DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
this movie only gets a second star because i work downtown and liked seeing it destroyed. the effects were pretty good- i hear it was the most expensive Korean film ever made. being the most expensive and still absolutely horrid makes it a massive waste of money. i rented it so i won't complain too much about what i paid, but it was a couple hours that i'll never get back. plot holes abound. terrible acting all across the board. i do not recommend giving up the time to watch this movie, life is too short. if your friends want to watch this, run away. i can't stress enough how bad this film was. 

where the hell did the second dragon come from? why didn't he show up sooner? how did they have rocket launchers on dinosaurs just 500 years ago?

Sentiment: negative
I really wanted to like this movie, but the pacing was just way too slow.

It was a nice story, but it was really like watching a slug race.

The movie would have been better served, if it had some more action. I don't mean anything grand, but at least something in the background.

It could have also been helped by songs that set the tone/mood of the more lengthy periods that were absent of dialogue.

It's been about 10 years since I've seen it, so I may have to give it another chance.

3/10 or *1/2(out of four)

Sentiment: negative
The beginning of the movie was confusing and the rest of it was predictable. It was just one of those movies that I came across in my netflix instant queue and I thought it would be interesting to see Brad Renfro and Bijou Phillips team up together again since Bully. Unfortunately "interesting" never happened in this movie. Swain plays an invisible girl at a private school whose best friend is rich and does anything she wants at any time (Phillips). But Swain likes one of the boys (Renfro) from the "in crowd" and eventually starts hanging with them. And, of course, like all other movies things are good (or so you assume since the movie never hints on that things are good) and then things become not so good by hanging with the rich kids.

The problem with the movie is that there are absolutely no peaks and valleys. It is just a dead lifeless movie that after you've watched it, you feel you could have done anything better. Some scenes (the ones with Renfro's parents) don't even make sense as to being in the movie because the director and writer didn't follow up on it, at all.

All the interesting things that COULD have played out was just completely ignore and this is almost like watching a before they were stars episode (Mischa Barton and Rachel Bison from the OC). 

The only shining light in this movie, and the reason it doesn't get a ONE rating from me is Phillips. They needed more scenes with her in it. Renfro just look like he brought over a bit of his character from Bully. And, for pete's sake, the Title is BS, change the name.

Sentiment: negative
With Oliver Hardy bedeviled by the sound of horns, bells, phones and trombones, his doctor Finlayson advises peace and quiet and a diet of goat milk. Partner Stan Laurel comes up with a great solution, living on a docked boat so the salt sea air can help Ollie get all the rest he needs. It's a great premise for all the mad cap hijinks to ensue, as the boat is set adrift by the hungry goat, and an escaped convict (Richard Cramer) stows along for the ride.

I got a kick out of all the gags in the film, starting with that sign in the horn testing factory - 'Silence While Men Are Working'. The early story at the boys' apartment features a number of mixed up plumbing and appliance mishaps, with Stan doing a banana within a banana bit. Laurel has a couple of great lines in the picture, like "We must have been dis-unconnected", but the one that had me rolling was his response to the criminal on board ship - "Self preservation is the last law of averages" - precisely!

I'm not as great a student of Laurel and Hardy's films as many on this board, all I know is I enjoyed them as a kid and find them to be as entertaining today as they were back in my youth. On that count, "Saps At Sea" provides a decent hour of hornophobic fun, well on it's way to hornomania.

Sentiment: positive
SPOILERS. Strange people with generous tastes have been reviewing this film. Allow me to add balance by pointing out the following:

Script: Dreadful. As Tom and Dan are "getting to know each other," bantering about films, the talk is clearly that of one person, and I suspect it was the director, who carefully worked his words to sound intelligent. At one point, Dan asks, "Have you heard of the HIV virus?" and it sounds about as natural as asking, "Have you communicated with the nine alien races?"

Acting: White teeth do and a chiseled face do not a sensitive performer make. Speedman did well enough with what he was given, I suppose, but Marsden was terrible -- unsympathetic, unbelievable, and downright smug and smarmy throughout his captivity. There is an emptiness to his performances (also see Interstate 60).

Plot: Spare me! The moments of half-escape were not thrilling but irritating and weak. Recall Marsden pretending to try keys in the door and then throwing them down: "They don't work, man!" Tee-hee. And beware the semi black-and-white flashbacks, which are initiated with some schlocky sound taken from CSI and other crime dramas. 

Most important of all, most dangerous, evil, and offensive, is the homophobia (external or internal, you decide) in a film in which HIV is considered a weapon. Tom says that Dan may have taken off the condom or not used it at all -- excuse me, where was Tom while they were having sex? There is some villainizing of the inserting partner which comes off as a villainizing of the gay man in general.

In sum: Beware!

Sentiment: negative
I wasn't expecting much because of the harsh reviews, and proceeded to enjoy the movie a great deal as a result. Softer colors and less stunning compositions of the shots than some of his previous films, in my opinion, allowed the narrative to take the focus. Though the religious conflict in a vampire flick was commonplace, I felt like many of the other things were not. For example:

how his powers were often revealed through interaction with her.

the very strong and well acted love scenes.

the symbolism of the man they killed to get closer to each other actually separating them even more.

Their strong differences of what it means to be 'vampire' created by their prior life experiences.

the lack of scores of other vampires appearing or being created through the movie.

I've heard and read several things about 'tricks used in other films'. Of course. However, i feel that tricks are used to emphasize what is happening in the scene and I feel that he does this well. I don't need a director to use new tricks. I prefer that the tricks that are used are used well and appropriately, which i feel is the case with this film. 

I recommend it.

Sentiment: positive
Susie Q is an original and isn't like those other bad Disney film, ***spoiler*** a boy named Zach moves to a new town and has trouble at school, he is good basketball. a girl in the 1950's died with her boyfriend, when their car was crashed off a bridge. Susie (Amy Jo Johnson) from the power rangers - pink ranger- is helping Zach as a ghost to get a necklace along the way he must explain to his sister about her ghost, and finally getting this necklace, Susie returns to the bridge she died on and then she gets in the ghostly car of her boyfriend and they float up. later as he misses her he finds a girl who looks just like her. (do you believe in reincarnation?)Susie Q is a good movie to see now and then but they barely give because Disney needs to fill everything up with stupid movies and shows i give it a

7/10

Sentiment: positive
Just to save you the $3, or whatever it costs to rent movies at your local video store, and the anguishing hour-and-however-long-this-movie-is here's a simple plan. Go over to a friend's house, talk them into renting The Pest for you, watch the first 30 seconds or so and then make up some excuse to leave. The opening sequence is really funny, definitely worth watching. Unfortunately, the other 99% of the movie is horrible. Without the shower scene at the beginning this is one of the worst movies of all time.

Sentiment: negative
I've enjoyed this movie ever since I first saw it in the theatre. Some movies have a cast of characters and a script that come together in perfect synergy, and this is one of them. The characters illustrate some truths about getting the best out of people, working together harmoniously, building a team and achieving goals, without ever preaching morality. The situations are crafted well and are consistent with the movie's opening premise. The tension builds nicely and the humor is clean and consistent throughout. The movie manages to pull me right in to root for the characters, and to laugh pretty well all the way through. This is a feel good movie as good as they come.

What amazes me is that a movie which appears so simple can be so long term entertaining. The music is a perfect copy of music in the typical serious post war navy movies, which helps to create the humor and point out that greatness is in the eye of the beholder. The scenes in the credits are a great music video of "In the Navy", which deserve their own full screen special feature. The scenes and cuts are crafted well, and the casting and acting is right on.

This movie is a classic as great as any ever made, without any pretensions. In fact, the lack of pretension is what makes it so much fun to watch. I love these guys and gal.

The other day I thought of the film, and wondered whether it was available on DVD. Good fortune has come to us, and the DVD came out in May 2004. I headed to the store, and snapped up a copy. Then my wife and I enjoyed another hilarious night in front of the big screen. I've rated this movie as a 10 because it comes together on all levels, far better than many high budget films and Oscar winners. This is entertainment.

Listen up Fox home video: you have a great movie in your vaults, and it's a shame to find a cheap shot DVD with badly degraded off tint colors only 8 years since release. So why not restore the colors and present the film as it was meant to be seen? I'd gladly pay a few bucks more to get the picture right. I'm grateful to have my own copy. Now give us the eye candy that the film deserves, and how about recreating the credit sequence as a full screen music video special feature.

Sentiment: positive
First off, I'm not a firefighter, but I'm in some kind of para-firefighting unit (the guys who get called if an earthquake hits and the real firefighters need more people for SAR), so I had some training and simulation but I have no real-life experience.

But still, there are some points one notices as totally unbelievable. I can understand that they removed the mouth/nose-pieces of the masks and that there is not enough smoke, because the public would otherwise see nothing. But some things defy logic: 

- No second mask attached to the oxygen. How the hell do you want to rescue people trough the smoke without one? 

- Rappelling people. No, it's not done like that. I'd be screaming too if somebody hitched a rope around me in that fashion and hung me from a building. If I could scream, that is, and not pass out from want of air because the rope squeezes my lungs. The second time when they're abseiling Jack it's better but still weird.

- "Aim high". No, you bloody don't. You always fight fire from as low as possible. You don't fight want to sprinkle flames, you'll want to extinguish the fire, and that's below the flames.

- No discipline. They're running around like chicken. And they shout all the time, instead of using radio, and keeping discipline.

- No tactics. Why don't they work in teams of at least two? You still can get separated, but it takes much more than if everyone just scurries around alone in search for victims.

- Do they really enter buildings without bringing water? I Europe, firefighters would never enter a burning building without.

- Firefighters on the roof. WTF do they think they're doing there without security lines or water? - Exploding rooms. Wood and brick does not "explode suddenly".

The better points are actually camaraderie and the other non-firefighting parts of the movie. It's a lot of kitsch, but that's alright. I'll give it a point for this.

Sentiment: negative
This film was a disaster from start to finish. Interspersed with performances from "the next generation of beautiful losers" are interviews with Bono and The Edge as well as the performers themselves. This leaves little time for the clips of Leonard Cohen himself, who towers over everyone else in the film with his commanding yet gentle presence, wisdom and humor. The rest are too busy trying to canonize him as St. Leonard or as some Old Testament prophet. Many of the performances are forgettable over-interpretations (especially Rufus & Martha Wainright's) or bland under-achievements. Only Beth Orton and Anthony got within striking distance of Leonard's own versions by using a little restraint. Annoying little pseudo-avant-garde gestures are sprinkled throughout the film- like out of focus superimpositions of red spheres over many of the concert and interview shots, shaky blurred camera work, use of digital delay on some of Leonard Cohen's comments (making it harder to hear what's being said) and a spooky, pretentious low drone under a lot of the interview segments (an attempt at added gravitas?). For the real thing, see the Songs From The Life Of documentary produced by the BBC in 1988.

Sentiment: negative
Poorly directed short "film" (shot on hi-def or betacam it appears). It screams student film/video all the way. The premise is limited in scope and the short actually feels a lot longer than it runs. Some interesting acting moments and some decent production value, but not enough to lift this film from "the hole" it has fallen into.

Sentiment: negative
This film powerfully demonstrates the struggle of two women in love in a culture so deeply entrenched in ritual and tradition. All this against a backdrop of an India which itself is struggling for freedom from these same values. This film is both political and personal and never too preachy or idealistic on either front. It is easy to see why "Fire" has caused riots in India, but tragic nonetheless. A true film such as this one deserves to be seen by all people of the world, not just privileged westerners.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is surprisingly good. The ninja fighting sequences were unbelievable. I haven't see all Sho Kosugi's films but this is probably the best of those I've seen. Probably the most impressive fighting sequence was at the beginning when ninja killed about 20 people, that was one of the most impressive ninja fighting sequences I've ever seen. Another good fighting sequence was at a cops funeral where the ninja provide more people to bury. The last fight was also very impressive. Also I kinda liked the soundtrack of this movie. The story was good enough for a ninja-movie, actually it was kinda different from other ninja-movies. So if you are a fan of ninja-movies, you'll probably like this one.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is awful. If you're considering to see this movie... two words DO NOT. It's tasteless, the storyline is really lame, and the jokes are even worse. The acting is really pathetic. I can't believe that this movie was made. Rather watch American Pie, Going Greek or Road Trip if you're in the mood for a teen comedy. It's about two girls who head for Malibu on their Spring Break. As usual they didn't do much planning and called (i think her names Michelle)'s uncle to crash at his Malibu mansion. Uncle Bennie strictly forbids them of having any kind of party, and as you would of guessed, they go ahead and do it. Please, I urge you, do not see this movie.

Sentiment: negative
The name (Frau) of the main character is the German word for "Woman". I don't know if that was intentional or not, but if sure got some giggles from the German audience at the Fantasy Film Festival last year, when it was shown.

But those were the only giggles the movie got. Not that it was aiming for giggles, it's a horrible movie for heaven's sake! A horrible movie in more than one meaning. It's a shame that a premise like that was wasted with horrible even unbearable moments for the viewer (definetely not for the faint of Heart!!)! And it wasn't even necessary to show all the things that are shown. I'm not even going into a moral obligation (because movies don't really have that kind of task or function) discussion of what is shown here, but this is a new low on the whole "torture movement" that has grown in the last few years!

Sentiment: negative
Art-house horror tries to use unconventional aesthetics to cover the fact that this is just another serial killer chiller which ultimately relies on pornographic combinations of teen sexuality and violent gore. The suburbs come across about as well as they do in every piece of Australian writing (book or film) since 1960 - surprise surprise, the suburbs have a dark underbelly - and the plot is as contrived as any you've seen. "The neighbours would never know about this guy," one of the filmmakers says about Joel Edgerton's character. "But he was completely plausible as to what he was. Serial killers don't all have patches over their eyes and scars down their cheeks. They look like the guy next door." Another trader in pornographic violence who sees a serial killer in every street. But the real insignificance of this film is in the fact that it's a genre film that nobody saw. Backed by substantial funds (including some from Film Finance - that's government), this got a run at the Underground Film Festival in Melbourne and had to rely on ACMI kindness for a *very* short release season. Q1: What is the FFC doing funding genre flicks, even if they are 'arty' and aesthetically unconventional? Q2: Why are these nasty movies (ACOLYTES; BEAUTIFUL; PUNISHMENT; NO THROUGH ROAD) being made in the first place? Richard Wolstencroft & co encourage their creators to believe they're giving the masses what they really want, as opposed to what the culture elite in government funding think they want. The truth is that these brutal and forgettable nasties earn far more critical acclaim - and win far more obscure awards - than they're due.

Sentiment: negative
I have barely managed to view the entire film... Only after about 85min out of the movie's 110min did the journey to Mars begin, and then there were 5min left for the closure. These 85 long minutes were VERY boring and didn't contribute anything to the film. When finally reaching Mars, it wasn't much better plot wise. It all could have been fitted into much shorter running time and nothing would have been missed.

What I cannot understand is the piece of trivia saying the because of the film new-born Babies were named "Aelita"... Why would someone want to name his/her baby after a villain, who despite having only one eyebrow, apparently has 3 breasts???

The only interesting thing here is the sets and costumes for the Mars scenes. They are an interesting experiment in Constructivism, just as "The cabinet of Dr. Caligari" was for Expressionism, five years earlier.

I give it 4/10 for the great looking design...

Sentiment: negative
Originally aired as an ABC Movie of the Week. This involves two young innocent female college students who are railroaded into a prison camp in a little Southern town. They aren't allowed phone calls and nobody knows they're there. What follows is rape, torture, beatings, humiliation and degradation leading to a very disturbing conclusion.

The TV version was (for its time) grim. No nudity and the beatings were pretty tame but the overall feeling of sleaziness wore one down. The unrated version is even worse--there's plentiful nudity, the violence is extreme and, in one particularly disgusting sequence, we see a crying female prisoner forced to strip while a lesbian guard "uses" her. YUCK! There's nothing wrong with exploitation films but this one just goes over the brink. You get the feeling that the filmmakers enjoy having these poor women being tortured and degraded--all this is shoved in your face like you're supposed to enjoy it. The needlessly downbeat ending doesn't help.

I'm giving it a 3 because the acting is good--but that actually makes the movie harder to watch. A sick, sleazy film. Not recommended.

Sentiment: negative
After an initial release of 4 very good Eurotrash titles, REDEMPTION has managed to scrape the bottom of the barrel with THE BLOODSUCKER LEADS THE DANCE. I found NO Bloodsuckers anywhere in this movie.

The story is simple. A mysterious count invites several actresses to his castle for a little vacation. After some sofcore sexual shenanigans the girls get decapitated one by one. Who is the killer? Who knows? There are more red herrings in this one than at the local fish market on Friday.

The pace is excruciating. The story is silly and the skin scenes aren't all that terrific either.

Give this one a miss.

Sentiment: negative
Your time and brains will be much better spent reading or listening to Charlie Wilson's War. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, plays the most enjoyable character in the movie, Gust, the Greek, and he plays him as a eunuch. Gust, in the book, is hard core and completely free to speak his mind. In the movie, he's not even shown as being equally important to Charlie. And poor Charlie is never shown donating blood (which he did every time he visited the camps in Pakistan). In short, the movie is too bland, and the history is too old for our modern time. We don't really care about the end of the cold war and the defeat of the Soviet Union (which happened in spite of Reagan, not as a result of) by a well financed group of people who were extremely willing to fight. Not quite the lesson we need to be hearing and seeing considering how well the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going. (As I read the book, I kept getting that deja vu feeling, except it was present day).

Sentiment: negative
I saw this one remastered on DVD. It had a big picture of Sandra on it and said "Starring Sandra...." and made it seem like she had a big part in it. Not so. She's barely in it. She does what she can with the script, but that's not much. 

The sound was awful. By that I mean things didn't go together. Shots would be fired and the number of shots didn't correspond to the sound. People talking in a car while it's moving and the shot is from outside the windshield but there's no motor noise, road noise, or any other sound. Kind of weird.

Score was awful. It sounded like the same few notes over and over. Dialog really awful. 

Acting was awful, I couldn't believe any of it. Fight scenes were like a Batman comic without the "BIFF", and "BAM". They were really lame. The shooting scenes, I mean with firearms, were laughable, literally. I fast-forwarded through a lot of this movie. Even then, it was too long.

Sentiment: negative
I saw the latter half of this movie about a year ago and was very happy to finally find it available on DVD. Recently, I watched several of the reality series on PBS about ranching, etc. None of them came as close to telling the story as this movie does. Based on REAL reality, pulling no punches, bleak, happy, tragic and enlightening, this is a movie that should be shown to students or to anyone interested in early frontier life. Fine acting on the part of both Rip Torn and Conchata Ferrell add to an well done script. The opening credit states that it was done though funds supplied through the National Endowment for the Humanities. If this is the kind of product taxes could go to I would be happy to see more. I highly recommend it and would encourage people to tell a friend if you have seen it and enjoyed the film.

Sentiment: positive
In this extremely low-budget ( I've seen home movies made with better production value) Australian utter rip-off of "the Burning" & "Friday the 13th", a band is planning to make a music video while on a houseboat. They're stalked by a serial killer who was burned years before. This movie is even proclaimed to be 'the worst Australian film ever made' in it's DVD promotional material. That's it's only selling point! Complete and utter rubbish in every considerable way. Perhaps a few chuckles here and there for bad movie lovers, but it still made me want to burn out my retinas.

Eye Candy: a quick flash of barely existent itty bitty titties in a lame shower scene

My Grade: F

Sentiment: negative
Eros and Thanatos, Love and Death command the dialectics of Life. By the end of 19th century in a remote Japanese village a young man and a married woman, older than he, fall in love with each other and decide to kill her husband to be free to enjoy their love. But they never enjoy that freedom since Remorse begins to haunt them beginning as usual at the time by the weakest member of the couple, the woman of course. Henceforth in an atmosphere where dream (nightmare) mixes up with reality the ghost of the murdered husband appears first to the woman but then also to the man. It also haunts the dreams of the other villagers creating a climate of suspicion and gossip around the couple which is aggravated by the arrival of a police officer that comes to investigate the disappearance of the murdered husband. But which makes this movie more interesting besides this almost common story of adultery is the evolution of the couple's feelings in a Shakespearean deep psychological and dramatic development of remorse, anguish and fear which turns their love relationship into a nightmare until their final doom. The expressionism so dear to Japanese theatre or movie acting is also present in the players' performances but not in an exaggerated form. Just only in the necessary measure to show more effectively the most deep feelings of the depicted characters. This is indeed a solid good movie.

Sentiment: positive
I actually didn't mind the Geico commercials the first 50 of so times I saw them and even found them to be a bit wry and amusing, BUT SERIOUSLY! This is the BEST thing that these people could come up with?!? This show sucks! It is bland and feels like watching an episode of "The Office" with the characters disguised as cavemen (I know a lot of you will hate me for saying that but "The Office" just does not do it for me). Okay, I get it: we have the poor slob just trying to keep his nose clean and he has a crappy boss who hates him; the pseudo-intellectual who really just has a barely-functioning intellect; and the dopey one who just wants to be accepted, but SO WHAT!!! I have worked with these people and found them just as annoying in real life as I do on TV...why would I want to waste another 1/336th of my week watching more of those type nominates?!? Please call your parents and ask them if they dropped you on your head if after thinking about it, you still delude yourself into believing that this is entertainment.

Sentiment: negative
Absolutely stunning, warmth for the head and the heart. The kind of movie western movie makers are too rushed, too frenetic to even attempt. My kids watched it, and they loved it too. What real people--goes to show you how cultural differences (the Japanese setting) is less important than the human similarities. Go see it, whether you like dancing or not.

Sentiment: positive
I was amazed at the quality of this film, particularly after seeing pictures of the barely adult director - all 140(?) lbs of him! Truly, a boy directing a movie about a boy. I look forward to seeing more Luke Eberl films.

I did think this one was a bit too long. There was too much time spent showing Connor being unsuccessful (and unwilling) to make a move on Owen. Caleb didn't try hard enough. Owen, being so young, could have easily become closer to Caleb and later decided it wasn't his preference. And Owen would still have learned the "valuable lesson" about corruption and politics. Instead, he didn't give himself a fair chance to learn about his sexuality. And what about poor Caleb? Owen could have been a good influence.

Though the film intends to show Owen as a hero who overcomes perverted corruption, I felt sad for Owen. He was offered the opportunity to have some boy-boy fun with Caleb, who was extraordinarily beautiful. Owen didn't have to go along with the political perversion as offered. But he could have tried to have some fun with Caleb, and still walked away when he wanted. It was clear that Owen was in charge - no one forced him to do anything he didn't want to do. But he could have had more fun, and with a very hot boyfriend, at that.

I hope Luke makes more movies where appealing young characters have more fun.

Sentiment: positive
I have to be honest, i was expecting a failure so bad, because it really did sound like they were trying to milk the original movie to get money. But that wasn't the case with this pretty funny (sometimes odd) movie. I loved how they told the story of Timon and Pumba, the story with Simba and him having trouble sleeping was funny. The jacuzzi bubble, and when Pumba leaves, the bubbles stop. It's all harmless fun, good for kids and some adults. I think this movie will last for a while because it is rather good for a straight to Video and DVD movie. While the movie does seem a little odd and kind of trails off toward the end, it works. 8 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
There are many distinct problems with the movie "KillShot". For one, there are way too many coincidences. The husband is a hunter and just happens to be hunting on the day that the main killer shows up, with someone the killer knows. Okay I will take that one. The kid calls the real estate agency that the wife works for and asks for money to be ready when he comes to get it. Okay, I will take that one as well. Before he goes to get the cash he decided to rob our killer, who doesn't kill him but decided to go with him on the job. It's starting to get real weak. Then they show up, on the same day that the husband has an interview with his wives boss. No one is there but the wife and the husband who has decided to make his way into the empty office. They make their way into the office and the professional killer just assumes that they are talking to the right guy. That is just in the first 15 minuets.

There are a lot more holes in this movie then I care to talk about. Why the killer didn't just kill everyone at the real estate agency I don't know. Why he didn't shoot the woman on her porch, I don't know. Why he kept letting that dumb kid make all those stupid moves and mess a whole lot of crap up, I don't know. Why the girlfriend was even in the movie, I don't know. Why he decided not to pocket the gun and just leave it out on the counter, I don't know. Why they even went into the witness protection program, I don't know. What I do know is that the Casting Director did a great job, the Director of Photography did very good work, the Location Scout picked great locations, and the Production Designer was worth every penny. So my advice for anyone that is going to pick a script that is going to be so well worked by the crew, make sure that every attempt to kill someone by the hit man is not foiled by a peak through an open window.

Sentiment: negative
My mom always told me to sit down and to actually watch this movie because it's one of her favorites, I never did for years until I caught one night on TV. This movie was great, I don't even know how to explain it. Not only is the cast excellent (Julia Roberts, Keifer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, William Baldwin, and Oliver Platt) but the story is awesome. It's freaky but not too scary and it makes you think. I was left speechless after this film and amazed of how good of actors and actress all five of these people really are. Where did William Baldwin go, he's great. This film is a must see for anyone, if you haven't seen it go rent it, you will not be sorry. Amazing!

Sentiment: positive
My what a director's intuition can bring on material that needs just the right nudge in the right directions. Young Mr. Lincoln is filled up with some 'old-fashioned' values, which in retrospect, despite its two-dimensional portrayal, is at least more respectably done than one might see in the pap in current cinema. What makes it work so extremely well as it does, in all its simplicity and grandeur, is that its a truly great courtroom drama in the guise of a history lesson. 

We all know of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th president that did the emancipation and after the Civil war got assassinated. But as the lawyer in his earlier years he was charismatic, funny in the most unexpected places, and a true gentleman. He's not some superhero that can do no wrong (which was Fonda's only apprehension to the part before signing on), but a figure with possible flaws that are surpassed by his innate goodness and clear sight of right and wrong.

It's suffice to say that John Ford is exceptional as a storyteller almost without trying. Actually, it's a lie, he does try, but he makes it sort of effortless in the studio system; he worked in an independent manner while also pleasing simultaneously Zanuck, so he was pretty much left alone to his own succinct practices in "editing in camera", and not moving it around so as to not waver far off from the story. It's this strength of conventional wisdom that somehow works hand in hand with the material, as a kind of companion piece to the full-blooded Americana in 1939 as seen in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (only here it's the law and not politics). 

Fonda is terrific in the lead- his first with Ford- and never lets us loose sight of Lincoln past the make-up and extra boost in the shoes. Fonda's own personality, in a sense, as it would in Grapes of Wrath and My Darling Clementine, comes out in the character of Lincoln. However unlikely it might be, there's no one else from this period that could have played him then: he's mature and wise, but has the gumption to prove himself in this case of a convoluted he-saw-that-but-did-she murder case.

Only in little bits and pieces, like that final shot which superimposes Lincoln walking down the road with his monument, and a couple of small instances during that big parade scene early on, seem pretty dated. As far as the goals set out with Young Mr. Lincoln, there were all met by Ford and his crew and cast; it's not as hokey as one might think going in, and it's got a strong balance of humor and genuine pathos.

Sentiment: positive
Bad Movie - saw it at the TIFF and the movie gives me a sense of 'been there done that' - it reminds me alot of the movie Blow - expect the Blow was actually interesting.

This one story told two ways and both times it is not told that well.



Sentiment: negative
Warning, spoilers ahead (even if I doubt that anybody hasn't seen this yet)

The movie starts off rather well, but about halfway through it falls apart and becomes a corny, sugary sweet, predictable and unrealistic 'harmony romance' mess. I mean, it's very obvious that there are serious problems in the main characters' marriage, but these problems are never solved but just forgotten.

Basically, as soon as she decides to have a baby behind his back (without even asking) all of their problems magically disappear without a trace or an explanation. Given what had happened up until that moment it would have been far more logical if the marriage fell apart rather than becoming the trite and cliche' 'having a baby will change everything' ending.

The two main characters' families and neighbours are also extremely one-dimensional, and don't seem to serve really any purpose if not to irritate the viewer, and they also mysteriously disappear from the movie as soon as the 'harmony moments' start.

I am sorry to be ripping this movie, but given the start I would have expected something more. 4/10 for me.

Sentiment: negative
IF you love movies about fruity dudes who prance around with a top hats and canes while spouting off random line of poetry while stabbing their victims then this is the movie for you!!

If you like movies where it looks like the whole thing was shot with a camcorder, and when people get disemboweled their internal organs are made out of baked ziti an marinara sauce this movie is even more for you!! 

And if you simply love movies where the acting and dialogue sucks so much that it makes you feel dead inside, then for God's sake run to the video store right now and buy this movie right now!!! Hurry go before it sells out!

Sentiment: negative
The movie is more of a mockumentary of corruption in the whole American system. The correlations of those who vote who do not matter is so proved in the machines that end of voting a comedian to the oval office. Politicians are such a joke that we almost need a comic to represent us as we have been laughed at for years around the world. Bushism's have become a way of life for Americans and will be the only thing left after he leaves office none to soon. Oddly the only person of honesty is someone not even elected to the position and tells the truth in the end. The story is very subtle and if you go to it for laughs, it ain't happening. Leaves a lot for thought. Overall I enjoyed it.

Sentiment: positive
Yeah,it's low budget. Yeah,it's one of Candy's earliest films, but it is maybe his funniest! John Candy was not so far removed from his SCTV days in "Going Berserk" and it shows. If you don't crack up when Candy tries to help a guy with his groceries while being hand-cuffed to an escaped cohort in the process of having sex with his girlfriend with only the apartment door separating them (huh?, see the movie!), or the way Euguene Levy (the creator of Kong Fu Yu) is talking to his mom on the phone, or just the countless number of facial expressions that only Candy could deliver you better check your pulse! If you like the John Candy of "Only the Lonely" this is may not be a movie I would advise you to see, but if you enjoy the SCTV days of John Candy, this movie is a must see!

Sentiment: positive
It pains me to say this about an Australian film but Mr. Accident ranks with the worst of the worst films I have ever seen. What's even more tragic is that it doesn't fit into the 'it's so bad it's good' category. What annoys me the most about this film is the fairly large amount of money that has been frittered away on a pointless, unfunny, underdeveloped, inept screenplay. Dumb performances (What are Garry McDonald and Elisabeth Gore aka Elle McFeast doing in this trash?), inadequate direction, no plot and a general sense of meanness totally take away from the interesting production design and leave you with a truly horrible taste in your mouth. Comedy! Ha! Do yourself a favour and stay away!

Sentiment: negative
What can I say, this is a piece of brilliant film-making that should have won an Oscar. A copy should be kept safe in a secure vault for posterity. It should be required viewing for all high school students across the world. Sam Mraovich is a genius, perhaps the most genius writer/director/producer/chef/babysitter/walmart greeter to ever grace the cinema world with his art.

Where do I begin with this one? Every millisecond of Ben and Arthur was so completely breathtaking! And Mraovich as Arthur, wow, he is so attractive I'm surprised he didn't go for Mr. Universe. I couldn't contain myself during the nude scene. I loaned this movie to my brother and he called me on the phone saying how Arthur's nude scene turned him gay. I am totally supportive of course, because of this film and it's beautifully crafted lessons in tolerance. Why just yesterday I burned down a church and I wrote "for Sam and Arthur" in its smoldering ashes.

The cinematography was the best thing about this film. When that Fed-Ex plane took to the skies amid the palm trees of Vermont, I wept! Why, I never even knew they had palm trees in Vermont or that people could travel on Fed-Ex planes before this film. It opened my eyes to a new realm of possibilities. This film inspired me to enroll in Sam Mraovich's school of Screen writing, Acting, Directing, Composing, Casting, Producing, Production Design and Real Estate. I just want to say, "Thank you, Mr. Mraovich. Thank you for bringing this creation into the world. We can never re-pay you enough."

Sentiment: negative
There are way too many subjects avoided in cinema and eating disorders is one of them. This film shows it as it is. It is not glamourised for the viewers to enjoy, it is shown with real truth which makes it all the more powerful. I've only seen it once and that was a few years ago but i can still remember everything about it and how it made me feel. It is a very powerful film and is good support for anyone suffering from a eating disorder to give them the willpower to stop. This is what films should be about- they should be there to help people and not glamourise things that are wrong.

Sentiment: positive
I really have problems rating this movie. It is directed brilliantly, there is obviously a lot of money in it. Gere and Danes are intense (although her screen personality could use a bit more defining and spicing up), editing and cinematography are excellent. On the other hand, it is one of those really really sick movies where one cannot help but wonder whether the director himself likes to stage specific scenes, and, yes, one cannot help but wonder how many copycats will such a movie inspire.

In purely artistic terms, it is a 9, but I really have to ask myself who these people are giving their money to produce such a movie ....

Sentiment: negative
In what would be his first screenplay, based on his own short story "Turn About," William Faulkner delivers a bizarre story of loyalty, sacrifice, and really strange relationships. The story originally was about only the Tone, Young, and Cooper characters, but MGM needed to put Joan Crawford in another picture to fulfill her contract, and Faulkner obliged by creating a female role. Crawford insisted that her lines be written in the same clipped style as her co-stars' Young and Tone, leading to much unintentional hilarity as these three communicate in a telegraph-like shorthand that sounds like a Monty Python sketch ("Wuthering Heights" performed in semaphore). Seriously, the almost entirely pronoun-less sentences make Ernest Hemingway read like Henry James.

The film also reflects some familiar Faulkner themes, with an almost unnaturally close relationship between brother and sister (as may be found in his "Sanctuary," and elsewhere). When Young proposes to Crawford, in Tone's presence, in lieu of an engagement ring ALL THREE exchange their childhood engraved rings with one another. The closeness of Tone and Young is also noticeable, especially as they go off to their Thelma & Louise fate. Frankly, it's creepy.

Not as creepy to this New Yorker, however, as the recurring theme of the massive cockroach, Wellington, which Crawford cheerfully catches (and which is shown gamboling over her hands--I had to turn away!) and Young turns into a gladiator. Blech.

That being said, there are some nice performances. Young is particularly engaging in a scene where he's taken up in Cooper's fighter plane, and Roscoe Karns is delightful as Cooper's flying buddy. Tone, despite his inability to express himself through realistic dialogue, has a nice moment, dashing away his own furtive tears over his buddy Young's fate. Crawford, stripped of meaningful dialogue as well, mostly comes across as either wooden or melodramatic, which is quite a balancing act for one role.

The battle scenes--not surprisingly, for a Howard Hawks film--are the most exciting part of the entire picture. But not enough. As far as I'm concerned, this is 75 minutes of my life I'm never going to get back.

Sentiment: negative
go get your camcorder, your little brother, and the disturbing neighbor next door who throws boiling water on raccoons; and you got yourself a film! well, that's what these guys thought anyway. it was so bad i can't even remember the majority of it except for flashbacks comparable to someone who toured in 'Nam. despite the really corny title, the horrible quality, the terrible actors, and the cliché writing, i think this movie isn't the worst i've ever seen. i'm saving that slot for everything with steven seagal, chuck norris and jean-claude van dam. anyhow, if you are out of options when it comes to finding new "horror" films that you haven't seen 1,000 times already, (as i was) and you are debating this one, i would still skip this. it had absolutely no redeeming qualities. this mock serial killer thriller was a weak, puny attempt at an even B film. if they're really lucky it might make the wal-mart $4.50 bin. but, i highly doubt it.

Sentiment: negative
"I have looked into the eye of this island, and what I saw was beautiful," proclaims one of the main characters in ABC's award winning television show "Lost". The series could be summarized as a drama story about a group of plane crash survivors stranded on an unknown island, but that would be doing the show a disservice. "Lost" follows a large group of characters who come into conflict with the island, each other, and ultimately themselves as they struggle with their new way of life and their dependency on each other. The situation becomes more complicated when it becomes clear this isn't an ordinary island, either - and that they may not be alone.

My initial fear after hearing the concept of this series was the lack of new stories they could tell us after a certain period, but this proved to be unfounded. The narrative flows naturally, the dialogue is witty, the characters are memorable and the execution is superb. The island is a character all on its own, and to understand this comment you'd have to see the series for yourself, which only goes to show its originality and greatness.

At the time of writing this review, only the first two seasons have aired, and they're filled with strong episodes. My only mild criticism is that the second season seems to slow down a bit halfway, but then fortunately comes back in admirable shape for the final episodes.

If I can recommend one television series you should be following right now, it would certainly be this one. If you like excitement, adventure, character driven stories, an extremely strong cast and crew, beautiful locations, and an island that seems more spiritual than natural, "Lost" is for you. Just be sure you start at the beginning.

Sentiment: positive
I think this show is definitely the greatest show. Jessica Alba does such a great job in it. Michael Weatherly also does an awesome job, as well as the rest of the cast. The show is very intriguing and they have wonderful storylines and their stunts are amazing. It's like watching a 1-hour movie. It's definitely worth watching.

Sentiment: positive
I was so glad I came across this short film. I'm always so disappointed that short films are hard to come across, so when I saw this and saw that it was nominated for the Live Action Short Film at the Academy Awards, I was so pleased that I actually had a film that I was rooting for.

The plot is pretty simple, the director, writer, and star Nacho Vigalondo tried coming up with a reason people would suddenly break out into a song and dance number like they do in movie musicals. The result is extremely entertaining and the song is actually really catchy.

It's a well made short film, well edited and the actors all do a great job. And the last shot of the film is perfect.

I highly recommend this film.

Sentiment: positive
Well, you'd better if you plan on sitting through this amateurish, bland, and pokey flick about a middle-aged widowed mom who has a little more in common with her young adult or old teen daughter than she would like. Set in Tunis, mom piddles around the flat, gets antsy, and decides, albeit reluctantly (she just can't help herself), to don the costume and dance in a local cabaret. Meanwhile her daughter is taking dancing lessons. The common denominator is a Tunisian band drummer. This film is so full of filler I watched the DVD at x2 and read the subtitles, fast forwarding through much of the very ordinary dancing and loooong shots of walking (they walk everywhere) and more walking and just plain dawdling at x4 just to get though this boring, uneventful, low budget flick which some how garnered some pretty good critical plaudits. Go figure. (C-)

Sentiment: negative