DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Not many movies were made about the Lighter-Than-Air (LTA) aspect of aviation, but this is one of them and it's damn good. Just a fun film to watch.

Most of the movie takes place at the Navy blimp operations at NAS Lakehurst (with NAS Tustin playing the role). Wallace Beery plays a likable but Munchausen-like Senior Chief Ned Trumpet, an enlisted pilot, whose tall tales have gotten so frequent nobody really believes him. Half the fun is near the end of the movie when events start proving that most of his more outlandish tales are actually true.

Set during WWII, the main plot centers around bachelor Trumpet wooing a local widow only to end up having a father-son relationship with the widow's crippled son, Jess. Told he would never walk without crutches by doctors, Chief Trumpet pulls some strings and a Navy flight surgeon helps in restoring the lad's crippled leg. Jess goes on to join the Navy to become a flight officer, flying blimps back at Lakehurst and facing a whole new set of challenges.

A very well-done movie, albeit not without some corny Hollywood dialogue slipping past the technical advisers, and Beery's apparent inability to march in step. Otherwise this movie gets good grades for technical accuracy, and gives a rare look into the Navy's LTA operations. The Cash Register Scene, an exchange between Trumpet and Jess's future love interest Cathy, is an absolute hoot.

Sentiment: positive
I wasn't expecting much from this tale of a kid whose term paper is stolen and turned into a movie script.. who then he travels to hollywood to get even.. but.. hey.. it's still a fun film. Frankie Muniz of "Malcom in the Middle" fame stars as the kid and is fairly good and Amanda Bynes as his friend is also very good. Yea the film does work as an advertisement for Universal Studios theme park and is really kinda a silly kids film.. but i enjoyed it anyways. GRADE: B-

Sentiment: positive
this is a movie which reminds me of avatar- starring rajesh khanna from the 80's. the issue of parents-kids divide is interesting but was handled in a rather unoriginal manner.. the characters were not developed fully and the kids seemed to go from being extermely loving ( in the first 15mts of the movie) to being totally unconcerned about the parents,, this transformation was not credible to say the least..they sld have explored this a little more. amitabh and jaya were miscast as this helpless old couple.. firstly amit was not too convincing in this role,because he just did not look like he should be helpless, i mean why not just go back to work where he is wanted instead of being w/ kids who didnt want them.. hema was not convincing as a 60 yr old either... she didnt look a day over 50.. then the whole isssue of the book baghban winning the booker prize begged credibility.. all in all, a movie that handles an important issue but cld have been made better, i give it 5/10

Sentiment: negative
Rod Serling was, of course, a genius and his wonderful, playful, creative mind left something of the period in which he lived and examples of television at that state of development. There are no such shows now, but rather "Housewife" sluts ala Eva Longoria or Terri Hatcher, or the pitiful stabs at humor and witty banter that litter our high-tech screens.

Jack Elam edged into the episode with such acting precision and with his usual craziness that I can't help but think that Rod Serling was tailoring that long ago week's show around Elam, even though he was an ancillary to the flow of the story. This episode ends with a twist, as usual, but shock and humor are mixed with especially "Serlingesque" dexterity.

Rex Lewis Field

Sentiment: positive
Come on. The new twist is nearly ok, but from avenging the Elm Street children Freddy is just killing people now. More of the same: Special effects with no actual character development or anything. Simply bad and insulting. SCARY..? Nope. Not at all. Just bad.

Sentiment: negative
i don't know what they were thinking.by they,i mean anybody even remotely connected to this disaster.i've seen so bad movies,i've seen so really bad movies,and then there's this.but i will say one thing.whoever wrote the script has manged to put what could possibly the most inane dialogue over written,onto the screen.there is nothing good about this movie,either from a technical standpoint or any other standpoint.whoever allowed it to be made and then released should have been fired immediately.there are a few fairly well known names in this movie.actually i hesitate to use the word movie.it's more like a collection of random scenes that have no relation to another and make less than 0 sense.anyway,i fail to see why anyone with any dignity would appear in this.i got it really cheap,and i still got ripped of.even if i had gotten this movie for free,i would still have been ripped off.this is an absoluter 0/10

Sentiment: negative
Jean Harlow and Clark Gable were a great on screen team and this may be their best movie together.

Yes, Hold Your Man can be cheesy and predictable, but that's not what I love about the movie. I love seeing Harlow and Gable together and in this film they are simply wonderful. It is obvious that they really enjoyed working together and that is part of what makes this such a wonderful film.

The witty dialogue, great script and attention to detail are the other things that make this such a good movie. I loved this movie the first time I saw it and on each subsequent viewing I always notice at least one new detail. To me, that is a mark of a great film.

The dialogue and script are better than most movies from this time period (early 30's). I adore classic movies, but I admit that most of them are just average and at times don't hold my interest. Hold Your Man is one of the exceptions.

This has a lot to do with the fact that Hold Your Man is a 'pre-code' movie. (The Hays code was not enforced until a year after Hold Your Man.) This movie could not have been made under the code. Well, it could have been made, but it would have been an entirely different story. Thank goodness the code was not enforced until 1934. Otherwise, we would have missed out on this gem.

Sentiment: positive
This movie deserves a 20/10 if I could give one. "THE HOLLOW" is a great Hercule Poirot novel and the twist at the end fools most people. I am overjoyed that this movie stayed completely faithful to the novel. There was no major difference that I could spot. The only difference was that Poirot was introduced into the story earlier that in the novel. The acting was superb, and the music, as usual, was amazing quality! David Suchet is perfect in his role, and the rest of the cast is perfect in their respective roles either. In no other movie that I've seen so far has Poirot been portrayed so brilliantly! Hats off to the producers-- they have made a movie that I along with many others will cherish for a long time to come!

Sentiment: positive
Rugged David Innes (solid Doug McClure) and doddery Dr. Abner Perry (a delightfully dotty Peter Cushing) drill their way into the earth's core in their spiffy mole machine. The duo discover an ancient prehistoric world populated by dangerous gigantic beasts and human beings who are used as both food and slaves by evil telepathic pterodactyl men. Director Kevin Conner, working from a blithely silly script by Milton Subotsky, maintains a constant brisk pace throughout and treats the exceptionally foolish premise with astonishing seriousness, thereby giving this picture a certain clunkily earnest quality that's amusing and endearing in equal measure. The lovably hokey (not so) special effects are quite (unintentionally) funny. The cheesy array of cut-price creatures in particular are positively sidesplitting: cruddy guys-in-obvious-shoddy-rubber-suits pterodactyl men, equally rinky-dink savage ape-man brutes, and a hilariously ludicrous fire-belching frog thing who blows up real good. One gut-busting highlight occurs when McClure mixes it up with a fat and clumsy giant reptile. Another priceless scene depicts a dinosaur clutching a doll in its slavering jaws. Moreover, we also get some rousing rough'n'ready fisticuffs and an exciting climactic slave revolt. It's a total treat to see Cushing gleefully ham it up in a rare broad comedic part and become an unlikely, but enthusiastic arrow-slinging action hero in the last third of the flick. The ever-luscious Caroline Munro looks positively yummy as the fetching Princess Dia, plus there are nice supporting turns by Cy Grant as gallant warrior Ra and Sean Lynch as treacherous coward Hoojah. Mike Vickers' neatly varied score alternates between jaunty orchestral music and wonky droning synthesizer stuff. Alan Hume's crisp cinematography adds a glossy sheen to the infectiously inane proceedings. A complete campy riot.

Sentiment: positive
Where can I begin. I heard this movie was coming out and I was very mad. I am a huge fan of the original Carlito's Way and when I heard about this, I thought it would be just like almost all the other sequels that come out in Hollywood. I thought it would be bad. Boy was I wrong, this movie was much worse than I expected. Not saying all sequels are bad, but thats the problem with Hollywood these days, they make too many sequels and remakes and rush them. This was not a theater release, it is a DVD release. Still, in my opinion, there was no reason at all for this to be made. After I heard about this film was in progress, I then later heard Pacino was not in it. That right away killed any chance this movie had of being good. Why did I check this movie out then some of you may ask? Well I had the opportunity to see it so I did. I don't only watch movies that I have high expectations of, I had low expectations on this one obviously. I just wanted to see if it would have anything relevant in it. Now, if any of you reading this are a Carlito's Way fan, you know a lot of the story in the first one has to do with him going to jail.

*VERY MINOR SPOILER* I wont ruin anything, because this may actually make you not want to waste 2 hours watching this trash. All I will say is- in the end of Carlito's Way 2, we don't see Carlito go to jail. Now, I don't know about any of you, but I would have thought a prequel to Carlitos Way would show how he ended up in jail. I even had some interest in actually seeing what happened.

Now, thats not my only problem with the film. The actor who played Carlito did not do too bad a job, but he could not have saved this film if he tried. There's not even all those little things that should be thrown in there that Carlito's Way fans would like. You don't see any appearance of Kleinfeld or other key characters in the first one, I would have liked to see something like that. What is even worse, is Luis Guzman is in this film, yet he doesn't play the same character he plays in the first film. Big mistake on their part, why cast the same actor for a different character, it made the movie worse than it already was.

Bottom line, I am a Carlito's Way fan, this new straight to DVD release is a disgrace. If you are a fan, don't watch this movie coming in with high expectations. This movie did basically nothing for me, and it is definitely one movie I wont be picking up on DVD, or watching ever again.

Sentiment: negative
In 1913, in Carlton Mine, Addytown, Pennsylvania, the cruel owner of a mine uses poor children in the exploration and after an explosion, a group of children is buried alive. On the present days, Karen Tunny (Lori Heuring) has just lost her husband after a long period of terminal disease when the family savings have been spent in the treatment. Without any money, she moves with her daughters Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and Emma (Chloe Moretz) to an old house in the mountains that belonged to her husband. Karen is advised by her neighbors to stay at home in the night, and Sarah hears that there are zombies in the area. When Emma becomes friend of Mary, he mother believes she is an imaginary friend. However, when Sarah's friends are attacked and eaten alive by zombie children and Emma vanishes, Karen and Sarah chase her nearby the mine.

"Wicked Little Things" is not a totally bad movie: the acting is good; the make-up is creepy; and the cinematography and the music score are excellent. However, the story, and consequently the screenplay, are very weak, indeed a bad collection of clichés. The beginning is reasonable, with a widow moving to a house in a remote location because the family spent all their resources with the illness of the patriarch. But when she arrives, coincidently the little zombies attack people without any consequences, for example, families do not search the missing persons. Then the wicked Mr. Carlton comes to the place with the most disgusting attitudes, a typical clichés that he will die in the end. There is no explanation why the children attacked innocent people and why they should stop after killing Mr. Carlton. When Sarah is running away with her mother and says that she is tired and cannot run anymore, it is one the most stupid lines that I have ever seen in a horror movie. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Zombies"

Sentiment: negative
This movie was offensively PC, predictable and clichéd. I couldn't imagine a movie that better exemplifies the myopic, narcissistic preachiness of today's Hollywood. If you haven't seen this don't bother watching it. If you have, show some courage and tell people how awful it really is. My wife, a minority in her own right, was offended by the inherent and unendingly racist message of the film. This movie has nothing to do with the real world and has little, if anything at all, to add to any discussion about racism in this country. Instead, it's the kind of cheap, sensationalist crap that is promoted as deep and challenging thought. What kind of a bubble do you have to live in to think that this is at all impressive?

Sentiment: negative
This is a ripsnorting, old-fashioned adventure yarn. I understand that by today's political standards, the treatment of the Indians was unacceptable. But this moving isn't about politics. It's about action, dialogue, comradery, acting, direction, music, and photography, and it's marvelous on all these factors. Grant, Fairbanks, and McLaglen are electric together, and Jaffe is superb. This is the ultimate buddy movie.

Sentiment: positive
Dr. Franz Tobel, a Swiss scientist, is smuggled out of his home country by Sherlock Holmes in order that the Nazi agents spying him do not get his invention of a new bomb sight. Arriving in London, he takes residence with Holmes and Watson, but goes out for a visit with his girlfriend, Charlotte Eberli, where he leaves a clue for Holmes as to the locations of his bomb sight, which he has divided into four pieces, but Holmes' eternal nemesis, Professor Moriarity, is also seeking the bomb sight to sell to the Nazis, and abducts Dr. Tobel and the clue left at Charlotte's, a code series of dancing men, which both Holmes and Moriarity are both unable to decipher completely. Holmes eventually discovers the clue to the code and get the location of the fourth piece of the bomb sight, but Moriarity has the other three and a showdown is inevitable. Very good entry in the Holmes series with plenty of mystery and guesswork to go about. Atwill's portrayal of Moriarity is more sadistic than the cunning sort described in the Doyle stories (or George Zucco's performance in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes), but Atwill's skills as an actor makes his Moriarity quite the benevolent fellow. The script and direction both make this entry more of a cat and mouse game between the two characters and that is one of the reasons this entry succeeds so well. Great job on the cinematography as well. Rating, 8.

Sentiment: positive
When HEY ARNOLD! first came on the air in 1996, I watched it. It was one of my favorite shows. Then the same episodes started getting shown over and over again so I got tired of waiting for new episodes and stopped watching it. I was sort of surprised when I heard about HEY ARNOLD! THE MOVIE since it doesn't seem to be nearly as popular as some of the other Nickelodeon cartoons like SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS. Nevertheless, having nothing better to do, I went to see the movie anyway. Going into the theater, I wasn't expecting much. I was just expecting it to be a dumb movie version of a childrens' cartoon like the RECESS movie was. I guess I got what I expected. It was a dumb kiddie movie and nothing more. There were some good parts here and there, but for the most part, the movie was a stinker. Simply for kids.

Sentiment: negative
This is a very difficult movie, and it's almost impossible to get a handle on what's going on. At first it seems to be a rather pedestrian movie about a guy (Trelkovsky) who needs an apartment and rather crassly invites himself into one when the current tenant (a woman) commits suicide. Then the twists and turns start. Are the neighbors trying to kill him? And why are the dead tenant's clothes turning up in the apartment? One wonders, finally, if Trelkovksy _is_ the prior tenant. 

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER 

One of the tricks Polanski pulls on us is to lie to us. We assume when we see things from the point of view of a character that we see things as the character does and that there may be distortions of reality. We assume when the camera is showing us things from its omniscient point of view that we see actuality - but Polanski has the camera lie to us.

Sentiment: positive
It seems that the intention of the film was to show the aggressive (maffia-like) character of Russians, or at least of those Russians able to travel outside their big country; that it is too easy to rob a bank in England; and that British police is so inefficient that it cannot find the person who robbed the bank even when these subjects are leaving the country by air. In addition, Nicole Kidman and the supposed Russian colleagues spoke a language not yet identified anywhere, probably spoken by Aliens in the Ural mountains, but far to be the Russian one. So Nicole, if you really want to talk Russian, kindly go to Moscow or St. Petersburg and keep yourself busy learning Russian language grammar and its pronunciation.

Sentiment: negative
Tom Fontana's unforgettable "Oz" is hands down one of the greatest television series ever created. Brilliantly written, acted, and directed it is as close to perfection in any art form (film, television, literature, music) as it gets. Haunting in it's extreme brutality it creates a prison world filled with diverse characters that range from compassionate to flat out terrifying. It is a show that no matter how brutal it is get through, one cannot take its eyes off of. The combination of professional trained theater actors with film and television actors allows for a range of diverse and all original performances.

And while the show is universally praised and has/had a loyal fan base, one cannot feel that it was under-appreciated during it's television run because of other HBO dramas such as "The Sopranos", "Sex and The City", and "Six Feet Under". And while all those shows are fine and borderline masterpieces in their right, many people forget that it was "Oz" that was HBO's first entry into one-hour television drama series. It was a brave, risky first entry and with it HBO hit a grand slam with it. This is as good as it gets.

Sentiment: positive
As far as Christian film goes,it's typical.Lacking of a mega-budget they try their best.Some times falling short,sometimes hitting the mark.This one almost hit, great acting can only carry a movie so far.A combining of H.P. Lovecraft,and Frank Peretti was a good idea.All's it needed was better back story, and better character development to make it great movie.The visuals are not that bad,also smart holding off the demons till the last few minutes helped keep the suspense at a good pace.Could of used a better ending though.Not a bad premise having terrorists experiments go wrong.Much better than typical Hollywood treatment about the demonic realm.Maybe someone will finally do "This present darkness" as a movie.

Sentiment: positive
Unfortunately, I went to this movie for entertainment purposes based on the limited information I had seen on Fandango. Since I am a sci-fi buff the notion of a movie about UFOs interested me.

Instead, this movie quickly revealed itself as an evangelical Christian propaganda flick. Appropriate for an audience of like-minded individuals but very un-Christian like to exploit the movie mall scene and preach to an unsuspecting audience, especially considering the costs of tickets and concessions. Shame on you! At least the Da Vinci Code did not hold back its wild-eyed craziness.

So, this B-grade movie (and I am being kind) production will be appreciated in those churches with similar beliefs, probably shown to Wednesday and Sunday evening youth groups. But if you are a mainline Christian or non-Christian you will not be comfortable.

Sentiment: negative
If you want to see real evidence of what a misguided and unchecked government can do to "un-popular" people, this movie provides it. Read what some people are saying about the "Patriot Act" passed after 9/11 and then watch this movie. Is it worth it? Do we really want to give away our freedoms to these people? Regardless of what you saw on TV, you are not fully informed until you watch this movie. I apologize for quoting another reviewer, but it needs repeating: Roger Ebert of Siskel & Ebert said, "What's interesting is if you're looking for people who are unbalanced zealots... you don't find them among the Branch Davidians, you find them among the FBI and the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; those are the people in this movie who deserve to be feared, I think." I think every person responsible for 9/11 needs to be brought to justice, but I think the government has not shown a history of honoring it's duty to protect people's rights, and this movie proves it in dramatic fashion.

Sentiment: positive
The story is about the life of common people from Antwerp, living their lives. So I said it, and there is nothing more actually to tell about the story. The movie is fast, like an MTV-flick, and well photographed and we feel that the director is talented and should do more films. So let's forget about this one and hope for the best with the next Deus-Barman picture.

Sentiment: negative
How can anyone DARE say anything BAD about this film? Pardon Mel Brooks for being a brilliant comedian and making a movie that gets funnier each time you watch it.

The first time I saw this, I cried from laughing so hard. Everything about it is funny.

While "Robin Hood: Men In Tights" is not my favorite comedy (that spot is taken by "Real Genius"), it ranks way up there in my book. So go see it! If you don't spend the whole time laughing, then at least you'll spend the whole time drooling over Cary Elwes.

Sentiment: positive
...the first film I had to walk out on. And it was the cast and crew pre-screening (Not that I was involved, I hasten to add). I made it through the first hour, so I reckon I'm just qualified to comment, but that was my limit.

Like other comments here, how did this get through any kind of QA. An accumulation of the very worst in dialogue, the epitome of wooden acting, awful casting, all wrapped together without a plot.

Tara Fitzgerald's casting was bizarre, almost comic. She possesses the worst Russian accent in movie history.

As I left the screening, the director and producers were drinking in a bar outside the cinema. They obviously couldn't sit through it again either.



Sentiment: negative
Great movie, great actors, great soundtrack! I loved it! Settings are perfect, dialogues, situations, storyline... all together mixed to give this masterpiece! Clooney and Turturro are magnificent and the Soggy Bottom Boys are simply charming and contagious with their music! :)

Sentiment: positive
An in-name-only sequel to John Carpenter's Vampires, this movie takes place in Thailand and involves a sect of bad vampires, who enjoy killing people, and a sect of good vampires who do not. While it's an interesting idea to set a vampire film in Thailand, the writers don't seem to do a lot with the exotic locale. This film could just as easily have been set in Los Angeles. Which brings me to my next point, which is that this seems a lot like Blade Lite. We've got the rock soundtrack, the martial art battle scenes, a dance club bloodletting and, of course, lots of sharp objects going through vampires. What we don't have is the budget and talent. Yes, the hero is a good martial arts fighter, too bad his acting wasn't as good, and there's plenty of decent wire work, and tons of revved up fight sequences, maybe too many. The problem is they just don't have the same impact as the ones in any of the Blade films. Perhaps it's just that the film has a "been there seen that" feel to it.

However, for me the biggest problem was that the filmmakers didn't take enough time to establish the relationship between the lead, played by the buff and bland Colin Egglesfield, and his girlfriend. She gets snatched at the very beginning of the flick after a whiny exchange with her boyfriend. We have no vested interest in her welfare at this point and no reason to believe that her boyfriend would be willing to risk his neck to save her. Now that's a major drawback when that's the major thrust of the plot.

In the end, you could do worse than waste 85 minutes of your time with this, but I can think of a lot better things to do with your time, like renting any of the Blade movies.

Sentiment: negative
Just watched Conrack for the first time. Although the last third of the movie leaves something to be desired, it is a very touching and heartwarming study of a man's evolution to overcome his youth and upbringing in a prejudiced south and a teacher's creativity in connecting with students despite different backgrounds and difficult circumstances. As an educator, seeing a teacher adapt to his students and prepare them for all of the challenges life has to offer, not just the lessons found in textbooks, is a valuable concept of which we all need to be reminded. The thread concerning the Vietnam war rings true even today. Well worth a look.

Sentiment: positive
Horrendous pillaging of a classic.

It wasn't written convincingly at all why Mary should develop such sympathy for Bates. He may be more stable until they start playing pranks with him, but he still doesn't help himself at all with his actions. (inviting a comparative stranger to stay alone with him in his until recently disused motel; telling the attractive young girl of his past mental issues; lying about the knives, etc... ) This, in addition to her previous knowledge should have kept Mary extremely wary of him, but this somehow doesn't happen just so they can play the 'mistaken-identity-murder-game later on. Which in itself is also ridiculous: 'So-and-so is the real killer - plus her as well - also him! There were too many contrived twists in order to slap a story on screen when the narrative didn't need extending.

It was good to see Perkins reprising his famous role again, but that's about the only small pleasure to be had. It's definitely not a patch on Hitchcock, and if you have no intention of even trying to get close then you shouldn't be bothering at all.

Sentiment: negative
Greenaway's films pose as clever, erudite and innovative. Yet his style and grammar originate and remind viewers of films made in the World War 1 era of film-making: the frame composition, use of mid-shot, the static camera. It may be well to rub against mainstream movies with this style but it is not new. Perhaps like that other "innovator", TS Eliot, he draws more from the past than in looking forward as an authentic innovator would or could.

Yet Greenaway's biggest failing is that he cannot write. His dialog and even plot structure is mechanical and logical but without the vitality of another dramatic logician, Brecht. Where this weakness is most apparent is in his humor, which is poised and logical, so the joke is dead before it's delivered. The result is tedium: if it's not funny, it has failed: ask a stand-up comedian to justify their act if the audience doesn't respond. Perhaps the well-read director could learn something from Freud on humor.

Finally, like Woody Allen, Greenaway has manipulated his actors over the years to work like clones. They speak the lines with a bored, smug air like narcissistic adolescents.

This film, despite its design and lighting, is meretricious.

Sentiment: negative
Angels are a bit of an American obsession, but are often rather boring. They are the messengers of God, and also the arc angels are great warriors (Lucifer being the toughest and best looking until he was kicked out of heaven).

So what happens if you don't believe in anything, let alone angels and you are sent to investigate an angel story, only to meet one with wings and less than angelic attitude.

Maybe that is what America needs, being a puritan is different from being good. Michael is a rude, obnoxious, womanizing messenger of heaven who will fulfill your wishes, and make you care enough about the world that you will be touched.

Funny, but not greatly so, touching but not overly sentimental, intelligent without being clever...it is just a good simple, small comedy. Watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

Sentiment: positive
I am watching this movie right now on WTN because that was the channel that the TV was turned to when I turned it on. It is a not very credible and fairly boring story about a minister's wife (Alexandra Paul) falling in lust with a young stud/drifter (with washboard abs) played by Corey Sevier. There may or may not be a plot. Corey whips his shirt off a lot and Alexandra swoons. I'm getting the feeling he's supposed to be up to no good, and that's why he's messing with skinny Alexandra Paul. It's not really important because as I said he takes his shirt off a lot and I just caught a glimpse of butt cleavage. There's a lot of sax on the soundtrack, which is just painful.

Sentiment: negative
According to this board, I guess either you love it or hate it. Usually how it goes with all movies. There is no need to get testy with others though. All we are doing here is giving opinions. I rented this movie last night and I want to come and throw my opinion in the mix. I was surprised by how many people are thrashing it though. There's a difference between a movie fan and a horror movie fan. I'm a horror movie fan. Most plain olé' movie fans don't like horror movies. So many low budget cam corder looking movies are coming out these days. It's hard to keep up. And what makes it tough to stay into these movies is how bad they are. I wanted to come and write a review about "Hood of the Living Dead" because it's pretty damn good compared to the rest of the junk out there. It's nothing special but it's those horror film makers that try to be too serious that end up making a horrible horror film. I really liked this one. You telling me there is no effort in this one? And one more thing, I bet all of you have all of these huge DVD collections that you are so proud of, nothing but Major Motion Pictures right? Nothing wrong with that, but you have to know how to appreciate low-budget independent. I knew what I was getting when I watched this movie. I'm not going to be upset because I thought it was going to be some 100 million dollar movie. Some of you might need to stick with watching the Matrix over and over again and stop trying to compare everything to the Matrix. And if most of you are under 24, that explains everything. Good movie folks, check it out.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is about a Dysfunctinal Family but Not just any Dysfunctional Family. It is about the Family of the Father of our Nation (India) although, the film focuses mainly on the estranged relationship between Mahatma Gandhi and his eldest son Harilal Gandhi. It shows how The Mahatma had to kill M.K. Gandhi, how he had to sacrifice his family life in order to achieve our freedom. Every time Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his son would try to get close the Mahatma would come between them. This is a beautifully done film. Akshaye Khanna has proved himself to be a Top Actor. He expressed emotions very naturally. Darshan Jariwala who mainly stars in Plays-Gurukant Desai's lawyer in Guru has portrayed Gandhi wonderfully.(as a real Human Being, unlike Ben Kingsley who made him look like a God) Shefali Shah the girl from Monsoon Wedding has also done a really good job of showing how Kasturba Gandhi was torn between father and son. This Movie is touching and so is its soundtrack "Raghupati Raghava" sung in a very unique manner. I saw this movie just 3 hours ago(it released in Dubai a day earlier-on the 2nd) and when the movie was over there was "Pin Drop Silence" and while exiting out of the Theatre not ONE person pushed another( Can you imagine us Indians not pushing ?) NOT ONE ! There was a Sacred Silence...

Sentiment: positive
The most disposable movie in the history of cinema?This one is a strong contender!Why wasting so much money for such a pointless useless work? The only difference between the HItchcock classic and this poor imitation is color,wide screen and Leila's Walkman!!A movie which's supposed to generate thrills and fear leaves me completely indifferent.

No you' re going to tell me it will urge the young generations to see the original?balderdash!This "psycho 1998" is a giant spoiler.

They could have done something different,for instance ,by casting an actor closer to Bloch 's Bates ,an obese man.They content themselves with an obnoxious rehash!A pox on it!and long live Alfred Hitchcock!

Sentiment: negative
If you are an insomniac and you cant get anything to get you to sleep i definitely recommend this movie. If you are renting it for whatever other reason....DONT!....this movie is by far one of the most slow moving turtle motivated movies i have ever seen. The only reason i rented it was because my brother wanted to for some odd and strange reason. I cant even write about this movie anymore...GET IT AWAY FROM ME!!!!!!!!

Sentiment: negative
A FROLICS OF YOUTH Short Subject.

A teenager, embarrassed by his fear of dogs, runs away from home. The abandoned spaniel he finds helps to change his mind.

PARDON MY PUPS is an enjoyable little film, with Shirley Temple stealing all her scenes as the hero's lively kid sister. The opening gag - dealing with bedwetting - is in poor taste, but is quickly forgotten. Highlight: the climactic fisticuffs, which look impressively realistic.

Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something akin to writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films.

Sentiment: positive
-it has Carla Gugino *yay* and a crappy ending *boo* 

-"Jaded" is a highly erotic story about a beautiful woman who arrives in a town trying to escape her past. Whiles there she meets up with two lesbians and after a couple of drinks the two decide to have some fun. But one of the girls takes things a bit too far and rapes her whiles the second girl holds her down. She is discovered on the beach where the incident happens the next day and is taken to a hospital. After that, we spend the rest of the movie watching her attempting to bring down the two girls and at the same time learn some new info about who she is and where she comes from and a bit about her past.

-Director and co-writer Caryn Krooth does an excellent job with this movie considering its uber low budget. It hand-held and sometimes looks like 16mm but it fits the movie since the story demands a harsh look to it. The actors all do okay jobs with what is given to them and there's not really anything to complain about it. The standout feature in the movie is of course Carla Gugino who bares it all in this movie. She is actually more nude in this movie than she is in "Sin City". Christopher McDonald is also in the movie but his character is really kinda pointless, but he is fun to watch. I didn't really pay much attention to the music since it doesn't really draw attention to itself but it gets the job done with what it's got. The movie is R rated and it's that for a very good reason. it's very sexual and very graphic at times. It's essentially borders on soft core at times but the sex scenes are necessary for the movie so it doesn't feel like it's just there for the sake of being there. Although there is one pointless scene where we see Chris McDonald getting it on, that scene was a tad pointless but it's not really much of a problem I guess. The only fault with the movie is that we don't get to see the court trial after all that we go through in the movie. It's like having sex and not having an orgasm or something 

-It's a shame that the talented Caryn Krooth has never made a feature film since this. This is a highly gifted woman can do great things with a very little budget. I really hope that she gets back in the game soon because she is an amazing director. Jaded is not a masterpiece of erotic cinema, instead what we have is an enjoyable movie that shows a great director in the making.

-Hide the kids and close the curtains, you don't want people to think you're watching porn whiles watching this movie.

Sentiment: positive
This starts off bad, what with the three women acting like simpering junior high school wussies sitting around giggling with their gin, endless cigarettes and a caramel chocolate treat for the one who tells the best 'man' story, and then it gets worse -=- spoiler alert =-= what with Andie's character falling for the young organ player who used to be her student when he was 14 (she's the headmistress of an English school, believe it or not), only to have him destroyed thanks to her bitch-from-hell 'girlfriend' . ..and then from there, it's basically unwatchable claptrap: she forgives her 'friend' and has the organ player's love child and the 3 women end up as they started, drinking more gin and smoking more cigarettes blah blah blah. Andie's character throws the caramel chocolates out in the street, in a pathetic attempt to symbolize growth. Have mercy.

Sentiment: negative
The movie is good and I think Tiffany Amber is very beautiful. I liked the movie. Can anyone tell me how I can get hold of the songs from this movie? Even the soundtrack will do. If that's not possible, can I at least get the names of the songs with their respective singers? I tried to look up amazon.com but its not there. I tried CD baby, not there either. I browsed through Google to get some details but there weren't any. I would appreciate it if someone could give me the answer to my question. I know that the songs belong to Country Music and is sung by a country artist. I just need the title names along with the singer. I would recommend this movie or rather the songs to any country loving person.

Sentiment: positive
I would give this a zero if they had that rating. Fun was no fun at all. I grew tired of the movie about ten minutes into but endured to the end thinking it had to get better - it did not. The others I watched this movie with also agreed. The acting was annoying. I am tired of Jim Carey's over the top ham acting. The supporting cast was no better. While this movie was a statement of corporate greed and the plight of the worker who gets stepped on when a large company goes under, the vehicle for this would have been better served another way. I actually disliked the leading characters (Dick and Jane) so much that their antics were never funny but pathetic. I am trying to recall one scene where I or anyone I was with laughed and cannot. A worthless movie and a total waste of time.

Sentiment: negative
The pioneering Technicolor Cinematography (Winner of Special Technical Achievement Oscar) is indeed enchanting. Add an endless variety of glamorous costumes and a romantic cinema dream team like Marlene Dietrich and Charles Boyer, and you've got a rather pleasant "picture".

Unfortunately the contrived plot as well as the over-blown acting leave much to be desired. Still, there have not been any more breathtaking Technicolor films before this one (1936), and very few since then, that can top this breathtaking visual experience of stunning colors. Cinema fans who have enjoyed the glorious color cinematography in "Robin Hood" (1938), "Jesse James" (1939) and "Gone With The Wind" (1939), will not be disappointed in the fantastic work done here. "The Garden Of Allah" will always be synonymous with brilliant color cinematography.

Sentiment: positive
Good to see I'm not the only person who remembers this great film. I have very fond memories of this movie - seem to vaguely remember back to when I was about 8 and I'd watch the kids TV shows after school (Broom Cupboard anyone?). This was the first and last film to scare me - and the images of the boy surrounded by mist on a hill will stay with me forever! Like most films of this era, it has a happy ending - aimed at children, but with a definite ability to capture an adults attention. The lovely Cornish scenery really sets the film up to feel isolated - and the "ghostly" scenes are simple but very, very effective! I'd love to try and find this movie again - see if it still hits home!

Sentiment: positive
Someone told me that this was one of the best adult movies to date. I have since discredited everything told to me by this individual after seeing this movie. It's just terrible. Without going into lengthy descriptions of the various scenes, take my word for it, the sex scenes are uninteresting at best. Jenna in normal street clothes in the beginning was the highlight of the film (she does look good) but it's all downhill from there.

Sentiment: negative
There's more to offer in the opening of The Odd Couple than in the entirety of most films. Felix Unger (the poor guy's monogram even curses him) checks into a New York hotel. A cleaning lady says "Good night." "Goodbye," he answers back. In his room he empties his pockets, then struggles to take off his wedding ring only to put the objects neatly into an envelope, addressed to his wife and beloved children. When the viewer finally puts it together  aha, he's going to off himself  we watch him struggle to open the window  oh no, he's going to jump  The poor guy injures his lower back. This is all you need to know about Felix Unger  his wife has left him, he's a compulsive cleaner and he's a hypochondriac. And all in one scene. This is the particular genius of Neil Simon's comedy  it's about situation and character. There are few obvious physical jokes  no kicks to the groin, no cheap gags  just funny characters in uncomfortable situations. And, of course, he is a master of manipulating the audience's expectations. Coming from the Swingers era, imagine what I thought in the date scene when Felix starts lamenting about the breakup of his marriage to the girls his roommate Oscar has worked so hard to get into his apartment. He's blowing it, right? Think again. The girls love his sensitivity, his ability to cry in front of them. They invite him back to their place since his meatloaf has burned because Oscar wasn't paying enough attention to it. He's in like Flynn, right? Uh, yes, but he doesn't want to go with the girls because he's feeling vulnerable. Great stuff. And it's made even greater with a style that minimizes editing and maximizes the wonderful eight-room apartment set. You've got Jack Lemmon and the slouchy, pouchy Walter Matthau for Chrissakes, why mess it up? The visual style reminded me of Breakfast at Tiffany's, in that great effect is made from a large depth of field and the interplay between the various planes of action. Particularly memorable is the scene in which Felix, fleeing from Oscar, closes a partition only to realize the partition doesn't cover the side where Oscar is coming from. You get a real sense of the layout of the apartment, and thus the proximity in which the two divorcées live. The twist here is that these two are really married  to each other. So the observations about married life that might be ignored in an ordinary romantic comedy are made all the more poignant since they are two guys.

Sentiment: positive
A bad movie, but with one reel that is worth savoring. For most of the film, the jokes are bad, the songs are bad, even W.C. Fields is bad. Then there is one sequence with Bob Hope and his movie-ex; the dialogue is witty and the song (a version of "Thanks for the Memories") light, cynical and delightful. Who parachuted in for this one bit? Yet it makes the whole thing worth the original 25 cents admission.

Sentiment: negative
Go up to any film fan and ask them the title of the film which was directed by Robert Wise, with second-unit direction by Yakima Canutt and Sergio Leone, was designed by Ken Adam and scored by Max Steiner, starred Sir Stanley Baker, Sir Cedric Hardwicke and Brigitte Bardot, was filmed in colour, scope and stereo, at Cinecitta in 1955, with a thousand extras - and they'll tell you to go away and stop being silly.

They'll tell you that no such film EXISTS. That the names you've quoted NEVER worked together - they weren't even contemporaneous. And that you've just picked the names out of a movie publication at random and are attempting to befuddle them.

At which point you can direct them to IMDb and show them the cast and crew of "Helen Of Troy". They'll be amazed! This lesser-known sword-and-sandal epic has ALL these names and more - Niall MacGinnis, Janette Scott and good old Harry Andrews.

And it is certainly an oddity. After the war, 1,000 Italian extras cost about $25 a day and toga dramas were a staple of Italian cinema. The orgy scenes were shot twice - one with tops, the other without (you can guess which version Britain and America got). I believe even La Sophia is an extra in this one.

Either way, the names STAGGER the mind. But it's really just a coincidence. All of said names were either just reaching the ends of their careers (Canutt, Steiner) or beginning them (everybody else).

Only Robert Wise and Niall MacGinnis were in the middle of their careers.

For the record, Leone was uncredited and learning his trade - Adam still had to invent the descending circle in the ceiling of sets (a trademark he'd go on to put into all the early Bonds) - Baker had yet to star in and help produce the likes of "Zulu" and "Robbery" - and go on to direct a Welsh TV company called Harlech - then die tragically young.

While Harry Andrews would go on to become one of Britain's favourite character actors - Janette Scott (Thora Hird's daughter) would never make the really big time, but who can forget her in "Day Of The Triffids" (even though her bit was added later - for padding and a happy ending) or "Crack In The World"?

Sir Cedric was theatre, but knew how to mug on film - and Bardot... was BARDOT, for gawdsake!

But what were these stellar people DOING in this camp old nonsense? Don't ask me. The two main stars were no-name Italians - Helen had a moustache and Paris was pretty - while the Brits were only there for support.

To summarise, I think you can just mark this one up as a major FLUKE. In stereo. To be honest, if I hadn't seen it - I wouldn't believe it EITHER!

Sentiment: negative
Why did I vote 10/10 for this movie that is just completely off guts*? Quite simply because if you just let yourself find it funny, you can just laugh until you choke. Some people might find that it goes too far, it is certainly not for everyone, but whenever I'm down and just need something really really stupid to laugh at, chuck on Bottom or GHP and I can forget all of my troubles and be transported into a magical dark and weird world.

*"completely off guts" is an Australian expression, it has no literal translation.

Sentiment: positive