DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This wartime sitcom written by Jimmy Perry and David Croft, who wrote TV's best programme ever Dads Army, was not as good as Dads Army, but still very, very funny.

It is about A concert band in India. Most episodes were about BSM Williams (Windsor Davies) trying to get the concert party, who he referred to as a bunch of puffs, posted up the jungle. He was always unsuccessful as the vague Colonel Reynolds (Donald Hewlett) and the stupid Captain Ashwood (Michael Knowles) were big fans of the concert party. The concert party consisted of Bombadier Solomans (George Layton), Ginger Rogers impersonator Gunner "Gloria" Beaumont (Melvyn Hayes), University educated piano player Gunner "La de da" Gunner Graham, a.k.a Padarouski (John Clegg), singer Gunner "Lofty" Sugden, Gunner Parkins (Christopher Mitchell) (Williams thought Parkins was his son, he was quite wrong), big eater Gunner "Nosher" Evans and animal impersonator's (Kenneth MacDonald), he was no Percy Edwards. Also, heavily involved in the adventures were faithful Indian servant Rangi Ram (Michael Bates), with the Char-Wallah and the Punkah-Wallah (Dino Shafeek and Babar Bhatti) giving Ram wonderful support. 

The show, just like Dads Army left many catchphrases. Rangi Ram used to say to his Punkah Wallah "Don't be such clever dickie" and he ended a lot of the shows saying "Here is a very old Hindu Proverb e.g When wife is having affair with best friend, it doesn't stop your house from catching fire" It was Williams though who had the most catchphrases. He would always shout "Shuddup!!!!!", say "Oh dear, how sad, never mind" and when talking to Gunner Graham, he would always sarcastically talk in a posh accent.

This show doesn't enjoy the same recognition as Dads Army did. This is probably due to a question of taste: This is seen as being crude. Williams is homophobic calling his men "Puffs", though it has to be said Williams is a bore. Also, some people think there is a racial element in the humour, using the fact that Michael Bates was blacked up to play Rangi Ram (Bates was actually born in India though and spoke Urdu before he spoke English), so the BBC will feel a bit uneasy putting it on, even though the vast majority of people who have actually WATCHED the show would agree that the show isn't racist, I know someone who is half Indian, and they weren't the slightest bit offended and agreed like I did that it was a very funny show. When I see an episode for the first time, I laugh probably more than I do for any other sitcom, but when I see it second time round, I don't laugh all that much, but no matter how many times I see Dads Army, I laugh many times in an episode.

Best Episode: The Road to Banu, series 1, episode 7

Sentiment: positive
Pleasant story of the community of Pimlico in London who, after an unexploded WW2 bomb explodes, find a Royal Charter stating that the area they live in forms part of Burgundy.

This movie works because it appeals to the fantasy a lot of us have about making up our own rules and not having to listen to THEM. A solid cast of British stalwarts, especially Stanley Holloway, makes this more believable.

There are some very nice moments in the film, such as when the people have ran out of supplies and other Londoners on the other side of the barricade start throwing food and other things over to them.

Even though you always knew Pimlico would become part of the UK again, the people of PImlico and as a consequence the viewer doesn't mind when this happens, leaving a nice happy feeling.

It's amazing to think that these low budget movies from a small studio in London still remain so popular over fifty years later. The producers must have got something right.

Sentiment: positive
'Presque rien' is a story of two young boys falling in love during summer stay by the seaside. I don't want to tell the plot, because it's not what's most important about this film (but you can be sure that it's interesting and original). The best part of this movie is the cinematography. The visual side of 'Presque rien' is so amazing it deserves highest note. It leaves you charmed with its beauty.

As for the plot, it is shown in uneven, rather complicated way. There is no simple chronology nor there are answers to all the questions the film brings. But this is what makes 'Presque rien' even more interesting. I recommend this movie to all the people for whom the artistic side of films is very important and they will not be disappointed.

Sentiment: positive
Among the many accolades here for this production, there was one individual whose comments asked if he/she were the only one (who wasn't that enthralled by it) - i.e. giving this film 3 stars. However, the comment went on to indicate an overall liking of the story, and other production of same. Well, this person isn't the "only one," who didn't like this production (include me!) but there I part company even with him/her. If you put a gun to my head and asked me to make a choice between your shooting me or watching this flick again, I'd watch it, certainly - but I'd probably spend 10 seconds thinking about it. I'd much prefer being locked into solitary confinement, or having to watch paint dry on a wall, though. Further, I wouldn't want to see this story again, anytime, anywhere, or in any alternative presentation. Sometimes you feel like comedian George Gobel's "pair of brown shoes when the rest of the world is a tuxedo," and this is one of those for me. I liked Angela Lansbury in a favorite movie of mine, "Long Hot Summer," and while not a huge fan of the show, enjoyed "Murder, She Wrote." But HERE -- I not only didn't care for the story or other aspects, but I found Angela's squealing, squawking, singing, and everything else about her over-the-top performance, perhaps the MOST ANNOYING presence in any movie (or presentation in any other media) I've ever experienced. It was like an unending continuation of Audrey Hepburn's equally "over-the top" Cockney chortling at Rex Harrison - in the earlier portions of "My Fair Lady." But that was incident to the plot, presented for light, comedic effect, and (mercifully) brief. Unmercifully, this was anything but brief, and to me seemed as if it had gone-on for about 10 hours (Einstein's layman's explanation of "relativity" at work.) If I hadn't been with friends, with the necessity to remain, MY viewing would have been brief. I laughed, though, at the "Seinfeld" episode where Elaine pisses everyone off because she tells them how much she disliked "The English Patient." My friends somewhat regarded me the same way when I interrupted their waxing ecstatically over this movie. Give me some dragging fingernails loudly over a chalk board anytime instead.

Sentiment: negative
I just took my 11 year old daughter and 8 year old son to this movie and I can't remember a movie where I laughed SO hard -- literal out loud, deep bursts of laughter because this movie is hilarious. Granted the story line is predictable but the ride is so extremely enjoyable it doesn't matter that you know how it's going to end. The actors' comedic senses of timing were impeccable. The actors were perfectly cast. My children mentioned that Amanda Bynes seems to be the last of the young women actresses who aren't ruining their lives. She is so refreshing. My children said this is now their favorite movie of 2006. Our money was well spent on this movie.

Sentiment: positive
The odd mixture of comedy and horror sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Had the main male character been a little more interesting, the film would have been as well. A trio of young Americans visit Paris, run into a beautiful werewolf, and the problems confound from there.

Numerous logic holes make the possibly intriguing story difficult to take.

Sentiment: negative
This movie treads on very familiar ground -- the confusion of art and reality in the life of actors. It does not have anything particularly novel or interesting to say on this subject and is in fact rather dull. The final scene in particular is interminably tedious. Seeing the audience crying at the "moving" acting they are seeing on the screen made me ask "who do they think they are kidding?"

Nevertheless there are some good performances and interesting scenes, particularly from some of the minor characters. Ben Gazzara plays an old and slightly touched actor, who gets a whole posse of policemen clapping his performance when they come to arrest him.

Christopher Walken again plays an over-the-top wacko. Remember his character "The Continental" on Saturday Night Live; an aging eurotrash satyr chasing a young woman around the furniture and trying to get her into bed? He does an identical turn in the film, chasing his young (male) prey around an antique table and plying him with champagne.

Overall this film was both enchanting and irritating, but mostly irritating.

Sentiment: negative
What in God's name happened here? How does one go about creating what is practically a cheap knockoff of Redneck Zombies? Was Zombie '90 ever supposed to entertain someone ...anyone, or even make a dollars profit? But mainly, what happened here? 

Zombie '90 Extreme Pestilence was directed by a lunatic by the name of Andreas Schnaas, who specializes in earth-shattering gore films, such as Goblet of Gore, and Anthropophagus 2000, and some of which contain profanity in the titles. In the gore department, this one isn't much different than the rest. Although, the level of ineptness ...well, earth-shattering.

Zombie '90 Extreme Pestilence is as bad as Peter Jackson's Dead-Alive is gory, think about it.

Getting too specific with the story would be a waste of time. An accident, involving chemicals causes the dead to come back, and eat the living. Never has the concept been treated in such a manner. The gore effects are a whole, new low. Just a Z-grade nightmare. I can't tell whether, or not this was originally meant to be funny, somehow, I doubt the English dubbing was being very true to the original script, but stranger things have happened. The whole thing just reminds me of a shot-on-video introduction to a Troma movie, except it lasts a hell of a lot longer.

I've seen only one film that was worse than this, The Chooper.

For proof that Andreas Schnaas is an actual director, I would highly recommend Nikos The Impaler If you think you have no standards in what you look for in a bad movie, give Extreme Pestilence a try, but you've been warned. It takes nerves of steel to make it all the way through. But if gore is all you're here for, then you might be able to stomach this one. Other than that, no atmosphere, no, and I mean NO budget, no entertainment value, but mostly, no pride. Show some pride, Schnaas. 1/10 

Updated 7/5/09: After a few more viewings of Zombie '90, I've had a change of heart, or I guess I just get it now. Zombie '90 is hilarious, so nevermind the harsh words, Although, Extreme Pestilence still only deserves one star.

Sentiment: negative
Mary Poppins is definitely much better, but this is a lovely film nonetheless. Angela Lansbury is splendidly dotty as Engletine Price, and David Tomlinson has great fun as Mr. Brown. Their chemistry was just brilliant as well. The children, however just lacked the same sparkle, though Paul is very funny and cute. The songs were actually not as bad as some people say, "Beautiful Briny Sea" is the best, in fact all the songs are outstanding. The special effects were wonderful, that had plenty of magic, and the story is original enough. The highlights, though, like Mary Poppins, were the animated sequences. The underwater sequence was beautiful, but my favourite was the football match, which was absolutely hilarious. The only other criticism was that I didn't quite get the ending when I first saw it. All in all, a lovely film, that is hardly ever on. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Sentiment: positive
While not the first movie I've purchased for myself, this is almost certainly the one I've watched the most. The animation is well-drawn by the experts at Tokyo Movie Shinsa, and the animators frequently made use of clever techniques such as having the sun cause "lens flare", having the camera get soaked (and having the "camera operator's hand" clean the lens!) etc. While the film avoided becoming a an "animator's gadget-fest", the judicious but generous application of such techniques gave the film a much more "realistic" feel than the typical cartoon.

The story has many interweaved plots which don't seem to have much to do with each other until everything comes together at the end, in a manner even the writers self-effacingly admit is contrived. Each of the major plot lines has its own musical theme, ranging from "Pop goes the weasel" [Hamton & Plucky], to the love theme from "Romeo and Juliet" [Fifi & Johnny]. The transitions between plotlines are slightly varied, but consistent.

Truly a wonderful film; there isn't much original music, though the new lyrics to "Spinning Song" are clever and enjoyable. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

Sentiment: positive
If you haven't seen this yet, I say just move on, take a walk in the park, don't waste your time. Neither the scenario nor the acting is worth your money. *Spoilers*- I can't decide which was worse: The movie itself or Baldwin's hairstyle? Ellen Pompeo's acting talent is very questionable I hope she can improve it over time. The storyline is just unbelievable. Loose cannon American cop fighting criminals in Europe on his own?? Infamous Slavic mafiosi protected by only two hunks??? An emotional art teacher leading a ruthless gang??? Spanish police executive dumber than a sack of hammers??? Give me a break. There's only one good thing about this movie, though: At least, the production costs must be lower than "Ocean's 12"'s which was as meaningless and over the top as this one.

Sentiment: negative
Chaplin enters the trenches of WWI in this spirited comedy that never belittles the horrors of war. The rain, the mud, the explosions - all these things are present but Chaplin seems strangely oblivious to them all. He's in France for one thing: to fight the Germans, something he does with unbelievable success.

It almost seems like an extended ego trip for Chaplin - a very funny one, at that - until the final minute when it rises to a new level of poignancy and everything makes sense.

Perhaps it's what all soldiers dream of before the go to war.

Sentiment: positive
I also joined IMDB for the sole purpose of commenting on this film, but so that I can sing its praises. I had never heard of this movie (it's packaged so horribly that it's easy to see why it may get passed over) but a good friend suggested it to me and I'm so glad she did. It's a gem of a film. The actors are great (Kathy Bates and Meredith Eaton in particular) and look like they are truly having a fun time. Sure at times it was a bit over the top, but I cannot remember the last time I laughed so hard or so many times over the course of two hours. If you love to laugh, then you owe it to yourself to see this film.

Highly Recommended.

Sentiment: positive
Having read the book prior to watching this adaptation you would think that it would have lost some of its thrill. However, the story is so clever I could never tire of it. 

Sally and Elaine really put their hearts into their roles and brought out so much of the characters. I fell in love with the story and the women all over again.

Beautiful to watch thanks to direction, settings and costumery. Despite the plot speed of television, I don't feel that anything important was lost in transit. It had me on the edge of my seat throughout with lots of wonderful stomach-trembling moments. Enjoyed it thoroughly. This is the kind of television I have been waiting for.

Sentiment: positive
I think my summary says it all. This MTV-ish answer to the classic Candid Camera TV show features a Gen X (or is that Gen Y) type putting in false choppers and wearing various hats and wigs and glasses, and setting people up in fairly outlandish although often not very interesting situations. Example: Kennedy has a guy invite his parents to his "wedding." Kennedy is the bride, done up in a full bridal gown and long wig. The "joke" is that the parents immediately understand their son is marrying a man who claims to no longer have his "bits and pieces." Problem is, this schtick goes on way too long, obviously to fill out time. And Kennedy is about as funny as a dead cod lying in the sun. Candid Camera would have run three or four scenarios in the time it took Kennedy to get through this one, running around, constantly asking "Do I look fat?" I recognize the show was not made for me. It was made for 12-year-old pinheads who think JACKASS is the height of comedy today. So let them laugh. Thank God the show was short-lived.

Sentiment: negative
This is precious. Everything Is Illuminated is sweetly and sublimely funny from the first delicious line of dialogue. Oh, how I've been waiting for this to arrive in Austin. While Elijah Wood is charming as ever as Jonathan Safran Foer (the real-life author of the novel Everything Is Illuminated), it's Eugene Hutz (playing Jonathan's Ukrainian tour-guide and translator, Alex) who truly steals this film. Alex is a hip-hop-lovin' Ukrainian break-dancer who, along with his grandfather, helps Jonathan find the woman who saved Jonathan's grandfather's life during World War II. The Ukrainian countryside has never looked so breath taking. I'm thinking of packing it all up and moving to the former Soviet state.

The tone of the film, however, shifts when Jonathan and Alex do finally meet the woman they're looking for, and suddenly, this adorable comedy turns into a heart-breaking historical drama about a Jewish village that was annihilated during the Nazi occupation. Everything Is Illuminated is about history, heritage, and the wisdom that can be gained from uncovering the past. It's perfect.

Sentiment: positive
(this may be a bit on the spoilerish side) I would like to start by saying I did not watch the entire movie, nor could I because it was evident from the first hour that I was going to be incredibly disappointed. That of course is the problem with taking, what many believe to be an amazing book, and turning it into a Disney Made-for-TV movie.

A Wrinkle in Time should have been made into an amazing movie a long time ago. It's got a great storyline that could hook children and adults. Plus it's got built in quality sequels. But Disney-fying was not the way to go. The problem with the movie is that all the things they changed to turn it into a visual story dumbed down what was so great about the book. It is a complicated and emotional story for kids. There was no reason to make Charles Wallace purely "psychic", because that was the easiest way of explaining it. There was no reason to write a fight between the three Mrs. W's as added tension, there is enough tension in the story without that. There was no reason to remove Meg's glasses... that deprived us of what could've been a very sweet scene between Calvin and Meg that happens in the book.

I could nitpick for days about little things, but I also think larger things, like the art direction was a off. Take for instance the way they made Camazotz look, with its strangely darkened skies. The creepiness that comes across in the book is that Camazotz could be Earth. It looks like earth. It has people on it that look like humans. The skies are blue, the grass is green, and there are children playing. But something is a little bit off. The directors chose to make Camazotz a complete other instead of taking the lesson in the book and applying it to the overall direction of the movie. The lesson of course is that Camazotz could very well be Earth, that is if we forget how to love. It would've been much creepier to have a beautiful afternoon as they're walking down the street with the kids bouncing the balls in the same rhythm.

I unfortunately did not watch the end. Maybe someone can tell me how Disney messed up the end as well.

Overall an artistic disappointment.



Sentiment: negative
As a kid I grew up with the chintzy 60's TV series (and no I'm not that old POW!). However when director Tim Burton brought his novel vision to the silver screen, I simply took an immediate shine to it and never backed away from favoring his installments over the much hyped-latest additions ('Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight'), which I don't really care for. Even if they're going for a much more grounded approach and wanting to explore Bruce Wayne/Batman psyche further but in honesty I don't think there's all that much to tap in to. I wanted crazy fun with a dark streak and in my eyes that's what Burton brought across, and this is the reason why I can watch them over and over again. 

After wowing audiences with the 1989 'Batman', thanks to the gaudily Gothic art direction and Jack Nicholson take no-prisoners performance of the camped-up, but psychotic Joker. Burton would return 3 years later for the follow up and my favorite of the batman films so far; 'Batman Returns'. Camp, but well-done. In what would fair up to being even more expansive, louder, dreary, and nihilistic and having two villainous foes for the price of one. Enter the grotesque Penguin (with Danny DeVito magnificently going out on a limb) and the ravishing Catwoman (a steamy Michelle Pfeiffer who fills out the suit nicely) coming to spoil Gotham's party. Again Batman (an aptly brooding Michael Keaton is equally commendable and looks quite imposing in that bat suit look at the eyes) plays second fiddle to the bad guys, but I always preferred this sober interpretation of Batman that gave him an ominously gloomy mystique, but also a wearing psychological complexity that never felt the need to force feed. And his turn of Bruce Wayne was well served too. Burton's illustratively atmospheric direction opens with his sleek Gothic style engraving an carnival comic book world filtered in with a splendid range of characters and vivid costumes. The moody narrative (in what probably is a tad too long) is more so symbolic in its progression, rather show-piecing its spontaneously arresting and extravagant set-pieces and sharply etched art direction covered with shadowy tinges and grey/blue neon lighting of a wintry backdrop. The magnetically free-flowing camera-work takes flight and Danny Elfman's stately spacious score balances the playfulness along with gloomy touches with a very hypnotic pull. The rest of the performances might be overshadowed, but Christopher Walken digs in his teeth into a smarmily glassy role of a two-faced businessman Max Shreck. Pat Hingle is back, but gets very little to do as Commissioner James Gordon and Michael Gough is delightful as Alfred. In solid support are Michael Murphy, Andrew Bryniarski, Vincent Schiavelli, Doug Jones and Peter Rubens also makes a cameo appearance.

Sentiment: positive
You know, I went to see "The Hills have eyes 2" wanting to like it. I really enjoyed the original, and the remake was fairly entertaining. They obviously had more money to throw around than Wes Craven did on special effects the second time around. Even though I still prefer the original film, the remake was done well, and it was kind of a guilty pleasure for me. Bloody, intense, and great special effects. In short, a great popcorn movie for any horror fan.

Which brings us to "The Hills have eyes 2". Man, where do I start? The plot, or lack of one, is paper thin. We are not exactly breaking new ground here.The military has decided to monitor the area, and all of these people turn up missing. So what do we do now? Let's send in the National Guard to investigate. In true Hollywood fashion we need to make them the dumbest, and worst soldiers ever seen. Gee, I've never seen that premise before. To make a long story short, you have the mutants killing off the moron soldiers one at a time in graphic fashion. Once again the special effects by Nicotero are great, but the kills no matter how graphic become boring, and predictable. Honestly it seemed to me that this flick was done just to grab a quick buck. It was bloody, and graphic, but I found it predictable, boring, and not scary at all. For me it would have been nice if this film contained one original thought.Wes Craven and his son shared the writing duties, and he has been involved with many of my favorite horror films, but sadly this isn't one of them.

Sentiment: negative
I put in the DVD expecting camp perversion from the creators of Society and Re-Animator, and was quite surprised to become involved in an authentically suspenseful tale. Acting was top-notch (nice to see Vosloo in a protagonist role after a long string of villains), the storyline involving, and the few twists fairly surprising. I figured I would fast forward through much of it to get to the abduction scenes, but instead watched it through, only being let down at the very end.

Maybe I'm being too lenient, but as I stated before, I wasn't expecting much more than alien sex. Of course, if you ARE looking for some hot alien sex, you will be let down. It was mostly quick-cut exam table nonsense with a blink-and-you'll-miss-it glimpse of an interesting 'impregnator' alien.

Sentiment: positive
Well, I have to say, this movie was so bad that I would have walked out if i didn't have to review it for work. ANd the worst part is, I wanted to see it so badly that I drove all over the city, paid $10 parking two times because the newspaper listings were wrong. Vince Vaughn plays the guy he always does -- the only time I've seen him play someone else was in that movie with John Travolta. Anyways, the plot has potential -- it sounded great in the preview, but it is filled with totally ridiculous, predictable, weak plot turn points. And I was hoping that this would be one Christmas movie where Christmas DIDN"t have to be saved, and that Santa didn't need a replacdmetn, but nope. The only cool part was the sleigh rides, and the little bladck kid was the best character. I'm sure this movie would be great for young kids, but for adults it's so lame that it's chore to sit through.

Sentiment: negative
First off, I really loved Henry Fool, which puts me in a very small pool of movie goers. Parker Posey is one of best actresses on-screen today. But this film was a full-out travesty. Watching Hartley and the actors talk about the film in the extras - so full of pride, and making pointless analogies to Star Wars - was stomach-turning. This was hype on the producers part (HDNET) realized to the max. A true example of the Emperor and his new clothes. Mostly I feel that Hal has spoiled HENRY FOOL forever. I don't think I can ever see it again in it's pure, innocent light.

Remember Hal, you can FOOL some of the people some of the time... etc. The director would be nowhere today if all he did was churn out meaningless garbage. Sadly, it's a pure example of the lesson taught in the film ADAPTATION. The story must be exciting and active, or its box-office hopes are dim indeed. Never mind a decent story. For the actors, it was like trying to act in a straitjacket.

The score, I believe Hartley's, is tasteless. With drum hits walking all over dialog. There was one Apple Soundtrack loop I recognized that gave me a smile.

When I saw the trailer, I thought, oh, they're just trying to grab a new audience. But it's really this ridiculous ride. I'd be happy to spoil this movie for you, but it's been done. It's rotten. The FOOL franchise is dead. Long live Henry Fool.

Sentiment: negative
John Sayles, what have you done?

"Silver City" had moments in which I could see the glimmering hope of a good story, well-drawn characters, thought provoking dialog. And then those moments would quickly be covered over by layers of poor writing, clumsy direction, and abysmal acting. I truly love almost all of John Sayles' work, but "Silver City" is ghastly.

I got the feeling that Sayles may have been working on the beginnings of a good story involving the illegal labor and industrial corruption plot lines, but then he got rushed and stuck the secondary plot line satirizing the Bush administration onto it. The two stories don't really connect with each other, and the weaker elements of the political theme dominate the first 3/4 of the movie, causing me to lose patience with the whole affair.

The other major flaw is Danny Huston's acting. His dialog in every scene is delivered with a gawping grin, regardless of its appropriateness to the mood. I hated this guy by the end of the film, having been reminded of every bad actor in every high school play I've ever seen. Not having seen Huston in anything else, I don't know whether to blame him or to blame Sayles' direction of him more. Regardless, he's the unfortunate focal point of a very unfortunate movie.

Right down to the last sledgehammer-subtle final scene I was disappointed by "Silver City." Sayles at his best, or heck, even Sayles at mediocre, can be so very much better than this film. See ANY of his other works instead. This isn't even worth a rental.

Sentiment: negative
The most famous thing about this movie is that this was the first time Garbo talked in a motion picture. Aside from that 'milestone' (if you want to call it that) this is a movie that doesn't go beyond creaky melodrama, with Garbo trying her best not to fall asleep.

The plot involves Greta Garbo returning to her Father after 15 years abroad. Her father, who is a captain on a barge, is happy to see her, even though she's acting a bit cagey. She soon falls in love with a grizzled seaman, who also notices that something, a barrier if you will, is holding her back.

Anyways, the two fellows don't particularly like each other and soon come to blows over Garbo, when she diffuses the situation by revealing her Big Secret which is no surprise to us, if you've read the video box (damn you MGM!!) Garbo is nothing but arms in this movie, she acts and acts flailing her arms about, and gets grating quickly. The two male leads are alright. Probably the best performance comes from the classic silent actress Marie Dressler, who plays the drunken captain's even drunker girlfriend. What a performance! It's too bad the tagline couldn't have read, "Dressler Talks!"

Sentiment: negative
Eastenders has gone full circle from unmissable in 1985 to totally abysmal now. It's such a bad reflection of the nation this crap tops the ratings.

The ideas for plots can consist of nothing more trivial than putting ever characters name in a hat. The first two out (regardless of their sex) will sleep with each other, the 3rd & 4th out will have a fight in the Vic, the 5th one will be arrested, the 6th develop an addiction, 7th get pregnant etc etc.

The producers are clever though. The 30 minute show is only actually ever comprised of 3 lines.

1) Someone will walk in the Vic & say "What's goin on?" 2) Someone else will stand up say "leave it aht" (out) 3) Then a woman will say "Doan choo come in ere 'n' insult mah fam'ly"

That's it. That's every show. Apart from the occasional "Get it sort-id / Is it sort-id?"

The show was once a realistic portrayal of East End folk & their way of life. The buffers came off when 1) They extended it from two nights a week & 2) The Slater family turned up. How they attract viewers is beyond me. The Kat character symbolizes everything that's gone wrong with society, treating anyone else like something she's pulled off the bottom of her shoe.

The people who vote her the best character, in these polls, must the same as the ones that vote Jamie Redknapp 'Best Sportsman' despite the fact he hasn't played a game for 3 years.

What I can never understand is if the show is the pinnacle of British TV why do all the biggest names leave? Ross Kemp, Martin Kemp, the list is endless.

How long has the longest couple's marriage lasted, with them being faithful to each other? Yes, people leave, but until the script writers realise that characters, couple can be interesting & likeable without sleeping around the show will continue to deteriorate. An episode last week had 3 separate plots of exactly that. And Zoe & the doctor top even Lofty & 'Shell' as 'Most Unconvincing Couple Ever to appear on TV.'

Yes, Eastenders is the most watched show, thats undisputed. But many external factors contribute to that. 19.30 / 20.00 is the perfect time of day to gain the most audience figures, it has an omnibus edition for 2 hours, and more than that, millions of the viewers watch it, out of nothing more than habit, but if they were completely honest to themselves, they would admit that (in 2002, more than ever), it can be absolutely pitiful.

Sentiment: negative
This is the Australian TV series. It is a classic. The stories and actors are excellent. Who can forget Picker and his gramophone or Chet being ambushed? This is cult TV. The Australian actors in the series were the best of their day and have immortality in The Outsiders. What can I say timeless adventure. The music and song just fantastic. The closing credits starting with the close up of the wheel, then Keir sleeping n being jostled around and then the long shot just cannot get much better than that. All 13 episodes are equally solid in the portrayal of the Australian myth and I think this is what this series has.It does not matter that the two main characters were from overseas, I think that is the key to the series and why it is so good.

Sentiment: positive
This film is really ONLY Bill Maher's interpretation of religion. There are several funny moments, and some interesting points, but don't go into this expecting an even-handed discussion of religion. This is what I consider to be the worst kind of documentary - Everything is arranged ahead of time and in editing to provide you with the opinion of the director, rather than letting you make your own decision.

EDITING - It's very chopped up, inter-spliced with clips from pop culture and the media to reinforce the point. The interviewee barely has a chance to finish a sentence before he is interrupted by the editing. The only people given a fair chance to speak their mind are those who say what Bill Maher wants them to say. Once someone deviates from the gospel according to Maher, they get edited.

INTERVIEWEES - They are meant to represent the absolute MOST extremist religions. From the TV evangelical to the ultimate Jewish stereotype, to a TRUCK STOP chapel (Seriously. A TRUCK STOP CHAPEL). He's picked the worst money-grabbers, the heavy extremists, and those who don't have the budget to say no to pick on. And when he does get a good person to interview, he edits the hell out of them.

STEREOTYPING - All religions are portrayed as stereotypes. Especially hard hit are the Muslims. During the Muslim segment, he barely gives anyone the chance to speak before interrupting them either himself, or through editing in pieces with suicide bombers. ALL Muslims are portrayed as gun-toting extremists through the editing, and none of the people interviewed is edited fairly.

ENDING - The message at the end is INCREDIBLY heavy-handed, and while it is an interesting idea, it's not presented with fairness to the countless people who are not religious extremists. Bill Maher explains himself while clips of destruction play in the foreground. This literally gives the message that religion is stupid and dangerous, and that it will destroy the world. He also states that everyone involved in religion is stupid.

With the faults to the film, it has some good points, and the humor, while very unfair, is actually funny. But know going in, it is a very one-sided view, Bill Maher's view, of religion. He's not discovering anything. He's telling you what he thinks.

4/10 - Some good moments, but heavy-handed with an extremely irresponsible documentary style.

Sentiment: negative
I watched this film with a bunch of friends at a Halloween party last night. I got to say that the sarcastic comments were never ending and I have to say that they were well deserved. Though I felt that the directing was done well, the craziness in their dialogue is just a little too much cheese. I think I got about an hour into this before I even started to realize what it was the point was that they were trying to drive home. You catch on pretty quick that this whole family is pretty quirky and something is off about them, it's just a little too slow. This movie could easily have been about 45 minutes and been a lot better. The only thing that made it bearable was the two bottles of wine that I downed during the course of the flick. Bring on the slasher films folks, because at least I know what to expect out of them. This was not my thing, too much dark humour, and the subject material of cannibalism was a bit explicit and gross. I have to say that Randy Quaid played the part as well as it could have been, and I will give him props for that as I normally see him as a drunken goofball or a washed out fighter pilot who likes to kill aliens.

In conclusion I give this horror/comedy film a very generous 3 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of those "so bad it is good" films that you always hear about but never see! Unlike Troma films which are deliberately bad and campy (and I am not amused) this one is 100% pure serious.

However with features such as a supposedly super-lethal killer robot that prances about like one of the Solid Gold Dancers on an acid trip and a magical first mate that calls down lightning and transforms into the Good Witch of the East the fact that it takes itself seriously pushes it so far over the edge of bad that makes it full circle around back to entertaining.

Watcheable enough because of that.

Sentiment: negative
At least the seats in the theater were comfortable and I ate the pop corn as loud as possible to drown out the inferior dialogue. This is absolutely not a girls film. Any blokes who like it, are the ones us ladies can be sure to stay far away from. Dumb story, mediocre dialogue and an overall cheap looking film. I've seen many, many movies but this one is the new winner in the bad category. If you do happen to see it, the one thing you'll look forward to is the ending. So you can finally run out of the theater as fast as you can.

Sentiment: negative
while watching this piece of crap! The Day after, I saw a 1min Trailer - that one minute included all, ALL what was at least not boring to watch...

so don't waste money or time on this one, get the original, it's much better though the effects might not be up to date...

Sentiment: negative
This movie is being shown over and over on cable lately, so..

There is no excuse for these 2 attractive women to fight over either Luke Wilson or the equally vapid 'villian' in this movie. The female actresses are very cute, and that's the only reason to watch this movie. I suppose it is 'funny' that Luke's even uglier/dorkier/stupider friend is around, but well, that is what we get.

Neither of the female leads would ever, EVER talk to any of the males in this movie for more than 5 minutes. What we get is them sobbing and crying and fighting and so on over 2 guys that were best described in Friday the 13th 4. Dead *@$#

Sentiment: negative
This movie is plain fun.I has nothing to do with the original America Pie, but it is fun to watch.

Another try, but better than Band camp and The naked mile, at least funnier.

Just after first five minutes i was laughing my ass out, so I decided to call my friend and we would watch it together.We had a few beers and we had fun.

You will not find any deep message in this movie, but it's worth watching.

So, lay back and just enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
This movie barely followed the story line of the movie. All of the fascinating points in the book didn't even exist in the movie. They ended up turning it into a cheesy "tween" Disney movie "crush" story between Meg and Calvin. It was so bad it should have been Hillary Duff playing the part, or one of the likes. This movie was nothing more than an insult to the intelligence and mysticism of the book. I can't believe Disney could even get away with making such a cheap, basic rendition. If you've ever read the book, I think you would agree it could easily be made into a movie of "Lord of the Rings" equivalence. This movie should have never been able to use the title of A Wrinkle in Time. Poorly done.

Sentiment: negative
My family has watched Arthur Bach stumble and stammer since the movie first came out. We have most lines memorized. I watched it two weeks ago and still get tickled at the simple humor and view-at-life that Dudley Moore portrays. Liza Minelli did a wonderful job as the side kick - though I'm not her biggest fan. This movie makes me just enjoy watching movies. My favorite scene is when Arthur is visiting his fiancée's house. His conversation with the butler and Susan's father is side-spitting. The line from the butler, "Would you care to wait in the Library" followed by Arthur's reply, "Yes I would, the bathroom is out of the question", is my NEWMAIL notification on my computer. "Arthur is truly "funny stuff"!

Sentiment: positive
OMG this is one of the worst films iv ever seen and iv seen a lot I'm a Film student. I don't understand why Angelina Jolie would be in this movie? Did she need the money that badly? I love AJ and have seen almost everything shes ever been in so i watched this 2 tick another one off. It was SOO bad! not even good bad, just bad bad. It had 1 or 2 funny little moments but all in all it was bad n a waste of 101 minutes. I cant even say AJ looked good in it because well she didn't. The plot is predictable unless you r expecting a re-telling of Romeo and Juliet then its not. All round disappointing. Maybe if your 12 this could be a good film otherwise I really don't recommend it.

Sentiment: negative
Titanic has to be one of my all-time favorite movies. It has its problems (what movies don't) but still, it's enjoyable.

When I stumble across someone who asks me why I like Titanic, I suppose my first reaction is "wait a minute, you don't?" I know so many people who don't like this movie, and I'm not saying I don't see why. "The love story is too cheesy" well, yes but isn't it enjoyable and moving? All right, the love story between Jack and Rose is very unrealistic, everyone knows that love like this doesn't actually exist. But this is a movie, doesn't everyone enjoy watching a beautiful story that lets us slip slightly into fantasy for a while? The next complaint, DiCaprio and Winslet are terrible actors. Well, OK, in this movie, I agree that they do not perform to their full potentials. However I think it's unfair to say that they are terrible actors. I personally think they are both very talented actors who unfortunately are very famous for a movie that they are not amazing in. But the roles they are given are simple, and the characters seem real enough that you can care about them quite a bit, but I agree with many people that they did not do as well as could have been expected.

And finally, if one is going to complain that they don't like this movie because they hate romance, or because they hate history, or tragic movies, then I'm sorry but why on earth did they go and see a movie that is so clearly all of these things. It's like people who complain The Dark Knight is a bad movie because they hate action movies. Simply for being a movie, not because you dislike the genre, this IS a good movie.

Well deserving of its Oscars, in particular, Best Cinematography, which I find to be the best I've ever seen in a movie save maybe the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

I know some of the writing fails, such as the constant screaming of each other's names throughout the movie. The flashback portion of the story can be quite weak at times, but overall it's an amazing achievement in making the Titanic look so real, and the sinking feel so epic.

I understand why a lot of people dislike this movie, but for the most part it boils down to them disliking the fundamental idea, such as it being a love story, rather than them thinking the movie in and of itself is poorly constructed.

I can tell you that I have read more than five books about the Titanic, including memoirs form the day it happened, and this movie is extremely historically accurate save just a few faults. The only main ones I can find is that the piping should be threaded copper, not steel, and the iceberg looks fairly unrealistic as is the scene where they hit it.

I give this movie 10/10, not because I like romance movies, but simply because it's an outstanding cinematic achievement, that leaves one feeling horrified by the realistic adaptation of events.

Sentiment: positive
1993 was the year. This was long before Phillip Seymour Thomas had won an Oscar. Who knew I would be an extra in a movie with him? I was actually a paid extra in "My Boyfriend's Back," which was shot in a suburb of Austin called Georgetown, TX. The original title was "Johnny Zombie" (thank God the producers had a change of heart!) I was in the theater scene. I rushed out to watch the movie the day it was released in theaters. It is more of a comedy than a horror movie. But... for a good laugh, you might want to check it out. Nothing that is even close to "Dawn of the Dead" or even "Shaun of the Dead" quality, but the cheese factor is good enough. ciao

Sentiment: negative
I don't think this cartoon was as bad as some may think. Of course, I was only five at the time it came out. But, I did find it very entertaining at the time and would still give it a look today if given the opportunity. Batman and Robin being voiced by Adam West and Burt Ward was a nice touch, and gave it a sense of familiarity for me as I was also watching re-runs of the campy 1960's live action show "Batman" at that age. This cartoon also introduced some new twists I had forgotten all about, like "Bat-Mite" for instance. Looking back on it, I'm sure he was likely as annoying as many think, but he didn't bother me much at the time. The best I can recall, his voice sounded like a cross between Dumb Donald and Orko. Gee, I wonder why? :) Anyway, give it a look if you can and make up your own mind. You might be surprised.

Sentiment: positive
I gave this more than a 1 because I did think there were some moral lessons in this story and it provoked some thought and comment from my wife and I. The acting and the dialogue were mediocre and I must confess I came out feeling like I had been beaten over the head with the God this , God that and Christ is our saviour stuff. The movie and the story line did not need it. If , as I am , you are a recovering Catholic or Christian avoid this one it will make you nauseous. The movie did a good job of demonstrating the thin line between being a good citizen and how someone could become a potential stalker focused on what might have been.

Sentiment: negative
I happened to catch this supposed "horror" flick late one Friday night, I wish I'd gone to bed! Tell me.. Is a 3 ft tall raincoat-clad twerp on a gurly bike supposed to convey some sort of fear? Not here, yet Mi-low is still able to beat the crap out of the janitor (Antonio Fargas) who is three times his size(?) uh-huh. And the ending is so pitiful... it just leaves you hanging with nothing to go on what-so-ever! I found myself asking, "Is that it???"

Acting is about as good as it'll get in a low budget film. The aforementioned Fargas delivers a decent performance; but it is my conclusion that Jennifer Jostyn maybe one of the worse actresses to ever strut into Tinsel Town! Sure, cute face, but bad acting.

Rating: 1

Sentiment: negative