DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Jim Carrey is a particular brand of humour and I personally think he's a great actor (Eternal Sunshine, for example).

However, this movie is presumably intended to be nothing more than a Jim Carrey vehicle, so be aware straight off that if you don't think his style of comedy is funny, you will sit stony-faced throughout this film, as it has NOTHING else to recommend it.

Even if you do like Carrey's comedy, I am not sure you will find this film amusing. I went to see it on a Saturday night at 10:30pm and the audience was definitely ready to laugh. They giggled throughout the trailers, which weren't particularly funny, but when it came to the film, stony silence. I think it raised about five genuine laughs.

The problem with the movie is it doesn't know what it wants to be. It can't make up its mind whether it's going for slapstick or serious. If it were stupid throughout it could be forgiven but (I'm guessing) it's also trying to make a point about the relationship between the two central characters.

The strong point of the film is the hold-ups, and there was plenty of potential here. But these didn't start until about halfway through and remained largely undeveloped. Meanwhile, you have to sit through the first excruciating 40 minutes as the couple's life deteriorates.

Four separate groups walked out of this film while I was there, and if my flatmate hadn't asked me to keep away from the house (his girlfriend having just returned from a month-long vacation!), I would have done the same. And in my entire 25 years of movie going, I have done that just once before.

Sentiment: negative
The Best of Everything is a high gloss large screen soap opera which follows the careers of four career women, Hope Lange, Suzy Parker, Diane Baker, and Martha Hyer at a New York publishing firm. What's the best for some women is not necessarily the best for all.

Presiding over this group of young fillies is wise old mare Joan Crawford who's been around the track a few times on screen and in real life. She looks right at home as the boss lady as well she should have at this point.

Around the time she was making The Best of Everything Joan Crawford became a widow when her fourth husband, Alfred Steele died. It was a particularly traumatic event for her, she woke up one morning and found him dead in bed next to her. She inherited all of his stock in Pepsi Cola where he was the board chairman and during the same period as The Best of Everything was being made, she wound up the queen bee at Pepsi Cola. Life does sometimes imitate art. So that authority as she barks out dictation and coffee orders to Hope Lange rings real true.

In fact all the women here with the exception of Lange are in for some rough sledding. It's rough for Lange too, but she literally makes the best of everything.

What a collection of stinkers the men are in this film. The best of them, Stephen Boyd, is a heavy drinker. The others Louis Jourdan, Robert Evans, and Brett Halsey, are as slimy a collection of rodents as ever gathered for one film.

I can't forget Brian Aherne either who's the fanny pinching head of this publishing firm. Half that office would have sexual harassment suits going today.

Some nice location shots of New York in the fifties make the film a real treat. Catch it by all means.

Sentiment: positive
Filmfour are going to have to do a lot better than this little snot of a film if they're going to get the right sort of reputation for themselves.

This film is set in Glasgow (although only a couple of secondary characters have anything approaching a Scottish accent). The premise, about people who's lives are going nowhere, who all meet up in the same cafe in the early hours of the morning as they have night jobs, COULD have made for a really funny, insightful, quirky, cultish film. Instead we have a group of self-obsessed saddos and a plot which has been so done to bits I'm suprised it hasn't been banned. X and Y are friends. X is sleeping with Z. Y sleeps with Z as well. Oh you figure it out.

A total waste of time. Painful dialogue - it sounded like something that a group of 16 year olds would have written for a GCSE drama project. The female character was completely superfluous - just written in as a token female in the hope that women would be cajoled into seeing it.

If you're the sort of thicko lad who laughs at beer adverts and can usually be found wandering round in packs shouting on Saturday nights in nondescript town centres then you will love this film and find it "a right laff". Everyone else, run, don't walk away from this sorry little misfit.

And one question, when the group left the "boring" seaside town (Saltcoats incidentally although they changed the name on the film), to go back to Glasgow, WHY did they do it via the Forton motorway services at LANCASTER which is in England?

Sentiment: negative
This movie is an abomination, and its making should have been considered a capital crime.

One of the great mysteries of film-making is why nobody ever has made a faithful movie adaptation of this wonderful mystery. It is a tale of a really gripping mystery, nice old-fashioned romance, and dry English humor. Why did the makers have to change Richard Gordon from a Scotland Yard policeman to an amateur detective, introduce the idiotic role and caricature of his English servant, change the part of the main storyline about the murder charge and circumstances of Gordon's struggle to save the accused, etc., etc.? These producers and directors who always think they can make a better story than the one in the book should write the original script themselves and not to rape another person's product.

Sentiment: negative
I preface by stating I am a big fan of JJL and NOT one of Patrick. Therefore I watched this to see her performance and of course, it was excellent. I do not feel the director was adequate for the film as several very bad choices were made re: shot angles, blocking, etc. If the director was trying to give it a "realistic" feel, they failed and lost some good performances because of it. Nearly always felt that the camera was way too static, too far from intense facial reactions -- and so many times when the action depended on the intimacy of lead characters, the dialog was slow and plodding. This easily could have been resolved by cutaways or changes of camera angle. But the impression I got was that the budget was too small and only one camera was used! I also got the impression that perhaps scenes were shot multiple times and the energy coming from the actors was... used up.

Sentiment: negative
The is one of the worst spoofs I have ever seen. For one main reason: IT ISN'T FUNNY! I laughed a handful of times. The acting is bad, the script is worse. And why those guys had baby pacfiers in their hair I will never know. And you can tell this didn't have much of a budget to work with and it openly hurts the film. They had a good idea going in some parts but it never really came to past. And what was the point about the lead being older than his Dad? 3 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
This movie is one of my favourites. It is a genre-mixture with ingredients of the Action-/Horror-/Romantic-/Comedygenre. Some of the special effects may seem outdated compared to modern standards. This minor flaw is easily ignored. There is so much to discover in this story. The romantic relation between the two main characters is so beautiful that it hurts. The visuals are beautiful too. The action is great which is no surprise, it is originating from Honkong, birthplace of the world's best action movies. The humour sometimes seems a little bit silly but in a good way. Somehow this movie is being able to balance the different moods and keeps being good. Absolutely recommended.

Sentiment: positive
This could have been a rather entertaining film, but instead it ranks with other duds like Leeches and Rest In Pieces at the bottom of the cinematic food chain. Had they played this flick tongue-in-cheek, it could have been a very entertaining film, like Re-Animator or Dead ALive, but Juan Piquor Simon plays it tongue-in-cheek in spots but straight more often.

The premise of this film is a small community that is besieged by mutated slugs. There is an abandoned toxic waste dump near a sewer line that mutates the slugs into aggressive, meat-eating monsters - albeit monsters that move slowly and can be squished under your boot. Health Inspector Michael Garfiled and two accomplices are the only people that seem willing to fight the slugs while the sheriff and mayor think they are crazy. The climax is a laugh riot - unintentional at that - which makes you scratch your head as to how stupid (actors and screenwriter) the scenario of destroying the slugs is.

STORY: $$ (No new ground charted here. Simon seems to play the gore elements tongue-in-cheek but the dialogue is straight. Had Simon worked with a clever script - one with plenty of one-liners and eccentric characters, this could have been a cult film).

VIOLENCE: $$$ (You won't be letdown here. We get plenty of exploding chest cavity scenes as well as a grand head explosion in the middle of a fine Italian restaurant. The blood and guts, that many horror film watchers enjoy, is in full swing here. You also get corpses of people who have been picked clean by the slugs and plenty of slug smashing scenes).

ACTING: $ (Wow! Michael Garfield seems to know that this script is a stinker and he delivers his lines with a facial expression that suggests he knows how preposterous this film-making endeavor is. Kim Terry, as his wife, does an adequate job even though she does little beyond the hold-your-face-while-you-scream bit. The "teenagers" were all horrible actors - no exceptions. Man, this film could have used Bruce Dern or Jeffrey Combs!) 

NUDITY: $$ (Two teens get naughty in bed before they get dispatched - in a poorly done scene - by a horde of slugs that crawled into the girl's bedroom. Both male and female nudity here).

Sentiment: negative
1940's cartoon, banned nowadays probably because of the 'Black Beauty' gag, in which Daffy rides a black person as if it were a horse.

The whole story takes place in a bookstore, where the characters of the books come to life every evening. So we have, among others, the Ugly Duck (Daffy) and the wolf of Wallstreet. They wind up in a chase after the wolf tricked Daffy with a phony duck (hence the title).

And chase is all there is in this little cartoon, that doesn't have any real appeal nowadays. Only fun if you're a true fan of the Looney Tunes I guess...

4/10.

Sentiment: negative
I unwittingly walked into this "trap" of a movie.

If I could turn back time or simply get a refund I would be happy.

It was 7:30pm and Cinderella Man didn't start until 10pm so I rushed into the theater to catch the movie that started at 7:20pm...and I dare say God reached out his hand (or retracted it) and allowed me to punish myself for my film gluttony by sitting in for this film.

It may be unfair to criticize a movie that was not targeted at my heterosexual male cohort, however, there is no excuse for lousy sound and video editing. This movie was at most worthy of a highschool project budget...and I think I've seen better in those play acting French shorts that we used to do about Louis Laloupe.

Maybe it's because I'm Canadian and this film was for the LA fudge-packing crew and their sympathizing dames. Woe was me when I realized that then entire audience save me cracked up at all the jokes and entendres...I fully understood the hinted humor...but I just could not relate.

This show did show me, supposedly, how Gay men date and build relationships. However, even if it was their purpose of the movie, I feel that the "Gayness" was focused on too heavily....the humanity seemed lacking....but again, maybe that was the point...simply to be avant-gard...and to make a splash.

I guess with a low budget and poor equipment, you have to make your movie as "loud" as possible in order to get crowds and cash return. I really wish I had simply read my Sheldon Van Auken instead. Hehe...I was totally the wrong audience.

Sentiment: negative
Oh man, why? "Six Degrees" is a show about this so called theory that we all are linked by someone. If focus on the lives of a group of people and the consequences of their actions.

When I first heard of this show, it didn't caught my attention at all. It seemed too ordinary, actually. Then, i saw some episodes... and loved it! First of all, the characters. They are all well-written and different from each other. There's a alcohol addicted, a woman whose fiancée cheats on her, a woman who just lost her husband, a driver who has a troubled brother and so on... Unlike what we're used to, most of the characters interact with each other in casualties, like in our daily routines. Great! My favourite ones are Mae, Carlos and Whitney.

Then, the cast. They are all great. Jay Hernandez, from "Hostel", shows here his acting habilities in a more 3d character than his previous work as Paxton. The other ones give great performances too, specially Campbell Scott, who plays Steven and Bridget Moynahan, who plays Whitney.

Well when i came to IMDb, after watching some episodes, i couldn't believe that it got cancelled. Seriously, i can't understand the low ratings.

It's too bad it didn't have more than one season. It would really be a good show to follow!

Sentiment: positive
After watching the Next Action Star reality TV series, I was pleased to see the winners' movie right away. I was leery of such a showcase of new talent, but I was pleasantly surprised and thrilled. Billy Zane, of course, was his usual great self, but Corinne and Sean held their own beside him. It was also nice to see Jared and Jeanne (also from the competition) in their cameo roles. Sean's character, not Billy's, is the hunted, and his frustration at discovering new rules in the game is well played. Corinne walks the tightrope well between her character liking Sean's and only being in it for the money. I loved how the game was played right to the last second. And then beyond! Not a great movie, but an entertaining one all the way and a great showcase for two folks on their first time out of the gate.

Sentiment: positive
"The 40 Year Old Virgin" exists in a world I don't understand. A world where an electronics store employee can tell his boss to "f*** off" and broadcast videos of his naked ass throughout the store and not get reprimanded. A world where it's really funny to go drunk driving and smash into other peoples' cars. A world where it seems okay for a boss to sexually harass her underlings. A world full of raging and offensive stereotypes of ethnic minorities. And a world without any funny jokes! I am absolutely shocked at the seeming chorus of viewers who liked this movie. I thought every scene was like a bad Saturday Night Live sketch - not very funny to begin with, and stretched out beyond all rational thought. The chest-waxing scene went on FOREVER.

The characters, aside from Carell, were totally one-note. And the romantic elements were completely contrived, particularly the scene where Keener finds porn in Carell's apartment. That was just lame.

And I also found the "Aquarius" sequence totally annoying and excessive. I hated hated hated this movie!

Sentiment: negative
Frantic, somewhat mean spirited, infantile humor abounds in this city boy turned wannabe farmer tale. It is not outrageous enough to appeal to the Will Ferrell crowd, and not interesting enough to carry the feature length. The most I can praise "Son In Law" would be to say that for the most part it avoids toilet humor. The main problem is that all of the characters lack warmth, and Pauly Shore is so abrasive that he is a most unlikable hero. There are a few amusing bits involving farm animals, and that's about it. The story, what there is, is so simplistic and predictable, it makes "Jury Duty" seem like "Gone with the Wind". - MERK

Sentiment: negative
Documentary content: Amazing man, amazing movement he started, amazing stories- most of them yet to be really told.

Celluloid treatment: Nike Ad. Sorry, ain't got nothing else to say about this but that you can say all you want about the dire circumstances in the favelas, but... if you attempt to support that claim with flashy and romanticized images and camera-work of that life, the humbleness necessary to show this life as an outsider filmmaker goes out the window. And with that goes the legitimacy of the narrative. Besides that, the time-space continuum in the film is all off, and I'm not necessarily against that in films as a tool, but here it serves only to confuse the viewer into wondering what was said when; thus leading me to the question: is this a documentary or a docudrama?

cococravescinema.blogspot.com

Sentiment: negative
As a nice anecdote to one of the above comments: In was in Mumbai about two weeks before the release of this movie, I was approached -being white- to dub some of the lines of this movie in a recording studio.

While I speak German as well, i was kindly asked to do all dubbing scenes in English, otherwise it would be too confusing for the Indian audience... So therefore, all Germans in this movie actually speak English! funny enough i did multiple characters, so if you would want to actually spoil some time by watching the movie again, listen carefully; 

all non-Indian characters are only done by 4 voices! . . . .

Sentiment: negative
I have to be 100% honest with you fellow IMDb users. I wanted to see this movie for a very long time only because of the poster. Doesn't Charlotte Gainsbourg looks extremely sexy and charming smiling that way? I'm in love with that woman! I got what I expected...but only half. This film should deliver expectations for those who enjoy all kinds of romantic comedies or stories involving intelligent humor and light dramatic situations.

While I don't agree with another fellow IMDb user who states that the movie is overrated; I must admit that "Préte-moi ta main" has plenty of flaws.

My main problem with the film is the lack of on screen chemistry between the main characters. There isn't a single scene previous to the climax that shows the main characters sharing a moment "of romance" or even a clue to suggest that they're interested in each other.

In fact, the only scene were both share a moment is tremendously awkward (when both are in the couch) and does not help the audience understand about a possible love interest. I didn't buy the dinner sequence.

Still, the movie delivers very funny moments and has a strong dialogs that support such an ingenuous premise. I mean with ingenuous that it would be very difficult to execute such a farse by a 43 year old man in these days.

I understand it's a movie and that's why I accept it as a funny situation. Plus, the humor is versatile. There are moments involving S&M, funny lines with Chabat's best friend, some lesbian references, funny situations involving the family women, and more.

Charlotte Gaionsbourg's performance is top notch and she's by far the reason to watch the movie. She's funny, sexy, looks very thin and fine, and demonstrates she's a versatile and talented actress who can pull out a comedic and dramatic performance in sheer brilliance.

Alain Chabat is a fine actor and gives a very decent performance. I think the supporting cast do what they can.

The score, art direction, and other technical aspects are really good and give a dynamic look to the film.

Those who enjoy this kind of cinema should be pleased after the ending credits. It's a good example of feel good cinema.

Sentiment: positive
Had I been familiar with the stage production of Guys and Dolls before seeing the movie, I might not be as fond of it as I am. Although in all fairness, I would probably still like the film production better because of my general adoration of both Brando (for his acting) and Sinatra (for his voice, although he is quite the actor as well, see The Manchurian Candidate or From Here to Eternity.)

As for some of the other reviewers' statements about the songs, I have the Broadway soundtrack and though Isabel Bingley's voice outshines that of Jean Simmons, it is not more pleasant. I find it to have a rather shrill quality. Jean Simmons' voice is much more realistic, though admittedly, that is not always a huge concern in musicals. Also the only time I particularly noticed Marlon Brando's particularly weak vocal register was during his rendition of "Luck Be A Lady" and only there because I was previously familiar with Sinatra's version. I also find Vivian Blaine's voice to be much more pleasing in the movie than it is on Broadway. And Sinatra's voice alone would be able to redeem the failings of all the others, if they indeed were in need of redemption. (They weren't) It is infinitely better than Sam Levene's, particularly in my favorite song, 'Sue Me'. 

Also, the complaint that lots of songs were omitted from the movie for inferior songs, I beg to differ. 'A Bushel and a Peck' is hardly a gem and the song that replaced it, 'Pet Me Poppa" and its accompanying performance is more Hot Box material. I personally do not care for 'Marry the Man Today' at all and rejoice that it was not included in the movie. I adore 'I've Never Been In Love Before', and though it was not sung in the movie, the instrumental version can be heard when Nathan is in Adelaide's dressing room. The song 'A Woman In Love'expresses the same sentiment equally well and probably in a range that both of the stars could more capably reach. And the movie wouldn't be the same without the song 'Adelaide', not included on Broadway. In fact, if the movie soundtrack were available for sale, I'd recommend purchasing it instead of the Broadway. 

Though I have not seen the original production, I cannot imagine that the acting would be superior to that of the movie's lead actors. 

The important fact is that the story is as charming as ever and the acting and songs do not make it any less so.

Sentiment: positive
I just saw this at the 2006 Vancouver international film festival. The synopsis in the festival guide sounded pretty good so we decided to check this one out. I'm sorry to say I was very disappointed.

Besides being poorly written, it was boring. I won't take away from the actors as there is not much they could do with this bad script.

First bite was cliché without being ironic, over the top seriousness without being funny. The movie would have been better had Hunt Hoe went with a campy horror feel. Instead he took himself to seriously and this resulted with a boring film. I can't recommend this film. It felt too long and all in all just plain weak.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is so cheap, it's endearing!!! With Ron Liebmann (Major Vaughn) providing the most entertaining on-screen diatribes in film history. I own 2 copies of this movie on video...on one, Ralph Macchio is caught actually cracking up in the background at Major Vaugn while he is ranting at "Hash". Obviously they forgot to edit this mistake out of the film, but it goes to show just how funny the movie is, when the actors themselves can't keep a straight face!!!

Sentiment: positive
In 1895, in a small village in Japan, the wife of the litter carrier Gisaburo (Takahiro Tamura), Seki (Kazuko Yoshiyuki), has an affair with a man twenty-six years younger, Toyiji (Tatsuya Fuji). Toyiji becomes jealous of Gisaburo and plots with Seki to kill him. They strangle Gisaburo and dump his body inside a well in the woods, and Seki tells the locals that Gisaburo moved to Tokyo to work. Three years later, the locals gossip about the fate of Gisaburo, and Seki is haunted by his ghost. The situation becomes unbearable to Seki and Toyiji when a police authority comes to the village to investigate the disappearance of Gisaburo.

"Ai no Borei" is a surreal and supernatural love story. The remorse and the guilty complex of Seki make her see the ghost of her murdered husband, spoiling the perfect plot of her lover. The cinematography is jeopardized by the quality of the VHS released in Brazil, but there are very beautiful scenes, inclusive "Ringu" and the American remake "The Ring" use the view of the well from inside in the same angle. The performances and direction are excellent making "Ai no Borei" a great movie. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Império da Paixão" ("The Empire of Passion")

Sentiment: positive
I had been very curious to see the original six-hour miniseries that Steven Soderbergh's latest movie was based on, and now that I have, I am happy to say that one is not better than the other. They are both intelligent, involving and extremely entertaining. The only real advantage that the miniseries has over the movie is that it is three and a half hours longer, so we get to know the characters more in depth.

There isn't a false note to be had in this production, one that you should definitely make time for when PBS re-broadcasts this miniseries sometime in 2001. You won't regret it.

Sentiment: positive
This is a gripping story that borrows elements from the Kennedy assassination, and uses them successfully to create an excellent western tale.

The movie has a good music score, though it relies on repeating the title theme a little too much. Giuliano Gemma and the rest of the cast are superb. This is a more cerebral than usual spaghetti western that relies more on story than action, and it succeeds because the story is excellent. This is not to say that there is no action in the movie. There is plenty, and it is very well crafted. This movie pulls you in right away, and keeps you absorbed til the end. You'll always be wondering what's in those documents everyone's after. It also has some biting commentary on American politics.

This movie shows why Valerii, in my opinion, is in a three way tie with Sollima and Corbucci for second place in the rankings of spaghetti western directors.

Sentiment: positive
Of the four main players in here - John Candy, Jean Kelly, Amy Madigan and Macauley Caulkin - the only one I've never heard about (at that time) was the one that annoyed the heck out of me and ruined the film. Well, she must have done a decent job of acting to make me want to throw her and the VHS into the garbage pail. I am referring to Kelly in the role of teenage brat, "Tia Russell." Ironically, six years later she played a stunning and extremely likable role in the person of "Rowena Morgan" in "Mr. Holland's Opus."

Candy, as usual, is fun to watch as "Buck Russell," or the title character, "Uncle Buck." Few actors were better at playing a lovable, hapless slob than Candy. I enjoyed his character in here, but I cannot watch that spoiled teen girl more than once. Also, in the first few minutes of the film, the little boy "Miles" (Cauklin) says the word "G-damn." How bad is that, having a six-year-old kid saying the Lord's name in vain on film? These Hollywood people are such sickos. No wonder many of their child actors turn out to be mentally screwed up, Caulkin being a case in point.

Sentiment: negative
This is by far one of the better made movies and didn't leave me disappointed at all. The sound track along with finely shot hand-held camera work was exquisite . The are always chances a movie won't hold ones beliefs as well as another, but I felt that rhythm of this picture and the timing was excellent. Dakota Fanning is rapidly becoming a staple in movie that require a child with an old soul personality and she has never disappointed me with her talent. As for Mr. Washington and of course Christopher Walken they both exceed the challenge of showing the darkest sides of humanity trying to move to the light.

Sentiment: positive
Brothers with psychokinetic powers (yes, really) duel not just for Debra Winger's affections but really over a secret from their childhood that left them at odds over their powers.

There are surreal touches (the fire brigade that act like a singing Greek chorus), but there is also humour and romance. The soundtrack is great similar to the way American Werewolf in London used every great Wolf song they could get ~ but with fire ~ and I don't think I'll ever forget Dennis Quaid (mmmmm Dennis Quaid), setting his own trailer a rockin' to 'She's a lady' ~ priceless ;)

Best line missing from the quotes section btw ~ 'Once you've had a clown, you never go back!'

I love this movie (I ordered the DVD from the US) and if the comments written by the kind of people who'd be happier with Legally Blond 3 don't put you off ~ give it a try :)

Sentiment: positive
This is the slowest "film noir" film I've ever seen. Very weak script only provides opportunity for Jack Palance and Rod Steiger to deliver exceptionally well, lines that were made for an acting audition. Palance and Steiger both affirm they are indeed serious actors who can portray their respective roles with power, emotion and drama. The story itself moves at an incredibly slow pace, mostly taking place in a living room. The director obviously moved the actors around in a rythmatic circles as they delivered exhaustingly long lines, to keep the slow pace from becoming noticeable to the audience. The action doesn't pick up until the last ten minutes of the film. If you're one who's looking for more depth in a crime drama, this one's not for you!

Sentiment: negative
I wasn't really hoping for much when I went to see this. After Mst3king the heck out of JasonX with some friends though, I was hoping for a similar experience here.

Unfortunately the movie took itself way too seriously. Do I care about Jason's problems? I'm sorry no. There are a legion Ft13th movies that cover that anyway. At at then end of the day, he's an undead serial killer, I'm just not going to get that sympathetic.

Freddy was by far the most interesting aspect of the movie with the hallucinations and what not, but unfortunately they were few and far between and by the end of the movie, it had degenerated into a bad episode of celebrity deathmatch...only not funny.



Sentiment: negative
I can't get over the quality of the score, the book, and the performances. This is the first production I've ever seen of Sweeney Todd so I have no others to compare it to. But the impact is so strong, I just can't imagine anything better.

First, there's the music -- take "Johanna" (Act II), during which Sweeney, Anthony and Johanna sing an interwoven vocal line incorporating the melodies from three songs. It's like a Bach chorale in that sense -- just a masterpiece of composition. And the underlying chord structure and voicings are so perfect -- a little bit of melancholy, a little bit of contentment, a little bit of yearning, all expressing these three singers' points of view.

Then -- the lyrics. The rhymes are so clever. The rhyme schemes sometimes seem random but they always add up at the end. (The DVD, which I watched, has Closed Captions, and these are indispensable for appreciating the dialog and the lyrics.) Sondheim deserves a literary award for his poetry alone.

Finally, the performances. I can't imagine anyone better than George Hearn. Why haven't I heard of him before? His singing, alone, is masterful, but the range of his acting is simply amazing. Angela Lansbury totally surprised me. The song about "you and me down by the seaside" -- who could do it any better? Her timing is flawless, pitch is perfect, every beat of the score is accounted for; and overlaying this achievement in musicianship is her utterly delightful comic delivery.

It's a dark tale but I found it to be sweet at times; and the tune to "Johanna" continues to play in my head.

Sentiment: positive
Touching Bollywood epic melodrama about a 10 year-old girl who finds out that she's adopted, and is determined to find her birth mother. The film's major success is the performance of P.S. Keerthana, who plays the girl. The first half of the film is very good. There are a few really good songs, too, especially the number that introduces the protagonist. Unfortunately, the film's second half, which takes place in war-torn Sri Lanka, feels like an entirely different, and disappointing movie. It's big on explosions and special effects, with Sri Lankan soldiers and rebels dodging grenades, running from fireballs, and being yanked by stunt wires. All the film can offer as insight are cheap platitudes like, "Some day there must come peace" and "Perhaps the children will find a way". The final sequence, where the daughter and mother are reunited, is good, but so over-the-top with the music and a well-timed downpour that it feels like a cheat. I know, I know, it's all in the style of Bollywood. But this is a story where big moments simply detract from the simple, powerful central story. Bollywood could certainly use a little restraint at times, too.

Sentiment: positive
I found myself very caught up in this movie, at least at the beginning, and any credit I give to this movie, is Lacey Chabert, she was fantastic!! But thats where it ends. I seem to be very good at figuring out who the killer is, and I like it when a movie is able to completely baffel me, but I felt out and out lied to, they whole time they lead you in one direction and then suddenly they decided to go in a completely different direction at the end, they gave no hit to it at all, thats not misleading that very bad writing and planning, someone did not think at all!

I felt the movie would have been much better if they had stuck to the plot that the lead you on, they also seemed to not answer anything, why did Jane(maria) burn down the professor's house.

Its a great pity as I felt it started out as a relatively good movie.

Sentiment: negative
I have a question for the writers and producers of "Prozac Nation": What is the root cause and what is the solution to the widespread problem of personal depression in America? In the moving performance of Christina Ricci as Liz Wurtzel, the film portrays a young woman with unlimited potential as a Harvard student and as a writer. But this is not a story of success, only one of self-destruction as we watch Liz bring misery into the lives everyone who comes in contact with her. The film examines divorce, family dysfunction, drugs, alcohol, and prescription medication as possible reasons for Liz's unhappiness. But none of those superficial explanations are satisfactory.

At some point in the film, it would have been helpful to suggest that Liz needs to take responsibility for her life and her problems. No light was shed on what the film alleged to be a runaway problem in "The United States of Depression." In the story, Liz had a caring therapist (Anne Heche), a caring roommate (Michele Williams), a caring boyfriend (Jason Biggs), and a troubled but caring parent (Jessica Lange). In a key scene in the film, Liz is lying in a hospital bed watching the break-up of the space shuttle Challenger. Instead of equating Challenger with Liz's life, the film should have used the image as a starting point for her healing and recovery.

This film reminded me of a generic made-for-cable "victim" film on the Lifetime network. An excellent cast was wasted, especially in the earnest performance of Christina Ricci. The real-life Elizabeth Wurtzel obviously found within herself the resources to cope with her depression and become a successful author. It is unfortunate that the film could not offer us even the slightest glimpse into her courageous spirit.

Sentiment: negative
Although it's definitely an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours and it's always worth a watch, this film never quite meets the targets that it should for two reasons. Firstly, after the first forty-five minutes or so it focuses heavily on Helen and Johnny, who are far less interesting characters than most of the others - Janet, Jennifer, George and Miss Scattergoods are all much more enticing. Although at first this works, since in life we don't always know everything about everyone else, and because the point is being made that perhaps Helen is slightly self-involved, it quickly wears thin and we want to see more of the other characters.

Secondly, the film seems to lose its way in terms of plot in the second half. The letter itself holds far less significance than it does in the first half and, again, although this works well in some ways, it seems odd to leave so much of the potential displayed in the first half behind.

Overall, this film is sweet and good-natured, with some genuinely hilarious moments - for example, Janet explaining condiments to an avid audience. The lazy but quietly desperate atmosphere that Helen feels is heavy and the sense of living in a small seaside town is accurately portrayed, but the film isn't quite as intelligent as it's trying to be. It just misses being both a light romantic comedy and being a clever portrait of life. However, it's still good and if you get the chance, it's definitely worth seeing.

Sentiment: positive
I thoroughly enjoyed Gabrielle Burton's story of a mysterious gift and how it effects it recipients in the past and present. The talented Burton family of five film-making sisters, an author mother, and dancing dad offer a charming plot, respectfully edited for clarity , memorably chosen songs, and a beautifully filmed piece that made me laugh and cry as the characters' vulnerablility invited me into their predicamant. There was a farce-like attitude about this work with touching undertones of innocent wonder. Fanatastic

Sentiment: positive
"Fear of a Black Hat" is a superbly crafted film. I was laughing almost continuously from start to finish. If you have the means, I highly recommend viewing this movie It is, by far, the funniest movie I have had the pleasure to experience. Grab your stuff!

Sentiment: positive
Josh Hartnett's dead eyes, the thick writing of it, and Harrison Ford being in a buddy-cop comedy ! Here's 3 reasons to hate it, avoid it, and to utilize 116 minutes of your life better.

The buddy-cop movies are fun. However their real golden age was back in the 1980s and the 1990s. Making one that tries to mix action and comedy through the police of Hollywood itself is sure a good idea but the final result of that turned out to be not at least a spoof of the subgenre but a reason to ask God to have mercy upon all the past movies of the same kind whereas the worst of them was by all means greater than (Hollywood Homicide).

What really did happen to this entertaining formula ?! Since a whole decade the things hadn't been the same. You'd have a buddy-action stubborn flop after another. I'll delight you with some titles to catch on the disaster well : (I Spy - 2002), (National Security - 2003), (Taxi - 2004), (Starsky & Hutch - 2004), and the worst of them all yet (Miami Vice - 2006) ! 

I believe one of the reasons is the natural case of saturation after many similar cinematic flicks and TV shows during 2 decades already. Add to that, particularly here, the negligent dealing and the dull humor. Actually the matter this time is totally unbearable. Yes, we've got the characters of 2 loyal cops who have second jobs, and the background of sinful city, but what else was new ?! It's not about cliché; it's about few renewals mixed with clichés where both have been badly made.

The acting, especially from (Hartnett)'s side, is terrible. This guy is anything but a comedian (or actor !). So his character was wanting to revenge for his father's death ! Revenge on yourself man, he probably died out of watching your acting !!. Even the small roles got people that have nothing to do with comedy (or that's what they seemed here anyhow !).

The directing fails in presenting something that comic or that harsh, some parts managed to be highly dull (arresting the black guy through the lack ??) ; it's a rare time to be boring in what supposed to be action/comedy ! They didn't utilize Hollywood itself whether as an ironic place where there is ugly face behind the superficial charm, or even as a place which's full of shining or fallen stars (cameos that could've given it few interesting moments).

It's a very easy movie that relayed on being watchable by only its stars' glamour, and as being a Buddy-cop movie to end up as one of the worst cases of 2 stars with non-chemistry on the screen (one of them has no chemistry with the screen itself ! Guess who ?!), and a Buddy-Cop destroyer more than movie ! God, don't make me, or my children, live enough to witness (Hollywood Homicide  Part 2) ! At last, look at Harrison Ford's performance, he wanted to have a good time, but at least we didn't.

Sentiment: negative
Go immediately and rent this movie. It will be be on a bottom shelf in your local video store and will be covered in dust. No one will have touched it in years. It may even be a $.50 special! It's worth ten bucks, I swear! Buy it! There aren't very many films than can compare with this - the celluloid version of that goo that forms at the bottom of a trash can after a few years. Yes, I gave it a '1,' but it really deserves much lower. 1-10 scales were not designed with stuff like this in mind.

Sentiment: negative
How often do we live our romantic life as on the big screen, with torrid affairs and passionate encounters? Almost never, if what I see as normal life around me is anything to judge by. Romances, as previously stated, are hardly ever earthshaking affairs that leave you at the top of the world or batter and bruised.

Romance, in its every day form, as lived out millions of times over around the world, is a slow, subtle, and quiet affair. Something that grows in you, ever so slowly, probably without you even noticing it slowly taking over your being. No one can tell me when I am in love. For if someone did, I would not believe him anyway, for no one but me would know. And even then, it is just a feeling, a certain knowledge that you are feeling this exalting emotion. That you want nothing but the best for someone, that you would never want to see them suffer a moment of sadness. That you are willing to take a great degree of pain for them. I would not go so far as to say be willing to die for your loved one, for we are all human, and we do not know what we are capable of in the face of death until that moment is upon us.

Is the love between the main characters of the film, ever so subtle and understated, no less noble than that between Romeo and Juliet? The unstated emotions, the unsaid feelings, convey far more than any repeated shouts of "I love you". The restraint shown by the lead actor, displayed ever so poignantly in the scene where he watches his love interest through the cafe window, yet never did he move to make himself known to her, was simply heart-wrenching to watch. Would most of us be selfless enough to remain hidden, knowing that her emotions and feelings could not possibly be reciprocated?

On another note, how will I deal with my own certain death? While I can claim I have been seriously ill, I can not in all honesty say that I have ever come close to death. Will I be so calm, putting all my affairs in order, and leaving instructions for others to take up what I leave behind? I suspect I will be calm, for I will have little choice in the matter. Can I be so selfless? Again, the answer will have to be in the negative. I can empathize with the anguish, knowing that your life is forfeit, that fate has dealt you a fatal blow, and that future events, however little there are of them left, are no longer under your control.

Life is nothing more than a series of small events, the culmination of which may seem great for some in retrospect. But only very rarely.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is actually worse than most movies I've ever suffered through, and I've suffered through a lot. Absolute nonsense. It's got terrible, forced dialogue; pointless plot developments; really drawn out 'spooky imagery' scenes, which look more like a high school remedial art project than a horror movie; 5/10 at best attractive women; long, boring sex scenes involving said women (forget what you know about virgins! especially ones with lop- sided fake breasts); muttered, difficult to understand speech from some of the characters; and they actually used the masks from Killer Klowns from Outer Space during a masturbation scene, which should be a saving grace because that movie was pretty funny, but it isn't. Veden Fell is the lamest bad guy in the history of film. 

Absolutely give this one a miss.

Sentiment: negative
I found this film extremely disturbing. Treadwell is delusional and disturbed, to the point of probably suffering from a mental illness. The footage shown is him and not an actor, but yet it is showing behaviour that ended in death. Is it appropriate to show actual footage of a suicide? Let's not mince words. The film shows footage of behaviour that directly led to his death.

For those who think that Treadwell is some kind of hero, think again. The footage he shot is about him and not about the bears and foxes he claimed to be helping. He did no meaningful research into their habits or numbers and did nothing to actually protect them. All he did was run around in the bush and convince himself that he was better than everyone else. Reality is, by helping to desensitize the animals to humans, he exposed them to great risk. His self indulgent behaviour not caused his own death, but also the death of his companion Amy plus exposed his beloved bears and foxes to greater harm.

But I'm also concerned about Werner Herzog's actions in compiling this film the way he did.

A friend and I have had a long argument about this film who loved this film. He believes that seriously disturbed people make for interesting subjects and he cites the movie Downfall as an example. But in Downfall they use actors. We didn't see the real Madga Goebells put cyanide capsules into her own children's mouths.

There was something about using the real footage in Grizzly Man which reminded me of that horrible football stadium tragedy where people were being crushed to death and the photographers who could have helped, elected to simply keep recording the horror.

Herzog's film shows us that Treadwell's footage is more about Treadwell. But Herzog has done the same. His own personality and opinions are aired in this documentary, which is supposedly about someone else. Scenes such as the one where he listens to the tape are not necessary. We already knew what was on the tape because the coroner had told us. We didn't need Herzog shedding a tear with one of Treadwell's former girlfriends. It didn't add to the film.

The film showed us that Treadwell was very self-indulgent, but it also showed us that Herzog is as well.

Sentiment: negative
as a sequel,this is not a bad movie.i actually liked it better than the 1st one.i found it more entertaining.it seemed like it was shot documentary style.at first this bothered me,as i thought it just looked too low budget.but it grew on me,and it made the movie seem more authentic.this movie has more dry one liners than the original,which is a good thing,in my opinion.i do think at times they went a bit over the top with some of the scenes and the characters.it almost becomes a parody of itself,which may be the point.this movie at least has some suspense,which the 1st one did not have,in my view.it has some of the same great music from the original,which is great.the acting again was pretty decent for the most part,though like i said,some of it seemed over the top.i also felt that the movie loses a lot of momentum towards the end and there are a few minutes which seem really slow and just don't seem to flow,like the rest of the movie.overall,though,i thought this was a pretty sequel.my rating for "Return to Cabin by the Lake" is 7/10*

Sentiment: positive