DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I really tried to like this movie. It deals with an important problem in any society: sex addiction.

In this story we learn that you can lose everything when you're addicted to sex. In this case, our main character and hero, for having non-stop sex with all kinds of women (crazy, kinky, neurotic) puts in jeopardy his marriage, job, and even his life.

The production values are terrible; mainly the acting. Oh, you won't enjoy ANY of the sex scenes, most of them are done in very poor taste and you might think you're watching a home made flick.

Second, the plot is just non sense. How could such a smart and beautiful wife stand all the nasty stuff from the husband? How could she believe him?! The threesome situation is priceless and will make you chuckle for a while.

Also, the scene with the black movie theater attendant is just pointless and will leave you thinking "wtf?". 

Scenes like those you will find plenty. 

Avoid this movie. Please, avoid it; it's not soft core, it's not a documental, it's not a dramatic feature. It's a pretentious effort form a so called documentary director or whatever.

Only Mrs. Kinski's legs on display are worth the watch. I caught it on HBO and I'm glad I didn't spend my money on it. But those 90 minutes of my life won't come back.

Sentiment: negative
The Godfather Part I was a stunning look inside the fictional Corleone family and how an innocent young man was all but forced into circumstances he never wanted to have a part of. The Godfather Part II shows that young man's acceptance of his new role, his desensitization of character, as well as his complete loss of all innocence as he dives deeper and deeper into a life of crime. The first two parts of this saga of this transformation of Michael Corleone make for one of the greatest tragedies in cinematic history.

Then, along came The Godfather Part III. Michael Corleone is now the aging Don of the Corleone family. He shows remorse for his previous actions not through subtle behaviors, but by trying to use his powers for good and admitting all his wrongdoings and regrets to others. Very cliche and uncharacteristic of the complex character that is Michael Corleone. Michael's plans to use his powers for good are derailed by an ambitious young disciple and his enemies. Michael's daughter is eventually a casualty of the ongoing mob wars and her death predictably leads to Michael realizing that his entire life as Don has been worthless for he has failed in the one thing that was the reason for putting himself into the position he was in: protecting his family.

The Godfather Part II ends with Michael Corleone reaching the lowest of the lows: having his own brother killed. Before Part III was made, the Godfather saga was an emotionally riveting tale of an innocent young man's journey into darkness with the unbelievably tragic end of Michael forgetting his roots and abandoning the one thing that has always mattered most to him and those around him: family loyalty. Part III paints the picture of Michael as a man who is and always has been just a victim of circumstance. This greatly corrupts the meaning of the first two films.

The Godfather Part III is a horrible mess of a film that never should have been made. The only solution to the problem that is this final installment of The Godfather movies is to pretend that it does not exist and that the saga actually ends with Michael's shockingly horrible act of having a member of his own family killed.

Sentiment: negative
The ScareCrow was on of the funniest Killers I have ever seen in the act! Plus he's really bouncy most of the time he jumped around, which was awesome! Also he had an excellent voice I mean it was just perfect for him. The story lines was excellent too. I like how the kids soul was transferred into ScareCrow that was cool! Plus he did have a reason for all that killing I mean after what those people did to him.....I would be angry too! ScareCrows look was really good! his look gives that person an "OMG!" reaction when they see him! Which was great the stares he got were funny! Those people were stupid, who would stare for that long! They should of glanced and ran for their lives...even though that wouldn't of made a difference!

Sentiment: positive
This was a horrible film! I gave it 2 Points, one for Angelina Jolie and a second one for the beautiful Porsche in the beginning... Other than that the story just plain sucked and cars racing through cities wasn't so new in 1970. The Happyend was probably what annoyed me the most, seldomly seen anything so constructed!

Sentiment: negative
OK me and a friend rented this a few days ago because we like to keep track of b-movies since we do them ourselves. Anyway, the cover contained blood and weird looking naked girls with fangs and stuff... and Tom Savini! There is just no way this movie can fail! Right? wrong!! It just seems like such a waste! There was really no story, the dialog was terrible (is anyone there? x 1000!!!), the characters were.. well, they really lacked any kind of personality... The effects were terrible.. and whats up with these long artsy shots of scared people running around doing nothing.. with extreme closeups of eyes and stuff? We were sitting the whole movie waiting for something... anything to happen... but no... "oh, here comes the nymphs! great! oh.. they're kissing... again... and now for the violence! OK... nothing really happens... again... oh, now they run around... and the closeups of eyes... again... oh, heres Tom Savini! Oh... he died... right... OK, maybe now something cool or even interesting will happen.. no.. oh! Cool! a severed head! the end... oh crap.." And finally, since i'm so full of myself.. i'll tell you this! Give me a van, six actors, a weird looking house, Tom Savini, a couple of naked girls with fangs and buckets of blood and i could make the coolest movie you've ever seen... I've made movies with zero budget in two days that has better effects, better acting and a better script than this... what is this Johannes guy doing?? Making cool movies is easy!It could have been so great... I'm really upset!!

Sentiment: negative
I went to see suspecting I would hate it, I did. Everything about it was wrong; it was like they were filming a different book. Granted the locations and houses very lovely (if not a little miscast-yes even the house were wrong for their parts) Keira was too modern, dull and frankly I found it unpleasant to watch her. Were everyone else sees Darcy as a sex god the writer of this saw him as sexually frustrated and inadequate. Bingley was stupid and dippy (he isn't meant to be) and the Bennett's were shown to be destitute and for some unknown reason farmers, this is incorrect and ludicrous. The very idea that Mr Bennett would answer the door in his night gear with the rest of the family dressed in their underwear to in the middle of the night is stupid. They had servants. Mr Collins was not repulsive and greasy merely stupid and obnoxious, Georgina Darcy was ugly and old and Miss Bingley wore a sleeveless dress, what! As if! It is Historically inaccurate and even the ending is unsatisfying. I could go on for days. I hated it so much as not only was it nothing like the book but I fear that for many people it will be their fist experience of this great novel and it will give them the worst possible idea of it. The BBC version is so superior it's not even funny and everything about this version is an insult to its memory. In short if you must see it be sure you have read the book first or seen the BBC version other wise you will be lead done the deluded road that this is what it's like, which its not!

Sentiment: negative
This film is one to spend the short while, entertainment, but who then could be made in nobody country it does not have anything identifies "the Colombian". Who looks for the topics of the supposed Colombian or socially and politically correct cinema and what it is denominated "it jeopardize",it is better than it is not going to see this film. Some to the drug traffic, or the fight is no reference either farmer and worker, or wing guerrilla and to the kidnapping political. 

The corrupt police is a personage who it could be Mexican, Russian, Italian or Chinese, and also the personage protagonist, an Argentine photographer, it could be Venezuelan, Peruvian or Philippine and the frequent "boludo" in its parliaments it could be replaced by another word of slang of any other country without the personage or history changes. The important thing is that it is a very decently counted history with images and right performances. Its quality almost is of TV movie but of the good ones. That if one film like this if it deserves or does not deserve the support with publics bottoms a little is a classic discussion "mamerta".

Sentiment: positive
I watched the show 10 years ago and loved it!!! Am now in possession of the DVD and was watching the series, and waiting for scenes I knew were in the show (when Lucas confronts Gail in his house)and realized it was missing - all of a sudden I was watching the seduction without the lead up. Then I went on line to check out all the BIOS of the stars and came across the comments about the shows being out of order. Thank You!!!!! But there seems to be some conflict. Some comments state "Strangler number 19 then Triangle 20, when another had them around the other way. And also Potato Boy 5, and Dead to the World 6, were reversed as well. Can someone clarify?????

Sentiment: positive
After being sent to prison for no less then 10 nor more then 40 years for being busted with drugs and refusing to give up her accomplishes, Jackie (Erica Gavin of Russ Meyer's "Vixen" and "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", in her last film role) has to get accustomed to life in the big 'doll' house, or at least try to, in this early film by Jonathan Demme. Due to it's tawdry nature and sheer watchability, I would also rank this as one of his best films, right below "Silence of the Lambs" and "Stop Making Sense", but so far above any of his other movies. This minor classic is just campy, sleazy, and fun enough to be an amazingly good guilty pleasure and thankfully never once goes overboard into all out parody of the Women In Prison genre. It ALMOST washed out the rancid bad taste of the ludicrously preachy "Philidelphia" from my mouth. However, the film is not without it's downfalls (the 'un'talent show is a HUGE chore to sit through and goes on far too long, Barbera Steele is sadly wasted, among other small things) But don't let those gripes stop you from watching an otherwise enjoyable movie.

My Grade: B- 

DVD Extras: 5 minute Roger Corman interview; Cast & crew Bios; Original Trailer; and Trailers for "Candy Stripe Nurses" (with nudity), "Big Bad Mama 2", "Big Doll House" (with nudity), & "Crazy Mama" 

Eye Candy: Juanita Brown, Cheryl "Rainbeaux" Smith, Erica Gavin, Roberta Collins, Ella Reid, Lynda Gold, and some others all show skin

Sentiment: positive
There have been many movies about people returning home from wars and having to cope, but "The War at Home" is worth seeing. Portraying Vietnam vet Jeremy Collier (Emilio Estevez) having trouble connecting with his Texas family, much of the movie is very likely to tense you up. But nothing can prepare you for what ends up getting revealed.

Part of what makes this movie so good is how it gives the viewer the feeling of both Texas and of the generation gap. Jeremy's parents Bob (Martin Sheen) and Maurine (Kathy Bates) clearly have a problem with their son's attitude, both about the war and his rejection of Americanism. His sister Karen (Kimberly Williams) is uncertain with whom to side. But after the dinner, there can be no neutrality.

So, we as Americans may never be able to fully get over the Vietnam War, but this movie can probably help us look seriously at how it affected so many people. Emilio Estevez certainly did a good job directing. Also starring Corin Nemec and Carla Gugino.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film via one of the actors' agents, and it surely conforms with a great deal that comes out of Sth. Australia in terms of the overall *tone,* which is rightly dark and moody.

I thought the little boy in the film was excellent. Mostly kid actors are *hammed up* and embarrassing but not in this case. He was really very good. In terms of the *surrealism* thingy mentioned by jingo, well, I just think this film is plain 'weird.' It's a real weirdo film, with weirdo locations, storyline, weird stuff going on the whole time. But 'good' weird as opposed to 'bad'.

Its hard to think of other movies like it, but its not at all like CARS ATE Paris, maybe more like a REPULSION, but actually I think more like a Hammer movie from the 60's. Its certainly has an interesting mind working behind it.

JINGO, My question is also about the title. Why Modern Love?? Anyone? Also, jingo, what did you mean by "god Forsaken" when you were talking about Australia, hmmm? Just curious

Sentiment: positive
This movie is worth seeing for the visual beauty and moving acting alone, but there also is an interesting cultural subtext of alienation. Women and performers (both brought together in a supporting role of a transvestite opera star) are both doomed to be relegated to subserviant roles in China. This makes the unlikely bonding between an aged street performer and a young girl even stronger as a triumph over the native culture.

The only problem I had with this movie was the tendency of the soundtrack to swell up with emotion rendered unnecessary by the actors' performance.

A welcome alternative to unsatisfying summer action movies.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film a week ago and I had to persuade my friend to come with me because this film seems to be getting such bad reviews. Sure it is no 'Human Traffic' or 'Lock, Stock...' but is by no means a flop. I think the fact that there are so many big budget films out at the moment means it has been ignored but it shouldn't be. I reckon it sets out to do what it wants to do- entertain us for an hour and a half and leave us feeling happy and contented. I would much rather go and see it that 'The Mummy', which looks boring. And no, I'm not a teenager. Don't listen to the critics, Star Wars fans didn't. This film is well worth seeing, if just to see the gorgeous Luke de Lacey and Rupert Penry-Jones. Go see it!

Sentiment: positive
I saw Five Fingers at the Drive-In in...what, 1973, '74? It was the the first Kung-Fu movie I'd ever seen and I was greatly entertained. I recently bought it on DVD and watched it again. I was greatly entertained the second time, too. I believe this is probably the one most Kung-Fu movies are modeled after. Rival Schools, different styles, revenge, "white hat" good guys and "black hat" bad guys. They even threw in the Japanese (VERY bad guys) styles of Karate and Judo. I remember being amused by the dubbing dialog, along the lines of "Hey You! You are a very bad guy!" and "They should not get away with this! I will have a go at this bad crowd!" This time it wasn't so distracting, I guess I'm used to it. If you have even the slightest appreciation of this genre, this is one you should see.

Sentiment: positive
This story is a complex and wonderful tale of the last Harem of the Ottoman empire, well told and provoking we see the inner workings of a world now gone, and learn about the people who lived there.

I enjoyed the story, characters, acting and scenes. A few scenes suffered from quick editing and the sub titles sometimes disappeared too quickly, otherwise a wonderful piece.

The main character Safiya is played wonderfully by Marie Gillain who I am pleased to say did a fantastic job without over doing it. The scenes with her and Alex Descas (Nadir) are charming and lovely.

I recommend this film for anybody looking to watch something less Hollywood and more authentic to the world they are emulating.

Sentiment: positive
This is not a new film. It is a re-cut of 1994's "Emmanuelle, Queen of the Galaxy", and it has been significantly truncated. Warning: Many characters appear in the credits that have been cut from the movie!

If you want to see this one in its original form, pick up "Queen" - avoid this one at all costs, as the cuts make it even choppier than it was originally.

Sentiment: negative
This Hamlet made for one of the boringest MST3000 episodes ever. I am not a Shakespear fan, but I do not believe he ever intended his works to be this slow paced and drab. It is also one of the hardest movies to find because there are so many Hamlets listed. Like I said though this one is quite boring. It is in black and white, the pacing is slow, and there is minimal scenery. The actors are all dubbed too so that doesn't help. This is the one MST 3000 I can't watch in one sitting cause the way the guy playing Hamlet says his lines can put anyone to sleep.

Sentiment: negative
Rented this one by mistake thinking it was another film with the same title, and realizing that I had rented it some time before.

Quick plot line. A couple consisting of an artist and photographer rent a studio apartment in Los Angeles from Joe Estevez, still cursing the fact his brother Martin Sheen could actually ACT! They find a bed in a forgotten room, but the bed is haunted by a nasty looking serial killer from the 1930's and his last victim. Their ghosts inhabit the couple, first enhancing their sex life, but eventually becoming more menacing.

What ensues is cheap R-rated sex scenes, cheaper thrills and kind of a waste of time.

Sentiment: negative
I have found this show by accident and was surprised to find out that nobody I know has ever heard of it. This was by far one of the best shows I have seen in months if not years and I cannot wait for more episodes to come out. Sleeper Cell portrays a psychological struggle of an undercover agent inside of a terrorist cell who has to constantly make difficult decisions in order to maintain his cover while staying true to his real cause. This is an extremely well done show. It keeps you intrigued from the first episode till the end and though progressing slowly, is fast enough for you to feel on the edge. Quite realistic and humane, it touches on important topics and every episode presents an interesting question to ponder about. This show is not 24 or any of the cop shows on TV and is not trying to be anything either. It is genuine and unique. It is a show about a human being, his difficult choices and his life of struggle where a simple mistake can cost him everything.

I gave this show a 10 for great storyline, good progression, excellent cinematography, excellent music and realistic characters each with a story to tell.

Sentiment: positive
After seeing this routine by John Leguizamo, I finally realize why he is such a talent. I enjoy great stage work, and this is stage work at its best. I cannot label it as a stand-up routine, because Leguizamo is so intense when playing the different characters. The only time he breaks character is when it is necessary for him to complete his part in which he does so coolly, that you cannot help, but appreciate his talents. I wasn't really sure how I felt about him as an actor, but Freak solidified my appreciation of him. For those out there that have not had the opportunity to see this show, I feel for you. Definitely check it out. It is one of the nest routines I have ever seen. Ranks with Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby and Chris Rock. Four stars and more.

Sentiment: positive
The story itself is routine: A boy runs away from home and ends up in a struggling music school for kids. He convinces a famous violinist to sponsor the school. The film is a splicing of shootings over 11 weeks, and leaves many amusing holes which the observant viewer may find for him/herself.

However long the whiskers of the plot might have been, the movie is justified by its music and acting. There is plenty of music, featuring classical works played by Heifetz and by The Meremblum Orchestra, one of the leading youth symphonies of that day, and said music is excellent. By itself, it would make the picture worth viewing. The conducting and scoring duties were put in the best of hands: those of Alfred Neumann.

The acting is a study in contrasts. The kids in the orchestra, most of whom had little or no acting experience, must have driven director Archie Mayo crazy, looking into the camera, overacting the parts that they had, and overstudiously following directions given to them. But the spontaneity that results from their lack of training adds an interesting charm to the picture. The veteran actors were marvelous with the material they had to work with. Walter Brennan was perfectly cast in his role, one that he emulated in real life. Joel McCrea and Andrea Leeds were ideal fits for their parts. And the supporting acting was a veritable Who's Who of character actors: Marjorie Main, Arthur Hohl, Paul Harvey, , Charles Coleman, Perry Ivins, and Porter Hall in his typical role of the heavy---all ideally cast. And the bit players: Jessie Arnold, John Hamilton, Marjorie Wood, Jimmy Flavin, Dulcie Day, the gravelly voiced Lee Phelps in his usual role as a policeman and many many more. If you're a fan of character actors, this movie will bring back a lot of memories.

Overall, the picture is very enjoyable and is recommended, even if you aren't a fan of classical music.

tvcat

Sentiment: positive
By the standards of Hollywood this movie was filmed and edited as Hollywood movies are and therefore looked like a movie you would get out of a big-time production studio within Hollywood. Thats where anything remotely close to having Hollywood standards ends. This was THE WORST MOVIE I have EVER seen in MY LIFE! I am not joking. The story was so unbelievably stupid and unrealistic that I could not contain my laughter in the movie theater through the course of watching this film. I know what you're saying, "its a horror film its not supposed to have a good story it's supposed to scare you." Well let me tell you something, the movie is not even scary in the least bit. Its too full of stupid bits that cancels out the little suspense there may have been. The acting was awful as well, along with the scariness of the murderer, who you constantly see through flashbacks locked in a cage jacking off. Throughout the movie I kept getting a sense I was watching something that was thought up, written, produced, and directed by a high-schooler who watches too much pornography. Please, don't see this movie, spend your $8.50 on other things, like a snow cone, which would be much more worth your while.

Sentiment: negative
It's hard for me to criticize anything that Mitzi Kapture does. She just radiates beauty and grace on the screen and is a phenomenal actress. That notwithstanding, yes, the plot was predictable. I think perhaps if Jill HAD slept with Richard then it may have made him a little crazier than he already was, which would have added more to the suspense. It would have also been nice to see Jill and her husband find out about Richard's little problem with his ex-wife, maybe a bit more back story. I was a little disappointed with the ending of the movie. I would have liked to have seen more closure with Zack's death and possibly closure with her husband. I do have to say though, I will never be able to look at a flare gun and not picture her standing there. It was a very fitting end for Richard. Of course, Mitzi ROCKED! I am so looking forward to her future projects.

Sentiment: positive
Saving Grace is a nice movie to watch in a boring afternoon,when you are looking for something different than the regular scripts and wants to have some fun. I mean,the whole idea of this movie and all the marijuana in it is such a craziness! It was the first movie I watched with this theme(drugs/marijuana) that is not really criticizing it,only making jokes about it. Grace Trevethyn is a widow,who lives in a small town in U.K. and has many financial problems because of her dead husband, who committed suicide since he was full of debts. The problem is that Grace, who imagined to have some money saved for her, discovers that she needs to pay all of her husband's pounds in debts to not lose all of her things, specially her house that she loves so much. She never worked before, and is in a tragic situation until Matthew,her gardener who is very found of smoking pot, decides to make a partnership with her in selling marijuana in large scale.

Sentiment: positive
A powerful movie that has recovered much of its meaning in this second half of 2007 after the new desperate movements of the Burmese people against their tyrants. I felt a complex mix of feelings about the people there, something like compassion and admiration at the same time, together with a bit of rage because I feel that no one, neither the countries of the world, nor themselves, is doing anything effective to end this shame. I think these feelings became directly from the movie, and that they were intended when it was made, so it is a successful movie. The desire for peace, the quest for enlightenment, the respect for life sometimes leads to subjugation. In fact it is the Buddhist Burmese culture who has left the doors wide opens to their dictators. But, how can you feel angry about these poor people?

Sentiment: positive
Nothing like this was seen on TV at that time and probably never will again. From the first image of that police light blinding you and from there you heard the words: "Police Squad - in color", you were schocked to see that this in no way was an ordinary sitcom.

Also to kill off a "Guest Star" and then never refer to him again, where had you ever seen that before. Then the actual show started and if you did not pay attention, you would miss several jokes in the background. Don't pay too much attention to one thing or you would be sorry. This was the show that video recorders were made for, way before Married with Children or The Simpsons.

The stories did in no way make sense and the dialog was sometimes so weird that you had to think about it for 5 minutes before realising that it was a joke.

The characters Frank Drebin and Ed Hocken came right out of Dragnet and they were absolutely straight (no funny accents or expressions) but instead there were puns and twisted sentences played absolutely deadpan. Only once as I can remember, were there a segment played for silly laughs - a scene involving a trip to a dentist, suction and a whole lot of saliva.

There were some tedious moments - like the informer Johnny and an appearance by some celebrity. That was strictly a one-joke moment but they had to use it in all six episodes. Oh, well. Everything can't be perfect. The important thing is that the rest of the time you were knee deep in tears of laughter.

Leslie Nielsen was fortunate that this revived his career when they put the Frank Drebin character in 3 features but it must have been an Achilles heel as well. Can you remember seeing him in anything except Naked Gun type work since? And don't count the awful Mr. Magoo reworked for live action. He probably made a lot of money, though.

Sentiment: positive
I kept waiting for the film to move me, inspire me, shock me, sadden me in some way but it stirred none of my emotions. It just meandered along to the end. None of the characters seemed very unique or complex, they just seemed like actors reciting their lines. I think it could have been a better movie if the characters expressed more emotion. The only one who did and was believable was the veteran and he probably committed suicide just to get out of the movie as soon as he could. It was a waste of talent, film, their time, and mine. If there is a message or meaning or genius in this story, it certainly is well-hidden or I am very dense, which I doubt.

Sentiment: negative
Johnny Knoxville and the boys of Jackass go over the top for "Jackass Number Two." At a press screening, the laughter was so loud and raucous it was hard to hear all the dialog. The stunts are over the top and the pranks are funnier and more outrageous than ever before.

All of the guys put their limbs on the line to make a great film, and they succeeded. If you like this genre, you'll love this film. If not, don't bother.

Some of the funniest bits are the pranks the guys play on themselves, and they have no regard for what happens to them. They'll do anything to make a stunt work. 

Many critics panned Johnny Knoxville for a less active role in the first film, but not to worry, he is front and center in Number Two, and they have enough footage in the can to be half way through a Number Threee.

This is a must see for fans of this type of humor.

Chris Sansone, Entertainment Editor, Fort Bend Herald

Sentiment: positive
i was enjoying this movie most of the time, but i kept getting the feeling that i was watching a children's movie. i honestly think that somebody wrote a pg script and then, while filming, decided to add in some blood, nudity and language. it was a big let down. there's that believe the children magic that exists in movies like "babe" (the pig) or "angels in the outfield" that defeats the evil tooth fairy. the parents end up believing their daughter about her ability to see the ghost and utilize this skill to supernaturally defeat the tooth fairy. when i bought this movie, i thought it would be a b-film response to the dreadful darkness falls; somehow manage to make a better film with 1/4 of the money, but they don't. they made a worse film and will probably lose the same proportion of money lost on darkness falls.

Sentiment: negative
Dude, I thought this movie rocked. Perfect for just sitting around alone and watching at like 3AM with just you and a bottle. The whole time you are watching it you are thinking WTF? What's gonna happen next.... dude just get with the chick already. Alright..... they are pickin mushrooms... this is odd... but kinda creepy cool. Damn this whole movie has an erotic dirty naughty cold evil undertone to it... it's subtle dance just keeps you drawn to it... you're just waiting for someone to get whacked. But damn... WTF!? You get that and then some. For the morally enraged stomach it is great running to the toilet to barf material. Any movie that can get that kinda reaction out of you deserves an award.

Sentiment: positive
Absolutely the worst film yet by Burton, who seems to be getting worse with each film he directs. A miserable script loaded with cliches is only the first of many objectionable aspects to this film. This is the kind of movie where every time something happens, you'll be sure to hear someone shout out "he's lost his gun!" or whatever it is to let everybody know. Carter is really awful and so is Wahlberg, who can't play this straight and be convincing. Very nice effects and photography, but poor music in the John Williams mold by Burton's crony Elfman. Heston appears in a nonsensichal scene to spout out his most famous catch-phrases from the first movie. Very poor results.

If anyone else out there also saw "Sleepy Hollow", they will probably have noticed, as I have, the declining quality of Burton's films. I've heard that this particular project was produced by others and that Burton was brought in as director, in which case his judgement should be questioned. But I think he has allowed any possible vision he might have had earlier in his career to slip; the evidence is there in the films. In "Sleepy Hollow", he couldn't decide what kind of movie he was making, whether it was a comedy or a real horror movie, and the population of british character actors (Chris Lee, etc.) made you also think it was kind of a monster rally film (those are never scary, as horror fans know). The movie couldn't succeed on either horror or comedy because it was so schizophrenic, and no style had been developed to smooth the two together. "Planet of the Apes" is much the same way, and the result comes off more like "Total Recall" or "Tango and Cash" than like sci-fi. He's also fallen into the rut of so many other "big" directors of trying to satisfy the entire possible audience. Word to Burton, if you're out there -- pick something and do it straight, or use some style to peice it all together (as in "Mars Attacks" or "Beetlejuice") or you might as well retire, because people like me that are fans of your movies will stop going.

Sentiment: negative
To me this film is just a very very lame teen party movie with all the normal clichés and boring stereotyped characters (Nerds, Jocks, Popular girls, Sleezy guys, etc) but with an underlying anti drug/drinking theme. 

If you ever have the unfortunate chance of seeing this film, keep an eye out for all the references to responsibility and keeping it real (dunno how else to word it) I guess the only thing that'd make this film cool, would be if they TV playing it was on fire. That, or DVD it was on exploded...

1 out of 10000 - Watch Animal House instead.

Sentiment: negative
This film is amazing - it's just like a nightmare. The bizarre story, the dark decors, the swarming insects everywhere, the idea jumps and the surrealistic dreams... Really great! People who love cult movies or very dark thrillers will find this fantastic. It seems a little to the films of David Lynch: the strange story, the bizarre dreams, the red curtains. Nuit Noire contains almost no plot. It's rather a succession of surrealistic happenings, nightmares and meetings. That's a drawback. If the film had a really fascinating plot full of tension with a captivating denouement, I would give it a 10 out of 10. But that's missing, and that's why I gave the movie an 8. Nuit Noire is a film worth watching. Search that DVD and you'll be rewarded!

Sentiment: positive
This movie is truly brilliant. It ducks through banality to crap at such speed you don't even see good sense and common decency to mankind go whizzing past. But it doesn't stop there! This movie hits the bottom of the barrel so hard it bounces back to the point of ludicrous comedy: behold as Kor the Beergutted Conan wannabe with the over-abundance of neck hair struts his stuff swinging his sword like there's no tomorrow (and the way he swung it, I really am amazed there *was* a tomorrow for him, or at least, for his beer gut). Don't miss this movie, it's a fantastic romp through idiocy, and sheer bloody mindedness! And once you have finished watching this one, dry the tears of joy (or tears of frustration at such an inept attempt at storytelling) from your eyes because some stupid f00l gave these people another $5 to make a sequel!

Sentiment: negative
This movie scared the crap out of me! I have to admit that I spent most of the film watching through my fingers but what I saw was really scary. I screamed out loud two or three times during the show.

Film-making-wise my favorite aspects were the sound and photography. The sound was particularly great and the setting was really creepy beautiful. I read somewhere that it's some weird husband and wife team that made it. For some reason that makes this even stranger for me. 

If you enjoy the jumps and jitters of scary movies than this one is for you! Very suspenseful and a great movie to rent with a bunch of friends who love to watch movies curled up on a sofa screaming like little girls!

Sentiment: positive
this is without a doubt the worst most idiotic horrible piece o' crap i have ever watched.

this movies plot is that some guy goes crazy and dresses up as santa claus and kills people BECAUSE he saw his mother give his father oral sex while he was dressed as santa clause. THAT IS WHY HE WENT INSANE? is it just me or is that the worst damn reason for someone to go insane like EVER? and that's not the only thing. i'm being serious when I say NOTHING HAPPENS IN THIS DAMN MOVIE. nothing until like 1 hour and 15 minutes of it have gone by.

there's an entire friggin scene where he glues a friggin santa beard on to him. IT'S A FRIGGIN MINUTE LONG. WHO THE HELL WANTS TO SEE THAT? however i must say the ending of this movie made me crap myself laughing at it. so if you see this movie on TV or something come back in like 1 hour and 20 minutes just to watch without a doubt the worst ending in all of cinematic history. and i'm serious about that.

it's not even so good its bad, it's tedious, it's idiotic, it made me want to break the vcr. it's just not worth your time also i'm sure every other review mentioned this but The actress who played the mother on Home Improvement was in this movie for a split second. YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW BAD THIS MOVIE IS? I'D RATHER WATCH HOME IMPROVEMENT FOR SIXTY SIX HOURS THEN EVEN LOOK AT THIS MOVIES COVER EVER AGAIN.

Sentiment: negative
John Cassavetes' 1977 film Opening Night is, what critics usually call the work of such a significant artist, 'overlooked'. It is an excellent film, in its own right, and one of the best portraits of a midlife crisis ever put to film. It's not a perfect film, in that, at two hours and twenty four minutes it's about a half hour too long, and there's a bit too much emphasis on the drunkenness of the lead character Myrtle Gordon, played by Gena Rowlands, the wife of Cassavetes, long after we've gotten the point. But only Woody Allen's masterpiece, Another Woman, which also starred Rowlands, eleven years later, is a better portrait of the internal conflicts of an aging woman. Yet, Rowlands did win the Best Actress Award at the Berlin Film Festival for this portrayal, and it was well deserved. Often this film, written by Cassavetes, is easily compared to his earlier- and inferior- film, A Woman Under The Influence, but it's a spurious comparison. Rowlands' character in that film is severely mentally disturbed from the start, as well as coming from a blue collar background, while her characters in this film and in Allen's film are both artists who are haunted by apparitions. In this film it's the ghost of a dead young woman who can be seen as Myrtle's younger doppelganger, while in Allen's film it's her character's own past. Many critics have taken this film to be a portrait of an alcoholic, seeing Myrtle surround herself with enablers, such as a stage manager who tells her, during opening night, 'I've seen a lot of drunks in my time, but I've never seen anyone as drunk as you who could stand up. You're great!', but this is wrong, for alcohol isn't her problem- nor is her chain smoking. They are merely diversions from whatever thing is really compelling her to her own destruction, and much to Cassavetes' credit, as a storyteller, he never lets us find out exactly what's wrong with Myrtle, and despite her coming through in the end, there's no reason to expect that she has really resolved anything of consequence. This sort of end without resolution links Cassavetes directly with the more daring European directors of the recent past, who were comfortable in not revealing everything to an audience, and forcing their viewers to cogitate, even if it hurts.

Yet, the film recapitulates perfectly the effect of a drunk or fever lifting out of the fog, and as such the viewer again is subliminally involved in its drama. Whether or not Myrtle Gordon does recover, after the film's universe irises about her is left for each and every viewer to decide, and as we have seen before that lid closes, one's choices do matter.

Sentiment: positive
I was excited to discover this late sixties comedy staring some of my favorite people - Maggie Smith, a very young Bob Newhart and, of course, Peter Ustinov. My disappointment was thus compounded to discover the film doesn't work as either a comedy or a perfect heist film. Ustinov plays a small time crook just out of prison who sets his sites on a large American corporation based in London. Bluffing his way past dimwitted CEO Karl Malden and tech geek Newhart, Ustinov passes himself off as a computer expert and immediately plans the 'perfect heist' part of the film. To do this he needs to get passed a tamper proof security system that guards the corporation mainframe. And here is problem one. His perfect plan only works because everyone else in the film is remarkably trusting and stupid. His lame excuses are taken at face value and this must be the only computer center anywhere not to bother with video cameras. The second problem is the heist (fraud really) happens within the first 30 minutes of the film robbing the rest of the picture of much in way of dramatic tension. Maggie Smith is sadly miscast as Ustinov's ditsy next door neighbor/secretary who just can't keep a job. I love Maggie Smith but she just seems too together here, too composed, the part called for more of a wacky, physical comedian. Furthermore, Ustinov and Smith have no chemistry together, maybe it's the age difference, but the later romantic relationship, as devoid of actual romance as it is, still comes off a little creepy. Ustinov co-wrote the script, and it was thought well of at the time, but I found it unfunny, meandering and a sad waste of a great cast.

Sentiment: negative
Larry Buchanan. Yep, same guy who did "Attack of the THE Eye Creatures" and two (count 'em: TWO) conspiracy movies about Marilyn Monroe. He's to blame, here.

Adding onto his ever-growing pile of folders left over from Oliver Stone's "eh-I-grew-out-of-it" conspiracy drawer, here's "Down On Us (i.e.- "Beyond the Doors") which is the working definition of historical inaccuracy.

Forget everything you THOUGHT you knew about Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison, says Big Lar', cuz this is the real deal! Y'see, the three big names in rock of the '60s were KILLED BY THE GOVERNMENT because they were subversives or counter-productive to Truth, Justice and the American Way, or sumpthin' like that there. I knew it all along.

Anyway, three people (Chatman, Meryl, Wolf) who look eerily like their real life shadows (that is, if you completely close your eyes, turn your backs and walk five miles away from them) show that instead of their recorded deaths, the good old US of A put hits out on them! Yep, it's the truth!

Man, I cannot believed I watched this movie. It's facts, when not stretching credibility to the snapping point, are ludicrous; the acting makes TV commercials look like high drama and if you honestly watch it through to the end, you deserve the "twist" ending. You really, really do; I swear. Genius.

But like the man said: "Rock and roll is dead - long live rock and roll."

Not this flick, though.

No stars for "Down on Us". And that's the movie audience describing the film, by the way....

Sentiment: negative
Uzumaki succeeds as at plunging you into a bizarre surreality where Uzumaki shapes haunt and curse a town. It fails at being a competent horror movie. While the film is sure to draw attention mainly to it's bizarre plot line and a few interesting visual treats, it's going to come off better as a dark comedy than a horror film. It's definitely a film you should see if your into the kind of stuff- but if your looking for a scare or even a small chill, you'll want to look elsewhere. Uzumaki doesn't really have much else up it's sleeve but a great chain of odd events.

a

Sentiment: positive
To be honest, I had no idea what this movie was about when I started it. That's how I watch movies whenever possible. No preconception. I thought this was going to be a movie about stoners in the woods or something. I was wrong, kinda.

Loaded was kind of boring at first but once it started to get going it really hooked me. I know the feeling of being sucked into something dangerous where you feel helpless but to do things that you do not want to do.

Another user commented on how this movie was silly and implausible but I beg to differ. These kinds of things DO happen. I'm sorry but not everyone lives in a dream world where nothing bad can happen and crazy situations are "implausible". Really sorry but the reality of the WORLD is that they DO happen. The creator of this movie as well as the actors did a great job of portraying how things can just go bad and how people can make really bad choices. Sometimes things turn out good, sometimes they turn out bad and such is life.

I highly recommend this movie.

Sentiment: positive
Cliche romance drama movie with very simple plot but very good cinematography and script.The screenplay,directing and acting was also good.The flow of the movie is kind of manipulative in order to bring the audience to tears through the excellent love music and circumstance which works but later on after the movie,makes one feel raped in a way.Jones makes her character very memorable and lovable though.A deeper story could have reaaly taken this movie to a higher level but still,the movie delivers for it's genre.Only for hopeless romantics,big love story fans,big soap drama fans,50's Cinemascope cinematography fans and fans of the lead actors.....

Sentiment: positive
OK, we were going along with the stereotypical bad orphanage experience and explaining to our son, adopted from Russia, that this was over-the-top acting and dramatization, so we could get to the dog playing soccer (since he plays soccer). But the last scene, in which the dog goes back to his original owner put my son over the edge and he cried for 15-20 minutes, "he's been replaced!!!!" This from an elementary child. I DO NOT recommend this movie to any family that has an adopted child; it displays adoption, orphanages and adults badly--and in the end, even though they win the game--the dog that the boy bonded with has to leave--and this is too much. PLEASE be wary if you have any adopted children, and beware families with biological children, because the impression of children who are adopted is not positive and paints a stereotype that is unhealthy and nasty. (The dog is cute, but not enough to save our family's reaction to this movie....)

Sentiment: negative
Well, I guess I was in the mood for a movie that really grabbed me from the beginning. This movie wasn't it. It plodded along at a pretty slow, deliberate pace for the first 40 minutes, but there wasn't really anything in it that I was terribly interested in--there's an intriguing and mysterious feud between Jean Reno's character and an old man, but more of the first 40 minutes is dominated by the wanderings of the main character, whom I didn't know much about and couldn't really relate to at the time. He wanders around alone for the most part, he doesn't meet anyone; I imagine the director was trying to depict the loneliness of the human condition in this post-apocalyptic world or something, which is all good, but I still wish he'd trimmed it down from 40 minutes to 15, because it can get incredibly boring.

But after those 40 minutes, things start to get very interesting. I guess I won't really say more than that because I don't want to spoil anything. So if you've seen the first 15-30 minutes of this movie and are thinking about turning it off (like I was), just stick with it--it gets a lot better.

One of the most interesting things I found about this movie was the fact that it had no dialogue whatsoever, which really made me have to think about what was happening, how characters were feeling and what their motivations were, why things were how they were in this post-apocalyptic world, all of which gives the story a lot of room for audience interpretation. And it's amazing how much more satisfying a movie is when the actors aren't telling you exactly what's going on.

Sentiment: positive
Scary Movie 2 is definitely the worst of the 4 films, for there is not much of a plot , bad acting, pretty tedious and some really cheesy jokes. But. And this is a big but, there is one good actor, one good recurring joke, and a good beginning. The good actor being Tim Curry, the one good recurring joke is the creepy,weird butler with the disgusting hand who always does cringey but laugh worthy things. And the good beginning is the spoof of the Excorsist.

The plot to Scary Movie 2 is the main characters from the original and a host of new characters along the way are invited to stay the night at a creepy old mansion, but will they survive the night? This film is not very good but if your bored you might as well watch it!

Sentiment: negative