DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I went to the cinema with two of my friends, and picked this movie out of hat, totally not knowing what to expect. And it turn out into a very enjoyable, die-laughing experience! It's an excellent movie with very unexpected story, very good dialogs and crazy humor. All characters are obviously made in "Alan Ford" (italian satiric comic) style, but that haven't bothered me for a second. In fact this kind of loser-bums line-up made a movie quite unique and interesting. Sam Rockwell gave very good and convincing role, Willian Macy too, Clooney is hardly recognizable and brilliant. But real star is actually Guzman. He made a role of his life in this movie! The scene when his character Cosimo dies in the movie, is so hilarious that it made me choke and almost die with him! Highly recommended for all "Alan Ford" fans!

Sentiment: positive
Ron Howard and his "editors" only had one job to do... Follow the guidelines of the book which was "rich", "mysterious", "moving" and highly cinematic in its approach! 

What they did? They changed EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING! What is left is something that has no right being called "Angels & Daemons"! 

I really love the book and find it very hard to see it being treated this way!

I wonder what was the opinion of Dan Brown himself for "this" film.

I really have no patience to sit down and right the 1.000.000 changes they made, it is pointless.......

Sentiment: negative
While many pass this off as a B movie it is, indeed, a first class comedy that is well-written and acted. Red Skelton is great as Wally Benton better known to radio fans as The Fox. Ann Rutherford is perfect as Wally's fiance Carol Lambert. Conrad Veidt leads a very well cast gang of criminals. I read one account of this movie which states that Vincente Minelli directed this film, not unless he changed his name to S. Sylvan Simon, who directed all three of the Fox movies. This is a very entertaining film made when imagination was encouraged. So get over your black and white prejudice if you have one, sit back and enjoy a truly great comedy. This was also Red's first starring role. Take note during the climax of the reference to Orson Welles' War Of the Worlds broadcast.

Sentiment: positive
Someone should tell Goldie Hawn that her career as a teen-age gamin ended thirty years ago. 

This is one of the worst films released in years, an unequivocal disaster in which the two leads give themselves over to a frenetic exposition of their trademark tics in an effort to make up for a bad script and bad directing. This thing should have been smothered at birth.

I hope John Cleese got paid a lot for having his name attached to this disaster. He is the only performer who came through this stinking mess more or less unscathed, his only fault being a failure to realize that the rest of the cast would sink the picture.

Sentiment: negative
A unique film...one of the best of all time. Acting, script, Quincy Jones' score, cinematography, editing, etc. -- just fantastic. As most viewers know, this movie is based on Truman Capote's book about the famous murder of a Kansas farm family (the Clutters) by a couple of young guys during a misguided robbery. I've never seen a movie that so brilliantly turned a true story into a riveting film. 

The actors are solid across the board, but the focus is on the killers, Dick and Perry, and the law enforcement team pursuing them. Scott Wilson, as Dick Hickock is amazing. Cocky, twitchy, and devoid of compassion he comes across so charming, oily and plausible. Robert Blake as Perry Smith is extraordinary as well -- lonely, and at once empathetic and cold-blooded. Who could fold these characteristics into one individual and make us buy it? He does, and it's brilliant! A key point of the book is how it took the intersection of these two very differently sociopathic individuals to create the critical mass to commit such a stupid and heinous crime, and these two actors make it work beautifully. Both had moments in their subsequent careers, but these performances are high water marks, and that stands for acting period. 

The cops are wonderful too. Leading the investigation is John Forsythe, but the other three detectives are great as well. Unlike contemporary movies where producers feel it necessary to endow police with superhuman assets or foibles, these are just genuine flatfeet, working the case with determination and competence. They seem so real. I've never seen cops on the screen so powerful in their authenticity; and I've seen most of the crime classics going way back. Really one of a kind in this respect. 

PARTIAL SPOILER COMING (this movie's unique in that you already know what's happened, but I'm warning for the record). 

Of course, the best scenes from the best crime shows and movies are the interrogations -- the intellectual fencing matches between the cops and the crooks, Mano a Mano. This movie has hands down the best interrogation scenes you'll ever see on film. Watch Dick and Perry try to bluff their way through and slowly unravel, unaware the cops have the goods on them. But the cops need to deftly prep their suspects to fracture their alibis and hopefully elicit confessions. This is some of the best acting you'll ever see. Think Glengarry Glen Ross without the showboating. 

To help translate the sad and horrific angles of this true story, ICB was filmed at the actual Clutter house, and I've heard the Clutters were played by film students to give them a genuine feel. It works. These seem like decent, simple folk. It makes the crime so palpable and sad. 

I'll stop here. It's not a feel-good movie, but it is one of the best movies ever made, and so unique, it's mandatory viewing for every film buff.

Sentiment: positive
This is a very sweet coming-of-age movie, very funny, and Russell Crowe is amazing! Those who know him only from Gladiator will be surprised to see the range of his acting abilities. Arthur Baskin (his character) is one of the best onscreen nerdy virgins I have ever seen1 Watch this movie--how can we get it re-released in NTSC format?



Sentiment: positive
I can't help thinking that this is Franco's 'hamage' to the Marquis de Sade's "One Thousand Days of Sodom". People (in this case women) abducted to serve as slaves to a privileged elite? Check. Kinky sex? Check. Torture including whipping? Check. Victims chosen at random to be killed? Check.

Thank goodness Franco didn't go the whole hog and introduce cinema audiences to the delights of coprology (and indeed coprophagy), another perversion that crops up repeatedly in de Sade's tediously long and disgusting saga.

I rather hoped that this film would fall into the 'so bad it's good' category. But even the acres of naked flesh and numerous sexual encounters didn't make up for the dismal dialogue, dreadful acting, elusive plot and - just to put the tin hat on it - dubbing AND English sub-titles (a belt and braces approach missing from the women's costumes). The Alsation gave a very professional performance though.

Of course I could be wrong about the de Sade angle. After all, I failed to realise that the actor playing the head warden at the 'prison' was a trans-sexual. I must pay more attention to the size of people's hands in future.

According to another reviewer, the film was banned in the UK. Well it clearly isn't any more, though I fancy that the nipple-needling scene was cut to satisfy the censors. On the DVD I watched, it was only clearly visible on the Spanish trailer (which, in case you're wondering, I watched to compare it with the English one).

The DVD also features an interview with Jess Franco, though you'll need better Spanish than mine to understand it. Unless I'm much mistaken it's neither dubbed nor sub-titled. And it points out that the person sodomising the character played by Franco is Ajita Wilson disguised using a moustache. Kind of ironic, given that (s)he had had the requisite appendage surgically removed.

Sentiment: negative
WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.

When I first started to watch this movie my expectations were it was a vampire movie, that is going to be awesome considering how Rodriguez and Tarantino both helped make the film. I began about 15 minutes into it and already my hopes for this movie were down the drain, which shocked me. First, the story it was going with was not at all appealing in anyway possible, and just flat out boring and uncompelling to the point where I just wanted to turn it off. I was getting more frustrated with this movie as it dragged on, but I guess I had hopes that it would get better.... then when it finally showed vampires it BLEW MY MIND, in a VERY bad way. I thought,"Okay this movie started with some backwash horrible story about these two criminals, then VERY slowly turned into some vampire movie which I thought it was going to be from the beginning, in like, the last 30 minutes?" To add on to that, they try to make the main characters all cool and awesome and mean around the end when they're just not; A bunny would've been more intimidating than these characters! This movie is a horrible piece of crap!!! From Dusk Till dawn disgraced me and left a terrible taste in my mouth, disheartening thoughts in my head, and left my body unable to move from the horrible shock that I just wasted 108 minutes of my life away on a horrendous film. I do not understand how George Clooney, Quentin Tarintino, Cheech Marin and Danny Trejo, all being the good and honorable actors that they are, could take part in this useless filth. In my opinion, From Dusk Till Dawn is one of the worst movies ever made that I have suffered my eyes on. Do not see it, you'll be doing yourelf a GREAT favor...

Sentiment: negative
I should have trusted my instincts better: No expectations - no disappointments. Instead, however, I expected to experience a similar masterpiece like Koyaanisqatsi (1983) and was brutally disappointed. Powaqqatsi is in my humble opinion nothing but a cheap attempt to cash in on the cult success of its predecessor, and - artistically - it fails miserably. It appears some producer gathered up leftover material from Koyaanisqatsi, hurriedly threw it together, placed everything in slow motion and got some pop entertainer under the pseudonym of Philip Glass to hurriedly throw together some banal background music, which is incessantly repeated. Where Koyaanisqatsi entertains the viewer with clever fast and slow motion changes, Powaqqatsi is one long sequence of mundane images in slow-motion (if you view them on your VCR in fast preview mode, you'll see what I mean). What disappointed me the most, however, was Philip Glass's soundtrack. I couldn't - and still can't - believe that these commercial-sounding New Age type drones, which could easily have been composed in one afternoon by any 14-year-old on a Casio calculator, were from the same composer who so brilliantly composed the emotional and perfectly-synchronized music for Koyaanisqatsi. All in all, a big waste of time! My advice: Forget commercialism! Watch Koyaanisqatsi again instead!

Sentiment: negative
My wife and I couldn't even finish the film. Truly, it was rather painful.

First, the historical accuracy is compromised not so much by the events themselves as the ridiculous one-dimensionality of the characters. For instance, Augustus takes the "burden" of power only with great reluctance. Indeed, he is portrayed as if he's some sort of great humanist and believer in democracy.

Second, the camp! My lord, the dialog is horrifically bad. I recall the soap opera my mother watched when I was a child having better dialog than this. The constant exposition and pontificating grates upon the ears like fingernails on chalkboard. Ugh. (Okay, I exaggerate a bit, but the dialog truly is bad.) The HBO series Rome is superior for no other reason than that its characters were at least believable, regardless of their historicity.

Rome was also wise enough to know they couldn't stage epic battle scenes. The creators of this film did not. When Caesar attacks Munda, the battle scene is practically farcical.

I will grant that the costumes are perfectly good. The sets are fine, though their CGI backdrops can be a bit jarring at times. The sound is bad, thoughboth in terms of the music, the foley work, and the dubbing of so many of the side characters.

Anyway, it's completely not worth renting. As a history major, I was hoping for an alternative approach to Augustus than HBO's Rome, which, I feel, failed to capture his overall "feel" quite as well as they did Caesar or Antony. Instead, I should have just stuck to my reading.

Sentiment: negative
I'm a huge comedy show fan. Racial humor is always a little risky but the greats like George Lopez, Dave Chapelle, Lisa Lampanelli etc. pull it off perfectly.

They don't go overboard, make the audience uncomfortable or *cough cough* STEAL JOKES! But I won't harp upon that.

Carlos makes racial humor totally unenjoyable. His jokes continually scream racial humor to the point were it's not funny or clever, but it's insulting. I'm not one to turn cold towards racial humor. But his execution of these jokes is sloppy that cause people to recoil at his comedy.

His humor is only surpassed by his stage presence in annoyance. I feel as though he's SCREAMING at me constantly! And he runs around the stage like a maniac. It only comes off as annoying!

Sentiment: negative
Put simply, this mini-series was terrible. Let me count the ways. 1. Absurd plotting. 2. Over-acting. 3. Scattershot approach to characters. 4. Annoying narration. 5. Inability to create viewer interest.

This film can't even pass the "Soap Opera for Dummies" test. I'm sorry I have not read this award-winning novel, so I am judging it only as a film, but it really stinks. Imagine going to a party where they show you dozens of appetizers. You look at the wide variety and want to taste them, but suddenly they are withdrawn, and you wonder where they went. That's like this film, with way too many characters introduced and never drawn out. There are enough stories and characters in this film to create a 20 episode series, yet we are given less than four hours to digest it all.

There are more facial expressions and reaction shots of Ed Harris than you'll find on 10,000 monkeys. The pace is extraordinarily slow. 

Dennis Farina and Helen Hunt are so far over-the-top that their characters are not believable. Joanne Woodward's character is one-dimensional. 

The persistent river metaphor becomes trite.

And, probably the most absurd part of the film--the cat. This evil and vengeful cat who follows the hero around to scratch him and his seat covers--well, come on now---it's not even good Stephen King!

Probably the most interesting character in the film, and one who is not drawn well, is John Voss, the disturbed boy whose final act of desperation accounts for the only plot device that works in this film.

Just about everyone in this film is unbelievable.

To sum up, there's little here to inspire. The drama is poor melodrama. It's just a terrible effort.

Sentiment: negative
1st watched 4/30/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-John Waters): Corny Waters-like comedy musical with some funny scenes and good parts but it didn't make a whole worthwhile experience. John Waters directed this music-filled spoof of the fifties scene with Johnny Depp playing the title role. This movie is very similar with what he did with the 60's spoof entitled "Hairspray" but this one is not as effective. Some of the tunes are catchy, some of the characters are interesting in their quirky Waters-like way, and the portrayals are fine although sometimes overdone. The storyline is similar to the movie "Grease", where there is a good group and a bad group. The guy from the bad group, Cry Baby, wow's a girl from the good group. The good girl then joins the bad group but once Cry Baby hurts her -- she falls back to the good group. This just sets up the ending where Cry Baby tries to win her back. Now, one difference that is expected in Water's movies is that the bad group doesn't appear all that bad all the time and the good group acts like they have a pole up their you-know-what. I definitely saw this in Hairspray, as well. The wacky and goofiness isn't really all that much fun in this movie, though and it just leaves us with a feeling like the movie could have been much better. The prime appeal of the Johnny Depp character is that he's able to make one tear roll down his cheek(thus his namesake) at various times and makes the women fall all over the place for him. This is overused and the basic bottom line is that the movie is OK, but not that great.

Sentiment: negative
Sometimes reading the user comments on IMDB fills me with despair for the species. For anybody to dismiss 2001: A Space Odyssey as "boring" they must have no interest in science, technology, philosophy, history or the art of film-making. Finally I understand why most Hollywood productions are so shallow and vacuous - they understand their audience.

Thankfully, those that cannot appreciate Kubrick's accomplishment are still a minority. Most viewers are able to see the intelligence and sheer virtuosity that went into the making of this epic. This is the film that put the science in "science fiction", and its depiction of space travel and mankind's future remains unsurpassed to this day. It was so far ahead of its time that humanity still hasn't caught up.

2001 is primarily a technical film. The reason it is slow, and filled with minutae is because the aim was to realistically envision the future of technology (and the past, in the awe inspiring opening scenes). The film's greatest strength is in the details. Remember that when this film was made, man still hadn't made it out to the moon... but there it is in 2001, and that's just the start of the journey. To create such an incredibly detailed vision of the future that 35 years later it is still the best we have is beyond belief - I still can't work out how some of the shots were done. The film's only notable mistake was the optimism with which it predicted mankind's technological (and social) development. It is our shame that the year 2001 did not look like the film 2001, not Kubrick's.

Besides the incredible special effects, camera work and set design, Kubrick also presents the viewer with a lot of food for thought about what it means to be human, and where the human race is going. Yes, the ending is weird and hard to comprehend - but that's the nature of the future. Kubrick and Clarke have started the task of envisioning it, now it's up to the audience to continue. There's no neat resolution, no definitive full stop, because then the audience could stop thinking after the final reel. I know that's what most audiences seem to want these days, but Kubrick isn't going to let us off so lightly.

I'm glad to see that this film is in the IMDB top 100 films, and only wish that it were even higher. Stanley Kubrick is one of the very finest film-makers the world has known, and 2001 his finest accomplishment. 10/10.

Sentiment: positive
'Moonstruck' is a love story. There is not one romance, there are at least three, but they all have to do with the same family. Loretta's family. Loretta (Cher) is about to marry Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello). She doesn't love him, but he is sweet and good man. When he leaves to visit his dying mother in Italy Loretta meets Johnny's brother Ronny (Nicolas Cage). He and Johnny haven't spoken each other in five years and Loretta wants to invite him to the wedding. Of course they fall instantly for each other.

How this story and love stories of Loretta's parents and uncle and aunt develop is something you simply have to see for yourself. Every seen is a delight to watch, with Cher as the bright star in the middle of everything. She won and really deserved the Oscar that year. Cage is pretty good, and goofy as well, and Olympia Dukakis as Loretta's mother and Vincent Gardenia as her father are terrific. This movie is funny, charming and therefore highly enjoyable.

Sentiment: positive
The worst thing I have ever watch.

The movie is pure trash. All the things is bad on this movie. The direction, screenplay, arts, cinematography, cast or anything else.

May I say more?

The main character is an boy. It has to have 20 years of age approximately, but the actor who plays the role looks like 30 years old, in addition he is an very bad actor.

The editing tries to save it, but with that very bad material in hands they can't do miracles.

As I said, the cast is poor, the text is poor, that it doesn't help the actors.

I learned how to "do not" make a movie.

Sentiment: negative
If you think piano teacher Erika Kohut (Isabelle Huppert) in Michael Haneke's film "LA PIANISTE" is the ultimate degree in the personification of derangement, perversion and darkness, I've got news for you: the piano teacher in Elfriede Jellinek's novel "LA PIANISTE" (on which the film was based) is twice as "repulsive", "disgusting", "deranged" and even more fascinating -- though there can't be words enough to translate the level of artistic proficiency that Isabelle Huppert has reached here, above all other mortal actresses in activity today. And who else could have played this character with such emotional power, complete with the best piano playing/dubbing an actor could deliver?

In the novel as in the film, there are two big antagonists to the "heroine" Kohut: her own mother (wonderful, wreck-voiced Annie Girardot, in a part originally intended for Jeanne Moreau) and Austria itself. The mother personifies Jellinek's perception of her native Austria as a country that deceptively and perversely encourages racist/fascist (or at least authoritarian) behavior, sexual and emotional repression, and, let's say, übermensch ideals which are impossible to keep today without the danger of a mental breakdown.

"La Pianiste" also deals with a very powerful and delicate issue: how dangerous it is to reveal your innermost fantasies to the one (you think) you love. We tend to think our own sexual fantasies must be as exciting to others as they are to ourselves, which may turn out to be a huge, embarrassing and sometimes tragic mistake. Here, Kohut learns (?) the lesson in the most painful and humiliating of ways.

It must be mentioned that Elfriede Jellinek is one of the best-known and praised authors in Austria and Europe (well, now she's got a Nobel Prize!) and that autobiographical passages can be inferred in her novel, as she herself was a pianist and had a reportedly difficult relationship with her mother. The novel also includes long passages about Kohut's childhood and adolescence so you kind of understand how she turned into who she is now. Haneke chose to hide this information in the film, forcing us to wonder how she got to be that way (don't we all know a Erika Kohut out there?). But he very much preserves the fabric of the book in his film: unbearable honesty, to the point where most secretive, "horrendous" feelings painfully emerge -- envy, cruelty, violence, jealousy, hate, misery, sadism, masochism, selfishness, perversion etc. All of them unmistakably human.

I thought "La Pianiste" was a deeply moving film, very disturbing and thought-provoking, with a handful of unforgettable scenes, and that's just all I ask of movies. It also made me buy and be thrilled by the book, discover a fantastic author I hadn't read before, and listen again and again to Schubert - so, my thanks to Haneke, Jellinek and Isabelle!!! On the other hand, if you're looking for light entertainment, please stay away. My vote: 9 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
First i have to say that i don't like since fiction movies at all so much! But there are some movies i liked really. This is one of the others ;) I've the same opinion like some (most)others here. The Film is still going on in my back, but the few effects are really not enough to watch the whole time....I think what they have done well are the animated sceneries with 3 suns and 4 Moons, but its the only i liked. There are no intelligent dialogs (are there???). But its a Great Film for everybody who loves Lara Croft or some other Girls in HOT-PANTS... ;)

For the directors: " Stop to try again, PLEASE!!! "

Sentiment: negative
This movie is all about entertainment. Imagine your friends that you love spending time with, the ones that you know inside out becoming a bit silly and perhaps taking on a character or two. That's what this film is about. An inventive script and brilliantly performed. It's not about pleasing the masses with this one, it's about having fun with a bunch of brilliantly talented people. Which is what I'm sure they all thought when they signed up for it. 

The above review sounds completely unfair and I think that the person who wrote that was in the wrong frame of mind when they watched the film. In a lighthearted moment, there is great dignity in it if you care to look.

A job well done, I thought it was a great film. I'd watch this before the North American norm any day.

In a nutshell, it's not the best film you're ever going to see but it has a hell of a lot of moments. I haven't laughed that long in an age.

Sentiment: positive
Food always makes a good topic in movies, as "Chocolat" showed. "Babette's Feast" is the same type of thing. Babette Harsant (Stephane Audran) is a French cook who flees her native land after the repression of 1871. She moves to a very religious Danish village. The people in this village simply have no use for joy. That is, until Babette cooks them one of her exquisite meals.

It's not just that this movie deals with bringing fun to a place that has never known it. Like other Scandinavian movies (and non-Hollywood movies in general), it shows that a movie can hold your interest without the use of explosions, car chases, etc. This is one movie that you can't afford to miss.

One more thing. Do you think that the Danish word for "feast" sounds a little bit like "tastebud"?

Sentiment: positive
In an era of such awful cartoons, I am rather in shock to see a movie with such good morals make it to the IMDB Bottom List for Animated movies.

This movie does contradict the first. I won't deny that. However, when I was in the target age group for this movie, I didn't even notice, nor would it have mattered if I did. The people who made it may have used "New Generation" to note that this is another way the Care Bear Family could have began. Perhaps we are meant to decide for ourselves how the Care Bear family truly began.

This was my favorite movie at age 3-6, and it did not scare me or confuse me at all.



Sentiment: positive
Sometimes you need to see a bad movie just to appreciate the good ones. Well, that's my opinion anyway. This one will always be in the bad movie category, simply because all but Shu Qi's performance was terrible.

Martial Angel tells of Cat (Shu Qi), a professional thief turned straight after leaving her lover, Chi Lam (Julian Cheung), two years before. But her past returns to haunt her as Chi Lam is kidnapped for the ransom of security software belonging to the company Cat works for. In order to rescue him, she calls on her old friends from her orphanage days, six other feisty women, to save the day...

I may have told the synopsis cheesily, but this is a cheesy story. In fact, the whole script and direction lacked any quality at all. Much of the dialogue was meaningless and coupled with a plot that was as thin as rice-paper in water. If I could sum it up, take a bad Jackie Chan movie, remove the comedy, remove the choreography, throw away the budget, and you have Martial Angels: a formulaic piece of work with no imagination at all.

Mind you, I do have to give credit where credit's due, and Shu Qi was probably the only person to emerge unscathed from the terrible action, as it was her performance that shone through. Okay, you can't say she was excellent - after all she had absolutely nothing to work with - but she did manage to dig some character out from her role. Other than that, only Sandra Ng and Kelly Lin made any other impression - although these were mostly glimmers and very brief.

Elsewhere, the film just fell to pieces. Scenes and dialogue were completely unnatural and unbelievable, special effects were obviously done on the cheap with no attempt to clean up edges between persons and the mask of the blue screen, poor editing involving numerous discontinuities in fight scenes, camera angles that were elementary and unflattering, and direction I've seen better from a lost dog.

I guess this film was a too many cooks affair. Most probably, the budget was blown away on the over-enthusiasm to have seven babes on the same silver screen. That didn't leave much else.

Frankly, the way this film was made was like a cheap porn movie without the porn. Charlie's Angels, it ain't. In fact, while sisters can do it for themselves, none of that was really that apparent here.

Definitely one to forget.

Sentiment: negative
I always tell people that "Enchanted April" is an adult movie with no cussing, no sex, and no violence. One might think of it as "the ultimate chick flick", but I bet there are one or two enlightened men out there who love it too. Don't invite the kids, though. This movie is very low-key.

Seeing "Enchanted April" is a very healing experience. The sound track and gorgeous scenery, along with the ladies' gentle manners, bring to mind the peace and beauty of a pre-Raphaelite painting.

Lest anyone think yours truly only watches one kind of movie, I will paraphrase a line I heard once on "Saturday Night Live" and say that my two favorite movies are "The Deer Hunter" and "Enchanted April".

Sentiment: positive
This movie is kind of good. It seem that they used the Tyrannosaurus Rex like a blown up balloon, just like Godzilla, just maybe back in those 60-70's days, scientist haven't got enough info. on all sorts of dinosaurs. Back in those time scientist still making dinosaur, so I guess this movie was base on a Tyrannosaurus Rex movements back in the 60-70's. There even a part where a giant rock, fired by someone at the Tyrannosaurus Rex, it damage the Tyrannosaurus Rex and it was knock out for a little while. At the end, the Tyrannosaurus Rex went back to search for food. There is something wrong in the movie as well, like a rifle, how can one rifle kill a Tyrannosaurus Rex, when it could be 1,000-5,000 stronger than we are. If this film going to make a remake, I suggest make it more good and excited, because watching a old movie seems like to have a remake of it, if lucky.

Sentiment: positive
This movie answers the question, how does a relationship survive when your girlfriend is codependent, clinging, needy, jealous .. and has powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal women?

Without spoiling the movie, I can safely assure you it does not, but there's great fun to be had along the way. Uma Thurman is perfect as the mercurial super-heroine, an uber-babe, mysteriously named G-Girl, who unlike most in her sisterhood, is not *always* dedicated to truth, justice, and the American Way. 

Thurman is also believable as the thoroughly daft, yet somehow still fetching, curator Jenny. When she is dumped for a less endowed but more emotionally secure and well adjusted rival, G-Girl goes ballistic, and what follows is not pretty. It's funny, but it's not pretty ..

It's a delightful premise, hell hath no fury like a super-heroine scorned, and those involved don't altogether carry it off, but it has its moments, and I think I'll get the DVD.

I liked this movie ..

Sentiment: positive
William Powell's final outing as Philo Vance occurs in The Kennel Murder Case where the murder of a championship show dog leads to two more murders and one attempt of the human kind. It's all in the figuring out of how that leads to the who and why.

The Philo Vance murders by S.S. Van Dine were most popular at the time and the clever Mr. Van Dine figured out a way to sell his books one at a time to the highest studio bidder. This is why you see so many Philo Vances and so many studios putting them out. Had Bill Powell not gone on to greater fame with MGM as Nick Charles of the Thin Man series, he would have been known as the greatest of Philo Vances. 

It turns out that Powell had entered his little terrier Captain in the same contest where the murdered dog was entered and then another rival owner became the first murder victim. As usual Powell shows up Eugene Palette as Sergeant Heath whose biggest contribution to the proceedings was using his bulk to break down the locked from the inside door where the first murder victim was found.

I did say locked from the inside and it was an upper story so it was in figuring out the how. Powell has a lovely group of suspects, as extensive as what normally is in a Thin Man mystery. People like Paul Cavanaugh, Helen Vinson, Ralph Morgan, Mary Astor, fill their cast roles well.

Warner Brothers liked this version so much that in fact they remade it again in the Thirties with James Stephenson in his one and only outing as Philo Vance. It doesn't hold a candle to this one.

As this is the only Powell Philo Vance that is out on VHS or DVD by all means see this one or acquire it if you can.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was so predictable. Its a complete rip off of those, "I was abused by daddy I'm gonna kill women" movies. Stupid scenes, bad acting, unoriginal storyline, really low budget piece of crap film.

Don't waste your time people. Trust me.

My rating: 0/5.0

Sentiment: negative
I caught this at a test screening. All I can say is: What...the...hell? This movie plays out about as smoothly as Mickey Mouse reading the script for "Scarface." It's bizarre beyond making the slightest bit of sense; and even if you do leave your brain in the car, the film is still so bizarre that it isn't even funny.

The plot involves crocodile hunter Steve Irwin trying to "save" a crocodile which contains a CIA probe. The CIA comes after Irwin to get their probe back, Irwin mistakes them for poachers, and sets out to "stop" them.

That's about all the story there is; the rest is over-the-top lampooning of Australian culture ("Didja see dat?" and "Crikey!") and strangely choreographed action sequences. At one point, Irwin mounts a speeding RV and knife fights with a CIA agent on top of it. Yes, that's right: Steve Irwin knife fights a guy on top of an RV. Let that be your guide for this ridiculously bad film.

Sentiment: negative
I started watching The Apprentice about 4 years ago(maybe 5) and I really really liked it. The first thing that strikes you about it is the refreshing format, which though similar to a lot of other reality shows at its core, is still very entertaining. Donald Trump is wonderful as the host and the main judge of the show as well. The casting coup with intelligent people having good looks being picked as contestants is appreciated as well. But the best part of the show is New York city. Mark Burnett may have made a lot of crap in his time but his handling of the cinematography is excellent as he makes NYC look like a character unto itself. The jazz tunes coupled with some great camera-work make New York look spectacular.

The Apprentice will easily alway make my top 3 reality shows of all time(The Amazing Race is no. 1,however).But just like the amazing race this show is always best watched in moderation. If you keep watching it for a while the originality of the show will wear off fast(the same case as with TAR).Star World, the broadcasters in this country, did a bang up job in presenting the show. The first three seasons were shown in a row, then after 2 years the next two seasons were shown, which kept the concept fresh.

In conclusion, you will love this show, especially the first 2 seasons. However if you keep watching the show continuously, thereafter its charm WILL wear off and FAST.

Sentiment: positive
I saw one of the stage performances in Denver and have never been less impressed. The word "vagina" says it all. A body part. Nothing shocking here. I could say to my doctor, "My left arm has been hurting a bit after tennis" or "My vagina hurts after cycling" with equal or more social commentary. It could be the "Tricep Monologues" for all the entertainment or radical comment I heard. The monologues were dull but delivered with drama, the topics were outdated, and I was alternately bored and annoyed. Once I think I laughed but apparently it wasn't when I was supposed to. Surely this isn't really a hit. Oh, and spoilers: there was a LESBIAN! - oh, wait, maybe not, come to think of it. And Inappropriate Fondling! And a Crack Mama! That about covers it.

Sentiment: negative
this is not just a bad film, it's one of the worst films ever. it's so bad that i found it to be quite enjoyable. the acting, oh my god, the script, you gotta be kiddin'. how can you imagine the writer coming up with things like: - a kid who makes fireworks in school, fireworks SO powerfull, that when someone gets hit by it, they fly a hundred yards backwards and explode. -a girl is trapped in the celler, the killer is trying to break open the door. she gets a drill, but the wire isn't long enough. she first makes an extension cord, oh the horror, and then, when she's done, she drills through the door and drills through the head of the killer. WOW - and there are plenty more examples like that. oh yeah, and what happened to George Kennedy, he used to be great (Thunderbolt and Lightfoot/Cool hand Luke)

Sentiment: negative
Joe is the movie about the dark side of the force of the 1960's in America, and Susan Sarandon had nice boobs. This movie scared me so much when I saw it in the theatre that I never liked Peter Boyle until Young Frankenstein and was still quite leery of him even after that comedy. Looking back now from today's experience, this film seems current again in being direct and to the point of half the electorate's approval of John McCain's "Joe The Plumber" typecast and their fear of electing a black man as President of the USA in the coming weeks. A black Prez would be seen as sweet revenge of the "niggers" but bound to again bring fire to many minds if not the streets, this time by Joe enthusiasts. So, the spirit of Joe in the film is resurrected in the campaign of Joe The Plumber! Still, I love to be American and be terrified at both and by the knowledge that they illustrate what ironically Gregory Peck said our civilized law also is: "a living, breathing reality!" God help us.

Sentiment: positive
I just finished watching "El Otro". I have always taken my hat off to Julio Chavez's performances, as he is a great actor, but this movie is really depressing and slow. I guess that it would have been even worse if it wasn't for Julio. Anyways, this is definitely a film that you will never understand if you are not from Argentina, and even if you are, I would advise you not to rent this movie in order to have a nice time with your girlfriend, boyfriend, family or friends... it is really depressing and incredibly slow, and the plot does not make a lot of sense neither. Probably the director wanted to show the fragility of the human life, but what he does is bore and impress the audience with scenes that shock you a little bit. It gives you something to think about, but not in a good way. Overall, I definitely didn't like this movie.

Sentiment: negative
It is an almost ideal romantic anime! MUST SEE FOR ALL AGES! But the English dubbed version is not too good. Perhaps the 1999 version will be better.

Sentiment: positive
Dana Andrews is one of those actors that I've probably seen in a dozen films, but who has never really registered for me. Often stolid, taciturn, playing the same kinds of roles and looking somewhat like the similarly underrated Glenn Ford, he's an actor that takes some effort to really appreciate; but once you hit the right film....

And this is it. Preminger's moody look at New York's underbelly is as dirty and seedy as just about any 50s noir, and Andrews is in his element as too-tough cop Mark Dixon who just doesn't know how to play the game to get ahead: he hates criminals too much to always play by the rules. Early on in the film, he accidentally kills the witness to a murder involving an illegal crap game set up by a mobster who Dixon hates for personal reasons, and he spends the rest of the film trying to cover up his involvement and bring the mobster to his kind of "justice". Along the way he gets involved with the estranged wife of the man he killed (Gene Tierney) and also has to try to get her father off the hook for the murder.

Stunningly photographed by Joseph LaShelle, with hard and sparkling dialogue by Ben Hecht and a truly powerful ending with elements of tragedy and found grace in just a minute or two of time, this is another noir for the ages and might be my favorite Preminger film thus far -- it's every bit as good as the more-heralded Laura.

Sentiment: positive
I got this movie because I worked at a movie store so I got free rentals. It came in, and the cover made it look alright. Hot chick, carrying a weapon, alright, I'll check it out.

Oh man, bad move. This was so horrible, I spent half the movie watching in fast-forward to get to the nudity, which was minimal. I think MAYBE three scenes of partial nudity.

Cheesy dialogue, crappy violence, poor excuses of characters. I feel bad putting this movie down, because I know it was made on a cheap budget, but so was "Clerks" and it became a cult classic and a franchise.

2/10.

Sentiment: negative
Well, TiVo recorded this because of Angelina Jolie. It had 2.5 stars. It seemed promising. It went downhill fast.

There is much overacting, even from Angelina. She's about 20 and playing a 16 year old. There are three characters that are supposed to be Italian. Everyone else is Italian- American. The native Italian accents were good, I thought. The young male lead is cute, my wife says. Everyone else in this movie is a fat Italian woman. Even the men.

I should have known that when Dick Van Patten was cast as a randy doctor, that that was a bad sign. The two couples chasing their kids around are like the four Italian Stooges.

My wife would not let go of the remote. Hopefully she was not taking makeup, clothing or decorating tips. It was a sick and twisted combination of hideous and garish. It was hidegarishous.

Cutting off my left ventricle was not sufficient to distract from the pain of watching this movie. If this movie shows up on your TV, do yourself a favor and ram your head through the TV screen instead. You'll be glad you did. The only movie I've ever seen that was worse than this was "Hamburger: The Movie". Or maybe "Deadly Friend".

Sentiment: negative
This was an absolutely terrible movie. Don't be lured in by Christopher Walken or Michael Ironside. Both are great actors, but this must simply be their worst role in history. Even their great acting could not redeem this movie's ridiculous storyline. This movie is an early nineties US propaganda piece. The most pathetic scenes were those when the Columbian rebels were making their cases for revolutions. Maria Conchita Alonso appeared phony, and her pseudo-love affair with Walken was nothing but a pathetic emotional plug in a movie that was devoid of any real meaning. I am disappointed that there are movies like this, ruining actor's like Christopher Walken's good name. I could barely sit through it.

Sentiment: negative
i hate vampire movies. with that said, this one was very interesting to me. i do want to point out one thing tho. "bakjwi" literally means bat in korean and we all know that in many classic vampire stories, you see count Dracula or vampires turning into a bat and fly away or wuheva. We also know that bats are mammals that can fly thus many categorizes them to be "exceptional." As I watched the film, I realized that the theme of bat is deeply embedded in this movie more than just to make the bat-vampire connection.

Duality of human nature = if you ever read aesop's fables, there is this one fable where mammals and birds are fighting and a bat just can't seem to take a side and it tries to play both sides to his advantage. Mammals and birds find out what this bat has been doing and banish the bat out of their lands at the end of the story.

the two contradicting sides of human nature are constantly at battle throughout the film ex. sang-hyun's blind priest friend, sang-hyun's effort to quench thirst and his sexual desire, tae-ju playing both sides, her ordinary boring life vs. her thrill seeking vampire adventure, etc (won't ruin too much, u have to watch the film) and this theme is beautifully presented on a plate with delicious sides of romance, sex, violence, religion, dark-comedy,tragedy, vengeance, you name it!

i feel like many would find this movie boring and too long, but this film is very fresh and new, something that i haven't seen b4 yet. I wouldn't say this is CW Park's best work, but it is mos. def. the strangest to comprehend yet darkly intriguing!

Sentiment: positive
Just like all of Mel Brooks' other comedies, Men in Tights is hilarious. But in seeing this as an outrageous comedy, I think many fail to realize that the reason the movie is so funny is that the characters themselves are acted so well. Elwes is the well-spoken former British noble, Lewis is an eternally annoyed king (I hope it's worth all the NOOOOOOIIIISE!), DeLuise is a FANTASTIC godfather, Roger Rees is a worried and cynical sheriff.... The actors and actresses are so loyal to their parts that the jokes flow forth with ease. Yes, we've seen this kind of comedy before, but the only comedy to achieve better character development, in my opinion, is The Big Lebowski. Very very funny.

Sentiment: positive
I have been watching "LOST" with my family since the first episode, it used to be great. The last season it was very disappointing, it seems as if they (writers)don't know what to do with the show, so, they keep trying to make it up for it by stretching one story line in a whole episode. The present season, which by the way I decided to keep watching only to see Rodrigo Santoro, and also with a tiny little hope that things would get better; has been one disappointment after another; my husband and son even stopped watching. First of all, he (Santoro) only appears for 30 seconds in each episode. But the real problem is with the story line, THERE IS NOTHING REALLY HAPPENING, each episode could be shown in 15 minutes. We watch each episode waiting for something that never happens; I am not asking that every secret be revealed at once, but how about some variation in the story lines? In the first and second seasons, we had different story lines, we saw the characters history, a little action, a little romance, now is like one big event that takes the whole episode to unveil. It is almost tiring to watch it, when it finishes you have a feeling that you lost your time. Now, it is important to note that the actors still great.I can't believe they killed Mr. Eko(Adelawale...)he was great, Jack(Mathew Fox)is still incredible, the perfect hero, so kind, magnanimous, brave. Sawyer(Josh Holloway), the "bad boy" is kind of mellowing because of Kate(Evangeline Lylli), but that's cool. I miss Sayid(Naveen Andrews), Sun and Jin(Yoon-jin Kim & Daniel Dae Kim), they are all an important part of the plot (or should be), but we barely see them. I hope Paulo(Rodrigo Santoro) will have a big part on the show; if not, why did you make such a big deal of him joining the show (Access Hollywood, etc)? Sorry if I've been rumbling for too long, but I feel cheated by this show. When I started watching it was great, I got used to it, and now it is very disappointing to see the way it is going. I'll be here, hoping for the improvements!!! Katia

Sentiment: negative
Yes i'll say before i start commenting, this movie is incredibly underrated.

Sharon Stone is great in her role of Catherine Trammell as is Morrissey as Dr glass. He is an analyst sent in to evaluate her after the death of a sports star. Glass is drawn into a seductive game that Trammel uses to manipulate his mind.

The acting was good (apart from Thewlis)

Stone really has a talent with this role. She's slick, naughty and seductive and doesn't look a day older than she did in the first.She really impressed me(like in Casino). Morrisey was also good. He showed much vunerablitity in a role that needed it. Thewlis however was lame. He ruined his character and was over-the-top the whole way. He really sucked.

Overall, this movie not as good the first but Stone is a hoot to watch. Just ignore Thewlis.

Sentiment: positive