DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Why is impossible to write in french ? Very Kitch! This journey in the center of the earth is despicable technical possibilities nevertheless current in 1976. These big "Casimir" of monsters is completely ridiculous! The film deserve however a "remake", as was "KING KONG" (the last one), with a little more supplied scenario. The professor has resemblances with the Professor Calculus and is rather funny. David (the character) is enough inconsistent but cross(spend) to the people from below a good message " you unite and will overcome you! " Altogether we would say a film made in the 40s. Now that I said everything (or almost) the evil of which i thought of it, we can say that if we have the brain get tired or anything has to see of the other one, then the thing(matter) is even rather entertaining. Hugh! Such is my opinion! (translating French to English with "Reverso" : sorry for possible mistakes !)

Sentiment: negative
Whattt was with the sound? It sounded like it was all dubbed.

Otherwise, bad. Plot = bad. Accents = bad (even Dougray, and we live in Scotland), Acting = bad, Harp = bad, Sex scenes - bad/cringeworthy.

Still, we watched it until the end in disbelief. How could such a good roll call of actors perform so badly? Will they ever get a decent job again? 

Bad, Bad, Bad. By the way, we gave it 3 because we at least were enticed to watch it to the end due to its bizarre plot, etc.

And to the older reviewer - I totally agree, it was like a romantic farce from the 1940s. How did it get made in 2004?

OK, OK, there were some OK bits. They had a nice house in Bristol. Dougray had a nice boat. Jennifer looked nice in a little outfit. But how come the sister got all the men?

Sentiment: negative
I don't understand what the big hype was about this film. All the horror sites were saying that this movie had all the essentials of an 'old American slasher' flick that it would satisfy your needs. -- Even though this was similar to an old American slasher flick, my needs were still not satisfied.

My big problem with this movie is that we are now in the 2000's, not the 1980's. 1980's horror is the past and should stay in the past. Horror movies have changed so much that older movies now look cheesy and unrealistic. Even though they are fun to watch, they don't offer the same realistic blood thirsty gore that the recent films offer.

Hatchet is cheesy, unrealistic, and down-right awful. If we wanted to watch an old American slasher flick, i can just go back to the Friday the 13th series, Nightmare on Elm street series, or the Halloween series. I must admit, the movie is better than some of the horror movies being released but it is among the worst. The jokes are not funny and the actors are horrible.

I would personally stay away from this movie and never look back.

Sentiment: negative
i read the book "7 years in Tibet" from Heinrich Harrer and was fascinated of it. then i immediately grabbed the DVD and started to watch the movie. i remember the first time i saw it back in 98, i kinda liked it. well, now i watched it again in full knowledge of the book it is based on. and soon i realized how WRONG it all was told:

when they enter Lhasa the people start to stick their tongues out of their mouths and Thewlis and Pitt have the impression that its the way to say hello in Tibet, so they greet back... in the book Harrer explains, that sticking the tongue out is a sign of absolute humbleness and loyalty in Tibet and they may do it in front of the Dalai Lama but certainly not for these two europeans! not only the mother but even the Dalai Lama himself was wearing glasses in the public. in the book Harrer mentions, that no one in Tibet wore glasses to that time(sorry forgot the reason, but its explained in the book too).the young Dalai Lama did, but only when he was alone and nobody could see him! and what about that Mao tse tung lookalike, destroying the mandala in front of the young "living buddha"?? childish... and the tailor made Harrer and Aufschnaiter tibetan clothes not European designer suits! why are so many events that really happened eliminated from the story, just to fill the time with a fictional love interest (the female tailor...)that is completely unimportant? just like the whole story about harrers son, rolf. not one word is mentioned about him or even any family member of harrer in the book. but that was OK for me because "7 years in Tibet" is not a book about harrers person. its about tibet. I'm very disappointed by this "adaption" of the famous book. and i bet heinrich harrer was, too... 3 stars, just for the cinematography.

Sentiment: negative
I don't have a really solid thesis here, so I'm just going to toss out some observations.

First of all, the film is absolutely gorgeous. It's shot in high contrast black and white, and some of the scenes are so well composed that they're almost distracting.

There's a sequence early on of some intense protests, and some of the shots were amazing -- three guys launching tear gas at the protesters, etc.

Second of all, I think that one of the biggest signs that this is a recent film looking back on the 60's is that it's really about how the idealism of the revolution morphed and shifted into something different. The take on this shift is really interesting -- I think that both the political phase of things as well as the artistic and more self-indulgent phase have strong points and weak points. The film doesn't necessarily take the position that things decayed.

Third, I think the romance works very well.

Finally, I really, really, really hated the ending. It was way too melodramatic. You could even say that the ending is unworthy of the film that preceded it.

Sentiment: positive
I didn't know what to expect from 'Ned Kelly', but absolutely loved it. It was dark, dramatic and gripping. It also felt very authentic, I felt that I had been transported back to the 1800's. I've never been much of a Heath Ledger fan, having only seen him in teen type movies, however he is quite compelling in this role. Ledger plays Ned Kelly with dignity and intensity, showing us how an highly spirited boy became Australia's most notorious killer. Naomi Watts is great in a supporting role as Kelly's society lover. Highly recommended - and that's from an Aussie!

Sentiment: positive
As has been stated countless times, "The Hills Have Eyes 2" is NOT a remake of the (generally disregarded) mid-'80s sequel to Wes Craven's 1977 original. But wishing to give this postmodern sequel-to-a-remake the official stamp of Diminishing Returns, Craven himself (a double threat alongside his son, Jonathan) has decided to pen a film that is of the same quality--in plain English, HORRIBLE. Former music-video director Martin Weisz takes the reins from Alexandre Aja, and is clearly in way over his head--yet one wonders how anyone could have created a watchable film from the Cravens' Screen writing 101 scrawl. Not only are the characters (in this case, a gang of goofball National Guards(wo)men sent to investigate the turbulent hills of the original remake) completely obnoxious and prone to really annoying genre pitfalls (played without a lick of irony, mind you), but they are constantly cracking jokes that aren't funny. After viewing their total ineptitude during a training exercise, their fate against the repulsive, roaming cannibals is painfully obvious. Only this time out--as in the original '80s sequel--the script is so simplistic (barely existent, actually) that any potential subtext is jettisoned in favor of upping the ante in repulsive shocks (we're treated to a combo childbirth-murder during the opening credits, plus a gratuitous rape for those who haven't ejected the DVD by the midpoint!). Even the mutants in this outing are personality-free freaks of no memorable stature--the tacky, rubbery-looking makeup FX seems, like the rest of the film, to be trying to hide its face from embarrassment. I really groaned at the lame 'surprise' at the end of Aja's otherwise excellent film, and the producers quite literally go for broke at the end of "Hills 2," setting the stage--VERY lamely setting the stage--for a third installment...yet the Cravens and Weisz have created a film that is such a cynical bastardization of what made the 1977/2006 versions work that they'd be hard-pressed to find an audience after this insulting slap in the face.

Sentiment: negative
We've all see the countless previews and trailers. If you enjoyed Knoxville getting flipped by the Bull you'll take great carnal pleasure in the opening "act". I must caution the masses however, I considered taking my (under-18) son with me but am relieved I did not. This compilation of obnoxious skits contains a few that albeit as hilarious as they may seem to the adult community, a few are not for the immature. These guys must get paid a great ransom to tolerate some of the devious stunts, sometimes played at their expense. In particular, Bam Margera and Ehren McGhehey are slighted by the group in a few particular stunts. Enjoy

Sentiment: positive
Or at least one of the best. I think this is a very fun and very cool game for the N64. Bowser is up to his usual shenanigans (yeah it's a dumb word but the only one I can think of) and Mario must stop him again. This game is very fun to play, and contains lots of nostalgia to me. The only bad thing about it is the graphics, which are awful to today's standards, but everything else is pretty good (especially the little mini-games you can unlock) It's the second best N64 game (the first best is Conker's Bad Fur Day) that I recommend to any Mario fan, or any fan of platform games. It beats out mediocre Super Mario Sunshine any day.

9/10 or: A

Sentiment: positive
I always enjoy this movie when it shows up on TV.

The one scene that always stands out, for me that is, is the one with the Myrna Loy and the painters foreman, where she gives him very explicit instructions on the colours and as soon as she goes away he turns the his guys and says "Did you get that, that's yellow, blue, green and white"

Sentiment: positive
Let me tell you a story.

One day on the streets of Athens a film director bumped into a male prostitute and decided that the world just HAD to know his story because...you know... he's deprived...and he takes his shirt off a lot and...so on.

This film is the result of his revelation. Repulsive, depraved, homophobic, misogynist...but of course filled with pretty guys with their chests showing. If this is your idea of a good film then enjoy, if not avoid it like the plague.

It's put me off ever going to Greece that's for sure.

Sentiment: negative
I think it is very interesting this movie is called a thriller. It is anything but thrilling.

Most of the time you hear piano sounds. Then you hear piano sounds. Then some people talk about facts which do not concern anybody.

Then again piano sounds.

To be honest, this movie was the reason for me to register at IMDb, because I think this movie is one of those which humankind has to be warned of.

Spoiler: By the way, the most action-like part happens when a can of hot chocolate is spilled.

Also very interesting: The "actors". Yes, the quotes are intentional, as you can think, because they do not act. They play piano and do smalltalk, but it's not acting they do.

I think before this movie I never left a cinema and felt angry. Really, this film made me angry. Angry for the time and money I spent on it.

Sentiment: negative
Quite a lot has been said about this film and its landmark importance in forming the language of film. If you are interested in film history, to truly understand the innovations Eisenstein brings to the medium you might try viewing Potemkin along side most any film made before it (those of D.W. Griffith offer a good contrast). It should be allowed that Eisenstein was not the only montage theorist and the principles of montage editing would likely have been discovered by another given time. However, even today, few directors have approached the skill with which Eisenstein created meaning through the combination of images at such an early point in the evolution of the medium.

If you are not interested in that sort of thing, Potemkin is still one of the most beautiful and moving films ever made. You should see it, buy it, and tatoo it to your chest.

Sentiment: positive
As myself and my other half are big fans of trash horror we couldn't resist getting out a movie that contained both of the greats we were thrilled! However for a 2004 movie with a rip off cover of Freddy Vs Jason this is a disgrace! The worst film I have ever seen but worth a look for a laugh if you are able to sit through it!

The acting is awful the effects...well I could do better on my camcorder in fact its so bad they only bothered to put make up on the zombies faces and left out neck, hands etc. No story line, weird flashbacks that make no sense and terrible script!

"you broke my tooth!" from one vampire "you broke my cigar" was the response from the human who looked like uncle Jessie from Dukes crossed with Santa!

Sentiment: negative
In fact, everyone responsible for this dreck ought to be whipped, dragged, and hung! IF this is what great Eugene O'Niell drama is like I never want to be victim to viewing it ever again. There are so many things WRONG w/ this feature where does one begin? First, Elmer Bernstein's bombastic score is present thru out the entire film even in the quiet scenes where background music subtracts from the character's motivations. Second, these characters are NOT pleasant people and while some reviewers might enjoy that I personally disliked every scene in which Ives ate up the scenery, but that was the way his characters was written: to be disliked. W/ Loren it just never is made clear whether she's good or bad  and all her babbling about how she's going to change things back to the way they were before the baby arrives  well, I saw what was coming clearly. Perkins is miscast and then he plays the role like a warm-up for Norman Bates (which he played two years later) even wanting to take blame for the murder at the end. Hokey! Third, this film is a studio sound-stage production and it suffers because of it. The story would have benefited from location shooting to develop a sense of "place" regarding the farm (which all the main leads are fighting over). As it is filmed there's no sense of value to the property because the film has a studio sound-stage feel to it that isn't convincing. This is a really awful film.

Sentiment: negative
When I first saw the preview for this movie, I really couldn't wait to see it. The plot seemed good and the setting was great. I mean, a slasher movie that takes place on prom night, great idea!! And the plot: A High School teacher that becomes sexually obsessed with one of his students, goes crazy, gets arrested, and escapes three years later on prom night! Prom night, a night that is supposed to be happy and memorable, turns into hell!! However, I saw it and was extremely disappointed. It was not only the worst "horror movie" I have ever seen, but it was one of the worst movie in general that I have ever seen!! First of all, it wasn't even scary. There was not one moment in that movie when I jumped out of my seat. Also, the murder scenes were so cheesy and dull. All the slasher did was either stab his victims in the stomach multiple times or cut their throats. Also there was absolutely no gore (its rated PG-13). The scene with the most blood was probably the one where the killer murders the black girl. He slits her throat and blood splatters on the sheets hanging around them (they don't actually show him cutting her throat).

Next, you see the killers face the first time he is introduced in the movie. He isn't mysterious, creepy, or scary. He's just this guy who kills people.

Also, everything in the movie was so cliché. An example is when, at the end, the killer is about to kill the main character and at the last moment, the detective shoots and kills him. Also, every single thing in this movie was so predictable. The victim, after seeing the guy with a knife, runs for her life, hides, thinks she gets away, and then the killer just pops out and kills her.

Finally, the sequence of the movie was extremely bad. The guy goes into the hotel, kills a few people, the bodies are discovered, someone pulls the fire alarm, and everyone evacuates. The main character forgets something in her room, has an encounter with the killer, runs and escapes. Thats it! She and her boyfriend go home, the slasher kills the guards patrolling the house, finds the girl, then gets killed by the detective. The movie sequence was so stupid and cliché.

If your thinking of seeing this movie all because the preview looked good, trust me, don't waste your time or money. No wonder this movie was being shown in the smallest theater in the movie theater. My friend and I, along with these two girls sitting in the back, were the only ones in the theater. That should have told me something about the movie beforehand.

Sentiment: negative
I know that to include everything in the book, the film would have to have been several hours long, so I think they did their best to include things that were crucial and pivotal to the story. I thought the casting was great, the children who played Amir and Hassan were very good actors. And the guy who played Amir as an adult was great! The scenes between him and Baba were especially touching. I thought the locations they used were interesting... scenes set in Afghanistan were shot in China, and one scene that took place in Fremont, CA (the graduation scene) was actually shot on Treasure Island in San Francisco. I worked one day as an extra on "Kite Runner" and it was that day, the day they shot the graduation scene. We reported to Treasure Island in the morning, they checked everyone's wardrobe to make sure it looked like the late 80s, an then we took our places in the audience. They shot the scene over and over again until they were happy with it. It was cool to see the actors up close and also to see the book's author, who was on hand as a story consultant. I thought this book was excellent and I recommend both the book and the movie to anyone. This is a moving story about friendship, love, guilt and eventual redemption. "There is a way to be good again."

Sentiment: positive
I must say this movie is a Mork and Mindy knock off, when watching it i got the chills, I even wet myself a little. When that Korean guy with the spiders in his neck started kicking people i was like oh my lord Asian people smell and suck cause they eat dogs all the time. Any way back on track Chuck had a somewhat terrible performance and lacked the intelligence of a regular non robotic human being. Some people would compare it to his earlier days when he was a car wash analyzer and believed in the holy ghost and the ghost of Christmas past. This movie is so bad I put my new born child in a box and left it in Mr. Norris mailbox. He can raise my kid I'm not letting him into a world where he thinks chuck Norris is a karate expert Ill let him see what that hack is like in real life for the rest of his life.

Sentiment: negative
Why Panic never got a good theatrical release is easily seen: it's much too smart, and audiences would have probably had a difficult time with it, comparing it to American Beauty in its probing of a midlife crisis, and Sopranos and Analyze This in it's study of illegal goings-on amidst family life. Though Panic may seem to derive from unoriginal material, Brommel's lifelike characters coupled with deft dialogue and observant direction make the film a realistic look at the undoing of a middle aged man.

William H. Macy stars as Alex, a hitman who works for his father's (Sutherland) contract-killing business. He leads a double life, with his wife (Ullman) and son unaware of his real trade. In his middle-age, he becomes increasingly disgusted with what he has done all his life. Under his calm, collected facade stirs repressed resentment for his father's controlling grasp on his life. When he meets a young woman(Campbell) he feels invigored and decides it's time to quit the family business.

The fact that writer/director Henry Brommel decided to make the profession his main character was trying to break away from contract-killing is disposable. He could have easily substituted it with any undesirable profession; his characters are so well-developed and believable, scenes handled so smoothly and realisticly and dialogue written so insightfully and naturally that the focus falls on Macy's conflicted character rather than his job as a hitman. Brommel's script feels like a Shakespearean tragedy, with a definite theme of destiny running throughout.

In Alex, Macy creates a tragic, easily sympathetic character, and turns in yet another brooding, great performance, as can always be expected. Donald Sutherland is also effectively abrasive and abusive as his overbearing father, and Ullman's dramatic turn as Macy's wife is a welcome change for the comedian. Consider a scene in a bicycle shop, where her mood subtly darkens and peaks in an affecting scene of emotional confusion.

Henry Brommel's first feature, Panic is a film that is well-crafted in its sincerity. With a first-rate cast, a plausible script, terse dialogue, and nice direction, this character-study is hopefully just a taste of Brommel's aptness for creating characters that seem real. 

8 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
Corridors of time. The movie you can watch if you're looking for a sophisticated way of suicide. Some use guns, ropes, or gas, but you want to ruin your brains ? Do not wait any longer ! Corridors of time is probably one of the biggest possible mistakes : thinking Christian Clavier is able to act and to bring you fun. I do not miss the 45 francs this poor thing cost me : sometimes, one has to reset its evaluation system looking at the absolute zero. This film deserves a 2/10, but that's only because I like Jean Reno. Too bad for him, he also stars in Ronin. I think I'm gonna dislike him...

Sentiment: negative
I'd love to give Kolchak a higher rating but the show quickly went from scary/suspenseful to silly. ABC's fault. They moved the show to Friday nights at 8:00 p.m., then known as the "family hour". Never should have been on Fridays in the first place. I was a sophomore in high school and loved the early episodes! It was first up against Police Woman on NBC. ABC had huge problems with Friday nights. Bad season for them overall until Barney Miller, Baretta, and SWAT debuted in January of '75. Kolchak should have been a hit. Darren McGavin begged to get out of his contract to end the show. Too bad the writing wasn't up to Richard Matheson's in the original TV movies. Still, McGavin made Kolchak his own, as actors can do. Jackie Gleason as Ralph Kramden and Caroll O'Connor as Archie Bunker come to mind. That INS set with the manual typewriters and clacking teletypes seems quaint and ancient today, yet that was part of the appeal. They were very lucky to have Simon Oakland reprise "Vincenzo" from the TV films.

Sentiment: positive
This flick is so bad its beyond belief.Even for an independent low budget film...it just, well, sucks.I can't even believe even Troma would put out such crap.I have been a fan of some Troma flicks for years(Toxic Avenger,Squeeze Play,Rockabilly Vampire to name a few).But LLoyd, come on,this goes way beyond the boundaries of any taste.It features some of the worst acting imaginable.I think it would have been possible to find unemployed street people who could have been as good...oh,wait, that is what they did.I mean it,these characters have negative charisma.With any luck, the producer and director of this film will have a huge karmic debt because of this atrocity.As will the special effects people.But beyond the terrible acting and the horrid special effects,the dialogue is absolutely traumatic to the ears.The script is full of plot holes the size of Alaska, and there are severe continuity problems.The worst part however, is that it not entertaining in even the smallest way.And this is the most unforgivable sin in film making.But, don't take my word for it.Go out and waste four bucks renting it.Just don't say I didn't warn you.

Sentiment: negative
Women will like this movie better than men. Of course, women like all romantic comedies more than men - on average. I generally like romantic comedies quite a bit, however I considered this a 5.5 for the first 50% of the movie and about a 6.5 for the next 40% and about a 9 for the last 10%. So, begrudgingly, I will rate it a 7. I tape and keep all movies rated a 7 or better and none that are a 6 or worse - at least that's my objective. I have over 1200 movies, so why keep the dogs.

My wife liked this movie quite a bit more than me, though I'm not sure why. I am a bigger Drew Barrymore fan than she is.

The whole point of this movie was about a young woman who goes back to high school (undercover) to write a story about the high school experience nowadays. She was a dork in high school the first time around and has to learn how to be cool the second time around. Her journey toward cooldom, as well as her falling in love with a teacher, is the story.

What drove me nuts for the first half the movie was just how mangy she looked. I wondered why they would pick her for this role until I realized how capable she is at looking like a dog. So much so that I truly don't think I want to see her in 15 years when she gets up in the morning. ARGH! Naturally, she transformed into a rather attractive (cute) woman by the end and she became very popular.

The ending is about a 9.9 on the very sweet scale, so you sappers out there will like that. Otherwise, it isn't very memorable and easily missable.

Sentiment: positive
I watched the pilot and noticed more than a few similarities between 3 lbs and House, M.D.. Tucci's character is brilliant but socially inept out of choice, similar to Laurie's character House, but without the acerbic wit that Laurie brings to House. Meanwhile, Tucci's 'straight guy', the emphatic doctor Seger, is not developed into a more interesting character, like the fallible 'straight guys' Cuddy and Wilson. Indira Varma's character Adrienne Holland is too similar to Jennifer Morrison's doctor Cameron to be a co-incidence.

Someone at CBS obviously noticed the success of House, M.D. and told his staff to get him (her) a similar show, hoping that mimicry would prove successful. However, copying a show like House demands the same high level balance of wit and suspense and Tucci and company are just not up to the challenge.

I didn't know the show was canceled until I read the comments on IMDb, but it doesn't come as a surprise to me.

Sentiment: negative
I've seen 'NSNA' just after I've seen all Roger Moore-films and I must say that it felt so good to see Connery again. He proves for all times that he is the one and only Bond.

The film itself isn't really a masterpiece but it is really worth watching. The jokes sit much better here, the effects are funny and interesting, Connery is Connery and Brandauer is really a good villain. But von Sydow is just wasted and the score is not often good and there are a few scenes that seem pretty unnecessary.

7/10 \ 2.5/4 \ 3+ (1+ - 6-)

Sentiment: positive
It doesn't take balls to make-fun of retarded people. Having to listen to Mencia insist that he is brave to make "retard" jokes is intolerable. Also, it doesn't take balls to bite off of the chapelle show. The racial game-shows, the racial olympics, it seems like a lot of the skits are merely reworked Chapelle Show skits, that are just way less funny. 

But the most irksome thing in the show is his insistence that he is just marching to the beat of his own drum, when he is actually marching to the beat of many over-worked, over-done drums that have been drummed many times.

I hate this show. I hate that it presents itself as a voice for Latin America.

And no Carlos, I am not trying to censore you. If people like it, then keep it on. But I personally think that it's a bad show.

Sentiment: negative
I don't hand out "ones" often, but if there was ever a film that deserved this sort of attention, it's "Gas!" This is self-indulgent crap that reaches for some of the ambiance of M*A*S*H and falls completely flat on its face in the attempt.

I see what Corman was going for - Malcolm Marmorstein and Elliott Gould tried to reproduce Gould's deathless role in the original movie version of M*A*S*H with a similar plot (in the movie "Whiffs" - look it up here in IMDb, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073891/ for more information).

Marmorstein and Gould got closer to the brass ring with "Whiffs" than Corman did with "Gas!" but didn't quite get there. Neither one of those films even got close to the success of M*A*S*H.

What's wrong with "Gas!"? What isn't? No one comes close to really acting at a level above junior high school theatrics. The production values stink. Someone else here mentioned the magically regenerating headlights on a getaway car, and there's more of that lack of attention to detail. Nothing works the way it's supposed to in this film, and nobody cares.

"Gas!" actually put me to sleep. It's not a sure cure for insomnia, but really close. On the Cinematic Sleep Induction scale, "Gas!" falls somewhere between "Last Year at Marienbad" and George Clooney's remake of "Solaris" (which itself was remarkable for being more boring than the Mosfilm original, despite that studio's seeming unfamiliarity with the idea of keeping the audience's attention by judicious editing).

Judicious editing would have decimated "Gas!" to about twenty minutes. The result would be pointless, but no more so than the original film.

Certain films are so bad that they have a compelling quality that makes them worth watching anyway. This isn't one of them. Don't waste your time. It's not even amusingly bad.

Sentiment: negative
I am writing this with 10 minutes left before the film finishes. I feel comfortable writing it now, because unfortunately I know exactly how this film is going to end.

The premise is simple enough, rabid dog on the loose in a small town, kills people. Great - simple plot for a good fun camp 80s horror.

Uhh ..no.

The main problem is this is based on a book (Stephen King) and you can tell that is should not have really been adapted to film, at least not with the same plot. Why? Cuz its boring! The first 45 minutes tries to build depth to its main characters and create suspense. It however lasts too long (half the film!) - the characters are unlikeable and we never care for them anyway, and it just about creates zero suspense. The easiest film (according to plot and time) to compare this to it the classic Jaws. Everything that Jaws does right, Cujo does wrong. Jaws created good characters and a genuine feeling of dread. Cujo does neither. Jaws effectively creates a scary, creepy villain in its shark. Cujo has a dirty St Bernard running about growling and jumping, and not a lot else. Jaws is exciting and unpredictable. Cujo is a tireless bore that remains predictable right to the end.

Also confusing is the plethora of subplots that just act as boring red herrings to the films main plot.

If this film was rewritten for the big screen and had a better director this could have been good. But it wasn't. It was a waste of 90 minutes of my life.

People on here are saying this is one of the best King adaptations - Im sorry you could not be more wrong. The Mist is a hundred times better, Thinner is 10 times better and even the one with the cats is twice as good! This in my opinion is one of the worst! The only good thing was the action scenes with the dog looked real, even though they were dull.

Films ended now, and it didn't get any better. Avoid.

Sentiment: negative
Yet another Lo Wei production to completely waste the talents of a young Jackie Chan, To Kill With Intrigue is a strange mix of wuxia, melodrama, supernatural action, and plain old-school kung fu fighting that is pretty dull despite featuring several surreal WTF moments and lots of laughably bad dialogue.

In an effort to protect his pregnant girlfriend Chin Chin from the Killer Bees, a gang of ruthless killers that are about to attack his home, Cao Lei (Jackie Chan) pretends to be a heartless cad, driving her away, and thus saving her from danger.

During the attack, Cao's relatives are all killed, but he is left relatively unharmed by the gang, whose leader, a scar-faced woman, seems to have the hots for him. Cao then goes in search of Chin Chin, whose safety he has entrusted to his close friend Chu Chuk.

During his quest to find his true love, Cao befriends the head of a courier company whose precious cargo has been stolen by the leader of the evil 'Bloody Rain' clan. Eventually, after being injured in a fight against members of the nasty clan (a fun scene with lots of silly weaponry), and then nursed back to health by the scar-faced Killer Bee (who shows her love by burning his face!), Cao ultimately learns that he is a lousy judge of character: his friend, Chu Chuk, is none other than the power hungry head honcho of the 'Bloody Rain' clan, who has plans to marry Chin Chin himself.

Cue the drawn out climactic battle, with Cao getting kicked in the face repeatedly before eventually choking his traitorous ex-pal to death with a scarf.

Even die hard Chan fans will find this one a chore to sit through, with only the final fight managing to showcase some of the star's amazing acrobatic abilities. Fans of general Asian weirdness might dig the spooky appearance of the Killer Bees at the beginning of the film (with one character inexplicably demanding back his severed hand!), or the moment when three men float through a window to attack our hero, but, for most, this film will have very limited appeal.

Sentiment: negative
In all the episodes, I never saw any real action or drama or comedy.

The plot is so repetitive.

****Somebody gets something old and then somebody else tells them a little bit about it and how much it's worth and who made it and where it comes from and how much it could sell for and if there was any work done to it.

Sowhile I watched about 30 of these, i realized...there is no drama....nobody ever loses a limb or life or gets divorced or hit by a car or air-plane.

There are no car chases or explosions- not even a horse race with old carriages.

All those guns and swords and nobody goes on a violent killing spree...what gives? No pshycos, no axe-murders, no-gun-totting old Englishmen in bad suits...just yap yap yap...you have an old tea set and it came from the country of Germany back in 1602 - blah blah blah...

I'm still waiting for somebody with a time machine to go on screen and ask about it, but no...it never comes to be and the only thing that happens is that some stuffy Englishman or woman serves up some crap about something old being sold in Boston or China during the Ming Dynasty - big EFFIN deal.

Can't anybody ever kidnap one of the leads and hold them for ransom? Is there no alien spacecraft that will obliterate the entire floor? Who the hell writes this stuff as a series and expects us to stay awake? This is about as entertaining as watching paint dry - only with commentary.

There's no sex, there's no comedy or romance, no action, no suspense, no action, no drama, no mystery or martial arts.

This show sucks! What ever happened to supermodels wearing thongs and spewing lasers from a futuristic weapon? Antiques Roadshow - More like grab a blanket and pillow and go to sleep show...

Sentiment: negative
This is probably my favourite TV show ever. I love all the characters, especially Alex, who is the PERFECT woman! Always makes me laugh and feel good when I watch this show. There is just something about it that is amazing, hard to describe.

It seems some or all of the episodes synchronise with music albums as well. Here are a few examples. (The episodes start again when they end - but DON'T play end credits until the very end, but always play the opening credits. With most the episodes the album plays once and the episodes play twice, but some go on further.)

RADIOHEAD, PINK FLOYD, BOB Dylan.

2.02 'Double bogey' Kid A / OK Computer (episode plays at least 4 times)

2.14 'Saturn' Kid A / Meddle / Shot Of Love

2.19 'World without Alex' Kid A / Wish You Were Here / Pablo Honey(episode plays at least 4 times)

There are clues in the episodes which tell you which albums synchronise. Kid A may synchronise with EVERY episode!

Sentiment: positive
I've been reading posts here concerning Wonder Woman's costume for this TV movie. It should be pointed out at the time the movie was made, she wasn't wearing her traditional outfit. The producers were actually sticking to the comic book writer's conception of WW for the early seventies.

As for the movie itself, I have to agree with many of the other posters here. Snoozefest! I was a kid when it appeared on ABC in 1974, so I was at the right age to have appreciated a movie about a comic book hero. Yet I was so "engrossed" with the plot, I stopped watching it three quarters into the movie.

Of course, I wasn't at the right age to appreciate Cathy Lee! :-)

Sentiment: negative
The plot is simple: an American couple is in vacation in Thailand. Somehow they are attacked by the 'almighty' Chinese vampires, and the girl is kidnapped by the big boss of the vampires. This is OK till now. The girl's partner is left to search for her. And now the horror begins. He comes upon a strange group of semi-vampires or something (they only drank animal blood). These vampires are in conflict with the bad guy for about...800 years. However, with the help of the 'good vampires', the guy begins to search his girlfriend.

Now the fight scenes begin, what a karate movie without fight? Another thing i have noticed is that the vampires are very ugly guys. I mean....a vampire is an old-fashion guy(he is alive since...for ever), he's got style. There are also modern vampires, but in this movie, the vampires are....weird. Like, come on, they ride a bike, they are all dressed in leather and they destroy everything in their way.

The worst thing is that you can clearly see that this movie it is an low budget one. The script is boring and the actors aren't too talented. The music is pretty good, but the effects are not that great.

To sum up the movie it is not that great, but if you have a free afternoon, watch it and tell me if i'm right or not.

Sentiment: negative
I was at Wrestlemania VI in Toronto as a 10 year old, and the event I saw then was pretty different from what I saw on the Wrestlemania Collection DVD I just watched. I don't understand how the wwE doesn't have the rights to some of the old music, since most of those songs were created by the WWF they shouldn't have to worry about the licensing and royalty fees that prevent shows like SNL from releasing season sets. Its pretty stupid to whine about, but for me hearing Demolition come out to their theme music at a Wrestlemania in person was a memory that I never forgot, and it didn't exist on this DVD. What is the point of them even owning the rights to this huge library of video if they have to edit it so drastically to use it?

Sentiment: negative
I can remember seeing this movie when I was very young and several times on TV since then. I have always liked it. I have noticed on the print shown on local TV that one scene has reversed film. It is the one where they are hiding behind the rock outcrop(it looks like Vasquez Rocks near Los Angeles) watching the Indians ride by. If you look carefully, you will notice that suddenly all the soldiers are left-handed! It is only a short segment and I have to admit that it took me years to notice it.

As far as history goes, there were often expeditions to rescue white captives from the Indians. The direct connection for the final battle scene is the Battle of Beecher's Island. In that action, a group of volunteer scouts equipped with repeating carbines (Spencer carbines not Winchesters) were surprised by the Indians and retreated to an island and held off several charges. In the last charge, they killed Roman Nose, one of the more famous Indian Chiefs. I have no idea if the writer of the script had this in mind but it does fit fairly well.

There are several Guy Madison movies that I hope come out on DVD someday and this is one of them.

Sentiment: positive
It's a shame that Deliverance is mainly known as the redneck rape movie and for Dueling Banjos. Even people that have seen the film can't get their mind off of that rape scene. It's not as bad as the rape scene in Pulp Fiction. It's certainly not as bad as any female rape scene in just about any movie. People tend to miss the power of the film that contains the infamous buggery scene.

The acting, plot, cinematography, and soundtrack of Deliverance all lend a hand to it's brooding charisma. The backcountry it was shot in is beautiful and is quite in contrast to the dark subject matter. The actors both major and minor make you feel like you are rafting down that river right along with them. 

The thing that separates this film from others is the tangible sense of dread that it inspires. Not many films can make you feel this creeped out. Bottom Line: This movie is a classic. I can't really say much more than that.

Sentiment: positive
Alicia Silverstone (pre-"Clueless") plays a modern-day crime-obsessed teenager attempting to solve the brutal slaying of a local girl. Pat Verducci wrote and directed this B-flick, which isn't especially well-made but is however surprisingly serious-minded in regards to its leading character. Silverstone is appealing and successful in carving out an interesting young woman here, despite the picture's kitschy undermining. The supporting cast (including Kevin Dillon and Michael Bowen) isn't bad, though the violence in the last act goes overboard. Not a cheesy camp-fest, but nothing exceptionally memorable either. *1/2 from ****

Sentiment: negative
The directing is brilliant, the casting is remarkable (though I would've loved to have seen a little more of Aaron Lustig (from Y & R fame), who played Paul Shaffer). I only have two minor quips about the film, as subtle as they are. One- Roebuck's Leno is excellent, but his stage presence (i.e. during what appears the taping of one of his late show episodes) is a tad underwhelming. Two- the distribution of the foul language. I am willing to tolerate foul language, so long as it is not used gratuitously, and to a degree, the film was gratuitous. The language seemed to be used as a tool to reduce the pathos of Bates' otherwise well-portrayed Kushnick by her frequent use of it, and served to make Roebuck's Leno a goody-goody by his lack of use of it (of course, if the characters really did behave this way, kudos to everybody). Nonetheless, the piece is an excellent one, as far as television and video are concerned. The film, I feel, had potential for the big screen, but would've required re-casting for the bit parts, and probably a different director, as well (the aesthetic feel is that of the Larry Sanders show, good for HBO, mediocre for cinematic purposes).

Sentiment: positive
This film was a surprise. The plot synopsis sounds kinky, and stars Clint Eastwood and the great Geraldine Page. I didn't know what to expect. There is that opening scene where the wounded soldier says that age 12 is old enough to kiss and proceeds to give a child a lingering, and very adult, mouth to mouth kiss. The child takes him to the girls boarding school where she lives. He takes advantage of the situation by attempting to seduce the headmistress, played by Page, her assistant and another student. Jealousy, sexual tension, incest, intrigue, and the macabre all meld in this wonderfully original story.

I've read the other comments here and find little to disagree with. However, I wanted to clarify a point made earlier that there are no sympathetic characters in the film. I find that there is one. The attractive female slave successfully resists the soldier's advances in a scene that works well because it touches upon the common history of black women slaves taken advantage of by white men. Even though her strength and lack of illusion are the sum total of her experience, she is what I would consider a sympathetic character. She, more than any of the other women and girls at the school, has a legitimate reason for participating in what happens in the end.

Sentiment: positive
The college teacher Larry Donner (Billy Cristal) is a blocked writer since his former wife Margareth (Kate Mulgrew) ruined him, stealing his novel that became a best-seller. He does not hide his hatred for Margareth, upsetting his girlfriend Beth Ryan (Kim Greist), who is an anthropologist teacher in the same college. While giving classes of Creative Writing, he is stalked by the student Owen (Danny DeVito) that wants to know his opinion about his crime tale. Larry tells that he did not like it, and explains that in every mystery tale, the murderer should eliminate the motive and establish an alibi, otherwise he would get caught. Further, Larry suggests Owen to watch Hitchcock's movies to understand the structure of a suspenseful story. Owen, who wants to kill his detestable mother (Anne Ramsey), watches "Strangers on a Train" and misunderstands Larry's advice, believing that his teacher wants to swap murders to eliminate the motive. Owen travels to Hawaii and while in a ship, Margareth falls overboard vanishing in the sea and is considered dead. However, Larry does not have an alibi and becomes the prime suspect, while the deranged Owen presses him to kill his mother as part of their supposed deal.

"Throw Momma from the Train" is one of the funniest comedies of the 80's and a great tribute to Alfred Hitchcock. The direct reference is "Strangers on a Train", but there are jokes with "Vertigo" (with the spinning camera), "Family Plot" (with the car without breaks) and other movies. The lines are excellent and there is an interesting point when Larry tells that every great romance or mystery has a train. Anne Ramsey is amazing in the role of a nasty and abusive dominating mother and the viewer will certainly feel sorrow and understand the insanity of Owen. Kim Greist is very beautiful and Kate Mulgrew is the perfect bitch. Billy Cristal performs an obsessed character with many silly and unreasonable attitudes but necessary to the plot. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Jogue a Mamãe do Trem" ("Throw Momma from the Train")

Sentiment: positive
Just reading why this show got canceled makes me rather steamed. This was a favorite of mine as a kid and I always watched it when it came on no matter how many times I saw the episode. Sure the effects were not great, but they were also not horrible either. They did a fairly good job with the costume and it had the nice 70's vibe to it that is always enjoyable to see and hear as the music was also very 70's. It did not really have any villains from the comics, but then most comic book live show adaptations had none to very few actual super villains from the comics. Spidey's powers were a bit different here too, he had his Spidey sense and he could climb walls, but he was not nearly as strong as the Spider-man of the comics. He was super strong though as I do remember an episode where he broke into a room by breaking the door knob off, he just was not the car hurler that the one from the comic book can be. The show was set in Los Angelos so there were not as man buildings to swing from, but they did okay with the web. It is nice that this show actually has the web shooters and not organic shooters of the movie. I love the movies, but part of me wishes they would start over and do the more smarty pants Spidey that has the mechanical web shooters. This show had a good star as Peter Parker and he was okay as Spider-man, it is nice to see a Spidey who does not basically live in the slums like he does in the movies. Neither this show nor the movie though has a Spider-man that is quick with the insult like the one in the comic. Still, this show was fun without being as corny as the Batman show.

Sentiment: positive
No that its sick. It's not sick. It made me want to puke because I spent 2 dollars on it. Its boring, Retarded, and annoying. I didn't see the MST3K version, which sucks because I bet the MST3K version was funny. It's sad that people waste money on these kinds of movies. I'm surprised its not on the "100 Worst Movies of All Time List".

TromaDude's Rating- 0 outta ***** stars

Sentiment: negative