DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This lasted several years despite the late hour it was on.

Like a lot of 80's crime dramas, it looked cold. Both physically and figuratively. This isn't a bad thing though. And the (obviously) low budget actually worked in it's favor. Gritty during a time when 'slick' was in.

Allan Royal's wraparound segments as the news writer gave it a slight edge.

The only actors I remembered were Scott Nylands (Earthquake) and Tony Rosato (SCTV). The cast of barely knowns was a good thing because one could see the group as a whole and not as a bunch of people supporting a 'star.' And yes, that's a young Clark Johnson (Homicide) in a recurring spot.

I hope a DVD release is in the future. Someone out there wanna get on that?

Sentiment: positive
I love pop culture, but I was a little apprehensive when I first heard about this. Then, I seen an episode, and I LOVE IT! I was a little upset when I found out that Christopher Eccelson would no longer be playing Doctor Who. He was probably the best one they've had. He fits the character so well. It's sad to see him go. I really don't think that the new guy is going to pull off the doctor as well as Eccelson.

I think everyone can overlook the cheesy effects in some spots and the creatures, such as the darleks. The story lines and characters can more than make up for that. I'm currently waiting for season two and I will review that as well, in case, for any reason, quality goes down.

Anyways, I think everyone should try to see one episode. I did, and I have been loving it ever since. Well written, well casted, and well produced, this show is worth the hour of viewing. Doctor Who gets a 10/10

Sentiment: positive
Masterpiece. Carrot Top blows the screen away. Never has one movie captured the essence of the human spirit quite like "Chairman of the Board." 10/10... don't miss this instant classic.

Sentiment: negative
This was one of the most ridiculous and badly directed movies I've seen in a very long time. I've never liked Spike Lee, but thought I'd give this one a try: bad mistake. The movie is supposed to show how the Son of Sam real life murders affected a neighborhood in the summer of 1977; what it really did was center around the most boring characters that I doubt anyone cared for as far as their drug problems, marriage problems, and so on, etc. The scenes that depict the murders are just that, and nothing more; a shooting and then it's back to Saturday Night Fever! What's even more ridiculous is Spike Lee's choice to show up as a reporter in the movie: Spike, trust me, you're no Hitchcock, stay out of the movies, it makes them even worse off. The most silly scene had to be the dog speaking in a goofy voice, which was depicted in a scene before it where it was supposed to have been shot??? Spike, what were you thinking when you made this film? Not thinking at all is my guess. People who think they'll see a crime drama, take my advice and do not waste your time or money on this loser. You're better off watching Jerry Springer in this case! Waste of film, I gave it a 1 out of 10: awful dud.

Sentiment: negative
Yes, Marie Dresler drinks prune juice that she thinks is poison and she exits running.

Dresler is good. Never my cup of tea but she is a solid performer who surely holds the screen.

I watched this for Polly Moran, whom I've seen elsewhere. Here, Moran is OK -- just OK -- as Dressler's shrewish friend/foe. Too bad she has sunk into nearly total oblivion.

The plot is good hearted. Bad guys try to rob the townspeople. Dressler triumphs and all ends well.

I do wonder about the central plot mechanism: bonds. This came out during the Depression so maybe everyone was familiar with bonds and what they can do if used well and if used wrongly. I, however, not of that era, am vaguely familiar with them. They're like stocks only different, right? It seems odd to build a story about The Little Man around a somewhat sophisticated monetary entity.

Sentiment: negative
This P.of S. was highly recommended to me by two friends that have great

(similar to mine) taste in films and have seen more than anyone I know.

I have no idea what they saw in this movie. Sadistic,cruel and repulsive is fine in an entertaining movie,but this is a windbag effort trying to pass itself off as highbrow lowbrow movie making.Or is it lowbrow highbrow?

The ancient generation gap cliché "no redeeming social value" comes to mind. Bill Pullman is trying,maybe a little to hard,and except for the kid the rest of the acting seems self-conscious and kinda lame.

Save yourself from this and watch a double feature of "In Cold Blood" and "The Hitcher".

As somebody said, this would never have been made if Jennifer Lynch was not the overrated David Lynch's daughter.

Sentiment: negative
First off I'd like to say that if I had to honestly rate this movie from a 1 to a 10, then I'd give it a -4. It's not that I'm a tough critic, it's just that this movie is THAT bad. Everything from the story, to the directing, to the editing is awful. The story is not even halfway decent to begin with (you can't expect much since it is based on a video game, something I was not aware of going into the movie) but the directing and editing made it even worse. The movie cuts at awkward points and goes to scenes that are completely unrelated to the previous ones; some, like a quick sex scene in the middle, don't even make sense being put into the story seeing as how the characters don't show any feelings toward each other. You could go into this movie expecting to see a pile of crap on the screen for an hour and a half and you'd still be disappointed. Honestly, if you pay to watch this movie then you are wasting your money, and if you don't pay anything then you are still wasting an hour and a half of your life. So do yourself a favor and don't watch it.

Sentiment: negative
This is quite possibly the worst Christmas film ever. The plot is virtually non-existent, the acting (Affleck in particular) is poor at best. Ben Affleck fans will probably defend this film but deep down they must agree. As far as I could gather the plot consisted of Ben Affleck, a millionaire salesman, is told by a shrink to go to a place that reminds him of his childhood and burn a list of things he wanted to forget from his childhood. On doing this he ends up paying the family currently living in the house to be his family for Christmas... and that is it. The film goes on and eventually he gets together with the daughter of the family.... blah blah blah.

Sentiment: negative
Bizarre, trippy, forget-about-a-story-and-full-steam-ahead low budget sci-fi about the Williams family, living in the California desert. They become witness to a series of events that escalate in their level of strangeness; apparently, they've been caught in a time-space warp, where past, present and future collide.

This is the excuse for a parade of highly amusing special effects - a constant light and sound show, dinosaur-like creatures that have at each other, a friendly and tiny little E.T. who enchants the granddaughter, and so on. This picture does show off a little imagination, if nothing else.

Very nice music by Richard Band, engaging special effects work from the likes of David Allen, Randall William Cook, and Peter Kuran, and, importantly, a likable family are key assets. It generates a sense of child-like amazement; it may very well be that it's more of a romp for kids (or the kids inside many of us) who are able to gloss over any flaws in the narrative or presentation.

I found it hard to resist; it's a short and sweet (80 minutes) diversion, and a decent credit for director John "Bud" Cardos (of "Kingdom of the Spiders" fame) and executive producer Charles Band.

7/10

Sentiment: positive
First off, this movie was a wild ride the whole way. The story of the training of the soldiers, fighting with their superiors, and in the end grouping together.

From the very beginning to the very end. This is one War Drama worth seeing if you are in for the constant cussing (at times beyond reason) and the horrors of what boot camp are.

The dynamics of how the actors interacted was quite amazing at times, and sometimes humorous. How Bozz (Colin Farrel) deals with Paxton (Matthew Davis) throughout the storyline, from camp to Tigerland, and even in the end helping him.

The innovative free-hand filming did add a certain taste or flavor to the film. Constant moving, constant action, and just constant confusion. At times, it was a help. Others, not so much.

Throughout the film, it was increasingly realistic. Some points in the film (the sex scenes in particular) seemed to be just a tad too realistic even though they added an effect to the movie that wouldn't have been there without them. it was a very gritty movie, through and through.

In my opinion, this is one of Colin Farrel's better movies (if not his top performance). The acting for every character was superb. 9/10 -sysnuk3r

Sentiment: positive
An OUR GANG Comedy Short.

The Gang coerces Spanky into watching their younger siblings. Caring for these FORGOTTEN BABIES turns out to be quite a chore, leaving the little nipper with no choice but to come up with some ingenious solutions to the baby-sitting problem...

Spanky is in his glory in this hilarious little film, arguably his best. Highlight: Spanky's retelling the plot of the TARZAN movie he's recently seen to the audience of infants. Movie mavens will recognize Billy Gilbert's voice in the radio drama.

Sentiment: positive
Oh what a disappointment this movie is. I can't believe it was directed by Wajda. There's practically no plot and 90% of the movie consists of various people walking in and out of the screen, weakly trying to interact with each other while talking about the Katyn massacre. The most interesting part comes right at the end, but by that time I simply stopped caring while trying to suppress my yawns.

Almost the entire movie is filmed with a hand-held camera, which is supposed to convey the feeling of "personal immediacy" but there's nothing personal or immediate about most of the movie. Instead, the constant jerking of the camera made me seasick. To be fair, there are some great shots too (no pun intended), but nothing that makes you go "Wow!".

If you're not familiar with the Katyn massacre, the movie will leave you scratching your head. If you are familiar, you'll be scratching your head too, although maybe for different reasons. Basically, the movie states and restates over and over again that it was the Soviets who murdered thousands of Polish soldiers in 1940. This point is hammered repeatedly as though someone in the audience needed to be convinced of this basic historical fact. However, the movie never tries to explain as to WHY they were killed. After all, tens of thousands of Polish soldiers in the other Soviet POW camps were not harmed and were released in 1941. It is also never explained adequately HOW MANY people perished, although the figure 20,000 is thrown in a couple of times.

The acting is adequate with only Komorowska (old woman) and Chyra (Lt. Jerzy) giving noticeable performances, but they get to act for maybe 10-15 minutes in total. Certainly not enough to carry the whole movie. Many other actors seem to have been chosen more for their matinée looks rather than their acting abilities, but I won't mention their names. Suffice to say that they are definitely NOT the Oscar material, so any claims that this movie was "robbed" of the Academy Award are simply laughable.

The tone of movie is wrong as well. On one hand it tries to be an accurate historical drama, on the other it resorts to cheap anti-Soviet propaganda such as showing a Russian soldier tear up the Polish flag and using it to clean his boots. Then there are some puzzling scenes which have absolutely no bearing on the plot, such as a couple climbing on a roof or the liquidation of the Krakow University.

There are many missed opportunities to make this movie more interesting, such as adding a political angle to the story, or showing the German discovery of the graves, or even portraying Anna's trip from the Soviet occupied part to the German occupied Krakow. All of these aspects could have been the major part of the movie, but instead they're reduced to a couple of minutes. In the end, we get a collection of loosely fitting, confusing, boring scenes about the reaction of Poles to one of their greatest tragedies of WWII. Not very compelling and not worthy of Wajda at all.

Sentiment: negative
Eh it's not really as good as the other Dragonballs. The villains are actually rip-offs of other Z villains like Cell, Frieza, and even Majin Buu. With Baby being Frieza's clone, Super 17 being Cell's clone, and the Shadow Dragons being Buu's clone(s). The story is also very bad as it deals with Goku shrinking. SHRINKING!! It deals with him SHRINKING to like the size of an eight year old just to get it going. Let us not forget how weak the characters become. Gohan can't go mystic anymore and is even weaker than Pan.(It's sad I know). Speaking of Pan she was so cute at the end of Z now she's lost all that cuteness and become an irritating,whiny little girl whose sole purpose in this series is to get in the way. Goten doesn't even have a purpose in the series and Trunks... well I don't know what to say about Trunks. GT is just an attempt to milk the popular Dragonball franchise. If you really like Dragonball then avoid this series. It doesn't even feel like Dragonball. I will be fair though as the ending however was really good and is actually pretty sad (At least to me) and the theme songs both ending and opening are better (Japanese, not American). Might've been better if Toriyama san worked on it.

Sentiment: negative
This film is BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, and BORING!!! It's not the worse film I ever saw, on the contrary, but.......how shall I put this.......IT'S BORING! There is some very nice scenery and some clever dry wit but that's about it. If it was advertised as a travelogue I would rate it a 7 but it's supposed to be a film with a plot, some drama, and for god's sake a point or a satisfying conclusion.

I read some of the comments on this board about this films and I wondered if they saw the same movie as I did.

See this film (yawn) at your own risk........one thing for sure- it really is rated correctly= G RATING! (Which most stand for GOD AWFUL BORING!)

Sentiment: negative
*WARNING* Possible spoilers below

The film is more boring then anything else. There seems to be some attempt to build tension through badly lit shots of empty rooms and empty lawns, but none of it works.

MST3K did a fairly good job with it, but on its own the movie is mostly tedious.

Funny moments:

When the fake skull rolls out of a pile of ashes, the wife becomes hysterical and woozy while the husband (who is trying to drive the wife crazy) says in a deadpan voice "There is no skull there, there's no skull."

When the real ghost-skulls have the husband caught in a pickle, as if trapped between first and second base.

Sentiment: negative
Yet another "son who won't grow up" flick, and just the other recent like entries. Heder in another bad wig, channeling Napoleon for, what, the third time? Anna Faris is forgettable, as always; Jeff Daniels phoned this one in from another state, at least; and Diane Keaton...how does one become typecast this late in a career? Do not bother. Nothing is said here that hasn't been covered many times over. I will say this; it's about a hundred times better than "Failure To Launch". There are very few amusing bits in the movie, unless you think Eli Wallach cursing is funny. Ha, Ha! He's old and he dropped the f-bomb! Tee, hee, hee. Pitiful!

Sentiment: negative
There was a Bugs Bunny cartoon titled "Baby Buggy Bunny" that was EXACTLY this plot. Baby-faced Finster robbed a bank and the money in the carriage rolled away and fell into Bug's rabbit hole. He dressed up as a baby to get into Bugg's hole to retrieve the money. The scene in "Little Man" where he's looking in the bathroom mirror shaving with a cigar in his mouth is straight from the cartoon. This was a hilarious 5-minute cartoon; not so much an entire movie. If you are really interested in this, buy the Bugs Bunny DVD. It's was much more original the first time (1954). Plus you'll get a lot more classic Bugs Bunny cartoons to boot!

Sentiment: negative
This is another North East Florida production, filmed mainly in and near by to Fernandina Beach and the Kingsley Plantation. I was rather surprised the company was able to take over the main street of Fernandina Beach as long as was necessary to achieve the street scenes. The film is pretty, and pretty bad. Tami Erin is cute, but overacts. Eileen Brennan overacts even more. Good for small kids, or for those who like fluff in large doses. A 4 from the Miller-Movies formula.

Sentiment: negative
1st watched 1/1/2003 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Henri Verneuil): Sober drama about a well-to-do Doctor who gets into trouble carrying on a relationship with a younger woman, whom his family brings in to live with them, as well as being married to another in the same household. His searching for happiness is not clear, but they do bring out the reason for his unhappiness rather well by displaying the overbearing trait of the females in his wife's line. Well played, but predictable drama.

Sentiment: negative
Initially I was put off renting this movie due to the jacket art for the DVD. In fact, this held true with friends of mine who didn't rent it due to the art and the mental image(s) it conjured of being a movie that held little or no interest to me (or to my friends). But, I rented and watched it and was truly amazed.

I agree with another user's comments that this movie is not for everyone due to the blatant sexual inferences, so it is definitely not something I'd want young children to watch (and doubt seriously if they would understand it anyway).

I enjoy movies like this whereby the character's personalities and who they are are genuinely defined in a no-nonsense, direct way with no teasers to indicate they will turn out bad. The acting done ... was it acting? Ricci and Jackson performed so well, I was drawn into this movie not even realizing they were acting. Same thing with the story ... may seem far-fetched somewhat, but it was done so very, very well. It reminded me of another movie with Mel Gibson, Tim, where each character had limitations, whether mental or circumstantial, so were well-defined.

I found much depth in this movie with the character's involved, so feel that everyone involved (from the cameramen to the actors) should be commended on a perfect fit/result. After viewing this movie, I had talked to a couple of friends who had a negative approach to watching it like I did, so after hearing my comments, they rented and watched it. They, too, were quite surprised at how good it was. It is too bad that the art on the jacket was done the way it was since it is a turn off. I can see now how the art applies, but I'd not heard of this movie before, and the art was my first impression ... art sells or destroys DVD sales/rentals.

These characters had more depth to them and good timing was allotted to give an audience like me time to absorb the "feel" for each. I felt I could trust the movie to flow well, and it did. So, with the jacket art aside, I would recommend watching this movie.

Sentiment: positive
I grew up with scooby(kinda the re-runs of where are you)I hate scrappy, love Daphne, and feel its not complete with out the whole gang. But this is sad, scooby doo is mystery solving comedy-not bad totally spy's jap anime. i like "whats new", they had to give danger-prone Daphne a makeover sometime :( and try to lose the *sex *drug jokes of many a generation, but this "get a clue" is flat out crap and should not have the Scooby name attached. They even tried to do some lame punk thing with the theme song. now i'm gonna go watch my DVD of scooby doo where are you to wash the filth of this new series off my eyes

Sentiment: negative
Semper Fi! I saw "The D.I." in 1957. Two-and-a-half -years later I joined the Corps.

Web and company got it as right as they could in '57. Boot, in '59, was more like, in fact, exactly like, the Boot Camp shown in "Full Metal Jacket" - Yes. A black recruit, in my training platoon, was called "Snowball." I was called "Stick," because I was skinny as a rail. Every recruit had a nickname, some rather vile, that stuck with him through his service in the Corps. Getting smacked, or knocked on your ass, when you screwed-up was SOP. "Drop, and give me fifty," got to be ho-hum. Then, it turned into,"Drop, and give me two-hundred!"

The D.I.'s were a bunch of sadistic bastards, but it was a controlled sadism, and with a primary purpose of keeping us stupid MoFos alive when we hit combat. 200 years of experience was ingrained in that "sadism," and everything the D.I. did, or said, had a purpose geared to his mission.

A bad D.I. gets grunts killed. A good D.I., though seemingly the world's biggest asshole, keeps 'em alive. You can't kill the enemy if you're dead.

In case you didn't know, the Marine Corps has one primary mission: Kill the enemy. PFD.

Everything else is pure bravo sierra.

MstGySgt WHT, USMC (ret)

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie recently. 2 hours later, my head still hurt from laughing. The plot was soo awful, the jokes were soo bad, but what I didn't count on were:

1. the 2 scenes before and after the movie that had Pat and Jay posing (that caused more than enough laughter)

2. The kick through the windshield that decapitated the evil-doer.

This movie is about 20 times better than the Rush Hour series, and my copy even came with a disclamer saying if you didn't like the movie, send certificate to HBO. While I considered it, the date you had to send it in was January 1991 (which also caused wackiness to ensue).

Sentiment: positive
It's great how this movie pulls you along. I had honest laughs. Don't care that it's low budget cause the thing works for me. To be honest my wife didn't really go for it in the same way but she prefers a different type of film. She did admit though that it was very creative and well put together and probably all on a shoe string. These characters who's lives are strange and troubled give me something to relate to in my own world. Just keep going and be who you are. Dreams are what you make of them. In watching this movie a second and third time I realized that there are some hidden moments that passed by me on the first time through. What can I say, I like my fun with some complexity. Anyway liked it. Hope to see more.

Sentiment: positive
Well, i rented this movie and found out it realllllllly sucks. It is about that family with the stepmother and the same stupid fights in the family,then the cool son comes with his stupid camera and he likes to take a photo to damaged building and weird things and weird movie ,and then he asks his father to take him to a side trip and simply agrees, etc etc etc..... They go to that town which no one know it exists (blah blah blah) And the most annoying thing is that the movie ends and yet you don't understand what is THAT MOVIE!!!!I have seen many mystery movies but that was the worst, Honestly it doesn't have a description at all and i wish i didn't see it.

Sentiment: negative
I caught this movie on local t.v. at about 4:30 a.m. I didn't have expectations for it but after the opening credits I knew I was into something good.

There are situations that are left for your interpretation to "find out" what really happened so your attention is a key factor.

The whole psychological thriller situation deals a lot with character development and the way things are executed by the main character.

Your sub-conscience also plays an important part because through a series of events and dialogs you will be able to make a correct interpretation and generate an opinion.

The technical aspects are very good. Really good in fact. Kelly Overtone is extremely sexy and she's candy for the eye although she's most of the time in her white clothes.

The fear factor is almost inexistent but there's plenty of mystery and tension to dig from.

I would recommend it for those who enjoy supernatural and psychological thrillers.

Sentiment: positive
I'm not really sure where to begin. From start to finish, bad, stinky bad, like stepping into a port-a-john on a 100 degree day. If you force yourself to watch this as I did, keep some Vicodin handy for the pain. I will never understand how flicks this bad make it past the cutting room without the entire reel ending up on the floor. The movie is a cross between Gumby rides Pokey, meets the terminator, meets Wally Beaver playing cowboys and Indians without the cowboys. I've seen better animation in the original cut of the Blob. You will get more entertainment from watching Gone with the Wind while suffering from the puke and poops. Bad acting and hokey lines will have you squirming and wishing you had rented Peewee's big Top or watched every episode of Gilligan's Island back to back. UGH..I'm going to go slit my wrist now.

Sentiment: negative
The first time I ever saw this movie was when I was four years old. I remember loving it and everything about it. 13 years later, I am now 17, and decided to watch it about a month ago because I am taking a 1960's class in school. I didn't really know what to expect, since it had been 13 years since I last saw it, but I was completely blown away by it. The actors were amazing, the music was so fun, and I now find myself singing along to every song. Treat Williams is great as Berger, the "leader" of the hippie group, who always gets what he wants, one way or another (except for at the very end, of course). John Savage is actually very convincing as Claude, the Oklahoma draftee who falls in love with Sheila (Beverly D'Angelo). D'Angelo is lovely as the prim and proper rich girl who eventually rebels against her upbringing and joins the hippies. The other hippies are played by Annie Golden, Don Dacus, and Dorsey Wright. Annie Golden is just adorable as Jeannie, the girl who is pregnant but still as cute and innocent as a child. Don Dacus and Dorsey Wright are good as Woof and Hud, the other two members of the group, and Cheryl Barnes, who plays Hud's fiancée, has an amazing voice. 

The only problem I have with this movie, however, is that the relationship between Claude and Sheila is not very convincing. They are barely ever shown together, and when they are, they fight (remember the skinny dipping scene?). It seems as though their relationship is very weak, and by the end of the movie we are supposed to believe they are madly in love, only based on the few meetings they had. I also see that many people writing reviews here are upset by the PG rating this movie has. I personally would raise the rating up to a PG-13, only because there is some drug use... but remember in 1979, PG-13 didn't exist. I don't think the nudity is bad at all, it is in no way sexual (in fact, there isn't really any sex at all in this movie), and it is only to show the childlike innocence that the group maintains. In most European countries, nudity isn't regarded as something bad, and I don't see why it is here in the US. Anyways, I give this movie a high rating, and I'm glad it was made back then, because in the insanely "politically correct" world of today, they wouldn't even think of making it, and even if they did, it would be a very "watered down" version, and I'm sure you wouldn't get the full effect. 

In conclusion, this is a very underrated film that is definitely worth checking out.

Sentiment: positive
Part of the BBC filming of all of Shakespeare's classic plays, this version of Hamlet does nothing to dispel my particular impression that it is one of Shakespeare's most over-rated plays and Hamlet himself a not particularly moving and tragic character. I feel no sympathy for him, and I didn't after watching this.

Even when you have great actors like the great Derek Jacobi in the role of the Dane, and Patrick Stewart as Claudius and Jonathan Hyde as Rosencrantz, it cannot disguise the lack of passion in the storyline. And when a good actor like Jacobi injects passion into it, he renders the entire role incomprehensible. I just could not connect his physicalisation of the character to what he was saying, and this killed it for me. That said, he does get the "To be, or not to be" speech right, as his actions with a dagger make clear the character's suicidal intentions at that point in the play.

The supporting roles, to me better written and consequently better played, are enjoyable, notably Lalla Ward's loopy Ophelia and Stewart's well-detailed interpretation of Claudius.

At four and a half hours, it is very long and best watched in bite-sized chunks. Check it out if you're interested but be prepared for a long watch.

Sentiment: positive
As someone who has seen and followed Hartley's public work for several years I think much of what used to be fiction told through true stories has been elevated into obscure philosophical mind games.

While entertaining, Fay Grim is another step in the Henry Fool line of thinking, where the movie reflects the quality of an object within the movie itself. In Henry Fool, the object is the memoirs... In Fay Grim, the object is encrypted memoirs - which are themselves stolen, forged and trans-mutated into something so obscure it can't really make any sense - i.e. the process of script writing and film-making in the modern era - where most blockbuster films are little more than a mash-up of the past. That is, in a philosophical sense, what Fay Grim is all about. The object, perhaps, is the tragedy that shock is now cliché and dull (as hinted in the opening scenes at the publishers office).

That being said, many of the movie best points are lost if you do not understand Henry's character and the significance of the memoirs being looked for. Henry is a thinly veiled devil, first visiting Simon as a modern Faust, etc. Without understanding how tragic Henry's character is, much of the quality of Fay Grim's plot and story is lost.

And there is not enough 'detail' expressed through verbal flashbacks - knowing the plot of Henry Fool cannot compare to 'feeling' the quality of the characters as one did in Henry Fool, and so I think for someone who walks into this movie cold there is about 10 minutes of 'so what' responses to highly constructed dialog and then that's it.

However, Henry Fool was also my least favorite Hartley film until I realized that it was bad - putrid and infested - precisely because Henry Fool's confessions were bad... not just raunchy or dirty, but inescapably broken. Henry can not even be a proper villain - and this is perhaps the tragic flaw that makes him most endearing... like Gollum in Tolkien's works, Henry is pitiable.

That doesn't come across in Fay Grim, although Henry's dialog is excellent. What does come across is that the entire movie is constructed as an encryption - a sort of molding of another plot around what ends up being yet another bad story to add to henry's confessions. It is an interesting twist, but one that can't really be digested without viewing the first film. Perhaps showing more of Henry earlier on would have been better than having the publisher describe the basic storyline of the first movie - although this plot is also not really what the first movie was about - unless perhaps one is a casual observer.

Part of the encryption? Hard to say... a little disappointed at the sex gimmicks though. Cheesy.

Sentiment: positive
Cliffhanger is a decent action crime adventure with some flaws from director Renny Harlin whose admirable in making this movie about an expert climber who finds himself taken hostage with a fellow friend by a gang of dangerous criminals on the search for suit cases full of stolen cash in the Rocky Mountains. Sylvester Stallone is impressive as Gabe Walker the expert climber especially in the action/fight sequences but some of them definitely border on the line of unrealistic. For the sake of the film though I willing to suspend my disbelief. The rest of the cast including John Lithgow, Michael Rooker, Janine Turner, Rex Linn, Caroline Goodall, and Leon are respectable as the supporting characters in the movie. The action/fight sequences are well executed but as mentioned before some aren't very realistic no matter how tough you are. The climbing sequences however are very well done because instead of doing the whole film in a studio somewhere the locations they chose felt very real and the Ariel views of the mountain ranges are marvelous adding a touch of reality to the movie. The deaths are inventive while others are sort of predictable. The villains are solid but it would've been better if they had focused on a more central one instead of having many of them. The pacing of the movie was a little slow but the good outweighs the bad in this one. If you're a big fan of Harlins or Stallone's than chances are you'll enjoy this one too. Overall Cliffhanger has character development with enough action, drama, some suspense, excitement, thrills, and good performances by the cast who make this movie worth the time to watch.

Sentiment: positive
Another British cinema flag waver. Real garbage on offer here once again. I cannot understand (and I am British) why this over the top, patriotic nonsense was ever made. EIGHT years mark you, from when the second world war had actually ended! Other commenter's here have remarked on the editing and apparent seamless use of archive footage. This is extremely poorly observed. The archive footage is in abundance. Model aircraft swing from wires in the 'action scenes' like so many children's kites in the wind. The usual map room sequences tattoo the movie to make us supposedly drawn into the whole Malta event. Guinness must have his worst acting performance ever. The shocking back drop dog fight scenes are laughable. Hawkins bores us all to death in the map room area. Ealing made many great movies. This clearly is not one of them. They should have stayed away from such unconvincing rot!

Sentiment: negative
Stan & Ollie become SAPS AT SEA when their wayward little boat is commandeered by a vicious murderer.

The Boys are wonderful in this feature, which starts out with one of their most hilarious set pieces, the horn factory. Always a few steps out of sync with the rest of Creation, Laurel & Hardy inhabit a world where icy radios & bedded billy goats are the rule, not the exception. With its brief length, the film is more in style with their classic short subjects, which explains its episodic nature.

Only the Boys get screen credit, but movie mavens will recognize other familiar faces: James Finlayson appears as a loony doctor, Richard Cramer does full justice to his bad guy role, sweet Mary Gordon plays the Boys' perplexed neighbor. That's Charlie Hall as the apartment house desk clerk and silent screen comic Ben Turpin portrays a most peculiar plumber.

One of the film's script writers was silent comedian Harry Langdon.

Stan & Ollie are the main focus, however. Watching Hardy go berserk at the sound of a horn, or Laurel's antics with bananas, for instance, reminds the viewer why these fellows remain absolute cinematic giants.

Sentiment: positive
This film doesn't have a very clear picture of what it is or wants to be. There are some good bits when Stewart is on screen and they give him some lines to work with. It works best early on as romantic comedy, but the story keeps heading for more dramatic territory and gets itself lost in the process. By the last fifteen minutes or so, the plot twists are just a series dramatic clichés. 

The part with the airplane feels like some leftover footage from another film spliced in.

The main reason I can think of to watch it is if you want be able to say you've seen all of Jimmy Stewart's films.

Sentiment: negative
I hate to be too critical, but this one really was bad. I like the Baldwin brothers, I just wish there was more talent evenly spread between them. I did like the general plot, but there was just too much 'trying' and not enough actual 'doing' as far as quality acting was concerned. 

My favorite character out of the whole thing was bald cop. He reminded me of Dmitri Valtane ( Jeremy Roberts, I believe ) from Start Trek 6: Undiscovered country. Just, without the hair.

If you have Hollywood Video's MVP program and are really trying to get your money's worth, then through this in with one of the three MVP movies you pick up. It's worth it for a few laughs.

The single most impressive special effect in the whole show is the sound of Stephen Baldwin's rifle firing. I suppose that lets you in a bit on the quality and excitement of the rest of the show.

Sentiment: negative
In the areas where they overlap this fine movie is light years ahead of 2004s Innocence, which gave the impression of a rheumy eye and heavy breathing ogling young girls. Here the effect is much more realistic and really gets inside the heads of the three protagonists as they fumble their way through an adolescence riddled with pitfalls. The three principals, all unknown to me give very sure-footed performances, the kind, in fact, that may be so natural that it will be difficult for them to replicate this quality of acting in other films so I wouldn't be too surprised if they are not heard from again. It would be nice if this could get away from the Art Houses and into the Multiplexes where there's just an outside chance it might 'speak' to the bubblegum crowd it isn't aimed at.

Sentiment: positive
This is to the Zatoichi movies as the "Star Trek" movies were to "Star Trek"--except that in this case every one of the originals was more entertaining and interesting than this big, shiny re-do, and also better made, if substance is more important than surface. Had I never seen them, I would have thought this good-looking but empty; since I had, I thought its style inappropriate and its content insufficient. The idea of reviving the character in a bigger, slicker production must have sounded good, but there was no point in it, other than the hope of making money; it's just a show, which mostly fails to capture the atmosphere of the character's world and wholly fails to take the character anywhere he hasn't been already (also, the actor wasn't at his best). I'd been hoping to see Ichi at a late stage of life, in a story that would see him out gracefully and draw some conclusion from his experience overall; this just rehashes bits and pieces from the other movies, seasoned with more sex and sfx violence. Not the same experience at all.

Sentiment: negative
I grew up watching, and loving this cartoon every year. I didn't think they would be able to take a half hour (20 min!) cartoon and make it a movie. They did it. With FLYING COLOURS! Fabulous, funny, heart warming, effective movie!

Sentiment: positive
I only rented this because i loved the first movie. However, calling it John Carpenters Vampires: Los Muertos is just a con trick to get you to rent it. He is in fact executive producer and clearly had nothing to do with the making of this film (Jeepers Creepers Anyone?)

A tragic storyline, terrible special effects and Jon Bon Jovi as the least convincing Vampire Hunter of all time. It's not even comically bad.

What we end up with is a dull, uninvolving film with a terrible script and indefinsibly bad and clichéd acting. It just reeks of low budget.

Avoid like the Bubonic plague.

Sentiment: negative
this movie is funny funny funny my favorite quote from the movie "i think i saw a half naked Indian in my room last night" response that was no hallucination it was a Indian in your room" and another is "what the hell are you talking about, just what the hell are you talking about" but if i ever be admitted to an hospital like this one i will be prepared to write my will on the spot...i would say there were in my opinion three very funny characters in this film most funny but three is the funniest to me even though their lines were few.. and don't get me started on the crack-pot patient hehehe that one i will keep secret and fast paced too.

Sentiment: positive
The limited scenery views were the only saving grace to an otherwise uneventful and boring movie. The acting was borderline absurd which I blame on the script and screenplay. Nicole Eggert didn't look the part, didn't act the part, and was totally unconvincing as a mountain guide. After watching this I was left with the feeling that some friends had some free time and decided to make a movie. It must have been produced on a budget of pocket change. The plot was thin at best and with the low caliber of acting at times it begged the question to be asked, "Why are we doing this?". I managed to sit through the entire movie but also asked myself, "Why?".

Sentiment: negative
Absolute garbage, worse fight scenes than a 20 year old van damme movie or American ninja etc.

Truly dire acting, not a skill in sight in the entire movie its like a cast of wooden sculptures.

Watch it just for how truly bad this film is, it may have been acceptable in the 80s but this is a 2006 movie, i don't have much love for this movie as it wasn't born in the 80s.

If you like real fight movies then check out tony jaa in ong bak and the protector, those are proper martial arts films.

have a laugh and watch this today you may see the unintenional humour at how grim it is.

Sentiment: negative
Let me start by saying that I consider myself to be one of the more (most!)open-minded movie-viewers...Movies are my passion, and I am a big regular at my local cult-movie-rental-place...I also feel the need to add that they often ask ME for advice about movies whenever I get there, and i never seem to be able to leave the place without having had an elaborate discussion or exchange of ideas about what is going on in the cult-movie-area...I love to rent strange stuff, and that is exactly why this movie was recommended by one of the guys at the cult-movie-video-place.He told me he thought I had to see this, and since the cover said something about it being a movie with a Jodorowsky(one of my favorites!)atmosphere, I rented it.

The vote I gave here is not really fair, because I did not think it was awful, I just did not know how to rate it otherwise. A question mark would have been more appropriate...

This is the first and only film that literally made me sick to my stomach: I actually felt physically ill! Am I the only one whose stomach literally turned? Still I did not want to turn it off, or maybe I just couldn't because I was fascinated in a nasty way...

I do not ever wanna see this movie again.

Not awful,a 1 as I said.Just not my cup of tea(or wodka for that matter)...

Sentiment: negative
Actor turned director Bill Paxton follows up his promising debut, the Gothic-horror "Frailty", with this family friendly sports drama about the 1913 U.S. Open where a young American caddy rises from his humble background to play against his Bristish idol in what was dubbed as "The Greatest Game Ever Played." I'm no fan of golf, and these scrappy underdog sports flicks are a dime a dozen (most recently done to grand effect with "Miracle" and "Cinderella Man"), but some how this film was enthralling all the same.

The film starts with some creative opening credits (imagine a Disneyfied version of the animated opening credits of HBO's "Carnivale" and "Rome"), but lumbers along slowly for its first by-the-numbers hour. Once the action moves to the U.S. Open things pick up very well. Paxton does a nice job and shows a knack for effective directorial flourishes (I loved the rain-soaked montage of the action on day two of the open) that propel the plot further or add some unexpected psychological depth to the proceedings. There's some compelling character development when the British Harry Vardon is haunted by images of the aristocrats in black suits and top hats who destroyed his family cottage as a child to make way for a golf course. He also does a good job of visually depicting what goes on in the players' heads under pressure. Golf, a painfully boring sport, is brought vividly alive here. Credit should also be given the set designers and costume department for creating an engaging period-piece atmosphere of London and Boston at the beginning of the twentieth century.

You know how this is going to end not only because it's based on a true story but also because films in this genre follow the same template over and over, but Paxton puts on a better than average show and perhaps indicates more talent behind the camera than he ever had in front of it. Despite the formulaic nature, this is a nice and easy film to root for that deserves to find an audience.

Sentiment: positive
6 out of the 8 comments on this subject rated this film as worth watching, so let me redress the balance.

If this is the best that British Independent film makers have to offer then they need to pack away their cameras right now and find jobs in another industry. Unfortunately for me that was 82 minutes I'll never see again and hopefully I'll save some of you from wasting 82 minutes of your own. 

Whilst the idea behind the film is interesting, it is not developed enough to keep the viewer attached. The student characters are bland and uninteresting and quite frankly you won't care about what happens to them. The soldiers are practically caricatures of every baddie ever seen in film, I kept waiting for Captain Markovic to twirl an imaginary moustache. Some of the effects were quite good and showed some imagination, but these were ruined by the shockingly bad acting, poor script writing and patchy camera work. The budget may have been better spent sending the "actors" (and I use that term loosely)to acting classes or the Thomas Brothers to film making school or maybe on a spell checker because the subtitles were incorrectly spelt. The fact that the mis-spellings were not picked up on and rectified speaks volumes about the immaturity of the whole production.

I can only assume that the positive comments are staged by the film makers, either that or they were watching a completely different film. I implore the Thomas Brothers to never give up their day jobs for if they continue in this field, they will surely starve to death.

Sentiment: negative
This is truly a documentary of love about a fascinating character, her outlook on life and her extended family. The filmmakers spent three years taping Sister Helen at her halfway house and managed to capture so much wonderful material that you can not help but feel you know Sister Helen and her "boys." The house holds 21 recovering addicts each with a story almost as involving as Sister Helen's. The ending scenes are particularly involving and emotional.

Sister Helen's story of marriage, addiction and loss reveals a very complex character who's tough love is at all times funny, touching and endearing.

The film is a amazing in the way it tells its story in wonderful slice of life sequences which develop into a story that is almost as clear as if each scene were scripted and acted by the best. The honesty (and obvious dishonesty) of the "clients" is very involving as you learn of their fears and watch their attempts to grow.

You will never forget Sister Helen, Robert, Moe or poor Ashish(spelling?).

Sentiment: positive