DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Poor acting, no script, no plot, no convincing killer, no suspense, no original setups, it uses the same closet/under the bed/person-behind-you-in-the-mirror tactics over and over again making it repetitive and boring, and NOT in a foreshadowing way either, and the fact that NOBODY ever "really" gets killed (at least not on screen) , which in turn zaps any suspense it may invoke right out of it and makes everyone feel eve MORE cheated for spending money on their admission ticket....its a horror film w/o any horror LMAO. The MOST you see is what looks like someone having taken a ketchup bottle and spraying it across a plastic sheet.

You have to be a teen who was sitting there screaming in the theater and scaring yourself to have enjoyed this, or you were high/drunk at the time.

Honestly, I have a life and don't bother writing reviews that often unless I really really hated something, or enjoyed it tremendously.

But this film is AWFUL and I feel I have a duty of sorts to warn you NOT to give your money to Hollywood and encourage this kind of filmaking ever again! 

It is one thing to rent a "bad" movie at blockbuster from the Weinsteins, its another when you have to sit through it in a theater.

Also, in case you want some remake nostalgia, forget it! This is NOT a remake, nor is it a re-imagining. It is not scary, nor engaging, nor is it satisfying enough to be "funny" like others on IMDb have claimed...it is just stale and booooring.

Here is what you will take away from this film: remembering the scar on Brittany Snow's head that stands out more than the plot, the fact that Jonathan Schaech MUST be having some sexual affair with J.S. Cardone of "The Forsaken" to have gotten another role as a killer(because he is as frightening as my poodle, and too cute to kill just about anyone) and that for some reason (duh) everyone who goes back to the hotel suite never comes back. What kind of person would NOT get worried at the prom when they decide to announce the candidates for prom king and queen and the fiercely competitive girl just somehow doesn't show up? This is my warning to you. DO NOT waste you're money like I did. The "original" sucks too but is more of a guilty pleasure for Jamie Lee Curtis fans, though no way near as bad as this piece of crap (sorry to sound vulgar or rude, but once you see this, you will understand why I say what I say).

Sentiment: negative
I guess if you are into the sci-fi and horror stuff it might be interesting. The acting was okay but not great. The two pregnant girls are supposed to be fifteen but are played by obviously older actresses who turned out to be twenty and twenty-one at the time. The plot is okay, but the story does jump around a bit, leaving one guessing whether you're in Boston or Pennsylvania. The priest seems to use warp speed between the two. The catholic church is portrayed as having a secretive sect for investigating events which only happen to those of that faith. What if the two girls had been protestant? Would the catholics of cared? Therefore some what contrived. Who knows, some day the catholic church might even learn what the Bible teaches. If you miss this one, don't feel you've lost anything.

Sentiment: negative
For those deciding whether or not to watch this movie and are reading these comments for insight, I first offer these four words: Don't waste your time! "Chungking Express" was shoddily filmed, slapped together quickly and seems as though it were conceived in its entirety by someone standing in line at a Hong Kong Burger King. I can't remember ever watching a film with an assortment of such one-dimensional characters trying to work their way through a script this mundane! It's an absurd effort with philosophically ridiculous dialog (a man wanders into his flooded apartment and offers the stunning revelation that "tears can be dried with a tissue, but water takes time to mop up"). The same character is also seen carrying on a deep, meaningful rapport with his towels, soap, stuffed animals, dirty laundry, etc. The shaky, wandering, hand-held camera-work was another annoying feature I could have done without. And if that isn't enough to make you puke in your popcorn, we hear the old 60's ode "California Dreaming" by the Mamas and Papas blaring over the soundtrack over and over again during a particularly lengthy sequence.

Quentin Tarantino was responsible for bringing this loser to America through his Rolling Thunder Productions company, though I cannot for the life of me figure out why a man with his talent would bother. He was known to have remarked, "I'm happy to love a movie this much." A lot of us, though, hope he will concentrate on making his audiences happy with more worthwhile discoveries in the future.

Sentiment: negative
I watched this movie on TV last night, hoping for a realistic account of what could happen if there were an outbreak of some highly transmittable disease. I was disappointed, and I think the movie was garbage. It did not seem real to me. Some of the acting was awful, in particular that of the doctor. She was about the worst I've seen. The whole thing played like a CNN 'worst case scenario'. Even the obligatory disaster movie human relations bits didn't seem sincere. I have seen some disaster movies, in particular those weather ones, which are actually so bad they are amusing. This one is almost as bad, but it is not even amusing, it is tedious and boring.Don't bother with this one.

Sentiment: negative
I am a relative latecomer to the transcendent work of film auteur Yasujiro Ozu, whose masterfully understated views of Japanese life, especially in the post-WWII era, illuminate universal truths. Having now seen several of his landmark films such as 1949's "Late Spring" and 1953's "Tokyo Story", I am convinced that Ozu had a particularly idiosyncratic gift of conveying the range of feelings arising from intergenerational conflict through elliptical narratives and subtle imagery. It is Taiwanese director Hou Hsiao-hsien's keen aspiration to pay homage to Ozu on his centenary with this generally enervating 2003 film. Among with co-screenwriter T'ien-wen Chu, Hsiao-hsien appears to get the visuals right but does not capture the requisite emotional weight that would have made the glacial pacing tolerable.

The story concerns Yôko, a young Japanese writer researching the life of mid-20th century Taiwanese composer Jiang Wen-Ye in Tokyo after coming back from Taiwan where she taught Japanese. After 25 drawn-out minutes of character set-up, she reveals to her father and stepmother that she is pregnant by one of her students in Taiwan. At the same time, Yôko's coffeehouse friend Hajime, who runs a used bookstore, has an obsession for trains and seems likely to be in love with her. Hsiao-hsien connects this slim plot line with a series of shots held for inordinately lengthy takes as the frame composition changes. There are also long stretches of silence as well as an abundance of scenes featuring trains. While these techniques are consistent with Ozu's style, Hsiao-hsien cannot seem to dive into the characters' psyches the way Ozu did with maximal fluidity and minimal theatrics, in particular, Yôko's plight seems rather non-committal in the scheme of the drama presented and her parents' reaction overly passive to hold much interest. In fact, the whole film has an atmosphere of exhaustion about it, which makes the film feel interminable.

The performances are unobtrusive though hardly memorable. J-pop music star Yo Hitoto brings a natural ease to Yôko, while Tadanobu Asano is something of a cipher as Hajime. The rest of the characters barely register, even Nenji Kobayashi and Kimiko Yo as Yôko's parents. Cinematographer Lee Ping-Bing provides expert work though he violates a cardinal rule of Ozu films by not keeping the camera stable during shots. Hitoto speak-sings the fetching pop song used over he ending credits, "Hito-Shian". The DVD includes an hour long, French-made documentary, "Métro Lumière", which actually does help provide some of the context for Hsiao-hsien's approach to the film. It includes excerpts from Ozu's films, in particular, "Equinox Flower", to show the parallels with this film though surprisingly no mention of either "Tokyo Story" or "Early Summer", the obvious basis for some of the scenes and situation set-ups. There are also edited interview clips of Hitoto, Asano and Hsiao-hsien, as well as the film's trailer.

Sentiment: negative
I bought this movie hoping that it would be another great killer toy movie. I am a big fan of the Child's Play series and was hoping to see the same here. Boy, was I wrong. Most of the movie was not the least bit scary, plus the only time we really see Pinocchio "alive" is the final few scenes of the film. The little girl in the film, her acting is so bad it's almost laughable. Plus, the ending never showed what happened to the puppet or what made them put the little girl in a asylum or wherever she was at the end of the film. So, in my opinion this movie is the worst of the "killer toy" genre. If you want a good killer toy series, stick with the Child's Play franchise. Pinocchio's Revenge is a waste of money and time.

Sentiment: negative
Mike Judge's Idiocracy is an interesting film, and one that his fans will undoubtedly track down and see.

Before I start the review, I would preface it by saying that if you get a chance to see it, definitely do, as it IS worth watching, and isn't the easiest film in the world to track down.

Let's start with the premise - Luke Wilson is Private Joe Bauers, an Army librarian who is deemed to have absolutely no outstanding attributes or glaring flaws, making him totally average in every way. This, along with the fact that he has no living relatives, makes him a standout candidate for an experimental cryogenics procedure. Also frozen with Joe is a Prostitute named Rita who was pimped to the project by Upgrayedd, her abusive pimp. Unfortunately, a few days after they are frozen, the top secret project is abandoned, and they are forgotten about.

They wake up in 2505, and find that with the dumbing down of society following the trends of recent times, everyone on Earth is only slightly more intelligent than a chimp. The way that "everyman" Joe Bauers talks is seen as being "faggy", much as someone speaking like Shakespeare would ridiculed now, and a former professional wrestler is the President of the United States (actually, this one probably isn't that outrageous really). The best show on TV is called "Ow! My Balls!", which admittedly sounds pretty good, and not only is everything spelled wrong, but signs seem to have run out of space for the wording, leaving them to be bunched up at the end.

It's a funny premise for film, but this is the problem - Aside from the initial premise, not that much in the movie is truly funny. What I mean by that is that the ideas that come to mind from having read the premise of the film are probably about as funny as the film itself. Obviously, it's not terrible, but it probably could have been funnier.

There are some winners in the script, such as Starbucks now offering "happy endings", and people placing their blind faith in the universally misunderstood "electrolytes", but they are just too few and far between, so unless you are going to laugh hysterically every time one of the idiots of the future slurs out a slack-jawed, profanity laden sentence with little to no logic and/or intelligence, then the laughs might be pretty well spaced.

It's unfair for everyone to be comparing it to Office Space, because it's a very different film, but as a film, regardless of what came before it, Idiocracy is a funny concept that will probably have you laughing a lot more in the opening 15-20 minutes than in the rest of the film.

I give it 5 out of 10 because it is enjoyable, but doesn't do enough to raise it above middle of the road.

Sentiment: positive
I loved Complete Savages! Why did they cancel it anyway? They should have made a second season and so on... God! They always cancel the good shows... and leave all the boring stuff. Nothing interesting at TV since Complete Savages is gone. This show was a great idea. A single firefighter father with five crazy sons and a lazy dog... Each and every one of them has his own madness in that house. TJ is always the kid...always the smaller one... Kyle rocks! He breaks everything he touches! He's always on detention, he's always doing the wrong stuff... But still, he's so funny by all the things that he does. Sam is the smart one. He's always shy and stupid when it comes to girls... Finally he ends up by dating Angela. Chris is the sports guy who doesn't have much to do with school, studying, and stuff like that. He's always funny. And finally... Jack! The rock of the show. The oldest of all, the macho guy, "the rock star"... But still, as crazy as everybody else. Nick is...helpless with these guys. Oh! And I almost forgot! Uncle Jimmy... He's the man! He's like a 30 year old kid. He's like doing the same stupid things that the boys are doing. I always wondered how did he end up by being a firefighter... And the dog is the image of all the Savage family. The thing is... this show had everything to become something really big. It had everything, man! But, of course...they canceled it...

Sentiment: positive
Lets face it, Australian TV is for the most part terrible, but this is a real diamond in the rough that not enough people are watching. The Chaser crew who do the satirical newspaper and CNNN try something new by mixing live comedy, pre-recorded skits and political satire into one show filmed in front of a live audience, sorta like Rove, but funny. They love causing controversy and this causes some of the shows funniest moments, especially Chris telling his wife to "f-- off" live on breakfast television and Julian handing a novelty cheque signed by Saddam Heusein to the head of the AWB. It has to be one of the funniest Aussie shows since the Micallef Program.

Sentiment: positive
I have to say although this movie was formulaic throughout with a plot stolen from films like Friday the 13th/I Know What You Did Last Summer, this movie wasn't that bad. In fact it wasn't as bad as most of the Horror films Hollywood has released recently. The killings although at times a little too imaginative were in most instances just that, original. The cast was mediocre which is to be expected from low-budget features but much better than what that much bigger studio Artisan/Lions Gate has been offering. My only real complaint that wasn't due to the film's budget, which must have been small, was the contrived "twist" ending. I'm sorry but this is what put this film in the bad category for me. The ending was just stupid and tacked on. Before that I was a little bored, but actually enjoying it. 4/10

Sentiment: negative
I watched 'Envy' two nights ago, on DVD, at a friends house. The premise of this film is quite promising, Jack Black and Ben Stiller in a comedy with a lot of potential, but it completely fails to deliver. I watched it with about five friends and no-one laughed for the entire film. The jokes (which are few and far between) are NOT funny in any way... the story line is crap, and they never answer the question... WHERE DOES THE SH*T GO? Of course the answer to that is NO ONE CARES. This film lacks any sort of comedy value, and as a few other users have said the only thing that makes it even almost worth watching is Christopher Walken as the J-man. None of the characters are developed, the plots so thin it's nearly transparent - and is that song throughout the film supposed to be funny??

Sentiment: negative
If you wish to see Shakespeare's masterpiece in its entirety, I suggest you find this BBC version. Indeed it is overlong at four and a half hours but Jacoby's performance as Hamlet and Patrick Stewart's as Claudius are well worth the effort.

It never ceases to amaze me how clear "Hamlet" is when you see it in its length and order as set down by the Bard. Every film version of "Hamlet" has tinkered with its structure. Olivier concentrated on Hamlet's indecision, Gibson on his passions. Jacoby is able to pull all of these aspects of Hamlet's character together with the aid of Shakespeare's full script.

Why does Hamlet not kill Claudius immediately? Hamlet says "I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious..." Hamlet is extremely upset, not only for his father's death (and suspected murder), or his mother's marriage to his uncle, but also, and mostly, because Claudius has usurped the throne belonging to Hamlet. He is furious at his mother for marrying Claudius (marriages between royal kin is not unknown; done for political reasons) but that her marriage solidified Claudius' claim to the throne before he could return from Wittenburg to claim it for himself. He is, therefore, impotent to do anything about it. And this is true even after he hears his father's ghost cry vengeance. He cannot simply kill the King or he will lose the throne in doing so. He must "out" the King's secret and here is the tragedy! At the moment Hamlet is successful in displaying Claudius' guilt in public, he has opportunity to kill him and does not. WHY? He wants it ALL! He wants revenge, the throne AND the damnation of Claudius' soul in hell. Hamlet OVERREACHES himself in classic tragic form. His own HUBRIS is his undoing. He kills Polonius thinking it is Claudius and the rest of the play spirals down to the final deaths of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Ophelia, Laertes, Gertrude, Claudius and Hamlet himself.

Sentiment: positive
I decided to watch this movie because I'd not seen Carol Lombard before in any movie. I'm sorry it had to be this one because, quite frankly, this is a dog  and even with Jimmy Stewart and Charles Coburn, both of whom were great actors.

The problem with the film is simple: it tries to put too much, too quickly, in to a story about a young lawyer (John Manson played by Stewart) who marries Jane (played by Lombard) within an hour of meeting her. What's that cliché? Marry in haste, repent at leisure... 

In short, the story is a series of episodes that show the couples' worsening financial status, their troubles with John's live-in mother, their struggles to pay the bills, John's diminished status at the office, the arrival of their baby son, John Jnr (unexpected and causing additional friction at home with mother), the couples' angst about their marriage, the baby's sickness which worsens, thus necessitating an heroic flight by a lone pilot (in a fierce storm) to bring a special serum to save the child, and finally John being accepted as a junior partner at the law firm.

How many more clichéd situations could the writers include? Maybe Mother dying soon after? There wasn't much comedy; the drama was lacklustre, at best; the dialog was painful to hear. Only the acting of the four main players was adequate.

This was the period at the end of the Great Depression with the USA coming out of its long downturn  during which many people experienced all of the events portrayed in the movie.

So, it made sense for Selznick to reaffirm good ol' home spun American values of family, relationships, heroism, perseverance, and initiative  all against the backdrop of the "average" American family. Who better to use than Jimmy Stewart and Carol Lombard? 

And, it should be noted that the film was released in early 1939; so, it was planned in 1938  soon after the USA began to get production going for the coming World War II. Hence, this sort of film was a great booster for the general public, at that time, many of who would soon have to join England in war. As many here would know, Hollywood and Washington formed an uneasy alliance before, during and after the war.

However, I'm glad I saw it  as a piece of disguised socio-political propaganda. But, I'll have to see other Lombard films to gain a better appreciation of her acting range.

As another reviewer noted: see this one just to say that you've seen all of Stewart's movies; otherwise, don't bother.

Sentiment: negative
I once caught about a 20 minute portion of this movie on Turner Classic Movies about 6 months back. I thought every minute of what I was watching was gold, and, because it was somewhere in the film's middle and I didn't want to spoil the whole thing if I were to watch it from the start, I decided that I would rent it immediately. Well, the video store which I frequent did not have a copy, so it took me six months to finally go somewhere else and rent it. I had previous to that experience only seen some Chaplin shorts, funny but not greatly artful, but after I saw the snippet of The Great Dictator, I checked out three of his other films, City Lights, The Gold Rush, and Modern Times (City Lights was great, I found the Gold Rush a little overrated, but still worthwhile, and I found Modern Times to be one of the funniest films I've ever seen (second funniest, behind Keaton's Sherlock Jr., more exactly).

Finally, the whole of the Great Dictator. Well, to be honest, it had its moments, both of comedy and of drama. But these moments don't always mix well. Chaplin's comedy worked well when mixed with melodrama (City Lights is the best example of this), but it didn't always work with social commentary. Plus, the fact that there was dialogue lessened the impressiveness of Chaplin's talent. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie as a whole, but I thought it of little consequence. I would have given it a solid 7/10 on the ratings scale...if not for the ending. The final speech that the Jewish barber gives is enormously powerful. Yes, it is adressed to the tempora et mores of 1940, but his message is perfectly applicable to the world today. The speech brought me to tears, and I consider it one of the best endings I've ever seen. Final score: 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
Serum is about a crazy doctor that finds a serum that is supposed to cure all diseases through the power of the mind. Instead it creates some kind of monster that needs to eat human flesh and brains. The mad doc creates some zombies out of cadavers and has some problems. There is a very long lead into all the action with many scenes getting you acquainted with the characters. The mad doctor's nephew gets into a car accident and the mad doc tries to use his new serum on the boy. The results are not good. This is a class C film with OK acting but some troubles directing and some continuity errors. There isn't much zombie action in this one and the effects, while adequate, are nothing special. You can fast forward through the slow parts and get some enjoyment out of the action scenes. Watch out for some nudity and bad language.

Sentiment: negative
Creating a comedy is like walking a pretty thin tight-rope. It either works, or it does not. Grandma's Boy is one of those movies that does not work. It may have a few very funny parts, but for the majority, it's just a terribly unfunny comedy from the usual supporting characters in Adam Sandler films (sans Sandler himself, he's just a producer).

Alex (Allen Covert) is a game tester. He's 35, and is the best tester and game player at his otherwise kid-filled workplace. He ends up getting his apartment and his stuff taken from him for not paying the bills (as it turns out, his roommate had just been spending the rent money on Philipino hookers and not paying the landlord). Desperate, he moves in with his grandmother, Lilly (Doris Roberts of Everybody Loves Raymond) and her two roommates.

That's the basic plot of the film, thrown in with subplots about a hot new girl named Samantha (Linda Cardelli, unrecognizable from her days as Velma in Scooby Doo) trying to get the testers to complete a new game as fast as they can, a robot-like game creating prodigy J.P. (Joel Moore) who works with Alex and wears much of the same clothes as Neo in The Matrix, and of course, all sorts of sex and drug related jokes. That's it.

The problem with the film, besides the fact that the real conflict in the film occurs and is resolved within the last fifteen minutes of the film, is that it just is not funny. It is totally mind-numbingly boring, and only sparingly funny. Nothing really happens at all. No emotion, no real sense of direction, and a whole ton of intense swearing. You find yourself maybe laughing at a few funny quips that the actors say, but otherwise sit in complete boredom, wishing you had not even bothered with the film. How this film was greenlit and how Fox thought it could make money will always remain a mystery to me.

There's just no entertainment value to come from it. None of the actors are actually putting in good performances, they are just acting like idiots for the camera, and hoping for the best. Stoner comedy has been done before multiple times, and on occasion, actually works (Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle and Dazed and Confused come to mind). Here, it just makes for making the film even less funny than it is already. The random inclusion of a monkey and a pair of bare breasts really does not make the film any better either.

Other than a few funny one-liners, this movie should just be out-right missed altogether. It's not very funny, the entire plot is silly, it's boring, and it just makes for one horrendous film. Avoid it like the plague.

1.5/10.

Sentiment: negative
After the already disappointing "Final Conflict", the series hits rock-bottom with this very weak fourth entry. At least the third film tried (unsuccessfully) to continue the story of Damien, while this one simply rehashes and copies ideas from the "Omen" (animals are afraid of the Antichrist, the death of one man is very similar to the death of the photographer in the first film). But what looked exciting and creative there looks just dumb here. And the little girl looks simply like a spoiled kid.

Sentiment: negative
I'll be quick to address the matters of the film here: It was a very engaging story about the destructive qualities about all-consuming passions; a young Italian woman who cannot emotionally connect with her jailed political-radical fiancé (due in part to her apolitical attitudes and freewheeling approach to life) finds solace and passion in a new young lover whom she embarks on an explicitly sexual relationship with. The anxieties, rage, tenderness and passions that swirl around in the atmosphere of the story equal the dispassionate quiet that seems to engulf the two leads. It lends the film an unsettling mood that permeates through all the political strife that is otherwise lost on the viewer (unless you have a deep knowledge of Italian politics during the 80's). I found the film compelling...what ruined it somewhat is a gratuitous oral sex scene that the actress performs on the male lead...it isn't simulated and leaves little to the imagination. There are other scenes of sex in the film, which I do feel were necessary because they outline the madness and loneliness that the characters live in. But the oral sex scene, I feel, derails the focus on the actual story. It was smooth sailing up until that point and once the infamous sex scene appears (which caused much hoopla back in its day), it's like hitting a roadblock. It's jarring and unnecessary and I am in the camp that believes that the film would not have been harmed any if the scene had been removed from it. And what's unfortunate is that this particular scene may deter people from watching this intriguing film, which I believe is worth a viewing because there is so much going on underneath the surface, emotions and further turmoils layered in the subtext.

Overall: Wonderful film hampered by a much not-needed sex scene.

Sentiment: positive
The Intruder (L'Intrus), a film directed by French director Clair Denis, is the liberation of film. It follows its own spirit across time, space, and character. There may be a plot, but what I understood of that I picked up from the description on the Netflix DVD sleeve. Honestly, it's probably better to know nothing about the film before watching it, because then the viewer can set aside any and all expectations. The film demands that the viewer think, but also taunts the fact that he or she will not gain full understanding.

The human heart is the film's enigma. Every image questions its role, its nature, and its form. The heart is the intruder, that of the viewer and that of Louis. Louis' character is played by Michel Subor with the peace and mystery required by such a character. Honestly, anyone could've played Louis' character, if he or she possessed a wandering, willing, and comfortable heart. Yet Subor is the one featured here; he becomes the film, his identity is inseparable from it. Many of the film's images lingering in my mind revolve around his expressions, vocal but mainly physical.

The Intruder is poetic in its ability to capture the stillness and fullness of movement, but more fluid than any literature in the shape it refuses to take. "Surrealistic" has been a term used in describing this film, but perhaps "quasirealistic" is a more adequate term. Nothing in the film exists outside of the possibilities of reality; the simple omnipresent score confirms that by imagining in music the connection between heartbeat and dim light.

Watch the trailer a few times if you're attracted to visual imagery; see the film to see the consequences of the combination of verse and a grasping for freedom.

Sentiment: positive
This documentary about the life and comedy of Bill Hicks features bits from Hicks' "Revelations" and other stand-up gigs. It also features interviews with fellow comedians and people in the industry who knew him, as well as reporters and journalists who talk about how his political commentary was raw and brutal.

I enjoyed it very much. I had already seen "Revelations" but the comedy clips were still refreshing. It's a nice balance of comedy and documentary that will explain Hicks' popularity to non-fans and please those who are already familiar with him.

I rated it a ten.

Sentiment: positive
this was a favorite Christmas Special that I wish that they would release on vhs or dvd , since my 33 RPM got lost,and any cassettes I made are also long gone.

I am not even a big John Denver fan but was very impressed with the music , which was mostly traditional favorites with a muppet spin ( esp Little St. Nick ! ) It also contained a few little known songs ( original ? ).

Even though it was done at the end of the '70's this show had a timeless feel to it. Hoping to find a copy soon !!!

Sentiment: positive
What begins as a fairly clever farce about a somewhat shady security monitoring company turns, almost instantaneously, into an uninteresting and completely inane murder mystery. David Arquette and the great Stanley Tucci try mightily to make this train wreck watchable, but some things are just not humanly possible.

What, for instance, causes Gale to turn suddenly from a sweet motherly figure into a drunken shrew at Tommy's parents house? Why would Heinrich, although admittedly a sleezebag, want to destroy the business to which he devotes his life, by robbing and possibly murdering his customers? Why does the seemingly sensible Tommy believe that Heinrich could be a murderer (based almost entirely on a dream), and even if that were believable, why wouldn't he go to the police? And why didn't Gale activate the alarm when she got home, especially after scolding Howie about it being off? Of course, all of these events are necessary for the plot (and I use the term very, very loosely) to unfold. And it might be forgivable if it resulted in even the slightest bit of comedy. But everything, from Howie's description of his date rape, to the coroner's misidentification of Gale, to the final "joke" about Gale and Howie still being dead, is more tasteless and pathetic than anything else.

I checked the box indicating that my comments contained "spoilers", but there's nothing more I or anyone else could do to spoil this thing that already stinks to high heaven.

Sentiment: negative
This amusing Bugs Bunny cartoon sees the return of the still unnamed Marvin the Martian and his sidekick K-9 the green dog.

This time instead of trying to destroy the Earth Marvin is on a mission to land, capture an Earth creature and take it back to Mars. Of course the creature he picks is Bugs Bunny. At first Bugs thinks Marvin and K-9 are trick or treating but realises this can't be right when Marvin drastically enlarges Bug's rabbit hole with a ray-gun. Bugs tries to trick his way out of the situation in a couple of ways, including persuading Marvin that K-9 is planning a mutiny. Eventually he is captured using an Acme strait-jacket ejecting bazooka. Amazingly, for an Acme product, it works as advertised and Bug's is forced to use his wits to get K-9 to release him, the tables are soon turned and the two disgruntled Martians are trussed up and Bugs is trying to fly their saucer back to Earth.

I really enjoyed this although the ending is a little weak compared to the rest of the story. Marvin's voice has changed slightly here and he gets visible emotional when he is angry but this didn't make me like him or the cartoon any less.

Sentiment: positive
Allen goes to the country (somewhere he hates going in real life) and has a weekend with his friends - which are the usual successful white middle-class bellyaching types that feature in many of his films.

I usually find something to amuse in Woody Allen comedies, but here he really falls totally flat on his face. Even the one-liners seem to have deserted him. The really is no plot (bar bits and pieces of cod Shakespeare) - but Allen seems to use the location to allow a semi-mystical air, which just makes the thing even more witless and half-baked.

It just doesn't work at any level and is just a giant bore. The best thing about this film (apart from the end credits coming up) is that the bad reviews seem to get him to wake up and realise that simply throwing together a slapdash script and casting your mates in it doesn't make for entertainment.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the best films I have ever seen! How anyone can knock this movie just befuddles my imagination! First of all, Gooding's and Harris's performances were simply spectacular, especially Gooding. That is the only way I can describe the acting: spectacular! You have to imagine how difficult it would be to play a character like that and pull it off; then you see Gooding, and his performance was magical. As for the plot, since it was based on a true person, it goes where the lives of the characters go. For all the action buffs, it might be a little slow, but then it's not an action film. I definitely give this movie a 10. It deserves nothing less!

Sentiment: positive
I think I've finally seen the Worst Movie Ever Made, and it hurts me to say that. As a big fan of indie cinema, gay or otherwise, I had high hopes. Several minutes into the film, however, the sheriff appeared and has my vote for the worst actor of this or any other century. His performance, and the dialog he was forced to perform, caused me the unusual step of stopping the DVD in its track. Hours later when I screwed up enough courage to press the play button again, it was no better.

Aside from the sheriff and his cartoon-racist deputies, the film has an attractive cast for whom I felt genuine sympathy since they had such a miserable script. The idea behind the film is fine - using lynching of gay men in the "New South" the same way it was used on black men in the Old South, leaving "strange fruit" hanging from the trees.

With an accomplished writer and director, we might have had a movie. Instead we get fake detective work, platitudes about homosexuality, and a cliché with a the one good white man trying to save the day.

I have no doubt that racism still flourishes. The FBI is currently investigating a white school bus driver in the back woods of Louisana who forced the black kids to get to the back of the bus. But this town is a cartoon, and it is hard to believe anything you see or hear.

There a few subplots in a weak attempt to try to make the main character more three-dimensional, but for the most part, they also fail miserably.

For the truly masochistic, the DVD contains some deleted scenes that will leave you running for cover.

The is probably the first movie that makes me believe that writer/directors should have to pass a test and get licensed before they can make a film. Although I would look forward to seeing several of the cast members in better films, I would be hard-pressed to witness anything else from this director.

Sentiment: negative
**SPOILERS** The killer in the movie doesn't wait a second as we see him sneaking into a girls shower and hacking her to death taking her severed and bloodied arm as he makes his getaway. We then get this official looking prologue, as if were watching a true story, stating that a number of gruesome murders were committed in the late fall of 1985 in a small mid-western collage.

Grandfatherly looking, and hearing impaired, Sheriff Ron Delboys is baffled by this murder and later when the murders of local collage students, all women, continues his run for state senator is in jeopardy with him bumbling the investigation at every turn. There's at least two times when Delboys says that they'll never be another murder as long as he's on the case and within minutes another murder happens.

Finding a golden amulet at the scene of each murder the sheriff's daughter, the collage librarian, Tina finds this reference book about Withcraft indicating that the amulet is a symbol of a witches cult that originated in the early 1700 just after the Salem Witch Trials. This cult was out to avenge the 19 accused witches hung by the local townspeople back in 1692 and they went out at night killing men and women of authority and taking off with a body part. When the body parts would form a complete person they would be burned in an occult midnight bonfire ritual.

You never get a handle to what's exactly happening in the movie "Blood Cult" not just because it's totally disjointed story but it's ever more outrageous and grad-school level acing especially by Charles Ellis playing the butterfingered sheriff Ron Delboys. Getting himself into more trouble then even the on the loose killer could have gotten him into. The bumbling Sheriff Delboys ends up with his head busted coffee spiked as well as almost burned alive, after being dismembered. The only reason he wasn't is because he seemed to have dreamt it all up while under the influence of some strong and unnamed drug.

There's a weird dream sequence in the movie suggesting that a number of highly respected members of the community are members of the Witches Cult that's responsible for the sorority murders. The movie doesn't bother to explain at all if the dream, that the drugged Sheriff Delboys had, was a dream or actually a real experience on his part by dropping the whole thing as if it were cut out of the movie!

Getting out of the hospital and staking out the collage sorority house, while munching down a bag full of McDonald cheeseburgers, Sheriff Delboys finally comes face to face with the killer. Shefiff Delboys find out to his shock and amazement that not only does he know who he, or she, is but he's also willing to let the killer escape!

The very first straight to video motion picture and it shows. Not only would no one it their right mind be crazy enough to pay admission, at least with the video you can tape over it Thank God, to see this disaster but no movie-house owner would dare play it on their screen without the danger of the outraged patrons, in a justifiable show of righteous indignation, tear the place apart!

Sentiment: negative
As if there weren't enough of those floating around at the time already, we have here another lame GODFATHER clone from the director of IL CONSIGLIORI (1973) which I had watched earlier this year. The marquee-value name roped in this time is Telly Savalas who belatedly enters the proceedings and is first seen from behind, rather campily tending to his flowers and wearing a beret in the style of French painters! Apart from not looking minimally Sicilian, he sports no accent of any kind other than his familiar drawl. Antonio Sabato, then, makes for an unlikely gangster - apart from being a resistible leading man; his relationship with Savalas, which becomes paternal at the flick of an eye, is also unconvincing (especially since he subsequently becomes romantically involved with the latter's spirited teenage niece)! Besides, for a gangster flick, there's precious little action to speak of and none of it is in any way memorable (though the finale set in a clinic is well enough handled); furthermore, the score by Francesco De Masi is serviceable but nothing else. Incidentally, the bargain-basement DVD I rented starts off midway through the credits so that none of the cast members - or even the film's title - is ever listed!

Sentiment: negative
Having spent all of her money caring for her terminally ill spouse, recently widowed Karen Tunny (Lori Heuring) moves with her two daughters Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and Emma (Chloe Moretz) to her late husband's run-down family home in rural Pennsylvania, where local legends speak of zombies who roam the woods at night.

Just seeing the names of this film's writer and director in the opening credits was enough to send shivers up my spine: Boaz Davidson is the 'genius' responsible for penning the scripts for such STV titles as Octopus 1 & 2, Spiders and Crocodile, whilst J.S. Cardone gave us the godawful 'video nasty' The Slayer and dull vampire flick The Forsaken. With such dubious talent responsible, I didn't expect much from Wicked Little things.

And having just finished the film, I'm glad I kept my expectations low.

Although the movie looks good at times, with lovely use of the eerie woodland locale, and the cast give reasonable performances given the clichéd drivel that they are working with, the plot is so laboured, poorly written, and derivative that it's impossible to be enthusiastic about. Most importantly, perhaps, the film's killers, undead children who rise each night from the mine in which they died, aren't in the least bit scary, a smudge of makeup, black contacts and some crappy joke shop scars doing very little to add to the sense of menace. Scout Taylor-Compton and company do their best to look afraid of the tiny terrors, screaming convincingly with every confrontation, but their admirable attempts to instill a sense of fear in the audience is to little avail: the little blighters just ain't got what it takes to chill the blood.

There are a few lacklustre zombie chow scenes in a futile bid to win over gore-hounds, and the final kill, which sees the victim's blood drench both Compton and Heuring, is suitably tasteless, but on the whole, Wicked Little Things (AKA Zombies in the UK) is instantly forgettable trashjust another clunker in the filmographies of Cardone and Davidson.

Sentiment: negative
First off, I want to say, "Thanks, Disney, for finally releasing the "Cinderella" movie on DVD! Now you have all the Disney animated films on DVD (including the 1999 Limited Editions)! What are you going to do next? You're going to Disney World!!!!!" Well, technically (I mean, look at the castle!!!!!)

Anyways, Disney remains magical in his 1950 animated classic film "Cinderella," the movie that put fairy tale movies on the map. We are all familiar with the story of Cinderella, her stepsisters, her date, the glass slipper, the pumpkin that turns into a carriage just for saying "Bippity- boppity-boo!," and of course, trying to head home by midnight!

What I like about this film: It's a grand old fairy tale that children like, now in a movie form (as well as on DVD as well)!!!!!

"Cinderella" - thank you, Disney!!!!! 10 stars.

Sentiment: positive
I took my younger niece to an early showing and she LOVED it (I enjoyed it myself as well). I don't need to explain the plot, since the movie remains completely true to the award-winning, top-selling book by famed author Carl Hiaasen. The movie takes the popular book and layers it with beautiful cinematography (I want to go to Florida now!), humor (thanks to funny-man, Luke Wilson and some new-comers), and Great music! I have to get to get a Jimmy Buffet CD now! I know a movie is good when I get goose-bumps in the end. Overall, it was great family film that I felt comfortable taking my younger niece to. I'd recommend it to any and everyone.

Sentiment: positive
You know a movie will not go well when John Carradine narrates (a.k.a. reads the script & plot synopsis) over his character's funeral procession, a mere 5 minutes into the movie. The narration is his character's last will & testament. It stipulates that his estate be divided amongst his 4 children and servants. The children shall split $136 million equally, but if any should die then that share is split amongst the remainders. If all the children should die then it is divided amongst the servants. To be eligible, they must live in the family estate for a week. It sounds like the typical plot of a reality show.

There is little subtext as to the nature of the Deans. They are a powerful and severely dysfunctional family, but the real trouble starts with the drowning of that dog. From the opening voice-over by John Carradine you expect this movie will lead to a Machiavellian cat and mouse game with a twist ending. 

That journey is painfully slow and pointless. We trudge through minutes of watching people sitting around, playing pool, throwing darts, the misuse of the "through the fish bowl" shot, dramatic conversations between silk cravat wearing men, constant bickering, misplaced circus music, bizarre flashbacks reminiscent of faux-German expressionism, the horror aesthetic of the 4th grade and heaps of dramatic overacting. This all inevitably leads to the expected & ungratifying ending. You will be happy to still be alive, but the pain might be too great to bear alone. Share children, share.

-Celluloid Rehab

Sentiment: negative
Absolutely putrid slasher film has not one redeeming quality. It has Camp Councellor Angela(Pamela Anderson..awful as the killer;her quips when she wastes people aren't even amusing)on the warpath slaying teenagers who act the least bit naughty or resist her pleadings for good behavior. We run the gamut of boring, clichéd killings such as the slashing to the throat to one kid looking for his Freddy clawed glove, a kid who gets a chainsaw, one girl who gets drilled, one who gets shoved into the crapper(filled with leeches), one who is roasted, etc.

It doesn't have one original idea to offer and is merely a waste of time. That is unless you want to see Valerie Hartmen's(who plays the slut Ally)tits. Most of the violence occurs off-screen so even that will not satisfy.

Sentiment: negative
Time has not been kind to this movie. Once controversial adaptation of Jeffrey Konvitz' best-seller, now this film looks like a mere mainstream version of your typical spookfest. Gruesome touches aside (particularly that crazy, over the top finale), this is essentially a glossy horror movie for those people that do not care much for the genre. It has an extraordinary cast in small roles (Jose Ferrer, Ava Gardner, Eli Wallach, Burgess Meredith, Christopher Walken, and many others), but something tells me that the producers wanted such an expensive cast in order to convince the audience that this is not your average lowbrow movie (producers of '70s disaster movies had a similar idea). I kind liked to see the familiar faces, but the story is very silly, and no matter how high class the film pretends to be, it operates at the level of your average '70s exploitation movie (not an entirely bad thing, though). Still, it is an enjoyable movie, especially for those viewers who enjoy stargazing. As usual, Albert Whitlock's matte work is outstanding. Overall, pretty entertaining.

Sentiment: positive
This looks decidedly like "the amateur" hour. How this piece of trash was ever released is beyond me: the acting, the story, the characters, the supposedly special effects, etc...it's ALL wrong. Why Lance Henriksen accepted this will remain one of the great mysteries of cinema. Maybe he was in dire need for money or maybe be was under the influence of some illegal drug.

It is pointless trying to explain you what this movie's about. It deals with the big foot legend but done in the worst possible manner. In fact, this stinker smells like a direct-to-video release.

Avoid at ALL costs! 0* out of 10*

Sentiment: negative