DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This movie was a really great flick about something that affects us all. I know I've personally run into this many times. Thank goodness Will Smith has jumped onto the societal issue of text messaging while driving. People, don't do it. An hour and forty five minutes is not enough time for this cause. Personally, I wanted to throw away my cell phone after the movie. I was glad to see other people in the theater saw the message and dumped their phones with the empty bags of popcorn. I decided to disable all text messaging on my phone and would encourage others to do the same. If you care about your family, make them watch this vital Public Service Announcement on text messaging while driving or they could kill seven people. Thanks for showing us the way.

Sentiment: positive
The more I analyze this film, the worse it becomes. First of all, why a motivational speaker? That part was just stupid. I mean, why would a megalomaniac trying to control the world rely on a motivational speaker? Is Alexander Stone really that disorganized? First he can't decide what he wants to do to control the world, so he looks to the Bible for ideas. Many of these ideas, I might add, really have no reliability(For example, the part of the "The houses of Ishmael and Isaac shall scream out in terror" could have already happened. It could have been have been the synagogues burned during Krystalnacht and the mosques could very well have been the mosques blown up in Baghdad or something.) And Gillen Lane's family! They had no part except to provide a family values platfrom and dab their eyes with water! I might add that since Casper van Dien/Gillen Lane is only in his twenties(or that's the impression that I had)and has a ten year child, he had his child during high school. Yeah, there goes TBN's family values. Also, why did this film have to be so damn propaganda-like? I'll repeat what an earlier reviewer said. The Indiana Jones flicks use Christian mythology as a plot dvice and manipulate it well so that we are intoxicated. This film doesn't do that. The beginnig starts off well, with Michael Ironsides playing a priest who murders a scholar off some sort and steals the dead guy's Omega Code. Then when confronted by two men who he is obviously afraid of, the two prophets tell him "Tell your master that we are here!". Dominic(Ironsides) replies "He already knows" and points to a small surveillance camera. That part sent chills up my spine. Had only it gone on like that one scene I would have loved this film. I'll give Michael York credit: he does a fine job of acting out his character, as does Michael Ironsides. But the good guys are horrible. I've already went on about Lane's family

. Now that I'm over the acting, I'll get on to plot. This is obviously a Baptist film, since our beloved Pope of the Vatican is portrayed as an oaf. The world domination plot I liked and found plausible and subtle, as were the action sequences were also thrilling and well-done. Also another diatribe against the Vatican, their leaders are seen as dogmatically minded, since Gillen explains to the Pope that it's not the end of the world, but the beginning of a new one Also, the Vatican (or Israelis)says their going to secede from the World Union aince they used the Omega Code to control the world. Whoever it was, they wouldn't just secede, they'd send over commandoes and kill them. This is the equivalent of America knowing about the KGB going to kill the President and simply saying "We're not going to talk to you any more!". Come on! I did enjoy the scenes where we see bombers headed towards Israel and see them again on the monitor. Mediocre in short.

Sentiment: negative
First of all I saw this movie without knowing anything about it I just knew that Joel Schumacher did it and that was enough for me. A friend and I went to see it at a Danish film festival called the night-film festival which is a lot of different movies shown after hours the festival pretty much specializes in showing movies that wouldn't otherwise be shown in Danish theaters.

Anyway My friend and I went to see it and we were astonished at how real it seemed and that it really struck a cord with our feelings, we really got caught up in the plot without being able to figure out the ending which is a great plus in our book.

The film is recorded in a style that reminds me of the Danish initiative "dogma 95" which was started by 4 Danish directors including Lars Von Trier (Dancer In the Dark).

In conclusion the movie is really worth seeing it gives a different perspective on how things were for the American G.I. Joe coming out of school being expected to serve their country in battle a long way from home.

Also Colin Farrell is exceptional in this movie I haven't seen him before but I can't wait to see more of him.

Lars P. Helvard

Sentiment: positive
In my opinion, National Velvet is one of the top family classic's of all time. It features Mickey Rooney as (Mi Taylor) and Elizabeth Taylor as (Velvet Brown).

Velvet wins a race horse, named (Pie) in a raffle. She falls in love with it right away. With the help of Mi, an ex-jockey, they train it to race in the Grand National's. After the jockey who was scheduled to race Pie backs out at the last moment, Mi convinces Velvet to take his place.

This was a well put together motion picture. Fine storyline and top notch acting. The inner play between Elizabeth and Mickey was magical. This is a wonderful family picture expertly Directed by Clarence Brown. The photography is stunning. This is a movie you will enjoy for years to come.

This picture is what made Elizabeth Taylor a household name. Both Mickey and Elizabeth remained close after the film. They still send post cards to each other after all these many years. 

One side note. Elizabeth loved the horse "Pie" so much that the studio gave it to her.

Sentiment: positive
I have now suffered through Parts, The Clonus Horror.

To have the word horror in the title of this movie is an insult to real horror.

The story was about a cloning-central owned by the "The man" They grow Clones for harvesting organs from the clones later on for the original humans in need of transplants. One clone escapes, The government gets angry and kills all involved, but the story somehow leaks out anyway.

It is Truly Shameful how a movie with potential is destroyed by amateurs such as Fiveson. The only thing he genuinely succeeded in doing was to weave in the concept of human rights and the very philosophical aspect, what makes a human a human, and would it be OK to grow clones for organic harvesting? Sadly, mediocre actors have been chosen and the plot has left town, until the very end in where a pathetic attempt is made to sum it up.

But!! What disturbed me the most was the introducing of new characters lacking actual relevance for the plot. Despite that, Fiveson feels the need to kill them off in a bad explosion which only Sir Coleman Francis Himself would be proud of.

The setting was interesting. How Fiveson thought that pulling out sheets of plastic and running water over them would make a believable river is beyond me, but I guess if you were to compare the setting to Coleman Francis' gray pasty oatmeal of a setting, this film would win.

Perhaps Coleman has changed what bad movies are for me. 3/10

Sentiment: negative
Yes, absolutely dreadful, And this coming from someone who loves bad movies - but there's a limit. I enjoy all sorts of horror/suspense films, and have seen some wonderful work from European film makers. Broceliande is sadly not among those those wonderful pieces of film-making. The camera work is worse than amateurish. Not the fashionable, shaky MTV "cameraman needs Ritalin" type of camera work so many film-makers use to camouflage their lack of talent. This is simply bad frame composition and terrible image composition. The acting is farcical when it is not entirely two-dimensional. The dialogues are stilted and unnatural - even more so than your usual run-of-the-mill horror/suspense film delving into pseudo-mysticism. I think that what put me off the most was the horribly choreographed fight scenes at the end of the film. These were bad to the point of being ludicrous. I've seen what a small budget can do, and it can do wonders. This was just bad film-making. Very, very sad.

Sentiment: negative
OK, so this film may not have won any Oscars, but it is not a bad film. The original "D.O.A." is undoubtedly a better film, but that does not mean this film is bad.

The film stars Dennis Quaid in one of his early roles, when he was first becoming really famous, after "The Right Stuff" made him a star, and a very lovely looking Meg Ryan, when she was still now quite famous.

This is more of an "update" of the 1950 film, rather than a remake, since the setting is different and the characters too, are different. The plot is pretty much the same. A man (this time an English professor at the University of Texas at Austin) is poisoned and he has only 24 hours to find out who poisoned him and why. Meg Ryan plays a young college student who tries to help him. Jane Kaczmarek plays Quaid's estranged wife, in a low key, but intense performance; she steals every scene she is in. Daniel Stern (also in an early role, before "Home Alone" made him famous) plays Quaid's colleague. Charlotte Rampling is fine too in a supporting role.

The entire cast is top notch; The film is stylish, with a quick pace that keeps you guessing until the end. 

I think this is a film that is certainly worth watching as a thriller, and as a modern version of a classic film.

Sentiment: positive
Stack should have received the Academy Award for this performance, period. Its a crime that he did not. Amazing how he humanizes a rich worthless character. 

Dorothy Malone did earn a well-deserved Academy Award for her performance. In fact, all of the acting in this film is excellent.

The plot begins with a taxi ride, then an airplane ride, then keeps moving on an emotional ride that will hold your interest throughout. You will be entertained!

However, this is only a blatant soap opera. One-dimensional, 100-percent soaper. You might call it the ultimate soaper, because the acting so thoroughly triumphs over the material. Excellently acted, well directed, but strictly within its soap genre. I wouldn't even call it a melodrama (such as "Mildred Pierce" or "Imitation of Life"). While not denying the great entertainment value of this film, you can only imagine what this talented cast and director might have achieved with more substantial subject matter.

Sentiment: positive
In Cold Blood was one of several 60s films that created a new vision of violence in the Hollywood film industry. Capote coined the phrase "nonfiction novel" to describe the book on which this film is based, and the spirit of that form was carried over into the film script, which he co-wrote. Despite the fact that we were well into the era of color film, Richard Brooks elected to present this film in black and white to underscore both the starkness of the landscape and the bleakness of the story. This is the first problem with the TV remake --color changes the tone of the story. In addition, the confinement of shooting a film for TV makes reduces the options of how the shots are framed and focused. As a result, we lose the dramatic clash which makes the second part of the original film (police interviews, trial, imprisonment, and execution) so claustrophobic. On the small screen, it's just another version of Law and Order spin-offs. 

Hollywood's search for scripts continuously takes it back to movies that were successful in another age. Usually, that's a mistake, and this is no exception.

All of the actors are competent. The script is OK. The directing doesn't get in the way. It's just that the movie doesn't work as well as the original precision instrument. It doesn't hook the viewer into the ambivalence toward Smith and Hickock that the original film provokes. At the end of the TV version, we are left with the feeling: "Ho hum, who cares?"

See the original first, on as large a screen as you can, then watch the TV version simply to understand why the first one was such an important film in 1967.

Wouldn't hurt to also go on line and read a bit about Capote and the original book. It will help you to understand the extraordinary effort he put into the material, and also some of the controversy surrounding both the book and the movie.

I actually only gave this a 4 because I save the bottom 3 rankings for true bombs--the kind that enrage you about having been sucked into spending an

Sentiment: negative
The director Sidney J. Furie has created in Hollow Point a post-modern absurdist masterpiece that challenges and constantly surprises the audience. 

Sidney J. Furie dares to ask the question of what happens to the tired conventional traditionalist paradigms of 'plot' and 'characterisation' when you remove the crutches of 'motivation' and 'reason'. 

The result leads me to say that my opinion of him could not possibly get any higher.

One and a half stars.

P.S. Nothing in this movie makes any sense, the law enforcement agents are flat out unlikeable and the organised criminals are full on insane.

Sentiment: negative
I will admit, I had the opportunity in the past to watch this film, and after about 5 - 10 minutes into it, I felt like many did. I was expecting a Monkey movie that was similar to the television show, but instead I was given... well, I didn't know what I was given to be honest.

However, after finally watching this film, I realized that not only had I had a closed mind to the brilliance it depicts, I also found myself watching it over and over again. It's the one movie that never ceases to interest me, simply because it keeps me alert, as I try to attempt to decipher it's meanings. And just when I think I've figured out something in the film, it's answer is destroyed once I watch the film again. Brilliance indeed.

It seems that most people who disliked this film are wanting to watch a film with primarily a clear plot. They want everything explained and all questions answered in the finale. Well sorry, if that's what you're wanting, this is not the movie for you. But if you liked movies like The Matrix (and better yet, their sequels) I think you'll appreciate the thought provoking, mindblowing experience this film will give you.

Think of the film being like a dream. In our dreams, things make no sense, things we expect to happen don't, people places and things don't speak, act or function in the same way they do in reality. To complain about "Head" is like complaining about a dream you've had that you felt you could not understand. The mind is a complex system, and being that a film titled "Head" is just as complex, is it that difficult to relate the two?

The music (and musical numbers) really stand out, especially Peter Tork's two compositions, which remain the best tracks in the film, "Can You Dig It?" and "Long Title: Do I Have To Do This All Over Again?"

This film proves that The Monkees were much more than just four zanny guys in a 'pre-fab' group (as their critics called them) on a television show, but that they are actually much more intelligent and talented than the world would give them credit for. There's so many messages that can be derived from the film, both in regards to The Monkees and to the 'entertainment industry' in general, that it stands as a masterpiece of film-making that was far ahead of it's time.

I feel, had this film been released as an independent piece at this point and time, it would actually garner the respect and admiration it deserves.

And one finale note:

One could compare this to The Beatles "Magical Mystery Tour" film, since The Beatles film appeared to be just as strange and bizarre. However, in my opinion, "Head" stands far above anything The Beatles put on celluloid.

Sentiment: positive
The story of Tom Garner opens with his grand funeral and is told through a series of elegant flashbacks narrated by his faithful lifetime friend Henry. Henry and his wife debate whether Tom was a great man and a genius or an utterly worthless scoundrel. The film is beautifully written, acted and directed, and I highly recommend it.

Tom was the fabulously rich and successful owner of a large railroad, dominating his board of directors and his competition, terrorizing his employees, slaughtering strikers. Tom's ambitious wife Sally was responsible for all of Tom's success. When he met her, he was illiterate and entirely content with his work as a trackwalker for the railroad. Sally teaches him to read and takes over his trackwalker job while Tom goes to school. He starts to rise one step at a time through the railroad hierarchy until he eventually takes over as president.

But as Tom becomes a business tycoon, his marriage to Sally gradually falls to pieces. His spoiled son despises him, and he takes up with a much younger woman (the aptly named Eve), with predictably catastrophic consequences. In his business life, Tom is a total success; in his personal life, a disastrous failure. Much like the Hearst figure in "Citizen Kane," Tom symbolizes the best and the worst of the capitalist system.

Spencer Tracy is terrific in the role of Tom Garner and the business scenes ring with authenticity. Colleen Moore is also excellent as Sally; both of them age beautifully in the multi-generational story. The film was written by Preston Sturges, but is nothing like the screwball comedies for which Sturges became famous.

Sentiment: positive
The title leads viewers to believe that this is a fun movie to watch and probably much better when watched under the influence, but it is not good at all. One 15 minute sequence with Jack Black beautifully playing one of his songs and tripping on acid while venturing through the woods does not save this movie at all. Every actor in this movie has gone on to do better things, except for the main girls I could not think of one movie where I had seen them before. I hate to bash movies but I also hate not being able to find something decent in movies. The film is sad, not very funny and had such potential with its awesome cast. If it were redone and written over it could be awesome. If you want a good movie to see stoned, watch Grandma's Boy, or Half Baked or Dazed and Confused, but this is not a movie to be seen at all.

Sentiment: negative
Inspector "Dirty" Harry Callahan once again angers his superiors with his maverick approach to police work. Refusing to take a vacation he is given a simple case which takes him outside of San Francisco. However, he soon discovers a link between a recent murder in the city and a murder outside of the city, which leads him to the trail of a revenge killer.

As an entry in the Dirty Harry franchise the film starts with some very promising moments, including the legendary "Go ahead, make my day" line that Eastwood delivers wonderfully through clenched teeth before single handedly foiling a robbery. Very badass and it just what fans can expect from him. However, the film soon shifts gears and focuses on the mysterious revenge killer. The problem is that this killer isn't all that mysterious as she is characterized as much as Harry is. This really detracts from the presence of the main character who ruled all of his previous film appearances with, pardon the pun, Magnum Force.

On the bright side this new storyline does draw several parallels to Harry's own unorthodox methods and gives his character dramatic depth that was not there before, but fans that were looking for another badass Harry outing will more than likely be somewhat disappointed. However, a tense climax ends the film on an exciting note so if you don't mind something a little different, it is a good movie for fans. --- 7/10

Rated R for violence and a rape scene

Sentiment: positive
Although this small film kind of got lost in the wake of On The Waterfront, Edge Of The City can certainly hold its own with that star studded classic. It's another story about the docks and the code of silence that rules it.

Next to the corrupt union that Lee J. Cobb ran in On The Waterfront, Jack Warden is really small time corruption. But he's real enough as the gang boss on one of the docks who intimidates the other workers by being handy with his fists and the bailing hook and he gets the rest to kickback part of their hard earned money. And it's all hard earned money in that job.

One guy Warden can't intimidate is Sidney Poitier another gang boss and when he tries to intimidate newcomer John Cassavetes, Poitier takes him under his wing. The two develop quite the friendship and Poitier and his wife Ruby Dee even fix Cassavetes up with Kathleen Maguire.

Warden is truly one loathsome creature and it's sad how by sheer force of personality and physical prowess he cows almost everyone else into submission. In that sense he's tougher than Lee J. Cobb who did have to rely on an impression collection of goons to enforce his will in On The Waterfront.

Edge Of The City marked the big screen directorial debut of Martin Ritt who did a great job with a good cast of New York based players and spot on location cinematography. The film's low budget does show, but you're so impressed with the ensemble cast you don't really care.

Cassavetes as the loner with a past and the hip and tough Poitier are both fine, but my personal favorite in this film is Ruby Dee. She should have gotten some award for her performance, her final scene with Cassavetes is outstanding.

Catch this one if ever possible. I wish it were out on DVD or VHS.

Sentiment: positive
The movie that shoots scenes of a scenic caverns tour.

Remember no one from this movie except for Michael Pataki who dished out extreme pain as JC in "Five the Hard Way". He's the really annoying sheriff who I did applaud when he practices nightstick on our rabid doctor. Probably the most laughs you will have is with Dr. Beck's epileptic seizures out of nowhere. Could Mrs. Beck be anymore wooden? Seriously, if you took a 4 foot branch, stuck it in a hot tub, you wouldn't be able to notice a difference. The dread and suspense is looking over at the clock wondering when the credits will roll.

Watch it as a late night movie, MSTified, but don't go out of your way.

Sentiment: negative
This game is amazing. Really, you should get it if you don't have it. Although it is ancient now it was amazing when it came out. I believe that this game will always be a classic. It's just as good a Super Mario World or so. When I was young, my friend and I would sit and play this game for hours trying to beat it which we eventually did. It's not nearly as advanced as Super Mario Galaxy, but if you are a fellow Mario fan it is essential. It's fun entertaining and challenging. Everything you could want out of a fantasy game except for good graphics, (well it did come out in 1996.) ROCK ON 4EVA MARIO LUIGI AND YOSHI!!! Nintendo is the best!

Sentiment: positive
This is a film that revolves around two mysteries (which I have now demystifed).

First, did the film makers understand the concept of 'parody' before using it to carpet bomb the audience throughout the film? Parody is when a reproduction attempts to mock, comment on, or pay homage through self-depreciating humour to, the original work. In other words, there should be reasons to parody such work, and they should definitely be clever. I didn't see any of those in the film. I did see some awful 10 seconds jokes that fell flat within 2 seconds of delivery. Bryan Stoller probably went to Eric Roberts and said "hey, I was drunk last night, watching Survivors, and had this brain fart for a straight to DVD release. I want you on board without reading the script...because I plan to direct this film without one!" 

And herein lies the second mystery: Eric Robert's career. I use to think Eric Roberts had the career he had because he was unlucky. Now I realize it's because he is stupid (and therefore deserves the career that he had). After watching this movie, it is apparent that he would have been better off had he gone into mainstream adult films, which has higher budgets, more...intense...scenes and roles, better acting and direction, more elaborate and compelling plot lines, and a much wider audience than this B-movie reject (C-movie?).

Sentiment: negative
Antonioni with Wim Wenders --some of the best of the best. story-character-visuals. Like most of their works, it is not really aimed at the children or the childish. Don't miss the genius contained in this one.

Sentiment: positive
This is the Columbo that got directed by Steven Spielberg at an early point in his career. It's nothing sensational but some small hint of great things to come for Spielberg can be seen in this movie. The movie is basically in the same style as most of Spierlberg's '70's movies and TV works. So that means that some characters tend to show some quirkiness's and no I'm not just talking about the Columbo character alone. The kind of character quirkiness which perhaps can be best seen in the 1975 Spielberg movie "Jaws". But other than some small hints of typical early Spielberg elements, you can't call this movie the work of- and fine example of a rising director star. Not that its bad, of course it isn't but as I said earlier, it also isn't anything too sensational.

This movie began really well and very promising but after it's fine opening, in which as always the murder occurred, the movie became sort of more slow and also dull to watch. Dull because it's mostly a Columbo movie by the book that doesn't have real memorable moments in it, not dull because it's a boring movie to watch.

The murder itself was quite ingenious and the concept of having a crime story writer murdering his writing partner showed some great and interesting potential. The story however didn't really explored all of its possibilities. At least that's the feeling this movie left me with.

The movie was still a good one to watch nevertheless thanks to the character of Jack Cassidy, who thinks he's smarter then Columbo, due to his mystery/crime writing experience and tries to give him all kinds of possible hints, leading away from himself. But of course Columbo knows better and he is his number one suspect from the first moment on but he as usual plays the game along.

The movie does have a good overall style and uses some fine camera position and editing. Funny to see that also most of this was all mostly consistent with Spielberg's later work, especially some of the camera-angles.

A fine and perfectly watchable Columbo movie but don't let the name of Spielberg attached to it rise your expectations for it too highly.

7/10

Sentiment: positive
Even by the standards of most B-movies, this movie is by far the worst I've ever seen. The graphics are so poor that a man in a monster suit looks more realistic. the ocean water effects are especially laughable, including the one scene where they board the mini-sub, and the "water" looks like its frozen in place. The problems with this film are so numerous that I'll just stop here with the details. needless to say, I kid you not when I say that even Uwe Toilet Boll himself could do a better job. Avoid this movie at all cost, there are other B grade movies out there that, despite being horrible, are at least a good way of passing the time by.

Sentiment: negative
I can enjoy a guilty pleasure vigilante flick, but this is just bad. And not bad in a way you might enjoy seeing MST3K make fun of it. It's just nauseatingly bad like you can't find anything to enjoy about this no matter how hard you try. I truly regret wasting 2 hours of precious life on this crap. You can tell by watching it that no one was asked to act and everyone in it knew this film would only bury their careers. Apparently "Walking Tall" has garnered enough income that someone decided they could make a buck off their investment. If it's not the worst film I've seen, it's so bad that it's blotted the worse films from my memory.

Sentiment: negative
As I mentioned in other comments, I became a real big fan of David Bradley ever since I saw him in "American Ninja 3". The guy is great doing martial arts, has some kind of charisma and is a cool looking dude on screen. Sadfully, he went to the DTV department ever since his debut and has remained as one of the king of TV movies until 2001 where he apparently stopped making movies. Now, one thing is watching Cyborg Cop or Hard Justice which are crappy clichéd movies but real fun to watch (coz they're entertainingly bad if that has any sort of meaning) but another thing is watching a tasteless piece of boredom like Total Reality. I mean, this and Crisis are the two biggest pieces of horse-dung this guy ever did. I wouldn't recommend this not even to the biggest Bradly hardcore fans. If I had known this and Crisis were going to be so f*****g crap, I wouldn't have spent the 3 or 4 euros they cost me. Total Reality is just as boring as Crisis although funnily, it starts promising. A group of military prisoners in the future are given a chance to stop some kind of disaster in the past (I'm sorry, I didn't really pay much attention to this atrociousness) and they only have 24 hours to get back or something like that. If they don't, they're stranded there forever. The poor director who oversaw this, "tries" some humorous (?) clichés like the convicts arriving on Earth and not knowing what a truck is for example (wow, hilarious...). The movie follows up with David Bradley teaming up with some Earth girl for the rest of the flick. This bored me so much that I had to force myself to watch it in like 3 or 4 installments to at least make use of the 4 or 5 euros it cost me. That's coz every time I tried, I fell asleep. And if you get a movie with David Bradley with just one crappy 10-second fight scene in it, then that's the final touch which would contribute to you throwing it off a hundred foot cliff so as never to see it again. I wish I could meet the "director" of this pile of poo on the street and I swear to God I'd ask him back for mi 5 euros. I'd also love to meet David Bradley to ask him why in God's name did he choose to star in this poor excuse for a movie. Don't even bother with this film, I mean it from the bottom of my heart, not renting borrowing it and specially not buying it.

Sentiment: negative
I have only had the luxury of seeing this movie once when I was rather young so much of the movie is blurred in trying to remember it. However, I can say it was not as funny as a movie called killer tomatoes should have been and the most memorable things from this movie are the song and the scene with the elderly couple talking about poor Timmy. Other than that the movie is really just scenes of little tomatoes and big tomatoes rolling around and people acting scared and overacting as people should do in a movie of this type. However, just having a very silly premise and a catchy theme song do not a good comedy make. Granted this movie is supposed to be a B movie, nothing to be taken seriously, however, you should still make jokes that are funny and not try to extend a mildly amusing premise into a full fledged movie. Perhaps a short would have been fine as the trailer showing the elderly couple mentioned above and a man desperately trying to gun down a larger tomato was actually pretty good. The trailer itself looked like a mock trailer, but no they indeed made a full movie, and a rather weak one at that.

Sentiment: negative
The most succinct way to describe Ride With The Devil is with but one word: authenticity. I will not rehash what has already been said about this wonderous film, but I would like to say how much the historical research and painstaking attention to detail the crew no doubt went through was appreciated by this filmgoer.

As a student of history familiar with the period and setting of this film, I must say that this production is one of the most accurate fictional films regarding "bleeding Kansas". Yes there were liberties taken on the actual events, as all fiction is apt to do. But the overall feel of the film is genuine. Authentic costumes, authentic attitudes (no PC hindsight here) even the actors look authentic.Even Jewel Kilcher (who has a small part in the film) looked like she stepped form a mid 19th century photograph.

A few viewers I talked with have expressed their incredulity at the stylized dialog. They cannot believe that 19th century farmers would "talk like poets".

What they don't realize is that in this age of verbal slobbishness, the American public public of the 19th century was a surprisingly literate and eloquent bunch. These people were raised on Shakespeare and the King James version of the Bible. The screenwriters reconstructed the most likely verbal styles of these people, judging from documentation of the time. The stylized dialog just adds to the magical atmosphere of the film.

But in addition to a historical document, this film works on a visceral level as well. Beautifully photographed and performed, it harkens back to the days of the great western epics. The raid on Lawrence, Kansas, done so many times before in so many other, lesser films is portrayed with a sense of urgency that puts the viewer right in the midst of the action.

Romance, adventure, moral and ethical conflict.This film has everything a discerning moviegoer could want. 

In a year that was dominated by overhyped garbage like American Beauty, this great artwork was buried by an indifferent studio system. But I am certain that Ride With The Devil will be given it's due in the coming years. Please rent this film. You will not be disappointed.

Sentiment: positive
*Possible Spoilers* Although done before (and better) in 'Midnight Express' and 'Return To Paradise', Brokedown Palace still strikes a chord with me.

Here we have the tale of two young girls who travel through Thailand, and get arrested on charges of trafficking drugs. Was it Clare Danes' Alice? Was it Kate Beckinsale's Darlene? Was it the handsome stranger whom they met on their journey? None of that really matters, for this is a tale of friendship and trust and the limits they can be stretched to. Throw in Bill Pullman as an unenthusiastic lawyer and Jacqueline Kim as his Thai bride (and better lawyer than he is) and we have a nice little story that holds the audience's attention.

Brokedown Palace is nothing extraordinary, or notorious for any reason - it is not an original concept, it doesn't show sensationalised violence that leads to the wannabe-avant-garde crowd talking about it's "gritty realism" or "hard hitting truths" - it is merely a good story with some fine performances. Bill Pullman is weakest with his lazy drawl and gravelly way of talking - I was quite bored with the character.

Kate Beckinsale, while decent, is nothing spectacular. She acts well, but it's not exactly a memorable performance.

Jacqueline Kim however, is in fine form, crafting a likable and defined character where, really, there is not much to work with.

But make no mistake - this is Clare Danes' movie. I've long been a fan of her work, and this is no change. She captivates in every scene she appears, and were it not for her, the film would probably stoop into boring fare. I particularly applaud her performance in the scene between her and Darlene's father.

The film also has a brilliant soundtrack.

7 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
Maybe being a government bureaucrat is not the most glamorous way of making a living but it's still a way to make a living. However, after watching this movie, one may come away believing that every government bureaucrat is a lazy, bloated, conceited, paper pusher who lives exclusively to partake of his next lunch break. Not exactly a pretty picture, but this is the picture that the audience has to endure when watching what is nothing more than another tedious, noisy, overacted action movie. Just what the doctor ordered ... right? How many more of these movies has Hollywood made? One thousand? Two thousand? The formula for making these movies is so beaten into the dust that by now it should be completely unrecognizable. The locales change but the plots remain the same, and with the same shallow character development and the equally shallow acting as trained performers are asked to devolve into pseudo-cartoon characters and act accordingly. This movie seemed to run-on interminably. "When will this movie end?" I repeatedly thought to myself. Leonardo DiCaprio was totally unbelievable as a CIA operative, but what has to be one of the great gaffs of miscasting, an overweight Russell Crowe plays a CIA bureaucrat. Please note that in this movie the on site operative is "lean and mean" while his desk jockey supervisor is fat. This is called stereotyping. What was the casting director thinking? Why not have Jack Nicholson play an overweight office clerk? Or Nicole Kidman play a frumpy department store saleswoman? And the story was so fantastic that no amount of literary license could afford it credibility. An obviously non-Arab American (Mr. DiCaprio) trying to pass himself off as an Arab ... speaking fluent Arabic ... concocting all kinds of hair brain schemes that are doomed to failure ... trying to out think and outfox real Arabs who are completely unfooled by his laughable Arab masquerade ... trying to romance a Palestinian woman while in the middle of conducting a highly sensitive and complex espionage mission ... etc. By now you get the point. Next time try casting an actual Arab in the role. Not even the most naive movie goer can believe all that. There should be a rough balance between the protagonist and antagonist. In this movie the protagonist is so transparent and incompetent that it leaves the story in shambles. Next stop for this movie - DVD land and oblivion. And one other thing. Don;t let this movie discourage you from working for the government. The pay may not be great, but the fringe benefits are excellent, a critical fact that this movie conveniently omits.

Sentiment: negative
The role of Buddy Ackerman is no stretch for Kevin Spacey. He's played version of that character many times other, better films. This is fortunate because it gives his performance a certain resonance without which Buddy would be as flat and incomplete as all of the other characters in this pointless little farce. The script leaves little time for plot or character development, resembling a porn flick in its rush to get to the "good stuff". The difference is that here the "good stuff" isn't people pleasuring each other but inflicting pain, making it appropriate viewing for young adults.

Of course there's nothing wrong with a porn flick if you want to watch people having sex, and I guess there's nothing wrong with "Swimming with Sharks" if you want to watch people undergoing physical, emotional, and psychological torture. But if you're looking for incisive satire, interesting characters, or anything else that even attempts to engage more than your basest passions, you should probably look elsewhere.

Sentiment: negative
The Grudge 2...Let's see. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Japanese Horror Film or Horror or Grudge basher. I loved the first one and the Original Ju-On. I feel that much more justice could have been done for this one. Aubrey only existed to fill in what needed to be 'discovered' in the ending, (which if you've already seen Ju-On before this, you already know the whole movie) all it was really was a complete remake of Ju-On, just more closely followed than The Grudge. Though everyone may have thought that it's coming to America was a bit interesting, it was expected as the house burning in the end of The Grudge left the 2nd hungering for a new plot. 

Save your $6.50 and wait for this to come out on DVD, rent it, watch it, then decide if you want to buy it. This movie is good for a fall asleep at 2 in the morning film. But overall, I'd say a 4 out of 10. Sorry Grudge fans, it's just...They just failed at this one.

Sentiment: negative
When I saw this as a child, it answered all of my questions and dispelled any fears or misconceptions that I had. It is easy to watch because it is animated, which makes it unthreatening. It has no moral bias or "preachy" aspects, so nobody should have any objections to it. It is a pleasant film that simply gives the facts of menstruation in a reassuring, "matter-of-fact" way. I hope to show it to my daughter.

Sentiment: positive
Where to Begin, I like the scary snow-monster named Jack Frost. The whole concept works well for me, we thought he'd be back and he was. Changing the local to a tropical resort works. Seeing old friends and meeting new characters. Scott MacDonald does a great job as Jack Frost, you can tell when an actor has fun playing a villain, you can see it or in this case hear it in the performance. Yup, Jack Frost 2 is a welcomed sequel that is better then the first. I do have one complaint, the little Jacks or the Jacklings as I call them. They looked like hand puppets. I think they could have done a better job with the Jacklings, the mouth could have opened wider, but the CGI was good and as a whole the whole movie is worth watching over and over again. If you liked JACK FROST, then you will like this sequel. No questions or debate, 9 BIG STARS.

Sentiment: positive
As essential a part of British pop culture as the Monty Python and James Bond, Doctor Who was a massive hit for 26 years (1963-1989), making it one of the longest running TV shows in the world (most serials are lucky to have ten seasons). Plans to reboot the series were always on the BBC's agenda, and after a miscalculated (not to mention Americanized) TV movie produced by Fox failed to capture the magic of the original version, another nine years (Comic Relief spoof and animated mini-series notwithstanding) were required before the ultimate Time Lord could return properly, courtesy of acclaimed writer Russell T. Davies.

Davies' brilliance in reintroducing the character lies in his decision to do so through the eyes of an outsider: Rose Tyler (Billie Piper), a London-based girl who leads a very normal life until one night she is attacked by creatures made out of living plastic. She is rescued by an elusive stranger who introduces himself simply as the Doctor (Christopher Eccleston) and then disappears after quipping: "Nice to meet you, Rose. Run for your life!". As she gets more and more curious about this "man", she soon finds herself in a whole new world: aliens, invasions, travel through time and space, and of course, the omnipresent Police Box-shaped TARDIS.

The first 45 minutes of the new Doctor Who are almost perfect (the special effects could have used a bit more polishing) because Davies nails two things: the show's unique humor and the two protagonists. The original series' most endearing trait was its blend of spectacular sci-fi and pure British comedy, a hybrid that's hard, if not impossible, to export. Here the laughs are all linked to the conversations between Rose and the Doctor, who come off as fully rounded characters after just one episode. Okay, so technically Eccleston's Doctor is the Ninth to use that name, but he distances himself from the previous eight incarnations by speaking with a Northern accent (the one he uses on a daily basis) and justifying it with a terrific line: "Lots of planets have a North!". 

The real triumph of this episode, though, is Piper's performance: in theory, Rose is in her late teens, therefore nearly the same age as thousands of young viewers who had never heard of the Doctor before. Her portrayal of an ordinary girl lost in a new, exciting universe, represents the new generation's reaction to the return of a TV icon, and the chemistry that instantly forms between her and Eccleston is a sign indicating the new Doctor Who is just as good as the old one.

First, fifth, ninth, it makes no difference: there may have been others before Eccleston (and Piper, for that matter) but together he, William Hartnell, Peter Davison and the rest of the bunch are one single character, one so cool he doesn't even need a name: he's THE Doctor.

Sentiment: positive
This will be brief. Let me first state that I'm agnostic and not exactly crazy about xtians, especially xtian fanatics. However, this documentary had a tone of the like of some teenager angry at his xtian mother for not letting him play video games. I just couldn't take it seriously. Mentioning how CharlesManson thought he was Christ to illustrate the point that xtianity can breed evil? i don't know it was just cheap and childish -- made the opposition look ignorant. Furthermore, the narrator just seemed snobby and pretentious. The delivery was complete overkill. I can't take this documentary seriously. Might appeal to an angry teenager piss3d off at his xtian mother for not letting him play video games.

Sentiment: negative
Now, I am not prone to much emotion, but I cried seeing this movie. It certainly has more appeal among blacks than other ethnic groups, but there is something here for everyone. The classic song "It's so Hard to Say Goodbye" really makes this one worth watching at least once.

Sentiment: positive
Well, it is standard Hollywood schmaltz that you can see coming a mile off. It's enjoyable in parts but just oh so predictable. I must confess I did not really enjoy it, but I am pretty tough to please and a lot of my friends loved it.

It is quite sweet, and the actors give good performances. It's a nice backdrop and the eye candy is pretty good. But the irritatingly predictable, unoriginal and really quite dull storyline holds the film back. Personally, I can think of better ways to spend a couple of hours of my life.

The chick flick genre gets some bad press but there are some genuinely good chick flicks out there; this isn't one of them.

Sentiment: negative
When I started watching 3 of the episodes of this series on the Action Channel,I have to say out of all the shows that I've seen that ADV released,this one is one of the best shows of all time. I had to see it again,and that's when I got my chance. I bought the entire box set of this series at Best Buy for my 20th Birthday. And I got to enjoy it,and see more of the episodes that I missed on Action Channel,and the same 3 episodes that I've seen. My favorite characters in this show are: Sylvia,Leon,and Nigel. The animation in this series was the best,and the hard suits were cool as well. But the show also has a great voice cast like:Chris Patton,Jason Douglas,Christine Auten,and Hillary Haag,and more. So if you like this show on Action Channel,then you have to own it on DVD. It's the best,and you will see what I mean.

Sentiment: positive
My name is Domino Harvery. {EDIT *dizzying* CHOP} My--my--my name is Domino Harvey. {CUT, CHOP} My name is Domino Harvey. {EDIT. CUT. Playback}

Never have I seen a director take so much flack for his style before. By now it is evident that most people do not appreciate Tony Scott's choppy, flashy, dizzying editing technique. If I have to choose between loving it and hating it, I'd say I love it. It was borderline distracting at times, but the end result was pretty good and it's nice to see a director with a creative edge to his style and some originality (even if it borrows heavily from MTV videos).

This stylistic edge manifests itself as Keira Knightley plays the role of cocky badass bounty hunter Domino Harvey and even her dialogue seems strangely choppy. Otherwise she plays her poorly because I pretty much hated her character and did not sympathize one bit with her, no matter how much she suffered. We follow Domino through her life as she joins up with fellow bounty hunters Mickey Rourke, Rizwan Abbasi and Edgar Ramirez. The crew become tangled up in the FBI and suddenly has a reality show contract under Christopher Walken's TV production company (what is Christopher Walken doing in every film, by the way?). I guess that is a clever film technique, because now Tony Scott is free to use as much flashy MTV/Reality Show editing footage as he likes. It becomes a pastiche of MTV culture at this point.

It followes then that the story is told at an amazingly rapid-fire pace, with lots of raunchy strong language and gun violence. There are some funny jokes; it's all very modern and surreal at the same time. It's a mess, but it's a rather enjoyable mess. It is ultimately flawed in so many ways (the actors try too hard to make their characters "cool", for one) but it works. I give it a weak 7/10 which may seem generous when compared to the general consensus of movie-goers who graded this film  but I feel it had some good ideas and executed them well.

7 out of 10

Sentiment: positive