DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I first saw a poster advertising this film on a street in Helsinki, Finland in June of 2000. What caught my attention was the proud proclamation advising all readers that the movie, although itself French, had been "Banned in France". Upon returning home to New York, I discovered that one of the "Art House" movie theaters in the City was screening the film, and so (with my Finnish fiancee) decided to see what all the fuss was about. Boy, did we ever.

From the comments read here, and the reviews I knew the movie was violent and sexually explicit. Not necessarily offended by either of these two conditions, I went with an open mind to see what had perturbed the sensibilities of our Gallic cousins. Presumably, as anyone who is reading this will know, the story involves two women who embark on a crime and murder spree in France (the movie has English subtitles). The resemblance to "Thelma and Louise" however, ends with that; the sex is unusually graphic (and in copious supply) as is the violence (a lot of stomping to death, and a lot of blood and other organic matter splattering after bullet impact).

On an intellectual level, one could make the case that the film's very essence is the relationship of sex and violence (as manifested by the only sex these women know: one is a small-time prostitute, and the other has earned money from time to time by performing in pornographic films. When they, during their descent into crime and murder, have the upper hand over their sexual situations, they react only with the same violence and brutality that they themselves know and understand. It is important to note, however, that the victims of their rampage are not only creepy men interested in creepy sex, (of which there are several)but innocent passersby, a woman at an ATM, for example, as well.

I myself do not really understand why the repeated "porn-movie" shots were all that necessary, (except to depict the physical contact as cruel, unpassionate and debased) and the unrelenting gore did get rather tedious after the first few violent spasms.

It is a coarse and crude movie, but in fairness, it is dealing with coarse and crude people and equally unpleasant circumstances. From one point of view, the lives of the French underclasses is explored, and it's pretty grim; a travelogue for France it definitely is not- perhaps that's why the French banned it.



Sentiment: negative
***MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS****

I was super excited to go see Blood and Chocolate with my friends. I couldn't wait because the book is one of my favorites. But as soon as the movie started, I couldn't believe how different it was. At first I was like, okay, so both of her parents are dead...maybe it'll be okay. But then came the rest of the movie. By the time it was over I was furious. Nothing was correct but their names and the fact that Vivian fell in love with Aiden. By the end of the book, Gabriel was my all time favorite...and then the movie goes and turns him into a complete heartless idiot?! The movie also showed the shifters, or werewolves, as these vile, evil creatures were as the book shows them as just wanting to fit in and keep their pack safe. They would never kill humans for the fun of it.

If they wanted to make a movie like they did, they should have given it a different title and named the characters different. Because then I would go out and watch it again and buy it, but when I think about it all I can see is the bad. You couldn't pay me to go see it again or buy it.

Sentiment: negative
You know you've got a bad film when you hear that the soundtrack is performed completely on a single cheap programmable synthesizer, without any melody or sense of rhythm.

It's hard to see how anyone could take this film seriously, even while giving it a bad review. This film is way beneath 'bad'.

The continuity of this film is outrageously butchered. In one fight scene, we the hero (wearing bluejeans and undershirt) turn a corner with two revolvers in his hand; he doubles back, only now he has two semi-automatics in his hands; he turns another corner and now he has an automatic rifle in his hands; he chases down a hallway and comes out (suddenly dressed in standard army fatigue jacket)with a shotgun; after which he exits the building with yet another automatic rifle. Or here's one for the books - a bus slams into a car at high speed; the car goes flying, thrown by a gigantic explosion - cut to the bus which is completely unscathed from the same explosion? The narrative continuity suffers from an equally numbing sense of unreality; the bad guys really want to kill the hero - obviously - but every time they knock him out or otherwise get him in a vulnerable position, they suddenly decide they want him "to live to see this!" Huh? One of the funnier moments of the film is when the hero is released from isolation because his lawyer has come to see him; then the bad guy decides he's not going to let the two meet after all; and this despite the fact that the the villain, the hero and his lawyer all know what's going on anyway, so the hero writes a note to the lawyer and next we see the note being passed to the lawyer by another prisoner, even though we never see the hero give it to him. (This lawyer, BTW, has complete access to the Offices of the ATF in California, including its confidential computer files.) Huh? Well, but it's a mindless action movie - so how're the action scenes? Not bad, surprisingly; unfortunately they happen to be stoled from about a dozen Hong Kong films made five or ten years previously. The opening scene, a shoot-out in a junker garage, actually has shots the composition of which are stolen directly from "Hard Boiled" - so clearly so that it's a wonder John Woo didn't sue for plagiarism.

Other Hong Kong films stolen from include "Prison on Fire", "Island on Fire", "Burning Paradise", "Police Story" I, II, and III (aka "Supercop"). I thought I recognized a couple Sammo Hung clips here as well. In other words, the actions scenes are exciting only to the extent that they are successful duplications of action scenes from other films.

There's nothing one can do with this film unless one shoots smack and just needs a lot of visual stimuli that needn't be make any sense.

Very funny film, for all the wrong reasons.

Sentiment: negative
It's not really about gymnastics; swap out the occasional training montages and it could just as easily be about archery, or microbiology, or a booger-flicking tournament. Instead, like every other Rocky/Flashdance derivative that flooded the 80s market, it's about conquering adversity with stick-to-it-iveness, rendering all social/personal realities irrelevant by your lonesome - with love interest standing by of course. Ronald Reagan top to bottom, in short; so as a piece of cinema it's down to the details. Some of the actors are quirky enough to liven things up - especially the love interest, brought to you by none other than Mr. Keanu Reeves, warming up for Ted; heroine Olivia D'Abo's hateful alkie dad and big-hair stepsister are more interesting than the sickly mom or her utterly inert bitch-nemeses/teammates, one of whom appears to be made of porcelain. It's my instinct to be appalled by the comic-relief black guys, but on the other hand at least they're in the movie. But D'Abo doesn't quite convince with her awkward-girl shtick, and in the absence of any other narrative focus the lack of interest in the gymnastics themselves really does matter; it's all just bodies hurtling around, and not only is the outcome of the big tournament a foregone conclusion, it's all performed by an obvious double.

Sentiment: negative
Jay Chou plays an orphan raised in a kung fu school, but kicked out by the corrupt headmaster after fighting with a bunch of thugs in the employ of a nefarious villain. He happens upon down-on-his-luck trickster Eric Tsang, who immediately sees cash potential in the youngster's skills. Basketball is the chosen avenue for riches, and Tsang bids to get him a spot on a University team and to promote him in the media. General success leads to a basketball championship and a really nasty rival team managed by the same nefarious villain of before.

It's all a bit Shaolin Soccer I guess, but not so quirky or ridiculous - the plot sticks pretty close to sports movie conventions, and delivers all the elements the crowd expects from the set-up. You've seen it all before, but it's the kind of stuff it never hurts to see again when it's done well. Luckily it really is done well here (some might say 'surprisingly' with Chu Yen-Ping in the director's chair... I expect he had good 'assistants') - the script delivers and the presentation is slick and stylish. Jay Chou remains pretty much expressionless throughout, but such is his style, and when he does let an emotion flicker across it can be to quite good comic effect. Eric Tsang compensates with a larger-than-life character that he's played many times before (in real life, for instance) who gets many of the films most emotional moments.

Since the film revolves around basketball, it's good that the scenes of basketball matches are suitably rousing. The cast show some real skill, including Chou, and some well done wirework and CGI add that element of hyper-real kung fu skill that make the scenes even more entertaining (assuming you like that sort of thing) and justify the movie's plot/existence.

There's only one significant fight scene in the movie, but it's a doozy in the "one against many" style. Jay Chou appears to do a lot of his own moves, and is quite impressive - he's clearly pretty strong and fast for real, and Ching Siu-Tung's choreography makes him look like a real martial artist. I wish there'd been more, but at least it's a lengthy fight.

Very much the kind of Chinese New Year blockbuster I hoped it would be from the trailer, and recommended viewing!

Sentiment: positive
I recently purchased Lost Horizon on ebay, having vivid memories of the Things I Will Not Miss number from childhood (I am an ancient 29). I also recently finished the novel upon which it is based. I was so pleasantly surprised to find a genuine hidden treasure. A wonderful cast brings such warmth and depth to a beautifully simple and elegantly told story, subtly updated from the original film (and by now quite a separate entity to the far more intellectual and thought provoking book by James Hilton). Sally Kellerman in particular has a radiant presence as the suicidal neurotic Sally Hughes, who gradually warms to the charms of Shangri-La. Only Liv Ullmann flounders in her wooden portrayal of the schoolteacher (a role far more suited to a Julie Andrews type. The fact that Finch, Ullmann and Hussey are all dubbed isn't important as it is almost impossible to tell. The songs DO vary in quality, the music being far superior to the lyrics but it is still a vibrant and engrossing film that really deserves a proper DVD release and a lot more recognition.

Sentiment: positive
The movie starts out with three people on a play it by ear holiday who decide to first visit a crocodile farm and then go on to a little lighter activity, a "fishing" tour.

You pick up some interesting information about crocodiles during their visit to the farm and the information adds just enough to increase the suspense later during the movie as you recall what was told earlier on.

The action in the movie is well timed and not over done. Suspense is built through the "what ifs", the "unknown", and the sometimes gut wrenching decisions the characters make in the movie.

I found myself wondering what I would do if I was in the same boat, no pun intended.

The film quality was really good and the effects where realistic, believable and not over the top or cartoon looking and out of place, the way you sometimes get with CGI.

As a horror movie buff I watch just about every horror movie I can get my hands on, in just about every genre, and this is one of the best "crocodile" horror movies, if not the best I have seen.

Watch this movie and you will not be disappointed.

Sentiment: positive
Of course, really experienced reviewers who like stuff like Star Wars and professional crap will definitely drag this movie and say really bad comments about it. But really, it is enjoyable teen comedy with an awesome story and good acting.

Josie Gellar (played well by Drew Barrymore) is part of a news-reporting team and she has been offered a ('real') job - she has to go back to school and find out what teens are like these days. Well this goes alright, until Josie remembers her horrible time at High School and gets freaked out. But she's never been hip, never been cool, never been popular until now!

Sit back relax and enjoy with Never Been Kissed!



Sentiment: positive
After what was considered to be the official Dirty Harry trilogy with The Enforcer(1976) to be the final chapter in the series. Dirty Harry is back, older, more dirtier and grittier than ever since the original 1971 classic.

Dirty Harry in the past has killed a psychopath killer, vigilante cops, and Vietnam veteran terrorists. But now he's after a new killer, a killer who wants payback, by gunning down her attackers.

Sudden Impact brings a new meaning and more darker tone to Dirty Harry. Callahan is on a new murder case that is circling back to a woman(played by Sondra Locke), who was brutally raped, along with her sister, who is left traumitized. Ten years after, she's out for revenge by gunning down her attackers. At the same though Callahan is on a heat of trouble by his superiors after he provokes a mob boss to a heart attack, of which the mob are hunting him as well. So in order to let the heat die down within the city, Harry is on order to take a vacation on a seaside town, but at the same time the raped victim is in town as well, while hunting her attackers one by one. Harry is on the investigation and finds the killings very similar, as he homes in on the killer's trails.

Sudden Impact in my opinion, has to be one of my top 10 revenge films, as well as being the second best Dirty Harry movie yet, far better than both The Enforcer and The Dead Pool combined. Sudden Impact has what the original Dirty Harry had, a dark tone with entertaining value.

So do you feel lucky, punk?

Sentiment: positive
Having broken into a secret database file for matching DNA serums,federal agent Frank Poo (Andy Garcia)discovers the only person who can save his son's life is a psychopath,played by Michael Keaton . However,when a serum transfer at the local hospital goes terribly wrong,a certain Mr.Poo has to do everything in his power to ensure the madman stays alive in order to make the inevitable transfer possible. By the way,his name is'nt really Poo,I just feel like calling it him. Despite the original concept at hand,this is an implausible and turgidly unexciting action thriller.I've never been a big fan of Andy Garcia,and granted his charecter here is'nt that attachable,this movie winds up all the worse.The action sequences are handled pretty disappointingly,and the ending sucks pretty bad. Having done a great villain in Pacific Heights,Keaton's psychopathic bad guy here is a let down,providing a madman too funny and charismatic to be deplored.Brian Cox is also wasted as Garcia's firm and frank superior.

Sentiment: negative
This show is brilliantly hilarious! I started watching in 2007, and had never heard of it before then. After one episode, I was hooked. I'm never home to watch it, so my wife bought me the entire series on DVD. Non stop laughs, need I say more? I wish it was still on TV, because it is definitely worthy and a whole lot better of crap on currently on TV.

I wish they would make a movie, seriously, who wouldn't go see it. Kevin James's name alone will bring a huge fanbase to any movie, the guy is (make your stomach hurt) funny.

Just a really good, down to earth, believable show. If you have the chance to buy it on DVD, do it, its worth it.

Sentiment: positive
Imagine the most cliche ridden b-movie horror plot you can. Add more plot holes than plot. Have it scripted by a 10 year old. Have the acting done by A-Level drama students faking really bad US accents (in the Isle of Man!) Add monster special effects that the lovers of B&W Dr Who shows will appreciate. Result: duff film. Throw in Samantha Janus taking her clothes off (make a point of this on the cover) and you'll probably sell enough copies to make a profit anyway!

Sentiment: negative
I'm not at all picky about horror movies, and I'm willing to watch pretty much any of them. That doesn't mean that I'm willing to re-watch many of them, or that I won't have criticism for them. This movie is creepy, and is very well done. In fact, I think this movie would make an excellent double-bill with Session 9.

I should specify, before I get to my comments, that I watched this alone. I started watching it before going to bed, and got about 15 minutes in before I realized that it was too effective, so I saved the rest of it for the morning. Even while watching it in broad daylight, it was still creepy. However, I can't vouch for how effective it would be when watching in a larger group.

After the death of their daughter, a couple move to a remote cabin as a means of trying to come to terms with this death. Let me make note of this death - this is one of the rare movies that doesn't shy away from the death of a child. This is much more important, as it both sets the tone, as well as explains much of the acting that permeates the movie.

The couple is not doing well. The wife has distanced herself from the relationship, and the husband is doing what he can to try to bring her back. While some of the comments have complained about their acting - one specified that they act more like a father and daughter than husband and wife, and that's legitimate. He's trying to give her more direction. It's a role that men sometimes take on.

There are a variety of scares in the film, and most are fairly non-violent, though grotesque in some ways. The story itself feels very straightforward for most of the film, and takes an odd turn near the end. While the turn is not absurd, it is certainly not what you expected from the way things had been progressing.

Moody, atmospheric, and very well done for something that appears to have been shot on video.

Sentiment: positive
Oh man , this movie is amazing, It's very good it's a story about a man who isn't so accepting of Black people, he sits at a bar drinks on his night out and he rants about hippies who are anti-war , and how blacks and hippies don't deserve to get any welfare checks. This movie is very realistic ,because it portrays a guy "Joe" who represented a lot of guys back then, and now too. The story goes like this.... Joe is in a bar and he rubs shoulders with a rich guy who just accidentally killed his daughter's hippie boyfriend. And this rich goes to the bar to rethink what he just did, and while he's doing that, "Joe" is in the bar ranting about hippies and people who are against the war. The rich guy accidentally tells Joe that he killed a hippie ; and obviously joe applauds the rich guy, Cause Joe hates hippies, Amazing movie watch it to see what happens next. I liked this movie , because it was reminiscent of those days in the early 70's, I liked the way movies were shot back then in those days, very good stuff , it's not like today's movies. Basically the movie gives you an inner look into the mind of the lead character "Joe" . I like the theme of the movie ....... about the working man , who's busting his ass trying to make a living

Sentiment: positive
Went to see this movie with my brother and his girlfriend. The place was pretty packed and we all laughed so hard it was easy to miss lines. I knew it looked like it would be good but it was much funnier than I thought it would be. I liked both Edward Furlong and Christina Ricci, they seemed really weird just like normal people, if that makes sense. I get sick of movies that show teenagers as being like cookie cutter people, like "jock" or "geek" or "cheerleader"...etc. Both characters were unique but still very human and normal enough to relate to. I will be recommending this movie to all my friends and waiting very eagerly for it to be out on DVD, Go see this movie with your friends who can laugh at the funniest parts of life! I plan to see it again in the theater and I don't go see things more than once very often.

Sentiment: positive
Oh, what fun there is here! 

Amy Heckerling has a flair for directing comedy (Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Look Who's Talking) but here it looks like she told the actors to go out and have fun. Micheal Keaton breezes through the role of Johnny, easily his best screen performance. Joe Piscopo is great as the appropriately named Danny Vermin, what a shame directors didn't pick up on this. And I have even mentioned Richard Dimitri playing Moronie and the character's unique vocabulary. I don't think it's an accident that the bulk of the character's name is spelled MORON.

Good lines are sprinkled throughout the movie, with Peter Boyle, Griffit Dunne.Maurren Stapleton, Merilu Henner given good lines. Even actors with minor roles like Dick Butkus and Alan Hale get in a good lines.

recommend it to a friend.

Sentiment: positive
I LOVE the Doodlebops. My son has been watching them for over a year. We went to the Doodlebops concert last year as well as one concert yesterday (connecticut). He LOVES them. The doodlebops do not teach the alphabet or numbers but who cares? are you being serious? the TV isn't suppose to teach your children about numbers or the alphabet. the parents should. Get over it. The Doodlebops actually CAN sing. Deedee has a beautiful voice and in concert you can tell all 3 of them have nice singing voices and do NOT lip sing. Imagine, they dance, jump around and STILL sing. they have talent, the kids love them i even enjoy watching the show. This show is by far the best show on TV for kids. AND a rock band for children. How amazing is that? Why are people saying Chad (rooney) is gay? where did you hear that from? Whether he is or not, He is awesome! Leave him alone. Its not like he or anyone else is promoting homosexuality to our children!

Sentiment: positive
Well what can I say, there are B-Grade Movies and there are B-Grade Movies and this definitely falls into the latter. However since it's obvious that even the makers of the film know that it's not a credible movie (take a look at the closing credits) it can be forgiven.

The plot is basically a convicted psycho killer is killed. He accidentally has his genetic material mixed up with some experimental acid that get combined and then lost in the snow. The killer now takes on the form of a snowman - if you can believe that. The snowman, Jack Frost, is after the country town Sherif who put him behind bars. In doing so, Jack Frost ends up killing half the town.

This movie lacks any real scares and the effects alone remind me of the B-Grade movies of the 50's. This alone makes it worth watching for a laugh. A movie to pass the time away.

Sentiment: negative
I'd give it a 2/10.

I was really, really disappointed.

The storyline was poorly developed, for instance, the incidents were too short and brief, hence the moral was not clearly brought out. I thought Brenda Song did a fine job, but Shin Koyamada seemed to have a difficult time handling his role. I could see the need to put in western elements in the show, however, there are certain parts, where Chinese elements were needed too! The villain for example. His physical appearance resembled a robot, instead of something out of the Chinese culture. The final and the worst flaw, were the incorrect, and distorted facts placed in the show.

Others may point out that this is a 'Kid's show' and hence, there is no need for the such high standards. However, there are other Disney shows, such as Mu Lan, which have been much better in terms of story development and presentation.

In conclusion, I feel that Disney movies should be better researched and better planned. A good show is not enough with just a series of martial arts moves to depend on.

Sentiment: negative
I really wanted to like this film, especially after all the buzz I'd heard revolving around it. But, sadly, it just didn't work for me. Paranoid Park suffers from the same delusion Lost In Translation did--If you use very little dialogue, be heavy on the slow motion close ups and concentrate on pieces of fabric in the setting, then your story will magically come across as deep and thoughtful. 

Much of the plot line, if you can find a plot, of this film is contrived. I wasn't impressed with the 'write it all down' confessional being the way the protagonist deals with the accident--So what are we supposed to believe? He grew up happily ever after and wrote a book about his experiences, thus was vindicated for that horrific incident?

What is, I suspect, supposed to be a film that evokes empathy for a young man who is directionless and faced with an impossible moral quandary, instead creates a portrait of a future sociopathic personality. He has no connection to anyone around him, and by the end of the film has no real sense of what is right or wrong. He has no direction at home and feels nothing for his friends. What we have is a portrait of a non-person, a spirit that merely coasts through life as he weaves his way along on his skateboard. I don't feel for him at all, and honestly I wish he'd been caught. The entire film centres not necessarily on his feelings of guilt, but on how he is going to avoid punishment and/or accountability for a bad decision. He not only gets away with it, he finds a way to subtly rationalise it. Quite a frightening, negative message, the suggestion being that so many of our youth are so disconnected from right and twrong that they simply make up the rules as they go along, serving themselves for good or ill. I find it an insulting treatsie on today's youth, and the pretentious arrogance of the film-maker drips thick with every plodding, overthought step and shifting eye.

(He did murder the guard, but if you blink your eyes you miss it. Whether it was an act of mercy or not is hard to say--it could be he was so mortified he lashed out with his skateboard. When he runs to the security guard's car, one of the wheels of his skateboard is stained with blood. )

Sentiment: negative
I just want to say that I was thrilled to find these comments about the show. I have tried online searches for info about the show in the past with no luck. I LOVED the show. I have a hard time getting motivated to exercise but this show made it fun. As another comment mentioned that it wasn't so complicated as the routines nowadays. It was an ideal workout that got the job done! I would give anything to be able to buy a copy of just one workout. I remember many of the moves but not nearly all of it. Somebody please try to get it back on the air and also make it available on DVD. It is so great to know I wasn't the only one that loved that show! Thanks for making my day!

Sentiment: positive
The hurried approach that Lewis Seiler takes with King of the Underworld establishes a deeper plot, while still maintaining an efficient run-time. One of the clearest examples of this is the transition between poverty and wealth for the married medical couple. The audience is instantly transported from a shanty medical office to a luxurious suite at the city's most prestigious inn. This development is critical to understanding the position the doctors have been thrown into. The story suggests from the intro that these two people are generally happy with providing medical practice to those who are less fortunate. By abruptly cutting from this scenario to the morally conflicting occupation (the mob's personal physician), the viewer is called upon to experience this sudden turn of events. The Nelsons (Kay Francis and John Eldredge) are forcibly employed by Gurney (Bogart) without objections. This stylized notion of organized crime being too influential and powerful to overcome has become a standard component in every gangster picture. The one aspect of this film that raised some questions for me, ironically dealt with the pacing of the story, and that rate at which it was told. I think that character development and social identity can suffer when certain aspects of a story are not fully examined. This paradox happens to be a result of personal taste, in that I think that the movie going experience can be enhanced through rigorous character development. However, for the purposes of this film, I must admit that the rapid action contributes more dynamic flare to the impact of the film.

**1/2 (of ****)

Sentiment: positive
This film works on a lot of different levels. It's a profile of one very cool couple, a social commentary on aging and nursing homes, a love story, a musical. I've seen Uncle Frank a few times, and every time I watch it I'm not sure who to go call first--my parents, my wife, a friend I've lost touch with . . But it has a way of making you remember the most important relationships in your life--and want to reaffirm the ones that continue. Expect a lot of laughs, and probably some tears if any of the vibrant characters here strike a chord. I'm pretty sure they will.

Sentiment: positive
*** Spoilers*

My dad had taped this movie for me when I was 3. By age 5, I had watched it over 400 times. I just watched it and watched it. And I still do today! It has a grim storyline, a lamb's mother is killed by a wolf--a very emotional scene--and wants to become a wolf, like him. After years of training, the lamb is made into a really REALLY evil looking thing. He and the wolf travel to his old barn, but he cannot kill the lambs, no matter how much he wishes to. He ends up killing the wolf, but is no longer seen as a lamb by his former friends, and can't return to his previous way of life.

The art is beautiful, the songs are..well, okay, and the voice acting is better than some things today.

All in all, you just *have* to see this movie, it is a great masterpiece. Although, it's very hard to find today.



Sentiment: positive
STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits 

In this debut effort for Nick Park's beloved man and dog, they are forced to fly to the moon when good old Wallace runs out of cheese.

As well as being the shortest feature at just 22 minutes, this W/G adventure is also the earliest and it kinda shows. The plasticine animation is a little creaky and funny here, sort of reminiscent of the Mork animation about the little man in the box.

Admirable though the craftsmanship behind it is, I've never actually been hugely into Wallace & Gromit (maybe a bit too clean and traditional for someone of my generation.) The only one I've really enjoyed is The Wrong Trousers (and that was more from when I was younger and less aware of, shall we say, the seedier pleasures of life.) I was driven to actively seek out this early effort due to the resurgence in popularity as a result of the hugely successful recent film adaptation.

As technically impressive as the first two (all things considered!) this one lacks the emotional angle it's successors were to possess. That being said, it's fairly good fun as a first try and certainly set the standard for greater things to come. Two stars, but a good two stars. **

Sentiment: negative
I thought this film was a poor effort by the British film council - fell flat as hey, come on, Tim Robbins is an old guy and here is this beautiful young woman who falls straight for him as well. Like lost in translation its really hard to suspend disbelief in this context. It's a good looking film but lacks punch. When Tim Robbins is pretending to be psychic it looks like he has a small migraine. He looks uncomfortable and life less. The part where he is screening suspect employees at sphinx is laughable. If an investigator came to my factory the last thing I would do is tell him about my freckle fetish. It's obviously over-intellectual. Clumsy. The city is as it is, a convenient backdrop. They obviously picked the most futuristic city they could (shanghai) as a backdrop but the city never really comes out and effects the characters as in for example blade runner, where the characters of the city often intersect the story. slow as a wet week. No chemistry, real dramatic high points, so so plot.

Sentiment: negative
When the first trailer for this film was viewed by myself, I was curious as to what angle the storyline would take. After all the plot of having one's childhood self return to the present leaves open many options. Bruce Willis however does a superb job in the role he was given. I was surprised to see just how well he could act in this part. This is also a good career move as many others have said but after seeing it I now agree. This film is mainly about remembering the kid you used to be, and coming to the realization that you aren't the adult you planned to be. This is a wonderful story and a gripping tale that makes us all think. Usually we scorn at "What if..." movies. For example, Waterworld attempted to answer the question "What if the world were to be covered with water and...?" But truthfully, nobody cared. This movie however effects everyone in the theatre. True, young children may not fully grasp the idea of growing up and having all your dreams fizzle away, but it leaves a great impact on the adults and parents of those children. This movie is definitely worth seeing. Although, it will be better the second time around because you won't be thinking so much (about how the kid got there, and why and all that stuff) Just relax and have fun. And take something with you when you leave that cinema. Take that piece of your childhood you've forgotten and enjoy it.

Sentiment: positive
When setting out this film, director Mary Harron seemingly had the goal of clearly documenting the progress of Bettie Page's career, from early modelling days to leaving modelling to go back home after the Senate Hearings on Juvenile Delinquency and her religious rediscovery in the 50s, and so intent is she to get all of these facts on screen in the time allowed she seems to have missed out on taking any time to explain anything in depth.

When you think of someone who had Page's career you'd think that there would be plenty to discuss, her reasons, decisions, life event, personal traumas, but Harron avoids any kind of personal exploration of the character. In the first fifteen minutes or so of the film there are brief hints of child abuse, domestic violence and a gang rape, but these are all rushed past and then never referred to again. You get the impression that Harron and Guinevere Turner (co-writer) wanted to gloss over anything that wasn't glamorous and flattering. You go into this film expecting to gain an insight into who the person behind the posters was, but all you are given is a list of things that she did and recreations of some of her most famous photo shoots.

All in all the film really frustrates you as you watch, desperately waiting for some extra layer to reveal itself. How did she balance her religion with her job? What made this young Tennessee girl move from modelling into bondage photography. The film simply shows her going to another modelling agency and putting on whatever she's told, but surely it would have involved some shock and deliberation, this was after all the 50s.

It seems to me that Harron is trying to make a point about how tame all this is by today's standards (Page never took any photos of explicit sexual actions) and how the reaction some gave this kind of thing was really overzealous And although this is true, she never actually makes it seem sordid in the eyes of others. Today we look at a young girl posing topless and think nothing off it, but we should have got some sort of feeling about how shocking it would have been to a contemporary audience. This woman was a central part of a Senate hearing on Juvenile Delinquency, but no one is ever really shown as shocked.

Basically I left this film just thinking how tame it was. Harron and Turner have managed to avoid anything that might be unpleasant to a viewer. They come across as two lifelong fans of Miss Page and are desperate to make sure that nothing, absolutely nothing, could possibly put a bad light on their heroine, and have therefore avoided any in depth probing into who she really was. (Before and after her career there are reports of her violent nature and mental problems) And all that's left is the string of events that made up her career, without any substance whatsoever behind it.

Sentiment: negative
A tremendous action movie that I have ever seen. It was the first expression that I uttered after watching it twice on the local TV in my country, Indonesia. A combination between a constant shooting and a great fighting choreography played well by David Bradley. He was good here besides "American Samurai". His skill in martial art was performed above average. He succeeded to make the fighting scenes nice to watch. Not only punching and kicking like what most of martial artists show in their movies. David Bradley could utilize all the martial arts techniques such as throwing, smashing and kicking. Very Recommended for action fans.I have tried to look for the DVD but I still cannot get it particularly in my town. Anyone could help me?

Sentiment: positive
I though that it was hard, if not impossible, to watch, and not because of the horrors it depicts but by the way they were depicted. Imagine what Costa Gavras could have done with this true horror story. What I object to is the idea the need to denounce, which I subscribe to, is enough. What about showing it to us with the power of powerful cinema. I feel that the eagerness of the filmmaker, maybe even the justifiable anger, didn't allow him to see it clearly from a cinematic point of view. Or, if this was a cinematic point of view, I mean, a choice, then, I didn't like it at all. I was more disturbed by the way the movie was shot than by the movie itself. Well intentioned I'm sure, but, unfortunately, that's not nearly enough.

Sentiment: negative
While the David Lynch version of Dune is choppy, awkward, and unfaithful to the novel, it is visually well designed and well acted. The best one can say about the Sci Fi channel's attempt to make Dune into a miniseries is that it's ambitious. Actually, that is virtually the only positive praise one can offer. The actors (with few exceptions) seem happy to recite their lines with the least emotion possible, and the least appropriate accents. The costumes seem to have been designed by someone with a a large surplus of Mylar fabric on hand and an unhealthy love of unflattering headwear.

In part, this miniseries suffers from living in the shadow of Lynch's already well known effort. However, it takes elements from Lynch's film which were not present in the novel and copies them nearly wholesale (i.e. the Guild Steersman's navigation sequence), and this only encourages encourages negative comparison to Lynch's film. A for effort. D for virtually everything else.

Sentiment: negative
this movie had a lot of blood in it when the sabretooth attack it also i loved it when that guy and the women were having some good time and then the sabretooth attacked the women and ate her stomach and took the liver out. that was the best and the 1ton sabretooth walking on its front legs hilarious to make this movie better more action and less talking if you know what i mean and also please please people who made this movie don't make anothwer movie like this movies ending cause it was terrible 1 sabretooth alive and killed that women in the end this movie reminds me of the grudges ending always there's 1 enemy left! OK damn it this movie sucks i can 't believe it i loved it when my lil bro got freaked from the attacks stomach takin out and the blood ya

Sentiment: negative
Following the release of Cube 2: Hypercube (2003), and playing off the alleged success of the original Cube (1998), Director Ernie Barbarash takes the liberty of bringing us the third installment in the trilogy, the prequel Cube Zero.

Deep in the bowels of a giant and faceless institution, time and place unknown, two low-ranking operators, Wynn (Zachary Bennett) and Dodd (David Huband) sit and observe on monitors the behavior of people that have been placed in a giant network of cubic chambers, some of which are rigged with death traps. Told that the people they are observing are convicted felons who chose this horrific and deadly ordeal over a lethal injection, these observers have had no problem with their jobs until Wynn, a mathematical genius, discovers that one of the prisoners, a woman named Cassandra (Stephanie Moore) never agreed to be put inside the Cube. Suddenly it's realized that perhaps their "jobs" are not what they seem, and that they may be part of something deeply sick and twisted...

For people that have seen and enjoyed the original Cube, this prequel will probably not be to your liking. It's not that the story does not have potential; it's simply that the first Cube film never needed to be expanded on. Standing alone, it is a neat little psychological thriller with very interesting concepts and a certainty about its own message. It was also nicely self-contained. The problem with Cube Zero is that it destroys some of the mystique of the original, attempting to answer questions with more questions but only really resulting in making a mess of what never needed fixing.

What this new film has to offer, which is questions about the psychological nature of authoritarianism and the banality of evil, certainly are good questions to be raised, but probably should have been done so on their own merits, rather than as a continuation of a film that had no such aspirations.

Having said this, the other traits of the film, such as acting and direction and writing, are not awful. There is a bleak, dark look to the film akin to such film noir as 'The Matrix' and 'Dark City', and they have certainly managed to recapture the claustrophobic feeling of the first Cube. Unfortunately for Barbarash, these are not enough positive qualities to save it.

Sentiment: negative
AKA 

Aspect ratio: 3 x 1.78:1 within 2.39:1 frame (Triptych) 

Sound format: Dolby Digital

1978: A working class teenager (Matthew Leitch) assumes a false identity and gatecrashes high society, where he learns harsh lessons about the divisions between Rich and Poor.

Autobiographical feature by director Duncan Roy (JACKSON: MY LIFE... YOUR FAULT), an exposé of the pre-Thatcherite aristocracy, as seen through the eyes of a low-rent 'commoner' whose world view is transformed by his adventures amongst the Upper Classes. Unfortunately, Roy's screenplay says very little we didn't already know about the excesses of the idle rich, and the narrative is only briefly ignited by Leitch's relationship with a handsome but self-destructive rent boy (Peter Youngblood Hills) who turns out to be no less hypocritical than the very people he seeks to emulate. Also starring Diana Quick (as an outrageous snob who believes working class people are "embarrassed to be alive"!), Bill Nighy as the black sheep of a wealthy family, Lindsay Coulson ("EastEnders"), Blake Ritson (DIFFERENT FOR GIRLS) and Georgina Hale in a typically flamboyant cameo, flashing her boobs at all and sundry, without a care in the world! 

Unfortunately, much of the film's impact is diluted by Roy's insistence on using a Triptych effect (three separate 1.78:1 images are letterboxed within the 2.39:1 frame, each one providing a different viewpoint of individual scenes), which shrinks the image and distances viewers from events on-screen. A long, pointless film, too personal for wide appeal, and hampered throughout by a cinematic process which fails to reconcile the story at hand. A single-image version is also available (framed theatrically at 1.85:1), with the on-screen title AKA: LIES ARE LIKE WISHES.

Sentiment: negative
This movie sucked. From beginning to end it was predictable. There was absolutly no chemistry between Pearce and the Mumba chick. The plot went nowhere, floating off into oblivion. All of these led to the movie being very hilarious in its stupidity. And I wanted to strangle Orlando Jones, the guy just needs to go away.

Sentiment: negative
Wealthy businessman's daughter, who as a young girl caught rheumatic fever and now suffers from a shortness of breath, discovers her marriage to a charming ne'er-do-well was arranged by daddy (whom she affectionately refers to as "Darling"); worse than that, she may in fact have only a few weeks left to live, leaving her husband free to marry her conniving romantic-rival. Pure bunk. Paul Osborn's screenplay (via Jerome Weidman's thin story) trots out the redundant flashbacks in the second-half instead of proceeding ahead with the plot, which submerges the already-soapy scenario in grim talk. Why go backwards when we can figure out what's happening for ourselves? This is a "woman's weeper" with no faith in its target audience, so simplistic is the set-up. Dorothy McGuire, swathed in furs for most of the picture, isn't a canny, clever heroine at all; when she's upset, she turns inward and stony. Upon realizing her marriage is basically a sham, she shrinks away from her husband like the consummate virgin (well, that's a possibility, she and Van Johnson sleep in separate beds after all!). Ruth Roman has the film's best moments as a society shark with her trap set for Van, but what exactly do these women see in him? Johnson can be charming when it's required, but put him in a melodramatic setting and he goes stony, too. MGM production values only so-so, however director Gottfried Reinhardt tries adding some visual flavor to the flashback segues and he attempts a lively pacing for the movie's initial half-hour. ** from ****

Sentiment: negative
Lars Von Triers Europa is an extremely good film. How's that? Von Trier has a very stylized way to tell a story, at least he did have with Europa. To me the whole film was like an experience even if I did see it on a small television screen. Even with all the tricks, in my opinion, this film is the most complete, REAL and moving piece of cinema then most of the films on the top 250 list. I also think it is perhaps the scariest, the most gothic and complete film around. All right there are other good ones too, but this one is my favorite. The final scene is one of the most harrowing scenes ever.

Sentiment: positive
...in an otherwise ghastly, misbegotten, would-be Oedipal comedy.

I was the lone victim at a 7:20 screening tonight (3 days after the movie opened) , so there is some satisfaction in knowing that moviegoers heeded warnings.

The bloom is off Jon Heder's rose. The emerging double chin isn't his fault; but rehashing his geeky kid shtick in another bad wig simply isn't working. It would be another crime if this were to be Eli Wallach's last screen appearance. Diane Keaton will probably survive having taken this paycheck - basically because so few will have seen her in this, the very worst vehicle she's chosen in the last few weeks.

Sitting alone in the theater tonight I came alive (laughed, even) whenever Daniels was given the latitude in which to deliver the film's sole three dimensional character. He really is among our very best actors.

In summary, even Jeff Daniels's work can't redeem this picture.

Sentiment: negative
This show is so full of action, and everything needed to make an awsome show.. but best of all... it actually has a plot (unlike some of those new reality shows...). It is about a transgenic girl who escapes from her military holding base.. I totally suggest bying the DVDs, i've already preordered them... i suggest you do to...

Sentiment: positive
Bobby is a goofy kid who smiles far too much and wants sex. So he buys a van to aid in this quest. The acting is lame, the comedy is pathetic and the script is no more than a loosely strung chain of clichés and cheap thrills. The makers of the film obviously wanted to capture some of the out there craziness of other films of the time, but fell a long way short. They even resort to Bobby slipping on a banana skin, because this will supposedly add comedic value.

I'm struggling to find a redeeming feature of the film. If you like DeVito, this is another classic DeVito kind of role - but he's only a supporting actor and there for cliché value.

Sentiment: negative