DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Hooper is Not Funny, Not Fasted paced, Not romantic and Non informative. There is no real drama. You would think that a movie about the world's greatest stuntman would have some drama, there was an attempt but it didn't seem real. No Character study, no lessons learned, it did not even look like the actors were having any real fun, they were just trying to act like they were having fun. There is no reason to watch unless you like to look at Burt and want get an occasional glimpse of Sally. Prancer the horse was beautiful and did what he was supposed to do. In fact Prancer was the best actor in this movie. Smoky and the Bandit was such a fun movie that I was ready to like Hooper. This movie turned out to be a real disappointment and waste of time

Sentiment: negative
After seeing the 1996 remake, I thought it was the funniest way to see Cruella De Vil getting her punishment for torturing animals just for their skin. The whole movie was quite funny, and on my view, better than the animated one. But there was actually no need for a second one. First of all, if Cruela is returning, don't cure her and make her insane again. Just make her break away from jail and that's a rap. I thought it was not very funny. It's supposed to have only one original puppy returning. I'd expected that it should be Lucky, since he was the most appealing, and besides, having Roger and Anita back too. However, they decided to have a complete recasting and adding not really one hundred, not even one hundred and two, but only THREE puppies, and a parrot that thinks he's a dog (clever). Gerard Depardieu's part was pointless. At the end, Cruella suffers way too much, way too humiliating and way too exaggerated to be true. She gets baked inside a giant cake. That was a desperate attempt of physical humor, trying to imitate the same effect from the first one. That just didn't work. It was too much over the top, and not too funny. I actually felt sorry about Cruella.

Sentiment: negative
...in a TV-movie 70's kind of way. It's one of those movies that show up in the wee hours, but rarely because more modern late-hour schlock movies bump it off. It has likeable performances by Graves and Wynn. Generally, it's just a harmless little piece of nothing that doesn't offend too badly. Nothing good, a lot that's mediocre.

Sentiment: negative
I read that this did not well, that the story is not solid, that Volckman feels he has failed in some way.

I disagree. First, it is well executed. Volckman is doing well to not only to try a new technique, but to have a focus that is worth thinking about: would immortality reduce the value of life? Big question ...

I can see he trying hard to build a feeling, and he is not compromising. This is to be applauded. I am sure it was an interesting exercise to build characters in such a form. I have seen artists reduce a form to bare minimum to build the intensity of a moment. I identify this film with this.

Further, it is much more interesting than Richard Linklater's roto-scoping, and Volckman's story has more meaning than Linklater's later stories of a wasted life on drugs. Old news. Everyone knows it, but no one does anything about it. Renaissance has more to offer, something new to think about. And there are many more stories out there with loads of holes in them that do far better.

Well done, Volckman. Really nice work.

Sentiment: positive
I never saw this movie until I bought the tape last year. I was enthralled and entertained. It has all the elements of what I love to see in a Sci-Fi story, in a book or on the screen. There's social commentary, speculation, and a good story.

There's something eerie, and amusing, watching a 1936 view of the 'distant future' of the 60s and 70s.

I think it's a must see, and not only for Sci-Fiers.

Sentiment: positive
An angry boy who has tragically lost his parents is looked after by his grandfather. Together they find common ground in the Gaelic folk tales which have been passed down orally from generation to generation of islanders. Although tragic episodes, such as the Highland clearances, feature in the stories, there is a surprising amount of humour and gaiety in them. It's all filmed in Skye, so there is a double dose of beauty. The mountain scenery is breathtaking, and it's a rare chance to hear Scottish Gaelic spoken. I'm English, so I had to read the subtitles, but the sound of spoken Gaelic is nonetheless wonderful. The performances are just what you would expect from carefully chosen non-actors - in other words, you are watching the real thing - people who care deeply about Gaelic folklore and history. The Gaelic community, especially on Skye, worked innumerable minor miracles to make this film. Anyone who has the slightest interest in Gaelic, folk history, folk music, oral culture, Scotland, British history, multi-culturalism or social justice should go and see this film.

Sentiment: positive
I usually like movies about animals or reptiles turning against the mean old humans who threaten their environment, but I have to say Snake Island was a major letdown.

The premise is interesting, a group of people, including a writer numbly played by William Katt, goes to an island called, duh, you guessed it "Snake Island", and quess what the island lives up to it's name. That is one thing I will give this movie, there are snakes, LOTS and LOTS of snakes of all sizes and kinds. So that part of the movie in fairness lives up to its name, but the writing, acting and directing is SOOOOOOOO lame it is almost painful to sit through.

The characters are so unlikeable I was begging for the snakes to finish these horrible people off to put us all out of our misery. There are a couple of scenes that are so surreal and ridiculous they have be seen to be believed---snakes gyrating to really horrible disco music while 2 women dance seminude together and a scene with a snake holding some inane dialogue with one of the actors, it's beyond absurd. I think the writer was trying to be funny but this just came off like some weird LSD trip...

I remember William Katt years ago back when he starred in "Carrie", what a hunk he was..not that he was ever a major star, but to be reduced to this garbage, I feel for him.

Avoid this movie like the plague unless you are really into movies that feature lots and lots of snakes and really horrible humans.

Sentiment: negative
Lucille Ball cannot sing or act or dance. This makes the quality of her performance in MAME all the more dreadful. She's not allowed to do the low-brow slapstick that made her a hit on TV so she has to rely on building a character. Unfortunately, Ms. Ball never learned that skill as none of the tender moments have any warmth. How does she really feel about Patrick or Beau? We never really believe the words she says. That vacant stare of Ms. Ball is suppose to convince us she is emoting but there is no chemistry between her and Bruce Davidson, Robert Preston or Bea Arthur at all. For this reason every scene she's in is flat.

Moreover, when Ms. Ball opens her mouth to sing we are immediately made aware of the reason why the studios dubbed her voice for every other musical she starred in earlier in her career. It was stated that she demanded her voice be used so this is a mistake of ego as well as leadership. It is made worse when she is singing in voice-over and she has to "act the moment" without words. Whoever thought that would work forgot who was playing Mame.

I understand that Rosalind Russell did the role on stage and in the film AUNTIE MAME. Also, I am aware that Angela Lansbury won a Tony for her performance in the original 1966 Broadway musical. Neither of these women were known for their singing voices, but both could have pulled this off better than Lucille Ball. Why they went with her is the worst in blatant miscasting.

The only person that gets out unscathed is Bea Arthur. She's big and wonderful, catty and common in all the right amounts. Unfortunately, you keep waiting for this movie to take off and invite you to join in on the fun. But the film never does and you can't. No one besides Bea Arthur appears to be having any fun.

An additional bad review goes to director Gene Saks. Saks is known as an award-winning director of musicals and comedies for stage and screen, including the Broadway musical this film is based on. None of that skill and expertise is of aid here. The poor editing and storytelling quailty in this movie is beneath a director of his caliber. That glaring error in the execution of the movie is not the fault of Ms. Ball.

Sentiment: negative
The story starts off in the home of a little girl who is going to have a Birthday Party and both the mother and father seemed to act rather quiet and reserved with each other. They proceed to give their daughter her present which is from both of them and it stuck me funny the expressions on the two parents faces as they gave their child this gift, it was almost like, 'I hope she likes it'! There is a killing in the film and Catherine Mary Stewart,(Julia Kerbridge),"Reaper",2000, gets involved with the case because of family ties. Julia is working hard to become a doctor and this particular murder disrupts her entire life. Rob Lowe, (Kevin Finney),"View From The Top",03 is a next door neighbor in the same apartment dwelling as Julia and he eventually goes to bed with her and tries to help her in other ways. This is not a bad film, but it is certainly nothing to go crazy about, unless you like a film location in Canada and a good looking Catherine Mary Stewart, a native from Canada.

Sentiment: negative
This movie has got to be the biggest disappointment I've ever experienced with a film. The acting is horrific, the suspense build up minimal, and the plot overall is ridiculous. I found myself rooting for the victim to just hurry up and become a victim, because she obviously needed to be put out of her misery. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of how the world works will immediately be disgusted at the leaps we're asked to make in logic, and the so-called suspenseful buildup would be lucky to get a 3 year old to be mildly worried. I'm dismayed that a sequel is planned, because it means they'll be asking us to once again swallow a sub par plot line. If this is an example of Raw Feed's work, I think I'll be avoiding any and all future films by them.

Sentiment: negative
What is it with Americans and their hang-up with religious gobbledy-gook? To think this was a best-selling novel is incredible, but to pull it off as a movie you really need good acting and a script that delivers. In this case, all the good actors have gone to heaven and we're left with Kirk Cameron as a CNN-type journalist(!) trying to discover why a lot of people have simply disappeared. Oh yeah, there's a subplot about an evil world conspiracy and famine, or something. The good news is that this is done so cheaply, and with such inane dialogue, that it has sheer entertainment value in all of its unintended laughs. Not recommended for anyone with a 3-digit IQ.

Sentiment: negative
It's one of the best movies that I have seen this year ! I don't agree with the person who said it's boring. Of course some people may find this movie not frightening at all, but personally I spent a very good moment. This movie alterns very well sex scenes with frightening scenes. There is also a nice touch of humor. For example when the wife tells her husband that in her childhood she was abused by her father, and then her husband says "how can someone abuse someone like you", and then he attempts to attach her on the bed for sexual games :D Very funny ! I recommend this movie to everyone, and by the way, sorry for my poor English (I'm from France).

Sentiment: positive
This movie is great fun to watch if you love films of the organized crime variety. Those looking for a crime film starring a charismatic lead with dreams of taking over in a bad way may be slightly disappointed with the way this film strides.

It is a fun romp through a criminal underworld however and if you aren't familiar with Hong Kong films, then you may be pleasantly surprised by this one. I was somewhat disappointed by some of the choices made story-wise but overall a good crime film. Some things did not make sense but that seems to be the norm with films of the East. 

People just randomly do things regardless of how their personalities were set up prior. It's a slightly annoying pattern that permeates even in this film.

Sentiment: positive
This was a surprisingly very good movie, and an interesting idea.. However, it was just a little bit disappointing in that the 'Twist' was a little too predictable and just a bit too early on in the movie. Whilst watching, it started to get a little bizarre and confusing to the point that, the only reasonable outcome possible was the inevitable plot twist, but it certainly did not ruin this movies flow. There were superb performances, there was never a dull boring moment, so totally well worth watching this one. It kept me interested right up until the end, and for me there isn't many movies that can do that these days. I highly recommend people watch this terrific little movie.

Sentiment: positive
This is a cute and sad little story of cultural difference. Kyoko is a beautiful Japanese woman who has run to California to escape from a failed relationship in Japan. Ken is a Japanese American manual laborer with aspirations of rock and roll stardom but little concrete to offer a potential partner. Kyoko "marries" Ken in order to be able to stay permanently in the U.S., with the understanding that although they will live together until she gets a "green card" the marriage will be in name only. It soon develops that the parties are not on the same wavelength - or perhaps in the same "time zone", hence the title of the movie. As an immigration attorney I have seen such "arrangements" take on a life of their own, so I was pleased to see how well the filmmaker developed the dramatic possibilities of this situation.

Sentiment: positive
'Grey Gardens'(1975) is the Maysles' brothers bizarre documentary of Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis'eccentric aunt and first cousin who live like pigs in a run down 28 room mansion on East Hampton, Long Island.'Big Edie' Bouvier Beale,78,witty and dry and her daughter, 'Little Edie' Beale,56,(emotionally about 13) a still beautiful woman who once had a promising future,live in isolation from the rest of the world except for their many cats and raccoons in the attic. They amuse themselves by bickering all day, listening to the radio or singing to each other(They dont even own a television) Their fall from society is amazing to learn of and the viewer is drawn to these two very special, although obviously, dysfunctional people.One of the better documentaries ever made and still a cult classic today.

Sentiment: positive
Reading the other user comments, the review by A666333 has articulated most of what I was feeling throughout this film- predictable storyline, cliché versions of lesbians/heterosexuals (i.e. straight woman becomes a lesbian while concluding that her husband is abusive and aggressive). 

Also, the score was severely disappointing. It was bland, soft, sentimental elevator music- another common cliché in movies about lesbians. The movie would have had a few interesting dramatic moments if they had not been destroyed by the music.

A few scenes concerning sex and eroticism also struck me as attempts to titillate and raise shock value, including parts of the final performance scene. The conventional "hot and steamy" moments were as boring as the overly sentimental score. For example during the pool scene, the women are kissing, and then the camera pans along the abandoned wine glass, the flowing water, the sound of their heavy breathing over the soft crashing of waves.

The only elements I liked were the costuming and arobatics. They are well-choreographed, and the development of attraction between the two characters felt very natural during the training scenes. I genuinely smiled during those, and during the last scene with the police officer. But they were not enough to balance out the negatives or make me enjoy this film.

Sentiment: negative
THE BOX (2009) * Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella, James Rebhorn, Holmes Osborne, Sam Oz Stone, Celia Weston. Truly disappointing adaptation of genre legend Richard Matheson's sci-fi chiller "Button, Button" by on the wane wunderkind filmmaker Richard Kelly who truly stretches a small, well-crafted piece into a grab-bag 'WTF'-a-thon! Mysterious (and ridiculously maimed!) man, Langella, posits a million dollar offer to 'struggling' couple Diaz and Marsden (both surprisingly vanilla bland to the hilt!): a box with a red-button, that when pushed, will kill some stranger in the world (!) Sure strings are attached but does that really matter here? What does is why in the name of God does Kelly trowel on so much oddness (i.e. nose-bleeds; watery transport systems  that's right  Watery.Transport.Systems) when the tension should be strung as tautly as possible (oh the possibilities). If this sounds like a bad TWILIGHT ZONE episode you are half right (the '80s TV re-boot actually did a decent small-screen adaptation; in fact rent that instead!) One of the year's worst films.

Sentiment: negative
Dark Reality is a Saw like movie that is slightly decrepit. While the plot and story are good, there is a little too much unnecessary nudity. While I feel the film was technically well done, the acting was spotty, it was just a little too dark for my mood while I was watching it. IT basically says that there are a lot of missing people out there that will never be found and are perhaps being tortured by sick whackos. I feel that some information on the captors and their reasons for being so sick would have helped some. It came of as a snuff film, just made for the violent content. If you like to see women beaten, tortured, and killed then this is for you. If you're looking for something a little liter and more expressive and reasoned, skip this one.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was a great disappointment for me. I had been waiting for this movie to come out for years, and I was a faithful follower of Chaos Comics until they went bankrupt. Not only did they cut out half the story line, but they altered information. The statement that Lucifer is Hope's Father is untrue. He did corrupt her father, but he himself is not her father. The voices also did not suit the characters, and once you hear the voice of a beloved character, the voice you heard in your mind can never be returned. I can not even remember everything about this film that was wrong. The bottom line is if you love Lady Death do not watch this movie. It just did not do the comic justice at all!!

Sentiment: negative
This is a racist movie, but worthy of study and enjoyment. First time through it the natural inclination is to focus on Erbe & Dad. They have a relaxed, peaceful thing going, what with her still at home about to graduate from high school, and him retired and kicking back waiting for inspiration to do something. Second time through you realize how horribly the sister's husband is dissed by her friends in the backwoods blues bar. He takes it, it's the thing to do these days, and the critical moment passes as if they were chatting about the weather. In that same scene the sister's blues song is a real tear-jerker if you're the least bit sensitive and like that kind of music. Her performance feels like the climax of the story; a blues story with the good guys being "people of color" in their element in backwoods, SC. Meanwhile, all the white folk in the movie lead what appears to be shallow meaningless lives fit only for making babies. That's cool, long as you recognize it as fiction.

Sentiment: positive
The one who says that Lucio Fulci is not one of the most important names in the history of splatter is probably mad.The Italian director is a legend among hardcore-horror fans,and his work exceeds the barriers of the genre(who can forgot his western,crime or fantasy flicks).This is probably his goriest film,and unfortunately one the last.A horror director(Fulci as himself) starts hallucinating about gruesome murders.He goes to a psychiatrist,who makes him believe he is the criminal.In this time,the doctor begins a long chain of serial crimes.With such a plot,the movie should have been filled with something.And there are roting corpses,crashed or melted heads,stabbings,decapitations,chainsaw dismemberment and many others.Kind of boring sometimes,the film is saved by the excessive violence that will definitely please the gore addicts.

Sentiment: positive
Well. Where to begin. Let's just say this; avoid this movie at all

costs. It's based on a cartoon series. The movie makes the cartoon look

like Hamlet. Filled with emasculated actors who seem embarrassed to be

here, lousy camera work, terrible music, and enough product placement to

make you want to never visit Yahoo! again, this movie is really the

bottom of the barrel. To quote the New Yorker, Matthew Broderick and

Rupert Everett mug their way through this picture with the gay abandon

of men who have spotted a rare species of paycheck in the distance."

They should pay us some of the millions they earned for watching it.

Awful.

Sentiment: negative
The following are some of the most blaring problems with this movie: 1) Clichés abound. Seriously, awful "twists" are everywhere.

2) The narrative jumps around in time, which would be fine if done well, but it's not.

3) Lame characters that don't develop so much as either remain utterly static, or drastically change for no good reason.

4) Big one: HORRIBLE ACTING. Over the top from nearly every person.

The following are some of the best points from the movie: 1) The lead is damn good looking.

As I see it, there are only two kinds of people who would be into this movie: a) People who can sit through 90 minutes of tripe simply because the lead is attractive.

b) People who often think to themselves, "I like Hollywood dreck rife with clichés and overacting, but if only I could watch it in Korean..." There's a lot of good Korean cinema out there, so why waste your time with garbage?

Sentiment: negative
Hitchcock's original classic benefited tremendously not only from the performance of, but also the 'look' of Anthony Perkins. He projected a kind of clean-cut innocence: a young teen-idol type of persona. He was not an actor who had portrayed baddies before this; nor was he physically suited to the role of what the public might have imagined a psychopath to look like, especially in the 50's when this ultra-chilling aspect of mental illness (split personality psychosis) was relatively unexplored in film. Which is exactly why the casting of him as Norman Bates was a slice of true Hitchcockian genius. Audiences were taken by surprise to put it mildly.

That's why this re-make does not work, even a little bit, in spite of trying to be an exact copy. Whereas Anthony Perkins looked like someone you would never think of as being a serial killer, Vince Vaughn is easily imaginable as one. He lacks the frail look of Perkins and his acting chops are clearly inferior as well, at least in this role (honestly - has there ever been an actor who could convey nervousness as genuinely as Anthony Perkins?). While it was a pointless re-make to begin with, the miscasting of the story's most important character sucks this film down completely.

As a side note, I feel that Hollywood's propensity for re-making great movies because 'young' people refuse to watch anything that's not filmed in color not only stinks to high heaven of corporate greed but is exceptionally disrespectful to the original work. As for viewers who can't watch black and white - it's their loss. Hopefully they'll mature sometime in the future and no longer require shiny colours to hold their attention. When they do they'll discover that sometimes black and white works far better. With the background muted, the story and performances are that much more front and center. And in many cases the mood or atmosphere created through black and white cinematography is just not attainable in colour.

Sentiment: negative
I found 'Shuttle' an incredibly frustrating film to watch. It starts quite well and moves along briskly until the first 'injury' (which is a doozy). After that it becomes very lazy and underwritten as a story. It was the case of the plot driving the characters and not the characters driving the plot. If you hate film where you can't understand why characters do what they do, you will loathe 'Shuttle'. Particularly, the last act is odd and seems to occur in a world without common sense. Also at the end one of the characters confessed a past misdemeanor to her friend, rather than generating sympathy from the audience, most people started to giggle. This was probably because the 'heroines' of the story was a complete idiots. Finally there is an ending which just seems tacked on to be 'shocking' and comes from the horror cop-out school of 'people are bad, audience, so just accept it without any explanation'.

'Shuttle' is neither good or bad, but mediocre. And annoying.

Sentiment: negative
She has been catapulted from 13 to 30, with magic dust involved, courtesy the 13-year-old Matt, but nothing is made of that except as an unexplained device. New York City, especially Central Park, but also every other slice of the place incorporated into the movie, seems hope-filled and easily livable, and save for Lucy there's no villain in Jenna's adult life, and even Lucy is not cast as monstrous, only as a nasty 13-year-old grown 17 years more devious. Chris, the one-time boy object of Jenna's yearning, is now a porky cab driver, and you have seen enough films to know that Matt will play a major role in Jenna's future. You don't know quite what might impede this before it is finally achieved, though I'm here to whisper in your ear, so to speak, that the device is not unique. In fact, not only is this a variation on the theme of Tom Hanks' "Big," though nowhere near as fine, it is also a strictly by-the-book version of this subset of the Cinderella story.

Sentiment: negative
I really wish i could give this a negative vote, because i think i just wasted 83 minutes of my life watching the worst horror movie ever put to film. the acting was just god awful, i mean REALLLYYYY bad, the dialog was worse, the script sounded like it was written by.... i can't think of anything horrible enough to say. And the day "outside" and the night "inside" shots make you think the events took over several days. Terribly acted, directed, written, etc etc. all the way down to the gofer how gets lunch for everyone. STAY AWAY FROM THIS ONE AT ALL COSTS. If my only saving grace to stay out of hell is by doing one good deed, it is to tell the world to not watch this crap. This movie is the exact reason why horror movies are never taken seriously.

Sentiment: negative
The men can slaver over Lollo, if they like (or her lollos--she gave her name to a slang terms for breasts in French), but the ladies have an even tastier morsel in the divine Gerard Philipe, who is not only beautiful but can act. Don't be deterred if your version has no subtitles because in this simple, dashing story of love and war, in which all is fair, they are not needed. All you need know is that, at the beginning of the film, Lollobrigida reads Philipe's palm and tells him he will marry the daughter of the king. Thereafter the story is quite plain from the Gallic gestures and the running, jumping, and swordplay.

On the minus side, the obviousness of the story and the heavy-handed facetiousness of the tone become somewhat wearying, and it is annoying that the French apparently consider themselves too superior to Hollywood to bother even attempting the plausibility of its exciting stunts. And of course the non-French-speaker misses the occasional bit of ooh-la-la, such as: Virtuous girl: I must tell you that my heart belongs to Fanfan. Seducer: My dear, what made you think I was interested in that bagatelle?

Sentiment: positive
Seriously what were they thinking? Over the course of years the Columbo series has tried out some new things and diverted away from the usual successful formula but this movie really overdoes it. This movie is basically very different from any other Columbo movie but the differences are not for the good of the movie.

Main thing that of course makes this movie different from any other Columbo movie is the fact that there is no murder being committed. The entire premise of this movie is totally different and it places the Columbo character in a totally different environment and situation. Also the overall is just totally different and more 'modernized'.

Director Alan J. Levi did some other Columbo movies in the past, which all very much sticked to the usual formula. It also makes it an odd choice that he got picked to direct this movie.

The Columbo character himself also feels quite different, perhaps because of the reason that he gets placed in a totally different environment and situation, when he helps out his nephew after his bride disappeared right after the wedding. The absence of some good relieving and trademark Columbo humor also doesn't exactly make this a good or enjoyable watch.

In all honesty, the movie doesn't begin too bad but the movie starts to become more and more ridicules with its story as it progresses. It's such a stupid written kidnap-thriller with a story that starts to become more and more unlikely. It also makes the movie more and more unwatchable. This is a very little interesting Columbo entry that also really doesn't know to entertain its viewers in any way.

It also doesn't help much that the supporting actors aren't the most talented ones around. Despite the fact that his character is put in such a totally different situation and the movie is shot in such a completely different style, Peter Falk still holds up well and his presence still somewhat saves this movie. Can you just imaging how this movie would had been without him? It would had been an extremely bad and ridicules cheap movie I can tell you.

An odd Columbo entry, which could be described as a failed experiment to divert from the usual formula.

4/10

Sentiment: negative
Garden State was a mediocre film at best. The film seems more like a compilation of thoughts that the writer (Zach Braff) had, rather than a cohesive story. The disjointed plot may have been more engaging if it weren't interspersed with pointless scenes that were nothing more than "quirky." Coincidentally these scenes are often the ones that are relayed in conversation (Zack walking past faucets that turn on as he passes, crazy under-cranked party scene, shouting over a gorge, the list goes on).

The main character is flat, disengaging, and ultimately unlikable, which is exhibited most in the scene where he talks to his father, selfishly ignoring his fathers problems, including a recently deceased wife, and droning on about his own "What am I to do with my life?" problem.

The film ends when Andrew (Zach Braff) decides not to go back to LA because he cannot tear himself from the love of his life, Sam (Natalie Portman) whom he has known for 2 days. Which can only lead me to the conclusion that the message of the film is that love at first sight cures occupational dilemmas... Sure you could interpret it as a misappropriation of priorities, but if that is the case it could have been done better. Much better.

This film does not know what it wants to be. A drama, a comedy, a teenage-wasteland film, or a gamut of other things. I say this not as a single-genre oriented person, but as a person who loves multi-genre pieces such as those mastered by Stanley Kubrick. The reason I feel it does not work for Garden State is because rather than blending the genres together, it jumps around; one scene is one genre, the next another, and back again, so on.

I have heard many people tell me to cut Zach Braff some slack, after all it was his first feature film and he debuted as Director, Writer, and lead actor. Impressive as it was a first film, I should think that with as much money as he has, he could do better. There have been much better first-time feature film directors (Michel Gondry "Human Nature", David Gordon Green "George Washington"). Maybe if he stuck to writing OR directing OR acting it would have been better. Zach Braff is a talented performer, maybe his second attempt won't be so tedious and disjointed.

Sentiment: negative
I cannot see how anyone can say that this was a real good entertaining movie. With a few well known actors I found it hard to believe that this was only made in 2005. It's crap! The acting is tantamount to amateur dramatics, poor amateur dramatics. Unless you want to laugh loudly at an amazing 100 minutes of pure corn, don't bother to download it or rent it, worst that I have seen in years. It's from the bygone days of acting, where cowboys are shooting 8 bullets from the six-shooters. The more well known the actor, the worse they were, Drury was just sad. I was extremely disappointed with Lee Majors, has he actually stooped to this sort of garbage? It was bad enough when he played the six million dollar man.

Sentiment: negative
it's amazing that so many people that i know haven't seen this little gem. everybody i have turned on to it have come back with the same reaction: WHAT A GREAT MOVIE!!

i've never much cared for Brad Pitt (though his turns in 12 monkeys and Fight Club show improvement) but his performance in this film as a psycho is unnerving, dark and right on target.

everyone else in the film gives excellent performances and the movie's slow and deliberate pacing greatly enhance the proceedings. the sense of dread for the characters keeps increasing as they come to realize what has been really happening.

the only thing that keeps this from a 10 in my book, is that compared to what came before it, the ending is a bit too long and overblown. but that's the only flaw i could find in this cult classic.

if you check this film out, try to get the letterboxed unrated director's cut for the best viewing option.

rating:9

Sentiment: positive
I watched this movie with big expectations. The blurb on the back indicated that this was going to be a nasty one. But it was pretty tame and a little unsatisfying. The violence was nothing I haven't seen a thousand times before, the gore level was only average (mind you there was probably more than what has been seen in Hollywood in the last 5 years - perhaps more), and at no stage was I even feeling uneasy let along frightened. Again a CAT 3 movie with big wraps, has not lived up to its hype.

Sure hire this movie, but don't go in with any expectations. I am so keen to get into the whole Asian horror scene, but am continuously disappointed. I did love Ichi, and Audition, but then again, Miike stands alone at the moment.

Please inspire me..... there is a large cluster of jaded genre fans who are starved of quality horror!

Sentiment: negative
Seeing Les Amants Reguliers calls immediately for comparison with Bertolucci's movie 'The Dreamers', in my opinion the best film made about the 1968 revolt of students in Paris. Actually director Philippe Garrel does not seem to avoid comparing with his much more famous colleague, sharing the principal actor and even including a direct replica eye-in-viewer-eye about an older film of Bertolucci. And yet, LAR is a different film, and an interesting one.

The story line seems also familiar. The movie starts with long scenes of the 1968 'emeutes', maybe among the best done until now. The film is made in black-and-white, and the perspective of the static camera on one side or the other of the barricade reminds Eisenstein. Then, as in The Dreamers, the action moves in the Parisian flat where the heroes of the defeated revolt make art, smoke drugs, dream, and fall for one other. There is no direct social comment, no real explanation of the background of the revolt. The movie focuses on the psychology of the characters and on the love story between the main characters. It's like a premonition of the process of transition to the establishment that the generation of the 1968 went through, it's just that not all the participants may adapt or survive.

The film is more about the characters than about the events. And it is merely for the style it will be remembered about. The black-and-white cinema is memorable not only in the revolution scenes, but also when looking at the characters evolution. Many sequences are enhanced by a technique that is derived from the silent films movies, with long takes accompanied by a off piano tune. The effect is exquisite. Yet the length of the film is hardly justified, it lasts more than three hours and I doubt that cutting it to only two hours would have been a miss - actually I am convinced it's quite a contrary.

Without raising at the depth and subtlety of Bertolucci's movie LAR is another perspective to remember about one of the more important years in the history of France and of the world in the 20th century.

Sentiment: positive
As social satire, Idiocracy is just as good as Office Space, but with a wider scope. To criticize this film as too puerile due to potty humor is to kind of miss the point, I think. There are certainly fart jokes etc., but they're not really intended to be funny to the audience - they exist to define the state of "culture" in the world of 2500 AD visited by Joe, as a background to the bizarre state of affairs in which he awakes. The real humor of the film lies in the many sight gags and attitudes present in this future society that are just a shade off of what we encounter in our daily lives, and which should serve as a warning. My personal favorite is the depiction of Fox News. The subtle brilliance in the film lies in the fact that it also digs at "smart" people, and average Joes like the protagonists. Note the times in the film when Joe and Rita almost subconsciously conform to the idiots around them, and you realize that Idiocracy is not created to pick on any group of people in particular, but on the culture of idiocy in general. I don't know what to say about the "made for conspiracy theory" behavior of Fox in releasing this film, but if it's not playing in your local theater, demand it. We all need to see this film, if not for the social commentary, at least for the fart jokes...

Sentiment: positive
Spanish horrors are not bad at all, some are smart with interesting stories, but is not the case of "Second Name". It is badly directed, badly acted and boring...boring...boring, a missed chance for an interesting story.

Sentiment: negative
In the film "Brokedown Palace," directed by Jonathan Kaplan, two best friends, Alice (Claire Danes) and Darlene (Kate Beckinsale) decide to celebrate high school graduation by taking a trip to Hawaii, but hear that Bangkok, Thailand, is much more fun. They switched plans and decided to go to Thailand without telling their parents the change of plans. While they were in Thailand, Alice and Darlene met a really handsome guy named Nick Parks (Daniel Lapaine). He tells them that he would trade in his first class ticket to Hong Kong for three economy tickets so that they could spend the weekend in Hong Kong. They accepted his offer and upon entering the airport the two were arrested for smuggling drugs. They were convicted and sentenced to thirty three years in prison. 

I think Kaplan was trying to show the audience that it is wise to make good decisions because in one instance one bad decision can change the direction of a life forever. Also, a friendly face may not be as friendly as we think once we find out the real intentions of that friendly face. Those girls made a decision not to tell their parents that they had switched their plans and it changed their lives forever. Things have a funny way of happening showing us what decision we have made verses the decision that we should have made. Sometimes life is not fair, that is why it is important to think long and hard about the choices that we make because we can never go back and change the choices that we have made.

This movie has a great setting; it was filmed mostly in Bangkok Thailand. This film also has great music; a few of my favorite songs are 'Silence' by Delerium, 'Damaged' by Plumb, 'Deliver me' by Sarah Bightman and 'Party's just begun' by Nelly Furtado. I went out and bought the soundtrack after watching this film. These girls where young and naive and failed to think their plans out thoroughly, a mistake that anyone could make, therefore this film is good for any audience. It makes no difference young or old -- we all are human and subject to mistakes. Even though, I did not like the way this film ended leaving me in question of --who really smuggled the drugs? -- I would definitely give this film two thumbs up.

Sentiment: positive
A great look at the 60s through the eyes of four friends from their student days in 1960 to their reunion 10 years later - a Yugoslavian immigrant in love with the American dream and struggling to cope with the often violent reality; a prematurely balding undertaker's son; a soldier; and the crazy hippy girl they all love. Good direction and a strong cast do justice to Steve Tesich's brilliant script; the dialogue isn't as snappy as in "Breaking Away", but the themes of growing up and father-son conflict are dealt with just as well, and there are still a few wonderfully comic moments among the shocks and drama.

Sentiment: positive
I simply give this a three because it fulfilled what my buddies and I hoped it would do: entertain. 

I wasn't stupid enough to rent this thinking it would be a zombie film up there with the likes of Romero or Fulci, but what I rented it for was a laugh. 

If you are looking for a film for amusement, or a film to make you shake your head in embarrassment, go for it. This is perfect for junior- "Mystery Science Theater" fans, but the only downside is that it is so bad, it makes fun of itself. 

I, personally, think it is a shame to relate this to any other Hollywood title that we may know, because when a film sucks like this, it has its own genre.

Sentiment: negative
First of all this movie is a piece of reality very well realized artistically. Some kind of combination between "American Beauty" and "As Good as it gets". And of course something specifically to all Russian movies ( of course the valuable one, no dirty propaganda !) : the problem of loneliness of man ... Especially recommended for the people which really want to see beyond all vomitive propaganda about communism ( both positive or negative propaganda ! ). A movie about common people, their problems, lack of satisfactions - especially for young ones, fear when touch the real and too dirty face of the society ... and about the fake "solutions" : alcohol and violence ... and probably the only real solution : true love ... Of course it's very well "located" in the space and time of "Russian perestroika" but it's valid for all the society ( except a perfect one, but don't worry - not possible to find this on our Earth !). For the last time - definitely recommended ...

Sentiment: positive
Paha maa is different Finnish film. But the things which makes it different are copied abroad. Some techniques of narration are from Amores Perros, Jackie Brown and Elephant. Scenes are shot from different angles again. Paha maa is a good movie, but it isn't so good that the hype tolds: "Realistic movie, no happy end, and no commercial admissions." Some actors did great job. Sulevi Peltola was so good as a vacuum cleaner peddler. Also Jasper Pääkkönen shows his skills. But Mikko Leppilampi was so lame. He is so overrated actor, he's handsome and a nice guy, but not the best actor of Finland. But if you like Finnish movies, Paha maa is worth to see.

Sentiment: positive
Pinjar is truly a masterpiece... . It's a thought provoking Film that makes you think and makes you question our culture. It is without a doubt the best Hindi movie I have seen to date. This film should have been shown at movie festivals around the world and I believe would have been a serious contender at Cannes. All the characters were perfectly cast and Urmila Matkondar and Manoj Bhajpai were haunting in their roles.

The story the movie tells about partition is a very very important story and one that should never be forgotten.

It has no biases or prejudices and has given the partition a human story. Here, no one country is depicted as good or bad. There are evil Indians, evil Pakistanis and good Indians and Pakistanis. The cinematography is excellent and the music is melodious, meaningful and haunting. Everything about the movie was amazing...and the acting just took my breath away. All were perfectly cast.

Sentiment: positive
She is such an extraordinary singer, who cares about anything else!!!! That final scene is one of the best moments in all of show biz - bar none!! I'm glad she kept the camera on herself for ten minutes - she deserves that iconic status - such is the power of the voice. 

I first saw this film when I was five and it had a huge impact on me. I see it today, and yes, I can see some of the flaws (like Esther wanting to leave the Grammy's right as her award is being announced).

But some of the other user comments are just plain false - I mean, where is the gratuitous nudity - maybe we saw different films??? 

Streisand's singing ability is monumental, and if she has a big ego - fine! 

She's earned it.

Sentiment: positive
Being a seasoned fan of Italian thrillers and directors Dario Argento, Mario Bava, Sergio Martino and Aldo Lado, I thought of Lucio Fulci as an overrated hack. I had seen The Beyond which I think is totally overrated, I found The New York Ripper to be simply appalling and I didn't particularly like The House By the Cemetery. These three movies left me to conclude that Fulci is the least interesting of these Italian filmmakers. But my stubbornness prevailed and I had to check out more of his films. City of the Living Dead was a film I found very interesting but Don't Torture a Duckling is very nearly a masterpiece.

Set in a small town in the Italian countryside in a repressive religious community where young boys are being murdered. The authorities are clueless as to who's behind these crimes, especially after their prime suspect has been cleared. An eager young reporter along with a rather slutty girl (who seduces young boys) investigate and eventually get to the bottom of it.

Brilliant atmosphere combined with a good story and a good cast (not always the case with 70's Italian thrillers) make Don't Torture a Duckling a crackling good thriller. The plot is well constructed, not easily figured out and the end conclusion is very satisfying. Fulci creates a dynamic atmosphere of repression and guilt in a very unforgiving and ignorant community and creates some very strong visuals, particularly in a scene where a woman gets beaten to death by some local townsfolk. Fulci's social commentary concerning religion and innocence are quite edgy and every aspect is well handled. When thinking of his zombie flicks and his ultra violent giallo New York Ripper it's amazing how well he balances his critique with explicit violence and makes an even stronger point. So far I haven't seen any Fulci film made as professionally as this one.

While not a traditional giallo film, Duckling has many of the genre's trademarks. Fulci displays complete control over the format, only once going overboard with an unconvincing gore-moment, but overall he seems to be even better at making mysteries than full blown gore epics. The extreme scenes here are much more powerful and really pack a punch.

So far Don't Torture a Duckling is Fulci's best film by far in my opinion. Edgy social commentary combined with explicit scenes of violence and a crackling good mystery to boot.

Sentiment: positive