DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Romantic comedy is not the correct way to describe "How to lose friends & alienate people". The underlying romance in the plot is, for the most part, displaced by a far more interesting "rags to riches" tale. Although the central line of the story is somewhat rushed passed, in several screen shots, it does have a sense of; getting the "nitty gritty" out of the way, focusing on those key relationships which make "office politics" and using those almost irrelevant scenes, used purely for comic effect. Yet it works so well, especially with Pegg in the front seat. The film is ultimately very clever, playing well on the trans-Atlantic relationship Pegg shares with his co-stars and merging the cross between the high and low -life society quite well and quite refreshingly in a storyline that despite predictability is somewhat of a unique journey. The different characters in the film are presented well and casting is definitely a plus point on the film. Both the "trading places" relationship between Pegg and Huston and the "love, hate" relationship between Pegg and Dunst do work so well in a story that is, for want of a better word, charming. Even Fox, whose main asset is of course sex appeal, shocks with what turns out to be quite a dark character and acts that "bimbo" role all to well. Its one of these films where every little detail does pay tribute to a great piece of work. From transsexual strippers to an amazing soundtrack it all meshes nicely into what can only be described as clever comedy.

Sentiment: positive
I didn't approach "Still Crazy" with any real anticipation. Just another rock'n'roll picture, I figured... good nostalgia for the baby boomers. This film is partially that, but so much more. Brian Gibson, the director, previously helmed a biography of Tina Turner, and is quite successful in his style. I suppose it is fitting that this was his last film.

The cast is well-chosen. Bill Nighy is perfect in his role as the band's frontman. Actor-turned-director Bruce Robinson appears as the band's washed-up guitarist. He does a superb job, even though he hasn't appeared on film since the late 70's. If you're looking for an touching and funny film (with some great songs), you've found it.

7.4 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
This was a top-notch movie with a top-notch cast. Danny Glover, Tony Danza, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and especially Christopher Lloyed are well-cast in this charming movie about real-life angels helping the Angels baseball team. You never know, it could happen. I loved Lloyd's role in it. He was hilarious. The story is about turning your life around, as the kid's belief in Angels helped turn around angry, hardened, and embittered manager Glover see the best in people. The movie was well made and also about seeing the best in people and reaching your dreams. It was funny, charming, touching, and sad, all very nicely done. You will like (or love) it. I guarantee.

*** out of ****

Sentiment: positive
Had the original casting idea been kept (hunting Rutger, not Ice-T), this movie might have worked. Sadly, racism had to come into the picture (literally) and mess it up. The predominantly black production staff couldn't allow the antagonist be black, so they swapped Rutger's and Ice-T's roles. This was only the start of the downward spiral of this film. Ernest Dickerson's news-room approach to 'directing' only verified that this was another affirmative-action job assignment. Master shot, close up, close up. Gads, 'Who's Line Is It Anyway' even uses more creative camera work. Eric's rewrite of 'The Most Dangerous Game' is at least an attempt at modernizing the classic tale, but fails to give us any motivations for why the characters are doing this. We are never given the reasons, other than "no one will miss these people", why the leader (re-written as Rutger) does these things. Aside from a heart-felt performance by John McGinley, and a fair job by Charles Dutton, do not bother with this one. One small bit of trivia, there was a real drunk-driving accident during filming that injured F.Murray Abraham, and resulted in the death of the intoxicated young driver that caused the accident.

Sentiment: negative
You can't take this movie seriously.....the plot is predictable and trite, the acting often over the top, the dialog laughable; but it all adds up to great fun! Three "career girls" in the late 1950's find their way to the BIG city and all the evils and temptations their mothers probably warned them about: married men, alcohol, premarital sex, abortion, etc.

Then there's Amanda Farrell (Joan Crawford) who did succeed professionally, but whose personal life has been sacrificed for an office with her name on the door.

This movie may have been believable 50 years ago, but now it's just great campy fun! Rent/buy it and enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
Made after QUARTET was, TRIO continued the quality of the earlier film versions of the short stories by Maugham. Here the three stories are THE VERGER, MR. KNOW-IT-ALL, and SANITORIUM. The first two are comic (THE VERGER is like a prolonged joke, but one with a good pay-off), and the last more serious (as health issues are involved). Again the author introduces the film and the stories.

James Hayter, soon to have his signature role as Samuel Pickwick, is the hero in THE VERGER. He holds this small custodial-type job in a church, but the new Vicar (Michael Hordern) is an intellectual snob. When he hears Hayter has no schooling he fires him. Hayter has saved some money, so he tells his wife (Kathleen Harrison) he fancies buying a small news and tobacco shop. He has a good eye, and his store thrives. Soon he has a whole chain of stores. When his grandchild is christened by Hordern, the latter is amazed to see how prosperous his ex-Verger. The payoff is when bank manager Felix Aylmer meets with Hayter about diversifying his investments. I'll leave it to you to hear the unintentional but ironic coda of the meeting.

According to Maugham he met a man like Max Kelada (Nigel Patrick) on a cruise. In MR. KNOW-IT-ALL Kelada is a splashy, friendly, and slightly overbearing type from the Middle East who is on a business trip (regarding jewelry) by steamship. His state-room mate is Mr. Grey (the ever quiet and proper Wilfred Hyde-White) who is somewhat, silently disapproving of Max. Max likes to enliven things, and soon is heavily involved in the ship's entertainment. At this point the story actually resembles part of the plot of the non-Maugham story and film CHINA SEAS (1935), as Max makes a bet that he can tell a real piece of jewelry from a fake (after insisting that a piece of jewelry he spotted is real). I won't describe the way Max rises to the occasion.

SANITORIUM is the longest segment. Roland Culver plays "Ashenden" (the fictional alter-ego of Maugham - a writer and one time spy as in Hitchcock's THE SECRET AGENT). Here he has to use a sanitorium for a couple of months for his health. He finds a remarkable crew of people, including Jean Simmons as a frail but beautiful young woman, Finlay Currie as an irascible Scotsman, John Laurie as a second irascible Scotsman who is "at war" with Currie, Raymond Huntley as a quiet patient who only shows his internal anger at his situation when his wife shows up, and Michael Rennie as a young man who has a serious life threatening illness. Culver watches as three stories among these characters play out to their conclusions. The last, dealing with Simmons and Rennie, is ironic but deeply moving.

It was a dandy follow-up to the earlier QUARTET, and well worth watching.

Sentiment: positive
I decided to watch this serial after seeing the endless adverts for it on the BBC in the weeks prior to it starting. I watched it despite the fact that I don't like the pretentious kind of stuff that Alan Hollinghurst writes (sorry to his fans but I think we have a case of the emperor's new clothes with this author's work). I admit that the acting is excellent, it is beautifully shot and I was reasonably entertained by it - however- I found that the storyline was extremely thin and after watching all three episodes feel very unsatisfied with this rather empty production. The 'explicit' gay sex that the media droned on about has all been done before on TV - several times - so it was nothing very shocking I'm afraid. Full marks for production values but low ones for storyline/content I'm afraid.

Sentiment: negative
I'm totally agree with GarryJohal from Singapore's comments about this film. Quotation: 'Yes non-Singaporean's can't see what's the big deal about this film. Some of the references in this film fly right over the head of foreign viewers and mostly Singaporeans are the ones who would actually 'get' it.' It's still not quite the truth and as a Malaysian-Chinese, i do 'get it' although i don't speak Hokkien because we do have the similar 'problems' in Malaysia too. I know that it's really hard to understand and to accept this as a REALITY but it is definitely NOT a 'no real story'. I was pleased to see this film outside Malaysia because it will and definitely be banned in Malaysia too. Which means either you get it in 'illegal copied VCDs or DVDs' or hope that someone to be kind enough to 'share' it in the internet. This is not an 'another violent teen drama.......' because it portrays the reality which exists in Singapore (and in Malaysia too) in an interesting way (sad+humour). I was just a little sad to know that this film got about 20 cuts in censorship. What a waste!

Sentiment: positive
After spotting the high rating on IMDb, I decided to go see this movie. Beyond that high rating, I intentionally avoided reading any of the reviews. I wanted to go into the theater with a clean slate, without knowing the plot or having predetermined expectations.

Given my rating, you can see that I was disappointed. I enjoyed the development of the main character Mike Enslin. I also enjoyed how the hotel manager attempted to talk him out of entering the hotel room. By the time Enslin entered the room, I was ready for some scary stuff.

First chocolates appear on the pillow and the toilet paper is folded. Enslin reacts in a believable manner. He's freaked out. I'm encouraged and think to myself, this is going to be good. The people who made this movie understand that less is more.

But it's what happens next that was a big let down. The subtleness is quickly replaced by the predictable shotgun approach... Just blast the audience with every Hollywood scary trick in the book and hope that something works. Let's see, a clock radio that turns on by itself? Good, that's always scary. Objects that move around in the room? Good, you can't complain about that. Blood dripping from the walls and sink? Great. Ghosts that commit suicide? Good. Anything else? How about loud noises, shaking, fire, more shaking, messing up the room, more blood, etc etc. It's all good. And it's all been done before. Overstimulate our Attention Deficit Disordered audience with all kinds of stuff in quick succession, and they won't be able to look away.

Well, it didn't work for me. And you know what else? When I go see a horror movie in a theater, it's typical to hear several groups of girls in the audience yelling in fear at scary moments. But this movie had no scary moments. The audience was silent and disinterested. I felt no chill down my spine. Nothing. The Shining was 100x what this movie tries to be.

So who are all these people who are saying that it is one of the best horror movies ever? Friends of the director? Sorry, I just don't get it.

Sentiment: negative
I was surprised at the low rating this film got from viewers. I saw it one late night on TV and it hit the spot - I actually think it was back in 1989 when it first appeared. Yet I remember it pretty well, with a nice twist or two, and an interesting ambiance on a windmill farm. Michael Pollard looks suitably seedy for his role which pretty much sums up the unfulfilled early promise of his career, and everyone else plays it pretty straight ahead. I definitely recommend it as a rental, although some of the themes, which might have seemed a bit edgy in 1989, now may seem tame, which is a shame, considering that contemporary "edginess" is often just used as a necessary marketing tool, sort of like clamoring just to get noticed.

Sentiment: positive
THE NIGHT LISTENER (2006) **1/2 Robin Williams, Toni Collette, Bobby Cannavale, Rory Culkin, Joe Morton, Sandra Oh, John Cullum, Lisa Emery, Becky Ann Baker. (Dir: Patrick Stettner) 

Hitchcockian suspenser gives Williams a stand-out low-key performance.

What is it about celebrities and fans? What is the near paranoia one associates with the other and why is it almost the norm? 

In the latest derange fan scenario, based on true events no less, Williams stars as a talk-radio personality named Gabriel No one, who reads stories he's penned over the airwaves and has accumulated an interesting fan in the form of a young boy named Pete Logand (Culkin) who has submitted a manuscript about the travails of his troubled youth to No one's editor Ashe (Morton) who gives it to No one to read for himself. 

No one is naturally disturbed but ultimately intrigued about the nightmarish existence of Pete being abducted and sexually abused for years until he was finally rescued by a nurse named Donna (Collette giving an excellent performance) who has adopted the boy but her correspondence with No one reveals that Pete is dying from AIDS. Naturally No one wants to meet the fans but is suddenly in doubt to their possibly devious ulterior motives when the seed is planted by his estranged lover Jess (Cannavale) whose sudden departure from their New York City apartment has No one in an emotional tailspin that has only now grown into a tempest in a teacup when he decides to do some investigating into Donna and Pete's backgrounds discovering some truths that he didn't anticipate.

Written by Armistead Maupin (who co-wrote the screenplay with his former lover Terry Anderson and the film's novice director Stettner) and based on a true story about a fan's hoax found out has some Hitchcockian moments that run on full tilt like any good old fashioned pot-boiler does. It helps that Williams gives a stand-out, low-key performance as the conflicted good-hearted personality who genuinely wants to believe that his number one fan is in fact real and does love him (the one thing that has escaped his own reality) and has some unsettling dreadful moments with the creepy Collette whose one physical trait I will leave unmentioned but underlines the desperation of her character that can rattle you to the core.

However the film runs out of gas and eventually becomes a bit repetitive and predictable despite a finely directed piece of hoodwink and mystery by Stettner, it pays to listen to your own inner voice: be careful of what you hope for.

Sentiment: positive
You know all those letters to "Father Christmas" and "Jesus" that are sent every year? Well, it turns out that they are not actually delivered but dropped off in a half-forgotten corner of the post office to rot unless some bright spark figures out a way of posting them. As bizarre settings go, it's a winner and one which perfectly fits the strange movie that is "Dead Letter Office". Having said that, this is obviously an Australian film as opposed to a British one. If it was Royal Mail, most letters get this sort of treatment anyway. I haven't been in this flat for two years and we're still getting letters for a Mr Wang, some female priest of the Church of Latter Day I've-Never-Heard-Of-You and various catalogues for industrial equipment addressed to a plumbing company.

"Dead Letter Office" (the name given to the place where undeliverable mail ends up) follows the story of Alice (Miranda Otto) who grows up in a seriously divided home. Writing to her absent father, she only learns in adulthood that her letters haven't been delivered for one reason or another. So, logically, she gets a job at the D.L.O. and finds herself working alongside other social rejects including the brooding Chilean immigrant Frank Lopez (George Del Hoyo). Slowly, she finds herself drawn to him but can she find out where her dad is without bringing the self-contained world of the Dead Letters Office to its knees?

Nothing against this film but I was reminded of the god-awful Heather Graham film "Committed" while watching this. However, this is so much better than that pile of horse crap but then again, that ain't difficult. For a start, this film is much more logical. True, the metaphors are somewhat blatant and the underflowing symbolism quickly becomes a flood. But at least this is cohesive and quirky without being complete drivel. It is also well acted. Both Otto and Del Hoyo are very good as the lovers looking for something they know they'll never find while other characters are peripheral at best. Part of the trouble is that it seems to wrap up far too quickly, leaving this viewer somewhat disappointed. The other part is that when you consider Australia's draconian immigration policy (i.e. if you don't speak English, rack off!), such a story is unlikely to take place in reality. The other characters, sadly, also help to destabilise the realism by proving to be little more than odd-ball stereotypes.

Despite that, "Dead Letter Office" is certainly something a little different. It might not be to everyone's taste but I liked it. Yes, it was hackneyed and predictable but sometimes, it's nice to watch a film without guns or violence or heavy-duty swearing and nudity (no chance of that in an Australian film). There ain't any major laughs, there's no Bullet Time and the characters are usually one-dimensional. But it's the story that counts here and while it's not earth-shattering in its magnificence, it's a pleasant enough way of passing the time. It's the movie equivalent of a Sheryl Crow CD - nice to listen to now and again but you wouldn't really miss it if it wasn't there.

Sentiment: negative
I wish I had something more positive to say about Devil Fish, but I honestly can't seem to come up with much. I can't even come up with many of those "so bad, it's good" kind of moments. Devil Fish is just plain old bad. The plot is completely derivative (Jaws, anyone?), the acting is wooden, the characters are uninteresting, the special effects are beyond bad, and the score is annoying. Add to that the seemingly inept direction of Lamberto Bava and you've got one stinker of a movie. I think, however, that the film's biggest sin is its lack of a budget. It doesn't appear that Bava had much to work with. By 1984, the Italian film industry was in full decline  especially as far as genre films go. The funding available to Bava was most probably very meager. Film's like Devil Fish that rely on special effects just never had a chance to be good. It's not the only Italian film to suffer this fate. There are a number of Italian movies made in the mid-80s whose ideas and concepts far exceeded what anyone could realistically have expected given their budgetary limitations. 

However, having said all that and noting the film's many weaknesses, I can't bring myself to rate Devil Fish lower than a 3/10. I've even considered rating it higher but can't because I realize how bad a movie it is. Why don't I rate it lower? Well that's hard to explain. Despite the many problems found in the movie, there's something about Devil Fish that I inexplicably enjoy. It could be as simple as my love for low-budget, cheesy, Italian movies. Maybe my taste in movies is horribly skewed, but I enjoy what I enjoy.

The Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment of Devil Fish is actually very enjoyable. I rate Devil Fish a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale. The guys do a fine job of poking fun at the movie's many flaws. One very astute observation comes very early in the commentary when Tom Servo notes, "Just because you can edit, doesn't mean you should"  highlighting yet another of the many weaknesses to be found in Devil Fish.

Sentiment: negative
Cheezy? Yep. Poorly filmed? You betcha. Zero budget? They proudly claim it on their posters. Brilliant anyway (or because of it)? For sure.

This movie celebrates (and makes fun of) everything that was classic about the 80s teen horror genre: Characters with absolutely no depth, fitting into a stereotyped roll they never escape for a moment; teenagers trying to survive a slaying by some mysterious force they disturbed by doing something lamely adolescent; completely gratuitous nudity; impossible amounts of blood coming out of victims; slow moving zombies; great one-liners... and our hero even wears a Michael Jackson jacket! 

This is not an all-out spoof like Scary Movie, but more a tribute film to the lost innocence of the 80s horror movies... when being scared and grossed out could also be a fun, silly, sexy, and goofy good time!

Sentiment: positive
Once upon a time in a castle...... Two little girls are playing in the garden's castle. They are sisters. A blonde little girl (Kitty) and a brunette one (Evelyn). Evelyn steals Kitty's doll. Kitty pursues Evelyn. Running through long corridors, they reach the room where their grandfather, sitting on an armchair, reads the newspaper. Kitty complains about Evelyn, while Evelyn is looking interestedly at a picture hanging on the wall. Evelyn begins to say repeatedly: "I am the red lady and Kitty is the black lady". Suddenly Evelyn grabs a dagger lying nearby and stabs Kitty's doll and then cuts her (the doll's) head. A fight ensues. And Evelyn almost uses the dagger against Kitty. The grandfather intervenes and the worst is avoided.

Later on, their grandfather tells them the legend related to the picture hanging on the wall in front of them, in which a lady dressed in black is stabbing a lady dressed in red:

"A long time ago, a red lady and a black lady lived in the same castle. They were sisters and hated each other. One night, for jealousy reasons, the black lady entered the red lady's room and stabbed her seven times. One year later, the red lady left her grave. She killed six innocent people, and her seventh victim was the black lady. Once every hundred years, the events repeat themselves in this castle and a red lady kills six innocent victims before killing the black lady herself."

The grandfather ends his tale by saying that according to the legend, sixteen years from now, the red queen should come again and kill seven times. But he assures them that this is just an old legend.

Sixteen years pass.....

This is the very beginning of the film. There are many twists and surprises in the film. It's better for you to forget about logic (if you really analyse it, the story doesn't make sense) and just follow the film with its wonderful colors, the gorgeous women, the clothes, the tasteful decor, the lighting effects and the beautiful soundtrack.

Enjoy Barbara Bouchet, Sybil Danning, Marina Malfatti, Pia Giancaro, among other goddesses. There's a nude by Sybil Danning lying on a sofa that's something to dream about. And don't forget: The lady in red kills seven times!

If you've liked "La Dama Rossa..." check out also "La Notte che Evelyn uscì dalla Tomba".

Sentiment: positive
Scary Movie 1-4, Epic Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans, Not another Teen Movie and Another Gay Movie. Making "Superhero Movie" the eleventh in a series that single handily ruined the parody genre. Now I'll admit it I have a soft spot for classics such as Airplane and The Naked Gun but you know you've milked a franchise so bad when you can see the gags a mile off. In fact the only thing that might really temp you into going to see this disaster is the incredibly funny but massive sell-out Leslie Neilson.

You can tell he needs the money, wither that or he intends to go down with the ship like a good Capitan would. In no way is he bringing down this genre but hell he's not helping it. But if I feel sorry for anybody in this film its decent actor Drake Bell who is put through an immense amount of embarrassment. The people who are put through the largest amount of torture by far however is the audience forced to sit through 90 minutes of laughless bile no funnier than herpes.

After spoofing disaster films in Airplane!, police shows in The Naked Gun, and Hollywood horrors in Scary Movie 3 and 4, producer David Zucker sets his satirical sights on the superhero genre with this anarchic comedy lampooning everything from Spider-Man to X-Men and Superman Returns.

Shortly after being bitten by a genetically altered dragonfly, high-school outcast Rick Riker (Drake Bell) begins to experience a startling transformation. Now Rick's skin is as strong as steel, and he possesses the strength of ten men. Determined to use his newfound powers to fight crime, Rick creates a special costume and assumes the identity of The Dragonfly -- a fearless crime fighter dedicated to keeping the streets safe for law-abiding citizens.

But every superhero needs a nemesis, and after Lou Landers (Christopher McDonald) is caught in the middle of an experiment gone horribly awry, he develops the power to leech the life force out of anyone he meets and becomes the villainous Hourglass. Intent on achieving immortality, the Hourglass attempts to gather as much life force as possible as the noble Dragonfly sets out to take down his archenemy and realize his destiny as a true hero. Craig Mazin writes and directs this low-flying spoof.

featuring Tracy Morgan, Pamela Anderson, Leslie Nielsen, Marion Ross, Jeffrey Tambor, and Regina Hall.

Hell Superhero Movie may earn some merit in the fact that it's a hell of a lot better than Meet the Spartans and Epic Movie. But with great responsibility comes one of the worst outings of 2008 to date. Laughless but a little less irritating than Meet the Spartans. And in the same sense much more forgettable than meet the Spartans. But maybe that's a good reason. There are still some of us trying to scrape away the stain that was Meet the Spartans from our memory.

My final verdict? Avoid, unless you're one of thoses people who enjoy such car crash cinema. As bad as Date Movie and Scary Movie 2 but not quite as bad as Meet the Spartans or Epic Movie. Super Villain.

Sentiment: negative
This film looks great, and that's about where my praise ends. "Love Is a Many Splendored Thing" came out in the very schizophrenic year of 1955, when candy-coloured nonsense like this co-existed with trail-blazing artistic fair like "Kiss Me Deadly." As a trend toward smaller, socially conscious films like "On the Waterfront" and "Marty" established itself in the mid-50's, other directors felt the need to stick with the unchallenging, pandering melodrama that classifies so many other films from that decade, and "Love" is one of the latter.

This is the kind of 50's movie where the Technicolor is used to its garish utmost and the lighting is invariably high-key; even scenes taking place in a dark room or at night are brighter than the average sunny day. I never want to hear the theme song again, as it's played frequently enough over the course of the film to last anyone a lifetime, and I certainly don't want to hear it sung by the shrill, ear-piercing choir that belts it out over the end titles. Jennifer Jones and William Holden are passable, but really anybody could have played these parts. Jones' role is horribly written--her character is incredibly inconsistent, and it seems as if whenever her character is required to make a decision about something, the screenwriters flipped a coin to decide what that decision would be.

People will undoubtedly tell me I'm taking this film too seriously, that I'm unromantic, etc. But I loved "All That Heaven Allows," released the same year and just as cornball in its own way, except that Douglas Sirk is able to turn melodrama into an art form, whereas Henry King (director of "Love") is not.

I'm usually able to enjoy bad melodrama, but in this case I was just bored.

Grade: D+

Sentiment: negative
I had intended to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Marcello Mastroianni's passing with numerous unwatched films of his that I own on VHS; however, given my ongoing light-hearted Christmas marathon, I had to make do with just this one! As it happens, it features one of his best performances - and he was justly Oscar-nominated for it (with the film itself being likewise honored). This was also one of 14 collaborations with that other most widely-recognized star to emerge from Italy, Sophia Loren; both, incidentally, are playing against type here - she as an unglamorous housewife and he a homosexual! 

By the way, the film's title has a double meaning: the leading characters are brought together on the historic day in which Hitler came to Italy to meet Mussolini (the event itself being shown in lengthy archive footage), but it more specifically refers to the stars' 'brief encounter' in which they share moments of friendship, revelation and, briefly, passion - though each knows that a return to their normal existence is inevitable, which leads to the film's abrupt bittersweet ending. This is virtually a two-hander (with all other characters - save for the nosy concierge of the apartment block in which the story takes place in its entirety - which include Loren's gruff and fervently patriotic husband, surprisingly played by John Vernon, appear only at the beginning and closing sequences); still, the cramped setting doesn't deter director Scola (for the record, this is the 7th film of his that I've watched and own 3 more on VHS) and cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis, so that the result - though essentially low-key - is far from stagy: the camera is allowed to prowl the various sections of the large building, observing the proceedings intimately or dispassionately as the situation requires, but always keenly.

The narrative, of course, depends entirely on the performances of the two stars for it to be convincing, and they both deliver (their on-screen chemistry is quite incomparable); it's interesting, however, that while Loren walked away with the prizes in their home turf, it's Mastroianni's moving yet unsentimental outsider (the film, somewhat dubiously, does seem to equate his sexual deviance with Anti-Fascism!) who generally impressed international audiences!

Sentiment: positive
I gave Timecop a perfect 10, I gave this 1

It's story is very boring, and it has only little to do with the original Timecop. Lots of things from Timecop was scrapped, and they put in new stupid stuff instead. This story is taking place in 2060 (if I remember correctly), but for some reason the timetraveling is now more dangerous :confused:

And the action scenes are nothing to be happy about, well most of them aren't... only the first one is great... and there aren't many action scenes at all, and they're all pretty short

At one point in the story, the main character travels through time about 5 times within a few minutes... no wait, make that two times...

In short: Don't waste time watching this movie, it's not worth it

Sentiment: negative
"Protocol" is a hit-and-miss picture starring Goldie Hawn as a bubbly cocktail waitress who one night saves the life of a visiting Arab from an assassination attempt. The woman immediately becomes a celebrity, and gets a new job working for the U.S. Government. Will the corridors of power in our nation's capital ever be the same? Hawn is excellent as usual even though "Protocol" isn't as funny as her best film "Private Benjamin". But it's still a good movie, and I did laugh alot.

*** (out of four)

Sentiment: positive
After reading the book, I loved the story. Watching the movie I was disappointed that so many changes were made. It is understandable that books and movies differ but it was two different stories, only the names and some of the book's story remained. Read the book and you'll have a better understanding of the movie. The book gives you a better development of the characters. These characters are extremely interesting and make you care about them. The locations were indeed in line with the book's descriptions. Some characters not included. Television has microwaved so many great books and stories, this is a perfect example of that. Input from the author doesn't always insure a good movie but it can help sometimes.

Sentiment: negative
It's actually a good thing Sean Connery retired as James Bond, as I'm sure he wouldn't be able to keep up in the nowadays spying-business, where fast cars have been replaced with hi-tech brainwashing techniques and gorgeous women are considered to be less sexy than advanced computer equipment. "Cypher" is a pretty inventive Sci-Fi thriller that often evokes feelings of fright & claustrophobia despite being utterly implausible. You know the trend in these types of movies: nothing is what it seems and just when you think figured out the convoluted plot, the writers make sure to insert a new twist that confuses everyone again. The events in "Cypher" supposedly take place in the most prominent regions of the computer world, where the major companies don't really do a lot apart from trying to steal each other's thunder. Company Digisoft literally spends millions brainwashing people and providing them with a new identity, only to let them infiltrate as spies in their biggest competitor, the Sunways Corporation. Sunways, on the other hand, constantly tries to unmask the Digisoft-rats and recruit them again as double-spies. In between this whole unprofitable business stands Morgan Sullivan; a seemingly colorless thirty-something employee who's been selected by Sebastian Rooks (the über-spy) to diddle the secret policies of BOTH companies. Trust me, it's actually less complicated than it sounds and director Vincenzo Natali (the dude from "Tube") carefully takes his time to introduce all the important and less important characters. The first half of the film is rather reminiscent to the sadly underrated John Frankenheimer gem "Seconds"  starring Rock Hudson  as it also deals with erasing identities and drastically altering your former life style. Even the set pieces seem to come straight out of that 60's film, with loads of empty white rooms and eerie corridors that seem to be endless. There's also plenty of great action and suspense, most notably when Morgan soberly experiences how the Digisoft crew inspects the results of their brainwashing-techniques during boring conventions. The middle section of the film drags a little, mainly because you already realize that it's all just building up towards multiple misleading plot-twists, and I hoped for a slightly more grim portrayal of the not-so-distant future. Jeremy Northam is perfectly cast and the adorable Lucy Liu is convincingly mysterious as the foxy lady who appears to be on his side. Regular director's choice David Hewlett has the most memorable supportive role as the uncannily eccentric Suways engineer Virgil C. Dunn. "Cypher" is well made and adrenalin rushing Sci-Fi entertainment, highly recommended to people who fully like to use their brain capacity from time to time.

Sentiment: positive
I am generally more willing to be open minded about rom coms than many, but this was simply not a very good attempt. Its got nothing to do with comparisons with the British original -- have not seen, and doubt I will. It has a whole lot to do with a meandering plot, lack of chemistry between the leads and a godawful performance/character from its supposed male lead (Jimmy Fallon).

Fallon walks onto the screen wearing the clothes and hairdo of a 15 year old and acting a decade younger than that. He's supposed to be a teacher you see, and of course its well known that school districts the world over love to hire individuals less mature than the children they purport to teach. The character is so extremely disturbed and irrational that I have my doubts whether any actor could have made him likable, but old reliables like John Cusack or Adam Sandler might have been able to give it a shot. Not Fallon, who is neither funny, nor an actor, but appears to think he is both. Not once in the entire course of the movie do you either believe Fallon in his role, or believe that there is any way these two people should, or would be together. Near the end of the movie there is a scene where Barrymore (who was cute as usual but could not carry this one alone -- its hard to have a one person romance) tells Fallon that its over, too much has happened, and she's moving on. And rather than feeling bad about the scene, or sorry for Fallon, you are actively cheering her on -- finally she does what she should have done months ago. But of course the plot mechanics won't allow that to be the end of it (an end which actually might have made a statement out of this mess), and instead we get to see the rational career girl throwing it all away to chase after this childish idiot and encourage his delusions. Its of course meant to be gooey and satisfying, but it actually made me more disgusted than anything else.

Sentiment: negative
To call a movie like "Thinner" bad is like calling the earth round or Pauly Shore un-talented. No news, but how they got that way is what people want to know.

As far as this movie.... The book was good, even if it was a little derivative of other stories from the "be careful what you wish for" genre. Burke plays an overweight lawyer who kills the daughter of a gypsy and is cursed by her father (Constantine from TV's "Room 222") to several pounds a day. 

Like I said, it starts out good, but why involve the mobster (Mantegna)? Why fire automatic weapons so much? Why turn it into something so heavily dependent on FX? I thought it would have been much more effective if it focused more on the subtle ramifications of weight loss crazes, diseases, death, gypsy lore and such. 

But no, it's not to be. Remember, this is Stephen King we're talking about.

And the ending... almost the same as the book, but a little too talky. In fact the whole movie talks too much, feeling it has to explain every plot turn to us. Not that I expected "The Dead Zone", but I could have done without another "Pet Sematary", thanks anyway.

One star for at least trying to do a halfway decent makeup job. However, the rest of the movie is left to be... say it with me... "Thinner".

Sentiment: negative
Tweaked a little bit, 'Nothing' could be a children's film. It's a very clever concept, touches upon some interesting metaphysical themes, and goes against pretty much every Hollywood convention you can think of...what goes against everything more than, literally, "nothing"? Nothing is the story of two friends who wish the world away when everything goes wrong with their lives. All that's left is what they don't hate, and a big empty white space. It's hard to focus a story on just two actors for the majority of your film, especially without any cuts to anything going on outside the plot. It focuses on pretty much one subject, but that's prime Vincenzo Natali territory. If you've seen 'Cube', you know already that he tends to like that type of situation. The "nothing" in this movie is apparently infinite space, but Natali somehow manages to make it somewhat claustrophobic, if only because there's literally nothing else, and nowhere else to go. The actors sell it, although you can tell these guys are friends anyway. Two actors from 'Cube' return here (Worth and Kazan), but are entirely different characters. They change throughout the story, and while they're not the strongest actors in the world, they're at least believable.

The reason I say this could be a children's film under the right tweaks, is because aside from a few f-bombs and a somewhat unnecessary bloody dream sequence, the whimsical and often silly feel of this movie could very much be digested easily by kids. So I find it an odd choice that the writers decided to add some crass language and a small amount of gore, especially considering there isn't very much of it. This could've gotten a PG rating easily had they simply cut a few things out and changed a little dialogue. There is very little objectionable about this film, but just enough to keep parents from wanting their kids to see it. I only say that's a shame because not because I support censorship, but because that may have been the only thing preventing this movie from having wider exposure.

At any rate, this is a reasonably entertaining film, albeit with a few dragged-out scenes. But for literally being about nothing, and focused entirely on two characters and their interactions with absolutely nothing, they do a surprisingly good job for an independent film.

Sentiment: positive
A MUST SEE! I saw WHIPPED at a press screening and it was hilarious. We're talking nonstop laughs. It makes SOMETHING ABOUT MARY seem like a meandering drama. Amanda Peet screams star quality with her winning combination of beauty, brains, and serious acting ability. Peter Cohen, the director, has made a cutting edge film that shows the raw inside of men's egos in the urban dating world. For all of it's comedy, Whipped succeeds with it's intelligence. Which is so rare for a first time director, especially with a romantic comedy. He is a major talent. Judah Domke, Brian Van Holt, Jonathan Abrahams, and Zorie Barber round out the cast with depth and very strong performances as the would be slick lady's men. You've got to see these guys go to work and get caught in Peet's web. Check out the trailer on whipped.com, it's worth the 3 minute download.

Sentiment: positive
Yep, it's me again! Mr 'I sit through crap so you don't have to'.

What do you think this is about? Could it possibly be about a woman who call a sex line and arrange to meet bachelors in a secluded area? Then her cross-dressing boyfriend comes along and slits their throat with razor, before they make off together with his cash? Wow, what a guess! And if I tell you that the cop who is put on the case is forced to team up with a sexy assistant DA to nail these suckers, what conclusion will you come to? Do you reckon the sexy DA will go undercover wearing a flimsy red dress to an attempt to meet the drag queen, but then end up being kidnapped and having to be rescued by the maverick officer? (who has already handed in his gun and badge) ZING! You get 10 points!

Frankly, this film bored me to tears. Why do people insist on making this kind of rubbish? Its a waste of our time, their time and yet they still carry on regardless.. filming a movie that no-one gives an iota about. If it has any redeeming features, there's the fact that it has some of the prettiest ladies I've seen in a motion picture for a while. I hope they spent what meagre wages they earned on plenty of botox and colonic irrigation. They'd look great on the cover of Vogue, or perched on the top of a car in a bikini. They should just leave acting to the professionals (like Shannon Tweed).

Talking about future careers, I ran into the director the other day. He sure does whip up a tasty chicken burger meal. I must say too, that the uniform really does suit him. I asked him about 'Party Line', and his eyes went to the floor before he mumbled something about extra fries. Oh well, guess it didn't quite work out. Never mind, they're letting him take over the drive-thru tomorrow!! Hurray!! 1/10

Sentiment: negative
It's hard to rate films like this, because do you rate it on production or just fun?

I saw this film back in about 1988/89 or so when I was a boy and I'm sorry to say it started a life long fascination with ninjas. The plot is fairly dire and the acting is of course terrible, but there is a certain mystique surrounding the ninjas in this film which makes for quite a good atmosphere. What is important are the fight scenes, while a 'little' sparce, are really good.

I must say it was better when I was a boy, only now can I see the glaring points of unbelievable nonsense in the film, but as a "sit back with a few beers" martial arts film I can't fault it, it delivers and is much better than the mountains of "American Ninja" Style rubbish that was churned out in the 80's with hundreds of guys in black suits but really not very good fight scenes.

In an interesting note, Dusty Nelson, the writer and director of Sakura Killers did another ninja film under the Bonaire movie flag called "White Phantom" I have no idea if this was meant to be a sequel to Sakura Killers" but the Sakura clan is once again a main feature, including the same logo and similar story only this time including a White Ninja. This too, while being mostly dire, had a small sense of atmosphere but the fight scenes are even more sparce and to be frank, are pretty awful.

So, if you are a martial arts fan then give it a blast to kill a few hours!

Sentiment: positive
I have seen several comments here about Brando using a Southern accent, some of which felt it was a mistake. When this movie was made, racism and discrimination were very strong in the South. The Jim Crow laws were still in effect. Civil Rights was in it's infancy. Could this have possibly been a subtle social commentary, a Southern man in love with a woman of another race? The same way MASH was a subtle criticism of the Viet Nam war? Any thoughts?

Another comment was made about Myoshi Umeki appearing "cold". Anyone who has been in Japan would understand. The Japanese people, at least in my experience, did not tend to show emotion in front of strangers. There were strict social rules, especially for men meeting single women. Americans in Japan were totally foreign to this culture, and the blunt attempts to meet women were shocking to the ladies. One trait of the Japanese was to smile when embarrassed or uncomfortable, which many American servicemen took as a sign that their advances were welcomed. Also remember that at the time represented in the movie, Japan had just been defeated, and the occupying forces were treated with reluctant acceptance. I think Myoshi Umeki gave a very credible performance of what her situation would have been. Watching her interaction with the American actors brought back several memories of my own experiences in the country. I was able to meet a pair of lovely young ladies who, after I convinced them I was not the typical American male, taught me their language and their culture during my time in their country.

Sentiment: positive
What can i say about this movie that hasn't been said hundreds of times before? It's an American Classic. It has spawned dozens of imitators. Or none. Midnight Madness is one of kind. From the ridiculous opening montage/music to the Bonaventure HOtel, I was hooked. Leon made us all feel so young and carefree. One question though, how did he have those two hot hookers with him all the time? And how did have the time/money to arrange such an event? The cast is top notch. David Naughton is at his best here. His tight yellow sweatshirt is disturbing. His little brother Michael J Fox(in his first starring role), is a real brat. There is also Naughton's love interest and a dork and the obligatory black dude in a fisherman's hat on the yellow team. Michael J Fox does bad things like try and steal cups of beer at the Pabst Blue Ribbon brewery and runs away to Flounder's van. Flounder's team gives us the most comedy. What exactly is the deal with the blond on that team? Is she dating Flounder? Or Melio? Or Blade? Yes, the Mexican gentleman's name is blade. The other guy on the Flounder team has the best lines of the movie, i won't pomp them here. The Meat Machine team is a bunch of drunks. My personal favorite is Armpit. But the silent black man is great too. The other two teams are 4 nerds and 4 lesbians(two of which are 450 lb twins).

You know the ending from the start. But that doesn't matter. This is the 80's me-genre at its finest. Don't rent this one, BUY it. and Buy it now.

Sentiment: positive
I have just read what I believe to be an analysis of this film by a lyrical Irishman. Lovely to read.

However, a concise analysis of this film is that it is a interweaving of the seven deadly sins with the four types of justice.

Envy, greed, pride, sloth, anger, etc. and justice in the forms of retributive, distributive, blind, and divine.

I could demonstrate three examples of each, one for each of the three protagonists; however, it is much more fun to note them for oneself.

This is an excellent film.

Don't miss it.

Sentiment: positive