DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I read some gushing reviews here on IMDb and thought I would give this movie a look. Disappointed. On the plus side the male leads are good, and some interesting photography but as a whole this movie fails to convince. Seems to be full of its' own self indulgent importance in trying to say something meaningful but falls way short and all in all the picture is an unconvincing mess.

It is one of those films classified as a film noir which can be defined as follows:

"A film noir is marked by a mood of pessimism, fatalism, menace and cynical characters".

Well that is the story here: 3 losers stumble upon each other with their collective problems that include mental illness, alcoholism, laziness, indebtedness etc and together they conspire to kidnap a child and outwit each other.

Would have been a much better movie if the story was confined more to the kidnap instead of the character failings of the kidnappers. I thought the female lead was way out of her depth and came across as an amateur actress.

Whilst some good moments, I finished up feeling I had wasted my time.

4/10.

Sentiment: negative
I've been largely convinced to write this review for a number of reasons:

1) This is, without doubt, the worst film i've ever seen 2) Unless it gets more reviews it will not be listed in the all time worst films list - which it deserves to be 3) I was kinda lucky - i paid five pound for it. i've seen it in shops for 15 pound. DON NOT PAY THAT MUCH FOR THIS FILM! You will be very angry 4) There are a lot of films out there in the horror genre that are not given a fair rating (in my opinion) and giving this film a higher rating than them is criminal

The plot summary: a guy with no friends meets a tramp who promises the world - well, the magic ability to appear to everybody else like somebody else. Our hero cunningly turns into a teenage girl and joins their gang - sitting on swings, baby-sitting. He kills them one by one until he is tracked and found by the police.

Why is it so bad? To begin with the acting is VERY VERY bad. Someone else compared it to a school production. No, this is worse than any acting i've seen on a school stage.

I've bought a number of these previously banned films from the DVD company vipco and not been as disappointed as i was at this. okay, the acting is bad but the film fails to deliver in every other sense. What was the point in making this film when there isn't even any gore! okay, no gore. What else can a film like this offer? Breats? No, not even any titillation!

it's true this film may have a certain charm in its unique naffness but any potential buyer/watcher of this film should be fairly advised that this film is, at best, worth only one out of ten.

Sentiment: negative
I'm only rating this film as a 3 out of pity because it attempts to be worthwhile. I love to praise a great movie and I'm not biased toward "male" movies. Legally blonde was an excellent film. Georgia Rule on the other hand, was a disorganized, weak, poorly written, unrealistic example of movie making at its worst. by the end of the film I didn't care who was lying or if anything was resolved. 

The most important thing in a film is a good STORY. This story is weak and never develops (just because the subject matter is deep, doesn't mean the story is good). A good story has dynamic characters. A dynamic character is one that experiences a major character change, and is primed for that change over the course of the movie. In Georgia Rule, the character changes were abrupt and undeveloped. Secondly, there were too many ATTEMPTED dynamic characters. Pulling off a really good dynamic character is a tough job and takes time (you've only got a couple hours in a movie). That means that too many attempted dynamic characters will get too little attention to their personal change. Even if I ignore the poorly written story, and the litter of weak dynamic characters, I can't even say I liked anyone. Every character was a mess. That's fine if your're writing American Beauty but not when you're attempting a dramatic comedy. Georgia was a horrible mother, her daughter was a horrible mother and daughter, and Lohan was a horrible excuse for a human being (no I'm not cutting her any slack because she was molested, crap happens to everyone and we're all responsible for our own actions). The "Dudley Do Right" Mormon kid should have had the guts not to compromise his religion and commitments...and Simon, I mean seriously, what kind of guy lets a 17 year old girl who's been molested just stay over occasionally (unless he's an actor or a politician). This movie is worth watching if you want to remind yourself what good movie making is NOT!

Sentiment: negative
Forbidden Siren is based upon the Siren 2 Playstation 2 (so many 2s) game. Like most video game turned movies, I would say the majority don't translate into a different medium really well. And that goes for this one too, painfully.

There's a pretty long prologue which explains and sets the premise for the story, and the mysterious island on which a writer (Leo Morimoto) and his children, daughter Yuki (Yui Ichikawa) and son Hideo (Jun Nishiyama) come to move into. The villagers don't look all too friendly, and soon enough, sound advice is given about the siren on the island, to stay indoors once the siren starts wailing.

Naturally and slowly, things start to go bump, and our siblings go on a mission beating around the bush to discover exactly what is happening on this unfriendly island with its strange inhabitants. But in truth, you will not bother with what's going on, as folklore and fairy tales get thrown in to convolute the plot even more. What was really pushing it into the realm of bad comedy are its unwittingly ill-placed-out-of-the-norm moments which just drew pitiful giggles at its sheer stupidity, until it's explained much later. It's one thing trying to come up and present something smart, but another thing doing it convincingly and with loopholes covered.

Despite it clocking in under 90 minutes - I think it's a horror movie phenomenon to have that as a runtime benchmark - it gives that almost two hour feel with its slow buildup to tell what it wants to. Things begin to pick up toward the last 20 minutes, but it's a classic case of too little too late.

What saves the movie is how it changes tack and its revelation at the end. Again this is a common device used to try and elevate a seemingly simple horror movie into something a little bit extra in the hope of wowing an audience. It turned out rather satisfactorily, but leaves a bad aftertaste as you'll feel cheated somewhat. There are two ways a twist will make you feel - it either elevates the movie to a memorable level, or provides you with that hokey feeling. Unfortunately Forbidden Siren belonged more to the latter.

The saving grace will be its cinematography with its use of light, shadows and mirrors, but I will be that explicit - it's still not worth the time, so better to avoid this.

Sentiment: negative
What annoys me with so called 'science' programs such as these is that it is presented as if it were a FACT that dinosaurs live 'millions' of years ago. Firstly, nobody can even conduct a scientific experiment to prove that the earth is millions/billions of years old. It's a shallow theory based on inaccurate radiometric dating methods with huge assumptions thrown into the evolutionary pot.

Secondly, nobody can prove that evolution ever happened. All Darwin's missing links are still MISSING ! If you look at all the fossils anywhere in or on the earth, they are complete animals of a certain kind eg: a dog or a cat. Nobody has ever found the skeleton of a dog turning into a cat or in the example presented in this series, a dinosaur turning into a bird.

This is utter hogwash. There's more proof that Santa Claus exists than any animal changing into another kind of animal.

All the ideas presented in this series is an attempt to eliminate the idea that the universe and the everything in it, was created.

This series is NOT SCIENCE. It is a religious world view that hides under the banner of science. Science is something we can observe and repeat. What you are seeing here is SCIENCE FICTION. 

If you want to watch a science fiction program that has the decency to admit that it's a science fiction program, then rather watch Star Trek or Star Wars.

Sentiment: negative
As a "rebuttle" of sorts to the AFI's top 100 films, the British Film Institute worked out a documentary with Martin Scorsese.

Now. I am a huge film fan and pride myself on having seen many, many films. But, I am nowheres in comparrison with my idol. In this fantastic (though long) documentary, Scorsese walks the viewer through several stages of the American History on film. This is divided in to several sections including the Western, the Gangster film and the Noir. Full of bouncy enthusiasm, Martin Scorsese is a great tour guide as well as a fantastic professor.

Sentiment: positive
Other reviewers have summarized this film noir well. I just wanted to add to the "Whew!" comment one reviewer made regarding Elisha Cook's obviously coke-fuelled drumming episode. This WAS a doozy, I must say. Cook deserved some acclaim for his frenzied performance.

A bit of trivia that I am surmising about: Cook appeared as a waiter in the 1941 Barbara Stanwyck film, "Ball of Fire." He was a waiter in the nightclub where Barbara was singing and legendary drummer Gene Krupa was drumming, most energetically. Is it too much to suggest that Cook's spazzy drumming in the later film, "Phantom Lady," was very much inspired by Krupa's work, as witnessed by Cook 3 years earlier? 

If you watch Krupa in "Ball of Fire," I think you'll note some clearly similar body movements. One hopes, of course, that HE was not influenced by any drugs at the time!

Sentiment: positive
Then again, I like Rachael Ray. She is fun, sweet, fresh, and such a joy to watch. I have to alter just about everything she makes as I am a vegetarian...but it's great to see her with a program that shows more of her personality. After all, she is a television personality. I think it's cool that she is so inviting with her fans and still appears to be down-to-earth. The studio audience appears to be rather small, but that just makes for a cozier environment. Some people have posted that the show sucks. I guess it depends on your own interpretation of it and of her. If you notice the early episodes of 30 Minute Meals you will see a completely different personality than in those of the past few years. I'm sure she will find her comfort zone with this show as well. Good luck Rachael!

Sentiment: positive
The only reason I give this movie 8/10 stars, and not 10, is because 1) Sinatra is awful and 2) the love interest of Kelly's character leaves much to be desired, (IMHO). Do love that Dean Stockwell, Quantum Leap - Al, is the little boy. The dance sequence with Jerry Mouse is one of the most entertaining and amazing dance sequences I have ever seen. Tom and Jerry is still a personal favorite of mine and my daughter's. I'm 28 and she's 4, so while the character is less iconic than Mickey, he is still a favorite of many children and adults today. Kelly is as always captivating, his eyes full of fun and excitement. In every movie I have ever seen him in, he always steals the show. One of the best dancers of the 20th century. It is no wonder Paula Abdul "sampled" Kelly's moves. I would also list Gene Kelly as one of the most beautiful people of the 20th century. If you were to watch only one part, don't miss Kelly's dance with Jerry Mouse. You will NOT be disappointed.

Sentiment: positive
Let start off by first saying that I have been a punk fan most of my life. I always kind of had a lack of respect for the LA scene of the early 80's, which The Decline of Western Civilization documents, with the exception of X and Black Flag, being more of New York and English punk guy. After I saw this movie that completely changed. The people shown may look like a bunch of idiotic, strung out kids who think they might accomplish something beyond street-Cree through their lifestyles, but it is a great display of hedonism at it's best, coupled with some fun, loud rock n roll. One of the best scenes, and actually most insightful, is the interview with Claude Bessy of Catholic Discipline, or 'Kick-Boy' as he was known to Slash magazine readers. Originally from France, he rants about punk like a dirty old Frenchman and clues in viewers to many aspects of the punk, or DIY, attitude to music, politics, and life in general. Darby Crash of the Germs comes off as a complete idiot most of the time, but the Germs' performance of Manimal is pretty decent, complete with a young Pat Smear. Black Flag's performance with Chavo Pederast on vocals (it was filmed a couple of years before Henry Rollins joined the band) is decent, and X and FEAR give the best performances in the movie. Look out for the interviews with the young punk kids. You'll hear some of the funniest things you have ever heard in a documentary. Highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
Things to Come is indeed a classic work of speculative fiction; both an essay on the destructive nature of war and the terrors of progress. It makes some surprising accurate depictions of the war that was to follow a few years later, but is woefully naive in it's Utopian ideals.

Raymond Massey, Cedric Hardwicke, and Ralph Richardson make up a fine cast, although the drama is played more as a stage piece, than a work of cinema. There are grandiose, if somewhat stilted speeches, often delivered as if the actor is trying to reach the back of the theater. However, there are some profound words there. Is technology the savior of mankind, or the instrument of its destruction? The film is a visual feast, if one can detach oneself from the age of the effects. Sure, Hollywood is more sophisticated today, but rarely as inventive. For the imaginative, the third act is a treat: a world with underground cities, massive deco bombers, space cannons, gyro copters, and secret organizations of scientist saviors. It has all of the makings of a sci-fi pulp adventure, but instead uses the trappings for a philosophical exercise.

Things to Come and Metropolis were the hallmarks of neolithic Hollywood science fiction cinema. They are operatic in scope, and visually inspiring. Technology has long left them behind, but their ideas still burst forth. There is an artistry there, one with more heart and emotion than the computer generated mass-produced cinema of today. These films are the products of artisans, not industrialists.

Sentiment: positive
The cars in this movie are awesome. The acting in this movie is awful. The plot and driving scenes don't make much sense and are equally bad. If you get really bothered by movies where someone shifts and suddenly goes ridiculously faster, save yourself the trouble and money. Good movie for racing fans? Well, there is a part where they make the mistake of referring to a NASCAR driver as a rally car driver. If you can't tell the difference, go watch it, you'll have a blast. It really comes down to this, there are really really really nice cars in this movie, they are driven horribly and are completely unrealistic. The acting is horrible mainly because of the extremely bad plot. If you want to see hot girls, turn on mtv or vh1 instead. I am disappointed that such nice cars would be represented in such a bad movie. If the class of the cars were to match that of the movie, they should be racing with rusted bicycles.

Sentiment: negative
Excellent film. The whole picture was filmed in Budapest, so I feel proud. My little problem was that the trains in the film belonged to the Hungarian State Railways (MÁV), and it is plain to see that they were used in big train, not in the local railway - according to the story Chikatilo picked up his victims in local railway stations. Apart from this, the film is superb.

Sentiment: positive
"Gespenster" (2005) forms, together with "Yella" (2007), and "Jerichow" (2008), the Gespenster-trilogy of director Christian Petzold, doubtless one of the creme-De-la-creme German movie directors of our time.

Roughly, "Gespenster" tells the story of a French woman whose daughter had been kidnapped as a 3 years old child while the mother turned around her head for 1 minute in Berlin - and has never been seen ever. Since then, the mother keeps traveling to Berlin whenever there is a possibility and searches, by aid of time-dilated photography, for girls of the age of approximately the present age of her age. As we hear later in the movie, the mother was already a lot of times convinced that she had found her daughter Marie. However, this time, when she meets Nina, everything comes quite different.

The movie does not bring solutions, not even part-solutions, and insofar, it is rather disappointing. We are not getting equipped either in order to decide if the mother is really insane or not, if her actual daughter is still alive or not. Most disappointing is the end. After what we have witnessed in the movie, it is an imposition for the watcher that he is let alone as the auteur leaves Nina alone. The simple walking away symbolizing that nothing has changed, can be a strong effect of dramaturgy (f.ex. in "Umberto D."), but in "Gespenster", it is displaced.

Since critics have been suggesting Freudian motives in this movie, let me give my own attempt: Why is it that similar persons do not know one another, especially not the persons that another similar person knows? This is quite an insane question, agreed, from the standpoint of Aristotelian logic, according to which the notion of the individual holds. The individual is such a person that does not share any of its defining characteristics with anyone else. So, the Aristotelian answer to my question is: They do not know one another because their similarity is by pure change. Everybody who is not insane, believes that. However, what about the case if these similar persons share other similarities which can hardly be by change, e.g. scarfs on their left under ankle or a heart-shaped birthmark under their right shoulder-blade? This is the metaphysical context out of which this movie is made, although I am not sure whether even the director has realized that. Despite our modern, Aristotelian world, the superstition, conserved in the mythologies of people around the globe that similar people also share parts of their individuality, and that individuality, therefore, is not something erratic, but rather diffusional, so that the borders between persons are open, such and similar believes build a strong backbone of irrational-ism despite our otherwise strongly rational thinking - a source of Gespenster of the most interesting kind.

Sentiment: positive
PLEASE people! DO NOT bother with this poorly directed joke. The direction was totally wrong from the outset. Where is the history of his mothers' emotional interference and the general madness in the original family? Why is ED portrayed as this large, overbearing imposing figure full of anger and hate? What IS this crap? The writer and director obviously did no research into the history and just wanted to cash in on the infamous Gein name. The fools who made this movie took so many liberties with the truth, it's ridiculous. If you want t see a brilliant Gein film. go back to the minor classic "Deranged" to see how Ed really was. There is humor in that film, and Ed is portrayed as more of the sad, lonely slight man he was, according-to HISTORY. Where is the background story here? There is just poorly set-up shocks (that are not shocking) that we've seen before, and more accomplished as well. Take the worst Texas Chainsaw massacre ripoff, and add this one to that list. Had to give it ONE out of ten because rating wouldn't accept ZERO. I want my money BACK. If anyone regards this film as 'stunning' is possibly getting a financial kickback to do so.

Sentiment: negative
The film someone had to make.

Waco: The Rules of Engagement dissects the evidence behind the standoff in Waco, Texas that led to the destruction of the Branch Davidian homestead and the alleged government cover-up.

The first thing you need to know about this film: you will see brief but disturbing photos of the victims bodies. This is not done for shock value, but to illustrate points about the way they died, as if you were present at the coroner's inquest.

The second thing you should know about this film: at two and a quarter hours, it's pretty ponderous - especially if you already followed the events closely at the time. If you are unaware of any of the events other than what was reported in the mass media, or if the only side of the story you are familiar with is the official government report, this may be essential viewing. If, on the other hand you want a more concise (albeit unapologetically one sided) version of events, you should see "Waco: The Big Lie".

In summary, this is pretty much the definitive documentary about this tragic event, and is very sobering, but as a work of film-making, could test your patience, especially if you have a short attention span. And it's at times superfluous for those who watched the CSPAN hearings and the 60 Minutes reports.

Perhaps someday someone will make a documentary that covers some of the stranger aspects of this story, such as the bizarre chain of events that led up to the ATF raid or the psychological warfare tactics the FBI used blasting rock music at the sect, and their charismatic leaders (all rock musicians themselves) picking up their instruments and turning their massive amplifiers outward to blast their own music right back at them.

Sentiment: positive
I cannot get over how awful this movie was. My eyes want to jump out of my head and my ears are gushing blood from the horrible awful one song soundtrack. There are four kids and dog and they run away from a hospital then get away with stealing two cars and a bus. No one gives them any punishment or anything to correct them. The acting is just so awful it sounds like an instruction video for social studies class. I cannot think of one thing that I like about this movie. Nothing. Even the kid that loses his dog made me want to vomit. He gets his dog back without the lady even seeing the dog run out the door. Maybe the dog was trying to escape out of this movie. Then there is some horse manure in the whole mix. It was torture watching this movie. Then at the end the oldest boy says something like staying together isn't a crime and they all hug him and love him. Stealing gas is a crime. Stealing two cars and a bus is a crime and he should have went to juvenile hall or something. Avoid this movie at all costs and especially if you want to keep your family together.

Sentiment: negative
If it wasn't for the terrific music, I would not hesitate to give this cinematic underachievement 2/10. But the music actually makes me like certain passages, and so I give it 5/10.

Sentiment: negative
a romance without feeling, a drama of issues without point (or drama).... This film is supposed to be all these and fails on each and every account, as if it isn't trying. Or as if the director/editor/scriptwriter team isn't really trying. The actors are able--they need better support.

One element that doesn't fail is the score by George Delarue. Beautiful and moving. What a shame it's attached to this film. In a good film actors' words and movements and music synchronize and enhance the impact. This editor plastered on music with no regard for dialogue and movement. The love scene is particularly grating in this respect: an insult to the talents of the lead actors.

There is another element in the film that works: location photography. Notably one moment in Grand Central Station. I'd guessed in advance what was going to happen; but how it was filmed in that setting was breathtaking.

Some commentators on this board have pointed out that US assimilation of criminal Nazi scientists actually happened during these years of the MacCarthy scare. The moment the film seems to start looking seriously at American society, it switches into conventional romance; before any human feelings can move us, it's away on a (predictable) 'thriller' escapade.

Just as the film insults the talents of the actors, it insults the issues it's pretends (and fails) to take up.

You are warned.

Sentiment: negative
This film reminded me of The Sopranos, and not in a good way. 

David Chase's seminal mob opera only ever put its foot wrong twice, the most jarring and inexplicable instance of which took place in its fourth season, when Junior Soprano went on trial for his life. Rather than pursue this riveting (and pivotal) plot line, the writers instead chose to completely ignore it, focusing instead on Bobby Baccalieri's constant whimpering over his recently deceased wife's frozen pasta dish. 

When something of genuine interest happens in Notorious - for example that first, mysterious assassination attempt on Tupac Shakur that ignited the whole East Coast/West Coast feud in the first place, and ended up leading to the deaths of both Tupac and Christopher Wallace - the film treats it as just another bit of plot to plod through. Why exactly was Tupac so convinced that he was sold out by his own people? Did he alone nurture his subsequent affiliation with Suge Knight? And was Lil' Kim's transformation from prim office drone into sex-obsessed, vampish diva really as banal as it appears here?

None of these questions are even fleetingly addressed by the film's screenwriters, who are far more interested in depicting Wallace's turbulent love life to zero compelling dramatic avail. These sequences (including a brain-frazzlingly clichéd groupie indescretion in a hotel room) are so toothless and bruisingly manipulative that the only real comparison to be made is with a network TV movie.

The storytelling, in both structure and content, is simplistic and trite. But more fundamentally, as a biopic; as something designed to celebrate its subject and educate the uninitiated on the intricacies of their life and work; the film is almost entirely worthless. The reliance on meat-and-potatoes genre plotting, coupled with the lifeless musical performances (an area in which a film like this should soar, surely) result in a film that appears to have been designed only to satisfy the whims and demands of those involved, leaving Wallace's questionable status as a giant in his field as the preserve of the easily persuaded and previously converted only. 

And the final twenty minutes, in which Wallace's posthumous cultural identity is broadly painted as being akin to that of a latter day saint, quite frankly made me feel like throwing up. 

On that score, much as with any other, Notorious is crass, calculating and compromised.

Sentiment: negative
Its gonna be hard to make this fill 10 lines.... But ill give it a try (just to prevent others from making the same mistake as i did - to watch this (awful and boring) movie.

I like Patrick swayze - he did a excellent performance in films like Ghost - Dirty Dancing - Point Break - North & South (TV series), but in this movie..... ARGH....This movie is so booooooring, the acting is awful - the script sucks - well.. i cant even find ONE good thing, nothing, absolutely NOTHING. I was watching it with 2 other friends and we all agreed that this was one of the most boring films we had ever seen, and the fact that it lasts for more then 3 hours (which we didn't know) - when part 1 was over and it said "to be continued", we almost cried "nooooooooooooo, do we have to watch 90 minutes more of this movie!!!!".

Its painful to see this movie: At no time do you get the impression that the actors are Russians, the action scenes are extremely bad. The ONLY good scene is when the truck explodes in the beginning of the movie! The rest is CRAP! GO clean your toilet, instead of watching this movie (and don't come running, crying if you do see this movie - you were pre warned!) Personally i would recommend Patrick Swayze to call his agent and have them recall this movie - its that bad.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is about the crew of a spaceship who crash land onto a strange bright planet with three suns. Among the passengers is convicted serial killer, Richard Riddick (Vin Diesel), and his nemesis, Johns (Cole Hauser). While the survivors of the wreck are getting their bearings, an eclipse of all three suns happens. Shortly afterwards, scary creatures begin to appear and start to pick off the crew members one by one. During the eclipse, Riddick comes into his own, as his eyeballs have been surgically shined, giving him night vision. The crew have to rely on him to try to get them to safety.

This is a very stylish film, with the colour of the sky changing scene by scene, giving it a very strange look. Vin Diesel is brilliant as Riddick, truly menacing but forced to help people who otherwise would only see him as a threat. There is also an underlying humour in his performance as well, which adds another dimension to the character. This is the sort of role that Vin excels in, the anti-hero, whos character is not as one-dimensional as first appears. I can imagine no-one else in this role, it could have been written specifically for him.

Roll on Chronicles of Riddick!

Sentiment: positive
Now and again, a film comes around purely by accident that makes you doubt your sanity. We just finished studying the novel, "Northanger Abbey", at school and decided to refresh our memory of this unexciting piece of humourless garbage with the BBC adaptation.

The funny thing about Northanger Abbey is that it actually makes you want to kill yourself. The film is NOTHING like the book, for example, the subtly evil characters seem to have been turned into transparent stereotypes. John Thorpe looks like a leprechaun on acid while Isabella plays the role of slut. Catherine, the main character, is the most depressingly stupid and irritating actress on god's earth (she looks like a coffee addict, her eyes are like basketballs) whilst Mr Tilney looks and acts like a retired porno stunt double. The plot goes completely off the rails at certain points of the film, I don't know what the hell the director was thinking when for no reason at all, a 7 year old black kid who we've never met before takes the main character out of the abbey and starts cartwheeling in front of her. Yes, that's right, cartwheeling. Nonsense of this kind is occasionally interrupted by Catherines "fantasies" in which she is being carried around a cathedral by an ogre.

Northanger Abbey is basically visual euthanasia so if you want to murder your boss or something like that, BBC have basically discovered a new way to kill someone. Northanger is a barely laughably bad film. Don't watch it unless you're in a padded cell.

Sentiment: negative
In this documentary we meet Roger, the rich manager of a factory in China that makes beads and other trinkets sold and traded at Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Roger claims the factory girls love their work and are grateful for the opportunities it provides, but interviews with four of them tell quite another story. The girls' bleak lives are shown in stark contrast to the bizarre excesses of Mardi Gras itself. Filmmaker David Redmon should be lauded for getting excellent and rare footage of everyday life inside a Chinese factory compound, and for landing a revealing on-camera interview with the head of the U.S. company that imports and sells the beads. The movie is compellingly told and clearly serves its purpose as a window into what lies behind those ubiquitous "Made in China" labels.

Sentiment: positive
I just watched this film at an advanced screening. I had not read the book, and knew nothing of the story, but went because the book was voted "Book of the Year" by two local colleges. So I cannot compare the book with the movie as others have done.

In short, I thought this was an incredibly moving story. The acting was believable, and the insight into Afghan culture and political history was both interesting and shocking. My oldest friend is Iranian-American, and so I felt an affinity for certain Middle Eastern values and traditions that were portrayed in the movie, as they reminded me of the times I spent with his family.

The themes of friendship, family, human values, and courage under fire are universal, and are well developed in the film. I won't list the plot details, as these can be obtained elsewhere. But based on the film's technical aspects, the acting, and, above all, its heart-wrenching story, I would definitely recommend this movie.

Sentiment: positive
I loved this movie. I'm a Mexican and was in the least offended by it. In fact, I think this movie should be shown at police headquarters all over Mexico. It's a sad truth that our police system is as rotten as a 3 month old corpse. It angers me to read in the news how killers, kidnappers and other slime go free by paying a laughable fine or live like kings inside prison cells. We should have someone like Creasy, Denzel Washington's character. A bodyguard turned vengeful vigilante. Kidnapping is flourishing industry down here (at least in the big cities). I actually wish real life kidnappers could suffer the same fate as the one's Creasy did his fine job upon. That would be so marvelous (Sorry, I am THAT resentful!). MAN ON FIRE is a gripping film that you can't miss. It might be hard on some of you, if you aren't used to reading subtitles (Mexicans do that ALL the time while watching American movies) but the effort will be well worth it. Some of the editing is a bit fuzzy...kind of like TRAFFIC, remember? (another brilliant take on how corrupt Mexico is). The movie starts out a bit slow but the pace picks up frantically by the second half. I swear you'll be cheering as you watch Denzel Washington dispatch the wrong doers. His performance is nothing short of Excellent. The ending (no spoilers, OK!!!) is a bit sad, but I'm sure you'll like it anyway. MAN ON FIRE is one of the year's best movies. A "must own" for a DVD collection! 9* out of 10

Sentiment: positive
Paul & Grace Hartman are my husbands grandparents. They were both deceased when we met so watching old movies is a good way to see them and their work. I have always enjoyed old movies and was very happy to discover that this was also a very good one.

Sentiment: positive
The movie takes place in a little Swedish town where everybody knows each other. Here Mia visits her parent for the birthday of her father, a which occasionally always have some kind of tragedy, the question is just what will it be this year, and you will be surprised... It is an extremely well composed movie, with a story which has a perfect balance of humor and seriousness, which is rarely seen. You get happy, you get hurt, and basically everything in between. Finally you can't help falling in love with Mia(if you are a boy I guess(the main actress)) She is an extremely well chosen actress, as a lot of the other actors/actresses.

Enjoy

Sentiment: positive
It's difficult to know where this adaptation starts going wrong, because I think the problem begins with the books themselves. Alexander McCall Smith has worked out that you read them not for the detective stories, but for his deeply condescending and completely spurious vision of an Africa that does not exist. He's done for Botswana what Borat did for Kazakhstan - not as successfully, but based in as much fact.

Once I realised this, it ceased to gall me that Jill Scott, an American singer/actress, is cast as Mma Ramotswe. If she is to represent a land that is not Africa, how appropriate that she is a black woman who is not African? She's not the only American on the cast; Mma Makutsi is played by Anika Noni Rose. Both women are far, far too young for the roles they're playing, and far too glamorous. Both brutally murder the local accents, and both focus so entirely on this brutality that they fail to offer much in the way of acting. Scott's Mma Ramotswe is bouncy, cute and soft. Rose's Mma Makutsi is an annoying motor-mouthed bitch.

The result is almost unwatchable. The principal cast is redeemed only by the presence of Lucian Msamati, who turns in a decent performance as Mr JLB Matekoni. Hes comes off smarter and more intense than in the books, but I find myself unable to blame Msamati for this - he's a shining light in an ocean of suckage. The contradictions between his performance and the books are clearly laid at the feet of whichever committee of butchers wrote the script.

To me, McCall Smith's writing has always been highly entertaining yet notoriously bad. He refuses to be edited. As a result, his books contain experiments in grammar that border on the scientific, and characters that change name mid-sentence. It is therefore something of an achievement that the writing team on this project actually made it worse.

The dialogue is now largely Anglicised. Characters speak of "opening up" and "sensitivity to needs". Mma Ramotswe and Mr JLB Matekoni flirt openly. Mma Makutsi moans about not having a computer, but given her constantly restyled hair, makeup and jewellery, I'm surprised she doesn't have a MacBook in her handbag along with her Visa card.

So what are we left with here? It's difficult to be upset with this crappy adaptation because honestly, most of the things I like about the original books are apocryphal anyway. McCall Smith paints a fictional Botswana populated with cute, non-threatening black people who are full of amusing and palatable wisdom-nuggets. It reads well despite linguistic travesty, but it is a vision of how a certain type of white person wishes black people were. It just isn't true.

Given that, it's hardly surprising that this show sucks as much as it does. It remains to be seen whether European and American audiences will even notice, however.

Sentiment: negative
I wholeheartedly disagree with the other viewers of this wretched film. The only reason why I didn't rate it 1 for awful was due to the great talent of Carmen Miranda. The beginning and end are the best parents due to her gifted singing and dancing.

The problem is with the rest of the picture. Alice Faye comes off quite hollow. Don Ameche has a great singing voice but with the wretched writing material, he comes off so terribly corny.

The plot is a real stiff here with Ameche assuming two parts as a song and dance man and a baron not happily married to Faye.

It seems that by playing the song and dance man, Ameche's marriage gets a second change to reignite. Some silly nonsense about the baron having to clear up business and being away allows him to play both parts.

S.Z. Sakal is given little to do here and so his comedic gifts are not given the opportunity to shine. Ditto for J. Carrol Naish who actually appears uncomfortable in his role.

This is a chica chica boom bomb of a film.

Sentiment: negative
I liked SOLINO very much. It is a very heart-rending story of an italian family moving to Germany. And it's an story about brotherly love, hope and disappointment. And the film is never boring. Go and see SOLINO!

Sentiment: positive
I was hardly aware of the time in history depicted in this 1971 Brazilian black comedy, however that is not to say it wasn't accessible to me because the movie makes it very clear. It's set in 16th century Brazil, where rival French and Portuguese settlers are exploiting the indigineous people as confederates in their battle to assert dominance. What is particularly interesting about the movie is that it is made by the Portuguese from the point of view of the French. The hero is a likable Frenchman, the Portuguese are barbarians, and the rest of the French are oppressive and greedy. The film's Portuguese makers are objective because when all is said and done, we see that it makes no difference whose side one takes. It's about heredity overpowered by environment in a time starkly defined by tribes. Enemies are made and perpetuated, and like so, the environmental integration never progresses.

A Frenchman is captured by the Portuguese is then captured by an indigenous tribe, the Tupinambas, after they massacre a group of Portuguese. The tribe's shaman predicted they would find a strong Portuguese man to cannibalize as revenge for the chief's brother being killed by a Portugeuse musket ball. Thinking the Frenchman is Portuguese, they believe they now have one. Nevertheless, the Frenchman is granted unrestrained course of the village, is sooner or later given a wife, and assumes their accustomed appearance rather than his Western clothes, or any clothes. Another Frenchman comes to the village and tells the tribe that their prisoner is indeed Portuguese, then assures the incensed Frenchman that he will tell them the truth when the Frenchman finds a secret treasure trove that another European has hidden nearby.

I found the opening scene funny, because its narration apposed with its contradictions on- screen serve as great satire, even if the movie didn't seem to want to maintain that tone very much more often. It's actually not a terribly riveting film. The bountiful, essential locale, fierce way of life and ripened native women make not only the Frenchman, but us, too, forget any threat, and we have the feeling of him as a free man. It should not be that terribly hard to escape. The cannibalism is as scarce of desire as the full-frontal nudity of the cast, suggested in lieu as the representative core of Pereira dos Santos's dry political cartoon of New World mythology and undeveloped social coherence. At any rate, this 1500s-era social commentary, shot on location at a bay with 365 islands, played almost entirely nude and almost entirely written in Tupi, encourages effective breakdown of established ways which are topical because they've repeated themselves for centuries.

Sentiment: positive
Just like most people, I couldn't wait to see this Ocean's 11 sequel but it really stinks, I must say. It stinks because there's simply no good screenplay,it was just cheap. I hope the producers donate all the money this movie has made (or will make) to the tsunami-victims in Asia so this movie will have at least one good reason to exist. It is so bad I even can't write a decent comment about it but....i still advise the creators of this thing to make "Ocean's 13". Ocean's 13 will be about the same thieves who are trying to steal a screenplay well hidden somewhere in Hollywood. The 13th member will be a foreign (maybe,Russian) screenplay-writer who knows all tricks to write a copy of this well hidden screenplay, so they can replace the original they'll have to steal. Or they need to find at least 13 people to write a decent screenplay for a movie in which not only Julia Roberts plays herself but even all other star-members of the Ocean's-films. 13 People because it's the lucky number of Andy Garcia's character.

Sentiment: negative
To even say that this film is Sebastien's work at his best just tell you everything you have to know on the man. Sebastien is a pathetic, foolish, not amusing at best, yet highly popular host on french television. If watching any of his shows is just plain torture for any normally constituted human being, his first (ans lets hope only) film proved to be even worst. Sebastien's apology of rape (the victim fall in love with her aggressor) is not only misplaced but plainly unacceptable. I highly suggest you not to bother taking a look at this picture (or any of Sebastien's future features), you would just loose your time...There is something about french television that don't smell right...and this is Patrick Sebastien!!!

Sentiment: negative
That was great fun! I never read those Chester-Gould-comics but it's not necessary to know them. Maybe there were some inside jokes I didn't figure out but what the eye doesn't see the heart cannot grieve over. This is such an ironic, colourful film and the actors are good-humoured all together. The setting is similar to that in the Batman` movies, but not as dark and grey. Okay, the story is not so original but there is a plot (which is not self-evident) and a more or less surprising ending.

With this movie, you could play an interesting game, if you watch it with friends. Don't watch the credits at the beginning and then look who's the fastest to find out who are the famous actors under their make-up!

Sentiment: positive
Was flipping around the TV and HBO was showing a double whammy of unbelievably horrendous medical conditions, so I turned to my twin sister and said, "Hey this looks like fun," - truly I love documentaries - so we started watching it. At first I thought Jonni Kennedy was a young man, but then it was explained that due to his condition, he never went through puberty, thus the high voice and smaller body. He was on a crusade to raise money for his cause. He had the most wonderful sense of humor combined with a beautiful sense of spirituality... I cried, watched some more, laughed, got up to get another Kleenex, then cried some more. Once Jonni Kennedy's "time was up" he flew to heaven to be with the angels. He was more than ready; he had learned his lessons from this life and he was free. I highly recommend this. If you do not fall in love with this guy, you have no heart.

Sentiment: positive
(Some Spoilers) Dull as dishwater slasher flick that has this deranged homeless man Harry, Darwyn Swalve, out murdering real-estate agent all over the city of L.A because of the high prices that they charge for their proprieties. Looking like an extra from a Clint Eastwood "Spaghetti Western" Harry who's been living in abandoned houses eating dog food get's very upset where his quite lifestyle as a squatter is interrupted. This happens when a number of real-estate agents invaded his space in an attempt to sell the houses, that he's staying at to their potential clients.

Joseph Bottome stars in this bottom-of-the-barrel horror movie as radio talk-show host Dr. David Kelly the handsome and popular host psychologist of the KDRX survival line. DR. Kelly is being sued by the family of one of his callers,Tracy, who ended up blowing her brains out while on the air with the doc who couldn't do anything to help her survive her ordeal of taking to him.

The real-estate killer gets to talk with Dr. Kelly on the air about his adventures and the police try to get the doc to get his phone number and address, by keeping him on the line, but he refuses to in order not to hurt his rating by having potential callers not call in in fear of being monitored by the LADP. 

Kelly also is having a hot and heavy affair with a real-estate manager and agent the busty Lisa Grant, Adrienne Barbeau, who's office of sellers are Harry's main victims in he movie. Harry also gets to murder Lisa's main competition in the housing business the chubby and outrageous Barney Resnick, Barry Hope, who threatened to put Lisa out of business by any means possible even if he has to kill her. 

Getting Berney alone and with his pants down Harry slices his head off while he's being entertained by one of his clients, a hooker, whom he leaves dead and hanging together with the headless Barney. The movie ends with the deranged Harry taking Lisa hostage and having Dr. Kelly try to come to her rescue only to have Det. Shapiro (Robert Miano), looking like e hasn't slept in a week, pop out of nowhere and blow Harry's brains out. Harry quickly come back to life minus the gay matter between his ears and gets himself killed for the second time in the movie by being thrown from a balcony and landing on the ground as a dozen members of the LAPD, M16 cocked and ready, come on the scene.

Nothing in the movie "Opean House" worked with the tension laughable to almost non-existent. Even the hot sex scenes between Dr. Kelly and Lisa didn't save the movie since there were far too few,only two, of them and and sexy Adrienne Barbeau was a bit too underexposed, with not enough light and too much clothes on, in all of them.

Harry the killer in the movie was also a bit to comical to be taken seriously in trying to make a point, to Dr. Kelly on the phone and in person, about the high rents and real-estate prices in the country and how people like himself find it almost impossible to find a decent place to live in. You can sympathize with Harry's concern about the high cost of living but be very critical of him in how he crazily went on in correcting it.

Sentiment: negative