DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Rachel and Chuck Yoman (Valerie Harper, Gerald McRaney), decided the city is too busy and dangerous for their family, so they packed up their reluctant son (Gregory Togel) and daughter (Tammy Lauren) and moved back to a lake like the one Rachel lived at as a child.

They say you can not go home again but this is an ideal rural home with what at first seems like a Mayberry feel. Later the residence seems to be more like the people in Deliverance. Soon bodies start turning up and everybody looks suspect with the exception of a few friendly faces. This does not keep the family from enjoying running around and messing around in the woods.

We find that they have to be super ignorant to find the secrets and not tell anyone until they get ax-cepted as the antagonists. 

Can the ignored young Stevie save his parents or will their pursuer(s) put his/her foot in it?

This film is more than most parodies as it was played with strait faces. They could not have chosen better actors and Daryl Anderson was exceptionally creepy. An added plus is that they let us know what is happening before the characters find out, instead of pulling a clue out of the hat after the fact. Anyway this made for TV movie is good for a few laughs.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this when it came out in theaters back in 1996. I remember I was already familiar with Elijah Wood's work (that's right, he made stuff before "Lord of the Rings"!) and the merchandising tie-ins to the film were pretty abundant ("Flipper" water guns were even circulating).

Adults were reminded of the old movies and TV show and for nostalgia's sake took their kids to see it, who were excited because it was a movie about a dolphin and a stupid boy.

Unfortunately it wasn't what anyone expected and flopped severely. You know a movie's in trouble when a boy swims away from a Hammerhead shark in the middle of the ocean, and a pack of dolphins scare the shark away, and the kid -- instead of getting out of the water into a boat -- floats in the water for five minutes thanking his dolphin for saving him ... apparently he hasn't taken into mind that the shark is still out there, perhaps even below him.

Another problem is Paul Hogan. He looks old, crusty and tired of recycling his Croc Dundee shtick. By now, no one even remembered "Crocodile Dundee" much less Hogan, and I half expected him to suddenly start pretending he didn't know what a hair dryer was for the sake of fish-out-of-water/social-satire laughs.

All in all this is a really poor "family" movie that is amateurish and almost hard to watch at times. I hated it when I saw it in theaters back in '96 and I hate it more now.

Sentiment: negative
MINOR SPOILERS

Misunderstood classic remains one of Henson's finest and most personal films. It may seem funny to call a movie as beloved as this one 'misunderstood,' but people do seem to remember this one mostly for Jerry Juhl's snappy screenplay and Paul Williams's knockout songs. Now while these things are admittedly great, as is the movie's formal playfulness (screenplay-within-the-screenplay, film break, etc.), what distinguishes 'The Muppet Movie' from the other Muppet films is the serious, wistful thread that runs through the picture. It's a road movie, all right, but like most road movies, the pleasure is in the getting there, and the achievement of the characters' goals is tempered by uncertainty, and by the knowledge that they can never really go back again. Throughout the film, we are shown the down side of show business, even before the Muppets have 'made it': Piggy abandons Kermit without a second thought at a phone call from her agent, Gonzo expresses the loneliness and regret of a performer's life on the road in his haunting 'I'm Going to Go Back There Someday,' and, worst of all, Kermit is continually tortured and tested by Doc Hopper, who wants him to commercialize his art for the unholiest of purposes. (One can only wonder what Henson would have made of his family's management of the company after his death.) Kermit himself agonizes over his choices in the desert conversation scene, and the final 'Magic Store' number questions whether it's all been worth it, before concluding that it probably doesn't matter either way. All this is punctuated with the expected Muppet chaos and satire and deliciously awful jokes, and of course the serious stuff wouldn't work if it weren't. But 'The Muppet Movie' isn't just another jokefest, as the rest of the diminishing-return Muppet films would become. No, it's a lovely, gentle metaphor about the relationship between art and entertainment and business, and it's every bit as effective today as it was 25 years ago. 9.5 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
After the superb AANKHEN(2002) which was a remake of a Gujarati play he comes with WAQT which too looks like a stage play

In stage plays, we have characters shouting, overacting here too the same

The first half shows Amitabh almost kidding the 40+ Akshay Kumar who acts too funny like a small nerd

The film has a good message how not to spoil your son but sadly the way Amitabh wants to make Akki responsible is absolutely fake

Even his reason for hiding his sickness, his runnign from the hospital and the melodramatic speech by Akki is a put off

Some emotions do touch you but most are too over the top

Rajpal's comedy is hilarious but too stretched in second half 

Direction by Vipul Shah is too overdone though some scenes are good Music is okay

Amongst actors Amitabh overdoes it in the first half but is superb in emotional scenes Akshay Kumar too does his part well but looks umcomfortable in some too weepy scenes His chemistry with Bachchan is matchless Rajpal is a highlight, he makes you laugh without overacting and just his presence and his dumb behaviour and deadpan humour he is a riot Boman is good in some comic parts but too loud at places Priyanka is the heroine so nothing to do, this is her last film with Akki so far Shefali is awesome though she looks too young for Bachchan

Sentiment: negative
The great talents of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressberger are noticeable in their wonderful "A Matter of Life and Death". It was part of the recent tribute to Mr. Powell that played at the Walter Reade in New York. This film, in particular, shows us one of the best British films from that, or any other era.

"A Matter of Life and Death" has a brilliant cinematography by Jack Cardiff, a man who knew how to work wonders with a camera. Particularly impressive is the contrast from the monochromatic tones given to the scenes played in heaven, and the colored ones when the action comes back to earth. This was quite a coup, and well ahead of its times. The black and white sequence that involves the long staircase where Peter and the Conductor are chatting has to be one of the most amazing things on any film.

Much has been said in this forum about the film, so our comment will be about the great acting Powell and Pressberger got out of the large, distinguished cast, who responded magnificently to the directors' guidance.

David Niven, is Peter, whose aircraft is hit and his best friend dies as a result of it. This film marked one of the highlights in Mr. Niven's career. He was an excellent film actor as he shows us in this movie. Kim Hunter is surprisingly good as June, the woman who talked to Peter as his plane was falling from the skies. As fate would have it, Peter and June fall in love at first sight.

Some of the best British film actors grace this film with their presence. Robert Coote, is Bob, the man who is admitted to heaven, but he is surprised his friend Peter never made the trip with him. An excellent star turn by Marius Goring, who as the Conductor 71 steals the film. Mr. Goring, who had worked with the directors, is one of the best things in the movie. Also, Roger Livesey, as Dr. Frank Reeves, does one of the best appearances of his career, as well as Raymond Massey, who is seen as Abraham Farlan.

"A Matter of Life and Death" is a timeless film that will always be seen with gratitude toward its creators.

Sentiment: positive
This show was a pleasant surprise after watching Mad TV on a Saturday night. Spike is an excellent host that you can tell is still getting used to it but he is doing great adjusting to his new job. I can imagine it being a difficult transition from writer(Seinfeld) to host however, unlike a lot of new talk show hosts he does not let airtime ride while trying to figure out what to do next. He is quick-minded and each segment and section rolls into one another smoothly. It also doesn't hurt that he's kinda sexy in a nerdy type of way so he's not hard on the eyes like Leno or Letterman. I can't remember the exact episode date that was my favorite but I especially LOVED the Idiot Paparazzi skit with a fake J-Lo and Katie Holmes. Great New Show!!

Sentiment: positive
It was all over with the slashers around 88 so it was time for the cheesy rip offs of those older movies. The Brain is well done, the script reminded me of Videodrome but then in a more cheesy way as said before. The acting can go through with it. But it's the effects that makes you laugh, the so called Brain is really a turkey and the blood is never shown. The opening sequence is what makes this movie worth watching, the hallucinations are really nicely done and reminded me of Nightmare on Elm Street, remember the telephone coming alive.... Some how you keep watching this flick, waiting what is happening next. It's viewable for all freaks out there cause there isn't any gore in it and as said the blood isn't there neither but there is nudity for the perverts. I have seen worser movies than this one, only wished they had made it bloodier...

Sentiment: negative
This movie was a modern day scarface.It had me on my toes.This movie is one of those rare epic films that makes you want a sequel.I especially liked Damian Chapa his performance deserved an academy award,which he deserved for his performance in blood in blood out.The only thing I didn't like was the behind the scenes because it didn't show the intensity that the movie had,and i would have like to have seen less narrated scenes.But the movie was great and it is in my top ten movies of all time.Plus the acting was great there wasn't a bad scene in the movie,I loved it ,Jennifer Tilly was perfect as well as all of the cast.I can't see how anyone wouldn't like this movie it was a great.Definitely a must see.

Sentiment: positive
The Forest isn't just your everyday standard slasher/backwoods cannibal fare, it also has an interesting mix of supernatural elements as well. The story is about two couples that hike into the forest on a camping trip. A cave dwelling, cannibalistic woodsmen and the ghosts of his dead wife and two children soon terrorize them. There is something you don't see every slasher. Director Don Jones gets an "A" for effort although the film itself falls flat on just about every level, the acting is just simply average except for Jeanette Kelly who plays the dead wife of the woodsman (Michael Brody aka Gary Kent).

The film opens with some beautiful shots of a couple hiking through a valley and into a forest. They realize too late that someone is stalking them. They are both dispatched in typical slasher fare. Our killer uses a trusty hunting knife throughout the entire film, except during a flashback when he implements a handsaw, pitchfork and rusty saw blade to dispatch his cheating wife's lover.

The Forest has a good story line but the movie just doesn't work along with it I found it pretty boring with simply crappy acting. 4/10

Sentiment: negative
I cannot believe how unknown this movie is,it was absolutely incredible. The ending alone has stuck with me for almost thirty years. The road sign through the rearveiw mirror blew me away. If you liked "RACE WITH THE DEVIL" you will love this movie

Sentiment: positive
Wow. Just wow. Never before have i seen a horror movie in which it seemed like a bad self insert fanfic that somebody wrote one day in 20 minutes. And then i happened to come upon "Lady Frankenstein". This movie takes everything you know about Frankenstein and turns it completely upside down... and not in a good way. If you've seen this movie you either stumbled across it on Italian TV, or you have the dubbed version on the 50 Chilling Classics Box set like i have, as number 24. And lets just say there's a reason why these movies are here. Because they're not very good. enough of that though, onto the movie.

It starts out with Dr. Frankenstein trying to make the monster with his assistant who's....obviously not igor for some reason. His college graduate daughter (?) shows up and states how she just graduated with a medical degree, cause yeah. there were so many female doctors back then. So she states how she wants to help her father with his work and he says no. And then he makes the monster and it kills him. So she grieves for exactly 7 seconds and then makes up a story with the assistant how it was a burglar. The monster escapes and goes on a rampage. 

OK, i really can't believe they killed Dr. Frankenstein so early in the movie. he dies like...20 minutes in. and then his daughter takes over. which.... doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but sure. 

So Lady frankenstein decides the best way to kill the monster who's now rampaging....is to make ANOTHER monster! oh yes how i love her logic. so her new monster she gets the body by killing someone and putting the brain of the assistant in it...i know. just nod and go along with it. So the monsters meet and duke it out. I love how the assistant asks "why don't we just let the mobs kill it?" and she answers with "They wouldn't know how to kill it!" and in the end he kills it with an axe to the head. haha. oh yeah, nobody ELSE could have figured THAT one out. so in the end the brain switched new monster kills lady frankenstein. The End.

This movie was just....weird. it was seriously like somebody wrote a self insert fanfic. There's no other way to describe this movie. there were some odd naked scenes too. like, this girl was having naked sex in the park with her boyfriend, the monster picks up the girl and the guy drives away. haha. nice guy. She then struggles a bit and dies from.....to be quite honest, i really don't know what she died from. But whatever. It's Lady Frankenstein. It doesn't have to make sense. 

This movie had a lot of those "Why?" moments to the point that i just gave up. Movies shouldn't do that, but for some reason i see that more than i probably should. 

So final word, it's not the worst movie i've seen on this pack, but it's a tad boring, and full of many many holes and random things. 

So Lady Frankenstein gets 3 Frankenstein porn scenes, out of 10

Sentiment: negative
Richard Tyler is a little boy who is scared of everything. He doesn't like riding his bike or climbing on his tree house because he knows what kind of accidents might happen to him. So one day he is riding his bike and because it is starting to rain, he decides to wait in the library until it stops raining. In there the whole story takes place. He experiences all kinds of staff and in the end he is not scared any more. But the whole story is unbelievable and even good actors like Macaulay Culkin could not make the story better than it is.

Sentiment: negative
Eghads, what a bad movie. Tart is perhaps the very worst movie I've seen all year, and I've run across some doozies. There is nothing redeeming about this trash, from the characterization to the direction to the plot. Even the usually brilliant Dominique Swain couldn't save this movie. None of the characters are in the least bit sympathetic, with the possible exception of Eloise (wonderfully portrayed by Lacey Chabert, the only bright spot in this dismal failure).

*******Possible Spoilers********

The main problem with Tart is that it rambles on without saying anything. It staggers about drunkenly instead of leading us along the path of the story. It also introduces numerous potentially tantalizing details (the hypochondriac brother, the mother's possessions constantly being repossessed, the anti-semitic classmate, the other classmate's murderous father) without successfully exploring a single one of them. And just when I finally thought that there might be some sort of resolution for the characters, the movie crashes to an unexpectedly violent end.

I left the movie feeling that it was trying to tell me something, but with the strong impression that the message was forgotten before it could be communicated. This is an obvious first film from a writer/director who really needs to spend much more time working under more established film makers before foisting any more of her work on an unsuspecting public.

I gave this film 1 out of 10, and I'm usually very generous, even with bad films.

Sentiment: negative
Never viewed this film and enjoyed the singing and dancing by Cagney and the other cast members namely: Dick Powell, (Scott Blair) who had a great tenor voice and Ruby Keeler, (Bea Thorn). James Cagney plays the role as Chester Kent who writes musicals and eventually goes into producing Prologues which are shown in between the feature films shown in movie theater's during the 1930's. Chester has trouble with people trying to steal his ideas for his shows. This is a very entertaining film with lots of comedy and plenty of laughs. Joan Blondell, (Nan Prescott) gave a great supporting role who was also very young and pretty. Dick Powell was great as a singer and dancer and just starting out with his long and successful screen career. Enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
I think that this movie is very neat. You eithier like Michael Jackson or you don't, but if you like him then you have to see this movie. I think that it is a very neat film with great song play and good imagination. Not to mention the film center piece Smooth Criminal which has some of the best dancing you will every see.

Sentiment: positive
I watch the show every day and it is very entertaining. It provides updates of tech news, video games pretty much everything geek. They are also the official broadcasters of E3 and Comiccon. If you are a geek, gamers or anything really, you will enjoy this show. They have definitely upped their game since the guy below me's review (2006). It's the only place that I get my tech info. Kevin Pereira and Olivia Munn work beautifully with each other and the show always has segments referring to things in the game, movie, comic... Universe. If you know those universes you will understand the jokes. Long story short, aots is a hilarious show that gives me and anyone all the news about anything and everything that you care about. I'm watching it right now as I type this, they are 'in' San Diego covering the red bull air races. Sweet.

Sentiment: positive
Other commenters have described this movie as "classic 1950s SciFi" with clever use of stock footage and documentary footage, and clever character interaction.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes, this is classic 1950s SciFi...but 1950s SciFi at its most blindingly stupid worst.

Consider that the Mantis's first prey is a radar station shown first from the air, then on the ground... but the station is (from the air) pictured as on a mountaintop, with snow on one side and semi-cleared dark ground on the other side, but when (on the ground) investigators visit the site, it's suddenly on a flat, evenly white plain, miles from the nearest mountain.

Consider also, the ludicrous pseudo-scientific babble of the highly-recommended expert who is brought in to examine a huge claw. He says "Well, we know one thing... it can't have come from an animal, because every known species of animal has a bony skeleton. Even reptiles and birds have bones." He then goes on to say that some creatures ...snails, shellfish, insects... do not have bony skeletons. Excuuuuuse me ? Let's define "animal", here. Not even in the 1950s could anyone over the age of six take this man as an expert in biology, since he clearly doesn't know what an "animal" is, nor have the ability to name several broad categories of animals who lack bony skeletons (sharks, rays, jellyfish, insects, mollusks, arthropods, gastropods, sponges, arachnids, echinoderms....you get the idea.) The characters are cardboard, 2D stock types... scientist, sidekick girlfriend, big bad monster. Nothing here shows any sense of creativity. No pulse, no life signs.

There're no witty dialogs, the special effects are silly even for their time, and the stock footage is employed with a reckless disregard for continuity. This is B-movie making at its dead worst, with a production crew that clearly couldn't be bothered to try even halfheartedly.

Use sparingly, as sleeping medicine or punishment for small children who're easily offended by bad science.

Sentiment: negative
Rourke does his usual bit part,as a sinister,rancorous,Neanderthalian,ferocious,evil jerk,in the same mold as in "Picture Claire","Out in Fifty","Get Carter","Double Team" and the rest of the garbage he happens to be in.

He has very few lines.

Of course,all this is just junk,undervaluing Rourke,abasing him,and doesn't matter for his characterization as an actor.Still ,after seeing "A Prayer ...","Johnny Handsome","Barfly","9 1/2 Weeks","Year of the Dragon",etc.,etc.,for many years I considered Rourke an outstanding,smart,intelligent man.I think he has changed since.

He looks callous,calcined.

"He went about with gloomy looks;/Despair inhabited his breast/And made the man a perfect pest."(Belloc,"The Example").

I had absolutely no other reason to watch this dull movie except that Rourke was in.

Sentiment: negative
I saw that movie, and i was shocked! Robert Carlyle isn't Hitler he is a man who sadly tries to be Hitler. The Movie lies, it doesn't reflect the truth. In the scene were Hitler hit the guy with his gun. Hitler never had hit anybody, he wouldn't hit people with his fist, but with the fists of soldiers. Understand?? Another thing is: It is too obvious, that Hitler is that evil, he was more clever, than shown in this movie. No German would have accepted him as the leader, because the can see that he is evil. So the real Hitler haven't shown his evil side to the people.

Have any of you Yankees watched the movie "Der Untergang" or "The Dawnfall"? this is a great movie, with amazing actors. And its a German movie. I think, this Theme of Nazi-Germany, should not be realized as a movie by people who don't know anything of Germany. People! Watch "Der Untergang": 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/

Its a great movie about a very sad period of time for human beings around the world.

Sentiment: negative
Nothing in this film interested me. I thought the actors were asleep while they were performing. That's not laid-back Stanislofsky method, that's just walking-through and saying lines, I'm afraid. Kidman's performance is sad. The story is, however, mildly entertaining if you want to put up with the bad acting.

Sentiment: negative
Wave after wave of directionless nausea - this film wants and at first promises to be quirky and original but is in fact obvious, solipsistic and mired in cliché-driven dialogue which builds to a crecendo of awfulness and cheese by the end. Throughout the film we meet supposedly off the wall characters, who are actually very dull, and just don't quite work and who clunk through the horrific screenplay like men in armour suits, driving jeeps through mansion houses and spouting preppy existential obviousness accompanied by the whinings of Coldplay. The film has occasional funny episodes, often no funnier than a dog playing with its genitals, which happened twice (an index of the slapstick, rudimentary humour of the film in general) but by the end, the film falls into an 'infinite abyss' of complete detritus and the director's egocentric ramblings which made me want to gouge my eyes out. Watch this film at your peril.

Sentiment: negative
hi, This is the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The day when I watched this movie, I was having high fever. But still I watched the movie with lots of patience. And after watching the movie, I felt like repenting. Because, I wasted 3 hrs for this stupid movie. I could have taken rest rather then watching this movie. And I was really surprised that how come actors like Sunny Deol, Akshay Kumar Aftab etc acted in this movie.

I don't understand if directors don't find a good story to make a film then why do they remain as directors? Why can't they sit at home and spent their time at home? 

I request to all directors that it will be good for them if they request audiences, either by mail or by media, newspapers, radios etc... to send them a nice story if they don't find any good story for to make a film . I request again to all directors please don't make such films.

Sentiment: negative
The Regard of Flight, written and performed by Bill Irwin, is a true classic theatre piece which translated quite well to the small screen. Full of quick and sparkling dialog and some of the best physical comedy of the decade, it is head and shoulders above 99% of "Comedy" as it is presented today. I am sure it will one day take its rightful place with such great shows as "The Fantastiks", and "Waiting for Godot." Why it isn't available on DVD yet is a mystery and a tragedy.

Sentiment: positive
DRACULA 2000 is a horror film that was continually shown on Sky Movies in Britain and considering it seemed to be screened about three times a week for a whole year I have absolutely no idea how I managed to miss it until it`s first broadcast on network television tonight . Actually seeing as I`m not much of a fan of horror movies the reason was probably down to my theory that this was going to be tripe . My theory was proved right for the most part 

!!!!! MINOR SPOILERS !!!!!

What makes DRACULA 2000 such a bad movie is the amount of dumb scripting involved . For example early in the film the bad guys are flying Dracula`s coffin from London to America ( In a twin engine turbo prop plane ! ) and one of the bad guys is left alone in the cargo hold where Dracula comes to life . A fight breaks out , there`s lots of noise but the bad guys in the cockpit don`t hear a sound until the script demands it . It also appears in this segment`s climax that Dracula can control the weather but this seems forgotten about as the film progresses . Sloppy scripting , and there also seems to be a problem with the structure where there`s numerous scenes of characters being at the New Orleans mardi gras then the characters being at a different location such as police station in the following scene then they`re back at the mardi gras the scene after that which means the lack of credibilty in the plot is enhanced 

There`s something else that yanked my chain - Product placement . There`s umpteen scenes where the logo for a certain record label/retailer chain is in full view . I won`t dare publicise the company brand ( Except to say they also run a train company which is a national joke in Britain ) but I was under the impression this type of advertising was against British broadcasting guidlines and I`m surprised the BBC showed this movie if that`s the case 

There are some positives in DRACULA 2000 like the visuals for example . This is actually a good looking movie with a good looking cast and boy were those vampire chicks hot , but it`s something we should expect from Hollywood over the last few years - A very good looking movie that`s very dumb

Sentiment: negative
Take this movie for what it is, not a remake, but a completely different approach to the same concept. It's not an epic like the original, it's more of a popcorn thriller. Visually, it's incredible. Everything else was just OK. 

For what it is, I think the movie is awesome, but I like everything Burton has done. People need to calm down and stop acting like it's the end of the world b/c of this movie. It wasn't supposed to be a remake, and it's not. 

The ending was cool. . I took it as a parallel universe.

Sentiment: positive
jim carrey can do anything. i thought this was going to be some dumb childish movie, and it TOTALLY was not. it was so incredibly funny for EVERYONE, adults & kids. i saw it once cause it was almost out of theatres, and now it's FINALLY coming out on DVD this tuesday and i'm way to excited, as you can see. you should definitely see it if you haven't already, it was so great!

Liz

Sentiment: positive
This is of of Sammo's great early comedy films. This isn't a parody of enter the dragon, the main character (Sammo) is obsessed with Bruce Lee and emulates him freakishly well for a man of his size. Nominal story about how his fighting keeps causing his loved ones trouble - then fighting. Oh, the fighting. Good, fast-paced scenes with high impact (the white guy who plays a boxer looks like he really gets hurt by one of Sammo's kicks).

The funniest bit of this movie was purely unintentional. There is a Jim Kelly looking guy (one of three experts hired to take out Sammo), but he was a Chinese guy in blackface with an afro-wig. Come on, didn't they have any real black people in Hong Kong in 1978? Well, I guess I've seen enough white fake-as-hell "Chinese people" in old American movies too.

This is one is for any Sammo or Bruce Lee fan.

Sentiment: positive
One True Thing may have seemed like a horror movie to the yuppies of the 80's, but it doesn't ring true today... unless you happen to be part of a pampered, upper-middle class family which is so insulated from the world that it has never tasted suffering.

Avoid this shallow flop.

Sentiment: negative
It's a horror story alright. But perhaps not as you know it. The real monsters in this flick are humans. While the monsters, are human and prey. As weird as that may sound I see this as "Monsters Inc" for horror film fans.

Sure, the effects are of a std horror film, the monsters are there as in any monster based film, the gore is there as well, there even is a slasher in the shape of Dr Decker (played by David Cronenberg; I see flash of Cillian Murphy as Dr. Jonathan Crane in Batman Begins here - or is it the other way round?). And it is Decker &c who are the bad guys. The monsters want mainly to mind their own business, warding off intrusive humans more or less misguided, wanting to join there society.

By the end of the film you actually grow to like the quite little monsters (and the dog) - not perhaps what you had expected from the first few scenes....

Sentiment: positive
This is a classic movie that dramatizes the plight of a man who cannot adjust to changes taking place in society and feels more and more alienated, which leads to violence. Joe is a worker, and he is dissatisfied and angry, and all he is needs is a pretext to lash out, which is what the story is about. Alone, Joe is quiet; together with someone else, he becomes lethal. And what makes the character of Joe even more chilling is that he fully rationalizes his violence so that to him it's not only not bad, it's necessary. For Joe projects his own violent tendencies onto those who he considers "the enemy" and therefore considers himself to be in a war, and in this movie, the "generation gap" is portrayed as a war. But it is a war in Joe's mind only, because "the enemy" in this case is in his imagination. Nobody wants to fight Joe, but Joe feels he must defend himself. Although this movie was released in 1970, it's message is as relevant now as it was then as society continues to undergo major changes which lead to the kind of intense alienation that the movie effectively dramatizes.

Sentiment: positive
The story of Macbeth was one of the most successful Shakespeare ever wrote. This may be due to some features that place it close to the slasher genre, murder, murder, kill, kill, gallons of blood, a tense sexual relation between the main characters etc. More than this, the original play is very appealing taking into consideration the length (it's only half the size of Hamlet) and the focus on Macbeth for whom we are constrained to care in spite of his bloody nature. The play would seem ideal to base a movie on. Not so lengthy it gives the directors the possibility to explore it's many levels, a good actor can play the role of his lifetime, the film has deep meaning in any historical period. Unfortunately this has not been the case with Macbeth. Polanski's version comes quite close but it insists too much on the medieval period. Welles' film is too personal, with an interesting twist towards totalitarianism, the 1990 or so TV version is too shallow. This 2006 movie is no exception. It is very far from a Shakespeare film, but it is interesting to see how the director understood the story and where he places it in contemporary life. No knights in shiny armor but gangsters in shiny cars. A lot of drugs and trippy music replace the dread of night in the original play. The idea of Macbeth is so simple that to take and implant it in modern day life doesn't need Shakespeare at all. The worst part in the film are the lines. Most of the poignant scenes of the play, such as the dagger scene are trimmed so much they seem pointless. Replacing the knocks in the door with doorbells and horses with cars seems funny. If they wanted to make a movie about power and its temptation they could have done it easily without Shakespeare. This Macbeth seems to be a looser with a brain injury not a valiant warrior, brave and ambitious that wants power so much he is prepared to to kill and who gets caught up in a net of fears and despair. The movie doesn't make clear what drives Lady Macbeth to madness, it doesn't give a reason why some of the characters should fear Macbeth and his "terror" (since there is no hereditary ascension to the throne, what with no throne and all) and it places Macbeth in an awkward position, since the leadership of a gang is as far from kingship as this whole movie is far from any Shakespeare. In conclusion, we have two superimposed ideas that never quite meet making this a film that's ultimately pointless.... Stand not upon the order of your going but go!

Sentiment: negative
It's so depressing when film makers try to be cool and it's so obvious here. This has below average acting, laughable dialogue, split screens that are difficult to watch, and many goofs in it's attempt to be a period film and autobiographical. This film should be avoided at all costs. I was told not to go and see this film. I wish I had listened.

Sentiment: negative
Well, I read the other comments. Didn't think it sounded any good, but decided to tape it anyway. Perhaps not so smart to read all the poor reviews before watching this movie, because of course I would be noticing all the same weird things. Excessive use of fade to black, a few weird camera angles and crosscutting dialog for different conversations with the same people taking place at different times! But noticing all that I thought to myself: Well, this would probably be really boring if it was all going chronologically. The conversations aren't that exciting, but kind of mandatory. And the constant fading to black after really short scenes really makes it feel like the story is fast forwarding too the interesting part. Skipping the boring bits. At the end of the movie it gets a bit exciting too. Will they survive? 

So I actually liked this movie? No, not really. The director had some interesting ideas on how to keep the audience from being bored while he is trying to introduce the characters. But he is overdoing it. It gets annoying, and sometimes confusing. This was apparently only the second movie he directed, so maybe he will learn and make really good stuff in the future. And if you're sitting there (in the future) reading this wondering if the now famous directors second movie is worth a watch. Well, if he is good in the future, sure, watch this crap and wonder how he ever got to make a third one. Otherwise this movie isn't really worth watching unless you very interested in film-making, and want to see one way you can cut the mandatory boring introductory scenes into something watchable.

Sentiment: negative
This series takes a classic story and makes rubbish of it. Robin is somehow mystified by an elk-man in the forest and is embroiled in all sorts of druidism and outright satanic episodes. The story is more about him avoiding the evil sheriff than helping the poor. This is barely watchable. And to top all the ridiculousness they kill Robin at the end of series 2 and replace him with another actor. Some people may like this show as a fantasy show but it is NOT a Robin Hood show. If you want Robin fighting in king Richards name against Prince John and the sheriff and if you want Robin feeding the poor and oppressed, watch the classic series or the newest from the BBC.

Sentiment: negative
"You know - I've been in some towns where the girls weren't all that pretty. In fact I've been in some towns where they're downright ugly. But it's the first time I've been in a town where there are no girls at all" I am sure the fans of great classic remember this phrase that belongs to Vin... one of the TRULY magnificent seven (from the first movie)...

Now I'd want to re-phrase him here. You know - I've seen some movies where the plot isn't all that good. In fact I've seen some movies where the plot is terrible, but that's first time in my life that I saw the film where there isn't any plot at all.

OK. Maybe my above statement is little bit over the top, but honestly... how one can call the plot a crap that is going on in this movie. The bad guy (oh, don't ask me to give you his name, because I don't remember and his not even somehow close to Calvera who's name and character is unforgettable...) is trying to build the church in the name of his late sons, that were killed in some battle, and this bad guy is kidnapping poor villagers to force them to build the church...

first of all how big must be church to have to force hundreds of villagers to build it... is it some Egyptian pyramid or something? but OK, let's stop here about the plot and absolutely forgettable character of a bad guy and let's say few words about The Seven itself...

Yul brynner's good old Chris, always calm, always silent, talking less but talking wise is gone (unfortunately). Oh no... he's as calm as he was... but now, he's calmness are so fake that you just don't buy it. (imagine, he meets a good old friend Chico, who he must rescue after so many years and there is just a few "hi, Hello" and not even handshake (as far as I remember))... honestly, it looks more like meeting of two strangers in some internet chat, rather then meeting of Chris and Chico. That makes "new Chris" more look like robocop or terminator rather then our beloved wise quickgun...

I won't stop here talking about other characters. There simply aren't ANY... (imagine if strong actor like Yul Brynner is so much fake forgettable, then what will be other characters look like)...

There still are some attempts to give us a background story for each one of them... for example one is women favorite guy, second is a man with dark past who's wife was raped and killed by indians and he since then is killing everyone and everything that is moving... but non of these characters are making any sense or non of them can take your heart.

I remember I was a little child and when O'reilly (Charles Bronson's character) died in the first movie I was crying. Here, I just didn't care about each one of them... even if whole of them with all the crew of the film would die, it seems I wouldn't care more...

So, please, go and SEE THIS MOVIE... I recommend it, because you won't have the other chance to see something worse then it.

Sentiment: negative
I am not a golf fan by any means. On May 26 about 10:30 PM the movie started with a scene in the late 1800's. Old movies I like but not golf however, within the first scene a young boy (Harry Vardon) is awaken by the voices of men. He goes outside to inquire what they are doing and is told they are going to build a golf something... So , then I turned the television off but something stirred me and it was back on. The movie is excellent. We then see this young boy now a man; professional golf player who is haunted with visions from his childhood. Then we meet the true focus of the movie Francis and the decisions he makes for golf. You meet his mother and father who want to protect him from the class thing that is so obvious during the period. Then there is little Eddie Lowery his caddy with encouraging words and little pushes that are instrumental in Francis winning. Don't want to give away too much . I was up until 2 A.M. This is super please see the movie.

Sentiment: positive
Still the definitive program about the Second World War, The World At War isn't just long, but also very informative. The series contains 26 episodes (each episode lasts for about 45 min.), and includes the events leading up to and following in the wake of the war. Most episodes are about the war in Europe, and there are several episodes about the war in the Pacific. Other episodes include information about the wars in Africa, Burma, the Atlantic and the home fronts of Germany, Great Britain, United States and Soviet Union. There is one episode that's dedicated to the Holocaust. The series starts off with the episode A New Germany (1933-1939), and tells about the rise of the Nazis in Germany and German territorial gains prior to the outbreak of war. The series ends with the episode Remember; the war's influence in a post-war world. Remember is a fitting episode to end this great program. Every episode begins with a short introduction and then with opening credits. The credits are accompanied by a powerful music theme. There are many fitting music pieces throughout the series. Each episode is like a mini-film. The footage is fantastic, and so is the way it was put together. In addition, some of the footage is in color. The information included also makes the episodes memorable and entertaining.

The series was produced by Jeremy Isaacs for Thames Television (UK). Commissioned in 1969, it took four years to produce, such was the depth of its research. The series was narrated by Laurence Olivier (one of the most famous and revered actors of the 20th century). The series interviewed leading members of the Allied and Axis campaigns, including eyewitness accounts by civilians, enlisted men, officers and politicians, amongst them Albert Speer, Karl Donitz, Jimmy Stewart, Bill Mauldin, Curtis LeMay, Lord Mountbatten, Alger Hiss, Toshikazu Kase, Arthur Harris, Charles Sweeney, Paul Tibbets, Traudl Junge and historian Stephen Ambrose. Jeremy Isaacs says in "The Making of The World at War" that he sought to interview, not necessarily the surviving big names, but their aides and assistants. The most difficult subject to locate and persuade to be interviewed, according to Isaacs, was Heinrich Himmler's adjutant, Karl Wolff. The latter admitted to witnessing a large-scale execution in Himmler's presence.

The World At War is often considered to be the definitive television history of the Second World War. Some consider it the finest example of the documentary form. In a list of the 100 Greatest British Television Programmes drawn up by the British Film Institute in 2000, voted for by industry professionals, The World at War ranked 19th. The program has everything that the viewer needs to know about the war. After watching a few episodes I liked the series so much that I tried to watch the remaining episodes one after the other. I've seen some of them several times. There are two other great documentary series that I know of that may be of interest to the viewer. One is called The Great War (1964) that's about World War I. The other is called Cold War (1998) that's about the Cold War obviously.

Sentiment: positive
by TyNesha Mells. In this drama, Ja Rule, who stars as Reggie, struggles with the loss of his father. His old friend J-Bone, who is a cold-blooded thug recently released from prison, helps Reggie find who murdered his father. A week after his dad died, a preacher, Reverend Packer, came up dead. Reggie was suppose to be the one to kill him, but did he? Did Reggie kill Reverend Packer or was it some type of a setup? Back in the Day also has a couple of romantic scenes. See, Reggie falls in love with the preacher's daughter and J-Bone doesn't approve of his love fiend. As J-Bone tries to destroy what they have, Reggie learns that love is about forgiveness. But what J-bone is doing, does it work? Do Reggie and his girlfriend break up, or does it bring them closer together? I like this movie because it leaves you wondering what's going to happen next and did this or that happen. I like movies with suspense! It kind of makes you want to be in the movie so that you could detect things. I also like this movie because everything falls in place, if you really pay attention to it!

Sentiment: positive
What is this crap? My little cousin picked this out obviously for the overly girlie DVD art and title... I decided to watch it with her so she didn't get bored, and I sure was appalled at the horrible quality.

First, the acting was terrible. They seem like amateur actresses reading off of cue cards. The delivery is sub-par and very formulaic. Scene cuts were terrible.. it looks like they took it straight from the story board, if there was one.

Secondly, the jokes and stereotypes weren't original or well played at all- again, very formulaic. I can't count the times I was able to predict the next joke. I got a few chuckles out of the blatantly "subtle" sexual innuendos. The Cat, The Beaver Patch, Hung Wong?.. c'mon! Just.. stay away from this movie. It's not cute, it's not funny, it's not even stupid-funny. It's just stupid-stupid. It's like a PG kids' movie with unnecessary sexual innuendo, vulgarity, and violence to bump the MPAA rating. STAY AWAY.

"Would you like to ride my yacht?"

"Is that what they're calling it now?"

"You could ride my ding."

"Oh! I think I got blood on my stool!"

Badly played, sir.

Sentiment: negative
This episode sucks.

Over the past few years I have watched all episodes of "Next Generation" and "Voyager" and am now watching "Enterprise".

I am thoroughly enjoying this series. Until this episode. I stared at the screen in horror at the destruction of character and entertainment. It is more like an attempt at slapstick.

It does not build the characters but throws them out on a limb - and leaves the audience gasping. It does little to build the series.

Why this was ever allowed to go to air amazes me. Was it the writing? Was it the directing? Was it the producer? We'll probably never know.

But one bad apple isn't bad I suppose. I say that hoping it is only one.

Sentiment: negative
Maybe I'm alone here, but this is a crap show. I'm sorry but I was lured in when I found out about Lil' Bill O'Reilly (which I had no idea came from this show until months later, and has honestly since lost its appeal) but I gave the show a fair shot. Spike tries to hard to make himself into something he's not, which is to say, he tries to be human. Fox didn't even bother to hide the strings when they took him out of the box he came in. His sketches try to hard, he himself isn't funny, and the writers are struggling to write material for a no-talent host. There is too much good TV out there to waste your time with this show, and Fox.....Fox we had some good times, but you need to get your f$%*ing act together and come up with something original instead of trying to be just another "Me-too" network.

Sentiment: negative
A stupid teen supposed comedy that revolves a serious of misunderstanding including (but not limited to) a hooker being confused with a foreign exchange student, girlfriend beating, a girl loving a gay guy, and the straight guy that loves her, and bitchy gossipers. None of the following is funny or even amusing. Nation Lampoon's use to be hilarious back in the day. Now the name is sadly synonymous with crap. And this one is NO exception. I use to think Topenga was kinda cute when she was on "Boy Meets World", but it seems she let herself go (and yes I know she has a name, but into she does ANYthing else worthwhile, she'll stay as Topenga) 

My Grade: D

Eye Candy: Kati Lohmann gets topless; Boti Bliss relies on a body double (BOOOOO!!!)

Sentiment: negative
A sadly inferior precursor to "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" this film drags on and on, occasionally reviving your interest only to put you through more selfindulgent maundering and obvious but patently overdone plot points.

It may list as 111 minutes but feels like three hours of painfully wasted time.

Sentiment: negative