DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This is an amazingly well-filmed early talkie adaptation of the Eugene O'Neill play. Its major drawback is a static camera, and as a result it comes off much of the time as the filmed play it is, which is a pity, for it's a good piece of primitive moviemaking, made at a time when sound was posing all kinds of technical problems, and as a result most films were experimental whether or not this was their maker's intention. Garbo is as mysterious and charismatic as she was in her silent films, and her entrance is still classic. Her voice is strangely deep, almost boyish, which only enhances her already seductively eccentric persona. As her boyfriend, Charles Bickford is appropriately virile,--he was apparently born craggy--and a perfect counterpart to the divine Garbo. His Irish brogue is not bad at all, and he seems always a natural man of the sea, very O'Neill-like in his independent, brooding nature. As Garbo's (very) confused father, George Marion seems truly from another time. He has the sort of face and voice,--open, unmannered, totally without guile--that has vanished from the earth. Marie Dressler is also in the O'Neill swing of things. Her blank expression and intensity around the eyes speaks volumes, as she plays her boozy character as a woman at times bordering on psychosis. Poetic license, perhaps, as this is not in the script, but we can forgive Miss Dressler's excesses; she is too good at it not to. The story ends with a movement to the next thing, as distinct from resolution, which isn't the author's cup of tea; and those who like their films neatly worked out in the end will be disappointed by the absence of any real surprise. In Anna Christie we are in O'Neill country, a place of sea, storms and fog, a feeling of all-pervading and damnable uncertainty, which we would now call ambivilance, or anxiety neurosis. Rather than analyze this mood the author simply and wisely presents it, as weather, land, ocean and people intertwine and address one another in a unique language we feel priveleged to have heard.

Sentiment: positive
OK, I know that a lot of people will probably resent this review as Watership Down is a "classic" and a standard part of most people's childhood, but seeing this film for the first time at the tender age of 18, I must admit: I really hated it.

We watched this film because my sister had read the book and really enjoyed it, and many people who whimpered at the very words "Watership Down"- their memories of seeing the film as children and having their emotions torn at the seams- recommended it. To be honest, I wish I hadn't bothered. I gave it the benefit of the doubt; generally I don't like to stop watching a film half way through. This was an exception. It was really, really, excruciatingly, sickeningly dull. This film was possibly the slowest thing I've ever watched (imagine a doped-up snail in space), and really didn't "do it" for me. The art was alright; the backgrounds were nicely made if not a little bland and twee, yet the rabbits themselves were not very endearing and the animation was quite jumpy and poorly produced.

I'm not going to go into huge details about the storyline; basically it is the tale of a group of rabbits who leave their warren due to the infiltration of humans in the area. Generally a moralistic story about the perils of human interactions on the environment, it uses anthropomorphic rabbits to put the message across. For me, I kind of wished that they would get gassed, not because I'm a horrible sadistic person, but because the characters were uninspiring, annoying, dull and generally quite rude (oh I'm so terribly English). I found that I was constantly looking at the clock whilst watching the film, and it took a whole 20 minutes or so before anything actually happened, and even that was a terrible anticlimax.

If I were to praise it in any way, I'd have to admit that the concept of showing children the perils of building on the countryside and hopefully unveiling the arrogance of humans etc etc is quite well-meaning. Maybe it is all in general sanctimonious and preachy, but the message it's trying to put forth is good in its nature. The musical score was not bad, too.

So, to conclude, this film is pretty poor. I couldn't watch it the whole way through, or I'd probably be forced to eat my own legs in sheer boredom. Granted, it isn't "Torque" bad, but it still doesn't rate highly in my eyes, so I've given it a 2/10.

Hope this helps.

Sentiment: negative
Flipping through the channels I was lucky enough to stumble upon the beginning of this movie. I must admit that it grabbed my attention almost immediately. I love older films and this is or should be considered a classic! One of the most wonderful rarities of this movie is that the main character was not only female but she was also a bad girl. I highly recommend this movie!

Sentiment: positive
While the sparkling chemistry between Ryan and Robbins alone is reason enough to see this movie, the supporting cast (including Matthau, Fry, Shalub, Durning and the hilarious trio of Jacobi, Saks and Maher) is an additional plus. Matthau shines as Einstein, Fry is perfect as Ryan's clinical fiancé, and Shalub's line about Einstein's gonads is, as has been noted, one of the highlights of the film. The speech that Robbins delivers at his first appearance in public is sheer poetry. Kudos to the writers for handling this froth with wit and levity. I also thought that Keene Curtis was wonderful as Eisenhower. This might be considered something of a chick movie, but I think everyone will get a kick out of it. Eight very solid points.

Sentiment: positive
Its a truly awful movie with a laughable storyline.some awful acting.and a script that Ed Wood might be ashamed of.Wagner is laughable in this. He plays his role like number two in Austin Powers.Easily the worst of the Airport movies.1 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
This is only the second time I stopped a video/DVD part way through.

I was willing to give this film the benefit of the doubt at first, even though it managed to be both shallow, clichéd and stupid.. AND joyless, plodding and pretentious.

It was like an After School Special directed by that weird grade nine kid who thinks nobody understands him... creepy and sad, with voice-over narration that only the most deluded adolescent would consider poetry... and some singing, and... no, really, the poor child's suffering...

Enough, already, especially when it morphed into a brazen, clumsy, and insulting Clockwork Orange ripoff. And did I mention the singing?

This isn't the worst film I've ever seen, but certainly the one I've felt least compelled to sit through. I don't recommend it to anyone.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this film at a time when I was timidly toying with the idea of moving into my own apartment and starting life on my own. Maybe that is the reason why I took it so seriously. I believed totally in the poor character's psychological degradation inside a Paris of perpetual construction sites, dust, squalor, selfishness, rudeness, malice and decay. I'm giving all the credit to Polanski's artistry in his direction, his playing and his inescapable script but I fainted during the horrible final scene and had to be revived by cognac in the office of the theatre's manager. Luckily for me, my life on my own didn't turn out as disastrous as this (so far) but I have always kept a great respect for an artist who can perform such illusions and so totally immerse himself in the (fake) reality he is trying to convey. Simply put, the man is a genius of the first order and a credit to the human race. This film is the sum of many, many instances of great acting and great casting. As some performances were done in English (the scenes with Shelley Winters and Melvyn Douglas among others) and others in French (with most other characters) and Polanski did his own dubbing in English and French, I heartily recommend, if you happen to be bilingual, to switch the audio from French to English and vice-versa, during the appropriate scenes while watching the magnificent transfer on Paramount DVD. This film is part of Polanski's so-called "apartment building trilogy" which also comprises "Repulsion" and "Rosemary's Baby". Unfortunately, "Repulsion" still hasn't made it to a decent DVD transfer in Region 1. Needless to say, the three films would make a magnificent boxset.

Sentiment: positive
They changed the title of this atrocity to An Unexpected Love. The only thing worse is the film itself. The script contains dialogue that would be laughed out of a third grade play recital. At one point when the wife leaves the husband, a bad cover of All by Myself plays over the soundtrack! No kidding. The actors try but are defeated by the inept, unbelievably terrible script. Direction is staggeringly bad. No wonder Lifetime has such a bad reputation. How do things like this get made. I'm turning off the television before it's over!

Sentiment: negative
Think a darker version of one of those kid shows such as "Power Rangers" and you have this film from 1990, "Robot Jox". A movie where you fight with giant robots, two men enter the arena and whoever comes out their country wins. The robots are huge and look like slightly better versions of the ones from said shows mainly because they are less colorful so while this movie is not good, it isn't all bad to watch. There are as I recall two robot fights in this one, one that ends badly and the final showdown. There is a plot twist part way through as a traitor is revealed, but in the end the plot is nothing that is going to stick with you for any amount of time after the picture is done. The fights themselves look like giant toys on the rampage, but still somewhat fun to watch. This movie would also spawn a couple of other films with similar plot devices such as the giant robots and the tournament. So it is worth checking out once, but probably not more than that.

Sentiment: negative
The Caprica episode (S01E01) is well done as a pilot. Really, this episode is the exact same content as the DVD pilot release. That having been said, episode 01 gives a very substantive background of the very popular "Battlestar Galactica" series (both the original and the 2007 remake). It significantly applies most to the 2007 series. As is the trending plots of sci-fi of late, this series explores "Virtual" life or environment. On top of this, we are given much background on the Adama family line as well as their relationship with the unrevealed (in the Battlestar Galactica series) creator of the Cylons. To the most part, this first episode revolves around the popular topic of "Virtual" life and (as is expected) early life of the colonies, and the birth of the Cylons. 

Over all, I rather enjoyed this episode. Although, it was not new material for myself or anyone that has already seen the DVD release of the Caprica pilot, the series seems very promising. As is the case with many pilots, episode 01 leaves us with a cliff-hanger so to ensure a follow by an audience (sci-fi community). I'm definitely going to keep watching for resolve as well as development. 

I give this series 8 stars.

Sentiment: positive
Please do not waste six hours of your life watching this as I did. The fact that I did is not a very good reflection on me. The only redeeming acting job in this clunker was by Wes Studi. How a 'prequel' with similar roots can not even be in the same universe as Lonesome Dove is beyond me!! It was a disjointed, rambling, incoherent story. Plot lines were not developed, action scenes were almost laughable and the big ending (disappointment) was a fitting ending to this mini-series. Val Kilmer who I have thought as a reputable actor played one of the strangest roles that I have ever seen him in. His final scene in the show had to have been a filler by the director. I have been reading these reviews for years and this show prompted me to sign up!!!

Sentiment: negative
It's funny, when you stop and think about it: fright film fans tend to a deep and abiding affection toward those who scare the daylights out of them. THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE may give us nightmares, but who among us (the Faithful) didn't feel a very real twinge of love for Gunnar Hansen in BRUTAL MASSACRE- or for Ken Foree, forever and ever the resolute hero of the original DAWN OF THE DEAD? His cameo in the remake made me want to stand up and cheer (as did Tom Savini's cameo); I kid you not. And Brian Halloran and... Well, you get my drift (if not, just stand downwind...). These are some of the Heroes of Horror. To see this many of them gathered together in a single movie is almost unheard of (at least to this degree, to my knowledge). If only the writer(s) had been up to such a monumental task. Maybe someone else, somewhere along the line, will try again. As long as it's not another half-hearted effort (like BROTHERHOOD OF BLOOD, for instance).

Sentiment: negative
Far from combining the best bits of Pontypool and 28 days this managed to ignore them. Whilst shamelessly copying them. (if that makes sense?) Pontypool was different and got progressively tenser, this just stinks. The Radio DJ, "we must stay on air" spends effectively no time on air. He sits on his bottom and watches the TV for news. This is by far the worst excuse for a zombie movie ever. Is there a single person in the USA or indeed the world who doesn't know what a zombie is? Or ever heard of the word "zombie"? Well, by the 50th minute this bunch of misfits are still calling the zombies, "the infected ones" or the ones with "rabies'. The word "Zombie" might make a guest appearance later, I could care less. Maybe there's a copyright where you have to pay to use certain words? Like the Bluetooth earphone is called "the ear-thingy" I kid you not! To finish, no plot + no acting = no-one cares. A waste of time, a shameless, poorly executed rip-off.

Sentiment: negative
Although Twenty Minutes of Love is a harmless attempt at an early comedy, it was difficult to follow and the film quality was not very good. It does have a couple of moments that are funny, but I have seen better by Charlie Chaplin.

Sentiment: negative
no redeeming qualities can possibly be expressed. i wish i could get my time back. nice skull face broad really smiles, bright at the camera when the disease has already wreaked enough havoc on the ill informed script. i was ((spoiler)) happy to see all the characters dead or severely incapacitated by the end, especially the party poopers that drink the tainted juice on their way to the alleged sunset. Eli Roth does shine for moments of maybe ten, putting forth the theory on how well weed smokes in the woods when others really fiend on top of beer consumption. overall, i found most of it pointless, though not without gratuitous violence and not enough nudity, happy to witness the demise of cast, in a way though, wishing that journey never happened (probably should've been getting laid instead of watching TBS late night, ugh).

Sentiment: negative
This is the most energetic and entertaining ten minutes of film >I've seen in a long time. As a film student at NYU, where this >short has been screened several times, I salute Jim Cox for his >astute sense of style and pace for our generation. I'm sure >I'll see his name later on the big screen. Hopefully this short >will find a market on TV or somewhere, so this inspiring work >can get the wide distribution it des

Sentiment: positive
First off, I must admit that both films I've seen by this director I saw without titles and so may have missed the points. My Czech isn't bad but, having sat through two of his films, I wish I hadn't even tried to learn. Samotari is too cool. Way too cool. It's about ten different story lines that weave in and out together. That's not so deeply unusual in a town the size of Prague (tiny, really.) The main characters are between 20 and 30. They've got jobs and only one studies. The best character is the young Balkan girl. Her sentiments are echoed by immigrants here every damn day. That's about it. The only great character. Everyone else is making their own lives hell quite on their own. How can I sympathise with such obvious incompetence? Perhaps there are interesting bits with Japanese tourists but do I need another stereotype in film? If you like alright music, see this film. If you want to laugh at others' stupidity, see this film. If you like irony and dry humor, see an original Jarmusch not an imitation. And under NO circumstances see Ondricek's film, Septej (Whisper.) That is unless you enjoy homophobic stereotypes.

Sentiment: negative
I first heard of this film when Patton Oswalt talked about it on his "Werewolves and Lollipops" CD. He said it was a lost classic that is completely ridiculous. Being a lover of terrible cinema, I knew I was in for a treat.

This film is, hands down, one of the weirdest I've ever seen. Certainly one of the weirdest shlock films. Basically, a demon took human form years ago for a woman, the woman died or something, the demon cried blood, the blood fell on the bed, the bed is now possessed and it now eats. Along with fruit, flowers and chicken, it also has a taste for people. The people can range between horny teens, mayors, gangsters, servants or professional orgy throwers. There's also a sick guy who the bed ate but put his soul behind a picture in the room.

Most movies let you figure out the plot through exciting action. Death Bed takes another path: it basically tells you through narration exactly what's happening while slow, dull murder scenes take place. Also, I must say everyone who's eaten by the bed are surprisingly quiet. I would think if a bed is eating you through the ways of a 5th grade science fair experiment, it would sting a little. I guess nerve endings weren't invented until 1981 or so.

The story is wacky, the direction is slow and pretty awful, the sets are sparse, the acting it fairly painful and the brother is one of the unintentionally ugliest actors I've ever seen. Probably would make a great party film if alcohol and smart-asses are involved. Certainly one you shouldn't miss.

Sentiment: negative
"Citizen X" is the superbly told true story of the hunt for one of history's worst serial killers. What makes this story even more compelling is where and when it took place; the Soviet Union in the 1980's.

** Mild Spoilers **

 Viktor Burakov (magnificently played by Stephen Rea) is a newly promoted forensic investigator for the Rostov oblast militia. He discovers past and present unsolved murders, apparently by the same person. The murders are unsolved because no one has ever taken the trouble to properly investigate the evidence. He is driven to find and stop the killer. His only tools are his dedication, skill and honesty. His obstacles are the corruption and political ideology of the Soviet system that discourages the search for truth. His naiveté would have led to failure were it not for his boss, Col. Mikhail Fetisov (Donald Sutherland). Fetisov is a politically astute cynic who understands the game and knows how to deal with the Soviet bureaucracy. However, he also shares Burakov's desire to bring a murderer to justice, even if the official party line is "There are no serial killers in the Soviet Union!"

 The cast is outstanding. The locations and sets are perfect recreations of latter day Soviet life. Randy Edelman's score is particularly good.

 More important, this film shows a dark and disturbing criminal phenomenon with both intensity and poignancy. This was a made-for-cable movie by HBO Films and they have become a great resource for films that would otherwise never be made.

Sentiment: positive
I'm surprised over the number of folks that have rated this entry as their favorite "Chan" (didn't they ever see "...at the Opera" or "...at Treasure Island?"--- the latter ironically written by John Larkin, who dropped the ball here). This plot is a train wreck and overloaded with pointless characters. First, viewers are required to recall the sordid details of Steve McBirney's (played by venerable thug and HUAC squealer Marc Lawrence) 1929's murder spree. Let's not forget he escaped a capital murder rap at the courthouse with a lone policeman on his tail. There's also a victim that was fished out of a river 11 years earlier that no one ever seems concerned about. Then there's the suspension of disbelief required when all the characters are seemingly trapped in the wax museum (although Inspector O'Matthews manages to wield his fat wet rear end inside through a window). Why is Joan Valerie (as Cream's assistant) in this movie? She can't even handle pliers properly--- I realize Chan suffers the same boo-boo but yeesh, he's 66 years old here-- (and has less than 10 lines--- and her character's motivation is too weak to ever be adequately 'splained (excuse me, when I'm on a rant I write like Ricky Ricardo). The Mary Bolton (Marguerite Chapman) character is written to as a eager wide-eyed moron, apparently existing only for the vapid romantic interest of horndog lawyer Tom Agnew (played by the ferret-faced Ted Osborne). Why is Willie Fern a character? Why couldn't McBirney's henchman pulled the switch at 8:20? (not a spoiler, okay?!). One wonders how, with the IQ of lint he manages to dress himself or why he hadn't stepped in front of a bus years ago. Toler himself is given a little more acting rope than usual (a plus) and the real kudos go to set designer Thomas Little and cinematographer Virgil Miller who created some genuinely spooky atmosphere... but this entry has less logic than a Ritz Brothers film. I'm still boggled by how a toothpick can be used as a blow gun.

Sentiment: negative
A scientific experiment designed to create a superhuman being has gone wrong.The creators become trapped in a remote desert outpost,pursued relentlessly and mercilessly by their own creation.James Stockton,the scientist whose research was used despite his protests to create the monster,is called the outpost to help undo the horror that now lurks somewhere within the dark halls.James,together with his son and daughter,soon find themselves trapped inside with the others,trying desperately to survive.And with the outpost sealed from within,there is no way out..."The Outpost"/"Mind Ripper" is highly unoriginal.The sets are pretty claustrophobic and there's a bit of gore.However as a horror it fails miserably on almost all levels.There's zero suspense,the script is weak and filled with big holes and the ending is extremely predictable.So-called master Wes Craven produced this one-I wonder if he is happy with this trash.Joe Gayton directs without any style.The acting is horrible,only Lance Henriksen can act at all.OK,I'm a big horror fan and was bitterly disappointed.Avoid it like the plague-it's just the same old boring crap again!

Sentiment: negative
1 hour and 40 minutes of talking--boring talking, and more talking and then some. It is hard for me to grasp how an actress like Anne Parillaud, who shone superbly in Femme Fatale, would sign up for such a piece of crap! Unbelievable. If you need a nightcap, this movie might help, although I would prefer some nice classical music. unfortunately, i just found out that i have to write 10 lines for my comment to appear--that's almost as unbelievable! so, short and succinct one or two sentence commentaries expressing one's core take on a movie is not enough. geez, people. i made my point and don't to waste your time with more, unnecessary words--as this movie does. Wolfgang

Sentiment: negative
It is one of the joys of Shakespeare that there can be no definitive performances - no single performance can be right', but some can be wrong, and this one is. There are at least two things about Hamlet which cannot be dispensed with: 1. His indecisiveness and inability to take any kind of action. For God's sake that is what makes the play last as long as it does. If you had Othello there instead of Hamlet, Claudius would be dead by the end of Act One. Any production has to try to explain why Hamlet delays, why he is incapable of action. 2. His sexual disgust. His total revulsion at the thought of what his mother and uncle get up to in bed fill him with an utter disgust for all things sexual and this means that any kind of relationship with Ophelia is impossible. At the slightest hint of sex, Hamlet throws up. So, what does Mel Gibson give us? Lusty action-man. You could not get further from the character of Hamlet if you tried. There are lots of ways Hamlet can be played, but this isn't one of them! What I don't understand is since they managed to get such good actors for the other parts - Claudius, Polonius and so on, why couldn't they find one to play Hamlet as well. Mark Rylance in the part would have made this a great film. This Mel Gibson', whoever he is, completely let down the rest of the cast. And lets face it, Hamlet without the prince really doesn't work.

Sentiment: negative
Presenting Lily Mars (MGM, 1943) is a cute film, but in my opinion it could have been better. Judy Garland is great as always, but some scenes in the film seem out of place and the romance between her and Van Heflin develops all too quickly.

I mean, one minute he's ready to beat her butt, but the next minute he falls in love with her. I believe that this production, the film editing, and the script ( even though the photography was great, the scenery was nice and the costumes were nice as well) could have been a little better. It feels as though the production was too rushed. 

The supporting cast was good as well, especially little Janet Chapman as the second youngest daughter daughter Rosie. She at the age of 11, looks really cute and it's a shame that she didn't develop into a teenage comic actress. She's much better in this film than in her previous films as Warner Brothers in the late 1930's (except for Broadway Musketeers 1938, she's really good in that), when they tried to make her into a Shirley Temple/Sybil Jason hybrid. Overall, this film could better, but in the end, Judy gave it her all.

Sentiment: positive
There's an inexhaustible hunger for "basic training" movies, so it's surprising that this one got so little notice when first released. Looks likely to have a well-deserved second life on DVD/VHS.

Tigerland isn't uniformly great by any means, there are some terribly cliched characters (especially the portrayal of the NCO's, makes you long for the return of Lee 'Full Metal Jacket' Ermey) but the lead performance of Colin Farrell is the stuff of instant stardom. Charisma to burn and a role any actor would kill to get.

Sentiment: positive
This was a must see documentary for me when I missed the opportunity in 2004, so I was definitely going to watch the repeat. I really sympathised with the main character of the film, because, this is true, I have a milder condition of the skin problem he had, Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB). This is a sad, sometimes amusing and very emotional documentary about a boy with a terrible skin disorder. Jonny Kennedy speaks like a kid (because of wasting vocal muscle) and never went through puberty, but he is 36 years old. Most sympathising moments are seeing his terrible condition, and pealing off his bandages. Jonny had quite a naughty sense of humour, he even narrated from beyond the grave when showing his body in a coffin. He tells his story with the help of his mother, Edna Kennedy, his older brother and celebrity model, and Jonny's supporter, Nell McAndrew. It won the BAFTAs for Best Editing and Best New Director (Factual), and it was nominated for Best Sound (Factual) and the Flaherty Documentary Award. It was number 10 on The 100 Greatest TV Treats 2004. A must see documentary!

Sentiment: positive
Renowned cinematographer Freddie Francis (Glory, The Elephant Man) directs this pretty bad horror/drama film. 19th Century England has a different view of how the practice of medicine should be handled than Dr. Thomas Rock, the law stating that only the bodies of hung criminals can be studied and experimented on. But the stockpile of these bodies is a small one, and Rock needs more - and he prefers them fresher. Being a maverick within his circle, he begins to pay people to find bodies for him to study and test on. Desperate sleazebags Robert Fallon and Timothy Broom get wind of this job opportunity and begin to murder people and sell these bodies to Rock. Naturally, this kind of action has even worse consequences than practicing on the dead bodies of non-criminals, and leads to trouble for everyone. While the overall story sounds intriguing on paper, almost everything about The Doctor And The Devils is laughably bad.

After the first fifteen minutes of the film you are already beginning to question your decision of sitting down to watch the film. The entire look of the film is just ugly. Seeing as how the film takes place in the slums of England during the 19th Century, the filmmakers were probably going for an "ugly" look, but they don't do it in an artful way. Everything from the sets to the cinematography just look cheap, feeble, and disgusting. Also, just about everything scene is filled with something that you simply cannot take seriously, and most of the time this has to do with someone (both in the small and large roles) doing something that looks or sounds completely ridiculous. Francis sure didn't help out his actors much.

Jonathan Pryce and Stephen Rea play the twisted buddies of the film, Fallon and Broom respectively, and are very bombastic but very bad. Their characters are by nature crazy, but Pryce and Rea overact the parts to death. They especially have trouble keeping the same accent from shot to shot - Pryce in particular goes from Cockney to Irish to Long John Silver to some kind of lagoon creature and so on and so forth. It's also a humor riot to see Twiggy in this film at all, let alone playing an in-demand street whore, since she can't act to save her life (though her song during the final credits isn't so funny). Boy she sure came a long way: from "flower power" to "I'll take mee clothes off for a shillin'!" As bad as those three actors are in this film, Julian Sands takes home the award for the worst performance of the film. He is just as lame as it gets, giving one laugh-out-loud attempt after another at portraying anger, love, happiness, anxiety - pick an emotion, any emotion! 

There's only one good thing about The Doctor And The Devils: Timothy Dalton's performance of Dr. Rock. Despite being surrounded by cinematic sewage, Dalton is quite excellent; giving an electric portrayal of an overly driven yet good natured man. Too bad the rest of the film could not have been as good as Mr. Dalton....

Sentiment: negative
This show can most accurately be described as TV Bubble-Gum: It's chewing, it has a good taste to it, and it lasts a long time. But, like Bubble-Gum, it can leave a bad taste in your mouth after a few too many chews.

This show features very simple questions that take the form of simply games, like Hangman, guessing a simple phrase or guessing items on a short list. Callers are the contestants, and anybody can play.

The questions, though, are terribly easy. There's some techno music pumped into the background that's fashioned into a continuous loop. It never seems to get old, but it never adds much to the show anyway. The hostess, however, regardless of which one that it, is extremely personable, pleasant enough to watch and can make some very amusing facial expressions. I rather enjoy that British woman.

But there's nothing to this show. It's simplistic and uncompelling, although it can be entertaining if absolutely nothing else is on.

Sentiment: negative
After 10 viewings in 20 years I too think this was the Crazy Gang's best effort on film, with more cohesion in the plot than their next best, "Alf's Button Afloat". They were indeed a crazy trio of double acts thrown together mainly on stage, sometimes in front of royalty, until Chesney Allen retired in the '40's through "ill-health". He outlived them all by years. Apparently they were just as mad outside "work", regularly playing practical jokes on one another.

The Six Wonder Boys troupe head for I'll-Get-Her-To-Tell-Me (Alaska) to dig for the gold that was being found there. It seemed a better idea than going to Mansfield ... because they'd been there. When they get to Red Gulch they find their information was a mere 40 years out of date - they thought that the chips that were in the guilty newspaper they'd read tasted funny. But by then it doesn't matter as they've all fallen in love with Snow White and want to help her grandad find his long lost stash of gold. Baddie Bill "M" McGrew wants it himself however.

The number of verbal and visual puns is astonishing, but most of them will probably only make sense(?) to Brits and ex-pats interested in seeing '30's British b&w comedies. Imho nearly all of the gags and routines work, including the Gold If patter between Bud & Chesney and the "Whistle While You Work" pastiche - even the "Always Getting Our Man" Mountie inserts. A marvellous little film, in a rather tired looking condition but utterly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
I thought that this is a wonderfully written movie. I love little Scamp, and the street-wise Angel. This movie is very easy for little kids to understand, but a good movie for adults as well. I liked this movie because it continues the original Lady and the Tramp, and that movie is a classic. Lady and the Tramp 2 Scamp's Adventure was filled with new characters, catchy songs, brilliant animation, and unforgettable classic characters. I have loved the movie ever since I saw it for the first time. I also loved how they showed the different personalities of each character. It also shows the downfalls and good things of making new friends that you can hang out with. My favorite song in the movie was Always there because it showed the different characters sharing their views on how they feel. I definitely recommend this movie for everyone that was a fan of the original Lady and the Tramp.

Sentiment: positive
I am completely baffled as to why this film is even liked, let alone held in such high regard, especially by so many critics who are, otherwise, quite sensible.

There is one key word which describes this film to its core - irritating.

The most easily explained example of this is the director's use - or, more accurately, abuse - of music. In the first half, a really dull reggae tune is played about three times (when once is too often). But in the second half, The Mommas And The Papas "California Dreamin'" is played at least seven times, usually at top volume. Godsakes, whether you liked the song or not beforehand, you'd be thoroughly sick of it by the end. Just think, some people claim to have seen this film four or five times. This means they've listened to California Dreamin either 28 or 35 times.....

All of this needless hyper-repetition (it contributes nothing to the story) could possibly be excused if the remainder of the film had any lingering merit, or if the story was in any way involving.

But it ain't.

The only aspect I found likeable was Bridgette Lin's charging around and still playing Asia The Invincible in a raincoat and sunnies. Even this wore off fairly quickly.

I'm sure this film's undeserved high reputation will convince many poor suckers to go and see it.

I can only warn you - if you've never seen a HK movie before, don't start with this one.

If you feel compelled to watch it, avoid at all costs seeing it in a cinema. The fast-forward and mute buttons are essential tools for survival here.

You have been warned !

Sentiment: negative
Southern Cross, written and directed by James Becket is a waste of good celluloid and actor's efforts. A formula film is not necessarily bad if it pays off on it's promise, which this film does not. It is a tiresome concoction of movie cliches that can be traced to a thousand different films from the past. It is full of random and empty plot twists that add nothing but aimless action, such as a trip by the protagonists to a ghost town where the villains (unexplainedly) follow them. This was obviously concocted as an excuse for a shoot out and escape scene bordering on the preposterous, with people popping in and out of doorways and running past windows while firing pistols at each other. It makes one believe that somebody told Becket there was a ghost town in the Chilean foothills and he said, "Oh great, lets do a shoot out scene there."

Don't even waste your rental money on this. It is a bunch of random bits and pieces from a hundred different films thrown together to call an action drama.

Sentiment: negative
It is only Robert De Niro film which I really hates. It is stupid film with horrible acting (of course not De Niro). For me, Brian De Palma must do his mafia films as always like Scarface (1983) or The Untouchables (1987). I also loved De Palma's Mission: Impossible (1996). De Niro worked with Palma two different times too, Greetings and The Wedding Party. I though that The Wedding Party was OK too (I didn't watch Greetings). 

Screenplay is really bad and unfunny. There are no any scene where I can smile for even one time. Film lost a chance to be a funny style even a little bit in a "Be Black baby" scene and also I don't like the scene where a guy's sexual organ appeared. So, it is one of the worst film I have ever seen! just worst. I hate that.

Sentiment: negative
I'm on the opposite end of the previous comment.

First of all, I don't think this was intended to be a straight sequel to "The Jerk". I mean, it's not titled "The Jerk 2"... it's "The Jerk, Too", which leads me to believe that while a lot of the character names are the same, it actually revolves around a completely different person.

Think about it: Virtually no connection to the previous movie, other than character names; a totally different story; different cast; and the fact that it's a partial musical.

I say give this movie some credit. It does have plenty of laughs in it.. Mark Blankfield at his prime.

Sentiment: positive
The most generic, surface-level biography you could hope for. Busey's impersonation of Holly is accurate -- but who wants to hear Gary Busey sing "Maybe Baby"? Typically, the members of the Hollies are used for comic relief and melodrama (Smith and Stroud, respectively) instead of as people or even characters. When Holly uses a string section, the old jewish-looking guys who come in tell him he's using the same techniques as Mozart. It's just this kind of cheeky statement that makes film biographies like this (and "Amadeus", about the aforementioned Mozart) so worthless. Some entertainment can be derived from Holly's excellent styles and songs done in a B-variation.

Sentiment: negative
During the early 1980's, Kurt Thomas was something of a hero in the United States. Inevitably, men in his position get offered film roles that exist solely to capitalize on that. I have no idea what Thomas was paid to make this film, but I would have to be paid a big heap of money to agree to make a national fool of myself in a motion picture. The film is obviously derived from "Enter The Dragon," as are most martial arts pictures. Only instead of a real martial art, they concoct an absurd new martial art, accurately described by one critic as "a cross between Kung Fu and break dancing." A gymnast (Thomas, of course) is hired to rescue some lady from an impenetrable fortress, yet every room has a prop that is exactly what Thomas needs to kick the assistant baddies. Of course, he fights his way to the lead villain, and of course they have a fancy-dancy fight, with an ending that will surprise only those who have never seen a marshal arts film. There are touches which nostalgic types will like, particularly the mullet haircuts of Thomas and many of the male co-stars have. But the only reason to watch this film is if you have a grudge against Kurt Thomas, who now wishes he had never set foot on the film set.

Sentiment: negative
There is so much that is wrong with this film, but to sum it up: Terrible acting- so bad it must have been on purpose. poor script - they may have had some good ideas but this was not the best way to present the story. ridiculously bad ending- in some cases the ending manages to save the film-not in this case. if you manage to sit through the entire film you will want to kick yourself at the end because the ending is not even worth waiting for. This is the worst film i have seen in a long time. It was complete torture sitting through this film, i would have appreciated someone warning me in advance. So do yourself a favor. Watch this film only if you have absolutely nothing better to do. Even then you will regret having put yourself through the unspeakable torture.

Sentiment: negative
A shaky hand-held camera was used, presumably to give the film a documentary look, but the effect was so exaggerated that I started to get motion-sickness just from watching it. It looked like someone with cerebral palsy was holding the camera (no offense meant to CP sufferers, but I don't think you would expect to get much work as a cinematographer!) The camera work was so nauseating, and so distracting, that my wife and I considered it unwatchable and gave up on it after 10 minutes of torture. I checked back a while later (it was showing on TV), and it hadn't gotten any better. I suggest giving this one a miss unless you need to get rid of any bad sushi you may have eaten!

Sentiment: negative
Proof if ever more was needed, that an action movie, irregardless of its budget, can LOOK better with more setups (or cameras), closer shots, and many more cuts. The 'Martini' generation has moved on to John Woo. Deep Fault could be better for a work over in the cutting room. Ray

Sentiment: negative
There's a good movie lurking here, but this isn't it. The basic idea is good: to explore the moral issues that would face a group of young survivors of the apocalypse. But the logic is so muddled that it's impossible to get involved.

For example, our four heroes are (understandably) paranoid about catching the mysterious airborne contagion that's wiped out virtually all of mankind. Yet they wear surgical masks some times, not others. Some times they're fanatical about wiping down with bleach any area touched by an infected person. Other times, they seem completely unconcerned.

Worse, after apparently surviving some weeks or months in this new kill-or-be-killed world, these people constantly behave like total newbs. They don't bother accumulating proper equipment, or food. They're forever running out of fuel in the middle of nowhere. They don't take elementary precautions when meeting strangers. And after wading through the rotting corpses of the entire human race, they're as squeamish as sheltered debutantes. You have to constantly wonder how they could have survived this long... and even if they did, why anyone would want to make a movie about them.

So when these dweebs stop to agonize over the moral dimensions of their actions, it's impossible to take their soul-searching seriously. Their actions would first have to make some kind of minimal sense.

On top of all this, we must contend with the dubious acting abilities of Chris Pine. His portrayal of an arrogant young James T Kirk might have seemed shrewd, when viewed in isolation. But in Carriers he plays on exactly that same note: arrogant and boneheaded. It's impossible not to suspect that this constitutes his entire dramatic range.

On the positive side, the film *looks* excellent. It's got an over-sharp, saturated look that really suits the southwestern US locale. But that can't save the truly feeble writing nor the paper-thin (and annoying) characters. Even if you're a fan of the end-of-the-world genre, you should save yourself the agony of watching Carriers.

Sentiment: negative
I think this is one of the best tamil movies i've seen in a while. i love the fact that it doesn't revolve around a guy and girl falling in love and they made the movie brilliantly. The cast did a great job and i especially congratulate the litte girl. She was brilliant and really brought out the feeling of an adopted child searching for her real mother. Best of all are the songs, beautiful music and moving lyrics. There are some great songs in this move ya'll! especially 'Kannathil Mutthamittal' and 'Velai Pookal'. Great songs, both of them. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who wants to enjoy a good cry and some great acting (and superb songs! ). Cheers Simran.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was thoroughly unwholesome, unsettling and unsatisfying. Apart from a few nice shots of Italy, there's nothing to recommend this movie. As usual, Hollywood draws the wrong conclusion from a fractured existence--the _next_ guy you meet, whom you sleep with after knowing for a few hours, _he_ must be Mr. Right. As for humor, there is some in the movie, but I can't see how anyone could possibly label this a romantic _comedy_ since about three-quarters of the movie is totally depressing! My recommendation? Skip it in the theaters, wait till it comes out on DVD, then skip it there also. I want someone to give me back the two hours I wasted watching this dreck, drivel, dross.

Sentiment: negative
I don't recall a film which so deftly shows the emotional destruction of war, as mirrored in one single marital relationship. The focus of the film is the union between Ullman and Von Sydow--the two are in every scene. Through the course of the film, they experience a role reversal--one has the strength of survival and the other is reduced to emotional escapism through dreams. Both will lose a measure of humanity, but one to a greater degree than the other. The characters and the viewer go through periods of fluctuation in regards to closeness--the camera pulls out and away, sound disappears, words are lost, only for the camera to return to painterly closeups of its facially expressive stars. The confusion and fluctuation may make this film hard for some viewers, but this is all purposeful under the master hand of Bergman. I think the use of a "fake" war makes the film timeless, as relevant today as ever before, and by focusing on the human relationship through war, makes the film relevant to everyone. The pair could be anyone. The film is not grounded in place or time, but rather in emotion. A unique and effective war film, unlike any other. Bergman's films are virtuosic in presenting human relationships--that he would bring this to a war film is masterful.

Sentiment: positive
Dear reader, Watch out! This movie is not really a movie, though its creators have the impertinence to call it so. If you have not been warned about its content, here it goes: the film is simply a sequence of imagines which flow continually and are trying to transmit a certain feeling, concept. They could be called, therefore, symbols. The images are accompanied by a soundtrack, it's purpose being to create atmosphere as well. However, the images the director has chosen can only transmit feelings to an American audience, because they are, in an overwhelming number, American icons. Though the film is intended to express the idea of "civilized warfare", it fails to do so not only because of the general chaos, but also because it is far too long and tiresome, and I strongly felt that a lot of the scenes have not to do with "war", in whichever conception. To conclude, I was greatly disappointed by a documentary which is not a documentary, a movie which is not a movie, a "something" whose only strong point is the extraordinary use of technology in image processing.

Sentiment: negative
SPOILERS This is a gripping movie about grifters. But who is conning who here? When does the hunter turn into the prey? This gritty, dark movie is slow moving and seductive. It pulls you in and drags you down the proverbial garden path, only to waylay you just as you think you are safe.

It has a riveting script, with good acting (at least from the leads). I didn't notice the background music, but it was never jarring, so it must have been done right.

I was very surprised that I liked this movie, because I don't usually go for this genre but this one sucked me in and kept he hooked until the end.

Sentiment: positive