DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Oh my god! This movie insults the intelligence of everybody. I mean really, who thinks three kids can fight 30 to 40 ninjas and win. Not to mention the brainless humor thrown in. This film is baaaaaaaaaaaaaad. The movie is an omen, the only thing it's good for is a time killer or unintentional laughs.

Sentiment: negative
It actually pains me to say it, but this movie was horrible on every level. The blame does not lie entirely with Van Damme as you can see he tried his best, but let's face it, he's almost fifty, how much more can you ask of him? I find it so hard to believe that the same people who put together Undisputed 2; arguably the best (western) martial arts movie in years, created this. Everything from the plot, to the dialog, to the editing, to the overall acting was just horribly put together and in many cases outright boring and nonsensical. Scott Adkins who's fight scenes seemed more like a demo reel, was also terribly underused and not even the main villain which is such a shame because 1) He is more than capable of playing that role and 2) The actual main villain was not only not intimidating at all but also quite annoying. Again, not blaming Van Damme. I will always be a fan, but avoid this one.

Sentiment: negative
Hmm, IMDb rating of 7.5, good comments, bla, bla ... okay, two of my friends and me, we orderd Pizza, sat down and wanted to see something as cool as Ichi or at least something brainless but funny like Versus. But Naked Blood sucked. It's a complete waste. Okay, the scene with the woman who likes to eat is quite outstanding. But that's it. Nothing more, nothing less. I won't summerize the plot, other people did already, I just wanted to stop the hype. But watch it and rate for yourself. Maybe we can push the rating where it sould be. One more thing that comes to my mind: the soundtrack is even worse than Carpenter ever was - okay, John's cool ... :) 2/10

Sentiment: negative
A long time ago, way back in the early '80s, a late-night TV show "Fridays" came to ABC, trying to steal the limelight away from NBC's badly-listing "Saturday Night Live". It didn't but it did introduce some repugnant sketches and semi-talented "comedians" to the world. Like Mark Blankenfield, for example.

Which, in a roundabout way, brings us to "Jekyll and Hyde... Together Again". Which is repugnant in ways all its own.

Blankenfield is about as subtle as a pew full of whoopee cushions going off after Communion. And about as tasteful, too. This is just his drugged-out druggist character he played on the ill-fated "Fridays" show stretched out to feature length. And if you didn't like him there, why are you reading this review?

Any time it takes more than one or two writers to write a movie, that's a bad sign. Then when it goes for dunder-headed jokes that would get you thrown off every improv stage in the Western hemisphere and replaces gags with gross-out, things can only get worse.

A comic take on a Robert Louis Stevenson story? About as good an idea as making a sitcom out of Poe's "Fall of the House of Usher".

Aside from a few (VERY few) gags that give a slight grin, this whole film is an exercise in waste - wasted actors, wasted film, wasted opportunities.

No wonder they showed original author Stevenson turning in his grave. What more observant a review could they give themselves?

No stars. No, not even for Armstrong, who should have known better. 

"Hyde" from this one.

Sentiment: negative
Indeed: drug use, warehouse shoot-'em-ups, 'Matrix'-esque bullet dodging, a futuristic city with a mix of Asian races, and a lonely vampire --all in the same movie-- seems like a story that could only be envisioned by a Japanese pop/rock star. And that is exactly what 'Moon Child' is, and more. While all these elements combined may sound like the perfect subject for a campy B-movie of the week, 'Moon Child' pulls it off with but a few expected bumps and hitches along the way.

The film has a gritty, definitely independent feel to it, jumping from one scene to the next not in smooth transition, but rather sporadic leaps and bounds, giving glimpses into the characters' lives and barely scraping at a true plot. But the film makes no excuses, instead turning the story into one of friendship, love, trust, and betrayal all sugar-coated in the aforementioned elements of a futuristic society, warring gangsters, and vampires.

HYDE as the somber vampire 'Kei' is excellent, giving depth to the character and balancing-out the overly-zealous acting of Gackt as 'Sho,' an orphan who befriends Kei. Lee-Hom Wang also shines as the vengeful 'Son' who becomes friends with a grown-up Sho. The story revolves around these characters and their extended friends and family through different periods in their lives, and how simple friendship can so easily be turned into grief and betrayal.

While the action at times is all-too unrealistic and special effects appear just to show-off, one thing the film never does is presume to be about the immensely popular Asian singers it features. The superstars as actors have their flaws, and so do their characters. The movie rarely gets boring, and ends where it should, after jumping about quite a bit. 'Moon Child' is rather enjoyable, humorous at times, and even very touching: it is definitely worth your time!

Sentiment: positive
First and foremost I would like to say that I'm a huge Sarah Silverman fan, and having other people say that and then rag on the pilot is beyond me. Everything in the pilot was in typical Sarah Silverman form, maybe not directly funny, but the situation and the delivery are what counts.

If you liked Jesus is Magic then I don't see how you wouldn't like this. It has that same flow and that same rhythm. True it's only for the true fans, but if you are you'll be pleased.

Again only for the true fans, there's no way around that. If you're not used to her style then you wouldn't get why this is funny. However, it is, and I hope you think so too.

Sentiment: positive
"Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" is yet another 'feel-goody', so-called 'heart warming', and out-for-ratings show that ABC has had the time to put together.

I understand the troubles that these families go through. For that, I am sorry. But wouldn't you think that putting four wide-screen plasma televisions, three flat-screen desktop computers, an inground pool taking up half of a backyard, and closets full of expensive designer clothing is a BIT too excessive for ANY family? Sure, these families have been through a lot. Sure, they deserve nicer things that what they had previously had.

But honestly, the things that Ty Pennington and his crew put into these houses are enough to suit an entire neighborhood.

Another thing that really irks me about this show is how Ty and his crew always have something good to say about every little thing that relates to the family, or the family's condition. Telling a wheelchair-bound person that he or she is 'so strong', or 'very brave' really does get old after a while. That may sound rude, but believe me; watch this show, and you'll see what I mean.

All in all, this show is overrated. If you want to watch it, go ahead. This comment is just a heads-up for what you'd be watching.

Sentiment: negative
If there has ever been a worse comedy than 'Gray Matters' I am unaware of it. The New York Jewish comedy's 'funny' premise is that siblings Sam & Gray are mistaken for a couple and so decide to fix Sam up with a girlfriend, only to find that Gray is equally attracted to their target - Charlie. The revelation that Gray is secretly gay is apparently only a surprise to her. There is a deeply offensive wedding sequence, a deeply embarrassing 'drunk act' from Moynahan and Graham, and a performance that would embarrass forests everywhere for its woodenness from Tom Cavanagh. Sissy Spacek demonstrates a complete inability to do comedy and will want this excised from her resume. Molly Shannon plays the homely friend with lumpen insouciance. Only Alan Cumming emerges with any credit but is seriously under-employed and given nothing with which to work. The whole disaster is cemented by Graham's bizarre eye-rolling performance culminating with the penultimate scene where she wears a comedy hat and an overcoat despite the scene being set in a lesbian bar. It is astonishing that this film was ever released it has no redeeming feature and should be avoided at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
I feel blessed to own what is known as the worst Steven Seagal movie ever made. I knew I was on to something special when Steven opened his mouth and someone else's voice came out. By the middle of the film my eyes were beginning to hurt and I was almost falling out of my chair with uncontrollable laughter.

Steven is Steven (with an ever changing voice) and totally unbelievable in his role (as always). Who the hell lets people with bad nappy-hair pony tail mullets into the Forces anyway? He also always writes himself into totally unbelievable love interests with women at least 20 years his junior. The supporting actors all look like they've been shot in the dark - btw, did they shoot this movie in the dark with just a penlight torch for lighting? 

This is truly abominable in every way possible. Invite all your friends around and make a social event out of it - this one's truly special.

Sentiment: negative
By Hook or By Crook is a tremendously innovative film from a pair of immensely smart and talented filmmakers, Harry Dodge and Silas Howard. They manage to tell an original story in a distinctive cinematic style, and it's beautifully shot by Ann T. Rosetti, and wonderfully written -- truly poetic. 

The lead characters are true heroes and serve as a rare kind of role model/inspiration for butch dykes and trannies everywhere. This film has so much energy, so much poignant passion and scruffy San Francisco heart to it. I can't recommend it highly enough! 

The best butch buddy movie of all time!

Sentiment: positive
"Who Loves The Sun" works its way through some prickly subject matter with enough wit and grace to keep the story not only engaging, but often hilarious. It's been a while since I've found such a thoroughly touching, thoroughly enjoyable film. 

The film is gorgeous, drawing the eye with beautiful scenery and tranquil landscapes. The peaceful imagery contrasts wonderfully with the tension between the very human, very flawed, and yet very likable characters. Due to the excellent cast all five of the major players are wonderfully interesting and dynamic. 

I recommend "Who Loves The Sun." It's a really funny movie that takes a poignant look at the hurts that we can inflict on each other, and the amazingly difficult but equally rewarding process of forgiveness.

Sentiment: positive
Gandhi my father is like viewing a book, chapter by chapter you read it(with your eyes) and you learn more about Harilal Gandhi and for that matter Kasturba Gandhi. So little is known about both of them and this movie describes them uniquely. The title misleads though, its as much a movie about Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his son, as its about Harilal and his mother. And Akshaye Khanna and Shefali Chayya do full justice to their respective roles.

Such movies are like leap years. They come after only so much time.

Gandhi My Father, is also about an internal struggle, which is sometimes more difficult than any freedom struggle ever undertaken.

Watch it, if you like quality cinema.

Sentiment: positive
I found this film by mistake many years ago & wondered then (still do) why it didn't get the acclaim it should have. Well written, beautiful acting, one ironic twist after another, and THERE IS PLAUSIBILITY in what the nefarious characters are attempting. I would not recommend this film for people with short attention spans; it requires sufficient intelligence to comprehend that there maybe a kernel of truth in this story.

Sentiment: positive
Some films just simply should not be remade. This is one of them. In and of itself it is not a bad film. But it fails to capture the flavor and the terror of the 1963 film of the same title. Liam Neeson was excellent as he always is, and most of the cast holds up, with the exception of Owen Wilson, who just did not bring the right feel to the character of Luke. But the major fault with this version is that it strayed too far from the Shirley Jackson story in it's attempts to be grandiose and lost some of the thrill of the earlier film in a trade off for snazzier special effects. Again I will say that in and of itself it is not a bad film. But you will enjoy the friction of terror in the older version much more.

Sentiment: positive
The problem with this movie is that it isn't funny, it isn't scary, it isn't dramatic, it isn't intriguing, it isn't stimulating, it isn't, it isn't exciting, it isn't even the slightest bit interesting. I saw this film recently on tape and I was glad I didn't spent any money to rent it. It's basically a poor attempt at film-making. I won't even bother to tell you the story. Story? What story?

Sentiment: negative
What is your freaking problem? Do you have nothing better to do than sit on your fat asses and blog about about how you find something in bad taste? Here's an idea:Go outside. That's right: Walk outside your mom's basement that you've been living in for 13 years and GO OUTSIDE. "But I can't leave! Star Trek is on in 30 minutes and I still haven't married that avatar on World Of Warcraft!" Oh my God, in that case, stay inside! Alright, I might have gone overboard there. I mean, Star Trek is okay but I don't really watch it that much anymore. Either way, do you really have to write crap about Mind of Mencia. It's A GOOD SHOW. Maybe you're just venting your anger because that girl dumped you on World of Warcraft. Or you're constipated. Try putting fiber in your diet.

Sentiment: positive
DVD has become the equivalent of the old late night double-bill circuit, the last chance to catch old movies on the verge of being completely forgotten like The Border. There were great expectations for this back in 1982  a script co-written by The Wild Bunch's Walon Green, Jack Nicholson in the days when he could still act without semaphore and a great supporting cast (Harvey Keitel, Warren Oates, Valerie Perrine), Tony Richardson directing (although he was pretty much a spent force by then)  but now it doesn't even turn up on TV. The material certainly offers a rich seam of possibilities for comment on the 80s American Dreams of capitalism and conspicuous consumption, with Nicholson's border patrolman turning a blind eye to the odd drug deal or bit of people trafficking to finance his wife's relentless materialism, until he rediscovers his conscience when he finds out his partners are also in the baby selling business. Unfortunately, he never really gets his hands dirty, barely even turning a blind eye before his decency rises to the surface. The film feels always watered down as if too many rewrites and too many committees have left it neutered and, sadly, the recent DVD release is a missed opportunity to restore the original, nihilistic ending where Nicholson goes over the edge and firebombs the border patrol station that was cut after preview audiences found it too downbeat but which still featured prominently in the film's trailers.

While that probably wasn't too convincing considering how low-key Nicholson's crisis of conscience is in the film, it had to be better than the crude reshot climax where the film abandons logic and even basic rules of continuity: at one point he's holding characters at gunpoint, then he's somewhere else and they're free trying to kill him, one character goes from injured at his house to hopping around like a gazelle on the banks of the Rio Grande while Valerie Perrine's character gets dumber on an exponential level. The villains of the piece are disposed of with absurd ease (and one impressive car stunt) in time for a clumsily edited happy ending and you start wondering if you somehow found yourself watching another film entirely. What makes it all the more clumsy is that the rest of the film is so flat and underwhelming that the sudden lurch into melodrama is all the more jarring. Unfortunately Ry Cooder's beautiful title song, Across the Borderline, says it all much more economically. But if you want to know the film's real crime, it's completely wasting the great Warren Oates in a nothing bit part. When even he can't make an impression, you know something's really wrong. All in all, all too easy to remember why I found this so forgettable at the time.

Sentiment: negative
I remembered the title so well. To me, it was a Flora Robson movie with Olivier and Vivien Leigh in supporting roles. And it had Vincent Massey's voice from behind whiskers. Well Flora Robson was great. Her next signature, for me, would be "55 Days at Peking". The same role but with different sumptuous gowns. And the same voice. As for the Armada, it was a subtext. I like black-and-white films. Was everything done in Elizbethan times at night? It was talky and difficult to fathom, at times. I couldn't tell which was the love interest. Was it the Spaniard or was it Vivien Leigh? And I do not believe that Elizabeth I would have been the brilliant strategist to recommend that fire ships be sent against the Armada. Apparently it worked for the Empire, but not for the script. This might have been more accurate, historically, but Bette Davis had more engaging scripts. And I missed daylight!

Sentiment: negative
endearing tale........ voted ten against all averages for my age and sex... not all that much comedy (compared to a i almost wet myself movie) although funny enough. not a fan of musicals at all so probably a little too much for me, but they do give you time to grab a drink or soda without missing anything important. maybe a fifties version of when harry met sally? Ahab no not really but if that is in your top ten like it is mine you will like this movie. really it just leaves you with a warm fuzzy feeling, reminding you of what romance could and should be like, something to shoot for. my summary describes it best in very few words..... quite charming

Sentiment: positive
Well, that's what this should have been called, anyway. Mainly, due the the ridiculous, ham-fisted use of what can barely be called symbolism by the director. It would not have surprised me to find out that this was A) One of Lea Pool's earliest efforts, and B) at least semi-autobiographical. Turns out A is wrong, although I don;t know about B. I will bet she attended boarding school, though, and had a rather terrible same-sex relationship of SOME kind. This is the message that was beat down our throats by this film, and the short film which preceded it, the name of which I no longer recall.

At any rate, the character development was clumsy (Who introduces herself by saying what her name means? Nobody.) the symbols were about as subtle as an all-glass elevator full of teen-age girls losing a cable and plummeting eighty stories. All over a loudspeaker. Honestly, the cry of a falcon when Perabo declared she was a raptor and leapt off the table? That was ridiculous to the point of parody. And it was only one of far too many symbols meant to show even the dumbest of viewers what her point was. And that was that she had a crappy childhood and feels the need to make movies about it, ala Vincent Gallo, instead of seeing a therapist, ala all of us who get on with our lives. There was nothing tender, nothing sweet, and nothing moving about this film. It was poorly enacted trash, and the actors could not save the Brett Ratneresque over the top "HEY THIS IS MY POINT IN THIS MOVIE" use of film techniques, writing, and acting. Sorry, but it was terrible.

Sentiment: negative
Since others have complained about putting Sherlock Holmes into a contemporary setting, I won't do that. Basil Rathbone could have fit in in any era with that voice, that savoir faire. This is a nicely put together mystery based loosely on "The Dancing Men," one of the best of Conan-Doyle's stories. Instead of the original plot, it makes the men part of a Nazi plot. Holmes becomes a spokesman for the British war effort. His adversary is Moriarity, who seems to die frequently enough to rival the central figure in the Friday 13th films. He is certainly creative, but the Rathbone Holmes is unflappable. Watson is just along for the ride in this one. He isn't given much stupidity to spout in this film and that's a real plus. The plot is complex enough to keep ones interest. There is a concluding speech that is almost a parody of itself. But then I can't be critical of a time and nation that was under great duress. If they needed to call in Holmes, so be it.

Sentiment: positive
What a dreadful movie. The effects were poor, especially by todays standards, but that was forgivable. What was unforgivable was the terrible rehashing of every flood/dam breaks disaster movie ever made into this piece of trash. The acting was awful and I mean AWFUL. The point in the story where Michelle Green stops to rescue a dog from the approaching torrent was hilarious. They see the water approaching and run for their lives. (By the way they had to find a very old fat dog so as to not make Ms Green look to unfit). They manage to outpace the water for some time before taking refuge. What speed! Later, a speeding car is not fast enough to escape the torrent. God, she and that dog did run fast! If you want to watch a good movie about a dam breaking - this isn't it. Porchlight Entertainment turn out some good family films but this time they just missed the mark.

Sentiment: negative
Let me put it another way: balls. Or, how about bollo*ks. This is truly awful, more embarrassing than those it attempts to satirise. Julia Roberts is a skilled actress, and usually her work is of the highest standard. This movie is so lacking in direction even she struggles to look proficient. Normally she is the consummate professional, yet I swear that in her eyes, there were signs of bewilderment and despair.

The one thing that might have rescued this move was the idea about the director (Chris Walken) turning the movie into a secret documentary about the actors. Unfortunately, that theme wasn't explored to it's full potential. Too little, too late.

Zeta Jones was wooden, Cusack was Cusack, and Crystal should stick to acting. The two talented ex-Buffy stars had different experiences - Green hopelessly mis-cast, and Balfour under-used. Well done to Julia for just about preventing this from being the worst movie ever made.

Sentiment: negative
New Year's Day. The day after consuming a few too many vodka martinis and Cosmopolitans mixed with a bunch of bubbly at midnight, my wife and I discovered the local cable company is offering up the digital specialty channels for free for the month of January. We had a choice - do we make use of the freebie channels or do we start watching the eight seasons of X-Files on DVD that we received from our daughter for Christmas?

We elected for the digital freebie since the DVDs are going nowhere and we need something like ten twelve-hour days to watch all the X-Files beginning to end. The Drive-In channel was offering a horror classic three movie marathon: Asylum (1972), House of the Damned (1996) and The Pit and the Pendulum (1961). Asylum is well-reviewed here and the Pit and the Pendulum was on too late for us to watch which meant we could really only be properly critical for House of the Damned.

To be honest, we tried to be serious about the movie since its stars have reasonably good acting credentials - Greg Evigan (William Shatner's over-written Tekwars) and Alexandra Paul (the only Baywatch babe who could act although she has the body of a ten-year-old boy). Unfortunately, we soon dissolved to giggles, under the influence of a little hair-of-the-dog, as we each shouted out the names of movies from which this dog borrowed its scenes: Poltergeist, The Shining, Hell House, House On Haunted Hill, Ghost Busters!

The acting, especially by Evigan's real-life daughter, wasn't too bad considering the silly script they had to work with. The CGI, for 1996, was hilarious - at its worst point in the final scene when it should have been the most horrific it was so bad my wife and I dissolved in laughter.

Overall: Acting 4/5, Script 2/5, SFX 0/5

Sentiment: negative
Back in my days as an usher "Private Lessons" played at the 4-plex I was working. It was a sleeper hit selling out Friday and Saturday nights for several weeks. I never got around to seeing it but saw that it was on cable this last weekend, so I decided to give it a shot. What I witnessed for the next 90 minutes was one of the worst movies I have ever seen and one that made me terribly uncomfortable to watch.

The basic story is a teenage boy lusts after his sexy maid (Sylvia Kristel). She, too, seems to feel an attraction towards the boy but for more sinister reasons. So we get scenes of the boy watching her undress and her inviting him in to watch. And it goes from there.

Eric Brown, as the teenage boy, has to be one of the worst actors I have ever seen. His "scared" reactions to every time Sylvia takes off a piece of clothing or when she touches him are horrible. I didn't laugh a single time during this piece of junk.

And let's not get started on the subplot of the maid and chauffeur planning to extort money from the kid. Let's just say it involves faking a death, burying a body.... I could go on and on but it gets more ridiculous.

The sex scenes are the worst I have ever seen. Even though Eric Brown was older then he looked, the fact is he looks like a baby. It appears he has no idea how to kiss a woman (if THAT was acting then maybe I should re-think my criticisms of Brown) and it just came too close to bordering on child pornography to be erotic. I have never been so turned off by a sex scene even though Miss Kristel is quite beautiful with and without clothes.

**SPOILER WARNING** I must make mention of the last scene. To me it's just plain sick but I can remember audiences cheering as the film freeze framed and dissolved into credits. Our hero returns to school and begins a flirtation with one of the female teachers. He asks her out for dinner and she gives him a look as if Tom Cruise has just asked her out. She nods affirmatively and he walks away, smiling at the camera in triumph. GIVE ME A BREAK! Yes I am sure teachers all over would just risk everything for a plain looking teenage kid.

I will never understand the appeal this film had in 1982. Certainly it was more then the nudity because there were plenty of teen sex comedies with nudity that bombed at the box office. And to think that these same teenagers that cheered that movie 22 years ago are now working their way up corporate ladders and possibly helping to run this country. THAT is a scary thought.

Sentiment: negative
The Dukes of Hazzard will academy awards!! Best actor and actress 4 the persons who can say with a straight face that this was a great movie.

This "movie" was a torture to watch. So sad how an weekly half hour entertainment was destroyed by these amateurs.The only good thing about this crap was the car! I remember when Daisy was a real threat to look 4ward 2. Who's the moron that decided that Jessica Simpson is hot?! We know she can't act but come on. In the TV show Daisy was a fox and brunette.

All members who contributed in these waste of time please please please don't even think about makin a sequel, a prequel or anything that's got 2 do with a former TV show.

I gave a empty DVD so this "movie" could be burned 4 me. I sat trough it and i want my money back!

Sentiment: negative
This is really a new low in entertainment. Even though there are a lot worse movies out.

In the Gangster / Drug scene genre it is hard to have a convincing storyline (this movies does not, i mean Sebastians motives for example couldn't be more far fetched and worn out cliché.) Then you would also need a setting of character relationships that is believable (this movie does not.) 

Sure Tristan is drawn away from his family but why was that again? what's the deal with his father again that he has to ask permission to go out at his age? interesting picture though to ask about the lack and need of rebellious behavior of kids in upper class family. But this movie does not go in this direction. Even though there would be the potential judging by the random Backflashes. Wasn't he already down and out, why does he do it again? 

So there are some interesting questions brought up here for a solid socially critic drama (but then again, this movie is just not, because of focusing on "cool" production techniques and special effects an not giving the characters a moment to reflect and most of all forcing the story along the path where they want it to be and not paying attention to let the story breath and naturally evolve.) 

It wants to be a drama to not glorify abuse of substances and violence (would be political incorrect these days, wouldn't it?) but on the other hand it is nothing more then a cheap action movie (like there are so so many out there) with an average set of actors and a Vinnie Jones who is managing to not totally ruin what's left of his reputation by doing what he always does.

So all in all i .. just ... can't recommend it.

1 for Vinnie and 2 for the editing.

Sentiment: negative
Another example of the women-in-prison genre. This is not exactly a genre known for quality films, but this is a notch below most. A bunch of women are taken from the bordellos where they work to a prison on a rocky island. Once there, they are subjected to lots of poorly directed sex and atrocious "dialog." For a film with an astounding amount of sex and nudity there is really nothing erotic about any of it. The sex scenes are awkwardly acted, and some scenes, like the shower scene, seem to drag on and on. That said, there are at least some minimal production values. On the W-i-P scale I would put it above Frauen fur Zellenblock Neun, but below Chained Heat.

Sentiment: negative
In Manhattan, the American middle class Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) lives with his wife Muriel (Myrna Loy) and two teenage daughters in a four bedroom and one bathroom only leased apartment. Jim works in an advertising agency raising US$ 15,000.00 a year and feels uncomfortable in his apartment due to the lack of space. When he sees an advertisement of a huge house for sale in the country of Connecticut for an affordable price, he drives with his wife and the real estate agent and decides to buy the old house without any technical advice. His best friend and lawyer Bill Cole (Melvyn Douglas) sends an acquaintance engineer to inspect the house, and the man tells that he should put down the house and build another one. Jim checks the information with other engineers and all of them condemn the place and sooner he finds that he bought a "money pit" instead of a dream house.

"Mr. Blandings Builds his Own House" is an extremely funny comedy, with witty lines and top-notch screenplay. Cary Grant is hilarious in the role of a man moved by the impulse of accomplishing with the American Dream of owning a huge house that finds that made bad choice, while losing his touch in his work and feeling jealous of his friend. In 1986, Tom Hanks worked in a very funny movie visibly inspired in this delightful classic, "The Money Pit". My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Lar, Meu Tormento" ("Home, My Torment")

Sentiment: positive
It has past almost 25 years since I saw this movie. I would consider this film as an all time classic in a drama category. Anthony Queen gives one of the most wonderful performances ever. In a matter of minutes he takes you from laugh to tears. This movie represents a splendid picture of how humanity changed after the II World War. How a great part of that generation and the forthcoming lost its innocence. It has taken me long time to find this film by its name "the 25th hour". This type of films are not a moneymakers but they are for sure a treasure for some. I am very surprise why this movie is not used for the media in a broaden way in order for more people to enjoy this picture.

Sentiment: positive
Since I had loved the Inspector Gadget cartoon in the 80's, I went to see this movie. I wasted my money. The plot was very thin. Also, the movie could not keep me interested for long. I was glad it was over.

If you want to see Inspector Gadget, watch the cartoon instead. It was much better than the movie.

Sentiment: negative
Definitely at the top five of best John Garfield movies has to be Pride of the Marines. It's the true story of Marine private Al Schmid who at the cost of his own sight, while wounded held off a horde of storming Japanese on Guadalcanal. 

The story nicely segments in three parts, Al Schmid's home life where he's a simple working stiff who's just getting serious with a woman and who likes nothing better than his bowling night. Pearl Harbor is bombed and he's off to war as millions of others were.

The second part is at Guadalcanal and we see part of the action where he's in an isolated machine gun nest, holding off Japanese troops. His action prevented Marine positions from being overrun, but a grenade does in his eyesight.

And of course the third part is his painful adjustment to civilian life and to reassure himself that people aren't just caring for him out of pity, most of all that girl he was seeing Eleanor Parker.

This film was broadcast on TCM on John Garfield's 95th birthday and there was a documentary on Garfield hosted by his daughter. One of the people interviewed said that Garfield was the actor most believable in working class roles in having and holding a union card. 

In that respect he was lucky in that he did land with Warner Brothers in Hollywood. Though he kept getting typecast in gangster roles in the tradition of that studio, Garfield was terrific in these parts because of his background, because he came from the kind of life Al Schmid had, with the exception of Garfield's Jewish background.

In that respect he was perfect to play the part of a working class hero like Al Schmid who accepted the responsibility of defending his country. No super heroics here, just a guy who'd rather have been back in Philadelphia, but doing a job that had to be done.

It's a great part for Garfield. It's a film one shouldn't miss. I do wonder though whatever happened to the real Al Schmid.

Sentiment: positive
When Paris is Burning came out, I totally dismissed it. I was not into the whole Madonna and vogueing phenomenon. I thought it was going to be campy and silly. How wrong I was about this movie. I watched it after the movie had been out for ten years and I ran out and bought it. It took me back to a time and place of fun and excitement. I felt as though I knew all of the characters personally. The 80s were spectacular and the movie captured the essence of the gay culture. What a terrific job! I went on the internet and found out what some of the original casts members were doing now but I have not been able to locate all of them. If any one has any information on any of the casts members please let me know. 

I hope they make another documentary. I LOVED IT

Sentiment: positive
Believe me, I wanted to like "Spirit". The idiotic comments people made at the time of its release about how quaint it was to see old-fashioned, hand-drawn animation again, as if the last pencil-animated cartoon had been released twenty years ago, and the even more idiotic comments about how computers had now made the old techniques obsolete, had got my blood up ... but then, the insulting, flavourless banality I had to endure in the first ten minutes of "Spirit" got my blood up even more.

The character designs are generic, the animation (partly as a result) merely competent, the art direction as a whole so utterly, boringly lacklustre that you wonder how it could have come about (we know, from "The Prince of Egypt" and "The Road to El-Dorado", that there are talented artists at Dreamworks), and the sophisticated use of CGI is in every single instance ill-judged. (Why do they bother?) There's not a single thing worth LOOKING at. In an animated cartoon, this is fatal.

But it gets worse...

The horses can't talk, but they're far more anthropomorphised and unconvincing than the deer in "Bambi", which can. And it seems that, in a way, the horses CAN talk. Spirit himself delivers the prologue (sounding for all the world like a 21st-Century actor picked out of a shopping mall in California), and from then on his laid-back, decidedly unhorselike narration is scarcely absent from the soundtrack, although it never once tells us anything that we didn't already know, or expresses a feeling which the artwork, poor though it is, wasn't capable of expressing twice as well. That prologue, by the way: (a) contains information which Spirit, we later discover, had know way of knowing; (b) expresses ideas which Spirit would lack the power to express even if he COULD talk; (c) includes new age rubbish like, "This story may not be true, but it's what I remember"; and (d) will give countless children (the production is pitched, I presume, at six-year-olds) the impression that horses are native to North America, which is sort of true, in that the common ancestor of domestic horses, zebras etc. WAS native to North America - but all horse species on the continent had gone extinct long before the first humans arrived, and the mustangs of Spirit's herd (which allegedly "belong here like the buffalo grass") were descended from horses introduced by Europeans.

So the prologue rather annoyed me.

As often as Spirit talks, Bryan Adams sings, sounding as usual as though he's got a bad throat infection - and it's not THAT he sings or even HOW he sings, it's WHAT he sings: maudlin narrative ballads which contribute even less, if possible, than Spirit's spoken narrative, and which sound as though they all have exactly the same tune (although I was paying close attention, and was able to discern that they probably didn't). If only Bryan Adams and the guy-pretending-to-be-a-horse could have SHUT UP for a minute or two, the movie might have been allowed to take its true form: mediocre and derivative, rather than jaw-droppingly bad.

Sentiment: negative
The first 10 minutes of the movie makes fun of sequels and pg-13 movies. These are the 2 reasons the movie is so bad. They constantly reference a movie called "Get Leo" which is the movie-in-a-movie version of get shorty. Every time they do this, you will be really angry. Travolta isn't very cool, neither is Keitel. However, The Rock and Vince Vaughn are hilarious. They aren't the kind of funny you would expect to see in an Elmore Leonard movie though. If you haven't seen get shorty, you will probably like be cool. If you liked get shorty, you will leave the theater wanting to kill the director and screenwriter. Wait for the DVD.

Sentiment: negative
There have been many movies featuring Bigfoot, the majority of which are not good but most at least have a goofy charm to them. Sasquatch Hunters doesn't even have that going for it. It's just a crashing bore.

Sasquatch Hunters is about a group of paleontologists, primatologists, and forest rangers that venture off into a remote part of a Pacific Northwest forest. Bones belonging to some sort of abnormally large primate have been discovered in this region and since apes aren't natural to North America to begin with this leads to a scientific expedition. Sure enough, they soon discover a whole burial ground full of the skeletal remains of these enormous ape-like creatures. I think we all know what happens to people that disturb ancient burial grounds in the movies.

The first half of the movie consists of uninteresting, interchangeable characters assembling their gear, hiking through the woods, stopping to rest, hiking through the woods some more, pausing long enough to investigate and discuss a few findings along the way, yet more hiking through the woods, looking for a group member that has vanished, even more hiking through the woods, digging through dirt, random theorizing, and gathering around a campfire to discuss what little they've done that day. When Sasquatch finally shows up it just turns into people stumbling around in the dark while being picked off one at a time (done in a blink and you missed it fashion and the actual killing occurs off-camera). All of this is excruciatingly boring.

The movie wants to be taken seriously and the director is clearly trying to build suspense but there is none to be found, thus we are left with dull, drawn out scenes of people wandering around the woods just to get somewhere and wander around the woods at night trying to act scared. I'd be lying if I said I didn't make liberal use of the fast forward button to speed these scenes up.

As for Sasquatch himself, much like every other character else in the movie, it doesn't have much to do and lacks a distinct personality. It looks like a shaggier version of King Kong, which isn't all that bad except in the scenes where they used CGI instead of a man in a Bigfoot costume, which is painfully obvious during the daylight monster scenes. A part of me can't help but feel that even using computer effects to bring Bigfoot to life is a tad sacrilegious. If there is any single movie monster that I believe should only be brought to life through situation, it's Bigfoot.

This is one of those movies that doesn't so much have a plot as it does a premise. That's all it really is, a premise, which the people involved stretched out to make a feature length motion picture without bothering to add all the ingredients to make a worthwhile movie.

Sentiment: negative
I have to say that this movie was really quite awful. the acting was average the pacing of the movie was terrible as well as the soundtrack and cinematography.i found that i was bored in most parts of the movie and the cliché lines did nothing for me. the two boys that played the main roles looked terrible at times and did'nt pull off the emotion that was needed in the movie. the little girl was creepy at times and looked like a doll which was scary. the ending wasn't satisfying although the movie to be over the ending didn't make me feel anything for the characters. this movie was boring and did nothing for me, I recommend this movie to no one.

Sentiment: negative
This is a weird and compelling film. The topic, about the atom bombs created at Los Alamos, NM in the USA and used on Japan during the latter part of World War II, is huge, and of course deeply disturbing. The film's plot takes on a lot of heavy issues and the actors have to carry much of the creative tension. I had never seen the film, or was much interested in it I have to admit, until I read the book "Smoking in Bed: Conversations with Bruce Robinson." Robinson wrote the story and screenplay. I think the film was better than I expected from reading Robinson's point of view in the conversations about it, but I can see how he thought it got derailed. I think Paul Newman is pretty good, but is somehow at bottom, miscast. He's too Hollywood. At one point, a big, mean-looking guy storms into Newman's office and has such a striking presence, I immediately thought he should be playing the character Newman is playing. The other lead, who plays the head scientist, is also fairly good, but somehow not brilliant enough to portray the huge angst that goes with the part - the immense responsibility for creation of an ultimate machine of death and destruction. One of the more effective characters seems to be a composite personality, played by John Cusack. He is oddly affecting throughout, and in the end, is the character whose fate really hits home and who made me think most vividly of the fate of more than 200,000 Japanese people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Sentiment: positive
Well this film has certainly had a fair amount of hype; From the buzz at the Toronto Film Festival to gushing reviews on CBC Radio. A refreshing, wacky, hilarious indie movie apparently. I'd been looking forward to it for months.

How can I put it this simply? It sucked in a very big way. An exercise in cinematic lameness that makes Adam Sandler look like a comic genius.

At best it was mildly amusing and at worst coma inducing. An amerterish script badly directed and shoddily edited into a ramshackle mess.

And what was with the music being 500db louder than the rest of the sound track? That was about the only truly odd thing about it.

If you want to see a genuinely funny, bizarre movie involving aliens then try Repoman. There is no comparison!

Sentiment: negative
To some of us, director Ernst Lubitsch, adored for his underlying cheekiness and ironic comic touches, was rather wet when it came to picking material. It isn't that Lubitsch is overrated--on the contrary, he probably was ahead of his time in terms of a visual narrative--yet the projects he became attached to (or was assigned to) are not quite the landmarks of comedy his fans like to label them. With "Heaven Can Wait", a screen-adaptation of Lazlo Bus-Fekete's play "Birthday", Lubitsch is saddled with sleepy Don Ameche in the lead--and the combination of an anemic plot, a colorless star, and a musty flashback-framework stymies the director. A wicked man at the turn of the century "falls asleep without realizing it", presenting the facts of his life in front of Hell's entrance. Ameche...wicked? That was problem number one. The promising opening sequence (set in the Hades lobby) quickly gives way to dreary whimsy, and the supporting cast is of little help. *1/2 from ****

Sentiment: negative
The Life and Time of Little Richard, as told by Little Richard, as produced and directed by Little Richard, was about as one sided as one of his songs. This is not a biography or even a docudrama, but does have good writing, great energy and an outstanding leading actor playing Richard. All the music is by Little Richard, so it rocks a tight lipsync on every song.

The movie covers his early childhood, carrys thru the formative years in music, the wild success and Richard's throwing it all away to praise the Lord. Its all tied together well and the obvious comeback in 1962 manages to stay away from the idea that Little Richard discovered the Beatles, whom opened for him.

My main objection is that his outrageous, counter cultural behavior is underplayed and you get no feel for how his audience experienced him at that time. Some of his energy, which he still has, does not come across full force. He seemed tame, compared to what I remember of him at the time.

The best scenes are Richard getting jilted by Lucille and writing a song about it and the strip to bikini shorts while performing, to make the point about not having a decent place to change.

If they had gotten into the "Bronze Liberace" as Richard use to refer to himself in interviews, then there's a story. Trust me I just saw him perform a couple of months ago and he still flirts with the pretty white boys, giving the one particularly good dancer in the audience, his headband. Nearly 68 and still going strong I recommend this movie and any concert or T.V. appearance you can find. Little Richard is always on

Sentiment: positive
Don't listen to what the critics have always said about this cute, charming little movie. Madonna is GREAT in this clever comedy. I worked at a video store for several years and suggested this movie to lots of customers- no one EVER brought it back and screamed at me for telling them to rent it. Everyone always enjoyed it. It's actually a great movie for kids, too.

Sentiment: positive
I caught this little gem totally by accident back in 1980 or '81. I was at a revival theatre to see two old silly sci-fi movies. The theatre was packed full and (with no warning) they showed a bunch of sci-fi short spoofs (to get us in the mood). Most were somewhat amusing but THIS came on and, within seconds, the audience was in hysterics! The biggest laugh came when they showed "Princess Laia" having huge cinnamon buns instead of hair on her head. She looks at the camera, gives a grim smile and nods. That made it even funnier! You gotta see "Chewabacca" played by what looks like a Muppet! It was extremely silly and stupid...but I couldn't stop laughing. Most of the dialogue was drowned out because of all the laughter. Also if you know "Star Wars" pretty well it's even funnier--they deliberately poke fun at some of the dialogue. This REALLY works with an audience! A definite 10!

Sentiment: positive