DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
BASEketball is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. It is an off-the-wall movie starring South park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker.They play two slacker friends who create a sport in their driveway which goes on to become a national sensation. Most of the gags are indeed hilarious but the funniest parts of the movie is when players attempt to "psyche-out" other members of the opposing team. There is no rule about what is not allowed, so naturally they do the craziest things possible. One flaw of this movie is that the pace is way too fast, and after watching for about half an hour I found myself asking "Wow this this over already?" Another hilarious part of the movie was how Joe and Doug continuously harass Squeak, who is a hyped-up little guy. BASEketball is a comedic classic with some very quotable lines, and it is very fun to watch!

Sentiment: positive
I don't know what you guys are inhaling, but please stop. This movie was complete trash.

Macaulay Culkin as Kevin McCallister was lovable, cute, sweet, loving, and extremely fun to watch. He had that innocence but at the same time, he was strong as well.

This new kid, Alex? Annoying as all hell! Just a blatant ripoff at trying to match Culkin's charm and grace, failing miserably at that.

The villains, complete crap. Harry and Marv, they were such an entertaining on screen team. They were comedic, they were humorous, and just made you really want to root for Culkin even more, which is what a good villain is suppose to do. These guys Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern, absolutely PERFECT for those roles. On the other hand, in 3, we have 4 new idiots that just bicker and again, try to capitalize on the charisma and duo charm of the first villains. Not saying they were horrible, but they were not memorable or even really that entertaining. More on the corny side actually.

Then we got the actual movies. Part 1 and 2, classics. Memorable. Perfect to watch around Christmas and brings a wonderful Christmas feeling and brings out so many emotions. It makes you fall in love with the story, and care about the characters. Simply, memorable and close to being masterpieces. Part 3? Masterpiece of crap. Enough said.

All and all, I don't know why people like this. I think people really don't know what a good movie is anymore. Its a crappy sequel rip-off with more unrealistic traps and a stupid new main character kid that I wish the robbers would of at least beat the crap out of.

Run, run away from this garbage. And lets not even start with Part 4!

Sentiment: negative
Set in 2017 (although one might easily mistake it for 1987, judging by the hairstyles and clothing), The Running Man sees all-round good guy Ben Richards (Schwarzeneggar) framed for a crime he didn't commit. After a daring prison break, he is captured and entered as a contestant in the brutal TV game show The Running Man, along with some fellow escapees and the pretty token female, Amber (Maria Conchita Alonso),.

Used by the totalitarian government as a way of controlling the masses, the show pits convicts against a range of colourful (and often quite camp) opponents, each having his own unique killing style: Dynamo fires electricity from a special suit, Buzzsaw uses chainsaws, Sub Zero has a razor edged ice hockey stick, and Fireball prefers a flamethrower to finish off contenders. But these killers are no match for Ben Richards, who dispatches each one in a fittingly gruesome manner (followed by the obligatory witticism).

Towards the end of the movie, Ben joins a group of freedom fighters in a battle against the authorities, and gets to exact revenge on the show's nasty host, Killian.

Twenty years ago, Arnold Schwarzeneggar ruled the action-movie universe and, to his legion of fans, he could do no wrong. The Austrian beefcake had a successful formula that almost guaranteed box office success for his movies: comic book violence plus logic-free plot plus pretty female sidekick plus witty one-liners, minus acting ability equalled massive profits. The Running Man faithfully followed this blockbuster recipe to a T and Arnie's (mostly male teenage) audience lapped it up (myself included).

Now, two decades later, and having just finished re-watching the movie for the first time in years, I find it a strange movie: one totally devoid of technical merit, decent acting, and convincing effects, yet somehow totally entertaining. Directed by Paul Michael Glaser (best known as Det. Dave Starsky from cult 70s cop show, Starsky and Hutch), and adapted from a short story by Stephen King (writing under the nom de plume, Richard Bachman), The Running Man is cheesy 80s tat that looks both incredibly cheap and very dated, yet despite (or maybe because of) the film's shoddiness, it has a special charm which is hard to describe.

With no attempt at creating a realistic near-future setting, the film provides plenty of unintentional giggles. Check out the scene in which Ben discovers Amber's secret cache of forbidden cassette tapes(!); marvel at the crap 'futuristic' graphics used on advertising billboards and The Running Man board game (as a graphic designer, I found these particularly amusing); be amazed at the distinct lack of convincing technological advancements.

The Running Man may be utter rubbish, but it is hugely entertaining utter rubbish that I have no hesitation in recommending to fans of Arnie and sci-fi action in general.

Sentiment: positive
As a massive fan of the three TV series, I was very interested to learn that LoG were moving onto the big screen. In my more honest moments though, I had my doubts about the likely success of the concept, and whether the writers would be able to sustain the high level of wit, comedy and horror that infuse the original series.

Unfortunately my fears were not unfounded, and the film was a huge disappointment. I struggle to understand the other comments on this site. Obviously people are entitled to their opinions, but the guys I watched it with, all agree with me, and they are just as big fans as I am.

The acting lacked conviction, but they are so good that even when not at their best, they are still highly watchable. The main problem was the plot - and the script. There were a few laughs, but not enough, a few moments of disgust, but not enough. Worst of all was the feeling of emptiness after walking out of the cinema. So rarely have I felt so utterly uninspired by a film and so unmotivated to discuss it with others.

I write this comment as a warning to other League fans - get a wide range of opinion on this film before going to see it. If you love League, you might be able to convince yourself that they didn't totally mess up their move to cinema. If you can't convince yourself of this, then you will have tarnished in your mind the otherwise spotless genius that exemplifies the TV series.

LoG at the cinema? More like log. (or little brown fish).

Sentiment: negative
Dude, really!!!! where have you guys been the past 20 years, this is shocking in all kind of ways, horror ? This is a joke, there is nothing wrong with being low budget, but this is a laugh, If you want to look at the classics, Freaks of Tod Browning, the victims of Dracula and Frankenstein, the Undying Monster, Ernest Thesiger, Paul Wegener's The Golem and the passengers of The Ghost Train, you can't compare it, it gives it a bad name, bad acting, bad screenplay etc. Total waist of money and free time, have watched a lot of movies, were as horror is my all time favorite, I really am speechless, have nothing more to say that please don't do the effort to watch something so daft, please understand

Sentiment: negative
This is the worst movie I have ever seen. I was going to get up and leave at Tape 4 but I stuck it out. I now consider myself a Masochist! Afghanistan? Come on guys! Who's the idiot who forgot to hide the Sanskrit billboards? I thought the lead actor(George Calil) was particularly inept. Apart from the bad acting and over zealous camera shake, I thought using the events of 9/11 as a reason to make "Larson the Lunatic Implodes, all over a screen near you" disgraceful and irreverent to the victims of 9/11. Using a phone call from Larson's wife, Sarah, supposedly from one of the terrorist held planes on that day, was appalling. The camera shake didn't make me feel sick, that cold hearted stunt did.

Sentiment: negative
Things to Come is that rarity of rarities, a film about ideas. Many films present a vision of the future, but few attempt to show us how that future came about. The first part of the film, when war comes to Everytown, is short but powerful. (Ironically, film audiences in its release year laughed at reports that enemy planes were attacking England--appeasement was at its height. Wells' prediction was borne out all too soon.) The montage of endless war that follows, while marred by sub-par model work, is most effective. The explanatory titles are strongly reminiscent of German Expressionist graphic design. The art director was the great William Cameron Menzies, and his sets of the ruins of Everytown are among his best work. Margaretta Scott is very seductive as the Chief's mistress. The Everytown of the 21st century is an equally striking design. The acting in the 21st century story is not compelling--perhaps this was a misfired attempt to contrast the technocratic rationality of this time with the barbarism of 1970. Unfortunately, the model work, representing angry crowds rushing down elevated walkways, is laughably bad and could have been done much better, even with 30s technology. This is particularly galling since the scenes of the giant aircraft are very convincing. This is redeemed by Raymond Massey's magnificent speech that concludes the film--rarely has the ideal of scientific progress been expressed so well. Massey's final question is more relevant now than ever, in an era of severely curtailed manned spaceflight. The scene is aided by the stirring music of Sir Arthur Bliss, whose last name I proudly share.

Unfortunately, the VHS versions of this film are absolutely horrible, with serious technical problems. Most versions have edited out a rather interesting montage of futuristic workers and machines that takes us from 1970 to 2038. I hope a good DVD exists of the entire film.

Sentiment: positive
Ludicrous. Angelic 9-year-old Annakin turns into whiny brat 19-year-old Annakin, who somehow seems appealing to Amidala, 5 years his senior. Now 22-year-old Jedi warrior hero Annakin has a couple of bad dreams, and so takes to slaughtering children, his friends, and the entire framework of his existence because a crazy old man convinced him a) his precious wife might really die, and b) only he can prevent this. Ludicrosity squared.

I think the people who like this movie are not paying attention. The story is ridiculous. The characters are unbelievable (literally, not the perverted sense of "fantastic", "wonderful", etc.).

Obi-wan Kenobi was the wise and kind anchor for the entire series, but in the climax, he hacks off Annakin's legs, lets him burn in the lava, and leaves him to suffer. Doesn't anyone think that's a little out of character? Not to mention it was pretty stupid to take a chance on him living, as it turns out.

I was expecting at least a story that showed consistent characters with plausible motivations. None of that here. The story could have been written by a 10 year old.

Oh yeah, the CGI is pretty cool.

Sentiment: negative
The cast really helps make this a pleasant surprise and a cut above the normal man-vs.-woman-argue-all-the-time-but-wind up-in love-type of Hollywood screwball romance/comedy.

I usually don't go for those type of films and that tiresome storyline but this one was refreshing, fun to watch, and oozes with charm.

Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan play off each other well and make a very handsome couple. The supporting cast is outstanding - from the always-likable Felix Bressart to the villain Joseph Schildkraut. 

Frank Morgan also plays one of the most interesting characters I've ever seen him do in his career. He takes the film and turns it around into a whole different mood for awhile when something dramatic happens to him. That "twist" is another reason this film rises above others of its kind.

Once again, when a film has a good mix of categories, it usually succeeds. This is a great example of that. In this movie, it's romance, comedy and drama and it's well done. I'll take this over the re-make "You've Got Mail," any day. No comparison.

Sentiment: positive
This is unique in films of Hitchcock's that I've seen, in that I didn't really enjoy it.

In fact, I actually found this quite predictable and annoying.

Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine are a newly married couple. He's the kind of "lovable rogue" character that you've seen in many films, without ever being lovable as far as I am concerned!

In fact, it was a barely believable relationship at best, and at times seemed particularly false and implausible.

Unable to hold down a job and trying to live an opulent lifestyle, Grant is led to borrow money that he cannot pay back.

Fontaine is convinced that he is trying to kill her in order to get the money she is insured for; and presumably what her late father was worth.

Average and rather uninteresting all round actually, but as usual you can see the influence on films that have come at a later date.

Sentiment: negative
Who said it had to be believable? Do yourself a favor and turn off your ration before you sit down to view this film. You'll enjoy the experience much more. You'll find yourself forgiving some of the movie's more outlandish plot set-ups, and simply accepting it for what it is--a great family film. I appreciated not having to be concerned about "questionable elements" in a children's film for once. That, to me, is worth the price of the ticket. And it manages to maintain its wholesomeness without being obvious about it--older chidlren will enjoy this film. Enough good humor to keep adults interested. Very good film.

Sentiment: positive
SPOILER NOTHING BUT SPOILER

I have to add my name to the list of folks who feel that the other viewers just don't get it. But no one has even mentioned the "s" word so far as I have seen.

While I agree that the kid died I think we can be more specific: he committed suicide. He races down the slope in an old wagon, shoots off the cliff and..."flies away". Maybe the whole account of the form of death is allegory or maybe he does commit suicide in a wagon as laid out. In either case, he "flies away" (c'mon, not that tough a metaphor).

Maybe I just have a thing for Tom Hanks, but I was ok with the narration. Besides he is raising $ for the WW2 memorial and you gotta love him for that.

Oh yeah, I loved the movie and found it incredibly moving.

Sentiment: positive
I suspect there's some revisionist history going on here,but one definitely comes away with the feeling that Patrice Lumumba was a trouble-maker who incited his people to violence from the moment the Congo declared independence.His inability to control his people and his decision to bring in Soviet help to get his military back in line was obviously what got the United States involved and led to his assassination.However,by replacing him with Mobutu,the United States didn't solve anything.They made the situation just as bad.Well-acted with excellent cinematography and a rousing score.Definitely worth seeing.

Sentiment: positive
A professional production with quality actors that simply never touched the heart or the funny bone no matter how hard it tried. The quality cast, stark setting and excellent cinemetography made you hope for Fargo or High Plains Drifter but sorry, the soup had no seasoning...or meat for that matter. A 3 (of 10) for effort.

Sentiment: negative
OK, yes I know I'm a Philistine, and I have no knowledge of, nor love for opera. I readily admit that I might feel differently about this film if I did. But I don't. So, for those of you like me, skip this one unless you want to look at the pretty (sometimes unclothed) girls. For what it's worth, I thought the first segment with Theresa Russell (who I didn't recognize) was the best of the lot.

Sentiment: negative
"Eighteen" (2004) tells the story of Pip Anders, a depressed and extremely cynical young man who is estranged from his dysfunctional upper/middle class family and living on the streets of Vancouver. On his 18th birthday, he receives a cassette tape and player from his recently-deceased grandfather, relating his memoirs of his own 18th birthday, spent serving with the British army in France, trying to help a mortally-wounded comrade avoid capture by the occupying Germans. As Pip listens to the tape (Ian McKellen provided the voice of his grandfather), we see the scenes he is describing as flashbacks, alternating with daily scenes of Pip's life, as well as more recent flashbacks filling in the dark secret why Pip left home and finds it impossible to trust anyone who is nice to him.

An ambitious second film from writer/director Richard Bell ("Two Brothers"), with a polished look, excellent photography, well-developed non-stereotypical characters (with gay and straight treated equally), and commendable efforts in emotionally and physically-demanding roles from some talented new actors (especially Paul Anthony as Pip and Brendan Fletcher as his grandfather at 18). There is also a noteworthy turn by Alan Cummings as a priest who tried to help Pip, and a small supporting role played by Thea Gill ("Queer As Folk"). The complex story - in the director's own words in his DVD commentary - is meant to drive a "vortex of emotion" pushing Pip to his breaking point, and it certainly accomplishes that. My only criticisms are that the overall effect is too "schmaltzy" or artificial for an audience to truly identify with, much of the supporting dialog (and the ending) too contrived and predictable, and the direction needed to be sharper to curtail sloppy overacting in some scenes. I do recommend it, 7 stars out of 10, including extra points for a noteworthy effort.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of Peter Sellers' best movies. Why is it never shown on TV or movie theaters? Will it ever be released as a home movie? Is it too derogatory for the medical field? I would love to see this movie again. I would like my son, who is a doctor,to see it. Laughter is the best medicine and Peter Sellers is the best doctor for this.

Sentiment: positive
If you're looking to be either offended or amused or both, you'll probably have to look elsewhere. LMOTP really isn't even very thought provoking beyond rehashing the usual silly clichés. At the end of the second episode I felt a little embarrassed that I actually sat through the contrived mess.

Beyond the thinly veiled gimmicky premise thats attracted all the initial attention to it in the first place it's just another lame, innocuous and anti-septic attempt at commentary and entertainment that the CBC typically excels at producing. And once the "ZOMG MUSLIMS IN RURAL CANADA ROFLMAO!!" hype wears out its welcome, the show is likely to follow into the ether of cancellation because it's so shallow when judged on its merits alone.

Unless you're obsessed with Muslim culture in the west and/or are easily amused by the most minute idiosyncrasies on the subject I really don't see how LMOTP is enjoyable beyond satisfying the curiosity that stemmed from the hype. Other shows have better addressed the issue of cultural/ethnic dichotomy in western multi-ethnic societies. LMOTP will never rank among them in entertainment or insight.

Sentiment: negative
This film brought a whole new meaning to that well-worn phrase 'like watching paint dry' because this was 'like watching paint dry in the middle of a monsoon'.

I was attracted to the film by its location on the west coast of Portugal which I have visited. It is a ruggedly beautiful place and the black-and-white introduced a whole new dimension to the beauty. That was the only good thing. The story was appallingly banal and frankly you have to have some story.

A film crew runs out of film and the entire crew then have to wait. Well, a wait is a wait. I can wait for a number 15 bus on Princes Street in Edinburgh, I can spend hours on a remote railway station in the middle of nowhere on cold winter's Sunday afternoon. However a wait is boring and yes, this wait was boring too.

So the leader goes off to America to remonstrate with the film supplier who castigates him for not making the whole thing in colour. After a number of arguments two blessed bullets ring out from wherever and the eagerly-awaited end finally arrives, and not before time.

Yes, I would see this film again if someone arms me with a couple of cans of colour film so that I can hurl them at the screen.

Sentiment: negative
I'm intrigued by the strong sense of favour towards (or sympathy for!) Sinatra in the other reviews here. I've read elsewhere that Sinatra never seems to have forgiven anyone for *not* being cast as Sky Masterson.

OK, so who wouldn't want to be cast as Sky Masterson?  it's a great part: the charismatic successful gambler who makes a grave mistake when he allows himself to be suckered into a bet, in which he must take Salvation Army Sargeant Sarah Brown on a date to Cuba, or lose. It's not the money  it's the pride, but he and she meet their match. Meanwhile Nathan Detroit must juggle his long-suffering fiancée Adelaide with trying to find a spot for a craps game which will make him rich if it doesn't alienate his fiancée forever first.

The film started life as a series of short stories by Damon Runyon: that's his unique dialogue you hear, and those are his great character names, and that's his horse-racing/nightclub/late night gambling world. Then it became a musical, and you can't help but feel that in film form it never really left the stage. The camera is unusually static and the sets remarkably  and not pleasingly  flat and childlike. Fortunately the music is so great, I don't care that much.

My absolute favourite thing about this film, though, is the singing and acting of the two non-singers, Brando (as Sky) and Jean Simmons (as Sargeant Sarah Brown). Of course, putting pro singers into these roles would have produced better music; but what surely gets forgotten is that two such excellent actors brought something else to the party instead: what they lacked in vocal talent they more than made up for in gusto, acting ability, and pathos, pathos, pathos. You're with Sky as he argues with Sarah against reason, steadiness, pipes and safety. You enjoy Sarah's loosening up under the influence of Cuban "milk". You feel completely the suddenness and passion of their scene in the courtyard with bells ringing and an hour to go before the plane takes them home. As Sky rightly says, it's "chemistry". Pro singers  be they Broadway belters or smooth crooners  can't necessarily be relied on to make this happen. (And they certainly didn't.) I read somewhere that Brando criticised Sinatra for not putting all of himself into his role of Nathan Detroit. Sinatra in turn was infuriated by Brando's four-take acting method. As a Brando fan (does it show?!) I'm bound to take the other side, but I can't imagine that this film would have been the much-adored classic it is today if Brando and Simmons hadn't been in it with their wonderful chemistry; Brando's unpredictability; Simmons' face, all pink cheeks and brown hair, drunk and ashamed in a Cuban bar. Beautiful. I'll always want a copy of this film lying around in case I need to feel good again. You'll forgive me if give some of the Nathan (sleep)talking parts the 100% brush-off though, won't you? You won't? Oh, be quiet and have some more of Mindy's cheesecake!

Sentiment: positive
As well as being a portrayal of a lesbian love story, FIRE is also a comic satire of middle-class (?) Indian culture. I find this is a quality which is little appreciated about the movie. These two genres (i.e. deep meaningful alternative-love story and comic satire) usually mix together just as well as oil and water do, but Mehta (somehow) manages to achieve the balance to near perfection. The servant Jatin's behaviour, the family's treatment of him, the bedridden grandmother's constant inescapable presence, Ashok's obsession with a swami's teachings: coming from a culture much like India's, these are things I can immediately identify as being typical. They have been crying out to be pointed out and ridiculed. While developing her primary subject matter, Mehta manages to achieve this secondary theme skillfully. In fact, much of the humour in the film which provides essential relief from the heavy subjects of taboo lesbian love and gender issues, stem from this satire of the seemingly ordinary. The film flows from the comic to the serious with great subtelty.

All in all, brilliant use of symbolic devices (Radha compared to Sita of legend and coming out of Fire unscathed and, therefore pure; the lifelong desire of the young Radha to see the ocean finally achieved when she gains freedom). Kudos to Shabana Azmi(Radha), the lighting crew and Deepa Mehta; their very un-Hollywood-like (and un-Bollywood-like!) talents made this movie special. One criticism: the first scenes seemed rather disjointed to me in that they did not flow into each other very well.

The verdict: 9 on 10. Nothing less for a movie with scenes so burned on my mind.

Sentiment: positive
I started watching this because i thought it was a really shitty porno. As i kept watching the only thrill i got from this movie was finding out what the name of it was so i could look it up and rip on it. I just finished it and have considered ending my life knowing that someone actually made this movie.

For the people who commented on this movie as having a good script and great acting, my words of wisdom for you are that you probably have no friends because you were in the movie. You are probably wishing you had all that time back of your life that you wasted on making this movie.

There is no way that this is a serious movie. There was an old guy that gets stabbed and it doesn't even hurt him at all. And when everyone else gets stabbed they drop dead.

It was probably important that these people killed random people and ate them and also hung out with an 80 year old man that wanted to put the parts into his body.

My favorite part was when the old man found the "hemoglobens" or however you spell it because that made the movie seem very intellectual and probably helped to reach the older crowd.

What really blew my mind that they decided to throw in that random scene about the college girls going into the woods looking for fake skulls.

If you do attempt to see this movie, you should probably fill up your bathtub and drop your hairdryer in it and be ready to jump in.

THIS IS A MUST SEE!!!....for anyone who believes there life could not get any worse because this will help you realize there are people out there(the makers of this movie) who are even more pathetic and are going no where in life.

Sentiment: negative
What the *bliep* is it with this movie? Couldn't they fiend a better script? All in all a 'nice' movie, but... it has been done more than once... Up till the end I thought it was okay, but... the going back to the past part... *barf* SO corny... Was waiting for the fairy god mother to appear... but wow, that didn't happen... which is good.

I loved Big with Tom Hanks, but to see such a movie in a new form with another kid who wished that he/she is older/bigger; that just is so pasé

Just watch till it comes out on TV. Don't get me wrong, but it ain't all that

Sentiment: negative
This isn't one of those reviews about poor special effects or technology, or being dated, issues that only the dorkiest people could relate with, but rather a review on the story telling, which most of us are truly interested in.

The plot is about a combination of WWII Allied and German Navy members, and two civilians (the hero and heroine), who are thrust together on a German U boat and wind up in a savage land of dinosaurs.

The manipulations aren't so bad by film standards, and we know from the plot that realism isn't going to be high. What films like this need are credible and likable characters, along with some semblance of reason in the actions.

This film lacks both. For a full length film, only 6 characters are given any time, and 3 of them are barely looked into. McClure's hero is beyond "routine", and doesn't make much sense in any era.

The female seems to be looking for an answer to a riddle about the land of dinosaurs they entered, but the riddle is not much of a riddle, and we could care less.

A lot of failure in a film that should have been better, even for its time.

Sentiment: negative
Essentially a undistinguished B-movie that mysteriously is directed by one of the golden era's major talents, Fritz Lang. Even with the stellar names of Lang, Walter Pidgeon, Joan Bennett and George Sanders, be prepared for a ludicrous storyline, bad acting, patently phony sets and miscasting. For transparency sake, I have to admit I am an ardent non-admirer of Walter Pidgeon, who was lucky to have found a niche at the artificial dream-factory of MGM, and somehow worked in secondary roles, supporting Greer Garson and others. He is wildly miscast, acting in a chipper, '30s-Ray Milland madcap comedy tone, in a role where his life is in danger, and he is in hiding. Joan Bennett's cockney accent is excessive, but her lacquered hair, perfect makeup and classy outfit belies a street-wise Cockney slum-girl. George Sanders is incapable of bad acting, but disappears after the preposterous opening finds Pidgeon somehow pretending to shoot Adolph Hitler. Surprising for Fritz Lang is the unevenness of tone. I found the film wavered uneasily between occasional moments of suspense-thriller surrounded by light-hearted comedic interplay. Hitchcock totally reversed the ratio, using comic relief to occasionally pace the suspense. There is a reason this film is unknown. It didn't serve or propel anybody's career or reputation, and is forgotten because it's a surprisingly bad film from such a pedigreed group.

Sentiment: negative
Wealthy businessman Bill Compton (played by Dennis Patrick) accidentally kills his daughter's hippie boyfriend after an argument. Panic-stricken, he retreats to a bar, and meets Joe Curran (played by Peter Boyle): a loud-mouth, angry, bigot who is bitter over how his beloved country has become. Unintentionally, Bill allows Joe to find out that he just killed a hippie. And this is only the beginning. "Joe" is a classic film of an unlikely friendship. A bond between two men, one of a white-collar background, the other of a blue-collar background. Bill & Joe have one thing in common, they are disgraced over how crazy the world has become. Dennis Patrick & Peter Boyle have both given very realistic portrayals of their characters. Director John G. Avidsen with this "pre-Rocky" effort, directs this low-budget gem with the same finesse as a movie with a $100 million budget. The script is loaded with excellent character development and very snappy, realistic dialog. In spite of its strengths this film does have its weaknesses. The script falls asleep roughly 3/4 of the way through, but it wakes up just in time for the jarring climax. This film also features a very early and uninspiring performance by a 24-year old Susan Sarandon as Bill's daughter Melissa, along with her hippie boyfriend Frank, portrayed very blandly by Patrick Mc Dermott. One could only be thankful that he was killed off early in the film. In spite of its few flaws this is one of those forgotten films of the 70's that should not be. Even though "Joe" is very dated to today's standards, the chemistry between Dennis Patrick & Peter Boyle is completely relevant today, and it is the glue that holds the whole film together.

Sentiment: positive
I am giving this movie Vampire Assassins a "2" rating mainly because it had no sex or nudity. Other than that, I am not sure why it was ever made. It was more like a training exercise in how to make a movie with a very limited budget. The characters Derek and Slovak were the best actors. They were followed closely by the "biker-Dude" with the Pleather pants and silver belt. He was OK too. Most of the movie was filmed in some kind of distribution warehouse. If you got tired of watching the kung-fu kick boxing stunts, you can check out the packages of Scott tissue, Windex and other cleaning products. You will have a lot of time to do this, trust me. I almost started to make a list. The dialogue and kung-fu stunts were extremely slow. They talked slow, fought slow, etc. I don't know why. At least with the extra-slow delivery of the actors lines, you could hear everything very distinctly. I am trying hard to find good stuff to say about this movie. We watched it all the way to the end to see if got any better, but it didn't. We never could decide if the actors really knew martial arts or were just acting like they knew martial arts. You can watch yourself and decide. My favorite line was something like (vampire speaking:) "what are you looking at?" other man responding: "your bad dental work."

Sentiment: negative
The penultimate episode of Star Trek's third season is excellent and a highlight of the much maligned final season. Essentially, Spock, McCoy and Kirk beam down to Sarpeidon to find the planet's population completely missing except for the presence of a giant library and Mr. Atoz, the librarian. All 3 Trek characters soon accidentally walk into a time travel machine into different periods of Sarpeidon's past. Spock gives a convincing performance as an Ice Age Vulcan who falls in love for Zarabeth while Kirk reprises his unhappy experience with time travel--see the 'City on the Edge of Forever'--when he is accused of witchcraft and jailed before escaping and finding the doorway back in time to Sarpeidon's present. In the end, all 3 Trek characters are saved mere minutes before the Beta Niobe star around Sarpeidon goes supernova. The Enterprise warps away just as the star explodes.

Ironically, as William Shatner notes in his book "Star Trek Memories," this show was the source of some dispute since Leonard Nimoy noticed that no reason was given in Lisette's script for the reason why Spock was behaving in such an emotional way. Nimoy relayed his misgivings here directly to the show's executive producer, Fred Freiberger, that Vulcans weren't supposed to fall in love. (p.272) However, Freiberger reasoned, the ice age setting allowed Spock to experience emotions since this was a time when Vulcans still had not evolved into their completely logical present state. This was a great example of improvisation on Freiberger's part to save a script which was far above average for this particular episode. While Shatner notes that the decline in script quality for the third season hurt Spock artistically since his character was forced to bray like a donkey in "Plato's Stepchildren," play music with Hippies in "the Way to Eden" or sometimes display emotion, the script here was more believable. Spock's acting here was excellent as Freiberger candidly admitted to Shatner. (p.272) The only obvious plot hole is the fact that since both Spock and McCoy travelled thousands of years back in time, McCoy too should have reverted to a more primitive human state, not just Spock. But this is a forgivable error considering the poor quality of many other season 3 shows, the brilliant Spock/McCoy performance and the originality of this script. Who could have imagined that the present inhabitants of Sarpeidon would escape their doomed planet's fate by travelling into their past? This is certainly what we came to expect from the best of 'Classic Trek'--a genuinely inspired story. 

Shatner, in 'Memories', named some of his best "unusual and high quality shows" of season 3 as The Enterprise Incident, Day of the Dove, Is there in Truth no Beauty, The Tholian Web, And the children Shall Lead and The Paradise Syndrome. (p.273) While my personal opinion is that 'And the children Shall Lead' is a very poor episode while 'Is there in Truth no Beauty' is problematic, "All Our Yesterdays" certainly belongs on the list of top season three Star Trek TOS films. I give a 9 out of 10 for 'All Our Yesterdays.'

Sentiment: positive
...am i missing something here??? "unexpected plot developments"? "plot twisting with subversive glee"? are these viewers watching the same Arquette vehicle to which i just subjected myself (in an now-obvious sub(un)conscious bout of sadomasochism)...I just joined this site simply to make sure that no one else ever rents this stinker...this movie was an embarrassment to every single person involved...quick question: did Sir Stevie read the script before he gave the thumbs-up to Kate C.? if so, then it must be the same Spielberg who greenlighted "howard the duck"...don't give me that, "it was a hit play" crap--i'm guessing Mssr. Reddin ain't too pleased ...the DVD cover promised "surprising corners" and a "twisted story..." Story!!Story?? It's crap like this that make old Bobby McKee and his wandering band of Structuralists sound like geniuses...Sundance??Berlin??Toronto?? I have a home video of my cat farting that evokes more interest than Arquette's negatively-dimensional portrayal of anguished loss...and, talk about deux ex machina for Mr. Stanley T.; thank god, just in the nick o time he thought to have Dave call the cops! and thank shiva that the cops had just caught the true killer...what!!! up until the credits i was still waiting for it to be some kind of grift against Arquette and his "hidden millions"...no, Mrs. Spielberg, you don't escape unscathed: what the hell was that kitchen scene with the "athlete's foot in my crotch" gag??? are you worse in this or "just cause"?? i dunno...hey film lovers: why don't you make it a blockbuster night and rent this along with "jersey girl" and "white chicks" and then commit sepukka (or is it seppuka)...and take E. Dunsky with you....

Sentiment: negative
The story is a little slow and a little stupid. Greta Garbo doesn't look very good and I couldn't understand half the things she said because of her accent, which was exaggerated for this role. Melvyn Douglas, meanwhile, plays his normal unlikeable role and Constance Bennett is just so-so except for a couple of her screams, which were funny. 

On the plus side, Roland Young had the best role in the film. I wish he had more lines, as he disappeared in the second half of the story. Also, it was interesting to see Ruth Gordon look so young. I had only seen her in those crazy roles she played from the late '60s to the '80s and a whacked out old woman. Story-wise, the best part might have been the final few minutes when we see a stunt man doing amazing things on skis, pretending to be Douglas falling down the slopes. That was amazing and humorous footage.

Overall, I can see where this film - Garbo's last - was not a box-office success. It just drags too much, going on and on about deceptions. It's an annoying story. Garbo knew it, too, and called it quits.

Sentiment: negative
If it wasn't for Colin Firth, the movie would be ready for the dust bin! So foreseable, so silly and so badly acted!! Only Colin Firth, as always, shines through this mess as single light on the end of the tunnel!!

The worst was Jennifer Rubin's acting, for sure! Maybe it was because of this script (did they actually have really written one or was it just made up "on the way"???).

To cut a tooo long story short:

It is a MUST SEE only for Colin Firth Fanatics (like me) since he is incredibly sexy and good acting (struggling hard against this "mentally challenged" script). These minutes of Colin-Screen-Time make up a lot of this movie. 

Don't spend too much money on it, though. Try to see or get it as cheap as possible (an auction or something like that) and then do stick to the Colin Firth scenes. 

The rest of the movie might be dangerous for anyones mental health.

Sentiment: negative
In order to rate this movie fairly you have to think about the genre it's supposed to be: children's. They had more guidelines to follow in order to make this movie (meaning it could not get away with some of the humor and or language from the 1st) taking all that in this movie was fun and enjoyable to watch. Sequels usually make me nervous, however this one did pretty well for itself. Knowing that it didn't have the star power of Fraiser as George they capitalized on the humor and i believe Showeman did pretty well as the lead. The plot being easy to follow and maybe campy at times fits well for a younger audience, if you want to watch a movie and hope for academy award honors this is not it, but if you want to watch a simple, fun, energy filled movie you would make a good choice with this one.

Sentiment: positive
If Deborah Messing were not already cast as "Grace", this might be a tolerable film. However, it is simply another story of a frustrated spinster with issues, who hires a paid escort (Dermot Mulroney) she reads about in a Time magazine article to travel to London for her sister's London wedding. How new is this plot?

Neither funny, nor remotely romantic, the Wedding Date slides over the storyline of deceptive sex by bride and best man, and paid for escorts to pass off the film as Four Weddings without Hugh, and definitely, a dead end deal for the naive groom who is ignorant to the sexual history of his bride (Amy Adams). While Messing has perfected the repressed princess, 30- something woman with a failed relationship history, her neurotic and drunken moves on yet another faux beau is simply the restating of her TV series. If this woman is an actress, get a role that does not rehash what is already on prime time.

Lots of drunken female bonding, cricket visual jokes, and Mulroney in a towel (nice!), but the film is a bore with the obvious happy ending. Expected Messing sequel: Divorce Date.

Sentiment: negative
Forget what I said about Emeril. Rachael Ray is the most irritating personality on the Food Network AND all of television. If you've never seen 30 Minute Meals, then you cannot possibly begin to comprehend how unfathomably annoying she is. I really truly meant that you can't even begin to be boggled by her until you've viewed the show once or twice, and even then all words and intelligent thoughts will fail you. The problem is mostly with her mannerisms as you might have guessed. Ray has a goofy mouth and often imitates the parrot. If you love something or think it's "awesome" (a word she uses roughly 87 times per telecast) just say it. And she's constantly using horrible, unfunny catchphrases like "EVOO" (Extra virgin olive oil!). SHUT UP! What's worse is Ray has TWO other shows on the network! I think this is some elaborate conspiracy by the terrorists to drive us mad. Give me more Tyler Florence! Ray is lame.

Sentiment: negative
Big fat slob 'Uncle Buck', played by John (eats-a-lot-of) Candy, visits the sane members of his family for a week in order to baby-sit two cute kids (Gaby Hoffman and MacCauley Culkin) and a pretty but snobby teenager (Jean Louisa Kelly). The shenanigans begin when Buck makes breakfast and then tries to sleep in a bed two sizes too small for his blimp of a body. 

Mostly dull, but peppered with two or three funny scenes including Buck trying to get a word in edge-wise on the telephone with his angry girlfriend (Amy Madigan) and his meeting with a very disgusting clown.

Candy looks like he weighs 600 pounds.

Sentiment: negative
I'm a fan of B grade 80s films in which the hero is a bit of a bad guy, a strong male, who finds love - and this film delivers!

Towards the finish you do not know how Sharky will not be killed (and doesn't he take a beating! Realistically portrayed I believe). However he does and it's not via some overdone 'Die Hard' stunt. The 'past it' team he works with comes together, hence the title. His team are all characters - people on the sideline at work because they don't quite conform. These portrayals are funny and sympathetic - they have a real feeling to them. They're up against an iceman of an assassin, with a good team of his own. The result is a great film noir.

Sentiment: positive
MST3K fodder. It's so bad it's actually worth seeing just for that reason. There are some hilarious things in it, such as the mysterious device the bad guy is seen working on for the whole movie, that turns out to be this tiny helicopter that flutters around carrying and firing a machine gun without so much as a wobble, but is brought down by a bag of balloons (the kind they release at political conventions). Many other wonderful touches of that sort. Stars Charlie Sheen. There's one scene where he spends five minutes recording a conversation, only to drop the microcassette in the Potomac River by accident. If they'd cast Emilio Estevez in the part that never would've happened.

Sentiment: negative
I think that it's great how Chiller picked up this series and showing it for this generation. Film making has come such a long way especially with the special effects and for one to be able to watch archived shows that they never knew existed, they will certainly be able to see the progress compared to now. MONSTERS is neither lame nor spectacular but it is entertaining. It takes creativity for the types of story lines they came up with and each generation seems to have it's own horror series. This particular series was not as horrifying as the Friday The 13th, The Series, nor as adult oriented as the Freddy's Nightmares..it was something that an entire family could watch and still get a laugh and a fright at the same time. I am happy the Chiller Channel shows it in their line-up, I am just about caught up on the episodes I missed when I was growing up.

Sentiment: positive
A talking parrot isn't a hugely imaginative idea for a new film, but Paulie turns a simple idea into a brilliant, heartwarming film that will delight the whole family. It manages to bridge the gap between sentimental trash and cruel harshness during Marie and Paulie's separation, and all the events in the film lead to a hugely satisfying emotional conclusion. The animal training is well-done - everyone will be affected when Paulie spreads his wings and flies for the first time. Paulie is a great character and should have received way more success, though this film wasn't a highlight of 1998, unlike Saving Private Ryan. This hour and a half will surely be an enjoyable one and one that you will remember. Paulie's story is a moving, sad, happy and interesting one - from the moment he is first seen to the moment he is united with his original owner, you will enjoy following him and watching him learning about friendship and the grim realities of life along the way. Not one to be missed if you have any kind of heart or emotion. 9/10

Sentiment: positive