DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I would like to know the real name of the Lodge where scenes from the movie were filmed. It is truly beautiful and hearkens back to 20's and 30's architecture like the Hotel Del Coronado. I know it was on either Big Bear Lake or Lake Arrowhead and would like to hear if it is still in existence. As for the movie itself, it is truly amazing that Jane Wyman was even nominated for an Academy Award. This must have been a period when she was well liked by her Academy peers. It really would have been interesting to get a true impression from Wyman and the other actors in this movie regarding the script. The script of this movie, like the recent Kevin Costner movie with a message in a bottle, is so unbelievable that it it limits the credibility that the actors can bring to their parts. Rock Hudson can be forgiven. He was never a great actor, was able to get by mostly on his looks and didn't get credible roles until later in his career (Pretty Maids is the exception). But Wyman must have been forced to take this movie through contractual requirements or the studio system.

Sentiment: negative
I didn't expect much when I decided to watch this movie, so I was surprised to find myself thoroughly enjoying it. A couple of scenes had me laughing almost uncontrollably. The characters were engaging (no pun intended); however, the story is predictable. The fun of it comes from watching Crawl (Shore's character), a ditzy-yet-wise California dude a country college girl brings home for Thanksgiving, trying in his awkward (yet endearing) way to fit in to their lifestyle. I was also surprised that in all this there was a message. If you have a chance, see this movie!

Sentiment: positive
I caught this movie late one night and never knew what hit me. This was one of the most disturbing movies I have ever seen, yet had me on the edge of my seat waiting to see what would happen next. Alan Rickman is an excellent "bad guy" but this character beats all others. I've never been so affected by a movie! It's been 6 years and I still can't forget "Closet Land."

Sentiment: positive
I'll give it a two because it has a lot of music, otherwise it would be a one.

I saw this movie for the first time tonight and it's the first "Road" picture I've seen. I was expecting waaaaay better. Robert Osborn says this is the best of the Road movies. If that's true I needn't bother to see the others. The best thing about this movie is that it has a lot of songs in the first half, but that's balanced out by only one production number with dancing in the entire movie.

I didn't like the movie. Neither Hope nor Crosby came across all that well, their characters weren't very charming, the movie was not funny at all, most of the dialog was just lame filler, there wasn't much action, there wasn't much spectacle.

The movie wasn't what I expected. I was expecting more "Road," but there isn't much. They quickly make it to the palace and then most of the movie takes place there, until the end. I was also expecting a lot more of the famous "road" style of breaking the fourth wall, wherein the characters talk directly to the audience or comment on the plot. There was only about 4 instances of that. One of those is an example of the non-funny humor of this script:

(Hope recaps the plot up to now to Crosby) Crosby: I know all that! Hope: Yeah but the people that came in half-way through the picture don't. Crosby: You mean they missed my song?

Those are two weak punchlines, but at least they are actually jokes. Much of the rest of the script doesn't even have any jokes. An example is: 

Crosby: Remind me to throw you a piece of cheese in the morning. (Indirectly calling Hope a rat).

That's not funny at all, it barely even qualifies as a joke, but that's the kind of non-joke dialog that carries most of the movie. Many of the scenes don't even come that close to a joke, just using generic uninteresting dialog like:

Crosby: Hey, whadda ya' take me for? You think that you can just throw me to the dogs? Hope: Well why not, you did it to me didn't you? Crosby: Yeah but that's because I was lookin' out for us. You're not lookin' out for nobody. Hope: Oh yeah? Well then why did I pay the check?

(the above is just from my memory. It's not exact but it illustrates to you what I mean).

And so on....just generic dialog with no jokes at all.

My grade: A waste of time.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is like Happiness meets Lost in Translation with a Sixth Sense ending (or maybe a Crying Game surprise), and the best soundtrack I've probably ever heard...if that all make sense.

The first 30 seconds pretty much tells you you're in for a twisted ride. (I was surprised no one walked out right away during the Brooklyn premiere.) But from there, the film settles down into a talk-fest between two really damaged people, Daphne and Buddy.

They're lonely, mess-up, and boy do they talk about sex. Daphne brings to life her most interesting tales of escorting, some are quite funny (Mr. Chang) some disturbing (the Harlan scenes with music that tells us what we see might now be what's going on, or what Daphne is really feeling), and because I have a friend who used to escort, I might add, most seem quite real. 

You Are Alone is multi-layered and mostly brilliant. Okay, maybe a couple minutes less of the talking, and I don't know that we'd have missed anything. 

Then again, I need to see it again knowing the ending.

I like this movie.

(The director asked people in the Brooklyn audience to write a review on IMDb because a lot of people read them. Request granted.)

Sentiment: positive
for everyone who has read this book, Fanny Price ends up maturing into her own woman, a beautiful woman...with a brain. Le Touzel looks like she is on medication. Terrible acting, she just ruins it! Henry is a little tall for his character. He is also too effeminate. Mary Crawford is brilliant. Edmond is a little too old. Mrs. Norris is hysterical- OK, this casting decision works. Rushworth is also perfect. Yates looks too effeminate also. But, Le Touzel is simply horrid. This is not a good character for her. Poor Fanny! I would recommend this movie only because it includes an almost complete textual account of the language Austen uses in the novel. The 1999 version is much more fun but terribly incomplete. If they could redo this version with a better suited actress for Fanny it would be fabulous!

Sentiment: negative
John Candy. Need we say more? He is the main reason you should see this film. Most people don't realize how gifted he was as an actor. Witness him changing from poor slob to horny jerk. Just a simple(subtle) facial change and off we go. There are many great bits in this movie and many really dumb bits. The best moments for me are the KUNG FU U scenes as well as the great moment when John(in a trance) goes up on stage and talks about how much he loves his girlfriend-that is how much he and his genitals love his girlfriend. I'm sure reading this you might think this sequence sounds really crude. It is, but it is also very funny mainly because it is John Candy doing this bit. The story in general is pretty lame and Eugene Levy and Joe Flaherty(both SCTV alumni with Candy) are not given enough to do in the film. Levy has his moments, especially filming the wedding at the end(think Rod Serling) and the great scene when he is talking to his mother on the phone. Overall a good movie if you have had a tough day and need to put your brain on stupid. I give this one 4 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
Compared to the acclaimed Hollywood remake, this film is less flashy but much stronger at providing an overall picture of the drug problem. The remake loses the most interesting of the three plot threads, that of a farmer whose meager livelihood depends on drugs as a paying cash crop and whose increased involvement with the drug trade in an effort to better himself destroys himself and his family. Additionally, the story of the daughter's addiction goes into the problems not only of withdrawal but the high likelihood of relapse. This original miniseries makes good use of the additional time to go into the issues more thoroughly and remains stronger meat on this controversial subject.

Sentiment: positive
This movie has two new features in relation to the message conveyed by other equally good movies about death penalty and executions. Those are the stress also given to the drama endured by victims' parents -- without for that reason disguising the hatred and desire of revenge they feel or lessening the horror that execution represents -- and the Christian vision of all the questions implied. We must also point out that in this movie the sentenced man is not the usual nice innocent person we see in other movies dealing with executions which doesn't lead us to abandon the idea that a penal execution is no more than a legal murder anyway. Last but not least we must mention the extraordinary emotional weight put on the last moments of the execution course with all the catharsis shown by the convicted's last words and the detail with which the act of the execution itself is viewed in a parallel cut with images of the murder scenes in the forest to stress that we are being confronted with another murder so pitiless as the latter but performed in a cold and supposed "legal" way.

Sentiment: positive
Let me preface this by going on record, I am a huge George Clooney fan, and I love John Krasinski in 'The Office'. Well, I was and I did.

This was the world's worst hang nail and it took 113 minutes to rip it off. The stupefying boredom was interrupted only by my frequent efforts to read my watch and estimate when it would be over.

Every funny scene was in the previews. All three of them. There was no real story, no character development, and the script was just plain bad. I've had a colonoscopy that was more enjoyable.

The title should have been SuperDuper Bad. This movie is a lock for a Razzie. It should get a whole slough of Razzies. I want my money back.

Sentiment: negative
this movie is about people living at a trailerpark. later in the movie it gets obvious that those people are out-of-work comedians, mainly old males. well, more or less they sit around the whole movie and talk about f***ing. but never there is any action, just those people talking. in the beginning I thought it's some cool perverted redneck-stuff, but after a while it got boring. I mean, how many versions can you think of saying f***ing, d**k & c**t? for sure, this can be funny - for half an hour maybe, not 80 minutes. but it was funny to watch those people trying to act. I'm pretty sure that they often were reading their text on some sheet when playing. but it does not disturb the movie, it's cool like this. because those individuals seem so poor, f***ed-up, crestfallen a***oles that the style totally fits. their wooden, helpless reading of the texts makes quite good atmosphere, I fell in love with the characters a little.

***SPOILER AHEAD*** later in the movie the f***ers do some comedy-shows (rhymes about f***ing) with just themselves as audience and imagined applause. then one gets an eviction-advice and so they decide to defend the trailer park and enter their roofs - armed with some weapons. then they got shoot. fin. sounds like action, but it's not. just some trashy home-camera takes. ***SPOILER END***

but the movie is totally consequent in it's style and I'm pretty sure it's just what the movie-maker wanted to have. it's the portrait of those f**k-ups in an groggy home-camera style with characters who can not act but seem interesting personalities so they are nice to watch. but the texts about - you know what - the whole time get boring after a while.

pretty young director who also seems an interesting person, as he played some teenager-stuff in popular movies/TV-series but now got in more horror-movies which is more his cup of tea I guess. and this, his first direction-effort will be distributed by troma now. don't know anything about a release, I got this one as an "advance screener" from this years cannes which says "for bootlegging purposes only".

Sentiment: negative
For the first three seasons, Sabrina was a gem hidden away on TGIF (and later, early school-day afternoon reruns). Each episode had a maniac, zany energy and rapid-fire pacing that overcame the occasional awkward joke. Melissa Joan Hart exuded a keen talent for physical comedy, particularly in her facial expressions. Her two aunts, playing the "straight men," or as straight as two witches could be, had great comic timing and general chemistry with Hart. Salem, as a talking cat, was free to dabble in whatever mad scheme he was interested in, and one could laugh and take it all in stride because he was, after all, a talking cat. Sabrina's friends rounded out the social experience at school, in which also housed the typical "evil cheerleader" and "totalitarian principal." Perhaps the most interesting and unique aspect of the show was the ability to merge pop culture (e.g., bands of the era, Jerry Springer), archetypal human condition/morality (e.g., the importance of friendship, the spirit of Christmas), and the literal representation of such related metaphors in the Magical Realm. Unfortunately, like so many other shows throughout the age of television, the show hit its peak during the first three years, which coincided with Sabrina attending high school. Starting in season four, the move to college marked what would become a precipitous decline in the general quality of the show, particularly when the writers chose to introduce Josh as Harvey's rival, and concocting thin excuses for Aunts Hilda and Zelda to remain on-screen as key players. The final season, where Sabrina works at a pop culture magazine, was unequivocally disappointing. Still, in the end, Sabrina (particularly the high school years) remains a unique entry as a hybrid situational comedy with magical elements that elevates it above the tiresome fare that is produced in this genre every year.

Sentiment: positive
Ugh. This is a terrible film, full of disastrous comic relief, no scares, and scary leaps in story and plotline. The only creepy thing here is the leading lady's hats. Lugosi was on his downhill slide and it shows. I give this a 1, and this ain't no fun.

Sentiment: negative
Kitten Natividad, of Russ Meyer film fame, plays Chastity Knott, a woman who has found she has breast cancer, so she goes to South America to get some special fruit (Crockazilla?) that is supposed to have healing powers. After going down on some of this fruit (which appears to be plastic bananas on stalks) Chastity is endowed with some mystical magical powers that makes her a super-hero, specifically, The Double D Avenger. Note that she's also wearing a pair of panties as a mask. In writing, that all sounds pretty good. In execution, well, it leaves more than a little to be desired. It seems that Chastity owns a pub and a local strip joint is upset because she's taking away their business so some of the strippers (including Haji, also of Russ Meyer film fame) go after her to ruin her. Of course, Chastity fights back in the guise of the Double D Avenger. Watch her do a "Wonder Woman" type spin to change into her outfit and also lose her balance due to excessive centrifugal force. Bad jokes and lame double entendres fly like there was no tomorrow. With the inane theme song playing over and over this comes off like a twisted 70's "live action" kid's show with adult content, although while this is unrated it could probably get away with PG-13 at the worst. And it's probably a blessing that the faded stars kept well covered. This makes Doris Wishman's Chesty Morgan films look positively wonderful in comparison. Special appearance by Forest J. Ackerman but so what. Very stupid, and I'm never buying another film with Joe Bob Briggs on the cover. 2 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
Francis Ford Coppola's masterpiece was a great ending for a golden decade of American cinema. In the 1970s there was an atmosphere of tolerance, open-mindness, and progressiveness among the studios that allowed the making of major films by a few of the best directors that the United States has ever had. I am not a historian, but all the events that preceded the decade (a few being the violent deaths of major figures of the American political and cultural scenes, the racial struggles, the emergence of the 1960s counter-culture, the increase of violence and death in the streets...) seemed to influence the vision of filmmakers who were willing to dare, be different, and create entertaining and intelligent motion pictures. Coppola's film is a strange blend of humanistic thinking and skillful film-making, following the parameters of war and adventure films, and at the same time subverting them with its flowing reflections on the value of life, the reason of death, or the ethics of war. It is also a passionate work, made against all odds, chronicled in the 1991 documentary "Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse"; a motion picture that went beyond any previous reflection on the Vietnam war ever to reach the screen. This may not be the definite Vietnam motion picture, but dealing with it Coppola defied the formula of classic melodrama found in two Vietnam movies made simultaneously, "The Deer Hunter" and "Coming Home", or in latter ones as "Platoon" and "Casualties of War", before Vietnam became the starting point to make products of any genre, as horror in "Jacob's Ladder", or comedies as "Good Morning, Vietnam", among the more respectable. Coppola had the courage to take that economic and political conflict as the background of a search for answers to questions faced by any man every day of his life, without betraying the dramatic consequences of that war.

Sentiment: positive
Classic drama/action western with incredible cinematography that is well ahead of it's time(1954). The production is very good and you can tell that it was done with pride and love.Unique peek into the American NORTHT WEST pioneers is very educational and entertaining.This movie is very under rated because most people do not like to see the reality that many "lawmen" during this particular time and place were very crooked/corrupt much like most developing countries today.The action sequences could have been more realistic though but still,this movie really covers most of the essentials.Not for an audience who wants only pure testoterone type westerns for this movie is more for those who have a sense of history and philosophy.......

Sentiment: positive
This was the most uninteresting horror flick I have seen to date. The premise is glaringly forgotten after about 1 minute. The acting is terrible. The scariest thing about this movie is when the two guys kiss, yuck! What were the film festival judges thinking when they gave this garbage a 'best film' notation? The only reasons I didn't turn this movie off were to see what NOT to do as a filmmaker, and if the paper-thin plot line could really keep going on as is was. I was not disappointed by this latter notion. There wasn't even a single bit of nudity or gore to keep the kiddies interested! Also, I thought it was tacky to use about 3 minutes of "Resident Evil 2" in the movie... Was that supposed to be filler? 'cause it was the goriest and most interesting part of the movie.

Sentiment: negative
there's only so much that i can take of Filipino films, especially nowadays where the trend is sex, action and slapstick comedy(which i hate). the fact that Nasaan Ka Man made me think and made me gape during the movie was a big plus. It's got good cinematic scenes and editing was great, especially the cinematography. i think that Claudine deserves the best actress here rather than getting one in the movie Milan. the fact that there's only so few Filipino movies that i really like. i think Cholo Laurel did such a great job in this movie. i truly truly loved this movie, technically and character development wise; the plot was complex and that's what made it terrific.

Sentiment: positive
I am not an artistically inclined individual. I am a science minded woman and I felt that this movie was maybe one of those campy artsy type films on a budget. I watched part of it with my fiancé and my future step daughter. We tried very hard to find something in this film to keep our interest. My fiancé and his daughter voted it off and we moved on to Ocean's 13,but that is another story. Not to be deterred I awoke the next morning and gave the movie another shot. I began again watching this movie in earnest. I just don't get it,I thought I would get it.I thought the funniest part was the flushing of the ashes and the urn finding a spot by the fireplace being used as a vase for what appeared to be dead flowers. Interesting and still it had dead stuff inside. It was an odd and bizarre movie. Maybe this is what they were after,however I won't be tricked a second time!

Sentiment: negative
This is a nicely-done story with pretty music, lots of dancing, lots of big sister/little sister interaction (almost all of it positive), and lots of wishes granted. There are funny moments that older children and adults will enjoy, such as when King Randolph exclaims, "They're just SHOES! Aren't they?" And tender moments such as when Princess Genevieve comforts her youngest sister, Lacey, after a blunder.

The animation is perhaps not as good as Disney, but it still is very good. The facial expressions are nuanced, particularly for Genevieve, King Randolph, Duchess Rowena and her servant, Derek the cobbler, and little Princess Lacey. My only quibble on the animation is in the dance sequences where the dancing princesses become absolute carbon copies of each other without the slightest deviation -- even the three youngest copy the dance steps perfectly. I would have liked to see a little more individualism in the dancing, considering that these girls are not professional ballerinas or chorus dancers.

The resolution of the story is handled cleverly to get rid of a villainess without actually hurting her. There is some violence done to guards in the story, and the villainess's monkey is mean to other animals in the story.

My 4-year-old daughter loves this movie and has watched it repeatedly, and I have found it to be quite acceptable for her to watch.

Sentiment: positive
I suck at gratuitous Boob references, so i'm just going to write a plainly flat (no pun intended) review. I love Elvira, not in a "I'm-going-to-shoot-the-pres-just-to-impress-jodi-foster-fanatical" way, But suffice to say I think she rocks. The movie is played like a 50's horror film only alot more fun, look for the "Leasurely stroking of the ankle" reference to know what I mean. what relay shines through in the movie is Elvira's (or should that be cassandras) absolute charm. i first saw this movie at the tender age of 8, and have seen it contless times since.. I realy should get around to buying a copy, the videostore version is looking a little worse for the wear. If any other fans of the movie want to e-mail me about it feel free.

p.s another great performance from Edie McClurg (chastedy pariah) an actress who never gets the attention she deserves.

Sentiment: positive
i wish i could find some good things to say about this animated sequel(but not really a sequel)to "Atlantis:The Lost Empire"but this would be a very short comment.the magic that the first one had is nowhere to be found here.the animation is pretty poor all over,the characters themselves are not very well drawn.the backgrounds and the foregrounds are also not good.there's very little attention to detail here.and instead of a compelling and engaging story,we have 3 short stories which are boring and don't make a lot of sense.i swear,even the characters sounded like they were bored,and would rather be somewhere else.which says that the voice actors were bored and wanted to be someplace else,at least that's the impression.some of the same actors return for this dismal effort,but an integral par of the success of the first one was Michael J.Fox as the main hero, Milo Thatch.i get the distinct impression this movie was just thrown together to capitalize on the success of the first one,without much thought or care.but at least Cree Summer returns as the voice of "Kida".that's probably the only good thing about this movie,and even she doesn't seem to have her heart completely in it.mind you,i guess you couldn't blame any of the cast for not giving their all,considering what they had to work with.or rather not work with.this is a straight to video movie(and i use the term loosely)which should have went straight to the nearest landfill.anyway,shame on Disney.consumers deserve much better than this.this one gets a 0/10 and a well deserved one at that.p.u

Sentiment: negative
Complete drivel. An unfortunate manifestation of the hypocritical, toxic culture of a decade ago. In this movie, pedestrian regrets for slavery go hand in hand with colonialist subtexts (the annoying redhead feeding Shaka rice?). Forget historical reality too. Didn't most western slaves comes from West Africa? An American slaver easily capturing Shaka with a handful of men?. Finally, David Hasslehoff could not have been any more obnoxious. One can only ponder, how would he have fared in the miniseries? (Promptly impaled most likely). The miniseries was superb, and it is unfortunate that DH should have gotten his hands on something unique, and made it mundane. (I tend to think that he had hand in creating this fiasco).

Sentiment: negative
I was in the film too, but i don't know if they actually put this scene in. On the way back from a school trip (in 2005) we stopped at a service station at the same time as they were doing the film, and we were asked (the whole of us) to run in and shout Go! Freebird! We were all around 10 years old, could anyone who has seen the film tell me if that part was actually kept in the film, it would be great to know! I remember I thought the film had never come out, because it was another 2 and a half years before it was released. All of your comments seem to be good so I'm guessing it has been quite a successful film, I might buy it, but first I would like to know if I'm in it! :D Thank you

Sentiment: positive
Giving credit where it's due, only the technicolor, costumes and sets deserve any honorable mention.

This is undoubtedly the lowest point in BING CROSBY's long career at Paramount. The script is about as clumsy as you could possibly imagine and neither the casual Bing nor William Bendix nor Sir Cedric Hardwicke can do a thing about repairing it. 

Bendix looks extremely foolish in a page boy wig. And poor Rhonda Fleming has a stock costume heroine role requiring her to look adoringly at Bing and little else except for warbling a couple of uninspired ballads in a voice probably dubbed for the occasion.

Just plain awful! Mark Twain's wit is not evident in any of the screenplay. Only die-hard Crosby fans can possibly appreciate this mess of a film given uninspired direction. Even the extras look as though they don't know what they're supposed to be doing.

Summing up: Dull as dishwater. Not recommended, even for children.

Sentiment: negative
This movie sucked. The acting sucked, the script sucked, and the movie overall sucked. There were two threads in the movie that were not developed and the viewer had to do a bit of work to figure out what was happening.

I'm not saying that it needs to be spelled out, but you suddenly find things happening and being said as if you have the slightest clue as to what they are. Examples:

The heroine's negative comments about the hero. The audience is never shown how she even knows anything about the guy and how he is tied into her fiance's death. The viewer has minimal exposure to the guy's death as well.

Also, all of a sudden there is a scene with a bunch of guys loading up and cocking machine guns and that is all you see before cutting back to the other scenes. No explanation what-so-ever about the guns and the folks with them.

We gave it a 3 because we didn't feel like we wanted our time back. It was fun to bad-mouth the movie while watching it, so it at least gave us a bit of entertainment. ;-)

Sentiment: negative
A cannibalistic backwoods killer is on the prowl and two bickering couples might be his next source of protein in this bargain basement Friday the 13th-clone cheapie. There s literally nothing of interest to see in this one, the killings are surprisingly sparse and when they do happen, completely amateurish. It also adds ghosts into the mix for no reason what so ever. I felt drained after watching it as if my brain was liquefying and draining out my nose. And it remains without a doubt Donald Jones' worst movie. If you're thinking of renting it because of Code Red's snazzy new DVD re-release Don't bother

My Grade: F

Sentiment: negative
Laughable would be a good term to describe this movie. But, since this movie deserves nothing good said of it, I'll use the term god-awful instead.

Centering around the adventures of a bunch of eco-warriors investigating the nefarious doings of the military on a semi-tropical island, the lack of a budget rapidly becomes apparent. Michael Pare (a real actor! But only in the sense that Pinocchio was a real boy...) leads the bunch of fools through a series of monster chase-and-gobble-hapless-victim scenes. There is some vague attempt at pseudo-science to explain the presence of the giant reptiles, but it convinces the viewer about as well as the acting does.

As if this doesn't insult the viewer enough, the movie also features what I'll call "Guns of never-ending ammunition". I never saw Mickey Parrot or his female side-kick change clips once during the entire film, yet I can positively report they cap off at least 40 rounds each in any scene where they are required to fire their weapon. Forty rounds may not seem like that many, but we are talking standard handguns here. I figure 15 round clip, tops. And remember, they never change clips, nor even appear to carry any extra ammo.

It's dumb-assery like this which consigns movies to the eternal fires of celluloid hell, and rightly so. The third-rate CGI does little to help matters and the acting is best laughed at, else you'll start crying. Why SciFi Channel repeatedly churns out this mush is anyone's guess.

My advice....give this one a wide berth...a very wide berth!

Sentiment: negative
Most movies about, or set in, New Orleans, turn out to be laughably bad, and laughably inaccurate (examble: remember "The Savage Bees"? But I'll make an exception for "Tightrope", which almost got it right).

Here's one that doesn't inevitably get it wrong. The accents are not too bad (yes, the "yat" accent down here is way more Brooklynese than southern), the city of 1950 is shown the way it is/was, without the obligatory "tourist" shots, and they understand a good drama without trying to make everyone a "quirky southerner". 

One of the few films to do justice to this city, and a good film to boot..

Sentiment: positive
I knew this movie wasn't going to be amazing, but I thought I would give it a chance. I am a fan of Luke Wilson so I thought it had potential. Unfortunately, a lot of the movie's dialog was very fake sounding and cheesy. I think that Aquafresh gave some money towards the production of the film because they were seriously dropping some hints throughout. There is a shot where the Aquafresh sign sticks out at you that you can't help but notice it. Maybe they should have focused on writing and acting more than how many times can we drop Aquafresh products in the movie without people getting annoyed. The movie had its moments, but I'm glad I didn't spend $9.50 to see it in the theater.

Sentiment: negative
this independent film was one of the best films at the tall grass film festival that i have ever seen there i loved it there are so many things that was great about the film on top of all that the cast and crew that i had the opportunity to meet were absolutely phenomenal.I thought that Avi did a great job in his role. and Ricky Ullman was absolutely true to his role for a Disney actor i was amazed at his talent to be able to go from cheesy teen comedy to such an adult role with no problems the talent in the film was just amazing the cinematography was just great if you want to see an independent film this is one really that you should see.I think that Mr Gruver would have been so proud to have such a submission in his festival and his parents loved the movie so much when it won the audience favorite they went and saw it again. this truly was a great film it was dark and funny and sad and truly emotional it was just fabulous. I am honestly just so enthused by this film and i really don't want to spoil it for any one just see it and truly be amazed at it i think that these film makers really have what it takes to go places and I hope to see more work from them in the future.

Sentiment: positive
It's just breathtaking in it's awfulness-- you really must see it!

Depending on your perspective, Dylan Walsh is either the savior or the problem here: since he's the only one on screen that can actually get his lines out with something akin to natural cadences and inflection, he either ruins the movie by pointing up everyone else's flaws, or he saves it by providing some context for their awfulness.

I'm inclined to the later view-- thanks to him, it works as high comedy. He's the 7 footer in a game of dwarf basketball, his skill set just doesn't apply in this context, and his discombobulation is delicious.

The real treat though is Ms. Eastwood, whose inability to speak in plain English is so pervasive I actually googled her, expecting to learn that she was a Russian beauty who pronounced her lines phonetically, with no understanding of their meaning. But no: she's just a talent free American who will leave you laughing with every line she drops. Whether she knew what the lines meant must remain an open question.

Sentiment: negative
I like a lot of Myrna Loy movies. This film was produced before her character actor personality was developed. It would be an okay short film but seems to go on forever in it's complete form.

Myrna Loy it seems is told what to do with her acting and does the job. That is about all you can say about her.

Her gypsy character is shoddy and the film has many flaws, such as the jewelry shop scene.

This film will probably be interesting to Myrna Loy fans but even as such is something of a disappointment.

Sentiment: negative
This Hal Roach comedy short, A Tough Winter, is the ninety-ninth in the "Our Gang/Little Rascals" series and the eleventh talkie. Bascally a showcase for black comic Stepin Fetchit who gets special billing here, we see him going to his shack where the gang hangs out. Farina retrieves a love letter from the mail for him and is told by Stepin to read it since he can't read it during the day as he goes to NIGHT school. It happens to be from his sweetheart in Tennesse so now Farina has to have his ears stuffed with cotton since it's too hot for him to hear! In another room, Weezer relays instructions to Mary Ann of making taffy from the radio but because he keeps running back and forth to the kitchen, he misses the lady announcer's segue to rice pudding and Spanish tamale confusing Mary Ann with additions of Tabasco and Lux! After the concoction is completed, Jackie and the rest of the gang help themselves with the awful tasting but very sticky substance as everyone gets stuck on the walls as a result. As they all try to clean the mess, Stepin works in the basement on various pipes and electrical outlets that mixes variable appliances' functions such a telephone that vacuums, a vacuum that rings, and a refrigerator that plays music! The End. What I've just described portends the meandering nature of this "Our Gang" short that served as the pilot for a potential Stepin Fetchit movie short series. It's just as well that it never took place as Fetchit's characterization of the lazy Negro was amusing only in small doses and would be considered highly offensive today. Many of the scenes I've just described are good for some laughs though the final sequence was so confusing that the results were just too blah for me. So in summary, A Tough Winter is a curio worth seeing at least once. By the way, Stepin's real name was Lincoln Theodore Perry.

Sentiment: negative
Lou Gossett, Jr. is great as 'Chappy Sinclair', a super U.S. Air Force pilot who comes to the rescue of a nice but undisciplined 'Doug Masters' (Jason Gedrick), the son of a captured pilot who is determined to borrow a couple of F-16 fighters to use in an attempt to save his Dad from a dictator (David Suchet) of an enemy overseas country.

Better than 'Top Gun', this Air Force aviation film has excitement and lots of explosions - you know, all that cool stuff you'd want from a contemporary military adventure film.

Cool music including Twisted Sister's Dee Snider belting out 'We're Not Gonna Take It' and King Cobra's excellent 'Never Say Die'.

Aim High! Air Force!

Sentiment: positive
Schieder delivers a semi-believable part as the President of the United States with politically correct Maria Conchita Alonzo as the female Vice President. The movie just stinks. with so many plot holes its a wonder they got it to stick to the film it was shot on. Relegated to late night HBO time schedules, this film is not worth seeing at all. 10 minutes into it, you are asking yourself why it was written. 40 minutes into it, you are wondering why you are watching it. Save the effort and watch a re-run of Hee Haw or something. Anything is better than this clunker.

Sentiment: negative
I saw his film at the Ann Arbor Film Festival. I am a film student at the Univeristy of Michigan so I know a thing or two about film. And Crispin Glover's film is outrageous. He basically exploits the mentally challenged. Not only is Shirly Temple the anti-Christ (which I admit is a little funny) telling the mentally challenged to kill each other, but there is an obsession with killing snails. Crispin also plays with the idea of being in love with one of his actors who is as they all are, mentally challenged. PETA and Human Rights should be all over this thing. It's not 'counter-culture' as Crispin stated at the Ann Arbor Film Festival, it's exploitation.

Sentiment: negative
You ever sit through a movie and after it's all over it's like one big "wtf!?". 

Welcome to Decoy. 

Another straight to video action fodder flick you can immediately forget about having watched or better yet don't watch it at all. Peter Weller and Robert Patrick star and are quickly wasted in this going nowheres fast mercenaries-for-hire action dud where the story is pretty darn bad and the action sucks and what's the point of watching an action flick if the action blows? Robert Patrick in particular hits a new low in an action sequence that has him firing a machine gun while standing on the hood of a moving school bus. Co-stars the ambient Charlotte Lewis and Canada's own Scott Hylands (of TV's Night Heat fame).

Sentiment: negative
This film has to be one of the most boring films ever made. The only thing I liked is using Argento-esquire lighting in most of the scenes. The music is awful and the pace is so slow that you can watch it at 2x the speed and even then it would be slow. The story doesn't exist. It doesn't even have any shocking scenes.

It is classified (on this site at least) as a horror, but it's not. It's a sort of an art film exploring the dark side of the human nature. If you are into that kind of thing and can stand the slow pace, then watch it, but I'd rather recommend you something Japanese (e.g. Ichi the Killer) I think that the only reason this film was never in theaters is a fear of audience committing collective suicide caused by the huge amount of boredom generated by this movie. These 80 minutes of it's length would've been better spent watching the paint dry.

I gave it 1/10 simply because there is no 0 in the pull down menu

Sentiment: negative
this, is NOT one of those films it is one of the biggest pieces of tripe I have ever scene, the camera work is trying to be flashy but it really just crap the whole thing looks like the red shoe diaries, but without the sex, the only reason I bought this was I wanted to try out dvd and this was the cheapest one I could find, possibly the worst buy of my life and could have put you off dvd forever, the soundtrack is REALLY tacky and most of the movie is made up of endless repeats of clips from the first two films, why anyone would want to make a movie as awful as this is beyond me, if they had really attempted to make an original movie and failed I would be nicer in this review but they don't they just got the rights to reproduce stuff from the first two and then edit it and repeat it into this film with about maybe under 1 3rd original footage which is about up to the standards of film school students, DO NOT buy this movie. the only entertainment this dvd can offer is if you were to stick it in the microwave and watch the flashing lights! UTTER UTTER UTTER UTTTER unbelievable GARBAGE! 0/10 if only the voting system would allow that.

Sentiment: negative
I disagree in calling this a stoner movie just because weed also makes an appearance. I can't imagine this as even approaching "stoner classic." That would be like calling Singles a "grunge film." The movie definitely plods along with a murky plot. At times I wondered if the script had either been dropped and shuffled or if they lost it entirely and just tried to wing it. Watching this movie reminded me of watching children play-acting and making the story up as they go along.

The characters are wooden, the dialog is taxed, and the whole story seems to be completely disconnected. Who got killed? When? What? And this is how you act when your friend overdoses? Complete lack of emotion and utter disconnect from reality.

As for the droning guitar soundtrack that accompanies each scene: enough! It was like watching the opening menu screen where the same track loops endlessly in the background, neither moving forward or back.

I kept watching and hoping that the plot would somehow fall in to order, the acting and dialog would improve or something, somehow would focus this mess in to a coherent movie. After 112 minutes, it never happened.

Sentiment: negative
Repugnant Bronson thriller. Unfortunately, it's technically good and I gave it 4/10, but it's so utterly vile that it would be inconceivable to call it "entertainment". Far more disturbing than a typical slasher film.

Sentiment: negative
This movie blew me away - I have only seen two episodes of the show, never saw the first movie, but went to a pre-screening where Johnny Knoxville himself introduced the movie, telling us to 'turn off our sense of moral judgment for an hour and a half.' He was right. As a movie, this would probably rate a 2, given it has zero plot, no structure besides randomness, and very little production value. However, that isn't the point. Everyone in our theatre was laughing and gasping the whole way through - not only were some of the stunts creative (see trailer if you need to know but they hid some of the best (or worst depending on how you want to look at it)), but some of the stuff they did took us completely by surprise. These guys do some stuff that won't make it into your newspaper reviews (and probably can't even be published here), involving lots of things below the belt. However, almost 3/4 of the stunts are fantastically hysterical (even if morally condemnable, but remember Knoxville's statement), and if you are in the right mindset this movie is hysterical to watch. Only about 20 minutes of this movie could have actually been shown on TV, so consider yourself warned of what you're getting into - some stuff is disgusting, but instead of being repulsed by it you end up laughing at the sheer stupidity of it all. As a person who thought Jackass the TV show was an over-hyped fad with only a few funny sketches and lots of unnecessary pain, the amount of fun I had at this movie has made me realize that having no boundaries is the best environment for these guys to work in. It's a lot of fun and should be a great comedic fix until the Borat movie comes out. With this movie, you may think you know what you're getting, but these guys are a few steps ahead of you - I guarantee you'll be surprised by the 3rd sketch. So enjoy, and don't worry: you won't want to perform almost any of their stuff at home.

Sentiment: positive
Rififi, directed by Jules Dassin, is in line with the Melville crime pictures (particularly Bob le Flameur and to a point Le Cercle Rouge) of being totally focused on story and character and making sure not a word is spoken that doesn't need, and was ahead of its time. Ionically, it still has a kind of professionalism among its characters, a kind of respect (if not for selves than for others, a kind of duty) that rings well in post-WW2 France. Its actors carry faces for these characters that say 'we know what these guys are about', and from there the story takes off. Maybe it's because I have a weak spot for heist pictures, particularly where we see just the nuts and bolts (err, actual physical side) of how a heist is pulled off.

One of the problems with how the actual heist is filmed in today's movies is that it's all very fast (i.e. Snatch), or done in ways we've seen too many times before. Dassin, like Melville years later, decided to create practically a silent film of a heist, sound effects included. The tension that builds up in this scene may not top what Melville had in 'Rouge', but on its own level it achieves its own greatness and momentum, and just as crucial originality to what's been done before. There are some kept close-ups, for example, as the safe is being cracked, that mark some of the best I've seen from France at that time. An added plus for the film, aside from the larval-stage new-wave touch to the film, which in the end makes it a little more modern, is that the story works so well and differently. It becomes completely about character at points, and then keeps up the thrills. The last ten to fifteen minutes are down-right miraculous; like with another classic heist picture the Asphalt Jungle, it's not even the last stop that matters, but all about how much one will go past the call of duty, putting humanism over greed.

You almost wonder in all the exhilaration of the camera flying by the trees at a high speed with the car that he might just make it. Dassin has here a very entertaining and intuitive film of its genre, with a nifty little musical number as well.

Sentiment: positive