DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
There is one detail, which is not very common for Jackie Chan movies, but which is present here. It has some very tough and serious atmosphere about it while the funny elements are present too. Jackie is menacing and psychotic here. He is not a hero who is attacked and only then fights back (in a usual laid-back pattern), but he is the one who can go and start the tumult. His manner of hitting that evil guy in the glasses is amazing. Every time it goes "crack!". I also especially enjoy the scene when Jackie goes to the pub and thrashes the villains who had fronted on his girlfriend. It's one of the best blitzkriegs put on screen. Besides, the whole scene is shot with the background of some action character painted on the wall (it also looks like a poster of "rabochiy" from our Soviet era) and some lines in Russian on the left (I noticed that quite accidentally). That looks terrific (and nostalgic for Russian people). I also like when the windows are being smashed in the movies. Here there's a lot of this stuff. It's quite amazing watching the characters falling/jumping/running/driving through all manner of panes.

All three movies are great. I had been preparing myself to see the down-slide of the quality but I saw a perfect trilogy with sense and incredible stunts (and not only Jackie Chan's character appears in all three movies - that's also excellent and keeps continuity up).

I would like to describe each movie just in a few words: No.1 - great (in all aspects - it is one gripping story from the very beginning to the very end) and funny (many scenes are ridiculous); No.2 - raging (Jackie is really *beep* off here) and painful (Jackie gets tortured); No.3 - unbelievable (the woman that fights alongside with Jackie is incredible) and bombastic (should I mention a lot of guns and explosions?).

As to the rest - much has been mentioned by the others.

It's a trilogy that can be watched over and over again (at least by me). Its place is in top 10 among action/comedy jewels. Finally it's been released in Russia on DVD (the 2nd film has the best options - the Chinese/Russian soundtracks and English/Russian subtitles).

Solid 10 out of 10. Thank you for attention.

Sentiment: positive
I have vague memories of this movie being funny.

Having seen it again either I have changed or I was thinking about a another film altogether.

It seems as if we are supposed to be sympathetic to Jackie Mason's character however nothing in the movie actually engenders that emotion. Its notable that he is really the only person accorded tender dialogue with loved ones. No-one else's character is allowed to rise to the status of even vaguely human.

I don't even like golf but as the film went on I found myself really rooting for Robart Stack and the club guys, really hoping they would repel Mason and Chevy Chase.

Sentiment: negative
May Contain Spoilers!!! In no way, shape or form does this movie break the horror movie mold. Not by a long shot. However, it does deliver a creepy atmosphere, believable enough characters and gore.

The story is simple and doesn't bother to unfurl itself anymore than it needs to. A bunch of kids are killed in a mining accident back in the early 1900's. Since then, they have stalked and killed the residence of their sleepy little PA town in the mountains.

Simple: they want revenge on the man that caused their death years and years ago. Naturally, his great, great, great grandson is in town and he's a real prick.

Along with that, a mother and her two daughters inherit a run old house after the husband dies. The eldest daughter is rebellious, obnoxious...a typical teen. The younger is curious, bright-eyed and gets in with the ghost children.

The creepiest part of this flick is the sheer emotionlessness of the children and they hack their way through victim after victim. Excellent acting. It was so spooky! I mean, the Children of the Corn flicks are one thing...but this topped any of those (as for the creepy kids).

Worht a look. I bought it before seeing it and I was not unhappy. But I'm a horror fan through and through.

Sentiment: positive
I didn't see such a movie where the creators put so much heart's blood into their work and paid attention to the finest details for a very long time.

Everything was well thought and perfectly put into reality. Camera-work, editing and compositing worked so good together it was just amazing. The titles were so fun and so perfectly choreographed.

This movie just blew me away.

The "Showdown" could have been cut down by 10 or 15 minutes though.

It's a near to perfect homage to early silent noir Films story, acting, scenery and costumes were perfectly fitting and believable to have com from the times of silent film-making.

Sentiment: positive
I meant that in a GOOD way, believe me. True to life, it ain't. The whole Oirish thing gets kinda thick, but you DO enjoy the cast here-Flynn, Smith, Bond, Watson, Frawley, etc. All good. I also liked seeing Mike Mazurki-of Course he played a boxer, what else? Typical forties flick teeming w/ familiar faces and fast paced scenes, one after the other.

Flynn is fine as Gentleman Jim, you never get past a 1 dimensional look at him or the rest here, I suppose, but it's okay, it's a cartoon and meant to please, that's all. The boxing scenes were pretty good, Ward Bond's vaudeville logging act a riot, and you hadda like seeing all those billyclub wielding bobbies come racing into the scene a couple of times.

Really alotta fun, Flynn was on a roll at that time and it's clear to see why audiences loved him.

*** outta ****

Sentiment: positive
I LOVED this movie! I am biased seeing as I am a huge Disney fan, but I really enjoyed myself. The action takes off running in the beginning of the film and just keeps going! This is a bit of a departure for Disney, they don't spend quite as much time on character development (my husband pointed this out)and there are no musical numbers. It is strictly action adventure. I thoroughly enjoyed it and recommend it to anyone who loves Disney, be they young or old.

Sentiment: positive
Oh God,what an idiotic movie!Incredibly cheap with fake special effects(the creature is played by one guy in lame costume)and stupid plot.All dialogues are unbelievably bad and these actors(HA!HA!HA!)...they're simply ludicrous.For example I have never seen so annoying characters like in this junk(these dumb kids or pregnant woman with his husband and many more).All in all,this is a great entertainment if you're drunk.Avoid it like the plague.Am I drunk?I don't think so...

Sentiment: negative
It's difficult to express how bad this movie is. Even in the 1950s when intellectual searching for the meaning of life was fashionable and beatnik rejection of physical comforts, clean clothes, haircuts, etc. was a common reaction to the smug middle-class mores of both the USA and western Europe, this movie would have been a stinker. The plot is a mishmash of several dei ex machina (if that's the correct Latin grammar); the acting consists of deadpan stares broken by occasional hysterics (by the male lead as well as the females); the gratuitous view of Catherine Deneuve's (or somebody's) breasts are worthy of a Budweiser commercial; the repeated cacaphonous orchestra rehearsal in the abandoned building is I'm sure heavy with meaning in the director's mind but to me is just one more stupid symbol thrown into this meaningless movie -- I'm ranting because my time has been wasted watching this scam excuse for an art flic. The scenery is beautiful and the sex scene is hot -- but underneath his clothes, this king has no substance.

Sentiment: negative
The first Shiloh film was enjoyable by adults as well as children. This one starts with about an hour of filler where not much happens, with stilted dialogue; only in the last act is there any significant action that really moves the plot along. The dog is still cute, though, and young kids may enjoy it.

Sentiment: negative
Just caught "The Rain People" on Turner Classic Movies late one night. The film was released in 1969. Shirley Knight stars as Natalie, a Long Island housewife who -- exact reasons unknown -- leaves her husband and embarks on a road trip, not knowing exactly where she is going. Natalie is also newly pregnant, which complicates things. Along the way, she picks up a brain-damaged ex-football player "Jimmy" (James Caan), who has been kicked out of his college and is hitchhiking. There are many twists and turns along the way between these two, as Natalie struggles to take care of Jimmy and she begins to realize he is mentally limited and cannot take care of himself. She is going through her own struggles, needless to say, and in no position to care for him. Natalie appears to be a woman on the edge of a nervous breakdown at times; she makes some odd phone calls to her husband, who begs her to come home. Natalie tries to dump Jimmy several times, only to have him re-enter her life through circumstances. A young Robert Duvall plays a strange and troubled cop who befriends Natalie. You get the sense all along that this film is going to end badly, and it does. This film is certainly uneven at times, and the script is somewhat lacking. Francis Ford Coppola directed this, and of course he would soon become immensely famous in the next few years for directing "The Godfather." The actors are good ones, needless to say, as they all would have futures ahead of them in film. Shirley Knight is the least known of the three, although she is also underrated as an actor. James Caan is especially effective here and he seems to just inhabit this character. This film remains little more than a curiosity now, no doubt because it is an early movie of Coppola's, and I confess I had never heard of it. So God bless Turner Classic Movies for bringing it to a new audience.

Sentiment: negative
Walter Matthau and George Burns were a famous vaudeville comedy act, Lewis and Clark, who haven't spoken in over 10 years. Burns retired and Matthau took it personally and has held a grudge ever since. Such is the premise of this hilarious Neil Simon play made into a movie. Of course, what makes it so good is Matthau and Burns in their prime, and the material is funnier than anything you can find today. Richard Benjamin shines as Matthau's nephew and agent. There's even old clips of actual stars of the golden era to get you into the groove of the film, and character actor Fritz Feld starts it all off with a "pop." Rosetta LaNoire, who started out in the 30s in theater with Orson Welles and later was Grandma on "Family Matters," is great in a small role.

The only problem I had with it (and maybe I'm being too picky and/or serious) is the way Matthau treats Burns when they first meet. Granted, he's had a lot of resentment festering in all these years, but some of the things he does would be considered rude or just plain bad manners taken out of context. Also, I'm used to seeing Matthau act that way in other movies, but not to George Burns. And, Matthau's bellowing tends to get a little old. 

All in all, if you need a consistently funny film to help and forget your troubles, put in "The Sunshine Boys." They'll lift your spirits and make you think of a simpler time and way of life.

Benjamin: "You have to slide it." 

Matthau: "Wait, wait. I think you have to slide it."

Sentiment: positive
Just the kind of movie I love. Some very good British actors as well as the one and only Sharon Stone. Catherine Tramell (Stone) masterfully manipulates a well educated group of people's lives, playing on their frailties to collect experiences to write a murder mystery book. She plays the female psychopath quite well while using her ample sex appeal to convincingly portray what could be considered one of the ultimate Black Widows. Tramell is use to dark places within society and freely partakes in sadomasochistic flings in the 'never visit after dark' side of town. From the beginning, there is nothing short of an R rating here from the dialog alone. Stone could also be described as a sort of female Hannibal Lecter, an emotionless femme fatal without the meal plan.

Sentiment: positive
This is not a commentary on the actual movie, but on the RUSCICO DVD release for North America. I don't know if there have been different releases and updates, but the disks we rented had a 2000 copyright on them, if that means anything. Anyway, the sound mixing on these DVD's was absolutely horrible. The levels often yo-yo-ed up and down; when the scene cut to a battlefield panorama, the orchestral track would thunder so loudly that I didn't know which would blow out first -- my eardrums or my speakers. When it was time for dialog, the volume would usually drop to something barely audible. Occasionally, the orchestra and Foley-work would stay loud while the dialog was superimposed at a much lesser level. My wife and I found that the only way we could watch this movie at all from these DVD's was if one of us kept a hand on the remote to continuously modulate the volume. And, like another user has already commented, when we selected English audio the dialog kept switching back and forth between Russian and English; and occasionally when the characters spoke in French on the native track the dubbing was in Russian, so you're SOL if you understand neither. Ultimately, we gave up watching after the first disk. Before you fork out $50+ for this movie on DVD for your own library, I'd heartily recommend getting your hands on a rental copy to see whether you can really enjoy this epic flick when burdened by such bad sound, particularly if you've never read the book and really want to understand the storyline.

Sentiment: negative
This is an incredible movie that begins slowly. It leads you along in thinking of it as a typical maudlin family drama. Then, in the second half, there is a plot twist that utterly transforms this into a profound tale of global scope.

If you are unaccustomed to films from India, with song and dance routines seemingly grafted on for no reason, stick with this movie. Especially beginning with the second half, you will find this movie an amazing experience.

*********** Minor Spoiler Here ************* I have but one complaint with the movie. The dialog at the end (between Amudha and MDS) seemed very weak and missed the opportunity to bring in the war as a force that transforms people's lives. It was implied all along, but there should have been something about the importance of the struggle for MDS.

Sentiment: positive
Like Margot in "Fear of Fear" falls victim of her ambitious husband, like Fox in "Fox and his friends" is driven into suicide by his boyfriend who took all his money away, like Xaverl Bolwieser in "The Stationsmaster's Wife" who goes to prison in order to give his cheating wife a chance to get rid of him, like Hermann Hermann who seeks refuge in insanity in order to flee his stupid wife and bankrupt company, so also Hans Epp is a victim of the German "Wirtschaftswunder"-Society after World War II in R.W. Fassbinder's "The Merchant of the Four Seasons". Simply from the fact that Fassbinder played through social abuse between men and women as well as between hetero- and homosexual couples, it should be clear that he does not favorize any sex.

In Hans Epp's case there are the women who drive him into despair, illness and finally death. When he comes back from the Foreign Legion where he flew because he could not stand anymore the pressure of his mother, she complains that he is still alive while the good boy from her neighbor had been killed. Then Hans gets a job as a policeman, but is surprised by his foreman while he is seduced by a prostitute. After having lost his job, he works as a fruit-merchant with little income, going from backyard to backyard "crying out" his produce. His mother, one of his sisters and her husband are ashamed to have such a "street-worker" in their family. "The love of his life" (she has no name in the movie) refuses to marry him because his job does not fit together with her social status and origin. So he marries Irmgard whom he does not love and who does not love him. From her constant pressure on him he flees into drinking. One evening, after his wife was stalking him, he explodes and hits her. She flees to her family for which this event was just what they have been waiting for. When Irmgard is calling a lawyer for divorce, Hans suffers a heart attack. Imrgard decides to stay with him, but from now on, he is not allowed anymore to do heavy work and to drink alcohol. So he starts to feel more and more superfluous, gets quieter and quieter and more and more depressive. When he finds out that Irmgard cheats him, he chooses to end his life, but not like Hermann Hermann by having a trip into the light of madness, but he drinks himself to death in front of Imrgard, their little daughter and his boozing buddies. Fassbinder said in an interview that Hans knew what he was doing. The question, however is: Did Hans just kill himself because he could not stand anymore his miserable environment, or did he make self-justice?

Sentiment: positive
The 60´s is a well balanced mini series between historical facts and a good plot. In four deliveries, we follow a north American family, with 3 members. But we don't only see them. We also follow the story of several characters as a black reverend, an extremist student leader, and a soldier in Vietnam. The filmography is just extraordinary. In the first chapters, we see some shots of the Vietnam war, in between the scenes. The next chapter, doesn't start where the last one finished, it starts some time after, giving us a little mystery on what happened. In general, The 60´s mini series, is a must see, not only for hippies fanatics, but for everyone with little curiosity about the topic.

Sentiment: positive
Since there have been so many reviews of this fine film I will write in a list form and attempt to address issues that have not been discussed.

1. Dana Andrews was 38 during the filming of this movie. His character according to the screenplay was in his mid 20s. Andrews, a highly underrated actor, did brilliantly play a character who was supposed to be much younger. 

2. Fredric March like all GREAT actors needs at times to be restrained by the director to avoid over-the-top acting. He was mugging for the cameras when he was drunk on the night after his arrival and also the next morning when he was checking out his hang over in his mirror. 

3. Dana Andrews was superb as he was in "Laura," "The Ox-Bowl Incident," "A Walk in the Sun," "The Purple Heart" and many other films. Why did Fredric March win the Academy Award and why was Dana Andrews not even nominated for his outstanding performance? 

4. Harold Russell gave the best performance I have ever seen by a non actor. 

5. I realize this was the 1940s but Dana Andrews seemed to have no romantic interest in his exceptionally attractive wife (Virginia Mayo).

6. Ray Teal, who played the right wing bigot, years later became famous for portraying the sheriff on "Bonanza."

7. The professor from the south wrote that the film was slow moving, boring and poorly acted. The professor more than likely is uninformed about classic films. The beauty and significance of these ageless classics is that they are slow moving character studies that avoid profanity, excessive violence and gratuitous sex.

***I was surprised that zero out of 3 people found my review useful.

Sentiment: positive
Worst Movie I Have Ever Seen! 90 Minutes of excruciating film-making. All the ingredients to make this movie a true work of CRAP. Bad acting, bad directing, bad storytelling, bad makeup, bad dialogue, bad effects, and bad reasoning behind certain actions taken by the characters. It also threw in a terrible naked shot of a dumb blond, and a breast shot of a stupid Asian girl, and both attempts were just scary, since these girls are ugly. Some good horror movies came out of the 80s, but this could never be considered one of them. Kevin Tenney also committed one of the greatest sins in storytelling: he introduced characters at the end of the movie (an Old Man and Old Woman). I would vote for it below a 1 out of 10 but the voting system doesn't work that way apparently. Right from the title sequence I knew it would suck and I would return my DVD but Best Buy doesn't refund DVDs, or consumable products as they call it, or so my receipt says. I have "The Dunwich Horror" and that was truly god-awful, but I still feel that "Night of the Demons" (an obvious Evil Dead RIP-OFF) was far worse than "Dunwich Horror." This is just like "The Howling," how in the hell could sequels get milked out of this anorexic cow??? Save your money and get the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (just don't get any of its sequels though) or "The Evil Dead" or "Dawn of the Dead." "Night of the Demons" is a very, very, very bad investment. Every second of it was just maddening, excruciating pain for the audience, because the whole movie all-around was horrible! Do yourself a favor, DON'T SEE IT! You'll be saving some brain cells.

Sentiment: negative
Oh my god! The Beeb hit a new low with this gutless act of political correctness, A mixed race family living in Birmingham with a disabled kid thrown in for good measure. Whoever commissioned this tripe should be hunted down and thrown to the dogs. The usually funny Jasper Carrott is about as funny as piles in this show and don't get me started about the others. They have the timing and subtly of a Nuclear bomb. I only hope comedy will get better but with the likes of Little Britain and Catherine Tate about I severely doubt this. I think you'd be better off getting the box set for a decent comedy from yesteryear such as Fawlty Towers or Bottom if you want a laugh.

BAN THIS SQUEAKY CLEAN RUBBISH!

Sentiment: negative
This movie was a brilliant concept. It was original, cleverly written and of high appeal to those of us who aren't really 'conformist' movie pickers. Don't get me wrong - there are some great movies that have wide appeal, but when you move into watching a movie based on "everyone else is watching it" - you know you're either a tween or don't really have an opinion. This had a lovely subtle humor - despite most people probably looking only at the obvious. The actors portrayed their characters with aplomb and I thought there was a lot more "personal" personality in this film. Has appeal for kids, as well as adults. Esp. nice to find a good movie that's not filled with sexual references and drug innuendos! A great film, not to be overlooked based on public consumption. This one is a must buy.

Sentiment: positive
Abysmal with a capital "A". This has got to be one of, if not THE, unfunniest show on TV right now. I'm about as anti-bush as it gets, but this show doesn't even get a chuckle out of me. What you think of Bush as a president has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not you'll like this piece of crap show. The "jokes" are not funny at all. For example, in a scene when lil bush has his underwear on his head: "Welcome to camp al-qa-eeda!". There is NOTHING funny about that. Is it even supposed to be joke? The commercials that were shown in the weeks leading up to the show, hyping it up, were funnier than the show itself, and that's just sad. Hopefully this does not even get considered for a second season. It shouldn't even have had a first.

Sentiment: negative
It is always difficult to bring a 450 pages book down to a three hours film. I read the book before, and I found the BBC production dealing with this difficulty in the best way possible. The qualities of the book haven't been lost: the dense and lively depiction of a fingersmith patchwork family in London in the 1860s, the cold and obscene cruelty in which Maud is brought up, the characterization of different social groups by different ways of speaking, the unexpected and surprising twists of the story, the way the film makes the spectators look different at the same scenes when they are told first from Sue's point of view then from Maud's one. The main actors do very good, and especially the growing love between the two women is convincingly developed, with a first culmination in a very tender love scene between the two and finally forgiving all the evil they were ready to do and did to each other, because they still love each other.

For each of her books the author, Sarah Waters, has thoroughly investigated what life was like in British 19th century. While in Tipping the Velvet it was the world of the vaudeville theaters and the beginning of social movements, in Affinity the dreadful reality of women penitentiaries and the fashionable evocation of spirits, in Fingersmith she depicts the public ceremony of hanging people in London and the inhuman treatment of persons supposed or declared disturbed in asylums based on the reading of sources and scientific research. This is very well transferred to the film so that the corresponding scenes show a high grade of historic truth. I highly recommend this film production because it offers three hours of colorful Victorian atmosphere, vivid emotions, and suspense.

Sentiment: positive
Always enjoy the Classic Horror films, however, this film was really a big waste of time and if it were not for John Carradine playing the mad man doctor who is able to control human beings through his experiments. This film was made during WW II and John Carradine was a German Nazi working to find a human weapon against the entire world. Bob Steele playing in many roles as a cowboy or gangster and in this picture Bob seemed bored to death with his role in this film and acted like this was his first film. Mantan Moreland, (Jeff) gave an outstanding performance with great comedy which helped keep the audience attention. I hate to criticize a film made in 1943, but this is really a big disappointment. If you like John Carradine and the roles he played as Count Dracula throughout many films during the 1940's, you just might like to watch John doing his best.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is somehow showing 6.2 stars, It seems inconceivable that the director has that many relations. I am at a loss to explain this.

Avoid this movie at all costs. You have only a certain number of hours on the Earth, don't waste 1&1/2 of them on this retarded steaming heap of Guano!!!

There is no story as apparently the director "wrote" (and I'm guessing with a blunt orange crayon) the next day's script at the completion of the day's shooting. The "story" has been called whimsical, no it is aimless, there is maybe enough "story" to fill a commercial. Don't you hate ads?

Now while both leads can act they obviously decided not to here. And similarly the writer/director can actually both write and direct as evidenced by his next work "Toy Love" 

So to recap, even if you get this movie for free, even if you're paid to watch it avoid it.

To paraphrase Monty Python's Search for the holy Grail, "Run flee!"

Sentiment: negative
This movie was SO stupid~!!! I could not bare to watch the rest of this movie..... To think that the spoiled bitch suggested to see other people, then walks right into another relationship 5 minutes after the agreement was made.... I really felt sorry for the guy, but then again, for a guy like that to even consider letting his fiancé see other people, to go along with her grand idea, well, I'm sorry but, he deserved what he got~! And she was definitely not the best fish in the sea either, he can do way, way, way better.... She had no tits.... to hips.... no nothing~! And you had to have known that she wanted this right from the start... 5 years~??? How on earth did they last that long~???

Sentiment: negative
Well, first of all - i am a big fanatic of horror movies, but however - I am pretty sick of all those damn American horror movies. They are all about the same thing - blood and violence. It's not even creepy. Well, it's nothin wrong with the blood and all that - doesn't even bother me - but that's not what makes a movie creepy! That's why I find this movie entertaining - it's fun to see a satire which is making fun of the koncept "main horror USA". American splatter/gore-movies, they are not suppose to be creepy, only funny. That's OK. But when they're suppose to be "creepy", it mostly gets pathetic. However, there are a few great american horror movies (Poltergeist, Psycho, Birds), but in the end it's all the same thing. That's why this movie came as a relief. Evil Ed is not just a cult movie - it's a classic! I can't wait untill master director Anders Jacobsson makes another goddamn splatter movie! Untill than I have to watch Evil Ed again - and again - and again! But I don't care - it is such an outstanding movie!

Sentiment: positive
This movie starts out hilarious from about the 15 second mark, and continues it throughout the movie. I cannot recall a scene where i didn't turn to look at people laughing with me. he is the perfect actor for this roll because of the way he looks and the way he dressed.

The comedic parts were great to see from actors not very big or popular. As you can see people do like this movie it is currently rated 7.9 on IMDb. i think it should be in 250. Lets put it this way i haven't seen this funny of a movie since American pie or the original vacation. see it if you want a laugh. I give this movie 2 of the highest thumbs up i have ever given since i found out about IMDb, great movie site.

Sentiment: positive
This was by far the best war documentary ever made. From the very beginning of the first episode when Sir Laurence Olivier described the horrific events in Oradour-Sur-Glane 'The day the soldiers came'. To the final days of the war when the mushroom clouds appeared over Japan, I never missed a second of this classic series and I remember it well even though it was screened way back in 1974. Each and every aspect of this tragedy was covered in detail. This whole series should be compulsory viewing for as many of the world's children as possible so that the tragedy of World War Two is not repeated and that bigotry, hatred, greed and intolerance are not confused with patriotism or religious zeal.

Sentiment: positive
I am a fan of a few of the Vacation films, but when a movie franchise goes from the big screen to the TV screen, you know it's out of steam. Made for TV National Lampoon films do not do well on TV. This movie is another reason.

I think a lot of us were excited when this was coming out, but we also had to face the reality...it's a TV movie. Randy Quaid is fine as Cousin Eddie, but is better in a supporting role than the lead. Dana Barron sets history as the first actor to reprise her role as one of the Griswold kids. She is just as pretty, but it doesn't help a thin script. 

Why was this movie even made? It was probably because NBC recently picked up another few years of presenting X-mas Vacation. There is nothing wrong with the acting. It's all in the script. It's just not that funny. People need to think before they write stuff like this. It is one Christmas movie I do not recommend.

Sentiment: negative
I can't believe anyone thought there was anything original or interesting about this movie. I'm a fan of science fiction as much as the next guy, and I can enjoy even old movies with ridiculous premises as long when they are written by someone other than a monkey. (See, for example, my glowing review of Altered States [1980].)

A monkey could have explained better exactly why I should for a second take seriously the basic idea behind this movie. The problem is not that the producers had a low budget--it's that they didn't care.

Now, to publicly humiliate the worthless magazines whose glowing reviews appear on the box:

Chicago Tribune

San Francisco Chronicle

San Francisco Bay Guardian

(Actually, I enjoy reading the latter two. Still, their movie reviewing credibility has gone through the floor. But I know if I ever make a movie with handheld camera, a cheesy plot and stupid effects, I'll show it to these journalists and remind them what they said about Conceiving Ada.)

Sentiment: negative
One of the other commenters mentioned that they almost walked out. If I hadn't been with my wife, who wanted to stay, I would have left. It's a shame, too, because I think it could have been a good movie. But this is easily one of the worst adapted screenplays I've ever seen. It starts out nowhere and it goes nowhere (I would say it goes nowhere fast, but it really goes nowhere slow...painfully slow). From time to time there are hints that something interesting might happen, or that there is potentially some depth underneath one of the characters, but that's all we get - hints. There is not a single payoff or revelation in the entire movie. Not that I need a slick plot to be entertained...I love a good meandering character study as much as the next indie buff. But these characters add up to nothing. For the entire duration of the film you don't care what happens to a single one of them. As a matter of fact, you almost start hoping they die, because at least a death might be more interesting than watching their inexplicable behavior, which is so strange and unpredictable that you'd think it in itself would be compelling, but it's not. Instead of quirky, noir-esquire characters acting in hard-boiled fashion, you simply recognize it immediately for what it is: a bunch of talented but miscast actors, brooding and raising their eyebrows while reading bizarre dialogue without a hint of relevant context. All this for two plodding, painfully slow hours. Awful.

Sentiment: negative
Not only do the storylines in "The Sopranos" engage audiences from all over, but I think (for me at least) what brings the viewers back is the acting. (Not even you, Gary, can dispute that claim) James Gandolfini, who plays the lead-man, Tony Soprano, has become (in this viewer's opinion) one of the "Hollywood Elites" as far as acting in a television series goes. I wouldn't go ahead and compare him with Robert DeNiro or Al Pacino, or at least, not just yet. He, however, does do a hell of a job playing the part of Tony Soprano. In the years since 1999, Gandolfini has risen so much so as an actor (mainly thanks to his role in The Sopranos) that today he is considered to be among the best in the business. And it's not just him. "The Sopranos" fields a great supporting cast including that of Lorraine Bracco, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Dominic Chianese, and the late Nancy Marchand who played Tony's dreadful mother. At this point in the show's existence, it's being considered a cult-classic and rightfully so. The first two seasons were extraordinary. Violent and quite gruesome in a pretty frequent manner, but without a doubt, extraordinarily done. The third season was great, but didn't quite live up to the hype of seasons 1 and 2. Season 4, which wrapped up right before new-years, was the weakest season yet (or at least, in my opinion it was). Despite a dry-spell, I still found it (season 4 of "The Sopranos") to be more entertaining than most of its competition and that's saying a lot because lately I've been noticing a trend in good new television shows. Examples of this: Six Feet Under, The Shield, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and OZ (which is not technically a new show but ended with an unforgettable final season this year). To get back to my point though, to consider a show better than all the competition during a particularly bad year, no less, is quite an accomplishment on the part of the writers. "The Sopranos" ranks above and beyond all other television shows in its era and its writers deserve a lot of credit. To close, I'd like to say, "The Sopranos" is the real deal folks. For the average mature viewer (17 and above) who enjoys drama and doesn't mind a mixing of a little violence and profanity, you might want to check out "The Sopranos" if you get the chance. Trust me in that it will be well worth the time.

Sentiment: positive
Though it's a Christmas movie, "Christmas in Connecticut" could have been done any time of year, as it's the story of a soldier who spends what is to be an idyllic time with a Martha Stewart type. That's what he thinks. In reality, the lady in question, portrayed by Barbara Stanwyck, has a popular magazine column about life on a farm with her husband and baby. She has no farm, no husband, and no baby, nor are the many recipes she publishes hers. They belong to the restaurant owner nearby. When her no-nonsense editor, Sydney Greenstreet, insists that she entertain soldier Dennis Morgan, she enlists the aid of her boyfriend to use his farm, and she transports herself and the restaurateur there. There's even a baby...well, actually, there's more than one. Chaos ensues, and the charade becomes increasingly difficult to play out, especially when Stanwyck falls in love with Morgan.

This is such a wonderful movie, and even if you're gravely depressed, "Christmas in Connecticut" can lift you right out of it. Barbara Stanwyck is wonderful as the career woman turned homemaker. Despite not being as flashy as Crawford or Davis, she was nevertheless able to do what any role called for - she could be cheap, elegant, warm, nasty, cold, and/or sexy and she makes it look easy. On top of that, she is always attractive and alluring. Dennis Morgan is a handsome and charming solider; as an added bonus, he gets to use his Irish tenor. Fiancé Reginald Gardner is all business, and you can tell he's not quite right for Stanwyck. S.Z. Sakall as the fake uncle/real chef is hilarious, especially as he prays Stanwyck can flip a pancake before an audience.

I can imagine the impact this delightful film had at the tail end of World War II. It must have been a real beacon for the better times to come.

Sentiment: positive
They had an opportunity to make one of the best romantic tragedy mafia movies ever because they had the actors,the budget,and the story but the great director John Huston was too preoccupied trying to mellow out this missed classic.Strenuously trying to find black humor as often as possible which diluted the movie very much.And also they were so uncaring with details like sound and detailed action.Maybe it was the age of the director who passed away two years later.

Sentiment: negative
Absolutely one of my favorite movies of all time. I have seen it at least a hundred times and I can't go through it without crying. I defy anyone to watch the reunion of Celie and Nettie, or Shug and father and not feel your eyes getting misty. Whoopie Goldberg should have one an award for amazing portrayal. And for the person who said you can't love the movie if you loved the book, wrong! Im a testament to that.

Sentiment: positive
The latest Rumor going around is that Vh1 is starting casting calls for I Love New York 3 mid 2008. So does this mean Budah or Tailor made dumped New York or does this mean New York dumped the winner?

I know Flavor of Love is coming up to it's 3rd season, so now with a Flavor of Love 3 and a I love New York 3.....will there ever be a true winner???

I've also heard a few rumors that Chance WILL be brought back for the 3rd Season of I Love New York!!!! I have also heard rumors that New York will be Specially featured on Flavor of Love 3. 

Hopefully this was not too much of a spoiler for the ending of I Love New York 2....I'm just stating the latest rumor.

Sentiment: negative
I picked this film up from the local Family Video on sale for $1.50, which was probably the first sign it wasn't going to be good. Watching it with 2 friends, neither of them even wanted to finish it because of how awful this movie is. I, strangely, couldn't stop watching it. But this film is definitely a textbook case of how not to make a movie.

The plot is simple enough and sounds great: Chuck Norris has nightmares about a serial killer he put behind bars. The serial killer escapes and his nightmares begin to become reality once more. Serial murder, Norris, roundhouse kicks... this sounds like a great film.

And some of it is pretty good. The flashback scene where a man breaks a ladder with his teeth is intense, a scene where a van cascades off a cliff and gets crushed is amazing -- and I learned how to break out of prison using nothing more than Chapstick, gun powder and dental floss. But there is plenty wrong with this movie.

One: the editor is a moron. When making an action or suspense film, you have to keep the energy moving. There are far too many scenes that are not crucial to the plot left in this movie, slowing it down and distracting from the overall story. At least 10 minutes could have been cut and the pacing would have improved and the film would be slightly better. Two: The sound guy is a moron. Apparently somebody tried to film most of this movie in an area where you can't get decent sound, so most of the dialog is voiced over, killing the stereo and not lining up with mouths. Also, the music is far too dramatic in some scenes. Three: The casting director is a moron. They cast Billy Drago as a psychiatrist. Billy Drago is a great cult actor (from Brisco County, the Hills Have Eyes, and others) and would have made the proper serial killer or some sort of villain. His character is so vanilla that Drago's skills are wasted. Four: The writer is a moron. Two plots are in this film - the hunting of a serial killer and the romance between Norris and his pregnant girlfriend. Every time I saw that woman on screen, I wanted to claw my eyes out. And sure enough, she never figured into the other plot, making her story completely pointless.

Will I ever watch this again? Maybe. But unless they remaster this film at least a dozen times, you never should. Not recommended.

Sentiment: negative
Its a space flick, or at least i think it is. you got half-naked female prisoners in a space prison and a monster on a space station using a virus to infect humanity through sexy encounters. Its Friggin Hilarious. The acting is so bad that space nuts looks like an Emmy award winning film. The story is simple. Space prisoner gets chance to reduce sentence by investigating a space station that lost contact with humanity. She finds a doctor "experimenting" with women and a angry of alien. She fights them, so on and so forth. Its a movie worth seeing it just to wet your pants with laughter. If you like Real sci-fi flicks its a no-no but its a great mood setter for the amateur film maker because i can guarantee their film is better than this.

Sentiment: negative
Well,this movie is really "PLUMPED" HAHA Get it? Thats kinda like the attitude of this movie. The plot is just a copy of Pulp Fiction,okay thats acceptable,but to make this piece if "PLUMP" (haha)! is really unbelievable.The storyline is so pathetic,and the whole thing only gathered a few laughs. It did try making a few jokes from various other movies,and it failed most of the times. I mean,i do have a sense of humor,but this isnt really the way to go to get a laugh. Most of the supposedly "Funny" moments are completely ironic. The film is quiet short running at around 75 minutes overall. They could have done a much funnier job,seeming they made fun of a blockbuster film,they were gambling,and hey! I think they lost!

In overall PLUMP Fiction,is "PLUMPABLE" but you wont gather much at all!

Worth watching over and over again?: No once is enough,actually its more than enough!

So is it worth the rent? Ummm..As I said,Its "PLUMPABLE",but you will only gather a few "PLUMPS" from it!

Overall out of 10: a 4 out of 10!

Sentiment: negative
This movie was terrific and even with a less than convincing ending, it's still well worth seeing. The film begins as Claudette Colbert is about to marry Robert Ryan. When the minister asks if anyone has any objections, a guy jumps up and announces that Colbert CAN'T get married because she already is married!! Colbert insists this isn't true, but when they investigate they find that the Justice of the Peace and many others remember her wedding and there is even a signed wedding license! Slowly, it becomes apparent that Claudette's mind is slipping and people around her seriously doubt her sanity. Then, when the supposed first husband is murdered, all evidence and suspicion falls on Colbert.

The film is an exciting mystery suspense film, as what I have so far described is only the first half of the movie. What follows is amazingly intelligent and captivating. Unfortunately, the conclusion, though, is a bit of a let-down, as the guiding force behind all this turns out to come "right out of left field"--and is baffling since it was so unexpected and impossible to guess based on the information given to the viewer. However, in spite of this, the film was so good, I can even excuse the limp ending. In particular, Robert Ryan did a great job as the "knuckle-busting" fiancé, though apart from him the other performances were also excellent.

Sentiment: positive
This movie tells an amazing story with history and compassion. From the careful descriptions of the crime scenes to the mental health of the lead investigator, you'll be entranced. It's an absolute must-see for anyone interested in criminology. Interpol relations and how the agencies work together are also great. Not overly done either. I recommend it for anyone interested in Russian history, too. How the police work with the political party being what it was... It is truly fascinating and frustrating. The settings are beautiful. It's been a while since I saw this movie the first time. It doesn't diminish it's impact. Not overly dramatic or graphic, it leaves enough to the imagination, well, you'll see.

Sentiment: positive
River's edge is not a PLEASANT film to watch but it is an incredible one. Having viewed it many years ago I truly think it would still have the ability to shock were it to be re released or remade or something. Perhaps no movie ever made has captured the essense of young suburban inertia like this distrubing frightening movie. Given that this is based on a true story it is even more disturbing. Very well acted and just UNPLEASANT at many times to watch but also a little known masterpiece and a truely important film. Should be a mandatory to watch shown nationwide in all highschools. Fantastic.

Sentiment: positive
Fearful Symmetry is a pleasant episode with a few faults. The first thing about the episode is that it takes place near Mountain Home Air Force Base in southwest Idaho. Season one's 'Deep Throat' takes place near Ellens Air Base, also in southwest Idaho. I'm wondering if the air force bases are one and the same but they decided to use the real name in Fearful Symmetry. Mulder and Scully have some good dialog, always a plus. Ed Meecham, the zoo keeper, reminds me of cranky, old school teachers. They must have liked children at one time, you just can't imagine how. Just like he must have cared more for animals at one point. I liked the concept of the episode, but I felt it had some inconsistencies. If aliens are so adept at abducting humans and returning them safely, why can't they put the animal back in the right place? And the aliens are just now having problems returning the animals? I don't buy Mulder's theory of a problem with the space-time continuum. As if he's an expert on that. I also thought Jayne Atkinson's performance as Willa Ambrose was not well done. Besides those nitpicks, I still enjoyed this episode because of the intriguing concept of aliens harvesting animal DNA as well as human DNA.

Sentiment: positive
Childish storyline ripped off of a lame Hollywood movie, terrible acting, cheesy dialogue, and not quite "up-to-par" sex scenes. That's right another great softcore parody! I enjoyed this film greatly! Sure the acting is terrible, but that part of the fun! The storyline is ludicrous, but some things must be sacrificed when the story has to revolve around girl-on-girl sex scenes. And because it's only softcore (no penetration) the sex scenes were a little bland. But it's like the great god of softcore smut Russ Meyers said "who really cares what goes down beneath the waist." I don't know if I'd agree with Mr. Meyers on this one but what the hell... the flick entertained me for an hour and a half. I give it a C+, it would've been a solid B if they coulda cast more of the girls to look like Russ Meyers actresses. VaVoom! VaVoom!~

Sentiment: negative