DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I saw the Korean version of Daisy first. It came across as a simple love story that flowed nicely from start to finish. I saw it 3 times as I waited for my copy of the director's cut to arrive.

Then I got the DC and watched it. Wow! I think this is the first REAL director's cut I've ever seen. Amazing how detailed the editing is in both versions! The DC is laid out like a hardcore thriller, with the love story in the background. It moves at a slower pace than the Korean version.The variations between both versions are so drastic, it seems like two totally different movies. I thought I would be worn out watching the movie again, toughing it out just to look for the added scenes. That wasn't the case. It really felt like I was watching a whole new movie.

While the DC is 20 minutes longer than the Korean version, you'll be hard-pressed to pinpoint where or what has been changed. 2 seconds chopped off here. A second added there. An entire scene added here. Another erased there. In both versions, scenes have been added, omitted or chopped up and reordered. In some scenes, entire lines of dialogue were replaced or reordered - while the scene itself was untouched. Even simple sound effects were added/omitted from each version - having a major impact on the mood of the film, and sometimes even changing the outcome of a scene. What comes across as a tender moment in the Korean version is a sad, somber one in the DC. The endings of both versions leave room for interpretation. As far as I can tell, both versions end a LOT different, and were intended that way.

I'm assuming most people will be acquiring the director's cut of the film, and will find the movie pretty decent, but a little long and boring. If that's the case, look for the Korean version. Same movie, but different feel. I think there's a deluxe 3-DVD version that contains both cuts of the film - not sure.

The versions compliment each other so well that as a pair, I'll watch Daisy more often than I do any of my other favorite Korean movies. Alone, I'd say the Korean version is a nice love story that I'd watch once in awhile. The director's cut, I'll watch maybe once or twice, then never again, as I find the pacing dull. But they just go so well together! For what I consider the best experience, I'd say watch the Korean version first. Then watch the director's cut to help fill in the gaps of the story that you were curious about.

The editing is the real star of the film.

Sentiment: positive
I really loved seeing this movie. I think it's a brilliant, underrated Alfred Hitchcock movie. Everyone is familiar with the famous Statue of Liberty scene, but there's a really great movie before that. Robert Cummings is great in what I consider to be his greatest role, and the beautiful Priscilla Lane shows that she has a lot of talent too. But I think Norman Lloyd gives the best performance. His character, Fry, is so evil and devious. Even though he's not in it for very long, the movie wouldn't be the same without him.

"Saboteur" is a great movie that every Hitchcock fan should see. I give it a 10 out of 10!!

Sentiment: positive
I really enjoyed this movie. I have a real sense of justice and 'an eye for an eye', and this movie delivers that in spades. Glenn Ford is offered a very low price for his ranch by the big rancher in the valley; then one of his ranch hands is beaten and shot 'to help him make up his mind about selling'. When the ranch hand dies, and the sheriff refuses to do anything, Ford seems at first reluctant to do anything, cautioning his men to not take things into their own hands. But, that's just what he is about to do. I knew this movie was about to catch fire when he went into the saloon and faced the guy (Richard Jaeckel, one of my very favorite bad-guy character actors) who had killed his ranch hand; after a gentle exchange of dialog with him, Glenn Ford slaps his face and shoots him dead. Kind of a neat added bit of justice, he kills this guy with the gun that had belonged to his murdered cowhand. In short order we're treated to Ford letting his ranch be burned, so his men are justified in ambushing the crew from the other ranch; then Ford and his men stampede all the horses and cattle of the big bad guy's ranch; then they show up and burn the outbuildings and the big fancy house to the ground. Talk about getting even big-time. Lots of action in this movie. There's more to the story than this, but I'll just recommend you watch the movie. Glenn Ford was someone who showed time and again what can happen when you misjudge someone, and I really enjoyed watching him get justice the old fashioned way.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is an eye opener for those who can only the glamorous lifestyles of the stars. It tells you how people who would like to do good are not able to. Plus the bomb blast scene is very real.

What you read and are taught just does not happen!!!

Can raise your BP level by 10%

All actors played their role very well.

Some scenes may / could have been avoided to include teenagers.

This movie is quite adult in nature.

Not a movie that can be seen with family.

Casting is great!!!

Sentiment: positive
Great Balls of Fire is the movie you show to someone you really, really hate. It is absolute torture of the highest rank and is probably used by minions of a foreign power to extract info from captured intelligence agents. I've enjoyed some of Dennis Quaid's performances in the past, but he goes totally over the top in this film. He doesn't so much cross the line, he pole vaults over it, then comes back to jump over and over again. He struts and mugs as if on some incredibly bad acid trip. It's one of those rare performances where you wish you could enter the film and beat the man within an inch of his life for doing something so truly awful. Was he desperate to win a Golden Raspberry or some other award for bad acting? That's the only conclusion I can come up with. Thank you Dennis, you gave us a bad performance for the ages. Where was the director to reign in this guy?

The opposite end of the extreme is Winona Ryder, she of the plastic features and plastic acting. I came across a review of her acting style that compared her to a wax dummy. That was of course an insult to wax dummies all over the earth, all of whom could have brough more humanity to the role of Jerry's underage cousin/wife. This brings up the film's mixed up message, that being it is 100% okay to marry your own cousin and have a child by the union. I fail to see what is so "okay" about that, but it looks as though Hollywood thinks that underage incest is hunky dory. Talk about "family values."

Another problem is the format. Is it a stright forward re telling of Lewis' life, or is it a musical? I'm not talking about the music, I'm talking about the truly weird scene where Jerry drives up to the school, starts to belt out a tune and everyone starts to dance like it was Broadway musical in search of a Tony. Fantasy and reality are thrown together in a mix that does not work. But who really cares? I don't. And neither should you. You can't get back the minutes of life you would waste on this film. So don't waste your time, it's too precious for something this misguided and poor.

Sentiment: negative
True Love, I truly enjoyed and LOVED this movie. It was fun, funny and inspirational. I just saw it on DVD. How did I miss this one it's a winner! I mean Flex was "That Guy". I wanted to marry him. This was my 1st time seeing him as a straight leading man and he pulls it off. I thought Tangi Miller was the best ever and I was a Felicity head too. A fearless woman who only fears her Nana. Thank You for giving women of color range in your work and she looks great! Tasha Smith was a Blast! Aloma Wright was priceless as Nana. This cute romantic comedy is "A Must See". Oh and the new comer Marcus Patrick is worth the surprise ladies...True Love. Karen

Sentiment: positive
This was one of the few shows that my wife and I agreed on watching. I was upset to hear that it was canceled, especially because I didn't realize the ratings were so poor. As far as I knew it was doing very well with a lot of viewers. Almost all my friends and most of the people I spoke to watched the show. Now we are stuck watching either crappy shows or DVD's. How bad was the show doing? does anyone know the real results of the shows viewings? I know that when it went to Thursdays, it was more difficult for me to catch. Thank G*d for DVR's! 

Anyways, this was a real surprise to know that there will be no more "The War At Home". If any other networks see this, PLEASE PICK UP THE SHOW!!!! PLEASE!

Sentiment: positive
I rented this movie the other night because neither my girlfriend or myself had ever seen it, even though we had heard from a mutual friend how "great it was".

Now, I am pretty conservative in my views, but I knew going in it would be pretty liberal given who directed it. I figured before the movie started Michael Douglas would play a compassionate popular liberal beloved by the masses, and there would be a stodgy conservative opponent as his antagonist. But I thought thats where the political statement would begin and end.

OK, the plot was solid: Single president falls for a lobbyist. OK, this has potential I thought to be pretty entertaining, since the plot was unique. But then the movie turned into a liberal infomercial. The movie became more about gun control and environmental issues than it did about the relationship between the President and Sydney(Annette Bening).

There were several ridiculous premises in this movie: 1) The character Sydney playing this six figure lobbyist who is a "closer". Could she have been more flighty? She was constantly disorganized and seemed in awe of everything. Hardly a "closer". I am an sales, and she could not "close" selling a glass of water to a man dying of thirst.

2) Secondly, is there anything more ridiculous than Richard Dreyfuss playing a right wing fanatic? This is the most liberal man in Hollywood and her is playing some right wing ideologue. Give me a break. I liked how he took his conservative character and made him as sinister as possible.

3) The speech at the end was simply ludicrous. The line about "I am a proud card carrying member of the ACLU" was a joke. First, no president would ever admit something like that, being an active member of an ultra fringe group. Second, why even bring something like that up. You just alienated off over half the movie going audience who is moderate or conservative.

I thought the plot was great and unique. I thought Michael Douglas was a good choice as president. But the movie went from being a "movie" to a left wing political statement, which is why the movie failed.

Its a shame to see a great plot ruined by Hollywood having to force their political views on the audience

Sentiment: negative
This movie will go down down in history as one of the greats, right along side of Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and On The Waterfront. Someone please convince Leno to do a sequel! Leno and Morita are a comedy duo, the likes of which haven't been seen since Abbot and Costello. The evil that emanates from Chris Sarandon, Tom Noonan, and Randall "Tex" Cobb will give you the chills. Dingman's character as the buffoonish oaf hearkens back to the days of Shakespeare's comedies. And the climax. My goodness, the climax. I won't ruin it for you, but it makes the explosion of the Death Star pale in comparison. If you can track down this hard-to-find gem, do yourself and your family a favor and buy it immediately. I'm still holding out hope for a special edition DVD one of these days.

Sentiment: positive
*****probably minor spoilers******

I cant say i liked it, but i cant say i didn't...its very strange. It has bad things in it like for example a shark that came out of nowhere with the worst CGI you can imagine,if i was the director i would cut that part for sure, gave me the urge to stop seeing the rest of the movie... For some people it will be boring cause it lacks action, feels home made sometimes... Take for example a scene that one of the friends died and next thing they are doing is what? nop,not crying...their telling horror stories to each other..*sighs*(just after crying for hes lost)

Another stupid thing was when they were talking inside the boat they had like "hundreds" of candles in the table in front of them...the boat is surrounded by some kind of rag curtains(old rags covering the windows) and sofas/Couches ...i thought it was dumb, using candles but not thinking about the surroundings, besides being in high sea alone...

The good, some scary scenes they are nicely done i liked some. Sometimes horror works better when its hidden when its behind something instead of showing of, so this movie does it good, maybe because its a low budget i don't know, but it works fine for me! You will feel tension if you forget some holes like the ones i mentioned above.

Do not expect much of it! but if you like anykind of movie watch this one, be patient, try to enjoy.. lol

(sorry about my raw English) =)

Cheers

Sentiment: negative
Big D.B. tries to keep peace between the settlers and their red brothers.

Boone (an aging Bruce Bennett) has to try and prove to the local Indian chief (Lon Chaney, Jr., appearing to be drunk, as usual) that his son was killed by the tribe's leading jerk who has also been dealing in rifle-trafficking when nobody's looking. Faron Young sings, though he holds his rifle like it's a mop. 

OK western-adventure directed by two guys, neither of whom has many credits on his resume, but this flick ain't too bad and it has a nice short running time of 76 minutes.

Sentiment: negative
A so common horror story about a luxury building at Brooklyn which hides the gates to hell. It is reminiscent of Polanski's "The Tenant" (released a year before "The sentinel"), but is too far from the movie of the polish filmmaker in any aspect possible. "The tenant" was so disturbing, whereas "The sentinel" is not at all.

What it's more surprising from this film is the cast: it is full of great names of American cinema (Burguess, Gardner, Wallach), veteran actors acting for food (I guess).

Verdict: barely entertaining.

*My rate: 4/10

Sentiment: negative
If you liked this movie, be sure to check out others directed by Hrebejk - you are in for a treat. This is unfortunately not his best, but still million times better than an average movie from the mainstream cinema. It explores relationships, especially the abusive ones, has some powerful as well as sweet moments and great acting. Some plot inconsistencies, clichés and hollow moments spoil the overall effect. To the previous reviewer and his comments on the Czech psyche: an interesting approach, but I do not see this movie becoming a Czech blockbuster. Those folks are rather spoiled by their movie makers {check out also stuff by Sverak, Gedeon} and this one lags a bit behind.

Sentiment: positive
I know this film was shown on local TV when I was a kid, but I can't remember whether I watched it or not; seeing it now, considering how utterly forgettable it is, I still don't know  so I counted it as a first viewing! There have been several films featuring the title character, a creation of visionary French author Jules Verne; these include: 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA (1954; with James Mason in the role), MASTER OF THE WORLD (1961; Vincent Price), MYSTERIOUS ISLAND (1961; Herbert Lom), CAPTAIN NEMO AND THE UNDERWATER CITY (1969; Robert Ryan) and THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND OF CAPTAIN NEMO (1973; Omar Sharif).

This version stars Academy Award winner Jose' Ferrer. However, even if the premise itself isn't half-bad  awakened from suspended animation in his submarine, "The Nautilus", and finding himself in modern times, Nemo adopts all his ingenuity to aid the U.S. Navy in defeating megalomaniac scientist Burgess Meredith  it emerges as easily his most infantile adventure yet! For instance: five seconds into the film, Meredith's assistant  donning a steel mask  rants that "The World Shall Be Ours!"); equally hilarious are the zealous gesticulations of the similarly decked-out midget, whose task it is to fire The Professor's all-important "Delta Beam" - and how about those android-type minions aboard Meredith's vessel who never seem to do much of anything?! 

Ferrer manages to maintain his dignity throughout, but Meredith is an embarrassment (in what is virtually a retread of his Penguin characterization from the 1960s BATMAN TV series and film) where the budget was so tight  mostly invested in bland production design and shoddy special effects, no doubt, and both evidently influenced by STAR WARS (1977)  that, apparently, they couldn't even afford him a decent costume (he looks positively idiotic wearing a tie in a sub)! The supporting cast includes Mel Ferrer (playing a saboteur in the vein of Joan Fontaine from another Irwin Allen production, VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA [1961], and who engages in a swashbuckling routine with his namesake inside the engine-room of "The Nautilus"), Lynda Day George (unsurprisingly, she's the only female character around) and Horst Buchholz (as the King Of Atlantis  for whatever reason, Nemo is obsessed with locating the famed Lost Continent).

By the way, having been reduced from a three-part mini-series for theatrical exhibition, the film obviously feels choppy  though one is still able to discern where one episode ended and another began.

Sentiment: negative
I know slashers are always supposed to be bad,but come on,what the hell is this?It's like a bunch of 10-year-olds saved their lunch money and started filming this by the end of their week.

Anyway,six young people all go to the same house to get killed off screen.We have the brainy one,the slut,the other slut,the black guy,the killer,stereotypes like that.After one gets eaten by a shaking boat,the others all get stalked by some guy who wears a mask the people at the poor box rejected.There's one pretty decent murder somewhere in the middle,but then it's back to even more boredom,and especially more false scares.Seriously,we actually know it can't be the killer when a person gets attacked because the guy sure loves to take his sweet time for everything.

After every character you expected to die dies,the standard ugly blonde chick and her soon-to-be-boyfriend eventually get captured by the killer(they get like,pushed down and then faint)and the killer reveals himself.I think the writers of this movie just took a blindfold and a pen and put it somewhere on the list of characters.The motive is just lame and don't even get me started on the damn secret.The killer then of course takes way too much time to explain everything(and then about ten minutes extra in which he slices up his own arm for some reason)and eventually gets overpowered by a guy with a gun.Hey,no fair!

Really one of the most awful movies I've ever seen.I could enjoy myself more by watching a Lindsay Lohan-movie,I swear.I mean sure,most 80's slashers sucked as well but at least they threw in some T&A.This movie just has nothing going for it.

Sentiment: negative
This is another one of those films that I remember staying up late to watch on TV, scaring the crap out of myself at the impressionable age of 12 or so and dooming myself thereafter to a life of horror movie obsession. This is a GREAT movie, and stands as living proof that there were indeed realistic effects before CGI.

Set on an isolated base in Antarctica, this version seems almost to pick up where the original version (The Thing From Another World) left off. The American scientists discover a decimated Norwegian base some miles distant. Everyone is dead, and only the half charred remains of some unidentifiable thing left to smolder outside the compound might offer any answers to what may have happened. The Thing is brought back to the American base and, too late, the scientists realize that it is alive and lethal. The Thing thaws out and is off, not only killing anyone and anything that crosses Its path, but also absorbing them, making Itself into whoever and whatever it wants. The film then turns into a brilliant paranoia piece. Everyone is suspect, anyone can be The Thing, and no one trusts anyone anymore. Gone is the strength and security found when human beings band together in spite of their differences to battle a monster. The group splinters and fear rules supreme. Who is the Thing?

The gore effects here are absolutely amazing and messily realistic. I could have done without the dogs head splitting open like a banana peel, but that's just the animal lover in me being picky: kill all the humans you want, but leave the kitties and puppies alone. Sanity and reason disintegrate rapidly as, one by one, the humans are taken over by the shapeshifting alien. The power of this film lies in its paranoia, and although I liked the original version, I prefer this one; the real threat lies within, and is scarier for the fact that it cannot be seen or easily detected. When it is forced out of hiding, it's wrath is huge and the results are horrific.

This is one of Carpenters best films, right up there with The Fog and Halloween. All of the actors give strong, realistic performances and the special effects are so powerful that they stand as their own main character. This film has something for any lover of the horror genre. Don't miss it.

Sentiment: positive
I rented this film out having heard of the fuss about it not being put up for an Academy Award, but after watching it, it's easy to see why it didn't. Despite the beautiful photography, the film is incredibly slow moving, despite having hardly any plot.

The plot is about a young boy trying to come to terms with his parents' death in what may or may not have been an accident (the film is never clear on this), and how his grandfather used to tell him fairy stories. The fairy stories contain the only bits of interest in the plot, but they're very short, and don't really seem to have any point. 

The first fairy story in particular concerns a boy trying to get a magical flower to his dying girlfriend to save her life, but the boy delays by tasting the flower first to make sure it is not poisonous which results in him being a few seconds too late to save his girlfriend - the grandfather then pronounces that the moral is that the boy was too impatient, but that doesn't make any sense because it was overcaution and slowness which resulted in his failure. Perfect metaphor for this film really. 

The photography of Skye is beautiful though, but then Stardust which was released this year is another film about fairy stories filmed in Skye and beautifully photographed - and it's infinitely better than this one.

Sentiment: negative
This is the best thing Burt Reynolds ever did . . . . nice combination of suspense and humor, with an excellent supporting cast, this is a very well written and credible urban drama with a great sound track as well . . . makes you wonder why Reynolds doesn't direct more movies . . .

Sentiment: positive
If you're watching this movie, you're either a Fred Olen Ray fan, you found it on the $4.99 shelf at Suncoast and thought "what do I have to lose?", or you spun around the video store with your eyes closed and rented the first movie your finger touched.

This movie is hysterically bad. It's got everything a terrible movie needs: a screenplay featuring jaw-dropping dialogue and baffling detours in the plot, wacky science involving psychics and other dimensions, continuity that seems to travel through wormholes in time and space, actors that are not only wooden, but seems to border on befuddled, gratuitous nudity (not all of it is what you necessarily would ask for), and of course, a 5' monster played by what I assume is Fred Olen Ray's kid.

Underneath it all, however, there is something resembling heart -- as if Mickey & Judy decided to get together all the kids in the neighborhood and make a monster movie (hey! my dad can direct it! yeah! We can use red paint from my johnny's dad's hardware store, and I know this ex-stripper who can act in it!).

Watch for the blooper reel over the credits -- you get to find out why the final cut of the movie was so crappy.

Incidentally, Biohazard II...the Alien Force is also worth a look, but doesn't have the same enjoyably crappy veneer this one does.

Sentiment: negative
"Nurse Betty" is the kind of movie you can't describe on a poster or in a trailer or commericial. It's the kind of movie that you walk in to expecting a more mature "Dumb and Dumber" what with temporarily insane waitress goes on a cross country adventure while avoiding crooks trying to kill her.

The fact is, this film is a wonderful, heartwarming tale about two people chasing their dreams. The best part about "Nurse Betty" is it's unpredictability. Director Neil LaBute uses brutal violence to seperate dreams from reality, and along with the touching drama, and hilarious comedy, you can never tell what is going to happen next.

Sentiment: positive
Minimal script, minimal character development, minimal steady camera. Maximum stretched scenes, maximum headache inducing jerky zooms, maximum characters walking around in the woods doing nothing. Up until the time flashes on the screen of 12:01pm, you can fast forward and miss nothing, since there are three hunters who we know nothing about doing nothing. To be fair, the movie does have some string music that was interesting, so perhaps a music video would have been the way to go with this. Unfortunately that was not to be, and what should have been a twenty minute short is stretched beyond belief. Forget about "Trigger Man", I know I am trying to. - MERK

Sentiment: negative
OK, it's very rare that I complain something I got for FREE. So I guess this movie pushed me over that limit. I saw it at the Hollywood Cemetery for FREE and walked away very very disappointed. One audience member's question to the director about using the Native American references just as "bookends" instead of being weaved into the movie better, basically says everything that this movie FAILED on. 

NATIVE American REFERENCES--- The Native American references felt really out of place and contrived. It's obvious that this director and writer tried tackling an arena they never played in before. They should have stuck to the old adage of "write about something you know". IF they are in fact versed in this it certainly did not show on the movie or the beauty of this unique culture was not given proper justice. 

Clichés and ON THE NOSE--- I agreed to see this film on the basis that it was an indie. So I held it to higher expectations. "Little Miss Sunshine" was an indie and saw it before it became so popular. Before it even came out to wide release I was already raving how it's going to be a hit. UNFORTUNATELY I could not say the same about "Expiration Date". "Sunshine" took us to cliché incidents but the filmmakers were so clever at their approach that the outcome would take us to a different direction avoiding the trap of being a "cliche". This movie on the other hand had no way of not falling in the trap because it was already TRAPPED from the start. The psycho mom's antics, the Hendrix couple, etc. 

I hate to say it, but the best and WORST movie I've seen this year were both indies. "Little Miss Sunshine" being the best and this movie being the worst. I wish I could say otherwise. 

But I do congratulate the filmmakers for having such a good turn out from their family members at the cemetery.

Sentiment: negative
Opera opens with a very close-up shot of a bird's ever-watching eye and thus begins one of Argento's most bizarre, and enjoyable, features (my second favorite in fact, behind Deep Red). Granted, at times, the movie is pretty absurd (the lack of real concern after murders, the bird attack, the burnt dummy, that ending) but this is Argento's fantastical world and once you come to terms with that, you'll find that it works. I do not mean to completely dismiss these faults though, rather that the artistry of the film more than makes up for them. For example, the aforementioned bird attack is completely over-the-top in theory, yet look at the wonderful execution of it; crows flying in chaos, adding their enraged squawking to the driving rock beat, the crowd in panic as seen through the circling, bird's-eye view camera-work, and then the focused attack; aria of terror indeed. Argento's amazing, flowing cinematography is on full display in Opera, and clearly one of the film's highlights. I also enjoyed the soundtrack of operatic themes and rock music, a nice contrast of music with each used effectively (the rock kicks in with the murders in perfect timing and gives the scenes a very frenzied feel). The sound effects deserve a nod too, stabs, scissors, beaks, and all.

Inspector Alan Santini: "I've seen a lot of your movies. Yes, you're really an expert in this field. I'd be very interested to know your opinion."

Marco: "I think it's unwise to use movies as a guide for reality, don't you inspector?"

Inspector Alan Santini: "Depends what you mean by reality."

Being that this is a giallo, stylish murders are a must and Dario does not disappoint (the "bullet through the door" scene is quite possibly one of the greatest deaths ever shot, if you'll forgive the pun). The black-gloved, deep-voiced, pulsating brained (cool shots!) killer is cold and brutal, and having him tape pins under our heroine's eyes so that she was forced to watch the murders was a nice touch. That all said, as a giallo, Opera doesn't quite have as good of a mystery as it should. The killer is kept secret from the audience well enough but there's little effort in the film devoted to actually solving the murders. This, and the strange ending, could've used more work. Despite these problems though, Opera still manages to be a worthwhile and satisfying horror film.

One final note: it was nice to see a movie, for once, show the correct view through binoculars (just a circle, not two circles together)! Nice eye for detail, Dario!

Sentiment: positive
Good film. Tells a boyish fantasy story, telling us how trapped we are in social situations and what kind of extreme measures one has to take to behave differently. Or at least the feeling: that you have to break every rule if you are to break one. If you wanted to express love for someone you don't know, how would you do it without creating a pressing social situation? Also it's about the fascism of deciding over others cultural life, of what kind of culture that is jammed down our throats. What gives Disney or FOX or the suicide bomber the right to decide what is our choice. Are one not allowed to drink the morning coffee by one self. Do we have to listen to the NRJ shouting, see the stupid tabloid headlines and the street commercials before we even have had our morning coffee?

Sentiment: positive
If you have plenty of time to kill and the DVD was given to you by your friend for free but still it may require lot of courage to watch this film which does not have good script or humor for that matter.

On the acting front imran is frozen in time/acting, Tushar Kapoor was slightly better than Imran in this movie Paresh Rawal was good at comedy was usual. 

The story revolves around a college campus where Imran is a bad boy n Tushar is the good one, they pretend to be the opposite of respective nature and so the story goes on.....

Watch it only if you don't have any thing to do and the film is running on your local cable TV.

Sentiment: negative
I learned much from previous viewer reactions. Is there one that does not mention 'propaganda'? Too glib. 'Perception is concept dependent'. I love Fred Astaire musicals, the great, great songs, & Fred's peerless grace. But comrades, if you see idle, brainless, rich parasites dancing on the downtrodden & unemployed, that's a valid criticism of 'capitalist propaganda'. Any movie is steeped in the values of its time & place, not to mention those who fund it  the pipers who call the tune. Great art transcends all, as did 'Nevsky', as did 'All Quiet on the Western front'. I confess. I saw it last 40 odd years ago. But the images are burned in my brain. It's the greatest battle scene ever likely to be filmed. And it makes you horrified to be thrilled. 'Plastic ice' did someone say? That's real death you're watching. Real extras died making this. 'Real looking' is now special effects-defined it seems. Likewise 'too long' - for an age of shrunken attention spans? Mozart had 'too many notes'? Propaganda, Catholic Church defamed? The Vatican was STILL at it when they called on ancient favors to get the German Christian democrat gov. to recognize Croatia in the 1990s  remember the chaos & genocides? Forget the props, the lighting of Nevsky painted the Medieval world  like a Breughel. There's one in Hampton Court Palace showing a massacre. Crude Dutch nationalist propaganda maybe, but it tears at the heart. Stylized acting? So what's Henry V (Olivier movie)? Naturalism? Does anyone believe English medieval knight-killers talked like that? As said, the music of Prokofiev is magnificent. Only Ken Russell & Eisenstein had the balls & genius to match sound & image at this 100 octane level. OK, you want the snaffle & bit. I'll risk the nervy thorobred every time. Eisenstein did not copy Wehrmacht helmets, rather, his model seems to have been those buckets worn by 'Teutonic knights' in nazi pageants of the 1930s. Eisenstein was a genius , but unlike Hollywood directors, he had near unlimited (non-commercial) time & funding. Modern Russian directors are free from political shackles, but have no money. Even Kurasawa had to make a late (great) movie in communist Russia. He was revered but unfunded in his own country (much like Russell). How much propaganda is in the eye of the beholder? Imagine sane people from another, peace-loving world. How would they react to Nevsky? Would the battle, or the grieving for the dead dominate their cognitions? If we didn't know about the gas chambers & SS, what about 'Triumph of the Will'? Where can I get a Nevsky DVD, cheap?

Sentiment: positive
I love this show! Mr. Blick, Gordon, and Waffle are cats so different from each other, yet they refer to themselves collectively as 'brothers.' I often find myself trying to imitate the tired, sighing accent of their butler, Hovis, or even the Scottish borough of Gordon. There should be more episodes made about Human Kimberly. The episode about the cats disguising themselves as pre-teen girls to gain admittance to Human Kimberly's slumber party in order to get their thirsty paws on their favorite drink, Rootbeer, is a hilarious classic. We can't drink rootbeer in our house now without either doing the Catscratch voices or the Hanson Brothers from the movie 'Slap Shot.' Future classic. Where can I get the first two seasons on DVD??

Sentiment: positive
I wasn't expecting much of this film- a fun little diversion. Wuthering Heights could be turned into a plausible modern story- nice and soapy, melodramatic and intriguing. But this film decided to throw away the talents of the people involved in a simpering version so watered down from the source material that it's amazing they had the guts to call it Wuthering Heights at all. It ignores the fact that it is a story of people who are in essence unlikeable, mostly unsympathetic, and frequently cruel to one another. It changes the very nature of certain characters- Isabelle, for instance, in the novel, had not a conniving bone in her body- they've stripped her blind idealism and turned her into a scheming whore. Heathcliff is an awful person who psychologically tortures most people in his path, but in this version Catherine ends up leaving her daughter in his care. The dialog is trite and one wonders how the actors managed to deliver any of it with straight faces. In place of depth or actual emotions, we know they mean something when they scream it in someone's face. I've read criticism of the early 90's version, "Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights" which featured Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche, saying that it turned an intensely dark, Gothic story into a sudsy bodice-ripper. Slightly valid comments, but the MTV version goes a step further, using the basic story structure to deliver chipper beach bums cavorting to really bad music.

Sentiment: negative
In a sport that prizes quirkiness and treasures it's characters, one of the greatest of them from the 1930s was pitcher Dizzy Dean. He was so colorful a personality he was probably elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame on the strength of that as opposed to his pitching statistics. After all part of the Dean story is that early end to his career.

In the Pride of St. Louis Dan Dailey successfully captures the character of Dizzy Dean, at least the Dean I remember. I'm not old enough to remember him pitching, but I do remember him broadcasting Baseball Game of the Week during the 1960s. For that's part of the Dean story as well, being a pioneer broadcaster on radio and later television. Now that announcers are in the Hall of Fame, there's no question Dizzy belongs there.

Jerome Herman Dean was one of a tribe of sharecropper's kids who had very little schooling, but an amazing talent for throwing a baseball at blinding speed. In fact he had a younger brother Paul Dean who was a pretty good pitcher himself.

Richard Crenna plays Paul in this film and it's one of his earliest film roles. Paul Dean in real life was a quiet retiring sort who's career was also cut short by injuries. Because of that Crenna isn't given much to work with. During the Dean heyday, sportswriters tried to pin the nickname of Daffy on Paul, but it never took. 

Joanne Dru, taking a break from playing, western gals in gingham dresses and corsets is first rate as the wise, patient, and understanding Patricia Nash who met and married Dizzy while he was playing for Houston in the Texas League. 

In the 1937 All Star Game Dizzy started for the National League. Facing Cleveland's Earl Averill, Dean was hit on the foot by a line drive smack at him. Refusing to listen to medical advice, Dean came back to pitch too early. He'd broken a big toe and put too much of a strain on his arm. He was never the same pitcher and his refusal to accept that is part of the story. 

Had he had a career of say ten to fifteen years who knows what pitching statistics he might have rolled up. Dean was the next to last pitcher to win 30 games in 1934 and after Denny McLain(who was something of a character himself)did it 1968 it hasn't been done since.

Dean went into broadcasting and while he was not the first former player to go into the broadcast booth, his colorful game descriptions made him an instant hit. He started broadcasting for the other St. Louis team, the Browns, and the Browns were a pretty miserable team with not much to cheer about. Dean became a star attraction there.

Of course part of the Dean story is the trouble he got into because of his lack of education and his colorful way of expressing himself on the air. That's part of the story I won't go into, but in the film it's handled with tact and humility and your eyes might moisten if you tend to the sentimental.

A fine baseball film, a real tribute to an American success story.

Sentiment: positive
A best-selling book about honour killings in Jordan is withdrawn by its publishers after allegations surface that the story has been fabricated; associated with other allegations of its author's past as a con-woman. A few years later, she resurfaces, conceding that she took a certain amount of dramatic licence but willing to cooperate with a film-maker to prove the substance of her allegations. What follows is a fascinating insight into a pathological personality, someone who's behaviour on one had makes no sense unless what she is saying is true, yet who is seemingly incapable of saying anything that is not astonishingly dramatic but unproven at best and most often, verifiably false. It's almost impossible to imagine what Ms. Khouri hoped to gain by appearing in this film: vindication? celebrity? - all she does achieve is to project a certain image of herself as a deeply damaged individual, and even that cannot be taken at face value. Director Anna Broinowski appears increasingly on camera as her film progresses, and increasingly exasperated to boot; but she is finally rewarded with a remarkable, although scary and disturbing, tale to tell - and one of those films that reminds us what a thoroughly weird world it is we live in.

Sentiment: positive
I read John Everingham's story years ago in Reader's Digest, and I remember thinking what a great movie it would make. And it probably would have been had Michael Landon never got his hands on it. As far as I'm concerned, Landon was one of the worst actors on earth, and his artistic license went way over the top, similar to his massacre of the "Little House" book series is proof. The acting, for lack of a better word, is atrocious, the screenplay sloppy, and there are more close-ups of Landon's puss than should be allowed.

This movie reflects Everingham's story as much as "Little House On The Prairie" reflects the books is was "based" on. It's just another vehicle to show off Landons horrendous hair.

Sentiment: negative
You need to watch this show once to have seen them all, the formula is exactly the same in each episode. Jim does something his way he means well but he upsets his wife, at the end she finds out that what he did was really for her, she caresses his cheek and gives a gummy smile while he looks on bashfully. In fact the story lines are so lame and formulaic that I'll take a stab at one now.

Episode 'Valentines Pay'

Jims wife notices that all of Jims weekly pay has disappeared, he then explains to her he lost it at the casino. She screams and leaves the house lamenting how awful he is. Then on Valentines day he turns up in a limo with tickets to a Ball (hence explaining the missing wages). She realizes 'Her' mistake and the usual 'Oh Jim, you're so lovely'. ..The end

Another very obvious item is the fact that Jims character is based on Homer Simpson who as a cartoon character can get away with being belligerent and ignorant, when this is attempted with Human beings it does not work and Jim just comes over as an arrogant self centered jerk. 

IMO the only reason that this is successful is simply because we're so many now in terms of Human beings with TVs, these days you could make a show about a man who insulates walls and you'd get an audience.

'Two and a half men' on the other hand is fantastic and hilarious.

Sentiment: negative
I love this show. Now, I'm not a big fan of many science fiction shows, so if it bares any resemblance to them, I didn't notice. I like the storybook quality of the cinematography. I even like the love story, even though as I am enjoying it I wonder in the back of my mind how the heck that part of the story can truly develop seeing as Ned cannot touch Chuck or else... well, you know. I even like Chuck, I don't find her annoying at all, and I generally hate overly sweet, nice, perfect characters. I even like the narrator's voice, even if it bothers one of my family members and bares some resemblance to some Walgreens commercials. I could nitpick about all the other things about Ned's predicament and how the writers are going to address it in the future but I just rather watch and wait and see what tale the writers weave.

Sentiment: positive
The feature length CGI movie has just been released this year, but whilst it will provide kids a lot of entertainment, for die-hard Alvin fanatics and followers who grew up with the 60s and 80s versions of the cartoon shows, The Chipmunk Adventure is probably the best Alvin and the Chipmunks based animated movie, ever.

For starters, the animation is as ever terrific, the character designs are as they should be in the cartoons- unlike the motion picture film itself, it is just sheer fun to watch. there are no celeb voices, no CGI generated effects, just pure quality 2-D, hand drawn animation and the colours are fantastic- bright, bold and beautiful. The jokes and humour is typical chipmunk standard and the narrative is spot-on. In truth, The Chipmunk Adventure is everything the live action movie ought to have been, but isn't. Alvin, Simon and Theodore compete with the Chipettes, Elenor, Jeanette and Britney in a hot air balloon contest and along the way, the kids encounter all manner of problems and dilemmas that they have to resolve in their own way. And no chipmunk movie is complete without the odd renditions of classic rock and pop anthems.

The Chipmunk Adventure is for kids and adults alike-, which is another advantage over the CGI movie- as whereas, the 2007 version will gain a few new admirers, the 1987 movie will appeal to both young and older Chipmunk fans. Bagdarasian and Karman provide the helium-like voices of the film's trio.

Overall, this film is a must for fans of the cartoon shows themselves- you will not be left disappointed. If you have seen the live action version, then you'll feel that this movie is a much better effort in contrast. If you haven't then you should go and see it still, or even still forget the Jason lee movie and as an alternative, stick with this

Sentiment: positive
I f you thought Sam Mendes' first film, the much heralded American BEAUTY was a movie with style to spare, wait until you see his highly anticipated second effort, the unrelentingly grim 30's gangster melodrama ROAD TO PERDITION. Some critics have hailed this new movie as a worthy successor to THE GODFATHER, a rash judgment made by several reviewers taken with Mr. Mendes' extraordinary technical prowess. If the mechanics of movie making are what make a picture great, then yes, ROAD TO PERDITION is a distant cousin to THE GODFATHER in terms of what it achieves in cinematography, editing, music scoring and sound. What it doesn't have is a resonance that all great stories and some very rare movies have that stay with the viewer long after the experience of reading or seeing it is over. As with American BEAUTY, there is a cold, distancing feel to this movie, despite some very tense scenes involving paternal love, loyalty and betrayal.

This story of a hit man (Tom Hanks) and his relationship to a surrogate father - figure who is also his boss, an elderly Irish mob leader (Paul Newman) , seems to have been culled from innumerable gangster movies of years past. The father /son motif that hangs over this picture is so heavy handed in its treatment that there is not much room for spontaneity ; the entire enterprise has been very carefully wrought , and nearly all the dialog is delivered with an air of great portent : this is obviously a gangster film , hence the requisite amount of violence and bloodshed , but the film is nearly devoid of any humor to speak of ; only in scenes involving a young boy driving a getaway car in a cunningly edited montage is there any sense of lightheartedness to leaven the pervasive sense of doom.

That being said , I have nothing but the highest praise for the stunning look of this film ; indeed , it is not an overstatement to say that this is one of the most beautifully photographed and designed movies I have ever seen. Veteran cameraman Conrad Hall will very likely win another Oscar for his work here . The production 's sets and costumes are just as exemplary ; in fact , the entire film is a technical marvel. Mr. Mendes continues to astonish with his vivid use of color, and he and Mr. Hall again make very dramatic use of red blood splattered against pale colored walls , all the more effective and disconcerting due to the preponderance of blacks, blues and grays that dominate the movie's color scheme.

If I have failed to duly note the acting , it is not because the actors do not purport themselves ably ; everyone in the film is top notch, with special mention going to the two malevolent bad guys : Daniel Craig is the classic "man you love to hate", the spoiled, impulsive son of Newman's gangster father ; and an almost unrecognizable Jude Law as an especially slimy miscreant who goes on pursuit of Hanks and his son and figures very importantly in the film's riveting second half. But acting in a movie this dazzling is bound to take a back seat to the photographic fireworks on display here. If a Rolls-Royce was a movie , I've no doubt it would look like ROAD TO PERDITION.

Sentiment: positive