DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Way back at the dawn of human civilization cavemen sat around and made lame jokes, hit each other over the heads with what ever they could grab, and women were never seen and apparently at one time had tails. These cavemen lived in a geographically diverse region with a cockatoo, a camel, a monkey - but no women. This film tells of the "hilarious" misadventures of seven(or so) cavemen - having burned their land with the new discovery of fire - moving on by water to a new land where they find this woman with the extra appendage. Along the way we get such "great" moments of comedy like a fat cavemen swallowing a frog that keeps croaking in his stomach. A monkey throwing rocks at their heads. A man swallowing a mouse to get the frog in his stomach. The obligatory "gay" caveman. The list could go on and on. This movie is the very definition of cinematic dreck. I was bored from the onset and it only got worse as the cavemen bobbled around hitting each other, making poor jokes such as puns on the word perch, hitting each other, and mauling poor Seta Berger who looks like she lost a bet to a producer to appear in this nonsense. She is indeed one of two bright spots in this film. She isn't much of an actress so you have to guess why she is an ass-et? The other "bright" spot is the music. As soon as I heard the score, I said to myself that it sounded very familiar. I had never heard the actual score but the music was unmistakably that of Ennio Morricone. It's a nice score and the best thing in an otherwise crude, boring, lewd, unimaginative, and ridiculous film essentially about a group of Moes finding a woman for the first time and, first wanting to eat her like some animal, being taught what she could do. Awwwwh! Sorry, I'm stifling a yawn as I relive the plot! The end of the film has some 100 or so mostly naked women on screen with all the erotic feel of pulling a scab off your knee. This movie was painful to sit through and offers nothing of any real merit whatsoever. The fact that it spawned a sequel doesn't surprise me as it offers that one thing which will prick viewer interest - tail.

Sentiment: negative
I would hope so and how can I get involved?

This movie is a classic and ripe with laughs, adventure and an all star, 80's cast!

What happens when you get together a group of jocks and sororiety, a group of debating nerds, a band of misfits and couple of couselors?

A load of laughs that will have you begging for more!

David Naughton stars as Adam, the leader of the "yellow team," a kind and hip college counselor who helps students with everything from getting the classes they want to first dates.

His nemesis is Harold, the leader of the "blue team," played hilariously by Stephen Furst of "Babylon 5" fame, the no good loafing son of a wealthy, former college jock with enough trophies to make any hall of famer jealous.

Pit these two against each other and throw in a "red team," a "white team," and a "green team," an unbelievable "view" at an observatory, consequences of cheating at minature golf, a super tour at the Pabst Blue Ribbon beer factory, and a hateful old landlady among other adventures, and you have all the makings of a night to remember!

Look for appearances by Michael J. Fox, Eddie Deezen, and director Andy Tennant in one of the last movies he acted in before becoming a director and you have an all star, hilarious, cast.

The only down side to this movie was Debra Clinger's performance as Laura. She terribly overacted, but the rest of the movie is so good, she can simply be ignored.

I own this movie and can never watch it enough!



Sentiment: positive
Dane tries to hard and is to extreme with all of his yelling and going crazy, spilling water on himself and rolling on the floor. To much. Calm down, get yourself together and make us laugh. I didn't quite understand his comparison toward comics and rock stars. Just because there both up on stage or something? He said that every comedian wants to be a rock star. I'm sure Rodney Dangerfield was really into that when he was alive. He had a few good jokes like the Burger King joke where people yell at the drive thru. I also liked the Reese's Pieces joke. If Dane just didn't act so mental he might be funnier and I might have given this a higher rating, as high as maybe an eight.

Sentiment: negative
I struggle to see the point of this movie. It is supposed to be a comedy but I didn't laugh once. The storyline is one that could have been interesting in a well made movie, but since this is acted by comics, the result is totally unbelievable (as comedies should be). The Comic strip series was very hit and miss, even withing the episodes, and it is fair to say all of the people involved have gone on to do greater things. One to avoid. I have also just found out that comments have to be 10 lines long. The whole point of these comments is to give an indication of whether the movie is worth watching: not write an essay gushing about it or taking it apart. If you like: Seinfeld, Larry Sanders, the Young Ones, Alan Partridge, Arrested Development, Curb, Red Dwarf, then you might like to pass on this. On the other hand, if you like lame jokes such as can be found in Friends and Dodgeball, enjoy watching this!

Sentiment: negative
A light-hearted comedy, Nothing shows us a world that we sometimes wish to escape to: a world of nothing. Anything you don't like, be it a stack of bills, a bad memory, or even hunger can disappear at your wish. They approached this movie very well, and with an enjoyable starring duo, there were only a few things I didn't like about Nothing, and they weren't even part of the main movie.

First, the post-credits scene (and yes, there is one): Good for a chuckle, but what were they trying to accomplish with that? I was confused and eager to see a return to something after a whole movie of nothing. Instead, we just hear a random assortment of noises and they scream. It tries to set up a sequel in my opinion, and wasn't really necessary, nor was it funny after the turtle crawled out of frame.

Second, the trailer: I saw the trailer on the DVD, and like others have already said this, it promotes a horror movie that never came. Oh well, poor marketing I guess.

If you see this at your movie rental store, take a look, because Nothing is a great movie to watch. If you have a big screen though, you might want to wear shades.

Sentiment: positive
A weird, witty and wonderful depiction of family life! Writer Andrew Marshall has written something that is funny, foreboding and occasionally frightening! Yes, don't be fooled by 2point4 children's cheerful tune and bubbly characters; the show has a dark side, and at times can be quite chilling. And that's what's so good about the show, it's not just a simplistic sitcom where every character is a 2D comic device (the case with My Family). Instead the characters are fully rounded individuals that show the full roller-coaster of human emotions. The occasionally dark moments such as Bill being supposedly haunted by a curse and Ben waking up in a bizarre village are two examples of the show taking a surreal, dark turn, that help add a little depth. Of course the show is also incredibly funny, and is a guaranteed to make you smile. It's a real shame Eureka Video have stopped releasing this comical gold on DVD. Veoh.com is your last hope to get hold of episodes unavliable in the shops.

Sentiment: positive
I have no idea why they made this version of "Persuasion" when they already had that fine mini-series with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. I suppose that they wanted to make a feature-length version, but of course a lot had to be deleted; alas, what ended up on the cutting-room floor was all the lovely wit and humour, leaving a film that was mere melodrama rather than an amusing exposition of English country manners and mores.

Also, the characters were shallow and uninteresting. They had poor Anne chasing up and down the streets after Captain Wentworth like a silly modern adolescent (and if you happen to be a silly modern adolescent reading this, let me tell you: running after a male like a female in heat is NOT cool). That is something a well-bred woman of the Napoleonic era would never have done, and certainly not this level-headed heroine.

Some have said they found this antic laughable; my reaction was not laughter, but outrage. The very idea of such a corruption of an Austen work is beneath contempt.

It was ghastly.

Sentiment: negative
Some might scoff, but there is actually a real art with making particularly bad films. This misses out on all fronts.

A bunch of young people -- women with heaving breasts and continuously wet T-Shirts, naturally -- go to film "blood surfing" and end up running into a 31 foot crocodile.

Not only was the croc obviously fake, but some of the props [notice the boat hitting the reef in particular] look like they've come out of thunderbirds!

No good, from start to finish. Don't see it!

Sentiment: negative
In 1984, Edgar Reitz surprised film-lovers all over the world with his epic opus Heimat: A Chronicle of Germany. Eight years later, he came up with a sequel, The Second Heimat: Chronicle of a Youth, which is even more astounding than its predecessor.

Actually, it's not really a sequel. It's more of a "midquel", as it covers events that took place between the ninth and eleventh episode of the first Heimat cycle.

The Second Heimat begins in 1960, four years after Hermann Simon (Henry Arnold) was separated from his first love, Klarchen, courtesy of his intolerant mother and elder brother (the controversy had to do with him being a minor, while she was about 25). Still angered by those events, the young man vows never to fall in love again (a grandiose, if creepy scene), and decides to move to Munich (like the director himself did in approximately the same period), hoping to become a professional composer after a few years spent at the music academy. He stays in Munich for ten years, and the thirteen two-hour episodes of Heimat 2 cover that time-frame, each of them focusing on a different person among Hermann's fellow students, people who, like him, are searching for a "second home country", be it music, film or something else, in which they can finally live peacefully.

Like the first Heimat, this second cycle is a perfect union of film and television: the episodic structure and the various romantic subplots make it look like a soap opera, in fact The Second Heimat needs to be seen in its entirety to be successfully embraced, whereas some chapters of Heimat 1 could be viewed as separate stories (in particular, the one concerning Hermann's teenage years). The style and content, however, is pure auteur cinema, with the familiar black and white/color transitions (actually, a tad more predictable this time around) and ambiguous characters, the latter element being underlined by the relationship between Hermann and cello player Clarissa Lichtblau (Salome Kammer): they clearly love each other, yet they keep embarking on affairs with other people, delaying the inevitable until it's too late. This time, Reitz seems to be more pessimistic regarding his characters ( at one point, Hermann is so disillusioned he says: "The Beatles are much better than us!"), building entire episodes around dark, controversial themes such as abortion and suicide. The decade he's exploring is not suitable for everyone, as some are scarred in dramatic ways by the pivotal events of the '60s (the '68 revolution especially).

Reitz also seems to have made this mini-series specifically for movie-buffs, given the numerous film references (including a brilliant Casablanca quote) and clever in-jokes (one episode is set in Venice, whose film festival had an important part in the Heimat saga's success). And since 1992, film-lovers have never ceased to thank him for delivering 26 of the most compelling hours ever committed to celluloid.

Sentiment: positive
Ti%s and As*, lots of boobies. Some great characters, fun filled pranks and well put together teen action in this spin off of the Amercan Pie franchise. This feels like really OLD SCHOOL. It feels a bit like Porkys for the 2000's. Some great funny characters combined with some very humorous situations make this one a real surprise for me.

Whilst the original cast is all but gone except for one, this movie I found really entertaining. Lets not get too excited, you have to take it for the booby teen comedy that it is, but for what it is, it excels. The characters are likable and funny, the girls are hotter than hell. The fun and games are hilarious, with some stuff I've never seen before in comedies, they make me cringe but laugh at the same time.

So ignore the haters and give this a run and see what you think. Don't expect the classic American Pie, but expect something that should make you laugh and spark your attention for an hour or so.

Sentiment: positive
Aside for being classic in the aspect of its cheesy lines and terrible acting, this film should never be watched unless you are looking for a good cure for your insomnia. I can't imagine anyone actually thinking this was a "good movie."

Sentiment: negative
This is a pretty bad movie. The plot is sentimental mush. I suppose the production values are OK, decent photography, unobtrusive direction and all that. Mark Hamill was terrible. I've never cared much for him, and this movie validates that perception. It's no wonder that he never really had any sort of career aside from his "Star Wars" films. I'll just say "Buh-bye, Mark" as he sinks into well-deserved obscurity. On the other hand, a very young Annie Potts utterly stole the show. She showed charm, beauty, and acting chops all in one performance. I remember seeing her in "Texasville" recently and taking note of her beauty. It's interesting seeing her from ten years earlier. Anyway, unless you are interested in Miss Potts, run away from this film screaming for the hills.

Sentiment: negative
This is the best movie I have ever seen. It has it all tragedy and happiness love and hate. And a deep friendship that not even war can destroy.

The most splendid casting I have ever seen. Patrick Swayze and James Read were top grade in this movie.

If you see part 1 you will want to see it all. Some of my friends watched part of the movie at my home then went out and bought the movie.

I am a civil war buff but this movie got my grandchildren interested in history. Any movie that can get children to learn history is great. I have Books I, II & III and when the girls come up from Florida each year they want to see North & South.

Sentiment: positive
i liked this movie a lot.I rented this expecting something not too bad to spend an evening.It turned out a particularly satisfying experience. Some scenes were hilarious and managed to be so in a movie not intended to be just a stupid slapstick comedy but with some meaning and moral values.It manages on both counts.The leads are all good but especially the guy who stars,also wrote and produced the movie.I've never seen any of these actors before, but they were likable and made me care about what happens to them in the end which is saying a lot.The script is clever and involving and has a refreshing feel to it. I think you wont be disappointed to watch this.

Sentiment: positive
Probably one of his lesser known films, it suffers from the same lack of exposure as Salvador in that its actually one of his best.

Written by and starring Eric Bogosian, Talk Radio tells the story of an opinionated radio phone-in host who upsets the wrong kind of listener. The film is important, and has much to say on the issues of free speech and just how free it should be, and you can easily tell that it started life as a stage play. Know what you're getting into before you sit down to watch it and you'll be fine.

There isn't much to the acting really as Bogosian pretty much steals the film, he wrote and is given licence to rant, I couldn't take my eyes off him and that was part of the fascination many of the listeners had; the people who hated him wouldn't turn off in-case they missed something.

Not for everyone, but a very good drama and overall a very good film.

Sentiment: positive
Put this movie out of it's misery and burn the negatives. What am I saying? The whole movie was negative. Fortunately, only a very few would find this movie the least bit appealing. This is what the vast American majority would call too much sex and violence. It will probably show up on some non-premium cable channel someday just for the shock value, but after editing out the nudity (most of the violence will stay) all that will be left is 45 minutes of really bad acting interspersed with 45 minutes of commercials. There are just too many starving actors in Hollywood.

Sentiment: negative
First of all, Jenna Jameson is the best actress in this movie, and she's just awful. This movie has every horror move cliché in imagination, and all badly played. The over-sexed teen couple. The comical(not)horny jock. The snotty cool chick. The creepy local color guy. The parental-type couple. The virginal chick who amazingly never dies in these films. The dialogue is so painfully awful and delivered with the depth of a wading pool. It's almost like you're wishing that they'd all die sooner. I saw the rough cut of this film a while ago, but somehow, this just got worse. Sure, the funniest thing in here is the ghoul trying to eat Jameson's implants, but that hardly rates even a rental of this dog. Avoid at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
Anna Christie (Greta Garbo) returns to see her father Chris (George F Marion) after 15 years. He is the skipper of a boat and she stays to travel with him. During this time, she meets Matt (Charles Bickford) and they fall in love. Matt and Chris don't see eye to eye and Anna has a secret to confess.....................

What a boring story......it starts badly with George F Marion and Marie Dressler playing drunks in a bar. The scene goes on forever and they are both terrible. Its also hard to understand them. In fact, its difficult to understand the whole cast. I missed whole sections of dialogue between Bickford, Marion and Garbo because it is incomprehensible! Garbo is obviously something special as you are drawn to her every time that she is on screen and her presence gives this film the 4 stars that I have given to it. But nothing really happens - its a boring story with atrocious accents. You'll do well to stay awake.

Sentiment: negative
Visitors is a hard, hard movie to enjoy. It's so slow and leaden in it's pacing that at times I was drifting off during the film. This was about 11AM on a hot, sunny day, I might add, not midnight on a cold winter evening, so you get an idea of just how slow this movie is.

Strange thing is, it's not long. At 100 minutes it's only ten minutes longer than the average straight to video, and it's only fifteen minutes longer than the superior Darkwolf that I'd quite happily watched the day before. It just drags an awful lot, enough for you to lose interest.

When it's not mistaking S-L-O-O-W development for atmosphere, Visitors is good enough at action to almost make it excusable how slowly things happen. While the flashbacks are both cheap and annoying as a way to round out Radha Mitchell's boats-woman, the hauntings/aliens/whatever are actually quite creepy and effective, especially when her suicidal mother turns up and starts groaning in the night. Full marks for not splurging make-up all over the shop too. The single person boat is a creepy place, and at times the movie uses the full power of the location and the deserted sea to scare the hell out of you.

Still though, I find it hard to recommend Visitors. I came out of it not only feeling like I'd just watched a 4 hour film, not a 100 minute one, but also feeling like I'd been cheated somehow, as while offering many explanations as to the hauntings (Mind games? Real ghosts? Space aliens?) Visitors doesn't pick one for definite. All that watching Radha Mitchell talk to her cat and Dominic Purcell smoulder for no obvious reason about some unexplained horrific event in the past, for nothing?. Say what you like about Shyamalan, but at least he tells you what happened, however crazy/stupid you might think it. If you don't watch a lot of these movies, your fresh perspective will probably improve matters somewhat, but I found this slow, boring and highly derivative. If you want to scare yourself silly there are much better places to do it, if you want a clever thriller there are many that are smarter.

Sentiment: negative
"The Aristocats" is classic Disney at it's best. It's not considered as the ultimate Disney classic along side the more well-known Disney-films, but it's a well-made and fun film that certainly deserves to be a Disney classic. "Aristocats" is certainly a sure kids-pleaser, cause it has all the components for a fun kids film. I'll liked it very much as a kid. I'm not sure if this film is a sure pleaser to the adults, who could watch Disney classics for the nostalgia sake, but I still enjoy this film as an young adult.

Storywise, "Aristocats" may not be so complex or innovative, but it doesn't matter. This film was made on that period where the filmmakers followed the motto that the characters were the story and wise versa, which "Aristocats" certainly shows. The characters make the film; they're all likable, fun, have great lines and have a great interaction with each other. The voice actors are also a part for making the characters so compelling (Eva Gabor as Duchess, Phil Harris as Thomas O'Malley and etc). A misconception could have been the dogs Napoleon and Lafayette, since they're showstoppers and haven't so much to do with the actual story, but fortunately they're fun and amusing characters and the scenes with them are pure gold.

"Aristocats" is both entertaining and cute, but it's also a very funny cartoon. The animation style and look fits perfectly for the film's French surroundings (especially the city of Paris looks greats). The character animation and design is great. And the songs are really catchy too. My favorite is "Scale and Arpeggios", but the title song is a cute song, along with "Thomas O'Malley Cat" and the memorable show-stopper "Everybody Want's To Be A Cat". And the score by George Burns is a perfect fit for the film funny and emotional situations.

Overall, "Aristocats" is in my opinion the best Disney cartoon from the 70's and it's a film that deserves to both be seen and remembered. So what you're waiting for? Do your self a favor and share this Disney classic with your kids. It deserves to be in their memories.

Sentiment: positive
What can be said about one of the greatest N64 games ever? That the action is fast enough to keep even a seasoned FPS veteran sweating bullets quite literally? That the graphics are great, down to the explosions that everyone loves to see? That nothing is quite as fun as playing multiplayer mode, and shooting your friends and siblings in the back with submachine guns?

Very little beats Goldeneye 007. About the only thing missing was voice acting, and a bit more intelligence in the enemy soldiers. If you have an N64, and you like shooting people and things crossed with espionage, get a copy of this.

Sentiment: positive
Based on a True Story . . .

The premise of this film is to illustrate that through fairly normal events its possible for an outwardly 'decent' mother to get drawn into Heroin addiction.

***semi spoiler*** Some of the scenes are fairly inaccurate - whilst others almost make you want to get the 'fix' yourself.

Computer technician/graphic artist woman with good relationship with her young teen kid spirals into addiction after work colleague, who is a 'chipper' (-someone who can take + enjoy it now and again - ) Then spirals into an addiction that leads her eventually to scoring off 'street' dealers after losing contact with her steady dealer.

The scenes that show her coming down and getting 'sick' are often VERY real - especially the first real 'night sweat' Prior to all these events she began a relationship with a guy who just happened to have lost his wife to the bottle, and insists he has an inner radar not to get hooked on such women. Some radar! However after after some late turn ups and weird behaviour, the boyfriend challenges her as to 'what is going on' His radar begins to get more with it and demands that she empty out her bag; she hits the roof and storms out.

Because of the excellent and open relationship she had developed prior to this tragedy, he is the first to 'find' some real evidence in her bag; he then looks around the hose for her 'stash' - apparently his sensibility is from school lessons on drug taking - and when he discovers a large stash in the bathroom he flushes it! NOT A HAPPY WOMAN when she takes her next bath and its 'disappeared'.

The kid keeps one back and places it on the meal table - she then goes into further denial - admits it and says its no worse than dope.

Thge kid does all the right things and calls her friends and generally puts her in a position where she has to come 'clean' - if you'll pardon the pun.

The movie takes the viewer through some pretty arduous situations where danger is not far away.

Eventaully she gets help from a professional organisation and does cold turkey - you'll have to watch the film to see what happens next . . . .

Sentiment: positive
This movie is finally out on DVD in Italy (completely restored). I have seen this movie so many times and I find it even actual these days (2003) when Italy suffers again from a sort of brainwashing dictatorship (or the US for that matter). I am glad there are outcasts as the one played by Mastroianni in this movie who can sing out of tune; maybe they can teach the Sophia Lorens of this world how to be strong and fight to be recognised as human beings.

Back to the movie: as most people here already mentioned the acting is wonderful but the audio background is astonishing. I must assume that unfortunately something is lost if you don't understand the Italian language but I can assure you that the show-off of machism, the distortion of reality in that ever-present radio-chronicle of the Hitler visit to Rome can really make you shiver!

A masterpiece!



Sentiment: positive
This film, like much of their music, is either underrated or unnoticed by the casual observer. It is terrific and, in many ways, ahead of its time.

The images are funny, disturbing, and at the very least, engaging. 

The music is amazing. 

This is not the "candy pop" sound they are unfortunately associated with. This is the sound of a band in exploration and revolt.

HEAD, alone, should put The Monkees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. 

Can anyone tell me why these guys are not in there?

Sentiment: positive
Film noir at its best. Set in the immediate aftermath of WWII ( 1946), "Crossfire" depicts the good, bad and ugly of that time. Monty Montgomery kills Sam because Sam's a Jew and therefore, automatically perceived through Monty's narrow lens, to have been a slacker who got out of fighting the war. Monty doesn't like people like that. The truth is that Sam was a soldier too, but the truth is something which disappears when you're feeling right about the ideologies of hate you've been immersed in and the world is full of dirty this and thats, badly in need of your brand of "cleansing".

Monty is a sadist in winning soldier's clothing. The losers of WWII had more than their share as well hate filled, prejudiced leaders and soldiers as well. Some of them were hung for war crimes, like starting a "war of aggression".

This movie got its makers in trouble when that other sadistic cleanser of America, Joe McCarthy got his hearings going in the early 1950s.

See "Crossfire", just to see how good an actor Robert Ryan was. The real Robert Ryan was no Monty. He WAS a great, if underestimated, under used actor.

See "Crossfire" and get a taste of the dark side of post-WWII America. See it to get a taste of the good side of late 40s America as well. Robert Mitchim and Robert Young also play leading roles. Mitchim could have played Ryan's role, in fact, he did when he played the psychopath in "Cape Fear".

Sentiment: positive
Man, what an awful film. As with many terrible films, the structure of its awfulness lies in the script. This is such a pathetic attempt at a psychological thriller that it gives the entire genre a bad name. Okay, here's one major problem: Sandra Bullock's character is abducted by Jeff Bridges in his car at a busy convenience store in broad daylight. Somehow, her boyfriend Kiefer Sutherland doesn't find a single witness to this act and subsequently spends most of the movie completely clueless as to her whereabouts. Come on! Personally, I find this completely insulting to even the dimmest of audience members. Yet we are forced to buy into this nonsense. Of equal frustration is the poorly explained motive for Jeff Bridges's actions. His character is a bit of an eccentric academic, to be sure, but far from the sociopath who would do these things. He goes through about ten minutes, give or take, spilling his beans to Sutherland as to why he has performed his cruel actions. But the explanation itself lacks even the most elementary sense of logic. Therefore, no intelligent audience member can really believe in the possibility of his evil. And if you subtract that element from the story, the entire thing falls apart.

Also of major concern: -Jeff Bridges using a weird, pseudo-French accent for no reason.

-The entire boring subplot involving Nancy Travis, most especially her saving the day by turning the tables on Bridges.

-The crazy woman who somehow manages to remember Jeff Bridges' license plate number despite also thinking that the Lucky Charms leprechaun is real.

-Sandra Bullock's character's name, Diane Shaver, conveniently re-scrambles to form the word "vanished". Are you friggin' kidding me?? -The logistical impossibility of drugging, abducting, and burying (in a very remote location) a human being within the span of forty minutes (as Bridges specifically alludes to).

This is a movie that made me remember the fictional, impossibly stupid (yet very successful) Donald Kaufman character in Adaptation. Many screenwriters are brilliant, inspired artists. Some are just bozos who convince the nitwits running the studios to make their drivel. This particular script is so stunningly dimwitted that Donald Kaufman himself would have managed to sell it. Unfortunately for all of us in the real world, Todd Graff actually did.

Sentiment: negative
When I was six yo, I learned about a series called "Los Campeones", and even if I was just a kid I did everything I need to convince my parents to let me watch "The Champions" and "the Avengers" once every week. I think that was the Golden Age of English series... (I already own the complete cycle of "The Prisoner"!) but lasted also a few years later with "The Tomorrow People", "the Worst Witch" (I just me, or this is "Harry Potter" in girl, of course, before As much as I want "The Campions" to be in Zone 1 or Zone 4, I'm also waiting for "Dr. Who" (pack the whole series in a set of, uhm, maybe 300 DVD's, please, I couldn't expend more for it, 8), "People of Tomorrow", and several other 'low budget', but great stories to be available within my reached zones. I speak and understand English, but not all my relatives do, including my parents, whom introduced me into these great stories... I hope someday, someone could feel the attraction of these series and then could sell them as I originally view them... Dubbed or subtitled, but in the same format I saw them. Remember, Zone 1 or 4 are OK with my TV set!

Sentiment: positive
This film is a bad film but to gain any nutritional value from it I recommend watching it back to back with Rosemary's Baby.

There is a lot to learn seeing how different directors can draw different performances from the same actors playing the same characters. Observe Minnie Castevet (Ruth Gordon) and the fine work she did in the first film vs the awful rendition in this film.

It is also interesting to see how the same characters were played by different actors. Which leads me to wonder if anyone involved with the sequel were aware of the first film and did any of them watch Rosemary's Baby before making this?

If your interest in films is purely superficial then you would best avoid this one. I have a lot more to say about this film but I really don't want to go there.

Sentiment: negative
OK, this movie, was the worst display I have seen in years. The actors weren't to bad (I figured it was a b-movie so they were doing b-movie acting). Anyways, I watched this movie, thinking, OH COOL a UFO Sci-Fi movie. WRONG. It was just an excuse for radical Christians to push a message onto people. The last scene was extremely messed up. That is a horrible thing to do to a person to make them believe in something. What someone believe in is a matter of opinion. This movie just shows how corrupted religion is, especially Christianity.

If you want to watch a b-movie, this ain't. If you want to watch a movie that is TRYING to brainwash the masses. Well this is the pick of the litter. go right for it. If you are going to convey a message, do it, don't force it. Ridiculous, that people would abuse the media to such a degree. Especially, Christians.

Sentiment: negative
I fully agree with the previous reviewer. There's no chemistry between Spencer Tracy and Hedy Lamarr, and the focus of the film is on their relationship. Hedy Lamarr isn't at her best, and Spencer Tracy appears to be naive, simple and overly-hopeful -- both in love and life; an idealist role that played out best in 'Boys Town'. If you can make it through the ridiculous crowd scene by the train station...whoa...it's rather slapstick and not worthy of any actor in the cast. Not the best acting on anybody's part. Miscast and mismatched. Story is empty and various and disenfranchised input is apparent. Hedy Lamarr is her absolutely stunning herself, which is truly the best part of the film. Spencer Tracy can't match the sophistication of her beauty and wardrobe, and the film doesn't come off as believable for at least that reason.

Sentiment: negative
this is really films outside (not in a motel room). With real costumes (not only strings and swimsuits). You have to see this movie. it's the only porn movie I know that is worth watching between the sex scenes.

Bon Cinema

Laurent

Sentiment: positive
$25,000 Pyramid Clues: Deep Blue Sea. Tremors. Slither. Eight Legged Freaks.

Pyramid Category: Movies that were funnier and more thrilling than Snakes on a Plane.

Hell, with that definition I'd have to include the relatively harrowing journey of Ted and Elaine in Airplane! as superior to Snakes in both laughs and thrills.

The sad truth is that this isn't even close to the mother of all unintentionally intentional funny snake movies: Anaconda! Besides the never to be seen again casting of JLo-Cube-O.Wilson-Stoltz-Wuhrer in the same flick, you had Jon Voight pulling off the all-time cinematic heist. His final scene alone represents everything SOAP tried and failed to do as a "so-ludicrous-it's-fun" movie.

In the end, Snakes on a Plane is definitive proof that studio execs and fanboys make the worst collaborators possible. Every big scene had been discussed and dissected so much the last year, all that was left to amuse by opening night was the amount of fanboy flop-sweat that had to be mopped up at my theater. I heard more forced laughs here than at a studio taping for "According to Jim".

Sentiment: negative
This film is awful. The CGI is the very cheap gray blob CGI. The crocodile looks like a large gray smudge. The worst is that no effort at all is given to making it walk or look like it is alive. It is mostly a photo-shopped CGI that is placed into scenes and you almost expect to see the hand that is moving the CGI smudge across the screen. This is one of the worst examples of CGI effects that I have ever witnessed, and I have seen lots of the very bad Sci-Fi Channel movies.

Aside from the terrible lack of special effects, the cast is composed of the typical low-cost actors who probably work as Waiters/Waitresses at local diners while they wait for their Big Breaks. Perhaps the most ridiculous scene in this movie is when one of the bad guys is attempting to sexually assault Kate and the giant crocodile jumps straight up out of the water to the second floor of the Villains Headquarters and through the balcony and pulls the bad guy off Kate and instead of crashing straight down through the building (and crushing Kate) the Croc just flies backwards at the same angle into the water. No laws of Physics can apply to this movie or the special effects. At least there is honor among crocodiles.

Sentiment: negative
Frankly, after Cotton club and Unfaithful, it was kind of embarrassing to watch Lane and Gere in this film, because it is BAD. The acting was bad, the dialogs were extremely shallow and insincere. It was well shot, but, then again, it is a big budget movie. It was too predictable, even for a chick flick. I even knew from the beginning that he was going to die in the end, the only thing I didn't know was how. Too politically correct. Very disappointing. The only thing really worth watching was the scenery and the house, because it is beautiful. But, if you want that, watch National geographic. I love Lane, but I've never seen her in a movie this lousy. As far as Gere goes, he's a good actor, but he had movies like this, so I'm not surprised. An hour and a half I wish I could bring back.

Sentiment: negative
Thats My Bush is first of all a very entertaining show by Parker and Stone, I thought. Its often very very funny, and its quite subversive and crazy. South Park fans would surely get something here. 

Another surprise is the production value here. A lot of money must have been put into this, and it shows. A lot of expensive little details. Its not a little show. And Comedy Central is not an extremely rich channel, but they put a lot into this show obviously. In a way I understand that was the death of the show as well though, too costy. It surely could have been done cheaper and went on the will was there. 

The critics liked it, and it had its little fanbase, but it failed gaining a big audience. As we know, the show stopped after 8 episodes, which I guess is almost 1 season. 

As I really liked the show it has its faults. The problem of the show is kind of that it doesn't know what it wants to be really. Its like it tries to be a sitcom AND a parody of a sitcom at the same time. The actors do a good job, and some of them are well casted, but in my opinion they seem to not always get 100% the bizarre humor they're supposed to present. 

I personally think that the show needed some characters that were more down to earth for the show to work. In South Park you have Kyle and Stan, that are kind of a realistic touch in the more looney universe. I think thats kind of what makes South Park work. You need some sane characters that you can relate to in a realistic way, and that makes the insane stuff so much more interesting too because that forces you to take them seriously at some level. If everything is archetypes and stereotypes its difficult to get emotionally included in the show, which really is Thats My Bush biggest problem. Kyle and Stan is characters in South Park that makes sense of the insanity in the show. We have nothing like that here, and this show suffers from it. 

Another anchorpoint is Parker and Stones flirting with republicans. Its the only thing about them I don't really get what they're trying to do. Not portraying Bush as nothing else than a dumb Homer Simpsons lovable kind of character IS kind of subversive in a world where a lot of people that can't stand him and think he's the worst president since Nixon, and a parallel comedy world of Letterman and so on that only satirizes his every move... but its difficult to understand if Parker and Stone actually means anything by it. Its like the joke is on us, but somehow it doesn't hit the mark. It seems awkward, because it doesn't remind you of the real Bush at all. 

Besides that I actually thought the show was very enjoyable. Some of the jokes in here are hilarious. The pro-life supporter who was a surviving aborted fetus is probably one of my favorite jokes by them in any show. And the show is packed with great material, and is sometimes insanely funny if you use your head a little while watching it.

Sentiment: positive
From the creators of Bruce Almighty and Liar Liar! The film took a while to pick up from the start, at least for me seeing as I expected this was a run-along America Pie flick. But it was slightly different-- a fun-loving slacker who finishes high school and makes his OWN college, running it accordingly. As you can expect, there's a lot of parties and hot girls in bikinis but this film tried harder than your average teen flick. Bartleby Gaines (Justin Long) encourages his students / peers to learn through freedom of expression and ultimately 'shove it to the system.' The humour was varied which I loved. All the cast delivered fantastic performances-- hire this one out with a friend, it's a bloody crack up!

Sentiment: positive
I just watched National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation 2 on DVD, hoping to see something at least close to the original, great holiday comedy, 'Christmas Vacation'. I saw nothing of the kind. You can tell right from the start that this movie just wasn't going to measure up. It's too bad it has a title that links it to the original Christmas Vacation. It's really kind of sad. The film can't stand on it's own merits. I think too many people will view this film on the strength of the title and it does not come close to that level of comedy. Other than the title, there is very little connecting the movie to the original 'Christmas Vacation' and even less of a connection to Christmas at all. The comedy is very simplistic and the plot poor. Children might find some humor here but most adults would only get a chuckle here and there. This movie is a flop. Don't waste your time with it.

Sentiment: negative
This may actually the finest film of 1999. No I'm not kidding. This documentary directed by Chris Smith captures the very spirit of artistic compulsion. Smith does the smart thing any documentary filmaker should do: he keeps invisible and refuses to judge his subject. 

As the viewer watches Mark and his efforts, no matter how funkily aggressive they may prove, to finish his films. He refuses to compromise and suffers repeatedly as a result. But lest we forget, remember Speilberg, Scorsese and others started just as humbly.

And what a great subject he chooses. Mark, his family and friends are all fascinating characters, far more than any character created in last year's fictitious cinematic products.This film oscillates on the dime between comedy, tragedy, touching sympathy and leads us ultimately to inspiring any viewer with an urge to create, despite talent issues, to get off their butts and make something.

The film is about maverick artists and their passions. It is also about families, no matter how co-dependent and disfunctional they may be and how unique and beautiful that organism truly is. Mark proves in the film to be utterly devoted not only to his dreams, but also to his family as well- and they to him. 

Why this film was not nominated for documentary of the year is beyond me and criminal (that is assuming it was eligible last year). This film is to be sought out and treasured.

Sentiment: positive
If you ask me the first one was really better one. Look at Sarah M. G., she is real, mean, cruel girl, look at Amy Adams she is just little fool hanging around. She is nothing! People don't adore her! Second, Sebastian was cute and hot in first movie, now he is "baby face". Story is not that good, and i do not understand. Why didn't they make this one first, it is the beginning. Loosy actors, nothing with story. This is not cruel, this is playing. First one has better actors, better story, and its mean. I think that the music is better in cruel intentions 1 and the music is better in cruel intentions 3. It is not the worst movie I saw, but in compaer with first one its one big, big, big nothing.

Sentiment: negative
This drama apparently caused a bit of a stir six years ago when it debuted on television - not taking in much TV news myself, it passed under the radar; but after having seen it, I'm not surprised that it did cause a stir. Not particularly because of the content (although it is a bit more 'offbeat' than the usual TV fodder) - it has more to do with the reactionary media in this country. Anyway, this three part series is based on a book by Sarah Waters and puts its main focus on lesbians - although the plot also has room to explore some other 'dark' sides of sexuality. Our main character is an oyster girl named Nan (short for Nancy) from Winchester. She is bewitched by female to male drag performer Kitty Butler after seeing her at a theatre show and soon begins attending all of her shows - eventually catching the eye of the performer and becoming her dresser. It's not long before Kitty is offered a chance to play on bigger stages in London and having become good friends with Nan, she invites her along for the ride. The act gets bigger when Nan takes to the stage also and the pair becomes a stage duo...but Kitty breaks Nan's heart, leading her into an odyssey within London's seedy underbelly.

I must admit that my DVD collection contains no shortage of sleazy and sordid films so there wasn't anything in this one that was enough to shock me. Despite being rather jaded to it, I have to say that I'm still surprised at anyone who says this film went too far; naturally there is some lesbian sex and other stuff, but it's never exploitative or overused and the film really couldn't have been made without it. The main focus is always on the story; and the story is really well done. The film is almost three hours long in total, but if anything that isn't long enough to get everything across. Sarah Waters is obviously an inventive writer, and the film remains interesting for the duration. The acting is solid as you would expect, but I must admit that I found lead actress Rachael Stirling awkward and hard to get on with at first; although she grows into her role well as the film progresses. The execution is a little bit of a problem and director Geoffrey Sax is a bit too gimmicky for my liking. The story does get a little bit sappy towards the end also, which is a shame because this film is at it's strongest during the dark moments (episode 2 being the high point of three for me). There's not really a defined point to the film - or at least not one that I could see. That's not important as far as I'm concerned; however, as Tipping the Velvet tells a good story and more than surpassed my expectations. Worth checking out, for people that like this sort of stuff.

Sentiment: positive
This was playing at our theater in Amsterdam and the film we wanted to see was sold-out so we went to this, not knowing anything about it other than it was a documentary about the planet. We were very happy at our misfortune as this was a very powerful film about life and the delicate balance we all share with the rest of the inhabitants of Earth. This film has some of the most breathtaking photography I have ever seen in a film and took me places from deserts to oceans to rain forests and displayed things I have never seen in a film, TV or book! "Earth" is a film that every student should see before they become jaded. I will encourage my niece to see this film since she will be inheriting the planet we leave her. This is also a film to see on a theater screen or a very big television since the photography is so powerful and exotic.

Sentiment: positive
I have seen most, if not all of the Laurel & Hardy classic films. I have always enjoyed there comical stupidly, even after watching it over and over again. This new film attempts to bring back the classic with two new actors who resemble both Laurel & Hardy, however fails miserably for various reasons. One of which is how out of place their cloths are (still early 20th century) however are both portrayed in the 90's setting. Some of the former dialogue was brought back, however it also fails miserably to come close to the classic series. This film could very well be the worst film I have ever seen and should be pulled off the shelf and locked away forever. The real Laurel & Hardy are surly spinning in their graves at such a bad imitation.

Sentiment: negative