DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
D.W. Griffith could have made any film he wanted to after the enormous financial success of 'The Birth of a Nation'; he chose to make the most technically ambitious film to that date, 'Intolerance.' He took a risk with such innovations in film montage and form, and the well-known financial train wreck resulted. Buster Keaton doesn't take that kind of a risk with 'Three Ages,' a parody of 'Intolerance.' This is Keaton's first feature-length film of his own (he only acted in 'The Saphead'). He had the fallback plan of dividing the three episodes in this film into three separate shorts, which Griffith did do with 'Intolerance.' Keaton didn't have to. Chaplin had already succeeded with feature-length comedies, so if Keaton was taking a risk here, it was completely calculated.

Chaplin had already done a parody of another film, too, with 'Burlesque on Carmen' (1915). Keaton appears to allude to that film, as well. The wrestling scene in the Ancient Rome episode references the swordfight that turns into a wrestling match in Chaplin's film. The comical distance from the plot of both scenes is the same, too. Furthermore, Chaplin's film imitated the glossy style of DeMille's 'Carmen,' and Chaplin's film seemed a tribute to that film. Keaton doesn't attempt the radical editing, narrative structure or monumental nature in his parody, but it seems respectful of 'Intolerance' nonetheless. At least, the stories aren't told completely straightforward as in other post-'Intolerance' films, such as Dreyer's 'Leaves from Satan's Book' (Blade af Satans bog, 1921) and Fritz Lang's 'Destiny' (Der Müde Tod, 1921). There is some mild jumping back and forth between episodes.

Where Keaton did take risks, however, is in his physical, daredevil comedy. That's Keaton unintentionally failing to jump across buildings in the modern episode. Reportedly, he was convinced to alter the scene rather than attempt the jump again. And, it wasn't just Keaton who took risks; the anachronistic baseball gag, for example, was rather dangerous. Thus, although in a different way, Keaton, like Griffith, took risks with his big film. And, I think they both succeeded.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the dumbest ideas for a movie. Remake a classic film shot-by-shot. I hope nobody tries this technique again. In 1998, "Good Will Hunting" director Gus Van Sant tried it by remaking Hitchcock's 1960 classic "Psycho" and failed miserably. What on earth was Van Sant thinking of? This remake doesn't even come close to topping the original. The few changes that were made here were no help. If you want to see "Psycho", the choice is obvious. See the original.

* (out of four)

Sentiment: negative
The movie seemed a little slow at first. But it picked up speed and got right to the point. It showed exactly how the government and the scientist argued for humanity and the reasons of the "gadget". I enjoyed it. It is very close to reality as any movie about the Atomic Bombs that were to be dropped on Japan. I have recommended it to friends. I was particularly pleased with the acting ability of Dwight Schultz.

Sentiment: positive
"Don't Drink the Water" is an unbelievably bad film. It's based on a 1966 Broadway play by Woody Allen. It stars Jackie Gleason, the comic genius behind "The Honeymooners". The director, Howard Morris, has appeared in several Mel Brooks comedies (Life Stinks, High Anxiety, Silent Movie)and has made a mark in animation (characters he has voiced include Gopher from "Pooh", Jughead (Archie)and Beetle Bailey) What went wrong?

I think the problem is that the premise is played out too seriously to work effectively. Allen's original play was tongue-in-cheek, which is why it worked on Broadway and in Allen's 1994 remake. The screenplay by R.S. Allen and Harvey Bullock beats the premise to death and makes too many changes from the original play. Making Gleason's wife an airhead in this version when she was a headstrong woman in the original is just one example of why this doesn't work.

The acting isn't much better. Gleason does the best he can with the material, but he can't save this. Gleason was a comic genius , but also a fine actor as he demonstrated in "The Hustler" and "Soldier in the Rain". His abrasive personality could have worked here, but the lousy script doesn't even give him a chance. Too bad. Estelle Parsons' airhead wife will drive you nuts after 20 minutes. See how soon it'll take for YOU to want to strangle her. That is also a shame because she is also a fine actress, having turned in two exceptional performances in "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Rachel, Rachel" None of the other actors do particularly well either.

Woody Allen hated this film so much that he remade the film in 1994 with himself and Julie Kavner (Marge Simpson) in the leads. They manage to hit all the right notes and the film itself is a comic masterpiece. It's finally on video after a long battle over rights. Do go out and find that version. All the 1969 original is good for is clearing out unwanted guests who overstay their welcome.

1/2* out of 4 stars

Sentiment: negative
I don't know what it is about this movie, the charisma of the two leads, their chemistry on screen, the chance to see Matthau's real-life son (you can't miss him)or Art Carney's performance but I love it. I've seen it a few times and never tire of watching it again. Rent and enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie on TV and loved it! I am a real disaster film fan, and this one was great. The cast was made of some really interesting people. Connie Selleca is always great. And William Devane is in a league of his own. He can play both comedy and thriller in the same movie like few others can. The story line is great too. The thought of being able to follow a time line of what will happen, and to use this time line to prevent a global disaster is an interesting idea. And this movie brings it out in such a way that is almost totally believable.

Sentiment: positive
Certainly this film is not for everybody---but for anyone with a sense of humor and love of period film Ð buy this immediately! Where else can you get a run down of 70Õs fashion, a period vocabulary primer, karate trained hookers, crime, a rap about the TitanicÕs sinking, shoot outs, and a co-star named Queen Bee (watch for her moving crying scene early on in the wardens office!) With a filming style thatÕs a cross between a porno movie/Dawn of The Dead/ and Car Wash, you cannot go wrong. This is one to watch over and over againÉafter you put the kids to bed.

Sentiment: positive
This film is a jolt of punk rock fun, from start to finish. The Ramones, reigning princes of late-70s Punk rock, appear as themselves. PJ Soles stars as Riff Randle, the rebellious high school girl who lives and breathes rock 'n roll. Riff is obsessed with writing songs for the Ramones, her favorite rock band. She keeps the school rockin', and encourages her fellow-students to join her in her jubilant antics.

Meanwhile the school that Riff attends, has just hired a brand-new Principal, named Ms. Togar. She's a tall, intimidating Amazon of a woman. And she vows to make the students 'toe-the-line'. She even has a couple of the students act as monitors, who report back to her with dirt on their classmates. Ms. Togar is especially determined to nab Riff, and put a stop to Riff's anarchic shenanigans. But Riff has clever ways to foil Togar, at every turn.

Kudos to the superb performance of Mary Woronov, in her role as Principal Togar. Mary is a legendary B movie actress. And in this film, she plays the fascist Ms. Togar, with sneering relish. PJ Soles as Riff, turns in an electrifying performance. Clint Howard as the duplicitous Eaglebauer, has lots of fun with his role.

The Ramones perform many of their hit songs in this film. And so the viewer sees why the Ramones were so influential, in the 70s Punk rock scene. Certainly, this is a good film for Ramones fans. But even if you're not into the Ramones, or Punk rock, this movie is a terrific blast (literally) of energetic fun.

Sentiment: positive
To call a film about a crippled ghost taking revenge from beyond the grave lame and lifeless would be too ironical but this here is an undeniably undistinguished combination of GASLIGHT (1939 & 1944) via LES DIABOLIQUES (1954); while still watchable in itself, it's so cliché-ridden as to provoke chuckles instead of the intended chills. However, thanks to the dire straits in which the British film industry found itself in the late 1970s, even a mediocre script such as this one was able to attract 10 star names - Cliff Robertson (as the conniving husband), Jean Simmons (in the title role), Jenny Agutter (as Robertson's artist half-sister), Simon Ward (as the enigmatic chauffeur), Ron Moody (as an ill-fated doctor), Michael Jayston (as Robertson's business partner), Judy Geeson (as Simmons' best friend and Jayston's wife), Flora Robson (as the housekeeper), David Tomlinson (as the notary reading Simmons' will) and, most surprisingly perhaps, Jack Warner (as a gravestone sculptor) - although most of them actually have nothing parts, I'm sorry to say!

Sentiment: negative
Never have i sat down for six hours straight to watch a miniseries, but Changi changed that. I'm not going to lie, I know some Aussie flicks can be pathetic and boring (actually, i quite like Aussie flicks myself but maybe I'm biased) but Changi is on a completely different lane. Although not historically accurate, as we are continually reminded, the show combines superb acting, an excellent script and the addition of humour to provide us with an entertaining and emotional perception of life in a POW camp in WWII.

Keep in mind, the show was not supposed to be a documentary so don't let any factual errors disappoint you. 

This series exposes such creative writing by John Doyle (aka Roy Slaven)who is known more for his comedy than anything else, and an excellent director and actors move this creativity along perfectly. If you want to see how much hard work went into this series, visit the official website, it is really interesting and you'll learn a lot about true accounts of changi. 

If you haven't seen Changi yet, make sure you are doing nothing for a whole day because you'll want to watch the series in its entirety.

Sentiment: positive
In my opinion, this is a pretty good celebrity skit show. I enjoyed seeing Greg Kinnear as the host. There are many reasons why I said that. Even though Hal Sparks was an okay host, I sometimes wish that Greg Kinnear hadn't left. If you ask me, it seems that nobody stays with a TV show throughout its entire run anymore. Still, I enjoyed seeing the various hosts and other people spoofing celebrities. If you ask me, that was pretty darn funny. Before I wrap this up, I must say that I kind of miss this show. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this show to all you die-hard sketch show fans. You will really enjoy it.

Sentiment: positive
All in all, Big Bad John was a hilarious, and touching movie. If you want romance, tragedy, and humor, this movie's got it. If you're a fan of the song (like I am) you pretty much know how it ends. But if you don't, or do and want to watch it anyway, I strongly recommend this movie. Jack Elam and Jimmy Dean are a hilarious pair with great chemistry. However, I wouldn't recommend this movie to strict urban folk. You have to understand where these people are supposed to be coming from, and only a handful of us are left. But even a few urban folk might understand it, and appreciate it for what it is: a good, down home movie that'll make you laugh, cry, and be inspired.

Sentiment: positive
This movie i totally not funny, and I would imagine to be pretty offensive to Jewish people. (and I am not Jewish) Why? First, the whole movie portray the protagonist Zucker as a lier/cheat running shady business and deals, while his son is gay, his daughter is lesbian, and his niece is a slut. Then there is the incestuous relationship that happens in the family, first his daughter with his Joshua and Jana, and then his son with his niece. Two incestuous relationship running in family. I am surprised they didn't add the plot of having a mentally disabled in the family...Now, that would really complete the Nazi ideal sub-human! (gay, lesbian, Jew...)

Totally disgusting film. I am surprised this film gets no response from any Jewish community.

Sentiment: negative
My parents took me to this movie when I was nine years old. I have never forgotten it. I had never before seen anything as beautiful as Elizabeth Taylor. (She was twenty-two when she made Elephant Walk) Remember, I'm nine, so the feelings aren't sexual, I just couldn't see anything else on the screen. I just wanted to sit at her feet like a puppy and stare up at her. She has begun to show her age, (She's almost seventy-four) but I still believe her to be one of the most beautiful and breathtaking women to ever have lived.

I have seen the movie several times since, and it is a sappy melodrama. What saves it is, of course, Miss Taylor's beauty, magnificent scenery, the very impressive elephant stampede, and a well-made point on human arrogance in the face of nature.

All in all, a well-spent couple of hours watching the movie channel or a rented video.

Sentiment: positive
This is a pleasant film, even if the premise is silly. It was sort of a guilty pleasure to watch. Meg Ryan seems to be able to pull off roles in this kind of film (another example is Joe vs. the Volcano). That's what makes her a star, in part. Walter Matthau, of course, had that ability, too, and he really puts himself into the role, making an amusing, good-hearted Einstein. I suppose you could say they're both good at portraying loveable characters, though loveable in different ways (loveable young women vs. loveable curmudgeon).

Sentiment: positive
This was a wonderful little film that truly was creative and fun--something you see all too seldom in movies. The film begins in Russia just after the fall of the Communist government. As a result, society seems to be in chaos and life has yet to improve now that the old regime is gone. Dirty cities, crime and lack of housing still plague the poor residents of St. Petersburg.

Into this scene of bleakness and uncertainty comes an idealistic music teacher. He is among those without a home and he FINALLY gets a letter from the government that tells him he has a tiny room in a nearby flat. When he arrives, the place is a mess but the people seem friendly enough so they all have a lovely party. In the middle of the night, they are awakened by an old lady walking out of the giant wardrobe in the room (I was half expecting Lucy and the other kids from THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE to come out, but they didn't). They are too shocked to do anything at first but decide soon to investigate. Instead of just being a clothes closet, the wardrobe opens into Paris! How the residents of the flat respond to this magical gateway is really intriguing. Some, like the music teacher, are thrilled and in awe. Most of the others are more pragmatic and are mostly concerned with looting everything from Paris before the gateway closes once and for all! These Russian thieves are awful people--greedy, coarse and crude but down deep---VERY DEEP--are hearts of gold. I like how this is a metaphor for the nation now on the brink of Capitalism. At first, they run amok grabbing everything they can and only later do they reveal some depth--but mostly they act much like guests on THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW! The film has many twists and turns and is both funny and mesmerizing. About the only negative is that due to some harsh language and a nude scene (albeit, a very funny one), this is not a film for kids. This is a real shame, as with some very minor editing, this could have been a great family film.

Sentiment: positive
I love Alec Guinness. And that's saying a lot after this film. Actually, he is not bad in it. He just seems to stand aside, be urbane and his usual delightful self, but invest nada. It is obvious the girl he is matched with is a featherweight, even as an inexperienced young French girl. Sir Alec wouldn't have chosen her when he was young and very obviously isn't too happy about it now.

The interesting character is the brooding brother of the odd "Suzanne", another twit. "Donald" aspires to be a French Heathcliffe and I waited in vain for the source of his mystery. What deep dark secret was he hiding behind that forehead? Was he in love with the father's mistress? Why did he jerk Suzanne's hair when she plotted to bring the disparate parts of this turkey together on the country estate? Or perhaps he had simply had enough of her obnoxious acting.

The film would have been charming with Guiness and the "older woman" reminiscing and seeing Paris together. THAT would have been a great story! Two lovely experienced people in a beautiful city after the destruction of World War II. Why didn't somebody come up with that? I suggest watching Alec Guiness in "The Card", a little known but worthwhile film.

Sentiment: negative
Mario Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has written a definitive 120-page point-by-point, line-by-line refutation of this mendacious film, which should be titled A CONVENIENT LIE. The website address where his debunking report, which is titled "A SKEPTIC'S GUIDE TO AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH" can be found at is :www.cei.org. A shorter 10-page version can be found at: www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf Once you read those demolitions, you'll realize that alleged "global warming" is no more real or dangerous than the Y2K scare of 1999, which Gore also endorsed, as he did the pseudo-scientific film THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, which was based on a book written by alleged UFO abductee Whitley Strieber. As James "The Amazing" Randi does to psychics, and Philip Klass does to UFOs, and Gerald Posner does to JFK conspir-idiocy theories, so does Mario Lewis does to Al Gore's movie and the whole "global warming" scam.

Sentiment: negative
In the first transformation scene, what is the music? I've heard it was "The Greeks Don't Get No Freeks". Is that right? I really liked that sound. I also liked the "Hyde's Got Nothing to Hide" in the final scenes. Truly a doper movie, but with many laughs and puns, sight gags, and slapstick. Madam Woo-Woo's place was reminiscent of some places I have visited myself. Ivy Venus has appeared in some other stuff that is truly amazing. She looks much different in the movie we're talking about, but her maturity didn't hurt her a bit. Mark Blankfield reminds one of Gene Wilder in some ways. Bess Armstrong was beautiful and maintained her beauty for a long time.

Sentiment: positive
It seems like people are attracted to shows that showcase pathetic lives that have no purpose what-so-ever. To me i give my sincerity to NBC for their dire efforts to make new changes in television, making laugh track free shows. They seem to always find big success, like The Office. When I first started to watch it seemed to me that it could have potential to be a smash hit. But after a couple of episodes, I really felt like going to church and donating every penny in my entire bank to pathetic people showcased in these lowlife, poor, disgraceful areas. And the end where they show Earl and the brother in bed together, it just seems to me that this show is trying to show the bad side of life, like street beggars or people who struggle to pay the rent and have no sense of what the real world of normal people in society are like. I just seem to always be disgusted when I watch the filth the people in this show live in. It's like Venice Beach in California, beautiful but so many hobos. Believe me I'm no rich guy, middle class, and not a clean freak either, a bit sloppy, but it just seems to me that the show just can't seem to get off of all the gruesome, schmuck people out there who have one leg. I just wish that they would show a little more class, not all filth and poorness and trailers and just below average life, it just seems to depress me. To me this show is nothing more than a showcase of what not to do in life, what not to be. It also shows me that education is the most important thing you can have because apparently these two don't have an ounce of smarts. This is a schmuck-u-mentary.

Sentiment: negative
OK, this movie was cool. I don't think it was the best movie ever made but it sure was fun. My brother and I still act out scenes once in a while, and will occasionally yank the movie out of the cupboard, blow off the dust and pop it in. Enjoyable all the way until the end, but a great concept. This is a movie that one has to just forget criticism all together and just enjoy. Judgment is victory for Robot Jox.

Sentiment: positive
Beaudray Demerille(a weak Peter Fonda, who also directed), an aging gambler, wins young teen Wanda "Nevada"(pretty, but not talented Brooke Shields) in a poker game. Together the unlikely pair(of course)embark on a search for Indian gold in the Grand Canyon.

That's the story and there really is no need to search for a deeper meaning in it. It just isn't there. The acting is very weak too, which was quite a surprise given the fact that Peter Fonda was in the lead.

If you're looking for something interesting in this film, take a look at the nice scenery and some good looks of a young Brooke Shields. Her character however is so irritating(especially at the beginning)and dumb, that she never quite comes off as sexy or appealing. Too bad, but, given the story, I doubt anything more could be made of this. I wonder why Peter Fonda directed and starred in this film. He must have even talked his father(Henry Fonda)into a (useless) cameo in this ridiculous mess. Unfortunately, this was their only film together. Couldn't Henry be in EASY RIDER for example? 3/10

Sentiment: negative
With the runaway success of "God's Army", every Mormon with a camera seems to be trying to make a movie now. In the case of the recent "The Other Side of Heaven", this wasn't at all a bad thing. That film, while not great, was quite good. "The Singles Ward", however, is not.

Telling the story of a young, divorced Mormon guy thrust back into single life, the writing and shooting style of "The Singles Ward" is, in many ways, very similar to the 80s comedy "Ferris Bueller's Day Off". However, the similarities end there. While "Ferris Bueller" was funny, original, and well-acted (as far as stupid comedies like this ever are), "The Singles Ward" is completely the opposite. It tries very hard to be funny. However, 90% of the gags either fall flat or are cliches and jokes you've probably heard a million times before. The other 10% seem to be thrown in to fill out the time. And the acting, while not awful, is amaturish at best.

In addition, if you're not either a Mormon yourself, or very, VERY familiar with Mormon culture, you won't get hardly anything at all. Whereas "God's Army" and "The Other Side of Heaven" were appealing to a broad range of viewers, both inside and outside of the Mormon church, this film is most definitely one big inside joke, and even if you get it, it's just not that funny.

Sentiment: negative
The Legend of Zu, as I saw it, was a very interesting story. I think many of the people who didn't like it were not seeing the underlying mythology behind the film. They were expecting something akin to Star Wars, and it was not that. Joseph Campbell, I believe, would have liked this film. There were a number of metaphors and hidden meanings that an average viewer might have overlooked. We all have a mountain of swords within us. We all have to go into our own cave of blood sometime in our lives. We all have to face our own insomnia someday. Granted some of the narration was a bit confusing, and some of the action got a little hokey at times, but I think other points of the film easily made up for it. I'd watch it again. 

I don't know if there's a difference between The Legend of Zu (which I saw in Mandarin with English subtitles) and Zu Warriors (The dubbed USA version.) It might have been dumbed down for American audiences, which really would have detracted from this film.

Sentiment: positive
It helps if you understand Czech and can see this in the original language and understand the Czechs obsession with 'The Professionals', but if not, 'Jedna ruka netlaska' is yet another great Czech film. It is funny, dark and extremely enjoyable. The highest compliment I can pay it is that you never know quite what is going to happen next and even keep that feeling well into the second and third viewing.

For a small country the Czech Republic has produced an amazing amount of world class film and literature, from Hrabal, Hasek and Kundera to the films of Menzel, Sverak and numerous others. Czech humour by its very nature is dark and often uncompromising, but often with a naive and warm sentiment behind it. This film is just that, it is unkind and deals with the less lovable sides of human beings, but underneath it all there is a beautiful story full of promise, good intent and optimism.

I highly recommend this and most other projects Trojan and Machacek are involved in. Enjoy it, it's a film made for just that reason - anyway, it's as close as the Czechs will ever come to writing a truly happy ending...

Sentiment: positive
For the very reason that I love movies such as "Central do Brasil" ("Central Station", 1998), I really love "Chop Shop". There is no sugar-coating, there is no attempt to make these people's lives over to something more palatable or pretty. What you see is what you get, and that is often gritty and at times heartbreaking. But that is exactly what makes a movie such as "Chop Shop" so wonderful, alongside the fact that the storyline unfolds so elegantly and subtly. For a young brother and sister, who are about as close to homelessness as one would ever want to get, working (and living) at an auto body repair shop in Queens, New York is as good as it gets. Is this a good or bad thing? That is the question this movie essentially poses to the viewer. This movie is really a fantastic slice-of-life piece that at times feels like a documentary instead of a drama, and that is a great thing, because it looks and feels so real. In the midst of so, so many current movies based on essentially surreal and often implausible plots, stumbling upon "Chop Shop" is like finding a little gem.

Sentiment: positive
Okay, that was a pretty damn good episode. Much better than the credit it receives.

The camera work is splendid. Best yet. I love that final shot. The atmosphere is fantastic, the costumes are great and the guest cast (minus the helpless victims) is strong. 

What I don't like about this episode is that many things that are left unexplained. why does it change sex? what's the purpose? and they're aliens? what kind? why were they never shown again in the later mythology?

I'm giving this episode a high THREE stars. One of my favorites yet, but the plot holes bother me. Still... not gonna let it ruin my entertainment.

Sentiment: positive
I find it so amazing that even after all these years, we are STILL talking about this movie! Obviously this movie wasn't THAT bad or else people wouldn't even BOTHER to talk about it. I personally enjoyed this film immensly, and still do! I guess this film isn't for everyone, but it certainly did touch the hearts of many. 

As for those that think that this film is "overrated" or "over-hyped"...well, we only have the movie-going public to thank for that! lol* You see, it's not CRITICS/article writers that make a film "HUGE" or a "HIT" with the general movie-going public. PEOPLE make the film a huge success. With Titanic, everyone was in awe. Let's face it, a film like this had never been made before. At least not with the type of special effects needed to really capture the essence of the ship actually sinking. This film is so accurate that even James Cameron timed the actual sinking of the ship in the film with the REAL sinking that fateful day in April 1912. Even the silverware for goodness sakes matched! 

Give this movie a break you guys! The critics thought this movie would sink BIG time! When this movie actually came out and people started hearing by WORD OF MOUTH (which is the BEST form of advertisement mind you) that this was a good/decent/movie worth seeing, then everyone started flocking to the theaters in droves to see this movie...not once, not twice, but maybe 3 times and more! So, I really wouldn't say that this movie was "overhyped"...at least not like the buildup for the MATRIX reloaded or the HULK is being "overhyped". ha! Critics didn't even think that Titanic would make enough money to cover Cameron's gigantic film budget that it took to make this mammoth of a film. However, the films money took care of that 200 million budget and MUCH more! 

Personally, I LOVE this film. However, this film might not be for everyone. DOn't say that this film sucks just because of romance though! THat is the most sexist thing I've ever heard! Disliking a movie just because it has romance in it! The story was sweet. The dialogue could have been better, but let's face it...the REAL star of the movie wasn't Leo or Kate...it was that GIGANTIC Ship! I think all of the actors including DiCaprio and Winslet did a fine job. It's not thier best work (I've seen much BETTER work from both of them) but it wasn't the WORST I've seen on screen before. Give them a break!



Sentiment: positive
Teenager Tamara (Jenna Dewan) has it rough. She's ridiculed by all the popular "kids" for being shy, bookish, frumpy and because of her interest in witchcraft. All of the football players and cheerleaders are especially angry at her for writing an article on steroid abuse for the school paper. On top of this, her dad's a drunk, her mom's not around and she's secretly in love with her supportive English teacher (Matthew Marsden). The popular kids set up a cruel prank to humiliate her, accidentally kill her during a struggle, bury the body in the woods and make a pact to keep silent. To their shock, the very next day Tamara walks back into the classroom looking seductive and, uh, dressed to kill. Yep, back from the dead and ready for supernatural revenge against everyone involved. She also takes time out to make her sexually abusive pop eat a beer bottle and tries to seduce her English teacher away from his wife (Claudette Mink), a guidance counselor at the school.

Acting and writing are strictly mediocre. You can also tell the people responsible for this have seen such movies as CARRIE (1976), HELLO MARY LOU: PROM NIGHT II (1987) and THE CRAFT (1996) because it borrows wholesale from all three of those superior films. There's some gore (a guy cutting off his ear and tongue and then stabbing his eyeball probably being the best bit), a nasty vomiting scene and a few campy/witty one-liners. Not an awful film by any means, but not much originality went into it either.

Sentiment: negative
The story concerns a genealogy researcher (Mel Harris) who is hired by her Estee Lauder-like cosmetic queen aunt. Her aunt (by marriage we are left to presume) is trying to track down her long lost family in Europe. All they have to go on is a photo of a young girl standing by an ornate music box. The researcher heads to Europe and conducts her search in places like Milan, Budapest, and Vienna. The scenery is the real thing and is actually shot on location (unlike a Murder, She Wrote where Jessica is supposed to be visiting a far-flung locale and Lansbury never left Burbank). Anyway, she meets a young man who is also searching to solve a family mystery of his own and they team up to track down clues and menace bad guys. The dialogue, particularly the romantic dialogue, is terrible. I watched this because of the scenery but the script was so bad that I stayed on just to see if it would get worse. It did. Acting was also off. I can see why Mel Harris's career never really took off after thirtysomething, but she is adequate (seems too old for her co-star though). But, the supporting players are straight out of the community playhouse. I also lost count of how many times they say "Budapest" to each other. Yes, it is pronounced Bood-a-phesht. We know, okay? I realized halfway into the film that this had to be one of those Harlequin movies and sure enough it is. Guess that says it all.

Sentiment: negative
This is not a movie. This is a collection of random shots taken in a fascinating part of the world, dubbed over with some random text. The footage is not that great and the text is not that great either. The end product is excruciatingly dull.

On the DVD, turning the commentary on can provide some entertainment value, as the director makes a rather deranged argument that this is a sci-fi movie. It's also fascinating to read about the extraordinary risks and hardship that the crew endured to collect this footage. Too bad it's rubbish. But I think "The Making of Fata Morgana" would be a fascinating film, sort-of like 'Ed Wood" was.

Sentiment: negative
this movie was one of the best disney movies i've ever seen. great for the entire family to watch. the ideas may be a little far-fetched, but it's a feel-good comedy and the acting is great. love the little boy, j.p. and academy award winner adrien brody's part may have been very short, but very memorable. highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
Ah yet another Seagal movie.In no less than a few mere months arrive to populate the video store shelves.As bad as Submerged?No.But that is not saying much.Like perfume on a pig.

Seagal is professional thief who wants to quit,but goes for one last job only to be double-crossed by his boss.He lands in Prison and is befriended by a Gangster who helps him to break out and seek payback.

Its good to see Seagal finally not playing an agent,cop,or what he usually plays.We actually get a USA Location in Las Vegas it seems. Then an eastern European territory as usual. There is no wire-Fu either here.Don Fauntleroy does an okay job.

However most of the action and fight scenes with Stevie are clearly doubles.Scenes from other movies,a lack of realism and logic in even tiniest situation.Seagal and Treech make a so-so team inspiring(unintentional) laughs one minute.Sighs the rest.

Several notable faces turn up to slum it.. sleepy Kevin Tighe is a long way from his emergency days.Nick Mancuso shows up in sleepwalking mode to take a check.No more rappers.Please? At this point the action scenes and plots are more predictable and recycled generically more than ever.Its a stale scene that Seagal needs to get out of or hang it up.He should have gotten out a while ago.

Sentiment: negative
To put it simply, this was a pompous piece of canine poopie. Overly stagey and everyone being the total melodramatic drama queen at every single moment. After a while, i was starting to wish that every character in the movie wasn't such a stuffed-up anal retentive.

And, this movie has another one of those truly annoying things that has recently come into vogue and shouldn't have: all the scenes are in a sort of washed-out, blue-steel-greyishness. Hmmm, the last time i checked, candles and torches are quite capable of putting a fairly wide spectrum of colors. In fact, the light they put out tends to be more in the warmish, yellowish-orange range of the spectrum. So where's all the blue-steel-grey light coming from?

This movie has fancy sets and glitzy cgi fx, but it's still dreck. It's pathetic junk put out for today's movie-goers who are easily placated by pathetic junk.

I very much enjoy vampires and werewolves as movie plot devices, but this was a total hack job.

Universal Studios' 1941 "The Wolfman" is infinitely superior to this even though its fx is pretty primitive compared to what could be done nowadays.

I'm done with this franchise. The first movie was reasonably decent. The second still somewhat entertaining. But this one i couldn't even finish all the way to the end because it was so boring.

Sentiment: negative
79/100. Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers never made anything but great films together. Although this is not one of their best, it is an excellent musical. There are a few outstanding musical numbers, good support from Randolph Scott. Two notable appearances, Betty Grable and Lucille Ball make memorable early screen performances. Ball is particularly good, and a blonde as well. The "Let's Face the Music and Dance" is one of the musical duo's best numbers ever. Harriet Hilliard, better know as Harriet Nelson of "Ozzie and Harriet" plays Ginger Roger's sister. The basic plot is pretty familiar, but with a cast this exceptional, it works. Excellent art direction and score.

Sentiment: positive
Ed Wood rides again. The fact that this movie was made should give any young

aspiring film maker hope. Any screenplay you might have thought of using to

line a litterbox or a birdcage should now not seem that bad. Do not watch this movie unless you have a healthy stash of Tylenol or Rolaids. Watching this

movie made me realize that Boa vs. Python was not that bad after all. It probably would have been better to do this movie in Claymation as at least that way no actor would have had to take credit for being in this film. It is understandable why this director has so many aliases. There is a bright side to watching this movie in that if you can get someone to bring you a bag of chips, then you can eat your way out of the cocoon of cheese that surrounds you enabling you to

make your toward your TV set's cocoon of cheese that surrounds it.

Sentiment: negative
Like one of the previous commenters said, this had the foundations of a great movie but something happened on the way to delivery. Such a waste because Collette's performance was eerie and Williams was believable. I just kept waiting for it to get better. I don't think it was bad editing or needed another director, it could have just been the film. It came across as a Canadian movie, something like the first few seasons of X-Files. Not cheap, just hokey. Also, it needed a little more suspense. Something that makes you jump off your seat. The movie reached that moment then faded away; kind of like a false climax. I can see how being too suspenseful would have taken away from the "reality" of the story but I thought that part was reached when Gabriel was in the hospital looking for the boy. This movie needs to have a Director's cut that tries to fix these problems.

Sentiment: positive
Hi guys, this is my first review and I would had to have picked the worst movie to review. As I only watched 5 minutes of it but trust me you could see this movie was going nowhere. The acting was deplorable, the camera work and lighting looked as though it was shot and run by a pack of 10 year old's. No offence to 10 year olds.I just couldn't take anymore I got off my couch, took the The House of Adam DVD out of the DVD player and threw it in the garbage. Maybe if you are a Colin Farrell fan this movie may interest you, because the character in the movie, Anthony, is a Colin Farrell look a like. But that is as far as it goes, he certainly will never have col's acting abilities. I gave this movie a rating of 1 (awful) only because there were no minuses in the drop down list cheers.

Sentiment: negative
Once upon a time there was a director by the name of James. He brought us wonderfully, thrilling science-fiction such as Terminator and Aliens. These movies were the stuff blockbusters were made of and he looked to have a fantastic future ahead of him as the dawn of computer generated special effects landed upon the film industry. Terminator 2 showed gave us glimpses of what was possible in this new era.

.......and then it happened...................1997........countless awards..........obscene amounts of money............outlandish barrage of advertising............maximum profit margin........Titanic was here!

I have never (ever) been one to jump on the bandwagon and be overly critical for the sake of it, in fact I have often taken the opposite stance from the majority just to get an argument going. Titanic however was a film I only took one single positive out of - that of Kate Winslett being absolutely gorgeous throughout!

Quickly - the dialogue was like something out of Beverly Hills 90210, the acting was more wooden than my nephew's tree house, images meant to terrify were actually comical (man falling from ship and hitting propeller), historically false (don't even get me started because there's too much), it had dire theme music (up there with the bodyguard for cheese) and the pointless love story was so tedious, self absorbing and pathetic that it disrespected the plight of everyone else involved (I was glad when he died and disappointed when she did not).

It was plainly obvious from the word go that this picture was designed to appeal to MTV watching, bubblegum chewing, boy-with-car chasing, teenage girls (DeCaprio himself resembled something less heroic than the weedy member of a boy band) who would drag their sex-starved boyfriends out for a three and a half hour chick-flick hoping to get lucky later! The worst aspect was that it did not stop at that point. Millions of dumbed down, culture vultures went to see this expensive waste of celluloid because "it cost so much to produce it must be great" and "Steve and Barbara said it was good and they know their movies". 

The crowning glory arrived when Titanic swept the boards at the Academy Awards. King James of Hollywood had a serious moment of silence for the victims of the fatal evening on which his three and a half hour farce was based. It looked to me as if he was praying for forgiveness after making a fortune off inaccurately portraying the circumstances that lead to the death of a lot of people. 

However, if people are stupid and sentimental enough to buy into this kind of rubbish they deserve to get ripped off. Good luck to Hollywood if that is how they want to make money, I'd do it if I had those kind of chances in life!

It is right up there on my all time worst movies list with other silly, historically false/human interest tripe like "The Patriot" and "Pearl Harbor".

Sentiment: negative
Written by the excellent McGovern and directed by Frears this film was a slight disappointment. It seemed too short. It spent far too long creating the Hovis atmosphere, and laughing at the Catholic demands. Then very quickly you have the fascist and socialists vying for the family's attention, and the terrible conclusion.

Still my wife thought Liam was cute.

Sentiment: negative
hair, the movie based on the broadway hit,fails to achieve any redeemable cinematic qualities. you cant really take the play and make it a movie. whether one is so tempted by the rock music to see this movie, it really detracts from the quality of a broadway show. worse than seeing sitcom reruns. musical fiasco, and cant believe others rated it so high.

Sentiment: negative
This movie from what I remember was such a great movie! I watched it on television when I was 11, and couldn't remember the title of it. If I remember correctly, I do believe that it was a Christmas television movie special. One of my friends at work and I were discussing it several years back, but neither one of us could remember the title. But we did remember almost the entire movie. No one else at work remembered ever seeing it! Thank goodness someone at a TV movie website answered my post! Now I have the fun job of locating a copy of it! It's amazing what you can remember as a child, but this movie definitely remains vividly playing in my head... even after 28 years. And I do believe I only watched it once. Maybe it was because I am the oldest sister in my family, or maybe because I babysat and worked in day care centers, that it stuck with me that long. Regardless of the real reason, it has remained one of the movies that I have been really wanting to watch lately!!! If anyone knows where to watch it online, or has a copy, please let me know. I would so love to see it again!!!! Thanks so much! Seriously, I tried to post this and it says my comment isn't long enough. So, apparently I have to type more, did you know that Melissa Michaelsen is the sister of Peter Billingsley who starred in A Christmas Story? I know I'm not the only fan of this movie, so if anyone has any idea on where to find this I would greatly appreciate it.

Sentiment: positive
The book that this movie is based on seriously changed my life. But saying this movie was a disappointment is an understatement. The acting, directing, cinematography, and storyline were all horrible. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. I've told countless people about the book but will now be telling them all that they should definitely not see the movie! I did not expect the plot to follow the book exactly, but they have left out too many key components of the book. The movie tried, but failed, to deliver a powerful and inspiring message and only demeaned the central theme of the prophecy. While putting myself in the position who had not read the book, I saw the Celestine Prophecy as a bunch of hoaxy B.S. I am thoroughly disappointed with Redfield for the way this movie turned out.

Sentiment: negative
I recently watched Belle Epoque, thinking it might be wonderful as it did win an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. I was a bit underwhelmed by the predictability and simplicity of the film. Maybe the conflict I had was that from the time the movie was filmed to now, the plot of a man falling for beautiful women and eventually falling for the good girl has been done so many times. Aside from predictability of the plot, some scenes in the film felt really out of place with the storyline (ex. a certain event at the wedding). At times the film was a bit preachy in it's ideas and in relation to the Franco era the film was set in and the Church. The only thing the film had going for it was the cutesy moments, the scenery, and the character of Violeta being a strong, independent woman during times when women were not really associated with those characteristics.

Sentiment: negative
I have seen this movie maybe a 100 times, never grow tired of it.I saw this movie the first time when i was 7 years old, and it has left a mark in my memories since then. Its a enchanting love story that brings the sun out in most people, even in the darkest times. I think that this is a "must see" movie and one of Anthony Quinn's best performance ever. I just wish that the TV-channels would send this movie more often. It has inspired me in a good way and surly will do that to many others. If there is any actor i wanted to meet, it would have been Anthony Quinn. There will never be a like of him on the silver screens,,, ever. Wish that Anthony Quinn was still alive. May god bless his soul.

Sentiment: positive
"Dr. Cameron, a discredited scientist succeeds with his experiment in creating serum the transforms men into wolf-like creatures. Originally developing this formula to help the world, the scientist decides to use his newly created subject to exact revenge upon the scientists who were responsible for his ouster from the scientific community. The scientist's daughter Lenora grows wary of her father's actions and shares her suspicions with a newspaper reporter. When the scientist loses control of his creature, it falls upon the scientist's daughter and the reporter to stop it," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Mad scientist George Zucco (as Lorenzo Cameron) creates his formula rather unimaginatively, by mixing human and wolf blood. This brings the beast out in hulking Glenn Strange (as Petro aka Pedro), who is directed to act like Lon Chaney Jr. in "Of Mice and Men". Johnny Downs (as Tom Gregory) and Anna Nagel (as Lenora Cameron) are a likable werewolf hunter and damsel in distress. Certainly, "The Mad Monster" is no substitute for "The Wolf Man"; but, it's a serviceable addendum. The grainy black-and-white photography enhances the foggy, cow-webbed atmosphere. "God" (uncredited) strikes up a well-done ending, too. Like Blaine (Robert Strange) said, "Mingling the blood of man and beast is downright sacrilege!" 

**** The Mad Monster (1942) Sam Newfield ~ George Zucco, Johnny Downs, Anna Nagel

Sentiment: negative