DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I rented this movie with my friend for a good laugh. We actually got laughed at by the clerk at the video store because of our questionable movie tastes. Unfortunately, I don't remember the first half of the movie because all I did was stare at the giant metal braces Jane wore. and I didn't hear anything either due to the incomprehensible lisp. The other thing that was able to grasp my attention besides her metal mouth was her questionable fashion sense. This movie was made in 2005 but it seems like the wardrobe people jumped all the way back to 2000 for the clothes. If you remember the days when Aaron Carter was considered a "popstar" and you like high waisted jeans, ankle socks and knee length skirts, then this little trip down memory lane is perfect for you.

Sentiment: negative
It's interesting how the train of research can flow. I started out looking at an article about Cristo's "The Gates" in Central Park. The article stated that the Maysles had been Cristo's filmographers for years. Hmmm... Then I got to looking at their body of work. I believe one of them has passed on but the other is still filming Cristo and Jean Claude in their stages of creation. Grey Gardens sounded very interesting. Video Station, in Boulder CO, is the place to look for the obscure or offbeat and of course they had it in stock. DVD and VHS. Edith and Edie are women living in the past, and oh what a glorious past it was. Edith had been well off, born a Bouvier, married well, had several wonderful relationships and became a singer when she was in her forties. Her daughter Edie had been a débutante, a fashion model and had many beaus. She never married and at some point in her thirties had come home to recuperate. She seems to have a nervous disorder of some kind. Worrying too much about things. It is only a shadow of the world they live in though, because Jackie O. came and spruced up the place so her aunt and cousin would not be evicted. It is a 28 room mansion that is worn down and worn out. But, in the film you will notice fresh paint on the walls. If you look carefully at the newspaper clippings you see it was very much a dirty mess. The outfits Edie comes up with a very clever and creative. The viewer gets the impression that Edith likes to go nude, but she doesn't in the movie. Edith was really quite beautiful and you can see the shadow of her beauty still as she sings "Tea for Two". Edie too was a beauty in her day and quite attractive at 56. It was a good movie, though not for everyone. When the cat is urinating behind Edith's portait she states, " at least someone is doing what they want"!

Sentiment: positive
Michelle Pfeiffer stars as a mob widow who seeks a normal life but has her hands full with the new boss and an undercover agent. A lighthearted Demme film with some good laughs and Pfeiffer in a comical role that she has fun with..on a scale of one to ten..8

Sentiment: positive
I didn't know what to expect when I rented this widescreen DVD. I knew it had a cult following but I had also seen a lot of the director's later works which although delightfully gory were also pretty much incoherent. DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING actually had a linear storyline and a mystery that kept me guessing almost until the end. And after all was said and done, it was a genuinely unsettling and creepy experience. One major caveat: I would much rather have heard the original soundtrack and read English subtitles than the uneven dubbing found here.

Sentiment: positive
So I had heard from a few people that this film had brought them to tears in the theater. As I watched it for the first time I was expecting another romantic, tear-jerking Barbra Streisand film; Something like The Way We Were. I was certainly wrong. The chemistry between the two main characters, Esther Hoffman and her John Howard, was nonexistent, making it impossible to get attached to the characters. There wasn't anything romantic about it. Streisand's character fell for an alcoholic drug addict who couldn't sing a single note without making me want to hit the fast-forward button. At one point her character finds her husband in bed with another woman and she forgives him about five minutes later. There's nothing romantic about a deadbeat rock star and a woman who can't seem to realize it until he actually dies. Parts of the movie seemed to drag on and on, and I kept asking myself when it was going to end.

The death of John Howard was completely predictable. There was totally obvious foreshadowing of his reckless behavior early on in the movie, and when he died I felt no emotion whatsoever. It wasn't a tragic accident, it was him basically being an idiot. Not to mention throughout the movie I was distracted by his hideous beard.

The only parts of this movie worth seeing are the Streisand songs. The ending of the movie when she sings "With One More Look At You/Watch Closely Now" was my reason for giving this film a whopping 3/10. Those 7 minutes were the only part of the movie I actually felt an emotion other than irritation and anger.

Sentiment: negative
REALLY? REALLY???? I know if you make a political war movie you will get noticed but this movie was just garbage. Horrible in every sense. Terribly inaccurate in so many ways. I have an easier time believing the president of the United States suiting up, flying a jet fighter, and shooting down aliens. It is easier to note the few things that were right. My jaw dropped when I saw some one say that this movie was the best in the last 25 years. It was overacted, seemingly pointless plot diversions, and had questionable cinematography at times.

X-box, YouTube, ACUPAT utilities did anyone check that these things did not exist in 2004? It's not like you had to do extensive research, it was only five years before this movie came out. I am an Iraq war Veteran and if you spent ONE day with an infantry platoon or an EOD squad you would realize how B.S. this movie is. To compare this to Platoon or Saving Private Ryan is ludicrous. Why don't you just throw Commando and Red Dawn in there too; I think those might be more accurate. 

If for some reason you can see past the unbelievable plot, the historical and factual discrepancies, then this movie might just be OK. Nothing more. If you keep on hearing "Oscar buzz", and have to add your own pompous review, go right ahead. As for me, I am writing the director to see if I can get my 131 minutes back.

Sentiment: negative
After I saw "La Pianiste" several years ago, I said to myself that I would never see it again, so powerful and disturbing it was. Time went on but I could not get the movie and its main character, Erika Kahut out of my mind. The story of a respected Piano teacher in Vienna Conservatory, cool and collected on the surface, an expert in classical music, with the inner world so dark and disturbing with the demons of fear, self-loathing and self destruction strong enough to ruin her demanded more than one viewing. I read the book "The Piano Teacher" by Elfriede Jelinek, the controversial Nobel Prize winner in literature that the film is based on and after reading it I saw the film again. Second time, all pieces of puzzle came to the right places. Not very often an outstanding harrowing book is transferred to the screen with such brilliancy as "Le Pianiste". Three actors gave outstanding performances. Franz Schubert's Piano music, "soaked in the morbid humanity", is another bright star of the movie.

I only have one problem with Haneke's vision. There is a scene in the film where Haneke made some changes to Erika's character comparing to the novel. In the book, the furthest she went to reveal herself to Walter, the young student in the conservatory who became attracted to her, was in a letter. As soon as he realized what he was dealing with and showed to her how much he was repulsed by that, she had stopped communicating with him. Erika of the book would never chase Walter to throw herself to him. She kept everything inside - she did not like to act, she was not a chaser - she loved to watch. The big scene during the hockey game was not necessary. It tried to make Erika sympathetic (and of course, Huppert was heartbreaking) but it took the mystery that surrounded her - Jelinek did not write that scene, it sounded and looked false in otherwise excellent film.

Sentiment: positive
A couple of friends and myself visited the video shop a few years back and we were in one of those moods to rent some cheesy non seen flicks. My friend grabbed Head of the Family and we were greeted by a head sitting in a wheelchair. Well that set us off laughing and we decided to have a bet to see who would be the one who had to go to the desk and pay for the movie. Well you guessed it, it was me!!!!!!!! I have never been so embarrised in all my life. We got home and put it on and we rolled about the floor laughing for about 45mins because this was the funniest film in the world. I cant remember much about it but one thing i do remember was the blonde girl getting it on with some guy in the back of a shop every 5 mins. That head made me laugh and when i look at other peoples comments aboout this movie it makes me laugh even more. Head of the family is so good and the head is funny and im still laughing ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Sentiment: negative
Who wrote this flick? An uninspired 15 year-old?

Could have been written by one of the kids who did the Columbine shooting.

Totally nonsensical, not funny all, boooooooriiing...

Plus this: the French do not put their flag everywhere. You do not walk into a French bank and see the tricolore flag displayed like that. Even on Bastille day.

I have nothing against the blood bath thing. It's just that none of this is either credible or funny. Or parodic, or anything like that.

Ok, those who liked this flick will tell you I must be some type of fascist, so forget about my comment.

Sentiment: negative
Bud Abbott and Lou Costello always had a good following among children, but in their careers I think you could say that they only made one film that could be designated for kids. Jack and the Beanstalk was that one film.

It was part of a two picture independent deal from Warner Brothers, the second film being Abbott and Costello Meet Captain Kidd. These were the only two films the boys made in color. 

The two of them, out of work as usual, take a job for a very precocious and obnoxious young David Stollery as a babysitter. Although it starts out with Costello wanting to read the kid, Jack and the Beanstalk as a bedtime story, the young lad winds up reading it to Costello. Lou falls asleep and in his dreams he fantasizes he's indeed Jack the Giant Killer.

Buddy Baer who menaced the boys in Africa Screams plays the giant and he's got a giant size Dorothy Ford as his housekeeper. Dorothy was a big girl, 6'2", and you can imagine she had some difficulty being cast except when her height was used as a joke. One of the only players who ever looked down at her was John Wayne in Three Godfathers at 6'4". Henry Fonda and James Stewart in On Our Merry Way also stood barely above her, but again her height was part of a gag.

Shaye Cogan and James Alexander were the princess and prince of the fantasy and they sang beautifully, but couldn't act worth anything. This was the last film of William Farnum who's career dated from the early silent screen days and even to the turn of the last century on stage. He played princess Shaye's father the king.

Some not terribly memorable musical numbers came from Jack and the Beanstalk, save the title song. I well remember as a kid having the 78 record of Bud and Lou singing the song and reciting the story. I was in my early single digit years, but became a lifelong fan of their's through that and their television series.

Jack and the Beanstalk is still a good children's picture for the very young, though I would warn parents to warn their little urchins not to imitate young master Stollery.

Sentiment: positive
"In the world of old-school kung fu movies, where revenge pictures came a dime a dozen, it took a lot for a film to stand out -- and even more to make it a fan favorite after all these years. What is arguably Chang Cheh's finest movie continues to hold influence over the Hong Kong movie industry, from the themes of loyalty, brotherhood and revenge as explored by John Woo (who got his start in the HK movie industry working for Chang) during the heyday of heroic bloodshed during the late 1980's, to more modern movies like A Man Called Hero, which sports a character in a costume inspired by this film. The influence has also carried into other areas as well, from music such as the Wu-Tang Clan, TV commercials for Sprite and video games such as "Mortal Kombat." So what makes this movie so special? The plot -- on the surface -- is pretty simple. It deals with members of a rogue group known as the "Poison Clan" who are searching for a treasure hidden by their sifu. All of the members of the clan have extraordinary kung fu abilities, denoted by their animal styles, or "venoms" (the lizard can climb walls, the scorpion has a deadly strike, etc.). The twist is that since the clan always wears masks, not all of them known who the others are. Thus a simple plot becomes almost a suspense thriller. We're not talking The Usual Suspects here, but it's far above many other kung fu movies of the time. Supposedly, Golden Harvest was not too happy with Chang's script -- like most of his movies, they felt it was too dark and violent -- and they actually wanted him to add broad comic relief to it. Thankfully, Chang stuck to his guns and stayed with his original script, which has since has become revered as one of the best for the films of its time, if not ever, completing an almost perfect dramatic arc and providing the perfect backbone for the extraordinary action sequences.

But what really solidifies the movie are the venoms themselves. Chang Cheh hit upon a magical formula with the cast -- not only did he gain talented martial artists (whose moves, competed without the aid of wires or other special effects, put most modern martial artists to shame) but great actors as well. The formula proved so popular that Chang usually had one or more of the venoms in his later movies. Getting back to matters at hand, in most old-school movies, the actors seem to playing out cardboard cutouts, but here the actors actually create characters. It seems that everyone has a favorite venom (mine is Philip Kwok -- best known to many as Mad Dog from Hard-Boiled -- as Lizard) and it is this personal connection to the characters that The Five Deadly Venoms generates which makes it a true classic of the genre. Even if you're normally not a fan of old-school movies, you need to check The Five Deadly Venoms out, if for nothing else to see where modern movies got their inspiration from."

Sentiment: positive
As you may remember I have seem all three of the trilogy of trash and the first movie is the only one even remotely close to be watchable. Part two was low grade sewage and this installment is slightly better then two, but still one steaming pile of something I removed from my backyard last Monday. The premise doesn't make sense, why did the moonshiners murder that poor old lady and even in 1921 I think someone would notice a bunch of oily guys where a sweet little old lady once lived. Second, that scarecrow is pathetic compared to how cool they looked in the first movie. It's just old clothes and a burlap sack. Let's face it, the series is garbage and should be forgotten about. THE NOOSE!

Sentiment: negative
This movie brings to mind "Boys 'n the Hood," "Menace to Society," "South Central" and others of its ilk and even shares actors with some of them. The film's "us vs. the law" mentality is underscored by the all-black neighborhood vs. the nearly all-white police force. Here the cops are so bad they seem like caricatures and in one scene they even ambush the boys as they drive by in a car they've just "liberated" from its owner. It's like a bushwhacking from an old Western, but the contemporary setting makes it look all too real.

The story centers on young Jason Petty and his buddies, to whom school is just an inconvenience that takes time away from their "real occupation" of boosting cars. This happens to be Newark, N.J., a rust-belt city low on jobs but notoriously high on crime. In fact the problem is so severe that the cops all have "Car Theft" written on their backs, to show that an entire unit must be devoted to this particular crime.

The boys use a "slim Jim" to gleefully break into cars and go joy-riding, as if it's no big deal. They only run into real trouble when the police ambush them. The vicious, Nazi-like Lt. has a vendetta against the boys, seeing them not as human beings who might be worthy of redemption, but as human targets. In fact, he's a little reminiscent of that sadistic Nazi officer of the Warsaw ghetto, who shot down Jews for pleasure in the film "Schindler's List." When the boys steal a police car in retribution for the ambush, things predictably go downhill fast. They are severely beaten by the cops and Jason finally ends up in prison. Clearly these are "bad boys," who'd steal your car in a minute, but the film wants us to see them as anti-heroes, showing Jason protecting his sister and his friend taking care of his own grandmother. The film left us wondering whose side to take and who to feel sadder for: the boys whose lives are going down the drain, the honest citizens whose cars are being stolen left and right and who could be caught in the crossfire of a shootout at any moment or the city of Newark itself, the spirit of whose law is being betrayed by brutal, soul-dead cops.

In spite of the over-the-top portrayal of the latter, the film offers a realistic-looking rendering of the ghetto, of the protagonists and their families and of the culture of car theft in a city where there appears to be only 2 career paths - law enforcement and crime. Strangely, the entire subject of drugs is never mentioned.

The filmmakers (including producer Spike Lee) are obviously biased against the Newark police, who, we hope, are not as bad they are portrayed here. Nevertheless, they've given us yet another a strong, affecting story about the inner city and black youth gone awry and Sharron Corley is fine as Jason.

Sentiment: positive
Charlie Kauffman has made weird metaphysical angst popular, but this canadian gem makes it hilarious. 

Like most weird films the less said about plot the better but let's set the scene, two friends Anthony and Dave have been together since childhood, they can't cope with the world and eventually this means they no longer have to. But that is where even more problems begin.

I loved this film, it made me smile long after the final credits and that is a rare experience with so many mass produced pieces of "nothing" out there.

Don't miss this.



Sentiment: positive
Worst. Movie. Ever.

What was the purpose of filming this remake (aside from turning it into a 90-minute informercial for the movie's soundtrack)? Zombies that *run*??? I guess the director never watched the original "Dead" films, which show stiff-limbed (from rigor mortis) creatures shuffling/shambling toward their living prey.

And how, exactly, did the survivors know which boat in the marina belonged to the recently departed Steve?

1/10

Sentiment: negative
I rarely comment on films but I've read the other comments and I cannot believe that there are people applauding this celluloid rubbish. I know there are certain people who have their own agenda but lets take it on merit; poorly acted, badly shot and the story felt as the director was making it up as he was going along. I am not going to focus on the sexual aspect of the film involving little kids as the makers of the film obviously knew what they wanted and what their audience would want. All I can say is it is a terrible film, the content is poor and offensive, the production is amateurish and I am glad they could not make a film like this legally today

Sentiment: negative
Crazy Six is torture, it must be Albert Pyun´s worst film. Even Blast and Ticker are better! I can´t believe how boring this film is! How this even got greenlighted? I saw this movie about 3 years ago and the only thing I remember is how bad it was. This isn´t good bad movie, it is simply bad, bad, bad, bad, bad movie.

1 out of 10 (½ out of *****)

Sentiment: negative
This show started out with great mystery episodes. I think everyone is in the first 15 or 16 episodes. After that, the show started playing short episodes with Shaggy, Scooby doo, and Scrappy doo.

I think Hanna Barbera Productions had to change 20 minutes episodes into short episodes. Some of the voice actors became unavailable. After 15 or 16 episodes, Frank Welker (who played Fred) became unavailable. I think the voice of Velma changes after first 12 episodes, because the first voice actress who played Velma was unavailable.

And the network ordered the Hanna Barbera studio to make more shorts with Shaggy, Scooby doo, and Scrappy doo, because the ratings were high. So they had to make more shorts. I wish they were mysteries like 15 episodes. Still it is a good show.

Sentiment: positive
Parrots? PARROTS? I have been around this old earth longer than most and have seen nearly all the westerns that have have produced. Old West history is my passion. Comanche Moon is one of the most poorly produced, directed and acted stories I have ever seen. There was very little historical accuracy but then, it is obvious you were operating on a shoestring budget which

played a distinct roll in this insult to intelligence. I am happy that I TIVO'd this show. It was bad enough having to sit and watch the movie plus put up with the inane commercials. Once again, there was not one actor that came anywhere near convincing. I kept hoping it would improve as the three days progressed. WRONG! I'm ashamed to say I wasted 4 1/2 hours of what precious little time I have left.

Sentiment: negative
Back in 1983, Michael Jackson's popularity was such that if he wanted to make a $1 million horror music video with the "American Werewolf" team and featuring the voice of Vincent Price, then that was exactly what he was going to do. And never has a music video created such a sensation, before or since ... when it was released on VHS, this 13-minute short became the world's largest selling musical of all time. But odds are you already know all about it, as whenever there's a list of the greatest music videos of all time, this one almost invariably takes the top spot.

It begins with Michael Jackson walking down a dark street with his date after their car has broken down. He explains to her that he's "not like other men" (damn right), and then the full moon appears from behind the clouds. His girlfriend stands there and screams, and screams, and then screams some more, during a lavish transformation sequence as Michael Jackson becomes a werewolf. He chases her through the forest, catches her and we ... cut to a movie theatre. Ah, all of this is just occurring in a horror movie that Michael Jackson and his date are watching.

So, we're five minutes in and still no sign of the song "Thriller". Extravagant, much? Anyway, you must know how it goes from here ... dancing, singing ... graveyard ... Vincent Price ... zombies ... "What's the Problem?" ... then end credits. End credits for a friggin' music video. "Thriller" isn't one of Michael Jackon's most memorable songs, but even by today's standards it sure is a bitch of a visual experience. If you still haven't seen it in it's entirety, then you definitely should someday soon.

Sentiment: positive
Yul Brynner is Major Surov, a singing, dancing, vodka-drinking Russian Officer stationed near the Austrian -Hungarian border during the Hungarian uprising of 1956 in Anatole Litvak's The Journey. Though the film has yet to be released on video or DVD, it remains one of Brynner's most compelling performances. Because of the political unrest, a group of travelers cannot fly out of Budapest but are put on a bus to Vienna. Before they can reach the border, however, their passports are taken and they are detained for questioning by the Russians led by Major Surov.

The Major has reason to suspect that there is a Hungarian freedom fighter among the group being smuggled out of the country. Indeed Lady Ashmore is hiding a mysterious passenger, Paul Fleming (Jason Robards, Jr.) who pretends to be an American but fools no one. She is helping Fleming mainly to repay a debt she owed because of the trouble her past association caused him. Among the other passengers are a British journalist played by Robert Morley, an American family played by E.G. Marshall, his wife Anne Jackson and their two children, one of which is the screen debut of little Ron Howard.

Major Surov takes a romantic interest in Lady Diana Ashmore (Deborah Kerr), and a romance of sorts develops between them. She offers him nothing but disdain and a stiff upper lip, however, though we suspect that underneath her heart still beats. The Cold War intrigue and the powerful acting carry the story but the romance is never quite convincing. It remains, however, one of my favorite Yul Brynner films and deserves to be seen if only for his passionate performance.

Sentiment: positive
"CIA Codename:Alexa" is an absolute horrible rip off of Luc Besson's classic film "La Femme Nikita"(1990). The film is basically about a woman who is taken in and trained by the CIA and is forced to do a secret mission for them. (Pretty much the same story structure of La Femme Nikita) The acting combo of Lorenzo Lamas and O.J. Simpson is perhaps the worst in cinema history. Lamas' "acting" is simply a bad Steven Segal impersonation. Watching Orenthal act in this film is an excruciating experience.

The writing and acting is so poor in this film at times it is laughable. There are so many action movie "conventions" in the film it is ridiculous: unnecessary car explosions, people flying thru glass windows, terrorists, bad ponytails, etc. The musical score resembles David Michael Frank's score for "Hard to Kill" (1990), which furthers the Steven Segal theme of this movie. There is plenty of martial arts in the film, and it is pretty well done for a low budget American production. The mindless action and over the top acting never lets up, and I have to admit I was mildly entertained. 

Lorenzo Lamas had the look of an action star back in the early 90's but he is certainly no action star, that is why he is doing soap operas and not action blockbusters. My recommendation is that you skip "CIA Codename:Alexa" and check out "La Femme Nikita" instead.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was very cute and totally little girl appropriate. My nieces have watched it non-stop since they've gotten it, and as a result I've seen it nearly 4 times all the way through. I can't get enough of it. The CGI images are great to watch, the humor is good, and the ballet portrayals are excellent. Although the story line has a few holes, no little girl will pick up on them, and as an adult, the movie is so charming that one hardly even notices. Just keep in mind that it is a Barbie movie, and, though cheesy at times, in my experience, this one lives up to the high standard which the other Barbie princess movies have set for it. I would recommend this to anyone who has a little girl who has always wanted to be a princess. It teaches a good lesson as well. Everyone is special and different in their own way, and everyone can make a difference.

Sentiment: positive
OK here is how I do this. I grade movies on 10 components. Each component will inherently start with 5 points. It can then lose or gain 5 points for a possible 10 or 0.

Mood: Action, Romance, Comedy, Drama, Suspense - I give this component 10 points. It had a perfect balance of all five aspects. The Action was fun and exiting. The Romance was not overdone, but still very emotional and moving. I laughed hard and long throughout the movie and still I was captivated by the fantastic drama, and riveting suspense.

Plot - I give this component 10 points. I thought all the good fairy tales had already been told. I found my self, sitting in the theatre, returned to my childhood, and in that instant I again believed in unicorns, wicked witches, and falling stars that make dreams come true.

Cinema Photography - I give this component 8 points. While the movie captured the story very well in the majority of the angles, I found my self more than once trying to figure out what happened just off camera.

FX - I give this component 10 points. I love that they used C.G.I. sparingly. The epic scenes were believable. The magical powers were frighteningly realistic. All in all less is more, and this had it ALL! Cast - I give this component 10 points. No names and seasoned actors alike, the cast was amazing! Michelle Pfeiffer was wonderfully wicked, Charlie Cox made Tristan come to life, Claire Danes gave emotion to the stars, and I will never look and Robert De Niro the same again.

Acting - I give this component 10 points. Even the newbie actors played their rolls to perfection. Once again, I will NEVER look and Robert De Niro the same again.

Character development - I give this component 9 points. This felt a little rushed and I think if the movie had been a bit longer they could have done the characters a little better justice.

Dialogue - I give this component 10 points. The dialogue was smart, witty, fun even the mush had good dialogue.

Score - I give this component 7 points. I can honestly remember only one small piece of music from the entire movie. I am not complaining beyond the fact that the music could be more memorable.

Ending - I give this component 9 points. Almost perfect ending! I feel that certain aspects of the ending should have been more pronounced, while others could have been more subdued, but no threads were left untied.

Total: 93% Buy the DVD? HEL YES! See it in the Theatre? Most definitely! Bottom Line: Excellent movie for everyone! EPIC! I strongly recommend seeing it in the theatre, I know I'll be going back for seconds!

Sentiment: positive
This is quite a bad movie but oh well, this movie is at least not as lame as the third Ghoulies movie.

Yes, this is a bad movie in terms of its writing, directing, acting and basically everything in between. It has such a weak, simple and ridicules story, that besides has little to do with the previous Ghoulies movie entries. It tries to connect the movie with the first movie "Ghoulies", from 1985 but then on the other hand, if they really wanted to connect this movie with its predecessors, then were are the Ghoulies in this movie? Instead now we are having some small people, played by Tony Cox and Arturo Gil, dressed up as demons. Not that the Ghoulies from the previous movies were any classic characters but they were nevertheless the heart and soul of the movie and also provided the movies with a certain amount of fun. It's like having a Gremlins movie without the Gremlins.

The movie is not really interesting to watch because it lacks any tension, good humor, intriguing characters and basically everything else you can think off because it got put together by persons who obviously aren't the most talented ones within their business. Just like at director's Jim Wynorski resume, with movies such as "The Witches of Breastwick" and its sequel, "Alabama Jones and the Busty Crusade", "House on Hooter Hill", "Scream Queen Hot Tub Party", "The Bare Wench Project" and the sequels "The Bare Wench Project 2: Scared Topless" and "The Bare Wench Project 3: Nymphs of Mystery Mountain" and "The Da Vinci Coed" on it. 

Yeah the movie is quite silly and campy but this is not really enough to boost this movie and gives it some more entertainment value. You know, it's the kind of cheap looking movie with some lame special effects, costumes, make-up and actors nobody has heard of ever since.

Still it isn't the worst movie out of the series because of the reason that "Ghoulies III: Ghoulies Go to College" is by far a more worse movie, since that one had some horrible lame attempts at humor. This movie at least still does some attempts to be serious and professional one, even though the end result is far from perfect.

Bad movie making and perhaps only watchable for those who have seen the previous Ghoulies entries.

3/10

Sentiment: negative
One of the best if not the best rock'n'roll movies ever. And it's not just mindless fun. There really were a lot of clever jokes in it. Of course I love the Ramones. But with all the "anarchy" and the "I hate high school" themes, the film doesn't at all take itself too seriously,which is what's great about it.

I first saw the movie in the Spring of 1980, and I saw it again recently. Since I went to high school in the late 1970's, it made me kind of nostalgic. 

Like I said, this film doesn't take itself that seriously and isn't pretentious like so much other teen fare of the seventies, eighties, and nineties. And to speak of, it's not really dirty or disgusting either. Only PG rated. That's rare for a movie in this category. A great cult classic and a truly incredible time capsule.

Sentiment: positive
Not every line in a comedy is funny. This movie takes a serious subject, the disenfranchisement of voters and holds it up to the light while telling jokes about it. It's the movie The Daily Show would have made if they wanted to turn it into a movie. I found Robin Williams to be much funnier in this movie than he was in RV. And while my wife and I share a few opposing political views, we were both doubled over in laughter for several parts of this movie. The script writers here could give Fox News some lessons in fair and balanced. Lewis Black was okay for his part, but never really seemed to be able to bring out his particular brand of comedy for his role. Christopher Walken was also good, playing his fairly common subdued supporting role, pushing a story along.

Sentiment: positive
This cosy middle class sitcom became the subject of much hatred by the new breed of talented comedians in the 1980s, such as Ben Elton. Did it deserve such malice? Well Terry and June was never clever, it was never a well-written tale with different threads which intersect at the conclusion. It was the show your mother and father and probably grandparents watched. They chuckled rather than laughed, but they were never likely to be offended by the show, so the fact that it never challenged them was immaterial.

One Foot In The Grave suffered initially because it appeared at first sight to be just another Terry and June.

A few days after the death of Terry Scott an episode was broadcast on terrestrial TV, and that has been its final outing. There have been few repeats of the show on any TV channel.

Thankfully TV comedy has advanced since Terry and June. It's hard to find kind words for it - Terry Scott did make the best of weak scripts.

Sentiment: negative
Obnoxious Eva Longoria dies on her wedding day when an ice sculpture of an angel (without wings) falls on her off the back of a truck and kills her. She is then tries to ruin the relationship of her ex-boyfriend with his new girlfriend, a psychic who can see her.

Obvious unoriginal movie wouldn't be bad in a clichéd sort of way, except that Longoria's character is hateful and obnoxious that she drains all of the fun out of the film. Its like having your ears cleaned with sandpaper. To be fair Longoria, nor anyone else in the cast or crew, isn't the problem, its the god awful script that sinks the proceedings. Its just really really stupid.

Sentiment: negative
Odd one should be able to stumble into "Classe Tous Risques" only by chance; it should be on any "best of film-noir" list, including IMDb's.

Lino Ventura is as good as ever; knowing of his dire, delicate family situation gives extra weight to his almost expressionless face and brief dialogues. Belmondo's restrained performance under Sautet's firm direction only shows what a wonderful actor he could - and should -have been.

"Classe Tous Risques" is utterly mininal, dry and cold, without Melville's artistic scenery, pretty faces and fancy cars. It is almost film-noir meet neo-realism. Davos' few, hard words to his children describing their life of secrecy from there on get a hold on your throat to the end of the film. 

The final sentence of the film - a voice-over telling of Davos' end in no more than ten dry, sombre words - leaves you with a hard punch in the stomach.

A true jewel in the great crown of French film-noir.

Sentiment: positive
I can't believe that they took this off the air. Especially, when they only had a few more episodes left. My daughter, sister and a few of my friends loved watching this show. We were so upset when they stopped showing this because of so called ratings. It is not fair to the people who were watching this show since the beginning. We had a right to see the end. I wish they would take an overall vote from all people with a 3 times a year voting system. They could send out papers in the mail and we as viewers could give an overall vote on all programs that we watch or have heard about. This could also help promote a new show. People would see it and wonder what it is. Not only could you see what the viewers are watching, you could also use this as a tool for free advertisement for TV and cable channels. We want to see the other episodes. Bring it back!!

Sentiment: positive
I have seen every episode of this spin off. I thought the first season was a decent effort considering the expectations of following such a success that is Grey's Anatomy. Thus i have continued to watch. I'm afraid the second season lacks the charm, the chemistry and more importantly the drama of it's predecessor Grey's Anatomy. The relationships seem contrived and the acting is so-so. The writing lacks the intelligence and comedic hints seen in GA. There are shows that a formulaic but do not feel formulaic and contrived, unfortunately PP is not so. I loved Kate Walsh's presence in GA. I'm afraid Kate Walsh's life in LA is simply not interesting.

Sentiment: negative
I'm actually too drained to write this review -- bad movies always do that to me -- but I feel obligated, as if it's my civic duty, to warn anyone who might be considering purchasing or viewing this god-awful mess-of-a-picture. Please, please, just take my word: this is one you'll want to stay away from. It's so boring and dull, so insipid and uninspired, such a poor excuse to assemble any familiar talent. Burt Reynolds? Wasted (despite his best efforts). Ice-T is barely in the film, and when he does appear on screen his performance is so restrained and muted that it becomes crystal clear that the director, perhaps intimidated by Ice's intense stare, didn't know what to do with him. Rob Lowe, as the title character, has never displayed so little on-screen charisma. Mario Van Peebles should be ashamed of himself; his performance is, in the saddest sense possible, a joke. Surely, Satan himself signed Mario's check for this film. The plot is as weak, half-baked and annoying as all the music involved (the utterly boring club song seems to continue on, literally, for the first third of the movie). The film's look will prompt one to seriously wonder if the Director of Photography was also forced, like one of the film's forgettable female characters, to smoke crack from a pipe duct-taped to his mouth. And if you're looking, at least, for stylized, shoot-'em-up-type violence you'll get none here. This film, I assure you, I promise you, has Absolutely no redeeming qualities! Please, I implore you, Avoid this Flick! Don't put it in and get suckered into believing that its pace will pick up, it'll get better, and evolve into a decent denouement. It won't. It don't. It can't! It sucks! Now, you have been warned, and I can now go to bed (It's 3am - please forgive any resulting errors this admonition might contain) -- knowing my conscience is clear, because I've done my civic duty for my fellow man!

Sentiment: negative
I saw the world premiere at the Toronto International Film Fest, this is a great film.

Real-life husband and wife Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly star as Charles and Emma Darwin in the midst of their struggle through the writing of and decision to publish "Origin of Species". Their consideration of the ramifications it may have for their family and the future of humankind are conveyed in such a manner that one suspects only an off-screen couple could achieve.

Jon Amiel (who gave a heart-felt introduction) and John Collee do and excellent job of bringing Randal Keynes' biography to life. They created some very poignant and human moments, great cinematography and sets and a generous helping of tongue-in-cheek about the still divisive theory of evolution.

The surprise star is Martha West who plays Annie Darwin, the character around whom much of the story unfurls. She plays the precocious young girl to a tee. If this performance is anything to go by her star should be on the rise.

All in all a great film, and although it is a period drama the issues that drive it are still very much alive today.

Sentiment: positive
This is Peter Falk's film. Period.

I was 10 years old when this film came out; I was already a film maven at the time. Of course neither my parents nor I saw this film when it came out, but I was in love with the typeface of its ads & the aura that this was An Important Film. Okay, 34 years later I've finally seen the film--having never seen any Cassavetes-directed film previously. He's a hack, overall. Zero sense of timing, editing. Gena's performance reminds me too much of Dustin Hoffman's stint in "Rain Man": technically on par but entirely one-note. As Tom Cruise stole "Rain Man," Falk takes the cake for this film.

I was annoyed with Gena's performance, really throughout--it seemed better suited for "Awakenings" (blecch!). It's not all her fault: she's a basket case from first scene to last. We never find out why?? But Falk's character seems real & is performed WONDERFULLY by Falk as a seriously flawed man.

Shave off at least an hour (an editor needed!), and this would have been an arresting portrait not of a woman under the influence but of a simple, Cro-Magnon, man coming to grips with a wife who doesn't work & yet cannot deal with her three kids & her husband's long hours of work.

I'd rather remember Cassavetes for "The Dirty Dozen" or "Rosemary's Baby." He would have been a better director had he snipped his own tendency for excess--as he amply demonstrates with this film.

Bob

Sentiment: negative
I would love for members of the cast and crew to sit down and do an audio commentary on this movie! All of the different places that they went to film this movie! Should provide for some very good anecdotes! Fans of this movie would love to know:

What kind of permission did they have to get to film at certain locations?

Were there any memorable outtakes?

Were there any scenes that were deleted?

What challenges did the cast and the crew face?

Did any actors have stunt doubles?

What was it like to work with other members of the cast?

Were any of the scenes ad libbed?

What are members of the cast and crew up to now?

What locations are still there, and what locations are no longer there, or are now a different business?

It is one thing to read trivia about this movie on this site and other web sites. But there is just no comparison to getting it straight from the horse's mouth!

Come on, guys! Get together and do a commentary! Never walk away from a challenge! Go for the gusto!

Sentiment: positive
The BBC surpassed themselves with the boundaries they crossed with Tipping the Velvet. In the past they've been 'daring' with Dennis Potter's works but this mini-series (as it was screened in the UK) is superb. Andrew Davies work is top notch - I've not read the Sarah Water's novel but I can imagine he's done it real justice. I comment on the bawdiness - most men have watched it for that - proved to be a main talking and selling point when originally advertised. The fact is, it portays the lesbian side of society in the 1800s - a time when most thought it was old men and rent boys - well it was - lesbianism took place mainly behind closed and often respectable doors.

You can also look at Tipping The Velvet as a 'love story' - it actually is - as well as 'self discovery' that many gay/bi and straight people go through and comments on this occur and repeat all the time.

If you've not seen it yet - either repeated on TV or on DVD - get it - you'll be in for a treat - and even the production and filming of it is perfect. Just try to hide your blushes in parts - like I said - 'bawdy' is the order of the day - and beware a 'phallus' or two!

Enjoy!

Sentiment: positive
Like NIGHT STALKER and then X-FILES, the show set up a fantastic situation and the main characters had to sort it out. Unlike these, the hero(es) weren't left holding an empty bag at the end. They had usually tangible results. It was also made clear that the 'good guys' were in a dirty profession where they occasionally had to pull some nasty things. Imagination, wit, acting which didn't always take itself too seriously ... I miss it. One reason being, I'm hard pressed to think of too many shows - BANACEK aside - which did as good a job of taking the viewer and grabbing their attention right off the bat. The writers excelled at setting up hugely improbable, if not downright impossible situations which the characters then had to find an explanation to. explanations which often took 90 degree turns into the clearly unexpected yet, for all that, still made sense. Too, I agree with another reviewer that the Anabelle character was somewhat underused, but when she was on screen, it wasn't just for eye candy. She was quite competent in her own right and stood up to the two male leads when she felt the point she was making warranted it. A rarity in those days. Sullivan? If he wasn't in the Department, he'd be working for the KGB or CIA. He's that sort of coldly efficient, ruthless type. He knows how the world works and realizes what it can take to get the job done. King? It's clearly a game to him. One he excels at and which he parleys into ideas for the detective/spy novels he writes as his ostensible 'real' job. He's probably the most fun to watch of the three, although they all have their moments and often, too. I do agree that the eventual spin-off series featuring only his character lacked the interest of the original, however.

Sentiment: positive
I think this cartoon is one of the worst cartoons I have ever watched. I would recommend this cartoon to people who are under 5. I did used to like this show when I was 4 and 5, I still only watched it when there was nothing on. Now I am other 5 and I would rather do my homework than watch it. The cartoon used to be a bit funny but they were not enough to make me burst out laughing. Now I am older I am interested in show witch are not rated Us. I have started to watch Doctor Who (12A), Torchwood (15) and Sarah Jane Adventures (PG). I am interested in things to do with Doctor Who so I am not interested in 5 year old cartoons. This cartoon didn't last very long it only had 6 seasons, it got cancelled because of it was low on viewers but some people say it was because the writers ran out of ideas but for most other shows they have at least 8 seasons.

Sentiment: negative