DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Spike Milligan's books and plays have defeated film makers over the years, and 2002's 'Puckoon' is sadly no exception. The novel, set in 1924, concerns the partitioning of Ireland, in particular its effects on a solitary community ( the 'Puckoon' of the title ). Due to a colossal blunder, half the village is now in Northern Ireland, the other half is in the Republic. Locals go to the toilets at the bottom of their gardens to find a barbed wire fence blocking their path. Drinkers crowd like sardines into a corner of the pub to enjoy a cheaper pint. A dead man has to have a passport made out in his name before villagers can reach the churchyard to bury him.

'Puckoon' is a sort of Irish 'Under Milk Wood' with comic characters and surreal happenings galore. The lead character, Dan Milligan ( renamed 'Madigan' in the film ) is impishly played by Sean Hughes, and has conversations with the narrator ( Richard Attenborough ). Also in the film is Milo O'Shea, Griff Rhys Jones, David Kelly ( from 'Robin's Nest' ), Freddie Jones, Joe McGann, and Elliott Gould.

Interviewed for the 'Making of 'Puckoon' documentary, writer/director Terence Ryan expressed undying admiration for the book. It shows on screen. But, alas, like the ill-fated film of 'The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy', a good book does not necessarily make a good film. The trouble with 'Puckoon' is that, like Milligan's other books, they simply do not work on the big screen. 'Puckoon' is essentially a collection of jokes in search of a plot.

No way can the film be compared to train wrecks like 'Sex Lives Of The Potato Men', 'Fat Slags', and 'Lesbian Vampire Killers', but then neither is it as good as it should have been. The last half-hour involves a lot of running around by the police, the British army, some locals who have stashed explosives in a coffin, and is really tedious to sit through. Ryan's decision to stick closely to the book is the main reason for its failure to work as a film.

The other problem is the total absence of charm. 'Waking Ned' had this in spades, while the 'Father Ted' television series was funnier by far. Spike lived long enough to see the film, and apparently enjoyed it. His daughter, Jane, has a cameo as Madigan's bride.

The highlight for me though was the quotation at the beginning: "I don't mind dying!", said Spike: "I just don't want to be there when it happens!".

Sentiment: positive
Mickey Mouse is now 75 years old. He was created by Walt Disney, a famous creater, producer, director etc: I love the Disney Movies because it is great fun watching the cartoon movies. Altogether Walt Disney i think is the king of the creations, Everyone has got to love this creations and the movies by Walt Disney. Thank you Walt for all the classic characters you made.

Sentiment: positive
I'll give it a two for Denis Leary. He had some good lines, but that's it. What was the point? Where was the script? Who was supposed to act? A movie needs more than this one has to offer. Save the hour and a half to watch your hair grow, or fall out, whatever the case.

Sentiment: negative
I accidentally caught this in the middle flipping channels. I immediately recognized almost everyone in the cast, "groovy" haircuts aside, and wondered what kind of film could attract such a cast of both past and future stars? Having not seen the original, I guessed it might be the Poseidon Adventure, since it was obviously on a ship in distress. Was I wrong! I cannot for the life of me imagine why any of these great (or promising) actors and actresses would allow their name to be associated with such trash. There is no story, the performances all looked forced, the characters a parody of the usual disaster movie roles that are suddenly brought together by an event, and start pontificating about the real meaning of life at the level of bumper sticker philosophy.

It is only worthwhile to see the unusually awful performances by such greats as Sally Field, Michael Caine, et al. They must have needed the money badly. Can we blame the director?

Sentiment: negative
This was excellent. Touching, action-packed, and perfect for Kurt Russel. I loved this movie, it deserves more than 5.3 or so stars. This movie is the story of an obsolete soldier who learns there is more to life than soldiering, and people who learn that there is a time for fighting, a need to defend. I cried, laughed and mostly sat in awe of this story. Good writing job for an action flick, and the plot was appropriate and fairly solid. The ending wasn't twisty, but it was still excellent. If you like escape from New York, or rooting for the underdog, this movie is for you. Not an undue amount of gore or violence, it was not difficult to watch in that respect. Something for everyone.

Sentiment: positive
In following the lines of the classic formula to a point of taking another leap off from the material, The Thing remake becomes one of the coolest remakes of its time. John Carpenter fashions out of what must've been a fairly vague screenplay about certain things (or maybe very descriptive who knows), bringing forth incredibly wretched, brilliant puppetry and animatronics by Rob Bartin (with Stan Winston also on the team). These effects help set the tone against the harsh, detached environment Carpenter sets up with his characters. The film takes the story of a group stationed in a research bunker in the middle of an arctic climate, pitted against a malevolent force that takes the shapes of others. It's given a full life by Carpenter's choice of tones, and surprises. For someone following in the footsteps of Howard Hawks, the filmmaker here has a lot more trust and talent in executing the material than most given the chance to have another go with an old film.

With the effects people working to full force- amid what would likely follow Backdraft as containing the most fire per scene (it could become overkill, but it all fits into the suspense after a while)- the actors pull along as a fine ensemble. Unlike the squad in Predator, these are mostly just regular working guys, with the leader coming in the from of Kurt Russell's MacCreedy (very good role for his style, excellent in fact). Juicy supporting roles are out for grabs for the likes of Wilford Brimley and Keith David. And it is refreshing to see how the sort of absurdity of what's going on in the film (an alien that starts off with dogs and then moves onto the others in gory, demented transforming form) is pit against such a tone of timing with everyone. I loved the long silences at times, with Ennio Morricone's spooky, curious music in the background (and that bass line is of merit in itself).

It ranks up with being, if nothing else, delivering what it strives for for its genre/cult audience. It remains one of Carpenter's best; a rare breed of horror film where the story is told clear and precisely by way of the position of the camera, dialog, and timing with the scenes. That's not to say the film isn't chock full of violence, it is, and in fact a couple of times it's almost funny. But given that it goes back to what is ridiculously seeming like a by-gone era, the creatures/make-up, alongside the steady, well-calculated script, was done completely without CGI. It's disgusting, but it's real, and atmospheric to a T.

Sentiment: positive
I wasted my time and gave this show a chance. This has to be one of the worst new shows. If they gave an award to shows that suck THIS one should sweep the category. The acting is poor and the story line is contrived. Now Dinosaurs was a bit strange but at least it was entertaining. That show lasted three seasons and was finally scraped. This new show, based on an insurance companies commercials, is not funny and really has nothing going for it. Possibly the original commercials and the amount of times they were, and still are, repeated is what is wrong with this show. It just came to TV and already we are tired of seeing the "caveman" characters.

Sentiment: negative
Komodo vs. Cobra starts as 'One Planet' environmentalist Jerry Ryan (Ryan McTavish) & his girlfriend Carrie (Renee Talbert) hire Captain Michael Stoddard (executive producer Michael Paré) to take them to an island in the South Pacific, at first Stoddard is reluctant since the island is a top secret military research base but soon changes his mind when a load of cash is offered. Along with TV news reporter Sandra Crescent (Jeri Manthey) they set sail for the island & once ashore find out that the military have been funding illegal DNA genetic experiments which have resulted in huge Komodo Dragon's & King Cobra's that have eaten almost every other living thing there & Stoddard & co are next on the menu...

Co-written & directed by the ever awful Jim Wynorski under his Jay Andrews pseudonym this is just plain awful, this is just plain hard to sit through & is even worse than the usual rubbish 'Creature Features' the Sci-Fi Channel have the nerve to air if that's possible. The script is terrible, predictable & utterly boring, some giant monsters of some sort are created by scientists messing around with DNA, a group of people are trapped with said monsters & have to try to escape being eaten. That's it, that's the whole plot of Komodo vs. Cobra, maybe this was trying to rip-off AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004) with the title but all the 'vs.' bit amounts to is a rubbish thirty second stand-off between the two titular beasts at the very end, boring as hell & surely a big disappointment to anyone hoping to have a full on monster mash. The character's are poor, the dialogue is awful, the pace is slow, the story is predictable & cliché ridden & the whole film just sucks really with a lazy script that states wrongly that both Komodo Dragon's & Cobra's are amphibious which they are not. Hell, Komodo vs. Cobra isn't even worth watching for any unintentional laughs since it's so dull & hardly anything ever happens although the sight of a woman hiding behind the smallest rock on the beach from the Cobra is quite funny for the wrong reasons.

How does Wynorski keep getting directing jobs? He is probably consistently the worst director currently working, how can he keep getting fun sounding films set on beautiful locations with half decent casts & still churn out such an awful film? I think this was cut to get a PG or for it's TV showing since every time someone swears it's masked by a Parrot squeak! There's zero gore or violence & the monster scenes are limp, people just sort of stand there, the monsters just sort of stands there too hissing or roaring & that's about it. The CGI computer effects are terrible, this is really poor stuff that just looks horrible.

With a supposed budget of about $450,000 this looks as cheap as it was, the Hawaiian locations are nice to look at but that's about it. The acting is poor from an uninterested looking cast.

Komodo vs. Cobra is an absolutely terrible Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' from Jim Wynorski, films don't get much worse than this.

Sentiment: negative
DRIVING LESSONS is a little film that sneaks up on you. What at first seems to be a bit of fluffy nonsense comedy British style is at its base a very fine story about coming of age and the needs for significant friendship of both the young and the elderly. Writer Jeremy Brock ('Mrs. Brown', 'Charlotte Gray', 'The Last King of Scotland') here directs his own screenplay and the result is a cohesive, progressively involving tale filled with fascinating and diverse characters, each performed by sterling actors.

Ben Marshall (Rupert Grint, standing firmly on his own as a developing actor post 'Harry Potter' series) is a quiet, plain little poetic seventeen-year-old living with his bird watching Vicar father (Nicholas Farrell) and his obsessive compulsive, rigid, evangelical do-gooder mother (Laura Linney) in a home where 'needy people', such as the murderous cross-dressing Mr. Fincham (Jim Norton), take precedence over family matters: the mother is by the way having an affair with priest Peter (Oliver Milburn), using Ben as her cover! Sad Ben is among other things attempting to learn to drive a car. His mother is a poor teacher and decides he needs professional lessons AND needs to get a job to help pay for poor Mr. Fincham's needs. Ben follows an ad and meets Dame Eve Walton (Julie Walters), an elderly has-been actress who is as zany as any character ever created. She hires Ben and the fireworks begin. Through a series of incidents, including a camping trip Evie demands they take, the two learn life's lessons missing from each other's natures: Ben learns self respect and self confidence and Evie finds a true friend who will allow her to drop her stagy facade and be the dear human being she has been hiding.

Julie Walters, always offering the finest skills of acting in every character she creates, finds a role like no other here: she is outlandishly wild and lovable. Rupert Grint is exactly the right choice for the challenged coming of age Ben. The chemistry between the two is as tender as that in the classic film 'Harold and Maude'. Laura Linney is as always a superb actress playing a role quite different from her usual repertoire. And the supporting cast is a panorama of fine characterizations. This film is a delightful surprise and one sure to warm the heart and entertain those who love fine writing and direction and acting - and message! Grady Harp

Sentiment: positive
It's very sly for all of the 60's look to the movie. The humor is quite gentle, but it grew on me much more than I expected. The cast is first-rate and they appear to be having a wonderful time. Ustinov wanders through the film muttering some quite funny things under his breath, and it's all very inconsequential; I'll buy the movie as soon as it comes out on DVD. The plot is that Ustinov as an embezzler released from prison posing as a computer whiz and embezzling money from an American company with an office in London. Maggie Smith is his secretary for a while, and watching her get fired from many different jobs is part of the fun. Bob Newhart is his usual deadpan self, and Karl Malden has fun as the dense and sleazy executive running the London office. The ending is funny and nicely cynical.

Sentiment: positive
Wow... I suspected this one to be bad... But now I find myself just at a loss for words... Honestly, no words of mine can do this movie any justice...

I'll try to say something anyway...

This truly is one unique gem. One of the worst kind.

Lash La Rue - given his background as an actor - doing a whip-fight with a Toltec sorcerer-zombie during the movie's climax...??? A true stroke of genius, without a doubt.

It rarely happens that I laugh out loud when watching a movie alone. It happened numerous times with this one.

The accents of the actors, man, the accents... And the dialogues I heard them speak... And the acting itself... I just couldn't believe what I was hearing.

That fat uncle farting so loudly (when walking up to the house together with his little nephew) for no apparent reason whatsoever...

Tits! Yes, there's titties! And female ass! There's even a naked chick in a bathtub sipping a beer...

That one "stretch his mouth over his face"-kill was the bomb! A true highlight.

The comedy-aspects were just totally bonkers. I just couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing. For a while I even thought that they were unintentional, shaking my head in disbelief. But about halfway in the movie, I started to get the bigger picture. Guess it took me half a movie to dumb-down half of my brain, to finally get it.

I had a really hard time believing this movie... But it's good, really, I think. It had one black chick walking up to a very tiny cupboard, opening it and then saying "Wooow, look at all the storage space!". And she said it like she meant it. I mean, that's good dialogue and good acting, right?

Oh, and perhaps needless to say: Lash La Rue's whip-skills suck major ass in THE DARK POWER. It's really sad and pathetic to behold. That's all part of the comedy, of course. Or wait, I might be wrong. No, yes, I'm wrong. Lash La Rue was amazing with the whip! It was the editor's fault. He messed it up, cutting his lashes together and all. Or wait, it might have been the camera operator. He filmed from the wrong angles... Then why didn't Phil Smoot say anything? That's it, it's the director's fault.

But it's a good movie.

I'm just gonna quit talking about it. I have nothing meaningful to say anyway, except for the fact that I hope my brain will recover from this experience... some time soon.

Sentiment: negative
I see that someone already thought of a similar analogy, which was similar to the first thing that came to mind after I watched this movie. They said that the ingredients were there but there was no plot. Besides the sexual scenes which bordered on child-porn (which I feel could have been edited out or been presented more suggestively in nature rather than graphically, I would liken this movie to a recipe that's been torn in half. It's kind of like being handed a list of ingredients, with no directions on how to put them together into a finished product. From the start, character development and story development are lacking...unfortunately, many times in this monotonous drivel we are teased with bits of plot and we think "Ahh-OK...finally we are going to find out something more about WHY this scene is going on...or...WHO this character is...or maybe we are finally going to get to know and appreciate this character more...or understand and get involved more with this inter-character relationship...etc." But no such luck! On the contrary, many times I was tempted to just turn it off more than once but stuck it out when the carrot was dangled, only to find that whatever mini-plot within whatever mini-plot (and that poorly presented) was just a ruse. Why I stayed with it till the end is a mystery, other than usually IFC has better selections and they gave it 2-1/2 stars (another mystery). It's not that the characters aren't likable to SOME degree, or that you can't identify with them or their humanness at all...it's just that this could have been so much better with just a little more effort. I notice this was shot around Santa Cruz and find myself wondering if it was someone's film school project. I wish I could have given this a better review but honestly it was a frustrating and disappointing waste of an hour and a half.

Sentiment: negative
I must say, when I saw this film at a 6.5 on this site, I figured it was well worth a view. I was sorely disappointed. From nearly the opening scene, it is obvious the two supposed FBI agents are, in fact, the killers. Could they have made it any more obvious? If that is the intended "twist" in this film, that's pretty sad. While Pullman and Ormond are excellent actors, even their talent is no match for a reprehensibly bad script. Pullman adeptly acts the part of a sociopathic killer... and that's the problem. There is no switch from "I'm playing FBI guy!" to "I just killed 12 people and boy, are my arms tired." You can't blame the actors... the story fails in far more ways than one.

From the onset of the film, however, I was certain I was wrong, that no director/writer would ever be so blatantly obvious about a plot "twist." Ormond and Pullman must just be acting strangely in order to divert the viewer's attention from the real killers, I thought... which gave the film's makers far too much credit. I should have followed my instincts and turned off the movie before it even made it past the 15-minute mark.

To Lynch's credit, she did manage to interject many things that make a good film: sex, violence, humor, and well-trained actors. Too bad they were in the wrong configuration. Hopefully Pell James can recover from this role... I found her performance particularly impressive, as the stunning drug addict-turned would-be savior. She should have rewritten the role so the "crack whore" would win.

Those people who have compared this film to Natural Born Killers, take note: Tarantino made the characters of Mickey and Mallory reprehensible, yet sympathetic. The artistry of that film far overpowers the gore, and this is not seen once in Surveillance. Surveillance only wishes it were Natural Born Killers... in fact, it has wet dreams about being even a fraction of what that film was. Folks who haven't seen Surveillance... stick to something with a little more intelligence. Like Camp Rock.

Sentiment: negative
A pretty memorable movie of the animals-killing-people variety, specifically similar to "Willard" in that it stars an aging character actor (in this case, a step down a bit to the level of Les Tremayne, who puts in the only distinguished performance I've seen him give) in a role as a man whose life is unbalanced and who subsequently decides to use his animal friends to exact revenge on those who have wronged him. Yes, this is one of those movies where pretty much everybody is despicable, so that you will cheer when they die, and really the selection of actors, locations, etc. couldn't be better at giving the film an atmosphere of shabby decadence.

Tremayne's character is "Snakey Bender", and he is certainly the most interesting thing about the movie: an aged snake collector who is obsessed with John Philip Souza's music. When the local preacher clamps down on his practice of collecting small animals from the local schoolchildren as bait for his snakes, and his friend gets married to a stripper (thus upsetting his ritual Wednesday night band concert) he goes on the rampage, in the process creating a memorable pile-up of clunkers beneath the cliff where he dumps the wrecks after disposing of their unfortunate owners. One amusing game you can play while watching "Snakes" is to place bets on which cars will land the farthest down the cliff.

All in all, very cheap and exploitative, but will really be a lot of fun for fans of these kinds of movies.

Sentiment: positive
1996's MICHAEL is warm and winning comedy-fantasy that features one of my favorite performances from the John Travolta library. Travolta gives one of his breeziest and most likable performances as Michael, an archangel whose quiet existence at the home of a lonely innkeeper named Pansy (Jean Stapleton) is disrupted when Pansy reports Michael's presence in her home to a "National Enquirer"-like newspaper and the editor (Bob Hoskins) sends reporters (William Hurt, Andie McDowell, Robert Pastorelli) to the motel to check it out. Hurt, McDowell, and Pastorelli are quite good as the jaded news staffers who have a hard time accepting they've met an angel but this is Travolta's show and he rules as the pot-bellied, sugar-eating, cookie-smelling, pie-loving, Aretha-loving, bull-chasing Michael, an angel who just isn't what you think you of when you think of angels. And you have to love the scene in the bar when he and the ladies dance to "Chain of Fools". I love this movie more and more every time I watch it and it's mainly because of the completely winning performance from John Travolta.

Sentiment: positive
''Meet Sherri..for an evening of Pleasure and Terror!'' Cheap special effects,cheesy lines,yep its the original 1978 Movie ''Nurse Sherri'' Starting Geoffrey Land as Peter Desmond,and Jill Jacobson as Sherri Martin and Directed by Al Adamson.

The movie is about an evil ancient spirit that possesses a nurse at a hospital,then she starts killing doctors one by one.The acting was okay but some of the acting was robotic.The storyline was good but the sex scenes were just thrown in there probably to get more views.The directing was bad,And the special effects looked like a drawing,the effects didn't fool anybody.the death scenes were pretty good but the director mixed too many things in there that didn't make any sense like the sex scenes,the nudity,the football player,and many more.

Overall Its A Good Movie,But Not The Best.

7 Out Of 10

Sentiment: positive
Kenneth Branagh attempts to turn William Shakspeare's obscure, rarely-produced comedy into a 1930s-era musical, with the result being both bad Shakespeare and bad musical comedy as the actors are rarely adept at one or the other of the two styles and in some cases flounder badly in both. Particularly painful is Nathan Lane, who seems to be under the impression that he is absolutely hysterical as Costard but is badly mistaken, and Alicia Silverstone who handles the Shakespearean language with all the authority of a teenaged Valley Girl who is reading the script aloud in her middle school English class.

The musical numbers are staged with the expertise of a high school production of "Dames at Sea," leaving the cast looking awkward and amateurish while singing and dancing, with the lone exception being Adrian Lester who proves himself a splendid song and dance man. The only other saving grace of the film are Natascha McElhone and Emily Mortimer's contribution as eye candy, but they have given far better performances than in this film and you'd be wise to check out some of the other titles in their filmographies and gives this witless mess a pass.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie on TV back in the 60s and it still stands up well even after brilliant performances as a DI by R. Lee Ermey, Lou Gossett and even Frank Sutton (in a comic vein) on Gomer Pyle USMC. I wasn't in the service but my brother had a recording of a Drill Instructor in the Air Force and it was scary. Others in the family who were Marines told me that Ermey and even Sutton were pretty spot on in their roles. The only thing missing in "The D. I." is the language. In 1958 they couldn't yet use profanity on film, yet Jack Webb came across pretty damned tough without it. I think it's his best role ever. In Dragnet he was quite stiff I'll admit, though not as bad as George Raft, but he used it only to effect in "The D. I." You never forget the funeral for the dead flea! The romantic part was just to stretch the movie, but didn't really interfere with the basic plot. Don Dubbins was pretty good to but he never surpassed this film in his career. As far as patriotism, Jack Webb was TV's John Wayne. He carried it a bit too far in some Dragnet episodes, but not in "The D. I." After 40 some years I hoped the film could stand up to the likes "Full Metal Jacket" and others; and it did!

Sentiment: positive
This movie is not what it appears to be. Clint Eastwood is not Dirty Harry or a "cowboy" here. The movie's appeal comes from its careful manipulation of atmosphere and theme. It's a Gothic tale set in the Civil War and as such all the film's "action", or lack thereof, takes place inside a house populated by Southern Belles of all ages and shapes.

The horror comes from viewing the whole story through the eyes of the Clint Eastwood character. Seeing him stranded in the house and held captive by the women is a very "beguiling" experience indeed. And who is "beguiled" here exactly? Are the women beguiled by Eastwood's incredible looks? Are we, the viewers, beguiled by both his sexual allure and the potential deviant sexualities it unleashes? Or does "beguiled" refer to what the director does here-- holds us enthralled for a short space only to (maybe)let us go? Don Siegel does all of the above in one of the most memorable and disturbing films I had the pleasure of watching.

Sentiment: positive
Possible spoilers re: late-appearing cameos 

Seldom does one see so many fine & memorable character actors (almost entirely actresses to be precise) in one film. Even though a few only appear for cameos, each one is a gem. The British do this mix of comedy and real-life pathos better than anyone IMO, so it is no surprise that most of the actors are Brits.

The music is great; no doubt much had to be dubbed (does Leslie Caron *really* play the bass so well? maybe - who knew?) But Clio Lane was unmistakably herself - her warm visceral sound still turns my crank like few other jazz singers.

As an aging musician myself, not quite as old and certainly not in that class of course, it was a heartening film as well -- a great film for anyone whose wondering if they're past it in their profession or avocation whatever it may be. And of course a great celebration of the life of the stage.

I missed a little of the opening, but a provisional 9/10 -- and it certainly makes we want to see the whole thing.

Sentiment: positive
Sublime--perfect--profound--a true lesson on the idealized meaning of life. We get completely caught up in the life journeys of Martina and Phillipa and

Babette. Their yearnings, desires, sacrifices resonant long after the movie has ended. Seeing it years ago--as it was gaining a great deal of notoriety at the audaciousness of its subject matter--half the movie being a single dinner--the audience was "oohing and aahing" as some of the courses took their final

glorious shape, laughing at the reaction of the diners, as they became totally seduced by the gustatorial pleasures being introduced to them by Babette, and being totally surprised at the turn of events at the end of the film. Subsequently seeing the film years later after my own twists and turns of life, I realized just how profound the film is. On this viewing tears flowed freely. The film's

meditation on the passage of time and the way it uses a seemingly simple story to comment on life and love and art and generosity is truly something to

cherish.

Sentiment: positive
The first film was a nice one, but it is not as good as the wonderful animated classic which I found more poignant and endearing. This sequel is inferior, but not bad at all. Sure the slapstick is too much, the script has its weak spots and the plot is a tad uninspired. But the dogs are very cute here, and Eric Idle is hilarious as the macaw. The film is nice to look at with stylish cinematography and eye popping costumes(especially Cruella's), and the music is pleasant. The acting is mostly very good, Ioan Gruffudd is appealing and Gerard Depardieu while he has given better performances has fun as Cruella's accomplice. But the best asset, as it was with the first film, is the amazing Glenn Close in a deliciously over-the-top performance as Cruella, even more evil than she was previously. Overall, nice. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Sentiment: positive
The "saucy" misadventures of four au pairs who arrive in London on the same day in the early 1970s. There's a Swedish girl, a Danish, a German and a Chinese. The story contrives to get the clothes off all of them, involve them in some Carry On-type humour and couple them with various misfits from the British film and TV culture of the time, including Man About the House star Richard O'Sullivan, future Coronation Street rogue Johnny Briggs and horror film stalwart Ferdy Mayne (playing a sheik). There's a pretty risqué amount of female nudity on display, for those who like that kind of thing (but obviously nothing hardcore).

Most of the film is pretty thin and inconsequential; the girls are stereotypes, and German Anita especially suffers from some kind of infantalising disorder - she's a moron obsessed with colour TV who acts like a kind of uninhibited child & dresses to deliberately show her private parts; in another more serious film, she would be a psychiatric case. The most interesting section of the film involves the Swedish girl being taken to a club in London where some dodgy types are still trying to swing, being seduced by a middle-aged rocker, losing her virginity and realising that the scene is not for her. These sequences have some energy in them and point to a more intriguing film than we've ended up with, in which promiscuity and the dregs of the music business and upper classes live soulless and seedy lives (there's a fine turn by John Standing as an impotent public school roué). The strangest of the stories has the Chinese girl (future cannibal film veteran Me Me Lay) getting off with her childish piano prodigy employer, falling mutually in love with and then leaving in the middle of the night for no good reason at all, except some orientalist notion that "Chinese birds are inscrutable, ain't they?!" The film is pretty demeaning to its women characters and there's a smattering of homophobia in the dialogue and one of the characterisations. The end is striking, as Mayne's sheik for no earthly reason (except they have to end the film somehow) whisks all of the girls away to his Arab kingdom for what looks to all the world like a future in the white slave trade, which they are all delighted about.

Stuff and nonsense for the most part then, but directed with a fair amount of skill by veteran Val Guest, which puts it as a piece of film-making a notch above most of the 70s Brit sexploitation flicks.

Sentiment: negative
This was on odd film. I liked the adventure of it though it seems to be aimed at children. (SPOILER AHEAD) Ironically, the main character murders a federal official. Then he's a fugitive on the run. They later blow up his house and then he finally commits suicide. Seems like they should have just made it a film for a more mature audience or made it more family friendly.

This was on odd film. I liked the adventure of it though it seems to be aimed at children. (SPOILER AHEAD) Ironically, the main character murders a federal official. Then he's a fugitive on the run. They later blow up his house and then he finally commits suicide. Seems like they should have just made it a film for a more mature audience or made it more family friendly.

Sentiment: positive
First ever viewing: July 21, 2008

Very impressive screenplay and comedic acting and timing in this film. Now 40 years old, it has lost none of it's power. Neil Simon displays excellent insight into human nature and relationships as well as how to create genuine comedy from unusual situations. Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau give great comedic performances. Neil Simon was inspired by actual events in his own life to write the play this film is based on.

One of the best written and acted Hollywood comedies of all time!

Surprisingly, only nominated for 2 Academy Awards: "Best Adapted Screenplay" and "Best Film Editing". Hollywood rarely awards comedies, no matter how well they are made.

Sentiment: positive
******Spoilers within******* What a dull, predictable, non-scary snore-fest. The movie had no character development: I felt no empathy towards any of the characters (except may be the small boy), and did not care what happened to any of them. The movie had so many clichéd bits, or elements stolen from other horror movies.

The movie was so predictable. Many times I would be saying to myself, "Let me guess, {fill in guess} happens next?" Yup, I was right. Even in the opening scene, I predicted that the "attack" on the family was by some man, probably the father (because only the wife and children were attacked). Sure enough, that is what happened (of course, you have to wait 79 minutes to find out for sure). And, of course, another "evil man" scenario. Why was he evil and killing his family? Because he's a man, duh!

As someone else stated, this movie may be scary for someone under 13 years of age, or for a movie from the 1970's, but it is FAR from being a 'scary' movie by todays standards. AND, like so many other crap horror movies, a lot of the scares were "fakes". Scary music, Scary music, Scary music, and.....A crow suddenly flies at the window! Wow, scary!

How did the old bank guy manage, a few times, to walk across an open lot without the father seeing him? I thought, for sure, that the old man was a ghost. Nope, just a crappy movie.

I rated this movie a 2 out of 10, because it did keep my attention enough to sit through the whole thing.

Sentiment: negative
I'm grading this film on a curve, in other words, it isn't the greatest film that has ever been made but it does exactly what it set out to do. This is an excellent T&A film. I have no idea the count of how many T's or A's were seen in this film but I did see one shot that had 16 bare T's at one time, just to give you an idea. There are topless girls all throughout. There is a wet T-shirt contest scene. And the climax involves a game of touch football between two all-girl teams and every time one scores a touchdown the entire opposing team losing a piece of clothes. I don't know why this gets such a low rating here. Perhaps the people who gave it low scores thought they were going to see Citizen Kane. I love this movie and hope to find more similar ones. If you are looking for a GOOD campy T&A film I'd recommend this one.

Sentiment: positive
I'm going to talk about this movie from two different perspectives here. First is from the view of if someone sees the movie and never read (and may not ever read) the book. The second is from someone who has.

(Movie without book) From a movie standpoint, it was an okay movie. Nowhere near as good as either of the Underworlds but much better than UltraViolet. And I'm not just talking plot line either. The visual effects were iffy in many of the parts, though the wolf transformation was very nice. The characters has very little development and Vivian didn't even seem to truly care that her "love" was killing off what was left of her species. Some of the other characters could have had more air-time, like The Five. The plot was way to similar to Underworld for my tastes.

(Movie WITH book) As many have stated, other than the title, character names and a few minor parts, the movie and the book are nothing alike. In the movie, Gabriel was a lot older and was the father of Rafe (thus Astrid was once his mate). In the book, Gab was about 24, never mated with anyone since wolves mate for life (Astrid is trying to win his affection) and Astrid was the mother of Ulf, not Rafe. Another important thing is the location. The book took place in Riverview, Maryland. Also, why they moved from West Virginia is very different. The movie has it being Vivian's fault and her entire family was killed due to it. In the book, the original leader of The Five, named Axel, killed a girl from their school. Hunters tracked down the wolves and killed many of them (Viv's father included), forcing them to move. Also, Viv's mom, Esme was a major character.

One thing from the book that would have made the movie better would have been the "bitch's dance". For those who don't know, it's the ordeal where all the bitches (females of the pack) fight to see who is the one to be the mate of the new leader (since earlier there was a fight for the males). Vivian won it, trying to save her mother from Astrid (who is a horrid evil woman in the book) and thus was supposed to mate with Gab. There was no prophecy! Anyway, if you've read the book and you liked the book, I highly suggest NOT seeing this film.

Sentiment: negative
After "Attack of the Fifty Foot Woman" with Alison Hayes opened the doors for women to be just as dangerous as men, there was obviously an open market for other movies to pick up and carry the torch and what more a lovely actress than Dorothy Provine from "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" to play the role. The downsize is that cute and blonde Provine may just be too sweet and innocent looking to step into Allison Hayes' size 50 shoes. This role really needed someone with an amount of smoldering sex appeal; Provine is more the girl next door type. She may have taken and done this role to prove she could be sexy, but the material lets her down. Lou Costello, however, proves he can do a movie without Bud Abbott feeding him lines and he even interjects a dramatic role in some of his scenes when he not turning to Gale Gordon as his front man for gags. Gordon, however, establishes that all he can be is blustery, perturbed and pushy, much the same character he creates later on "The Lucy Show." Charles Lane also plays the same role in everything he does: a straight man, and his screen time is limited. The special effects are convincing for the time, but I would have liked Dorothy to have been a little more than cheesecake and dressing and at least have been allowed to become dangerous. As the movie's lead character, she takes second billing to Costello who is in all of the movie with Dorothy several times vanishing like a sub-plot. The whole movie put together just can't decide if it's supposed to be science fiction, a comedy or just a parody of the Allison Hayes classic. There's a lot of good scenes, some very funny humor and some very ridiculous camp that affects the rest of the film. Still, I do like this movie for it's empowerment of women; there's not enough movies out there like this one. If this movie had a chance to be remade today, I'd highly recommend Courtney Cox and Jason Alexander in the lead roles and allow me to completely re-write the original script. Courtney tops my lists of actresses who I believe could and should adequately play gorgeous giantesses; although, I have to admit that if either of the titanic beauties Allison or Dorothy came after me, I'd go quietly !!

Sentiment: positive
...This would be the worst film i'd ever seen. Hmmm, OK maybe tied with Boogeyman then. Awful, truly awful.

I had low expectations and it failed to meet them! I honestly cant think of one good thing. so here are the worst points...

1. THE ACTING 2. THE PLOT 3. THE CGI (Xbox 360 has better graphics....seriously) 4. THE PLOT 5. THE DIALOGUE and finally.... 6. THE PLOT 

There are so many unanswered questions, Did they make a 2:32 hour long movie then realize they hadn't put Lex Luthor and Superman in a scene together and were forced to settle for the 3 minute bit or did they actually think no-one would notice that the main hero and villain have less screen time together than Superman's son and the henchman he kills?!!

Was half the budget spent on persuading Kevin Spacey to do it?

When Superman goes to hospital, why don't the doctors ask "What the F*** do you want us to do?! He's a F***ing alien! We don't know jack about his anatomy!"? 

What happened in the 5 years Superman was away to cause technology to advance 28 years? 

Where the people who wrote good reviews watching the same movie?

and finally, Why? Just, Why? 

BTW, for those of you wondering how come Superman could lift an entire continent of krypyonite, i think i've figured it out...

...since superman is unaffected by the kryptonite till he sees something green in the rocks, it is clearly all in his head. therefore the continent thing is just him suppressing his fear of shiny green rock....

either that or the writers are slack-jawed half-wits who didn't think that was a fairly obvious mistake.

Sentiment: negative
If you thought Day after tomorrow was implausible, wait till you see this.

Okay so the premise of most disaster films is usually a 1 in billion event occurring, compounded by other circumstances. In this case, the even is the joining of two huge storm systems. Fair enough so far. Oh but hold up, no, the "event" is the sabotage and subsequent destruction of the power grid.

Next throw in loads of human interest elements - in this case a cheating husband, a psychotic gun-wielding boyfriend, a rebellious daughter, a hacker with a point to prove, a senator trying to push an agenda, a reporter trying to stand up against "the man", and a pregnant women stuck in an elevator.

Finally add a handful of taster events to add excitement.

Jeez if the director tried to fit in any more meaningless plot lines, there would have been no time less for the actual disaster, which, given the pitiful state of the computer graphics, was almost certainly the intention.

Jeez, if you can't even model a truck convincingly, you really should not be taking on twisters, exploding power stations, Las Vegas getting ripped apart, or destroyed oil stations.

In case you didn't already gather how appalling this movie is, let me just add that all three bad guys get killed in separate, and wholly ungratifying, implausible manners, that stunk more of moralising that good film-making.

I'm have no problem with first month film students writing jaded, hackneyed, cliché-soaked scripts, but for god's sake, that doesn't mean anyone has to make them into movies!

It manages to make the abysmally implausible 10.0 Apocalypse look not quite so dreadful. Avoid them both.

Sentiment: negative
Homeward Bound is a beautiful film. Y'know the part where Shadow falls down the ditch... thingy, I *cried*, considering I was only six, I cried! it takes a lot to make me cry! The dogs and the cat are excellently trained. A nice family movie, *not* for completely hardened non-fluffy people or animal-haters but could for soft-as-crap a.k.a. people like me.

A good film overall, 10/10!

Sentiment: positive
The recent documentary "The Adventures of Errol Flynn" is an in-depth look at the Ultimate Hollywood Hero. Bogart,Cagney, Wayne and the like were basically blue collar types in their screen images but Flynn was an aristocrat in his style and manner, the younger son out to carve out his own fiefdom for a sword,thunder and romance analogy that ironically he found himself trapped in. If he hadn't been under contract to Warner Bros. he would've of been perfect in the Cary Grant role in Suspicion: the good looking charmer whose 1000 watt smile blinds one to the fact that he's a predator. And he could've starred with his best leading ladies sister Joan Fontaine. That was Flynn's trouble he was the Ultimate Screen Hero until his own habits and bad timing caught up with him. Grant and Flynn in a way are similar but Flynn was the more macho of the two;it is possible to see Grant as Captain Blood but Flynn in The Philadelphia Story Mr. Blanding Builds his Dream House,or Monkey Business,or Operation Petticoat would've turned those roles on their collective ears because he's too damn sure on his feet and the sexual tension he would've brought naturally would've made the story lines wobbly. But this wobbly biography is just a plasticized view of Flynn and his era. There are times when I half expected a laugh track or an audience to go "Ahhh" at some point. It doesn't go deeply into Flynn's life just the screen magazine view. It also doesn't delve into his struggle to be considered more than a derring-doer. Like the cleaned up biographies of Lon Chaney( the father,not the Wolfman,or Lenny"Of Mice and Men) and Buster Keaton done in the '50's this is just a time killing piece of fluff

Sentiment: negative
As I was watching it, I was getting ready to compose a blasting, lambasting critique of this "film," (it is actually video), but then I saw that someone already did. I pretty much agree with him. But then again, it looks like a lot of effort and millions of lira went into it, so I guess you gotta give them some credit for trying. However, that being said, anyone who doesn't already know the Lovecraftian world and that this is what they were trying to convey will probably think, ... well, I suppose, that not only is it really bad, but it makes absolutely no sense. Thank god I read part of the other review ('twas a little gushy, maybe?) which revealed that this guy also did "The Shunned House," (which looked pretty bad, judging by the DVD box), so now I can avoid it and save my mind from any further exposure to such desecration of the brilliance of H.P. Lovecraft.

Sentiment: negative
This is by far the WORST movie I have ever seen. I was going in expecting a cheesy movie but at least with some cool car scenes/races. What I got was nothing. The racing scene are so low budget they sped them up to make it look like the cars are "going fast" In one scene a Mercedes SLR goes from over 200 to 0 in like 4 seconds by just spinning around in circles. Its just ridiculous.

If you wanna see a real movie about cars, see the fast and the furious series. They may be a little cheesy, but 100x better than this movie could ever hope to be. Better yet just watch Mischief 3000, the best car movie ever made I think.

Sentiment: negative
Just kidding! This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! It was so bad though, that it was hilarious. My friend and I purposly rented it because it looked so bad. Cheesy old horror flicks are always good for some laughs. The plot stunk, some of the voices were dubbed, the quality was horrendous. But I sure had a blast watching it!

Sentiment: negative
This movie was so incredibly boring, Michael J. Fox could've done so much better. Sorry, but it's true for all you people who liked the movie

Sentiment: negative