DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Entertainment Tonight has been going down hill for the last few years, but as of last night (Aug 17th 2006) they reached a new low.

In an effort to try to hype up their broadcast, they decided to post actual photos of JonBenet Ramsey's body in their teasers last night ...saying "Pictures from the case you have never seen before". The two photos were graphic and very disturbing. One was of the side of her face and head/neck and you could clearly see the cord that was used to strangle her around her neck, and bruising on her face. This was so hideously awful, I could not believe it. How has this got to do with ANYTHING remotely related to Hollywood Entertainment?? Nothing!! They have dropped their level of dignity and values to a new low....and it shows. This used to be THE premiere show to watch...and it's just garbage now.

I will watch Access Hollywood from now on.

Sentiment: negative
This is a slow moving story. No action. No crazy suspense. No abrupt surprises. If you cannot stand to see a movie about two people just talking and walking, about a story that develops slowly till the very end and about lovey-dovey romance, don't waste your time and money. 

On the other hand, if you're into dialog, masterful story telling, thought provoking ideas and finding true love in the fabric of life then this is your movie. I recommend you watch this movie when you are most alert, though, because the pace, the music and the overall tone of the movie can put you in a woolgathering mood. It's truly fantastic. I really mean that.

Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy are annoying with their mannerisms at times but, thankfully, the chemistry between the two makes the acting very natural, warm and tender. They act and feel each other out from the very beginning, making you feel as an intruder.

In their conversations there are excellent commentaries on many subjects that will provoke thought and conversation between you and your partner. I thought it was too deep and too diverse for such young characters but I may be underestimating their intelligence. Still it did not ruin the movie.

The overall story is very simple which I think gives the movie it's charm and ultimately it's power.

BOTTOM LINE: The movie's flow is slow. The dialog is fascinating. The story builds gently, systematically and substantive. The build up to the finale is satisfying and in the end rewarding.

Sentiment: positive
The production year says it all. The movie is a marauding mess of politically correct leftwing feministic selfappreciating drivel, of a so heavyhanded symbolic variety that comes across as ridiculous today. Every scene has the purpose of shedding light on one of the burning issues of society, mainly the role of females in the working community, the role of women vs men, women as sex objects, consumerism, politics, war, etc. Every scene is commented upon by the inner dialogue of one of the main actresses, or by turning the scene into a surrealistic joke. I have no reminiscence of any plot, or who the main characters actually were. It is the sort of movie, where consumerism is mocked by having a couple make love in a furniture store sales window while the sales agent delivers his speech, or where a revealing interview of a stage actress turns into a fullblown striptease act, for "of course" the offensive gentlemen of the press is the equal to a raunchy club audience. Then we move swiftly on, as we need to see war erupt in a peaceful forest, we need to see multiple inflammatory feministic public speeches being drowned in the (male) blowing of cars horns or rioting crowds, and of course we need to see cinema newsreels of Stalin and all the other usual suspects. You get the idea. But all this does not matter at all. The movie is an unsurpassed piece of eyecandy for any (male) Ingmar Bergman aficionado. A movie boasting leads Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson and Gunnel Lindblom at the height of their beauty makes this reviewer surrender completely and just drivel  and also delight in watching them so generously use their acting skills in a movie I had never heard about before today. It is hard to believe how especially the face of Bibi Andersson owns the screen every single time she appears. The cinematography is gorgeously orchestrated bw, often revelling in an overexposed (?) dimensionless whitishness, and you just never grow tired of watching the performers. How absurd, that a movie made with so much consideration for the feministic agenda, tirelessly advocating that women should not be viewed as merely an object of desire, has nothing better to offer the 21st century viewer than a parade of stunningly beautiful babes. As mentioned, I am not complaining. I could rewatch it tomorrow.

Sentiment: negative
Mother Night is one of my favorite novels and going to see this I was expecting a huge disappointment. Instead I got a film that perfectly portrays the irony, humor, elequence, and above all else the crushing sadness of Vonnegut's novel.

This is certainly Nolte's best preformance to date. He captures the defeat and selfloathing of Howard Cambell Jr. consistently from the subtle intonations of his speech to the held back tears behind his eyes.

Alan Arkin is absolutly hilarious as George Kraft. Sherryl Lee is haunting in her detachment from reality as Cambell's young lover. John Goodman is understated and more than effective as Cambell's "Blue Fairy Godmother."

This Pinnocioesque story of Cambell trying to be his own ideal hero and unwittingly becoming his ideal tragic villian is a mature and vivid look into what we are as people. And aside from that, it is one of the most deeply romantic films I have ever come across. Cambell is the incarnation of both foolish and wise love. And at the films sastifyingly painful conclusion, he finally learns what it means to be a real boy as his Blue Fairy Godmother grants him his wish. And he realizes that...well, watch the movie and you'll see.

Mother Night is without a doubt in my mind one of the best films ever made. It is a beautiful poetic story that digs deep within our emotions and is completely faithful to its original author.

Sentiment: positive
This episode was boring and was not even in the realm of horror, so far this season Masters of Horror has produced one really good episode...The Damned Thing...it is still early, I have faith that the episodes will get better. I admit that the vampire episode was okay but lacked a solid storyline. The episode about the couple catching the serial killer started out boring, but the last fifteen minutes was really good. Though, I am just plain out disappointed with the lack of originality and horror that the first season's episodes possessed. Please, save this season John Carpenter! I have faith that Pro-Life will redeem the entire lackluster season so far.

"You're an angry little elf!"

Sentiment: negative
The film moves along quite well but the acting, direction and editing leave a lot to be desired. The characters are mostly lifted from other films and the Vinnie Jones lookalike is straight out of Gone in 50 Seconds. The comedy gangster movie is a genre that should have lots of contrast, the stupid dealers in Lock Stock and the shoot out that leaves everyone dead. You should never really know whether to laugh or just sit there in shock. This movie had the right elements but it is too easy to sit there like a person knitting and tut at the small details that should have been fixed somewhere along the line and once belief has been unsuspended one just become increasingly critical. A pity cos it was a brave attempt and although Clint Eastwood is famous for saying that'll be OK for a scene, he puts the work in before he shoots and he is Clint Eastwood. Here a bit more imagination with the camera and and a bit more coaching and rehearsal for the delivery of the lines would have made a big difference.

Sentiment: negative
Need a lesson in pure, abject failure?? Look no further than "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom", an abysmal, dirt-poor, disgrace of a flick. As we all know, decent moovies tend to sprout horrible, horrible offspring: "Halloween" begat many, many bad 80's slasher flicks; "Mad Max" begat many, many bad 80's "futuristic wasteland fantasy" flicks; and "Conan the Barbarian" begat a whole slew of terrible, horrible, incredibly bad 80's sword-and-sorcery flicks. "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" scrapes the bottom of that 80's barrel, in a way that's truly insulting to barrels. A young runt named Simon recaptured his "good kingdom" from an evil sorcerer with the help of a mangy rug, a garden gnome, a topless bimbo mermaid, and a tired-looking, pudgy Bo Svenson. Svenson("North Dallas Forty", "Inglorious Bastards", "Delta Force"), a long-time b-moovie muscleman, looks barely able to swing his aluminum foil sword. However, he manages to defeat the forces of evil, which consist of the evil sorcerer, "Shurka", and his army of badly costumed monsters, giants, and midgets. At one point, a paper mache bat on a string attacks, but is eaten by a 1/2 hidden sock puppet, pitifully presented as some sort of dragon. The beginning of the film consists of what can only politely be described as bits of scenes scooped up from the cutting-room floor of udder bad moovies, stitched together in the vain hope of setting the scene for the film, and over-earnestly narrated by some guy who never appears again. Words cannot properly convey the jaw-dropping cheapness of this film; the producers probably spent moore moolah feeding Svenson's ever expanding gullet than on the cheesy fx of this flick. And we're talkin' Brie here, folks... :=8P Director Hector Olivera("Barbarian Queen") presents this mish-mash in a hopelessly confused, confuddled, and cliched manner, destroying any possible hint of clear, linear storytelling. The acting is dreadful, the production levels below shoe-string, and the plot is one tired cliche after another paraded before our weary eyes. That they actually made a sequel(!!!) makes the MooCow's brain whirl. James Horner's("Braveheart", "Titanic","The Rock") cheesy moosic from "Battle Beyond the Stars" was lifted, screaming and kicking, and mercilessly grafted onto this turkey - bet this one doesn't pop up on his resume. Folks, you gotta see this to believe it. The MooCow says as a cheapo rent when there is NOTHING else to watch, well, it's moore fun than watching dust bunnies mate. Barely. :=8P

Sentiment: negative
I have to say the first I watched this film was about 6 years ago, and I actually enjoyed it then. I bought the DVD recently, and upon a second viewing I wondered why I liked it. The acting was awful, and as usual we have the stereo-typical clansmen in their fake costumes. The acting was awful at best. Tim Roth did an OK job as did Liam Neeson, but I've no idea what Jessica Lange was thinking.

The plot line was good, but the execution was just poor. I'm tired of seeing Scotland portrayed like this in the films. Braveheart was even worse though, which is this films only saving grace. But seriously, people didn't speak like that in those days, why do all the actors have to have Glaswegian accents? Just another film to try and capture the essence of already tired and annoying stereotypes. I notice the only people on here who say this film is good are the Americans, and to be honest I can see why they'd like it, I know they have an infatuation for men in Kilts. However, if you are thinking of buying the DVD, I'd say spend your money on something else, like a better film.

Sentiment: negative
THE RED CIRCLE (Jean-Pierre Melville - France/Italy 1970).

This might be the coolest film ever made, in the most literal sense of the term. The men here never lose control and never - not once - show their emotions. No dramatic outbursts in this film. Everyone is cool all the time. It's an abstract dream-world, where the men live by their own code, a gangster code with the values of the outside world conspicuously absent. In this masterfully filmed heist saga, Melville tackles the American crime thriller in his distinctly dark and desolate style, yet made in grand fashion with a hefty budget of ten million dollars and with four of the greatest French stars at the time. Alain Delon as the master thief, Yves Montand as an alcoholic ex-cop, Italian star Gian-Maria Volonté as an escaped criminal and André Bourvil in an atypical role as the cynical police chief.

Melville described LE CERCLE ROUGE as his penultimate film and it is indeed a masterfully stylized policier. He also claimed he wanted to shoot a film noir in colour and in many ways he succeeded. The two primary influences for this film were John Huston's 1950 heist movie THE ASPHALT JUNGLE and Jules Dassin's RIFIFI (1955). But unlike these films, where we learn much about the background of the individual gang members, with all their petty needs and worries that motivate them, making clear these are not just ruthless underworld types, but ordinary individuals engaged in a world of everyday worries and human endeavour, Melville, though, tells us almost nothing about his criminals. Why was Corey (Alain Delon) in jail? Why was his associate, Vogel (Jean-Marie Volonté) arrested in the first place? Or why the ex-police marksman Jansen (Yves Montand) left the force, was it his alcoholism? We never learn the motivations behind their actions and never find out what drives these men. Women are even more absent than in his earlier films, with the "emotional" ties exclusively between men. They don't even seem to have personal lives. A sort of an emotional twilight zone and although the setting is not as abstract as in his earlier LE SAMOURAI (1967), Melville still sketches a very eerie world. Melville's favorite actor, Alain Delon, is perfect and almost outdoes himself in coolness, if imaginable.

Deliberately paced and with a length of over 140 minutes, Melville takes his time to tell the story, but its slow pace and length seems a perfect way to show the desolate world these men live in. Nothing is ever out of place in Melville's films and here it's no different, every little detail seemingly of pivotal importance for the story. Although LE SAMOURAI remains my favorite Melville film, even up there with the greatest films ever made, this one also belongs to the very best. 

Camera Obscura --- 10/10

Sentiment: positive
For the life of me, why did this film receive an R rating?! While it IS about flesh-eating zombies, believe it or not, it's actually a pretty good family-friendly film--at least if your kids are age 10 and older. Unlike the traditional zombie films, this one has an excellent sense of humor as well as a traditional values--albeit a bit twisted! The language isn't a serious problem, there is no nudity and the film style is definitely geared towards kids (much like the old TV show "Eerie, Indiana")--yet some knucklehead slapped an R rating one it! Believe me, most kids have seen worse violence than this and it just seems silly to make audiences think this is an adults only film.

The story is set in a parallel-type world. While the fashions, cars and mores appear circa 1953, in this bizarro world there has been a fierce recent zombie plague that resulted in the "zombie war" and massive changes in everyday life. At school, kids are trained in armed combat and there's a cute scene late in the film where the father gives his son a handgun and tells him to keep it in his backpack "just in case"! As for life outside of school, it's pretty weird as well, as people now have learned that zombies AREN'T such a bad thing! Heck, using shock collars and training, they can be made into slaves who can do your housework, clean streets, deliver milk or, in the case of a really sick guy, be your "special friend".

This film deals with one particular family that finally buys their first zombie slave (played by Billy Connally). Mom is thrilled and her son slowly becomes the zombie's friend. Dad, on the other hand, isn't convinced--as he was forced years early to kill his own zombie father and he hasn't yet gotten over this!! Funny, irreverent and unique--this film needs to be seen by a much wider audience.

Sentiment: positive
This Documentary (Now available free on Video.Google.Com) is a fantastic demonstration of the power of ordinary people to overcome injustice. Everyone must see this.

Chavez was elected in a landslide vote in 1998. His platform was to divert the fantastic oil wealth from the 20% middle class to the 80% poor. He banned foreign drift net fishing in Venezuelan waters. He sent 10,000 Cuban doctors to the slums to treat the sick for free. He wiped out illiteracy and set up new free Universities. 

But it was his 30% tax on oil company profits that got him in trouble with the Bush administration. In 2002, while Irish film makers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain were interviewing Chavez inside the Presidential Palace about his social programs, a CIA backed coup was launched. With the cameras rolling, Chavez was captured and flown out of the country. It was announced on national TV that he had 'resigned'.

But the poor of Venezuela didn't believe the media. They went to the Palace in their millions and demanded that Chavez be returned. In the face of such overwhelming numbers, the military turned on the coup leaders and the plotters fled to the US. Chavez was rescued by military helicopter and returned to jubilation.

Sentiment: positive
IT was no sense and it was so awful... i think Hollywood have a lot of film like that... you don't have do watch it. people cutter or eater what should i say... it made me sick! oh my god! film is about people that we don't know but feed themselves with Humans! they have teeths bla bla bla... isn't that familiar? i can bet on it you saw it in a another movie. the cast was so great but i think scenario was really awful. and i should say that Bradley Cooper was totally awesome... he's so talented... actually i said awful but i think it because of horrible scenes... let me explain it. did you ever eat tongue? but in the film one person did it! it was really awful... anyway i think film would so good without that awful human eater or cutter scenes...

Sentiment: negative
I revisited Grand Canyon earlier this year when I set out to devise a ten best list of the 1990's. I first saw the film when I was 17 years old. How did I hear about it? It was reviewed, and recommended highly, by Siskel & Ebert in 1991, and I eventually caught it on video a year later.

It's a great film, a powerful film, a healing film, about the power of listening, truly listening to one another. I've seen it six times now, and it entertains and inspires me with every subsequent viewing. But why the poor reviews for this movie? Maltin's movie guide gives it two out of four. Too melodramatic, too much coincidence, too sappy, are the expressions that I read the most. Yes, there is melodrama in this story, and yes, there is a lot of coincidence, too. But it delivers with an intensity and force that seems supple. For all of the "plot" that exists in Grand Canyon, such as drive-by shootings, a police chase, an earthquake, a love affair, a woman's discovery of a baby in the bushes, another shooting, a near accident by a new driver, and worldly advice from a homeless man, this movie wins because of the smart performances by Kevin Kline, Steve Martin, Mary McDonnell, Alfre Woodard, Danny Glover, and Jeremy Sisto. It also succeeds because of Lawrence Kasdan's skillful direction and writing. You know that this isn't just another movie when you consider a sequence at the beginning of the film that involves Kevin Kline being harassed by four black youths. Danny Glover plays a tow truck driver who assists the Kline character, but not before he gets harassed too, by the leader of the bunch. Listen to the dialogue as the kid suggests to Glover,"Are you afraid of me because of me, or because I have a gun?".

Grand Canyon is filled with one perceptive scene after another. Steve Martin should have been nominated for best supporting actor as a movie producer who has a change of heart and then a subsequent change of mind. I think his character is a warning that "the good" can carry us forward, that idealism is a virtue, but one that we must fight for constantly rather than depend upon.

I fear that Grand Canyon may be lost forever in the wilderness of non-new releases at the video store. But with the deals now on older releases as low as 99 cents, I plead with anyone who has read this far into a review from a reviewer that you will thank after having rented it, Grand Canyon is something special. If you loved Magnolia, another movie with a big ensemble about deep humanist themes, you'll love Grand Canyon, too.

Sentiment: positive
Well I had the chance to view this film the other day. I didn't know what to expect as I never saw the trailer and such... but what I did discover simply by watching the first 10 minutes is that this film is the worst I have ever had the misfortune to see.

I wish I could give it this film a 0 rating. The first 10 minutes were bad but as soon as it goto the party scene I wanted to just enter a coma it was really poorly done. The actors didn't have any direction, there was no real story, I read some reviews that state its good if you have a little child to entertain for 90 minutes etc... but really why should we expose children to this type of film? Its got poor humor, rude and crude comedy at best and focuses on poor special effects to fill 80% of its time. I am sure a few people in Hollywood will be out on the streets after this film bombs.

Also How can 39 people give this movie a 10. I mean get real anyone that gives this movie a 10 either has some mental issue and or works for the film company. This movie should average at 1.5/10 instead of its current 2.3/10 due to the people that ranked it 10. Truly sad.

Sentiment: negative
Honestly, I can't be bothered to spend my time writing about this milestone of cinematic incompetence - life is simply too short. What I will say is that, Alone In The Dark succeeds in only three things: 1. It will make you laugh, but for all the wrong reasons. 2. It manages to throw several useless plots into the air but dropping all of them.

and

3. It utterly disgraces the classic PC game on which it is supposedly based by being a complete failure in all aspects of film-making.

Doctor Boll, if that is indeed what you are (I'm thinking proctology here), what on Earth are you doing in a director's chair?

Sentiment: negative
I enjoyed some of the older Doctor Who many years ago, so when the new one came out, I just had to check it out. I was SO pleased - with the characters, the story lines, the updated look, I became hooked! From Season 1 (27 for the old fans) through to season 2 (28), it just keeps on getting better. It ties in nicely with the old shows too, although you don't have to know the old shows to enjoy this newer version.

Even though there has been a change of cast, I highly recommend Doctor Who - with Chris Eccleston AND with David Tennant.

I like that they've given the characters so much depth. The Doctor seems more vulnerable in this series, maybe because he is the last TimeLord. The range of emotions which Chris and David show are truly remarkable, and I felt their pain, anger, and sense of adventure right along with them. 

Billie Piper (Rose) brings a very human element to each episode, although she is much braver than I would be. With her talent, Billie will go far in the industry.

Sentiment: positive
I walked out of the cinema having suffered this film after 30 mins. I left two friends pinned in by a great fat bloke to endure the remainder.

As soon as the opening sequence of the film unrolled, I sensed something was wrong and it wasn't long before I to stop myself from hiding under my seat cringing in embarrassment. I'm not one for walking out of films however bad as they usually have some redeeming feature, but this one suffered from a catalogue of bad directing, bad acting (bar 'Bruno' character & the impeccable Jean Rochefort -according to my friends),awful editing (in terms of theme and meaning), terrible soundtrack and image correlation that seemed to make an art out placing the wrong peace of music over the image and scene at the wrong time . The worst crime was its overall insipidness and unbelievability (a result of the aforementioned atrocities). Why was it so awful? I do not want to waste more of my time explaining. I'd say go and see it for yourself but I don't want to fill the coffers of this project any more than necessary. Oh, the screening did possess one redeeming feature: My friend cambering over the rows of seats in silhouette with his umbrella hooked over his arm as he tried to steady himself -more pathos, tension & entertainment in those few moments than in the 125 mins of this sadly dire effort.

Sentiment: negative
This film is totally mindblowing. It manages to be thought provoking, funny, tragic, and cinematic yet claustrophobic.

Although the flashbacks are unnecessary, the film maintains a pacy, punchy grip and the performances are all excellent, in particular Alec Baldwin, and the mesmerising Eric Bogosian as the film's anti-hero, Barry Champlain.

Sentiment: positive
All I can say is, this movie is made for the Lifetime Channel on TV, which means no solid characters, no particular style, weak acting all kinds of suggested sex but no-breasts and tushs (because boy, that would just catapult the film into the depths of sleaze wouldn't it?) but the heavily simulated sex, well, that's OK. 

When watching these films I have to ask myself, when will these types of TV channels and their advertisers ever grow up? I think these companies are actually way behind the times. They really have no clue what the younger generation is in tune with and if they knew they would demand we change. The whole point of many American TV channels like these seems mostly to regurgitate the same sanitized, diluded garbage over and over like a generic movie assembly line. I guess it works for them... or at least it has. Not sure about the future though. 

Don't bore yourself to death like I did. Seek out some real TV movies on HBO, Showtime, IFC, Starz, etc. Any channel that puts effort into their work and doesn't have to ask a priest what they can or cannot show.

Sentiment: negative
Identical twin sisters Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen climbed to fame in sitcoms like "Two of a Kind", I had never seen them in anything before, but I had an idea of what to expect, but it was much worse. Basically the Hunter sisters Charli (Mary-Kate) and Leila (Ashley) are in Rome for a Summer Intern Program, but not long after starting their jobs they are immediately fired for a series of mishaps. But the man who owns the company they are working in, Derek Hammond (Julian Stone), gives them their jobs back, and they they do slowly prove themselves useful assets, and talented (fashion) artists, and help stop a mean man taking over the company. Also starring Leslie Danon as Jami, Derek Lee Nixon as Ryan, Ilenia Lazzarin as Dari, Archie Kao as Nobu, Valentina Mattolini as Heidi, Michelangelo Tommaso as Paolo and Matt Patresi as Enrico Tortoni. You can tell that this film was made to go straight to video, the camera-work is completely mismatched, and it doesn't help when you want to admire the sights of Rome. In fact the background is the only good thing to watch, the twin sisters are two of the most annoying celebrities around, I knew before watching that they weren't going to interest me in any way (their not even that pretty), this is awful gush of rubbish film. Pretty poor!

Sentiment: negative
Perhaps I missed something, but I found GOYA'S GHOSTS to be a tedious costume melodrama. As to the story it was trying to tell, I found that a confusing mish-mash that went off in all directions. And perhaps it should have been made by a Spanish director with the appropriate languages subtitled rather than in unconvincingly accented English. I can't judge the historical veracity of the story but it seemed to move along with a similar "artist's model's tragic fate" plot line as GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING. Was the movie a commentary on the religious injustices of the Inquisition, false piety, torture then and now, or what???? I never seemed to be able to figure that one out. Natalie Portman's various characters also seemed ridiculously stereotypical. And ultimately the movie was crowned with the concluding melodrama of a disheveled Bardem's head and body hanging on the edge of cart heading off into the sunsetwith Ines and Goya following along behindCan't Milos Forman do better than that?

Sentiment: negative
Combining serious drama with adequate comedy is touchy at the best of times. LOOKING FOR COMEDY IN THE Muslim WORLD pulled it off thanks to a topical subject and a fantastic script; not to mention Albert Brooks' excellent broodish character portrayal. But MAN OF THE YEAR can't come close by comparison. It has a messy message folded in with forced jokes and a twisted love story that is completely unbelievable.

The premise initially seemed very promising. Put a Jon Stewart-like comedy news guy up for President of the United States and see what happens. This independent runner is Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams, RV), a successful TV personality who is pressured into running by his audience. Along with him comes his manager Jack (Christopher Walken, CLICK), and his writer Eddie (Lewis Black). Seeming to have very little chance at a successful run, Tom Dobbs amazingly wins the election.

But did he? Eleanor Green (Laura Linney, THE EXORCIST OF EMILY ROSE) is a computer whiz at the company who designed the new software for electronic voting at polling stations. She finds a glitch in the system that is quickly swept under the rug by the company's owner and his dark attorney Alan (Jeff Goldblum, INDEPENDENCE DAY). Poised to lose billions of dollars if word of this gets out, the company's evil men decided to discredit and/or kill Eleanor to make sure she never tells anyone. But Eleanor is able to get to President-elect Dobbs and finally spill the beans (this is where the unbelievable love story starts blossoming, too). Dobbs goes onto Saturday Night Live and explains everything to the world, thus removing himself as the newly elected President and ending the careers of those at the computer company ...oh, and saving Ms. Green's life.

Does any of this sound funny? The comedy is forcefully wedged into the story and is often awkward. Robin Williams blazes for a few moments during a debate but is quickly doused as the gravity of how he became President bears down on him.

The message of the film is interesting and debatable, too: that special interest owns presidential candidates. I'm sure there's substantial truth in this, and if you wanted to make a movie about it you could. If you wanted to make a comedy about you could. But Man of the Year isn't it.

Sentiment: negative
Some people thought this was funny because they loved the political issues discussed in this piece. I, however, am so tired of the state of the two party system in our country that I can't stomach propaganda from either side. I was hoping for a horror show, but got "cute" zombies and partisan bull crap. I watch my horror films to be scared. This didn't even attempt to be scary. Also, this doesn't have the wit of Romero in his political/cultural satire laced in his movies...this was a blatant, no-imagination story that was hard for me to stomach (for the wrong reasons). On the bright side, if you hate Bush...you'll love this (I'm not condoning hate or Bush with this statement)

Sentiment: negative
magellan33 said: "You can only do so much when the two stars of the show can only be seen by one fellow cast member."

I assume, then, that you never heard of "Topper".

Which, in addition to the two stars who could only be seen by one member of the cast, had a dog, ditto.

This was the kind of program that had "Not Gonna Make It" written allover it from the first episode - it was like an arcade video game where you actually have to read the instructions to play; no-one (well, very few of us, apparently) wants to watch a comedy program that has a basic premise that actually requires *thought* to grasp.

Sentiment: positive
when you add up all the aspects from the movie---the dancing, singing, acting---the only one who stands out as the best in the cast is Vanessa Williams...her dedication, energy and timeless beauty make Rosie the perfect role for her. Never have i ever seen someone portray Rose with such vibrancy! Vanessa's singing talent shows beautifully with all the songs she performs as Rose and her acting skills never cease to amaze me! Her dancing is so incredible, even if as some people say the choreography was bad---her dancing skills were displayed better than ever before! I'd recommend this version over the '63 just because i find that although lengthy the acting by Vanessa is superb-----not to mention the fact that Jason Alexander and the rest of the cast are very impressive as well (with the exception of Chynna Philips...what in hell were they thinking when they cast her?)

All in all I'd say this version is wonderful and I recommend that everyone see this version!

Sentiment: positive
This is the best of the films (so far) that Christopher Guest has created using his very talented ensemble cast. Previously, they'd made the excellent WAITING FOR GUFFMAN and following BEST IN SHOW, they made the very enjoyable A MIGHTY WIND. As for their latest, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, the less said the better.

The film appears to be a documentary about dog shows and several contestants in particular. You follow these few chosen dogs from pre-show preparations all the way to the big night where one of them is chosen best in show at the fictitious "Mayflower Kennel Club". However, none of these people are real dog show enthusiasts but talent improvisational actors that parody many of the common types of people you meet in the dog show world. Amazingly, even though the characters are rather outlandish, there is a lot of truth to the personalities they are parodying--as decades ago I had some experience with dog shows and this is a VERY cutthroat group of people! My favorites of the dog owners were the incredibly high-pressure and tense yuppie couple who just exuded anger and volatility. I also loved the openly gay couple, as they were terribly funny and clever. However, the best performance probably wasn't from any of the couples but from Fred Willard who played the world's stupidest and least talented announcer in human history. His comments were uniformly inane and often betrayed his as an incredibly stupid person--how he got to be the announcer for such a prestigious show is anyone's guess. The other contestants featured were also quite funny--the high-priced professional poodle handler and its rich owner, the country boy and his hound as well as Winkie's "parents" who could barely scrape together enough to make it to the show.

Despite the improvised style of film making, the pieces all fit together wonderfully and told a very funny and compelling story--one that is NOT for dog owners only. Exceptional acting made this one of the best comedies of the last decade. Clever and consistently funny.

By the way, try to find this on DVD as the extras were actually worth seeing. While a bit painful to watch, I loved seeing Harlan Pepper and his beach ball collection in particular!

Sentiment: positive
Live! Yes, but not kicking.

True story: Some time ago, a Dutch TV station made an announcement that they were going to air a new reality show. A contest rather. The main participant in this show would be a woman who was dying of something terrible and she would be donating her kidneys to one lucky person with progressive kidney failure. For real.

The country and the international media were all over this story like flies on a turd, saying it was appalling, immoral, what-is-this-world-coming-to, and the like. In a way, I had to agree.

As the months passed, the tension built up to a degree that the government was mostly occupied by the issue of whether they should let this show go ahead or not, instead of running the country.

The show did air and right up to the last moment they were pushing ahead. And up to the last moment the country was up in arms, the Prime Minister making speeches, every newspaper writing about it, everyone in the country holding their breaths. And the network pushed on. Towards a new frontier in television. And they definitely succeeded in doing just that. They pushed the envelope.

The show aired and we all watched a terminally ill woman selecting the right candidate to receive her kidneys so he or she would live, whilst she would die shortly after.

And then, in the last moments of the show it was revealed that it was a partial hoax. The woman was not ill, but all the candidates were. There was no kidney auction. The whole show, that, with the publicity and the commercials and all the discussions, built up for months to a fantastic climax, was a publicity stunt to focus attention on the problem of major shortages in organ donors. The man who founded this particular network himself died of kidney disease.

Now THIS is television. Leaving everybody far behind in amazement.

Don't give me a poorly acted, poorly directed flick about some woman trying to get a Russian Roulette show on American TV.

As if.

*Spoiler* As if I'm going to believe they would get this through the FCC. As if I'm going to believe this would get through the US Supreme Court on the basis of free expression. As if I'm gonna believe the ridiculous ending where this woman pulled it off and has conscience issues because some guy shot himself on air.

It's all been done before. Watch Running Man with Arnold instead. At least it had a semi good ending.

*Spoiler* This is an appallingly bad piece of film, together with a ridiculous ending. So she gets shot in the end, is that supposed to make us movie going public feel better after we leave the theater because there was some kind of justice? Don't take my word for it, but I would say this: leave this one alone and watch a test pattern instead, you'll get more quality.

Sentiment: negative
As the 2000's came to a close, king Kong's adopted daughter went ahead and made a tearful announcement her show as coming to an end.

While Miss Winfrey was tearing up, i was laughing and screaming like a wild Indian from the old west.

So what does Oprah do? she takes famous people, and puts them on her show. what kind of famous people? people who've suffered (just like her, except these people have lost more than their virginity) they've suffered melted faces (true story), missing limbs (True story, see end of paragraph), and spousal abuse (too many to count). and somehow they come on the show and tell their story, as if we haven't heard it before tons and tons of times (Bethany Hamilton, i've heard your tale about losing an arm to a shark since day one, which was October 31st, 2003. don't tell me you have no hard feelings.) But the biggest thing probably on Oprah was Michael Jackson's interview in 1993, after being accused of being a child molester. sadly, Mr. Jackson has since passed away. but that one particular show told about Michael's personal life, something not many people knew about at the time.

Oprah's Real influence comes from middle aged women and soccer moms. They seem to think she's like a personal Jesus sometimes. but all i see in Oprah is some big ghetto lady who made it big, and she's just showing off how rich she is.

I'm glad her shows going to end soon. we need better television programs.

Sentiment: negative
As a SCUBA diver, I can appreciate the incredible physical strain the cameramen must have endured to get the shots underwater. This series is MUCH more than that, though. The narration is perfect, the scenes bordering on implausible and the subject matter enthralling. The day to day struggle for life taking place out of the view of we terrestrial dwellers is mind boggling. This DVD set has open my eyes to another planet right here on Earth. I urge everyone to watch this series.

Sentiment: positive
Luscious Candace Bergen as a prim Victorian beauty, kidnapped by Sean Connery as a devilish desert Sheikh! How can you go wrong? How? Oh, let me count the ways!!! Earthy, primitive Sean Connery, exactly the right man to tame a brittle, classy beauty like Candace, is . . . well, underwhelming in the role. That's because, instead of having dialog about the real issues ("you are a woman . . . I am a man!") he has to babble nonsense about "the will of Allah" and "the wind blows destiny across the desert sands." John Milius, a director known more for the worship of naked male bodies and brute military force than any insight (or interest) in conventional human relationships, has a maddening way of cutting away from his desert lovers every time it looks like Candace might get kissed. Instead of watching nature take its course with two fabulously attractive people in a picturesque landscape, we are treated to endless, (and I do mean ENDLESS) shots of Brian Keith flashing his walrus sized choppers and delivering gritty sermons on the joys of being Teddy Roosevelt. I have nothing against Teddy Roosevelt, but watching him test out his new rifle or make speeches about the heroic death of a big bear just doesn't excite me the way the love story between Candace Bergen and Sean Connery would have . . . if it had ever actually gotten underway! The weird thing is, Milius spends most of his time building up characters and story lines that have no resolution. Candace's two little children in the story both get more screen time than she does. There's no humor, no chemistry, no sizzle, in any of the things that happen to her in the desert. Unless you think it's funny that after weeks of galloping around on horseback her hair is still perfect.

The only "real" moment in the story is when, late at night, Candace Bergen shakes her little daughter out of a sound sleep on soft cushions and says, "we must escape." The little girl turns over and, without missing a beat, replies, "but mother, I was sleeping!" That one line sums up what's really missing from the story. No danger, suspense, or sizzle in the basic story line, of a cultivated lady in captivity. She (and her children) are both so snug and well cared for that it's hard to believe anyone is worked up about their fate.

Mind you, if Candace herself had said the line it might have worked better. If the tension came from her enjoyment of her captivity, (or her delight at being in the arms of Sean Connery) and her guilt about all the trouble being caused by her abduction, then the story would have had some tension. But Milius makes the odd assumption that the audience is just as worked up as he is over whether Teddy Roosevelt will get the chance to prove his manhood three thousand miles away. In the end the pretty lady and her children don't seem to matter worth a damn to him . . . and since they're at the center of the story the whole thing seems rather dry and endless . . . like the burning desert sands.

Sentiment: negative
What a waste of great acting talent. This is a shame because with Catherine Deneuve, Mathieu Amalric, Emmanuelle Devos, Chiara Mastroianni, and Melvil Poupaud (not to mention others less well known in America) that's a lot of acting talent to waste. This film by Arnaud Desplech was a terrible disappointment. After having enjoyed his "Kings and Queens" and this film left me completely bored and frustrated to the point where I actually left before the movie ended. The movie wandered around its central storyline (involving Catherine Deneuve's illness) getting sidetracked by every peripheral storyline and supporting character that appeared on screen. The movie also gave us too little character development to understand why the different characters disliked each other so much (this was a story of family dysfunction) so that the dearth of coherent narrative became even more critical. Finally, the soundtrack (which ranged from hip hop to Bach to Mendelhson's Midsummer Night's Dream) was at odds with the emotional temperature of the movie and further obscured any emotion the viewer should have been feeling at the time. The photography (the director often began scenes with a mainly dark screen, where our only sight is through a small opening, making feel as if we are watching through a peephole, that then expands) was also pretentious and inscrutable.

Sentiment: negative
I enjoyed this movie. Unlike like some of the pumped up, steroid trash that is passed off as action movies, Playing God is simple and realistic, with characters that are believable, action that is not over the top and enough twists and turns to keep you interested until the end.

Well directed, well acted and a good story.

Sentiment: positive
I could not agree less with the rating that was given to this movie, and I believe this is a sample of how short minded most of spectators are all over the world. Really... Are you forgetting that Cinema used to be a kind of art before some tycoons tried to make it only entertainment? This movie is not entertainment, at least not that easy entertainment you get on movies like Titanic or Gladiator. It has style, it is different, it is shocking... That's why most of you have hated it so much: because it does not try to be pleasing to you. It's just a story, a very weird one I admit, but after all, only a weird story. It is not a great story, not even a great cinema work, but I believe it is worth a 7-stars rating only for the courage of both author and director to shot a story that is not made to please the audience, thus selling billions of copies and making the big studios even richer. This movie is, for me, European-artistic-like movie made in the US, and everyone involved in the making of it deserves respect. Be it for the courage, or be it for the unique sense of humor.

Sentiment: positive
I always enjoy watching this cartoon, with Sylvester trying to catch Tweety on a train, rather than at Grandma's house. It's actually a standard fare, but entertaining, especially when Tweety pulls the emergency stop cord. One of my complaints about this is how sloppy the animators were with the train. When you watch this over and over, like my little boy did (who loves trains, which is why he liked it so much), you begin to notice some things.

Throughout this short, the position of the baggage car changes on the train, either 3rd, 4th or 5th, and in long shots not at all. The engine has either the number 651 or 814, or none at all. The coal tender has either the number 99, or the letters "S.P. & Q.R." on it, or no number or letters at all. The coaches carry the "S.P.Q.R." without the "&" in long shots, and then in closeups it has the words "SouthEast and Western."

All of this doesn't interfere with the story, but the production details were obviously not looked into very carefully. 

Still this cartoon is among my favorites with Sylvester and Tweety.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was, of the 67 of 71 best pictures I have seen, by far the worst. First of all, I found the plot line somewhat absurd - the absent husband for 25 years/ still in love/ not even a letter! Give me a break. And why was the guy who was absent for so long coincidentally working on an oil rig next door to the congress-woman's party? This film also exhibited some of the worst stereotyping of African-Americans that I have ever seen. It makes Gone With the Wind (see Prissy) look downright progressive! I have scarcely seen a movie that I disliked this much. UGH!

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie with low expectations and was not disappointed. Its so bad that it is actually funny in a very cringe worthy way.

Gael is absolutely terrible, I mean he just cannot act, period. He should give up now, as acting is clearly not his thing.. His co-stars are about the same caliber, i'm sure my 5 year old cousin could do a better job than all of them! The director should be ashamed to have put his name on something so ridiculous.. Somehow I don't think an Oscar is on the cards for this guy.

I have never written a comment on IMDb, but this movie was so bad I felt compelled to do so.

If you get the chance to see this film, don't 0/10 if there was a 0

Sentiment: negative