DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
The defining scene to this movie is when the fat guy quits,but the evil doctor just gives him one more duty,check on the dinosaurs.Keep in mind that he no longer has this job and so is absolutely not getting paid for this.Also keep in mind it's a goddamn dinosaur and the doctor he's supposed to trust is evil and doesn't like him.But he's still like,yeah okay.That just defined the stupidity in this movie.One Melissa Brasselle proves that seriously anyone can bolt on some breasts and be in movies.I can go ride a mountain-bike between them,but hey aside from that the people of Paraguay are very nice.Eric Roberts gives his absolute worst performance so far,there's no adjective to describe how bored he is throughout.Corbin Bernsen saves what there is to save and you start rooting for him,but they have to stick to the formula of course.And I wonder how much your life sucks when you play like,one of the army guys in this one?How low can your acting career go?The special effects are so embarrassingly bad you expect a sign saying "Studio 3" to get into the frame.It's not even honest pulp,it's all taken from "Carnosaur",which even sucked all by itself.And then I wonder why just anyone is allowed to make a movie.

Sentiment: negative
Police officer Dirk Hendricks (Jamie Bartlett) files an amnesty application Alex Mpondo (Chiwetel Ejiofor).

A member of the South African Parliament who cant remember the torture he once endured as a captive political activist.

South African born attorney Sarah Barcant (Hilary Swank), meanwhile, returns to her homeland to represent Mpondo.

As well as Steve Sizela, Mpondo's friend who was arrested along with him, and never heard from again.

This film is one of the best films to come out about the South African regime of Aparthied, in the past.

Everybody should watch it.

Sentiment: positive
Was this the greatest movie that I have ever seen? No. Was it the worst? No.

As a mother of four kids, it is nice to watch something that was light and amusing. It was great, but it was cute.

I think that it definitely had some room to improve, but it tried.

I am not sure if this movie deserves the extreme level of abuse from the other reviewer. They obviously do not care for Eva Longoria. I think that she was better in this than in The Sentinel. I think that movies are a matter of opinion. The actors play a huge role in whether it is a hit or a flop.

Maybe the cast did not work out. Maybe there were too many things going on.

I just wanted to speak up for an average movie, not a terrible one. It could just be a chick flick. Kind of like the movie The Split-Up or French Kiss. My husband still talks about those. :)

Sentiment: negative
I think I usually approach film festival comedies with the low expectation that they will invariably be "quirky," and that any intended humor will be derived solely at the expense of the characters' simplicity in the face of a complicated context. What was exceptional about Big Bad Swim was that the director was able to maintain the integrity and development of his characters in his film while still finding laugh-out-loud humor in scene after scene. There was a sophistication, maybe due also in part to the sharp work of the DP, I've rarely seen in an indie film, and even more rarely in a comedy. Of special note here: Paget Brewster's turn as Amy the math teacher. After seeing this performance I cannot understand why Brewster hasn't been "discovered" by a larger audience. She brings the necessary mix of anger and likability to the role that really helps this picture reach its potential. This is a terrific work deserving of a larger audience. I look forward to more from the director and this cast!

Sentiment: positive
Before Lost everything shown on TV was predictable . You could predict who was gonna die or who will find something, but in Lost you could predict NOTHING. Every thing was so surprisingly stunning and it really was a mystery not because it has so many secrets but because there was nothing like it before everything was so great. I literally became addicted to it. LOST is a classic work of art. It gives you something to look forward to every week. It is genius. The surrounding is brilliant it is calm and warm at the beach and so scary in the jungle. The characters are a work of genius every one of them especially the ones already on the island. The castaways are so dramatic yet we can never predict their deaths because they have so much more to do and so much more to say and they have secrets affecting the other castaways that die with them.

Sentiment: positive
I really liked Get Shorty, but this movie was completely disappointing as a sequel. First of all, Travolta does not in any way resemble the Chili Palmer from Get Shorty. He merely half-assed this performance as he has done in all of his more recent movies. He totally isn't smooth or have the mobster presence about him that makes you kinda root for him throughout the movie. It just seems like Travolta rolled out of bed and decided he was good to go for acting in this movie. The plot just wasn't exciting or clever, there really aren't any highlights that happen, the only thing that resembled entertainment was watching Christina Millian perform and The Rock was funny. But anyways, long story short, this movie was trash and I had to force myself just to get through it.

Sentiment: negative
Monday, October 02, 2006 So I got together with my dad as I always do. We ordered some Japanese take-out, turned off the lights and pushed play. I'm an avid fan of horror movies. However, The Cavern released on DVD this October was most certainly a let down. It seemed promising, meeting all the standard requirements of any horror movie machine: drawn out beginning with antagonistic character present, a cannot be omitted sex scene, and the all too familiar pre-spook (when they spook you unexpectedly but it turns out to be the idiot buddy). Then finally when it got down to the nitty gritty, I was ready for some real gore action. The director, I admit was keen. Of course you would have to be to fill in an entire 81 minutes with people running back and forth in a space about 10ft wide. It all begins when some college bound "cavers" get together for yet another cave dive. They all seem like seasoned pros, very serious and spiritual about the whole cave experience. This time they bring a new-by along, some annoying photographer too blinded by his National Geographic cover to understand the full dangers of cave diving. As they descend deep into what they call "Hell Pit" they soon realize that they are not alone in the chasm of death. I will politely leave out any spoilers if you are naive enough to not heed my advice and avoid wasting your time. Although the atmosphere and background music was spooky; and there was sure a lot of blood and gore, when the moments approached to witness some actual dismemberment it was more like watching porn without the full frontal. The camera work was purposefully dark and sketchy. I guess the director used it for effect. I suppose the thing I like most about the movie were the moving characters. They deserved Acadamy Awards for those touching bickering scenes. I almost shed a tear when they finally "got it"... A tear for joy! If you like dry horror, soft porn, and you hated Braveheart. Then this is the right movie for your next Saturday night.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this last night at the Tribeca Film Fest and holy god was it bad.. From the script to the editing to the acting to the cinematography-- none of it worked. Not to mention the set design/costumes were so distractingly wrong for the time period (it spans the years from the late 70s up until 2006 or so). Even John Hurt, who's usually an amazing actor, was so over-the- top ridiculous. Granted, Quinten Crisp is an over-the-top guy to begin with, but Hurt was given nothing to work with here. I don't know much else to say except the audience I saw it with absolutely loved it.. so maybe it's just me. But audiences love anything at film festivals when they're sitting next to the director and all the actors. It's not a very accurate test of how good the movie is or how well it will play. Personally, I thought this movie was terrible. On the other hand, it was so terrible that it was hilarious. Get drunk and give it a shot when it's on HBO in 2 years, if it ever makes it that far.

Sentiment: negative
I never figured out what the attraction of Karen Black was. She always had those beady eyes and kind of an odd look about her. She seemed to often be eccentric or cast as the "other" woman. In this one, she is the psychic adviser and expert on the occult to a crummy producer of bad commercials as he learns astral projection. He is a mean sucker, even without the new baggage. Apparently this is the avenue to immortality, because if you get good at it, you can inhabit the bodies of future generations. I believe Star Trek had a plot like this with Jack the Ripper hanging on for several centuries. Anyway, this guy is really dangerous. He has a nice family and makes them miserable. He begins to murder friends, just because they have an unkind comment for them, or he doesn't like them. You can see the ending coming from the back row in left field. It's a very harsh, humorless movie. Most of it must be taken as truth. Why are some called but few chosen? I found it long and not very satisfying.

Sentiment: negative
When I was a kid we always used to be babysat, and we always used to rent a film or see a film at the cinema. This is one of the films we watched. This is one of the stupidest films I've ever seen, I think it might even be a Walt Disney Pictures film! A martian is dropped on earth, turns into a human, befriends a human, and is trying everything he can to get back home. But he is distracted by the wonders of the Earth. The only good comment I can give is the choice of actors, Back to the Future's Christopher Lloyd as the martian, Uncle Martin, Dumb and Dumber's Jeff Daniels as Tim O'Hara, Elizabeth Hurley as Brace Channing and Daryl Hannah as Lizzie. But apart from that it's complete crap. Poor!

Sentiment: negative
What is so taboo about love?! People seem to have major problems with the transgenered.

The title of this movie didn't catch my eye. It was a grainy shot about 4 minutes into the movie is what made me stop channel surfing. I could not believe how freaking amazing this film was. It touches on so many levels of human emotion that it did not once fail to move me in some way. It is by far one of the best independent films I have ever seen. I did not view these characters as either gender, just human. I would recommend it to anyone who loves movies. Especially independent films. Praise to all fearless filmmakers!

Sentiment: positive
I first saw Jake Gyllenhaal in Jarhead (2005) a little while back and, since then, I've been watching every one of his movies that arrives on my radar screen. Like Clive Owen, he has an intensity (and he even resembles Owen somewhat) that just oozes from the screen. I feel sure that, if he lands some meaty roles, he'll crack an Oscar one day...

That's not to denigrate this film at all.

It's a fine story, with very believable people (well, it's based upon the author's early shenanigans with rocketry), a great cast  Chris Cooper is always good, and Laura Dern is always on my watch list  with the appropriate mix of humor, pathos, excitement...and the great sound track with so many rock n roll oldies to get the feet tapping.

But, this film had a very special significance for me: in 1957, I was the same age as Homer Hickham; like him, I looked up at the night stars to watch Sputnik as it scudded across the blackness; like Homer also, I experimented with rocketry in my backyard and used even the exact same chemicals for fuel; and like Homer, I also had most of my attempts end in explosive disaster! What fun it was...

I didn't achieve his great (metaphorical and physical) heights though. But, that's what you find out when you see this movie.

Sure, it's a basic family movie, but that's a dying breed these days, it seems. Take the time to see it, with the kids: you'll all have a lot of good laughs.

Sentiment: positive
After reading the book, Heart of Darkness, the movie did not do it justice. The movie puts the book to shame and anyone who has not experienced the book would frown upon the story and plot because it was portrayed so poorly by the movie. In the film, the characters and set were just some of the let downs that occurred in the movie. The director left out so many important and interesting aspects of the book that made it one of the best literary works ever made.

Of course any book is better than the movie but these weren't even comparable. Joseph Conrad as a writer was brilliant in vocabulary and the cleverness of the written word. The movie doesn't even start to show any of this. Some of the very important and influential scenes from the book were completely left out, like how Kurtz was not in the boat when he died. Also when Marlow went to deliver the news to Kurtz's intended, she reacted differently in the movie, rather than the book. Another major difference was that Marlow saw the picture of the lady that was blindfolded at the end of the movie, not at the beginning, like the book. This was influential on how the audience perceived Marlow, and the movie totally messed that up.

The book was so fine tuned on what every location looked like, but the scenery in the movie was a let down. There was a bunch of cheesy fake backgrounds and to compliment, a bunch of bad actors to go along with it. There was one exception to the awful actors and that would be Isaach De Bankolé, who played Mfumu. His character was depicted the best. Though the movie wasn't that great, I still would recommend it ONLY if you have read and understood the book very well. That way, you can see what the differences are in the movie and book and contemplate them. If you have not read the book, I do not recommend the movie because it is a boring, lifeless mess. I loved the book, so you should definitely read it and enjoy it.

Sentiment: negative
If you have sons or daughters who love action, adventure, intrigue, and imagination - without the need to break into song every twelve minutes - then this is the Disney movie for you! My sons loved every minute of this film, and I have to admit that I laughed out loud many times throughout the movie. There are no sappy songs to get in the way of a wonderfully told story, and the characters are all lovable and identifiable in their own right. This should go down as one of the Disney "classics" because of its beautifully illustrated scenery and its non-stop excitement!

Sentiment: positive
In The Book of Life, Martin Donovan plays Jesus, who shows up at JFK airport on December 31 to usher in the new millennium by battling with Thomas Jay Ryan (Satan) and deciding the fate of the world. There is also David Simonds (Kurt the accountant from Amateur) as a compulsive, homeless gambler.

As usual, Hartley creates a surreal world in which the beauty of the ordinary made strange and otherworldly flows through artfully-framed scenes and urban/industrial landscapes filled with dazzling light and shadow. As usual, he introduces seemingly incidental details early, then brings them back later in hilarious and unexpected contexts--the humor is simple, but giddy and irrepressible. Hartley has an amazing ability to build toward small and rapturous moments of the simultaneously mundane and outrageous. As usual, he creates a tone that is jaded and world-weary but at the same time, vulnerable, open, and honest. He moves within minutes from uproarious humor into language that is metaphysical and poetic-the kind of writing that is so dead-on and perfect that it's difficult to hold back tears despite the lack of obvious emotion. Another awesome and highly entertaining film. The Book of Life is shot (a digital camera?) with a blurry effect: a sense of the celestial hand-in-hand with impending doom and a hyper-awareness of the present as fragile and fleeting in it's last moments. All of Hartley's films have a way of prioritizing the present, but this unique effect compounds it as the images wash across the screen in a way that is at first jarring, but becomes increasingly beautiful as you settle into it. The final shot is spectacular. All this may sound precious, but the film is a comedy and it makes fun of itself even as it makes fun of the concept of Armageddon, Judgment Day, and `urbanity.' Although it is actually quite profound, moving, and life-affirming, it is for the most part lighthearted and playful. The acting is flawless in terms of the kind of the subdued tone that Hartley has developed in his films (a tone that some people don't get and that prompts them to judge such acting as hollow--the same people who have a negative response to Peter Greenaway). As always, there are bound to be people who respond to this film with cynicism and scorn-people put off by Hartley's abrupt shifts and what they see to be pretentious or mannerist techniques, but who has time to consider the opinions of such dull and callous fools? Anyone who is a Hartley fan will love this film-if they can get a chance to see it, that is. It's hard to say what it would be like on video.

Sentiment: positive
I know this film has had a fairly rough ride from the critics, but I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. The real star here is the fantastic Dylan Moran. He never fails to be both hilarious and convincing in all of his varied disguises. He also manages to radiate a sweet charm that belies his outrageous pratfalls. Special mention must also go to Michael Gambon who plays for laughs with a brilliantly accurate and yet comedic inner city Dublin accent. The only weak link is Caine who, while obviously having a great laugh hamming it up, plays the least interesting and most unsympathetic character. It probably won't play that well overseas but it's well worth a watch all the same.

Sentiment: positive
This may well be the worst remake Hollywood has ever produced, and that's saying something. I'll take it further than that and say this movie is so stunningly, deliriously bad that IT MUST BE SEEN. I don't know if I'm even capable of tackling all the things wrong with it--like the fact that the casting director appears to have pulled names out of a hat, or the mind-blower of Richard Gere's character being allowed to walk away scot-free at the end (I'm sure the people saying, "It's just fiction, who cares" would have no problem if it was a former Al-Qaeda operative who just wants to return to his home country)--so I'll just devote my review to the utter hilarity, which is mainly the scene where Bruce Willis is testing out his gun. 

In the original version, you'll recall, the Jackal practices his kill on a pumpkin. The pumpkin explodes on impact, an effect known as "understatement." In THIS version, Willis sets up a pumpkin target, but he doesn't use a sniper rifle--he uses a gigantic remote-controlled cannon which costs tens of thousands of dollars and can only be stored in the back of a huge conspicuous minivan (this man likes a challenge). He reveals the cannon by pulling away a tarp, at which point Jack Black, who is there to observe, jumps around and says, "That ROCKS! This thing ROCKS!" about 18 times (I guess Willis didn't have to disassemble it first, he just lifted it, tarp and all, out of the back of the van, despite it probably weighing several tons). The scene then turns into an Austin Powers movie as Willis misses the pumpkin and takes out a tree, then has Black run through the mud with his pants falling down, finally blowing off Black's entire arm. The pumpkin falls to the ground, unharmed. 

If I can recommend this movie for ONE non-ironic reason, it's for the Diane Venora character as a tough Russian major who becomes romantically linked to Gere despite having a facial disfigurement--a bold move for a Hollywood feature. By mid- movie I was really liking this character, so it was a shame when she had to be killed. I would have liked to see a movie about her. Other than that, this pile of crap is only useful as an objective intelligence test. 3/10.

Sentiment: negative
"Lies" tells about an affair between an 18 year old bucktoothed female student and a scrawny 38 year old married man with the pair of protags spending about half the screen time engaged in naked sex and hokey whipping and the other half meandering through the pathetically naive storyline which seems little more than an excuse for the sex scenes. With very poor production value including obvious sanitary appliances and phony softcore sex to a story which is a messy mix of comedy and drama, "Lies" quickly becomes redundant ad nauseam. With an almost 2 hour run, subtitles, and so little substance, "Lies" is simply not recommendable. (C-)

Sentiment: negative
I watched this last night on TV (HBO). I have to admit, that the tension in this movie was unsurpassed by most other FN era movies. I loved the way Chip would be all calm one moment and then VIOLENT the very next moment. It was classic. Ahh yes. The dames, the villians, the cigars and thuggish cops! It has it all. This movie delivered all the goods to me. I especially loved the way they mixed communism into the plot, very common for this era of movie. Very daring also since blacklisting was popular in those days. I rate this movie one of the best I have seen in the FN genre!

Sentiment: positive
If you can make it through this flick without laughing out loud at the screen, you are a better filmgoer than I.

Count the logic lapses, common-sense leaps, and credibility stretches... betcha need more than two hands!

P.S.: If one more film uses a location that is clearly UCLA, and claims that it is a different university (in this movie's case: Berkeley), I'm going to lose it.

Sentiment: negative
Being the second last of Chaplin's Essanay films, CARMEN is a parody of Cecil B. Demille's drama with the same title. It stands as quite obvious that Demille's acknowledged film didn't impress the comedy king that much, which he later admitted in his autobiography.

Parodies were not a new experiment for Chaplin. He had done several of them already, namely HIS PREHISTORIC PAST and HIS NEW JOB, and would continue to do so until the very end of his career in films (for instance in A KING IN NEW YORK).

Chaplin does a very good portrayal of Don José, and Edna Purviance's is very as good as Carmen. Neither act as we are used to; Charlie is not the lovable Tramp and Edna is far from an innocent little woman, but that was not Chaplin's intentions, either. A BURLESQUE ON CARMEN is a somewhat odd Chaplin-film, very different, but includes good material nonetheless.

The main story is, although very differently structured, as in the original drama. Don José is very much in love with Carmen, but is not alone in that field; "Carmen, Carmen, (the) beautiful Carmen, (is) loved by all men under 96," but he has the big advantage that he is an officer, and there we are; this is the famous story about rivalry, love, greed and honor, seen from a humorous perspective. Thanks to Chaplin's and Purviance's performances, and to the wonderful, wonderful music by George Bizet which I highly admire, this could actually have been a near-comedy masterpiece, it's time taken into consideration. It could have been. But unfortunately, although it is a good pretty good comedy, I don't feel it's fair to blame people who claim that A BURLESQUE OF CARMEN is far from being a masterpiece. But it's important to keep in mind that this has nothing to do with any lack of talent, but rather a result of conflicts concerning business. When Chaplin refused to re-sign Essanay contract after completing his last film for the company, POLICE, they took revenge by editing back all the scenes Chaplin originally had edited out from CARMEN. Thanks to this, the film is somewhat confusing and has several pointless scenes which are more annoying than funny, and the film turned out to be rather a Ben Turpin-feature --Turpin played Remendados-- than a Chaplin-short. Naturally, Chaplin was in despair when he discovered what Essanay had done, and had to stay in bed for several days.

Despite its obvious flaws, A BURLESQUE OF CARMEN is highly recommended to Chaplin-fans and to admirers of beautiful music.

Sentiment: positive
I did have a good time the first 45 min. or so, but then suddenly it was all down hill. The suspense somewhat started to get thin and the jokes somewhat the same all over. What kept it going were the good actors.

But the problem with this film is that it is trying to be cleverly funny,like Tarantino and god is that outdated stuff. Tarantino being a bit overrated sometimes, this movie comes ten years too late. At best it is for teenagers, and I am sure many of them find the character of Johann funny, which he is for the first 30 min. The other problem I have with it is that the story fades away towards the end more and more, thou I tried to find a recovery point. Maybe it didn't recover because the lack of passion comes with the effort of trying to be cleverly funny. Also, like in many movies, sure, good actors who can afford it don't seem to demand a better dialogue, or just turn down the script.

Sentiment: negative
And the worst part is that it could have been good. But something horribly wrong. First thing first, they should not have cast Amitabh Bachchan in this film at all. He is too much of an Icon to tackle such a delicate and controversial topic let alone the role itself. 

Secondly, Ram Gopal Varma ought to be ashamed of himself for taking the classic story of Lolita and turning it into a pathetic predictable slut-fest. His Lolita is named Jia (played by newcomer Jiah Khan) and when we meet her, she is devoid of any inkling of stolen innocence or that delicate naivety that one would normally associate with the complicated tale of the original Lolita who in the original story, gradually becomes nymphet. Varma's Jia is already a whore with her eye on the prize even even before the camera meets her. And he exercises no chastity in the way his films his leading nymphet. From constant panning shots of her crotch to fixations on her vulgar gestures and mannerisms, Mr. Varma makes sure he has left not one person in the audience less than uncomfortable with his voyeuristic pedophile camera angles. 

Oh and let's not talk about the non-existent chemistry between Jia and her so-called friend Ritu (Bachchan's character's daughter). These girls are supposed to be best friends yet look like worst enemies even before anything goes wrong between them. Nothing they do together is believable until they become enemies. Maybe Mr. Varma should have worked on that aspect of his script rather than focusing on destroying any credibility Amitabh Bachchan might have had left as an actor. 

The worst part of the movie is perhaps the subservient portrayal of the character of Bachchan's character's wife. Her role was so underwritten and ridiculously wooden that it's impossible to actually feel any pity or concern for her. I actually felt like reaching into the screen slapping her for not reacting like any normal woman would. Instead she just stood there looking Irritated and Helpless, as I imagine much of the viewers of this film might feel after watching this train-wreck of a film. Watch at your own risk.

Sentiment: negative
Each guy Liv Tyler meets loses their head over her, not, of course, without some small encouragement from Liv. Liv is at her beautiful best, with Matt Dillon tops among the paramours. Interesting initial premise, to tell story from perspective of each dupe, degenerates into sitcom-style finale (not unlike Blame It On Rio, with which it has more than a few similarities). Worth watching nonetheless.

Sentiment: positive
When i first saw this show advertised to be on Australian TV back in the late 90's i ignored it thinking it was just capitalizing on the Kevin Costner movie 'Bodyguard'. But then i caught an episode and i wish i had watched it from the start. The partnership between Sean Pertwee and Louise Lombard was so well acted and the structure of each episode was extremely entertaining. It wasn't an overblown TV show that you can tell spent most of its energy in making things explode so that they could put that clip in the commercial to lure audiences and then not deliver on any other level. The show delved into the lives of the two main characters and thats what made it interesting. The stories for each episode where also well written with interesting guest stars who were good actors. And of course there was a lot of action and intrigue which is always good. But what was great was that there was humour, and it flowed naturally from the characters, it didn't appear contrived. It was British but in a good way, and if this show was made in America it would no doubt be on DVD by now. I don't know why British TV production companies are not interested in releasing this show on DVD. It was a great show and deserves a DVD release.

Sentiment: positive
Humour is a very individual thing and the audience at the sneak preview of The Wog Boy seemed to enjoy it more than I did. I found it an anachronistic affair, more representative of the old fashioned racial humour of the Australian cinema of the 1960s and 1970s. The boy meets girl plot never takes off because of a lack of chemistry between Lucy Bell and Nick Giannopoulos while I found laughs thin on the ground. If you want to spend your money on this, wait until it's on video.

Sentiment: negative
Very violent and nicely filmed movie. Paulina is a bad sexy girl who will show that men can be raped too. This movie has lots of black humor. This guy will kill anybody just to forget he used to be a gangster. There will be sometimes when you wouldn't know whether to shiver or to smile and think "Am I laughing at someone who is killing people?"

Sentiment: positive
I bought this movie for a couple of dollars at a "Clearance warehouse sale" one day when just looking around. The cover looked pretty good, (in colour), but the movie is B&W, (I wish they wouldn't try to trap us with coloured covers on B&W movies, but it's a common thing to look out for!).

When I watched it I was pleasantly surprised. It turned out to be better than I expected. I was disappointed that it was a B&W, but the effects are pretty good, certainly better than, say, "Invaders from Mars" which has crappy effects, and it is great to see John Banner in something else apart from Hogan's Heroes.

Overall, this movie isn't too bad for a B grade, and certainly worth the two dollars from a nostalgia point of view. It isn't my favourite sci-fi, but it's not my worst either. It's o.k.

Sentiment: negative
If it were possible to award a 10+ .... this would be the one film I would choose.

I remember catching this film on TV many, many years ago - and fortunately being prepared enough to video it. Now my video copy is getting old, video technology is outdated and I'm starting to worry that I may not be able to enjoy the delights of this movie for much longer.

As a wildlife film it is superb. As a film about the relationship between man and nature it surpasses anything screened before or since. How can the film industry allow such a classic to go unnoticed and forgotten? If such a thing as a lobby/pressure group exists to push for the re-release of this film, count me in and send me the details pronto.

My guess is there's a mint to be made by anyone able to re-release this in today's market.

Sentiment: positive
Nelson is a medical professor who wants his four students to put him to death and then bring him back to life so that he can prove that there is an afterlife. So they do and soon enough all of the medical students want to know if there is life after death. The afterlife isn't about pearly gates and lights at the end of the tunnel but something more sinister.

Past ghosts come back to haunt them and surely this movie will haunt anyone. It has some pretty scary moments that could translate into real life and it makes people wonder somewhat about what happens when you die. It's a good movie to see when it's raining and you're feeling down. It's also a little weird.

See it with a haunted past.

Sentiment: positive
Nana Patekar once again proves that he is the best actor working in Bombay without a doubt. His recent movies involved shouting his lines that does not bode well for the theater trained thespian. One wonders why he is always not given his accolades during awards season.

"Shakti-The Power" was one of his flicks that was an utter disapointment along with Kohram (a missed oppurtunity to create screen magic with Amitabh Bachchan).

But Patekar exudes a cool calm in this film playing a cop on a sort of social justice journey. Ridding the streets of Bombay of underworld dons in fake encounters, Patekars character takes control of the screen (and the viewers attention) and never lets go. The editing is tightly paced and there are no annoying songs to distract from the story.

Along the same lines as the modern day cult classic "Company", the movie is well acted, directed and should have a long shelf life on DVD.

The final ten minutes that see Nana and the main villain talk at his offshore haven are bound to be part of Hindi cinema classics. Won't be dissapointed with this cops and robbers flick.

Sentiment: positive
*may contain a spoiler of sorts?* The mere mention of Crispin Glover is enough to send some geek's panties in a bunch. His landmark appearance in Back to the Future as George McFly has sealed him into the American conscience forever. More recently, he has been trying to get back into the culty subconscious with Bartleby and Willard.

This time, however, Crispin has made a 76-minute, cheap dada film. At times it reminded me of genius, while overall it almost insulted me, but not because of its content. Content? What Is It? is a movie where, in one half of the movie, all of the actors have Down's Syndrome, giving it a freakshow feel to it. The other half of the movie includes Crispin Glover, Adam Parfrey, and a guy with cerebral palsy. This all had the feel of what John Waters was attempting to do with Desperate Living, and simultaneously feeling more successful and failing miserably.

The half with the Down's Syndrome actors also features many many killed snails. It is about a guy who has snails, and ends up killing one. He is also tormented by a bunch of other people, and a grasshopper. He falls in love with 2 girls, one of which he has sex with in a graveyard. He also has a falling out with a friend who teases him.

In a weird semi-interior set, Crispin Glover is the director of this show. He is something like the control of the guy's mind, and the cerebral palsy guy is something like the sexuality. Well, he at least gets masturbated in explicit scenes. There is other "shocking" imagery made humorous, like Nazi Swaztikas crossed with Shirley Temple, and minstrels in black face saying they're Michael Jackson.

In the outside world, the tormentor is still dealing with his love of killing snails and being beaten by the other people. They beat him with rocks, and such. Later, they beat the minstrel after putting him on trial.

Back to the interior, Crispin Glover is still the ruler of his set, and tries to control everybody, but fails miserably.

What Is It? makes less sense than Dr. Caligari, and has more than a passing style stolen from it. The claustrophobic mental space feels very much like the way the no-wall sets of Dr. Caligari felt claustrophobic. They also had some dialogue that was absolute nonsense. And, it was all wrapped up with absurdist imagery for humor.

The problem is, about 20 minutes into the movie...maybe a little more...What Is It? runs out of imagery. For the next 56 minutes, we keep running on the same sets of images, only introducing new imagery in the form of an absurdist puppet show. The movie seems little more than a movie which attempts to push the envelope in offensive and taboo imagery. It tries to mock and confuse the audience. But, the issue is that it only has enough different imagery for a 40 minute movie.

Even worse than that, the cinematography, set design, and everything else felt very very cheap and almost unplanned. It felt like "OK, this is the way we can do it and get it out of the way." It didn't feel interesting, and was quite...boring. Dr. Caligari, on the other hand, had amazing cinematography and framing. The difference between the two is quite astounding.

rating: C

Sentiment: negative
This is one of my all-time favorites. Great music and some funny bits. I laugh every time at Millie, the maid pretending to be a débutante, holding her dainty hankie while chatting, and mindlessly polishing furniture with it as she chats. I just never can get past her French accent never being a problem as they try to pass her off as the boss's daughter.

Seeing a teenage Mel Torme and the very young Frank Sinatra singing is such a treat. My mom saw Frank Sinatra at a theater about the same time this movie came out. She said they couldn't clear the "bobby-soxers" out between movies (in those days you didn't have to leave between showings). This movie shows you how attractive and appealing the young Frank was and allows you to appreciate his early talent as well. And Victor Borge gets in a bit of his routine in, which is a bonus. 

This is a fun movie with a sweet, simple storyline. Very enjoyable.

Sentiment: positive
Running only seventy-two minutes, this small, overlooked 2006 dramedy is really just a two-character sketch piece but one that works very well within its limitations. Taking place almost entirely in various, non-descript spots in southern Los Angeles, the story itself is inconsequential, but like Sofia Coppola's "Lost in Translation", the film is far more about two strangers who meet unexpectedly, find a common bond and go back to their lives enlightened for the momentous encounter. It also helps considerably that Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega are playing the characters. Finally freed of the wise sages and authority figures beyond reproach that have become his big-screen specialty, Freeman seems comparatively liberated as a somewhat self-indulgent movie star. His character is driven to a low-rent grocery store in Carson, where he will be able to research a role he is considering in an indie film.

Out of work for a few years, he is embarrassed when he sees DVDs of his films in the bargain bin, but his ego is such that he does not lack the temerity to watch and even mimic the enervated store staff. Of particular fascination to him is Scarlet, an embittered worker from Spain and relegated to the express line where she is the unsung model of efficiency. She has an interview for a secretarial job at a construction company, but her deep-seeded insecurity seems to defeat her chances already. Still looking like Penelope Cruz's Amazonian sister, the beautiful Vega (one of the few redeemable aspects of James L. Brooks' execrable "Spanglish") brings a stinging edge and realistic vulnerability to Scarlet. She and Freeman interplay very well throughout the story, which includes stops not only at the grocery store but also at Target, Arby's and a full-service carwash. Nothing earth-shattering happens except to show how two people realize the resonating transience of chance encounters.

Silberling keeps the proceedings simple, but the production also reflects expert craftsmanship in Phedon Papamichael's vibrant cinematography (he lensed Alexander Payne's "Sideways") and the infectious score by Brazilian composer Antonio Pinto ("City of God"). There are fast cameos by Bobby Cannavale (as Scarlet's soon-to-be-ex-husband) and as themselves, Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman, as well as a funny bits with Jonah Hill ("Knocked Up") as the clueless driver and Jim Parsons (the "knight" in "Garden State") as a worshipful receptionist. The 2007 DVD is overstuffed with extras, including a making-of documentary, "15 Days or Less", aimed at film students and running a marathon 103 minutes; six extended scenes; a light-hearted but insightful three-way conversation between Silberling, Freeman and Vega in the middle of Target; and a couple of snippets that specifically advertise the DVD.

Sentiment: positive
Moonwalker is such a great movie, from start to finish you cant take your eyes away. i love all the clips of Michael singing and dancing and I just love the 'studio tour' bit...soo funny :) And the 'mini movie' is to cool, with all the special FX etc...Michael is a genius and always will be!!!

Sentiment: positive
Just like Al Gore shook us up with his painfully honest and cleverly presented documentary-movie "An inconvenient truth", directors Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield also remind us that it's about time to improve our way of life in order to save our beautiful planet. "Planet earth" is also a wake-up call that the global warming of our planet has disastrous consequences for all living creatures around the world. Al Gore showed us the bleak future of planet Earth by presenting hard facts backed up by documented examples through long yet always interesting monologues. The creators of this documentary choose a different yet equally powerful way to accomplish this. They do not present us with a future representation of what might occur to our planet if we don't radically change things around, but they rather show us the genuine beauty of planet Earth in all of its amazing glory. We see places that we knew that existed but never thought they could be so beautiful. In this movie, we see a wide array of the most extraordinary places such as forsaken deserts, giant forests full of fauna and flora and icy-landscapes as far as the eye could see. And in all of those immensely different environments, we see the most beautiful animals trying to survive.

This is exactly the kind of movie that had to be made, in combination with the one from Al Gore, in order to make us realize that our planet is too precious to meddle with. The voice-over by Patrick Stewart is always relaxing and thus very well done although at first it sounded as though I was watching an X-men movie instead! The cinematography is probably the most remarkable thing of this documentary. At times: what you see is so unreal that you tend to forget that a man with a camera actually had to film all of that delightful footage.

In short: This is definitely a must-see for everyone since it concerns every single person on this beautiful planet Earth! The truth is: I never thought our planet was so astonishingly beautiful!

Sentiment: positive
This is not Bela Lagosi's best movie, but it's got a good old style approach for some 40's horror entertainment.

Brides are dropping dead at the altar like flies. I think I'd postpone the wedding until after the fiend is caught, but it's a horror movie, so I guess people ignore the danger for some reason. Anyway, Lagosi is a mad doctor, who needs young female blood to keep his aging, sickly wife healthy and happy. He always eludes the Keystone Cops by hiding the bodies in a hearse (who would think of looking for a corpse in a hearse?), and the brides just keep on getting zapped.

No movie like this would be complete without a Lois Lane type female reporter who wants to catch the criminal on her own. Good at solving crime, bad at keeping her mouth shut at all the wrong times, guess who Lagosi picks for his next intended victim. I love the "haunted house" bit where Lois Lane gets stranded by a thunderstorm as a guest at Lagosi's sinister mansion. Hidden passageways, a vampire-like wife, an evil dwarf Igor assistant, and so on. Good stuff.

Fairly well done pacing keeps the film moving, and the story resolves itself in a typical but satisfying manner. If you like old horror movies, this one is worth a watch.

Sentiment: positive
Even when I saw this movie at a teenager, I wondered just how ironic it was that Pia Zadora starred in a movie about an artist who slept her way to the top. As beautiful and sexy as Ms. Zadora is, even she couldn't keep this sorry-ass excuse of a movie from tanking. Not even her photoshoot for Penthouse, in which "The Lonely Lady" was promoted "back in the day," could keep this movie from tanking. The only thing that could have saved this movie? A completely different script. Give this one a miss.

Sentiment: negative
There is certainly emotion between the two main characters as they explore their relationship--one based primarily on physical attraction from the beginning. And there is also emotion in the inner-workings of Mathieu's family dealing w/ his mother's problems--and how that comes to bear on their relationship. But the problem is it leaves a lot of things unanswered (unless I'm just too dumb to pick up on them). Why is Mathieu in a mental hospital? What led to the boys' break-up? And the flashing back between present and past is a little hard to follow at first. It seems like the main reason to rent this movie is to enjoy some homoerotic vicarious thrills, or some male nudity. But as a love story or character study it is lacking and unsatisfying.

Sentiment: positive
Trash/bad movies usually ain't bad because I will find them enjoyable. This one is so bad that I am out of words to describe it - its below "bad". There is an instruction in the beginning of the film that tell you what to do during the movie. Needless to say, the instruction and a dozen of beer couldn't help me seat through the entire film. One tagliner compares this one to KILLBILL which is certainly unthinkable and an insult to our intelligent. Obviously. this tagliner had a plan to tempt you into buying this DVD.

If you are considering renting this one, put it down! If you are thinking of buying, Dont think! If you unlucky to have this dvd, dont play it, throw it in trash bin immediately.

Sentiment: negative
Oliver Stone, always ready to make politically-themed movies, makes another one here. "Talk Radio" is loosely based on the career of Alan Berg, a radio talk show host in Denver who was murdered by white supremacists. In this case, the character is Barry Champlain (Eric Bogosian), an outspoken talk show host in Dallas who loves nothing more than to irk the people who call in. As it is, most of the people who call in are a bunch of pigheaded racists. And things may be heating up more than anyone realizes.

Bogosian's performance brings a light comical tone to an otherwise serious movie. I really liked the scene where he jabs at a redneck who calls in. Granted, I wouldn't call this Oliver Stone's greatest movie ever, but it's a good reference in an era when media gets more and more concentrated. Good performances by Ellen Greene and Alec Baldwin also help.

Sentiment: positive
I remember seeing this one in the theatres when it came out, having no idea what it was going to be about and being so pleasantly surprised that I vowed to buy the video when it came out. 

While I won't go too far into dissecting this film, I will say that I gave it an 8/10, for all the reasons you can read in the other user's reviews.

What I will say is this: 

The first 10 minutes of this film are incredible. It's as close to a textbook audience grabber as I've ever seen. I once put this movie on at a party, where everyone was winding down and getting ready to leave. I just wanted to see what would happen if I showed them the first ten minutes.

Everyone, who watched the opening, stayed to the end.

Sentiment: positive