DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Stripes, an army training camp comedy starring Bill Murray and directed by Ivan Reitman, is a favourite of mine. Meatballs, a summer camp 'romp' starring Bill Murray and directed by Ivan Reitman, is a complete waste of time. It takes a considerable effort for four screenwriters to produce a movie (the word 'comedy' infers a work with mirth aforethought) as witless, anaemic and boring as this.

Murray evidently reached the same conclusion during filming, but his usually reliable powers of improvisation escape him and his flailing attempts to inject life into proceedings just add to the embarrassment - the "It really doesn't matter" chanting scene is excruciating. It doesn't help that the supporting cast is bereft of talent - the funniest thing about them is their hair, but then Meatballs was made in 1979. ("And introducing Chris Makepeace as Rudy" announce the opening credits. No, not THE Chris Makepeace?!).

Mercifully, Reitman rectified his mistake two years later for Stripes. Murray's shtick is so much funnier when he's larking around with the likes of John Candy, Warren Oates and John Larroquette. Ditch this and watch that.

Sentiment: negative
I love love love this show. Whether you say it's because I'm insane in the brain or not. I think this show is very funny and entertaining although sometimes Bam's uncle Vito scares me.. so all in all I give this show a perfect review. And so I really think if you're into the "omg.. what an idiot " kind of humor, this show is for you. It's really funny to see the look on the prank peoples faces and there are many musical guests who come to Bam's house. Buy this cause it rocks! You should buy it. yes. And Bam's brother is in the band CKY and they are really good and sometimes come on the show.

Bottom line is.. please watch the show.

Sentiment: positive
I really enjoyed the first episode and am looking forward to more. A little soft on the crime front (it's almost an afterthought and not terribly suspenseful or fleshed out) but thought the romance angle was wonderfully charming. Will be watching again for sure! 

I'm hoping that they'll have a bigger role for the aunts who are wonderful actresses and were somewhat underused this time around. The actress who plays the assistant/waitress (also from Bewitched I think) is very sweet and bubbly and comes off as nicely dorky and sweet instead of dumb and annoying which is very nice.

Check it out.

Sentiment: positive
I'd first heard of this show in 2005, first online and then by viewing (and of course, buying)the typically gorgeous, BBC tie-in book. Then I got the DVD; it did not disappoint! I'd been hoping for years someone would make a science fiction program with the emphasis on the thrill of discovery rather than aliens, laser gun fights and other Hollywood 'boogieman' gimmicks! Thank you, Joe Ahearne (also for your Dr. Who work, and Ultraviolet--the mini-series; not the crap movie of the same name)! What compelled me to write this now (2 yrs. later) was that I'd just seen SUNSHINE last night. And what appeared to be in the same family as SPACE ODYSSEY turned into (about 2/3rds of the way in) Freddy Krueger meets 2010! That was when SPACE ODYSSEY really stood out as a positive example of how to do a REAL science fiction film; more science, less fiction! ODYSSEY (like SUNSHINE) also dealt with astronaut shortcomings (Zoe's failed EVA, Ivan's over exertions on Venus, the spats with mission control) and the sheer danger of exploring new planets with unfamiliar dangers (the fatal radiation spike on Mars). I would've easily paid to see this in a theater (I-Max, anyone?). And to top it all, not only were the space vistas jaw droppingly beautiful, but the characters were nicely drawn, too. I found their interplay more realistic than the wall-slamming histrionics of SUNSHINE's Icarus 2 crew (Icarus; dumb name for a solar mission--did anyone read the mythology of Icarus??). Sometimes it takes a not-so-good film to compel one to re-watch a better film. As an armchair astronaut, I'd trade my passage on Icarus for a seat on Pegasus any day. In all fairness, however, the visuals of SUNSHINE are quite stunning, though, and quite memorable. Which is why I was so strongly rooting for it to succeed as an honest-to-goodness sci-fi film. So, even though this review is almost a back-door review of SUNSHINE, I hope it's read for what it was meant to be; strong support for a BBC telefilm that succeeds where most big-budget, bloated cinematic spectacles fail. SPACE ODYSSEY (a.k.a. VOYAGE TO THE PLANETS here in the States) whets the appetite for solid, SCIENCE-fiction and delivers a banquet. I very much enjoyed the pseudo-documentary approach as well. As for the time lag/light-speed quibbles, they ARE addressed, if you pay attention. Where SUNSHINE melts, ODYSSEY keeps its cool. If you're considering going to the movies for another dose of SUNSHINE, stay in; go for a true SPACE ODYSSEY instead!

Sentiment: positive
2:37 is an intense and fascinating drama which has some similarities in tone and subject with films like Bully, Elephant and Kids (although, by my point of view, 2:37 is a superior film to those three ones).Before watching this movie, my expectations were neutral, but I ended up taking a very good impression thanks to the intelligent screenplay, Murali K. Thalluri's perfect direction and the excellent performances from a group of young actors.

The sporadic instances of school violence around the world have inspired many movies, TV programmes and books which pretend to find and predict the external or internal reasons of those unbridled expressions of rebelliousness, discontent...and specially madness.Some people may say that 2:37 arrives too late to that artistic movement; however, I do not think like that, because that delay permitted the movie to make a more artistic analysis, focusing on the situation with more subtleness and intelligence instead of the obvious reaction of cruelty and anguish which impregnated other movies with similar stories.

On the characters from 2:37, we can find clichés from the juvenile cinema (from director and screenwriter John Hughes -RIP-'s movies to the teen horror films): the beautiful "princess", the clumsy "nerd", the antipathetic athletes, etc.It would have been very easy to make them become in hollow caricatures defined by their function in the screenplay; but it is something admirable that the screenplay transcends the stereotypes to make them real people with credible problems which, in more or less degree, any person can find on his/her road to maturity.

2:37 is an excellent movie, whose only fail is that the ending feels a bit affected, but which compensates that with a lot of positive elements.It will be very interesting to see Thalluri's next projects, since he has had a great debut with this movie.

Sentiment: positive
A dog found in a local kennel is mated with Satan and has a litter of puppies, one of which is given to a family who has just lost their previous dog to a hit & run. The puppy wants no time in making like Donald Trump and firing the Mexican housekeeper, how festive. Only the father suspects that this canine is more then he appears, the rest of the family loves the demonic pooch. So it's up to dad to say the day.

This late 70's made for TV horror flick has little going for it except a misplaced feeling of nostalgia. When I saw this as a kid I found it to be a tense nail-biter, but revisiting it as an adult I now realize that it's merely lame,boring, and not really well-acted in the least bit.

My Grade: D

Sentiment: negative
Along with Darkwing Duck this is unfairly cancelled. Disney has been in decline since Tarzan and we need a show like this to get Disney back on track. Ed Gilbert and Jim Cummings were perfect for the voices of Louis and Baloo (sounds familiar?) The theme theme tune is also catchy. Out of all the villains, which are all great on their own merits, Tony Jay stands out as Shere Kahn. Louis and Baloo actually sound very similar to the voice overs in the Jungle Book, which isn't a bad thing at all. As a matter of fact, it's quite inspirational! The animation was spot on, and the script had plenty of wit that has been severely lacking in animations for years. PLEASE BRING THIS SHOW BACK! 9/10. Bethany Cox

Sentiment: positive
My wife and I watched this after DVR'ing it off of Encore action this past week. It has to be the worst horror flick either of us had ever seen. Predictable dialogue ( my wife and I were guessing the lines before they were spoken), hokey special effects, a screenplay that drifted all over the place. I think the part that was the most annoying was the stereotyping of the various characters in the plot, not to mention the gratuitous sex scene between two of the young heroines in the movie, neither of which had any real purpose other than to bare certain parts of their anatomy for the cameras. This movie should be categorized as comedy, not horror as the villains of the movie (spiders) were stop motion animated and not believable in the least. I can't say that I would have done a better job making a film myself, but it was very amateurish and wasn't even a "B" movie, somewhere closer to a "d" movie, or "f" if that is possible. I think even Science Fiction 3000 would have to pass on this one!

Sentiment: negative
I had heard good things about "States of Grace" and came in with an open mind. I thought that "God's Army" was okay, and I thought that maybe Dutcher had improved and matured as a filmmaker. The film began with some shaky acting, and I thought, "well, maybe it will get better." Unfortunately, it never did. The picture starts out by introducing two elders -- Mormon missionaries -- and it seems that the audience will get to know them and grow to care about them. Instead, the story degenerates into a highly improbable series of unfortunate events highlighting blatant disobedience by the missionaries (something that undeniably exists, but rarely on the level that Dutcher portrays) and it becomes almost laughable.

Dutcher's only success in this movie is his successful alienation of his target audience. By unrealistically and inaccurately portraying the lives of Mormon missionaries, Dutcher accomplishes nothing more than angering his predominantly Mormon audience. The film in no way reflects reality. Missions are nothing like what Dutcher shows (having served a Mormon mission myself I can attest to this fact) and gang life in California certainly contains much more explicit language than the occasional mild vulgarity.

The conclusion, which I'm assuming was supposed to touch the audience and inspire them to believe that forgiveness is available to all, was both unbelievable (c'mon, the entire mission gathers to see this elder sent home -- and the mom and the girl are standing right next to each other!) and cheesy. Next time, Dutcher, try making a movie that SOMEONE can identify with.

Sentiment: negative
I'd never heard of this movie, but boy was I surprised when I caught it on TV. Great cast, great acting. Excellent movie! How can a movie with William H Macy, Neve Campbell and Donald Sutherland go wrong? I wonder why I never heard of it before.

Sentiment: positive
This film broke a lot of ground and receives on the whole a lot less credit than it's due. It touches on a topic that is ever-present in our daily lives, but which is seen as a phenomenon so common that it does not merit discussion. This phenomenon is that of caregivers (be they doctors or, as in "Broken Promise", a senior social worker) who abuse their position in order to harm those they have been charged to protect.

In Broken Promise, Patty Clawson and her family are abandoned by their parents; but are soon picked up by local law enforcement. Faced with the certain prospect of foster care, Patty begs a young social worker to keep her and her brothers and sisters together. This social worker approaches a senior member of another department, but his request is denied.

The children are parcelled off to seperate homes, thereby following the prevailing opinions of the day and ensuring a "clean break." But it is this event, the "broken promise" which gives the film it's name, which causes the dramatic tension that is to continue throughout the film. Angered by the Young Social Worker's apparent betrayal, Patty Clawson runs away from the foster home she has been sent to.

Faced with the daunting task of finding her family in a climate where the ideal is seen to be a complete separation from the past; she does the only the thing she can to ascertain their whereabouts and breaks into the Senior Social Worker's office to steal the casefile.

Apprehended soon after she finds she has made a dangerous enemy. Furious at the embarrassment this little girl has caused him and his department, the Senior Social Worker decides to use his power and authority to destroy her; something that legally he is quite capable of doing.

---------------

This topic, of the harm of caregivers to clients, is relatively taboo. It certainly has been touched on very little in films as few directors wish to tread the path that would imply that caregivers cause harm.

I think that this film plays a very important role in making the public more aware of this sort of thing. The case portrayed is not only plausible, but has probably happened many times before to many other children all over the world. This film is critical to changing public opinion in order to get rid of the laws that protect harmful people like the Senior Social Worker in "Broken Promise".

I strongly recommend Broken Promise. It is especially appropriate viewing for trainee social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, doctors, and other caregiving professions. It is a lesson in avoidance that should be taken to heart.

-----------

In terms of the acting in "Broken Promise." Melissa Michaelsen plays a superb part as Patty Clawson. Especially in films such as this believability is critical. If the viewer did not identify with the character of Patty, the whole message of the film would be in jeopardy. It's unfortunate that Melissa doesn't still act in films today, as her performance in "Broken Promise" shows her to have had exceptional talent.

Sentiment: positive
this movie is so bad. but its so bad that i was laughing my ass off. for people that like movies, do not watch this one. for people who like movies good and bad, i recommend this one. the story lines shaky,the script is horrible,the acting is horrible to mediocre. the soundtrack throughout the movie was corny but i loved it. the cool catchphrases were a plus tho. ha ha. "if it can bleed, it can die". the fight scenes cracked me up. it seemed to me like they spent more time on those parts than any other cuz the fight scenes for the most part were pretty clean. i almost feel like this movie could have been good if it weren't for the f/x....no it would have still been a crapshoot. the eye thing was corny. and how the chick was eating the guys stomach in the kitchen,they coulda done something where shed be actually eating something or at least put more of the fake blood on her face. and the lighthouse explosion disappointed me. i thought they might have gotten real fire instead of crappy computer synthesized stuff. and the ending was so predictable, which surprised me when they actually did what i though they might do. so overall. id say this is a classic as far as crappy movies go. its in my bottom 5.

Sentiment: negative
There really is very little positive that can be said about this film. Walter Pidgeon is a truly unconvincing hero and even moreso when he tries to go "undercover" as a villain who, we're meant to believe, drinks too much and knocks his wife about a bit. Margaret Leighton, as the wife/undercover sergeant is a little more convincing but it's still difficult to believe that any hood worth their salt would not have seen through their charade in less than a minute. The plot, about a bullion heist, is silly, and the action drags rather than grips. David Tomlinson, who plays Algy in the same way that David Tomlinson seems to play all his roles, is the only glimmer of light in a wholly dull affair.

Sentiment: negative
If you want to really terrify people, choose the Devil as your subject. After all, a good deal of the population believe that he is real. Therefore you are plugging into a whole meaty swathe of pre-existing religious and mythological imagery. And bound to cause quite a few nightmares in your young audience.

This episode had all the appearance of a Hollywood blockbuster. In fact, having finished watching it I flicked over to another channel which was playing a recent Bond film and quite frankly couldn't split a hair between the differences in SFX. With a minimal cast, restricted by its situation on a space station; complete with overwhelming panoramic views of an imploding universe, it was as claustrophobic and intense as Alien or Event Horison. The black hole outside made it feel as if the black hole's weight of dark matter was pressing the station onto the planet and to Whatever was sealed inside. And as the horror is intensified by the knowledge that the Dr and Rose are stranded, the sinister Ood start channelling a disembodied voice and then the characters start being picked off one by one...

This has all the best qualities of the cream of this new Dr Who endeavour; Girl in the Fireplace and the Empty Child. Emotionally engaging, frightening and humorous all without seeming cheesy. This is far scarier than any amount of flying Daleks. But it has to be asked, is this really suitable viewing for children? This is not a family friendly episode. Pity the poor parent who has to put their kids to bed after this one. I'm not sure I even want to see what happens next!

Sentiment: positive
I'm not going to tell anyone what happens in the end, but it did not fit with the movie. The rest of Imaginary Heroes, though, portrayed a realistic family going through realistic issues, such as death, drugs, relationships, and high school. I could have sworn that they were my own family, no joke.

Emile Hirsch was completely believable as a teen struggling with his brother's suicide, and Sigourney Weaver plays a mother trying to keep the remains of her (slightly) dysfunctional family together.

Although this family may take their issues to the extreme, anyone can relate to what they go through, whether it be graduation, living up to expectations, or being a parent.

Sentiment: positive
There are very few movies that are so funny as this one. I was lucky enough to watch this movie at a theater "reserved" for movie buffs like me, so it was not so embarrassing sitting there laughing till my jaw was completely sore and my shirt sleeves were all wet from drying my eyes...

At times the story was a bit "slow", but that is perhaps for the best - a bit of rest in-between the rolling amongst the aisles (I nearly fell out of the seat...) was most welcome.

Sentiment: positive
I like this movie above all others. It is "multi-layered"; there is so much to see and appreciate. Every viewing brings a new appreciation of the story-line, the plot and the characters. Faultlessly acted and extremely enjoyable if you take the time to watch it and appreciate it. I love the interaction between the players; the subtle relationships; the period atmosphere. Ralph Fiennes is perfectly cast as the brooding lover and Geoffrey the wronged husband is beautifully underplayed by Colin Firth. The scene in the sand storm where Catherine & El-masy are discussing the different types of sand storms is one of the high-lights of the film and where the affair really starts. The other relationship between Hanna & El-masy is yet another "layer" of the movie which is totally enchanting (and heart-rending). A worthy winner of so many awards.

Sentiment: positive
Worth watching twice because of the rapid-paced causal shifts among several compelling stories, "Bug" emerges as a wholly satisfying work of art that plays ever-optimistic love against myriad examples of frustrating reality.

My favorite characters are Wallace (John Carroll Lynch)whose overriding concern for life--from that of a cockroach to the airline passengers for whom he is partially responsible--frames the film; Olive (Christina Kirk), who spends considerable time creating surreal but tasty meals for her impossible husband Ernie (Chris Bauer); and Mitchell, a cable TV technician with unbounded trust in fortune cookie messages: "You will meet the girl of your dreams."

Against such optimism are the forces of quirky reality, all generated by actions of the characters: parking tickets, a clogged drain in a Chinese food/donut shop, TV disruption, a crushed auto fender, an obliterated dinner reservation that eventually results in cancellation of a Hawaiian vacation.

The film is funny: Olive getting drunk at a Chippendale performance, Johnston (Michael Hitchcock)as a customer service rep attempting to deal with an irate customer, the germ-obsessive Cyr (Brian Cox) facing a restaurant inspector, Dwight (Jamie Kennedy) reacting to his girlfriend's refusal to have children by writing hostile Chinese cookie fortunes: "Your girlfriend is lying to you" and the guy who falls asleep while manning a jackhammer because he spent the night looking for his girlfriend's missing cat.

A minor story with public cable access host (Darryl Theirse) and a local acting teacher reading from "The Boy in the Bubble" expresses the major theme: love comes from the heart.

"Bug" entertains on much the same level as "trains, planes and automobiles" but on a lower budget and with a fresher eye.

Sentiment: positive
This is a really great film in the pulp fiction genre with a touch of film noir thrown in. Truly one of Emma Thompson's best performances to date...this film has everything, it's well written, well directed, beautifully films, and has some great performances. I don't know why it didn't catch on. It's spectacular!

Sentiment: positive
Note to self. Never ever ever again watch a serious movie with Charlie Sheen in it. Great comedian, horrible seal. This movie makes Navy SEALS look like a reckless group of rangers when, in fact, they are the most elite form of military in the world. Charlie Sheen helps destroy the Navy SEAL reputation. Thank you for making such an incredibly select group of individuals look awful in one of the worst action movies I have ever seen. This is a great story which could be made into an amazing action movie, but why Charlie Sheen? There are possibilities for a very passionate story here, but Sheen decides to wreck them with "funny" comments.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is a modest effort by Spike Lee. He is capable of much more than this movie.Get on the Bus while apparenly anti racist, does nothing but berate whites and degrade the black status quo. The plot of this movie is about a group of black men who travel on a bus to Louis Farrakhan's million man march. The bus has every type of person you could imagine:gay, muslim, gangbanger and the Uncle Tom(He is thrown off the bus though). There was one only white person on the bus. He was accused of being a racist the minute he got on the bus to drive. Despite him being a jew and the fact that he explained is situation he ended up being a racist and leaving the bus.I hate to say it but films like this need to realize their own hipocracy and rienforcation of steryotypes. This should not be seen as a triumph but a sad dissapointment. You may think I am a racist for writing this but I mean well. Better luck next time Spike.

Sentiment: negative
Even for sci-fi this movie is movie is a little out there. Alright, more than a little... My first thought after watching it was that i had just lost my mind.

Don't watch this movie expecting another Darko. Darko fans are never going to like another Richard Kelly movie because of their freaky cult standards. Donnie Darko is a thing of the past, get over it.

Richard Kelly loves making movies that make you feel stupid for not understanding the 'Deeper meaning' the first time you watch them. To be honest I had to watch The Box twice before I liked it. 

The deeper meaning- (to spare you a bunch of sociological psycho babble) Humans are self serving, we make decisions that can destroy our lives and don't open mail without a return address.

Summary: Creepy old man tells Cammeron Diaz if you push the button i will kill someone you don't know and give you a million bucks. Of course she pushes it and as promised by the creepy old gets a case of money. Then the movie takes a dive into the unusual. To spare my fingers the typing... For pushing the button, Diaz and her husband are cursed by supernatural alien beings, in an elaborate experiment to gage the morality of the human race.

I liked: The willingness of the movie to ignore the generic movie guidelines. Its different. Its intense. It has a deeper meaning (although its philosophy 101 material). It leaves you guessing. NOT A Hollywood ENDING!

I disliked: Why would any being with the technology to inhibit another life form devise such a ridiculous scheme? What god like alien has the patience for that? Diaz was good, but was there a need for the country accent? They live in Virginia. 

I give it a 7 because Kelly didn't put as much attention to detail as with his other movies. Overall good flick.

Sentiment: positive
Ever watched something so awful you just have to keep watching to be sure it really is as bad as it looks? This is one of those films. It was slammed by the critics on it's release, not least for the way it was funded. I caught it on TV last night and gave in to curiosity.

In the event, it is what it says on the box, no more nor less: low level humour, crudity, very much in the 'Carry On...' vein but with 'adult' language. Indeed, it harks back to the 60s/70s UK porn industry, cheating punters by promising real sex and not delivering (spot the nipple?) That whole tawdry era is lovingly recreated here but with modern cinematography.

It has the benefit of Mackenzie Crook (The Office, Pirates of the Caribbean and much more) and also Johnny Vegas. The chip shop girl is genuinely sexy. Beyond these unexpected positives, it does leave me wondering what happened to England. Junk food, low paid work, council estates, desperate lives. As a bonus, there are some nice shots of leafy Birmingham. Foreigners might find it informative about British attitudes and aspirations. Overall, though, I still feel disbelief that I sat through it.

Sentiment: negative
This very forced attempt to fuse Robert Altman and Quentin Tarantino (who is wildly overrated himself) is neither informative nor entertaining. The character development is arbitrary and unbelievable -- especially in the final scene of the thugs and the little boy, as other reviewers have noted. Also, a couple of humorous moments aside, the film is not as funny (black humor or otherwise) as the director seems to think it is.

Sentiment: negative
This third installment in the Scarecrow series is by far the best of the lot. I know, I know...but how good is it? Well, let's not be silly. It's still pretty bad, but by comparison to the first two, it's a fine film. Again shot on digital, with decent lighting and good camera work. 

****SPOILER****

When a college baseball team hazes new members, one is left in a diabetic coma. Of course, they abandon him in a cornfield, tied to a scarecrow. In keeping with the legend, the boy's soul is transferred into the body of the scarecrow, which comes to life and wreaks terrible vengeance on, well, pretty much everyone. The co-eds drive to the beach, which is somehow very close to the cornfield. On the sunny beach, they are killed one by one by the whistling scarecrow. 

Writer/director Brian Katkin does a credible job of bringing some much-needed drama to the film. Unfortunately, the drama leaps over good and lands in common cheese. Much of the acting was fair, but there were some really terrible bits, including an awful piece of poorly done lip-synching. Some plot points were left mostly unresolved, and most were used to get someone alone so they could be slaughtered. Again, better than the previous installments, but still lacking.

Sentiment: negative
For some strange reason the film world is driven by fashion . Someone makes a film about a killer shark then all of a sudden the film world`s oceans are awash with giant Squids , killer octopusses and sea monsters of every ilk . A man is stalked by an erstwhile lover from hell then every film character is stalked by a cop from hell or a flatmate from hell or a babysitter from hell . Then when a major Hollywood company produces a big budget FX laden blockbuster about tornados then other film producers jump upon the bandwagon , the fact that they don`t have the budget to pull it off doesn`t stop them. NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS is a case in point . What struck me about this made for television film is the fact that it tries to hide its lack of budget by cutting to the ad breaks . Everytime a tornado appears the camara locks onto the horrified expression of the actors as they scream things like " Oh my gawd it`s heading this way " and " Run for your lives " then the screen fades to black saving the producers the need to up the special effects budget . Unfortunately NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS budget should have been upped to include better actors . The cast are by no means bad but they are unimpressive and lack the skill to carry a film which is character driven . Where`s Josh Hartnett and Elijah Wood when you need them ?

And the last word on this being a TWISTER clone ..... Yes NOTT was released a couple of months before TWISTER but TWISTER had been hyped for several months as being the Summer blockbuster of 1996 and NOTT has a rushed feeling to it which leads me to believe that it was made and released to tie in with the hype surrounding TWISTER

Sentiment: negative
Well...overall, this movie was pretty much worthless, and it's basically a horror movie that ended up being more of a comedy. I just rented this movie last night when me and my friends went to blockbuster looking for a scary movie. This definitely wasn't what we were looking for, but it satisfied us for humor. The actors in this movie (especially Brandon) are so fake that it's funny. And especially that Tracy girl whenever she's in the boarded up room telling the clown to go away. They show almost no emotion and it's just so obvious that they're acting. And also when the clown is looking through that black box paper thing and grabs Mark, he doesn't even look like he's scared even though the clown like grabbed him and started attacking him. And seriously, would you just be JOGGING if you were being chased down? I'd be sprinting for my life! (Even though anyone could probably outrun that clown because he's like 300 lbs.) Not to mention that the effects aren't that great, like whenever the clown chops off Susan's head in the forest, then whenever he throws her head into the boarded up room with Denise and Tracy whenever Denise throws the head back over. Also like in the previous guy's comment, the beginning makes absolutely NO sense and I don't even see why it was even included in the movie. So what, was this movie made in 2003? The music made it sound like it was made in like the 1980's, and the camera-ing(?) doesn't even really look professional. Half of the time, it seems like the camera can't even stay steady when it's suppose to be. Overall, I'd have to say I enjoyed the movie. I wouldn't recommend it though if you're trying to find something to scare you, but if you're looking for something to maybe make fun of or get a laugh out of, I'd recommend it for sure.

Sentiment: negative
Being a science fiction fan from my early childhood (long time since) I always hated implausible plots. It's a pity that most authors of science fiction stories for children do not show this kind of respect for their audience. I always suspected them of thinking: "children are to dumb to realise, so we don't have to strive". The writer of "Science Fiction (2002)" is no exception. The story is about a boy who is instigated by his new friends to spy after his parents, because they think that the parents are aliens. As intriguing the idea sounded to me, as much was I bored by its realisation. It seemed to me that the filmmakers had exactly this one idea and tried to stretch it over the ninety minutes by dunking it into a dark, stylish and painstakingly slow atmosphere. The only thing that kept me in my seat was the question "how do they manage to get out of this implausible rubbish"? And then - bang - they did not even try. So if you are looking for good entertainment for both children and parents, go and watch "Klatretøsen (2002)" instead.

Sentiment: negative
Completely worth checking out. Saw it on MLK's birthday 2006 and it hit me big time. Sometimes it feels like we're all in a trap and are doomed to repeat the past no matter how much we try to change. All we can do is to keep on going and speaking out. Just keep on going. Don't mean to be a downer because that's not the point but maybe we need to get down before we see how much we need to work on ourselves. What happens when we keep being told by the best people like MLK what needs to happen to pull us out of our "dead end road" but we don't listen. I know that some of us do listen but how do we get the rest of the world to see things as they really are? Just keep going, I guess. This movie got me thinking even more about all of this so I guess it has done what it set out to do. That's what I consider to be a good movie or play or book or poem or speech or anything: something that gets you thinking and keyed up to move in an active direction instead of sitting stuck and bored and hopeless.

Sentiment: positive
I consider myself a fan of Jess Franco and his trash movies, but nearly every time I see one of them, I just see missed opportunities and plots that don't play out well. This film is, unfortunately, no different. The film certainly had a lot of potential, as Franco has fused the intriguing theme of the classic film 'The Most Dangerous Game' with his usual brand of trashy sleaze, but the plot here gets lost too often, and it takes an eternity for Franco to get round to the main point of the movie. With this being a later Franco film, you might be forgiven for thinking that the director would have got better, but actually I've found that the opposite is true; as this and the terrible 'Killer Barbys' are two of his very worst films. The plot focuses on a stripper and her sleazy boyfriend. The pair is invited to a private island by a rich woman and her lover. However, they soon find that they haven't been invited there for social reasons as they are 'released' on the island so that the wealthy woman and her friends can hunt them down for sport! 

What attracted me to this film was the front cover and the fact that it was directed by the king of sleaze flicks. You'd think, then, that I'd be pleased that the movie features a plethora of sex scenes and general sleaze; but I'm not. The reason for this is mostly that the sex and sleaze in the film is really boring and most of the time served only in giving me the condition known as 'itchy fast forward finger'. However, my inclination to see everything through to the end ensured that I had to lump it. There was a time when I didn't think girl-on-girl could possibly be boring, but I have since been proved wrong. The only positive I can pluck out the movie really is that the soundtrack is quite catchy, and despite it being silly foreign pop music; actually blends quite well with the sex scenes. I did enjoy the last ten minutes; as that's when the plot finally got going, but it was a case of too little too late and unfortunately, this is a severely lacklustre film. On the whole, I only recommend this film to those who feel they must see all 180+ Franco movies...everyone else should watch Vampyros Lesbos, Faceless or She Killed in Ecstasy instead.

Sentiment: negative
Down to Earth is about Lance Barton, a black comedian who gets hit by a truck. He goes to Heaven and he gets to get another body. Lance gets the body of Charles Wellington, a white guy. So Lance does a few things in the body of Charles. The movie has a few laughs, but it's nothing special. It's a good movie if you're a fan of Chris Rock. Madagascar, the 2005 animated comedy, is better. This is a good movie, but Chris Rock has done way better things than this. It will only make you laugh about 4 times the whole movie. And it's not really laugh-out-loud funny. You'll laugh to yourself and you might giggle, but you definitely won't be rolling on the floor laughing.

Sentiment: negative
I think Samuel Goldwyn was trying to accomplish two things in this film. First the film is a homage to Jascha Heifetz, considered to be the best violin virtuoso of the past century. Secondly having brought to the screen the Dead End kids with his film of the same title and seeing them sign with Warner Brothers, he was trying to create a second gang of appealing urchins. 

Though the film was good there certainly was no demand that the kids from this film be reteamed for another feature. 

Leader of the gang is Gene Reynolds who at one time played the violin, but now leads a street gang of disreputable urchins. His stepfather, Arthur Hohl, breaks the violin his late father gave young Reynolds and threatens to send him to reform school over the feeble protests of his mother Marjorie Main.

Young Reynolds happens to stumble onto a music school run by the old music maestro himself, Walter Brennan and his daughter Andrea Leeds. They take him in, but they have their financial problems with a lot of creditors led by Porter Hall.

This film is mostly to be seen today because it's a chance for classical music lovers to see and hear Jascha Heifetz who as you gather is the solution one way or another to everybody's problems. Joel McCrea is in this film also, but has a rather colorless part as Andrea Leeds boyfriend. 

Besides Heifetz, one thing the film does do is touch on, albeit gingerly on the topic of child abuse and battered spouses. Arthur Hohl is one mean man and Marjorie Main is very clearly a much battered wife.

The kids in the cast do well, Reynolds, Tommy Kelly, Terry Kilburn and a young girl under the name of Jacqueline Nash who grew up and performed as Gale Sherwood, nightclub partner to Nelson Eddy. She had a nice soprano even as a child.

But it's Heifetz you see the show for.

Sentiment: positive
Fun movie! Great for the kids - they found it very entertaining. Somewhat predictable, but there are a few surprises. Great movie to watch if you're looking for something just to entertain (don't expect to be seeing a classic!)

Sentiment: positive
Ernst Marischka, one of the most respected Austrian directors of that time, made films full of beautiful scenes, delicate love and with respect to all that is precious in life. 

Nowadays, if people should hear about him, they associate the name of Marischka with SISSI trilogy (1955,1956,1957). However, he made other excellent films like DAS DREIMADERLHAUS (1958), EMBEZZLED HEAVEN (1958) and definitely this one, MADCHENJAHRE EINER KONIGIN showing the young years of queen Victoria. Although it deals with a slightly different theme than SISSI films, I do not see many differences between this movie and SISSI. They are strikingly similar.

The movie is almost identical. The style, the music, the photography. In fact, the crew are almost the same. Anton Profes, Bruno Mondi!

The cast... Romy Schneider's one of the first main roles. It was a lovely introduction to her role of Sissi since this film was made one year before the first part of the trilogy about the Austrian empress. It is also a film where Romy plays with her mother, Magda Schneider. But Ernst Marischka was not the first director who cast Romy to play with her mum. Romy's debut, WENN DER WEISSE FLIEDER WIEDER BLUHN (1953) was her performance with her mother, too. Therefore, there were some voices that Romy began her Austrian career on the bases of her mother's fame. Indeed, there is some truth in it.

Again, like in SISSI, this film shows love very gently. Victoria meets Prince Albert in a little inn in Dover. Their sympathy is based on pure exaltation in dance and gentle smiles. And now...? What would it be showed like? Only sex... But is it the only thing love is based on?

I am grateful to Ernst Marischka for these movies. They had a soul and a message. Some people may call them kitschy, but I will never give up admiring these films. They are IMPRESSIVE!!! UNFORTUNATELY, HIGHLY UNDERRATED!

Sentiment: positive
I'm sorry, but I just can't help it, I love watching Iron Eagle. Now, do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that this is a great movie. No, rather, I would put it that this is an endlessly entertaining movie. For people who cut this movie to pieces for not being realistic are kinda missing the point. Of course Iron Eagle's plot was ridiculous. But I believe its target audience was kids, and I sure remember finding this cool when I was little. Now I just find it amusing as a guilty pleasure, kinda like Road House. This movie is part of the great pantheon of 80's, kids-taking-on-the-stodgy-adult-power-structure movies. You must remember D.A.R.Y.L, Real Genius, E.T., etc. If you ask me, just watching Doug and Knotcher "Ride the Snake" in the beginning is worth the cost of the DVD. That whole sequence was so STUPID! But, at the same time, it was hilarious, funny, totally 80's, all that good stuff. So bottom line, Iron Eagle is a great 80's guilty pleasure. The hairstyles, the dancing, the music, the dialogue, its all funny as hell. I have Iron Eagle on DVD and to me it was totally worth $9.99 at Best Buy. If you love laughing at dated, unrealistic action movies, this one is a must-see. Oh yeah, and I think its plot was only marginally stupider than 1986's other fighter pilot action pic, Top Gun.

Sentiment: positive
Americans have the attention span of a fruit fly and if something does not happen within the span of a typical commercial, we tend to lose interest really fast.

I found out an exciting fact from this film: someone has to paint high tension utility poles and do it on a schedule! And guess what, they really would like to be doing something else (the viewer has similar feelings).

Surprisingly, when I was bored watching late night infomercials and decided to actually watch this film, I found the characters to be interesting and highly engaging.

I just don't usually watch that much late night TV, so I can't recommend this film, unless watching paint dry is your idea of an exciting two hours out of your life.

Sentiment: negative
Undoubtedly the funniest movie I have ever seen. It's definitely worth the fourteen minutes it takes to watch. I will never look at my kitchen appliances the same way again. Bob Knickerbocker deserves an Oscar. "Relax, kid. It's only a movie"

Sentiment: positive
I am a 11th grader at my high school. In my Current World Affairs class a kid in my class had this video and suggested we watch. So we did. I am firm believer that we went to the moon, being that my father works for NASA. Even though I think this movie is the biggest piece of crap I have ever watched, the guy who created it has some serious balls. First of all did he have to show JFK getting shot? And how dare he use all those biblical quotes. The only good thing about this movie is it sparks debates, which is good b/c in my class we have weekly debates. This movie did nothing to change my mind. I think he and Michael Moore should be working together and make another movie. Michael Moore next movie could be called "A Funny Thing Happened on Spetember 11th" or "A Funny thing happened on the way to the white house".

Sentiment: negative
I though this would be an okay movie, since i like zombies and horror movies in general. But i did not think it would be such a piece of sh!t like it was. The only zombie in the movie is at the beginning and he gets ran over by a god damn car!!! The movie looks to be written by a porn director and filled by porn actors, i wouldn't ever call them actors! The costumes seems to be stolen from a local school play. Its seems like a road movie with almost no monsters. There is no fun at all in this piece of sh!t, only horror, but not in the way the director intended. I would rather be raped by a pedophile than see this movie ever again!!! ugh!

Sentiment: negative
The worst movie ever?? HARDLY!!! This is one of the BEST animated movies i have ever seen! It has appearances from all the great characters from the animated tv series Rainbow Brite. Very safe for small children and the colors capture their attention like no other! There is an evil Princess trying to steal the diamond planet Spectra, which would in turn cause all life on Earth to cease. This tells the tale of how Rainbow Brite and her new friend Krys are able to stop the Princess' evil plot and restore life and color back to Earth. It's proof that kids can make a difference! Rainbow Brite will live on forever.

Sentiment: positive
First of all, I have to say that I am not generally a big fan of werewolf movies in general. It's not that I don't like them, just that I don't like them a lot. There are some that I have enjoyed...Werewolf of London (1935, Stuart Walker), An American Werewolf in London (1981, John Landis)...and some that I have thought were okay but nothing special...The Wolf Man (1941, George Waggner), The Howling (1981, Joe Dante), Dog Soldiers (2002, Neil Marshall) are some examples...but overall, the werewolf sub-genre is not my favorite. But I had this one on one of those 50 movie sets so I thought I'd give it a watch and see how it was.

Spoilers follow...

The Mad Monster is a werewolf tale, but the werewolf is primarily used as a vehicle for revenge by a mad scientist, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron (George Zucco). Dr. Cameron has discovered a way to transform human beings into beasts, specifically wolves, but was ridiculed and ostracized by the greater scientific community. Forced out of a prestigious position, he goes mad and plots revenge on those who mocked him in an old country mansion, where he lives with his daughter Lenora (the lovely Anne Nagel) and his assistant Petro (Glenn Strange) of limited mental abilities. Using his serum, Dr. Cameron transforms Petro into a werewolf and sends him off to kill his old rivals. Eventually, though, the werewolf Petro gets out of control and both the mad doctor and his creation are killed.

The movie also plays out somewhat as a murder/crime drama, with Lenora's journalist suitor (Johnny Downs) investigating the doctor's strange behavior and the rash of murders. The story seems to borrow many elements from other big pictures that came before it. There are reminders of Frankenstein (1931, James Whale) in the creation of a monster which runs amok, and the creature killing an innocent child. Visions of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931, Rouben Mamoulian or the 1941, Victor Fleming version) and The Wolf Man (1941, George Waggner) also come to mind. And that is one of the problems with this movie in my view-it comes across as a mediocre melding of some great films. It doesn't add much to the genre.

True, there are some redeeming qualities. George Zucco's performance was convincing, and the scene showing Dr. Lorenzo talking to his visions/hallucinations of his tormentors works well for me in showing his insanity. There is some reasonable character build up, at least in the case of his character. But Glenn Strange's character is not at all convincing, and seems to have this comedic quality-whether intentional or not, I'm not sure-that just doesn't fit into the movie as a whole.

I seemed to like it more than most IMDb users based on my rating of 4/10, but it was still a below average film. Perhaps worth a view if you are a fan of early werewolf movies or a big fan of the 1930's and 1940's horror films, but unlikely to appeal to you if you are not.

Sentiment: negative