DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I had read up on the film and thought it would be cute, a feel good Saturday night movie. I wasn't expecting anything great, figured it would be mostly fluff but hopefully not a totally bad experience. I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised.

The dialogue was pitch perfect, most of the actors were exceptionally good and it flowed nicely. Ash Christian was perfect, his ability to turn an awkward moment into something touching was nice to see. He could have turned this character into something we've all seen before but instead strayed away from stereotypes and focused on the wittiness of the character. It was wonderful to see Jonathan Caouette again, I didn't know what he would do after Tarnation. Ashley Fink is gem, a great young character actress that hopefully will get more work.

There are moments in the film that could have used some work, but all in all not a bad time at the cinema. My friend described it as a gay Angus/Napoleon Dynamite but it's something more than that. It's a character study into what it's like to grow up gay in a small town, the pain is there but the humor behind that pain (that only age can make clearer) is magnified. I look forward to seeing more of Ash Christian, Ashley Fink and Jonathan Caouette soon.

Sentiment: positive
This picks up about a year after the events in "Basic Instinct". Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is now in London. While having sex with a soccer player while speeding about in a car going at 110 miles/hour (don't ask) she goes off the road and ends up in the Thames. She survives--he doesn't. The police hire psychiatrist Michael Glass (David Morrissey) to see if she's mentally competent to stand trial. Naturally she starts playing with his mind instead and plenty of murders and sex follow.

This movie was doomed before it even opened. It took forever to get a cast and director, script problems were constant and the cast was not happy (Morrissey complained about the movie often). Still it's not too bad. It's a lot like the first--there's a lush music score, beautiful locations, plenty of sex and nudity (this had to be edited for an R), a nicely convoluted plot and good acting--but there's no impact. It feels like a retread of the first. People are being killed here with a choker leash (I believe)...just like people were being killed by an ice pick in the first. In one cute moment Stone picks up an ice pick and looks at it longingly. She's also playing mind games with a man and might be getting him implicated in murders. The similarities are too apparent.

This is also VERY R rated--there's plenty of explicit sex talk, male nudity (Morrissey looks a lot better nude than Michael Douglas), female nudity (Stone still looks great) and some bloody murders. The acting is good across the board. Stone is just fantastic here; Morrissey looks miserable but is OK; Charlotte Rampling and David Thewlis are good in supporting roles.

So--this isn't at all bad but feels like a remake of the first. Still I recommend it. People just attacked this because Stone is not well liked and they thought it was stupid to do a sequel to "Basic..." 14 years after it was made.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this DVD in my friends house and thought that this was a Turkish action movie with some Hollywood-not very big-names in it. Interested enough I decide to give it a shot later.. It was a tough to bear experience believe me. Then, after finally seeing the credits roll I tought 'We Turks really suck at Hollywood style film making.. This is an insult to the heist|hostage movie genre..' but then wait! I checked some names and no, they were not Turkish names and no, this was not a Turkish movie; on the contrary it was literally shot in America with an American director & crew! That made me thinking-again!- How on earth can you persuade names like Micheal Madsen, Edward Furlong or even Arnold Vosloo to take part in such a project? with money probably.. That kept me thinking further.. How can you raise such amount of money to offer them and a supposedly international cast? Then all my meditation paid off and I came to find the answer.By hiring the cheapest equipment and crew that you can find. And if you still have to difficulty in adjustin your budget then: by writing and directing the movie you are trying to produce-or vice versa I don't have any information on that-. So bottom line this is not a bad movie as everybody are so anxious to present as.. It makes you think -in my case even meditate- and there are a lot of movies outthere that doesn't give even that affect.. This one at least makes you think; It makes you wonder.. It leaves you with disbelief.. and then It makes you wonder again..

Sentiment: negative
I cannot understand why so many people did not like this film. Robert De Niro was on top of his game, delivering his lines with such aplomb, one has to believe this is his everyday demeanor. Granted, the film seemed to take on many buddy-film conventions while trying to make fun of the concept, it goes without saying this film was genuinely funny. From the police dog, to the fact Eddie Murphy didn't annoy the heck out of me, this film is a real keeper. Rene Russo also evened out the rest of the cast perfectly, establishing her role so it does not interfere with the budding relationship between De Niro and Murphy.

Sentiment: positive
If you enjoy suspense this movie has it. The fact that Marina Zudina portrays a mute adds to her haplessness and increases the suspense. Alec Guiness's appearance was nice, but didn't really add to the movie. I'm not sure if Evan Richard's part as Andy Clarke was an attempt to add a little humor or if he was supposed to just be a bumbling idiot. I thought the cinematography was excellent. This added not just to the quality of the production but to the suspense as well. The bathtub seen with the water droplets in slow motion was wonderful. Also the scene where the knife comes down and then it switches to Andy Clarke cutting an extremely rare piece of meat was very well done. I would call it overall good entertainment

Sentiment: positive
Rain or shine outside, you enter a movie house. It makes you happy. (If not, come right out.) Lights go off. You settle down with a bar of ice cream. Moving pictures begin to flicker on the screen. You feel content. In the dark, you are back in the beginning of time. Sitting around the campfire...looking at the modern version of the flickering flames 24 times per second and sharing the joy of discovering the unknown turns and twists of the scenario with rest of your clan/spectators.

Those who are not happy with themselves, should not write comments. (Long live romantic comedies...)

Sentiment: positive
Michael Rooker is a decent actor, but he has no business being the lead except in a low budget movie. He really does not have much charisma. Ryo Ishibashi has a lot more screen presence, and sadly he is not really the main character. Most of the screen time goes to the brick-faced Rooker.

Danielle Harris (from the Halloween 4 and 5 movies) plays his daughter, and she is cute and entertaining but she is written as not being too smart and one of her dumb mistakes gets one of the main characters killed. Comedians Fred Willard, Bobcat Goldthwait, and Stephen Furst are here in interesting roles. Just watching what happens to these characters is priceless. 

Vincent Schiavelli plays the Consigliare to the local Mafia Godfather, and it is hard to tell whether or not he is working the movie as a comedy. Tim Thomerson is also in this movie. He seems to be in every extremely low budget direct-to-video action movie. Thomerson is also in some low-budget comedies. Seeing so many comedians and comic actors in this film made it feel like a spoof. Is it a parody of a Yakuza movie? It is hard to tell at some points. There is certainly very little Yakuza action. 

The supporting cast of Thugs and Goons is menacing and well cast. Some of these kinds of movies have Thugs that look like they work at the local Comic Book Store or as stock boys at Piggly-Wiggly. Overall this movie is very uneven. At some points it seems like a comedy or a parody. Then at other points it works as a good action movie. Then it sputters to an end. Without the contributions of Danielle Harris and Ryo Ishibashi this movie would rate a Zero in my humble opinion.

Sentiment: negative
A female ex-cop who was drummed out of the force for recklessness (and who could probably beat Chuck Norris in a fight) hires herself out as a private bodyguard; her first client is a worthless playboy type. It takes half the movie for her to get kicked off the force in the first place. Lots of great fight choreography but the plot is strictly by the numbers, and the acting is as wooden as the dialogue. Give this one a miss.

Sentiment: negative
Creep is the story of Kate (Potente), an intensely unlikeable bourgeois bitch that finds herself somehow sleeping through the noise of the last underground train, and waking up to find herself locked in the tube station. After somehow meeting workmate and would-be rapist Guy on a mystery train that runs after the lines have closed, things go awry and she finds herself pursued by what lurks beneath the city's streets. Her story is linked to that of George (Blackwood), an ex-con working in the sewer system; they meet in the final third of the film, brought together by their attempts to escape the monster that pursues them.

The pair proceed through a set of increasingly unlikely locations; from the Tube station, they end up in the sewage works before somehow finding themselves in some sort of abandoned underground surgery. Most Tube stations don't have toilets, so how one has a surgery is beyond me. Naturally, the film cares to explain that the surgery doesn't have running water. Yet it has electricity? Just one of many inconsistencies that work against the atmosphere of everyday believability that the film tries to create.

The monster itself is a problem. There's a complete lack of reasoning for its actions, it just kills people for no obvious reason. And then of course it keeps some alive for no real reason either, perhaps just so that they can eventually escape and give the film an extra 15 minutes or so running time. I understand that natural evil is supposed to be scary, but then the film attempts to explain itself via a photo of a doctor and his son, and a few shots of some jars containing babies, and yes, it is just as tired and pathetic as it sounds. It also fails to explain how the creature has been underground long enough to lose the ability to speak, communicating only in raptor screams, but not long enough for its pair of shorts to decay. Hmm.

This doctor business leads to scene that is the film's desperate attempt to implant itself on your memory, and while it is gory and uncomfortable to watch, it just isn't enough. The final third of the film hinges on an emotional relationship that never existed, and the characters break down and recover for little or no obvious reason. George breaks down, unable to cope with something despite stating that he wants to escape so he can see his daughter again, and Kate becomes emotionally tough seconds after going to pieces over someone that ripped her off for a travelcard. Yeah.

After starting out as a "this could happen to anyone" movie, it quickly falls apart as it introduces ideas that make it more and more unrealistic. A complete lack of emotional interest in the characters and an absence of suspense make this one to avoid.

Sentiment: negative
Usually, I know after the first minute of a movie if I will hate it or adore it... but now, I was wrong.

The start was great; the "this is based on a true story" and blah blah blah thing was funny. After, the cartoons and the description of the guys' life with pictures made me think I had made the right choice.

Then, seeing the hilarious fake look of Toronto was cool. Also, the situation and appearance of the house seemed to confirm my first idea.

That was maybe the first 10 minutes of the movie... which afterwards looked like an eternity.

Maybe that's just me not understanding English Canadian humour (that's possible, English Canadians also do not always understand Quebecois humour), but hey... there was enough stuff in that for a short movie, *nothing* more. Maybe that could be a meaning for the title? Anyway, almost everything was filling, and very few things were even close to funny in my opinion.

As a matter of fact, the "making of" was better than the movie. At least you understand the motivation behind that which made everything bad. The potential of the idea was great; that's why I rented the movie, being interested in the "annoying people disappearance" thing. But yet, I did not know the whole universe would vanish, and with it even a point to the movie.

If you are English Canadian, it seems you could appreciate the local humour, considering the surprising number of people who gave this movie an 8. Otherwise, just think twice before losing your precious time...

Sentiment: negative
What a shocker. For starters, I couldn't stand the constant screaming and noisy panicking all the time. It didn't make me scared, horrified, or make me sympathetic towards the characters; it was simply annoying. The jerky camera movements were also annoying. The plot was the same as pretty much every other cheap horror. There was a few pathetic attempts to give the characters some depth, but it didn't really work into the rest of the plot. And then there's the ending. I'm still not really sure what to make of it. I guess it was supposed to be clever twist, then shed some light on the situation, but it was just stupid.

The case had a couple of those little award winner/nominations symbols on it, so I figured it couldn't be too bad. I was wrong. If you see it, you should probably just leave it on the shelf.

Sentiment: negative
the only word that sums up this movie is quirky. it's a light-hearted romp through an existential concept. bouncy (in more way than one) and a bit nutty. i wouldn't exactly call it grand and unforgettable cinema and it doesn't seem quite as memorable as the director's first movie "cube" but it's a good pit of fluff to watch on a Sunday morning. the acting veers from respectable to annoying at times but i believe that's how it was to be written. done as a serious movie it could perhaps have been great or may very well have stepped into a state of pretension. a little like "the matrix" meets "head" meets "human nature".

6.8 out of ten

Sentiment: positive
One of the most appealing elements of a Gilliam film is that the well-concocted visuals, the unsettling backdrops, and the manically frustrated characters are evidence of the creator's involvement. Instead of most movies (where the filmmaker is some director-for-hire that is paid to feature a star or two), you can feel Terry Gilliam's presence through the experience. "12 Monkeys" is evidence of Gilliam's own vision and style, as opposed to making offbeat movies for their own sake. "12 Monkeys" is a variation on similar themes of Gilliam's repertoire:oppressive/recessive societies, the solitude of the protagonist, the frustration associated with disbelief, and parallel realms. In this film Gilliam does a fine job of blurring lines between the two realms, using ambiguities to force the audience to believe rather than know. This tendency for Gilliam to neglect to fill in certain gaps leads to criticisms of art-house pretentiousness. The difference between Gilliam and artsy posers is that Gilliam's choices clearly have a purpose and all of his images have meaning. The two nearly identical bathing scenes of Cole in the beginning are meant to draw comparisons which leave the audience unsettled. His bald head is a mark of uniformity in the disease-ridden future world, yet makes him recognizable in the 1996 world. The title itself is a mark of Gilliam's creativity, as it requires the majority of the story to flesh out for its meaning to be fully understood. All in all, Gilliam's dedication to making creative films that are interesting to watch yet also require thought and interpretation from the audience. The film has immense re-watch value, since there are subtle details and hints that can be missed upon the first viewing. Definitely one of my favorites.

Sentiment: positive
Stephane Audran is the eponymous heroine of this beautifully measured study of a small Danish community towards the end of the last century. Two beautiful and musically talented sisters give-up their own prospects of happiness and marriage in order to look-after their ageing father. One day, a French woman, Babette, comes to work for them. After some years she wins the lottery and is determined to do something for the sisters who have taken her in. Her solution is to prepare an exquisite and sumptuous feast, which changes the lives of all those invited. This is a film about human and cultural interaction, reflected in the changing language of the dialogue from Danish to French, and especially between the dutiful sobriety of Protestant northern Europe and the sensuousness of the Catholic south. It is also about human needs, and how warmth and kindness can be expressed and stimulated through the cultivation of the senses. A profoundly uplifting film.

Sentiment: positive
Early Hollywood at it's best!! A classic Kipling poem is transformed into an epic adventure featuring memorable performances by a stellar cast. I think the measure of a good film is how many times you can watch it and still genuinely enjoy it. I've seen it a dozen times and still cry at the end and, admit it, you do too!!

Sentiment: positive
Despite the fact that this was a Made-For-TV movie (and an obvious one at that: ie., cheap looking), CLASS WARFARE left me wishing I could get my money back, and considering this lame production was partially funded through Canadian dollars, I might just be entitled.

What made me sit through it in the first place was seeing actress Lindsey McKeon, who I've watched for the last couple years in her role as "goody-goody" Mara Lewis on the soap-opera GUIDING LIGHT, taking a turn at playing "the bad girl" for a change. 

Surprisingly she does quite well, as Kristen, a spoiled rich-b*tch who suddenly finds herself dirt-poor, but with a conniving streak, and a twist of fate, that will possibly change her fortunes back around. The twist of fate is provided in the character of Richard (Robin Dunne), a socially-radical outcast who discovers that he has just gone from having nothing to winning $23 million on a lottery ticket. Now, put Richard, Kristen, her jock-boyfriend Jason (Wade Carpenter), and their camcorder-obsessed mutual buddy Graham (Dave McGowan) together for the weekend in a remote cabin, cut off from the world by storms, and just guess what unfolds.

The film suffers from congesting both the story and characters'personas and motives too much. Everyone is pretty one-dimensional and it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out that some things, and some people, are going to go very bad, very quickly. I don't think this is that original a plot and it doesn't go out of it's way to make itself anything more. The acting is OK, McKeon is spot-on as the manipulative female lead, and Dunne is very good, perhaps a little too good at times, but no one else is worth writing home about. The only other real credit I can give the film is the one twist I didn't see coming towards the end (not the very end though, that one is so obvious it hurts). Regardless, I sat through all of it and lived to tell the tale so I can't say it was a complete write-off. 

4/10. A "something-to-watch-when-nothing-else-is-on" type movie.

Sentiment: negative
I believe in keeping religion out of government and out of the movies. When I want a sermon, I'll go to church, but I don't want one from a movie. I don't mind some supernatural themes, (after all, religion is about as supernatural as you can get!) but this movie had so much preaching in it that I was really annoyed. The landlady reminded me of witches that of seen in other movies. The bad guy even looked like he had horns. 

And what a silly ending: the hero went into the meeting and yelled at all of those old men, and that broke the spell. If only life were that simple. I think that when movies are that stupid, they ought to be distributed with a warning: DANGER! PREACHING CONTAINED HEREIN!

Sentiment: negative
And I do not understand why the show gets so much beating. In my opinion this show really is excellent. Well the first two episodes were not that great but it picks up a load of momentum at the third episode. Which seems to be typical for a Steve Moffat sitcom. I would rate it among the best sitcoms Britain has ever produced.

The show itself is a farce at its best, it is not along the lines of Fawlty Towers, but you definitely can rank it as high as a Black Adder, Coupling, or The Young Ones! I am watching the first season, and all I can say is that I am happy I bought the DVD!

The problem probably with this show is and why it got smacked so hard, according to the internet, that the original press release compared it to Fawlty Towers, and everyone was disappointed it was not! Well even Green Wing is closer to Fawlty Towers than this show, all I can say is clear your mind from every prejudice, give the show at least a run until (including episode 3) and then decide for yourself!

All I can say is thanks Steve Moffat for writing it and thanks for the entire staff pulling it off!

Sentiment: positive
Yokai Monsters: Spook Warfare (Yokai daisenso, 2005) a movie about "yokai" or traditional Japanese "monsters" of folklore. It is alternatively known as Big Monster War or as Ghosts on Parade.

The yokai of the first installment include the teapot freak, kappa water imp, a living 'brella, a woman whose sheeks can grow extremely gigantic, a woman with a second face on the back of her head, a dwarf priest with an enormous gourd-like wrist, & so on.

These sorts of whimsical monsters derive not only from fairy lore, but from a type of summer entertainment of the Tokugawa Era, comparable to today's Halloween haunted houses, or the "freak shows" of yesteryear but with exclusively phony freaks. Ghosts & goldfish monsters & dancing one-headed umbrellas were trumped up to create "chills" during the hot summers. The fatcheek woman & such were recreated by tricks or illusions, based on monsters depicted in medieval scrolls; & if their design for the movie is a bit simple & hoky, this makes them all the more representative of what historically was recreated for summer chills.

These rather endearing monsters have to face off & destroy an ancient Babylonian vampire demon who has come to Japan & disguised himself as a samurai lord. Despite that some of the Japanese apparitions are a bit goofy, & too many of the costumes scarsely more than masks without even moving lips as they speak, it is all played very poker-faced & is very charming. It has some beautiful cinematography, much as would be provided in a CGI film of the same decade. Viewed in the right mood or with the right friends, it is exciting, moving & touching.

Yoshiyuki Kuroda also directed the famed Lone Wolf & Cub: White Heaven & Hell (1974) &and was the special FX director for the excellent Daimajin trilogy. The Yokai Monsters series is not the equal of Majin at its best, but the Yokai are nevertheless great fun. The first miike movie which is the most child-oriented of his family films, with the GOZU & IZOO consecutively more serious though none too severe for young viewers.

Sentiment: positive
I hate to comment on something I didn't finish, but if I spare one person what I sat through for almost an hour before turning it off in disgust, it will be worth it. 

I decided to watch this with an open mind, knowing it was on the bottom 100.

Bad idea. I usually love crude humor, or can at least tolerate it. I love so-called "black" comedies. I'm not easily offended, either. 

It started off okay and quickly went downhill. I laughed a few times (for example, when the main character got stuck in the airplane toilet), but that was it and didn't compensate for the strong disgust I felt.

I didn't laugh when the dog got sucked into a jet engine. I usually can't see the humor in animals dying (except in Animal House). I didn't laugh at much else of the nastiness, either. I turned it off after an incident involving a blind man and a baked potato that I don't care to repeat the details of, only that the wave of nausea still hasn't passed over me. 

Simply put, it was smut-filled and simply not funny with barely any plot. This is one of the times when if you don't have something nice to say, you should get the word out.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Sentiment: negative
According to most people I know that saw this film and to the reviews I've read this was supposed to be a hugely entertaining thriller that oh so needs to be seen by more people. I didn't expect this film to blow me away but I certainly didn't expect to find this movie mediocre at best, which is what it is.

I'm no stranger to French films being both French and having studied them as a student so i'm aware of the clichés and corny plot twists that can go unnoticed by English/American audiences. There are some great French films that should have been given widespread international release but this isn't one of them.

To begin with the plot is both far fetched, over complicated and too smart assed to be entertaining so you really feel every minute of its 2hr and 5min run time and by the time everything is finally revealed you are beyond caring. The main character himself is lacking any real charisma or even acting talent to keep your attention fixed mainly on him and his journey anytime close to the crap ending so by the time you've even considered swallowing the main plot twists it's begun to dawn on you that you've wasted your time! I actually remember switching off before the credits actually began to roll after the film's climactic reunion - that was the point in which I was sure I had almost completely wasted my time by the way.

The film is not at all the worst thing i've seen but it seems completely overrated. For instance I read somewhere that it beats all the Bourne Identity films in terms of suspense or even that it has 'wall-to-wall tension'. I can safely say some people are hyping up this frankly dull movie.

4/10 is a generously considerate rating for this film I feel, and since I have seen some complete and utter stinkers, I'll therefore save the 1s, 2s and 3s for them.

Sentiment: negative
Well, where to start describing this celluloid debacle? You already know the big fat NADA passing as a plot, so let's jut point out that this is so PC it's offensive. Hard to believe that Frank Oz, the same guy that gave us laugh riots like Little Shop of Horrors and Bowfinger, made this unfunny mess.

So, this guy doesn't know he's gay till this actor points it out. OK, sure. If anyone ever says I'm gay, I'll know the truth, even if I currently like girls more than George Luca$ likes a dollar.

And how to know the true nature of my sexuality? Well, if I like classic litterature, dancing and Barbra Streisand, I'm gay. If I dress like a blind man in a hurry (with half my shirt hanging out), I'm straight. Oh, sure.

And here's the big cliché of clichés: no matter how you look, there's always a very attractive Hollywood actor who'll adore every bit of grease under your skin, or a top model who'll love your zero IQ, your butt-ugly face and your pointing-out ears. If all those gay common places weren't enough to get me angry, this did. In real world looks matter, folks, and I know for sure.

I see it coming: now you'll say "Relax! It's a comedy! Don't take it so seriously!". If being a comedy gives anything "carte blanche" to suck out loud, I think the world has a serious problem. Wouldn't be much better (and funnier) to make a movie to denegate those old tiresome clichés, instead of magnifying them over and over again?

So, one of the absolutely worst movies I've ever seen. 1 out of 10. If giving this rating has something to do with my sexual tendence, please let me know. I'm interested.

Sentiment: negative
This movie may superficially appear to be flaky and for teenie-boppers. It seems to be the stereotypical high school movie. But in fact, it takes an honest and touching look at the high school experience. It doesn't propose some unrealistic ending where the geeks and the popular kids reconcile. It doesn't change what happened in adolescence; it just attempts to reckon with it. This is a really great, fun, heart-warming movie, good for teens and for those who can still remember being one...

Sentiment: positive
Buster absolutely shines in this episode, which is the only vehicle I've seen towards the end of the career that allowed him to do the physical (and silent!) comedy that made him famous. It's still a shock to hear his gravelly voice in the talkie sequences - his voice is about the only thing I don't care for, as far as Buster is concerned - but his ability to take a pratfall is still unparalleled. He even repeats some of the gags used in his early two-reelers with Roscoe Arbuckle.

My deepest gratitude to Rod Serling for presenting us with this episode, and for giving Buster's genius full scope. He didn't have much time (one episode) to do it in, but this is a touching tribute to Hollywood's greatest genius.

Sentiment: positive
My title ought to be enough.

It baffles me that a culture so rich in literary excellence (Dumas, Flaubert, Balzac, Maupassant) would churn out such tosh as the "nouvelle vague" cinematic movement. Until the 20th century, France had a great tradition of artistic lucidity and clever philosophy. But the minute you hand them a movie camera they start acting like WOOOHOOO LOOK HOW WEIRD I CAN BE! PLOT? THEME? PSHAW! LET'S FILM AN AMUSEMENT PARK RIDE GOING ROUND & ROUND! At least this is not as bad as Godard (who has an unhealthy fascination with the backs of peoples' heads. Oh-la-la, quel artiste.). No, Truffaut maintains a degree of visual clarity. But so does the security camera at a quickie-mart. The two are indistinguishable.

Haha, just as an aside to all you dweeby film school nerds: I bet the vein is popping out the side of your neck right now. But don't leave without reading the last sentence of my review.

Anyway, if you like French literature, you will HATE this. People who like this movie probably have never read any books other than the ramblings of Jack Kerouac or maybe "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Or maybe they have read the lyrics to The Doors songs, and they think that's profoundly moving. Whatever floats yer boat. I find it ironic that this film injects some (weak) allusions to Balzac, one of the finest and most meaningful writers who ever lived. Nice try, Truffles. But you're nowhere near the ballpark.

Avoid this film like an aids-infected syringe.

If you're the type of person who likes to think, then stick to Jean Cocteau (ORPHEE), Robert Bresson (PICKPOCKET) and the Japanese masters Kurosawa (IKURU), Kobayashi (KAIDAN) and Teshigahara (SUNA NO ONNA).

If you're an idiot, enjoy your Truffaut, Godard, and Andy Worhol. And for pete's sake push that vein back in your neck. You look like a cabbage.

Sentiment: negative
i have to admit thanks to this movie i'm now afraid of mannequins. hahaha.

but yes, first off the acting in this movie at least by my standard is pretty swell. most of the actors are pretty decent in their roles. the script also seems to be pretty good too, sure some cheesy stuff in there but also some decently written character and some damn scary scenes. i STILL get shivers thinking about that one scene with the dude and the mannequins. brrr.

yeah, I'll say you should check this movie out it's pretty good, and very entertaining. a good watch. 8/10

Sentiment: positive
Dressed to Kill (1980) is a mystery horror film from Brian De Palma and it really works.The atmosphere is right there.The atmosphere that makes you scared.And isn't that what a horror film is supposed to do.All the actors are in the right places.Michael Caine is perfect as Dr. Robert Elliott, the shrink with a little secret.Angie Dickinson as Kate Miller, the sexually frustrated mature woman is terrific.Keith Gordon as her son Peter is brilliant.Nancy Allen as Liz Blake the call girl is fantastic.Dennis Franz does his typical detective role.His Detective Marino is one of the most colorful in this movie.There are plenty of creepy scenes in this movie.The elevator scene is one of them.There have been made comparisons between this and Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960).There are some similarities between these two movies.Both of these movies may cause some sleepless nights.

Sentiment: positive
Like so many media experiments, this amateurish effort contains seeds of a very interesting social commentary. In the 5+ years since it was released, the premise has been made less outrageous by real world events in software development, and I found it less boring than the previous commentator for that reason, I imagine... The director clearly is a fan of Hitchcock, and it's too bad that the film was not better executed, but in fact, it is nearly a parody of pulp fiction, including the soundtrack screeching at us when we are supposed to pay attention. One can almost see the exclamation points and capital letters on a yellowing page.

I have to admit I found it rather entertaining for all these reasons and more. Sometimes the slick has less to offer us, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in deconstructing it for education purposes. Oh yes--and even though the seams showed and it creaked a lot, my heart rate went up, and I was reluctant to get up and take a break.

Sentiment: negative
I think Gerard's comments on the doc hit the nail on the head. Interesting film, but very long. It's definitely the antithesis to the new school of flashy, sexy, Moore-style docs. There is no narrator, no facts or side info interlaced, and no other gimmicks. What you see is what you get - a glimpse into the vanishing world of the Saltmen of Tibet. As a huge doc fan, I was surprised how much I lost attention with this film, namely due to the length and lack of dialogue. In the end though I would recommend it if the subject matter sounds interesting to you. It's beautifully shot, informative, and presents a valuable (and closing) window into the way of life of the Tibetan saltmen (and women :) - all important attributes of a good doc. But do put on a big pot of coffee, it'll help.

Sentiment: positive
The movie has a good story line, the action is good in some parts, but not all of them. Some of the parts, I just felt like the bad guys wouldn't have dosed off yet, from my experience from taking Martial arts. Some are the actions are long, like always mostly for the boss, but for the least important ones, they were killed or dosed off with a few hits, but some where quite unrealistic or could have done a better job at.

The least important actors or stunt people were the right picks for the movie, my girlfriend started to have a crush on them that she started to watch the movie more than she spends her time with me.

The movie is good, that is all I can say.

Sentiment: negative
I never heard of this film til it played as part of a Robert Mitchum retrospective at the National Film Theatre in London. Almost 60 years on the cast list looked tasty to say the least with seven names - in addition to top-billed Mitchum - in the public domain; Charles McGraw, not long off The Killers, Barbara Bel Geddes, long before Dallas and arguably still better known as the daughter of Theatre Set Designer Norman, Walter Brennan, who needed no introduction, Frank Faylen, the sadistic male nurse in The Lost Weekend and the much nicer small-town mensch in It's A Wonderful Life, Robert Preston still a decade away from Harold Hill in The Music Man with Tom Tully and Phyllis Thaxter making up the numbers. Alas, most of them were wasting their time. I looked in vain for any 'signature' scenes given that it was Robert Wise on bullhorn. By this time he'd made around a half dozen films and had still to find a style. The story is our old friend the range war and Mitchum must have thought it was barely a cut above the Hopalong Cassidy oaters on which he'd cut his teeth. There are no new twists - if you don't count the unbelievable scene when Mitchum accuses Preston of sleeping with Thaxter to gain information about her father's plans to move his cattle. This is perfectly true but how did Mitchum KNOW? We've seen or heard nothing to indicate how he discovered it. On balance not a lot to be said for this.

Sentiment: negative
1st watched 2/2/2003 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Jim Kammerud & Brian Smith): Drab and un-spectacular supposed sequel to the original classic animated `101 Dalmatians.' Yes, the movie continues where it ended in the first one, but the problem is that it plays out much like the original. One of the great things about the original was the pacing of the story, which this one doesn't have. The animation is also very un-spectacular for Disney and all we get is the same characters going thru the same kind of story all over again. When is Disney going to stop boring us with sequels and re-do's etc.. etc. Probably when we stop renting or buying this mediocre fare that they have put out.

Sentiment: negative
Actually, this is a lie, Shrek 3-D was actually the first 3d animated movie. I bought it on DVD about 3 years ago. Didn't Bug's Life also do that? I think it was at Disneyworld in that tree, so I'm saying before they go and use that as there logo. Also, Shrek 3d was a motion simulator at Universal Studios. They should still consider it as a movie, because it appeared in a "theater" and you could buy it for DVD. The movie was cute, at least the little flyes were. I liked IQ. I agree with animaster, they did a god job out of making a movie out of something that is just a out-and-back adventure. I recommend it to families and kids.

Sentiment: negative
Everyone, my name may sound weird, but there was nothing else! 

Any way, I haven't seen anything like this before so it was crazy! Of course that's a good thing. It is a humorously interesting movie and my absolute all time favourite thing is how they intertwine other things into one! Like chicken little,, the fish pretending to be King Kong and Runt the pig saying, "Twas beauty who killed the beast", War of the worlds scene and more. Walt Disney company has NOT lost his touch maybe not for this one. Also, how they made it like they were watching a movie and it was like a home cinema. 

However some parts don't fit. Like in the original lion king, weren't Timon and Pumbaa with Simba when he beat Scar? In this movie, they are not! they were fighting the hyenas backstage. Ther's more, the reason being why Pumbaa isn't so confident is because he was pushed away by the other animals and also, it's just Timon, Timon, Timon. Anybody realise that only Timonn's story was told, whereas pumbaa only had flashbacks?

But apart from that , IT"S GREAT!

Sentiment: positive
The consequences of love: There is really something special about this film but it's very hard to put your finger on. It is a love story of sorts but not really one i've seen before. It has several love themes running throughout the film. One mans love for a younger woman, a younger mans love for his older brother, the mafias love of money at all costs these are just some that intertwine in a story that has you guessing or rather not knowing where and how it will end. The cast are all superb from Sophia the teasing barmaid to the straight faced-ness of titta the films central character. With simple yet affective camera work bounced off an ever-changing soundtrack that mixes low-fi trip hop with lush orchestral pieces. The style of the film changes beautifully using several styles without ever getting cluttered. Love has never looked so diverse and powerful as the tales we are told rumble towards various conclusions. The director has married old and new into a rich Italian classic.

Sentiment: positive
May I please have my $13.00 back? I would have rather watched "Hydro- Electric Power Comes to North America". Again. This is a movie with one voice. The same voice, which comes out of every characters mouth regardless of age or gender. To listen to that voice again I would have to charge at least $150 an hour. And I don't take insurance. It was eerie watching Will Ferrell morph into Woody. But I don't think imaginative casting is enough. One should wait until they have a story before they bother making a movie. Unless he's just doing it for the money. And if that's the case why not just reissue an All-Rap version of "What's up Tiger Lily?"

Sentiment: negative
Please do not let the cover of this movie fool you. And if you're looking for a cheap horror movie to laugh at: this isn't it. Usually I will go for stupid if it's funny, but this stupid was so stupid it almost (or possibly did) make me stupid.

The film quality is better than a handheld, but not by much, and it's quite possible the music was created by pressing the Samba 2 key on a Casio keyboard. These problems should never really be a deterent from seeing a horror movie but add this amazing (weep) cast, and you have a real humdinger.

The story is about a guy who invites his friends up to his family cabin in Texas for the weekend. He also extends the invitation to his lady crush in his office. On the way there they meet a female in distress, who is then invited to come along by the other girls.

The stay at the cabin includes sex and nudity and soon everyone's panties are in a bunch when one girl disappears and odd items turn up in the house.

From there you (the audience) and the morons, um, actors, try to figure out what's going on and they soon begin to distrust one another. Overall I think I have made it sound better than it is. The main struggle with this movie is that the characters are very underdeveloped, the plot contrived, the acting bad and the motivations clueless. Once more this could be forgiveable it it was the least bit funny but alas, it is not.

The twist ending is only a twist in that no one would guess it simply because if you really thought back through the movie it would not have made sense anyway. Please don't let this review stop you from seeing the shear wonderment of this movie. (Woah, my nose just grew eight inches.)

Sentiment: negative
Has some really good music and performances; Kid Creole and the Coconuts, James White and the Blacks, DNA, Tuxedo Moon, the Plastics, Melle Mel, Vincent Gallo, Lydia Lunch...etc, but aside from this there isn't much more to it. The dialog, especially the narration(by Saul Williams), is actually pretty good, but the performances are all pretty bland or outright bad, no matter how many hipsters are thrown in; Debbie Harry and Jean Micheal Basquit(the latter being the leading role) both still don't have enough cultural cred to keep this film from being a novelty item. It goes for the a Jack Kerouac style roving spontaneity, but doesn't have the insight to keep it moving along, which is where the band performances come in. I guess its pretty balanced in that regard between great music and bad acting, and I did enjoy it, but I just expected more. Though it does have a fairy tale ending.

Sentiment: negative
Thanks should be given to the Hong Kong VCD/DVD distributors that I only paid US$1.4 and I could have such a surprisingly delightful enjoyment.

Adultery? How common in our modern days. Eva grabbed her two children and kidnapped Nick to chase after Luis and Charlotte to Italy. She wants her revenge done but at the end, she also commits the same crime of Luis: she had sex with Nick.

In this small indie production, Vivian Naefe dealt with the teething problems in modern marriage with a light heart. How can one dare treat marriage seriously in this fast-food time where people are now of higher mobility in physical, mental and technology areas? Conjugal commitment asks for too high a price that most people would choose to succumb to circumstances. Nick once trusted Charlotte but he fell for Eva after that kidnap journey which forced him to experience much growth.

Most viewers may feel happy about the ending because Eva and Nick come together, well, this should be the greatest retribution to the unfaithful act of their spouses. However, I want a sequel, I want to see how the four would develop after this exchange. Perhaps they may exchange back, how can one be so sure about the shaky love relationship.

Good acting and good scenery. The two little child-actors should not be neglected especially the boy when he cries at the reception of the hotel in Venezia. And of course, how can we forget the "bella, bella" scenery of the city.

Sentiment: positive
This is a truly awful film. Lou Diamond Phillips simply calls this one in. The use of miniature models of the train are laughable. The plot seems to develop on the run (there is an alien on board; oh, and an eco-terrorist is on board too; oh, and the conductor is dead and the train is out of control; oh, and the train is going to run into another train one hour ahead; oh, and that train has nuclear waste on it...). I mean, come on really! The alien monsters are not scary (although there are a lot of them), and the acting is abysmal. Check out the guy playing the "next President" - do you really think he could be President? For goodness sake, he has spent his whole acting career playing bad guys!

Sentiment: negative
No message. No symbolism. No dark undercurrents.Just a wonderful melange of music, nostalgia and good fun put to-gether by people who obviously had a great time doing it. It's a refreshing antidote to some of the pretentious garbage being ground out by the studios. Of course ANYTHING with the incomparable Judi Dench is worth watching. And Cleo Laine's brilliant jazz singing is a bonus. This lady is in the same league as the late Ella. This goes on my movie shelf to be pulled out again anytime I feel the need for a warm experience and a hearty good natured chuckle. Just a wonderful film!

Sentiment: positive
As I've noticed with a lot of IMDb comments, certain reviewers seem to demand that every film they see have smugly intelligent plots that wallow in there own cleverness. I am not one of those people. If I watch an action film, I want to see explosions, gunfire and heroics. If I watch a comedy, I want to have tears of laughter in my eyes. You get the idea. Therefore watching a horror film, I primarily want to be scared. The Grudge is a very scary film, in both it's well executed 'jump' scenes, and it's creepy imagery. I've been a horror film fan for many years, and I'm talking about the masters such as Dario Argento, rather than directors of some of the treadmill teen horror flicks that are churned out these days. If you want to be scared, watch this film. Way scarier than the original Japanese 'Ring' (which I also think is a great film).

Sentiment: positive