DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I first watched this film when I was a kid and is the only time in my life that I can remember putting my hands over my face and eyes in utter horror at one particular scene. I remembered it again with a disscusion with my uni friends and promptly bought it on video with plenty of hesitation I might add (to my surprise I only found it on the web in the States when it was made in England!) When I watched it again my reaction and to my surprise was almost the same, of sheer horror and fear and never has my heart been beating so much too. This is in my opinon the SCARIEST film ever made, Hollywood films seem tame in comparison and a bit Pony and Trap (crap), pardon the pun. What is amazing though is the power of this film and at uni when watching this with about twenty of my associates I have never heard so many screams, blokes as well! Even the sight of the video brings the fear of God into me of that one particular scene, and left me feeling that I will never walk alone again in the dark!!!!

Sentiment: positive
First of all let us discuss about the story. It is a copy of the movie "Hitch" with an added Indian Flavor to it. One guy, who is a Love guru, and another man who is seemingly a sucker when it comes to ladies, and how this seemingly sucker becomes a charmer with the help of the love guru forms the story. Salman Khan is the love guru, and Govinda is the lame guy.

Now coming to artists' performance, Salman Khan overacts throughout the movie, he tries to be funny, but fails big time. You can see Salman shouting throughout the movie, no real acting is seen in his performance. Govinda pairs opposite Katrina Kaif(Oh, my god, she is one heck of a girl. A real Beauty)is in real life a 50 year old dude, and Katrina is a girl in her early twenties. In the movie Govinda looks like Grandpa of Katrina Kaif. What a pity! Coming to Execution of the movie. This movie feels like a B-Movie, and a poor imitation of the movie Hitch. Where Hitch looks like a movie with a purpose and depth, this movie is shallow and purposeless, nowhere there is justification or clarity.

Just forget this movie, for it is nothing but boring, typical Bollywood fare. Actually I give 3/10 because this is the lowest I go.

Sentiment: negative
"Dragonlord" sees Chan returning to his role of "Dragon" from "The Young Master". Not much has carried over from the first film though. "Tiger", his older brother, is nowhere to be seen; neither is the Marshall, his daughter or his son played superbly by Yuen Biao in the original film. Dragon does have the same master though - presumably all the other students have moved on to other things. (Dragon's laziness at training is portrayed heavily in this film, so maybe he's still studying!) 

Originally titled "Young Master In Love", this film sees Dragon (for the first sixty minutes at least) pursuing a villager girl in various idiotic and slapstick ways. His rival for her affection is his friend (inappropriately named "Cowboy") played comically by the longtime Chan Stunt-team member Mars. We see various scenes where their silly schemes backfire. It is one of these scenes that we (thankfully) find "Dragon" in over his head.

This film is notorious in that it failed expectations at the box office. That said, I'm sure the expectations were pretty high, and I feel that this film has never had a fair judgment based on it's own merits. But even when I try to do this, I still feel that there is a problem with the film. It seems quite unfocused, sometimes rushed, and I think the action is too sporadic and not as brilliant as Chan's other work from this period.

The thing that really saves the film is the ending sequence. As in "The Young Master", there is a fantastic final reel that it full of incredibly exhausting action - you really feel every blow. And again, Chan goes up against the same rival from "The Young Master" (is it the same character?), and the timing and energy here is brilliant. Chan's style of using every last bit of his environment to help defeat his opponent - not just relying on pure physical ability - is as apparent here as anywhere else. The barn they fight in is full of clever little prop gags and improvisations. This is an absolute highlight of the film and one of Chan's incredible career.

It's not necessary to see the prequel before seeing "Dragonlord", in fact, it might even raise more questions than what it hopes to answer. But it must be said that the original film is the superior film, and "Dragonlord", with it's focus on girl-chasing and team-sports does seem baffling. Luckily, the few fight scenes it offers (plus a fantastic shuttle-cock scene) push it over the line as a must-see film in this genre.

Sentiment: positive
Though I have watched Salò, I do not know if excrement tastes tart. If it does, this "film" is accurately titled. So much of roughage, so little substance, this is the celluloid equivalent of celery - only it does not cleanse the palate. It leaves the taste of wasted time in the mind's mouth, and if I could vomit this film and get back that expanse/expense I would. Detention was more exciting. The director should be forced to wear a dunce cap, and the Spirit of Ed Wood Jr. couldn't save this semi-professional projection from certain failure. A waste of time, a waste of mind. **Don't be fooled by the toothsome Dominique Swain: competent eye-candy she was in the Lolita remake, less tragic and savvier than Sue Lyon, though by no means better. However, a previously competent turn of the screw does not make her a skilled crafts-person. You need craft for that, not crap, which is what this film is. The reels belong in the girls' bathroom, flushed till the pipes burst, while director/direct-less Christina Wayne should do 5-10 in study hall. Watch anything else and pass this class, by (bye), forever!

Sentiment: negative
This film looked interesting; I'd read the book a number of years ago and it informed me that the feature followed the plot outline pretty tightly.

Started watching it and almost from the outset it failed to live up to expectations. In fact, I didn't bother watching the whole thing... utter drivel - bad performances, bad acting and instantly dislikeable characters - that was the point of the film, I guess.

Watching this film left a bad taste in the mouth and put me on a downer for the remainder of my weekend.

Do not bother with this feature.

Sentiment: negative
I fell asleep on my couch at 7:35pm last night watching Larry Sanders (I usually DirecTivo it, but not last night). Woke up at 3am (invesment banker on the west coast), and was fascinated to see this on HBO2. I was shocked on how poor this 'movie' was. Seriously. shocked. So shocked that I had to write a commentary on iMDB. This is really really bad. the writing is boring, but the directing and editing are simply below those of a freshman at a film school.

Yes it is shot video. Mind you, that is shot on VIDEO, not DIGITAL VIDEO. It does look like a soap opera. The clips from skateboard videos have a more 'film' feel to them then this horror.

I wanted to describe the poor directing but i honestly cant remember anything. The shots and blocking are stupid. yes, i chose the word 'stupid'. not unconventional, not daring, not bold, not boring, just stupid. I know people reviewing this review will say "well give me an example". I cant. It was 3am. but trust me, I know you will watch it anyway, you will be drawn by the horrible reviews.



Sentiment: negative
The group of people are travelling to Belgrade in an awful bus led by a drunk conductor and his dumb son (who likes to drive with his eyes closed). Their journey is frequently interrupted by many hilarious events which with much irony describe the fall of nation`s spirit in 1941 and are so funny that they are even today used as a common jokes. The man who "steals the show" is a peasant 4 feet tall with his 4 sons who are almost two times bigger than him. In the end, the movie takes one dramatical turn and the trip becomes nothing but a swan`s song of a dying country.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was recommended to me so we went to see it together. I wouldn't call it a movie, it's more like a combination of 10 different unfinished, illogical stories, which are not all that funny. There're several characters in the movie who looked important in the beginning, and they just disappeared from the story. He's just trying too hard to fit everything in 2 1/2 hours. I left the show without wondering what happened to this and that guy.

I think this movie is just an extended version of "Hitch", padded with a lot more characters and dancing.

If this is the best movie that this couple has ever made, then I'm pretty sure I'm not interested in any of his previous ones.

Sentiment: negative
This is probably the greatest war film and certainly one of the greatest films. There's no sentimentality, no patriotic agenda, not even a hopeful message of universal brotherhood in this bleak glimpse of what we can only call hell. It's this quiet rigor and lack of manipulation that give the film its astounding power. There aren't any attempts to make a hero out of Ichikawa's protagonist Tamura either. He's just a poor doomed sap trying to stay alive in a world of horror who hopes, but isn't sure, he can hang on to his humanity in the process. Ichikawa's fierce lack of cant and illusion make Fires on the Plain stand alone. Ichikawa died February 2008.

Sentiment: positive
I found it highly interesting that the film actually managed to bridge the gap between my own american culture and that of the originators, i.e. chinese. It becomes a story about values, and causes the watcher to reevaluate their own choices in life, and loyalties toward institutions. Amazingly enough, it managed to do this in a gentle, mildly humorous manner, which only in retrospect seens threatening to one's status quo. I enjoyed the movie, and would watch it again if I could.

Sentiment: positive
There's no shortage of bad dialogue in David and Bathsheba  "I was quite a hand with a slingshot," "The King of all Israel out there in the darkness exposing himself to the enemy" (full marks to Dennis Hooey for delivering that one with a straight face), "Go and sit with the concubines." And somehow I doubt a bored David ever told the prophet Nathan "Whatever you say." He even tries the old "My kingdom doesn't understand me" routine on desperate housewife Bathsheba at one point. So it's probably a tribute to Henry King's direction that the film isn't at all bad despite the pitfalls much of the first third provide. Maybe it's the censor-baiting nature of the plot  a married man kills a femme fatale's husband and gets away with it!  but King brings out the growing moral and theological complexities in Phillip Dunne's script rather than upping the sin and sandals hokum. This is the conflicted David on the downhill slope, abandoned by a vengeful God he no longer understands, and the film doesn't back away from the awkward unanswerable questions about why a loving deity would choose to wreak vengeance on the innocent rather than the guilty. It even offers a genuinely surprising criticism of the sexual inequality of the law, where the failings of husbands result in the punishment of their wives.

Unlike King David, which sidelined the king in favour of the admittedly more interesting Saul, David is firmly at the centre of the drama and despite an interesting display of shoulder twitching and a frankly gormless overlong close-up when visiting the site of Saul and Jonathan's death, Gregory Peck's performance grows in stature as David shrinks. Susan Hayward is pure Hollywood pro, Raymond Massey is an appropriately theatrical prophet (why be naturalistic when you've got a voice that makes the very heavens quake?) and Kieron Moore's Uriah such an intransigent unreconstructed chauvinist that you can't exactly blame David for putting him in harm's way, but despite threatening to soft peddle the film doesn't allow David a moral get out of jail free card over his death. With surprisingly strong but subdued design and Technicolor photography this is definitely a cut above most 40s-50s Biblical epics.

Fox's new DVD is a good transfer, including an incredibly hokey 'candid' behind-the-scenes short and a trailer with brief shots deleted from the film's sole battle scene.

Sentiment: positive
Im warning you people out there, this is just a waste of your time. I am being honest when I'm saying that this is the worst movie I've ever seen. Its just a move about Christian propaganda! Don't throw away your life, don't see it!

I think they made the movie so more people will believe in Jesus or something, but it works in the opposite way. The actors are all newbies, the story is just fuzzy!

I think this movie is a work of the devil. 

This movie is just not worth seeing, so please take my advice and don't!

Sentiment: negative
"Night of the Living Homeless" was a fairly strong finish to the first half of Season 11. Obviously a parody of various zombie movies, most notably Dawn of the Dead, this episode parallels the homeless with the living dead, as creatures who feed and thrive off of spare change rather than brains.

Kyle is blamed for the sudden mass outbreak of homeless people when he, out of the goodness of his heart, gives a $20 to a homeless man in front of his house. More homeless people begin to infiltrate South Park, until the town is completely overrun with them. This is a very strong Randy Marsh episode, as he assumes the role of the shotgun-wielding leader of the adults who take refuge on the roof of the Park County Community Center. But before Randy makes it to the community center, he is accosted by hundreds of homeless people while hilariously screaming "I don't have any change!!" Unfortunately, the refugees end up losing Gerald Broflofski to the homeless, when he tries to escape by catching a bus out of town, and unwittingly tosses away all his change for the bus to distract the homeless people. Then he becomes one of them, asking everyone for change.

The boys attempt to find out why there are so many homeless people in South Park, and find a man who is a director of homeless studies. They find out that the nearby city of Evergreen used to have a similar problem with the homeless, so they escape to Evergreen to find out what they did to solve the problem. Unfortunately, homeless people break into the man's house, and he attempts to take the easy way out by shooting himself. However, he fails several times, as he shoots himself in the jaw, in the eye, in the chest, in the neck, in the shoulder, screaming horribly until he finally dies. This scene may have been funnier had a similar scene not happened in "Fantastic Easter Special" two weeks ago.

Meanwhile, a member of the refugees discovers that due to the homeless problem, the property values have nosedived, thus the bank has foreclosed on his house, making him homeless. Randy immediately turns on him, holding the gun to the man's head. When the man finally begs the others for a few bucks to help him out, Randy pulls the trigger.

In Evergreen, the boys find out that the citizens of the town sent the homeless to South Park, and that the passing of homeless from town to town happens all over the country. The boys modify a bus that leads the homeless out of South Park and takes them all the way to Santa Monica, California.

The zombie movie parallels and the great Randy Marsh lines make this one definitely re-watchable. 8/10

Sentiment: positive
I found this on the shelf while housesitting and bored. How can people possibly give this a 10? It's not just that it's supposed to be a feel-good redemption film (I think), because it doesn't work on that level either. Weak plot, bad dialogue, terrible acting; there's just nothing there. Harvey Keitel is decent, but has nothing to work with, and Bridget Fonda and especially Johnathon Schaech are just terrible. The plot progression (especially the relationship between Byron and Ashley) makes no sense. It seems like the writers wanted the plot to go a certain way and made it, without actually writing in the necessary bits to make it flow. It's only an hour and a half, but that's 90 minutes of your life you'll never get back.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this film some years ago and promptly bought the soundtrack because it was simply excellent. Bacharach's music is endearing and should be given the recognition it richly deserves. The cinematography is awesome. Critics hated it, but they hated HOME ALONE too. I haven't found it on video but welcome anyone who can find a copy.

Sentiment: positive
Please, spare me of these movies that teach us that crime is fun and justified. Couple that with a vacuous script with an intense desire to be a Farrelly or a Coen brother, plus the lives of yet ANOTHER group of supposedly high school age people acting out their Dawson Creek-brand teen angst complete with a GenXYZ soundtrack that woefully tries to make the movie "feel" cool and, we have intensely and painfully inept satire.

This isn't even watered-down 'Ferris Bueller'...I'd rather watch a traffic light change.

Only one scene stands out as anywhere near worth the price of admission: when the Betty Masked girls meet a Richard Nixon Masked friend. It's a surreal moment. Priceless even.

But for the rest of it, I'd rather have a toothache. At least I can apply some Benzocaine(tm) to stop the pain.

Sentiment: negative
Son of the Mask is a terrible movie. I don't like the baby and I don't like the dog. Jamie Kennedy and his wife are a cute couple but that can't redeem sitting through this garbage. Even at only 88 minutes (or so it says), the movie could not end soon enough for me. The only real laughs come at the beginning with a brief appearance by Ben Stain. That's it. The rest is just a rehash of the first movie. Actually that is just an insult to rehashes. Why was this sequel made?? This movie cost millions of dollars to make. Why would I sit through a movie with a baby and a dog intentionally trying to drive the dad crazy? Jamie Kennedy is talented but he has nothing to do in this movie. I am not bothering to be nice to this movie. 1/10

Sentiment: negative
Street Fight is a brilliant piece of brutal satire. This is not a movie you just watch for fun. It is not a comfortable experience, although it does have some laugh-out-loud moments. This is a movie you watch when you need food for thought.

To dismiss this film as simply racist is to miss the point entirely. This is not only a satire of Song of the South, it's also a biting commentary on the prejudices that Americans still have as a society. Every ethnic group portrayed in the movie gets shown as grotesque caricatures of their stereotypes, which in turn are grotesque caricatures of real people. Through this wild exaggeration, the filmmaker shows just how absurd these tightly-held beliefs really are.

If you're the sort of person who's willing to acknowledge the ugliness of the prevalent prejudices American culture still holds, and if you're not afraid to look your own prejudices in the eye, this movie may be for you.

Sentiment: positive
I have just sat through this film again and can only wonder if we will see the likes of films like this anymore? The timeless music, the tender voices of William Holden and Jennifer Jones leave this grown man weeping through joyous, romantic scenes and I'm not one who cries very often in life. Where have our William Holden's gone and will they make these moving, wonderful, movies any more? It's sad to have to realize that they probably won't but don't think about it, just try to block that out of your mind. Even so, they won't have Holden in it and he won't appear on that hill just once more either. You can only enjoy this film and watch it again.

Sentiment: positive
Cool idea... botched writing, botched directing, botched editing, botched acting. Sorta makes me wish I could play God and strike everyone involved in making this film with several bolts of lightning.

Sentiment: negative
The sound in this movie is a nightmare. That is the best I can say for this movie. Any chance of a good story is lost once this films starts. The premise of the film sounds good. A playboy who comes to terms with the people around him. The plot is predictable and very dull. The wet T-Shirt contest may be the worst scene I've ever watched and is almost worth watching in a Mystery Science type of deal. The sound is at times hard to hear and the main actor seems to not know how to speak clearly. His accent makes him very hard to understand. The only bright sport is the acting of Penelope Ann Miller. Her role is underdeveloped but she plays it well. In short, do not waste your time.

Sentiment: negative
Some of my favorite Laurel and Hardy films have very, very little plot. Instead, they give them a rather mundane situation and just let them be hilarious! Films such as HELP MATES and BUSY BODIES are among the funniest as you see the boys working or cleaning house. Here in DIRTY WORK, most of the film is akin to these other two films--Stan and Ollie are chimney sweeps and spend most of the film trying (quite unsuccessfully) to clean a crazy professor's chimney. Seeing Ollie fall through the chimney, the boys making the house a total mess and the insane behaviors of Stanley all work together to make a very pleasing film.

However, in an odd twist, there is also a really weird subplot that begins and ends the movie. It seems that the professor is truly a mad scientist and he is working on a formula to make things younger. Late in the film, you see him make a duck into a duckling and even a duckling into an egg! Given that he then leaves the boys alone in the room, is it any surprise what happens next? While this subplot was unnecessary, it worked well enough. What worked exceptionally well was the middle portion. Give the boys nothing exciting to do and you'll be amazed at the hilarious results. One of the team's better films and it almost earns a 9.

Sentiment: positive
One unfortunate reality of post-Soviet Russia was that the people's welfare didn't change much from Soviet times. As we see in "Window to Paris", most people are still as depressed as ever, while they are encouraged to go after money.

Then, everything changes for music teacher Nikolai Chizhov (Sergei Dontsov) after he finds a window that leads to Paris. He and his friends are naturally quite amazed at what they find. This movie has one of the funniest discussions of Elvis Presley and Edith Piaf that I've ever heard. So watch this movie. You're sure to love it. It's sort of a precursor to "Being John Malkovich".

Sentiment: positive
Maybe it's because I read Peter Straub's wonderful book before seeing the film, but I was terribly disappointed by this movie. In my opinion, the filmmakers removed everything that made the story interesting and unique, and replaced it with more common Hollywood-style elements.

It's too bad, too, since this movie has a terrific cast, particularly Fred Astaire, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Melvyn Douglas, John Houseman, and the then-largely-unknown Alice Krige. They're just not given very much worthwhile to do.

In fact, I was all for leaving halfway through, but a friend convinced me to stay to the end, as he was sure it had to get better. He apologised to me during the closing credits.

Sentiment: negative
I usually check out the MTV movie awards to watch a witty, entertaining show that delivers a unique award show (Chewbacca winning a life-time achievement award as example). So this year was no different. While I'm not a fan of Justin Timberlake, Seann William Scott has always been funny-albiet stupid-to me. I've laughed at Stiffler in both American Pie movies, and even enjoyed him in Dude Where's My Car?. But the MTV movie awards were simply horrible. Nothing was coherrent, humorous, or entertaining. Justin Timberlake should stick to singing and dancing; he sure as hell can't act.

I'm curious as to who the writers were for this show. Last year's performance by Jack Black and Sarah Michelle Gellar was extremly funny (The Lord of the Rings parody alone was worth watching the entire show), but this year was completly different. Did anyone understand Timberlake's comments regarding Luke Wilson and Kate Hudson ("They're staring in a movie together, but have never met! Here they are...") Where was the joke? Kate and Luke just went into their lame dialogue, never making a reference to the "joke" by Timberlake. And Seann was completly wasted as a talent, not even causing me to smile, yet alone laugh. And what was the point of Harrison Ford's one-liners? Did they make ANY sense to anyone? Perhaps the MTV writers figured the young viewers would only know the aging Ford as Han Solo, Indiania Jones, or the President from Air Force One. I'm baffled. And would someone tell me the deal with Adrian Brody? How old is this guy and how old does he THINK he is? The guy looks 30, trying to act 19 again....give it up, show some class (like in your best actor academy award speech) and act your age!

I give this show 1 star out of 4, simply because of the speech by Gollam for Best Visual Performance. This was very creative, extremely well done, and caused the only genuine laugh of the entire evening.

Sentiment: negative
Denzel is about the only thing that is right in this movie.

Maybe once in an early stage this was a better movie. Someone decided to cut some action and plot points into the beginning of the movie, giving away most of the story line in about the first 5 minutes. That and ruining whatever build up in pace and rhythm the movie might have had before.

So first it confuses you and then it puts you off. The dramatization pushes beyond suspension of disbelieve.

Of course there is that feeling of great injustice and anger that movies like this potentially manage to instill in viewers. Granted, it does that so if you are looking for that ... knock yourself out.

Sentiment: negative
Maybe it's just because I have an intense fear of hospitals and medical stuff, but this one got under my skin (pardon the pun). This piece is brave, not afraid to go over the top and as satisfying as they come in terms of revenge movies. Not only did I find myself feeling lots of hatred for the screwer and lots of sympathy towards the "screwee", I felt myself cringe and feel pangs of disgust at certain junctures which is really a rare and delightful thing for a somewhat jaded horror viewer like myself. Some parts are very reminiscant of "Hellraiser", but come off as tribute rather than imitation. It's a heavy handed piece that does not offer the viewer much to consider, but I enjoy being assaulted by a film once and awhile. This piece brings it and doesn't appologize. I liked this one a lot. Do NOT watch whilst eating pudding.

Sentiment: positive
I have seen this film on a Sunday evening and I must say there is no better way to end the weekend. I am totally pleased with the humor and the warm charm this film offers. It simply leaves me in beautiful mood. Watching this film means having a great time and keep a warm feeling.

The film offers sharp black British humor and feels very fresh to me. You really enjoy the story and the characters. Brenda Blethyn is SO great. I don't know exactly why. She's too old to be a love interest for me and too young to be my mother. But I really feel comfortable when she shows up in the movie.

Some may say the story was thin and predictable. But who cares? There simply has to be a happy end, dancing in the sunshine! Are the characters stereotypes or cut outs? I don't know- better I don't care! I just loved them and enjoyed watching them.

Furthermore, I must say that I usually don't like romantic comedies. But this one is outstanding: a black comedy with a heart of gold !!

Sentiment: positive
(spoilers)

I was blown away by this movie. I've been renting on movielink for a bit, and decided to check this movie out. Alot of boxing movies seem to overblow the blood. In this movie, it shows it at the amature level. Though I do wish that perhaps more attention would have been brought to perhaps her improving her grades. The movie points out the problems some families face with gender.

I was a bit concerned with the ending. But the ending wasn't a disappointment either.

I think it was pretty clear by the title that she'd win. What was unexpected was that the two of them got back together sort of at the end.

Loved the score for some of the scenes. Highly recommended.

10/10

Quality: 9/10

Entertainment: 10/10

Replayable: 10/10

Sentiment: positive
Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams star in this action/thriller written and directed by the master of suspense, Wes Craven, himself. The whole movie starts with some trouble at The Lux Atlantic, a hotel in Miami. The problem is all fixed by Lisa Reisert, the manager of the hotel. Then she goes to the airport, and that's where all of the trouble begins. She meets Jackson Rippner, who doesn't like to be called Jack because of the name Jack the Ripper, if you know you him and I mean. Then they board the plane, and crazy enough, Rippner and Reisert sit next to each other. For the next half-hour, Lisa is terrorized, tormented, and terrified by Rippner. I won't give anything away. Then we move on to where Jack is chasing Lisa in the airport. Then Lisa goes to her house to see if her father is okay, and crazily enough, Rippner is already there. There is nearly twelve minutes of violence and strong intensity throughout that entire scene. In total, about 25 minutes of intense action comes at the end.

Not only was the movie intense but it had a great plot to it. Like I said, I will not give anything away because it's so shocking and thrilling and somewhat disturbing/frightening. And the acting from every single character in the movie, even the ones with no lines at all, were all pitch perfect. It was incredible. Everything was awesome in this movie! The acting, the music, the effects, the make-up, the directing, the editing, the writing, everything was wonderful! Wes Craven is definitely The Master of Suspense. Red Eye is definitely a must-see and is definitely worth spending your money on. You could watch this movie over and over and over again and it would never ever get boring.

Red Eye I have to say is better than 10 out of 10 stars.

Original MPAA rating: PG-13: Some Intense Sequences of Violence, and Language

My MPAA rating: PG-13: Some Very Intense Sequences of Violence, and Language

My Canadian Rating: 14A: Violence, Frightening Scenes, Disturbing Content

Sentiment: positive
While this movie has many flaws, it is in fact a fun '80s movie. Eddie Murphy peaks during his 80's movies here. While his character is indistinguishable from earlier movies, his timing is almost flawless with perfect partners and foils.

Couple this with the hypnotic beauty of Charlotte Lewis, this makes for a fun rainy day action-comedy flick.



Sentiment: positive
This has got to be the most stupid film I have ever seen (spoilers ahead)! First of all, the plot is stupid. The little kid is weird and they move to a hotel because his father is the caretaker of it. We find that the kid has a gift, the "Shining". This gift never ever has anything to do with anything except to make the kid seem cool. Then the movie gets more boring and boring until the man finally goes crazy. He goes on a rampage to kill the kid and his wife because... well, he feels like it. Why else would he do it? All of a sudden we see a naked woman in the tub. The man kisses her and realizes he is kissing a dead corpse, which is utterly disgusting. Somehow a black man enters the hotel and is whacked with an axe. Then the kid and the woman take the black man's vehicle and leave the father, who dies within minutes of hypothermia. Most movies aren't a complete waste of time, but this falls right into that category. The music is trashy, the characters are corny (except Jack Nicholson, who is a good actor), the plot is twisted and fits the description of vomit, the ending is very predictable, the storyline is slow, tedious, and boring. This movie is extremely overrated. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS. I'm surprised it's gotten such a high rating on IMDb.

Sentiment: negative
I had never heard of this Adam Sandler movie until I saw it on the wall at Blockbuster. Being an Adam Sandler fan at the time, I rented it. HONESTLY I could only watch about 30 mins. of it. It was TERRIBLE. Do whatever it takes to keep this out of the hands of the public. I honestly hope this movie goes OOP soon, and I hope it STAYS THAT WAY!

Sentiment: negative
I don't know if it's fair for me to review this. I'm not a fan of gratuitous violence. I've never understood the movie industry making heroes out of mob members and cold blooded killers. When The Godfather came out, I thought they had broken the mold, but the decades have produced a series of well-acted mob movies with major stars and directors doing them. This one is obviously low-budget, but it is certainly well done. At some point in all of these I feel like I want to take a shower. If such characters actually exist, it is hard for the soul. I always intellectualize that humankind will rise above this sort of thing. This kind of crud has to be stopped. I hope the people that go to films like this are more voyeuristic and less vicarious. I feel sort of the same way about slasher movies. Why do we have a fascination with death and dismemberment? In fairness, I am judging this on the acting and directing, and for what it is, it seems to work pretty well.

Sentiment: positive
For a film with so much promise it was disappointing, thinly plotted and the acting ranging between horrendous and unbelievable.The plot had more holes in it than swiss cheese and it's the worst clichéd ending I've seen in a movie for some time. The final scene would have ripped my heart out, if the entire movie hadn't been so painful to begin with. I was numb! From the very first scene - one was left wondering, if the sister was trying to reach out to her twin for help, or simply scare her to death which would have been better for the audience and saved us from two hours of the worst acting I've seen to date. It was a horror in the true sense of the word.

Sentiment: negative
"One Crazy Summer" is the funniest, craziest (not necessarily the best), movie I have ever seen.

Just when one crazy scene is done, another emerges. It never lets you rest. Just one thing after another. The soundtrack is great. The songs are the right ones for the scenes.

It is also a clean movie. Little that is dirty in it.

Of course, it has the story of the guys you wouldn't trust with your lunch money, taking up a challenge, and winning over people with more resources. Who'd want to see it if they failed? There is a serious side, in that parents and children do not live up to each others' dreams. One should always have an open mind, and weigh all the options. This applies both to parents and children. In "One Crazy Summer", the parents are wrong. This is not always the case.

Sentiment: positive
I think it great example of the differences between two cultures. It would be a great movie to show in a sociology class. I thought it was pretty funny and I must say that i am a sucker for that "lets band together and get the job done" plot device. It seems most people don't realize that this movie is not just a comedy. It has a few dramatic elements in it as well and I think they blend in nicely. Overall, I give it a solid 8.

Sentiment: positive
IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. at this point i'm finished with my review but i have to fill in at least ten lines of text so i will go on.... (ctrl+c, ctrl+v) :))) IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff.

Sentiment: negative
Ralph and Mumford, misfits in their own land, get duped into being unwitting pawns of Synanomess Botch. Twice Upon a Time is the story of them, the characters they meet, and their struggle to set things right. With a surprisingly impressive soundtrack and wonderful voice acting by some of the best in the business, this offbeat movie hits the mark.

The animation process, while similar to that of the cut out "South Park" style, is much smoother and far more three-dimensional. If I didn't know that the animation was this style, I would swear that is was traditional pen and ink. If you can watch this film in Dolby Surround or THX, PLEASE DO! You won't really miss anything if you don't, but if you do, you will get much more out of the experience!

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie with a bunch of friends and although only two of us walked out of the cinema thinking how cool it was, the others just laughed and commented on how stupid it was. Well that was because it isn't supposed to be taken so seriously, basically it is a a movie that mocks horror flicks and does a damn good job.. There seems to be another movie coming out like that too, umm... Scary Movie?? Well this is Aussie, and original!!! Jessica Napier does a surperb performance and Sarah Kants has a definate bright future in acting! I hope to see more of them. Molly Ringwald was a good move, and Kylie was an even better move. The Impossible Princess was Queen of the screen!! I recommend seeing this flick, as you'll be guessing until the very end the connection with Raffy, Hilary and The movie that never got finished 20 years ago.

Sentiment: positive
.... may seem far fetched.... but there really was a real life story.. of a man who had an affair with a woman, who found out where he and his new wife were staying,, and she killed the wife,, making it look like a murder rape.......

in her delusion she had told everyone that the man had asked her to marry him.. so she quit her job in Wisconsin... and moved to Minnesota..........

last I heard she was in a mental institution, Security Prison....

she was still wearing the "engagement ring." that she has purchased for herself... and had told everyone that he had bought it for her.

The events took place in a small town in Wisconsin,,,,,,, and the murder happened in Minnesota......

There even was a feature story in "People" magazine... Spring of 1988, I want to say on Page 39. I remember this as I was in college at the time,, and a colleague of mine had met the individual in the Security Hospital....

Sentiment: negative
This movie really kicked some ass. I watched it over and over and it never got boring. Angelina Jolie really kicked some ass in the movie, you should see the movie, you won't be disappointed. And another reason you should see the movie is because the guy from The X-Files is in it, David Duchovny.

Sentiment: positive
Remake of the classic 1951 "The Thing From Another World". 12 men are in a completely isolated station in Antartica. They are invaded by a thing from outer space--it devours and completely duplicates anything it chooses to. It starts off as a dog but gets loose--and has a chance to duplicate any of the men. Soon, nobody trusts anyone else--they're isolated--the radio is destroyed--their helicopter likewise. What are they going to do?

The 1951 film had the thing just be a big, super human monster. That movie was scary. This one is too--but the story is different (and based more closely on the source material--the novelette "Who Goes There?") and it's scary in a different way. The movie starts right off with Ennio Morricone's extremely eerie score setting just the right tone and--when the Thing gets attacked--the amount of gore is astounding. There's blood and body parts flying all over--arms are bitten off, heads detach and--in the strongest one--one man is devoured face first by the Thing. The gore effects are STRONG and real nightmare material. I don't scare easy but I had to sleep with the lights on when I saw this originally back in 1982. Rob Bottin's effects are just incredible--how this picture got by with an R rating is beyond me!

It also has a very creepy feel--gore aside, it is very suspenseful. You're not sure who is what and Carpenter's direction and the score really build up the tension. One complaint--no one is given any distinctive personality traits. They actors just remain straight-faced and say their lines. That's annoying...but the movie still works.

This was a critical and commercial disaster in 1982--it competed with "E.T." and MANY critics complained about the amount of gore and there being no female characters in the movie. It's now considered one of John Carpenter's best. A must-see...for strong stomaches. NOT a date film!

An amusing note: When this was released Universal sent a note along with all prints of the film. They suggested to theatre owners that they play the film in an auditorium near the rest rooms. They were afraid that people would be so sickened by the violence that they'd have to be close to a facility to throw up!

Sentiment: positive
This is horrific. No really, this is ,bar none, the absolute worst...worst...I hesitate to even call it a @&$%in' _movie_. It is a ninety minute visual root canal. The plot is practically non-existent: a mad scientist who looks like the frontman from 'The Cars' impregnates a woman in his secret lab, a lawn chair in what I think may be a garage, via an injection of Palmolive. Within hours she births a full grown monster who then goes on a rampage. Thats the whole movie. The death scenes: these are poorly set up, take _forever_, and the acting...how can you mess up _screaming_?? The victims stand there while the growling, wheezing, congested freak advances on them and proceeds to limply strangle them for about three days. The sets are cheesy, the lighting for most of the movie consists of a single maglite (yes, a big honkin' flashlight), the sound quality is poor, theres only about 40 words of dialogue for the entire movie and the acting is generously described as wooden. Footage is shamelessly recycled to pad out the movie. And the special effects would make any BBC sci-fi production shake their head and proclaim "They didn't even try". The 'monster' is some nameless in a $3 halloween rubber mask with a few bandages slapped on. In its encounter with the lone cop of the movie the cop fires flashless, smokeless, invisible bullets that apparently travel so slow the monster can dodge them at five paces. Don't see this movie. No really, thats not a dare. Don't see this movie. The director should be shot. The writer should be chained to a giant rock where his liver will be devoured every morning by Ed Wood. Enough rentals and there could be a sequel, don't let it happen!

Sentiment: negative
As the film begins a narrator warns us THE SCREAMING SKULL is so terrifying you might die of fright--and if such happens a free burial is guaranteed. Well, I don't think any one has died of fright from seeing this film, but a few may have died of boredom. THE SCREAMING SKULL is the sort of movie that makes Ed Wood look good.

Very loosely based on the famous Francis Marion Crawford story, SKULL is about a wealthy but nervous woman who marries a sinister man whose first wife died under mysterious circumstances. Once installed in his home, she is tormented by a half-wit gardener, a badly executed portrait, peacocks, and ultimately a skull that rolls around the room and causes her to scream a lot. And to her credit, actress Peggy Webber screams rather well.

Unfortunately, her ability to do so is the high point of the film. The plot is pretty transparent, to say the least, and while the cast is actually okay, the script is dreadful and the movie so uninspired you'll be ready to run screaming yourself. True, the thing only runs about sixty-eight minutes, but it all feels a lot longer. Add to this a truly terrible print quality and there you are.

There are films that are so bad they are fun to watch. It is true that THE SCREAMING SKULL has a few howlers--but the film drags so much I couldn't work up more than an occasional giggle, and by the time the whole thing is over your head will roll from ennui. If it weren't for Peggy Webber's way with a scream, this would be the surefire cure for insomnia. Give it a miss.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Sentiment: negative
Attractive Marjorie(Farrah Fawcett)lives in fear after being accosted by a lone biker. She is mortally shaken with the fact her attacker knows her address. As expected, Joe(James Russo), the attacker forces his way into Marjorie's home and subjects her to humiliating terror. Bruised and bloody, Marjorie manages to get an upper hand on her attacker, knocking the living daylights out of the jerk and renders him helpless thanks to wasp spray in his eyes and throat. Hog tied and battered himself, Joe tries to explain himself to Marjorie's roommates(Diana Scarwid and Alfrie Woodard) when they get home. There is almost a hint of mercy, but it is not coming from Marjorie. Should she continue to render her own punishment? Violence, sexual abuse and rough language makes for an R rating. Fawcett really gets away from the ditsy roles that would forever stain her career. Kudos to director Robert M. Young.

Sentiment: positive