DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I've watched it plenty of times and I'm planning on buying the full feature. I love all of Jason Steele's comedy. It's very different and unique and is very enjoyable. I love indie films and this one is just great. The plot is strange but very funny. This short film is about a talking Spatula named Edward. The order of the events are a bit jumbled, making this film very interesting to watch. At first you see Edward fighting the spoons, but then the focus changes to earlier in his life. This is a silly movie, but of course, it's still great. I highly recommend that you watch this film at www.spatulamadness.com or www.filmcow.com. It's very funny. The humour may not match everybody's taste but watch anyway. It'll only take 16 minutes of your time, and it's free. GO WATCH SPATULA MADNESS!

Sentiment: positive
Paulie was cute, cool, enjoyable and quite fulfilling. I went to this movie expecting to view a typical "family" movie, one that within moments would find me unconscious and drooling on the floor. My mindframe immediately changed when I was quickly captivated by the movie's wholesomeness. It is rare that you find a family movie that is thorough and can be coined "wholesome". Most are cheaply made, written and produced purely to attract young family members, who'll then drag the unfortunate elders to a mind numbing 65 minutes of overused sight gags and plots.

Oh yes, Paulie had a plot. It told the story of a young girl(Marie) and her best friend Paulie the parrot, who unbelievably could talk and quite frequently held conversations with her. Marie's dorky jerk father found this unbelievable, and thought Paulie to be damaging to his 4-year old daughter's mental health, and quickly tore them apart. We follow Paulie's adventures (and misadventures) as he attempts to reunite with his beloved owner, meeting many memorable characters along the way. Oh yeah, Paulie really could (smart)talk and had a swift New Jersey accent. Cool. The plot held thick and entertaining throughout, keeping me attracted. Paulie is the best family movie I have found and wholeheartedly enjoyed. Ever. Seriously. Pick up a copy and sit back and enjoy a true family movie, with the whole family. No sleeping. I promise.

Sentiment: positive
Dennis Hopper must've been really hungry to do this movie. Atrocious special effects, very poor writing, cheesy dialogue, stupid-looking killer bio-robots. Never mind the blatent disregard for science. The awkward scene with the 2 young leads taking their clothes off. The best part of this movie was the pull-start cyber-penis on the wacked-out cyborg pirate captain. 2 out of 10 stars because I'm in a generous mood.

Sentiment: negative
Fantastic film! Wow - this is really a treat. I can't believe that I discovered such a gem of a movie. 

A pretty young girl traveling south to Florida meets a friendly older couple with an RV, after she has a flat at a rest stop. However she learns that things aren't as they seem and the couple gets a bit creepy after she spends some time on the road with them.

Everyone in it was just so perfect for their parts you just about believe that you are watching this happen in real life in front of you.

Newcomer Emily Grace did a fantastic job as the really cute, yet somewhat shy Alice. Emily gives you the feeling that you can understand what she is experiencing and you can see just how she got into the situation that develops in the film. I'm sure we'll be seeing Emily in more films in the future.

Contrary to what some others have said, the lighting and photography in this were just perfect. The editing was done well too - just the right way to put together images of the highway to give you the feeling that you are traveling along with the cast on their road trip.

I didn't see it on the big screen, but I can only urge everyone to go out and see it. More films like this are *exactly* what we need.

SF

Sentiment: positive
This is a refreshing, enjoyable movie. If you enjoyed, "Four Weddings and A Funeral", "Peter's Friends", etc., you will see a number of familiar and talented actors. Made me laugh, made me sad. I view movies for entertainment, and English-set movies generally fit that bill for me. Enjoy!

Sentiment: positive
The best thing about this movie is that it is fun. It is full of humorous characters and interesting situations, starting with the blithe, innocent Pecker (played appealingly by Edward Furlong) who likes to photograph almost everything he sees in every day life. Other great characters include Pecker's friend Matt ("he's a thief, but he's really a nice guy"), Pecker's sister Chrissy (who is addicted to sugar), and Pecker's Catholic grandmother who discovers life in a statuette of the Virgin Mary in her room.

The movie gently makes a point about how every day life has many riches to offer, and it succeeds in making this point without being too heavy-handed about it. There is always a risk, when making messages about the value and dignity of "common people", of sliding into a kind of reverse "holier than thou" - but "Pecker" avoids these traps, allowing the audience to get the point while allowing enough breathing room for viewers to compare this message to their own thoughts on the subject.

I recommend the movie mostly because it is a lot of fun.

Sentiment: positive
Having spent the six years previous writing and producing, Luc Besson returns to the directors chair with Angel-A. I'm a huge fan of Léon, and quite liked the prospect of a black and white French film from the same chap.

André is a liar and gambling addict, owing money to almost every loan shark in Paris. Unable to repay his debts, and fed up with being held over the edge of the Eiffel Tower, he decides to kill himself. He happens to do so at the same time as a mysterious woman, who he decides to save. Determined to thank him, she begins to help him fix his own life.

The film starts with some laughs, which run well throughout. The visuals are quite nice and work well with the sights of Paris. But that is it. That's all the film has got going for it. And these mere two facets can do nothing to hold back the torrent of terrible film-making the movie unleashes. Though I can't hugely fault the main character (his inconsistencies are close though), the eponymous one is ghastly. A terrible screen presence and bitterly annoying. The plot is ridiculously inconsistent itself, and at times bizarrely silly, particularly the ending; an ending which completely bloodied the fledgling redemption engendered by the scenes immediately prior to it. Perhaps the most ridiculous scene I've had the ignominy of observing, it is stupid, indulgent, melodramatic, and considerably too awful to be "so bad it's funny". The overall premise of the film could conceivably have once held potential, but it is brutally massacred by the unendingly terrible implementation of its ideas. The film really was a task to watch, and one which had me screaming at the screen the whole way through.

Massively and immeasurably flawed, Angel-A is just plain bad. Though its occasionally fun dialogue manages to draw out chortles at rare intervals, by the end it is clear that this film is nothing more than repugnant.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie at the theaters when I was about 6 or 7 years old. I loved it then, and have recently come to own a VHS version. 

My 4 and 6 year old children love this movie and have been asking again and again to watch it. 

I have enjoyed watching it again too. Though I have to admit it is not as good on a little TV.

I do not have older children so I do not know what they would think of it. 

The songs are very cute. My daughter keeps singing them over and over.

Hope this helps.

Sentiment: positive
I must admit, I was expecting something quite different from my first viewing of 'Cut' last night, though was delighted with the unexpected Australian horror gem. I am a true horror fan as true as they come, and found 'Cut' to not only be the best of the genre Australia has ever produced, but one of the great parody/comedy films of late.

My only concern is that mainstream audiences may not pick up on a lot of the comedic elements - the film was not overly clever in it's application but made me laugh at every turn trying to fit in EVERY possible cliche of the horror genre they could. I am certain this was intended as humour....hoping this was intended as humour.

And of course, there was the gore.

The use of the 'customised' garden shears was brilliance - besides the expected stabs and slashes. In short, there was a huge amount of variety and creativity in the many violent deaths, enough to please even the skeptics of this films worth.

The appearance of both Kylie Minogue (short that her appearance was) and Molly Ringwald was just another reason to see the film - both performances were fantastic, as well as Simon Bossell ('The Castle') in a brilliant role as the jokey technician.

All in all, I think this movie is one of the best horror products of the last couple or years, as well as a beautiful satire/parody - toungue-in-cheek till the very end.

Loved it. Go see it!

Sentiment: positive
For months I've been hearing about this little movie and now I've seen it. I find it cute, cute how so many fledgling directors make movies where they combine other people's creative ideas in order to make their own one-joke premise of a movie. Troops, Swingblade, any of the million Blair Witch parodies come to mind. If all that these directors want is a foot inside Hollywood's door then they're doing the right thing and they should keep it up because combining plot outlines is how Hollywood makes films. How many times have you heard the phrase, "It's Animal House meets Back to the Future"; "It's Wall Street meets Dead Poet's Society"; or "Shakespeare in Love meets Star Wars"? I remember when independent films meant original and daring not safe and predictable.

Sentiment: negative
First off, I'd like to make a correction on another review of this film which said that the last musical to win the Best Picture Academy Award was 'Gigi' in 1958. That is misinformation as 'West Side Story' won in 1962, 'My Fair Lady' won in 1965 and 'Sound of Music' won the year after that. That said, this film is absolutely fantastic! The story from the novel has been somewhat altered, but that's more because of the limitations that they had on a stage that they just didn't change back for a filmed version. However, I don't mind. In fact, I rather think the whole production flows better than the novel does. I like Nancy bringing Oliver to the bridge with her and being killed there instead of later in the apartment. The subtle things in this film are the ones that make me laugh. I love the moment Mr. Bumble and Mrs. Bumble start coming out at the beginning from the governors office. The underscore for that moment is brilliant. My three favorite actors for this film were Jack Wild, who plays the best Dodger in any film version of the story, Ron Moody, a playful and humorous Fagin (this character is worked out much better than he is in the book), and Shani Wallis, who is the strongest, most distressed version of Nancy. The only reason I'm giving this film a 9 instead of a 10 is because of the two big production numbers which are 'Concider Yourself' and 'Who Will Buy.' I always hate when the choreography in musicals in meant to look like people doing everyday chores and jobs. It looks awful and cheesy, especially when they're dancing at the London Meat Co. They should've just done regular choreography for these scenes. However, this film is a rare treasure that will stay with us, hopefully, forever.

Sentiment: positive
I loved this film. It manages to make the characters sympathetic (well, most of them) concerning the problems they have with their relationship.

Gloria Swanson, as Leila, is in a dusty marriage with a husband who barely notices her presence (though he does notice her absence). The film shows very well why she is tired of married life, and why she is susceptible to a sweet-talking con man, without making her selfish or demanding. The reaction shots of Leila at the dinner table on her anniversary, while her workaholic husband (late to dinner again) eats salted scallions with gusto and pushes bride-and-groom dolls out of the way of his plate, are perfect.

The show is stolen - and stolen effortlessly - by Elliott Dexter as Jim, Leila's neglectful husband. After losing Leila to another man, Jim literally cleans up his act, shaving off his mustache, working out to lose the middle-aged spread, and dressing neatly. There are several shots of Jim at home, lonely and thinking of Leila, including a powerful scene when he finds one of her old dresses in the closet. The film gives the audience the advantage of watching Jim's transformation along with Leila. It isn't just the exterior that's more attractive; we come to know much more about the kind of person Jim really is, and we see how completely different he is from Leila's second husband, Schuyler (Lew Cody). Dexter shines as the before-and-after Jim, who is determined, after discovering Schuyler's true character, to win Leila back, if he can. The film's most touching moment comes when Jim and Leila discover that they are standing under the mistletoe, and Jim talks of what he has lost.

Definitely worth watching.

Sentiment: positive
MABEL AT THE WHEEL is one of those movies with a behind-the-scenes story that's more interesting than the movie itself. This was Chaplin's tenth comedy for Keystone during his year of apprenticeship, and his first two-reeler. Here he played one of his last out-and-out villain roles (although the feature-length TILLIE'S PUNCTURED ROMANCE was yet to come), and it also marked one of the last times he would work for a director other than himself. In fact, Chaplin's conflicts with director and co-star Mabel Normand almost got him fired from the studio.

Chaplin hadn't gotten along with his earlier directors, Henry Lehrman and George Nichols, but according to his autobiography having to take direction from a mere "girl" was the last straw. Charlie and Mabel argued bitterly during the making of this film. Chaplin was still a newcomer at Keystone and his colleagues didn't know what to make of him, but everyone loved Mabel. Producer Mack Sennett was on the verge of firing Chaplin when he learned that the newcomer's films were catching on and exhibitors wanted more of them A.S.A.P., so Chaplin was promised the chance to direct himself in return for finishing this movie the way Mabel wanted it.

Unfortunately, none of that drama is visible on screen in MABEL AT THE WHEEL, which looks like typical Keystone chaos. The story concerns an auto race in which Mabel's beau (Harry McCoy) is scheduled to compete, but wicked Charlie and his henchmen abduct the lad, and Mabel must take the wheel in his place. For all the racing around, brick hurling and finger-biting the film is frankly short on laughs, but there are a few points of interest. There's some good cinematography and editing in the race sequence, though there aren't really any gags, just lots of frantic activity. Chaplin himself looks odd, sporting a goat-like beard on his chin and wearing the top hat and frock coat he wore in his very first film appearance, MAKING A LIVING, but the outfit suits the old-fashioned villainy he displays throughout. At least it's novel to watch him play such an uncharacteristic role. Visible in the stands at the race track are such Keystone stalwarts as Chester Conklin, Edgar Kennedy in a strangely dandified get-up, and a more characteristic Mack Sennett, spitting tobacco and doing his usual mindless rube routine. As a performer, Sennett was about as subtle as the movies he produced, but you have to give the guy credit: he knew what people liked. These films were hugely popular in their day. Mack's performance doesn't add much to MABEL AT THE WHEEL, but he probably had to be on hand for the filming of this one to make sure his stars didn't kill each other.

Sentiment: negative
I understand wanting to make a movie that is edgy and different. I understand the previous reviewer comments that this is a miss-understood movie. My point is as soon as this movie ended my first comment was: " this is what happens when a rich princess wants to be a movie star and has no talent".....she uses daddy's' money to make a movie she wrote, directs, and pays for.....obviously to close to the movie to realize there was no character development and no directions such as a beginning, middle and ending.....the voyeur part was good and edgy but what was the point? I saw a women go to a house, find some pictures, screw the caretaker, come out side on a very cold night (not believable) to check on noise and runs over her caretaker lover....movie ends......some one educate my ignorant arss?? I really want to know what the point is....what was the directors' vision.....why no development of the dead lover? Why no background on the caretaker? What is the point of the night vision? What is the point of the lipstick on the car? Why a dead caretaker? Why tell us about an escaped mental patient/peeping tom? What's with the urn? Oh and the lamp is that suppose to signify whose' house this is? Territorial? Why? Why would the caretaker feel like it's his house? that aspect was never pursued......as for William Defoe...I rented this movie because he was in it and known for edgy characters.....write back and do tell me what I need to learn....I am just a mom in middle America who loves movies....Chris....

Sentiment: negative
... just look at the poor Robert Webber character (great performance, once again!) who tries to wrestle a sub machine gun from one of the terrorists. Everything in this movie seems to be a little wrong. The biggest mistake in my opinion is the effort to give the action a firm footing in the actuality of the early 1980ies (the fundamental difference between this flick and the far more fantastic, ironic and therefore timeless Die Hard). The story comes through as a failed attempt to glorify the SAS commandos. Ideas like when a commando shouts heads down" all good guys do it and all bad guys don't so that they can blast away ad lib (with a good conscience), that the main character does not get mown down by the gas masked commandos although he wears the same clothes and carries a weapon from their arsenal just seem to be unlikely and make it hard to take the movie seriously. And it just happens that it tries to be more than just fun. Don't talk about the toilet-mirror-signal episode ...

I don't mind the criticism of the Pacifist movement as a shield for evildoers and the arguments between the peace fanatics and the settled, even headed representatives of power in this movie. But the political comment is rather lame and uninspired. This is insofar regrettable as the movie features an early performance of Judy Davies. She plays the main fanatic and seems to have done extensive studies on the subject". Anyway, her performance is a notch above that of the others and somehow I feel the movie let her down.

Sentiment: negative
Oh my gosh!! I love this movie sooooooooooooooooooooo much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is so incredible......I loved it as a wee babe and still love it as an adult. It is my favorite Disney movie of allllllllllllllllllllllllllllll time! You should watch it, watch it and love it. My friends and I watch it a ton.....It is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo good. I recommend it to anyone who is a child or a child at heart. My favorite part is the song and dance number with all of the strays and Thomas O'Malley. The writers/producers/director completely nailed this one.....yeah, nailed it to the wall.

xoxo~Wolly~xoxo

Sentiment: positive
I loved this movie, I'll admit it. This has to be the best (straight to?) video movie I've seen. Well... me and my friend decided just for shits n' giggles that we'd rent this movie. We knew what to expect and we got exactly what we expected, plus more. When that red neck gets slammed up against the tree by the Sasquatch, we literally watched that part about three to four times, it was that amazing (hysterically, of course). And why? Oh why does the main character have to roll that much? Like honestly, we know that you're in danger, rolling that much isn't gonna help all that much. But really, if this movie is in you're local video store RENT IT. It is worth the money and it's not even that bad, like it's bad, but not incredibly bad. Overall, complete amazing will be in store for you if you rent this movie.

Sentiment: negative
This movie offers NOTHING to anyone. It doesn't succeed on ANY level. The acting is horrible, dull long-winded dribble. They obviously by the length of the end sex scene were trying to be shocking but just ended up being pretty much a parody of what the film was aiming for. Complete garbage, I can't believe what a laughable movie this was. 

And I'm very sure Rosario Dawson ended up in this film cause she though this would be her jarring break away indi hit, a wowing NC-17 movie. The problem is no adult is going to stick with this film as the film plays out like a uninteresting episode of the OC or something aimed at teens. Pathetic.

Sentiment: negative
The movie is actually too slow. There are some nice images but it cannot outweigh the fact that the movie is in fact boring. You see a sexual intercourse a lot of watermelons and a sexual intercourse while eating a melon and maybe a little bit more. It may sound even interesting to someone but believe me to watch it for 2 hours isn't fun at all. Though you laugh several times but it's really not enough and it may be more out of despair and disbelieve than out of fun. To disturb the boredom director tries to put few movie video-clips into the movie. They are really colorful clips of absurd songs maybe from the 50's but it's hard to say exactly and they are trying to be funny so hard that it's really sad. Several times you have a feeling that the plot could evolve into something, that a powerful scene is being created but at the end it just somehow evaporates and that's it. Beside the clips there are hardly any dialogs let alone music. The director is trying to be original and artistic at all cost. Personally I cannot recommend the movie. I believe that art is something that shouldn't be boring. During the projection there was yawning all around the cinema which just corroborates my short review.

Sentiment: negative
This Film was done in really poor taste. The script was really bad. I feel really sad for the late Gregory Peck who took on the title role of this B-movie adaptation of one of history's greatest generals. The movie was politically incorrect and downright insensitive to the others who fought the Japanese in World War 2. There was a scene where I almost vomited, it showed Macarthur in a bunker in Corregidor island talking to the troops like a seasoned politician when he comes across a wounded, one legged Filipino soldier. The soldier bleeding and dying manages to sit up straight upon seeing the general and says : `no papa, no mama, no uncle sam' and Macarthur gives his little pep talk that Americans `would never abandon' the Philippines. The scene ends with the soldier being invigorated by Macarthur's words and gives him a smart salute. I mean if there was a more condescending scene portraying the U.S. as the great white savior of the world please tell me because this one takes the cake. It showed that Filipinos are damsels in distress incapable of honor and have to rely on the great Americans solely for redemption. It blatantly and purposely overshadowed the contributions of the members of the USAFFE (United States Armed Forces of The Far East), these are Filipino volunteers that were integrated in the US military during world war 2, who died side by side with the Americans fighting the Japanese, who walked side by side with Americans in the death march of Bataan and defended Corregidor island by launching a guerilla offensive after Macarthur left for Australia with his famous `I shall return' speech. My late grandfather, a Filipino world war 2 veteran and USAFFE soldier was one of the many who fought the Japanese with honor and love for the home country. I think this movie does not give honor to them and to the thousands of others that Macarthur relied on for intelligence preparations for his famous return in the Leyte gulf landing.

Sentiment: negative
This had to be one of the worst films ever. When Kate shows up and Jed is with a bunch of guys and they all start clapping...so Hollywood. Another bad scene was when Kate was running her hands over the pavement it appeared that she was examining the texture of the pavement. Andie's acting is so bad in this film - I could not connect with them or feel there love for each other. The other 2 women however were very good and overshadowed Andie. Anyway this was such a campy movie. I usually like these type of films but I just couldn't get into this film. Too many unlikely situations and again Andie's acting didn't help the film. Also, she is all gums. Lancome must put her makeup on with a putty knife because she looks glamorous in the commericals.

Sentiment: negative
The first 20 minutes were a little fun because I don't think I've seen a film this bad before {acting, script, effects (!), etc....} The rest of the running time seemed to drag forever with every cliche in dialog used to no effect. These people seemed to not really like horror movies or how to make them or any other movie. There's no adult language, a bit of brief nudity, and no gore except fake blood smeared over no open wounds, etc.. It would have been rated PG in the early eighties and PG-13 nowadays. I'm not sure how it got an R rating or if it really did. I saw the American International release titled Hospital Of Terror. I've seen 100 horror films in the past 12 months and this is probably the worst film I've ever seen. Here's an example of how bad it is: There's one scene where something green comes through the door. I'm not sure what it's supposed to be but what it is on screen is some kid's green crayon scribblings {I'm not exaggerating} super-imposed over the film, semi-moving inside the door, then its supposed to do something to Nurse Sherri to possess her I suppose. I could not believe they had the lack of pride to show this embarrassment.

Sentiment: negative
This movie had very few moments of real drama. After the opening minutes the film descended in a spiral that didn't quite take us to hell and back - viewing was pure purgatory to say the least. The acting was more horrendous than the subject matter of the film and at times I couldn't stop laughing. The continuity between some of the scenes was dire - characters disappeared from scenes without explanation only to be replaced by other characters who minutes earlier had been some where else. Surely this was a spoof of The Exorcist. The collection plate at the church must have been full of copper the day Mr Russo signed up for this one. Do I speak Latin? Et tu Brutus.

Sentiment: negative
"Fame" is a very well done portrait of the students who inhabit New York City's High School of the Arts. The film focuses on a group of students who dream of making it big while they perfect their craft at the now famous school. Director Alan Parker allows each of the highlighted students to mature on screen, allowing you to feel a connection with each one. The music here is infectious and fun. The dancing is exciting and fresh. The film eventually became the basis for an Emmy-winning television series starring Debbie Allen and some of the other actors from the film. One of the more enjoyable "dance" films of the 1980's. Received Oscars for music. 8/10

Sentiment: positive
DEATHSTALKER is perfect for B-fantasy movie fans; this barely 80-minute travesty of film-making features everything hecklers can ask for--non-existent plotting, terrible acting (save for at least a raspy-sounding old lady), laughable scripting and schlock editing, and bargain-basement style background settings. There are no characters that come across as likable or interesting (in particular, the lead doesn't have ANYTHING appealing about him), and the actors assembled barely do anything to rise above the F-grade material. If that's not enough, then how about the lack of a compelling plot (which this movie has nothing of the sort) to make DEATHSTALKER qualify as a major turkey? I was also offended that the women in this movie barely serve any purpose other than to 1) be topless and/or scantily clad; 2) get raped; 3) have sex with the hero; 4) all of the above. In addition, the background music is hideous; a bizarre mess of electronic noise, cheesy choral bursts, and blaring orchestral cacophony. Ear numbing and eye numbing all in one packed with nary a thing to keep one interested, DEATHSTALKER is probably best suited for folks looking for something to laugh at (and believe me, there's plenty of that in here). Otherwise, I do not recommend this 100th-grade CONAN wanna-be to anyone in the least.

Sentiment: negative
Putney Swope is the story of a token black man on the board of directors of a large advertising firm who is accidentally voted Chairman of the Board when the owner of the firm keels over while trying to stutter out an idea that he was apparently quite excited about. Putney, of course, takes his new role to heart and fires most everyone in the agency, hires a new crew (all black except for a token white guy) and proceeds to crank out the most offensive and non-PC commercials one could ever ask for. Now it's a rather motley crew he has and despite that they somehow manage to be successful while raking in the cash. I rather like the scene where potential advertisers are being relieved of bags of cash and then told to "get out". And their commercials will follow later, like them or not. The story is good but of course the highlight here is the nasty commercials themselves, especially the one for "Face Off" acne cream. This is rather dated, but still a fun movie, and full of hilarious moments. Robert Downey Sr. was working for an ad agency doing experimental ads at the time and I guess this was his middle finger to Madison Avenue agencies. Very good and pretty damned funny. 8 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
OK. Who brought the cheese. I love it. During it's run it became a phenomenon. The Anorexic Twins became popular.Bob Saget started making a paycheck (Instead of his REALLY funny stand-up). And people knew who Dave Coulier was. This is when life was good and simple. This is one of the great American classics. It was humorous and always brought home a good lesson. And this is where I differ from the norm: I liked the last few seasons. Like Home Improvement, when children get older there are a lot more you can do with the script. This is why I dare say...It could have gone much later than it did. But anyway. I gave it an 8/10 because of its wholesome, funny story lines, and because of Bob Saget!

Sentiment: positive
and I for one think that is a good thing. I've just never been a Rosalind Russell fan although the original was my favorite RR movie. But I love Bette and was thrilled to hear she was making this.

As for the rest of the production, I think it was slightly less than the original movie. One of my favorite minor characters in the original was Mazeppa with her scratchy fingernails-on-the-blackboard voice belting out "HEY! It takes a lot more than no talent to be a strippah!" and although I missed it, I was glad to see the producers had the guts not to do a carbon copy.

I also liked the fact there are large portions of this movie which were filmed as if you are looking at a stage, it gives a feeling that you are in the theatre, not just at the movies.

I think the other thing I liked about this production was that there seemed to be slightly less repetition of the song "Let me entertain you", which becomes completely annoying after about the 5th time you hear it.

Sentiment: positive
I will admit that this movie was awful, cheesy, sexist, badly dubbed, and poorly edited, but I loved it anyway. I first saw this movie when I was 14, and it has stuck with me ever since. FYI, this is very close to hard-core porn as I remember. It certainly got my juices flowing. This flick gives a whole new meaning to swedish erotica. It is a humourous take on human sexuality as seen by hot randy female aliens who are, I think, just looking for some spermatozoa for their dying race.

Sentiment: positive
Father Hood

I can understand why a lot of people hate this tale of a father kidnapping his two children and carrying them across America, but I've seen much worse, and--when I saw this years ago--I didn't think it was particularly awful. Patrick Swayze is the worried father who takes his kids on the run with him for personal reasons, and Halle Berry is the cop chasing them down.

Overall a decent way to spend a couple hours of your life. You could certainly do worse--ever hear of the film "Pod People"?

** 1/2 out of *****

Rated PG-13 for some traumatic scenes, adult content matter, violence and language.

Sentiment: positive
What is it about the French? First, they (apparently) like Jerry Lewis a lot more than the US does. Second, they (seem) to like Edgar Allan Poe's work more than just about anyone else does. It's got to be the "Beaudelaire effect".

Don't get me wrong...I'm a Poe fan myself. But this trilogy manages to make three of Poe's below-average stories into...well, I'm not sure what they're made into.

"Toby Dammit" is a fine Fellini film, but it has nothing to do with Poe's story, at least in terms of theme. It's enjoyable on the first viewing. Terence Stamp does a good job with an interesting role. However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Poe or spirits of the dead.

"Metzergenstein" is a big mess. How did Vadim's films get produced? It's just awful...not even up to amateur film school standards. Depending on the DVD menu you have, try to skip it and save your time.

"William Wilson" is actually the segment that is most faithful to Poe's work. It does not have much style, though, even if it includes the strangest snowball fight I think that I have ever seen on film. (It looks like the boys are throwing tissues, or maybe handkerchiefs, that have been rolled up into balls.) 

My advice is to skip "Metzergenstein", watch "William Wilson", and then, if you're a Fellini fan (I'm not) keep "Toby Dammit" on while you cook dinner or make a snack.

Sentiment: negative
I am a student of film, and have been for several years. And the concept of a cyber, kung-fu, satirical chimpanzee had me wondering, "Is this the film that's going to break the mold?" Let's face it, America has never been let down by any piece of cinema that features a simian costar. After such great classics as "Monkey Trouble" and "Dunston Checks In", I thought that the best ideas were already taken. But then comes "Funky Monkey". I laughed, I cried, I contemplated suicide.

Now I've read about demon possession in the Bible, but that still doesn't explain why someone would create such a product of evil. First off, having at least a shred of intelligence, I realized that a chimpanzee was in fact an ape, not a monkey at all. However, I was sure that the filmmakers would clear this problem up further into the film. They didn't. Let me sum up this work of art: A company by the name of Z.I.T. has decided to train chimpanzees as soldiers. Why? I think they mention something about the soldiers working for bananas, but when it would cost about an estimated 13 million dollars of government money to train one chimp, this doesn't seem cost-effective. Well anyways, Z.I.T. brings in a CIA specialist (Matthew Modine) to train Clemens (The Chimp). Clemens is everything Z.I.T. hoped for. He can take out an entire shift of guards, who all appear to have gotten their training skills at the local mall, and yet still manage to remind us that we're watching a kid's movie. As you may have guessed, Modine finds out that Z.I.T.'s intentions may be evil (Gasp!) and decides to break Clemens out. Being a CIA agent and all, Modine knows that best way to make himself disappear is to go to a large city, rent a guest room, regularly make appearances on television while fighting crime, and using checks to pay for everything.

Z.I.T. finds out where Modine is staying, and sends two of their finest to retrieve him. These guards are possibly the greatest comedy team up since Martin and Lewis, or was it Turner and Hooch? It doesn't matter anyways, because in the end, for a heck of a twist ending, the good guys win!!! Yay! Hooray for predictability! Throw in a nerdy kid who learns to be himself, a lonely mom who needs a date, and music montages that feature songs that would even be blackballed by Radio Disney and you get "Funky Monkey". The climax to the movie? A football game! Played by thugs, bumblers, a chimp, and the nerd boy. No one seems to care about such substitutions at a high school football game.

Funky Monkey never lets up! It's edge of your seat entertainment. Some might even call this the "American Beauty" of monkey-filled features. After finishing this epic, I recalled hearing a story about a railroad worker who lost much of his brain functions when a metal rod pierced his temporal lobe. Funky Monkey is a metal rod among movies.

Sentiment: negative
Let me preface by stating that I have lived in Louisville, Kentucky all of my life. I grew up about ½ mile from Waverly. In the wintertime we would pull our sleds down Maryman road and cross Dixie Highway to go sleigh riding on Waverly Hill. Many times during the winter of 76-77 we would climb into the Tunnel to warm ourselves. The place was still being run as a "Geriatric Center" at the time. We would go all the way through the tunnel up the hill to bang on what we thought was the "Door to the Morgue". I have to be honest. The only sensation we felt was that we were getting away with something we should not be doing. I would have to say we went up that tunnel over 50 times that winter. Nothing stranger than teen-aged boys acting stupid ever happened. I love the fact that it is getting attention after all these years. One evening when I was young we looked out our front porch and it appeared that the entire hill was on fire. There was an older hospital on the hill that burned down. It burned for hours while the entire neighborhood sat outside and watched. The thing that gets lost about Waverly is that many people survived TB there. Let's face itThe doctors back then did everything they thought was correct to save people. It took a lot of guts for people to work there knowing how contagious TB was. Too much is focused on those who suffered. I also have traveled into the building several times in the early 70's. We would go and visit shut-ins in the Nursing Home through a church youth group. By the way, the doors there were not prison like steel doors with chains and padlocks as portrayed in the film. They were wooden and opensometimes too open. It did smell of urine and feces and you saw the occasional open gown associated with patients with dementia. It was true that it was closed by the state in the early 80's. A lot of that may have to do with the age of the building or the right guy wasn't paid off. This is after all Kentucky. The part of the documentary that turned me off the most was the piling of bodies into a cart. If I am not mistaken it appears to have been Holocaust footage. That was added for dramatic effect. It left me with a sour taste in my mouth for the filmmaker. I am a skeptic when it comes to "Ghosts". I do believe that many around here truly think the place to be haunted. Waverly for me however symbolized a fun place for adventure for a boy with a sled.

Sentiment: negative
The film is almost laughable with Debbie Reynolds and Shelley Winters teaming up as the mothers of convicted murderers. With the horrible notoriety after the trial, the two women team up and leave N.Y. for California in order to open and song and dance studio for Shirley Temple-like girls.

From the beginning, it becomes apparent that Reynolds has made a mistake in taking Winters with her to California. Winters plays a deeply religious woman who increasingly seems to be going off her rocker. 

To make matters worse, the women who live together, are receiving menacing phone calls. Reynolds, who puts on a blond wig, is soon romanced by the wealthy father of one of her students, nicely played by Dennis Weaver.

Agnes Moorehead, in one of her last films, briefly is seen as Sister Alma, who Winters is a faithful listener of.

The film really belongs to Shelley Winters. She is heavy here and heaviness seemed to make her acting even better. Winters always did well in roles testing her nerves.

The ending is of the macabre and who can forget Winters at the piano banging away with that totally insane look?

Sentiment: negative
I have always loved Brenda Blethyn and "Undertaking Betty" was no disappointment. I saw it on Satellite on dreary Sunday morning. Life has been stressful and this movie made me laugh and see things we usually consider dire in a mirthful way. I wish she would make more movies like this and "Saving Grace." Brenda Blethyn is a great gal for us approaching 60 to see in action. She is cute, beautiful and full of life without appearing plastic and phony. Not many actresses are out there for us to relate to in a realistic, yet comical and/or serious way. Brenda - if you see this - keep going with gems like this. We need more Mrs. Bennetts, Bettys and Graces.

Sentiment: positive
Grim instead of amusing, mean-spirited instead of playful, boring instead of interesting. It won't give you "the willies", but it just may gross you out or send you to sleep. And it will certainly make you wonder: "what were they thinking?" (*1/2)

Sentiment: negative
One of the worse surfing movies I've ever seen. This movie is so bad I don't know where to begin-- Okay, let's start with the premise - some dude from the mainland who barely knows how to surf travels to Hawaii and enters a big wave contest which he more or less expects to win. A good analogy for those who don't surf would be a that of a grossly overweight chain smoker slapping on a pairs of running shoes and entering the LA Marathon with expectations of winning. No way! And, the contest is held on The North Shore which conjures up images of 15+ foot waves, but contest day the waves are maybe 6 foot. The acting? What acting? If you must see this woof see it on TV, don't waste your money renting it. If you want to see a pretty good surfing movie - granted it is flawed, but that's another story - rent Big Wednesday.

Sentiment: negative
If you feel like wasting 86 minutes on a film that makes no sense, is badly written ,with a bad plot and bad acting then this little gem is for you. Recommended for those who are about to fall asleep. Major annoyance will be felt by the awake viewer. Do not pay to see this movie!

Sentiment: negative
Silly comedy casts an embarrassed-seeming Ray Milland as a British officer in World War II Europe escaping German confines and taking up with a man-hungry gypsy woman, played by Marlene Dietrich. Slowly-paced, overlong, and miscast: the leads are far too old for this type of juvenile fodder, although Marlene shines in her solo moments. It took three scriptwriters to adapt Yolanda Foldes' book for the screen, but this material must have already seemed dated by 1947--it smacks of something Ernst Lubitsch might have turned out in 1939. The scenario is musty, and the stars have absolutely no chemistry together. ** from ****

Sentiment: negative
This is a pretty run of the mill family move that I am sure most children will enjoy but with really no that much to please any adults viewing the movie. The premise of the film is that Belushi's cop character takes his retirement but gets drawn into a case which results in him becoming a private investigator. The movie's plot is so obvious most of the kids will surely pick the ending before it happens. But additionally to that there seem to be story arcs and sub plots that are forgotten about as the movie progresses. This coupled with a sub plot where the titular K-9 gets pimped out by Belushi. One to be avoided I am afraid.

Sentiment: negative
I loved this movie, I saw it when I was about 8 years old and almost seven years later, this evening I got to see it again. I really thought it had an interesting idea, they only thing that upset me was the ending which I felt was a cop out. 'Round here it's hard to find this movie and I was lucky enough to have seen it on BRAVO. I also expected to see more Drew Barrymore in here too!

Sentiment: positive
As powerful as the true story of Phoolan is, this book this film is based on came out before she herself was released from Prison and had the chance to tell it. 

It is allegedly based on her diaries but she is illiterate. How does that work? 

That said, some areas of he film are accurate and the acting isn't bad, with some sensitivity being shown. 

Really though this story needs to be old in a TV series. Far to much happens to cram into a couple of hours. 

Read her autobiography. Highly recommended. It is a fantastic story.

Sentiment: negative
I'm torn about this show. While MOST parts of it I found to be HILARIOUS, other parts of it I found to be stupid and simply shock for shock sake. The off the wall parody of some of the cartoons are brilliant as indeed are a lot of the scenes with the children. However, I don't think it's clever getting little children to say rude things. It's not that I think "oh poor children, they're being exploited" - it's just that it's really not clever!! It's something that ANYONE could do, therefore making it as simple and pointless as making a paper airplane. In order to make this show better they would have to stick to the natural responses from children, which I think can be funnier than the scripted at time. 

By far the funniest part of Wonder Showzen is Clarence, the blue puppet who wonders around the streets talking to and annoying strangers. It's really funny and it's mostly improvised. Seeing him in a long scene about the importance of patience test the patience of an EXTREMELY patient man, was by far the funniest scene in my opinion. 

You should watch this show though because all in all it's very funny, even if it is stupid at times.

Sentiment: positive
Drew Barrymore gets second chance at high school, on undercover assignment as newspaper reporter. In flashbacks, we see that the first time around was, to put it mildly, a major disaster. David Arquette is amusing in modest role as Drew's brother, who also enrolls to help out sis. Lots of subplots endanger but never overwhelm simple charm of movie. Drew keeps making her niche as major innocent-sexy light comic actress.

Sentiment: positive
I have to admit that I liked this film much more than I expected to. Will Smith has that clean-cut charm that you just can't help but like. The plot was a minor twist on basic romantic comedy stuff, somewhat reminiscent of Jane Austen's "Emma". This guy Kevin James has a real flair for comic timing and physical comedy. I have never seen his TV show, but he was cast very well in this film. Amber Valletta was good enough. I can't remember why she was a rich celebrity in this film, but if she was supposed to be an actress or model, then the casting might have left something to be desired. I enjoyed Julie Ann Emery, and wish she'd had a larger part. But, saving the best for last, Eva Mendes more or less stole the show. Her beauty, and charm, and just the right amount of standoffishness had me glued to the screen whenever she was there. I hope to see more of her in the future. This film is definitely worth checking out.

Sentiment: positive
OUR GANG got one chance at a feature film in its 22 year history, and this was the best that could be done? It's boring, forced and pointless, and I must respectfully disagree with the other poster on this film; the 1994 LITTLE RASCALS remake was better than this. Almost anything is. The kids are subordinate to the Civil War proceedings; it doesn't feel like an OUR GANG film at all, but like a humorless second-rate Shirley Temple clone.

Sentiment: negative