DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
When I first saw this movie back in the middle of January (2005) I didn't like it. I thought it was too weird and thought that some parts that the main star, Judith Light, acted were so unlike her. (Which of course is true) And then I watched bits of it the next day when it re-aired and I felt pretty much the same. Then I watched it again two Sundays ago (March 20th, 2005) and I began to really enjoy it and this time I taped the entire thing. I even cried the first 2 times, but mainly because the actress was actually crying and I am a big fan of hers.

It is a very well acted and done TV Movie. Judith Light is one of my favorite actresses and I think she does a superb job in this film! I keep watching it over and over. It's a sad movie, but very good.

If you have not seen this movie, I definitely recommend it! It's not usually my type of movie, but I did enjoy this one! A+++

Sentiment: positive
This is easily one of the worst movies I've seen in a long long time (and I've recently seen Starship Troopers 2!!!). I could find nothing to redeem this film. The acting, which is probably the best aspect of the film, is fair at best. Michael Madsen hams it up in his standard character persona. Denis Hopper doesn't seem to know what he's supposed to be. Vinnie Jones accent is bizarre. One positive thing is that Leonor Valera looks fantastic. Her acting is pretty poor but I doubt that's why shes there.

The dialogue is truly appalling. It is quite simply rubbish. I don't know who signed off on this but they really need to get professional help next time round.

This film is the reason IMDBs rating system should be able to include zero stars out of ten. Avoid at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
Hello I am from Denmark, and one day i was having a film evening with my friends. One brought this movie with him "Russian terminator" and it was extremely awful. After watching less than half a minute we decided to fast forward only stopping at some laughable "highlights" or should i say "lowlights" in the movie. I was actually mostly surprised to find out that this film was produced here in my homeland Denmark...that must have been the biggest mistake this country ever made.

Sentiment: negative
The Hazing is confused mumbo-jumbo that wants so hard to be The Evil Dead that it even references Bruce Campbell several times. The problem is, it is simply not in the same league as that terrific movie. This movie is nowhere near as original. The plot has been used before, by Kevin Tenney in Night of the Demons, and that was a lot more fun. This flick wastes too much time with complicated exposition before getting the kids into the spooky mansion and starting the demonic happenings.

Brad Dourif is, as usual, not given much to do here, but when he is on screen he puts in another over-the-top performance that would make Christopher Walken jealous. As for the acting of the kids, it's passable but by no means good. The shaky camera work is more annoying than clever or atmospheric. There are a few good moments when the first guy gets possessed and throws around some deadly one liners while dispatching his victims, but it was never scary for a second. The gore level is mid-range to low, but the director tries to make up for it by showing the actresses topless a few times. All in all, just okay if you have 87 minutes to waste.

Sentiment: negative
Wow, what a total let down! The fact people think this film is scary is ridiculous. The special effects were a direct rip-off of "The ring." The story? Was there one? Not in my opinion..Just a bunch of flashy imaging. The entire film was a boring, stupid, mess. I guess there is always a market for bad films with good marketing campaigns. However, this is the worst horror film I have seen in years. And that Buffy chick? Well, she's a bad actress! As plastic as Barbie and just as talented..No, wait, that would be an insult to the talents of Barbie! I suppose many kiddies helped this film at the box office as it was PG-13, and had it been rated R, it would have bombed IMO! Stupid movie!

Sentiment: negative
Jeopardy is a tense, satisying thriller, a cut above a B but not really a major production. It qualifies as almost an experimental film, as the studio that produced it, Metro, was desperately looking for new kinds of films, stars and directors to compete with the then new medium of television. The director, John Sturges, was an up-and-comer whose best years lay ahead. He had just recently begun directing A level films, and had already proved himself a most capable craftsman. Stars Barbara Stanwyck, Barry Sullivan and Ralph Meeker, were at very different phases of their careers. Stanwyck's glory years were behind her, and yet she could still carry a film, as she proves here. Barry Sullivan, as her husband, was one of a dozen or so leading men who got started in films in the forties who never quite achieved the success many had hoped for him. He was a fine, low-key actor, poised, but in an upper middle rather than upper class way, which made him excellent in professional roles. As the escaped convict who is the only person around who can save Sullivan's life (he is trapped under a pier, and the tide is rising), Ralph Meeker is more energetic than usual. This excellent actor had the misfortune of having come to films after Brando and Clift. He was in his way as good an actor as either of them, but he lacked charisma. His bargaining with Stanwyck, which comes down to his demanding sex in exchange for saving her husband (by implication only, as this is 1953), makes for an intriguing premise which, had this been a different kind of film, could all raised all sorts of interesting questions about Stanwyck's character. Meeker is indeed a more exciting character than Sullivan; and in her scenes with him Stanwyck is livelier than she is with her husband and son. But as this is a formula picture, not a Strindberg play, the possibility that Stanwyck might want want to have a fling,--leaving aside the question of her husband's predicament,--remains unexplored. In this sense the incoming tide doesn't quite have the effect one might have wished, though the movie remains tense and highly entertaining thanks to excellent acting, fine location photography, nearly all of it outdoors, and excellent direction by the woefully underrated Mr. Sturges.

Sentiment: positive
This is a great off-the-wall romantic comedy about love, work, pandering to the public taste, and midlife crises. The main character is a talented movie director who decides to make a silly PG-13 movie to get himself out of hock with the IRS. It has an excellent cast, a wide range of humor (from deadpan to slapstick), and fine writing. It's also a wry send-up of the movie industry. The metacommentary includes several excellent cuts between reality and the movie that's being made, and in some places the film departs from strict realism. The result is a multi-dimensional masterpiece of wry midlife humor.

Sentiment: positive
The good news: the director is reportedly committed to the cause of Amnesty International and eager to deliver a solid message about the freedom of expression and the evil of oppression. The plot is distinctly original and the actors are two of my absolute favourites. The not-so-good news: 'original' is not everybody's buzzword when visiting the movies or video stores. Also, noted critics like Mr Maltin and Roger Ebert have dismissed the film as a genuinely failed attempt to convert a play from stage into cinematic form. If I remember correctly, the title is taken from the fairy tale Stowe's character has written and which has made her a possible subversive and suspect person in the fictitious place where the story takes place. Her dreams are dangerous to the government, represented here by Rickman as the intense, manipulative interrogator. Since those two people are virtually the only ones appearing in the film altogether, the director is in for a real challenge in keeping the viewer's attention. In the end, I found the whole thing fascinating. Not flawless and definitely not for everyone, but rewarding. It's nowhere near a masterpiece like Kieslowski's 'A short film about killing' or as explanatory as 'Dead man walking'. But if you're into those films or any of Costa-Gavras political thrillers, you may appreciate this one as well. Just don't expect any overexplicit sermons or eyefilling action sequences.

Sentiment: positive
Wow, this film had a huge impact on me, it moved me,. It is an amazing story about a girl in Cambodia who is sold into the sex trade. I can not stop thinking about the fate of the little girl named Holly. The setting of the film is realistic, The film was an eye opener, I can not imagine anyone walking away from it with out wanting to help make a change with this horrifying problem that exsists.

The content of the film was very very moving. It was one of the best films that I have seen this year. The

girl who plays Holly does a fantastic job with her character. Ron Livinston gives a fantastic performance. The film moved me to tears, It tells an important message that needs to be heard worldwide. Everyone should go see this film. I think this film will make a difference, I loved it!

Sentiment: positive
VIVAH is in my book THE BEST MOVIE OF 2006 ! PERIOD !!. In my book it is one of the best 100 movies EVER MADE IN Bollywood. Its sad that this movie doesn't have that many reviews and isn't having that much popularity. 

VIVAH is once again a true achievement from a director who DOES it again. After HAHK and Maine Pyar Kiya Sooraj has once again pulled off a brilliant one VIVAH. 

This is the most simple and cute movies that I've seen this year. After seeing Don 2 which was CRAP and later Dhoom 2 which even beat Don in that matter, I finally see a movie which is so close to my heart and my culture.

I don't know why Bollywood is moving away from the beautiful culture which we have and are making Hollywood remake style crap movies like Dhoom 2 and don. 

The story is beautiful and relates much to the Indian system of Arranged marriage which I too would like to be a part of. Our system which teaches us to obey elders, follow them and of course obey their thoughts is so brilliantly shown in this movie!. Of course there isn't any force in choosing your life partner and it should be a brief meeting between the couple and its up to them to decide as it is brilliantly shown in this movie. 

Coming back to the movie.....VIVAH is a story of Journey between the beautiful period of Engagement and marriage. The phase where the guy meets the girl !....Both understand each other ..Both try to assess if they could love each other for Seven generations (as our system says) and the various which occur during marriages.

Amrita Rao is brilliant in the movie.......Shahid is OK.....and Alok Nath and Anupam Kher are awesome !! The songs are BRILLIANT. ! I especially like the HAMARI SHAADI MAIN HAFTE REH GYE CHAAR and Do Anjaane Ajnabi ......

Overall A MUST SEE for anyone who still believes in the Indian culture and tradition and I certainly do !.

Go see this movie......I just have to say one word.......

BLISS !.

Sentiment: positive
I did not like Chandni Bar from the same director.

I did not watch his other movies. They came and went.

But Page-3 is nicely made. Seems real. Like Satya from RGV did.

The mental sickness of the so called high society is the summary of the movie. In the midst of all the sickness, its difficult to lead a normal life which the protagonist, Konkana Sen, does. Serious movie, not to be watched with children or expecting wives. Page-3 of newspapers is the usual place for reporting the activities going on in the parties of the rich and elite who indulge in much more filth then what is reported. How this Page-3 is also a business prospect is shown in the movie. Event management firms get paid to arrange parties and make a rich but not famous people famous overnight by clicking photographs with the celebrities invited to the party.

The western culture has crept into the high society of Mumabi quite deeply. The movie shows it boldly, no holds barred.

Madhur Bhandarkar starts a new journey from here.

Sentiment: positive
Ok i know the original Ghoulies aren't in this entry it even seems it doesn't belong in this series. But it still iz a good movie. It is hilarious i thought especially with the pepper spray or mace. I give it a 9

Sentiment: positive
Just an hour ago I finished watching this my friend. As a fans of Dragonball we think that this movie is so bad that is good. We will say one thing : without a sixpack beers there is now way you can survive through this movie. This movie should be watched with a many Dragonball fans to laugh their ass off. The best character in the movie is the lord Horn, his makeup, his laugh, and behaviour crates the unforgettable experience. What we liked in this movie, was the fact that the island of Turtle Man was the same as in cartoon version. We believe that the only character similar to the one in the cartoon is the Turtle Man. He is also a sex maniac and kind of idiot too.

Sentiment: negative
Another enjoyable Warner flick. I really liked John Garfield in this, though I'm wondering why Cagney wasn't in the role. Perhaps it was too similar to ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES? I mean, it's another Dead End Kids story of sorts too, but I really appreciated them here and this film had a lot of nice comical touches along with some good serious drama. The boys work great with Garfield. A nice sequence was the whole "swimming" scene which starts out with no cares but winds up coming too close to disaster.

One negative comment: Claude Rains was grossly miscast. As the detective, the fine actor seemed as out of place here as a nun in a whorehouse.

Sentiment: positive
Meryl Streep is such a genius. Well, at least as an actress. I know she's been made fun of for doing a lot of roles with accents, but she nails the accent every time. Her performance as Lindy Chamberlain was inspiring. Mrs. Chamberlain, as portrayed here, was not particularly likable, nor all that smart. But that just makes Streep's work all the more remarkable. I think she is worth all 10 or so of her Oscar nominations. About the film, well, there were a couple of interesting things. I don't know much about Australia, but the theme of religious bigotry among the general public played a big part in the story. I had largely missed this when I first saw the film some years ago, but it came through loud and clear yesterday. And it seems the Australian press is just as accomplished at misery-inducing pursuit and overkill as their American colleagues. A pretty good film. A bit different. Grade: B

Sentiment: positive
It was dumb. Sort of like an Adam Sandler movie. 

There were a few funny parts but not that funny.

I liked some of the actors in it though. 

There were some Sat. Night Live people in the movie. But I wouldn't recommend this unless there is just nothing else better on. And it was still better than any Jennifer Lopez movie.

Sentiment: negative
2 stars, and I'm being generous. (minor spoilers) Look, this is a low budget zombie movie set in gangland Oakland. As the plot goes, a scientist wants to bring his dead brother back to life after being killed in a drive-by.

The main problem with this movie: what zombies?! All the "zombies" do is growl (which doesn't sound even remotely scary) and drip fake red blood from their mouths! No scary eyes, no decaying flesh, just a bunch of people growling pathetically and running around like idiots.

The cover is also misleading. There are only about 6 zombies in the whole film, so it's not like the whole "hood" is plagued with zombies or anything, it's just a few, and is contained in no time.

The acting actually is so bad it's hilarious. No one can act at all in this movie (except maybe one of the gang members) and it really seems like a bunch of friends got together, decided to cast their family, and made a movie one weekend.

Final note: since when do Doctors wear tracksuits?! Skip this one, please!

Sentiment: negative
This is a fascinating account of the hunt for the Soviet Union's first known serial killer. I had tuned in, just expecting a half-decent TV movie, but found myself drawn by the compelling way the story was told. As others have said, there is much to admire here that is sadly lacking in many big screen releases.

Much of the credit must go to Chris Gerolmo, whose intelligent screenplay and direction draw the viewer in, until it is impossible not to feel emotionally involved. The acting by the whole cast is also superb, especially that of the two leads, Stephen Rea and Donald Sutherland. Their convincing portrayals give their character arcs a great deal of credibility, and the scene where they have their first committee meeting after Perestroika is genuinely touching.

If you prefer your crime films with a bit more depth and a little less sheen, I strongly recommend you look out for 'Citizen X'.



Sentiment: positive
Youth, sexuality, and the French countryside -- one of the more unique films you're ever going to see. If you can see it that is, no mean feat considering how hard it is to find copies of it (a combination of scarcity and censorship.) It's sometimes erotic, sometimes disgusting, and occasionally funny. A trifle boring also in the middle, but all in all you can't call yourself an aficionado of bizarre film until you've seen this one at least once.

Sentiment: positive
As someone who has lived with cerebral palsey for over forty years, I find this movie to be inspirational. If someone with such a severe case of CP as Christie Brown has can do so much, then there's no reason that I couldn't achieve my own dreams. Daniel Day-Lewis and Brenda Fricker both give awesome performances.



Sentiment: positive
Perhaps it's just the format of this film, a documentary, but I believe that the movie would have been much better served by good actors and more solid dialogue. The fact that the actors are also the business owners is a double-edged sword. They know better than anyone else the emotions and complexities of the business they were in, but, since they are not professional actors, they do a very poor job of conveying those emotions and the documentary suffers. There were some truly memorable scenes in this movie and lots of good lines but they were delivered so poorly that they will fade away with time and the only memory I will have of this documentary is that it had some good scenes which I can't remember. 

Watch this if you want a first-hand account of the .com bust and see what happened to the 99% of people in the industry who didn't become instant millionares. However, be prepared for some nauseating camera work, poor acting, poor dialogue, and an overall bad movie that epitomizes the era of the Internet boom.

Sentiment: negative
Predictable, cliche, unbelievable, boring...what else can I say? It's only the caliber of the cast that saves any redeeming qualities of this bloated mess. Oh yeah, and the entertaining end zone antics.

But wait for the eleven o'clock highlights, 'cause the outcome is as predictable as who's going to win the Globetrotters/Washington Generals matchup.

I was well into the second act before I figured out these were supposed to be PRO teams we were watching (all clad in vintage Padres brown). And Cameron Diaz character's imitation of a youthful Georgia Frontiere was ill-conceived on the page. (Not your fault, Cameron. Would you like to go to dinner?)

Enough of this - I'm only on a rant because I was looking forward to this film. Rent THE LONGEST YARD instead.



Sentiment: negative
If Jacqueline McKenzie and John Lynch weren't such talented actors this film would probably be even worse than it actually is.The story of two mentally disturbed people who fall in love and have a baby is an interesting one,and well worth exploring.However on the negative side,the plot becomes increasingly over the top as the story progresses,and the music choices more and more bizarre,so that by the end I found myself laughing when I know the director intended for me to be crying.

Sentiment: negative
I think I found the most misogynistic film of all time: Darklight.

The gist of the film- Lilith was Adam's first wife and she was considered imperfect and banished from the garden of Eden because she considered herself Adam's equal and refused to submit to him. See, I took those words straight from the script. Then the film keeps going on and though she is the heroine of the film, the only time that she becomes acceptable is when she does what the men tell her to do! She ends the film under the control of The Faith- an all male group!

Other than that the script was predictable and the FX were awful. Apart from the obvious hatred of females that is usually a lot more subtle in modern film, there was nothing original about Darklight.

Sentiment: negative
If you want to have a great time then this is THE movie to watch.

Take the premise - There is this college which admits people with minimum qualifications of BA, B.Com, M.Com, MA, MBA, MCA, B.E., M.Tech and BCA. So you have to take into account the time consumed and thus it is obvious that all students are 40+ Also the school admits students of a 'heavier' dispensation and has a course of P.Hd in weight loss and the only student who failed this course is Manisha Koirala. Only she was a snake in the past life. Still not convinced? OK read on.

Here's a scene. Akshay Kumar, a college student, is chased by Arman and he takes out a bazooka and shoots him! Then throws grenades. Then one of the grenades hits Akshay. But doesn't die and continues to fight, Arman, the snake, plunges a half foot dagger into Akshay and stomps on it but Akshay is still there. Then Akshay gets on a jet ski and follows Arman. They fight and Arman chokes Akshay underwater and finally Akshay is dead. So we think, as soon as Arman is out of the picture Akshay swims away to Raj Babbar, Principal of this college + Boxing Refree + Parapsychology ka professor + mumbling priest.

But no one, I repeat no one takes the cake but a certain Mr. Nigam. You gotto watch to learn more. :-)

Sentiment: positive
One would think that with all the lavish care and expense that went into this made-for-TV movie, it would reflect something of the taste and manners of the upper class couple--Wallis Simpson and the Prince of Wales--instead of being a mawkish, unappetizing historical romance.

Nor is it helped by the fact that JANE SEYMOUR and ANTHONY ANDREWS give stiff, rather uncomfortable to watch performances in which the events move much too slowly to hold attention.

It's hard to understand why a star of OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND's caliber would wish to play the supporting role of Aunt Bessie since the role is so colorless she just about fades out of sight. At this stage in her career, Olivia was appearing in so many "nobility" roles requiring a regal presence but nothing more.

A trivial movie best left forgotten among all the made-for-TV movies of that era.

Sentiment: negative
Homicide: The Movie proved to be a good wrap-up to a well-written, well-directed, and well-acted series. Loose ends were tied up that weren't properly addressed at the end of the final season. The entire series, and especially the movie, provided a life-like look at life (and death) in Baltimore, a culturally unique city with an extremely high murder rate. My attraction to the series began long before I moved to Baltimore, but once I experienced life here for myself, I realized how realistic it was. And the movie certainly retained that spirit. I will certainly miss new original episodes of the series, but am very grateful to NBC and the producers and cast for giving us one last glimpse at the dark side of Charm City.

Sentiment: positive
I wasted 5.75 to see this crappy movie so I just want to know a few things:

What was the point of the dog being split in half at the beginning of the movie, the disease had nothing to do with being split in half.

What was the point of dragging Karen into the shed, she already totally infected her room, they could have just locked her in there where she would have been safer.

Why would the Hermit be running around the forest asking strangers to help him when he could have just asked his relative, the hog lady, to take him to the hospital?

Why didn't any of the characters bother to walk into town to get help when things started getting bad, are they all really that lazy?

Even if Paul was threatened by the guy w/ the shotgun for peeping on his wife, Paul could have just sent Jeff or Bert back to the house to ask for help. the girl he loves is deteriorating.

What was the point of the box?

Why did Jeff go back to the cabin after he left when everyone else was getting infected, if he was that big of a jerk to leave in the first place wouldn't he have just gone back home?

If the police went to all the trouble of gathering up the kids and burning them on the fire pit, why did they throw Paul halfway into the river, it wasn't even necessary for the plot because the water was already contaminated.

Who makes lemonade out of river water, that crap has dirt leaves and bugs in it. Why couldn't the two kids have just use the tap water, it was contaminated too, so the stupid ending would still work.

Sentiment: negative
"Fate" leads Walter Sparrow to come in possession of a mysterious novel that has eerie similarities and connections to his life, all based around the number 23. As the story unfolds in real life and fiction, Sparrow must figure out his connection to the book and how the story will eventually end.

The Number 23 offers an intriguing premise that is undone by a weak execution. The film just failed on many different levels which is pretty disappointing because it held so much potential. The screenplay was probably the worst part about it. It was filled with silly sequences and laughable dialog that just killed the mood of the movie. It seemed like the screenwriter had a good idea, he just didn't know how to develop it to stretch over a ninety minute running time. The second half of the film was running low on ideas, the twist was pretty obvious and the ending was awful.

Joel Schumacher is responsible for one of the worst movies ever and he did redeem himself a little with Phone Booth and a few other films but The Number 23 reminds me that he's still capable of making a stinker. He has the movie drenched in style but he just can't get a good focus. He moves the film at a clunky and slow pace. He switches from reality to what's actually happening in the book which quickly got annoying. The actual book in the film that's titled "The Number 23" is an awful detective story and the audience gets stuck listening to Carrey narrate it which just bored me to tears. When Carrey is finally done with book, we get stuck watching him run around trying to solve the mystery. At this point, the audience has lost interest and there is no real tension. We impatiently wait for the movie to reach it's horrible ending and unconvincing explanation before celebrating that film has finally finished.

The acting was mostly average and pretty forgettable. Jim Carrey was clearly just sleepwalking through his performance and he didn't even seem to be trying. He was either completely over the top in some scenes or just very wooden. His narration was a complete bore to listen to and he put no life inside his character. Virginia Madsen did the best she could with a limited role but she needs to pick better scripts. Logan Lerman was pretty bland as was Danny Huston. Overall, The Number 23 was an awful thriller that offered more laughs than suspense or thrills. Rating 3/10

Sentiment: negative
This movie should have been billed as three movie-summaries linked together to form a full-length feature film (including lots of shots of people slowly walking down dark corridors and streets). BE WARNED! The first hour of this movie is simply a re-hash of the first two Aztec movies as told by the main character. The actual movie doesn't start until the thing is almost over. I must say, the overacting on the part of the Bat is quite hilarious.

As for the robot, I thought a robot was a mechanical device that may or may not resemble a human. The Bat's "robot" consists of a radioactive reanimated corpse encased in a lead robot-body. As Tom Servo put it, "He's not that impressive; he doesn't even have knees!" That, and it takes the robot about an hour just to lumber across the room. But once he catches you, WATCH OUT! He'll disintegrate you with a touch (powered by radium? Pluh-ease!).

This is a great movie when accompanied by Joel and the Bots. Otherwise, you're just a glutton for abuse.

Sentiment: negative
A wonderful film, filled with great understated performance and sharp, intelligent dialogue. What really distinguishes the film, however, is that undercurrent of sadness throughout. The story is underscored by affairs, loneliness, suicide, disappointment, the fear of losing ones job in a world where that had disastrous consequences. Most of all it was set in a world that no longer existed, having been ripped apart by the beginning of World War II. In fact, the film is barely a comedy at all if you compare the percentage of serious scenes to the comic scenes. Yet funny it is--listen to Margaret Sullivan's harsh dismissal of Jimmy Stewart and watch his pained expression as he replies that her comments were a remarkable blend "of poetry and meanness". It's funny, pointed, and sad all at once. A remarkable achievement and one of the ten greatest screen comedies ever made.

Sentiment: positive
Man, this movie sucked big time! I didn't even manage to see the hole thing (my girlfriend did though). Really bad acting, computer animations so bad you just laugh (woman to werewolf), strange clips, the list goes on and on. Don't know if its just me or does this movie remind you of a porn movie? And I don't mean all the naked ladys... It's something about the light or something... This could maybee become a classic just because of the bad acting and all the naked women, but not because it's an original movie white a nice plot twist. My final words are: Don't see it! It's not worth the time. If you wanna see it because the nakedness there's lots of better ones to see!

Sentiment: negative
For the initial 20 minutes or so (I was watching it on a PS2 so I've really no idea how long it took) Alienator sets up an interesting premise. I don't think I've seen a slasher movie with an alien from another planet as the baddie before. However, interest soon turns into stunned disbelief as you realise the 'alien' is a huge body-builder woman in a steel bikini. Yes, Alienator is patently ridiculous.

Don't think I hold that against it. In the world of shlock-horror, patently ridiculous can often be a good sign. However, the blatant stupidity of its premise is all the movie really has going for it. Alienator is funny as hell, but it is also a shambolic suckfest of the highest order. Actors heap on failed attempts at seriousness, potentially genius lines of pure cheese dialogue are stumbled over with unnerving incompetence and the direction fails to sum up even one or two decent set-pieces. By the time the movie's finished you can barely see the original concept through the haystack of total tripe the team piled on it.

Add to this the fact that the 'Alien' just kills people by vaporising them, as opposed to doing any 'slashing' as such and you have a giant throbbing heap of good ideas being left to rot. You'll laugh at Alienator, but AT it, not with it. If that's your thing then go ahead and check it out.

Sentiment: negative
What a movie! I never imagined Richard Attenborough could have such a movie in him. Gandhi has always left me indifferent, apart from Ben Kingsley's performance, and I never considered Attenborough a particularly good filmmaker. But Cry Freedom held my interest like few movies have in recent times. It's an exciting, mesmerizing political movie with great performances by Kevin Kline and a young Denzel Washington.

Kline plays Donald Woods, a South Africa newspaper editor who befriends the civil rights activist Steve Biko. It starts as a difficult friendship, for Woods sees Biko as a black supremacist preaching hatred against whites. But Biko, with his kind words, upbeat attitude and complete transparency, wins over Woods and introduces him to a reality about Apartheid that Woods knew nothing about.

Biko is a decent, law-abiding citizen who altruistically stands up against all prejudice and the system that keeps down his people. One night, coming from an illegal meeting, he's arrested and beaten to death. The authorities try to hush up the matter because Biko has become a huge personality in South Africa. But through the efforts of Woods the truth comes out. But what should be a triumph only becomes a nightmare as Woods and his family become targets for the secret police.

This movie has an interesting structure. It has in fact two narratives: first it narrates the life and death of Biko. It's an amazing first half, completely dominated by the charisma of Washington in what may be his greatest performance yet.

The second half, no less interesting, narrates Woods attempt to escape from South Africa to publish a book about Biko. Woods has become an enemy of state, a banned person, which means he can't meet people or leave his country. Plus he's constantly spied by the police. Kevin Kline gives a great performance in this second half too.

Although the first half is quite straightforward, the second does interesting things with editing, by giving flashbacks of Biko and of events that show the repression against the black South Africans. Some may argue this is to make it more interesting, but for me the second half just as captivating, as Woods and his family devise a bold plan to escape South Africa.

The last minutes were so heartbreaking I was in tears. George Fenton and Jonas Gwangwa's score certainly had something to do with it. Although I've never been much of a fan of Fenton (cannot stand his Gandhi score), I do think the score for Cry Freedom is one of the most beautiful ever composed for cinema. The movie, thanks to the music married to the powerful images, at times reached incredible peaks of emotion.

Cry Freedom is definitely not a movie just to watch because of Denzel Washington. This is a movie to be cherished in its entirety. Acting, writing, music, editing, cinematography come together in a perfect synthesis to create an ode to the power of the human spirit. This movie deserve a place alongside movies like The Pianist, Life Is beautiful and The Shawshank Redemption.

Sentiment: positive
Her Deadly Rival (1995): Starring Harry Hamlin, Annie Potts, Lisa Zane, Tommy Hinkley, Susan Diol, Roma Maffia, Robert C. Treveiler, D. L. Anderson, William Blair, Sean Bridges, Robin Dallenbach, Wilbur Fitzgerald, Dale Frye, Stan Kelly, Deborah Hobart, David Lenthall, Lorri Lindberg, Chuck Kinlaw, Amy Parrish, Melissa Suzanne McBride, Ralph Wilcox, Al Wiggins, Jeff Sumerel, Daria Sanford....Director James Hayman, Screenplay Dan Vining.

Actor Harry Hamlin (of LA Law fame, Clash of The Titans and other films) seems perfectly cast in this "Lifetime" type film directed by James Hayman and released in 1995. He and his wife Lisa Rinna would later work on a film about sex addiction. "Her Deadly Rival" is, at first glance, similar to the better known Hollywood box-office hit "Fatal Attraction". In "Rival", happily married couple Jim and Kris Lanford move into a new home in the typically beautiful suburbs. They have the seemingly perfect marriage- they are deeply in love, despite a routine lifestyle. But then a mysterious admirer sets her eyes on Jim. Her identity is never revealed, despite an attempt by Jim and even investigators to discover who she is. She constantly harasses Jim through phone calls and letters. His marriage nearly flounders as his wife begins to think he's having an affair and trying to cover it up. While Harry Hamlin, Annie Potts and the rest of the cast - Lisa Zane, Tommy Hinkley, Susan Diol, Roma Maffia, Robert C. Treveiler, D. L. Anderson, William Blair- each seem to be straight out of a soap opera. But this is a very suspense-filled drama and has its good moments. There is a twist at the end. Spoiler Alert. All I have to say is "her deadly rival" was only herself. Based on a supposedly actual case, Jim's wife Kris suffered from multiple personality disorder and that was what ruined her marriage. Even if the story is not terribly impressive, even if the acting is only a step above soap opera acting, this film has its moments. Especially moving are the intimate scenes between Jim and his wife and the final scene in which, when Jim learns the truth, he can't believe what he has just heard. The movie is probably a little too long and boring in some parts but it's the kind of TV movie that usually does well, especially on Lifetime, which continues to produce films of this kind, of the "domestic thriller" type, or seduction stories. Trashy but everyone likes trash.

Sentiment: positive
Has there ever been a movie more charming than this? One of the reasons everything works so well is that the group of actors really seem to interact and have an effect on each other's lives. The center of it is the "romance" of James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan, who work together and can't get along face to face but who completely connect with each other anonymously as pen pals. But there are also supporting characters and unlike a lot of romantic comedies (including "You've Got Mail", the recent update of "Shop") they're not just whipped up to support the two leads and their needs. Everyone gets to be an intricate part of Ernst Lubitsch's rich tapestry of charm. One of the most heartwarming scenes in movie history takes place when the near-tragic Frank Morgan casually and humbly searches for someone to have Christmas dinner with. A must see! **** out of ****

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film back at the 2005 Palm Springs International Film Festival and of the 14 films I saw there I would rank this as my #3 film. I had an initial interest in seeing this being of Swedish descent myself with many of my ancestors coming from the Norrland region of Sweden where this was filmed. Also I grew up in an area of rural north woods America where many small towns were much like the setting of this film. It's nice to see more films using rural locations as their settings like Så som i himmelen. This was a very good film and I'm sure a very hard film to pull together with it's large ensemble cast but Director Kay Pollock really pulled this off after a nearly two decade absence from directing. Helen Sjoholm in her motion picture debut as an actress was fantastic and I would look forward to more of her on the big screen. I enjoyed Michael Nyqvist in the lead of this well-rounded cast. I would highly recommend this film and rate it a 9.0 on a scale of 10.

Sentiment: positive
Another very good Mann flick thanks to the father/son combination of Walter Brennan and Jimmy Stewart. Brennan (Ben Tatum) is often the comedic conscience of either Stewart or Wayne (Red River/ Rio Bravo). He's there to see that the younger man takes the ride fork or bend. "You're wrong Mr. Dunston". Jeff Webster(Stewart) gives off the impression he cares only for himself but it is clear he cannot desert Brennan. John McIntire is excellent as the law of Skagway with due respect for the trappings of justice over the reality of it. Another key theme is helping people and in turn being helped by people. The loner can do neither and suffers for it.

The caption above plays on Tatum's assertion that he can't live without his coffee. This nicotine addiction proves fatal. Probably the first and last time on the screen.

I recommend this film and now own the DVD.

Sentiment: positive
There is a famous short story about a man who becomes the prey of a safari hunter who has lost interest in hunting anything except humans. Its quite good, and its been done and redone in film and TV many many times. Some are notable, but this urbanized version, that injects the tired old racism themes, just flat out stinks. Leguizamo's slapstick is almost as weak as the unfunny script. Chaplin, this guy isn't. There must be people who find a dwarf who cant stop dancing funny, I mean I suppose it is funny in a pathetic freakish way, but its just not enough to carry a movie. You have the usual Nazi holdover or neo-Nazi whatever the heck we are supposed to think, type villain, who's son of course is gay, German accents...get the picture?

Sentiment: negative
Wonderful actors. 

Lousy script and not too great direction either. My main problem was I simply didn't CARE about any of these people. Not the killer not the victims. The settings were pretty drab. Dennis Quaid's character was so poorly written in, I didn't even care when the end came. He got his kid back. Big deal! I wanted my money back.

Sentiment: negative
In Los Angeles, the alcoholic and lazy Hank Chinaski (Matt Dillon) performs a wide range of non-qualified functions just to get enough money to drink and gamble in horse races. His primary and only objective is writing and having sexy with dirty women.

"Factotum" is an uninteresting, pointless and extremely boring movie about an irresponsible drunken vagrant that works a couple of days or weeks just to get enough money to buy spirits and gamble, being immediately fired due to his reckless behavior. In accordance with IMDb, this character would be the fictional alter-ego of the author Charles Bukowski, and based on this story, I will certainly never read any of his novels. Honestly, if the viewer likes this theme of alcoholic couples, better off watching the touching and heartbreaking Hector Babenco's "Ironweed" or Marco Ferreri's "Storie di Ordinaria Follia" that is based on the life of the same writer. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Factotum  Sem Destino" ("Factotum  Without Destiny")

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie about 5 years ago, and the memory of it still haunts me to this day. I was fully aware at how awful it was supposed to be going into it, so I have only myself to blame. But like most, I didn't believe all the negativity. Being a Sandler fan, it just seemed inconceivable one of his movies could really be that bad. I figured it was just Sandler haters. I couldn't have been more wrong.

What we have here is a comedy that does not contain even 1 second of anything funny. That is actually quite an accomplish. You'd think in a 90 minute comedy, they might have accidentally stumbled upon something even remotely amusing. But no, it's just horrible. It's not "so bad it's good", its just bad. You cannot laugh at how bad it is, you can only cry. You wait patiently for a joke that will at least make you chuckle, but they never come.

Have you seen the movie The Ring? Where the people watch a video tape and die 7 days later? If this movie was on the video tape, people would die instantly, by their own hand, and there would be smile on their face as they realize their agony has ended, and that would be the first smile since they pressed play.

You might be inclined to watch it just to see how bad it is, unable to curb your curiosity. Don't. Please don't. Trust me, I'm doing you a favor. There are 2 types of people in the world, those that think Going Overboard is the worst movie ever made, and those that have not yet seen it.

Sentiment: negative
Here is a fantastic concept for a film - a series of meteors crash into a small town and the resulting alien infection is caught on a deputy's single camera dash cam as the town slowly taken over. Leave it to Albert Pyun to screw that up! Don't get within 100 feet of this flick! Holy crap, what a bomb...it might be Pyun's worst yet! The crazy thing is there is the germ of a creative idea in here - an entire of an outbreak told from the POV of a dashcam. When I heard that a while back, I imagined the car smashing into stuff, people getting run over, and infected types breaking the windshield and surrounding the car in chaos. That would be cool right? Instead, we have the lead driving around in circles for the entire time in a wooded area, occasionally running into the three infected types who just stand there. The last bit is literally a 15 minute shot where nothing happens in front of the camera, just noises are heard offscreen. Stay away!!! On a somewhat relieving note, I think I am officially calling an end to my Pyun watching...only took me 20 crappy movies to realize I have better things to do.

Sentiment: negative
Consistency is perhaps this movie its biggest problem. The movie starts of as a fast, stylish and just plain fun political satire but in its second halve the movie gets more serious of tone, in an almost Oliver Stone kind of way. It's of course also a very serious subject but I would say that the movie would had been way better and also more effective if it had been completely done in the same style as the first halve of the movie got shot in.

For a biography and a movie concerning the subject of this movie, the movie is also quite short with its mere 102 minutes of running time. The movie because of this feels like it isn't telling the whole story. Of course the following up of the events after the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan gets hinted at in the movie but the movie doesn't go deeper into it and it doesn't explain much about it, which feels like a cheap way to just glorify Charlie Wilson, without showing the other side of the medal. Also the actual events in the movie itself gets rather simplified, even though the story still gets told (needlessly) complex at times.

Yes, the movie would just had been way better if it was not trying to be so serious at times and overall more light with its style and atmosphere. The movie should had been for instance more like "Wag the Dog", that achieved to find a right combination of satire and sensitive political issues.

Because of this incoherent style and way of storytelling, the acting performances are also mixed. When Tom Hanks is playing his character more playfully and in a more comical kind of way he's just excellent. But this just makes it sort of hard to take his character serious in the more serious and sensitive/shocking moments of the movie. Philip Seymour Hoffman is always excellent though, as he is in any movie that he plays in. He also received an Oscar nomination for his role in this movie. Most of the other actors just seem to walk around in this movie, just to be in the movie. This goes mostly for Julia Roberts, whose character I found just too mysterious to seem to have a clear enough purpose for the movie. She made a redundant impression on me and is therefor also really forgettable in this movie.

It's not that the movie is a bad watch, it actually is quite good and also enjoyable but if the movie would had dared to be a bit more edgier the movie would had been a better and foremost also more effective one at what it tried to obviously achieve.

7/10

Sentiment: positive
Now, I'm no film critic, but I truly hated "September 11". This film was, on a general basis, bad. With the exception of Alejandro González Iñárritu's segment, which was the most effective and direct about the subject matter, the short films were at best boring, and at worst offensive. The worst in my mind was Youssef Chahine's pretentious segment in which he compared Palestinian suicide bombers to American soldiers, even going so far as to suggest the suicide bombers were fighting for a greater cause. The segment was completely off topic and, considering Chahine's seeming lack of any decency whatsoever, a waste of my time and patience. The idea of getting eleven different directors from different countries to make a movie featuring their views on a tragedy was good on paper, but in practice, it was tasteless.

Sentiment: negative
This was quite possibly the worst film I've ever seen. The plot didn't make a whole lot of sense and the acting was awful. I'm a big fan of Amber Benson, I think she's usually a wonderful actress, I can't imagine why she decided to do this film. Her character, Piper, is drunk for almost the whole film, with the exception of the opening scene. On the plus side, there was several points in the film where the acting was so bad, I actually laughed out loud. But despite that, I would not recommend this film to anyone. It's only 80 minutes long, but that's 80 minutes of your life that you will have completely wasted.

Sentiment: negative