DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
It's been a long time since I have been in the art-house theater and I went to see Douches Froides because it has gotten such great reviews in the papers.

The thing is with this movie, is that it has no head or tail, but merely a section in time about the life of the three main characters.

When it started I already knew that it was gonna be a long sit down, but sometimes things can get better, in this case not. There is no real character development or interconnection between the players. You start in the middle of a situation, all of the sudden there's a girlfriend and then there's a guy with whom he needs to be friends with in order to fulfill his sports ambitions, but the way they are put together is quite odd, since they are "just put together", so it seems.

And all of the sudden they have sex with each other, at least one you can see of. The feeling of guilt or jealousy with the other guy is hardly noticeable and really all I could think of during the movie was "when are they gonna have sex again?". And when you think of it, it's quite insane really. Because it basically means there is nothing really worth looking at, but three teens going at it and that, for me at least, makes it a very crappy movie, stay clear from it and save your money (my 7,50 is wasted), there are better art-house movies than this one.

I give three stars for the acting performance, one each.

Sentiment: negative
The Underground Comedy Movie, is possibly the worst train wrecks I've ever seen. Luckily I didn't pay for this movie, and my friend reluctantly agreed to watch it again siting that it was so awful but he needed to prove to me how awful it was. I love off color comedy. I figured at the least it would have that and I would be entertained. No, instead the acting was so awful, the "jokes" were extremely cheesy, and the plot was no where to be found. Maybe there wasn't supposed to be a plot so I can't hold that against this movie. It's pretty sad where the funniest thing in a comedy is an old woman having her head hit off by a bat.....by Batman...A man dressed in a baseball uniform wielding a bat. Hilarious. Simply genius. I got the feeling watching this movie that its creators made it and laughed hysterically with their friends about it. Perhaps this was full of inside jokes we just didn't understand. Or perhaps it's the worst piece of trash ever made and it should be locked away in a vault and dumped in the Arctic Ocean.

P.S. Don't buy this movie!

Sentiment: negative
Wow. Simply awful. I was a fan of the original movie, and begrudgingly sat through part 2, 3 was and improvement. 4,5 and Freddy's Dead were pretty bad. But NOTHING is as bad as Freddy's Nightmares. Freddy acts as a Rod Serlingesq host of this anthology series.

I can accept how Freddy became one punchline after another, but at least in the movies the appeal of Freddy carried the movies, but here these were so poorly made, they looked like high school productions of a horror series. The poor actors, if you really want to call yourself that after doing this show were obviously exactly what they paid for. I'm nearly certain this was a stopping point for two types of actors. Ones just starting on the Hollywood ladder, brand new willing to take any part that would put off their having to take that porn job they were offered last week, or seasoned actors on their way down the Hollywood ladder willing to take any part that would put off their having to take that porn job they were offered last week.

I half expected Dana Plato to guest star, but she was already dead by the time this was in production.

To paraphrase Nancy's line in the original Elm St,"What ever you do try not to fall asleep watching this."

Sentiment: negative
I saw "The Reader" at a film festival in Manhattan this week. It touched my heart in a way that few short films have done. In ten or so minutes, it tells a poignant two-character story that resonated deeply with me. Duncan Rogers has done a superb job capturing very real, tender moments on film. What I really admire about this film is that the director has chosen a story appropriate to the short format. These are genuinely interesting characters, and their story is told in the perfect length of time. This is no small feat. Haven't we all seen shorts that are simply longer stories squeezed to fit the format, or stage stories that weren't properly adapted to screen? I applaud "The Reader" for really doing it right, and I encourage anyone who is interested in film and in storytelling to look at it seriously. Worth every moment!

Sentiment: positive
I watched this movie with no idea what it was about beforehand. I was intrigued for the first whole hour. It was shaping up to be a great thriller. A very talented cast and good dialogue.Then it all fell apart for me at the sight of the first vampire. I couldn't believe my eyes.A great thriller was flushed down the toilet. The rest of the movie from that point was totally awful.

I gave it 4 stars for the brilliant beginning alone. I think that's a little generous, but I was entertained for a while. I'm not a fan of vampire or zombie movies at all.If you are, then you may disagree with my opinion.

Sentiment: negative
Words fail me. This film was extremely difficult to watch and in hindsight I really wish I hadn't done it. Although I attempted to sit through it until the end credits I have to admit I couldn't last for more than hour, so my opinion could be unfair. However, this film would require the most impressive final third in the history of film-making in order for it to be given a review which is anything but vicious.

Please do not watch any part of this film.

Sentiment: negative
I've never been huge on IMAX films. They're cool, but once you get over that initial rush of "Whoa, it feels like flying!" the movies themselves are usually pretty corny and ordinary. 

The exceptions have been the powerful "Everest", the exhilarating "Wild California" and now the BBC's "The Human Body", a super-sized look at the insides of our bodies. 

Our bodies are machines of a complexity that is simply inconceivable. This 50 minute film could be 10 hours long, and still wouldn't get to all of the systems working in tandem just as I type this review and listen to my radio, and most of us take it all for granted. 

Here you can see the inside of a pumping heart (looks like an alien spaceship), the inside of your lungs, the tiny hairs in your eardrum that process sound, the development of a baby inside a mother's womb, and surprisingly, a few of the...um, less attractive functions that I thought it would shy away from (pimples, the churning of acids in the stomach...)

This film also has a rather funky style to it, which sets it apart from other IMAX documentaries. For instance, we've all seen sperm finding its way to the egg, but have you ever seen it set to the tune of Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On"? It's creative moments like that that make "The Human Body" not just a health lesson, but fun as well.

Sentiment: positive
There are a number of things that are not correct, although this is not too important since what happened to whom and when is still in dispute. The most blatant liberty with the facts I think is when they start to play at Bruno Koschmidder's Kaiserkeller, when in fact they played at the Indra and moved to the Kaiserkeller later.

I agree with Semprinni20 that the film was biased in favour of Pete Best's version, but if he is the story consultant then I guess he calls the shots. I also agree with Semprinni that the recordings Pete Best plays on say the last word on the subject of why he was fired.

Although the film is not such a lavish production as the later film "Backbeat", I prefer this film because it is more accurate, and because it has a better script with deeper characterisation.

There is plenty in the film that is quite substantial - such as Brian Epstein trying to hide the fact that he has been "queer-bashed," only to find out that the band knew he was Gay all along. Little touches like the band going into a café and ordering "Corn-Flakes mit Milch." My favourite scene, which does have some bassis in fact, is where at an audition Stuart Sutcliffe has just bought his bass guitar but can't play it, so he stands with his back to the impresario and tries faking it, but gets caught. That's rock 'n' roll.

Well worth watching.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of my favorite films of all time. I read the book and liked it, but this movie expands on everything the book made famous. The acting is fantastic, especially from Jon Voight, who plays Mr. Sir, a very evil character. This film has a certain way of storytelling that keeps you hooked throughout, until the end where everything is pulled together for a great ending. I also love the way this is directed, by flashing back and forth between the modern day and Stanley's ancestors' stories. The story was written by Louis Sachar, yes, but it seems that this story is made for film, and Andrew Davis does a great job directing it. I definitely recommend this to anyone who enjoys good movies.

Sentiment: positive
Although I'm not a golf fan, I attended a sneak preview of this movie and absolutely loved it. The historical settings, the blatant class distinctions, and seeing the good and the bad on both sides of the dividing line held my attention throughout. The actors and their characterizations were all mesmerizing. And I was on the edge of my seat during the golf segments, which were not only dramatic and exciting but easy to follow. Toward the end of this movie, "Seabiscuit" came strongly to mind, although "The Greatest Game Ever Played" is far less complex a story than that film. In both cases, the fact that the events really happened deepened my interest.

Sentiment: positive
Licence fees to watch this trash, And pay for it with hard-earned cash? Humourless, no hint of laughter, God knows how it won a BAFTA! 

We've now been subjected to "Eastenders" for twenty years. When, oh when is the Great British public going to see this awful soap for what it is? Crass Pap! This programme no more depicts reality in the East End of London than everyday life in Beirut, and never has done.

The Eastenders I know (the real ones) are kind, courageous, hardworking and loyal. And one of their greatest attributes is humour. It was the Eastenders who went through the worst of the London blitz and still stuck two fingers up to Hitler. And what do we see on our screens for five days of the week (including an omnibus)? Nothing but a bunch of moaning, wailing, "dead from the neck up" wimps, who seem to do little else than sit in a pub all day sniping at each other. What a great advert for Britain that is!! Do the writers actually believe this garbage they're pumping out? Obviously the woolly-minded section of the public does, but then I've heard that apparently anyone can be brainwashed into believing anything.

Sentiment: negative
this movie delivers. the best is when the awkward teenage neighbor tries to bike away from the babysitter and in the background looks like he's never been anywhere near a bike in his life as he attempts not to fall off.

but this movie doesn't stop there, when less than 5 minutes later it delivers a scene of nothing but an arm reaching through a fence and into a cooler pulling out a beer. 

stereotypical grilling dads, several plot lines that go nowhere, and a former seaQuest actress with a bluetooth cell phone all add up to making this the perfect Saturday night at home.

Sentiment: negative
This is a pale imitation of 'Officer and a Gentleman.' There is NO chemistry between Kutcher and the unknown woman who plays his love interest. The dialog is wooden, the situations hackneyed. It's too long and the climax is anti-climactic(!). I love the USCG, its men and women are fearless and tough. The action scenes are awesome, but this movie doesn't do much for recruiting, I fear. The script is formulaic, but confusing. Kutcher's character is trying to redeem himself for an accident that wasn't his fault? Costner's is raging against the dying of the light, but why? His 'conflict' with his wife is about as deep as a mud puddle. I saw this sneak preview for free and certainly felt I got my money's worth.

Sentiment: negative
Scary in places though the effects did leave something to be desired unless you have bad eyesight or are afraid of the dark. However most of the acting was convincing and most of the effects were well done. I thought the creature looked a bit too much like a man in a gorilla suit for my liking. It reminded me of the original pink panther film.

Sentiment: positive
I just finished watching this movie and I found it was basically just not funny at all.

I'm an RPG Gamer (computer type, none of the DnD tabletop stuff) but I found none of the jokes in this funny at all.

Some of the scenes seemed to drag out a lot (tilt and zoom could've been cut down to 5seconds rather than over a minute) and it feels as though the director was just trying to fill in time.

I think I laughed a total of 2-3 times in the entire movie.

The acting itself wasn't all that bad, around the standard that a B Grade movie should have.

I'd suggest not bothering with this movie unless you're a huge DnD fan and even then it would probably be best to steer clear of it.

Sentiment: negative
Some funny bits, but come Bill! A film? Quoting Zeitgeist? Keep the TV Show and the interviews, but a film? I'm probably overreacting but what a unnecessary provoking film... I don't know. I laughed, disagreed, agreed... this film is very confusing and inconsistent.

Bill's a funny guy... but also very cocky... Bill's rhetoric is similar to Bill Hicks, a brilliant comedian. But like many comedians, the borderline between comedy and preaching can be annoying. I think that the major problem in this film is his lack of sensibility. This might be just a personal taste, but comedy that constantly demeans somebody cannot be taken as truth. Bill is obviously emotionally reactive to religious fundamentalism. I agree with Bill that religious fanaticism is not sensible, but the response to it cannot be sensible. It will create unnecessary turmoil. We can do better than just react to fundamentalism. His conclusion is that "we don't know" and he fervently tries to convince the spectator that nobody knows anything, to the point that the agnostic community has been concerned with his lack of serious research in comparative religion. His humility that he only knows that he doesn't, is a contradiction as he tries to insist that all religious thought is non-sense.

I had great trouble seeing bits of Zeitgeist, the movie in Bill's film. All the astrotheology-influenced non-sense that simplifies all religions as the same is simply disappointing. Zeitgeist has provoked a lot of controversy and has messed up the validity of so much of the valuable Religion Studies scholarship. It is very sad how wrong facts have been tossed around with no reliable scholarly sources. Astro-mystic sources that reduce everything to "the stars say it all" seem to be from the Middle Ages. This film is a confusing statement from a confused "agnostic". Agnosticism is far more complex and philosophically academic than defending every single issue as "we don't know".

This film is an obvious proof of how postmodernism has been able to oversimplify and generalize major issues in human history.

Watch the film (it has hilarious interviews and bits) but PLEASE do not behave like Bill. You cannot expect anybody to have a mature conversation if you are making sardonic comments in every other line. His arguing techniques are demeaning and insulting, provoking emotional reactions rather than rational and logical argumentation.. There needs to be a more mature way of dealing with these issues.

Sentiment: negative
I have the entire Weissmuller Tarzan series on DVD (fully restored editions) & I never tire of watching them. My personal favorite is "Tarzan and His Mate", due entirely (well almost entirely) to Maureen O'Sullivan's costume and the occasional flashes of her genital area beneath that leather flap hanging in front. Before anyone claims that A - It wasn't really her, or B - It wasn't really what it looks like, let me say that I have watched it numerous time, in high zoom mode, and trust me...it IS her, AND she is completely naked underneath that costume...several times, especially during the lion attack at the end, careful viewing in slow motion and maximum zoom will reveal that she was shaved except for a tiny patch of dark hair covering her labia...There is NO mistake about that at all. As to the swimming scene being a body double in a "skin" suit, yes, it is a double, BUT she is NOT wearing any "skin" suit or anything else...again, slow motion and maximum zoom shows everything to those who want to see it. Now, that controversy out of the way, let's move on the actual movie...I thought the script was really well thought out and written tightly...The action sequences were simply great, although it is obviously a stuntman riding the rhino, Weissmuller actually wrestles the big male lion...The use of background shots that were second unit stuff from Africa is very well blended with the studio & US locations making it sometimes hard to tell which is which. Don't complain too much though, remember that 90% of ALL films is phony anyway, so just relax and enjoy the damned thing with a big bowl of popcorn, some cold beer, and a fresh pack of smokes...a sexy and willing girlfriend/wife isn't out of line either...lol. Oh...One final word about nudity...at the very beginning, while the white hunters are speaking dialogue, keep your eyes on the background extras...there are several good shots of nude African girls (obviously shot on location) behind them. One more thing, the movie is not racist by the standards of the 1930's until the 1960's...that's the way colored people were thought of and portrayed back then. Shaft hadn't even been thought about at that time, nor would audiences have accepted any other portrayals of them at the time in history. Safaris actually did use natives carrying luggage on their heads...and Tiny's character did die a heroic death trying to save the white hunters and Jane. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until Gene Autry treated the native Americans and colored people in his Westerns like real human beings that Hollywood began to see that it was okay to do so.

Sentiment: positive
Clearly this film was made for a newer generation that may or may not have had an inkling of Charles Bukowski's work. The autobiographical Henry Chinaski character in Bukowski's stories was brilliantly portrayed to perfection by Mickey Rourke in 1987's 'Barfly', also starring Faye Dunaway. Anyone who has seen 'Factotum' should certainly see 'Barfly' to get a better look at how Bukowski wrote his character. 'Factotum' lacks the greasy seediness of Bukowski's screenplay and the fearless hopelessness of his loner hero. The inadvertent humor that bubbles through in the dark desperation of Chinaski's misadventures doesn't work for Dillon as it did so admirably for the overweight filthy blood-soaked Rourke. Rourke's character makes the pain and pleasure of the previous night's misbehavior a place-setting for yet another grueling ugly day in the life of a drunken misanthropic unknown writer. Dillon's character misses these marks in favor of a strutting, handsome, relatively clean-looking wanna-be writer that scarcely passes for any moment in that of Chinaski's story. Dunaway's sleazy heroine Wanda is the perfect complement to the ne'er-do-well Henry. The women in 'Factotum' can't hold a candle to Dunaway's 'distressed goddess' and the use of more profane sexual subject matter in 'Factotum' proves to be more of a crude distraction than a tip of the hat to Bukowski's raw and unapologetic portrayals of dysfunctional relationships. I was stunned at how many of the exact same scenes were used in 'Factotum' (Marisa Tomei buying all the stuff and charging it to the old man is an exact rip-off from 'Barfly').

If you want to see the best Bukowski stories on film, see 'Barfly' and 'Love is a Dog From Hell' (which also goes by the title 'Crazy Love').

Sentiment: negative
I'd heard about this movie a while ago from a friend and she recently got it on DVD. There was a lot of anticipation and excitement as we'd both heard that this was a terrifying film, really scary. How disappointed was I?? VERY!!!! Apart from that one scene (we all know which bit) NOTHING happened!!! I was expecting to see the woman in black a few times and for her to do a few more jumpy scenes, like appear at the window or walk across the hall or something.

Nearly all the reviews here say what a scary, gripping, atmospheric movie this is. I just didn't see it I'm afraid. Maybe there's a difference in what people find scary in the US to here in Britain.

A big let down after all the hyped reviews :(

Sentiment: negative
Now this is what I'm talking about. Finally, a low-budget horror outing that uses its limitations to its advantage. WENDIGO, while occasionally flawed, is a triumph of the imagination. Granted, it leans heavy on EVIL DEAD style camera moves for its moodiness, but it's still a damn sight better than 99% of direct to video dross.

The story is pretty simple: a family takes a vacation at a remote cabin and are menaced by one particularly unhinged hunter. But director Larry Fessenden really knows how to build suspense and add layers of unsettling creepiness through the use of the mythical Wendigo. Is it real? Is it all in the boy's imagination? Is it an externalization of the child's emotional state? 

Some have quibbled that the film is unsatisfying because it's left to you to decide. Don't be put off by such petty nonsense. A film that makes you think is not one to avoid. It's one to rejoice in.

Sentiment: positive
Yes Pigeon and Coburn are great, and it's interesting to watch them, although Coburn seems rather restrained and dull here. It's enjoyable to view Seattle, Victoria and Salt Lake City of 1970's, and the period cars and clothing. That's all the good in this boring film. The dialog is incredibly bad, as is most of the acting. Ray and Sandy's motivations seem forced and unlikely. I've seen this "training to be a pickpocket" routine several times before. There's a long build up, leading to nothing. Better to catch an episode of "Streets of San Francisco", or one of the many great crime/caper movies. To name a few, there are Bedtime Story, remade as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, The Lavender Hill Mob, The Grifters, Paper Moon, The Sting, and best of all, House of Games.

Sentiment: negative
I absolutely adore this film about a lady columnist (Barbara Stanwyck) for a major homemaking magazine who delivers a welcoming article each month that includes details about her awesome home life as a wife and mother in a beautiful Connecticut home. The trouble happens when the owner of her monthly publication demands that she have him and a WW2 hero as guests during the Christmas Holidays. Why is she worried? Because she lives in a small New York apartment, isn't married, and doesn't have a baby - and can't cook at all! Hilarity (and romance) ensues when she tries to put on a believable act in an effort to save face/ keep from being fired by the magazine owner (played by Sydney Greenstreet). This is a delightful comedy; one that I highly recommend to classic movie lovers!!!!

Sentiment: positive
These kinda movies just don't get the credit they deserve. This is my 2nd all time favorite movie, (Stand By Me being 1st.) The reason I watched this movie was because Wil Wheaton was in it and he is my most favorite person in the whole world and I think he done an amazing job in this movie and so did Sean Astin. I just watched it last night actually and it just amazed me. Everything in the movie is very exceptional. The script, the acting, the screenplay. I was on the edge of my seat 80% of the time, and if my mom wasn't in the room I would have absolutely balled whenever Joey Trotta (Wil Wheaton) died. I did not see that coming!! At all!! I was real surprised when I heard that it wasn't real popular back in the 90's. I was born a few years after it came out so, of course, I didn't go see it in the theaters, but im sure I would have if I would have been alive. If any of my friends watched this, they would be like, "uhh okay?" but thats just cause their not cool enough to appreciate work like this. If you haven't seen this movie, or are wanting to watch something that is the bomb, this is the movie for you to watch.

Sentiment: positive
My boyfriend and I went to watch The Guardian.At first I didn't want to watch it, but I loved the movie- It was definitely the best movie I have seen in sometime.They portrayed the USCG very well, it really showed me what they do and I think they should really be appreciated more.Not only did it teach but it was a really good movie. The movie shows what the really do and how hard the job is.I think being a USCG would be challenging and very scary. It was a great movie all around. I would suggest this movie for anyone to see.The ending broke my heart but I know why he did it. The storyline was great I give it 2 thumbs up. I cried it was very emotional, I would give it a 20 if I could!

Sentiment: positive
I would have given this LESS than a 1 rating if it were possible. The entire film should have been left on the cutting-room floor. What a pathetic waste of time, money and effort! Let's see...assemble the prettiest cast you can find (which of course is in direct proportion to the amount of talent they lack)...throw together the thinnest plot you can dig up...and viola! An abominable piece of trash that the director and/or producer should be ashamed to put their name on. How much WORSE can the horror genre get? And don't use "low budget" as an excuse...I have seen many GREAT low-budget films....in fact some of the best horror classics of all time were low-budget. If you don't have the talent and ingenuity to make a GOOD horror film, then for God's sake don't make one at all!!!

Sentiment: negative
Refreshing `lost' gem! Featuring effective dialog combined with excellent acting to establish the characters and involve you enough to care what happens to them. The Douglas and Widmark characters are realistic heroes. Palance is his usual evil presence. Widmark win the fisticuffs fight scene, a car chase of less than 60 seconds with a `logical' end, and a lengthy chase on foot that shames the overdone chase sequences of contemporary Hollywood. You know how it will likely end, but the suspense and interest are sustained throughout. The end of the chase is one of the most realistic you will ever see. The film seems to slow a little past the middle, but stay with it for the rewarding conclusion.

Sentiment: positive
The movie goes something like this: Run around, run around, someone killed, lots of freaking out and then one of the group yells to "Pull it together" or "Just calm down!" Repeat this as many times as their are characters left. In between these things, you get to enjoy blank, black screen. These are not quick but rather several seconds long. I kept thinking what a waste of film every time it happened - yes, it does happen more than once if you can believe it.

I notice other mentioned "Blair Witch: and it did remind me of that in the way the camera was bouncy. However, this movie takes that to the extreme. Every single time the characters move the camera is bouncing. Sometimes so much that you can't make heads or tales as to what you are looking at. That brings us to lighting. Way too dark in some areas. I get that they are trying to make us feel like we are in a cave, but Helllloo... I'm watching a movie here, it would be nice to be able to see.

Then there is the ending. I actually blurted out loud, "Are you kidding me?!" (I was watching alone too). Dumb, dumb. I think the ending was purely the effort of the people who made this disaster to shock us after so much time of boredom with a so called "twist". At this point of the movie you could have seen the "monster" picking his nose and it would be considered a "twist". Truly horrible. You have been warned.

Sentiment: negative
For real though, this game is where it's at. I'm 20 years old and that's basically where it started for me. 4-bit graphics was fabulous. I hope you all remember this game with as much adoration as I do. That Bluto is a real meany.

Sentiment: positive
Based on a true story, this series is a gem within its kind. The slave that becomes queen by capturing the heart of the most powerful man in the village.

In the diamond mining town of Tijuco in Brazil, the diamond commender--appointed by the king of Portugal--is the ultimate authority. Having grown up in the relative security of his house, the young and beautiful Xica da Silva finds her world threatened when he decides to sell her to a whorehouse in town, refusing to recognize that a black slave girl could be his daughter. In a desperate bid to save herself, Xica steals the diamonds collected by the diamond commender for the king, intending to use them to escape. The king's army arrives to collect the diamonds the very next day, however, and when the loot turns up missing, the diamond commender is led away in chains, his family dispossessed and thrown out in the street with only the clothes on their backs. Martin, the diamond commender's son, swears vengeance. Xica and the other slaves, however, are sold at auction, and Xica ends up in the home of the Sergeant Major, an old man who bought her solely to slake his lust. To the town of Tijuco, however, comes the new diamond commender, the elegant and ruthless Joao Fernandes. Immediately struck by Xica's beauty, he manipulates the Sergeant Major into selling her to him. And thus begins a love story, filled with danger, intrigue and passion, between a willful nobleman and a crafty slave girl who rises to one day become queen.

The series is filled with rich details of the era's beliefs, superstitions, politics, fashion, etc. etc. And it really manages to captivate your attention for every minute. At times funny with a sarcastic and dark humor, full of suspense and unexpected twists. "Xica da Silva" is definitely a must. I wish I could buy the whole series on DVD.

Sentiment: positive
Sure, you get to see some boobies, but if that's all you're looking for in a film, you get more mileage from youtube. I just paid a dollar from redbox because I saw Val Kilmer's name. Bad move. Plot didn't thicken, dialogue was shoddy, characters undeveloped at best. Somebody said cinematography was alright but don't expect too much. This movie moved very slow and ended without grace. Blacklist. I spent much of the movie wondering if some event or color scheme of things was symbolic. I never actually rewound to figure it out because nothing was ever explained in the end. No twists. It also left many questions that as it turns out, I had no desire to hear answered. One of the worst movies I have ever seen.

Sentiment: negative
You know you're in for something different when a movie has Christopher Walken playing the part of a professional hit man - and he isn't even one of the bad guys! Although it could do with some judicious trimming here and there, "Man on Fire" is a generally effective crime drama that ranges in tone from the openly sentimental to the downright brutal - and just about every tone imaginable in between.

Denzel Washington stars as Creasy, a former CIA assassin who has recently quit the business and is seeking some sort of redemption for the sins he's committed. So far, he's been looking for answers in a bottle and the Bible and not doing all that well with either. As the movie opens, Mexico City has been ravaged by a series of kidnappings aimed at the powerful and well-to-do, possibly perpetrated by the very police force assigned to keep law and order in the community. Creasy accepts the position as bodyguard to the daughter of a wealthy business owner who rightly fears for her safety. The first third of the film is devoted to the growing friendship between Creasy and his charge, Pita, a sweet little girl who, slowly but surely, works her way into Creasy's initially hardened heart and affections. The last two-thirds of the film turns into an Avenging Angel melodrama, as Creasy systematically seeks out and eliminates all those responsible for a tragedy that occurs early on in the story.

Based on the novel by A.J Quinnell, "Man on Fire," astutely written by Brian Helgeland and flashily directed by Tony Scott, is a coolly efficient action picture that never shies away from the raw brutality of its subject matter. It takes a risk in asking us to identify with a man who is, for all intents and purposes, achieving his redemption by torturing and murdering (admittedly disreputable) people. These scenes of carnage and violence are both intense and suspenseful, even if they do at times border on the exploitative. Even better are the quiet, intimate moments between Creasy and Pita in the early parts of the movie. Washington and the wonderful Dakota Fanning establish an natural, easygoing rapport that helps to set the stage for the chaos and turmoil to follow.

Washington carries the movie with his quality of stoic righteousness, making us understand his character on an emotional level even if what he is doing eludes us intellectually. In addition to the two leads, there are solid performances from Walken, Marc Anthony, Radha Mitchell, Mickey Rourke, Rachel Ticotin and Giancarlo Giannini. But it is Washington and the delightful Ms. Fanning who steal the show.

"Man on Fire" would have been better with about a half hour taken out its running time, but this is still a better-than-average crime thriller.

Sentiment: positive
This was one of the worst films I can remember seeing. I am sure I have seen worse, though, if that mitigates me slamming it.

The humor isn't funny, there are stupid stereotype jokes that, again, aren't funny. I was a captive audience on a plane and viewed this film. It was a complete waste of time. I enjoyed Martin in earlier films, but not this one. Same for Queen Latifah, she was excellent in Chicago and in Set it Off she was good too, but this role was horrid.

I mostly credit the failure to the bad writing of the script. I feel strongly you can't save a formulaic, unfunny script with decent actors, this movie as a case in point. Still, all involved should have been wise enough to not participate in this film. I am just amazed that something so bad can get greenlighted, made, released theatrically, and promoted.

Sentiment: negative
I don't know if this exceptionally dull movie was intended as an unofficial sequel to 'The French Connection", but it does have many of the same drawbacks: the script is so confusing that the viewer remains uninvolved and feels left out of the picture, and the direction is so cold, so lacking in energy, that even the great chase sequence can't liven things up. (*1/2)

Sentiment: negative
Clever psychosexual drama about a wounded Union soldier (Clint Eastwood) who seeks refuge in an isolated Confederate school for young women during the Civil War. Slowly, Eastwood begins to seduce every girl in sight, until the tables are turned and he becomes the pursued in an unsettling, gothic-toned finale. Never has a film been so deliciously erotic yet disturbingly macabre at the same time.

This is undoubtedly Eastwood's finest hour (those who tune in for "Dirty Harry" will indeed be surprised), while the rest of the cast gives uniformly superb performances. Try to see the film on video, as television prints usually delete crucial flashback scenes between Geraldine Page and Patrick Culliton.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was excellent, a bit scary, but excellent at that. For those of you that have heard of columbine and know the story, it gives you a idea of what and why these kids did what they did. In the back of your mind you know that people think of this stuff, but you never realize just how bad it is, and this movie makes you realize. It's seriously that good. It also makes you think twice before you make fun of someone that's for sure. I read a book on the columbine massacre and it made me think, this movie makes me worry and scares me to death. On the downside it's like a how to kill someone guide for serial killers. I recently received a threat, and I blew it off thinking nothing of it, but after this movie I think you should take everything seriously. Some people are crazy and you never truly know which they are, so take it seriously and don't under estimate someone.

Sentiment: positive
Wait... wait... wait... wait... wait... wait..... WHAT!? This movie is terrible, absolutely terrible. 1. The only reason Kiefer Sutherland is on the cover is to sell it to Kiefer fans, only to have their hearts broken. He kills one guy, gets shot, and dies before half the movie is over, not to mention he was only in the first 10 min and then disappeared until the point which he died...WHY put him on the cover if his character BLOWS. 2. Where are the EPIC battle scenes promised in the preview on the back cover? 3. It was way too confusing, i mean whats up with the girl? She had to narrate the movie to TRY to get our attention, she failed! 4. If Kiefer dies in a movie..... it fails. Now I am going to go watch 24..... THIS MOVIE FAILS!

Sentiment: negative
A `Wacky Chick' flick. A beauty contestant winds up dead and the Usual Suspects are rounded up. Another entry in the vein of the Texas Cheerleader, this is an average example of its type.

Yasmine Bleeth turns in her usual wholesome girl performance, and Jill Clayburgh does a good job as her stressed-out slightly obsessed mom.

Some mildly funny moments listening to the vapid self-serving PR coming out of contestants' mouths. (`I'd like to own a restaurant so I can give left-over food to the homeless.')

You have to ask yourself what people are using for brains when they think a cheerleader spot or beauty crown is worth killing for!



Sentiment: negative
I have just read the lead comment for this film that is on the front page with the voting results and cast run down.

Why is it that some people can not take a film for what it is supposed to be.

This film is supposed to be a light hearted, tonge in cheek, family comedy, things to make the kids laugh and things for the adults, and that is exactly what this film does.

I laughed my nuts off at this film, I thought Carey put in a great performance and the whole film (if watched at Christmas) really give you a bit of festive cheer

So to all of you film reviewers stop trying to sound like film students and knock every film because it is not "Taxi Driver" or "The Godfather" and take films for what they are supposed to be, entertainment!!

Sentiment: positive
Jennifer Jason Leigh and Mare Winningham are a good match portraying vastly different siblings, but only Winningham is able to bring something convincing or substantial to her role. Leigh, playing bar-band singer and alcoholic Sadie Flood, constantly leans on older sis Georgia, an acclaimed folk singer in the Joni Mitchell mold. Perhaps due to her double duties as co-producer on the film, Leigh seems to have boxed herself into a corner: she isn't credible as a singer and, even if this is intentional, gives herself far too much screen-time at the microphone. Probably hoping for a tour-de-force, Leigh is wire-drawn and nervous and jagged; however, we simply do not see any talent within this character (Leigh is obviously a solid actress, but she makes decisions here that wall us off from her). If Sadie had even the slightest bit of charisma or appeal, we might be able to buy into the concept that she gets the (small) breaks that she does. As it is, the likelihood of her ever getting up on stage is slim. Director Ulu Grosbard crafts a few intense dramatic sequences, and the editing at the finale juxtaposes Sadie's bar performance with Georgia's sold-out arena show--both singing the same song--and it's a sadly nuanced moment...but really, what's the point? *1/2 from ****

Sentiment: negative
Michael Callan plays a smarmy photographer who seems, nonetheless, to be regarded as a perfect "catch" by any woman that runs across him; could this have anything to do with the fact that he also co-produced the film? He's a "hero" whom it's very difficult to empathize with, so the movie is in trouble right from the start. However, it's troubles don't end there. It has the production values of a TV-movie (check out that head made of clay or something, near the end), and the ending cheats in a way that I can't reveal, in case anyone wants to see the movie (highly unlikely). Let's just say that the killer knows more than we were let to know he knows. (*1/2)

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the most insipid, lackluster, unoriginal, and pointless movies ever made! It almost feels like everyone involved in this project didn't even try to make an appealing movie. This is nothing more than a continuation of a tiresome series of films that attempt to cash in on the success of Smokey and the Bandit, which I think is the best film of them all. As for this waste of film stock, Burt Reynolds sleepwalks his way through the entire movie, Jim Nabors is wasted, the other actors aren't given very much to do, the car races are obviously stock footage, the humor is uninspired, and many of the scenes are more dull and lifeless than staring at a wall for two hours. "Stroker Ace" is simply a superfluous film with nothing unique or distinctive about it.

Sentiment: negative
Don't listen to the prissy critics who are probably bitter gamers still sore from the roasting Silverman infamously gave them at Spike TV Video Game Awards a couple of months ago, "The Sarah Silverman" is wonderfully bizarre, surreal, immature, ridiculous and would fit rather nicely in a Adult Swim line-up. If Silverman tones down the juvenile "doody" jokes and emphasizes the darker, meaner undercurrent the show is so far just hinting at, we could have one of the greatest cult comedies since the cancelled "Strangers With Candy". But just from watching the pilot, its just solid, not outstanding, offbeat dark comedy/musical but with huge potential. 

Silverman has created a hilarious child-woman of a character - a prettier, younger, Jewish American Princess version of the late great Jerri Blank and the show features one of the most unconventional, non-stereotypical portrayals of a gay couple I have ever seen on television. Early reviews are suggesting the next couple of episodes surpass the pilot so I can't wait to see how this show unfolds.

Sentiment: positive
I just watched it last night and it was great.I can see why some ppl have ill feelings towards it from a rugby fan and maori culture point of view but other than that I have no idea what's so negative about it. The movie is great. It has a lot of heart. Very inspiring and encouraging to all ages. Great family movie! They did a pretty good job considering that it was a budget movie. I love movies based on true stories/events. I was raised around rugby all my life, it is a great game but I was never really taken to it because (please forgive me if I offend anyone, nothing personal this is just how I saw it) I thought, their trainings are not as ruthless or hard, the players are not as disciplined and don't seemed as serious like other sportmen and it looked like it's all just muscle and blooming tackling each other etc. But after watching Forever strong, I was like, wow! I was proud! It did good things for rugby (well it changed my view of rugby) and also the New Zealnd Haka. I actually cried. I am not even New Zealander and I was proud of their culture. Didn't even know what the chant meant until this movie. The movie is NOT about rugby techniques or rugby, it's not even about New Zealand All Blacks or the Haka or etc......Mother of pearls!!!!! hahaha SHUX!

So to all you beautiful negative ppl, You are missing the point! I am sure if they had the means, it would have been better, the haka is in there because that was part of Highland Rugby culture, tradition or what ever you want to call it. 

So any new members on this site such as myself, please don't be put off by those negative comments. See it for yourself! Must see movie! There is a lot you can learn from this movie, ppl of all ages. It definitely makes you want to be a better person and be humble! This movie reminded me of a lot of things that I already know and was raised with but I kinda lost along the way! Loved it! Happy reading ppls and All the best!

Muawha!

Sentiment: positive
I'm sure the film contains certain gaps in logic, but I was so enthralled by it that I really didn't care. The movie plays out like a fun, lighthearted teen romp combined with a Schwarzenegger-type action flick. It's packed with action, packed with excitement and has some humorous moments as well. Sean Astin is fun to watch, and I haven't seen Louis Gossett, Jr. since I saw "Diggstown" in theaters. He is a fine, underrated actor and I love watching him on screen. I just wonder what he's doing now. Unfortunately, he might be starring in a lot of those direct-to-video flicks. Hopefully, my assumption is wrong. Anyway, this is a fun, edge-of-your-seat thriller and I definitely suggest you check it out. 

My score: 7 (out of 10)

Sentiment: positive
yeah right. Sammo Hung already acted in the main role in 1983's "Zu Warrios from the Magic Mountain". Now, 2001, he does it again with "Zu Warriors". But this time, he finally does it right. You seldom see him in wuxia, more often in classic eastern or crime slapstick. But this role simply does fit him! The ancient Chinese legend about zu mountain is not often represented in movies (as far as I know about movies translated for the west). Although, the legend contains a vast of interesting stories and possibilities. Straight said: you haven't seen a story alike yet in a modern movie! And that makes it so great! And wow: all the colors plus the enormously deep, right-into-the-heart going story makes you fall for this movie in an instant. The first time I watched it, I had to watch it again instantly, and I did. OK true, I didn't understand all of it the first time. But that makes it only better! You know, you didn't understand all of it, because there is so much spice in it! Therefor it is a pleasure for one self to watch it over and over again. And yeah, it grows deeper in your heart, the more often you watch it.

Summary: A story to love, characters you cry with, and truly: a movie you never forget! -- Editors note: well, I think I must watch it right now again :D

Sentiment: positive
MY DINNER WITH JIMI is a glimpse at Howard Kaylan's giddy and vertiginous ride to fame with his 60's Folk-Rock band, The Turtles. The Turtles were kind of a 'second tier' act during the sixties, but the film clearly demonstrates that they could eat, drink, and party with the Titans of Hippie Culture. And, not only that, they had the musical chops to back it up. Many of the stellar acts of the era are seen as they interact with the band at work and at play. This provides my only complaint about the film. Almost from the beginning of the movie, one sees that it is nearly impossible to find actors who can convincingly impersonate such recognizable stars. Too often during the film, I felt that I was watching an engaging exhibition of phony wigs and mustaches. But, if you are a fan of the music of The Turtles, or The Swinging 60's, in general-this might be the film for you. And, don't forget to view The Extras. There is a very funny (and informative) bit by band members, Mark Volman and Howard Kaylan, about their disastrous experiences with managers and agents.

Sentiment: positive