DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
"Ask the Dust" looked intriguing from the trailer, and we especially like all of the actors. Unfortunately, the movie was not compelling enough to be considered drama, and it wasn't funny enough to be a comedy. It practically seemed to satirize itself, and to no entertaining effect. After seventy minutes of waiting for this thing to get better, my wife and I walked out, valuing not having wasted any more time on such nonsense. It simply was not interesting, moving, funny nor artistic. It appears as though it were written, produced and directed by a high school kid; worse yet, it was such a shameful waste of otherwise extraordinarily talented actors, not to mention our time and money.

Sentiment: negative
Trailers of this movie may show scenes of violence or non mainstream sexuality, but these scenes are just rare fragments, picked out to attract audience. They are, of course showing the main message of the movie:

People who are constantly kicked on their heads in their jobs and lives, using power, which they may have somewhere else, to notoriously oppress others. And at the low end of the oppression chain, mostly women.

A movie showing this as brutally as Hundstage is surely tough to face, but having to endure such lives, is even tougher.

Technically the film is much like Short Cuts, but consisting of documentary style episodes, featuring people like your neighbour, playing just the way they are. Without any glitter, and most disturbingly, without any hope. Its documentary style makes the movie even more disturbing, because you realize, such people are out there, and there are many of them, although our society focuses on the nice exterior looks. Somewhere the porn industry has to do its business, somewhere unreported domestic violence has to take place, somewhere hopes have to shatter. I sure do know such people.

If you want to see a movie without any funny scenes (some may think the handicapped woman repeating the top ten supermarkets is funny, but this happens for real) and without any melodramatic, go watch this movie. However it will lose when you are focusing on subtitles I fear, as subtitles can´t transport accentuation.

Sentiment: positive
I love this show. I watched every episode last year. I bought the DVDs. And I tune into to watch tonight and I see for some reason you have retooled this great show. And you have taken what made it work and ruined it. You took one of the best aspects of the show away which was the 4 friends. Sam, Sully, Lizzy and Piper. I love the other characters as well, but they are good in small dozes like Derek, Darcy and even Sully. It is like the show lost some of its family and everyone else is trying to hard to fill in. It is overdose. While things are funny in small dozes when you are exposed to it all the time it goes from funny to annoying. I was so looking forward to the return of this show. So please bring back the charm. Even if you could not fit Piper into the show at least bring Lizzy back. But I loved those girls. They brought the fun. The show was about Sam trying to live his business life and handle his personal life and friends as well. That was the charm. And that great dog as well.

I hope the network (FOX) forced the writers to do this and the writers did not willingly do this to the show. I will give the show a couple more episodes before I give up, but tonight's episodes were bad. I made a big deal out of the show returning tonight and had people over and I felt like a fool, because no one was laughing except 2-3 times. I apologized to them and said I don't know what happened. And about 10 minutes into the episode I realized they were not going to show Piper or Lizzy and this was no longer a must see TV comedy.

Sentiment: negative
A multi-millionaire marries a female doctor. He hasn't worked in a day and she is devoted to her profession. He sees her off each day. Something has got to give.

Our hero, Henry Fonda, finally decides to do something with his life. He becomes a salesman in a department store but is soon fired as poorer people need the job. In the meantime, Dr. Helen Hunt, (Barbara Stanwyck) has given up her practice? What's there to do?

Kirk (Fonda) buys a bankrupt hospital and the two shall now be happy aiding others while they eke out an existence.

What's with the writing here? When annoyed with her husband, Dr. Hunt says, "You've been acting like gestapo." This is supposed to be a comedy. Hogwash. 

A very boring, tedious film. Very little going on here.

Sentiment: negative
Princess Victoria (Emily Blunt) is in line for the throne of England. The present King William (Jim Broadbent) is not well and may not live long. However, Vicky's scheming mother, The Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richandson) and her aide, John (Mark Strong) want to force Victoria to sign papers declaring them to be the "regents" until she is older, since she is only 20 years of age. The young lady refuses, despite John slapping her around. It is another sign that Victoria has a strong will and deep love for her country. Yet, when William does pass away, shortly after her 21st birthday, Victoria knows she has a heavy duty before her. First, she must surround herself with the "right" advisers to govern wisely. She chooses handsome Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany) who, although an older man, is mentioned as a suitor for Vicky. Which brings us to the young queen's second major decision. Sooner than not, the young queen should select her future mate, as it will bring stability to her life and to those of the kingdom, for an heir must appear in the coming years. Meanwhile, in Germany, some distant relatives of the British royal family are hatching some plans as well. Handsome Prince Albert (Rupert Friend), of the Saxon-Coburg dynasty, is prodded by his father to court the young English royal. Once he arrives at the palace, he is smitten and the feeling seems to be mutual. But, since he is a minor player on the map of royal match-making, can he succeed in winning her heart? This is a lovely film, made even better by a completely winning performance by Emily Blunt as Victoria. Yes, she is beautiful but it is her intelligent reading of the role that scores mightily. Friend, too, does well, as do the other actors, including Broadbent, Richardson, Bettany, Strong (what a repulsive role!), and the rest. Also, the movie is gorgeously shot, costumed, and set, making it a visual treat in every way. If anything is lacking, it is an extra dose of dazzle, as the film seems a bit too straightforward and prosaic, at times, with a somewhat unimaginative edit. However, this is only a minor, minor point of argument in an overall very successful and gorgeous film. In short, young and old, should make time for Young Victoria. It is a most worthy film among 2009 cinematic offerings.

Sentiment: positive
Strangely erotic schlock Gothic horror that will be loved by Hammer House of Horror fans the world over. Appears to be an interesting take on "Beauty and the Beast". It is definitely worth a look and surprisingly well acted when taking into consideration the genre and era.

Corsets, castles, rutting horses, rampaging faux fur monsters in the woods, proof that no-one had a Brazilian in the 70's, and more bodily fluids than you can shake a stick at, what more could you possibly want?!

It certainly brightened my Sunday afternoon!

Sentiment: positive
A small town kid working in a big city becomes a huge star and then spirals out of control. It shows you the rise to fame and then fall from fame and back to a little rise. Great cast of actors, and a great director = a great, great movie called Boogie Nights.

P.T Anderson. An amazing director who made Boogie Nights amazing. From the moment the movie starts to the moment it ends you can feel how beautiful this movie is. Some scenes are breathtaking, literally. A great story, a great movie. Mark Whalberg was fantastic, Philip Seymour Hoffman was wonderful as he is in everything. Thomas Jane also was magnificent and although he only had a small part he played it to perfection. There is one scene in this movie I can't get over, "The Drug Deal Gone Bad Scene" it was amazing, music acting and cinematography combined to make it amazing. I hadn't seen Boogie Nights and thank god I did, its so well rounded and I am now a HUGE fan of PTA (Paul Thomas Anderson).

Do whatever you have to do and watch this movie.

Sentiment: positive
I'm Czech and soldiers (not only pilots) who escaped Czechoslovakia after Nazi's invasion in 1939 and fought against them abroad are true heroes and bravest men in our history for me. This movie from director of Academy Award winner "Kolya" (1996) is a tribute to these men. It's first big-screen movie about Czechoslovak WWII soldiers since "Nebesti jezdci" (1968). I think "Dark Blue World" is a good movie - good acting, good special effects, nice music etc. Movie is half in English and some actors are Britons. But greatest thing about this movie is it's pure existence. It's great chance to show people all around the world (and to many people in Czech Republic too...) that Czechoslovak role in WWII was not only as occupied country but as an active member of allied campaign.

Leading characters are older and wiser Frantisek and young Karel. They escaped together from Czechoslovakia, they are flying in the same squadron and they fell in love with the same woman... Maybe it's a cliché but fortunately this storyline is not so aggressive and is in good balance with other scenes (including great dogfights). I don't want to compare "Dark Blue World" with "Pearl Harbor", someone will like PH more and someone will like DBW. But if you like happy ends, DBW is not for you. So, I think it's very good movie for everyone who likes this type of stories and very good movie who wants to get to know something about this chapter of Czechoslovak history.

BTW, main theme "Dark Blue World" is from Czech 30's and 40's composer Jaroslav Jezek. He wrote this theme when he lost his eyes...

Sentiment: positive
Cabin Fever is the first feature film directed by Eli Roth.Roth and Randy Pearlstein co wrote the script from a story by Roth.this a zombie film,which owes a lot to George Romero and his earlier "living dead movies",and to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacrenot to mention Sam Ramie's "Evil Dead".there is nothing original here,and the story is not compelling.the acting is about par with this genre,it's just that the story fails.we have pretty much seen this movie before and better made.having said that,after having achieved commercial, if not artistic success from this movie,Roth decided he was a director and came out with the abysmally atrocious,mean spirited,pointless(though much more ambitious)crap fest Hostel.Roth should have quit while he was behind.Cabin Fever is not a good film,however compared to Hostel it is a work of art.I hope somebody (preferably a psychiatrist)convinces this guy that film-making is the wrong career choice.as for Cabin fever,a weak 3/10 for not being as abysmal as Hostel.

Sentiment: negative
I enjoyed The Night Listener very much. It's one of the better movies of the summer.

Robin Williams gives one of his best performances. In fact, the entire cast was very good. All played just the right notes for their characters - not too much and not too little. Sandra Oh adds a wonderful comic touch. Toni Collette is great as the Mom, and never goes over the top. Everyone is very believable.

It's a short movie, just under an hour and a half. I noticed the general release version is nine minutes shorter than the Sundance version. I wonder if some of the more disturbing images were cut from the movie.

The director told a story and did it in straightforward fashion, which is a refreshing change from many directors these days who seem to think their job is to impress the audience rather than tell a story and tell it well.

Do not be sucker punched by the previews and ads. It is not a Hitchcockian thriller. See The Night Listener because you want to see a good story told well. If you go expecting Hitchcock you will be disappointed.

My only complaint with the movie was the ending. The director could have left a little more to the audience's imagination, but this is a minor quibble.

Sentiment: positive
I have to admit, I don't remember much about the characters or the story, though I'm not sure there was one, I was soooo irritated by this movie that I had a bit of a hard time focusing on it. How can you name a movie "Keys to Tulsa" and then film it in Texas? The flat desert country around Arlington ( I think that was the location) in no way resembles the green rolling hills around Tulsa, and a celebrity in Tulsa would have a much nicer neighborhood to live in. Obviously no one in the movie has EVER BEEN to Tulsa or else they would have realized how nothing in the movie even resembled it. Hadn't anyone at least seen Rumblefish or The Outsiders? I know this sounds picky but I can't help it. I watched this because I love James Spader and I usually find Eric Stotz interesting. But even these two intriguing actors could not liven up this meandering,and mean story of self-involved people who are NOT IN TULSA!! I'm sorry, it can't be more expensive to film in Oklahoma. What if "To Live and Die in LA" had been shot in Toronto? Would that suck? Well so does this.

Sentiment: negative
I have found this epic to be of an astonishing, striking, even heartbreaking beauty. Some kind of monumentality in beauty and decorative richness, a magnificent dramatic movement and dynamism. The choreography herein is hugely enjoyable, the actors are thoroughly enjoyable. I have been a big fan of CROUCHING TIGER  as well, but this one was even better. They have Kitano's ingenuity in delighting in what is pleasurable. This beauty affirming adventure cinema is an act of courage. When was the suspense so exquisite and genuine? And the art of showing huge crowds, gigantic armies . The film has something deeply satisfying, and a steadfast good taste. There is an enormous pleasure in making such a deliberately impressing and clean show .It's good beyond words. Few, few adventure films ,let alone epics, gave me such an uninterrupted delight.

Fan can be monumental. is not monumental artbut is monumental fun,like Leone's movies, like some '60s epics; also like the hobbits trilogy. It is largesized fun.

Sentiment: positive
This is so incredibly bad. Poor actors. You can tell they're trying really hard to polish a turd, but we all know you can't. The writing is so obvious and facile, it's sad watching them try to sell it. The humor and pacing are so labored, it's hard to believe any of these good actors signed on for this.

That said, it's so awful that we're having a hard time looking away from the screen. We just have to know where this trainwreck goes. But that's only because we caught it on TV. If we had actually PAID for this, we'd be disgusted. 

So it gets 2 stars for being at least amusingly/fascinatingly bad. And the incidental music (as opposed to the trying-too-hard indie soundtrack) is laughably reminiscent of an episode of Scooby-Doo... but not as good.

Sentiment: negative
Prot (Kevin Spacey) is a mental hospital patient who claims to be native to a distant planet called K-PAX. His psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges) tries to help him, all the while trying to understand Prot and find out if he is really from K-PAX.

This movie doesn't really fall into any particular genre. One big part of K-PAX is drama/ science-fiction, another part fantasy, plus, add to that a dash of comedy and you begin to get what K-PAX is all about. The story (as you see above) isn't too complicated or deep, but it still offers some good twists and turns of the plot that may still surprise you as they did me. No special effects or graphics accompany this movie, and there's no need to have them, the music in the film is great however. A techno soundtrack along with a terrific piano piece makes K-PAX sound sci-fi and makes certain scenes intriguing.

Kevin Spacey is the heart of the movie and plays a very convincing alien (Prot) from the planet K-PAX, emotional with great facial expressions, Spacey does a fine job in the lead role. Jeff Bridges is Dr. Powell, that aids and attempts to understand Prot. Bridges is also excellent in his part. Bridges and Spacey fit together very well and they should, after all, they've both had a lot of experience. The wife of Dr. Powell is Rachel Powell, played by Mary McCormack. McCormack plays her part well, showing the frustration from having her husband gone and so dedicated to his patient. Alfe Woodard plays Dr. Powell's coworker Claudia Villars, we don't really see Claudia too much, but overall she puts in an alright performance.

K-PAX is rated PG-13 for "a sequence of violent images, and brief language and sensuality", and that covers it. As far as "violent images" go, we don't see too much. A few people that have quite a bit of blood on them, but that's all. Language is as follows: 1 "f" word (wow, only one!), 11 "s" words, and a few uses of the Lord's name in vain. Not too bad really. The "sensuality" part is just from when Prot explains to Dr. Powell how reproduction works on K-PAX, nothing terrible, just something about it feels like "having your nuts in a vice." Not too bad on the content level for a PG-13 movie, it could have been a lot worse.

In conclusion, K-PAX is not a bad movie. It won't stun you, but it is enjoyable and kind of fun to watch. It has some funny parts, sad parts, really sad parts, and, well you know what I mean. It's a story of a mental hospital patient, what do you expect? All in all a good rent for those of you looking for a good drama that you can kick back and relax to, K-PAX is a well done movie.

Bonus! If you've seen this movie already, like it, and are thinking about getting the DVD, I would highly recommend it. It has loads of extras to look through, and even an alternate ending and deleted scenes. 8/10

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film at the 2006 Palm Springs International Film Festival and Director Aku Louhimies introduced his film and was on hand for Q&A after. For some reason this movie is titled Frozen Land in English so I don't know how the distributors got frozen out of Paha. This is a very good film. It doesn't for me have enough that I would knock it up a notch to the excellent category but I did talk to some viewers who felt that it was an excellent film. Louhimies said that back in Finland people either loved this movie or hated it and said a lot of people in theaters walked out on it. I'm sure some objected to some of the violence, swearing, drug and alcohol abuse and sexual explicate scenes. It's a very clever story of how these different lives are woven together because of a trickle down effect. This film has very interesting and strong characters. I would rate it a 7.0 out of a possible 10 and would see it again and recommend it with caution.

Sentiment: positive
A hilarious comedy by the best director ever, Oz Scott. The list of eighties TV icons goes on and on. Milano (Who's The Boss), Yothers (Family Ties), Stone (Mr. Belvedere), Robinson (Night Court), Jackee (227), D'abo (Wonder Years), Walston (Mr. Hand!!!). It is one of the funniest movies ever. Great lines, meaningless subplots, cheesy, bad acting. It is about a group of high school kids who need to pass drivers' ed. Mac from Night Court needs them to pass their final exam, or he'll be fired. Great performance by Brian Bloom as the jerk/kinda cool guy Riko Conner, but is nothing compared to B.D. Wong's Kiki (pronounced kee-chee). A great movie for all ages, so bad it's good.

Sentiment: positive
Lucille Ball's version of "Mame" in my opinion is one of the worst performances ever saved to film. After seeing Lucy in her various sitcoms more than an astronomical number of times, I can tell you that I really love Lucy, however, this movie is a fiasco of unbelievably bad casting, music and dancing. Robert Preston is the only saving grace with a part tiny enough to miss if you blink. I don't know what she was thinking, and I can't imagine how she was advised by the studio or director, but I actually cringed watching this embarrassing performance. I could be really cruel and suggest watching it for a laugh, but it's too pitiful even to qualify for that. Don't waste your money or your time.

Sentiment: negative
You can do a lot with a little cash. Blair Witch proved that. This film supports it. It is no more than a sitcom in length and complexity. However, because it has John Cleese as Sherlock Holmes it manages to be hilarious even on a budget that couldn't afford a shoestring. The highlight of this film is Arthur Lowe as the sincere, bumbling Watson, his dimness and slowness foils Cleese's quick-tempered wit. If you ever run across the film watch it for a quirky laugh or two.

Sentiment: positive
I tried. God knows I tried to like this Swiss Cheese of a movie, but the story was too full of holes, some big enough to drive a horse drawn carriage through. The acting overall was even and the characters endearing enough that you regretted they died off like recently sprayed roaches, scattering off to die their own gruesome deaths. Overall, however, it was not really very scary. Afterall we have seen spooky quickly moving figures in the background since "The Brood" why back when / and it was scary then just briefly. This film just never resolved the basic plot points and thats the writer's job. Naturally you would expect the director to pick up on the fact that the story did not make sense. Like who's was the secret room behind the wardrobe, why did the blood hungry ghost not die when she received the nails as prescribed by the book they read earlier? Why did the computer say "game over" for Frankie's character even though he lived? The list goes on and on. I don't really feel comfortable recommending this film as its makes you feel like you wasted your time and there was not enough payoff in truly scary moments.

Sentiment: negative
George Lopez is a funny man even without the sitcom. The first episodes I saw of this too often made jokes at the expense of his mom. As I have watched this more, there has been more & more variety. No one on the cast is really safe from his wit now.

It seems to me as this season has progressed that George is getting more comfortable with the family sitcom Dad role. At first he wasn't, but he is getting More & more into a groove. This makes both him & the shows progressively funnier. They had added a couple of characters for George to play off this year too. His wife's dad is getting more & more involved in the plot.

His mom is still there, but not as central as past seasons. I think it is prudent to say with George's sense of comic timing, & ABC's lack of good sitcoms, George Lopez has a good chance of being here on ABC long after George W. Bush.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is why I found this website. I couldn't find this movie anywhere else! I am so glad we found it here! We have seen it on TV before and wanted desperately to find it and buy and have several friends interested in buying it. One other poster commented that it is was boring, though I must say that it is NOT. Especially if you are a horse person, you will love this movie. The horses are awesome, well trained and the movie is well done. It is certainly one we will be purchasing for our home DVD library. We will be recommending it to our friends. The bond made between man and horse in this film was so inspiring and made you want to spend more time with your horses. This is certainly a movie that we will watch several times.

Sentiment: positive
Curl up with this one on a dark and stormy night and prepare to be alternately amused, irritated and frightened. The creaky old plot about about a phantom train that's said to run through the lonely English countryside at dead of night may be implausible, but it's a lot of fun. There are some wonderful old cliches like "THE ACCIDENT" which the locals can remember but won't talk about. But primarily the movie's a vehicle for comedian Arthur Askey to showcase his particular brand of vaudeville style humour in between the scary bits. Askey's corny humor is not very trendy these days but if you just let it wash over you it can be fun. This is probably the best of Askey's movies.

Sentiment: positive
This was on SciFi this past weekend, and I had to check it out. After all... it was science fiction, with vampires and Erika Eleniak. What could go wrong with this B-movie?

A lot.

To start with: It can't even be classified as a "B-movie," because that would put it in the same league as Roger Corman... and this movie doesn't even meet his expectations. The most money they spent was on the contact lenses for the vampires.

Secondly: The casting was horrible. Yes, casting Udo Kier as the captain of the Demeter was a smart move... but the director clearly couldn't even get Kier to memorize his lines. Casting Eleniak, in a vampire movie, is also a smart move because it means a bunch of horny guys are going to buy/rent/record this flick to watch her get seduced by a vampire. But, the director, writer and producer screwed that one, too. Granted, they got some money out of the poor, unfortuate souls who enjoy watching vampire movies with hot women in them... but no one is going to remember this movie in another two or three years.

Thirdly: Little things that just emphasize the laziness in this movie. For example, Van Helsing calls a cross a "crucifix," and, when Mina is staked in the coffin, the viewer can clearly see the fact that her "chest" is nothing more than pillows.

Oh, and one other thing: Why did they go for the George Hamiltion-type Dracula instead of something that would look decently scary? Does George Hamilton have an overwhelming hold on our future? Why didn't everyone who saw Dracula just laugh at him for his get-up?

A waste of time. Even with a TiVo remote in your hand.

Sentiment: negative
when discussing a movie titled 'snakes on a plane', we should point out early that the snakes are pretty darn important to the plot.

what we have here are very bad cgi snakes that neither look nor move like real snakes. snakes are scary because they appear to be slimy, they crawl they slither. these snakes do nothing of the sort. they glide along like they would in a video game. they are cartoon snakes. i would go as far to say that even someone that had a major phobia against real snakes would not find these ones scary

why on earth then would you want to include extreme close ups of these cgi failures? why not rely on suspense.. the whole 'less is more' ethic. or better still, why not just make them look good in the first place? and then maybe still use them sparingly

take one look at john carpenters 'the thing'. here we have real slime, and gore of eerie proportions. 20 years go by and we get this pile of stinking sfx crap 'snakes on a plane'. when are these people going to wake up and smell the coffee? special effects are going backwards!

sure you could say.. but the movie is a joke, get it? sure i'm with that idea, but do it well! in addition to the above, this movie has crap dialogue. and the music and sound effects are not creepy or memorable in any way.

i could handle every other actor being part of this movie, except for jackson. what was he doing there? the man who starred in pulp fiction 10 years ago. is this career progression? are you offering people value for money? no. i'd like to know what Tarantino thought when he was half way through this stinker of a movie

the current generation seem to have very low expectations. and Hollywood seems to be offering them just what they want. on leaving the cinema i saw a number of advertisements for some truly horrendous looking future releases including... DOA: dead or alive, (another) cgi animal film called 'flushed away', and another crap looking comedy named 'click'. in addition to that i saw some awful trailers, including one for (another) crap British horror/comedy. i've truly not seen the movie industry in a mess like this for a long time

expect to see this movie for sale in the DVD bargain section for £1 in 6 months time. and if you're expecting to see a black comedy with tonnes of great looking snakes, and some bad ass cool dialogue coming from samuel l jacksons lips. forget it.

Sentiment: negative
In 1987, John Hughes wrote and directed 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles', which was a hilarious and poignant comedy  the best thing he's ever done. Ten years on he's reduced to again recycling the plot of 'Home Alone' in this second sequel, which is not connected to the other films but is equally uninspired and sadistic. The four crooks  that's right, four! And one of them is a girl! Congratulations, Hughes, for introducing this revolutionary change to the series!  are electrocuted with metal chairs, brained with barbells and blinded with paint, ha ha ha haaaaaaaa ha, while the new kid is even less charming than Culkin. You'd think that the departure of almost all the key players from the first two films would stop Hughes from fossilising the same old routines, but the only surprise is that not even he turned up for 'Home Alone 4'.

Sentiment: negative
A Sci-Fi Network original. Not the best. Not far from being the worst. An electrician(Richard Grieco) stumbles onto a "key" that can open a gateway to a parallel Earth that has been taken over by mutant spiders. The mutations have been controlled by a super-sized alien Queen for the past thirty years. She has already eaten up the population of this parallel world that resembles Chicago minus inhabitants. Guess what? Now she must find another world to feed on. The electrician leads a four man team that reluctantly finds themselves with the task of saving the world. The finale confrontation is probably the best part of the whole movie. The cast also features: Richard Yearwood, Colin Fox, Kate Greenhouse, Jason Jones and David Newman. One would have thought that the Sci-Fi Network could have spent more money on special effects.

Sentiment: negative
Any child old enough to sit up in front of a screen will be absolutely captivated by the beautifully drawn images and wonderful music in this heartfelt and humorous re-write of the Grimms' fairytale. They'll be singing 'Bibbity-Bobbity-Boo' before they can even formulate a complete sentence and will continue singing it till their dying days. It is a classic for all children, especially those adults who are young at heart.

Sentiment: positive
Uuuuaaa! Barf! Yuk! Yuk! Disgusting! Puke City! Worst piece of junk ever made. Sick. Weird. Horrible. Enough said. Hold your nose. Don't eat. After seeing this sick, demented, garbage pail of a movie, you won't be able to eat your food for a week. But, maybe that's good. A new diet has been invented. Go to see this vomit inducing film. Get sick to your stomach. And you will be so turned off by the whole mess, that you can't eat for at least a week, and you drop about 15 pounds.

Me Me Lay! With a name like this, it's really amazing that she doesn't have a "cult" fan following. She rates as the worst actress ever. Her films make Ed Woods look like Gone With The Wind. This movie rates a minus 10.

Sentiment: negative
I'm not a big musical fan, but this is one of the few I really love. Unlike many other musicals, such as "The Sound of Music," none of the songs are about gratuitous stuff. Each song is social commentary, acumen on war, sexuality, recalcitrance, spirituality, and freedom. Especially amazing songs are "Easy To Be Hard," "Age of Aquarius," "Hair," "Flesh Failures/3-5-0-0," "Walking In Space," and "Hare Krishna." Totally revolutionary and wonderful. I can't wait to someday see it live!

Sentiment: positive
This series is formulaic and boring. The episodes are the same thing every week, simply with slightly varied settings. Some purely evil character does some dastardly deed, Walker goes after him, and it ends in a Karate match. The villains are super-cliché super-stereotypical evil villains, the good guys are all pure, honest and saintly, and the story lines are simplistic and unrealistic. After about 2 episodes, the show becomes totally unwatchable by all but the least discerning fans. Certainly not Norris's best work. His other work may be cliché but it usually does not drag on for weeks. If you enjoy formulaic,boring, repetitive clichéd snooze-fests, then this is for you.

Sentiment: negative
In anticipation of Ang Lee's new movie "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," I saw this at blockbuster and figured I'd give it a try. A civil war movie is not the typical movie I watch. Luckily though, I had a good feeling about this director. This movie was wonderfully written. The dialogue is in the old southern style, yet doesn't sound cornily out of place and outdated. The spectacular acting helped that aspect of the movie. Toby Maguire was awesome. I thought he was good (but nothing special) in Pleasantville, but here he shines. I have always thought of Skeet Ulrich as a good actor (but nothing special), but here he is excellent as well. The big shocker for me was Jewel. She was amazingly good. Jeffrey Wright, who I had never heard of before, is also excellent in this movie. It seems to me that great acting and great writing and directing go hand in hand. A movie with bad writing makes the actors look bad and visa versa. This movie had the perfect combination. The actors look brilliant and the character development is spectacular. This movie keeps you wishing and hoping good things for some and bad things for others. It lets you really get to know the characters, which are all very dynamic and interesting. The plot is complex, and keeps you on the edge of your seat, guessing, and ready for anything at any time. Literally dozens of times I was sure someone was going to get killed on silent parts in the movie that were "too quiet" (brilliant directing). This was also a beautifully shot movie. The scenery was not breath taking (It's in Missouri and Kansas for goodness sakez) but there was clearly much attention put into picking great nature settings. Has that rough and rugged feel, but keeps an elegance, which is very pleasant on the eyes. The movie was deep. It told a story and in doing so made you think. It had layers underneath that exterior civil war story. Specifically, it focused on two characters that were not quite sure what they were fighting for. There were many more deep issues dealt with in this movie, too many to pick out. It was like a beautifully written short story, filled with symbolism and artistic extras that leaves you thinking during and after the story is done. If you like great acting, writing, lots of action, and some of the best directing ever, see this movie! Take a chance on it.

Sentiment: positive
Part Two picks up... not where the last film left off. As part of the quasi-conventionality of Steven Soderbergh's epic 4+ hour event, Che's two stories are told as classic "Rise" and "Fall" scenarios. In Part Two, Che Guevara, leaving his post as a bureaucrat in Cuba and after a failed attempt in the Congo (only in passing mentioned in the film), goes down to Bolivia to try and start up another through-the-jungle style revolution. Things don't go quite as well planned, at all, probably because of Che's then notorious stature as a Communist and revolutionary, and in part because of America's involvement on the side of the Bolivian Government, and, of course, that Castro wasn't really around as a back-up for Che.

As it goes, the second part of Che is sadder, but in some ways wiser than the first part. Which makes sense, as Guevara has to endure low morale from his men, betrayals from those around him, constant mistakes by grunts and nearby peasants, and by ultimately the enclosing, larger military force. But what's sadder still is that Guevara, no matter what, won't give in. One may see this as an incredible strength or a fatal flaw- maybe both- but it's also clear how one starts to see Che, if not totally more fully rounded, then as something of a more sympathetic character. True, he did kill, and executed, and felt justified all the way. And yet it starts to work on the viewer in the sense of a primal level of pity; the sequence where Guevara's health worsens without medicine, leading up to the shocking stabbing of a horse, marks as one of the most memorable and satisfying of any film this year.

Again, Soderbergh's command of narrative is strong, if, on occasion, slightly sluggish (understandable due to the big running time), and one or two scenes just feel totally odd (Matt Damon?), but these are minor liabilities. Going this time for the straight color camera approach, this is almost like a pure militia-style war picture, told with a great deal of care for the men in the group, as well as Guevara as the Lord-over this group, and how things dwindle down the final scene. And as always, Del-Toro is at the top of his game, in every scene, every beat knowing this guy so well- for better and for worse- that he comes about as close to embodiment as possible. Overall, the two parts of Che make up an impressive package: history as drama in compelling style, good for an audience even if they don't know Che or, better, if they don't think highly of him. It's that special. 8.5/10

Sentiment: positive
I'm not bothered by the sleazy hosts, nor am I bothered by the cynical, self-righteous stance the makers of this crap take.

What I AM bothered about is that the vast majority of the episodes are fake. I wouldn't even be surprised if ALL of the episodes were staged. Hence this isn't a reality show but something far worse even than Oprah: garbage television with zero comma zero appeal. Like daily TV soap opera but with more action and fighting and less plot.

The premise would have turned out great - if only it had been executed without cheating the viewer. If only this idea were free of all the legal complications/trappings that would most certainly ensue due to what would happen with real people, and what is eventually aired. Hence the only way to create this """reality show""" was to get some rather desperate actors and make them improvise (and what pitiful and unconvincing improvisation it is most of the time!). Shouldn't this be obvious to anyone who finished grade school? Most reviews I read here don't even mention that any of this is fake, let alone that all of it might be. Wishful thinking or just boundless naivety? 

The actors hired in this pathetic show are the kind of bottom-of-the-barrel unemployed actors who are miserably waiting on tables, waiting eagerly for a call from a talk show (or this crap), which is when they finally get a chance to make several hundred bucks. I even recognized one actress (in the role of "cheater") that I saw years earlier in "The Jerry Springer Show". And I only saw 6-7 episodes of "Cheaters". How many more of these loser actors are there that appeared in Springer and "Cheaters" that I don't even know about?

However, to compare "Cheaters" with Springer isn't fair to the latter. The Springer show is not all fake; a bulk of the episodes are unstaged - hence often highly entertaining. There is no value to be found in "Cheaters", unless you're a struggling actor and want to get tips on how NOT to act in front of the camera.

The producers use various (very cheap, transparent) tricks to create the illusion of realness, to give their footage that elusive documentary feel. But it's all in vein. In the end, the more intelligent train-wreck-seeking viewer is left with absolutely squat. "Professional wrestling" has more credibility than this.

Sentiment: negative
A good example of reversed, politically correct racism where white men are presented as senseless brutes who're only there to be massacred and their aboriginal adversaries as noble heroes, superior both in their appearance and abilities. Apart from making the story overally dull, this also prevents the neutral viewer to identify himself with one or the other side - it's just too simplifying. The repetitive score is incredibly annoying (as is the voice-over), the characters lack any depth and the viewer is soon lost between questions like "who is this character" and "what the hell is that supposed to mean". Photography is wonderful, though, and on the whole there's a lot of atmosphere to it but nice shots of misty landscapes alone don't save this movie. The DVD box uses Kiefer Sutherland as an eye-catcher. In fact, his character could have been played by anyone else because it's basically just an empty shell (like most non-Maori characters), and disappears anyway around halfway the film. But if you are eager to see Jack Bauer in a kilt, that's your kind of movie...

Sentiment: negative
Zeke Rippy (Mic) is great, you totally believe his character. And it's scary as hell, I spent half the movie covering my eyes, the other half on the edge of my seat. It's cool to see something this suspenseful and frightening that isn't all blood and guts - but it did give me bad dreams.

 Basically this is a great movie - see it the first chance you get.

Sentiment: positive
A Damsel in Distress is a delight because of the great Gershwin songs, Fred Astaire, Joan Fontaine, and a terrific supporting cast headed by Gracie Allen and George Burns.

Typically silly plot for an Astaire film has him as an American dance star in England with Burns as his publicist and Allen his secretary. They concoct a story about his being a love bug with women falling victim to him left and right. He runs into Fontaine who is being held captive in her castle by a domineering aunt and docile father. Silly plot.

The great songs include A Foggy Day, Things Are Looking Up, Nice Work if You Can get It, and I Can't Be Bothered Now. Fontaine does not sing, but does a brief (and decent) number with Astaire. Surprisingly good in a few dance numbers with Astaire are Burns and Allen, including an inventive and fun romp through an amusement park.

Also in the cast are Reginald Gardiner, Constance Collier, Montagu Love, Harry Watson (as Albert), Ray Noble, and my favorite--Jan Duggan as the lead madrigal singer.

Jan Duggan is in the middle of the swoony trio who sings Nice Work if You Can Get It. Her facial expressions are hilarious. She was also a scene stealer in the W.C. Fields comedy, The Old Fashioned Way, playing Cleopatra Pepperday.

Much abuse has been heaped on this film because of the absence of Ginger Rogers, who, as noted elsewhere, would have been hideously miscast. The TCM host notes that Ruby Keeler and Jessie Matthews were considered. Yikes. Two more would-be disasters. Fontaine is fine as Alyce and the dynamic allows the musical numbers to belong to Astaire, with ample comic relief by Burns and Allen.

Fun film, great songs, good cast, and Jan Duggan in a rare spotlight!

Sentiment: positive
I recently rented this doc, having remembered hearing about it from IMDb.com and being intrigued by the premise. I knew very little about either of these bands, but I do remember hearing "Not If You Were The Last Junkie On Earth" by The Dandy Warhols ages ago and enjoying it. That being said, this is my perspective on the doc:

One thing I found incredible about this film is there is no need to have any prior knowledge of either of these bands. The director (Ondi Timoner) wastes no time in engaging the audience and familiarizing them with the people in this film. I quickly became grooved to the lives both Anton and Courtney as well as their respective bands, The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols. I think that is part of what makes this doc so good, and what makes Ondi Timoner such a master documentarian.

I also loved how the "story" of these bands was told. Most of what you see is of the bands on tour. Both bands start out playing small venues and struggling to make it in the recording industry. Throughout the film, each band strives to remain unique and uncontrolled by the norm. However it is this that makes the two bands similar, and thus the brilliant perspective on how two bands of a feather can go in such different directions.

I would basically recommend this for ANYONE who likes film in general. You do not need to have a particular love for documentaries, or either of the bands. An appreciation for music helps, but the music itself takes a backseat to the love/hate relationship between The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is a sleeper - I've watched every miniseries that was ever on TV, some many times, and this one is the best. Wonderfully cast, superbly acted, and the characters are well-developed. Helen Morse perfectly fits the part of Jean Paget - strident, in control, sharp, and a bit belligerent. She bounces well off of Joe Harmon, the cowboy/taciturn/"It'll be okay" sort of guy. I was sorry that the movie didn't stick to the book, in that there was no romantic interest between Noel Struan and Jean Paget. For those who don't know, this is taken from a true story about English women marched around Malaya for 3 years by the Japanese, who indeed did not know what to do with them. Very few of them survived. Neville Shute talked to one of them, and this is her story. This movie deserves to be in everyone's collection who loves WWII stories.

Sentiment: positive
'The Cell' is a journey into the mind of a serial killer and I mean this literally. The film is about the journey, about the world it shows during this journey, the destination does not really matter. In my opinion this journey through the mind gives such beautiful images other things do not really matter as long as they are not distracting. In fact, the story is pretty good.

We start with Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez) in the mind of a catatonic boy. How this works exactly does not really matter, but it looks a lot like virtual reality. She and other scientist including Henry West (Dylan Baker) and Miriam Kent (Marianne Jean-Baptiste) believe that this method might work. Catherine enters the mind of the boy and speaks with him there, in a world that is completely created by the boy. She hopes she can let him do things that in the end will give results.

The real story then. A serial killer named Carl (Vincent D'Onofrio) just dumped the body of one of his victims. FBI Agents Ramsey (Jake Weber) and Novak (Vince Vaughn) are on this case. Another girl (Tara Subkoff) disappears and at that time, after forensic research on the dumped body, Carl can be traced and captured. Two problems occur. 1. Carl just went into a coma; he has been sick for a long time. 2. His house and the house with his last kidnapped victim are not at the same place. In a way this part of the story is pretty standard.

Things are about to get interesting again. To find out where the girl is, Catherine has to go into Carl's mind. This is dangerous for a lot of reasons. In short: Carl is unknown territory, schizophrenic and a serial killer. If Catherine starts believing Carl's mind is the real world then her mind can convince her body; she could die in the mind of Carl. A tape of how the last victim was killed, a fate this girl will have in about twenty hours, makes sure Catherine will try to get the location out of Carl's mind.

It is the journey through this sick mind that makes this film more than worth watching. Director Tarsem Singh, who did music videos before this, in a way goes back to these music videos. Every room in the imaginative world is another short clip that exists out of beautiful and sometimes haunting images. For me the visual style felt completely new, the way 'Three Kings' had a new visual style one year earlier. If something like that can make you like a film, 'The Cell' will not disappoint. But fans of the thriller and horror genre can like this film anyway. The story itself, without the great fantasy world, is good enough for that. I think you have to be a little open minded, of course events are not (yet) possible in our real world. Still, a very entertaining film with nice ideas that looks terrific.

Sentiment: positive