DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I was about 12 years old when I saw this classic "Casper the Friendly Ghost" cartoon. Figured it was an early one since Casper didn't look *right*, the same way Porky Pig doesn't look *right* in the old 1930's cartoons. But I digress...

Anyway, this episode in the friendly phantom's afterlife concerns him befriending a young fox todd whom he names Ferdie. I remember being happy to see Casper have a friend, as those who have watched the cartoons are wont to know that most people run away from him, screaming "A Ghost!"

Casper and Ferdie have some fun together until someone else shows up... I hate to leave you with a semi-spoiler, but the cartoon is only seven minutes long, so you can't really be too ambiguous. Besides, anyone who reads the IMDb synopsis of the cartoon can deduce what happens next...

The finale is a bit heartbreaking. In fact, it's probably the saddest I've ever felt watching a cartoon. But that only means that it moved me, which probably explains why I decided to write a comment on this particular cartoon and not very many others. Or heck, the fact that I actually REMEMBER this cartoon at all is due to its emotional effect on me -- I haven't seen it since. But the cartoon does end on an upbeat note, and I was pleased to see Casper and Ferdie happy again.

I'd give this cartoon 8 out of 10 stars. Second only to the Warner Bros. cartoon "Peace on Earth," this is the most I've ever been moved by an animated short.

Sentiment: positive
Seeing this movie always reminds me of what I remember summer being like, God! such a long time ago. The entire scene involving the "overnight", from the canoe procession to the end of the trip, is precious, and Tripper's story about the homicidal maniac is urban legend right out of my youth. A highly entertaining movie, made many times better by the awful sequels that followed.

Sentiment: positive
New York playwright Michael Caine (as Sidney Bruhl) is 46-years-old and fading fast; as the film opens, Mr. Caine's latest play flops on Broadway. TV reviewers poke fun at Caine, and he gets drunk. Passing out on the Long Island Railroad lands Caine in Montauk, instead of his residence in East Hampton. Finally arriving home, Caine is comforted by tightly-attired wife Dyan Cannon (as Myra), an unfortunately high-strung heart patient. There, Caine and Ms. Cannon discuss a new play called "Deathtrap", written by hunky young Christopher Reeve (as Clifford "Cliff" Anderson), one of Caine's former students. The couple believe Mr. Reeve's "Deathtrap" is the hit needed to revive Caine's career.

"The Trap Is Set For A Wickedly Funny Who'll-Do-It." 

Directed by Sidney Lumet, Ira Levin's long-running Broadway hit doesn't stray too far from its stage origin. The cast is enjoyable and the story's twists are still engrossing. One thing that did not work (for me) was the curtain call ending; surely, it played better on stage. "Deathtrap" is a fun film to watch again; the performances are dead on - but, in hindsight, the greeting Reeve gives Caine at the East Hampton train station should have been simplified to a smiling "Hello." The location isn't really East Hampton, but the windmill and pond look similar. And, the much ballyhooed love scene is shockingly tepid. But, the play was so good, "even a gifted director couldn't ruin it." And, Mr. Lumet doesn't disappoint.

******** Deathtrap (3/19/82) Sidney Lumet ~ Michael Caine, Christopher Reeve, Dyan Cannon, Irene Worth

Sentiment: positive
IVAN (Marco Ricca) and GILBERTO (Alexandre Borges) are partners in a company together with ESTEVÃO (George Freire), but the first ones contract a professional killer, ANISIO, to murder ESTEVÃO (the plot, at least at the beginning, doesn't explain very well why). The guy does it and after receiving his money he starts blackmailing the two partners, appearing in their company and saying he wants a job there (as supervisor or something). At the same time he meets MARINA (Mariana Ximenes), daughter of ESTEVÃO, and starts dating with her! 

In a story like this, where crime, corruption, betrayal and blackmail go hand in hand, no one is innocent or can be victimized, exception made to MARINA, which is the only person who doesn't know what's going on and didn't betray anyone 

This film portrays with sarcasm the sad and cruel reality which exists in big metropolis like São Paulo, where crime is every day's presence. We can feel irony but also veracity in characters like ANISIO (brilliantly played by Paulo Miklos), which does blackmail to the guys who paid him without any scruples, and even flirts with the daughter of the guy he killed! He really must be a monster to do something like that, but of course I know there're people like him out there, in Brazil or any other place 

It's a very good movie, cruel but truthful, about a sad reality The acting is great and the soundtrack too.

Sentiment: positive
OK, here is my personal list of top Nicktoons shows as in today:

1. All Grown Up/SpongeBob SquarePants

2. My Life as a Teenage Robot

3. Invader Zim

4. CATSCRATCH/Rugrats

Notice a word with only capital letters? That means this is the Nick show I'm going to talk about.

"Catscratch" is basically a simple but great animated comedy about three wealthy cats - Mr. Blik, Gordon, and Waffles - who get into weird and REALLY surreal situations, from attempting to join Human Kimberely's slumber party for root beer to saving a planet of slugs from the evil spaceship. This is one Nick show that you will simply have your funny bone tickled sooner or later! The theme song is catchy and memorable. Voice actors - including Wayne Knight from the "Seinfield" franchise - brings the characters to fresh life with very quirky personalities. The stories are enjoyable (fans' episodes would be "King of All Root Beer" and "Gordon's Lucky Claw"). And the humor is all done in some style of Earthworm Jim. 

So in conclusion, "Catscratch" is one of the Nicktoons series, like "Invader Zim" and "MLAATR", which becomes very, very popular all over the world in just 3 seasons or less.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the few movies released about a "what if" type of situation that made me think. It was amazing to hear them speak to each other, and reminisce about all the wonderful (and not so wonderful) things that happened between them. I actually think that there is a very good possibility this occurred like the movie implies, and they actually made peace with each other. Those are good memories for every fan to hang onto, and to ask what actually happened between them would be selfish. What an AMAZING movie this was. The comedic aspects of the movie were wonderful. To think that they were together to patch things up between them in such a way is a comforting thought to people who wish they had a chance to clear the air with someone they didn't get to. To see John as such a caring, laid back character was refreshing from hearing all of the trash that was spoken about him...

Sentiment: positive
A comedy that spoofs the inspirational sports movies, The Comebacks tells the story of an out-of-luck coach, Lambeau Fields, who takes a rag-tag bunch of college misfits and drives them towards the football championships. In the process, this life-long loser discovers that he is a winner after all by redeeming himself, saving his relationship with his family and friends, and finding that there is indeed, no "I" in "team"!

I decided to watch the unrated version for this film. It was thirty minutes longer and I though it may be better than the theatrical release, hearing that people hated this movie. After all, thirty minutes of extra footage can add a whole lot to a movie. Well, I certainly was wrong. It was as bad as the recent "Meet the Spartans" but it was thirty minutes more of torture!

Seriously, who makes a close to two hour spoof movie?! A spoof movie is short because if it goes any longer, it would be overkill! Honestly, I love stupid comedies. Heck, I liked "Date Movie," "White Chicks," "Epic Movie," and "Little Man"! I guess when it comes to spoof movies, it is either a hit or miss and this one definitely missed.

On the lighter side, from the many jokes in this film, I will say about six or seven made me laugh, even some that made me laugh out loud. But that's not saying much. Following those jokes were more scenes of torture and unfunniness.

I can't see how people would say this is not a terrible spoof film. In fact, there is as much product placement in here like Meet the Spartans, there are as many dance sequences, and unfunny jokes. I will say another thing I like about this movie is the songs. They are some very good songs in here. Overall, watch it if you like spoof films. Skip it if you like funny films.

Sentiment: negative
This is one irresistible great cheerful- and technically greatly made movie!

The movie features some of the greatest looking sets you'll ever see in a '30's movie, even though it's all too obvious that they are sets, rather than real place locations. Often if a character would fall or shake a doorpost too aggressive, the entire set would obviously move.

The best moments of the movie were the silent, more old fashioned, slapstick kind of moments. It shows that René Clair's true heart was at silent movie-making. The overall humor is really great in this movie. Also of course the musical moments were more than great. This is a really enjoyable light and simple pleasant early French musical. Though the best moments are the silent moments, that does not mean that the movie is not filled with some great humorous dialog, that gets very well delivered by the main actors, who all seemed like stage actors to me, which in this case worked extremely well for the movie its overall style and pleasant no-worries atmosphere. No wonder this worked out so well, since this movie is actually based on stage play by Georges Berr.

It's a technical really great movie, with also some great innovation camera-work in it and some really great editing, that create some fast going and pleasant to watch enjoyable sequences. There is never a dull moment in this movie!

René Clair was such a clever director, who knew how to build up and plan comical moments within in movies. It's a very creative made movie, that despite its simplicity still at all times feel as a totally original and cleverly constructed movie, that never seizes to entertain.

The last half hour is especially unforgettably fun, without spoiling too much, and is really among the greatest, as well as most creative moments in early comedy film-making.

The movie is filled with some really enjoyable characters, who are of course all very stereotypical and silly and were obviously cast because of their looks. It all adds to the pleasant light comical atmosphere and cuteness of the movie.

One of the most pleasant movies you'll ever see!

8/10

Sentiment: positive
If you don't like Mel Brooks, you won't like this film. That's a given. Why anyone wouldn't like his films is unknown to me, but for those who can't see the light, just avoid it.

Everyone else: This is a classic. The entire cast is perfect: Carey Elwes is a dashing, clever, BRITISH Robin Hood, Amy Yasbeck overacts appropriately as Marion, Richard Lewis is his usual distracted, annoyed self, Roger Rees is a brilliant combination of fluster and violence as "Mervyn" the Sheriff of Rottingham, and Dave Chapelle, Eric Allan Kramer, Mark Blankfield, and the sadly underused Matthew Poretta are the perfect Merry Men.

There are similarities to Spaceballs, Blazing Saddles...and every other Mel Brooks movie. But why would you want him to change his style when it works so damn well? The pop culture references in this movie are old enough to be funny again...from the view of a 16 year old, at least. It's complete and utter parody, every second a play for a laugh. Some of them don't work, but most do, and well. I discovered new jokes the fifth and sixth time I watched the film!

Of course, if being barraged by constant visual and verbal gags isn't your style, you wouldn't like this. This isn't an Academy Award winner, it's Mel Brooks. You know what it is when you're getting into it. If you want nonstop laughter, surprisingly well-developed characters, and catchphrases to last a lifetime, watch this.

Sentiment: positive
I have realized that many people have commented on the nature of this show being racist and homophobic, but I don't feel that is what this show is about.

The show is about parents who weren't ready for kids and are now not ready for teenagers. This show helps to bring humor to a very hard topic that is sometimes over looked: parenthood.

Yes we have all had shows that had families in it, for example: Family Matters, Step by Step, Family Ties, Full House....but it always would have the same old recipe to it's episodes. "Steph" cuts from school and gets caught by her father. They have a heart to heart conversation and music is played and it's over with a two week grounding that after an "aww, Dad..." gets a smile and the show is over. Where is the comedy in such a situation? Where is the realism? With The War at Home, you get real situations from a real father type figure. Most parents that watch this show hear some of the lines the parents put out and they either laugh (cause they know they've said it!) or they nod their heads (cause they know they've thought it and never had the guts to say it!) The War at Home has situations that bring out great comedy as a father thinking his son is gay. Doesn't sound funny, most think it makes the father homophobic, but the comedy comes in the bumbling father trying to talk to his son to open up. What parent knows the right thing to say, especially in a situation as this? I greatly recommend this show to anyone that I know has a sense of humor, and especially to anyone who is a young parent or was young when they had kids. You relate to a show like this when you are either.

Sentiment: positive
There is only one thing essential to thorough appreciation of The Indian Runner. Unzip your trousers. Peek inside. Is there evidence of a Y chromosome? Okay, you'll do.

This film has all the male requisites: blood, guns, car chases, fond women, death, multiple tattoos, cigarettes, liquor, violence, pyrotechnics -- what have I left out? -- oh, yeah, blowtorches.

As a woman, I seriously hope Sean Penn regards this as a `when I was a child...' kind of effort. Since he both wrote and directed the thing, he's nearly solely responsible. An uneven cast (Viggo Mortensen as usual demonstrating brilliantly how the job's supposed to be done) tries to save Penn. Too late. The lines and action are there. Even devoted, skilled acting can't change those.

I found this movie puerile and silly, as well as predictable. The dialogue staggers along -- Sandy Dennis has my respect for trying to breathe life into a woodenly maternal monologue without motherly authenticity. Then she dies. After a bit, so does the protagonists' father, played by Charles Bronson. Their absence is hardly noticeable.

At intervals, the pyrotechnics, etc., noted above appear to liven things up and scare the audience into thinking something significant is occurring.

If you're male and under 25, you may adore this film. Plan to return to it at 35. Think you'll still like it?

I don't think so.

Sentiment: negative
This has to be the greatest practical joke ever. I'm amazed that all the other actors kept a straight face. I might be wrong but the impression I get from this movie was that they duped Frank Stallone and Joe Estevez into acting in this movie that has a budget of just under $40, depending on how much those nerf bats and spray painted catcher's equipment cost, create the most incoherent movie ever created, and sit back and laugh at the fact that Joe Estevez and Frank Stallone weren't in on the joke. 

If by some chance they weren't kidding and they legitimately tried to make a real movie then I feel sorry for everyone involved in the creation. I've had quite a love affair with cheesy movies, but this movie is so bad I can hardly watch it. They repeat pointless "special effects" so many times that it's obvious they were just trying to cover up the fact that they only shot 30 minutes of footage. If I were forced to watch this movie on repeat I would bludgeon myself unconscious with my own hands after about one and a half times through. No offense to the great Frank Stallone, but I would rather watch Sylvester teach a fingerpainting class for 10 hours than watch that movie ever again.

Sentiment: negative
Can A-Pix ever, ever, ever do anything right? This movie was meant to be seen on TV in a letterbox format. Since A-Pix doesn't even believe in pan and scan, we see whole scenes where a shoulder on the left side of the screen talks to a shoulder on the right side. Of course, not that you are missing much. This movie is incredibly bad. It's very hard to enjoy a film where characters are screaming at the top of their lungs during 80% of the movie for no reason.

Sentiment: negative
I don't like this film, but then I didn't think much of the book either which, although lauded by many as a "masterpiece", I found lacking in character development and disjointed and illogical in plot, although it was far more readable than Fante's dreadful first effort "Road to Los Angeles" not published until Fante became fashionable in the mid 80s.

I was intrigued to see what sort of soup Towne would make with such meager ingredients. He has worked hard script-wise to repair the many shortcomings of the book but for my money didn't rescue it. There was never a movie in Ask the Dust while ever he tried to stay faithful to the book. I consider this film Towne's folly.

In a word: forgettable.

Sentiment: negative
I am in awe of the number of people who consider this film to be decent...much less great! Do the majority of people even have basic standards for a film they watch? I just don't know anymore.

This "commercial cinematic product" doesn't really deserve the respect of being called a film. To call Dean Cain talented is a gross injustice to anyone who actually has talent. I have had a lot of respect for Lori Petty but most of that has gone right down the tubes. At least her role was extremely small. Maybe she had a bill that desperately needed to get paid.

The ignorance I saw while viewing "Firetrap" was amazing. Let me start out by getting this off my chest: if you can't show fire realistically then don't show it at all. Okay?!! It's an embarrassment to all involved when you show lame effects that don't even come close to simulating an actual burning building.

Some interesting tidbits: 1. A janitor opens the door to a large storage closet and finds the entire room engulfed in flames. What does he do? He tries to put out the fire with his broom! 2. The same janitor (who knows the building is on fire) later comes across a door marked "HAZARDOUS MATERIALS". His brilliant mind tells him that it would be a great idea to open said door. Big mistake! 3. A woman is giving a fantastically generous donation of $100,000 to a greyhound rescue fund but...she's wearing a fur coat to the charity event they're holding! (Wouldn't people who care about animals kinda frown on that sort of thing?) 4. Several of the people in the movie are forced into a vault of some sort with massive steel walls that even an electromagnetic pulse(!!) couldn't penetrate. Yet they have a spacious air vent leading right into the back of the thing that anyone could crawl through. That sure seems like a lapse in security.

I could go on and on but I have grown tiresome thinking about this lame movie. Our "hero" whom we are supposed to be cheering for is a career criminal who early on tries to kill some police officers. What a swell guy! If the general public wants to waste their minds away on this drivel then more power to them. I just wish I could have it erased from my memory. 1/10

Sentiment: negative
In an earlier comment I mentioned how much I enjoyed this film - better second time around. I don't resile from that opinion. Strangely, I can't find anyone else who did like it. 

My mother was going to see it but several friends told her "No way". My sister and her family saw it and half the theatre walked out part-way through. 

My wife's suggestion is that Australians see the characters as just normal, everyday Americans and therefore it's not funny. But, hey, most Americans think all Australians are like Crocodile Dundee, so it's nice to have the boot on the other foot for a change.

Sentiment: positive
I'm not the biggest fan of westerns. My two personal favorites though are Unforgiven, and Tombstone. This movie though, I loved! It was great! The plot was well done, and it was a fun movie. Everybody who had a part in this movie did excellent! I even think it beat out both movies in someway. Well, not really Unforgiven because that was a superb movie that these two can't compare with in the long run. I do think it beat out Tombstone though. Both had there strong points. For instance, they both had excellent well known casts, very good plots, and very good filming. But Posse beat out Tombstone in four ways in my opinion. First, the characters were more unique in Posse. The music was better in Posse. The idea was original in Posse, unlike Wyatt Earp. And the biggest difference, the action sequences! Oh my gosh! Posse was a western with really good action sequences. I mean really good! The action was fast paced. Like modern day based shoot'em up movies. The action had big budget explosions too! The fistfights were pretty good also. Mario Van Pebbles was great in this movie! I suggest buying this excellent movie!

Sentiment: positive
Billy Wilder created a somewhat conventional biopic about the Charles Lindberg flight. He structures the film using flashbacks extensively to tell the Lindberg story leading up to the famous flight across the Atlantic, which happens in present time in the film. Flying an airplane for hour after hour is not the stuff of excitement, and Wilder is not going to deviate from his theme of Lindberg as hero of the common man, so things are predictable. However, James Stewart is well cast and quite believable as Lindberg, and the many obstacles he has to overcome just to get his plane in the air keep one watching. 

The film comes through most successfully as Wilder weaves the parts of the story together in a way that create tension, then relief, then tension again. The cinematography is quite good, score by Franz Waxman enhances the scenes, and Stewart really seems to make Lindberg come alive, makes one believe he could be Lindberg. There is a bit of 1950's religious schmaltz at the end, but overall the direction, acting, and high production values overcome the predictability of the story (would anybody REALLY see this picture and NOT know that Lindberg made it across the Atlantic?) to make an enjoyable film that has aged better than most films from that time. Billy Wilder made films of a wide variety of types, and this is one that is representative of his craftsman-like best.

Sentiment: positive
Satisfying fantasy with ships sailing thru clouds with cannons, evil plotters, strange landscapes, manipulations of time, great sets, void of reality, maybe like Never Ending Story or some Merlin stuff. If you like that, you'll love it. Christine Taylor is beautiful. Sword fighting is phoney. Music is delightful. Good wins out, they kiss, all is well, and the cook is pleased.

Sentiment: positive
In this movie everything possible was wrong and I don't know why I bothered watching it until the end. It would have been more fun watching paint dry. For crying out loud I even liked D-Tox and it was much better than this. Here is the basic plot for you: A redneck gets bitten by snakes that hold the evil of 13 murderers and becomes an undead killing machine murdering teenagers that have zero personality. During the movie I lost hope when it didn't scare me at all, when the kills were bad and there was BAD CGI blood and CGI snakes. It got worse with the cardboard thin characters killing their friend by holding her from her legs and not letting go so she got impaled by a tree and when the bad guy moved under water like the shark in Jaws. I'm still upset why I even bothered with this. I guess because I'm a horror movie fan.

Sentiment: negative
1 let's suspend belief for a moment and let's stop pretending we could, might or ought know "how it is" or "ought to be" there in space. Human knowledge in that area is probably primitive as say middle ages maps are compared to today's satellite maps, so we really have no clue. 2 considering this is "just" a BBC TV docu-simulation, it gets much better than many big budget Hollywood blockbusters, and that is just incredible. 3 all in all, a show worth watching as it portrays the CGI enhanced and fictionalized account of what we know of the solar system this far. 4 probably fictionalizing and CGI-ing the whole thing is the only way to make it palatable to a large public. Ever watched clips from REAL space missions and REAL space probes? The quality is generally average to poor and the comparison would be between looking at a chest x-ray (and what it tells about the human body ) and compare it with a CGI-ed cyborg movie...which one would be most entertaining? Yet the chest x-ray is real, while the cyborg flick is just fictionalized SFX. 5 actors do a good job. None i'll tell my grandchildren about, but very fair for it being a BBC docu-simulation.

Sentiment: positive
I agree with all aforementioned comments. This show was a delight to watch. Funny, witty, terrific acting and zany sets. It's always a thrill to find a show that is smartly written, assumes the audience has brains and displays subtle humor. I would spend good, hard-earned cash money to see it again on DVD. And as long as we're requesting Smart Series That Never Got a Chance...How about DVD releases of Maximum Bob (another well written, odd duck show with a delightful cast of characters.) And add to the list...Middle Ages or Frank's Place. There has to a way to release these shows out of the vaults and into the hands of devoted fans and new audiences.

Sentiment: positive
Okay first of all, I didn't sit down to watch the premier of a "Star Trek" Series to see a cowboy flying around in space. this is how a normal Enterprise episode works

1 Archer finds a nebula or something aloung the lines of that and wants to take a closer look but it might destroy the ship.

2 he sends a shuttle into the nebula and and the shuttle get damaged...

in all of the episodes I have seen, all of the problems are happening because of Archer's stupid mistakes. Oh and did you see the preview of one episode showing Archer and T'pol kissing?!?!?!?!?!?!? I was planning to watch that episode but after that I totally gave up on Enterprise and turned to TV right off. Come on!!!! This is star trek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also what was with the banana slug?? In one episode, Hoshi had a banana slug but had to leave it behind for some stupid reason. Okay fine, little dumb to bring you pet slug in space but whatever. Okay that was what I thought until they left it on a desert planet!!!!! A BANANA SLUG CANNOT LEAVE IN A DESERT!!!!!!!!!!!! How dumb are these writers

Any ways, just saying if Enterprise is on DON'T WATCH IT!!!!!

Sentiment: negative
A hot-headed cop accidentally kills a murder suspect and then covers up the crime, but must deal with a guilty conscience while he tries to solve a murder case. Andrews and Tierney are reunited with director Preminger in a film noir that is as effective as "Laura," their earlier collaboration. Andrews is perfectly cast as the earnest cop, a good guy caught up in unfortunate circumstances. The acting is fine all around, including Malden as a tough police captain and Tully as Tierney's protective father. The screenplay by Hecht, a great and prolific screenwriter, is taut and suspenseful, and Preminger creates a great atmosphere.

Sentiment: positive
This may be the worst film adaptation of a Broadway musical ever. Even the music has been destroyed. Attenborough knows nothing about theater - almost every shot and moment ring false. I will say, though, that it is almost bad enough to be funny.

The hairstyles are remarkably dated. I can not for the life of me understand what is meant (conceptually) by opening the film with an exterior of the theater where "A Chorus Line" is playing. Are we to think that these people are auditioning for "A Chorus Line," which contains the stories about the people who are auditioning? Oh no, the show is collapsing on itself.

I saw the original production, and have listened to the album hundreds of times. Why, oh, why, did they do this?

Sentiment: negative
Well let me say that I have always been a Steven seagal fan and his movies are usually great but this just don't measure up to the rest. This in my opinion is very stupid I did not like it all. The biggest reason I don't like it is because it is very flawed and to me does not make much sense. The acting is very bad even Steven seagal does not do good acting, The rest of the actors I can see because they just do direct to video movies. It does not follow a straight storyline everything happens at once so that why it doesn't make much sense. Ther is barely any action in it at all and in order to make an action movie good you usually need action in it. The special effects are very bad and you can tell are fake. So all in all this has to seagals worst movie of all so if you want to see a Steven seagal movie don't rent this one just pretend it does not exist. So just avoid this movie.

Overall score: ** out of ********** 

* out of *****

Sentiment: negative
Ten years after the first movie, James Belushi, one of the most gifted, and over looked light comedic actors of the last twenty years, returns as Detective Dooley for this movie.

If you are expecting more of the same from the first movie, you will be disappointed, but this is still a good movie. Realizing that all the Dog vs. Man battle of wills scenarios had probably been used up in the first movie, this one turns slightly more psychological in its approach as it concentrates on a criminal with a fixation with Dooley's recently deceased wife after she rejected his book, and blames Dooley for her death.

The script may not be the best, but the movie allows both Belushi and Christine Tucci to show their good acting ability, while still retaining enough of the light humour of the first movie to make it work, and the chemistry between the two stars is there for all to see.

An easy, light going movie, which, while maybe not worth a purchase unless you are a true fan of either the first movie or Belushi, definately worth a watch when it comes on TV.



Sentiment: positive
Now, for all of the cinematographical buffs out there, this film may not rank high on your list of things to see. But if you know anything about plot development, profound truth, and the intentions that this film (the series) had, you'd understand my p.o.v.

Granted, the specifics of the film are renderings of the writer, who cannot be expected to know what will happen in the end. But the film is biblically accurate and justifiably "scares" viewers into thinking about what may be. I'm a Christian, not due to this movie, but due to my personal decision to accept Jesus as my Savior. The film and potential that something similar to the circumstances portrayed therein can remarkably scare someone into thinking about their actions and decisions. It's not some cheap attempt to scare people into believing in God, but rather, a means to get your attention.

As a Christian, I know I'll not be left behind, and thanks to movies like this, I can look beyond the superficialities of entertainment, acting, and film budgeting to appreciate the depth that the film has to offer. This is a movie you shouldn't not only see, but feel with your heart and soul.

Sentiment: positive
TIGERLAND / (2000) ***1/2 (out of four)

By Blake French:

	Throughout the years audiences have seen and understood war films with every point of view possible, and somehow producers and writers always come up with new and innovative methods of portraying various soldiers on the battlefield. Joel Schumacher ("8MM," "A Time to Kill"), easily one of the riskiest directors currently working, has found resemblance with "The Thin Red Line" in the way his new drama "Tigerland" steps in an individual soldier's shoes. This movie, written by Ross Klavan and Michael McGuther, has more guts and irony than "The Thin Red Line" or even "Saving Private Ryan." Although the movie's dramatic impact is somewhat lessened due to the perversity of the material present, it certainly enlightens us on a new perspective of young men training for war. 

	I would want to know Joel Schumacher's experiences with the army. Are the men really this unabashed and brutal? I am sure some of them are, but the movie views its uncompromising world through the eyes of a young man named Roland Bozz (Colin Farrell), who is rebellious against the ideas of war. His personality instantly counteracts with several other characters, one who becomes his best friend, Paxton (Matthew Davis), and another, Wilson (Russell Richardson), whose flamed temper often exasperates Bozz's tension with the idea of going to war. The war depicted in this production is not found on a battlefield, but on training grounds of a Louisiana-based instruction camp between conceptions and fears of the soldiers in training. This film is specifically about the preparation for war, nothing more nothing less. It ends when the soldiers finally go to war, kind of disappointing since witnessing the characters in action would have served as a supurb payoff. 

 Shot on location in about 28 days using 16mm stock and a minuscule budget, Joel Schumacher accurately displays a gritty, perverse, cruel, and unmerciful atmosphere using hand-held cinematography, unique lighting techniques and direct sound. Schumacher's grainy and blown-out images make the movie feel like a documentary feature. This unusual style of filmmaking only contributes to the hard core realism of the movie, quite graphic in its use of coarse language, perhaps a little too disturbing. Waves of four-letter words pound the audience, some in shock of what they are hearing. Even the extreme amount of vulgarism does not keep the dialogue from prevailing as heartbreaking, true, and emotional.

	If anything, "Tigerland" provides us with a minor appreciation of how much our soldiers go through for our country in the beginning stages of combat. Such bravery must it take to enlist in the army during times of war, knowing the hardships and risks that are being taken. Such thought-provoking ideas are made possible through the heartbreaking performances by the young aspiring actors who portray the various trainees. This movie is not for all audiences, but one that young men should take a look at before enlisting themselves in the army...and adult audiences should watch to appreciate the courage needed to do such. 



Sentiment: positive
I really enjoyed this movie. Typically Ron Howard who seems to like being associated with Michael Keaton. Love the scene when Hunt travels to Japan with his sales pitch. Whoa, how did that get in there ! Cheap laughs but great value

Sentiment: positive
Poor Michael Madsen; he must be kicking himself to know folks have found out about this horrible flick. I really can't think of anything worse I have ever seen, except amateur porn. It's that bad, and all here; wooden acting, bad script, crappy moral ending, you hate it and it is in this movie.

My question is: "Who the Hell put $$$ into this piece of doggy doo? At least we could have seen Michael's sister Virginia nude in a scene, but I don't think even that would save this stinker...

For a cool guy that has made some exception movies, I want to know what wacky church sponsored this piece of crapola.

Sentiment: negative
This is just about the WORST piece of garbage I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through. The story was embarrassingly amateurish, the graphics were horrible, and the acting... I've never seen worse acting in my entire life. A kindergarten class could come up with a scarier, better written, and more entertaining concept than this. I pity anyone who wastes their time on this film, as well as the actors who agreed to doing the job. It was obvious that they were not given appropriate direction. The writers must have spent their time at film school in the "back room" playing peaknuckle. A lot of professors wasted a lot of time on these two. I would be truly embarrassed to admit that I knew them.

Sentiment: negative
"In the sweltering summer of 1958, the Deuces, a gang of Brooklyn toughs, find their turf threatened when the leader of a rival gang, the Vipers, is released from prison. Leon (Stephen Dorff), the Deuces' leader, tries to guide his boys through bloody brawls to keep the Vipers out. But when his brother (Brad Renfro) falls into a sultry - and dangerous - relationship with Annie (Fairuza Balk), the sister of a Viper, and his own girlfriend is brutally attacked, Leon and his gang are plunged into an all-out war to save his brother, his girl - and his neighborhood!" according to the DVD sleeve description. This is definitely no "Basketball Diaries".

Think of it as "West Side Story" getting hit over the head with baseball bats and steel pipes, stickball having left Brooklyn with the Dodgers. "Deuces Wild" has some cool Hollywood sets, 1950s cars and soundtrack songs; and, much of it is nicely photographed by John A. Alonzo. The story and direction never get beyond these strengths, which enables the film to peak during its opening minutes, and proceed downhill. The cast looks good when you read the credits, but translates into an ageing, flabby mess of phony pompadours, blood, and Brylcreem and one fright wig. A sense of sadness and regret permeates the production.

*** Deuces Wild (5/3/02) Scott Kalvert ~ Stephen Dorff, Brad Renfro, Fairuza Balk, Frankie Muniz

Sentiment: negative
I spent eight years running movie theatres in the 80's and 90's. This was, by far, the worst film I ever showed to the public. One thing that made it so bad was that it put on airs of trying to be a great, inspiring film. Even the great Gregory Peck could not save this horrid piece of drivel from being far less than mediocre. Jamie Lee Curtis, in an early non-horror film role, demonstrated clearly that she had not yet learned to act (she's still trying, but it isn't getting much better).

I'm sorry, and here's the spoiler, international nuclear disarmament is never going to happen just because it makes children afraid to play little league baseball! Even the shows on Nick and The Disney Channel are not stupid enough to try to make us believe that dreck.

This is not worth the time you would waste watching it on cable TV. It is not worth the price of a movie rental; your dollar would be better spent on an extra package of microwave popcorn to go with the other movie you picked (because it can only be better than this).

Sentiment: negative
I was expecting the movie based on Grendel, the book written by John Gardner in the late 1970's. It was based on the Beowulf epic, but told from the perspective of the monster. 

Whatever you may think of Gardner's book, a movie based on the Beowulf epic should not be entitled Grendel, when it doesn't say anything more about the monster beyond the few pathetic scenes in which the CG monster is shown as nothing more than a modified Predator. 

On top of this, the writers should also be punished for screwing up the original story so badly and contributing to the continued growing ignorance of mass TV audiences throughout the US.

Typical Hollywood to get this so wrong. 

Very disappointing and a complete waste of time.

Sentiment: negative
There are numerous films relating to WW2, but Mother Night is quite distinctive among them: In this film, we are introduced to Howard Campbell (Nolte), an American living in Berlin and married to a German, Helga Noth (Lee), who decides to accept the role of a spy: More specifically, a CIA agent Major Wirtanen (Goodman) recruits Campbell who becomes a Nazi propagandist in order to enter the highest echelons of the Hitler regime. However, the deal is that the US Government will never acknowledge Campbell's role in the war for national security reasons, and so Campbell becomes a hated figure across the US. After the war, he tries to conceal his identity, but the past comes back and haunts him. His only "friend" is Wirtanen, but even he cannot do much for the avalanche of events that fall upon poor Campbell...

The story is deeply touching, as we watch the tragedy of Campbell who although a great patriot, is treated by disdain by everybody who surrounds him. Not only that, but he also gradually realizes that even the persons who are most close to him, have many secrets of their own. Vonnegut provides us with a moving atmosphere, with Campbell's despair building up and almost choking the viewer.

Nolte plays the role of his life, in my opinion; he is even better than in "Affliction", although in both roles he plays tragic figures who are destined to self-destruction. Sheryl Lee is also excellent, and the same can be said for the whole cast in general.

I haven't read the book, so I cannot appraise how the film compares to it. In any case, this is something of no importance here: My critique is upon the film per se, and the film wholeheartedly deserves a 9/10.

Sentiment: positive
Extremely funny. More gags in each one of these episodes than in ten years of Friends. And with a good (ie. funny) Nordberg, not the fab-only-casted OJ Simpson in the movies. When will these episodes emerge on DVD?...

Sentiment: positive
Well, I should say, "the only film related to club/dj/electronic music and raves...that ravers respect".

Seriously now. It's a gloriously fun, fast paced and fairly accurate portrayal of the night of a raver. Albeit, its in a club, its in Wales and its somewhat dated. The film leaves out some of the sketchier elements of club life, but doesn't disassociate from them altogether. It presents a idyllic yet serious portrayal of the ups and downs of the characters lives.

At the core of the film, and the best element of Justin Kerrigan's script, is the characters, eccentric, unique yet completely understandable and accessible. This film simple would not work and be infinitely less entertaining were it not for Jip, Koop, Nina, Moff and Lulu. Viewers can deny the political and social implications of the subtext of Human Traffic as a drug film, Trainspotting wannabe, important peg in British youth culture circa 90's, BUT....they can't deny that these are engaging characters.

It's frantic, its brutally honest, it's sobering, it's over the top, but its a great comedy. 

Raves are a complex thing, so are the drugs that are taken at these events, so are the people you will encounter. But from someone who has gone to parties, become jaded and still goes...Human Traffic is the best snapshot that could be taken of the subculture. Just whatever you do, avoid "Groove" as its the antithesis of all that is good about Human Traffic.

Sentiment: positive
I enjoyed this film yet hated it because I wanted to help this guy! I am in my fifties and have a lot of friends in the music business...who are now still trying to become adults....no more fans,groupies,money etc...and they are having such a hard time adjusting to a regular life...as they see the new bands etc getting the spotlight...it is almost like they have to begin anew...this film is a testament to what a lot of the old rockers from the 70's and 80's are going through now....and that's where I find the film sad and depressing.BUT it portrays the life of an old rock star-abandoned and lost-in a believable way.The young girl who arrives at his decrepit home reminds me of Hollis maclaren (Outrageous)...and she is one lady in a film you will cheer for. This film is a must have for folks in their 50's who have seen the rise and fall of bands,people who knew the members, and have watched them hurt as age creeps in,and popularity fades.This is an almost perfect movie....sad but in a way positive....because of the whales. A MUST SEE!

Sentiment: positive
_The Wild Life_ has an obvious resemblance to _Fast Times At Ridgemont High_, and _The Wild Life_ comes up short.

------------ 

Some other stan wrote the above comment. Of course The Wild Life is no Ridgemont. Ridgemont is the quintessential 80s flica. However, the Wild Life is enjoyable if you're not whiny about mindless movies being mindless movies (especially when you know it's supposed to be a mindless movie in the first place). The little Latino from Scarface is in this movie and he's straight disrespectful ("I got Visa...Masterrrrr Charrrrge!!") The Colonel also makes an appearance ("Lawsuit..."). RIP The Colonel 1931-1997.

This movie is no worse than a 6 in comparison to other genres, btw. It is no worse than a 7 in terms of other 80s teen comedies at that. It does very much have the feel of a Cameron Crowe movie. Only staniels gave it a 5.

Sentiment: positive
Doesn't this seem somewhat familiar? Oh wait, that's right.. 90% of the jokes in this movie have already been done in the TV series. What's the point in repeating yourself, you may ask? Is it for the benefit of the Americans who haven't seen the programme? Did the scriptwriters run out of inspiration? Or maybe everyone on set suffered a sudden attack of amnesia, and forgot they'd covered this ground already? Either way, for someone who has sat through the first three series, this was just really boring. I had to turn it off during the 'tablets that turn your water green' part.. yes it is very funny, but give us something original for goodness sake! Actually, if the best new stuff you can come up with is Leonard Rossiter's take on Saturday Night Fever, you can forget it.

The guy they got to replace the late Richard Beckinsale is a lookalike alright, but not half the actor. Personally I would exorcised the role, as a mark of respect to him. Or better yet, not bothered making the film at all, and just let the hilarity of the TV series speak for itself. But no, they couldn't do that.. not as long as there was money to be made. Sad, really. 4/10

Sentiment: negative
This movie is AWFUL. I haven't laughed so hard at a movie that was unintentionally funny in a long time. Leno should've stuck to stand up and late night tv. The cars in the movie were cool, but the movie by itself is the dumbest movie I've ever seen. it's pathetic, the acting is horrible, and the plot could've been written by a 4 year old. don't get me wrong, jay leno is hilarious, but not in this movie!

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the most awful movies I've had the misfortune of picking up. Don't get me wrong, I love a good zombie flick, but this wasn't one of them.

...Might as well (from the opening scenes, at least) been called 'Titty Zombies from Outer Space'. It had absolutely nothing to do with the other movie or the video game (as far as I could tell.) 

The best aspect of the film is how the two main characters can get covered with so much blood and remain so nonplussed. I would certainly suggest giving this one and miss and staying with a safer zombie pleaser like '28 Days Later' or 'Dawn of the Living Dead' (the remake, of course, unless you're into some serious campy action.)

Sentiment: negative
I came into this movie really wanting to line it. I thought the premise had a lot of potential and was ripe for an interesting movie. Don't get me wrong here, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, I was taking this for the B movie that it is. That said, it still fell short of the expectation. The historical aspect of the story is glazed over and the ending left me a bit cold. The acting in the movie was very wooden. All in all I give it 4 for a great idea, but the movie could have scored much higher with a bit more attention to movie making fundamentals. Is it worth seeing? I didn't wish for my two hours back, but I don't know that I'd recommend it to others.

Sentiment: negative
A ditzy girl (yes, ditzy is about as complex as her character gets) won't take no for an answer and does quirky things to get her husband back. It's too far-fetched to be believable with such flimsy characters going through the motions. But not far-fetched enough to be fascinating in the way that say, Being John Malkovich, was. So it ends up boring.

sv

Sentiment: negative