both films were targeted at family friendly audiences, thus inhibiting themselves from actually trying to scare anyone. "Harry & The Hendersons" (1987) was the first big budgeted film to use Bigfoot, with a terrific creature design by Rick Baker. However, they too chose to aim for younger audiences, but this time as a comedy (as did "Bigfoot" in 1995). I've long awaited for someone to tackle the subject as a thriller, perhaps in the vein of "Jaws" or "Predator". When I saw this at my local video store I thought my dream had come true. Boy, was I wrong! Lance Henriksen plays a billionaire who leads an expedition into the pacific northwest in hopes of finding his daughter as she was on board a small plane when it crashed in the mountains. The premise is interesting and sounded promising. The truth is it never builds any real suspense. I never found myself at all interested in any of the characters as each of them were very two dimensional and rather bland. Even the always dependable Henriksen seems to be phoning in his performance. Every time he appears on screen he looks plain bored. He should be as there is no action to speak of for the first hour of the film. As for the creature, where do I start? I figured at the very least we would get a cool looking monster running around in the woods, but instead we get this bald (yes, I said "bald!") man with pitch black skin and patches of fur here and there. Picture a cross between "Swamp Thing" and Chaka from "Land of the Lost" and you'll get the idea. Nothing like the artwork on the cover box I assure you. Sloppy editing and careless direction also adds to the confusion as half the time everything seemed out of sequence, while the other half of the film was constantly used up with these long, slow fade outs (which made no sense or served any purpose). They even stole the whole infra-red vision P.O.V from the creature in "Predator", which just looked too silly and out of place to be effective. Maybe all this proves is that Hollywood should just forget about trying to make anymore Bigfoot films, as they have yet to make one that works. So far each one has been as scary as an episode of "In Search Of" 3/10

Sentiment: negative
This movie features several well known actors which I usually like, so I had at least modest expectations when I rented this on DVD. I was highly disappointed. In fact I walked off for some snacks somewhere during the last half hour and somehow I ended up in the kitchen rather then going back to the TV. The actor performances where poor pretty much all across the board and none of the atmospheres in the movie felt very convincing. Virtually all scenes had that "just a movie" feeling to them, I just sat there waiting to hear the director calling "CUT!" followed by the crew having a little chat about the scene before moving on to the next.

Since the movie is about gangsters most characters are tough and mob-like, the problem here is just that this whole bad-boy attitude is played out so poorly that it just feels like a joke. The constant guitar-drilling soundtrack really tries to emphasize this atmosphere too, but when the same track is played the 18th time it just adds to the already strong feeling of the whole thing just being fake.

Maybe it was just a really really bad script, maybe it was just poorly executed. I'm no movie critic, in fact I consider it rare to see something that's REALLY good, but this was just plain bad no matter how objective and forgiving I'm trying to be. NOT recommended, not even as a rental!

Sentiment: negative
It has been so many years since I saw this but I do feel compelled to defend this gem against those who lambast it.

It is interesting and unusual to observe the diversity of opinion here. That is what humour does I suppose. It is subjective. It either charges through your funny bone at 60,000 volts or it leaves you cold and wondering why you gave it the time.

This show has some of Britain's best comic actors put together in a story that is silly and irreverent and the outcome is hilarious. The dialogue and visual comedy is beautifully delivered and the two leads (Cleese and Lowe) are superb together. This was made for them.

I can't really say anymore other than to implore you to find this and watch it. You won't be disappointed and in a world devoid of genteel humour, this is a classic inane and harmless piece of comedic brilliance.

Sentiment: positive
There was some hesitation from my part about what this movie had to offer. For starters, the casting didn't seem right. Kiefer Sutherland had already done very well in "24" and the preview didn't seem to offer anything challenging to him or the audience. Eva Longoria appeared out of place, and the rest didn't seem very interesting.

When the film finally ended, I was not completely displeased for I had seen a decent thriller that could have been much better, had the responsible parties taken a little more care to watch for the narrative gaps and given a little more care to character development. We have seen threats of this type before, and that made the main conflict much more challenging to the writers. As an audience, we don't want to sit through the same old story again. We want to see something different, be thrilled and entertained.

There is nothing wrong with the casting. From Kim Basinger's delicious first lady. She carries herself with enough grace and sex appeal to make the part memorable. Michael Douglas has been and done that before. Unfortunately, the president is much of a non entity to even care about his fate. Sutherland rehashes his "24" tough guy approach with enough power to make it big enough for the big screen, and Eva does a passable job, as the newcomer.

Don't expect as many twists and fireworks as some of the established classics ("North by Northwest" and "The Fugitive" come to mind). Leave your expectations outside and enjoy the ride for whatever it might be. It's o.k.

Sentiment: positive
The third film from the Polish brothers is their best, most beautiful, imaginative film yet. Though many audiences will have a problem with Northfork's lack of traditional dramatic structure, "Stick with it, Jack!". The plot is difficult to summarize, so just know that the story includes: agents trying to evacuate a city, God in a cowboy hat, the selling of angel wings, and a sick orphan (but it all works). M. David Mullen's extraordinary photography makes almost every frame exciting and wonderful to look at. The performances of the actors, working with the Polish Brothers' inspiringly offbeat script, are pitch-perfect and give the film its emotional punch. The strong-willed audience member will be moved by the mythology and folk tale of the story, the comic and moving actors, and finally the incredible courage and command that Michael Polish shows behind the camera. Again all of these incredible and seemingly disjointed elements come together magnificently in one of the most incredible things you should run out and experience. A great, great, great movie!!!

Sentiment: positive
This is a tough film to review, since several factors need to be taken into account. Let's filter the more judgmental..Ok, are you interested in the facts concerning the serial killer of Jeffrey Dahmer? Can you withstand an independent, low-budget film? Are you objective enough to NOT dislike a film solely due to its lack of stars or professional look? Well, if you said yes then you should have a mind open enough to handle this one. This film is an almost 100% accurate dramatization of Dahmer's adult life and subsequent murder spree, and is styled as an autobiography. It isn't a glamorized, unrealistic account that unfortunately the theatrical film "Dahmer" (2001) was. The movie begins with Dahmer, played quite convincingly by Carl Crew, sitting in the police car as they raid his apartment. His thoughts of what got him there are presented to us in a past-tense, narrated style that accurately explains much of Dahmer's psychoses and motives which led him to commit murder almost 20 times. We get to know the character, both the devious side as well as the side that came moderately close to living a normal life. It isn't anyone's fault but Dahmer's that 17 people died, but being a criminal psychology student, I was pleased to more than just his animalistic side represented, truthfully, in this film. You see him having a loving relationship with his grandmother as well as trying to find companionship, but of course we witness the side of him that everyone remembers. It should be noted that there is little actual onscreen violence, with much of it suggestive in shots such as spattering of blood or a body being struck through a blurred curtain. You do see two deaths that I remember, one being a pretty bloodless throat slash and the other being a man shoved alive into a barrel of acid. While you don't see anything graphic, this cruelty and the convincing acting of both Crew and his victim make this a disturbing scene. And while the actual onscreen mutilation is kept low, you will see the results. There is a prop hand and head or two, but it seems as if this was to disturb the viewer and doesn't look to be exploitive. Besides, these fake anatomical pieces are where the budget limitations are visible. Although acceptable, they look enough like fakes to not be too disturbing. The film actually concludes before Dahmer's death in 1994, due to the fact that it was released a year or two prior. That's about the only big difference from the real story, and the information that remains is, as I've stated, very true to the facts. The film quality could be better, the dialogue often sounds a little too quiet, and the acting of several characters IS a bit hammy, but it's not overboard. In my opinion, this is a flawed but ultimately honest and serious look into one of America's most remembered serial killers. I think it's safe to say the film is memorable as well, and I respect it for overcoming its limitations to deliver the story in a believable manner, aided by a thoroughly excellent Carl Crew as Dahmer.

Sentiment: positive
Tarentino should be ashamed to be involved with this awful film. The acting, directing and script are all third-rate - with the entire film playing out like an excuse for writer/director/star Larry Bishop to get laid. The only reason it was made at all is most likely due to his association with QT. The plot of the film is pretty flimsy, and basically tries to survive on not-so-obscure references to older B-movies and some cameos from guys like David Carradine, Dennis Hopper, and Vinnie Jones. Each one is listless in their performance, particularly Hopper who is in full-on paycheck mode at this point in his career. The saving grace, if there is one, is that the script is so laughably bad that it can be entertaining. Bishop tries so hard to get that trademark Tarentino banter and just fails miserably, which can be pretty humorous at times and grating at others. I'd only check this one out if you love bad movies...or if you're really into biker films.

Sentiment: negative
I watch movies for a living, picking out which ones are good enough to distribute... Tossing aside those that don't make the cut. I'm not saying that I know more than anyone else based on this, I'm just leading you to how I came to watch "The Gospel of Lou"... Anyways... So many bad movies land on my desk and I actually sit through all of them. I don't actually "watch" everything, usually I just look over at the TV occasionally while I'm working the scan for production value, performance, and how well the story is being presented. If something catches my eye I'll take the time to watch it. "Lou" drew me in during the first few minutes where I closed my laptop and wheeled my chair over to the TV so I could completely tune in. Needless to say I was enthralled throughout the whole movie. The story is told well, the characters are either endearing or repulsive (depending of course on the actor and directors intention for the character) and all very well played. At times I caught occasional amateur mistakes in the camera work and editing, but the emotional nature of the story make these faults easy to dismiss. I've heard other people's comments say that at times the film brought tears to their eyes, other time extreme elation... I was laughing one minute and crying the next and was incredibly touched by this movie. Sadly I was unable to acquire it because I was - as the saying goes - a week late and a dollar short. That's the way it goes sometimes... but at least I had the pleasure of seeing this one and I can't wait to see what kind of response it gets. Good luck and great fortune to you Bret Carr (if you read this), you are without a doubt a talent to watch for.

Sentiment: positive
The best thing from the American Pie "bakery." I found the humor and the plot to be far more engaging audience than any of the American Pie movies to date. .Also concerning the appropriateness of the content I found this to be acceptable to a much larger audience than any of the previous American Pie movies. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie experience. When the movie first came out I read a number of negative reviews and ended up not going to see it while it was still in the theater...I now regret that decision. The movie far exceeded my expectations in terms of plot, dialog/scripting, and overall quality. I give it two thumbs way up!

Sentiment: positive
A touching documentary that puts a human face on the tragedy of 9/11 by showing how one small community coalesced to honor two high school friends lost on that day. The film interweaves the lives of Chris and Tom through interviews with family and friends and snippets of old photos. Through their reminiscences we glimpse two lives tragically cut short. The film also documents how, through a series of coincidences, an inspirational memorial garden was brought forth through the efforts of many people, both known and unknown to the two victims. Through the laughter and the tears(and the sweat) we see the power of hope and honor and love. This films evokes many different emotions, but the final feeling is one of admiration of the human spirit undaunted by tragedy.

Sentiment: positive
Okay, I sensed that a film by Mormons, about Mormons, for Mormons would be a disaster waiting to happen, but little did I know how so very painful it would be. A little known fact is that Mormons have always made exceptionally fine propaganda films. The Church's official cinematic campaign has produced rare and lasting gems that transcend the Mormon community, including the wonderful short film "Cipher in the Snow" which ended up making the rounds as an educational film in the late 70's. Then there's Neil LaBute's disturbingly masterful ouvre....

However, the success of these films depended largely on the fact that they didn't focus on Mormons or any specific Mormon theology. Instead they opt to focus on a universal theme and deal with it on a basic human level. "God's Army" abandons any pretext of universality and runs headlong into the stilted and myopic world of the orthodox. While this might be enough to alienate anyone but the most devoted Mormon, director Richard Ductcher's ineptitude as a filmmaker and his juvenile approach to storytelling are sufficient grounds to judge "God's Army" unwatchable by almost any standard.

Dutcher's own appallingly wooden acting sets the tone for his army of the least interesting Mormons you're ever likely to meet. Of course the cast's sorry performances aren't helped any by Dutcher's pathetic script. He should be given credit for not avoiding some of the more controversial aspects of the Church, but, as can be expected, he conveniently frames these controversies in a sympathetic light. It should also come as no surprise that most of the answers to the Church's darker side are addressed with little other than faith. At one point an African-American missionary is scolded by a black couple for joining a church that was segregated up until 1978 (some ten to twenty years after nearly every congregation in the most degenerate parts of the deep South had already done so). Instead of addressing the Church's actively racist history, perhaps the sorest spot in Mormon theology which even Church leaders don't defend anymore, Dutcher's troubled character instead ponders Joseph Smith's murder--an obvious and perhaps outrageous allusion to lynching. Top off this syruppy milktoast with third grader leper jokes passing as comic relief and you have a strong case for the revival of silent films.

If you knew little about Mormons before watching this film, you might become prone to avoiding them at all costs. If you are Mormon, this film offers absolutely nothing to be proud about.

Sentiment: negative
Tom is listening to one of those old-time radio broadcasts, something kids from the 1950s to today would watch on TV. However, they didn't television when this cartoon was made so people got their entertainment - from comedies to music to scary stories - from the radio. 

Tom is literally shaking in his boots listening to some story about the "phantom." He's actually literally doing everything the narrator is saying, such as "hair standing on end, icy chills race down her spine, her heart beats in her throat," etc. Jerry, meanwhile, is watching Tom and laughing his butt off at his scaredy- cat antics.

We then get a taste of what we will see for many years after this 194- cartoon in which Jerry tortures Tom for no reason other than sadistic pleasure. If the cat asks for trouble, that's one thing, but when he's minding own business and Jerry is physically (and in this case, mentally) abusing him, I have a hard time rooting for the "little guy."

These early T&M efforts also were a minute longer than all that followed. Sometimes that one minute makes a difference. It did here as this actually dragged for awhile. It could have been cut to five minutes without missing anything because the sketches went on too long. That's usual for Tom and Jerry's. Usually, they are much faster-paced.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was by far the worst movie I've ever had to endure. I couldn't believe that they tried to pass it off as a serious movie, it was so bad I couldn't even laugh at it's pathetic attempt to entertain me. If you want cheesy horror that you can laugh at, rent Dr. Giggles instead.

Sentiment: negative
"The Love Letter" is a somewhat pleasant, very very low-key romantic comedy in which the use of just the right few words in a mysterious love letter unlocks the secret passions and longings of a sleepy sea-side town's inhabitants.

It's not for all audiences. "The Love Letter", I feel, benefits from it's simple and quiet tone. Never intentionally wacky and phony like most romantic comedies it's quaint, picturesque, and comfy. However, for these exact same reasons, many viewers will be bored and disinterested.

The cast is nice. It's great to see Tom Selleck again, and is such an underplayed role. And it's hard to believe this is the same Kate Capshaw we met 15 years ago in "Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom". She's quite naturally good here; improving in every role I've seen her in since grating on Indy's nerves. And is it possible Capshaw is just getting lovelier and lovelier with age ? ( What is it about that Spielberg!?)

It doesn't amount to much; but after another noisy summer movie season I'll probably look back with brief fondness for this light-as-a-feather romance.

Sentiment: positive
I must say that I am fairly disappointed by this "horror" movie. I did not get scared even once while watching it. It also is not very suspenseful either.... I was able to guess the ending half way through the movie... So.. what's left?

"The Ring" is a trully scary movie... I wish other movies would stop copying from it (e.g. the trade-mark: long hair). Please give me some originality.

Will not recommend this movie.

Sentiment: negative