DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
The film is a bit tedious. It's mostly a silent film, with the bulk o the story provided through a series of voice-overs. While making a silent film like this is not such a bad idea, this is one of those films where the lack of dialog and the repetitive early scenes make it simply tedious. You don't understand the reason for the tedium until well into the picture, and by then it's too late. The first 40 minutes of film is something of a slow piece of Mexican soft porn, and unimaginative soft porn at that. Later in the film the style of the first 40 minutes starts to makes sense, but it's too late, because by then the audience is lost. There is some nice location shooting at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. I've often wondered why more films aren't shot there. The campus is built on the edge of lava fields that lend the campus a very otherworldly feel. My biggest problem with the film is that the director/writer has made the film the way he wanted to see it without regard for how a viewer who doesn't know the story will view it. You can't ignore the audience when you tell a story.

Sentiment: negative
I watched 40 minutes and couldn't bear it any longer  the television went off and I returned to some light reading "Lobotomy for Beginners".

It was hard to say what aspect of this production was most displeasing - dialogue made up entirely of sound-bytes or the acting by numbers.

It was difficult to determine the period in which the drama was supposed to take place. There were throw-away references to Lord Nelson and slavery but Edmund, the cleric-to-be, played by Blake Ritson was the only actor who one could believe inhabited the early 19th century. The other bright-young things had make-up and costumes more appropriate to a 21st century fancy dress party - the bleached-blonde Fanny, Billie Piper being the least credible character.

UK commercial television obviously believes heaving bosoms, pouting lips and deep meaningful looks make a good story. Fortunately Jane Austen had other ideas.

If you want to find out the story of Mansfield Park, buy the 1983 mini-series DVD.

Sentiment: negative
Oh dear Gods, this is awful. Stay away, just stay away. If you think you've seen bad movies, think again. Never before has my brain hurt as much as it did after I watched this movie. The acting, if it is allowed to be called that, is enough to cause internal bleedings inside your head. The story is so thin it is just barely there... no wait, scratch that. There is not a complete story there, but once in a while, there is a few thin lines that stick up from all the amount of horribleness, and believe me, those few lines should have been shot. The best way to enjoy this movie is to drop napalm on it, and watch the cozy fire from a distance.

Some may call me sarcastic in this review, but I am only trying to spare some of you of a serious headache. However, should you be, what I like to call, a visual masochist (like myself), please, go right ahead and watch this monstrosity.

Sentiment: negative
Creep - "Your journey terminates here." Some very graphic scenes and...well, yeah, that's about all for this film.

No real plot, no storyline. No likable characters, well, 'characters' isn't correct considering you don't have a clue who anyone really is. I mean, they are being chased by some weird looking 'thing' in the sewers (who is this thing? why is he there?), that's quite scary I guess, but do I really care? No, I don't. Why don't I? Because I don't have a clue who these people are and I don't know if I should want them to live or die. It's one dimensional and relies upon gore and sound effects to scare you, which it rarely does.

This film lacks any meaning, any purpose. It feels like I fell asleep and missed out the 45mins of build up. It jumps right into the action. Basically, some women and her friends get locked in the London Underground, get chased by a weird creature, then they eventually escape from it.

Creep has its moments which make you jump, the art is good, the location is excellent and the sounds are OK, but that isn't what makes a decent horror film, so unfortunately all that goes to waste.

It's nothing new. Another predictable modern 'horror', where Kate (the lead 'character') consistently does the stupid "hey, I know you lot sitting at home think I should do the sensible thing in this situation, but, oooh no! I'm going to do the total opposite because I'm a dumb blond" thing. I wish they wouldn't do that, it's done so many times, it's boring and gets predictable. In fact, I'm pretty annoyed the silly woman didn't get stabbed by the, erm, grey alien-looking creature.

"Your journey terminates here" is the films tag line. Well, Creeps journey terminates only a short while into the film. If you've had a few beers, got a couple of mates back at yours,then sure, watch it by all means. But if you want something original and clever, avoid.

Sentiment: negative
Minor Spoilers

Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) is a successful top model, living with the lawyer Michael Lerman (Chris Sarandon) in his apartment. She tried to commit suicide twice in the past: the first time, when she was a teenager and saw her father cheating her mother with two women in her home, and then when Michael's wife died. Since then, she left Christ and the Catholic Church behind. Alison wants to live alone in her own apartment and with the help of the real state agent Miss Logan (Ava Gardner), she finds a wonderful furnished old apartment in Brooklyn Heights for a reasonable rental. She sees a weird man in the window in the last floor of the building, and Miss Logan informs that he is Father Francis Matthew Halloran (John Carradine), a blinded priest who lives alone supported by the Catholic Church. Alison moves to her new place, and once there, she receives a visitor: her neighbor Charles Chazen (Burgess Meredith) welcomes her and introduces the new neighbors to her. Then, he invites Alison to his cat Jezebel's birthday party in the night. On the next day, weird things happen with Alison in her apartment and with her health. Alison looks for Miss Logan and is informed that she lives alone with the priest in the building. A further investigation shows that all the persons she knew in the party were dead criminals. Frightened with the situation, Alison embraces Christ again, while Michael investigates the creepy events. Alison realizes that she is living in the gateway to hell. 

Although underrated in IMDb User Rating, 'The Sentinel' is one of the best horror movies ever. I have seen this film at least six times, being the first time in the 70's, in the movie theater. In 07 September 2002, I bought the imported DVD and saw it again. Yesterday I saw this movie once more. Even after so many years, this film is still terrific. The creepy and lurid story frightens even in the present days. The cast is a constellation of stars and starlets. You can see many actors and actresses, who became famous, in the beginning of career. Fans of horror movie certainly worships 'The Sentinel', and I am one of them. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): 'A Sentinela dos Malditos' ('The Sentinel of the Damned')

Obs.: On 02 September 2007, I saw this movie again.

Sentiment: positive
This movie had lots of great actors and actresses in it and it addressed some very noble issues. It's full of emotion and the direction is done well. The storyline progresses very quickly, but I guess that's better than having to watch a 3 hour movie. This is an easy movie to watch again and again and enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
I was looking over our DVD tower last night for something to watch. We were between NetFlix mailings and it was a quiet Saturday night. I pulled one out that I never heard of before and realized it was borrowed from a friend. From the jacket, it sounded like a rip-off of "The Big Chill" but, with the all-star cast, felt it might be worth watching. Boy was I wrong!!! Not only was it like "The Big Chill," it was a rip-off almost character by character. The Bill Paxton character was a copy of William Hurt ("where have you been all this time" role) -spoiler warning- and, lo and behold, he remains behind to take care of the old place(cabin/camp). Kimberly Williams = Meg Tilly; jerk womanizer Matt Craven = Jeff Goldblum etc., etc. I found myself wondering why I'm even watching these people. There was insufficient character development for me to find any interest in them. How did "Unca Lou" even find these characters after 20 years? Plus it wasn't even funny, except when Perkins fell, err 'flopped' out of bed the first morning, it was a sign and I missed it. After it was over, I asked my wife, "Were there any endearing characters in this film? ... Are you sleeping over there?" She replied, "No, I'm still thinking...No, none I can think of."

Sentiment: negative
Deanna Durbin, Nan Grey and Barbara Read are "Three Smart Girls" in this Universal film from 1936, which introduces Deanna Durbin to film audiences. It also stars Ray Milland, Mischa Auer, Charles Winninger, John King, Binnie Barnes and Alice Brady. It's a sweet story about three young women, now living in Switzerland with their divorced mother, who hear their father (Winninger) is marrying again. Not having seen him in 10 years and knowing their mother still loves him, they board a ship to America, with the help of the housekeeper/nanny, determined to stop the wedding. Realizing that the intended, called "Precious" (Barnes) is nothing but a gold-digger aided and abetted by her mother (Brady), they arrange for her to be introduced to a wealthy Count. This is arranged by their father's accountant (King). The man he chooses is a full-time drunk (Auer), but the girls mistake him for an actual wealthy count (Milland). What a mess.

This is a delightful film, not cloying or overly sugary at all, with some nice performances, particularly by Auer, Milland, Barnes and Brady. The young women are pretty and all do good work. The emphasis, of course, is on young Durbin, who is a natural actress and a beautifully-trained singer. In fact, her voice as a youngster is much more even than it would be as an adult - she has no trouble with the high notes, as she did later on because she put too much weight in the middle voice. She sings a delightful "Il Bacio" in a police station.

One of the nicest things about the film is to see the father, played by Charles Winninger, not want his children around - until he sees them and gets to know them. Barnes as the gold-digger isn't all that young, but the girls' mother looks way up there, so the inference probably was the older man seeking his youth with a younger, more glamorous woman. In fact, he finds the youth he was seeking in his daughters.

Universal gives Durbin the big star buildup here - she has the final shot in the movie. Ray Milland at this point was still paying his dues, and it will probably be a surprise even to film fans how young and attractive he is.

Very entertaining and of course, this led to a sequel and big stardom for Deanna.

Sentiment: positive
Alexandra Maria Lara: A very beautiful and enticing woman, but not a good actress. In all the films I've seen her in, she appears to me as the exact same character. Whether it be in THE DOWNFALL, NACKT, VOM SUCHEN UND FINDEN DER LIEBE and now WO IST FRED! She always is (plays?) the young, good-hearted woman, who is a little naive and doesn't know how to handle the things happening to her. She disposes of a repertoire of probably five different facial expressions that she works with abundantly. I personally have a hard time believing that she could play a mysterious and slightly obnoxious character because it just isn't in here. So she's typecast as the nice girl next door, which she is, but, once again, she ain't up to snuff when it comes to acting. Til Schweiger: Same thing! The film: Downright stupid. As it was an American movie it would have been a great role for Adam Sandler who I don't like either. I wasn't offended by the fact that this is a film with handicapped people in it, I just thought that the jokes resulting from this weren't funny at all. I chuckled twice or three times but when I was halfway through it, I was just bored and annoyed and wanted this flick to end.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this last week after picking up the DVD cheap. I had wanted to see it for ages, finding the plot outline very intriguing. So my disappointment was great, to say the least. I thought the lead actor was very flat. This kind of part required a performance like Johny Depp's in The Ninth Gate (of which this is almost a complete rip-off), but I guess TV budgets don't always stretch to this kind of acting ability.

I also the thought the direction was confused and dull, serving only to remind me that Carpenter hasn't done a decent movie since In the Mouth of Madness. As for the story - well, I was disappointed there as well! There was no way it could meet my expectation I guess, but I thought the payoff and explanation was poor, and the way he finally got the film anti-climactic to say the least.

This was written by one of the main contributors to AICN, and you can tell he does love his cinema, but I would have liked a better result from such a good initial premise.

I took the DVD back to the store the same day!

Sentiment: negative
John Huston was seriously ill when he made his final achievement,and it's thoroughly his testament:uncompromising,difficult ,a thousand miles away from crazes and fashions,it will stand as the best "last film" you can ever dream of.A very austere screenplay,no action,no real hero,but a group of people coping with the vanity of life,the fleeting years and death.The party doesn't delude people for long.Admittedly,warmth and affection emanate from the songs and the meal,complete with turkey and pudding.But the passage of time has partly ruined Julia's voice,first crack in the mirror.Then the camera leaves the room where the guests are gathered and searches the old lady's bedroom.For sure,hers seems to have been a happy life,but it's a life inexorably coming to an end-A shot shows towards the end of the movie Julia on her future deathbed-.Maybe an unfulfilled life,because she remained a spinster,with no children to carry on .Only some poor things,yellowish photographs,bibelots and trinklets.... But are a human being's hopes and dreams all fulfilled?Look at Gretta.She 's a married woman ,about thirty-five,she's still beautiful and healthy but she knows something is broken.What Julia is today,she will be tomorrow,that's why,in her stream of consciousness,she goes back to her past,only to find out how harrowing her memories are: a young man committed suicide for her,a symbol of her youth now waning.The final monologue,if we listen closely to it,involves us all in this eternal tragedy,the doomed to failure human condition,John Huston's masterly lesson.

Sentiment: positive
So many fans, so little to show for it. I know, I know, these words are gonna find me in a great minority. A lot of people really liked Good Will Hunting. But seriously please, great film making, not even close, and let's put the blame where it belongs... in the writing.

Now, I know they won an oscar for it, and boy did they look good emoting on the screen. But Good Will Hunting is an ABC after school special with lots of cursing in it, and a slightly bigger budget.

What this movie does show, is the brilliance of Harvey Weinstein and Miramax Pictures. Mr. Weinstein could take manure, feed it to you, and make you believe your eating bon bons. And that's exactly what the studio did with the film. They created such high faluttin buzz around it, that people believed, and wanted to believe it so much --- that they saw brilliance where there was none.

Now, I know some people think it's a great movie, I don't think it's a horribly bad movie, I like to compare it to more in the middle of the road movies, and also to some great Made for TV movies (although, not HBO films, HBO films are unusually better than Good Will Hunting would ever be.) It's just a nice, little film, with some good performances, Robin Williams was not good in it, they just gave him the oscar cause the'd been itching to do it for a while. And of course, the Miramax public relations machine secured Ben and Matt their screenwriting oscar... but come one people... there's better movies out there thatn GWH.

Sentiment: negative
In many ways, the perfect movie. The "Incredible Journey" and Horatio Alger tale come together for a positive spin on the usually depressing subject of existentialism. In essence, the travails of the muppets boil down to the finale song of the movie: "Life's like a movie, write your own ending, keep believing, keep pretending." They create their own reality, which has all the trappings of every epic tale: a lofty goal at the end of what is necessarily a obstacle-laden journey; an ever-increasing group of like-minded individuals for camaraderie; a nasty set of villians who are not beyond all redemption; and a big-budget Hollywood ending because, darn it all, they CAN.

Only Jim Henson could pull this off. He walks the line between sentimentality and philosophy without swerving too long or too hard into either. Of course it seems odd that invest such weight into a film starring puppets, but in the end perhaps they are the perfect, uh, puppet to make these points. The movie's atmosphere allows for the pure enjoyment of the Hollywood dream, the "happy" ending, unnecessary cameos, and bursting into song at the drop of a hat. Usually these aspects are anathema to quality in film, but the self-deprecating manner under which the story is delivered makes for guilt-free viewing. One of the few films that can truly be called "suitable for all ages."

The other muppet-related films (including "The Empire Strikes Back"), while palatable, do not touch the simple grace of this film. Take, for instance, the musical number "Hope that Something Better Comes Along," the duet of Kermit and Rowlf. Amusing in its vaudevillian goofiness, yet makes a bitingly crucial point about the motivations behind life choices. Brilliant.

Sentiment: positive
Only the glandular secretions -- and please don't ask for any more details -- of young virgins can keep the rapidly deteriorating body and mind of the crazed old amateur horticulturalist's wife fresh and youthful. Since, like most people except those taking part in medical trials, virgins seldom give up their secretions willingly, Dr. Lorenz (Bela Lugosi) arranges for them to be abducted and preserved. He'll do the extracting himself. 

What a great cheese ball of a premise for a low budget horror movie. If The Corpse Vanishes turns out not to be the Havarti of horror, as a plain limburger it leaves an interesting aftertaste. 

Sure, the acting is almost awful except for the actors fortunate enough to be playing the crazed dwarf (Angelo Rossitto, who later played The Master in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome); his crazed brute of a brother, Angel (Frank Moran), who grunts a lot and has a fetish for the virgins' hair; the crazed mother of the two (Minerva Urecal); the crazed wife (Elizabeth Russell), who sleeps in a plush coffin and, of course, the crazed doctor (Lugosi). 

An enterprising young reporter, Patricia Hunter (Luana Walters) tracks down the doctor because of a strange orchid with a peculiarly sweet odor that had been worn by the victims. When the doctor and his wife invite Pat to stay the night, a raging storm immediately breaks out. That clue tells us some raging violence is about to erupt inside. Since it's well known that in Hollywood at this time all unmarried young women were virgins, Pat may have some unpleasant surprises to deal with. They include dark passages, a crusty laboratory where a near dead virgin is stored, a basement mausoleum and, later, a direct threat to Patricia's own glandular secretions. If she survives, what a story she'll have to give her editor. 

If you sample this moist slice of moldy Velveeta (and why not? Don't be superior), don't judge Bela Lugosi by the company he keeps here. He had a huge impact in Dracula (1931), but my favorite movie of his is The Black Cat (1934). As Dr. Vitas Werdegast he's a sad, ironic man protective of his two young friends. When he finally takes a scalpel to Hjalmar Poelzig (Boris Karloff) and begins to flay the man alive, ah, well, it's a great scene.

Sentiment: negative
If you haven't read Tolkien's masterpiece; prepare yourself for maybe the best movie experience ever! If you have however... After having read the books several times, over many years, I have come to love the characters and story, and feel I Know it intimately. I have my own personal vision of The Shire, Hobbiton and the character-gallery. Thus for me the movie was a disappointment. Why? It dictates the appearance of the characters (unavoidably), it changes events, it removes important storyline, it removes not-so-important storyline. Great chunks of what makes The Lord Of The Rings what it is, is simply ignored. Even 2001 special effects can't do Tolkien's (and your own) imagination justice. Peter Jackson has made an honest attempt at the impossible, and I don't think anyone else could have done it better! But the fact remains, I regret seeing the movie. The next time I read The Lord Of The Rings, Peter Jackson's limited vision will leap forward, not my own.

Sentiment: negative
I do see what my forebears saw in the youthful Bette Davis. She's splendid throughout this almost-madcap political comedy which actually stars Warren Williams as the political operative constantly behind on his alimony. Vivienne Osborne is brilliant as his ex, and I found myself rooting for her throughout. The Williams character is not at all sympathetic, and he's not even a decent op.

Guy Kibbee is one of the best at what he does. As a candidate dragged out of his sleep at a political convention and nominated to be governor in order to prevent a rival candidate from being nominated, so this whole mess is borne of internecine political warfare in a party called the "Progressive Party." If you're of a political mind, you will probably see a party other than the one with which you are affiliated reflected in the fictional "Progressive Party" of Williams and Kibbee. I could draw exact parallels, but we're not here for that.

This is a good movie for those of us who love these old comedies. If you've ever watched any of the old Wheeler & Woolsey titles (HALF SHOT AT SUNRISE, THE RAINMAKERS), you'll find Frank McHugh, as Williams's right arm, looking and behaving a lot like Bert Wheeler. He had me fooled.

Yes, both my wife and I recommend this one.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of those movies that, after watching it, you will keep thinking about and coming back to even months after viewing. The acting is spectacular for starring two children (I usually hate movies with whiny kid acting). Bill Paxton is awesome, his directorial debut is even better than what I expected of an actor whose most memorable line is "Game over, man! Game over!" (from the movie "Aliens").

The best part about the movie is the dichotomy between those scenes where the actors play a family, and when they are doing their "work." It really makes the movie believable and memorable.

Keep it up, Bill. I'll be waiting for more movies I"m sure to love!

Sentiment: positive
I wouldn't say this is a bad movie; in fact it's pretty typical of the type of film that the "poverty row" studios were releasing at the time. Filmed for Monogram, Bela Lugosi is very effective in his role as the somewhat demented doctor-scientist, masquerading as a respected member of the community. In this movie, Bela and his henchmen have the nasty habit of stealing young brides, and, after their demise, injecting Bela's wife with a serum taken from their bodies in order to keep her young. Lugosi is more than up to the task in making this an enjoyable film, however, the movie suffers from the ultra-wooden acting of co stars Luana Walters and Tristram Coffin. Coffin (nice name for a guy in a horror flick) is especially bad in this case. I've seen him in numerous movies and tv shows and he is always the same; stiff, wooden and utterly unconvincing. Miss Walters is only slightly better, but she too lacks the acting talent to make her role believable. Still, the viewer can enjoy the great Lugosi act out yet another dastardly scheme only to be foiled in the end! Despite the poor acting by some, "The Corpse Vanishes" is an enjoyable movie for all to see.

Sentiment: positive
One of the greatest lessons I ever had in how to watch a movie happened this way: 

I was working in Roger Corman's offices, like so many other wanabees before and since, I was interning and trying to figure out how it all worked and how to make myself indispensable (hah!). One afternoon Julie Corman, Roger Corman's wife and a producer in her own right, asked me to load up a tape. I'm not sure why she wanted to watch it. I got the impression it was a student film or a show reel, something like that, some sort of calling card. Whatever the reasons she had to see it, the only free video machine in the offices at the time happened to be in the room I was working in, and I was the nearest person to the machine. I started the tape.

Fade in: On screen a figure sat at a desk facing the camera. Behind him, screen left, was a door that opened into the room. Against the far wall was a coat rack. A second character entered through the door and started talking. The first character, the guy at the desk, turned round to reply, (this is all one take, static camera, there are no cuts pans or dolly shots. Just one locked off camera). The second character turned to hang his coat on the coat rack and delivered his next line. Julie Corman said "I've seen enough." and left the room.

What she had seen in the ten seconds of footage she had watched was that the director was an idiot. Opening with two characters who immediately turned their backs to the camera delivering lines? Nope, sorry. Next! That's how long you've got. Ten seconds. Cock it up in the opening shot and you are dead.

I was reminded of that moment while I watched the opening of this piece of crap. After an interminably long travelogue of jungle we see several monkeys apparently throwing themselves into cages. A man carrying a gun laughs. A jet liner lands and we see it taxi the whole way to the terminal. God this is boring! Cut to the interior of the Airport. Two men meet. Aha! Something is happening! They shake hands. Cut to a different angle of the two men -

- and the director crosses the line.

The first two shots of the movie that have any kind of spatial relationship with each other and the guy has cocked up. 'Not Crossing The line' is one of those basic rules of movie grammar that keeps the characters from jumping about from side to side on the screen and confusing the audience. Audiences don't like to be confused. Mystified? Baffled? Puzzled and intrigued? Yes. Audiences love all of those. Confused? No. You loose them. They walk out. 'Not Crossing The line' is one of those things they pound into you at film school, or should. It's basic stuff. It's not an inviolable rule (there are no inviolable rules) directors break it all the time - but not on the first real cut of the movie.

I thought, "I've seen enough". And switched off.

Sentiment: negative
While Hollywood got sort of stagnant during the few years after WWII, England developed a very prolific film industry. In "The Man in the White Suit", inventor Sidney Stratton (Alec Guinness) creates a suit that never gets dirty. Unfortunately, this means that certain other businesses are now likely to go out of business! How can Sidney deal with this and maintain his dignity? This is an example of one of the great movies in which Alec Guinness starred before he became Obi Wan Kenobi. It's a good look at the overall absurdity of the business world. If you're planning to start any kind of business, you might want to consider watching this movie.

Sentiment: positive
This movie will tell you why Amitabh Bacchan is a one man industry. This movie will also tell you why Indian movie-goers are astute buyers.

Amitabh was at the peak of his domination of Bollywood when his one-time godfather Prakash Mehra decided to use his image yet again. Prakash has the habit of picking themes and building stories out of it, adding liberal doses of Bollywood sensibilities and clichés to it. Zanzeer saw the making of Angry Young Man. Lawaris was about being a bastard and Namak Halal was about the master-servant loyalties. 

But then, the theme was limited to move the screenplay through the regulation three hours of song, dance and drama. What comprised of the movie is a caricature of a Haryanavi who goes to Mumbai and turns into a regulation hero. Amitabh's vocal skills and diction saw this movie earn its big bucks, thanks to his flawless stock Haryanvi accent. To me, this alone is the biggest pull in the movie. The rest all is typical Bollywood screen writing.

Amitabh, by now, had to have some typical comedy scenes in each of his movies. Thanks to Manmohan Desai. This movie had a good dose of them. The shoe caper in the party, the monologue over Vijay Merchant and Vijay Hazare's considerations, The mosquito challenge in the boardroom and the usual drunkard scene that by now has become a standard Amitabh fare.

Shashi Kapoor added an extra mile to the movie with his moody, finicky character (Remember him asking Ranjeet to "Shaaadaaaap" after the poisoned cake incident"). His was the all important role of the master while Amitabh was his loyal servant. But Prakash Mehra knew the Indian mind...and so Shashi had to carry along his act with the rest of the movie. It was one character that could have been more developed to make a serious movie. But this is a caper, remember? And as long as it stayed that way, the people came and saw Amitabh wearing a new hat and went back home happy. The end is always predictable, and the good guys get the gal and the bad ones go to the gaol, the age-old theme of loyalty is once again emphasized and all is well that ends well.

So what is it that makes this movie a near classic? Amitabh Bacchan as the Haryanvi. Prakash Mehra created yet another icon in the name of a story. Chuck the story, the characters and the plot. My marks are for Amitabh alone.

Sentiment: positive
Ignore the comment before mine. The show is comic genius, most underrated show ever. 3 reasons why. Reason 1, the flashbacks are hilarious, who cares if they have absolutely nothing to do with the story, they make me laugh so hard it hurts and isn't that the idea of a good comedy programme? People who think this isn't funny just have no sense of humour. Who cares if they are random, its a t.v. show, you can do what ever you like with it and people say its not realistic, neither is a cartoon, its animated. Reason 2, The jokes are just generally hilarious, Seth McFarlane and the other writers are soooooooooooo funny, everything from the Star Wars references to making fun of celebrities, i love them all. And Reason 3, the story lines are just brilliant and funny, they set up all of the jokes with their crazy nature and wackiness, just all the more funnier.

I caught this one late night on BBC2 and have never gone back, i have all 7 seasons, plus the kind of movie thing (Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story), i have several t-shirts, posters and my collection is still growing. I've never got a collection of any TV show before but this was so funny i just had to get everything. 

Just watch season 3 and trust me you will be hooked for life, the funniest show ever created and i hope it never ends!

Sentiment: positive
The time I wasted seeing this movie, I demand back! I felt sick afterward, but not because it touched me in any way. It's pretentious, trying to get the audience to feel bad for the people involved, but I couldn't care less. The characters are soulless and stupid. You don't get an explanation for some of the scenes and it doesn't leave any thoughts afterward to come up with your own explanation. All of the students in the movie has issues, but since you don't feel for them you don't believe their problems.

If I could write better in English I'd never stop. But I can't, so, I'll stop now.

Don't watch this.

Sentiment: negative
I watched this movie and the original Carlitos Way back to back. The difference between the two is disgusting. Now i know that people are going to say that the prequel was made on a small budget but that never had anything to do with a bad script. Now maybe it's just me, but i always thought that a prequel was made to go set up the other movie, starring key characters and maybe filling in a bit about life that we didn't know. Rise to Power is just a movie that has Carlito's name. There should have been at least a few characters from the original movie, the ending makes no sense in relation to the original. In the end of this movie he retires with his sweet heart but how the hell do we get him coming out of prison in the next movie? And his woman isn't even the same woman that he talks about as his only love in the original. I would say the movie is mildly entertaining in its self, with a few decent bits but it pales when held up to it's big brother. Don't lay awake at night waiting to see this, watch the original one more time if you really need a hit.

Sentiment: negative
Can this "film" be considered as a film? Imagine the situation: somebody puts a handy cam over a tripod and in front of a sea promenade and film people walking or jogging along it. Then, he places the camera in a beach, buys some ducks in a pet shop, open their cages and let them run in front of the camera. Later, he just films the water surface and the sound of birds and insects in an absolute darkness. Is it an experiment or just an insult to the audience intelligence? What would it happen if any unknown director did a film like that? Would we mark his job with 10? I always disappoint directors who believe that can do everything they want once they became famous.

Sentiment: negative
Alien was excellent. Many writers tried to copy it. They all did a bad job (or almost). But Dead Space is the worst Alien copy. Because of the bad actors, the bad special effects, the BAD scenario and other bad stuff (it would take about 3 pages to tell everything that is bad in this film. The movie wasn't very long and this is a very good thing (the only one). You cannot laugh because it is too serious...that is a bad thing because, in almost each B-series sci-fi film, you can laugh during the whole time. It can be terrific sometimes, but instead of watching this stupidity, just watch Alien or Event Horizon...these are much better!!! I give it 1 out of 5.

Sentiment: negative
I Would have to disagree strongly with the previous lame comment. I watched this not expecting too much from it. The Fact is that the cast were superb, Especially The lead Teen Female. The dark sides of them all came through, all were messed up in an not obvious way. There was an underlying current which ran through the movie of teenage angst and sexuality. The serial killer role was played well also as you could feel he had gone through what they had as children. What this movie is, is a strong drama/thriller. Yes I would agree they don't do the obvious, but you could relate with the messed up teenage heads they did what they did and it is believable. Also a decent dark ending, instead of which could have so easily been an opt out happy one. The attention to detail in the movie was fantastic also. I very good solid 7 out of 10. A little slow at times, but lets a thinking person see where the characters are coming from.

Sentiment: positive
From the perspective of the hectic, contemporary world in which we live, the so called `good old days' always seem so much more serene and innocent; an idyllic era gone by of which we have only memories and shadows that linger on the silver screen, as with `Christmas In Connecticut,' a warm and endearing film directed by Peter Godfrey. Barbara Stanwyck stars as Elizabeth Lane, a popular `Martha Stewart' type magazine columnist who writes about life on her beloved farm in Connecticut, always with the latest recipe at the center of the story. One of her biggest fans is Alexander Yardley, played by Sidney Greenstreet, the publisher of the magazine for which she writes. Yardley has never visited her farm, and in response to an idea expressed to him in a letter from a nurse, Mary (Joyce Compton), he decides to spend an old fashioned Christmas with Elizabeth, her husband and child and, as a special guest, a certain Mr. Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan), a sailor just recovered from spending fifteen days at sea on a raft after his ship was torpedoed. Elizabeth of course cannot refuse her boss, but there are problems; not the least of which is the fact that she has no farm and writes her column from the comfort of a high-rise in the city. It makes for a precarious situation for her as well as her editor, Dudley Beecham (Robert Shayne), as the one thing Mr. Yardley demands from his employees is total honesty. What follows is a charming and delightfully romantic comedy that transports the audience back to a seemingly more simple time and place, to share a Christmas Past where a warm hearth, good food and kindness prevail.

Barbara Stanwyck absolutely sparkles as Elizabeth, with a smile and presence warmer than anything the grandest hearth could provide, and totally convincing as a city girl entirely out of her element on the farm. Morgan also fares well as the somewhat naive sailor, whose trust in his fellow man is admirable. Even with the deceptions being played out around him, he's the kind of guy you know will somehow land on his feet, and in the end it's Elizabeth you really feel for. One of the true delights of this film, however, is Sidney Greenstreet. His Yardley has a gruff exterior, but beneath you know without a doubt that this is a man with a heart as big as Texas. It's a straightforward, honest portrayal, and it's a joy to watch him work; the most memorable scenes in the movie belong to him.

The supporting cast includes Reginald Gardiner (John Sloan), the terrific Una O'Connor (Norah), Frank Jenks (Sinkewicz) and Dick Elliott (Judge Crothers). A feel-good movie that plays especially well during the Christmas Season (though it would work any time of the year), `Christmas In Connecticut' is a memorable film that never takes itself too seriously, is thoroughly uplifting and will leave you with a warm spot in your heart and a sense of peace that makes the world seem like a good place to be. It's a true classic, and one you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10.



Sentiment: positive
Hollywood movie industry is the laziest one in the entire world. It only needs a single hit to flood theaters with the same old crap re-invented over and over again. Take superheroes for example, for each X-Man and Spiderman, there are Daredevil, Elektra, Ghost Rider and Hulk. Japanese horror remakes are even worst. It only took The Ring, which was pitch-perfect (mostly because of Mr. Gore Verbinsky), to bring a ton of look-alike creepy-woman based horrors, e.g. The Ring 2, The Eye, Dark Water (which was fine, but pointless), and the grudges.

The first Grudge wasn't entirely bad. It was scary most of the way, which is what one could expect from it. Plus, the plot had some brains mixing narratives. Grudge 2 is exactly like the previous; this could be a good thing, but hey, what boy Men in Black II? Was it a nice thing to xerox the entire screenplay and just change the villain? For the Grudge 2, the critic goes the same way.

Tired scares, bad acting (except for Amber Tamblyn), and clichés all over the place. Three stories take place, on different places and time. There is Aubrey (Tamblyn) investigating what drove her sister Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar) to death; Allison (Arielle Kebbel) who is taken by colleagues to visit the house where the incident depicted in the first movie took place; and finally, an American family that witness strange stuff happening on the apartment next door. Glad to say (and I mean it) that everything is tied up at the end, but one must not rely on the end to make a good picture, when everything else is simply tiresome and dull.

The chills are all over there, a girl alone in the lockers, someone who shouldn't enter a house, others that dig too deep. Meanwhile, ghosts keep killing and killing and killing, which seems even more deadlier than ten world wars or the Ebola epidemic. Hey, doesn't that seem just like another bad Japanese remake, something called Pulse? Yeah, day after day it's getting easier to hold a grudge... against Hollywood bullshits.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is one of the worst I've ever seen. Even being hangover didn't help. The plot is lousy, if existent. The relatively large number of beautiful girls are unable to help. I guess seeing an episode of temptation island with the sound turned of would give the same kind of experience. Do NOT see this flick

Sentiment: negative
i will be honest and say i gave up on watching it somewhere mid-way and then fast forward with a few breaks. then i came back here and read many of the reviews already made....

maybe is just me, and i can not help it, but this cartoon to north American society seems to have a purpose of "lets save them from themselves" and iraq comes to mind right away. it seems to me that this is a justification, or part of, for another invasion with "good intentions".

the lady to me seems a self indulged person and i frankly got annoyed at her portrait of trying to raise pity and "feel" for her. well in this case this could never happen because, just like a history teacher has already mentioned here, i NEED to know how come her family was so wealthy above average, manage to keep that ( were they playing both sides maybe?)and send her to Paris!? now, if this would have been made after a poor girl's biography i could see myself having certain emotions. but as it stands + its release timing this is just pure propaganda movie; even worse, since its cartoon, it overplays the "soft" side of tings too well for its own good , in order to possibly be taken serious.

besides there are those clichés regarding gays. well, a woman that fights toward winning her rights should not have at least some compassion for the underdogs of society just like her??? the message is obviously self indulgent from the view of a ruling class member.

i only give it 2 stars because its production and related stuff. a propaganda movie obviously has interests in convincing-manipulating my thoughts and therefore generally is well done appealing to certain visual emotions that i can not deny i might have as well.

Sentiment: negative
Utterly brilliant. Powerful and evocative. The most compelling documentary series ever made concerning war. It's tone offers a stark contrast to the often gung-ho attitude towards World War 2 that the media exhibits. Rather than opting for screaming about the horror of war, it allows Sir Laurence Olivier's quiet voice to take a back seat to the true images of war: corpses everywhere, explosions, terrified citizens and soldiers, broken men, indifferent politicians, mistakes that cost thousands of lives, the suffering of the innocents. Most of all it truly brings home that mankind is capable of when all normal rules of "civility" are removed. There is something distinctly Hobbesian about man in a true state of nature, he will return to a more beastly form capable of crimes that will still shock and fascinate 60 years on. Perhaps there could be a follow up series called "The century at war" for the twentieth century was truly the century of horrors. I feel it is an irony of immense magnitude that it took an event which caused the death of 50 million people to produce such a compelling and excellent series such as this.

Sentiment: positive
My brother was working at a movie theater when I saw this movie; I saw it for free and still walked out. I have seen a lot of movies in my time but this was the worst. When people ask me what the worst movie I have ever seen was I mention this movie in less than one second. This movie is bad because it goes from one lame plot set-up to the next, it encourages stereotypes about blacks that are sickening and the flow is awful. If you want to see how to make children cry and vomit at the same time then study this movie. Okay, this movie is not good "bad" but terrible bad. If you are like one of those people that watch horrible movies for fun, like me, you will not even be able to make it through this very short film. Please for the love of God destroy all copies of this movie.

Sentiment: negative
This film did well at the box office, and the producers of this mess thought the stars had such good chemistry in this that they cast them in the much darker screwball farce, The Gazebo. Frankly, I am shocked to see all the positive comments on this ludicrously plotted unfunny comedy. Both lead characters have the maturity of seven-year-olds and are much less interesting to spend time with. A veteran supporting cast including Fred Clark, Harry Morgan, and Eva Gabor lend excellent support. And, the beautiful cinematography certainly makes the rich countryside of Spain seem lush. And, there are four or five truly funny scenes to go with two wise scenes and a whole bunch of recycled and unfunny clutter.

I cannot recommend It Started With A Kiss.

Sentiment: negative
If you like cars you will love this film!

There are some superb actors in the film, especially Vinnie Jones, with his typical no nonsense attitude and hardcase appearance.The others are not bad either....

There are only two slight flaws to this film. Firstly, the poor plot, however people don't watch this film for the plot. Secondly, the glorification of grand theft auto (car crime). However if people really believe they can steal a Ferrari and get away with it then good look to them, hope you have a good time in jail!

When i first read that Nicolas Cage was to act the main role, i first thought "...sweeet.", but then i thought "...naaaa you suck!" but then finally after watching the film i realised "...yep he suck's!".Only joking he plays the role very well.

I'll end this unusual review by saying "If the premature demise of a criminal has in some way enlightened the general cinema going audience as to the grim finish below the glossy veneer of criminal life, and inspired them to change their ways, then this death carries with it an inherent nobility. And a supreme glory. We should all be so fortunate. You can say "Poor Criminal." I say: "Poor us."

p.s. - Angelina Jolie Voight looks quite nice!

Sentiment: positive
This was the WORST movie I have ever seen! Molly (molly hall) could not act AT ALL! she had no emotion it was all blah blah blah like she was reading out of a boring text book. The smart kid and the kid who loves food (there names weren't worth remembering) were so annoying it drove me crazy.When ever the talked it was about some scientific thing or food. Mollys Dad didn't show enough emotion about his daughter missing. The police officer and Mollys dad said the same thing like four times. it was just horrible. Everything was repeated way to much. Beatrice should have had something bad happen to her for being so mean. I just wasted a moment in my life by watching this movie!

Sentiment: negative