DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Good grief.. to think I've seen it all.. Danny Thomas looks SO out of place in this mishmash. He seems really uncomfortable. He can't sing worth a lick, and when he's paired up with Peggy Lee (PEGGY LEE???) she easily.. EASILY outsings him! Maybe the director saw this and made him do the reall really bad comedy routines that he sometimes does in the film. Peggy Lee is okay, but the whole thing is a shambles. Good for a laugh, maybe.

Sentiment: negative
My ten-year old liked it. For me it was hard to get through it. Christopher Lloyd played it way over the top and the suit was tedious and unfunny. Sorry to see Jeff Daniels in this.

Sentiment: negative
If this is supposed to be a portrayal of the American serial killer, it comes across as decidedly average.

A journalist [Duchovny] travels across country to California to document America's most famous murderers, unaware that one of his white trailer trash travelling companions [Pitt] is a serial killer himself.

Rather predictable throughout, this has its moments of action and Pitt and Lewis portray their roles well, but I'd not bother to see it again.

Sentiment: positive
what kind of sh*t is this? Power rangers vs Freddy? It was watchable and as good as the first film in the beginning but from the part where the protagonists get super powers in theirs dreams, it started to become childish. This sh*t should have been rated PG or PG-13 rather than R. I expected to see some very mature stuff but it was only for the 1/3 of the film. The rest are for little kids. Plus it's focused too much on Christianity. I know Freddy's a demon but there are many religions that have different ways to fight demons. Why does it always have to be Christianity? This is total Orientalism and filled with white men/westerner's superiority. Don't' watch this, show it to little kids who loves power rangers.

Sentiment: negative
hi I'm from Taft California and i like this movie because it shows how us little town people love our sports football is the main thing in Taft and this movie shows just how important it is i personally think they should make another one but instead of actors use us kids to play the games well show you our determination we've beat Bakersfield every game for the past 6 years and since I'm a senior next year its my last chance and then its college we've had running backs lead the state and I'm next if you want to know me I'm kyle Taylor and i average seven to eight yards a carry and about five times a game ill break away on a 75 or around that yard run so check us out at our website and go to our sports page bye

Sentiment: positive
I loved "The Curse of Frankenstein" so much that I rushed out to get "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed" to see Cushing at it again...even if it was without Chistopher Lee this time. To my great disappointment, this movie not only does without Lee, but it does without Frankenstein's Monster altogether! Was it a case of "If we can't get Lee, we won't have a monster at all"? Why would they do that? The monster is half the fun of the whole thing!! This film is dedicated solely to the study of Baron Frankenstein and his quest to finish experiments he had begun in brain transplants before ending up in an asylum. I found the script extremely weak, with the need to suspend disbelief forced upon the audience a little too much. I'm willing to suspend a fair amount, but this movie got fairly ridiculous, which took me out of the film rather than immersing me in it.

Peter Cushing, though, is absolutely brilliant playing pure evil in this film. For being one of the most beloved actors and notoriously sweet men, he sure could play menacing and malevolent extremely well. The supporting cast is competent, but has little to do, even the young doctor and his fiancée blackmailed into helping Frankenstein. A bumbling police chief is introduced, along with his put-upon sidekick, to generate some comic relief, then they are completely dropped from the movie! Why? We are led to believe that the police chief will be the main nemesis of the Baron, then we are led to believe it will be the young doctor, and then it ends up being the victim of Frankenstein's brain transplant experiment. There was no tension, we weren't invested in the "creature", and the ending was left so ambiguous as to leave one unsatisfied because it is so clear they are setting up another sequel.

Also, there are virtually no "horror" elements. Yes, there is a beheading in the beginning (off-camera), and we are treated to the sounds of Cushing cutting the tops of two men's skulls off (again, off camera), and there is the most unsettling and thoroughly unnecessary rape scene (90% of which is, again, off-camera). I understand that there is a love of "letting the audience imagine it all, for their imaginations are far worse than what we can show", but come on, if you're not going to give us a Monster, then at least let us SEE the few "horrific" elements you do choose to include. Showing us a skeleton in the lab lit with a green light is just not scary.

On top of a weak script, I thought the directing was mostly flat. There were a couple of nice shots, but otherwise no excitement, atmosphere, or suspense was generated. The same director did "Curse" back in 1958 and I thought it was brilliantly directed...guess he was as uninspired by this film as I was.

The movie gets a 4 out of 10 from me strictly for Peter Cushing's powerful, nuanced performance...beyond that, I found little in this movie worth recommending. Instead, my suggestion is to watch "The Curse of Frankenstein" and see a truly great Hammer horror film.

Sentiment: negative
An old family story told to two young girls by their grandfather is brought to life 16 years later as he foretold.

People are getting murdered and blood is being spilled and rats are scampering all over and naked bodies are being enjoyed.

Kitty (Barbara Bouchet) is the suspect, but we know she is not the killer. Is it Franziska (Marina Malfatti)? Is it Evelyn back from death for revenge? Is it a plot to steal an inheritance? The color is superb in this thriller from Emilio Miraglia, who only did one other Giallo, as far as I know.

The only thing that spoiled the film was the appearance that several frames were cut out. Someone calls the police, and suddenly they are there trying to save Kitty.

Sentiment: positive
I was really, really disappointed with this movie. it started really well, and built up some great atmosphere and suspense, but when it finally got round to revealing the "monster"...it turned out to be just some psycho with skin problems......again. Whoop-de-do. Yet another nutjob movie...like we don't already have enough of them.

To be fair, the "creep" is genuinely unsettling to look at, and the way he moves and the strange sounds he makes are pretty creepy, but I'm sick of renting film like this only to discover that the monster is human, albeit a twisted, demented, freakish one. When I saw all the tell-tale rats early on I was hoping for some kind of freaky rat-monster hybrid thing...it was such a let down when the Creep was revealed.

On top of this, some of the stuff in this movie makes no sense. (Spoiler) 

Why the hell does the Creep kill the security Guard? Whats the point, apart from sticking a great honking sign up that says "HI I'm A PSYCHO AND I LIVE DOWN HERE!"? Its stupid, and only seems to happen to prevent Franka Potente's character from getting help.

what the hells he been eating down there? I got the impression he was effectively walled in, and only the unexpected opening into that tunnel section let him loose...so has he been munching rats all that time, and if so why do they hang around him so much? Why is he so damn hard to kill? He's thin, malnourished and not exactly at peak performance...but seems to keep going despite injuries that are equivalent to those that .cripple the non-psycho characters in the film.

The DVD commentary says we are intended to empathise with Creep, but I just find him loathsome. Its an effective enough movie, but it wasted so many opportunities that it makes me sick.

Sentiment: negative
This movie sucks big time. It reminded me of the movie Resurrection (Christopher Lambert), which i also found extremely boring. And "Semana Santa" is in every way an even poorer movie.

Only fine one in the cast doing something for this movie is Alida Valli. Alida is one of the grand old ladies in european movie history. I loved her maniacal looks in "Suspiria" and "inferno" (Dario Argento). I will not spend more time dealing with this movie. I will say another good thing about this movie...use it if you want to fall asleep very quickly...

Sentiment: negative
For persons of a certain age, W.W. II was the defining time of their lives, and whatever followed could never compare. As the movie opens, a recently widowed but still lively woman (Judi Dench) hears a street musician gamely attempting to play the classic song, "Stardust."

This recalls her memories of when she played in an almost all-girl band that entertained between bomb raids during the War. The drummer, Patrick (Ian Holm), happily avoided the draft and enjoyed the ladies.

Patrick and Dench's character meet and decide to reunite the band, which takes them on a series of mini-adventures. Despite ups and downs, the band does reunite and makes a successful reappearance.

The movie is exquisitely written and understated, with superb performances from all involved. The characters are well-developed and all people who have not quit living, despite their years. And there's all that glorious old swing music!

This isn't the pontification of Steven Spielberg, but a serious movie nevertheless. The War affected everyone and that lesson is not forgotten in a movie that isn't afraid to entertain as it teaches.

Sentiment: positive
My main problem with the film is that it goes on too long. Other then that, it's pretty good. Paul Muni plays a poor Chinese farmer who is about to get married through an arranged marriage. Luise Rainer is a servant girl who gets married to Muni. They live with Muni's father on a farm and they are doing pretty bad. When he finally gets some money to buy some more land, a drought hits and nothing is growing. Everybody stars to head north by Muni stays behind at first. When they leave and arrive at town they find that their are no jobs and they are worse off than before. They even think about selling their youngest daughter as a slave for some money but decide against it. When a bunch of people start looting the town, the military show up and start executing people . Paul Muni does a good job and Luise Rainer won a second oscar for this movie.

Sentiment: positive
Made it through the first half an hour and deserved a medal for getting that far. Lots of excuses for scantily clad women but no real plot to speak of emerged in that time. What sounded like a good idea for a movie was badly executed.

Sentiment: negative
I enjoyed this film. It was funny, cute, silly, and entertaining. Had a fine cast and really got hammered by some critics for reasons that I truly don't understand. No, it wasn't "The Grapes of Wrath" or "Casablanca" or even "Moonstruck", but it was an enjoyable film.

Julia was excellent playing the psychotic 'man behind the man'. The story is a little silly to be sure, but it this isn't high drama, folks. I happened to see a review of the film, probably the only good one it got and then ran into it one night when looking for a movie. I never heard it was supposed to stink until after I saw it, and I'm glad I saw it. Eventually bought the VHS tape on the bargain pile, and I watch it a couple times a year.

Sentiment: positive
This film has great acting, great photography and a very strong story line that really makes you think about who you are, how you define yourself, how you fit in, whether you accept to play a role or break free... There already are excellent comments dealing with these aspects. I want to comment on the formal setting of the film. Basically, it's two people on a roof. There is unity of place and time, with 2 protagonists, and the radio acting as the choir. Many directors have turned Greek tragedies into film, many directors have filmed contemporary stories as if they were a Greek tragedy, but no director, in my opinion, has succeeded as admirably as Ettore Scola in approaching the purity and force of the great Greek tragedies both in story line and formal setting. A masterpiece.

Sentiment: positive
I felt this movie was as much about human sexuality as anything else, whether intentionally or not. We are also shown how absurd and paradoxical it is for women not to be allowed to such a nationally important event, meanwhile forgetting the pasts of our respective "advanced" nations. I write from Japan, where women merely got the right to vote 60 years ago, and female technical engineers are a recent phenomenon. Pubs in England were once all-male, the business world was totally off-limits for women in America until rather recently, and women in China had their feet bound so they couldn't develop feet strong enough to escape their husbands. Iran is conveniently going through this stage in our time, and we get a good look at how ridiculous we have all looked at one time or another. Back to the issue of sexuality, we are made to wonder what it may be intrinsically about women that make them unfit for a soccer game (the official reason is that the men are bad). Especially such boyish girls, a couple so much so that you even get the feeling that lesbianism is on the agenda as well. I think one point is that not all women are the same, and the women the police are trying to "protect" are not the ones who would try to get in in the first place. The opening scenes of the approach to the stadium makes you appreciate the valor of the young women trying to get in -- and each one separately -- at all. It is a brutish man's world. Any woman brave enough to try to go should be allowed! The world of sexuality is not one-size-fits-all.

Meanwhile, the apprehended criminal girls bond inside the makeshift pen awaiting their deportation to who-knows-where, and in a much more subtle way, begin to bond with the guards keeping watch over them. These had definite ideas about women and femininity, which were being challenged head-on. The change in attitude is glacial, but visible.

Since the movie is pure Iran from the first moment, it takes a little easing-into for the foreigner, but the characters have a special way of endearing themselves to you, and you end up getting the whole picture, and even understanding the men's misunderstandings and give them slack. The supposed villain is the unseen patriarchy of the Ayatollahs, which remain unseen and unnamed, and likely unremembered.

Knowing that this movie was filmed during the actual event of the Iran-Bahrain match gives me a feeling of awe for all involved.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was, in one word, terrible. It was boring, predictable, and downright creepy. I kept waiting for it to end and when it did, I was horrified. The ending left a bad taste in my mouth, to say the least. My advice to anyone interested in movies about budding female sexuality: stay away from this movie. Movies like this give classics like Lolita a bad name.

Sentiment: negative
After having seen the Canadian/Icelandic/British 2004 production of "Beowulf & Grendel," which I thought brilliant and stunning, I approached this--the first of 3 newer Beowulf movies due out this year--with trepidation. As soon as I heard "Viking" and saw the horned helmets, I groaned. These were Migration Era Swedes and Danes, not Vikings (they came later). And even the Vikings never wore horns on their helmets (horns make it easy for your enemy to knock your helmet off and then brain you). Then there's Hrolfgar's palace, which looks like a set for a movie about Greece or Rome, not 6th-century Denmark. The swords and armor look like props left over from earlier films set in various historic periods. I spotted weapons that might have been used by Crusaders in "Kingdom of Heaven," and one character was even wielding a Windlass Steelcrafts reproduction movie sword from "Beowulf & Grendel"! Beyond the basic plot of the original epic poem, the writing was dismal and the acting totally wooden and unconvincing. The biggest yuk was a secret-weapon crossbow, complete with sighting scope and exploding projectiles, that looked like something bought from Iraqi insurgents. The special-effects monster and his mom were so on steroids that Beowulf could never have torn off an arm, as he did in the poem. Thank the gods for bazooka crossbows! I could go on, but I won't.

Sentiment: negative
Get your brewskies out and enjoy this flawed action flick. Speakman's considerable kempo skill (nice spin kicks, decent with the sticks - poor couch!) is the only redeeming quality of a movie that just cries bad acting. The plot isn't half bad; just executed pretty poorly. But if you're seeing this movie for anything other than martial arts, you're missing the boat entirely. And for a movie that is supposed to take place in Koreatown, way way too few Korean actors (even extras).

Sentiment: negative
This movie is soo bad that I've wasted way to much time already talking about it. Soo bad...really... ...BAD... and I'm not even that critical... ..I'm almost ashamed to admit to having seen it... Sandra's few minutes show you how far she's really made it... I mean really anything next to this is really Oscar worthy for her... I suppose the only way for her to look at it is there's no way but up after this one...I suppose she had to start somewhere... but really...soo bad... ...awful really... bad is too good a word for this s**t ....but I don't want to get mean now... but really how can u not after wasting 90 minutes... 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back... 90 minutes I could have spent doing something better...like sitting on my butt and staring into space..that would have been time better spent... (walks away shaking head)

Sentiment: negative
This is a rip-off of already crappy hollywood movies like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer. The story is classic, some high-school students tries a prank on the class' asthmatic misfit but something goes wrong. Terribly wrong. When you watch the movie you know what'll happen before it happens all the time, not good if a movie tries to be scary. The actors are quite ok and the girls are cute (after all, they're asian) so i'll give it two out of five on the mojave'o'meter.

Sentiment: negative
It's a strange thing to see a film where some scenes work rather weakly (if only in comparison to other films in its legacy), and others in a 'sub-plot' or supporting story are surprisingly provocative and strong. Sudden Impact is one of those cases, where Clint Eastwood as star/producer/director shows when he can be at his best, or at his lessor of times when dealing with a crime/mystery/detective story in his Dirty Harry fame. We get that 'make my day' line, and un-like in the first film where his 'do I feel lucky' speech was playful and cool the first time and the second time at the end tough as nails, here it's switched around. He gets into another shamble with the department, as usual, when he tries to fight crime 'his' way, in particular with a diner robbery (inspiration for Pulp Fiction?) and with a high speed pursuit with a senior citizen bus. He's told to 'take a vacation', and that's the last thing on his mind. This whole main plot isn't very convincing aside from the expectancy of the story and lines, which just adds to the frustration. But soon his story merges with the sub-plot that Eastwood develops from the start.

Enter Sandra Locke's character, Jennifer Spencer, whom we soon learn after some (appropriately) mysterious scenes that she and her shy sister were victims of a cruel, unjust sexual assault (err, outright rape), and is sleekly, undercover-like, getting revenge. Her scenes and story are the strongest parts of the film, the most intense, and finally when it goes into Callahan's storyline (he's getting facts in the same small town she's in on a murder), the film finally finds a focus between Eastwood's classic form of clearly defined good vs. evil (though sometimes blurred, to be sure). Eastwood films the flashbacks, not to say too much about them, expertly, in a fresh, experimental style; the trademark Lalo Schifrin score is totally atmospheric in these scenes and in others. It almost seems like a couple of times an art-house sensibility has crept into Eastwood's firmly straightforward storytelling style, which helps make the film watchable.

It's a shame, though, that in the end it goes more for the expectable (or maybe not expectable) points, and until the third act Callahan doesn't have much to do except his usual 'it's smith...Wesson...and me' shtick. However, with Locke he gets out of her a very good performance (more subtle and touching than the one in the Gauntlet) and an exciting climax at an amusement park. In a way I do and don't agree with Ebert's remark that it's like a 'music video' in Eastwood's style here. I admit there is comparisons with the simplicity of both, the directness, but the scenes where Eastwood does break form are superior to those of any music video. It's cheesy, it's hard-edged, it's not up to par with the first two 'Harry' pictures, but hey, there could be worse ways to spend a couple hours with the master of the .44.

Sentiment: positive
What a crime...

You forgot to brush your teeth...let's make a 30 minute show about it and have a couple of kids make some noise and then have the dad lecture them all because that's what he has to do.

But, don't forget Uncle Joey has to make some weird noises and cooky faces, then Uncle Jesse has to show up with his black leather jacket and some jeans and look pretty for a few minutes while everybody discusses how Mother would have done things if she were around..

Yep, full of zany little adventures about a whole bunch of nothing and an entire overlong story to build around it.

Full House will not only bore you to tears, but it will make you age twenty times faster than you normally would.

Sentiment: negative
Even though an animated film it really bored everyone under at least 6.

As a grown up who grew up in an area with wild horses and native americans, it felt this was a combination of PC mixed in with too many fantasy films created by people who never lived in the area they filmed about. Talk to those who have lived on horse back, most treat their animals like family members, regardless of background. Regardless of background we have dealt with good and bad breakers of wild horses. I had to explain that was a real life issues to us vs the movie makers views to children who were surprised to see how PC showed a world different than what they knew in reality.

This dreamworks break from the normal disney or dreamworks fare of cute talking animals burning up the screen was nice from the older viewer point of view. But if you live in an area similar to what is shown, you may end up answering questions.

Sentiment: negative
This must be one of the most annoying, arrogant, poser films I've ever seen. What a waste of budget and actors. Angelopoulos has reached new levels of pretentiousness. It is clear there is virtually no plot, even if this part of Greek history is material for great movies. He simply had some supposedly symbolic (actually shambolic) scenes in his mind and he built a whole movie around them. Death is the main theme and is repeated ad nauseam, along with litanies, processions and the like, which should only be a vehicle for the movie but unfortunately it is the movie itself. A totally incoherent result, which can only leave you saying "huh?" or "oh dear" every two minutes. 

There is no character development at all, nada, zilch. I'm usually complaining about some movies having two-dimensional characters, but oh boy, he managed to create one-dimensional characters. This is irritating for us and degrading for some of the actors. He even managed to make one of my favourite Greek actors, Giorgos Armenis, seem wooden. 

And going to the core of Angelopoulos film-making: No we're not idiots. We do not want chewed food. Please someone tell this guy symbolism has to be subtle. Theo do you really underestimate your audience so much or you're simply incompetent? Personally, I think he tried to make a Greek "Underground". No matter how he tries, he can't reach Kusturica.

Only saving grace: Photography, costumes and the music.

Sentiment: negative
Michael Radford has done an excellent job bringing this difficult play to the screen. He has taken a play with a reputation for anti-semitism, and shown us that Shakespeare knew quite well the humanity of the Jews. Radford said after the screening, and I agree, that Shylock is his first tragic hero, the first of his characters to be undone by a driving, compulsive need for revenge. He also points out, quite rightly, that a man who was anti-semitic could not have written Shylock's speech of "If you prick me, do i not bleed?" Radford is himself of Jewish descent and he has picked out the good and bad of all characters with delicacy and honesty. no character is free from flaws; no character is evil. Radford has placed the play in the 16th century, which gives a lush background of Venetian politics and decadence on which to project Shakespeare's words.

If you get a chance to hear Radford speak about the film, I highly recommend you take it, since he gives details about life in 16th century Venice that illuminate a lot of the choices he made and give considerable extra depth to the viewing. I'm hoping that the DVD will come out with extensive commentary.

Jeremy Irons does a gorgeous portrayal of Antonio, a man who resigns himself to bearing the burden of his past misdeeds. Lynn Collins, a relative unknown, gives us an absolutely flawless, stunning, and detailed job as Portia. Not only is Ms. Collins beautiful - she also gives Portia layers of intelligence and humor prior to the trial scene i've rarely seen in any production of this play. the rest of the cast also does a terrific job, with a notable performance by Kris Marshall as Gratiano, and a beautifully subtle work by Allan Corduner as Tubal, playing the foil to Shylock. Finally, while Al Pacino pulls out his usual strong (and loud) performance, his best moments are when the camera focuses on him and he says no words, but you can see all the emotions and madnesses flowing into and out of him as he perceives his fortunes changing.

If you like period movies, I cannot recommend this movie enough.

Sentiment: positive
A few buddies and myself have the strange hobby of seeking out really horrendous and utterly obscure (for a good reason) horror flicks and then subsequently watching them under the influence of mind-broadening consumer goods like alcohol and/or soft drugs. Surely a lot of people do this, but they watch movies like the "Godzilla" remake, whereas we torment our eyes and brains with stuff like "The Loch Ness Horror". And, eureka, this is a prototypic bad movie! We open traditionally, with bag pipes music during the opening credits. This is, of course, to emphasize extra to us dumb viewers that the story is supposed to take place in the Scottish highlights and not in director Larry Buchanan's birthplace Texas. For that exact same reason, the cast members are seemingly also instructed to overact tremendously and talk with talk with atrocious accents. The American marine biologist Prof. George Sanderson arrives in Loch Ness with some brand new and highly sophisticated sonar equipment to track down the whereabouts of the legendary monster in the lake. Meanwhile, there are many other parties hanging around the lake, like a group of kids on a Science Camp (what a boring way to spend your vacation), retired army generals looking for a Luftwaffe plane that crashed in the lake during WWII and a bunch of thieves and failed scientists that are steeling the monster's egg. You would think that these numerous sub plots bring some diversity and excitement in the plot, but unfortunately that's not the case. "Loch Ness Horror" is an overall boring flick with only a couple of noteworthy elements. The monster itself, for example, is a delightfully cheesy creation with cute eyes and a smoky breath. His teeth also glow in the dark, which is quite useful when you're dumb enough to go out on a boat ride in the middle of the night. Near the end of the film, the remaining cast members were more interested in the lost Luftwaffe plane than in the monster, so it was about time to wrap it up. "Loch Ness Horror" is carefully recommended in case you're a fan of bad B-movies from the 80's, but be advised that it contains an overload of senseless dialogs and a bizarrely rushed ending that makes it look as if the film suddenly ran out of budget.

Sentiment: negative
Brief summary: This movie demeans everyone it touches. That means you.

First off, let me say I'm not a purist, and this might have been funny for a few minutes. The impersonations are not bad. But overall it's just dull and excruciatingly not funny. A few simple jokes are repeated over and over again.

It's clear that this movies only exists to squeeze the last few dollars out of the now-trademarked Laurel and Hardy. The producers cannot have any real regard for their place in film history, or their talents. This is what offended me the most.

Of course, my daughter liked it, so I'm also a failure as a parent ;)

Sentiment: negative
Even Disney are guilty of the cash cow disease, after the roaring success of The Love Bug in 1968, the house of mouse cashed in with Herbie Rides Again, Herbie Goes To Monte Carlo, and Herbie Goes Bananas. Neither sequel capturing the charm and inoffensive appeal of The Love Bug back in 68, in this one we find race driver Jim Douglas and his sidekick Wheely Applegate, entering Herbie in the Monte Carlo Rally. Naturally things outside of the race start to take over priorities, they get mixed up in a diamond robbery and Herbie falls in love with another car!. The car stunts are of course pleasant and easy on the eye, and it would be churlish of me to really vent venom on such a friendly piece of fluff, it's just that the film goes nowhere fast and personally now i can see it for the coin motivated piece of work it is. Still you get to see Herbie take a bath, foil the baddies and of course dance for the lady in his life, so something there for everyone i think....................4/10.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was disaster at Box Office, and the reason behind that is innocence of the movie, sweetness of the story. Music was good, story is very simple and old, but presentation of such story is very good, Director tried his best. Abhay is excellent and impressive and he shines once again in his role, he did his best in comedy or in emotional scene. Soha looks so sweet in the movie. Rest star cast was simply okay. Music and all songs are good, Himesh is impressive as an Singer here. Don't miss this movie, its a wonderful movie and a feel good one for us. Abhay best work till date. I will give 9/10 to Ahista Ahista.

Sentiment: positive
This movie starts with the main character lying in a coma in a hospital ward, attended by two orderlies. The unconscious main character is heard in a voice over, saying that the orderlies are gay. The orderlies kiss. I watched this in a DVD version and I have the suspicion that this is supposed to be funny  it said comedy" on the DVD case, after all and it goes on like that. Had I seen this in a movie theater I probably would have heard part of the audience roar with laughter, because it is so funny  and because they are supposed to sit in a comedy. While it is fascinating to think about what it is funny and what isn't, this movie unfortunately only delivers arguments about what isn't.

Brilliant brains can MAKE anything funny, people like Ernst Lubitsch, Billy Wilder or Mel Brooks have proved that fact. But you have to know the mechanics", I suppose. Director and co-scriptwriter Dani Levy does not bother about those mechanics, he thinks that certain things simply ARE funny, the fact that two orderlies are gay and kiss over a man in a coma, for example. Do not get me wrong, some people can MAKE that funny, Dani Levy can't, not for me, anyway.

The main problem I have with this movie is that I can't see a reason behind the way the main characters behave. I could not understand why the two brothers, one an orthodox Jew from West Germany one a third class carbon copy of Fast Eddie Felson from former East Germany so strongly disliked each other. They are both rather bland characters. Their children are boring apart from the fact that they are sexually attracted to each other (well, one is a lesbian now but raises the daughter she has with her cousin). But even these incestuous relationships  if anything they are embarrassing - just come through as an excuse because the scriptwriters could not come up with anything better.

The acting is not bad, Udo Semel I actually came to like quite a lot although he reminded me more of ex chancellor Helmut Kohl (a lighter version) than of a venerable Orthodox Jew. The direction in itself is not really bad either, but maybe Levy should stick to directing movies, leaving the scriptwriting to someone else. Now I heard he did a comedy about Hitler. Oi, Vai!

Sentiment: negative
Strong evidences and it clearly shows government cover-ups and lies. Very convincing documentary. A little bias but it hit hard on the government. I'm not very remorsed about the adults but the children............. it's very sad. Strong evidences and it clearly shows government cover-ups and lies. Very convincing documentary. A little bias but it hit hard on the government. I'm not very remorsed about the adults but the children............. it's very sad. Strong evidences and it clearly shows government cover-ups and lies. Very convincing documentary. A little bias but it hit hard on the government. I'm not very remorsed about the adults but the children............. it's very sad.

Sentiment: positive
The sole reason for someone wanting to see this film would be because of John Leguizamo. I remember the previews, and it looked to be another second rate comedy. But the fact that Mr. Leguizamo starred, tried to redeem it. His name, how known it was at the time or not, tried to sell it.

I was pretty disappointed with the performance of Leguizamo. His days on "House of Buggin'" (an "In Living Colour" clone), were his tip-top. There is a fine line between wackiness and idiocy, and we'll just say that Leguizamo crossed it tenfold. He looked like he was trying to be too outrageous and crazy for the camera. As a matter of fact, I'll say that he tried too hard. Madcap humor spilled over into stupidity, and the film was spoiled. I can't say I blamed him, if you were given this opportunity, you'd try as hard if you could, right? Your eagerness cost you dearly though Mr. Leguizamo...

The Pest follows in the tradition of any comedy film, and plays the "race card", and more. No group is left out from being poked fun at. Blacks, Latinos, whites, Jews, Koreans, Germans, homosexuals, and the blind are among those singled out. Again here, things get too overboard, and too much tries to get spoofed in too little time. The resolution of the film takes all of five minutes to clear up and move back to normality.

When you have a film, and you're going to bypass plot and reality for comedy's sake, just make sure it's funny, or all you have is 90 minutes of senseless film. Which would sum up Leguizamo's "Pest" quite nicely...

Sentiment: negative
I really like this show. That is why I was disappointed to learn recently that George Lopez is a racist, and that he fired Masiela Lusha off the show, simply because he discovered that she wasn't a Latino emigrant, but was an emigrant from Albania. I learned this from people on the show. She was really one of the better parts of the show, and thus, to learn that even among those who you would think would be sensitive to racism, that they can also hate someone, just because of the country where they were born, is really disappointing. I really like this show. That is why I was disappointed to learn recently that George Lopez is a racist, and that he fired Masiela Lusha off the show, simply because he discovered that she wasn't a Latino emigrant, but was an emigrant from Albania. I learned this from people on the show. She was really one of the better parts of the show, and thus, to learn that even among those who you would think would be sensitive to racism, that they can also hate someone, just because of the country where they were born, is really disappointing.

Sentiment: positive
For those of you unfamiliar with Jimmy Stewart, this is one of his "lesser" films from later in his career. And, while it isn't a great film compared to many of his other pictures, it isn't bad and is a decent time-passer--but not much more.

Kim Novak is a witch in New York City and for some inexplicable reason, she decides to cast a spell on poor Jimmy to make him fall in love with her. Over time, the cold and detached Ms. Novak also begins to fall in love with Stewart--and apparently in the witch's rule book, this is a definite NO, NO!! 

The film is odd in its sensibilities about the witches. They are neither the baby-sacrificing nor the all-powerful variety. Most of their magic is pretty limited and pointless (such as Jack Lemmon using his powers to turn off street lamps). And, very oddly, the witches all seem to be bohemians who hang out in hip bars where you might find people wearing berets and listening to crappy jazz. Considering what I think of jazz, it must really stink to be a witch in this movie's world!

Anyway, the film is pretty romantic and mildly comedic, but not something I would rush out to watch. The acting is pretty good, but the script doesn't offer enough payoff to make this an exceptional film--in fact, I almost scored the film a 6--it was really close.

Sentiment: positive
An uninspired and undistinguished "new" Columbo which sees the man-in-the-mac attend his nephew's wedding, only for his bride to disappear on their wedding night. Columbo investigates...

And that it is about it: indifferently plotted and surprisingly laden with a flat script, given that it is written by Robert Van Scoyk, who penned the highly enjoyable Columbo story "Murder Under Glass" in the detective's heyday; there is not even a murder to speak of and the greatest amount of ingenuity afforded to Columbo by the script-writer is the narrowing down of suspects via the photos taken at the wedding, which include everybody who was there!

Devoid of every Columbo trait possible, I thought I was watching an episode of Hill Street Blues. An insult to the history of the series, with appropriately soap-opera style acting. Very avoidable stuff.

Sentiment: negative
"Müllers Büro" is a movie which many will watch and enjoy until the end, while others will stop watching it within five minutes. It is a parody of detective movies with all the twists and turns; the action takes place only at night in the dark corners of a city which resembles Batman's Gotham City (look carefully at the streets, buildings, the police car chasing the criminals, etc.). It is also a parody of musicals with its really funny characters such as Müller's secretary and Vitasek's (the actor playing Müller's assistant) lover who do their best to sing, albeit not very successfully.

The spaces occupied by the characters have their own presence in the film such as the decadent Blue Box (there is a real club with this name in Vienna) where one can see a sailor hitting on a girl in the background, Müller's apartment with the black paint smeared on the walls and the dirty kitchen, Müller's bureau with the sweet picture of his assistant, etc.

The humorous moments in the movie are many and include "flat in the face" type of humor such as Müller farting in his assistant's face, the prostitute charging Müller extra for orgasm, the ridiculous outfits of the female thugs of Montana, etc.

A legendary film from the 80's especially for those interested in Austrian or German-speaking cinema.

Sentiment: positive
What a snore-fest.

Of all the bits of nostalgia that Hollywood has decided to remake and update, this is by far one of the most pointless. This was a totally pointless show in the first place, and we REALLY don't need a 'modern' update.

Never mind the bigotry and sexism inherent in the system from the beginning, so many advances have been made, socially, since the show ran that the entire point of the show (if it ever had one) has been lost.

Also, what is the point of having a character named Boss Hogg if he's NOT overweight?

Sentiment: negative
I love this movie! When I saw this movie on TV when I was a kid,it scared the hell out of me.Probably because mannequins give me the creeps too.Jocelyn Jones(Molly)is an excellent actress.She uses her facial expressions,especially her eyes,at playing terrified.Chuck Connors is great as Mr.Slausen.I was happy to see him play such a different roll.The other actors in this movie are great too! Tanya Roberts(Becky)and Robin Sherwood(Eileen) are great actresses and I hope to see them in future films,especially Jocelyn Jones! 

So if you love scary movies but are tired of seeing the same old thing,check this movie out!

Sentiment: positive
I don't usually like to comment on the acting in a movie, because it is the one thing that people who have agenda against a film will go after. In this movie, I will make an exception. The acting in this film are below average all around. I mean halfway into the film, I wonder how the hell did the producer and/or the director gets around casting such an ensemble of people who can't act. Even-though the production value was good, the ill written story just compounded on top of the bad performance of the actors, and there is even a half-hearted attempts to a twist to the ending of the movie, which ends up quite confusing. Is all the Spanish horror films this disappointing?

Sentiment: negative
New York I Love You just like its predecessor (Paris Je T'Aime) is a compound of various stories that reflects the different kinds and aspects of love but unlike it the rhythm is much faster and the stories much shorter. The movie offers a unique view of the city of New York with its various and different landscapes. New York, I Love You offers a first class cast, featuring such great actors like Shia LaBeouf, Natalie Portman, Ian McKellen, Hayden Christensen, Chistina Rcci and Orlando Bloom, Ethan Hawke, James Caan and Robin Wright Penn among others and some excellent writers and directors like Brett Ratner and Anthony Mingella.

Sentiment: positive
There are some really terrific ideas in this violent movie that, if executed clearly, could have elevated it from Spaghetti-western blandness into something special. Unfortunately, A TOWN CALLED HELL is one of the worst edited movies imaginable! Scenes start and end abruptly, characters leave for long stretches, the performances (and accents) of the actors are pretty inconsistent, etc.

Robert Shaw is a Mexican(!) revolutionary who, after taking part in wiping out a village, stays on to become a priest(!)...ten years later the village is being run by "mayor" Telly Salavas. Stella Stevens arrives looking for revenge on the man who killed her husband. Colonel Martin Landau arrives looking for Shaw. They all yell at each other A LOT and they all shoot each other A LOT. Fernando Rey is in it too (as a blind man). The performances aren't bad, but they are mightily uneven. Savalas has an accent sometimes as does Landau (who is really grating here). Shaw and Rey prove that they are incapable of really embarrassing themselves and Stevens looks pretty foxy (if a bit out of place amongst the sweaty filth).

Sentiment: negative
Had fun watching this film.. despite the feeling I got a lot of the time, that this film was almost copying Monsters Inc. There're quite a few things that are extremely similar between the two, the relationship between an animal/monster and a small child, other animals trying to break that relationship, etc. It felt like that pretty much throughout the film, to me.

One of the redeeming features though, is Scrat :) Very very funny character, even if he serves no purpose :)

Sentiment: positive
I would say for it's time, this movie was awesome...and yes if you have no desire to become a Christian, then why bother watching it. I saw this movie after I had already been saved and found it to be very moving. I see now they have taken these movies to another level and have created the Left Behind series...they run a close comparison and definitely are more modern to reach people. I think in order to actually judge this movie, you should see it,,,there are 3 or 4 of them in the series if I am not mistaken...don't use our comments to judge, see the movie for yourself!! God will bless you if that is why you are watching them.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie first on the Berlin Film Festival, and I had never seen Hong Kong cinema before. I felt like sitting in a roller coaster: the action was so quick, and there wasn't one boring moment throughout the film. It has martial arts, love, special effects and a fantastic plot. My favorite scene is when the Taoist drinks, sings and fights for himself - one of the many scenes which stress the extraordinary musical component of the movie. This film is a definite must!!

Sentiment: positive
Very silly movie, filled with stupid one liners and Jewish references thru out. It was a serious movie but could not be taken seriously. A familiar movie plot...Being at the wrong place at the wrong time. An atrocious subplot, involving Kim Bassinger. Very robotic and too regimented. I have noticed that Al Pacinos acting abilities seem to be going downhill. A troubleshooter with troubles , but nothing more troubling than Pacinos horrible Atlanta accent. Damage control needs to fix this damage of a film. OK my one liners are bad, but not as bad as the ones in this film. This movie manages to not only be boring but revolting as well. Usually a revolting film is watchable for the wrong reasons. This movie is unwatchable. I did manage to sit through this. The plot ,if written a tad bit better, with , perhaps a little better acting and eliminating the horrendous subplot,and even dumber jokes, could have pulled this thriller out of the doldrums. What we are left with is a dull, silly movie that made sure it was drilled into our heads that Eli Wurman was Jewish. An embarrassment to all the good Jewish folk everywhere.

Sentiment: negative
I absolutely love all of Tom Robbins books, so I was very excited and interested to see a movie made after one of his books. I knew that there would be no way that the movie would capture even half of Robbins' magic, but after seeing the movie, it made me never want to read the book again. The movie Even Cowgirls Get the Blues doesn't include an eighth of the content in the book, and it seems to focus more on the love connection between Bonanza Jellybean and Sissy than anything else. Along with the incredibly weak plot line in the movie, I think that better actors definitely could have been chosen to play the characters. The only actors in the movie that I thought played their roles fit to Robbins' descriptions in the book were Julian's friends, in their five minute clip in the beginning of the movie. Those who haven't read the book might enjoy the movie, but as a huge Tom Robbins fan, this movie was nothing but a disappointment.

Sentiment: negative