DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I caught this show a few times when I was young and it was playing tilt, My parents loved it and now in syndication I feel what they feel. This show did what the original limits and twilight zone (new and old) couldn't do. This show used some old ideas and some truly original ideas.

I still cannot believe Jonathan Glassner and brad wright did this. Those guys were producers on stargate sg-1. The show kept the audience entrenched in the story and set a truly scary atmosphere. This is what was not there in the new twilight zone. Rod serling coming in added to the scariness, forest coming in lightened the mood. 

The ending whether good or bad made for a scary time. You could never predict what was going to happen. I am still trying to find the seasons on DVD.

Sentiment: positive
Poor old Robert Taylor. Other than THE FEDS, nothing much has gone his way - this almost-shocker is a wasteful ninety minutes and not much more. It's one of those cheesy detective-crime flicks with the narrative of the lead character the whole way through - usually that's reserved for comedies these days but this film takes itself way too seriously! A pity; Australian films, particularly in the 2000-01 periods, have been of exceptional quality overall - but I suppose there have got to be a few misses. Why even make a film like this, that obviously isn't going to be any good?

Sentiment: negative
Why does C Thomas Howell do these movies? Cruise (Howell's one time co-star) does a huge blockbuster of WOTW and Howell follows with this lame effort.

Where do I start here? Production Values - I'll start with the good stuff. The look and feel of some of the scenes in this movie are not too bad to be honest. The set-ups are okay in spots and the direction not too bad.

Script - Terrible. A series of clunky scenes that could have been put in any order you like permeate throughout the movie. The amount of times the scene faded to black and reemerged a second later in the same room was uncountable. Very poor storyline (but so was the Cruise WOTW) takes some blame but an abysmal screenplay kills it off.

Special FX - Okay, I don't want to be too harsh here as I imagine the budget was smaller than Cruise's lunch bill - but in the overall context of the film the effects are badly done. Some shots are quite impressive - mainly far off destruction shots of bridges, Washington, liner. But in the main the "alien" machines and tentacles themselves are dreadful. Also the camera quality is fuzzy on some shots and cuts away entirely on others.

Acting - I'm a fan of Howell but as he has reduced himself to acting in these low-budget flicks - he has succumbed to the "over-acting" bug a long time ago. Look at his performance in The Hitcher and compare it to this movie. There is no comparison. He overdoes his facial expressions, his flailing arms and legs (where did he get that running style???) and for a final coup-de-gras look at the scene where he loses the photo of his family. Hysterical. But after saying all that - he is still the best actor on show here. Busey is embarrassing to look at and Peter Green (Zed is truly dead now baby) mumbles incoherently through his one and only scene. I honestly could not understand one word he said - I even went so far as trying to enable the subtitles on that scene - but the DVD did not have subtitles. This seems to be a real keep-it-in-the-family affair too as Howell's son, the director's wife and the line producer all make it into the film. None of them are good.

Direction - not bad but not good either.

Score - Dismal.

Overall, a lame duck effort that will do nothing for Howell in his attempt to make it back to the big time. He should take a look at Rourke and try to figure out how he made in back to the A list but if he keeps doing stuff like this, he won't have a career soon enough.

3/10.

Sentiment: negative
Oh how awfully this movie is! I don't know if it is a horror film or a drama, cause the story and the both genres are not established very well! The story is not moving, it is slow, boring, and sleepy from the beginning to end. This movie really bores me! But I really liked the camera work, it is authentic, fresh and clear, the acting is great too, the little boy was the great performer in this movie, but it hasn't made me to jump from my seat. But this movie makes me grab a pillow, lay on the bed and sleep until the credits roll...

Boring! Not worth watching! I tell you, this movie sucked!

1/10

Sentiment: negative
They give you the set up then bore you to death with a constant cat and mouse chase. The main characters are involved in one constant stand-off where they threaten each other, every five minutes or less. And I'd like to see the police force that would let one of their cops pull off the A. Garcia bit. It's like some local cop walking Charlie Manson out of prison to go get a cup of coffee. Get real!

Sentiment: negative
Oh,God! Book II is more of a bad remake of the original than a sequel to it.It is not all that funny,its plot plays too much

like a rejected situation comedy pilot,and the use of the slogan "Think God" is a different variation on the idea that worked so much better in the original.John Denver had not returned for this movie and that made a BIG difference.George Burns,as

wonderful as he was playing God,does not have the same chemistry with the little girl that he did with John Denver.

I would give this movie a rating of 3 out of 10,but only for

George Burns;the rest of the cast is nothing special.

If you loved the first one,don't bother to see this one.

Sentiment: negative
I was all ready to hate this but it turned out to be surprisingly tolerable - though the MTV-style of film-making (shot on DV, to boot) is quite an eye-sore! I liked the script's self-mocking style, as well as its central idea of having the female vampire lead doubling as a contract killer. As to the cast, Eileen Daly (best known as the 'star' of those horrid "Redemption" intros) has an undeniable screen presence - and is quite sensual, despite her age; however, Christopher Adamson's hammy chief villain is obnoxious. David Warbeck has a brief role as a doctor (dubbed "The Horror-Movie Man"!) who conducts the autopsy on one of the vampire's victims; the film seems to have taken quite a long time to shoot as Warbeck died in 1997! There's plenty of nudity and violence on hand, but not much sense alas (especially since its subplot involving a secret society of vampires infiltrating the power structures is barely developed); the film is also overlong for its purpose, and eventually slips into tedium during the last half-hour.

Sentiment: negative
The Tooth Fairy is about the ghost of an old deformed witch that lures children to her house to get a prize for their loose tooth and then takes their lives. The first few minutes introduce you to the 1949 beginning of the legend of the tooth fairy and then switches to present day. The worn out horror plot is pretty much saved by the solid acting. They could have done without the Hammond brothers and a few other scenes, but overall the gore scenes were bloody but quick which had a minimizing effect. The eye candy is pretty good for both genders. Camera work is good. Dialog is fair but cheesy. I expected the film to be a bare bones, low budget, slasher with very few redeeming factors. I was surprised by the quality of the film.

Sentiment: negative
Every Sunday is an eleven minute short subject featuring the talents of two of its young juvenile contract players, a pair who would develop into players of note in the future. It's interesting and entertaining to see the contrasting styles of Judy Garland and Deanna Durbin as they perform at a Sunday concert for Deanna's uncle.

Of course no one knew how big both of these young ladies would get to be. I've always wondered why Mayer kept Garland and let Durbin go to Universal. L.B. always had pretensions to culture and this was the guy who had Jeanette MacDonald at his studio and later on hired such lovely soprano voices as Jane Powell, Ann Blyth, Doretta Morrow, etc.

Judy certainly had her glorious career at MGM, but she paid a heavy price for it. Deanna, along with Abbott&Costello and several Gothic horror monsters preserved Universal pictures. She was smart enough to get out at the top and make it stick.

So, in their salad days, Deanna Durbin and Judy Garland.

Sentiment: positive
An unexpected pleasure as I had heard nothing about this film.

Shameful since it warrants having a wider audience.

A wonderfully humane story with a social message gently told, although admittedly predictable in its resolution. Solidly acted by the principals. Beautifully photographed with muted colors floating against grey that captures the nostalgic tone of the film.

My recent foray into Chinese film (Shower, The Road Home, Not One Less) has been an exciting one that I hope to continue exploring. China and its people is an amazing canvas for film-makers. "The King of Masks" can be highly recommended as a starting point for anyone similarly interested in recent Chinese film.



Sentiment: positive
Seriously, Why do American and Frech actors pretending to be Czechs need to speak perfect English with a fake Russian accent? I am a man, so i enjoyed the gratuitous nudity--but a soft porn flick would have more of that, and at least wouldn't pretend it's artistic.

All the political statements where painfully didactic- has the director heard of subtlety? The acting was also woody and melodramatic, and the comic relief was never funny. The characters were very shallow, and I just couldn't identify with them at all.

The bit where I did laugh was when they cut the actors into archival footage of the demonstrations in Prague - and they were black and white and then sepia to match the footage-just ludicrous.

I read many of Kundera's short stories (not The Unbearable Lightness of Being), and there are good things about his style of writing (although his themes are one big male fantasy)-and I have to say, the film did NOT convey any of the goodness of Kunderas style.

Sentiment: negative
GEORGE AND MILDRED was a spin off from the mid 1970s sit-com MAN ABOUT THE HOUSE . Though I haven't seen the series since it was last broadcast I do remember it being fairly amusing with most of the comedy arising from the eponymous couple going to live beside the snobbish Fourmile family , a sort of LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR without the cynical racist gags .

Having seen this " big screen version of the show " I find myself asking what it's a big screen version of ? Certainly not of a popular mid 70s sit com of the same name . For some reason the movie jettisons all character interaction from the television by having George and Mildred leaving the street where they live behind and getting caught up in a plot involving some serious gangsters who want something George has inadvertently picked up and which leads to some cringe making situations and lines like: 

" Did he give it to you " 

" No that's the first time a man has resisted my charms " 

" I meant the envelope " 

You do get the impression that screenwriter Dick Sharples ( Who never wrote an episode for the original sit-com ) has never seen an episode of the source material and has got the show confused with the CARRY ON series of films . In many ways it resembles the same mistakes of the latter LOST IN SPACE movie in that it has absolutely nothing in common with the series that spawned it

Sentiment: negative
Watch out! This is not a gross out comedy like American Pie or you know the comedies of the new millenium. This is a sweet satire of dog shows focused on a bunch of completely different characters. Oh and the commentator is hilarious!

10/10

Sentiment: positive
It is not uncommon for a celebrity to be faced with the proverbial "wake-up call". And, should they survive this event, they come to a deeper understanding and appreciation of their particular good fortune. However, in the case of comedian's, they are rarely as funny after their epiphany as they were prior to it. Such is the case with Martin Lawrence. Frankly, I pay little attention to celebrities as I have much better things to do with my life than to spend it monitoring others'. So, I was unaware of the majority of what Lawrence had gone through prior to this film. It was interesting but, unfortunately, all to common. I was left with the larger impression that this guy's stand-up act just wasn't very funny. Save the big life messages for a book, just be funny on stage. If you want to see a funny Martin Lawrence, go rent some of the old Def Jams for which he hosted. Don't rent Runteldat.

Sentiment: negative
This is one seriously disturbed movie. Even Though the boys deserved some of what they got.....the sadistic gruesome executions were "slightly" over the top. The only character showing some conscience early in the hunt was killed off before he could offer some help to the sad plot.

At the beginning of the movie, there looked to be some promise of a mediocre affair, but this was just a ploy to lull the viewers into a false sense of security, before the joy of what was to come. 

The only thing that could have saved the movie for me was if Jack Nicholson had jumped out of the bushes and yelled, "and, where is the batman?". Kim Basinger could have screamed. 

Now that would have been cool!

Sentiment: negative
If Todd Sheets were to come out and admit that this movie was intended to spoof the zombie genre, I would change my rating to an eight. Try to imagine a movie where every scene, line, and even every acting nuance was designed to be a parody. I could probably crap out alphabet soup, rearrange what was left of the letters, and still have a better script. Two scenes in particular come to mind when I think of this movie. SPOILER ALERT! One is when Mike's dad and the other dad walk, I repeat walk down a staircase jam packed with zombies. This is a small staircase and even though they brush up against the flailing undead, nothing happens to them. When they reach the end, the ex-marine turns around, says "God you're a horny bastard", and shoots only one. The other is in the military complex. The girl stabs a zombie with a machete and is immediately surrounded. The camera moves around her for roughly forty seconds, while she is surrounded by zombies at an arm's length away. She then almost casually runs out from the crowd and joins the other humans. SPOILER ALERT OVER! These scenes must be seen to be believed. Still, I enjoy this movie as much as almost any comedy just because it's so damn funny. Kudos to Todd Sheets for getting so many people in his movie and having the drive to make it but not really for anything else.

Sentiment: negative
I don't know why some people criticise that show so much.

It is a great, funny show - probably not the right material for mainstream prime-time, but still...

The family dynamics are funny, and all in all the same you see in most comedy shows. The supporting characters are absolutely hilarious. The plots of the individual episodes and the frequent Siegfried & Roy jibes are only just above average, but ever so often you have sub-plots or one-liners that make you roll on the floor laughing.

This show was well worth the 8 Pounds I paid for it.

rating: 8/10

Sentiment: positive
The potential was there. I saw Creep and thought, 'Oooh, this is getting interesting' several times. Yet somehow the interesting plot lines wound up unexplained or ignored, like they never happened. The lead character was irritating throughout the movie, and at one point my fella and I both shouted that we wanted her to die. There are some genuinely spooky/scary moments, but these are grossly overshadowed by the moments that just annoyed the hell out of me. It's another one of those horror movies that crops up and intrigues you for a while, but ultimately leaves you frustrated and a little confused about what the movie makers were trying to achieve.

The one saving grace of this movie is the bad guy, but when the baddie is more likable than the lead character you know you're on to a loser.

Sentiment: negative
Although a well produced made for television movie, Dying to Love You reeks with low grade melodramatic splendor.

The film opens up to Roger Paulson (Tim Matheson, looking much older than I remember him to be), who is a struggling businessman that leads an empty, lonely life after his wife Ruthie (who looks suspiciously like Roseanne Arnold) leaves him with the quickness. Now all Roger has is his cats....and his ad in the newspaper. 

Once his ad is answered, he calls Johnnie-Elaine-Lisa-oh it doesn't matter I'm whoever you want me to be-Lawrence. Then...they have phone sex.

I'm not sure where you're from or when you were born, but I remember that phone-sex bit was played out by the late '80's. I'm sorry but that was trashy.

Soon Roger and the broad hook up and have a whirlwind romance. They fall in love, visit the zoo to see gorillas, and then have some kinky sex with Roger's son in the other room. She ties him to the bed and seduces him.

Roger is just so stupid that he does not realize that Johnnie-Eliane is just a bimbo that loves to sleep around. God forbid women only sleep with one man. Soon enough, strange phone calls begin to occur, Johnny Girl wants Roger to marry her with absolute quickness, and she keeps ranting and raving about her ex-husband who used to beat her. It's funny to see Roger believe her through all this stuff. That's until a frumpy co-worker tells him to go snooping through her belongings like a nosy housewife. He takes her crappy advice and lo and behold, he finds a suitcase crawling with fake ID cards and wigs and guns and a crossbow. He immediately takes the suitcase to the police and has her arrested. Even though all this jazz, he still loves the dumb broad. She tells so much lies, it seems her tongue will catch fire if she tells the truth once.

Roger goes on with his life and meets an ugly woman named Angela who looks like something off of Gremlins 2. She has a child as well and Roger takes quite a liking to her. But something inside Roger's subconscious keeps him connected to Lisa Rohn (if that's even her real name) and he keeps going back to see her.

Now Lisa is the "ex that won't go away" as she "earns" herself a get out of jail free card and shows up at Roger's doorstep and his son Matt is so busy trying to check her out, he pours juice all over the floor. IL' Rog is so stupid, he throws Lisa out and doesn't even change the locks. Boy, if all people were that stupid, I wouldn't even be writing this review. The ending of this movie is so corny, you won't believe.

Tim Matheson is a Made-for-TV-Movie king. he just looks like such a dawm mummy in this movie. He's a little wooden and stiff. The dazzling Tracy Pollan works well with her role and her trampiness rings true. She is extremely beautiful and I do see what Michael J. Fox sees in her. 

This movie is great to watch when you're on that late night tip, but then again, you might fall asleep, considering how dull and bland it is.

Sentiment: negative
I was impressed that I could take my 5 year old son to this movie without having to cover his ears or eyes. No sex scenes, no profanity, and not even any violence. Just good entertainment, enjoyable from beginning to end. Dennis Quaid pulls off this movie very well.

Sentiment: positive
Eddie Murphy put a lot into this movie by directed wrote starred and produced this story about two nighclub owners in the 30s who try to fight mobsters and corrupt cops from taking over their club..a great cast in Murphy Redd Foxx, Richard Pryor, Danny Aiello, Della Reese, and a gorgeous Jasmine Guy that would make it worth seeing on its own..but the story just doesnt hold up interest or give the great cast enough to work with.. on a scale of one to ten..a 4

Sentiment: negative
Yeah I watched this mini series with My Mom and dad as a kid. It was one of the few mini series that my 9 year old mind actually could follow. I recall it was very well done, and didn't necessarily have the feel of the typical crap mini series. It was more or less an original concept that really grabbed your attention. I would recommend this miniseries to anyone who is a fan of history and plot twists. Although most twists in this movie are either spelled out or predictable, it is still worth the time. I haven't checked to see if you can get it through netflix yet however. I would imagine not. They should play it on the history channel or something.

Sentiment: positive
(VERY mildly spoilerish)

I must start by saying that I'm not usually impressed by science-fiction, so Pitch Black (2000) was a pleasant surprise. It had me hooked from the very beginning with rhythm, intensity and visual outburst that left me fascinated and glued to my seat. I'm very happy to say that this movie was the best (okay, at least *one* of the best) science fiction piece that I've seen in a long, long time.

The plot in short might sound simple -- a (space) ship crashes on a supposedly deserted planet and the captain, Caroline Fry (impressive Radha Mitchell), must lead the survivors to safety. At first, a cold-blooded murderer, Riddick (Vin Diesel, who plays the role with very believable spare style), might seem like the group's biggest problem but as the dusk starts crawling in, the creatures of the night start awakening... This leads to a desperate attempt to escape from the bloodthirsty predators, which, as we all can guess, does not lead to a happy family picnic.

It's not the plot itself that makes the movie worth watching -- after all, let's face it, if you strip it down to the basics it's not *that* original -- but the skill in which it's told. The story flowed forward, didn't leave me yawning (at least not much) in any point. The directing was fabulous work. This was a very visual, even beautiful movie; the purple night view was a real treat. Although, 'beautiful' might not be the right word to use; yes, the images shown were candy to the eye, but they also added a touch of unspecified grotesqueness, eeriness, as if something was just about to burst out from under the still surface. (Not to mention that the monsters were really well done, they looked realistic, which seems to be rare nowadays [maybe people just can't be bothered to make them look real...])

I did not only enjoy the visual side of the movie but also the psychological aspect of the story. During the movie we get to see the characters unraveling -- some of them fall, some of them rise -- but what fascinated me the most was the developing of the character of Riddick. I enjoyed watching the change in him throughout the movie. To go even further, the other thing I enjoyed a lot with Riddick was the incredibly well and originally executed UST (Unresolved Sexual Tension) between Fry and him that "didn't" (you'll get what I mean once you see it). [One can't deny that they had chemistry. Don't even try or I'll seek you out and make you listen to me playing Chopsticks until you scream *grin*] It was fresh. As Radha Mitchell once put it (a modified quote), "Pitch Black is a really sexy movie with no sex", which is what makes it even more so interesting.

So, to summarize, I recommend this movie -- even if you're really not a fan of "space stories". The suspense was kept until the very end and, what's important, we were (or at least I was) left wanting for more. If you can't be bothered to think about psychology, subtext and such (as is my bad habit), you'll still find Pitch Black highly entertaining. Just kick off your shoes and enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
It was surprising that a silent film could be so easy to watch. The economy with which it has been edited and the films structure itself are the main elements that contribute to this.

The film really captures the spirit of the revolution that it is dealing with - you really sympathise with the sailors and citizens. Of course, this film has it's own agenda, but as it is a practically redundant cause, it can be viewed as a piece of entertainment in a much clearer sense.

The tension created on the screen is excellent - starting with the battleship itself, and then moving onto the mainland. Things escalate believably and for a film of it's era, it really is quite unflinching in revealing the sacrifices made by the characters in the film.

This really is worth sitting through, (that is if you can adjust your modern viewing habits for 90mins).

Sentiment: positive
This film would have put the typical Hollywood "tearjerkers" to shame. The emotions portrayed are subdued and understated in a very comfortable fashion. The plot is cliche enough with a lead role having terminal disease (this is not a spoiler and was well established quite early into the movie) The method of execution is somehow unique from most love stories you ever saw--not even a kiss was being exchanged and yet you will feel the enormous current of love between the two leads. Initially, I assumed this "restriction on emotions" to be something analoguous to the typical "eastern values" but later decided against it.

This film is so understated that if you compare it with movies like "Cinema Paradiso", CP would have felt overtly manipulative by comparison. So, it's definitely not everyone's cup of tea.

After watching the film, I have this strong feeling that Holly- wood love movies, (or love movies all around, to be accurate) have been glorifying romance or passion and label it as "love". I am sure we all have our own definitions and I wouldn't say these qualities are mutually exclusive. But, I would venture to say that the movie will let you wonder if there is any added dimension you have with you loved one.

It's very obvious that I enjoy this movie a lot. Considering the fact that the movie is so plain in appearance, it is paradoxically one of the more "cinematic" movie I saw lately.

Sentiment: positive
This sad little film bears little similarity to the 1971 Broadway revival that was such a 'nostalgic' hit. Keep in mind that when Burt Shevelove directed that revival, he rewrote the book extensively. I have a feeling that this screenwriter wrought as much of a change from the original 1925 version as well. I played the 'innocent philanderer' Jimmy Smith on-stage in 1974, and thought this $1 DVD would bring back memories. Not a chance. Even the anticipated delight of seeing "Topper" Roland Young play 'my' part was a major disappointment. Three songs from the play remain, and are done very poorly. Even the classic duet, "Tea For Two", is done as a virtual solo. The many familiar faces in this 1940 fiasco do not do themselves proud at all, and the star, Anna Neagle, just embarrasses herself. When I feel gypped by spending a dollar, I know the film must be bad. Another commentator mentioned the Doris Day version, which is actually called "Tea For Two" and is about doing the stage play (the original, of course), so those who are seeking the true "No No Nanette" might find a more recognizable version there.

Sentiment: negative
R.I.C.C.O. is the STUPIDEST film ever made. I can't believe my father bought this crap. This film should da never got made. If this film was wide known, trust me it will be on the #1 spot for IMDB's worst.The acting is horrible it's scary,which it is why it's horror. This piece of s*** had no horror in at at all. It's an urban action,which is funny, because I could of swore it was a comedy. When people got shot I couldn't help but laugh. I am the only person who reviewed this and I hope that I am the last. With this vote only I hope it make it to the #1 spot at the worst!!!!!!!

Sentiment: negative
"The Dream Child" of 1989 is the fifth film in the (generally overrated) "Nightmare" series, and at the latest from this point on, the series became total garbage. The only good films in the series were Wes Craven's 1984 original, and the third part, "The Dream Warriors" of 1987. The second part was disappointing and boring, and it was the fourth part in which the formerly scary madman Freddy Krueger began to annoy with constant idiotic jokes. This fifth entry to the series has hardly anything to recommend except for (admittedly great) visuals, and one creepy scene, a flashback sequence to how Freddy Krueger came into existence. The rest of the film consists mainly of our razor-clawed maniac-turned-jokester yelling stupid one-liners, and the old formula of a bunch of teenage jackasses, who desperately try to avoid falling asleep, because good old Freddy awaits them in their dreams. Lisa Wilcox is back in the role of Alice Johnson, and a bunch of uninteresting crap, such as a super-dumb 'eerie' children's rhyme is added for no other reason than to have some sort of justification for making this superfluous and boring sequel... In Short: No originality, just a decline of the old formula, and an over-load of painfully annoying jokes. My (generous) rating of 3/10 is due to the great visuals, and especially to emphasize the difference to the terrible next sequel, "Freddy's Dead", which is awful beyond belief. In case you're not a hardcore Freddy Krueger enthusiast, "The Dream Child" should be avoided, and even if you are, this is more than likely to disappoint.

Sentiment: negative
Yes, this gets the full ten stars. It's plain as day that this fill is genius. The universe sent Trent Harris a young, wonderfully strange man one day and Harris caught him on tape, in all that true misfit glory that you just can't fake. Too bad it ended in tragedy for the young man, if only an alternate ending could be written for that fellow's story. The other two steps in the trilogy do retell the story, with Sean Penn and Crispin Glover in the roles of the young men, respectively. The world is expanded upon and the strangeness is contextualized by the retelling, giving us a broader glimpse into growing up weird in vanilla America. Recommended for anyone and everyone!

Sentiment: positive
If you loved "Pulp Fiction" and like hand held cameras you should love this film. I liked the quirky story (even though I feel that "Pulp Fiction" was the most over-rated movie since "The English Patient") and found the characters unrealistic but interesting. It's not "On the Waterfront" or "Citizen Kane" and is burdened by European pretentiousness. But the worst part by far is the hand held camera. It is so distracting and annoying I found myself waiting desperately for the movie to end. I don't know why new directors think this method of filming is so great. If you are prone to motion sickness, stay away, the hand held camera will have you nauseous in about 10 minutes.

Sentiment: negative
Some people may call "Cooley High" the same sort of thing as "American Graffiti", but I wouldn't. For starters, in "AG", everyone was white, whereas in "CH" they're all black. Moreover, this one has a Motown soundtrack. Specifically, the movie focuses on several working-class African-American students in 1964 Chicago and their antics. The movie deals mainly with home life and relationships. In their apartments, we see that there's never any dad around. But these young men always know how to live life to the fullest.

One thing that really distinguishes this movie from most other portrayals of black people is that the teenagers in this movie are portrayed as very responsible, worrying about missing school. Two really funny scenes are the gorilla scene, and the one white guy in the movie. But overall, the main star is the soundtrack. It is truly one of the best soundtracks in movie history (we even have it on vinyl here at home). A classic in the real sense of the word.

Sentiment: positive
I want to state first that I am a Christian (and that I do work in the film and TV industry) so I understand what it is like to work on a feature length film so props to the filmmakers in that regard. I'm all for positive, uplifting messages if they are true to the nature of life (that this is a fallen world and that things don't always work out ... even for followers of Christ). I'm glad that others are having such overwhelmingly positive reactions to the overt Christian message; for me it was just that the execution is where the film fell on its face. A movie lives and dies on its story and here you have one dimensional stereotypes, exposition aplenty, and spontaneous changes in character behavior that are inexplicably to say the least. I believe that a film does not have to club you over the head with its message to get the point across. I'm sure the Kendrick bros. will improve with time and that their storytelling methods will as well. Maybe they could direct someone else's screenplay as their next project.

* Sports films are not exactly my first love but a good one (Hoosiers, Field of Dreams, etc) can inspire in a multitude of ways. If you would be interested in a PG-rated film that inspires, give Steven Soderbergh's 'King of the Hill' a look. All truth is God's truth ...

Sentiment: negative
For a horror film, this is criminally dull. A few memorable, gruesome bits can't compensate for a really poor script. Very little coherence is achieved, and the movie relentlessly overplays its one basic idea (a killer cat), until it becomes repetitive - and things are made even worse by the constant use of shots from the cat's point-of-view. (*1/2)

Sentiment: negative
This overheated southern Gothic "mellerdramer" has a few decent moments --but is too often spoiled by a novice director piling cliché upon cliché, and a star who apparently decided to take it upon himself to turn the picture into his personal showcase, rather than allowing writer/director Gabel to update Inge or Williams as a sort of contemporary "Midnight Cowboy" meets "Lolita" tearjerker.

Close your eyes, listen to the exaggerated southern accents, and try to decide if you're witnessing a feature film, or an acting class -- full of eager amateurs. 

Johansson is for once tolerable (i.e. less pouty than usual) -- though by no means good, Macht is decent, though a little too pretty-boy cute to be believed, and Travolta chews the scenery as never before (with the help of a decent editor and some directorial restraint, his performance might have been really touching; as it is, he -- and almost everyone else -- is too unlikable to ever move us past the point of boredom or revulsion). Kara Unger is perhaps best of all; had her role been developed beyond a few lines, she might have even found herself with a Best Supporting Actress nomination. 

Pic is almost saved by Leonard Cohen-style growling theme song, decent production design and locations, and continual reference to literary works (which has earned the otherwise standard screenplay reviews such as "poetic.") Also helpful are a few old pros in the cast like Sonny Shroyer, and perhaps most importantly, Soderbergh cameraman Elliot Davis -- whose fine work will no doubt be credited to the first-time director, who, ten or twenty years from now, may actually learn how to direct.

But probably not.

Sentiment: negative
This hard-hitting, often violent western in the Peckinpah/Leone tradition is surprisingly directed by Andrew V. McLaglen, whose previous westerns (particularly those that starred John Wayne) were mainly in the John Ford mode. It is both surprisingly traditional (good guys/bad guys) and incredible up-to-date as well.

Heston portrays a former captain of the Arizona territorial police who has been in retirement for a year, having turned over the law enforcement reins to a reform-minded sheriff (Michael Parks) and finding his ways of enforcing the law being taken over by autos, telegraphs, telephones, and the railroad in the first years of the 20th century. But soon he is confronted with a menace from his past--a half-breed outlaw (Coburn) that he put away more than a decade before for a train robbery that killed four guards. In a subsequent shootout, Coburn's wife was killed; and so Coburn is out for a most nasty sort of revenge. It involves the kidnapping and, eventually, the rape of Heston's daughter (Hershey) by him and his gang. The result is a taut and violent pursuit through the mountains and deserts of southern Arizona.

THE LAST HARD MEN, based on Brian Garfield's novel "Gun Down", is violent in many places, including the showdown between Heston and Coburn, and the rape scene involving Hershey and two members of Coburn's gang (Quade, Paull) is probably every bit as questionable as similar scenes in STRAW DOGS and DELIVERANCE. But that doesn't detract too terribly much from the film's psychological approach to the western genre. McLaglen is able to handle the bloody story with significant panache, and Heston's performance as an aging lawman was probably the best one he ever gave in any of his 1970s films. Coburn makes for an especially cold-blooded heavy, and both Parks and Chris Mitchum (as Hershey's intended husband) do good turns as well. The music here is cribbed from Jerry Goldsmith's scores to 100 RIFLES and the 1966 remake of STAGECOACH, but it still works here.

Wisely filmed totally on location in southeastern Arizona, and utilizing the Old Tucson set, THE LAST HARD MEN needs to be released by Fox on VHS and/or DVD soon. It is a western that deserves nothing less.

Sentiment: positive
I am a big fan of Stephen King. I loved The Running Man. So obviously I was very excited that someone had made a film of it. And when a local network showed the film, I was in heaven. I was all ready for a night of fun!

The first indicator that something was wrong was when I noticed that someone had cast Arnold Schwarzenegger. I could simply not believe that a man who got famous for films filled with runnin' an' shootin' could play a more cunning part, as was described in the book. I still was convinced that this would be a good film, however. Who knows, maybe Arnold had some hidden talents?

Well, he didn't. I soon found out that the only reason he was even cast was because someone had re-written the entire story to MAKE it about fightin' an' shootin'. Yup, it was a standard Arnold-film: hero is done wrong, hero solves problems by flexing his mighty muscles and scaring everyone away and hero gets the girl.

I was stunned. This is NOT what the book said at all. I know that books can't be put on screen literally, but this didn't even have ties to the book. Stephen King should have openly denounced any affiliation with the film and he should have forbidden using the title The Running Man for this shameless waste of film. I don't say it often, but this film was BAD. If I weren't at home watching, I'd have tossed rotten tomatoes at the screen. Once again: bad.

(Note that I used 'someone' a lot. I did this because I'm sure a lot of people are ashamed to have worked on this and I don't want to embarrass them even further by naming them here)

Sentiment: negative
The film begins with a dowdy housewife (Norma Shearer) finding out that her husband (Rod La Rocque) had been cheating on her. Three years pass and apparently they'd been divorced during these years due to the infidelity. Oddly, during this time, La Rocque did not see Shearer or his two kids as Shearer took them to Paris.

Marie Dressler is a rich society lady and she has invited a new and improved Norma to come to her house for the weekend--ostensibly to help Marie break up a budding romance between her daughter and La Rocque! Apparently, Norma is now a super-vamp and with her magical sex appeal, she can break up the romance--and no one seems to realize that she and La Rocque were married. Several others are there for the weekend and immediately Norma is a hit with her gay, carefree sexy ways--and almost all the men (including La Rocque) are captivated by her. Neither tells anyone that they were married but it's obvious that her ex- wants the new and improved Norma back! This film is a sophisticated comedy of manners among the upper-crust--similar in some ways to Jean Renoir's THE RULES OF THE GAME. Oddly, despite the severity of the Depression, such films about pretty rich folks were pretty popular though many today will doubtless find them a bit too droll in spots. However, fortunately, in LET US BE GAY, there are plenty of cute and funny moments (particularly towards the end when Marie Dressler shows her true colors). While not a great film, it certainly is a good one and more than just another time-passer. My only real regret is that I didn't love the very end. You'll just have to see it for yourself--perhaps you'll agree about the ending, perhaps you won't, but I'm pretty sure you will enjoy this clever film.

Sentiment: positive
I rented this movie because it falls under the genres of "romance" and "western" with some Grand Canyon scenery thrown in. But if you're expecting a typical wholesome romantic western, forget it. This movie is pure trash! The romance is between a YOUNG GIRL who has not even gone through puberty and a MIDDLE-AGED MAN! The child is also lusted after by other leering men. It's sickening.

Peter Fonda is portrayed as being virtuous by trying to resist his attraction to Brooke Shields, and her character is mostly the one that pursues the relationship. He tries to shoo her off at first but eventually he gives in and they drive off as a happy, loving couple. It's revolting.

I don't see how this movie could appeal to anyone except pedophiles.

Sentiment: negative
The title suggests that this movie is a sequel to "An American werewolf in London". None of the characters from the previous movie return and aren't even mentioned in this movie by name. So as a sequel, AAwiP fails, one would say.

I dare to say the opposite.

An American werewolf in Paris is a charming, effective horror movie. It's one of the better werewolf films I have seen in a long time too. And I have seen quite my share, such as An American werewolf in London, The Howling, Wolfen, The Wolfman and the Underworld trilogy.

The story tells of three Americans visiting Paris on a vacation. At the top of the Eifel Tower one of them saves a woman trying to commit suicide. What starts out as a romantic relationship slowly turns into a nightmare when the dark secrets that lurk in the city are revealed...

I really liked the acting in this film. Especially the two stars of the movie: the woman who tried to commit suicide and the guy who saves her. They have good chemistry together. But the other two Americans also play their roles nicely. I didn't really find anything annoying about the acting, so thumbs up for that! 

The effects on the werewolves are nice. It doesn't look too cheap or fake to me. Of course, the opinions are divided about this subject. But let's just say that I wasn't disappointed.

There's also a good amount of humor in this movie. There are some really funny scenes you will probably remember for a long time.

So, to sum it up, An American werewolf in Paris might not be a direct sequel to it's predecessor, but it's still an enjoyable movie. Perfect for fans of werewolves! 7 out of 10 stars!

Sentiment: positive
Or at least forceable retirement! This movie is awful, horrible, terrible, rank, rotten, putrid... well, you get the idea. Do NOT under any circumstances watch this piece of decaying garbage unless you have a death wish, because it's sure to kill you. (I only survived because I missed the first half hour.) Carrot Top is a bad comedian, and an even worse actor. I cannot BELIEVE he got anyone to fund this huge waste of time and money. It just goes to show that some people have no scruples if they think they might make a buck or two (literally... I can't imagine this made more than $2!).

And someone please tell me what possible motivation Courtney Thorne Smith (a halfway decent actress, certainly above this at any rate) had for signing onto this steaming pile of dung. Was she THAT bored during that 3.5 second dry spell between Melrose Place and Ally McBeal? Or did she owe some kind of karmic debt to the Most Annoying Person on the Face of the Planet (aka Carrot Top)?

I give this a 2/10, and that's probably way too high. I try to save my '1's for movies that make me vomit, and since I didn't see all of this one my stomach contents thankfully stayed contained. I don't think I'll be watching it again to find out if it's really worth a 1!

Sentiment: negative
Yes, this is one of the greats of the black action genre. Confusing mixture of racist comedy and racist violence (at times reaching a disturbing pitch, even for a fan of the genre) this movie isn't your Shaft in the park. Wonderful bits of Rudy Ray Moore comedy stand up that don't seem funny, at least not to a white boy like me, but great in context. Much better than its dissimilar sequel, "The Human Tornado"

Sentiment: positive
Probably the worst Bollywood film I've seen.

No plot line. Very little character developments.

Full of silly and pointless humor. The whole film was chaotic and direction-less. There was no proper ending to the story. The airport was filmed in a shopping mall. 

Same story chewed over and over again until you want to say "please, just move on with it!!" Even the song and dance was pointless and badly choreographed.

The only good thing about this movie is that there were hot bods all around... but then most of the Bollywood movies have that anyways these days.

Btw I'm not from an Indian background

2/10

Sentiment: negative
One of the most disgusting films I have ever seen. I wanted to vomit after watching it. I saw this movie in my American History class and the purpose was to see an incite on the life of a farmer in the West during the late 1800's. What we saw were pigs being shot and then slaughtered, human birth, branding. Oh and at the end there was a live birth of a calf and let me tell you that the birth itself wasn't too bad, but the numerous fluids that came out drove most people in my class to the bathroom. The story itself was OK. The premise of the story is a widow and her daughter and they move to the west to be a house keeper of this cowboy. They live a life of hardship and it is an interesting a pretty accurate view of life in the West during the late 1800's. But if you have a choice, do not see this movie.

Sentiment: negative
Not since Caligula have I considered turning off the movie half-way through....but then with this one, I was only 15 minutes in when I considered. Unfortunately, I did make it all the way through. Make sure that you do not.

It's not that Cradle of Fear is shocking or gory or scary or frightening or sexual. It's that it's not any of those things, yet it so desperately wants to be all of them. Instead, it's boring, trite, ordinary, predictable, and unexceptionally poorly executed (shot on video, high school special effects, no sense of even basic visual storytelling, dialog barely audible...not that it's worth hearing, though).

This movie is proof for the argument that even the straight-to-video distributors need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

Sentiment: negative
This movie has too many things going on. Another reviewer comments on the disjointed, episodic nature of the film as reflecting the director's memories - that's fine, if that is how it was written and performed. Instead, what we get is straight-forward narrative - some of the time - that jumps around, under and over, leaves us dangling in some instances, interrupts the flow with unnecessary digressions in other instances, and otherwise simply doesn't work. 

There are also some plot details that just don't work. For example, why drag a body onto a beach in an urban area in broad daylight, as opposed to night time? Why leave your flat sheet on the body? Why would an artist who knew the Joe character for a brief time decide to leave him "everything" (even if it wasn't much)? This sub-plot was poorly developed to make that point work. For that matter, why even have the man be an invalid or an artist other than to provide the money and the gratuitous nude posing scenes? He could just as easily have been a photographer, or a opera composer? For that matter, how does someone rate an apartment in an Opera House - particularly without some clear connection to the Opera? The coincidences are also both too obvious and to unclear and unexplained. Why would the guys take everything in the warehouse and "disappear." If Tim was a 10 year old school mate in a town as small as Bangor, how could Joe lose track of him for 8 years, especially if they knew each other well enough that one would recommend the other for a job. 

Some of the other subplots (like the mother and her boyfriend(s) and the sister wanting to escape felt like padding. There's some good ideas that might have made a feature with full development or could have been interesting shorts. As completed, this movie made little sense and offers even less.

Sentiment: negative