DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
One commenter said if you like Austin Powers you will like this movie. I liked Autin Powers and was disappointed with this movie. The film works hard, maybe too hard for laughs. Maybe it was that all the villains in this movie were shouting as if the shouting in itself is suppose to be funny. I get where they were trying to go with this flick. A cross between Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel but it just doesn't work. Austin Powers if silly but intelligent, Zorro the Gay Blade lacks the savvy of Austin Powers, The Big Lebowski or Kingpin.

I kept waiting for a laugh and while waiting found myself amazed that someone actually got paid for the script. My 15 year daughter also thought the movie was flat. My 17 year old who selected this flick on it's title, walked out after 20 minutes.

It seems many people on IMDb liked this film, but for me it lacked the good timing or jokes of a good comedy.

Sentiment: negative
It is extremely rare that I see a movie from 1955 that I don't love. Noir, JDs, Sci-fi, Drive-Ins; I dig it all the most. Robert Aldrich is a director who has done plenty of excellent work, and most of this cast has fine performances under their belt. So what went wrong?

When I used to work in the Independent Film world, we used to talk about something called "actors' movies." Actors' movies are movies that are unwatchable to anyone but other actors. Actors like "actors' movies" because they get to see ACTing - which is to say completely over-the-top melodrama. Actors love to be given the chance to totally let loose "give it all they've got" and they get a great satisfaction from watching other actors do so. In many interviews with actors they say "he was a great director, he never interfered with me in any way." Actually that's the opposite of good directing, because the whole POINT of having a director on the set is to keep the actors from making fools of themselves (which, given the chance, they will always do).

Apparently Robert Aldrich forgot that on this project. Or maybe he was ill. Or maybe he thought there was no hope for saving the script in the first place, so what the heck? Whatever the case, here is an example of a lesser-known movie that is best forgotten. The characters gesticulate, pontificate and generally ham it up all the way through. One thing I can say is realistic: it's set in Hollywood and everyone acts like their petty problems are the most important thing in the world. Doesn't make it fun to watch, but it is realistic. What isn't realistic is that a producer so desperate to keep his star under contract is going to go out of his way to antagonize him in almost every conceivable way - including requiring him to engage in illegal activity. But this and other plot contradictions merely carry along the melodrama, increasing the opportunity for hand-wringing and shouted accusations. 

I did manage to get to the end of this film, which makes it no worse than a "3" out of 10 in my book. But, why test your own endurance when there is so much else available to rent?

Sentiment: negative
It's my opinion that when you decide to re-make a very good film, you should strive to do better than the original; or at least give it a fresh point of view. Now the 1963 Robert Wise telling of Shirley Jackson's remarkable novel "The Haunting of Hill House" is worth the price of admission even today. Now fast forward to 1999 and the re-make. I was left shaking my head and asking, why? The acting is wooden, the story unrecognizable and the whole point seems to be to replace the subtle horror of the original with as many special effects computers can generate. I had heard that this update was bad; but couldn't believe it was that bad, considering the source material. I was wrong. After watching this and saying to my wife how awful it was, she said; "Well they got your money!" She's right, don't let them get yours. If there's no profit in making lousy re-makes, maybe they'll stop making them or come up to a higher standard that doesn't insult their audience

Sentiment: negative
I did not like this film at all: The scenario is boring - and after a while, its primitive predictability really gets on your nerves. Even if you give Chabrol a high bonus for not being a beginner, I did not manage to find anything specially interesting on his characterization of Mika neither.

Sentiment: negative
Sammi, Curr a metal rock god, they tried to stop him, they tried to ban him, the tried to censor his music!! (much like the real life Dee Snider, from Twisted Sister,[Tipper Gore] or Ozzy Osborne) Killed in a fire, Sammi Cure was suppose to play on halloween at his old high school for a dance.. Now Eddie Weinbauer , his #1 fan, and the only one who knew how sammi was, and what he felt (or did he?) Nuke, the d.j. at the local radio station (Gene Simmons) has and gives the only copy of Sammi's last record Eddie.. But when Eddie tries to play the record backwards, he finds Sammi talking to him from the dead, and telling him what to do to get back at the bullies at his school that hate him and his music.. Everything works out until, Sammi starts to kill!! A great movie and must see for heavy metal hairband fans, with a great sound track by Fastway, and just in case you don't know what The songs sound like or know Fastway and doesn't like them, they changed there voice a bit and there style as well to sound like the more known Cinderella, or Ratt.. Is the movie a true horror movie? Well that depends on what you call a horror movie, To me a true horror movie is a slasher, with lots of killing, or just plain be scary.. This movie is neither, not enough deaths, but it can't be called a action, comedy, drama, suspense, or thriller, so that is why I would guess it has to be a horror.. So if you wanna "Rock N' Roll, Rockin' on the mid night steel your soul!!" Than Sammi Curr and Trick or Treat is the for you.. I mean "what are you afraid of? It's only Rock 'N' Roll!?!"

Sentiment: positive
Please, someone stop Ben Stiller from acting in ANY movie. Write the studios, hell, write your local congressman even. I've gotten more laughs going to a funeral then I have watching ANY Stiller flick. Jack Black tries to make something about a comedy about disappearing dog crap, and Christopher Walken, perhaps on of the greatest actors of his generation, simply looks embarrassed to be there. Stiller is his unfunny self,but now even with someone to bail him out, proves that he is way overrated as a comic. It's no wonder why this movie tanked badly, and was available of the dollar movie theaters after only a handful of weeks. I warn you, and you must warn your friends, Do not watch this flick, it is just awful, worst then Gothika (personally, i'd never thought i'd say that), worst the Plan 9, Worst the Ishtar, worst then The Golden Child. Please Hollywood, quit allowing Ben Stiller in your movies, he's not funny, he's a god awful actor, and he's bringing others down with him. The following film was ranked 1 because there are no negative scores allowed, so while the board says one, I'll give it a Zero.

Sentiment: negative
THE BEAVER TRILOGY is, without a doubt, one of the most brilliant films ever made. I was lucky enough to catch it, along with a Q&A session with director Trent Harris, at the NY Video Festival a few years back and then bought a copy off of Trent's website. This movie HAS to be seen to be believed! I sincerely recommend searching for Trent's name on the web and then buying the film from his site. He's an incredibly nice guy to boot. Don't get confused: The cameraman in the fictional sections of THE BEAVER TRILOGY is NOT Trent!

After having seen the TRILOGY a few times, I do have to admit that I could probably do without the Sean Penn version. It's like a try-out version for the Crispin Glover "Orkly Kid" section and is interesting more as a curiosity item if you're a Penn fan than it being a good video. Penn is pretty funny, though, and you can see the makings of a big star in this gritty B&W video.

This is probably also one of Crispin Glover's best roles and I would just love to see an updated documentary about the original Groovin' Gary. Once you see this film, you'll never get Gary's nervous laughter out of your head ever again.

Sentiment: positive
I saw UZUMAKI about a year ago and was mesmerized. The only Japanese horror film I had seen before this one was KWAIDAN (Which I proudly own on DVD, by the way), superb! The idea of a town being absorbed by spirals sounds exactly like something out of Lovecraft. Certainly it reminds one of SHADOW OVER INNSMOUTH, of the inhabitants slowly turning into monstrosities (in this case giant snails). And who can forget the washing machine sequence? I hope we will soon see this one available on Region 1 DVD (I see that Sundance has recently screened it on US TV, hopefully they'll do it again very soon) so that we can all see it. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!!!!

Sentiment: positive
....Rather well done, actually--attack the evil villains in their lair, stop a Little Big Horn style ambush, save the day via the waterboys' bugling, works for me. Stiff Upper British lip and all that.

So how does it play on a DVD 66 years later? Struck me as being like a Western, subbing Apaches or Sioux for the Thugs, and the US Cavalry for the Imperial British Army. It's very Colonial in it's outlook, you know? White Man's burden and all that? Kipling certainly would have approved.

Cary Grant, Fairbanks and MacLaglen play it as broadly as possible, putting some buddy buddy slapstick into the mix between the shootings and brawlings for good measure. (I had no idea it was Joan Fontaine as the token army wife--did they leave some of her scenes on the cutting room floor? very short-) None of them were aiming for an Oscar here--in fact Grant was not at his best in a few scenes--but sod it, it still works. And where else would Ben Casey wind up as an Indian bugler? Only in Hollywood.

Def. check this out if you like adventure and pseudo-Western style antics. It was done by a bunch of pros, well I might add.

*** outta ****

Sentiment: positive
This was the worst movie I've ever seen in theaters. It was just a compilation of recycled material. People getting hit in the head is not funny. People getting kicked is not funny. After the third time a guy got kicked in the balls not even the youngest audience member was laughing anymore. It just got tired fast.

I went with my younger sister. She actually laughs out loud at King of the Hill but this cinematic masterpiece bored her. I'm not surprised. The story is pretty lame. A midget thief steals a big diamond in what was definitely the easiest heist in Hollywood history. Then he hides out with a family pretending to be a baby. I know it sounds exciting but that's the whole story. Say those two lines over and over for 1.5 hours and you'll get the picture There were predictable jokes galore. I really felt ripped off after seeing this. I wasn't expecting much and I was still disappointed. I wish Keenan would just hire some decent writers to write jokes and/or his next script. This was even worse than White Chicks if that is possible. I've seen high school plays that were better, and cheaper.

There wasn't anything positive about this movie. I don't like my entertainment to be dumbed down.

Sentiment: negative
The Giant Claw is in fierce competition with films like, 'Robot Monster' and 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' for worst film of all time. A phony looking giant vulture attacks 'Lionel Trains' in this completely unconscious film. The script is so bad that everything the characters say to one another is ridiculous. It's no wonder that this film is a prime target in the movie, "It Came From Hollywood," where this gem is hammered for the line, 'A Bird As Big As A Battleship', with gleeful, endless needling. The line pops up relentlessly through the course of the film, so there's no escaping it. There are several shots from, 'The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms' and 'Earth vs. The Flying Saucers' among other sci-fi films from the 50's to beef up the scraggly vulture's attacks. At one point the big vulture is responsible for a few deaths, so the military puts the entire world under martial law and no one is allowed to go out of their homes. Of course, the huge buzzard is mainly concerned with pursuing the stars of this classic, Jeff Morrow & Mara Corday, wherever they might be. Yet the director is so lame that he doesn't even provide for a few honey shots of pretty Mara in a decent dress and black heels for a little relief from the tedium of this zero star thriller. That's the second time this blunder has been made. In 'Tarantula', Mara Corday struts around in hot dresses for the whole film, but is relegated to pants throughout, 'The Giant Scorpion'. The budget for this film must have been not more than thirty or forty thousand dollars and I doubt whether Morrow or Corday got more than three thousand to make it. It looks like the whole thing was shot right out of somebody's garage.

Sentiment: negative
Here we have a movie which fails in pretty much every way it is possible for a movie to fail. Terrible script, lousy acting, amateurish directing, laughable special effects...it's just an utterly awful movie. Not to mention the fact that when you get to the end you'll realize the whole thing doesn't make a lick of sense. After spending the whole movie wondering what in the world is going on here when things are finally explained you realize the story has been built on a foundation which is ludicrously impossible. In one of those hideous "villain explains the whole movie" sequences we are told that our villain has done something which quite simply can't be done and which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Oh, and after that we see that there also appears to be some kind of jell-o monster involved. I'm sure Drew Barrymore would very much like to pretend this movie never happened. If for some ungodly reason you are ever tempted to sit down and watch this movie may I suggest instead taking that time to bang your head against a wall for 104 minutes. That would prove to be a much more pleasurable experience than sitting through this garbage.

Sentiment: negative
I thought it was weird and just gory, not scary. I have seen a couple of the Japanese horror films, Ringu and Juon, and loved them; but this movie was a disappointment. It never even explained anything about the curse. I just didn't see any horror... it wasn't scary to me at all. The whole time I was watching I was waiting for Kirie to discover the secret of the curse and why it was happening now. If this was some ancient curse, why didn't it happen before Shuichi's father? And it never told us what happened to her father. I kept waiting for someone to tell us the meaning or the reasoning behind this curse and then it just ended. I was very disappointed.

Sentiment: negative
Dull Demi, going thru the motions. Ditto Prochnow. Ominous portents that elicit yawns. Michael Biehn trying to be dynamic, which ain't his shtick.

To quote Buffy Summers, "If the apocalypse comes...beep me."

Going back to sleep now.

Sentiment: negative
I remember when this NBC mini-series aired when I was in high school. After reading the novel, I thought I'd check out some adaptations. Didn't expect much out of a TV mini-series, but now I might have to check out some more. This is actually excellent, and the best possible film version that could be made. Writer Simon Moore, who wrote the teleplay for the original Traffic mini-series, upon which the Soderberg film was based, came up with a brilliant narrative conceit which helps the story flow very smoothly: he frames Gulliver's adventures as flashbacks, with the actual story beginning as Gulliver first returns home (everything having happened on one journey). Gulliver, played by Cheers' Ted Danson, is sort of crazy-seeming when his wife, Mary Steenburgen, welcomes him back into his home. Unfortunately, the house is now owned by the local doctor, James Fox, who has designs on Steenburgen. Gulliver seems merely disturbed at first, but when he starts telling stories of tiny people, that's all the evidence Fox needs to throw him into an insane asylum. All four of Gulliver's travels are related in this version, in the same order as the novel (the only time this has been done on film). I love the way his present situation reflects his flashbacks. Gulliver's small son, whom he has never met before, reminds him of the Lilliputians. The doctors who observe him in his cell from a mezzanine loom above him and remind him of the Brogdingnagians, and the doctors' scientific inquiries remind him of the insane scientific experiments and theories of the Laputans and the professors at the Academy. Finally, when he is put on trial he is reminded of the Houyhnhnms and the Yahoos. The cast of this thing is amazing, and includes Peter O'Toole, Ned Beatty, Alfre Woodard, John Gielgud, Kristin Scott Thomas, Omar Sharif and Warwick Davis. The biggest flaw of the mini-series is that the acting is really uneven. You have all these fine actors, but the lesser characters are often played by actors who were probably fine in episodes of L.A. Law, but don't do well in a costume drama. Ted Danson isn't especially great, although he has a few sequences where he excels. It's probably better that he didn't attempt one, but all the other characters of the film speak in an English accent. Steenburgen is actually pretty good at it, and is quite good overall. Another flaw the series has is that the adventures happen a tad too quickly. It's not believable that Gulliver spent eight years away from home, as is claimed. But, in general, it captures Swift's tone and purpose very well, while, with its structure, adding a new emotional level.

Sentiment: positive
This utterly dull, senseless, pointless, spiritless, and dumb movie isn't the final proof that the world can forget about Danny Boyle and his post-"Trainspotting" movies: "The Beach" already took care of that. What this low-budget oddity does is merely to secure his place among those who started very well but got completely lost in drugs, booze, ego, self-delusion, bad management or whatever it was that lead to this once-promising director's quick demise.

The premise is absurd: two losers (Ecclestone and some bimbo Jenna G - a rapper, likely) meet by chance and spontaneously start singing with fervour more akin to lunatic asylum inhabitants than a potential hit-making duo - which they become. A friend of theirs - an even bigger illiterate loser - becomes their manager by smashing a store window and stealing a video-camera by which he films them in "action", and then shows the tape to some music people who actually show interest in this garbage. Now, I know that the UK in recent years has put out incredible junk, but this is ridiculous; the music makes Oasis seem like The Beatles. During the studio recordings, the duo - Strumpet - change lyrics in every take and Ecclestone quite arrogantly tells the music biz guys to take it or leave it, and quite absurdly they do take it. Not only is the music total and utter trash, but its "performers" are anti-social; these NEWCOMERS are supposed to be calling the shots. It's just too dumb. It's plain awful.

The dialog is unfunny and goes nowhere, and this rags-to-bitches story has no point and makes no sense. It often feels improvised - under the influence of drugs. Danny Boyle is a complete idiot. This little piece of trash is so bad it's embarrassing to watch. Ecclestone's I.Q. also has to be questioned for agreeing to be part of this nonsense. Whoever financed this £1000 joke should leave the movie business before they end up selling their own underwear on street corners.

Sentiment: negative
It has very little to do with the books: half of the characters have been eliminated, the plot has been greatly altered, people's parents are changed for different characters . . .

However, if you watch it as an independent piece (try and forget you ever read the books) the movie is very well put together, everyone is very good looking, and there is even a sweet ending...

Sentiment: positive
Though the story is essentially routine, and the "surprise" ending is nothing but a bad joke on the audience, you can see what attracted these good actors to the project - it offers them the kind of roles in which good actors can shine, and shine they do. The film is impeccably made - for its time. It was remade in 2000 as "Under Suspicion" and if you only want to see one version of the story (that's all it deserves, really), I recommend the latter one, with Hopkins' up-to-date direction and the more explicit references to plot points that the original could only hint at. The ending, however, still blows. (**1/2)

Sentiment: positive
Uncle Fred Olen Ray once again gives us a little of his Retromedia "goodness" in the form of this soft-core Cinemax non-classic.

A numb-nut pair are out looking at rocks when they come across a swirling vortex a "black hole" as the intelligent dolts put it. Pretty soon an attractive cave girl from one million years ago happens into out time-line and she beds her way into the future. Pretty soon her studly other half makes his way into the future as well and blazes a path through the beds of the future.

Ray again delivers a passable (but barely) smut-fest that has horrible acting but some decent skin. Yeah it's barely titillating but heh! If worse comes to worse it will cure you insomnia.

S10 reviews: 1/5 or 3/10

Sentiment: negative
A country-boy Aussie-Rules player (Mat) goes to the city the night before an all-important AFL trial match, where he is to be picked up by his cousin. And then things go wrong.

His no-hoper cousin has become mixed up in a drug deal involving local loan-shark / drug-dealer Tiny (who looks like any gangster anywhere but is definitively Australian). Needless to say, Mat becomes enmeshed in the chaos, and it isn't long before thoughts of tomorrow's match are shunted to the back of his mind as the night's frantic events unravel.

Accomplished Western Australian professional Shakespearean actor Toby Malone puts in a sterling performance as young naive country-boy Mat, and successfully plays a part well below his age. Best support comes from John Batchelor as Tiny, and an entertaining role by David Ngoombujarra as one of the cops following the events. Roll is fast-paced, often funny, and a very worthwhile use of an hour.

Sentiment: positive
Another in the long line of Conan wannabes that tired to cash in on that movie's success, this Italian monstrosity is about as bad as they came. You know it's a bad sign when your heroes fight invisible enemies because the movie was made so cheaply there wasn't money for either adequate special effects or to hire real people. I won't even bother going into the plot as I defy anyone to follow it and make sense of the storyline. Maybe it's the television cut I watched, but I can't imagine any version being that much better. It all seems so random to me. Evil sorcerers, cavemen, giant snakes, medieval castles, grenades, and hang gliding  none of it fits together. It's as if director Joe D'Amato had an epileptic fit while making Cave Dwellers (or any of the other half-dozen names the movie goes by) and threw everything he could think of onto the screen regardless of how unrelated it was or how it fit into the film's already puzzling plot. The acting is sufficiently bad. Miles O'Keeffe could never act his way out of a wet paper bag and he proves that once again in this movie. The rest of the cast is equally atrocious. Then there's the . . . well, you get the idea. It's late, I'm tired, and I've already wasted more than enough time writing about this piece of garbage. Take my word for it  avoid Cave Dwellers (or whatever you want to call it) at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
The first thing I thought after watching "Mystery Men" was how could this movie be so unpopular? I found this movie so adorable and funny that it's status as a bomb defies logic. Well, I hope that in the future it becomes a cult hit, and you can count me amoung it's fans.

Simply put, and without giving too much away, this movie does for comic books what "the Princess Bride" did for fairy tales and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" did for classic cartoons. That should give you a more accurate idea of the tone of the movie then the marketing commitee it was unfortunately signed to (this is one of those cases like "the Iron Giant" where the studio had no clue what it had on it's hands). Rent it the next time you're in the mood for something a little offbeat. You won't listen to the BeeGees in the same light ever again.

Sentiment: positive
I remember going to drive inn with my parent and sister. I was in grade 5, and still a kid, and the drive closed down 4 years later, but the film still lingers in my memory. An adult movie, which a kid finds entertaining. That is a mark of excellence. Hoffman is one of hollywoods better actors, and this film proves it. I like the Billy put down the ice cream scene, and I remember the SCTV version in there film I factory myself. Remember Joe Flairty crying. Please email me if you like the SCTV skit. Not a bad film at all, it is a story about a father, and his son. Touching and intertaining, I love the part where Hoffman talks about Killroy, and how the streets change. Worth a second watch. 7/10

Sentiment: positive
Taste is a subjective thing. Two people can watch the same movie with one of them loving it and the other one hating it. As it concerns 'Halloween:the Curse of Michael Myers' I fall into the latter category.

I'm of the opinion that John Carpenter, in 1978, made one of that decade's finest fright films, which despite its flaws, still holds up well into the 21st century. It reused many of the old horror film devices but utilized them in original and effective ways. It had no pretensions that it was anything other than a movie about an escaped mental patient stalking babysitters on Halloween night. And yet there were 'ideas' in the film but they were subtly introduced and not hammered into your skull. It juxtaposed the myths of the macabre festival with the reality of what was taking place in the story and it did this with a wonderful ambiguity. 

The 'filmmakers' of this 'film' probably wouldn't even understand that previous paragraph. That's why we're saddled us with this miserable and inept piece of disposable celluloid. Direction, script, acting are of the lowest strata imaginable. This is the type of film that is so mind numbingly dull and nausea inducing as to make you want to crawl back into the womb and die. It is also truly, truly sad to see veteran British actor Donald Pleasence wasting his acting abilities with this saliva puddle of a movie. He seems drained of all his energy and resigned to the fact that this may be his last film. Maybe that's what killed him.

Sentiment: negative
a pure reality bytes film. Fragile, beautiful and amazing first film of the director. Represented Spain on the Berlinale 2002. Some people has compared the grammar of the film with Almodovar's films...Well, that shouldn't be a problem...

Sentiment: positive
In spite of its high-minded ambitions, Zurlini's film must be seen as a failure. It's one thing to create a world which draws the viewer into feeling the tedium and angst experienced by the protagonist (which I think is what Zurlini was attempting). It's another thing entirely to make a film that is itself tedious and meaninglessly episodic. Despite beautiful cinematography at a haunting location - and a wonderful score - the film never lures the audience in. Too much is unintentionally funny (the phony sound of dripping water in Drago's quarters, for example, or the silent-movie mugging by some of the actors) or simply confusing (Why exactly does Drago want to leave the fort the first time?) for the film to succeed as a coherent work.

Sentiment: negative
As I write this in November 2005 I've become aware that the great British boom of cinema has come to an end and while people will claim much of this is down to the British government not giving film makers tax breaks I think the cause is much simpler - A lack of diversity on the part of producers over the last few years . Let's have a look at what the Brits were producing 1995-2005:

Funky gangster thrillers . LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRALES was a truly great and thoroughly entertaining film and people went out of their way to ape Guy Ritchie's style with usually disappointing results 

Romantic comedies . Yeah okay I do realise FOUR WEDDINGS , NOTTING HILL etc were produced by American studios but they're still vaguely " British films " . Unfortunately because they're guaranteed to make a profit for the studios they have to follow a winning formula which usually involved Hugh Grant playing Hugh Grant for the umpteenth time 

Black Comedies . Can anyone explain what a black comedy actually is ? In the British context it's usually a rambling film with often contemporary political statements made and which often resembles Mike Leigh's NAKED 

Jasmin Disdar's BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE is a good example of the third type of British movie . Filmed in 1999 but set in 1993 it opens with two men having a fight on a bus and it's later revealed that one's a Serb and one's a Croat so we get a bite sized rundown of what was happening in the Balkans at that time , though what's the odds of two former enemies in the Balkans bumping into each other on a London bus ? This sums up one of the major flaws of the movie - Irony takes precedence over likely situations , you can appreciate the final irony of the subplots but is the outcome likely ? Perhaps the greatest irony is the title of the film . It's called BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE but certainly this audience member found them clichéd stereotypical people that I couldn't believe in as three dimensional characters

Sentiment: negative
All in all, don't expect much and you won't be disappointed.

And if you want to see a movie that will take you back to 1983, this will do that for sure. The only reason I gave this movie 2 points more than it deserves is for 2 reasons:

#1. Michael Caine

#2. the people, the sights, the culture and the music of Brazil 

The movie is almost completely carried by Caine as he commits the seemingly impossible task of transforming it into a viable and semi-believable story. Even Joe Bologna and Valerie Harper fall short. 

Michael Caine is pure class, as always. Besides being a gifted classical and comic actor, Caine brings a blend of introspection, mischievousness and sensitivity to every movie he does ... the focus of his charm as far back as his role in Alfie...and the reason why he won the Academy Award for Hannah and her Sisters 2 years later. In this farce, he is tenderly beguiling...funny and vulnerable... melancholy and sentimental....and besides the jewel that is Rio de Janeiro, the ONLY reason to not seek out a better form of entertainment.

Well...maybe a glimpse at the 2 lovely young actresses, Michelle Johnson and Demi Moore would be a reason. But look is all you can do at Michelle (though her look seems sorely dated)....there couldn't be a more painful movie experience than watching her "try" to act (most of her dialogue seems overdubbed, too). Demi's acting and looks hold up 100 times better and you could easily transplant her, as is, into any movie today (she doesn't really look much different to be honest). Ms. Moore is surely underused, especially considering she was the bigger star of the 2. 

Save the fact that it is a silly farce, at the end, I actually kind of like the maturity with which all these people handle this scandalous situation...that it doesn't end friendships nor marriages and that an affair, even with the underage daughter of your best friend, could be forgiven and everyone can move on. The injured parties do show anger and disappointment at what transpired, but all works out for the best....a bit unrealistic for sure, but surprisingly refreshing. Hope always is.

Sentiment: negative
"Who Will Love My Children" Saddest movie I have ever seen. Definite 10/10. Released on TV in 1983. Movie has been released on VHS. DVD release is a must, sooner rather than later. Mother dying of cancer, must find homes for all her children before she dies, because her thoughts are that her husband and father of the kids is not capable of caring for them once she has died. She manages to find homes for the children except one, a young boy whom is not wanted because he suffers from epilepsy. Very sad when your not wanted. In for a real good tear jerker, get your hands on this movie. I'm a male even I cried when I watched this movie. Not to be missed.

Sentiment: positive
Private Practice is supposed to be a medical drama. So I guess my biggest complaint is the lack of originality in the medical story lines. Just by watching House, I "solved" two (out of nine) medical mysteries before the doctors did. Boooring. Seriously, if you are a lazy writer, why not copy some cases out of older ER episodes or some obscure Brazilian medical soap? House is recent and popular - recycling their ideas is hard to get away with...

Second biggest complaint: these people are supposed to be forty-somethings, right? Then why do they have to behave with the emotional maturity of 15-year-olds? Is three weeks (ie. three whole damn episodes) of intense thinking really necessary to understand that if your best friend doesn't want to be your "friend with benefits", it's maybe not because he wants to hurt you, but because he doesn't want to risk your friendship? The character doing all the thinking is a psychiatrist by the way - the whole storyline is just so unrealistic that you can't really buy into the supposed "drama".

And I won't even start complaining about what the show did to everyone's favorite Addison as we got to know her in Grey's Anatomy... On a sidenote, don't you think it's funny the way Addison ends up lusting after loser Pete (sorry, but everyone who tries to cure insomnia with Mozart's Requiem is a loser, PhD or not) and Derek ends up entangled in a relationship with whiny, irritating Meredith miles away in rainy Seattle? Apart from that little fling with Mark, they seemed to be perfect for each other. Sometimes I think Shonda Rhimes' subconscious is trying to tell us that in relationships, our first choice is often the right one...

Sentiment: negative
I was very disappointed by this movie. Ms English who says that she is a fan of the original movie seemed to have taken a great piece of artistic work, and transformed it into a flat-lined "ho-hum" you've come a long way baby production. I tried to like Meg Ryan's Mary Haines, but she was just boring. She didn't seem to feel anything about her husband's affair. There was no emotional struggle, no deep hurt. In the original 1939 movie Norma Shearer's Mary Haines felt betrayed, shocked, vulnerable, confused and angry. The 2008 production was more about some fake sisterhood theme, (Actually my wife's words)and didn't make you shed a tear or even chuckle. The only performances that were note worthy we're of Debra Messing, and Bette Midler. (I wanted more of Bette.) There was really no protagonist in this movie. The Sylvia Fowler character had too many sub themes to it. And Crystal Allen had no fire. The remake of the department store encounter with Annette Benning, and Miss Mendez was Luke warm. Also the pacing was slow as well. Obviously the 1939 version needed to be updated, but this one wasn't it. The reason that the original version worked so well was that the characters were dealing with "man" problems. A subject by the way which isn't out-dated. The magic of the original movie was that the movie was about both sexes, while you never saw the men.

Sentiment: negative
A hundred miles away from the scene of a grizzly murder in small town American, Jill Johnson (Belle) settles in for a night of babysitting. With the children asleep and a beautiful home to relax in, she locks the door and sets the alarm. But when a series of eerie phone calls from a stranger says that she "check the children," Jill panics. Fear to terror when she has the calls traced. And what the police find turns the perfect babysitting job into a 16-year-old's worst nightmare. There aren't any other lead actors in this movie. Camilla Belle is the main star with a cute face. The day she arrives to babysit, she really has no idea what in the hell really awaits her.

If I were in a house like the one Jill was in. I would explore everything that is around. The fridge would be the first person I would looks at, but I'm a male and I don't babysit. But what I found funny was the size of the house. I was thinking, would the movie be the same if the house weren't so big? Anyone could get lost in that huge house, but this movie needed a house with a massive size.

Camilla Belle has a cute face, a perfect smile but it's like for a movie like this, the lead actress needs someone with experience. I found Camilla not that good. I don't know maybe she thought that this could be her breakthrough role. I do like her, she is a cute girl but someone to have a role in this movie has to be someone how is different to take it.

This movie wasn't scary. I also found this movie more like a "chick flick". I think the only reason this was released during the SuperBowl Weekend was that the guys stay home and watch the game and the girls go out to go see this. It also seems like a type of a movie when girls will enjoy more than guys. But I did like this movie but for how it is. Girls just like tog et scared or scream. This was just a pretty decent movie.

Maybe anyone could like this movie. There are many PG-13 horror films that never succeed. This was on its own level. So I kinda liked this movie. I give it a 7/10.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is more Lupin then most, especially coming from Funimation. Other then the bad dub, it isn't bad.

The first hour is a lot like the Comic (which is what all Lupin the 3rd stuff is based on). Lupin's trying to get a huge treasure. Fujiko's using Lupin's weakness to women to try to get something out of it. The last bit isn't that bad, he's with another women, but of course Fujiko's still him number one.

A lot of the other Lupin movies are more Family with cuss words then Lupin. Any good Lupin fan I think will be pleasantly surprised (I know I was after hearing so many bad things about this movie). It might be a bit better without the little animations rolling during the credits (they make it a little mushy) but overall, it isn't a bad film. Good enough to be one of the few I'd watch again of the Lupin III movies.

Sentiment: positive
In a time when the constitution and principals the United States were founded on are trampled underfoot by an administration desperate to distract attention from its own internal problems, where the Geneva Convention, human rights and foreign sovereignty are unapologetically discarded, a thriller about the state taking illegal action that far exceeds that of the terrorists they are countering might seem appropriate. However, if you want to see a film about that, try Ed Zwick's flawed THE SIEGE instead, because NADA is one of the most infantile 'political' thrillers ever made. Like Robert Altman's PRET-A-PORTER, the director has taken on a subject he seems completely ignorant of, and imprints his ignorance on almost every frame.

His terrorists are a wildly unconvincing group of stereotypes - Fabio Testi dresses as if he were auditioning for MAD Magazine's 'Spy vs. Spy' strip, Michel Duchaussoy behaves like an absurd KIDS IN THE HALL send up of the sociology professor from Hell, Mariangela Melato a cardboard middle-class revolutionary wannabe - who behave at every unconvincing plot turn as if they want to be caught. The corrupt authorities fare a little better, but are still painted in unconvincingly broad strokes.

It is possible to make a smart film about dumb people (cf ELECTION), but this is a moronic film about dumb people made by people who think they're intellectuals who are talking down to the masses. In truth, were one to recast Testi, Duchaussoy and Melato with Jim Varney, Johnny Knoxville and Shannon Tweed, the result would actually be to raise the intellectual content of the film, not lower it.

Chabrol might just have got away with his characters and events if he took them seriously, but his staging is so inept (the fight scenes would embarrass a kindergarten class while the shooting of the kidnapping is more inept than the kidnapping itself) and his inability to get his cast to perform with at least some approximation of recognisable human behaviour so blatant that it is actually embarrassing to watch (special mention must be made here of Duchaussoy: so very good in Chabrol's QUE LA BETE MUERE, he is stunningly bad here in a performance that is so far over the top it's back again).

Chabrol has made some fine films, but you would never guess it from this amateurish mess - a newcomer to his work would never want to see another of his films after this, which would be a great shame. Utter drivel, and a sad waste of a potentially interesting material. One star out of ten - and that's being very generous.

Sentiment: negative
well its official. they have just killed American Pie. The first 3 were absolutely hysterical, but this one and the others have been awful. I mean the story is about two college fraternity's who battle each other for its houses, I mean come on talk about a weak plot, the first three dealt with growing up, change and marriage, which are all worthy points of development in human society.

The new Stifler is the biggest joke, I know its hard trying to compare yourself with the Steven Stifler but so no cigar. I give this movie a 3 because there is 2-3 funny bits in the film.

The best character in this movie of course is Jim's dad i don't know why he keeps continuing to do these poorly developed films.

Sentiment: negative
Being from eastern PA, right on the border of Northern New Jersey, I still get a feeling like this was a documentary more so than a movie. I have friends from New York and New Jersey and this film represents the kind of lifestyle that "still" exists today in lower income area's outside of the "Big City" lifestyle. If you have not seen this movie and ever wondered what REALLY goes on in the urban jungle, check this movie out. No really big name actors, its as if they just pulled these guys off the street and said act, which adds to the realism of the movie, the performances are FANTASTIC none the less! SEE THIS FILM!

Sentiment: positive
After seeing Dick Tracy in the 6.99$ bin at Future Shop I decided to give it a go with no previous knowledge and being a big fan of Mafia and Crime movies. I was very surprised to see a very fun, smart entertaining movie with solid performances throughout. The movie moves along well, it has of course another solid performance from Warren Beatty, but the real standouts of the film are Al Pacino and Madonna. I was happy to find out that Pacino was nominated for his performance as an over the top gangster trying to take down the city. Madonna was great as the damsel in distress, she really impressed me and added depth to her performance. If you go in with the attitude of wanting to watch a fun, smart movie with great acting and a solid script then give Dick Tracy a try. I don't think you will be disappointed. And Watch for the cameos from Paul Sorvino, James Caan, Kathy Bates and Dustin Hoffman among others.

Sentiment: positive
Capt. Gallagher (Lemmon) and flight attendant Eve Clayton (Vaccaro) are a supposedly hot item in this death trip; a luxury 747 airliner decked out to look like a nightclub-slash-hotel there's even a blind piano player who falls in love. Karen Wallace (Grant) is the hysterical b!$3& who'll do anything to get attention from henpecked husband Martin (Christopher Lee) and, later, the rest of the people on board.

Memorable Moments: Boeing 747 doing a belly flop in the Atlantic Ocean, Karen getting her chops busted when she goes too far, and furniture (and screaming people) who become 'ball bearings' in a sinking 'pinball machine.'

The action and rescue sequences here are relatively phenomenal, but not much goes on in between. Hitchcock was supposed to have directed this sequel, but I forget the reason why not He would've done wonders for the 1970 original, on which this sequel is partly inspired ('77 also got inspiration from `The Flight of the Phoenix'). 

Actors Cotten and de Havilland reunite from their days on `Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte' (apparently here they are not playing heavies, just reunited Autumn Years' lovers). And isn't the actress playing Emily's companion the same one who played the hammered-to-death maid on `Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?'

TV actors include the girlfriend from `Mayberry RFD' (her character's daughter wins a drawing contest, or something lame like that), `Buck Rogers' Gil Gerard and `Dynasty's' Pamela Bellwood.



Sentiment: negative
The Willies starts late one night as brother's Josh (Joshua Miller) & Kyle (Jason Horst) are camping outside with their cousin Michael (Sean Astin), they decide to pass the time by telling scary stories...

First up is Michael with a story entitled 'Bad Apples' in which a young boy named Danny Hollister (Ian Fried) is bullied at school, however the sinister new janitor Mr. Jenkins (James Karen) decides to help him out...

Next up is Kyle as he tells a strange story called 'Flyboy' in which an overweight bully with a worrying fascination with dead flies gets what he deserves in a horrible twisted way...

Written & directed by Brian Peck The Willies didn't do much for me & I doubt it'll do much for you either. The script is strange as far as episodic anthologies go, instead of the usual three or four stories it only has two main tales & a few bizarre 'urban myth' type mini scenes at the start, these consist of the person who orders food from a fast food restaurant only to find a dead rat in her chicken, a man who dies of a heart attack on a ride & someone who tries to dry her poodle off in the microwave only for it to explode. I have no idea what the purpose of these scenes are but they add nothing to the film, as for the two main stories they are both weak. For a start they are too long which is a huge mistake in these types of films, usually the stories in anthologies are short, sharp & quick with a nice twist at the end usually involving people getting what they deserved. However in The Willies the stories last for the best part of 40 minutes each which is longer than the average TV episode & I must admit I found both stories very boring, they have very little going for them & seem to be aimed at children. The first story is the better to watch as a whole but it has no twist ending as far as I could see while the second one has a nice 'just deserts' ending but the build up to it is weak & drawn out for no good reason. I really like horror anthology films so The Willies comes as a disappointment, frankly it lets the genre down.

Director Peck was obviously working on a low budget & as a whole The Willies is pretty tough to sit through, there's plenty of continuity errors & it's poorly made. There's no atmosphere, there's no scares, there's no gore, the special effects are poor & it features unnecessary shots of a dirty toilet several times. Overall it's a pretty unappealing film to sit through.

Technically The Willies is rough around the edges to say the least, the effects are far from special & it has an extremely drab & grainy look to the picture. The acting is poor, no ones going to win any awards thats for sure.

The Willies is a poor film, it's not scary, it's not fun, it's not entertaining & it only features two overlong stories. Definitely not recommended.

Sentiment: negative
I went it to see this film with caution. A suicidal "comedy" didn't seem consistent. Having a brother who is has attempted suicide and seeing the devastation that has caused our whole family, I know first hand how crushing it can be to deal with this issue. I must say - This film deals with it in a way that allows the viewer "inside" someone who is suffering and simply doesn't know why, or how to stop it. While the film is not perfect, it respects the subject matter and more importantly makes it accessible for the masses. I know for our family, humor has helped us through a lot of the pain. And, Max and Grace is just what it portends to be - a suicidal COMEDY. It's funny - And, I also felt that characters were real and vibrant. It's also extremely intelligent, yet simple. It cuts to the chase and I appreciate that! I give it a 9 and will recommend it.

Sentiment: positive