DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This movie narrate the story of John Belushi,based of his biography `Wired' , wrote by Bob Woodward.All of movie is narrate on flashback without a chronological order , where after the death of John Belushi we see one angel accompany Belushi during few points of his life.Michael Chicklis in the character of John Belushi is enough credible , but entirely devoid of the devastate force of Belushi ,and his play stay only a pale animation.The director,on more,not succeed to give continuate on the story , that for who not knows the book is very confused. But the worse is that they have featured Bob Woodward that spoke with Belushi before he died. For this negative points the movie is only a would-be attempt to narrate the controversial story of John Belushi. My rate is 4.

Sentiment: negative
I just saw this movie at a sneak preview and all I can say is..."What did I just watch????" And I mean that in a good and bad way.

The plot is really simple. Stiller and Black play friends/neighbors. Stiller is the focused, hardworker while Black is a dreamer. Black invents this idea to create a spray that erases poo. The idea becomes very popular, and Black becomes very rich. The extravagant lifestyle that Black gains and the fact that he still tries to be best friends with Stiller causes Stiller to become crazy with envy.

As I said, the plot is simple. Everything else is plain odd. The direction is odd, with a weird rotating opening shot to out-of-nowhere sped up sequences. The dialouge and the acting is very odd; odd in a rambling sort of way. And the sound track is the oddest thing in the movie, from the weird "Envy" song that keeps on reappearing to the scene where you think you're going to hear a classic 80's song but suddenly it's in Japanese.

So, the true question is this...is odd funny? That depends purely on the individual. I was cracking up at the shear unwavering weirdness of the movie. After the screening I heard people call it horribly unfunny and glad that it was free. Strangely, I understood their point. There are no jokes whatsoever, so if you aren't hooked by the uniqueness of it all, you will hate this movie. Absolutely hate it.

This movie is destined to lose a lot of money at the box office and become a DVD cult classic. If you can laugh at a movie with no real jokes, like Cable Guy or Punch Drunk Love, then I suggest you see it. If you don't, run away from this movie. It'll only make you mad.

Sentiment: positive
Just came out of a sneak preview for this film. It had me laughing every 30 secs. The ending was so funny that tears were rolling down my face and it had me wishing I hadn't bought that large coke. There are definitely some lulls, but, overall, highly entertaining. The movie lets Steve Carell have a chance to shine after stealing the spotlight from both Jim Carrey in "Bruce Almighty" and Will Ferrell "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgendy" in their movies. Paul Rudd is hilarious as always. I love that he can be so funny in these broad comedies and continues to work in indie dramas (like P.S.). I think that Seth Rogen should be getting more work, because he so freaking talented and engaging. Leslie Mann also had some incredibly funny moments. I highly recommend it for those who just want to laugh like a maniac. However, if you're easily offended, don't see this movie. If you're a rabid feminist, don't see this movie. And, please, not matter what, even if you think you're one of those "hip" parents, don't take your kids to this movie. Sure, you should let your teens go see this movie, just don't watch it with them. It would make for some incredibly awkward moments.

Sentiment: positive
This is a film for entertainment; I did not think the world made social commentary from one small film. I personally find this film funny, audacious, and memorable. It is a fantasy not unlike a cinder girl becoming a Princess. This film was done very well I might add, in the 70's a time of the best experiments in film with being able to mention a person's sexuality. This movie is not about a person being homosexual or not, it is however about love, in all it's strange forms. This film does show some of the realities of being gay in the 70's in Hollywood, or in California. Pretty boys being looked after by older not so pretty men. Women who had to stay deeply locked in the emotional closet or risk not having a career. Bathhouses were an integral part of the gay community.

THEN the fantasy begins!! Let us mix a lesbian with a gay and add some liquor and what do we have? Well this movie, which in ANY way was better than that dismal redo "The Next Big Thing". Perhaps someone should have asked the entire crew to see this movie and then try to do better.

I enjoyed this movie when I saw it in the 70's and it still brings a smile to my lips now. I heartily advise anyone who wants a funny, tender movie- to curl up with some popcorn and have some fun. Some people need to lighten up!!! And this is the film you should do it with!



Sentiment: positive
What is the point of creating sequels that have absolutely no relevance to the original film? No point. This is why the Prom Night sequels are so embarrassingly bad.

The original film entailed a group of children hiding a dark secret that eventually get them all killed, bar one, in a brutal act of revenge. Can someone please explain to me what a dead prom queen-to-be rising from the grave to steel the crown has to do with the first movie then? Prom Night 2 had continuous plot holes that left the audience constantly wondering how did that happen and why should that happen? But in the end, i guess you could call it one of those movies that is so bad, you end up laughing yourself through it.

Sentiment: negative
This film had a great cast going for it: Christopher Lee, Dean Jagger, Macdonald Carey, Lew Ayres -- solid b-movie actors all. But this downer of a movie didn't use any of them to any sort of advantage, with none of their characters even meeting on screen (though Christopher Lee does get to play opposite himself in several scenes).

The motivations for the aliens in this movie seem to change at the drop of a hat. First, they just want to repair their ship and leave, then they turn on the main character by killing most of his friends and not releasing his wife after he gets them the crucial part they need. Then, out of nowhere, this "peaceful" race decides they have to destroy the planet because it causes too many "diseases" (though they do offer the main character and his wife a spot in their society).

Most of the film is spent watching the man and wife drive or walk or stand around or sit at desks doing nothing. You almost wish they had gotten taken out with the rest of the planet at the end, just in vengeance for boring us to death.

Unless you really like Chris Lee or seventies low-budget sci-fi, I'd give this one a miss. It falls into that narrow range of wasted celluloid between Star Odyssey and UFO: Target Earth.

Sentiment: negative
Hubert Selby Jr. gave us the book "Requiem For A Dream" and co-wrote the screenplay to Aronofsky's movie of it. That movie succeeded on every level by delivering an intimate, and unbiased portrait of the horrors of the characters lives and the vices that destroyed them. "Last Exit To Brooklyn" still has the vice and the multiple characters living sad lives, but it hardly does them the same justice Aronofsky did.

The film seems laughably anti-gay at times. Especially when in the film homosexuality equals death. One gay character gets stoned, is launched skyward by a speeding car, and lands dead on the pavement. Another is crucified and still more are simply beat up. Another exaggerated piece of shock value, that might actually have been compelling if it were done well, are scenes of the union workers literally doing battle with the strike-breakers. Who'd have thought a drama about Brooklyners would feature action sequences and truck explosions?

The director, Uli Edel has a skill level like that of a TV director, but he is far below the cut for real movies. The film is clunky that can't even seem to settle on a genre. Lake is given a useless role that any mannequin could have filled and Baldwin only seems to know how to look stupid in his equally meager part. And then comes Jennifer Jason Leigh as our lead, a loathsome hooker named Tralala (believe it or not, I'm not joking). Her performance is nothing great and the fate of her character is dirty to say the least. Poor use of color and composition make it look cheaper than it is, and also takes the "real" edge off the more provocative bits. A failure.

Sentiment: negative
This movie starts off on the wrong foot and never really gets it going. The first scene shows a Life Flight helicopter landing and just outside the window you can distinctly see mountains in the background. For those of you who might not ever have been to Houston there is no elevation change. The city sits just above sea level and a 5 ft. incline is considered a big hill. To go along with that scenery, any shots outside of the hospital immediately tell the viewer that they are not in Houston. The trees are all missing leaves or are pine trees, neither of which Houston has very much of. Even the hospital itself, on the outside, is very unbelievable. Memorial Hermann Hospital is one of the top hospitals in the United States and sits smack dab in the middle of the Medical District just miles from downtown Houston, yet every outside shot of the hospital makes it appear that the hospital is out in the suburbs or even the countryside.

It is obvious that whoever was in charge of the actual tropical storm part of the movie skimped out because the numerous shots of radar are all wrong. The first radar image in the movie is that of Hurrican Hugo hitting South Carolina. We later see Kris Kristofferson leaving his job and one of his assistants tells him that Alison is moving back south across Houston yet the radar image he shows has Alison clearly moving north off of the Gulf of Mexico into Houston...probably the initial landfall of Alison.

As for the acting, it isn't all that bad. JoBeth Williams, Kris Kristofferson and Rick Schroder all do a decent job considering that this is a straight-to-TV movie. The plot of the story is decent and the fact that it is based on a true story makes it a bit more entertaining. My one problem with the acting is the portrayal of Houstonians with big thick Southern accents...the actors all sound like they are from Birmingham, Alabama and not Houston, Texas.

The movie gets its point across and to the general audience it does exactly what it is meant to: entertain. If you are looking for a factual account of what happened to the city of Houston in June of 2001 then you will be disappointed. One thing to keep in mind before viewing this movie is that it is based solely on the evacuation of Memorial Hermann Hospital and not on Tropical Storm Alison and the impact on Houston metro itself. If you are looking for a factual account of Tropical Storm Alison's impact on Houston metro might I suggest watching The Weather Channel's Storm Stories for Tropical Storm Alison.

*1/2 out of *****

Sentiment: negative
I watched fantabulosa! because over the last few years Michael Sheen has become one of my favourite actors, and if you haven't seen him in anything before firstly shame on you, and secondly get your hands on a copy of either Heartlands or Dirty Filthy Love. This production did not disappoint - Michael Sheen transformed himself almost magically into Kenneth Williams, and gave a performance that was as tragically moving as it was skillful. Not to take anything away from the other performances but like Kenneth, Michael truly stole the show. I don't know how he does it, but every performance I have seen Michael give he seems to metamorphose until the character he plays is truly, utterly believable, and no matter how hard I try I cannot fault him. Must go get my tea, enjoy!

Sentiment: positive
Sarah Silverman is a dangerous Bitch! She's beautiful, sexy, funny and talent, dark and demonic. I read the other 'comment' on this show as well as the message board stuff and people just don't get it. Nothing that appears on T.V. is an accident. Too much money, time and work is put into the production of a T.V. show for there to be mistakes. This show is stupid because Sarah wanted it to be stupid. This show is juvenile because Sarah wanted it to be juvenile. I thought the jokes were great and the theme show as well as the other musical numbers are wonderfully bizarre. It's a lot like Pee-Wee's Playhouse for maladjusted, slacker twenty-something glue sniffing, Future Pornstars of America from the Valley. The cast is awesome. The scenarios and action is well-paced. I hope this show succeeds since Comedy Central didn't let David spade keep his show. Who plays Sarah's sister? She not in the cast listing on the show's home page. I would love to see her stand-up. Does anyone know about her up-coming show dates or DVDs that may be floating around out there?

Sentiment: positive
i can't believe how dumb this movie truly is. the storyline (written by keira knightley's mother) is what ruins the movie to the extreme. it is straight out dull, absurd, and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...

this movie lagged so bad for most of it, especially at the beginning. the story just kept going on and on about their everyday flirts with each other, often times seeming like a threesome. in this movie, you have an annoying deadbeat couple (the poet and his wife) who are complete total drunks from the start. the wife sleeps around with other men to make ends meet, while the poet is a pervert who thrives on cheap boos and women. the wife, who waaayyyyyy too quickly becomes friends with his former childhood lover (played by keira) suddenly gets jealous, knowing full well that the two were lovers since they were kids. something doesn't seem right here....i mean, come on... get with the program lady! what'd you expect.

bottom line is: former lovers meet again with new wife embracing it, then gets jealous, then former woman lover gets married and her husband gets jealous, bombards the crazy drunk couple's home, crazy husband calls police, and they end up going to court for the man's attempted murder charges. that's it summed up in a nutshell...

this movie had it's moments such as the quality and good acting by cillian murphy, but other than that, i cannot believe i watched it... i complained about it during the movie and some family members watching it with me fell asleep. i decided to give it a chance and i should have stuck to my first instincts.

Sentiment: negative
A couple of cowpokes help a group of Mormons cross some rough country on their way to a new settlement. This low-key Western is unusual for Ford in that it lacks any big stars. Johnson gets top-billing but his is basically a supporting role, although he and Carey work well together. Dru is given little to do other than provide the love interest. The best performance is given by Ford favorite Bond, playing the leader of the Mormons. In fact, this role helped him land a starring role in the long-running TV Western "Wagon Train" before his untimely death at age 57. Featuring beautiful cinematography, Ford regarded this as one of his favorite films.

Sentiment: positive
A charming movie enhanced by the musical and vocal background, especially during the competition. My understanding is that there was never a soundtrack but could you, through your sources, advise me where I might get information on the singer and the likelihood of getting a copy of the song he sang. Your help would be appreciated. The song really touched me and my wife and we would like to secure a copy wherever possible so that we might play it as background music when we have our family and friends over for our "Italian Nights". If you are able to get this information to us we would be eternally grateful. Even if you can advise of the studio contact so that we might go direct.

Regards,

John Payling

Sentiment: positive
Dil was a memorable movie that bring to the celluloid a great director like Indra Kumar. The movie followed with Beta, Ishq, Raja & Masti all of whom were superb.

But then every successful director gives a few horrible movies alongwith some hits too. Pyare Mohan is one such movie.

Though the comedies are told nicely but then they fail the viewer to laugh. Comparing with the kind of comedy movies being made today this is a dumb.

If you really want to watch a movie and laugh, please don't watch this. Because the pathetic comedy will make you cry only.

In short, the movie is worth a miss.

Sentiment: negative
The new celebrity deathmatch is terrible. They kill off the popular people and make the low budget celebs win. I mean...Andy Milonakis? Lil' flip? Lil flip and Lil Wayne should of both died.Lil' flip sucks. the fight between Lil' Jon and Lil' bow wow and Lil flip was MAD corny and short. They should of just kill off all of them. Why did Tobey lose to Jake and Christian lose to Adam? they are better actors and superheroes. They also spend too much time on talking rather than fighting which can bore the viewers. Everything seems rushed for some reason, they can't just make a long fight? the old deathmatch is way better.

Sentiment: negative
College girl Joanne Murray takes on the unenviable job of readying the student housing building to become apartments,which includes selling the unneeded furniture This takes place during a break,so a mysterious psycho is stalking the nearly-empty premises on campus."Dorm that Dripped Blood" is a low-budget slasher flick that is quite entertaining.The acting is pretty bad,the plot is predictable,but the gore effects are quite good.The film was made by UCLA film students Stephen Carpenter and Jeffrey Obrow for next to nothing.Soon a dreamy ambiance kicks in,very similar to the enveloping forests of Jeff Leiberman's fantastic "Just Before Dawn".7 out of 10.It's great to see Daphne Zuniga of "The Initiation" fame run over few times by a car.

Sentiment: positive
I know curiosity killed the cat, but I simply had to see the remake of Psycho, especially after being on such a Hitchcok journey recently and knowing his work. I've watched the original Psycho though since I was a kid, I knew how to respect it and not only that, it was an excellent movie! One of the best, in fact! The first thing I said when I heard about the remake was "How do you remake perfection?". I stuck to that as well, but I think I have a more open mind now and figured maybe it was a way of introducing Psycho to a new generation.

But this turned into a total insult and slap to the face of the original Psycho. I know this has been said, but I watched the making of this film, and the director was like "Oh, I just want to update it and shoot each scene shot by shot like the original"... what's the friggin' point?! OK, but I want to judge this movie on it's own, despite it's insulting blows the original. I mean, the acting wasn't up to par, but honestly, it looked like the actors just watched the original and just memorized the lines from there and made it their crappy own.

Watching the making of this film, I wanted to slap Anne Hasche, she said "I've never seen the original, I just wanted to work with Gus." Ooh, that made me angry, because frankly, it's not just that, she really sucked in this role as Marian, she wasn't convincing, not to mention her shower scene really was horrible. Vince Vaughn didn't make... let's just put it this way, the film was horribly miscasted. This was a sin against film and on it's own, this was actually a bad movie. It was too much and destroyed what could've been a new introduction for a new generation. But to Gus, leave the film making the one's who KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING!

1/10

Sentiment: negative
This is a very, very early Bugs Bunny cartoon. As a result, the character is still in a transition period--he is not drawn as elongated as he later was and his voice isn't quite right. In addition, the chemistry between Elmer and Bugs is a little unusual. Elmer is some poor sap who buys Bugs from a pet shop--there is no gun or desire on his part to blast the bunny to smithereens! However, despite this, this is still a very enjoyable film. The early Bugs was definitely more sassy and cruel than his later incarnations. In later films, he messed with Elmer, Yosimite Sam and others because they started it--they messed with the rabbit. But, in this film, he is much more like Daffy Duck of the late 30s and early 40s--a jerk who just loves irritating others!! A true "anarchist" instead of the hero of the later cartoons. While this isn't among the best Bug Bunny cartoons, it sure is fun to watch and it's interesting to see just how much he's changed over the years.

Sentiment: positive
The fifth "Black Emanuelle" I've watched has, potentially, the most intriguing plot line dealing as it does with the intrepid female reporter investigating the white slavery/prostitution racket which takes her from San Francisco to Rome to Macao and back to her own hometown, New York! The film is peopled with past veterans of the series which, inexplicably, play completely different roles, namely Ivan Rassimov (appearing here as a head of a United Nations committee for Third World countries!), Karin Shubert (as a feminist rival reporter) and Don Powell (as Rassimov's chauffeur).

Unfortunately, as usual with this type of film (despite their being shown in the dead of night), it is heavily edited and a particularly graphic scene (described in "Stracultr) in which an Asian slave trader gets his comeuppance by being sodomized by a dog is nowhere to be seen here!! Still, a harrowing sequence late in the film when a sleazy politician tricks a couple of girls (including, naturally, Gemser and Shubert) into a midnight rendezvous under a New York bridge with a group of bums (this is the way he gets their votes, get it!) - with his high society pals giddily looking on - seems pretty much intact.

The most ridiculous element of this entry - apart from Gemser's penchant to disrobe completely every time she enters a house (even in front of perfect strangers) - is her excursion to India to interview a charlatan/Guru (George Eastman made up to look considerably Christ-like!) who has found a way to prolong coitus indefinitely; of course, when Emanuelle calls him up on it, he ends up having premature ejaculation...!!

Sentiment: negative
It's not often that a TV series grabs me right off the bat; a recent chance download of the pilot for Surface had me glued to my seat for the entirety of the episode, after which I immediately set out on a fevered search to learn everything I could about this wonderful series. To my chagrin, I found out it had been canceled after a mere 15 episodes, despite its strong ratings and extremely favorable reviews. Such a shame.

Since then, I've acquired the remaining episodes, and found the first 5 or 6 to be among the best television I've EVER watched. Just fantastic from start to finish, and as another reviewer commented, I LOVED how they ended every episode with a huge finish. I imagine watching it each week I would've been screaming with tension and just captivated, desperately waiting for the next episode to be released. Growing up, I always heard that was how early serial movies used to do it, ending with a huge cliffhanger to get the crowds back into the theater for the next episode.

Well, it seems for some reason or another the suits decided to kill this off, and apparently the people behind the show must've seen the writing on the wall, because after episode 6 things definitely take a turn for the worse. I wouldn't say the episodes actually become BORING but a lot of the plot elements become a bit more clichéd, and I've got to say, the final episode really left me feeling cheated. I just wish the show's creators were given a fair chance. The *ONLY* other show that left me feeling like that was the first season of Stargate SG-1, which just resonated tremendously, feeling very "true", soulful and made from the heart. Surface was a great series, and maybe one day, some well-heeled TV lover will see all the outpouring of emotion about the show's cancellation, and bring back this show. One can hope, at least. :)

Sentiment: positive
I must say, I was surprised with the quality of the movie. It was far better than I expected. Scenario and acting is quite good. The director made a good job as well. Although some scenes look a bit clumsy, it is a decent movie overall. The idea was definitely brilliant and the truth did not reveal itself till the very end. The mental hospital atmosphere was given quite good. The plot was clear, consistent and well thought. Some people may find it a bit boring though since the story line is very focused and they take their time for character and story development. Moral of the story, it is a decent movie for its genre and it is astonishingly good.

Sentiment: positive
I remember ignoring the TV series when it first debuted because of its 'look' with the Jim Hensen muppets. However, recently a friend let me borrow his Farscape DVDs, and I am just now realizing what a terrible mistake that was. 

As with any TV series, there are episodes that shine and those that don't. I ride the adrenaline and emotional rush during the great episodes and suffer through the lackluster ones. However, I endure regardless because of the core storyline that ties all the episodes together. What I'm talking about is the growth of the main characters and their love for each other. Let me warn you, it is something that is absolutely irresistible to watch. I cannot recall any other TV series (Babylon 5, Buffy, Angel, etc) that smartly and intelligently put together such a heartbreaking (at times) and suspenseful ride.

I think that at the end of the fourth season, things were finally becoming tightly focused and I am shocked at the decision to cancel the series. I wait anxiously for the release of the miniseries and invite others to discover this incredible gem.

Sentiment: positive
Okay, I remember watching the first one, and boy did it suck. After watching it, I just laughed it off and told myself, "oh boy, just another low budget B-movie. I'll never see a part 2 to this one." Then, about 1 1/2 years later, there came part two. It sucked even more. But, I just laughed it off again and said, "there's no way I'm ever gonna see a part 3 to this one." Then, about 1/2 a year later, part 3 came out. I was stupid enough to rent it and boy, I just snapped after watching it. God, I never actually realized how much movies can suck these days. Just save yourself $7.50 and don't rent the whole series. Trust me, it's worth every penny.

Sentiment: negative
I rented this movie from the library (it's hard to find for good reason) purely out of curiosity. I'm a huge Plath fan and this movie was a complete disappointment. The Bell Jar (1979) is by far one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The script is horrible, not because it strays from the original novel text, but because it strays without focus or intent. The scenes are ill-constructed and don't lead the viewer anywhere. What's with the hokey voice over of Plath's poetry? Lady Lazarus has little do with Greenwood's situation; Plath's poetry was completely misused. Marilyn Hassett is completely unbelievable as Esther Greenwood (or any 20 year old for that matter) partly due to casting (she was 32 during filming, the age Plath was when she DIED) and partly due to the fact that she can't act. Hassett is all emotion, no craft, no skill. The direction is mediocre; the director simply covers what's there, which isn't much. The only reason I'm giving the film a 1 is because 0 isn't an option. Sorry Sylvia, you'll have to wait for someone else to adapt your fine work into something more fitting.

Sentiment: negative
Wolfgang Petersen (Das Boot, Air Force One) gives us an exciting film where the accolades go to the supporting actor, John Malkovich. His criminal attempting to assassinate the President was first-rate and credible.

That is not to diminish the efforts of Clint Eastwood and Rene Russo, or even Fred Dalton Thompson, who plays a real jerk of a White House Chief of Staff. Eastwood was great, and I love any film that Russo is in.

The movie feature original music by five time Oscar winner (Malèna, Bugsy, The Untouchables, The Mission, Days of Heaven) Ennio Morricone. That alone makes it worth your time.

Sentiment: positive
It was AMAZING. As a librarian and an attendee at the New York Library Association's Vitality Fund Event on Thursday night, October 18, I was privileged to see a pre-release screening of the new movie, The Kite Runner. The release of the movie has been delayed because of concerns about the welfare of the child actors involved. I am grateful that the NYLA event was allowed to go on as planned.

Regarding the movie, I feel it was masterfully done. It had as much impact on me, I think, as Stanley Kubrik's A Clockwork Orange, even though it is much less graphic - MUCH less. There is no comparison between the horrendous, shocking violence and rape shown in A Clockwork Orange and the small amount of violence actually shown in Kite Runner; only the subject matter and the implications for the human psyche are comparable. (I have written more details about the violence and child rape and how it was handled on my MySpace blog.) My overall impression was that this film was fantastic; one of the best-made films I have seen. The depiction of the Afghani boys flying their kites captured some of the beauty and grace of an art form unknown to most of the world. The subject matter is intensely serious, and the movie carries the emotions of the audience into that subject matter without many jarring "Hollywood touches" which have ruined other movies. Although the overturned cart of pomegranates was an obvious bit of symbolism (to me).

Finally, I must mention the excellence of the sound track. The recitation by the boy of poetry by Rumi as two main characters are fleeing the country during the Russian invasion - under terrifying circumstances - truly showed the power of those poems. I urge anyone watching to disregard the subtitles in that scene to the extent that you can, and just listen to the beauty of the language. I don't even know what language Amir is quoting, whether his normal Dari Persian dialect is the same as Rumi's original Persian dialect. Also, please note the sound heard every time a kite line is cut. I found it a profound, distinctive sound, though the librarians who were with me did not notice it at all. I can't help but wonder if kites actually make a sound like that when they are "cut", or if it gives a sense of the vibration/sound experienced by the kite flyer during competition.

Sentiment: positive
Reading some of the comments on the message boards here I was expecting this movie to be a complete letdown - but when I watched it I could not stop laughing! It has officially become my new favourite movie.

I don't know what all the hate here is about, maybe it's because a movie of this kind has never really been around before. I am at a loss to name another completely female driven comedy. Plenty of comedies will have one or two actresses in the lead, but there will be a lot of supporting male characters. This one was almost ALL women - with the exception of Seth Meyers, Justin Hartley and the brief appearance of Will Arnett - and it worked. All of the actresses delivered very funny performances (especially Missi Pyle) from a quirky and lovable script.

The charm of this film, to me, seems to be in its subtle feminist message: accepting who you are, female success in the public sphere, the strength of female friendships and breaking gender roles. Light-hearted though it is, each of the lead characters face a challenge as their attempts to be more 'fun' conflict with their feminist values and who they knew themselves to be.

Missi Pyle proposed that this film missed a theatrical release because of its all-female cast and lack of a big-name actor to get the studios behind it, and I have to agree. Everyone I've recommended this film to has loved it and I think it's a shame that a comedy celebrating female dorkiness hasn't been widely accepted and successful.

I highly recommend this film to anyone with an open mind or a love of female-centred comedy.

Sentiment: positive
I thought the movie was great. I thought Kristine DeBell was GREAT and was glad to see her move on into some more interesting roles. I even overlook the fact that the print I have wasn't quite put back together correctly. But, who cares?

Sentiment: positive
Final Draft - A screenwriter (James Van Der Beek) locks himself into his apartment and succumbs to psychosis in an attempt to write a horror script. Not a terrible premise, but the execution is awful. This feels like a first year direction and writing job, and probably is. The director jump cuts the hell out of everything. It's meant to be disorienting. What it IS is annoying. So much so that small chunks of film are incoherent. The writing is predictable, and doesn't use follow through on most of the ideas it offers (bag of oranges). It's like they ran out of time and slap-dashed it together for the Toronto Film Festival.

This film is not jaw-droppingly "oh my god it's so bad it's good" bad. It's boring bad, and irritates you for a long time afterward. James Van Der Beek is not a terrible actor, and keeps the ship barely above water. But he's too normal for the kind of psychosis the film tries to offer. He is merely a withdrawn guy who one day sees people and hallucinates things, then decides to act mildly deranged. Cause follows effect. Maybe there's something in the water. Now Darryn Lucio, who plays his "friend", is a terrible actor. He shares the likeness of Chris O'Donald and is even more annoying, a superhuman achievement.

The atmosphere the film provides is good (dull gray and somber), but as it's the only thing the film achieves it means nothing. This film wants to be Jacob's Ladder or The Machinist. It isn't even Secret Window. It's the preppy girl in class deciding to turn goth.

Not irksomely terrible, but the sheer stupidity of it will ebb at you. I've already put more thought into this critique than the filmmakers did for this.

D

Sentiment: negative
You've got to watch this movie! It is so bad it actually is great.

You've got your crazy but gutsy captain who of course is having an affair with his worn out used to be gorgeous copilot. And of course the mid air collision occurs when the captain's enemy and rivalis along for the ride to geYou've got your ex Vietnam Vet who is can't handle the pressure of another mid air collision and crash landing. Then you've got your old crazy Army Air corp buddy who is flying the chase plane and trying to well I can't tell you what he's trying to do. The plane keeps going up, up and well and then you've got your greedy and immoral corporate engineer and then you've got your Ice Station Zebra cold and then Lucky saves the bad guy from drowing so they can land the plane! aND IT DOESN'T END --- IT JUST GOES ON AND ON! You've got to watch this. It's great! YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING! DID THEY ACTUALLY SHOW THIS ON COMMERCIAL TELEVISION AND HOW IT WAS EVER SHOWN ON CABLE.

Sentiment: negative
This film should be seen by as many people as possible as it concentrates on the human rights problems in Burma. When I first watched this film in the mid 1990's it totally changed my life. I knew very little about Aung San Suu Kyi or her democracy movement. It effected me so I wanted to understand more about the situation. Any film that has the power to make you want to learn more has done its job properly. Patricia Arquette is superb as the American lady who due to personal tragedy has become reckless with her own life decisions and gets caught up in the ensuing conflict. It is a powerful film about a subject matter which deserves more publicity. As the film itself says the 1988 massacre of Pro democracy activists was not televised and therefore largely went unnoticed to the world. I implore everyone reading these comments to take the time to find out more about the current plight of the Burmese people.

It is about time this film was released on DVD. Can anything be done?

Sentiment: positive
I found this one to be more chaotic than the average Stooges short (as strange as that may sound). There were several funny bits, especially the running gags ("Calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard!", the glass door breaking, the Stooges running into the supply room and coming back out with... well, you know), but also quite of bit of it was taken up with things that just didn't make any sense to me. I have to assume that these were generally take-offs of scenes from the film "Men In White", but since I don't know much about that movie I can't say for sure. Maybe if someone could explain these I'd appreciate this short more.

Sentiment: positive
The movie is not halve as bad as people want to make you believe it is.

What is the reason why so many people hate this movie? Is it because it's Laurel & Hardy's last one together and it's not their best? Or is it because of the lack of Laurel & Hardy regulars? Or because it's not made by the Hal Roach studios or 20th Century Fox? 

Definitely true that this movie is not a successful attempt to revive Laurel & Hardy and bring them to the '50's. It's also definitely true that the movie is far from their best but honestly, the movie still entertains well, making this movie also far from their worst. Not the most worthy 'goodbye' movie imaginable but an entertaining and suiting goodbye nevertheless. Both of them retired from movies after completing this one.

The movie still features some great slapstick moments and the chemistry between Laurel & Hardy is obviously still very much present. It also makes this movie better than most of their movies together from the '40's. Quite a surprise that the slapstick humor still works out as great as it does, considering that the days of slapstick comedy had been over, ever since the '30's.

The story is perhaps not as entertaining as it could had been and it features too many sidekicks and characters, with as a result that the movie looses its focus on the boys at times. A shame, because they are still the ones that really carry and make the movie.

Sad to see in what poor form Stan Laurel was at the time of making this movie. He really looked ill and old, which he also of course was. He was well over 60 years old already. But after a surgery he fully recovered and still lived for another 15 years, before dying in 1965, 8 years after his good friend Oliver Hardy.

An entertaining, though not perfect goodbye to the boys, Laurel & Hardy and the end of 3 decades of fun, humorous, quality slapstick entertainment of movies that are still being watched and loved by people all over the world.

7/10

Sentiment: positive
Two years ago, on Berlin Film Festival we watched the Amos Kollek movie "Sue" in the Panorama program, with a wonderful Anna Thomson in the leading part. It's a film about loneliness and sex, and how the one thing is compensated by the other. In the same section on the Festival now we have to complain the superfluous antithesis of Sue, "Extension du domaine de la lutte", which now tries to convince us that loneliness and having NO sex is one and the same problem. But unfortunately we can't sympathize with "our hero" (how he is called by the story-teller), because he is unnecessarily and incomprehensibly tired of company and himself. Own fault, I'm sorry. I can't understand him. Not enough, the writer/director/actor want us admitting to him, that it's not his destroyed self-consciousness or the passivity of his personality, what brought him so far, but the rotten society and its image of sexuality. Yes, there are some deeper insights about gender relations, but we won't follow him so far... And the point is, that there is rather any sign of reflection about his own portion to the fate, having no sex. Who didn't notice yet, it's a quite depressing film...

In the beginning, there had been some starts to be more accurate in sketching the situation. At the bed store the "hero" speaks about the hindrances buying a new bed. Perhaps it's too broad getting up the stairs, you have to stay at home half a day... THIS is a satire about a character, who doesn't know taking the life and heart in hands, DOING something... The movie doesn`t follow this path, but handles his characters with helplessness. Nobody believes, that "our hero" is able to instigate Tisserand for a murder. Too dull, too kind, too - passive (not to mention Tisserand's complex; he has an inhibition, but he couldn't be, of course, a murderer of women!). To finish: There are women and the world, it's not a device of a modern sexualized society. Help you as you can, but don't follow the messages and the "wisdom" of this movie, which announces bankruptcy to human relationships, without seizing the real conflicts within.

Sentiment: negative
With all the excessive violence in this film, it could've been NC-17. But the gore could've been pg-13 and there were quite a lot of swears when the mum had the original jackass bad-hairdewed boy friend. There was a lot of character development which made the film better to watch, then after the kid came back to life as the scarecrow, there was a mindless hour and ten minutes of him killing people. The violence was overly excessive and i think the bodycount was higher than twelve which is a large number for movies like this. ALmost every character in the film is stabbed or gets their head chopped off, but the teacher who called him "white trash" and "hoodlum" (though the character lester is anything but a hoodlum, not even close, i know hoods and am part hood, they don't draw in class, they sit there and throw stuff at the teacher). The teacher deserved a more gruesome death than anyone of the characters, but was just stabbed in the back. There were two suspenseful scenes in the film, but didn't last long enough to be scary at all. As i said, the killings were excessive and sometimes people who have nothing to do with the story line get their heads chopped off. If the gore was actually fun to see, then it would've been nc-17. Two kids describe a body they find in the cornfields, they describe it as a lot gorier than it actually was, they explained to the cop that there were maggots crawling around in the guys intestines. His stomach had not even been cut open so there was no way maggots were in his stomach, though i would've liked to see that. The acting was pathetic, characters were losers, and the scarecrow could do a lot of gymnastix stunts. I suggest renting this movie for the death scenes, i wont see it again anytime soon, but i enjoyed the excessive violence. Also, don't bother with the sequel, i watched five minutes of it and was bored to death, it sounds good but isn't. The original scarecrow actually kept me interested.

Sentiment: negative
We don't know why this extraordinary film was never made available officially on DVD... Anthony Quinn's performance alone makes this a must-see. There are relatively few films in which an actor identifies so profoundly with his character, a phenomenon always unique for us, moviegoers.

But Quinn's powerful portrayal of an innocent Romanian, literally dragged out of his house and everyday life by forces he cannot comprehend, is only part of what makes this film great. The script is based on a book published in Paris by a Romanian priest who fled the Communist take-over of his country, and the film succeeds to go deep into a little known area of East-European history. Told as a succession of Kafka-esquire twists of fate, the misadventures of Johann Moritz (told openly and honestly, without any of the political correctness currently so precious in Hollywood) are in fact a eulogy for the lost innocence of the Romanian people... it is devilishly ironic that this eulogy is signed by a French director, working with the American money of an Italian producer, and overseeing a multinational cast fronted by an extraordinary Mexican-born thespian.

I've seen mentions of VCDs of this film in various Asian internet stores, and I was fortunate to take possession of a digital recording of this film, broadcast on the British version of TCM. But it's a shame that "The 25th Hour" isn't anywhere on the future DVD release map of MGM studios.

Sentiment: positive
Well, would firstly like to clarify that Kaakha Kaakha is a part of a Tamil prayer and roughly translated it means "to protect". Khakhee on the other hand refers to the color of the police uniform (which is Khakhi!).

Also, the Tamil film industry is rather full of purely commercial ventures , any Rajnikanth or Vijay movie would stand testament to that statement.

Now Kaakha Kaakha is an EXCELLENT movie with a great soundtrack. Certainly very stunning in the final scene, especially love the ending (which is certainly unexpected!). The gore is rather too much at times, but certainly this is a great movie!

Sentiment: positive
To quote one critic's review of the movie, "it started off slow and stopped." The plot was believeable enough (although some of the characters' actions seemed very, very RANDOM), the script was fairly well written (in that the dialogue did not seem forced), but everything went way too slowly. There were too many pauses between lines, and the way the lines were delivered was not all that great. This movie had potential, but blew it like a teenager turning to drugs. My advice? Wait for it to come on TV before you see it.

Sentiment: negative
Parts: The Clonus Horror is not that bad of a movie. I have the MST3K version of it on tape and it is hilarious, but its still not the worst film the have ever done. I would go so far as to say that it was better than 80% of the movies they have made fun of. The concept could have worked if they had a better script, more money and decent actors. It could have become a classic if it was not so boring and had a bit more excitement. Sadly it was botched in production and ended up on MST3K.

Sentiment: negative
This is the funniest movie I have ever seen. However, I have laughed harder at plenty of movies. This is because Best In Show's brilliance lies not in slapstick or one-liners, but in sophisticated and layered verbal wit. The improvised dialogue is is so quick that you end up laughing not at each individual joke, but only until after several jokes build on one another, each disarming your senses until the jokes climax and you can't help letting loose.

It's a well-shot film, but what makes it extraordinary is the acting. I was impressed on my first viewing, but when I watched it after having learned that virtually every scene is improvised, I was amazed. It was thoroughly enjoyable to see the comedians work off each other, build jokes out of nothing, and completely immerse themselves in their characters.

I imagine the golden days of Second City were like this.

Sentiment: positive
and I still don't know where the hell this movie is going? I mean really, what is this movie about? Is it about demonstrating Sean Connery's complete lack of Arabic? Is it about showing that if he could play the role of a Moroccan warlord then he was a natural to play the role of Ramirez in highlander? Why was Teddy Roosevelt even in this movie? Why was there so much sand that was put to so little use? Where was there so much table slapping? Why did Teddy ignore the Japanese guy who he was shooting archery with? Did he realize the man was Japanese? Why was no no credible excuse given for Connery's accent? At least Jean Claude Van Damme has an excuse for his French accent, whether it be being raised by French nuns in Hong Kong (Double Impact), being raised on the bayou in Louisiana (Universal Soldier), or having a French mother and being raised in Indochina (I cannot even remember the name of that movie)? Can anyone explain this?

Sentiment: negative