DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Lush cinematography, beautifully written and edited, John Boorman's Beyond Rangoon is a must-see for anyone interested in world politics and the arc of personal transformation. It interweaves a personal and political tale that continues to haunt me, popping up in my mind's eye with frequency. The story line is gripping, and the inner and outer journeys are paralleled carefully and delicately both cinematically, and in the story line. I've watched this film at least six times, and it really holds up to scrutiny. It is particularly relevant today, given world events. Check it out, you won't regret it! BTW, NetFlix does not yet carry it, but you can request that they do.

Sentiment: positive
Dictated by thin experience (of both life and industry) and no cash Sofia Coppola's early short is almost by necessity an observational piece set on a high school campus. The cast are rather weak and do not benefit from being shot in b&w (it's difficult to tell the characters apart). The sound editing does little to help a simple story of fickle teenage allegiance.

Yet there are one or two things to note. Inamongst the inconsistent editing the high school campus is filmed with a balance of aspirant wide and intimate close-up shots. The editing-to-music also creates an interest and momentum (without descent into the netherworld of the Music Video). Coppola clearly made an attempt to vary the pace of the film. The dramatic turn is cut fast and to-the-point and the second act is almost non-existent; we recognise it's actually been played out in tandem with the first, which is the point of the narrator-on-crutches trope (who is an otherwise curiously appended character in that first act).

Despite these notes it's an awkward short. 2/10

Sentiment: negative
I just loved watching it though and having fun with it's total badness of a film. I saw this film through the helpful sarcasm of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and I have the DVD. If you flip the to the other side of the DVD, they show the actual movie, so I gave it a chance. Seriously, folks this is grilled cheese.

The acting, special effects, and plot in general is very cheesy and unrealistic. "Doesn't she need lungs" said Crow noticing how the head can still talk while it doesn't have a body, and Tom Servo just wistfully remarks "No, she's got neck juice!". The ending is just classic and no one can touch this soundtrack with K-Porn! I loved the "cat fight" between the two strippers. That "Meow" after the fight or scene, whatever, was classic. So, in some ways this was a fun movie. I think for horror fans, you'll probably enjoy it. For a good time, watch the MSTK3 version, you'll get a great laugh.

MST3K version: 10/10 The Brain that would die: 1/10

Sentiment: negative
Recipe for one of the worst movies of all time: a she-male villain who looks like it escaped from the WWF, has terrible aim with a gun that has inconsistent effects (the first guy she shoots catches on fire but when she shoots anyone else they just disappear) and takes time out to pet a deer. Then you got the unlikable characters, 30 year old college students, a lame attempt at a surprise ending and lots, lots more. Avoid at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
The idea ia a very short film with a lot of information. Interesting, entertaining and leaves the viewer wanting more. The producer has produced a short film of excellent quality that cannot be compared to any other short film that I have seen. I have rated this film at the highest possible rating. I also recommend that it is shown to office managers and business people in any establishment. What comes out of it is the fact that people with ideas are never listened to, their voice is never heard. It is a lesson to be learned by any office that wants to go forward. I hope that the produced will produce a second part to this 'idea'. I look forward to viewing the sequence. Once again congrats to Halaqah media in producing a film of excellence and quality with a lesson in mind.

Sentiment: positive
I caught 2:37 at the AFI Fest in Los Angeles. It's a very well shot first film (though the DV format begins to show itself in outside scenes), and I'm sure it has good intentions of showing us the "dark side" of high school - in other words every side of high school. But the filmmaker doesn't have the talent to write or direct up to the premise's promise. There are several characters, but none of them are any more than what the plot requires them to be. There's no depth to these caricatures beyond the machinations of "I am troubled teen X, I have Y problem." The perceived roles of men and women in this story are phenomenally troublesome.

Let's start with the men. You have the stoner kid who's gay, the jock who's also gay, the boy who rapes his sister, and Mr. Peepants. As the stereotype requires, all gay men must be sexually unfulfilled and violent toward women and themselves. Naturally (or unnaturally as the stereotype assumes), the two gay male characters beat up women, Peepants, and themselves. I'd be perfectly fine with these characterizations if the stereotypes were turned on their heads, or if the characters somehow transcended them. Yet neither took place, and that's all there is to these characters' stories.

Next, the ladies. One young woman wants to be a bulimic housewife, another is the pregnant rapee of the sister-raping brother, and there's the girl who kills herself (I'll get to that later). Again, I don't think there's a requirement of political correctness for filmmakers (I'd be out of a job were that the case), but I do think that it's only justified if there's more to that character or story. If that archetype were being used to reveal something about character other than "I'm a teenager and life sucks," I'd be happy as a clam. But nothing new is revealed! Nothing is subverted, or changed, or sublimated.

Finally, the girl who kills herself. This is blunt and HIGHLY sloppy storytelling. We're supposed to sit through 5 minutes of a girl violently killing herself who we've seen for maybe 30 seconds through the whole film? We've followed all these other stories for an hour and a half, and now we're invited to torture ourselves for a character that isn't part of the story? It's cheap, exploitative, and sloppy. Despite the millions of crappy indie films that came before this, you have to EARN something like that. You can't simply purchase it on credit. So this suicide happens, we get wrap-ups from the characters that go similarly nowhere but down, and the film ends. What have I learned? I already knew high school sucked - been there, done that. I already knew people have stereotypical views of gay men and young women. I already knew that kids with disabilities are mocked.

What else is there, then? Smoke, mirrors, and some really nice views of leaves. Oh, and the nastiest deus ex machina I've seen in a while.

Sentiment: negative
I just watched this movie on Bravo! and it was absolutely horrible. It has the plot of a Shannon Tweed movie without the nudity. The premise was interesting enough, a winning lottery ticket in a secluded area and people who have reasons why they want the money. The characters were trite as were the observations on human nature and greed.

For a movie called Class Warfare it had very little to do with class differences other than the first 20 minutes and the predictable ending. This movie could have done a lot better if there had been more characters with motivations to get the ticket and was a "who done it?"

The acting wasn't fantastic but it's hard to seem believable with such a terrible script. Lindsey McKeon is very cute and I'd like to see what she could do in a better production with a better script. She's probably the only reason why I sat through the whole movie.



Sentiment: negative
Hercules the Avenger is by far the best single entry in the muscleman genre I can recall. The charge against it made by critics - it is a cut and paste of two previous Hercules films, with some added new material to make it appear fresh - misses the fact that this cut-and-paste approach solves one of the central problems of the sword-and-sandal movies. With most of these films, the middle third sags horribly - usually involving a sappy love story or arcane political intrigue or both (queen falls in love with Hercules and her evil brother plots against them, etc.) It's often hard to hold on through this to watch the exciting finale. Hercules the Avenger cuts all that crap from the source films, and adds a rather brisk narrative of a Hercules impersonator bullying his way into power. (It should be noted that this episode also functions as a distant but pointedly critical remark on the rise of Fascism in Italy.) This also sets up a fine final wrasslin' match between the real Hercules and his impersonator.

In a narrower focus, I might also add that further editing has improved individual scenes borrowed from the other films. For my money, the mutiny scene here is much better than it first appeared in Hercules and the Captive Women, since it has been tightened with the reduction of several characters and their plot complications.

There are also floppy monsters, creepy underworld atmospherics borrowed (literally) from Mario Bava, an entire city destroyed, and the usual amount of lovely babes in revealing gowns. Since no one expects any of these films to compete with The Seven Samurai - or even with The Magnificent Seven - it seems a bit picky to hold the film's borrowing from other films against it.

Sentiment: positive
I found this gem in a rack the local video rental store had of tapes which are exchanged among various rental outlets. 'The Man who Skied Down Everest'. Hmm... never heard about it. The box reads of some Japanese fellow who always wanted to ski down Everest and actually did it. Sounds interesting. I rented it. As expected it was documentary style. The first part can be summarized so: "I always wanted to ski down mount Everest". This is followed by some footage of preparation for the event. LOTS of preparation footage. OK, I suppose it takes a lot of preparation. Then we are treated to a protracted piece on the skier, Yuichiro Miura's philosophy on life etc. More filler follows and I begin to wonder where the skiing fits in to this show. More preparation is shown and they begin to make the trip to the mountain. More philosophy is shown. At last they arrive at the mountain and maybe perhaps he will get around to skiing down the friggin' thing. Lots of climbing footage later there is a description of the parachute device intended to slow Miuras' speed on the steep slope. Finally he straps on the skis and gets ready to go.

He's off... He skis about twenty feet and his skis shoot out from under him, he deploys the parachute and tumbles in an inglorious bundle for some distance down the mountain and that's that. End of story. What the heck was that?

OK I can buy that he always wanted to ski down Everest, made extensive preparations and actually tried it with camera crew in tow. It didn't work and he ended up tumbling down and almost killing himself, so what egregious hubris would inspire the man to release a film of it and call it skiing down Everest? Perhaps the title,"The Man Who's Feet Shot Out From Under Him and He Slid On His Ass Down Everest" was just too long for the tape box.

Sentiment: negative
This tearful movie about a sister and her battle to save as many souls as she can is very moving. The film does well in picking up the characters and showing how Sister Helen deals with each.

A wonderful journey from life to death.



Sentiment: positive
The film opens in a stuffy British men's club full of gents in leather chairs smoking cigars. This is Denistoun's world. A messenger delivers a small box to him which he opens to find a pair of gold earrings. The site of the earrings sets off a reminiscence about the time he spent in the company of gypsies. The rest of the film is flashback.

Golden Earrings has been a long time favorite of mine and is probably the most romantic movie I know. Dietrich plays against her usual type. Here she's dark-haired, earthy and not in the least bit mysterious. Instead of a femme fatale, she'a tower of strength and energetically sets out to use all her resources to help Denistoun survive and reach his goal. To make sure that he's a really convincing gypsy, she pierces his ears and has him wear her dead lover's golden earrings. With his clothes and some grease, she transforms him from an effete British gentleman into a wild and sexy looking man. 

When I was growing up I used to hear the song "Golden Earrings" which is sung in the film. I think the tune is hummed a little by Dietrich. /There's a story the gypsies know is true /That when your love wears golden earrings /She belongs to you.

Sentiment: positive
Quite simply a well-made, well-written and wonderfully acted movie. Eastwood is classic as grizzled Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan and Rene Russo

holds her own as partner (and love interest) Lilly Raines. But the movie's

greatness rests on the shoulders of John Malkovich as "Booth". He captures

this character's rage and hatred, as well as his humanity oddly enough. 

Personally I think this was his best performance and should have received an

Oscar for it (But I loved Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive as well that year). Overall a great movie to see you want to peek into an assassin's mind and be

on the edge of your seat the whole way through. Enjoy!!

Sentiment: positive
This movie raises a number of pressing questions in my mind. Firstly, how has Jennifer Tilly managed to sustain a film acting career for all these years based on that ridiculous squeaky voice and the very limited range of hammy facial expressions she employs? Secondly... what on earth were the people responsible for making this offensive and deeply repulsive film thinking of? And thirdly... given that there were people perverted enough to decide to make dreck like this, shouldn't there have been someone in the system - the studio, the distributors, or somewhere - sane enough to prevent it actually getting completed and released. You really would have to search a very, very long way to turn up another movie as profoundly nasty as this... and it isn't even billed as a horror movie - which, inasmuch as it can be seen as belonging to any legitimate film genre, it certainly is. The movie wallows from beginning to end in the sickest kind of madness, violence and abuse, and has essentially no redeeming features at all. I'm not actually advocating censorship (which I don't believe in)... but I really can't see how anybody could conceivably draw anything positive from watching a film like this.

Sentiment: negative
I suppose bad Laurel and Hardy is better than no Laurel and Hardy at all, but just barely. It's sad that the Fox films are the ones getting a big release on DVD, exposing people who may not be too familiar with L&H to their WORST stuff rather than their classic comedies.

Once again the boys are saddled with a dumb romantic plot about a guy who's invented an invisible ray. He's in love with the bosses' daughter, who hates him and prefers some slick guy. It's incredible to think the geniuses at Fox thought THIS is what L&H needed in their films.

Without their pancake makeup the boys look tired and old. The only scenes that work for them in this picture is when they try to sneak out of a bedroom window at night and the rather bizarre scene where Robert Mitchum, being a classic noir bad guy tries to sell Oliver Hardy "insurance" on Stan.

Otherwise, this script is just a mess. Forget this and see if you can find a copy of "A Chump at Oxford" or "Bohemian Girl" or "Sons of the Desert" instead.

Sentiment: negative
What if Marylin Monroe, Albert Einstein, Joe Dimaggio and Senator McCarthy were to come together in a mind-bending evening of relativity?

This delightful roman à clef never uses the actual names of the characters it so thinly veils and scathingly exposes not only for the individuals they must have been, but also for what they came to represent over time. If you are confused by allegory, or if you like your movies served up predigested and mushy, you won't like this film. It is a demanding opus that rewards on many levels the viewer with the intelligence to appreciate it. 

Dropping, for the time being, the rigorous avoidance of using the real names of the characters, we see Einstein, about to deliver a pacifist speech to a United Nations hell-bent for nukes, being visited by Marylin Monroe, after filming the notorious Seven Year Itch scene that some say led to the end of her marriage with Joe Dimaggio. They have a lovely interplay in which Einstein stumbles with suitable professorial clumsiness around the innocence of perhaps the greatest sex symbol of modern times. 

Enter Senator McCarthy who thinks Einstein is a Red. He is determined to extract Einstein's assurance that he will support the activities of the House Unamerican Activities Committee while delivering the ultimate weapon in the name of peace. Add Joe, a surprisingly fragile and vulnerable person perhaps not perfectly cast as Gary Busey, who hates Marylin's exhibitionism and believes Einstein has become her lover, even though Marylin only wants to show Einstein that she understands the Special Theory of Relativity. 

But there's more. 

Just like each of us, these characters have their deepest fears, which they reveal one by one in haunting flashbacks. It is these weaknesses, ultimately, that lend humanity to figures we cannot help but see almost exclusively in the abstract today. Finally, we see the shocking terror of Einstein's vision, and the statement of the movie becomes clear. It is a powerful and memorable moment.

Insignificance is one of my top five movies of all time. It is utterly amazing.

Sentiment: positive
The plot of GOODNIGHT MR TOM on paper makes it seem we are in for a large dose of maudlin,sickly sentiment.But,talented director Jack Gold is an expert on touching the emotions in the right manner,and it emerges instead as a compelling,deeply moving wartime drama with excellent production and lead performances.One of the best,if not the best TV movies of the 1990's which possibly would've had even greater success if it had been released in the cinemas.

The evacuation of children to countryside towns and villages in World War II was of course a common practice,but in the case of the young boy here was doubly important because of a wretched home life in the UK's capital.The horrors of war on the home front are not drifted over though,and the construction of the film until it's throat-lumping,misty-eyed ending leaves us with a sense of optimism despite what has happened before.It is almost(but not quite)worthy of comparison with the finale to IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE(1946).All in all,a modern classic.

Sentiment: positive
I haven't seen any other films by Antonioni and the people that saw this one with me agreed that it shares themes and imagery with the rest of his works. Maybe if I had seen other stuff by him I would have enjoyed this one, knowing what to expect. 

I saw it as an almost complete failure for so many reasons. First of all, the film introduces interesting, deep issues about social relationships, feelings, the nature of reality versus fiction, but this is very often done in the clumsiest of ways making the characters speak as if they were delivering speeches, rambling on and on, juxtaposing declarations rather than having dialogues. The scriptwriters seem to be so worried that we will not get the point that they prefer to tell instead of showing.

Secondly, the movie has no rhythm, especially in its first half. It is not only that it is slow. Some slow films have been made with an excellent sense of pace and rhythm (El Sur by Victor Erice Or Scorsese's The Age of Innocence are examples I like), but for that to be successful it is necessary that we find the characters so engaging or the story so moving that we can adapt to it. This does not happen in Beyond the Clouds, where the first episode seems to drag endlessly, and the relationship between John Malkovich's "reality" and the love stories "fiction" is at times fluid, others abrupt, others confusing.

Sentiment: negative
I thought this movie was awful. I understand it was shot on a small budget but the acting was terrible and the movie itself was just plain dumb. The plot was predictable and the central character was an unsympathetic moron. In fact, all of the characters were unsympathetic and none were fully developed at all. The audience relates to no one in the movie. It was supposed to be suspenseful but if you don't care about the characters, it's hard to get "into" the movie at all. I felt like an outsider being forced to listen to someone tell me a stupid story. All the plot twists at the end were just a little too much - I was actually laughing when I guess I was supposed to be "shocked." All in all, I thought it was really just a bad movie.

Sentiment: negative
J.S. Cardone directed a little known 'Video Nasty' in 1982 called "The Slayer" and since then has gone on to have a hand in a handful of feature films; including the rubbish 2001 vampire movie The Forsaken. His latest feature film, Wicked Little Things, boasts a plot that sounds decent as well as a creepy looking poster that I seem to remember surfacing a couple of years ago in relation to a film that Tobe Hooper was meant to direct. Well I guess he felt that this one was too similar to his silly zombie fungus movie 'Mortuary' and so turned this one down. I don't blame him for it either. The plot focuses on a mother and her two daughters that move to an old house in the mountains that once belonged to her late husband. However, what they don't realise is that around a hundred years earlier; a group of children that were being used as miners were trapped down a mineshaft. Naturally, that's not the end of them and they managed to survive their ordeal and now prowl the area in search of revenge 

The film is essentially a collection of clichés; from the youngest kid with an "imaginary friend", the mother who dismisses it and all the usual zombie rubbish. J.S. Cardone attempts to get the horror fans back on side with shocks and gory scenes (mostly involving kids) but its not enough. The story doesn't play out very well at all either and really did remind me too much of the earlier Mortuary, and that's not a good thing (although Mortuary is actually a better film than this one). The acting is nothing to write home about either; Lori Heuring is decent looking, as is eldest daughter Scout Taylor-Compton; but neither manages to provide an interesting performance. Chloe Moretz is slightly better than the usual child actor. The plot is given hardly any credibility and indeed the screenplay can't even be bothered to explain the reasons why the kids attack the locals. It all boils down to a typical and rather dull ending and overall I have to say that if you know your horror movies, then you can feel free to skip this one!

Sentiment: negative
This is a great movie for any fan of Hong Kong action movies. Asides from it's little plot, the weak drama and bits of comedy antics, the movie is action packed with gun-fighting and martial arts action. Kept me entertained from beginning until the end. I thought Shannon Lee was awesome in the movie.

Having an action director like Corey Yuen is what keeps Hong Kong action going strong. This modern action film is highly recommended!!

Sentiment: positive
The movie was to be shown here in Bangkok with all the fanfare and even in the theater, it failed miserably.

Apparently the story writer just don't hold water. Something was definitely missing. In my opinion people must have a reason why they watch it other than historical glimpse of the past. Accuracy of history is not what we look for in entertainment.

The movie just lack any substance. The only way to do this movie right was somehow make changes where it stands as some kind of a legend instead of just a story. And a legend will have certain elements that tries to tell you something that people have forgotten through time, such as the meaning of sacrifice, nationalism, etc. It is called the central theme.

The movie fails to answer, why would I watch it anyway?

At least some strange legendary Flying Elephants, psychic king, or the eccentric king such as "The King and I" would have been lovely, something would have added greatly to the movies' appeal. I guess there was no appeal other than a plain vanilla movie. 

Once you got the appeal, then the story is the next thing we concentrate on. In marketing terms, we call it "must see". Upon hearing the title of the movie people would say, Oh, I must see it. Now where's the appeal in Kingmaker? Why not just redo the title and call it, "How NOT to be a King?" and make a black comedy of the old Siamese days, to the style of "Dr. Strangelove". That would have been much more interesting. Narrative-like experiences of the foibles of the King from first persons goofs off would have made the movie extremely funny. 

Most movies today have that "must see" appeal, such as Spiderman, Men X, these titles speak for themselves. If they don't have familiar characters, some other movies such as, The Island, had an appeal itself when the advertising asks "Do you still believe there is an Island?". 

Or for the movie, retitled "How NOT to be a King" might ask the question, "So do you still WANT to be a King?" 

Parhat

Sentiment: negative
What could have been some majorly creepy stuff ends up being an incomprehensible, nutty motion picture that even the filmmakers themselves probably didn't understand. Had they shown more of the Satanic ritual or whatever, it might have been creepier, but as it stands now, this is a waste of time and brain cells. Is anybody else getting sick of the whole "little kid drawing creepy pictures with crayon" thing? Could there possibly be a bigger horror cliché? Probably not. I know, I know, it's from some different country, and it's far too refined and sophisticated for me to understand, so I shouldn't expect the "plot" to be spoon-fed to me, blah, blah, blah. Whatever. I still say the movie blows.

Sentiment: negative
A fine effort for an Australian show. which is probably not surprising seeing as there seems to be somewhat of a resurgence in quality Aussie drama. dare i compare this show to the brilliance of love my way? no. but it is reminiscent of early secret life of us. the cast is great, gibney works her magic in the first two episodes i have seen, the British cast is strong also especially the callum and lizzie characters. but abe forsythe may be the saving light (not that it needs saving) if this show is to get another season. i wasn't a fan of his performance in the awesomely awesome marking time mini series a few years back but he was great as hal in always greener. its also good to see brooke satchwell again. lets hope the show keeps improving with each episode.

Sentiment: positive
Kay Pollack (the man behind this movie) is a real great man who tries to share his life philosophy in different ways. He has written a bunch of good and well written books about how to control your senses and keep your soul happy. The message in most of his books and this movie, is about that your thoughts in fact is what causes your problems and that the reason of your anger hardly ever is caused of what you think of. The main message is that you can choose to be happy, but hardly ever do that.

To watch this movie and learn something very important on life, you have to keep your mind very open and L I S T E N to all the "hidden messages" (or guidelines to get through life) which most of the parts in this movie contains if you listen and watch. Watch it with your ears.

You won't learn the meaning of life, but you'll learn how to live and get the most out of it...

So, while watching, please keep in mind:

"The mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work unless it's open!"

Sentiment: positive
I would like to comment on how the girls are chosen. why is that their are always more white women chosen then their are black women. every episode their is always more white women then black one's. as if to say white women are better looking then black women. I would like for once see more black women then white. and it not just your show it's like that in a lot of shows always more white's. but i would have thought since you as the head honcho of the show you would see this yourself and have more black women on your show. but you are just like the rest trying to act like you are so fair and nice. you are just a big fony hypocrite.

Sentiment: negative
The bipolarity of this movie is maddening. One moment it's making fun of Latin Americans, American tourists and banana republics in general, the other it wants to be touching, with burned villages and orphans. Even the serious revolutionary hero, becomes a parody of a revolutionary at one point. But the comedy parts aren't even funny, because it's so obviously stolen from Star Wars. Yes, Star Wars, the "hero" is basically a rogue with a heart of gold. Add to this stereotypical sounds effects, Latin Americans who speak English with one another, and a villain that just disappears from the story. And whats the point? It's basically revolution propaganda with no resolution, and no planning (because, there is just no way these people can lead a country). The US government are bad guys, but who'll make money producing this? Not some poor farmer, that's for sure.

Sentiment: negative
This is a quiet movie. It's a simple story about a writer who cannot write his story coming back to his home town to get started but instead he gets involved in a friendship with a weird older man whose life externally represents perhaps the internal state of the writer - it's a museum of unfinished ideas, outdated equipment and "useless" people.

There are no extraordinary circumstances or any big movements in the plot. It's a movie about internal changes. Being stuck in their lives which are not developing much, the principal personages get to help each other to transform, stop leaving in dreams and achieve something or at least get a change and give their lives the desired and long-awaited new direction.

On the film-making side I can think of only one weakness which could also be considered as a feature - we do not get much of characters description or inner world insights. It's very narrative on the side of thoughts and events and we have to guess about their true feelings which are rather hidden but still you can see them, and this is what makes your own mind work, trying to figure them out, to understand the impressions made by those people, and it's not empty underneath - the actors definitely hold well some inner states proper to their characters. It's close to the real life where you mostly never know someone well enough to understand them completely, and this turns us around and puts in front of our own feelings and choices.

What's most important for me is that this simple almost flat story leaves you pondering afterwards, about your own life, about your own dreams and achievements, are there any or are we caught up in the routine and pleasures, leaving at 100% or only dreaming about it, could we do more and move somewhere we'd rather like to be than just leaving feed ourselves and others the tales like "I'll do this one day"- not moving one finger to make this actually happen, or "I'm fine where I am" because it's easier to go by the habits than to actually make a change? At least that's the impression it left me with and it was very timely for me, which adds to my appreciation of this far-from-famous movie. I definitely recommend it to anyone who likes the movies meant for the heart but those who need events and actions should stay away.

Sentiment: positive
When it comes down to fairy tales, Cinderella was the one that made you cry the most. poor Cinderella is a girl who had her whole life stolen by 2 evil and ugly stepsisters and a slave-driving step-mother. and thanks to Mr. Walt Disney, We got to witness Cinderella in animation.

Before the story begins, Cinderella and her father are lonely, and rich beyond their needs. to share his wealth and to give his daughter some sisters, Cinderella's Dad marries a woman, but then dies soon after. the stepmother, only seeing dollar signs in her eyes and slavery in her gorgeous step-daughter, Cinderella.

So for many days, Cinderella is a slave to her step-mother and her step-sisters. she has hope however, thanks to her friends, the mice of the home (sounds like Cinderella wasn't playing with a full deck.) she has hope that one day she'll find her prince. the chance eventually comes when the prince of the kingdom needs a girlfriend.

9/10

Sentiment: positive
I really enjoyed this movie about a dog who becomes a Duke. It would have been very easy to mess this one up, but along with the humor, the script was filled with warmth and even some profundity about nobility and class. It's a feel good movie that the whole family can watch.. even the adults!

Sentiment: positive
Role-reversal remake of 1942's "The Major and the Minor" has Jerry Lewis stepping into the part originally played by Ginger Rogers, but unfortunately this anemic outing is missing a lot more than just Ginger. Lewis attempts to pass for a child when boarding a train; he's successful, but the deception leads to a string of comic and romantic confusions. Sidney Sheldon adapted the screenplay, tossing in musical moments for Dean Martin (playing yet another in his stable of second-bananas) and a jewel-robbery subplot (which is dire). Diana Lynn, who played the wily teenager in the original film, plays Lewis' love-interest here. She's cute; Jerry isn't. *1/2 from ****

Sentiment: negative
Any film school student could made a film 1,000 times better than piece of garbage. As someone who had read the book, I expected even a straight re-telling of the book would make this a fair film. There was a chance that a talented director could go beyond Woodward's narrative and make a great film.

Well the director did go beyond Woodward's narrative. He added a hip Hispanic angel named Velasquez that was not in the book. He had Bob Woodward interview the dead Belushi in an exchange in the morgue. The film had all the insight of someone stoned on PCP staring at his navel.

If this is a spoiler to you, you will thank me for it because it is absolutely the worst movie ever made.

Sentiment: negative
It really doesn't matter that Superman comic books are unbelievably naive and their target is ten year old. What matters is that "Superman Returns" is bad movie. 

In the beginning,a question for You Dear Readers, how many of You actually believe that Superman will be defeated by bald Kevin Spacey? Anyone? Just as I thought. No spoilers here. So let's get to some major issues right now.

Firstly, this movie looks like commercial (scene in the bar with Superman/Clark Kent drinking Budweiser is only scene which looks as it supposed to). Imagine commercial of Superman, two and half hour long. Let's be serious this isn't "Amadeus" or "The Departed". You actually feel, that this movie is way too long. And special effects are not so special by the way.

Secondly, scenario is silly. Sometimes even if something is acceptable in comic, in cinema it looks just stupid. And it's like that in this case. Of course dialogs are disgrace. I can't believe somebody took money to write them. How many times we will be fed with villain making speeches? How many times laws of physics will be raped? (Jesus, it's not only the matter of Superman's strength but also a resistance of materials his dealing with.) How many times Lois Lane will be fooled by Kent? How many times Hollywood producers will seek for a story in a trashy comic books? Since there's hard to make a good story, why having a weak story for a starter? It just doesn't work. Guys, get a grip. Try harder, please. Or just stay on this strike forever, who cares. I got the feeling that WGA is permanently on strike. No offense. I'm not questioning the lame money those people are paid, but the quality of the product they deliver. In this case there is no quality at all. (At this point You may ask yourself: is it that bad? Yes it is.)

Thirdly, acting is weak, which is quite a surprise since Bryan Singer (Usual Suspects) is directing. Kevin Spacey is having fun, but he's the only one. Audience is rather not in the mood for jokes. Thing is that comic book hero can be developed into real personality, with clear motivations but also with doubts, fears, some depth. In this case nobody did that job, and characters aren't really interesting.

Finally, whole effort of creators turns this movie into parody. Second unit is so bad that attracts attention, since there's nothing interesting going on on screen anyway. The harder they try (if they try), the funnier it gets (but it isn't laugh You could expect).

Final conclusion? One word: shame. 

This particular movie, ladies and gents, is camp. Don't waste Your time and don't waste Your money too. Stay home, read a book.

Sentiment: negative
In a phrase, moral ambiguity. In the Soderbergh remake, there ARE good guys and bad guys. Benicio del Toro's character is clearly the good guy, morally clean and uncorruptable. His counterpart in the BBC original, Fazal the farmer turned dealer, is realistically flawed and conflicted over his fate. The two relentless cops are similarly different. In the American one, they win our hearts. In the BBC original, they are over-zealous, nearly obsessive.

The best moment for me in Soderbergh's was when the college student rhetorically asked the Drug Czar, "What would you do if you were poor and black and rich white people came into your neighborhood looking for drugs?" That point was insinuated throughout the BBC show, and crystallized in Jack Lithgow's final speech. Both are excellent, but the BBC towers over the remake. My conclusion after seeing both shows is that dealers are innocent pawns who are only supplying a demand, and it is the demand that causes so much suffering.

Sentiment: positive
The movie starts out with its most intelligent joke, and goes downhill from there (pun intended). After that there's lots of potty humor and sexual situations. The beautiful women were the best part of the movie. Swear-word puns are not meant to be central idea jokes, but they try it here. The battle between the two groups in the local town (richies and poories) is an old tried and true setup, so how could it go wrong? Well, there is no reason to envy the "richies" nor any reason to feel sorry for the poories, so we can forget the central plot. The situational humor is all toilet or sexual aimed at teenagers, but only garners giggles, no true belly-laughs.

The only thing that salvages the comedy for this movie is the character humor, with the blind man providing some rehashed, but seldom used setups, and the black bar owner providing the formulaic "street" or "hood" humor. 

OK, forget the jokes, there has to be some killer snowboarding shots since this was a commercial enterprise. Unfortunately, there was only 4 seconds of backdrop action that might be inspiring. The rest was all "B" grade tricks or worse. The big moment, where the main character rides "the goat", a man-killer ski run, did provide one shot where a small avalanche eats the stuntman. This was the best of the boarding in this movie. Any serious snowboarding fan will be disappointed with the quality of the stunts in the movie. 

As for the technical aspects of the movie, the soundtrack was average, which surprises, as those snowboarding documentaries are regularly filled with quality tunes. You can catch a lot of editing mistakes and even though it was shot on a ski mountain, the majority of "scenery" shots failed to convey any sense of true size. 

Overall, it MIGHT be worth watching if you have managed to turn your brain completely off and you like silicon breasts. Even then, you wont remember a thing from this one two days later. 

Snowboarding is still waiting for it's definitive comedy, you'd do better to watch a snowboarding documentary for sure.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was so frustrating to watch. The split screens don't allow you to get very involved in the emotions of the actors. I was constantly going back and forth watching all these tiny images that I found myself with wiplash by the end. This is basically a rip off of "The Talented Mr. Ripley" and "Timecode" I was very let down with this film makers attempt to be cool. I wish I had walked out like so many other people did.

Sentiment: negative
The movie is bad. Nothing special - just a "kid" movie with no serious thing in it. There is though one reason to watch this for: the animal talk. Some of them are so funny in what they say, you just can't stop laughing. So if you want to hear a dog in the dog pound saying "I'm Keyser Soze", or another animal saying "You're a dead cat walking", or many other funny one liners, see it. Cause there's no other good movie to watch it. Vote: 4 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
This is a movie about animal cruelty. Under the guise of a marathon race, we see depictions of extreme animal abuse, including literally running a horse to death IN SLOW MOTION. The guy who did this then has his conscience spiritually cleansed by the flames from the burial/burning of the horse, which of course is still dead, having been tortured to death. This is one of the sickest, slimiest movies I've ever had the displeasure of viewing. As Gene Hackman and James Coburn near the finish line on their DYING animals, we're supposed to admire their spirit for finishing the race. I'd like to put the producers and director in a marathon race; I'll decide when they're finished, probably about 20 minutes after they stop breathing.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this by accident one lazy summer afternoon. It was playing on the family programming channel of HBO. At first I was drawn in, by what I thought was a Disney animation. But then, after a few minutes, I found myself searching for the remote, so I could find the 'INFO BUTTON', to find out what in the world was on my TV. I have nothing against Harvey F., I enjoy him in many of his films, but one thing he is not, is a voice-over artist. Sure he has one of the more unique voices in Hollywood, but it works only as a part of a bigger visual package. Attaching his voice to a cute duck made watching somewhat difficult. As for the rest of the cast, uninspired. I suppose working on this film didn't appeal to the really good voice over talent out there.

So, weak voice talent, strong animation...who was this film targeting? Gay adolescent ducks? I don't get it. Is there really such a dearth of role-models for young up and coming homosexuals, that we must resort to animated ducks? Cute story, and like the title, this movie I found hard to love, just like an ugly duckling.

Sentiment: negative
(aka: DEMONS III)

Made for Italian TV although shot in English and was never meant to be a sequel to the earlier DEMONS films. It was supposed to be simply titled, THE OGRE, which is how director Lamberto Bava had released it.

An American family rents an Italian villa for the summer. The woman (Virginia Bryant) has recurring dreams of herself as a little girl going down to the old wine-cellar of this villa an encountering this cocoon-like structure hanging down from the ceiling. It glows and is covered in cobwebs and has what looks like spider or insect legs hanging down from it. It drips what looks like green paint.

Of course the husband doesn't believe any of this. The villa just is old and creaks and makes strange noises in the middle of the night and she should just ignore it.

But then the OGRE itself appears in what looks like some kind of 16th Centaury costume with what looks like a wolf's head attached to it and it's attracted to the scent of orchids.

The films isn't really that bad and at least the dialog is halfway intelligent without the ridiculous awkward phrases that dubbing would bring. There's no real gore other than some skeletons rotting in a basement pond that really looks like the bottom of a modern swimming pool. The OGRE itself just simply fades away after it is run over by the family's Jeep Cherokee. 

The copy of the Shriek DVD I watched was defective, with the picture going black for a few seconds about a half an hour into the film, a flaw I hope Shriek has since corrected. Extras include a short interview with Lamberto Bava where he explains how this wasn't a sequel, etc..etc...along with some trailers to other Shriek DVD releases. This is pretty standard stuff.

3 out of 10



Sentiment: negative
This movie was in a box set with 20 others, with varying quality, & I can safely say that this title was right at the bottom of the heap.

It is pointless to go through the plot, what there was of it, picking out what was wrong, as I haven't got all day & life is to short, which reminds me, I have just lost around 85 minutes of mine watching this tripe.

The acting was diabolically bad in a way that made it funny, though only just, whilst the comedy elements like the two idiotic cops must have made any Laurel & Hardy fans groan. One of the only barely funny moments was when the leading lady made a joke about her former friends plastic T*ts, which would have been okay if I hadn't had to watch them bob around whenever she waddled on the screen.

The lowest I can give is one, & it probably deserves that for having Heather Thomas in it, as she was certainly sexy & shapely, though her acting was as bad as everyone else.

Sentiment: negative
I can't say that this film deserves anywhere near the amount of vitriol being heaped on it by some reviewers. Yes, it's bogged down by an overly-padded running time, hamfisted editing, and an overreliance on cheeseball special effects. And it lacks much of the energy a comedy needs to get your average audience member to sit through it without checking his or her watch. 

On the other hand, it's also got some laugh-out-loud funny lines, a talented and earnest cast, and the classic underdog premise. Macy, Stiller, and Azaria are brilliant as the "core" team, and Garofalo and Studi do superb work adding conflict and variety to the team. I can't say Reubens or Mitchell added much to the film overall, though each had a few chances to shine. 

The plot, as I said above, is your classic "underdog-makes-good" stuff. No surprises there, since you know they're going to triumph. What makes it worthwhile is not the absurd, gaudy heroes and villains, but the dialogue and interplay between the characters. Underneath it all, these people are children at heart, who just want to do right. The best scenes in the film give this film its emotional grounding. Look at Azaria's relationship with his long-suffering mother; Macy's endearing innocence in his unwillingness to accept Cap. Amazing's secret identity; Stiller's rage (not unlike that one weird, spazzy kid you once knew who'd always go into quivering, impotent rages on the playground); Garofalo's desire to avenge her father. This childlike belief that a sense of justice and goodness will always make the world a better place, is the true appeal of super-hero comics; and underneath its parodic exterior, "Mystery Men" shows us why these hackneyed comic-book tropes matter to so many.

It never really gels into a satisfying whole, due to the huge number of half-baked subplots (romance, family life, conflicts within the team, etc.), but the main plot is such loopy fun that it makes up for that. The fact that it's supposed to be good, nonsensical fun seems to be lost on some of the reviewers here, so I'll issue a caveat: if you're the type of viewer who finds his enjoyment of an Itchy and Scratchy cartoon ruined by the unexplained and illogical ("Am I to believe this is some sort of.. *snort*... _magic_ xylophone?"), then you are far too literal-minded and humorless for this film. Go rent a Sandler film instead.

(7/10)

Sentiment: positive