DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Due to reading bad reviews and being told by friends that they couldn't believe how bad it was, I didn't go and see this film at the cinema. After watching it on DVD, I have to say I regret that now. I'm not saying it is brilliant, but I would venture to say that it is a good movie. I enjoyed it.

People have skulls thicker than Ned's helmet if they go to see a movie like this and expect it to be a documentary. If you read up the actual history behind most movies based on historical figures, there is usually a huge difference between the fact and the fictional portrayal. I don't think Ganghis Kahn has ever once been portrayed even remotely close to historical fact. What kind of man Ned Kelly actually was is a matter of debate, and quite passionate it seems. In spite of the efforts of governments and some historians, Ned Kelly has become a legend. Legends are stories, and stories say as much about those who tell and listen to them as they do about the actual figure himself. Ned Kelly has become such a popular identity because he does represent that aspect of Australian culture that doesn't trust or accept authority. A society in which there is no dissent or challenge to authority is crazier and more dangerous than any bushranger.

So not expecting this to be an accurate recreation of the historical Kelly gang, I actually found it a surprisingly unencumbered and refreshing movie. It was sentimental and romantic, but thankfully not anywhere as cheesy as it could have been; for my fellow Australians, watch 'The Lighthorseman' and you will see what I mean (it is a pity the way that story was treated so poorly). Perhaps the love affair business could have been forsaken for a bit more detail in other areas, such as the shooting of the troopers. Ironically, I actually enjoyed the movie because of that, because it would be those details that most of the focus on Ned's story would dwell. And they are the details of the story that are best discovered by reading the different viewpoints given by the various historians.

This movie was always going to have a hard time, having make a compromise of appealing to a global movie market (to pay the pills) and the legend as it means to Australians; perhaps a little of Ned's spirit is in this movie, because I think it rebelled against people's expectations, and unfortunately missed both targets. Fortunately it made for an enjoyable quirk of a film. For me it was an unexpected kind of movie about Ned, and that is why I liked it. Orlando Bloom's performance did a lot for the movie too - he really added something. I think he would have enjoyed being the monster instead of the pretty elf, for a change.

When you consider some other movies that are far worse than this one, your opinion of this movie should be reconsidered. Send me this on DVD for christmas rather than Croc Dundee or The Man From Snowy River anytime.

Sentiment: positive
One of the previous reviewers wrote that there appeared to be no middle ground for opinions of Love Story; one loved it or hated it. But there seems to be a remarkable distribution of opinions throughout the scale of 1 to 10. For me, this movie rated a 4. There are some beautiful scenes and locations, and Ray Milland turns in a fabulous job as Oliver's father. But the movie did not do a particularly compelling job of telling its story, and the story was not so unique as to warrant multiple viewings, at least, not for me. I may be a bit of a snob, but I tend to avoid movies with Ryan O'Neal -- I still haven't seen Barry Lyndon -- because most of them, but not all, are ruined for me by his presence. The lone exception is What's Up, Doc?, in which his straight performance is the perfect underlining for Barbra Streisand's goofball protagonist -- and, not coincidentally, he takes a shot at Love Story for good measure! McGraw and O'Neal tend to mug their lines, rather than act them.

This movie is notable for the beginning of one fine career: it was Tommy Lee Jones's first movie.

Sentiment: negative
Harvey Keitel gives a typically top-rate performance in one of his first-ever lead roles as brash, ambitious, uncompromising young staff producer Coleman Buckmaster, a real talented hot shot with a discerning "golden ear" and the son of a famous jazz pianist to boot. Coleman's eager to cut some tracks with the smokin' R&B outfit the Group (none other than Earth, Wind & Fire in their awesomely funky prime), but his rigidly commercial greedhead label A-Chord Records run by uptight, mob-connected middle-of-the-road square Jerry (a properly unhip Ed Nelson) wants him to record a hit single for the hideously insipid Carpenters-like pop pap trio the Pages, an allegedly squeaky clean bunch which includes smarmy pedophile step-dad Franklin (a perfectly vile Bert Parks), bitchy, neurotic daughter Velour (a fine, flighty turn by perky, comely brunette Cynthia Bostwick), and hedonistic smack addict son Gary (former 50's juvenile sitcom staple Jimmy Boyd). The extremely naive and idealistic Coleman must learn pronto how the music business truly works and play the lowdown dirty game as best he can or else he'll lose both the Group and his credibility.

Adopting an acrid, incisive, corrosively harsh and unsparingly biased script from syndicated columnist and rock journalist Robert Lipsyte, director Sig Shore (who's most famous for producing "Superfly") shows a decidedly cynical and unflattering depiction of the various bribes, pay-offs, broken promises, back-stabbings, duplicities and double-dealings which are an unpleasant, yet intrinsic part of the largely corrupt rock music business, with particularly thoughtful thematic asides concerning Art vs. Commerce, fighting to retain one's artistic integrity, and the then recent push to homogenize rock into bland, useless, creatively stagnant mainstream respectability. Moreover, this gritty, downbeat gem offers a rare fascinating, minutely detailed and wholly believable backstage glimpse at the recording process as recording booth console cowboy Coleman struggles gamely in his own words to "make chicken salad out of chicken s**t." Appearing in nifty bits are disc jockey and legendary "fifth Beatle" Murray the K as leering, lecherous DJ Big John Little (Velour bites his hand after Big John paws her thigh during a live on-air interview!), New York soul DJ and host of NBC's "Friday Night Videos" Frankie Crocker as his own jazzy'n'jivin' self, R&B singer-songwriter Doris Troy (she penned the lovely "Just One Look") as a church pianist, and tubby, bald-pated 70's blaxploitation favorite Charles MacGregor as a priest at a wedding. The rather poor sound and Allan Metzger's sloppy cinematography inadvertently add to the film's overall ragged, rough-around-the-edges documentary-style authenticity. Although technically a bit lacking, this movie overall still rates as one of the great, most bitterly pessimistic unsung behind-the-scenes rocksploitation gems from the 70's.

Sentiment: positive
If you love drive-in cheeze from the early '70s you will just love this one.How could you go wrong with a low budget film about bloodshed in a lunatic asylum? You can't! Crazy folks and sharp objects are always an entertaining combination.

The film looks like it was shot inside someone's house for about $320.65. For me that just ads to the fun of watching this type of stuff.The gore is a bit mild compared to others of this ilk,but there is enough to keep us bloodthirsty sickos (like myself)happy.Some horror films drag in parts and leave you waiting for something to happen.That's not the case here.The characters are entertaining enough to make every frame quite enjoyable.There is never a dull moment from start to finish.The mind melting climax at the end that is just unbelievable. I liked it so much that right after the end credits I watched it a second time.It's an absolute must see for any self respecting drive-in horror nut.

9.5/10 on the Drive-in-Freak-O-Meter...required viewing

Yea I love you..I DO love you...now take your Thorazine and put your clothes back on...please....8)

Sentiment: positive
"From C. Jay Cox, the writer of the hit comedy 'Sweet Home Alabama', comes a heartwarming and tender gay romantic drama that combines laughs, seduction, tears, and plenty of romance. The handsome Aaron (Steve Sandvoss), a Mormon missionary, travels door-to-door in Los Angeles spreading the word of his religion. Christian (Wes Ramsey), a cute West Hollywood party boy, goes from man-to-man without much commitment. Opposites attract when Aaron and Christian meet, and sparks begin to fly.

"Featuring two star-making performances from Sandvoss and Ramsey, the film also features a terrific supporting cast including Mary Kay Place, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and international screen legend Jacqueline Bisset," according to the DVD sleeve description. Not to mention some sweet vocalizations from Rebekah Jordan (as Julie), the stock sympathetic roommate. Debuting director Cox turns his otherwise ordinary "Latter Days" into a enjoyable and touching drama, due to some story surprises and an engaging team.

******* Latter Days (7/10/03) C. Jay Cox ~ Steve Sandvoss, Wes Ramsey, Jacqueline Bisset, Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Sentiment: positive
I am a huge Michael Madsen fan, so needless to say, i bought this movie without even renting it or anything... This movie was so horrible, i didn't even take it back to the store, i wouldn't want anyone else to be subjected to this human poison, i just threw it in the trash, never mind the money, it was worth the price to be able to throw it away. The acting wasn't that bad, it wasn't good or anything. The story was horrible, and the ending was something i despise. He was a broken man, alcoholic. his life was a bunch of junk. i thought his horse, peanuts, was an awful device to show his childhood innocence, a dog would have been much much better. i also hate religion, so this ending without a doubt angered me. Jesus heals all... i hate that i know people just like this that are huge Christians and catholics, and time will show that god doesn't heal all, or anything. It was a horrible movie, if u have the option to see it, pass, or better yet buy it, or rent it, and throw it in the garbage, and leave the coffee grounds on it in the morning

Sentiment: negative
This is a collection of documentaries that last 11 minutes 9 seconds and 1 frame from artists all over the world. The documentaries are varied and deal with all sorts of concepts, the only thing being shared is 9/11 as a theme (very minor in some cases). Some of the segements are weak while others are very strong; some are political, some are not; some are solely about 9/11, some simply use 9/11 as a theme to touch on human feelings, emotions and tragedies that are universal; some are mainstream while others are abstract and artistic). This film has not been censored in any fashion by anyone so the thoughts that you see are very raw and powerful.

This is a very controversial film, especially for conservative Americans. I think two segments might really tick off the right wingers (one from Egypt where a dead American soldier and a dead Palestinian bomber come back as spirits; another from UK which recounts the US-backed overthrow of Chile on Sept 11, 1973, which resulted in 50,000 deaths and horrible atrocities). The segment from Mexico was the most powerful, recounting the fall of the towers and the resulting death in vivid fashion (you have to see it to believe it).

Even though the final product is uneven, with some segments being almost "pointless", I still recommend this. It's very difficult to rank this film because the segments vary all over the place (some weak, some very powerful; ). I'm giving this a rating of 9 out of 10 simply because some segments were excellent and covered issues that usually get censored (Mexico segment, UK segment, Japan segment, Egypt segment).

Sentiment: positive
Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) pick-pockets Candy's (Jean Peters) wallet which contains an important microfiche that is intended for the Communist cause. She is being followed by 2 federal agents that are waiting to pounce once she hands the microfiche over to her contact. However, Skip steals the purse on the subway under everyone's noses and so starts a hunt for him by both the police and Joey (Richard Kiley) and Candy who want the microfiche back. Skip can only be traced through Moe (Thelma Ritter) who sells information on criminals. It is made clear to Skip that what he has stolen is important and both sides want the film, but he intends to hold out for a high price. This leads to Joey hunting after him and a conflict between Joey and Jean, who has fallen in love with Skip. Joey has a deadline to deliver the microfiche to his boss. 

Its a well-acted film and it has a good beginning that gets you involved straight away. Its a bit unrealistic how Jean Peters immediately falls in love with Widmark, but this point is necessary as otherwise why would she later hold out from Joey. Its a good film.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the best films I've seen from the silent era (sad to say, I've yet to see too many with the exception of Chaplin/Keaton stuff). Very visually brilliant, with insanely influential style in editing and composition. Really unique (especially for its time) camera angles and extremely hectic editing. Definitely a must see for the film nerd.

The downside is that it is a bit too in your face about its politics (I have no problem with politics in film, as long as they are subtle or at least somewhat ignorable as a backseat to the story). Also, it's not an "entertainment" film, which is fine, but it's not something I'm going to watch a billion times. This is art, plain and simple, like it or not.

Worth an A+ for influence alone, but based on personal enjoyment, I give it an A-.

Sentiment: positive
Well it certainly stunned me - I can not believe that someone made another Australian film that's even more boring than Somersault. The story is implausible, the characters, with the exception of Friels' and Mailman's characters, are unlikeable and wooden, Tom Long possesses a VAST array of facial expressions: happy and not happy, and the "sex scenes", which could have been very confronting and disturbingly erotic, would have been at home in a low-budget porno flick.

This is the first movie I have seen in 30 years of cinema-going that has had me on the edge of my seat....ready to get up and leave.

The best thing about this movie is the promotional poster.

Sentiment: negative
"What's his name?" "Loudon." "Loudon what?" "Clear."

That gag still gets me, TWENTY ONE years after the film was released.

I loved the film back then and I love it today. I must have watched this a hundred times back in the day, and when I bought the DVD recently I could still remember some of the dialogue.

Madonna plays Nikki Finn, a young woman jailed for a crime she didn't commit. When she gets out she decides to seek revenge.

Griffin Dunne (whatever happened to him?), plays an attorney for his fiancée's father (John McMartin). The future father-in-law asks Loudon to take Nikki from prison to the bus station and to make sure she gets on the bus, as part of a supposed new public relations programme. A seemingly easy task, but there are complications aplenty, some funny dialogue, and some admittedly stupid-but-funny scenes along the way.

Madonna has a stupid voice in this film, which until I was able to watch with subtitles made one or two lines of dialogue incomprehensible for me (hence only 8/10), but on the other hand I can't imagine her doing it in her normal voice.

This film shows Madonna's comic side (too lacking these days, perhaps), and she genuinely is funny in the role. Dunne makes a great foil, while Haviland Morris is perfect as the uppity fiancée.

Yes, it's predictable, yes, the jokes could be better, but I think this is a great film and will happily sit down and watch it 100 times more.

Sentiment: positive
If you wondered whether Disney could broadcast a show with a character more spoiled than Paris, more shallow than Britney, more vapid than Jessica and more narcissistic than THE GIRLS NEXT DOOR, wonder no more. The amazing thing is Selena Gomez is, apparently, supposed to be the heroine. She's also supposed to be an outcast from the spoiled, shallow, vapid, narcissistic "popular" girls at school, which is no more believable here than it was for Hilary Duff in LIZZIE McGUIRE. Plots range from recycled BEWITCHED & I DREAM OF JEANNIE to "parodies" of HARRY POTTER. The older boy alternates between being a magical genius and being unable to master the complexities of his own shoelaces. The younger boy is just another of the smart-mouth "wisecracking" brats who have multiplied on TV like cockroaches in New York (and with the same appeal). The dad is the stereotypical dumb TV dad, and the mom... well, she's not totally awful. But all pales beside the hideous, loathsome, and yet horribly fascinating (like a bad car accident) spectacle of Ms. Lopez' smug, self-satisfied, snotty performance . And, again, she's the HEROINE.

Sentiment: negative
If the writer/director is reading this (and I imagine you are since you should now be out of work) then I must tell you - I have seen some bad movies in my time but this one gets the distinction of having the worst premise I've ever heard.

SPOILERS - Nothing happens! 

A total waste of time. I laughed out loud at the end. 

SIDE NOTE - (if the whole movie was her in a coma then does the scene where she sleeps with that guy mean someone raped her while she was knocked out?)

Utter rubbish.

Sentiment: negative
I read the above comment and cannot believe it! Of course its a children's movie, its an adaptation of a children's book!! This film IS easy to get a hold of, try play.com or amazon and its very easy to gain a copy! The jokes are hilarious for kids and adults alike, and the adventure is clean with no violence! Its completely suitable for children of all ages! The songs are fab, and yes, a little repetitive but thats what children need and whilst watching it my little ones were heard singing "hi hi cocalorum" all night! They loved it, a story of innocence and friendship! Very lovely and well worth watching for kids and adults of all ages!

Sentiment: positive
The movie I received was a great quality film for it's age. John Wayne did an incredible job for being so young in the movie industry. His on screen presence shined thought even though there were other senior actors on the screen with him. I think that it is a must see older John Wayne film.

Sentiment: positive
I normally am a glutton for poor movies, but this thing stunk.

Do not watch this movie.

Terrible effects and very little humour, what the hell was the point of making this movie? No gore to speak of and no acting to speak of.

I could only manage 45 minutes of this rat dropping of a movie, and that is rare for me.

Something positive to say about this drivel? cover art was OK, I am pretty sure the movie has a ending too, even tho I did not make it to it.

The rats were unorganized and blew their lines constantly,they lacked intensity and seemed just to be going through the paces for their paycheque. The actors were worse.

Sentiment: negative
This is the greatest film I saw in 2002, whereas I'm used to mainstream movies. It is rich and makes a beautiful artistic act from these 11 short films. From the technical info (the chosen directors), I feared it would have an anti-American basis, but ... it's a kind of (11 times) personal tribute.

The weakest point comes from Y. Chahine : he does not manage to "swallow his pride" and considers this event as a well-merited punishment ... It is really the weakest part of the movie, but this testifies of a real freedom of speech for the whole piece. The weirdest comes from the Mexican nearly conceptual-art film ... I am still not sure what A. Gonzalez Inarritu meant. The 9 others are perfect (K. Loach, S. Penn, S. Makhmalbaf, ...) or nearly perfect (C. Lelouch) and made me either smile, or cry or even left me stunned. I still don't know if S. Imamura's fable is really related or not to the September 11th catastrophe, but it is so pretty that its finale place deeply 'makes it'.

Sentiment: positive
The 1970s opened the door to the largest, most diverse era of film in the history. Some films were great ("The Godfather", "The Conversation", "Mean Streets", Chinatown", "The French Connection", "Five Easy Pieces", "Jaws", "McCabe And Mrs. Miller") Others were not so great ("The Getaway", "The Outfit", "Badge 373", "Joe", "The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three", "Brewster McCloud", "Castle Keep") And others were barely worth the price of admission.

Yet every one was a fresh breath of air compared to today's Corporate Hollywood. Where every film is given a Big Weekend to recoup its cost. Or go straight to HBO and rental.

What "Decade" does so well is to relate the sudden and rarely experienced sensation of freedom to be given money to make and direct a film. Perhaps personal. Perhaps not. Sometime with a clutch of extras. Sometimes, in the middle of a busy street before the cops show up. Long before the Corporate Overseers, Suits, Committees and Lawyers ever became part of "The System".

The commentaries are superb. Especially Julie Christie and Dennis Hopper. Though as you listen, you'll slowly discover just how many Big Directors today (Coppola, Scorsese, Ron Howard, Dennis Hopper, Peter Bogdonovitch) got stated as "Roger Corman Commandos". Working long hours with short pay. Shooting a film in under a month. Learning all the steps and tricks of the trade by doing it themselves. Turning in product that was on-time and under-budget.

See "Decade" for its message. And for a long and varied list of films to watch made through those wondrously turbulent years.

Though, I would not complain if IFC decided to devote another documentary solely to that most under-rated Grand Pioneer of film, Roger Corman.

Sentiment: positive
What can you say about a grainy, poorly filmed 16mm stag film, where the best and most attractive performer is a German Shepherd? Nothing that would be positive. Avoid this travesty at all costs. In any case, it would be difficult to find, since bestiality remains a taboo and illegal subject in the USA. I strongly suggest IMDb to re-visit their weighting formula for establishing ratings, since an 8.8 rating for this piece of fecal matter is absurd! I am, by no means, a prude and have spent many hours enjoying the classic porn movies of the 70's & 80's; but this is inferior product even by the looser standards of the (then illegal) stag loop.

Sentiment: negative
I went to see this movie twice within a week and can only sum it up in one word (which I normally don't use lightly): Wonderful! In my view, the best movie ever made. Who deserves Oscars and other awards if not this Swedish crew who have created cinematic perfection in the last scenes of the film, when everything that is said (and left unsaid) throughout the story is drawn together? Just as the character of Daniel Dareus evokes so many sentiments and long repressed feelings within the people around him, the movie does the same to its viewers: You walk out with your head abuzz and your heart feeling full. Great stuff! Next time you ask yourself "what is the meaning of life", perhaps think about how you feel after a sumptuous experience like As it is in Heaven: Happy, content, fulfilled. To say it with Virginia Woolf's Mrs Dalloway: "Such moments are enough".

Sentiment: positive
OK, this 'horror' film was meant to be a joke, right? Please tell me it was supposed to be a joke, then I'll understand.

A big cawing bird with giant claws - or one claw, anyway - swoops down on unsuspecting folks on the ground and gobbles them up. Mara Corday and Jeff Morrow sufficiently overact in order to keep things interesting, but at least you'll enjoy a hearty snicker when you see the 'monster'. It looks like a cross between a deranged chicken and Mortimer Snerd.

Either director Fred Sears just made this picture in a hurry and knew the bird looked utterly ridiculous, or he really thought his film and creature were genuinely frightening. I prefer to think - and hope - it was the former.

P.S. The bird needs a haircut.

Sentiment: negative
I am a huge Shirley Temple fan. When I saw this movie, it made me appreciate what a talented child Shirley actually was. Ashley Rose Orr made possibly the worst on-screen Shirley. Imagine an 11 year old playing Shirley Temple from the age of 5. That in itself is wrong. But getting her to 'mimick' Shirley's voice? And her singing is woeful. The dancing was good, I'll say that. As previous users have said, there was little dramatic scenes, nothing to make the story interesting. Not even Amelia Earhart... I would have liked to have seen more of the world wide phenomenon that Shirley Temple created. There was too much focus on the Wizard of Oz, when in reality, Shirley was just considered for Dorothy. The film portrays it as though it is the end of the world when she does not get the role. Shirley herself said that she is glad Judy Garland got to play her. For me the star of the show was the lady who played Gertrude Temple. Otherwise, stay away! For great Shirley Temple films, watch Heidi, Poor Little Rich Girl and Little Miss Broadway.

Sentiment: negative
Infamous pre-code film, really the one film that caused people to insist on the Hayes Code being strictly enforced. Barbara Stanwyck stars as a young girl whose liquor-selling father has no problem pimping her out to customers. When he dies in an accident, she's released out into the world with the knowledge that her nubile body can get her whatever she wants. She goes to New York and proceeds to climb the corporate ladder, one bed at a time. Although obviously there's no actual sex shown, the film is quite sleazy. Unfortunately, after the initial shock value fades (around the time Stanwyck screws a rail car inspector so she can travel for free), the film becomes a tad repetitive and dull. Stanwyck herself is the only thing that keeps the film worth sitting through. As always, she's fantastic.

Sentiment: positive
I don't know what it is about this movie- director Sam Mraovich somehow messed up just about every little aspect in this movie. I would normally say that this is a movie that should not exist, but this movie may be the most important of all time. This movie should exist for the sole purpose of being without a doubt 'The Worst Movie Ever Made'. I've seen bad movies in my lifetime, but this somehow breaks what I considered bad into something much more hard to imagine.

Everything in this movie is hilarious, but the single funniest thing is that Mraovich himself considers this to be a great movie.

Oh wow...

Sentiment: negative
This documentary makes you travel all around the globe. It contains rare and stunning sequels from the wilderness. It shows you how diversified and how fragile our planet can be. The polar bear's future is highlighted at the beginning and at the end of it. After all, its bleak future is closely linked with the consequences of global warming. This documentary is however a simplistic approach of such a serious environmental issue. It can nonetheless be easily seen by young children since it mainly remains descriptive. Scientists might well be disappointed as it is not a remake of Al Gore's documentary "An inconvenient truth" but frankly...what a description!!! A question may then arise: Isn't it worth preserving our world's beauty? Because this documentary proves that in 2007 such a beauty still exists despite the different pollutions. By living in towns and cities we tend to forget that we are part and parcel of this nature. All things considered this documentary reminds us that we own a common treasure called "EARTH".

Sentiment: positive
Do all spoof films require pure stupidity and a lack of ANY sort of intelligence whatsoever to the humour? Is there even just a single genuinely FUNNY parody film anymore? All I see are zero-quality films that look like a couple stoned high school students got bored one day with a video camera. These movies are not funny, they're not clever, they're not entertaining, they're just useless in every conceivable way.

The Comebacks was a movie that tried to hide its hideous level of trash by not calling itself "Sports Movie". It's the same thing, though. There are a few different writers for these films, the Wayans did some, Freidberg and Seltzer did some others, and I'm sure there's another pair. I can't even tell the difference in direction or humour to be honest, it all seems like the same people wrote and directed them. I can't tell if the Comebacks was done by the people who did Scary Movie or the guys who did Epic Movie, or someone else, it's just the same jokes from all the others.

If you have ANY shred of taste or value for humour, don't see this movie. If you have self-worth, don't bother seeing it. If you have ANY respect for film making, don't even consider watching it. Don't see it in any broke down, derelict theatre that may still carry it, don't rent it, don't order it on Netflix or Pay-Per-View, don't Redbox it, and don't even watch it for free on OD. Avoid it like the plague.

The only conceivable reasons I can see to watch this film are as follows.

A. Masochism. If you like torturing yourself, there's very few better ways. B. Seeing a prime example of why to avoid ANYTHING that says "Fox Atomic". C. You're being paid considerably high amounts of cash.

I really would not watch the entire thing if someone offered me $100 to do it. It's just mindless, mental collapsing torment.

You might as well watch Zohan.

Sentiment: negative
A good idea, badly implemented. While that could summarize 99% of the SciFi channel's movies, it really applies here. I love movies where a good back story is slowly revealed, and I like action movies, and I like all of the main actors, so this could have been great. However, despite some good acting, this movie fails due to Bill Platt's bad writing and directing.

Another review made the good point of needing to know where you're going so you can get there. This movie doesn't. It's put together in such a haphazard way that you know the words "second draft" are not in Bill Platt's vocabulary. There is one scene that is entirely unnecessary and could be removed without anyone noticing. This scene even begins and ends with them driving a car, so you could cut from one car scene to the other and never have missed the pointless scene in the middle.

This movie also had a strange habit of under explaining some details while over explaining others, some to the point where you can guess the entire "plot" up front. It also had a habit of aborting a fight early, probably just because they couldn't afford it. There are also a few laughably bad scenes where the "plot" is revealed on a computer and the final battle involving conveniently placed "toxic adhesive" (seriously, what *is* that?).

If you are a fan of Shiri Appleby, watch this movie because she's OK. She does manage to break out of her "Roswell" persona a few times and make for a good tough chick (but not always). John De Lancie plays the same character he plays in everything he's ever done since playing Q back in ST:TNG, so that's nothing new.

In all, I gave this movie a 4/10 rating.

Sentiment: negative
The only reason I DVRd this movie was because 1. I live in Cleveland and Shaq plays basketball for us now and 2. I've always heard how awful it was. The movie did not disappoint. The best parts were Shaq's outfits. The worst parts were, well, just about everything else. My 12 year old son and I just squirmed and couldn't look at the screen when Shaq started rapping and we kept wondering why Max didn't wish for Kazzam to fix that front tooth of his! But for all it's terribleness we just couldn't stop watching it, the story sucked you in, like a black hole or quicksand or a tar pit, it was hypnotic. But it was worth it for the laughs and just to say that we actually watched "Kazzam".

Sentiment: negative
For the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would make a movie like this. The plot is tired, the acting is strained, the language is consistently foul and at times the over use of the "F" word seemed like a lack of dialog was prevalent so 'let's throw in another couple of "F's" for good measure, that's what the American public wants to hear'. Gossett was particularly foul and seemed to enjoy his part. Forget this c__p, rent 'Shrek" and have a good laugh.

Sentiment: negative
First of all, let me say that this is not the movie for people looking to watch something spirited and joyous for the holidays. This movie is cold, brutal, and just downright depressing. Mary Steenburgen plays a grinchy mom who is down on Christmas because her husband has lost his job, they are losing their house, can't buy Christmas presents for the kids, etc. You get the idea, happy stuff for the holidays. So along comes Harry Dean Stanton as Gideon the Christmas angel, who in his dark hat and long overcoat comes off more like a pedophile who hangs around children all day observing them. What better way to instill the spirit of Christmas in Mary Steenburgen than to kill off her family and then offer to bring them back if she believes in Christmas again. Santa Claus is a blackmailer and his Christmas workshop looks more like a haven for refugee Nazis on the lam. The movie lays everything on so thick that you don't care about the happy ending when it comes because the rest of the movie is so bitter and unbelievable. I'm sure this film wanted to be something Capra-like, but it left out the joy and sentiment on what a holiday film should be.

Sentiment: negative
If there is a movie to be called perfect then this is it. So bad it wasn't intended to be that way. But superb anyway... Go find it somewhere. Whatever you do... Do not miss it!!!

Sentiment: positive
"Most of us at least inhabit two worlds , the real world where we are at the mercy of circumstances and the world within ,the unconscious ,a safe place where we can escape ..." With those words ,Mr .Gone introduces inside the world of "The Maxx" a fascinating world where the fantasy and the reality are combined . Inspired in the comic books of Sam Kieth, "The Maxx " is very faithful to the material in what it was inspired , not only in the story but also in the graphic style ,that look like the pages of the comic ,giving this show a surreal and unique appearance . But also ,the story it's interesting and entertaining .At moments it could turn too weird ,but when you got inside it ,it's hard to get out of it . The story and the characters are wonderfully developed . The music goes perfectly with the style of the show and give it the proper atmosphere . Unfortunately , like many good animated shows ,this one was short -lived . "The Maxx" is a must see . It 's one of my all -time favorites .

Sentiment: positive
What can have been on Irene Dunne's mind when she accepted the role in this distasteful account of a woman of negotiable morals? Certainly, the Irene Dunne of the 1940's, whose reputation as a faithful Roman Catholic who publicly abhorred smut, and shunned any film scripts or Hollywood society, that might be even be remotely construed as corrupting public morals--would never have become associated with such a dubious project as this.

Perhaps, New York's Cardinal Spellman, in his private audience with her, gave her a good dressing down over this role? That we will likely never know, inasmuch as she never spoke of it in later years, though she did denounce her morally suspect, (though quite successful) 1932 film, "Back Street" as "trash".

Certainly by the time she received the distinguished St. Robert Bellarmine Award in 1965 for exemplary public Catholicism, "Ann Vickers" was no longer recalled by the general public.

Suffice it to say that "Ann Vickers" works neither as entertainment or social commentary.

Miss Dunne's role as an adulterous social worker, who sleeps around, (between reforming prisons and writing a best seller on correctional rehabilitation) doesn't dovetail with her temperament or on screen demeanor, and one keeps suspecting that the whole thing is a kind of tongue in cheek gag, (what else can we think when we witness a montage of Miss Dunne's sympathetic beatific gaze superimposed over a shot of a female prisoner being scourged?) By films end, she has renounced careerism in favor of marriage, (to crusty convict Walter Huston no less--and what kind of lunacy would ever conceive of pairing these two romantically?) 

Irene Dunne completists will no doubt wish to see this curiosity, if only for the chance to hear her promise to rehabilitate a cocaine addict under her charge: "I'm going to get you off the snow cold turkey" !!! 

Well, if nothing else such sordid goings on, do present her light years from her usual milieu of operatic trills, furbellowed chiffon and strawberry phosphates--cocaine addiction not being the first subject one associates with the irreproachable Miss Dunne.

Sentiment: negative
I recently saw House of Wax and must say i really enjoyed it.

it's been one of the better Horror/Thriller films in the past few years, if not one of the best and most entertaining.

i've heard a lot of people bashing the so-called slow start and character development which takes up the Films opening 45 minutes.

yet if the film dived straight into the deaths, audiences and critics would have criticised the film for not having decent characters who they couldn't care less about.

well as for the character development, i think it worked amazingly well.

taking into my own response and others (from reading posts off the message board), a lot of people ended up wanting the characters to live, one of which i've noticed many people mentioning being Paige Edwards (Paris Hilton). taking into consideration Warner. Bros. have been marketing her death, its a surprise turn around that many audiences ended up cheering her on for survival.

speaking of the chase/death scenes, they were some of the most inventive and suspenseful i've witnessed in a while, and enjoyed each one very much.

the acting in the film was absolutely fine, i couldn't fault any of them, especially Paris Hilton, i thought she was very decent and i was hoping for her the get more than a mere 25 minutes screen time in a 120 minute film, yet her chase scene made up for that, and believe me when i say Paris can act scared, (Watch the scene where she's hiding in a car from Vincent and he walks past her .... the look of terror on her face comes across as VERY real).

Overall i give House of Wax maximum stars, for entertainment value and suspense and even gore ...... only criticism is i wish that during the marketing for the film, they hadn't revealed the death list and who dies and who survives, as it would have been ten times better not knowing if the character being chased was going to live or die and horrible death.

can't wait for the DVD, but go see it at the Cinema while you can, it won't be the same in your own front room, yet if you do wait for the DVD, watch the film in the dark with no interruptions, trust me you wont be disappointed.

Sentiment: positive
Filmed by MGM on the same sets as the English version, but in German, Garbo's second portrayal of "Anna Christie" benefited from practice and her apparent ease with German dialog. Garbo appears more relaxed and natural under Jacques Feyder's direction than under Clarence Brown's, and her silent movie mannerisms have all but disappeared, which made her transition to sound complete. The strength she brought to the character remains here, although it has been softened, and Garbo reveals more of Anna's vulnerability. The entire cast, with the exception of Garbo, is different from the previous version of the film, and Garbo benefits from not having to compete with Marie Dressler, who stole every scene she was in during the English-language version. In Feyder's film, Garbo holds the center of attention throughout, although the three supporting players, particularly the father, gave excellent performances.

Feyder's direction was more assured than Clarence Brown's, and his use of the camera and editing techniques did not seem as constrained by the new sound process as did those of Brown. The film moves with more fluidity than the English language adaptation, and the static nature of the first film has been replaced with a flow that maintains viewer interest. Even William Daniels cinematography seems improved over his filming of the Brown version. He captured Garbo's luminescence and the atmospherics of the docks with style. Also, the screenplay adaptation for the European audience made Anna's profession quite clear from the start, and the explicitness clarifies for viewers who were unfamiliar with the play as to what was only implied in the Brown filming. However, the film was made before the Production Code was introduced, which made the censorship puzzling.

Garbo's Oscar nomination for "Anna Christie" was always somewhat mystifying, and I suspected that the nod was given more in recognition of her relatively smooth transition to sound films than for her performance. However, some of the Academy voters may have seen the German-language version of the film, and they realized, as will contemporary viewers, that her "Anna Christie" under Feyder's direction was definitely Oscar worthy.

Sentiment: positive
I watch bad movies.

This movie is not good enough to be a bad movie. Not an ounce of humor, not an ounce of talent throughout.

I am LAZY.

Usually, I see a bad movie and curse. This was so bad, I actually made a review to try and save others from the completely boring mess I fell victim to.

I am smashing my copy of this movie.

It's too lame even to use clear a room. So boring. Watch 'Bloodsucking Freaks' or 'Shock, shock, shock' for absolute crap that has some merit as entertainment. This sludge looks awful, is awful, and whoever made it should feel awful.

Sentiment: negative
I have not seen and heard the original version.

I am no Russian, but I am learning right now.

I also have no preferences for Russia, Bulgaia, the US etc.

But what I have to mention is:

In the German synchronisation in the whole film all Russians speak with Russian accent. Americans talk "Hochdeutsch" (without accent)! I have never heard such a stupidity! Besides, this is boring.

I hope the original is better.

The rest is a simple thriller, not really good ideas. Like a cheap version of a James Bond film.

Sentiment: negative
The film begins with a cranky old Broadway producer (exceptionally well-played by veteran character actor Richard Carle) being driven by a man hoping to sell him a story for an upcoming play. However, there is a bad storm and their car becomes stuck in the mud and so they are forced to look for some place to spend the night. Fortunately, there's a mansion nearby though it seems pretty odd that the people inside know the writer and he says he didn't realize this was the home of a man he knew (and despised). However, while this seems like bad and contrived writing, it is not....as this is all part of an elaborate ruse by the writer to have a group of actors in the home act out his plot. However, part-way through the ruse, the producer and his browbeaten assistant figure out that the murder mystery taking place in the home is fake and think the whole affair is pretty funny. What no one realizes, though, is that an escaped maniac is loose and he is about to enter this contrived little plot--making for some wonderful twists and turns. So when it seems that there is a real murder, the actors are truly terrified while Carle and his sidekick are convinced it's all a hoax. While I have explained some of the plot, there are many more aspects of the film you'll just have to figure out yourself--and it's surely to keep you entertained and guessing.

Considering that this is a B-movie in the public domain, I certainly did NOT have very high hopes for this little film. However, I was thrilled when the film turned out to be a much better than average flick--with a very interesting and novel twist on the old clichéd plot about a dark and stormy night spent in a mansion. Plus, while the plotting of the film was very good, the dialog was even better--with lots of sparkling wit and a nice light-hearted pace. Full of pleasant surprises and well worth your time.

Sentiment: positive
I don't know where to begin. This movie feels a lot like one of those cheap Saturday morning kids shows that they used to make back in the late eighties early nineties. Sort of like Captain Power or the Power Rangers. It's full of bad digital overlays and really cheesy sounding "secret agencies" and villains.

The acting is so bad that it's not even funny. The direction is terrible and there is little to now continuity. It seems as if someone just threw a bunch of scenes together and forgot that there was supposed to be a plot.

Perhaps one of the most ridiculous scenes in the movie comes early on, when several villains plant an explosive device in an agents car. For some reason, even though the device is clearly stated as being "remote detonated" the bad guys decide to chase her down on their motorcycles as she drives away. This chase carries on. all the while with the bad guys doing ludicrous and completely pointless bike stunts. Standing up on the bikes, doing wheelies and so on. At one point, a crash happens and one of the attackers is thrown from his bike, we see the bike (clearly cgi) thrown over the agents car but the rider has vanished. Then, a few seconds later the rider and bike return...apparently unscathed by the crash. At this point even though the car has an explosive device planted in it, the attackers choose to shoot the agent while driving past, then blow up her car. Which was also clearly done with cgi. Sound confusing? It is, and so is the rest of the movie.

I might point out that when I say cgi, we aren't talking about Lord Of The Rings type cgi here. We're talking the cheap cheesy Power Rangers type cgi, actually I think it would have been done better on Power Rangers.

Why Savini and Todd did this movie I will never know, I can only assume they did for money, as a favor to someone or because they were blackmailed into it...probably the last one.

Sentiment: negative
I am a huge fan of Say Anything, Jerry Maguire, and Almost Famous (I wasn't that big on Singles), so it's safe to say that I look forward to anything that Cameron Crowe attaches his name to. I went to see Vanilla Sky having been told that it was a very weird movie and that I probably wouldn't like it if I was expecting anything similar to Crowe's other films. Well, having just seen it, let me say that the former was correct, and the latter couldn't have been more wrong. It is a very weird movie, and nothing really comes together until the end. Anyone who tells you that they saw it coming halfway into the movie is either lying to you or is unable to detach their hindsight from their memory. Anyway, the movie was stellar, and I look forward to owning it as soon as the DVD is released. I was moved by the film, and felt emotionally spent by the end. This is an experience that will draw from the viewer the entire spectrum of human emotion, if the viewer allows him/herself into the plot. In the theatre in which I saw the movie, there were more than a few people who clearly lost track of the movie and were bored by it when they found that they were unable to get back into the plot. I'm sure others just lack the ability to properly follow any movie like this. I don't mean that to sound pompous, but some people are more cut out for the Seagal, Chan, Van Damme genre of movies, and these are the types that probably would not enjoy this movie. It is very cerebral, so make sure you are prepared for a two hour mental bender, as well as much thought afterwards.

As far as comparing this film to other Crowe movies, it is very similar in at least one regard, in all Crowe movies, the soundtrack is a character unto itself. This is almost definitely due to Crowe's longstanding ties to music, as anyone who has seen Almost Famous knows, and to his marriage to Heart star Nancy Wilson. It was also worthy to note that there was a definite chemistry between Tom Cruise's acting and Crowe's directing that made the movie seem familiar to anyone who has seen Jerry Maguire. In my mind, that is not a bad thing.

Anyway, if I had to compare this movie to any one other film, I would say this: if you enjoyed David Fincher's The Game, you will almost certainly be a fan of Vanilla Sky.

Sentiment: positive