DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
In the 60's Cleveland television audiences could watch a episode of "Flash Gordon" as part of the Ghoulardi Show (11:30PM Friday). This was the best mockfest material any of us in junior high had ever seen. We would have regular "sleepovers" (although we did not call them that) just to get in on the fun of watching this stuff with a group of friends. Then the next week we would quote our favorite cornball lines from the latest episode.

Watching it today provokes much the same reaction. But if you can stop laughing at the dialogue, the lame creatures, the silly costumes, and the horrible spaceships long enough, there are some good things I did not appreciate the first time through. The production designers built some excellent sets, both the rooms and the laboratory devices. Charles Middleton's "Ming the Merciless" character was the all-time best screen villain, certainly up to that time and arguable better than anyone since. Jean Rogers is staggeringly beautiful.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

Sentiment: positive
a compact crime drama with a good amount of action. The unique NYC location shots adds to this tough little film.Technically well done with good direction and acting. Needless to say,the wild car chase that seems to begin in downtown, extends through the upper west side, Washington Heights, across the George Washington Bridge and into NJ has to be one of the best ever on film.All around a fine flick that for me gets better with time.8 out of 10...easy

Sentiment: positive
Back to the roots with "like it is in heaven" - what are the real values of life? These Swedes carve out a message that appeals to every heart. We've seen it twice now in a cinema packed to the last seat: love pure and joy within the music of a choir that's simple, yet full of power once everyone finds his or her inner tone. 

From the glitter of fame to the school of of his youth, now empty and ready to be adapted as his new home after collapsing on stage, Daniel wants to start listening and is drawn into the lives of the simple, warm and rough people of the North.

He wins the hearts with music and gains the capacity to love and be loved unconditionally.

Don't go see it if you've been normed to Hollywood. This stuff contains no extras, just your laughter, your compassion, your tears!

Sentiment: positive
This is a dumb movie. Maybe my judgment wouldn't be so harsh if the film didn't promise so much, but I just felt like this movie cheated and played me for a fool at every turn.

I didn't have any beef with the acting, but I thought the characters were awful. The movie starts off with Clive Owen's character telling us what a criminal mastermind he is, and how he planned the perfect bank robbery, something he frequently reminds us of later. Oh yeah, he also tells us he's in a prison cell, although that turns out to be a dumb metaphor. Any idiot knows that the best bank robbery is one where a minimum number of things could potentially go wrong, and you're long gone before the police show up. But Clive Owen's scheme requires hanging around the bank for hours - for no reason but to stalk around and look scary as far as I can tell. He also has to control hostages, negotiate with cops, and most fantastically of all, perform a This-Old-House job on the bank's stockroom and hide out there for a week (I hope he brought enough food, and a bucket to pee in) and then sneak out again. Yeah, that sure sounds like the perfect crime to me, Clive! This plan has so many moving parts that the only reason it didn't fall apart was the screenwriter said so.

And then there are the many unexplained details: Why were the cops so convinced that the crooks had accomplices among the hostages? Who the hell is Jodie Foster's character, and why is she so important that she has the mayor at her beck and call and she doesn't have to tell Denzel Washington her agenda because "it's above his pay scale?" How dumb are these cops that they can't figure out one guy speaking in a foreign language for hours is not the sound of a criminal gang planning a robbery? How did the robbers slip away, and why did Clive Owen stick around for a week? How did they find out about the bank chairman's past, and the number and contents of his safe deposit box? Why the hell would Clive Owen let in Jodie Foster or the cops? Since when do they make toy AK-47s that look real up close? How the hell do you bug a pizza box, anyway? How did Clive Owen manage to sneak out of a secure area of the bank during working hours, undetected? Did this dispassionate criminal really feel bonded enough to this cop Denzel to slip him a diamond?

None of these questions are ever answered. There are films that achieve depth by leaving you to wonder about events that happen off-screen, but I never felt that way about Inside Man. It felt like the scenes that explained these things were cut from the movie, or these questions never had any answers in the first place, and that's weak. Particularly annoying is Jodie Foster's character, who won't disclose what she does, but never seems to tire of reminding us how important she is. We're just supposed to take her word for it, I guess.

The only reason I gave this movie two stars is I laughed at Denzel's "taxi cab" and "pina colada" gags, and at the kid's outrageous video game. Other than that, this movie has no redeeming features.

Sentiment: negative
Using tons of stock footage, not only from Trader Horn but also the first two films in the series (for example the alligator fight was used last time out) this is one of the weakest films in the MGM series. Its a huge let down after the classic Tarzan and His Mate which is possibly the best film in the series.

The plot has Jane's cousins coming into the jungle to tell her that she has inherited a fortune if she'll come back to claim it. They are kind of in the bind since the relative that left her the money cut them out of the will.Hiring a great white hunter, who secretly wishes to capture Tarzan and sell him, the pair heads into the jungle where they run into the usual jungle troubles (more so because of the stock footage). After lots of talk Jane decides to go back to civilization and we get long sequences of Tarzan and Jame making kissy face. Finally into the last half hour the plot to capture Tarzan is put in motion and things at last become interesting as plans go awry and things look very grim for all concerned..

Painfully dull film is clear evidence of a troubled production. the film seems to have been assembled from several different films with the first half hour playing as an almost exact repeats of the previous film. The middle third shows signs of having to stretch things out and having plot lines that ultimately went nowhere. The last third where Tarzan is captured and the party is put into peril is the point that the film finally comes to life (it also shows signs of the graphic violence that caused much of the need to re-shoot the film). To me its a great wonder how the series managed to continue on from here since this film isn't very good (except at the end).I would be hard pressed to explain it except I would have to say that it was the relationship between Weissmuller and O'Sullivan as Tarzan and Jane which kept people coming back. Its a beautifully acted pairing and really is one of the screens great couples.

(I should probably also mention that this is the point that the film became less real and more fantastical with the appearance of the Tarzan tree house.) I really dislike the first hour or so of this film a great deal and find it a great waste of time and energy. If you can come in towards the end I would recommend giving the film a try. Otherwise I would just skip the whole film and move on to the next film in the series.

Sentiment: negative
The movie starts quite with an intriguing scene, three people are drinking and making small talk in a bar. All of them are making up a bit outrageous stories. As the movie unfolds, it turns out that the most outrageous story is true. However, beyond that the movie is not very interesting except for the scene in the bar and the scene where main secret is revealed. This revelation happens barely half time into the movie and frankly, not much is left to be seen. The rest of the time director is lingering in a god forsaken Russian village full of pitiful and creepy old ladies. Sure, these are fascinating and a bit shocking images, but admiring them goes on way too long, sacrificing any possible plot or character development. I found this movie as another example of either lousy or lazy movie-making, where instead of trying to make an interesting story, movie makers concentrate on weirdly fascinating imagery and through in a few almost unrelated stories (case in point - meat trader's story) to leave the spectator to figure out all odds and ends. On a surface it has artsy appearance, but in this particular case is nothing more than lack of talent.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was so bad, outdated and stupid that I had rough times to watch it to the end. I had seen this Rodney guy in Natural Born Killers and I thought he was funny as hell in it, but this movie was crap. The "jokes" weren't funny, actors weren't funny, anything about it wasn't even remotely funny. Don't waste your time for this! Only positive things about this were the beautiful wives :) and Molly Shannon who I'm sure tried her best, but the script was just too awful. That's why I rated it "2" instead of "1", but it's definitely one of the worst films I've ever seen.

Sentiment: negative
I just don't get it. Why call this a sequel to the film "American Werewolf" when it has absolutely NO connection with it whatsoever? The first film was funny *and* scary with ground breaking special effects. (If memory serves, the Oscar category for special make-up effects was *created* for this movie). "Paris" is none of these things. Awful effects, and not much else. Do not see this movie. Rent the original "Werewolf in London" instead. You'll be much happier.

Sentiment: negative
I was very surprised how bad this movie was. Nice cinematography and beautiful landscapes can only take the movie so far. I was hoping for a rerun of Hero, but this is much, much worse.

This movie is why kung fu movies got a bad reputation in the first place. No believable characters (even within the cartoonish world of kung fu movies, these characters are ridiculous), virtually no plot, and ridiculous story twists.

This movie is so boring and so frustrating because it reminds you of trying to play a make believe game with a child. Every time you think your silly battle makes some sense, they invent another ridiculous twist that makes no sense ("Ah ha, you only think you've got me with your super powers and 10,000 ray guns, but I ate my vitamins laced with plutonium and teflon, so your ray guns don't work and I'm invulnerable to your super powers....tap tap no trade backs infinity PLUS one.") Children can continue with this lunacy, because they don't really care whether anyone is listening because they are having a fun time. However, for the VIEWER, especially the adult viewer, this long movie is worse than a bout with bad gas.

SPOILERS AHEAD Note to kung fu movie makers, (a) if you have a knife in your back it hurts unless you are on PCP, in which case your kung fu is not strong, (b) if you repeatedly fall on your back, which has a knife in it, it will hurt more and do more damage, unless it is a fake prop, (c) when you get stabbed in the heart with a knife, you die, especially in ancient china where there isn't a Kaiser Permanente around the corner, (d) kung fu fights don't last for hours while 3 feet of snow falls, and (e) sometimes it is worth while explaining your characters and their motivations.

In any event, go watch Hero again, because at least within its own little world it is comprehensible.

Sentiment: negative
This is a very dark movie, somewhat better than the average Asylum film. It was a lot better than I thought it would be, is a combination of a psychological thriller and a horror film. 

The voice on the telephone is really creepy - this voice without a face, this unknown and threatening voice works really well in the film, since we never see the killer face is left to the imagination of the spectator.

The action and suspense never decay and after the first half of the film, it becomes vertiginous; there is not much gore in this film, just enough to serve the story and also the director does a good job at holding your attention. 

I gave this movie a 8/10 because some clichés.

Sentiment: positive
the town of Royston Vasey is a weird, but wonderful place. The characters would be just wrong and too disturbing but the fantastically brilliant writing means that it works, and it works very well. Most people will know others with a touch of some characters, but hopefully no one knows people with extremes of personalities such as Tubbs and Edward, the stranger-hating owners of the local shop, or the pen-obsessed Pauline who treats "dole scum" with much contempt.That was only a few of the strange inhabitants. The TV works consists of 3 series and a Christmas special. There are references to many horror films, such as the wicker man. A more recent addition to the range of works is a film, the league of gentlemens apocalypse, of which I will not say much but highly recommend. All in all the league of gentlemen is a hilarious comedy show with genius writing and brilliantly bonkers characters. I would definitely say that it is worth watching as you wont regret it!

Sentiment: positive
Shemp finds out that he stands to inherit a million dollars IF he is married within 24 hours. Considering how hideous he looks and his personality, it isn't surprising that he can't get a taker--that is until an article appears in the paper explaining his predicament--at which point five crazed women appear from no where to claim their new hubby (plus the money, of course).

While I don't hate the Three Stooges and like to watch their shorts on occasion, they never, even on their best day, came close to the brilliant comedy of Buster Keaton. That's why I disliked this film, as it was a ripoff of the plot from Keaton's masterpiece, SEVEN CHANCES. With the Stooges it wasn't uncommon for Columbia Pictures to steal old comedy plots or just recycle older Stooge shorts. So, from the outset, this film is a pale imitation of an original. It's also obvious that this film lacks the charm and subtlety of the original and the gags generally seem very forced (paricularly the phone booth scene). The cousin Basil bit, however, was pretty cute and funny--though far from subtle! However, the worst aspect of the film was the not particularly funny conclusion. In the Keaton version, hundreds of women appeared to marry him and the action became very fast and furious--here, it all stayed in one small room and lacked comedic punch--ending in a fizzle.

Overall, a dull retread. Also, before marking this review "not helpful", be sure to FIRST see SEVEN CHANCES to see what I am talking about--then you decide.

Sentiment: negative
While the soundtrack is a bit dated, this story is more relevant in the U.S. now more than ever. With not only blue collar jobs but everyone's jobs being outsourced by U.S. corporations while the government profits and American suffer.

Peter Strauss is Emory, a steel worker who works the same job his father did for 35 years. His wife is well-portrayed by Pamela Reed, who is very realistic, trying to support the family with two children when Emory loses his job. The mill is closed under the pretext of mismanagement, but there is also embezzlement and cheaper wages where they can pay one steelworker in one month (outsourcing) what they would have to pay Strauss/Emory in a day. Never mind that these men are all good loyal workers who have values and try the best for their family.

John Goodman, Gary Cole (as Strauss' brother) and a few other co-workers are also affected. It is very disturbing and realistic. Some scenes between Emory and his father are moving. Emory hopes his local union will be able to re-open the mill, as they promise to do so.

Emory's brother, Lee already sees the writing on the wall. There are no jobs left in the rust-belt (Ohio) and they must move on. However where in the U.S. can they move to?. Where will it be better for a blue-collar steel worker?.

There is a triumphant scene at the end where Emory and his crew fill the loading dock with steel products. The guard allows them to do this as a final gesture, one of the men committed suicide and he has empathy.

Overall, a good message film about hard times right here in America. Something that few care to face until personally affected. 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
I watched Cheats a few years ago with my friend. He hyped it up as a great funny film that is one of the best comedies ever. I think he was on crack or something. I just recently learned that this film was not released into theatres, I can understand why perfectly.

THe basic plot involves a group of guys who cheat on pretty much all of their assignments in school to get good grades. That is the main problem of this film is that the morals are all bad. There are other teen comedy films where students do bad things but it is most often stuff that does not take place at school. So I think that the concept of having a whole movie that basically has kids cheating on everything is pretty bad.

I did not like the characters in this film either. The main character guy is a completely smug arrogant idiot who is not a good protagonist. Actually I am not sure if you could say that there is a protagonist due to the fact that they all are cheating at school which is wrong. THe other supporting characters were not funny at all and basically the cast blows in this film.

This film has a bad message and even worse acting and characters. There are other teen films that are way better than this film. So you do not have to see this one and that is a good thing because I do not recommend this film at all.

Sentiment: negative
Don't quite know why some people complain about this film not being a comedy and at the same time being too unrealistic. If it had been realistic, there certainly wouldn't have been much comedy. I also don't think that a comedy needs to make you laugh aloud twenty times. There was much subtle humor, sweet feelings, and Kim Frank just portrayed a dreamy character. In real life, there are many people whose facial expression doesn't change much so Kim Frank keeping his was quite all right. The ending was quite unrealistic, I'd say, but happy. It's a light-hearted movie with a feel-good ending. I liked it. Loved it, actually. A serious part was Krueger going to Schwedt, and I'm glad they didn't show what happened to him there. Showing how he was when he came back hinted at it quite clearly.

Sentiment: positive
I'D BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR!!!

I did buy this film for a dollar and I've seen much worse for much more!!

This is a Scottish sci-fi film from Mark Stirton and according to the Making of (hysterical by the way) the production only cost $8000. Eight grand!!! That wouldn't pay for half a minute in Hollywood!! Nevertheless ---- This is top fun film making. If you like things gritty then you're in for a treat. These are some rough character with rough voices and harsh swearing. I didn't mind, but my girl friend did!! The actors do a fine job and it's interesting to see people that I've never heard of or seen before. It meant I had no idea who was going to die first.

If you watch a movie for it's 'latest of the latest' visual effects then watch a Star Wars. The effects here are OK, but kinda weak in space. But the monsters are very well done if a bit pred like.

Stirton does an amazing job with not very much and I'd love to see his take on a real Hollywood movie. It least it wasn't predictable and I almost fell off my chair when one dude got his head blown off!!! OK, so it is a little derivative of other sci-fi, but for this budget it is an amazing attempt and anyone who thinks making a sci-fi film for 8 g's is easy or happens a lot clearly knows nothing about the film industry.

Good marks for a good film, extra marks for working so hard, extra extra marks for a really interesting Making of. No standard bull here, all the problems of production are gone into making it like Lost in Mancha only with a film at the end. But why no commentary? KEEP GOING SCOTS!

Sentiment: positive
Hmmm...where to start? How does a serious actress like Demi Moore got involved in such crap? "First blood" might be rated as bull***t but this type of nonsense is just Rambo with tits, point. Of course if you are interested in the crapstory (Demi Moore just wants to prove that a woman can be part of the NAVY Seals) that is the most stupid cliché one I can think of, you'll say "GI Jane" is a great movie. Just the performance from Viggo Mortensen made this movie bearable but hell, I can't think of Demi Moore being Rambo (especially not during the last, useless, 30 minutes). Ridley Scott doesn't deserve the credits to make this movie one that comes up for women with equal rights, it's just brainless propaganda for the American army and to make it more attractive they dropped Moore in it. Awful movie.

Sentiment: negative
A sincere tribute to Suzy Parker, who's just passed away. Not only is TBoE one of the cheesiest movies ever made, but Miss Parker's performance is, in this cheesy-movie-lover's opinion, among the worst performances of all time. Her last scene is especially overplayed. I loved it!

Sentiment: positive
This movie is very disappointing for one who has read the book. As written by Rafael Sabatini, this was a clean cut tale of piracy in the Caribbean, and it would have made a grand motion . Also, it would have been very simple to make. All the action takes place aboard ship and on a deserted island. Unfortunately, the screen writers took the title from Sabatini then threw the rest of the book away. Even the name of the main character was changed, and his screen personality was completely different from that of the individual described in the novel. It's a sad loss for one who loves a good sea story.

Sentiment: negative
THE. WORST. FILM. EVER. MADE.

After watching this supposedly gay made film, I suspect someone rounded up a brain damaged half blind neo-nazi and had him make the worst gay film ever, all in some deluded attempt to attack gay culture. I had to stop the movie and call a friend to come over just so I had someone to scoff at when I paused the movie out of shock, disbelief and outrage at such sheer stupidity.

On top of all the horrible writing and acting and illogical and stupid plot, its just a poorly made film. A dog with a handycam tied to its tail could have churned out better.

Seriously, after reading the few positive reviews this movie has here, I suspect the writer must have a half a dozen IMDb accounts. Anyone who says this film is even watchable as anything other than a joke, is a liar or being paid heavily to say so.

Sentiment: negative
This is what a movie should be when trying to capture the essence of that which is very surreal. It has this hazy overtone that is rarely captured on film, it feels like a dream sequence and really moves you into a dark haunting memory. The Kids were extremely believable and I do expect some things to come of them in the future. Very natural acting for such young ones, I don't know if Bill pulled it out of them or there just that good, but no the less excellent. Bill scored as far as I'm concerned and for the comment by KevNJeff about Mr. Paxtons bad acting, what can one do in that role. He played the part rather well in my opinion. This is coming from someone who said Hamlet was good (The Ethan Hawke Version?) Wow......... Do not listen to his Comments. Great flick to make you feel really uncomfortable, if that's what you want? Cinematography gets an above the average rating also.

Sentiment: positive
I made the mistake of buying this since I collect comic book inspired movies. Even at 6$ it was too expensive. I thought there might be some campy fun in it, a "so bad" it becomes good vibe perhaps, I was wrong. I had watched it once long ago and didn't remember any of it. Now I know why. I was bored out of my mind and was looking for distractions to do something else. I'm all for grrrrl power, punk attitude and absurd humor but Tank Girl does not work on any front. The script is bad, you don't care about the characters and the humor is mostly lame except for a few amusing one-liners. The special effects or locations are poor or often replaced by comic panels or animations that are just too jarring compared to the live-action. It's like they didn't have the money to shoot the cool stuff and so resorted to drawings, however cool they might be (an uncensored animated feature would be way better for Tank Girl now that I think about it). The action scenes were cheesy but not in a fun b-movie way. The tank itself was far from impressive or dynamic although it was interestingly decorated. As a matter of fact, the best action scenes involving the tank were in animation. 

It does have some interesting songs by known artists such as Bjork, Hole and Portishead but instead of improving the atmosphere, they just don't fit most of the time. Once they even break into a ludicrous song and dance number that was just senseless and horrible. I think that's when I totally tuned out. I suppose Tank Girl, played by Lori Petty, looks the trashy punkette part but beyond her "attitude" and sometimes barely amusing retorts, is more two-dimensional and superficial than the worst comic book characters. Jet, played by Naomi Watts, is probably the only saving grace of the film and it's amazing how such a good actress was involved in this mess. Malcolm McDowell wasn't too bad playing his usual villain role. It might be a cult movie for some but please consider that it's really different from the original independent comics and the original creators were disappointed with the movie themselves (check out the entry for Tank Girl on Wikipedia). 

Rating: 3 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
Truly shows that hype is not everything. Shows by and by what a crappy actor abhishek is and is only getting movies because of his dad and his wife. Amitabh as always is solid. Ajay Devgan as always is shitty and useless and the new guy is a joke. The leading lady is such a waste of an actor. Such pathetic movie from such a revered director and from such a big industry. With movies as such I have decreased the amount of bollywood movies I watch.

RGV has been making very crappy movies for a while now. Time to get different actors. Hrithek anyone? Bollywood needs Madhuri and Kajol back. Every other leading lady is a half-naked wanna be. Pffffft.

Sentiment: negative
I'm not sure what I can add that hasn't already been said in some of these other fine, and quite hilarious, comments, but Ill try.

So you know the plot: there is a bed possessed by a demon that "absorbs" and selectively disintegrates the bodies of whoever (or whatever) lays on it with its orange soda-filled body. We have the man, in some scenes looking uncannily like Robert Smith of The Cure, hanging out inside the wall commenting on the goings-on, and we have our various victims that just cant resist the comfort of this mystical bed.

This is no ordinary bed. No sirree Bob! Not only does it eat people, but it cleans up after itself, draws the covers back, and it even makes itself. Who wouldn't want a bed like that? It can even use its sheets as a rudimentary "lasso" to wrangle escaped victims back in (especially if they're taking up half the length of the film to try and escape).

Our "main" story (if you can call it that), is about these three girls who go out to this remote area to house-sit(??). I don't recall exactly, but it doesn't really matter though as there are plenty of things that defy convention that you just have to give in and accept. The dialogue in the film is like no other; the characters talk to each other seemingly by telepathy as their mouths never seem to move and there is a constant echo. One of our girls believes she isn't liked by the rest of "the gang" and makes sure to tell us all her feelings on this matter through an echoey voice-over, but we don't care; character development was thrown out the window a LONG time before in this film so why start now? There are scenes when the bed laughs, snores, crunches, and makes various other noises that we assume judging by our cast's non-reaction to said noises, cant be heard. This and the telepathy makes the issue of diegesis very difficult to ascertain...but thats OK....this is Death Bed: The Bed That Eats and it defies all logic so its OK. It makes for a lush dreamy quality to this most bizarre film If you buy (hehe buy...did I say "buy"?) this DVD, make sure to check out the introduction by the director. He explains that the filming of this "flick" started in 1972, didn't wrap up until 1977, he shopped it for a few years with no luck, and then fast forward 26 years to 2003 it gets released on DVD. Supposedly someone somewhere had a print of this in some other country and made bootleg after bootleg of it and it was quite by chance, on a message board no less, that our director found evidence that people knew, and gasp! cared, about his little-known film. Its from there that he decided to give it a shot and release it. I'm glad he did. Once you've even so much as heard the title to this film, you MUST see it. I for one am going to buy this and I'm going to preach its gospel around the world...starting with this comment

Sentiment: positive
Words cannot describe how horrible this movie is. Well, maybe they can. I'll take a stab at it: 1 - Pitiful. Hollywood makes more talking animals set in graphics. Apparently script and storyline aren't needed anymore.

2 - Violent. Kids movie but yet one of the characters is viciously attacked and killed.

3 - Blatantly stupid. The movie is actually depicting the farm animals as having human abilities. In Nemo, the fish could talk, but for the most part, they are still fish. We only hear the English as a translation. In Barnyard, the animals are actually speaking English that other people can understand.

4 - Unintelligent - No smart story line or even any smart humor. (Ok, the 13 year old dog on crutches was funny).

5 - Culturally insensitive - The "black" cow is actually played by a black actress. The pink cow is played by a white actress. The black cow was playing a stereotypical black person.

6 - Ignorant - No such thing as a male cow that I'm aware of. I believe we call them bulls? If we are going to expose our children to drek, it might as well have the simplest facts correct.

7 - Boring and Borish. My 4 year old had us leave after 45 minutes. He practically fell asleep.

I'm sure this movie will make millions, which is unfortunate, because it only proves to Hollywood producers that the American public at large is just filled with suckers waiting to pay 8 bucks just to get some peace and quiet from the kids for an hour or two. An unfortunate circumstance. Why should the producers spend real money when the returns will be the same either way.

Sentiment: negative
Somebody mastered the difficult task of merging sports with romance. In reality, sports and romance go together like oil and water. So, to successfully put the two together on screen... well, that is about the equivalent of splitting the atom. I never thought it could be done. I will be the first to say that in general I don't like romantic comedies... but I do like sports and most movies about sports. This movie was a pretty good mix of the two. Being a baseball fan, I could really appreciate the comedic ordeal with Ben Wrightman (Jimmy Falon) being a rabid Boston Redsox fan. Anyone who knows anything about baseball knows the curse of the Babe that plagued the Redsox for 86 years, and they know just how nuts about baseball a lot of Redsox fans are. The Farrely brothers did a great job capturing that and it made for good comedy. This was a very good movie that could appeal to many.

Sentiment: positive
The Aristocats is really quite charming, and is rated far too low on IMDb. The songs aren't as memorable as the ones in the Jungle Book, but they weren't bad at all. The animation is really lovely, the best sequence being the landscape of Paris in general. It looked beautiful. This is probably Disney's most relaxing animation I think, and as another reviewer quite rightly said, who doesn't love cats? Another great piece of animation was O' Malley looking into Duchess's eyes, as their romance was so believable while not obvious.(a good thing)The plot(about a greedy butler and a fortune, reminds me of Bailey's Billions) was a little unoriginal, but worked very well, and the script was really funny, especially the fights between the kittens. They remind me of me and my brother and 3 sisters, always fighting. My favourite scene was the chase of Edgar with the two dogs, who were always fighting about who was the leader. The voice talents were a delight, most notably Phil Harris, whom I recognised from the Jungle Book, and Eva Gabor, from the Rescuers. The supporting characters, namely Scat Cat, were also well done. In conclusion, a really pleasant film, that is definitely underrated. 8.5/10 Bethany Cox

Sentiment: positive
This movie starts really good.

After half of the movie it wraps to a religious Christian crap.

Some really Christian with psycho problems are talking about good and believe in Christ - or you go to hell.

Don't watch it - it's pure propaganda and its pure wrong ...

This movie starts really good.

After half of the movie it wraps to a religious Christian crap.

Some really Christian with psycho problems are talking about good and believe in Christ - or you go to hell.

Don't watch it - it's pure propaganda and its pure wrong ...

Sentiment: negative
How anyone can say this is bad is beyond me. I loved this show before I even saw it. For 3 reasons, 1. The Story intrigued me, 2. Jessica Alba and 3. James Cameron! Please ignore the bad comments and Please watch the whole first Season before you decide that it's bad because I know that if you watch the first Season you will LOVE it and go out and Buy Season 1 as well as Season 2 on DVD and then Join the campaign to get Season 3 Made!

I Hate Fox and I'm sure a lot of you "Dark Angel" fans hate them too. They have a thing for Canning Good Shows! Don't you all agree?

Sentiment: positive
This is an absolutely charming film, one of my favourite romantic comedies. It's extremely humorous and the cast is wonderful. Though Laurence Olivier is mostly associated with his Shakespearean work he shows in this film that he is by no means restricted to play only classical theatre. He manages the transition from the cynical divorce solicitor, who tries to avoid women and their traitorous ways, to the lovesick puppy that falls for Lady X played by Merle Oberon effortlessly. The dialogue is wonderfully witty and refreshing and the atmosphere enchanting. Ralph Richardson was a delight to watch as well. I highly recommend it.

Sentiment: positive
Just imagine what school would have been like in a world like this: the kids are one big gang who have really good taste in music and unite against bad headmasters and teachers. "Rock 'N' Roll High School" is taking place in that world. It's like a Ramones record coming to life. The characters are all as silly, innocent and charming as the Ramones' songs, and the music itself is, of course, fantastic. High school comedies have really changed over the years, if you compare a movie like "American Pie" with this late 70's classic, where no tasteless sex jokes are made at all. Since a remake is apparently in the works, it can probably be expected that the charm of the original will get lost along the way and will get replaced by vulgar, half-funny dick jokes, as Bill Hicks used to call them. However, the main problem will be that the Ramones CANNOT be replaced. They were the perfect band for this movie and no one else could even come close to taking their place. So, the best thing to do would be to leave the original alone, as quirky and charming as it is. Gabba-gabba hey!

Sentiment: positive
This production of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is by far the best that I have seen. Although it may not have the production value of some of the more recent adaptations, it does have the most important element: Sir Derek Jacobi as Hamlet.

Jacobi's portrayal of the disturbed Prince is multi-layered and riveting. His displays of emotion swing from hatred to sorrow, love to vengefulness and everywhere else on the map, but without seeming forced or over-the-top. In fact, some of the more powerful sequences occur when he underplays them, with stillness, soft speech and thoughtful expression. As to whether or not he interprets Hamlet as mad or sane...well, you should decide for yourselves; I changed my mind more than once. At one point it seems he has thought himself sane and merely playing at madness, but suspects that he is actually mad after all...a revelation to himself, captured beautifully. Having performed the part of Hamlet on stage more times than any other actor in history, Jacobi's affinity for the role then comes as little surprise.

As for the production itself, it is presented as a kind of "filmed-copy" of the stage play, with little special effects or fancy camera work, minimal sets and no musical accompaniment to speak of. This production relies on the acting prowess of the cast, and the words of Shakespeare, to evoke the emotion and interest of its audience. And it works. The other players are top-notch as well, particularly Patrick Stewart's "Claudius" and Claire Bloom's "Gertrude." Together the cast present a seamless ensemble.

The last (but far from least) element that makes this production stand out is the play itself. Here it is presented in its entirety, a rarity on film. But, oddly enough, I never noticed the time. I was too busy getting caught up in the story. I suspect that you will, too.

Sentiment: positive
Truly flatulent script, and I was very disappointed with Marc Singer for agreeing to be in it.

I actually walked out of the theater about 15-20 minutes into it, and demanded my money back. I have actually walked out of a movie only 3 times in my life (I am 43 years old) and this is the only one that made me mad enough to demand my ticket price back. If I could have, I would have gotten a refund on the popcorn, too. This was a truly lousy movie, and there is no excuse.

For one thing, how does someone who was raised as a pre-tech barbarian learn to DRIVE A CAR? IN California!!!? (Driving a car is a somewhat tricky skill, and in California, even tricker...I should know, I live there.)

Sentiment: negative
Having read the other comment about this superb piece of TV drama I felt compelled to balance things a little. If you like you murders, to be signature and serial, and your cops to be British, and shout a lot, and the gore to be bloody and have a religious slant then this hits every button. Not quite enough 'gov'ing to put the shouting into the Sweeney's rarefied heights, but otherwise highly rated. Ken Stott is excellent as the 'cop on the edge' and the guest stars are also well cast, including Edward Woodward and Art Malik. Recommended. (In response to the earlier comments, although I accept that 'Red' would not 'normally' drive away from a hit and run, he had just witnessed his brother arrested for murder, and I am fairly sure he does not see the boy move.)

Sentiment: positive
I was very surprised to learn that Goldie Hawn won an Oscar for this film. She seemed very lifeless and completely schooled by the 54(!) year old Bergman in the scenes where they are side by side. If it had been written today, I think that Bergman and the young man Ivan would have wound up together (Ingrid is so much hotter than Goldie...) and the two self-absorbed characters played by Matthau and Hawn would be left out in the cold. But it was written at the end of 60's and feels like Plaza Suite or Barefoot in the Park. However, Matthau's one-liners, Hawn's innocence and Bergman's classy performance make this quite pleasant to watch.

Sentiment: positive
Trio's vignettes were insightful and quite enjoyable. It was curious seeing so many soon to be famous actors when they were very young. The performances and attention to detail were wonderful to watch.

Observation. In film it isn't necessary that source material be in alignment with the contemporary era to be interesting or worthwhile. "Small morality" storytelling is quaint (or coy) only in the eye of the beholder--thankfully. Story content--well told--can overcome it's time, subject or place.

Ironically, there are quite a few contemporary films today that have not overcome the conventions or cutting edge mores of the present era. Inserting "small morality" content--occasionally--might provide a dimension lacking.

Sentiment: positive
MEN OF HONOR features Cuba Gooding Jr., in what is probably his best performance to date. He plays Carl Brashear, a man of towering courage and heroism. He's a poor dirt farmer from the South, who wants to become a Navy diver- but has problems because of his race. The head of the diving school, played by Robert DeNiro, is a racist redneck that nonetheless grows to respect Brashear. The film is about how Brashear has to concur the nearly insurmountable odds, not once but twice. The performances are what make this film special. Gooding is great, and DeNiro, the best actor in movie history, gives a towering performance- his best dramatic work in years. Charlize Theron gives another solid performance as DeNiro's much younger wife. The film lays on the patriotism a little too strong (though no where near the level it was in THE PATRIOT), and a few of the characters are just one dimensionally bad (Hal Holbrook's Mr. Pappy is just so evil), but the film is a rarity among films today. It's uplifting and uncynical. A wonderful film.

Sentiment: positive
As a huge baseball fan, my scrutiny of this film is how realistic it appears. Dennis Quaid had all of the right moves and stances of a major league pitcher. It is a fantastic true story told with just a little too much "Disney" for my taste.

Sentiment: positive
I think the reason for all the opinionated diarrhea on this movie is that most people have it out for Sharon Stone being around 50 and getting naked while playing sexy. No one cared when the Golden Girls sat around eating cheesecake and discussing their first orgasm, but to see someone post menopausal getting digitally pleased while driving I guess is just too much for some to handle. Let's face it, she looks good, she's light years hotter than my mother who's the same age! It's not an Oscar or a cult classic like the first, but ever since the turn of the century that's all movie goers seem to expect: a cinematic experience that will touch your soul. As such, it never claims to be either. It's an erotic thriller that is both erotic and thrilling, and is a continuation of a brilliant character that we all love to hate. It's the character of Catherine Trammell that helped give way for this sequel. Fans of the first movie want to see more of that frosty ice queen.

The cinematography and art direction were lush and extravagant and made me want to move to Britian for sure. The score is amazing as well.

Sure there's some overacting from some characters but there's some brilliant work from David Morrissey who's virtually unknown.

There's a setback in that the script is virtually the same as the first movie only plugging in a psychiatrist in place of the cop. As well as the criminal decision of the MPAA to force the movie to be cut down even more which takes away from the guilty-pleasure raunchiness that the story is known for.

At the very least it's entertaining and fun to look at it, and that's the movie's only intentions. So if you've got beef with Mizz Stone, maybe you should actually SEE the movie and draw your own conclusions before you spew forth your projectile vomit?

Sentiment: positive
I was drawn to DAN IN REAL LIFE from the excellent reviews and the thirst for a Dramedy that was well written-thank you Peter Hedges-and because when Steve Carell stars in the film, you know an audience is going to find like in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, a performance that is very entertaining and rewarding. DAN IN REAL LIFE delivered that promise.

The film is so real to many families world wide that have lost a member and yet have gone on with their lives in search of something that will give them the magic back before their loss. With Steve Carell and the wondrous Juliette Binoche, their relationship was so beautifully done and written that their scenes were so real to their characters and to their journeys. The cast, sets and story made DAN IN REAL LIFE one to remember as we head into the holidays ahead.

Sentiment: positive
Here is one of those movies spoiled by the studio's insistence on a happy ending. Conflicts which have stretched out for years are settled in a few minutes. It would have been far more interesting to inject a tone of ambiguity. The talented Barbara Stanwyck is undone by a sudden metamorphosis from independent and assertive woman to a compliant female of the kind she has put down all her life. Brent, as usual, is well over his head and then there is the ludicrous situation of Gig Young playing a character named Gig Young. Someone mentions "Gig Young" and then who appears but Gig Young, the actor! Worth seeing though far below what it could have been.

Sentiment: negative
There is a scene near the beginning after a shootout where horses are running. If something red catches your eye it is because a white van is parked behind a bush by the trail. I thought I had seen bad but this is it. A white van in a western. Did they not catch this? Oh well, and I paid top dollar at the rental. It will make you want to grab your buddies and have them all put in 10 grand and make a better movie. The talking was so so slow, the acting was mostly OK but couldn't be taken seriously due to the poor nature of the filming. There is a door at the sheriffs that looks like a door today with the particular trimming. I say watch this movie, and move Cabin boy into #2 on the worst of all time.

Sentiment: negative
It looks like the brilliant team of Shonda Rhimes outsourced the writing of this one somewhere offshore, maybe to the MediocreLand? "PP" reminds me any one of the many tedious, promising at first but predictable within 1 season David Kelly flicks (Picket Fences, Ally McBeal, and now Boston Legal). The crazy cases they get are so outlandish, they barely evoke sympathy or sadness. And that's what actually makes good medical dramas tick - dramatic situations you are afraid of, "This could be me" sentiment. They are not funny either.

The actors are quite good, but the plot lines are dead and cannot be brought back to live. I'm a therapist, and let me tell you - Amy Brennan plays the most unbelievably incompetent, unethical, untrained therapist. Whoever writes her stuff flunked the ethics and the transference/counter-transference courses in Stanford. Somebody should give them a Code of Ethics to read (the episode with the nose-bleeding wife and the therapist's involvement in it). No therapists are that bad.

Women yearning for men who have moved on - had been done to death, we've all graduated "Sex and the City". Addison in her youthful aggression towards the guy she likes - very age-inappropriate, looks so unnatural on a woman over 40, and this otherwise talented actress doesn't believe it herself and doesn't deliver it very well. The only successful/palatable developments are Addison struggling with her decision to move to LA, and the "Voodoo Dr" and his coping with widowhood.

This concept might work with a whole new writing team.

Sentiment: negative