DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I recently watched the first Guinea Pig film, The Devil's Experiment, and I must admit to being disappointed.

This film is invariably included in any list of the "nastiest" films and maybe I was expecting more because of the hype. The truth is though, I don't rate it.

If I'd been watching it believing the opening text to be true ("I found this tape..."), I might have been a bit disturbed by it, thinking it was real. Even without the benefit of knowing it not to be real though, I think I'd have worked out that it indeed wasn't.

Throughout the film, the girl's reactions to what is being done to her just aren't what they should be. She should be screaming like a banshee in pain. The fact that she isn't means that it's obviously not real. I wouldn't want to watch it if it were real but if she were to be more convincing in her acting, the film would be more disturbing.

And then there are the notorious scenes: nothing affected me at all up until the scalpel in the hand. The hot oil, maggots and innards just didn't bother me. I'm not saying I'm "hard"; just that I wasn't able to suspend my disbelief, partly because of the girl's inaction.

The scalpel made me wince a little but the hammer to the hand just made the hand look rubber. And the final scene with the eye was again a little wincing but nothing more. I didn't want to look away and neither did I feel nauseous.

Perhaps it's because the film is twenty-odd years old, or perhaps I'm just jaded. The truth is, I didn't find this film at all disturbing.

It's the kind of thing you might expect to see playing on a loop as a modern art installation and as an exercise in stripping away characters, story etc. and just leaving the torture, it works on some levels. As a disturbing piece of film though, it didn't work for me at least.

I watched Guinea Pig with my wife, who is of the "it's just a film" bent and she wondered what all the fuss was about. We got to discussing why I watch these films and my reasons are many but include a desire to be affected by a film. She said that she didn't think any film could be so convincing as to disturb her and challenged me to do exactly that. I played her the fire extinguisher scene from Irreversible and she was indeed disturbed.

I'm not sure I have a point, other than that both of us were more disturbed by a scene in a non-horror genre film than any film thus far which sets out to disturb.

Sentiment: negative
I like Chris Rock, but I feel he is wasted in this film. The idea of remaking Heaven Can Wait is fine, but the filmmakers followed the plot of that turkey too closely. When Eddie Murphy remade Dr. Doolittle and The Nutty Professor, he re-did them totally -- so they became Murphy films/vehicles, not just tepid remakes. That's why they were successful. If Chris had done the same, this could have been a much better film. The few laughs that come are when he is doing his standup routine -- so he might as well have done a concert film. It also would have been much funnier if the white man whose body he inhabits was a truck driver or hillbilly. So why does Hollywood keep making junk like this? Because people go to see it -- because they like Chris Rock. So give Chris a decent script and give us better movies! Don't remake films that weren't that good in the first place!

Sentiment: negative
Ladies and gentlemen, allow us to introduce to you . The Toltecs! This ancient Latin American tribe, even preceding the Aztecs, supposedly had the most malevolent and bloodthirsty sorcerers, yet they get their asses whooped by a couple of college floozies and a one-hundred-and-seven-year old lawman with a whip! But before you get to see this, however, you have to struggle through more than 40 minutes of sheer boredom, infantile pranks and sleazy sequences that don't contain any actual sleaze. In case I haven't made myself entirely clear yet: "The Dark Power" is an indescribably cheesy and inept piece of 80's horror crap that still manages to be amusing because of its sheer and somewhat charming stupidity factor. Writer/director Phil Smoot's intentions were obviously admirable, but he  as well as the rest of the cast & crew  lacked the talent and financial means to deliver something even half-decent. Smoot carefully watched "The Evil Dead" and other similar demonic-themed movies, and somehow must have thought he could pull this off as well. The movie opens with an old Indian guy dying in his isolated countryside house; barely speaking out his last word above a whisper  Toltecs. His grandson promptly rents out house to a bunch of college chicks, including a typically 80's aerobics babe, a cute black girl and a racist redneck gal. Soon they will discover why exactly the old Indian lived like a hermit, as he was actually the guardian of an ancient Toltec burial ground. Toltec sorcerers buried themselves alive, only to emerge again thousands of years later and feed on the flesh of the living. And, honestly, is there any better tasting flesh than that of bimbos? As hinted at before already, the first half of "The Dark Power" is terribly lame and sleep-inducing. The clichéd pranks, the retarded dialogs and the ridiculously overlong footage of Lash LaRue swinging around his whip seem to go on forever. Then, the movie loses its last smidgen of credibility when the Toltec sorcerers emerge from the ground. Instead of menacing, they look like drugged out hard rock stars with imbecile masks and drunken gestures. Exactly ONE gory moment is worth mentioning, when a guy's lips are stretched out over his entire skull, but overall even the carnage aspect of this movie is disappointing. The only remotely worthwhile moments are utterly senseless, like when a 9-year-old kid (named Cletus!) goes joyriding with his uncle's truck or when the vulgar naked chick sips beer in the bathtub after working out. Seriously, unless you get turned on by the sight of a 1940's western veteran swinging around his whip at nothing, I'd advise to skip this film.

Sentiment: negative
This is based on Michael's life from 1983/4 till 2004. Flex Alexander did a good performance but looked nothing like Michael. I feel Michael was portrayed as a stupid person which I don't believe he was (even though he trusted the wrong people at times). I thought Flex Alexander looked Chinese when they made Michael look white. I think Latoya should of been portrayed in this, she was always pictured with her brother in the 80's. I never thought any of the supporting cast looked like their counterparts. There were some things that were inaccurate Lisa-Marie Presley's son looked about 4 in the wedding scene even though he was not yet 2 when Lisa and Michael got married. Also when Michael says to his mother Katherine he thinks he and Debbie should marry if she is carrying his child, it was Katherine's idea for the two to get married.

Sentiment: negative
i've heard a lot about the inventive camera-work and direction in this movie. i thought both were a mess

also some truly terrible acting. the main 'heroine' in the movie is irritating beyond belief and has absolutely nothing useful to contribute in any situation. everything she does or says is stupid, and she generally just seems to mess peoples lives up. if she could fight, i might forgive her

overall all the women in this movie are stereotypical 'broads' in need of a man to save them. and all the men in this movie are muscle bound dim wits capable of saving no one

this is a poor movie, and i urge you to avoid it. watch something like 'the sword of doom' instead, i hear its much better than this confusing mess of a film.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is really genuine and random. It's really hard to find movies like it in bunches of movies now in Hollywood. I really enjoy watching this movie, i bought its DVD Tuesday this week and i've watched it for 4 times. I love the Spanglish accent of Paz, it s just really cute as she is. And her acting and Morgan's are so funny and natural.

My movie taste might be really different from others but i have to say i really love this movie, the simple is the best!

I've learned something more about life from this movie (well, or at least USA's life)... life is really random... Sometimes, u meet someone, they pass by your life and be your friends coincidently, and u don't spend so much time with them, maybe just a while but u enjoy that ''while'' with them, and then u and them will never meet each other again, but the time u are together is really unforgettable. Just keep those moments in your mind as grateful and nice memories...

This movie might be cheap in the making price but its meanings are totally not cheap. I rarely can learn anything from movies, but this is an exception.

Sentiment: positive
Actress Ruth Roman's real-life philanthropic gesture to help entertain troops arriving from and leaving for the Korean War at an air base near San Francisco jump-started this all-star Warner Bros. salute to patriotism and song. Many celebrities make guest appearances while a love-hate romance develops between a budding starlet and a painfully green and skinny Air Force Corporal (Ron Hagerthy, who looks like he should be delivering newspapers from his bicycle). Seems the Corporal has fooled the actress into thinking he's off to battle when actually he's part of a airplane carrier crew, flying to and from Honolulu (you'd think she'd be happy he was staying out of harm's way, but instead she acts just like most childish females in 1950s movies). Doris Day is around for the first thirty minutes or so, and her distinct laugh and plucky song numbers are most pleasant. Roman is also here, looking glamorous, while James Cagney pokes fun at his screen persona and Gordon MacRae sings in his handsome baritone. Jane Wyman sings, too, in a hospital bedside reprise following Doris Day's lead, causing one to wonder, "Did they run out of sets?" For undemanding viewers, an interesting flashback to another time and place. Still, the low-rent production and just-adequate technical aspects render "Starlift" strictly a second-biller. *1/2 from ****

Sentiment: negative
In what must be one of the most blood-freezing movies ever, a transvestite is murdering people in New York, and the answer to everything may not be what people suspect. One can see how Brian DePalma takes some influence from Hitchcock with camera angles and stuff. Michael Caine plays a most thought-provoking character, while Angie Dickinson is basically a bored rich woman with a bad hairdo. Keith Gordon (who later starred in "Christine") is probably the most interesting character in the movie. But you can't really understand this movie without seeing it. And after seeing it, you may never know just whom you can trust. Also starring Nancy Allen and Dennis Franz.

Sentiment: positive
I will confess that once I started watching this movie, it had a hold on me that forced me to watch it through to its conclusion. Quite possibly this was some latent voyeuristic tendency in me that wanted to see our hero get it on with his victim, or maybe fascination that they got funding to make, distribute, and show this film that kept me searching it for merit, or possibly some bizarre wish-fulfillment fantasy that there might be a point at the end of all the pain. But no such luck.

So you are warned to not start watching it in the first place, lest the same thing happen to you. There's nothing here worth wasting your hour and a half on.

The first-person mockumentary and the schtick about Fabian's "quest" to impregnate women of the Falklands comes out even more like a sophomoric (maybe Freshman - high school Freshman, that is) film student project than you might imagine. The effect ends up being both sneering at the local inhabitants (who, other than the two professional leads, are in fact real people) as well as engaging in rather disgusting sexual politics (no matter whether you take it all literally or symbolically, it's pointless and sexist).

The reason I ended up watching it all the way is the same reason that once one starts to pick at a scab, there's an irresistable fascination of continuing to do so until it's completely off, even when you know it's bad for you. You just want to see what happens.

In the end, this is rather dishonest filmmaking, because it seems ultimately to have no moral center, no elucidation of the local political situation, nor any place in the type of political-sexual-personal film universe a la Goddard. In short it's got nothing to say and spends a long time pretending it does. Smug would be the one-word tagline.

I'd suggest the filmmakers rent 'Waiting for Guffman' a few times, or hell, even 'Blair Witch Project' if they want to pursue the schtick with a little more style and a little more genuine emotion. Or at least entertainment value.

Sentiment: negative
Daniel Percival's "Dirty War", a BBC production made for television was shown recently on cable. The film has a documentary style in the way it goes after the people that caused the near holocaust in one of the big metropolis of the world, London. In fact, this film, produced in 2004 is almost a cautionary tale of the events of the following year, in which terrorists set explosive devices in the public transport that killed innocent people that were in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

The film impresses for the pace the director and the production team gave to the project. There are no dull moments in the movie as we watch the preparation by the terrorists and the people that are following their dirty work. Although the inevitable happens, it's amazing just to think what would be the consequences if a real 'dirty bomb' was planted in such a densely populated area.

The last images of the film have a chilling effect. The mob scenes and the way the whole area is contaminated send shivers of fear, thinking how it could possible happen anywhere.

Sentiment: positive
There is indeed much to complain about this movie version of Molnar's mystical play --Farrell looks good in his title role, but his line readings, frankly, stink. This also suffers, in large part, from this being credited as the first movie that makes use of rear projection. The sets look phony.

There are two great strengths in this show, however: although the dialogue readings limp, the visual performances are perfect. Rose Hobart, as Julie, is little remembered today: mostly for ROSE HOBART, in which Joseph Cornell cut down the programmer EAST OF BORNEO to simply shots of her: credit Melford's stylish visual direction of the original. Her great beauty and simple (although stagy) performance help repair some of the damage to the earth-bound sections of this movie.

However, one of Borzage's themes is the mystical power of love, and it is the handling of the celestial sections that make this great, from the arrival of the celestial train to the journey to 'the Hot Place'. H.B. Warner's performance here is, as always, perfect.

So we have here a flawed but very interesting version. I think that Lang's 1934 version is better, as well as the celestial scenes in the Henry King version of CAROUSEL, the watered-down musical remake. But I still greatly enjoyed this version and think you should give it a chance.

Sentiment: positive
Words can hardly describe it, so I'll be brief. "The Thief of Bagdad" was my favorite movie as a child, and it has never ceased to astound or enchant me. I loved this film from the first moment I saw it, when I was a boy of six who had started reading "The Arabian Nights." I remember walking into the TV room in the middle of Sabu's battle with the giant spider and being instantly beguiled.

Rarely has so much beauty, magic, and wonder been captured on film. Sabu and John Justin are superb as the dashing heros, Conrad Veidt is throughly delightful as the wicked villain Jaffar, and Rex Ingram is a joy to watch as the sardonic genie. Georges Perinal's photography is some of the best use of Technicolor. One of the three credited directors is Michael Powell, a filmmaker who has been rightfully heralded by the critics but is often overlooked by audiences for his remarkable films, including "A Matter of Life and Death" (aka "Stairway to Heaven") and "The Red Shoes." He is one of the true masters of the camera, right up there with David Lean, Akira Kurosawa, and Orson Welles.

As with all great works of art, the beauty of "The Thief of Bagdad" lies in the detail. Every frame has its own magical charm. The story never lags, and the characters and their actions are always involving. Here is a film that will never grow old.

Sentiment: positive
The plot of this film might not be extraordinary, but what makes the film really special, are its characters (and the actors who play them  of course!). I won't go into the details of the plot of the movie, but I would certainly like to say this  This film is not just for everyone! The film is really witty and you need to be equally clever to get all the satire. If you're not alert even for a second, you'll probably end up missing one of the subtle points. The movie is full of such seemingly trivial but witty stuff - like the announcements going on in the background at Turaqistan, the advertisements on the tankers (which I almost missed) and it are these that make the movie hilarious throughout.

Coming to the actors, John Cusack has played his multi-faceted role very efficiently (what with him being the co-writer and the producer too) and he plays his character  Hauser, the killer with a heart  exquisitely. Cusack's done a similar kind of role before in Grosse Pointe Blank, but his comic disposition in the movie is simply superb.

However the actress who steals all the show is Hilary Duff! I have always been a huge fan of Ms. Duff. But to be honest I was a bit disappointed when I heard about the kind of role she's playing in the movie. But after watching the movie the disappointment gave way to great respect for her as an actor. Let's face it! The kid's growing, but yes, so is her talent! All those critics, who shouted hoarse that Hilary cannot act, will be silent for a while. Hilary had to play a really complex character  tough on the outside, yet a sweet child on the inside  and she's done complete justice to it. She makes you laugh, and she makes you cry  to cut the long story short ('cause I could go on raving about her for ever) she's BRILLIANT! Marisa Tomei and Joan Cusack have done a good job too. Especially, Joan's hysterics are uproarious! However, I was rather disappointed with Ben Kingsley being wasted in such a small role and his performance seemed lackluster.

In general War, Inc. keeps you on your toes throughout with its intelligent humor, and ends with just the right amount of twists in the plot. I would highly recommend this movie to all (and more so to Hilary Duff fans)!!! P.S. - I am really glad to hear the movie is going to break free of its limited release and release at other places soon!!!

Sentiment: positive
At the beginning we get to see the start of a secret council of some sorts. It all looks very promising from the get go. With some supernatural elements thrown in, the mystery gets more interesting by the minute. The main character who seems like a good bloke gets into trouble because of his claim for money he is entitled to (temptation) and other factors. You really empathize with the guy and you want to know what exactly is going on. Normally a person in his situation would have several options. Somehow he does not have those options. In this movie there only seems to be one solution even when it is clear it is not his fault. Out of the blue he encounters characters who talk about church,prayer and God. And they provide the answer for his problem. It should be obvious at a point in the movie what this solution is. Now let me say that there is nothing wrong with this message. Since it always is helpful. But was it really necessary to disguise this message. This religious element actually ruined the viewing experience for me. While the message is good,it's simplicity can't escape the fact that in real life more needs to happen to resolve issues presented in this movie. The mystery that is presented to us never gets solved. In stead you are forced to deal with another topic that essentially has nothing to do with the plot. Don't get fooled because of Malcolm Mcdowell. The once brilliant actor is adequate,but if you watch closely you will see that he is not serious at all. He really must be desperate for money. Otherwise what would posses an actor of his caliber to act in a movie like this.

Sentiment: negative
Don't mind what this socially retarded person above says, this show is hilarious. It shows how a lot of single men are in a bar atmosphere, and also shows that women are not as gullible as men think they are. 

The contest aspect of the how is really cool and original. Its not the standard reality show that we are all used to now a days.

Give it a chance everyone, we are only one episode in, we finally have some Canadian programming that isn't absolute crap. As Canadians what do we normally get, Bon Cop, Bad Cop, or Corner Gas. Come on people show that we are all not as prudish as the previous reviewer.

Way to go Comedy Network, giving a new show a chance. The panel is funny and the contestants so far are pretty good.

Sentiment: positive
I rented this film from Netflix for two reasons - I was in the mood for what I thought would be a silly '50s sci-fi-asco and because it is the first feature-length Superman film. Needless to say, after about 15 minutes I found myself thoroughly engaged and very pleasantly surprised.

An experimental oil well has penetrated about six miles into the earth and is being shut down by the sponsor. Lois and Clark show up to get the scoop but are disappointed that the deepest well ever drilled will no longer be in operation. A day later, strange events at the well make for a story more appropriate for Superman than Clark Kent. It seems that the radioactive Mole Men have invaded from their six-mile deep home near the earth's core.

Supermen and the Mole Men is a simplistic but well-made piece of social realism. Released in 1951, starring a lead actor who served in World War II, the moral of the story seems to be that Americans are just as capable of becoming fascists as anybody else. To drive this point home in a typically straightforward Superman manner, Reeves even accuses the lynch mob hunting the Mole Men of being 'Nazis' at one point.

Even in the 1950s, the science underlying this film was nonexistent. Six miles of drilling through continental crust would not have even penetrated the upper mantle, let alone the "hollow center of the earth" - which, in any case does not exist. Forgivable - keep in mind that this film is based on a golden age comic book.

The film is a little unevenly paced. Although the Molemen are interesting, a bit creepy, and nicely portrayed, there are several Corman-esquire scenes which spend too much time redundantly showing us their odd behavior. The script is intelligent and economical. By today's standards, the costuming is poor to fair, but for its time, this film's special effects and costuming were quite good. The cinematography is also generally very good, and the acting is much better than one might expect. I was particularly impressed with Reeves, Jeff Corey and Walter Reed.

Sentiment: positive
In my opinion dads army is thee best British sitcom of all time. I believe that if you just watch one episode of the show you cannot judge in completely on that one episode, (this include the movie) You must at least watch a series of this show, get inside the characters, become familiar with there surroundings and the situations which they are in. When you become familiar with the show then it will start appealing to you. Now the movie has a few changes to the series which is slightly disappointing, but it still works. Watch a series or two of the show first before you watch this. You'll not be disappointed. Good episode to watch is "No Spring for Frazer"

Sentiment: positive
This is a truly awful film. What they have done is taken a TV show, which was never aimed at young children & given it the George Lucas treatment (i.e. ruined it by kiddifying it to appeal to the younger audience).

OK so the Thunderbirds TV show wasn't exactly the most cerebral of shows, in fact it was pretty formulaic, but it was always enjoyable to watch (especially when the models got blown up) and the voice cast wasn't too bad.

This suffers from bad casting & bad acting (with the notable exceptions of Sophia Myles as Lady Penelope & Ron Cook as Parker, who seem to be the only cast members to have a clue about how their characters should be played) & after this travesty I wouldn't let Frakes direct traffic.

The whole point of Thunderbirds was that it was about the whole Tracy family & how they worked as a team, preventing disasters or coming to the rescue of those involved in disasters.

Avoid this rubbish like the plague.

I only give it 1 out of 10 because a zero rating is not supported.

Sentiment: negative
Trapped: buried alive brings us to a resort that has just opened, and is soon to close.

We start with a guy in gear blowing up drifts, to avoid the possibility of avalanches. somehow, that doesn't make sense. anyways, he's about to blow away one particularly big one, when he notices the resort is open. despite his best efforts, higher authority tells him his day is over.

soon, as everyone expects, an avalanche hits.

Look, i'm not gonna reveal any more, all i can say is this was a B-movie designed for the family channel (which i just saw it on, and the fact it had no commercials proves it's a B-movie) anyways, it's a pretty decent film, but it's partially unreal.

firsthand, when people are buried by ice and snow, they're buried. not just traced by powder. or, what about a CD for a screwdriver? it's not possible. and finally, what i can't stress enough, is that an explosion cannot stop a avalanche, guaranteed.

furthermore, it's worth a rental or a TV viewing, but not owning. 7/10.

The movie is rated PG, but maybe it should have received something a little more strong. a boy nearly loses his foot in an elevator, but his leg is cut around the ankle, a guy is toasted by electricity and diesel, and in the weight room, dead people are laying around.

enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
in this movie, joe pesci slams dunks a basketball. joe pesci...

and being consistent, the rest of the script is equally not believable.

pesci is a funny guy, which saves this film from sinking int the absolute back of the cellar, but the other roles were pretty bad. the father was a greedy businessman who valued money more than people, which wasn't even well-played. instead of the man being an archetypal villain, he seemed more like an amoral android programmed to make money at all costs. then there's the token piece that is assigned to pesci as a girlfriend or something...i don't even remember...she was that forgettable.

anyone who rates this movie above a 5 or 6 is a paid member of some sort of film studio trying to up the reputation of this sunken film, or at least one of those millions of media minions who can't critique efficiently (you know, the people who feel bad if they give anything a mark below 6).

stay away...far away. and shame on comedy central, where i saw this film. they usually pick better.

Sentiment: negative
When I read the synopsis for "Messiah" in the television guide, I was not prepared for what was in store. The story follows DCI Metcalfe trying to solve a case of grisly murders being taken out across London. He soon realises a pattern, there is a serial killer on the loose, killing people with similar names and jobs to those of the 12 Apostles and their killings are identical to their matching Apostle. The two part series kept me right on the edge of my seat, with Metcalfe closely pursuing the killer, but always missing him within a couple of seconds and discovering the gruesome mess he has left behind of his ill-fated victim. "Messiah" is sure to cause a great deal of controversy, but nonetheless it is the greatest piece of drama the BBC has shown in a long time.

Sentiment: positive
I went into a screening of "SISTER HELEN" at the Sundance Film Festival and did not know what to expect.

I was riveted by the people in this documentary. Sister Helen is an incredible character!!! The filmmakers captured the essence of Sister Helen's amazing soul and took me into a world unknown. I was thoroughly satisfied by the journey and was completely caught off guard by this film's ending.

This film speaks to those who desire a second chance at life.

Sentiment: positive
Cinderella is a beautiful film, with beautiful songs of course. In fact, it's one of the best films of the 1950's.

I think all the characters are portrayed amazingly. You can see the cruelness of Cinderella's stepsisters and her stepmother, the sweetness of Cinderella. The mice are funny and sweet too.

I think they changed the tale a bit, but I think it's for the best. It's such a nice film, and I don't think anyone could resist it deep down.

I give it a 8/10. I don't think it's the best Disney film. But it sure is a true classic.

Sentiment: positive
Everything about this movie is perfect. The set design, the acting, the camera movement, the mood, the colors - everything. You'll be hard pressed to find a better movie. Easily, the best film generated in the last 35 years. Keep an eye on Michael Almereydas!!

Sentiment: positive
Whatever happened to Keaton is what I want to know.

Actually I don't, I crawled away, heaving, thinking she must owe half the bookies in Vegas, or maybe not, maybe she was just brainwashed, blackmailed and bored to death. Rich enough to adopt a third-world country, she somehow had to star in yet another cookie-cut, cliché-ridden drool'athon, based on the same character-franchise she's been rehashing since 'Father of the Bride'('91). You'd think she's going head to head with Mr.Bean.

(Spoilers) 

So hubby (Dax) get's fired by obnoxious son of boss, his mom (Keaton)leaves his dad after classic row, and crashes over with her own dog-show in tow, oh those little rascals. Hubby's got cold-feet for diaper-duty, wifey's clock a-ticking and hey, let's toss in a space-cadet as second house-guest for good measure, all in one day because that's so funny and original. Wife gets fed up and walks away, mom leaves dad for space-cadet and the couple makes up in time for closing credits, 86 very long minutes later.

Now if you have to have a space-cadet, he can't be devious as well, he can't scheme some excuse for his stayover, and if mom leaves dad, she can't hop into a cab dressed as a pumpkin just because some scriptwriter agonized over how to cheer thing up. 

Plus that gag whereby they invite her in only to then discover she's got her canine entourage in the cab has got to be outlawed by now. And you only get one obnoxious 2-dimensional boss to denigrate. Another movie-killer would be the movie-script the space cadet is toiling away at, supposedly more lame than the actual one, again, dejas-ad-nausea.

Liv Tyler doesn't seem happy here, her voice was weird at times, it had me wondering if they later had her redub some of it, and she's a smart one, she's handled great roles and we'll forgive her for Jersey Girl, it was disaster-prone, could happen to anyone. Dax Shepard was watchable and that's being generous considering the material.

Personally, it's the director, the screenwriters and especially the producers that I would love to see tar'n'feathered before shipped to Guantanamo as playthings for the prisoners, and that's me keeping this 'lite'.

Sentiment: negative
I am a big Beatles fan. My favorite Beatle is Paul and my least favorite is John. I already knew quite a bit about the Beatles music and the truth behind the breakup, as well as things like John Lennon's family and Paul's band Wings. I was curious to see how this movie would handle the relationship between John and Paul so many years after the breakup.

I was not disappointed by this movie. Although the story itself is fiction, many of the references that the two musicians used were very accurate. These included how Yoko Ono would always be with John wherever he went, the Wings song "Silly Love Songs" being the number one hit that year and the concert on the roof of Apple Studios playing music from the album "Let It Be."

The actors did a very good job in playing John and Paul. The accents could had used maybe a bit more work, but they seemed to act a lot like I've read the two former-Beatles used to act like. I also liked the dialogue between them, which was basically what the entire movie was.

The ending at first disappointed me, but the more you think about it the more you will appreciate it, especially since this was how it really went in real life. They also show the fantastic skit from "Saturday Night Live" in which the Beatles are offered $3,000 to perform on the show. (as compared to the $220 million others were offering them) Overall, I was not disappointed with this movie. It does really give you more of a feel for why the Beatles broke up and why they never got back together.

Sentiment: positive
I just viewed Detention last night and i liked what i saw. It was a cool fun movie.Dolph looked superbly cool on the Bike.He also looked good in this movie as compared to his other recent movies.He is now in a pretty good shape.The story was ok and the other actors were also passable.I wouldn't call this movie his best but its still a good movie.

But it also had its share of Problems. The first one was the way bullets were flying everywhere and even when they were being fired at point blank range they missed the target.They should've had shown the ppl escaping the bullets in a better way. Another problem which i had was the way the students were swearing. I dont know in which school the students can swear in front of their teacher and even in the classroom. The third problem was that the bad guys were very few in numbers. There should've been more bad guys. Last problem was definately the fact that the set looked cheesy , but that was due to the small budget. Overall the movie was a good Movie.I enjoyed it.I would recommend others to watch it. P.S. Now u r a DEAD beat cop. (Some One-liners were also cool)



Sentiment: positive
After watching the first 20mn of Blanche(sorry I couldn't take more of it), I have now confirmed she does not. 

Basically, this "movie" is an insult to the real french actors participating in this farcical piece of junk. It starts from a concept successfully used in French comedies ("Deux heures moins le quart avant Jesus Christ", "La Folie des Grandeurs",...): a historical movie with anachronic tone / dialogues. This can give brilliant results if supported by brilliant actors and a "finesse" of direction avoiding the dreaded "heavy comedy" stigma.

Unfortunately, the horsey-faced Lou Doillon ruins everything and Blanche, instead of a comedy, just turns into an horror movie. Horror to cinephiles who want to be puzzled and shocked watching fine actors such as Decaune, Zem or Rochefort struggling in the middle of this gaudy burlesque kitchy-prissy farce.

Sentiment: negative
Really no reason to examine this much further because of a few very glaring and bias misleading statements.

A perfect example is when the filmmaker claims "Saul" or Paul of Tarus (the writer of The Book of Hebrews He asserts) has no idea Jesus is or was a human being, this assertion is either purposely false as he accuses others of presenting, or he is ignorant of what "The Bible" says.

first we can examine his misleading claim about Hebrews 8.4; which he shows a quote "If Jesus was on earth, he would not be a priest", hence right here He sets up the ignorant and unlearned viewer to accept his false premise.. why? He does what most so called Bible believing people he accuses of doing, the same.. That is TAKING things out of context.

verse one of Hebrews 8 is; 1.."Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" The context above is CLEARLY speaking of a Jesus who was on earth and ASCENDED into heaven after his alleged resurrection.

It has nothing to do with how the filmmaker wants the viewer to take his out of context scripture. Here he offers a foundation, that "Paul was not aware of a HUMAN Jesus, but only one in "heaven"

follow?

lets see if the filmmaker is being honest; Hebrews 7; 14. "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood."

heh, didn't the filmmaker just quote from the writer of Hebrews trying to show the writer of that book has no knowledge of a "Human Jesus"? it's likely anyways Paul didn't write Hebrews, but I will not go into that here, but The film maker asserts Paul did, and that is the premise of the point given here.

It is not like this film maker does not make decent points in certain areas, he does, but he is engaging in the same blind bias of the religion he is bashing on. Once he engages in these tactics, in my strong opinion, he loses credibility as the religion he picks out, and the film is no longer a documentary, but a personal opinion, and a bias of the film maker, nothing more, nothing less.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is very bad. In fact, the only reason why I've given it a 2 rather than a 1 is because it made me laugh. Without giving anything away, a man's head actually explodes in this film. It was so pathetic, I laughed. I don't believe the scene was meant to be funny but it's nonsense. Complete nonsense. The original Halloween is such a good film, it's a shame they had to go and make such a stinker.

Sentiment: negative
This is perhaps the best rockumentary ever- a British, better This Is Spinal Tap. The characters are believable, the plot is great, and you can genuinely empathise with some of the events- such as Ray's problem with fitting in the band.

The soundtrack is excellent. Real period stuff, even if it is in the same key, you'll be humming some of the songs for days. What I liked was the nearly all-British cast, with some of the favourite household names. Ray's wife is priceless...

The film never drags, it just goes at the right pace, and has some genuinely funny sections in it. A generator of some really good catchphrases!

It's a hidden diamond.

Sentiment: positive
"Arahan" adds nothing positive to the Kung Fu genre. To compare this confused motion picture with the inspired craziness and quality of Stephen Chow's films is a mistake.

Firstly the fight scenes are nothing new. All that is presented here has been done before and better by the likes of Yimou Zhang, Tony Jaa and Jackie Chan. Fights in intelligent Motion Pictures need logic. There seems no point serving blows that have no damaging effect as in the "Matrix" sequels.

The attractive female lead So-Yi Yoon captivated the screen but she never convincingly conquered the physical demands of the role as Ziyi Zhang had done so easily in "House Of Flying Daggers". Having a Martial Arts background serves well in Kung Fu movies. To cast actors inexperienced in these skills is a serious mistake (See Aya Ueto in "Asumi") unless you are a very talented director which as "Arahan" proves Seung-wan Ryoo is not.

Sentiment: negative
Well, were to start? This is by far one of the worst films I've ever paid good money to see. I won't comment on the story itself, it's a wonderful classic, but here it feels like a soap opera. To start with, the acting, except for Eric Bana, is soap opera quality. I've always been a fan of Brad Pitt, but here every actor on The Bold and the Beautiful puts him to shame. The camera action doesn't help, either. How it lingers on him when he's thinking, it just takes me back to Brooke Forrester's days in the lab! Peter O'Toole has either had a really bad plastic surgery, or he is desperately in need of one. Either way, he looks more like Linda Evans than Linda Evans! And to end my comments, Diane Kruger is a cute girl, but she sure is no Helen of Troy. Peterson should rather have chosen Saffron Burrows for the role, since Elizabeth Taylor would be rather miscast by now.

Sentiment: negative
Peter Lorre was born to play Stephen Danel with lines like: "Mr. Smith, you shouldn't hold my wife like that." and "I told you not to keep the monkey in the house!" The poster for this film is an eerie green and Peter Lorre leers in way that makes you never want to go to his penal colony / island. This film is not available on DVD although it is a classic and very rarely shown on TV. What exactly is the relationship between Stephen Danel and the monkey? Why does the monkey upset him so much. We will never know. The film should be colorized by someone and excerpts should be made into a Kinks video. The film was re-released in the 1950s and only a few of the Peter Lorre biographies spend any text on this film. Casablanca was right around the corner. Bogart could have been on that island but they surely did not have the budget for him

Sentiment: positive
When I saw this movie, all I could think was: What a disaster! No I'm not talking about the volcano, but about the movie itself. I have seen a lot of movies, but this is certainly one of the worst ever. I don't care about the fact if a volcano erupting underneath downtown L.A. is possible or not. Perhaps it isn't, but even than this could have been a good movie... but it sure isn't and I'll explain you why.

I don't know how much lava flows out of an average volcano, but what I do know is that the volcano in this movie makes the Vesuvius, Etna and Mount Pinatubo together look like a little barbecue. I don't think there has ever been so much lava flowing out of a volcano as what we see in this film. I'm sure the director had a lot of money to spend on his movie, but I really wonder why he all spent it on the special effects and not on the script and the actors. I'm not saying that he should have hired a top cast, but this really is the opposite of what I would call good acting. Their performances are so unbelievably poor that it makes the entire movie even worse.

And what's wrong about the script you probably ask yourself. Well, can you tell me who comes up with the idea of people standing a few yards or even a few feet from the lava without getting burned or having to hide for the heath? Or people sinking in the earth when the flow of lava isn't even two foot high? 

I'm sure I wouldn't be proud if I wrote such a script, but apparently there are script writers in Hollywood who don't mind about believability as long as it pays good money! VERY good money!!!

When you see the movie, you'll probably agree with me that this is one of Hollywood's worst disaster movies, not worth more than a 3/10.

Sentiment: negative
A bunch of women who can't act sit around, talk, smoke pot. They have another woman in a wheelchair they hide because she is deformed, and occasionally they kill some one to feed this person human flesh that really looks like some store-bought ham which they dressed up by sticking on a few plastic fingers. We don't see them killing anyone, suddenly there is a body on the floor, covered by a bloodied sheet. I can't eat Spam cover by a sheet anymore because of this. Just the thought of Spam cover by a sheet is enough to induce the same narcoleptic fit brought on by trying to get through all of this movie. Occasionally there are randomly inserted scenes of a guy who is "hunting" them by way of torturing some guy he strapped to a chair is his basement. Why he caught this guy and how he is connected to the Sit-On-The-Couch Sisters is never explained. There are also scenes of some "superhuman" guy freaking out. He p***es blood and punches through a wall, but who he is or what is wrong with him is neither explained nor even tied in to the story.

There is no action, no special effects, no story. If you want to watch some boring people talk in a profound way about nothing while sitting around and eating ham and smoking, then here's 90 minutes of that, because, except for a scene where one chick does some hooking on a street corner and the aformentioned random scenes, absolutely NOTHING happens. (YAWN) Oh, I almost forgot, you get to see them move some stuff, including the deformed sister, when they move to their new apartment. Its one of the few times they're not sitting on a couch or lying in bed.

Sentiment: negative
This one and the one prior "Toulon's Revenge" and the next one seem to be completely different from the first two movies where the puppets were not so nice. It is basically choose your series, the first two go together and paint the puppets as killers, while the next three are a series of them being the good guys. This one plays out to much like some cheesy television series episode to be as good as part three was and I never really had the urge to try and watch part five of the series. Basically, a kid gets the puppets while some strange dark lord or something sends his evil puppets out to kill, this dark lord looks like some sort of enemy from one of those live action Japanese shows like Ultraman. The movie is over before you know it though so it has to get credit for not inflicting you with a very painful to watch movie. Just to many plot holes and things in it for it to be considered an okay movie. You do get to see the guy who played Toulon in the last movie though then you have a very anti-climatic battle and wham the movie is over before it really begins.

Sentiment: negative
This film is mediocre at best. Angie Harmon is as funny as a bag of hammers. Her bitchy demeanor from "Law and Order" carries over in a failed attempt at comedy. Charlie Sheen is the only one to come out unscathed in this horrible anti-comedy. The only positive thing to come out of this mess is Charlie and Denise's marriage. Hopefully that effort produces better results.

Sentiment: negative
Blade is a fantastic action/thriller that keeps you captured for the whole duration and Wesley Snipes delivers what I would say to be his best performance yet.

This film has everything that you would ask for in an action/thriller, it has plenty of blood, guts and gore, a twisted, disturbed bad buy, moments of humour but most importantly a very good story line with plenty of twists.

Their is constant action throughout the film with breathtaking stunts and effects, Wesley Snipes fighting movement is fantastic.

This film is in my opinion a must see, Wesley Snipes cool, solid appearance makes this film and I can't wait for the sequel 'BLADE 2' being released next year.

My IMDB Rating - 9 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
According to reviewers, the year is 1955 and the players are 20 year-old college kids about to enter grad school. Jolly joke!

1955? The synthesizer keyboard was not invented yet, but there it is on the bandstand. The Ford Pony Car was not invented yet, but there it is playing oldies music. The synthesizer appeared to be a model from the mid 1970's. The Pony Car at best is from the mid 1960's.

20 year-old college kids? Josh Brolin had seen 32 birthdays when this made-for-TV movie was produced.

The plot is so predictable that viewers have plenty of spare time to think of all the errors appearing upon their TV's.

Sentiment: negative
Vidor shines as Judith, the only truly strong and compassionate member of a strictly patriarchal family. Her brother, David, is so downtrodden by their father that it's a surprise he's able even to tie his shoes, rather than asking Dad to do it for him.

Other reviewers have already outlined the plot, so I won't rehash it; I will, however, point out that Nan, who is pregnant by David, is also married to him. This is not an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, which would have been horrific by 1921 standards. The two are secretly married, but Nan's father, having been paid by David's father, tears up their marriage certificate.

Nan's death scene, with Judith in attendance, is a truly heart-rending experience, and highly charged with emotion. This scene alone is worth watching the movie for, but there's far more to the plot than that; why on earth aren't modern movies made with the same attention to the story?

Sentiment: positive