DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
it's a real big bummer that people easily are able too make movies because of cheap digital video cams nowadays. usually I would appreciate this possibility but if you see movies like this it's just a big shame. and it's also big shame if people like h.p. lovecraft get abused by the likes of this. I rented this "movie" cuz of the drop "h.p. lovecraft" on it. and I'm a big fan of many of his adaptions, mainly those done by brian yuzna & stuart gordon. this movie has nothing to deliver! a cheap scenery on a beach and in an old wine-cellar. digi-cam effect "red light" over the whole movie. no actors, just some stupid low-grade models who have for sure no idea what they are doing, stiff as wood. and so must be the director. It's obvious that he tried to create some atmosphere. but as the whole things is so laughable it just doesn't work. and no gore-effects, just some blood in a river (you drink = you become demon) and dropping here and there. oh yeah, the story: thousands of years ago some "big old" colonised the world and took humans as slaves. then mankind got independent, so the "old ones" tried to destroy them. and now there are some survivors in a post-apocalyptic world. the only possibility to save mankind is to find the NECRONOMICON, that's where it gets to LOVECRAFT. so those soldiers fight against some undead and demons on their beach and in their wine-cellar. unbelievable - the whole thing! but as it is dubbed (german title: "Armee des Jenseits) and you can find it in most commercial video-stores it seems as if you can make money with stuff like that. I find this fact impressive.

Sentiment: negative
This film features two of my favorite guilty pleasures. Sure, the effects are laughable, the story confused, but just watching Hasselhoff in his Knight Rider days is always fun. I especially like the old hotel they used to shoot this in, it added to what little suspense was mustered. Give it a 3.

Sentiment: negative
When the budget doesn't allow for a Cadillac or Packard or Lincoln or Imperial hearse we are talking cheep cheep. That's bird language for cheap cheap.

What is in the hair of the forty year old teen boy? The guy who looks like a cement head who tries a couple of times to run over John Agar and provides the only scare in the movie by how close he comes. His hair looks like a shoe. A patent leather shoe. He is a shoe head.

The nurse woman needs immediate emergency hair washing. She has lacquer in her blond locks that would ignite if the production company had been able to afford lights.

The monster? The music was scarier. I would try to run from the music. The monster probably had better hair than the rest of the cast. Put some lipstick on that monster and you've got Divine's older sister.

The camera work and editing and plot provided a buffer to prepare the audience for the bad music throughout.

Hello Mr. Agar? We're thinking of doing a sequel to Night Fright and... Mr. Agar? Agar? Tom Willett

Sentiment: negative
Summary- This game is the best Spider-Man to hit the market!You fight old foes such as Scorpion,Rhino,Venom,Doctor Octopus,Carnage,...And exclusive to the game...Monster-Ock!Monster-Ock is the symbiote Carnage On Dock Ock's body.

Storyline- Dock Ock was supposedly reformed and using his inventions for mankind...supposedly...He was really planing a symbiote invasion! See the rest for yourself.

Features- You can play in numerous old costumes seen throughout the comics.Almost every costume has special abilities!You can collect comics in the game and then view them in a comic viewer.And last but not least..............Spidey-Armour!Collect a gold spider symbol to change into Spider-Armour.It gives you another health bar!

Graphics- Great!Though they they can be rough at times.But still great!

Sound- Sweet!Nice music on every level and great voice overs!

Overall- 10 out of 10.This game rocks.Buy it today!

Sentiment: positive
I was on a mission to watch Uwe Boll movies to see if they were really as bad as all that. The first one I saw, BloodRayne, was not a complete loss. I liked it more than most people, and actually rated it a 4 out of 10. Next up was the first House of the Dead movie. Now THAT was horrifically bad. I could stand watching ten minutes of it, and fast-forwarding a bit, and that was it. I could see where it was going and I didn't need to see any more of it in order to rate it a just 1 out of 10.

But I had access to the sequel, too (which however is not by Uwe Boll, but, mysteriously, written by the same guys who so incompetently wrote the first one), and since it got a higher rating at IMDb than the original, I thought I'd give it a chance. And I actually managed to watch all of it. It started out with some funny references and cool lines (like how the president got his orders from the vice-president!), and acting-wise it is light-years better than the first. Here we have cool muchachas like the ultra-hot Emmanuelle Vaugier, whose coolness is in league with Carrie-Anne Moss, Claudia Black and Evangeline Lilly. Man, I hope some Matrix-style movie comes along for her sometime. And the always delectable, super-aerobicized Victoria Pratt. I love athletic women. And, there was also Nadine Velazquez (Catalina on "My Name Is Earl"), who performed quite well.

The story wasn't much, and the action wasn't great, either, and the ending was a disappointment, as they didn't succeed in their mission. Oh well, at least the two mains survived. Guess that's some small victory, too.

Good cast, but a pretty bad movie. The actors make it watchable, but there's no real substance there.

3 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
"Subconscious Cruelty" has to be one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen. "Salo" and "Cannibal Holocaust" didn't bother me that much, but there's a strange psychological element to "Subconscious Cruelty". This film invades your subconscious mind with shocking taboos, surrealist visuals and one of the most unsettling film scores and sound designs. Repulsive at times; yes, but its visual flair can be compared to Avant Gard directors such as Alejandro Jodorowsky, Dario Argento, Dusan Makavejev and David Lynch. Take the most extreme elements of those 4 directors and throw in the graphic violence of a film by Luico Fulci, and you might be able to guess what you're in for. 

The film is divided into 4 parts. The first part "the Ovarian Eye" is real short. A narrator tells us about the the parts of the brain and its functions. Then a nude woman gets her stomach cut open and an eyeball is pulled out. The second part "Human Larvae" is kind of like the film "Eraserhead" but with incest. It deals with a man's sexual obsession with his pregnant sister. Where's Frued when you need him? The third part is my absolute favorite. It reminds me of "Begotten" and Jame's Broughton's 1972 short film "Dreamwood". In this segment people have sex with the earth. Men hump bloody holes in the ground, girls masturbate with tree branches. The branches bleed when broken. Watch in horror as a man gives fellatio to a knife sticking out of a woman's vagina. These people really know how to get in touch with nature.

The last part of the film is the most disturbing and at times it borders on hardcore pornography. This part of the film made me think of Jodorowsky's "the Holy Mountain", "Sweet Movie" and "Cannibal Holocaust". I've never been more disturbed in my life by what I witnessed. A business man gets his privates pulled apart by fishhooks. Yuck and Ouch! Two women urinate on a Christ figure and proceed to cannibalistically eat him like communion bread and sodomize him with a tree branch. Poor guy. The last part was so extreme that if I ever watch the film again, I'll have close my eyes or slightly fast forward. Karim Hussien and Mitch Davis are obviously very talented, To think they did this project in there early 20's. Hussein went on to direct the Tarkovsky influenced "Ascension" (2002) which is a much better film and he co-write the screenplay for Nacho Cerda's after dark horror masterpiece "the Abandoned". "Subconscious Cruelty" is a fascinating and unsettling journey; with images that come from the unthinkable realm of everyday human minds. Well, sort of.

Sentiment: positive
This film is good,but not Schaffner`s best. My favourite is Papillon and Patton,but this is a sad and very nice film. Kris Kristoffersen is good in this movie and really makes a difference. I am going to miss Schaffner and this is his last film.

A good film by a great director! 7,5/10

Sentiment: positive
In retrospect, the 1970s was a golden era for the American cinema, as demonstrated and explored by this documentary directed by Ted Demme and Richard LaGravenese. This IFC effort serves to illustrate and clarify the main idea of what that time meant for the careers of these illustrious people seen in the documentary.

The amazing body of work that remains, is a legacy to all the people involved in the art of making movies in that period. The decade was marked by the end of the Viet Nam war and the turbulent finale of those years of Jimmy Carter's presidency.

One thing comes out clear, films today don't measure against the movies that came out during that creative decade because the industry, as a whole, has changed dramatically. The big studios nowadays want to go to tame pictures that will be instant hits without any consideration to content, or integrity, as long as the bottom line shows millions of dollars in revenues.

The other thing that emerges after hearing some of America's best creative minds speak, is the importance of the independent film spirit because it is about the only thing that afford its creators great moral and artistic rewards.

This documentary is a must see for all movie fans.

Sentiment: positive
As many of today's movies are guilty of, the plot isn't exactly stellar, the movie doesn't move anyone, and certainly this won't warrant any award (outside of Blockbusters' perhaps)...but then again, who really cares.

Eddie Murphy and Robert De Niro team up to produce a very funny, at times hilarious, movie that I really enjoyed. Russo and Shatner played their small parts well as well. Man, I hope in the future my wife ages as well as Miss Renee has.

Moving along, this "buddy" cop-flick produces high laughs in a reasonable amount of time. The movie is enjoyable enough to avoid the wait for video/dvd release and instead to go ahead and check it out.

Eddie Murphy is at his usual top-form and is downright enjoyable to watch. De Niro has molded into this type of role perfectly.

I really enjoyed this movie and think that any true movie fan in need for a good movie or just a good laugh will really enjoy Showtime.

Top Performance: Murphy. Hilarious. Enough said. Directing Job: Nice. Nice action scenes, used Murphy and De Niro together like a charm, Russo fed off in a nice supporting job.

My Rating: 7 out 10. It's not going to move you or anything...but it's an extremely enjoyable movie.

It's Showtime...was a great success.

Sentiment: positive
This is a dramatic film in the whole sense of the word. It tells a tail that here in Greece we live as a routine in everyday life without realizing how sad it is. Sure it has some extremes.. but every now and then real life sorrow surpasses art.It is deeply critical of the goals we pursue and the whole social structure build around them. The film has a deeper understanding of Greek ways of life, stereotypes, and social structure. Unlike most Greek films that have a certain fast-food-mainstream audience, this one does not target anyone in particular but while you watch it you feel that someone put the best possible words and pictures to describe your feelings. I am not a big fan of traditional music either but I wouldn't like to hear anything else when it was played during the film.

If someone told me to say something against this film I'd define the following, sometimes the transition between scenes seemed sudden or somewhat cut. I guess the editing had to cut it up to fit the 2hours and a bit for the theatres..

Anyway I could write more and more to express my thought over this but I guess u have to see it and discuss it with a friend. A must see

Sentiment: positive
As other posters have commented this was a very very bad movie (keeping it kid friendly) FX was low class, they should of spent the $1 on a coke. As is typical with these D movies most victims die and leave a mystery except for one lucky soul and of course the lead. Hope the money was worth it for Boxleitner, really really big step down from Babylon 5. Nice to see what happened to Buck Rogers but damn this was low even for him. ' It was so bad and on the older actors you could even seem to tell that they thought it was bad also. Don't Watch.

*****Warning Spoiler Below****

This thing chased down everyone it was after and yet Boxlietner got away... that was pure BS. And the ending? How in the hell did the kids end up right there with him? That was just too much stupidity.

Sentiment: negative
In the trivia section for Pet Sematary, it mentions that George Romero (director of two Stephen King stories, Creepshow and The Dark Half) was set to direct and then pulled out. One wonders what he would've brought to the film, as the director Mary Lambert, while not really a bad director, doesn't really bring that much imagination to this adaptation of King's novel, of which he wrote the screenplay. There are of course some very effective, grotesquely surreal scenes (mainly involving the sister Zelda, likely more of a creep-out for kids if they see the film), and the casting in some of the roles is dead-perfect. But something feels missing at times, some sort of style that could correspond with the unmistakably King-like atmosphere, which is in this case about as morbid as you're going to get without incestuous cannibals rising from the graves being thrown in (who knows if he'll save that for his final novel...) 

As mentioned though, some of the casting is terrific, notably Miko Hughes as Gage Creed, the little boy who goes from being one of the cutest little kids this side of an 80's horror movie, to being a little monster (I say that as a compliment, of course, especially in scenes brandishing a certain scalpel). And there is also a juicy supporting role for Fred Gwynne of the Munsters, who plays this old, secretive man with the right notes of under-playing and doom in tone. And applause goes to whomever did the make-up on Andrew Hubatsek. But there are some other flaws though in the other casting; Dale Midkiff is good, not great, as the conflicted, disturbed father figure Creed, and his daughter Ellie is played by an actress that just didn't work for me at all.

In terms of setting up some chilling set-pieces, only a couple really stand-out: a certain plot-thickening moment (not to spoil, it does involve a cool Ramones song), and the first visit to the pet sematary (the bigger one), including the sort of mystical overtones King had in the Shining. For the most part it's a very polished directing job, though it could've been made even darker to correspond with the script. If thought out in logical terms (albeit in King terms) it is really one of his more effective works of the period. But it doesn't add up like it could, or should. Still, it makes for a nifty little midnight movie.

Sentiment: positive
Elvira, Mistress of The Dark, is a fun, camp horror comedy, in which the fourth wall is broken a couple of times and the jokes often stay below the navel. And the breasts of Cassandra Peterson become a character of their own.

Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) is stacked horror show hostess, who learns, that she has inherited her aunt Morgana. So she goes to a little town of Fallwell, which is ruled by the most horrendous monster ever to embrace the earth: Morality comity. Elviras boobacious appearance is, of course, too much for the prunes, but the kids of the town get a kick out of her different kind of approach on life. And of course there is even more sinister evil, her uncle Vincent (William Morgan Sheppard), who is after Elvira's mothers book of spells. See, Elvira actually is a real witch, she just doesn't know it. Yet.

For what it is, Elvira is quite funny film, even though the script does leave a lot of room for improvement. Most laughs come from the difference between Elvira and the people of good morals, but there are a couple of good visual gags as well. Over all direction is okay, but it never rises to be anything more than that. In all, a good, intentionally campy, comedy. If you like this kind of thing, that is.

Sentiment: positive
I must be that one guy in America that didn't like this movie. I guess this just wasn't my style or something, I just don't see what's so fascinating about it, this was *barely entertaining, let alone one of the greatest achievements in cinema history. 

It's about a guy that came from nothing, and goes on to become a drug lord. Pretty simple way to describe an entire movie, and that's exactly my feeling about the entire movie. Contrary to what a lot of people think, just because a movie is about mafias/drug trade/criminal groups doesn't automatically make it a great movie, don't forget good storytelling.

Sentiment: negative
OK I haven't read the book And maybe the book was better.WHO KNOWS???// But I loved the movie. It was entertaining, not a bit boring, enjoyable and most of all heart wrenching. The friendship between the two kids was so pure and innocent. These kids acted so well, especially the son of the Servant. Oh my GOD that's like the form of GOD on the face of EARTH. ARGHHHH he steals our heart so easily. *********Spoilers************* The other Friend the rich guy is a Kid and his confusion and frustration can be understood. BUT I did get angry when he Abandoned and ignored his friend in the time when he needed consoling. Anyways he was just a kid and a bit stubborn to. I wish the movie would also have shown the older version of the poor kid. Arghh it pains to just think of the ending. This movie is sad. I felt terribly sad during the ending. Tears dropped down my eyes. Yes the background scores are fantastic, the scenes are WOW. The Kite scenes are Fascinating. And well it gets a bit of an adventure in the middle. Wonderfully acted and superbly cast. The kids acted so well. GREAT Direction. don't know why this movie failed to WOOO the Critics. But it sure did WOO me. 10/10 Must-See

Sentiment: positive
I know I've already added a comment but I just wanted to clarify something...

I'm not some old fogey from the Baby Boom generation that grew up glued to a flickering b/w picture of Phil Silvers, Jackie Gleason etc.

Bilko was already 20 years old before I was born but I had the pleasure of discovering Phil Silver's Bilko courtesy of BBC2. I wonder if I would have enjoyed Steve Martin's travesty if I hadn't seen or heard of Phil Silvers - I don't know - maybe I would have.

Some of the other reviewers who think this movie is worthy of a '10' admit that they haven't seen the original. I can only urge you to spend 21 minutes of your life watching a single episode. If after watching the original Ernie, Colonel Hall, Ritzig & Emma, Duane Doberman, Henshaw, Dino, Flashman, Zimmerman, Mullin et al you still think that Steve Martin's film is woth anything above a '2' - I'll stand you a pint....

Sentiment: negative
I´m from Germany and I love the mvovies. I go 200 times a year. Tonight I saw "Pecker", it was a wonderful evening. Thank you, Mr. Waters. Everybody who has a chance to see the movie, go!!!

Sentiment: positive
I do not envy Barry Levinson, Rachel Weisz, Ben Stiller or Jack Black for doing this film. It's, in one word, boring. Maybe the fact that is too predictable, the more-than-exploited Ben Stiller's loser role or the not-at-all funny scenes make this film just something to forget. Even Christopher Walken's appearance finishes in a pathetic way. I was very disappointed. I love Ben Stiller's acting. I loved it in most of his films, the last one I saw before this was Duplex with Drew Barrymore and was not that bad. About Jack Black... Well, apart from High Fidelity I've never seen him doing something good. What about School of Rock? Ooops, frightening.

Sentiment: negative
Sorry to say but was disappointed in the film. It was very very rushed, as I suppose you can understand a movie length version of Pride & Prejudice would be and I felt that a lot of the major scenes were glossed over just to get through the story. As the movie is so rushed, unfortunately you don't get to really know about and feel for each of the characters much at all. 

Not only that, this movie is Boring. I say that with a capital B. 1/3 of the way through I started yawning and couldn't wait for the movie to be over. As I have read the book and watch the BBC version, I knew how many scenes had to go, before I could finally leave the cinema. Mr Darcy whoever he is in this movie, definitely can't act. He looks also too young to play Mr Darcy. Every word that comes out of his mouth is rushed like he needs to get through the script or something. Where is the build up? At first, he seems confused with everything. He is just bizarre! It all looks put on. 

Was trying not to compare to the Colin Firth version but if you love that version, you will most likely be disappointed anyway.

The costumes are absolutely shocking. Where are the corsets? I know Elizabeth is poor, but I think she still knows how to dress as some sort of ladylike fashion, and hasn't been brought up in a squaller. Her dresses indicates she might be the poorest peasant in all of England.

I didn't agree with a couple of scenes in the movie in the fact, that I don't think it would be considered proper in that society for men to do such things, honestly Mr Bingley who has wealth should know better. There is some things that are said that sound too modern for the period this movie is set in, and not at all like Jane Austen. Bingley's character is shockingly donee, to me he behaves like a simpleton, not a character to like and respect. What about that laugh of his!!! I Wickham hardly has a presence and Mr & Mrs Hurst and a couple of other characters have no presence at all. Keira did okay, but it just ain't the same.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was made in 1948, but it still rings true today. Very, very funny. It begins with a family wanting to buy a little place in the country and it "builds" from there. Anyone who has ever built a house, will find this movie very endearing. Great cast. Cary Grant and Myrna Lloyd are delightful in this film. This is a classic black and white film that reflects the grand style of the 40's....clothing, architecture and family life. Many references are made to the cost of things, and those comparisons to today's costs are pretty amazing. I can't imagine anyone not enjoying this movie completely. I am surprised of the number of middle aged people who have never heard of it. A true classic.

Sentiment: positive
In theory, 'Director's Commentary' should have worked. The talented Rob Bryden plays Peter DeLane, a former television director recounting his experiences behind the camera. Amongst the programmes he is alleged to have worked on are 'Bonanza', 'Flambards', 'The Duchess Of Duke Street', and 'The Bounder'. His commentaries are not the least bit informative, due to his habit of wandering off the point.

But in practice, it failed dismally. It is a one-joke show, and the joke is not particularly funny. The scripts are completely lacking in wit, and Bryden fails to convince as an old man. Whenever stuck for anything amusing to say, which is like every five seconds, he issues a hissing laugh. Rather than being amused by DeLane, you want to shoot him. If senile old men strike you as hilarious, then this is for you.

It didn't help that the shows mocked were, with the exceptions of 'Mr & Mrs' and 'Crossroads', rather good. For the joke to work, they needed to be really dreadful such as 'Charlie's Angels', 'O.T.T.', 'Telly Addicts', 'Neighbours', and 'New Faces'.

The show tanked big time, so thankfully we are spared the horror of future editions. Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if 'Director's Commentary' were someday itself the subject of a spoof?

Sentiment: negative
This movie is amazing. You will NEVER laugh harder. It's a target. No, I think it's...yes it's...A BOOB! This movie gets funnier by the second--like when Jackie Chan's character finally dies in his final fight scene. This movie is velly velly seekwet like treasha! Congrats if you buy or rent this. You'll never return it, in my opinion. I didn't, and I haven't found it in a store since. I watched this movie once and I was forever in love with Kung-Fu action flicks. If you're looking for an amazing film in the realm of great production value, good or even mediocre acting, and good special effects...this is NOT that movie. If you're looking for laughs and timeless wonderment, pick this up for a dollar and you'll probably never let it go. With friends, popcorn and drinks, it's the perfect evening.

Sentiment: positive
Extremely poor action film starring the ever wooden Dolph Lundgren and Brandon Lee trapped in a sidekick role that never seems to gel. The action is at best average, a bit of nudity chucked in and yes Tia Carrera does use a body double! 

The set-up is the usual renegade cop forced to break in a new partner on a big case, the makers at least try to give the formula a twist making Lundgren the cop with Oriental values and Lee the modern city slicker but there is zero character development making it almost comical, Lundgrens oriental warrior outfit for the big showdown has to be seen to be believed. The action sequences are by the numbers and Lee(who would go on to make the excellent The Crow) is never given the scope to show off any particular martial arts brilliance. But given his illustrious parentage he must have been under a hell of a lot of pressure and was far better served not having to live up to his father by taking on a very different role in The Crow which showed what a unique actor he may have become if not for his tragic and early death.

Unless your a hardcore Lundgren fan or a fan of poor 80's style action movies (think Cobra etc.) then avoid.

Poor 3/10

Sentiment: negative
Yep.. this is definatly up there with some of the worst of the MSTifyed movies, but I have definately seen worse. Think Gremlins rated R. Well anyway, I met Rick Sloane at some sci-fi convention, that amazingly, he was lecturing at! It was one of those really low budget conventions, where everything goes, an everyone brought in something (if you want to see crap, you should have of seen what some friends and I brought in).

He seemed like a very nice guy, he was very cool about my questions and comments on Hobgoblins, and he even told me not to take it seriously, and said he loved the MST3K version!

All in all, Rick Sloane knew what he was doing. And I think was meant to bad like Mars Attacks. So I guess I'm standing up for this movie and giving it a 5, and betraying all my fellow MSTies. Sorry guys.

Sentiment: negative
Every time this movie used to re-air on late night TV in the late 70s and early 80s I would always make time to sit in front of the TV and watch it. To see the lovely Kate Jackson, handsome Richard Long, the "great" Polly Bergen whom I've never seen anywhere else except for this TV movie, the endearing Tom Bosley, and another "great" whom I've never seen outside this movie, Celeste Holme. This is truly the love boat on a cruise to murder and mayhem and boy was it ever good!! And every time I would watch it I would always forget who the real murderer was.

As expected, someone here is already criticizing the movie as if that really is a big help to anyone. This is a great TV movie and worth watching each and every time. I can't say that about half the movies I've seen this month.

If you ever get a chance to watch it on TV someday, which isn't likely, watch it. In light of "The Girl Most Likely To" finally coming out this year on DVD, maybe there's hope for a DVD release of "Death Cruise."

Sentiment: positive
If you like plot turns, this is your movie. It is impossible at any moment to predict what will happen next. Nothing is as it appears or ends as you think it will. The characters are all gritty and engaging. Cage is at his best. Dennis Hopper again shows his delightfully sinister side. JT Walsh is perfect in his last performance. Laura Boyle sizzles. Dwight Yoakum makes a film debut superbly in a cameo. I categorize this movie as "I am having a really, really, really bad day" film. Not a slow minute in this film. A real sleeper. This movie is underrated and, sadly, overlooked.

Sentiment: positive
The satirical movie website Dateline Hollywood joked that "Son of the Mask" was all a practical joke star Jamie Kennedy played on New Line Cinema for his show "The Jamie Kennedy Experiment." If only. And if only the movie had been half as funny as that satire piece.

"The Mask" was the ideal vehicle for the face-pulling Jim Carrey that so many viewers dote on; it also delighted males over the age of 12 by introducing Cameron Diaz. So having a followup minus both of them was not a good idea, plus you'd have thought New Line would have learned their lesson after "Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd." But no... though to be fair, having an all new cast is in keeping with the original comic (in which the Mask went from owner to owner). As written by Lance Khazei and directed by Lawrence Guterman, however, there's nothing there in return, except a steady stream of admittedly decent FX by the usual squadron of houses (Industrial Light and Magic improving on the "Ally McBeal" dancing baby and their own "Baby's Day Out," with the Tippett Studio, Giant Killer Robots, Digital Dimension and so on in support) and an even greater pandering to cartoon fans by having our hero work at an animation company (responsible for such gems as "Siamese Popes"), naming his character after Tex Avery, and working in not just references to classic cartoons but actual clips.

The trouble is that last approach doesn't really work, partly because most of the attempts to bring cartoon trappings to live action fall flat (especially the cars getting in the party mood) and mostly because the tributes to the Flintstones, Woody Woodpecker, "Duck Amuck" and especially "One Froggy Evening" show up how weak this movie is in comparison. Plus the movie fits in shambolic slapstick alongside strained sentiment (the underlying theme of the story is family; our hero isn't ready to have a son, and his nemesis - Alan Cumming as the Norse god Loki - is far from the apple of Odin's eye... and what Bob Hoskins is doing here as Odin, even after "Super Mario Bros.," is beyond me), and Kennedy just isn't in the same league as Carrey in the zany stakes - though it's not like he gets any help from the script. Also note that unlike Diaz, the very cute Traylor Howard (as the mother of the son of the Mask) doesn't get much to do; giving HER the Mask might have helped the movie.

Further points are lost for throwing away Cumming, Hoskins, Steven Wright and Magda Szubanski; for a suspiciously abbreviated running time (which would account for some gaping plot holes and scenes that seem to be missing); and for an incredibly bad attempt at an inside joke when our hero fails to sell the concept of the "green guy" as an animated TV series - "The Mask" did become an animated TV series in real life, and was a far better follow up than this sequel. The fact that this actually opened in Britain before the US should tell you everything... what with this and "Blade: Trinity," New Line seems intent on cornering the market on dreadful sequels with cast members from "Two Guys And A Girl." What next, "The Butterfly Effect 2" with Nathan Fillion?

Somebody stop this.

Sentiment: negative
If this is a 2008 product from one of the biggest production houses of Indian Film Industry (Yash Raj) then I am afraid it is a very long ahead for us to reach the right standards.

If you can go wrong to this length with such an enormous star cast of Anil, Akshay, Saif and Kareena, then movie making is still to be studied much harder by everyone associated with this film. The film lacks in almost all departments except cinematography and Akshay Kumar. He has a few good dialogues to render but that alone cannot make you enjoy a flick with huge expectations.

The first scene of a car going down into a river from the mountain has very cheap graphics like that of a cartoon film. That itself was a clear indicator of the director's vision. Every actor who otherwise is an asset to a movie is simply wasted. Anil Kapoor's gimmick of attempting good English falls flat most of the times. And Saif will surely hit himself thinking why he signed this movie.

In short IT'S THE BIGGEST WASTE OF RESOURSES AFTER "JHOOM BARABAR JHOOM". I would say that even "Aaja Nachle" was a better enjoyable movie than this.

One cannot understand how and why this kind of script was written and approved. The most unwanted was the flashback sequence of Akshay's love story. After the faulty script the weakest point of the movie is its music. Vishal Shekhar have given just some filler tunes to each song. The songs start off very well and suddenly the tunes drop drastically. Only one song "Falak Tak Chal" is somehow good of all in the lot. An opportunity wasted by Vishal Shekhar.

Regarding the continuity intelligence of the makers just sample this : Akshay and Saif are on the road in the hilly area of a foreign Location (probably Ladakh). In the next scene they are searching for Kareena in Haridwar and then back in the hills with Kareena in the dicky of their car. I am still thinking who wrote this.

If you manage to sit till the last then the climax is too long with silly and unnecessary stunts. You can see all the heroes walking through the storm of bullets not hurt as if they are GOD. Are we still seeing a 2008 movie with all these technical heights achieved? So no more words on this pathetic and downgrade movie but a sincere request to senior actors from their fan.

Dear Anil Kapoor & Akshay Kumar, If possible please ask for a preview of your movies after their first copy is out. As artists of such stature, you have certain responsibilities towards your fans and viewers. People still clap for you as you enter the screen in your first scenes respectively. I think this kind of movie should not see the daylight as it hampers the reputation of all associated with the movie, the actors and the production house both.

Sentiment: negative
This espionage melodrama has a nice, almost promising cast, and should have been very atmospheric; there is a will, or an intention of atmosphereand also a want, or a lack of it.

Sheen plays a dissident who now activates as an agent, he is a loner, loved by women but haughty; Mrs. Fossey is his mistress. Neill plays the gallant, generous, chivalrous Soviet agent.

Sheen and Neill are both essentially annoying; Finlay does a cameo, and so do other known actors. Mrs. Fossey is hot; but then again, she always is.

I will be your true friend and break it to youthe flick is low on suspense and on excitement, it's trite and quite boring; the good thing is that you get to see Mrs. Fossey naked. Other than that, lukewarm derivative espionage exploitation.

Sentiment: negative
First, what I didn't like. The acting was not really up to the Hamlet standard. Branagh was really over-the-top, doing a lot of yelling mostly. In my opinion, those actors who were not big-name celebrities generally did a better job; though I would except Billy Crystal and Robin Williams. (And Charlton Heston, too, but I wasn't sure if he was playing at being a hack.) A lot of the ambiguities in the play were clearly resolved one way in the flashbacks.

What I think speaks very much in this play's favor is that it is accessible. Shakespeare is hard to understand for the vast majority of people nowadays; many people are not even inclined to try, because of its reputation as Serious Literature and its archaic English. If they see this film they will understand clearly at least one man's interpretation of the play. They will be seeing it more as Shakespeare's audiences saw it: a play with sword fights and battles, and mighty kings and nobles, murder and incest and evil schemes and ghosts--and great art, if one cares to look for it, but in Shakespeare's day most didn't, any more than most people do now. Branagh's overacting, and his forcing of his interpretation of the story on the viewer, may detract from Shakespeare's art somewhat, but it is better that modern audiences get a piece of it, rather than nothing.

I've got to say one more thing though. Some people are complaining that "it's set in the 19th century and that wasn't Shakespeare's time". Well, in Shakespeare's time their costume and scenery was that of their own day for all of their plays. Shakespeare may have SAID it's in the days of ancient Rome or medieval Denmark or whatever, but he didn't dress his characters up like they were, he used the costumes of his own time. For the same reason his plays are full of anachronisms. For example, in King John the English and French have cannons--in Robin Hood's day. In Julius Caesar they talk of chimneys, which wouldn't be invented for another thousand years, and in Henry IV they talk about Machiavelli, who wasn't even born yet then. So I think this objection is silly--you might as well complain that the play isn't in Danish (after all they live in Denmark don't they?).

Sentiment: positive
This movie is awful, I can't even be bothered to write a review on this garbage! All i will say it is one of the most boring films I've ever seen.

And the acting is very bad. The boy who plays the main character really annoys me, he's got the same expression on his face through out the movie. I just want to slap him! Basically 80% of the movie is slow motion shots of skateboarders, weird music, and utter sh*t..

Apparently I've got to write at least 10 lines of text to submit this comment, so I'll use up a few more lines by saying the lead character has got one of those faces you just want to slap!

Meh i give up..THIS MOVIE SUCKS !!!!

Sentiment: negative
Very bad film. Very, very, very bad film. It's a rarity, but it defenitly is not worth hunting down. This Italian Jaws rip-off makes little sense most of the time, and no sense the rest. The "alligator" is not at all convincing, and many of the sub-plots go nowhere. If it's at the local video store, you may want to watch it if you're a fan of monster movies, but it's not worth hunting down.

Sentiment: negative
If utterly facile, regressive, self-indulgent, anti-establishment, anti-civilisation juvenilia appeals to you, then this is the ideal film. Very poorly scripted, with often inaudible dialogue and infuriatingly tiresome hand-held camera throughout, this is a film that presents the world in appealingly simplistic, Manichean terms: all adults (especially teachers, parents, priests and doctors) are insensitive and bumbling at best, and predatory monsters at worst. The only escape from the horrors of civilisation as a whole is plenty of primal screaming (yawn) and infantile regression (literally) in a primitive cave-like space in the woods, with utopia taking the form of a rave party - again, in the woods (naturally...). Displays all the weaknesses of a first film, and plenty more besides.

Sentiment: negative
For those who have enjoyed the Asterix books and films, you'll LOVE this film! Yes, I will admit that it does mix some of the books and films, but the characters are brilliant and it's not just people showing off their CGI left, right and centre. I've already seen it several times and laughed my socks off at it.

Of course it contains the main heroes Asterix (Astérix), Obelix (Obélix) and Dogmatix (Idéfix), but this time they have someone new to... deal with.

With a sense of humour like that, the Gauls will go on and on and on. Bless 'em.

Sentiment: positive
LL Cool J. Morgan Freeman. Dylan McDermott. Kevin Spacey. John Heard. Cary Elwes. Roslyn Sanchez. Justin Timberlake -- wait a minute. Justin Timberlake? And he's the star? I should have known better than to rent EDISON FORCE. In fact, I did know better. But in a moment of absolute weakness, I rented this STV. When you have big names like Freeman and Spacey in an STV, you know it's one of two things: an indie or a dog. As in sat-on-a-shelf. Which this did. And with good reason. The plot as such involves a squad of corrupt killer cops a la MAGNUM FORCE, and "journalist" Timberlake is the only one brave enough to uncover them. He is targeted for his efforts -- or maybe I should say for his horrible acting. I turned it off after one of the bad guys was shot through the forehead and still had the forethought to turn to his shooter and smile before collapsing. Just awful. The real tipoff to how bad this flick is to see Freeman on the cover and throughout the movie sporting an unruly beard, looking like nothing so much as a hobo. You just know the director was not in control. Freeman is clearly slumming.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was extremely boring. It should least not more than 15 minutes. The images of child and animal being killed were little bit disturbing.

Usually I don't write comments but this one was so bad having so many good and excellent comments. I think in this case we are one step closer to honest assessment of this title.

What more can I say? I fall asleep during this movie 3 times. It was about 4 hours after I had woken up from 8 hours long sleeping period. I think it is the point itself.

There is no dialog between characters except maybe 2 sentences at the very end.

When you fall asleep once watching it do not try to rewind and catch up because you will fall asleep again.

Sentiment: negative
After the success of Scooby-Doo, Where are You, they decided to give Scooby and Shaggy their own show. But unfortunately, they added a new character that spoilt Scooby-Doo success forever. They invented a new show with a new title, Scooby and Scrappy-Doo. It was Scrappy-Doo that made this show a complete failure, probably for both adults and kids together. Scrappy was the stupid brave puppy that always looked ready to beat someone up. Scooby and Shaggy were getting scared of the villain, and they were also trying to stop him. Scooby-Doo doesn't need any little annoying bastard puppy nephews. If they wanted Scooby-Doo to be more successful, they should have either killed or never thought up Scrappy. This was just poor, maybe your kids will prefer it!

Sentiment: negative
Saboteur is a 1942 film, partly aimed at getting American support for the war against Nazi Germany. Propaganda or not, it's great entertainment. The leading actors are Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane, although director Alfred Hitchcock wanted Gary Cooper, and Barbara Stanwyck in the roles, which would have given the movie more stature. This is a good movie anyway with Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane bringing their own style to the characters. As in other Hitchcock movies, we see the director's disregard for the socially suave and the well-heeled. He often portrayed spies and foreign agents as nice upper-class folk who at the same time sneered at democratic values and concepts such as guilty until proved innocent. These upper crust traitors are the last the police pursue or even suspect. Hitchcock had a lifelong distrust of the police. He wanted to elevate the regular guy, the bungler and the fellow who doesn't take himself too seriously. One can see him wanting Gary Cooper as an icon in the Frank Capra mold. Nevertheless, Bob Cummings puts his own stamp on the boy-next-door and works well in the role. Priscilla Lane, as the spunky female lead, comes off as the all-American girl who can handle herself quite nicely when put to the test. Robert Cummings, as defence plant worker Barry Kane, is framed for a bombing that kills his best friend. This leads to a cross-country chase scene reminiscent of other Hitchcock heroes on the run. Hitchcock repeats some of the well-established formulas from previous films - the reluctant female who is drawn into the action, e.g. Madeleine Carroll in the 39 Steps, and risking his life to evade the authorities who are on his heels. We view scenes of America as Kane tries to find the real culprit in the bombing he stands accused of. We see rivers, bridges, backwoods cabins, truckers, the Hoover Dam and finally, New York City. New York is a fitting backdrop for the climax as we go from Rockefeller Center to the ocean liners (with a cut to the ship Normandy) and the grand finale on the Statue of Liberty. Great movie with uninterrupted action. Don't miss it.

Sentiment: positive
Chris Rock stars in this remake of Warren Beatty's Heaven Can Wait (itself a remake of the 1941 film Here Comes Mr. Jordan), a comedy about a man who dies before his time, before he can realize his dreams, and his adventures in his new (albeit temporary) body. In the Beatty version, the protagonist was a backup quarterback for the then-Los Angeles Rams. In Rock's hipper version, our lead character is a struggling young - and decidedly low-talent - standup comedian.

It's very funny to see the razor-sharp Rock playing a bad comedian. It's kind of like seeing Tom Hanks play a bad actor. Lance Barton's dream is to play the legendary Apollo Theater on a non-amateur night. But every time he tries out his material, he's booed off the stage lustily - so much so that his nickname becomes "Booie." His jokes are lame, his delivery painful. In short, Lance is everything that the real Chris Rock isn't.

Lance is also a bike messenger, and he's riding the streets on his way to try out even more material when BAM! He's hit by a truck. Ok, so maybe he was taken from his body a tenth of a second early by a slightly incompetent angel (Eugene Levy), but hey, he was going to get hit anyway. No dice, it appears Lance isn't due in Heaven until 2044. So what to do? Mr. King (Chazz Palminteri), the "manager" of Heaven, reluctantly agrees to find a new body for the not-quite-dead Mr. Barton. Trouble is, the body they find is of a greedy, old white man. Turns out this fella (a Mr. Wellington) owns all kinds of things - he's the 15th richest man in the country! What luck! You can imagine how Lance will turn things around. 

But of course, while in the body of the affluent Mr. Wellington, Lance falls for a gorgeous hospital worker (Regina King). We males know how tough it is to find a female given our own body, but try winning one over while you're an dumpy, old white guy! And it's even worse when she's not impressed by your money. 

This is Rock's first shot at a lead role, and in my opinion he performs admirably. There's still a lot of the standup comedian in him - and, of course, if he ever wants to get diverse roles, he might have to stop incorporating standup routines into the script - but this isn't really a bad thing. Rock's personality - his drive, his delivery, his demeanor, and his passion - are what fuel this film. He's clearly having a lot of fun in the role, and he seems bent on making sure you have fun watching him.

Sentiment: positive
As a fan of old warner brothers gangster movies i had to check this out,its the 2nd best movie in the adventure classics DVD set that also had one of my favorite movies;Scott of the Antarctic on it.this was made in 1939 a good year for a lot of warner brothers movies,it boasts a great cast;John Garfield,Claude Rains,Ann Sheridan,and the dead end kids,who would be later known as the Bowery boys at monogram pictures. well a boxer(Garfield)gets framed for a murder he did'nt commit and is on the run and being tailed by a tough new york detective(Claude Rains) he ends up at a fruit picking place run by a pretty woman(Gloria Dickson)and the dead end kids(Huntz Hall,Leo Gorcey,Benard Punsley, Billy Halop,Bobby Jordan,Gabreil Dell)he later returns to boxing but tries to keep a low profile.this was directed by famed director Busby Berkley who directed timeless classics like 42nd street,goldiggers of 1933,and 35,footlight parade and many others.i would like to give a shout out to platinum DVD/video for putting out a lot of good budget priced DVD's like adventure classics(see my Scott of the Antarctic review)i give they made me a criminal 10 out of 10,great movie. ill have to point out that i have only seen 2 john Garfield movies,this one and body and soul.i thought he was a very good actor.

Sentiment: positive