DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
In this installment of the series, Edmund Blackadder is stuck in the Regency period in Britain (during the later portion of George III's rule). This time, Blackadder's prospects are much poorer--as instead of royalty, he's a servant to the very, very thick George IV (the price regent). Unlike the historical accounts of George IV, this one is about as bright as a tomato and as a result, Blackadder's able to take advantage of him and scheme to his heart's content. The only major difference in style between this one and earlier ones is that the series ends on a very, very, very different note--you just have to see it to believe it. Other than that, all the usual story elements are there and the show is hilarious. The only reservation I have (as always) is that this show is not appropriate for the kids due to its crude language and adult situations.

Sentiment: positive
Heard some good remarks about this film as being very gory and frightning, but it's neither. Obviously the screenwriter wanted to do a scary horror film but at the same time inject some teenage comedy for the young target audience. Scares and comedy seldomly result in good films, the same goes for MONSTER MAN.

Not really funny, nor scary or overly enjoyable on ANY other level.

Aproaching 39 years of age I've seen my share of horror movies. I have seen good ones and terrible ones, but the crop of films released these days are so frighteningly mediocre it bores me to watch 'em. The acceptance these days for bad films like this is what really annoys me. Let's face it, they produced a lot of crap in the 70's, 80's and 90's but they were regarded as such then as well. Today they're regarded as "good entertainment". - Bollocks!

Sentiment: negative
...in our household. Like everyone else who has commented on this movie, my brothers (7 & 4 years old at the time) and I (10) would watch this movie over and over again. We all loved Star Wars, but we always went back to this one because of the great songs and the adventure. We all loved the Camel and would sing at the top of our lungs with him during his song. There are some slow moments (the time spent with King Koo-Koo in his court) and we generally got bored after The Knight's song ("The reason that I {sound effect} is because I loooooove you"), but we loved the journey to rescue Babbette and the ending and were all a little freaked out by the picture of King Koo-Koo floating there dominating the entire horizon, laughing maniacally at the end. I still to this day sing "Hooray for me! Babbette of gay Paris!" around my friends (I'm 33 now) who just look at me as if I've lost my mind; however, when I'm singing it I'm 10 years old again remembering the wonderful year of Star Wars.

Sentiment: positive
I can appreciate satire that goes against my own views but it must be witty and well-placed. This film is...how can I possibly explain it. It does not make the slightest attempt at subtlety, much less intelligence. In fact, it's hardly even horror. Dead soldiers come to life but they're not interested in brains, only in voting booths. Why? Cue a never-ending stream of the most idiotic, banal, bloated windbag ravings of "bad president, bad conservatives, bad Republicans." What a self-indulgent, schmaltzy, cornball piece of hog manure this was.

Even if they agree with the episode's "points," only the stupidest of liberals would say they enjoyed watching it. Then again, assigning a degree of stupidity to the crazed, angry, hostile, anti-social and anti-anything-halfway-normal liberal spectrum is a tall task in itself.

Avoid like a liberal convention.

Sentiment: negative
I must say I was impressed the cinematography was amazing, the frames close to perfection and the way he built up the tension around a subject that sound more like a dreadful bore is beyond be.

The film is about two narrators, one seen, one unseen. They are both trying to explain the significant of a series of painting that caused a scandal a long time back. The film is all about theories and explanations of views but the conclusion is quite shocking I must say. Definitely a film that deserves more than it's 171 votes.

With only 66 minutes to play out it's plot the film still felt like a complete work. Fantastic direction! I must say far better than Blood of the Poet which it for some strange reason remind me a bit of. 

I suppose you can call it by the slang word "artsy". It's pretty much just a lot of professional talk about various theories and stunning visual effects but the crew and Ruiz did pull it off. At least for me. An amazing film.

Sentiment: positive
Im not usually a lover of musicals,but if i had to choose what would be my favourite it would definitely be Oliver.This film is so well made,the characters are well depicted,the costumes are spot on the acting is good and the songs are great,my favourite being 'Reviewing The Situation'sung by Ron Moody who gives a brilliant portrayal of Fagin.I wasn't old enough to see Oliver when it was released in the late 60s but my sisters were,so for weeks on end i had to put up with them singing the bloody songs,usually it was 'Who will buy my wonderful roses'so i already knew all of the songs before i saw the film.Its a timeless musical you definitely couldn't remake it,it stands on its own.Its not accurate to the book and i don't think it would have worked so well if it had been.I don't think Charles Dickens would be disappointed,as he wrote Oliver to depict the poverty in London,the orphanages,the work houses and about what the poor had to resort to in order to survive,and the film portrays this very well.Also another great reason to watch this film is Bullseye the Old type English Bull terrier,notice his long thin legs,this was bred out of the breed many years ago,they must have hunted high and low to find a specimen like him,and he is exactly how an English Bull Terrier would have looked in Victorian times.Notice he has scars {which is probably makeup}on his face,Bill Sykes had probably used him for dog fighting or for the rat pit.A Victorian Bull Terrier had a record amount of kills in a rat pit.His a beautiful dog any way,and notice he disobeys Bill Sykes after he has killed Nancy,he obviously has his standards his not the chunk head Bill Sykes thought he was.This is a great musical to watch if you like musicals,and if you don't like musicals give it a try any way,there's something for everyone in this film.

Sentiment: positive
A movie this dumb should never see the light of day. The acting is lame, the violence is just all over the place, the sneaking ending is just plain stupid.

It's all about a lawyer who saw a murder done by the R.I.C.C.O. squad. No one has never seen him, not even the hit men themselves. So he and a beautiful lady are on the run trying to find the leader of this R.I.C.C.O. squad, before they find them.

Then the movie goes on to a romance, gun shooting, and voodoo. Now how in the hell did voodoo come in this. Never see this film if your life depends on it. Trust Me!!!!!!!!

Sentiment: negative
Mainly a biography of a lustful doctor, "Robert Merivel ," (Robert Downey) who has his way in the king's palace for the first half of the film and then helps out the downtrodden in the second half, mainly "Katharine" (Meg Ryan).

The GOOD - Fantastic set decoration (i.e. the lush king's palace) and costuming make this a visual treat. The language is also very tame. Ian McKellen and Hugh Grant provide interesting support.

The BAD - After 50-60 minutes, this movie simply gets too boring. It desperately needed to be given some spark after an hour but it does the opposite: it drags on and on. The script certainly needed some badly-needed "restoration," shall we say? The film may look nice but it's a long two hours to sit through.....too long.

Sentiment: negative
So when I first saw commercials for Greek I did have a few questions to how they were going to approach Greek life, if they were going to give away sacred frat and sorority secrets, if they were going to focus on the brother and sisterhood a fraternity or sorority brings, or what most college kids think of Greek life as a huge party.

Luckily, it covered everything. The story plot was great, it gave you a character to love, hate, someone you want to be like, someone you don't want to be like, and of course a crazy roommate!

It was one of my first looks at what writers believed Greek life to be like, and I can honestly say they hit the nail pretty dead on.

I love how one of the biggest things they covered throughout the season was the relationship between Rusty and his crazy roommate. Its hard enough moving away from home, and being forced to live in a small room with someone you don't even know, then come to find out.. you have nothing in common. Probably every college bound freshmens worst nightmare.

Rustys sister Casey was pretty much the typical girl on campus EVERYONE is jealous of. What didn't she have? Oh thats right.. Evan all to herself. Rebecca and Evan had an "affair" early into the season, which made you feel fairly sympathetic for Casey. Her character evolved, and her relationship with Rusty became more and more loving and outgoing. 

Cappie is one of the most fun loving characters, and absolutely insane. One of my favorite episodes included him getting completely trashed at a strip club, and Rusty having to call Casey to bail them out. I like how they addressed the issue of gay people in Greek houses, Calvin was a very real feeling character, and I really respected him because he stuck to his standards. So Jen K was fairly crazy, but she actually liked Rusty. It was surprising and I continued to question her from the start, but of course, I did want it to work out between her and Rusty.

I am definitely looking forward to the return of Greek. It takes you into the truth of Greek life, something that a lot of people look past. One of the biggest things that frats and sororities are known for is parties and drinking. Greek is a great show, and the characters are easy to relate to.

Sentiment: positive
At least it is with this episode. Here we have a time traveler, the Professor from Gilligan's Island, no less, going back in time to 1865. What does one do--why try to save Lincoln of course! No really interesting variations are rung on this old theme. As another reviewer has stated, this episode is particularly drab and unstylish, with little to suggest that "the Professor" really is back in the 1860s. Budget limitations are readily apparent, and the direction is stolid. John Wilkes Booth adds a spark but it remains a very flat production. We too often feel we are on stage sets, waiting for something clever to happen. There is a minor twist at the end, but I emphasize minor.

Sentiment: negative
In my opinion, the movie is an excellent example of the realities of war and a tribute to the soldiers of all nations who fought and bled into the soil Gallipoli. The lack of violence in no way detracted from the magnitude of the tale in hand. It is honest, true and brave, just like the men that fought and died at the Hellespont. The lack of brutal depictions of violence are just and proper. Those men suffered enough for freedom, liberty and the right to self determination in a free and better world. They never wished to ever see such scene's again.That is the legacy of the event of Gallipoli. To suffer scene's of gratuitous pyro-technics and blood and gore is best not shown for the maintenance of proper respect for the combatants of this crucible of nationhood.

This film glories in the magnificence of men fighting for their lives,with honour, courage, dignity and irrepressible spirit and humour in the face of appalling adversity. This film is not interested in making a spectacle for fools to cheer over. The brutal outcomes that occoured from these personal combats of these men is not a thing that those that survived ever wished to see on a screen for entertainment. They saw enough of that at the time, and would much rather have never seen it at first, and never wished to review such scenes again on a screen in the name of "entertainment". The brutal horrors of the actualities of the vicious combat fought at Gallipoli were scenes that haunted their waking and sleeping hours for the rest of their natural days. It was the painful internal scars they, the men of all those nations who fought, carried inside to their graves. They all fought,and many died in the face of it all and somehow they, those mighty hearted men, managed to laugh in the teeth of constant dread death because they would'nt insult their mates by not being prepared to die game beside them. That's Australasian for brave, game is, but it applied to all combatants to a greater or lesser degree, but word from the boy's that fought was that Johhny Turk was as game, that is as brave, as you would ever wish for a soldier to be.

ANZAC's and Turks were fighting to establish their place on the world stage, and from 25/04/15 onwards, their respective claims for equality in Nationhood were made known and undeniable to that world. The director has made a masterpiece that truly honours the spirit and memory of those soldiers and serves as a reminder to future generations of all ages, for children can be taken without fear of frightening them for the sake of visual "horror" and it's morbid and pointless appeal. And children should attend this movie so as to learn what happened at that sacred shore before they were born. So that they can remember. For it is the nature of men, that they soon forget.

Sentiment: positive
*Minor Spoiler* 

Inhabited isn't scary, but it is creepy. It is an interesting 'little' story with good acting and great special effects makeup.

Basic plot: A little girl blames the strange things going on at her family's new house and accompanying playhouse on her faerie friends.

The movie doesn't waste time getting moving, though the ending could have been more involved.

I don't recommend this movie to those expecting/wanting hardcore horror, but I do recommend it to those who want a chiller and not necessarily a thriller.

Sentiment: positive
I was really geared up to watch when two of best movie critics tagged this movie as a 'laugh riot'. But the movie turned out be disappointing.

You will be advised to watch this movie keeping your brains at home but you simply can't ignore the flaws and the shortcomings.

1. The missile scene was total stupidity.

2. Katrina Kaif and Govinda pair looked awful. (He's 49 and she's just 24... more than double of her age) 3. Salman's comedy is less of acting and more of overacting.

4. Songs are good but interrupts the pace of the movie.

5. Some scenes were deliberately attempted by the movie makers to be funny, and 6. Poor and flawed story.

However, there are few pluses- 1. Govinda. Great Individual Performance.

2. Some scenes are actually quite funny.

3. Kattrina Kaif. Looks and Acting keeps on improving with every film.

4. Rajpal Yadav's Don sequences. Though under-utilized but hilarious.

So 4 good points, 6 bad ones.. this one gets 4/10.

Sentiment: negative
This is absolutely the worst comedy I have ever seen. It's hard to explain though, because (unless you've seen this) I bet you've never seen a comedy that was not good or bad; it's just there (That's the original part-not good or bad, just there)! 

Let me say that I have seen every comedian appearing in a main role, and like them all. That's what makes this such a mystery. The supporting leads are actually acting (although the dialog is bad). The only character that is fairly good is the one played by John Goodman. He does a pretty good job with what little dialog he has, and actually has one funny line (I won't spoil the only funny line in the movie, in case you decide to watch anyway. It involves a pancake.) The big mysteries are the main leads. I won't call them characters, because no characters have been developed. This script is so juvenile that they don't even bother to give the leads fictional names. They all just use their own. They don't even seem to be trying to act. It's as though they are all reading out loud to each other from scripts that the local junior high sent to them. I actually wrote a paper like this for my English class when I was thirteen-it wasn't funny either.

Bottom line, just don't bother to rent this. It isn't funny. It doesn't even have the kind of bad dialog you can groan to. I just sat there and stared through the whole thing. It was so boring I couldn't even work up any irritation at how bad it was. I can't imagine how this is even getting a rating of 4 here.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of those films the British Lottery Fund wastes its money on. The main problem is a rambling script which gets nowhere. The characters are not interesting, the story is conventional and insipid, the only thing of interest is the location: the city of Genoa (Genova in Italian). Having only a superficial acquaintance with Genoa, I had no idea of the intricate alleyways of its Old Town, and that the city was so interesting. I had thought Genoa was dull. I am delighted to say that I have been proved wrong. So from the travelogue point of view, this film has interest. The film contains one splendid performance, by a little girl named Perla Haney-Jardine. She has already made seven films despite being only 12, so she seems determined upon a career as an actress, and judging by her performance in this film, she should go far, as she is a natural and has a great deal of talent. Colin Firth, a reliable and professional actor, was on hand for the filming and when asked to be earnest, he was earnest, and when asked to be anguished, he was anguished. But somebody forgot to give him any worthwhile dialogue. The script is a total shambles. Catherine Keener does exceptionally well in a supporting role, and showing sympathy comes naturally to her, so that everybody would like to have her around (I would like to tell her every time I feel a cold coming on, as I know she would get me a soothing hot drink). So there we have it: Genoa's fascinating narrow alleys, an interesting little girl, and a sympathetic woman. Forget the rest. The older sister played by Willa Holland is such a disgusting character that the fact that the young actress does a good job of being repellent is not exactly the kind of acting tribute she would like to hear, I suspect. The notion that this family go off to Genoa to forget the unfortunate death of the mother is so trite that if we have another film like that, all dead mothers have a right to complain at being exploited. If Michael Winterbottom wanted to make a film about how interesting the old portion of Genoa is, why didn't he just go to the BBC and say he wanted to make a travel film with some mindless celebrity presenter? Why waste money on a feature film which is nothing but a vanity project of idle and meandering vacuity?

Sentiment: negative
Labored comedy has I.R.S. agent Tony Randall investigating eccentric farm family in Maryland who have never paid their taxes; Debbie Reynolds is the tomboy farmer's daughter who puts the squeeze on the not-so-disinterested tax-man. Debbie certainly made her share of inferior theatrical sitcoms during this period--and this one's no better or worse than the rest. Picture begins brightly but flags at the halfway point, becoming frantic and witless. Randall isn't a bad match for Reynolds, but the vehicle itself defeats the chemistry. Based on the novel "The Darling Buds of May" by H.E. Bates, with a poor sound-mix causing all the actors to sound as if they're stuck in an echo chamber. ** from ****

Sentiment: negative
I made a special effort to see this movie and was totally disappointed with the outcome. On paper, the script seems hopeful, and the choice of actors leaves one with hopes - I liked Pacino in Scent of a Woman and have seen Anny Duperrey and Marthe Keller in several French and other films of the 70s/80s. But I had forgotten how important a part dialogues can play in a film, and in this film they are absolute ..... trash ! The filming locations were also attractive but the hopeless, pretentious and forced dialogues pulled the whole thing down to sub zero level. In addition to that, I am pretty allergic to the world of motor racing and find no interest in this sport. Even the inelegant dialogues in "Love Story" were better than the ones in this film (and that's saying something !!). I was really expecting better from this film and was very disappointed to have been let down so much.

Sentiment: negative
Yet another film about a tortured self-centered, arrogant, unfeeling hateful, self-destructive lead character we are supposed to care about.

Don't get me wrong I am very open to all kinds of off the wall movies that have as the lead character a strongly self-destructive character. What I object to about this one is that there is so little background to this guy. Why did this guy hate himself and the world? Had the script dealt with this more they might have managed to elicit some sympathy for him. As it is he just comes off as an unpleasant hateful character, not tragic, just hateful.

After taking great pains to make this guy as crazy and anti-social as possible and making his fate as dark as possible the writer then has the nerve to make a happy ending....

This is not the worst film I have ever seen but it is in there putting up a good fight! Man! Don't waste your time.

Sentiment: negative
This is the funniest sequel I have seen in a long time it is much funnier than the other three and not a bit scary. It has some very gory pieces in the film, but not bad enough to make you sick. In this one he has a female doll companion, hence the name. If you liked the first three then you'll love this, go watch it!

Sentiment: positive
I can't believe that anyone would green light this let alone voluntarily star in it. I will never be able to get that 90 mins of my life back.

This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. Some films are so bad they're good. This has gone so far round again that's somehow it's so bad it's terrible. I was not exactly expecting much, it being a low budget, bandwagon jumping, rehash of a B Movie, but it still came in way under my expectation levels. Even TV movies have higher production values.

There were (very) poor special effects, shocking dialogue, terrible acting and a completely unexplained plot. Who cursed her and why, why did the 6 inch snakes turn into 15 foot snakes, has anyone ever heard of highly venomous garter snakes or pythons? 100 passengers? 3,000 snakes? So many promises, none delivered. 

Some comments would have you believe that this film is worth watching for the last five minutes. It's not even worth a rental. Stay in and watch a low budget TV movie, you'll enjoy it a lot more. 

Why was this made? Oh yes, to shamelessly cash in on the internet phenomenon that is SOAP. Shame on you Mallachi Brothers, shame on you

Sentiment: negative
What is most disturbing about this film is not that school killing sprees like the one depicted actually happen, but that the truth is they are carried out by teenagers like Cal and Andre...normal kids with normal families. By using a hand held camera technique a la Blair Witch, Ben Coccio succeeds in bringing us into the lives of two friends who have some issues with high school, although we aren't ever told exactly what is behind those issues. They seem to be typical -a lot of people hate high school, so what? A part of you just doesn't believe they will ever carry out the very well thought out massacre on Zero Day. The surveillance camera scenes in the school during the shooting are made all the more powerful for that reason. You can't believe it's really happening, and that it's really happened. The hand held camera technique also creates the illusion that this is not a scripted movie, a brilliant idea given the subject matter.

Sentiment: positive
I really don't understand all these positive user reviews. This movie is the worst movie I've ever seen and I'm not trying to be pessimistic.

Eva Mendez is hot but terrible in this film. But I don't think it is her own fault but the directors. He have somehow managed to make everything look artificial; their acting, the idea, the make-up, everything.

The star I'm giving is only for the idea behind the movie, which was very bad executed.

Don't watch this bullshit, go watch a Fellini, Woody Allen or some David Lynch.

Sentiment: negative
Don't get fooled with all the big names like Burt Reynolds,James Woods and Anne Archer. They are just glorified extra's. Their scenes were probably filmed in one day or so. Whatever their motives for being in this movie, if you have an actor like James Woods you better make good use of him. To me this is a sign of bad direction through and through. The plot itself wasn't that bad. And the acting from most of the actors was above average. Cuba Gooding Jr. however was terrible. He was so unbelievable that I almost laughed at his dramatic scenes. And since this was meant as a serious movie that can't be a good thing. The action scenes were not bad,but they lacked that special punch to make it more exciting. Again better direction was needed. Also the pacing was wrong for a movie like this. It took the main character almost half an hour to get in action. For an action thriller of only 90 minutes that is far too slow. The only redeeming factor is Angie Harmon. She does her best to make it all work. Too bad the director left her hanging. Yes,this movie could have been much better with a great director. Andy Cheng is far too inexperienced as a director to pull it off. And for an action/stunt coordinator of his caliber you'd expect at least more exciting action scenes. Don't waste your time with this one. Avoid!

Sentiment: negative
A couple of clarifying comments are in order. Herschell Gordon Lewis contributed a brief introduction to the video release of DOCTOR GORE (aka THE BODY SHOP), wherein he touched upon his collaborative efforts with J.G. "Pat" Patterson, director and star of DOCTOR GORE. Patterson concocted the "gore effects" for THE GRUESOME TWOSOME and a few other Lewis movies in the late 60s. Lewis remarks that whereas 2,000 MANIACS was a "five gallon" film (referring to the amount of stage blood required), the Lewis-Patterson productions were "fifteen gallon" pictures. Lewis does not describe DOCTOR GORE as a "fifteen gallon" film -- he's only talking about the films he & Patterson made together. Lewis has confessed (elsewhere) that his introduction to DOCTOR GORE was improvised before he'd even seen Patterson's film! So take it with a grain of salt. 

This may be an "unfinished" film, but like some unfinished novels it does have an "ending." It's just missing some connective tissue. 

Patterson has definite stage presence & a dry sense of humor, helping to make this simplistic show somewhat more watchable than it should be. There's an extremely bare-bones plot -- even BLOOD FEAST is more complex -- and a gratingly repetitive musical score by William Girdler. A bit of nudity & lots of skin. The entire middle section of the film involves the construction of a "perfect woman;" this is concentrated gore for the bloodthirsty, and laughable. 

Patterson the director is in way over his head, but he tries hard to tell his story creatively, if it's possible to use Frankenstein clichés creatively. But the best reason to see this film (on Something Weird's DVD, if possible) is that it features a perfect Nashville weeper, Bill Hicks' "A Heart Dies Every Minute." Ain't it the truth!

Sentiment: negative
I remember watching Police Squad! when it first came on ABC in 1982 and I thought it was a very funny show, thanks to the many sight gags, non sequitors and scripts filled with word play. In one episode, there was a line where a man named Once was shot twice. 

But unfortunately, ABC canceled the show after only six episodes. I felt it deserved a much longer run but a network executive thought the show demanded too much attention of the viewer because of all the sight gags in each episode. One that I remember was in the opening where the episode's title was different from the one shown on the screen. 

Leslie Nielsen's portrayal of Frank Drebin was deadpan, yet very funny and his role was in the narrative style of Jack Webb of Dragnet. Alan North did well and Peter Lupus, in one of his few roles since Mission: Impossible wasn't bad as Norberg, But the one character that stood out was Johnny the Shoeshine Boy, played by William Duell. After giving advice to Drebin, there were cameos from Dick Clark, Dr. Joyce Brothers and then Dodger manager Tommy LaSorda. 

Even though Police Squad! had a short life on ABC, the Zucker Brothers didn't give up on the concept which turned out even more successful in the Naked Gun movie franchise. I'll close with a regular closing gag. Freeze the ending right here.

Sentiment: positive
"The Cellar" is an intolerably dull and overly child-friendly 80's cheese parade, directed by Kevin Tenney (creator of the much better films "Witchboard" and "Night of the Demons") and starring the incredibly untalented Patrick Kilpatrick, supposedly depicting a guy with feelings. The pacing is really slow, the plot feels far too familiar, the monster-effects are all but petrifying and the film opens and ends with tedious narrative ranting that somehow feels unrelated to the actual subject matter of the film. The voice-over keeps on nagging about wind and creatures riding on wind, but what the hell, there's no wind in the plot? Like so many 80's horror movies, "The Cellar" handles about cursed Indian landscapes and all-too-real mythical monsters hidden in basements and quagmires. Mance Cashen and his family move into a house build on what once was the home of Native Americans, but then white people came and turned the land into oil fields. Half of the script is wasted on explaining the origin of the monster, but I can easily summarize it for you: an ancient Indian witchdoctor summoned the creature (which looks like an over-sized paper-mâché rat) to annihilate the white people overflowing his land but he buried it again because, and I quote, the SOB kills Indians as well. Mance's hugely irritating son accidentally awakens the beast and naturally can't convince his parents about the big hungry rat in the cellar. The allegedly emotional family situation (daddy constantly wants his son to love him) is very pathetic and redundant and the film badly needed more bloodshed; kids' movie or not. The youthful hero (Chris Miller) is quite annoying, but we've definitely seen worse kid actors in the 80's. "The Cellar" is very much not recommended, unless of course you're a fan of cheesy and typically 80's monster designs. The big dodgy rat-thing is a real hoot to see.

Sentiment: negative
She's the Man was the funniest movie I have ever seen. I laughed so hard that I was crying. It was also very romantic. Channing Tatum is absolutely gorgeous and can really act. It sure doesn't hurt that he has quite a few shirtless scenes either. Channing and Amanda have amazing chemistry and were absolutely wonderful together. I love this movie. When you watch make sure to watch the last deleted scene. It was a huge mistake to cut that scene because it is one of the best scenes in the movie. I highly recommend this movie. Amanda has never been funnier. And Channing is going to be a huge star. This is just the first of many for this bright new star.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this when it first came to video, my little sister got it as a gift and I was probably 12 at the time... What stood out for me was the lack of mid-movie conflict that so many movies have, where the main characters get mad at each other because when it comes time to explain themselves they just don't say the one thing that you're shouting at the screen that would make sense of the whole deal, that any person of reasonable intellect would know to say. This is what I like the most about the movie I guess, that the main characters don't do mean things to each other halfway through... they don't break up and make up, they just grow to like each other more as the movie goes on.

These two kids team up and though they seem at first to be from opposite sides of the track, they're not that different. Loui is actually just some middle class kid that needed to realize how lucky he was to have a loving family, and Cecelia was an upper class kid that just needed to prove to her family that she existed and they would miss her if she was gone. Anyway, I saw this movie posted on Hulu and had to watch it again... sure there's plot holes if you analyze the script and no, Woog and Dweeb shouldn't be eating hot dogs since they would have been herbivores in reality.

Now, what detracts from the film is it's unexpected scariness. Little kids under the age of 5 would probably be frightened by the scenes with Dr. Screweyes. And, the addition of him halfway through the movie (though it's blatantly obvious in the first scene that he will make an appearance) is too abrupt... there should be a glimpse of him doing his show earlier in the movie, perhaps to show that it's not that scary without the the dinosaurs. I guess it just lacked any real present danger for the entire first half of the movie, so that it lacks a little continuity when he appears for the second half.

Considering the target audience, who I'm sure can overlook the not so mind blowing animation and dialog issues... I think I'll give it a pass on those factors too, and just enjoy the story. It's a great flick for kid and it does stick in your mind... makes you kinda think about how you treat people and it should be revisited every 10 years I think.

Sentiment: positive
Sorry guys, I've already written my opinion of this movie but today was the first day I looked at some of the other reviews. There are a quite a lot of people who agree with me but what's scary is that there are some people who seem to really like this movie. I don't like to write nasty reviews or criticise other people's opinions but I think it's only fair to warn anybody out there who may be debating whether or not to see this movie. This is not a good movie. I really like movies and I'll watch just about anything but this movie made it onto the incredibly short list of movies I watched and was happy to leave halfway through. If you really are incredibly tempted, watch the trailer...that's the mistake I made because the entire movie is essentially in the trailer...after that there are no surprises, just some shockingly bad dialogue to waste time. I love Michael Vartan in Alias and would hate to criticise him but I think it's my duty to stop other people wasting hours of their life on a movie like this!!

Sentiment: negative
This movie was beyond disappointment. Well acted story that means nothing. The plot is ridiculous and even what story there is goes absolutely nowhere. It truly isn't worth a nickel, buffalo or otherwise..pun intended!

Sentiment: negative
An excellent and accurate film... McGovern takes great pains to research and document his writing and it pays off. He is not afraid to tell the truth, even though it might draw unfavourable reviews and comments from some who like stories to be clean and sweet and glossy.

Once again, McGovern brings in Christopher Eccleston, though not in as high a profile a role as he played in Hillsborough. I found this movie as accurate, well acted and well presented as Hillsborough and I applaud McGovern for his poignant unapologetic writing. Well done and my hat is off to the writer, the actors, the production crew. A great film!

Sentiment: positive
The ruins is to Turistas as Deep Impact was to Armageddon, a worse version of a mildly entertaining movie, except much much worse. One of the characters is supposed to be going to medical school, so why are they all retards? "you can't keep cutting." -best line form this movie. This is an awful movie. I like horror movies, but fully appreciate that most of them are terrible, but had a bit of high hopes for this movie after seeing the reviews on IMDb. The situation they are in is stupid and how they handle it makes them stupid. It is awful, the one thing that makes it somewhat palatable is its cool Australian backdrop, despite the fact that they spend the vast majority of the movie in one place.

Sentiment: negative
Piece of subtle art. Maybe a masterpiece. Doubtlessly a special story about the ambiguity of existence. Tale in Kafka style about impossibility of victory or surviving in a perpetual strange world. The life is, in this film, only exercise of adaptation. Lesson about limits and original sin, about the frailty of innocence and error of his ways.

Leopold Kessle is another Joseph K. Images of Trial and same ambiguous woman. And Europa is symbol of basic crisis who has many aspects like chimeric wars or unavailing search of truth/essence/golden age.

Methaphor or parable, the movie is history of disappointed's evolution. War, peace, business or lie are only details of gelatin-time. Hypocrisy is a mask. Love- a convention. The sacrifice- only method to hope understanding a painful reality.

Sentiment: positive
Bare Wench is another softcore parody of the Blair Witch project (I think there's about two dozen of those things out there). It has 5 very attractive women (which includes Nikki Fritz, Julie Smith, and Julie Strain), and one dorky guy whose only purpose is to provide comic relief.

Okay, so I'm thinking "Cool. Great looking women, having softcore lesbian sex with each other very 10 minutes or so. This should be real good."

Unfortunately, the producers blew it. There is nothing in this video that actually qualifies as a sex scene. There's a couple of false starts, but the majority of the action is just the women posing for the camera. I guess once the producers had spent their money on the women, and spent more getting them to remove their clothes, they didn't have any money left to get them to actually do anything. And I guess they also used up all their alloted nudity time too early, because towards the end of the video, there is a huge amount of pointless dialogue that is obviously being used for no other reason than to pad out the run time. "You're a liar! No you are! You go into the cave! No you go! I think we should go home! Well, I don't!" This goes on and on and on forever.

There's way better stuff than this.

Sentiment: negative
I couldn't agree more with the other comment, it's like Falling down. Peter Weller is OK and William Hurt great as always, except in Lost in Space. This is a good movie. With pretty good performances. Very recommendable. If you like Falling down you're going to enjoy this one. 8 of 10

Sentiment: positive
I've read most of the comments on this movie. I have seen this movie(and the whole prophecy series) many times with family members of all ages, we all enjoyed and it just made us meditate on what we already knew from reading and studying the bible about the rapture and end times. No one got scared or traumatized like I have read on some posts. The movie is just based on biblical facts. I have seen a lot of end time movies "Tribulation", "Armagedon" and so on and by far this one is one of the best in presenting bible truths. It may not have a lot of great special effects like todays movies but I believe it is a good witnessing tool. This movie and its prophecy series can be seen free at this website higherpraise.com, and judge for yourself. Blessings to all.

Sentiment: positive
First a technical review. The script is so slow, it is really a 25 minute story blown up to 1 hour 40 min. The dialogue is so flat and truly one-dimensional. The "acting" is pathetic, they seem to really have lifted schoolchildren out of class to read a few lines from an idiot board. As for the whole "point" of the story, namely "war is bad" (oh, there's a shock!) is really non-existent. Without out the "lets shock 'em and get great publicity" scene nobody would be talking about this film. It is so bad it actually bothers me to think what better things the money used this could have gone on. Believe me I've seen some bad "emperor's new clothes" films but the one thing I can say for them is at least they were well shot and well made while the camera wobbled during two scenes in this! Read all the other reviews - avoid at all costs and don't talk about it.

Sentiment: negative
It is unusual to see a film where the performance of a single actor is so good that one can feel that the film would be of little interest, if any, without his presence.

Despite a not outstanding direction - in fact, there are many scenes that seem to have been shooted too quickly and carelessly -, a seemingly low budget, a strange plot about a man who wants to take the place of a defrocked priest and another week points, the presence of Pierre Fresnay is so impressive that one gets shocked from the very begining to the terrible end.

I have never seen nor can iomagine for future a better performance, even Paul Scofield acting in "A man for all seasons".

Actually the end could be considered even ridiculous if Fresnay were not playing the transtorned priest who returns to Church by performing a crime.

"Je suis Maurice Morand, prètre catholique" ("I am Maurice Morand, a catholic priest")is said with such a brilliancy that one may forget the madness that conducted to that end.

The other impressive thing this film has is a single scene in wich Morand - who despite being a defrocked one is stil a priest - consacrates in a cabaret a huge amount of vine turning it into Christ´s blood.

Gérard - the man that wants to return Morand to the Church or replace him by himself - has to drink it if he doesn´t want to leave it in the cabaret. He does so in mid of cheers and applauses from people who think that he is simply drinking three of four litters of vine.

In next scene, the dialoque between Morand and a garbage collector is also remarkable. "Do you carry away men too?" asks Morand, who hates himself for what he has just done. "That would be too much work" is the smart answer.

The rest of the film is not worth commenting but it is certainly worth seeing due to the very strong and strangely emotive atmosphere created all the time.

I think that "Le défroqué" is a very strange film, but has to be seen by all viewers - if the are good catholiques it is mandatory - because it is a very rare jewell in film history.



Sentiment: positive
In Europe, it's known as Who Dares Wins; in America, it's known as The Final Option, but under any title this ludicrous SAS action flick asks the audience to put their disbelief to one side for around two hours. I find it incredibly hard to comprehend how Lewis Collins (the hero here) was almost chosen as Roger Moore's successor in the Bond films.... this guy is so expressionless he'd struggle to get a job in a waxwork museum (as a waxwork!!!) Luckily, Judy Davis is on hand to partially redeem the affair with a meaty performance as a hard-line lady terrorist, and there's a climactic ten minute action sequence that is quite competently orchestrated by director Ian Sharp. Let it be added that it's a very, very, very long wait for these closing excitements to come around, and I can't honestly say that a near two hour wait for a bit of decent action was worth the effort.

SAS hard man Peter Skellen (Lewis Collins) goes undercover among a group of peace protesters who would like to see the end of nuclear weapons stock-piling. He meets their leader Frankie (Judy Davis), a strong-talking and opinionated woman who might just be capable of taking extraordinary measures to achieve her goals. Frankie's dedicated bunch violently lay siege to the American Embassy in London, demanding that a nuclear missile be fired at a naval base in Scotland (she believes that when the world witnesses a nuclear blast for real, everyone will be so appalled that they will join her campaign for disarmament). Unfortunately for Frankie, she makes the mistake of taking Skellen on her little embassy raid, and he plans to thwart their plan from inside with a little well-timed outside help from his SAS comrades.

The film is inspired - quite obviously - by the awesome SAS assault on the Iranian Embassy in 1981. Someone who saw that event on the news apparently thought it would be good to devise a film along similar lines. Unfortunately, the film is rather banal, with too much stupid dialogue and a heck of a lot of embarrassingly bad scenes (the arch-bishop's debate which descends into a riot, anyone?) Frankie's idea to bring about peace by instigating a nuclear blast is ridiculous anyway, so she becomes a laughable figure just when the audience is on the verge of viewing her as an interesting villain. Who Dares Wins tries to be a celebration of the military legend that is the SAS, but at the same time it dips into clumsy action clichés and ill-thought-out plotting. The result is a well-intentioned but wholly ineffective slice of Boy's Own absurdity.

Sentiment: negative
Most of Kieslowski's films seem like puzzles to me, meant to expand mind and soul. The characters are not very believable, are idealized, are schematic. Nevertheless, the way Kieslowski presents their winding ways through life, their complicated interaction with others, with the universe, with chance or destiny, makes me understand faith, makes me (want to) believe in God. That at some point it all has a meaning, if not to me, then certainly to someone.

Trois couleurs and especially "Rouge" comes closer to making me touch, feel, experience the "truth", the "meaning" than perhaps any other of his films. The only problem being the paths of the "puzzles" explored are a bit too similar to his other films and at some point they become somewhat predictable. There is still plenty of joy to be had here. It is like a familiar brand of wine - you know what to expect and it delivers, sometimes with a newly found bouquet which might come from aging - either the wine or yourself.

Sentiment: positive
Let me start off by saying that this doesn't seem or feel like a movie. It seems like just another TV show about popular girls and boys with no real film language top back it up.

The camera angles are so straight forward that the story is told the simplest way possible never making the public connect with it. This film takes us to where no movie I've seen has done before: to a realm where the Film Theater becomes a warm medium giving the public every element of interpretation. Too obvious. The large movie screen is only used as an enlarged TV from where we can see every attribute of these women in a larger than life manner.

Lately it seems that young directors are compromising the Art of film making for sales. This is very scary. The industry is spoiling the art in movies. We must educate ourselves and our children about what cinematography and its language are really about. Not just sales and entertainment, but a way to communicate feelings, passions and even culture. Not as a launching platform for young divas and jocks.

Sentiment: negative
Certainly any others I have seen pale in comparison. The series gives balanced coverage to all theatres of operation. No one country is given undue credit for the Allied victory. Laurence Olivier brings great weight and dignity to his role as narrator.

Sentiment: positive
Nice movie. At the begining, i thought it's a medieve detective kind hi-fi movie, but the ending totally surprised me. I guess, the whole movie covers too many subjects, each of them can be the main subject,e.g. avenge, friendship, and dream. But it mixed all of them without focusing on any of them. I think, it'd be a great movie if it's built around the ending from the very begining.



Sentiment: positive
What a surprise this film was. I've seen a good few of Fulci's horror and zombie flicks and was amazed that this was by the same director. He also wrote the screen play which shows that the chap was quite capable of crafting a detailed, complex story line. The dubbing on this is not good, but far from the appalling slop that only further hinders later howlers like 'Manhattan Baby'.

The photography in this film is fantastic. A strange, almost futuristic highway appears throughout the film which focuses on a small town where young boys are being murdered. A scene involving the beating of a woman is uncomfortable to watch, yet refreshing in comparison to usual cinema violence. 

What went wrong Lucio? Perhaps there is a strong case to suggest he had reached his peak with this film, and it slowly went downhill after that.

Sentiment: positive