DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I first heard about The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya from a reviewer on Youtube. He literally slapped the show with a big bad rant, condemning it rubbish and confusing. Curious, I decided to watch the show (once I got the order of the episodes right, thanks to those who made the lists), and I found it absolutely brilliant and enjoyable to watch. Great memorable characters who are full of life and are absolutely lovable and hilarious; a unique and not over blowing plot that makes sense now that I've watched the show; and two of the best anime moments in history, in my opinion. Plus the opening and ending themes are great.

The anime, based on a collection of successful manga novels, follows a simple plot, once you understand it. While the show's focus is on the main character, Haruhi Suzumiya, the point of view is from her friend Kyon. Kyon is a regular high school student who doesn't really believe in supernatural stuff (e.g. Santa Clause, aliens, time travellers, ghosts, espers) but he soon ends up talking to Haruhi, who is the most oddest girl in the school and would prefer to date an alien, considering all men worthless. She even joined every club in the school to find something interesting, but quit as quickly as she joined. Upon "advice" from Kyon, Haruhi decides to form her own club with Kyon's club. Setting up in the literary club room, Haruhi forms the SOS Brigade - its mission to investigate supernatural cases (think Scooby-Doo minus the dog, the masked man and the Mystery Machine).

Haruhi "recruits" three extra members. The first is Yuki Nagato, a bookworm of sorts who speaks very little and spends most of her time reading and sitting. The second is Mikuru Asahina, a shy girl who is forced into the club by Haruhi who thinks they need a cute mascot to get some things done. She is often forced into costumes by Haruhi to further her cuteness. The third is Itsuki Koizumi, a friendly and sociable transfer student who is always smiling. While Haruhi thinks her group is filled with normal people she couldn't be more wrong. While Kyon is as normal as you can get, the other three on the other hand are rather unique - Yuki is an alien, Mikuru is a time traveller from the future, and Itsuki is an esper (a person who has ESP). All three have come to watch over Haruhi who may just have the powers of a god, and if she becomes bored, she may be able to discover her powers and create a whole new world, and Kyon is involved somehow.

The show is worth watching with great characters, music and some hilarious and wonderful moments. However, for parents, there is some sexual references including Mikuru's cleavage being exposed or touched several times, and several swear words used as well. Apart from that, the show is one of the greats.

Sentiment: positive
I am a usually a very generous voter on IMDb and don't bother commenting on movies I did not like, but this was just lame. I actually turned it off 15 minutes before finishing it, to watch "This Is It" (because my gf wanted to... I just chose the lesser of two evils).

If you want to watch this movie: picture this film as a collection of worse-than-average "horror"-stories, like "scary short-stories" that you find in an issue of "Reader's Digest" in the waiting room of your dentist's.

I did not expect anything particular terrifying or funny, I am not the "I want to see blood!"-type of person, but this "movie" is neither "horror" nor "comedy" nor entertaining in any other way.

It's probably more scary/funny and entertaining to look at the movie-poster of "You've Got Mail" for 90 minutes while drinking chamomile tea.

Conclusion: a "horror-comedy" for people between 4 and 7.

Sentiment: negative
{rant start} I didn't want to believe them at first, but I guess this is what people are talking about when they say South Korean cinema has peaked and may even be going downhill. After the surprisingly fun and moving monster movie "Gwoemul" (aka "The Host") of 2006-- which actually succeeded in making a sharp satire out of a B-movie genre-- successive Korean blockbusters have become more and more generic, even though their budgets (mainly spent on special effects) have become more and more fantastic. Do South Korean movie-makers really want to squander all the audience and investor goodwill, which their industry has built up since the 1999 break-out film "Shiri/Swiri", by making a whole series of big budget mediocre movies like mainland China did? {rant end}

The only "reason" I can fathom for making this movie is to dupe the investors into financing the most detailed and fluid digital animation of a Korean/ East Asian-styled dragon I have seen to date, for the final scenes. Now if they had introduced that dragon at the beginning and given it more personality and purpose like in the 1996 "Dragonheart", the movie might have had a few more redeeming qualities other than having lots of digitally animated dragons. Remember "Dungeons & Dragons" in 2000? Hasn't anyone learnt that the trick is not how MUCH special effects you use, but how WELL you use it? I hope there are more (and better) Korean legends they can use, because they have just killed a lot of international interest in Korean dragon legends with the way they filmed this one.

In short, I agree with all the negative reviews gone before and wonder how Koreans felt about having their folk anthem "Arirang" being played at the very end. As a creature feature, I would have given it at least 5 stars out of 10 if the special effects or action sequences had been worth it, but I've seen many video games with better camera work and scripting (just less dragons).

Sentiment: negative
I was really looking forward to watching this, being that I love Danny Dyer and I think Gillian Anderson is a gifted actress. The beginning was interesting. I liked the relationship between the two stars. It then quickly jumps to the main plot, which is they get attacked by a group of strangers and Dyer gets beaten extremely bad while Anderson gets raped. They then decide to go for some revenge. Sounds good, right? Well, it's not. The story gets boring and side-tracked, and certain things get really weird. I won't give out any details, but things happen that I, for one, have no desire to see. I like to give all movies the benefit of the doubt, and I really wanted to like this one. It just didn't work out. I give it a 3 out of 10, mainly for the acting.

Sentiment: negative
If you don't mind having your emotions toyed with, then you won't mind this movie. On the other hand, if you enjoy British crime mysteries, following clues and seeing how they all logically fall into place at the end, you'll be very disappointed.

Here are some of the logical inconsistencies that lead to that disappointment: 

* While the police utilize the CCTV cameras early on to gather clues about the mystery, the huge truck that stopped and blocked the children's view just before her disappearance doesn't get caught on camera. This is a critical piece of the mystery. It's inconsistent to have the car the children were in caught on camera and not the big truck that is so critical to the mystery.

* The movie goes to great lengths to show the sophistication of the equipment in tracking down the children's movements but misses the opportunity to utilize the same sophisticated equipment is tracking down vehicles that may have entered the crime scene from camera-visible locations adjacent to the crime scene as part of developing clues.

* In England, driving is on the left. The director goes out of his way to have the car at the crime scene park on the right, several meters away from the flower kiosk, when it could have easily parked immediately behind, or even on the side; as the huge truck did.

* The police forensics team is so meticulous as to find a discarded cell phone in a sewer drain several miles from the scene of the crime, but can't find any blood evidence from the head injury right at the crime scene, even though they secured the scene just hours after the disappearance and with no intervening rainfall.

* Search dogs were not used at all to find the missing children; this from the country that is well known for developing the hound dog for search and hunting.

* It is illogical that such a highly publicized news story would not turn up the presumably innocent truck driver that stopped at the flower kiosk.

* It is illogical that the mother would go to such extremes and expend so much effort to leave carpet fiber clues under her fingernails for her eventual murder investigators even coaxing her daughter to do the same-- while she simply could not have crawled out of the unguarded mobile home. If she had enough sense about her to ask her daughter to get carpet fibers under her nails, she could of just as easily asked her daughter to call out for help or even leave the mobile home that was in a crowded residential park.

* The suspect that abducted the little girl was portrayed as mentally slow/dimwitted --justifying his unknowingly drowning of the mother but, he was smart enough not to cooperate with the police and also fully exercise his rights not to self-incriminate.

There are more inconsistencies like this that will lead to a true sleuth aficionado's disappointment. 'Five Days' is a very weak British crime story.

Sentiment: negative
Am I wrong,or is the 2007 version just a rip-off of the original? I have to ask because the DVD I just bought is one of the worst films I have ever seen.....bad acting,bad editing etc....the only "exploitation " aspect here is how we were ripped off for our money buying this piece of crap. It is nothing more than a light-weight porn flick...no real gore, no scary images, just a cheaply done bit of garbage. If anyone wants to see an excellent film with no name actors,some slimy gore and a decent storyline...get Baby Blood...also done on a cheap budget but well made...and an actual story too!I Spit was a waste of money but I'll keep it just for a laugh....it is pathetic! New comment....Sept 3.....I'll keep this film forever just because it it SOOOOO bad it's almost good....in a really bad way....the worst acting ever...a real crap-movie classic!

Sentiment: negative
I own almost every Seagal movie (yes even ones like this that are low budget), and I must say, this may be the worst, not only of his movies, but of all movies ever made. The only highlight of this film, and only reason I gave it 2 stars instead of 1, is that A. it is Seagal, and B. Seagal does have some sweet action sequences, specifically in the store, and also when ever else he takes out an entire army with a knife. Next time give me 90 minutes of Seagal killing people, and don't even bother with a story line, because the storyline not only stunk, but so did the acting, the fact that F-18's and F-14's somehow changed into F-16s, and also the fact that the Stealth was as fast as an F-16. Also the Stealth never had to refuel??? And since when is Afghanistan considered hostile territory from an Air Force stand point. last I checked, Afghanistan has no Air Force, we (USA) control the skies. Also, this top secret mission was played through speakers to all the crew in the room, yet the Admiral still whispers to the other guy that it is secret. Also, how did Seagal go from the bottom of the truck, to the top? PLease tell us why they jailed him, Since when are Air Force pilots great commandos (unless they are Owen Wilson?) And since when are their drunks in Arab countries, considering Muslims don't drink alcohol? Also on top of that, since when do Arabs listen to orders from females like the #2 in charge? The highlight of the film was definitely Seagal killing people in the store, and the other 50 people he killed with a knife, as well as the very brief and totally random lesbian scene that came out of nowhere.

Sentiment: negative
The last Tarzan film starring Johnny Weissmuller (looking surprisingly aged a year after "Tarzan and the Huntress") is bad, in spite of all the trivia one can add to make it look better. It is obvious that RKO tried to make a great farewell for Weissmuller, shooting in beautiful scenery in México, with a top star of that country (Andrea Palma) and multiple award-winning cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa, and bringing in prestigious composer Dimitri Tiomkin to do the score. Although it may have cost less for filming abroad, it looks more expensive than any other RKO film in the series, taking advantage of Acapulco beaches and real pyramids as Aquatania, and with impressive décors for all the scenes related to the temple of god Balu (especially the exterior, built on steep rocks.) Kurt Neumann should have stayed as director, instead of Robert Florey, who gives it a very slow pace. Neumann had done a fine work with "Tarzan and the Amazons", "Tarzan and the Leopard Woman" and "Tarzan and the Huntress", and finished his career directing the classic "The Fly" the year before his death; while Florey became a television director, after a career of few remarkable films. If Weissmuller looks tired, the chimp playing Cheeta is not as good as the others, but the worst character is Benji, an obnoxious mailman who sings horrendous songs (that have a Caribbean air, in a location supposed to be Africa and shot in México!) Boring and decidedly of dubious taste, it was a sad farewell to Weissmuller's Tarzan.

Sentiment: negative
An Eko-centric episode the "?" explores the aftermath of the tragic events that rocked the castaways in the previous one. As the main characters John, Locke, Sawyer, Kate and Hurley come to terms with the incident in the hatch, Locke and Eko set out to find out where Henry took off to. As it turns out Eko is on a mission of his own trying to figure out the symbol ? which Locke had drawn on his sketch. We see flashes of Eko's life in Sydney as a priest who comes in contact with his brother through a stranger. We also witness the tragedy that struck the hatch boil down to a room temperature as Michael continues to remain a mystery.

An excellent LOST episode with many interesting turns.

Sentiment: positive
I think that most everyone wants to believe that extraordinary things exist and this film shows no restraint in trying to exploit that to the fullest. The presentation is very interesting, well presented and the graphics are state of the art, but from a scientific point of view it just doesn't work. Hydrogen filled flying bladders? They would need to be the size of a Mack truck to be useful. And then there's the ever-present possibility of a catastrophic explosion. I have no problem with fantasy, just don't try to pass it off as fact. Some folks will always misunderstand. All in all the film is entertaining, but I constantly found myself saying "oh brother, what a load of ....". If you want a FAKE documentary, watch This Is Spinal Tap instead. Or at the very least turn the sound off.

Sentiment: negative
Truly bad and easily the worst episode I have ever seen....ever.

They tried to make up for it by giving it the, 'we know we are doing this' routine. That would have been funny if it weren't for the fact that 'The Simpsons' had already done it. And it still wouldn't make up for it if they had come up with the idea in the first place.

The flashbacks took place as part of the usual character's (mainly J.D's) fantasies. The flashbacks weren't even of actual events that occurred, just compilations of say, J.D falling over or, i don't know.... Elliott falling over. If I wanted to watch a Scrubs compilation i'd go on youtube and not waste half an hour of my life.

Scrubs has ultimately fallen into the trap that most sit-coms have to, and it disappoints me, they managed to go 5 and a quarter seasons without an episode like this. 

I was hoping that scrubs wouldn't have to be that kind of sit-com.

And just as a passing thought, why the hell was Dr.Cox bald?

Sentiment: negative
I found this little gem as an extra feature on my DVD of Vampyr-Der Traum Des Allen Grey, and didn't expect all that much from it. It looked like it might be an interesting little short though, so I turned it on.

I am so glad that I did. It was really incredible! Despite having been made more than 70 years ago, the animation was, in my view, better than some of that done today with all the computer effects and experience available now.

The story is quite simple-a newly put together toy dog hears its owner's laments about not being able to afford an orange and goes on a quest to find her one. In the process, it runs into a toy's underworld with all sort of nefarious creatures and toys overseen by none other than the devil himself, who all want the dog's orange for themselves as well.

This film precedes, but reminds me a lot of Mad Monster Party? (1969, Jules Bass)-a movie which I have always really enjoyed-and to a lesser extent, some of Tim Burton's animated works-The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993, Henry Selick) and Corpse Bride (2005, Tim Burton). Fans of any of these movies will, I am sure, also love The Mascot.

Overall, an incredible piece of short animation which is well worth watching.

Sentiment: positive
Family Guy has been hilarious for so long but I feel like it lost it's sharp and random humor at the start of season 6. Although I enjoyed Blue Harvest, it felt like the remaining episodes were "wrapping-up" - episodes where the producers made little attempt to fulfill Family Guy's reputation of American social satire.

I have seen all the episodes from season 7 and I was utterly surprised and happy that Family Guy has found their true colors again. Season 7 delivers a lot of fantastic episodes and with a lot of jokes about the current situations in America which is exactly what we need right now - more fun.

I feel that the Simpsons has lost its spark all together, this show, however, has made a terrific recovery from going down to proving how perfectly satirical they can be. Great job!

Sentiment: positive
I think it's a great movie!! It's fun, maybe a little unrealistic, but fun and dramatic!! I would like to see it again, if they were showing it in TV!! Just 1 question: Are we still talking about the same movie???

Sentiment: negative
I absolutely fail to see what is funny in this film. The humor seems to be destined for corpses. It's slow. The story is too simple to be true. The characters do not raise much sympathy, a few non-important characters aside. Nothing surprising happens. What did the writers of this script think? "Oooo funny! Let's make some old lady's high on pot! Let's make them.... giggle! Let's make them... behave like little children!! Oooo, yes, that's absolutely brilliant and original!"

This film has irritated me most from all the films I've seen in the last five years.

Sentiment: negative
Okay so i found out about this movie and I watched the preview read almost all the reviews and was having a hard time debating whether I should watch it or not. Before i even watched the movie i was emotionally weird on it. i was so unsure if i was going to watch this and be disturbed for like a long time. So i choose to risk it and watched it and heres what i thought: The beginning started off fine for me. It seemed to be heading in a decent direction. Got past the rape scene and i couldn't figure why people were so disturbed or bored by the movie. Don't get me wrong the rape scene was just as sad and scary but it didn't really bother me to a dramatic point. Then as the middle came in i understood the boring stuff that was going on. There was like 5 minutes shots of nothing but people walking around saying or showing nothing! its one thing to have a shot where a person is showing some kind of emotion but this movie didn't have that. It had about 3 of these pointless scenes, where you see the main character Maya kind of get out of control but it didn't show it right making me want to fast forward. Then when she engaged in the hardcore partying it wasn't so boring but still a little dull. Oh and as a note Rosario Dawson still did a great job. Okay moving on so finally after an hour of pointlessness to the middle the revenge comes to Maya's attention. Thats where it got disturbing. I didn't feel bad for him or nothing he got what he deserved but the whole scene was really disturbing and i just felt all eck after it. I cant really tell you whether or not to watch this movie because its so...i don't know i cant find a word to sum it up. But if you choose to watch it just don't be unsuprised.

Sentiment: negative
Flat, soulless computer images on less than astonishing backgrounds animates a horribly predictable story in this film. Absolutely nothing takes you by surprise, you can even tell when the Bryan Adams vocals are going to come in, which are always at the wrong time.

The main character, Spirit the horse, is given an annoying voice when he narrates what is happening. The narration is not needed, though, as everything happening is really obvious. You can even tell what the horses are saying, although all they do is neigh. Which would be good, but all the horses make exactly the same sounds - one for warning, one for sorrow, one for laughing, etc. There is no variation between the horses' voices.

Young kids might like this film, though. It's soppy enough for a family to sit down and watch, and there's little danger of anyone being frightened. If you have nothing else to do, and want to watch a film with your kids, this isn't a bad choice.

But otherwise, this isn't recommended.

Sentiment: negative
My left foot is an epic outstanding film explaining the life and times of Christy Brown,who had cerebral palsy,a severe disability and had only the use of his left foot,but he was defiant,he managed to become an artist and writer against all the odds

I have seen this film a lot of times and each time I see it,I find it equally brilliant each time.I wonder how did this amazing film not win an Oscer for best picture,It is a shambles by the academy awards. Jim Shirdan is to me one of the greatest directors in the world.the screenplay,the music and anything else is excellent in this film. As the film goes on,you would nearly feel your in the brown household as everything occurs.Ray MacAnally and Brenda Fricker are amazing as Cristies parents and Fiona Shaw is equally brilliant as d.r Eileen Cole,who helps Christy on his battle of defiance.

The Irish film industry had noting much to its name before my left foot.My left foot was the start of a wonderful period in Irish film. films so powerful and brilliant such as the field,the crying game,in the name of the father and Michael Collins followed my left foot.these Irish films were regarded so highly around the world and were nominated for multiple Oscers and won some,A wonderful period for Irish film.My left foot is a powerful outstanding film.

Daniel day-lewis plays the crippled Christy Brown so well and so brilliantly and the same goes for Hugh o Conner who plays young Christy.To me those two performances are two of the best ever film performances,especially Daniel day-Lewis's performance which I would regard as high as Antony Hopkins in the silence of the lambs. Daniel day-lewis has proved in his career that he is an great actor.

this is an excellent masterpiece in film,see it!

Sentiment: positive
Seeing this movie was the most fun I've had at the cinema in a long time. However, I am not able to say whether this is a good or a bad film, because such simple qualifications simply cannot be applied. This picture has everything any movie could ever have. It has characteristics of a romantic comedy, a political commentary, a thriller, a drama, an action movie, a musical, and an absurdist self-conscious art film. It's all in there, adding up to a myth.

The basic premise is about an Indian couple, Nandini (Karishma Kapoor) and Shekhar (Sanjay Kapoor), happily living in Canada, who rush to India to visit the husband's parents after a disturbing news report. The rest of the story takes place in India, where the couple find themselves in the midst of a plot of fratricidal violence. At one point, the story borrows from "Not without my baby," but to call Shakti a remake of anything would be an injustice.

The ostensible story line takes a backseat to a number of astonishing interruptions, including Shah Rukh Khan's dream of Aishwarya Rai which comes as if out of another movie. In fact, the two stars are on all the posters, but they appear really late in the film, and only Shah Rukh ends up being a real character. Yet he makes up for it with a spirited and truly unexpected performance.

Karishma Kapoor is the one with most work to do in this film, and she does an admirable job, having to link up the film's twists and turns with a show of believable emotion. Another notable presence is Nana Patekar, who plays Narsimha, the tyrannical father of the husband Shekhar. Nana Patekar dominates every scene he's in with a scary but nuanced character.

The movie is not without its share of realism. Violence is rampant, but truly disturbing in the abuse received by most of the female characters, with Karishma getting soundly beaten on a number of occasions. At times, this violence is clearly disturbing but ultimately it becomes surreal as every dramatic sequence is usually followed by such comic and spectacular turns that the overall effect is nothing but cathartic.

I have seen a share of Bollywood releases, and the mixing of genres and incredible plot resolutions are certainly their norm. But "Shakti" raises the bar by absorbing an even greater masala without becoming ridiculous. It is a film that achieves the grandeur of a Shakespearian tragedy, where the audience of the rabble and royalty is equally entertained. It is pure, gratuitous cinema, and the director Krishna Vamsi must have had a dream of a good time by throwing in every trick in the book. Perhaps, the all-important message of violence begetting violence and the inspiring extents of motherly love were not the thoughts on my mind, but I came out of watching "Shakti" exhilarated. Making movies can be the most fun in the world!

Sentiment: positive
If you don't mind subtitles, you like comedy and truly interesting characters, along with a taste of something different from mainstream American cinema, then take a chance and rent this film.

Two contrasting friends, (one very neurotic sweater, the other the strong quiet loner type) working for a jerk butcher in a smaller danish town, decide to strike out on they're own together and open a butcher shop themselves. Not successful at first they incorporate something new to they're recipe and become an instant hit with the village.

That being an interesting story in itself, this smartly humorous film is laced with even more, (friendship, romance, crime, death, personal tragedy) that makes this film so funny yet riddled with numerous subtle interests that make it so interestingly funny yet warm and fuzzy.

A must mention is the characters created and the actors making them believable. You can have the best script yet if the characters aren't believable it can sink a film and with this, the directing, acting, character believability and story all mesh so well they make this a very entertaining film.

So, if your in the mood to stretch a lil, want to see something very good yet done a bit differently, then I suggest you rent this film while I'm on my way out to find more by director writer Anders Thomas Jensen.

Sentiment: positive
Zero Day is a film few people have gotten to see, and what a shame that is.

When I saw the end, where the two main characters descend upon the room and mercilessly kill people, then commit suicide, and it made me grab my stomach. I was shaking, that's how strong this movie is.

The movie is amazing. It's too incredible not to get a perfect ten. It's sad that so few people understand the true beauty of this film. It is not a budget which makes a film good, it is the amount of feeling the makers put into it which makes it good.

It leaves a permanent impression in your mind that you simply cannot get out. It makes you realise the true horror of shootings- especially if you were to know that person, and this movie makes you feel like you know these people.

I recommend Zero Hour to those who feel they are mature enough to watch it. I am fourteen, and I feel that this film is just too amazing to be put into words. It feels like you're watching something that actually happened.

Sentiment: positive
The movie is basically the story of a Russian prostitute's return to her home village for the funeral of a sister/friend. There are a couple of other minor story lines that might actually be more interesting than the one taken, but they are not fully explored. The core of the movie is the funeral, wake, and later controversy over the future of a community of crones that make dolls and sell them to buy vodka but are now missing the artist who made their dolls marketable. Apparently, the movie is unedited. The prostitute's journey from the city to the village is an excruciatingly endless train ride and tramp through the mud. Maybe that's supposed to impress us with the immensity of the Russian landscape. The village itself, such as it is, is inhabited by a legion of widows and one male, the consort of the dead girl. Continuing the doll business is problematic for everyone involved and eventually seems impossible. Most of the film is shot with a hand-held camera that could induce nausea. Another problem for Western viewers is that subtitles don't include the songs and laments of the crones. Don't go to this movie unless you're fluent in Russian.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was terrible. It was so very terrible.

Most annoying was the way the trial was conducted. The defense attorney is allowed to ramble on and on when questioning a witness without the prosecution making any objections. He attacks the children brought to give testimony with cruel ferociousness and repeatedly yells at them that they're lying. These just aren't things that they subject children who have been sexually abused to. The trial is silly and it ruins the whole movie...(Law & Order has spoiled me for courtroom accuracy-ness).

Sentiment: negative
Well, I had to be generous and give this a 2. This was mainly due to the gratuitous holes cut in that lady's shirt where her breasts are. I found that mildly amusing. Other than that, this movie does nothing more than provide a few good laughs with a friend. Funny if you're willing to throw "mystery science theatre" comments at it with someone, but it ain't no better than a 2. And a 2 pretty much sucks.

Sentiment: negative
They probably should have called this movie The Map because the majority of the whole stupid film is revolved around a map of a cemetery. Not to mention how many of the same boring shots of the map there are. The only thing they show more than the map itself is the little beads of sweat that is constantly building up on the forehead of our main character. This of course was the film makers way of showing us how incredibly tense things are getting up on the Immortal Hills Cemetery. Come on now , couldn't they have shown us just one of the death scenes? We hear a whole lot about how everyone who is listed on the map is dropping like flies but we don't get to see anything. Some how I Bury The Living manged to keep my attention so i was fairly generous with the rating i gave it but i will not recommend this movie to anyone. Unless you have a deep fascination with maps or sweat i recommend renting a better I movie , such as I Spit On Your Grave or I Drink Your Blood.

Sentiment: negative
You don't have to spend much time watching this made for TV movie or series pilot or whatever it was intended to be to figure out just what lies in store. The incredibly bad musical score makes its debut from the start. Seriously, if this isn't the worst theme I've ever heard, I certainly can't remember it. While the acting talent is available here, from Jeff Bridges to Carl Betz, Vera Miles, and Sal Mineo, the writing is atrocious and the story is contrived, filled with insipid stereotypes, and an obvious ripoff from Ken Kesey. Why must Hollywood always present tales from the sixties as if the so-called hippies were all unidimensional morons? It's too bad that such an interesting era in our exceptionally conformist social experience is generally depicted by out and out garbage so that the least offensive of the genre is now accepted as reasonably authentic when almost none of it comes even close to the way things really were. The best I've seen to date is a memoir called Looking Back by a guy named Becker, but who else has even heard of it? No one in Hollywood, that's for sure. They're too busy pushing tripe like this groaner of a movie to bother with reality.

Sentiment: negative
I enjoyed this series, but felt that the whole thing was let down by the sound recording/mixing.

For whatever reason, they've had to employ an awful lot of what's called ADR, where the actors replace the original location sound with a re-recording of it in a sound booth.

The reasons for doing this are usually due to problems at the location, or because somebody screwed up somewhere in the sound production chain.

It wouldn't be so bad if the ADR was done well, but at times it's just plain distracting. It's not just the ADR that's the problem - the sound mix just doesn't match up to the quality of performances and the pictures.

I'd be curious to know what went wrong.

Sentiment: positive
I bought this thing used at a video game store's "clearance bin". I wanted to get that guilty feeling from watching something I've been warned is too intense to watch; I wanted the shock value. I wanted to feel guilty and bad about watching a "banned film". I was very disappointed.

Cannibal Ferox does not work because it is so campy and fake. Most of the time the camera does not show you the "shocking" stabs, chops, slicing - you just see the aftermath. (They do show a breast hooking in detail). The special effects are just OK. Nothing here that tells you any of the violence is real. The "cannibals" are obviously poor people from central / south America who were dressed up as jungle savages and told to act mean. These people were obviously in on the whole picture to get a little money, or food, or both. Again...just not convincing.

However, like everyone else has said, there is some real killing of animals going on here. That is the extent of the realism. To me, that was more shocking than any gutting, chopping of scalps, or castration, and even then, the animal deaths are not that gory at all - maybe just sad.

Sentiment: negative
If you like animal movies, this movie will please. My wife likes animals and animal movies, she especially like the parrot in this film. It is geared towards kids, but I laughed at most of the humor. The French fashion character made me laugh, and adds balance to the script. It is a Disney film, with its sappy, happily, family apeal, but I like leaving the theater with a positive fealing.

Sentiment: positive
Hi I have been looking 4 the soundtrack or a song from the film, does anyone know who sung the title song? I think it was called welcome home or coming home.

It is played throughout the film and for the end credits please can anyone help either the artist and/or title of song thanks mike this is for all you movie buffs lets see if you know your stuff

Hi I have been looking 4 the soundtrack or a song from the film, does anyone know who sung the title song? I think it was called welcome home or coming home.

It is played throughout the film and for the end credits please can anyone help either the artist and/or title of song thanks mike this is for all you movie buffs lets see if you know your stuff

Sentiment: positive
Killjoy 2 is the same as killjoy 1. Bad acting, bad characters, annoying clown, bad lines, you name it. Honestly, I'm not all that surprised that more people haven't seen this movie. The only reason I watched Killjoy 2 is because I wanted to think that the filmmakers learned from their mistakes. They didn't. This movie is just as bad, if not worse, than the first one. That clown.... that goddamn clown.... I hate him! I hate him so much! And I don't hate him because he is a good villain... I hate him because he is annoying beyond belief! I hope that the filmmakers realized after trying and failing again that this movie is unrepairable. The last thing we need is a Killjoy 3.

Sentiment: negative
Leonard Maltin must've been watching some other movie. (Though I find his Guide to be quite a valuable resource, please disregard his comments on this one.) He states "starts off well then fizzles" when it's really the reverse - "starts off tepid then catches fire". The plot is about as simple as it gets. Happy Mom, Happy Dad and Happy Son take a vacation at an isolated beach, Dad incapacitated in accident, Mom runs off to get help, meets up with dangerous escaped convict. Mom tries to trick convict into helping while Dad waits and hangs on for dear life.

Good white-knuckler given an electric jolt by Ralph Meeker, appearing suddenly (the director, John Sturges, films it in a clever way that will make you gasp) around halfway through as the cunning, desperate criminal. Meeker is an unusually flippant, reckless actor (at least here and in the classic "Kiss Me Deadly") and he happily snatches the keys to the film's narrative and speeds off with the top down. His character has a habit of grinning childishly and saying "Pretty neat, huh?" when he's especially pleased with his misdeeds. There is a funny break in the action when they get a flat tire and he tersely instructs his hostage, Barbara Stanwyck, "Don't go away". She fires back "Where would I go?" (they're in the middle of nowhere) and he realizes sitcom-ishly "Yeah, that's right". The friction between them is a hoot.

There are flaws, somewhat ridiculous ones. There's one scene where the police, who have been chasing after Meeker for some time, stop Stanwyck's car and to evade detection Meeker rests his head on her shoulder like a loving husband supposedly would, and pretends to be asleep as she's being questioned. A. He looks conspicuously un-masculine in this pose and B. I think it's safe to say that any adult who appears to be asleep during an encounter with law enforcement would certainly arouse suspicion.

Still a sturdy thriller which builds to an exciting and edifying conclusion.



Sentiment: positive
In the glory days of the 90s (god rest its soul) you could turn on the great Comedy Central at any hour of the day and see the greatest sketch comedy show of all time Saturday Night Live. Whpat a glorious show that was, whether it was the original Not-Ready-for-Primetime Players or the second golden age of SNL featuring the greats- Chris Farley, Adam Sandler, David Spade... and then, it all went to hell. I was first exposed to MadTV about a year and a half ago, and I think I must've passed out from shock. How could a show so terrible prevail for so long? There are so many horrible flaws. I suppose I'll start with the writing. The writing, for most part, is terrible. It is nothing more than kindergarten bathroom humor. The cast, for the most part, is talentless. There are a few sketches I have enjoyed, such as some of Ms. Swan and Stuart, and there are a few talents on the show such as the magnificent Alex Borstein. Phil LaMarr is a talented actor, just not as a comedian. Although there a few sparse ha ha moments, they are not enough to redeem this endless line of horrible drivel populated by babbling idiots. Miss this one.

Sentiment: negative
I stopped five minutes in when Beowulf was given a double-shot, automatic crossbow with sights on it. Not only do crossbows not have telescoping sights, but Beowulf beat Grendel in hand-to-hand combat. The terrible, wooden acting and eternal darkness that plagues all Sci-Fi Original Movies didn't help either. Having only gotten a few minutes in before I felt my bile rise and decided to watch I Love Lucy reruns instead, that's really about all I have to say. But, you might as well just realize that it's a made-for-TV movie and skip it right there.

A travesty.

Sentiment: negative
Meticulously constructed and perfectly played, To The Ends Of The Earth is a simply astonishing voyage out of our reality and into another age.

Based on William Golding's trilogy, these three 90-minute films chronicle the journey towards both Australia and experience of youthful aristocrat Edmund Talbot (Benedict Cumberbatch) aboard an aging man o' war in the early 19th century as he heads for a Government position Down Under.

Among the crew and hopeful emigrants sharing his passage are a tempestuous, bullying captain (Jared Harris), a politically radical philosopher (Sam Neill), a canny 1st lieutenant who's worked his way up from the bottom (Jamie Sives) and, fleetingly, the first brush of love in the form of a beautiful young woman (Joanne Page) whose ship literally passes in the night.

Quite aside from the astonishing degree of physical historic accuracy, director David Attwood and screenwriters Tony Basgallop and Leigh Jackson have a canny eye and ear for the manners and stiff etiquette of an earlier time, crafting a totally convincing microcosm of the Napoleonic era.

Shipboard life is one brutal, monotonous round of seasickness, squalor and danger after another and as Edmund becomes entangled in the loves, hopes and miseries of his fellow passengers he experiences a delirious whirl of life's hardships, Man's inhumanities and his noblest sentiments.

Those who enjoyed Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World or Patrick O'Brian's series of novels on which it was based will love this  for everyone else, it's a whole new world to discover.

Sentiment: positive
Hopefully the score has changed by now due to my brilliant and stunning review which persuades all of you to go and watch the film thereby creating an instant chorus of "8"s, this movie's true score.

As mentioned before Chris Rock is The King! Previous to going to see this movie I wasn't that over the top about him but now I'm banging on the doors of Chris Rock's website begging him to take me on as his protege. This film is truly funny, if you don't find this movie funny you REALLY need therapy and it's humour which targets all areas of society including race(predictably), class division, love, wealth, employment, dreams, stand up comedy... the list goes on.

There was one slight disappointment for me however. This was that in going into this film I didn't realise that it was actually a remake of "Heaven Can Wait" another quite good movie made in 1971 with Warren Beatty. As such I was quite surprised when I watched this movie and suddenly the plot began to unravel to be distinctly similar to an older movie I had watched on TV a few weeks ago.. Regardless this movie is in my opinion the better version out of the two of them simply because of the different areas it covers and the fact that Chris Rock is funnier than Warren Beatty any second of any day of any week of any year of any...you get the picture.

Well to the actual plot of the film.

Don't spoil the experience for yourself! Don't read the plot! Just go and watch a movie because there have been two reviews on IMDb so far that have raved mad about it, go see it because it is the funniest thing you would have seen in a long time, go and see it because it's a cinema experience that doesn't leave you grumbling ad nauseum at the cost of cinema tickets. Go see it because it is a good movie!

Sentiment: positive
This film blew me away. I thought I knew a little about the Attica prison riot. After watching this, I see I knew nothing. The story is told through the relationship between the attorney and the black inmate. Both the personal story of these two men and the unfolding courtroom drama were riveting. The flashback sequences in the prison were awesome. It's hard to believe it wasn't documentary footage it was so real. It was not only a great piece of drama, it was an incredible lesson in an important chapter in American history. I'm with Ebert and Roeper. I give it two thumbs up.

Sentiment: positive
My father, Dr. Gordon Warner (ret. Major, US Marine Corps), was in Guadalcanal and lost his leg to the Japanese, and also received the Navy Cross. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that my father was the technical adviser of this film and I am hoping that he had an impact on the film in making it resemble how it really was back then, as I read in various comments written by the viewers of this film that it seemed like real-life. My father is a fanatic of facts and figures, and always wanted things to be seen as they were so I would like to believe he had something to do with that.

He currently lives in Okinawa, Japan, married to my mother for over 40 years (ironically, she's Japanese), and a few years ago was awarded one of the highest commendations from the Emperor of Japan for his contribution and activities of bringing back Kendo and Iaido to Japan since McArthur banned them after WWII.

My father was once a marine but I know that once you are a marine, you're always a marine. And that is exactly what he is and I love and respect him very much.

I would love to be able to watch this film if anyone will have a copy of it. And I'd love to give it to my father for his 94th birthday this year!

Sentiment: positive
It is very hard to rate this film. As entertainment value for 21st century viewers, it fails miserably. However, for the student of early sound films and history, it is a jewel. "Show of Shows" was a revue filmed to compete with MGM's successful "Hollywood Revue of 1929", which still survives intact complete with its Technicolor scenes.

The purpose of the all-star revue was to showcase a particular studio's silent stars in speaking roles, and show that they could make the transition. However, Warner Bros. seems to have forgotten this and employs many acts and stars that they didn't even have under long-term contract such as Ben Turpin, Lloyd Hamilton, Beatrice Lillie, and even a marching band. Meanwhile, their biggest talent - Al Jolson - is noticeably absent. Even at a high salary he could not be compelled to join in. Almost every act is overly long and the film plays like a dozen or so Vitaphone shorts strung together with no continuity. The finale is also overly long, but it is really enjoyable with all of its dance numbers.

The highlights of the film are two numbers from Winnie Lightner - "Pingo Pongo" and "Singin in the Bathtub", a couple of numbers with Nick Lucas, John Barrymore performing Shakespeare, and the Chinese Fantasy "Li Po Li" with Nick Lucas and Myrna Loy. This last number is the only part of the film that survives in Technicolor, and it really is quite attractive. Reasonably enough, the players in these good acts were long-term Warner Bros. stars so perhaps the director knew how to play to their strengths since he was familiar with them.

This film acts as a snapshot at an odd point in film history - the year 1929, which was the bridge year between two eras - the silent and sound eras, and the roaring 20's and the Great Depression. Just two years later this same film would have had an entirely different cast, as Warner Bros. would abandon its silent era stars and the stars they hired just to produce the early musicals in favor of those stars that gave Warner Bros. its distinctive urban look and feel - James Cagney, Joan Blondell, Edward G. Robinson, and others.

Sentiment: positive
I have now seen quite a few films by Pedro Almodóvar, but this would have to be the most disappointing so far. This film seemed to lack the zaniness that is usually everywhere in his films, and the story just never got me interested. Many Almodóvar regulars appear in this film, so it's not like there was a lack of on-screen talent, but this film just seemed more serious than his other films. If there was a comedic edge to this movie, I certainly couldn't find it, and it made for one surprisingly weak movie.

Sentiment: negative