DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
When you put this DVD into your player and hit "play," you will experience a brief moment of silence and see a black screen as the laser is guided to the correct starting point in the center of the disc. CHERISH THIS MOMENT. Make sure you have some Tylenol or something (preferably PM's so you can fall asleep), because you're going to have a massive headache once this movie starts.

Starring a bunch of big-breasted girls and with an opening that actually made me chuckle a bit, I thought I'd be in for a good time. Sure, the opening sequence was a WEE bit awkward and most of the jokes fell flat and it seemed like this was going to be a Scream ripoff (by the way, my sole chuckle was from Julie Strain's final comment in this scene). But then I knew there was trouble... the opening sequence had a terrible rock song. During this terrible rock song, I looked over the DVD Chapter titles and saw things that said "TOPLESS IN THE BACKYARD!" and "BETTER THAN SEX!". I knew what the selling point of this movie was going to be.

And that's the sad truth: The ONLY good thing about this movie is the attractive cast. Other than that, it's a sadly routine slasher film that throws in an "innovative" concept about murder clubs, which ends up being fake anyway. So, the whole movie then points in another direction to try to be confusing and this huge mystery, but it all just adds up to not being interesting at all and leaves you feeling like you don't care for any of the characters. I mean, when the main character of the movie is revealed to have murdered an innocent woman, can you really feel ANY sympathy towards her when she's in fear for her life? The Scream influence is prevalent throughout, with a ghost face killer and some really terrible jokes. We're also treated to scenes of the main character talking to her mom and dad (Lloyd Kaufman! The only other cool part of the movie!) about an abortion or something. Uh. Yeah... This isn't a "so-bad-it's-good" movie, it's just BAD.

Someone compared this to a Troma film, but... you know, most any film that comes from Full Moon (or its offshoot, as this film proves) is horrible. NOT horrible in a Troma sense -- I've seen many Troma films, and I can honestly say they all offer something, ANYTHING that you can walk away with and tell your friends about later. However, this film has pretty much nothing at all enjoyable about it. Beware.

Sentiment: negative
I don't understand the many good reviews, here. I found the photography and scenery beautiful, and the two lead actors appealing, but there's little else here to recommend this movie. Most annoying are the fake Southern accents and badly written dialog. These do not sound like real people to me. Although it's refreshing to show men exploring various forms of sexuality without the usual labeling and stereotypical character traits, most of the story is without motivation or logic. The only thing that makes very much sense is the responsibility Griffith feels toward his mentally ill Aunt, grossly over-acted by Karen Black. Lee is an interesting character who would have been more compelling had the dialog he was made to speak been more natural and his motivations more clear. Yes, I understand that he's a drifter, but his actions as the movie draws to a rushed conclusion make no sense at all. This movie is worth a look, chiefly because it has a nice atmosphere about it, but it's slow moving and deeply flawed. A serious rewrite and better editing might have saved it, as the premise and story outline are promising.

Sentiment: negative
I always feel strange and guilty saying it (because I'm a fairly well-educated non-teenager), but I actually sort of like the Olsen twins, and I respect the movies they make, even though I've never really been their target audience. "When in Rome" was a traditional Mary-Kate and Ashley movie, complete with the foreign travel, accents, motorbikes, adult romance as a "B" storyline, fashion orientation, and even the gag reel over the credits. I enjoyed myself. "When in Rome" and the other Olsen twin movies never pretend to be anything they're not; most of the time, they only premiere on video, and they never claim to be the next "Citizen Kane" or even "An Affair to Remember." My point is, people who watch this movie and expect it to be anything other than another Olsen twin movie will be disappointed.

That said, those who ARE fans of the Olsen twins will really enjoy themselves. For those of us who've watched them since the first episodes of "Full House," it's really great to see them growing into more mature roles. This movie provides important historical and geographical information, just like many of their other movies (remember 10 Downing Street from "Winning London" and the visit to the Louvre from "Passport to Paris"?) as well as providing good, clean fun that can be enjoyed by the whole family.

As long as I still feel like I'm on my soapbox, and as long as I can make it relevant to the movie, let me take a moment to challenge those who reject the Olsen twins: in order to be a fan of the Olsen twins, you don't have to be some pre-teen "valley girl" from California. In fact, that's not really the target audience. If it were, the MK&A fashion line of clothes and accessories would be run through Gap or some store like that, not Wal-Mart. "When in Rome," while it does feature "high fashion" and globe-trotting and two girls from a valley in Cali, isn't really ABOUT that... it's more about inspiring young girls who have initiative to let it take them places. If that means setting the movie in some glamorous foreign city with cute guys on motorbikes, so be it. That's called marketing--you take an idea and sell it by making it appealing. At least they're sending a good message, even if the means seem a little superficial. 

Basically, don't knock the film until you've seen it, and then don't knock it until you've tried to understand what the Olsen twins do: they encourage young girls to be creative, intuitive, and driven young women. This movie does that, I think, just like their others. Kids - enjoy. Parents - do the same. If you like the Olsen twins, you won't be disappointed.

Sentiment: positive
What The Bleep Do We Know is a deluded and haphazard look at the mysteries of the universe. We are presented with a parade of apparent experts (none of whom are named) who ramble and pontificate in a thoroughly unscientific manner. Their interviews are chopped up into aggravatingly small segments and dispersed throughout some flashy cgi and banal mini-plots.

The film pilfers themes from science, philosophy, theology and politics, minces them together without any regard for accuracy, and then somehow extracts a few prosaic and absurd conclusions. We are led to believe that quantum physics is telling us the purpose of our existence, and any other difficult to answer question the film-makers would like to point their finger at.

It is riddled errors and logical non-sequiturs. How did we start at quantum mechanics and end up with this pseudo-scientific spirituality and mysticism? It's like saying 'two plus two equals four, therefore I can move objects with my mind'.

There is nothing original in this film, and almost nothing that is accurate. Any discriminating viewer will be annoyed by heavy-handed editing, intrusive and pointless special effects and general lack of substance. Educated viewers will be frustrated to tears by the violence done to science and every other subject this film touches on.

Sentiment: negative
You know sometimes you just gotta have it? That's how this movie is with me. I am almost embarrassed to admit that I like it, it is so goofy in some parts, but I find myself reaching for it when I'm down and just need a good laugh...and trust me, I am just not a "goofy movie" kinda guy.

You can read the synopsis so I don't have to bore you with that, just rest assured, if you like Kelsey Grammer you will probably like this movie.

One more thing, be SURE to watch the end credits. You don't need to read them, just watch them and catch the performance of "In the Navy" by the Village People...and friends.

Sentiment: positive
Mean spirited, and down right degrading adaptation to the classic children's tale not only lacks the charm of its forefather but lacks any talent what so ever. Mike Myers should not only be ashamed of himself for his horrible performance that is a clear rip off of what Jim Carrey did but he should give up acting all together. He is so annoying that you would want to beat the crap out of him if you were able to jump right in the film. The sets are ugly and the cinematography is very poor. I have seen a lot of bad film this year, but this not only takes the cake but it is with out a doubt one the worse films ever made.

Sentiment: negative
I love science fiction, I am fascinated by Egyptian mythology and I appreciate digital animation. I figured a movie that combines these three would be at least enjoyable. I could not have been more wrong: The story (or actually the lack there of) was completely uninspired and lacks imagination - while imagination usually is the biggest component of any science fiction story. The dialogue and acting are even worse than in an average porno movie. Especially Thomas Kretschmann gives new meaning to the term 'bad performance'. Bad acting wouldn't have been such a huge problem if only 'director' Bilal didn't take himself so seriously; all the lines sound like they are supposed to be poetic, it looks like Bilal really thinks he has made a piece of art here. Well, there's no art or poetry to be found in this piece of junk, only pretentiousness! This man should really stick to making comics, since he fails on all possible accounts as a director. Worst of all is the terrible digital animation, which is so ugly that it actually turns watching this movie into a physically painful experience. The graphics look so fake they even make the werewolves in 'Van Helsing' look like live actors! And since half the characters are CGI-animated, it is quite a problem that the CGI-effects look so fake. If the Egyptian Gods actually exist then Bilal's a dead guy, since they will no doubt take gruesome revenge on him for the ridiculous way in which he portrays them in this disastrously bad movie.

Sentiment: negative
Whilst it is universally acknowledged that Fearful Symmetry was heavily influenced by the Kolchak episode They Have Been, They Are, They Will Be, whether this makes it a rip-off or a homage is an altogether more controversial point. As a huge fan of both series I subscribe to the latter belief, although the less charitable may not do. James Whitmore was brave to take on the task of directing such a difficult episode, invisible elephants and gorilla suits sounds like a recipe for disaster, but he pulls it off with style, the teaser being an absolute gem. Lance Guest does a great job of making a credible character out of Kyle Lang and Jack Rader seethes with menace as Ed Meecham. Forget Fearful Symmetry's dubious originality and just enjoy it as a deeply satisfying X File.

Sentiment: positive
even though this movie is quite old, no matter how many times i watch it, it still makes me laugh. 

one particular quote in the movie stands out. 

when Danny( Joe Piscopo) pulls up to the d.a's office & parks in a disabled spot, Danny's partner says 

" can't park here, it's for the handicapped". 

Danny replies " i am handicapped,i'm psychotic".

that is one of the many lines in the movie that no matter how many times you watch, it'll make you chuckle.

Johnny Dangerously stands in my top 5 comedy/spoof movies of all time.

As an added bonus it also includes the legendary actor Peter Boyle in the cast. So watch this movie & like myself & many others who have watched it, you'll be hooked.

Sentiment: positive
I am sorry to say that it was one of the worst films I've ever seen. Although visually fascinating (e.g. the use of colour was absolutely stunning), it was pretty boring and disturbing (see the father/son incest).

What's more, music is totally absent, and if you think of those wonderful soundtracks by Michael Nyman (who wrote the soundtracks for most of Greenaway's films) then you can imagine what a difference it makes.



Sentiment: negative
This movie fully deserves to be one of the top Hindi comedies ever made . Rajkumar Santoshi is mostly known for his gritty hard-hitting social dramas , but this is easily the most effortless movie he has made .

The plot revolves around two small-town buffoons Amar (Aamir Khan) and Prem (Salman Khan) . They want to get rich quick and so move to the big city . They hatch the same plan separately - to woo a rich heiress Raveena (Raveena Tandon) who is the daughter of a rich businessman Ramgopal Bajaj (Paresh Rawal) . Thus the one who marries Raveena gets his hands on all her wealth . but when they get to know each other's plan , there is an intense tussle of one-oneupmanship over who marries Raveena . Hilarious gags and situations ensue as the battle rages on .

At the same time Ramgopal Bajaj's identical twin brother Shyamgopal Bajaj wants to eliminate his brother and niece and usurp the family fortune . Add to this an assortment of funny characters including a Raveena's maid Karishma (Karishma Kapoor) , a mistake-prone butler named Robert (Vijoo Khote) , a manager named Bhalla (Shehzad Khan) who mimics yesteryear's villain Ajeet and a funny gangster Gogo (Shakti Kapoor) who looks more like a pirate and a rollicking comedy awaits you .

Do not waste your time looking for LOGIC in the movie . Leave the company of your brains and just ENJOY . The actors are so much in sync with the script that no room is left for mistakes . Dialogues (Rajkumar Santoshi , Dilip Shukla) are witty . Music (Tushar Bhatia) and lyrics (Majrooh Sultanpuri) are memorable . The picturization and choreography (Saroj Khan) of "Yeh Raat Aur Yeh Doori" , "Ae Lo Ji Sanam" and "Dil Karta Hai Tere Paas Aaoon" is fitting and will remain etched in my mind forever .

The film starred two superstars-in-the-making , Aamir Khan and Salman Khan (they eventually became superstars) . Aamir Khan is impeccable in his first all-out comedy role . I salute his sense of comic timing . Salman pales in comparison with Aamir but is still likable . Among the supporting characters , Paresh Rawal stands out in his dual role of Ramgopal and Shyamgopal .

The movie surprisingly failed at the box office . I fail to understand why . I recommend it to all nevertheless .

Sentiment: positive
A man by the name of Joseph Samuels is found brutally murdered in his apartment. It would appear that Samuels was visited by a group of drunken soldiers the previous evening, and with one of them seemingly missing, the evidence certainly implicates the missing soldier. But as detective Finlay digs deeper into the case he finds that they could be barking up the wrong tree, and that this crime is dealing with something desperately sad and vile, anti-Semitism.

Crossfire was born out of the novel written by Richard Brooks, adapted by John Paxton and directed by the shrewdly excellent Edward Dmtryk, Crossfire {originaly titled Cradle Of Fear} is a taut and gripping picture that boldly tackles anti-Semitism. Tho the makers were forced to tone down the story from the original source, the novel is about homosexual hatred as opposed to anti-Semitism, what remains, largely due to RKO supremo Dore Schary and producer Adrian Scott, is a sort of creeping unease that drips with Noirish style.

The cast features three Bob's, Young, Mitchum and Ryan, with Noir darling Gloria Grahame adding the emotional female heart. Tho only third billed, it's Robert Ryan's picture all the way, his portrayal as the bullying, conniving Montgomery is from the top draw and perfectly showcases the talent that he had in abundance. Ryan had good cause to give Montgomery some of is best work for he had served in the Marine's with Richard Brooks himself, both men having discussed the possibility that if the novel was to be made into a film?, then Ryan wanted in and to play Montgomery, thus the genesis of Ryan's career as weasel types was born!. Gloria Grahame also puts in a wonderful and heartfelt turn, which is all the more remarkable since she was being plagued by her abusive husband at the time. Stanley Clements was known to be violent towards her and his constant presence around the set irked others in the cast, but Grahame, probably channelling real life emotion, became the character of Ginny and shone very bright indeed. Both Bob Mitchum and Bob Young come out with flying colours as well, to really seal the deal on what a smartly acted picture Crossfire really is.

Tho Crossfire was released before the other 1947 anti-Semitic picture, Gentleman's Agreement, and raking in over a million and a quarter dollars at the box office, some of its thunder was stolen by the Academy Award winning picture from Fox Studio. Nominated for Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor {Ryan}, Best Supporting Actress {Grahame}, Best Director and Best Screenplay, it won nothing, but critics of the time hailed it as a brilliant shift in American Cinema, and today it stands tall, proud and dark as a bold and excellent piece of work. 8.5/10

Sentiment: positive
Never before have the motives of the producers of a motion picture been more transparent. Let's see: FIRST, they get every willing televangelist to hype this film as the greatest thing since sliced white bread. NEXT, they encourage as many fundamentalist Christians as possible to purchase copies of the film so as to recoup its paltry production costs and pump up its advertising budget. And FINALLY, when the film hits the theaters, get as many said Christians as possible to see it yet again, bus them into the multiplexes if necessary, NOT on the merits of the film itself, but because a #1 box office opening will be seen as some sort of profound spiritual victory.

But THAT, of course, won't be enough. I imagine that any film critic with the audacity to give "Left Behind" anything short of a glowing review will be deemed "anti-Christian."

Of course, this shamelessly manipulative marketing campaign shouldn't surprise anyone. It is, after all, good old fashioned Capitalism at work. What DOES surprise me is how many people have been suckered into the whole "Left Behind" mindset. As someone who tries to balance his spiritual beliefs with some sense of reason and rationality, it leaves me scratching my head. It would appear that there are many, MANY people who actually believe that sometime in the near future a "Rapture" is going to occur, and that millions of people all over the Earth are going to simultaneously vanish INTO THIN AIR. What kind of reality, I wonder, are these people living in? Is this "Rapture" something they actually believe in, or is it something they fervently WANT to believe in? And when they reach the end of their lives and realize this "Rapture" has not occurred, will they be disappointed and disillusioned? Will there still be people 100 years from now insisting that the "Rapture" is imminent?

In a way, I almost wish that such an event would occur! What an interesting day that would be! What would be even more interesting is if the Apocalypse were to occur in a more spectacular fashion, not in the anthropological sense the authors of the "Left Behind" series have portrayed, but as more of a Stephen Spielberg production, with boiling clouds, trumpets, angels descending out of the sky, Moon turned to blood, the whole nine yards. Imagine coming to the realization that it was all coming true, just as the evangelists had been warning for years, and that there was something more awesome than just the cold, hard, physical reality we inhabit. Wouldn't THAT be something???

Yet in the final analysis, it's that cold, hard, physical reality that I will content myself with. My life is not so meaningless that I need the fear of a "Rapture" and the "End Times" to make sense of it all ... nor do I need Heaven or Hell to bribe or scare me into behaving decently, thank you very much.

Sentiment: negative
I watched this episode with high hopes after seeing it on so many people's "Favourite episodes" list. I'm not boasting in any way, but from the start, I realised they were in some sort of toybox/can, with the huge eye looking down on them, to the type of characters in there. Even though throughout the episode, the questions of "Who are we?", "Where are we?", "What's outside?" carry the suspense of the episode (which I unfortunately already figured out), I must say that different types of characters and the interaction between them did make the episode interesting enough. Although the twist of the story may have been harder to guess if ALL of them were (toy) soldiers.

Sentiment: negative
For years I hesitated watching this movie. Now, I know why. Not only is it a comedy that fails at being even remotely funny, but there's also just nothing to laugh *at* about the movie. It was even worse than I'd expected. I rented this sucker and still felt cheated out of time more than money. I have never seen a film that annoyed me that much. It is a movie about stupid people that are doing stupid and terrible things. I don't really know either how someone with common sense could actually act in this kind of movie. I have used IMDb for some time but felt obligated to register just to help prevent poor unsuspecting folks from renting or, worse, buying this stinker!! Really a waste of time and money. I must say that the plot line is awful.

Sentiment: negative
People, please don't bother to watch this movie! This movie is bad! It's totally waste of time. I don't see any point here. It's a Stupid film with lousy plot and the acting is poor. I rather get myself beaten than watch this movie ever again.

Sentiment: negative
First off, this really is my favorite film ever. I don't need to give anyone a description because every a**hole does that. I am literally obsessed with this practically bloodless, cheesy, lame effects having', boom-stick showing', badly edited, 80's metal horror masterpiece. The director (I heard) had hoped for a hit at the box office so that he could do sequels and have a FREDDY/JASON type of deal for himself. Damn, I wish that could've went down like that! The soundtrack's banging'. The acting's good....CHECK THIS MOFO OUT. and any die-hard fans out there, feel free to email and chat sometime. Midgetorgy....I can be found at YAHOO.

Sentiment: positive
It was Jon Pertwee who said " It`s very difficult to be funny but very easy to be silly " . Well if that`s the case PASTY FACES is " Very easy " . David Baker ( As Director /Screenwriter ) and his cast seem to be under the impression that comedy involves stealing scenes and style from superior Britcoms like LOCK STOCK.. and TRAINSPOTTING , using a completely underdeveloped script and jumping up and down speaking in a very fast voice very loudly . Alan McCaffrey especially suffers from this type of OTT performance but not enough to ruin the film because there`s not enough of a film to ruin .

PASTY FACES is terrible on all fronts especially scriptwise . I couldn`t understand why it ended the way it did , it just seemed to stop in a very abrupt and silly manner . Oh and other glaring errors are that you need a visa to visit the USA and a green card in order to work there - This film would have you believe you can get off a plane and start a new life in America without any authorisation - that you still get paid to donate blood in America - People who I know in America , and who donate blood tell me payment for donations stopped several years ago - and that you can buy any type of weapon from a gun shop . As far as I know gun laws in America differ from state to state but no gun shops sell anti tank guns over the counter . So we`ve got a very erroneous view of America from a very unreal and oh so unfunny film . Maybe this is revenge for BRAVEHEART a very Hollywood view of the Scots ? Perhaps , but this doesn`t stop PASTY FACES from being a crap comedy

Sentiment: negative
Being an Austrian myself this has been a straight knock in my face. Fortunately I don't live nowhere near the place where this movie takes place but unfortunately it portrays everything that the rest of Austria hates about Viennese people (or people close to that region). And it is very easy to read that this is exactly the directors intention: to let your head sink into your hands and say "Oh my god, how can THAT be possible!". No, not with me, the (in my opinion) totally exaggerated uncensored swinger club scene is not necessary, I watch porn, sure, but in this context I was rather disgusted than put in the right context.

This movie tells a story about how misled people who suffer from lack of education or bad company try to survive and live in a world of redundancy and boring horizons. A girl who is treated like a whore by her super-jealous boyfriend (and still keeps coming back), a female teacher who discovers her masochism by putting the life of her super-cruel "lover" on the line, an old couple who has an almost mathematical daily cycle (she is the "official replacement" of his ex wife), a couple that has just divorced and has the ex husband suffer under the acts of his former wife obviously having a relationship with her masseuse and finally a crazy hitchhiker who asks her drivers the most unusual questions and stretches their nerves by just being super-annoying.

After having seen it you feel almost nothing. You're not even shocked, sad, depressed or feel like doing anything... Maybe that's why I gave it 7 points, it made me react in a way I never reacted before. If that's good or bad is up to you!

Sentiment: positive
Very dull, laborious adaptation of Amis's amusing satire. The hero is portrayed not as a likeable loser but a merely oafish cretin. Most of the rest are pure caricatures with only Helen McCrory putting in real quality and providing something of the novel's wit. The period setting is camped up as if it were the 1920s, not the post-war period of horror comics and rock'n' roll. A real dud even by the standards of bad UK TV.



Sentiment: negative
While The Twilight Zone was a wonderful show, it was also very uneven--with some great episodes, some lousy ones and many in between. Don't believe the die-hard fans--there were some stinkers and this was definitely one of them.

In a plot that is obviously meant to be an attack on Fidel Castro, a near lookalike (Peter Falk in lots of makeup and a beard) obtains a magic mirror that allows him to realize who all his enemies are so he can liquidate them. While I do believe that Castro is a thug and dictator (and tens of thousands of refugees and political prisoners will attest to this), it's amazing how this sort of preachy episode actually makes audiences laugh at the American efforts to marginalize the creep and actually makes Castro seem okay!! Think about it--Serling and company wanted to hurt Castro but instead only seemed to be obvious, preachy and silly in the process.

It's indeed bad--almost laughably bad when seen today.

Sentiment: negative
Somerset Maugham's characters are brought to life in RKO's "Of Human Bondage"; but the movie is a too skeletal version of the novel, with Bette Davis' star-making performance sucking up all of the energy. Otherwise, it's the story of Leslie Howard (as Philip Carey); he dreams of becoming a painter, but is told he has no talent for the arts. As the film progresses, Mr. Howard's struggles, instead, to become a doctor. His efforts seem to indicate some bad advice regarding the arts; though successful in medicine, his painting seemed easier - also, note the symbolism of his disability, a "club foot" (explained in the film).

Along the way (right away, in this version), Howard becomes infatuated with waitress Davis (as Mildred Rogers). Davis' characterization of "Mildred" is extraordinary, culminating in a spectacular speech, when she tells Howard, among other things, that she had to "WIPE MY MOUTH!" after kissing him. Howard also performs well, but the story fails to explain his prolonged fascination and love for Davis; so, their performances are wasted. 

Still, a film to watch for the acting, including some good supporting players. Bette Davis' characterization was famous for inspiring a "write-in" campaign for the 1934 "Best Actress" Academy Award. For the record, she placed third. The results were: 

1. Claudette Colbert - "It Happened One Night" 

2. Norma Shearer - "The Barretts of Wimpole Street" 

3. Bette Davis - "Of Human Bondage" 

4. Grace Moore - "One Night of Love" 

******* Of Human Bondage (6/28/34) John Cromwell ~ Leslie Howard, Bette Davis, Reginald Denny

Sentiment: positive
There is something special about the Austrian movies not only by Seidl, but by Spielmann and other directors as well. This is the piercing sense of reality that never leaves the viewer throughout the movie. Hundstage is no exception. This effect is achieved not only by the depicted stories but also by actors playing. In Hundstage I have never had the feeling that these are actors playing, but real people instead. So real is the visceral feeling of the viewer...Almost as if the grumpy pensioner or lonely lady in the movie are living below you in your block.

Any person living in Vienna can without any doubt painfully recognize the people in the movie with their meckern/sudern (complaining), their hidden sexual urges and the prolo macho guys. This is further reinforced by the Viennese dialect which is, according to many, especially made for complaining as a way of life. A special parochialism and arrogance typical for Vienna are also very well portrayed.

The Viennese suburbs have a vivid presence in the movie with their stupor and drowsiness where nothing happens. Moreover, they have been turned into a celebration of materialism with shopping malls and huge department stores. Inbetween are the houses of the people where they indulge into what they reckon is pleasure-giving activities, trying to stay in touch with their human selves, yet in vain. The examples are the sexual game of the old lady with the men which bordered on rape, the prolo guy losing his nerves and hitting his girlfriend and the young woman who hitchhikes and irritates her drivers.

The film has no soundtrack as it concentrates on the normality/abnormality of its images only. Another typical feature of Seidl (and other Austrian directors) is his showing of disturbingly sexual images. These include the stripping of the old woman for her husband, the sexual scenes in the bath, the sexual game of the lady with the two men in her apartment, etc.

In Hundstage Seild has portrayed the lives of people who eventually may be as much Viennese as they could be citizens of Paris, New York or Madrid. The viewers should not despise or feel pity for the Viennese in the movie as they themselves could become victims of the same human estrangement and alienation, albeit in different circumstances. In the end, I believe Seidl's film is a warning to us about the terrible state of human relationships so brutally revealed in Hundstage. And if the viewer does not succumb to the reasons for this evil transformation, Seidl has achieved his goal.

Sentiment: positive
Certain filmmakers can do no wrong in the eyes of national critics, which is one reason you should never pay attention to them. This film is a perfect example. The critics like director Eric Rohmer.

This movie is a boring soap opera about a woman and a teenager ("Pauline") she's taking care of for the summer, and the relationships they have with a few men. It's talk, talk, talk and more talk. 

For those looking at the cover and hoping to be titillated, there are a few quick nude shots and a couple of swear words but otherwise this is a harmless French morality play. A friend of mine loaned me this tape. He thought he was getting some sexy French film, and was disappointed. I was just as disappointed because it also was so boring. 

How this gets such great reviews is almost unfathomable.

Sentiment: negative
First of all, I think the casting and acting were excellent. The problem is the story. There is basically no story here worth telling and thus basically no movie here. Larry McMurtry has done Lonesome Dove and I can't fault the original, though it probably didn't need sequels. He did Hud with Paul Newman, which is one of my favorite movies. Mellencamp is supposed to be a country singer, but the only song I hear him sing is an old Buck Owens song. The movie makes a big deal out of chicken farming. Mellencamp's character has a good wife, and it's utterly stupid of him to stray from her. The incident with riding in the sliding cage is utterly stupid. Maybe people do that for fun in some parts of the country, but I never heard of it.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was simply amazing.The writing was incredible as well as the directing and acting.The story instantly gets you interested.This movie is one of those movies that has your heart pounding the whole time.As always Damian Chapa is brilliant,his on screen acting is as powerful as any Hollywood actor.The cast in this film is perfect.Each character made the story more complete.The cinematography was captivating and it uplifted the movie.I was totally stuck to the screen and couldn't stop watching it,there was no getting up for popcorn or anything.This movie is one of the best all year,maybe even the best.Definitely rent this movie,I recommend it this movie if u want to see great filmaking or just for pure entertainment.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film when it premiered in LA. I think I laughed 2 or three times. The rest of the time I was in shock at how ridiculous/poorly shot and poorly written it was. Kirby is in fact the only saving grace in the film. I was disappointed at the performance of Larry Bagby , whom I usually find entertaining. If you enjoy watching your friend's crappy homemade short films that they shot on their mom's 8mm video camera then there's a slight chance you might enjoy this film. Then again part of what makes those movies enjoyable is that it's your buddies playing all the parts. You don't know these people so you'll probably find it as dull and stupid as I did. Dear Mr. Nelson, go back to film school, intern for a while as a PA or a grip or some low level job so you can see how things are properly done in film . Then look for as long as you must to find a Director of Photography who knows what f. stop means, make sure he has ND filter on hand. Then try again. Repeat as many times as needed.

Sentiment: negative
It´s long time that I and my wife didn´t see such a boring thriller. It´s definitively NOT a gripping story and it is paced so slowly that we nearly fell asleep. This could be instead a very low budget TV crime series. There are some ridiculous scenes like the one where mafia boss Pirano wants to see the jury lady in a red clothes or another mafioso cannot stop to think about her and so on. Okay perhaps this should have been a romantic thriller but believe me you really don´t miss anything. We gave 4/10.

Sentiment: negative
If you are French native, then you find this movie extremely funny. It's good, just good! Can though imagine that subtitles or translations don't mean much in english.

Sentiment: positive
I saw it at a German press screening. Without giving too much away: Most critics really seemed to like it very much. There was even applause afterwards, which is quite unusual for that species. From my point of view and until now, it was the funniest movie of the year. It keeps the charm and wit of the three W+G shorts and it is enlarged with many references to these and other movies. Of course, there are obvious allusions to monster- and werewolf-movies, especially to "An American Werewolf in London", "Jaws", "King Kong" and even to Peter Jackson's "Braindead"/"Dead Alive", but also to other genres.

Characterization was better done in "Chicken Run", but that movie had a complete new "cast" where introduction was necessary. Here, you are already able to know the two main characters. So, the new "Wallace and Gromit"-movie is enjoyed best if you watched (and liked) the shorts already, yet it also works on its own. "Chicken Run" had the more convenient, but also more "storytelling" plot. Instead, this new Aardman masterpiece keeps that crazier and somehow more "isolated" feeling of the W+G shorts. Children should also enjoy it very much, especially because of the sweet rabbits (if you love cute bunnies, this is a must-see for you!!!) and because Gromit has a lot do to and really steals the show (children also love dogs... :-) ). But many jokes are thought for a more adult audience (there are even soft sexual allusions in it). The movie manages, like "Shrek 1+2" and "The Incredibles", to fulfil high level entertainment for the whole family, with adding a British and at least a little bit darker edge to the humour of American animated movies.

The animation is  as expected  superb, and they kept true to the Aardman style because they didn't put in too many digital effects - I realized just a few when it came to Wallace's inventions.

Finally, the score works fine in the movie, although one of the main themes definitely is "borrowed" by Randy Edelman's "Dragonheart" score.

The bad thing is: It will probably take another six years from now until we can see a new animated gem from Nick Park & Co.

Sentiment: positive
Why is it that in the '50s and '60s, Italians made so of the best movies, and then during the '70s and '80s, made nothing but zombie and cannibal movies? Probably because art films didn't make any money. , The Cannibal Movie, unlike the Zombie Movie, which was created by Americans and `exploited' by Italians, is a purely Italian creation, designed as a mondo exploitation showcase, and to make as much money as possible (no artistic integrity getting in the way here). Eaten Alive came during the Cannibal Movie heyday. The director, Umberto Lenzi, hadn't even hit his stride yet; his genre classic, Cannibal Ferox, was still a year away.

In plotting similar to (read: ripped off from) Ruggero Deodato's seminal cannibal classic, Cannibal Holocaust, a woman (Janet Agren) receives word from the police that they've received a 8mm film from her sister. She's gone missing in Africa, and it's suspected that the tribal ritual depicted on the film may have something to do with it. Mel Ferrer, as a Professor of Somethingoranother, tells her that a man named Jonas (Ivan Rassimov) has started a Jonestown-like cult in New Guinea, and that's where the sister is. The woman hires a guide (Robert Kerman) to take her through the jungle to find the cult and her sister. And, wouldn't you know it, the jungle is full of cannibals. 

One sentence should sum it up: if you've seen on Cannibal Movie, you've seen them all, mostly because these films steal shamelessly from each other (Lenzi copied Cannibal Holocaust to make this film, and retooled this to make Cannibal Ferox; Deodato copied parts of this for Hit and Run). And because they all share the same material, they all feature the same traits: awful photography, boring scenery, terrible dubbing, overacting, and exploitation, exploitation, exploitation. Genre fans will have a ball since everyone in it is a genre veteran. Rassimov and Kerman have a scenery eating contest. Agren exists solely to be naked, raped, or in peril. Plenty o' gore for all the sickos out there. The cannibals, who do actually appear to be native cannibals, eat lunch met disguised as human flesh. And, in the grand tradition of Cannibal Movies, any live animal shown onscreen is usually killed shortly thereafter. Overall, really not a good experience, but I'm sure there are psychopaths out there who find this excrement entertaining. I know I did.

Sentiment: negative
The war in the East,as the Germans referred to the WW2 Soviet-Nazi conflict, was a war of annihilation on the part of the Germany. 90% of the German army were in the Soviet Union fighting. Their ultimate aim was to wipe out the so called "sub human (Untermensch)" Russian population and colonize the mainly empty country with German settlers after they had won.

Read "Hitler's Willing Executioners."

Here we have the German army presented as innocent victims and not as Nazi mass murderers. When are modern German film makers going to be honest and face up to the past?

Better see the Russian film "Come and See" instead!

Sentiment: negative
I caught this movie at a small screening held by members of my college's gaming club. We were forewarned that this would be the "reefer madness" of gaming, and this movie more than delivered.

Tom Hanks plays Robbie, a young man re-starting his college career after "resting" for a semester. What we, the viewer, find out as the movie progresses, is that Robbie was hopelessly addicted to a role-playing game called "Mazes and Monsters," a game that he gets re-acquainted with after a gaming group recruit him for a campaign.

This movie is laughable on many, many levels. One scene features the group "gaming by candlelight," which is probably the best way I can describe it. While I'm sure that this was meant to be "cultish" in some way, as most gamers know, it's horribly inaccurate. Most role-play sessions are done in well-lit rooms, usually over some chee-tohs and a can of soda.

The acting, while not Oscar-caliber, isn't gut-wrenchingly awful either. This is one of Tom Hanks's first roles, and Bosom Buddies and Bachelor Party were still a year or two over the horizon. The supporting cast, while not very memorable, still hand forth decent performances.

Mainly the badness lies in the fact that it was a made-for-TV movie that shows the "dangers of gaming" Worth a view if you and your friends are planning a bad movie night.

Sentiment: negative
First I would like to say how great this. It is astounding and sometimes shocking. And to say the least I'm 11 years old and this is my favorite movie, I can definitely stand a boring film, but this is anything but boring. It is like a trip through humanity. Its stark realism shows through this monumental masterpiece. It is a heart wrenching tale of two down and outers (VOIGHT AND Hoffman) who build a mutual friendship. Joe Buck (VOIGHT) a naive Texan stud comes to New York to make it rich by entertaining women. Soon he meets Rico 'RATSO' Rizzo (HOFFMAN), who is a poor man barely being able to pay rent. Ratso becomes Joe's 'manager' but soon both men can't find Joe a job which results in stealing food. As they try and survive on the streets of New York we realize how tough it is. They can't get Joe a girl until they meet a lady at a party. Joe makes some money and soon Joe takes Ratso on a Ratso's dream spot, Florida. The final five minutes are heart breaking yet some of the greatest moments in the film. From MIDNIGHT COWBOY we get a stark and sometimes disturbing urban view on life.

Sentiment: positive
This film is as good as it is difficult to find. The film's hero (and writer and director) is Simon Geist- a man "with an agenda." He creates a fake magazine just to have the authority to interview the swine of Los Angeles- the actors, the models, the musicians- who believe that their own defecation doesn't smell. With clever dialog, Zucovic succeeds in doing this. Sure, the budget for this film was probably what he paid for a used car, but this film is so solid and so well written that it works very well. Any person who can reenact Edward Munk's 'The Scream' in the reflection of a silver trashbin at a local coffee house should be nominated for some type of award. Give this film a chance and listen to what it says... because they HAVE been making the same car since 1986... it's called 'the car.' Bravo, Zucovic, bravo!

Sentiment: positive
I wanted to see this movie because I am a very huge Abbott and Costello fan, and when I saw it, I liked it.

This movie is funny, not hysterical, but funny. I mean I laughed at a lot of the funny parts and I just plain enjoyed it.

Though it is not of the best of the Perfect Straight Man and the Perfect Buffoon, you should see this if you really love Abbott and Costello.

Out of all of the Abbott and Costello movies that I have seen, I can't say I've seen one that I hated. This is decent, funny, and entertaining. Abbott and Costello at least made some pretty decent movies in their later years.

All in all, I liked this movie, it is not one of their best ones, but I liked it.

7/10

Sentiment: positive
Without being one of my favorites, this is good for being a change of pace... even if only for a few minutes.

It all starts with a big fight between Tom, Jerry and Spike (who is renamed "Butch" here). They're all beating each other, but suddenly Spike makes a heroic and admirable decision: he stops the fight and suggests that they all should be friends. So, all of them sign a peace treaty and become friends... which isn't going to last for long.

Meanwhile, the three become affectionate, patient and kind to each other. They even save each other when one of them is in danger of life. The relationship goes nothing but excellent, until a very big steak appears and they all become greedy. The three are guilty to return to their usual fights and rivalries.

But still... to see Tom, Jerry and Spike as friends is truly a delightful and grateful experience, even if only for a while.

Oh, by the way, as a curious fact, two songs from "The Wizard of Oz" are played here in instrumental versions: "We're off to see the Wizard" and "Somewhere over the rainbow".

Sentiment: positive
Ringmaster, Jerry Springer's pathetic excuse for wasting film that should be recycled as toilet paper recently destroyed my confidence in the art of film. First of all, it was made. Second of all, people went to see it. Third, some people voted it the best movie they have ever seen. If a monkey could make a movie, i'm 100 percent sure that it would be 1 billion times as good. Most crappy movies have their moments, (even Godzilla had a few cool special effects) this film's moment was when I left the theater nauseated. The only thing that possibly could've made this movie any worse would be if Jerry Springer was the star. If I want to stare at crap for an hour and a half, i'll take a dump in a can. If anyone didn't utterly despise this movie, I pity you, and your children, and your children's children's children; however, contrary to Springer's beliefs, I clearly don't condone children having sex.

Sentiment: negative