DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
The problem this film has is the same problem the TV series had and that`s the laddish Stan and Jack . There`s nothing wrong with laddish characters but Stan and Jack are played by actors who seem to be in their late 40s/ early 50s ! And there`s something objectionable - not to mention crediblity defying - as they cop off with girls young enough to be their daughters

As for the rest of HOLIDAY ON THE BUSES , I found it instantly forgettable . It`s basically a 30 minute episode spun out to 90 minutes with having all the action take place at a holiday camp instead of a bus station

Amazingly almost a third of voters on this site have given it a 10 ! Come on guys , this film doesn`t deserve more than a 5

Sentiment: negative
It's the one film I almost walked out of, and would have if my friends hadn't been in the movie theatre with me. Normally, even if I don't like a film, I think it's still worth sitting through it to the end. That way, you can really claim to have given it every chance to redeem itself. But with The Million Dollar Hotel, it was so dreadful I just badly wanted the experience to end as quickly as possible. I think I probably would not have been so sourly disappointed if this film had been made by a lesser director, one I didn't normally like so much. But coming from Wenders, it was all the more shocking to behold. I know Bono from U2, a good friend of Wenders's, wrote the script to this abysmal film, and I wonder why Wenders let him, as buddy-buddy as the two may have been. "Stick to the day job, Bono", is a sentence that easily springs to mind whilst viewing this mess. Pretentious, disjointed, a mish-mash of every possible contemporary film stereotype, a naive and transparent attempt at coming across as kooky and daring, with the most irritating characters I have ever set eyes upon, especially the leads, Jeremy Davies, Milla Jovovich and Mel Gibson, none of whom I dislike normally. The happiest ending I could have wished for would have been for a nuclear bomb to be dropped on their collective heads so as to get it all over with as soon as possible. On a positive note, the first five minutes of the film are extremely good, with an extremely stirring soundtrack from U2. But the film's opening shots make the rest of the film (which takes a spectacular nose-dive from then on) all the more disappointing as they are a promise of cinematic quality that's just never delivered, not even close.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is simply awesome.It was a very sensitive issue and movie was superb.This movie did not create any controversy in India (as far as i know) and its publicity was also kept low.Initially i thought that this movie would simply be a waste of time since most of the Indian directors and producers used to change the theme even though its very sensitive and adds a love story in original story and spoils the whole thing...most of the Indian viewers would agree on this topic if they remember Ashoka, Mangal Pandey,LOC etc..

There have been so many movies in India which would have become milestone or mega hits if the love story part would not be unnecessarily added.

But its treatment is pretty similar to Pinjar movie (also a must watch).

If it counts then i would like to thank Anil Kapoor ( producer ) and Firoz Abbas Khan ( the director) for making such a great movie..

Sentiment: positive
As much as 'The Beginning' showed that we're still going to get "classic" x-files, Drive showed that the X-Files was going to explore new territory. They start by giving us a unique teaser to Drive, with the news camera footage. It was an interesting transition from the the TV to the real events. I would've liked it even better if they had kept that news footage camera for the entire teaser and not cut to the inside of the car. Upon viewing this episode live back in 1998 I was thinking, "Am I on the right channel?" That first autopsy by Scully flooded me with big words that I don't understand. I think she learned her lesson to ALWAYS wear a mask before performing an autopsy. Silly Scully! What is the deal with the lighting in the autopsy lab? It's as dark as a tomb in there! How are they supposed to see what they're doing in there? Assistant Director Kersh gets his first lines in this episode. I have no love lost for that man. He is the third recurring character in a row that is introduced that you love to hate, the first two being Diana Fowley and Jeffrey Spender. I guess the producers felt that there was too much love going on for Mulder, Scully and Skinner. So they needed to add some characters to give our favorite agents some grief and incite our ire as fans. I love the quarantine suits worn by Scully and her team with the cool helmet light bulbs. Boy. It's really smoky or foggy in DRY northern Nevada at night. Can we say the word "effect"? Drive is a cool episode, but looking at route 36 on my U.S. atlas, there's no way Mulder could've maintained a speed of 70-100 MPH on that road. If he had been on I-80, the freeway, maybe. But no way on a state road with that many curves. All of the filming inside the car looked very authentic. Excellent job by Rob Bowman. It looks nothing like the old days of the obvious blue screen or clip of passing scenery outside a car window on a stage. This was a fun episode, but some of the inaccuracies keep it from being a great episode. It keeps you on the edge of your seat, so hold on for a fast ride!

Sentiment: positive
The message of Hero is quite clear: the idea of Greater China is more important than the death and the suffering of millions. At a time when China is dangling its war toys over Taiwan, it is unacceptable for Western viewers to endorse this piece of over-produced, government-sponsored, dogmatic trash.

Particularly surprising is the promotion of this film by the liberal media. Roger Ebert of Chicago Tribune, David Edelstein of Slate, Charles Taylor of Salon, and many others have wholeheartedly endorsed Hero. In so doing, they have implicitly legitimated its reactionary political message. The only critic (that I know of) who saw through the film's glossy facade was J. Hoberman of The Village Voice, who wrote of the film's "sanctimonious traditionalism" and its "glorification of ruthless leadership and self-sacrifice on the altar of national greatness." I, for one, sign my name under Hoberman's final pronouncement: Hero is nothing more than "fascinating fascism."

Sentiment: negative
I just cant see what everyone sees in this movie. The acting is just awful, the choice of music is, mildly putting it, peculiar, there arent enough fighting scenes, the plot is non-existent and whatever small entertainment one could get from this film is ruined by the annoying way some of the movie is filmed and gives you a splitting headace.

Sentiment: negative
It was good to see John Denver again though he passed several years ago. I found this film to be very heartwarming and a great film to sit by the fire on a cold winters night recollecting what Christmas is all about. The scenes of Georgetown, Colorado were magnificent and make one want to move there immediately. As I sit here in my own mountain seen in So California I loved the story and the plot. I hope all who see this somewhat older film enjoy it as much as my mother and I did. Merry Christmas! A great film for all the family too see. Enoy and tell others about it. Thanks for the memories. We need to have more films like this come out of Hollywood.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is the second worst film that I have ever seen (the first being Ghost Rider). There is absolutely no plot, climax, conflict, or any other major detail required in portraying a story. This 'film' is basically just another excuse for Toby Keith to show off his manly side and, the 'tough guy he really is'. I completely wasted my time watching this film. The best part would have to be the ending credits. If I were Ebert or Roper, I would have cut my thumbs off and thrown them at the producers. Whoever in their right mind gave Toby Keith the chance to act in a feature film, is obviously on the same mental level as him. In conclusion, do not waste your time watching this movie, it could quite possibly be the only thing you regret.

Sentiment: negative
Those reviewers who have complained that this movie lacks plausibility or has problems of construction are missing the point. This is a wonderfully camp romance, with plenty of Play, gypsies! Dance, gypsies! music, that both sends up exotic love stories and celebrates them. Buttoned-up Ray Milland makes an amusing foil for a Dietrich with black hair, tattered scarves, and tons of jewelry. The character's eagerness to feed Milland and look after him more closely resembles the good German hausfrau Dietrich was off the set than her mannered vamp roles. Censorship being in force, it's made clear that they share a caravan on platonic terms only, with Milland fighting off Dietrich's advances with a determination remarkable for a heterosexual bachelor who might be killed any day. His only excuse is that she smells, so perhaps a stuffy, fastidious Englishman might indeed be put off.

In the small role of Milland's young companion on his secret mission, Bruce Lester adds a note of camp of a different kind. We are told at the beginning that he hero-worships Milland, and indeed he rather fawns on him. When, after they are separated, he meets Milland, now transformed into a brown-skinned gypsy with a shirt open to the waist, his glowing appreciation of the disguise even further suggests that not only Dietrich is romantically infatuated with Milland.

Despite the wonderfully improbable characters and sequence of events, the growing love of Milland for Dietrich and his acceptance of the non-rational aspects of life is rather touching. And when, on their last night alone before he escapes, he says that each of them now contain half of the other, the two have become one, and then darkness falls, I think we can assume that the censor decided to give them a break! One goof--at the beginning, Milland, who is supposed to be English, refers to a lieutenant, using the American pronunciation. (The English say "leftenant.") Since Milland was British, he must have been saying it that way because the American movie-makers feared that American audiences would be distracted and confused by the British style.

Sentiment: positive
Yes, why? Among the filmmakers that came out in the 80's and 90's Gus Van Sant is one of my idols. There are others, a few. Steven Sodebergh, PT Anderson, Tim Hunter, Danny Boyle, Martin Donovan, Harmony Korine, Wes Anderson. Idiosyncratic, infuriating some times, but consistent, surprising, unpredictable. Their names make me switch on the TV, go to a video store or even buy a ticket and go to a movie theater. Van Sant's "Psycho" however, gives me pause. Why? I wonder. A shot by shot massacre of one of the perennial classics. The color was jarring, the performances, atrocious. What was Vince Vaughn doing? Was it a parody? A bad joke? What the hell was it? Anne Heche as Janet Leigh? Who dressed her? Viggo Mortensen with a cowboy hat. Viggo is a superb actor but in this case he couldn't make us forget John Gavin and if Julianne Moore had been introduced to the world through this performance there wouldn't have been any "The Hours" for her, "The Minutes" maybe. So, here I am, bad mouthing the work of one of my idols. The crashing question remains: Why, Mr. Van Sant? Maybe, in the words of President Clinton, because he could. I'm afraid that's no excuse.

Sentiment: negative
A lot of people are flaming this film for the presence of Paris Hilton, but this is not a fair reason to object to the movie. The reality is that Paris has a fairly minimal part, she spends the vast majority of the movie off screen. The film also makes fun of her on several occasions, usually involving a camera and at least once in night vision. For those who enjoy Paris Hiltons stage presence, this may be a movie to see at home when its released on video, because at the screening I was at, we all laughed at her misfortunes through the movie and she is portrayed as a "woman of questionable values".

The movie itself was pretty good (unlike the recent flood of weak horror flicks), it has everything a good horror should; a creepy villain, excessive violence, acts which make that average person cringe...this movie hit all the bases. It is definitely worth a watch.

Sentiment: positive
'In the Line of Fire' is one of those Hollywood films that shows up on tv quite a bit, but although I've seen it a few times, I usually end up sitting through the whole thing again. Why? - It's GOOD! Clint Eastwood is great as usual, and the character he plays is interesting and more fleshed out than usual. The character, Secret Service agent Frank Horrigan, is haunted by the fact that he was on the detail that failed to protect President Kennedy in Dallas, and now he's forced to match wits with a professional assassin that is openly declaring that he will kill the president. However, the film doesn't make him a depressed, brooding, and obsessed character. He's charming and personable, and is realistic as a guy that has experienced a lot in life and is comfortable in his own skin. He's even quite convincing when he flirts with the pretty younger agent played by Rene Russo. The killer, played by John Malkovich at his best, is cerebral, deliberate, and enjoys playing high stakes games of life and death. He even goes by the name of another presidential assassin, John Booth.

 The film is consistently enjoyable, and it delivers all the goods - suspense, action, romance, and drama - all in their proper amounts. It's a fun film that is really helped by the great actors in it!

Sentiment: positive
The movie is steeped in religion, so it is impossible to separate it from religion in commenting upon it. In my opinion, this movie pretends to explore deep issues, but thrives on stereotypes and prejudices; with little true insight. What the people in the movie (and therefore, the writer) failed to see was grace. They failed to understand that God is the author of beauty and He is the Creator of passion and sexual gratification in the proper context of marriage bonds. To imply that the people of the society in which the story is based believe that nudity is sinful, and both the man & the woman enjoying the act of marriage is dirty, is just an oversimplification. Such stereotypes really don't exist, for even Jewish holy writings speak clearly of the caring husband who will seek his wife's pleasure before his own. Scripture says that a man ought to love his wife as his own flesh, and that no man ever hated his own flesh, but he nourishes and cherishes it. Even if you want to ignore the New Testament, the writers & characters completely ignore that there are passages such as the Song of Solomon in the Old Testament, and the even the book of Proverbs which says, "Rejoice in the wife of thy youth, let her breasts satisfy you always"! How can that be read in any way other way than that God knows, and approves of, and smiles on, the marital union and the enjoyment thereof? Real men don't ignore the value and needs of their wives. Those that do deny a very basic teaching of the Judeo/Christian religion. God NEVER said those things. It's absurd. Sonia rebelled because of the misapplication of the teachings of the true God of Abraham. It didn't need to be so. How sad. What Sonia desperately needed was TRUTH, not tradition. In knowing, loving and obeying God, we love others more; before ourselves. That is the faith of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob & Joseph; once for all delivered to the Saints; bought & paid for by Jesus Christ, the Righteous. But alright, ignore all this and abandon ancient, holy Scripture and turn to the wisdom of homeless people & ghosts. That's a good plan. I would never recommend this movie; partly because the sexual content is unnecessarily graphic, but also because it really doesn't offer any valuable insight. Check out "Yentl" if you want to see a much more useful treatment of Jewish tradition at odds with society.

Sentiment: negative
As a poker enthusiast I was looking forward to seeing this movie - Especially as it had Scotty Nyugen in it.

Basically, Scotty Nyugens short spots in this film are all it has going for it.

The characters are unlikeable and annoying, the soundtrack is awful and the plot, well, there isn't one.

I honestly got a headache and found myself reading the barcode number on the DVD box after twenty minutes I was THAT bored. Its actually ashame that Nyugen was in this movie as otherwise I wouldn't have wasted $16 buying it off Ebay.

Take it from me - AVOID like 7 2 offsuit!!! Dire. :(

Sentiment: negative
The use of the term 'comedy' with relation to this documentary is an insult to the art of comedy, and worse yet is the pain that is inflicted on the viewers of this production. Almost nothing was funny.

This documentary followed a small group of stand-up 'comics' on the road as they travel from town to town to perform in small clubs.

It's interesting to note that their conversations and behavior off-stage and on-stage are indistinguishable, but sadly, equally unfunny.

It's possible to understand the self delusions of grandeur which the featured 'comedians' possess, but it's harder to grasp the sounds of laughter heard from their audiences. Perhas these are the same audiences for whom the lame sitcoms on TV are intended.

This was possibly the worst film I've ever watched in my 50+ years of movie viewing.

Sentiment: negative
One of the first OVA's ("original video animation") I ever bought, this still has to be one of my favourite anime titles. A cyberpunk sci-fi action comedy set against an unlikely (for a comedy, that is) background of near-future pollution in a dystopian society.

The "heroes" of Dominion are the Tank Police, formed with a "if we can't beat crime, we'll get bigger guns" philosophy, and who are, like the name suggests, patrolling the city in tanks instead of patrol cars, and who are actually far more dangerous than any criminals they are trying to catch. Most, if not all, of these cops are borderline(?) psychopaths and neurotics, giving new meaning to the phrase "loose cannons".

Equally colourful and amusing are their adversaries, terrorist Buaku and his hench(wo)men, the Twin Cat Sisters, whose existence always seems to involve giving the Tank Police a hard time.

The animation is not state of the art, but it's very nice otherwise; the colourful palette and cartoonish look of the characters and mecha fit nicely with the comedic atmosphere of Dominion.

The English dubbing is, again, lots of fun. The soundtrack of the English version is also very good. I wonder if they ever made a soundtrack album of that...

Anyway, Dominion Tank Police is great. It's Japanese cyberpunk SF with lots of comedy, filled with completely over-the-top characters and situations, making sure that it never takes itself seriously. Highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
First things first, how can someone with his creativity on the right side believe in a movie like this. I saw this movie and after end of couple of hours was left scratching my head, what exactly is director trying to say.

If its a thriller, there are no thrills, if its action, there is no action barring a chase sequence, there is no Drama, and the much touted love story, it actually never takes off. No passion, emotion nothing is there.

Actually I never expected wonders from the movie, however after the bumper opening it took, I thought of giving it a chance. I have no problems with Himesh Reshamiya whatsoever, and I am not one of the guys who will bash him at every given opportunity. I went in with an Open mind and came out with a closed one.

Let's not put the blame of Himesh Reshamiya, he is just a Debutant Actor. But direction, screenplay, writing, makeup, everything has gone for a toss.

Himesh is very stiff and would take a lot of time to come up the curve. He can do the don kind of roles. Hansika is just a kid, and it shows on screen with her baby fat and the way she walks.

The only actor who was good was the friend of Himesh in the movie, I don't know his name, but he looks promising.

Watch it at your own risk, not even good to watch it for a time pass viewing.

** Strongly recommend to avoid this Movie.**

Sentiment: negative
This cheapo remake of the terrific Five Star Final suffers from terrible acting. Humphrey Bogart stars as the manager of a sleazoid radio station that is desperate to boost sagging ratings. The owner decides to have a series of morality plays written about a famous murder case from 20 years ago. So they hire the fake preacher (Harry Hayden) to track down the murderess, who was acquitted and has been living quietly under a fake name. The preacher arrive on the daughter's wedding day, but the ruthless radio station refuses to back off exposing the mother and ruining their lives.

Bogart is always good. Hayden is good the the slimy preacher, and Henry O'Neill is good as the father. Everyone else is just awful. Helen McKeller wins no sympathy (crucial for the role), Linda Perry is a lousy actress, Beverly Roberts is OK but always looks old, Claire Dodd and Hobart Cavanagh have no parts, Carlyle Moore is a dud as the boy friend, Virginia Brissac is miscast as the society mother, Robert Middlemas overacts as the station owner.

This one comes in under an hour but is a pale copy of the original which boasted dynamic performances by Edward G. Robinson, Aline MacMahon, Frances Starr, and Boris Karloff. But it's always worth watching Boagrt.

Sentiment: positive
It wasn't until I looked at the trivia section that I found out that the original producer/star of this movie Tyrone Power died during its making . This no doubt explains why everyone on screen seems to have their minds on other things , a symptom of which appears in a very early scene involving a battle that can only be described as pathetic . You know when you've been painting a wall until you're completely bored ? Well that's the sort of expression the combatants have on their face when they're swinging their swords in a highly unconvincing manner 

The plot centres on Soloman the King of Israel having an affair with the Queen of Sheeba and his people not being happy about it . You can't really blame them since there's few things more beautiful in the world than those Israeli moteks , though the Israeli women here all seem to look like Cherie Blair ! Modern day Israel is also very cosmopolitan with the majority of Israelis being born outside the country but would this have been true a couple of thousand years ago where everyone speaks in European and American accents 

After much talking and a dance sequence that has to be seen to be believed ( And no that's not praise ) we have a climax where the heavily outnumbered Israelis have to defend themselves against a massed Egyptian army who can't read a map otherwise they would have known there was a canyon in front of them . This is what I don't get - Even though their blinded by the sun the Egyptians spend ten minutes charging towards the Israelis never ever realising they're charging towards a gaping ravine ! Isn't this somewhat illogical ? It's also something of a revealing error since the horses , chariots and men falling into the canyon are obviously miniature figures 

Anyway the film ends with Soloman killing his treacherous brother and praising God for his victory . But who needs Moshe Dayan , Arik Sharon or God when you've got an idiotic enemy who can't see a ravine in front of him or waves a sword like he paints a wall ?

Sentiment: negative
This film plays in the 60s and is about an Italian family: Romano, his wife Rosa and their two children Gigi and Giancarlo emigrate from Solino in Italy to Duisburg in the Ruhr area. I like this film, because I think it is quite realistic: it shows problems which many foreign families have when they come to another country: they have to get used to a new culture, a new environment and this can be difficult: especially if you don't know the language.... It is difficult for the family but they find a way: they open a restaurant which offers typical Italian food, and it is named "Solino", like their hometown. The film also shows different conflicts - Gigi and Giancarlo fall in love with the same girl, and although Rosa has to work very hard, Romano refuses to pay money to engage more workers, etc. etc. But stop, I don't want to tell you how it goes on. You should watch the film yourself, it's a nice one - I have also made a Referat about it and examined scenes which show different cultural attitudes. And there are a few...

Sentiment: positive
Despite its age, this film retains its undoubted charm and attraction, and is a fine, surviving example of early British cinema. It has an underlying air of eeriness, interspersed with shafts of humour which are not out of place, and serve to demonstrate the assured direction & production values involved. So many episodic type films are disjointed and untidy, but this is not one of them. The standard of acting helps a great deal, and the various disparate characters come across as interesting and believable. All in all, this long-forgotten little gem is well worth anyone's attention, in spite of the one jarring note in the film which, surprisingly, escaped the censor's attention!

Sentiment: positive
One of the best true-crime movies ever made and very faithful to Truman Capote's book which invented the true-crime novel genre. Haunting Quincy Jones musical score and terrific acting by Scott Wilson and Robert Blake as Dick and Perry, the killers. Why Wilson didn't go on to be a big star after this movie is a mystery to me.

The black and white cinematography and editing in this movie are top notch. The re-creation of the murders is frightening and since it leaves the actual murders to your imagination, even more scary than if they had shown the shotgun going off. The movie was filmed in the actual Clutter house which had been sold to another person after the murders. The movie has a very documentary feel---besides the scenes at the actual Clutter home other scenes were filmed at the gas stations and stores the killers actually went to. Nancy Clutter's beloved horse, Babe, is even in the movie. Will Geer has a great turn as the prosecutor in the short trial scene which is not only filmed in the actual courtroom but has several of the real Clutter murder jurors portraying themselves as the jury for the movie. 

This is a solid movie, scary every time you see it.

Sentiment: positive
The earlier review is pretty much on target, which Altman was NOT with this film. I haven't seen it since its original release but I have seldom spent two hours in a theater feeling as miserable and disappointed as I was with this film. If some pretentious community theater attempted a sci-fi version of a Ingmar Bergman film, it might come off like this. I can't bring myself to give anything Altman has made a "1" but this is probably the nadir of a career that has had some remarkable highs and lows. I would have walked out, but as a paid film critic I couldn't. (Think about that the next time you envy movie critics.)

Sentiment: negative
A tedious effort from not-yet great director Budd Boetticher and pretty but not-yet un-bland actress Nina Foch, this movie is, as one of the other reviewers notes, is the quintessence of a certain kind of B movie. It's just not the good kind. And a promising premise and an overactive fog machine is wasted.

Basic plot -- Nina, a nurse on leave from wartime duties on account of her nerves, has a nightmare. She meets a dashing fellow at the resort where she's giving her nerves a breather, and realizes he's in the dream, even though she's never met him before. Meanwhile, it turns out our dashing guy is working as a spy, and is about to go on an-extra secret, hush-hush mission that must not fail.

Of course, there are Nazis. And plot holes. And smart people acting in a fashion most likely to get them into entirely unnecessary scrapes, so that the running time can be spun out past an hour. At the end, the movie becomes a contest between which group of spies can act more foolishly. If the FBI and OSS had acted like this crew, we'd have lost the war in '42.

The movie itself is rather flatly shot (despite the best efforts of the fog machine) and the acting -- as it seems to be in many of the Columbia Bs TCM has been showing lately -- is curiously unengaged. It's less stylized than what one might find from a similarly budgeted Warner Bros movie, but also less fun to watch.

Boetticher's strength, of course, is a rather matter of fact style which allows the strong stories and acting in his Randolph Scott westerns to come to the fore. Maybe the problem here is that such a style is not going to work when the script is lousy and the actors tired from their five film a year schedule.

Sentiment: negative
I remember this movie from when i was 12, it was amazing.. i remember it to the day not like most thing i watched back then, i have even tried to buy it but its like rocking horse sh*t! Anyway, the acting is a bit chewy but the story is amazing considering it was a real B movie with a low budget and event the fighting scenes were amazing to watch, i must have watched it about 20 times. It was a very well made movie and i loved the idea of fighting giant man controlled robots, pity they had to spoil it by making a crappy spin off "Crash and Burn", don't watch that movie by the way it is total pants! If your a real Sci-Fi movie fan then watch this, if it was re-made today it would be a winner.. i really would love to see a remake or even release the DVD of it.

Sentiment: positive
This is an exquisite film about the search for some bliss in everyday life. The pacing, the camera work, the emotion, the haunting musical score and the pure charm of this picture make it a must see. It isn't easily appreciated by the immature or emotionally stunted. The only flaw I can see about this film is that it wasn't captured in a more technically perfect film format. It deserved Todd-AO, Technicolor and the very finest sound format available.(An intimate film can be made in seventy millimeter.) The gorgeous Italian villas effect on its inhabitants would have rendered even more lushly and the small lovely moments would be even more beautifully seen and heard. As it is, it still demands attention as a sweet moving small film. I can't stop myself from watching it every time it comes on satelite. The transformations of the characters from contained, tight and mistrustful is always a joy to watch and I really should recommend it more often.

The casting is perfect, the mood is perfect, the acting is above reproach. It is a film about middle age and the choices people make.It is deep and thoughtful without beating the viewer up with heavy handedness. Watch it in one sitting and let it have its effect on you. If you don't get it, perhaps you haven't lived enough, or something else is wrong with you.

Sentiment: positive
Eddie Murphy Delirious is by far the funniest thing you will ever see in your life. You can compare it to any movie, and I garuntee you will decide that Delirious is the funniest movie ever! This movie is about 1hr. 45 mins., and throughout that time, there was barely a moment where I wasn't laughing. You will laugh for hours after it is over, replaying the punch lines over and over and over in your head. Eddie Murphy has given so many funny performances over his career (48 Hrs.,Trading Places,Beverly Hills Cop,Raw,Coming To America, The Nutty professor,Shrek,etc.),but this is by far his MOST HILARIOUS moment. I have seen this movie so many times, and it is funnier every time. It never loses its edge. From this day forward, every great stand up performance will be emulated from Delirious. ***** and two thumbs up!

Sentiment: positive
What can I say? Not as bad as many here have made it out to be. The only reason I even watched this film that I had previously never heard of before, was strictly for IAN McSHANE.

I was not disappointed in the least. IAN McSHANE was absolutely brilliant and brings an amazing subtlety to his role. He's always great to watch and for my money... an extremely underused actor.

As for the rest of the film.... Every other actor in the movie delivered strong, solid performances. These people certainly weren't being paid huge amounts of cash for their participation (as this was a fairly low budget film) but this did not mean that any of them "mailed" their appearances in. Everyone was convincing and compelling with the parts given to them.

I was even pleasantly surprised at ADRIAN PAUL's performance though I must admit I have only ever seen him in the HIGHLANDER Television series before this movie.

The plot was well paced and the storyline intriguing and much like real life, not everything ends up tied in a nice neat little package for you at the end of the film. Anybody who expected a clear-cut, by-the-numbers, connect the dots "conclusion" or "answer" at the end of the movie... CLEARLY wasn't watching the film closely enough! This film is not going to tell you what the "meaning of life" is! The idea is that after seeing the film, you might go and discuss the unanswered questions with your friends over a coffee. I certainly did.

No car chases... No explosions... No bar room brawls.... (sounds pretty dull, huh?) But the reality is that I was completely absorbed by the film and it's just a well written little piece with an interesting hook and solid character performances by all parties involved.

****** WARNING...****** If you're the kind of person who dislikes movies that dangle an enormous "question" as the central engine of the story and then end the movie without answering that particular question directly...

YOU MIGHT NOT ENJOY THIS FILM.

Sentiment: positive
Somebody could probably make a great documentary about the Jerry Springer Show, but this fictionalized version merely succeeds in draining anything authentic and interesting out of the trash-TV phenomenon. There are dozens of famously bad movies (e.g. "Manos: The Hands of Fate") that show more creativity and spirit than this dreary, witless waste of film.

Seriously, why not a documentary about the Jerry Springer Show, that would begin to answer some of the real questions like: Who are these people? What happens to their lives after they appear on this show? How did the mayor of Cincinatti find himself here?

One good line: During an "orientation" session for guests: "People, I can't emphasize this enough: NO WEAPONS!"

Sentiment: negative
I just finished watching Dog Watch. I thought parts of the movie were hokey with more than a few implausibilities. The acting wasn't too bad and the plot wasn't bad. BUT, as the saying goes, the devil was in the details.

Some examples:

1) The bleed-through on Charlie Falon's (Sam Elliott) bandage was shown to be coming from the back of his hand while it was his knuckles that were bleeding.

2) Would a detective dispose of his murder victim from a very well-lighted area? This seemed very silly to me.

I am not unusually picky about a movie but, in my humble opinion, this one is definitely NOT recommended by me.

Sentiment: negative
I think I would probably not hate this movie if I spoke Polish. I selected the English version at the first menu, but it gave me Polish dialogue with English subtitles, just as the Polish version did. Maybe the dialogue was so disjointed because the person that did the subtitles could not translate it into English very well. To exacerbate the issue, some of the dialogue had no subtitles at all. The acting was pretty bad, especially the female lead, who was melodramatic about everything! One scene that bothered me was when a German woman was caught stealing and as the mob was jostling her around, her shirt opened and the director showed close-ups of her naked breast for the next 15-20 seconds. I couldn't see how her breast added to the drama of the scene or the film. Maybe the director was trying to increase the numbers of teenage boys in the audience. Much of the film takes place in an extermination camp liberated by the Americans. First, the "American" uniforms did not look anything like U.S. Army uniforms. Second, none of the extermination camps in Poland were liberated by the Americans. I would think that a Polish film director who turned 19 in 1945 would know better than an American born in 1966 that all six extermination camps were liberated by the Russians. All in all, it's just not a very good film if you don't speak Polish.

Sentiment: negative
I just wanna say that amongst all the so-called classic hiphop films Ive seen like Wild Style, KrushGroove, Breakin', Style Wars etc... IMO BEAT STREET is the best amongst the others. Whenever I ask other people about which is their fave, then it seems that BEAT STREET pops out the most. But still, its the lowest ranked of all. 4.3 is just a punch "under the belt" (If say, 5 points is the belt). I love the music performances, the breakdancing makes me wanna spin, RAMO makes me wanna throw a piece...c'mon, its a classic!!!

Sentiment: positive
You would think that a film that starred three of the biggest male film stars of the post World War II era would have become a classic. These three who also happen to be three favorites of mine, walk around in a daze, looking like they'd rather be any place, but there.

The sad thing is that The Way West definitely had some potential to be a classic. In these days of political correctness, a film about American pioneers and the travails of their westward migration is something not done now. It should have been better done back then.

Kirk Douglas is a former United States Senator who's heading a wagon train west to build a settlement in Oregon's Willamette Valley. Being he's an ex-politician, he rates above the hoi ploi he's leading. The script calls for him to have not only a covered wagon, but a carriage to lead the train.

You think that's ludicrous, you ought to see the whipping scene where Douglas orders his black servant, played by Roy Glenn to whip him. I won't spoil it by saying what causes Douglas to demand this of Glenn, but trust me, it's bad.

Robert Mitchum is the trail guide and of the three stars he looks the most bored. There was supposed to be considerable friction on the set between Widmark and Douglas, but Mitchum just saunters through the film above it all.

Maybe the friction helped somewhat because the movie calls for Douglas, a widower, to have an eye on Mrs. Widmark, played by Lola Albright. Now she's the best looking thing in the movie.

The film billing says introducing Sally Field. This was made in between her Gidget and her Flying Nun days. She plays a piece of white southern trash with the musical comedy name of Mercy McBee. We first see her in the movie sitting on the back of her parents wagon, legs akimbo and inviting. Of course she gets taken up on her invitation.

Her character is something like what's found in every trailer park in America and then again what was a wagon train, but one large trailer park on the move. 

Despite this film, Sally Field went on to a two Oscar career. What that woman had to overcome.

Victor McLaglen's son Andrew directed this item and together with a lousy script turned this into a turgid mess. Shame on Andrew McLaglen, he's certainly done better in his career.

And so will you, unless you're a stargazer.

Sentiment: negative
i was lucky enough to see A Chorus Line when it came to my city.. i was younger then.. but it was an Excellent play.. so would someone please tell me why in heavens name did they have to make a movie out of it.. and why Michael Douglas ??? He didnt suit the role.. this movie really sucked BIG time !!!

my advise is NOT to rent this movie.. save your money for something better like "Cats" ....

Sentiment: negative
I don't care if some people voted this movie to be bad. If you want the Truth this is a Very Good Movie! It has every thing a movie should have. You really should Get this one.

Sentiment: positive
Even with it's low budget this movie could have been worth watching if there was a story to tell here. It started out pretty good, and fairly engaging and believable. The actors and characters were interesting although there wasn't much character development. My favorite scene was when they were all eating their rations. Some seemed to hate it, and some seemed to think it wasn't too bad. The story starts out very airtight. And then... 

And then it dipped into a little horror which is usually a death sentence for most sci fi. Suddenly no scientific basis for any of the goings on. No real believable end game for the villain? No real explanation of what's going on. Generally if a movie has to use the F word for every other word it usually spirals down from there too. I still get offended believe it or not. I often wonder what inspires people to make bad sci fi? Isn't there a universe of fantastically good stories out there? Don't people feel like they are wasting their time and everyone else's when they put out stuff like this. Why do we get so much mediocre sci fi like this? No female actors/characters either? None at all? This had the makings to be another "Predator" but alas fell far far short. 

My final comment - poor editing and finally too low a budget to build a real campfire? What gives? 

My advice for any low budget sci fi movie production companies out there. Make sure you got a good story before you start, and edit out bad special effects - it's better we see nothing than something that looks fake or ridiculously fuzzy.

Sentiment: negative
Director Delbert Mann was a much better director than this film indicates. He directed ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, THAT TOUCH OF MINK, and THE LAST DAYS OF PATTON among others. This mediocre, made for television retelling of Dicken's masterpiece is so bad, even those unfamiliar with the often filmed tale, will be unsatisfied.

Besides the fact that the movie is available from only two known suppliers (Brentwood and BCI Eclipse LLC) the poor quality of the transfer, and the scratchy and muddied sound track make the task of finding this film on video not worth the effort.

I have always believed that if a company is going to put a film on video and charge the public money to buy it, then they should at least have a descent copy of the film and do a good job on the transfer. Unfortunately neither of the two suppliers have such a work ethic and the result is only fit for the bargain bin in the local discount store.

The story is told mainly through flashbacks, making the film episodic and talky. Much of the rich detail of the novel is lost in this translation. The characters of Martha, Traddles and others have been cut and the relationship of young David and Steerforth is not explored enough, so we are left wondering why David would hang out with the guy.

The relationship between David the boy, and young Agnes is never developed and it is hard to understand why she and David eventually marry. Since Martha is left out, it is a mystery how Dan Peggoty finds his niece. And the absence of Traddles makes David a very lonely fellow.

Some have credited this film with doing a good job of abridging the lengthy novel. I disagree, this is at best a hatchet job on the book. Anyone who has seen the 1935 George Cukor version will agree.

The performances in that version by Fields as Micawber and Rathbone as Murdstone, are definitely worth the trouble of watching it. And the more recent Masterpiece Theatre version (April 2000) and Hallmark (2000) versions are both outstanding achievements in made for television adaptations of classic novels. Directors Simon Curtis and Peter Medak who are responsible for those films are deserving of the highest praise.

My final comment on David COPPERFIELD 1969 is Don't buy it, there are several much better versions of the film available. If it is on television, turn the channel to something else. It is a waste of one hour and twenty minutes of your life. Sorry folks, but I can't praise such an appallingly bad film.

Sentiment: negative
Having known and loved this book since I was eleven I was terrified to see it coming up as a movie - what if they'd made a dreadful mess of it? In the event I needn't have worried at all. Everyone was very well cast and the acting is terrific, it followed the story very well except for the strange addition of the scene in the prison, which to me added nothing at all. However it really is the most beautiful love story and I'm so glad I videoed it so I can watch it again and again. My only gripe is - why didn't they give Kester a green waistcoat 'which made him such a personable man'? Such a simple thing, when they went to so much trouble for everything else. If you get the chance, see this, it is excellent.

Sentiment: positive
A terrorist attempts to steal a top secret biological weapon, and in the process of trying to escape, he is infected when the case containing the deadly agent is compromised. Soldiers are able to retrieve the case, but the terrorist makes his way to a hotel where he attempts to hide out. They eventually make it to where he's hiding, and "cleanse" the hotel and its occupants. Unfortunately they dispose of his body by cremation, and if you've seen Return of the Living Dead, you know what happens next.

Zombi 3 has been widely panned by critics and zombie fans alike, as a complete mess of a movie. While that's a fair assessment, it's not without it's high points. For one thing, it has plenty of bloody deaths to keep gore-hounds happy. There's an abundance of zombies that seem to come out from everywhere possible. They're in the water, the rafters of houses, hiding in trees, and for some reason, they like to hide under a bunch of dead brush, only to spring out to attack as the heroes try to escape. There's even a flying zombie head that hides inside a refrigerator. You have to see it to believe it, as that scene alone makes Zombi 3 required viewing IMO. It may have some terrible editing and some very questionable acting, especially from the doctor who has to be one of the worst actors I've seen, but Zombie 3 is still a very entertaining movie. Sometimes it's nice to sit back and watch a movie that doesn't require anything more than your time and an open mind. Zombi 3 fits that bill, and then some. It's even more enjoyable if you pop open a few beers, and watch it with some like minded friends. I give it an 8/10, just because of sheer enjoyment.

Sentiment: positive
There was once someone in my family (not saying who it is because of personal reasons) who thinks that Mr Bean is always so silly in whatever he does on the comedy series. Imagine how I felt at that time. Shocked instantly.

There are more reasons than one why I love watching Mr Bean. Being one of those earliest shows on the local television here in my country where I first grew up watching, it's just one of those things which had stuck into my head. There was even once my friends and I talked about few of the selected episodes and we just laughed together.

It's always silly, funny and hilarious in whatever antics Rowan Atkinson as Mr Bean will do in each episode. Though lately at times it may show some of the repeats here, it never failed to bring back those childhood memories of mine. In fact, I can dare say this is the very first show which introduces me about the kind of shows which come out of the UK as I was growing up.

The comedy series...definitely really wicked, as what the Brits may be saying.

Sentiment: positive
Almost every plot detail in this movie is illogical and implausible. It carries no semblance of a genuine human story, dead and dull. It is a parody of Hollywood, with trumpet musical bits that remind you of a Denzel Washington movie, wobbly camera shots and focusing, racist stereotypes, absolutely unnecessary and comical shots and gestures of famous people in clothing catalogue poses. It is made to cater for the multitude of zombies whose meaning in life derives from watching celebrity names. The only good thing in the movie is the end credits and funky song that accompanies it. I feel like an idiot for watching this, save yourself.

Sentiment: negative
This film is pretty good, it actually is like a good wine, it gets better the more you watch it. The pace is pretty slow for such a high octane topic, but the cinematography is beautiful and surreal. There is a cool blue tint that "rides" the whole film. There is also one great performance in Gabriel Casseus' performance of the character "Midget". He is terrific. Why doesn't this guy work more. If the film got better support, he probably would have.

Sentiment: positive