DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This was without a doubt the WORST movie I have ever see, yet once I started, it was just like the really bad car wreck on the side of the road - you can't help yourself, you just have to look. My EYES !!! The acting was awful, the production was awful, the filming was awful, awful, awful, awful. I was glad the priest got chopped, would have loved to have done it myself because of his POOR acting. I mean suck-ful acting to the tenth power. I would have cheered if Chris had just axed the lot of them before turning it on himself. And what was WITH that freaking wig from hell on his head?! I sincerely hope no one got paid, I mean if getting paid were to be considered here, they should be paid to never attempt another film project again, everyone that was involved, never, never again. That was just a huge piece of garbage that I am embarrassed to say I just had to keep watching until the very end. Don't watch it, it's about an hour and a half of your life you will never get back, and then you'll have to spend time registering on this website so you can write a comment like I am doing now, which you must do as a catharsis in order to survive the aftershocks of having viewed this film (and I use the term "film" loosely here).

Sentiment: negative
Meek, tiny, almost insignificant. Polanski finds the invisibility of his characters and makes something enormous out of it. In front and behind the camera he creates one of the most uncomfortable masterpieces I had the pleasure to see and see and see again. It never let's me down. People, even people who know me pretty well, thought/think there was/is something wrong with me, based on my attraction, or I should say, devotion for "Le Locataire" They may be right, I don't know but there is something irresistibly enthralling within Polanski's darkness and I haven't even mentioned the humor. The mystery surrounding the apartment and the previous tenant, the mystery that takes over him and, naturally, us, me. That building populated by great old Academy Award winners: Melvyn Douglas, Shelley Winters, Jo Van Fleet, Lila Kedrova. For anyone who loves movies, this is compulsory viewing. One, two, three, many, many viewings.

Sentiment: positive
To call this anything at all would be an insult to everything else. Some expletives might describe it, but still too positively. Normally one ignores this kind of rubbish, but it was so stupid that one can but despair. Would have though that even Americans and commercial TV-stations would have given this piece of s**t a miss. But as the Germans say: Gegen die Dummheit kaempfen die Goetter selbst Vergebens!

Sentiment: negative
*What I Like About SPOILERS* Teenager Holly Tyler (Amanda Bynes) goes to live with older sister Valerie (Jennie Garth) to avoid moving to Japan with her father; but she doesn't know the half of the wacky things that will happen to her from now on, and not only to her, but to her sister, her friends Gary (Wesley Jonathan) and Tina (Alison Munn), boyfriend Henry (Michael McMillian), crush Vince (Nick Zano), Valerie's boyfriend Jeff (Simon Rex), first boss (then firefighter then husband) Vic (Dan Cortese), annoying colleague Lauren (Leslie Grossman) and second boss Peter (?) If you don't have a funny bone in your body, please skip this; if you like only veeeery sophisticated comedy this isn't for you; if you like a funny, sometimes touching show with two hot chicks who can act in the lead (and none other than the fabulous 'Mary Cherry' from Popular - Leslie Grossman - in the main cast), then what the hell are you waiting for? You're welcome to Casa De Tyler! What I Like About You (2002-2006): 8.

Sentiment: positive
I must, in light of the encomia of praise for this flick from viewers, assume once again the role of the turd in the punchbowl, as Lowell Weicker used to say, I am scratching my head at the sheer number of laudatory comments. "The African Queen" this ain't. The period flavor is wonderful, yes. The acting is fine, but no actor no matter how great can bring life to the seemingly endless stream of perfectly tedious and insignificant party and dinner table conversation here, and I care not how much of it is taken from Joyce's text. Imagine spending an hour and a half as a fly on the wall at a Christmas dinner of a not particularly interesting group of people (it's not clear to me that it's a family, as one person suggested), having to listen to their mundane table talk, and you have the essential experience of this movie. Absolutely nothing happens. And nothing important is said, but it is said at interminable length. As I said, the popularity of this movie is a mystery to me. Speaking of mysteries, watch a good one rather than this.

Sentiment: negative
Hi, I have to say you got some wrong information about the series here. The main author was Richard Carpenter, he created the series. Later on there were some other authors but they only did a few episodes.

The first director who did most of the series (I think complete series 1) was Ian Sharp who created the distinct look of Robin of Sherwood.

Clannad did indeed see some of the material and they read the scrips. I know this for sure because Richard Carpenter told it on a Con in England last year.

I think this is a masterpiece of Television-Entertainment, because it has great characters and cast, good costumes and great story lines. For me still one of the best TV-series ever!

Sentiment: positive
Cheap, mediocre sequel to the successful "The Mummy's Hand" has presumably dead evil Professor Andoheb(George Zucco)preparing his predecessor Mehemet Bey(Turhan Bey)for the quest of revenge overseas to America using mummy Kharis(Lon Chaney, Jr who has no reason being in the disguise..any stunt man could do the same credible work lumbering around and choking victims)in the goal of killing the surviving members of the Banning family whose patriarch Stephen(Dick Foran)and assistant Babe Hanson(Wallace Ford)retrieved the mummified corpse of Princess Ananka from her tomb in Egypt..Andoheb considers this an outlandish act of desecration and wants the family to suffer for doing such an awful deed towards an ancient Egyptian custom. Bey and the mummy Kharis find a nice hideaway in a cemetery where the High Priest of Karnak can work as a caretaker in disguise. Every Full Moon, Bey will feed Kharis a form of liquid derived of several Tana leaves which will keep him not only alive but subservient to his master's wishes. Bey commands Kharis to kill Stephen and his sister Jane(Mary Gordon), while also biding time for Babe to return so that he will become victim # 3. Dr. John Banning(John Hubbard)plans to wed Isobel(Elyse Knox), but doesn't know that Bey secretly covets his fiancé making plans to kidnap her with Kharis' help. John's life is in danger because of his father..he's also the last remaining member of the Banning line. If Bey has Isobel, there's no chance of any more Bannings being born. The police must find Kharis and the one responsible for his carnage..Bey.

This film is a continuation from HAND set years later as members of that film, Foran, Ford & Zucco all appear in "aging" make-up providing wrinkles showing the gaps in time as Andoheb has been preparing for the deaths of the Bannings. The cornball romance of John and Isobel seems merely in this plot so that Bey will screw up endangering his perfect plan which was being carried out successfully before he loused it up. And, Bey merely sees her frolicking with John on the grass..the whole "love-at-first-sight" rubbish really didn't wash for me. Plus you have the mummy being able to kill people with one arm..is any mummy really THAT powerful? This film also uses a ton of footage from the previous film to save budget on this sequel to it. There really isn't that much story here and yes, typical of Universal monster pictures, even in America a mob of people will light..ho hum..torches going after Kharis. You know how it'll end..John and the super-powerful Kharis will square off in some huge mansion with fire burning all around them with the evil one being engulfed in flame.

Sentiment: negative
To those who have not followed the Anne Marie Fahey Murder case. You are missing out one of the saddest yet complicated murder of all. The murderer is popular Delaware attorney, Tom Capano and the victim is the Delaware Governor's Scheduling Secretary, Anne Marie Fahey. Their relationship was a well-kept secret until her disappearance and murder. She wanted to leave him but he just wouldn't let her go so easily. On the other hand, he had a mistress and a wife and four daughters. Where did he find the time to have two mistresses and a domestic family life? Besides, the case is extremely complicated and fascinating for a four hour mini series. While the actress who plays Ms. Fahey does a fine job, she does not have her dark long hair. His other mistress is definitely more attractive than the actual woman. Mark Harmon is better looking and does an Emmy award winning performance as Tom Capano. It would be better with actual Delaware and Philadelphia locations. With Ann Rule's executive producing, she adds accuracy to Anne Marie's characteristic of organization and her personal battle with an eating disorder. These bits of information might be overlooked by any other executive producer or director. If you have not read the book, it is well worth it. Ann Rule is a fascinating storyteller of true crime. It is ironic that Mark Harmon plays Tom Capano. He also played Ann Rule's former friend and subject, Ted Bundy in an another book adaptation many years ago. He was brilliant then and now. He does an above average job with an amazing story. Even President CLinton offered his assistance in the Anne Marie Fahey case. And now, the former Governor Tom Carper is now the United States Senator for Delaware who defeated longtime, popular incumbent Senator Richard Roth in the November 2000 election. IF you don't think the movie is interesting, then the read Rule's book.

Sentiment: positive
Really a terrible movie. It's to be expected, though. Clearly a low budget: nothing all that innovative, an actress (if you can call what she does "acting") who always has roles with nudity in a shower scene, a man in a reptile suit almost modeled after predator, a cabin in the woods, etc. But there are some redeeming points. Although the story is not new, for the most part, there's a few parts that aren't so regurgitated. For one, the black guy doesn't die when he's attacked (the first time) and he isn't even one of the first couple to die. But that's minor. More importantly, there's a very interesting twist regarding Kat's experiments and Wes & Steve that I didn't see coming. When Steve told Kat he knew what she did, I believed what he said and what Kat replied with. But when the creature revealed who he really was, I was pleasantly surprised at the novelty of the revelation. It could be because of my lack of experience with the genre, or that it's a genuinely clever twist.

Either way, the movie's pretty bad and don't watch it if there's anything better on... Unless you're in the mood for a cheap scifi flick.

Sentiment: negative
This was one of the worst films I have ever seen.

I usually praise any film for some aspect of its production, but the intensely irritating behaviour of more than half the characters made it hard for me to appreciate any part of this film.

Most common was the inference that the bloke who designed the building was at fault an avalanche collapsing it. Er ok.

Also, trying to out ski an avalanche slalom style is not gonna work. Running 10 feet into some trees is not gonna work. Alas it does here. As mentioned before the innate dumbness and sheer stupidity of some characters is ridiculous. In an enclosed space, with limited oxygen a four year old could tell you starting a fire is not a good idea.

Anyway, about 5 minutes of the movie redeems itself and acquires some appreciation. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence you too will find most of this film hard to tolerate.

It pains me that so many quality stories go unproduced and yet someone will pay for things like this to be made.

Oh, did I mention the last five minutes? Well to give you a hook you have to keep watching in order to see the latest in combative avalanche techniques. Absolutely priceless.

Sentiment: negative
What makes watching and reviewing films a pleasure is when every once in a while when you least expect it a film like The Cell comes along and knocks your socks off!. This movie is a superb horror that has everything a you could want when you want to be scared out of your witts. Without going into the story all i will say is that it has a great beginning ,middle and end that keeps you on the edge of your seat while being transfixed with the amazing special affects. The acting is good without being outstanding but that does not matter because the subject matter and the way it is put on the big screen makes this one of the best horror movies i have seen for a long while. It is one of those films that you imagine started as a novel but saying the credits it does not look like an adaptation , so a lot of credit must go to Mark Protosovich the writer. 9 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
This is a thriller with a good concept, good acting, good photography and good intentions all around, but which is confused and disjointed in execution.

Garcia stars as John Berlin, an L.A. forensic detective who has moved to a small California town at the behest of a friend of his on the force there. He soon becomes involved in the investigation of an unsolved murder which leads to his theorizing about the existence of a serial killer whom no one else believes in. The known victim is theorized to be blind, which leads to a romance with a blind girl - believed to be a witness - at a nearby school for the blind.

Despite a basically intriguing story there were too many quantum leaps and plot holes in this movie where I found myself wondering, 'how the hell did we wind up here?' or 'how did we find this out?' I found it confusing and disjointed, despite the good acting, etc. John Malkovich has a small part toward the end as an F.B.I. investigator out to get Berlin.

Not recommended.

Sentiment: negative
I watched this movie just a little while ago and I found that this movie was terrible! It moved very slowly and was hardly entertaining!

Sorry for all those that liked it.... this is only my opinion!

Sentiment: negative
Paulie sounds like the most saccharine, lachrymose and sentimental garbage you could ever find, yet it's actually much better than you might expect. The daftness of the plot could so easily have set the tone for the whole film, but actually in most other departments the film is charming.

In case you're wondering, Paulie is a parrot. Bought for a little girl with speech difficulties, Paulie becomes her best friend and goes everywhere with her. He even sits on her shoulder during speech therapy lessons, and eventually becomes a super-intelligent speaker himself. However, Paulie is sent away by the little girl's mother and he spends the rest of the film trying to get from N.Y.C to L.A to be re-united with her.

So, why does this awful-sounding film succeed relatively well? Firstly, it boasts some interesting and impressive animatronic effects. Secondly (and far more significantly) it has the courage to embrace its ludicrous premise and tells a genuinely moving, often humourous story without worrying too much about the obvious flaws in the storyline. Thirdly, it has several surprisingly strong performances, including Jay Mohr as a wily crook, Gena Rowlands as a kind old lady, and Cheech Marin (yes, the dope-smoking Cheech Marin!) as a musical immigrant. It might not be a classic, but Paulie is sound entertainment for kids of all ages.

Sentiment: positive
i was extremely excited for this movie! my expectations were under control because i read the book first sooo i expected differences. what i didn't expect were how great the differences were. Starting off by the characters physical appearances...like Channing Tantums lack of tattoos n Amanda Seyfried not being a brunette lol but i let that go...the character developments were not there at all...you didn't have time to love amanda seyfried character and you couldn't feel for her or for john when they first separated...i thought the two weeks were rushed and i hated that she left first then him...it took the emotional separation away...and why did they change Tim from the book...why did they make him a dad instead of a brother and why did they make him sooo old looking and the movie lacked that intense moment when they find out what happens at the end (didnt want to spoil it lol but for those who watched it u know what i mean) and whhhyyyy ooooo wwhyyyy did they change the ending...in the book it was heartbreaking and emotional and it emphasized on Channing Tatums character's decision whhyyy did they twist it...it just made it look like a rushed ending...it was terrible...thats what disappointed me the most...the ending of the book should have been exactly the same :(

Sentiment: negative
Definition of documentary: A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration. The key word here is informative. I love They Might Be Giants, and barely learned a thing about them.

The interviews with all the celebrities were pretty much worthless. I don't care what Sarah Vowel thinks of anybody and Syd Straw was downright irritating. And is listening to people recite TMBG lyrics like they were supposed to be funny/interesting? It was neither. I think that was the problem: the movie spends time discussing TMBG's love for coffee. So what?? Millions of people love coffee. Was the presentation of the material funny? No! There were hints that both men are married, yet it was never discussed. And what about the solo material they did? What motivated them to do it? These type of questions are not addressed nor answered.

I could go on and on with the negatives. I did find the segment on Dial-a-Song very interesting. If you want to learn about They Might Be Giants, just buy a few CD's and listen. Seriously. This movie is a gigantic disappointment. I can't believe so many folks gave it a 10. Incredible.

Sentiment: negative
this video is 100% retarded. besides the brain cell killing acting and plot, it's way too long. don't waste your money at the video store. i actually was mad that i sat through this garbage and spent money on it. just absolutely awful.

Sentiment: negative
To the guy who hatched the idea for Lifeforce I have one thing to say: Thank you, sir! Lifeforce combines the big-budget sci-fi pomp of Star Trek: The Motion Picture with the cheap horror thrills of Phantasm and tops it all off with t-ts-- and some real meaty hangers at that..And best of all, it's actually a good movie! It amazes me that someone actually justified a mainstream movie that is a vehicle for a hot chick to appear naked on screen for an hour and a half to producers. God bless you, all of you who were involved.

Steve Railsback (Helter Skelter) plays Col. Carlson, the American commander of an international space mission sent to investigate Halley's Comet. Carlson's crew finds an alien vessel inside the comet and inside that they find three naked people in suspended animation--two guys and a hot broad (Mathilda May). Well, to make a long story short, they're "space vampires"...naked "space vampires." They trash the crew except for Col. Blueballs who decided that he had to let the hot chick out of her lucite display case because the part of his brain that controls his nut fluids told him it was the right thing to do. The Col. wings it back to our big blue ball in an escape pod. Meanwhile, another space shuttle crew has discovered his ship floating dead in space and has brought the three space coffins of the Living Dead Martians back to London. And that's when people start turning into pork rinds and s--t in general just starts getting' way out of hand too damn fast.

Carlson teams up with the unflappable Col. Caine (Peter Firth) of the British S.A.S. to track down our naked cutie--who is having one hell of a time sucking guys off left and right. Carlson's discovered that he has a mental link with Vampira that allows them to track her down, with the ultimate goal being to blow her ass away and wreck her and her pals' big space umbrella that sucks up the energy of the people that the vamps attack. Will they succeed in time? MINOR SPOILER: Yes.

Wow. What can I say but "Wow"? This damn movie really works. I can't believe they got actual British actors like Aubrey Morris (A Clockwork Orange) and Patrick Stewart (Sexiest Man Alive or some such title) to appear in this film. All the actors are good. Direction is good and really shines during the last half where we see the fantastic devastation of London. Special effects are no slouch either. For 1985, this movie must've been the s--t as far as fx goes. All the effects are fairly impressive and there's a wide range of talent on display here in animotronics, makeup effects, light shows, and very nice space scenes with some good old-fashioned modeling and matte painting--very nicely done. There's even some gore and bloody squib shots for all the horror fanboys out there.

Lifeforce is a great film for anyone who has nostalgia for when popular films on the bigsceen were made with 100% love from start to finish. The creators of the movie really made sure all the bases were covered and the end result is a phenomenally fun affair that doesn't let you turn away because the proceedings are just too good-looking. Real solid entertainment here: 8 1/2 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
It is sad to have to say that a film is truly awful and one tries to find ways around saying this. However, this is a dreadful film. Gene Hackman wastes time (and one suspects, many dollars) on re-playing his most famous, and oft recreated, role as "Gene Hackman". Otherwise, television actors are given the chance to become film stars, and successfully, resist the temptation. Patrick Swayze has a minor part and went on to greater things, for which he must be eternally thankful.

I watched this film, as a result of someone else's review and I felt that another point of view was merited. You may not agree with my review but now, at least, you have been warned.

Sentiment: negative
I am a kung fu fan, but not a Woo fan. I have no interest in gangster movies filled with over-the-top gun-play. Now, martial arts; *that's* beautiful! And John Woo surprised me here by producing a highly entertaining kung fu movie, which almost has *too much* fighting, if such a thing is possible! This is good stuff.

Many of the fight scenes are very good (and some of them are less good), and the main characters are amusing and likable. The bad guys are a bit too unbelievably evil, but entertaining none the less. You gotta see the Sleeping Wizard!! He can only fight when he's asleep - it's hysterical!

Upon repeated viewings, however, Last Hurrah For Chivalry can tend to get a little boring and long-winded, also especially because many of the fight scenes are actually not that good. Hence, I rate it "only" a 7 out of 10. But it really is almost an "8".

All in all one of the better kung fu movies, made smack-dab in the heart of kung fu cinema's prime. All the really good kung fu movies are from the mid- to late 1970ies, with some notable exceptions from the late '60ies and early '70ies (and early '80ies, to be fair).

Sentiment: positive
Just saying you've got a movie about John Holmes is a guarantee to get some folks in front of the screen, but writer/director James Cox delivers oh so much more. A "Rashamon" of the sleazy Hollywood set, the film splitters the July 1981 Wonderland murders through a variety of angles (and film stocks), but mostly through the filter of John Holmes' coked out weasel brain. In a film full of bad guys Holmes is either the most vile, the most pathetic or both. Several versions of the story emerge and merge as Cox flashes jump cuts and twisting title cards amid effects and emoting. The dialogue is fast and naturalistic and never once rings false. While the film takes places two years after Holmes had fallen out of porn and into a truly wicked drug fueled depravity, Kilmer relentlessly exudes a sexuality so intense it can be measured in inches. This sexuality at its edges creates a sense of foreboding that hangs over the entire film almost as heavily as the violence at its center. Those murders are teased at through the whole film though are never clearly shown, not even at the climax,though the violence of them relentlessly infuses the whole picture and much blood is splattered across walls and crime scene photos. Once again Val Kilmer as Holmes shows he can act wacko better than anyone else working. Strutting, cringing, bragging or begging, Kilmer is constantly in character and the character is constantly a fascinating car wreck. Stand out performances beside Kilmer definitely include Ted Levine as the lead cop in the investigation and Lisa Kudrow as Holmes estranged wife. The trio of criminals Holmes falls in with include the frighteningly high energy Josh Lucas, the ever interesting Timothy Blake Nelson and an absolutely unrecognizable Dylan McDermott in a pivotal role as the teller yet another version of the murders. Cox suggests that no matter how much we learn about Wonderland, there is always a worse version possible, but looking through the debauchery surrounding it is much more fascinating than understanding the truth.

Sentiment: positive
How much can you really say about a condom with teeth? The plot was really out there, but it was something campy to see on a Friday night. The story has a lot of unexpected twists, and it's a great way to offend all you're conservative friends!

Sentiment: negative
I read the comments about this movie before watching it and wasn't expecting much, but as a B movie it's a curiosity. I guess you have to be a certain type of person to enjoy this kind of thing, but I seriously thought it was awesome. People should watch it just for the experience because it's totally one of a kind. Don't expect much of it. The acting is poor, transitions were obviously done on a PC, etc. Definitely a B movie, but nonetheless really worth checking out. Very funny. Mild gore, and some questionable themes, so probably not something to show your Gran, but for the more adventurous viewer I'd say it's a must see.

Sentiment: positive
This is a great example of very none Hollywood film making which is very thought provoking, moving and not without a sense of humor, Kevin McKidd and Paula Sage are superb. 

I actually watched it on late night TV and I can see why I missed it in the cinema, its not the sort of film that the multi-screen "mega" cinemas show nowadays, mores the pity. 

I am going to look for the DVD. Not for those who prefer, the current trend towards special effects and no story. If you liked the best selling book "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time", you'll enjoy this film. 

This film ranks beside the best of Scottish films, such as "Small Faces" and "trainspotting". All films which Kevin McKidd also star in. 

Highly Recommended.

Sentiment: positive
....You get this stupid excuse of a Child's Play rip-off! Man, what were they thinking? First they mess with a Rumpelstiltskin horror movie then they make crap like this. Fariy Tale haters! Well to be honest, I've seen this as a kid, and it scared me a bit a lot, simply because I was under aged with the assumption that Pinocchio wouldn't do that, wah wah wah. But I've grown and come to think of this as Child's Play rip, a fairy tale bashing nonsense, and a lame Tales From The Crypt episode, or trying to be one at least, with a lame ending that was stupid, and it had many plot holes, and I still can't understand how it came to life. Was it the work of an evil Geppetto? Then what, after a few evil deeds, he becomes a real boy who becomes America's Most Wanted? Personally, I think the concept of an evil Geppetto sounds better, he builds an army of wooden killers, and starts a crime wave, funny. But this is awful, awful, awful, awful, AWFUL! AWFUL! Stinky like a shoe, and awful! IT SUCKED IT SUCKED! If you want killer puppets, settle for the killer doll, specifically Child's Play, instead, no strings attached. Or if you want a fairy tale figure turned upside down, watch Leprechaun, or if you want Pinocchio, watch the animated Disnet version or live version with Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Martin Landau instead. >>>>> -10/10(negative 10)

Sentiment: negative
This two disc set is incredible! If you're like me and never had the opportunity to actually see the band live, then this is the next best thing. Jimmy Page, who in my opinion is the second best guitarist ever to walk the face of the earth (second only to Slowfingers himself), He puts on an amazing show in every piece of footage in this film. John Paul Jones, although not as up front as Page, puts on one hell of a show. Although in the live atmosphere, his rythmic bass lines aren't as defined as they are on studio recordings, except of course in songs like Dazed and Confused, or What is and What Should Never Be), but his wide array of instumental talent is well displayed in these DVD's. John Bonham is John Bonham, what can I say? There is no comparison, his beats stand out like no other, and this DVD is proof. Last, but not least, Robert Plant wails like no other can wail. If you've ever read Hammer of the Gods, you'll be wondering the same thing as Page was when he first met Robert Plant, why the hell isn't this guy already famous? And so concludes my review, sorry about and spelling or grammar mistakes, Zeppelin rocks.

Sentiment: positive
I think that it was just pointless to produce a second part of a movie like "My Girl". "My Girl" was a very good movie but it is ridiculous making a second part of a movie in which one of the main characters (Macaulay Culkin as Thomas J.) dies. The story was over after the first movie. I wonder why someone tried to find a way to make the story going on. That was senseless!

Sentiment: negative
Many of the reviews and comments I have read about this movie say that this is a rather stale film and performance by Clara Bow. Although the story-line was rather typical of Clara's later silents, I still find it somewhat heart-stirring and incredibly fun. Clara plays a happy-go-lucky Hawaiian girl who will stop at nothing to win the man she loves...never mind that this man is married! Clara's lack of modesty was shocking in the day, but I believe it lends to the sweetness and general fun of the movie. Though definitely not a brilliant story-line (quite typical, actually), this movie is a nice showcase of Clara's ability to make the audience laugh.

Sentiment: positive
This should have been a short film, nothing more. The Length of 1,5 hours is much too long, because after 10 minutes you have seen almost every joke. It's getting more and more on your nerves untill you finally kick out your brain to endure that movie.

To do yourself a favor, don't mention to see that movie...

Sentiment: negative
This is the finest film ever made to deal with the subject of AIDS. It's a documentary about two men living with and dying of this illness. The film is beautiful, heartbreaking, funny, and incredibly moving. Above all, it is an amazing true love story. Be sure to have a few hankies ready before you watch this movie---you will need them. Extraordinary.

Sentiment: positive
Well, Anne is way way too old. Wentworth looks younger than she and he should not. Louisa is much too young and too cheerful Oh sister Mary is way too pretty. She is supposed to be average, not pretty. When this actress complains the way Mary should all I think is that she is too pretty to be a complainer. Lady Russell is too Old. This is crazy. If you read the novel, she is Anne's older more mature friend, maybe as old as Annes mother would be which would be around 18-20 years older than Anne- so around 50 NOT 70! Its crazy, doesn't fit. How come Anne is so darn happy in the beginning? She smiles when she says "oh the worst is over, I've seen him now the worst has passed" yeah right. OK if anyone has seen the 1995 Roger Michell version than you cant compare these two. That one is right on. This one is way off. Read the novel and you'll know what I mean.

Sentiment: negative
Though this is a good, enjoyable cartoon, they did much better ones later on, like Carrotblanca. This is almost like the first Star Trek feature, which would have been welcomed with open arms and glee no matter what, just for existing. This is really a patchwork of old bits with some nice touches, but nothing special. Reminds me a bit of the hunting trilogy in spots and the ending is priceless. Available and certainly well worth watching just for the novelty and the good bits. Recommended.

Sentiment: positive
The form of the film is that of a suspense shocker. There are surprises, twists and turns, reverses and excitements. At times, this is truly an "edge-of-the-seat" film. But it disappoints, and disappoints severely.

The villain of the piece is not believeable; his character does not hold together. I refuse to "spoil" the film, but will only say that the character we meet at the beginning just could not be he whom we see at the end.

The second major disappointment of the film is that--finally, it becomes little more that a bloody slasher film. There is little qualitative difference between this and one of the "Friday the 13th" films. Not that every film need always be totally tasteful, but this film does drip gore on occasion.

Though the film features the magnificent Sean Connery, even he does not measure up to his usual standard, and often just seems to be walking through the paces.

Sentiment: negative
I can't figure Al Pacino out. I watch him in the Godfather, Scarface, Carlito's Way, and I think I am watching one of the greatest actors of the last thirty years. Then I see him in Two for the Money, Any Given Sunday and Revolution, and I wonder what the guy is thinking.

I stumbled on Revolution a few nights ago, and thought I would invest the next two hours on this. Here is a news flash: Want to get prisoners to talk? Force them to watch this over and over...they'll confess to anything.

I won't rehash the plot since there is no coherent plot, but it does take place during the American Revolution and Pacino plays an uneducated peasant who does not want to get involved, but ultimately does. While he has no money, no education and dresses like a caveman, a very hot Natasha Kinski falls in love with him for no apparent reason, since they have only two minutes of dialogue together.

Quite frankly, if "Al Smith" starred in this movie, instead of "Al Pacino", it would have ruined their career. The script was horrible, but Pacino's demotivated performance and obvious fake accent made it even worse. Donald Sutherland's role was laughable. I really can't describe it. Natasha Kinski is a main character, but has like 5 lines in the movie. In fact, nobody speaks much in this movie.

One of the most laughable premise in the movie is how Al Pacino and Kinski have this uncanny knack to continually run into each other on the battlefield. Its like the entire Northeast is a Starbucks. "Hey, funny to see you here again, on ANOTHER battlefield 100 miles away...see you in a few months".

I am required to give this one star by IMDb, since there is nothing here for a negative score.

Sentiment: negative
Another of my delves into the bargain bin, this movie gave me exactly what I expected - a load of trashy horror complete with screaming ladies.

It all started so well - I liked the little intro with the "newsreel" about the young couple being exposed to a nuclear blast, and was totally absorbed right up until the first person caught fire...

From then onwards the film descended into outright silliness, and at times became almost embarrassing to watch. When the heroine turned out to have been afflicted with the same condition as the main character (the ability to light one's own farts without the aid of a match) it seemed almost as if someone had thrown the idea in at the last moment ("that'll be good!" you can almost hear them say...) As for the almost psychic link between the main character and the nuclear power plant, well...

The movie came across as cheap tat - if you pay more than £1.50 for it you've been done.

Sentiment: negative
On a second viewing, this is still a wonderful romance that is, in my opinion, much better than the film it came paired with on my 2-DVD set, the Leo McCarey weepie classic "An Affair To Remember". Yet it seems to have fallen out of favour slightly (Only a 6.6 rating here on IMDb, and dismissed by many critics as "gooey slush"). How sad, because this is an intelligent romantic drama with very good work by the two leads, Jennifer Jones and William Holden. If anything the film should be well-remembered for the gorgeous colour cinematography and the unforgettable musical score. I don't much like Valentine's Day but it gave me an excuse to watch this movie again, and I'm glad of it. While I still think Holden's character death is too heavily foreshadowed, taking suspense out of the final scenes, this film is very moving and I really enjoy it.

Sentiment: positive
A surprisingly beautiful movie. Beautifully conceived, beautifully directed, beautifully acted, beautifully acted and most beautifully photographed.....the cinematography is nothing short of splendid. It is a war movie but is epic in it's scope and blends romance, tragedy and comedy into a story that is as harrowing as it is provoking.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie many years ago, have tried to locate it but perhaps understandably it is nowhere to be found. It was so esoteric, & yet one of a handful of movies that remains with you for a long time. I am still not sure what the reality of the movie is, and perhaps, like the Uncertainty Principle, the obscurity is the definite thing. Acting is superb, the atmosphere is always filled with a sense of foreboding, an overall melancholiness permeates, & yet, it is hard not to be absorbed in the story. I rented it thinking it was science fiction (it was in the sci-fi section with some totally misleading blurb), but quite clearly it is not. Or horror, or even suspense. In fact, one feels thankful the director took the courage to make a movie like this, for which obviously there is no solid audience. I know some people have complained about Klaus Kinski's short role, but I think it is very appropriate - his limited exposure is critical to the formation of the mystery of this movie.

Sentiment: positive
A charming, funny film that gets a solid grade all around. I saw a screener of this film recently at work. It was so nice to see this film in contrast with all the crappy horror movies I see every day. So much so, that I figured I'd write in. Not sure if this film is going to theaters, but I hope it does. Its a nice film to see with friends, its a charmer, and has some funny jokes. The acting was terrific (especially Howard Hessman and Larry Dorf. The directing was pretty good (not a film that needed to be over-directed). What really makes this film stand out I think is the writing. It was like Neil Simon, Seinfeldish, and the banter between characters is smart and has a nice rhythm. As an aspiring screenwriter, I notice those things! (I'm a dork). Anyway, a really cute film that I recommend.

Sentiment: positive
I readily admit that I watch a lot of really bad movies. But there are very few that I can think of that are quite as bad as When Women Had Tails. It's a stinker of epic proportions. What should have been a sexy comedy about a group of cavemen discovering a woman for the first time is instead a dull, lifeless affair without a single laugh to be had. The comedy is extremely weak. I suppose if you think bashing someone in the head is funny, you might find a laugh or two. The guys in this movie make the Three Stooges look like high art. And there's just not enough of a plot to hold the thing together. It seems to drag on and on and on.

Well, you may be asking yourself, "If it's as bad as you say, why haven't you rated it lower than a 3/10?" Good question! And I've got two answers. First, the movie is not without its curiosity value. I do find a bit of interest in an Italian spoof of movies like One Million Years B.C. with Raquel Welch. I'll give When Women Had Tails a point for its historic "value". The other two points are for the mere presence of Senta Berger. I know it's not much of an explanation or reasoning for a rating, but what are you going to do? It's the best I can come up with.

Sentiment: negative
The main problem with "Power" is that it features way too may pointless characters and subplots that add absolutely nothing to the movie whatsoever. It gets boring after awhile, sitting around waiting through scenes that don't connect to find something that drives the movie forward. You could probably pass it all off as character development, but all of them are either recycled from earlier scenes in the movie, or are just simply to flat and uninteresting. Lumet never gives enough time to let any of the supporting cast blossom. He should have cut a few of the characters (hackman, the wife) and concentrated harder on others (Billings). It could have been a great, hard political thriller instead of a jumbled mess that loses any message in a sea of bad writing and acting, a fact that amazed me considering the cast. Even Gene Hackman performance wasn't up to par. Denzel Washington is the only real actor of note here. Gere and the others have all done much better performances elsewhere. 

Sidney Lumet needs to go back to the fierce one man shows he did in the seventies (i.e, Serpico) and stop trying to recapture his success with "12 Angry Men" and "Fail Safe". It hasn't worked yet Sidney, and it most likely never will. leave the ensemble dramas to Altman. 

3/10

* / * * * *

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie about a year ago, and found it to be completely Laugh-Out-Loud funny. A real winner, in my mind. It had the underlining of a stupid comedy, but indeed had an actual plot as well. Much like the hit comedy, Elf, in fact. It had a few serious moments, sandwiched between hilarity. When Stiller shot Black's horse, an ordinarily sober moment, you found yourself laughing at his bumbling antics. You can actually find common ground there, as I'm sure many people have done something they wouldn't want a friend to find out about, lest your friendship should end.

When I found out how much people disliked this movie, I was completely dumbfounded. That absolutely terrible movies like Napoleon Dynamite had ratings higher than it makes me wonder about the sanity of people on IMDb. Take my advice and rent it. If you don't find yourself laughing at least once, I'll compensate you the rental fee. =D

Sentiment: positive
If you liked Paddy Chayevsky's "Network" you'll probably like this black comedy as well, as it's another brilliant Chayevsky script, a wonderful satire on big-city hospitals and a perfect vehicle for Geo. C. Scott. He plays a burned-out chief of medicine on the most chaotic day he or his hospital have ever seen. His personal crisis is coming to a head and his hospital's falling down around him, as local residents demonstrate against the hospital and patients and doctors are dying at an alarming rate, thanks to a biblically-inspired and murderous saboteur. The latter, who theatrically declares himself the "Fool for Christ," "Parakleet of Kaborka," "Wrath of the Lamb," and "Angel of the Bottomless Pit," bops doctors on the head, administers lethal injections and swaps patients' identities, causing treatments and operations to be performed on the wrong persons.

This film makes you uncomfortable, as deadly mistakes like these do happen (hopefully not so many, not so often and not in one place) and at the same time makes you laugh at the priceless character portraits. One is Richard Dysart ("L.A. Law") as Dr. Wellbeck, a sort of celebrity surgeon who spends far more time worrying about his investments and publicly-traded stock than about his patients, who suffer lethally from his vast indifference and neglect. There's Diana Rigg as free-spirited, hippie-ish Barbara Drummond, who seduces the beleaguered chief of medicine (Scott) and tries to get him to run away with her. Then there's the deluded murderer, who happens to be Barbara's father and who "functions well enough" back at the Indian reservation where he lives with his daughter and even runs a clinic, but who's pushed to madness merely by being placed back in civilization. The strongest portrait by far is Scott's Dr. Bock, who bares his soul as former boy genius, failed father and husband, brilliant doctor and responsible administrator, who constantly dreams of suicide but must bear up under the demands of his job. Scott is exceptional in this demanding role.

Until the final scenes one doesn't know if Bock will leave the hospital behind for Barbara's Indian reservation and a quieter, simpler life, whether her murderous father will be caught or whether the protesting, rioting locals will take over and bring the hospital to its knees. Watching the crazed killer at work, one suspects Chayevsky is telling us our lunatic society makes him do these things, as we're told he's a different person away from cities and people.

As my own father was the chief administrator of a number of large hospitals over the years, I had some idea of the demands of his job and the huge responsibility he shouldered. This story makes that responsibility the linchpin on which Scott's crisis turns. This is both a funny and scary film, with the actors up to the considerable demands of Chayevsky's script. It's also a film I get more out of each time I watch it.

Sentiment: positive