DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I am not from America and I know what 'Wife Swap' is. When a show came out of that name I was thrilled to see some cool glamorized sexual moments from the program. But what I got was a real sucking stupidity. I was misjudged by its title name, it has no adult contents, no nudity, not even vulgar dialogues (broad casted threw Hallmark channel and I think they edited/mute out such contents to make it neat).

A show which gives a picture of current American/western family state, overweight chubby peoples, polluted teenagers, and their sucking family goings. In each episode two wives/two mothers (more correctly) were chosen to live in each others home and re-changes each others family routine with their new own rule. Sometimes its turns out to be good or more evenly bad. On the ending section each mothers are brought back with their husband and try to conclude what they did to each families past days. It's the sucking portion of the program were each contenders fights for their rights. I was sucked to see all of these instead of seeing some cool adult sex stuff. I mean who make this program, more than that who gave the name "Wife Swap"; its better to be called as "Mother Swap". All in all it corrupts all the great things the real Wife Swap stands for! 

Wife Swap = Average Sucking Reality Show.

Sentiment: negative
What on earth was that? My family and I just waisted 2 hours of our life for this piece of rubbish !!! There was no plot, no tension, only a lot of boredom !!! My kids could do better movies with our video-camera.

But maybe we just did not get the point of the movie...oh wait, my mum did. She was the only one who liked it for the following reason: "At least a film with no cars screeching..." If you are looking for a war-film with no fighting in it, is still interesting and gripping and has a strong anti-war-message, then you should watch "The Trench".

I give this film 3 out of 10 because it is good enough for an afternoon-nap and because I am too nice...

Sentiment: negative
i should love this movie . the acting is very good and Barbara Stanwyck is great but the the movie has always seemed very trite to me . the movie makes working class people look low and cheap .the fact that the daughter is ashamed of her mother and that the daughter does not rise above it has always made me a bit uneasy . Barbara Stanwyck as the mother worships the daughter but the daughter forgoes a mothers love to find happiness with her well to do fathers family . i wonder how many others who have seen this film feel this way about it.again the acting was very very good and worth watching . i really don't like the story line . just a personal preference .thank you

Sentiment: negative
The barbarians maybe´s not the best film that anybody of us have seen, but really????........It´s so funny......I can´t discribe how mutch I laughed when I first saw it..The director really wanted to do a serious adventure movie, but it´sso misirable bad....so bad that it´s one of the funniest movies I´ve ever seen......so my advise is that you should see it.....and if you alredy did, se it again!!!!!!!

Sentiment: positive
This "horror" movie lacks any horror or even mild suspense. Even the gore is not good. The plot would have some promise if it was done by someone who cared about what they're writing/filming, but the people who made this movie obviously did not. Basically, the film proceeds in a series of fits and starts thusly:

Main character insists she's not crazy.

"Milo" lurks about in his yellow raincoat or rides in front of a car on his bike.

Main character insists she's not crazy and rambles on about her passion as a schoolteacher.

Someone gets killed in an unsatisfying manner.

Main character insists she's not crazy and musters up a few fake sobs.

Are we seeing a pattern here? If you don't, you may enjoy this film. Otherwise, watch something else. The budget is low, low, low AND IT SHOWS (unlike say, THE EVIL DEAD, which makes you forget about its crap budget), and the acting is bad, bad, bad (with the possible exception of the janitor). In general the movie is boring, boring, boring. I can't think of a single scene that's actually done well. In fact, I disliked the movie so much I actually turned it off ten minutes before the end, something I very rarely do... heck, I watched the non-MSTied MANOS, THE CLONES, and WILD WILD WEST all the way through.

3/10. Spare yourself and watch PHANTASM again.

Sentiment: negative
It is always satisfying when a detective wraps up a case and the criminal is brought to book. In this case the climax gives me even greater pleasure. To see the smug grin wiped off the face of Abigail Mitchell when she realises her victim has left "deathbed testimony" which leaves no doubt about her guilt is very satisfying.

Please understand: while I admire Ruth Gordon's performance, her character really, *really* irritates me. She is selfish and demanding. She gets her own way by putting on a simpering 'little girl' act which is embarrassing in a woman of her age. Worse, she has now set herself up as judge, jury and executioner against her dead niece's husband.

When Columbo is getting too close she tries to unnerve him by manipulating him into making an off-the-cuff speech to an audience of high-class ladies. He turns the tables perfectly by delivering a very warm and humane speech about the realities of police work.

Nothing can distract Columbo from the pursuit of justice. Abby's final appeal to his good nature is rejected because he has too much self-respect not to do his job well. Here is one situation you can't squirm out of Ms Mitchell!

Sentiment: positive
First off, I have been a fan of the show back when my PBS station started showing it back in 1981. I learned many things about the show and the people who were in or contributed to the show.

This latest installment of Doctor Who made a great impression on me. The original series, aka classic series, was made fun of by the bad special effects and/or wobbly sets. Well, this is NO MORE TRUE. The special effects are awesome, but what is even better is the writing. You get a chance to learn more about our beloved Doctor and maybe a bit of a reason why he loves the planet earth so much. Without giving too much away, it is a very worthwhile series to watch. Christopher Eccelston brought a side of the Doctor that we never get to see, a bitter and angry one but yet lovable at the same time.

A MUST SEE!

Sentiment: positive
I saw it tonight and fell asleep in the movie.

That is something that I have not done since - I have never fallen asleep at the movies.

I LOVE the original and have seen it several times and recommend it to everyone. This may have been the problem but I do not think so, because there were a couple of bright spots that showed if done right they could have made this movie work.

Bette was under used and Anne was over used and miscast.

I do not know why English or anyone for that matter let this go out in that condition.

They billed this as a Sex in the City but better? Not a chance I liked Sex in the City a lot and was disappointed by this movie.

So do not waste your money on this movie - go see anything but this!

Sentiment: negative
In the beginning of this film, one of the commentators says that he was told that he has two strikes against him: he is black and male. But in addition to that, he has a third strike: he's gay. "You're going to have to be stronger than you ever imagined," he is told. "Paris is Burning" is a documentary about gay black and Hispanic men who are tranvestites or transsexuals.

The miracle of "Paris is Burning" is that director Jennie Livingston takes a subject that could have very easily become a freak show and allows the people in it their humanity. We learn their views of homosexuality, men, women, their hopes, their disappointments, their dreams. Some of these dreams are so unattainable it's tragic. Many of the people are seriously in denial;

This is not a film for everyone. There are shots in this movie of nude transsexuals. If you have a problem with homosexuality, then this movie isn't for you. But if you do see this movie you'll realise "Paris is Burning" isn't really about men wearing women's clothes, it's about a group of people who are routinely marginalised and put down by society at large, and what they do to get a sense of community in their lives.

I've watched this movie four times since it was released in 1991, because it says so many things: it's a commentary about materialism in our culture, about gender roles, about rich and poor people, about the media and what it celebrates, about fame and adulation. "Paris is Burning" is one of the most humane, and one of the saddest, movies I've ever seen.

Sentiment: positive
One of the best comedians ever. I've seen this show about 10 times and will probably watch it at least 100 more. My friends and family quote from this DVD so often, you'd think we did nothing other than watch it. The beginning part about Alcatraz is a little bit slow, but either wade through it or zip on through to the part where Eddie is on stage. Watch for the "Cake or Death" part (Joking about the Church of England) and the "Hitler/Pol Pot" part (Hard to explain, just watch it). The best part of the show may be Eddie's facial expressions. He can really say a lot with his eyes. (Mascara, eyeliner, and eyeshadow probably help, huh?) Fair warning: Eddie does have a tendency to throw a lot of four-letter words in.

Sentiment: positive
THE PLOT: A trucker (Kristofferson) battles a corrupt sheriff (Borgnine) by getting his fellow truckers to band together and form an unstoppable convoy that stretches for miles and soon creates a national media frenzy.

THE NEGATIVE: The film's setup is weak and the ending even weaker. It has all the good-ole-boy/trucker clichés without adding anything new in the process. It ends up making SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT look brilliant and inspired. Kristofferson is much too laid back for a leading man role and cannot carry the picture. Borgnine's character is portrayed awkwardly. At the start he is made to look like a real jerk of a sheriff who overacts to a minor contrivance that starts the whole thing rolling. Then at the end he is made out to be a little more sympathetic and even secretly siding with Kristofferson, which doesn't work at all. In either case Jackie Gleason is a much better actor for this type of role. The worst part about the movie though is director Peckinpah's attempts to throw in a 'serious message' into this silly action flick that does nothing but slow it down and bomb in the process.

THE POSITIVE: The only good scene in the whole film is the fight sequence inside the truck stop restaurant. Director Peckinpah puts a funny spin to his trademark 'slow motion' violence and the result is amusing. Unfortunately he starts putting all the action into slow motion during the rest of the picture until it eventually becomes tiring. McGraw is always a pleasure to look at, but unfortunately she is given very little to say or do.

THE LOWDOWN: If you've read the synopsis than you have essentially 'seen' the movie. The song that this movie is based on is pretty good, but the movie adds nothing to it and should never have been made. This is all very uninspired stuff for such a maverick director.

THE RATING: 3 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was recommended to me by some academics. From their comments, I had some pretty lofty expectations. But this movie was nothing but disappointing. The aim of the director is obvious--to use an interweaving of speeches/poems as a way to argue against the Bush doctrine. But the director fails miserably at this. Also I seriously question the director's choice of main character. It's a bum who is definitely not worthy of being heard. The rise of corporation power, so what? Most importantly, this movie gets a failing score in its persuasive power; it's clearly intended for those who've already formed their opinions. It's true that the movie's aesthetics are quite pleasing. But pretty much everything else in the movie simply sucks.

Sentiment: negative
What's with Indonesian musical movies? Never have I seen Indonesian musical movies like the ones made in Bollywood. They miss the spirit of the story and just a bunch of 'what they called' poetic lines.

This story about love of two kids who are separated and then meet again after a few years of changes has no special remarks. It's a simple story plot (but it's quite focused though) with 'meant to be' musical story lines here and there.

Confusing characters that should be saved by brilliant acting are neglected. The main actress may try to live up the character, but it's the best that she could do, trying. As for the casting, I don't feel the necessity to put a Balinese student in that story and of course, that's not the only unnecessary characters.

The strange thing is, why would I want to watch this movie? Maybe because of the mangoes...

Sentiment: negative
Are you kidding me?! A show highlighting someone who opens cans and envelopes for a meal? How talented do you have to be to do this? She MAY be able to cook but it is NOT portrayed in this half-hour stomach churning painful production. I know she has a Martha-Stewart-esquire empire. So does Warren Buffett but I don't see him with fake knockers opening cans of cream corn and Alpo.

She has a nephew named...Brycer. Brycer? Stop talking about anyone a name that stupid.

More time is spent on "table-scapes" than actual cooking. Who has that kind of time?! Silicon should be on your spatula, not on my TV. This show should be on Cartoon Network, NOT Food Network.

Sentiment: negative
Okay.. this wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but I had heard lots of good things about it and I was sorely disappointed. I could see where the film makers were coming from and that they were trying to express the fact that the two sides in this battle weren't a whole lot different from one another, that the individuals were getting lost in the fighting, etc, etc. (well, that's my presumption, anyway =^_^=)

At any rate.. the movie kind of bored me. I've watched a lot of really long movies, but this one just seemed to drag on and on and on.. basically because I just couldn't bring myself to care for any of the characters. I just kept thinking.. who cares??? I also found the acting to be rather dead pan and the dialogue strained. I understand that this was the 1800s and all, but most of the conversations just seemed rather unnatural. No one seemed to have any emotion throughout most of the film except during melodramatic events.

The "romance" in the story didn't seem to be supported by anything other than "I'm a guy and you're a girl", which I don't consider much of a romance, and yet I felt I was being steered to the belief that these people were in love. Oh well.. I guess it's the whole "all this horror around us, we have each other to cling to" type thing, or whatever. I was also hoping for some sort of dynamic between the two best friends (who both initially seemed to have an interest in the girl) but that was just sort of dropped. Maybe avoiding a cliche love triangle. I don't know.

Oh well.. Daniel Holt was about the only character I really truly liked. And Sue Lee was all right. I didn't exactly dislike Jake, but he seemed a bit too... spineless, I guess. Jack Bull I did not care for at all. And I'm pretty sure you're *supposed* to hate just about everyone else, with the exception of the poor normal people who just get mowed down left and right. It was pretty graphic and had that whole "the horrors of war" thing down, but I've seen plenty of other movies with the same theme, done better. (I enjoyed The Patriot a lot, for instance, even if it was a bit emotionally manipulative) But, as I've already stated, I'm a cynic. What can I say? :)

Sentiment: negative
I simply love this movie. I also love the Ramones, so I am sorta biased to begin with in the first place. There isn't a lot of critical praise to give this film, either you like it or you don't. I think it's a great cult movie.

Sentiment: positive
If you know anything about the Manhattan Project, you will find "Fat Man and Little Boy" at least an interesting depiction of the events surrounding that story. The film is in all ways a very realistic portrayal of these events, and in many ways it is almost too real (such as some scenes involving radiation poisoning). Paul Newman, as usual, is brilliant in his role and always manages to come off like a real person on the screen. The supporting cast, such as John Cusack, Laura Dern, Bonnie Bedelia, and Natasha Richardson, is fairly good as well. This film is not, however, one of the best examples of turning a true story into a movie. Great films are able to take a true story and use just enough artistic license to keep its audience engaged for the entire movie. This one, however, tends to drag a bit throughout, and some scenes (such as John Cusack and Natasha Richardson's love story) could have been eliminated entirely without causing the film to lose much. Nevertheless, there are enough interesting facts and tiny humorous bits to at least keep the audience interested enough to see the entire film. It does not always entertain, but as far as great depictions go, this is very accurate, fascinating, and will leave the audience with something to think about.

*** out of ****

Sentiment: positive
In my humble opinion, this movie did not receive the recognition it deserved. Robert Redford lives near me here in Provo, Utah, at Sundance. I enjoy most of his work, and this was my favorite. I'm sorry that more people didn't appreciate it. My grandmother was an avid reader and read the book years before it came out on the big screen. She gave it to me to read after we had seen the movie together. The movie and book hit an emotional spot within my heart, and I was weepy for several days after seeing the movie. Sometimes love isn't enough to keep our loved ones from hurting themselves. We see this in our own family relationships, yet our love and our families and their stories endure throughout generations of time. The cinematography was perfect and breathtaking -- I was awed by its beauty and how well it brought to life the words of the author of the book, Norman Maclean, "But when I am alone in the half light of the canyon, all existence seems to fade to a being with my soul, and memories. And the sounds of the Big Black Foot River, and a four count rhythm, and the hope that a fish will rise. Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. I am haunted by waters." These words, taken from the book and spoken at the end of the movie (by Robert Redford who is narrating as Norman Maclean), are basically scripture, in my opinion. Any possible flaws the movie may have are overshadowed by the beauty and grace of the story and the cinematography. It was beautiful!

Sentiment: positive
'Cry Freedom' is a movie about how far people will go to find the truth.

The first half is an interesting portrayal of an unlikely friendship between activist Steve Biko and Editor Don Woods (played fanatically by Dezel Washington and Kevin Klein). While the second half deals with Woods looking for answers on Biko's death.

Although most people favor the first half of the movie which focuses on the unlikely friendship between Biko and Woods'. I found the second half about Don woods struggle to have Biko's story be heard around the world much more interesting.

Sentiment: positive
It takes an eternity for this typically over-simplistic and idiotic Stephen King-based film to finally get out of the starting blocks. About half-an-hour is spent on needless introductions to various boring characters and their irrelevant little personal problems that might excite bored housewives and apathetic pensioners in soapy dramas, but this is supposed to be the horror genre (or so I naively thought). The mutt fails to look all that fearsome, which Leonard Maltin, the notoriously clueless/hopeless and always grinning film critic, would disagree with: he considers Cujo to be "genuinely frightening". (I often do have to wonder if Maltin is genuinely thick - or merely likes to do favors for his Hollywood friends...) It's both illogical and inconsistent the way Wallace survives an attack with only a leg injury. And, naturally, her car breaks down just when she needs it to save her life: this is one of the oldest horror-film clichés; trust King to use it to minimum effect. The premise is imbecilic, too banal, even for a horror film: a rabid mutt attacks a family. Is that it? This sort of thing barely constitutes a 3-minute sub-sub-plot in your average zombie film. I think even Cujo must have sensed that he was starring in a turkey. Mutts have terrible agents... But what I really don't understand is how people can actually throw themselves at the "Cujo" book and read it from cover to cover? These SK fans must be immortal: that's the only explanation, i.e. why they treat time as such a meaningless commodity.

Bodycount: 3.

Sentiment: negative
If you need that instant buzz that only late 60s/early 70s Euro sex movies can give off, then look no further for you have just stumbled across the mother lode ! Subsequent TV director Schivazappa's exercise in psychedelic porn (of the soft core variety) may not generally be considered as a classic of its kind but it knocks many better known titles from the likes of Tinto Brass, Jess Franco and Joe D'Amato for a loop. Radley Metzger sure was hip to this way before anyone else when he picked up this marvelously twisted little number for US distribution through his company Audubon. Gorgeous cinematography (favouring symmetrical compositions) may elicit cries of 'pretentiousness' from those who swear by shoddy skin flicks shot in someone's backyard. Hey, as far as I'm concerned, it's their loss for this is one thrill ride of a movie with twists so, well, twisted that you may not even believe them after you have actually witnessed them on screen ! Dagmar Lassander (immortalized as the gone to seed landlady from Lucio Fulci's HOUSE BY THE CEMETERY) has never looked more exquisite than she does here, subtly portraying the innocent (?) researcher held hostage by mad medic Philippe Leroy (with all the art-house favorites to his name, you wonder whether he has the good humor to mention this one on his c.v.) as their initially violent 'relationship' turns to S&M-tinged love story. Nothing is what it seems however in this sick and imaginative gem of a movie with several truly erotic moments achieved with surprisingly minimal nudity. I for one was completely baffled and enchanted by the way Schivazappa chose to suggest oral sex during one scene (I'll let you find that one out for yourselves...) and Lassander's gauze-clad boogie to an impossibly groovy 60s tune should have become iconic in a way similar to the image of Sylvia Kristel reclining in that wicker chair in her EMMANUELLE days. You may not know this film just yet, but trust me, once seen you'll never forget it !!!

Sentiment: positive
It might not be the best movie of 2006 but it was a just a movie to excite and to think about.The Sentinel is a good political thriller movie which seems similar to or even borrows some elements from other political thriller movies such as In the Line of Fire and The Manchurian Candidate. The basic plot of this movie is similar to other movies like this: A plot to kill the President of the United States. Michael Douglas stars as Secret Service Agent Pete Garrison who spearheads the operation only to find out later that he has been framed.Kiefer Sutherland co-stars as a sort of rival by the name of David Breckinridge and Eva Longoria as Jill Marin who is a rookie agent going under the guidance of Agent Breckinridge and Academy Award winner Kim Basinger as First Lady Sarah Ballentine. One improvement for this movie could have been more action as it is by some sources considered just as much an Action film as is a Thriller film but a good thing about this movie is instead of just an assassination plot to kill the US President,it also concerns a mole(traitor) in the Secret Service who is leading the President in the wrong direction.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie about 12 years ago and I can still remember it as if I just saw it recently. That is how much this movie has affected me.

Considering this is a movie from the 50's I think it was ahead of its time. It surprised me as in how it maintains its integrity in this subject some might have considered taboo back then. Very realistic in showing the tumultuous and heartwretching journey that an addict chooses to embark on. One can only imagine how the audiences were affected by the realism of this movie back in those days.

I personally think is was one of Frank Sinatra's top five performances in the big screen.

When others are discussing movies dealing with Mental Illness and/or addiction I always recommend The Man with the Golden Arm as one of the top five to watch.

Sentiment: positive
First of all, i have nothing against Christianity. i believe, every person has the right to believe what he or she chooses. But i cannot imagine how dumb a person has to be to believe this! What a waste of believers' money. They'd better use it to feed some starving families in the third world countries. I don't want to talk about talk acting or plot of this "movie", because I couldn't find any of those in this. Story's simple - two reporters, one (A) is atheist, the other (B) for some sake has abandoned religion. B regains his confidence in religion and teaches A a lesson - believe in Christ or go to hell. This message appears after like ten minutes and keeps repeating to the end of the movie. People, do not believe the rating of this "movie", read reviews first. I didn't and wasted an hour of my life :( PS: Why is it classified as sci-fi? Because of those few weird sounds and a bit of bright light from the sky? PPS: U.F.O. = Satan's evil doings? That's a new one :)

Sentiment: negative
i loved catcher in the rye, it happens to be my favorite book. JD salinger, the author of catcher, has the rights to the book and made it so not one person can make a movie about it with his permission.

with that said, heres "united states of Leland." Beautiful movie with much meaning and depth in emotion. but a lot of it reminded me of catcher, almost too much reminded me of catcher. the few stories that Leland told in the movie such as visiting new york and his adventures were very similar to those of holden's in catcher, and the way Leland views people and emotions is also similar to Holden's, they both are simple and true to themselves and others. superior acting credited to don cheadle and Kevin spacy. great editing, all falls together perfectly, and loved the story all together. recommend as a buy or at least a rent. good movie.

the only thing that it does drag at some points but makes up for it in the long run. give it time and appreciate a good movie.

Sentiment: positive
This is unfortunately Carlin's last recorded HBO concert, from a series that lasted over 30 years. Though this may not be his "best" work, it is excellent, funny, and thought provoking. This recording is also a bit different from most of his other concerts that it is a bit lengthier than most of his other concerts.

Throughout his long, prolific, and influential career, Carlin has moved from the more observational humor and fart jokes, towards a more 'humanitarian' viewpoint of society and culture. His focus on the English Language and euphemisms increased throughout the years, and culminates in this performance. Though, I would argue that his audio book "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?" best displays his vast wit with regards to language, euphemisms, and the breakdown of our values. It's Bad For Ya is quite indicative of his long transformation from a comedian to a writer.

If you are offended by foul language or the disparagement of the church, you will probably not like any of Carlin's stand up material. However, if you enjoy being mentally stimulated and can tolerate the language and blasphemy, you would probably greatly enjoy this concert.

Sentiment: positive
Possibly the finest moment of TV, at least in my memory, as millions could watch Shakespeare's gripping Kings cycle (Richard II - Richard III) play out on prime time TV (I believe it was on Friday nights). No word was left out, and the plays awoke in me (who was then in elementary school) a thirst for history and a hunger for Shakespeare and drama.

Let's see these reissued on DVD. What a set this would be!

Sentiment: positive
Man, I really enjoyed this, if only for Fred Willard's commentary at the dog show. There are some dead spots and some gags that don't work, but overall the film works very well. When I was younger, my parents bred dogs and the people that I met at those shows were not significantly less bizarre that the freaks at this show, I can assure you.

I enjoyed this film for its artistry and for its commentary about how we tend to take frivolous things far too seriously... I enjoyed the acting for its accuracy (most of the accents were flawless) and its subtlety (I loved the way each person walked their dogs)...

Rent this film if you have any appreciation for the strangeness of human existence.

Sentiment: positive
Spin-offs, for somebody who don't know, are not usually successful because most of the original characters are absent.

Here they are and you couldn't ask for a better ensemble in what is essentially a silly little cartoon, not meant to do anything but entertain.

J. P. Manoux, replacing David Spade, does an admirable job of retaining Kuzco's ego and yet not seem as annoying as Spade's character (a character Spade has done for decades and gets on one's nerves after a while). He has a softer voice but it fits somehow.

Eartha Kitt, reprising her part as Yzma, is brilliant. She hasn't really been given much accolades since her turn as Batwoman centuries ago, except maybe for her vile part in Boomerang. It's funny how much the character looks like her, though.

And Patrick Warburton. There is no way that he can't be funny, except when he was thoroughly wasted in Men in Black 2. I have been a fan of his since Seinfeld but unlike that character, he plays a genuine likable guy who is sucked into doing not so nice things.

The animation is really beautiful as all Disney usually is but sometimes the character design is a little too sugarcoated. Oh, well. Two out of three ain't bad.

Sentiment: positive
What can I say? After having read Herbert's books and loving Lynch's movie version, I was extremely disappointed. I felt I was watching a reject version of Buck Rogers. The sets looked like left overs from a Star Wars TV special! I felt the acting was a bit amateurish by most. The costumes were garish and over done which gave it a '60s Flash Gordon, pulp feel. The worms! They're supposed to be Sand Worms and yet they appeared to "big stalagtites" with a mouth at the blunt end. The effects in general were pretty second rate. I won't even start about the disgraceful "Navigator" effect.

This so-called "Frank Herbert's Dune" wasn't even faithfull to his books! It should have been called "Frank Herbert's Dune - For Dummies". Key plot elements were left out, names were changed and the entire "feel" of the story was "sanitised". I didn't even recognise the Harkonnens! In fact most of the characters appeared nothing like Herbert's descriptions had depicted them. I'm starting to get upset just remembering what a tragedy it was. I'm glad I couldn't stomach the second installment....

Sentiment: negative
In Carmen, Saura once again seeks to establish a dynamic rapport between reality and fiction, between the actual passions of the personalities in a dance company preparing the choreography for the dance portions of the opera Carmen and the scripted passions from the story of the fictional Carmen, the famous fatal mix of a free spirit (read disregard for fidelity) and her ability to drive men mad with desire. Saura used this same vehicle fiction/reality in an earlier black-and-white film, Bodes de Sangre (Blood Wedding). But, whereas the tensions between the dancers rehearsing Blood Wedding showed to advantage how they evolved into the fictional characters of the story to be performed through directing their emotions into their roles, in Carmen, the parallel between the petty, libidinal urges of the dancers of the troop during rehearsals and the spirit forging to do with the mythic Carmen never comes even close to being believable. It remains a gadget, and, for that reason, a bothersome distraction. One really needs to see Blood Wedding next to Carmen to appreciate the comparison. However, it hardly matters, the melodrama Saura tries to impose upon his Carmen, because the Flamenco dancing and guitar music of the rehearsals_ which are 95% of the film _by some of the best known Flamenco dancers and musicians, more than repays the price of entry. A flawed film, and a wonder: perfect for doing a drill in Keats's 'negative capacity', perhaps?

Sentiment: positive
We open with Colonel Luc Deveraux (Van Damme), the original Universal Soldier and his buxom Asian friend being chased down a river by what appear to be Universal Soldiers. They almost kill the two, then oh wait, it was just a field test. Deveraux we come to find is now part of a government funded company that designs the new level of Universal Soldiers. Why he would want to be involved in this (if you know anything about the original) is never explained and well beyond me.

It's after this flimsy set piece that the real story gets going. The United States government has cut the Universal Soldier's project budget and in the process angered SETH (the large artificial mainframe computer that controls the Universal Soldiers). Naturally he won't be shut down without a fight. So that means Van Damme has to go around and take all the new breed of Universal Soldiers out. Which sounds like a fun idea for an action movie and a take on a sequel, but that doesn't stop it from becoming stupid as hell. 

For instance, one of the new Universal Soldiers is played by Bill Goldberg. Seems you can't go wrong casting a wrestler in an action movie. He's big, he's tough, right? Wrong. Van Damme doesn't seem to have a problem wiping the floor with him... once ... twice ... three times. The point here lost on me. Then there's the breaking of glass. A rudimentary part of any action movie, but someone involved must have a glass fetish. You have to see the fight scenes in particular. Let's not talk about how nobody cuts themselves or at the very least slips. Then to put the cherry on top of this train wreck, they have SETH (the computer) secure a human body for himself and how appropriate it is when they make the villain black (Michael Jai White). Nothing works better than a white good guy fighting a black bad guy it would seem. Potentially offensive and just downright lame. He's no replacement for Dolph, either.

Universal Soldier 2 is a lousy sequel. It's loud, it's dumb and it doesn't care. The original wasn't anything poetic, but it made a simple sort of sense with a science fiction element and it entertained on a basic level. The sequel doesn't. They do however keep the running time under ninety minutes and somehow found a way to squeeze in a strip club sequence. So give credit where credit is due.

Sentiment: negative
Once in a great while I will watch a movie that completely surprises me. One that comes out of nowhere to be a bit of rousing entertainment. One that is pure fun from beginning to end. Well folks, When A Stranger Calls is NOT that movie. It is an unbelievable stupid and far fetched remake of the much better 1979 horror camp classic. Our lead heroine Jill is forced to babysit after going over her cell phone minutes and is harassed by telephone calls from a mysterious caller. Every cliché in the world is used here from the stupid cat-jumping-out-of-a-hidden-spot to the car that won't start to the killer can be anywhere at anytime. This movie is bad...not even bad in a "so bad it's good way" more in a "so bad it's boring way." Skip this godawful film and save your movie for something else. You'll thank me later, trust me on this. Grade: D-

Sentiment: negative
The many comments made by others have been very informative and I join in their calls for the release of Porgy and Bess, the 1959 film.

In my early teens I joined a record club and this album was one of the free ones I chose for joining. I knew some of the voices were dubbed, but only Robert McFerrin was acknowledged on the album. Recently my daughter purchased a CD from Austria, I think. The quality is excellent, so I am confused about why it is available in Europe by CBS Records, Inc, when I have had no luck in local stores.

Actually, I never saw the movie but for years have pleaded with local video stores to get it. Now I know why it has never been available.

I add my voice to others who plead with the heirs of the property and rights and that they agree to release it, however imperfect they perceive it to be - the beauty of the music and story reached so many of us who would never have had the experience otherwise.

Trudy

Sentiment: positive
Have to agree that this movie and it's talented director do not receive the plaudits they deserve. Here's hoping that the DVD will do very well and bring both to the attention of a wider audience. The actors gave excellent performances and the plot is excellent. Perhaps overall the movie is a little long but May Miles Thomas seems to enjoy her actors when they are giving strong performances and therefore sometimes holds them in longer close ups than necessary. Good for the actors I am sure but sometimes as the audience you are ready to move on so to speak with the plot. May Miles Thomas deserves more recognition from the Film business as one of our foremost digital movie directors,

Sentiment: positive
I work at a movie store, and as such, I am always on the look-out for an excellent movie. I decided to check out Nothing as it sat in our Canadian section, and I've been trying to support my country's movie industry. I was in for a surprise. The film features David Hewlett and Andrew Miller in a highly entertaining story that seems to delve into so much of our minds and relationships...without working that hard. It is consistently comedic through the interaction of the two characters, as well as some funny exchanges ("We can't be dead, we have cable!"). What more can I say without noting that it is worth a shot, even if you abandon it within the first half an hour.

Sentiment: positive
Watching Midnight Cowboy is like taking a masterclass in acting/ directing/ cinematography/ editing/ writing. I was too young to watch it when it was originally released, and only saw it for the first time a couple of years ago, but it has absolutely stood the test of time, and I have watched it several times since. 

Everything about this film is brilliant, from the poignant performances from Voight and Hoffman (even though I know this movie well, I still find myself welling up every time Voight flashes one of his innocently pained looks, or Hoffman coughs in his sickly and ominous way) to the stunning cinematography and superbly edited dream sequences. 

It's a shame that more of our contemporary filmmakers aren't prepared to take a risk on making movies that are as visually and aurally interesting as this one. Midnight cowboy should be required viewing at all film schools. 

10/10

Sentiment: positive
I love comedies and I love independent films, but this was much too slow and the humor was extremely regional. I guess It would have been better if the main characters were likeable, but they were just typical gen-x slacker types, just like the people that have been causing trouble in high schools for forty years... I can understand High Praise for a young indie film-maker when it is deserving, but this is an extremely average film.

Sentiment: negative
I don't like Sean Penn's directing very much, and this early work, The Indian Runner, is no exception. The movie has no core, it's colored with a kind of redneck, anti-authoritarian tweeness that in all honesty taints most of Penn's work, his latest work even more so than the earlier. Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez, Clint Eastwood, Sean Penn, the whole lot seem to produce such fundamentally banal product, ostensibly in some allegiance to honesty, but ending up being, for the most part, glorified pro wrestling matches, and moralistic, almost as if Hallmark cards had developed a line of Hell's Angels greetings, and make me long for the days of Deliverance, which is a fine movie. Viggo Mortensen's acting is much, much more believable here than that ridiculous Eastern Promises thing he did with Cronenberg, and that's about it. The movie is dead meaningless, and seems to be an exercise, a series of techniques, more than a story. Kudos for Charles Bronson, however, who proves he can act. And I wanted more of Sandy Dennis' character. A lousy 3 out of 10 for this The Indian Runner crap.

Sentiment: negative
For me, this movie just seemed to fall on its face. The main problem for me was the casting of Glover as a serial killer. I don't know whether this grows out of type-casting or simply his demeanor, but I doubt Glover could ever portray a convincing villain. He's a good guy, and that's always obvious in his performances. Other than that the film is your run of the mill serial killer story. Nothing very innovative .

Sentiment: negative
A female vampire kills young women and paints with their blood. She has an assistant who doesn't want to be a vampire, so he has to do what she orders or be turned into a blood sucker. After a few kills, the assistant gets remorse and falls in love with a homeless girl.

What can I say about this movie ? That its pacing is over-slow, that it has some strange sound effects (never a bite sounded so strange) and ambiance (new jazz here I come) and that lights don't seem to be included on the set. It looks like an "auteur" horror movie with all the self-sufficiency inside.

The plot is completely stupid and as you can guess, it's the female vampire who explains how to kill her even if she doesn't have to do it; of course, crosses, light, garlic and sticks don't work.

It's not even a funny lousy movie. Perhaps with some friends and a lot of beers, it can't have its funny sides (to be honest, it's funny during 10 - 15 minutes near the end of the movie). Don't be fooled by the Troma sticker, it's one the bad movie they present.

Sentiment: negative
It's nice to see a romantic comedy that does not have the prissy man lead, this has solid acting from both male leads and also from the female lead and although the story is a little long and a little cliché you cant help but like it.

I think the story was a little rushed at the end, but extending that would have made the story even longer. Superior to other romantic comedies such as 100 days with Mr arrogant, and possibly tied with my tutor friend.

It would make an interesting introduction to Korean cinema, not as great as My sassy girl, but still good.

Sentiment: positive
The only reason to see this movie is for a brilliant performance by Thom-Adcox Hernandez who is underused in the movie within the movie. As usual Tom Villard is good, too. Otherwise it's c**p. The possesor doesn't even exist how does he magically change the letters on the theatre marquee to spell out "The Possessor"? Lame.

Sentiment: negative
WHITE FIRE was recommended to me by a guy who owns it on two separate DVD releases and on VHS. He claimed it's one of the funniest and coolest low budget actioners ever made. I generally don't watch movies knowing that they're going to be bad, but I made an exception for this one... and I was very glad that I did.

It's filled to the brim with action (much of it surprisingly, graphically gory), sleaze (isolated to nudity with a key female character, but there's so much of it in one scene that it becomes hilarious) and outrageously awkward dialogue, all of which adds to the laughter-inducing tone of the film.

Ginty, the unusual looking star of THE EXTERMINATOR (and countless other low budget action turds) is amusing in the lead, giving the best performance he could muster. Williamson is better than usual, clearly hamming it up with unparalleled glee (and he doesn't come in until midway through). The rest of the cast is also fun to watch, particularly the villains, one of whom is a sadistic sexpot who speaks with an accent that appears to be a mish-mash of Spanish and Italian. She's priceless.

Again, I can't stress enough how gory it was. It's not so bloody that it's nauseating, but it's uncommonly violent in parts with some meaty squibs going off in the shootouts and it has a grueling torture sequence that no man will soon forget. Also, when Ginty is being swarmed by a pack of bad guys, he conveniently gets a hold of a chainsaw and the splatter moments that follow will have any and all action fans cheering and spilling their beers.

Don't miss WHITE FIRE. It's a rollicking - if mind-numbingly stupid - action classic.

Sentiment: positive
While I totally disagree with one reviewer who described Charley Chase as unfunny, in this film he certainly is. It's a shame, as I suspect the other reviewer must have only seen a few Charley Chase duds and assumed the guy wasn't funny. Films like MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE and WHAT PRICE GOOFY? are very good Chase films, so he COULD be really funny given good material. Unfortunately, in this film he's given absolutely nothing. Even the inclusion of the usually good Oliver Hardy as a foil isn't any help because the basic premise (boy wants to marry girl but girl's father thinks the boy is a wuss) and the gags are so poor. It's a shame, as I really wanted to love this film but couldn't.

By the way, for those used to the look for Charley from the mid-1920s on, you'll be pretty surprised as Chase sports no glasses or mustache--and looks very little like you'd expect.

Sentiment: negative
Wow! I just don't even know where to begin with what made this movie so awful. Maybe I should start by just saying that during a "heated confrontation" between the antagonist and protagonist, I had to leave the theater because I was laughing so hard. Yeah. The acting really was that bad. The acting was not even the worst part though. The plot was almost entirely shown in the previews. The characters are all grossly underdeveloped. The dialogue and "dramatic moments" are ridiculous. The bad guy is a caricature of an out of control, power drunk, sadist.

But hey the actors are pretty, so guess that was supposed to make it all better.

Sentiment: negative
His choice of films, the basic 'conceit' of the production (which places him in the sets or simulacra of the films he is commenting on ) and his delivery are brilliant! But if you want Freud, be aware that you're getting Zizek's version of Lacan, which should not be confused with Lacan himself. As usual, Zizek delivers complex ideas with gusto and in a convincing manner. The rub is he is also quite mercurial and so there may be more in his gusto than in actual content. Cinematically, it is a gem. Psychologically, this will have people of all persuasions (Freudians, Lacanians and Jungians) scratching their heads but reaching for the popcorn all the same. Zizek is a phenomenon and pop icon unto himself.

Sentiment: positive
Wow! In my opinion, THE NET is an excellent, nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat techno thriller that will leave you feeling good all over. When I first saw it, I was feeling good all over for days. When Angela (Sandra Bullock) went to Mexico, I thought to myself, "That is a really nice place to vacation." From the moment Jack (Jermey Northam) and Ruth (Wendy Gazelle) began chasing her, I thought to myself, "Don't let anything bad happen to her! Please!" I also took quite a few deep breaths to prevent myself from screaming any more than I already had. On the bright side, if you ask me, the house was very luxurious and spacious. In conclusion, I give this excellent, nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat techno thriller four stars.

Sentiment: positive
Some good movies keep you in front of the TV, and you are dying to see the result.

This movie does not have highs and lows. It simply describes a young girl's family life in Africa. People come and go, the weather and the background are all the same.



Sentiment: negative