DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Okay, so the first few seasons took a while to get going on the special effects way, but from the beginning, Hidden Frontier has given consistently good story lines and performances, and have always been willing to mistakes they've made. They advice people to see newer episodes first, so they can see just how good the show is, and understand how much it has changed since the first episodes. The cast have a fantastic camaraderie and it shows on-screen. 

The influx of guest actors who make their mark on the show and with fans attests also to the show, as the story lines go from strength to strength. The show has pushed barriers with its various story lines - depression, drug addiction and mainstream homosexuality - and these may have rubbed a few people the wrong way, but that is what Star Trek is and was all about. It portrays those story lines in a smart and emotional way, dealing with them subtly and smoothly. 

Yes, they have used some characters from Trek history, but they have done them justice - characters like Shelby, Lefler and Necheyev, vastly underused in the show, had a rebirth in the New Frontier books, but they lost their sizzle after a while, when Peter David when more towards wild fantasy versus serious sci-fi, and HF shows those characters in a completely different light, which serves them better. 

The site also allows fans to interact with chat rooms and forums and they can get to know the people involved. They release bloopers for every episode, so the fans can see what a laugh they have, because they are people doing it in their spare time, with a dedication that would make many professional actors wide-eyed in shock! 

What this series, now drawing to a close after 7 years, has accomplished on such a limited amount of resources is nothing short of amazing - bringing people together, inspiring others to do the same. HF will live for a long time after it ends, as long as people still enjoy the reason it started in the first place.

Sentiment: positive
The family happiness is crumbling when, the from the beginning rich father Ward (Michael Ontkean), gets poor and cannot support the family any longer. Then the mother Faye (Jaclyn Smith) has to take the role as the breadwinner in the family and starts to work in order to support the family and at the same time, periodically alone, has to manage the family life. Not always that good, but as good as she can. The family life hardly gets easier when the father learns that the son Lionel (Joe Flanigan "Stargate Atlantis") is gay and is living together with his lover John (Joel Gretsch "The 4400") also an old family friend, resulting in that the father makes clear to Lionel that he is no longer welcome in the family. Lionel is the one who meant the most to his sister Anne (Leslie Horan) during her up-bringing, since the family neglected her. Anne cannot stand the fact that their father have cut the cords with Lionel and therefore she run away from home. As this wasn't enough, the son Greg (Brian Krause "Charmed") enlists in the marines and is sent to war. The storyline in this film can on some occasions feel a bit thin, in spite of that it still has a lot of realism in it, which makes it well worth seeing. Since this film illustrates many sensitive relations and situations, I would believe that it is best appreciated by a mature audience even though it wouldn't hurt for teenagers to see it and get something to think about before adulthood.

Sentiment: positive
'Arms and the Man' is one of Shaw's funniest plays if handled correctly, and this production does a good enough job. Helena Bonham-Carter, pre-film stardom, is Raina, the daughter of a military family, who has a peacock of a fiancé (Patrick Ryecart), and who shelters a soldier from the enemy (Pip Torrens) during a raid on the town.

Full of colour and energy, this production rips along at a good pace, and if Bonham-Carter and Patsy Kensit as the maid are outshone a bit by the rest of the cast, they still hold their ground. Kika Markham and Dinsdale Landen as the parents are delightful, and the whole play is generally a happy one.

Highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

What is the purpose of this movie? A bunch of Americans enters Nazi-occupied France and starts slaughtering Germans. You see them scalping their enemies and beating them to death with baseball bats. While making jokes, of course.

Some will say that this movie is a parody of a certain genre. For a parody, it is neither witty nor funny. The contents is zero. It is exceptionally brutal and disgusting. Underneath lies a subtle political message, because it is again "the good guys" killing "bad Nazis". The whole plot is unthinkable if you turn it around. Could you imagine a storyline where Nazis (while making jokes) kill everybody in the Warsaw ghetto with flamethrowers? Probably not, but this movie is exactly about that, with the exception that is satisfies the weird moral expectations of a certain audience: slaughtering people is so cool when done by the right people.

This movie only works because of the hidden Nazi-ideology underneath. It does not regard the enemy as people. And if the latter is supposed to be an element of the fun, I am happy to say that this kind of fun will always remain a mystery to me.

Another mystery is how such violence can fascinate the American crowd while a bit of nudity will freak them out. But if a naked body is pornography, this movie with all its brutality is pure pornography at its very worst.

Inglorious Basterds is a pointless, boring and tasteless waste of time and money.

Sentiment: negative
I just saw this at the Toronto Film Festival, and I hope it gets wide release because I want to see it again! It is a character-driven film, and Andrew and David are more than up to the task. Any discussion of the plot might be

considered spoilers, so I'll just say that the storyline is clever, the acting is superb, and the effects are amazing. Well-filmed and well-paced too. One of the best films I have seen in ages, and very refreshing in this summer of dreary

movies. It had the audience laughing the whole time. See it if you can. (I particularly liked the "Candy bar! Candy bar!" scene.)

Sentiment: positive
In Brooklyn a century ago, the rivalry between Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie and their competing volunteer fire brigades leads to Brodie's famous bet that he can jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. This is a story which will be familiar to a lot of people through a Bugs Bunny spoof, "Bowery Bugs" from 1949.

This generally very enjoyable film would probably be more widely available if it were not for the notorious and unsettling scene involving some Chinese tenement dwellers -- a time capsule of antediluvian racial attitudes, giving the film a great deal of historical interest, in my view.

Sentiment: positive
The problem with portraying a real life individual is that the performance can be good, but still not work if the audience doesn't believe that the actor is portraying the person. That's the main issue with "Young Mr. Lincoln:" Henry Fonda gives a terrific performance, but I found it hard to believe that Abraham Lincoln was as soft-spoken as Fonda portrays him.

This is essentially a courtroom drama with a young Abraham Licoln at the forefront. Whether or not this was a true story, I don't know, but if it isn't, then why tell it using Lincoln as the central character? Never mind though. In the film, Lincoln is defending two young men who are accused of murder.

There's really not much to the film, and as a result, it seems rather empty. I wanted more story and character development. The film is 100 minutes long, but it doesn't feel like it. There are some little scenes featuring Lincoln and the blooming relationship with Mary Todd, but they seem superficial.

The acting is good all around, but as I said, Fonda's performance works as a character, but not Abraham Lincoln. I just don't believe that the real Lincoln was that soft-spoken. True, he has a big voice when he needs to, such as when he persuades a drunken lynch mob to let the accused stand trial, but Fonda portrays Lincoln too meekly. The other performances are solid though, especially Alice Brady as Abigail Clay, the mother of the accused. She's a nice lady who we can really feel for. Simple and uneducated, yet very sweet; we can see why Lincoln wanted to help her.

John Ford seems to think of this film as an epic, and at the time of its release, it probably was. But even then, there's just not enough material to present it as such.

It's a nice watch, but not a classic.

Sentiment: positive
A doctor and a policeman in New Orleans have only 48 hours to locate a killer infected with pneumonic plague.

An effective, and classy, little thriller directed by Elia Kazan that blends documentary realism with a race against time pulpy heartbeat. Set and filmed in and around New Orleans, Panic In The Streets is taken from the story Quarantine, Some Like 'em Cold by Edna and Edward Anhalt who won an Oscar for original story. It also boasts a fine ensemble cast that deliver top rate performances for their director. In turn, Richard Widmark {bringing the method a year before Marlon did for Kazan in A Streetcar Named Desire}, Paul Douglas, Jack Palance (as Walter Jack Palance) & the wonderfully named Zero Mostel, all get sweatily moody as the pursuers chase the pursued to halt the onset of a potential Black Death epidemic.

Where the film scores its main suspense points is with Kazan's astute ability to cut back and forth between the protagonists without altering the flow and mood of the piece. From Widmark's Public Health doctor, with hypodermic needle in hand, running around trying to locate the bad guys so he can do good; to the bad guys themselves who are bemused as to why there is such a wide scale hunt for them; the tension is stacked up to fever breaking point. To which thankfully the final thirty minutes becomes a cracking piece of cinema. With Palance excelling as a nasty villain that ironically puts one in mind of Widmark's own Tommy Udo from Kiss Of Death three years prior.

It's an imaginative and intelligently written story, one that cunningly links rats and criminals to being carriers of disease. A blight on society as it were. It's noirish elements, such as paranoia, blend nicely with its basic procedural thriller being. While some memorable scenes are suitably cloaked by the stifling atmosphere that Kazan has created. Although some of the early character psychologizing threatens to steer the film down some over talky based alleyway, this definitely is a film worth staying with to the end. Not essential film-noir, and maybe not even essential Kazan, but certainly a highly recommended film that begs to be discovered by a new generation of film lovers and reappraised by the old guard who may have missed it back in the day. 7.5/10

Sentiment: positive
As the celebration of Christmas has evolved through the years, whether one concentrates on the religious or the secular traditions, it is a time when people are supposed to behave a little better to each other. That has somehow slipped past one Ebenezer Scrooge, merchant and money lender in 19th century London.

As his nephew points out to his uncle, he doesn't keep Christmas in any way because Scrooge feels the whole thing is humbug. The humanity in Scrooge was driven out long ago, he's a hard case, a whole lot like his 20th Century counterpart, Mr. Potter of Bedford Falls, New York.

But as Charles Dickens told this tale, redemption is not too late for any of us and a lonely ghost and three spirits visit Scrooge and show him how.

A Christmas Carol is such a timeless holiday classic that we sometimes forget that it is as much a social commentary of 19th century Great Britain as Oliver Twist was. The characters in this film are middle and lower class. The Cratchits are a couple of rungs above the street people in Oliver Twist, but they are having to struggle to stay up there. Still love and happiness radiate their home, no thanks to the guy Bob Cratchit works for. 

Like George Bailey who did a whole lot of good in his life and just had to be reminded how much, Ebenezer Scrooge needed a wake up call as to the potentiality he still had for doing some good in this old world.

Patrick Stewart in his live performances and filmed play has pretty much taken over the part of Scrooge. But George C. Scott captures the old miser pretty well in this film. The meanness of him, but with a trace of sadness that makes us root for him to change. Scott joins a fine tradition of people like Reginald Owen and Alastair Sim who've both done great interpretations of Scrooge.

Among the supporting roles I particularly enjoyed David Warner as Bob Cratchit and Edward Woodward as a hearty and stern spirit of Christmas present. 

According to IMDb this is one of 32 versions of A Christmas Carol made that they have archived and it is one of the best.

Sentiment: positive
Of all the actresses in film today, Kristin Scott Thomas would be my choice if I had to select one for stranding on a desert island.

I could watch her simply, say, sitting in a chair for a couple of hours. So it's difficult for me to be objective completely with respect to one of her films.

However, I did enjoy this movie and its story, per se, more than that indicated by the average ranking among the many persons previously commenting on this site.

Harrison Ford is not one of the actors, though, whose performances I enjoy most. But he's one of a handful who have reached the level of moving from 7 figures to 8 per film, so who am I to argue?

Ford though is often droll in his acting style, and sometimes seems to be in serious need of an antacid and a shot of caffeine - and "Random Hearts" is in this grouping.

His obsession in probing the losses, which both he and Thomas have endured with regard to their linked spouses, is understandable, given his profession as a detective - but not to the level presented here. Although not far, it crossed the line into the "annoying" category. 

However, most of the scenes after he and Thomas became involved were interesting and well-played.

This film could have been a 9*, but I'd lower it a couple of levels, based upon Ford's overall performance, and and another, because it contained a bit more of the extraneous sub-plot elements than seemed required.

Sentiment: positive
As far as I can recall, Balanchine's alterations to Tchaikovsky's score are as follows:

1) The final section of the Grossvatertanz (a traditional tune played at the end of a party) is repeated several times to give the children a last dance before their scene is over.

2) A violin solo, written for but eliminated from Tchaikovsky's score for The Sleeping Beauty, is interpolated between the end of the party scene and the beginning of the transformation scene. Balanchine chose this music because of its melodic relationship to the music for the growing Christmas tree that occurs shortly thereafter.

3) The solo for the Sugar Plum Fairy's cavalier is eliminated.

It seems to me the accusation that Balanchine has somehow desecrated Tchaikovsky's great score is misplaced.

Sentiment: positive
Text Taken from 2001 Melbourne International Film Fest Guide.

fuckland The title is a pun based on the film's lead actor Fabian Stratas' deliberate mispronunciation of Falkland, a reference to the film's setting and a rather less than subtle allusion to the secret agenda of its protagonist.

Fabian is an Argentine national, an amateur magician passing himself off as a tourist visiting the Falklands soon after it is reopened to its people. His master plan is to win the ultimate struggle by seducing and impregnating the local females, commencing with the delicious Camilla,thus siring an entire generation of half Argentinians. Fuckland creates the illusion of a documentary and maintains a fish-eyed perspective that gives the film a voyeuristic flair and intimacy. (ARGENTINA)

Sentiment: positive
RKO was trying to boost its starlet JOAN FONTAINE when they cast her as a flying nurse who is strong-willed enough to make a doctor (JOHN BEAL) come to terms with running away from responsibilities in this little programmer. TCM aired it as a stepping-stone in the career of Joan Fontaine.

Fontaine is earnest and does an acceptable job, nothing more, and John Beal is okay as her love interest. But it's obvious that PHILIP HUSTON (who has the appearance and cocky manners of a young James Garner) is the actor who should have shared top billing with Fontaine. Whatever happened to this handsome actor? Why didn't RKO promote him, along with Fontaine? He showed skill as a light comedian.

These are the kind of thoughts that went through my head as I watched this rather tepid drama which never quite lives up to the stark promise of its title. The story itself is rather tiresome, only occasionally coming to life because of Fontaine's spirited heroine.

She photographs prettily as the nurse and wears her serious expressions skillfully, suggesting that there was more to be tapped at a future date. Beal never did go on to a distinguished career and his performance here shows why. Strictly lackluster.

But whatever happened to Philip Huston? Evidence here is that he should have had a worthwhile film career.

Trivia note: Watch for Dwight Frye (of "Dracula") as the out of control patient aboard the airplane.

Sentiment: negative
I'll dispense with the obvious review of factual inaccuracies. They are too numerous to name. A much shorter list would be what they got right. 1. Dude named Noah. 2. Ark with animals on it. 

If you want a much more accurate portrayal of Noah's Ark and the destruction of Sodom, go rent "The Bible" (1966). It depicts the story of creation through Abraham attempting to sacrifice his son Isaac. It's a much better movie, and it may be that the abomination called "Noah's Ark" (1999) drove you to seek just such a film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060164/

I really couldn't stomach watching the whole movie. From reading other comments, I can see that even the atheists found it grossly inaccurate. As a Christian, it was intolerable to me. Possibly the worst movie ever made. No real point to this movie either, except maybe to showcase their sub-par computer animation.

Was it a complete waste? Maybe not. God can use evil to work good. 

Romans 8:28 says, [28] And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Genesis 50 says, [20] But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

In the second example, Joseph's brothers meant to kill him, but God turned their evil into a very great good. He may have done the same thing with this movie.

People were so astonished by its lack of Biblical foundation, that they probably broke out the dusty old Bible and read the story for themselves. To find out about Lot and Sodom, they would have to go the whole way up to Genesis 19 before God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah. By then, they have read almost half of Genesis, so they might want to finish. The next book is Exodus, which the movie "The Ten Commandments" was based on (and much more accurately). If they have seen that movie, then Exodus becomes an easy read. So now they have read at least two whole books of the Bible, just because they watched a pathetic movie about Noah's Ark. I'm sure this actually happened to someone out there.

God works in mysterious ways.

Sentiment: negative
I had such high hopes for Teletoon Retro to air this but instead of having shows such as this, ones that don't get the treatment that they deserve, they air things that I may have seen dozens of times before.

The Centurions was the highlight of my pre-teen years. I know that may seem a little bit clichéd but it's true. After Duke from G.I. Joe, Jake Rockewell is another one of those cartoon characters that I really had a crush on.

It's too bad that Teletoon Retro doesn't see it the same way people of my generation do. Otherwise Teletoon Retro would be a lot better than it is.

Sentiment: positive
A 14 year old girl develops her first serious crush on the 17 year old boy that lives near by, while simultaneously trying to overcome her feelings of inadequacy in comparison to her older sister. That is the simple premise of this beautiful, poetic coming of age film from Director Robert Mulligan. Mulligan is famous for previously directing Summer of '42 in 1971 and To Kill A Mockingbird in 1962, two giants of the coming of age genre. Here he directs newcomers in the principal roles: Reese Witherspoon, in her film debut, as the 14 year old girl; Emily Warfield, as the older sister; Jason London, as Court, the 17 year old boy. Reese Witherspoon is astonishingly good in her film debut, displaying every emotion that a 14 year old girl feels in experiencing young love and hurt, never striking a false note. Warfield and London are both equally good as well. The film accurately depicts each adolescent's thoughts or feelings in regard to love with heartfelt sensitivity, never crossing over into maudlin excess even once. Kudos to the autobiographical screenplay from Jenny Wingfield; this is one of the very few films about young love that is honest and consistent in tone without being emotionally dishonest or sensationalist. The music is wonderfully simple, accentuating the tone and mood from scene to scene, but never becoming intrusive. The beautiful cinematography is by famed horror director Freddie Francis, who was in his 70's when this was shot. Tess Harper and Sam Waterston play the girls' parents with dead aim accuracy for 1957, caring, strict, and emotionally simple. Gail Strickland is good also as the boy's mother. There are feelings to sort out, lessons to learn, and truths to face in this sweet-natured film that packs an emotional wallop. To date, this is Robert Mulligan's last film. This is one of the very best films of 1991. **** of 4 stars.

Sentiment: positive
The Stepford Children, besides being a very good made for TV movie, shows the very disturbing result of indoctrination. It is quite a statement about how being made to act within the confines of what is considered "Good" behavior can destroy whatever it is that makes a person unique and an individual. I think that this is a movie that parents who want to maintain some semblance of the thought that loams within the hearts and minds of youngsters should watch with their children and discuss what the movie is saying. I don't know if that was in any way the intent of this movie but I have always been of the opinion that it is one of the best movie devices against the wish to have children conform to an unrealistic and domineering pretense of what is in the best interest of anyone other than that of the children themselves. I hope to one day see this movie on DVD. I am at the starting gate... waiting.

Sentiment: positive
Sondra Locke stinks in this film, but then she was an awful 'actress' anyway. Unfortunately, she drags everyone else (including then =real life boyfriend Clint Eastwood down the drain with her. But what was Clint Eastwood thinking when he agreed to star in this one? One read of the script should have told him that this one was going to be a real snorer. It's an exceptionally weak story, basically no story or plot at all. Add in bored, poor acting, even from the normally good Eastwood. There's absolutely no action except a couple arguments and as far as I was concerned, this film ranks up at the top of the heap of natural sleep enhancers. Wow! Could a film BE any more boring? I think watching paint dry or the grass grow might be more fun. A real stinker. Don't bother with this one.

Sentiment: negative
This belongs in their top tier, although there were others, such as Micro-Phonies and Punch Drunks, that were more deserving of Oscar nominations than this one. But if nothing else, the recurring loudspeaker announcement, "Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard," followed by Curly's "Woo woo woo woo," makes this a classic on two levels. First, it symbolizes all that the Stooges represent; my daughter loves to repeat the announcement when she is in the middle of doing something silly. Second, the absurdity of these three as physicians in a hospital; I imagine the terror I would feel if I were a real patient in a real hospital and heard this announcement over the loudspeaker. Throughout this short, you hear that announcement and you know that something horrible is about to happen, and the loudspeaker voice stays with you for months afterward.

Sentiment: positive
It should be against the law not to experience this extremely funny stand up show with Eddie Murphy. I have never seen anything like it.

Murphy goes on for almost 70 minutes about dicks, pussy, tits and insaults so many famous people including his own "family". Among the people who gets it by murphy are: Elvis, Mr.T, Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Mick Jagger, Luther Vandross and James Brown. I have seriously never laughed so hard of anything my entire life. I mean, when a person doesn't know who Mr. T is, but still laughs so hard of Murphy as Mr. T, there's something about it. At the time I saw the show I couldn't remember who Mr T. was but still laughed. Now I know who he is and that just makes it so much more funny. Because that's what Eddie do - he can make those impressions so good that it don't matter who the hell he's trying to do, it's still hilarious. And on top of that, we learn that Murphy actually is a very good singer. Please watch it..

Sentiment: positive
Grieving couple move to a cabin on a mountain after the loss of their daughter, discovering that there may be ghosts haunting the place, restless spirits of past occupants who committed suicide. Julie Pyke(Cheri Christian)blames husband Allen(Greg Thompson)for the horrible death of their daughter due to leaving the door unlocked and the marriage has deteriorated because of it. Julie remains in a zombie state, eliciting next to no emotion, remote and numb, only photographing a nearby abandoned prison, finding a startling image of a ghoul girl clinging to the bars of a cell. Though Allen doesn't see anything out of the ordinary, Julie continues to take pictures and we can recognize that something isn't quite right. A local handyman, Jim Payne(Scott Hodges), a rather distant fellow who harbors a secret becomes a dangerous threat when it is revealed that his dead mother might have something to do with the haunts occurring to the Pykes. Meanwhile the neighbors who sold the Pykes the cabin find themselves victims as well, alcoholic Mr Booth's abuse to his wife coming back to haunt him. Allen will conduct an investigation into the history of his cabin, attempting to unravel the mystery about the place.

Plenty of ghosts moving about in the background in this somber supernatural tale with practically every character miserable. Cheri Christian remains so vacuous and lost, it's incredibly hard to connect with her despite the fact that you understand her plight. The acting, as is often mentioned, remains frustrating because none of the characters exactly are easy to latch on to. I guess it's supposed to be this way, under their circumstances, but the trouble I had was never being able to properly embrace the Pykes due to their constant state of aloofness. Cheri comes off as cold and detached, as I figure a mother would tend to be when you lose a child in such a way, but the icy nature left me pleading inside to embrace her which I just never could. I think the right performers, even if the characters are going through an emotional turmoil, can grab the hearts of their viewers, if a humanity reaches out to us..in this movie's case, the leads are unable to do so, for whatever reason. It could've been me, I don't know. I wanted to care for them, but nothing in the characters tugged on my heart strings. Anyway, as the film continues, Allen slowly uncovers certain truths and must defend himself against his wife who has convinced herself that their daughter is among them and she won't lose her little girl again. Jim, the unstable neighbor who believes that to stop the hauntings plaguing the area he must kill the Pykes, becomes a vital threat. The ghosts remain a central part of the movie, their presence, particularly Jim's mother, established throughout, off in the distance. The finale reveals all of them as Allen must find help for his wife while trying to thwart Jim's mission. I had a hard time getting into this one due to my unease with the leads and their characters.

Sentiment: negative
I think the movie was one sided I watched it recently and find the documentary typical of western movie makers that was biased without substance. The fact is prostitution do exist everywhere in the world not in Tanzania alone and not because of this fish business, there prostitutes were there way before the Russian and other business people arrived in Mwanza. Poverty is indeed endemic in Africa let alone Tanzania and this is not because of fish fillet business, in fact the fish industry has helped millions to support their families on their daily life. This movie just tarnish the good image of this peace loving country. As for the arms trade the film could not substantiate if there is any truth in that indeed looking critically at the films one is doubting the authenticity of the film maker, it seems that their trying to prove their point by using a few characters which can be done for anything really. Yes Tanzania is a poor country yes there are prostitutes and street children but they are not the product this business, it is just a common scenario in most poor countries indeed the world over even in the western world...What a load of rubbish.

The pilot themselves are talking of sending weapons to Angola which is more than 2000km south of Tanzania and the war was in DRC also miles away from Mwanza, the director could not give evidence how these weapons were transported from Mwanza to DRC!

In short the films lacks focus and respectability, it is quite easy to find the character anywhere in Africa and has nothing to do Darwin's nightmare or fish fillet...What a load of rubbish!

The truth is the Nile perch has not decimated all other species in the lake contrary to what the movie portrays and also less than 25% of all catches from lake Victoria are exported the rest is consumed locally so lets get that one right.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie last year in Media class and I have to say I really hated it. I was in year 10 (and aged 15) so that may have has something to do with it. But for English this year, year 11, we had to read Animal Farm, also by George Orwell. Aside from the fact that the book is based on the Revolution, my opinion is that it is a terrible book, and I also hated it.

But 1984, I think it was the most disturbing movie I have ever seen, and I think that George Orwell is one of the most deranged people ever to live on this planet. I'm sorry to everyone who loved his work, but I unfortunately did not. The themes in the movie were well portrayed, but the way the whole movie was set and the events that took place within it were not to my standards. This is only my opinion, and I'm sure many many other people thoroughly enjoyed this film.

Sentiment: negative
It's what you expect. It induces laughter, cringing, and dry-heaving, not necessarily in that order. It's over-the-top. You will see things that you may never be able to erase from your mind's eye. " Jackass Number Two" is better than the first; the actors definitely took more risks while filming this movie. There are many stunts which could have killed the actors, especially Johnny Knoxville. The treatment of animals was suspect, but other than that, the movie achieved what is was made to achieve. If you like the preview, see the movie. If you don't, steer clear! 

8 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
Directed by Jacques Tourneur (Cat People, Out of the Past, Night of the Demon) and written by Phillip Dunne (How Green was My Valley) Anne of the Indies is a quite interesting adventure pirate movie. Its main character of captain Anne Providence is based on a real woman-pirate Anne Boney who actually lived and sailed through 18th century's Atlantic.

The film begins with the sea battle where Anne's (Jean Peters) pirate ship attacks a trade ship that was on its way to Europe from the South America. As a result a treasure of great value is captured along with a handsome French officer Pierre La Rochelle (Louis Jourdan), who is taken prisoner. Anne ends up falling in love with him and apparently her feelings are reciprocated but it's only till she sets him free when she discovers that he has a beautiful young wife Molly (Debra Paget) with whom he pretty much in love with. Anne begins planning revenge on both of them but in an unexpected twist of fate ends up making a great sacrifice in order to save them instead. The pirate movie cliché figure of `Black Beard' also makes his appearance here, this time played by Thomas Gomez.

Though Anne of the Indies probably appears to be no more nor less than a revisiting of pirate movie clichés, it still has its classical moments in beautiful visuals and sea battle sequences filmed in Technicolor as well as in some aspects of the story and most of all in personal touches in directing of all of it by Jacques Tourneur. 7/10

Sentiment: positive
The selection of the bloated, boring, and racist "Cimarron" ranks as the worst choice for Best Picture in Oscar history. Poorly acted (particularly by the justly forgotten Richard Dix, whose performance as the self-centered and irresponsible Yancey Cravat ranks as one of the most narcissistic characterizations in screen history) and leadenly paced, the film is truly shocking today because of the racist slant towards its one black character, who is introduced by being shown sleeping in a chandelier.

Other comments by IMDb reviewers have dismissed the attitude towards this character as being merely dated, but many films that appeared during this period did NOT depict blacks as shuffling, lazy mental deficients in the manner that this behemoth takes great delight in; so that argument seems weak to say the least. But whether you regard this demeaning characterization as in shockingly bad taste for anyone at any time or merely the forgivable ignorance of a less-educated era, it is very painful to watch with 21st century eyes.

But even this might not matter if the film weren't the overlong bore that it is. Voted the Best Picture Oscar at the 1930/31 Academy Awards when such enduring classics as "City Lights," "The Public Enemy," "Dracula," "The Dawn Patrol" and "The Blue Angel" failed to be nominated, "Cimarron" is by far the worst selection to join the Oscar pantheon.

Sentiment: negative
For two of the funniest comedians, the movie was awful. Fast forwarded it and never got any better! Waste of time and waste of money! Tina Fey is such a great writer, I thought that she would be so great in the comedy. The previews were so great, but they only showed the best parts of the movie. My husband even thought that for a chick flick, it sucked. What is up with that. Movie was very slow ans boring. I will not recommend it to anyone at this time. I would like my money back for this one! BOO from us here in Arizona. Thanks but no thanks. Who does this kind of stupid stuff to make people think that you are pregnant. I thought that it was going to be so funny, I have had my own children and I have helped others have children. It could have been more along the lines of reality.

Sentiment: negative
The best Cheech & Chong movie so far!! Of all the Cheech and Chong this is most certain the best so far. I think I've seen them all about twelve times at least, and I love them all. But this is most definitely the best. Compared with the others this one covers a lot of themes and gives you a lot of good laughs. Part of the texts are still part of our language today, after 25 years. I hope that one day they can make another one, because they still are great comedians. I heard they are writing a new script so who knows... I guess these guys are the only ones who succeeded in making decent movies in this genre. I wonder if John Ashcroft ever watched one of them...

Sentiment: positive
When my now college age daughter was in preschool, this miniseries appeared on A&E from 8-9 each morning. My neighbor and I made a pact that we wouldn't miss a minute of Jane Eyre and our kids were late for preschool every morning for the whole week. Good choice.

I'd forgotten how much I loved this movie until I got out my old VHS copy recently. Timothy Dalton is very handsome, but still perfect as Rochester. The dark, craggy face, the imperious demeanor tempered with humor and tenderness were straight from the pages of the book. Although Dalton eats a little scenery, I couldn't sit through an adaptation starring wimpy William Hurt or grumpy Ciaran Hinds. The magic here is that women love Dalton and get caught up in the romance.

I would love to know what's become of Zelah Clarke. She is dead on as Jane, quiet, formal, saying volumes with but a look. The sparkle in her eyes gives viewers a glimpse of the strength and spirited nature that helped Jane survive the mistreatment she endured in youth. Criticism of her performance as "wooden" is misplaced. A servant in a proper English household would have maintained just such a demeanor, but she speaks passionately when overcome with emotion. Unlike many other screen Janes, she appears plain enough to be Jane yet pretty enough to allow the audience to buy Rochester's attraction to her.

Bronte's dialog is a large part of why the book endures the script keeps much of it intact. Dalton and Clarke capture the interplay between Jane and Rochester with wit and quiet intensity. Although Jane appears as plain and sweet as vanilla custard, she refuses to be cowed by the dark, blustery Rochester. The two leads play off each other beautifully. 

This is the most perfect adaptation of the best romance novel ever.

Sentiment: positive
I first saw this movie on cable about 5 years ago and I could not stop laughing. Everything about this movie seemed to click, the storyline, the characters, the setting. As far as film is concerned I wouldn't call this a great movie but for what it is supposed to be it is fantastic. It gets it's meaning across. The cast is maybe as good as any ever put together in a comedy movie. Corben Berbson, Fred Gwynne, Ruben Blades, and Ed O'Neil are hilarious. For this who haven't seen it, I will give you a brief synopsis: Four Criminals meet up in a small town in Montana after receiving a letter from their friend about a bank heist. However when their friend is arrested by two cops who chased him from New Jersey, they try to figure out whats going on and all hell breaks loose. The film is truly a great bank caper comedy and is sort of like a poor mans version of Oceans Eleven, only with four criminals who can't stand each other, and in Montana rather than Las Vegas. All in all if like to laugh I would strongly encourage you to see this movie.

Sentiment: positive
What a real treat and quite unexpected. This is what a real thriller movie is all about. I rushed into the video shop, grabbed a movie without reading the entire blurb on the back and hoped for the best. I was totally surprised and delighted. I really enjoyed the actors and their characters. I thought they all gave a great performance and made their characters realistic. The plot was well thought out,well written and directed. It kept you interested from start to finish and never got boring for a single minute.

I highly recommend this movie for those that like thrillers, especially thrillers that are well paced and ones that keep your attention. Definitely a 10 out of 10 from me.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is a true reflection of the Australian resourcefulness that has been required to make this country what it is over the last 200 years. Not pompous like the British, not Gung-Ho like the Americans. If either of those countries had attempted what this crew did, it would have failed dismally. Either due to ignorance on the British part, or too much faith in superior firepower on the American side. "True" Australians (i.e. non-imports) are the only ones who can excel in modern military conflicts because they have had to improvise most of their adult lives. Just look at examples like Gallipoli; Paschendale; Tobruk; New Guinea and Vietnam.

Sentiment: positive
I am SURE there is some sort of IMDB cult that likes movies that MST3K made fun of. After seeing both this and "Werewolf" and reading dozens of comments about how underated they are, I became convinced that there is some conpiricy going on here. Alot of people are saying that people who hate it "are only scared by gore", "Don't know good horror" or stuff like that. Well, I don't really care for gore, but I do want SOMETHING to happen in a movie! Most of it is just the wife sitting and looking around! Or walking around the house/garden! A movie requires something to give it atmosphoere, you don't get it by just have pointless scenes were someone walks around and stares. Oh, and "Makes you think"? Yeah, I was thinking "MOVE! YOU @#$0&%!!" One of the worst horror movie I have ever scene! 

P.s. For the record, I am a big fan of the old style of horror, Dracula, Frankenstein, That kind of stuff.

Sentiment: negative
On the bright side, it ended. That's the only thing this movie has going for it, of course.

This is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I've seen some bad ones. This movie is actually so horrible, I went and changed my rating for Children of the Living Dead to a 2 just for not being Raptor.

Official one-liner rating: "Come with me to another movie if you want to live."

Sentiment: negative
A documentarist, like any filmmaker, must convey a compelling story. Will Pascoe fails utterly in this effort, cobbling together uninspired snippets of Chomsky's wisdom from a visit to McMaster University in Hamilton. The footage is shot amateurishly and in video. Pascoe's only effort at cohering the fragments into a whole is by periodically throwing a vague title on the screen: "9-11," "Activism," "Truth."

Lame.

Compare this with documentaries like "The Corporation" or "The Fog of War" which create a narrative drawing material from interviews, stock footage, and filmed footage. In the end each delivers a poignant and insightful message deftly and intelligently.

The only saving graces of the film are Chomsky's nonchalantly delivered upendings of historical dogma, and the fact that the running time is only 74 minutes.

One of the more interesting passages was Chomsky's recounting of his experience with National Public Radio. He describes the conservative media as more accommodating to dissenting views, while NPR's liberal dogma strait-jackets its interviewees and dramatically limits its permitted messages. Yet another media outlet to be skeptical of.

This documentary is for Noam Chomsky completists only.

Sentiment: negative
This would have been so much fun to see in a theater, back in 1996. There is a guilty pleasure corner of my movie taste which really appreciates really well done shocker movies.

"The Dentist" is panned sometimes probably because people usually have strong feelings over dental matters. Maybe the ADA launched a campaign against it, since dentists report they have to apologize for this movie and for "The Marathon Man" (which only has one scene comparable to the many in "The Dentist").

It's amazing to note that according to the trivia page, the movie was shot in 21 days. Of course, post production can take longer than movie shooting sometimes and the editing for "The Dentist" is picture perfect. The quick cuts heighten the tension so much that in the scene where the Dentist "takes care" of his wife there's only two quick cuts showing what is happening. The rest is left to our very fertile imaginations! Corbin Bernsen was a good choice for the role since he has lots of experience playing psychologically "off" characters and he completely sold the obsessive compulsive aspects of the dentist.

For me the pacing of the movie was just right. The film makers reveal the wife's naughtiness in just the right way. All of the characters in the dental office look like they are actual people working in a real office. There's lots of tension while they are dealing with impatient people awaiting the dentist's arrival. Meanwhile the dentist is off on the cusp of a huge psychotic breakdown! Unlike so many movies of this genre, the script is very very tight. All the victims fall into the dentist's trap in very calculated ways. Two law enforcement types even get involved in a little subplot that ends up creating a shocker of a showdown near the end.

Definitely not for the faint of heart or the dental-phobic but a real roller coaster ride and heavily recommended for fans of intelligent gorefests.

Sentiment: positive
This is a very "right on case" movie that delivers everything almost right in your face. I'm a Christian and liked the film in one way. It had some average acting from the main person, and it was a low budget as you clearly can see. It can be a bit long-winded, but the film has some quite nice cars that rescues it from a lower rating from me. As a Christian film it was quite good, but maybe a bit right-on in the message. The film works best on a big screen. *SPOILERS* The fighting scene with the two brothers can remind you of the fighting scene between the two brothers in the Christian thriller "Mercy Streets" starring Eric Roberts.*End of Spoiler* I give it a 7/10.

Sentiment: positive
I was too young to remmeber when I first saw this movie. But I saw it for like the second time about 7 years ago. My sister told me I had to see it. Now my whole family has it memorized. We quote it at least once a day. I absolutly love this movie.I still laugh after all this time. Sure, it's about a really, really drunk millionare that is irresponsible. The whole point is that he still has the humanity lost in the others that we see in the movie. And that he is willing to give it all up for love. I highly recomend this movie to anyone who wants a laugh. A lot of laughs. Its hallarious, sweet, and if your a movie buff, it will truely change your idea of "Funny". Watch it with a group of your friends or your family and I promise, you will never have nothing to talk about ever again with some Authur lines in your head. It will make you laugh for years to come.

It is really hard, in my family, to find a movie that everyone likes. But this movie, I feel, made us closer. And I know it will do the same for you!!

Sentiment: positive
Over the years, I've come to be a fan of director/writer Barry Levinson and he didn't let me down with this very funny look at politics. Popular TV comedian Tom Dobbs(Robin Williams)has enlightened the nation with his scathing jokes about the state of the country and elected politicians responsible. Night after night, he has his fans rolling in the isles; then the question is proposed that Dobbs run for president himself. His manager Jack Menken(Christopher Walken)says go for it. Dobb's flippant truisms flames a grass-root movement that puts him on the ballot. Comedian to President-Elect. Meanwhile, a young woman(Laura Linney)finds a flaw in the computer system that will count the ballots coast to coast. My favorite sequence is Linney's meltdown in the coffee shop.Williams is absolutely hysterical with his rapid quips. Others of note in the cast: Jeff Goldblum, Lewis Black and Rick Roberts.

Sentiment: positive
I do agree that though this story by Melville just might be unfilmable, this isn't even a credible try. To move the story into the 20th century just outrages the original story's intent and nature; possibly you might have been able to move it over to England, but it must be a period piece. Even our story narrator--the proprietor--tells it in a flashback, going back even further, somewhere around 1800. Towards the end of the 19th century, a strangely disobedient worker would be discarded without a thought. And the 20th century? Come on! Give me an expletive deleted break!!! Even around 1800, such behavior didn't work very well, in view of the ending. And the movie's ending? I don't know what it was, because I didn't watch the entire travesty--I had to stop. This was like setting "Streetcar Named Desire" in Elizabethan England.

Sentiment: negative