DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I am utterly astonished at how over-rated "Cemetery Man" is among horror fans! Now, I usually welcome movies that blend two or more kinds of genre-styles into one and I love just about every zombie-comedy I have ever seen. To my dismay, this Italian cult-classic really didn't show me a lot to get too pumped up about... It follows the unusual duties of a full-time cemetery care-taker and his retarded, man-child, Curly Joe looking assistant as they seem to primarily dispose of the recently deceased who pop out of the ground seven days after their initial death. He meets a widow whom he "wows" with some grisly grave-yard atmosphere and develops a quick romance, soon having sex with her on her dead husband's grave. The husband's corpse springs alive and bites her, triggering a series of events that seem to consume the rest of the movie. "Cemetery Man" attempts to incorporate every element it can, like horror, romance, comedy, action, and fails entirely in the long-run. It plods along, never able to focus on any aspect long enough to make it interesting for the viewer, such as the paunchy sidekick's relationship with a living severed head, a motorcycle riding zombie launching out of the ground, the main character deciding to gun down random people on the sidewalk, etc. This thing is so convoluted and dull that it's nearly impossible to take it seriously. Sure, it's stylish and often "elegant", but even the most "artsy" kind of films need the right kind of lineage to allow it to make sense. "Cemetery Man" plods along, appearing unable to focus on anything for more than a few minutes which becomes very tiring after a while. People argue that "it's a more sophisticated zombie movie". Frankly, when it comes to zombies, I don't want anything more "sophisticated" than Romero... There's a little bit of gore and nudity - mainly in the scenes where it wants to play "horror movie", but not nearly enough to make up for it's uncompromising lack of structure. Terrible film.

Sentiment: negative
I have seen this movie only once, several years ago. But I remember liking it a lot.

**Spoilers ahead** An old famous opera singer is retired and she decides to give all the money she has to her cats. Her butler hears this and plots to get rid of the cats so he can have the fortune. He puts knockout drops in their milk. When they wake up, they find themselves miles away. They must journey back to their house before it is too late. With the help of an independent-minded tomcat and other animal accomplices, while evading the butler and foiling his plan.

Could have been better, but it also could have been a lot worse.

My Score: 7/10.

Sentiment: positive
Lance Henriksen got paid something to appear in this. I hope it was a lot.

Former US National Champion gymnast, Kristie Phillips starts as Charlie Case, a gymnast-turn-secret-agent (because it's very common that munchkin gymnasts become government spies...)

There's a truly hysterical opening scene where Charlie's uneven bars routine is sabotaged by an eastern-bloc competitor. What follows is one of the most ridiculous stunt scenes I've ever witnessed....and they want you to take it seriously! Don't worry...she sticks her dismount.

Everything after that is just a messy, dreck of a spy movie. Watch the first fifteen minutes for the campy-gymnastics stuff, then run for cover.

Sentiment: negative
Eddie Murphy is one of the funniest comedians ever - probably THE funniest. Delirious is the best stand-up comedy I've ever seen and it is a must-have for anyone who loves a good laugh!! I've watched this movie hundreds of times and every time I see it - I still have side-splitting fun. This is definitely one for your video library. I guarantee that you will have to watch it several times in order to hear all the jokes because you will be laughing so much - that you will miss half of them! Delirious is hilarious!

Although there are a lot of funny comedians out there - after watching this stand-up comedy, most of them will seem like second-class citizens. If you have never seen it - get it, watch it - and you will love it!! It will make you holler!!! :-)

Sentiment: positive
This is by far the most incredible movie I have seen in a long time. The actors gave wonderful portrayals of the characters in the movie. The story was accurately portrayed. The story starts out with a young woman from the British Isles and her father traveling by steamboat to Nauvoo, Illinois. She has become a member of the LDS Church and he has not. He thinks she is ridiculous for making the trip and is discouraging. She encourages him to read about Joseph Smith, the Prophet. This is where the story of the Prophet Joseph Smith begins. The movie accurately portrays his life and some of the history of the LDS Church at the same time. It was graphic at times, but was needed. The emotional expression was very believable, which caused my emotions to spill out. Filming was awesome. The way in which the story was presented was touching. After the movie was over, we just sat there unable to moved. I was stunned. For people who know very little of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, I would encourage you to see this. If nothing else but to gain some understanding of his life. For those who are members of the Church, I would encourage you to see it. It will increase your testimony of this most incredible man. This is a must see.

Sentiment: positive
This movie re-wrote film history in every way. No one cares what anyone thinks about this movie, because it transcends criticism. Every flaw in the movie is easily overcome by the many amazing things the movie has going for it. It is an extremely beautiful movie, and I doubt many of us will see anything like it again. I've seen it more times than I care to count, and I still become transfixed every time, with a feeling which is hard to describe. One for the ages.

Sentiment: positive
Bottom-of-the-Freddy barrel. This is the worst film in the series, beating "Freddy's Revenge" for that title. A cheap-looking (with mediocre special effects), incoherent mess, with Freddy turned into a punster. He has one or two cool lines, but that doesn't save this illogical and sloppy sequel.

Sentiment: negative
I pulled down a VHS box from my vast collection - many unseen - and picked out a movie, based on the box art, I thought would be fun, and yes, bad. Prison had that 80s cheesy look all over that box. I sat down and watched, and lo! and behold!, found that sometimes we do indeed sit down to a movie with preconceived expectations in mind. Fortunately, I reversed mine quickly and soon realized I was sitting down not just to an okay film but a rather good movie in total. Prison tells the story of an old, dilapidated prison being reopened to save on budgetary concerns. It looks creepy as all empty and filled with prisoners. The prison used as a set is incredibly atmospheric and easily the most important character in the film. The story using the prison as its central setting tells in a prologue of a man being killed via the electric chair. We see Lane Smith as a guard - tearing away a Crucifix before sending the man to his Maker. We then go to present day, first with a government board at a meeting deciding to open the prison and send a beautiful doctor in to make sure that conditions are acceptable as she campaigned vigorously against re-opening the old prison. Then we see the new warden, Lane Smith, haunted by a nightmare in bed - and given the new job of opening a prison he has not been to in years. Well, the rest follows suit: prisoners and guards arrive with plenty of stereotypes abounding. We are given some character depth and several of the prisoners are interesting characters. The acting is better than one might expect with Lane Smith doing as always a workmanlike job. Viggo Mortenson as a very different prisoner being solid. Tom Everett, Tiny Lister, and Ivan Kane really exploring the boundaries of their stereotypical characters. Chelsea Field is okay as the female lead. The best performance is by Lincoln Kilpatrick, an underrated character actor, as Cresus - a prisoner who had been in that very same prison years ago when the "man" had been executed" with some kind of terrible secret. Prison is not the next best thing to sliced bread or anything like that, but it is definitely worth a look and definitely better than most would expect from it. I was pleasantly surprised at the way director Renny Harlin created a story so visually atmospheric. The film has a tense, taut pace and Harlin knows how to build his scenes. There are a few excessively shot gore scenes - the one with the barbed wire was a bit much as was the one with all the pipes. But these scenes are visually creative and interesting. The acting is uniformly decent. The script actually much more cohesive than one usually gets from films like these. That may in part be credited to Irwin Yablans who wrote the story. You may remember he came up with the idea of making Halloween scary as a holiday. Here he makes incarceration a hell of a lot more scarier than it already is. Give Prison a break(get it).

Sentiment: positive
To this day when you speak of the Japanese cinema, most folks won't talk about Rashomon, or the Seven Ronin, or Ran. To the masses the Japanese cinema means all those monsters we've grown to love destroying those Japanese cities over and over again, lots of times in battles with each other. The first and greatest of these is Godzilla who's come back a dozen times or more and in a few films faced the three headed hydra like monster from outer space, Ghidrah.

Oddly enough in keeping with the times, the special effects got slightly better. But part of the charm of those old films was seeing those paper mache city sets destroyed, they looked so phony, maybe three steps above Ed Wood.

Some visitors from the future have time traveled to Japan to urge that Godzilla be destroyed from when he was first discovered. And in fact he was first discovered as a surviving dinosaur during World War II when he protected the Japanese garrison on a Pacific island from those American troops. But later on with atomic testing on Bikini, Godzilla the friendly dinosaur just like Barney became the mean machine we've grown to know in the cinema.

Of course you eliminate Godzilla than you give Ghidrah a clear field to wreck Japan so it does not become the economic colossus it was by 1991 when the film came out. More I won't say, but we all know Japan is doing reasonably well as 2010.

Like all the other Japanese monster films, just sit back and enjoy the mayhem.

Sentiment: negative
This movie, quite literally, does not have one redeeming feature. The characters are one-dimensional, cliched, incredibly misogynistic and stupid. The script looks as if it was cobbled together from 100 other movies, the acting is horrible, and some of the 'gross-out' humour made me feel nauseous.

Shame on you, Gregory Poirier, for thinking ANY of this would be funny or interesting!

The worst movie I've seen in several years.

Sentiment: negative
Well, I guess I'm emotionally attached to this movie since it's the first one I went to see more than 10 times in the cinema ... helping me through my master's thesis, or rather keeping me from working on it!

But on watching it again several years (and many many movies) later - what a well-crafted little gem this is! I've never seen Gwyneth Paltrow in a more convincing performance, and Jeremy Northam is the perfect Mr Knightley - where does one meet such a man??? <<<sigh>>> Sophie Thompson's turn as Ms Bates is virtuoso acting of the finest (oh, napkins, sorry!) and the rest of the cast is no disappointment either - Toni Colette brings a lot of Muriel to her Harriet, and Ewan McGregor is convincingly charming - and Alan Cumming and Juliet Stevenson are the perfect "impossible" couple!

Of course the sets and costumes, and the beautiful soundtrack contribute a lot to the feelgood, almost Hobbiton-like atmosphere of the movie - although as far as cinematography and art decoration go, it's almost a case of visual overload. Very very pretty, but a little more austerity might have conveyed a better sense of period. But the good thing is, the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, and there is plenty of fun - and some pretty cool editing - that keep it from sinking into saccharine Merry Old England mode.

My particular favorite is the ball scene - some beautiful acting and directing here, and the concluding dance summarizes the relationship between Emma and Mr Knightley just beautifully. Pity that the final proposal scene goes on for just a little too long - cut two shots (I can think of exactly which ones!) and it would have been much more in keeping with the rest of the movie.

Gosh, I just realize (by reading the imdb listings) that I've seen Jeremy Northam in at least three movies without even being aware that it was him - seems he's got a lot more going for him, as an actor, than just being a gentlemanlike English heartthrob! Hmm, guess I need to pay my video store a visit...

Lovely movie. My favorite Jane Austen adaptation so far - though perhaps Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility is, strictly speaking, the better movie, this one is closest to my heart - and I've certainly seen it many more times! Watch it if you can - and don't be too hard on its little imperfections.



Sentiment: positive
Tediously long dreary cinematic waffle. I couldn't believe how bad this film was. I watched it merely because of the numerous people who gushed about it on this site. Was I watching the same film? The entire episode is one-dimensional. Nothing that happened in Garps' past affected his (or anyone else's) future and no-one was affected by their past. I think it was Socrates who said about plays that if a scene can be removed from a play without having any effect, then it shouldn't be there. Obviously, the director didn't know this rule and, so, stuffed his 'work' with one dire scene after another. Even the plane crashing into the house was unexpected, it wasn't a surprise, but it was unexpected!

It is worth mentioning that at the time of writing this (1st Dec 2002), even though many people say it is one of their favourite films, no one has bothered to add a memorable quote. The reason being that there simply aren't any.

Don't waste your time watching this, watch a plank warp instead.

Sentiment: negative
What a turd! I like John Leguizamo but man this is bad. I thought spawn was the worst movie he had been in, but I was wrong. I like all types of comedy from stuff like Ace Ventura 2 to american werewolf in London. This is a piece of trash.

Sentiment: negative
Caught this recently after noticing James Earl Jones name on the title. It was better than I expected. Of course it's pretty old - made during the early/mid 70's but it actually is a decent drama. It runs a quick 90min or so and showcases good performances from James Earl Jones and Diahann Caroll. The plot is conventional in general but told through the perspective of a single black woman on welfare who has 6 children and trying to deal with all the problems that persist. This makes for an interesting view.....also in the fact that the script wasn't too sentimental or overdramatized - it's almost like looking at a slice of the past. All the 70's styles are out in abundance. The ending is kind of kooky though....probably would've done better without the theatrics.

Sentiment: positive
I was blown away by the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, a show that always kept me guessing and brought me to tears on more than one occasion. A hardened sci-fi fan, I like to think I can pick out the good stuff from the BS, and this was good stuff.

As such, when I first heard about the prospect of a prequel series some months ago I got a sick feeling in my gut. I was afraid that the formula that made Battlestar so successful would be reused in Caprica, which wouldn't work at all. BSG's story, of a mournful ragged band of survivors, trapped aboard decaying star ships and guided by prophetic vision and a sequence of pseudo-miracles, was perfectly complimented by extraordinary music and a better cast of actors.

Caprica feels different. Where BSG takes place after the fall of a great civilization, Caprica portrays that civilization in it's cold and decadent heyday. The overall vibe I got from Caprica was similar to that of Minority Report, minus excessive and counterproductive theatricality. In true BSG form, Caprica has in it's first few hours of programming already tackled the issues of religious freedom, racism, the morality of playing God and the nature of the human soul.

The casting for Caprica is also excellent. Each character is unique and deep, from the obsessive and distant scientist-turned-entrepreneur, to his troubled and willful daughter, each actor and actress throws themselves into their respective roles.

Music, which was used so powerfully in BSG, also plays a significant role in Caprica. Battlestar's powerful rolling drums and mournful duduks served it's themes very well. Caprica uses a more orchestral sound, which gives the show it's own feeling quite distinct from either of it's predecessors. 

The new Caprica is definitely it's own show, pulling from the Battlestar franchise only as much as it needs. I look forward to the full series.

Sentiment: positive
The only way to get anything out of this film is to approach it as a comedy. Seen in that light, it does deliver. 

If you're looking for a serious movie, look somewhere else. This film has absolutely no depth and offers little more than a cursory and one dimensional examination of "issues" with no insight whatsoever.

Making a movie about stereotypes and then making every single character in your movie a stereotype is an extremely poor strategy - especially when those same characters only break their hackneyed molds in predictable, stereotypical ways. 

Busta Rhymes and Ice Cube make the film almost watchable, and Michael Rappaport turns in a good performance, but the script is so awful and the social commentary is so trite, it's hard to find anything redeeming.

Sentiment: negative
I have always been a huge fan of "Homicide: Life On The Street" so when I heard there was a reunion movie coming up, I couldn't wait.

Let me just say, I was not disappointed at all. It was one of the most powerful 2 hours of television I've ever seen. It was great to see everyone back again, but the biggest pleasure of all was to have Andre Braugher back, because the relationship between Pembleton and Bayliss was always the strongest part of an all-together great show.

Sentiment: positive
Unusual? Yes!

Unusual setting for an American wartime movie, New Zealand.

Unusual subject matter, four sisters and their relationships with American soldiers, from one bearing the illegitimate child of the dead son of a Senator, to another living with seven Marines (one at a time) before being murdered by her returning POW New Zealander husband.

Unusual to see Paul Newman deliver such a poor performance so soon after his unforgettable role as Rocky Graziano in the brilliant "Somebody Up There Loves Me".

Unusual for two fine "Stars" Joan Fontaine and Jean Simmons, to leave so little of themselves on a movie.

Unusual that I could be bothered to write a review of such a poor film, give it a miss!

Sentiment: negative
I've read a number of reviews on this film and I have to say "What is wrong with you people?!?!" This was an excellent film! I thought this film was superb from start to finish and the story was extremely well told. I'm convinced that the people that didn't like this film weren't paying very good attention to the film. There are a number of very important scenes that if you aren't paying attention you will be confused and the following scenes may not make sense. I urge anyone who didn't like this film to watch it again and watch it alone so that you can truly pay attention. The story made perfect sense to me and as I said, was very well told. Every scene in the film has a point and everything fits together at the end of the film.

All the actors did a fantastic job! Sean Connery was very good in his role as always. Laurence Fishburne was superb as Tanny Brown, playing a very interesting character. Kate Capshaw was a nice touch as well, and looks fantastic. Blair Underwood was a pleasant surprise, I didn't really expect anything great from him, but he pulled off a great performance. Ed Harris was the real gem in the film. He plays a truly sick individual and really makes you see how disturbed his character is. Watch his eyes in his scenes, just superb!!! Also, there is a very young Scarlett Johansson (as Kate) in one of her first roles...not a bad place to start. Excellent cast in this film!

I would strongly recommend this film to anyone that likes any of the cast members or just likes thrillers. This is a great film and should be seen. Don't listen all these other people's opinions, go see the movie and come to your own conclusions. I hope that you will see the film, and I hope that you enjoy it as much as I do. Thanks for reading,

-Chris

Sentiment: positive
For starters, it's a very funny movie with a few crazy characters running around that are bound to make laugh (check out the two Russian bugs).

A Bug's Life has a classical Disney storyline, but that's one of the good things about the movie. Family values are praised and the main characters of the film undergo some evolution in order to stand up against the grasshoppers in the end. And it also has a couple of great voice-overs by Dave Foley, Julia-Louise Dreyfus, Kevin Spacey (of course),... But actually, the most amazing thing about this movie is the animation. It's just wonderful. All the details, great colors, every ant looks different, beautiful backgrounds... And the guys and girls at Pixar made it all look so realistic. All in all, a very nice piece of work. This is the best animation by Disney since Aladdin.

Sentiment: positive
**** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten

***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see

*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece

**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws

** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)

*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile moments

BOMB = Not of a viewable quality

- Kalifornia = ***

- Unrated (for strong violent material, considerable sexuality, and language)

I rented this film expecting an in-your-face summer-Blockbuster-quality celebration of Brad Pitt's face, but was happily surprised and disappointed. This really is more of a drama, and very grim at that... I remember some emotionally intense Duchovny voice-overs.

Pitt plays out his possibly un-sexiest film ever with startling talent. Who started out as a hopeless yet harmless "white trash" husband became realized as a violent, disturbing alcoholic with a messed mind. During some of the latter stages in the film, I found it hard to keep watching him - he was unpredictable and scary. This proves very good writing and acting.

The whole movie is filled with bizarre, sensational scenes that made me hold my breath not fewer than once, and I don't mean action scenes. I mean dialogue scenes so brilliantly crafted I actually winced and gasped at what I was seeing. It was like watching a rhino and a lion put in a cage and watching as they gnawed each other to death. Again, I am very impressed with the screenwriter(s); whoever they are did the impossible: mixed oil and water.

I also very much enjoyed Juliette Lewis's performance. It is so rare for this talented young actress to make an appearance these days that when she does it is such a joy. Some of her moments in this film brought me to tears. I mean that. The emotions this girl can arouse in your head are incredible, and I clearly remember getting blurry-eyed on a few occasions.

I almost feel like I'm cheating the quality craftsmanship the film makers have displayed by only giving "KALIFORNIA" a *** rating. But the dark feelings that it stirs are too potent and depressing to raise it. I do believe that everyone should see this movie though. I truly do.

Sentiment: positive
Breathtaking at it's best, intriguing at it's worst, Francis Ford Coppala's groundbreaking epic 'Apocalypse Now' is one of the most iconic and celebrated motion pictures of the 20th century, and in my opinion, the greatest ever film depiction centered around America's involvement in Vietnam.

What I like most about 'Apocalypse Now' is that it is uniquely different from any other films of the same genre. Growing up as movie buff, and with a particular interest in war films, I've seen many films, which have attempted to portray the 'images' and 'feelings' of Vietnam but have been unsuccessful in doing so. Films such as 'Hamburger Hill' and 'We were soldiers' fall into the category of trying to capture the atmosphere of Vietnam by depicting 'heroic battles' which are, more often than not, tainted by the zeal of Hollywood film production.

In 'Apocalypse now' there are no battles, no heroes or villains, there is nothing in the film that suggests that it is intended to reflect the imagery of Vietnam through the physical aspects of war. Rather, it is a film, which powerfully investigates and explores the human psyche when it has been tormented by the absolute 'horror' of what was the darkest military conflict of the previous century.

The sheer brilliance of the acting (in particular the interpretation of taciturn Captain Willard by Martin Sheen), along with the spectacular cinematography (filmed in the Phillipines), which provides crucial realism to the backdrop of the film, makes 'Apocalypse Now' an unforgettable epic.

Evoking a myriad of emotions and leaving us with a maelstrom of mediation, 'Apocalypse now' is not for the light-hearted moviegoer. It is masterpiece that demands multiple viewings to be fully appreciated.

Sentiment: positive
I am so confused. What in the world was this movie about? What was the killer's motivation? He seemed quite angry, but I have yet to figure out why. Nothing in this movie made sense. It had zero depth. Or less than zero depth. Which I guess would make it a hill. Or a pile. Of crap. The acting was horrible. When I searched for a few of the actors in this movie, they had been in very few things that I had heard of, and that came as absolutely no surprise. I can't decide whether to feel sorry for them for the embarrassment of being in a movie this bad, or to feel that they should never be offered another acting job again. Starting . . . NOW! (Seinfeld reference.) Really, though, don't waste your time with this. There's so little substance that there's nothing there even just to make fun of. This was undoubtedly one of the worst slasher flicks -- NO, one of the worst flicks of ANY KIND, that I have ever had the misfortune to watch, and I've seen quite a few.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is based on the series Street Fighter Alpha (or Zero)! It is placed in an other setting than Streetfighter the animated movie! This movie is all about Ryu who is accompanied by Ken and Chun Li. I recognized Rose,Zanghief and Birdie! There weren't any other characters used from the video game (that i could discover)! The fighting scenes were OK but nothing really spectacular! And there were not many of them! To me this is odd! Isn't Streetfighter about fighting! Streetfighter the animated movie (1994) is far superior to this movie. It tries to be more than it really is! The use of the "Hada Power" and other supernatural elemnents have nothing to do with skills the characters have in the video game! And in this case that is a bad thing! The story is so boring that you don't really care what is happening! The action is toned down considerably! Why? And what happened to the other characters from the video game! Surely they are more interesting than the villain in this story! The main attraction of the video game are the characters with their own special skills! In this movie it is all about Ryu! That is why this anime fails!

Sentiment: negative
I can remember watching this for the first time, when I was 9 years old. I wanted to be one of the "barbarian brothers". This movie is still great. One original aspect was that the fight scenes where very short. Implying that the "barbarian brothers" where so good that they finished there enemies off quickly! Plus, you have chases, a cage fight, a dragon, and yes even a bar brawl! 

Yes, the acting is bad so that's why it's not a ten, also the story line has received a lot of criticism. I think it is quite original. Not to many movies in it's genre have the same original story lines, or colorful dialogue. 

I definitely recommend this film.

Sentiment: positive
This film is a bit reminiscent of the German film, THE NEVERENDING STORY because a child is magically transported to a strange land in order to be a hero. However, due to far superior modern technology, puppets and CGI are used to make an amazingly realistic looking world--one that will blow your socks off due to its realism and scope.

I enjoyed this film, but boy was it a chore at first! Unfortunately, for most Westerners, this film is one you might give up on very quickly or dismiss it since everything in the film seems so odd. However, give it a chance. Don't think or try to understand everything you see--just allow the story to unfold and you will most likely enjoy the film.

In many ways, this is exactly the sort of advice I'd give to adults who watch Miyazaki's SPIRITED AWAY because it is very similar and features tons of Yokai (Japanese mythical spirits). The big differences between the two is that THE GREAT YOKAI WAR is live-action and SPIRITED AWAY is much more child-friendly. While I do think THE GREAT YOKAI WAR was intended mostly as a kids' movie, in the USA, most parents would not want to show this to younger kids because it's so violent, scary and features some adult behaviors. So who is the audience in the West? Well, older kids and adults who appreciate foreign films with non-Western themes and composition. This is a rather narrow audience, indeed! 

While you are watching, look for all the strange little touches. In fact, you could watch the film dozens of times and notice different tiny things each time. A few of the funny references I liked were the comment about Gamera, the scene that came with the comment "KIDS: Don't Try This At Home" as well as the use of Kirin beer to allow a person to actually see the Yokai (hmm,...perhaps that scene should have also contained this warning)! 

By the way, director Takashi Miike is a hard one to pin down stylistically, other than to say that none of his stories I've seen have seemed "normal". Some of his films are rather disgusting and disturbing and I hated them (especially AUDITION and ICHI THE KILLER)whereas some of them are magical and among the best films I've ever seen (THE HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS). One thing for sure, it's hard to watch one of his films and not have a strong reaction one way or the other.

Sentiment: positive
Excellent film showing the pathetic lives of two nutty old ladies. They couldn't live together, nor apart. Babbling constantly, sometimes at the same time, they hashed and re-hashed the past; going on and on about what coulda shoulda woulda. I found myself laughing at times, but mostly I was taken with how utterly sad and abandoned these two women were. See this one.

Sentiment: positive
I would like to say that unlike many of the people who disliked this film and found it impossible to understand I was fully able to understand it for what it is.. A very incoherent attempt at a plot line.

I don't like to toss this word around but in this case it fits very well. The director firstly presents the material in an extremely "arrogant" way and worse, extremely incoherently. It is incoherent in that it presents the material in a messy dislodged order, making us think that the director was too drunk to remember which scenes come first, and arrogant in that at 2 hours long they expect us, the viewer to CARE by the end of it.

I respect surrealist cinema for what it is. (creating a story around a more than real world that does not tie to real life) But there is nothing surreal about having a story placed in ordinary modern times, and a modern day earth setting, that is most importantly not able to engage the audience but furthermore, simply a dislodged series of events that barely tie together. The most accurate way to describe the experience of viewing this film is like viewing a story; perhaps even a very GOOD story as it was based on a book, but being frustrated by the fact that the camera doesn't seem to capture the necessary moments and tie together any means of coherence.

Let's compare stylistic cinema. Compare Gaspar Noe's "Seul contre tous" to this. He gave us a coherent, extremely engaging and intellectually deep story. This movie offers no intellectual study, and while it is very stylistic in it's fragmented presentation, the director has ultimately abandoned the essential art of good storytelling and all we are left with is a mess of events that barely tie in together.

Yes indeed it IS possible to make sense of things.... to a POINT. But as i said earlier the viewer will reach a stage where they simply say "Who cares." It plays out like watching a drab mundane story of a man going to a supermarket and buying groceries in uncronological order. Even with murders it is completely uninteresting and unengaging. Too many people these days will give high marks to something they are unable to understand or make sense of simply for fear of looking foolish, and in every way this film TRIES to make the viewer look foolish.

If you have too much time on your hands, then please watch this film, taking into account what I have said of it. It is a story based on a book that could have been presented in a MUCH more effective way and that is my bottom line reasoning.

Sentiment: negative
Brides are dying at the altar and their corpses are vanishing. No one knows why or who, but an investigative reporter (Luana Walters) notes that each bride was wearing a strange orchid and she goes to interview its creator, Dr. Lorenz (Bela Lugosi). Now Dr. Lorenz is a mad scientist with some strange habits, including sleeping in coffins and injecting his elderly wife (Elizabeth Russell) with the fluid of young brides to keep her young.

The Corpse Vanishes has an interesting premise and a short enough run time that it shouldn't be able to get boring. Unfortunately, while it starts off quite well, it does start to drag before the halfway point and gets rather boring with its clichés and predictable plot.

There are some good things about it-Bela Lugosi is charming and evil and performs brilliantly; Elizabeth Russell is also a beautiful, suave, aloof and very creepy countess; and I'm always a fan of Angelo Rossitto. Luana Walters is also convincing as the reporter here.

It maintains a bit of a Gothic atmosphere and the sets are decent.

But overall, it just didn't manage to hold my interest through the whole picture, and for that, I have to rate it poorly.

Sentiment: negative
A killer (John Karlen) with a penchant for really bad disguises (afro wig on a white dude?) cruises around in his van looking for victims. Detective DeCarlo (James Luisi) is on the case and finds the killer rather easily by just hanging out by the local pool and looking for anyone looking weird (again, the afro wig comes into play). Tracking the killer to his home, DeCarlo decides to set up a risky sting involving a female police psychologist.

Inspired by the crimes of Ted Bundy before he was caught, KILLER'S DELIGHT is a pretty predictable and cheap serial killer flick. Director Jeremy Hoenack has no idea how to pace a film or even make it suspenseful. He does know how to show lots of close ups of the killer wringing his hands though! The only thing this really has going for it is the captured 70s atmosphere (look out for the bathroom wallpaper). Well, that and a downbeat ending. The Media Blasters/Shriek Show DVD has lots of nice stuff though including an audio commentary by Hoenack and Karlen, plus video interviews, trailers and an alternate opening.

Sentiment: negative
Truly amazing film, the concept as a possible prophetic vision of the future is frightening. A world vastly overpopulated, unbearable heat due to the damaged ozone layer, and all our natural resources spent. In this nightmarish degenerate society we have the great Charlton Heston as a likable film noirish style detective trying to fathom the truth behind a murder, opposite the film noir legend Edward G Robinson turning in a fine last performance.

One of the images that will always stay with me from this film, is the masses of people that populate the stairwells and the way in which Thorne (Heston) has to hop through them every time he uses them.

The movie's use of music is note worthy too, although it contains no score in the usual sense, The opening theme is good, and the subsequent snatches of music we here in Simonson's apartment, and especially the Beethoven pieces in the euthanasia clinic are outstandingly atmospheric.

Sentiment: positive
This is the kind of movie that could have ruined several careers, if garbage could ruin motion picture careers these days.

Melanie Griffith took off her shirt, and in her pre-enhancement surgery days, she really should have stayed dressed.

Jeff Daniels was completely wasted, but fortunately for him and for us, he has gone on to much better things since this ... this ... this ... well, heck, piece of garbage.

Strangely, all of its major players have gone on to bigger and better things, including director Jonathan Demme. His work here was also wasted but deserving of a grudging admiration. I mean, anything not worth doing is not worth doing well. But he did it well, anyway.

Still, there was one bright, shining aspect: Ray Liotta, who is named way down the credit list, just absolutely stole everything. Liotta was magnificently mesmerizing! Hypnotic! Enthralling.

I saw this piece of garbage while it was still relatively new, in a friend's private theater. For some strange reason, my friend LOVED it. I sort of think it's because Melanie Griffith took off her shirt (and, really, honest, she shouldn't have), though he tried to claim it was other, more artistic, reasons.

Anyway, I thought even then, after his first scene, that Ray Liotta would become a major star, or at least a major, highly-respected actor.

Despite the garbagey aspects of the garbagey script, the sheer ugliness of the whole story, Liotta made it almost worth watching. In fact, it is worth seeing, once, just to see how far Ray Liotta has come. I mean, for one thing, his name is now usually listed at or near the top.

Even then, even in a pile of garbage, Ray Liotta shone like a diamond.

Just, if you do see this trash, be prepared to hold your nose. Every major character is either amoral or immoral. Terrible movie. Terrible movie idea.

Added comment: Too many people answer "Was this comment helpful?" with a "no" because they disagree with the expressed opinion. Maybe IMDb should ask that question instead: "Do you agree with these opinions?"

Sentiment: negative
Nothing new is this tired serio-comedy that wastes the talents of Danny Glover and Whoopi Goldberg. Considering that this was produced by the stars and Spike Lee, it's pretty tame and tired stuff. And how come the Whoop never changes her hair or glasses over the many years this film covers? Blah!

Sentiment: positive
This is complete and absolute garbage, a fine example of what a BAD movie is like, this can't be appealing to anyone, not even b-movie fans. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT waste precious time of your life on this piece of trash. Bad acting, bad directing, horrible (but I mean really horrible) script, and complete lack of an idea as to what entertainment (of any form) is. I bought the DVD for 3 dollars, I swear I could almost pay someone to take it. Burning it would not be enough for what this movie did to me. I like b-movies, the killer toys, the weird lagoon monsters, but this is nowhere near. You know those movies that are so bad they are funny? Not even. Just plain old pathetic.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is a fine example of what happens when a studio wants to get a sequel to a fine movie out of the gates at all cost. Only with this movie, it truly is a near miss. Everything seems in place for Robocop 2 to be a worthy followup to the groundbreaking first movie. The complete original cast (apart from the casualties, naturally) returns and gives it their best. Too bad a hackneyed script and an incompetent director as good as neutralize their efforts.

Irvin Kershner might have been the ideal go to guy for George Lucas to direct the Empire Strikes Back. For a pedestrian filmmaker like Kershner there isn't much to ruin in Lucas' charmless film series. A worthy successor to a classic like Robocop would have needed either Paul Verhoeven to return, or a director with enough brass to give his own spin on it. Kershner doesn't know how to give his own spin on anything (Lucas hired him for that) and he's surely no Verhoeven.

So what we get here is a movie that goes through all the motions to replicate the first movie, but with none of the freshness, humor or daring the original had. Kershner probably thought he could top Verhoeven by adding more gore and gratuitous violence, but instead he reveals how much he was at work as a director for hire instead of a passionate filmmaker. And that's a shame, since everything was in place to make this another classic. As mentioned the actors give it their best, but Phill Tippet delivers some groundbreaking stop motion effects and there are some great ideas in the story by Frank Miller, who was born to write a Robocop movie. If only the studio had hired a director who was competent enough to make all the potential come through.

Sentiment: negative
This is what makes me proud to be British. This is by far the funniest thing on TV. The league consists of Jeremy dyson, Steve pemberton, mark gatiss and the lovely Reece shearsmith. Totally underrated, this horror-comedy is perfection. The characters are iconic and the catchphrases bizarre, "Hello Dave". It is a comedy that everyone simply must watch.

The best thing about the league of gentlemen is that it is always fresh, and always pushing the boundaries. It does not need to rely on catchphrases(unlike little Britain) for it to be funny. the fact that the league are willing to kill off arguably their most famous and iconic characters, shows us that they've got balls of steel.

Sentiment: positive
There is a bit of trivia which should be pointed out about a scene early in the movie where Homer watches the attempt of December 6, 1957 (at least that was the video used on the TV he was watching) which showed the Vangard launch attempt, which failed.

He is next shown reading or dictating a letter to Dr. Von Braun offering condolences about the failure.

Von Braun was at Marshall space flight center in Huntsville working for the Army. The Vanguard project was by the early Nasa team which was at what soon became Goddard Space flight center.

The army rushed the Jupiter-C, which was essentially a US made V2 technology, but worked to launch a satellite in response to Russia's success with Sputnik.

This error may have actually been made by Homer, because of the notoriety of Von Braun, but his team didn't have their attempt fail. In fact the underlying Redstone was flying from 52 and was the first US man rated booster, used for Shepard's sub orbital flight, as well as Grissom's.

This is why this sort of movie is so good, as it hopefully will inspire people to read up and spot these bits of trivia, and in the process see what has been done, and be inspired to do more.

Sentiment: positive
Rented the video for a slow Saturday night. First viewing I thought it was funny. Took a while to get used to the American caricatures (here we're more attuned to British grotesques) but very enjoyable. 

Watched it again next night and really warmed to it. The characters seemed more human - lovable, even. A film one could watch several times and get more out of it each time. However, my wife *hated* it. No accounting for tastes in humour I suppose.

Sentiment: positive
It's a road movie, with a killer on-board. Brian Kessler (David Duchovny), a sophisticated, urbane writer, wants to conduct field research on American serial killers. But, neither he, nor his girlfriend, Carrie (Michelle Forbes), has the money for a cross-country tour of murder sites, so they advertise for someone to share travel expenses. Who they end up with is a young couple, Early Grayce (Brad Pitt) and his girlfriend, Adele (Juliette Lewis), two better examples of "poor white trash" you will never find in all of cinema.

Indeed, Early and Adele are what make this film so entertaining, as they babble, cackle, confide, muse, speculate, drool, and otherwise behave in ways I haven't seen since reruns of "The Beverly Hillbillies". Early's idea of California: "People think faster out there, on account of all that warm weather; cold weather makes people stupid". That's enough to convince Adele: "I guess that explains why there are so many stupid people around here". To which Early responds proudly: "It sure does". Early continues to instruct Adele about California: "You never have to buy no fruit, on account it's all on the trees ... and they ain't got no speed limits, and I hear your first month's rent is free, state law".

But poor Early has some, well, mental problems, which become ever more obvious to Brian and Carrie as the four travelers proceed west across the U.S. As they enter the desert Southwest, with its beautifully stark landscape, "Kalifornia" starts to look more and more like "The Hitcher" (1986), and Early starts to act more and more like John Ryder, everyone's maniacal hitchhiker, whose terror seemed so unstoppable.

In "Kalifornia", the acting is uneven. Duchovny's performance is flat. Brad Pitt is surprisingly effective, despite his overacting at times. Michelle Forbes is great as the avant-garde, photographic artist. But my choice for best performance goes to Juliette Lewis. With her nasal voice and heavy-duty Southern accent, she is stunning, as the naive, highly animated, child-like Adele.

Toward the end, the film takes on a Twilight Zone feel to it, as our travelers enter a Nevada nuclear test site with a dilapidated old house full of test mannequins. The plot dissolves rather messily into unnecessary and preposterous violence, an ending that was somewhat disappointing.

Overall, however, "Kalifornia" is an entertaining film, thanks to a clever concept, great scenery, especially in the second half, good cinematography, great dialogue, and that wonderful performance by Juliette Lewis.

Sentiment: positive