DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
The genre of suspense films really takes a dive in this one. The big problem is IMPLAUSABILITY. I realize that you need to create difficult situations which would cause suspense and the tense feeling of whats going to happen next, but this movie was so predictable, and is just not believable. I find that the more I watch this kind of movie, the more I am continually saying things to actors to direct them away from danger. Continually making bad decisions just borders on being plain stupid. If they took the time to make it more realistic, I might have enjoyed it a little. Having said that, you might be better off staying away from this one.

Sentiment: negative
Thomas Mann's controversial novel is the basis for the film "A Death in Venice. " Although in the book, the hero is an author, in the film the director Luchino Visconti who also wrote the screenplay, transforms him into a Composer. As such, the Author/Composer, Gustav Von Aschebach (Dirk Bogarde) on the verge of mental exhaustion is a burned-out artisan. After a long and successful career now seeks the peace and tranquility of a less hectic life. He decides to go on vacation to Venice where he hopes to rejuvenate his dwindling ambition. However, while staying at the picturesque seaside resort, he captures the attention of a beautiful young teenage boy, Tadzio (Björn Andrésen) who eyes him with curious interest and is immediately smitten by him. Although Gustav is captivated by the wondrous youth, he nevertheless must find some private time away from the boy's governess (Nora Ricci), while having to cope with a invading plague which seems to have infested the city. The movie dialog, like the novel remains subtle as are the few brief encounters between the boy and the artist. In the end. the audience unlike the book is hampered with innuendos and imaginative flights of fancy. Their affair is never given wing, substance or opportunity and were it not for the brief resolution in the book, the film allows only the possibility of 'what if.' Nevertheless, one can sympathize with the hero and wish him a moment's peace to obtain that which is forbidden, elusive but definitely criticized by prying eyes. Great story and a Bogarde Classic. ****

Sentiment: positive
This movie is just brilliant, SRK's acting is just amazing, the end is so incredibly sad, I cry every time I see this film, it's the kind you never get sick of, and can see again and again, an absolutely amazingly brilliant movie.

Sentiment: positive
Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbé who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more....

Sentiment: positive
This film is one of my fondest childhood memories. Seeing the Muppets (at the height of their popularity) heading Hollywood, singing and dancing, with Miss Piggy googely-eying her beloved Kermit, Fozzie Bear doing his best as everyone's manager, and a generous cast of "extras" delivering a film that turned out to be "okey dokey".

Kermit's melancholy ukulele number "Rainbow Connection" was nominated for an Oscar that year, but was beat out by Norma Rae's "It Goes Like It Goes". I'll pick Kermit's song any day! Get the kids and enjoy this timeless fantasy...someday they'll find it, the rainbow connections, the lovers, the dreamers and me!

Sentiment: positive
Like a lot of the comments above me, also I though this was the average scifi movie, but unfortunately it was not. I found it rather patronizing, and indeed, preaching.

But that is not the only comment. The scenes are very 'artificial' (not as in scifi, as I will explain a in a few moments). (The next sentence is a small spoiler.) The movie more or less represents a discussion between two groups. The physical setting of a discussion typically involves two or three men standing next to each other, the middle one typically speaking. In the worst case, the other party is represented by one person.

Also the interviews the reporters have are very artificial, sometimes even unprofessional. For example sometimes the discussion is between the reporters (I mean, from a point of the interviewed, 'akward'). Moreover the interview persons always stay calm, they say everything without normal emotions. I.e. you cannot tell whether they lie or not, are mad or not. They show almost nothing.

This is also very unprofessional, the 'Christian' reporters always believe everything they are told by the people they interview.

Bottom line:

All conversations contain:

- facts

- pro/con arguments

There are no lies. Nobody lies. (The next sentence is a spoiler, ignore if you still plan to see the movie) The only lie happening is to demonstrate how 'bad' non-believers are.

This makes me conclude that the movie is a B-movie. It is very similar to 'Plan 9 from Outer Space' (from the 50's), but this movie also has an annoying, wrong set discussion about aliens and Christian belief.

NOTE: I have no intention to insult Christians, people who believe in aliens or whomever else. This is a thought I have about the movie, not about people.

Moreover I would like to note that I don't know whether the actors are bad or were just given terrible scripts.

Sentiment: negative
***1/2 Scarlett Johansson, Woody Allen, Hugh Jackman, Ian McShane, Romola Garia. Directed by Woody Allen. Just after his work with Johansson on "Match Point" the two return for "Scoop" a Corky, zany and fun comic ride. When a student reporter (Johansson) finds out a new scoop from a deceased reporter (McShane) when she enters the materializer of a lame magician (Allen). The scoop being of the new Tarot Card killer in London who might be preppy Peter Lyman (Jackman); while Sondra and Sid are playing detective Sondra falls in love for the handsome would be killer. Allen has finally hit a mark, not as good as "Match Point" but definitely more fun. I laughed a lot more than I expected, one of the years must sees

Sentiment: positive
The main reason I wanted to see this movie was because of the wonderful cast. A ton of my favorite actors in one movie equals amazing with out actually seeing it. But this movie caught me off guard. It wasn't what I was expecting at all. It's been a while since I've seen it but I do remember I could not stop laughing!!! And it wasn't just the cast that did it for me. The script was amazingly written. Every time you were expecting something to happen it didn't happen. There were so many twists and turns but it fit with the whole tone of the movie instead of coming off as pretentious. The cinematography, along with the set, was absolutely beautiful as well. I really can't say anything bad about this movie! Expcept, I would have Andrew Davoli a little more screen time!

Sentiment: positive
Excellent episode, showed Dean has not only good taste by picking Cassie for his girlfriend but also shows he does have a heart and can love just one woman, and he's not just some guy who loves and leaves em! Aweso e episode. Applaud them on this one. I only hope that some way they go back to the Cassie relationship next season (if there is a next season??) i would like to see her come back into their "supernatural" lives especially Dean's. Also I like the fact the chose an African-American woman to be the special lady in his life that got away somehow. I hope they don't screw that up and end it as he episdoe ended. The girl who played Cassie was truly a looker and it was good to see the WB branching out into what we all see in everyday life-the interacial coupling that has become common and acceptable(finally!)

Sentiment: positive
This is a film notable for what is not shown as much as for what is. What IS shown is the incredible poverty in Sicily as the 19th century gave way to the 20th, a life style that made people dream of the 'New' World of America. The Mancuso family live in a place that is not even a hamlet, just a stone cottage set amid the harsh, unyielding stones of a country that cannot offer even a single blade of green grass. An opening sequence sees the Mancuso males scrambling barefoot up a craggy hillside, stones in their mouth to offer at a shrine at the top in exchange for a 'sign' that they should set out for the New World or remain where they are. It further shows life aboard the liner, huddled masses indeed, yearning to breathe free, and conditions in Ellis Island where, their journey still not over, they are interrogated and examined to prove their 'fitness' to enter America. What is NOT shown is the ship in Longshot, or indeed ANY shot that would identify it as a large, ocean-going liner; what is also not shown is anything that would identify America, no cliché view of New York Harbour and the Statue of Liberty, so that Ellis Island could be anywhere in any country. Perhaps the most remarkable shot is the one from a Camera Crane looking down on hundreds of people jammed together; slowly, almost imperceptibly two thirds of the people at Screen Left begin to separate from the third at Screen Right and we realize that those on the left are actually aboard the ship and those on the right are on the dock, a powerful statement of society being fragmented. There's a strong documentary feel throughout as though we were following an actual ship full of immigrants even though it has been carefully scripted and is clearly an amalgam of typical families/conditions at the time. With almost nothing happening in dramatic terms it's not for the popcorn brigade at the Multiplex but for the rest of us it's a very fine film indeed.

Sentiment: positive
HUSBANDS BEWARE is a remake of the Shemp classic BRIDELESS GROOM. The film's new cooking scene at the beginning of the film is great. The stooges are always funny when they cook. However after the first few minutes of cooking footage, we cut to original footage of BRIDELESS GROOM. One thing I noticed about these 1953 to 1956 remakes are that they do fit with the new story. They do an insert shot if the old story line doesn't match.

HUSBANDS BEWARE does have a new ending, but I won't give it away to those who want to be surprised.

 **** out of 4 stars.

Sentiment: positive
How unfortunate, yet also fortunate, that two films about pot-holing -The Cave and The Descent - should arrive at much the same time. Sadly for The Descent its release in the UK on 7th of July coincided with the very day of the London underground tube/metro terrorist atrocity that killed almost 60 and injured hundreds - not a particularly good night/weekend to pop out to the cinema, especially to see a scary-as-sheesh film about likable women being trapped in a deep, dark, claustrophobic underground caving system. The two movies have virtually the same elements - a half dozen or so characters, lost in a previously unexplored caving system, with no-one outside aware they are trapped down there. Lots of water, caverns, danger... then ultimately some vicious human-like or human-derived creatures determined to prey upon them. Where the two are so different is that The Cave is unreal, entirely unbelievable, more Alien-esquire sci-fi fantasy adventure than horror, or drama. The comparatively minuscule-budgeted British film (filmed in southern England though set in the Appalachians) is five-pair-of-pants terrifying, a heart-stopping shocker so stomach turning that people walk out of screenings early in shock. It knocks off the girls in any old order - you genuinely have no idea what to expect next - surely not her! The Descent is also lit in naturalistic manner, making it all the more scary, unlike the laughably lit Cave which resembles a giant magical Christmas Santa's grotto, with cathedral-sized room after room dazzling in gloriously blue light from... who knows where, while the cavers torches are employed exclusively in artistically lighting up the granite-jawed heroes (each more puppet-like than any Team America / Gerry Anderson / Thunderbirds creation). Fantastic amounts of equipment are carried too, yet despite this the impossibly deep-voiced actors clearly forgot to pack any sense of impending danger, drama, or anything worthy of a horror film - it's strictly PG rated. And in this instance the actors peg out in exactly the order that everyone expects them to - i quickly wrote a list after being introduced to each character, only getting Piper Perabo out of sequence. The Cave script is entirely by-numbers, unlike Shakespeare a room full of chimpanzees would eventually write it in under a week... Take a typical exchange between the 'good buddy' white and black leads that goes; "how many times have we been in this situation before bud?" - "too many" (replies Morris Chesnut). I swear, you could hear my suburban London audience gasp at the obviousness. The scariest thing about The Cave is that at the end there's a clear opening for 'the sequel' - 'The Cave 2: Overground' or whatever. Be afraid, be very afraid... Or instead catch The Descent and be truly afraid, very very very afraid. RR

Sentiment: negative
This film was seen by my wife and I when it came out in 1978. It was a revelation to us. We actually thought that we were the only gay and lesbian couple who had ever married and had children. Obviously we were wrong. Love may come from where you don't expect it and maybe don't want it. But we both chose that love anyway.

And no, it never changed our sexual orientation. That kind of stuff is for the Christian wackos.

When we were young we both had affairs, but never with the opposite sex. As we aged we stopped having extramarital affairs.

This story is not far fetched. However, the suggestion that they became heterosexuals seems pretty unrealistic to me. My wife and I have been sleeping together for the last 40 years. We are still gay. End of story.

Sentiment: positive
for those of you who were desperate to find out what happened to Twitch in the original movie, heres your chance, and then get back to the real world.

The guy who hid the gold in the first movie told Twitch, so he gets transferred to another prison, where wrestling champs hang around looking broody. Twitch plans to leave the jail in a month to get the gold to start a life with his woman.

Then something happens and someone gets shot, and the film turns into Die Hard in another prison. But the wrestler's daughter is caught up in it all, so he and twitch go to find her and Twitch's woman.

As you can imagine, the acting is below par, it features a lot of (really annoying) rap music, and poorly edited fight scenes. On the plus side, it's got that Hispanic bloke in it, who stars in every prison/action/thriller ever made, and he shuts a door in this.

It's not very eventful, but at least it's harmless.

If you were a massive fan of the original, it's okay-ish stuff.

If not, you have been warned.

Sentiment: negative
I have rarely been subjected to such outright nonsense in a film that is supposed to be based on a historical figure. A horrible joke of a film, I cringed throughout. Terrible, trite, distorted and riddled with outright lies and half truths.

The famous Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw was to originally be a consultant for this film. However, he found the script to be so historically inaccurate and ridiculous that he refused, and also demanded they stop using his name as a source (it embarrassed him to think people would think he was involved).

One scene shows Hitler beating his dog. There is not one source for this. Hitler loved animals above people. He brought in the strictest animal welfare laws in Europe, banned vivisection and animal experimentation. He was also a vegetarian.

The film turns his gaining of the Iron Cross into a farce, involving bribery. Utter lies. He was awarded it for repeated acts of bravery over a long period of time.

There are no historical documents showing that Hitler ever had a sexual relationship with his niece. Not one.

Apart from these, Hitler is portrayed as a rabid simpleton in this garbage flick.

If he was even half as ignorant, demented and thick as he is in this nonsense film as in real life you would not even know he had ever existed. Never mind become the leader of Germany.

Honestly, this film was utterly terrible.

Go watch Downfall and give this a very wide berth.

Sentiment: negative
Elia Kazan, one of the best theater directors this country ever had, showed he was equally at home with movies. With "Panic in the Streets", Mr. Kazan gives us an early version of what would come later, with perhaps his master piece, "On the Waterfront", although both movies share only the water setting, for they are different visions about different subjects.

Mr. Kazan shot on location in New Orleans. The adaptation by Daniel Fuchs of the Edna and Edward Anhalt stories that are the basis of the film, is remarkable in that it takes us to places that no tourist dared to see when visiting "The Big Easy". One of the big assets of this film is the magnificent black and white cinematography by Joseph MacDonald that shows New Orleans at its best. Also the music by Alfred Newman and the song by Billie Holiday gives the proceedings a nice touch.

This film, could have been shot in New York, or another Northern big city because it presents us with characters that speak more like "broklynese" than maybe a Southern accent one might hear in that part of the country.

One thing comes clear in the movie, Jack Palance, making his screen debut, smolders the screen every time one sees him. He was so intense! At the same time, this tough guy shows a tender side of him when he goes to see his sick partner, who unknown to him, is stricken with a fatal disease. Blackie, comforts this man caressing his sweaty face and running his hands through the dying man's greasy hair with abandon. Notable also, was the fact that Mr. Palance and Mr. Mostel appear to have been doing their own stunts, something so refreshing because both actors make it seem real.

The film also presents a normal side with the introduction of the Reed family at the beginning of the film. We see a family man painting furniture with his young son. Later he and the wife discuss how it appears they can't make ends meet with his salary, something that many families have to deal with on a daily basis. Richard Widmark, playing a normal person is not as effective as when this actor plays more cunning and intense people. Barbara Bel Geddes, as the wife, sounds as though she's a suburban woman from Connecticut.

The film is enjoyable thanks to Mr. Kazan's direction and the excellent cast working in the movie.

Sentiment: positive
I know a lot of people don't like this movie, but I just think it is adorable. There's not much I can say, but the movie is a feel-good movie I guess. The songs are beautiful, the costumes are beautiful, the voices are beautiful, and there are a lot of funny lines in the movie, especially as Briggitta learns about the do's and don't's of society. If you like musicals, I'd say you'd like this one!

Sentiment: positive
Now really can u call that a movie. I knew some of the movies that Japanese people do are good for nothing but this bad? I mean com'om i fell a sleep three times at this movie. No horror at all, some tiny percent (0.2-0.5) comedy. Action let's just admit that it has some but the scenes are poorly filmed, the actors are pathetic. None of the actors did a good job in it's own role. The were not convincing. The script is also awful. I mean this movie may be great, REALLY, but for the 60's(in not 100% sure.) I recommend NOT to see it, unless you want to get so bored as i did. I can't quite figure hot this movie got it's rating. It's OVER, OVER, OVER RATED!!!. This is a PERSONAL opinion of course. I don want to offend anyone but who could like this crap? So i hope this helps someone NOT to loose some time "enjoying" this movie. Nevertheless it's your choice!

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie for the first time just a short while ago. If you ask me it does not get the credit it deserves. It is a little like American Pie meets Fast Times at Ridgemont High but with more depth. It handles the same issues as both movies, but in a way that holds with it some grain of truth. The ending is sad, but that is how life is. I think everyone should see it. I have it on DVD form, and it took such a long time to find it too. That should say something, heh and another thing I will add is that it is quite difficult finding the soundtrack. I believe they stopped it, but the soundtrack to this movie is amazing. It has songs by artists like The Commodores, U2, Devo, REO Speedwagon, The Cars, KC and the Sunshine Band, and many more.

Sentiment: positive
My paraphrase above of the slogan on the back of the DVD box sums it up: this film was far more horrible than horrifying.

This is the worst film I have seen in as long as I can remember. My wife accidentally rented it thinking it was the Tom Cruise version. The laughably crude special effects on the menu screen should have tipped us off. The gratuitous nudity already in the opening scene made us more suspicious.

But as the film wore on, we were benumbed by clumsy acting -- both over- and under-acting -- non-continuity in directing and editing, trite writing, and crude special effects. We gave up after a half-hour or less; after starting this badly, it couldn't possibly get better.

Since I despise reviews that pan a product without giving specifics, here are some examples of the film's especially awkward moments, even if they amount to spoilers:

- The lead says good-bye to his young old son as the latter is about to drive away with his mother, the latter prickly because it's their wedding anniversary but the lead is not coming along due to sudden business. The son asks, quietly worried, "will I ever see you again?" Perhaps it's supposed to come off as a premonition, but it instead comes off as incongruous behavior for a child that age in that situation.

- A huge alien spacecraft has crashed to earth and sits in an enormous crater. A crowd of people stands nearby, peering at it uneasily but otherwise looking generally unaroused. One woman finally says "it's gi-normous!"

- After this craft has laid waste a village and its inhabitants, the lead and a bystander, now alone near their homes and trying to load their cars for an escape, have an exchange something like this, in a quietly puzzled tone:

"What was that thing, anyway?" "I dunno..."

- A crowd attempting to evacuate over a bridge is blocked by the military, since part of the bridge is destroyed. When an alien ship shoots an explosive at it, the crowd starts to run away, seemingly only because a director told them to and not because they're frightened or in any kind of real danger, let alone unusual circumstances.

And so forth... writing about the film falls short of the experience of actually seeing it. But please, PLEASE, save yourself the bother, even if your morbid curiosity is piqued! The film is so bad it can't even be enjoyed as unintentional humor (versus, say, King Vidor's "Solomon & Sheeba" starring Yul Brynner wearing a wig). Life is too short to waste watching such nonsense. There MUST be something more productive and enjoyable to do, like walking the dog or cleaning a birdcage.

Sentiment: negative
The Film must have been shot in a day,there are scenes where you can see the camera reflections and its red pointer,even the scenery's green light that blends with the actors!!!The plot and the lines are really awful without even the slightest inspiration(At least as a thriller genre movie).Everything that got to do with Poe in the movie,has a shallow and childish approach.The film is full of clise and no thrilling.If you want to watch a funny b-movie for a relaxing evening with friends then go for it you will enjoy it (As I Did) but there's no way to take this film seriously!

Sentiment: negative
A very good start. I was a bit surprised to find the machinery not quite so advanced: It should have been cruder, to match we saw in the original series. The cast is interesting, although the Vulkan lady comes across as a little too human. She needs to school on Spock who, after all, is the model for this race. Too bad they couldn't have picked Jeri Ryan. I like Ms. Park, the Korean(?)lady. The doctor has possibilities. Haven't sorted out the other males, except for the black guy. He's a really likeable. Bakula needs to find his niche--In QL his strong point was his sense of humor and his willingness to try anything. He is, of course, big and strong enough for the heroics. The heavies were OK, although I didn't like their make-up.

Sentiment: positive
As a father of four in his forties I thought this film made compelling viewing - if not edge-of-the-seat stuff. I deserves a far higher rating than the 4.3 that it had when I wrote this. (I gave it 7.)

I agree with some of the comments about the characters but Cameron Diaz was, again, sparkling in yet another very different role. The plot was a little silly but the point of the film for me was beautifully summed up in the final, quite surreal, sequence. A moving ending for any parent.

I could imagine that a young, single bloke might find the film quite boring but for other people not fixed on high doses of testosterone would find something sweet in this.

Sentiment: positive
Look, although we don't like to admit it, we've all have to suppress our fears concerning the extreme likelihood of experiencing the events that take place in this movie. You know: you get into your car and you immediately start thinking,"Gosh, I hope today isn't the day that my accelerator sticks at a comfortable cruising speed of 55 mph, all four door latches break in the locked position, both my main and emergency brake fail, my ignition switch can't be turned off, and I've got a full tank of gas; all simultaneously." Fortunately, for most of us, our Thorazine kicks-in before we actually decide that it's a bad idea to be driving a car. Not so for the makers of the harrowing, white-knuckle, edge-of-your-seat (if only in preparation to leave the room) action juggernaut, "Runaway Car" But they go ahead and drive anyway!

I am endlessly pleased to have found (thanks to the imdb) that this movie is real, and that I didn't merely dream it.

This movie is, at the very least, one of the fantastic sights you will see on your journey to find the El Dorado of Very Bad Cinema.

I highly recommend it.

Sentiment: positive
Talk about being boring!

I got this expecting a fascinating insight into the life of the man who wrote the mythical Night on the Galactic Railroad. I expected to see crazy stories and hijinks of an eccentric man and to discover his inspirations for such bizarre material. Boy, was I wrong.

Spring and Chaos is mostly boring with only sporadic moments of innovative animation. It's certainly nothing to write home about and nowhere near as good as NOTGR which is something that I suggest you watch instead. Leave this bore alone. If you absolutely MUST see then either rent it or find it somewhere cheap. Do not pay top dollar.

Sentiment: negative
I must say that I had wanted to see this film for a long time, and I was not disappointed. The acting of Dominic Monaghan is simply fantastic. As a part insomniac myself, I can relate with how the story develops. I have never experienced anything of the sort but some awake moments overlap the sleeping and it can be scary. It was a great film, worth every penny. I hope that one day I can work with Tess myself, it would be an honor and beyond. I can recommend it for everybody. Maybe not small children as they may get scared. But if you are an insomniac like me, you'll understand the world, the mysteries and the fear. You'll love it. 

F.

Sentiment: positive
I had a VERY hard time sitting through this film. Unless you really are very pro-adultery and like to hear people ENDLESSLY talking about their sexual exploits, I can't see how you could enjoy this film. Geez--most of the main characters behaved like rutting weasels and their bragging about their MANY infidelities grew tiresome. About the only element of this I appreciated was the DISGUSTING scene where the one character was urinating and blood was splattering everywhere because he'd picked up an STD---BIG SURPRISE!?! Hmm.

If you want a GOOD film, watch the sequel, Barbarian Invasions. Despite the general unlikable nature of many of the characters, the sequel is VERY involving and more realistic--well worth your time.

Sentiment: negative
Much like Orson Welles thirty years earlier,Mike Sarne was given "the biggest train set in the world"to play with,but unfortunately lacked the ability to do anything more than watch his train set become a train wreck that is still spoken of with shock and a strange sort of awe. Despite post - modern interpretations purporting somehow to see it as a gay or even feminist tract,the fact of the matter is that it was a major disaster in 1970 and remains one today.How anyone given the resources at Mr Sarne's disposal could have screwed up so royally remains a closely - guarded secret.Only Michael Cimino ever came close with the political and artistic Armageddon that constitutes "Heaven's Gate".Both films appeared to be ego trips for their respective directors but at least Mr Cimino had made one of the great movies of the 1970s before squandering the studio's largesse,whereas Mr Sarne had only the rather fey "Joanna" in his locker. Furthermore,"Heaven's Gate" could boast some memorable and well - handled set - pieces where,tragically,"Myra Breckinridge"s cupboard was bare. Simply put,it is overwhelmingly the worst example of biting the hand that feeds in the history of Hollywood.

Sentiment: negative
Halloween is one of those movies that gets you skin deep! It is in my opinion, the scariest movie of all time. Michael Myers is the best boogeyman ever! He was just so terrifying! What makes Halloween so special is that there was no special effects where you can tell how computer animated it is, this was on a low budget and had a one note score, yet managed to scare the Hell out of people. 25 years and this movie still has the same effect as it did in '78.

It's about a boy Michael Myers, he kills his sister at the age of 6 and so many years later escapes the mental institution. Dr. Sam Loomis is after him and will do anything to get him back, since he describes Michael as "...pure evil. The blackest eyes, the Devil's eyes". Michael is on a mission though, to kill his other sister, Laurie, played by a new Jamie Lee Curtis. She has to babysit on Halloween, while her friends are out partying and of course, we know the rules, they get it! But Laurie may stand a chance since she's the virgin. ;D 

Halloween pays many homages to Psycho, we have another character named Sam Loomis and Jamie Lee Curis, the daughter of Janet Leigh. Halloween is an absolute terrific movie that breaks boundaries and makes you lock the doors, bolt your windows, and turn off the lights! "They're gonna get you! They're gonna get you!". Halloween, the ultimate horror film! 

10/10

Sentiment: positive
Went with some friends and one of my friends mom, thinking it would be a good way to start off the spring break, but the movie turned out awful. We all agree it shouldn't have been PG-13. More like R material. Lots of sexual dialog, cussing and referring to boy and girl parts (below the waist). Not worth the time or money. Strongly urge you not to go, or rent it when it comes out. If you do end up going, don't take smaller children. Not the type of movie to see with the family! If curious about the content, check out the content advisory section on the Superhero Movie page on IMDb. Most of the content that was meant to be funny was extremely crude. Especially when they make fun of Steven Hawking.

Sentiment: negative
The plot of this movie is as dumb as a bag of hair. Jimmy Smit plays a character that could have been upset by the ridiculousness of the story. He is evil and a wife beater. It's a character as far from his NYPD and LA Law roles as you could possibly get.

If you've thought he had the looks and the acting chops to play the really bad boy role, her's your present.

But!!!!!!!! Mary Louis Parker wears black miniskirts and little black minidresses throughout the movie.

She has always had some of the greatest legs in the history of the movies. This makes the movie well worth it for this leg admirer.

I'd buy the DVD for this reason only if it was available.

Sentiment: positive
I have not read the book that this was based upon/inspired by. This being some of(the others are film roles) the last work of John Ritter(RIP), one hopes that it is hilarious. And it is. Almost every time he's present in this, as a matter of fact. Most of the cast, supporting as well as regular, play off each other well, and the material tends to be great. He plays Paul Hennessy, the father of three teenagers: Rory, the typical guy of that age, Kerry, the depressive middle-child who fights for causes and awareness, and Bridget, the fashion-loving, popular ditz. Sagal makes a return to being the female lead in a sit-com, and her character is far removed from Peggy Bundy. The show changed somewhat after Mr. Three's Company passed on, and for a while, they couldn't seem to make up their minds if they wanted to go for getting laughs, or being poignant and making sure to be respectful. One can wonder how or why it lasted for so long after that: It could still be quite good, some of the additions were fortunate(if you like David Spade, most of his part consists of him doing his schtick) and had stuff to say. My personal favorite episode is in the last season. The humor is a nice mix of "dumb person" jokes(mainly related to the high-schoolers), silliness, dark comedy and crude material. This dealt with sex and other adult topics, but never in a graphic manner. The language is mild, and, on occasion, moderately strong. I recommend this to any fan of those who made it. 8/10

Sentiment: positive
A priest who has abandoned his ministry meets a young man who has just been ordained.

This movie is about the cruel dilemma between a life dedicated to God and faith and a life of more earthly pleasures. In post war France it is also about the mortal aspect of Faith itself.

This may not be the movie of a lifetime but it is a sin to have allowed it to fall in oblivion. Besides, Pierre Fresnay is sublime.

Sentiment: positive
Misguided, miscast, murky, interminable lunacy given the high-gloss MGM A-budget treatment. Kate Hepburn plays a bride who comes to suspect her rich, handsome husband (Robert Taylor)is not the dreamboat she married but a psychotic killer. MGM's attempt at a Hitchcockian thriller is doomed from the start by a turgid, muddled, ludicrous script, and the idiotic casting of Hepburn as a jeopardized woman fearing for her life (who could ever imagine Hepburn afraid of anything?) Louis B. Mayer forgot to tell Vincent Minnelli he was directing a thriller, not a musical. Taylor is embarrassing. Only Robert Mitchum, also cast-against-type as a good guy, retains his dignity in a quiet, low-keyed performance. Karl Freund's ravishing cinematography creates images of eerie beauty--and was wasted on the wrong film. End result: Metro's "Parnell" of the 1940s.

Sentiment: negative
Faithful adaptation of witty and interesting French novel about a cynical and depressed middle-aged software engineer (or something), relying heavily on first-person narration but none the worse for that. Downbeat (in a petit-bourgeois sort of way), philosophical and blackly humorous, the best way I could describe both the film and the novel is that it is something like a more intellectual Charles Bukowski (no disrespect to CB intended). Mordantly funny, but also a bleak analysis of social and sexual relations, the film's great achievement is that it reflects real life in such a recognisable way as to make you ask: why aren't other films like this? One of the rare examples of a good book making an equally good film.

Sentiment: positive
1 Bolo Yeung is in the movie ten minutes altogether including when he's serving iced drinks to his boss. 2 a lot of street thugs looking like junkyard keepers get instantly overpowered by the Asian superhero who talks like an illegal alien just out of the back of a manure truck. 3 (thug) let this to me -shirt off, gay model like muscles- heee-haaw! hee-heeew! hap hap! - he's dead on the floor with his neck, elbow, chin or balls broken - 4 cheap semi-sex scenes where the white broad come out of nowhere digs the Asian superhero. 5 Norton (former C action movies star ) does nothing but pose as an eccentric trendy weapon smuggler who traffics white slutty girls hand picked at a night club where they willingly follow some idiot posing as a millionaire snapping at them ( you reap what you sow ) 6 yes, the local police captain is involved and yes, the first butchered cop is the former patrol teammate of the super-hero ( yaawn! ). 7 Action scenes are fake, like A) hee-haw! Chinese tries some spinning kick B) skinny leg of Chinese to the throat of negro thug C) finishing death move to his head too much like Walker Texas ranger fake action 8 end titles finally

utter rubbish. Those people are good enough only to be stand ins or body doubles in other C movies and be credited AT MOST collectively as "stunt crew provided by the county prison ".

Sentiment: negative
This movie has made me upset! When I think of Cat in the hat. Im thinking of cat in the hat books. You know, the one from a few years back that parents read to thier children. Well, I though that this movie would be a lot like that! But much to my suprise was nothing like the books! Insted it is more like young adult humor movie. In one part cat is talking to a gardening tool (hoe) cat talks to it like it is his hoe (agin adult humor). the naming of his car I all so though was a little untastful for a kids movie. under the rating you'll find: mild cude humor and some double-entendres. I think in short this means adult humor. I wish I could return this movie! wal-mart said they wouldn't because the movie has been opened. If you are thinking about buying this I suggest that maybe rent before you buy.

Sentiment: negative
this is the worst movie i've ever seen. i'm not kidding. the next time it comes on, i will just continually run my head into a wall. it would me more enjoyable to sit in an emergency room trying to explain to a doctor why my brain is swollen than attempting to make it through this movie again.

i hope that black and stiller never work together on a project this bad again. they are both good comedians, so i was shocked this was so awkward.

if they had to do it all over again, i'm pretty sure that they would decide to not do it. the folks that fronted the money, must have lost a ton. not really- because the special effects (all 2 of them) were terrible.

Sentiment: negative
This ranks as one of the worst movies I've seen in years. Besides Cuba and Angie, the acting is actually embarrassing. Wasn't Archer once a decent actress? What happened to her? The action is decent but completely implausible. The make up is so bad it's worth mentioning. I mean, who ever even thinks about the makeup in a contemporary feature film. Someone should tell the make up artist, and the DOP that you're not supposed to actually see it. The ending is a massive disappointment - along the lines of "and then they realized it was all a dream"

Don't waste your time or your money. You're better off just staring into space for 2 hours.

Sentiment: negative
The film is excellent. One of the most noteworthy things about it is that Flynn's performance is superb. This is worth stressing, as he was often derided as an actor by Bette Davis et al.

I remember the scene where Flynn gets Arthur Kennedy drunk in order to take him to his doom at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. The cold, calculating look on Flynn's face as he does so is extraordinary - much better than the much vaunted Spencer Tracy or many other stars could have done.

The other thing to note is the excellent performance by George P. Huntley Jr as Lt "Queen's Own" Butler. It is baffling why he stopped making films shortly afterwards - one would have thought that he would have been set up for years after as a character actor.

Sentiment: positive
Last year, I fell in love with the Tim Burton's version of Sweeney Todd so I wanted to check out the other versions of this musical and I found this one at the library. Though I think Burton's is best, probably because I like film a lot better than theater, this is still a great production of the story. I haven't seen any of the other versions but I am trying to get my hands on them.

After seeing Johnny Depp as Todd, it's hard for me to imagine anyone else in the role, but George Hearn does a fantastic job. Angela Lansbury is great, as always and all of the singing is fantastic. I found myself singing along. This is a play you won't want to miss, but try and see it before you see the film version so you won't have a biased view like me.

Sentiment: positive
Okay, so the plot is on shaky ground. Yeah, all right, so there are some randomly inserted song and/or dance sequences (for example: Adam's concert and Henri's stage act). And Leslie Caron can't really, um, you know... act.

But somehow, 'An American In Paris' manages to come through it all as a polished, first-rate musical--largely on the basis of Gene Kelly's incredible dancing talent and choreography, and the truckloads of charm he seems to be importing into each scene with Caron. (He needs to, because she seems to have a... problem with emoting.) 

The most accomplished and technically awe-inspiring number in this musical is obviously the 16-minute ballet towards the end of the film. It's stunningly filmed, and Kelly and Caron dance beautifully. But my favourite number would have to be Kelly's character singing 'I Got Rhythm' with a bunch of French school-children, then breaking into an array of American dances. It just goes to prove how you don't need special effects when you've got some real *talent*.

Not on the 'classics' level with 'Singin' In The Rain', but pretty high up there nonetheless. Worth the watch!

Sentiment: positive
I quit watching "The West Wing" after Aaron Sorkin quit writing and producing. It just wasn't the same. Imagine my thrill at seeing a film that he wrote again. It has been a long time - The American President, A Few Good Men. His script was a beautiful blend of humor and tragedy. He made a compelling story believable, and made me weep at the same time.

Tom Hanks was incredible as a small-time Texas Congressman whose constituents only wanted lower taxes and to keep their guns. Not a hard job, so he had plenty of time to fool around - and that he did. His office staff looked as if he were at the Playboy Mansion. Like he reportedly said, "You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow tits." Despite his sexist attitude, which fits right in with a Texas Congressman, they were fiercely loyal, especially his aide, Amy Adams (Junebug & former Hooters girl).

Now, add a rich Texas socialite who wants something done in Afghanistan, played perfectly by Julia Roberts; and a pain-in-his-boss's-ass CIA agent, superbly done by Philip Seymour Hoffman, and you have a movie well worth watching.

Outstanding writing, and superlative acting, and a story that needed to be told. What more do you want at the movies?

Sentiment: positive
I think this is the worst movie I have seen since "Mortal Kombat 2". The action (including the effects) is like in a cheap Glen A. Larson TV show, the acting is terrible and the dialogs are even more stupid than in MK2. Avoid at all cost.

Sentiment: negative
I walked into a book store in Brentwood, Tennessee. I am not going to say the name because I am a dedicated customer. I have been satisfied with every item I purchased there before this one. On display in the front of the store was The Bell Witch Haunting. (Might I mention this is the only store I have seen it for sale in.) I had heard about the story somewhere and remembered it was supposed to have really happened for real. I was very excited and couldn't wait to watch it. I had great expectations for it. I couldn't believe what I seen when I viewed it. It didn't look like a real movie. It looked like a home video. I was under the impression it was suppose to be a horror movie. I mean the movie was suppose to be about a witch haunting you know. This is no horror movie. You will not jump out of your seat watching this movie. I gave the movie all the chances in the world to get better as it went along. I swear I did. It never did get any better. There were several scenes of this little kid getting poop and pee thrown on him. I didn't find that entertaining at all. I watched the whole movie with disbelief that the store would actually sell this to me. I guess that is how bad this economy has got. I have this to say to the cast and crew. Do not show this film as material to get other film jobs. Don't do it. I mean that sincerely. I commend you for trying. For people who have bought this. I say this. Don't sell your copy to someone. They could get very upset. Have a nice day everyone.

Sentiment: negative
Get ready for it: This is one of my favourite films of all time. I am relatively unaware of David Mamet's (writer and director) other works but after having watched this film half a dozen times(it's always a joy to watch), I can say without hesitation that he is a genius. This film is extremely well written, and quickly draws you in to its milieu of deceit, con-artistry and back room hustles. The feel of the film is very similar to The Sting (1973) and it also pays homage to film noir.

It's quite a psychologically complex film and will definitely get you thinking about the various plot twists and motives of the shady characters. It is slightly predictable at times but the shocking climax is always exciting to watch.

Generally, the acting is superb- especially Joe Mantegna- but someone who I watched the film with remarked to me that it's not a good idea to have a heroine (Lindsay Crouse) who is not only a gambler, a smoker and a thief but also sports a bad 80's hairdo. I agree, but I think she is nevertheless outstanding in the role.

The less you know about the plot of this film, the better, just like Mamet's most recent film, The Spanish Prisoner, because the ending will be even more impressive. Just sit back and be prepared to be taken for a ride by a movie that comes dangerously close to brilliance.

Sentiment: positive
I was not expecting the powerful filmmaking experience of "Girlfight". It's an Indie; low-budget, no big-name actors, freshman director. I had heard it was good, but not this good.

Placed in a contemporary, ethnic, working-class Brooklyn, Karyn Kusama has done an extraordinary job of capturing the day-do-day struggles of urban Latinos. Diana, the protagonist, is seething with anger and lashes out at her high school peers, getting in trouble with the school and her friends. She is being raised by her single father, who appears to love her and her brother, but applies a strict, sex-based double standard on his children. The father's double standard is illustrated by the fact that Tiny, the brother, is taking boxing lessons at the local gym, but Diana is denied similar pursuits. On an errand to the gym to meet Tiny, Diana is captivated by boxing. Tiny doesn't like boxing, so he and Diana trade places; he gets the money from Dad then gives it to Diana to take the lessons in his place.

This is actually a feel-good movie, as Diana grows and learns about herself through boxing, meets a guy, and addresses some very serious issues head-on. There's no giggly, 'everything that can go right does go right' resolution a la "Bend It Like Beckham". The reality and attendant personal issues are too big for pat resolutions, but in my opinion, "Girlfight" is a better and more satisfying film for it.

Sentiment: positive