DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Buyer beware. The Alpha Video release uses a print that defies description. The movie was shot in color but you wouldn't know it for the first 25 minutes or so. The print that is used is so faded and decrepit that it appears almost sepia toned. After 30 minutes some color seeps back into the print but from there to the conclusion the color comes and goes. Keep in mind, even at it's best the color is pale and washed out. It looks like the print was recorded off a television that wasn't getting the best reception. Adding to this travesty is the most plodding delivery of lines that I can recollect. Even the voice over narration is stupor inducing. Every line is delivered in this irritating plodding demeanor. I found myself wishing that they would hurry and get the words out. For this reason I couldn't wait for this movie to end. It's one of those so-bad -it's- good movies but I wish that someone would find a half decent print.

Sentiment: negative
A respectable royal rumble event

1. Edge Vs Shawn Michaels

7.5/10 A very strong opener...edge's heel performance was sublime as it was during the rumble event ..overall id say EDGES NIGHT....

2. Undertaker Vs Heidenreich CASKET MATCH

7/10 a lot of people hated this rivalry though i liked it, i thought heidenreich really played his character well. the match wasn't amazing in excitement that was until kane and snitcky get involved .it gets better as it goes on.

3. Kurt Angle Vs Big Show Vs JBL(WWE CHAMP) WWE TITLE MATCH

7.5/10 a surprisingly good match , as there was only 1 really exciting in ringer in it ..angle of course......very good title match ..good pace.. though a predictable end .but aren't all royal rumble title matches predictable.

4. Triple H (WORLD TITLE) Vs Randy Orton WORLD TITLE MATCH

6.5/10 actually not that good for the guys involved, went on too many dry patches, orton sold his concussion amazingly, ending though was some what of an anti climax.

5. ROYAL RUMBLE EVENT... btw during the other matches there were a few segments...two which were really cool ...cena rapping on Christian and guerrero stealing flairs number 30 entry ticket. the event was good 7/10 would have got a 9 if cena won but unfortunately my biggest enemy batista wins(THOUGH I UNDERSTooD WHY) ..vince comes down and takes a drop and the whole arena crack up in laughter.

Sentiment: positive
This rubbish excuse for television is the single most god-awful piece of trash ever to hit Australian television. The house-mates are dull, uninteresting, ridiculously unintelligent and are picked on the basis that you would be likely to attempt to murder them if you had to live with them. As far as I am concerned Big Brother is the decline of western society, showing how us as a society are on a steep slope to becoming brain-dead morons. Whatever happened to television that didn't target the lowest common denominator of society as an audience? This cannot be classified as entertainment. I think that it true that Channel Ten can remove your soul. It happened to Rove McManus who was once a respectable comedian and, once moving to Channel 10, become horribly unfunny. With the exception of The Simpsons which is highly intelligently made.

Sentiment: negative
In this strangely-lackadaisical apocalypse, the world suffers from a dual plague of zombies and vampires, but no one seems to be too worried about it in this Grade-Z film which bares less resemblance to Sheridan Le Fanu's famous short novel than my mother's lasagna recipe. Bored attendants still run gas stations and doctors still make house calls and helpful police officers still show up with radiator fluid just when you need it. The plot, and I use that term loosely, involves a father and a daughter trying to rendevous with "the general," whose daughter is missing, at a church to kill a vampire who, very conveniently, happens to be traveling with the father and daughter. I must confess that a moment or two of genuine humor can be found between vast stretches of unintentional humor. The film also boasts just enough nudity to keep a boy of fourteen interested. Anyone older beware.

Sentiment: negative
Yet another example of the complete waste of UK Lottery money. Just how commercial did this film prove. The Film Council ,who funded this miserable garbage should be stranded, on one of the London Undergrounds disused stations, for allowing this clichéd, dismal specimen to be committed to film, a half mutant thing made up of all the horror movies the director has seen and felt fit to imitate, most notably Deathline. Amongst its many sins is the quite obvious failure to make the lead character remotely sympathetic until the last minute. It's a little bit too late then! Surely all those development executives, at the UK Film Council, could have noticed this at the script stage. Add to this the terrible acting and the laughable appearance of the creature and you get a prime example of how not to scare.

Sentiment: negative
As a big fan of most modern fantasy movies, I was really looking forward to this. I was not familiar with the character, although after hearing some general stories about the style of the comic and good reviews of the movie, I thought I was in for a real treat...

From the moment that the lead character started to talk in his forced husky voice, I could tell straight away that I was not going to enjoy this movie. I found the story weak and predictable, the acting poor, the effects were very good for a small budget film, but did nothing for the overall plot.

Maybe as a fan of the Comics you may get something more from this, otherwise I would suggest that you skip it and not waste you cinema fare on this boring adventure.

Sentiment: negative
It's weird, this film; you get the impression that the makers of this snooze-fest spent more time in the local bars than on set. In fact, it's a surprise not to see Harry Alan Towers' name on the credits; it certainly has the flavour of one of his tax-shelter productions but here the motivation behind the project seems to be for all involved to enjoy a prolonged stay in Provence. Despite the fact that the film is supposed to take place all over the region, Les Baux and the area around it stands in for almost everything.

David Birney makes for a spectacularly colourless hero - as Michael Lonsdale says at one point "you're a walking cliché". What Lonsdale is doing in this is anyone's guess. For some reason, the most interesting character, played by Rampling, is sidelined, whereas, regardless of the book, she should have been the central figure because she clearly has the skill to carry the movie (which would have been dull anyway, but at least we'd have got more of something pretty to look at).

All in all a pointless affair that is only worth watching to see how action-less an action movie can be.

Sentiment: negative
In the rapid economic development of 1990's in China, there is a resurgence of traditional Chinese culture, partially due to the rise of nationalism accompanied by the increase in wealth, and more importantly, due to the sense of spiritual belonging after the collapse of the old socialist ideology in the post Cultural-Revolutionary era.

However, the resurgence of Chinese traditional culture, namely, the Confucianism, was not without disasters, because Chinese are adopted the entire tradition without eliminating the bad part, and the discrimination against girls demonstrated in this film is an excellent example.

Moreover, not only the part that should be discarded were inherited, the good part that was supposed to be inherited, such as the traditional opera, and its technique, such as changing face, was ignored in the resurgence, and facing extinction.

The director used this film to criticize the problem of re-embracing tradition by contemporary China and this is the deeper meaning behind the movie.

Sentiment: positive
I wouldn't give this movie a rating, it's not worthy. I watched it only because I'm a Pfieffer fan. I love her and would watch anything she made. Even in this dud, she didn't disappoint. Every scene with her in it, kept the viewer watching...waiting...for something to happen but nothing ever did. It had some good story lines but they ended abruptly as soon as it started. Some of the other characters had potential but nothing became of it.

Pfieffer was 29 when she made this film and at her most lovely. The wardrobe and set was surprisingly good. 

I can watch mostly anything and rarely come across a movie I can't find something to like about it, but this was a dud. I don't understand. 

The worst thing about it all, it had a big cliff hanger at the end. It had an ending scene that woke you up and say wow, this film is finally going some place, then the credits roll. Good grief. 

I agree with the review that said .99 would have bought 3 cans of cat food and watching my cat eat would have been more exciting. Well said. Actually, that comment was more entertaining than the film because it sums it up so well. I too wasted .99 cents on this dud.dud.dud.

Sentiment: negative
One of my favorite movies to date starts as an adventure through the wild side of a team of four men from Atlanta. The idea of living the Chulawasse river before it's turned into a lake comes from Burt Reynold's Lewis, who unconsciously drowns his fellas into their worst nightmare. But if the first half of the film appears rather like an action movie, the second half carries the viewer into a totally different story, with our men forced to make a decision that (they know) will change their lives forever. In very bad ways. At the end of the movie, each person is gonna be forced to deal with the scars of what had just to be a quite week-end on the river but muted into a fight for survival. The movie (except some pretty evident goofs) is very well directed and beautifully shot into a paradise of nature that steals your breath. The photography is excellent as well. Voight, Reynolds, Cox and Beatty are all excellent in showing how a single event can ruin in different ways four different lives only tied to the same mistake.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film a couple of weeks ago, and it's been stuck in my head ever since. It stars two spellbinding characters in what is unfortunately a mediocre documentary. To get the true story of the Beales, I had to wade through all of the DVD's bonus material and commentaries and search the web.

Although the Maysles and their fans (not to mention Edith and Edie themselves) bristle at the suggestion that this film is exploitative, this is exploitation in the truest sense of the word. Very little effort is every made to explain the Beales or how they came to the condition they were in - the Maysles approach seems to be to just turn the camera on and wait for Edith and Edie to say something outrageous. The sound, even on the Criterion re-release is poor and difficult to follow. Although I appreciate this film was made somewhat early in the history of documentary film, it's ironic to compare it to Geraldo Rivera's (!) far superior series on the sexual abuse of mentally retarded patients at Willowbrook State School in Staten Island from 1972, four years before Grey Gardens was shot.

To paraphrase a review in the New Yorker, there were many things Edith and Edie needed in their lives, and a documentary wasn't one of them.

As for Edith and Edie, the thing I kept thinking while watching the film was "where the hell is their family"? They were living in dangerous, unhealthy, unsafe conditions. How is it that Jackie O, married to one of the richest men on Earth (or the wealthy Bouvier family themselves) couldn't afford to get Edith and Edie a decent home? Or at the very least hire a part-time housekeeper or caregiver to come in and keep an eye on them both? It's shameful and a lasting disgrace to the entire Bouvier family.

Although this review may sound negative I would strongly recommend Grey Gardens to anyone who enjoys documentaries. Perhaps someday someone will come along and do a documentary about this documentary - bringing in the rich backstory (and afterstory) of the Beales and the whole subsection of Hamptons society in the 1970's.

Sentiment: positive
I just saw The Big Trail in Vienna's Filmmuseum for the first time. Immediately I was astonished by both the pictures optical high quality and unusual format and by its beautifully detailed story. Who has ever seen such a documentary style western with John Wayne? And there is so much time, you can actually look around on the screen, there is so much to see! One is ever grateful that the scenes are often static, because every single shot is so well composed and you want to take it it. Even the acting is good and fits in well. The long running time of the picture is wonderful, you don't want to miss a minute of it!

Sentiment: positive
First off, I am a huge fan of Tolkien, and as one I will base most of my critic on his books.

The movie is a standard adventure movie, well made with nifty special effects, nice sound track and fine acting. Now if this movie was called something else than lord of the rings the reviews wouldn't be half this good as they are here.

The problem of the movie is that it takes the basic story line from Tolkiens books but then it goes and "hollywoods" everything it can, numerous scenes from the book are eighter missing or changed quite a lot, the characters are changed from the book also, a thing that I think should be punishable ! What the movie lacks is deep insight of the characters in it, I know that it is almost impossible to make a good film out of a good book, and it didn't work here eighter, mostly the motivation of the characters is left hazy at best.

As a adventure movie it would rate 7+ / 10 As a adaptation of Tolkien it rates 2 / 10

I mean honestly, what on earth was Arwen doing at rivendell ford ? And as for the comments that this movie "is the best ever" I can only say that eighter you are very young, or you havent seen good movies...

Peter Jackson should have called this movie an adventure movie based on the lord of the rings.

Sentiment: negative
This is a really great film! It gets you thinking about your parents. How we all have fragile relationships we all have with them, unless we really make an effort to know who they are as people. And just as important, we should remember to open up and show them our real selves, not just who we think they want us to be. Definitely see this documentary! IMDb is making me write more text before they will post my comment, how odd. Usually online comments need to be short short, and here I am being asked to write more! Well I went to see the film with my parents, I thought afterward they would want to talk about their parents, but my dad kept wanting to talk about himself and things in his life he feels he screwed up, which was unusual, my dad is not a reticent man, but I was surprised that he wanted to talk about mistakes he thinks he made. Mike and Kitty came to the film to do a Q & A and there was a hilarious moment afterward when my dad was talking with Mike, while my mom spoke with Kitty! Really just disregard my last few sentences to pad this comment, and just remember '51 Birch Street,' go see it!

Sentiment: positive
Poor Tobe Hopper. He directed an all time horror classic "Texas Chaimsaw Massacre". Since then everything he's done has been horrible. This is probably the worst...and that's saying a lot. It's about a man (Brad Dourif) who has the ability to make things (and people) catch fire...or something like that. Hardly an original idea (anyone remember "Firestarter"?) It's a real mess...literally EVERYTHING is done wrong! Pathetic acting (even Dourif!), asinine script, loust production values, crappy special effects...everything is BAD!!!!! A must miss...not even good for laughs.

Sentiment: negative
It's so rare to find a literary work adequately translated to the screen that I may have rated this film higher than it deserves, but not by much. As a long-time student of Vonnegut's works, I have no hesitation in recommending the film to his readers, at least to those that love him as I do. The casting is inspired: Nolte is understated in triumph, bewildered in defeat, decisive in judgment. Sheryl Lee is luscious throughout, but her handling of the treacherous Resi and her tragic crescendo almost makes you forget her beauty. Alan Arkin delivers a totally lovable, but equally treacherous, Soviet spy.

Do not feel you have to read Mother Night to appreciate the film; though, if you haven't read Mother Night, you will probably want to after viewing the film.

Notice the shifts from color to black-and-white and back again, and don't miss the final symbolism of Campbell's noose. Watch, also, for Kurt Vonnegut's cameo near the end of the film.

Bing Crosby's "White Christmas" will never sound the same (I write in mid-December, when the song is getting heavy radio play, and it's driving me nuts).

Sentiment: positive
One of the major flaws in this film is that while the mocking of pretentious yuppies is satisfying, it fails to realize that the movie makers themselves are guilty of being one of those that deserve to be mocked. One of the characteristics of these yuppie types is the conceited misunderstanding that they (the yuppies) are the only ones sophisticated enough to understand art. While the movie ignores this characteristic and instead focuses on their misunderstandings of dinning, I find it ironic that only people who enjoy this movie boast the same conceited taste in films as the characters do in their choice of dinner. If these pompous characters that were in this movie have a video library at home, I would bet that American Psycho would be one of those movies.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is just so awful. So bad that I can't bear to expend anything other than just a few words. Avoid this movie at all costs, it is terrible.

None of the details of the crimes are re-enacted correctly. Lots of slaughterhouse footage. Weird cuts and edits. No continuity to the plot. The acting is absolutely the most amateur I have ever seen.

This bomb of a movie was obviously made to make some money without any regard to the accuracy of it's content. The camera work is out of focus at times and always shaky. It looks as if it was shot on video.

In fact, now that they've got Dennis Rader with life in prison, I wish they would put the guys that made this horrible movie into prison as well.

Seriously, don't even think about watching this one. I'd give it a negative star if I could.

Sentiment: negative
I started to watch this show by accident, but I love it. The fact that main character is in a wheelchair is something that lacking in television, especially for kids shows. My five-year-old nephew (as most children do) would just stare at people who were in wheelchairs or had some other type of handicap but after he watched Pelswick it just seemed to be a normal occurrence to him. Every time he saw a wheelchair he would simply say "Like Pelswick" and go on with what ever he was originally doing. And YES the animation is a little crude, but if you can stand to watch through the first season of the Simpsons then this isn't that bad. The "Genie" is actually an Angel who is there to help Pelswick learn lessons in life. He CAN NOT walk some else said he could walk some of the time, I've seen every episode and he never to my recollection walked, he is a paraplegic he has no feeling below his armpits (he mentions it in an episode). As for the humor if you can get a copy of the "Ntalented" episode, which lampoons boy-bands, you will instantly love this show.

Sentiment: positive
I somehow missed this movie when it came out and have discovered it as late as last week thanks to a friend's recommendation. I can honestly say that I cannot remember another intimate dramatic film, which does so many things so well. The writing is crisp, realistic, nuanced, and even restrained. The cinematography and editing are understated but inspired, enabling the visual storytelling to dominate through marvelous close-ups and framing of images, capturing loneliness and alienation in most memorable ways. The acting is also wonderful, with all of the characters becoming painfully real and vulnerable in the most compelling ways that a film can offer. They reveal their innermost weaknesses with unprotected, raw vulnerability. A real triumph for Roger Michell and Hanif Kureishi, and the rest of the team. A must see for serious film lovers.

Sentiment: positive
Big Fat Liar is what you get when you combine terrific writing, great production, and an emphasis on clever ideas over adolescent pap. The two stars work great together, and--what can I say? Amanda Bynes shines. Putting "Irkel" and Lee Majors in the film were brilliant touches. Watch this film with your kids. If you don't laugh throughout it, you must not have been paying attention.

Sentiment: positive
Disappointing and irritating. The screenwriter has no true understanding of human nature but instead strings together clichés in a disjointed fashion. Character is not explored in depth. These are puppets plunked down in a plot he openly confesses needed a dramatic element, the mother's affair with her daughter's lover. 

Anne Reid gives an excellent performance in spite of being given some peculiar situations and lines, such standing passively to allow her angry daughter to slug her in the eye. The script portrays Darren (Daniel Craig) as a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde without any hints about why, except that he snorts cocaine before the big scene. 

A mature writer could have done so much more with this topic.

Sentiment: negative
Culled from the real life exploits of Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie in 1890s New York, "The Bowery" is high energy and good natured.

But be warned: Casual racial epithets flow off the tongues of Wallace Beery and little Jackie Cooper. The very first shot might be startling. This is true to the time it was set and the time it was made. And it also speaks to the diversity of population in that neck of the woods. It certainly adds to the gritty flavor of the atmosphere.

Beery as Connors is the blustering thunder at the center of the action, a loud-mouth saloon keeper with his own fire brigade. And he has a soft spot for ornery orphan Cooper. Raft as Brodie is Connors' slicker, better looking rival in almost every endeavor. Brodie could never turn down a dare and loved attention, leading up to a jump off the Brooklyn Bridge (it is still debated whether he actually jumped or used a dummy).

Beery is as bombastic as ever with a put-on Irish-American accent. He is just the gruff sort of character to draw children, cats and ladies in distress. This is possibly the most boisterous character Raft ever played, and he even gets to throw in a little dancing (as well as a show of leg). And again he mistakes the leading lady (lovely Fay Wray) for a prostitute. Cooper is as tough as either of them, though he gets a chance to turn on the tears.

The highlight isn't the jump off the bridge but a no-holds-barred fistfight between Connors and Brodie that in closeup looks like a real brawl between the principals. It's sure someone bruised more than an ego.

Sentiment: positive
If Edward Woodward was the the flicks watching this film then that's what he would scream out in horror. 

I'm sorry folks but enough's enough. We had Get Carter, The Italian Job, Alfie and now this. What's the similarities? No. It's not exactly a coincidence that three of the originals star Maurice Micklewhite and the other stars another great British actor. The main common ingredient in those originals IS the britishness of the films. They weren't made to impress Hollywood. They were quirky English films with a unique charm/atmosphere that just cannot be replicated in the USA. The word is CULT and what better way to destroy a cult film than to bastardise it with a remake or even a sequel. 

Wicker 06 had a tough task before it even hit the road. Wicker 73 is even more enigmatic that other said cult films; it defies genre, intelligent scripts, A-grade actors, the music score, set-pieces that defy description and all the stories surrounding the film.

So here comes a remake. Don't worry. No originals were harmed in the making of this remake. Some major aspects of the story needed to be reworked for the modern USA - communications, paganism, virgins. But that's just about the whole premise. So we give the cop a Nam style trauma past complete with shock music flashbacks for the cheap scares. Then with no mobile phone mast on the island that sorts the communication out - but in the real world this wouldn't happen. Cops just don't go missing. Give him a blood link for motivation rather than the clash of beliefs and you have the remake. Wafer thin though, isn't it?

It's just that it was all laid on with a trowel. The name alterations were simply hammy, almost Carry On, there was no sense of community on the island, no centre of town to catch your bearings, just a few houses dotted about a forest and that was it. Willow was just annoying by not giving out any info at all and Cage was useless to let her get away with it. When he went into the well you just knew he would get locked it. The screenplay was signposted all the way to the end - and you just wanted it to hurry up and end. The epilogue was absolutely hilarious and didn't know when to stop. 

That ending is probably the best way to summarise the difference between the two. One ends in the most beautiful sunset after the most horrific day. The other ends with a post-production explain-it-all-to-the-thickies type conclusion.

I loved the original but went to the cinema with an open mind and was excited to see the film. I left thankful in the knowledge that this film will probably end up beneath a highway somewhere only this time mercifully forgotten forever.

Sentiment: negative
Frailty is a non-gory horror film that achieves its chills by following the logic and impact of a man's delusion/obsession straight into depravity. Dad (we never learn his name) is a gentle man and loving father who's raising his sons alone after Mom died giving birth to the youngest son, Adam. The family's world flips upside down late one night when Dad rushes into the boys' room and tells them God has given him a vision. And what a vision  the entire family's job is to destroy demons, who, of course, are disguised in human form.

Proceeding from this premise, the movie is unflinching in following it. Dad kidnaps people/demons whom God has told him to destroy, binds them, lays his hand on them to see a vision of their evil, then kills them  while making his young sons watch. Fenton, the older boy, is horrified, seeing only a father who's turned into a crazed murderer. Adam, the younger, is uncomfortable, but trusts that Dad is following God's will. Eventually, Dad takes his sons on missions to abduct the "demons" that God has put on Dad's list, and finally, invites them to fully participate in God's mission for the family.

This is not, you understand, an abusive father. He loves his children. He is only following God's instructions: "This is our job now, son. We've got to do this." When Fenton, terrified and convinced his father has gone mad, says he'll report him to the police, his father explains, "If you do that, son, I'll die. The angel was clear on this." The pressure that the children are under is unbearable and tragic, and warps their entire lives.(1) The movie's structure is similar to the one used in The Usual Suspects: a story in flashback, told in a police station to a FBI agent. The moody lighting, the stormy weather, and the eerie calm in the present day add to the menace of the backstory. I wanted to believe the unfolding horror was just a story, until I remembered the real-life parallel of Andrea Yates, who believed she was possessed by Satan and could save her children by drowning them. Even then, I wanted to believe that I was watching a human tragedy, rather than a story of divine retribution.

The movie gave me no such comfort, though, as it gave strong clues at the end about the veracity of Dad's vision. And this, as much as some plot holes, posed a problem for me. Regardless of the accuracy of Dad's visions, regardless of the evil that his victims may have committed, where does anyone derive the authority to act as an angel of death? (1) Roger Ebert review, 4/12/02

Sentiment: positive
The first half of this film held some promise as it seemed like the film was going to be a low-key character psychodrama like THE MINUS MAN but then the whole thing collapses into cliche and the viewer slowly loses all interest. There's a decent cast here but the film is lifeless and the talent completely wasted.

Sentiment: negative
It is hard to imagine two actors of such class and experience as Michael Caine and Michael Gambon getting involved in such an embarrassingly inept film. The responsibility for this ill-judged production has to be down to the writer, Neil Jordan and director, Conor McPherson. I doubt I've seen such a bad film with such good credits in a long time. The comedian, Dylan Moran, who made his mark as the irritable and incompetent bookshop owner in the TV sitcom, Blackbooks, turns in much the same routine here, except with such excess and lack of comedic control as to leave one squirming. It is easy to see how the story could have been made to work, for the situation is an interesting one and loaded with comic potential. A classical actor (Caine) tries to rip off the mob (Gambon and co) with the aide of a bumbling wannabe colleague (Moran), with predictable results. It could have and should have been good. Sadly, it was not to be.

Sentiment: negative
Each story has a lesson for young and old. But what more I have to say may spoil a future story. But, I believe what I have to say is for everyone; just for one particular episode: The Soldier and Death.

Okay... of all the stories the one that sticks out for me is "The Soldier and Death" because is was the point in my life I realized that life was terminal. I am not kidding. The airing was on my 8 1/2 birthday... and I will always remember it. I didn't remember its title until tonight, but I new the synopsis. (May 15th, 1988)

It is always difficult to explain that Death is a natural part in Life. It is also difficult for adults to accept that children can accept this fact. I am living proof (currently 28 yrs old) that children can accept this fact and from time to time remind adults...

I write this with tears in my eyes. Heath Ledger - a wonderful actor my own age - died today. It kinda reminded me of many lessons I have learned in my life. So I write this as a reminder to Young and Old... no one is immune to whatever is in store for us.

I hate to say that Death is going to happen, but this Story was the first time I saw Death as not a bad thing; but a part of Life, was quite literally in this story. I can't help it. It was a life changing moment for me and will alway be.

And for that...

I love you Jim Henson (and I still remember much of your work in life up until the day you died, and your memorial Muppet Show) and thank you Brian Henson for keeping the Workshop alive!!! Honest, I do thank you, all of your co-workers, editors, and interns.

The stage is just a stage/ And a show is just a show/ But Imagination will create Magic/ That Forever the world will Know.

Thank you!!!

(And for all who doubt me... Dance, Magic Dance)

Sentiment: positive
Want a great recipe for failure? Take a crappy, leftist political plot, add in some weak & completely undeveloped characters and then throw in the worst sequences a movie has ever known. Let stew for a week (the amount of time probably spent making this trash).

The result is 'Steal This Movie,' a cinematic experience that takes bad movies to dangerous and exotically low places never before conceived.

This movie utterly blew chunks at my face for its entire run time. Words cannot convey how painful it was to watch. This is not one of those bad movies that you and your friends can sit around and make fun of. This is not 'Plan 9 From Outer Space.' This is a long, boring and sad waste of time. 'Steal This Movie' is the biggest waste of energy and talent I have ever seen. It depresses me when I realize that people *actually* took time out of their lives to act in this tripe, if you can call it "acting." But then again, when you have poor direction, poor writing, poor EVERYTHING - "acting" is the last thing to criticize.

This movie is like a huge, disgusting turd that you yearn to quickly flush out of existence, fearful that a friend or loved one might somehow see it. I really wish I could somehow destroy every copy of this film so it will not pollute the minds of aspiring filmmakers. Thank you, Robert Greenwald, for giving me newfound respect for every other movie I have ever seen. You have shown me what is truly awful and why I should appreciate all those movies that are merely crappy and/or boring.

Sentiment: negative
The sun should set on this movie, forever.

It goes on forever (which isn't usually a bad thing - The English Patient, Schindler's List) but is SO tedious. The aging of the actors is unbelievable and so is the drawn-out never-ending story line which really seems to go nowhere.

In short, a waste of talent and film.

Sentiment: negative
Ex-reporter Jacob Asch (Eric Roberts) is hired by an acquaintance (Raymond J. Barry) to find his ex-wife and son. Asch heads to Palm Springs and quickly locates the ex Laine (Beverly D'Angelo) with someone he believes to be the son (a young Johnny Depp). But things turn out to be a bit more complicated as Asch discovers former white trash Laine has definitely married up in the form of millionaire Simon Fleischer (Dan Hedaya) and her first son is nowhere to be seen.

Director/writer Matthew Chapman is channeling BODY HEAT here and this mid-80s neo-noir is watchable enough thanks to an all-star cast and nice locations. D'Angelo was still looking good around this time, so she makes for a good femme fatale and isn't afraid to show some skin. However, the mystery isn't very compelling in the end. Co-starring Dennis Lipscomb, Emily Longstreth and Henry Gibson. Chapman made several thrillers in the 80s, but his "biggest" career achievement was co-authoring the screenplay for the infamous COLOR OF NIGHT.

Sentiment: positive
This is by far the worst ever 'horror' movie, no, make that any movie, I have ever watched. Shame on Block Buster for even carrying this type of crap. I never ask for a refund on any movie, but I think this will be a first.

The movie is so bad that I had to stop after just 15 minutes of watching it.

I had more fun watching any of the fuzzy YouTube movies than watching this piece of dropping.

The marketing dude for this movie must have some type of silver tongue to move this thing into an establishment as Blockbuster.

Sentiment: negative
Otto Preminger's "The Man with the Golden Arm" is a reference to heroin addiction - something that must have been rather risky to film back in 1955, fifty years ago (the censors today STILL have a problem with drug content in films!).

The lead role was originally offered to Marlon Brando, then snatched by Frank Sinatra before Brando could respond. Sinatra convincingly portrays a pro card dealer and ex-heroin addict who returns home to the city only to find himself battling the demons of temptation.

Preminger is one of my favorite directors (his "Anatomy of a Murder" starring James Stewart is a brilliant and revolutionary courtroom drama). Preminger pretty much helped change the face of cinema back in the '50s - "Anatomy of a Murder" was extremely controversial when it came out due to both its plot and content (references to rape, women's "panties," seduction, etc.) and "The Man with the Golden Arm" deals with a topic that is equally volatile.

However, Preminger pulls it off without becoming exploitative. This is like a forerunner to "The Panic in Needle Park" (1971) and bears more than a few similarities in terms of general motifs to the classic Billy Wilder movie "Lost Weekend," starring Ray Milland. These three films in particular are probably the best movies about alcoholism predating the 1980s and still remain relevant today.

Sentiment: positive
i have lost count as to how many times i have watched this movie. i've never grown tired of it since this is a movie that can be enjoyed and interpreted on so many levels. they just don't make movies like this anymore.

after recently finally watching the riveting documentary on the making of this film (Hearts of Darkness:a filmmakers journey into madness), i'm even more amazed that this film even got finished, yet alone turn out so great.

the fact that they actually filmed this movie in the jungles of the Phillipines is the film's greatest asset. you actually FEEL like your in Vietnam.

all of the actors are fantastic with my favorites still being Robert Duvall ("I love the smell of napalm in the morning!!") martin sheen, and the great Marlon Brando.

a lot of people complain that the film gets too murky, weird and cerebral near the end. well, remeber what Coppolla said about this movie, "This film is not about vietnam, it IS vietnam!" what he means is that this film is about MADNESS and not the war.

this movie is based on the short story "Heart of darkness" by Joseph Conrad and is set against the vietnam war instead of the civil war as in the book. i think that was a brilliant combination in my opinion.

this is perfect, challenging film that is dark, violent, humorous at times and well done in every single possible way.

a true classic

rating:10

Sentiment: positive
George C. Scott gives his finest and funniest with wonderful drama as well in this Paddy Chayefsky screenplay. Diana Rigg is attractive and quite the complicated young woman. This film veers between tragedy and chaos in a New York hospital of the late 60's with staggering consequences. Barnard Hughes is delightful as always (great stage actor as well).

An 8 out of 10. Best performance = George C. Scott. Chayesfsky was a big blow-hard when he put down Vanessa Redgrave at the 1978 Oscar ceremony, but he's a good writer. A truly ensemble cast that works wonders, down to the smallest role. This won best script at Oscars and Scott was nominated. He should have won for this instead of PATTON the year before (which he was also brilliant in). Seek this out!

Sentiment: positive
Although I have not seen this mini-series in over twenty years I can still remember how the balance between character,plot and tale of marvelous adventures succeeded. The use of special effects was restrained making a more poetic rather than literal telling of the story. The two versions I've seen were dubbed (English and French)but the actors appear to speak their own language not just Italian so there is a synchronization problem. It does not spoil the story telling. Among the cast Irene Pappas as Penelope is the most recognizable to North Americans. Recommended to all followers of Odysseus' ever returning.

Sentiment: positive
One is tempted to define the genre of Gert de Graaff's movie as `event of the thought' following the example of Merab Mamardashvili. The nominal storyline is a certain Bart Klever's torturous quest for that ephemeral substance which constitutes the essence of personality. The script for his new movie is taking shape simultaneously on his computer and in his own imagination. This film-monologue originated as a response to Fellini's `8 ½' and cost Gert de Graaff 13 years of work. Excitedly playing with real and fictional characters as well as with the audience, it reveals the whimsical interconnection of the real and imaginary, the paradoxical co-existence in two different galaxies: that of Guttenberg and that of MacLhuen. For some time we are apt to side with the script writer, who believes that the cause of all misfortune is the damned stereotypes of mass mentality (`man', `catholic', `window washer'). And together with him we fall into a trap when the author-creator is finally faced with the insoluble dilemma: how can one eliminate from the future movie. Bart Klever? Just five minutes before the finale thanks to the common petty reproaches of the wife of the creator, who is deeply immersed in work, we realize that together with the main character we have again been `framed'. Really, what is the price of the art for the sake of which it is acceptable to renounce one's own name and the day-to-day care for the young daughter?

So who is he, this Bart Klever? Is he a brilliant prophet or someone possessed like Frenhoffer from Balzac's masterpiece (just like the latter the script writer in the end erases from the computer memory everything has written)? Gert de Graaff suggests that we answer this question ourselves.



Sentiment: positive
This movie was well done in all respects. The acting is superb along with the fine audio soundtrack which I purchased because it was so moving. It is my all time favorite movie ahead of eastwoods "white hunter,black heart". This movie is simply the best.

cheers Zuf

Sentiment: positive
There is great detail in A Bug's Life. Everything is covered. The film looks great and the animation is sometimes jaw-dropping. The film isn't too terribly orignal, it's basically a modern take on Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, only with bugs. I enjoyed the character interaction however and the bad guys in this film actually seemed bad. It seems that Disney usually makes their bad guys carbon copy cut-outs. The grasshoppers are menacing and Hopper, the lead bad guy, was a brillant creation. Check this one out.

Sentiment: positive
I can't believe this movie only scores 7.4! This surely ranks up with the best of Hitchcock's movies such as VERTIGO or MARNIE. The only reason I can think of why the score is so low, is that for the most part, THE MAN... renounces violence and certainly won't get a diploma in "sex and crime".

What it derives its tension from is not violence, it's the reckless energy of these criminals that take a child from his parents and are ready to kill the kid if the operation fails. Today, having seen a lot of hardboiled kidnapping movies as Mel Gibson's RANSOM, this seems normal, but in the 1950s, where family was all in contemporary America, the thought of such a crime surely has stirred up emotions a lot.

And this tension still works for me, today. Yeah, these guys are selfish, ignorant bastards, disturbing in how they act: It's a deal for them, and they want to be "good businessmen", disregarding the fact that business here is kidnapping kids and assassinating politicians in the opera!! 

What makes the movie great, however, are the creative aspects, the kinky ideas of Hitchcock, the outrageously disturbing scene in the church (which brings it to the viewer's attention how alone, how abandoned the protagonists are, nobody caring, nobody helping, the people in the church just going home...), the meeting with the owner of that shop stuffing and preparing dead animals (which stresses the somewhat "oriental" flair the movie has from the opening scenes abroad), last not least the role of MUSIC in this movie.

Music is the key principle here, as ***SPOILER*** the assassination of the targeted politician is to be done exactly in the moment of a loud orchastra tutti/gong; so Hitchcock lets the camera follow the orchestra score and you now it will happen in a second ***BANG*** And then, of course, DORIS DAY singing Que sera, which became more famous than the movie itself; she sings it to notify the kid of his parents being in the embassy...

All in all: A classic!!

Sentiment: positive
This film is strange, even for a silent movie. Essentially, it follows the adventures about a engineer in post-revolutionary Russia who daydreams about going to Mars. In this movie, it seems like the producers KNOW the Communists have truly screwed up the country, but also seems to want to make it look like they've accomplished something good.

Then we get to the "Martian" scenes, where everyone on Mars wears goofy hats. They have a revolution after being inspired by the Earth Men, but are quickly betrayed by the Queen who sides with them. Except it's all a dream, or is it. (And given that the Russian Revolution eventually lead to the Stalin dictatorship, it makes you wonder if it was all allegory.) 

Now, I've seen GOOD Russian cinema. For instance, Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin is a good movie. This is just, well, silly.

Sentiment: negative
I almost drowned in CHEESE watching this movie. In fact I could not even finish it. I want my money back. One more of Hollywood's feeble attempts to come up with a new idea. Good thing I keep a bowl of lemons in the fridge. Just in case. They should of gave Nic Cage a hat and a bull-whip. Swashbucklin'. Cage's performance in Raising Arizona or Leaving Las Vegas beats this "lemon". People who are completely and totally marketed(and most of them are) should love this movie. If this film had been animated, I would have taken it more seriously. I would of rather paid to see a completely stupid movie that did not try to hide it. In my opinion, this was a incredibly stupid movie and it made a even more incredibly sad attempt to try and hide that FACT.

All the SHEEP seem to love it though.

Sentiment: negative
The worst kind of film. Basically, the US Declaration of Independence was replaced with a plasma screen and this fooled the museum's security for several days. Eh?

The plasma screen that would theoretically run for less than 2 seconds off that watch battery, assuming it had a low enough internal resistance to deliver the required current, which it wouldn't.

It would be possible with a dozen large car batteries and an inverter, but that system wouldn't fit into the case. Sorry to be anal, but this isn't even close to being plausible. The rest of the film wasn't a great deal better and I'm left wondering why the budget couldn't have been donated to charity or me.

Sentiment: negative
envy is not as funny as i thought it would initially be, but after some of the reviews i read i found it to be much funnier than people was giving it props for, now true its not a gag a minute movie like zoolander or dodgeball, but ben stiller and jack black work well with each other and christopher walken is as great as ever, so the story is about jack black's character inventing a spray that makes dog pooh disappear, obviosly ben wants no part of it, but when the product makes jack black rich ben stiller starts to see the envy, its not great by all means and both ben stiller and jack black have funnier and better movies under their belt, but if your a fan of either i recommend this as its still a funny flick and i laughed my ass off quite a few times, as a big fan of ben stiller id have to say this is a lesser stiller but still great fun, give it a watch

Sentiment: positive
I loved this movie. Not because of the romantic story lines between women, but for the visualization of human strength, despair, and liberation. This film is a must see. Entertaining! Emotional! Captivating! All the characters are very well written and portrayed by some very talented actors. This story is a story of self discovery and sexual awakening. A journey of the mind, body and soul. You find yourself identifying with the characters and at some points, even the storyline. 

I do have to say that I recommend watching the movie first, then read the book. If you read the book first, you will be slightly disappointed. The screenplay adaption cut out a lot and some things were changed. Some for the better and some for the worst.

Sentiment: positive
The film begins with a 30 minute explanation about the war, the human cyborgs, battles, history, and then dumps 2 actors into a gravel pit. They run around this gravel pit/desert area for about an hour shooting at each other. That's it. Must have cost about £10.00 to make, with change. Avoid.

Marks out of ten: Acting -9 Sets 1 Costumes -9 Direction -50 Production 1 Titled intro 4

I think to improve this film would be to: Lose the commentary. (Let the watcher decide what's going on). Remove some of the awful CGI. Add some techno rave music to it. They might just rescue it.......

Sentiment: negative