DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I was so disappointed in this movie. I am very familiar with the case, having read not only Mark Fuhrman's book but also the far superior "A Wealth of Evil: The True Story of the Murder of Martha Moxley in America's Richest Community" by Timothy Dumas. Anyone who watches MURDER IN GREENWICH should be aware they're watching The Mark Fuhrman story, not the Martha Moxley story. This film is nothing more than an ego-trip for Fuhrman. Just watch his character strut around as if he is the second coming (yes, even being ogled by women). The actors playing the kids look way too old for their roles and the flashbacks to the 1970s are totally unconvincing. If there is any hero to this story, it's Martha's family, her mother Dorothy and brother John. They kept this case alive for two decades before Fuhrman walked into it in order to make a name for himself. They, and Martha, deserve to have the true story told.

Sentiment: negative
The positives: It's shot pretty well. Has some interesting peripheral characters. Likable main character (albeit weak).

The bad: Plot/story. Editing. Characters wasted. Jessica Alba.

I'm a fan of sappy movies, but this movie is cringe-inducingly bad. I don't understand how anyone can hand over $12M to this Guy Jenkin. And before I go any further, I just want to say that I don't dislike Jessica Alba--I really wanted to like her in this film. However, Jessica Alba in her fake accent and her model poses made me miserable. She has absolutely no screen presence in this movie, and she ruins every scene she's in. Needless to say, the romance does not come off as believable(not even a tiny bit).

All I saw throughout was the actors flapping their wings, trying to get this thing off the ground with what little they were given--but sadly, all this movie does is sink. There is no emotional connection, no emotional conflict, and nothing is gained. It's a pretty empty movie.

Sentiment: negative
...at least during its first half. If it had started out with the three buddies in the navy and concentrated on the naval action scenes, it would have been a much better and tighter film. The second half of the film is worth it, especially for the action sequences and close up shots of early 20th century ships, but it's like a dull toothache getting there. Also, don't watch this film just because Ginger Rogers is in it. She has an important role, but it's a small one.

The film starts out showing three New York City buddies working the tourist trade and also in good-natured competition for the hand of Sally (Ginger Rogers), a singing candy salesgirl along the avenue. World War I breaks out, the three buddies seem completely indifferent to the struggle, yet enlist in the navy anyways. The one of the three with the least industry as a civilian (Bill Boyd as Baltimore) winds up the commanding officer to the other two (Robert Armstrong as Dutch and James Gleason as Skeets). To make matters more complex, Sally has fallen in love with one of the three, but doesn't have the chance to tell him before the three sail off to war.

The film is a little more interesting on board ship, mainly because of the close shots we have of the ship itself, and also because the chemistry among the three buddies is believable. However, James Gleason at age 49 looks a bit long in the tooth to be a swabby, especially when the sign at the enlistment office said you had to be between 17 and 35 to be eligible.

One real obvious flaw in the film that made me believe that everything outside the naval scenes was slapped together with minimum care is the costume design, or, I should say, the lack of it. In the scenes in New York just prior to WWI we have everyone dressed in the fashions of 1931 and everyone driving the cars of 1931 - no effort was taken to bring this film into period.

In conclusion, if you watch the few scenes with Ginger Rogers in them and the last 45 minutes involving the naval suicide mission, you've seen everything here worth seeing. The rest is padding.

Sentiment: negative
I remember watching "Gung Ho" as a child with my mother, and wondered why she would always cry in the last few minutes. I, of course, found the entire movie hilarious, particularly the mannerisms of the characters. It wasn't until I was much older and watched it again that I realized how much deeper this show actually is.

Michael Keaton and Gedde Watanabe shine in their roles as the reluctant mediators. Keaton ceases to amaze me with his real-life style of line delivery, and Watanabe adds humor and pathos to the mix. I also thought that Patti Yasutake (Umeki) was simply fabulous in her role as the comic relief.

I think this movie is one of the most underrated films of the 80s. We can all learn a lesson from the merging of the American and Japanese workers in this film...sometimes you really *can* have "the best of both worlds." And now I understand why my mother felt the way she did in those closing moments. I'd rather have one of those cars, too.

Sentiment: positive
I first saw this video 15 years ago. I thought it was excellent then and I still do. I am a former teacher of English (high school and college) and a lover of English Romantic poetry, so Coleridge rates highly with me. Anything which might detract from the beauty of the poem or the power of the story wouldn't get my vote of excellence. In this case, everything works well to engage the viewer, especially high school students. The story is well illustrated for a generation which grew up on television. In addition, the voice of Michael Redgrave adds a sense of authenticity and authority to it. Okay, so there wasn't a big budget for the project. So it wasn't Star Wars and there's no CGI in it. But who can dismiss Gustave Doré illustrations as part of the presentation? The comment above, which in just four lines dismisses the video as a piece of trash, is grossly unfair and unperceptive. I'm a friend of the producer, but that isn't my reason for this comment. Rather, I'm defending a work of artistry which I think has value on all levels. It is well suited to bring Coleridge's poem to students in a way which awakens their appreciation of it and awakens their sympathy for the lesson which the ancient mariner imparts.

Sentiment: positive
At first sight The Bothersome Man seems like several other movies/books rolled into one. Kafka's The Trial, Melville's Bartleby, The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin and Groundhog Day instantly spring to mind. A man, Andreas, arrives in a nameless city where he is immediately given a job in an office and finds a beautiful new girlfriend. However, there's a catch: his colleagues are all friendly, bland and utterly characterless, and everyone he knows, including his girlfriend, seems to have only one topic of conversation -interior design. Welcome to the hell of modern consumerism, in which people throw themselves from buildings and no one raises an eyebrow, or spend their days reading furniture catalogues and eating food that tastes of nothing.

Andreas quickly realises his predicament and spends the rest of the film trying to escape, in various ways. Suicide turns out not to be an option, and when he finds a new girlfriend she is just as bereft of feelings as the old one - there is a wonderful scene in a restaurant where he asks her to move in with him and all she can say is, 'I don't mind'.

In fact, much of what The Bothersome Man has to say has been said before, and after about 45 minutes you begin to feel that you indeed are experiencing a certain sense of deja vu. Yet its point is one that is probably worth repeating, over and over again: an unexamined life is one that is not worth living. Added to which, it provides a decidedly modern take on the perennial theme of how capitalism is destroying our souls. More than one character reminded me of people I've known, especially his furniture-obsessed girlfriend, and if by the end of the film the film-makers have run out of ideas, maybe that's the point - there will no end unless you can find other people who share your sense of alienation.

Sentiment: positive
I have to admit that Over Her Dead Body actually wasn't as bad as I was expecting, my mom wanted to see it, so I rented it. I figured just to go ahead and see the horror before my eyes, but actually this wasn't too bad. I was just expecting this horrific movie, but it seems like the writers meant no harm, but the casting of Eva Longoria(Parker, sorry), she seems a little off set for the movie. I think I may have found it to be a little better without her, just she does annoy me. But Paul Rudd and Lake Bell had a decent chemistry that made the film somewhat likable. But you have to admit, there was no point to this movie, it was one of those quick paychecks for the actor type of thing. The movie could've been funnier if someone had really paid attention to it and had a better cast.

Henry just lost his bride to be, Kate, who was killed by an ice sculpture on their wedding day. But when his sister takes him to a psychic, Ashley, Henry falls for her, but Kate is haunting her from beyond the grave. Kate is jealous and doesn't want Henry to move on so quickly and she will make sure that Ashley doesn't get him by torturing her day and night with her rambles, believe me, with Kate's voice, that's scary.

Over Her Dead Body is an alright movie, not sure if it's worth the money, but I'd give it a rental for you if you want to see it or are curious. Eva Longoria just doesn't have enough star power to make the film work, no offense to those who love her, she just belongs on the small screen over the silver screen. Not to mention the character of Ashley, she seems still not too likable with everything she pulls, or her "gay" friend, Dan, just again, not really likable. Just with some re-writing and proper attention, this film could have been better, but instead we get the average predictable romantic comedy that will leave with with an empty feeling.

4/10

Sentiment: negative
There are movies like "Plan 9" that are so bad they have a charm about them, there are some like "Waterworld" that have the same inexplicable draw as a car accident, and there are some like "Desperate living" that you hate to admit you love. Cowgirls have none of these redemptions. The cast assembled has enough talent to make almost any plot watchable, and from what I've been told, the book is enjoyable.

How then could this movie be so intolerably bad? To begin with, it seems the director brought together a cast of names with no other tie than what will bring in the 20 somethings. Then tell them to do their best Kevin Costner imitations. Open the book at random and start shooting whatever is on the page making sure to keep the wide expanses of America from being interesting in any way. Finally give the editing job to your brother-in-law, because the meat packing plant just laid him off. He does have twenty years of cutting experience.

This movie now defines the basement for me. It is so bad, it isn't even good for being bad.

Sentiment: negative
The only reason I decided to view this film is because of the great acting talents of Karen Sillas,(Alyson Haywood),"Bad Money",'99, who is deeply involved with Gary Cole,(Dave),"Cry Wolf",'05, who is a great war hero and has all kinds of ways to make money and never seems to stop telling LIES. Alyson and Dave are trying to rebuild an old home and restore it to comfortable living conditions. The relationship gets troublesome and Alyson decides to find out what is going on and the plot gets very mysterious. If you are a big fan of Karen Sillas, this is the film for you. I only wish Karen would appear in more films, I miss her great talents.

Sentiment: positive
First Off, I am a huge fan of Robert Blake, always have been.

This movie came on Movieplex last night 10/13, and the title interested me & of course the star. But after watching it I was left more confused than I was before it started.... There are some good scenes, and I thought they would lead somewhere, but they didn't, it turned out to be an "anti-cop" "anti-buddy" "anti-hippie", pretty much "anti-everything movie", with an extremely confusing plot that also went nowhere.

Robert Blake is great as the lead, well as great as someone could be with this bad movie, I am still a huge fan of Mr. Blake and love his acting even in crap like this...But this drug induced 70's tripe, well... better stay away from this one...And, that ending, what a pisser.

Sentiment: negative
Oh this was a really bad movie. The girl who plays Jennifer is OK, but I think she acts bitchy through the movie, not because she is having her organs ripped out by a raven at night, but because she is thinking of firing her agent for putting her in this piece of crap. Faye Dunaway acts like she is remaking Mommy Dearest and the ending is completely silly. I really can't recommend this movie at all even though as a fan of Edgar Allen Poe, I was intrigued a bit by the references to his work(Ravens, House of Usher-like family curse,and being buried alive)-still he would probably turn over in his grave if he knew about this film.

Sentiment: negative
when i saw commercials for this i was thinking "NO WHAT HAS NICK AT NITE DONE!" because it was taking up "fresh prince" slots. well, i still love the fresh prince. but george lopez is a surprisingly good show. i love how not-stereotypical benny is. carmen is a pretty good character, its really funny to see how stupid and overemotional she can be sometimes. i feel bad for the guy who plays max, he looks much younger then he actually is! but max is a fun character, and acted well. and yeah, angie is a little stereotypical, but she has her funny moments. ha ha george does have a big head! nah but he can be really good too. funny show! it definitely should be on more often then home improvement.

Sentiment: positive
I watched this movie in 75 and this movie was a kind of open mind to me about how important is to care the Natur and the Wild life. When i got a Dog in 83, i called him TRUSKA ( In Movie..Avakun's dog ) to never forget this movie. 

By the way, i HAVE a Copy this Movie, but is in Portuguese Language and the quality is not so good like a DVD or a New VHS ( i recorded almost 20 years ago and in SLP speedy.. so the quality is not so good..)

If somebody wish a Copy.. i'll try convert to DVD and i can send for you OK?

Ot's a great movie and i agree that is a movie to be always watched.

Waldemar Braz - Sao Paulo/Brazil

Sentiment: positive
If you make a suspense movie it is kind of important that the "villain" not be more sympathetic than the "victim". And this fails miserably. It was so terrible and frustrating to watch that I was actually moved to register and comment. OK, so the husband is rich and cocky. There are worse vices, and the cabana boy and wife display plenty. The husband is a jerk because he - um, didn't approve of the cabana boy physically assaulting that woman - the witch one which had absolutely nothing to do with the plot BTW. The cabana boy threatens the husband and repeatedly attempts to seduce the wife. He then forces himself on her - which the woman finds so hot she stops thinking rape and starts thinking she wants him. Uh huh. The misogynistic, inferiority complex thoughts the director displays are just revolting. It is one thing when a fine film like American Psycho deliberately tries to get us to empathise with the villain but in Survival Island I felt like I was watching a movie about Ted Bundy but the director failed to make him unlikeable and instead made us hate his victims. What was he thinking???

Sentiment: negative
I guess that "Gunslinger" wasn't quite as god-awful as most of the movies that "Mystery Science Theater 3000" shows, but westerns just aren't Roger Corman's forte. Portraying Rose Hood (Beverly Garland) becoming sheriff in an Old West town after her sheriff husband gets murdered and having to fight off baddies, the movie is pretty predictable. John Ireland is Rose's new hubby, secretly working for unctuous Allison Hayes (yes, the 50-foot woman). Also appearing briefly is frequent Corman co-star Dick Miller as a mailman (Miller nowadays stars in Joe Dante's movies).

I do wish to assert that you'll probably want to watch the "MST3K" version to really enjoy this movie. They had a great time with it.

Sentiment: negative
The symbolic use of objects, form editing, the position of characters in the scene... these were all used with such joyous abandon by Hitchcock that you can really see what a fertile genius he had. The way the wife moves from one corner of the ring to the other as the fight progresses, the editing when the wedding ring is placed on her finger... while these may seem a bit obvious by todays standards, in the silent era they spoke volumes about the story without a word being spoken. Even the title has a least four meanings that I can see; the boxing ring, the wedding ring, the bracelet the lover buys, and the love triangle at the heart of the story.

Sentiment: positive
This was Eisenstein's first completed project in over ten years. The film takes place in the 13th century during an invasion of Russian by Germans (Teutonic Knights - I think). Released in 1938 its a very loose parallel to Russia's nearing involvement in WWII, and Germany's advancement into Eastern Europe. There are some incredible scenes, most notable the battle near the end of the film, and there is a shocker when children are thrown into a pit of fire, but its not an easy watch. The film drags and isn't as consistently brilliant as "Potemkin" or "Ivan the Terrible". Sometimes Eisenstein is better in clips. His brilliance is present, however, and its a "must see" for Eisenstein fans and film historians. Russian Propaganda at its finest.

Sentiment: positive
Seriously crappy movie.

First off, the movie starts with a cop and his partner parked outside of a warehouse/furniture store. The "bad" cop takes a girl, which they had pulled over, into the warehouse's attic, while the newbie cop sits outside and ponders what could be happening up there. The "bad" cop eventually returns with a heavy duffel bag, and the newbie cop doesn't think there are any problems, but he still wonders what was in the bag, so he asks, gets a bullshit response, and then he thinks everything is OK (for now).

The "bad" cop repeats this process, and even once with a tit scene (made it slightly better). But eventually people start to catch on, which took awhile considering how f***ing obvious it was. One girl gets a voodoo curse placed on her just in case she dies, like ya do. Now, the "bad" cop eventually kills this magically protected bitch, and then he gets rid of the duffel-bagged body.

Since she had the oogey-boogey magic put on her, she comes back with lots of eye-shadow on, which is supposed to indicate that she may be a zombie... also, the magic curse causes all of the other girls to become "eye-shadow monsters". Some of the girls meet up with a dude, who is apparently a currency specialist, and he offers them a ride (they look normal to him apparently). But when the girls see other people, such as the one girls husband, he freaks out because she is hideous (some people freak out, but others don't even notice).... massive plot hole.

So, to wrap it up, the eye-shadow monsters kill the "bad" cop, who in turn ends up becoming a zombie in the last scene. It was as though they were trying to prep us for a sequel! Like anyone would want to see part 2 of this cow dropping.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is supposed to take place in Milford NJ. I know the house that it is based on as well as the person. As you see at the end of themovie, she was killed in the world trade center incident. I know that, because I was one of the police officers that helped with the identification of her remains. (She was the only one in our area lost). The nudity in the movie went a bit far. I am not a prude but the actors could have filmed the scene with the two woman without actually showing the whole thing. This movie is in poor taste and I cannot see how her family would give there blessing to it. This is an insult to the person whom it is based on.

Sentiment: negative
Over the years I've seen a bunch of these straight to video Segal movies, and every one holds the same amount of entertainment; unfortanetley, the entertainment level is at a low. Sure, the action sequences were amusing, but that was pretty much it. Seagal was really in his prime when he did movies like; Under Siege, Under Siege 2, and Executive Decision(at least on the action standpoint), but during the past ten years, these types of movies that star Segal really do not meet his past qualifications.

On the more positive side, the movie did make good use of time, like some of the action sequences and use of wit. Just when the movie seemed to just drag on, a pretty cool action scene brought it up out of the gutter. I honestly believe that more of Segal's movies would do better if he wasn't the only one that fans recognize in the movie. Supporting actors and actresses are a very important thing, and if his current movies had this known supporting actors and actresses, maybe the movie will get more popular results.

Sentiment: negative
hey i think this movie was great and it had great graphics and i was vary glad they used final fantasy 7 i think that game was the best i ever played anyways this is a great movie and i loved it.They should make another one but maybe they should ether use final fantasy 7 again or final fantasy 10 there both pretty awesome from:Tyler Sheena i hope you can email me back if you have any details if there is another one .people for anyone else reading this i suggest you see this movie it is animated but it looks pretty realistic and its got awesome fighting scenes i haven't see that fast of fighting in a movie for a long time. The game final fantasy 7 is also really great not good graphics but its really fun and challenging

Sentiment: positive
After a long period in the space, looking for the remains of planet Krypton, Superman (Brandon Routh) returns to Earth. He misses Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth), who got married and has a son with Richard White (James Marsden). Meanwhile, Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) plots an evil plan, using crystals he stole from the Fortress of Solitude, to create a new land and submerge the USA.

After so many delightful movies of Superman with the unforgettable Christopher Reeve, or TV shows like "Lois and Clark" (and Teri Hatcher) or "Smallville", a great expectation was created for the return of Superman in this Bryan Singer's version. Unfortunately, the awful story is too long and boring, with many unnecessary parts, lack of emotion and overrated in IMDb. In addition, the romance between Lois Lane and Superman is something shamefully ridiculous. The twenty-two years old actress Kate Bosworth is wrongly miscast, playing the role of a mature reporter and experienced mother of a five years old boy. Brandon Routh is two years younger than Tom Welling, who plays a teenager Clark Kent in "Smallville". The character of Parker Posey, Kitty Kowalski, is actually a silly caricature. Last but not the least and in spite of being a terrific Lex Luthor, Kevin Spacey is forty-five years old, therefore older and older than the rest of the lead cast. The corny conclusion looks like a soap opera and is terrible. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Superman Returns"

Sentiment: negative
Stunning blonde Natasha Henstridge is the young, not-so-grieving widow in the mansion on the hill, telling her story to a TV reporter in Monroeville, Virginia. And among the community's well-heeled horsey-set, she's suspected of involvement in the death of her older husband. That's James Brolin, trusting as a babe-in-arms. Flashback teledrama made in Canada, based on an article that appeared in Vanity Fair magazine. It must be true! Whatever, it's far more romance than mystery, and a very familiar tale. Leggy Species star Henstridge as a gold-digging hospice nurse? It could happen, I guess. And it's good to see Brolin in a sizeable role after his titchy turn in Antwone Fisher, even if he doesn't make it to the end of the picture. The end of the picture? He doesn't even make it to the beginning of the picture. Which is why flashbacks were invented, of course.

Sentiment: negative
I have seen a lot of movies in my life, but not many as bad as this. It is a movie that makes fun of fat people, has no real story, has bad actors, is not funny and much more. Is this a movie that you would like to see? I guess not!

I guess that the makers of the movie was trying to be original and creative, but it looks like it was made by a 12 year old child with absolutely no cinematic skills at all. The so called funny parts is as funny as throughing pies in the faces of people, or breaking wind. Of cource if this is the kind of humour that you like, then this is the movie for you!!

Dont waste your money on this movie!

Sentiment: negative
Well I gave this movie a 7. It was better than "Thirdspace" but not as good as "In the Beginning" as far as the B5 movies go. I really think the television series did a much better job overall with the special effects and character portrayal. Let's hope the producers and cast get the next series "Crusade" up to the standards of B5.

Sentiment: positive
The old axiom that bored people are boring people is well demonstrated in "Women in Love." The script, taken from D. H. Lawrence's novel, contains an endless flow of concepts that are, at best, sophomoric.

What a pity so much effort went into so vacuous an exercise; what an empty array of characters given such attention. In spite of high production values, this film comes across as tedious as its personnel.

A revisit in 2001 merely confirms a 1969 impression of juvenille minds in adult bodies, dawdling nowhere, and fumbling every step of the way.

Sentiment: negative
I wished I'd taped MEN IN WHITE so I could watch it again

" What ? You mean you really enjoyed it Theo ? " 

No I mean I could watch it again to see if it was as retarded , stupid and as embarrassingly unfunny as I can remember it 

A lot of people have claimed it was made for children . May I suggest it was also made by children ? because the whole structure of the script lacks any type of discipline on the part of the producers and writers and much of set pieces seem to have been included because it seemed like a good idea at the time 

The cast don't help but I genuinely started to feel sorry for them . Honestly you can believe that during filming the cast had to lie to their families that they were filming a hard core porn film such was their embarrassment at having to appear in something as dismal as this . To give you an idea of how bad the acting is every time BAYWATCH babe Donna D'Ericco disappeared from the narrative I waited patiently for her to reappear then seconds later I forgot she was in the movie . Got that ? A star from BAYWATCH appears and seconds later you forget they're in the movie . This tells you all you need to know about the standard of MEN IN WHITE 

Fair enough it's trying to be a live action cartoon similar to THE GOODIES ( Although THE DISMALS would be a better adjective for this movie ) , though perhaps the movie deserves some credit for never descending to toilet humour , but considering this is a kids movie ( This didn't stop ITV broadcasting it at 11 pm ) then there should be no near the knuckle humour in it anyway

Sentiment: negative
Maybe it's unfair to dislike a movie for what it isn't, rather than what it is, but I approached this hoping that finally a filmmaker would make a movie about small-town rural gay men and women. Instead, the focus is primarily on the outrageous bigotry (big news!) of the locals (and those in outlying areas) and the really gruesome torture/murder of a young gay man.

So much time devoted to stupid people squawking about AIDS, sin, hellfire, and perverts. So much time devoted to the ghoulish preacher ranting about the Bible and gay people getting what they deserve.

I wanted to see more of the people that came to the "small town gay bar", not those who opposed it. In addition, the young man who was murdered isn't even from this town.

The whole movie works as a warning rather than a celebration, and it's very suspect.

Sentiment: negative
I expected a lot more out of this film. The preview looked interesting so I decided to check it out. Bottom line is that "The Adventures of Sebastian Cole" only had one decent thing: Adrian Grenier.

I really like Grenier and found his performance to be very pleasing. The character is designed well, but everything else sort of just drifts along through the duration of the movie. Clark Gregg is really good, but I don't think that his character was explained too well. I mean there's not too much to explain; he wants to become a woman. Still, something was missing. 

The obvious low budget of the film was nice to see. I enjoyed that the movie was filmed on just a script (a bad one at that) and just a few actors. It was a nice change.

While the main idea of the film was actually okay, it became disappointing to see a lot of scenes that had nothing to do with it just thrown in here and there. Like I said, the script looked promising and I must say that I was interested where director Tod Williams was headed, but it was basically a very slow movie with not too good of dialogue.

"Sebastian" started to look good towards the end, but again, it fell right back down into a hole. The acting was mostly good, the writing is in need of some work, yet the budget of the film helped it out in the long run.

I would recommend this to someone if they wanted to watch a quiet movie with a strong lead character, but other than that I would stay away. Personally, I wouldn't watch it twice.

Sentiment: negative
Maiden Voyage is just that. I'd like to say straight away that I watched 5mins of this before I just couldn't stand it anymore. As already stated in another comment, this film doesn't fall into the whole "so bad it's good" thing, it's just bad. The acting is awful, the sfx are poor, and the story is bland and stupid. Even the extras suck, the "bag guy guards" and such appear to hold their weapons like water pistols.

Don't even bother watching this film, the only thing special about it is that, no matter how low your expectations are, you will still be disappointed.

Sentiment: negative
The inspiration for the "Naked Gun" movies casts Leslie Nielsen - who had only recently started doing comedy* - as the incompetent but heroic Frank Drebin, always having to solve an absurd case. Like "Airplane!" and the movies based on the series, the humor relies on Mel Brooks-style spot gags and silly comments (namely the "yes it is" remarks), along with the fact that Nielsen remains very serious despite the nonsense around him. And of course, the final frame, in which something keeps moving.

It's too bad that the show only had six episodes. At least it spawned the movies. You can't go wrong with Leslie Nielsen in these sorts of roles. I suspect that they all had fun filming it. Really funny.

*Before "Airplane!", Leslie Nielsen had starred in movies like "Forbidden Planet", "Harlow" and "The Poseidon Adventure". As late as 1987 he co-starred in "Nuts" alongside Barbra Streisand and Richard Dreyfuss. But since the first "Naked Gun" movie it's been all comedy all the time.

Sentiment: positive
This is an incredible film. I can't remember the last time I saw a Swedish movie this layered. It's funny, it's tragic, it's compelling, and most of all it's a slice of Swedish small town life. It crushes the clichés, and dwells deeper. It makes you feel connected, not only to the main characters, but to all the characters.

Big city girl tracing back to her roots, her small hometown, to celebrate her father's 70th birthday, crossing paths with people she hasn't met in several years. Although the story itself isn't unique, it offers a fresh approach. The center of the story is the relationship between three sisters (on different stages in life), who aren't very close. Or at least don't realize how close they are.

One key reason that makes it so easy to connect to the people in this film is the immaculate cast. First, I'm more than pleased about the fact that there are absolutely no so-called 'A-list' Swedish actors in this film. Usually there is a handful of actors that has the ability to find their way into almost every major production in Sweden. This time the production company managed to keep it real by casting actors who actually seem to love their profession. Sofia Helin is probably the first Swedish actress since Eva Röse to prove that you don't need words to convey an emotion.

The writing is also very appealing. The dialogue is more than believable, and compared with other Swedish films from the past year or two, it's ahead by miles. Maria Blom controls everything from the beginning, and if you didn't know, you would never guess that this is her first time writing AND directing a feature length film. I can't wait for her next one.

Once you start watching this, you really want to see it through.

Sentiment: positive
In one instant when it seemed to be getting interesting, it never got there.

The people are going from one point to another point, with really no point (if there was one it was very dull). There was no action, suspense or any horror and the characters were pretty heartless, so there was no caring what happened to them.

All together the movie was pretty boring.

I give it a 3/10.

I like that it wasn't shaky choppy camera-work and if there was music it didn't annoy me like some really bad movies and the acting was not horrendous.

Sentiment: negative
I was 10 years old when this show was on TV. By far it was my favorite. The actors were very credible. Alexandra Bastedo was just gorgeous.... I just order the DVD (15 episodes). They didn't have super-powers. They just had superior human skills (strength, hearing, sight). The 3 actors were very good in their rolls, very believable. There was a good story in each episode. At the time, there were no special effects or explosions everywhere, so the script was suppose to be good, and the characters performs were great. There was no fancy stuff, like in other shows. They didn't try to make a joke every 2 minutes to make a light show. I highly recommend this TV show to anybody that like good stuff.

Sentiment: positive
If you love kung-fu films and you haven't seen this movie, you are cheating yourself. This movie is one of the only kung-fu cheapies that could be recommended for fans of all types of film. Normally, it takes a die-hard fan of the genre to see anything in these films, but this one has it all! The story is well told, and complete. The fight scenes are great, and tend to end before you're completely bored with them (unlike Crouching Tiger). Throw in a little mystery and torture and you've got yourself one heck of a movie. See this one at all costs. Heck, my wife even enjoyed it.

Wu Du it!

9 out of 10



Sentiment: positive
"Mr. and Mrs. Smith" is one of the not too well known early American Hitchcock's movie. But if "Lifeboat" (wich unfortunately also belongs to this category) is an underrated masterpiece, not all the movies signed by the master of suspense in that time (the early 40's) are really worth seeing. And to tell the truth, not discovering this film isn't really a lost.

"Mr. and Mrs. Smith" is an average and conventional screwball comedy, where it's rather hard to find the Hitchcock's touch. Maybe you can catch a glimpse of his shadow (wich isn't much) in the cruelty that Carole Lombard is sometime capable of (but it's well hidden in an impersonal package), in a vertigo scene where two of the characters are trapped on top of a trade fair attraction, and maybe in the character of the mother. And that's about it ! Even for the Hitchcock fan, there is little to connect with.

And for the screwball comedies amateur, there isn't very much more: none of the situation are exaggerated enough for being really funny, and we're far from the masterpieces of Hawks for instance. And if one or two scene are quite amusing, there're not even the funniest in Hitchcock's filmography, who created comical situations in almost all his movies (even "Psycho" could be considered full of very dark humor). So, there is really little to save in this movie, that can without annoying anyone (or maybe only both hardcore fans of Hitchcock and screwball comedy, who are in love with Carole Lombard), stays one of the not too well known early American Hitchcock's movie.

Sentiment: negative
MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS For about the last four years I've been a keen fan of Ali G. Sacha Baron Cohen is undoubtedly a very funny and intelligent guy and, in my view, his best creation is Borat who's as funny as Hell and quite shameless in what he does and says to people.

Anyway, to the movie. I didn't bother paying money to see this in the cinema; I suppose because I didn't expect a lot but when I hired the DVD recently, I found the whole thing pretty sad. The best part of Ali's taking the mickey out of others was largely missing and the script an plot was pretty damned awful; hooking all the car batteries together to blow a safe - REALLY!!?? 

This movie goes to show I think that some things can run for too long and definitely don't translate to the big screen. The movie also had that syrupy sweet ending that I've come to expect from British films. Where have all the good British movie making ideals gone to? That said, there were the odd very funny moments such as the dog in Ali's bed and Ali's audience with HM the Q with the "Shaven haven - RESPECT" remark.

So, in summary, I am an Ali G and Borat fan and I have enjoyed many of his interviews (notably the one with Anita Roddick of the Body Shop) but this movie fell really flat with me. If there's to be another movie, I hope it's a whole lot better than this lot of old tripe.

Weasel100 

Canberra, Australia

Sentiment: negative
Anyone new to the incredibly prolific Takashi Miike's work might want to think twice about making this startling film their first experience of this truly maverick director. In keeping with Miike's working practice of taking any work that comes his way and then grafting his own sensibilities onto the script, this is at heart a fairly basic yakuza thriller, with a morally ambiguous cop chasing a gang which his lawyer brother has fallen in with. What takes the movie out of the realms of the same-old same-old however, is the utterly unflinching attitude so some of the most sudden and horrific violence seen in today's cinema. And this isn't that nice cool, clean violence so beloved of US cinema - this stuff is nasty, painful and HURTS! That said, the pace is breakneck, the characters are unusual without being just being burdened with stock eccentricities, Miike's sense of humour reveals itself and the most unexpected moments, and his camera is never quite where you expect it to be, making it hard to look away from the screen, whatever he might be showing you! It doesn't have the "Ohmigod" ending of "Dead Or Alive," but if you're not squeamish, now's the time to get on board the Miike bandwagon before he ends up on some Hollywood studio's "new John Woo" shopping list...

Sentiment: positive
I think that Elisabeth Rohm, though she may try hard, is not very good at all. I guess it was because of budget that she may have been the only one they could get for that price. I mainly watched it for the performance of Myron Natwick, whose work I know very well.

He was the most believable and without doubt the most compelling to watch. When he wasn't on the screen, the thing went dead. This was filmed in Vancouver. He gave me the creeps, but be assured that in real life he is a kind, funny compassionate man. He even said playing that role gave him the creeps.

I'll watch anything with him in it, but Elisabeth Rohm - never again. She was as exciting as lint on Law and Order. Maybe a very nice person, but no actress.

Sentiment: negative
This early B entry into the patriotic category slapped a gorgeous young Gene Tierney on the ads and posters, but you have to wait a good time before you glimpse her, riding in a Hollywoodized camel train. Previously, we've set up George Sanders and Bruce Cabot in the desert as guys who barely get along, but must rally in the face of attack. I've seen Sanders as so many enjoyable cads that it was fun to witness a rare good guy turn. However, Bruce Cabot's allure is pretty much a mystery to me - he's base and unsubtle in comparison, but I've always felt he'd just emerged, smiling, from under a car, covered in grease and a sixth grade education. Some people like 'em that way, as did Gene's gypsy queen character. This is an action adventure filler, tho, and just as we've been warned of invading locals with guns, ready to sabotage and attack the Brits in their land, there is a final gun battle in which we must lose a main character for the good of all. This feature requires nothing more than your barest attention on a Saturday afternoon, a programmer that made whatever else it was paired with better. It was almost more interesting identifying the great supporting cast and a surprise appearance by Dorothy Dandridge in one of her first roles. A two or two and a half stars out of five.-MDM

Sentiment: negative
This was shown on a premium channel, so I didn't realise it was made for TV. Even so, I like some of the movies on lifetime (Lifestyle here in UK), but this was awful. The family were so cheesy, "Love you mum" "Love you even more honey" Then after they were broken into for the second time, 10 mins later, they were at it again, "Love you mum" big cheesy smiles etc... She phones her husband, and tells him not to bother coming home. They were only broken into by a guy that wanted them dead, have a nutter living next door, who needs help? She has her teenage daughter and a cat (not for long) to look after her.

However, as a comedy, I'd give it a good 7. I might even show it to my friends next time I have them round. Could be great fun after a bottle of Vodka or 10!

Sentiment: negative
SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I watched half of this movie and I didn't like it. 

First reason: Boring. Barely anything happens, the women sit around and discuss how terrible their lives are and how they have no hope, they smoke weed, read magazines, care for their sick friend, and cut up the occasional dead body. BORING!!!!

Second reason: There are too many things left unexplained. Many scenes are dedicated to a zombie hunter who kidnaps random men, restrains them in a chair and interrogates them. Who are these men? How do they know anything about illegal activity concerning the diseased flesh eaters? Why does he kill one and let another one go?

Also there is this dude who at first I thought also had the flesh eating disease but he puts his fist through a wall with superhuman strength suggesting he's not quite what we originally thought-never explained! How frustrating is that? 

Conclusion: I found the women annoying, the story uninteresting, the duologue tedious, and the action non-existent. Also the cover art is misleading since it makes you believe this movie is going to be cool when it clearly isn't. I rented this movie based on some of the reviews made by other people on this website, and although I respect the fact that some people might have enjoyed this flick, I will from now on make sure I read more than two reviews deep into a movie so as to avoid renting another movie I regret seeing.

Sentiment: negative
Believe it or not, the Mona Lisa actually got stolen once, and was missing for nearly two years. In 1911, Leonardo da Vinci's 'La Gioconda' (better known as the Mona Lisa) was taken from the Louvre by a petty thief (and former Louvre employee) who allegedly sought to return the world's most famous piece of art to its native Italy. His actions after the theft make it seem more likely that he intended to sell the painting for his personal profit. (Of course, he had no hope of finding a buyer.) The Mona Lisa was quietly returned to the Louvre on the very last day of 1913, remaining there ever since except for occasional loan-outs. When "Arsène Lupin" was released in 1932 (twenty years after the theft), most moviegoers would have recalled that 1911 crime, and their knowledge would have lent some plausibility to this movie. "Arsène Lupin" is quite enjoyable, with MGM's usual high production standards and Jack Conway's usual briskly efficient direction. This movie does not lack for pleasure; what it lacks is plausibility.

John Barrymore is the master criminal of the title: he specialises in perpetrating 'impossible' crimes, which he makes even more difficult by announcing them in advance ... but of course he always commits the crime and fools the gendarmes. Tully Marshall has a good scene as one of Barrymore's victims. Lupin has a penchant for elaborate disguises, which enables Barrymore (a U.S. 'Grade A' ham) to indulge his own penchant for tomfoolery. John's older brother Lionel Barrymore is Guerchard, the Javert-like Surete detective sworn to catch Lupin.

Karen Morley was an extremely beautiful actress whose private life was filled with populist political activities; on screen, she was most impressive in working-class roles that fitted her own political beliefs (such as her fine performance in 'Our Daily Bread'). In "Arséne Lupin", Morley's naturally dark hair is bleached a horrid blonde tone, and she's all tarted up in posh outfits that make her look uncomfortable rather than sexy.

SPOILERS COMING. Eventually, Lupin decides to steal the Mona Lisa from the Louvre. He slits the painting from its frame, rolls up the canvas, and then smuggles it out in a flower basket. We see John Barrymore casually brandishing a tightly-rolled piece of cloth which is allegedly the greatest work of art in all human history. I had to laugh at the filmmakers' error. In real life (but not in this movie), da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa on a plank of poplar wood, so a thief would have difficulty rolling it up!

Eventually, Guerchard captures Lupin and hauls him off to Le Calaboose. The scene between John and Lionel Barrymore in the police car is sheer delight, as their genuine affection for each other spills out into their characters' dialogue. I would have found this scene implausible with any two other actors. As it is, I can't imagine anyone but the Barrymore brothers playing these roles. Well, maybe Dennis and Randy Quaid, but just barely.

Don't look for a good plot line here, but "Arsène Lupin" is a delightful example of old-style movie-making. I'll rate this movie 8 points out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
Those who know who know the Kelly "legend" & are hoping that this film would be an accurate depiction of his life may be disappointed with the creative license taken with this film (eg. Naomi Watt's character never existed in reality), but if you look at it purely as a piece of entertainment, it holds up pretty well. Ledgers performance in the title role is quite solid, taking the mantle of cinema's best Ned (not hard considering the previous Ned's include Yahoo Serious, Mick Jagger & former Carlton champion (Australian Rules Football) Bob Chitty, a great footballer but a poor actor. Some location shooting film in the area I live, Bacchus Marsh outside Melbourne as well as Clunes & Ballarat.

Sentiment: positive
I wouldn't recommend this unless you're keen on David Copperfield and want to "complete the set". There are some good performances (e.g. Uriah Heep) and well directed moments (e.g. the beating), but on the whole it really pales in comparison with the 1999 BBC version, as well as earlier versions. 

There are inexplicable changes to the story that really serve no great purpose except, possibly, to dumb it down (the stolen jewels being a case in point). The American cast were poorly chosen: Sally Field is a good actress, but she is wrong as Betsy Trotwood, and her English accent is only slightly better than Dick Van Dyke's cockney. I can see why Michael Richards was chosen to play Mr Micawber; he hams it up rather too much, however, and becomes irritating. He also speaks his lines in an accent that goes beyond eccentric and becomes simply preposterous. Anthony Andrews is menacing as Mr Murdstone, but one almost expects him to don a black cape and tie David's mother to a railway line (though this is perhaps partly the fault of Dickens). 

I got this for free with a newspaper. It helped pass a Sunday afternoon, but I felt more disappointed than charmed at the end of it

Sentiment: negative