DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Yes it's a Fast Times wannabe, but it's still decent entertainment.

Some of the comedy parts are really funny. The scene when the three guys visit the Spanish lady is hilarious, with a little flamenco music in the background. The reaction when her sailor husband comes home is a riot. The guys' exploits in dealing with crabs are funny as well when they try to "drown them" and when they visit the pharmacist. 

The abortion scene is a Fast Times ripoff too, but it does do a good job of capturing the terror of the situation. You really feel for what Karen is going through, and for Gary in his mad scramble for cash to pay for the abortion and accommodating her recovery.

The ending is painful to watch, but refreshingly realistic. First-time viewers will not be prepared for it and it will be a shock.

There is a decent eye-candy for guys with young girls and the milf Spanish lady, but heterosexual guys will probably want to skip the penis-measuring competition. 

Underrated soundtrack too. Check out early, early U2(!), The Cars in their prime and an appropriate tearjerker song by James Ingram for the surprise ending.

Some people will hate it and it is somewhat dated, but those who like teen flicks or grew up in the early 80s should like it.

Sentiment: positive
I have to admit that when first saw Madonna performing Holiday on Top of the Pops many years ago I said to my wife "another American one hit wonder getting the whole thing wrong!!" Well she was wearing a fright wig and was appallingly dressed. I have never grown to love her the way my daughter does but I have to eat my words. I do like some of her stuff and sometimes enjoy her filmed concerts. This Confessions tour film is great,even if the music is not(and its not). I was impressed by the staging and concepts. Madonna's own performance was enhanced by the incredible dancers she chose to support her. My daughter was at the London gigs and was crazy about it. The lady (Madge) has proved my initial assessment of her so very wrong!!

Sentiment: positive
I want to start my review by thanking the makers of this documentary, it is obviously a labor of love and I think they did a pretty good job of putting together an enjoyable documentary about a person who has had so such little info available about him. It definitely has a fan worship feel about it, which is a good thing.

I had heard of Bruce Haack but didn't know much about him, and I found the start of this documentary frustrating because I could hear other musicians talk about him, but Bruce Haack himself was kept way too far off in the distance. I wanted to see this Bruce Haack guy!! I felt as though the makers assumed I already knew him as well as these musicians on the screen which I didn't, so I felt a bit left in the dark.

When Bruce was finally shown in action it was great and gave me a taste of who Bruce Haack was, but it was only a taste. We got treated to more musicians and I felt as though I was being told "Look - all these cool musicians are into him, so he must be cool!" I didn't really care much for the musician's commentary on Bruce.

I wanted to see Bruce, as a person. You know, the important stuff - more interviews with people who worked with him or knew him. More about his life, and yes, his use of drugs and other issues. I would of liked to know so much more about his "Hackula" project. I wanted to get inside his mind. Even if they did this via some "voice of god" commentary and photos it would of been OK.

The animations were good, but again I felt these were used as filler, they didn't really do anything other than allow me to hear his music and see some imagery based on the Dimension 5 records. I did think it was clever and creative, but again... I wanted to learn more about Bruce! 

Maybe Bruce Haack was this elusive in real life?

Anyway - in the end I enjoyed this documentary and felt a sort of sadness that such amazing pioneers and geniuses such as Mr. Haack get forgotten as the march of time stamps ever onwards. I am glad that this film is around to educate people about Bruce Haack, even with its flaws.

Sentiment: positive
Seriously, I can easily stomach a lot of on screen blood, gore and repulsiveness, but what really makes this film disturbing & uncomfortable to watch is how the doctor character keeps on rambling about the physical damage done to raped women. He, John Cassavetes of "Rosemary's Baby", talks about ruptured uterus, dry intercourse and massive loads of reddish (?) sperm like they are the most common little ailments in the world of medicine. That being said, "Incubus" is an ultimately STRANGE horror effort. It isn't necessarily awful  although it isn't very good, neither  but just plain weird. The muddled & incoherent script initially revolves on the hunt for a rapist-killer of flesh and blood (even though the title clearly suggests the involvement of a supernatural creature) and it never seems to stop introducing new characters. None of these characters, especially not the main ones, come across as sympathetic and for some never-explained reason they all seem to keep dark secrets. The aforementioned doctor has an odd interpretation of daughter-love and continuously behaves like he's a suspect himself, the town's sheriff (John Ireland) appears to be in a constant state of drunkenness and doesn't even seem to care about who keeps raping & killing the women in his district, the female reporter is even too weird for words and the Galens (an old witch and her grandson) are just plain spooky. All together they desperately try to solve the mystery of whom or what exactly is destroying the towns' women reproducing organs. The sequences building up towards the rapes & murders are admirably atmospheric and the vile acts themselves are bloody and unsettling. Basically these are very positive factors in a horror film, but the narrative structure is too incoherent and the characters are too unsympathetic for "Incubus" to be a really good film. Also, there are quite a few tedious parts to struggle yourself through (like footage of a Bruce Dickinson concert!) and the usually very reliable John Hough's direction is nearly unnoticeable. The final shot is effectively nightmarish, though. For me personally, "Incubus" was a bit of a disappointment, but there are still several enough reasons to recommend this odd piece of early 80's horror to open-minded genre fanatics.

Sentiment: negative
Others have commented on the somewhat strange video arrangements. I think they were trying to capture what you'd be looking at when attending a live performance. The feet, the faces, the overall view. Unfortunately, it falls a bit short. But, having said that, watching Colin Dunne is nevertheless gratifying. It's an interesting contrast to Michael Flatley in the original video. The progression of the show is evident, changes from the original Dublin production are evident.

"Trading Taps" is the highlight of the video, in my opinion. Tarik Winston is unbelievable, as is his partner in the piece.

I think the audio was better in this version than the original video production (1995). In Dolby 5.1 on DVD it's excellent.

Despite the flawed videography, it's a must-own for Riverdance fans.

Sentiment: positive
For a movie that was PG, this is one fun film. I grew up on watching this film over and over. Its really fun, I don't know how today audience would react, but if you grew up on it, or loved the 80s, then this is a great film. Stephen Furst is great as Harold, who, I think, is one of the best characters in the film. Paul Ruebens also pops in for about 10 minutes. I love nostalgia.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is simply awesome. It is so hilarious. Although the skating and other montages are played out, the comedy is awesome. Raab Himself and Brandon Dicamillo are hilarious. There will be moments when you can't breath you're laughing so hard. Plus, there are scenes that you can watch hundreds of times and still laugh. This is one of the funniest comedies I've ever seen.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this at "Dances with Films", and it was awesome. I really felt for Jake. Talk about adding insult to injury! Not only are your parents getting divorced, but there's a monster after you. 

It was both heartfelt and scary -- there were several moments where the audience screamed in genuine fright. It kind of reminded me of a Japanese horror film, except that the story was actually good.

And that's what separated "Jake's Closet" from the usual indy film pabulum -- an excellent script with compelling characters. Also, by mixing elements of the horror film with family drama, the movie gets the best out of both genres, and avoids the clichés of both.

If it's not coming out in theaters, definitely get the DVD.

Sentiment: positive
A remake of the superb 1972 movie of the stage play, nicely casting Caine as the nemesis of his character from the first movie. But doing nothing else nicely at all.

A under-parr performance from the actors, Law and Caine, diluted further by weak self-indulgent direction.

The warmth of the setting in the original is forsaken for a super-modern homesetting. The subtle interplay between Oliver and Caine which made the first movie so watchable, is replaced with a horrid, brash arrogance that instantly breeds disdain in the viewer. But this is not the clever, to-ing and froing of liking one then the other character the original fostered so well, this is an obvious OTT character assassination of both character from the word go.

This version of Sleuth is not really worth seeing, watch the original film and be dazzled from the opening act.

Sentiment: negative
This show is good. I like the acting, funny bits and the cuteness of it. The actors, Lee Pace, Ann Friel... etc, they all did great in the show. The show started off great with its funny, illogical basic idea of bringing dead people back in the first series and honestly, as what people said, the first few episodes of the second series were a bit of a let down but it later came back looking good anyway. And now I really hate the fact that it's going to be cancelled. Why doesn't ABC just let it finish until the very end when all the episodes are already done?? I really wanna know how the story's going to be. I think it should be given a chance as there're still so many viewers who love it.

Sentiment: positive
Strange things happen to Americans Will (Greg Evigan), Maura (Alexandra Paul) and their young daughter Aubrey (Briana Evigan, Greg's real life daughter) when they move into a large, newly inherited house in Ireland. Crusty corpses are found in the cellar, a turkey squirts blood, furniture moves and the ghosts of a dead child and a cackling old lady show up to scare the little girl. Paranormal investigators are eventually called in to banish the evil spirits, but Maura becomes possessed anyway and chases everyone around with a meat cleaver.

This film is full of cliches, but there's a standout performance from Alexandra Paul... too bad it doesn't belong in this movie (nor any other I can think of off hand)! She can barely keep a straight face and her over-emoting and hysterical screaming tantrums are a joy to behold. In any case, she's a lot more interesting to watch than anything else in this movie.

Score: 3 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
I watched this film not expecting much and not knowing anything much about it. I loved it. A very good, tight plot, an intriguing hook in the form of the ugly, fat, deaf girl and the ex-con, and a pace that kept things flowing without being hurried. 

A much, much better film than the same director's De battre mon coeur s'est arreté, which was boring and unbelievable.

The only thing that didn't quite work was that the supposedly ugly, fat girl was neither ugly nor fat: solid, certainly, and far from conventionally beautiful, but with so much character in her face that she took over the screen whenever she was on it. Superb. I wish she was in more films, and better ones than she generally is. I've seen a bit of Gilles' Wife and a bit of The Moustache, and they both looked like rubbish, and I've seen all of De battre mon coeur s'est arreté, and that certainly is rubbish. She seems to have a few coming up, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Sentiment: positive
This was one of Christie's later stories. Throughout her long career, she was interested in the shifting narrative and the notion of conflicting agents. Both are essentially the same thing and boil down to questions of who it is that controls or creates the situation.

In detective fiction, the game is a matter of conflicting realities. The murderer intends to change reality to fool the detective, the writer intends to do the same to the reader. Both the reader and the detective are in similar battles to create what they see. That's why her stories often include a writer.

In her works, she explores every combination of tricks she can think of that deal with this. Along the way, we often have bodies that are not who they seem, and times, and intended victims and such. But the real magic of the books is this notion of control. In 'Bertram's' it was literally a building.

Here, it is a dead man. Well, sometimes that happens, but not like this. It is as if the writer were the famous Mr. Rafiel. This is particularly sweet to Marple readers who remember this same character from the 'Carribean Mystery,' which in a way was also framed by her nephew. In that story, Rafiel was the conveyor of the story to the authorities.

The producers of this series have an almost wacky commitment to using a different creative team on each one. Sometimes it produces bland work. The 'Bertram's' episode was rather brilliantly staged. This one is the most lavish of the lot, and has an active camera. But unlike the 'Bertram's' work, it has nothing to do with the story.

The camera moves and captures merely because it can. The 'Citizen Kane' quote at the beginning was a little too literal and blunt. This story is good, but the adapter took out some pretty critical stuff, and that irrelevant camera annoys.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is a real gem. The arc of the the plot is defined in the first 3 minutes, the characters are sympathetic and clearly drawn, their motives completely believable. The dialogue is fresh, and oh so real. The situations are unique to the characters and not at all cliched or hackneyed. Until the climax, that is. Then it's as if the movie went off the rails a bit and it got a bit hokey and unbelievable. But I don't want to discourage people from watching this film. The first 3/4's of it are truly remarkable. I gave it an 8. There are some remarkable performances here. Check out this movie.

Sentiment: positive
While the romance in this film is an important aspect, it is largely about the role of responsibility and duty in modern Indian. All of the major characters were well fleshed out, and had their own "inner life". I recommend this strongly

Sentiment: positive
Stan Laurel regarded PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP as the first true' L&H film. THE SECOND HUNDRED YEARS was the first 'official' L&H film, but this was the one where Stan completely resigned himself not only to performing (he had signed on with the Hal Roach Studios as a director and 'gag-man', before certain situations - among them Oliver Hardy's accident with a leg of lamb leading to Stan having to replace him; and the extra money that performing would provide for himself and his new wife, Lois - brought about his historic return to performing, as well as writing, directing, editing and involvement in other areas of production), but also realised the fact that he was part of a team that worked well together. This, therefore, is an historic and very important film in the history of comedy.

It is also a surprisingly funny little silent film; rather different from what Laurel & Hardy would become known for and from what they are more immediately associated with today. The characters of 'Stan & Ollie do not appear - Scottish Stan Laurel plays the nephew of Oliver Hardy, a respectable man about town who is reluctant to be seen with this strange-looking fellow with a kilt and the habit of chasing pretty girls. There are some very funny moments in this well-made, charming little movie, and the performances of these two Kings of Comedy are spot-on - watch Stan's little 'scissor-kick' and smile that says, "Well waddaya know?" when he sees girls, or the hair-ruffling scene at the airport, for instance. Hilarious.

Watch this film if you can, with backing music from The Beau Hunks Orchestra (available on the VVL video releases) which enhances the 1920s feel and is very, very pleasant to listen to. It's a brilliant and underrated little film, which is why I said it was 'surprisingly' funny.

Sentiment: positive
So I'm looking to rent a DVD and I come across this movie called 'End Game'. It stars James Woods and Cuba Gooding JR and has the synopsis of a taught political thriller. Well worth a look then. Or so I thought.

Boy, was I wrong.

End Game has just about the most ridiculous plot I have ever had the displeasure of enduring. Now being something of a whodunnit, I can't really tear into it as I would like without 'ruining' it for those who have yet to experience this monstrosity. But questions such as 'Why has he/she/they done this?', and 'Where on earth did they get the resources to pull this off?' are all too abundant following the film's unintentionally hilarious conclusion.

As for the acting - you know those films where you can almost feel that an actor's realised that they've made a terrible mistake in signing on for a movie, and this then shows in their performance? This is one of those. Accompany this with a laughable script and seriously flawed, irritating direction and you have the recipe for cinematic poison.

Of course, this didn't make it to the cinema, and for the same reason you should not allow it into your living room; it is appalling.

Sentiment: negative
I bought Bloodsuckers on ebay a while ago. I watched parts and deemed it just too dumb to review again. The excessive amount of watery 'blood' at the beginning is just plain obsolete - not to mention the "whip-around" wind sounds. My friends and I made a super low budget movie, and the effects still exceeded this crap fest.

As for the amount of mistakes in this movie, there are way too many to count. I knew one of the actors - believe it or not, he was my THEATRE teacher. HA! 

Final verdict: Don't bother with this "horror" flick. 

3 Stars (out of a possible 73)

Sentiment: negative
This movie is so good I could watch it all day long! Mary-Kate and Ashley were robbed at Oscar time!! If I got to be one of the actors I would be so excited!!! I can't wait for the new Charlie's Angels movie starring Mary-Kate and Ashley.

Sentiment: positive
Jude Law gives his all in this beautifully filmed vampire flick which offers little else of value. Completely lacking in eroticism, excitement, or leading ladies with appeal. One decent fight, a few moments of mild suspense. And a one-note plot.

The movie waxes philisophic in a series of conversations between Law's character and a dogged homicide detective, well played by Timothy Spall. But despite their best efforts, both actors are staked to the cross of the film's banality.

With a lesser actor in the lead role -- and without the benefit of Oliver Curtis's cinematography -- Crocodiles would blend into the sea of low-budget vampire quickies.

Sentiment: negative
i honestly dont know why so many people hate this movie, i have always thought that it was one of my absolute faves. the fight with tiger and his men rocked, the fight with the pirates with the axes rocked, the whole skit with everyone trying to avoid one another in the house is pure genious...ok so it didnt have the requisite kick ass final confrontation but the manchus were pretty good. i give it a 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
Manoj Agrawal after the failure of PARDESI BABU(1998) returned with this film

The film has Govinda in 8-9 roles, as his father, mother, grandfather, sister and later-on he also has disguises 

He in short is a useless detective send on a case by his friend to get proofs against his wife, whose photos he looses at the airport while flirting with Rani

He disguises as a Sardarji in the plane and again as a girl The funny part is how easily and in short time he does that?

Then he disguises as a french singer and enters a TV to get proofs lol and then as a maharashtrian(yes inside the TV itself) 

The rest of the film has the same mistaken identities and ends on a predictable note There are some funny scenes like Govinda being bashed by an African and also many other portions 

Direction by Manoj Agrawal is okay Music is okay

Amongst actors Govinda again proves he is one of the most watchable actors He as usual is fantastic though he has done such roles before he fits in all the get ups and roles too well here again though the much hyped 6-7 roles don't actually fit in the film Rani looks fat, teams up well with Govinda thatz it She is nothing great and kept doing such type of roles Amongst rest Nirmal Pandey is as usual Johny Lever is too loud at times and funny in places in 1 role and irritates as the older Tinnu Anand is okay Satish Kaushik is hilarious, Paresh is okay Tanaaz is okay

Sentiment: negative
I must say I was disappointed with this film. Although it is well acted and directed, the underlying story simply plods along too slowly.

Granted, in another mood I would have liked it better. I did chuckle a lot, but rarely laughed out loud; and there was actually a sense of suspense to discover who won. But in contrast to another movie that my wife picked up the same day (one neither of us had heard of before) this one paled in comparison.

If you see lots of movies, then by all means see this -- it's distinctly better than your average fare. But if you (like me) have limited time and want to watch only the best and most entertaining, save this for later.

[Rate: 7/10]

Sentiment: negative
i love bed knobs and broomsticks so much that it makes me cry a thousand tears of joy every time i have the magnificent pleasure of seeing it. i would also like to reiterate the simple fact that i love it so much.too much some have said. i have 27 copies on video and i love them all equally. i also love anyone else who loves it. i love you. my favourite scene is the dance scene at portobello road. i have learned the dance moves and practice it everyday. i have some audio recordings of myself singing the song. if anyone can play the drums or guitar i am thinking of forming a bed knobs and broomsticks band.i hope to call it 'the knobs'. love me (liz)

Sentiment: positive
Investigative reporter Darren McGavin (as Carl Kolchak) is back; this time, he's after "The Night Strangler". Once again, police officials and fellow journalists either disbelieve, or want to cover-up, the supernatural angle. Producer-director Dan Curtis presents the same basic story as his preceding "Night", with understandably less success.

Mr. Curtis assembles a fun supporting cast, included are "Dark Shadows" alumni George DiCenzo and Ivor Francis. Jo Ann Pflug (as Louise Harper) heads up a sexy collection of belly-dancers. And, although I've never seen it mentioned anywhere, that must be Roger Davis as Mr. McGavin's dining companion in an early scene, feigning disbelief in the existence of vampires! 

**** The Night Strangler (1/16/73) Dan Curtis ~ Darren McGavin, Jo Ann Pflug, Simon Oakland, Wally Cox

Sentiment: negative
Well, "built" Doris Day (as Ethel S. "Dynamite" Jackson) is mistaken for thespian Ethel Barrymore, and falls in love with dancer Ray Bolger (as S. "Sam" Winthrop Putnam). Older Frenchman Claude Dauphin (as Philippe Fouquet) also digs Doris. Honestly What were they thinking? - This wildly inappropriate musical does feature Ms. Day prettily singing the standard "April in Paris", and others. Certainly, there nothing as good as her Columbia recordings from the time; and, nothing approaches Day's stunning and forthcoming "Secret Love". Although the material does not serve him well, it's nice to see Mr. Bolger performing. Some of the musical numbers are obnoxious.

**** April in Paris (12/24/52) David Butler ~ Doris Day, Ray Bolger, Claude Dauphin

Sentiment: negative
A THIEF IN THE NIGHT is an excellent fictional account of the weeks leading up to the RAPTURE and the weeks following that pivotal event.

I thoroughly enjoyed both the production values and the content values of this independent Christian movie.

THE PRODUCTION VALUES. Hey, it's an independent movie, with a shoe-string budget, so, ya, it's going to look a bit cheesy (if your standard is A-list Hollywood fare). But, properly compared with other independent movies, this film is perfectly acceptable. More important than acting style, costumes, and music is the narrative itself. Is the story compelling? Do the dramatic moments work? Does the story trajectory build to a satisfying climax? The answer to all these questions is an unqualified "yes." As a side-note, the truly important technical stuff--continuity, sound, lighting--are fine. The viewer is able to watch the show without being distracted by sloppy craftsmanship.

CONTENT VALUE. The message of the movie is superb. When you consider how many ideas the movie-maker developed within the brief span of 69 minutes, you begin to appreciate his artistry. He presents the message of salvation, the consequence of unbelief, the danger of backsliding, the truth of the rapture, and the threat of a world-dominating satanic government with flare, imagination, and--most importantly for an evangelical movie--with biblical accuracy.

The movie-maker is a good storyteller. For example, he develops the message of salvation in two important ways: (1) he shows us through action the reality of Jesus Christ's sacrifice for our sake. This is achieved in a subplot where the zoo-keeper is bit by a poisonous snake and nearly dies. The only cure is blood from someone who is immune to the snake-poison. The poison is like sin; the cure is like Christ's blood, shed on the cross. (2) The filmmaker also develops the message of salvation through dialog. He has various characters explain the truth about human sin and the need for salvation through faith in Christ. So, the movie-maker uses both action and dialog to tell his story.

As a side-note, the fact that a movie produced by evangelical Christians actually contains dialog and scenes that convey a clearly delineated message of salvation, couched in explicitly evangelical Christian language, imagery, and theology is also perfectly acceptable. To criticize this film for being explicitly Christian is absurd; it's akin to criticizing a Nike commercial for promoting sport-wear. What else would evangelical Christian movie makers make, if not a film that states their case? Also, the fact that the movie-maker employs the idea that the unbelieving will be left behind in a godless world is, again, perfectly acceptable. The movie-maker uses the dramatic potential of that idea admirably. How do I know? I heard about A THIEF IN THE NIGHT from a woman who saw the show way back in 1974; it still lived in her memory thirty years later. How many movies can you say that about? All around, a very enjoyable, thought-provoking show. I plan on showing it to my teen group at church.

Sentiment: positive
Dutiful wife Norma Shearer (as Katherine "Kitty" Brown) waits on husband Rod La Rocque (as Bob Brown) hand and foot. While making him breakfast in bed, and helping him dress for a Sunday golf outing, Ms. Shearer suggests joining Mr. La Rocque for the day, noting how infrequently the two see each other. But, La Rocque puts her off, saying her presence adversely affects his game. Then, unexpectedly, Shearer meets the real reason for her husband's frequent absences his pretty blonde mistress!

Three years later, Shearer is a glamorous and flirty divorcée. While summering in Paris, she has struck up a friendship with wealthy, older socialite Marie Dressler (as as Mrs. "Boucci" Bouccicault). Ms. Dressler invites Shearer to her Long Island home, to socialize with some friends, and ask a favor. Dressler is worried about her granddaughter's relationship with a suave, worldly man. She wants young Sally Eilers (as Dionne) to marry Raymond Hackett (as Bruce), instead. Aware of Shearer's flirtatious conquests, Dressler asks her to lure the undesirable man away from Ms. Eilers. Shearer is stunned to discover the man is La Rocque, her ex-husband.

Shearer and Dressler make this a cute, entertaining play. They are in top form, giving guaranteed-to-be-popular performances, with enthusiasm and professionalism. The story is silly and predictable; yet, in a way which helps the humorous situation. And, the ending is quite clever. In fact, the comic "Let Us be Gay" may have aged better than Shearer's larger-produced, and more serious, "The Divorcée", which was released around the same time. The cast uniformly fine. La Rocque is better than his film with Lilian Gish; but, his role is not at all endearing. Gilbert Emery (as Towney) and Tyrell Davis (as Wallace) are funny supporting suitors.

Those not familiar with Norma Shearer may not realize it is she who appears as the dowdy wife in the opening scenes. This is Shearer as "Kitty" before her make-over. Watch the close-ups of Shearer with light, natural make-up, for a good look at an intriguingly beautiful woman.

******* Let Us Be Gay (1930) Robert Z. Leonard ~ Norma Shearer, Marie Dressler, Rod La Rocque

Sentiment: positive
I was previously unaware that in the early 1990's Devry University (or was it ITT Tech?) added Film to its wonderful repertoire of technical degree programs. Well this movie must have been the product of the class valedictorian. My friend and I rented the original 1980 Boogeyman on my Netflix and this movie was on the flip side of the DVD. Do not waste your time with this movie. Awful awful awful. 

The filmmaker adds 2 main character's, a woman and her therapist. The woman has been having dreams about the Boogeyman and his victim's from the first film. Over 50% of this film is stock from the original movie. The rest of the movie is the main character having the bad dreams while her therapist drones on a the narrator. These scenes are shot through a filter so thick the characters glow. They would make Angela Lansbury look 25 years old. So, to recap, awful. Don't watch this movie.

Sentiment: negative
This film deserves another bad review. Consider one reviewer extolling the film's virtues that include 'no sex, violence or gore.' Uh, excuse me. The very set-up of the film has us watching as Cody's young comrade, with love of life and who has everything to live for is blown to bits leaving Cody holding his lifeless, bloody body. And, given the nature of war we know that Cody has seen horror on almost a daily basis. So much for those viewing this film with such rose glasses that the violence which defines Cody's persona is erased from viewer memory.

Sans any family of his own Cody, like John Rambo, roams the country on his bike making the long trek to hometown USA in the guise of some place called Nevada City. No mention, no realization of the clear fact that Cody is damaged goods. We know this since his CO practically declares him so as he order Cody to 'get some rest' away from the death and destruction of war. This explains, as none seem to notice or care, Cody's obvious 'flat' effect. It is not bad acting. It is the flat effect of post traumatic stress disorder. Not guessing here, remember his CO ordered him off the battle field.

How about that 'accidental' kiss as noted by another review. The fall was an accident, the kiss was not. How exactly was Cody 'respecting' Faith by hitting on her knowing full well she was spoken for? Now that was a non-family value moment. A moment which is then announced to the immediate universe as if posted on YouTube. Of course faith's lapse of fidelity as well as Cody's 'coming on' to a woman who plans to marry another is received in the spirit of the Xmas season, all CHEERING their cheaten' hearts and lips.

We know little about Faith's fiancé except that she professes her love for him, she takes no longer than a nano second to accept his proposal (could have waited if any second thoughts), he is generous, he loves her to death, the family has nothing really against him, he believes marriage is based on compromises and the two have never discussed post marriage plans. No evil doers here.

Asner is a fine actor given over the hill dialogue like 'we love you son....' 'You are part of our family' literally days after they have met a stranger named Cody. And the 'band of brothers' speech where the phrase was above all never intended to apply to virtual strangers off the battle field.

Bottom line: This film is cotton candy Xmas fluff that betrays itself in major ways. Most grossly when it applauds Cody's disrespect for Faith by physically hitting on her knowing full well she is spoken for. By re-defining family as we know it to wit: accepting a virtual stranger as a full fledged loving member of the family because we all 'love you.' How many of you have done that or know anyone who has done that. NOT.

Sentiment: negative
Nominated for the oscar "worst script ever" in my opinion. There's no decent story, rediculous acting, VERY lousy humor. By every means possible, if you have little self respect please don't waste your time seeing this movie. Although u can see the actors CAN act, it leaves you dumber after watching it. Precious braincells are being killed watching this crap...

i warned u

DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the worst mini-series I have ever seen on TV. I sat through the first half hoping it would improve but it only went from bad to worse. Needless to say I could not bring myself to sit through the torture of a second nights viewing. What was Jon Voight thinking when he made this?????

Sentiment: negative
I'm always surprised about how many times you'll see something about World War 2 on the German national television. You would think they don't like to open old wounds, but there isn't a week that goes by without a documentary or a movie about the horror and atrocities of this war. Perhaps it's a way of dealing with their past, I don't know, but you sure can't blame them of ignoring what happened. And it has to be said: most of those documentaries are really worth a watch because they never try to gloss over the truth and the same can be said about their movies (think for instance about "Der Untergang" or "The Downfall" as you might now it) which are also very realistic.

One of those movies is "Rosenstrasse". It tells a true story and deals with the subject of the mixed marriages during the war, even though the movie starts with a family in the USA, at the present day. After Hannah's father died, her mother all a sudden turned into an orthodox Jew even though she hasn't been very religious before. She doesn't know where the strange behavior of her mother comes from, but as she starts digging in her mother's troubled childhood, Hannah understands how little she has ever known about her mother's past.

The fact that this movie deals with the subject of the mixed marriages during the Nazi regime is already quite surprising. For as far as I know, there hasn't been another movie that deals with this subject. (For those who didn't know this yet: Being married to a so-called pure Aryian man or woman meant for many Jews that they weren't immediately sent to one of the concentration camps, but that they had to work in a factory). But it does not only tell something about the problems of the mixed marriages, it also gives a good idea of how these people were often seen by their own parents and relatives. How difficult it sometimes was for them during the Nazi regime and how these people, most of the time women, did everything within their power to free their men, once they were captured and locked away in for instance the Rosenstrasse...

The acting is really good and the story is very well written, although the way it was presented in the beginning didn't really do it for me (and that's exactly the only part that you'll get to see in the trailer). Perhaps it's just me, but I would have left out a big part of what happens in the present day. At least of the part that is situated in the USA, because the part where Hannah goes to Berlin and talks to someone who knows more about her mother's past, definitely works.

If you are interested in everything that has something to do with the Second World War, and if you aren't necessarily looking for a lot of action shots, than this is definitely a movie you should see. This isn't a movie in which you'll see any battles or gunfights, but it certainly is an interesting movie, because it gives you an idea about an aspect of the war only little is known of. I give it an 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
My friend & I rented this movie and within the first 5 mins we had no idea what was going on. It felt like it should have been over within the first 15 mins. It was a terrible movie, my little brother could have been a better actor than some of the ones in the movie, and the plot (if you can call it that) was full of holes. Never would I recommend this movie to my worst enemy, yet anybody I actually like.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was difficult for me to watch. Stan looked very old and ill compared to what I remembered, and Ollie was heavier than I ever recall in another film. Most difficult though were gaps in the script/production where I found myself wondering, "How did they get from here to there???" It took nearly half the film before I could deal with the dubbing of non-American actors -- that was also a distraction.

Although I miss great actors such as Laurel and Hardy -- will there ever be great actors like those of the old studio era??? -- this film helps me understand why actors sometimes "bow out" in their prime.

Sentiment: negative
OK, so this is horror? I get horror - but I don't get horrific. Black & white is artistic but too much black is overkill.....enough said about the lighting. The story - a serial killer ....... lot's of these around. It's been done in the past and yes, it will continue to be done.....but I hope not. My question is , when will the audience tire of reliving this maddening dilemma? I guess the director thought he would do something different - portray killing children. Well that's been done before too. SO I guess he had to go to shock value.....have them killed in the darkest of fashions. Okay ..... the audience was shocked......sickened....disgusted.....numbed. And getting up out of my seat , I felt all of these things. So was the director successful? Yes! Absolutely! These are the things he wanted me to feel and I did. Now what do I do with the feelings? And more importantly, what is the "message" here? With the amazing talent that Francis Xavier was "gifted" with.....could he ever consider applying it to making films that speak of, dare I say, coming out of the darkness? I was left in the dark after viewing this film, my soul was assaulted....is that what this craft is about? There are many such films out there - they make the bucks I'm told. So what's up with the people that want to see all these deploring visuals? What is going on in this world that people will pay to be horrifically shocked? Would I see this again.....not ever.

Sentiment: negative
1914 was an amazing year for Charlie Chaplin. It was his first year in films and he appeared in more than 30 films! While most of these films weren't particularly good, they did give him a chance to slowly evolve his screen persona. However, by this film, the familiar "Little Tramp" character was still in development. Sure Charlie looked the part, but his character still lacked the sweetness and decency that he later developed. Instead, Chaplin often hit, kicked or did other nasty things to people for seemingly no reason at all.

As for this very slight film, it is interesting to watch for the cast. While they are not familiar today, Chaplin stars along with Mabel Normand, Chester Conklin and Mack Swain--all exceptionally popular stars with Keystone Films. The problem with this film is that while it has a few nice scenes, the plot seems very vague and improperly developed. Chester and Mabel got to the race track (a very common theme in Keystone productions--it must have been located near a race track). Charlie and Mack show up and sneak in. Mack is chased by the police for doing this while Charlie slaps Chester around and steals his girl. In the end, for no apparent reason, the cops take Chester and Mack away--leaving Charlie with Mabel (who, oddly, didn't seem put off by Charlie's boorish behaviors).

Unless you are a huge silent comedy buff or film historian, this is a very forgettable film that is only important in the evolution of Chaplin. What he and the other actors actually do on stage, while not unusual for a Keystone film, isn't particularly funny when seen today.

Sentiment: negative
Story about four teenage girls growing up in California. Jeanie (Jodie Foster) is the most level-headed of the bunch--but wants to move out of her house where she lives with her divorced mother (Sally Kellerman). Annie (Cherie Currie) is addicted to drugs, alcohol and bad boys and is beaten up by her father. Madge (Marilyn Kagan) has overprotective parents. Deirde (Kandice Stroh) thinks she's more mature than the rest of them.

This is nothing new from what we've seen plenty of times before--but this one has one big difference--it's accurate. I graduated from high school in 1980 (when I first saw the film) and I was surprised at how realistic it was. They got the dialogue, clothes and attitudes down completely right. Even the main song of the movie ("On the Radio" by Donna Summer) was a big hit before this came out. This film hit me harder than any other teen film of the time because I could understand and relate to the characters. I knew girls in high school who were just like this! The film is (of course) dated but it captures a time we will never see again.

The acting is good on all counts with Foster giving the best performance. The relationship between her and Kellerman (who was excellent) was realistic and well-done. Even Scott Baio (who has a small role as a friend of the girls) more or less realistically played a teen boy.

A very good movie--essential viewing if you came of age in 1980. The film has a deserved R rating (plenty of drug use and swearing) but should be seen by all teens. I give it a 8.

Sentiment: positive
I realized a couple of days ago that the makers of this film put a play on words into its title. This movie is not primarily about the act of "riding giants," but mostly about the people who are the giants of the sport, RIDING giants, to change the emphasis.

In my teens I lived a block from the Wedge, one of the hardest-breaking and best bodysurfing spots in the world. I've been out in 15-to-18 foot surf, and have ridden and been hammered by 10 and 12-foot waves on many occasions. That experience is why I am in complete awe of the surfers in this film. The idea that Jeff Clark, to all appearances a normal mortal, could get away with riding Maverick's BY HIMSELF for over a decade is beyond my grasp. The first safety rule of any water sport is "Never surf/dive/swim by yourself." He went where sane people would not, and lived to tell about it. I wouldn't go out there if the water were 75 degrees and the sharks all left. 

In the world of warm water: the first shot of the waves at Jaws always makes the skin tingle over my entire body. These are not just scary waves, these are uncontrolled-bowel-evacuation waves. When we see Laird Hamilton not only surviving 40-to-60 foot waves (I can hardly type those numbers), but actually working the faces like a fun day at Rincon, I'm blown away. There is a dedication and focus in big-wave riders which is comparable to that of anyone in the world. 

This a great film. I gave it a 9 instead of a 10 only because it neglects to mention that there are great big-wave riders in the world outside the Hamilton/Kalama crew, and I think they deserved mention. Splice in Ken Bradshaw at outside Log Cabins and a 10 it is!

Sentiment: positive
I mistakenly kept myself awake late last night watching this thing. About the only thing I could say good about this horrid film is that it could be used by film schools to show how not to make a movie. No proper character development, wait, I'm not even sure they were characters. Set-ups were hokey and inane, and the overuse of split screens was wasted since sometimes they couldn't even synchronize with alternate shots. If I could give this a zero or minus rating I would. Sadly, it isn't even worth the time for a few laughs.

 It's just a sad example of money wasted by Hollywood, and now I waste my time even thinking about it.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is Damian Szifrón's second immersion in movies after his excellent character study in "El Fondo del Mar". With "Tiempo De Valientes" he creates extremely well done characters, far away from prototypes and with an unprecedented chemistry between them. I've seen Szifron's talent to present every character in a lighthearted way but just enough to involve us emotionally with them. His control over them is magnificent, so he restores on the movie a great direction and an overall brilliantly polished script, the characters laugh and cry with real sentiment and invite the viewer to join them in their emotions and their evolution on screen.

The Spanish takes over the English, the Buenos Aires urban landscape at night replaces Hollywood sets and the premise is just as interesting as any other, so we have a film daring to compete over Hollywood's Machinery.

But I want you to see the movie mainly because I've never dealt with such endearing characters, all of them. It seems the script suits perfectly to the actors and vice versa. I really believe with a film making like this Argentina is really up to the Competition.

Sentiment: positive
this movie is not porn, it was not meant to be porn, and unless my uncle runs for president of the world it should never be considered porn.

now that that issue was sorted out, i can say i thoroughly recommend this film, as it's issues are still widely available. it's funny, the acting is great and it raises serious(curious) questions.

i can't fully understand why this film was so mistreated, probably this is why i plan to never visit the us. Lena is the true pioneer of the modern riot-grrrl movement, confusion, curiosity and wit are her main attributes, she is occasionally angry, but aren't we all?

Sentiment: positive
The arch title doesn't fit this gentle romantic comedy. Donna Reed and Tom Drake don't have much chemistry -- but their characters aren't supposed to. Both are extremely likable and attractive.

The supporting cast is a dream -- with the exception of Sig Ruman's annoying faux Russian.

Sentiment: positive
"The Evil That Men Do" begins with a truly repellent torture scene, followed, a little later, by graphic verbal descriptions of equally repellent torture methods that the sadistic, heartless villain likes to use. But despite the use of such strictly-for-shock effects, the filmmakers can't really cover up the fact that this is just a dull, low-grade Bronson vehicle. Bronson himself is solid here, but he should have chosen a better script.

Sentiment: negative