DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I LOVED GOOD TIMES with the rest of many of you. I love reading INTELLIGENT and INSIGHTFUL commentary. The writers on THIS show were fantastic and the Actors were beyond TALENTED. To answer Strawberry22 (the neatest commentary to the other superior and positive commentary)...What happened was that James was killed in an accident (I believe I remember that it was a trucking accident or car accident) and it was the saddest episode (when it first aired and I was a tiny thing...it was so sad to me..).

Florida and the Children actually get out of the projects and EVEN become neighbors with Willona (Wilnona) and that is how the very last show ended.

ALL of the children achieved their dreams and found opportunity in each of their dreams. It was a wonderful ending and I cried because I was happy for them and the show seemed so realistic that I actually believed in their fate. I hope that this kind of ending rings true in actually for many.

A great show and many other great shows followed including Benson and The Jeffersons. This was an awesome period for African-American television and the best writers were awesome at that time. TV LAND is Awesome for the memories and I just LOVE it because I cannot STAND the junk that we are watching today. SOMEBODY...bring back the 1970s and 1980s quickly...your intelligent viewers are a dying breed out here and we need better material.

Love, a TV LAND original sitcom junkie of the 70s and 80s (as they sing in "ALL in the Family"...those were the days......

Sentiment: positive
Everything about this show is terrible. Its premise even sets itself up to get cheap laughs with bad writing. A "disfunctional family"-theme has already been used too many times, most notably by the Simpsons, which is an excellent show with great writing and many laughs. Meanwhile, Family Guy has about five minutes of story in each episode, with tons of celebrity jokes and random flashbacks thrown in. Now, if this was original or funny, sure, I'd think it was clever. But no, it's not funny at all. In fact, the only reason the episodes are like this is because it is the easiest way to effortlessly crank out episode after episode of this junk. Much of this show is unoriginal, and what is original is just lame. It is also amazingly crude and irreverent, which again can be fine if it's still intelligent. Animation isn't everything either, but from an artistic point of view, this show fails also, proving yet again that Family Guy strives for as many cheap jokes and easy shortcuts as possible. People enjoy this show, and I don't really care, because people can enjoy anything they want, no matter how much it aims for the lowest common denominator. But no, I don't recommend this, especially for anyone who wants to someday study film or become a writer. This is cheap entertainment that aims low and has found success in this. The fact that this is so successful says bad things about America.

Sentiment: negative
This movie really woke me up, like it wakes up the main male character of this bravely different movie from his life slumber.

This guy John (Ben Chaplin) leads his mediocre safe life of a bank teller in a small provincial English town, until the stunningly gorgeous, wild, girl-to-die-for Nadia (Nicole Kidman), ordered by email from Russia, enters his life to become his beloved wife, by Johns plan. However a glitch turns up - Nadia does not speak a word of Johns language. Although calm and emotionless on the outside, John becomes so interested in beautiful Nadia that instead of using the full refund policy of the matching service, he buys her a dictionary to start the communication process.

What happens henceforth in the plot really shakes poor John from his slumber of a decently-paid safe-feeling clerk into a decision-making decently thinking action figure, giving the viewer a subliminal message "you would have probably acted likewise".

Kidman, Cassel & Kassovitz make a great team acting Russians and they are almost indistinguishable from the real thing, "almost" only due to the slight accent present in their Russian dialogues, however slight enough to amaze a native Russian by the hard work done to get the words sound right. Nicole Kidman proves her talent once again by playing a character quite different from the previous roles, at least from the cultural background.

The pace of the film is fast and captivating, and you certainly are not ready to quit watching when the end titles appear, you rather feel that you're in the middle of the plot, and are left with a desire to see the sequel as soon as it comes out.

My advice is to go out and get this film immediately and watch it and enjoy. To sum it up, it has an unusual plot, great acting, and ideas below the surface. Like the idea of the "rude awakening" from the artificial safe routine life of a wheel in a Society's machine, the life which members of the Fight Club were so keen to quit and the machine of which Pink Floyd sings ("Welcome to the machine!"). I bet that in the end, John was rather off with Sophia on their way to the unknown than not having met her at all.

Thank you, writers, for the great story, and everyone else for this great movie! Please make a sequel! And you can stage it whereever and name the location whatever, because the authenticity of the place is irrelevant to the 99.9999 percent of the potential viewers, I am sure of it.

Sentiment: positive
this movie scared me so bad, i am easily scared though so its no big thing but this movie was scary and whoever wasnt scared by this movie, im surprised because everyone i know said it was scary, i hope everyone sees it, but dont see it with the lights off like i did....

Sentiment: positive
The dehumanising effect of war is a much-studied subject in the movies; as is the equally dehumanising, but potentially life-saving, dehumanising effect of military training. Joel Schumacher's 'Tigerland' follows the standard template, we see men treated like dirt but emerging as soldiers, with a degree of mutual respect for their commanding officers, and judgement is reserved on whether such an extreme process can be considered justified; as is judgement of the merits of the war for which they are being trained (typically, as here, Vietnam). But 'Tigerland' has an interesting take, by centring its account on a cocky dissident named Bozz (played outstandingly well by Colin Farrell), who understands that all power governs ultimately by consent, and the lack of awareness among the powerless of their own complicity. Around this character, a taught, gripping plot has been constructed, and it's also a plus that the action never leaves America (whereas Stanley Kubrick's 'Full Metal Jacket', to name just one other film of a similar type, lost focus once the action shifted to Asia). Although this is not a film of staggering originality, it's supremely well done and captivating viewing throughout: the best film from this director that I've seen, and among the very best of its genre.

Sentiment: positive
There are plenty of comments already posted saying exactly how I felt about this film so Ill keep it short.

"The Grinch" I thought was marvellous - Jim Carrey is a truly talented, physical comedian as well as being a versatile clever actor (in my opinion). Mike Myers on the other hand gets his laughs by being annoying. I used to like him very much in his "Waynes World" and "So I Married an Axe Murderer" days - but Ive never been fond of Austin Powers and "the Cat In The Hat" has just finished me off. 

This film was horrible - the gags were horrible! inappropriate for children not only in adult content but in the fact that some of them were so dated they havent amused anyone for 50 years! The plot was messy, messy, messy! Its a shame really because the children were very likeable as was "Mom". They probably could have picked a better villain than Alec Baldwin - but he could have pulled it off if it weren't for Myers ugly, revolting over-acted portrayal of the Cat.

I mean - did Myers even glance at a script? Was one written? The other actors seemed to have one - but the Cat just seemed to be winging it!

On the other hand I would like to mention that the sets and props were marvellous!!! But unfortunately they cant save this film.

Poor Dr Seuss - the man was a genius! Dont ruin his reputation by adapting his work in a such a lazy, messy way!!!

1/10

Sentiment: negative
Millie is a sap. She marries a rich guy named Maitland and they have a child. She then catches him cheating on her and divorces him...but lets him keep the kid she claims to love. Back then in the early 1930s, she would have been entitled to hefty spousal and child support but lets the guy off amazingly easy...with no support...what a sap! Later, when she has a boyfriend and life seems pretty good, he turns out to ALSO be a cheat! Wow, does she have a hard time picking men.

As a result of these bad relationships, Millie changes. Now she's a wild party girl--doing everything she can to distract herself from her hard luck. Suddenly, many years pass. Millie's daughter who she left early on in the film is now 17 and oddly fashions haven't changed one bit. An old friend of Millie's (yes, it's another evil man!) is now pretending to be the daughter's friend, but he has lecherous designs on her. Millie promises him that if he touches the girl, she'll kill him. Take a wild guess what happens next! 

Overall, the film is a confusing and often bizarre mess--a bit like "Madam X" but much, much less focused. So often Millie's motivations and actions seem to make little sense. And, the film seems to have a little of everything tossed into it--so long as it substantiates the notion that all men are pigs. Unusual but not particularly good.

Sentiment: negative
I completely understand WHY this movie was made. Silence of the Lambs was an incredible film - a gruesome thriller with a superb story and high jump-factor....

What I don't understand is why THIS movie was made... and why Anthony Hopkins agreed to reprise his role as Hannibal the Cannibal in this terrible and dissatisfying film.

There's no possible way to spoil the movie any further than going to see it could, but for those of you who prefer to waste your money, DON't READ ON. The film is absolutely horrible. It's so bad that the transition from Jodie Foster to Julianne Moore becomes a non-issue. 

The only way to truly enjoy the film is to set your watch and leave the theatre exactly two hours into the film, because up until that point, it's quite an interesting thriller. The reparte between Moore and Hopkins is comparable to Hopkins and Foster, and the performances by the other characters are pretty good. But literally at the two hour mark, the film degrades into nothing but a cheesy D-grade horror flick...it's sick, and it's stupid and almost like the crew ran out of filming time, and threw together an ending in one day of filming.

Initial buzz over the Thomas Harris' book's unsatisfying and bizarre ending led director Ridley Scott to order a re-write... and, honestly, having seen the film AND read the book's finale, I don't know which is worse.

Please - don't waste your money OR time on this film, unless you're prepared to leave EXACTLY at the two hour point, because that's the ONLY way you'll feel satisfied about the saga of Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter... continuing the mystery that made the first film, and the wait for this one, so great.

Sentiment: negative
Back in 2004 I saw "True", Tom Tykwer's contribution to Paris Je T'aime. When I saw it I loved it and became thrilled. It became my favorite short film and made me appreciate the format so much. Of course I wanted to watch the whole film, and I would even check who was attached, etc.

Yesterday I finally saw it, courtesy of the internet.

First of all I must say that it looks AWESOME. The photography is BEAUTIFUL in every short and shot, at the worst being nothing special - but still brilliant and clear. Later I read the trivia here, and maybe it's how scanning in 6K gives more justice to all the DP's work. My special favorites are the "Quais de Seine" first scene (that sunlight!), the Sin City-esquire (but better for me) "Quartier de la Madeleine", and "14th Arrondisement" - but you know, what the hell I like them all: "True" or "Faubourg Saint-Denis" still makes me nervous with those brilliant colours (my eyes, they tremble!) and "Quartier Latin" is gold imprisoned on silver. Beautiful.

Yes, these are some BEAUTIFUL short films.

Now let's get onto the content. I very much (and I mean VERY MUCH) like the eclecticism that is so successfully felt. You never have have the same themes or treatment between two shorts, and I think the formula is restrictive enough to let all these artists explore beautiful and deepening things inside the shorts. I loved coming from a simple love story into a crazy-Chinese-musical-in-Paris-with-Barbet-Schroeder into a social commentary into a terror comedy into a humble monologue. I love surprises! And this film has them! It's great they took a chance to let all these director's flesh out things that are not usual in mainstream cinema (which I have come to heavily despise). It's not heavily experimental, but I can breath the breathing space these people had.

I like the small time and I love the acting. I love the simplicity and I love the love. I like the simple feelings and the beauty and the eclecticism and in general it's a film that is very very very nice to see, alone or with someone. To simply feel. It left me feeling very good.

There is something about the earnestness in it... it's so frank...

What I didn't like? Well, for me there are two shorts that aren't exactly the best - "Quais de Seine" (which is good natured, sure, and maybe even necessary, but feels too much like a commercial?) and "Père-Lachaise" that even though I love the acting, I felt it's themes were forced. But that of course, is just me. "Tour Eiffel" I also didn't love but I think is probably because of my very different sensibility from that of Sylvain Chomet? I don't know if this film has a special interest for people who already know the actor's and directors, and so they can delight in their interaction, in the surprises (look out for Alexander Payne in a funny role) and basically in "what will this director do with this?" great question. I enjoyed it very much in that way.

I repeat now: Most shorts I loved and all of them together form a beautiful and energetic mix. I definitely recommend it. Definitely!!! So, watch it if you like Eclectic Beautiful Love!

Sentiment: positive
A remake of Alejandro Amenabar's Abre los Ojos, but this time with a living, breathing mask as a lead. For the dubious advantage of an English sound track, we endure Tom Cruise's soulless performance, as usual, with zero depth. Yes, the character is identified with his persona, but we usually are given some character underneath that to hold our interest. His empty posturing negates any erotic energy that could have been between his character and Cruz or Diaz.

There is an acting exercise that involves using masks to free the actor to enrich his presentation of character by verbal and body language means. Cruise's masking only painfully emphasizes his inadequacy as an actor. Do see the 1997 original Amenabar Open Your Eyes!

Sentiment: negative
Jeux d'enfants or how the film was wrongly translated into English Love me if You Dare is a film made by stupid people and about stupid people. I just don't know how I could expect something worth a look from a film with such plot: Two stupid ignorant kids make a bet that each of them will do something (certainly extremely idiotic) to prove to each other (wtf?) that they are "cool dudes". I know that i exaggerated some aspects but that is what the entire film is about. They grow older...and instead of realizing that they are just a couple of alienated weirdos continue to perform their crazy things, thinking that they are great people.

One could expect such a film from Hollywood, but France? It is even more offensive to watch the film from the country which created Amelie a couple of years ago, which, btw, the film tries to look like but is far, extremely far away from.

Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.

Sentiment: negative
If a movie can't hold your interest in the first 25 minutes, it's over as far as I'm concerned. This concept that you have to simply deal with a slow first third of a movie and be rewarded later is nonsense. A good movie has to start and end strong. It all seem interesting and some decent shots and lots of promise, but ultimately muddled and irrelevant. There are so many other movies from Asia to watch, many of which I am sure most of you have not seen, that I would really skip this one and look elsewhere. Why exactly does IMDb require a 10 line minimum for reviews? I said my piece and I hope this helps a few of you move on to the next film.

Sentiment: negative
Valliant effort to use a mining catastrophe as a vehicle to pronounce this director's distaste for war. The audience not only learns a great deal about early mining rescue procedures but, we learn that Europeans at the interval between WWI and WWII, had concerning pacifists(for lack of a better term). The speeches given by both representatives of each country at the end of the film, are inspiring given the time. Although the revised edition, through the transfer technology of early foreign films, "cuts-off characters heads" at times, this film holds it's own in many different aspects. Character analysis, lighting techniques, historical content and a scenario that has tested and inspired many a writer and filmmaker.

Pabst went on to Direct and put to screen Weil & Brecht's "Three Penny Opera", starring the original star, Lotte Lenya.

Sentiment: positive
There are good movies, and there are bad movies, and then there's Moscow Zero, a film so utterly bad it makes spending a month in solitary with an insurance salesman an attractive entertainment alternative.

With an incomprehensible plot about the gates of Hell opening within a labyrinth of tunnels under Moscow, the film is a mess of repetitive and nonsensical shots of a little girl running through tunnels, red lights floating about, and strange wall shadows, none of which serves to mount any fear or tension, but instead elicits the reaction of "here they go again with the girl (or lights)" from the viewer.

Directed by María Lidón, who for reasons I can only conclude as shame, was billed as Luna, the movie stars Vince Gallo as Owen, an American priest who travels to Moscow in search of Sergei (Rade Serbedzija), a friend and colleague who has gone missing in the tunnels. He enlists the help of a series of locals who, with the exception of Oksana Akinshina, are all portrayed by Spanish actors trying with limited success to inflect Russian accents.

Along the way they cross paths with members of some sort of underground leather-coated religious mafia headed by a portly Val Kilmer, whose career seems to be in such free fall that he's resorted to appearing in dreck like this, and henchman Sage Stallone (Sly's son), who seems to have been cast merely so the Stallone name can be included in the film's marquee.

Apart from watching the troupe try to navigate their way through the tunnels with the aid of a comically drawn map, and repetitive shots of them being followed or eluded by a pale faced young girl, not much else goes on throughout. Dialogue routinely switches between English and Russian, with actors frequently taking turns in each language, and entire conversations are uttered half in one and half in the other with the only apparent reason being they felt like it, adding a frustrating dimension for the viewer, over and above trying to figure out the crazily cobbled together story.

About the only thing Moscow Zero gets right, however, is its title, which could only have rendered a more accurate description of this movie if the word Moscow had been omitted.

Sentiment: negative
Pacino, and Maconadump really hit the mark with this stinker. I swear, I am an avid movie goer and fan. I have been a fan of most of the people in this abortion at one time or another. Until now. The story-crap The acting- crap(Rene Ruso-Major League was good) The plot-crap The subplot-garbage The teenage attempts to relate to sports betting-junk

I have vowed to watch Romy and Michelle's High School reunion 2 times a day for the next seven days as my punishment for not turning this colostomy bag of a movie off after 10 minutes. I was out of town for a seminar, and this pile of mung cost me $9.99, and 2 hours. I have been cheated. This director should be in jail for fraud.

Get with me if you have other review questions. I am always right.

Sentiment: negative
Watching "Speak Easily" is painful for fans of Buster Keaton. Seeing such a phenomenal writer, actor, comic, director, and stunt man subjected to this humiliating spectacle is like seeing a Picasso used as a drop cloth, or perhaps more like seeing the finest Camembert adulterated with whey solids and processed into Cheez-Whiz. 

Keaton is ill-cast as Professor Post, whose overblown vocabulary is the only thing keeping him from saying, "Tell me about the rabbits, George." (Post would have said something like, "Kindly inform me as to the status of the small mammals in the family Leporidae of the order Lagomorpha, kind sir, who I believe is primarily addressed with the epithet 'George'.") When Keaton created his own characters, they might be situationally clueless but they weren't stupid. They were quick studies and became masters of their worlds. Not so with Post, who never stops stumbling and bumbling and who who has no more control of his destiny than a bilge rat had of the Titanic. And while Keaton's original characters had a charming naiveté and innocence, Post comes across as such a profound sexual retardate that if he ever did become physically aroused, he'd put an ice bag on the swelling and seek medical help. 

There are a couple of small, redeeming moments, such as Keaton's attempts to get rid of the vampish Thema Todd or his suggestion as to appropriate attire for a Greek dance, but it's just not worth enduring the entire film to see them.

If you're a fan of bad movies, get drunk and watch "Speak Easily" with friends, a la "Mystery Science Theater 3000". But other than that, stick with the silents. Let them be 100% of what Buster Keaton is remembered for.

Sentiment: negative
OK end of the story is - all the kills were a joke on the main character and no one is actually dead. Yes I know Cry Wolf did it and did it well, but this isn't "Cry Wolf", it's "Scream Crap"! Even though the "characters" don't apparently die, we SEE them get stabbed to death (and other ways they are killed) even though these "kills" do NOT take place as anyone can see them. Mr. Director, if you're gonna show people getting killed, someone needs to see it, if they're off camera and the character getting faked killed is alone it doesn't work - and until the end I liked a couple of scenes but your end ruined the whole thing.

The acting is horrid (especially the kid at the beginning who really thinks he tricked his friends into believing they were playing with his dead grandmothers brains) the script is less-than half baked (though if you're half baked you might like the movie) the only reason I gave this movie a 3 is because a) they actually made something b) they got it released and c) they shot on film Yes you read right, they wasted (at least) $5,000 on film stock for this crap. Sad, if they'd shot DV they'd had some cash for a better cast and another writer to go through the script and make it good.

I admire the fact that the director made something (as most don't) but HATWE the fact that he comes on IMDFB talking about how "original" the movie is.

Avoid the movie if it means buying it to see, if a friend has it, it might be a funny movie to borrow.

Sentiment: negative
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** After two so-so outings ("Magnum Force" and "The Enforcer"), Dirty Harry seems to have regained his stride in "Sudden Impact," a gripping thriller that wisely plays to its strengths: the charisma of Clint Eastwood, who also directed, and a story that spends just enough time on exposition and reserves its energy for the big scenes.

For once, the case takes Harry outside his native San Francisco (where he's again in trouble with his superiors for his "shoot first, ask questions later" tactics), to the hamlet of San Paulo. There, (WARNING: Potential spoiler) a group of lowlifes is being gruesomely murdered, one at a time, by a woman whom they gang-raped years earlier, and whose sister has been in a state of catatonia ever since the attack.

The killer is portrayed by Sondra Locke, and she makes the character of Jennifer Spencer an interesting mix of compassion and cold-bloodedness. Locke's cold eyes and frosty voice, when either trying to comfort her hospitalized sister or dispensing vengeance toward the rapists, are very effective in painting a portrait of a woman wronged whose years of suffering and rage are now beginning to bear deadly fruit.

The rapists are a despicable lot, especially the leader, who has "psycho nutjob" practically stamped on his forehead, and a lesbian who seems almost one of the guys, despite her anatomical inability to participate. The flashback scenes, while not graphically explicit, are nightmarish enough, and clearly intended to make the audience cheer for Jennifer as she kills her assailants.

Some will dismiss "Sudden Impact" as trash: a mindless, manipulative revenge tale. On a certain level this is true, but it's well-done trash. What works to the movie's advantage is the strength of the Sondra Locke performance, giving us a complex character whose wounds are more visible in her paintings than in her gestures or speech. What we have here is an action movie with a point of view.

You can take or leave the idea that some wrongs deserve to be punished by any means necessary, but as the mystery behind the slayings becomes clear to Harry (a realization that, wisely, is not spelled out with dialogue), he is presented with a choice -- what to do about a killer whose motivations he can sympathize with but whose conduct he is bound by law to not tolerate. This makes the story more interesting than the usual Dirty Harry fare.

The movie's other redeeming quality is Eastwood's direction. This is, after all, a Dirty Harry movie, and Eastwood knows the character better than anyone else. The movie is directed with style and wit, and edited to give the action scenes a big payoff. Some of the best "Harry moments" in the entire series are here, including Harry's best-known line, "Go ahead -- make my day."

"Sudden Impact" is a movie that has the courage of its convictions in presenting a tale about a despicable crime and the brutal consequences that follow. It is also a riveting detective story, well made and well told. And it is certainly never dull. On those criteria, it succeeds tremendously.

Sentiment: positive
William Powell is Philo Vance in "The Kennel Murder Case," a 1933 film also starring Mary Astor, Paul Cavanagh, Eugene Palette, Helen Vinson and Ralph Morgan. A dog show in which Philo has entered his Scottish terrier Captain serves as the background for a locked room mystery with too many suspects. The mystery is very clever and the denouement both complicated and interesting. Since the talkies are still quite young, the camera work is a little static, but Michael Curtiz does a good job directing the action.

The supporting cast is excellent; the entire cast brings the film up a notch. Lots of actors have played Philo Vance, including Paul Lukas, Basil Rathbone, Wilford Hyde-White, Edmund Lowe, James Stephenson, Alan Curtis, Warren William and others. Powell played it the most (five times) and is the best fit for the role - very relaxed but serious at the same time. This was made before "The Thin Man" catapulted him to big stardom - he had spent about 12 years in film by then, beginning his career on stage in 1912 at the age of 20. A remarkable man, a remarkable screen presence and a remarkable actor who lived to be nearly 92. We're so lucky to have his films available on DVD and on TCM today. "The Kennel Murder Case" is a great story and a fun film - don't miss it.

Sentiment: positive
Here's a rare gem for those of you that haven't seen or most likely not even heard of this. During the 80s, Dennis Quaid was a hot commodity, but in the early 90s, Dennis Quaid disappeared from the scene. In 1993, he burst back onto the big screen with three movies, all of which unfortunately bombed. Two of those films I liked very much, and let me elaborate on one of them.

"Wilder Napalm" is a crazy flick about two brothers, Wallace (Quaid) and Wilder (Arliss Howard), whom are...fire starters: yes they have the power of pyrokinetics. 

Wilder has decided not to use his power anymore (for anything not useful anyway) after a fatal incident during his youth, where he and his brother blew up an abandoned house which killed a man who was inside unbeknownest to them. Nowadays, Wilder is a firefighter and is married to the wacky Vida (Debra Winger), who is under house arrest for, guess what, arson (see the movie to understand this better). Wilder also hasn't spoken to Wallace in 5 years, because Wallace set his hair on fire during his bachelor party.

Wallace loves his pyro power and uses it for amusement. He also runs a Carnival and is the head clown. When the Carnival comes to Wilder's town, Wallace decides to reunite with his brother and also to see Vida, whom which Wallace has been in love with! Vida's house arrest sees its end, but Wilder is preoccupied. So, Wallace steps in and the fun begins. Brother vs. brother...fighting fire with fire! 

Some great fireball throwing in this flick...eat your heart out, Drew Barrymore!

The film also has some really weird, yet funny elements, like Wilder's fire unit sings songs acapella during firefights and after wards. Jim Varney (globally known as 'Ernest') pops in as Wallace's redneck carnival buddy. "Wilder Napalm" is brilliantly shot...and cleverly put together...very off the wall and avant-guard.

Give this one a look...

Sentiment: positive
Aaliyah blows all the female cast members out of the water, including the official love interest Marguerite Moreau.

I would have loved to see this movie play out as Akasha's power trip. Aaliyah is simply electrifying whenever she is on the screen. She does sensual, beautiful and menacing to the power of 10. Watching her take on a bar full of vampires is a sight to behold.

Lena Olin is cast in the ungrateful role of "the older woman", which is hugely unjustified. She looks fantastic and at 46 (according to the IMDb) still looks stunning.

The story unfortunately is very limited plot wise, we've seen it all before, etc.

The most heart wrenching is Akasha's death scene, especially keeping in mind what happened to Aaliyah after filming.

All in all, a remarkable vampire movie.

Sentiment: positive
When I say " Doctor Who " you might conjure up an image of Tom Baker , or Jon Pertwee or maybe Peter Davison . When I say " James Bond " you`ll almost certainly conjure up an image of Sean Connery while a small handful of people may think of Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan . But when I say " Sgt Bilko " absolutely everyone will think of Phil Silvers . Unlike Doctor Who or James Bond the role belongs exclusively to one actor . And that`s the problem with this film version you`ll continually wish you were watching the old black and white show . In fact the whole idea of making a film version of BILKO without Silvers in the title role comes close to sacrilage

Sentiment: negative
Wow, I just saw this on T.V. as one of the "scary" movies they show around Halloween. Was this rated G? There wasn't really anything to make this movie scary, or worth watching. Also, other people say this is a spoof, but I don't think so. For a spoof, you need something called "humor". This low-budget crap-fest didn't have a shred of humor, and it didn't make much sense, either. You basically have a goofy looking monster (man in rubber suit) coming out of closets, killing people, I guess, since you never see the monster doing violence to anyone or any bloody aftermath. The spinning newspaper tells you that people were killed by the monster, so I guess that's good enough.

The military tries feebly to kill the monster, which isn't much larger than a man. They have very bad aim. Then the military FLEES! Wow, did this movie make the U.S. military look pathetic or what? The monster, while hard to kill, doesn't do much besides shuffle around and roar. Oh, and occasionally a second head pops out of its mouth and shrieks. It was a slightly interesting, yet a total Alien ripoff.

What was the deal with the scientist playing the Xylophone to attract the monster? It was hard to understand a lot of the dialog due to the poor sound quality. Also, why did the monster carry around the main wimpy guy for so long? Why didn't the monster go into the closet when it had a chance? Why do I insist on trying to make sense out of the senseless?

Sentiment: negative
Another great Tom Wilkinson performance punctuates "Separate Lies," a 2005 film also starring Emily Watson, Linda Bassett and Rupert Everett. Directed by Julian Fellowes, it's the story of a married couple, James and Ann Manning where the husband (Wilkinson) believes he and his wife (Watson) are happy together. An accident near their house on the night they have a party brings the police around. It is a hit and run that killed their maid Maggie's Bassett) husband. James becomes suspicious of a neighbor, Bill Bule (Everett) when he sees some damage on his car. He confronts Bule, who admits he did it and promises to go to the police the next day. When James arrives home, Ann is angry that he is making such a big deal out of it and states that she was driving the car. Of course, James then isn't so eager to rush to the police. She suggests that they call Bule and tell him their decision. "Oh, f___ Bule," James says. "Well, that's just it," Ann says. "I am f___ing Bule." James' devastation is just the beginning in this well-crafted drama. Without giving the plot away, this is a good example of how gender switching changes a story. Example of what I mean: Susan Smith drives her car into a lake and her children drown. She gets life in prison. What if the father had done it? The chair. You'd be surprised how often the outcome would be different. The same is true here - if it had been James having the affair and doing the subsequent activities, viewers might feel differently about the story. If Ann were in James' place, it would be shattering. As it is, it's tremendously sad.

Tom Wilkinson is heartbreaking as a man blindsided by the woman he adores, and Emily Watson does a beautiful job as Ann, who, once she frees herself from her lies - her involvement in the accident and the happy marriage - knows what she has to do. Rupert Everett as Bule is very effective - indolent, uppity and ultimately in need. Everyone here is very civilized in their dealings with one another, and no one is all good or all bad.

There are separate lies - James that his marriage is happy, Ann's as listed above - and there is one uniting lie - the accident, about which all parties keep quiet. It's enough for Ann that Maggie knows. In the end, all must deal with the separate lies that the single lie uncovered.

Brilliant film.

Sentiment: positive
Excellent movie about a big media firm and the goings on both on and off camera. Covering several years, the film centers on 3 upwardly mobile, young hopefuls, all striving for their place within the corporation. Well written dialogue, flawless acting, and a riveting story made for 2 hours of solid entertainment.

Sentiment: positive
The director, outfitted in chains and leather, warned the audience at the SF Frameline Film Festival Friday night that we were about to see an "experiental" film. Experimental? Leave the video camera on the back seat of the car, let the tape roll and edit in all the pointless dreck within eyesight. A meandering pastiche road show manqué that starts nowhere and takes the audience no place. The gratuitous violence that opens the movie drove more than one patron from the Castro theater. I would have left, too, but my cine-buddy needed a ride home and has this thing about seeing even the worse merde through to the end. By the time the lights came up the audience had thinned considerably. Tepid applause. Pro forma questions of the director who seemed pleased with the product. Avoid this film!

Sentiment: negative
Nightbreed is not only great, it is also unique, even taking into account other Barker's movies, which never lack originality. An amazing adaptation of a very interesting idea for a book. For the horror genre, it has quite a few of subtle symbolics and references. Certainly a lot of fun to have, a a bit to think about, if one cares to. And, not to forget, a nice music score. Well, the special effects, as usual, get old faster than anything, but that is probably the only drawback. I've just seen it again after ten years, and I still find it something to recommend.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is the worst thing ever created by humans. You think manos is the worst movie ever? It doesn't even come close to this garbage. I dont even know where to begin. The "russian" commander and the rebel chic are the worst "actors" ever to appear in a movie. They make the sister in troll 2 look like Meryl Streep. The goofy faces the chic makes while she's in kung fu training have to be seen to be believed. Then there is the oompa music during the prison break, the totally out of place love scene, the stupid song that plays during the out of place love scene, the fake castro, the fact that everybody has either a headband and/or a bandanna on some part of their body, the goofiest rape scene ever filmed, and the worst acting ever put on film. This movie deserves to be more well known among bad movie fans. Definitely the worst movie ever made.

Sentiment: negative
"Dressed To Kill", is one of the best thrillers ever made. Its dealings with sex and violence make this a film for adults. Brian De Palma, once again, proves why no other director can match his use of the camera to tell a story. He directs many scenes without dialog, and he tells much of his story, strictly through the use of his visuals, and Pino Donnagio's brilliant score. Filmed in Panavision, the film MUST be seen in widescreen, as De Palma uses the entire width of the film to tell his story. Cropped, on video, "Dressed To Kill", is barely the same movie. Solid performances from its cast, superb direction, and, perhaps, the finest film score ever written, make "Dressed To Kill" a must see.

Sentiment: positive
Opera (the U.S. title is terror at the opera) is somewhat of a letdown after some of Dario's other movies like Phenomena, Tenebre, and Suspiria. (i still can't find Inferno anywhere.) it's one of those movies that has a great first half but midway through it's like someone started slowly letting the air out of the screenplay and logic.

the basic plot involves a beautiful opera singer who is being stalked by a deranged obsessed fan. this killer begins killing people close to her in a most unique fashion. he binds and gags her and tape tiny sharp pins under her eyelids so if she tries to close her eyes she'll gouge out her eyes. this forces her to watch while the killer murders her acquaintances in typically brutal and gory Argento fashion.

unfortunately, about midway through the film becomes sluggish and illogical. (this is especially directed towards the killer's motivations. i still haven't completely figured out why he's such a nut.) the ending especially come out of left field in the worst possible sense.

but, for about the first hour or so this is some of Dario's best filmmaking and the camera work is breathtaking. too bad it couldn't maintain it through to the end.

rating:7

Sentiment: positive
Cut to the chase, this is one of the five worst films that I've ever seen.

Not that they didn't try. There was some decent writing with some elements of structure in there, a good cast, some good acting. I'm not sure where it went wrong, but it went horribly wrong.

Some of the elements may have been bad structure and no substantive story, a lot of overacting by the lead (who probably is much better when restrained), some bad directing and editing. I had enough at about an hour, tearing my hair out at about a hour and a half and very agitated at the hour and fifty minutes it ran. There was also an insincerity about it all, being that I went with someone who used to be a heroin addict. He was agitated that it glamorized something that had nothing good to it. That was bolstered by the pretty 17 year-old girl who was in love with the 30 year-old junkie.

And the frantic nature of the lead was a turn-off enough. There were clunky plot points that were an attempt at a structure, but the end result was listless and unending (with uneven time lines). The characters were colorful but to no end, which made me feel bad for the quality actors who you've just not seen enough.

Skip it. I assumed that this was a first-time director who was enamored by his own turds, but he has done this before. I'm puzzled how this and many other really bad ideas find someone who will actually give them money.

Sentiment: negative
What I expected: A rather lame overly-stereotypical portrayal of a sports-mad guy and an equally lame stereotypical portrayal of the gal who likes him yet suffers while being second banana to his overly zealous support for his favorite sports team.

What I got: An even-handed story where both guy and gal end up admitting -- to themselves and each other -- that they each have passions in their lives yet each can forgive the other to save the love they share.

Sounds sappy but with the nonstop humor and terrific performances this story works! Barrymore is classic Barrymore: that perfect blend of sweet, strong, and adorable. We expect that from her and she delivered.

But Fallon is the nice surprise in this film. He brings to the role the perfect blend of sports nut combined with the appreciation for the normal things in life, like caring about kids and his girlfriend. Fallon delivers his lines with subtle perfection. He can be caring ("You just ran across the field for me!") and in the same breath be obliviously blinded by his love for the Red Sox ("How did the grass feel? Kinda spongy?") at the same time. Fallon's portrayal "made" the movie. Hopefully, this movie marks the beginning of a better film career for Fallon, something beyond the over-the-top sophomoric humor typical of SNL alums (i.e. Will Ferrell).

In short, a movie that could have fallen victim to stereotypical male vs. female characters rose above that limitation and provided nonstop spot-on humorous lines, most delivered with brilliant subtlety by Fallon.

Hey, I saw this with my wife -- not a baseball fan -- and she loved it as much as I did. It's neither a "Guy Flick" nor a "Chick Flick". It's a terrific make-you-laugh flick. Go see it!

Sentiment: positive
This is without a doubt the worst movie I have ever seen. I say this without hyperbole, and believe me, I've seen a lot of bad movies. It's embarrassing and annoying that millions of dollars went into this film and that hundreds (thousands?) of craftspeople spent so much time working on what the writers and producers MUST have known would be a colossal failure.

When a 90 minute film feels this long, drawn out, boring, and incomprehensible, you know that something went wrong somewhere. Also, Jamie Kennedy (whose work I've enjoyed elsewhere) is simply terrible in this role; he was obviously never given a screen test, because no producer in their right mind would consider him entertaining in any way, especially in the guise of The Mask. Simply awful.

Personally, I can't wait to see the reviews by the major film critics, because I know they're do a better job than me at tearing this train wreck to shreds.

The producers of this film should be embarrassed, and more importantly, NEVER be allowed to make theatrical films again.

Sentiment: negative
December holiday specials, like the original Frosty, ought to be richly-produced with quality music and a wholesome, yet lighthearted storyline. They should have a touch of the mystical magic of the holidays. Basically, they should look, sound, and feel...well, "special" and they should have a decent and appropriate December holiday subtext.

So when I saw Legend of Frosty the Snowman in the TV listings, I got my kids (6 and 8) pumped up for it by telling them the story of the original Frosty and passionately relating how much I enjoyed it as a kid. As my wife and kids cozied up on the couch to watch the movie the expectations were high, but 10 minutes into it my kids were yawning and my wife and I were giving each other "the look" and rolling our eyes. After 35 minutes my kids were actually asking to go to bed -- I guess they were fed up with the insensitive language and pointless, disconnected segments. I was actually embarrassed about their (and my) disappointment with this movie.

Unfortunately, Legend of Frosty the Snowman is more like a bad episode of Fairly Odd Parents crossed with a worse-than-normal episode of Sponge Bob than a classic holiday movie. Don't get me wrong...those shows are fine and I like them as much as the next guy, but when I watch Fairly Odd Parents or Sponge Bob, my low expectations (for mediocre, off-color, zero subtext, mind numbing episodes) are always satisfied.

We picked out some good books and spent the rest of the evening reading together. A much better choice than the embarrassingly bad Legend of Frosty the Snowman.

Sentiment: negative
I've just seen this movie in a preview and I can only recommend to watch it. It was about 90 minutes long and when it was over I felt like it could go on for hours. The stories of the protagonists are so realistic and you feel really at home. The movie basically consists of dialogs but I wasn't bored a minute. 18 people of really different characters and each one of them acted out so well. I had to laugh, felt awkward, was sad and still felt happiness. All in all it is a movie that shows the different kinds of people in our society, the way they communicate and how love has changed and nowadays is handled as an economic thing. Dating becomes something that is similar to an audition. The whole audience loved it. So please watch it if there's a possibility. You'll love it!

Sentiment: positive
Last night, I got bored and decided to watch a movie called 'out kold' which I had once bought with a whole lot of other cheap movies from a videostore. Seemed like a good old action movie, so I took out the chips and coke and was ready for a relaxing evening. Well, the pain started right from the beginning. The main character is a boxer who is the nicest guy I have ever seen. As the good person he has to be nice of course, but he is just a pussy! That totally doesn't fit with a boxer that has 28 KO's and starts working for a pimp to earn some extra money. Even nice guys can still be cool. Well, then came his first fight while he was working for this pimp. Every punch was clearly missed and that became even more annoying because the sound effect weren't synchronised with the punches. Then there is this totally worthless acting of the whole cast, and you have enough reasons to leave this movie for what it is. I gave it a 1 because I have never seen such a bad movie.

Sentiment: negative
Rarely have I seen a work of literature translated so badly to the screen. The hysterical cast of b-movie and sitcom extras simply make the characters seem like bad Jewish stereotypes. The worst of all is Melissa Gilbert, who you hate from scene one and never develop any sympathy for. Performances like this should be noted and used against actors who wish to work again. All in all, a seedy, low-budget made-for-TV film of the sort that gives made-for-TV films a bad name.

Sentiment: negative