DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Much of "Over Her Dead Body" is so painfully unfunny that I was actually squirming in my seat out of embarrassment for the actors.

Eva Longoria proves that she can't carry a film in this terrible romantic comedy, and further, that she doesn't really even have any comedic timing. She's grating and annoying as a ghost who returns to earth to keep a cooky psychic from dating her widower fiancé. The fiancé is played by Paul Rudd, drippy and charmless, while the psychic is played by Lake Bell, bringing the movie whatever anemic energy it has. I felt most sorry for Bell, as she appears to have some comic abilities and was working overtime in an effort to make the material work. Unfortunately, she is up against the insurmountable task of making any movie that features Jason Biggs tolerable, and she is dragged down with the rest of the cast like Leo DiCaprio at the end of "Titanic." 

"Over Her Dead Body" actually pi**ed me off, because of its laziness and utter lack of effort. I started to think of all the interesting projects that can't get funded because vast amounts of money are being funneled into bland crap like this. Seriously, does Hollywood think movies like this are good enough? How stupid do they really think the movie-going public is? 

Grade: F

Sentiment: negative
This show should be titled, "When Bad Writing Happens To Good Actors" considering most of the players have demonstrated immense talent in other venues, e.g. Andre Braugher in Homicide: Life on the Street and David Morse in St. Elsewhere. I'm hoping that the frenetic pacing of the show is adjusted as the series develops along with the obvious cliches and dialogue so absurd I wondered just how stupid the writers imagined the core audience to be. We're beat over the head with the main points of this show instead of being left to gradually figure it out, almost as if the writers feel that they must spell out that the main character is some sort of avenging angel, sentenced to redeem himself from sins, both venial and mortal, via butting into his cab fares many affairs. Watching the premiere required much suspension of disbelief, that Mike Olshanskey's fares would so rapidly spill their guts and he would feel driven to intervene in the lives of utter strangers. That he possesses those "Super-Cop" abilities, to be all things to all people, weapons expert, martial arts master, psychologist, father-confessor, locksmith, and so on, ad infinitum. Pure drivelesque fantasy. What is it about recent televisions shows based in Philidelphia that they all seem to be imbued with a nasty ex-wife and a very disrepectfully bratty child? Overdone. I wanted to like this show, really I did, because it had the virtue of having a premise slightly different than many of the clones appearing in this season's fare and it stars some of my preferred actors. But I'm afraid this is just another possibly good idea ruined by careless execution.

Sentiment: negative
Oh my. How can they make movies of such beauty, but that are so terribly bad. I mean, even Uwe Boll doesn't make crap like this. There is not even a hint of a decent story, multi-layered characters, or attraction. It's just a random sequence of pointless chatter joined together to make a 'movie'. I suppose only children up to 3 years of age could enjoy it, given the world is so utterly dimensionless and the story so incoherent, that anyone older would be annoyed by it. But then again, it's far too scary for anyone under 6 years of age, that there's probably no one that should watch this movie at all.

Take my advice and stay far, far away from this movie. Your little daughter can make a better storyline, and though she probably isn't able to draw pictures this pretty, her tales are much more worth listening to. And please, in the name of whoever you believe in, do not expose your children to this piece of ****. I'll give it 2 out of 10, and that's exclusively for the graphics, because the story and character development are so awful they'd deserve a negative rating.

And if you decide to watch it anyways... remember that I warned you.

Sentiment: negative
From the mind of Harry Alan Towers comes another piece of cinematic sludge. Supposedly based on the work of H. Rider Haggard, the only similarity it bears to anything Haggard actually wrote is that it takes place in Africa (albeit an Africa that has dinosaurs - which our intrepid adventurers use to pull their canoes!), and has some characters with the same names.

Our heroes (David McCallum, Patrick McNee and John Colico) set out to seek treasure, armed only with a medallion, and end up precisely where the treasure is, purely by chance. On the way, they meet a motley assortment of extremely lame monsters, pick up a French chef, and McCallum has an affair with the Queen of Phoenicia.

It's so ridiculous, it's a hoot. That's the only reason I didn't give it a 1.

Sentiment: negative
Alain Resnais directs three parallel stories that have to do with fantasy and imagination in the adult world. In one of them is a sort of Operatic bordello story where a rejected architect attempts to manipulate a group of people into throes of happiness--only his attempt misses it's only real target, the woman that he pines after. In the same unfinished château he built, a group of teachers search for love in a more modern story, as one woman believes ineffably in the role of romance and the cynical anthropoligist tries to teach her a lesson by setting her up with the biggest jerk in the group. Meanwhile, a bunch of kids fantasize a George Melies-like adventure of a prince that saves a girl in distress from swamp creatures and then kills the evil king, bringing upon the kingdom of love. The two primary themes? Life is a fairy tale, and Life isn't a fairy tale.

Which sounds better than the movie actually is. Resnais is the type of director where oftentimes the concept is good or bad, but the exposition is what matters; here, the concept is great but the movie is downright painful to watch. Horridly off-tune songs, bubbly characters without an ounce of dimension, backdrops of sickening pastel--instead of giving your inner child an ice cream cone, Resnais drowns it in a bucket of cake frosting. Add some French philosophy and you get a weird witches brew, one that doesn't bubble bubble toil and trouble, but just kinda sits wrong in your stomach until you want to regurgitate it.

Resnais is a risk-taking director, and even in his worst you can see he's trying something that might not work with full clarity of action. In I Want to Go Home, he manages to pull past annoying characters and ditzy set-pieces by showing some real change and having a moment few moments of quiet to catch his breath. Here he submerges directly into a fantasy that doesn't really reflect fantasy, only its baby's room wallpaper reference. The biggest problem is that he somehow managed to make a movie more flamboyant than an 80s pop video, and more kitsch than Golden Era Hollywood musicals. The fantasies are beyond childish and naive, but the movie (with nudity and profanity) is definitely aimed for adults, a target he decidedly missed.

However, he sticks closely to his theme and never backpedals. If anything, this movie is impressive simply because its unapologetic.

--PolarisDiB

Sentiment: negative
How Disney can you get? Preppy rich girls act like idiots, buy a bunch of stuff, and get taught a lesson. Is Disney trying to send a lesson to itself? That maybe while buying everything it should maybe still be human? Whatever the psycho-analysis, this movie sucked.

The girls want a rich party for their rich lives. But then money disappears and they have to use their riches to get the milk plant (yes, milk) going to employ the workers. They keep it afloat until daddy comes home. And the man at the beginning, who appears to be the one that takes the money, is the one. But the ending is dumb. Webcam in the Cayman Islands? Huh? Not worth my time ever again. 

But it is better than Howl's Moving Castle. "D-"

Sentiment: negative
I don't think any movie of Van Damme's will ever beat Universal Soldier but u never know. This movie was good but not as good as 1st. VD returns a Luc & must do battle again. He tries 2 b funny here but its maybe worth a smirk of a chuckle. VD has a kid this time from Ally W., good it showed a pic of them 2. Goldberg was cool, he does his famous move-forgot what its called cause i don't watch wrestling-sucks. VD & Goldberg had some good fights. It was the ending like the 1st but just not that good. VD does his best move in his career, like always-the HELICOPTER KICK. Even though, the final ending should've been longer. Anyway, it is worth seeing but it will never top the original.

Sentiment: negative
This movie, as my Chinese girlfriend informed me, features two well-known Hong Kong pop stars. While this may make the movie a mere marketing stunt, I found the acting acceptable, and they're both cute.

The story is pretty poor overall. The vampiric traits and weaknesses are, however, used in humorous ways, and created some uniquely entertaining bits. The quarreling between the two girls made me chuckle, and this gave a fine balance together with the well-executed action scenes to create an entertaining movie.

Sentiment: positive
Uma and Travolta were very good together, but - unfortunately - when they left the screen, the movie was nothing but a bunch of very boring and wordy secondary characters wrapped in some extremely bad writing. Occasional glimpses of greatness like the dance scene between Uma and Travolta quickly eroded when the likes of Harvey Keitel and similar uninteresting thugs came on. And the white dude who tried to act black got VERY, VERY tiresome after way too much exposure in the picture. He weighed down a fairly good performance by the Rock, the only secondary character who you couldn't wait to see leave the screen. Bad, dumb plot. The writers clearly couldn't figure out if they writing to Generation X or the 12-15 year old rap crowd, and the combination turned into a film that kept me staring at my watch!

Sentiment: negative
I quote Oedpius Rex because it is a tragedy that this film was even made!!!

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! I am in no way an Uwe Boll hater like most of the humourless people on IMDb! 

Uwe Boll movies like Postal and Tunnel Rats are hilariously bad and therefore entertaining. But honestly, this movie was just horrible. I hated it so much that I'd give it a zero star rating if I could. The story is just crap! It spends four fifths of the film building the plot and then they have the middle which is just scenes of grizzly horrible tastelessly done murder! The finally end it with a "villan wins ending" which is totally acceptable but surely it could have been more tasteful than this! 

I am not against Uwe Boll (like I said earlier) nor am I against violent movies! I f**king love violent movies! I loved the Saw movies, the Hostel movies, Tokyo Gore Police, The New York Ripper, the 28 movies, Dog Soldiers, My Bloody Valentine, Last House on the Left, Watchmen, Wolf Creek, every Tarantino movie, every Sam Peckinpah, even Cannibal f**king Holocaust! But this! OMFG!!! 

This was just cruel, sadistic and perverted! And look at the movies I just listed! If I liked Cannibal Holocaust and not this then it must be bad! Uwe, don't go all dark again! You're funny when you are light hearted, just like Ed Wood. This was just an awful experience! I felt horrible all over after seeing this!

DO NOT WATCH!!!! AVOID AT ALL COST!!!!!

Sentiment: negative
Granny, directed by Boris Pavlovsky (who?), sees eight friends experiencing a night of terror when a psycho-killer dressed in a old hag rubber mask and a nightdress interrupts their party.

They say you can't judge a book by its cover, but it appears that the same is not true of DVDs: I was in the mood for a REALLY bad horror film last night, and since the cover of Granny featured a shoddily photo-shopped image of the titular killer swinging an axe, terrible typography (they even use the system font Sand, a definite design no-no!), and credits featuring absolutely no-one I had heard of, I reckoned it would be pretty lousy.

It was!

When a film clocks in at just under an hour long, it really shouldn't waste too much time before getting to the action; Granny, however, spends the first 20 minutes or so with its unlikable group of friends indulging in pointless games and extremely banal conversation. Anyone who actually stays with the film long enough for the killing to begin (and I doubt most sane people would bother) will be treated to several dreadful death scenes featuring amateurish gore, loads of awful acting, and a surprise ending that comes as no surprise (if you've seen April Fool's Day, then you'll guess what the twist is way before it is revealed).

Granny is uninspired, unexciting, and almost unwatchable. Avoid.

Sentiment: negative
Although George C. Scott is the only actor in this version of ACC without a British accent, he more than makes up for it with his over-the-top and larger-than-life interpretation of Ebenezer Scrooge.

Particularly effective is when he confronts Bob Cratchit in his office at the movie's end. As Scott stands before a large window, sunlight casts a glowing mantle over him; all you can see is his silhouette. Augmented by Scott's voice, a ponderous growl, the effect is galvanizing...much like Marlon Brando's first scene in APOCALYPSE NOW. "The Horror," indeed! 

However, as they say, the very thing that works for you can also work against you. Because Scott displays such gleeful ferocity throughout the movie, it proves infectious. To put it another way, the "before" Scrooge is almost as charismatic as the "after," even though he really shouldn't be. It's what you might call the "Doctor Smith" effect, since Jonathan Harris used a very similar approach when playing that role and numerous other heavies (stage and screen alike).

Actually, I myself don't consider Scott's glib rage a liability. But other "Christmas Carol" purists might. See the film and judge for yourselves.

Sentiment: positive
I just finished a marathon of this series, and it became agonising to watch as it progressed. From the fictionalising of the historical elements, to O'Herlihy's awful accent in later episodes, the show just slumps the further it goes. If you are looking for some low quality production generalised WW2 fluff, then I could recommend season 1, but avoid anything after that, it degenerates into being one step from a soap opera, with increasingly worse story lines and sensibility.

The old B&W film is by far the best of any form of entertainment with the Colditz name attached to it, and even that is not what one could hope for.

Sentiment: negative
Of all movies (and I'm a film graduate, if that's worth anything to you), this is THE WORST movie I have ever seen. I know there are probably some worse ones out there that I just haven't seen yet, but I have seen this, and this is the worst. A friend and I rented it one night because Denise Richards was on the cover. Talk about being young and retarded. She's uncredited! Her role was unbelievably small! How did she make it on the cover!? IMDb doesn't even list it in her filmography. This movie was so bad, we wrote a little note to the video store when we returned it, and slipped it inside the case. It read something like "please save your further customers from having to view this complete and totally bad movie!"

Sentiment: negative
This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. They said this was the man's answer to Waiting to Exhale...All I'm going to say is that we really didn't respond at all. I couldn't believe that it was actually made. The director should choose another profession, because he can't make a movie. The script wasn't good. It made no sense and was very messy. Bet movies are much better than this was, and I was horribly disappointed to see the talented actor Terrence in this bad excuse of a movie. If I could turn back the hands of time I wouldn't go back to Media Play to never buy the movie, I would just keep it wrapped sitting on the shelf, instead of wasting my time watching it.

Sentiment: negative
Any of Law & Order's, CSI (take your choice of city), and Homicide: Life on the Street's weakest episodes is superior to the strongest episode of Bones.

David Boreanaz is stuck in crappy Angel mode, and Emily Deschanel portrays "Bones" too... unrealistically. The actors as a whole have terrible scenes together, be it with forced acting, or just awful lines.

The murders become predictable after a while, as the foreshadowing and clues are just too obvious.

Music is okay, though really unnecessary at times.

All in all, Bones is hardly the show I'd recommend watching during the weekdays as it is a carbon-copy of better shows with unreal characters and ever-dulling stories.

Skip this if you can.

Sentiment: negative
It's particularly hard for a director to capture film-making without getting precious, inbred, over-dramatic, or all three. Breillat ably demonstrates the instinctive, lizard-brain methods of a female auteur in extracting from two "cattle" (as Hitchcock called actors) a love-scene of searing intimacy. Her main battle is with her leading man ("an actor is really a woman" she opines), although, naturally, it is the leading lady who will steal the show. I disagree that this is Breillat's first comedy. 'Romance' was at various points hilarious, but I accept that the French sense of humour can be elusive for foreigners; indeed, dozens of IMDb reviewers detected no comedy in Romance. By contrast, Sex Is Comedy raises plenty of laughs, mainly by using an actor's prop that goes back thousands of years to Plautus and the ancient Greeks. We wondered, leaving the theatre, whether Roxane's "beard" was a wig. A lovely performance from Anne Parillaud as Breillat wrestling with her own script, looking ten years younger than her age.

Sentiment: positive
This short has all the elements of a great movie. Every time I show it to friends (on DVR) they love it too. The dialog is so, 'real'. The acting is superb. While the effects/props weren't as convincing by themselves, taken with everything else in the shot, they are expertly placed/used. The music is so haunting, perfect for this kind of 'moment' film. People who hold dear their beliefs and thoughts are shaken to their core about what they see in this movie. Most go 'that's it?', but in the end they blossom with new understanding, and leave the movie with one word to describe it:

'Beautiful'. The beauty of the film is also skin deep. I love the fact that there aren't any conflicting views, no other voices, and the voices that you do hear, are agreeing with each other. no conflict, but at the same time there is one. And the ending made me love it more! Harsh reality sometimes IS more film worthy than any plot device, or twist. 

(wasn't Joshua Leonard the guy in Blair Witch Project?) :) Movie by a fictitious dead guy..great!

Sentiment: positive
And one only, in my opinion.

That reason is Margaret Leighton. She is a wonderful actress, on-stage as well as on the screen. We have few chances to see her, though. I think that's especially true in the United States.

Here she plays a sympathetic role. Not only that but she is also very pretty and meant to be something of a bombshell.

Walter Pigeon does not hold up the tradition of Drummond performers. He is always reliable but he's not much fun. He's not a rascal or a knave. Consequently, this seemed to me a talky endeavor with little action or suspense. But check it out for Leighton.

Sentiment: negative
Sporting a title seemingly more suitable for a Looney Tunes featurette than a grisly giallo, "Don't Torture a Duckling" (1972) is nonetheless a Grade A thriller from horror maestro Lucio Fulci. In this one, someone has been strangling the preteen boys in a rural, southern Italian village and, typical for these gialli, there are many suspects. There's Barbara Bouchet (Patrizia), looking more scrumptiolicious than you've ever seen her, a rich girl hiding out after a drug scandal; Florinda Bolkan (Martiara), the local epileptic voodoo woman; her witchcraft-practicing beau; Giuseppe, the local idiot; the sweet-faced priest; his dour mother; and on and on. The film features some unusually violent set pieces, including a chain whipping of one of the main characters in a graveyard (one of the most realistically bloody sequences that I've ever seen) and a nifty dukeout when the killer is ultimately revealed. The film's bursts of violence compensate for the fact that there are no real scares or suspense to speak of. Still, this giallo fascinates, with its unusual rural backdrop, unsettling child murders, oddball characters, and freaky score by Riz Ortolani. The film has been beautifully photographed in what I presume to be Monte Sant'Angelo, near the Adriatic in southern Italy (at least, that town's police force is thanked in the closing credits). And while subtitling would've made this fine-looking DVD work even better (the American slang doesn't convince in this rural Italian setting), Anchor Bay is to be thanked for another job well done. Oh...that title DOES eventually make perfect sense, too!

Sentiment: positive
"The Puffy Chair" was a supreme waste of 84 minutes of my life which cannot be retrieved and spent in a more worthwhile way (even "The Blair Witch Project" was a better use of life's precious moments). It must be called "The Puffy Chair" because only 'puffy' chairs could accommodate the extremely 'puffed-up', self-important brothers who drooled it out for public consumption; and, obviously, they are SO full of themselves that they have assumed the public would actually want to consume their drool. "The Puffy Chair" made "The Wooly Boys" seem like a cinematic masterpiece! "Valley of the Dolls," "Beyond Valley of the Dolls," "Pink Flamingos," "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," "Night of the Living Dead," "Urban Cowboy," "The Blob," -- all of these would be a better use of one's time, than viewing "The Puffy Chair." The characters portrayed are either too predictable or too lacking in normal, emotional reflexes to even come close to being likable or believable. Also, at one point in the film, while the characters are supposed to be in the same small town, if one watches closely, one can see that one part of the town is apparently in the southern United States, and the other half is located in Maine. That's some town, eh?

Sentiment: negative
This is a rather tame fluff piece concerning WW II codes being broken, stolen, etc. The acting is about what I expected from this cast of MGM "B" actors.

One big caution. Jean Rogers, who did such a great job playing the very sexy Dale Arden in the first two Flash Gordon serials is just awful in this movie. Her character is extremely annoying. She absolutely never lets-up with her overacting. We are supposed to believe that during the height of a World War in what would obviously be a Top Secret code facility, she would be allowed to just pop in and out of any office of her choosing although she has no official function. From that standpoint I'm sorry that I ever watched this film. It has forever changed my perception of Ms. Rogers. Talentwise, she is an extreme lightweight.

Lee Bowman is his usual self, meaning that he is merely adequate.



Sentiment: negative
Jean Paget, Joe Harman, and Noel Strachan--all are unlikely heroes and survivors. Petite but strong Jean whose strength and resolve help save lives, marching hundreds of miles and with calm self-discipline and persuasive powers, Joe Harman ("oh my word") who took risks for Jean and the other prisoners, only to suffer the worst pain imaginable, and Noel Strahan, who trusted Jean regardless of the odds. Her good humor and hardiness inspire everyone around her, and those with the courage to go in with her are rewarded. The beautiful scenery and musical score adds to the adventure. Despite the length it was never boring to me. These ordinary people did extraordinary things and it is based on a true story. Someone borrowed my VHS a few years ago and I never saw it or them again. Learned my lesson, mates, and will buy another copy when it can be found. It's a shame the miniseries is not on DVD.

Sentiment: positive
Being the Beatlemaniac that I am, I approached Two Of Us with a combination of fear and fascination. Having seen 'In His Life: The John Lennon Story', I was quite concerned that Two Of Us will turn out no better. The fact that Aidan Quinn and Jared Harris look absolutely nothing like John Lennon and Paul McCartney  even with some make-up and proper hairdos  didn't help one bit.

But I was more than a bit pleasantly surprised. It's probably thanks to the involvement of Michael Lindsay-Hogg, who directed Let It Be in 1970 and consequently probably knew John and Paul quite well, that the characters and the dialogue came across as convincing as they did. (The writing credit for Two Of Us is given to a man named Mark Stanfield, of whom I know absolutely nothing; I feel confident that director Lindsay-Hogg had more than a bit to do with the script.) Two Of Us is not a biography of the Beatles; it has very little plot, in fact, and takes place all in one day in New York City. What it does is imagine a meeting between John and Paul in 1976, while John lived in New York. That meeting is entirely fictitious, of course  though it can't truly be disproved that such a meeting actually took place. But through that imagined conversation it gives us a glimpse into the personalities of these two great musicians  their intelligence, their sense of humor, their different reaction to stardom, and most of all their relationship; what made them such a great team, and what broke them up.

Since it's a talk movie, nothing much except for dialogue between two characters for an hour and a half, it's likely to bore all but true fans of the Beatles; but it's a fantastic piece of writing and storytelling, and is both informative and touching. For those interested in these two musical giants, very quickly you'll get over the shock of how different the actors look from their counterparts and feel like John and Paul had come to life  so intimate and convincing is the script, and so committed are the actors. Two Of Us gives you priceless insight into the lives of two geniuses, and a tale that is both sad and funny. Most certainly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
After a good start, it turned out to be the worst piece of holier than thou propaganda i've ever seen. This movie is an open insult designed to make you feel bad about not reading the "holy bible".

To resume the...OK let's call it a plot... Basically alien don't abduct people (that we already know..). No, in fact its demonic forces abducting people which are in new age stuff or witchcraft, or read porno magazine (as one protagonist does).

It's complete with the little emotional piano music when the lead character realize he must blindly follow Christ to be saved.

a quote sums it all , imagine a subtle piano music in the background : "You can't let others, even those you love, stop you from following the Lord.."

and we are supposed to live in an enlightened age...still work to do. Boycott this piece of crap

Sentiment: negative
Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House may be the best Frank Capra/Preston Sturges movie neither man ever made! If you love Bringing Up Baby, The Philadelpia Story, The Thin Man, I Was A Male War Bride or It's a Wonderful Life - movies made with wit, taste and and the occasional tongue firmly panted in cheek, check this one out. Post WWII life is simply and idyllically portrayed.

Grant is at the absolute top of his form playing the city mouse venturing into the life of a country squire. Loy is adorable as his pre-NOW wife. The cast of supporting characters compares to You Can't Take It With You and contains an early bit by future Tarzan Lex Barker. Art Direction and Editing are way above par.

The movie never stoops to the low-rent, by-the-numbers venal slapstick of the later adaptation The Money Pit.

Sentiment: positive
Lifeforce (1985) was a Cannon funded film directed by Tobe Hooper. It's a very interesting film that deals with a pair of space vampires who are accidentally brought back down to Earth during the latest space shuttle mission. Steve Railsback stars as the sole survivor of the tragedy. But really folks the movie is a mere showcase for the natural beauty of Mathilda May. She's one smoking hot number. The director was a huge fan of Female Vampire (a.k.a. Erotikill). Miss May recreates Lina Romay's title role The film is beautifully photographed and directed. There's plenty of gore effects to keep genres fans happy.

I have to give this film a very high rating. Tobe Hooper was the man. He made three interesting films for Cannon during this time period (Texas Chainsaw Massacre II and Invaders from Mars as well). If you like science fiction/horror films, Tobe Hooper films or Mathilda May this film's just up your alley.

Highest Recommendation!

Did I mention Mathilda May is smoking hot?

Sentiment: positive
Just see it! It's a smart movie but too hard to understand the first time. See it more than once. Everything that is seen or heard on the screen is intentionally crafted to evoke a feeling, sensation or tone. The clarity of certain visuals and the crispness of certain sounds are deliberately contrasted with blurred images or pops, crackles, hisses and barely audible sounds. The structure is non-linear and cyclical. Motifs recur as time runs both clockwise and counterclockwise. Expectations regarding "plot" and character" are broken signaling a non-traditional use of film to tell a story that is both contemporary and as old as humanity. This is a part of a review: "USA The Movie is emotionally intense, intellectually intriguing and profoundly disturbing, in surprising and unconventional ways." Dion Dennis, PhD

Sentiment: positive
What happened? What we have here is basically a solid and plausible premise and with a decent and talented cast, but somewhere the movie loses it. Actually, it never really got going. There was a little excitement when we find out that Angie is not really pregnant, then find out that she is after all, but that was it. Steve Martin, who is a very talented person and usually brings a lot to a movie, was dreadful and his entire character was not even close to being important to this movie, other than to make it longer. I really would have liked to see more interactions between the main characters, Kate and Angie, and maybe try not for a pure comedy, which unfortunately it was not, but maybe a drama with comedic elements. I think if the movie did this it could have been very funny since both actresses are quite funny in their own ways and sitting here I can think of numerous scenarios that would have been a riot.

Sentiment: negative
All I can say is I really miss this show!! My wife & I just got married around the time this show started up!! Why did CBS take it off the air??? I think it was the best show for the whole family to enjoy!! It made me laugh!! It also made me cry. But when CBS took it off the air my wife & I thought CBS made a big mistake. You know what would be so great?? Have a reunion show!! That would be so cool!!!! Anybody know if it is on DVD yet?? On the last season of Promised Land, did CBS show the whole last season?? I think CBS took it off the air at mid-season. My wife & I will never forget it. The opening with that theme song was fantastic!!! This show only comes once in a life time! May we never forget Promised Land!!

Sentiment: positive
Yes, this movie make me feel real horror, when i realized that i paid for it and spent more than 1 hour of my life trying to watch it. The bald guy just give me the impression of being a psycho - Junkie actor and the girl is the worst actress i ever seen . Believe me if you appreciate your time avoid this movie, i understand a movie requires money to be created and some movies do not have that money but that is no justification for a stupid plot and bad acting. I'm always supporting independent movies, when it deserves the support, but movies like this makes a bad name for this kind of movies. I'm still traumatized. I will not trust in any nice cover anymore.

Sentiment: negative
If you're looking for an accurate portrayal of Che Guevara, the Cuban revolutionary who helped aid Fidel Castro in his bid for power, you'd better read up on Cuban history or even type in his name on a search engine (you ARE on the Internet, after all).

But whatever you do, DO NOT WATCH "CHE!". 

Unless, of course, you just want a good laugh.

All the reviewers of the time (and moviegoers) gave "Che!" their vote for worst film of the decade. And no wonder; have you seen this travesty? Its facts are tenuous at best, Sharif is even unconvincing as a corpse and as for Palance's Fidel Catsro imitation.... 

Like I said, if you want a good laugh.

It's like watching a co-production between The Learning Channel and Mad Magazine.

One star. 

I wonder if Palance can do W. C. Fields, too?

Sentiment: negative
In short:

Spike Lee clearly has a lot on his mind. He's thinking about racism color-ism, media and hegemony, consumerism and capitalism, religion, sexism, 'hetero-sexism', politics of the drug war etc etc...

That level of consciousness on is own is great. I think it is a blessing that more and more people are choosing to critically examine fundamental aspects of our daily lives; the silent and invisible forces that govern our societies. However, just because Lee is making contentious films does not make him a good film-maker.

What comes across in "Jungle Fever" is a superficial understanding of these socio-political forces. This is largely the result of two main failures:

firstly, Lee is simply trying too hard. He seems to be desperately trying to accommodate every political/social statement he can think of into the 90mins. And as such, the end result seems confused and irresolute as he allows himself no time to develop characters that can fully embody the ideas he hopes to present. And so he exhausts stereotypes and we are left with rushed testimonies and very loaded dialogs. The end result is very staged and unrealistic.

Secondly, by attempting to make statements about such a wide variety of societal functions, he appears to have no concrete or original interpretation of the social/political issues presented. What comes across is a puddle of regurgitated non-sense. You feel that he bought an elementary level sociology text book and spewed out all 500 pages.

These are highly problematic features because the artistry of film is sacrificed and the work is transformed into a loudspeaker for the voice of the voice of the filmmaker. He is unable to distance himself from the work, and allow it to speak for itself.

It functions neither as a piece of art nor a sound political argument.

Although I still do appreciate Lee bringing up these important issues, I must say:

Two thumbs down.

Sentiment: negative
Down To Earth is the best movie!!! It is SO funny, and it's really sweet too. It has a good plot and it's unique. It isn't like those movies that are all the same with the similar story lines, and it's not all comedy and no story. This movie also has a very good ending.

Sentiment: positive
Redundant, but again the case. If you enjoy the former SNL comedian and his antics (in this case, Schneider), then you should go. Basic comedy.man's life is saved by having various animal organs transplanted into him. Unfortunately, he takes on each animal's characteristics. Former Survivor Colleen looks pretty good here, now that she doesn't have open sores on her legs, and a little makeup on her face! D

Sentiment: negative
I thought this had the right blend of character, plot, futuristic stuff and special effects without going over board. It will take a while to get going, but the acting was good and I was intrigued by the angel who is not to hard to look at. I like the attitude too! Certainly not like other attempts at futuristic stories.

Sentiment: positive
This film is NOT about a cat and mouse fight as stated in the other comment. Its about a cat that has used up 8 of its 9 lives and now lives in fear of loosing its last one. The cat is jumpy and scared to death all of the time, hence the name 'fraidy cat'. Fraidy Cat's previous lives haunt him as ghosts which are from different era's in time and are constantly trying to kill him off, but he is most fearful of the ninth life which is represented as a cloud in the shape of a number 9 and spits out lighting bolts. very old now but would still be fun for the kids if you got hold of a copy. 

i watched this movie almost every day as a child :o)

Sentiment: positive
Even though The Shining is over a quarter of a century old, I challenge anyone to not get freaked out by Jack Nicholson's descent into madness. This is a rare example of something so unique that no one has been able to rip it off; instead it has been referenced time and again in pop culture. The twins, the elevator of blood, RedRum, the crazy nonsense "writing"... this should be seen, if for nothing else, to understand all the allusions to it in daily life. The film is simultaneously scary, suspenseful, beautiful, and psychologically intriguing. It has the classic mystery of Hitchcock and the terror of a modern thriller. And it has what horror movies usually lack: a great script.

Sentiment: positive
Things to Come is an early Sci-Fi film that shows an imagined world, or "Everytown" through 100 years. You can break it up into about 4 different scenes or parts. The film spans from 1940 to 2036 and is mainly about how this ruler or the "Boss" wanted to get the capability to fly in airplanes again, after Everytown was bombed and war broke out.

This film only has about 3 faults: it's audio is muddy and video had some quirks, the characters aren't deep at all, and the overall plot isn't altogether solid. The plot is lacking something that I can't put my finger on... it just seems a little "fluffy." But if you love sci-fi and are interested in what H.G. Wells though might happened in the next hundred years, this is a must see. It's worth seeing just to learn of what everyone was fearing: a long, drawn-out war, because they were just about to go to war with Germany, and there was a threat of biological weapons and everything.

Things to Come is a pretty good movie that most people need to see once.

Sentiment: positive
In the mid-1970s, my NYC apt. building was finally wired for cable-TV and since Showtime (instead of HBO) was the only premium channel offered showing recent movies, I signed up for it. Being a writer and night-owl by nature, I soon discovered the channel was showing movies late at night and until the wee hours of the morning I'd never even heard of--most of them American independent films and foreign films that had never been given a U.S. theatrical release. Many of them had recognizable "star" casts and respectable directors, and thanks to Showtime, I discovered many first-rate films I (and other Showtime subscribers) would never else have had the opportunity to see. Most of these cinematic mongrels were indeed "dogs" but often so bad they were unintentionally hilarious. One night, Showtime unveiled a little Italian-made gem called "Redneck" (filmed in 1972, given a limited European release in 1973). Even though the movie had never been released in the U.S., the MPAA rating was listed as an 'R'. Since the director was one Sylvio Narizzano (the director who made his name with the glorious "Georgy Girl"), and the three leads were Mark ("Oliver") Lester, Fabio Testi and Telly Savalas, I decided to give it a try. And found myself nailed to my TV screen in disbelief for 89 minutes. As I recall, Savalas and Testi played two criminals, the former a raging maniac who, in one stomach-churning scene, casually sent a German family to their deaths by nudging their trailer off a cliff, thereby plunging to the wilderness depths below. So far, so bad. Then, out of nowhere, Testi (as the "nice" psycho) and Lester (all of 14 when the movie was made) are seen, both nude, in a men's room, Testi sneaking peeks at the kid's body while shaving, and poor confused Lester fixated on close-ups of Testi's naked butt. As a not-yet-jaded member of the movie industry, and a card-carrying liberal (I was as much against censorship then as I am today), the entire movie made me queasy (and, being the early '70s when I thoughtI'd seen everything in the anything-goes movies of that liberated era--including the uncut version of Altman's "That Cold Day in the Park", a real jaw-dropper until it was trimmed for an 'R' rating and would have spelled The End for Altman's career had he not next come up with something called "M*A*S*H"), I still wonder if anyone else except me ever saw "Redneck" and was appalled as I was. Trashing the actors and movie-going audiences is joy maladjusted filmmakers have been merrily indulging in since the beginning of time. But leeringly exploiting a highly respected and talented child actor (Mr. Lester) at a time when he was beginning to make the difficult transaction from child to adult actor (and I'm sure his film offers had thereby dwindled to meretricious junk like "Redneck")...Mr. Narizzano, you should be hanging your head in shame. (Incidentally, I was soon to make friends with actors who had appeared in Narizzano's future, undistinguished efforts. They both despised him. Surprise?)

Sentiment: negative
Great comedy from Charlie Chaplin. I've seen Chaplin's 4 major films (Gold Rush, City Lights, Modern Times, and The Great Dictator), and I think it is easily the funniest of the four. This movie had me laughing more than almost any other I've ever seen. From the very opening disclaimer ("Any similarity between the Great Dictator and the barber shop owner is purely coincidental") the movie is a laugh-a-minute with a blend of wonderful slapstick and verbal humor. And at the same time, Chaplin manages to portray the evils of totalitarian persecution. Maybe a little short on the ending and the lasting timeliness of the subject matter, but easily a 9 out of 10 for me.

Sentiment: positive
For starters, I didn't even know about this show since a year or so because of the internet. I have not once seen it on TV before in my country, and a lot of people do not usually know about this show. It is a pity though, because this is easily the most original and clever animation I have witnessed in years.

I don't hand out 10 points a lot, but this is one show that truly deserves all 10 points. Even though at first glance this might seem like a typical cartoon but keep in mind that this is not a kids-show though. When the complete story unfolds itself, you know that this is a real deep storyline, with a spiritual message. This spiritual part of the story is largely based off spirit-animals, a old Indian believe that has been preserved for many years. This gives the show a original twist that you can't often find in animated shows.

The overall design is also something very different. At times it resembles Spawn a bit in terms of gritty design, and other times it takes on a more cartoony approach. I believe David Feiss who also created and directed Cow and Chicken animated a segment in the show (as he also drew that segment in the comic).

If you are looking for a mind-twisting show, a show that takes on various subjects such as reality, suicide, spirituality, life, then this is something you should not miss. Once you begin watching, you are probably going to watch it to the end. One minor fact may be that the show takes on less material from the comic, but this is not too annoying. The only question remains though, where is the DVD?!

Sentiment: positive
i saw this movie last night and even after a couple of beers the only giggle this movie got out of me was when i realized that i was actually watching it. in a word, it is unfunny. UNfunny. i totally believe the trivia tidbit about jack black apologizing for making this garbage. i can't believe that barry levinson didn't just toss this script when he read the first page. moreover, i can't believe that i watched more than ten minutes of it.

i gave it 3 out of 10* because i love to see christopher walken make terrible movies for the paycheck. also, the horse "corky," by merely existing as a character in this movie, is actually quite ridiculous.

Sentiment: negative
I should put out an alert all over saying that the movie shouldn't be watched. It fails to a fitting tribute in such a magnificent manner that it is almost an insult to the memory of those brave men. The special effect were horrible, I hadn't expected the total failure on the part of the director to appreciate military technology. How can a machine gun which normally fires at the rate of 600 rounds per minute fire at 1/10th the speed? How can soldiers fall forward when a grenade explodes in front of them? How can people survive when there are artillery shells falling as close as 20 feet away? How come the artillery shells fall only on either side of the road and not the road itself?

Not only did this disrespect for the weaponry appall me, it was the cliched situations and the incongruity of the dialogues which had me screaming murder. There were the standard dialogues like Ye bhi kisi ka bhai hai, ise laath mat maro and Pakistan se jyaada musalmaan to Hindustaan me hai and LOC cross mat karo ye mera hukum hai. Stupid to say the least.

What Shobha De had written is true. The director worked without a script and it shows. There is no flow to the movie. There is no gradual progression from one battle to another. It is just one gunfight after the next with no connection to the overall scheme of the war. The explanatory scenes are awful. The chief of army staff looks unconvincing. To make matters worse the theatre people had indiscriminately cut footage to fit the four hour long movie into 3 hours.

Sentiment: negative
The above line sums it up pretty good. The best assets of the comics are it's visual gags and word-jokes (the latter of which are almost impossible to translate, which is why the comics are at their best in their original language).

Both are quite hard to capture in film, which is why those will never be as good as the comics. Movies are simply a different medium than comics. With that in mind, this movie does surprisingly well in capturing the fun of the comic.

The word gags are bearable, and sometimes even funny (Debouze does an Amelie reference!). I have to mention that I watched the french version. If you don't watch the french version or your lack of understanding of the french language limits you to the subtitles, the word jokes will probably suck.

The slapstick is okay as well; it's a very simple form of humor, and not really funny when you're older than twelve, but it captures the spirit of the comicbooks. The other visual jokes are the movie's saving grace for the older audience, as their often quite funny.

The acting is totally over the top, but again, that's not annoying at all as it captures the spirit of the comicbooks. Only Depardieu and Clavier don't really overact, which might be the reason some people think they didn't enjoy their roles (I didn't notice a thing). On the other hand Jamel Debouze and especially Claude Rich turn overacting into an artform. It's actually fun to watch. Again, I fear it wouldn't be nearly as funny when the voices are dubbed.

Overall not a bad movie at all, much better than the previous one. It's not a classic and it doesn't dethrone The Twelve Tasks of Asterix as my favourite Asterix movie, but it's still worth seeing. The french version, that is. 7/10

Sentiment: positive
The number of times I've had tears in my eyes when watching a movie are few. And there is only one time when I have really cried and that was when I saw this movie. This movie has some kliches but I really don't care. I cry even as I write this and it was quite some time since I saw it. It is perfectly acted and all the production values are good, but what really matters is the simple and wonderful message. We all know it in our hearts, but it is not always easy to remember that the only thing that really matters in life is LOVE in all it's forms. It's only when we love that we're truly alive. I know how sentimental I sound and I promise I'm not usually like that. I'm quite a cynic. This movie has brought out stronger feelings of both sorrow and happiness in me than any other movies and it will probably always be the first movie I recommend others to see.

Sentiment: positive