DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I can not say this movie was a hilarious, but I must have had a grin on my face the entire time. I like this darker kind of comedy; "very bad things", "8 heads in a duffel bag" or "coldblooded"

The way the main character tries to get away with murder is a lot of fun to watch. To me it was not much of a surprise what the ending would be, but the way that ending came about was. Another thing that sticks out, is the way they have managed to involve the audience. The way Terry looks at us is hilarious, you can almost pretend you're his accomplice.

Sentiment: positive
A have a female friend who is currently being drawn into a relationship with an SOB who has a long term girlfriend. Of course the SOB is very good-looking, charming, etc and my friend is a very intelligent woman. Watching Jean Pierre Leaud's character at work is exactly like watching what goes on in real life when guys like that destroy the lives of our female friends. It's tragic, and you know she's going to end up very hurt, but there's nothing you can do. Leaud is brilliant. Totally empty. A blank throughout, he pulls the faces and tells the stories he thinks will get the reaction he wants.

The scene two hours in when Leaud and Lebrun have made love, and the next morning he puts on a record and, very sweetly and charmingly, sings along to amuse her is brilliant. The "What the hell am I doing here with this idiot" expression that flickers back and forth across her face will be in my memory for a long time to come.

It's a long film, but see it in one go, preferably in a cinema. Takes a while to get into, but then the time just disappears.

Sentiment: positive
sdiner82 had clearly not seen the film in decades, and his memory is appalling. His attempts to paint the Mark Lester shaving scene as suspect are utterly erroneous, as are his incorrect comments about the bad guy "sneaking peeks at the kid's body". Lester is clothed for the entire time the man is in the room, and the man barely gives him a glance.

The scene is a crude attempt to show Lester's innocent curiosity about the man's body.

Like everything in this film, it's badly done, but nothing more.

Even sdiner82's comments about Savalas' character who "casually sent a German family to their deaths by nudging their trailer off a cliff" is nonsense (it was a single woman, she was already dead, and she was in a car).

I suggest that sdiner82's review says far, far more about his own, far from liberal mindset, than it does about this valueless film.

The only reason I even bothered to look it up, was out of curiosity to see if it was made before or after Kojak.

The film is a worthless piece of 70's trash, but sdiner82's review of it is the worst kind of slander. He wraps up his review in pseudo-intellectual "facts", but the only fact is that he is plain wrong on almost every "factual" matter he discusses.

I can only assume that sdiner82 saw exactly what he looked for, which is disturbing. Now he can return to burning copies of Catcher in the Rye.

Sentiment: negative
I never expect a film adaptation to follow too closely to the novel (especially a beloved one, like Evening) but when I saw that the book's author, Susan Minot, was a screenplay writer and executive producer on the film, I thought that Evening would be a good adaptation.

If you enjoyed the book, don't bother with this movie. It is so far afield of the book that the two hardly bear any resemblance to one another.

Here, our characters are completely different: the bride is in love with Harris. Harris is the son of the housekeeper. Buddy is a drunk, in love with Ann and/or Harris. I don't think a single character made it from the book to the screen; oh it just gets worst with every passing moment.

And, really, didn't we learn from Bridges of Madison County that cutting from the story we are meant to be enthralled in, to scenes of our heroes' grown children having obnoxious and juvenile fights, simply does not work on film? This film is a disaster. Skip it.

Sentiment: negative
I really wanted to like this film for all sorts of reasons -- the subject matter is inherently interesting and is probably the major issue facing the world today and has thrown up fascinating works (e.g. Linda Grant's When I lived in modern times)usually from the Israeli side of the fence. Also, a bloke I like told me he thought it was the best film he'd seen all year, so with such a recommendation...

HOWEVER I actually found myself nodding off at points! Admittedly i was tired and the cinema seats comfy but I found it too much hard work trying to identify with the characters. Once I'd got my head round the idea that it was a series of vignettes, I went with it, but this made it disappointingly like a sketch show rather than a film. I liked the concept of a restrained, almost silent mise en scene contrasted to these utopian moments - the sexy girl, the red balloon and the ninja Muslim fighter. But personally i think the film has been over hyped. I'm not saying narrative and plot is everything (it's definitely not) but even a little more dialogue would have helped.

Sentiment: negative
this is one of the funniest shows i have ever seen. it is really refreshing to watch and i was in stitches many times. i guess there is a social awareness factor to this too which makes it quite interesting. if these were white girls would they get the same reaction? maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't? the characters know no limits (check my lyrics) and do not exclude anyone from their twisted sense of fun!There are so many funny sketches. my favorites is the bob the builder one. it's so silly it's genius. if you like twisted black comedy then this is for you. if you like keeping up appearances it probably isn't.3 non blonde's is yet another hilarious British BBC comedy shown on TV! It is such a funny show and the characters unleashed on the unsuspecting public are laugh at loud funny! It would be impossible to keep a straight face watching the crazy characters and the reactions of the public! This series easily adds to the excellent comedies being produced!

Sentiment: positive
I went to the pre-screening of "Rory O'Shea Was Here." I like this movie better than I expected, because the excellent casts and the powerful performance. It's a film about the friendship of two handicapped young man. Rory is free spirit young man who wants to be independent regardless his Duchenne muscular dystrophy. He can only move his two fingers but he can talk eloquently and help his new pal, Michael, who has cerebral palsy and is significantly speech impaired. I guess that's enough to start with a weeping drama. Well, it is. But with inspiring messages and deeply moving performances. It made me looking at my life for things I take for granted. What would I do if all I can do is to move my two fingers? I should feel grateful for what I have and what I am capable of doing. This is a good flick, although it could have been better.

Sentiment: positive
I am an avid fan of violent exploitation cinema, who would never attack a film for being violent or disturbing. I consider "Cannibal Holocaust" a masterpiece and will always defend controversial films like "Day Of The Woman" or "Last House on the Left" as genuine classics. Anyone who browses through my other user comments will notice that I am actually very pro-violence/gore when it comes to films. However, I do think that there should be at least some point to the violence. This piece of crap doesn't have any point whatsoever. The first film in the notorious "Guinea Pig" series, "The Devil's Experiment" (1985) is widely controversial, but, as opposed to many other controversial films, this stinker has nothing at all to be recommended for. I must say that, before seeing any of the Guniea-Pig films, I already had a feeling that I would hate this one, knowing what it was about. Due to its status as one of the most controversial films around, however, I decided I had to see it. I am very glad I didn't waste any money on this pile of crap, and I sure wish I hadn't wasted my time with it either.

This thing's story (I don't even want to call it a 'film'): It doesn't have one. Three scumbags torture a woman to death for some excruciating 40 minutes. That's it. There is no artistic value, no 'shocking' story, no suspense; nothing. Simply the disbelief that a film that shows NOTHING except for a woman being tortured for no reason enjoys an enormous cult-following. It IS disturbing, I give it that. Of course it is disturbing to watch a torture video for 40 minutes. What is more disturbing, however, is the fact that many people actually seem to regard this pile of garbage as some kind of masterpiece. I really cannot figure why. The fact that the gore effects look realistic cannot be the reason, I hope. The girl who plays the victim isn't a very good actor, and reacts very calm to all the torture. That makes the film look less realistic, which is, in this single case, a good thing. This is a film that is sickening; not for its gore, but for its redundancy, its existence for the sole purpose of showing 40 minutes of torture.

I strongly oppose any form of censorship. Since this is 100% fake and nobody got hurt during its production, it IS legitimate to make such a film. However, I cannot think of a single reason why anyone would like this, other than the morbid desire to watch suffering and the enjoyment of torture. This film's sequel "Flowers of Flesh and Blood" gained notoriety when actor Charlie Sheen mistook it for an actual snuff film and informed the FBI. Fortuneately, the film turned out to be fake. Overall, "The Devil's Experiment" is a fake torture/snuff film that seems to have the sole purpose of looking as close to a real snuff film as possible.

"The Devil's Experiment" is one of the worst films I have ever had the misfortune of sitting through. Don't torture yourself by giving this piece of crap a try for its controversial status. Do yourself a favor and avoid it. Zero stars out of 10, I wish there was a negative scale in order to appropriately rate this pile of crap.

Sentiment: negative
All Dog's Go to Heaven is an animated kid's movie like no other. Gambling, drinking, death, guns and Hell are all prominent in the plot, and though kids will get very little of it, adults will be scratching their heads as to why this movie was made to feel like some sort of gangster movie. The actual movie isn't explicit in any way, it's just an odd combination to make a kid's movie on.

Charlie Barkin (Burt Reynolds) is a player dog, who owns half a casino with his partner Carface (Vic Tayback). After getting drunk (A dog....getting drunk...in a kid's movie. It just sounds weird.), Charlie is tricked and murdered by Carfax. When in heaven, he finds a way to come back to Earth, but he will no longer be allowed in Heaven. He still goes back to Earth and meets up with his old friend Itchy (Dom Deluise), and plans payback on Carfax. Meanwhile, Carfax has a little orphan girl Anne Marie held captive because of her amazing ability to talk to all species of animals, which helps predict races. Charlie and Itchy free her, and try to help her find a family, while learning a lot about themselves.

This movie is one of the few non-Disney that will appeal to both kids and adults. Kids will enjoy the funny characters and lively animation, while adults will enjoy the nice, sweet plot, and the more than normal developed characters. One thing that keeps this down, is that it's a musical. Normally, that's a good thing, but the music here is honestly terrible. They tend to jump around, almost sounding ad libbed, with next to no instrumental backing. In fact, these are probably the worst songs I've ever heard in an animated movie, but luckily, the rest of the film is strong enough to not fall apart because of some bad notes.

The ending of this movie works, but I honestly hate it. It's sad, but happy, but more sad than happy, and makes the movie feel like it needs a sequel. Considering how bad the sequel made to this was, I wish the ending wouldn't have warranted a sequel and it would've wrapped up into a nice, super happy ending. This is one of the few movies I feel this way about, but I do.

Overall, this is a nice family film, with odd themes thrown in, but nonetheless, good entertainment.

My rating: *** out of ****. 85 mins. G.

Sentiment: positive
Home Alone 3 is one of my least favourite movies. It's the cream of the crop, or s*** if you tend to be more cynical, as it ranks up (or down) there with stuff like Battlefield Earth and Flinstones: Viva Rock Vegas. In fact, it could even be worse than those two, since those two at least intermittently made me laugh at their stupidity. This just made me cringe in pain constantly and clap when the credits started rolling. No other movie has made me cringe in pain. Now I will point out exactly why this movie is so incredibly atrocious.

First off, the plot is ridiculous. It revolves around a chip in a remote control car (?!) that is misplaced and how these terrorists want it. Dumb stuff.

The action that ensues is similar to that of the other two Home Alones, with boobytraps and all, but watching these boobytraps being executed is, rather than being funny, incredibly unpleasant to watch. I didn't laugh (or even so much as smile) once, rather, I cringed constantly and hoped that the terrorists would nail the kid. The bird, rather than providing comic relief, was unfunny and annoying.

The acting, as done by a bunch of no names, ranges from poor to atrocious. There is not a single good performance here. Alex D.Linz is absolutely unlikeable and unfunny as the kid, while the terrorists act (and judging by their movie credits, look) as they've been hastily picked off the street...and well, that's it.

I can see some people saying: "Man, it's for the kids. Don't dis it, man." Well MAN, kids may like this, but they can get a hell of a lot better. See Monsters Inc. and Toy Story before even considering getting this out. Hell, even Scooby Doo and Garfield (which suck - see those reviews for more) are better than this! 

So in short, this is an irredeemably atrocious movie. This was clearly recycled for the money, as it almost completely rips off the first two; the only thing is, it completely insults the first two as well. No human, kid or otherwise, should find any reason to see Home Alone 3. Ever. It's THAT bad.

0/5 stars

Sentiment: negative
Obvious tailored vehicle for Ryan Philippe. It seem the studios were hoping he could play a lead tough cop and not look like he's eternally 16 (he can't).

Heavyweights Jason Statham and Welsey Snipes serve as bookends to Phillippe, but when they're not on the screen Phillippe flounders; his shallow acting style has nothing to bounce off of.

The script is a typical late 20th century potboiler good cop/bad cop with a ridiculously predictable plot and dialogue lifted out of 1970s TV cop shows, such as "The Streets of San Francisco." Snipes reprises his role as the eternal black-hat villain, playing a slightly less crazed madman than his Demolition Man role. However, there wasn't much for Snipes and Statham to chew on. Statham's character announces he'd given up nicotine and caffeine - something this movie badly needed injections of.

Truly forgettable moment: Ryan Phillippe expounding on Buddhist dogma: Galloway: Are you a Buddhist? Dekker: No. It's just something I picked up along the way.

Sentiment: negative
I watched the movie "The Flock" because of the casting of Gere and Danes and because the story synopsis sounded interesting. This was one of the WORST movies I've seen in a long while (and I've seen some turkeys.) I've never posted online before but this movie was so awful I had to do so. I suppose the problems begin begin with the script which was so amateurish it's unbelievable. The story makes zero sense and the dialogue is so trite it's nauseating. Poor Gere, he deserves so much better. As for the Gere/Danes on screen matchup, because of the horrible writing, one doesn't believe either character for a single minute. I'll bet Gere wishes he could buy back the negative, were such a thing possible. It's a shame to see talent wasted so badly, not to mention I wish I could get my 2 hours back. (I know what you're thinking. How do I really feel?)

Sentiment: negative
"Pandemonium" is a horror movie spoof that comes off more stupid than funny. Believe me when I tell you, I love comedies. Especially comedy spoofs. "Airplane", "The Naked Gun" trilogy, "Blazing Saddles", "High Anxiety", and "Spaceballs" are some of my favorite comedies that spoof a particular genre. "Pandemonium" is not up there with those films. Most of the scenes in this movie had me sitting there in stunned silence because the movie wasn't all that funny. There are a few laughs in the film, but when you watch a comedy, you expect to laugh a lot more than a few times and that's all this film has going for it. Geez, "Scream" had more laughs than this film and that was more of a horror film. How bizarre is that?

*1/2 (out of four)

Sentiment: negative
Love the TV show. Was hooked first time I saw it. Wish I was there acting in with them. It touches reality when you love someone and you are thinking that you want to spend the rest of your life with, then at a turn of events that you meet someone else and that person is more of who you want to be with. You are in a situation were you have to choose one or the other. Someone is going to get hurt, there's no stopping that. Making the decision is hard but, do you want to go on being unhappy when you could have been. Why go on and live a life that you thought that you wanted or thinking you are doing the right thing and you both be unhappy. That other person isn't going to wait a life time waiting, they have a life a well. Making the decision that you really want will be better in the end. Making the best of what you have is a good thing a well. Money, cars, houses, etc....don't make you happy, having the one person that you really want to be with to share it with does.

Sentiment: positive
After having seen the movie the first question arising in my mind was: Is this supposed to be irony or not? After reading a few comments about the character Doc Savage and the comic series, I knew this film was not meant to be ironic. So, the story tells us about an US-American Super-Doc saving a south American republic from evil. Sounds like a typical story. But this one comes in such an unrealistic way that it becomes ridiculous. The mandatory end-fight shows the worst presentation of martial arts I have ever seen. The film might be interesting for low budget movie designers as a bad example.

Sentiment: negative
I just saw this film @ TIFF (Toronto International Film Festival). Fans of Hal Hartley will not be disappointed!! And if you are not familiar with this director's oeuvre ... doesn't matter. This film can definitely stand all on its own. I have to go the second screening ... it was amazing I need to see it again -- and fast!! 

This film is very funny. It's dialogue is very smart, and the performance of Parker Posey is outstanding as she stars in the title role of Fay Grim. Fay Grim is the latest feature revisiting the world and characters introduced in the film Henry Fool (2000). Visually, the most salient stylistic feature employs the habitual use of the canted (or dutch) angle, which can be often seen in past Hartley works appearing in various shorts, available in the Possible Films: short works by Hal Hartley 1994-2004 collection, and in The Girl from Monday (2005).

I viewed this film most aptly on Sept 11th. Textually, Fay Grim's adventure in this story is backdropped against the changed world after September 11, 2001. Without going into major spoilers, I view this work, and story-world as a bravely political and original portrait of geo-politics that is rarely, if ever, foregrounded in mainstream fictional cinema post-911 heretofore (cf. Syrianna: of side note - Mark Cuban Exec. Prod in both these films ... most interesting, to say the least). 

Lastly, for those closely attached to the characters of Henry Fool, Simone, Fay and Henry this film is hilariously self-conscious and self-referential. That being said, the character of Fay Grimm starts off in the film, exactly where she was when Henry Fool ended, but by the end of the film ... Fay's knowledge and experience has total changed and expanded over the course of the narrative. What can be in store for the future of Fay and the Fool family ... ?? I can't wait for the third part in this story!

Sentiment: positive
The movie has one nude scene: A man sitting on the edge of the bed, with his exposed genitals smack dab in the middle of the screen. It is quite a long scene. What was the point? I almost think it was meant to be funny but we were watching it with my mother and it wasn't funny to have THAT staring at us for what seemed like a full minute.

The movie is cold. None of the characters are even likeable. Audrey Tatou is cute, of course, but her character is an unhappy girl.

I really would not recommend this movie. I had expected it to be charming and fresh but it was depressing. I wondered if the director was from a very upper crust, educated French family and he looks down on these characters.



Sentiment: negative
AALCC informs us that 14-year-olds can be pretty obnoxious and vicious. To those who don't know that, the film performs a public service. Otherwise, it's a lot of flashy videography with little or no reason for being. I will allow that the camera-work is sometimes striking, but also that it can be madly self-indulgent at other times. The actors occupy screen space and screen time, but do not compute as compelling human beings. I suppose the e-mail that flashes across the screen throughout means that you have to figure out which character has which moniker, but I simply couldn't tell enough differences to do so, and really didn't care anyway.

Sentiment: negative
Finally I discovered what I thought I remembered as a four year old. After seeing the 1960 color version on VHS, I kept saying I remembered seeing it in black and white 2 times before. Now the IMDb has helped me to know the truth, that it was broadcast twice (2 productions) in black and white in 2 successful years, 1955 & 56. These are the ones I remember best as a four year old. I didn't realize the 56 broadcast was not the same as the 55. In 1960, I was 9 and the color production just didn't do it for me. The black and white version was wonderful with just as much awe and wonder impact as the high tech films of today, even without any computer effects. You had to have been there! Please comment if you had a similar reaction to the b&w version.

Sentiment: positive
Brit director Chrstopher Nolan now has a career in America, and a reputation for making movies both popular and critically acclaimed; but this small film was where he started. And it certainly showcased his talent, with its striking black-and-white cinematography and achronological storytelling that prefigures his later 'Momento', albeit in a less extreme way. Thematically and mechanistically, the plot reminded me of David Mamet's 'House of Games', but the film still feels fresh and sharp, right up to the final twist of the ending whose flavour was expected, but whose pointedness is unexpectedly delicious. The acting, on the other hand, is not quite in the same class - the film has a stylised quality, and possibly to a greater extent than the director intended. But it's still a fine debut, simultaneously claustrophobic and beguiling.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is one of the worst remakes I have ever seen in my life! The acting is laughable and Corman has not improved his piranhas any since 1978. 90% of the special effects are lifted from Piranha (1978), Up From The Depths (1979) and Humanoids From The Deep (1979). It makes Piranha II: The Spawning look like it belongs on the American Film Institute List.

Sentiment: negative
Let's cut to the chase: this movie is softcore pornography marketed for the masses under a name that the studio is milking every last penny out of the American Pie teat. Period.

The whole plot (and that shouldn't imply that there's a whole lot to go around) serves as a vehicle to show the audience more boobs and sex scenes.

If you're a Tween guy, and you're too squeamish to purchase actual pornography, then this is the movie for you. Otherwise, the movie doesn't have much to offer at all.

The acting is sub-par, the character development is virtually non-existent, and the story is a nonsensical knarl of nudity, binge drinking and pranks (none of which are particularly memorable).

Go buy real porn if that's what you want to see, and if not, go watch a GOOD movie. Animal House, Kids, or even the original American Pie are all great cinematic works, and all of them contain heavy alcohol use and nudity.

"It's not how much, it's how you use it"

Sentiment: negative
As a Scot I find the idea of "Macbeth" shifted in Time and Space to America totally moronic.I am sure this doesn't apply to broadminded IMDb Users,but why are so many Americans unable to relate to ANY film concept that isn't set in their Country ? This attitude does Americans no favours in the Big Wide World out here.

It was bad enough that "The Wicker Man" was remade and set in the USA ,totaly stripped of its Cultural context, and with a Polticaly Correct gender change for a leading Character.

One wonders what next,Robert The Bruce as a New York cop ?,Mary Queen of Scots as a "Soccer Mom" juggling ,kids ,a career and relationships ?

Come on Hollywood, open up to all the other Cultures on the Planet!

Sentiment: negative
Too bad Chuck Norris has gone to TV. He made some good movies before he hit TV. This is a typical TV movie intended to pass the time. Unfortunately it wastes Chuck's talent as an actor. I hope he returns to the big screen some day.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of those movies where you have to put to one side some of its obvious shortcomings (a result of the date and location of its production)and accentuate the positive. In many ways this is a truly superb film.

Forgive the parody in the one line summary, but the most serious shortcoming for an English speaker like me was the ghastly subtitles. The print I saw had 1982 Soviet "Film Export" subtitles, which consistently used inverted grammar, presumably to give the impression of 13th century speech. The actual impact of this nonsense is to make it harder to follow the subtitles which means you spend less time looking at the images. Given that the cinematographic imagery is this films great strength, this is a real issue.

Other IMDB-niks have written plenty about the Stalinist propaganda elements of this film (just in case the viewer doesn't notice them for him/herself). They have also written plenty about the battle on the ice scene, which is superb in my view. 

The love interest almost totally lacks subtlety and yet strangely..... almost totally lacks charm also. But it is good to cringe every now and then.

I was familiar with the Prokofiev music to this film long before seeing the film. The images and the music complement each other marvelously. And it is the images that will stick in the mind for a long time. Bergman clearly learned a lot from these images - the imagery of his medieval pieces (e.g. The Seventh Seal, The Virgin Spring) building upon and enhancing Eisenstein's ideas. This film was made in 1938 in the USSR. In that context it is a masterpiece, albeit a flawed one. 

For the modern viewer, I suggest that you go with the flow and enjoy the many treats on show.

Sentiment: positive
`Skenbart' is one of the funniest movies to not only to come from Peter Dalle but from the Swedish cinema industry itself. It is a movie made in black and white to get something of the atmosphere from the days before Christmas in December 1945, which it does very well. Almost the whole plot takes place on a train, non-stop to Berlin. On the train is a mix of homosexuals, nuns, deported refugees, murderers, alcoholics and the failure literature critic 'Gunnar' played by the, in Sweden, famous actor Gustav Hammarsten. The leading role 'Gunnar' is the type of person that, although his intentions are for the best, seems to drag everyone near him, in a extremely funny way, into disaster and to a living hell, especially for a from the Finnish war, homecoming, wounded soldier played by the extremely funny comedian Robert Gustafsson. On the train is also a doctor, who cheats on his wife, with his mistress. They have together planned to murder the doctors wife that is also travelling with the same train without any knowledge about her husbands intentions. Will the wife of the doctor elude the plans to murder her and will everyone else survive the unlucky fellow 'Gunnar'?

Sentiment: positive
Not much actually happens in this movie. There are a few pivotal moments, and everything else is talking about a crucial moment that takes place before the movie began. The primary mechanism used in the story is the flashback. Flashbacks can be used very well, but they aren't here. There is zero indication when flashing back or forward, and there are only weeks separating the events, so context as a scene unfolds is the only way to know when something happens. Perhaps this was intended to add a sense of mystery in places, but it was largely annoying.

If you are interested in watching a 100 minute on-screen discussion of the why's of things and a lame questioning of good versus evil, enjoy. If watching close-ups of a mostly vacant stare on Ryan Gosling's face for much of the movie appeals to you, you're in luck. Sadly, I can find no reason to recommend this movie. Oh, and as another review indicated, Spacey really is only in a cameo role here, and plays with a disinterested detachment that you've probably already seen.

*** The rest contains spoilers though a few big points are held back ***

First, the killing of the so-called retarded boy happens before the movie opens, and we never learn what happened exactly. The implication is that he was killed to stop the deep sadness that was communicated through the boy's eyes. There aren't many other unanswered questions as the characters beyond the boy and the lead are very one-dimensional.

As for what is with the lead character... Another review suggested he is crazy. I agree he isn't 'right', but don't know that I'd call it crazy. It seems that the movie tried hard to convey that he was either autistic or retarded in some way, because he sure seemed slow and unable to grasp the obvious. Either that or they were going for a neglected youth with some detachment disorder and/or who was heavily medicated. As always Ryan Gosling is good at conveying something to the audience, but it seems exactly what was deliberately left up in the air in this case. This movie provides no answers, just questions, but it was a sufficiently bad movie that I really didn't care.

Sentiment: negative
Alright, so I've been dying to see this movie. Stoked about the, "who's who" in horror land that are in the film....well, my friend rented this, brought it over, and we started watching it. It's supposed to be a comedy....I did not smirk even ONCE, until the 40min mark.

Does it have to do with the budget? Not at all, in fact, there's films out there that cost CLOSE TO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and they're amazing (to me anyways). Also, while watching this film, I couldn't help but realize the similarities (i.e., STEALING) to a low budget indie film titled, "ACTRESS APOCALYPSE", read my review about it (it DESTROYS this film BTW).

This film...it had potential it really did. It had the "star power", stolen plot (lets film the behind the scenes of the making of a movie...IE..."ACTRESS APOCALYPSE"....seriously, this angers me the more and more I think about),...it really could've been funny. A LOT, A LOT of the jokes fall flat. The acting is alright for what it is. But it dragged on, wasn't funny, and the plot was totally stolen.

I give this a two, because it wasn't SOOO AWFUL, but that's the ONLY reason.

Sentiment: negative
Many teenage sex comedy movies come and go without much fanfare, however, every so often a movie might come along thats honest, funny, entertaining AND memorable. The Last American Virgin is a special movie that has found its place and has stood the test of time blending all four ingredients. This film follows three friends (Gary, Rick and David "The Big Apple") misadventures into the world of first-time sex and true love. Along the way they learn hard lessons and the value of true friendship. We follow hopeless romantic Gary (The main character) on his quest to win over the girl of his dreams which leads him down an uncertain road with a surprise twist at it's ending. If you haven't been lucky enough to see this movie yet, by all means take a look...sprinkled with many memorable 80s songs throughout the movie to keep things moving at an even pace. L.A.V. truly is an original film, a rarity among films of it's genre.

Sentiment: positive
I first read the book, when I was a young teenager, then saw the film late one night. About a year ago I checked it out on IMDb and discovered no copies available. I then hit the web and found a site that offers War Films, soooo glad that I did, ordered a copy and sat back and was able to confirm why I wanted to see it again.

In my opinion to really enjoy the film I suggest you read get a copy of the book and then watch the film. The book is no longer in print but I did track a copy down via E-bay, the Author Alan White was a commando/paratrooper during the 2nd world war taking part in disparate clandestine operations and this was his first book. It is written by someone who knows and this fact I believe gives the book and film authenticity. I have not given the film a ten only because of the nature of the ending of the film, not as good as the book. There are a couple of plot lines that differ from the book also, which is strange as the book is not about the large scale nature of war but about the individual in war. The film illustrates this exceptionally well. I have the copy of the book to let my son read and then the film to let him watch, in that order.

If you can track it down the book and the film then it is definitely worth it and I only wish that it was more readily available for more to read and see, one of my all best war films, ever!

Sentiment: positive
- Having grown tired of the rat race and cramped living conditions of New York City, Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) finds a property in the country for his wife and children. He's hoping to find the simple life. But, building a house proves to be anything but simple. As the headaches and the bills start piling up, so do the laughs. Will Mr. Blanding's ever get his dream house? 

- What makes this movie so special is the three main actors - Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas. Any of three are capable of carrying a movie on their own, so when you combine their talents, almost every scene is special. Grant has always been a favorite of mine in this type of role. He is so good at playing the put upon husband. Loy is a always a joy to watch. The Thin Man films she made with William Powell are near perfect. And Douglas has become a favorite of mine over the last two or three years. Douglas also appeared in The Old Dark House, a particular favorite of mine.

- The movie is definitely a product of its time. I get a kick out of imagining a time when you could build a two-story, three bedroom, four bathroom house on $15,000 income a year. Throw in the fact that your two children attend private school and you have a live-in maid and it becomes almost fanciful.

- However, for anyone who has bought or built a house, many of the situations and predicaments the Blanding's find themselves in are easily relatable to today. And that's where the comedy comes in. How many people have done some of the stupid things the couple does in this movie only to end up costing more money than expected? - The biggest complaint I have about Mr. Blandings is the whole "wife in love with best friend" subplot. It's really not necessary to the plot and feels out-of-place and very uncomfortable as presented.

Sentiment: positive
One of the greatest crimes made against Sci-fi television was the cancellation of Farscape. One of the most well-written, well-acted and over-all best shows ever to grace the airwaves, it set new standards for Sci-fi television. Once the flagship, highest rated, critically acclaied show of the Sci-Fi Channel, it defies explaination as to why shows like Buffy, Tremors: The Series, and even StarGate: SG-1 have lasted as long as they have. Yes, even Buffy. But I'll save my Buffy bashing for another time. Farscape was poorly treated by the Sci-Fi channel, continually tossed around in scheduling, reruns rarely shown and never really advertised. But while the show has been cancelled, all those involved in the production of the show want to bring the show back (even Henson Company CEO Brian Henson). There is also an extensive fan-based movement to bring the show back . Overall things are looking far from dark, and hopefully, fans will get their season 5.

Sentiment: positive
I think that this is a fabulous movie... I watched it constantly from the time I was 4 to about the time I was 8... However, watching it resulted in many nightmares. I particularly got them because of the guy that was always like "the otherworld" and his friends. I am 12, and I still get nightmares about it to this day. I can't fall asleep right now because I am thinking about it. I love this movie, but it is so scary! I definitely love this movie though, I have very good memories from it. Kate is very good at acting in this movie. Amazingly, I never realized that it was her! I also think that the graphics were very high quality, contrary to what some other people think

Sentiment: positive
First off, I'm a huge Bronson fan, have been since the late '70s. I watched every film he made on the big screen since "Love and Bullets", which ironically was the beginning of his end as a big name, Hollywood-blockbuster star.

I kept hoping that things would turn around for him, that he would make a really good film in the '80s, but that never happened. And I don't know what he was thinking when he signed with cheapjack studio Cannon and hack director J. Lee Thompson for most of his latter films.

"Assasination" gave me some hopes when I saw that Peter Hunt was directing instead of Thompson but those hopes were quickly dashed. First off, the film looks incredibly cheap, like it was made for about 3 mil, minus Bronson's inflated salary (I heard he insisted on 5 mil per picture which is probably more than the rest of the budget for all his Cannon films). The White House scenes were filmed on the VA grounds in West LA - I was taking the bus when they were shooting. Nice job on recreating the white house but did no one think about getting the Palm trees out of the shots? Guess not.

Secondly, the supporting cast is really bad. Ireland was dying of cancer and despite this she's not bad but the horrible Asian woman playing Bronson's sidekick was typical of Cannon's talent at the time --non-existent. I would be real curious to learn how she got this role. I can't imagine a worse actress for the part, plus she's a good 40 years younger than Bronson! The story is not that bad and it's something that bigger and better-budgeted studios did later (Eastwood's "In the Line of Fire" and Costner's "Bodyguard" film) but the way it's staged here is really sad. I'm wondering if they could not afford to do more than one or two takes per shot. None of it is believable in the slightest. If Secret Service men really behaved like the keystone cops in this movie we'd have presidents rotating out of office (and out of life) every few months...

Sentiment: negative
It's the 1980's and the teenagers are ready to party it up in a scary old house that is rumored to be haunted by the ghost of Murder McGee. After mistakenly conjuring the dead through an unfinished conversation on an Ouija board, the kids are forced to fight to the death battling a vengeful ghost who possesses and kills all of their friends one by one. Sound familiar? It's supposed to. It's clearly marketed to pay homage to the classic 80's slashers with the tagline: "Excessive violence. Gratuitous nudity. Zero budget." 

Can't get enough; It's pure entertainment! I enjoyed the humor and the way it poked fun at all the horror cliché's, but at the same time embraced what was fun about movies from this time. There is something you get with this movie you never got with the old 80's slasher films though: good acting. The entire cast was very talented and you don't see that very much in any low budget flicks, recent or otherwise. There was a lot of chemistry between the characters. I was very entertained throughout the entire film, and I am fully convinced the writer/director and cast will go a long way in their separate careers. The script was very well written, and the dialogue flowed naturally.

The effects were a bit amateur and the scenes were not lit well, but the fact that this movie admits on its cover there was practically NO BUDGET, I already know this going in. This film makes it simple to politely ignore its faults and just sit back and enjoy. Although this is not an Oscar award winning opus, it never claims to be, and props to that. It's a lot of fun. If you like slashers, you'll really appreciate this film. If you like blood and boobies, you'll appreciate it also.

Sentiment: positive
An Asian blowgun assassin takes out victims in Niagara Falls and New York City before getting run over by a car. Sheila Morris (former Miss Sweden Janet Agren, given a hilarious "Southern belle" dub to show she's from Alabama) finds a connection between these killings and the disappearance of her sister Diana (Paola Senatore) and sets out to investigate. This brings her to New Guinea where she promises a sleazy guide (Robert Kerman i.e. American porn star R. Bolla) 80,000 dollars to help locate her sister. After barely making it through a jungle full of bloodthirsty cannibals, they finally locate Diana, who's under the control of Jim Jones-type cult leader Jonas Melvyn (Ivan Rassimov). Jonas does the typical mad guru-style things, like passing out LSD, initiating group suicide, threatening to kill anyone who disobeys him and raping Agren with a giant dong dipped in cobra blood. Every once in awhile a character will look to the right or left and see a gory scene lifted directly from JUNGLE HOLOCAUST or MAN FROM DEEP RIVER (both of which were also directed by Lenzi). I'm pretty sure they also use at least two scenes from CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST as well. Here we get the expected animal slaughter scenes (gutting a gator; natives eating live snakes), plus some additional nudity and a castration. Me Me Lai shows up to give her breast implants another workout playing a widow who is gang banged by three of her brother in laws on top of the ashes of her freshly cremated husband. Mel Ferrer briefly appears as a professor and isn't given much to do.

So anyway, with MANGIATI VIVI! you pretty much get a promise fulfilled with all the nudity, gore, dead animals and bad taste you expect with one of these titles, so if you're a sleaze hound, by all means watch it. Personally, I got bored with it about midway through and just wanted it to end. The original (heavily cut) U.S. release in 1985 was titled THE EMERALD JUNGLE in order to trick people into thinking they were actually renting John Boorman's EMERALD FOREST. It was also called DOOMED TO DIE and EATEN ALIVE BY CANNIBALS!

Sentiment: negative
This film's premise is so simple and obvious that only a Texas millionaire high on oil fumes and whiskey would have a problem understanding it if someone shouted it across the proverbial parking lot. In summary: the oil business is in cahoots with The Government (or Gummint if you prefer), the Gummint is in cahoots with Middle Eastern despots, and the CIA is a singular festering pool of double dealing sons-of-(insert word) willing to toe any line that comes their way. The only people that get done over are the good ones, like Mr Clooney ("Bob"). Oh, and terrorism is a result of the poverty which globalization creates when wicked multinationals stalk the world looking for a tasty takeover or three . That really fits to the profiles of the well-heeled 9/11 perpetrators.

In Syriana this facile tissue of political half-truths and Hollywood holograms is stirred up in a repugnant vermicelli of story strands that twist, turn and whirl through the gloopy circumlocutions of their own insignificance until the poor viewer is left alone with the conclusion that: 

1. the "director" (good joke) should never be let near a camera again 

2. people like Clooney and Hurt might know how to act, but they sure don't know how to pick a script 

3. if you want to see a film that deals with corruption in big business and the state, go and see Claude Chabrol's "L'ivresse du pouvoir", which is insightful, funny and brilliantly acted. 

Empty, doom-laden sententious piffle spun out to evening-ruining length.

Sentiment: negative
Because it came from HBO and based on the IMDb rating, I watched the first season of this series, what a waste. The characters are occasionally interesting but mostly cartoon-like. The acting ranges from good to mediocre talent with a S T R O N G emphasis on the latter. Not only prisoners, also viewers should leave all hope at the cell door that this story is believable, it's such a load of dung that you will need unusually strong testicular fortitude to keep watching. The violence, as with most of the developments in the story, is titillating and whatever morality is supposedly served up, it's of the lite variety. If your idea of excellent television includes the the writing, acting and overall production quality seen in THE SOPRANOS, DEADWOOD or SIX FEET UNDER, avoid OZ. If you want to see a Disneyland for Illiterate Jerks, watch OZ. Stuff like this gives edgy a bad name.

Sentiment: negative
After a couple years of searching for the Humphrey Bogart film, "Two Against the World", it unexpectedly showed up as a TCM offering under the title "One Fatal Hour", a First National film from 1936. Bogey's character is Sherry Scott, the man who runs WUBC, a radio station whose program lineup is losing listeners. The owner Bertram Reynolds (Robert Middlemass), is a pathetic executive who calls the shots at the station, but hides behind his decisions by pawning them off on Scott.

In an effort to boost the audience base and revenues, Reynolds has the idea of reviving a twenty year old murder case, and offering it as a fifteen chapter radio play. Scott enlists the aid of Dr. Martin Leavenworth (Harry Hayden) to write the play and present it on the air.

The Pembroke Murder case involved a woman who was acquitted of murdering her husband, the circumstances of which are not made clear. However Gloria Pembroke has married, and is now living as Martha Carstairs (Helen MacKellar), married to a successful banker (Henry O'Neill), and their daughter Edith (Linda Perry) is about to be married (on the same day no less as the radio play is to reveal the identity of Gloria Pembroke). About to be faced with the devastating effects of this revelation, Martha and Jim Carstairs embark on a crusade to have the program stopped. Simultaneously, Edith's future in-laws respond by demanding that the marriage not take place.

Without revealing the final outcome, the film takes a devastating turn to jolt the viewer. Edith Carstairs confronts the principals of the radio station, vigorously admonishing Scott and the sniveling Reynolds. While accepting his share of the blame for the outcome, Scott partially redeems himself by quitting his job, firing his secretary, and hauling her out of the office, recognizing her for the conscience he once had. With an entirely abrupt finish, the film leaves one as disoriented and unsettled as any movie that doesn't have a happy ending. 

With about a dozen films under his belt, Humphrey Bogart gets a chance to take center stage here with intriguing results. With no name supporting players, Bogey rises to the occasion by taking charge in the confines of the radio offices, and runs the show as if it was his own. In an interesting bit of characterization, he expresses his exasperation by crossing his hands over his bowed head, predating by a half dozen years a similar effect we'll see him do in "Casablanca". For Bogart fans, it's a genuine treat to catch an unexpected nuance like this.

Sentiment: positive