DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This film tackles the subjects of loss, personal struggle and transformation in such a smart, artful, sensitive, and visually stunning way that I was completely transported. It is a rare gem of a film in the way it honors beauty and women. You'll have to see for yourself. Dreya Weber (Jane) masterfully portrays the subtleties of a remarkable if not somewhat broken personality, in a way that every woman will relate to. I found the honesty of the emotional interactions among characters to be very refreshing and profoundly engaging. There was nothing in this film that said to me "low budget" as far as quality is concerned. Nothing. The fact that it is a low-budget film is a tribute to the film's creators. The final sequence during the credits will also knock your socks off. It is a brilliant celebration of Jane's choice. Unexpected and inspiring.

Sentiment: positive
Last year we were treated to two movies about Truman Capote writing the book from which this film was made - Capote and Infamous.

I cannot imagine a movie like this being made in 1967. A stark, powerful and chillingly brutal drama; elevated to the status of a film classic by the masterful direction of Richard Brooks (Elmer Gantry, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, The professional, Blackboard Jungle).

It is interesting that Robert Blake, who starred in this film, has had so many problems of late that may be related to his portrayal of a killer in this film.

This is a film that stays with you after viewing.

Sentiment: positive
A unique blend of musical, film-noir and comedy - with a few sex scenes thrown in for good measure. The only other film I can think of with a fairly similarly wild and madcap mixture of themes and clichés is the French movie Billy Ze Kick - but that has a more surreal and quirky approach.

Not that this film would not be surreal or quirky. The humour is at times quite subtle, at other times blatantly in your face - and often crossing the border to offensiveness. To give an example: in the post-coital chit-chat with a prostitute our hero Max Müller encourages her to reveal who was responsible for a recent murder, using the words "Schiess los!". Literally, this phrase means "Shoot!" in German, and that is exactly what a hidden assassin does in response. In other words - this beautiful lady was sacrificed for a pun.

Müllers Büro is also one of the very rare examples of films with funny sex scenes. Larry's romance is accompanied by the song "Ich will mehr" (I want more) - while the song perfectly underpins the action, the meaning of its words changes a couple of times, hinting at the end at Larry's inability of providing any further service. The film's main love scene between Max Müller and Bettina Kant lacks such subtlety - this is jaw-dropping stuff, especially when Bettina's singing slowly transgresses into moaning, of course all in the rhythm of the music.

Unmissable, unless you are one of the easily offended.

Sentiment: positive
Fascinating look behind the scenes about how a really good movie CAN get made if the producers, director, & cast simply "refuse to quit." These guys encountered serious obstacles throughout the two years of the project (miniscule budget, trouble with the script and with the script writer) so the finished product wasn't what was first envisioned, but probably turned out to be more interesting than the movie they set out to make, which goes to show that the punk mentality of "just do it" ...with or without any backing, money, or help...figure it out on the fly and do what you want to do. I really liked this documentary movie and know that viewers will see and learn things they didn't know before. This movie is truly "one of a kind...it's hard to classify because it has pieces of "sci fi" and "suspense" and also "how to make a movie." It tells the truth about how films get made, what can go wrong, and how to overcome. I especially liked the music written by Ed Ivey. These guys know how to produce a good movie on a shoe string because they're creative and know how to build props, dollys, staging, lighting with what they can scavenge up...pretty amazing stuff.

Sentiment: positive
In the winter of 1931, supposedly 12-year-old Tyler Hoechlin (as Michael Sullivan Jr.) wonders what his mobster father Tom Hanks (Michael "Mike" Sullivan) does for a living. Young Hoechlin follows Mr. Hanks to "work" one evening, and witnesses him blasting away some rival gangsters. This leads - in a VERY roundabout way - to "Godfather"-type Paul Newman (as John Rooney) hiring independent hit-man Jude Law (as Harlen Maguire) to track down Hoechlin and Hanks, who are off to cool their heels in Chicago. Hanks thinks they will be safe with a relative, which is puzzling when you consider the characters' line of work.

Looking uncannily like Paul Peterson ("The Donna Reed Show"), Hoechlin does a terrific job for director Sam Mendes; and, getting to work with this cast makes him the luckiest young actor of 2002. But, the most striking thing about "Road to Perdition" is the stunning cinematography of Conrad L. Hall, which deservedly won a career capping "Academy Award" for the late photographer. Mr. Hall's work is truly superlative. This helps make up for the overall impression of a measured, contrived staginess to both the narrative and visuals. The deviating end is abruptly uplifting (the unrelated dog is an example of the aforementioned staginess).

******** Road to Perdition (7/12/02) Sam Mendes ~ Tom Hanks, Tyler Hoechlin, Paul Newman, Jude Law

Sentiment: positive
I recently had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Hauer at the 2005 Sarasota Film Festival for the U.S. premier of this film. Not only was he gracious enough to autograph my copy of BLADE RUNNER, he took the time to answer some questions about the film before screening THE ROOM for a packed theatre. 

I was so impressed by the film that I used it as the yardstick by which to compare all other films I had seen at the festival. It was powerful and moving, yet subtle and brief. The film tells the story of how a young man, (older version played by Rutger) one day finds himself entranced by a seemingly ordinary room in an unremarkable building near the street. Walking by, he notices a single window, always open, from which a haunting melody can be heard. Each day, he passes by the room, sometimes standing for hours outside, watching it through the silken drapes that flutter in the light breeze, hoping to get a glimpse of its occupants. Towards the end of the film, we find out how significant this room really is and what has drawn our protagonist to it. 

The film was cut beautifully. Not a second of screen time was wasted on an uninteresting shot. Any single frame from the film could stand alone in an art gallery. Rutger is amazing. He is mysterious, yet approachable. His dialogue encompasses a series of reflections on a life that has run it's course, for better or worse. His words conjure familiar feelings and thoughts from the audience. I was particularly moved by a scene in which he is looking at some old photos, remembering his favourite dog, his favourite horse and his first love. You get the feeling that you are in his presence, as he allows you into his world to glimpse precious memories of a life that is nearing its end.

I loved this film and would recommend it to anyone who is looking for something fresh, intelligent and moving. Should be required viewing for all film majors.

Sentiment: positive
If in the 90's you're adapting a book written in the 50's, set the bloody thing in the 50's and not the '90's. See, 40 year old mores and values tend not to play as well, or ring as true, that far down the road. It's a simple rule that Hollywood habitually keeps violating. And that's the problem with this film. It should have been set in the era it was written in. You'd think that would be a no-brainer, but nooo. I'd elaborate, but bmacv's comment spells it out quite well. I'll limit my commentary to Rachel Ward. She looks like she dieted her ass completely out of existence for this role. As a result, she looks like a crack ho' on chemotherapy, and is about as sexy as a gay leather couch in drag. I found her "I could die at any moment" look quite disconcerting, and it greatly detracted from her supposed "hotness" and the "sexual tension" the film intended to create. Other than that, the film was quite good; a 7+ out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
If Bob Ludlum was to see this mini series, he would have cried. This was complete waste of time and money. I have read the book and even though movies are not exactly what the book may be, CBS wasted time and money on this and it is embarrassing to claim that this was Ludlum's work.

May be the creator should check out the Bourne Identity with Richard Chamberlain and see how good that TV series was.

Poor Mira, Blair, Anjelica and Colm, why did they sign to stoop this low?

Horrible!!

Sentiment: negative
I was aware of Rohmer's admiration for the late works of the ones he considered like great cineasts, and that normal spectators generally considered as artistic failures (as Renoir's or Chaplin's very last movies ; yes, the "politique des auteurs" also has its dark side). But with "Les amours d'Astrée et de Céladon", it's as if Rohmer himself wanted, for what may be his last movie, to perpetuate this tradition of great directors, who made a last senile movie, by adapting Urfé's "L'astrée", with ridiculous aesthetic codes, witch just look like a parody of Rosselini's last movies (the ones he made for TV from Descartes or Marx's lives).

In his version of "Perceval", Rohmer refused to film real landscapes in order to give a re-transcription of what may have been a middle age classical representation of things. The director apparently changed his mind when the XVII century is involved, and films actors, dressed like 1600's peasants reciting their antic text surrounded by contemporary trees and landscapes. But the all thing looks even more ridiculous than Luchini and its fake trees. It's not that the story itself is stupid, but the way Rohmer mixes naturalism with artifices seems so childish and amateurism that it rapidly becomes involuntarily funny (and I'm not even talking about the irritating pronunciation of the actors, the annoying and sad humorist tries by Rodolphe Pauly, the ridiculous soft-erotic tone, the poor musical tentatives, or the strange fascination for trasvestisment!).

The radical aesthetic of the film ultimately makes it looks like a joke, which mixes a soft-erotic movie made for TV with theological scholastic discussions (sic !). At the beginning of the movie, Rohmer teaches us that the original french region of the story is now disfigured by modernity, and that's why he had to film "L'Astrée" in other parts of the country. However, I'm sure the movie would have look more modern and interesting, if Rohmer would have actually still filmed the same story in a modern area with same narrative codes and artistically decisions. This film may interest a few historians, but most of the cinephiles may laugh at this last and sad Rohmer's movie.

Sentiment: negative
I just saw this last night, it was broadcast on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's 'Passionate Eye' series. It has been screened recently (Sept. 2003) at the Toronto International Film Festival as well as many others. It is a quite remarkable film. The filmmakers literally stumbled into the story, being there to make a documentary about Chavez himself. Instead, they found themselves squarely in the middle of events as the coup unfolded. They had unprecedented access to events and people and, for the most part, let the story unfold as it happens. They, of course, have their own ideological perspective (which they make evident) but they keep themselves in the background and instead try to focus attention on the events, the people, and the background and history leading up to the coup. As a film, it is not ground-breaking in a stylistic or aesthetic sense, and that is, I think, the way it should be. What we get to see what 'embedded' journalism should really be. What we get to see is a remarkable account of a country struggling to attain democracy... a charismatic leader (Chavez) who actually cares for his people... a story about power and greed as a coalition of corporate/military/media interests combine to lead a coup of a democratically elected leader... and unprecedented access to a historical event as it unfolds.



Sentiment: positive
A family (mother-Patricia Clarkson, father-Jake Weber, son-Erik Per Sullivan) go out for a family get together in some remote house in the middle of winter. They accidentally hit a deer while driving there. This angers some of the locals--especially Otis (John Speredakos) and things slowly (VERY slowly) go wrong.

I was expecting the worst when I started watching this. The bulk of the reviews for this, on this site, are extremely negative. Well...I disagree. First off it's NOT a horror film. The horror doesn't even begin until the closing 30 minutes. It plays more like a family drama with horror elements thrown in. On that level, it's pretty damn good.

First--the bad stuff: The pace is WAY too slow; Jake Weber is a horrible actor; WAY too many false dream sequence scares; the wendigo barely figures into the film and the clear view we get of the wendigo at the end is laughable.

The good stuff: Pretty good dramatic script; Clarkson is excellent as the mother; some great direction with eerie sound effects which are a little scary; a pretty explicit hot sex sequence between Clarkson and Weber (which actually is necessary for the integrity of the plot!); pretty good acting by Sullivan (only 10 at the time!) and Speredakos and a completely unexpected tragic ending.

I think many people are annoyed with this film because it's being pushed as a horror film--which it isn't. So, if you can ignore that, I think you might like it. I'm giving it a 7.

Sentiment: positive
I've read a lot of reviews about Showtime on IMDb and many seem to miss the mark. I've noticed a lot of reviewers calling this the typical "buddy" film. De Niro is in no way Murphy's buddy throughout most of this movie. In fact, part of the comedy of this film is De Niro's reluctance to be friends with anybody.

Murphy really shines in this one. He is back at doing what he does best, acting like a complete ham. He is a cop who wants so much to be an actor and enjoys being in the reality show. De Niro is perfect as the straight man who thinks the entire thing is stupid. I thought the two of them had great chemistry and were a perfect casting choice. Rene Russo is also great as the TV producer. Of course, she loves everything Murphy does and tries so hard (along with Murhpy) to get DeNiro going too.

A lot of reviewers have touched on the hilarious scene with William Shatner, reprising his role as TJ Hooker to train Murhpy & De Niro how to "act" like cops. But, my favorite scene involves Murphy in the "confessional" hoping he could get a Wesly Snipes-Like cop to team up with instead of De Niro. Man, that was hilarious! Comedies often depend on your personal tastes. Sure you could poke holes in the plot, most often you can with a comedy. I was psyched to see the pairing of Murphy and De Niro...I think it brought out the best in Murphy, which was nice to see him at the top of his game again. I can only imagine it was a great honor for Murphy to be paired with the great De Niro. Rating 8 of 10 stars.

Sentiment: positive
if you watch this at home on DVD or Bluray! be sure you have great sound system. the musical score through this is what moves you through the movie. I have watched the movie several times and thought it was great but after just up-grading my home theater sound system, what a difference. I will be watching this movie many, many more times.

if you do not have a great sound system. find a friend who does and watch it there.

also watch the extra stories and behind the scenes extras that come with it (the BR or DVD.) the interview of Quimet in the 1960's talks about his scholarship fund...but for those times just boys got it. today I hope some of it goes to girls.......

Sentiment: positive
I don't know what I missed here, but I can't believe all these positive comments by so many people on this film. I thought it was silly, and a bit over the top. I did like the performances of Gregg Henry and Michael Rooker, however the others were just... boring.

Now I like B movies, I really do, but this was a bit further down the alphabet for me. I saw someone compare the humor and horror in this to "Army Of Darkness" and "Shaun of the Dead", as well as "On par with The Re-Animator". You must be joking. I didn't find this film funny, it tried, it did make an effort, (possibly too much of an effort), but it failed in my opinion. By the time I was hit with the 3rd or 4th one-liner I was rolling my eyes and checking my watch.

There were definitely homages made to several other films, which is always cool, kind of like an inside joke for us horror fans. But here it may have just been a lack of original thought. Admittedly there were some nice special effects, good gore, but that can't carry an entire movie. The mutated Grant looked like a cross between Jabba the Hut, and in the early stages of mutation- Chet from "Weird Science" (after he was turned into the monster) and one of the alien creature/children from "The Explorers". It just didn't work. I thought it looked like something some kid from Grade 5 art class could have designed. Then there was Brenda, the woman that Grant impregnated and chained up in the barn. When help finally arrived she looked like a giant tick waiting to be popped. The design once again was totally unimaginative. A round flesh colored balloon with a face in the middle. *yawn* 

Now about the zombies- The more movies I see with zombies in them these days the more I wish George A. Romero had a patent on them and was the only writer/director allowed to make movies about them. He's the only person so far to do it right, with the exception of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg (but that was a comedy). Oh, and Danny Boyle, but they were a different style of Zombie. Maybe Mr. Romero has ruined any zombie film for me due to his ingenious ability to get his actors to moan, groan and shamble about as if their joints are dried up and lacking even a drop of synovial fluid, and their muscles are fighting the effects caused by rigor mortis that had started to set in right before they were re-animated. The people of "Wheelsy" just didn't have the proper motivation... they were horrible zombies.

So in the end I give "Slither" a 3, for a couple of laughs and a few nice gore scenes.

Sentiment: negative
What a delightful film...

Accompanied by Oscar-winning Composer RACHEL PORTMAN's lush, emotional and dreamy music, this film remains a pure delight worthy of viewing more than once a year.

Incredible casting...

Gwyneth Paltrow was perfect for the role of Emma. Toni Collette was great as Harriett Smith.

The character who stole the film was MISS BATES!!! She was mesmerizing to watch, one finds oneself on the edge of ones' seat just hanging on her every word and laughing hysterically WITH her. One of the most endearing characters I have come across in ages. From one of the opening scenes when she is thanking Mr. Woodhouse for sending "that lovely quarter-hind of pork... PORK, MOTHER!!!" she shouts into her daffy and clearly hearing impaired Mother, Mrs. Bates (played by Emma Thompson's mother, Phyllida Law) who looks forlorn and lost.

The comical ways that Emma would avoid the grating Miss Bates builds itself up for one truly gut-wrenching scene at the picnic when Emma insults Miss Bates who takes her cruel dig to her heart. We then see poor Miss Bates stammering and on the verge of tears and just so crushed one can not help but feel one's heart ripped out to her on her behalf. It is a classic scene, one to be rewound and played over & over...

The ending is right up there with "Sense & Sensibility" and provides one of life's greatest lessons about how one should marry one's best friend...

I hope that this film delights you all as much as it has myself.

I ADORED it!

Sentiment: positive
The back cover of the DVD (missed this one when it came out) hails Hitler -the Rise Of Evil as "A Triumph" (The New York Post) and "Mesmerizing" (Newsweek).

Well,never mind the Post but really, who ever wrote that word in Newsweek in the same context with this peace of, ahem, art should be sacked.

I don't no where to start with. Why try to paint the picture of Hitler's evil with colors that did not exist? He was evil alright, but now his character is portrayed in way that is often historically inaccurate (compared to his love of animals, the gentle and subdued way he treated women) and so on.

The actors are good, so you must feel sorry for them as they are imprisoned inside their one-dimensional characters. Some kind of curse here with Peter O' Toole: This is the second time in his honorable career when he has ended up playing an old and failed leader in a failed movie (or in this case TV-production, to be accurate). The first one was of course the legendary Galigula.

The list of historically inaccurate scenes alone would fill the 1000 words allowed by IMDb, so I think I'll leave it here.

This one is OK if it's on telly and you don't have anything else to do, but believe me - it's best left on the shelf in your local Virgin store.

Sentiment: negative
This series premiered on the cable TV station "Comedy Central" in the United States. It was chopped to death, and shown out of sequence. This was sad for the audience it should have attracted, it didn't and fell by the wayside. Luckily, at the same time my cable company went digital and I got the BBC. Thank goodness because I got to see "The League of Gentlemen" in order, complete and uncut. 

"The League of Gentlemen" troupe is right up there with England's "Monty Python's Flying Circus" and Canada's "The Kids in the Hall". But..a warning.

"The League of Gentlemen" though are one step beyond. It's not only about dressing in drag and lampooning the cultural ills, it goes deeper and much, much, darker. I can tell many of you now -- it will offend certain groups of people, it will enrage others. But remember, its only comedy..dark, dark comedy. If that is not your thing, don't watch. If you think you KNOW dark comedy, watch this -- if you get angry and upset, then you don't quite know DARK COMEDY. 

These guys got it right, and right on the button. They are brilliant, they are excellent and I enjoyed each and every character creation. There's a COMPLETE story that is told here from episode one to the end. You cannot watch this one episode at a time, willy nilly, that is one of the charms of this series. Watch it in order. See how creative and stylish and deeply disturbed these guys are. No one and nothing is out of bounds. That, my dears, is "dark humor". Bravo!

Sentiment: positive
I'm not a big fan of most anime, but Gundam Wing is truly something else. Gundam wing lacks all of that stereotypical melodrama that you might think of when you think of anime, since the number of jokes made over the 17 hours would only be in the double digits, Gundam Wing gets right down to business. 

Gundam Wing is as much of a political thriller as it is an action series. Large parts focus on the diplomatic dealings of a war, not only the battles. Though battle animation lacks extreme detail in cases where it would just be a pain to animate, individual duels between gundams are almost pieces of art considering the animated use of complex mechanics and rapid movements. 

To my knowledge, this 49 episode plus one movie series was picked up by cartoon network in 2000, and then professionally dubbed by them too. the dubbing is simply flawless. not only does every word said match up, but the voices use truly make the characters much more believable. many believe that it is best to watch anime with subs in English, but i simply don't have the determination to do that. 

Not only are the voices good, but the score used over the series is quite impressive. I'll just say it left me scouring the net in vain to find a soundtrack. 

The plot of this series is what will truly hook viewers, and no, not hook you like some prime time drama like Lost which was only made for the purpose of hooking you. explaining the plot deeply would lead to many spoilers, since many of the characters do not even have names until quite a few episodes into the series. The rough idea of the series is that earth and its now independent space colonies are having difficulty maintaining peace. Thus a war is started, leading to military coups and elaborate diplomatic situations. I feel that any more detail would begin to give away information, which is crucial to the plot. 

I'll end here saying that this series is great for anyone that likes anime, anyone that thinks ALL anime is stupid (they have good reason to think so), and anyone looking to get into anime with a serious tone to it.

Sentiment: positive
Truly a great film... I stumbled onto it at the video store and rented it because Aaron Eckhart (In the Company of Men and Your Friends and Neighbors) was in it as well as Paulina Porizcova... The lovely former SI swimsuit model does get nude in the film, but that is only one of the many reasons to rent it... It's very exciting, and the character development is fantastic... Eckhart is one of the most underrated actors working, and he steals this film... It is very dark and violent, but I enjoyed in immensely....

Sentiment: positive
Van Dien must cringe with embarrassment at the memory of this ludicrously poor film, as indeed must every single individual involved. To be honest I am rather embarrassed to admit I watched it from start to finish. Production values are somewhere between the original series of 'Crossroads' and 'Prisoner Cell Block H'. Most five year olds would be able to come up with more realistic dialogue and a more plausible plot. As for the acting performances, if you can imagine the most rubbish porno you have ever seen - one of those ones where the action is padded out with some interminable 'story' to explain how some pouting old peroxide blonde boiler has come to be getting spit-roasted by a couple of blokes with moustaches - you will have some idea of the standard of acting in 'Maiden Voyage'. Worse still, you can't even fast forward to the sex scenes, because there aren't any. An appallingly dreadful film.

Sentiment: negative
Terrible film made on a budget of about $9.99. Very obvious miniature sets used, poor acting and an awful storyline concerning aliens who use discarded meat from a butcher shop as fuel for their spaceship. The film contains some blood (not enough to disturb) and a character with an eggbeater replacing one of his hands. (Yes you read that correctly.)

One saving grace was a song performed at the "talent show" (how's that for irony?) by a punk/new wave band that I think was called "I'm A Heat Seeking Missile". Other than that, this is not worth your time, not even on a "so bad it's good" level. Watch if you are into cheesy alien films, but anyone else should steer clear. 

Rating: 1 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
It's sometimes difficult to watch such self-avowed "message films" from an earlier, seemingly-simpler era without a certain degree of cynicism. The issue of racism and religious tolerance is one that has been drummed into us from an early age, and, as we've grown, teachers and authority figures have sought out less blatant yet equally-effective means of getting the message across. 'The House I Live In (1945)' is about as unsubtle as "message films" come, and Frank Sinatra seems to be treating his audience like a child  indeed, perhaps this was the point, as the short was no doubt intended primarily to influence younger film-goers. Even so, I found myself curiously affected when Sinatra launched into that sincere patriotic speech about what it really means to be an American and I'm not even an American! Released just two months after the end of WWII, director Mervyn LeRoy greeted war-weary audiences with a message of tolerance, togetherness and, above all else, hope. The music ain't bad, either.

Fresh-faced Frank Sinatra  already a star, but not yet the superstar he'd become  opens the film in a recording studio, booming out "If You Are But a Dream" with a full orchestral accompaniment. When, between songs, Frank goes outside for a smoko, he observes a large group of kids bullying a young Jewish boy, their taunts provoked purely by his differing religion. Ol' Blue Eyes quickly puts a stop to this childish behaviour, delicately branding the bullies "Nazi werewolves" and scolding their irrational prejudice. He then earnestly and good-naturely lectures the group on the plain silliness of racial and religious discrimination, assuring them that every American culture, however it differs from our own, is still American at heart unless, of course, you're one of those bloody "Japs." There's a hint of hypocrisy in pleading for racial tolerance while presenting one nation as the collective enemy, though you could hardly blame Hollywood for being less than enthusiastic about the plight of the Japanese in 1945.

Sinatra drives his point home with a wonderfully heartwarming rendition of "The House I Live In," which was written in 1943 by Abel Meeropol. When the songwriter first heard the song on film, he was furious that the filmmakers had completely excluded three of his verses, which he considered crucial to the message. These omissions were most likely due to time restraints, but Meeropol understandably didn't take too kindly to them, and reportedly had to be ejected from the cinema. When it was first released, 'The House I Live In' was deemed such an important short film that it won a Golden Globe for "Best Film for Promoting International Good Will" and a Honorary Oscar for all involved. In 2007, it was judged to be "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant" and added to the Library of Congress' National Film Registry, which is how I came to hear of it. While its approach may seem a little hokey sixty years later, this film remains quite watchable thanks to a young fella named Frank Sinatra.

Sentiment: positive
Look, we rated this a 10 on entertainment value. It's a comedy sure, not an epic like Lord of the Rings, or Gone with the Wind. Still for comedy, particularly these days, it's a 10.

Not a long movie, moves quickly and easily. Kelsey Grammar right at home is this role as a loose but brilliant captain of a diesel sub, pitted against the US Nuclear Navy in a war game, designed to see if Terrorists could get a nuclear bomb through our defenses. (kinda ironic this plot...pre 911) Don't take this topic seriously cause it's mostly laughs from start to finish.

Rob Schneider is 2nd in command (like "Frank Burns") and pulls many laughs. All the others are perfect for their parts as well. Rip Torn and Bruce Dern.

Look plain and simple, you got 90 minutes and need a laugh or pick me up and you're not a prude (their is some language and innuendo) then rent it, or buy it (we did) and enjoy! I wish they would make a part 2!

Sentiment: positive
I'm gettin' sick of movies that sound entertaining in a one-line synopsis then end up being equal to what you'd find in the bottom center of a compost heap.

Who knows: "Witchery" may have sounded interesting in a pitch to the studios, even with a "big name cast" (like Blair and Hasselhoff - wink-wink, nudge-nudge) and the effervescent likes of Hildegard Knef (I dunno, some woman...).

But on film, it just falls apart faster than a papier-mache sculpture in a rainstorm. Seems these unfortunate folks are trapped in an island mansion off the Eastern seaboard, and one of them (a woman, I'd guess) is being targeted by a satanic cult to bear the child of hell while the others are offed in grotesque, tortuous ways. 

Okay, right there you have a cross-section of plots from "The Exorcist", "The Omen", "Ten Little Indians" and a few other lesser movies in the satanic-worshippers-run-amok line. None of it is very entertaining and for the most part, you'll cringe your way from scene to scene until it's over.

No, not even Linda Blair and David Hasselhoff help matters much. They're just in it to pick up a paycheck and don't seem very intent on giving it their "all". 

From the looks of it, Hasselhoff probably wishes he were back on the beack with Pam Anderson (and who can blame him?) and Linda... well, who knows; a celebrity PETA benefit or pro-am golf tour or whatever it is she's in to nowadays.

And the torture scenes! Ecchhhh. You'll see people get their mouths sewn shut, dangled up inside roaring fireplaces, strung up in trees during a violent storm, vessels bursting out of their necks, etc, etc. Sheesh, and I thought "Mark of the Devil" was the most sadistic movie I'd seen....

Don't bother. It's not worth your time. I can't believe I told you as much as I did. If you do watch it, just see if you can count the cliches. And yes, Blair gets possessed, as if you didn't see THAT coming down Main Street followed by a marching band.

No stars. "Witchery" - these witches will give you itches.

Sentiment: negative
my friend and i rented this one a few nights ago. and, i must say, this is the single best movie i have ever seen. i mean, woah! "dude, we better get some brew before this joint closes" and "dude, linda's not wearin' a bra again." what poetry! woah! and it's such a wonderfuly original movie, too. i mean, you don't usually find a slasher film where every single murder is exactly the same. i mean, exactly! now that's originality. and almost all the transitions between scenes are these great close-ups of the psycho in the ER scrubs. how cool! the acting is so wonderful to. the dad was just brilliant. must have studied REAL DADS before filming. and how many movies do you find that just don't make any sense? not many. but this is one of those gems. i mean, how cool is it that one guy waited outside for like six hours to pull a prank, while his friends were both inside? that's really cool. overall i'd say this is the single greatest film of the genre, nay, in the world! *****

Sentiment: negative
*Warning - no plot spoilers ahead, but movie spoilers nonetheless...* My significant other rented this for me thinking it would be a terrific romance with an all-star cast. Wow - very, very wrong. This movie is an overdone, overwrought, and overly sentimental excuse to theatrically release a student film 15 years after it was shot! The copyright date on the box said 2005, yet during the very first flashback sequence I was looking at the clothes and hairdos that were supposed to be the early 1960s, and noticed that the girls especially were wearing late 80s/early 90s dresses and hairdos. It looked as if it had been shot a good 15 or 20 years before the rest of the film! I tried to convenience myself that it was a flashback, and therefore supposed to look old, but it looked WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY more 80s than 60s or even 21st century trying to be 60s... then an adult coworker of the lead character turns up, and he looks just like the boy featured in the flashback sequences (yet it's a different, much older character whose youth is featured in the flashbacks). I was completely confused until I saw in the special features the short film included - it was all the flashback sequences, shot in 1990 as a complete student film of the same title as this movie! It also features commentary that includes the little boy all grown up (and indeed acting the co-worker in the 2005 scenes). Thus, this movie is just a shell of story woven around an old, re-cut student film put together as an obvious excuse to get it up to theatrical running time. The shell story, shot in 2005, is mostly about a man who has lost his wife and finds healing and redemption at the dance class that he promises a dying man he will attend in his stead (something about a promise made by the dying man in the early 60's to his girl that they would meet on the "fifth day of the fifth month of the fifth year of the new millennium - an excuse to shoot the segments around the old film in 2005?) These new scenes and plot might have been OK except the awful, overly sentimental score that repeats ad nauseum over almost every single new scene and the clichéd action that permeates the new movie. Don't bother. There's a reason why you've never heard of this movie even though it has a well-known cast - it's terrible.

Sentiment: negative
My Take: Makes use of its familiar plot with fine performances and a few genuine moments of excitement. 

The plot is familiar. An innocent man is framed for a plot to assassinate the President of the United States, the first traitor in the United States Secret Service. As his fellow secret-service agents pursue him, he tries to prove his innocence. Of course we know his innocent, and the real culprit is just around the corner, but I was still entertained by THE SENTINEL. In this time where thrillers are reduced to being too ludicrous and too abundant in action sequences, THE SENTINEL is a good lick-back to all those good old-fashioned political crime thriller. The familiar plot is elevated by neat thrilling sequences and terrific performances.

Michael Douglas, the perfect man for the job, is long-running Secret Service agent Pete Garrison, who is framed for being part of a plot to assassinate the President. Former colleagues in the secret service (Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria) pursue Harrison while he tries to find out who is behind the possible assassination and the traitor in the Secret Service. This leads to a lot of chase scenes that, surprisingly (and thankfully), are never unbelievable. The screenplay also offers a subplot involving Garrison having an affair with the First Lady (played by Kim Basinger). This thankfully wasn't unnecessary like most subplots are to these kinds of films.

The films director is Clark Johnson (S.W.A.T.) who manages to make the film look good. Although many have criticized it as "should have been a TV movie", I must disagree. Agreed, this is not a perfect film, and much of it is inspired from other action thrillers and political intrigues like IN THE LINE OF FIRE or an episode from the TV series 24 (which this film closely resembles when it comes to style and star Sutherland), but even so, this film takes its plot into serious heights and doesn't abandon even its smaller details. The performances are terrific (with a top-notch cast, its bound to be, even with the by-the-numbers script.

All-in-all, I award it ***1/2, not perfect, but not far from it.

Rating: ***1/2 out of 5.

Sentiment: positive
One of my favorite movies. Great cast, lead by Jonathan Silverman and Blythe Danner. Serious drama situations with brilliant comedic punches. An exact mixture of character and story. Real people with real problems, and everyone has a different relationship with each family member. Sensitively moves from slightly-sad to hilariously-funny. Read the quotes. This is the best adaptation of a Neil Simon play.

If you wanna see more of Eugene check Biloxi Blues (starring Matthew Broderick who played in both stage versions) is OK, a bit on a darker side. Get away from the made-for-TV Broadway Bound.

Sentiment: positive
There is no denying it. Sci-fi on TV is difficult. There are so many problems that the genre brings with it. Like the need for a good budget, solid writing, decent acting. Perhaps the budget and the script writing is the departments where i feel most attempts have failed. So does "Surface" succeed? Not completely, but more so than most.

The way i see it, a good sci-fi show doesn't really need a lot of CGI to work, nor does it need a ton of money. What it needs is the capacity to create a larger-than-life feeling. The feeling that there is more than meets the eye, something to make me curious and willing to try and figure out how it's going to end. Adding the pieces of the puzzle and sometimes saying "Aha!" is what makes or breaks a show like this one.

"Surface" had a couple of flaws. First of all it's basic premise is not as exciting as it could have been, nor is the revealed story as exciting (or daring) as i hoped in the beginning. Also the TV-feeling is very present much of the time. All the way from the crappy CGI (that ranges from decent to awful) to the rather shifting quality in the acting department. Also it feels sometimes a bit too family-oriented in that it takes the edge of sometimes and becomes almost cutesy. But aside from these flaws it's an enjoyable show. Maybe not as spectacular as some of the other sci-fi shows out there. But it manages to keep me interested the whole season and it offers a couple of nice cliffhangers between shows as well. The ending for me is not that appealing. I don't like shows that end without ending so to speak, leaving the story unresolved. It's especially unfortunate in this case since the show seems to be canceled after the first season (it is as of yet undecided).

HBO is to me the benchmark for quality television. Their series have the best actors, the best production values and above all the most solid writing. This is not HBO-quality, but it's good for what it is. Good enough to want another season without a doubt.

Sentiment: positive
This is a classic street punk & rock movie. If you remember those times out on the city streets 14 years old two in the morning and nothing better to do than skate from friends house to friends house and sparking it. This movie brings back old memeries.

Sentiment: positive
A tight-knit musical family, cranky-benevolent father and four vivacious adolescent daughters, is up-rooted by, first, the appearance of Felix, a dashing young composer, and, secondly and most profoundly, Mickey, his insolently attractive orchestrator friend.

It takes a while for Michael Curtiz to get this piece of Americana floating. The first part looks almost like a paraphrasing of a cereal commercial, not without a certain quaint, highly bourgeois charm, and then John Garfield enters the scene as the doomed Mickey, making his first appearance in motion pictures, with mussed-up black curls, sleepy, hung-over eyes, rude and disheveled, the absolute opposite to Jeffrey Lynn's smoothly persuasive, madly charming Felix. Garfield is in complete, and DIRELY needed, counterpoint to the rest of the household ("Nothing I would do would surprise me", he muses), and suddenly the movie becomes interesting, although I agree with critics that find the plot-turns insufficiently motivated.

The four sisters are rather blandly played and seriously underwritten, but Claude Rains as the pater familias has his moments.

Watch it for Garfield, though, he is the only really lasting thing about it.

Sentiment: positive
A top notch Columbo from beginning to end. I particularly like the interaction between Columbo and the killer, Ruth Gordon.

As an avid Columbo fan, I can't recall another one in which he doesn't set up the killer at the end as he does in other episodes. In this one, as he's trying to determine the correct sequence of the boxes and the "message" that the nephew left behind, it finally dawns on him.

The music in this episode is very good as well, as it is in many of other ones.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is one of my all time favorites. I have watched it probably 100 times (literally) and it is still funny to me. It seems that every time I watch it, I see something different. Mel Brooks is definitely the all time King of side splitting comedy.

Sentiment: positive
What is very French about this film is the time taken to establish the two leading characters. This might require a bit of patience, especially since neither is "attractive" in the typical Hollywood definition of such. However, once the "heist" kicks in, the film rushes forward quickly, perhaps at times too quickly. But it is a real rollercoaster ride and if you don't look too closely it is all quite believable. The kind of film that you know Hollywood would have botched up.

Sentiment: positive
I have to finish watching a movie once I start, regardless of how bad it is. This movie was agonizing to sit through. The "sparkling" bullets, the reporter with "ninja" like moves, the way the bad guys shoot hundreds and hundreds of bullets and only seem to hit innocent bystanders, the predictable outcome and all the bad acting was just horrible. Like the girl who finds the reporter in her friends apartment and goes from "what the heck are you doing in here (holding a bat)" to "hey, you're cute, wanna @#$%!???" in like 1.2 seconds.... Just bad.... Save yourself an hour and forty minutes and go play with your kids (or dog)!

Sentiment: negative
This performance leaves you with no wishes. We saw it in Offenbach, Germany, and it is breathtaking. We only got the cheap tickets at the far back but still had a view over everything that happened. If you ever get the chance to see this live then GO! It is worth the trip and if I were you I would wait a good half an hour after the show to 'cool down'. The performances are breathtaking and all around the tent there are colourfully dressed performers that are there to distract, help, smile and generally make the whole tent come alive. The music - live music!! - is as good as the CD-version: perfect! I bought a DVD later but the show that was filmed had less colourful costumes. It's the atmosphere in the tent that sweeps you from your feet. A great trip for old and young, and a great film, too

Sentiment: positive
20 people rated this a 10! That ballot box was stuffed better than a Christmas turkey! Speaking of turkey's, here's a traditional story hoping to piggy-back on the current poker craze - without success. Told entirely in linear flashback, and when I say "told" I mean TALKED TO DEATH, this film never let's a picture suffice when words can be used to exposit.

Stu Unger's childhood fascination with cards and his associations with hoodlums might sound like interesting movie material, but the director manages to suck the life out of them. At no point did I feel the least bit of sympathy for Unger, a genius at cards who threw it all away on other forms of gambling at which he was not so proficient. Of course, this leads, as we wade through THREE musical montages, to the inevitable downward spiral of drugs, loss of family, and finally his redemption (sort of). Big yawn!

Sentiment: negative
A gritty Australian film, with all the elements for success. Two Hands represents the ability of Australian film makers and actors to produce top-quality, popular material. The film has a fresh angle, and uniquely incorporates drama, suspense and comedy.

I found this film thoroughly enjoyable on so many different levels - but can also appreciate that it might not be everyone's 'cup of tea'. The film carries a distinct Aussie humour, as it portrays the seedy underworld of Sydney, and explores the lives of a young man (Ledger) and young woman (Byrne), swept up in the local crime scene.

Two Hands deals with the theme of good and evil, both on an interpersonal and personal level and looks at the issue of consequences for 'our' actions.

The camera work is snazzy and the dialogue humorous. With Bryan Brown who plays Pando and Heath Ledger as Jimmy, battling it out on-screen in the most bizarre situations - this Aussie film is certainly not short of acting talent.

This subtle action/comedy has become somewhat of a cult favourite, and one of mine also.

Sentiment: positive
Although in some aspects Seven Pounds is solid and interesting in some of its narrative style, Gabriele Muccino's project is rather mediocre. The movie becomes more and more sappy and manipulative as it move toward the end: hearts human and emotional, eyes physical and metaphorical. Seven Pounds is more of an amateurish imitation of Alejandro González Iñárritu's Amores Perros and 21 Grams, with lots and lots of flashbacks. The problem is the story is quite predictable from VERY easily on through the movie. That's too bad, because Seven Pounds could have been as authentically "good" if Ben and Emily had been put in the right hands.

Sentiment: negative