DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
"Hardbodies 2" is harmless, aimless and plot less. I would add "brainless" to that list, but the movie-within-a-movie gimmick, although not done very well, helps it to narrowly escape that label. The scenery has changed from the California beaches to the Greek islands, and the only returning cast members from the first film are Sorrells Pickard (the bearded guy) and Roberta Collins (who at one point falls into a mud pit, bringing back memories of her classic catfight with Pam Grier in "The Big Doll House"). All the other actors are new, but apparently Brad Zutaut is supposed to be playing the same character (Scotty) as Grant Cramer did in "Hardbodies". This sequel lacks the energy and appeal of the first movie, and doesn't come close to matching it in the "hotness" department, either. Of course Brenda Bakke and Fabiana Udenio are both very pretty, but the Teal Roberts - Cindy Silver - Kristi Somers team is unbeatable. "Hardbodies 2" is not the worst of its kind by any means, but if you only want to see one of these movies, the original is the one to get. (*1/2)

Sentiment: negative
If your a fan of Airplane type movies this is a must see! Set in the 1920's and 30's Johnny Dangerously has not only great actors but great lines. "knock down dat wall,knock down dat wall and knock down dat #@$%#@$ wall." "You shouldn't hang me on a hook johnny" or "Sounds like Johnnys getting laid". Its definitely a spoof of the old James Cagney Movies and references them a lot. There's a great scene when Jhonnys walking down death row and has a priest set up for his escape. Listen closely to the fake priests readings, its pretty funny. Another great scene is when Dom Delauise plays the Pope. Watch his reaction to Johnny after he tips the Pope, a lot said without making a sound.I recommend this movie to all who love to laugh or are old movie buffs.

Sentiment: positive
I heard this movie was badThey even warned me it was terrible, but for some reason (probably Katie Holmes) I still watched it when it came on national TV. Watching Kevin Williamson films means torturing! His scenarios aren't funny, definitely not scary and not the least bit creative. Teaching Mrs. Tingle breathes the same irritating atmosphere as his brainless series `Dawson's Creek' and it's probably meant for the same target group as well. Before the credits even started, 5 people already wanted a hug and they stated that eerie `I love you'-sentence. It doesn't get any better as the soundtrack is filled with annoying pop/rock and the storyline is ultra-thin. Three students on the verge of graduation get caught cheating by the wickedest teacher in school. Every high-school has a teacher like that, you know To save their skin, they try to convince Mrs. Tingle that it wasn't their intention to cheat but this attempt goes horrible wrong. The typical high-school humor is completely lost on me, the overdose of sentiment is pathetic and the acting (with the exception of Helen Mirren) is abominable. I'm sure Katie Holmes can act  that's a fact proven by her role in `the Gift'  but she urgently needs to stop accepting frumpish girl roles. As said before, the only positive comments goes out to the brilliant casting of Helen Mirren as the shrew. It's like Kathleen Turner in `Serial Mom'! The role suits her perfectly and you can't imagine anyone else playing her. Other than that, this is avoidable teenage nonsense.

Sentiment: negative
Rififi deservedly gets a lot of mention for the famous heist scene, and, indeed, that scene deserves all the credit it gets. It's a masterful piece of suspense, character interaction and photography. But Rififi isn't just this one scene - every scene in the film is as masterfully put together, and as a whole, the film is not only taught with suspense, plot and character, but an adroitly told moral tale that set the scene for film noire for years to come.

Cinematically and technically, the heist sequence may be the most impressive scene of the film, but for me, it's the final scene that holds the most power - Tony le Stéphanois's hallucinogenic drive towards redemption.

Sentiment: positive
Ever have one of those sneezes that seems to build up forever? You gasp and you convulse and you grab the nearest paper product in preparation for the world's greatest hanky-blower...and then it fizzles. "Frankenhooker" was the cinematic equivalent of that lost sneeze. Now, I'm big on B-movies, and I always look the other way when a boom mike pops onscreen or an actor speaks his or her lines with all the enthusiasm of Gerald Ford, but this one really let me down. The cover of the video, for instance, IS the tag-line of the whole movie. Using parts from murdered New York prostitutes, Dr. Franken rebuilds his deceased fiancee, only to have her run amok in Manhattan as a sort of superprostitute with a bad attitude. After an hour and a half of build-up, this fairly funny ten minutes seemed a little anti-climactic.

Sentiment: negative
There is so much of worth in this movie that it is hard to know where to begin with praise. Let me begin by expressing my admiration for a perfect portrayal by Reese Witherspoon. That her performance stands out in the excellent cast is praise indeed. Robert Mulligan has seldom disappointed those of us who have admired his work. Every frame of The Man in the Moon is evidence of film making at its best.

Sentiment: positive
A film about the relationship between a man and leopard that's very reminiscent of "The English Patient," even down to a scene similar to when Ralph Fiennes' character carries the body of his lover across a desert-rock cliff. In "A Passion in the Desert," the main character carries the body of the leopard across a desert-rock cliff but in the opposite direction (calculated decision or unconscious contrast?). Historically expanded from a very short Balzac story, the film is not perfect but a treat no less. Final shot will haunt me for weeks. (8 of 10)

Sentiment: positive
I am a fifth grade language arts teacher, and after we read this book (which the students loved), then we watched the movie. They laughed out loud! Unfortunately, it's NOT a comedy! The acting was so awful, I felt like I was watching a bunch of kids in the neighborhood putting on a play. My students were mimicking the lines and making fun off and on the whole way through. I have to agree with them, at times, it was pretty bad. Still, I would show it to students again, just for fun, and to compare the film with the book. We did a Venn Diagram (teachers know what that is) afterward, to show what was the same in both and what were the differences, so there is an educational value in showing it. I noticed that another adaptation is being filmed for 2005 so we can only hope the acting will be better!

Sentiment: negative
ALMOST GOLDEN: THE JESSICA SAVITCH STORY

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Sound format: Stereo

Bland, soap-opera dramatisation of the rise and fall of America's first female TV news anchor. With a tighter script and direction - and a better cast - this might have passed muster, but the flimsy story really wasn't worth the effort. A good documentary on the subject might have been the best way to go. Typically strong production values in the TV movie conveyor-belt manner, but it's all as superficial as old fluff, and just as engaging.

Sentiment: negative
Possibly John Cassavetes best film to date, and definitely his funniest. Seymour Cassel plays the young Moskowitz smitten with real-life wife of Cassavetes, Gena Rowlands, excellent as usual. A must see gem of a film, if you can locate it.

Sentiment: positive
Ritchie's first two films were snappy, stylish entertainment. Here, he raids two recent classics  'The Usual Suspects' and 'Fight Club'  and still comes out empty-handed.

Despite parading itself as a con-mystery (with the sub-'Usual Suspects' twaddle "the greatest con he ever pulled was convincing you that he was you" or whatever it was...) and attempting a 'Fight-Club' twist about which characters are real and which are internal manifestations, the film struggles to maintain interest in its second half. By the last third, you know you're being lead down a blind alley, and tediously slowly at that.

Cons, chess and game theory are all great subjects, but Ritchie delves into them too superficially and too repetitively to make much use of the material.

The only thing that keeps the movie (almost) watchable is Ritchie's bold way with with a scene and Maurice-Jones's dynamic camera. If Ritchie stuck to a more satisfying plot, and succumbed to tighter editing, there's no reason why he couldn't have made another enjoyable gangster caper.

As it is, Revolver is a waste of your time. Incomprehensibility does not equal profundity. If you want to see a great film that doesn't make logical sense but makes a virtue of it (and, incidentally, which also involves an inexplicable escape from solitary confinement) watch 'Lost Highway'.

Sentiment: negative
"Head" is one of those films you'll have a lot of trouble convincing your friends to see, but once they do they'll fall in love with it. I don't know how many times this has happened to me. This film is just so funny and bizarre, really a deconstruction of everything the Monkees had been up to this point in their career. A lot the credit goes to Bob Rafelson who pretty much ended the Monkee's career with this film. My guess is he wanted to get out of directing the TV show and get into features, which he did in a big way after this one. Micky Dolenz is absolutely hilarious. I can't believe he didn't have a second life as a comic actor after this film. This film has a lot of great cameos and a lot of wonderful psychedelic nonsense. I feel like the reputation of this film is continuing to build and it wouldn't surprise me if it eventually becomes a full on cult classic

Sentiment: positive
Any time a movie is so myopic in its desire to present a particular ending or viewpoint that it simply doesn't bother with an actual story, it's annoying. Those are the types of movies where the ending or viewpoint is conceived first, and the story simply tacked on. For this reason we often talk of the story "jumping through hoops" as it twists about, trying in vain to progress to the preordained ending in a logical fashion.

The story in "Comet Over Broadway" doesn't just jump through hoops, it's a three ring circus. It's so ludicrous, so ill-conceived, so disingenuous that, if you are prone to speaking aloud to the screen, you will be carrying on quite a rant before it's through.

The central theme of this screenplay cesspool is that of a woman choosing between family and profession. Since it's all so horribly muddled it will end up offensive to people of either opinion. So, in the end there's no point to the story, the theme becomes irrelevant and, as is often the case with poor screenplays, the acting doesn't save a thing.

Sentiment: negative
Hollywood has churned out yet another garbage that's wildly overhyped and underwhelming on a first-time viewing basis. Hannibal is bad, terrible, inept, lame, droll, idiotic, contrived, laughable and utterly atrocious (no pun intended). Minor spoilers follow...

This movie has huge logic holes - more than any Bruckheimer/Bay movie - or for that matter - any movie that exemplify the indulgence of Hollywood exaggeration. It's a slick Hollywood production designed to cash in on Hannibal Lector mania, directed by "so-somber-he-takes-this-way-too-seriously" hack director Ridley Scott and produced by a hack Italian producer with an inflated ego whose credo is "doesn't matter whether film is s**t, money is good".

I can't get over the fact that acclaimed screenwriters David Mamet and Steven Zaillian wrote this tripe adapted from a lame and pretentious book by a good-novelist-turned-hack-author Thomas Harris. David and Steven - well-known and immensely talented screenwriters - wasted their effort on a poor screenplay in exchange for fat paychecks. Another factor in the disappointment of this film.

There are too many ludicrous scenes to list that are laughable in clunky execution and poor logic e.g. Starling/Pazzi cell-phone in the midst of Lecter pursuit that turns up Inspector Pazzi as the victim. Not to mention laughably bad dialogues delivered by Tony Hopkins with a smirk and Julianne Moore, Ray Liotta and others who cannot act with the straight face. Hopkins gives the true meaning of "scenery-chewing" along with hammy acting by Gary Oldman as a deformed psychopath bent on exacting revenge against Lecter.

The gore effect is good, but only serves to repulse rather than provide suspense which is notably absent from Hannibal. The predecessor - Silence of the Lambs - is more believable with tension and suspense. Suspense is what made Silence of the Lamb work as a spectacular mix of psychological horror and thriller, not to mention superbly written and tensely directed. The "brain dinner" sequence is so laughably fake it borders on self-parody.

The ending is kinda blatant and idiotic - are we supposed to believe that Lecter is still a menace to society with the last shot establishing his glittering eye glaring at you? Ooh, scary... 



Sentiment: negative
Though I'm not the biggest fan of wirework based martial arts films, when a film goes straight for fantasy rather than fighting I get a lot more fun out of it and this film is one of the best in terms of fantastical plotting and crazy flying shenanigans. Ching Siu Tung has crafted here an enchanting treat with fine performance and much ethereal beauty. The great, tragic Leslie Cheung plays a tax collector hero who stays the night in a haunted temple and gets involved with a stunning fox spirit and a wacky Taoist. Cheungs performance is filled with naive but dignified charm and Wu Ma is pleasingly off the wall as the Taoist monk, who shows off some swordplay and even gets a musical number. Perhaps best off all is Joey Wang as the fox spirit, truly a delight to behold with every movement and gesture entrancingly seductive. The film takes in elements of fantasy, horror, comedy and romance, all stirred together into a constantly entertaining package. Ching Siu Tung, directing and handling the choreography gives some neat wirework thrills, and fills the film with mists, shadows and eerily enthralling benighted forest colours, giving every forest scene a wonderfully bewitching atmosphere. Also notable are the elaborate hair stylings and gorgeous flowing garments of the female characters, with, if I'm not mistaken, Joey Wang sporting hair done up like fox ears at times, a marvellous touch. Though the film features relatively little action and some perhaps ill advised cheesy pop songs at times, this is a beautiful piece of entertainment, with swell characters and plotting, even the odd neat character arc, a near constant supply of visual treats and copious dreamy atmosphere. An ethereal treasure, highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie for the first time in 1988 when it was on HBO and I loved it!! It was so hilarious I have seen it too many times to count. I love the Stork brothers and the pitiful, ugly dog, Bosco! My favorite quote form the movie is, "It's so ugly, it should be put to sleep." I also loved it when the little sister slaps the girls on the back and their faces stick that way. I love John Cusack and Demi Moore in this movie too. They were great. This movie brings back memories of my college days when I first saw it. I rented the movie countless times and watched it over and over. My college roommate and I just couldn't get enough of it.Who couldn't love this crazy movie?! I want to buy a copy on DVD, does anyone know where I can get it?

Sentiment: positive
Horror movie time, Japanese style. Uzumaki/Spiral was a total freakfest from start to finish. A fun freakfest at that, but at times it was a tad too reliant on kitsch rather than the horror. The story is difficult to summarize succinctly: a carefree, normal teenage girl starts coming face to face w/ extremely disturbing events as the small town she lives in seems to come under the control of spirals. The spirals are everywhere, in the air, clouds, dirt and everyday objects. The spirals take control of people and bad things will happen to them. Oh, another thing, people are randomly turning into snails. Why? Who knows or cares, people are turning into snails, that's enough for me. This wasn't as much scary as just creepy as it doesn't have a lot of suspense or jarring attacks as horror films often do. Uzumaki prefers to creep and crawl (like a snail might!) rather than to jolt. A favorite scene: a woman lies sleeping in a hospital room when this long, thousand legged centipede creature makes its way into the room and slowly up the bed post, across the sheets, over the pillow and into her sleeping ear. I cringed and curled my toes. Uzumaki has a handful of scenes really violent but that are sort of humorous as well. For example, a man is obsessed w/ spirals, he gets into his washer because he sees a spiral in it when it spins, he commits spiral suicide inside the washer. The last shot we see of him is w/ his body all coiled & rubber like, a human flesh spiral w/ a engorged single eye blinking in the middle of the washer. A bizarre image. Uzumaki has a blatant psychodelic slant to it which adds to its charm and fun. I love horror movies like this. It's not about killing, a la slasher films, it's about a force of evil (the spirals!) taking over you and trying to kill you, force you to kill others. Films like Uzumaki prove that there are many ways to make a horror film and thank goodness for that

Sentiment: positive
Corbin Bernsen's sent letters to four criminal associates he's worked with in the past and it's a real intergenerational mix with Fred Gwynne, Lou Diamond Phillips, William Russ, and Ruben Blades. They're to meet him in this obscure Montana town and he doesn't explain why because he's then picked up by out of state police from New Jersey on a warrant. 

Of the criminal group that's been gathered together, they all know Bernsen, but don't know each other. A lot of comedy involved is them feeling each other out. As the oldest Gwynne though denying it kind of takes charge with the others grumbling, but going along. Especially when they figure out what Bernsen had in mind.

As for Bernsen, he's got the good fortune to be picked up by a pair of bumblers in Ed O'Neill and Daniel Roebuck. He gets the drop on O'Neill and escapes.

After that it's the four criminals trying to finish what Bernsen started and Bernsen getting away the police. In the intricately plotted screenplay, it's fascinating how both story lines keep intertwining with each other. Hoyt Axton as the local sheriff watches in amazement at what unfolds in his town.

Disorganized Crime is a fabulously funny caper film by a bunch of players who seem mostly to have had a background in television or would soon. I can't say that anyone stood out in the cast they also seem to click so well together. 

Ironically none of these people are comedians per se, but they all exhibit a light comic touch that good directing brought out. 

Disorganized Crime is one very funny caper movie, the kind of film that well known pessimist Mr. Murphy would have written.

Sentiment: positive
Well, the artyfartyrati of Cannes may have liked this film but not me I am afraid. If you like the type of film where shots linger for so long that you wonder whether the actor has fallen asleep or the cameraman gone for lunch then it may be for you. A large part of it is like this with short sojourns into the realm of unpleasantness. I did not find it shocking nor disturbing as some other reviewers have - simply a little distasteful and pointless. The only reason I did not give this one star is that the acting is commendable ans the film is fairly well shot. The plot, however, has little to recommend. A large part of the film just shows a grumpy woman teaching or listening to piano, which might appeal to some people. But lest you think this is harmless enough be prepared for some snatches of pornography and sexual violence just to wake you up with a bad taste in your mouth. Not recommended.

Sentiment: negative
The most worthless film of the decade. The responsible parties should never be allowed to film again. I have no words to describe the lack of entertainment this film provides. You couldn't PAY me to watch this film again. Quite honestly, I think I would be a better person had I not seen it. If I called it offensive, I would fall into a category of emotionally frail extremists. I would say this film goes so far as to damage the industry. There are films that I refuse to watch, now that I feel they might be this tasteless. I feel like an idiot that I didn't have the good sense to walk out during any one of MANY moments I was compelled to do so. Yes, I saw the end and am ashamed for it, as should anyone else, including the writer. I am in awe...

Sentiment: negative
Even if 99,99% of people that has seen this movie is Brazilian, I'll keep up with the English since it is the language of this website.

This movie is a piece of cr*p. Worst acting I have seen for a loooong time. The kids are terrible. Specially the boy. This was the first time I saw someone with less facial expression than Arnold Schwarzenegger, and one single voice tone, like a 5 years-old kid reading in front of the class. How can someone so bad be the main actor of a movie ? The storyline is so shallow my daughter could have done better (she is 3 yrs old). It is so simple it could be written in a napkin and told in 3 minutes.

There are only three possibilities for someone enjoy this movie: 1) you are a pre-teen; 2) you have been so brainwashed by Globo's stupidities that you think that anything that has the Globo's seal is awesome; 3) you have a serious brain damage.

Avoid at all costs ! A shame to the Brazilian movie scene.

Sentiment: negative
You can tell that this is the first offering by the Director (who also wrote it), but you can also see the potential this guy has. This is an obviously low budget film in the spirit of Boondock Saints. Of course, Boondock Saints came out a few years after this, so you could look at this as a diamond in need of some polish. The acting was good - if you're looking for DeNiro or Michael Madsen in a crime drama, remember that these are young guys, playing young guys trying to be criminals. They're not going to be "supercool" (tm) like some of the veterans. I would have love to have seen Justin Pagel (Joe - the main character) go on to make more movies - he was great in this. Good movie - 3 stars out of 5.

Sentiment: positive
"Lackawanna Blues'is so emotionally powerful in its portrayal of urban Blacks during the 50s and early 60s. A culture of joy and sadness specific to working class Blacks that existed outside the mainstream culture. The characters of Santiago-Hudson's play depicted Black individuals who lived imperfect lives but maintained strong positive values of love,loyalty and honor. Although the characters moved away from those values at times, they did not deny the importance of the values. Instead they recognized and accepted their own imperfection and those of the other characters, without judgment, that passed through the life of "nanny". The central characters were strong and believable, the settings were realistic and brought back personal memories of a by-gone era. Pre-integration urban life was a time of sensory intoxication, sight, sound,and smell, that could almost be experienced by watching the drama "Lackawanna Blues" unfold. I will watch it again and again.

Sentiment: positive
Meatballs is a classic comedy with so many laughs that it's impossible to count.

In what was merely a precursor of what was to come, Murray rules the screen in what can only be described as comic mastery. Tripper Harrison is one of the greatest comedy characters in the past 50 years. Sarcastic all the time, smart when he has to be, stern when he needs to be, and caring when it suits him, Murray infuses Tripper with that SNL glint in the eye.

The C.I.T's are merely in awe as they cower beneath the comic genius that is Mr. Murray.

Summer isn't summer without a viewing of Meatballs. One of the best comedies to ever grace the screen.

Sentiment: positive
This film screened last night at Austin's Paramount theater as part of the SXSW Film Festival. We were graced with the presence of director Mike Binder and stars Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle who took audience questions after the film. It is a remarkable and powerful film about what it is like to lose yourself and begin to find your way back. The performances are phenomenal and the story manages to be both tragic and funny in a way that is all too rare. (The trailer for the film tries a little too hard to emphasize the comedic aspects.)

This is a breakout role for Adam Sandler. While he has begun to transition to more dramatic roles with Punch-Drunk Love and Spanglish, this role is a significant step forward for him as a dramatic actor. He deserves an Oscar nomination as he continues down to transition to more dramatic roles as Tom Hanks did and Jim Carrey is also doing. In this role, he seemed to be trying to channel Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man. Although playing an autistic man is certainly very different than Sandler's traumatized character, both characters for different reasons are trapped in their own worlds of child-like isolation and confusion.

Don Cheadle's performance is less surprising, but just as good. After Hotel Rwanda and Crash, we've come to expect remarkable nuanced performances from Cheadle. He has the qualities of sincerity and honesty that comes through in this role. But he, too, is also broken and struggling if not in the such profound ways as Sandler's character. Cheadle is struggling with difficulties in both his marriage and in his professional life as a dentist. Together the characters played by Cheadle and Sandler struggle to heal each other in the way that true friends often do (in a way that reminds me of Matt Damon and Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting). They are both searching for that part of the themselves that they have lost and trying to find again.

Reign over Me is one of the best major studio films to be released this year. The soundtrack, which is almost another character in the plot is wonderful. The filming in the streets of New York - a city that suffered a great tragedy and has also had to heal itself - is also quite beautiful. The supporting roles by Jada Pinkett Smith, Liv Tyler, Saffron Burrows (in a very odd role), Donald Sutherland, and Mike Binder himself are all quite good.

Writer/Director Mike Binder has really delivered a story that so many will be able to connect with on numerous levels. This is a story about grief, family, healing, male friendship, mental health, and the meaning of love. Reign over Me does not disappoint. The film is almost hypnotic as it draws you into the lives of its characters. Hollywood would have a much better reputation if it made more character-driven charming films like Reign over Me.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film premiere Friday (1/19) night in Park City for Sundance and was incredibly moved. Sitting in a theater and hearing first-hand the anguish soldiers go through was almost more than I could bear. Others in the audience were equally moved and while we wanted to turn away, the least we could do was bear witness as these men and women shared their experience with us. Robert Acosta, Paul Rieckhoff, Sean Huze, and Herold Noel, all veterans of the war in Iraq and featured in the film, were present. While they may be home now, you can tell this war is still inside them and probably always will be. Whether you support the war or not, it is OUR duty to support the troops with something other than a bumper sticker. See this film!

Sentiment: positive
I would give this show a ten out of ten if it was not for the fart jokes. You people are so damn sensitive it is inane! So quick to point out the "racism" of the show and the jokes, yet are also so quick to say ridiculously sexist, pig-headed crap like "well, duh, some of these other shows do these jokes so much better because at least they have hot women." So disgusting. Abortion jokes are great because, really, who takes abortion seriously anyways? At least I'm not a*bore*son. I hear that Reba McEntire and Sarah Silverman are teaming up to do a movie about sisters taking a road trip together. Talk about a movie of the year!

Sentiment: positive
Before I watched this tv movie I did not know much about one of my favorite actresses. After watching it, I realized how sad Lucille Ball's life really was. It had it's great moments too, but I didn't realize how sad it was. This movie was very good and told the story of the beloved Lucille Ball very well. I highly reccommend it.

Sentiment: positive
Being one of the founding fathers of my regions monkey movie club(this also includes apes/chimps and orangutans) I am reviewing this film from a monkey movie standpoint. Afterall it is a whole summer of monkeys, 100+ days for monkeys to do what they do best, cause mischief, shenanigans, hyjinx, solve human problems and teach us about ourselves.

The story is simple enough. In short poor boy needs money for stuff he wants. Luckily there's a few monkeys(chimpanzees) that have a bounty on their head that would get Boba Fett or Dog's(Duane Chapman) blood flowing. As the boy tries to catch the monkeys he learns about himself, his family, his grandpa, the local weirdo, flirts with a girl twice his age and learns the beast way to deal with bullies is to have someone point a shotgun at them.

There within lies the problem. So much focus is put on the boy that the chimps just don't get the screen time they deserve. The chimps are not as talented as the chimp(s) that play Jack from the M_P trilogy or the legendary orangutans that play Dunstin or Clyde(1 or 2). So don't watch this movie expecting to find the next big thing in the Chimp genre. The chimps hit some sweet flips which is what the film needed more of. There is an epic scene of the chimps breaking into the poor families house and destroys all the things they worked so hard for. Serious monkey movie enthusiasts will want to rent the film for this scene alone.

So in closing this movie is not for the serious monkey movie enthusiast. I wouldn't recommend this movie to families as it encourages a childs rebellion against their parents. I can only recommend this film as a rental for hardcore monkey loving adults and well supervised children.

Sentiment: negative
Here is a movie that was so pedestrian for 90% of it that it had no right to become so challenging and frustrating at the end. Did the director decide to become auteur suddenly, 80% through the making of this movie? Yeesh. SPOILER ALERT Thing start out typically enough for 50's youth-gone-wild; there are drifters, good girls, bad girls, gangs, the kindly old diner manager, and the town creep. Things follow the expected path until about 15 minutes before the end, when the only likable character is killed off and the anti-hero is blamed (this would not be so unexpected if this were the main plot of the movie... but all this stuff starts happening and unravelling during the final reel! Major curve ball). Then things get weird; the kindly old codger forms a mob and beats the hero to a bloody pulp. The mere presence of the hero's friend somehow drags a confession out of the real killer - the leering, creepy town nut (which in any real universe, he'd have been the prime suspect to begin with, even if the anti-hero was found with her body).

We're left with a somewhat feeble "happy" ending, which is about as out of character with the rest of the movie as the events of the 10 minutes preceding it.

Even more odd is this film's insistence on playing homosexual innuendo to the hilt, but constantly presenting the two male leads as straight. Maybe this was on purpose - perhaps Bix's resistance to settling down with the girl was more because of his sexuality (which in the 50s would have to be kept quite repressed, and thus not discussed or even admitted by him) than his need to be a "drifter". If the director's intent was to spin this as a sexual yarn - that the drifter drifts because he feels he's an outcast sexually; that his paternal regard towards Danny is not, in fact, paternal but spousal; that his inability to remain with Carrie is rooted in a sexual revulsion that even he does not quite understand - it could have been made more clear. Instead, we get this very bizarre alchemy of homoeroticism and behavior that is completely heterosexual.

These young men sleep next to each other even when they can get some room to spread out. When Danny is propositioned (and once even in bed with a woman), Bix flips out and takes him away. Danny pays Bix's way (sure, there is another explanation for it, but it still strikes a chord every time you see Danny buy Bix's lunch). They end up living together at the end. Not since Hitchcock's "Rope" has homosexuality been so blatant but denied.

MST3K did the right thing by taking this one on. Aside from Jack Elam, there is little to commend the film.

Sentiment: negative
I'm still trying to decide if this is indeed, the worst film I have ever seen - A very disturbing problem with this film is that real scientists are interviewed, but their footage is edited to make it look as though they support the ideas of the many BSers who populate this film. The BS to signal ratio of the interviews is about ten thousand to one - at the end, the interviewees seem to be saying, "We want you to _think_ !!", but they themselves are too lazy to do simple research about things they assert as fact.

If you feel that you are open-minded, and wish to expand your consciousness, please be open-minded enough to read some actual books about quantum theory: "Einstein's Universe", Nigel Calder (a slim volume, not a challenge), "The Cosmic Code", by Heinz Pagels. If you can't bring yourself to read a book, please don't complain to reviewers about being "open-minded".

To recap, this film is just unbelievably bad.

You know what's a really good film which questions the nature of reality? "Thirteenth Floor", directed by Roland Emmerich, with Craig Bierko, Gretchen Mol, Vincent D'onofrio. Smart, sexy, thought-provoking.

Sentiment: negative
*SPOILERS*

I'm sure back when this was released in 1958 it was much appropriate for its time. Back then films were slower paced to allow audiences to follow and analyze the story. Here a man moves into a house owned by his last wife that died mysteriously with his new wife. The gardener Mickey (played by Alex Nicol, who also directed he film) really is an underappreciated character. He gets a skull to indirectly warn Jenni that she is in trouble, since he knew that there was foul play in the first wife's death. He can't tell Jenni directly what happened, so he tries to scare her off with the skull. Jenni, we also find out, saw her parents die, thus causing a lifetime of mental anguish that lead to institutionalization. Like many audiences today, I found the pacing to be a little too slow for my tastes. But if you like slow-paced horror without a lot of gore, this film is for you.



Sentiment: negative
There is no reason to watch this film.

Why? Many reasons. First up, the acting is awful. There is hardly a line that isn't misread - but that is hardly surprising given the banality, stupidity, and repetitiveness of the dialogue the actors are asked to mouth. It is awfully written. One of the most annoying things about the script is that the writers only seem to know one way of keeping their characters talking after a certain point and that is to have them repeat the most important words of the previous character's line.

"Repeat?" 

"Yes, they repeat it. For the whole movie." 

"The whole movie?" 

"Yes, the whole movie." 

Etc. 

In movies like this you generally know who the bad guys are and what they are after. (All the good guys usually have to do is stop the bad guys. Setting up a good "Mwahahaha! with X in my grasp I will rule the Universe!" villain is the first stop in any cheapo SF plot) but in this turkey? - you tell me.

As I understand it our "heros" are a bunch of mass murderers sent into the past on a Dirty Dozen type mission. They are sent by a fascistic totalitarian state to stop some other mass murderers from altering the course of history. The new history would not include the rise of totalitarianism, and a war that kills 30 billion people and leaves the Earth a dead planet (we know all this because this movie has one of those handy long on-screen situation reports just before the action starts, telling you who is who and what is what. It's an indication of who the producers think their target audience will be, that it is narrated as well as appearing on screen - just to save the audience from taxing their brains too much by doing a lot of reading.) So just who are we supposed to be rooting for here? I guess we are asked to believe our hero undertakes some sort of journey from totalitarianism to love, peace, and understanding while shooting loads of people - but that doesn't work as an arc because we are shown he is a decent(ish) human being right at the start when he tries to rescue all the civilians aboard the rebel station.

I guess the makers were aiming at some sort of deeper than normal complexity in this film but they just ended up with an unholy mess with more plot holes and logical inconsistencies than a dozen or so of your average crap SF movies.

The opening credits were nice.

Sentiment: negative
I was in second grade, 12 years ago. I remember it clearly. We were learning about space. All little kids want to go to space, right? Well, after I saw this, I was so scared to death that I would 'accidentally' get flung into space by some psychotic robot with a one track mind. I had no idea that this was a movie. I thought it was some news program or something. I guess it was my own version of when people were freaked out by the radio program 'War of the Worlds.' So, recently, I get this movie again to watch, realizing my favorite actor, Joaquin Phoenix was in it (then known as Leaf Phoenix). I can tell you, I was laughing at the dramatic parts and laughing even harder at the acting. I mean, when Andy is in space, she moves in slow motion, did you ever notice that? I don't think being in space makes you talk that slow or think that slow.

The best part is when Andy is knocked unconscious by the oxygen tank, and begins to float backwards as the security doors close. Little Max is trying to pull her in. Suddenly, we get a major close up on Max's face as he shouts (in slow motion) "Whaaaaatttt'ssss happpeniiiinngggg?!?!?" I had no idea.

Sentiment: negative
I just finished watching this film and found it very enjoyable. It is a quiet, little film that doesn't overwhelm you with special effects or "big" performances. It simply takes you into the lives of the people living in a small hamlet in the backwoods of North Carolina. 

Henry Thomas gives a good performance as Raymond Toker, a young loner who finds a baby abandoned in the woods. Toker's search for the baby's parents takes him on a journey that will have a profound impact on his life. David Srathairn plays Truman Lester, a slimy conman with an ulterior motive. And David plays the bad guy to perfection. 

There is much more to this film than first meets the eye. Filmed on location in North Carolina and with a wonderful sound track of traditional music, it is worth watching.

Sentiment: positive
I thought the movie was actually pretty good. I enjoyed the acting and it moved along well. The director seemed to really grasp the story he was trying to tell. I have to see the big budget one coming out today, obviously they had a lot more money to throw at it but was very watchable. When you see a movie like this for a small budget you have to take that in to account when you are viewing it. There were some things that could of been better but most are budget related. The acting was pretty good the F/X and stunts were well done. A couple of standouts were the guy who played the camera asst. and the boy who played the child. These kind of films have kept LA working and this is one that turned out OK.

Sentiment: positive
I love the 80s slasher flicks and I remember when "Silent Night/Deadly Night" was pulled from our theaters, I was very disappointed, so I was very excited to see some of these on Fear.net. You Better Watch Out was what I've come to expect of these types of movies. The quality of the special effects were laughable by today's standards, the character development too long, but all in all it was laugh out loud funny! 

The scenes where he loses it because Santa, aka dad, is feeling up his mom and later when the mob is actually shown lighting torches - not flashlights as you would in the 80s, but real torches! - really tickled my funny bone. However, the scenes where he was checking on the kids in his neighborhood gave me a creepy feeling of a different nature. I also enjoyed trying to figure out who some of these character actors were. It took me awhile to figure out that the main character was the lovable teddy bear on Brothers.

Sentiment: negative
Felix is watching an actor rehearse his lines: "A ham, A ham! My kingdom for a ham sandwich!!!" The dramatic guy that tells Felix he'll "have to sacrifice my art and go into the movies." He's in tears. Felix just looks at him like he's nuts, and shrugs his shoulders. The old guy tells Felix to "go ye forth" and find money to finance a trip to Hollywood. Felix thinks, "How does he expect me to get the money?"

In minutes, of course (this is a cartoon), he spots a shoe business owner putting up a "bankrupt" sale on his store. Felix comes up with a plan to bail him out and the man promises the cat $500 if it works.

Well, it does but the man wants to go alone and leave Felix at home. In an outrageous scene, Felix transforms himself into a briefcase and that's how he gets to Hollywood, transforming himself back to cat when they get there.

We then witness Felix's attempts at getting into show business. His audition scenes are very funny, especially with his imitation of Charlie Chaplin. In addition there are caricatures of some famous silent film stars and executives. In all, quite a bit of material is in this 9.5- minute cartoon. It's amazing how much more you can get in an extra 2.5 minutes, assuming most animated shorts are seven minutes in length.

At any rate, there were a number of laughs in here and more zany things you could only see in a cartoon, like Felix have a sword duel with giant mosquitoes! Crazy stuff.

Sentiment: positive
This film was released the year I was born and will be, like me, 70 in 2007. I watched it again last night having not seen it since high school. While it was full of 30's sentiment and the acting was a bit stereotyped, nevertheless, it was superb. Pearl S. Buck's story did come alive through the magic of the chemistry of Luise Rainer and Paul Muni. The novel which earned Ms. Buck the Nobel Prize for literature comes alive under the baton of Sydney Franklin which along with an excellent script recounts the story of peasant farmer, Wang Lung, whose father obtains a bride for him, a slave girl from the kitchen of a local landlord. In Buck's story, Wang's success is underwritten by his willingness to listen to his wife, most of the time, and the love of the land. In the end he comes to realize that his wife, like the land, is the source of his wealth, happiness and immortality. Buck's stories always had strong women cast in a critical spot to influence the outcome of events in the pre-feminist world. The German-born Luise Rainer brings a tentative but determined Peasant Chinese woman to life in her portrayal of Olan. Muni likewise captures the naive but honorable Wang, eventually caught between the two worlds of the wealthy and the peasant. Other classic characters include Charlie Grapewin, Dorothy Gale's Kansan Uncle Henry from the Wizard of Oz, Walter Connelly as the mewing, conniving uncle and Keye Luke as Number One Son-- but this time, not Charlie Chan's.

A classic might be defined as a movie you can watch time and again and never tire of. If that's indeed the case, this film is a classic, no doubt whatsoever.

Sentiment: positive
This is an incredible piece of drama and powerful which hits you. I found the film was great and getting to grips with the two main characters disability, this was represented in a great performance by both two Michael and Rory. Whether the story is based around a true story I feel the story was trying to giving the audience a message that as a whole the general public should respect and feel for the needs of disabled people and that they should be given the same chance as any other human. On the whole this film reach into my soul and I too felt touched by the actors and the director sending out there creativity. The whole picture is that some actors take it beyond their character the play and only show part of the character that is believable to the audience, but I feel that theses two certainly made great use as their gifted talent to portray a masterpiece piece of drama. Certainly one not to be missed!

Sentiment: positive
I'm not a writer or an critic...I'M just a student that has seen this movie few minutes ago....AND I want to thank people that worked on creating this movie!It is not the best or the most.... but it touched my heart...why???i would like to understand it myself...it is easy and accessible..it is a movie that makes you feel good after a bad day without any regret about the time wasted on watching it!It is about love and caring, about the life that we have but we miss it sometimes because of material stuff .......Look at all the time that we have but we miss it....why a fu*k do we do that???We need to live like were dying ...care about every second and remember:if we do good things-good things come back to us!HAppiness is real...and it has a special taste in New York...i love this town and the world the we live in!!!!thank you very much for the movie and sorry for my mistakes(English is my second language)...

Sentiment: positive
Jay Craven's criminally ignored film is a sober breath of fresh air in the generally narcissistic and derivative world of independent film. First off, the photography is pure aesthetic pleasure, capturing all of the gloomy beauty of Northern New England in late autumn (Cinematographer Paul Ryan did 2nd Unit on Malick's Days of Heaven). Second, the performances are uniformly excellent - Rip Torn's Noel Lourdes is irascibly charming and Tantoo Cardinal's Bangor is at once sensitive and exuberant, to say nothing of a fine supporting cast. Overall though, it is a tribute to the narrative strength of the film that the story maintains a strong and lively pace while still unfolding in its own time, and the film comes to a conclusion, natural and genuine, that nevertheless does not seem expected. This is one of the rare cells of dignity in the independent film world, a film that explores a small piece of the intersection between humans and history.

Sentiment: positive
And that's how the greatest comedy of TV started! It has been 12 years since the very first episode but it has continued with the same spirit till the very last season. Because that's where "Friends" is based: on quotes. Extraordinary situations are taking place among six friends who will never leave from our hearts: Let's say a big thanks to Rachel, Ross, Monica, Joey, Chandler and Phoebe!!! In our first meet, we see how Rachel dumps a guy (in the church, how ... (understand), Monica's search for the "perfect guy" (there is no perfect guy, why all you women are obsessed with that???), and how your marriage can be ruined when the partner of your life discovers that she's a lesbian. Till we meet Joey, Phoebe and Chandler in the next episodes... ENJOY FRIENDS!

Sentiment: positive