DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Ah, Lucio Fulci, rest in peace. This infamous Italian is most

famous for "Zombie," and the absolutely unwatchable "The

Psychic" and "Manhattan Baby." Well, add this to the unwatchable

list.

The plot, as it were, concerns a nekkid woman who wears a gold

mask and a G-string. She wants the power of a young dubbed

stud who has a set of magic arrows and a bow. They are magic

because they glow. Arrow boy teams up with a guy in a bad wig,

and they spend most of the movie rescuing each other from flat

action sequences. In the end, the nekkid chick is defeated, but not

before taking the mask off and reminding me why I broke up with

my high school girlfriend.

Fulci bathes every shot in an orange glow and fills the screen with

smoke. Nothing like a smoky orange action sequence to make you

crave Sunny Delight and a cigarette. The special effects are

laughable. In one sequence, our ambiguously gay duo are

attacked by dozens of arrows that are obviously pin scratches on

the film itself. The majority of the effects budget must have been

spent on the Fulci-licious gore, which consists entirely of spurting

wounds. Hey, we can all use a good spurting wound once in a

while, but when you get into spurting wound overkill, it gets boring.

I kept having to play with the brightness setting on my TV anyway

just to see what the heck was happening.

There is lots of talk of fulfilling omens and prophecies, so let me

do a little look into the future...if you find this movie and watch it,

you will regret it. The scene on the video box (by Media) does not

appear in the film in any context whatsoever. "Conquest" is a con

job. What MST3K could have done with this!

This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, strong gore, female

nudity, brief male nudity, and mild sexual content.



Sentiment: negative
The movie was completely misleading and the bonus material confirmed my impression that it was a rip-off of Joeseph Conrad's Heart Of Darkness ,the River is replaced by a road and the boat becomes a Jeep and Walter Kurtz is Osama.

The claims made on the outside of the DVD box was overt fraud to

take this fabricated death of a Journalist and present it as factual

while some portions have Muslims supporting the 9/11 attacks for the USA's treatment of Muslims around the world .

I alerted the Video store that the movie should be removed from their "Documentary" section and be placed in the War-drama area for quasi fictional accounts of actual events.

Sentiment: negative
I participate in a Filmmaker's Symposium, and this film was shown after we had already seen a not so great film and participated in a 40 minute discussion. Even though it was incredibly late and we were weary, the entire audience really enjoyed it.

Personally I thought the film was hilarious in all the right spots, and I loved the quirky cast of characters. They really grow on you in the film.

Sentiment: positive
Hellborn starts as a young psychiatric doctor named James Bishop (Matt Stasi) takes up his residency at St. Andrews insane asylum, or 'mental illness facility' as they like to call it there. With nearly 600 patients Bishop meets his boss Dr. McCort (Bruce Payne) & is put to work, he gets ward 'A' where some seriously deranged & dangerous patients are held. If that wasn't bad enough during his first round of visits Bishop finds a dead body & has threatening sounding graffiti messages sprayed over his room. Bishop starts to hear stories from the patients about sinister goings-on at the asylum & soon finds out for himself the stories have more than a hint of truth about them...

Known as Asylum of the Damned in the US this supernatural horror film was directed by Philip J. Jones & I sort of liked it but in the end there were too many unsatisfying elements for me to totally enjoy it. The script by Matt McCombs takes itself pretty seriously & I quite liked the basic idea behind & some of it's ideas but there are a few things which work against it. For a start the film is just too slow, the story is pretty good & doesn't give itself away too early but it takes an absolute age for it to get going & I was rapidly losing interest with each passing minute. I also thought the so-called twist ending was far too predictable & the ending itself far too bland & forgettable. It's a shame because I liked the story, the character's, the setting & some of the ideas but it's simply too slow & frankly dull to keep one entertained over it's 90 minute duration. It's one of those films which I would like to recommend but in all honesty I can't.

Director Jones does a good job, this is actually a well lit & quite atmospheric film. I wouldn't say there's anything scary here. I'm not sure if Hellborn was shot in a real insane asylum but if it wasn't they did a great job on the sets & the film looks pretty good overall. Unfortunately there is a real lack of gore or action, there are two hand-print shaped wounds & a severed tongue & that's it, absolutely nothing else in terms of blood or gore which has to go down as a disappointment. Depending on who you believe & which review you read the special effects are either the worst ever or very good, well as a devoted watcher of low budget horror I was very impressed with the effects especially the demon thing which looks mightily impressive & is a man in a suit type effect rather than a terrible CGI computer graphic although it's an impressive suit. It all depends on your expectations I suppose.

Technically the film is good, it looks nice enough & the lack of CGI computer effects is something I welcome. The acting isn't great though, it certainly could have been better.

Hellborn is a film that disappointed me, there were some good stuff about it but at the same time some terrible stuff which unfortunately outweighs the good. I sort of liked parts of it but as a whole 90 minute viewing experience I'd find it totally impossible to recommend to anyone.

Sentiment: negative
Saw this film when it was an entry in Santa Fe Film Festival. Heavy film! Depiction of a completely dysfunctional family taken to another level of the extreme, might have left me depressed to the extreme, had it not been for very funny sight gags and dialogue along the way which lightened the film's overall tone. The relatively "uplifting" ending gave hope for those affected by the initial tragedy. Still, I did not walk out of the theatre ready to go to a fun party. The film stayed with me for several days.

Brought back memories of "Ordinary People", but with humor mixed in with the tragedy. I thought the acting was excellent, especially by Sigourney Weaver and Emile Hirsh. How each character dealt with the tragedy was at times sad, self-defeating, but also at times hilarious. Clever dialogue, and situations.

Sentiment: positive
I would have liked to put 0.5 but unfortunately I can't. Who can write so bad scripts (I saw the movie five seconds and knew the "bad boy" would be Sutherland - needed to pay his taxes, when you see how good he was in Redford's movie, "Ordinary People" and others ! -).

Though I don't like it, but I had no choice, I saw the movie in French, but I know that hearing the real voices of Sheen, Sutherland and Hamilton would have not change things, except maybe making it more pitiful.

What makes me sick is that people earn their living making this bad stuff (I forgot to speak about Mr Waterson, far away from the Woody Allen's movies he once used to play in).

We had another movie on another French channel : a silly James Bond with Brosnan (I am not talking about the real Bonds with Connery(please it's the end of holidays, wake up !).

Sentiment: negative
IN COLD BLOOD has to be ranked as first-rate movie-making, even if the subject matter is about as grim as it gets in the world of make-believe, but film noir fans should definitely find this one a gripping piece of work, based as it is on a true-life crime spree.

It opens with Quincy Jones' music under the credits and starkly dramatic views of a highway bus heading toward Kansas City, effectively setting the mood of the film even before the credits end. The B&W photography of Conrad Hall does a superb job right from the start.

Also clear from the start: ROBERT BLAKE and SCOTT Wilson are natural born actors. They do a great job of portraying free spirited buddies looking for the next thrill. "Ever see a millionaire fry in the electric hair? Hell no. There are two kinds of rules in this world. One for the rich and one for the poor," says Wilson, taking a swig of alcohol behind the wheel.

Both are destined to cross the path of a farm family, showing no mercy and leaving no witnesses behind.

Blake, reminiscing about movies, and thinking of hunting for gold in Mexico, says: "Remember Bogart in 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre'?" (An ironic moment, because Blake himself was in the film as a little boy selling lottery tickets). "I got you pegged for a natural born killer," Wilson tells Blake.

JOHN FORSYTHE is one of the lead detectives on the case, discovering that all four family members were tied up, shot in the head and one had his throat cut. "Don't people around here lock doors?" asks PAUL STEWART. "They will tonight," is the terse reply.

After the murders, the killers discover that there was "no big fat safe in the wall", like their prison informant told them. So, in the end, it was truly a stupid, senseless crime. The question is: WHY did they do it? And this is something the second half of the film explores in depth. It takes an hour and a half into the movie before the detectives catch up with the killers and begin the interrogation.

It's these final scenes that carry the most conviction and the most interest as the boys are told they've made numerous mistakes and left a living witness. The actual events up to and including the murder are saved until the end. "It makes no sense," Blake tells Forsythe. "Mr. Cutter was a very nice gentleman. I thought so right up until the time I cut his throat." The screenplay by Richard Brooks is concise and to the point--and so is his direction.

Summing up: Brilliant depiction of two aimless young men on a crime spree that made no sense then or now for a mere $43. Chilling.

Sentiment: positive
This series doesn't present the British view of the Revolutionary War, so much as an anti-American view of it. The underlying theme of the series is that a silent majority of colonists enjoyed British rule; that the founding fathers were manipulative schemers whose only goal was to draw Britain into a violent civil war; that the American supporters of the revolution and the militia were racist, violent louts, duped into the struggle. Clearly, the intent of the author, Richard Holmes, is for the viewer to extrapolate these characteristics, in a straight line, from the American population of 1775 to today.

For example, in the episode "The Shot Heard Around the World" Holmes dredges up an obscure print of the Boston Massacre, in which he claims the skin of Crispus Attucks, a black man and the first man killed in the revolution, was purposely "whited out". Holmes claims that portraying Attucks as a black man would have been bad propaganda for the revolutionary cause. Holmes never reveals how he knows this. And there's more. Holmes goes to some length to work in a single, unsubstantiated, atrocity: the desecration of the body of a British soldier. He compares the American militia to the Viet Cong and the mujahadeen -- without mentioning any differences in the goals of these groups. The list goes on.

Supposedly, this series was made in response to Mel Gibson's "The Patriot". It says a lot when an academic feels the need to respond to Mel Gibson on any topic. Instead of presenting the British view, it seems Holmes really wanted to give a sensationalistic, anti-American view, and, in the process, he's made himself the Roger Corman of historians -- strictly third-rate schlock.

Sentiment: negative
Otto Preminger's "Porgy and Bess" stands, to date, as a great American musical. I believe it is time bring this film out onto VHS and DVD for countless generations to view, admire, and absorb its wonderful music.

Sentiment: positive
This movie really rocks! Jeff Wincott is terrific in the film! His fighting incredible! He is such a fast martial artist! Brigitte Nielsen & Matthias Hues was very good! Mission of Justice is an action packed movie that is never boring! If you like fighting movies with incredible non stop action then check out Mission of Justice today!

Sentiment: positive
An inspired choice of director for this latest Brit-Flick, Rose Troche, who burst on the scene with the budget-free tale of NY Dykes, _Go Fish_ brings a gently Jaundiced view to this tale of a Londoner choosing the slightly inappropriate milieu of a male bonding society to declare his lust for a fellow seeker of masculine truths. The highlight for me is a scene where the society try to revert to being primitive hunter-gatherers but end up ordering a take-away. The film as a whole is wonderfully acted and Troche, who'd never be accepted by some of the lesbians she portrayed in her previous film, relishes the bigger budget by indulging in some wonderfully lingering pan shots that contrast with _Go Fish_'s grainy hyperkinesis. A really enjoyable film

Sentiment: positive
**** SPOILER WARNING ****

Absolutely without a doubt, one of the funniest comedies ever created for the screen. Totally impossible to take any of this seriously. It would take a major novel to list all of the comedy routines in it. During the glory days of her program, Carol Burnett and company, who often did take-offs on films, skewered this one in ways that were hard to imagine. Carol played Jenny who suddenly became ill with only a slight cough and immediately the treacly music came up and everyone looked around wondering where it was coming from. Harvey Korman played Oliver with flowing locks and almost look liked Ryan O'Neal. The only thing funnier than this bit, is the real film.

What a death scene at the end. Jenny really looks like she's dying alright...dying for her make-up artist to come in and give her a little color. And of course, we all know how often hospitals encourage a loved one to get in bed with them during the patient's final moments. The ending scene with Ryan O'Neal sitting on a bench in the snow contemplating his future in the movie business is an instant classic. He had plenty to worry about. He never did recover from this.

Sentiment: negative
This was a strong Poirot/Suchet, television mystery selection. The characters were vivid and well-acted. The plot and the main setting--a student hostel-- were excellent. Japp was nothing special but for me did not distract from story. One significant point, many Poirot watchers don't recognize good acting or good characterization. I also think they are rather harsh in their judgments of some of the Poirot mysteries. Finally, I have read few Christie novels--none in recent years-- and find it annoying that so many viewers are upset about changes from the novel. Please, viewers, consider what is presented to you on film, not what you think should be there. That said, the Poirot mysteries vary in quality, but not as much as reviewers and raters would have you believe. With the singular exception of The Five Little Pigs which was fabulous in plot, character and theme, the longer Poirot films are neither that good or that bad. For the record, I have seen all the longer Poirot/Suchet films. Finally, films without Lemon, Hastings, and/or Japp are neither good nor bad because of their absence. There presence, however, is either obtrusive (almost always with Japp) or irrelevant with Hastings. Lemon is in the middle.

Sentiment: positive
This is the second British Rank film to adapt the stories of Sommerset Maugham to film. All but one story from 'Quartet' does not travel well into the contempory era; and the actors speech is decidedly "clipped", as only British pre-1950's actors delivery can be. In anycase 'Trio' seems tighter and more filmic than the first film adaptation.

One of the problems these two films can't overcome is that their source material was written 25-30 years prior to the films. Consequently, by the 1950's Maughm's (pre-war) popularist "small morality" storyteling seemed rather quaint, if not downright coy.

Sentiment: negative
While this isn't an all time classic comedy it is a pretty good little movie to watch if you catch it on a rainy Saturday morning with not a lot else going on right then.

Harold Lloyd plays Ezekiel Cobb, an American coming home after growing up in China where his dad was a missionary.He has come home from China to find an American wife and plans to return to China to continue his father's work.Cobb unwittingly is recruited to run for mayor of his corrupt home town when the existing political machine that controls the town realizes that he would make a perfect patsy to run against the current mayor who also is the head of the town's underworld.They figure the bumbling ,stumbling Cobb has no chance to win and therefore the current mayor continues to run the town and run his schemes which makes them all rich.

Lloyd isn't doing the physical comedy here like he did in his silent films.He does a convincing portrayal of Cobb with a reserved understated dignity.The acting was good from all involved and the story and script were also quite good.

Being made in 1934 the film does have some rather racist language when talking about the Chinese and it also has a typical black character from that era but these stereotypes aren't nearly as mean as I've seen from other films from that time.

Although not close to being Lloyd's best film ,this movie does entertain and Lloyd is very good as Cobb.You won't be blown away by this film but it may be enough to peak your interest in Lloyd and make you want to see more of his work.

Sentiment: negative
CREEP is a straight up serious horror film set in real time that wants nothing more than to just show people get attacked in a empty subway platform by a mutant for 85 minutes. And it does just that. Nothing more, nothing less. Director Christopher Smith draws out the drama a far as he plausibly can by introducing a series of characters that would actually have a reason to be in the subway after it is locked. He also leaves the origins of the titular Creep deliberately vague (unlawful experiments happening in the 60s underground are hinted at) and that little bit of mystery works for the most part. Sadly, he undermines himself toward the end by actually holding back from a twist ending where more genetic malformations would appear (they are hinted at as well). Yes, you heard me right - I wanted a clichéd twist ending! Franka (RUN LOLA RUN) Potente is good as the terrorized female lead and the rest of the cast is fine.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this in the theater when it came out, and just yesterday I saw it again on cable. This I was able to reacquainted myself with the feeling of just how revolting this film is. The whole bunch of characters are self-absorbed narcisstic preeners. Worst of all, it reinforces every negative stereotype about 20-something dating, even as it purports to celebrate people "finding themselves". The nice guys finish last, the jerky guys make out great, the jerkiest guys do best. The girls are all boy toy pushovers. Only one character ("Wendy") is seen doing anything remotely useful to society, and she dispenses with her long-saved virginity in a throwaway one-night stand with a scumbag, in a lushly filmed scene that we're supposed to think is romantic. What this really is is Hollywood's concept of young America: permissive, detached, promiscuous, conceited.

Sentiment: negative
Well, I have to say, this movie was probably the funniest movie I have seen all year. And I don't exactly mean that in a good way. This is probably the most pathetic movie I have seen in a while, and yet that's what makes it so hilarious. you can tell these people are really trying to act, unfortunately for them they aren't doing such a good job, making it so even lines delivered in what is supposed to be a serious tone come out sounding really funny. Aaron Carter is essentially playing a character quite similar to himself in real life, and still he manages to make the character seem corny and not at all realistic. This movie is one of those movies where everything that is supposed to sound serious comes out really funny and all the things that are supposed to be funny are just so stupid and corny that you have to laugh because you know how hard they are trying. This movie is so bad, it's actually good. I would definitely recommend it if your in the mood for a good laugh.

Sentiment: positive
Here, on IMDb.com I read an opinion, that Grey Owl is best character of Pierce Brosnan ever performed. I do not know if he had better nor worse roles, I'm not his fan, but this one was really exceptional.

The other thing - impressive hand of the movie director. I give my respect. The serenity, the beauty and spirit of wilderness was illustrated really exlusively, I never met such proximity it in any movie before.

Another thing left in my mind after the film - this is the movie, closest to the original books, and atmosphere in it. 

And little bit more. I pay my respect to the original Grey Owl.

Sentiment: positive
Sure, I like short cartoons, but I didn't like this one. Naturally, kids would love it. But then again, I'm not a kid anymore (although I still consider myself young).

I will not tell you anything about the story, for the simple reason there is no story. How is it possible this dragon of a cartoon was nominated for an Oscar?! Well... I guess it's because people in the 30's were more happy with not much than now. In the present where we live, everything must happen fast. Look at the movies nowadays, and you will come to the same conclusion: we live in a society that doesn't allow men to be slow. That's really a shame. I wish I lived in the 30's, because it seems so peaceful. But every time has got its ups and downs, I guess...

To conclude: if you like music (and frogs), you'll have to see this cartoon. Otherwise, don't spill your time on it.

Sentiment: negative
I have always been a fan of Bottom, grabbing as many videos as I could find of the series here in the states. The chemistry between Rik and Ade is always genius, and the combination of smart writing and utterly stupid humor seems to work without fail. I thus sat down to watch this movie with great eagerness... and was utterly disappointed by the end.

The first 3/4 of the movie can best be described as uninspired and poorly directed (sorry, Ade!), but with some utterly brilliant moments. Unfortunately, these laugh-out-loud moments make you realize how less-than-brilliant the rest of the movie is. The slapstick starts off funny but eventually becomes a bit boring, with only the perverted sex jokes to keep things humorous.

The end of the movie (the 'green' scenes, for those of you who've seen it) was... perhaps the worst ending I've seen in the past decade. Honestly. It was one joke repeated about thirty times, followed by an abrupt ending that made no sense (which didn't bother me) and wasn't funny (which did).

To sum up, I was sorely disappointed by this movie. I shall cling to the few brilliant moments in it, to retain the fondest memories that I can... but I have to warn you, if you're about to overpay for your NTSC conversion tape from the local importer, don't. There are far better things to spend your money on.

Sentiment: negative
I cant describe how terrible this movie is. Am i the only one here who finds the way its animated totaly disgusting? The Men of Rohan look 100% fake with their poorly colored hair, that doesnt even come close to matching what the actors look like. The orcs looked terrible. Why does gandalf walk with a bad limp? Why cant they pronounce things correctly? Saruman isnt Aruman. There were other what sounded like terrible pronounciation*sp* of Tolkiens characters. All and all im glad the studio who made this pulled the plug out from the sequal, it was just a terrible terrible adaptaion. Go watch the hobbit cartoon for a better cartoon of Tolkiens work. Hell, even the cartoon version of ROTK is better then this dribble. 2/10

Sentiment: negative
Oh man, what was Sam Mraovich thinking? What was anyone who was involved in this "film" thinking? Mraovich is the head of nearly everything of "Ben and Arthur": Director, writer, producer (also EXECUTIVE producer!), caster, lead star- you name it, he did it. And he (Mraovich) sucks more than anyone has ever sucked in every department of film making.

So what is wrong with this film? Everything. The film is about two gay lovers, Ben (Jamie Brett Gabel) and Arthur (Mraovich- *groan*). Ben and Arthur want to get married in a world where everyone basically hates gay people. To make things worse, Ben's crazy "ex-wife" (they don't exactly divorce), Tammy (Julie Belknap) is steaming mad that Ben's left her for another man and demands Ben that they get back together (saying that she can be gay, too!) and Arthur's Christian devoted, excessively hypocritical, equally batty as Tammy brother, Victor, is hell bent on making Arthur turn straight and then try to kill him after he gets kicked out of his church.

The film is absolutely chock a block with so many goofs (ie. Ben and Arthur fly to Vermont to get married- they go there on Alaska Airlines and Vermont has palm trees; they fly back on a FedEx cargo plane- hope they were comfy in a wooden crate, plus many, many more) and plot holes to boot (Victor calls killing Arthur "The Final Plan" which later changes to "The Final Deed"; Arthur and the private (intern) detective drive the same car, blah, blah, blah). The "actors" are all very bad and are way, way over the top; the script is laughably horrible(one such example is "I don't make sense? You don't make sense! I make sense, that's who makes sense!") and there so much more wrong with the "movie" that I can't write them all down.

However, the most laughable yet unbelievable thing about "Ben and Arthur" is that Sam Mraovich thinks that he has created something that is truly fantastic (see his fake reviews for "Ben & Arthur" and obvious comments by him on YouTube.). Mraovich is narcissistic and his arrogance blinds him from seeing how awful anything with his name on it really is.

So, to conclude, forget every bad film that you claim is the worst movie ever- "Ben and Arthur" will knock them right off that title, even Paris Hilton movies look like "The Dark Knight" compared to the monstrosity known as "Ben and Arthur".

Sentiment: negative
I guess every time I see one of these old movies from the 80's it puts me back at a simpler time, no matter how corny they may seem today. This movie is a good one. I remember seeing it as a small kid and thinking it was the greatest movie ever. It has all the heroistic characters that a young cowboy wants to be. Now as an adult, I can look back and laugh and still feel sad, but this time I actually know what's going on. I did find one thing weird. How many people can move to Houston and hook up with Sissy,get married,move into a trailer,have a falling out,cheat, have an uncle die,then get back together, all in the course of a month? Only in America.

Sentiment: positive
Misfit recruit private Owens tests drill instructor Sgt Moore's (Jack Webb) skills. No explosions or bloodshed or hip soundtrack or sex. It is set at the USMC's Parris Island S.C. boot camp and most of the cast were actual Marines. Memorable one-liners abound, and the closing credit's "dedicated to..." is intense. With such strong male and female characters, this movie could not be made in today's touchy-feely world.

Sentiment: positive
This would definitely not have been my kind of movie, but my husband saw it on TV and said it was really good. So, on his recommendation, I bought a copy, since I didn't know if it would ever be on TV again. I had never heard of anybody in it except Armand Assante. At first I had a hard time getting into the story, because the first part of the movie is a jumble of images-- and it doesn't make much sense. It is only later in the movie that it all comes together. The scene-cutting- if that's what it's called, is a bit jarring-- it sometimes looks as if a few frames have been cut out of each scene, and the scenes are jerky--but I guess that was done to add to the unusualness (if that's a word). The story veers here and there, and just about the time you have it all figured out, everything turns upside down and you have to readjust your thinking as to who is the bad guy and who is not. Or bad woman. The acting is very good-- I kept thinking how much Norman Reedus looks like Leo Decaprio. The ending was a real twist, totally unexpected, which I liked. A good show.

Sentiment: positive
In New York, when the shy and lonely project manager of a design firm Matt Saunders (Luke Wilson) meets Jenny Johnson (Uma Thurman) in the subway, he invites her to date and have dinner with him. Jenny immediately falls in love for him, they have sex and she discloses her true identity to him, telling that she is the powerful superhero G-Girl. After meeting his co-worker and friend Hannah Lewis (Anna Faris), the needy Jenny becomes jealous, controlling and manipulative, and Matt follows the advice of his best friend Vaughn Haige (Rainn Wilson) and dumps her, breaking her heart. Jenny turns Matt's life into hell, while he has a romance with Hannah. However, the archenemy of G-Girl and former high school sweetheart of Jenny, Professor Bedlam (Eddie Izzard), proposes Matt to lure Jenny to strip her superpowers.

"My Super Ex-Girlfriend" is delightfully silly and funny. This romantic comedy-adventure has many hilarious moments and is very entertaining. Luke Wilson is great in the role of an idiot, Anna Farris is extremely sexy as usual, and Uma Thurman is great in the role of a deranged neurotic superhero that recalls Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" or Evelyn Draper in "Play Misty For Me". My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Minha Super Ex-Namorada" ("My Super Ex-Girlfriend")

Sentiment: positive
Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) catches up with Danny Ocean and his team and demands that they repay the money that they stole from him (in Oceans 11) plus interest. He holds back from violent action however as he is under the instruction of the world's greatest thief, the Night Fox. The team then have to pull off a series of heists to pay Benedict back whilst testing their abilities against the Night Fox who wishes to maintain his position as the greatest thief ever. Put simply, this film is a complete mess. The masses may argue that it is "cool" and that Clooney and Pitt put in great performances but these are the same people who have a subscription to "Hello" magazine and think that David Beckham has the potential to be a great actor. The story is convoluted, it is not complex or clever and it does not have intelligent twists and turns, it is just a complete mess that spills out in multiple directions with the hope that the audience will think it is cool and intelligent (Hello magazine readers). Any respectable movie watcher will however see the film for the farce that it is. Whilst Oceans 11 wasn't a great film it had a decent pace, was stylish and had some decent twists and turns. This movie loses its way very quickly and then basically gives up. It is as if the director and cast said to themselves, hey this isn't really working out, lets just have a laugh! Indeed the cast looks like they are enjoying themselves but I was not. I will not delve into the plot as its confused evolution does not warrant any examination. The addition of Catherine Zeta Jones is largely annoying. The scenes where Julia Roberts impersonates herself (with Bruce Willis undertaking a cameo role) whilst mildly amusing appear to be a desperate move to keep the audience interested. The movie is so full of plot holes that it as if Arnie has emptied an Uzi 9mm into the film studio. Credit can only be given to some scenes where the Night Fox uses Caopeira to undertake a heist against the back drop of some funky music but this is hardly justification to watch the movie. The final scene features the team in a nonsensical drunken stupor; this accurately sums up the movie. Stick with the original.

Sentiment: negative
Director Spike Lee is famous for making films pointing out racism. In many of films, such "Do The Right Thing," most of the white people are all brutal racists. In this movie, interracial marriage is the subject, with racism once again being the entire issue.

What Lee does, however, is once again demonstrate his bigotry against Christianity. It's amazing the double standards that exist in the film world. If Lee or anyone else ever produced this kind of bias against another group he would be vilified, but Christians? Hey, it's "open season" on them.

Ossie Davis, a reverend in this film, shoots his son and then puts the smoldering gun down on top of his Bible. They zoom in on that for another closeup just in case you missed it. Hey, folks, here's another Bible reader and look what he''s like! Lee does this sort of thing in just about every movie he makes.

He shows the same hatred when dealing with race relations. Who could argue with portraying racism as an evil thing? However, Lee perpetuates it in this film as he has in his other films. His obvious bitterness toward white people doesn't help the situation. It only adds fuel to the fire. 

Hey, Spike: start "doing the right thing" and leave your prejudices in the closet. Better yet, "get over it."

This is too bad because the subject matter could have made for a thought- provoking film if it had been done with objectivity and intelligence.

Sentiment: negative
Greetings from Lithuania.

This is the first question that comes to head after watching this "movie". 

You know, I saw a lot of bad movies in my life, but after watching this one, i only had two questions: 1) Is this was just a parody (spoof) 

2) How could people create such a thing!? 

If You never saw this "film", than you REALLY don't know what is a REALLY bad "film". I mean BAD. The script - Are you kidding my? Acting is so horrible that i thing "the actors" where just having fun in this movie. I know, this is "B" movie, but come on?? Is this have to be a reason to be such a garbage?? 

Oh! And what an ending!!! A must miss ending! Just when you thing that this is the worst thing you have ever saw, wait until the ending - because THAT kind of ending You have NEVER saw before (and I hope You will never see). 

Awoid this "movie" at any cost, and don't say i didn't warn you...

Sentiment: negative
The Night Listener held my attention, with Robin Williams shining as a New York City radio host who becomes enamored with his friendship with a 14 year old boy (Rory Culkin) who is very ill. Williams has never met the boy in person, as they have only been in contact by talking on the telephone. However, Williams' ex-boyfriend (nice job from Bobby Cannavale) raises doubt about the boy, which prompts Williams to arrange a meeting with him in person. What follows makes a permanent impact on Williams in a way he does not expect. I will leave it at that. Toni Collette also stars.

I enjoyed this film, with Toni Collette giving a memorable portrayal of Culkin's adoptive mother. Sandra Oh also starred as Williams' friend. The Night Listener is inspired by actual events, and it has a somber, almost creepy silence throughout. At times it is predictable, no thanks to some of the reviews I read before seeing the movie and just due to logic, but I liked it anyway. I enjoy Williams in roles like this, more so than his comedic characters so that was an added bonus for me. Recommended. 8/10

Sentiment: positive
Who did the research for this film? It's set in Baghdad in 2004, however all the Soldiers are wearing ACUs and have all Universal Camouflage Pattern gear. No one was wearing that stuff in 04. 

I just saw this film while deployed overseas and I can say that the overwhelming feeling from the audience was WTF? This movie made no sense, had characters come and go with no explanation, and people doing ridiculous things that would NEVER happen in real life. I realize that it's a movie, but it's obviously trying to portray something realistic. It fails miserably, but it's trying. 

It's like someone came up with a bunch of random ideas, chewed them up and swallowed, then vomited out a film. I would not recommend this film to anyone. I'm still not sure why I sat through the whole thing. GI Joe was one that really made you think compared to this. STAY AWAY!

Sentiment: negative
I thought the movie was extremely funny and actually very interesting. It was raw and honest and felt as if I was really watching the "real people" not actors. It's great entertainment, it also painted the people as human on our level not below us. It is a very good film.

Sentiment: positive
OK, here's the short of it... this movie is full of corny dialogue, over the top acting, and a threadbare script.

There are moments that intended to be very dramatic but simply come off humorous because of the over the top acting and poorly written lines. I couldn't help laughing at moments that were meant to be very serious. The bright spot in this movie is the circus. Seeing the circus in its heyday was certainly a treat.

There are moments that come through as good. But then it nosedives right back into B-movie territory. I was tempted to stop watching it several times.

I certainly don't know how it won best picture, however. It must have been a slow year!

Sentiment: negative
I have officially vomited in my own mouth, thanks to this movie.

I expected the absolute worst with this movie, but I expected a heartwarming and pleasurable absolute worst. This is just terrible. Absolutely terrible. Terrible like Nazis spreading the black plague. Let me explain: Ewoks are speaking English. It's horrible.

The villain girl looks like she travelled from the future set of Power Rangers. I really really want her to rise up from the ground and say "At last! After ten thousand years I'm free! It's time to conquer Earth!" The putties... er, I mean the big bad whatever the heck they are... they growl a lot. Many of them look like an even lamer version of the Cryptkeeper. The Cryptkeeper was pretty cool, but these guys were not.

The only merit to this movie was Paul Gleason. This movie might have been better if he'd went to the bad guys and said "If I have to come in here again, I'm crackin' skulls." It would have been even better if one of the Ewoks was played by Judd Nelson, who mouthed his words as he said this.

Also, that speedy little creature is pretty badass. Word to that.

No word to the movie, though. I want to give this movie a two. I want to, so badly. There's a passage I have memorized: The path of this movie is beset on all sides by the inequities of terribleness and the tyranny of spin-off awfulness. Blessed is nothing, for this movie blows.

Sentiment: negative
I really didn't like this film. The plot was very predictable. Typical American plot, I'm sorry. Guy gets the girl kind of thing at the end. And London has a Monorail? Bank of London??? Bank of England is what it really is!! - I did however like the look of Tracy Island and the Thunderbirds themselves. And the Brits were baddies? (apart from Parker and Lady Penelope) What was up with that? Oh and they kept on saying stuff like "Here come 'The Thunderbirds'" - but it was never known as 'The Thunderbirds' in the series, why do that?? I'd like to see this re-made in 20 years with more British cast. I preferred the original series. Sorry!

Sentiment: negative
Surreal film noir released soon after the "real," genre-defining classics "The Maltese Falcon," "Double Indemnity" and "The Postman Always Rings Twice." Welles films shouldn't be evaluated against others. He was playing by different rules. In fact, he was playing. This starts where other femme fatale films leave off, so the vaguely logical (but interesting) whodunit is embellished with a display of Wellesian scenes (typical rapid-fire style), dialog (lots of "hard-boiled" philosophy), and unusual acting (good Hayworth presumably intentionally one-dimensional). To Welles "genre" may have meant "formula" but he seemed to like using "mysteries" as backgrounds for his "entertainments."

Sentiment: positive
Mr. Bean is just a bunch of unfunny slapstick humour. It is the most shallow humour TV series ever made in history. The scenes are often disgusting and the horrible canned laughter sends chills through the spine. Mr. bean is a selfish and rude character and one can only sympathies how pathetic he is. It is incredible that such a TV series of low quality can be sustained for 5 years. It is a complete waste of time to watch even 1 episode and one can't help but to express disgust and pity why Rowen had portrayed himself as such a 2-dimensional, unfunny and ridiculous character. Or pity yourself why you had even bother to watch an episode. Watching this is an aggravating experience.

Sentiment: negative
*Spoilers and extreme bashing lay ahead*

When this show first started, I found it tolerable and fun. Fairly Oddparents was the kind of cartoon that kids and adults liked. It also had high ratings along with Spongebob. But it started to fall because of the following crap that Butch Hartman and his team shoved into the show.

First off, toilet humor isn't all that funny. You can easily pull off a fast laugh from a little kiddie with a burp, but that's pretty much the only audience that would laugh at such a cliché joke. Next there are the kiddie jokes. Lol we can see people in their underwear and we can see people cross-dressing. LOLOLOL!!! I just can't stop laughing at such gay bliss! Somebody help me! But of course, this show wouldn't suck that bad if it weren't for stereotypes. Did you see how the team portrayed Australians? They saw them as nothing but kangaroo-loving, boomerang-throwing simpletons who live in a hot desert. But now... Is the coup de grace of WHY this show truly sucks the loudest of them all... OVER-USED JOKES!!! The show constantly pulls up the same jokes (the majority of them being unfunny) thinking it is like the greatest thing ever! Cosmo is mostly the one to blame. I hated how they kept on mentioning "Super Toilet" (which also has a blend of kiddish humor in it just as well) and Cosmo would freak out. And who could forget that dumb battery ram joke that every goddamn parent in Dimmsdale would use in that one e-mail episode? You know, the one in which every single parent (oblivious to other parents saying it) would utter the EXACT same sentence before breaking into their kid's room? Yes, it may be first class humor to some people, but it is pure s*** to others.

If I'm not mistaken, I do believe Butch Hartman said something about ending the show. Thank God! Everyone around my area says it's, like, the funniest Nickelodeon show ever. I just can't agree with it I think it's just another pile of horse dung that we get on our cartoon stations everyday, only worse.

Sentiment: negative
To solve a challenging problem, you need to start by asking the right questions. Without these, even the biggest library of information is useless. This movie does just that - where other movies guide your thinking along a story board, this film pulls at your emotions and your understanding of justice and what's permissible. These questions will tug at you throughout, challenging your assumptions as the characters develop. This movie is important. It's relevant, and a must see for anybody who stays informed of current affairs. The fact it's highly entertaining and includes a slew of movie stars only improves the execution. My advice: watch it with a serious crowd or better yet, by yourself, not unlike how you'd read an editorial from your favorite news magazine. In this case there is one difference: the answers will be your own.

Sentiment: positive
Peter is top notch, he is acting, and looking great. feels like watching a live play, great camera works, and i was sad it was over. Can not wait until it is on the big screen. Super cast, this could be a big hit. I like the way the kids interact as sister and two brothers, really made me think of my own brothers going through a situation like what Peter, the happy father who thinks he will end his life after a big party... The colors and sets were delightful to the eyes, helps so much to draw you into the film/play... I was so happy to see Peter not be Colombo, this guy could always act, and now this is a movie that gives him that range. I recommend you take your family to this movie. Perhaps the teenagers will not get much from this, no guns, fast cars, dumb lines, stupid fart jokes... but your adult kids will love it. Good show for a night with them. 

Jason

Sentiment: positive
I have to admit that i liked the first half of Sleepers. It looked good, the acting was even better, the story of childhood, pain and revenge was interesting and moving. A superior hollywood film. But...No one mentioned this so far (at least in the latest 20 comments), when it came to the courtroom scenes and Brat Pitt´s character followed his plan to rescue his two friends, who are rightly accused of murder, i felt cheated. This movie insulted my intelligence. 

Warning spoilers!!

Why did anyone accept their false alibi, witnessed by the priest? If these two guys had been with him, why shouldn´t they tell this during the investigation? Amnesia? If you were the judge or member of the jury, would you believe it? Is it wise to give the motif of the murderers away?

I am sorry, but in the end, the story is very weak, and this angers me. This movie had great potential. 4/10

Sentiment: negative
Definitely worth watching.

Ten different directors each present a segment based on their favorite opera aria. You don't need to be an opera lover to watch this film. (Although, of course, if you hate opera, you're really going to have a bad time with this!)

Not surprisingly the segments range from brilliant to only fair. Most of the fuss seems to be over Godard's contribution -- whether you think he's brilliant or pretentious, his segment won't change your mind.

Some of the pieces have a clear narrative; others are more a montage of connected images.

None of the pieces is more than 10 minutes or so; if you're not happy with what's on the screen, wait for the next segment, and think about how much culture you're soaking up.

Keep your eyes open for performances by Buck Henry, Beverly D'Angelo, Elizabeth Hurley, Briget Fonda, Tilda Swinton, and John Hurt. (The Buck Henry segment alone is worth the price of admission).



Sentiment: positive
The one sheets and newspaper campaign suggested (as often they did) a far more lurid and violent piece than showed up on the drive-in screens. Claude Brook is actually an Americanization of Claudio Brook, who worked in films for years. This one's quite hard to find anymore; I'd love to see it again to compare it to other international horrors of the day, but don't remember particularly impressed way back when. Chances are it was a chopped up version that made it to U.S. theatres and video. But oh, that one sheet...still a gem of my later horror collection.

Sentiment: negative
Kurosawa, fresh into color, losses sight of his usual themes of truth and perception of reality and opts for a depressing take on Tokyo's slums. Kurosawa stretches for a style that was, in my opinion, his antithesis- that is to say, I feel as if Kurosawa wanted to make an Ozu picture. Poorly paced, poorly conceived, this movie is a rare dud in this auteur body of excellent work. While Ikiru, while being mundane and depressing, was still interesting and well paced, and while Stray Dog depicted the slums and social poverty of Japan without being too heavy handed or boring, do desu ka den has all the somberness that one could expect with its content, with none of the redeeming qualities of earlier Kurosawa pictures.

Be warned, this is not a movie that Kurosawa should be judged by.

Sentiment: positive
The 74th Oscars was a very good one. Whoopi's work as EmCee was very funny, and light. I personally loved her last apperance, which garnered some frigid reviews due to coarse language and salacious jokes, but that's fine. The audience seemed to like it. Halle Berry, Denzel Washington, Ron Howard, Woody Allen, and Sidney Poitier made this an Oscar telecast to remember.



Sentiment: positive