DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Firstly,I must admit that it isn't a good movie. And,I would never watch this movie if Pacino wasn't in it.

The movie is about a publicist's strange 24 hours.And he is overworked,dizzy,sick and sometimes regretful.I don't like the character at all.It's really boring,after 20 minutes you may fall asleep.And I don't understand why Pacino wanted to be a part of this horrible movie.Just because of money or what?

Since I'm an avid Pacino fan,I bought this 2002 movie People I Know.If you haven't bought it yet,don't even think about it,it's just a waste of time.

Sentiment: negative
An excellent depiction of one of the more unwholesome aspects of that era. I loved the visuals--very fitting for a story connected to a graphic novel.

I thought Tom Hanks was really great in this, he came across very well as someone who has been hardened by his work (which he didn't fully choose for himself) but still wants to have a normal life for his family. He does the best he can to see that happen. DOn't want to spoil the plot--but YOU HAVE TO SEE this movie if you are a person who wants more from a movie than the usual shoot 'em up action/gangster format. (It is violent though.)

Sentiment: positive
This movie is funny if you're the gentleman who was sitting about three rows behind me (repeating every punchline, laughing when there were no gags on-screen, and issuing a gravelly "haaaa" at every scene involving a computer or mobile device).

For everyone else, it's a mean-spirited, bungled "comedy." The movie strictly follows the formula of the later "Scary Movie" films, as well as "Epic Movie" and "Meet the Spartans," though without the flood of heartless pop culture references that made the latter two so irritating. Still, the lampooning of intellectual and peacemaking figures the world over makes it clear that the film knows its audience: people who envy brainpower. "Superhero Movie" is particularly and consistently nasty to Stephen Hawking, introducing him as a sex-starved druggie and using his disability as a vehicle for slapstick.

The plot is based on "Spider-Man," with "Batman Begins" and "X-Men" thrown in just to deliver some physical comedy. Much of the movie is slapstick, but not in any invigorating or interesting way. The longest-running gag is a fart joke, and early on the scriptwriters seem to believe that having the main character get thrown in conspicuous piles of fake animal poo automatically enlivens an otherwise uninspired rehash of the spider bite scene from "Spider-Man." Perhaps the only redeeming feature of this feature is the energy in it, notably absent in other recent parodies. The filmmakers act as though they're doing something new, and the audience can feel the influence in the way the actors bounce around the screen. An extremely abbreviated length (about an hour and fifteen minutes) and the zest of the presentation makes "Superhero Movie" tolerable rather than horrifying.

Sentiment: negative
Wendigo is a pretty good psychological thriller, the film has some great drama between the characters and some good creepy scenes. The acting is good, the characters act like a normal family. The Wendigo effects are good, the Deer Form reminded me a little of the Rabbit in Donnie Darko.

The film sees a family going to stay at a house for a while but accidental hit a deer, a group of hunters arrives and one of the hunters named Otis starts to argue with the Dad George, after the car is lifted they drive off to the house. The Son Miles is a little shook up about the Deer but his Parents try to tell him that it's natural for things like that to happen. That night while he's in bed he starts to see weird things in bedroom, the next day they go into to town and Miles meets a man at the counter who gives him a little statue of the Wendigo, when Miles shows Kim the statue and tells her that a man at the counter gave it him the owner says the she only works there. Once returning home George takes his son sledding and while there sledding he's knocked off the board and Miles is chases by the wind, after gaining conciseness they go looking for George, they find him outside the house where he tells them he was shot, in the Hospital Kim tells the Sheriff that Otis may have shot him, the Shrieff goes to Otis's place where he's bashed over the head with a hammer, as Otis drives down the road he finds that the Wendigo is after him.

Wendigo is a pretty good thriller that has some chilling moments. Check this out. 10/10

Sentiment: positive
What a waste! This movie could have really been something decent, but the writing, in particular, is crap, and the main characters are rather shallow and uninteresting. Mike Meyers was good, and the historical recreation of late 70s decadence was well crafted, but overall, this movie was a big waste of time. Instead, the movie to watch, that deals with similar themes and the same basic time frame, is the great BOOGIE NIGHTS.

Sentiment: negative
Everybody who wants to be an editor should watch this movie! It shows you about every mistake not to do in editing a movie! My grandma could have done better than that! But that's not the only reason why this movie is really bad! (It's actually so bad that I'm not able to write a sentence without exclamation mark!) If the first episode of Les Visiteurs' was a quite good familial comedy with funny jokes and cult dialogues, this sequel is copying badly the receipe of the first one. The funny parts could be counted on one hand and maybe half of it. Clavier is over-acting his role even more than in the first part, Robin is trying to act like Lemercier (because she's replacing her) but that's grotesque'. Lemercier is Lemercier, Robin is Robin! Even if Muriel Robin can be funny by herself on stage, she is not in this movie because she's not acting as she used to act. I know that it should be hard to replace somebody who was good in a role (Lemercier obtained a César award for her role in the first movie) but she made a big mistake: instead of playing her role, she played Lemercier playing her role'! As for the story, it's just too much! Of course we knew at he end of the first movie that there would be a sequel but Poiré and Clavier should hae tried to write a more simple story like the first episode. The gags are repetitive, childish and déjà-vu. No, really, there's no more than 3 funny parts in this. The only good things might be the costumes and some special effects. So you have only 2 reasons to watch it: 1) if you want to learn how to edit awfully a movie, 2) if you want to waste your time or if you really need a brainless moment'! 2/10

Sentiment: negative
Barbara Streisand directs and stars in this very Jewish story.

To have a chance at obtaining an education, Babs enthusiastically disguises herself as a boy which isn't the most difficult thing to do since she already looks like a boy, anyway. At her new school she meets many male classmates who have no trouble at all in believing she's a guy.

Don't miss the best of many moments of unintentional humor when Babs' male friend thinks she's a man, but pins 'him' to the ground, sits on top of 'him', and looks affectionately into 'his' eyes.... *snicker*.

Mediocre film; splashy story about nothing particularly interesting.

Sentiment: negative
Gorgeous bodies, gorgeous colors and camera work, pretentious dialog, banal plot. The name of the prima donna, Camilla, and the eponymous flowers that appear frequently, are enough to remind us of the plot similarities from Dumas' novel La Dame aux Camelias, the movie Camille starring Garbo and (I think) Robert Taylor, and last but not least Verdi's opera La Traviata. Beautiful, not-too-virtuous young ladies, social outcasts for one reason or another, loved, split up, reunited just in time to die of tuberculosis in the last scene... One forgives banal plots and stupid unrealistic dialog in opera, but why waste Hayak, Don Sutherland, a beautiful rendition of LA in the 30s, a deus ex machina earthquake that conveniently kills the other woman, and all that beauty on this mediocre turkey where there isn't even any beautiful singing?

Sentiment: negative
I can't really condemn the movie because it does work. There is enough film noir elements to consider it a noir movie, but I think it's only just in the category.

There's nothing sinister in this piece, and that's where the noir elements fail. Sure, the disease might be considered sinister, but I have a hard time seeing that. The movie hints at a darker side: Blackie may be trafficking human beings, the New Orleans police are only too willing to arrest a reporter, the specter of the plague hangs over all of the people in the movie... but those are really only hints.

There's no attempt made to question Reed's motivations, as one with do with Marlowe or Spade, nor is there any attempt to bring a humans side to Blackie, which would make him even more contemptuous if the human trafficking was actually played out.

That lack of depth is what fails the movie in the end.

The story is decent, the acting is good, the writing and direction are well done... but there is nothing to make this a movie you should return to over and over. Worth watching once, maybe twice if you don't remember it from years ago, and then putting away.

Sentiment: positive
So, finally I know it exists. Along with the other Uk contributors on here I saw this on what MUST HAVE BEEN it's only UK screening in the 70's. I remembered the title, but got nowhere when I mentioned it to people. It scarred me (that's 2 'r's) but when you go to bed with doom whizzing about your brain and listening all around for impending terror, then isn't that what a TRULY CLASSIC horror movie is all about?? I can barely remember the intricacies of the movie, but what I do recollect is my shivering flesh and heightened senses. Can anyone confirm my suspicions that this is black and white? Again, if anyone has any info on how to obtain a copy of this, please get in touch...

Sentiment: positive
It's proof that movie makers and their financiers treating their audience with contempt isn't a new phenomena as it was done as early as the 1940s and HOUSE OF Dracula is a great example . You'd think having a film with Dracula , the wolf man and Frankenstein's monster the producer would dictate to the screenwriter to have all three appear in a scene . They had a chance with HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN then when they had a second bite of the cherry they blew it again with HOUSE OF Dracula . To lose one chance is a misfortune , to lose two smacks of cynical money making 

It's obvious the producers are beyond caring . Larry Talbot turns up again even though he was shown to die in the previous film which sums up the cynicism of the franchise . It also shows what a poor screenplay it is and we're mistreated to some awful plot turns like Talbot's condition being cured by a special type of plant which will soften his skull . I'm thinking screenwriter Edward T Lowe might have had his skull softened if this is the type of stuff he comes up with 

Director Erie C Kenton can't improve on the script and throws in a few spanners of his own . For example Talbot is startled to see Dr Edelmann snatch a lift on a cart but nonchalantly watches Edelmann climb a wall and jump in to the château courtyard . One can't help thinking Talbot's reaction shots were mistakenly switched round at the editing stage 

Lon Chaney Jnr is famous for his roles in horror movies but didn't have much of a career outside them . Perhaps that's down to the fact he's not a good actor and here he commits the worst type of acting - being very wooden . It's not entirely his fault though because all the characters spout rather awful dialogue and are all rather wooden due in part to Kenton's lackluster directing 

HOUSE OF Dracula feels a million miles away from James Whale 1931 film and its sequel from 1935 and would have been a very sad note to end on . But ironically Universal decided to make one more movie to wrap up their franchise with a horror comedy starring Abbot and Costello

Sentiment: negative
Adapted from Sam Shepard's play, this movie retains many play-like elements such as a relatively fixed setting (a roadside 50's motel in the Southwest) and extensive, intriguing dialogues. A woman "May" is hounded by a man "Eddie" (played by Sam Shepard). She tries to hide from him in the out-of-the-way motel, but he finds her. The film explores the history of their relationship, mainly from their childhoods, that has led them to this point. It's very easy to feel sympathy for the characters and to understand that their dysfunctional present relationship is a result of past events out of their control. We mainly watch them fight, make up, fight, make up and so on. One image that stands out in my mind, is of Eddie hauling May over his shoulder kicking and screaming, taking her somewhere she doesn't want to go.

The soundtrack is also perfect soulful country with vocals by a lesser known artist "Sandy Rogers". She has this country doll voice that almost yodels at some points in the album! This is the kind of movie that will stay lodged in some part of your brain/soul. In other words, go see it!

Sentiment: positive
Excellent endearing film with Peter Falk and Paul Reiser joining forces as father and dad.

Dad shows up one evening to state that after over 40 years of marriage, mom (Olympia Dukakis) has left him.

The rest of the film depicts the father and son on a day trip to get dad's thoughts off what has occurred. With them away, the daughters can play detectives.

The story shows the adventures of father and son in their discussion of life, what should have been, why mom was complaining about dad as they discuss their philosophies of life.

We see an unexpected fishing trip and pool playing which leads to a near brawl. Both men seem to break out of their daily lives.

The end is a downer as we learn why mom suddenly left. It becomes a story of courage and the human spirit in the face of adversity. It's never too late to change.

Sentiment: positive
As a history nut who is particularly interested in this particular historical event, I was very disappointed with the movie. Granted, the costumes and staging was quite authentic, but the Hollywood portrayal of this "British Little Big Horn" was truly boring.

The amount of film footage dedicated to marching or parading troops has to have been unprecedented in film history. Eveytime I heard triumphant background music begin, I knew I had to prepare myself for another laborious scene of meaningless filler. Obviously, the producers had invested heavily into "staging" and were determined to get their money's worth.

Despite the outstanding cast, their dialogue was, again, boring and their characters were never developed. Whenever Peter O'toole or Burt Lancaster finished a scene, I would cringe with disappointment. Their given lines were so weak and meaningless that I could hardly believe these were the same two great actors who portrayed Lawrence of Arabia and the Bird Man of Alcatraz respectively.

There are worse epics, but this one is not much better.

Sentiment: negative
Wow, I haven't seen a movie this bad since "Fire Down Below". Wait, that's a Seagal movie too. Like "On Deadly Ground" and "Fire Down Below", Seagal centers the movie around his environmental awareness message and how the military, FBI, and CIA are incompetent idiots. Problem is that both reality and a sensible plot are secondary to whatever gobbleygook social commentary Seagal is trying to get across.

Sentiment: negative
I've seen about a half dozen of the low budget poverty row B westerns that Ken Maynard made in the 1930s, and I am consistently amazed at how poor an actor he was. How did he ever get to be a leading cowboy actor? They say that he could ride pretty well back in the silents, but he doesn't do anything particularly impressive in these later sound films. Still, maybe he got the leads because he was big and could ride.

Phantom Rancher isn't as bad as some of the other Ken Maynard films I've seen, but it still isn't much. Some of the other characters refer to him a couple of times as a "young fella," where it appears to me that he's just as old as the other older actors.

And if that's not silly enough, there's a rather significant script problem in this film. At one point, one of the characters makes a remark about how the phantom had prevented the poisoning of a well, something that hadn't happened yet. Just a couple of minutes later, we then see that particular scene. No, it wasn't a flashback. At first I thought perhaps that when Treeline Films was doing the DVD transfer, they might have reversed two of the reels. But in those days film reels contained approximately 11 minutes of film, and the whole reversal only took about 3 or 4 minutes tops. Everything else was in a logical order. So, it looks like that was a genuine continuity problem in the original film. Maybe that's one reason why Colony Pictures didn't last very long.

Sentiment: negative
Just saw this movie version of Frank Loesser's Guys and Dolls for the third time with my mother who had never seen this before. She was pleasantly surprised by the singing voices of Jean Simmons and Marlon Brando. And she thought the Havana sequences where Simmons and Brando dance up a storm were excellent. Those were pretty impressive to me too and were usually the highlights of the film. Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, this movie which originated as a story by Damon Runyon takes a while with the slow pacing of the non-musical scenes at first but pulls you in after a while. The other story with Frank Sinatra and Vivian Blaine wasn't as compelling to me but still had their charms especially during the "Sue Me" number. Also loved Stubby Kaye's "Sit Down, You're Rocking the Boat" number and the performances of Sheldon Leonard and B. S. Pully. With a theatrical look throughout, Guys and Dolls isn't a great film musical but certainly a very good one.

Sentiment: positive
I saw it in Europe-plex. Great movie!! 

This film is an exploration of the Spirit and the Flesh in modern times. Protagonist Jim Kirk, drives an unwieldy RV across America, stopping often to fill his gas-guzzling tank. He is middle-aged and confused . He fuels his thick, diabetic body with cups of coffee and radio chatter. He is the Flesh: agitated and sometimes spaced out, fairly oblivious to the growing tension around him but feeling it as twinges of discomfort. 

The Spirit suffuses the film through speeches and other sounds, as well as what appears and goes by in the visual field. The Spirit eventually collides with the Flesh and Kirk goes down, unable to comprehend what has happened to him. He's been in denial about just how bad things have become due to he waywardness of all of us, because we are all focused on the needs and desires of our flesh. We're all in the same denial and so we, like Kirk are in danger of going down and being blown away by desert sands just like him.

Sentiment: positive
*Spoiler warning*

First of all I rated this movie 2 out of 10.

The idea is good, but there are too many stupid errors in the movie, failing to make it the psyching drama that it might have been. First of all she never fights alone. After an initial very strange doubt from her mother (which is not believable when the mother proves to be so supportive and loving later in the movie) the rape victim is not alone. 

She is also unbelievably naive always falling into the Crew's strange traps. 

Her friends are unbelievably nasty.

The thing that I find most unbelievably is that Ethan fails to control the crew when he changes his opinon. Ethan is very much the leader of the Crew (hey, they even say so) and people seem to think the other guy is a jerk, but when Ethan changes his opinion he just doesn't manage to convince even one single person in the Crew that he is right and that his former friend is wrong. Everyone just simply hates him... why?? The movie provides no explanation. How did he ever become the leader?

A funny note is that my girlfriend thought I was watching Beverly Hills when she came in. Two actors from the same successful TV-series.... a cheap way to get viewers?

Sentiment: negative
It's not unusual that Hollywood likes to pump out crappy films. Occasionally, a handful of good films come out of them while the majority just sucks major ass. It's also not surprising that those bad films are retreads of old TV series'. Occasionally a surprise pops up with "The Fugitive" (who saw that Best Picture oscar nom coming?), but for every "Fugitive", there's a McHale's Navy or some other wholly unoriginal film devoid of any plot or interest. The Mod Squad, in my opinion, goes into my top ten of truly lousy films, in which Hollywood should get it's sorry ass beaten for producing what could've been a good movie. We're shifted right dab smack in the middle of a story that just doesn't seem to make sense, it wastes the talent, and the dialogue is just bad. We don't actually know who the hell these characters are, and we could give a flying f**k about what they are. Instead, you're expected to automatically know who they are and what they're going to do. There's one particularly bad riff, about the "I'm too old for this s**t" line, that's just plain stupid. Something my friend verbally noted when we were clamoring for the movie to just end. It's just an insult to Hollywood cinema. Grade: F-

Sentiment: negative
I had great expectations surrounding this movie (not as it was an apocalypse now or an 8 1/2, but high enough), and when i saw it on cable, they were all shattered. Starting by the acting (poor,almost mediocre, an astonishing waste of good actors and talent) and the story itself: Since when does a 5 men squad go out on patrol on a supposed «hot» zone???To suicide??That´s one big mistake, that costs the film dearly. Very good actors do very poor acting here, like Sean Penn, that recently repeated the irritating way of talking on «I am Sam», and Michael J. Fox, that wastes a good opportunity to beat Charlie Sheen on «Platoon», performing just «average». But the most irritating character was Diaz (played by John Leguizamo, another stupid waste of fine talent by the director), that was a cheesy,scared and insecure kind of person, even more irritating that Jar Jar Binks (yes,you heard it). The battle sequences are average, the only one that really stands out is the opening sequence, with Michael J. Fox trapped by his feet on a VC tunnel.Mr. de Palma has a weak work here, and if it wasn´t for films like «Scarface» and «The Untouchables» (these ones excellent films), i would consider him a «bluff» director: too much publicity, bad filming.

3/10

Sentiment: negative
There are so many more complexities to the plot of this wonderful thought provoking movie than just infidelity and cover-up of responsibility for the accident. I was struck by the initial seeming goodness of husband Wilkinson who wanted the driver, when he thought it was Everett, disclosed to the police, and the change of heart (and morals) when he learned it was his wife. As well, was he indeed good, and/or was he attempting to redeem self by allowing her to go with Rupert. Then, things switchedand SHE decided the right ting to do was admit that she hit him. Most importantly the theme of redemption (for the accident - for the infidelity - in her own odd, flawed way)is strongest in Watson's sickbed care for Everett. I believe that is why she undertook that effort.

This seems to be a common theme in modern British novels: Brideshead Revisited, The End of the Affair come to mind. Love it.

Sentiment: positive
The show was amazing and very professional. Madonna is a non-stop, dancing and singing for 2 hours. The opening was pretty good when she came out of the disco ball and also jump was a really good performance. The entire show was full of energy so it's kind of hard to say which were the highlights because every song had something special and unique. I saw live couple of her previous tours (Drowned world and reinvention tour)they were good but you can't compare with this one. The dancers were fantastic, the lights and the whole show were just perfect. Madonna still looks very good. If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend you to see it. You'll enjoy the show from the beginning to the end. Madonna is still the dancing queen.

Sentiment: positive
I agree with all the comments posted so far: This movie was a waste of time and energy, for viewers as well as those who made it. Terrible CGI, awful script, stupid plot and hey, the setting is Alabama but it looks like California. But the worst thing has got to be the Native American angle on this, which pulls in every stereotype you can think of, from the chief surrounded by smoke, the angry warrior, people speaking without using contractions ("Do not do this thing!"), Native American pipes playing in thin air, etc. It just shows such a lack of respect and understanding that I was tearing out my hair. A Native American with any ounce of self-respect would have tossed their TV out the window at this trash. So in closing, I'd say this movie is pretty much an offense to everyone.

Sentiment: negative
Wow, I loved this film. It may not have had the funding and advertising that the latest hollywood blockbusters get but it packs twice the emotional punch. The tale revolves around this one family from Utah and it's the connections between the people in the family that provide the film with its punch. The main lead (Giovanni Ribisi) plays his part very well, at no time does he leave you to believe that he's acting all his feelings. It's his brother (Elias Koteas) who stole the show for me though. When the two were in scenes together they bounded their lines off of each other, giving fantastic performances. Great cast, great film.

Sentiment: positive
I am marking this as a "spoiler" only because of some of my comments of the show's content, not to the content itself.

As I read the comments it is apparent that those Republicans somehow tolerate the show, but disdain it, while the Democrats seems to relish in its so called truthfulness. One reader even (so it seems) actually indicates that he believes these events did or could have happened when Bush was in grade school.

But as to the content as I see it, trying to be neutral, is that the group that made this series must actually be really Bush haters. In the Episode that I saw last, s02e03, it showed that the program must have been put together long before McCain became the front runner for the nomination; because, the other former front runners are all featured.

Another thing that caught my attention, was the use of add in closets. I thought that the series must have been made in Europe of for sure not in the U.S.A., because I know of no home the U.S.A. that does not have built in closets, and most likely in the homes of the artists.

As I watch the show, yes I do get caught up in it, I am amazed to see what must be a terrific desire of the writers to do what they can to embarrass our President. Sure there are problems as most American will agree, but that is no reason to be so hateful in public displays seen around the world. Perhaps the trend has now been set by this show and network, so that IF Obama or Hillary got in, would they continue to produce and air the same sort of "humor" about them?

Just one more comment on a commentator's remarks. IF there had been some sort of change in the election back in 2000, according to that writer, he was so sure that there would be a completely different acceptable president. Wow, wishful thinking on his part. As far as 911 events, I do believe that it was set in motion back when Clinton was president, and I can't see how if Gore was president anything would be much different.

Sentiment: negative
Barney is that idiot dinosaur who (unfortunaltely) didn't go extinct with the other dinosaurs many eons ago. Instead he sings stupid songs and has stupid morals about life that are 100% worthless and/or extremely dangerous: that is "STRANGERS ARE YOUR FRIENDS YOU HAVEN'T MET YET!". The reason why I say he's evil? Well, on YouTube, there's a video of a Barney song about toy balls. When it's played backwards, it comes out as "WE'LL ALL COME HANG YOU! LET'S STAB THE KNOCKERS!". Don't believe me? See it for yourself! I also read on another review that they are now reading out PC folklore and fairy tales. Now that is just stupid with a capital S! I mean, really! Anyways, I don't recommend letting your kids watch this filth as it contains stupid morals like strangers are your friends (as said before), there is never a reason to be sad and if you are sad eat junk food, being an individual is taboo, magic can solve all of your problems and heaps of other ridiculous crap.

Sentiment: negative
'Thursday' is a good movie but we recognize too much from other movies in its genre and therefor it lacks originality. If you have seen 'Goodfellas', 'Reservoir Dogs', 'Pulp Fiction' and a bunch of other movies that were inspired by that last one you have seen almost every part from 'Thursday'. There is a scene that involves torturing that has even the same dialogue as in Tarantino's 'Reservoir Dogs'.

Still, it is a good movie. Because not every part is taken from the same movie the complete thing has some new ideas and some nice touches. The opening sequence to begin with, is quite impressive. We meet Nick (Aaron Eckhart), Dallas (Paulina Porizkova) and Billy Hill (James Le Gros). They get into a fight with a clerk in a gas station over a cup of coffee and it ends with the death of that clerk and the arrival of a cop. We've already glimpsed at a suitcase with a lot of money in it.

Then we meet Casey (Thomas Jane) in Houston. He is married to Christine (Paula Marshall) but used to be working with Nick. She doesn't know a thing. Then Nick gives him a call and says that he is coming. We learn that he has screwed his friends over and the problems are about to start.

What happens exactly is not for me to reveal but we meet some other characters, all interested in the money or the drugs Nick also had with him. Casey has flushed those down the drain.

Very funny moments, a lot of blood, a very funny sub-plot involving actor Michael Jeter and some surprises (although if you really think about it you see them coming) this is a good movie with some very fine performances, nicely directed by Skip Woods.

Sentiment: positive
Six degrees had me hooked. I looked forward to it coming on and was totally disappointed when Men in Trees replaced it's time spot. I thought it was just on hiatus and would be back early in 2007. What happened? All my friends were really surprised it ended. We could relate to the characters who had real problems. We talked about each episode and had our favorite characters. There wasn't anybody on the show I didn't like and felt the acting was superb. I alway like seeing programs being taped in cities where you can identify the local areas. I for one would like to protest the canceling of this show and ask you to bring it back and give it another chance. Give it a good time slot, don't keep moving it from this day to that day and advertise it so people will know it is on.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie a few years ago, and man I never want to golf again. I mean ninjas apparently have no respect for the game of golf or the way it has evolved. And I'm not talking about "victimless" stuff like forging a scorecard. No no- Based on what I've seen here, they shamelessly massacre policemen and golfers alike on hallowed country club grounds. Judge Smailes would be spinning in his grave. And do they repent for said sins? No no, based on what I have seen here, the typical response by a slain ninja is to take over the body of a buxom female telephone repairwoman and seek revenge. I find this morally reprehensible, and needless to say, after viewing this nonsense, I not only stopped golfing and talking on the telephone, but also decided to stop feeding the homeless.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this on a cheap DVD release with the title "The Entity Force". Since I enjoy cheesy 80's horror films I thought I was in for a real treat. Sadly the film is mostly boring and you're constantly waiting for something to happen. It does eventually get somewhat interesting, but this is in the last quarter of the film. It's a case of too little too late. When the action does happen it's not that great, what we get are dead corpses 'floating' along the ground and chasing after the girls in the mausoleum. It's not the absolute worst I've seen, but you can do a lot better. I would only recommend this to die-hard collectors of cheesy 80's horror.

Sentiment: negative
I've read all the comments on this film. I am a great admirer

of the Dalai Lama. As such, I read the book upon which this

film was based. The movie is an ugly and demeaning fictionalization of the truth. I do not criticize it for

altering small details or events for dramatic purposes; it is

not a documentary. But the script CHANGES the impact, reaction,

realities, and changes in EVERY main character. It vastly alters

the real relationship between Harrar and the young Dalai Lama. 

From the ridiculous rivalry for a Tibetan woman (which demeans

the culture of Tibet) to Harra's music box gift, to Harrar's

change of heart, everything about this movie is false - except

for the amazing photography. I understand that the shots of the

Potala (the palace) were smuggled out of Tibet. However,

changing a real story about the relationship between two people,

one of them very important to this world, in order to build up a

movie star is sad

Sentiment: negative
Could someone please explain to me the reason for making this movie? Sad is about all I can say; this movie took absolutely no direction and wound up with me shaking my head. What an awful waste of two hours. Noth should be ashamed of himself for taking money for this piece of garbage.

Sentiment: negative
Dad (78) and I (46) both had a good time watching the flick today. For a guy primarily known for serious roles, De Niro is a heckuva comic actor. Of course, it helps to have his past film images to play against. Consider that one of those roles, 15 MINUTES, was a cop having to deal with the interference of the mass media, and you have an interesting set of compare/contrast performances.

Murphy plays another of his Axel Foley sort of characters. Shatner plays a burlesque of himself, a parallel world self who was best known for TJ HOOKER and not STAR TREK.

It's interesting to watch how the film comments on the contrasts between the reality of police work and its fictional counterparts in TV and film. Shatner lectures on the proper means of sliding across a car hood; De Niro points out holsters scratch the hood finish. Ironically, as the film progresses, De Niro's character begins to incorporate the illusions of TV-cop reality into the real world case he's working.

The film draws its inspiration from a gamut of sources, so one could make the comment it is derivative. Well, so what? Satire needs to derive its humor in order to exist. And besides, the film does have quirky moments of originality. For example, I'm reasonably sure the method of the villain's death has never been done before. 

One quibble about the reality of the weapons involved-- shouldn't those guns have had some kind of recoil? In order to penetrate steel, those bullets had to have enough inertia to penetrate. And any bullet's highest level of inertia is at the moment of firing. So.... firing a volley of these tank-killer bullets should have driven the shooters back onto their butts. Oh, what the heck... it's a satire. Maybe the guns' lack of recoil is itself a satire on the B-F-Guns used so casually in thrillers. 



Sentiment: positive
More of a Frisbee like turtle with fangs that go up like a wart hog. More battles with people in bird suits that look like people in bird suits. A ping pong ball space ship. Two naughty boys who know how to do everything, including getting on board the space ship. More tiresome music. More "Gamera is the friend of children" stuff. I remember when Godzill and Rodan came out. The movies were a lot of fun because the monsters were actually a threat to people. Now they are just a parade of silly costumes with very little behind them. The adults are all ridiculous and moronic. Like in American sitcoms, the kids are the bosses (when in reality they couldn't think their way out of a paper bag). These monster movies must be the Japanese means of partonizing these little snots. Above all, however, is that after seeing three of these movies (with the same plot over and over; check the stock footage), the ultimate conclusion is that they are boring. If you haven't see this one, don't bother.

Sentiment: negative
As I've said in the title of this review, It pains me to say this, but "hitch" reaches the zenith of what Hollywood Romantic Comedies can ever hope to aspire to. I've been a critic of both the Genre and it's namesake for as long as I can remember myself, but on an almost tragic note, "Hitch" has caused me to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of two hours of my life with a ridiculous smile plastered across my face.

This movie may be misogynistic and presumptuous at times but it nonetheless possesses a certain humor about it whose subtlety may only be described as British. This is a wonderful attempt by Hollywood to make (Or remake as the case may be...) a film which appeals to all of our wishes for a Romantic Comedy which can make us both think and laugh simultaneously. I grudgingly and most evasively give this movie a 9 out of 10... Something you shall hardly see me do for a Romantic Comedy in the near future, or so at least, I hope.

Sentiment: positive
SPOILERS

I love movies. I've seen a lot of movies. I didn't think I'd ever see a film that I actually hated. Son of the Mask ruined it. Son of the Mask is so bad I'm not even going to do a detailed comment like I usually do. In fact, I'm not even going to write a lot. I think all of you should know that this movie is horribly awful. And poor Jamie Kennedy. He was awesome in Scream, but now this film! Also, this film takes a SMO-CAN film and turns it into this goofy kids film that not even kids will like. This film also consists of very rude humor. Like the nose woman. She has a nose for a head and when she sneezes white stuff spews out of her nose. There is also an Exorcist parody. Yes, a kid film has an adult parody. Maybe they thought the adults would like it. Quite frankly, it made the film even more cheesier and crude.

Here's the basic, stupid plot. Tim Avery's dog gets the amazing Loki mask and turns into a cartoon dog thing. When Tim is paying more attention to the baby with special powers, cartoon dog becomes a Wiley Coyote ripoff. Then Loki takes the baby with amazing powers and Tim and Loki have a really cheesy animated fight. Tim's wearing the mask. It all ends happy. Too bad this movie is horrible. 

Overall, the original the Mask was a fantastic Jim Carrey movie. This, basically is not. Please, please, don't rent, buy, or download this movie. I made a terrible mistake renting this. I don't want you guys to make that same exact mistake. I feel horrible that I couldn't write a detailed comment, but really, what's there to comment on?

2/10 I'd give it a one, but come on, it's basically a kid film.

Recommended Films: The Mask.

Sentiment: negative
To the eight people who found the previous FIERCE PEOPLE comments by "Psycolicious Me" and "Topdany" "helpful," as well as to any future site visitors who see them before their authors delete them: these negative critique's are not only shorter than the site guidelines mandate, but they are entirely bogus, nonfactual, incorrect, and misinformative. For instance, Blythe's dad is in a coma, NOT dead--Maya and Finn even visit him in the hospital. Furthermore, it was estate deer poacher Dwayne--NOT Blythe--who knocked up Jilly the maid, etc., etc. So if you have ADD which makes you incapable of focusing on the simplest details, please keep your condition to yourself by not pretending to be Siskel or Ebert. Otherwise, include a disclaimer with your comments!

Sentiment: positive
This was a hit in the South By Southwest (SXSW) Film festival in Austin last year, and features a fine cast headed up by E.R.'s Gloria Reuben, and a scenery-chewing John Glover. Though shot on a small budget in NYC, the film looks and sounds fabulous, and takes us on a behind the scenes whirl through the rehearsal and mounting of what actors call "The Scottish Play," as a reference to the word "Macbeth" is thought to bring on the play's ancient curse. The acting company exhibits all the emotions of the play itself, lust, jealousy, rage, suspicion, and a bit of fun as well. The games begin when an accomplished actor is replaced (in the lead role) by a well-known "pretty face" from the TV soap opera scene in order to draw bigger crowds. The green-eyed monster takes over from there, and the drama unfolds nicely. Fine soundtrack, and good performances all around. The DVD includes director's commentary and some deleted scenes as well.

Sentiment: positive
Well........how and where do I start to describe this utter nonsense? Imagine the morals of a cheesy Hollywood Western, throw in a lavish helping of the most trite soap opera storyline, and try to dupe the kids into thinking its cool by dressing it up to be about something 'contemporary'. This film is all package and absolutely no substance.

It starts with promise......young men dreaming of becoming rockstars and engaging in the kind of excessive hero-worship everyone can laugh at. After that, it all goes downhill.....quicker than a bobsleigh with no brakes. The scene involving the first gig with Steel Dragon is one of the most pathetic pieces of 'cine kitsch' I have seen in a long time. The singer appears on stage for his debut and falls down some stairs.....will he get up and sing???......or will he stay there on the floor and not sing......who cares by now?? It gets worse, but I don't want to bore myself by having to remember it in all its excruciating detail. If you watch it after this review, its your own fault!

Sentiment: negative
Unlike some of the former commentators, I was (and am) an avid fan of the Carpenters. Face it, Christmas would never be Christmas without The Carpenters. That said, I believe the movie did a good, not excellent, job at depicting Karen's life. The movie was enjoyable to see on primetime TV, but the content fell a little short. I suggest that you all look into getting some of the Carpenters specials that were shown in the 70's. You cannot believe how awesome a drummer Karen was. Cynthia did not capture the extent of Karen's talent. Also, Karen was beautiful but had a bad hairdresser. My choice for playing Karen is Hilary Swank. I would love to see a more substantive story, because there was more to Karen than meets the eyes when listening to We've Only Just Begun. I have tons of unreleased Carpenters' music, and it is absolutely excellent. (Her singing of California Dreamin is to die for).

Sentiment: positive
This film is worthwhile despite what you may hear. The performance of Marie Dressler (I hope I am spelling it right) as a drunken old sot is reason enough to see this film. It is an amazing performance. She is in a drunken stupor in three scenes for a good long while and she never does the same thing twice. You can actually smell the alcohol when she is done. Amazing. And Greta of course speaks her first lines on film and shes great. The Eugene O'Neill story is solid and like most O'Neill stories, very deep and intense. This is not light entertainment but if you appreciate those great character actors from the 30's and 40's you will like it. Some of the film is technically fuzzy but all in all worthwhile.

Sentiment: positive
I've sat through several Pauly Shore movies, but this is the only one that I've liked. Of course, it helps that he is far less irritating than usual, perhaps even a little likeable. The rest of the cast does a fine job, especially underrated Carla Gugino. The film itself is basically a harmless and silly comedy, and although few of the jokes are especially funny, the film is quite entertaining overall.

Sentiment: positive
A brilliant Russian émigré devises the Stanislavsky' system for winning at contract bridge - which makes him and his beautiful wife the GRAND SLAM Sweethearts of America.

What could have been just another silly soap opera is elevated by fine production values & excellent acting to the status of a very enjoyable little comedy. A few unexpected touches are thrown in to keep the viewer's attention engaged - the way in which the principle cast is introduced as faces on a deck of cards; the introduction of a zany acrobat into the plot for no other reason than to enjoy a bit of lunacy; and the way in which a wide variety of different kinds of Americans are shown to be transfixed by listening to the broadcast of the concluding game.

Paul Lukas & Loretta Young do very well as the Bridge Sweethearts - Lukas suave & sophisticated and Miss Young passionately loving and beautiful (even if the script keeps her puffing on a cigarette a bit too much). They are fun to watch, even when their behavior is not always the most believable or compelling.

Frank McHugh gives another good performance as a relentlessly cheerful ghost writer who adores Miss Young. The delightful Glenda Farrell eschews her customary wisecracking persona in a small role as McHugh's ditsy gal pal. Roscoe Karns handles the fast-talking dialogue as a brash radio announcer. Diminutive Ferdinand Gottschalk is wonderful as a snobbish bridge expert.

Movie mavens will recognize Dewey Robinson as a belligerent nightclub patron; Emma Dunn as a sob sister reporter; Paul Porcasi as the owner of the Russian nightclub; Charles Lane as a Russian waiter; and Jimmy Conlin as a kibitzer at the final bridge game - all uncredited.

The film takes advantage of the fad for contract bridge which had swept across the country since its development in the 1920's. It expects the viewer to have a basic knowledge of the intricacies of the game and makes no attempt to explain anything to the uninformed.

Sentiment: positive
We have a lake. We have an animated meteor crashing. We have a killer stop-motion dinosaur with flippers. Okay, so let's call this movie THE CRATER LAKE MONSTER. What else can we add? Hmm, two idiots called Arnie & Mitch to define the ultimate definition of "comic relief". We also got to have a sheriff who doesn't really do a damn thing in this film and whom nobody listens to. Aw crap, we're over halfway through the movie and we forgot to insert a bad guy! No worries, let's introduce some guy with a moustache, have him rob a store to indicate he's a bad guy, then have him pop up somewhere near the lake, have him chased through the woods and all this for the sole purpose of him ending up as dinosaur snack food. That should work.

A complete, clumsy mess, this film. Its logic will twist your mind to force laughter out of you. The first film to feature Dave Allen as a "stop motion supervisor". After this one, he joined forces with Charles Band for several years until the the mid-nineties, when Band ran out of money to pay him, I guess. The dinosaur effects are charming and the whole film is pretty damn unintentionally funny. Unfortunately, that's about the only good thing that can be said for it.

Good Badness? Yes. The mind-bending logic in the narrative should be enough reason to put it on the list. If not, Arnie & Mitch will do the trick. 3/10 and 8/10

Sentiment: negative
This recreation of the infamous 1959 murders in Kansas, based on the Capote book, is starkly filmed by Brooks and cinematographer Hall in black and white, giving it a documentary feel. There are good performances from Blake and Wilson as the killers and Forsythe as a cop who pursues them. The scenes leading up to the murders, filmed at the actual house where the crime occurred, with a soundtrack of whistling winds, are quite intense and chilling. Brooks directs with a lot of verve and uses several interesting transitions between scenes. The only complaint is that it is a bit overlong, with the denouement dragged out and somewhat preachy.

Sentiment: positive