DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
********SPOILER ALERT************** Wasted 85 minutes of my life watching this "film". first of all, we think it is hilarious that the producer cameoed in the film as the autopsy doctor with a horrible unbelieveably unbelievable accent -- what the hell was that anyway, romanian? And how is it that in Denmark no one speaks danish except the bog creatures? (Note, the scottish camp director...). ? And who does the shopping for the bog creatures? Their pants looked like they were purchased at Banana Republic. Very nicely dressed for being 1200 years old. This one was worse than Scarecrow Slayer (we didn't think that was even POSSIBLE). We basically fast forwarded through 75% of the movie looking for any gore/death/scary moments. None found. Do rent the DVD just to watch the 2 hour "Behind the Scenes of Bog Creatures" featurette. Who are these people? Are they serious? And the filmmakers are like 60 years old. I think this is their holy grail and that's pathetic enough in and of itself.

BEST LINE from the movie, hands down: "Not bad for a girl who never even went to graduate school...." My blind grandma who has alzheimers could make a better movie.

Sentiment: negative
The show is GREAT. No words to describe it. Wonderful music. Incredible dance. The editors couldn't spoil it, not because they were not *that*bad*, but because the show is really *that*good*.

The editors are compulsive cutters, you can't see a scene without a cut for more than 15 secs. It's OK to show various angles, but those guys were working with multiple cameras for the first time in their lives, and they will remind you of how many cameras they have every five seconds on average... They manage to film the start of a jump with one camera, then cut it in the middle, and show the rest of it in another angle.

No matter how much they tried, they couldn't spoil that wonderful show. It's a must for dance and music lovers.

Sentiment: positive
This wretched psychodrama uses every shabby device in the book to wheedle attention and sympathy from us for its characters, who, with one exception, are not worthy of any notice at all, let alone two precious hours of filmgoers' time.

As in Robert Redford's "Ordinary People" (a superb film that, in comparison, clearly shows up the vacuity of "Heroes"), a late teenage boy has died, leaving his family in the throes of bereavement. In this case, the death was a suicide, an event that nearly always poisons the emotional well of the survivors in a particularly corrosive way. We follow these people over the next 8 or 9 months.

The father (Jeff Daniels) becomes a withdrawn, virtually mute, usually drunken stiff who secretly takes leave from his job for months, sits instead on a park bench all day, and insists on setting a full plate of food at the deceased son's place for every meal. He treats everyone else in the family with unerring nastiness. He sees his doctor regularly but the issue of therapeutic intervention in his obviously dysfunctional state never comes up.

The mother (Sigourney Weaver) yells at the neighbor woman, among others, gets busted when she stupidly tries to buy "marijuana" (her term) at a head shop (what adult in reality would ever try such a dumb stunt?), and, near the end, swoons into coma with a lung condition that everyone in the theater assumes is cancer (she's a heavy smoker). Ms. Weaver has a few flip lines but generally behaves too unintelligently to merit much empathy. 

It's not that there aren't people out there who behave in these silly ways when severely stressful circumstances arise. But why make a film of such drivel? What can anyone learn from this pair's conduct? 

The deceased's older sister (Michelle Williams) is away at college and all too happy to distance herself from the family zoo. The younger brother (played by Emile Hirsch) is the only credible member of the family. His suffering is genuine, its causes multifold, and his conduct is coherent within the circumstances. But Hirsch's character is too soft spoken, too morose and beaten down, to carry the movie. The other bit players, subtexts and cutesy, unreal dialogue don't help.

The suicide theme is echoed in an almost nonchalant manner in the case of two other minor characters. So what is the writer-director, Dan Harris, trying to say about this subject? That it isn't a serious matter? Why Jeff Daniels agreed to play the sap of a father as written in this screenplay is something only his therapist might possibly be able to answer. Avoid this dog. Instead rent Redford's classic. My rating: 4/10 (C-). (Seen on 2/17/05). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.

Sentiment: negative
MAKE A 0 YOU SACKS OF German STAPLES! well, when i started to watch this sack of crud, it was a Sunday afternoon, and i was just looking for stuff on show time. I was introduced to a hot naked babe, and like any guy (im a guy, the e-mail is my sisters...) i was happy. But then they threw it all to the dogs, spit on it, lit it on fire, and peed it out. You wanna know how? THE DUMB CHICK TALKED! The dialog throughout the film was just horrible. sounded like something my 2nd grade bro could wright. The violence was nice for some scenes, but some was just totally moronic. The scene in the pit were he gives the guy the knife... dumb moron! To sum it up, this is pure cinema barf drenched in the chocolate syrup known as nudity, and topped with the cherry of horrible acting as only a porn star could deliver.

Sentiment: negative
If you decide to watch Wild Rebels, don't expect anything deep and meaningful. If you're looking for a film that explores the relationships and structure of a motorcycle gang, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. If you're looking for an expose on the breakdown of the American educational system and the problem of juvenile delinquency, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. If you're looking for a movie that examines how undermanned rural police departments are when facing a well-financed, well-organized gang, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. But if you're looking for an absurd movie filled with scene after scene of unintentional humor, horrendous acting, a paper-thin plot, and community theater style production values, Wild Rebels is the right movie.

Wild Rebels is the story of a down-on-his-luck stock-car driver named Rod Tillman (Steve Alaimo). After a fiery crash (which Rod walks away from completely unscathed despite having only a cotton pants and a London Fog style jacket for protection), Rod decides to give it up. With no plan for his future other than to wander aimless through the back-roads of the South, he stumbles on the Satan's Angels motorcycle gang (a gang being three of the stupidest guys to ever zip up a leather jacket and a woman they seem to share). This group of hoodlums spends their time terrorizing a rural town in Florida by committing such atrocities as stealing a newspaper from a neighbor's mailbox. These bumbling idiots need someone to act as their driver during some larger crimes they have planned. Apparently, these three Einsteins can only drive vehicles with two tires, not four. So they recruit Rod to perform feats of daring that only an experienced stunt driver would be capable of like keeping the car in the middle of a gravel road during a low-speed chase. Eventually, they hold-up a bank, get into the aforementioned low-speed chase, and have the lamest gun battle with the police ever put on film. I could go on forever, but you get the idea.

I hate the term "so bad it's good", but that seems to aptly describe Wild Rebels.

Sentiment: negative
Fascist principal Miss Togar(Mary Woronov, who is lensed by expert photographer Dean Cundy as if she were ten feet tall)has a plan to turn her high completely square. Complications ensue which challenge that goal in delightful rock'n'roller Riff Randell(PJ Soles who lights up the screen--she's got a hot bod, too)who is an obsessive fan of the punk band THE RAMONES. Pal Kate Rambeau(Dey Young, whose big rimmed glasses and nerdy role can not hide her stunning beauty)joins forces with Riff to put an end to the supposed crisis of killing rock'n'roll for good which is Togar's desired mission.

Vincent Van Patten has a hilarious role as Tom Roberts, a success at everything, but getting laid. Kate is crazy about Tom..if only he could pull his head out of the sand and see it. Clint Howard steals the film almost(honestly, who can steal this film away from Soles?)as Eaglebauer, "the supplier" who can get everyone almost anything. His office is located in the boy's restroom! Paul Bartel is also hilarious as a music teacher who becomes an ally of Riff's when he enjoys a concert of THE RAMONES.

A raucous high school romp that defies all rules of normalcy..and I loved it. It's like someone just says, "Let's make life fun for 1½ hours." The film really is anarchy..a plot-less chaos lovingly adoring THE RAMONES with all it's heart(even if they are horrible actors, they have an opportunity to gain new audiences with this film).

The ending pretty much sums up the film as a whole..Riff and her classmates take over the high school and one massive party begins. To be honest, I didn't want the party to end! Not conventional in any way whatsoever, this film just let's loose a frenzy. Accompanied by a great rock soundtrack featuring some of THE RAMONES best songs, this film allows a viewer to accept a time in life when war didn't dominate headlines and people just had a good time. Those, I guess were the days.

Sentiment: positive
An unmarried, twenty-something hick (played by John Travolta) leaves the farm and goes to Houston, where he learns about life and love in a Texas honky-tonk. At face value, it's a modern love story ... Texas style. There's gobs of cowboy hats, pickup trucks, neon beer signs, and references to big belt-buckles and rodeos. The music, if not Texas native, is Texas adapted, courtesy of the talents of Mickey Gilley, Johnny Lee, and the Charlie Daniels Band. And that Texas twang ... "y'all".

The story and the characters are about as subtle as the taste of Texas five-alarm chili made with Jalapeno peppers. It's enough to make civilized viewers abort the film in favor of a genteel classic, one starring Laurence Olivier or Ingrid Bergman, maybe. "Hamlet" it's not. But "Urban Cowboy" is spicy and explicit, and I kinda like it.

Technically, the film is generally good. The dialogue, the production design, and the costumes are all realistic; the editing is skillful. And both the casting and the acting are commendable, if not Oscar worthy. I would not have cast Travolta in the role he plays, but he does a fine job ... ditto Debra Winger. Barry Corbin and Brooke Alderson, among others, are good too, in support roles. But, the cinematography seemed weak. The film copy I watched was grainy, and at times suffered from a reddish/orange tint, a visual trait I have noticed in other films from the same time period.

At first glance, the film does not seem to offer any social or political "message". But I would argue that when "Urban Cowboy" was released twenty-five years ago, it had rather prophetic implications. In 1980 the U.S. had all kinds of problems, not the least being American hostages held by Iran. In the minds of a lot of folks back then, the U.S. was being pushed around, bullied.

This film, along with others of its time, offered something that Americans wanted to see in their political leaders ... toughness. "Urban Cowboy" is a very physical film. The characters in it may not be the brightest people on Earth. But, they're tough!

Everything about "Urban Cowboy" is anti-intellectual. As a vehicle for cultural expression then, this 1980 film was one of several that augured a new get-tough era for the U.S. It started in 1980 with the election of Reagan. And that era continues to this day, with a President who probably will not be remembered for his intellect, but will be remembered for his toughness and aggression, traits that Americans seem to gravitate to as surely as Texans to five-alarm chili.

Sentiment: positive
Greatly enjoyed this 1945 mystery thriller film about a young woman, Nina Foch,(Julia Ross) who is out of work and has fallen behind in her rent and is desperate to find work. Julia reads an ad in the local London newspaper looking for a secretary and rushes out to try and obtain this position. Julia obtains the position and is hired by a Mrs. Hughes, (Dame May Witty) who requires that she lives with her employer in her home and wants her to have no involvement with men friends and Julia tells them she has no family and is free to devote her entire time to this job. George Macready, (Ralph Hughes) is the son of Mrs. Hughes and has some very strange desires for playing around with knives. This was a low budget film and most of the scenes were close ups in order to avoid the expense of a background and costs for scenery. This strange family all live in a huge mansion off the Cornwall Coast of England and there is secret doors and plenty of suspense.

Sentiment: positive
If you want to know the real story of the Wendigo, I suggest you pick up a copy of Algernon Blackwell's original story. This movie was not only bad but had nothing to do with the book.

I loved the book when I read it as a kid (In "Campfire Chillers" by E.M. Freeman)and was so excited to see a movie based on it come out. I was so disappointed when I finally saw it. Another thing is that there were too many PC (Politically Correct) undertones throughout the movie that had no place in the film. When the book was written PC didn't even exist.

My suggestion is don't waste your time or money!! If you see it on the video store shelf LEAVE IT THERE.

Sentiment: negative
It may have not been up for academy awards and admittedly, it's pretty cheesy, but it's just so much fun! Nothing makes me smile like Bill and Ted. Lovable, optimistic, and hilarious, Bill and Ted are a great way to unwind.

Although I love Excellent Adventure, Bogus Journey is funnier to me. Death is flippin hilarious and Bill and Ted are even more endearing. People give me grief about loving this movie, but only really pretentious movie-watchers will say it's not even a bit entertaining. If you like this, you'll probably also be a fan of Wayne's World, Dude Where's My Car, and Dumb and Dumber. Admit it, though foolish, they make you grin and turn your tickle box over. So watch them just for kicks and giggles!!

Sentiment: positive
That's all I can really say about this film. It's DBZ...like Tree of Might and The World's Strongest, it really...doesn't fit into the timeline for the show at all, though it is supposedly placed just before the beginning of the TV series. The action is pretty nice in general. The plot has a nice enough base, with a good background establishing why these guys hate each other and all. Pretty good in general, there... The problem is...there's a lot of really weird stuff. I mean, really weird stuff. Like The World's Strongest, there's a really, really odd song in this one that could only have been created in a drug induced haze...disturbing is the fact that Gohan, while singing, is pretty much drugged out himself. Creepy. The villains are odd and rather comical...moreso than the usual DBZ type--this seems more like it was made as a Dragon Ball movie rather than a Dragon Ball Z movie. In general, its entertaining enough, but...just...strange.

Sentiment: negative
The first Home Alone was a decent enough film... the sequel was pretty much the same, at a new setting. This one tries to be original, and succeeds to some degree... of course, the formula is basically the same, so it's like watching the same movie for a third time with slightly altered plot. The new score is quite bad(though the new "setting traps" piece was, if nothing else, interesting and different), especially compared to the grand score of the first, and the almost-but-not-quite-as-good score of the second. It (almost) makes up for it by using some pretty good non-original music, but it's just not the same. The plot is fair, and somewhat original to the franchise, but it's still basically the same movie as the first two, with worse acting and a less impressive example of the 'scary character turning out to be good'. The acting is mostly unimpressive. The characters are mostly caricatures. The new thieves are less entertaining than the old ones(and they make fun of spy-stuff, which is almost criminal, given the limited amount of good spy flicks there are, and how precious few of them are cool). The fact that there are more of them(and thereby more traps) is just a weak attempt at trying to go one higher than the first two films... and it doesn't work. The idea behind the thieves and their mission is a tad too... adult and serious for a children's film(and there was a sexual joke or two, though that isn't the first time in the series). It's also unnecessarily complex, as is the plot in general. I could follow it, but I doubt a kid could. Some of the exposition are delivered so obviously that even children may find it stupid. The animal stuff is generally not amusing. There are fewer siblings, which should mean that those there are get developed more, but they have less personality than the least featured of those of the first two films. All in all, just not particularly good, or worth watching, unless you *really* love watching criminals getting hurt in cartoon-y violence. I recommend this to huge fans of the series only. 3/10

Sentiment: negative
The characters are annoying, immature, and flaky....Madison being the most annoying of all. OOH...a cold spot! Such a dire threat! Any ghost in that house would have fled in self-defense! To make a long story short, this movie is boring. Seeing a chair flying across a room may be creepy, but that's about as intriguing as it gets. I watched it once and when one of my kids wanted to watch it again, I was tempted to take a baseball bat to the TV set rather than watch this rubbish again. If you want a good horror movie or even a passable comedy, this isn't it! The only good part of the whole thing was "the roach scene" and, by the end of the movie, you ended up feeling sorry for the roach!

Sentiment: negative
Film starts with 3 people meeting each other in the bar. OK. They're talking about their imaginary lives, lying all the time, with no reason. Still OK.From time to time, they even make you laugh. Interesting. First 30 minutes you actually enjoy it! But then...things become worse...Nothing's happening...for a long time...and then, when something happen, all you can see are naked old "ladies" touching each other! Not OK. Disgusting! By the way, this part should be the top of the movie, but it's everything except that! Movie has no point,it's boring, and sick! 

The strangest thing is that here(Belgrade, Serbia) on FEST (film festival), this movie was the most popular according to researches, of course, before people watched it! I even thought(before watching): "Hay, this might be interesting, although it's a Russian movie"! But, God, No!!!!

Sentiment: negative
I haven't laughed this much in a long time - or seen a film so ineptly made! Talk about so bad it made me laugh!

Firstly, I estimate that for about 40 percent of the film's length, I couldn't tell what was happening, or indeed even what I was seeing. I can only describe the camera work as frenetic meets LSD. There are whole segments, minutes long, where all you can see are blurred flashes and fragments of cave wall, people and various other unidentifiable stuff. I spent half the film asking my teenage daughters what was happening, but they couldn't follow it any better than me.

Then there are the "black" moments, when in an effort to scare us (woooooooo) everyone's lights go out and the screen turns pitch black - and I don't just mean for a few seconds. I think the longest lasted almost two minutes. I guess blank film is one way to keep costs down...

I suspect the "director" had recently read a book on all the "must-do's" to make a scary movie, and decided to throw them all in - about 20 times each.

There are three good things about this film: 1/ It's short at 90 minutes (though still an hour and a half too long!) 2/ All the characters die (after all, it's impossible to care about any of them). 3/ There was one genuinely good scene - when the group are looking up the shaft they came down, after discovering their rope fallen to the bottom (saw THAT coming), a large boulder is pushed across the opening, sealing them in. I WASN'T expecting that, and it was genuinely chilling.

And what's with the early campfire scenes with the shot, after shot, after shot panning from behind the camp lights. I swear the director used almost the same shot about 20 times in 5 minutes.

And I'm positive that after the first kill, the EXACT same footage of blood on the cave floor is used twice in about 90 seconds.

All in all, a CRAP piece of film making. I'll watch almost anything, but this is close to where I'd draw the line.

Sentiment: negative
NBC had a chance to make a powerful religious epic along the lines of "The Ten Commandments" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told," and instead they chose to make some halfhearted cartoon that was more like "Waterworld" than anything else. I don't recall a Bible passage where Lot turns into a pirate and attacks the ark, nor do I remember one where Noah's son develops a serious friendship with an orange, nor do I remember Noah being some crazy old loon who suddenly acts like he's commanding a naval fleet and runs around shouting nautical terms like "hoist the mainstay!" This was possibly the worst marketing decision in history. Obviously the majority of people watching this were going to be Jewish and Christian parents with their kids, so why on earth make the movie so offensive to those people? If they were intentionally trying to offend, why not advertise it that way and at least reel in the right audience?? I hope they make a REAL Noah movie someday, one done seriously and thoughtfully, one that actually appeals to people and makes money. Until then, don't waste your time with this trash.

Sentiment: negative
I live in Salt Lake City and I'm not a Mormon, so why did I rent this movie? Well because I live in Utah and thought it'd be nice to see locations I know in a film. I really knew going into it that I wasn't going to get the inside jokes so I wasn't surprised when I sat with the deer in the headlights stare. What I was surprised at was the ant-non Mormon actions that were placed in this film.

I know it's a Mormon film, catered to the members of the LDS Church, but I found it offensive because of the typical stereotype of people that isn't of their faith. Every non Mormon, which wasn't many, drank, smoked and had an amazing selfishness attitude, why?

That really ticked me off about this film, they made the Mormons so pure, yet the rest of the state of Utah I guess is filled with punk psychos just because they don't follow the scriptures of the LDS Church.

I can understand having the plots revolve around all LDS members, but you'd think Salt Lake City was 100% Mormon, which isn't even close to being the truth. And as I said, the non Mormons in the movie were portrayed as drunken jerks, please!

I guess I just don't get it because I don't belong to their faith and I guess I never will.

Sentiment: negative
Elvira Mistress Of The Dark (1988): Cassandra Peterson, Daniel Greene, William Morgan Sheppard, Susan Kellerman, Edie McClug, Jeff Conaway, Phil Rubenstein, Larry Flash Jenkins, Tress MacNeille, Damita Jo Freeman, Mario Celario, William Dance, Lee McLaughlin, Charles Woolf, Sharon Hays, Bill Cable, Joseph Arias, Scott Morris, Ira Heiden, Frank Collison, Lynne Marie Stewart, Marie Sullivan, Jack Fletcher, Robert Benedetti, Kate Brown, Hugh Gillin, Eve Smith, Raleigh Bond, Tony Burrier, Alan Dewames, Timm Hill, Read Scot, James Hogan, Derek Givens...Director James Signorelli...Screenplay Sam Egan, John Paragon.

Elvira, Mistress of the Dark was an 80's TV icon who had her own late night show on cable. She hosted and presented classic American horror films, many of them campy, while providing her own quips and humorous remarks. Actress Cassandra Peterson has to this date ridden on that success. In 1988, her first film was released. Playing herself, she's stuck hosting monster movie shows but longs for her own show in Las Vegas and make big money. Her agent Manny proves a disappointment. It's not long before she inherits a mansion from a deceased relative, a pet dog and a book of recipes. She comes to claim her inheritance in a small Nevada town - she was on her way to Vegas and became lost - and soon stirs things up in the sedate community. Outspoken conservative town council woman Chastity Pariah (Edie McClurg) soon sees her as a threat to the decency and values of the small town. Her voluptuous figure and winning personality soon draws the youth of the town. She falls for Bob Redding (Daniel Greene) the town handyman/carpenter, but before any real relationship can bloom, she finds herself in deep trouble. Vincent Talbot (William Morgan Sheppard) an eerie older man who is also set to inherit part of the fortune of Elvira's relative is in fact an age-old sorcerer who has a personal vendetta against Elvira's aunt and Elvira herself. He is aware that the so-called "recipe book" is actually a book of powerful magic, a power he wishes to claim for himself. He schemes to bring down Elvira by having the town burn her at the stake. How will Elvira get out of this one ? The movie was no real success at the box office, drawing a crowd of mostly young audiences familiar with the Elvira show on cable. Truth be told, this is a funny and feel-good movie. The script is chalk full of all kinds of jokes, some bad, some good, lots of sexual innuendo, visual jokes and overall campiness i.e. the hilarious last scene in which Elvira has finally got her own strip show in Vegas. This film is a cult classic of sorts, catering to Elvira fans. You couldn't enjoy this film otherwise. It's also a look back at "pop" culture of the 80's. Elvira was as much an icon of the 80's as was Alf, Vicky the Robot, Hulk Hogan, Mr. T and Madonna.

Sentiment: positive
I didn't hate this movie as much as some on my all time black list, but I consider it a total wast of film. Jeremy Irons, Iron Jeremy, Ron Jeremy. Think about it. Scene one is very good, all the rest are crap.

Sentiment: negative
I'll admit I've only watched a handful of episodes, but each one seemed completely different from the next. It seems after the first season, the producers decided to completely retool the show, drop characters, introduce new ones, and rewrite the entire show dynamic.

As you have probably surmised already, the show is about quirky, unpredictable teenager Holly (Amanda Bynes) who moves in with her high strung sister Valerie (Jennie Garth) in New York City. Decent enough premise: odd couple + fish out of water + high jinx.

While I miss the sitcoms of yore, this show unfortunately misses the mark on funny repeatedly, and it's sad because they have some decent talent.

On top of everything, they insisted on changing the show (Val was living with a cast regular bf one season, then he was suddenly gone, so she opens a bakery? what?) When things change that drastically, you get the feeling that even the *show* knows it's bad. I mean, completely new sets, characters written off and new show regulars!

On a side note (this is just nitpicking), I know this is a television show and not real at all, but Val and Holly end up living in a HUGE loft duplex (there are stairs) with a terrace... in MANHATTAN! Are you serious!?

Sentiment: negative
This woman who works as an intern for a photographer goes home and takes a bath where she discovers this hole in the ceiling. So she goes to find out that her neighbor above her is a photographer. This movie could have had a great plot but then the plot drains of any hope. The problem I had with this movie is that every ten seconds, someone is snorting heroin. If they took out the scenes where someone snorts heroin, then this would be a pretty good movie. Every time I thought that a scene was going somewhere, someone inhaled the white powder. It was really lame to have that much drug use in one movie. It pulled attention from the main plot and a great story about a photographer. The lesbian stuff didn't bother me. I was looking for a movie about art. I found a movie about drug use.

Sentiment: negative
Let's get things straight. I was raised Catholic, and in a very religious family, and spent as much time at church and talking to priests as at home. That was useful for two things: to make a convinced Atheist out of me, and to give me deep, insightful knowledge about the Church and its dogmas. And I say: if a Catholic priest witnesses a murder, and clearly sees the face of the killer, he CAN report it to the police, even if the murderer has confessed to him afterwards. He can not reveal what he's told in confession, but he CAN talk about anything he sees outside that, and confession is useless to keep his mouth shut. So, here we have a movie entirely sustained on a lie. And another lie is there's no absolution for murder. According to the Catholic Church, there's absolution for any sin as long as there's sincere repentance. So far, the biggest plot holes in this weak thriller.

As people frequently say, this movie would have improved if Bob Hoskins and Alan Bates had switched roles. Hoskins is naturally suitable to play gangsters (I will never lament enough that he lost Al Capone in favor of one of De Niro's weakest performances in "The Untouchables") and Bates' features would have been perfect as the priest with a gray past. But above that, I think the film would have been much better had real-life Ulster native Liam Neeson (back then mostly unknown to big audiences) played Mickey Rourke's part. Not only his face is perfect to play tormented characters, but he'd make us believe the character as real, something Rourke just can't. Back in the 80s, Rourke was not a bad actor (afterwards he seemed to lose his talent along with his looks), but he was one of those performers, like Brad Dourif, who's as good as the director he works with. And as a former IRA terrorist, Rourke's acting comes across more like a pimp. Sad to think that, had this movie been made just some three to six years later (when Neeson achieved moderate celebrity status in 1990 with Sam Raimi's enjoyable "Darkman", and superstardom in 1993 with "Schindler's List", while Rourke became pretty much of a forgotten has-been), Liam and Mickey could have switched parts to greater benefit (Rourke would have been effective in the supporting role of Docherty, but just can't carry this movie along as the lead). Yet another missed opportunity, and yet another film with the potential of being a classic, that became instantly forgettable fare.

Ironically enough, the often criticized score (by underrated composer Bill Conti) worked for me. I didn't find it overly-melodramatic, but suitably gritty and beautiful. It reminded me of Howard Shore's score for "The Silence of the Lambs". Here's to Mike Hodges' talent, who made "Get Carter", yes, but don't forget he's the mastermind behind "Flash Gordon" as well...

It seems the film was massacred in the cutting room (it shows, as some parts are really choppy and confusing, and others just don't glue) and a Director's Cut is waiting to see the light. OK, but I seriously doubt that will make it a great movie, as we'll still have the bad casting and the false premise there. 4/10.

Sentiment: negative
This movie makes me want to throw up every time I see it. If you take the first movie, and reverse the plot (ariel wants to leave the sea, her daughter wants to go to the sea), take the same characters and give them new animals and new names, and then throw in crappy animation and the biggest suck factor, possible, you get the little mermaid 2. Its basically a copy of the first movie with a reversed plot. I'll take you through the horror of it step by step. These are the people from the 1st movie: First of all, Prince Eric is still prince eric, with about 3 lines in the whole movie. Ariel is uptight, annoying, and is not the carefree, headstrong spirit we saw in the 1st. In fact, she is the exact opposite. Sebastian is still sebastian only less cute, less convincing as being stressed out, and the jokes just aren't funny anymore. Flounder has about 2 lines. He now has kids and he talks with a dumb nasal voice. Scuttle is still dumb scuttle only not funny. King Triton's character is probably the best, he still retains the intimidation and love for his daughter, Melody. Ariel and Prince Eric appear not to give a hoot about their daughter. 

Like i said, all they did was use the characters from the first movie and copy them. This is what they did: Ursula- The new evil villain is Morgana, Ursula's sister who feels like she always lived in Ursula's shadow. I wouldn't be scared of her if she showed up at my doorway with a knife. She can't do anything right and she's a failure as a villain. She has the same voice ursula did. Sebastian & Flounder - Have been replaced by probably the most stupid sidekicks, Tip & Dash, a walrus and a penguin. They try to be hero's but always fail when trying. the plot is so predictable. They become heroes at the end. Yawn. Flatson& Jetsom- Now replaced by a shark who was turned about 10x smaller by triton. Hes really bad too. Morgana and the shark (sharkbait, I think was his name) have no chemistry, good or bad. Ariel-Ah, Ariel. Our lovely mermaid was replaced by her un-lovely daughter, melody. Melody cannot sing, her voice is about 2 octaves higher than it should be, and you want to punch her in the face because shes so fake sugary sweet. She wants to go to the sea, she is clumsy and the kids make fun of her, she has to go find herself. yawn.

Not only is the movie boring and unoriginal its so simplistic when you watch this movie you will gasp at how bad it is. Certain parts of the movie make you want to call Disney up and demand why such a horrible movie was made as a sequel to such a wonderful original.

Basically, comparing the little mermaid 2 to the little mermaid is like comparing and Ed Wood movie to Casablanca. Don't ever watch this, not even when your bored.

Sentiment: negative
It seems to me, as a recent film school graduate, that in these times of New Zealand film reaching new heights, the general public seems to think every New Zealand film made is great. Sione's Wedding proves this is dead wrong.

It's completely overrated and not funny, and far from the 'hilarious' film other users of IMDb have commented. The only really funny thing I found in this film was Derek the wannabe black guy, but other than that the jokes were recycled crap that we'd all heard before.

Being of half-Samoan decent, I wanted to see how the film was going to deal with Polynesian representation. It was a complete balls-up - I know it's a supposed comedy, but I didn't feel like the characters had anything new to say about Polynesian identity, even if it was in a tongue-in-cheek manner. I was most disappointed with the ending of the film and the resolution of the character's relationships - Mikaele was the player who only messed around with white women, comes to slightly turn his ways when the 'Dusky Maiden' comes to town, has an epiphany that maybe he should start looking for a stable relationship, then at the very last minute rejects it and accepts his position as a Polynesian Playboy for palagi women. I didn't understand why they did this.

All in all, it was very disappointing. My whole family went to see it expecting to have a good laugh, but ended up being really bitter about paying to see it at the cinema. The jokes are lame at best, the acting, particularly of Sefa's girlfriend, APPALLING, and honestly I would've been happy if I had got my hands on one of those pirated copies of the film to save myself the $15 ticket price.

I think the only good thing to come from the movie is that it's the second step (behind No. 2, of course, a far superior film to this one) in the birth of Polynesian cinema. I hope Pacific filmmakers in the future can learn from Sione's Wedding in how to NOT reflect Polynesia and have something more meaningful and sensible to say. Even if it is done in a comedic fashion.

Sentiment: negative
I was once a big Olsen fan. I received this movie when I was six and watched it almost nonstop until I was nine. Then it lay on my shelf gathering dust until yesterday. I was left speechless.

Mary-Kate and Ashley play Allie and Mel, two twelve year olds who are sent to spend Spring Break in Paris with their ambassador grandfather. Along the way, they meet, as one might expect, two cute French boys who show them the more fun side to Paris. I guess the two boys were okay, fake French accents aside. 

The plot is predictable and the humour is shallow and corny. Mary-Kate and Ashley play two shallow girls with too much make up on their face. 

Don't watch this movie if you're not into the Olsen twins or family movies.

Sentiment: negative
I watched this film when I was a kid, and I thought it was terrible then. Now that I'm older, I found it just as terrible. Universal could have done better than this. They merely decided to make the most money they could out of using all their monsters at once. To me, that was a cheap shot. These characters were capable of holding their own in their own movies, and the choice of actors was deplorable. Dracula needed to be Bela Lugosi, Frankenstein's, monster needed to be Karloff.

In my mind, it was the Disney squalid sequel sequence done decades ago, and it was not appreciated. Umiversal started out with something great and original, and then thought they could pander to the masses with the schlock which is extremely evident in this film.

Sentiment: negative
Considering 'A Star is Born' had been made twice already by the time the 1976 film came into production, the latest remake has a freshness about it that can be attributed to the fantastic chemistry between the entire acting ensemble. A viewer could be forgiven for believing that Kris Kristofferson & Barbara Streisand were a couple off screen as well as on, with their incredible displays of pure affection towards one another.

The film has been described in the past as a 'Barbara Streisand concert on film, set to a soap opera storyline' however for anyone that enjoys watching a film that takes you beyond the living room into a world where the characters seem truly alive - A Star is Born is well worth the hiring price.

With its incredible soundtrack, flawless acting and touching reality in regards to human emotions and the true frailty of life; A Star is Born is a film that draws you into the world of Esther Hoffman & the love of her life John Norman Howard.

A film for anyone that sees the beauty in real love - the kind that keeps you devoted to a person even as they break your heart...

Sentiment: positive
This was an awful movie. Basically Jane March was a half-Korean North Korean spy sent by Kim Jong Il to do something horrible to the American forces in South Korea. She becomes a maid for an American military family, they all regard her as being Korean even though she looks more white (I believe the actress is either 1/4 or 1/8 Southeast Asian, not at all Korean), and the teenage boy of the household starts out hating her and ends up sleeping with her. The way Korea and the U.S. military in Korea is depicted is completely insane. Of course, the screenwriter and the director were obviously white men who've never spent a day in Korea prior to this movie and had no intention of showing any real insight into life in Korea for either Koreans or American GIs and instead just tried to fulfill their pathetic Asiaphile fantasies without any regard to how completely unbelievable it made the movie. Anyone who's ever been to Korea will know this is utter garbage. In the end the North Korean honhyol spy-girl gets killed, in an obvious "paying for her sins" way. Very bad film with a made-for-TV feel to it.

Sentiment: negative
Lisa Grant (Adrienne Barbeau) is a real estate agent who finds herself in jeopardy of getting killed by a deranged maniac who kills people in her profession who he feels make house prices too high. As motives go, this is pretty damn retarded. Lisa's boyfriend happens to be a talk show host whom the killer keeps calling on-air. At first I was positive this was supposed to be a comedy or satire of some kind, but as the endless minutes drone on and on, I realized that it wasn't and the film was just grossly incompetent in every way, shape, and form. I'm just surprised that something this horrid wasn't directed by Jeff Lieberman (yea, email me some hate mail again, Jeff you hack) Anyway, back to the film, poor, poor Barbeau, you can pinpoint EXACTLY when her film career went down in flames and it all started here.

My Grade: F 

Where I saw it: The Movie Channel

Sentiment: negative
The opening shot was the best thing about this movie, because it gave you hope that you would be seeing a passionate, well-crafted independent film. Damn that opening shot for filling me hope. As the "film" progressed in a slow, plodding manner, my thoughts were varied in relation to this "film": Was there too much butter in my popcorn? Did the actors have to PAY the director to be in this "film"? Did I get my ticket validated at the Box Office? Yes, dear reader. I saw this film in the Theatre! This would be the only exception I will make about seeing a film at home over a Movie Theatre, because at home you can TURN IT OFF. Were there any redeeming values? Peter Lemongelli as the standard college "nerd" had his moments, especially in a dog collar. Other than that this "film" went from trying to be a comedy, to a family drama to a spiritual uplifter. It succeeded on none of these fronts. Oh, and the girlfriend was realllllllllly bad. Her performance was the only comedy I found.

Sentiment: negative
I loved this film because of the dialog and superb acting by Candace and Jacqueline. However, I never knew until now, watching a Bette David marathon on TNT that this film is a remake of a 1943 Bette Davis classic called Old Acquaintance. Bette co-stars with Miriam Hopkins who she was in a terrible feud with during the making of the movie because Bette had had an affair with Miriam's husband who directed her in a film before they made Old Acquaintance.

Anyway, both are worth every minute spent watching. I highly recommend this film if you like a lot of dialog and drama. It's a study in the psychology of women and their relationships with each other, in my opinion.

Sentiment: positive
This film reeks of production line planning. It appears like the filmmakers looked at recent hit movies, and threw spaghetti on the screen - Jimmy Stewart! June Allyson! Anthony Mann! Baseball! War! Baby! Airplane! - ROLL 'EM! - The film does address the age of the Stewart/Allyson performers; though, I'm certain we are still supposed to think they are much younger.

There are messages in "Strategic Air Command" I found curiously shocking and offensive, but I'll stick with one truly wretched element: The happily married couple is challenged when Mr. Stewart's character makes an important decision without consulting his wife. In the film's most dramatic scene, she calls him on it. It ends completely unresolved - Allyson is crying her heart out on their bed, and Stewart walks out on her. NO discussion; he simply says he is correct, and walks out on his devastated wife. For all he knows, she could slit her wrists.

Later, Allyson apologizes for questioning her husband's decision.

Unbelievable! 

Stick with Stewart-Allyson in "The Stratton Story" (1949). 

** Strategic Air Command (3/25/55) Anthony Mann ~ James Stewart, June Allyson, Frank Lovejoy

Sentiment: negative
I really liked this movie! Even though it wasn't anything like any of the books it still the that classic Nancy Drew style. I had been seeing a lot of advertisements for this movie and since I was really into the Nancy Drew books I had really high expectations for this movie and they most definitely met those expectations. Pretty much all of the characters were exactly how I pictured them from reading the books. I am really happy that I saw this movie. All of the actors and actresses really acted like they acted like in the book series. Ever since I saw this movie I have wanted to read every single Nancy Drew book there is out there. All of the actors and actresses really got into their characters and it definitely showed when the aired this movie on the big screen. It definitely seemed like all of the actors and actresses were really in the positions that the characters were in I most definitely give this movie a 10 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
Unusual film about a man who befriends his social opposite out of fear of blackmail. Peter Boyle makes this film with his foul mouthed boorish portrayal of a working class stiff "Joe" in love with the past and fearful of the future and worried about the present. The first half hour of the show features the film debut of a young Susan Sarrandon as Melissa Compton, a weak willed rich girl who slums with her loser boyfriend, replete with a full nude scene. Her boyfriend is the film's weak spot, a poorly portrayed drug addict and dealer who meets his demise following Sarrandon's overdose. We meet Boyle's Joe in a bar as he spouts off and rants about minorities, crime, hippies and drugs, and it is easy to see that the later Norman Lear television character of Archie Bunker is based on a cleaned up version of Joe. The comparison even carries over into Joe's wife and personal life and pastimes. Joe insinuates himself into the life of Bill Compton, Melissa's father, and the two make an unlikely pair as they search for Melissa who has run away from drug treatment and back to the drug addicts she calls friends. Their search leads them to an "oar-gee" as Joe calls it, a free love fest fueled by drugs a lot of nudity and surprisingly, uptight Bill Compton and Ultra Conservative Joe both join in. They get robbed and this leads to a violent and murderous ending that foreshadows the stark and chilling ending to Taxi Driver six years later. Joe is a funny film that on the surface at least, is anti violence and anti racist. Yet the film's main character, Joe, becomes the very instrument of the upheaval he fears when he enters and joins in the illegal and unbridled sexual excesses he rants against. So in that respect, the film falls short of being a powerful message and leaves you wondering what the final outcome really was all about.

Sentiment: positive
turned out to be another failed attempt by the laughable sci-fi channel. i am not sure who wrote the script, and interpreted the poem, but i am sure it was by some 17 year old teen who thought it would be awesome to a have a scoped crossbow in the movie. AAAAAAAH! when i saw that part, I lost all hope. Then...they set off for heorot in a what looks to be the ship that Christopher Columbus sailed in! when they reach Heorot, (which is supposed to be a Norse mead hall) the sci-fi group of idiots decided to make heorot look like a big stone castle. when i saw that part.. i wanted to scream. i really wanted this movie to be good, but sci-fi has yet to produce a good movie, so i don't know why i got my hopes up. Oh..and Grendel and his mother, are stupid also. (this comment is off topic about "Grendel")If anyone from the sci-fi channel is reading this..here is some good advice. NOT EVERY MOVIE YOU MAKE HAS TO BE ABOUT A BIG MONSTER THAT CAN RIP PEOPLE IN HALF, THATS NOT WHAT SCIENCE FICTION IS ABOUT! AND ALSO, STOP CASTING LOW-GRADE ACTORS LIKE STEPHEN BALDWIN TO BE IN YOUR FILMS! ITS NOT HELPING THE MOVIE, BUT MAKING IT WORSE!!!

Sentiment: negative