DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
When I was over at Hollywood video I looked through their clearance out movies and there was DEMONICUS for five buckaroos plus fifty percent off! I saw it only once before and couldn't pass up this great deal! The second viewing was much better than the first. The box is so cool and the music is very good. If you haven't seen Demonicus yet I recommend that you do or if you rented and hated Demonicus do give it another chance as another viewing of it may change your mind. If you seen a copy at Hollywood Video for the price I got it for don't pass it up as it is a great deal!

Demonicus is well a very different but entertaining movie.Believe it or not is like watching a interactive video game with out playing it!It has very low budget and actors I'M sure that nobody is familiar with. We began the the video game uh I mean film with a guy and a woman some where in Italy and there is a cave that actually looks like a rail road/train track tunnel and she says don't go in there and what does he do?The normal stuff!HE DIDN'T LISTEN TO HER! He goes in there and find lots of gladiator artifacts and armor and a almost perfectly preserved body of a legendary gladiator named Tyrannous!Where did the chair come from that Tyrannous was sitting on and how did his body stay so good and where did the Cauldron Pot come from?So every cave is complete with a Caultron Pot?Tyrannous is wearing his armor,helmet,and has a weapon or two.He does the dumbest thing a person could do,he puts on the helmet and is taken over by the spirit of Tyrannous! From there he walks around just killing all of the campers near by to bring back the real Tyrannous.

Now,I said before its like a video game.Its hard to explain but it just feels like it.The music even sounds like video games.The acting is really terrible.The actors say things like why is he doing this,oh he was nuts already and Fine since he's nuts i'm going home!Also the movie also has some major errors like a guy is running and trying to find his girlfriend in the night and is still running in the day time still searching for her with out taking a break!

This movie has some errors but it isn't a classic like Werewolf but it is entertaining if you like really low budget error prone movies then you better see Demonicus!

Sentiment: positive
The Columbia Pictures Short Subject unit never had any delusions about producing any 'Art' Films. They wanted to give the film exhibitors just a little more for their money, when booking a Columbia Picture into their theatres. This would go double for The 3 Stooges films.

MEN IN BLACK (1934) came about as close as any of their Comedy Shorts in that it received an Oscar nomination for Best Short Subject, Comedy. Though it did not win, it well could have. It was good enough and even those who do not number themselves among Stooge-files, still seem to be won over by the clarion cry of ".......calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard!" This was the second entry in the long series of Comedy Shorts made by the Stooges for Producer Jules White, head of Columbia's Short Subjects Department. Only WOMAN HATERS, described in its credits as a 'Musical Novelty' preceded it at Harry Cohen's Poverty Row sweatshop.

The film starts off in the office of Dr. Graves, the Head of the Hospital. He is receiving new interns and in addressing the group, he relates that three of them are passed along from Medical Conditionally as they had remained there so long. But, the good Doctor states that he will not reveal their identities as long as they pledge their all "......for Duty and Humanity!" The Stooges run up front pledging "...for Duty and Humanity!", and run out of office, breaking window glass in door. The game was on.

The Stooges took off and did not stop for the remainder of the 2 Reels. Every type of gag was in evidence. From broad Sennett-like sight gags, to puns, to dialect humor, to 'theatre of the absurd' and a surrealistic running gag involving a Public Address System, which seemingly takes on a life of its own and having the true culprit, a radio tube get shot to a "........he got me!" (It all plays out quite well, honest!) The sets used were very authentic looking and were no doubt borrowed from Columbia features being made around the same time. There are plenty of Wheel Chairs, Surgical Cotts, Stethascopes, Surcical Scalpels, etc., in evidence to maintain the illusion of a Hospital.

A true strength of MEN IN BLACK is the high number of usually nameless players, whom we all recognize by face. Along with them, the film boasts of a great number of veteran comedy actors, who always turn in fine performances, often stealing the scene. The people with names like Billy Gilbert, Hank Mann and Bud Jamison shine in even small parts.

And lastly we have the Maestro, the Conductor-Director Raymond McCarey, kid brother to Leo McCarey who showed off his abilities in getting this little film 'in the can'. He skillfully kept it all moving, acting as a Traffic Cop at times, what with all the actors, extras and behind the scenes crew moving and outside of each other's way. And that doesn't count the Giant 3 Man Tandem Bicycle, The Sway Backed Horse and Miniature Race Cars, not to mention the 'Giant, Green Canaries!'

Sentiment: positive
There was a time when not all animation was Disney or Pixar. Its so nice to see this wonderful film again and I actually got hold of a good, reasonable copy on DVD. Be careful as its out of the public domain and there are some really bad copies around.I got a very good copy by a company called Flashbacks and its quite good. In the old days I watched it on black and white on TV and its magic to see it in colour. Very much better than some would have you believe. The songs are delightful and the colour is great. Interestingly the characters are really well developed which is odd in animated movies. I loved Hoppity and the villain Mr Beatle is a real cad. Its incredibly imaginative. The way inanimate objects like cotton reels, old tins become part of the environment and have new functions is great. The anthropomorhic use of insects is amazing considering the much malinged creatures most people sadly think are repugnant. Hopefully we may never step on an insect again! THe insects enemy is man. In reality of course its the insects that will survive. No matter how hard we try to rid ourselves of ants here in Australia they keep coming back. The battle has been lost and we have to live with them. There are several scenes that stand out such as when Hoppity and Mr Bumble are caught in a watering can, the great flood and the journey to the top of the building are all wonderful. Its also rather anthropomorphic but in a way thats charming. The human characters look very like the ones in Gulliver and its incredibly effective. The wedding scene looks beautiful. Its a crime this movie has not been hailed as a classic. The only jarring note for me is the occasions in the film when the characters slip into verse. Speaking verse spoils the narration and it was no needed, The verse is awful and spoils an other wise good script. Its great and kids will love it. Its a joy to look at. There's a very clever ending too.

Sentiment: positive
This has got to be the most god-awful piece of cinematic crap I have ever watched. It makes Mel Brooks movies Oscar-worthy by comparison. Jim VanBebber needs to be publicly slapped for trying to pass this off as ANY form of entertainment.

While some may say that this movie is true to the low budget genre of such classics as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "Night of the Living Dead", the production value is not in question. It is VanBebber's ability to cast and present a plausible story line. The casting is deplorable. For the role of Charlie he must have picked the first actor he saw with a beard and long hair. Never mind that this actor's hair came halfway down his back, (Manson's never went much past his shoulders) this actor spoke in a dreadful monotone without so much as a fraction of the personality that Steve Railsback or even Jeremy Davies lent to their portrayals of Manson. The actor chosen to play "Tex" Watson had curly blond hair instead of straight dark hair, a fact that anyone who has shown even the most remote interest in the Manson case knows. He looks like a Minnesota farmer on "Little House on the Prairie" The actress playing Susan Atkins has a butt wider than Oprah's, While those familiar with the Family members know that "Clem" was considered somewhat retarded, the actor portraying him did so in such a campy, Chaplinesque way it was like watching an old Vaudevile act. Instead of Sharon Tate looking like a beautiful pregnant woman, the actress looked like bloated, alcoholic trailer trash. VanBebber speeds up the filming in some places for artistic effect yet this technique hasn't proved remotely useful since "The Munsters". The end credits list every known family member yet we are never introduced to the majority of them and those we are introduced to we aren't sure who they are sometimes.

Facts are destroyed in this movie as well. "Lotsapoppa" did not die in real life, Steven Parent was shot four times, not twice, Abagail Folger did not have her throat slit, Where were Mary Brunner and Bruce Davis during the Himnan Murder? Patricia Krenwinkel never sported a "Dorothy Hamill" hair style.

The most baffling aspect of this movie is what the modern day "freaks" had to do with this movie? Why was the girl wearing a rubber mask with a dildo attached? What was their problem with the journalist? What was the meaning or purpose of the final confrontation? Why were they included, period? The viewer never knows! 

Holy mackerel, I could go on and on but space prevents it. Don't try to eat popcorn during this garbage because your hand will be too busy scratching your head while you repeatedly say "What the f---?"

Sentiment: negative
The obsession of 'signifie' and 'signifiant' is not enough to make a good film. Pascal Bonitzer should have remained in our memory as a brilliant film theorist back in the '60´s. It was not necessary to take the camera. The result is quite frustrating. It´s a pity for his excellent leading actors.

Sentiment: negative
Tiempo de Valientes fits snugly into the buddy action movie genre, but transcends its roots thanks to excellent casting, tremendous rapport between its leads, and outstanding photography. Diego Peretti stars as Dr. Silverstein, a shrink assigned to ride shotgun with detective Diaz (Luis Luque), who's been assigned to investigate the murder of two minor hoods who seem to have been involved in am arms smuggling conspiracy. Diaz has been suspended from duty, but he's the best man for the job and must have professional psychiatric help in order to be reinstated. Silverstein and Diaz soon find themselves enmeshed in a conspiracy involving Argentina's intelligence community and some uranium, and the film separates them at a crucial point that allows Silverstein to develop some impressive sleuthing skills of his own. Peretti and Luque are excellent together and remind me of screen team Terence Hill and Bud Spencer, though Peretti isn't as classically handsome as Hill. Remarkably, even at almost two hours in length Tiempo de Valientes doesn't wear out its welcome, and indeed writer-director Damian Szifron sets up a potential sequel in the film's charming coda. All in all, a wonderful and very entertaining action comedy that neither panders to the lowest common denominator nor insults your intelligence.

Sentiment: positive
I've always knew Anne DeSalvo was a great character actor, now I know she is a great writer/director also. I have been a fan since I first saw her in the movies "Perfect", "My Favorite Year", "DC Cab" and "Stardust Memories".

It's so rare to see Lee Grant these days in anything. She has been missing from the screen for far too long. It's also wonderful to see Cloris Leachman in something other than a sit-com. This is her best work since "the Last Picture Show". If you grew up in an Italian American family you will love this movie. I wasn't expecting a lot when I started watching this movie, so I was pleasantly surprised when I fell in love with this movie. If you get the chance, watch it.

Sentiment: positive
"Voodoo Academy" features an "Academy" like no other, one that houses only six male students in one bedroom. These teenage guys are instructed in religion by a sinister young priest, who enjoys tormenting and comforting them simultaneously. The sole administrator of this "Academy" is a young and seductive headmistress, and she retains her handsome charges on a short leash, so to speak.

Sexual overtones abound, and the director obviously has high regard for young male bodies. These young actors occasionally strip down to their designer underwear to sneak about the "Academy," and their sexuality is the entire focus of the movie. If you're not interested in the male form -- stay away!

Burdened by weak and awkward dialogue, this low-budget exploitation piece just stumbles along with a few laughable special effects tossed in between the yawns. The mood is claustrophobic, with tediously long takes, a handful of cheap sets and few costume changes. These visual elements come interspersed with seemingly unending sequences of banal dialogue, intended as character and plot development. It gives one the feeling it was filmed in three days...

Sentiment: negative
are highlights of this 1917 feature. The Pride of the Clan tells the story of a young girl who becomes clan chieftain after her father dies. On an island off the coast of Scotland, the villagers live the simple lives of "fisher folk." My copy is very dark and sometimes hard to read, but the film boasts some stunning ocean scenery, and the camera work on boats is splendid. Maurice Tourneur directed Pickford in this pleasant film. Pickford was already a major star in 1917, and this film seems to have been written just for her: plucky young woman succeeds over misfortune. Pickford whip lashing lazy villagers toward church is very funny. And the final scenes on the sinking ship are very well done. Not a great Picford film, but still worth seeing. Matt Moore (Pickford was married to his brother, Owen Moore) is the love interest, and is good as the strapping island lad. Leatrice Joy is one of the villagers but I couldn't spot her either. My copy intersperses lots of bells and gongs and adds an eerie feeling when the village warning bells are rung. Very effective.

Sentiment: positive
Got this off of usenet, so I wasn't prepared for the heavy (and I do mean EXCEPTIONALLY heavy) religious theme. Not that I'm one of Satan's disciples or anything, but it was very heavy handed.

On top of that, the acting stunk. It might be because they had to get good little boys to play bad little boys, but it didn't work.

There was some pretty cool filmmaking involved, so any fan of directorial style might want to check it out, but be ready with the fast forward buttons.

There was some sloppiness to the editing. In particular, a black Mustang (probably a representation of Satan?) squares off against a white 240Z. Wheels spin, camera changes, and whattya know, that white 240Z is transmogrified into a white Civic.

I gave up early on, so I can't vouch for the moral impact of it. But I would like to point out that this sort of film is totally preaching to the choir. If the director/writer/producer was trying to bring religion to the unwashed streetracing masses, they went about it all wrong. I think I'd rather watch an adult diaper commercial than listen to a steely-gazed bible thumper rant about Jesus' dying for us. Yawn.



Sentiment: negative
I don't think I've ever felt this let down by a film before. After loving Guy Ritchie's two previous films (I don't count Swept Away - he was pussy blind), I was so looking forward to seeing this. 

The reviews were poor, then again, I don't trust the press anyway. More worrying was the fact that the internet buzz was that this was a bit of a stinker, so it was with some trepidation I handed over my £4.80 yesterday afternoon.

I'm not even going to try to explain this film, mainly because I haven't got a clue what was going on and at one point I was honestly close to standing up and asking if it was just me who didn't get it! 

Unfortunately I think Ritchie seems to have fallen into his wife's trap of taking himself far too seriously.It seems it wasn't good enough for him to make films with good plots, laughs, snappy dialogue and good characters. It's almost as if he had a checklist of films he wanted to rip off, here are some of the ones I noticed:

The Matrix, Fight Club, Kill Bill, The Usual Suspects, Vanilla Sky...

I think the most frustrating thing is that the performances from the two main actors, Jason Statham and Ray Liotta, were actually very good and it was really the self indulgent story and editing / direction that let the film down.

So a big, big thumbs down from me.

Sentiment: negative
My comment is limited generally to the first season, 1959-60.

This superb series was one of the first to be televised in color, and it was highly influential in persuading Americans that they had to buy a color television set, which was about $800 in 1959, the equivalent of more than $3,000 today. How many of us would pay that much for the privilege of watching a show transmitted by a cathode ray picture tube on a 17-inch screen? I was eleven when the series began, and I watched it from the beginning.

Watching it now, 50 years later, several things come to mind. First, many of the story lines involve the Comstock Lode and the heyday of silver mining, which dates to 1859. For 1859, the weapons and clothes are, for the most part, not authentic. (The haircuts are left out of the discussion.) That's basically a nitpick.

And, it would have been impossible for Ben to have arrived in the Lake Tahoe area in 1839 and to have amassed a 100-square mile ranch in the next twenty years. Pioneers were still trying to solve the Sierra Nevada problem as late as 1847, and the Gold Rush did not even begin until two years later.

Indians are not played by Native American actors. John Ford was using Native American actors in the 1920s. The Bonanza producers could have easily done so thirty years later. That is a major nitpick for me.

There are other time-line problems. In Season 1, Mark Twain appears, and he is depicted as a middle-aged man. Mark Twain was 24 years-old in 1859. The stories also vacillate between 1859-1860 (pre-Civil War) and what was more suitable for an 1880 time-frame. There are continuity problems, over and over.

It is somewhat off-putting, too, that there is so much killing in the first season. In time, the killing was reduced.

Many of the episodes take a socially liberal slant, which would be hard to believe, given the time-line, but give the writers credit for anticipating the seismic shifts in the Nation's attitudes beginning in the 1960s.

Having said all that, the acting is good, and I have come to conclude in my latter years that Adam's character was drawn better than any other's. I don't think Pernell Roberts ever got the credit he deserved. Also, Season 1 reinforces the fact that Dan Blocker (Hoss) was a good actor.

Many of the stories trace real historical events. The guest stars were interesting.

This was great family entertainment, and the series stands up very well by any measure.

Sentiment: positive
I was excited to hear that someone had made a documentary on what it was like to be Puerto Rican. When I heard it was Rosie Perez, I wondered..could she possibly know what it is really like to be Puerto Rican. As far as I knew....she was a Nuyorican. Well anyway, I anxiously sat with my popcorn to watch. I realized 10 min into it that my initial apprehension was right. Rosie Perez has little knowledge about what it is like to be Puerto Rican. This "documentary" is more a 1st hand, very very personal account on what it is like to be a Nuyorican..and all of what that entails. She (like most of the Nuyoricans I know) have a watered down, partial and sometimes twisted sense of history. (How could they not..they live here.) Yes, all of them are proud. As they should be! But a lot don't know the ins and outs of the REAL culture, history and political background or language for the most part. It all became very very apparent with her participation in the Vieques issue. Regardless of my personal take is on this issue..at least I know what the hell the fight is for. There is she is getting arrested for something she knew little about.. and only participated in because it was a "Puerto Rican Cause" I really don't understand how she is not embarrassed to admit to it. For those of you that are not Puerto Rican, please view this as a partial account of a woman's journey of self discovery and acceptance. Do not take this as gospel...a lot of it isn't even true. Please consider the source. Rosie is an actress; not a historian. This movie is not and should never be, for other Nuyoricans, the base for their information. Instead, just a step towards finding more info, learning and debating what the reality is. Not just the one coming from this woman's eyes.

Sentiment: negative
A low budget effort from Texas that's at least filmed well, but that is little consolation. Bad acting, or, should I say, bad over-acting, a pretty limp story line that's nothing new, bad special effects, bad, bad, bad. Seems like a bunch of young folks are putting together a haunted house for Halloween, which is done every year, but this year things are different. Has a long extended lesbian theme that is not only annoying but definitely fills out the empty spots, of which there are a lot. Putrid, puerile, definitely avoidable, at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
There was something here with the female lead having this perfect life she's always wanted after the worst life possible, beginning as a child prostitute and winding up with Eric Roberts. But her background makes it impossible for her to trust Dean Cain and this utterly destroys it in the end. It sounds weird, but I like the position Dean Cain was in at the end and the choice he made. He can't hurt her because he loves her and she's the mother of his child (I think the time frame makes it clear it's his child and not his brother's), but at the same he can't forgive her for all she's done, sleeping with his brother (which shows the love and obligation he felt was pretty much one way) and then being part of his death. In better hands this would have been a better movie, but for something I caught on late night cable, it's not bad.

Sentiment: negative
As someone who's never been into sports, it seems like it would be hard for me to get into the football (or as we Americans inexplicably call it, soccer)-themed "Bend It Like Beckham". But I gotta say, this was one cool movie! Anglo-Indian Jesminder Bhamra (Parminder Nagra) and her WASP friend Juliette Paxton (Keira Knightley) love to play football (yes, I'm going to say it the British - and international - way) and just adore football player David Beckham. But Jesminder's traditional Sikh parents don't approve (her mother offers a really whacked-out description of football early in the movie). Okay, so maybe it was sort of a cliché in that sense, but you gotta love this movie! And if like me, you go to this movie not knowing the definition of "bend" in football...don't worry, the movie explains it (I'd also never heard of David Beckham prior to this movie). And we all know that Keira Knightley hit it big: a few months after "BILB" came out in the States, she starred in the equally cool "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl".

Sentiment: positive
I first saw this movie in my plays & playwrights course at Tulane. I was awed at how beautiful and raw this documentary was. It is a sincere look into the unedited reality of a life of solitude. The family is fascinating and I thought it really showed Little Edie at her core. **As a side note My professor even told me that throughout the filming, Little Edie became infatuated with one of the camera men.** The beauty, I find, comes from the naturalness of the family's dysfunction. It is evident in the relationship between mother and daughter that neither could function in society alone and you begin to wish for Little Edie's rehabilitation to society. In all, the film is gripping in its aesthetic quality and it's portrayal of surprising beauty. Two thumbs way up!

Sentiment: positive
This was no Trainspotting or Guy Ritchie film. It was a big wannabee. It wanted to be an edgy, nervous-laughter, urban-life affirming film, but it's more of a camera jerky, mess. It's a lot easier to imitate something else, than to create a real story with real characters. From the beginning, I couldn't care less about the characters or what they were involved in. They were always always hitting, pissing, or crying on each other. Only, there wasn't any substance to what they were doing. The dialog between characters is meant to be hip, revealing, instead it comes out trite, and one scene after another is predictable. I know there are viewers out there that really liked this movie, so I could be wrong.

Sentiment: negative
This oddity in the new DORIS DAY COLLECTION doesn't really need to be included as she is only in the film for less than 30 minutes. What she does do however, is shine when she's on screen. The near plot less movie is just an excuse to showcase some Warner contract players of the day. JANCIE RULE shows promise and it's a shame she didn't become a big star. RUTH ROMAN handles the role of the "go-getter" with aplomb. Better if this was in color. The Travis Air force base locations with some rear projection work well. What's best about the movie are some wonderful musical interludes. If you enjoyed THANK YOUR LUCKY STARS and Hollywood CANTEEN you'll like this one.

Sentiment: negative
Who would think Andy Griffith's "Helen Crump" (Aneta Corsaut) had a Steve McQueen movie in her past? But that is only one of several weird and wonderful things about the ultimate 1950s teenagers-battle-creatures movie, which might best be described as Rebel Without A Cause meets God Knows What From Outer Space. The Rebel is Steven McQueen (who would shortly decide that "Steve" sounded less prissy), a good boy with just enough wild to be interesting; the very wholesome yet understanding girlfriend is the aforementioned Aneta Corsaut. It was bad enough when their date was disrupted by teenage hot-rodders, but they are considerably more nonplussed when they encounter a gelatinous, man-eating What Is It that rides down to earth on its own hotrod meteor--and begins gobbling up townfolk right and left. But will the grown ups believe them? Of course not, what do they know, they're just kids!

The movie is teeny bopper at its teeny bopping best. The actors take the rather pretentious script very seriously, with many a soulful look into each other eyes, and the "adult" supporting cast probably says "Kids!" very third sentence or so. But the real pleasure of the film its creature, which is well imagined, well-executed, and often manages to generate a surprising degree of suspense. And although clearly on the cheap side (check out those miniature sets, guys!), THE BLOB is actually a fairly well-made film--and there's that catchy little theme song thrown in for good measure. The 40-plus crowd (myself included) will enjoy the movie as nostalgia, but that won't prevent them from hooting right along with the younger set at its whole-milk-and-white-bread 1950s sensibility, and the film would be a great choice for either family-movie night or a more sophisticated "grown ups only" get together. Make plenty of Jello cubes for movie snacking! Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Sentiment: positive
Even if I had not read Anne Rice's "Queen of the Damned" from the "Vampire Chronicles," I probably would still have thought this movie was just awful.

It was tasteless, plot-less, it made absolutely no sense at all. I sat for a while pondering the plot disassociated from the book, and the longer I thought of it, the worse it was. To associate it in any way with the prior Chronicles film is ridiculous as it is ridiculously inconsistent with that movie, let alone the book. The bare few ideas taken from Rice's genius in "The Vampire Chronicles" were butchered and ridiculed.

It is an absolute insult to Anne Rice fans everywhere and such a pathetic excuse for a legacy in being Aaliyah's last film. Truly, it's an insult to Aaliyah fans as well.

Possibly the only compliment can be paid to the sound effects as well as some of the graphics. Good as they may be, it is still not at all enough to make me regret the time spent watching this movie. As a matter of fact, I signed up for this membership for the sole reason of communicating to people bothering to look at this film (7 years after the release, as it may be) to not waste their time or expect much beyond disappointment.

Sentiment: negative
Movie about two Australian girls--Debbie (Nell Schofield) and Sue (Sue Knight)--and what happens when they become girlfriends of two surfer guys.

I caught this at an art cinema here in America in 1981. Technically I was still a teenager (I was 19) so I was interested in seeing how Australian teens acted. Script wise there's nothing new here. It shows the usual teenage adventures dealing with dating, sex, suicide etc etc. I always knew what was going to happen before it did but I was never bored. What I found interesting was, despite the accent and a few changes in clothes and hair, these teenagers aren't much different than American teens. They had many of the same difficulties and hang-ups. Also this was based on a book from a real surfer girl and her true life adventures and (I heard) it was a faithful adaptation of it. The acting was just OK but the actors were attractive and this was well-made and pretty interesting. So this is no unsung masterpiece but a pretty accurate portrayal of what it's like being a teenager and trying to be with the popular kids. I give it a 7.

Sentiment: positive
Manhattan apartment dwellers have to put up with all kinds of inconveniences. The worst one is the lack of closet space! Some people who eat out all the time use their ranges and dishwashers as storage places because the closets are already full!

Melvin Frank and Norman Panama, a great comedy writing team from that era, saw the potential in Eric Hodgins novel, whose hero, Jim Blandings, can't stand the cramped apartment where he and his wife Muriel, and two daughters, must share.

Jim Blandings, a Madison Ave. executive, has had it! When he sees an ad for Connecticut living, he decides to take a look. Obviously, a first time owner, Jim is duped by the real estate man into buying the dilapidated house he is taken to inspect by an unscrupulous agent. This is only the beginning of his problems.

Whatever could be wrong, goes wrong. The architect is asked to come out with a plan that doesn't work for the new house, after the original one is razed. As one problem leads to another, more money is necessary, and whatever was going to be the original cost, ends up in an inflated price that Jim could not really afford.

The film is fun because of the three principals in it. Cary Grant was an actor who clearly understood the character he was playing and makes the most out of Jim Blandings. Myrna Loy, was a delightful actress who was always effective playing opposite Mr. Grant. The third character, Bill Cole, an old boyfriend of Myrna, turned lawyer for the Blandings, is suave and debonair, the way Melvin Douglas portrayed him. One of the Blandings girls, Joan, is played by Sharyn Moffett, who bore an uncanny resemblance to Eva Marie Saint. The great Louise Beavers plays Gussie, but doesn't have much to do.

The film is lovingly photographed by James Wong Howe, who clearly knew what to do to make this film appear much better. The direction of H.C. Potter is light and he succeeded in this film that will delight fans of classic comedies.

Sentiment: positive
I caught this movie on late-night TV. Honestly i saw most of it, and the whole time i was sitting in complete and utter disbelief.

Is there any genre that's more pointless than soft-core porn? If there is i don't want to know about it. Softcore porn combines all the horrors of porn (lousy production values, abominable acting, crappy scripts) with the coyness of sex-scenes in regular movies. So the end result is arousing nor entertaining. This movie also has the rather odd approach of a science-fiction setting, and it works horribly. All the sex is performed in some sort of virtual reality setting where the crew from the future learn about physical love. And yes, it's about as confused and silly as it sounds.

But there has to be some positive points though, right? Well, there is one... Krista Allen is amazingly hot. That's about the only thing that was less than awful in this movie. I don't know what it is about her, but she has an amazing sex appeal. The rest of the cast look like the standard porn-cast though. Rather unattractive women with poorly done fake breasts, and men that have spent far too much time in the gym toning themselves grotesque. Probably a gym in Germany as well judging by haircuts and clothing.

To sum things up. If you enjoy Krista Allens presence on screen you can watch this for the brief moments where she shows some of her seductive potential (most of the time she tries to articulate crappy lines of dialog though). If you don't enjoy Krista Allen then you might as well stay away altogether.

I rate this 10/10 for Krista Allens sex appeal, 1/10 for everything else and 2/10 for entertainment value since this is a unique crappy porn/science fiction hybrid that's not really like anything i've ever seen.

Sentiment: negative
T.Z. Post, college professor, receives a false letter stating he inherited $750,000. Now with financial means, he withdraws his life savings of $4,000, and decides to finally going out & live. After having his baggage sent on a train to Chicago, he meets a traveling vaudeville troupe, and decides there good enough for him to put on a show on Broadway. The night of the show, poor Prof. Post has to hide from his creditors, settle the relationship woes between girlfriend Pansy and & floozy diva Eleanor, and still make sure the show must go on. After watching many of Keaton's silent gems, this one is a pain to sit through, but I felt, it could have been a lot worse. Supporting cast Durante, Todd, & Selwyn come off very annoying at times, but still likeable. A pre-Charlie Chan Toler is good as the frustrated show director. 90% of the script is badly written as MGM is trying to pass this off as a poor man's Marx Bros. film where many of the sight gags fall flat from the beginning. Compiled with Keaton's drinking problems at the time, this movie just is a sad moment in Buster's life. Rating- 3.

Sentiment: negative
What gives Anthony Minghella the right to ruin two extraordinary works of fiction?? First, he destroyed The English Patient, which was bad enough, but now I discover he's butchered Cold Mountain - butchered!!!

I had such a strange reaction to The English Patient. My son and I went to see it the first weekend it was released, and I was so disappointed, but told my son I felt like I needed to read the book. I drove straight to Barnes and Noble, bought it, read it, and tried to figure out what in the world the critics were talking about when they said Minghella had trusted enough in the intelligence of the movie-going public to give them a great film. That is what he most surely did not do. 

I do not ordinarily read a great deal of fiction, but Cold Mountain was so highly recommended by friends that I felt compelled to read it. I did not see Cold Mountain, the movie, when it played in theaters, and it was because of what Minghella had done to The English Patient. But like a fool, I rented it today, and I'm so upset, I had to vent my frustration and, most of all, my sadness, that someone could have taken this beautiful story and crafted it into something almost as beautiful on the screen, and now they never will. 

READ THE BOOK AND LET THE MOVIE ROT ON THE SHELF. I will never be taken in by a Minghella project again. I think he may be one of the worst directors working today, and I'm tired of the praise Hollywood heaps upon his head. It must be that no one in Hollywood reads anymore. This movie bears no resemblance to the book, except for the names of the characters. Minghella's ego must know no bounds, and if he didn't like the book, then why didn't he write an original screenplay and leave the book alone. Even if I hadn't read the book, I would still consider this movie one of the worst I've seen from 2003; and I've seen almost everything that's been released for viewing in the USA.

Elaine, you aren't going to like this one either.

Sentiment: negative
This movie has no respect for the viewer's time. It takes a 15 minute story and stretches it into 95 minutes. In order to achieve this, they have to use a very slow narration and have everyone run around with some implausible frantic angst. By the time this movie showed anything interesting in the plot, I just didn't care. The problem is not in the acting, but instead the pacing. The story is just weak. Jim Carrey is a capable actor, but his attempts to inject light humor into a serious role is just out of place. His style of humor is not generic, so he comes across as a watered down version of himself. The number 23 causes great grief and frustration to the people in the story, but the justification for this is never logical. At most it's just mildly interesting. Jim Carrey has far more ability in a serious role than this movie reveals. Don't waste your money seeing this in the theater. Rent this movie if you've had problems sleeping. If you are still wide awake after 10 minutes, then you liked it more than I did. I was not fond of the lighting and artistic aspects of the film making either. A lot of passive visual eye candy was thrown at the viewer with lighting or effects and it did little to enhance the already weak story.

Sentiment: negative
In the opening scenes of this movie a man shot arrows through his hotel room into another man's bathroom and blew out all the lights. This must have been very hep for 1936, but rather way way out and had nothing to do with the film, Robin Hood did not make an appearance as far as I could see. However, Bette Davis(Daisey Appleby),"The Whales of August",'87 was very young and attractive and performed one of her best roles in a long career in Hollywood. Daisey never stopped teasing or being very sexy with her nightgowns and so called swim suit on her yacht with George Brent(Johnny Jones),"The Spiral Staircase",'46. Daisey even proposed marriage to Johnny in a Ferris Wheel upside down and even got a black eye. Davis and Brent made a great couple, one suppose to be very rich and the other a very poor reporter. Off stage, Davis and Brent were having a real torrid love affair, which is good reason why there was sparks when these two appeared in this film. If you liked Bette Davis and George Brent, this is the film for you!

Sentiment: positive
I can't believe that so many are comparing this movie to Argento's. His work is far more imaginative and vicious--and a lot more fun.

The director simply lacks the ability to build real tension. The murder scenes--and let's face it, that's what this genre is all about--aren't interesting. It was not hard to guess who the murderer was, and I really didn't care when it was revealed. The cinematography isn't memorable, and the much-praised 19th century Gothic atmosphere just didn't draw me in. Several of the actors are quite good (especially the headmistress and the sadistic girl who lords it over the younger students), but they're given very little to do.

Yes, there are undertones of incest, sadomasochism, and lesbianism, but amazingly, they add very little spice or suspense. 

If you're looking for a good horror movie, look elsewhere.

Sentiment: negative
What are the odds of a "Mermaid" helium balloon traveling from Yuba City, Ca.(on Nov 8th,1993) and landing 4 Days later,(on Nov. 12) in MERMAID, Prince Edward Island, Canada.(Approx. 4000 miles). This is a great movie. It is based on a true story. This movie helps not only children cope with losses, but older people as well. Hope everyone will enjoy it!!! Rhonda

Sentiment: positive
What garbage, is there actually no part II? If this movie actually ends the way it did, everyone involved with this movie should be ashamed. This movie is nothing close to a movie like Outbreak, which was actually a fairly decent movie. This movie was rushed in hopes of being able to gain a few easy dollars. I started watching the movie under the assumption that it would be bad, but I never imagined it would be this bad. This movie was nothing more then a way to exploit the fears of the American people for profit! If you have not seen this movie, don't bother. Movie is full of poorly developed characters and poor acting. I really hope the production of this movie was only a couple of weeks. Stay away! Don't be fooled by the hype!

Sentiment: negative
Everyone has already commented on the cinematography (good to great), the personalities (larger than life), the structure (chronological, with many references to surf culture through time). What is missed is a bigger question of sociological importance: chucking mainstream American culture for something more fulfilling and rewarding.

I was a surfer in the 1970s. We used to watch 16mm films at the local high schools in SoCal. I remember the great feeling of surfing all day until my skin radiated heat, putting on a Hawaiian shirt and shorts and going to watch the latest surf film at night. Often, the narrator was the filmmaker himself, reading a script off sheets of paper. Sometimes, a surf band or proto-punk band would add music. I was never happier. Except for the hooting and hollering, seeing 'Riding Giants' took me back in time.

IT also reinforced a feeling that living life on the edge, not worrying about the money and the climbing the social and corporate ladder, not keeping up with the Joneses, pushing yourself physically and mentally for a fleeting moment of joy and jubilation - may be the answer to the question, "what is the purpose of life?" At least for those like Greg Noll, Laird Hamilton and the like, they seem to have found something that few of us are bold enough or honest with ourselves enough to pursue: to live life solely on our own terms. Maybe society would fall apart if we all did exactly what we wanted in life, but it is wonderful to see people who actually are living out their dreams.

It was this message that really impressed me.

Sentiment: positive
Seriously. This is one of the most stupid family shows of all time.

Plot- A family without a mother and 3 "dads" raise 3 little girls in San Francisco, California.

Characters- Neat freak Danny, cartoon loving Joey, hair obsessed Jesse, spoiled brat Michelle, stupid DJ, and almost normal Stephanie. The creators of this show really want you to hate the characters, don't they? 

Therefore, I do not think anyone should watch this show. I only chuckled at a few moments in the show's whole running, and I think that instead of lethal injection, all criminals should be forced to watch this show, a torture far worse than anything else.

1.5/10 or: D

Sentiment: negative
This was a great movie, I would compare it to the movie The Game. You get to the end of the flick and cant move... your brain has been removed and shaken (not stirred) and put back in your head. Dont plan anything after this movie, you will need time to think about what just happened.

Dont come to this movie expecting the Matrix style multi millions spent on special effects, this movies special effects come from the actors, they keep you involved, no, they suck you in and dont let go for the entire duration of the movie. Great acting, great plot... very enjoyable film, I cant say enough. Also very original plot, plenty of twists and ideas that I would have never thought of. The ending is abrupt and leaves you hanging wondering, was that real? Is this really the end? Good ending, not saying that it is bad... just leaves you wondering, and a little frazzled.

Great movie for those who like action, like a good plot (dont get up for a bathroom break on this movie, you will come back lost) and like mind games, because thats exactly in a nutshell what this is.

Sentiment: positive
My girlfriend wanted to see this (lol this is the case a lot)...so I rented it. Then I saw how acclaimed this was nominated for 10 Oscars. GREAT! this should be good ol' drama. This movie had a lot of potential...the direction and the way everything was paced was very well. But once the movie ended, I couldn't help but ask myself if this story was really worth making a film for. Virginia Hill (Annette Bening) was EXTREMELY annoying, I just couldn't tolerate her character at all. Warren Beatty was excellent in the film acting-wise, but again I just found it hard to have sympathy for his character....he just came off essentially as a idiotic, hotheaded loser of a gangster..who had no place in 'the life' in the first place. How'd he get in with the likes of Meyer Lansky and Lucky Luciano anyway??? This film just left me with a bland but uneasy feeling...what was the big deal with this movie? I just didn't feel a completeness with Bugsy. Beatty's antics, although acted quite well, just seemed too random and illogical. I'm guessing that's how Siegel really was....but it was just too much of that. There just didn't seem to be much of a real story here. My basic assessment of it would be 

"a hot-headed, playboy, underachieving gangster falls in love with a loser of a woman, comes up with the idea of 'Las Vegas'....but his failed attempt at the casino he builds, along with having no regard for his mob bosses' money gets him killed."

What else is there besides that? I just didn't see the big deal with this, and it was a big disappointment. There must've not been many movies to come out in 1991, how this was nominated for 10 Oscars is beyond me (although the two it won is justifiable). 1.5/4 stars.

Sentiment: negative
...had I watched it in my teenage years. This movie was mildly entertaining. What I liked about Soul Survivors were the gothic atmosphere during the party scenes, and the constant flips between 'dream' and 'reality.

Had there not been movies like 'The 6th Sense' and 'Don't Look Now' I would have been surprised by the ending.

Sentiment: negative
If you want to see someone accidentally eat another man's testicle, or look at a row of pathetically fake hard-ons at a wedding, or listen to a man talk about how good it felt to have sex with a girl while she was throwing up, then this is the movie for you. Alternating, in neck breaking fashion, between romantic and gross out comedy, Tomcats is certainly interesting. The lovely Jaime Pressly plays the wife of Horatio Sanz(tell me another one) who is found in many silhouetted situations with other women, but there is, surprisingly, no nudity. Jake Busey is thoroughly revolting as a hound dog who you wouldn't want as your friend. Shannon Elizabeth and Jerry O'Connell are both good and make a convincing couple, but the movie is far too busy trying to disgust to be any good.

Sentiment: negative
With all the potential for a good movie in its gorgeous settings, cast, and cinematography, this film's lacklustre script, leaden pace, and wooden performances produced only a major disappointment. With decent direction, editing, and musical score, this could have been a good movie, perhaps a dark version of Blake Edward's '10', instead of a weepy version of Ron Howard's 'Splash'.

Sentiment: negative