DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I read a couple of good reviews on this board for "Mr. Scarface", but for anyone uninitiated in the genre of Italian gangster films like myself, the picture will probably make very little sense. Indeed, after the initial setup involving the ten million lira scam, the picture devolved into a fairly routine revenge flick with a minor twist in the identity of Rick's (Al Cliver) character. The whole gang war plot got muddied up for me with the inclusion of Vinchenzo Napoli (Vittorio Caprioli), but as most other viewers commented, he's about the only one who gave this picture any life with his often ineffective attempts at violence. I found it somewhat unbelievable that Manzari's goons who chased Tony through the streets didn't actually stroke out before Tony even laid a hand on them. For all of his buildup as the title character, Jack Palance was wasted rather unceremoniously in an anticlimactic near finale, making the U.S. working title, "Mr. Scarface", rather moot. I've seen enough spaghetti Westerns to know that they don't all work; I guess in this case, my first look at a spaghetti gangster flick didn't quite make it either.

Sentiment: negative
Should have been titled 'Balderdash!' Little in the film is true except the name of the island and the fact submarines were involved. Little more than training film quality with poor camera work, muddy stock footage and perhaps the low point of stereotyping 'Japs' with laughing Japanese infantry, laughing Japanese fighter pilots and one-dimensional square-jawed Americans dying left and right. Sixty years later it is unintentionally funny as an odd artifact and as an opportunity to see what is possible when the war fever is upon you. The plot and the dialogue remind me of playing guns on a summer's afternoon in my childhood, peering through the neighbor's hedge to gain a fatal advantage on my best friend Steve and my little brother. In actual fact, the Makin Island raid was a near total failure with Carlson and his men wandering around in the dark exchanging gunfire with shadows until finally, thirsty and completely disoriented, looking for someone to surrender to, before they happened upon some equally confused Japanese soldiers who promptly surrendered to them! In the withdrawal several of Carlson's Marines ended up on another island and were abandoned! The film, of course, couldn't tell that story, not in 1943, so this bit of whimsy was fabricated and rushed into release to the beating of drums. With Randolph Scott, and his jaw, as Colonel Thorwald (Carlson) leading a unit comprised almost entirely of stock caricatures, the green recruit (Harry Landon, Robert Mitchum), the grizzled veteran (J. Carroll Naish, Milburn Stone, Sam Levene), the country-bumpkin (Rod Cameron), the all-American boy (Alan Curtis), and scores of sneering (when they weren't laughing) 'Japs'. And yet the cast nearly overcomes the material. Almost. Randolph Scott's narrow range is well suited to his role of earnest commander and he is supported by a solid group of professionals who do their best with thin gruel. But in the end, the one-note object of the exercise wins. Any pretense is totally abandoned at the close when Randy Scott simply looks directly into the camera and delivers a stirring (well sorta stirring) call to arms. The cast was better than this material. So was the audience. Should be viewed with Reefer Madness and a bottle of moderately priced Merlot.

Sentiment: negative
I have to say although I despise these kind of shows, shock horror, I'm a girl, I feel I have to express my opinion. I had seen Dirty Sanchez before I saw Jackass and think it way surpasses Jackass in terms of programme making. Story lines and interviews are inter weaved to create a more interesting show. I saw a few minutes of Jackass movie the other night and couldn't believe how poorly put together it was, everything just put in a line joke after joke with no relation between anything. It must have been the quickest easiest show to edit ever, shockingly amateur. While drinking puke isn't really my thing, as far as a substantial entertainment show goes, Dirty Sanchez is way out of Jackass's league.

Sentiment: positive
'They All Laughed' is a superb Peter Bogdanovich that is finally getting the recognition it deserves, and why? their are many reasons the fact that it's set in new york which truly sets the tone, the fantastic soundtrack, the appealing star turns from Ben Gazzara, and the late John Ritter who is superb. and of course no classic is complete without Audrey Hepburn. the film is a light and breezy romantic comedy that is very much in the vein of screwball comedy from the thirties, film is essentially about the Odyssey detective agency which is run by Gazzara who with his fellow detectives pot smoking and roller skating eccentric Blaine Novak(the films co-producer) and John Ritter, basically the Gazzara falls for a rich tycoon magnate's wife(Hepburn) and Ritter falls for beautiful Dorothy Stratten who sadly murdered infamously after production, 'They All Laughed is essential viewing for Bogdanovich fans.

Sentiment: positive
The child actor certainly deserves a lot of credit. It was a pretty weak field for Best Picture that year. I think "Apocalypse Now" should have taken it, but the Academy probably felt it was too violent and strange, plus Vietnam was still too recent. Meryl Streep was tremendous, as always, playing a very unlikeable character. I don't usually compliment directors, but I really liked that bit with the elevator doors. Grade: B

Sentiment: positive
Um... okay, this is very poor indeed if compared to the first film, the very-much-so critically acclaimed Rosemary's Baby. In fact, it's a pretty poor film in general. Yes, there are a few redeeming qualities, but I'll get to that later.

Well, it has been quite a while since the last film took place... in fact, it's been pretty much eight years I believe. Rosemary is still trying to escape with her child and influence him in a good way, rather than let him succumb to the evil future that the coven (or "tribe", as it is referred to as here) has laid out for him. When she runs off with him and an empty bus comes and picks her up, leaving her child with a hooker, the hooker raises him until he comes of age, where Satan tries to possess him since he seems to be rejecting his evil heritage in every way.

Obviously, things don't go as planned, and then there is the ending that I would have felt seriously ashamed at had I not seen it coming since hearing that there was a sequel to "Rosemary's Baby"! Okay, when I was around 11 years old, I witnessed the masterpiece Rosemary's Baby and then read the book sequel. Thinking that this film was an adaptation of that, I tracked this film down and got it... was I right in doing so? Well, in some way, yes... I am a true fan of this "franchise" and can say that I have seen the sequel, and I have some idea as to what happens after the events in the first film (speaking of both this film AND "Son of Rosemary", Ira Levin's own book sequel, not yet adapted to film).

Ruth Gordon, who played Minnie in the first film, is shown a few times in this film, but why-oh-why is the coven so different? The knife Rosemary had dropped in the first film is shown sticking out of the ground, yet Minnie pulled it out! The coven is now called the tribe (as I said earlier). They now go around in hooded capes chanting "Hail Satan... Hail Adrian... Hail Satan... Hail Adrian..." and so on and so forth. The Gothic building is now like a two-story house on a lawn in the middle of nowhere, it looks like a little nice suburb home or something! And the child itself is pretty normal-looking, with his eyes only going all "catty" when he gets mad and kills someone or something in that vain.

As far as the acting goes, it's pretty poor on all parts, except for Stephen McHattie, whom plays a very-grown up Adrian. Pattie Duke Astin, replacing Mia Farrow as Rosemary, has to have one of the flat-out WORST performances ever to be caught on film! It is so bad it's almost not even funny... when she screams "OH MY GOD!" and cries for like the fifteenth time in the movie, you're just like "Okay, it's not funny anymore," and then by the time she is gone and the movie has been on for twenty minutes only, you're like THANK THE LORD I DON'T HAVE TO HEAR HER SAY "OH MY GOD" ANY LONGER!! SHEESH! In the end, this movie has very, very, *very* few redeeming qualities, enough to get it at least four stars. But, if you look at it as a serious sequel to the first film, it's pretty much non-existent.

Sentiment: negative
Just after watching the first one and it is very dumb. I happened to watch an episode of Bones first and then the Eleventh Hour. The 11th Hour should be embarrassed.

It is so weak. Stewart introduces himself as a Government Scientist. No mention of what kind of scientist just general sciency stuff. In a program about cloning they bring a caretaker, who was paid to dispose unsuccessful embryos, to a church and made him kneel before the statue of Jesus on the cross and ask forgiveness... and as well tell them where the bad guy is so as they can move the plot on. Now thats science at work :(

There is a dumb, not good dumb, bit where Picard rages at a TV that advertises skin scream that makes you look younger, shouting "It's a lie", as his randy female assistant gets groped by the local hot bobbie next door.

The end of the first episode is like a bad cartoon where the bad old lady, named after Pinnochios daddy in order to move the clunky plot along, waves at Picard from the street as she gets in a taxi. Picard is one floor up and he looks out a window wistfully going... she got away. He could like try to run down.. or maybe ring the cops... or maybe get the number of the taxi and ring it in or maybe had anything other than... I am waving and getting into a taxi now and there is nothing you can do about it until next week ending... mahhahahahah.

Pity it's so stupid. At one point a grieving father is convinced by Picard that even if a replica clone son was born it would never be his son as his son had a soul. Yes that's right folks. The general scientist argues against cloning on the basis that every soul is unique and sure why else would you want to clone. 

Although the general scientist Picard finds cloning a bit gooey he's all up for stem cell research and goes as far as to say that calamity will befall humanity if it isn't allowed. He has a pretty strident rant about how important it is. Of course he doesn't mention a single example. That kind of sums up the show. Buzz words and tawdriness.

Sentiment: negative
The opening sequence alone is worth the cost of admission, as Cheech and Chong drag that big ol garbage can across the parking lot, filled with gas. "Don't Spill it Man !", hilarious stuff. And then, as 'the plot' ensues, you're in for one heck of a ride. I watched this film recently and it holds up, being just as funny upon each viewing. check it out.

Sentiment: positive
I am Anthony Park, Glenn Park is my father. First off I want to say that the story behind this movie and the creation of the Amber Alert system is a good one. However the movie itself was poorly made and the acting was terrible. The major problem I had with the movie involved the second half with Nichole Timmons and father Glenn Park. The events surrounding that part of the story were not entirely correct. My father was suffering from psychological disorders at the time and picked up Nichole without any intent to harm her at all. He loved her like a daughter and was under the mindset that he was rescuing her from some sort of harm or neglect that he likely believed was coming from her mother who paid little attention to her over the 3 plus years that my father took care of her and summarily raised her so her mother could frolic about. The movie depicted my father in a manner that he was going to harm her in some way shape or form. The funny thing is that Nichole had spent many nights sometimes consecutively at my fathers place while Sharon would be working or doing whatever she was doing. The reason that my father was originally thought to be violent was because he had items that could be conceived to be weapons on his truck. My father was a landscaper. The items they deemed to be weapons were landscaping tools that he kept in his truck all the time for work. My recommendation is take this movie with a grain of salt, it is a good story and based on true events however the details of the movie (at least the Nichole Timmons - Glenn Park portion) are largely inaccurate and depict the failure of the director to discover the truth in telling the story. The funny thing is, that if the director would have interviewed any of Sharon's friends who knew the situation they would have stated exactly what I have posted here.

Sentiment: negative
I can just picture how this movie came to be:

"So how else can we screw up our careers?" 

"I know! Let's take a film that was wildly successful and make a sequel out of it!

"Perfect! We'll get B-grade actors who have half the charisma and want only 10% of Carrey's original salary. We'll save millions and rake in a massive profit, never mind the fact nobody wants to see a second rate sequel with none of the original actors that made it popular in the first place! We as executives still honestly believe a movie was popular based on the name and story, not the actors who made it so in the first place!" 

"Brilliant! Let's put a massive budget and get the cheapest actors we can find!" 

And really, that's what Son Of The Mask can be described as. Just a simple B-grade movie that attempts to suck the life out of it's original classic.

Nevertheless, if the movie didn't contain the words the mask, or anything to do with the mask, it would be a nice kids movie. For all it's massive flaws and horrible acting, this really will appeal to kids. It's a good natured flick that really wants to scream out "like me!" but only those 8 and younger will truly enjoy it.

Jamie Kennedy is the only worthwhile mention in this movie. He clearly is trying to make the material work, playing the desperate dad but the script is so poor, the only thing that spews out that is worthwhile was my drink after seeing this. The character of Loki also deserves a mention, as he was the most enjoyable character and really one of the only reasons for older adults to see this film. It's too bad the character is wasted on this film, I would have really liked to have seen the character take on the true mask. Instead, we are reduced to fart jokes and toilet humor near the end.

The plot is so much by the books, I won't bother to mention it here. It's all so clearly obvious that even a Disney exec would be green with envy.

Save your money, this one is heading to DVD in three months from the looks of it. Shame on the studios for once again smearing a decent film with a horrible sequel. Didn't dumb and dumberer teach them anything?

Sentiment: negative
Another vast conspiracy movie that tries to blame the US government and the Armed Forces (especially the Army) for every disaster since the Great Flood. Anyone who has ever served time in the US military can see how bogus this film is. Uniforms, equipment, sets, and mannerisms are all wrong. (And of course, all Senior Officers are either corrupt criminals or total idiots.) Blatant propaganda with no attempt at objectivity. Most of the theories presented have been disproven over the past few years. Uses every cliche', rumor, and Urban Legend from the Gulf-all are presented as gospel. (The truth is, no one knows for sure why some GW vets are sick and others are healthy as horses.) PS This is not new. War is NOT fun and I know WWII, Korean, and Viet Nam vets with some pretty serious ailments, too. (And the government has the responsibility to take care of all of them.) Sensationalistic movies like this will not solve the problem!

Sentiment: negative
This is the kind of movie which shows the paucity of French cinema when it comes to making thrillers.The director's desire to "sound American" is so glaring that you will not be fooled a minute,unless you have not seen a serial killer movie since "Peeping Tom".

Two male cops (or one and a half,more like,as you will see),horrible murders,a plot more complicated than complex.Charles Berling is not lucky with the genre(see the astoundlingly dumb "l'inconnu de Strasbourg" a couple of years ago).The scenes with his pregnant wife -which are supposed to be a counterpart for the otherwise noir atmosphere of the rest of the plot-are among the worst ever filmed.Add a steamy love scene between them and a gory autopsy to get a PG 12 and thus to attract the huge adolescent audience.A violent and absurd conclusion,followed by a silent epilogue who could make a nice commercial for the côte d'azur,it's really the silence of the lame.

Sentiment: negative
I felt I had to add a comment after seeing the breathless gushing of the other comment. I was taken to see this film as a child by my unknowing parents, expecting a normal Norman Wisdom jolly romp comedy. Instead, what you get is this insipid British sex comedy of the worst kind where Norman (Norman!) plays a swinger aiming to get off with as many 'birds' as possible. Absolutely typical of the genre - poorly filmed and acted, no semblance of a script beyond the worst kind of double-entendre, and very vague hints of 'naughtiness'. And all seemingly on that special grainy film stock that is reserved for 1960's-1970's British low budget films. About the only memorable thing is the annoyingly catchy theme tune, which still pops up in my brain after 30-odd years.

Finally, in the last scene you also get to see Norman naked - running across the sand and looking frozen. I think so anyway- at that point my mother hauled me out of the cinema. I saw it again, many years later, and guess what, it was still dire.

If you're any fan or take any interest in the little man and his career, you'll apply the '10-foot-bargepole' rule to this. Believe me, you do not need to see Norman Wisdom's backside.

Sentiment: negative
I read the half dozen other user comments on this board and it seems as though the opinions vary greatly. I have to agree with those who found this movie to be awful. It pains me to write that since I would have hoped this would have been great, or I wouldn't have bothered to see it the other day. I like supporting indie cinema, especially if they are gay-themed, but this movie is almost too much to tolerate. Those that walked out, as I considered doing after about three minutes, probably didn't mind shelling out $11.00, or just figured it was going nowhere, fast, and not going to improve. Maybe I am slightly more optimistic than they are..either that or they didn't pay to get in in the first place.

Logan is bored. He's a klutz. He's gay. I'm okay with that. The problem is that because the main character in a movie is bored does not necessarily mean that the movie about him has to be boring also! There are ENDLESS scenes of this kid just laying around like a load of laundry, re-establishing everything that you already learned in the first scene, and the second scene, etc., etc...Nothing or no one goes anywhere. NO ONE says anything even remotely insightful or funny or interesting. Probably most appalling of all is that I didn't feel the slightest bit of empathy for Logan. That in itself is a major accomplishment. He didn't grow, he didn't change, he didn't learn (there is no one to teach him anything), he DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, and neither did the movie! Scene after scene of the same thing do not a movie make.

Additionally, the title makes no sense at all. 1/10.

Sentiment: negative
An intense thriller about a mute movie make-up artist who witnesses a snuff film being made when she is working late in the studio one night. After she tries to get away from the murder scene, she realizes she is in for more than she bargained for when the entire mafia is out to kill her for being a witness. This movie leaves you on the edge of your seat.

Sentiment: positive
I have watched thousands of movies in my life and I believe this movie is the most "perfect" movie that has ever been made. By perfect I mean the storytelling, the plot, the acting, the staging, the camera work, etc. (This is a lay opinion; I have no background in film production.) A lot of movies have perfect scenes, such as the bartender filing a report with the police officer in the movie Fargo. (Indeed, that scene could play well as a short.) In The Dead every scene is done to perfection, making the entire movie perfect. Perhaps, John Huston sold his soul to the Devil to make such a movie. Hopefully, Daniel Webster has gotten him out of the contract!

Sentiment: positive
Story starts slow and nothing funny happens for a while. All the action is in the end, but you won't have to laugh because the movie is funny, but because the story is pathetic.

The funniest part is when Harvey 'I'm not Paranoia' Keitel really loses it and the judge starts a massacre. Oscars for this guy!

Sentiment: negative
There are bad movies, terrible movies even boring movies...I can watch most and put up until the end, not this time. Avoid this like the plague, annoying music throughout, terrible editing, no comedy, its tackier than a novelty mug...My missus wanted to watch this thinking it would be Legally Blonde material or something kind of watchable, but never better than average, chick flick. Its the first time she was begging me to push the stop button.

The Girls, well, they were not great to start with (Denise done OK in Starship Troopers and Wild things) but you have sank to the gravel. I feel like a mug having spent 30 minutes on this...Pamela Anderson is almost unrecognisable after much construction work to her face.

Please take my advice if you want to avoid wasting valuable oxygen and brain cells ranting at the utter mince that is on your screen.

Sentiment: negative
Given Christopher Nolan's string of successful films, it's a no brainer for me to want to check out his filmography watch his debut feature, which is shot in black and white back in England, running less than 70 minutes long, done with little budget, but containing all the hallmarks that has made him a master filmmaker and storyteller.

Though short, the film is no less gripping with its meandering plot that will leave you guessing, because the premise doesn't even scratch the surface of this tale, which is pretty amazing considering the depth in the narrative's structure and characterization. As told, we follow a writer wannabe called Bill (Jeremy Theobald) who starts a habitual obsession with following random people he fancies on the streets in a voyeuristic manner, which at first could be conceived as research, before he starts to make up his own rules, and break them.

He meets up with charismatic Cobb (Alex Haw) who turns out to be a robber with peculiar sensibilities and modus operandi, and soon finds himself hooked with hanging out with him as they go about breaking and entering and speculating about their victim's livelihood, as does the pursuit of a femme fatale blond (Lucy Russell), a mobster's moll who rejects his every advance.

Told in a non-linear fashion which comes with scenes that don't quite add up in the beginning, this sets the film up for multiple viewings as you study just how Nolan sustains that suspense and intrigue with you as the audience expecting and wanting more, which gets duly delivered. There are enough twists here which spins the film into a dizzying crescendo, where loose ends begin to come together, and the brilliance of the stellar story start to shine through.

It's also amazing how, as a first feature shot on the cheap, that something that clever and sophisticated can be conceived from his own experience in being burgled, with Nolan involved in every stage of production, from writing to shooting, producing and directing, having worked on the project for a year since shoots can only happen on weekends. I guess here's an example of a successful filmmaker's humble roots, which should serve as inspiration and spur new filmmakers out there. Now I'll patiently wait for Christopher Nolan's Inception due out later this year, whose trailer is already such a tease.

Sentiment: positive
This film is described as a action/comedy. The first 15 minutes and James Belushi's presence point to it being a humorous gangster film.

However, the introduction of the ridiculous female lead begins a number of ludicrous plot twists which do little to conceal the contrived ending. The film moves between comedy(description used loosely) and surreal drama with some out of context adult scenes thrown in. The lead female (the Angel of the title) is poorly acted and the actress is not helped by the script which requires some unbelievable, extremes of character to be portrayed. James Belushi is the only one who handles his part well but is also let down by the poor script. One to avoid.

Sentiment: negative
Certainly expected more after seeing the cast list, but WOW!

I think a first time director could have done a better job with this project, and the fact that a veteran like John Buechler made it, puzzles me to no end. Somehow, the budget allowed them to secure a bevy of D-List actors, whom they succeeded in embarrassing for an hour and a half. The unknown actors were just plain awful, less Steve Wastell who does a decent job as Axl. The story is so bad, that it really needs no mention. The overall production value seems standard, with some above average camera work, if you can make it through the God-Awful "slo-mo" scenes and the painful "person on fire" sequences. I knew it would be dumb, I just had no idea how dumb, and unfortunately it's time spent that can never be returned to me. I suppose if you enjoy really bad "B" films, this might work for you, but if you value any story at all, this one is simply dreadful... A complete waste of time.

Sentiment: negative
I made it through half of this, but was not enough of a masochist to see it all. The first half of the film had next to no dialog ! Almost everything was voice over commentary to carry the story. The scriptwriter forgot that sometimes less is more and tried to explain several millennium of detailed history in the voice over. At the same time he forgot to do any character development. Most science fiction fans don't require huge amounts of character development, but it would be nice to know why the two main characters who survived the destruction of the space fleet together ended up fighting each other. 

There are some good things going on in the film. The soundtrack was well done. Some of the computer generated graphics are very good, but others were just mediocre.

Sentiment: negative
I loved this movie from the opening sequence right through to the end. I found the director/ actor's style of directly addressing me/the audience very engaging.

What I found most exciting and refreshing about this movie was its ignoring -- and thus challenging -- of gender and class stereotypes. The idiosyncrasies of the characters are portrayed as strengths, and the absence of judgment -- and the characters' acceptance of themselves and each other -- enabled me to embrace them and allow myself to be drawn into their world. Without preaching, and with intelligence and gentle and loving humor, this movie has the power to open us to new possibilities, and offers hope for a world in which people see and accept each other as unique and precious individuals. I look forward to more offerings from this creative and talented director.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is about a young girl who goes to live with her rich cousins falls in love with one of her cousin, and reject the advance of a amoral suitor who brings trouble on the family. After seeing the 1999 version and reading the book, I decided to watch the older version. I found it did stay true to Fanny character in the book, but it was also boring character. Fanny character played by Sylvestra Le Touzel was lackluster; she often appeared to be about to faint. I also did not like Robert Bourbage who played Henry Crawford. I could not imagine him being interested in Fanny or her cousin Maria. Jackie Smith Wood who played Mary Crawford was okay but the wig she wore was so ugly. I lost interested in her acting and I kept staring at her wig. I kept expecting it would drop off her head. I could also see a slip of her real hair under the wig.

Sentiment: negative
Was lucky enough to be an extra in this great film and loved every minute of the filming. Went to the premier in London and had a great chat to Phil, Peter, Martin, and Jon as did my wife.Fantastic after party too. Then a few weeks later had trip to the cinema with members of our bike club. What a brilliant film, it deserves to be up there with all the great biker films. Now we have the DVD Sue my wife can't get enough of it neither can the kids. Get a bit of stick from the club who seem to think I'm a film star now oh well one can only dream. I think they are just jealous. The only downside of the first part of the filming was the weather, rain, rain and more rain but hey we was in Wales. Hopefully there will be a follow up so keep me posted Jon. Danny Beck

Sentiment: positive
At last!! Sandra Bullock is indeed a beautiful woman, but I've finally found a film that she gets to be an actress! Forget the predictable Keanu-fodder of SPEED, forget the predictable Kleenex-fodder of WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING - this tests her!

And she is great! A techno-feminist role that really works well on screen, on a subject that is very close to the bone. The issues raised don't seem far-fetched at all and the whole experience, helped along by a fine supporting cast, makes for quite an un-nerving couple of hours.

You may never enter another chat-room again, in fact I'm getting quite nervous just writing this review...er...bye!

Sentiment: positive
This is the movie that epitomizes the D&D fear of the 80s (and even today). The fear being that people who play D&D (or any other role-playing game for that matter) will be "sucked in" and lose their ability to distinguish reality from fantasy (and go on killing sprees, child sacrifices, suicide, etc). Great movie for anyone who likes to blame the problems of society on inanimate objects, but anyone who has played a role-playing game, a video game, or even acted in a play will see this as an insult to their intelligence. It is to D&D what Wargames was to computers. Plus as a movie, it just kinda sucks.

Sentiment: negative
Nothing can prepare you for another lousy bimbo outing! This time, it's being brought to you by the never-inevitable Fred Olen Ray! As far as exploitation movies go, this one doesn't click! As science fiction, it's plain unoriginal! All that we see is an an ugly feminine android wearing a bikini out to destroy the Earth, and showing off all that's nearly bare to resist! Give me a f---ing break!!! If this kind of entertainment is your thing, then why not dust off those old SI swimsuit mags from the attic for a change?! This would have been much better if it didn't set the sleaze factor on very high, but that still wouldn't make this one great. I'd like to point out another film called THE ASSAULT (1996) by Jim Wynorski, which resembles the identity of ALIENATOR. It illustrates why top-notch 1st-person "femme fatale" action movies don't translate well in America. Sorry, fellas!

Sentiment: negative
Put yourself into Carla's shoes. She is an overworked, unappreciated administrative drudge who is invisible. You know her: she's trained three of her last three bosses, knows where all of the bodies are buried and might even look back at you in the mirror when you brush your teeth. Always having time for another thankless task and does it better than most despite a serious disability, she has the desk on the way to the restroom that becomes the repository of half-finished cups of coffee begging to be spilled. What? You don't want to hear it? Well, she can't and neither can you until your hearing aid is in place. Prepare to experience life from the perspective of the hearing impaired.

Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) needs a change in her life. Work is leading nowhere; friends are relying on her to meet their domestic needs and the only way out starts with a collapse that goes virtually unnoticed. She won't take a vacation - a contract is going critical - so the only alternative is to hire an assistant. Carla submits requirements that convey her real needs: a 'well-groomed' man. This brings an applicant for approval that reminds us that we should be careful with our wishes. 

Paul (Vincent Cassell) does everything wrong from the start of his job interview and his getting hired clearly demonstrates Carla's interest in his non-job-related qualities. She sees potential in this former thief and as the story unfolds, their relationship grows in a very unusual pattern of co-dependence. 

Paul has a difficult transition returning to the world outside of prison walls and finds himself in another sort of prison: one of the office variety and another of indentured servitude to pay off an old debt. His skills as a thief help Carla win a political battle in the office. But Paul sees a grander opportunity with Carla's skill in lip reading and draws her even further into a world of intrigue.

This is a brutal film noir unrated and probably suitable for older teens. Carla grows more powerful, professionally as well as personally, as the story progresses and her disability gives her clear advantages over the rest of us. She grows as a woman discovering her sensual side while she uses her resources to overcome the obstacles of competing in a man's world.

The two main characters are meant for each other, in a strange way. Without Paul, Carla will remain in her role of a doormat. She has our sympathy, hopes and best wishes even if she doesn't make the best decisions along the way. 

You will hear the world through Carla's ears, from awkward adjustments of your hearing aid, muffled sounds, all but inaudible without it to relatively distinct voices when you can see who's talking. With one major sense disabled, we see Carla's heightened intuitive power to compensate. And we can all use that sense to hear not only what people say, but also what they really mean.

Sentiment: positive
This is the second film I've seen of Ida Lupino as a director after 53's the hitch-hiker. I think this one was a better film then that one. This one has a girl who is about to get married and she is then sexually assaulted and doesn't like everyone looking and talking about her so she runs away and and is taken in by a family. I think Leonard Maltin's review is right only to give it 2 and 1/2 stars.

Sentiment: positive
University Professor Justin Thorne (Jimmy Smits) has got it made. A good-looking, sophisticated teacher, with a loving wife and two adorable children. He plays the saxophone, owns an expensive car and his students love and respect him. But when temptation calls, in the form of one of his bright, pretty, sexy and willing students, Jennifer Carter (Naomi Watts), he foolishly gives in. The next day, he is being charged with her rape, and his perfect life could be forever ruined.

When we see an American actor in Australian film, we know we are not in for a masterpiece. But even viewed with low expectations, "Gross Misconduct" is a huge flop. Based on a play with a rather unimaginative title and then adapted into a reasonably enjoyable book, it fails to engage, convince or even remotely interest its audience on a most fundamental level. The script is awkward and unconvincing; the acting is, for most part, not much better. Watts gives an acceptable performance, demonstrating for one of the first times on screen her emotion rawness, but she is the only good thing about the film, which seems almost like even it can't wait to be over.

The direction is not horrible or distracting in anyway, but it is just painfully mediocre. Apart from the afore-mentioned Naomi Watts, who could be forgiven, seeing as this was early in her career, the acting is wooden and gets steadily worse over the course of the movie. The usually reliable Jimmy Smits doesn't seem to have been trying in this one, and who could really blame him? All these small failures, however, only add to the film's ultimate fatal flaw, which is that the focus is entirely in the wrong place. Any empathy for the characters or interest in the outcome is lost in a sea of what is basically soft-core entertainment of an adult kind. By the end, audiences will probably be bored, tired and wishing they'd done something else with their ninety minutes. Unless you just want to see Naomi get naked 4 or 5 times, you could definitely afford to give this nonevent film a miss.

Sentiment: negative
. . . and that is only if you like the sight of beautiful woman with nice, bouncy jugs running around the so called African jungle. So no problems there for most males out there.

I watched it as one of those bundled together package. Forget about the plot which is essentially just a flimsy storyline to get our heroine flashing her jugs on screen at every opportunity possible. Just to give you a sense, our heroine swings from vine to vine and climb on top animals at every chance possible for no good reason at all just to let you see her jugs at all angles. Again, no complaints.

The "fight scenes" are laughable and borderline on the pornographic. Our heroine got caught by the baddies at least five times in the movie. On occasions when she has to fight, the "fighting" involves rolling around in the dirt, grunting unconvincingly and basically fighting like kittens. I am surprised no hair pulling is involved. It get so bad that the chief baddie had to remind the "combatants" that "I said, the one that draw first blood wins!" in order to avoid watching anymore stupid fighting.

The witch doctor Kuku was a bloody blast. From being a big, cuddly bear in the beginning, he became manic depressive when captured and then, outright psycho. He spent the whole movie muttering lines with no irrelevance.

Beside Liana (our heroine)bouncing around topless, you also get to see plenty of other Amazonians as well as one woman who decided to jump naked into the lake to take a swim for no good reasons. Yeah, it is that kind of movie.

Watch the beautiful Liane in her bouncy glory. Despite the movie being more than 20 years old, the allure of watching blond women flashing their nice jugs on screen never gets old.

Sentiment: negative
In the 50's, a gay photographer called Bob Mizer (Daniel MacIvor) founded an agency of male models, releasing a muscle magazine called "Physique Pictorial" and movie of men, and many of the models became prostitutes. "Beefcake" shows the rise and fall of this pervert.

Alternating footages from the 50's, testimony of many models and Bob Mizer himself in the present days, the director Thom Fitzgerald used this subterfuge to show naked men and lots of penis along 93 minutes running time, in a complete bad taste and very silly crap. I have never heard anything about this morally corrupt Bob Mizer and I do not know what AMG is. In my opinion, only gay and very specific audiences might like the theme of this boring and pretentious movie. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "Carne Fresca" ("Fresh Meat")

Sentiment: negative
In one respect, it's like 'The Wizard of Oz,' with Paris in black-and-white and the Riviera in color. But it's supposedly about possessive love, destructiveness and moral decadence, while actually being about designer gowns, shots of the Riveria, lots of big expensive cars, and music-and dancing interludes that suggest Vincente Minnelli on one of his off-days. Watchable, but a remarkable example of desperate, dark plot material and glitzy style heading in opposite directions. (Was this the model for 'The Talented Mister Ripley? Does anyone sense an affinity between Jean Seberg and Matt Damon?)

Sentiment: negative
"Bon Voyage" has the fast pace that in some ways reminds me of the Indiana Jones/Star Wars films -- it's as if you're on a fast train or roller coaster.

It's billed as a romance, mystery, thriller, and farce; it's all of that and more including candid observations on the reactions of French society during the Nazi invasion at the start of WWII. And it's also an exhibition of juggling that involves 7 main characters. The scenes all seemed historically accurate (to my eyes) and gave an excellent feeling for the period.

All of the actors were well cast and gave great performances but IMO the most superb was that by Isabelle Adjani who played the role of an opportunistic, self-centered French movie star; not only did she quite convincingly play the role of a young actress perhaps half her age but she also played her amorous wiles convincingly yet in such a way that the audience sees she's only half serious and more complex as a person than just a gold digger. Her character and energy propel the film through from beginning to end. It wasn't until I read Roger Ebert's review that I discovered she was 48 years old at the time of the film. What beauty!!

I appreciated the ending -- it's satisfying but lets you write your own conclusion as to what happens to the main characters. 

As another User Commenter observed -- do NOT arrive late; you need to be there from the opening scene. Good advice.

I gave it 9 of 10.

Sentiment: positive
In 1965 producer Kevin McLory -who owns a part of the Bond cinematic rights- associate with EON Productions (Harry Saltzman and Albert Broccoli) for making "Thunderball", the fourth film of the 007 franchise. The star is Sean Connery, of course.

In 1982 McLory wins a legal battle and can produce an "independent" Bond film. "Never say never again" (NSNA) is one of the two "unofficial" 007 films made outside EON (the other is the 1967 comedy spoof "Casino Royale"). NSNA is a remake of "Thunderball" and stars the original Bond, Sean Connery -who comes back to the role after many years of absence.

The film is released some months after "Octopussy" with Roger Moore, the 13th episode of the EON series. At the time press calls it "War of the Bonds"... Both films are a big success in 1983, even if "Octopussy" earns more money at the box office.

NSNA is a luxurious film made by excellent technicians -director Irvin Kershner who led "The Empire strikes back", Douglas Slocombe -cinematographer of "Raiders of the lost Ark"-, and screenwriter Lorenzo Semple Jr -who wrote "The three days of the Condor"- among others...

The cast is excellent with Connery, a then relatively unknown Kim Basinger, Barbara Carrera, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Max Von Sydow, Edward Fox...

Although all that the film remains inferior to the original "Thunderball". It lacks many fundamental ingredients for being a real Bond movie: there's not the traditional gun barrel sequence, there's not the "James Bond theme", M and Q are not played by the traditional actors... It's a copyright reason: EON only is allowed to use these elements. Briefly, NSNA lacks the classic cinematic 007 atmosphere.

On the other hand the film is exciting and enjoyable. Brandauer is a very good villain and the women (Basinger and Carrera) are sensual and gorgeous. But the main highlight is Sean Connery! He's once again wonderful in the role, he's older but looks fitter and nicer here than in "Diamonds are forever", his last performance in the role of the British super-spy before NSNA.

Sentiment: positive
Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. where cast perfectly in this film. It's a heart-warming story that reaffirms the belief that we can all make a difference if we just care. I think there was a lot of realism with the characters. The screenwriter didn't incorporate racism in the film in a way that most films do, which I thought created a more realistic story line.

Writers tend to inject incidents of racism in an attempt to create realism but usually go overboard. 

There are so many towns like this one where people of different races live harmoniously. Ed Harris should have been nominated for an Academy Award because he was great as a leader and coach, realistic as a father and showed a warm caring side when helping Radio.

Sentiment: positive
A better film could have been made to portray the tragedy of Bosnia. Some parts are very effective and the film does well to give some idea of the suffering of the people specially the children, but overall it looks less like a film and more like a documentary. Woody Harrelson is very good but the rest of the cast has performed well without being extra ordinary. Should be watched in order to get a rough idea of what the war did to the children of Bosnia. If one expects a great and gripping movie, Welcome...... will be a disappointment.

Sentiment: negative
As a grownup in my mid-40s, I am not even close to any of "Nancy Drew"'s key demographics, but I was pleasantly surprised by the film this afternoon; so, I could tell, were the pair of sixtyish silver-haired ladies down the row from me. The older man who left the theater just ahead of me specifically praised the film to the 20-ish female usher (who said she'd seen the film the previous evening and quite liked it).

More to the point, however: In the row just ahead of me, there were nine -- count them, nine -- ten-year-old girls lined up next to each other, passing popcorn and hot dogs and candy back and forth and giggling through the previews.

Once the film began, they promptly settled down to watch....

....and didn't so much as peep till the closing credits began to roll.

This is not a perfect film; it doesn't quite pay off its high school subplots, it's not quite confident enough of its own tone, and its thugs are just a hair too far over toward critically inept at times. But the adaptation of the source material is essentially respectful, the plot hangs together fairly well, and it treads deftly between the sins of excessive cheesiness and excessive modernization. Last but not least, Emma Roberts carries the movie with startling grace -- Josh Flitter's superb timing notwithstanding, this is Roberts' movie, and she pulls it off beautifully. Her Nancy Drew is very much the direct ancestor of Kristen Bell's Veronica Mars, and the film is also a lineal descendant of Jodie Foster's early and underrated "Candleshoe".

In today's marketplace, it's a rarity: a family movie that respects its viewers' intelligence. As such, it won't be to everyone's taste -- but for what it is, it is the best movie of its kind in decades.

Sentiment: positive
The film did what it set out to do: show how a young girl copes with poverty and grows into her maturity. However, for most of us, this subject has been explored adequately and in most instances with more sophistication than done here. The movie fixated on breasts, which soon became boring and I lost interest. If this was on TV, I would've switched to the latest news on the Starr Report. That's how boring I found this movie.

Sentiment: negative
This Movie has great fight scenes. Now its true that the acting is a little rough. But If I wanted to see a movie based on acting skills I would watch a Cheesy movie Like American Beauty. But If you want to see a movie with true martial arts in it and with Amazing stunts WITHOUT the use of wires and flying threw the air like so many movies around now which are over killing the matrix. Then Watch this. Now it's true the two main stars in the show where in the kid show the power rangers and another cast member of that show has a bit part in this movie. But hey the fight scenes are enough to make Jet Li p**s his pants. And the stunts are worthy enough for Jackie Chan to sit threw and admire.

Sentiment: positive