DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I watched this movie last night and hoped for the best after watching all the cool trailers.Even the cover of the DVD looked good.As soon as I started watching it I was thinking like others "oh my God whats this".There were some moments that were a bit creepy but then the mood was ruined by stupid music.There was rock and opera during what is supposed to be suspenseful scenes.That right there ruined it for me and i was shaking my head thinking damn I wasted money again on a rental and was deceived by the cover art.Nothing against the music itself,it was just in the wrong parts of the movie.Whoever edited the film has no clue what they are doing.The cover showed lightning, implying they were caught in a storm at sea.That would have been more interesting but it didn't happen. The acting wasn't the worst i've ever seen considering they are all unknown and this is obvious their first film.Another reason I was disappointed was the plot made no sense.In the beginning 2 men saw all of the teens get on a boat,then at the end supposedly only 1 girl existed and the others were either her imaginary friends or were ghosts i'm not sure because it was very badly portrayed. WhyteFox who wrote a comment on here claims this is a true story.He or she believes in ghosts and spirits and says there is a haunted boat in the area this movie was filmed.There was no mention in this movie about it being a true story.I have never experienced something like that personally but am not saying it's impossible.I guess if anyone is interested in renting this movie,do it at your own risk.If you like amateur student horror films you may like this.

Sentiment: negative
With few exceptions, most of George Bernard Shaw's plays have virtually disappeared from the theater these days. Too arch, too talky appears to be the general verdict. This BBC version of one of Shaw's funniest plays doesn't refute that verdict. It is certainly arch and talky, but it is also wonderful. And because of the quality of British theater, it is perfectly cast with actors whom -- with the exception of Helena Bonham Carter -- most of us have probably never heard of. Carter is splendid as the Bulgarian girl who shelters the professional "chocolate soldier" (Pip Torrens) and later falls in love with him. One might quarrel with the especially ridiculous interpretation of Sergius (Patrick Ryecart), the Bulgarian cavalry officer who led the charge into the enemy's lines and succeeded only because the enemy had the wrong ammunition for its machine guns. However, the role invites over-acting and Ryecart was obviously told to over-act. The other players are letter perfect. Carter as the self-dramatizing Bulgarian "aristocrat" and Torrens as the Swiss soldier-of-fortune are at the play's center, of course, and they are wonderful. Yes, "Arms and the Man" comes across as a filmed play. But you're unlikely ever to see a Shaw film that doesn't betray its origin. The plots are generally clever. However, Shaw is all about the dialog. The action is minimal (even in St. Joan) and the sets are immaterial. Enjoy this for what it is.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film in Wales in July. It deals with the courage of Czech pilots who flew numerous missions for the RAF after their country had been occupied by the Nazis. In this film, the action takes place both in the early 1950's when these pilots are being beaten in political prisons in Czeckoslavakia and during World War II in Britain. They were imprisoned after their return to their homeland because the Communist regime viewed these warriors as a threat to their occupation of Czeckoslavakia. The pilots maintain their dignity in prison and during numerous air battles against Nazi pilots. This film contain a love sub-plot that does make sense because it helps us to understand that both civilians and soldiers made great sacrifices to preserve democracy. The end of this film indicates that the heroism of these Czech pilots was finally recognized in the early 1990's after the restoration of democracy in the country then known as Czeckoslavakia. This powerful and moving film was made with financial support from the Czech government. I highly recommend this film.

Sentiment: positive
Awful film. Terrible acting, cheesy, totally unrealistic, embarrassing to anyone who has played the game. For a start that guy is not a hooker, he would be snapped in two. As for ''I score, that's my job'' well no it's not. For the the uneducated American audience it might come across as a good film. For me, well, that's a few hours of my life I'll never get back. I read through the reviews and came across one where the guy sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Then I read - 

''And while American rugby may never reach the level of talent that New Zealand or South Africa has, third in the world is also nothing to hang your head about''

All I can say is, LMFAO! 

Keep playing your American football and baseball, leave the real sports to the big boys.

Sentiment: negative
As a recent convert to Curb Your Enthusiasm, which prompted my viewing of all season's episodes, I expected more, much more from Jeff's efforts.

When I view a film offering a slice of an average 'Joe's' life I need reasons to be interested, to care, to feel and believe. And with Jeff Garlin at the helm I also expected a bevy of shining comedic moments. This film failed me time and again.

Jeff plays a living with mom, plump sad sack who is a social disaster. He has not had a relationships, real or even casual, for many years. He appears to be mostly unemployed and, as noted, shacks with his mommy dearest. Can things get worse? Sure. In short order he gets sacked by everyone around him including Silverman, Second City (his comedy workshop) and his agent. All reinforce his 'loser' status. Silverman's 'fatty' experiment was as cruel as it was absurd. His obsession with the role of "Marty," as the means of his career's salvation, also hits a big dead end.

While the film's final moments offer a glimpse of better things to come the cinematic 'journey,' albeit with occasional golden glimmers, was sadly lacking.

Sentiment: negative
This had a great cast with big-name stars like Tyrone Power, Henry Fonda, Randolph Scott, Nancy Kelly, Henry Hull and Brian Donlevey and a bunch more lesser-but-known names with shorter roles. It also had Technicolor, one of the few movies made with it in 1939.

Now the bad news.......regrettably, I can't say much positive for the story. It portrayed the James boys in a totally positive light....and Hollywood has done that ever since. Why these criminals are always shown to be the "good guys" is beyond me. This film glamorizes them and made their enemies - the railroad people - into vicious human beings. The latter was exaggerated so much it was preposterous. Well, that's the film world for you: evil is good; good is bad.

Hey Hollywood: here's a news flash - The James boys were criminals! Really - look it up!

Sentiment: negative
How do you spell washed up fat Italian who can barely pull off a martial arts move without needing some heart medication? In this movie we see Steven Seagal at his lowest level of accomplishment- since his career started it has been a steady decline into pathetic over indulgent behavior that has scuttled his career. In this movie it looks like most of his training consisted of ordering the fetuccini alfredo at his restaurant every day.

He is fat, slow and very old looking in this movie, hardly a martial arts action hero, more like a laughing stock clown.

It's time for Steven Seagal to retire- this movie is about 2 hours of reasons why.

Plot: fat Italian guy with a big reputation on the force gets wind that a crime group may be playing around with a drug designed by the military to create the ultimate warrior response. This pretense, although pathetic and laughable, gives opportunity for some over the top fight scenes that include blasting through walls like a comic book.

Did I mention this movie totally sucks and Steven Seagal is a complete joke? yeah. I did.

Sentiment: negative
A well written screenplay. A moving story showing the middle class English at it's best. Some great acting by Tom Wilkinson and Emily Watson. Tom Wilkinson is one of Britain's best actors. He knows how to be subtle and honest. Emily Watson is an actress I was not familiar with, but to her credit she does a great job of playing the ****** wife. The director, Julian Fellowes did not succumb to the typical Hollywood gimmicks to give the film some meaty storyline. It has not over dramatized it's portrayal of the English middle class. The films pace does not falter although it is not a faced paced film. A good twist in the plot, that is not predictable A lovely English country village setting. I enjoyed this film very much The locations were also very well selected. If you enjoy films about relationships this is one to watch. Better to have some tissues ready!

Sentiment: positive
I must have seen this movie about four or five times already, and it gets better with each viewing. Suffice it to say: This is the best film I've ever seen. And I think I've seen a lot.

But I've always wondered why this film got so shunned in some reviews or ratings. For example, take the IMDb Top 250. Why does it rank only at #216 (as of today)? Surely, the answer's not in the film itself (because that is nothing but flawless), but in its reception. The film caused controversy in its portrayal of compassion for a convicted murderer and its anti-death penalty attitude. And so, obviously, the more conservative-minded user probably didn't like the film (as you can see from some of the other comments). So DEAD MAN WALKING gets a ranking that's nothing but ridiculous in relation to its quality. Those people didn't understand what the film wanted to say, and maybe they didn't WANT to understand, being pro death penalty. So now I get it: It's all political. You're pro death penalty- you don't like (and therefore don't want to hear) what the film has to say.

I'm truly sorry there are still so many people out there who simply tune out when a new perspective questions their beliefs.

Mr. Robbins, your movie's issue split people's opinions. Some reconsidered their point-of-view, some simply didn't listen, but you made a very important point. Your movie will probably never show up on any "TOP 100 MOVIES OF ALL TIME"-list, but it'll be remembered, long after films like Braveheart or Babe or Apollo 13 (all of which were unjustly preferred over your film at the Oscars 1996) are forgotten. Congratulations, Mr. Robbins, and thank you for this important piece of filmmaking.

Sentiment: positive
Too fractured to be enjoyable, too loose to be interesting and too clumsily photographed to be tolerable MR LONELY is an interesting idea ruined by really bad film making. Like a Ken Russell film at its worst, or DAY OF THE LOCUST remade by amateurs, MR LONELY might have seemed like a good idea on a few scraps of paper (no script, you see) and a free holiday to somewhere, but in the end we have a widescreen film that seems as if it was made by film students whose parents told them that EVERYTHING they did was a brilliant creation. Or did I get the film maker right? MR LONELY is a waste of resources, trying to be (gawd!) quirky and deliberately off kilter. It ends up being annoying and indulgent.. and pointless. What's the point of going to a commune in Scotland? What a stupid idea in this film about Hollywood delusion. Maybe Korine wanted to remake GODSPELL ... well the result is GOD-AWFUL. Oh and there is some subplot like leftover footage from FITZCARRALDO including Werner Herzog, nuns and a plane. Add slo-mo drifting and violin music all wistful and melancholy, add James Fox who seems to hope he might be seen as daring (like in PERFORMANCE) and the result is amphetamine fantasy alphabet soup in widescreen. It might have been fun to film but the result on the screen is a mess. Imagine American PIE BAND CAMP with food poisoning.

Sentiment: negative
While i read all of the complaints about this movie before i saw it, i still had interest from the preview. I don't know if it was because i was expecting a bomb or what, but i really enjoyed the movie. The I was not very frightened at all until the second half of the movie, but even then it wasn't very bad at all. I think that most of the scenes and false alarms were realistic, if a little too coincidental, but it was necessary to move the story along. I think that the house and surrounding area is the perfect setting for this type of movie, it is beautiful and huge, but then the same qualities that are attractive become scary. I also think that the light arrangement worked extremely well because not only did they turn on upon entry, but there was no way to keep them on, so the house stayed dark outside of the small section Jill was in.

Speaking of Jill, i thought her part was acted pretty well, at first it wasn't as believable, but after a few phone calls it was fine. In fact the scenes where she is frightened are acted perfectly. And, finally, someone got the fire poker right. I can't tell you how many times when i hear a noise at my house i grab the fire poker, and it was a nice touch for her to do the same, even though she idiotically forgets it when she needs it most.

In regards to the plot holes, the movie is not perfect but almost every hole can be explained, and part of the mystery is how he got in..exactly, how long was he watching her? how did he get out to kill her friend? and when exactly did the gardener die? overall, i enjoyed it and i was surprised how quickly it went. It kept my attention, and i wanted to see how it ended, although the ending was very brief and left a bad taste in my mouth. My only complaint, other than the ending, was the lack of character development. They could have added ten minutes with her and her friends or something to make us feel bad for her situation more, to give us a taste of her personality and to give us foreshadowing to how she will handle the situation(for example, the scene where she debates whether to go back for the kids, it looks like some scene is missing at the beginning that talked about her only caring about herself or something).

Sentiment: positive
If I was still 5 I might find it scary. It is (I guess) a low budget film. The acting is not good, but could be worse - the filming and special effect is awful. The story line is thin and not worth to dwell on. Too much time is used on boring shouting scenes. The chases or fight with aliens, remind me of kids fighting with scary masks on. Some gore with blood and body parts - would scare a 5 year old kid I guess. Apparently scare the crap out of some of the persons in the film.

It is far from reaching anything like the film Tremors.

This turns out to be an "incident" and we see alien ships nearby earth. It make you wonder if any will make a sequel...

Sentiment: negative
Hidden Frontier is a fan made show, in the world of Star Trek. The story takes place after Voyager has returned from the Delta-quadrant . It has some characters from the official Star Trek shows, but most of them are original to the show. The show takes place on the star base Deep Space 12 and on several space ships, which gives it opportunities the official shows don't have. The characters have the opportunity of a rising in the hierarchy, which characters in shows with only one ship doesn't have. The show has good computer animation of spaceships, but the acting takes place in front of at green-screen and it gives a green glow around the actors. Not all the actors are equally good, but most do fine. The episodes are character driven and the characters develop over many episodes. That is a bit more like in Babylon 5, than in most official Star Trek shows. Hidden Frontier takes taboos that even the official series has shrunk from using. All in all I enjoyed watching it.

Sentiment: positive
This is by far the worst horror/thriller I've seen in my 29 years. If someone offers this to you for free tell them NO. This movie makes you a dumber person for knowing you watched it. The plot isn't even the worst part of this movie.....its the acting, camera work, lighting, and sound. there is absolutely nothing to like about this movie. whoever paid to have this film made is broke now. I hope the director never gets the greenlight for another movie. In its defense this movie was made quickly to try to capitalize on the actual BTK killer's capture but I've seen movie of the weeks that looked like Oscar winners compared to this.

Sentiment: negative
I spotted this movie in the video store a few years ago and rented it. My husband and I enjoyed it so much we bought the VHS and have enjoyed it ever since.

The plot has been well-discussed, so no need in going over it again. The point is this movie deserves repeated viewings. Americans, especially, aren't going to get all the jokes the first time around. I know I didn't.

This movie is funny, touching, sad-- all at the same time. When Ray proposes the toast at his daughter's wedding, it's cringe-inducing. When Karen calls Tony "Brian" as he attempts to kiss her, it's heartbreaking. When Beano is finally cornered by the woman in black, it's too funny for words.

And the music: it's as good as any movie soundtrack I've heard in years. I was dancing in the living room to "All Over the World." 

Every performance is absolutely perfect. Bill Nighy has been justly complimented for his portrayal of Ray, a man who has had one too many bad trips. Stephen Rea is perfect as Tony, the lovable keyboard player who has carried a torch for Karen all these years. He has an appealing hangdog look that makes women want to hug him. But all the actors are equally brilliant.

Ignore any pans you read about this movie and see it. It's a gem.

Sentiment: positive
Coming at the end of the cycle of the Universal Monsters horror films, and before the Golden Age of sci-fi films, House of Dracula is more science fiction than horror and incorporates some of the more cheesy {read:enjoyable} elements which would come to typify the sci-fi films of the coming era. Lon Chaney Jr. plays the Wolf Man, and John Carradine, Dracula and Glenn Strange, the Frankenstein monster.

A mad scientist sets out to "cure" both monsters of their "sicknesses" by means of modern {read:mad} science. When the scientist's beautiful nurse-assistant is revealed to be a hunchback early in the film, the viewer is thereby alerted to the fact this film is not going to be typical Universal fare; this film foreshadows the kind of sleazy exploitation we would come to take for granted in 1950's sci-fi.

If you don't mind the slower pacing of the older films and black & white does not throw you off, this film is recommended viewing. Afaik, this one is not currently available on DVD, but AMC airs it occasionally, so keep a lookout, or you could always wishlist it on your TiVo!

Sentiment: positive
Sorry for all you guys that are not family with the Lynches.

My sister in law asked me how you can make just a disturbing movie. I told her that if the daughter and her father would not do these movie, they would have instead to go around and kill and cut people in pieces.

After every Lnych movie I tell myself, again one and a half hour lost of my life. But next time I will check the director's or producers name.

So, you don't want to be angry at yourself and loose time, don't watch it. But if you think that you need to kill someone, watch it, this is probably a better medicine than to spend your whole life in a prison for mentally insane.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is really BAD, there is nothing appealing or worth of commentary in it except for the beautiful settings: Chilean landscape. I know I must supply four lines as a commentary for this movie, but the thing is that it is such a bad movie, that I can only say that is actually BAD. Michael Ironside is the only one who saves the money in the film.

Sentiment: negative
Overall, I thought it a very nice movie - I hate to use the word 'nice' as it's rather dry but it was very beautiful to look at and the central performances by Rupert Friend and Emily Blunt were very strong. What I liked most was that despite the gleaming aesthetics of the costumes and the settings, all gilded and shiny, this aspect never took over the heart of the film which was good, strong writing (thank you Julian Fellowes :D); nothing too flamboyant or saturated with pomp, i.e not sensationalised greatly (when Victoria is dragged out of bed to be informed she is now Queen, well you couldn't get a less glamorous hand over of the crown). It was paced gently and every line in the film held its worth.

Undoubtedly the portrayal of the love between Victoria and Albert, though somewhat fairytale-ish on the face it, was in fact a slow burning candle and Friend and Blunt did well to show how effortlessly these two people 'fitted' together despite the union being initially arranged (my fave bit was when they come home after hunting and Victoria simply hugs her new husband from behind; so much said without any words, that's what film is all about). Blunt held her own beautifully as well, she has a face that demands your attention and I can't not mention the costumes that she wears - every one simply gorgeous. If I was Blunt I would have trouble parting with any of them! The rest of the ensemble cast all played their roles well, Harriet Walter as Queen Adelaide being a highlight.

The only qualm I have, is that it lacked a sense of urgency, or an event that could have made the movie a little more exciting? (It was rather tame) I don't know, I wanted 'something' to happen that would have Victoria draw out some strength and prove her worth a little more. When she and Albert argued, I loved it, I could have done with some more pivotal dramatic moments, though that may be just me.

Lastly, at the risk of sounding all patriotic, it did renew a sort of pride and awe in the crown and what it takes to be in such a position, especially in one so young. This may be in part to the fact that this film's snap shot of Victoria's young life is immediately apt to what I have been writing for one character of mine in 'The Sword & The Scion' but nevertheless, it did flag up those feelings (for those following my book, can you guess what character Victoria so aptly reflects?) It might have been in part to the film displaying how ridiculous the government were back in those times as they didn't seem to give two hoots about the poor and dispossessed of the nation, which only in turns renews appreciation that Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were so active in this domestic domain. It made the government appear rather useless - nothing much has changed then I suppose.

BLOG on films and books: http://sempergratis.blogspot.com

Sentiment: positive
Begotten is black and white distorted images. It looks like it could have come from the nineteenth century. However, the sound is crystal clear, minus the sync and the addition of calm nature sounds.

This movie was very critical of the struggles of life. It shows a single mother and child in a violent world that thrives on the innocent. The mother is very oblivious to her surroundings. This leads to lots of torture, pain, and death. You may watch it many times and see different symbolisms, plot devices, and basically "what does it mean?".

If you appreciate art in movies then you will love it. Otherwise, don't bother.

Sentiment: positive
This review contains spoilers.

I was searching through horror movie DVDs on Amazon when I came across Flight Of The Living Dead. I already knew from the name that it was going to be abysmally naff and most probably a rip-off of Snakes On A Plane, but it was selling brand new for 69p so I figured I didn't really have much to lose.

The music played over the opening credits didn't fit at all, although I did like the song itself a pop-rock song isn't really suitable to appear on the soundtrack of a zombie horror movie. It started off surprisingly well, the opening scenes weren't too bad, some of the acting was a little cringe-worthy but not as bad as I initially thought it would be.

It all goes well until Laura Cayouette (Rocket from Kill Bill: Vol. 2) enters the picture. She is supposed to be playing a scientist. If she is, she's not a very bright one. Luckily she's polished off pretty quickly.

I actually physically laughed out loud when the camera panned over the passengers of the plane during some turbulence. There was a nun. Have you ever been on a plane with a nun!? I was surprised she wasn't clutching a crucifix.

Finally, after 35 minutes, we get to some zombie action, and use the word 'action' loosely. The special effects are pretty below standard, but that's to be expected from a movie with this budget. Being covered in blood and having yellow contact lenses does not make you look like a zombie though, it makes you look pretty amusing. Using slow motion doesn't work particularly well either. I think this movie is probably guilty of trying to add too much story. Trying to pass off the problem as a variant of the "malaria virus" wasn't an especially good move either considering malaria isn't a virus.

The rest of the movie pretty much plays out like any other zombie movie. Most of the characters are killed off and it eventually ends up with a handful of people fighting to stay alive. Possibly the worst part of Flight Of The Living Dead is the utterly inconceivable ending. I know it's a movie about people who come back to life and feast on the living, but the ending was just ridiculous. Rating: ★★

Sentiment: negative
Return To the Lost World was filmed back-to-back with the 1992 version of The Lost World.

In this sequel, the same five people, lead by Challenger return to the plateau where a group has started drilling for oil which is threatening to destroy the land. Gomez has something to do with this. They manage to defeat the drillers and the plateau is saved, much to the delight of the natives.

Like in The Lost World, what few dinosaurs we see are made of rubber and these include a T-Rex and Ankylosaurus.

John Ryhs-Davies and David Warner reprise their roles as Challenger and Summerlee and three of the other actors are also back.

Despite reading several bad reviews of this and those cheap looking rubber dinosaurs, I enjoyed Return to the Lost World.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

Sentiment: positive
Why has Ramón(Carlos Fuentes)brought his five college mates to a spooky abandoned school building which used to service the black sheep children of wealth? That answer might just lie in a diary in his possession supposedly written by his dying father. What they come in contact with is in fact a relived episode involving another group of six, with five of them presumably meeting graphic fates at the hands of a sadistic security guard(Paul Naschy)which occurred 20 some odd years ago. But, as they seek out a way to escape from this place, terror awaits them as that horrifying moment in time replays as the group run for their lives, often in states of panic as the killer begins to hunt and destroy them in a various bloody ways. Will Ramón and any of his pals survive this night of horror or becomes ghosts forever repeating the very same night like those before them?

Stylish Spanish slasher has that professional gloss and potent, shocking violence to match. Some witty exchanges between the characters..layered in their dialogue are pop-culture references to American horror films which might annoy some viewers. A demented Naschy is really ferocious with the kiddies as he attacks them gleefully..quite a bloodthirsty maniac who carries out his violent acts with relish. I found the loud musical cues a bit annoying and the filmmakers often use flashbacks from previous events in the film as reminders to the audience. I don't think these tricks are necessarily needed, but felt the director wished to communicate in depth with the viewer hence the use of cues and flashbacks. A minor diversion for this film's plot keeps moving and the camera follows the pace of the characters and how they react to the chaotic situation presented to them. Your enjoyment of this film may ultimately come down to your acceptance of the paranormal supernatural aspects of the plot. Moments in time relived and a killer who continues his work seemingly from the grave. The twist does seem a bit jarring and abrupt, but this might(..or might not)work considering how the story plays out regarding why Ramón's father is shown amongst those ghosts re-enacting those grisly events two decades prior. I will say that this film probably wouldn't hold up if scrutinized in detail, but as a slasher flick, it's a breath of fresh air.

Sentiment: positive
Having seen the original when I was 13 (and, yes, I was stupid enough to watch it while babysitting!), I was excited to see this remake.

Camilla Bell did a great job as Jill Johnson. And the fact that a teen horror flick could be made in the year 2006 without tremendous vulgarity and gore, made it even that much stronger of a film. I had a great time trying not to chew my fingernails off!

This film won't win anyone an Oscar, but it is entertaining and worth the matinée price ticket I bought to see it. I think girls around the world should watch the original and the remake...and then determine to never babysit again. 

All I can say is, I'm glad I'm too old to babysit! There's just something about being in a dark creepy house with sleeping kids that makes this movie classic. No blood, no gore...just good psychological fun! WINNER!

Sentiment: positive
I don't know how people can watch this - the only people who enjoy watching this are those who have no feelings and emotions and enjoy watching people die, houses burn down, car crashes, babies die, and cast members being killed off every week. Its the most absurd thing on television and i still don't know how it pulls in the ratings. Its so depressing. I can imagine the writers sitting down and saying - 'so who shall we kill of next week then' or 'whose house shall we torch in a months time?'

Its the most depressing, absurd and most stupid thing on TV at the moment, and i cant understand peoples motives for watching this depressing pile of crap anymore

Sentiment: negative
First off- What are some of you thinking? This is the best movie I've seen in ages! 

Secondly- I don't think of it as a British movie as it is set in Dublin and has mainly Irish actors- Moran, Gambon, Aisling O Sullivan(Rita), Deirdre O'Kane etc.

Thirdly- I thought that Moran was excellent. He was hilariously funny through out. Micheal Caine seemed only to be there to get Moran context. Each character he took on he perfected. 

Abigail Iversen I thought was better than any other child actor I have seen. She was believable as the smart kid and also as a kid and an adult(yes I know that sounds strange but hey...). Even she managed to upstage Caine. 

Iversen and Moran worked very well together and were very funny in the preparation scene.

Barreler(Gambon) was very funny in his ineptitude.

Sentiment: positive
When the Grinch came out I was excited though I thought it was going to be a happy go lucky film and it was. Though it did have a little Nightmare before Christmas touch to it. You know kind of dark and spooky. I loved this film because it helped fill people with the Christmas spirit. So mostly the Grinch saved Christmas. And what happened then well in Whoville they say that the Grinch's small heart grew three sizes that day. MERRY GRINCHMAS!

Sentiment: positive
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer is a very lost player in the short cartoon market. This market is essentially dominated by the Looney Tunes and the Merry Melodies shorts, coming from Warner Bros. But MGM is also able of releasing hidden gems, like "To Spring", an astonishing story about the most beautiful season of the year.

In the environment depicted here, spring isn't caused by natural cycles, but is fabricated. And by who? By little male elves who live below ground. Each spring, when the snow begins to melt, they start working. They begin by felling rainbow rock columns, then reducing them to rubble and using this rubble to turn it into color fluids, which will be moved up to the ground and bearing grass, flowers... In other words, spring! The first half of the cartoon depicts spring's fabrication, but the second part is a little bit different. Old Man Winter comes back and he tries to extend winter by destroying the elves' work. So from this point, we assist to a battle between the elves and Old Man Winter.

The music heard here is deliciously wonderful. The melodic parts stick in the head like an ink spot on a paper sheet. The second part melodies are thrilling and they perfectly fit with the action. This is just fantastico, Giorgio! The animation sequences are also a delight. The colors are well mixed and every little detail is shown into a massive, epic environment. The concept itself is brilliant. The elves are attracting characters, so is Old Man Winter, who effectively portrays the cold and ruthless feelings of the white season.

There's also a strong message included here. The battle seems lost for the elves at the end, until a single late arriving elf jump into the action and it leads to the elves' victory over winter. So the point is: only one single person can make the difference.

In conclusion, "To Spring" is a remarkable lost classic from short cartoon era. What is even more remarkable is that this cartoon's director made his debut here. And who is "To Spring"'s director? It's a certain William Hanna...

Sentiment: positive
The movie eXistenZ is about a futuristic video game on a "pod" system that is almost like virtual reality. The only copy of the video game is damaged when an assassination attempt is made on the designer (Jennifer Jason Leigh). Unless it can be repaired, the many years and 38 million dollars spent on the development will all go to waste. The only way to repair the game however, is to actually go in the game with the only person she feels she can trust(Jude Law). This movie was pretty good, but doesn't really pick up until very late in the film. The best thing about this film were the twists toward the end. Definitely worth seeing. 7/10

Sentiment: positive
As the summary says you just made the most ignorant comment i have ever heard on an RPG. You seriously thought they were gay? Are you retarded? If you went to go save your best friend and someone decides out of the goodness of his heart to help you then you are in a serious debt to that man. Lavitz was a good person and each time they helped each other it made them closer as friends. They weren't gay lovers like your bitching about. And to let you know the game is set in a medieval time period. Back then, women did just prepare meals while the men fought. Do you even know your history? Do you know how long it took for women to be accepted in the army in present day? This game contains a lot of realism even though your too damn slow obviously to catch it, and you really need to spit out some solid proof instead of ignorant assumptions based off your misguided act to interpret the story.

Sentiment: negative
First, I should say that I've seen the '39 version at least 100 times; know all the dialog, and have read the '36 play, which is different from the '39 and contains nuggets of gold of its own. This version is as flat as a Lifetime movie on adultery. There's a reason you haven't seen an expensive campaign of TV ads for it. According to Entertainment Weekly, Bening hated the catty tone of the original and how the women spent the whole time going to war on each other. GUESS WHAT??! That was Booth's intent. It was a slick, theatrical take on gossip, adultery, and back-biting among a set of well-heeled Manhattan socialites. The crowd that made this new version had no intention of honoring the original source material. They pick at it weirdly, putting in half a scene here and half a scene there that come from the first version. Bette Midler (who is in just a few scenes and acts the old Countess part in a broad, grinning style) doesn't have any context in this version. She mentions going after "Buck," which is a key element in the original -- then he's never mentioned again. This movie is so dull that I'm not going to over-analyze it, but here are a few things that I found unbelievable: > Mary Haines bragging to her domestic staff: "I can suck the nails out of a board!" Right. Great writing. Norma Shearer could've done a line reading on that & gotten an Oscar nom, right? > A COMPASSIONATE Sylvia Fowler!!!??? Annette Bening got what she wanted, and the movie just sort of withers away. Claire Booth used Sylvia as the comic engine that swept through the play. As portrayed immortally by Rosalind Russell, she was an ignorant, spiteful woman who rattled off reams of petty, ridiculous, irresistible dialog that is still classic and quotable. She wasn't above biting Paulette Godard's ankle. The 2008 filmmakers decided that this character had to die. In killing her off, they killed the movie.

Sentiment: negative
Ronald Colman gives a terrific performance as a stage actor who really gets into his work. When he plays Othello on the stage he takes on the persona with dire results. Good film with a great supporting cast. Well worth watching.

Sentiment: positive
I'm sure that the folks on the Texas/Louisiana border must have had a a good laugh or two when Paramount's B picture unit inflicted this one on the war time public. Very simply the area along the Sabine River where the film opens is cotton country just like the rest of the Deep South or at least the Deep South was post Civl War. No big cattle empires there, they're much farther west in Texas, farther than Richard Dix and Preston Foster could ride to set up their empire.

The film begins with the two of them partners in a riverboat and when Leo Carrillo tries a theft of their services by not paying them for hauling his cattle, they keep the cattle. And that's the beginning of the big Ponderosa like ranch they start.

Along the way Foster marries Dix's sister played by Frances Gifford and feuds with his much smaller neighbors. They also have some further run ins with Leo Carrillo.

Anyway, us easterners who like westerns usually don't bother with geographical trifles and it's still a good western from the production mill of Harry Sherman who produced all those Hopalong Cassidy westerns for Paramount. The climax is a blazing, and I mean that literally, gun battle that should have maybe been used on an A production.

But I wouldn't have any but western fans look at it.

Sentiment: negative
If you can believe it, *another* group of teens return to *another* lakeside cabin three years after *another* one of those fatal 'accidents' claimed one of their number. Low and behold, a psycho wearing a patterned hockey mask (a cheap papery one at that) turns up to waste them one by one. This mechanical 'Friday the 13th' knock off gained slight notoriety as one of the first digitally-shot features, but that's where the interesting facts end and all that remains is a predictable, amateur production with sub-par performances and a recurring boom-mic intrusion. A last-second twist does little to lift the spirits, and 'Memorial Day' is something best tossed in a lake and forgotten about. One for insane slasher collectors only.

Sentiment: negative
This movie, which I just discovered at the video store, has apparently sit around for a couple of years without a distributor. It's easy to see why. The story of two friends living in New York searching for their pal from high school who is now living homeless under the boardwalk at Coney Island, has flashes of being a very good film, but ultimately is weighted down by the story focusing on Stan and Daniel, rather than on their homeless friend Richie. Cryer is as usual very good and the film has a nice stark look to it, with the ghostly images of Coney Island. However, writer Cryer and director Richard Schenkman are too busy dealing with the fairly uninteresting lives of Stan and Daniel rather than focusing on Richie. One flashback in a music store, where Richie has a crush on an employee stands out and really shows the viewer where this film could have gone. But in the end, not much. Two many drawn out scenes of annoyance, such as inside the Skeeball building. RATING 4 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
I cannot for the life of me understand why the rating here for this movie is so low. This was one of the most beautiful films I have seen this year. It really struck a chord with me. I had been anticipating this film for several months and I thought to myself, there's no way it can possibly live up to the expectations I had for it...seeing as how I built it up in my head as much as I did. Well needless to say, not only did it meet my expectations but it far surpassed them. Jordana Brewster and Cameron Diaz were excellent in every way. Their acting superb by far. They were both in their element and completely natural for the roles. The locales were absolutely gorgeous. Every shot filmed was perfectly captured and fit the mood and atmosphere beautifully. I found this film very touching and took it very close to heart. I would even contemplate saying this could be one of my all time favorites. At the very least, certainly I could see it again and again.

I swear I couldn't find one fault in this film. It's hard to say that about any film. I would highly recommend this one. It's touching, it's meaningful, and it says a lot about human nature and family.

10 out of 10. Well done by all.

Sentiment: positive
I'M BOUT IT(1997)

Developed & published by No Limit Films

>>Pros: Absolutely none

>>Cons: I don't even know where to begin!

Plot summary: Master P plays a drug dealer that looks, talks, and acts more like a live-action cartoon character. That's all the plot I got out of this movie.

Review: I remember back when I was in the ninth grade during its release and everyone in my class praised this clown called Master P. This movie is so bad, it's not even funny. All the characters in this film are extremely tired stereotypes, the audio is only audible when music plays, and the movie looks like it was videotaped off a public access channel. Luckily, I didn't buy this film like all my other inner-city degenerate classmates.

My rating:1 out of 10

My verdict: Avoid this video like its a sexually-transmitted disease.

Sentiment: negative
Undoubtedly the best heavy metal horror item made in the manically headbangin' 80's, which admittedly doesn't sound like much considering how utterly abysmal many other entries in this odd little fright film sub-genre like "Hard Rock Zombies," "Blood Tracks," "Terror on Tour," and the especially ungodly Jon-Mikl Thor-starring stinker "Rock'n'Roll Nightmare" tended to be. That aside, this one still deserves props for downplaying the excessive splatter and needlessly flashy special f/x razzle-dazzle in favor of focusing on adolescent high school characters who are depicted with greater acuity and plausibility than the norm for a mid-80's teen-targeted scarefest. Moreover, the film's pointed sardonic parodying of both ridiculously overblown 80's heavy metal stupidity and the nauseating self-righteousness of the uptight killjoy conservative stiffs who claimed it was the devil's music are very clever and on the money funny (famed Greed Decade heavy metal god Ozzy Osbourne has a hilarious bit as a smarmy anti-metal TV evangelist!).

Marc Price (the hopelessly dweeby Skippy on "Family Ties") gives a surprisingly strong and winning performance as Eddie "Ragman" Weinbauer, a geeky, socially awkward and severely persecuted heavy metal aficionado who's constantly picked on by the stuck-up jerk preppie bullies who make up the majority of the student body at Lakeridge High School (the cruelty and mean-spiritedness of the high school kids is nailed with painfully credible accuracy). Eddie's life takes a turn for the worse when his rock star idol Sammi Curr (an impressively whacked-out portrayal by Tony Fields) perishes in a hotel fire. Hip local disc jockey Nuke (KISS front-man Gene Simmons in a cool cameo) hooks Eddie up with Sammi's final, unreleased album, which when played backwards resurrects Curr's malevolent spirit back from the dead. Sammi encourages Eddie to sic him on all the vile scumbags who make poor Eddie's life the proverbial living hell, only to have meek Eddie prove to be a most reluctant would-be accomplice. It's up to Eddie, assisted by token nice girl Leslie Graham (likeably essayed by the lovely Lisa Orgolini), to stop Sammi before things get too out of hand.

Ably directed with commendable thoughtfulness and sensitivity by character actor Charles Martin Smith (who also briefly appears as a nerdy school teacher), smartly written by Michael S. Murphy, Joel Soisson, and Rhet Topham, and capably acted by a uniformly up-to-snuff cast, this surefire sleeper even comes complete with a handful of nifty "jump" moments (an outrageous attack in the back of a car by a grotesquely lecherous long-tongued mutant thingie rates as the definite highlight), a rousing "Carrie"-style high school dance slaughter sequence, a neatly utilized Halloween setting, revenge being correctly shown as a truly ugly business, and a solid central message that you shouldn't make a particular over-hyped person your hero strictly because of the calculated anti-establishment posturing said fellow does to qualify for that special status.

Sentiment: positive
Despite what its critics ensue, I enjoyed immensely for precisely what it is. Eyecandy for both sides of the gender spectrum. Soderberg has done the artsy hard edge stuff before, won Oscars, is at the top of his game. Ocean's 12 is light, commercial, fluffy, Steve's day at the Midway if you will. I am generally not a fan of Zeta-Jones but even I must admit that Kate is STUNNING in this movie. It's ending screams of an upcoming trequel and I will be one of the millions who flock to see 120 minutes of George and Brad and Matt parlay through Clooney's digs in Lago di Como as they swindle some rich bad guy again and again. If we tolerated 3 installments of the Lord of the Rings, I ask if we can drool over Clooney's salt and pepper lid just one more time?

Sentiment: positive
This is certainly the worst movie i ever saw? The beginning is somewhat good, but the end? I still don't even get it! Magical power, 300 years later, goddess, dancing what the f*** is that about??? The acting is somewhat not so bad.. but some place I could do better for sure!

Sentiment: negative
Freddy Krueger the dream stalker from elm street returns,the great character actor Robert englund is back in this sequel of nightmare 5, dream child.i hope i got the number correctly.there's been so many,and this one is one of the best,especially for the cameos by;Rosanne Barr (then Arnold)tom Arnold,johnny depp,(who did the very first nightmare in 84)alice cooper(singer)you will see Freddy as a tormented child,a teenager who loves pain,and as a family guy(creepy)the effects are very funny and creative,the cast also includes Lisa Zane(Billy's sister) breckin Meyer(road trip)yaphet kotto(alien,live and let die)and Amanda Donahue(father knows best)i was one of the people 3who saw this in 3d,well the ending.i love 3d movies.i missed the first 3d wave in 1953(i wasn't even born yet)the second wave was in 1983.i like all the Freddy movies.this one stands out as one of the better ones not counting the first which was absolutely brilliant,Freddy became the new monster of the 80s and 90s,along with Jason voorhees,chucky,Micheal myers,and leather face.can you imagine a film with all of them?i recommend this to all Freddy fans and horror fans alike.that Freddy is such a cut up.8 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
MY BROTHER TOM 

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Dolby Digital

Following an episode of sexual abuse at the hands of a trusted neighbor, young Jessica (Jenna Harrison) forms a relationship with a strange boy (Ben Whishaw) she meets in the woods. Unfortunately, Whishaw has secrets of his own, no less troubling and far more dangerous...

Dour drama, sparked by brave performances by Harrison and Whishaw, in which two kindred spirits immerse themselves in a mutual love of nature after being traumatized by their experiences in the 'real world'. Unfortunately, their friendship unravels as harsh reality begins to intrude, leading to an inevitable tragedy. Directed by Dom Rotheroe and photographed in digital video format, the movie looks ragged in places (too many awkward close-ups and sloppy hand-held camera moves) and takes a while to find its feet, but the dramatic pay-off is quietly rewarding.

Sentiment: negative