DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Well, for this abomination of a film, I wasn't expecting anything good. I find Steve Carell annoying, and Bruce Almighty was pretty good but there is absolutely no reason for it to have a sequel. Somehow, this film was even lower than my expectations, even when I didn't have any. 

Does anyone remember the Disney movie Noah with Tony Danza? Well, let's just say that Evan Almighty completely ripped it off in way too many ways for the movie to remain justifiable. Actually Evan Almighty was had the EXACT same plot outline as Noah, with the exception of a few technicalities, it was nothing but a carbon copy of a far-superior movie that was actually FUNNY. 

Another thing, did anyone get sick of Wanda Sykes' stupid, unfunny, redundant, one-liners that were literally in every single scene? It was completely ridiculous and just dragged the movie down more and more. 

Despite the fact that I basically had already seen the film ten years earlier(Noah), Evan Almighty has to be the most predictable movie I've ever seen. I figured out the entire movie from beginning to end within the first five minutes and eventually realized that it was ripping off Noah left and right. 

In conclusion, if you're a little bit unsure of whether or not you want to see Evan Almighty, and are already sick of Jonah Hill playing the same role in every single movie he's in, liked Bruce Almighty, and don't want to see a predictable, dry, unfunny movie with Steve Carell trying to act like Jim Carrey, then please, don't see this piece of garbage.

Sentiment: negative
I'm sorry, but for a movie that has been so stamped as a semi classic and a scary movie, but seriously, I think when the director has me laughing unintentionally, that's not a good thing. The characters in this film were just so over the top and unbelievable. I just couldn't stop laughing at Issac's voice, it was just like a high pitched whiny girl's British voice. Not to mention Malicai's over dramatic stick up his butt character.

Children of the Corn is about a town where all the children have killed off the adults and worship a God that commands them to sacrifice any 20+ aged people. When a couple has a bad car accident they come to the town for help, but of course they get caught in the kid's trap and are getting sacrificed! But Malicai has other intentions when he is sick of following Issac's orders.

Children of the Corn could've been something great, but turned into a bad over the top movie that you could easily make fun of. As much as I love Stephen King, I'm sure this is not what he intended and it was a pretty lame story, or at least the actors destroyed it. Like I said, for a good laugh, watch it, but I'm warning you, it's pretty pathetic.

3/10

Sentiment: negative
Stupid, mindless drivel about a jet assembled within hours by mechanics who have never worked on airplanes (piloted by Burgess Meredith) chasing a Porsche race car which runs on decades-old gasoline sludge, driven by Lee Majors, with Chris Makepeace as the runaway techno-wiz who can McGyver spare parts into a radio receiver which can pick up all frequencies simultaneously, and who somehow learned how to acquire and use chemicals to make high explosives in a perfectly peaceful society. As moronic as it sounds. Terrible waste of Burgess Meredith, but Chris Makepeace may at least be forgiven on the grounds that this was only his second film.

Sentiment: negative
I'm sick of the "open mind" argument. I'm generally quite open-minded, but this sort of line is basically made by people who enjoy things that should not be "enjoyed." You know what, there is a reason so many people are disgusted by this. And just because someone out there isn't doesn't make it less so. There is, after all, a reason for the existence of the feeling of disgust, and no amount of "open mind" or "pushing the envelope" should eliminate that feeling. Otherwise we're no better than senseless living things.

Back to the film. Another argument is that this film puts women in the roles normally reserved for men, which may be why men don't like it. But just because it proves revolting for more men than would otherwise doesn't make it great. Maybe men shouldn't be turned on by what's dominating the movie industry, but is the answer for women to do the same? Maybe, if you don't like movies, TV, and entertainment having so much sexual objectification of women, so much violence, don't watch them.

And if you're a director, don't make them.

Otherwise, some day someone will ask for an open mind when what happened in this "movie" happen in real life.

Heck, some people seem to like it so much.

Sentiment: negative
...out of this movie.

Sorry to say, this showed at the Cleveland International Film Festival. Our copy did not have subtitles, so I asked the Festival crew if there was a problem with the print received. "Not so..." I was told. "the director wants it this way". 

Again, sorry to say, my French is barely high school elective level (more than 3 decades ago). Much of the initial dialog is in French, so I'm sure I missed the nuance and many details in between my understanding of a few key words. 

I've rated this a "1", primarily because of the irony of a director who once worked doing subtitles refusing to put subtitles into a movie to be seen by an American audience. Excuse me, even if most Americans wouldn't know where Europe was on a map, not even a film festival audience should be assumed to know "the native language" of a given movie. Even if a few of us don't know Finnish, I would still expect subtitles for the few "dolts" who aren't sophisticated enough to have expertise in the 37 different languages presented. I'll put up with this ego from David Lynch, not from Litvack.

Sentiment: negative
I am not a Faulkner fan (which is considered sacrilegious, especially since I grew up near the author's hometown); however, I think this is an excellent movie. On par with the quality of the movie "To Kill a Mocking Bird". If you haven't seen it, buy it anyway. It's well worth having in your permanent collection. TCM recently played the movie as a part of the Race on Film series. I wish they'd play it more often. Very moving.

On a side note, the folks from Oxford, Mississippi, will also enjoy seeing the footage of the town square as it was back in the 1940's. The Courthouse, City Hall, etc.: They're all on screen. I never knew the movie was filmed there until I noticed the familiarity of the buildings. When I saw the arch in the front of City Hall, I began to get suspicious. Look closely at the pennants on Chick's wall: You'll see two for Ole Miss !

Sentiment: positive
The only thing I expected that this film didn't have was an intelligent, talking motorcycle.

This film is just plain awful. I gave it 1 star, which of course, means I enjoyed it tremendously. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, bad fight choreography. The only real actor in this movie is Martin Landau, who of course does a good job playing the villain, although the character is your standard cardboard cutout evil CEO/Villain. Even the so-called "plot twist" at the end was no shock.

There was so much to make fun of in this movie, I enjoyed it a lot. And it did have a few impressive car wreck stunts.

Like bad movies? Check this one out, ouch. Want a good movie? Not here.

Sentiment: negative
If I remember, Ira Gershwin, the lyricist and brother of George, offered the Gershwin catalog for this film and it was snapped up by the producers. In many respects, it was a typical 50's movie musical by the Freed Unit at MGM and directed by Vincente Minelli with a lot of help from Gene Kelly.

The Gershwins were, of course, among the greatest of all Broadway musical teams but, in my opinion, George himself was among the greatest of all American composers, period!!! Gene Kelly was, of course, one of the two greatest male dancers of the movie musical (One guess as to the other?) and I don't imagine his casting was ever in doubt. But, I think the rest of the cast needs some explanation: Oscar Levant was a noted personality in his time and, as an actual friend of George Gershwin, he had to be in this film. He was a talented pianist and even a moderately talented composer as well as a noted neurotic and hypochondriac and here, as always, he plays himself.

Leslie Caron was an unknown at this time and she was of the French "gamin" type. A talented dancer, she was never a real beauty. George Guétary who plays the part of Maurice Chavalier, oops, I mean Henri Baurel, was Greek and not French but he certainly is more than OK as a French boulevardier even if a little too young for the part.

Gene's hoofer's voice is serviceable here but Guétary has much the better vocal equipment. Though Gene was better cast elsewhere as, obviously, in "Singin' in the Rain" where his character is much more calculating, even here he shows himself to be something of a heel at times (He was, not for nothing, cast as the original heel Joey in Pal Joey, the Broadway musical.) I was not so enchanted with his "I Got Rhythm" scene with the children which does not appear as spontaneous as was intended in my opinion.

I also found Nina Foch's character Milo to be rather irritating.

But the highlight of the film is obviously the lengthy ballet at the end of the film based on the title music with sets and costumes in the styles of the great French Impressionist painters.

I found it difficult to believe Gene and Oscar, as struggling artists, and I don't think the musical numbers are as well set up as they might be but, on balance, the Gershwin music is very well served in this film.

The DVD is well-done with fine clear graphics (when they are supposed to be) and the mono sound is good but a trifle shallow.

Sentiment: positive
I really wanted to like this film as I have admiration for Italian rip-off cinema (especially Jaws rip-offs!), but the simple fact of the matter is that Monster Shark isn't very good. All the signs of this being a great piece of trash are there; we've got one of the kings of trashy cult cinema, Lamberto Bava, in the director's chair - one of the best ridiculous cult actors, Michael Sopkiw, taking the lead role, and a central creature stupid enough to give even the best that this sort of film has to offer a run for it's money, yet somehow the film still manages to be rather stale. The fact that the 'monster shark' doesn't feature too often is probably a good thing given the creature design, but there's never enough elsewhere to pull the film through without it. The plot focuses on a resort off the south coast of Florida (or rather, somewhere in Italy) where several local people have turned up in the water with arms and legs missing. It's not long before the local authorities decide that this creature has never been seen before, and it's up to a motley crew of various sea experts to catch it alive! 

The main problem with this film is that it always feels very pointless, and since there is little in the way of characters or plot development, even the least demanding of viewers are likely to start getting bored before long. This sort of film is hardly famous for being brilliant, although the fun element of films such as 'The Last Shark' and 'Killer Fish' is unfortunately absent for most of the running time. The thing I love about lead actor Michael Sopkiw is that he always seems like he's taking himself seriously no matter what film he's in (although he only ever made four). This is certainly the case here, although Bava never really allows him to completely dive in, and often he feels as much like a spare wheel as the rest of the film. Much of the runtime is spent watching the various characters sup American lager, and it's not very fascinating; although Bava does manage to come good by the end with an entertaining flurry of action as the central monster finally gets to wreak havoc upon its would-be captors. Overall, there really isn't much to recommend this film for. As mentioned, I really like this sort of stuff and even I found myself bored on numerous occasions. For hardcore Italian horror fans only!

Sentiment: negative
The Good Thing about this movie: The concept is interesting and there are some funny scenes. It also makes you think of those little things in life that could greatly affect the life of someone else without you ever knowing. Its a small world and this little movie shows us.

The Bad Thing:There are too many characters and its hard to tell who the main character is but its still a great movie.

Its a great movie and many people compare it to Magnolia which I haven't seen.

8/10

Not Rated---I would rate it PG-13 for brief violence,some language and sexual situations.

Sentiment: positive
While Star Trek the Motion Picture was mostly boring, Star Trek The Final Frontier is plain bad. In this terrible sequel, the crew is on shore leave when they get a distress signal from the Federation that ambassadors representing Earth, Romulus and Kronos (the Klingon home world) have been kidnapped by a renegade Vulcan bent on his quest to attain a starship to venture into the great barrier. There, he hopes to find God. Using mysticism and bad writing, he persuades many of the senior officers of the Enterprise to betray Kirk and get a hold of the ship. They do reach the inside of the great barrier and find a planet where they do meet a god-like alien. This one is so bad it is hard to figure out where to begin. At the core is a good idea that is never really developed. The plot goes nowhere instead of where no man has gone before. It is almost like the writers had no idea how to end this fiasco. The action scenes don't have the suspense of Wrath of Kahn, the philosophy is boring, and the humor is stale. Now I will focus most of my anger on William Shatner. When he takes the director's chair, the ego gets bigger. Most of the focus is on him, Spock, and McCoy, but does not give the others enough to do. Moreover, whereas Shatner is usually guilty of over-acting in previous movies and television spots, he is just plain bad in this one. Now Kirk is reckless, a practical jokers, and silly. One of the worst scenes involves the three leaders singing the song, "Row Row Row your Boat" in a round by a campfire. In any case, this is the worst of the Star Trek franchise. I should have given it three out of ten instead of five.

Sentiment: negative
Why would anyone want to see this?! If this was a film posted on YouTube by a teenager, I might have applauded the teen in doing so much with his mommy's video camera. I might have also congratulated his family and friends for doing a good job acting. Sadly, it was made by a very experienced film maker and these were, apparently, professional actors--making this a very, very sad film. Sad...and very pathetic, actually. As I said, it has a definite made directly to video look about it. It also has narration and acting that just scream "unprofessionals"--how could this be?! The film is filled with lots of corpses and blood. Normally this would turn me off completely, as I hate ultra-violent films and don't like seeing all that gore. However, given that none of it is that realistic, it's bearable. However, I should warn you that there are a few scenes that are still pretty disturbing. For example, the scene with the kid throwing a radio into a lady's tub and watching her naked and frying is pretty bad. There are also scenes where you can hear the thought of psychos as they fantasize about killing women. With a level of misogyny that is pretty awful. the people who wrote this are pretty sick--like killing women is meant to be for our entertainment.

After a bunch of senseless murders, the film goes to a dining room table--around which are a bunch of goof-balls wearing black hoods WITHOUT eye holes! They are talking, with pride, about all the murders they have committed and chant. It's all very funny, though I am not sure that was the scene's purpose.

Then, the film talks about various sex crimes and killings and even vampirism and cannibalism. Why, I don't know--perhaps because they people made this got off on this sort of crap. And, once again, you see and hear the thoughts and actions of a creepy German-looking man as he tracks down people and kills them.

By the way, considering the film used what I must assume are professional actors, I wondered why so many people were chosen who were clearly Germans. While they tried to act like Americans and the film was supposed to be in California, the accents are STRONG. Perhaps German audiences watched this and marveled at how "realistic" the acting was, but to any American it's obvious these folks ain't their fellow Americans! Considering that there really WAS a zodiac killer (who was never captured), I do wonder why anyone would want to make a "fan film" of sorts for the sick menace?! I mean...was this film meant as a snuff film for pervs? I just can't see anyone else wanting to see this or enjoying it. In fact, I wonder what would motivate anyone to make such a stupid AND offensive film?! Worthless and deserving to be in IMDb's Bottom 100 list.

Sentiment: negative
I rented this thinking it would be pretty good just by the cover of the movie case. Judge and Jury started out pretty good killer chasing the man who killed his wife on a bike with a cool gun, but this movie got progressively stupider as it went on. David Keith is awesome actor especially when he plays a role like this too bad the movie was a piece of crap it really wasted his talent. Judge and Jury was well plain dumb I gave it a 3 should have gave it a 2, I gave it an extra star just because David Keith's gun was cool.

Sentiment: negative
OK, so I am an original Wicker Man fan and I usually don't like British films remade by Americans, so why oh why did I put myself through the most painful cinema experiences ever? I am not a Nicolas Cage fan and I had some kind of moment of madness perhaps? The film was appalling! The bit at the beginning with the crash/fire had no relevance to the film at all and the female cop knew where Edward was going, so the bit at the end with the two girls visiting the mainland, well it wouldn't have happened as the whole thing would have been investigated. The history behind the wicker man wasn't really explored - and I guess being set in America didn't really help the whole pagan theme. This film was slow and contained no atmosphere or suspense. I must say that the best bit was right at the end, when Nicolas Cage goes up in flames! I am in such desperate need to see the original again now, in order to cleanse my disappointed soul. I really can't stress how disappointing this film is, please don't see it if you:

A) Don't like American re-makes of British Films B) Are a fan of the original C) Hate Nicolas Cage

Sentiment: negative
The problem is the role of the characters in the film. Man to Man shows a British anthropologist kidnapping two pygmies and taking them to Scotland and then realising that they are not animals or subhumans but actually equal to himself. The problem is the role of the pygmies in the film - two people who are kidnapped, treated like animals, and yet given such a shallow, stereotypical role within the film... The kidnapper (british anthropologist) ends up being the hero of the film because he 'manages' to relate to the pygmies... No notion of how the two hostages feel, of their point of view, of their ordeal... I find it is a shallow film, with a one sided fundamentally racist view... it never manages to move away from the 'white mans' view

Sentiment: negative
"Pink Flamingos" is a cult classic.The plot of this film revolves around the throwdown challenge to Divine's supremacy as the filthiest person alive."Pink Flamingos" contains some memorably repulsive scenes like a sex scene with a chicken and the scene where Divine eats fresh dog feces.Yes,the movie is shocking and funny at the same time,but the biggest laughs come from the actors' lines.Check out especially this line from Divine:"Kill everyone now!Condone first degree murder!Advocate cannibalism!Eat s***!Filth is my politics!Filth is my life!".On the whole,I really enjoyed this film.Still its tagline "An Exercise in Bad Taste" should be taken to heart and even those used to the gross out movies today may find this gem hard to stomach.Highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
Bergman and comedy don't quite go together. Some of his comedies are so naff you almost wince. This film has the odd naff moment - the last 30 seconds being the nadir, but on the whole this is a charming (rather than funny) piece, enjoyable throughout. Bergman casts several of his usual suspects who perform well. There is a great scene on the train between David, Marianne and an uncouth salesman which will stick in the memory. Some of the marriage material is typical, cynical Bergman, but this is Bergman in a light rather than dark mood.

This film has its moments and is worth the 90-odd minutes. Not one of his classics and not the place to start if you want to fall for Bergman.

Sentiment: positive
Man, this was hilarious. It should be under COMEDY. Or STUPID. It would have made realizing what a pile of stank this was much easier. Seriously? I want anyone associated with this movie tased, effective immediately. For everyone who is thinking of watching this "movie", let''s go over a few plot points. Oh, wait. There aren't any. There is literally no plot. I think Casper Van Dien was bored, and he decided to film something with some random someones, and miraculously, it somehow got on videotape. This movie is literally the worst movie of all time. Don't believe me? Go watch it. Do it, man. I dare you. But be prepared to gouge your eyes out. If you can sit through this without blowing a cow, you are very strong and courageous.

Sentiment: negative
This really is by far the worst movie I've ever seen in my whole life (I'm approaching 47)! The description on the back of the cover equaled the scrolling text right at the begin of the movie. The further plot was nil and even a bunch of corpses would have shown more life in their "acting". I viewed the full length of it and was really relieved when the final character's death signalled the end of my suffering! The location was either some kind of vaults or a grimy beach. I suppose, that home-video equipment served as camera and the lighting was sub-standard. The dialogues were uninspired and devoid of meaning. As were the actors faces. Which brings me to the topic "make-up": By the looks of it they got it as gimmicks in some teen-ager's magazines "my first own make-up" or similar. What made me buy the DVD was the name "Lovecraft" printed on the cover. The only connection with this brilliant mind's works was the use of the name "Necronomicon", which was wrongly translated as "Book of Light". The 4,70 EURO I paid for this DVD were a complete loss, for the DVD went into the recycling box without any further ado.

Sentiment: negative
This really is a film of two halves. The first detailing the lives and friendship of two boys (one a privileged Pashtun and the other a down-trodden Hazara) in late 70s Afghanistan before the invasion by the USSR works extremely well. The young actors turn in convincing performances and seeing Afghanistan as it once was throws the present situation there into stark relief.

The real problem comes when we move into the later phase of the story where we join the Pashtun as a man living in America. Ancient debts to his young friend lead him to return to his homeland and it is really at this point that things break down. The central adult character is clearly supposed to be sympathetic, but in fact comes across as wimpish and wallowing in self pity. It is hard to really care for him and one cannot help but feel that the really interesting story is the one we do not get to see - that of his boyhood friend.

Once he returns to Afghanistan the narrative becomes bogged down in a series of highly contrived coincidences. Most remarkably he manages to come across his childhood enemy after all these years almost immediately (even though he is not looking for him), despite the chaos that has since consumed the country. This enables him to confront past demons in a way that is simply too convenient to be credible. The resolution of the narrative is also run through with an awful, mawkish sentimentality which undermines any really serious points the film may be trying to make.

Although it is possible to start seeing characters and the abuses of their lives as symbols of a state which has been torn apart by world politics it is hard to really see this as a film which engages with any wider political discussion. Instead the narrative becomes reduced to one character's emotional journey of self discovery and healing. Unfortunately this character is so dull and wrapped up in himself that it is hard to really become engaged in his story, while opportunities to make a really interesting film about Afghanistan itself are wasted.

Sentiment: negative
There is no reason to see this movie. A good plot idea is handled very badly. In the middle of the movie everything changes and from there on nothing makes much sense. The reason for the killings are not made clear. The acting is awful. Nick Stahl obviously needs a better director. He was excellent in In the Bedroom, but here he is terrible. Amber Benson from Buffy, has to change her character someday. Even those of you who enjoy gratuitous sex and violence will be disappointed. Even though the movie was 80 minutes, which is too short for a good movie (but too long for this one),there are no deleted scenes in the DVD which means they never bothered to fill in the missing parts to the characters.

Don't spend the time on this one.

Sentiment: negative
I love oddball animation, I love a lot of Asian films, but I didn't love this particular product of Japan. The Fuccons are supposedly an American family (they're all mannequins) who have moved to Japan, and they're somewhat a 50's sitcom type family, with slightly more modern sensibilities at times. The DVD features several very short episodes (like less than 5 minutes each?) and I did not find it to be either funny or entertaining, not even in a weird way. I'm not sure what the appeal is of this. I did pick up on some satire here and there, gosh, who wouldn't, but satire is usually somewhat humorous, isn't it? And nothing I saw or heard rated even a little smirk. I picked this up used and it certainly SOUNDED appealing, but I guess either I'm missing the point or it's just plain LAME. The box even says it's Fuccon hilarious, right there on the front, but I beg to differ. 2 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
I have seen this movie and in all honestly was quite disappointed. And in my opinion this movie lacks heart. I frankly didn't care what happen to the characters by the end of the movie. 

There was so much there they could have done with the movie that they didn't because they were either so rapped up in trying to be obscure and make some deep comment on life, or trying so hard not to, that the characters and story were completely lost in all of it. I have seen another picture by this director and enjoyed it well enough. But I felt this film lack of the whimsy and heart of the other and I was left wondering what the point was, or if the point of the movie was that it had no point. Honestly, while I didn't feel like tearing my hair out during the movie, I did remorse the lost time on the sad little film.

I have no doubt that some people will love this movie, but frankly I didn't.

Sentiment: negative
Yep, the topic is a straight quote from the movie and I think it's pretty accurate. I was so bored to dead with this pointless effort. All the flashes etc. making no sense after first 20 minutes is just bad film making + If you are epileptic, you would have died at least five times already. Of course all the David Lynch fans would raise a flag for this kind of turkey to be "the best film ever made" because it doesn't make any sense AND when it doesn't make any sense it's got to be art, and art movie is always good. Right? I say WRONG. This kind of artificial art grab is just a pathetic way to try to show that you're a good film maker. Anthony Hopkins as a excellent actor should just stay acting.

Sentiment: negative
i would never have thought that it would be possible to make such an impressive movie without any music. but it is. just the pictures. watch out for that picture: anne talking with that little boy benny 'bout the soul. really strong. might make you feel different.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was one of the greatest movies ever made,,,, it had everything to make a movie great. Incredible acting, awesome special effects...... oh wait I must be thinking of a good movie. Well this wasn't one of them, it just plain sucked. 

What I want to know is, what kind of bone head would think that this movie was a 10. When I casted my vote there were 206 out there, god knows what goes on in their head. Now as for any other vote, a 8 or 9 was even too high, but a 10??? Come on, what made this movie sooooo good to give it a 10? I know these are the same 206 that thought that Jean Claude Van Damme is a great dramatic actor.

Sentiment: negative
Lensman is a rather lesser-known Anime gem from Toho and MK studios.It's loosely based on the novel,but it reminds me more of the game "Metroid".

If you want to see this,see it in Japanese with Subtitles or just plain Japanese.The English dubbed version was almost cropped and edited to death.

There is not much new,despite the fact that it's the 1st animated feature to combine CG-graphics with hand-drawn animation,but it's fun to watch,nevertheless.

Sentiment: positive
This is a truly remarkable piece of cinematic achievement. From the very start I was utterly hooked into the (true) story when Lt. Viktor Burakov (Stephan Rea) weeps while performing the autopsies on the remains of the children's bodies. This then is the compelling story of Andrei Chikatilo, wonderfully played by Jeffrey DeMunn (The Green Mile). In fact, he plays it so well and so sympathetically that the viewer almost starts to pity him, until we remember what he is. The psychiatrist Dr. Alexandr Bukhanovsky, wonderfully played by Max Von Sydow was utterly believable in every detail, and the point he makes when talking about paranoia in the Soviet Union, is made all too apparent by the behaviour of the local Communist Commissar Bondarchuk played by Joss Ackland. For me though, the outstanding performance was from Donald Sutherland, proving once again what a superb character actor he really is. I was almost in tears when he told Burakov how the FBI had so closely followed and admired his work. This film puts Silence of the Lambs into the shade, from the atmospheric and bleak Soviet landscape, to the superlative performances by everyone involved. 

I rate this film 10/10

Sentiment: positive
"Shivering Shakespeare" could be considered the first classic of the "Our Gang" talkie era. By now, Hal Roach Studios began to hit their stride in making talking pictures, and "Shakespeare" is the happy result.

The Gang is appearing in a version of Quo Vadis produced by Kennedy the Cop's wife. The kids don't find the play very fun to be in and are distracted by people in the theatre and cannot remember their lines. Among the funniest bits are Kennedy the Cop as the giant, who pulls off his makeup to fight an overzealous man in a bull costume; and the terrible dancing girl (played by director Bob McGowan's daughter.)

Several filmographies mention that "Shakespeare" has the first pie fight in a talkie. This may be true, seeing as they tried different speeds with the film during the fight. Buster Keaton's brother Harry is at the receiving end of one of the pies. Very funny and an early Gang talkie classic. 9 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
This film was great! I love the way it mixes dark humor with drama. There are times when you think there is no possible way you could laugh at the situation presented, and yet you experience a surprising giggle. It is wonderfully acted, with great performances by Sigourney Weaver, Jeff Daniels, and Emile Hirsch. It is well written with a stylish, surprising ending. I'm not one to say that everyone will like it as much as I did, but give it a chance and rent it. The DVD has great special features, including full-length commentaries by director, Dan Harris and Emile Hirsch and one by Sigourney Weaver, that give you interesting information about the film. I hope my comment is helpful, and that you enjoy the movie!

Sentiment: positive
FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines.

Sentiment: negative
"With all the misery in the world, how can we not get drunk?"  Mia

A lovely aerial view of a major city turns ominous with the approach of a fleet of airplane bombers; an irate hairdresser reacting to a perceived racial slur cuts a road through a businessman's bushy hair; a man dreams of being dragged to an electric chair after a failed magic trick and a teacher breaks down in front of her grade school class because her husband called her a hag. These and about fifty other vignettes that run the gamut from the outright depressing to the wildly humorous to the joyously uplifting populate Roy Andersson's You, the Living, his first feature since his critically acclaimed if commercially unsuccessful Songs From the Second Floor.

You, the Living is filled with the same kind of imaginative set-pieces as Songs, replete with black humor, surreal situations, and strange looking characters. Though a bit overlong and less focused than his earlier work, what remains constant is Andersson's unmistakable style with its stationary camera, sterile-looking backgrounds, and precise attention to detail. If there is a theme that ties the sketches together, it is that our time on Earth is limited and "tomorrow's another day', so let's treat each other with kindness. Along the way, we are entertained by tuba and drum music from the Louisiana Brass Band, dinner guests at a banquet hall standing on their chairs singing a rousing song, and a house that turns into a moving train.

The emotions range from the gloom of a daughter attempting to communicate with an Alzheimer's patient to a young woman's ecstatic dream about marrying a handsome guitar-player named Micke to the cheers of a crowd of onlookers. While there is no continuous narrative thread, the theme of greed and desperation appears in several sketches. The first of these threads features two corpulent individuals and their tiny dog sitting on a park bench, the woman bewailing the fact that no one understands or loves her, yet she blithely ignores the man's comforting and reassuring words.

There is also a hefty admixture of irony. During what seems to be an executive luncheon, one man tells another on the phone that workers don't appreciate quality and how nice it is to appreciate money and the things that it can buy such as fine wine. When he is not looking, however, a man at an adjacent table calmly lifts his wallet from his jacket on the back of his chair. Though Andersson's cynicism is at times not very well hidden, You the Living has an underlying humanism that shows compassion for the human condition. It is a cautionary tale that looks at the mess we humans have gotten ourselves into but suggests there is still time to turn it around, if we heed the warning of the poet Goethe that opens the film, "Be pleased then, you the living, in your delightfully warmed bed, before Lethe's ice-cold wave will lick your escaping foot."

Sentiment: positive
The Haunting. A remake, of course. The original was a creepy psychological thriller, and one that has improved with time. Compared to this 1999 remake, it's a classic. There is no character development here, only caricatures (the slut, the authoritative brain, the "I'm gonna get us outta here" fellow, the oh so sensitive bookworm). But, seeing as how the were banking on the special effects being the "star", I guess characters that you can empathize with are a secondary concern. Unfortunately, the effects are laughable. Mewing cherubs, stretchy doors, irritating dead children that can't speak plainly ... and an idiotically sappy ending that does it's darnedest to give you a new age enema of butterflies and rainbows. Ill take my Skittles orally, thank you. Bruce Dern, I've liked you since "The Cowboys". Stop it.

Sentiment: negative
The sitcom revolved around a girl who must learn to be responsible for her own actions. As she had the power of magic, she often used it to try to help her loved ones or herself, frequently resulting in literal puns that are often disastrous and always humorous.

The program began with Sabrina's adventures in high school in the fictional town of Westbridge, located near Boston, Massachusetts (as opposed to Greendale in the comics). In the series' later seasons, Sabrina graduated from high school and enrolled in college, then moved on to her attempts to live on her own and keep a job at the local newspaper. Breaking further from its comic roots, the show ended with Sabrina's wedding, although, in the end, she abandoned the wedding and ran off with Harvey.

Many episodes involve Sabrina getting to meet, through natural or supernatural means, popular real-life musical artists of the time, including Coolio, the Violent Femmes, the Backstreet Boys, Phantom Planet, Davy Jones of The Monkees, Britney Spears, Avril Lavigne, Daniel Bedingfield, Hanson, Eden's Crush, Savage Garden, 'N Sync, and Ashanti. Course of Nature, the band of Melissa Joan Hart's then-boyfriend (now husband) Mark Wilkerson, appeared in an episode in 2002.

Sentiment: positive
Don't bother trying to watch this terrible mini series. It is a six hour bore, an unbelievable love triangle between three people who have absolutely no chemistry for each other. There is no heat in this story, no real passion, no real romance. It is a dry, boring, drawn out, and uninspired as they come. And it doesn't even meet the expected level of technical proficiency. Take those six hours of your life and use them for something more worthwhile.

Sentiment: negative
Although Bette Davis did a WONDERFUL job as Mildred, I felt that the film wasn't the best I had seen. At the end of the movie I was left feeling like there was something missing in it.

Bette Davis did a perfect job, though, and she made me hate her and pity her all the while. Leslie Howard did very good as the lovelorn Philip Carey, and I so pitied him throughout the movie for being in love with such a horrible dame. It's such a sad thing when one finds him/herself in love with a bad seed. And especially if it's someone like Philp Carey, who is a sensitive person, though pathetic.

In the end, the acting was what came through and not the plot. The ending scene was particularly good, but I am not one to give it away. Although others may find this movie good, I was one who found it so-so. I should recommend this movie to those who like a bad seed so they can see what may happen to them if they find themselves in love with that horrible person.

Sentiment: negative
If you liked Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, the chances are you'll like this, too. Although I guess a few of the British in-jokes (like calling two London characters Dixon and Winterburn, after Arsenal soccer players) may be lost on some, this is still cracking entertainment, which veritably pumps with vitality.

Carlyle, Miller and Tyler are all excellent, bringing depth to their characters, and the interplay between the two protagonists is always well-judged. In fact Scott's direction is very assured, considering that this is his first feature film, and proves that he has his father's talent for putting us at ease in unfamiliar surroundings.

Hell, I've convinced myself. I'm gonna see it again!

Sentiment: positive
Tara Reid as an intellectual, Christian Slater(usually great) as a dollar store Constantine and Stephen Dorff as...well it's STEPHEN DORFF FOR Christ SAKE!!!! I personally just want to thank those brilliant casting directors for the hard work and effort. You guys are on. Heres an idea, just my humble lowly opinion as the movie going public but it follows directly with your previous choices,a movie about the most brilliant neuro-physicist in history invent one pill to cure all diseases ever known to man and get this, heres the clincher they have to be played by Jessica Simpson and Paris Hilton. I knew you guys would love that. Seriously though you owe me $7.50.

Sentiment: negative
First of all this movie is not a comedy; unless you really force yourself you can hardly laugh. Secondly, the movie is slow and boring. The acting is not bad but not special. There is a Lucky Luke comic about two families (one with big noses and one with big ears) fighting each other in a small town... you will laugh much more if you read this instead of wasting your time with this movie. Religions and dogmas are not the best source to make a good comedy and this movie does nothing more than confirm this rule. There is a similar subject comedy '' The home teachers'' ; this had some good moments. My final comment is: do not waste your time and money to watch this uninspired and boring film.

Sentiment: negative
I have to confess I fell into the cynical trap of believing that Australians couldn't make drama unless it meant a lot of crying, and I am an Australian. Sad, isn't it? While this movie does involve crying, its not dramatic crying, its honest emotion shining through.

Also, this film is a whodunnit. I knew what the final outcome was going to be when I started watching this, so I tried to guess who it was that was going to do it. I missed by a mile.

I was stunned when I found out the director, Murali Thulluri was only around 21 when he made this film. I would love to shake his hand. He knows how to make a movie. I hope he has more coming.

All of the characters we meet before the main title credit (about 12 minutes in) is an anti hero. All of them troubled in their own way and all of them as selfish as the next one. Even when they are sympathetic.

The saddest scene in the movie, and there are some that are difficult to watch) is the final scene where We're formally introduced to the real main character and we're told of their nephew. That scene made me cry.

My faith in Australian drama has been restored. We're masters at comedy, but I was getting bored with comedy.

Murali, if you happen to check this out, you touched my soul and for that I can only thank you.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this picture in 1940 for $.11 and I would like to secure a DVD in 2006 The film was the greatest adventure of the time and,like all epics,is still an entertainment marvel (B&W and all)You get a sense of real bonded friendship in the chemistry between the actors and the performances of Sam Jaffe & Eduardo Cianelli are outstanding (This could not be done today I particularly liked the ending where the colonel recites the end of Kipling's poem over the body of Gunga Din and tells the "Untouchable" "You're a better man than I am Gunga Din"They don't make movies of this character today.The only cast member that is still alive today is Joan Fontaine

Sentiment: positive
This is simply the epitome of what a made for TV movie should be. It was a lazy Sunday afternoon when my wife and I were in grad school that we stumbled upon this. The cheesy acting. The poorly written script. The good ol' boys. The ridiculous, yet somehow obvious, cliché, and banal premise. The riding in pickup trucks with your propped-up wife-corpse. It has it all.

You will meet familiar characters: gold-digging hussy, stupid rich boy who wants to make it on his own, friends-who-know-better, Daddy who knows better but drives son away. And the wife-corpse. Propped up. In a pick-up. 

Wow: and the title. Several things in our lives have been "Texas Tragedies" since watching this beauty. Everyone involved in its creation deserves a medal.

Sentiment: positive
We have a character named Evie. Evie just wants to be a good person. She's nice, friendly, smiles often, but is strangely brutally honest. Evie also has a secret. Her idiot-savant sister has been reciting original poetry, which is getting the community excited about the sister writing. Unfortunately, it's Evie's poetry. While their mother starts being happy again and the boy next door shows his interest in Evie, Evie just tries to figure out what she really wants to do.

What to keep in mind while watching this movie is who Evie really is. For such a brutally honest person who doesn't mind telling Ivy-league types that she doesn't respect them, it would seem odd that she would be able to pull off a lie. For someone so happy and cheerful, she's quite emotionless when it comes to certain issues. Those aren't character flaws, they're plot development, and they mean a lot more than they at first seem.

Mostly this is something of a melodrama: a character lies, the other characters' personalities propel them through drama as relationships are held at risk. But in terms of the writing it's very fresh and bold. The acting helps the writing along very well (maybe the idiot-savant sister could have been played better), and it is a real joy to watch.

The directing and the cinematography aren't quite as good. They're acceptable, and Evie's world is wreathed in color and light, which makes for some very beautiful images, but it's not very consistent. It's not really so much of a flaw as a result of a low production value, but within that same value is some genuine storytelling and a real care for the characters. So while it isn't a perfect movie, it's certainly an enjoyable one.

--PolarisDiB

Sentiment: positive