DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I was excited when I heard they were finally making this horrific event into a movie. The whole era (1980's Southern California) and subject matter (drug and porn industry) is intriguing to me. I thought this would be a sure fire hit. I was not thrilled with the choice of Kilmer as Holmes, they do not resemble each other in physical appearance or mannerisms. I guess he sells tickets? However, I was willing to overlook this and give it a fair shot. I was a bit shocked that there were only like four other people in the entire theater with me on that first day of showing. Now the whole crime and story in the film is hard to do, I will admit that. There were no witnesses to this very violent and brutal act. John Holmes was there, but he was also a pathological liar and worried about what would happen to his family (and self) if he talked to police about it. In fact, Holmes never really testified about what happened and the crime did go unsolved. So this was still really one big mystery, a mystery that this movie does nothing to cast light on. The person writing the screenplay had a whole lot of discretion and most of the principal characters are dead. However, there is no real storyline, it is fragmented claptrap. The script is light and the actors try to hard to beef up paper thin lines by overacting. The film gives no insight into Holmes or the other people involved. Kilmer's character disappears for long stretches, his girlfriend is dull, the police are jokes. Even Kudrow tries hard to make a flimsy role look substantial. It is a very shallow piece and dare I say, boring. The director even tries to turn it into a love story. Which is nice, unless you know anything about what a piece of trash John Holmes really was. Perhaps a couple of viewings of Anderson's "Boogie Nights" might have helped here. "Boogie Nights" was innovative and exciting in all regards. This film on the other hand was flat and without any real charm or style. Even the music is out of place, with Duran Duran being played in a scene that was supposed to have taken place in 1980. Then we have Gordon Lightfoot? Gordon Lightfoot? There could have been a great film based on this gruesome event, but I have not seen it yet. I have not seen even a decent one yet (unless you consider the Rahad Jackson scene from Boogie Nights).

Sentiment: negative
Skilled professionals live it up in an exotic and dangerous location. They get drunk every night. They smuggle opium. They drop pigs in parachutes. They fly under impossibly hazardous conditions. They dress weird and act weirder. They're iconoclastic, outrageous. They violate every rule of command and have contempt for their employers at the CIA. They're irreplaceable.

Nope. It's not "Only Angels Have Wings" and it's not "M*A*S*H." It's an uneasy mixture of the two that unfortunately comes across as more silly than funny.

It aims at shock, amusement, and education, but doesn't really achieve its goals.

As far as its shock value is concerned, well, we're inured by now, aren't we? Does it really shock anyone that a bunch of hard-living pilots flew secret missions in Laos in the 1970s? No, it's not shocking. It's not even educational now, under our current circumstances, when it would be interesting to learn that some paramilitary excursion was NOT buried in a file labeled National Interest, Defense de Toucher. That's okay. So we've been wised up a little and are no longer neither so shockable nor so dumb.

The problem in this case is that the film depends on those very qualities for its power to amuse. Without that, the film implodes. A group of shaggy drunken CIA pilots are sitting around in a cat house, goosing the girls, shooting out the lights with a silenced pistol, killing lizards with same. Asks newbie pilot Robert Downey, Jr., "When you guys act like this does it mean there's something to celebrate?" Replies another, guffawing, "No, it means it's night time." That might be funny if we expected renegade pilots to be as upright as the rest of us. If we don't, the gag, like the movie, falls flat.

There are action scenes naturally. Everything that can possibly happen in or to an airplane in flight happens in or to an airplane in flight. People fall out of them, baggage is thrown haphazardly out of their hatches, engines fail, they sustain damage from AAA, the are torn apart during crash landings, but we've seen most of this elsewhere, often done better.

Some might find this funnier than I did, and the acting is pretty good. Robert Downey Jr. is especially effective as the straight man. Check out the other comments and if they describe a film that you might find appealing, then by all means watch it. There might be some laughs in it that escaped me.

Sentiment: negative
This show was appreciated by critics and those who realized that any similarities between "Pushing Daisies" style and anyone else's was not a steal. (Yes, I've seen "Amelie." "Pushing Daisies" is somewhat similar but still different enough to be original.) Rather, there are too few shows on TV that have this kind of quirky charm. The greatest similarity is to "Dead Like Me" but "P.D" comes by that similarity honestly: Bryan Fuller created both shows. (Both shows involve an "undead" young woman, For example.) This show never stopped being funny and charming, and it was always odd, yet was consistently humane.

I must say a word about the conventions of on-going story lines. some people have complained that this show lacked a moral center because in the first (and several subsequent) episodes Ned seems to get away with causing the death of Chuck's father without consequences of any kind. First of all, this must be a new definition of "without consequences of any kind" because, in spite of the fact that Ned was only a boy and did not realize that he had caused the death of Chuck's father, he nevertheless felt guilty from the moment he realized what he had done. Further, about a dozen episodes into the series, Ned finally did confess to Chuck that he had caused her father's death with his gift. Now, there are no police to charge people with magically causing one person's death by bringing another person back to life, so the questions of absolution and restitution have to be taken up without societal guidance. In other words, it's between Ned and Chuck, who was not inclined to forgive Ned anytime soon.

But this does point out a problem with continuing story lines in network dramas. I remember when David Caruso's character on "NYPD Blue" did something wrong and it seemed he got away with it--for a whole year--then he got caught and was forced to resign from the job (and left the show). The point is, viewers should learn by now and not assume that just because a regular character does something wrong in a single episode, and is not caught in that episode, that he has gotten away with it. There is always next week--and maybe even next year.

Sentiment: positive
I caught this on the dish last night. I liked the movie. I traveled to Russia 3 different times (adopting our 2 kids). I can't put my finger on exactly why I liked this movie other than seeing "bad" turn "good" and "good" turn "semi-bad". I liked the look Ben Chaplin has through the whole movie. Like "I can't belive this is happening to me" whether it's good or bad it the same look (and it works). Great ending. 7/10. Rent it or catch it on the dish like I did.

Sentiment: positive
Did you know, that Anthony Kiedis, (singer from the Red Hot Chili Peppers) father is in this movie. Blackie Dammit, is Anthony's father. I noticed this after reading "Scar Tissue" Anthony's autobiography, and saw a picture of his father. I thought, "well, that guy kinda looks like that guy from that movie I saw in the eighties. Then I read more and it said his father was an actor that had a few small roles. After checking this site, and comparing with a search on the net, I realized it really is his father in the movie. It's funny, because nowhere in the book does it mention him being in this movie. Perhaps his son was ashamed of his father's acting job in this flick, but he need not be. I think his father, Blackie, did a great job in the show.

Sentiment: positive
There aren't enough gay-themed movies and there aren't enough `coming out' movies. Every one is a welcome addition to the genre. Although the production values are high(the movie `looks' good, Matthias Freihof (Philipp) looks REAL good in a pair of jeans) this is a bad one. It is a period piece: gay life under an oppressive regime(East Berlin, 1989) a life that seems 40 years behind the west. In a way we're seeing our own history; what it might have been like for gays in the 40's and 50's here(it often reminded me of `Last Exit to Brooklyn :the book not the film).But it is unremittingly depressing and SLOW in a contrived way that evoked an old SCTV send up of Ingmar Bergman. It is so sloppily edited I wonder if the director just didn't hack at random. Yes, it is a miracle that this was filmed and released before The Wall came down and yes, life behind the `Curtain' was hard for gay people. A good director could have shown all that without stupefying the audience. A good director would have had me mark this one as one of the great coming-out movies and not one of the misses.

Sentiment: negative
'Book II' isn't a film, it's a sermon. This nauseating, sickly and almost unbearably tedious misfire probably works as religious propaganda but has no entertainment value beyond a few wisecracks from George Burns. Louanne plays a little girl who is asked by (ahem) God to mount an advertising campaign that will get people to believe in him again. No really, that is the story. It's a leaden load of old cobblers that has far too much self-justifying, 'explanatory' religious waffle but barely any decent dialogue and certainly a total absence of anything even approaching magic or charm. 'Miracle On 34th Street' this ain't. Suzanne Pleshette breathes a bit of life into this rancid puddle of quick-setting concrete but the pudding-headed script and rubbish performance by the irksome Louanne quickly send this one down to the fiery depths of you-know-where.

Sentiment: negative
In the world of "shorts" (most of which aren't), this film is a gem.

A quiet, concise peek into the world of a young woman who's a reader for a blind woman, here the stellar Elizabeth Franz - this film bears the textures, layers and visual storytelling of a sumptuously painted still life.

The dialogue is minimal, the cinematography is stunning, and the direction sure, clear and compelling. I saw this film in a film festival held in a loud and crowded Tribeca bar - and within the first two minutes (and for the first time that night), the crowd fell quiet.

That says it all.

Sentiment: positive
what can i say about this film that hasnt already been said? well to tell the truth alot of it looks very fake like some of the slaps and the kicks. how charlie sheen though this was real i dont know. im sure they would be hitting and kicking her alot harder if it was. however the scenes with the pinching and the hot oil look very real. and the final needle in the eye scene is amazingly done and is probibly the only thing on film that has ever shocked me.

Sentiment: positive
the actors cannot act. all dialoague was plagued with bad accents and loss of character. Channing Tatum never moves his lips or changes his facial expression... EVER.

the story is nothing new at all. some kid from the street gets involved in a professional world of dance and it turns his life around. that coupled with the whole incident involving the little kid is taken straight from You Got Served and Save the Last Dance (I'm not saying that those movies were any good either, but that is to say that this movie brought nothing new to the table).

and the dancing... THERE WERE ONLY 3 DANCE SEQUENCES IN THE ENTIRE MOVIE AND 2 OF THEM WERE TAKEN STRAIGHT FROM THE COMMERCIAL. perhaps i'm being overly critical because i am a dancer, but maybe thats what needs to be heard. Channing Tatum is NOT by any means a b-boy. his little solo in the parking lot had little style, technique, or any wow factor, all of which are part of a street dancer's criteria. All of the jazz and ballet in the movie had nothing to offer except bad technique and a few acceptable twirls, but nothing more. the grande finale left me thinking "... OK, now they're gonna get serious" all the way through the end when i realized it never was going to happen.

i'll admit that im sure it is difficult to make a good dance movie, but Step up is no exception to the rule. You Got Served, with the exception of its inconsistencies with street dance culture at least had the dance aspect. Save the Last Dance was garbage, and so was just about any musical from the past 10 years (although i was impressed with Moulin Rouge)... look to Center Stage for Ballet, look to Beat Street for Hip-Hop

Sentiment: negative
This is a hard movie to come by in the US, but if you can find it -- and you're interested in the life and music of Percy Aldridge Grainger, you're in for a treat. It's quite historically accurate. Richard Roxborough's Grainger looks astoundingly like Grainger at this period in time. Emily Woof's Karen Holten is quite a bit prettier than the real Karen, but that was an inaccuracy I was happy to discover (!). I think what really struck me though, was how well Roxborough captured Grainger's outrageous personality. Barbara Hershey's Rose was also a treasure. If she looks considerably younger than Rose did at that period, it is more than made up for in how well she captured Rose's obsession with Percy. It's an easy film to recommend. (I should note that when she saw "Passion" my wife had no particular affinity for (or knowledge of) Grainger and his music, but she was totally captivated by the film.

Sentiment: positive
OK, it's easy not to confuse this with the lame Stuart Gordon movie called "Death Bed" that came out a few years back, because this one is "The Bed That Eats". And how do I even begin to describe this? Well, for starters, obviously there is a bed that eats. This is as a result of demon teardrops, which of course affect most things, I guess, in a negative way. The bed is in some old servant's quarters or something, and has been responsible for the disappearances of quite a few people in its time. We have a narrator, who is a ghost that sits in the wall behind a painting, and collects all the non-edible goodies (jewelry, etc) that the bed passes on. He died of consumption, one of the few people to lay in the bed that didn't get eaten, probably because he was sick, he theorizes, as we see him hacking blood into hankies.....bleah. The thing about this movie is that is has a very odd sense of humor to it but it's all played pretty deadpan. The movie is divided into several "acts", I guess, "Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, & Just Desserts". For fans of the unfathomably weird and bizarre, well, this may just be right up your alley. All I can say is you have to see this one to believe it, it pretty well defies description. 8 out of 10 stars.

Sentiment: positive
Blake Edwards' legendary fiasco, begins to seem pointless after just 10 minutes. A combination of The Eagle Has Landed, Star!, Oh! What a Lovely War!, and Edwards' Pink Panther films, Darling Lili never engages the viewer; the aerial sequences, the musical numbers, the romance, the comedy, and the espionage are all ho hum. At what point is the viewer supposed to give a damn? This disaster wavers in tone, never decides what it wants to be, and apparently thinks it's a spoof, but it's pathetically and grindingly square. Old fashioned in the worst sense, audiences understandably stayed away in droves. It's awful. James Garner would have been a vast improvement over Hudson who is just cardboard, and he doesn't connect with Andrews and vice versa. And both Andrews and Hudson don't seem to have been let in on the joke and perform with a miscalculated earnestness. Blake Edwards' SOB isn't much more than OK, but it's the only good that ever came out of Darling Lili. The expensive and professional look of much of Darling Lili, only make what it's all lavished on even more difficult to bear. To quote Paramount chief Robert Evans, "24 million dollars worth of film and no picture".

Sentiment: negative
Jeff Lieberman's "Just Before Dawn" is definitely one of the most underrated horror movies ever made.The film,whilst a little bit influenced by "Deliverance" and "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre",is extremely creepy and memorable.The suspense almost never lets up and the atmosphere is genuinely eerie.The cast is excellent,Deborah Benson and Jamie Rose are great female leads.The inbred twins are truly frightening and remorseless killers.The film is beautifully shot-it was actually filmed on location at Silver Falls State Park in Oregon.There is very little gore,but one killing,when Verchel is stabbed in the groin,is pretty nasty and unpleasant.A must-see for slasher fans.10 out of 10-what else?

Sentiment: positive
Caught this by accident on a t.v. showing - and could hardly believe how utterly awful the whole experience was. By comparison, the original "A Man Called Horse" was spell-binding because it held one's interest throughout. But this piece of nonsense - words fail me. It was bad enough to have some kind of a "story" presented with all the impact of a wet loaf of bread, but that error was compounded by the obvious lack of subtitles throughout whenever the so-called "Sioux" spoke. For goodness sake, couldn't the film-makers have found enough North American Indians who were also actors and near-actors to perform as "Indians" in this farrago instead of the imposters they actually used? I also found it quite embarrassing watching Richard Harris cavorting all around the countryside at the obvious behest of the director standing just behind camera, telling him to run and jump from pointless Point A to pointless Point B just to make up film footage and minutes. Absolutely terrible in all respects!

Sentiment: negative
Gordon Scott made some good Tarzan movies, but this is not one of them.

As I watched it, wincing at the bad, obviously interior sets and the hollow wooden "clonking" sounds as they walked across supposedly dirt trails, and cringing at the bad dialog and worse acting among the supporting cast, I kept thinking, "Sheesh! This is TV show level!" Then I find out it was, indeed, three TV show pilot episodes woven seam-fully into one.

It's nice to see Scott get outside (alone), away from the lame sets, in a few of the scenes; and the fights do have some pretty nice moves... but oh, ow, and ouch as to the dialog. And did I mention the acting? Heck, Cheetah (or "Cheta," in this version) was a better actor than most of the humans.

And that's not saying much.

It is kind of a stitch to see a younger Sherman (i.e. Scatman) Carothers acting as a native. But probably not worth the overall time-investment.

Sentiment: negative
My siblings and I stumbled upon The Champions when our local station aired re-runs of it one summer in the 1970's. We absolutely adored it. There was something so exotic and mysterious about it, especially when compared to the usual American re-runs (Petticoat Junction, Green Acres... you get the idea). It had a similar feel to The Avengers (not too much of a surprise, since it was also British and in the spy/adventure genre).

I would love to see it again now -- hopefully it holds up. I've mentioned this show to others and no one has ever heard of it, so I began to wonder if I'd imagined its whole existence. But the wonder that is the web has allowed me track down information about it. Hopefully it will find a new generation of fans.

Sentiment: positive
loved the story of a guy that tries to get his girl back....been there, done that, so i can relate...any way, i love the camera work, how occasionally the camera gets "left on", and they are just sitting there talking about the scene, or other stuff...or how the camera follows him around to find the cast and what not...i watched this on IFC sometime last year and i loved it, so i told a few of my friends about it, and some of them watched it, and they too loved it...check it out if you can, kinda girly, but its still a good film...I gave it a 10/10 because of two reasons...one: i can relate...but anyone that has ever fallen in love and made a mistake can relate... two: its a really creative way to make a film, its like you are constantly there, right in the middle of filming...like i said, great film

Sentiment: positive
Based on a self-serving novel by one-time girl friend and groupie of F. Scott Fitzgerald, gossip columnist Sheila Graham wrote this trashy story. Gregory Peck carries on in shameless excess as a forceful be-drunk-or-be-damned alcoholic; in contradiction to the gentle and soft spoken real Scott Fitzgerald. Focusing on Fitzgerald's Hollywood writing era, late in his life, the much-honored author was, in fact, living a quiet life and effectively fighting his alcoholism at a time when AA was not yet well known. Fitzgerald was none-too-proud to be recycling his flapper stories in order to support both his wife (in a mental hospital) and his daughter (in college). Living in a small apartment and driving a second hand Chevrolet his life was 180 degrees different than as portrayed in this movie.

Virtually every 20th Century-Fox movie made during Daryll F. Zanuck's leadership, as well as virtually every film directed by Henry King, was a work of excellence. Beloved Infidel was the exception.

Sentiment: negative
I can't believe currently this movie is rated a 6.9. Anyway this movie was probably one of the most touching real Indian movies I have ever seen. It was really refreshing to see a movie that showed traditional family cinema. As for the story I thought it was great it was about shahid kapur being set up on an arranged marriage with amrita rao. He is kind of a happy go lucky kind of guy, while Amrita Rao is a traditional Indian girl who is very helpful to her uncle but the only problem is her cousin doesn't seem to get as much attention as she does so her Aunt dislikes Amrita with a passion. This upsets Amrita because she just wants her aunt to love her. It was also very touching to see that although Amrita's family wasn't that rich maybe just middle class to lower class, while Shahids family was quite upper class, they still treated their family with respect and didn't even ask put them down which really struck a nerve with me. This is because i've actually seen people being very rude to people who are not as well of thinking their below their standards which i feel is very shallow. This movie showed that shahids family was willing to look at the great values that Amrita had been brought up with and turned a blind eye to the fact she wasn't a rich business tycoons daughter or anything. All in all this movie deserved an 8/10 I wish more and more of these kind of movies were made.

Sentiment: positive
I am quite the Mitchell Leisen fan so it was a great anticipation that I rented this movie but the print I got was extremely bad, so worn down from use and scorched seemingly beyond repair, the movie was so dark. So dark that in certain scenes that are cinematographed in the dark, you can't see a single thing. That said, I believe I share the same opinion as the first review of this movie. It starts out unusually and does not tote the lines and rhythms of your typical Hollywood 30's movie. Heck, not even your typical Hollywod movie of any era. It seems the director has been influenced by the Europeans because there is a certain caustic realism to the proceedings from the opening shot which is so crafted in camera movement and placement as Maggie (Carole Lombard) and Skid (Fred Macmurray) meet. You half expect them to start singing "Make believe" from Show boat.It starts with a few laughs and poor Anthony in a one scene role where he speaks not a word of English gets slapped around by Freddie. Skids is a bum who doesn't care that he's a bum. That's why he signs up in the army where he can hide from the world. He's just been released though and in a set of screenplay shenanigans, she misses her boat for New York. This is when the movie kicks into high gear and we begin to get those French movie of the sixties vibes to the whole proceedings. The scenes are so well acted by Lombard and Cecil Cunningham, the movie gains a pulse. MacMurray is good too as he and Lombard fall for each other as she nurtures his talent for the trumpet. Then the temptress arrives in the form of Dorothy Lamour. Enough with plot. The movie has fantastic montage sequences that dazzled me. They are very good. And Lombard scores a home run in this movie but in the second half, a bit more is called of Freddie and he fails to deliver the goods. With a heavily melodramatic ending and an actor you don't believe, the movie falls short but since it is not your typical movie in structure, set design, and direction. It is worth a look. For what is what it was one of the 37 hits of the 1936-37 season. I don't know its exact rank though.

Sentiment: positive
IT IS So Sad. Even though this was shot with film i think it stinks a little bit more than flicks like Blood Lake, There's Nothing Out There & . The music they play in this is the funniest stuff i've ever heard. i like the brother and sister in this movie. They both don't try very hard to sound sarcastic when they're saying stuff like "My friends are going to be so jealous!" Hey, whats with the killer only wearing his mask in the beginning? Thats retarded! I practically ignored the second half of this. My favorite part about this movie is the sound effect they use when the killer is using the axe. The same exact sound for every chop!

Sentiment: negative
I remembered this awful movie I bought at Camelot music store in the summer of 1989 when I was visiting my Grandparents. It was a time when I had just discovered movies like Re-Animator, From Beyond, The Return of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead. I was ready for all the horror/gore genre had to offer.... or so I thought! I was only about 12 years old at the time so I really don't remember it all that well. I remember a psycho running around with a corkscrew killing people, and a couple of cops (I think) who were riding in a car that wasn't actually moving, but being rocked side to side to look like it was... true cinemagic. I also remember it being the worst film I had ever seen up to that point and I promptly threw it in the garbage.

Something tonight made me think of that movie (I can't believe I actually remembered the name), so I jumped on imdb to see if it was listed. To my surprise... IT WAS! And a full other 5 people have seen it.... Amazing. Even though I remember hating the film at the time I sort of wish I had kept it hidden away somewhere because I'd love to check it out again for a laugh (it would probably make a good drinking game movie). Anyway, I'm glad I'm part of the elite few that's seen this little "treasure". I would love to pick it up somewhere for a couple of bucks.... but beware, this is not a recommendation... it is awful... it's just for nostalgia.

Sentiment: negative
I came across this film by accident when listing all the films I wanted my sister to record for me whilst I was on holiday and I am so glad that I included this one. It deals with issues that most directors shy away from, my only problem with this film is that it was made for TV so I couldn't buy a copy for my friend!

It's a touching story about how people with eating disorders don't necessarily shy away from everyone and how many actually have dieting buddies. It brought to my attention that although bulimics can maintain a fairly stable weight, it has more serious consequences on their health that many people are ignorant of.

Sentiment: positive
To regard the film as nothing more than a documentary about skateboarding would fail to recognize several important aspects of Dogtown. Peralta (a well- known skateboarding figure himself) has crafted a film that not only deals with the birth of what we know today as skateboarding, but also examines the socio- cultural and economic circumstances in which this sport emerged and gained wide appeal. In addition, his film is rather personal: Peralta's first-hand association with this cultural phenomenon serves as both the informed cinematic investigator and the involved participant-subject. In this role, he is a quintessential "participant-observer," while gathering together a wide array of personalities whom were integral to this movement and those who were profoundly affected by the advent of skateboarding as a competitive sport and subculture. The film employs a uniquely stylistic form of film and sound editing, and the narration (by Sean Penn) and interviews adopt a rather genuine, unrehearsed form that is akin with the anarchic, nihilistic spirit of sidewalk surfing. The film exhibits the kinetic appeal of a protracted sporting, music video tempered with an archaeologist's sensitivity to the importance of time, place, and circumstance.

Sentiment: positive
Oh, God! Why didn't you give this money for charity? I thought I saw the lowest crap by now, but I was wrong! Who did this script, anyway? A retarded? Who did this cast? I can't believe that there are people that spend money and time to do garbage like that! I was under the impression that I'm watching a porn movie, only without sex scenes, that bad was the so called acting. Onestly, did this film have a director? I believe not and I'm convince that everybody had upon them a page with some lines and red it in front of the camera. I can't explain myself how all the characters in this garbage died without a fight. Nobody can do lower than this! Please, erase it even from IMDb! Bleah!

Sentiment: negative
Out of all the Mafia movies i have ever seen this is one of the best for many reasons. The acting from Pesci, Cortese and Vincent. The story is one of the best ever (In the mafia genre), as it realistic. The characters are people that lots of other people can relate to. This movie is also great as it's dialogue is good. It also has very realistic fights and action scenes. This movie also launched the careers of Pesci and Vincent. If it weren't for the success of this film, Casino and Goodfellas might not have been as good as they were. 

Story 10/10 Acting 9/10 Realism 10/10

OVERALL 10/10

My fave Mafia movies are

1: Goodfellas 2: Casino 3: The Godfather Trilogy 4: Family Enforcer (The Death Collector) 5: The Sopranos (I know it isn't a movie)

Sentiment: positive
First off I want to say most of the people who give this a poor review don't like this kind of comedy, the movie is great if you have an open mind and aren't afraid to laugh at some stupid things.

This movie is shot just like the TV show with a lot of short clips compiled into one long movie. Some of the scenes don't even have dialog someone will just come out and do something unexpected and it is funny!! The only negative I had is I felt like I wasted money on my Popcorn and Icee, there was no way I could eat or drink anything during this movie I was constantly laughing. I was honestly nervous of drinking some Icee and seeing something that caused me to laugh and shoot it everywhere.

If you don't mind some male nudity, and you enjoy Jackass the movie, jackass the TV show, and viva la bam, then for YOUR SAKE go see this movie.

And if you DON'T like the first movie, or the TV show. Don't see it, and if you do see it don't post a bad review about it. Hardcore christians who see this and bash it just doesn't seem right to me.

Sentiment: positive
I was excited about this movie after reading other reviews. What a disappointment! There are so many ways that this movie is bad. The computer graphics were lacking to say the least. I found the acting stiff and unbelievable. Watch the sand as the lost "e-pods" (what an original name!)are found. Where did all the tracks come from? I immediately recognized portions similar to other movies, ie Alien, Pitch Black. Come on,one huge ship to transport one prisoner? And what is with the prisoner? Does he speak, can he speak? I kept waiting for something to tie the bits of the story together, but it never came. If this movie was made on a low budget, it shows. The only part of the movie I liked was when it finally ended. I don't mean that I liked the ending, I didn't. I just liked the fact that it was over. A trip to the dentist would have been more enjoyable. In my opinion. don't waste your time on this one.

Sentiment: negative
Pierce Brosnan has sipped his last Martini and returns, in an outrageous self-parody, as the aging foul-mouthed boozy assassin Julian Noble, who has a particular fondness for teenage girls, bullfights and tacky clothes. During a job in Mexico City he meets Danny (Greg Kinnear), a straight-faced Denver suburban business-man, who's in town to make his deal of-a-life-time, in a hotel bar. Despite their completely different personalities and Julian's crude and insensible remarks, they become friends. 

Largely carried by the performances of Pierce Brosnan and Greg Kinnear, director Richard Shepard revealed that he didn't write the film with Pierce Brosnan in mind , but I can hardly imagine this without him. He proves to have a real talent for comedy and can be more than just James Bond or cold-war spies. The scene in which the two meet at a glossy hotel bar (stunning sets and beautifully photographed) really is a bravura piece of acting skills. The scene lasts almost fifteen minutes, and although it was probably carefully scripted, the two actors are largely improvising, but they succeed wonderfully! It almost feels like a new standard in screen acting. Think of Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel in MEAN STEETS improvising and add one of the most subtle underpinnings of many genre clichés and the actors' own typecasting (Brosnan's James Bond in particular), and you got one of the most delightful pairings in recent Hollywood. 

Sadly, the story wears thin after a while. After an hour, the film just runs out of steam. Nevertheless, and I can't put my finger on it exactly, I did enjoy this very much. It just feels very fresh and original, with some imaginative use of sets and lighting, and some hints to Seijun Suzuki and Jean-Pierre Melville. The other characters aren't given much to do, but this film does offer something new, in that respect it almost effortlessly succeeds in blending all conventional genres into quite an entertaining spoof. Very amusing.

Camera Obscura --- 7/10

Sentiment: positive
What ever possessed Martin Scorcese to remake this film? And not only did he remake it, completely ruin it? The nonsensical decision to make the character played by Robert DeNiro (in his most overdone performance, and that's saying a lot) into a religious fanatic is ridiculous, and exemplary of attitudes harbored by Hollywood (and Mr. Scorcese especially)- attitudes that compel writers to think that the best way to make a character insane is to tattoo a crucifix on his back. In any case, this movie is awful. 



Sentiment: negative
To me, the final scene, in which Harris responds to the press corp, is worthy of viewing this intelligent and timeless slice of politics(especially the campaign phase). If only the "real-life" pols would respond in the intelligent, articulate manner as did Mr Harris,then the arrogant, self-serving members of the press would perhaps think twice before surfacing irrelevant, confrontational "garbage" that has absolutely nothing to do with a candidates abilities to effectively handle the challenges of the office for which he/she is pursuing.

Sentiment: positive
Hey guys, 

i have been looking every where to find these two movies and i can't find them anywhere in my local area. (I am Australian). Could You please help me and tell me where i can buy it from. In General Home Ward Bound 1 and 2 are the best movies i have ever seen and are good for people of all ages. It was my favourite movie wen i was 5 and it still is even now when i am a teenager. It is a great movie for the whole family. My entire family loves this movie except for my younger sister because i have watched it that many times that she is sick of it. I love this movie and i cant wait till i can buy it again on DVD.

Sally

Sentiment: positive
Here is a rundown of a typical Rachael Ray Show:

1. The awful theme song begins to play, and Rachael descends wearing her Snapcrotch outfit in this bizarre cargo elevator. 2. She begins running around screaming and/or insulting the audience, then yells at them sit down. 3. An awkward monologue.

(The next are in any order) 4. A segment tooting Rachael's own horn (i.e. "I Lost 500 Pounds with Rach's Recipes, "Rachael Ray Saved my Life," "Rachael's Fashion Tips.") 5. A totally useless D.I.Y. tip (i.e. how to engrave words into casserole dishes, how to use your washing machine as a salad spinner, how to build a tube of lipstick with a light on it.) 6. The unleashing of horrible recipe on the unsuspecting audience (reaction shots of first bites are never shown). 7. A celebrity guest with an awkward interview, followed by some obviously scripted questions from the audience. 8. A person who gets help from one of Rachael's cronies (i.e. the I say yes to everything woman, the I own nothing but overalls lady, and the I can't find time to put on makeup housewife). What would they do without you Rachael. *gasp*

Reasons that this show should be avoided like the plague: 1. Fakeness: Rachael Ray claims that entire show is unscripted. Many people who have attended tapings of the show have claimed that the entire show is scripted. Many of these same people have also mentioned that there is even a very strict dress code for the show. 

2. Her show jumps around too much: Where as Oprah, who is the highest rated talk show host of all time has a definite theme for her show, Rachael's jumps around like an ADHD soda child on crack. Her show averages perhaps 10, short, worthless segments a show. On second you will be getting fashion tips from Kojo, and the next Rachael will be making gross stuffed "Spanish" peppers with manchego cheese, and the next their will be a giant anaconda up on stage, and the next, well you get the picture.

3. Rachael is a poor host with bad ideas: Aside from her grating personality, Rachael's hosting ability is terrible, at best. Her questions for her celebrity guests are poor, and often times not even relevant to the interview, and her segments are unappealing and offer little educational, or humorous value.

In conclusion, you need not waste your time with this schlock. It will be canceled soon anyways.

Sentiment: negative
This is what happens when a franchise gets lazy, and no one can think of a new twist to add. Remember what happened to the "Childs Play" series? The first three were played as horror films, with genuine scares (albeit predictable) that held true to the theme of the movie. Then they ran out of folks for the doll to stalk, and decided to play it for laughs, with the next two being black comedies.....

Well, that;s what happened here, but I think it was not meant to be like that. Kind of like saying, "I WANTED to make pancakes for dessert! I did this on purpose!" when your soufflé accidentally fizzles flat. But the milk was spilled, and it had some value in the theaters as a goof.

When the floor ripped out from under the passenger seats, I sort of expected the passengers to extend their legs through the hole, start running Flintstones-Style, to safely land the plane in the Alps. I did. It would have fit into the silly campy theme of the rest of the show.

Instead of pointing out the obvious physical impossibilities of the film, what about the social implausibilities? Like having George Kennedy's character react calmly to the news that his date was a whore? Even back in 1979, a man would not easily accept the notion that he has just poured his heart out to a paid companion. He supposedly felt he made a connection with a kindred spirit, who is subsequently shown to be a mercenary sex-worker with a come-on line. Who WOULDN'T feel cheated by the experience? And yet he giggles, and wraps his arms around his buddy's waist as they merrily stroll off. What a cheap wrap up of a sleazy scene. Ouch.

I had an appetite for soufflé, and got served insipid cliché pancakes. And no, you did NOT do it on purpose!

Sentiment: negative
This is a funny movie. The Bob & Eddie Show feel of it could lead to a sequel but I doubt it will make enough money. 

Deniro proves he can be a great Straight man again with some hilarious and spontaneous moments. Eddie was fun to watch working with people instead of CGI animals and rodents. Rene Russo- well she's just fun to watch anyway and she's played her part excellent.

Some wild and unusual stunts, especially the garbage truck scene. This was worth seeing in the theater. We needed a good laugh and got many from the movie and the great out-takes at the end. DO NOT LEAVE at the start of the credits!

At least a 7.

Sentiment: positive
I remember seeing this one when I was seven or eight. I must have found the characters round, because they left a impression in my mind that lasted for a long time after the end of the movie. And the ending, now that's sad, well... for a 7-8 year old kid.

I had the opportunity of seeing this movie again lately, and found that the plot was too simple, the character, two-dimensional... I guess it's the kind of movie that you can only with the innocence of a young child... Pity...

I recommend this one for all you parents with small kids... ( I saw it in its original french version, so I cannot tell you whether the translation is good or not.)

Sentiment: positive
A kooky, but funny bit of diversion. You kind of have to see it from the beginning to follow what's happening, but each report to earth has it's own little joke. Pretty good special effects for a very low budget sci-fi t.v. show. It's fun to watch. Sort of in the vein of Red Dwarf, but even more low budget. For someone who's just coming in in the middle of one of the episodes, what you have to realize is that these guys are all incompetent, because they've been moved up the ladder of command, because the other officers died. Also, the main guys are from the laundry corps, which is why they have laundry in everything. If you like Red Dwarf, you'll probably like this. Slightly different t.v. concept, in that all you see is the Commander's report each day.

It would be better if this were explained more, not just in the very beginning of the first episode, but then it was pretty hard to figure out what had happened in Red Dwarf too, if you hadn't been told.

Sentiment: positive
Despite being a huge fan of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers' movies, it wasn't until about 6 years ago that I first saw 'Follow the Fleet'. I knew all the songs from an old Astaire/Rogers record (yes, vinyl) but knew nothing of the plot.

Unfortunately, while the songs are catchy and Ginger Rogers' character is sweet and funny, you just can't like 'Bake Baker'. While trying to make up to his longtime partner, he continually sabotages her career. His character doesn't have the usual humour and elan of the other films' Astaire characters.

Worth watching for the songs and a great solo tap routine by Ginger Rogers.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is one reason IMDB should allow a vote of 0/10. The acting is awful, even what some here have lauded, the Carpathia character! The script looks like it was written in haste. In one scene, the black preacher who was left behind, when asked by Buck what "dan7" in the computer graphic meant, said, "Daniel 7, *CHAPTER* 24." He probably meant VERSE 24, but the film makers missed this slip up. Perhaps the worst part is that the film's eschatological position is Biblically unsound. While many Christians have espoused the film's interpretation of end-time events, such interpretation, in *my opinion*, is faulty. To understand these flaws, read "Christians Will Go Through The Tribulation" by Jim McKeever and "The Blessed Hope, A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture" by George E. Ladd.

Sentiment: negative
I enjoyed this movie a lot. I thought that the plot of the movie was realistic and relevant to anytime period in American history. There is always that woman that does what she needs to do to climb the class system. I feel that the character of Lilly was portrayed correctly and could of not been done better. What I enjoyed most was when she realized what love really was. Throughout the movie all of the men that fell for her were in love with her, had given her everything, even lost their careers for her. Until she had met Cortland, she did not understand why these men gave up everything for happiness. The way her life had ended up was far from what she expected to be possible. I'd recommend this movie to anyone of a mature audience so you are able to understand the content and the under-laying meaning of the movie and plot.

Sentiment: positive
Shakespeare said that we are actors put into a great stage. But when this stage is Israel the work that we interpret multiplies for ten and all the actions we do are full of a hard style. Dan Katzir manages to do a spectacular portrait of a part of life in Tel Aviv, but besides, Katzir manages to penetrate into the heart of the Israeli people and, this people, far from being simple prominent figures, they speak to us from the heart. Katzir's film allows Israel escape from dark informative crux in which they live, and this wonderful country arises to the light as a splendid bird which is born of his ashes. It is very great for me because the reality of state of Israel, which the Europeans only know for the informative diaries or the newspapers, appears as a close and absolutly human reality, the reality of million people who looking for his place, exploring the whole state, the whole culture with the only aim to feel part of it. Katzir constructs an absolutely wonderful documentary and he demonstrates that when a man films with passion the deepest feelings are projected with force, and these feelings cross our hearts. Thank you Dan for open our eyes and give us one of the most beautiful portraits of the most wonderful countries of the world.

Sentiment: positive
There are only two movies I would give a 1/10 to, this stinker and "The Man who Fell to Earth." I remember seeing Protocol at a theater in the early 80s when I was in high school. The script is insulting to anyone (including a high school student's) intelligence. It completely lost me with the "hillarious" gag of someone getting shot in the butt. Goldie Hawn is supposed to be charming but comes across as vapid and moronic. Then there are offensive stereotypes about Arabs, followed by Goldie winning over everyone by spouting populist dribble. The acting was terrible, including Goldie Hawn's. I could not stand to see another movie she was in until IMO she redeemed herself in Everyone Says I Love You. This is the kind of movie you make if you want to put no effort into screenplay writing. The worst.

Sentiment: negative
best movie ever!!!!! this movie broke my ribs just by the force of laughter, but it was well worth it. i don't intend to do a summary of this excellent movie, just go see it if you have the chance. i think you will either love it, or hate it. that's the qualities of a real cult movie.

Sentiment: positive
Yes, it's a SBIF (So Bad It's Funny) classic. With a budget running into the tens of dollars, some of the most abysmal acting you have ever seen, and absolutely NO even remotely frightening moments - not even a nanosecond! Camera work was at the elementary school level - one still shot outside a house was obviously hand-held and jiggled crazily. Blood looked like watered-down cherry Koolaid, someone made a trip to the local butcher shop for the "human" bones, and Miss Witch had the cheapest mask Wal-Mart could provide.

Did ANYONE involved look at the final cut and realize what a mess this was? Most of the names in the credits HAVE to be pseudonyms, it would be career suicide to have THIS on your resume. Do yourself a favor and watch Ebert's video of his colonoscopy instead!

Sentiment: negative