DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
The storyline of "The Stranger" mirrors somewhat the 1969 film "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" (made by Gerry & Sylvia Anderson of 'Thunderbirds' and 'Space: 1999' fame). A parallel-universe Earth is the premise of both films. But there is a difference. Where the world in "The Stranger" features a totalitarian regime out to squash the freedom of the citizenry, "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" merely showed a true mirror world where handwriting, roads, houses, machinery of every kind, and of course internal organs were all in reverse (or mirrored) order. So, the similarity of parallel Earths is the only connection of both films.

Similarly, the TV series "Land of the Giants" came before both of those films, having run from 1968 to 1970. It featured a world that was nearly parallel to the Earth with the exception that the planet was populated by giants 12 times the size of the humans who crash-landed there. The idea of a totalitarian government out to capture and contain the 'little people' was similar to the premise of "The Stranger" more-so than the premise of "JTTFSOTS". Perhaps because of the similarly to "LOTG", a series to "The Stranger" was shelved. Had it turned into a TV series it would have been a sci-fi version of "The Fugitive," with star Glenn Corbett being chased by the baddies from week to week, hiding out in different locations, etc. BTW, a stronger script could have helped this film along.

Sentiment: negative
This lesser known film starring Roy Thinnes (From TV's Invaders) is actually what I consider a lost gem. It was made at a time where the story was more important that the special effects (though the effect are fairly good for its time). A scientist theorizes that there is another world in Earth's Orbit directly behind the sun. Since the sun always blocks it from us we can never see it from Earth. Roy Thinnes is selected to go on a mission to get to this world. I don't want to tell the rest of the plot because it will give the rest of the movie away. Let's just say there are some real surprises.

The movie is British and has that good British flavor of acting that was in such TV series like The Avengers.

Sentiment: positive
When I stepped into the theater, I thought this was going to be a great movie. And I was not disappointed one bit. WOW! This movie is brilliant! The emotions felt through out the whole movie are extraordinary! Great acting by Madhavan and Simran. Beautiful music by A.R. Rahman. This might most probably be the best Tamil movie I've seen in ages. Mani Ratnam has yet again proved that he is the best in making meaningful and heartfelt movies.

This movie is basically about a young girl (P.S. Keerthana) who is in search of her biological mother (Nandita Das) who abandoned her in a refugee camp to fight for her country just like her husband (J.D. Chakravathy). A young novelist (Madhavan) finds out about this young girl's story and decides to write a story about her. He and his wife (Simran) decide to adopt this young child but one day she finds out that they are not her real parents and decides to search for her biological mother.

This movie really screams EXCELLENT. The way Mani Ratnam presented the movie is magnificent. 

My Rating - 10/10

Sentiment: positive
I watched this on a whim because it was available and I'd heard the Thumb movies were funny. This one was not. The majority of the jokes were based around "Geranium's" physique and, in turn, Kate Winslet's. I think it's really pathetic of the the "Thumbtanic" creators to stoop so low to make jabs at a respected actress just because she (heaven forbid) doesn't starve herself into the model of ideal modern beauty.

My favorite part was the line that goes something like, "Hey, I have a great idea! Let's swim over to this makeshift raft that no one else seems to see!" Thirty seconds of amusement out of a 26 minute movie does not redeem its value.

Sentiment: negative
So often with Stephen King adaptations, you just get a collection of characters reciting dialogue from the books. This really captures the heart of the book. Maybe because they DON'T use large chunks of text straight from the book, but it's a bit more of an improv of the events in the story. A big part of its success is Miko Hughes as baby Gage. Dale Midkiff and Denise "Tasha Yar" Crosby really act like his parents. There's a scene where Louis is cuddling Gage, and they are very natural together. Fred Gwynne is WONDERFUL. He nails the Maine accent perfectly without lapsing into parody, and is wise and warm just like Jud should be. (8 out of 10)

Sentiment: positive
This reminds me of when I was a born-again believer who was going to be a minister. I never actually thought I would be a minister or even graduate from high school because I was almost positive I would be raptured to Heaven before that would ever happen. That was before I discovered that Christianity was a bunch rubbish. I am now an atheist, and that just proves that the "once saved always saved" doctorine that Christians tell us is no more real than elves. If it were true then why did I leave after many years of being a devout born again believer? Yes, I really was saved. I prayed that silly sinners prayer with all my heart.

If Christians were to read their Bible they would discover that their god thinks like rape, genocide, abortion, and many other atrocities are alright according to him. They might be surprised to learn that no where is the word "rapture" mentioned.

Sentiment: negative
For what it is, this is a pretty good movie. I like both Johns -Stamos ("Full House")& Stockwell ("Christine", "Top Gun"). They both give strong performances. The love interest is OK, but this is more of a guy's movie than a good date movie. I love Harleys, and I hated seeing them paint over the "14 coats of hand-rubbed lacquer" with good old Army Olive Drab. There is a small history lesson here in that Harley-Davidson motorcycles played a key role in WWII. I don't know if the training was quite like this bunches! The movie kept my interest all the way through without getting slow anywhere, with good riding action sequences. I love looking at the demographics of the vote history - one 18 year-old man gave the movie a 10 (true bike lover, I guess). I wouldn't give it a 10, but I did give it an 8. I do not weigh every movie with the same scale. There are movies that were big-budget, with great actors, that you expect to be good so when they fail they fail big. (Star Wars - Episode I is my best example) I loved the first three SW movies, but I thought Episode I was weak in comparison. So it gets a lower rating from me than this movie. I expect more from George Lucas.

Sentiment: positive
Geoffrey Wright, the director of "Romper Stomper", transplants Shakespeare's "Macbeth" in the contemporary, criminal underworld of Melbourne, Australia. The result is a semi-awful piece of cinema. Sam Worthington is Macbeth, and walks around looking very self-conscious and bored. Victoria Hill, who wrote the script with Wright, is Lady Macbeth, and she's neither awful nor good. Lachy Hulme, who plays McDuff, is the only actor in the cast who exudes any kind of authority. The rest, including Gary Sweet, are wasted and misdirected. Shot on HD by the late Will Gibson, the movie's visuals lack character. Everything is too clean and too deliberately lit. Wright's direction is uninspired in the extreme and the action sequences are confusing and inept. Marketed erroneously as "the most violent Australia movie ever", the film is violent at times and reasonably bloody, but it fails to deliver a single impactful moment. Slow moving and terribly pretentious, this umpteenth silver screen version of the classic play is the personification of wrong-headed.

Sentiment: negative
I've seen many horror, splatter, monster movies in my life. And of course also a lot of monster movies from the 50's and 60's. When I first stumbled over this one I thought this is from the 60's until I recognized it's from 2007.

In fact the character of Jack Brook is interesting and the acting all in all is for a splatter movie quite good, but.... I expected a splatter movie and not a drama story about a aggressive plummer. The movie runs 80 Mminutes and I think the first kill is after 65 minutes. Although it takes hours to explain the story the reason where are the monsters come from takes at least 3 minutes... the we have another 20 minutes boring dialogue and finally a, in my opinion, not that well managed splatter sequence. Although we have Robert Englund starring here I only recommend this one to real hardcore horror fans.

Sentiment: negative
I liked most of the dialogue, I liked the cast, I thought it was well acted. I particularly enjoyed Ellen DeGeneres' perfect deadpan performance.

What didn't work for me was: (1) the drawn-out affair with the younger man (too long, too seemingly out of character for Helen), (2) the seemingly endless cinematic cliches, mostly visual but including interminable voiced over re-readings of the love letter itself (its contents should have a mystery); (3) a young woman feminist-scholar and, ironically, a fireworks scene (no wonder this reminded me of that horrid How to Make an American Quilt movie); (4) the bumbling "gotcha" cop who smells "dope" everywhere (no cliche there either!); and (5) a nauseatingly romanticized small town setting.

I would have preferred the film to more persuasively explore the source of (or even glorify) Helen's bitterness, to have included much more of DeGeneres' character, to have eliminated or reduced the various intergenerational artifices, and to be a little less uncritical of small town life.

Had it been developed as a play first, those criticisms might have been addressed before committing the material to this film, which unfortunately is decidedly mediocre.

Sentiment: negative
I've seen both movies and I saw without a doubt the re-make is the best, I know a lot of people would disagree those who have become fans of the original will most probably not like this re-make, but i thought it was well thought out and definitely scary, It was so good I'm going to see it again tonight, the original creeped me out because they kill the children, i mean who does that in movies anyway....but in this one the children have at least half a chance...The only bad part about this movie is when the babysitter (Jill) Walks towards the sounds she hears and runs outside into the bushes to check for someone, clearly no one in their right mind would do that whilst babysitting, so that is the only thing i found wrong with the movie, and even so they probably had to put that in there to build suspense, i don't want to give too much away for all those who have not seen it, i recommend you do instead of listening to all these people saying its crap and worse than the original, it would be a better movie for teenagers, as it displays things that most of us are scared of, but when i was in the movies there were at least 10 adults over the age of 70 in there watching it, and they enjoyed it, if they enjoyed it i think you will to! I give it a 9 out of 10!

Sentiment: positive
An unmarried woman named Stella (Bette Midler) gets pregnant by a wealthy man (Stephen Collins). He offers to marry her out of a sense of obligation but she turns him down flat and decides to raise the kid on her own. Things go OK until the child named Jenny (Trini Alvarado) becomes a teenager and things gradually (and predictably) become worse.

I've seen both the silent version and sound version of "Stella Dallas". Neither one affected me much (and I cry easily) but they were well-made if dated. Trying to remake this in 1990 was just a stupid idea. I guess Midler had enough power after the incomprehensible success of "Beaches" to get this made. This (predictably) bombed. The story is laughable and dated by today's standards. Even though Midler and Alvarado give good performances this film really drags and I was bored silly by the end. Stephen Collins and Marsha Mason (both good actors) don't help in supporting roles. Flimsy and dull. Really--who thought this would work? See the 1937 Stanwyck version instead. I give this a 1.

Sentiment: negative
Dont let the MPAA fool you with their "Rated R for extreme violence" there is definatly no extreme violence in this boring peice of s*t. I expected some cheap rambo 3 type action that the trailer promised, however its just boring boring nonsense with tons of lame slow mo flashbacks that make no sense. AVOID!

Sentiment: negative
OK, the other reviewers have pretty much covered the main points of this great little gem, i.e. the story started out in life as material for Buster Keaton's silent classic "7 Chances". Comedy, or acting in any genre for that much, is merely interpreting a scene and lines that someone else has written and performed before, if it's not a totally original creation. Here we have The Stooges essentially doing material that was written and performed by someone else and yet for a low budget, short time span of a film, they're handling things just fine. Regardless of what the credits say on their films, real "stooge-philes" know that they had a lot of input on lines and direction. They took their work as seriously as a surgeon does a vital operation. Words spoken by Emil Sitka himself during a documentary about the boys. Here, what appears to be their usual anarchy over something so simple as getting married, is actually organized chaos. Every line is perfectly timed with a related physical action. How many comedians are around today that can claim such mastery? Most obviously the Seinfeld crew but none others that I've seen in the last 35 years of watching TV. The critics will always "pooh pooh" The Stooges or Laurel & Hardy and others but then again...who ever remembers the critic's names or what they said? Simply watch, laugh and enjoy!

Sentiment: positive
Melvyn Douglas and Joan Blondell co-star in "The Amazing Mr. Williams," a 1939 mystery/comedy that's quite good, although forgotten, probably due to the number of incredible films that came out in 1939.

Douglas plays a talented police detective married to his job, while his girlfriend waits for a wedding that is constantly postponed. What happens in this film is no exception - he's called to a murder scene just as he's about to walk down the aisle yet again.

Both stars were excellent at comedy, worked together well (and often), and help make this battle of the sexes fun. Edward Brophy and Donald McBride are on hand for excellent support.

As you can read in other reviews, Melvyn Douglas doesn't make much of a woman.

Entertaining if a little on the long side.

One of the comments here trashed Melvyn Douglas, one of our greatest actors. He literally floated effortlessly through dozens of films as the other man and the best friend before coming into his own in films as an old man. He wasn't lazy, but rather, a very hard-working actor (who made it look easy) who had a Broadway career simultaneously with his film career. He just wasn't cast as a leading man in films or given very challenging roles under the studio system. I challenge anyone to see his devastating performances in "Hud" and "I Never Sang for my Father" and call him lazy or make reference to his smirk.

Sentiment: positive
As listed and stated in many previous comments, this unique series has many excellent elements and ingredients to its credit. Indeed, more than 20 years after it was originally transmitted, it is still watched, and watched again, and has a huge global fan-following, something which must indicate that the makers of this series undeniably got something right.

The root of the series' brilliance and remarkable appeal has however got to be that it rests on wonderfully written dialogue and timeless characters  all of which are brought to life by marvellous actors. The characters are wonderful in particular because of their complexity. In contrast to many other Robin Hood adaptations, and indeed many other film and TV-productions in general, the good guys in this series often make mistakes and can be seen to have apparent flaws, while the baddies, although put forward as evil and ruthless, frequently can be understood and even on occasion seem quite sympathetic. This very much makes Robin of Sherwood into a story about multifaceted, REAL people  rather than of good and bad people  something which very much adds to its uniqueness and remarkable appeal. Also, although very much being an action-packed series featuring numerous amazing stunts (which are remarkable in themselves seeing as this was made long before today's computer animation, green screens, and so forth. Thus, behind every one of those endless guys falling off castle walls, horses, and catching fire, there actually is a real person who at some point DID fall off a castle wall or a horse or catch fire), there is always amazing dialogue going on between the different characters in each episode. In the final analysis, however, it is generally the series' baddies  Nickolas Grace as The Sheriff of Nottingham, Robert Addie as Sir Guy of Gisburne, and Philip Jackson as The Abbot Hugo de Rainault  who get the very best lines and who more than often steal the show with their arguments full of wit and cant. "It's a wedding, not a celebration!" is just one of their many timeless "pearls of wisdom" which seems to follow one through life :-).

20 years after the fact, it is indeed hard to believe that Robin of Sherwood was originally something made for television  and apparently not with a great deal of money  in order to provide fleeting Saturday afternoon amusement for small children in Great Britain. Filmed in beautiful locations, with clever, amazing scripts and featuring remarkable stunts and fantastic actors  many of whom give the performance of their lives in this show  this in numerous ways seems to be more professionally made and have more production value than many a Hollywood film.

Sentiment: positive
According to the article at http://blog.ifeng.com/article/2737487.html, one of the actors in the film, Carina Lau, was forced to appear in this movie for free. She was the victim of an infamous kidnapping shortly before this movie was made, and later photos of her in distress were published in a magazine, which has since been forced to shut down and its publisher sent to jail. The actress denies she was assaulted but there was a movie leaked on net that allegedly showed her being gang-raped. (The Hong Kong press, out of respect for her, has mostly refused to report on the incident, but google will turn up a few articles about it.)

Sentiment: negative
Moving beyond words is this heart breaking story of a divorce which results in a tragic custody battle over a seven year old boy.

One of "Kramer v. Kramer's" great strengths is its screenwriter director Robert Benton, who has marvellously adapted Avery Corman's novel to the big screen. He keeps things beautifully simple and most realistic, while delivering all the drama straight from the heart. His talent for telling emotional tales like this was to prove itself again with "Places in the Heart", where he showed, as in "Kramer v. Kramer", that he has a natural ability for working with children.

The picture's other strong point is the splendid acting which deservedly received four of the film's nine Academy Award nominations, two of them walking away winners. One of those was Dustin Hoffman (Best Actor), who is superb as frustrated business man Ted Kramer, a man who has forgotten that his wife is a person. As said wife Joanne, Meryl Streep claimed the supporting actress Oscar for a strong, sensitive portrayal of a woman who had lost herself in eight years of marriage. Also nominated was Jane Alexander for her fantastic turn as the Kramer's good friend Margaret. Final word in the acting stakes must go to young Justin Henry, whose incredibly moving performance will find you choking back tears again and again, and a thoroughly deserved Oscar nomination came his way.

Brilliant also is Nestor Almendros' cinematography and Jerry Greenberg's timely editing, while musically Henry Purcell's classical piece is used to effect.

Truly this is a touching story of how a father and son come to depend on each other when their wife and mother leaves. They grow together, come to know each other and form an entirely new and wonderful relationship. Ted finds himself with new responsibilities and a new outlook on life, and slowly comes to realise why Joanne had to go.

Certainly if nothing else, "Kramer v. Kramer" demonstrates that nobody wins when it comes to a custody battle over a young child, especially not the child himself.

Saturday, June 10, 1995 - T.V.

Strong drama from Avery Corman's novel about the heartache of a custody battle between estranged parents who both feel they have the child's best interests at heart. Aside from a superb screenplay and amazingly controlled direction, both from Robert Benton, it's the superlative cast that make this picture such a winner.

Hoffman is brilliant as Ted Kramer, the man torn between his toppling career and the son whom he desperately wants to keep. Excellent too is Streep as the woman lost in eight years of marriage who had to get out before she faded to nothing as a person. In support of these two is a very strong Jane Alexander as mutual friend Margaret, an outstanding Justin Henry as the boy caught in the middle, and a top cast of extras.

This highly emotional, heart rending drama more than deserved it's 1979 Academy Awards for best film, best actor (Hoffman) and best supporting actress (Streep).

Wednesday, February 28, 1996 - T.V.

Sentiment: positive
An American in Paris is a showcase of Gene Kelly. Watch as Gene sings, acts and dances his way through Paris in any number of situations. Some purely majestic, others pure corn. One can imagine just what Kelly was made of as he made this film only a year before "Singin' In The Rain". He is definately one of the all time greats. It is interesting to look at the parallels between the two films, especially in Kelly's characters, the only main difference being that one is based in Paris, the other in L.A.

Some have said that Leslie Caron's acting was less than pure. Perhaps Cyd Charisse, who was originally intended for the role could have done better, however Caron is quite believable in the role and has chemistry with Kelly. Oscar Levant's short role in this film gave it just what it needed, someone who doesn't look like Gene Kelly. Filling the role as the everyman isn't an easy task, yet Levant did it with as much class as any other lead.

The song and dance routines are all perfection. Even the overlong ballet at the end of the film makes it a better film with it than without. Seeing that there really wasn't much screen time to make such a loving relationship believable, Minnelli used this sequence to make it seem as if you'd spent four hours with them. Ingenious!

I would have to rate this film up with Singin' since it is very similar in story and song. Singin' would barely get the nod because of Debbie Reynolds uplifting performance.

Full recommendation.

8/10 stars.

Sentiment: positive
"That '70s Show" is definitely the funniest show currently on TV. I started watching it about two and a half years ago, and as soon as I saw it I could tell it was a great show. I like all the characters, but my personal favorites are Fez and Kelso. Leo was also an awesome character while he was there, I really hope he comes back because he's hilarious. It's classic when Fez goes "you son of a bitch!", and when Kelso yells "burn!", that always makes me laugh. They are both great characters and always have something funny to say. Jackie being hot is just another reason to watch the show; she started out being really good looking but damn, somewhere around season 5-6 she just got Really hot. I've seen most of the episodes more than once, some like 10 times, and there still hilarious. This is one of the few shows that I can watch over and over and still laugh at just as much as I did the first time I saw it. The cast is classic; almost everyone is funny, where with many shows there are only a few funny characters. I will be sad to see this show end next year, but it will be going off the air as one of the best shows ever.

Sentiment: positive
Police officer Michael (Tomas Arana, "The Church") has his hands full while investigating a serial killer who's been leaving parts of the bodies of the people that he's been murdering at the house of one recently widowed, Tracy (Joanna Pacula). Mike has to find a way to stop the bodies from piling up, while perhaps finding love in the process.

A feeling of the 'giallo' films of yore pervades this film, even though we know who the killer is from the get-go, and the film contains a few good set-pieces (a scene later in the film set in a school for the blind being particularly memorable), but it doesn't make all that much sense when all is said and done either. All in all, not nearly as good as Bava's earlier "Macabre" nor his first two "Demons" films, but enjoyable enough if you can forgive the rather outrageous plot twists towards the end of the film. A pity the Image Entertainment DVD lacked extras of any kind, as I would have been interested in some.

My Grade: C-

Sentiment: negative
I am afraid it was a movie that you have to ACTUALLY WATCH to get anything out of it.I t is not a mindless movie like ....."LEATHAL WEAPON PART 58" you know the one where Riggs is really crazy? it is not a movie that is pretty much the same at the end as it is a the beginning. you can run everywhere talk on the phone do what ever and enjoy it in any way.I have noticed in the past that most people that do not like this type of movie are the type that will do most anything but watch a movie and then slam it because .....duh they don't get it or understand it or what happened.

DON'T LET YOUR DOGGY TAKE A SHOWER!!!

Sentiment: positive
One of the oddest, most strikingly eerie and creepy horror films to come out of the 70's, "Tourist Trap" even by the loose, free-wheeling, convention-defying "anything goes" standards of its time rates as a real weirdie. Yet, it's the picture's very strangeness -- a masterfully mounted uncanny atmosphere of pervasively off-kilter supernatural dread which from the get-go registers as powerfully spooky and becomes more increasingly opaque and frightening as the film progresses, offering up ample shocks amid a few scattered moments of surreally lovely dream-like elegance and ending on a bitterly ironic, crushingly nihilistic note with a haunting final image that's hard to shake -- which makes it such a unique and singularly unnerving experience.

Five teenagers traveling through the desolate California desert by car get hopelessly lost. They stumble across "Slausen's Lost Oasis," a seedy, rundown roadside dive that's one part gas station, three parts crummy wax museum, and all parts ratty and foreboding. The joint's lonely, seemingly friendless and harmless owner Slausen (juicily overplayed with infectiously hammy brio by Chuck Conners) turns out to be a deranged psychic killer with lethal telekinetic powers. Slausen brings his freaky assortment of uncomfortably human-like mannequins to life and picks off the kids one by one so he can add them to his ever-growing collection of victims.

Director David ("Puppermaster," "The Arrival") Schmoeller adeptly wrings every last ounce of tension he can squeeze from the pleasingly ambiguous and open-ended script he co-wrote with J. Larry Carroll. (Said script's stubborn refusal to provide some rational excuse for all the bizarre stuff which transpires throughout the movie, often wrongly criticized as one of the film's principal weaknesses, is actually the movie's key strength, giving the picture the scary, anything-and-everything-can-happen, common-logic-be-damned quality of a true nightmare come horrifically to life which never would have been achieved if there was some kind of credible explanation offered for what's happening.) Pino Donaggio's beautifully chilling, understated score, Nicholas von Sternberg's shadowy cinematography, and Robert A. Burns' grubby, cramped production design add immensely to the film's profoundly unsettling mood. Excellent performances are another significant plus, with the pretty, perky Jocelyn Jones (Ellie-Jo Turner in "The Great Texas Dynamite Chase") particularly fine and personable as the most resilient and sympathetic of the endangered teens. Even Tanya Roberts fares well as a luckless lass who has a knife levitated into her head. Offbeat and unusual, "Tourist Trap" is well worth visiting.

Sentiment: positive
Theo Robertson has commented that WAW didn't adequately cover the conditions after WWI which lead to Hitler's rise and WWII.

Perhaps he missed the first ONE and a quarter HOURS of volume 8? Covers this period, and together with the earlier volumes in the series, shows clearly the existing conditions, I feel. A friend of mine grew up in Germany during this period, joined the Hitler Youth even, and his experiences were very similar to that mentioned in WAW.

This documentary is SO far above the History Channel's documentaries I also own, that there is no comparison.

The ONLY fault, and it is a small one, that I have with WAW is this: the numbers are not included, many times. For instance, if you're talking about lend-lease, then how much war material was lent/leased? How much to Russia, how much to Britian? How many merchant ships did the U-Boats sink, and when? How many ships did the German or Japanese Navy have, total, in 1941? What type were they? How many troops? How many troops did the allies have, in total, and by country? Lots of numbers could have made a lot of viewers nod off, but I would have preferred MORE! And naturally, I always want to see more military analysis. Like WHY didn't Patton & Clark trap the German army that was at Cassini, after they had it surrounded, instead of racing Monty to Rome, and letting it escape? I don't think you can begin to understand war until you've seen some of these video segments on "total war", like the fire bombing of Dresden. It's like trying to understand Auschwitz, etc., before you see the clips of the death camps: you just can't wrap your head around it - it's too unbelievable.

Unknown at that time, and of course, unfilmed, were the most egregious cruelties and inhumanities of the Japanese, including cannibalism, (read "Flyboys"), and some LIVE vivisection of medical "experimentation" prisoners, w/o any anesthetic! 

Dave

Sentiment: positive
This is just about one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. Maybe not a worst movie ever contender, but if you haven't seen that many bad ones, this could easily make your Top Ten Worst List. When you consider what was achieved in 1933 with the original "King Kong", you've got to ask yourself why anyone would stoop so low as to produce this debacle. Then, taking it one step further and realizing that the quantum leap to "Star Wars" the following year achieved a new level in sci-fi entertainment, this offering will make you laugh and cry at the same time.

Now let me ask you, what would possess the Professor (Peter Cushing) to bring along an umbrella as a prime piece of subterranean research equipment for the ride to the earth's core? OK, so it was useful in fending off the parrot/tyrannosaur (parrotosaurus?) in the early going, but come on. Somehow I don't think this is what Edgar Rice Burrough's had in mind when he wrote his tales of Pellucidar. He probably didn't have Caroline Munro in mind either as Princess Dia, probably the only redeeming factor to this whole escapade.

At least there was one bit of pseudo-scientific explanation that I got a kick out of; I'm always looking for one in films like this. That would have to be how the sky at the earth's core was really the underside of the earth's crust, explaining that ethereal pinkish glow. But try as it might, the story just couldn't hook me in a way to find anything at all interesting about Hoojah the Sly One or Jubal the Ugly One, much less those goofy half man, half pterodactyl creatures. To paraphrase the good professor - "You cannot mesmerize me, I'm paying attention!"

Sentiment: negative
Full marks for Pacino's rendering of the speech over the dead kid's coffin; Shakespeare's Mark Antony would be put to shame!!

Was it Paul Schrader or was it Ken Lipper who should be complimented on the remarkable dialogues? They are rich and intelligent and well worth your time if you like movies with good scripts. I found the story narrative developing quite well right up to the voice-over postscript.

There is little else to talk about in this film; even John Cusack has done better roles than this one. Interestingly, the film is very male oriented--the women are mere appendages.

Sentiment: positive
First: I bought it at the video store. Second: I watched it. Third: It was boring. Fourth: It was not funny. Fifth: Most of the antics were lame. And last, but not least: It's not only a bad movie, it's a total fiasco.

I am a huge Adam Sandler fan despite this disappointing and forgotten film. I pity it because it was his first movie. Even if you are a huge Adam Sandler fan, don't bother watching this movie. Instead, just take the video, board a yacht, and throw it overboard.

Sentiment: negative
THHE2 is entertaining in that you'll laugh a lot and cringe and probably say "oh sh*t!" and "get your face away from the goddamn hole you dumb**s" or things along those lines but I don't know if its really worth seeing- I was very annoyed throughout the entirety with the horrible military characters who don't seem to know the first thing about combat.

Yes there was more violence, gore, and a higher body count than the first one but I am still am debating whether that cancels out my feeling throughout the whole movie about how ridiculous it is (and not a good ridiculousness like Dead Alive or Feast). My time would have been better spent watching Aja's remake for the 5th time.

So go for some laughs, or go for some gore, but don't go hoping to come out of it satisfied.

Sentiment: negative
A dull stroll through the banalities of Mormon prosthelatizing. Utterly un-funny. A testament to the widely held theory, that in order for bathroom humor to be funny, it must necessarily be vulgar; it also bolsters the claim that a close relationship with Jesus makes you not funny. More propaganda than film, don't worry about any touchy social issues coming up at the dinner table after this one. The saving grace of this movie is its accurate portrayal of young Mormon females as particularly attractive. Oh well, its your $7.50.

Sentiment: negative
'Gross Misconduct' was one of a series of texts released in Australia during the early-to-mid 1990s that explored the supposed victimisation of the Privileged Heterosexual Male in the age of feminism. This creature only needs look at a Pretty Young Thing, and he's accused of sexual harassment, and his life is ruined. Damn those women's libbers! Grrr...

As my tone might suggest, I don't buy any of this anti-feminist BS, and correspondingly didn't enjoy this film. 'GM' trivialises the issues of sexual harassment and teacher-student relations. Sexual harassment is here the product of a Confused Young Woman's imagination, and those professional boundaries that teachers are meant to maintain ... well, when the teacher is a charming and handsome family man (and played by Jimmy Smits!), well needn't worry about those.

Sexist trash, and even by reviewing it, I'm giving it more time than it deserves.

Sentiment: negative
I can't believe this terrible film was made by the same people who made Lepa Sela Lepo Gore. Watch that and skip this. The plot is muddled and the characters are mostly two-dimensional stereotypes. I suspect the editor went on vacation halfway through the film because quick, choppy cuts start to appear that only confuse matters rather than elucidate them. The ending doesn't make sense either.

This is predominantly a propaganda film made so Serbs can feel sorry for themselves and vilify America for the NATO bombings of 1999. They do this by perpetuating lies about Serbs being our allies during WWII, claiming the whole world is unjustly against them, and completely ignoring everything said and done by Slobodan Milosevic, like waging war on three neighboring countries. They seem intent on making a political film but only show a few seconds of Milosevic on a TV screen with no sound. A nationalist agenda obviously superseded any consideration of art which was not the case with Lepa Sela.

Regrettably, I recommended this film to a teacher when it played last week at the Seattle International Film Festival. He also cited the bad editing and confusing plot, and I had to apologize for the bad advice. You've been warned.

Sentiment: negative
I was duped as well. Here I was expecting all sorts of man eating Pirahnas and what the hell do you get.

An hour and a half of nothing, but awkward silences with some weird guy, who isn't weird enough to be scary.

I thought there was no way $5 could be too much for a movie.

Damn I was sooooo wrong. It was very hard to watch the whole thing.

Don't fool yourself. Its not so good that its bad. Its not even that kind of movie.

Its nothing. an hour and a half of absolutely nothing.

PIECE OF CRAP!!!!!!!!

Sentiment: negative
This movie had horrible lighting and terrible camera movements. This movie is a jumpy horror flick with no meaning at all. The slashes are totally fake looking. It looks like some 17 year-old idiot wrote this movie and a 10 year old kid shot it. With the worst acting you can ever find. People are tired of knives. At least move on to guns or fire. It has almost exact lines from "When A Stranger Calls". With gruesome killings, only crazy people would enjoy this movie. It is obvious the writer doesn't have kids or even care for them. I mean at show some mercy. Just to sum it up, this movie is a "B" movie and it sucked. Just for your own sake, don't even think about wasting your time watching this crappy movie.

Sentiment: negative
Ten years before "The Matrix" and hot on the heals of "They Live" came this brilliant piece of low budget science fiction film making. If you like bizarre, unconventional, intellectually challenging, David Lynch meets John Carpenter style movie-making you'll love "Split". There are moments of true genius in the framing and cinematography. Look closely at a sequence shot through wine glasses in an art opening party and right after that a scene involving cue cards. The plot involves a man named Starker who lives outside of society who wants to wake us up from the dream. Similar to "They Live", "1984" and "The Matrix", it is based on the premise that we are all constantly monitored by shadowy Big Brother type government agents that know everything about us and have invisible robot probes constantly patrolling the city. This is all revealed pretty early on in the plot. POSSIBLE SPOILER: Starker has invented a drug that when placed in the water supply will wake everyone up from the illusion of reality. Along with the cinematography and the ingenious ways the director makes do with his shoestring budget, the other highlights of this film are the monologues. I challenge anyone to not be rewinding, memorizing and quoting the classic quotes from this movie for years to come.

Sentiment: positive
"Tapeheads", a scrappy, intermittently funny spoof of the music video business, might have been the perfect comedic short, and stars John Cusack and Tim Robbins are effortlessly in the swing of the nonsensical chaos involved. They play two semi-savvy security guards in Los Angeles who start their own company, Video Aces, making hilarious videos for groups, parties, and one deathbed star. It's too bad the filmmakers had to invent a dim side-plot to pad the running time (shenanigans involving a crooked politician and his henchmen which doesn't do much except take away from the movie's primary strength, sending-up the music culture of the late-'80s). Still, Cusack and Robbins create a couple of originals here: nerdy but loose, street-smart without being hipsters or posers, these guys are on the same nutty wavelength, and they never put each other down. They're the real thing in buddy-comedies. *1/2 from ****

Sentiment: negative
I can't believe I am so angry after seeing this that I am about to write my first ever review on IMDb.

This Disney documentary is nothing but a rehashed Planet Earth lite. Now I knew going into this that it was advertised as "from the people who brought you Planet Earth," but I had no idea they were going to blatantly use the exact same cuts as the groundbreaking documentary mini-series. I just paid $8.75 to see something I already own on DVD. Shame on Disney for not warning people that there is absolutely nothing original here (save a James Earl Jones voice-over and 90 seconds of sailfish that I don't believe were in Planet Earth).

But the biggest crime of all, is that while Planet Earth uses the tragic story of the polar bear as evidence that we are killing this planet and a catalyst for ecologic change, Disney took that story and turned it into family friendly tripe. After the male polar bear's demise, they show his cubs grown significantly a year later, and spew some garbage about how they are ready to carry on his memory, and that the earth really is a beautiful place after all. No mention of the grown cubs impending deaths due to the same plight their father endured, no warning of trouble for future generations if we don't get our act together, nothing. Just a montage of stuff we have already seen throughout the movie (and many times more, if you are one of the billion people who have already seen Planet Earth).

I have never left the theater feeling so ashamed and cheated in my life.

Sentiment: negative
This film was pure pain. Sitting in the theater for x-amount of minutes, I was wondering when the film was going to start. All the setups were in place; typical love story, characters have to overcome their short-givings, villain has to emerge, but none of it ever initiated. By the time these things happened, I was already bored stiff and the devices were completely ineffective. In scenes that required immense tension and buildup, it felt like necessary frames were cut. Kid's stuff does not have to be this way. Children's films can be as riveting and engaging as adult ones. The excuse, "hey , its for kids," is bull. I'll take "Sword in the Stone" any day. This was terrible. I'm getting the feeling that Disney will put out anything these days. And as for the kids, the 10-year I saw this with will agree...pure trash.

Sentiment: negative
ELEPHANT WALK was a thoroughly dull film and I really was quite happy when finally a herd of elephants stormed through the mansion and ended this film. Considering the money and cast, you'd sure expect the film to be a lot better, though I also question the odd casting of Dana Andrews as a man who is in love with Elizabeth Taylor. It's not just the age difference but I just can't see the pair as a couple. Perhaps some of this may be the fault of substituting Miss Taylor for Vivian Leigh at the last minute (due to Miss Leigh's deteriorating mental condition)--though I also have a hard time visualizing Andrews and Leigh as well. In addition, for an English woman, Miss Taylor doesn't even seem to try using an accent.

The film begins with Peter Finch and Taylor meeting and marrying in England. Their plan is to return to Finch's tea plantation in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and at first it seems like a good life. However, there are no women to talk with and the household staff seem to resent her. On top of that, once back home, Finch behaves like a boorish jerk and Taylor is miserable. Neighbor Andrews can see this and he declares his undying passion for her. However, Taylor isn't yet ready to abandon her marriage. But, through the course of the film Finch treats Liz more and more like an object and finally she is ready to leave...when out of the blue, Cholera strikes the plantation. So it's up to Andrews, Finch and Taylor to work together to save the day--though by this point I really didn't care, as there is absolutely no chemistry between the characters, the dialog is pretty dull and you can't understand why Taylor didn't leave her weasel husband within days of arriving in this inhospitable hell.

The film isn't particularly engaging or convincing and despite a decent budget by Paramount, the film is a sluggish mess. I particularly was surprised that although the film appeared to be filmed on location, many scenes were clearly filmed in a studio with a rear projected (and grainy) shot that wasn't integrated well. In one scene, for instance, Taylor, Finch and the lot are sitting on the veranda and the grass is bright green. Then, when the picture cuts to people dancing right in front of them, the grass is brown! It's clear they really are NOT in Ceylon in this scene or the scene with the giant reclining Buddha. My advice is to skip this one or at least keep a pot of coffee nearby to keep you awake. Despite its budget, it's just not a very good or inspired film.

By the way, could Miss Taylor have been pregnant during part of this film? In some scenes (particularly at the beginning) she's wearing billowy clothes, has a double-chin and looks puffy. This isn't a criticism--after all, women do get pregnant! But if you look carefully, you'll see what I mean.

Also by the way, the basic plot in many ways is similar to GIANT--a great Taylor film indeed! It's amazing how casting and decent direction can do so much.

Sentiment: negative
This film was utterly horrible. Stupid premise, and horrible acting by all. Whoever wrote this trash should be hanged. Reminds me of a hack student film, BUT WORSE. Who ever produced this should give up now. I know opinions are subjective and all, and some may think this "fantastic" as some think "Dune (1984)" was fantastic, well get off your horse and watch some real films. OK, the acting was tolerable, and with better direction could have been far better, but it didn't so it suffers. I don't know how much more I can say about this waste of film, other than to totally trash it. Anyways it was horrible and I recommend to avoid it like the plague, if you come anywhere near "dreamland", rent the movie beside it instead.

Sentiment: negative
I too saw this film at a film festival, but unlike the previous poster I found it both interesting and original. In a sea of terrible features, shorts are often twice as bad do to small budgets and poor acting, A.W.O.L however is a taut little thriller that hearkens back to "The Outer Limits." The performances are solid, not that one would expect otherwise from Morse or McGinley, and the directing is sharp and on the money. I personally find it difficult to reconcile the previous poster's comments with the film I saw. A.W.O.L is quite aptly written by Shane Black, who, as is usually the case, plays with the genre both paying homage to the stories pulp sensibilities, while simultaneously winking at the audience and never taking itself too seriously. All in all A.W.O.L proves to be an extremely well executed and fun film.

Sentiment: positive
...dont read any plot summaries because in words the plot might seem trivial, brain-dead and pointless. The film is excellent, the acting by both Denzel and Dakota (she will go sky high, trust me on that)are just fabulous, and the plot is mind blowing. Actually "fabulous" is a small word to use for such talented actors. The film is just based on actual facts and some characters are not fictional, a fact that adds up to the shock that i was having during and after the film. If you are fond of both actors and of somewhat deranged films, you still haven't watched your favorite one yet...Trust me, in the end you will have a weird and inexplicable feeling. The film is awesome, see it, rent it, buy it or whatever...just don't miss it

Sentiment: positive