DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Brian (Wesley Eure) works for a security firm owned by Mr. Norton (Conrad Bain). The Norton firm is in financial trouble for, unknown to the owner, he has an employee who is selling secrets to a rival firm's owner (Jim Bacchus). It's not Brian, as he is a loyal and faithful employee and a good inventor. But, Mr. Norton has no patience with Brian, in part because Norton's beautiful daughter, Casey (Valerie Bertinelli) has a thing for Brian and Norton questions Brian's motives for wooing her. However, Brian does come up with a great security device. It's called CHOMPS, which stands for canine home security system. The device, which looks like a dog, is actually a computer controlled animal with the ability to knock down walls and emit siren sounds to capture burglars. The rival owner sends two bungling spies (one is Red Buttons) to learn the details of the new invention. Will CHOMPS save Norton security? This is a fun family flick from the old school of good, clean entertainment. CHOMPS is, of course, a real dog, played by the adorable and talented Benji. In fact, Benji has a duel role, as Brian has a "real" dog named Rascal, too. Just watching this little dog in action is pure joy, as he is able to scale walls, "pull" trucks, and operate machine buttons to capture the bad guys. The human cast is also quite nice, with everyone giving upbeat performances that are infectious. Costumes, scenery, and production values are good, too. Although you may have trouble locating the film, it would be well worth the effort to secure a view for your closest loved ones. CHOMPS is a wonderful, wholesome diversion from the world's woes.

Sentiment: positive
Yes, I admire the independent spirit of it all, but it's like Road Trip with a bad cast and no budget.

I chuckle when I watch American comedies, I don't laugh. This movie made me laugh, but only because of the abundantly obvious attempts to simulate high-budget American high school/pot-flicks.

If you want good independent American comedy with pot-references, go watch Kevin Smith or Richard Linklater flicks or something. Don't waste your time on this piece of sh't movie.

I mean, how can you take these comments seriously when most people are complaining about the characters not smoking pot!

And by the way: in Norway it's called "Dude, Where's My Pot"!

Sentiment: negative
Blood Surf AKA Krocodylus is a fair film that has an okay cast which includes Dax Miller, Taryn Reif, Kate Fischer, Duncan Regehr, Joel West, Matt Borlenghi, Maureen Larrazabal, Cris Vertido, Susan Africa, Archie Adamos, Rolando Santo Domingo, and Malecio Amayao. The acting by the actors is fairly good. The thrills are fairly good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed fairly good as well. Same thing goes for the music The film is fairly interesting and the movie does keeps you going until the end. This is a fairly thrilling film. If you the the cast in the film, Monsters, Giant Animal films, Horror, Thrillers, Mystery, and interesting films then I recommend you to see this film today!

Sentiment: negative
In a word...magical. And SO incredibly real. Vijay Raaz is so incredibly raw, so incredibly vulnerable, that you just want his characters to succeed, in whatever he does. And he plays Hari Om impeccably- from his absolutely perfect "Bollywood e-shtyle" to his awkward, shy manner with a first kiss. He is a truly gifted actor and I wouldn't hesitate to see him in anything, because he brings it all to life and gives it a soul. Camille Natta is absolutely gorgeous. It took some time for me to warm up to her- possibly because she plays the role of an ignorant but fascinated tourist so well. Her transition really became her and she molded into her role very well. Even the man you love to hate, her boyfriend Benoit, was wonderful, though you never really like him for the scum that he plays, Jean-Marie Lamour enacts a perfect cad. The script- so real. I found myself turning to my friend repeatedly throughout the film to say, "that's exactly what happens in India! they nailed it!" Very real, very raw. VERY bittersweet but you certainly leave the theater feeling fulfilled. Music by Nitin Sawhney is wonderful and goes perfectly with the constantly changing moods. But Vijay Raaz...I find myself constantly coming back to him- because he is what MAKES this movie. He is the hero, the most charming, disarming rickshaw driver you will ever encounter- he's magical. A lovely, real, sweet, incredibly talented actor who I cannot wait to see shine and succeed in Bollywood, Hollywood or anywhere!

Sentiment: positive
This 30 minute documentary Buñuel made in the early 1930's about one of Spain's poorest regions is, in my opinion, one of his weakest films. First, let's admit that 70 years later, Spain is much richer than it was then (and when I say this, I fully admit that wealth can bring problems of its own, like excessive individualism and consumerism, though all in all wealth it's a far better condition than the extreme poverty portrayed here). And if poverty receded in Spain it was not exactly with the sort of socialism that Buñuel favored, but with Western European style capitalism. But one of the most shocking things about the movie is this: in one scene, the narrator chides that in school, children are taught the value of Pi. Teaching math to poor people, the horror!. Buñuel shortsightedness is at its most glaring here, not realizing that it is access to the latest knowledge and technology what will help the poor overcome their situation. What is he proposing? That children are taught exactly what at school? Doesn't Buñuel understand that it is the lack of modern technology that has made them poor in comparison with other people?

Sentiment: negative
The humor is non-existent in this loser of a movie. Carrot Top plays a surfer dude inventor who consistently blows the rent money on his goofy, useless inventions. Then he helps an old guy broken down by the side of the road, and voila, he's inherited a major corporation. And on and on and on past the jealous relatives, humanizing the corporation, hostile takeovers, the obligatory love interest.. aargh...let's just say this movie is virtually unwatchable. What Carrot Top has accomplished is to convince me never to go to his stage shows.

Sentiment: negative
I would be one of the few people who owns a copy of this classic. But i dont only own 1, i actually own 2. Its THAT good.

Well, when i say good, i mean bad. But i will try to do a thorough review. I even watched 'born a ninja' which one of the other reviewers here mentioned, to compare it to this. And born a ninja is actually worse, but not quite as funny.

And is this ever funny. EVERYTHING about this movie is poor. EVERYTHING. The plot is absolutely stuffed (note the 'you'll need to keep me alive if you want to know where to find your wife'). EVERY action sequence is stuffed too. Our hero danton is more than a hero; he can stab people with twigs, take 3 bullets in the heart at 50 cm away without even bleeding, and tie a rope up to a tree which, when an enemy steps on it, ties a knot around the enemies leg, picks him up, and throws him 50 metres into a bunch of spikes.

The acting is so bad it is impossible to comment on it, but it should have you rolling, especially dantons 'jump out of the ground and growl at the bad guy'. Oh yes, and the bad guys: somehow, it seems they resurrect themselves 5 times each in the movie. Perhaps it's just that there weren't enough actors, but in a movie of this calibre? i doubt that.

The 'plot' is about how danton was a soldier in the vietnam war, and now his colonel is hunting real people for training for his mercenaries. The colonel just happens to pick up danton, then danton fights back. This is just the excuse for a rambo clone, with most of the movie being danton slaughtering soldiers. And i really cant explain the plot any more cos there is nothing else to the movie. It still rocks though.

What else could be wrong you ask? Dont get me started. Hand grenades which actually go off at the actors' feet because the explosion is the size of a match.Scenes where there are 5 people chasing danton, then the camera cuts away and back and there are 7. The way that every time danton loads the grenade launcher he is against the same background even though he is in completely diffrent locations. And the worst part is when danton pushes the plastic boulders onto the enemies, and one enemy is completely untouched by the boulders, so he doesn't know what to do so he half heartedly dies without even being touched. It's ridiculous!!!

But funny. Very, VERY funny. This is one of the few movies i can thoroughly recommend to everybody, cos if you dont find it funny, you are 1 in a million. And for the rest of us it's magic.

Sentiment: negative
Although it has been off the air for 6 years now, Promised Land was one of those shows that comes along once or twice in a generation. Good cast, supporting cast(among them, Richard Thomas and Ossie Davis) and crew. The plot is believable with McRaney packing up his family and just saying "to hell with it all" after being subjected to so many disappointments and incidents since his return from Vietnam years earlier. I think a lot of Vietnam-era veterans, myself included, could really relate to McRaney's thought process in finally deciding on his course of action. Many of us did precisely the same thing in real life, after returning from that war and finding that America was not the same place we left. The show imparts not only values but a glimpse into what took place in one veterans life. In those two respects alone, I think it is one of the more poignant TV series of our time. Why this program only ran for 3 years is beyond me.

Sentiment: positive
I've seen this film in avant-premiere at Imagina Festival in Monaco.

I saw the first trailer four years ago, and from this moment, I was waiting to see the final result. I haven't been disappointed.

It is a full 3d movie with a high contrasted black and white render. Clearly inspired by some comic books, such as the ones from F. Miller. In this optic, it goes one step further than the excellent "Sin City" adaptation from R. Rodriguez. This time, (almost) no Grey or any middle color, but a graphic style never seen before in a realistic animated film.(can't wait for scanner darkly)

The massive use of Motion Capture gives a lot of life and credibility to the characters and we forget really soon the technical aspect to concentrate on more classic elements, such as direction or plot. The direction stays sober and controlled despite the infinite possibilities of the medium, and that is a really good surprise.

The futuristic story (Paris 2053) makes it a classic sci-fiction movie and maintain the viewer interested till the end. Despite a classic base plot (an investigation that goes far beyond initial expectations)the atmosphere and some interesting recurring themes (genetics, absolute power of certain firms...)gives this movie a great interest.

Despite it is an animated film, this one is obviously not made for children. You won't find here any funny pet or any stupid family moral, only the cold reality. It is far closer to a good film noir.

I found that the setting is one of the best aspect of the film: we still feel the well known Paris, but it is morphed by a fine touch of futurism.

Nevertheless, I regret a few mistakes. The montage is sometimes a bit flat, one or two very cliché slow motion effects and some poor dialogs. Even though the technical is excellent, it shows its limits in some romantic sequences (a bit like "final fantasy" did). Those little things makes it a 7/10.

Altogether, it is a successful artistic challenge that you have to watch if you can. The director, Christian Volckman, knows how not to fall into potential traps (luckyly, they didn't ask John Woo to do the job!).

To conclude, it is a film with blasting visuals, an intelligent story and a wonderful art direction. Watch it if you can!

Please excuse me for the spelling mistakes.

Sentiment: positive
I was dreading taking my nephews to this movie, as I didn't think it was going to be well done. The kids, ages 6 and 10 were set on seeing it, so I caved. I must admit that it was not nearly as bad as I had thought, but was still a far cry from the book. The movie seemed right on with the 10 year old's understanding and sense of humor. I found that the 6 year old understood what was going on and he was presenting solutions to the issues that were taking place. I eventually had to explain that sometimes the movies don't show the best solutions to the problems because it is more fun to watch what happens if they make the "silly" or "stupid" choices.

Sentiment: negative
Beverly garland was born in the wrong time. She was an actress ahead of her time, bringing power and grace to even such lame flicks as the Corman films she starred in. In Gunslinger, she's the town sheriff's wife. He gets offed, so she takes over his job to pursue his killers. She's better than the material she's working with, by far. The movie is gray, stilted, and mostly boring. There's some(unintentional)humor with the tire tracks everywhere, people running behind one building to emerge suddenly in front of another (I've heard of false fronts, but this is ridiculous!), and the truly stupid plot line of the newly widowed sheriff falling in love with the guy hired to kill her. Even if she hadn't loved her husband, it had only been something like a week or two since he'd died! And she ends up shooting the guy to death in the end, anyway. No luck with men, this one.

The villain of the piece is another woman, the saloon owner. She's scheming to buy up a bunch of land just in case the railroad goes through and makes her rich. Her plan of action if it doesn't is pretty lame-she'll just steal as much from the town as she can and skedaddle. Hell, it's just her and her hired gun at the end against an entire town. Are you telling me these people aren't armed? Look what happened in real towns of the Old West when bank robbers came in to rob the bank, then were cut down in a hail of bullets by the armed and dangerous town folk.

There'a a lot of pointless talking and riding around, interspersed with a few lame shoot outs. The ending is as grim as usual in a Corman flick, although thank goodness it lacks the moral proselytizing at the end that was in It Conquered the World. The sheriff turns over her badge to Sam Bass and rides off into the sunset, although the movie was so gray that you never saw the sun.

Sentiment: negative
Despite the patronage of George Lucas, this captivating and totally original fantasy in "Lumage" (a combination of animation through live action cut-outs) is about as far removed from the usual kiddie fare as anything made by Ralph Bakshi in his heyday. Brilliantly conceived characters such as the shape-shifting dog Ralph (one of a duo of bumbling, rejected heroes), Synonamess Botch (the hilariously foul-mouthed villain) and Rod Rescueman (the pompous novice superhero) breathe life into a uniquely clever concept: Frivoli vs. Murkwood or, the eternal fight between dreams and nightmares. In this context, the MOR-infused songs on the soundtrack ought not to have worked but somehow they do. It's a real pity, therefore, that I have had to watch this via a truly crappy-looking boot (culled from a TV screening) of the uncensored version  there is also a milder variant that toned down the language for its VHS release  since the film is otherwise unavailable on DVD. Interestingly, both Henry Selick and David Fincher worked on this picture in subordinate capacities.

Sentiment: positive
I first saw this film 40 years ago on N.Y. television, and thought it was a depressing look at the future. Wells sees restriction of private freedoms as a good thing. (" no private airplanes". The 30 year plus war in the film was the reason this film was not shown to British film goers doing the war. The concept of the future, and the Korda an Co. concept of the the machines of the future are the real stars of the film. The very best acting performance is that of Ralph Richardson as the Boss. A combination of Winston Churchill and Edina from Absolutely Fabulous comedy series. It is interesting to note that the Boss's negative personality is somewhat similar to the war time Churchill.

Sentiment: positive
Well, I must say, I initially found this short to be quite average, but having watched it nearly 5 times since (its constantly shown on IFC), I've developed an enjoyment of the simple plot elements and reality of the situations presented. Sofia Coppola contributes a solid addition to the category.

Sentiment: negative
This is truly one from the "Golden Age" of Hollywood, the kind they do not make anymore. It is an unique, fun movie that keeps you guessing what is going to happen next. 

All the actors are perfectly cast and they are all great supporting actors. This is the first movie I saw with Ronald Colman in it and I have been a fan of his ever since. Reginald Gardiner has always been a favorite supporting actor of mine and adds a certain quality to every movie he is in. While he played a different kind of character here, he still added something to the movie that another actor cast in this character would not have added.

Sentiment: positive
Way back when, the X-Files was an intelligent, thought-provoking show. A big part of its appeal was that the writers looked to folklore and science for their ideas, tying the plot to the spooky side of real life.

I was incredibly wary of the 8th season when it aired. The show had already provided two perfectly good episodes to bow out on ("One Son" and "Requiem"), and the 7th season had seen a sharp rise in episodes that scraped the barrel for ideas that were far-fetched, implausible, or downright silly. But I figured, hey, give it the benefit of a doubt, maybe they're bringing it back because they've got some great ideas lined up.

"Roadrunners" really was upsetting. Following "Patience", which at least offered an interesting angle on the vampire folklore that the show had done well to avoid, the episode sees a strange (alien?) parasitic slug with the power of mind control worshipped by a cult of backwoods Christians. Oh, and they think it's the second coming of Christ, but you only find that out in the last couple of minutes. Seriously. There's never *any* attempt to make sense of this, to explain what the slug is, why anything that's happening is happening, or anything. Even in the show's early years - in fact, *especially* then - you could expect a little bit more depth, a bit of background, or if not that then the opposite - a bit of mystery, some uncertainty about what this was all about. 

It's Scully that really kills it though. You could put up with the silliness of the premise, but to have a character who has been developed over a good 7 years as a rational skeptic transformed into a gullible maverick purely for the sake of advancing the plot is bizarre to watch. You feel like you're watching some godawful teen horror, except that it's a woman well into her thirties throwing herself into the kind of creepy isolated community that she's spent the best part of a decade uncovering the sinister underbelly of, being either outwitted by very stereotypical hicks or utterly indifferent to her own safety. Oh, and by the way, Doggett, the new Mudler, isn't around. Scully just wandered off into the desert to look into a brutal murder on her own without him. He shows up at the end to save the day - I can't even remember why - but apart from that, he's not really in it. Again: seriously.

In short, it feels like either a generic script written for another show, or someone's pet movie project which they've been allowed to shove like a mutant leech into the spine of an existing, long-running show at a time when it was at its most vulnerable. It might've worked on a lesser show, where the characters are more archetypal and the audience expects less. But The X-Files had a good thing going, and Scully was one of the strongest and most idiosyncratic TV characters of the 90s. Deciding that you're going to change her personality for the sake of a story that they must've done on Star Trek a good fifty or so times is pointless.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is amazing. The plot was just...wow.

I was very surprised by Gackt's and Hyde's performance, after growing up in the American world of the actors who can't sing and singers who can't act.

In this movie, a young Sho (Gackt) comes across a vampire, Kei (Hyde). Over time, they form an unlikely friendship. Kei is suffering because of how he is forced to live off others, the half-life of a vampire.

It's a sad movie, but not sappy. The plot was very unique, and contrary to your typical vampire flick. The storyline was thick with twists and turns and very entrancing.

The only fault I would say the movie had, despite it's lack of a happy--albeit peacefulending, would be it's multiple languages. I had the unsubdued version (I'm lucky that I understood it all save some of the Cantonese), so I would recommend getting something with subtitles.

All in all, the movie was just awesome.

Sentiment: positive
Although I'm not too much of a religious person, I still had relatively high hopes for this movie, as it does have the amazing Steve Carrell, and its prequel, Bruce Almighty, was actually a creative and clever Christian-themed comedy. However, Evan Almighty comes nowhere near this originality and freshness that the original has, and can't decide whether it's a comedy or a sentimental movie about faith and family values. If it had chosen one clear path of which of these themes to focus on, it could have lived up to its potential, but instead the result of mixing the two is a film that has a very flat and dry sense of humor, cheesy dialogue and motifs that attempt to give the movie profundity, but instead practically insults the intelligence of the audience, and also a very confused and clouded presentation of the movie's opaque message. It was very obvious that Evan Almighty was very poorly written, there are numerous plot holes and elements in the movie that make absolutely no sense. For example, although a large variety of exotic animals from all over the planet swarm to Evan as he builds the ark for their salvation from the flood, is their inclusion really necessary when the only "flood" that happens in the movie is downtown Washington D.C. and a suburban neighborhood, meaning they are at no risk of being wiped out? The filmmakers it seems lacked the originality to modernize the Bible story whatsoever, and instead just had it take place in a present time without changing anything to the plot, leaving many elements that just don't add up such as this and make it obvious of the idiotic motifs and writing within the movie. Overall, this work is tragic in that the acting talent of Steve Carrell and Wanda Sykes isn't exhibited because of the bland characters they portray, and that it was so poorly written that it skews and clouts many of the film's attempted themes, and makes a mockery of the first film. Finally, Evan Almighty also is an insult to the brilliant actors in it and any halfway-intelligent moviegoer, in that it fails both of them miserably.

Sentiment: negative
With this cast and budget you will expect more.

John Cusack has made a number movies that border on the strange, yet still work. Neither he, his sister, nor Sir Ben could do anything to save this travesty of trite poorly written garbage.

The movie is nothing more than a series of sight gags and poor ones at that. The plot goes nowhere, the writing is contrived, senseless and the characters paper thin. If you think of a movie as being three dimensional where the story and characters bring a depth to the imagery, this stinker comes across as flat as steamboat mickey.

Dan Akroyd's appearance in this brought back memories of another truly awful movie, 1991's Nothing but Trouble. Frankly this movie is the type of project that kills careers and gets agents fired.

Sentiment: negative
This series would have been a lot better if they had just done one simple thing: Made Ian McShane Code Name: Diamond Head instead of Code Name: Tree. Diamond Head the character needs someone who could handle the role of the lovable rogue, which McShane proved he could do with the Lovejoy series. Roy Thinnes, the actual Diamond Head, is really only so-so in the role. McShane is not really that good as the bad guy Tree. France Nuyen's character, Tso-Tsing, can't seem to make up her mind as to whether she's the hapless victim or the tough-and-ready-to-fight woman. She really earned her pay at the end when she had to play the role of Diamond Head's lover. After viewing an episode or two, I ended up not caring what happened to anyone. Tree gives us a lot to hate him, but Diamond Head gives us nothing to like him. Unfortunately, the spy genre in the 1970s was not quite as it was in the 1960's.

Sentiment: negative
There's perhaps a special reason why The Fox and the Child hit a special note in my heart. Having just said goodbye to my new fiancée - of oh...one day - for an unknown period of time, I was a bit overwhelmed with varying emotions and was suffering the fallout from putting on the brave face she needed to see.

I watched a few movies and TV shows, but my interest darted from what I was leaving behind to what is out there and what I haven't seen. For that, I have this movie to thank.

Being a nature lover and having heard about the film beforehand, I was sure I was going to like it anyway. But I didn't just like it, I loved it.

The technical mastery is astounding. How did they do it? How did they capture the animals in the way they did?? It's just wonderful.

The moral of the tale is a good one and while the ending is oh so French and ambiguous, it's a happy/sad one. Again, it caught me a bit off-guard. As a man who usually keeps his emotions to himself, the ending was tough going while on a plane full of people I would be seeing for the next 15 or so hours! Perhaps it's because the ending made me think back to what I left.

But for those few hours on the plane, I was happy to see something new and original. And that's life. Sure, there are those things you love and feel comfortable around...but the great outdoors holds many a mystery. So the next time I see something out of the ordinary while out in the open; I'm going to explore it, observe it and embrace it. That's precisely what happens in this movie and that's precisely what you should do with this darn good movie/nature doc too. 8/10 

P.S. It's two months on from the plane journey. We still don't know when we'll see each other again, but we will.

Sentiment: positive
this show is the best it is full of laughs and Kevin James is the best so if you want a good show i recommend the king of queens and its a letdown that they canceled it so in the end this show will make you forget your worries and troubles cause if you have a cast with Kevin James and jerry stiller you cant go wrong. so i don't know why the canceled the show if any one knows please tell me.now a days you cant find a lot of shows that fulfill your needs as an audience.after Seinfeld and king of queens the only show worth watching is prison break and if that stops i don't know what to do. in the end if i had to recommend a show it will be king of queens.

Sentiment: positive
There are no people like "Show People" Marion Davies (as Peggy Pepper) and William Haines (as Billy Boone). My introduction to Ms. Davies was a "clip" from this film; the delightfully spoofy one in which she lowers a scarf to reveal different emotions. My introduction to Mr. Haines was in viewing this film, presently; though, it's possible I've seen him in a less memorable role. Haines makes an incredible impression, when he joins Davies for a commissary meal - tossing his hat into the ring with some wonderful bits at the dining table. Indeed, Haines and Davies deliver great comic performances.

The story starts off with Dell Henderson (Colonel Pepper) driving daughter Davies into Hollywood, certain she will become Tinseltown's newest sensation. Indeed, Davies and the already arrived Haines become comedy stars. But, Davies yearns to become a true drama queen. Davies leaves Haines, and partners up with the dashingly dramatic Paul Ralli. But, audiences prefer Davies in more comic roles; perhaps director King Vidor is offering up a case for art imitating life? 

Full of great Hollywood location footage, both on the set, and off. Full of great "cameos"; at a studio lunch, at the stars' table, Davies sits between Douglas Fairbanks and William S. Hart. The best "bit" player, however, is Charlie Chaplin, who has enough nerve to ask Davies for her autograph! While the cameos are fun, they, and the episodic sequences, do help "Show People" become less of an important film, and more of an important historical document. 

******** Show People (11/11/28) King Vidor ~ Marion Davies, William Haines, Dell Henderson

Sentiment: positive
This film spends a lot of time preaching against marijuana. However, the plot and visuals are so insane that it seems more like the poster-child for LSD.

Plot: The heroic struggle of Michael as he battles his drug addiction while being subjected to the humiliation brought on by the likes of Winnie the Pooh and Papa Smurf.

Yea, yea, there's a good message, but it's obscured by the fact that the writers have taken a rather stale PSA idea and tried stretching it into 30 minutes. This includes a song sequence, where you're told that there's a million, rational ways to say "No!" such as "I can't smoke pot, I have homework!"

The writers can't make up their minds what to do with the characters they've brought in royalty-free. At first we see they all have to hide from the human characters, but within five minutes we see them all running around in plain sight without anyone noticing. Soon they begin interacting with the human cast, and the only one who's even slightly disturbed by this fact is not the drug-abusers, it's the little sister who talks to her teddy bear (Pooh, by the way.) Further, there's the little drug demon floating around. Because you know, pushers don't give kids drugs. He too is ambiguous - while he might be symbolic of Michael's addiction and hence is not supposed to be seen by other people, he laters goes and haunts little Corey to get HER into drugs. So I guess he's...uhhh.....moving on!

The whole plot finally culminates in some insane sequence in which Michael is in what would appear to be the Saturday Morning Carnival of Souls, aka a theme park from hell where the various cartoon characters beat him up and ignore him and stuff. For example, Miss Piggy eats him in a sandwich and spits him out. If the writers were not high when writing this, I must recommend they try getting high because they can't get crazier than this. Of course, the film ignores the fact that Michael's been having highs for two years by this point, so why this tripping sequence would frighten him is beyond me.

I realize I'm completely whaling on this film, but I actually just saw it again because I went through the trouble of tracking it down on eBay because of it's sheer infamy of being a BAD cartoon. The level of unintentional humor is is brilliant. Take this scene for example - Michael's dad is rooting through the fridge for a beer. He notices many of them missing and mentions it to his wife. The ever-observant Mom tells him "Don't worry, you probably just drank them last night watching football." While we're obviously supposed to be learning that Michael is drinking beer (in addition to the pot and crack), we instead read further in and realize - Hey kids, it's okay to have chemical dependencies as long as you're a grown-up! Scenes like this are worth the tiny price tag of this film. Oh yea, and the fact you get to hear Simon the Chipmunk say "Marijuana."

Sentiment: negative
With Knightly and O'Tool as the leads, this film had good possibilities, and with McCallum as the bad guy after Knightly, maybe some tension. But they threw it all away on silly evening frill and then later on with maudlin war remnants. It was of course totally superficial, beautiful English country and seaside or not.The number one mistake was dumping Knightly so early on in the film, when she could easily have played someone a couple of years older, instead of choosing someone ten years older to play the part. They missed all the chances to have great conflict among the cast, and instead stupidly pulled at the easy and low-cost heartstring elements.

Sentiment: negative
One of my co-workers recommended this one, implying that it was one of the most frightening movies she ever watched. I checked it out together with my girlfriend and we gave up after 50 minutes or so.

Yesterday, I had a long talk with my co-worker (we're still friends!).

This movie is as original as the latest film starring Steven Seagal. It brings absolutely nothing original to the table. The spooky parts have been done thousand of times before.

The biggest fault however is the painfully slow pace of this movie. The periods between the scares are completely wasted with meaningless dialog and a lot of.. nothing..

1 of 10 Molotov cocktails

Sentiment: negative
The Hebrew Hammer is a clever idea wasted, as the execution is weak. As if often the case with iconoclastic humor, it relies overly on outrage to generate laughs, which simply isn't enough. Poor-taste humor has two elements -- poor taste and humor -- and both are needed here, but the humor is pretty scarce. As a result, it is often painful to watch, all the more so because of good attempts on the part of the performers, particularly Adam Goldberg as the HH himself. The Shaft references are funny, though, but only to those who know those movies, and they certainly don't carry The Hebrew Hammer.

Another problem is that many of the jokes rely on knowledge of American Jewish culture, and many in the audience will simply not understand the jokes.

Sentiment: negative
As I drove from Skagway, Alaska to Dawson City,Yukon a couple of years ago and was impressed with the scenery, I cannot help but wish that this film even though it has beautiful color and scenic views would have been shot in the actual location. Jasper in the Canadian Rockies is a magnificent place, but still not the real place where the film takes place. When the story moves to Dawson, that is when I feel Anthony Mann, who used the outdoor locations so well, could have made the most if he filmed in the actual place. James Stewart here is again a man fighting within himself, one side of him does not want to get involved and help people who stand in the way of him making money, and the other side just is not able to look away from people being murdered. Ruth Roman is the ambitious woman who does not care on whom she steps, Corinne Calvet is the nice girl. Mann is excellent directing the shootouts, but the high point of the film is how well he does in the outdoor scenes. He uses the outdoors as much as he can and he is helped by the winter scenery, the predominating white, like it was with the greens in "The Naked Spur" and the browns in "The Man From Laramie". Like all of the Mann-Stewarts, this is a traditional western, with a difference in the elaboration of Stewart's character which is more complex.

Sentiment: positive
Most people, especially young people, may not understand this film. It looks like a story of loss, when it is actually a story about being alone. Some people may never feel loneliness at this level.

Cheadles character Johnson reflected the total opposite of Sandlers character Fineman. Where Johnson felt trapped by his blessings, Fineman was trying to forget his life in the same perspective. Jada is a wonderful additive to the cast and Sandler pulls tears. Cheadle had the comic role and was a great supporter for Sandler.

I see Oscars somewhere here. A very fine film. If you have ever lost and felt alone, this film will assure you that you're not alone.

Jerry

Sentiment: positive
Fourteen of the funniest minutes on celluloid. This short parody is at least as much a part of the Star Wars saga as Phantom Menace, and far more entertaining, if you ask me. Hardware Wars was the first in a long line of SW spoofs which form their own subgenre these days. I hate to describe it too much-it's so short that the premise is just about the whole thing. Suffice it to say that many of the most popular and familiar aspects of Star Wars have fun poked at them. Household appliances such as toasters and vacuum cleaners portray spaceships and robots, the Princess Anne-Droid character wears actual bread rolls on her head instead of the famous coils of braided hair, and Fluke Starbucker is even more of a dork than his original, if that's possible. Ernie Fosselius is one crazy son-of-a-buck-he's also the source of Porklips Now, the Apocalypse Now spoof.

Sentiment: positive
I am assuming that the rave reviews on this page were from people who have never read the book - Unfortunately for those of us who love the text, Hollywood outdid itself on destroying this one.

I am not sure where on earth the woman love-interest came from, except that she replaced the cat, nor why our Rogue Male acquired a helpful family back in Blighty - In fact the vast majority of the book has been cut out and replaced with your standard cruddy love story. The ambiguity about which world leader was in his sights was removed completely and our Rogue was given a name (neither of these appeared until the second book).

I gave it a 2 rather than a 1 simply because of the wonderfully bad cockney accents. Joan Bennett outdoes Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins by miles and this goes a tiny way towards saving it.

Ah well - Brits should probably avoid this. Trust me :)

Sentiment: negative
Even if you're a huge Sandler fan, please don't bother with this extremely disappointing comedy! I bought this movie for $7.99, assuming it has to be at least halfway decent since my man Sandler is in it and because I assumed some women would get naked (judging by the R-rating and scantily-clad women on the cover). Well, there are quite a few scantily-clad women, but none get naked. I'm not sure what point this was in Sandler's career, but I'm guessing it was even before his SNL days. I can be wrong. This is like watching one of his home movies. He might look back at a cheesy movie like this and reminisce about the good ol' times...but we (the audience) are left to dry. This is hardly a "movie"! Sandler does a lot of talking to the camera, and even admits at one point that this is "no-budget" movie (that's right, not a low-budget movie, a NO-budget movie). So our job is pretty much to laugh AT the quirky characters. There is no steady plot, it's like an extended sketch comedy show--but a crude and badly written one. That guy who played the nasty comedian was completely annoying and it was implausible in the first place that he would receive such a mass audience. And Sandler finds his comic inspiration by saying the one classic Henny Youngman line "Take my wife, please" and the audience is on the floor? I'm not even going to TRY to make any logic here. Sure, Sandler's current and recent movies are not known for making a lot of sense (the penguin in "Billy Madison," the midget in "Happy Gilmore's" Happy Place) but the comedy works. This is a strictly amateurish work, and even if you're curious about Adam's early days in film--you still won't be interested. You're better off checking out his start on SNL or maybe his underrated role in "Mixed Nuts." Of course, the Sandman is not the only actor wasted in this thankless vehicle. Billy Bob Thornton also makes a short appearance, Billy Zane ("Titanic") has a supporting role and the great Burt Young (from the "Rocky" movies) has a significant role. 

This awful comedy will most probably be collecting dust on the 99-cent rental section of your local video store--and rightfully so. 

My score: 3 (out of 10)

Sentiment: negative
This movie is awesome for three main reasons. It is esthetically beautiful. I absolutely loved that. There is a bold color theme throughout the movie with extraordinary costumes and picturesque sets. A photography which looks very costly (and probably was not) completes the look . I always enjoy those stories about groups of misfits/loners coming together and becoming a family . Sometimes they fall into clichés but this one does not. This group of actors really portrays well flawed, yet extremely likable characters. Alan Larkin is the best (between him , the van and the road movie theme, I could not help but remember my favorite movie of last year Little Miss Sunshine) . I discovered Fabrizio Bentivoglio , very interesting actor, and just got annoyed a tiny little bit by Til Schweiger performance at times . The opening scene, all the scenes where they mess up their tricks are very funny. There is a mix of humor and emotion throughout the film. I like the end a lot. And of course it is all about the Magician theme . A good magician is making the audience look where he wants them to, to create an illusion. Which happens to be exactly what a movie director does and that's why they call it movie magic.

Sentiment: positive
I read ashew's comment and thought they must have been watching an entirely different picture! 

I just watched the film this morning and was quite surprised.

To address ashew's comments:

Trail Street is a very well done western.

And Randolph Scott was in it quite a bit! 

Gabby Hayes was funnier than I've ever seen him! 

The bad guys had very good comeuppances as far as I was concerned.

Plus:

It was interesting to see Robert Ryan as a straight-laced good guy - he's usually so slimy.

In all, a good western, very well acted and written.

I liked the background story of Kansas and the "winter wheat" that supposedly helped it become a state, too.

I thought the girl who played Susan was lovely - can't think why she didn't become a bigger star!

Sentiment: positive
Lost holds something interesting for everyone. You can say an awfully lot about this series, and an awfully lot has been said, so I won't be the one to spell it all out for you again. Just read the persons who loved it, and you'll know why you want to watch it. The nice thing about this series is that its totally new. There are not much movies -and even fewer- series based on the theme of only suspense, but Lost lives up to the theme with pride. Its all about the unexplained and if you combine that with an exotic location, nice plot twists, an excellent cast and a good format (present and past combined in single episodes) you'll have a series in which every episode is a story on its own but part of a greater telling. You want to have all the insights of the characters, you want to see the overall picture and you'll want to know where the writers are taking you. The result of that is that its a series which does not let you go. On a more sceptic note, the series went under a bit in season 2, probably due to its own success. It is well known that Lost was only written for one season originally and when the overwhelming success followed, the writers were overwhelmed too. In my opinion they made the mistake to add even more mysteries and in a higher pace in season 2, then to solve the ones (or partially at least) the ones of season 1. At the end of season 2 you ended with a big blurr of secrets, plot twists and unexplained phenomena, but there is only so much a viewer can take. The difference between season 2 and 3 however was huge. Season 3 handed out a lot of insights, to partially replace them with new questions. And that's exactly how they should write; you want to thumble from one plot twist to the next, not get a tsunami of secrets spread all over you and then pick up a few to explain to the viewers. They got that in season 3 and brings us a promising series future for season 4. Its good to see that such a different format of a series, can be so hugely popular.

Sentiment: positive
Intelligent, nail-biting drama came out of nowhere in 1979 and soon was on the cover of every newspaper in America (when life imitated the film). A nuclear power plant employee in Southern California is threatened by superiors when he decides to go public with the real story behind an accident at the plant. Ostensibly a stuck valve problem, a TV news-crew's film shows that it was an accident verging on disastrous proportions--and worse, that safety conditions are being scrubbed to save millions of dollars, a cover-up that endangers everyone's lives. The movie occasionally gets too technical (especially in the second-half) and could use more human interplay, however the performances by Jack Lemmon, Jane Fonda (as a puff-piece news-woman in the right place at the right time), and Michael Douglas (as a freelance cameraman) are superb. The throwaway bits involving nuclear protesters is both entirely accurate and bitterly satirical, and the news-biz (with its corporate structure and vapid yes-men) is vividly captured. ***1/2 from ****

Sentiment: positive
A complex story laid on the background of partition of Bharat. An honest Muslim who kidnaps an innocent Hindu girl, and an educated Hindu who burns the harvest of a Muslim man - yet in the end you end up liking them both. The story is powerful, yet the screenplay and flow are hesitant. Background music score and the songs are outstanding. Next comes memorable acting by veteran Urmila Matondkar. Photography captures the time, the violence, and flavor of rural Punjab very well. Others actors either did not act well, or did not get a chance to act. Direction is really the weakest link. The characters were not developed well. Not crisp, in contrast to "the Earth", where even a 5-line character leaves a mark. The end is very interesting. This story could have several different ending - and all of them could have been equally good.

Sentiment: positive
Out of the top 24 lesbian films in my library, I must rate this one as the number one film of all times. This film will go down in history as the best in it's genre. It is a story about a girl (Rachael Stirling) who goes from riches to rags and from rags to riches, with her first love (Keeley Hawes) popping in and out of her life. It is set against a Victorian background in the 1890's, which makes it an ideal setting for some of the best entertainment in the industry. This film spared no expense for music and costumes, and the make-up Rachael and Keeley wore while on stage in the Halls only added to the film's diversity.

No matter what kind of films you favor, I can guarantee this film will not only amaze you, but will keep your attention through all three episodes. This film will be played and enjoyed for decades to come. The unrated DVD collector's version is a must for anyone's library. Rachael Stirling and Keeley Hawes was the best choice for the casting in these two roles, and they played them extremely well.

Sentiment: positive
Although this was a low budget film and clearly last minute, it holds a certain charm that is difficult to pinpoint. I tend to believe it is the scriptwriter- Grant Morris (see Dead Dog), who, despite the warped plot line injected a fantastic slice of humour, sorely missing in many of today's box office hits. Definitely a must see for a Sunday afternoon laughfest. Speaking as a true single girl, and very sceptical this film did not inspire me particularly, but did ignite a small flame of hope for a lovelife. Not my lovelife, so much as my slightly crazy neighbour's lovelife who lets her hamster sleep in her bed with her. She may find someone.

Sentiment: positive