DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I am going to keep this short.This "adaption" of the wonderful King book is a bad joke and nothing more.Of course there are many Kubrick and Nickolson fans in this site and,as a result,this movie has mysteriously find its way in the top-250.

Jack Nicholson is laughable as Torrance and so is Shelley Duvall.The story,that has nothing to do with the book,is an incoherent mess and the characters of Jack and Wendy Torrance are complete jokes.

My advice to anyone that hasn't read the book and wants to understand the characters of this story:stick to the TV series ....

Oh ,and the people who are saying that Kubrick had every right to destroy the King story cause King is...not a good writer should stick to reviewing "masterpieces" like "eyes wide shut".

Sentiment: negative
Why else would he do this to me?

Not that I expect Dean Cain to produce hit movies. Or even decent movies. I saw Lois and Clark, I am aware of just how... "good" Dean Cain is.

Obviously this is gonna be a cheesey flick, and each cheesey flick has its own special way to make you scratch your head. I will not call these spoilers as you can't really spoil this movie any more than it already is.

To begin with... why is that a fake helicopter? I mean... why?

How come that one scientist is from Chicago and that other scientist is from LA and neither one could be any more eastern european if they tried? How hard would it have been to get either an american actor, or just change that lame state sheet the movie provides us with to say those people aren't american?

Why are there 2 occasions when the movie gives us a slug line? We get helipad-day and then mess hall-day later on. And then that's it, who cares about the timeline. To be honest, who cared about it even when they mentioned it, but I guess that's beside the point.

Does a movie really get better if you are able to view it through multiple split screens? The answer is no.

That dragon sure can walk down that hall..over..and over...and over....and over...

Who on earth was responsible for one of the worst endings in film history? It was straight out of scooby doo. Oh, the dragon's dead now...say, wanna get dinner? Sure, but not at some Chinese place....with Dragon in the name!! AH HA HA HA!! HA HA HA!! HAHA HA! I used to be Superman! AHA HA HA! HA HA!

fade to black

my god, it made me cringe it was so stupid.

But never fear..even though the whole building exploded...and no one was left alive..for some reason there's a second untouched, unmanned lab that survived pretty well, so they can make a sequel. Hurray for us all.



Sentiment: negative
Woody Allen made "September", proving that even a genius could screw up. This is Mel Brook's "September". Monumentally stupid, boring, and unfunny, I must confess I did not watch it through to the end. The flick ranks among the dishonored few (e.g., "The Money Pit", "Out to Sea", "Spitfire Grill") which either put me to sleep or forced me to reach for the "rewind" button. And I say this, sadly, as a devoted Mel Brooks fan. He should stick to straight comedy and leave social commentary alone. How the same fellow that made "Young Frankenstein" and "Spaceballs" could crank out a dog like this is beyond me. To be avoided at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
The one reason I remember this is that it was shown the week after Nigel Kneale`s brilliant QUATERMASS serial was broadcast . The trailers made heavy emphasis that the main character had a mutilated arm which had me hoping he`d be like Victor Caroon from THE QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT stalking the streets of London .

No such luck because THE RACING GAME is just a rather drab thriller with the gimmick of having a hero with a physical disability trying to get to the bottom of investigations of corrupt horse racing . I suppose if you`re a fan of Dick Francis you might enjoy it but setting it in the context of the late 70s when THE SWEENEY had just finished and THE PROFESSIONALS was still being produced , there`s something lacking about THE RACING GAME . One trailer featured a car over taking another on a motor way , if it`d been a trailer for THE SWEENEY you`d see Jack Regan over taking a car and beating a confession out of the slags who`d done a blag while THE PROFESSIONALS would have over taken a car and blown away the terrorists inside . I think that sums up what`s wrong with this series

Sentiment: negative
A beautiful piece of children's cinema buried in a world of archaic Celticism. Setting the story around the famous Book of Kels, believed to have been comprised by monks from the small island of Iona, off the western coast of Scotland.

Telling the tale of a young abbots apprentice who goes off into the forest in search of Crom-Cruic, the fierce headless horseman of pagan mythology. In hopes of recovering a lost artefact.

The films true beauty lies in its' animation. Cell shaded in a bright and inspirational style of deep complexity resulting in a look of seem less simplicity. Deriving much from the artistic style of the brilliant Cartoon Network series 'Samurai Jack' for its genius use of mark making and background depth, The Secret of Kels creates a consistently affective Celtic world living under the shadow of Viking invasion.

The history may be intensely inaccurate and the ways of life portrayed lacking realism but these facts are utterly irrelevant as the film sets itself in a world of fantasy and Celtic-revivalist mysticism. The girl of the forest is a wonderful addition and in my opinion makes the picture what it is, as she glides from branch to branch. Appearing and disappearing like a mysterious nymph with qualities resembling the legendary Cheshire Cat from Alice and Wonderland.

The Secret of Kels is an absolute treat. For all genders, all ages, it's a lovely piece of family cinema.

Don't expect to be awed but instead pleasantly impressed!

Sentiment: positive
This four-hour miniseries production is about two hours longer than necessary, primarily because the filmmakers seemed not to have a clear idea how to adapt a novel to the screen. They seemed not to know what should be kept in and what might safely be left out. The film opens with Sir Walter reading from the Peerage book that is his primary solace in his troubles. This introduces the family - all of whom we get to know intimately over the next four hours anyway - but serves little other purpose. Similarly, the scenes where the Musgroves lament "poor Richard" serve no purpose but to drag the story down. Some of Austen's actual dialogue is allocated to different characters and some of her narrative is recycled as dialogue that falls awkwardly from the tongues of the characters. There is some fill-in dialogue, too, and this is uniformly dreadful. The scene where Charles Hayter is boring Henrietta with his concerns about getting Dr. Shirley's curacy was only barely interesting as narrative in the book; as a scene in this production, it is stultifying The scene on the Cobb, when Louisa falls and is "taken up lifeless!", is entirely without urgency, and I wondered whether Wentworth's line "Is there nobody to help me?" might have been directed at the writers, as well as the other actors.

This production often looks and feels like a play that has been filmed, rather than an actual film, and this is most evident in the acting, which is the opposite of subtle: booming delivery of lines, exaggerated gestures, and actors who have no idea what to do with their hands, feet, or faces when they are not speaking their lines. Charles Musgrove stands in his parlour, feet shoulder width apart, and appears to project to the balcony (if there were one) when speaking to the other people in the room with him. Louisa Musgrove's face, when not actively simpering or giggling, seems to be in confused repose. Louisa is a giddy, giggly, ditzy creature, and I did not for a moment believe that Wentworth would be interested in her. 

The costumes are a mixed bunch, but mostly awful, and Anne Elliot's green tartan gown is quite possibly the most hideous alleged period costume ever devised. We are given the dates at the beginning of the show - it is the late 1790's or perhaps very early 1800s - and yet many of the costumes seem to be of Victorian design, and thus about 60 years too early! The hair is just so wrong that I won't even mention it here. Except to say that I won't mention it. :-)

This production does do some things right, however. Mrs. Smith is given her proper importance, and her history with Mr. Elliot, his dissipation and his intrigues, are fully addressed. I was also pleased to see the fleshed out "reconciliation" scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end, which are precious reward for the reader but were glossed over in the 1995 production.

If you love the book Persuasion, and even vaguely like the 1995 movie, don't waste a moment (or a penny) on this production; you will find it sorely wanting.

Sentiment: negative
it's unfortunate that many of the other detractors of this film seem influenced by prior biases. (i.e. anger at the gay characters, thinking french thrillers are bad, etc.) i will admit that i'm unfamiliar with the novel, but as a film, after about 45 minutes, i was rolling my eyes. hopefully i can explain in writing my complaints eloquently enough before i get sick of spending anymore time on this film over the 2 hours of its running length.(2 hours that felt like 3) don't get me wrong, i can sit through hour and a half silent films, 3 hour epics, i don't have a short attention span, nor am i so jaded by the mtv generation that i cant appreciate a subtle and slowly building film. here goes, my grocery list of complaints. first off, the ending. yes, it had a scooby-doo-esquire, character explains everything at the end. now i actually think for this movie, this was necessary.. the film had so many plot-twists, emotional revelations, new facts surfacing and being discovered.. one reviewer said it well: "..yes, it is a very logical story, but without the very essential back story (their childhood stories, the relationship amongst the 3 parents, the relationship amongst the two lovebirds and the son of the Big Man), it just doesn't feel right. I felt cheated " i won't throw in too many spoilers here, i could name specific revelations that i thought were unnecessary, but according to the reviews on here, there's a lot of people who seem to really love this, so i don't want to give anything away. i personally, can't stand soap operas. the complexity, and twists and turns, for me, snuffed out ANY impact the final revelations could possibly deliver. By the end, i seriously didn't care! there weren't any gaping plot holes necessarily; this seems like it could make a great book, in WRITING it is perfectly logical, but if i'm supposed to believe this is REALITY, something doesn't sit right with the pieces that have been haphazardly inserted. too often i felt crucial characters we were never able to get to know were thrown in to further complicate the plot, increase the emotion, and develop the mystery. the acting i had no complaints about, the directing, eh, not bad, but the plot, and especially its development, SEVERELY lacking. sorry to those that felt this was a perfect thriller, but i couldn't get into it. i gave this a 3 simply because i don't want to seem completely unfair, and it did have moments of slight intrigue and excitement. 

*MAJOR SPOILER* and i have to mention it.. but when the father is making his revelation to alexandre and JUST when you think the plot couldn't fit in another twist.. "your father didn't die in a hunting accident".. I ALMOST DIED.. when was the father at all developed or even really mentioned much in the back story?!! are you serious!! like the already complex plot involving characters from all the families and their relationship to one another wasn't enough!!? does the protagonist NEED another emotional whallop more than he has already been fed?! sorry i had to throw in such a spoiler, but that just bothered me as much as i've ever been bothered in ANY film.

Sentiment: negative
i am amazed anyone likes this film. i never walk out of movies, but my friend had to physically stop me from leaving the theater during this insulting disaster. the white characters are saints and the Asian characters are practically nonexistent and worthless to the story. they exist only as objects, surprise. characters of other races fare much better. the twists and turns were laughable and predictable. but if you're reading this, you know that already. Paul Haggis is a hack. Hollywood can't even do multicultural movies right. do yourself a favor and watch a much more honest take on race relations, Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle!

Sentiment: negative
Possible Spoilers, Perhaps. I must say that "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" is one of the worst movies ever made. First of all, the movie was made during the height of Disney's sequel rampage. It was created around the same time as "The Little Mermaid II," "The Jungle Book II," and "Peter Pan II," all of which were disservices to their original film classics. (Disney also made "The Hunchback of Notre Dame II" and "Atlantis II," but I'm going to drop that topic because their original movies were never really classics in the first place.") Let me go ahead and say that I am an avid supporter of good Disney films, and I absolutely adore the original Disney "Cinderella." The sequel to "Cinderella," however, was a waste of time. The character of Cinderella in the sequel was so very unlike the original girl that I grew up watching. In the original, Cinderella was kind and loving. The new Cinderella had very out-of-character moments with current-era phrasing like, "I'm going to do this banquet my way!" Let me also tell you that new Cinderella (as I have affectionately named her) says, "Ewww!" That is the anti-Cinderella. I try to find the best in people, but in the sequel, Anastasia, one of the stepsisters, is good! What the heck? Why? They made it all out to be like Lady Tremaine and Drizella are just horrible family members for poor little Anastasia. My question to the world: did the people at Disney watch the original "Cinderella" when making this sequel? Well, it surely doesn't seem so. If I remember correctly, Anastasia was just as abusive to Cinderella as Drizella and Lady Tremaine. I am all for redemption and forgiveness, but there was no point of redemption for Anastasia in this movie. In the first one, Anastasia was evil. In the second one, she is good. One just can't leave a story like this. I hope Disney realizes that this movie, among other movies, is shaming Walt Disney's name. Perhaps now that Michael Eisner is gone, things will start shaping up around the House of Mouse.

Sentiment: negative
I just saw this at the Venice Film Festival, and can't quite decide about it. We were never allowed to get close enough to any of the characters to care about them. Maybe that was the point, that we are all in a "bubble" of our own, but these people didn't compel me to be concerned about them or shocked at their various fates. At a running time of just over an hour, the characters weren't very well developed. Lots of time was devoted to shots of factory equipment (forklifts, conveyor belts, shovels); and the slightly-creepy-looking baby dolls with surprisingly lifelike eyes, that most of the characters made for a living, were somehow more interesting than the live people. An interesting experiment, but somehow it never quite came together.

Sentiment: negative
I'm a big fan of the TV series Largo Winch. This movie was pain for me. I had to use fast forward not to fell to sleep. It was boring! How can somebody ruin this title so much? The story was the only good thing. Actors were sh.t. They can't live the role. The main actor(Tom ... ) is a null. Watch the other roles of this actor. The fighting scenes were unbelievable boring and not to followable,somehow they were not to follow the situation. Like other reviewer said low budget film with bad actors.Maybe next time somebody else can do better thing out of this title. French can't do right thing with big films,like Alien 4. That was bit brrr, after Alien 1,2,3.

Sentiment: negative
The famous international conductor Daniel Daréus (Michael Nyqvist) has a heart attack with his stressed busy professional life and interrupts his successful career with an early retirement. He decides to return to his hometown in the north of Sweden, from where his mother left when he was a seven year-old sensitive boy bullied by Conny and other school mates, to live a low-paced life. He buys an old school and is invited to participate in the church choir by the local Shepherd Stig (Niklas Falk), but the reluctant and shy Daniel refuses in the principle. However, he gets involved with the community and feels attracted by Lena (Frida Hallgren), a local woman with a past with the local doctor. His music opens the hearts of the members of the choir, affecting their daily life: the slow Tore (André Sjöberg) has the chance to participate in the choir; Inger (Ingela Olsson), the wife of Stig, releases her repressed sexuality; Gabriella (Helen Sjöholm) takes an attitude against her abusive and violent husband; the gossiper and frustrated Siv (Ilva Lööf) opens her heart against Lena; the fat Holmfrid (Mikael Rahm) cries enough against the jokes of the businessman Arne (Lennart Jähkel); even Daniel starts loving people and Lena as the love of his life. When they are invited to participate in an important contest in Vienna, Daniel finds his music opening the heart of people making his dream come true.

"Så Som I Himmelen" is a touching and sensitive movie, with a very beautiful story. It is impressive how director Kay Pollak and the screenplay writers have been able to develop a great number of characters in 132 minutes running time. The performances are top-notch, supported by magnificent music score and at least two awesome moments: when Gabrielle sings her song in the concert, and certainly the last concert in Vienna with the audience, jury and everybody participating in the melody, and Daniel making his dream come true. Like in "Teorema", the stranger changes the lives, not of only a family, but of a conservative community. Further, like many European movies, the open conclusion indicates that Daniel actually died, at least in my interpretation, reaching peace with the success of his music. My eyes became wet in these two scenes. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "A Vida no Paraíso" ("The Life In the Paradise")

Sentiment: positive
This is an Excellent little movie! The acting is good and the music is fantastic!! Play it on a 5-1 sound system and enjoy! It will never win any awards but its good clean fun for all!! I recommend this movie to all fans of pretty girls funny and hansom men as well as robot lovers everyone!!1 P.S. It also stars Lisa Rinna! Enjoy!!This is a very hard movie to find, It is out of print. I first saw it on Showtime many years ago but recently found a used VHS copy. Its still a must see for all!!!This is an Excellent little movie! The acting is good and the music is fantastic!! Play it on a 5-1 sound system and enjoy! It will never win any awards but its good clean fun for all!! I recommend this movie to all fans of pretty girls funny and hansom men as well as robot lovers everyone!!1 P.S. It also stars Lisa Rinna! Enjoy!! Dave Engle This is a very hard movie to find, It is out of print. I first saw it on Showtime many years ago but recently found a used VHS copy. Its still a must see for all!!!

Sentiment: positive
Talk about over acting...!!!! not just by Govinda, but also by Salman and Lara....The direction was awful. The first half hour you would pretty much want to switch the movie off..because this movie is a real stinker (mark my words. 

I liked Govinda in some o his comedy roles like Haseena Maan Jaayegi, Jodi No. 1, Akhiyon se Goli Maare and Jis Desh Mein Ganga Rehta Hai and this does not compare to any of them. And Salman Khan should not do comedy roles at all!! He sucks. He does not know how to do comedy. The only good comedy role he did was in Andaz Apna Apna, which was brilliant next to Amir Khan. 

There were so many 'overly done stupidly unfunny' scenes in this movie that make you want to take out the DVD and burn it so no one else in your house watches it ever again.

Sentiment: negative
The movie is truly poignant, unique and uplifting. The story is universal in that it's a battle between good, evil and the world between. THE MOST IMPORTANT thing is that its rating is wrong, misleading, and a travesty. Blockbuster has it rated as though it were an X rated movie. The truth is is that it is closer to G than PG and should be seen by children who can read the clear and simple sub-titles.

Sentiment: positive
A young woman, Nicole Carrow (Jaimie Alexander), and her boyfriend, Jess (Joey Mendicino) become targets for a deranged serial killer after stopping for a 'comfort break' at a remote road-side rest-stop.

What might have been an effectively scary chiller in more competent hands, turns out to be a confusing, ill-considered mess under the sloppy direction of John Shiban (who also wrote the screenplay). There is a good deal of juicy violence, a brief smattering of nudity, and confident performances from the cast, but the silly script leaves the viewer with so many unanswered questions one cannot help but feel disappointed.

On the surface, the film plays out like a standard cliché-ridden 'killer-on-the-loose' movie, but Shiban (an ex-writer for the X-files) throws in some subtle supernatural elements which suggest that his aim was something else entirely: a ghost story, with the rest stop acting as home to a vengeful spectre out to punish sinners.

By reading up on the film, checking out viewers' theories here on IMDb, and watching the extras on the DVD, certain plot elements begin to make a little more sense (although, even with the advantage of extra information, there are still many questions left unanswered). In my opinion, any film that requires this much investigation to make itself (only partially) understood is not particularly a good one.

Sentiment: negative
My wife and I find this movie to be a wonderful pick-me-up when we need to have a good laugh - the conflict between some characters and the repore between others make this a sure fire comedy relief. I am so looking forward to this movie coming on DVD so I can replace my well watched VHS.

Sentiment: positive
Yes, this film has many gay characters. It also has straight characters, characters who are not sure about their sexuality, people who are searching for some truth about their existence. 

This is not a film about sexual orientation. It's about loneliness and the difficulty human beings often experience in connecting to one another. Filmically, Denys Arcand cleverly balances the various dimensions of the relationships and the contrasting, constantly shifting relationships. The serial killer element is a bit less successful (it feels more like a way to wrap up various plot points and, unlike the rest of the film, is thematically heavy-handed). 

Thomas Gibson centers and grounds the film; it's a quiet performance but behind the handsome, arrogant exterior he slowly reveals a terrified soul afraid of showing or accepting love from those around him. The supporting cast is strong, especially Mia Kirshner as Gibson's friend, a dom-for-hire with precognitive powers. Her role is more metaphor than a literal conceit---strangely innocent and depraved at the same time, she represents the light and dark of the characters' sexual consciousness. 

The film's involving and often surprises in its character development. The effect is somewhat like Robert Altman directing a David Mamet script---the dialogue doesn't shrink from some searing observations aside from a few contrived moments in the beginning. Often, in our search for love and a conventional "relationship", we ignore the love that already exists around us---in our friends, family, those who are able to see us as we are. Arcand and the writer, Brad Fraser, make some canny observations on the different ways human beings try to escape and deny their loneliness and how that denial returns to haunt us in so many unexpected ways.

This film is a rewarding experience. It may not be for bigots who can't get past the sexual orientation of some of the characters to see the greater, transcendental message of hope and redemption. Loneliness is a universal experience. A film like this, that dares to explore the darker side of our lives with a clever and perceptive eye, deserves applause and an open-minded approach.

Sentiment: positive
I, too, found "Oppenheimer" to be a brilliant series and one of the finest offerings ever on American PBS. David Suchet was particularly effective as Edward Teller, as I recall, and the overall conception was spectacularly good. The only reason that the series doesn't rate a full 10/10 is for the low-budget production values in some areas. Actual content is absolutely first-rate in my recollection.

The Oppenheimer miniseries will be released in the UK on July 31st! It will be a Region 2/PAL set, but it would seem that a Region 1/NTSC set should be soon in the offing.

If you have a universal player in the US, you can order the series right now from Amazon UK.

http://tinyurl.com/znyyq

Huzzah!!

Sentiment: positive
Screened at the San Francisco International Film Festival under the title ' Come Undone', April 25, 26, & 27, 2001. The cinematographer uses techniques that add to the storytelling. Even with fall/winter backgrounds for the 'present' and spring summer for the 'flashbacks' there can be some difficulty following the continuity.

Whether either lead is gay, the actors well-portray the budding relationship in real life terms; from physical violence toward each other to their passionate lovemaking. The story pulls you into the characters a bit slowly in the beginning. But as the end approaches, you really care about where these guys will be next summer! You, too, will want a sequel to find out.

Sentiment: positive
This film was just on two nights running on ITV1.. dear oh dear. Someone actually bought this on the strength of Robert Carlylse.. OK, I missed the start.. but what I did see was so bad I thought, no... I watched in embarrassment for the stars who were in it. Nothing was based on reality, I doubt things would progress as they did in this film. Everything was poor about this film. OK, cgi.. but no reality. The write up gave the impression of a cliff hanger end..sorry, I wasn't impressed. Yes, formulaic. Couldn't guess the end. From what I saw the military had the upper hand, people doing the heroic stuff were given next to no time to do their thing, it just wouldn't have happened that way? It was worse than leave your brain at the door. It was annoying.. as someone else said.. yeah, right.. of course that would have happened... not!! The credits mentioned Quebec and Canada.. so it was a co production, missed the third party concerned.. I'll have to check back on this site. I'm not usually this critical, but this annoyed me.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is definitely one of the finest of its kind,. A Victrion age story of love, and, grit. The depth of its story line is one that will stir the inner most emotions of love, and hate, with some very interesting twists, this is a must have movie for not only the lesbian audiences, but, for all viewers. I can't say much more or I will spoil the experience for a new, young audience who might just be coming out. Another fine work for Sarah Waters. It also is a great way for Sally Hawkins to win over audiences who only get a brief glimpse of her talent in another Sarah Waters work, in "Tipping the Velvet".. It is also a must see..

Sentiment: positive
Now being a fan of sci fi, the trailer for this film looked a bit too, how do i put it, hollywood. But after watching it i can gladly say it has impressed me greatly. Jude is a class actor and miss Leigh pulls it off better than she did in Delores Clairborne. It brings films like The Matrix, 12 Monkeys and The Cell into mind, which might not sound that appealing, but it truly is one of the best films i have seen.

Sentiment: positive
This short was director Del Lord's last and only Shemp short. The problem: It was quite weak and the cafe scene was pretty much a carbon copy of a Curly short "Busy Buddies" (1944). The interrogation scene was pretty funny, and the beginning part of the cafe part. But there are a lot of plotholes in this short. For example, why are the stooges hiding in the garbage can when the police come? In the remake, "Of Cash And Hash"(1955), director Jules White fixes this and the reason for the stooges hiding in the garbage can is because there is a gunfight between the police and the armored car robbers. The scene in which Moe is having trouble with the oyster was done before with Curly in "Dutiful But Dumb" (1941). The spooky house part wasn't all that great except for the hilarious scene on the outside of the spooky house. To top it off, the ending had no sting to it. Rating: C-

Sentiment: negative
This is a truly abysmal `LOCK STOCK' clone with a stellar cast and a terrible script. I have no idea why so many top British actors signed up to this junk, they must have been bribed. A miss match of a storyline goes on forever and ever and ever and if I hadn't have paid good money for it I'd have turned it off after 10 minutes. Not the worst film ive ever seen, that honour goes to the truly pathetic used bogroll of a movie' (I use the term loosely) `GUMMO' (I feel like suing that so called `director' for the lost hour and a half of my life) but this trash is nearly right down there with it. Definitely one of the worst 5 films I have ever seen. Stuff like this reminds Hollywood that they don't have a monopoly on truly awful films.

Sentiment: negative
When I read the back of the DVD case, I thought that it sounded really interesting... so... I had my mom throw it into the pile of movies in the "4 for 20 dollars" section at Blockbuster. When we got home and popped in the movie... twenty minutes into it, we found ourselves turning to each other going "this sucks. Let's put in something else." I'll admit, a few of the lines from the friends at the café made us smile a little bit. But come ON, at least get some decent actors! Every once in a while in a movie, if the acting is bad and the movie isn't going at a painfully slow pace and actually seems interesting, I can gut it out and get a few laughs at how they're over(or under)doing their lines. But I can only take so much. Crying scenes looked like the actors were having hysterical fits of laughter, there was no delivery for their lines... amateur doesn't even come close to the acting in this film.

Anyone who came on here saying that this film was good had to have been on some REALLY good drugs while they were watching the movie. It's the most pointless thing I've ever had the displeasure of watching. DO NOT WATCH OR BUY THIS MOVIE!!!!!

Sentiment: negative
Everything everyone has said already pretty much rings true when it comes to 'The Prey'. Endless nature footage, bad acting - Aside from these elements, this is a watchable film for slasher fans that in some cases, is considered a cult classic.

Jackson Bostwick and Jackie Coogan play pretty well off each other. There's also a three minute banjo solo that shows off Bostwick's skill behind the instrument. Not too bad if I do say so myself.

The last ten minutes of the 'film' are its saving grace. The ending still haunts me to this day. This can also sport a short lived plus in that an early John Carl Bucheler does the special effects. Some may know him from films like 'Troll' and 'Friday the 13th part 7 - He directed both these films) All in all, this isn't a movie everyone will find something redeeming in. In fact, on a Hollywood level, this can rank right up there with one of the businesses most amateurish efforts, but for that handful (yet very loyal) of slasher movie fans in the world, even the bad acting and atrocious nature footage can be forgiven.

Sentiment: negative
Garlin is unquestionably a comedian's comedian and a comedian to anyone looking for a good time. His first film, which is entirely his own creation and production, tells the story of a struggling Chicago actor James Aaron with whom Jeff obviously identifies. He wonderfully juxtaposes James to Paddy Chayefsky's "Marty" and to Jackie Gleason's Poor Soul as he exposes James' dilemmas with an array of actors that in real life are Jeff's friends, many who are fellow Second City alumni.

He delightfully uses Sarah Silverman's diametrical cuteness and scathingly absurd humor to exemplify how despite common sense and talent, life's contentment can too often belie unyielding frustration. Bonnie Hunt gives an endearing performance as a romantic interest.

Don't let a simple story mislead you, the characters and conflicts are well thought out and ring true. Those that follow Garlin's career and understand that his humor is based on telling reality humorously, not necessarily creating fiction which too easily can be contrived, will appreciate his dialogue driven story.

We surely will see Garlin working much more as director and writer with other talented intelligent comedic actors who undertake the great challenge of making life funny.

Sentiment: positive
This is an excellent, little known movie. Tom Selleck does an outstanding job of acting in this movie, with the Japanese 'Clint Eastwood'. I'd love to see if this movie has come out on DVD yet, there are some spots that clearly have been cut. Hiroku (Tom's love interest) has clearly had some parts chopped. It would be interesting to see more of Japan in the film. The baseball sequences are far and away the most realistic of any baseball movie, I'm quite sure most of the actors were current or former baseball players. I love loading the tape of this movie at least once a year. Best scenes involve the lack of hat tipping after Tom gets beaned in the big game, and an intensely sensual scene of Tom having a hot bath with Hiroku. Dennis Haysbert also does a great job, it's good to see he's finally getting some recognition, not just in baseball movies(he was also in Major League).

Sentiment: positive
All of you who despaired looking at the emptiness and weaknesses of Disney Studios' last productions, here comes something that should heal your wounds... Once and for all, A Bug's life brings the proof that purely synthetic pictures conducting a good scenario provides more interest than fake "hand-made-old-Disneys-like" drawings (see the Lion King, Pocahontas, and all the latest productions where you sadly regret that Bambi's magical background and atmosphere are gone forever).

A bug's life (1001 Pattes for my fellow french cinemaniaks !) succeeds in avoiding all the imperfections that make you awaken in the middle of the movie and say "Hey, this thing is computer generated !". No weak parts, a tremendous effort showing its efficiency in the backgrounds and the general look of the sets, an astonishing 3D bird (close to perfection in its imitation of reality)... and that's only to mention the technical aspects.

The scenario, my friends, the real backbone of a motion picture, has some thickness ! Curiously, and obviously thanks to Lasseter's team, there is practically no musical sequence in A bug's life. Which means the story is long and rich enough to free itself from these 3 or 4 minutes that some kids appreciate, but most others dislike (same thing for the parents or the anime fans, like me). This movie reminded me of a really old movie featuring Steve Martin and Chevy Chase : the 3 Amigos ; it had basically the same background story (a whole mexican village living in the fear of a few bad guys hires gunmen (who finally turn to be actors) to protect them, etc...). Simple, but efficient, and brilliantly adapted to a colony of frightened ants facing the wrath of vicious insects.

Since Microcosmos, many movies tell tales of insects, their lives, fears and hopes, but I do think that A bug's life is the funniest and best directed of all. The humanisation process has been perfectly well achieved... And the whole audience was captivated by Flik's (aka Tilt in France) adventures.

A big thank you for Lasseter's team, especially for the last 30 seconds... it's so strange and great at the same time to see a whole theater caught in laughter while the bugs/actors forget their lines or hit the camera...

And finally, especially for those of you who have seen the french version, other congratulations go to the dubbing actors who made a great synchro work on this movie. A bug's life is a really good piece of entertainment, and I think it will soon become part of my collection of videos (a privilege granted to extremely few movies, and that's not a problem of storage room :). Go and see it, that's an order.

Sentiment: positive
You might suspect that the plot of this movie was written in the process of filming. It begins as a "punks versus vigilante" movie, but in the middle of the film, the plot changes abruptly when the vigilante turns to be an honest man with his honest girl and his honest gym and has to fight the corrupt "businessmen" who want to turn the gym down at any cost to build a mall or something. Then, the plot changes again, and we forget about the corrupt guys. The villain now is the friend of the leading man, who thinks he is a Ninja. The guy becomes "crazy evil" and wants at any cost to win a Martial Arts Contest. Seeing this movie is like having a nightmare with the television on.

Sentiment: negative
This movie documents a transformative experience for a group of young men, and the experience of watching it is in itself transformative for the viewer. Few movies even aspire to this level of transcendence, and I can think of no other movie -- documentary or drama -- that achieves it. There is no other movie in which I have both laughed so much and cried so much. Yes, it is about DMD and accessible travel; on those issues alone, it is a worthwhile venture, but it is more. It is about friendship. It is about life itself, about living every day that you're alive. And it's a great, fun, adventurous narrative. This is why God created the cinema! See this movie!!!

Sentiment: positive
KK should stick to singing- this whole movie was a big bore. I can't understand the viciousness of the boys and the romance between Miles and KK- the sex scenes were uninspired too. The ending was awful- unresolved- there needs to be reason to murder. And the whole voyeurism of the boy was weird..... the mother always wrestled with the boy- don't you think he would get some rather Freudian with her? And why didn't someone teach KK how to speak with inflection instead of monotone?

Glad I only paid $1.00 to rent this. 



Sentiment: negative
This film on paper looked like it could possibly be good, after watching though i realised that this film was completely terrible!! The plot has no meaning, and i think i counted the best part of 5000 cut scenes each one making the film more annoying boring and ridiculous. I watched this late night pitch black no noise at all just to add to the SCARINESS of it but the truth is the only thing that scared me was the music, what they would call tragic music, they play opera i mean be serious!! This film sums up all of what is not good about this type of film. To be honest ill say no more but watch at your own risk this film is just complete rubbish, ENJOY!!

Sentiment: negative
I found it very very difficulty to watch this after the initial 5 minutes of the film. I managed to stomach 45-50 minutes before switching it off in disgust and watching Monster House instead (which, by the way, is great fun).

The story has massive holes in it. The plot line is hugely over stated and dull, the acting is awful, especially from Justin TImberlake who should really stick to what he is good at (looking daft and singing like a castrato). Morgan Freeman looked incredibly uncomfortable, especially when made to dance around to rock music for no apparent reason half way through the film after him and Timberlake meet. Freeman and Timberlake's characters seem to be supposed to have some sort of father/son relationship of sorts or something, which simply isn't evident at all apart from the fact that; though Freeman's character seems to have nothing but contempt for the ignorant and rather stupid character of Timberlake, he never the less pulls out all the stops to help him uncover a completely ridiculous cover up.

It would take some incredible suspension of disbelief to give any credit to the story line, which is simply absurd and blown out of all proportion.

Don't watch this film, it is a pure waste of time.

Sentiment: negative
That is the answer. The question is: What is the single reason to watch this movie? I loved her in "My Name Is Julia Ross." That is one of the best films noir of all time. Noir or whatever one may call it, it's a very unsettling movie.

She is fun in one of the worst major studio releases of all time, too. That would be "The Guilt Of Janet Ames." This one has a spooky, promising title. It has a good cast. It has a fine director. I was expecting something dark. Maybe something a little tawdry. Instead, it's an uninspired, routine espionage movie. It's pretty much is a total bore. At least it was to me. Ms. Foch is captivating. And that is about it.

Sentiment: negative
METAMORPHOSIS I am working my way through the Chilling Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and METAMORPHOSIS is the seventh movie in the set. Released in 1990, METAMORPHOSIS seems to be a remake of "The Atom Age Vampire," which also featured a scientist striving for similar results. Set in modern times, METAMORPHSIS is not my kind of horror movie.

A university researcher is working to crack the human genome in order to create a serum that would prevent aging. Pressured by the administration to publish his papers; and, produce some results (or risk losing funding), the scientist decides to use himself as a guinea pig! At first thinking that he suffered no adverse side effects, he eventually discovers that the serum has indeed altered him in the most unexpected manner! 

The acting is stilted; and, the performances left me with a much diminished interest in the film. The score is pandering. And, the science behind the experiments and their findings is not only fallacious; it's absurd; it's ridiculous  at best. 

As others noted, the end turns into a 30+ minute gag, which is seemingly endless. Without giving too much away, I'd call this one, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde meet the Creature From the Black Lagoon meets Home Alone."

Sentiment: negative
Don't mistake "War Inc." for a sharply chiseled satire or a brainy comedy full of inside jokes for news buffs. It isn't.

This is an old-fashioned screwball comedy, with ridiculously coincidental plot twists, stock characters (given some depth in fun performances by John Cusack, Joan Cusack, Marisa Tomei and Hillary Duff) and a straightforward approach to the political content.

You see, the filmmakers' political points are things nearly all of the country already knows are true. Yeah, we understand that the corporations profiting off the war are corrupt, inept pigs, the political leaders in charge of it are even more inept buffoons, and American imperialism has never looked crasser and more out of touch than it does right now -- but none of that is the point.

Here, all of that noise is the setting that they lampoon -- sometimes in genius ways -- as the backdrop for a silly romp, as John Cusack's character (the hit-man with a heart) tries to change his life with the help of the do-gooder journalist who doesn't trust him (Tomei) and the young Middle Eastern starlet who wants to call off her marriage (Duff). Cusack's sister, Joan, plays his assistant with an almost cartoonishly enthusiastic quality. Ben Kingsley seemed to me wasted in his smaller part as a ruthless CIA boss.

That's all, and it works. It's simple fun, but if somehow you can't see reality and you think the war is going well and everyone involved with it is doing a good job and there's no corruption and people in the Middle East wish our Western culture would supplant theirs, then you might not find it as funny.

For all the rest of us, it was a light comedy with a political edge.

Sentiment: positive
Mind-numbingly boring, utterly predictable and in the end simply laughable. That pretty much sums up the disaster that is Indecent Proposal. Starting with a decent premise the whole thing just unravels and becomes a complete mess. Basically the story boils down to the question, "would you let your wife sleep with another man for one million dollars?" Here of course the answer is yes because otherwise we wouldn't have a movie. Quite frankly, we'd have been better off if we didn't have a movie.

Our married (and financially troubled) couple are played by Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore. They go to Vegas to get rich. Yeah, that'll work. Anyhow, a billionaire, played by Robert Redford, takes a liking to the wife and makes the million dollar offer. For one night with the wife he will give them financial security. The aftermath of that one night is what the movie is really all about. Unfortunately nothing in that aftermath is the least bit entertaining. The script is so predictable you can say the characters' lines before they do. The performances leave much to be desired. Harrelson would be better off sticking to comedies as this attempt at serious acting completely misses the mark. Anguish is not something he seems capable of portraying. And it is quite safe to say that Demi Moore will never have to clear space in her home for any Academy Awards. Why is she a movie star again? In a part that should be full of emotion she conveys none. Only Redford escapes mostly unscathed. He's appropriately slimy yet suave and clearly the best actor of the bunch. But he can't save this film. Awful script, lousy acting, plodding pace, zero entertainment...Indecent Proposal is downright awful.

Sentiment: negative
Critics love this movie. I personally found it senseless and tasteless. This is the millionth time I've fallen into the "critics love it" trap and came out wishing someone would throw boiling hot water on my testicles because it was less painful than watching the movie. There are many scenes that are completely unnecessary. A warning to Animal lovers: Don't see this movie if you don't want to see sheep killed and molested.

If you want to see a good Asian film, see Afrika. If you want to see a film about escaped convicts, see the Gene Wilder/Richard Pryor classic Stir Crazy. Avoid 9 Souls like the plague.

Sentiment: negative
I will warn you here: I chose to believe those reviewers who said that this wasn't an action film in the usual sense, rather a psychological drama so you should appreciate it on that basis and you will be alright.

I am here to tell you that they were wrong. Completely wrong.

Well, no, not completely; it is very disappointing if you are looking for an action flick, they were right about that. But it is also very unsatisfying on all other levels as well.

Tom Beringer wasn't too bad, I suppose, no worse than usual; but what possessed them to cast Billy Zane in this? Was it some sort of death wish on the part of the producers? A way to made their film a guaranteed flop? In that case, it worked.

If they were actually aiming for success, then why not cast somebody who can act? Oh, and might as well go for a screenwriter who knows how to write. Ah, yes, and a director who knows how to direct.

As someone who sat through this mess, actually believing it would shortly redeem itself, I can assure you it never did. Pity, it could've been a good film.

Sentiment: negative
Low budget mystery. A shot rattles out of the dark and a woman is seen running from that direction. A young architect Jimmy McMillan(Chick Chandler)discovers a dead body that goes missing. The woman in a hurry, Mary(June Clyde), is linked to the death scene; but it is McMillan that has to try and solve the case to avoid serious suspicion. Suspects are six shop owners in the vicinity of the crime scene. All the atmosphere of Film-Noir; but not quite the real thing. This flick musters just enough to be a decent low budget mystery/drama and is a nice little escape. Other players include: George Meeker, Michael Raffetto, Milton Wallace and Rebel Randall.

Sentiment: negative