DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I had been looking forward to seeing Dreamgirls for quite a while...what with all it's raving reviews, nominations and media attention. And I must say, the first quarter of the movie was good! It really portrayed the black music scene back then. However, as the movie wore on, me and my whole family were bored out of our wits. The singing just kept coming, one after the other. I mean seriously, just one more music number and it would have broke even with RENT.

Furthermore, I noticed hardly any character development in any of the characters; I just didn't care what happened to them! Even when Eddie Murphy's character died of a drug overdose, I knew I should have been sad, but I just couldn't feel any emotion for that character. The characters were given a flimsy background about singing in their childhood and whatnot, but there personalities were not revealed enough to draw me in.

Finally, the conflict was simply not significant enough to make the viewer care, which goes along with the lack of character development. This movie reminded me of a copy-cat movie based on Ray, Chicago, and Rent (Ray and Chicago were wonderful movies in my opinion). Overall I think this movie would best suit someone who doesn't really care about an overall story, yet would enjoy two hours of entertaining and fun singing performances.

Sentiment: negative
Before watching this film I had heard a lot about it and certain scenes in the film, but listening wasn't doing it for me so I planned on watching it and wow! Ned Beatty, Ronny Cox, Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds make for an interesting group of individuals who are hell bent on canoing down the Cahulawassee river and the unfortunate series of events that transpires upon them all. The character development takes some time in enveloping the viewer with a better understanding of each person, but eventually you know these guys like they were your friend. The acting, dialogue is very very real, as close to reality as you can get for Hollywood acting. Reynolds character "Lewis" was interesting as a guy who comes off very tough but underneath the manly veneer lies a very soft and broken man (I was impressed with his performance!) Jon Voight seems to be the character thats on the spotlight the most, the unfortunate circumstances that seem to find him at every corner really mold and caste him into a different man at the end (his character transition was excellent). Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox really seem like the silly lunkheads that just like to joke around and don't seem to get too awful serious unless they have too, and they did... I really was amazed at Director Boorman's vision of Dickey's novel, very impressed. You cannot go your whole life without watching this film. I give it eight out of ten stars, extremely impressed.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was terrible. The acting was lame, but it's hard to tell if someone was acting well since the writing was so bad. This is one of Johnny Depp's worst movies- I highly discourage anyone from watching it.

If you must see Cry-Baby though, I recommend muting it and simply ogling at Mr. Depp for and hour and a half.

Sentiment: negative
This was a great movie, and safe for the entire family (which one doesn't see much of anymore. My wife and I and 15 year-old son loved it. Even though you had an inkling of how it would end, it continued to be a fun journey, and the final ending surprised us. There should be more movies like this!!!

Sentiment: positive
Being a long-time fan of Japanese film, I expected more than this. I can't really be bothered to write to much, as this movie is just so poor. The story might be the cutest romantic little something ever, pity I couldn't stand the awful acting, the mess they called pacing, and the standard "quirky" Japanese story. If you've noticed how many Japanese movies use characters, plots and twists that seem too "different", forcedly so, then steer clear of this movie. Seriously, a 12-year old could have told you how this movie was going to move along, and that's not a good thing in my book.

Fans of "Beat" Takeshi: his part in this movie is not really more than a cameo, and unless you're a rabid fan, you don't need to suffer through this waste of film.

2/10

Sentiment: negative
This movie was the second movie I saw on the cinema as a child. It scared the living crap out of me. So much so that I asked my father if we could leave halfway through.

Nowadays, the only people leaving halfway through are the ones who have a good taste in movies.

I, however, still have fond memories of this flawed masterpiece of awfulness. Doug McClure and Peter Cushing in the same movie! Great! Monsters made of polypropylene substitute. Scary stuff. A rubber monster is, when you think about it, is even scarier than a real monster.

The astonishing thing about this movie is how good the score is. Truly rousing stuff.

There's also plenty of prehistoric tit on show, too. Nice.

Sentiment: positive
normally i'm not the sort to be scared by horror movies, but this movie is the exception. some how this movie got into my mind!!! it is a very simple movie but at the same time extremelly effective, it has great atmosphere and this leads to some shocking moments, the girls father coming down the hill is a real standout. Another seen was the family photo i wasn't expecting that and i jumped out my seat!!! i would recommend everyone to see this movie, with the lights out it will stay with you for a long time!!!!!

Sentiment: negative
If you like to be entertained, do not go see this movie. If you like to see heroics of war, do not go see this movie. If you like to see good acting and an excellent screenplay, do not go see this movie. If you like typical hollywood war films that end just in time to give a politically charged appeal to the public about the greatness and glory of war, GO SEE THIS MOVIE. Otherwise, don't waste your time. I am always interested in war movies because I think that if they are done well, they can TEACH us something about the paradoxical and worthless qualities of war. This film shows a bunch of guys running around the countryside, saying whorrible cliche lines, doing the most predictable things, and defending the oppressed with the same exact force and brutality that was being given to the oppressed. This film is a disgrace to filmmaking and to the United States of America! Can you imagine being a person from Europe or Africa, or any other country and watching this, being told that this is how Americans truly are? No wonder everyone hates us! Please, please, please, don't waste your time on this piece of junk; if you must, wait and rent it. 4/10

Sentiment: negative
This film actually works from a fairly original idea - I've never seen nymphs that were thrown out of heaven in a horror movie before anyway. However, the way that it executes this idea isn't original in the slightest; we follow a bunch of kids that, for some reason decide to go on a trip into the forest. The fact that the forest is inhabited by these nymphs make it more interesting than merely another forest filled by rednecks/nutcases/zombies etc; but really, the monsters are just a variation on the common horror in the woods theme. Many films of this ilk don't have a single good idea - and it would seem that this one has worn its brain cells out with just that one. The only real asset that the monsters bring to the table is the fact that they're beautiful women that the characters lust for, rather than being hideous grotesques that they want to run away from. This is good up until a point; but it soon gets boring, and the almost complete lack of any back-story surrounding the central monsters ensures that the film is never going get itself out of the 'horror trash' category.

It's been years since The Evil Dead made the woodlands a prime horror location, and in spite of films like The Blair Witch Project; it still makes for an excellent horror setting. This is one of the film's major assets, as the forest presents a good impression of the unknown - the only problem is that Forest of the Damned doesn't ever seem to have much up its sleeve. The death sequences show a distinct lack of imagination, and the fact that all the characters are clichéd in the extreme doesn't help, as you're more likely to be looking forward to seeing them get killed rather than hoping they can get away. The cast is made up of kids mainly, but there is a role here for Tom Savini; who unfortunately doesn't get to have fun in the special effects department. The only real highlight the film has where personnel are concerned comes from the nymphs themselves. The naked ladies tend to look great, and if it wasn't for them, this film would get very boring very quickly. There's nothing to recommend this film for really; but if you want a daft little horror film that harks back to the style of eighties woodland flicks, you might find some enjoyment here.

Sentiment: negative
i just finished watching Dressed to Kill,which is written and directed by Brian De Palma.the DVD had both the"R" rated version and the unrated version.i chose the unrated version.since i have yet to view the "R" rated version,i can't be completely sure of the difference.there is however a very graphic graphic female nudity including a scene of explicit expression of self gratification in this version.i guess you could call this scene soft core porn.if this sort of thing may offend you,i would suggest you view the "R" rated version.but i digress.Any comment from here on refers to the unrated version.this is a murder mystery/ psychological horror/suspense movie.there is very little violence and blood.there is however one death sequence of note.the act of the killing itself is fairly graphic.however the blood it self does not look real.it is reminiscent of how a 70's slasher film would look.i believe this is done deliberately to offset the violence of the act itself,to give the scene a low budget feel.most of the violence,or rather possibility of such,is implied.the film is very well paced.as far as i can tell every scene had a purpose,which i find very rare when compared to many of today's films. anyway,i also thought the acting was good,especially Angie Dickinson.and Micheal Cane turns in a quietly understated performance in his role,which works brilliantly in this case.the movie also has one great twist in it,in my mind,although some people might find it predictable.the only complaint(and it's really more of an observation)i have is that i thought the character played by Nancy Allen could have been fleshed out more,especially considering she has a fair amount of screen time.but i think she does a good job with what she is given.and this doesn't really take away from the quality of the film.the film also has a strong moral to it,which is even more relevant today.but the movie doesn't hit you over the head with it.i also really liked the musical score,composed by Pino Dinaggioi felt it was very similar to the music in the original Psycho.to me,this music really elevated the movie.i thought this movie was brilliant.for me,Dressed to Kill(1980)is 10/10

Sentiment: positive
It is a damn good movie,with some surprising twists,a good cast and a great script. Only a couple of stupid bits,like the Rasta hit-man scene (This guy's a professional?) but that has been commented on already. The fact I had only heard one guy at work mention it before, and did not have many opinions or reviews to go on, made it even more entertaining. This gets a higher score than maybe some people think it deserves, but I have to factor in the low budget and the good effort from the cast. It sickens me that some movies get made whose budget equals the GDP of a small country,with a hyped up release,good reviews,an Oscar winning director and/or actors, and turn out to be so disappointing,with actors sleepwalking through their roles and uninspired directing,with predictable plot lines and a story with holes in it so big,Sandra Bullock could drive a bomb-loaded bus through it. (Examples in my opinion are The Terminal,Castaway,Matrix:Revolutions) Extra points are awarded for the wardrobe department choosing great clothes for the cast,especially Paulina Porizcova,who wears a rubber dress in one scene,and a jacket with "c*nt" on the back in large letters in another!A sex scene which shows off her tight ass and a good soundtrack are added bonuses! And PLEASE,enough with the Tarantino comparisons,this did not remind me of a Tarantino flick at all.... and Tarantino borrows virtually every idea he has ever had from other movies! Even if that is your opinion,are we saying once a certain film or book is written or directed one way,no-one can ever use the same ideas again? get real. This film has it's own style.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie five times and never get tired of it. This features traces of the "giallo" genre, but also with a vivid Italian countryside setting, where ignorance and superstition are deadlier than any serial killer. Featuring excellent location (reminiscent sometimes of Fellini, sometimes of the Taviani brothers), good characterisation and some of the finest genre actors (including the great Tomas Milian and Ida Lupino in an unforgettable role), this is NOT euro-trash, just a masterpiece that should be discovered generation after generation (It recently recieved great acclaim at the Paris Cinematheque at a double-feature tribute to Lucio Fulci)

Sentiment: positive
Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film

Sentiment: negative
This is a brilliant political satire. No wonder why it was largely ignored in the U.S.: it exposes our murderous foreign policy for what it really is.

Another good film from this era, Rendition, was also totally dismissed simply because it showed, accurately, that the U.S. is a war machine bent on torturing, murdering, and maiming civilians in its quest for total world domination.

A clever plot, good acting, some big stars (John Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Marisa Tomei anyone?) and some scenes of hilarity should have made this movie a hit. Unfortunately, Americans don't like to hear the truth about themselves, especially when they are complicit in mass murder.

Sentiment: positive
I could watch this movie ALL DAY! I LOVE it. Probably my all time favorite movies. But, by the way, "badger1970" there are a few parts with bad language, not TOO bad, but it's not exactly G rated. GREAT movie!!!!! I recommend it to everybody. Any way, it's making me type 10 lines of text, so I am going to keep typing until it will let me post this comment. Okay... Still typing... This is getting annoying. Ugh. I still have four more to go. Anyway, WATCH THIS MOVIE! Even if you have already seen it. I DON'T CARE! Has it been 10 lines yet? Nope. Only 2 more lines left. I don't even know why it wants me to do this. I think I am done. Wait a minute, I'm NOT done, SORRY, people. I know it's torture listening to me. WEll, I suppose that you don't HAVE to read this comment... But you should, because I wrote it. I am probably done now. Finally, bye.

Sentiment: positive
This is a tedious movie. The real villains are the clunky adaptation (it's embarrassingly easy to tell that the source material was a novel) and witless screenplay.

On the credit side, considering the budget was tight due to wartime austerity, the look of the film isn't at all bad. And the performances are, by and large, OK, except for Phyllis Calvert, who is terrific - a miracle considering the potential for winsomeness, a pit into which she most definitely does not fall. Ms Calvert, with a lot less to go on, is as accomplished as Olivia de Havilland in Gone With The Wind.

The one absolutely unbearable aspect of The Man in Grey is the dreadfully conceived depiction of a black serving boy. No matter that he's meant to be a sympathetic character. Played badly by a white boy in black-face make-up, it is impossible to by-pass this example of condescending racism.

Grim.

Sentiment: negative
Eddie Murphy plays Chandler Jarrell, a man who devotes his time to finding lost children. When the beautiful Kee Nang {Charlotte Lewis} enters his life, she tells him he is the chosen one and he must find the Golden Child. Sceptical and driven purely by lust and intrigue, Jarrell gets involved without realising he's about to embark on a fantastical journey, one that involves peril and worst of all, the demon Sardo Numspa.

Is The Golden Child a product of its time?, by that i mean, was Eddie Murphy and The Golden Child's popularity exclusive to the late 1980s audiences?. For i can remember vividly how much this film entertained folk back in that decade, it's box office was $79,817,937, making it the 8th biggest earner of 1986, but since the 80s faded from memory it has become the in thing to deny Eddie Murphy pictures the comedy accolades that they actually once had. The Golden Child is not up with the more accepted 80s Murphy pictures like Trading Places and Beverly Hills Cop, but upon revisiting the film recently i personally find that it contains Murphy at his wisecracking, quipping and charming best!, seriously!.

Cashing in on a fantasy action formula that was reinvigorated and temp-lated by Raiders Of The Lost Ark in 1981, The Golden Child hits all the required genre buttons. Pretty girl, daring reluctant-hero with a quip in his armoury, dashing villain {Charles Dance so English i could kiss him myself}, wonderful colour, and a cute kid with mystical powers, the film only asks you to get involved in the fun, not to dissect and digress its worth as a cranial fantasy picture. Yes the CGI demon looks creaky now, and yes the genre had far better pictures in the 80s, 90s and beyond, but really if you agree with the disgraceful rating of 5 here on this site then you may just be taking this genre a little too serious, seriously. 7/10

Sentiment: positive
As serials go "Zorro's Fighting Legion" is one of the best action serials of the 1930s. Made in a period when the studios could still field a large cast, this one has wall to wall action throughout its 12 chapters.

In 1824 the President of the newly formed Republic of Mexico Benito Juarez (Carleton Young) is trying to put his new country on a solid financial footing. To that end, he has arranged to have rich gold shipments forwarded to the capitol from the local San Mendolita mine.

Members of the local council plot to steal the shipments on behalf of Don-del-Oro a gold armored god, who with the aid of the local Yaqui tribe, hopes to install himself as the ruler of Mexico. Opposing him is Don Francisco (Guy D'Ennery) who forms a legion of locals to aid Juarez. When Don Franciso is murdered by Don-del-Oro's men, a stranger, the fopish Don Diego (Reed Hadley) arrives in town. Diego aka Zorro takes over the legion with the help of his friends Ramon (William Corson) and Juan (Budd Buster). The token heroine of the piece is Ramon's sister Volita (Sheila D'Arcy).

Both Diego and Ramon hold seats on the local ruling Counsil. It soon becomes apparent that some of the other members of the Council are in league with Don-del-Oro. First there is the Chairman of the Council (Leander de Cordova), the head of the militia Manuel (John Merton), Chief Justice Pablo (C. Montague Shaw) and Gonzolez (Edmund Cobb). Zorro suspects that one of these men is Don-del-Oro, but which one?

What follows are several hair raising escapes by Zorro and his confederates from the followers of Don-del-Oro. We have the ever present collapsing rope bridge, the deep chasm between two cliffs over which only Zorro can jump to safety, and the usual assortment of explosions, fires and coaches and wagons crashing or going over the cliff. Hats off here to Republic's fine team of stunt men lead by the legendary Yakima Canutt and the Yrigoyens, Bill and Joe. Canutt performs his signature stunt jumping on a team of runaway horses and then falling beneath the coach which he repeated in other films including John Ford's "Stagecoach" the same year.

Anyway, Zorro finally unmasks the false god Don-del-Oro and restores peace to the valley before riding off into the sunset in Chapter 12.

Others in the cast include Jim Pierce, Curley Dresden and Charlie King as Don-del-Oro's hence men and if you look closely you may spot bits by future serial star and Lone Ranger Clayton Moore and stuntman Canutt in bits. "Big" Jim Pierce by the way, may be best remembered for playing Tarzan in 1927's "Tarzan and the Golden Liom" (1927) and for his marriage to Joan Burroughs the daughter of Tarzan creator Edgar Rice Burroughs.

Thoroughly enjoyable.

Sentiment: positive
The last film in Lucas' saga is a lavish, spectacular-looking production. It is often considered the ugly duckling of the original trilogy, but I think it is a notch above episode IV (and just a notch below episodes III and V). In fact, I think it is the third best film in the 6-part saga. As far as I'm concerned, it is still a grandiosely entertaining film. It is not a movie with a beginning, climax and ending; the film's mechanism operates with only one goal in its mind: bring closure to Lucas' universe. There is an air of finality attached to the whole thing, which makes the film a little too sentimental, but emotionally rewarding. Also, it is a lot of fun. New characters are introduced and old ones face new, unexpected challenges. C3PO and R2D2 provide (as usual) great comic relief. Leia and Solo are a wonderful romantic duo, and Luke is still a great character to identify with. Again, it is Luke's (and Vader's) inner conflict what gives the saga its backbone. Lucas' aggressive imagination is still very much apparent, and the film's themes of loyalty, hope, and redemption resonate strongly. I'm glad Lucas eventually dropped the idea of making episode VII, VIII and IX, because this film is a great bookend to a long, fascinating and captivating saga. Not a perfect movie, but fun in the best matinée style.

Sentiment: positive
OK i will admit, it started out very pleasing and good, but then it just dropped downhill, i cannot believe Sarah Michelle Gellar could have even finished reading the script after about 5 minutes into the movie, the only reason i actually sat through the whole movie, was i wanted to see the twist at the ned, and to my surprise, well, folks i cannot even tell you if there ven was one, because the end just leaves you confused, and then the credit role, i was like what the hell? this did not deserve a theater run, i am sorry, but it didn't i mean it was horrible, the only reaso i gave it a 4 is because it had a few jumpy parts...thats it! you can watch it, im not telling you not to, hey you might even like it or even love it! but if you hate it, don't say i didn't warn you!

Sentiment: negative
To those of you who've made comments on this film earlier and hoped to see it again, I hope you did. It was broadcast today (Nov. 28th,'04) on Lifetime movie network. I subscribe to Dish.

Karen Arthur directed William Petersen and Barbara Hershey in this southwestern Gothic-like tale, expertly. The lighting, editing and dialog contributed greatly to the film and Hershey and Peterson were perfectly cast for the roles, both playing sensitive, bold and intuitive characters. The screen play was excellent, as well the supporting cast.

Not having known ahead-of-time, I guessed correctly the story was based on truth, and now that I know it I must make the sojourn, as Santa Fe is a hop, skip and a jump from Tucson.

As an engineer, I was fascinated with the theme of the unique construction of the staircase and the man who designed and built it (who was he? an angel?). But the storyline, and it's several plots, of how it came to be is what most captivates you. You certainly get a strong sense that God in His heaven was in every detail of this entire drama in history. For you who have seen the film, you know what I'm talking about. For those of you who haven't, I won't spoil a minute of it...

Bon holiday,

Bob Shank Jr, Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ

Sentiment: positive
When I first saw this show, I thought it looked interesting. I watched it, saw how it revolved around Sarah, like the character sees the world...revolving around her. I got it, but wasn't laughing very much.

Onstage and in her show, she's racist, crude, insensitive and hugely self-centered. I didn't get her at first, and took it all at face value. Then I got to see her movie, Jesus is Magic. I think that served as a Sarah Silverman primer for me, explaining to me just what 'language' she's speaking. She's like Marilyn Manson, working so hard to give us a faceful of horrible ideas and images, but you eventually realise it isn't an assault, it's a statement. And once you understand that, you find you're glad someone's finally giving it to you straight.

I don't mean to suggest only smart people will understand, or that to hate this show is to prove your idiocy. While I like a lot of 'smart' shows, I still to this day do not see the humor of Curb Your Enthusiasm. I get the impression that it's good, but I just don't get it. Many people will never get the Sarah Silverman Program, but I'm glad I eventually came around.

The creators of this show do work hard, every episode is loaded not just with dialogue and plot, but with songs, or dream sequences, production numbers. These people aren't putting together something to fill a time slot and please advertisers, they appear to be on a mission to make the best show they can put together. If I was to predict the future of this show, I'd say it will go the way of Arrested Development and Freaks & Geeks. It will get canceled before it's time and live on in fans' hearts and on DVD. But take heart, SSP creators, your audience IS out there, and we'll be watching for as long as they let you make the show.

Sentiment: positive
Reading the book I felt once again drawn into Castle Rock (Needful Things being the final part of the Rock trilogy), and the plot was a variant on the "demon comes to small redneck village" type story King likes to tell. The characters were all described in loving detail, and it made both a good psychological and gory horror. The film on the other hand is awful. Gone are the character interactions and clever plot, and replaced by a story that tries to be exciting but misses by a mile. If you haven't read the book then you might enjoy this, else avoid at all costs, as with most films of King's books.

Sentiment: negative
I was surprised when I saw this film. I'd heard it was the best ever filmed of the novel. How disappointed I was.

How any true Jane Austen fan can rate this adaptation is a mystery to my eyes. The scriptwriters have decided to stick in bits of ridiculous humour which are embarrassing at the best of times, but also ruin the feel of the period. As for the cast: Gwyneth Paltrow makes a rather shallow heroine (but then any 'hot' American star would be questionable in the role), Toni Collette is miscast, and poor Ewan McGregor is made to look laughable!

I really could not say a good thing about this film. I seem to be among the very few who don't rate it, but if you want my advice, see instead the TV production starring Kate Beckinsale - believe me, that is far preferable to this superficial trash.

Sentiment: negative
You could say that the actors will make a movie, but this clearly proves that statement wrong. Most of the characters in this film lack anything to hold on to. They play the part of cardboard cut outs being moved about in predictable and uninteresting ways. The story is very simple. It could be summed up in a few words, but I'll hold back in case anyone reading does want to see this film.

I had to fast forward the parts where Jack showed us how to be an obnoxious eater. I'd have to say that 70% of this film revolved around cooking, eating, or getting ready to eat. Quite frankly, I'd rather not spend my time watching Jack chew noisily with an open mouth. Personally, I could have done without the footwear references and jokes that pepper the first half of the film too.

Outside of my own personal dementia, the film really lacked anything worth it's time. There were countless scenes and camera shots that felt like it was dragging. When something happens, the reactions of the characters are vague and dry.

Best not to look this one up.

Sentiment: negative
Weird with unnecessary singing and backdrops. Randomly much of the action will occur on stage giving the feeling of an opera performance. None of that explains why this is such a bad film.

It's the impression that either not enough rehearsal took place or that no experienced choreographer was available. The acting is flat. Even the sparkling Ziyi Zhang looks like she's just waiting for her next movement or line. You may notice the trivia on this site stating that she spent half a month in Japan learning to sign and dance. Read that again as 2 weeks and things begin to make sense. Even worse are the little kids who seem to be looking at their parents at the back of the studio rather than at the camera.

The cheap and cheerful sfx are just cheap and cheap. The editing is staccato chops peppered with slices of just nothing that adds to anything except annoyance. Just imagine all the silly dance scenes from the recent Zatoichi - particularly the closing routine - performed by your local high school drama club with one famous actress who speaks in another language (but you get her in simply because she's so good normally despite being unsuitable), recorded on a cheap camera and then edited into three times its length in no artful order.

Sentiment: negative
I can never figure if this is the Artiest Soap Opera ever produced, or the Soapiest Art Movie. No matter, John Seale's cinematogaphy is utterly ravishing. Ondaatje's novel is not reduced, but for once, elevated to film. If there is a fault, it is in the original novel, not in Anthony Minghella's beautiful movie. Anyone who has a problem with it's length almost certainly has not read the book, and probably cannot read. I do not like repeating adjectives, but ravishing serves the purpose. 

Apart from the storyline, the players excel. But it is the Australian sense of light and shade that ultimately triumphs. Like some antipodean Dutch Master, Seale uses a blast of light, where Van Rijn would have used shade. One could weep for cinematography this magnificent.

Sentiment: positive
I really enjoyed this movie. During the movie, I felt that I wanted Pelagia and Captain Corelli to get together. I heard myself screaming: Come on, kiss her! The movie has a happy ending. Good movie to watch in the evening when you want to chill.

Sentiment: positive
George Barry's "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is, at root, a dark fairy tale told via a horror-movie framework. It is, in my opinion, one of the best films of the 1970s, and it's downright criminal that the picture was basically stolen and distributed without Barry's knowledge (those responsible for this theft should be fed to the bed, ASAP). If you're looking for overt gore or rabid action, "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" isn't the flick for you. "Death Bed" is a gentler, weirder drive-in picture; it plays like an utterly strange dream, half-remembered. I'd recommend reading Stephen Thrower's summation of "Death Bed" in Thrower's FAB Press book, "Nightmare USA" (he describes the movie's vibe perfectly). Whether intentional or not, I've noticed shades of "Death Bed" in everything from the "Phantasm" films to Michele Soavi's "Cemetery Man" to the magic-realism/slipstream fiction of authors such as Kelly Link. Barry is an original and in a fair world I'm sure he would've followed "Death Bed" with a number of fantastically bizarre films.

Sentiment: positive
Despite strong performances by Minnie Driver and Tom Wilkinson, this film fails to ignite the imagination of the viewer.

By the way, what has become of Ms. Driver? She had such a potential in the film industry.

This to me was almost like an 1850s version of Yentl without the musical fanfare. With the death of her father, Driver takes a position as a governess to a Christian family, hiding her Jewish identity.

While I realize that this is a period peace, it was awfully dull even for 1850 England and Scotland.

The lady of the house is most irritating with that sing-song voice of hers. I expected her to refer to Driver as dear at any moment. What kind of name is Mary Blackchurch? I know that Driver is trying to pass herself off as a Christian, but does this name signify all the way?

In the interim, Mary finds love with the young charge's father (Wilkinson) and his emotionally unbalanced son.

In the end, the only thing that we see accomplished is that Mary has found a profession to provide for her family-photography. Did we really have to be subjected to what was happening throughout the film?

The early scenes of Judaism practiced in 19th century England and the cholera epidemic at the end could have been played up more. There is a definite underlying feeling of anti-Semitism by the Wilkinson family but that's never allowed to come out.

Sentiment: negative
OK. On the whole, this three part documentary will bring most interested people up to date with going's on in the world of physics, and the last 300 years of discovery of our universe. If you have read Stephen Hawkings brilliant book "A Brief History of Time" and understood it then you might benefit from the visual description of certain concepts..which i did to a certain extent. Greene is bearable, but obviously for the sake of the masses, tends to explain things in a slighty patronising way. This is of course deliberate and will be perfect for almost everyone who watches this series.

The guest scientists were good. (no Hawking, but i suppose he has his own DVD(s) ) I kept waiting for him to appear but they rotate through the same ones for almost 3 parts... (very American weighted here, with a few Brits and one antipodean) I bought the Nova 2 Disc edition (NTSC) and there were a few inclusions that really detracted from the overall experience.

1. The "this is brought to you by.." at the start of EACH part was a necessary evil for the first part, but seeing it 2 more times before It was over was very ordinary.

2. Can't be helped I suppose but there is quite a bit of overlap at the start of 2 and 3 which had me reaching for the FFW button a few times.

3. This disc set was straight from TV..(ie ads, what happen last show for those that missed it, and frequent "goto pbs.org for more ...." )appearing throughout the presentation. (quite unlike BBC material which is unmatched for presentation..Planets, The Blue Planet, etc) My 7/10 is based on content alone. The niggles were there but I got over them. If this had have been done with that classic British accented presenter( you know the one) it would be a perfect Disc set in my opinion.

If you have seen this and want more...then I highly recommend Hawkings book " a Brief History of Time"... I wish it was a movie too.

Happy viewing.

Sentiment: positive
I enjoyed this film which I thought was well written and acted.

There was plenty of humour and a thought-provoking storyline. A warm and enjoyable experience with an emotional ending.Good fun.

Sentiment: positive
Everything you do in this world should make at least a little bit of sense. Unfortunately very little of "Delusion" makes any sense. Jennifer Rubin is adequate in her role as the main squeeze of hit man Kyle Secor. Secor on the other hand overacts to the point of annoyance. Jim Metzler, the embezzling yuppie is very unbelievable as the novice, revenge seeking, adversary. When Jennifer Rubin gives back the money she has carefully been concealing, all credibility flies out the window, and the guns pointing final showdown between Secor and Metzler is beyond ridiculous. Avoid "Delusion", unless you are delusional enough to believe the misguided positive reviews here. - MERK

Sentiment: negative
This film is too good for words. Its so unbelievably great and funny and true to life. You just know from watching this that the person who wrote this has DEFIANTLY felt the way that Jip and his friends do through the film. It was my life at one point and I would rely on coming home to watch Human Traffic ever night before I could even think of going to bed. I think you just get so loved up with the characters and their life style. Of course, this film wouldn't be for old people more around the age of 16 to 22 I guess. There is defiantly nothing wrong with this film and it will have you in stitches all the way through. It doesn't have a particular story line to it. The general idea is a weekend in the life of older teens in London and what they get up to. The places they go, the people they meet, the drugs they take and the experiences they have. You have to get this movie on DVD never mind just watching it, you have to have it!!!

Sentiment: positive
No matter what country your In you have to buy this show, Sure It is Australian and if you ever seen any attempt of our comedy's they pretty much suck but with the chaser's they aren't boring forty year old men making bad puns they are a team of people who talk about current affairs (pretty much in Australia) make fun of our crap ads, make fun of our politicians and so on.

The guys also had a show in 2002 called Cnnnn which was not as successful as the War which had only started this year so everything they talk about is current news which is really good considering no matter how boring or tragic it is they try to shine some humorous light on things.

Sentiment: positive
I just read a review defending this film because it had a low budget, now my take on things.

The CGI monsters was reasonable well animated but was implemented in the worst possible way. The fight scenes weren't even fights it was just one shot of an actor then one shot of monster with very interaction at all. When the monster did interact it looked like it was done in paintshop pro. In my opinion if you have a low budget you should use models and puppets. They may not look as fancy but at least they interact, just look at Peter Jacksons early films.

As for the acting Beowulf did an descent job but the rest of the cast were either not trying or they forgot where they where.

The script seemed confused to me. One minute they would be talking as if it were a modern day setting the next you get drama club Shakespeare speech. I'm not say it should be all 'ye' and 'that it be' but you need to find a cohesive balance so the lines sound like they come from the same person.

I did notice one part near the start when Beowulf was quoting the old testament which would have been find had he not spent the rest of the films talking about the gods and portents.

In short, this film is a very slightly polished turd, but a turn none the less.

Sentiment: negative
Considering the subject matter, I thought that this film would at least be enjoyable, if stopping somewhat short of a masterpiece. I was wrong. I was still waiting for something to happen and it finished - I thought that the finale was the bit that happened before it got exciting. The only reason I gave it 2 instead of 1 is because the effects guys deserve some recognition.

Sentiment: negative
Alright lets break it down. Why is this one of the worst films ever? Because there are so many answers to that question I'm having a headache. Come on...Cracker World? Mr. Honkee? The part with the Arab guy? its just awful, i didn't really care about the whole white racism crap, but when they did that thing with the Arab guy, i wanted to get the names of all the writers. Its really not worth watching 3 seconds of this movie. It isn't even funny-bad which was my first interpretation. I hope the person who directed this movie doesn't commit suicide, but it seems likely, i don't see any other options.Don't EVER watch this movie, if you watch it, u cant say u died with no regrets.

Sentiment: negative
If I could go back, even as an adult and relive the days of my Summer's spent at camp...I would be there so fast. The Camps I went to weren't even this great. They were in Texas where the mosquitoes actually carry people off but we had horses and fishing. The movie cinematography was astounding, the characters funny and believable especially Perkins, Pollack and Arkin. Sam Raimi's character and sub-antics were priceless. So who ever thought this movie was lame...I have deep pity for because they can't suspend their disbelief long enough to imagine camp life again as an adult or they never went as kids. The whole point was that these people had an opportunity to regress and become juvenile again and so they did at every opportunity. I wish I could. It was funny, intelligent, beautifully scripted, brilliantly cast and the artistry takes me back so I want to watch it over and over just for the scenery even. Sorta like Dances with Wolves and LadyHawk...good movies but the wilderness becomes a character as much as the actors. Rent it, see it, buy it and watch it over and over and over...never gets old. ;0)

Sentiment: positive
The entire civilized world by now knows that this is where Emil Sitka says his immortal "Hold hands, you lovebirds." But Shemp Howard, Professor of Music, steals the show. Watch him tutoring Dee Green as she fractures the "Voices of Spring." Watch Shemp as he shaves by a mirror suspended from the ceiling by a string. Watch him as he gets walloped by Christine McIntyre. Watch him, and you will laugh and learn. Moe is no slouch either. Watch him as he attempts to induce a woman to sit on a bear trap. Larry, as usual, is the Zen master of reaction. All in all, one of the very best Stooge shorts. You won't find one weak moment.

Sentiment: positive
One of the scariest movies I have ever seen was Carrie (the first one!). Now, as with other movies, they have totally ruined the Carrie franchise with The Rage: Carrie 2. From the beginnning, the movie plods along like geriatics in a beat-up van. There are hardly any scares and this movie is chock-full of all the various high-school sterotypes (i.e. the football jock, the bitchy cheer-leader, the followers and of course the black nailpolish wearing misfits). Another sad thing about this show is that you know what's going to happen the moment you see the opening credits. Sure, sure, girl gets humilated thourghly and then turns into crazed psychic murderer...yawn...

Been there. Done that.

Even the actors look like they were forced into doing this movie. Emily Bergl is as frightening as a cabbage patch doll while Jack London... let's just say i didn't pay to see wood act. Apart from the actors, the flasbacks serve more to irritate than to link up with the first movie.

Bottom line, If you can beam objects around like Carrie, then for the love of God beam yourself out of that theatre......

Sentiment: negative
One of the most beautiful movies ever made in ex Yu.Story is very familiar to people in ex Yul because generation after war used to live in the same way.People in the west cant imagine how political situation in our country affect people.The plot is in the 50",When Josip Broz Tito said no to the SSSR and politbiro and because of that our borders becomes open for western influence.But,in a country were people didn't had much money jeans was only ideal and friendship was everything.The friendship between for young people an a girl was so strong that after 40 years of their emigration from Yu is still alive.They get together after all this years on Ester"s funeral and they start to remember of their childhood,before their went to the emigration and become successful people.

Sentiment: positive
I say this. If you want to see art, you go to an art gallery. If you want to see a movie, you go to a theater. Trying to intertwine art and film proves disastrous in "Where the Heart Is". An interesting cast is totally wasted in this embarrassment. You like Dabney Coleman, see "Short Time". You like Crispin Glover, see "Bartleby". You like Uma Thurman, see "Kill Bill". Above all, if you like Christopher Plummer, see "The Silent Partner", because his character here, is a terrible embarrassment. In fact this entire production is an embarrassment. Sure the human artwork is intriguing for a few minutes, so make a short, but do not subject an audience to pointless nonsense, masquerading as filmed entertainment. - MERK

Sentiment: negative
Although I agree that it's a good but not great movie, for many of the reasons other posters have mentioned, I still enjoy it. One reason is the music: I'd call attention to the very cool appearance by the Candoli brothers -- Conte and Pete -- in a well-staged scene in the nightclub. These guys were two of the best jazz trumpeters of their day, and they manage to convincingly boggle the mind of Jimmy Stewart by playing an hysterical trumpet duet, one trumpet in each of Stewart's ears. The Candolis really did play that well, too, though I suspect the actual music for that scene was dubbed later by the two of them. I don't know much about George Duning, who gets the credit for the music (other than that he seems to have worked with the Three Stooges on more than one occasion), but the casting of the Candoli brothers as jazz-playing warlocks was a real nice touch.

Sentiment: positive
It's a great American martial arts movie. The fighting scenes were pretty impressive for American movie made in 90's. Of course the fighting scenes aren't that good as in Honk Kong movies, actually only few American movies have fighting scenes which are as good as in Honk Kong movies, even nowadays. When you watch American martial arts movie, you are expecting to see less impressive fighting scenes, but still having some nice moves, which can be surprisingly good sometimes, or at least that's what I'm expecting from these movies. I was impressed by this film. Some fighting scenes were really impressive, the acting, direction and the plot were good enough, so it's a really worth watching movie, if you like American martial arts films of the 90's.

Sentiment: positive
Teenager Eddie spends his life being bullied and humiliated due to his obsession with heavy metal music. One day he finds out his hero Sammi Curr has died, supposedly burned by the establishment which wanted to put a stop to his music. But Eddie has his last record, never released, and when he plays it he starts receiving messages telling him how to deal with his tormentors. Before long Sammi has revealed he intends to return to life at the local Halloween party to exact revenge on the town which once mocked him.

Filled with humour and in-jokes, this is a highly entertaining film. Sammi himself is an original horror movie villain, plays on the 'evils of rock music' obsessions of the 80's. Well worth watching.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film at a pre-release screening at the Writers Guild theater in Beverly Hills. As I recall, the film's producers and director were in attendance, presumably to gage our reaction.

Many scenes evoked gales of laughter from the audience, which would have been fine if it had been a comedy, but it was supposed to be a horror film.

If the audience wasn't scared, it seems the filmmakers were. They delayed release for over a year. Out of curiosity I saw it again to see if they'd re-cut it; as far as I can tell, they hadn't. It was the same lousy movie, just a year older.

It almost qualifies as "so bad, it's good," but it's slow-paced and boring.

Sentiment: negative