DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
My giving this a score of 3 is NOT what I would give the original Soviet version of this film. It seems that American-International (a studio that specialized in ultra-low-budget fare in the 60s) bought this film and utterly destroyed it--slicing a two hour plus film into a 64 minute film! Plus, much of this 64 minutes was new material (such as the "monsters")--so you know that this film bears almost no similarity to the original. The original film appears to be a rather straight drama about the Soviet conquest of space--though I really am not sure what it was originally! For insight into the original film, read Steven Nyland's review--it was very helpful.

By the way, this was the third Soviet sci-film I've seen that American-International bought and then hacked apart to make a "new" film--standard practice to a company that was willing to put just about anything on the screen to make a buck--provided, of course, it didn't cost them much more than a buck in the first place!! This Americanized film was about two rival world powers (NOT the US and Soviets) trying to be the first to Mars. The tricky "bad guys" try but fail and the "good guys" rescue one of the idiot astronauts and then head to Mars. Unfortunately, they are temporarily stranded on a moon of Mars where they see some monsters (added by American-International) that are REAAAALLY cheesy and one does bear similarity to a certain part of a female's anatomy. Then, they are rescued--returning to Earth heroes.

The bottom line is that the film was butchered--turning an incredibly beautiful piece of art (for the time) being turned into a grade-C movie. Because of this, the Soviets really had a reason to hate America! I'm just shocked that the horrible job A-I did with this film didn't convince them to refuse to sell more films to these jerks! It's worth a look for a laugh, but the really bad moments that make you laugh are few and far between. So, the film is a dud--not bad enough to make it a must-see for bad movie buffs and too dopey to be taken seriously. I would really love to see this movie in its original form--it must have been some picture.

Sentiment: negative
It's not often I give two stars to a horror movie because horror is my favorite genre. A movie can be BAD in that it isn't a masterpiece but can be enjoyable on the basis of unintentional humour, bizarre characters, etc. A case in point are a great number of horror/sci-fiction movies from the 1940s to 1980s era. They are enjoyable for genre-buffs and guilty-pleasure seekers because their "badness" is entertaining. However, this movie has none of the humour or effective gory scenes of the "Piranha" (1978) original. 

I suppose in 1995 it was the heyday of political correctness so gore on TV was at a minimum. Now in the mid-2000s with the C.S.I. shows, TV's an absolute blood-fest! (Good for us horror fans!)

William Katt and Alexandra Paul are no Bradford Dillman and Heather Menzies (the original 1978 stars.) It's not Katt's and Paul's faults but the writers and director who created this tepid turkey. How the main characters interact is the main flaw of this movie. I won't say how because that is part of the plot. 

This TV movie probably had a bigger budget than the original but flopped as good horror, as can be seen from the user votes here. Stick with the 1978 original if you're in the mood for a killer-fish movie!

Sentiment: negative
I love so much about this movie: the music, the cinematography, the acting, the story, and all the Mormon clichés. Just because they are clichés doesn't mean they aren't true! This is not perfect, it is a movie after all. Though excommunications are held in well-lit rooms with nice big desks and chairs, it was totally appropriate to portray it as the dark, cold scene they did in this film. I also liked the scene with the angel waiting at the bus stop, smoking a cigarette. I thought that was so cool. I mean, I believe that angels do watch over us. What is one supposed to do while waiting? Smoking is a way some people pass the time while waiting. I loved the irony cause Mormons make such a deal about smoking. I saw this movie 7 times in theaters in Salt Lake, and cried every time! It blows me away. And I've watched it 3 times on video now and it still makes me cry every time. I would jump at the chance to see it again on a big screen. I hope the Tower Theatre in Salt Lake will bring it back regularly at General Conference time, as a cult movie (pun intended, but no offense intended).

Sentiment: positive
The video case for this film reads "a story of beauty, passion, and forbidden fruit". Are they talking about the same movie I just saw?! They can't be, as the film I just saw was beautiful, but there was no passion and as for the fruit, this is all hogwash meant to entice the potential viewer to see this movie. If only it did have some passion or some life to it, I would have greatly enjoyed this film. Instead, it was an agonizingly slow paced and not particularly interesting film that I would definitely not want to see again. It isn't that it's a bad film (after all it IS very beautifully filmed), but it is dull beyond belief. I kept waiting for something exciting or interesting to happen, but then the movie just ended. There was no great sense of excitement, mystery or anything--just a rather unexciting story about a young girl who becomes a servant and spends the next 10 years of her life working as a maid.

Sentiment: negative
OK, to start with, this movie was not at all like the book. I read the book when I was 13 and since then it has always been my favorite. When I'm waiting for a different book to come out, this is the book I turn to to fill in the time. I have 3 copies for god's sake. anyways, I knew this was not going to be anything like the book but come on! They could have done a little better than this. I mean seriously if I wanted to watch American werewolf in Paris or London than I would watch those movies. They took a perfectly good story and twisted it around into a copy of a story that has been told over and over again and quite frankly I'm tired of watching it. I mean hello the best part of the whole f*****g (sorry) story is she ends up with Gabriel. He doesn't die. What was that about? And he's old in this movie. Gabriel is supposed to be only 24 not 44 da** it. Awww. And Astrid who the he** came up with the idea of Astrid being Vivian's Aunt no no no no. Astrid and Vivian hate each other. Awwww. Anyways yeah that was my little rant seriously pi**ed off. hope this helped.

Sentiment: negative
I first saw this movie in the theater when I was 8 years old and it still cracks me up. The Muppets are so cool and they approach show business in a refreshingly naive way. My favorite scene is when the rats start a whispering campaign on behalf of Kermit at a fancy restaurant. This is one smart and funny movie for kids and parents alike. Long live Kermit, Miss Piggy and the rest of the gang.

Sentiment: positive
I have always been a huge James Bond fanatic! I have seen almost all of the films except for Die Another Day, and The World Is Not Enough. The graphic's for Everything Or Nothing are breathtaking! The voice talents......... WOW! I LOVE PIERCE BROSNAN! He is finally Bond in a video game! HE IS BOND! I enjoyed the past Bond games: Goldeneye, The World Is Not Enough, Agent Under Fire, and Nightfire. This one is definitely the best! Finally, Mr. Brosnan, (may I call him Mr. Brosnan as a sign of respect? Yes I can!) He was phenomenally exciting to hear in a video game....... AT LONG LAST! DUH! I've seen him perform with Robin Williams, and let me tell you, they make a great team. Pierce Brosnan is funny, wickedly handsome ( I mean to say wickedly in a good way,) and just one of those actor's who you would want to walk up to and wrap your arms around and hug, saying: "Pierce Brosnan, thank you for being James Bond," "If it wasn't for you, I wouldn't know who James Bond is." He's a great actor! I am a huge fan of Willem Dafoe even though I've seen him in a couple of movies. His role as Nikolai Diavalo was brilliant. (Did I spell the character's name right?) LOL!!!! He does a great job with an accent. Sometimes I can't even hear an accent. I have seen Willem, I mean Mr. Dafoe, perform in two movies: Finding Nemo, and Spider-Man with my favorite actress: KIRSTEN DUNST! SHE ROCKS! Anyway, He never ceases to amaze. And Richard Kiel, wow, he's definitely got the part of Jaw's nailed. I've seen him in the movie's and he's awesome! As a matter of fact, my Grandparent's have met Mr. Kiel, and I was jealous when they told me. But, Kirsten Dunst is at the top of my list of Celebritie's that I want to meet. John Cleese was breathtaking. I have never seen a better person play as the wisecracking, and gadget creating Q! Mr. Cleese was hilarious! I've seen him work with Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye and Tommorow Never Dies. He's awesome! John Cleese's most recent project is Shrek 2 starring Mike Myer's, Cameron Diaz, Julie Andrew's and Eddie Murphy. ( Shrek 2 is now in theatre's!) GOOD LUCK 007! Oh, yeah, and as Q alway's says: "Grow up 007!"

Sentiment: positive
I enjoy B movies. I think Bruce Campbell is a very watchable actor. I love how he delivers his lines. 'Evil Dead 2 and 'Army of Darkness' were great movies. I liked 'Running Time'. However, I don't know if I'll ever watch this movie again...and I bought it. Now, after saying that, I bet the commentary tracks and special features will be worth watching! This movie just has far too many holes for me to actually enjoy, even as a cheapo movie. First off, Ted Raimi was annoying, just flat out annoying. There was nothing to his badly acted / written character that hasn't been done better a thousand times before. The directing sadly was sub par and the choice of some shots...yikes. I don't expect Woody Allen or James Cameron here, but Campbell did not deliver.

I did not purchase this thinking it was going to be an Oscar movie like 'Annie Hall', but still I'm disappointed. I would have been happy with 'Mallrats' or 'The Rhino Brothers'. I got much less. By the end of the movie there were no scenes that popped out to me, no dialogue that resonated within me. Even 'Hostel' had a classic line for petes sake! I do not recommend this movie.

Sentiment: negative
Okay, it's too long and it's too satisfied with itself. Still, "The Great Dictator" is a fascinating movie. Chaplin does a terrific job satirizing Hitler and trying to portray the oppression of the Jews in Nazi Germany (this was before the concentration camps were common knowledge). Not a Chaplin masterpiece, but still worth seeing.



Sentiment: positive
This movie starts at A and never quite reaches B. Its title promises far more than the film delivers. It's superficial and filled with the usual cliches of a story in which a guy questions his sexuality. The people are agreeable, even the obligatory flamboyant type. The lead (Kevin McKidd) overacts insofar as there's a reason for him to act at all. Simon Callow, playing a horny straight, is always worth watching, and he's by far the only reason to stay with the movie. However, the rubbish about his men's group "meditations" or whatever they are grows extremely tiresome in short order. They seem to have been thrown into the movie's mild mix in a misguided effort to vary the setting and non-stop inaction. The same comment applies to a really odd and unconvincing camping trip. Don't worry about pausing the tape so you can get a snack. Let the thing run; you won't miss anything. Hugo Weaving's character is superfluous. He appears in a sequence with one of the lesser leads and doesn't even meet the rest at all. The outcome of that sequence isn't explained, and Hugo's real estate dealings have nothing to do with the story. The movie is a total disappointment at the end, because there is no resolution. The thing simply fades out and we're sent to the closing credits. This is an interlude with no structure.

Sentiment: negative
The exclamation point in the title is appropriate, albeit an understatement. This movie doesn't just cry -- it shrieks loud enough to shatter glass.

Filmmakers Andrew and Virginia Stone made shrill, humorless suspense thrillers that strove for a semi-documentary feel. Here, they shot on actual New York locations with tinny "real-life" acoustics to jack up the verisimilitude. But the naturalism of the sound recording only serves to amplify the Stones' maladroit dialog and the mouth-frothing histrionics of tortured butterfly Inger Stevens.

In a performance completely devoid of modulation, Stevens plays the wife of electronics whiz James Mason (looking haggard and bored); both are held captive by extortionist Rod Steiger (looking bloated and bored) and his slimy cohorts in a scheme to blackmail an airline with a deadly bomb that Mason has unwittingly helped construct.

Here is another credibility-straining instance of a criminal mastermind so brilliantly attentive to every detail, yet knuckleheaded enough to hire a drug-addicted degenerate as an underling. The Stones' idea of nail-biting tension is to trap the hysterical Stevens alone with Benzedrine-popping rapist Neville Brand, filling the frame with his sweaty, drooling kisser. But the camera work is so leaden and Brand so (uncharacteristically) demure that the effect is hardly lurid, much less suspenseful. The Stones, a square pair at heart, don't even have the courage of their own lack of convictions.

The film, which ends with the portly Steiger chasing the fleet-footed Stevens on a subway train track, is as clumsy as its ungainly heavy. With Angie Dickinson as Steiger's amoral girlfriend, Jack Klugman, Kenneth Tobey, and Barney Philips.

Sentiment: negative
The man who gave us Splash, Cocoon and Parenthood gave us this incoherent muddle of cliched characters, poor plotting, you've-got-to-be-kidding dialogue and melodramatic acting? I guess everybody has a bad day at the office now and then. He's allowed.

Sentiment: negative
Would someone tell shaq to stick to what he is good at basketball. This movie was not even entertaining on a stupid level. In this movie shaq plays a genie who lives in a boom box is that not orginal a genie in a boom box instead of a lamp. He is supposed to help a little boy played by the equally annoying francais cappra. This movie had the most flimsy storyline since water world, the acting was awful and I think that anyone who likes this flim would be afraid to admit it.

Sentiment: negative
There was a time when Michael Jackson was revered as the King of Pop. Then came a time when he attracted negative publicity as much as lemonade attracts wasps. Finally, it is now the time that we feel truly sorry for this man.

This 'movie' is another reason to. I promised a rabid Michael Jackson fan to watch it with her. You know the type of fan -- someone who tells him- or herself to like everything the object of affection ever did. While watching this movie, which she had seen twice already, I realized how far this fandom goes. Probably far enough to rate this movie above a 1/10, as some people miraculously did.

The movie attempts to be a parody of many other movies and series, most notably Cast Away, Lost and Jurassic Park. Unfortunately, it fails miserably at any level. The acting does not save the absolutely horrible story, the filming has the quality of a too-often played video tape, the special effects were better executed in Be Kind Rewind (for those who do not now this movie: with aluminum foil)... All this would be funny if the movie managed to be, well, funny. Unfortunately, it is not. It hurts to watch this.

And then there is Michael Jacksons appearance in this garbage. He appears on a projection screen to deliver an important message, and manages to come across as mobile as Jabba the Hutt and as serious as a 4-year old. Just when I thought "who is the terrible person that lured this poor man into participating in this movie and yet again making a total fool of himself", I (finally) reached the ending credits and discovered that the movie was actually partially shot at Jackson's Neverland ranch. In other words: He. Likes. It.

This movie, and Jackson's involvement in it, is truly disturbing. Do not watch it even for the "haha, a movie in the IMDb Bottom 100" effect. Or be warned.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is pure guano. Mom always said if you can't say anything nice... but even Mom would say I had to do my part to warn others of this movie.

I can guarantee this is the film that Geoffrey Rush wishes would just go away. I would hope that Greg Kinnear fired his agent..from a cannon for giving him the script. After this Ben Stiller is probably praying for someone to pitch "There's Still Something About Mary." I have always been a fan of Wes Studi's, thank whatever you hold holy that he wore a mask through the film so maybe people won't identify the film with him.

It starts of promisingly with a stylistic spoof of the cinematography of the Batman films and then just loses something...like a coherent plot and half decent effects.

The jokes are telegraphed an hour before the punchline comes, and even then they fall flat. If you want to see an effective spoof of the comic book world see "Chasing Amy".

RUN! DON'T WALK AWAY FROM "MYSTERY MEN"!

Sentiment: negative
Don't waste 90 minutes of your time on "Fast Food, Fast Women." It's annoyingly episodic script with three story lines patched together is laughably bad due to predictable writing, horrific acting, and even bad music. I found the anorexic main character upsetting to watch every time she was on screen. SHE needs the fast food.

Spend the 90 minutes you'd devote to this turkey doing something more exciting...like trimming your toenails. You'd have more entertainment value.

The only redeeming thing about this film is Louise Lasser, but she deserves much better than this tired script. It's as impotent as the elder guy she courts in the movie.

VIEWER BEWARE!

Sentiment: negative
"The China Syndrome" could not have been released at a better time: twelve days after its release, the infamous screw-up in Three Mile Island happened. But even if that (and/or Chernobyl) had never happened, this movie remains an important look at what could happen through mismanagement of nuclear facilities. Jack Lemmon turns in a five star performance as the supervisor trying to expose a cover-up at his nuclear plant, with Jane Fonda playing the reporter trying to investigate, and Michael Douglas plays her cameraman.

I don't know whether or not the current threat of a terrorist attack makes "The China Syndrome" more disturbing, but either way, it's still definitely a movie that everyone should see.

I hope that those people who spent years pushing nuclear power saw this movie just so that they could know that their views and ideals are completely defunct.

Sentiment: positive
*** Spoiler in fifth paragraph *** This was an amazingly frank (uh-huh, uh-huh) picture for 1955. Otto Preminger and Carlyle Productions took a chance by making it, the Motion Picture Association of America balked at certifying a film that openly shows a junky jabbing a syringe full of heroin into his arm. Frank Sinatra took a chance both on playing an addicted musician and at falling flat on his face in a role that required at least twice as much acting as he'd ever done. All in all these gambles paid off, the movie is a classic, though it's not perfect.

Nelson Algren's novel may be great, but it has far too much going on to fit comfortably into a two hour movie 'The Man with the Golden Arm' is 119 minutes and often feels much longer. However, in my opinion it's not just Frankie Machine (Sinatra) that makes the film but the other characters and their sub-plots, all involving Frankie. Ultimately it's not just Frankie who has the addiction, everyone and everything seems to be dependent on him and he feels it keenly. When the pressure gets to be too much the drums start pounding on the soundtrack and Frankie steps across the street with his well-dressed "friend" Louie.

It's an exaggeration to say that Frank Sinatra's music career was ever really in the doldrums, but in the early 50's he was in limbo between his days touring with big bands and the Las Vegas era. 'From Here to Eternity' established him as a serious actor and his career as a singer rebounded as well, but 'The Man with the Golden Arm' was still a significant challenge, the whole show sinks or swims with his performance. He pulls it off with such skill that for several minutes at a time I forgot I was watching Frank Sinatra, he must have known junky musicians and exploited that knowledge to the utmost.

Set side by side with Billy Wilder's masterpiece 'The Lost Weekend' there is more emphasis on the sociological causes of addiction in 'The Man with the Golden Arm.' Whereas Don Birnem (Ray Milland in 'The Lost Weekend') seems to struggle mostly against himself, Frankie Machine is beset by external forces and he takes refuge in the needle. Neither approach is wholly right or wrong, mostly because addiction is impossible to fully explain, but it seems like this film might have benefited from a little more insight into Frankie's internal struggle.

*** Spoiler *** One of the problems I have with this film is the clichéd reliance on "quitting cold turkey." I realize that 'The Man with the Golden Arm' was probably setting the trend rather than following it but that doesn't make it any better. In the beginning of the movie Frankie has to all appearances kicked his habit with the help of a doctor and a treatment facility of some sort. Naturally the drama of the film requires that he backslide, but I found the All-American ideal that a man has to face his problems alone (or maybe with the help of a good woman) out of place here. Going cold turkey and riding off into the sunset with Kim Novak seemed too unrealistic. The end of 'The Lost Weekend' was similar but in my opinion was a little less rosy.

Sentiment: positive
When I first heard of this movie, I was mildly interested. The plot seemed like an opportunity for hilarity and Bam Margera as an actor and director seemed like something that might be good. When I found out the movie starred Ryan Dunn, I was even further interested (I was a fan of Homewrecker when it was on... Yeah, I'm that lame). However, I didn't have much faith in it being to good. When I sat down to watch it, I was afraid I was wasting my time.

But even just five minutes it it became apparent that I'd been wrong.

I thought that the comedy of this film was delightfully idiotic, and definitely not suited for all kinds of people. The acting was rather good, much better than my expectations. I thought that it was rather easy to relate to Ryan's character, which gave the movie a center that was believable. This is key in a movie as outrageous as this (and is probably why I was not a fan of Borat).

The movie is not suitable at all for younger people, DUH, and will definitely create more than it's fair share of awkward turtles if watched with parents. But it's a good one for you and your buddies on a movie night.

Sentiment: positive
Oh, it's the movie - I thought I waited too long to take out the dog... I can't believe I watched the whole thing. I guess I was optimistically anticipating that it was going to get better. Horribly disjointed dialog, pathetic acting, and totally improbable events. Like Toby's mom hanging herself in the time it takes Col to walk upstairs and back down in a room with a 24' ceiling and no chairs, counters or anything around her motionlessly suspended body that she could have possibly used to climb on to do herself in. The little girl that played the daughter of the last family was the best actor in the whole movie, and the puppy of the first couple was a close second. The basic storyline has potential and with a good script and director could be a seriously creepy flick, but this version sadly is not it. I get more scared when I open my electric bill every month.

Sentiment: negative
People criticize NSNA because it is a low-point in Bond god Sean Connery's career, and because it is unofficial. ***MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* First of all, this movie is better then any other bond film featuring any other actor then Connery, all sub par wannabes in my book. Sean Connery is the only real Bond, no one comes even close to his toughness, good looks and sex appeal. Yes, this movie is a low point in Connery's Bond career, but it is still the definet best bond film of the 80's. Sean Connery is the only Bond actor who is good at an older age. he did not become a baggy mess like Moore, but kept his good looks and toughness, but gaining some gray hair. So what? hes still the only real 007, and he is as cool, and tough as ever. Sean Connery is the one and only 007. And this movie is definitly worth seeing, no matter what anyone says. No gun-barrel opening, but you can't have everything, can you? great theme song, though.

Sentiment: positive
I love this movie. I mean the story may not be the best, but the dancing most certainly makes up for it. You get to know a little bit about each character the way THEY want you to learn about them. I just think that you won't like this movie unless you're into Broadway...

Sentiment: positive
One of, if not the worst film to come out of Britain in the 80s. 

This tawdry tale of a middle aged lecher who 'seduces' two teenage scrubbers who babysit for him and his faux-posh wife has nothing to redeem it.

In turns gratuitous, puerile, uncouth and unrealistic, this film plumbs the depths as it fails miserably in its attempts to be funny, provocative, intellectual and controversial. 

Perhaps the worst thing about this film is the way the strong cast of George Costigan, Michelle Holmes and Siobhan Finneran are completely stitched by such a lame script. It's no surprise that this was the late Andrea Dunbar's only work to make it onto the screen. Complete and utter rubbish on every level.

Sentiment: negative
What I miss most of all in this film is that it lets no place for imagination, everything is said. It is like a documentary film, but not as good as a documentary, because it is no documentary. A patchwork film without a continuous story. Very superficial, nothing to think about, because the film tells you already what you are supposed to think. Too many different problems are touched but none is worked out in order to make you think. I do not even know if it is a funny film that wants to be serious or a serious film that wants to be funny. Many scenes are very unrealistic, and the acting is quite poor. The film is quite boring.

Sentiment: negative
My favourite police series of all time turns to a TV-film. Does it work? Yes. Gee runs for mayor and gets shot. The Homicide "hall of fame" turns up. Pembleton and nearly all of the cops who ever played in this series. A lot of flashbacks helps you who hasn´t seen the TV-series but it amuses the fans too. The last five minutes solves another murder and at the very end even two of the dead cops turn up. And a short appearance from my favourite coroner Juliana Cox. This is a good film.

Sentiment: positive
The final entry in the On The Buses trilogy sees the usual wasters go about their business in Wales. I feel sure the franchise could have continued, but Harold Pinter complained that the screenplays made him look bad in comparison, and so no more were made. 

It's actually less than two minutes before we get our first dollop of sexism - a woman running for the bus finds her breasts fall out of her dress for no reason whatsoever. Still, it does at least make Stan (Reg Varney) laugh - but then what doesn't? He and Jack (Bob Grant) spend the entire movie laughing uproariously with little or no provocation. You get the impression that they'd wet themselves watching paint dry. 

As before, the only funny element is the genuinely amusing Stephen Lewis, hilarious as Blakey. He's on his own, though, with a cheesy, dated script that even wastes first-rate talent like Wilfrid Brambell and Henry McGee. Yet it seems as if only Lewis understands how to time the shaky material, wringing laughs out of even the weakest lines. Describing how her daughter fell in a river, Stan's mum laments "I hope it's not polluted." "Well it will be now" Blakey quips. 

The plot - if indeed there is one - sees Stan lusting after a young girl, but being continually thwarted by her domineering mother. It's a recipe for side splitting hilarity I'm sure you'll agree, and whether it's on a storm-lashed boat or the swimming baths, Stan and Mavis's exploits always produce the same result... abject boredom. Later conquests include Maria, an Italian stereotype, and a staff co-worker. Even Stan's mum gets a one-night stand, with Stan considerately reminding her to "put your tin drawers on."

When one of the comic "highpoints" is Arthur Mullard overhearing Olive trying to locate a light switch in the dark ("I can't find it") and thinking she's talking about sex, then you can see why this work reaches the upper levels of literary sophistication. In fact, why it didn't get in the BFI's Top 100 movies is beyond me. 

Other rib-tickling shenanigans involve Olive (Anna Karen) breaking her glasses. I don't know what's more surprising, the lame predictability of the set-up, or the underdeveloped pay-off. The short sighted Olive follows a man in a kilt into the gents, thinking he's a woman in a skirt. The next shot sees her marched out by Blakey and redirected to the ladies. And that's it. Next, she ends up in another man's bed, and is ordered out by his wife. And... no, that's all there is to that scene, too.

When Holiday on the Buses was last screened on British television there was a breakdown in transmission. It actually came as blessed relief.

Sentiment: negative
Overall I found this film good: exceptional acting with disturbing scenes (some essential, some useless) and weak second half. CONTAINS SPOILERS The film is divided in 2 parts. I thought the first half of the Pianist was terrific. We meet Erika Kohut (wonderful Isabelle Huppert), a piano teacher, and get introduced to her world. She is single, struggling to find her space against an over-protective and borderline tyrannic mother. We understand that she has lost or has seldom experienced love as a physical+emotional chemistry: she protects herself by being sharp and offensive to people, releases her sexual tensions in sex-shops, as a voyeur, or in sadistic self-mutilations ... This first half is very clinical and builds an incredible tension in the film, almost unbearable.

Then comes Walter, a young, handsome and outgoing man (played superbly by Benoit Magimel). Though he gets to feel Erika's coldness in the beginning, he seduces her and slowly wreaks Erika's fortress. He loves her deeply but she needs him to fulfil her sadistic desires. Then when she is about to fall for him, he is disgusted by her world and in the end we discover that Erika is unable to love or feel at all (especially since Walter is portrayed as someone impossible not to love). This is the second half of the film, very touching as we see Erika's inability/inexperience to love lead her to self-destruction. This second half seemed less mastered by Haneke, and sometimes had non-credible (ie. too shocking) scenes which paradoxically lessened the drama.

Of course, this is a crude film at least in the French version: you see porn sequences from the sex shop, daring mutilation and sex scenes. The much talked-about fellatio scene between Magimel and Huppert was quite good I thought, and is central to understand Erika's sick relation to love. As to the actors, Huppert is marvelous all through the film, Magimel gets better and better up to perfection, and Girardot (the mother) is excellent.



Sentiment: positive
I recently rented Twister, a movie I'd seen several years ago on TV, and it has aged well; I found myself laughing out loud several times at it and as weird as all these people are, by the end I profoundly cared about them. This is the sort of little movie that is made for a cult audience because, rather like Howdy's gazpacho (well, I think that's what it is), it's an acquired taste: you have to be attuned to its peculiar wavelength. The production values might be charitably called inexpensive and the pace and atmosphere take a while to get settled, but the film has a "look", especially in some wonderful shots contrasting the dry flatness of the land with the cluttery nouveau-riche opulence of the mansion interior: Michael Almereyda had a good eye even then. Life with sodapop magnate Eugene Cleveland (Harry Dean Stanton) and his household (two adult children, a grandchild, and a housekeeper) seems so detached from life outside we could be in Gormenghast. Everyone in this film is wonderful (especially Suzy Amis and Crispin Glover as the directionless genius siblings Maureen and Howdy), inhabiting their roles so comfortably after a while you just buy the strange premise, that somehow, having survived the tornado and being apparently incapable of happiness, these people are lucky, and yet don't know quite what to do with their luck. There are some truly great scenes: Eugene's sudden confrontations first with his gold-digging children's tv host girlfriend Virginia (an acidly pert Lois Chiles), then with his children; William S. Burroughs taking target practice in the barn and telling a story about a mysterious Jim; Maureen's boyfriend Chris proving himself by battling a shed full of wasps cloaked in a tablecloth and doily and old fedora; Howdy, Violet, Maureen and Chris all sitting on the couch (the latter three in appropriately lightweight summer garments, the former in a red blazer and black leather rock'n'roll gear) staring at images of deserts on the huge tv, and contemplating the future (the images were done by Bill Viola, who did the backdrop video installation for Nine Inch Nails' last tour). Crispin Glover is predictably magnificent as Howdy: as always, he remains perfectly in character. Howdy has made a cult of his misery and brilliance; he's like the Oscar Wilde of Kansas, striving to live up to his red velvet suit. Whether he's thrashing away tunelessly yet loudly on an electric guitar, cracking a fullsize bullwhip while wearing an all-black cowboy outfit, demolishing a room, or even doing simple things like driving or pouring the aforementioned soup from a blender pitcher, he's mesmerizing. If you like his work, you'll like this.

Sentiment: positive
I have seen over 2000 Studio-Era sound films-- including lots of Judy Garland, Lena Horne, Shirley Jones, and Deanna Durbin's own Universal features-- plus a decent amount of live and studio-recorded musical comedy and opera. And I assure you, no one tasked with singing in front of a camera and microphone, or maybe anywhere ever, HAS EVER TOUCHED DURBIN'S SOLO here...mono soundtrack and crap 1930s microphones and all. The kid from Canada sings this bit from "Il Bacio" like she lived and wrote it herself and then happened to show up for a retrospective in Italy late in her career, not like a child who learned it from her music teacher.

If you skip this Extra on the DVD-- or skip ahead to the Garland solo-- you are just depriving yourself, since this cheap MGM teaser just happened to capture one of the greatest performances of the 20c.

Sentiment: positive
Stephane Rideau was already a star for his tour de force in "Wild Reeds," and he is one of France's biggest indie stars. In this film, he plays Cedric, a local boy who meets vacationing Mathieu (newcomer Jamie Elkaim, in a stunning, nuanced, ethereal performance) at the beach. Mathieu has a complex relationship with his ill mother, demanding aunt and sister (with whom he has a competitive relationship). Soon, the two are falling in love.

The film's fractured narrative -- which is comprised of lengthy flash-backs, bits and pieces of the present, and real-time forward-movement into the future -- is a little daunting. Director Sebastien Lifshitz doesn't signal which time-period we are in, and the story line can be difficult to follow. But stick it out: The film's final 45 minutes are so engrossing that you won't be able to take your eyes off the screen. By turns heart-breaking and uplifting, this film ranks with "Beautiful Thing" as must-see cinema.

Sentiment: positive
This film gives a look at the suffering a family experiences at the death of a child, and the healing that can finally come to them.

The family learns of the death of their son on Christmas Eve, 1991, ruining the Christmas season for them. They do not celebrate it again for many years. There is an interesting comment by the daughter that will remind viewers to consider the needs of surviving children in such a situation.

The Matthew character makes a reference to Jesus, but I suspect that other comments he makes come from non-Christian sources. I wonder if any other viewers would recognize those comments. If so, it would be an interesting addition to the data on this movie.

Sentiment: negative
This was a better than average movie I thought, for it being on cable. I had expected something along the lines of cheesy melodrama and bad special effects seen in such classics as Christmas Rush or First Daughter/Target/Shot, etc.

The cast was well chosen...I especially liked Ron Livingston as the hard pressed SWAT Commander. It's good to see him revisiting the same material he had so much fortune with in Band of Brothers. The producers and designers had done their homework because all the scenes and shots looked like they did on that day back in 1997.

So, if you get a chance to see this film, and I am sure you will since FX reruns everything 50 times...take 2 hours and enjoy it.

Sentiment: negative
Great movie. Post-apocalyptic films kick ass. This one is no exception. Kept up the pace and interest without a speck of dialogue (mainly through some good character development). The fight between Reno and the Hero was tight. I also liked the use of cave paintings and medieval-like weapons to show how primitive and savage mankind had become without their technology and guzzaline. The connection between the beginning and end was a little spacey, that is, I had a hard time understanding the distances between the hotel and the opening sequence. In sum, kick ass character progression, design, story without the cushion of dialogue, and most importantly, the always appreciated desolate scenery of a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

Sentiment: positive
The first few minutes of "The Bodyguard" do have a campy charm: it opens with crawling text from the Bible (the part that Samuel Jackson recites to his soon-to-be victims in "Pulp Fiction"), continues with two karate school teachers in New York arguing about the eternal question of mankind (who is better? Sonny Chiba or Bruce Lee?), and then Chiba appears, playing himself; he immediately stops a plane hijacking and breaks a bottle in two with his bare hand. Unfortunately, any entertainment value, intentional or unintentional, soon gets crushed by the disjointed story, the lack of action for long periods of time, and the poor quality of any present action. To keep it simple, here's why "The Bodyguard" is an unbearable movie to watch:

1) You don't know what's going on. 

2) There are barely any fights. 

3) The fights that are there, are short and terribly filmed.

Sonny Chiba is cool. Judy Lee is gorgeous, her face is glorious. It's only for them that I give "The Bodyguard" a 2nd star out of 10. This movie makes 87 minutes feel like 5 hours.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was an impressive one. My first experience with a foreign film, it was neither too long, nor too complex. I myself enjoyed the subtitles; and the plot was surprisingly fresh. The story of an adult son visiting his elderly father and retarded brother after a long separation appeared cliched at first, but it proved to be very touching and realistic. There was also some subtle humor so as not to depress or bore the audience.

Sentiment: positive
As far as the movie goes, it's an OK science fiction movie. It has a lot of cool stuff in it, and some quality scenes. That said, it's not that good, and some of the stuff is pretty far fetched...

As for calling this another cube-movie is utter and complete bullsh!t. This is the very definition of milking a great and inventive original movie... The whole feel to it can be somewhat translated into the core of the first, but the introduction of people/androids as part of the "team" behind the cube itself is somewhat a stretch...

I gave this a 3*** because of the backstabbing of the original. This one should have been kept sterile in so many parts of the movie that there is no place or time to mention them all...

Watchable for those who have not seen Cube & Hypercube, but not recommendable for fans of the series...

Sentiment: negative
**Possible Spoilers**	From Dreamworks and director Peter Chan, `The Love Letter' is a romantic comedy that takes place in a picturesque, New England coastal village where single mom Helen (Kate Capshaw) owns a quaint, little bookstore. One day at work, Helen happens across an anonymous letter (the `love letter' of the title) that has somehow become lodged beneath the cushions of a reading couch. Upon reading the amorous prose therein, she believes it has been written to her, purposely placed in the couch for her to find, and, for reasons of her own, thinks she knows the identity of her secret admirer. Inadvertently, however, Helen leaves the letter out where her employee, Janet (Ellen DeGeneres) finds it, believes it to be for her, and, of course, thinks she knows who wrote it. Circumstances then bring it into the possession of a young man named Johnny (Tom Everett Scott), who thinks Helen has written the letter to him. And before it all gets sorted out, you can only imagine the hilarious situations into which all of those involved have been cast; and I do mean imagine, because the way this movie plays out, the audience gets little more from it than what it brings along itself. There are two specific areas in which this romantic comedy fails miserably: It simply isn't very romantic, and it's not funny; and that is a potent combination that causes this film to misfire practically from the opening credits. Once the setting and main character (Helen) have been established, it basically goes nowhere for the next ninety minutes or so. By the time you finally find out who actually wrote the letter, and to whom, you could care less. Rounding out the cast is Tom Selleck, Blythe Danner, Julianne Nicholson, Gloria Stuart and Geraldine McEwan. It's a shame to see such talent wasted on such claptrap as this, and looking bad in the balance. Kate Capshaw, who usually brightens up the screen just by showing up, looks tired here, while Selleck appears to have just come in off a three day bender that's lasted a week. Ellen DeGeneres actually comes away looking the best of the bunch. It is said that the journey is often a more heady experience than the destination. In the case of `The Love Letter,' however, it would have been best for all concerned if everybody had just stayed home in the first place. I rate this one 1/10.

Sentiment: negative
Janeane Garofalo has been very public in her displeasure about this film, calling it, among other things, anti-feminist. She has also said on her radio show she hates making "romantic comedies" because she doesn't believe in them. I wholeheartedly agree with Janeane here. This film is a trifle at best. She does her best, but overall, it was just another boring, unbelievable "romantic comedy" that has no basis in the real world. Whereas there will be some who will say "suspend your disbelief", one grows tired of having to suspend it nearly every time you get a romantic film from Hollywood. Janeane's character, for some reason, is usually filmed in shadows and darkness, which makes her look unattractive, while Uma's character is filmed in lighter tones (which probably displeased Janeane and is probably one of the reasons she detests this film). That really hurts the film if we are to buy the premise that Janeane is supposed to be the better looking of the two. As many have said here and on other comment threads, Janeane is not ugly, but in fact, quite beautiful. I haven't read one review where someone said Uma was better looking. Having said that though, I believe that Ben Chaplin's character would more than likely stay with Uma, not Janeane. Many men don't like really intelligent women (and many women don't like really intelligent men), and sadly, Ben probably would have stayed with Uma. And despite the director's attempt to make Janeane unattractive, it doesn't work. Her natural beauty comes through anyway.

I think a lot of Janeane's male fans who are obsessed with her like this film because they like to think of themselves in the Ben Chaplin character, and actually scoring with Janeane. Janeane is a lot more complicated than the character she plays here (real life is always much more complex than Hollywood can imagine), so take a cold shower gentlemen. This is the role that Janeane is best known for, and that's a shame, as this really isn't that good of a film.

Sentiment: negative
This is a great example of what happened at Comedy Central after Dave Chapelle left. Here's the problem with Carlos Mencia. Firstly, his birth name is Ned Holness, and was known that until he was 18, when he switched his name to Ned Arnel Mencia. He was born in Honduras, though he acts like he's from Mexico. He grew up in the United States, as well.

I might be able to forgive all that crap, but...

He's been caught stealing other peoples material. Joe Rogan has been his most vocal critic in this way. The Stereotype Olympics was an idea he ripped off a couple of DJ's from Miami. He has stolen jokes from Bill Cosby. He stole George Lopez's material in his own HBO special (13 minutes of it).

He thinks what he's doing is so original, but Dave Chapelle and Lisa Lampanelli have been cracking on race for years before this idiot (amoung others).

This show will crash and burn. The word Beaner can't last that long before it gets old. He hasn't done anything new since the first episode.

"Wanna hear a joke? A Beaner jumping a fence!! That's funny for 3 Seasons!" Not.

Awful.

Sentiment: negative
Savaged when it came out, this film now looks handsome and sounds great. A feast of intelligent thoughtful acting, from Gielgud, Kenneth Haigh, Harry Andrews and especially Anton Walbrook,and a moving central performance from the beautiful and incredibly young Jean Seberg. Preminger doesn't jump around and show off- his long slow takes encourage you to listen and reflect, and Graham Greene's script condenses Shaw without sacrificing complexity.The piece has the look of a made for TV movie, and is certainly studio bound but none the worse for that. Too many contemporary movies on 'historical' themes cannot resist dumbing down. What would Mel Gibson have made of the Maid? Many drooling shots of her on the rack probably, then crisping up on the BBQ as the flames take hold. Preminger does none of this. The burning is shown mainly through a guilt-stricken reaction. There are a few weak performances, but not enough to cause any serious damage. I caught this movie on TV and was not expecting to watch it through, but I was gripped . In our age of religious fundamentalism and sacrifice, Joan's story has unexpected resonance.

Sentiment: positive
I'll put it straight to you, this movie is dead boring. It's about a flood, that's it. Blah blah a little about family, blah blah blah politics, blah blah blah boring. 

Blame it all on the weatherman, poor sod. The Deputy Prime Minister Campbell is a hard-ass that expects everyone to be clairvoyant, a most irritating character. 

If you are from the United Kingdom, or anywhere that it may flood, then you might like this film. It's sort of like earthquake movies are most appreciated where earthquakes happen. 

This is not really an action film, where the weather is the enemy and you must conquer, or outrun it literally, it is more like a time-bomb that must be disabled. 

Looking at this movie, it is understandable why the UK thinks the world is overpopulated, it isn't, but for them it is. 

Really, the movie is about as exciting as picking scabs and I can't recommend it. It's over 100 minutes, far far too long.

The problems with the film; I won't get into them beyond this because the film doesn't deserve such dissection. Hint to you Londoner's - buy more boats. If you bring children to this movie they'll either fall asleep or become uncontrolled bored screaming demons.

Sentiment: negative