DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This is not an entirely bad movie. The plot (new house built next door seems to be haunted) is not bad, the mood is creepy enough, and the acting is okay. The big problem I had is that, being familiar with Lara Flynn Boyle (from Twin Peaks and other shows), I couldn't get over how different she looks with her apparently new, big lips. I kept staring at them. They look so out of place on her face! They make her look completely different (and not better).

Mark-Paul Gosselaar, the actor who plays Kim the architect who designs and pours his heart and soul into the house, does a fine job. And Lara (as Col) is also quite good (but those lips!) as the owner of the house next door. Her husband, Walker (Colin Ferguson) is appropriately wooden. The various characters who live in the house were also fine. I particularly liked Pie (Charlotte Sullivan) and her husband, Buddy (Stephen Amell), the first people to move into the house. The attempt to involve us in the overall neighborhood vibe fails, unfortunately, as the other neighbors are not particularly likable.

For some reason the director was unable to make the "haunted" house particularly ominous. Other movies (such as Amityville Horror, The Legend of Hell House) manage to achieve that spooky feel, but it just doesn't happen here. The closest is when Col paints a depiction of the house.

Another thing that didn't work for me is the plot twist that occurs with Kim, the architect. Initially, he appears to be a victim of the house like the others (it has sucked him dry of inspiration), but later he seems to have joined forces with it in evil.

Overall, not a bad movie for horror fans if you can take your eyes off those big lips!

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the worst movies I've seen in my life. If you're looking for a nice theatrical effect, skip it and watch something else.

But if you're looking for camp-value, this is it. Here's my advice: Gather a few sarcastic friends and watch the movie strictly for the purpose of making fun of it.

Sentiment: negative
I used to love Sabrina The Teenage Witch and have seen every single episode. I remember when I used to sit at 6pm every night and wait for it to come on Nickelodeon, however when Sabrina left high school the show began to go downhill. The best series has to be when she was friends with Valerie (I'm not sure which one that is). From there the next series (friends with Dreama) was still really good, but when she left high school it just didn't seem right. All the main characters seemed to have left, which meant that it didn't have as much of the old "sparkle", however the first series where Sabrina is in college is still relatively good and watchable, however when her aunt's leave and Sabrina moves into their house it just isn't right. She is no longer a teenager, so therefore the name of the show isn't right and without Hilda and Zelda and Josh the show just doesn't seem right, especially when Sabrina nearly marries someone that isn't Harvey. Thank goodness he came through in the last five minutes of the last episode to take her away. All in all I still love to watch the old episodes of Sabrina the Teenage Witch, but I think the writers took it too far and should have left it with Sabrina leaving high school. Because after that the show definitely lost some of it's magic

Sentiment: positive
OK from the point of view of an American, who i assume do not know much about rugby this would be an amazing film for them.First of all its got heart, good morals the typical good coach trying to change the bad boy. HOWEVER to us where I come from rugby is the number one sport, it is a way of life it is a game played only by the bravest and the victorious are hailed like heroes as though Americans do for their baseball/basketball stars. Am not really sure if it was the cheap budget or the maybe the director or actors knew very little about rugby and being a rugby fan my whole life i can see than some of the actors didn't even knew rugby existed before acting in this movie. In summing up to me this movie was terrible. If you watch it and thought it was great please make time to go online and maybe Google "All Blacks" this is new Zealand's national team and the ones who made the haka famous. Believe me they will make the Highlands boys look like school girls.

Sentiment: negative
It sounds a bit awkward to call a film about war and holocaust shocking since many of us will know only too well of the horrors that war and violence brings. By using the adjective 'shocking' I do not intend to imply that I am surprised about the things told about in this film or that I was formerly unaware of them, it is just that I am very much impressed by the way in which this film shows how crazy and incomprehensibly horrific it is to kill each other off, either with or without a 'reason'.

The first part of the film focuses on Hanna's successful participation in the Hungarian resistance. Maruschka Detmers would never have won an Oscar for this performance, due to inconsistent directing, but still her acting is solid enough and she has enormous charisma. She is cast very well as Hanna and immediately has our sympathy. Her very beautiful looks help, of course, but that has nothing to do with her being simply a good actress, playing a good part.

Certain inconsistencies keep occurring in Hanna's War. I sometimes get the idea director Menahem Golan (often despised for The Gianni Versace Murder) was in a rush and should actually have allowed a few more takes per scene. On the other hand, I am very thankful he made this impressive and thought-provoking film and as I am very positive about it, I think he did a good job.

The second half of the film is the most interesting and tragic one. It focuses on Hanna's suffering (beware of Donald Pleasence's scary portrayal of the cruel and sardonic captain Rosza) and intensely shows the injustice and horror that comes with hate and violence and war. I receive Hanna's War, especially the second half, as a strong anti-war film and for that alone Golan deserves credit. It is also this second half in which Maruschka Detmer's talent comes out, creating a character which goes into film history as one of the most speaking, strong and tragic ever portrayed. It is also great to see Ellen Burstyn, whose appearance and acting style always remind me of Romy Schneider, who -had she been alive and cast- would have made a similar effective contribution to Hanna's War.

The tragic impact of the second half and the desperate tension which is sometimes replaced by hopeful prospects and good news lead to a number of final scenes which show something so unexpected, so moving and poetic in its tragedy that it hit me like a bomb and left me in tears. And when I realized once more it wasn't even fiction, it all actually happened, I found myself in even more tears. The image of Hanna portrayed by Maruschka Detmers will be in my mind forever.

Sentiment: positive
This is an atrocious movie. Two demented young women seduce and torture a middle aged man. There's not much to give away in regards to a plot or a "spoiler". I would only comment that the ending is nearly the most preposterous part of the flick. Much of the film involves Locke and Camp cackling obnoxiously, all the while grinning psychotically at the camera. Add to this a soundtrack that repeats again and again, including a vaudevillian song about "dear old dad" that suggests an incestuous quality the viewer never really sees. The music is annoying at first, then ends up subjecting the viewer to a torture worse than that depicted on the screen. The theme here is of youth run amok, understandable as a reaction to the '60s, but done with little imagination or style. Avoid it!

Sentiment: negative
Sheba Shayne (Pam Grier) receives a telegram informing her that her father may be in trouble. Sheba, a private investigator and former cop, goes to her father's aid. But someone will stop at nothing to run her father out of business. An attempt to show their muscle goes awry and Sheba's father is gunned down in cold blood. These guys have messed with the wrong woman.

If I had to describe Sheba Baby, the best I can come up with is Pam Grier Lite with some really bad acting. For a Pam Grier film, Sheba Baby is incredibly tame. It's nowhere near as violent as some of her earlier films. Gone are the over-the-top images of Pam placing a small revolver or razor blades in her afro. Pilot (D'Urville Martin) and his crew can't hold a candle to some of the real villains Pam faced in her previous movies. It's strictly by-the-numbers and almost has a made-for-TV feel. As for the bad acting, the baddies that Pam faces off with are as unnatural sounding in their delivery as I've seen. As a result, characters like Pilot don't come across as threatening as they should or need to for the movie to work.

That's not to say there aren't moments or elements in Sheba Baby that I didn't enjoy (Pam in a wetsuit and Pam brandishing a spear gun), it's just that when compared with Pam's other films like Coffy, Foxy Brown, and even Friday Foster that the movie fails.

One final observation - maybe I'm just more sensitive to these things post-9/11, but I don't remember a time, even in the security lax 70s, when you could take a suitcase full of guns on an airplane. When Sheba flies to her father's aid, she's got an arsenal packed in her luggage!

Sentiment: negative
"Holes" is my all-time favorite movie! So far I have seen this movie three times in theaters and am looking forward to purchasing it on DVD this upcoming September. I read the book after seeing the movie and was amazed at how alike the book and movie were. The director of this film did an excellent job of re-creating the book into movie form. Also, all of the actors selected to play the roles did wonderful playing their characters, especially Max Kasch as ZigZag. Props to all those involved in making this movie, it was a real success! 10 out of 10 stars, I definitely recommend it for everyone to see!

Sentiment: positive
I went looking for this movie in typical fan obsession. I just wanted to check it out. I was not expecting much of anything. After all, a musician, an actor and a screenplay writer? Not possible for so much talent to reside in one person. Right?? 

Wrong!! Obsession aside, it quickly became one of my favorites! The story line and characters are not lost in the typical hyped up Hollywood special effects. The story plucks at your emotions and pulls you along. As the credits roll by, you suddenly realize you were glued until the end.

At times, the acting seems a little over the top. I do, however, believe it's done with comedic intent and very fitting of the character. Otherwise, I wouldn't have expected the level of acting witnessed.

It's worth seeing more than once. I find myself laughing hysterically or gasping unexpectedly over something I either missed or forgot about the first time or two around.

I completely recommend this movie. Feel free to go in with your doubts, but I'm sure it will find a place on your shelf.

Sentiment: positive
I found this movie on Netflix and had to add it to my queue. I wasn't disappointed when I got it as it's just as funny now as when I saw it at a local drive-in theater back then.

It builds to a climax nicely with you getting glimpses of the various characters as they begin their trip across America on the "Honky Tonk Freeway, America on wheels." This was a strange comedic role for William DeVane as I remember him as Kennedy in the 1974 TV film "The Missiles of October" and felt no one could have pulled that dramatic character off as well as he did.

It reminds me a bit of Dick Van Dyke in "Cold Turkey' where Van Dyke played the local minister. DeVane's role as mayor, minister, and activist was typical for small towns so it makes his character seem amusing and real.

Howard Hessman and Teri Garr as the spoiled family in the RV was on target for the time as well. Anyone who has traveled across country with small children, (Are we there yet?) will appreciate those scenes.

The scenes of a small town struggling to survive reminded me a lot of the small town I grew up in but they handled it with the charm and humor that you often only saw in small towns. It's sad that many small towns disappeared because of the freeway system and it gives a realistic if humorous view of what they had to do to survive. (Used zoo animals anyone?)

All in all, it's a lightweight comedy with no particular message but a humorous glance at America during the early 80's. Well worth watching if you just need a bit of good cheer.

Sentiment: positive
Well the reason for seeing it in the cinema was that it was a sneak preview, else I would never have seen this terrible teenage slasher movie. I mean haven't we had enough of this yet? Scream and Scary Movie at least did not take them self serious! The plot sucks, and the acting is the worst I've seen. (Only Godzilla can compare, which is also the only movie that competes in being the worst I've seen in the cinema with this one.)

There is so many plot holes in the story, and the girls are so alike, that you don't even now who has been killed, and who has not. (and you don't care.) The only of them I knew in advance was Denise, and she was the most talent less actress I have ever seen in this bad excuse for a movie.

Stay as far away from this movie as possible. (2/10)

Sentiment: negative
This movie fails miserably on every level. I have an idea, let's take everyone involved in this movie and ship them into a hot zone in the middle east. Maybe if we're lucky they'll all be shot and killed and we won't have to ever have our time wasted by them again. Did I mention that I have never been so bitter about a cinematic pile of crap in my entire life? My god, I can't think of anything I've ever seen that was this bad. I'd rather watch Ishtar 25 times in a row than sit through 10 minutes of this sorry excuse for a film. If I ever happen to meet anyone who was involved in this film, I'll spit in their face and then beat them senseless. That's my two cents.

Sentiment: negative
Guy Ritchie's noble effort is beat up, knocked down, raped, kicked around, shot, stabbed, spit upon, punched, sodomized, and abused and left for dead by Madonna's dreadful performance. Her acting was very reminiscent of a graduate from the Al Gore School of Dramatics and Public Speaking. Guy Ritchie did do a somewhat noble attempt to remake this, and if you exclude ALL of the scenes that his wife was in, it's a fair movie at best. I think that the best acting job ever, had to be Guy comforting his wife that her performance was good enough not to re-shoot. If you have an opportunity of watching Swept Away or clipping your toenails for 89 minutes...go for the extended pedicure.

Sentiment: negative
Hannibal must be the most God-awful movie I have seen in a long time. In fact, I want my money back. What a waste of time. No plot, minimal character development, questionable motives, poor dialogue, sub-standard acting. What else can I say? If you haven't seen it don't bother. I wouldn't even hire out the video and if you happen to come by it on TV... change the channel. The only reason anyone might have to see this movie would be to see whether the gratuitous violence lived up to all the hype (which quite frankly is why they added it). If you want to see some gug eating his own brain, then fast forward to that bit.

What was the purpose of this movie? Its like someone just asked 'I wonder what Hannibal is up to these days' and we just went along for the ride. He is free in the beginning and he's free at the end. In between is a lot of self-indulgence on the part of Anthony Hopkins and the film makers. Julianne Moore tries valiantly to inject some life into her Clarice, but they gave her a sub-standard script and as far as I'm concerned she was set up to fail.

In my opinion this is just a very very bad story in every sense of the word. The only reason it made so much money was because of the senseless violence they added, which at the end of the day leaves you more with a feeling of contempt than the horror you are supposed to feel.

I give it a big fat RASPBERRY!

Sentiment: negative
It was nice to see all the familiar characters again, but the story bothered me. We loved Ariel in the first movie- so why is the second one centered around her daughter? The new characters were annoying and I didn't like the plot of this. Worst of all, Christopher Daniel Barnes didn't come back as the voice of Eric! Disney, please stop remaking classic movies with these shoddy imitations.

Sentiment: negative
From the Star of "MITCHELL", From the director of "Joysticks" and "Angel's Revenge"!!! These are taglines that would normally keep me from seeing this movie. And the worst part is that all the above mentioned statements are true!!! Ugghhh... Joe Don Baker eats every other five minutes in this film. It's like a bad remake of "Coogan's Bluff"

Sentiment: negative
I just watched this movie last night. Within 30 minutes of the start, I was hoping it would end.

It had a promising beginning; the first 10 minutes. The premise of this movie (friendship that goes nowhere after they've spent days (and Years) together in "Separate" beds in hotel rooms) is just not believable. He does kiss her somewhere along the way, and she feels Ohh, so terrible about it. 

Very little substance to grab your interest. The acting just does not hold up. He is very passive. Regardless of how much of the movie is shown, the viewer never develops any type of a caring connection with the characters on the screen. You learn that her next utterance will be as boring as her previous one. ("Do you have a cigarette ?", He doesn't smoke, He wants her to stop smoking, Doesn't she know this by now.)

She calls him in the middle of the night to visit him after a year's absence, she comes in through the door, they don't even hug or kiss or express any type of emotional connection. He doesn't even lean forward to lift her suitcase to help her in. That is not how real people behave, This is not how best pals behave.

When he receives her phone call in the middle of the night (she is in town for one day), he shows little interest to see her face, acts more like she will be a burden for the night. At this point they've known each other for two years and he hasn't seen her for a year. Not Believable, not real. 

Supposedly, he has written a book on Entropy and Enthalpy, yet we never see him write or read or discuss any of his interests in Physics with her, not that she would be able to handle the discussion. We learn that a watermelon in L.A. costs $50, (It wasn't the Silicon Type mind you) he has no problem affording that Fruit. We also learn that the airport shuts down when a few really really fake snow flakes fall off the sky. I'm Sorry but was that in L.A. too?

We never see how these two characters survive, we never see them at work. We never see them struggle, They are always on vacation. They have infinite time, they have no worries whatsoever. 

Nice life. Unreal life. Unreal Characters. Bad Title. Bad Movie.

Sentiment: negative
Taut and organically gripping, Edward Dmytryk's Crossfire is a distinctive suspense thriller, an unlikely "message" movie using the look and devices of the noir cycle.

Bivouacked in Washington, DC, a company of soldiers cope with their restlessness by hanging out in bars. Three of them end up at a stranger's apartment where Robert Ryan, drunk and belligerent, beats their host (Sam Levene) to death because he happens to be Jewish. Police detective Robert Young investigates with the help of Robert Mitchum, who's assigned to Ryan's outfit. Suspicion falls on the second of the three (George Cooper), who has vanished. Ryan slays the third buddy (Steve Brodie) to insure his silence before Young closes in.

Abetted by a superior script by John Paxton, Dmytryk draws precise performances from his three starring Bobs. Ryan, naturally, does his prototypical Angry White Male (and to the hilt), while Mitchum underplays with his characteristic alert nonchalance (his role, however, is not central); Young may never have been better. Gloria Grahame gives her first fully-fledged rendition of the smart-mouthed, vulnerable tramp, and, as a sad sack who's leeched into her life, Paul Kelly haunts us in a small, peripheral role that he makes memorable.

The politically engaged Dmytryk perhaps inevitably succumbs to sermonizing, but it's pretty much confined to Young's reminiscence of how his Irish grandfather died at the hands of bigots a century earlier (thus, incidentally, stretching chronology to the limit). At least there's no attempt to render an explanation, however glib, of why Ryan hates Jews (and hillbillies and...).

Curiously, Crossfire survives even the major change wrought upon it -- the novel it's based on (Richard Brooks' The Brick Foxhole) dealt with a gay-bashing murder. But homosexuality in 1947 was still Beyond The Pale. News of the Holocaust had, however, begun to emerge from the ashes of Europe, so Hollywood felt emboldened to register its protest against anti-Semitism (the studios always quaked at the prospect of offending any potential ticket buyer).

But while the change from homophobia to anti-Semitism works in general, the specifics don't fit so smoothly. The victim's chatting up a lonesome, drunk young soldier then inviting him back home looks odd, even though (or especially since) there's a girlfriend in tow. It raises the question whether this scenario was retained inadvertently or left in as a discreet tip-off to the original engine generating Ryan's murderous rage.

Sentiment: positive
As a big fan of the original film, it's hard to watch this show. The garish set decor and harshly lighted sets rob any style from this remake. The mood is never there. Instead, it has the look and feel of so many television movies of the Seventies. Crenna is not a bad choice as Walter Neff, but his snappy wardrobe and "swank" apartment don't fit the mood of the original, or make him an interesting character.He does his best to make it work but Samantha Egger is a really bad choice. The English accent and California looks can't hold a candle to Barbara Stanwick's velvet voice and sex appeal. Lee J.Cobb tries mightily to fashion Barton Keyes,but even his performance is just gruff, without style.

It feels like the TV movie it was and again reminds me of what a remarkable film the original still is.

Sentiment: negative
I just watched "return from lonesome dove" and it was very good! I've seen a lot of negative comments about it and I don't think the Viewers are being real about it! In the television/ movie business it is hard to get all the actors back for a 2nd sequel or 3rd part. WE ARE LUCKY TO HAVE ANOTHER MINISERIES THAT TIES INTO LONE D. FAITHFULLY!! This production was top notch with the original music score, and the actors put their hearts into it(you can tell). If you want to watch lonesome d. with Robert Duvall and tommy L. J. then watch the original. Return to L.D. didn't have as much wit and takes on a more serious tone but is totally captivating none the less. From the touching moments to the villains, this one is a winner! "Wonderful!!!"

Sentiment: positive
This episode from the first season slightly edges towards controversy with the whole gender bending angle.I imagine there would have been a significant amount of editing before this was finished to appease censors.

The story itself is original and well written and the directing is complemented by the fine acting.(Nicholas Lea makes his X-Files debut though not as Agent Krycek but as a victim called Michael) I especially enjoyed the built up to and the ending itself.

Its different but enjoyable.Ignore any bad reviews you may hear.Watch it for yourself and make judgement then

Sentiment: positive
OK..you people need to settle down! This movie is not that bad. I saw it for the first time last night and fell in love with it! I do have to admit that I have never been a fan of LeeLee Sobieski but she grew on me in this movie. I do think Josh Hartnett is good looking, but c'mon..Chris Klein is the most gorgeous man I think I have ever seen!!! He made that movie better for me. C'mon girls..when he has no shirt on and goes to get water I know your mouth dropped. Yes, I know in the beginning he is a jerk, but in the end he realizes how he acted and learns to be a great guy. If he wouldn't have come at the end..then I would have been mad. I do think a couple of lines did not need to be said but all in all it was a great movie! I definitely recommend it!

Sentiment: positive
Hoo boy, this was a real trial to get through. The DVD case has Tom Hanks' mug plastered on it and that is the only reason that anybody would buy it. He looks about forty on the box, however, the movie was made in 1982, so he still has his Bosom Buddies 'do and of course is about forty pounds lighter. The plot concerns a Dungeons and Dragons like game that Hanks and his three friends play and Hanks ends up thinking the whole thing is real. Chris Makepeace is a boy genius named Jay Jay and the best thing about the movie is that he wears a succession of funny hats. Ooh,look, he has a yellow hardhat on with a tuxedo! Now he's dressed like a WWI pilot! This was a truly awful movie but in a bad way. A bunch of vets pop up mostly as parents of the kids. There's Anne (I'm Honey West, dammit!) Francis and Louise Sorel, who actually looks kind of hot. Murray Hamilton, the Mayor from Jaws, has a thankless roll as a cop. Wendy Crewson, is the love interest for Hanks and some blonde guy I have never seen before or since. There is some syrupy music here and there and absolutely no tension or sense of danger or excitement. There is a monster that only Hanks can see because he's, you know, nuts. The monster is played by the late, great Kevin Peter Hall, he of Predator fame. A friend of mine got this out of the ol' discount bin at MallWart and advised me to chuck it in the trash without even looking at it, so naturally I had to see if it was as bad as all that. It was. The night before, I watched Apollo 13, so after that, this movie was a bit of a shock. Do yourself a favor and leave it in the bin. Oh yeah, after Hanks almost jumps from one of the World Trade Center towers because of his delusions, he goes home to recuperate and is visited by his friends. Hanks mother, a drunken Vera Miles, says he is coming along nicely now but when they walk down to the lake to visit him in his tennis outfit, he is crazier than ever. The End

Sentiment: negative
Being a fan of Marlene Dietrich's films, I was very anxious to see this "documentary." I also got sucked in by reading rave review after rave review from the national critics. That should have tipped me off.

The movie is just plain boring and obviously extremely overrated. You don't even see Dietrich. She is heard in the background, discussing her movies and this video. She does almost nothing but complain about everything. What a drag! 

The filmmaker, Maximilian Schell, constantly complains himself and pleads with her to be on camera.....all to no avail. She just keeps refusing to cooperate. After awhile, this sort of thing gets really tiring. With her attitude, why would Schell continue with this project? He should have just told the prima donna to "shove it."

Regardless of what you read, do not waste your time with this.

Sentiment: negative
Greyfriars Bobby was NOT a westie - Bobby was a skye terrier. A highlight of my childhood day trips to Edinburgh was to go to the monument to Bobby. I grew up with the story of the valiant and loyal little dog, as every child in my generation did, and I remember lining up with my mum outside the cinema - with many, many other Dundee children and their mums - to see the wonderful Disney film. How could a movie based on such a wonderful story have been made using a Westie, for heaven's sake. That's like making a movie about the life of Robert Burns, for instance, and portraying him as an Englishman. I say,give Bobby back his breed!

Sentiment: negative
I am the sort of person who never, ever watches animated movies, but I make an exception for Thumbelina and the Swan Princess. Being absolutely in love with the first installment of the series, I bought this and sat down to watch it with a very biased mind, determined to love it because I'd spent money buying it. I finished the movie, and all I can think is THE HORROR!!! I wanted to like it, I really did. I tried very, VERY hard to like it. But I couldn't enjoy a second of this grueling film. The songs made me feel like ripping my ears out of my head. The dialogue was so lame I felt myself twitching with frustration and irritation every time someone opened his or her mouth. The villain was laughable and I felt myself wanting Derek and Odette to die in the end... and I was absolutely in love with them from the first film.

I am going to try repress the memory of this movie, because it almost destroyed the first one for me. There is one song in the movie in which there are a series of flashbacks to the first film. The difference in animation between the two is made very obvious, and I began yearning for the first one and wishing I'd never set eyes on the third.

Do yourself and favor and don't waste your time.

Sentiment: negative
Scream was Wes Craven's last decent thriller. Since then there has been nothing but an unbearable streak of Hollywood trash barely good enough for a blockbuster night, including the disappointment of the Scream sequels. Perhaps the genius and the craftsmanship devoted to the movie drained all the energy and creativity out of him, so that when it came time for supper, he had nothing to serve us but his own doo doo. Finally, after who knows how many bad movies later, he gives us a delicious, ruthless, gripping, chilling suspense thriller with Red Eye.

Rachel McAdams once again delivers an enjoyable performance as she plays a hotel manager who has the unfortunate connection with an important political figure and regular at her hotel. Then she meets Jackson Ripner (Cillian Murphy, Batman Beyond) at the airport, who she gets to know a little better after a delayed flight and a bay breeze. What she doesn't know is he already knows her. And he also knows her father, who she will never see again if she fails to cooperate and meet Jackson's demands- to use her connections to set up her hotel regular for assassination.

You're probably thinking this is nothing but your everyday thriller complete with predictability and chase scenes. Although this is a good old fashioned thriller, that's the beauty of it. No special effects. No cheap make up. Just classic suspense. You feel the desperation and regret with every decision McAdams is forced to make and you actually care for her as you cheer her on every move she makes to find an escape from her claustrophobic position.

As always she delivers an entertaining and convincing performance. It's either her sweet face or her uncanny ability to sincerely cry, but you always seem to sympathize with her if her role demands it. Cillian Murphy on the other hand is naturally creepy looking, so even if the trailer didn't reveal it, his ultimate transition from charming stranger to merciless jackass isn't so surprising. Perhaps it would have been more trippy to see a nice guy persona like Toby Maguire transforming into evil relentless madman. Nevertheless, Cillian Murphy, after his true identity is established, played the role so solidly you'd really want him to die, or at least get his ass kicked.

Don't overlook this feature. There are plenty of chalkboard screeching moments and heart jumpers that will keep your eyes on the screen instead of your watch like you would at Craven's recent pictures. If not for the you, do it for all the times you'll see your girlfriend, or boyfriend, or someone with popcorn jump and cling on to you. Wes finally gets it right. Aside from his trademark mastery in suspense, Red Eye is not without its humor as McAdams' replacement Cynthia at the front desk fumbles to keep the hotel in order. It was a relief that Red Eye wasn't a disappointment. Instead you'll get the pleasure of seeing McAdams deliver another incredibly talented performance, Murphy look creepier by the minute, and Craven craft a classic traditional thriller. A flight that was delayed and would have been the beginning of Craven's renaissance had it arrived right after Scream.

Sentiment: positive
This thought long lost flick sometimes comes available on the web. So I bought me a copy. Well, of course the acting is terrible and the story line is childish but it does have his moments. I think people who searched this one also knows the backstory of it. It was made by a grindhouse cinema owner for an extreme low budget. But for me he surely didn't spoiled the money on props but on the make up. The make up is for that kind of flick well done. The zombies are watchable and the gore is intact. The only problem with that kind of movies is the quality of the pelicule. It's terrible, luckely no hiss on the sound but sometimes it's way too dark. So you have to watch clearly to see the gore. In a funny way they tried to sell this one as really not for the squeamish. A voice-over tells in the beginning of the movie to watch out for a sign and a man appearing with green flashes, that tells you there is gore on the way. Of course that doesn't work, made me think of Cannibal Girls, had that annoying bell when the red stuff started to flow. They had the original idea, Cannibal Girls was made a year earlier. Don't go for the storyline, go for the zombies and notice a continuity mistake. When the girl and guy are making love first she takes of her bra, then they make love and suddenly her underwear is back on...try to do that, or am I getting a bit offline,...eat it you ugly corpses

Sentiment: negative
I was lucky enough to watch this without any pre viewing hype. I was surprised at the resilience of the ghost's image in my mind the next day, and the day after that. I've watched it 3-4 times, and each time I appreciate it even more. The settings are gorgeous, the town at dusk has beautiful lighting effects, the marsh long shots, and the house itself is sufficiently grown with moss. The main hero is so likable and good natured, that he is easily sympathized with. To the person who complained that there wasn't enough 'spark' in this film, I'd say that it's because the whole fight against the ghost is being waged by just this one person. It is a fairly slow paced film, with an unusual amount of time being spent ,pre and post ghost attack, on developing his character with family and work life. SPOILERS discussion/

I especially liked the turning point, when he comes back to the main town and meets with the man helping him and explains about seeing the ghost. He describes the Woman in black, and then at the end of the conversation he says that he is going back, because after all, what harm had she done to him? The other man says, "you can't go back... alone!" and lends the hero his dog. The cute little dog offers a small respite of comic relief, with it's bounding through the house and even into the locked room.

The many casual appearances of the ghost really freaked me out. The woman shows up in mid shot at the church, showing that it is not afraid of the church, and is also not shy or bound to the house. This is all in the very beginning. Another unbelievably memorable scene was with the kids outside of the church fence, watching the funeral. As the camera pans to the right, the woman is seen in the background among the gravestones. The older man won't even look at it, but the kids are all yelling and taunting it. Crreeepy... Usually ghosts are hidden in shadows, haunting specific locales or people. As has been mentioned, the ghost's malevolence and wrath are frightening, and I feel it's attacks and the ending were perfect and fully justified. The ending underlined the fact that the hero made a major mistake by going back to the house. Or perhaps he was marked no matter what, by saving the gypsy girl. The guy who plays the hotel manager is so believable, and really fills the role well. I have been spreading the word to my friends about how much I enjoyed this film, and it is reassuring to see others feel the same. I can see how people don't quite see the same masterpiece, especially if they went into it with a lot of review hype.

I think another person summed it up when they said that this movie settled the question of whether or not Ghosts could physically harm man. Whew.. I plan to watch it again tonight followed by The Changeling, aaww yeah. Any other films to recommend?

Thanks,

Sentiment: positive
This movie was alright. Mary-Kate and Ashley play twin sisters (sorry for stating the obvious) who against their will are sent to Paris to spend the week with their rich uncle or something like that.

Right away two French boys (who looked slightly inbred) start talking to them and taking interest. Blah blah blah. It's an Olsen twin movie - we already know what's going to happen between them. Anyway, along with that, the twins meet a FABULOUS French model because they're in Paris, the fashion capital of the world. They make bffs with the model and spend a fun montage of shopping in the city of lights. Yep.

Plotwise, I frankly can't remember what happened. I guess that could say something, but hey, it's an Olsen movie. "Olsen movie" seems to be synonymous with "light entertainment".

Overall, this movie was annoying. I mean, can I really identify at all with two girls who are devastated upon hearing that they're going to Paris? Really? Also, the jokes really weren't that funny. However, I watched the whole movie. So it had to be somewhat entertaining. The fact that it was set in Paris was what probably kept me watching.

Sentiment: negative
In Black Mask, Jet Li plays a bio-engineered super-killer turned pacifist, who has to fight against other super-killers. Bad plot, bad sfx(60 million dollar budget), but the fighting scenes were excellent! Jet Li is the greatest martial-arts star alive!

Sentiment: positive
The only people i would recommend this film to are both blind and deaf, although i'm sure a sadomasochist would get a kick out of it. This film had nothing; no acting, terrible music, awful script- only the power to suck any happiness from your soul. You may be wondering by now why or even how i managed to sit through the full hour and a half of sheer inanity, and it is honestly a difficult concept for even myself. Firstly, i had to pace up and down as the film progressed as i found it extremely hard to get comfortable. Secondly, i only made it without gnawing off my own arm in order to have something to beat myself to death with by phoning friends for moral support when the plot became particularly slow. The problem was it became a matter of pride for me to finish it after the opening thirty minutes, and that was a fatal error on my behalf. I normally like films to leave you with something by the end, but all this did was take..... For the sake of your sanity do not watch this film.

Sentiment: negative
Worst pile of drivel to date! Everyone involved with this production should be ashamed of themselves. Not one single element of the movie was anything slightly like an original idea. A first grader telling you a story about nap time is more entertaining.

Sentiment: negative
Bathebo, you big dope.

This is the WORST piece of crap I've seen in a long time. I have just stumbled onto it on late night TV and it is painful to watch. Really painful. How does something like this get made?? Horrible, horrible, horrible! OOOOOO ..... The toilet is flushing by itself again! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! 1992 doesn't seem like that long ago to me, but watching this makes it seem like 1952. I mean its horrible. Please don't waste your time on the drivel!

Scary old black man telling them not to build the pool in the yard. Scary! Scary! How does this stuff get MADE???

Sentiment: negative
(Contains really bad Spoilers) So what can I say about this....It's a really HORRIBLE and AWFUL movie!!.Too much CGI and special effects....you could tell how fake the ridiculous baby is!!.PLEASE at least go watch "Dungeons and Dragons" which is another terrible pile of TRASH.Son of the Mask makes Dungeons and Dragons way better!!! Uggg!!!!!!!!!!!! Pure Crap!!!!!!!!!!!!I Hate this Trash!! I would also like to say that "Superbabies:BabyGeniuses 2" was also a really stupid movie.Probably just as stupid as "Son of the Mask"."BabyGeniuses 2 was just as fake as"Son of the Mask" and also contains way too much CGI!!

Anyway Yeah...this was a BAD BAD REALLY BAD movie....just please avoid it....Do NOT recommend this to no one...please its just way too ridiculous....makes no sense and really bad plot.The baby peing on his dad was just lame!

Sentiment: negative
When I rented this movie to watch it, I knew that it was not going to be a mindbender movie. Instead I thought of it as a disbelief of reality where someone is going to get a serious beating. And you know what it worked. Kurt Russel did what I though was a remarkable role in showing the emotionless soldier that he was. I recommend this movie if your out with the boys and want to watch a good action film.

Sentiment: positive
Spend your time any other way, even housework is better than this movie. The jokes aren't funny, the fun rhymes that are Dr. Seus aren't there. A very lousy way to waste an evening. My kids 4-16 laughed a little at the beginning the younger ones got bored with it and left to play Barbies and the older ones left to play ps2 and surf the net. My wife left and did dishes. So I finished it alone. It was the worst "kids" movie I have seen. If you want to watch a fun kids movie watch Shrek 2, that movie is fun for kids and their parents. AVOID THIS MOVIE. It isn't funny, isn't cute, the cat's makeup is about the only good thing in it and you can see that on the disc label.

Sentiment: negative
Dario Argento is a filmmaker I'm slowly getting into, following the iconoclastic efforts of Deep Red and Suspiria; he's not a filmmaker to always care directly about silly things like "plot". That might be his one minor (but, for me, apparent) liability: he won't let a little thing like common sense screw up his plan for his elaborate killing sequences, as his killer(s) can go through any kind of elaborate set-up of being invisible, until revealing past the point of the POV tracking shots of said psychopathic killer. But it's thrilling to see a filmmaker take chances like this anyway, of a pure Italian aesthetic making its way into the soul of a Hitchcockian warp (in fact, as a note of interest, if one has recently seen the Scorsese short film where he took three pages of an un-filmed Hitchcock film, which also took place in an Opera, Argento had it beat by almost twenty years, probably with no knowledge of the text). It's also unabashedly 80s (CD players and heavy metal and the hair, oh my!) and with an absurdity that makes it all the more palatable to swallow.

The story is simple: an opera of Macbeth is being produced, with high-stylized pyrotechnics and trained ravens. There's even a talented up-and-coming star replaced at the last minute, Betty, played by Marsillach. But a murder occurs during the premiere- interrupted not by that but by a falling light- and now the killer is after Betty! She can't go to the police (how can she let out that the opera is really cursed?), but will that matter in the face of a killer who won't let up? One has probably seen premises like this played out in other Argento films- girl being chased by a killer- but it's how Argento, like De Palma, constructs and executes his sequences, and adds a distinctive flavor of his own to add touches of bizarre humor (the breakout of the ravens to attack the killer, and the subsequent version of pointing out in the lineup), a kind of over-stylization ala Leone (the bullet through the peephole through the door probably inspired a similar shot in Kill Bill 1), and even sado-masochistic inspiration with the pins taped to Betty's eyes, more than once! 

Argento puts his actress through the wringer, and she's all game for it, even when things seem to just go into 'what-the-hell' territory (I was throwing up my hands almost saying I give up when she is led down the secret passage by the little girl, as if suddenly we're in Aliens now). And through such dark genre material Argento keeps the violence thick and fresh, the suspense about as much as that with opera music coming right out of a speaker of a stereo system, and a cinematographer who may have had a few drinks (and rightfully so!) during some scenes the way they're shot and vibrate to a heart-beat. It should be considered trash, but it's elevated past any limitations of the genre by the ballsy attitude of the director, this in spite of a silly ending- sillier than anything that preceded what came before it (thanks little lizard)- and an attempt to break the Macbeth curse, which, unfortunately, didn't seem to happen in real life on the set of Opera. 8.5/10

Sentiment: positive
This kind of angst can only be inside a young person who seeks very seriously his religion and his place in this world. As the text in the beginning of the movie says, these pictures are dead: They are the past already, and have been right from the moment when the product was ready. But that is only for the maker of these "products": Maybe to somebody, who is in the same frame of mind (I think very many people, at least of those who are seriously interested in religion, go through the same terrible angsts and doubts in their personal development). And that, of course, is the reason that art is made in the first place: Identification and consolation amongst fellow human beings.

This film uses very well the "classic" technics of the experimental cinema. And this is where those technics are to my opinion in the best possible use: As an instrument in telling stories and creating atmosphere to them, not just as a pure abstractions or as an end in themselfes. Those "tricks" have already been made many enough times. Some other movies that I imagine have influenced/inspired this director, are "Eraserhead" and "Nosferatu". It's interesting how these technics make this movie totally timeless: There is nothing contemporary in this movie. Or nothing from any other specific time either. It could have been made a thousand years ago.

It is interesting in this story how these people treat this new born holy child: They use it selfishly in their own purposes, and don't even try to listen to him. They beat him, rip off his intestines and castrate him. They drag his (living) body forcibly from place to place. And they do the same kind of violence to his mother. The story also reminds me of the Borges' short story "El informe de Brodie". Also the critique towards the practices of the Christian institutions reminds me of the great "El Topo".

Unpleasant watch at times, but beautiful. Very simple, thought and concentrated. Very strong movie, almost too strong. The whole human energy has been concentrated to this. Also this movie shows that when you have the passion and ideas, you can make a movie with a round zero budget.

But I have to admit, it was a bit hard to watch for a "contemporary" viewer like myself, because of the experimentality. It was so slow and demanding. But after all, worth the suffering. I have to give ten points just for the effort that somebody makes this kind of movie.

Sentiment: positive
If you read the book before seeing the movie you may be disappointed like I was. The book was great and I was sure after seeing the movie preview that the movie would be great as well, however I felt like I was watching a movie where the director and cast did not even read what these characters where like. The movie is short and they do not really ever make us feel that these people were truly in love and felt like sole mates. Even if the movie did not go in the same direction as the book at least they could of made the romance between these two characters feel more intense. I think both Diane Lane and Richard Gere were perfect for these two characters and they have good chemistry however they just did not develop a long enough storyline for us to see how they longed for each other. The book was true love story and I think this movie could of been a lot better.

Sentiment: negative