DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Now, I like the Bollywood films and I'm very glad they have recently gained success in the UK. However, Suneel Darshan's latest effort is a deeply flawed film from start to finish.

The idea of a modern-Bollywood take on Amadeus was quite an exciting one, that is until the two supposed 'musicians' appear on the scene looking as if they have never touched a piece of manuscript in their lives. Upen Patel is a very good looking man, and the film plays to his narcissistic sensibilities, but he is never once believable as a modern Mozart. In terms of acting, all he can do is stand there and pout. His expressions, hair and clothes all look the same throughout, including the scene where he is supposedly 'dying', when in fact he appears to have nothing but a slight sniffle. Bobby Deol, playing the Salieri role, does his best to liven up what little wooden script there is but, alas, just comes across as a little bit angry when he is supposed to be fuming with jealousy.

Bollywood films are widely renowned for their stunning set-pieces and colour schemes, but Shaklaka looks like a drab BBC drama reproduction. In fact, the closest thing Shakalaka comes to is Hollyoaks, as it blatantly hides a really bad script behind beautiful people looking, well, beautiful. "He has yet to reach mediocrity" - the same could be said for the totally forgetful songs.

In short, Darshan's latest offering has no boom, bang, wallop or twang. Instead it merely plods along with its head held low hoping to catch your attention with a soft tap on the shoulder. And that is not good enough at all.

Sentiment: negative
Wow! A Danish movie with this kind of content? I mean, the actors, the story, the pictures, the efx - everything was where it should be. 

And a Danish EFX house producing those VFX - Wow! This is like the 2nd or 3rd time a Danish FX has produces visual effects in that quality.

*SPOILER AHEAD* The twist with the ghostly children in the submarine was quite good, but generally I did not feel the big chill which I would expect from a ghost-movie. *END OF SPOILER*

But anyway, this is a Danish movie which I as a Dane can be proud of.

The only "bad" about this, is that it wasn't a Danish director, but a Swedish...

Sentiment: positive
This unsung quiet gem tells the true story of a POW escape during WW II. The performances are incredible, especially Anthony Steele. The movie works on many different levels: cerebral, emotional, visual, and literal. The dialogue is ingenious and rings very true. In fact, an unusual all-around authenticity puts this one head-and-shoulders above most war epics.

Sentiment: positive
A pretty average movie but a brave one from Ms Hawn to promote this vehicle as Exec Producer & as a starring vehicle. Although she ends up vindicated, she is willing to portray herself as the dizzy bimbo. How many other A listed actresses have subjected themselves to butt injury pratfalls since this movie? Not many. Does this mean the female butt cannot be funny? Goldie surpasses other actresses as she has maintained a screen persona & ventures in projects other won't. Sandra Bullock occasionally goes there,for example, Miss Congeniality but Nicole Kidman would never cop the pratfall. A wonderful performer. Great to see some of my favorite actors, Chris Sarandon & Cliff DeYoung notably.

Sentiment: positive
This is the type of late-night cable flick usually associated with Andrew Stevens or Shannon Tweed. Though unlike most of Tweed and Stevens' T&A fueled vehicles, this is lethally dull!

Let's cut to the chase. The real reason for watching this non-thriller is to see Shannon Doherty's breasts. Anyone who states otherwise is a LIAR! However, most of her steamy sex scenes appear to be all smoke and mirrors.

Notice that all the shots where her head and chest show at the same time are quick peek-a-boo flashes. The frames where the camera lingers on her nude body, there's little or no face attached or she's behind a dripping, wet shower door.

All you boob-watchers out there know what that means - Body double!

I must admit though, that the finale where Doherty is bound, blindfolded and menaced with a knife, provided a certain fetishistic thrill.

If you find a VHS copy anywhere, buy it! As all involved are probably too embarrassed to ever let this come out on DVD!

Sentiment: negative
I'm at this very moment debating whether I should even finish watching this "poppycock" of a movie. They had a pretty interesting idea, with the buried movie set, and that was it. So far this incomprehensible mess has no real story. There is the buried set, some wolf headed monster running amok, an amulet, and a bunch of bad actors attacked by the wolf masked whatever it is. What I would have missed, had I had the good sense to eject this nonsense is a dune buggy chase, some really bad C.G.I., some incredibly stupid dialog, more bad C.G.I., and the hero fighting paper cut outs. Other than the original idea, this film has absolutely zero redeeming qualities. My mistake for continuing to watch. - MERK

Sentiment: negative
The first two-thirds of this biopic of fetish model Betty Page are very interesting. Betty, as portrayed with enormous sincerity by Gretchen Mol, comes across as a pleasant, girl-next-door type, who saw nothing wrong with what she did (and there certainly wasn't anything "wrong" with it). Director Mary Harron, who also made "I Shot Andy Warhol" and "American Psycho", recreates Betty's America by mixing old black and white stock footage with new, degraded, black and white footage. Once Betty lands in Florida and starts working with Bunny Yeager, color is introduced. Betty's notoriety was mostly the result of her work with Paula and Irving Klaw (Lili Taylor, in a great performance, and Chris Bauer), as well as John Willie (Jared Harris). The scenes where Harron recreates Betty's bondage photography sessions are fascinating and adroitly executed. The early purveyors of fetish material are not portrayed too condescendingly and we get a sense that these folks were part of a tight "community". Betty never had too much of a problem with her notoriety, although we get the impression that her reputation prevented her from gaining legitimacy in the straight acting world. Because the film's third act is virtually non-existent, we are left with the impression that we have been watching a feature length documentary on Betty Page rather than a structured drama. Flaws aside, it's a film well worth catching and represents yet another fine feather in the cap of producer Christine Vachon.

Sentiment: positive
"Best in Show" is certainly Christopher Guest's funniest and deepest movie yet. The characters are excellently portrayed and the connection of pet to owner adds a new level of comedy to the movie. I've been a fan of Guest since Spinal Tap but in this movie he has truly achieved what he set out to do in the "mock-umentary," a genre he invented and has now perfected.

Sentiment: positive
algernon4's comment that Ms Paget's "ultra lewd dance in (this film) is the most erotic in the history of films" is certainly one doozy of an exaggeration. It isn't even Debra Paget's most erotic dance. Her near nude gyrations in Fritz Lang's "The Indian Tomb" make this number look decidedly tame. As for being the most erotic in the history of dance. Well! Where do I start? Salma Hayek's performance as Santanico Pandemonium in "From Dusk to Dawn" (1996); Jamie Lee Curtis in "True Lies" (1994); Jessica Alba in "Sin City" (2005); Rose McGowan in "Terror Planet" (2007); Sheila Kelley in "Dancing at the Blue Iguana" (2000), blah, blah, blah.

Don't get me wrong. I love the sequence and have included it in my "Cheesecake Dance" series on Youtube. I just think that making a claim like "most erotic in the history of film" is really going out on a very fragile limb.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is worth watching if you enjoy marvelling over special effects. There are some interesting visuals.

Aside from that, it's typical nineties/aughties hollywood fare of dazzle without substance. True to the title.

It's not worth picking apart the story. That's like performing brain surgery on a dinosaur. There's not much there to begin with. It's nothing original and not very special. So don't go in for the story at all. Just look at the effects.

As has been mentioned, it got a little flashy at the end, diluting the purity of great FX treatment of an invisible (and at times half invisible) man. However if you ignore the "standard" pyrotechnics, it's a sight to behold (or not to behold).

All in all, it's a decent FX film worth seeing for that purpose and that alone.

Sentiment: negative
What is wrong with CURACAO ( Also known as DEADLY CURRENTS though what the reasonn for the name change is I have no idea ) can probably be summed up where a woman says to her lover :

" Keep it down baby , I'm trying to sleep " 

It's not the dialogue that's the problem or the way it's delivered , it's the fact the actress has has a Central European accent . Nothing wrong with that until it's revealed her character is from Philidelphia in the United States ! This what struck me about this thriller while watching it - The way accents don't match their characters . Apart from the Philly woman with a German accent we see a South African with an English accent , a local police chief who sounds like he's an Irishman impersonating a Gestapo officer and worst of all George C Scott playing someone who's either Dutch or British with an accent that sounds like it might be American tinged with South African . You soon give up following what's on screen and end up concentrating on what nationality a character might be due to the strange way they speak . It's interesting to note that this site hasn't given this movie a country of origin . With so many different actors from different countries you do feel that this was produced by the United Nations 

Even if you're not curious about accents or dialects you'll probably have to give up following the action anyway because CURACAO is plot less . Things happen like a boat exploding , and a hostage situation and the hero being recruited as an agent for South African intelligence but you're left scratching your head wondering what the heck this is all leading to . I was lost

Sentiment: negative
The film is somewhat entertaining, but the greatest feature is Shalom Harlow's laughable performance. It has been 4 years since this movie was released and hopefully Harlow has gone through more training. Perhaps she should stick to the more worldly, somewhat corruptive characters that she has generated in other performances.

Sentiment: negative
Rent this only movie if you're in the mood for laughs (for sheer stupidity) , as this movie wouldn't scare a bunch of kindergartners at a Halloween party! The trouble is, there is too much gore for kiddies, so definitely don't put this in your VCR for the toddlers. It starts off with a little bit of promise, giving you the impression that the box cover artist may have actually started watching this film before designing the cover, but then descends quickly into epic stupidity. The "killer scarecrows" are clumsy oafs that are about as scary as the one in the Wizard of Oz, but not quite as smart. If they'd only had a brain...? I got this movie for $1.20 at a local discount/close-out store and even so, I feel somewhat ripped off. I think with all the other comments posted here, if you actually pay to see this, you can only blame yourself.

Sentiment: negative
To be fair, I didn't see a lot of this show. Probably because it wasn't as good as the original M*A*S*H, but I seem to recall them moving it around on the weekly schedule. Some shows just aren't worth the trouble of following around every week. But I really did try at first, so it wasn't all bad. Maybe I just kept expecting it to improve, but I can't give this show a 1. In all honesty, I can't give it any more than a 2 either.

It wasn't MASH (I'm not going to type those stupid *'s every time). And it was trying to be MASH without putting forth any effort, like it would just magically happen. Well guess what? No magic. The best I can do here is to compare it to other shows.

Trapper John, M.D. was a much better show by far. However, they should have called it B.J. Hunnicut, M.D. because Pernell Roberts looked exactly like an older BJ, but nothing at all like Trapper John. Keep everything else the same, just change his name and the name of the show. Presto! After MASH wasn't the only sequel to completely bomb and dishonor the original. Archie Bunker's Place was a lame follow-up to All In The Family. It had no heart, no conflict, no depth  all of the things that made All In the Family so memorable. Likewise, MASH was funny because the doctors were reacting to the impossible absurdity of war. Remove the war and you remove the drive for 99% of the humor. Potter can't yell at Klinger for wearing a dress, because Klinger isn't wearing a dress, because he's not trying to get kicked out of the Army, because he's already out of the Army, because the war is over. (breathe) All of the jokes became forced because there was no motivation for anything. The least motivated was the viewer, to stay around and watch the show.

And from what I remember, the whole show seemed to be Potter, Klinger, and Mulcahy just standing there unnaturally, facing the audience like a trio of Vaudeville performers. It was reminiscent of Good Times, where they spent 90% of the show standing behind that couch and talking to the audience, trying to make it look like they were having natural conversation. They weren't. And it felt even less natural on After MASH.

Another random tidbit I recall is that the people who made MASH never got any royalties from the spin-off. The studio used the absurd excuse that After MASH was really a spin-off of the movie MASH (which they owned) and not the TV series. Nice try, but Mulcahy was the only one of the three in the movie, and he was never deaf. I guess studio execs will do anything for a buck. Anything other than make a worthwhile sequel, that is.

Sentiment: negative
This flick is a waste of time.I expect from an action movie to have more than 2 explosions and some shooting.Van Damme's acting is awful. He never was much of an actor, but here it is worse.He was definitely better in his earlier movies. His screenplay part for the whole movie was probably not more than one page of stupid nonsense one liners.The whole dialog in the film is a disaster, same as the plot.The title "The Shepherd" makes no sense. Why didn't they just call it "Border patrol"? The fighting scenes could have been better, but either they weren't able to afford it, or the fighting choreographer was suffering from lack of ideas.This is a cheap low type of action cinema.

Sentiment: negative
The documentary presents an original theory about "Guns, Germs and Steel". The series graphically portray several episodes strongly supporting the theory, and defend the theory against common criticism.

I was deeply puzzled to find user comments complaining about lack of new information in these series. They say documentary presents information which is taught in middle school. Indeed, it does. In fact, I greatly enjoyed the original look at the information which I have known since middle school and the unexpected analysis.

So, if you like knowing WHY things work, if you have taken apart the telephone trying to determine how it worked, if you have gone to the farm to see how farm works and how cows are milked, you will enjoy this series. A definite recommendation.

Sentiment: positive
This is another gem of a stand up show from Eddie Izzard . You cannot fail to laugh at the wide range of topics he talks about. He even takes the piss out of his American audiance at times and most of them didnt even realise it! A must see for anybody who likes comedians. 9 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is a rather odd mix of musical, romance, drama and crime with a sniff of film-noir to it. It's basically one messy heap of different genres, of which none really works out like it was supposed to.

This movie is an attempt by Mickey Rooney to be taken more serious as an actor. He's a former child-star who always used to star in in happy comical- and musical productions at the start of his career. In this movie he picks a different approach (although the musical aspects are still present in the movie). But his role is actually quite laughable within the movie. I mean Mickey Rooney as a tough player? He's an extremely small boyish looking man. He actually was in his 30's already at the time of this movie but he seriously looks more like a 16 year old. Hearing him say babe to women and hearing talking tough to gangsters who are about 3 times bigger than he is just doesn't look and feel right. He simply isn't convincing in his role.

Because the movie mixes so many different genres, the story also really feels as a messy one. Somewhere in it there is a crime plot and somewhere in it is a romantic plot-line and one about living your dream but none of it works out really due to the messy approach and handling of it all. It just isn't an interesting or compelling movie to watch. László Kardos is also a director who has done only 10 movies in his lifetime, despite the fact that his career span from 1935 till 1957. He must have been a struggling director who had a hard time getting work into the industry and instead once in a while was given a lesser script to work with. His movies are all unknown ones and normally also not of too high quality.

Let's also not forget that this is a '50's movie but yet it more feels like a '40's one or perhaps even as one from the '30's. This is of course mostly due to the fact that this movie got shot in black & white. Generally speaking black & white movies from the '50's often have a cheap looking feeling over it and this movie forms no exception.

It's a rather strange sight seeing Mickey Rooney and Louis Armstrong and his band as themselves performing together in a sequence. It wasn't the only movie Armstrong appeared in though and he would often pop up in these type of movies, often simply as himself. I guess jazz lovers can still somewhat enjoy watching this movie due to its music, since there is quite an amount of it present in this movie. The movie actually received an Oscar nomination for best original song.

An awkward little movie and outing from Mickey Rooney.

4/10

Sentiment: negative
There is a scene in this film at about the 42 minute mark that is among the worst I have seen in some time. As F. Scott Fitzgerald (Gregory Peck) and Sheilah Graham (Deborah Kerr) are lounging on the beach, suddenly things become tense and Sheilah begins to cry--at which point she tells her lover about her sordid past. This "dramatic scene" becomes so terribly overdone and histrionic I couldn't help but turn to my wife and exclaim how stupid it all was...as dramatic music swelled on the television as it all came to a phony crescendo. NO ONE experiences moments like this--no one. Now how much of the rest of the film is true, I cannot say, but this particular moment was laughably bad and as fake as an $8 Rolex--and leads me to assume that some of the other reviewers were correct--the film is a lot of bunk. However, I am not an expert on the life of these two people and the internet didn't seem to clear this up, either. 

Just who were F. Scott Fitzgerald and Sheilah Graham and what was their relationship really like? What I do know about Fitzgerald, however, does seem different from what I saw in the film. Was he the suave and decent man we initially see in the film? Well, considering he was married at the same time he was carrying on with Graham and drank like a fish, I'd assume he wasn't. Was he as obnoxious and boorish as we later see in the film? Perhaps, but if he was this bad AND yet Ms. Graham stayed with him, then this makes her out to be a complete dummy--and not someone you'd like to see featured in a film. And, if he wasn't, then the film does a poor disservice to his memory. Either way, it made for a painful and not particularly pleasant viewing experience.

The sum total of this film appears to be a tale of two not particularly likable or healthy people. In a dark and salacious way, some might find this all very entertaining, but most are sure to see this as a train wreck with no surprises along the way! Unpleasant but with glossy production values (especially the music, which was lovely but way over the top) it begs the question "why did they even choose to make this in the first place?". The bottom line--it's a pretty bad film all around and probably not worth your time--even if, like me, you are big Gregory Peck fan.

Sentiment: negative
A quick resumé: Almost nonexistent, badly chosen musical soundtrack, steady-cam filming done without the steady but with lots of coffee and a hyperactive cameraman, NO plot, and nothing ever really happens. The film goes from one dialog into another, sounding hollow, never achieving depth, never creating the illusion that you really are inside a cobweb of conspiracy, and the everybody-has-an-affair-with-everybody is just a boring excuse to show the main actress in nice underwear. (which, combined with her rusty voice certainly is nice, but nothing to base a movie on) The high point for me is the opening scene, and the film just degraded from there to a point where I just wanted to quit the film about 45 minutes into the story. I regret sitting it out.

Sentiment: negative
First off, let's start with the negative points: 1) There are HUGE, gaping wholes in the story line and questions that are raised that will get no where near being answered; 2) The movie is not for all people, so impolite viewers will get restless and start yapping during the movie.

Point two above is important because the movie is very quiet. In an older type theater (like the one I went to), you can hear the reel going through the projector at times. I loved that. The movie does not keep you busy with music, nor effects: it lets you reflect upon what is happening.

There is a lack of rhythm that generates an atmosphere that is fascinating an utterly enjoyable. The same kind of atmosphere generated by Stanley Kubrick in Eyes Wide Shut. Not for all people.

I would highly recommend it to fans of cinema, as the cinematographic work is amazing. Those that base their appreciation of a movie solely on the story will be utterly disappointed. It's the kind of story that you have to make up the links in your mind afterwards. (My version of it is pretty darn cool, but probably quite off-track!) If you do go catch the movie, there is one very cool part: when the two cops are talking to each other on their cell phones. An ultra-cool sound effect that really puts you in the moment. Hats off to the person that thought of doing this.

Sentiment: positive
I got this DVD from a friend, who got it from someone else (and that probably keeps going on..) Even the cover of the DVD looks cheap, as is the entire movie. Gunshots and fist fights with delayed sound effects, some of the worst actors I´ve seen in my life, a very simple plot, it made me laugh ´till my stomach hurt! With very few financial resources, I must admit it looked pretty professional. Seen as a movie, it was one of the 13 in a dozen wannabe gangsta flicks nobody´s waiting for. So: if you´re tired and want a cheap laugh, see this movie. If not, throw it out of the window.

Sentiment: negative
The Tempest has been interpreted in many different ways ranging from more or less traditional views as dealing with Art to more post-modern approaches that like to dissect the play along post-colonial, feminist, gender or deconstructionist lines. The reason why Jarman's version left me fairly cold is that I didn't have a clue what he was on about. What is the underlying vision/idea/concept behind this rendering of Shakespeare? The previous reviewers do not get much further than revenge tragedy, punk show, but surely there is more to it, isn't there? This is not to say that there is no vision here, just that I was hard put to discover it. Be that as it may, there are still things to enjoy. The punk flavour is refreshing and funny. Toyah Wilcox as Miranda and Jack Birkett as Caliban are wonderful. I did not much care about Williams as Prospero ... not enough magic I suppose. The switches between the old monastery/castle and the (very English) world outside can be a little unsettling at times, but I guess that is intentional. All in all, interesting but not quite the success I had hoped it might be (particularly after seeing Jarman's Caravaggio).

Sentiment: positive
One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Completely ridiculous. The story is bad. The animations are completely childish and displaced. The physics of the holograms are hilarious from how much they are completely wrong. OMG, I even wanna believe that this film has Disney label on it. Yuck. The actresses are somewhat beautiful, but there are so many good films with astonishing actresses that are far more valuable to see than this one. Final remark, bad film. Don't bother to watch it. If you're looking for films to see with your kids consider other alternatives like Ratattuile, Monster Inc or an Enchanted Story (on theaters). Seriously.

Sentiment: negative
I was looking forward to seeing Bruce Willis in this, especially since I remember being mesmerised by the original when I was young.

This movie is a perfect example of how movie companies can take a very good story and dumb it down until it's just another formula ridden hype of the fabled American law enforcement system/army VS, (the Russians.... no sorry the cold war is over, make that WITH the Russians) VS the TERRORISTS, similar to probably 50 other movies.

Furthermore it treats its audience like a bunch of idiots. The choice of weapon is well, plain ridiculous, are we seriously expected to believe that the world's most feared and experienced hit man/terrorist would select that for an assasination?

The whole point of the original story was the tense dual of intellects between the ordinary detective who is given the responsibility and the professional who crafts a ruthless but elegant plan to reach his target and then get away. None of that survived. All we have is the tired old American CIA/FBI/army vs the evil terrorist plot, we've all seen 1000 times before.

But of course the movie company's MBA's realised that a new intellectual angle here would lose them revenue from the short attention span gang, so the answer is ......Bruce Willis, BIG explosions and a crippled plot. They assume the American audience wont be able to relate to a threat to a foreign statesperson (where is France on the map afterall) so it has be an American!

Another example of a movie defiled by the boardroom.

Sentiment: negative
My, Kasi Lemmings certainly is a fair looking woman. This film is a lost gem, a dead-on satire "mockumentary" of the early 90's Hip Hop scene, when MC Hammer had just began to fade away into that good night. We follow the three members of the NWH as they embark upon their picaresque journey of would-be riches and fame. And like Nickolas Nickleby, at the end, they finish their journey not far from where they started, but at least a little wiser and lot less naive. This is one of the best films that no one has ever heard of, but it's the kind of film you either love or hate, a lot like "Company Man" in this regard. I regard this movie like the 1000 islands of upstate New York: it's a wonderful little secret you want to keep to yourself.

Sentiment: positive
The jokes are obvious, the gags are corny, and the characters are walking characatures - but I couldn't stop from laughing at his highly entertaining movie. No matter how many times I see it, I still get a kick out of this one, and I recommend it highly for all lovers of mindless entertainment. It contains many quotable moments, and some of the best sight-gags I've seen to this day. If you've had a bad week and you need a chuckle, rent this one on your way home Friday night to give your weekend a good start.

Sentiment: positive
JUST CAUSE showcases Sean Connery as a Harvard law prof, Kate Capshaw (does she still get work?) as his wife (slight age difference) and Lawrence Fishburne as a racist southern cop (!) and Ed Harris in a totally over the top rendition of a fundamentalist southern serial killer.

Weird casting, but the movie plays serious mindf** with the audience. (don't read if you ever intend to seriously watch this film or to ever watch this film seriously due to the spoilers) First of all, I felt myself rolling my eyes repeatedly at the Liberal stereotypes: the cops are all sadistic and frame this black guy with no evidence. The coroner, witnesses and even the lawyer of the accused collaborate against him (he is accused of the rape and murder of a young girl) because he is black.

Connery is a Harvard law prof who gives impassioned speeches about the injustices against blacks and against the barbarous death penalty. He is approached by the convicted man's grandmother to defend him and re-open the trial.

Connery is stonewalled (yawn...) by the small town officials and the good IL' boys club but finds that the case against Blair, the alleged killer, now on death row, was all fabricated. The main evidence was his confession which was beaten out of him.

The beating was administered by a black cop (!) who even played Russian roulette to get the confession out of him. Connery finds out that another inmate on death row actually did the murder and after a few tete a tetes with a seriously overacting, Hannibal Lecter-like Ed Harris, he finds out where Harris hid the murder weapon.

He gets a re-trial and Blair is freed.

I think... film over....

Then suddenly! It turns out that Blair IS a psychotic psycho and that he used "white guilt" to enlist Connery. He concocted the story with Ed Harris in return for Blair carrying out a few murders for Harris.

now Blair is on the loose again, thanks to Connery's deluded PC principles! The final 30 min. are a weird action movie tacked onto a legal drama, Connery and Fishburne fighting the serial killer in an alligator skinning house on stilts (yes, you read that right) in the everglades.

That was one weird film.

So the whole system is corrupt and inefficient, the cops are all just bullies and Abu Graib type torturers, but the criminals are really psychotics and deserve to fry.

Truly depressing on every level! The system is completely rotten and the PC white guilt types who challenge it are seriously deluded too.

Two thumbs down. Connery obviously had to make a mortgage payment or something.

Sentiment: negative
Return to Sender, a.k.a. Convicted, is almost imperfect. The one good thing about this particular film was that I was never bored. That being said, the reviews that hail this movie as a low-budget success may not have watched the same movie that I saw.

Rather than write a review and tell you what happens and what works and doesn't work, I will simply comment that nothing works. There are plot holes in this movie that you can drive a semi through. The acting in the film is not very good, although that may be a result of a script so poorly worded that it could have been ghost written by George Lucas. There was no need for exceptional sets or costumes for this particular movie and everything seemed appropriate. Did I mention that there were some plot holes? By the end of the movie, you are wondering how a blind guy can be such a good shot with a shotgun, why Kelly Preston trusts Aidan Quinn, why she would fall asleep the night before her client is supposed to be killed, how Aidan Quinn can drive 400 miles in such a short time with a car that keeps breaking down during the rest of the movie, why Aidan Quinn didn't by a fifth instead of a bunch of nips, etc.

With all that being said, this is certainly a B-movie, and a terrible one at that. The unfortunate thing is that it just isn't bad enough to be good. If you value your time, please let this serve as a public service message to stay away from this one.

Sentiment: negative
I was speechless and devastated after my first viewing of this - many parts of GREY GARDENS are very funny and unbelievably surreal - documentary of not, this really gives Fellini or David Lynch a run for their money in the weirdsville sweepstakes. I kept focusing on how these women (who are clinically way beyond eccentric) reveal their own humanity in the most surprising of ways, and I wonder whether their retreat from the world was prompted by something beyond the stuffiness of life in the unreal blue-blood universe, perhaps some abuse, or perhaps simply a streak of defiance and rebellion that spiralled out of their control and took on a life of its' own. This might be one of the greatest ever films that comes dangerously close to exploitation, without going completely over the edge - as the Edies do their thing, I kept noting things like the empty gin bottles in the rubble-strewn bedroom, cats urinating on the bed, racoons emerging from holes in the walls, and the final scene seemed incredibly sad - like a child's birthday party gone seriously wrong. Very definitely worth seeing and seeking out - you'll never forget it, but very disturbing.

Sentiment: positive
Just watched it then. It is pretty damn awesome. The fights are fantastic and the magic is really cool! It's totally like a video-game in parts, with some amazing hand-to-hand combat in there.

This film is for the fans: "To those who loved this world once before and spent time with its friends, gather again and devote your time..." Besides this ominous opening, the story was not very hard to follow, and Ihave never played a Final Fantasy game. I think it pays to be familiar with Role Playing Games in general; knowledge of the genre kinda helps you grasp some of it better. I think though that if you pay attention, and accept what the film throws at you, it's quite easy to understand. There is a lot that isn't explicitly explained, and if you demand that it should be then you will probably be confused and irritated.

Watching the film is like being dropped into the middle of some grand saga, and having to put as much of the puzzle together as possible. I like that approach; you get caught up in the mystery and confusion that all the characters are going through. But like I said, just be accepting. If a weird red lion thing that talks, turns up and starts kicking ass and taking names, and the other characters just say he's an old friend, accept it and move on; you don't need a biopic flashback, or a tell-all sit-me-down. You are an observer here, of something beyond your experience and undestanding.

So: fantastic graphics and animation, great voice acting, cool video game styled music, involving story and characters, and maybe some of the coolest fights you'll see in a while. It's worth seeing, and while it IS for the fans, it is perfectly accessible for people like me that have never played the games.

Sentiment: positive
Please don't waste your money on this sorry excuse for a motion picture. The only way I could see someone watching this is if they are a die-hard fan of Erika Elaniak, but you would be better off surfing the internet than to watch this piece of crap. I would rather watch paint dry than go through watching this. 

They lure you in with Casper and Erika and lead you to believe it is a sci-fi Dracula movie, but it quickly works out to be a farce about Van Helsing's great-great (you get the point) grandson, here ironically for one last show-down between himself and Dracula.

The movie also tries to make a political statement, I believe, when it appears that none of the characters in the future know who God is, that they have not been taught about him and don't understand when they see a cross. Could have done a lot more with this idea. It's a shame it turned out the way it did.

Sentiment: negative
I was a huge fan of Asterix comics when I was a kid and watched every one. I never heard about this movie when it was released but I watched it with my kids last night. I remembered the comic well enough to know that a lot was added to the story for the film. Some of the changes I thought were a bit corny (like the nephew's 'modern' dancing, and the viking chief's daughter - almost everything about her), but I found most it amusing enough. Most importantly, seeing the reactions as my kids watched it, confirmed that the film pleased its target audience. As a family film it works better than other Asterix titles I've seen. Many of the names that weren't in the book I found had the same appeal as ones that were. Overall, an enjoyable family film, regardless of whether you're an asterix fan or not.

Sentiment: positive
Recap: Not entirely familiar with the Shakespeare story of Macbeth, but my wild guess is that this is pretty close to the original, only set in present time. It tells the story of Macbeth, a member of a crime syndicate in Melbourne (?). He is a valued hit-man and in the favor of leader Duncan. But he and his lady has higher ambitions than that, and plan the murder of Duncan, and any competition of the throne. This is a story of betrayal and cold, brutal death.

Comments: Very interesting idea, I must say. To use the story but change the setting to present time, but still keep the original (?) dialog. It sets a huge contrast between the classical poetic work and the violence. Promised to be extremely violent, it is a promise that it keeps, but not in the notion I imagined. It is very bloody indeed, but the violence is slow. Not just figuratively speaking that it is calculated, which it is too, but also literally. A lot of action is actually slowed down to slow motion and that is what brings the movie to its knees.

What could have been a unique strength, the contrast between the superfluous and poetic dialog and the extreme violence, now turns into something else entirely. Now both slow the move down painfully much, so much that it actually becomes dull and boring at times.

Also I can't figure out the context the three witches act within. Set to present time and reality I figure that such magical witchcraft had no place in the movie. Apparently it does, but to me it seems completely out of place. Not a subplot but a complete sub-story with it's own rules, completely different than the rest of the movie. Seems completely out of place. Surely it must have been possible to convert that part too to something modern. Drug-induced hallucinations perhaps (which I suspect that the director hints at but then he has left way too much witchcraft in it to be believable)? Now they only bring stretches of the movie that is clearly beside the story and I just waited for the real movie to begin again.

A clear disappointment, but maybe something for Shakespearean-buffs?

4/10

Sentiment: negative
I bought this movie for 99 cents at K-mart several years back (along with "Hawken's Breed") figuring anything with Gabriel Byrne and Amanda Donahoe is surely worth that much. It wasn't. "Dark Obsession" (the title I bought it under) was a slight cut above "Hawken's Breed" (IMBD rated at 2.4), but not enough to allow me to even keep it in the house. I threw both movies in the trash.

This thing fails on so many levels it's hard to narrow it down, but let's just say it's tawdry, incredible, boring, hedonistic, confusing and even at 100 minutes, way too long.

I love Byrne as an actor, but this schlock really looks bad on his resume.

Sentiment: negative
Has Al Pacino ever been in a bad movie? His name seems to be an imprimatur for top notch cinema. This is as good a performance as he's ever given. Pacino is an American Olivier. And this is a political thriller as good as they get. There are no good guys and no bad guys. But the system has its inexorable effect on the people who think they're running it. Not only is Pacino's performance compelling --- the eulogy at the dead child's funeral is awesomely powerful --- the film has a fast paced, gritty realism to it that enhances the fine performances without resorting to gimmicks. This outstanding portrait of big city politics also manages to provide two hours of superb movie watching without undue violence, overheated sex or gutter language. There is murder. There are bad people. But they come across effectively without crossing the line. A film like this restores my jaded faith in Hollywood. I don't award many tens. This one richly deserves it!

Sentiment: positive
I originally saw this on its premiere in the UK. I was mesmerised by it, and it had me in tears all throughout its duration. I taped it off the TV for safekeeping, but over the years, it's worn out. And TV never seem to show it. Therefore it was a joy to find out that True Movies own the copyright and were showing it on their channels. This time, I taped it onto a DVD, so I can enjoy it again and again.

Lucile Fray (played magnificently by Ann - Margret) discovers she has cancer, and that it is terminal. Her husband has arthritis, and, although he is loving, he is an alcoholic, and would be incapable of taking care of their children after she has gone. Therefore, she has to find new homes for each of her children before she dies.

The acting is top notch, the music beautiful, and it has stood the test of time wonderfully (it still makes me cry!) If you ever get the chance, you would be silly to miss this. It is a wonderful film! A must see for everyone!!!

Sentiment: positive
The main point of the movie, IMO, is the fact the Joanna's whole life has been nothing but a series of facades. The movie opens up with her secretly dying her gray roots, and hiding the used kit in an empty tissue box. What is strange is that she is hiding this from her HUSBAND. If she has to hide mundane things from her loved one, one can bet that she is hiding even bigger things from others involved in her life.

When Joanna accidentally hits Cory, she leaves the scene to call the police. By the time she returns, the police and ambulance are there, as well as people from her community, remarking "What kind of person hits a child then just leaves her there?" Well-respected in her community, she makes the decision to keep quiet about what she had done. But, she never realized how difficult it would be the keep up her facades...

Great movie-I have seen it many times!

Sentiment: positive
It would be quite easy to make this movie sound fun: a call girl gets shot in the forehead by a North Korean spy, but survives. The bullet that is embedded in her brain makes her long for knowledge, as well as sex. Unbeknownst to her, she walks away from the shooting with the cloned finger of George W. Bush in her purse, a key which can unlock the power to use nuclear armaments. Just call it a romp, and at least a few people will show up to the theater. I'm not sure how many did go to see this four year old film when it opened in New York this past April, but I sincerely hope not many. It sounds like a light and playful pinku flick, but it has art-house pretensions and is really just incredibly boring. Many pinku films in the past have been successful in their artistic aspirations, but this film's aspirations just make the time that elapses between the sex scenes excruciating. And then the sex scenes aren't even good! I've seen some pretty outrageous stuff in dirty Japanese movies. I've never seen this country produce something with sex this dull. The Spice Channel is more imaginative. The only worthwhile thing in this movie is the body of the lead actress, Emi Kuroda. Otherwise, this is pure torture.

Sentiment: negative
Although the figures are higher in proportion to other areas of society, I don't object to the extremely high salaries for many of today's entertainers and athletes.

A-Rod, LeBron or Brady all have deals either well with 8 figures, or the low-9 area. Ray Romano and Jerry Seinfeld could actually become billionaires from their shows, huge residuals and fees they currently demand. Even their cast members, and all of the "Friends" group reached near or over 7 figures per episode. Letterman's earnings for one show could solve most people's financial problems, and a week or two's take care of many for life.

But all of these are based upon sound supply/demand principals, and the financial benefits they bring to their employers. And all perform their crafts ably.

But then comes along someone like Rachel Ray, who reaches a level of earnings far beyond any apparent level of talent or skill. I find her shrill, annoying, and with a forced "perkiness" that's as phony as the proverbial "3-dollar bill."

A friend of mine is responsible for special meetings, events and convention plans for her firm and its affiliates. One of the major talent sources has hundreds of clients available from the $5-10K level, to a handful who get $200K and up per appearance. (This area includes Trump, Seinfeld, Lance Armstrong, Robin Williams, and, no kidding, Larry the Cable Guy.)

There are a greater number in the $100,001 - 200,000 range; list included the likes of Bill Cosby, Steve Martin and even cable guy Larry's benefactor, Jeff Foxworthy. 

This category includes Rachael Ray. I suppose I have to admit there may be sufficient demand for her "talent" and offerings to justify her talk show and there may be some out there who'll pay more than $100K, + first class air, hotel suite, all expenses and limos door-to-door, for just a couple of hours of her whiny prattle at their organization's event. 

I just can't figure how-in-the-hell this could be possible.

Sentiment: negative
Based on the comments made so far, everyone seems to either hate this movie or love it. I think it would be fair to point out that although this is not a GREAT movie, it has its interesting moments. For one thing, it was filmed on location in Colorado (was it Breckinridge or Telluride? I can't remember, but it is in the credits). The location is absolutely stunning and spectacular. It's beautiful, even to me who lived in Colorado for several years.

Next, it has Disney's penchant for wonderful character actors. Harry Morgan has never been in better form than when he plays in a Disney movie. He is literally hysterical. Also, remember the wonderful Mary Wickes? Although she has a "bit part" in this movie, she is great, as always. If you don't know who she is, think of the animated Disney version of Hunchback from Notre Dame (she was one of the gargoyles), and she was also the most interesting nun in "Sister Act", as well as the best nun in "The Trouble With Angels." She has always been a great character actress and most character actors never receive the recognition they deserve.

In addition to character actors and all-star casts, in the 1960s-1970s Disney may have not had the "greatest" movies, but, if you really watch some of them from beginning to end, you will NOTICE that every movie has some really funny or hysterical moment in it. The entire movie may not be funny, but there is always a comic gem (at least 1 or 2) in every single "live-action" movie Disney ever made. Whether it's Harry Morgan in one of his bellowing tones of voice, or Tim Conway floundering around, or Joe Flynn giving one of his priceless looks of horror, it is all good. The whole film may not be good, but there are ALWAYS hysterical moments in every Disney film from this period that I have ever seen. Disney in this time period always managed to make a person smile, despite the dumbness of the film.

Bsed on these comments, I disagree with viewers who say every Disney movie in this time period is awful. That statement it not quite accurate. Rather, it is easier for me to give credit to the funny moments and overlook the weaknesses in the plots.

Some live-action Disney movies are true classics (Old Yeller, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Mary Poppins), but for those that aren't, I am able to appreciate them for what they were -- good clean family fun in a time when movies had become vulgar, crude and offensive.

Sentiment: negative