DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I have to say, when "Pushing Daisies" came out I was immediately won out by the fairy-tale like setting of such grimness. The narrator made a cake out of the whole ordeal by making death seem as routine as, well, Ned (Lee Pace) baking pies. And that bringing them back to life was just as routine.

The trio of Ned, Emerson Cod (Chi McBride) and Charlotte "Chuck" Charles (Anna Friel), plus sometimes-sidekick Olive Snook (Kristin Chenoweth, who made the musical Wicked such a delight) made for some fantastic dialogue and silliness. It definitely deserves the title of a (romantic) comedy/drama.

Ned and Chuck made for a shy and not-quite-ready-for-love couple who are still exploring their feelings even though they cannot touch - an obstacle that seems to be truly no obstacle with aids such as gloves, cellophane, and quirky schedules around the apartment. But despite the awkwardness presented as they work their feelings around a strange secret which only a few know, they still manage to show their on screen chemistry in touching scenes like when Ned gives Chuck the beehives. The presence of Olive, though, makes for some break-out-in-song moments in the pie shop and unforeseen complications for the couple.

Second season sharply declined, putting a damper on a show that had real potential. On some of the episodes, the plot line was rushed and awkward, making you ask "what just happened?" in both the overall dead-person-of-the-week plot and in the overriding plot line. The addition of Chuck's father plus two half-brothers for Ned didn't help, and at least one of the plot lines felt almost recycled (didn't the episode "Comfort Food" feel like the episode "Bitter Sweets" in the fact that the dead-person-of-the-week died in food?). A few touching moments (the beehives) happened to help advance the relationship between Chuck and Ned, but every time they got close, the writers decided to throw in another monkey wrench rather than let the relation develop (Oliver comes back from the monastery, Chuck's dead father comes back to life and doesn't go back, you get the picture).

Shame it didn't work out, but the concept was good and seemed surreal in a good way, just enough Pleasantvillesque color/happy-smiley going on and implausible scenarios to remind you that it's not "Dead Like Me." Then again, it's in "Pushing Daisies time," according to Creator Bryan Fuller, so it makes it plausible again.

It should have lasted longer, but it's merely wistful thinking at this point. Kudos to whatever new show attempts to replace this short-lived gem.

Sentiment: positive
Pierce Brosnan the newest but no longer James Bond, is an assassin. He is very very good at what he does, but he's getting old and tired. Greg Kinnair is really good as the straight and narrow business man. Now when the story opens the movie shows these two people in their separate lives. Then one night they are having drinks in a bar, and they begin to talk. Then all of a sudden you find these two people getting drawn together during a series of events. The story is excellent, the acting is top notch, and the humor is hilarious I never thought that Pierce Brosnan would be this funny, but he really is and I must say this movie is a must see.

Sentiment: positive
Jamie Foxx leads a brilliant cast in this powerful voyage through the life of the blind, emotionally troubled, African American genius of pop jazz, Mr. Ray Charles. Though the entire cast performs wonderfully, Mr. Foxx earned more than simply an Oscar. If it were possible to nominate an actor in consecutive years, I would consider doing so for Mr. Foxx. Foxx doesn't just play Charles, he re-creates him. CJ Sanders and Sharon Warren also deserve special mention for their portrayal of Ray's mother (the inspiration of his life) and young Ray. These two provided the strongest support in the film.

The dramas of Charles' struggles with guilt, the death of his younger brother and mother, blindness, discrimination, addiction, and success, are neatly woven into the tapestries of his music. The music is beautiful, the script is, as far as I can tell, perfect, and the acting is nothing short of legendary.

The directorial method of the film warrants discussion. Taylor Hackford - a director I am generally ambivalent about - had to choose what aspects of the larger-than-life and complex life story of Mr. Charles would tell his story most honestly, dramatically, and understandably. Though some disagree (seemingly wanting a documentary instead of a dramatized biopic) I believe he selected his themes admirably. A big part of the success of this film is its consistent focus on a few persistent themes in Charles' life - his profound love and respect for his mother, his need to be loved and accepted, his addiction and guilt complex, his musical genius, and his deep-seated fear of responsibility for others. Charles is depicted as a man struggling valiantly against an army of personal demons. I learned more than I could have imagined about one of the men I used to listen to on my old turntable with my dad in his livingroom on Sunday nights while football games were on the TV. And nothing was sugar-coated in "Ray." The themes are carried forward with power and human dignity. These themes create a unifying drama which span the length of his long and illuminated life. The power of these themes, the strong script and directing, the music, and the acting make this one of the most enjoyable and evocative biographical films I have seen.

Recommended for everyone.

Sentiment: positive
How many movies are there that you can think of when you see a movie like this? I can't count them but it sure seemed like the movie makers were trying to give me a hint. I was reminded so often of other movies, it became a big distraction. One of the borrowed memorable lines came from a movie from 2003 - Day After Tomorrow. One line by itself, is not so bad but this movie borrows so much from so many movies it becomes a bad risk.

BUT...

See The Movie! Despite its downfalls there is enough to make it interesting and maybe make it appear clever. While borrowing so much from other movies it never goes overboard. In fact, you'll probably find yourself battening down the hatches and riding the storm out. Why? ...Costner and Kutcher played their characters very well. I have never been a fan of Kutcher's and I nearly gave up on him in The Guardian, but he surfaced in good fashion. Costner carries the movie swimmingly with the best of Costner's ability. I don't think Mrs. Robinson had anything to do with his success.

The supporting cast all around played their parts well. I had no problem with any of them in the end. But some of these characters were used too much.

From here on out I can only nit-pick so I will save you the wear and tear. Enjoy the movie, the parts that work, work well enough to keep your head above water. Just don't expect a smooth ride.

7 of 10 but almost a 6.

Sentiment: positive
A superb and compelling drama about the hunt for the notorious Russian serial killer Andrea Chikatilo. Magnificent performance from Stephen Rea as the forensic scientist put in charge of the investigation, who finds the biggest obstacle to his progress is the Russian government, in particular the old communist party members who want to maintain a closed society.

The film is has an underlying theme about the decline of the communist society, and progress in the hunt for the killer is reflected by progress in social and political change in Russia, which is subtly put across. There is a conflict of old ways and new ways, and these are represented by the two viewpoints of Rea's superior (played by Donald Sutherland), and Rea himself . These are at first polarised, with Sutherland 'high' in system looking down, and Rea 'low' on the ground, looking up. However, they have a common cause  to catch the serial killer.

Throughout the film the relationship between these two develops, and the tension gradually eases until at the end of the movie Rea and Sutherland and Rea and Sutherland have mutual respect for each other, the killer is caught, and Glasnost symbolically comes. Excellent script.

Further credits go to Sutherland's performance, which is superb and sympathetic, Jeffrey DeMunn as the killer whom we despise but can't hate, and Max Von Sydow, who is thoroughly convincing as the humble psychologist who risks his reputation to help.

Sentiment: positive
The problem with this- and with all Vietnam War films- is that they're all too biased. Antiwar films overlook the fact that the vast majority of U.S. soldiers were heroes, while prowar films overlook the fact that a lot of the soldiers did indeed commit atrocities like the one in this movie. This film sucks. It's time for a movie that is neither prowar nor antiwar, nor liberal nor conservative, but COMPLETELY UNBIASED.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was poorly written, poorly acted and very predictable. It was very low-budget and I can understand why it was never released and went straight to video. It wasn't even campy fun, it was just a complete disaster and I wish I could get the 1-1/2 hours back! The colors were horrible along with the plot which has holes so big in it you could drive a mac truck through them. 

The plot itself had the young bride doing things that she absolutely was not physically capable of doing -- what a stretch! Skip this movie and watch something better in the horror genre. Just about any movie comes to mind that is better than this.

ejames6342

Sentiment: negative
People comparing this movie to big blockbusters like Lord of the Rings or the Matrix will inevitably be disappointed with the way this movie turned out. Although it lacks in the big special effects department and there are no battles with hundreds of extras, there is still a masterful amalgamation of two old folk tales here. The acting talent, although not A-list, is still great and the interaction between the characters is perhaps more sincere than in a larger movie with an A-list cast. My particular favourite from this movie is Bridget Fonda, whose performance as the Snow Queen herself was quite moving, assisted enormously by a stupendous wardrobe and makeup. She injected humanity and a sense of pathos into the character of the fallen season corrupted by the devil's evil magic. Fonda aside the acting was not what we have come to expect from Hollywood, which I think is a good thing since Hollywood seems to have run out of ideas on how to train its acting talent to portray roles and so they have become stale and reliant on CGI and other special effects to take us away from the actors who all use the same tricks on us. Instead it shows new ideas some real thinking on the part of the actors about how they can find new variations on the the old themes of love and danger.

Sentiment: positive
I loved this movie. It is rare to get a glimpse of post-partum Vietnam, and this movie-sans combat scenes and exciting bombs and gunfire- did it. I had no idea I'd be so affected by it. What an amazing look at how alien Vets feel. It was tough to watch, quite frankly. We all understand the fighting and the Apocalypse Now type of drama, but this is so so different. What happens when they come back and try to live a life? They can't. It made me very aware of a large group of men that are rattling around lost in America. Not able to relate, can't sleep, can't have love affairs, can't deal with "normal society". They feel totally apart. This is a huge tragedy, and one that isn't addressed enough. Yeah, we've changed our attitude about Vietnam Vets, we like them now, but so what? It doesn't seem to have made any difference to them. It's too late? So it was a great film, but I cried a lot. I have no other criticisms.

Sentiment: positive
A story of amazing disinterest kills "The Psychic" over and over again. The characters and plot are completely uninteresting (as is Fulci's mad camera work, which is usually a redeeming factor in his films), and any grasp of suspense is nowhere to be found. It's padded out to an insufferable degree--by the end, you won't be clamoring with excitement but stricken with boredom (and, like me, maybe an uncontrollable urge to fall asleep). Jennifer O'Neill's performance deserves occupancy in a better movie. Fulci gorehounds beware--there's just not much going on in "The Psychic."

3/10

Sentiment: negative
In this Silly Symphony, a mouse from the country visits his cousin in the city. Most of the short is the two mice exploring the dinner table. The animation is fine, where this short suffers is in a lack of humor. Perhaps I've just seen this "dinner table adventure" in one too many Tom and Jerry shorts. Even though this came first, I just didn't find it that enjoyable.

Sentiment: negative
Maximum risk is quite surprising to a person that has seen more then on of his movies. Director Ringo Lam made an average action-movie, that can be compared with most of the other mid-quality action movies, what is a special predicate to a `Muscles from Brussels`movie. It has a quite classy style, an interesting atmosphere and, last but not least, the beautyful Natasha Henstridge. Even VanDamme doesn´t make you crying by his acting, he does a relatively good job. Of course you may not compare Maximum Risk (oh, what a creative title!) to `Ronin`, but after watching `Knock off` it´s the hell of a good movie... in special standards, of course.

Sentiment: negative
Luise Rainer received an Oscar for her performance in The Good Earth. Unfortunately, her role required no. She did not say much and looked pale throughout the film. Luise's character was a slave then given away to marriage to Paul Muni's character (he did a fantastic job for his performance). Set in ancient Asia, both actors were not Asian, but were very convincing in their roles. I hope that Paul Muni received an Oscar for his performance, because that is what Luise must have gotten her Oscar for. She must have been a breakthrough actress, one of the first to method act. This seems like something that Hollywood does often. Al Pacino has played an Italian and Cuban. I felt Luise's performance to be lackluster throughout, and when she died, she did not change in expression from any previous scenes. She stayed the same throughout the film; she only changed her expression or emotion maybe twice. If her brilliant acting was so subtle, I suppose I did not see it.

Sentiment: negative
I saw Two Hands back in Sydney a few years ago and it instantly became one of my all-time favourite films. It's got action, adventure, comedy and romance all rolled up into one (and a bit of zen thrown in for good measure). Like much Australian film, the plot is easy to follow yet wonderfully engaging, and Jordan should justly feel proud of his work.

Anyway, it was on TV just now on Channel 4 in London, and my two favourite comedy scenes of not just this movie, but indeed any movie, had been cut out! So if you watch this movie, make sure it's the original version.

Sentiment: positive
This is the worst movie I ever paid to see and with the exception of "They Saved Hitler's Brain" the worst movie I have ever seen period. When this movie came out I was a big fan of SNL and SCTV and therefore was anticipating what I thought would be the funniest movie that could be produced since it did not have the restrictions the TV improv shows must deal with. 

The writers must have thought we will throw in some grossness, some flatulence jokes, some cheap sex and hey we have a risky side splitting laughable comedy. The game show skits are nothing more than cheap unimaginable take offs on Let's Make a Deal with stupid grossness. The sit com take off involving the single girl and her boyfriend was just plain bad high school humor. The stun gun advertisement was suitable humor for Seasame Street. The LA subway skit was bland humor using tasteless bloodiness. The french chef walking around blind constantly uttering "there is no difference" with a french accent was, well you get my point.

The only funny skit involved Chevy Chase which lasted for a whole minute. This means you get 60 seconds of entertainment in this movie. Oh yea I've read the comments about the entire country being stoned in the 1970's and you will like this movie if you are high. Well most of the country was not stoned in the 70's. If the inept writers were stoned it must have been on drowsy sinus medicine. There were 4 other people in the theater besides myself when I saw this movie. Of course word did not get out yet about how bad the movie was.

Sentiment: negative
Peter Falk shines as 90 year old Morris Applebaum, the patriarch who has decided it's time to "check out" after holding a final, blow-out bash. His three children, Lauran San Giacomo, David Paymer and Judge Reinhold are notified/invited by letter and immediately arrive on his doorstep to deal with their eccentric father. There is a great father/daughter chemistry with Laura San Giacomo, whose character happens to undergo the most growth from the ordeal. It's a well rounded example of your average, dysfunctional family and their memories, pains, growth and ignorance/tolerance of each others' lives. The musical score is one you'll enjoy and the one liners are well timed and hilarious. Although I found the actual "Checking Out" party a let down, the rest of the film is sure to make you laugh, cry and leave the theater with a smile on your face. Move over "Big Fat Greek Wedding"....the "Big Fat Jewish Suicide" has arrived.

Sentiment: positive
This second film is just as interesting as the previous one except that there is no suspense. We know what he is going to do and what is going to happen before it is even hinted at on the screen. Then the pleasure comes only from the way the various tricks happen and the succession of them. We know there will be dynamite in the car, that he will lose a wheel, that the car will have a crash, just to speak of the car. And that is what happens. Now the details and the particulars are for you to discover them in the film. That he may be baited by some dumb woman is obvious and has to come but we know that he has already seen through her and that he knows he is being dragged into a trap. Now, how is he going to get out of it? That's what you must discover by yourself. And don't worry he will get the main trafficker but how is another story. A speed boat is no match to our busy beaver on the river. We also know when he is going to be wounded. They did not know what bullet-proof jackets were in those days. It's true recently it was discovered that some GIs did not have that kind of equipment in Iraq. But what is the meaning of such a film? This insistence on hunting the traffickers and this blindness that does not see that it is the prohibition that creates the problem. But the film is a constant and perfect illustration that there is no value what so ever that can stand in the way of this moralistic crusade against the forces of evil. Why not simply legalize these goods so that they can be properly observed and under surveillance? When something is not illegal or pushed out of the way it is all the less fun to use them, to do them. It is the forbidden or the restricted that is attractive.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

Sentiment: positive
She may have an Oscar and a Golden Globe, but this film shows why she also is a perennial Razzie nominee. To do a film that is so bad must be an indication that she needs money. She could do ads on why you shouldn't talk on a cell phone while driving, especially at night on the way to a crowded mall.

Susan Montford should stick to producing (Shoot 'Em Up ) as she is not very good as a writer/director.

She is accosted by four thugs in the mall parking lot, and the first thing they do is tell her they have a gun. What does she do? She starts pushing and cursing them like she knows martial arts or something. She manages to get away, but gets lost in the forest after crashing. Why didn't she run to someones house? We get four thugs with guns chasing a lady with a toolbox. Of course, their guns are no match for her wrench. Ha! Of course, she also has a tire iron and a screwdriver. Those poor thugs.

Now, she's home for Christmas - and she brought a gun!

Sentiment: negative
Don't bother to check for logic. There is none. But on the other hand, there are MANY really great movies that totally lack logic, so why bother?

I both like and dislike this film. I like it because the action sequences in the air are really great, you get to see a lot of dogfighting. I also like the F-16, which is a very cool plane.

But there are just too many goofs to make me really enjoy it. I guess it's not fair to wish for SOME sort of continuity, as it is hard to make a really good fighter film - but I also think there should be some sense of reason.

And I have a question: do they fly from California to the Middle East in F-16s without air refueling? I'd like to see that happening.

Sentiment: negative
Jealous husband holds car dealership hostage while Williams burdens the viewer with his worn out Mork shtick at every turn. Yawn.

Pay channel grist. An uncommonly bad script coupled with a less than convincing Robin Williams as a slick talking, philandering Queens car salesman caught up in a hostage workplace crisis. The laughs aren't there, the message(s) or morals are just all wrong, and the film cant ever decide on whether its a comedy or drama. Pretty good cast all acting pretty badly. When a movie ages so badly so quickly, you got yourself a stinker. Not much else to be said other than maybe, avoid at all costs. Textbook mediocre movies like this are actually more tedious, and less enjoyable than the over the top bombs.

Sentiment: negative
This is a plain old spooky ghost story. I showed it to some friends of mine in my movie club, and they were kept spellbound until the ending! No blood or gore- just good old fashioned suspense. It starts out right from the beginning, and builds and builds. The ending is a real twist that caught me unawares. 

Well directed and well acted. It is also a "period piece"- set in the 1920s- which added to the atmosphere. 

I was so impressed I got the book by Susan Hill from Amazon. The movie follows the book rather closely. 

It's a shame it's not readily available on DVD. My copy is VHS. This along with "Haunted" are probably two of the best Ghost Stories I've ever scene. Which just goes to show that a little creativity outdoes "in your face" gore any day!

Sentiment: positive
Enjoyed 'Den brysomme mannen' http://ow.ly/PTTp (my wife didn't, so I watched it in bits over a few days.)

Reviewers mainly confused - most agree it's allegorical, but not of what; 'Heaven', 'Hell', 'Socialism', 'Capitalism'? 

That most people don't wish to escape, and it's, essentially, forbidden goes with most of those options.

So, presumably you're supposed to project your favourite preoccupation/prejudice/fear onto it. 

So I'd say it's about an a-epicurean life. A live desaturated of colour, literally in the film, figuratively in the interpretation.

Sentiment: positive
A student filmmaker enlists a B-grade actress (a delectably diva-ish MOLLY RINGWALD!) to complete the horror film that her mother (a dreadfully dull Kylie Minogue!) tried to make 12 years ago. It's a curious plot choice to say the least, as any Aussie horror fan knows that the genre is sadly lacking in women directors. The film has a curse on it, because Molly had to kill some psycho murderer on the original set. But she's back, because she needs the exposure. Unfortunately, the curse is still there and people start dying on the "set." Cut is an Aussie attempt at the modern "slasher," but unfortunately it doesn't bring anything new or exciting to the table. In fact, it rips half of Wes Craven's 90s filmography. Lots of film-world name-dropping a la "Scream" (except it's Aussie name-dropping--Jane Campion...see how this isn't as funny) and lots of "is this real or is this a movie" a la "New Nightmare." The editing is bad, the music is annoying, the effects are laughable, almost everything is bad about this. Fortunately, the film can have a sense of humor: at one point, a well-dressed girl in the movie crew says to the owner of the house they are filming at: "Don't worry, we'll treat your house as if it were our own," to which he responds, "that doesn't mean anything to me, you look like you live in a dump!" Ha! And Molly's ridiculous one-liners were enough to not regret renting this one. "You got any diet coke in here?" (as she rides in the film professor's car) and "Does anyone know where I can buy any tofu?" (the first thing she mutters on the set) and "Where the hell is my agent?" (oh wait, that's what I was thinking for her.)

Sentiment: negative
The real problem with this story is that there's not much story to the story. There's hardly any plot to speak of. Widower buys an electric grandma for his kids. One kid resists electric grandma. Then finally accepts her. Then the kids grow up and grandma leaves. Really, very little happens. It's much more of a premise than a story.

Moreover, strip it of it's schmaltz, and you have a story that had already done before, and better: The Lonely. Same basic idea: person initially can't accept the love of a robot, because it's just-a-machine, then eventually yields and comes to love the robot. The biggest difference is that The Lonely is much more powerful, as both the protagonist and we, the audience, are shocked abruptly back to reality and forced to remember that in the end the robot really is just a mechanism.

I also find the story highly flawed in that the electric grandmother is just *too* perfect. She's not only "human", she's *super-human*. She's *wiser* than a real person, she has no traces of mechanicalness to her at all, and she makes marbles appear out of thin air. It frankly really chafes at credulity to think that she's a machine.

Sentiment: negative
I was never quite sure where this thing was going. These people seem interested in what is going on on some mountain. They investigate, have narrow escapes, leave, come back, leave, put each other in danger, sleepwalk, get attacked by witches who have consistent wardrobes, etc., etc. The guy seems to like the girl, but leaves her unprotected numerous times. She gets taken off, he gets her back, leaves her again. You get the point. The whole thing seems to get around to some sort of sacrifice, I think, but I'm not sure, or turning people into witches, but I'm not sure. It's just dull and endless and not worth the time. There are some atmospheric scenes, but the print is so bad that there times when twenty seconds of blackness is not unusual. Is this caused by age or the overuse of night filters.

Sentiment: negative
This movie sets out to do something very particular, it also sets out not to do certain things. In short it has a definite premeditated trajectory - to deal with the idea of facing death (with very few choices and all of them bad) as grave and real rather than something casual or amusing. In search of that realism it has eschewed certain conventions such as obvious character arcs and hooks. It not about the characters so much as about the human condition. Never mind what the actors would do... what would YOU do in their situation? 

Open Water may have been a starting notion for this movie but it goes a lot further. Unlike that film it doesn't cheat the audience in the end when you find out there aren't really any sharks to speak of at all. This has a real monster, not just the idea of a monster and not just an animated stand in. It also has fine production values given what these very resourceful filmmakers had to work with. And again in contrast to that other film it has some exhilarating and brilliantly rendered action at it's climax. And let's not forget the, shall we say 'dazzling', screen presence of its youngest star. She may prove to be quite a discovery.

Sentiment: positive
A story of love between two people at the end of WWII. Beautifully filmed, very romantic and yet rather fatalistic fable of budding love and war that would not end. If you want happy endings don't watch Wajda movies, sweety.

Sentiment: positive
My original title for this review was going to be, "Ending disappoints, Film triumphs." But I actually thought about this one on the way home. It is not the fairy tale most of these films are, it takes turns that are different and while its ending is at first disappointing, it slowly sinks in and hits the core on a satisfying tone.

The plot follows a man named James Aaron(Curb Your Enthusiasm's Jeff Garlin, who also wrote and directed) a struggling actor who lives in Chicago with his mother and deals with both his obesity and his inability to find someone to love.

Yes, it sounds corny, but it experiments with elements that make it somewhat unpredictable, and actually makes you wish it were longer. The ending came kind of abruptly and had me saying, "that's it!?" But once it starts to take it's toll, it really makes you smile.

It does have many tones of seriousness throughout, but fear not, for it is also very funny. Some scenes offer huge laughs, and those who have seen Jeff Garlin's stand-up will recognize a couple (Primarily when he gives a speech at career day for his niece's kindergarten class and bombs). It begins on somewhat of a serious note that you do not expect, but what follows is very funny, entertaining, and quite poignant as well. It is the kind of movie that you keep watching and always enjoy. And as I said before, while the ending may seem absurd at first, once you take time to think about, it is a true joy.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie a few months ago on cable, and it was fantastic. William H Macy is one of my favorite actors, and his performance was just amazing. He makes you care for his character, even when he is clearly doing the wrong thing, and Neve Campbell gives a performance that is with out a doubt the best performance I have seen by an actress this year. She is fantastic as a wild young woman who is wise beyond her years.

Donald Sutherland is just plain creepy as Macy's father, and John Ritter is fine as a shrink stuck in the middle of everything that is happening.

I wish that this was in the theater because I feel that it's a movie that should be view by a wider audience. That's a shame, because it's a hell of allot better that most of the new movies coming into the theater now.



Sentiment: positive
WARNING: Reading this entry after watching the movie! Like 'Easy Rider' released a year before, 'Joe' tries to illustrate what happens when the counterculture and mainstream (albeit right-wing) America meet: a violent end ensues. Although this film is for the most part a slow-moving display of traditional "old-fashion" American morals versus the 60's "do-what-feels-good" lifestyle, it is also a commentary on upper-class vs. lower-middle class and their inability to meet in the middle as illustrated when the Comptons meet the Currans. Boyle's Joe represents a generation stuck in the 1940s and 50s where 'Kill a commie for Mommy (or jap or hippie for that matter) is okay so long as it helps and saves America. Joe and wife Mary Jo are clearly the archetypes for Archie Bunker and Dingbat wife, Edith. This movie - which will forever be known for it's violent (but not bloody - no blood is seen at all) ending is uneven however. Joe blasts (verbally) the hippie generation then (literally) lays down with them to infiltrate their numbers to locate Compton's daughter - when clearly he should have been repulsed by the idea but forgoes the separatist idea for the sake of sex. When he is betrayed through thievery (read: trust of the older generation to the newer generation), he lashes out through an unrelenting chain of murder. Perhaps it is due to the Tarantinos of Hollywood that the watcher expects blood-streaming death in the end scene, but the bloodless shootings long for any sort of impact or realism. 'Joe' is not a great movie, but it is an interesting display of class and culture alienation and the animalistic underlying extremes to the generation gap.

Sentiment: positive
I took a flyer in renting this movie but I gotta say, it was very, very good. On all fronts: script, cast, director, photography, and high production values, etc. Proves Eva Longoria Parker is head and shoulders in rom/com above bad actors such as Kate Hudson and Jennifer Aniston, who mug and call it acting. Who'da thunk it?

Parker and Isla Fisher are in a class by themselves in this regard and should try to hold out for projects as good as "Over Her Dead Body." Lake Bell is excellent, too, and this is the first time I have seen her. And finally, Paul Rudd gets to shine in a really good movie, instead of lesser films.

A movie like this never gets its dues from close-minded males. It's too bad. As other IMDb reviewers here have noted, there is nothing lame about this gem --no hack writing or acting. 

And its depiction of contemporary L.A. and California, in general, makes every scene look bright, beautiful, clean, and otherwise outstanding in every way. Never before has a movie made L.A. look so good. Ah, what a little talent and a lot of caring can do for a movie.

I won't divulge the plot, but as a long-time and hard-core atheist, I was willing to suspend disbelief and buy into the supernatural theme in order to enjoy an excellent and light-hearted piece of entertainment. It reminds me very much of the old "Topper" movies, which were also so enjoyable.

This movie exposes popular, but otherwise hackneyed, movies like "Ghost" for the mediocre and overly sentimental crap fests they are. We already know the public taste leans heavily toward the mediocre. Some of us save our praise for the truly worthy, however.

If you have enjoyed other overlooked gems such as "Into the Night" with Michelle Pfeiffer, Jeff Goldblum and Clu Gulager, "Blind Date" with Bruce Willis and Kim Basinger, "American Dreamer" with JoBeth Williams, "Chances Are" with Robert Downey Jr., Christopher McDonald and Cybil Sheppard, "Making Mr. Right" with John Malkovich, etc., you'll enjoy this. 

A first-rate job all around (even if it's kinda hard to believe a straight guy can pretend to be gay for more than five years.) But even that plot device doesn't detract from the movie's overall excellence.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was shot using a digital camera, and it shows. There were enough annoying digital tricks used to alienate the viewer, also with the help of a terrible score. As if that weren't enough, the acting was also terrible. Now in Hartley's movies the acting is always peculiar, but here it was just BAD, especially by Satan (Thomas Jay Ryan)and Harvey, who (thank god) doesn't get to say much. After all these external problems it is also very unfortunate that the story itself is not that good, either. The jokes are predictable and unbelievably straightforward, and the events just rumble on from one incident to the next. The so-called book of life with Armageddon inside isn't much more than an excuse to see actors struggle to say their lines. All in all this movie is a waste of time and money and effort. Thumbs down.

Sentiment: negative
The basic plot of this film has already been detailed in several other comments so I won't bother. I'd like to first commend the producer, cast, directors and crew for creating a wonderfully engaging film on a meager, $1M budget, a small fraction of standard Hollywood fare that doesn't LOOK cheap. These people have a drive to make something new and entertaining while not spending a fortune doing it. This is essentially art for art's sake. I know, I know, some of you will decide that this is not art but something less and that's fine. I for one am glad that people like these will continue to put forth the time and effort for our benefit without expecting huge multimillion dollar payoffs.

Now to the criticism. I feel that the scenario presented is credible to a point. It's wonderful when everything works out and the hero/heroine saves the day and all's well that ends well. What gets me is the blatant manipulation of events so that blind luck is responsible more than courage and strength.

When lee was attacked but not severely injured, somehow she washed up on a mud bank right next to the dead guide. Then, miraculously, his loaded revolver is still in his holster and it actually works (after some cleaning and fiddling). Finally, when Lee is attacked on the mud bank and jumps in the water, once again the croc fails to kill her. She ends up with her hand in his (her?) mouth and manages to repeatedly pull the trigger, ultimately to blow the croc's brains out (literally).

I came to the conclusion that having Lee go hand to mouth with the croc was just a way to end the film with the human in triumph. Based upon what I have seen, the croc's attack and continue to hold on until the prey stops struggling. Croc's will spin around and around to dismember and drown the prey. That happened to the first 3 victims but not to Lee. She had teeth marks but they were not deep.

I think that the ending would have been better had the croc won, frankly, thereby proving his dominance of the mangrove, his territory for millions of years. But then, how many of us would have been upset or disappointed that the pretty girl didn't get out alive?

Sentiment: positive
Or at least you feel pretty high after this movie. It's the kind of film that the word "rollicking" really can be applied to, though it's rollicking in that entirely casual, intelligent, and open-minded way that belongs to the French.

No, Catherine Deneuve does not spend the entire movie high (sorry to disappoint any puritans with an agenda).. but the one scene to which I refer involves all the members of a wedding party - AND it's a musical number! Anyway, everything fits pretty seamlessly together, and the unusual, bright, colorful family ( Deneuve's mother is a lesbian, Deneuve her bon vivant daughter) alternately entertain and annoy us as real families do..but since it's a movie they mostly entertain.

Don't want to say too much about the ending, but Deneuve ends up marrying a man about twenty years younger. This is entirely believable as we see the relationship develop over time, and as the two are naturally drawn closer and closer together. The ending is a happy one; and like the rest of the movie, satisfyingly quirky as well as pitch-perfect.

Sentiment: positive
After spotting the boat at the end of the previous episode ("Three Minutes"), the survivors are shocked to find out who the occupant is. With the use of the boat, Jack and Sayid come up with a plan to confront "The Others". However, when Jack, Sawyer, Kate and Hurley follow Michael to "The Others", Jack is forced to reveal Michael's deadly secret whilst they are in the middle of nowhere.

Meanwhile, Locke decides that the time has come to find out the time has come to find out what will happen if "the button" is not pressed. However, Mr. Eko's resolve to continue pressing "the button" is surprisingly strong. So, when Locke concocts a plan to lock Eko out of the hatch with the help of an ally, Eko goes to surprisingly desperate lengths to stop Locke from making what he believes will be a big mistake.

This is a classic episode of Lost, full of secrets, suspense and very few answers to the many questions it poses to its viewers. However, some of the secrets this action-packed episode reveals will be truly shocking to the fans. There is also a trademark end-of-season cliffhanger, which achieves the feat of being both shocking and extremely confusing. One thing is guaranteed, it will keep you guessing right to the very end, and you will still be frustrated with more mind-boggling questions as you wait in agony for the Third Season to begin.

Sentiment: positive
I couldn't have been more thrilled; Just eight years old back in 1983, I was going to see a Star Wars movie at the theater! The best day of my life was about to happen. To that time, my only Star Wars experience had been a few HBO showings of Star Wars. I hadn't even seen The Empire Strikes Back yet.

And boy, did that day deliver for my less critical eyes. Jabba. Big Rebel spaceships. The Emporer. A green-bladed lightsaber!! Wow! Since that magical day, I must have watched this movie hundreds of times. I can't even form an accurate estimate at this point. With those multiple viewings, I have of course observed that this movie - the REAL Episode III - does have its flaws.

Of course in the context of a Star Wars movie, those "flaws" are more like "quirks".

Millions had had their magical day in 1977 and 1980. In May of 1983, I had mine. And this was my Star Wars movie.

Sentiment: positive
I knew nothing about this film until I watched it... my brother in fact suggested I take a look. Normally, his suggestions aren't much cop however, but I was stuck for something to watch so I watched it.

Well, to cut a long story short, I give it 10/10.

The film centers around two people, that meet whilst lodging at the same place. One is initially very dependant upon the institution around him, the other is a rebel. One does what he likes, the other as he's told.

From the first moments of the film we quickly see the friendship between the two building, and see how they rub off a little on each other. It's a remarkable piece of work, that manages to tell a good story without twist upon twist, people leaping out of bath tubs, or superheros coming to save the day.

There's a fair amount of grit and reality in there, not everything can ever go just right - not all gulfs can ever be spanned - and this film delightfully shows the lot.

If you watch this film, and are not impressed..... I'd suggest that you don't watch anything again.

Sentiment: positive
After seeing the low-budget shittier versions of the "Universal Soldier" franchise, I hoped and prayed that Van Damme reprised his role as Luc Devoreaux in a second Unisol movie. Well, it seemed this prayer was answered, but not the way I hoped. Universial Soldier 2 is just intense as poetry reading at your local library. No, even that would be more intriguing . The fight sequences are top-notch, Bruce Lee quality, which is the only redeeming factor in this entire pathetic excuse for a motion picture. That and having former WCW tough-guy legend "Goldberg" playing the villain. However, placing Goldberg as Seth's sidekick lieutenant would've been better.

We offended me the most was the setting of the movie itself. It's like some film school students slapped it together. The plot holes are that bigger than Kanye West's ego is what really did this movie in. For example: Luc's daughter, Hillary looks like she's at least 11-13 years old and the first movie was filmed only seven years ago. How is that possible? Tell me that! The part in which Luc's partner was killed off and turned into a Unisol is just re-goddamn diculous! You mean to tell me that there was an experimental Unisol exposed naked in the basement of the research complex at the beginning of the movie. C'mon. The director could've spent more time with this movie like the first one and sewn all the plot holes shut. But oooh nooo! 

Speaking of the plot, IT SUCKS! Compared to the first movie, Universal Soldier 2's plot watered down and worthless. Where's the gritty thrills in which a Unisol goes berserk an re-enacts his last memories in a supermarket rampage thinking its Desert Storm or something ? This was the dawn of the Millennium, you would attracted more of an audience if this had taken place in a dystopia/Orwellian type of future cesspit. Corny is the correct adjective to describe this sad, sad, sad sequel. 

From what I seen: Double Impact, Under Siege 2, Robocop 3, and hell, even the cheap-ass/no class Terminator knock-off "Class of 1999" is more entertaining than this!

Sentiment: negative
I really enjoyed this both times I watched it. And both times, I walked away thinking about it, and the "morals of the story" a great deal. I agree with another reviewer in that the movie is not centred around the sci-fi aspects you might expect from an alien-on-Earth movie, but rather is about the human condition. The characters in the psych hospital provide a great insight in to that, and how they go from hopelessness to hope. This movie has touches of sadness to humour to sympathy to the final "is he or isn't he". That final question was well handled and even though some might argue you don't know what happens in the end and the question goes unanswered, I feel it is done in far more detail than something wishywashy like say, the movie Ronin (with Robert De Niro) where you never find out what's in the box and feel very frustrated because of it. I highly recommend K-PAX. 8/10

Sentiment: positive
If you need a clue as to whether Playmaker is decent or not, look to its star, Colin Firth, who refers to it in an interview as "absolute rubbish -- I sincerely hope no one ever sees it."

The script and plot are ludicrous, the female lead is unconvincing. The only thing worthwhile is Colin Firth, and he seems slightly embarrassed throughout.

For diehard Firth fans only -- the shower scene alone is worth the $3.99 you might have to shell out, should you find it in a video cutout bin like I did.

I'm happy for Mr. Firth that his days of taking projects like this one are over!

Sentiment: negative
Horrendous "comedy" in which a beautiful, crazy woman (Liv Tyler) "comedically" destroys the lives of three men (Matt Dillon, Paul Reiser and John Goodman). Dillon hires a hit man (Michael Douglas) to kill her. What is happening to comedy? The year 2001 has produced some of the worst comedies ever (Saving Silverman, Sugar and Spice, Freddy Got Fingered, Tomcats, etc etc). This is one of the worst. There's not one, repeat, not ONE funny moment in it. The jokes are either stupid, unfunny, smutty or real sick. Also there's a strong hatred of women in this garbage--the only main female character (Tyler) is constantly used as a sex object. Also extreme, bloody violence is thrown in at the end. The only bearable moments come from Reba McEntire as a psychiatrist and Andrew Dice Clay in two roles--both psychos. Dillon, Goodman and Reiser have hit an all-time career low with this--the only way to go is up. And poor Tyler! She quit doing intelligent, gutsy independent films for THIS? And DOUGLAS???? What was he on when he agreed to this? An utter piece of crap--to be avoided AT ALL COSTS!!!!!!!!!!

Sentiment: negative
This movie was groundbreaking in the former Soviet Union because it was the first movie released there that contained a real sex scene. However, the movie can be considered great for many reasons, not the least of which is its true, gritty portrayal of disillusionment and pain in the family of a working class Soviet family. I would definitely recommend it.

Sentiment: positive
The direction by Wong is perhaps the all time worst in film history I've ever seen. This film makes my all time worst film of 2000, Dungeons and Dragons by Courtney Soloman looked like an Oscar winner. The flaws in this movie is beyond explanation. The biggest one is the lack of depth. Every scene does not develop fully as if the editing room doesn't know how to do their job correctly. Its a shame that with such an all-star cast of talents and a famous popular traditional story can be destroyed by this lack of vision.

I am so disgusted and hope that some great director like John Woo or Ang Lee, decide to remake this film and do some justice. I'm not even sure if I can rate 0/10??

Sentiment: negative