DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This was so bad I can't even review it. So I'll jot some sentences about what I witnessed, and it'll be up to you to decide. 

Captain Kirk, with toupee and tubby gut, is rock climbing Yosemete's El Capitan. Spock meets him halfway riding on a floating skateboard-like hovercraft. Kirk falls. Spock flies down, catches him inches before Kirk hits the ground head- first. 

Later, that night, Spock, Kirk and McCoy are eating beans around a campfire. Spock likes the beans. Then, Kirk and McCoy sing "Row Row Row Your Boat", and want Spock to join in on the three-way harmony. Spock doesn't want to sing. And later that night, he disagrees. "But life isn't but a dream, Captain". Should I go on? 

Okay... A renegade Vulcan, who happens to be Spock's half brother, leads a revolt on a sandy planet - taking hostages. The crew of the enterprise land on the planet, and Uhura, pushing fifty-five and weighing two-hundred some-odd pounds, lures the natives with her bare legs. But they can't trick the brother, who claims he can find God. 

He kidnaps the crew and the Enterprise. They go to a planet where a big bearded apparition, claiming to be God, spits fire at Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Spock's sibling, realizing it isn't God - but is really a form of himself - or something - joins with the apparition in order to destroy it and... sparks fly. 

Then, after stuff happens too complicated to explain involving Klingons who resemble Lorenzo Lamas... 

The Three Amigos - Kirk, Spock and McCoy - return to Yosemite (did I mention, Kirk was wearing a GO CLIMB A ROCK T-shirt?). With Spock playing some kind of funky Vulcan guitar, they sing "Row Row Row Your Boat", this time all three harmonizing as the credits roll.

Sentiment: negative
Someone should teach the people who made this movie that there is a difference between "presenting multiple twists" and "screwing the audience over". They even use hypnosis as a tool to cover up the plot holes; whenever they can't find their way into or out of a scene, they just say "she is regressing to her past now" or "she's snapping out of it now", and they think that explains everything. This movie is a dishonest cheat and in the last 20 minutes becomes a full-blown fiasco. (*1/2)

Sentiment: negative
I enjoyed watching Brigham Young and found it to be a positive and largely true portrayal of the LDS faith. I think that a remake of this epic journey across the plains would be beneficial, since many people today are not familiar with the trials and persecutions faced by the early Mormon church. It is an incredible story of a strong and devoted people.

As a member of the church, the single most disturbing aspect of the film (most of the historical inaccuracies did not bother me much) was the portrayal of Brigham Young as one that had "knowingly deceived" church members into believing he had been called to be Joseph's successor as the prophet. Although I understand the dramatic reasons for this plot line, it creates the impression that his doubts in this regard are historical fact, when in reality, both Brigham and the bulk of the church members understood and believed firmly that he had been called to lead the church. Brigham did not knowingly deceive the saints; rather he led them confidently by inspiration. The point is important for Mormons because on it hinges an important aspect of our faith: that God truly speaks to prophets today, and that Brigham Young, like Joseph Smith, was an inspired prophet of God.

Whether or not you believe this statement or not, just know that the film does not accurately portray what Brigham himself believed.

Sentiment: positive
This might sound weird, but I only got to see the first movie (The Emperor's New Groove, yaddayadda) a week ago and only because of one episode of the TV show. I simply adore Kuzco's character, but Kronk isn't that bad either. Anyway, eventually I decided to watch the second film, just so I would've seen it. Hoped it would be as good as the first one, but... I'm sorry to tell this, but the more the humour got American, the more I yawned. I agreed with Kuzco when he started crying seeing all the cheesy footage.

Still, younger kids and probably veterans too will love this movie to bits (if they like the old school moralising Disney that is), but I just had expectations that were an eensy teensy little bit hell of a lot higher than they should've been. Kronk is a lovely character, being good hearted and dumb all at once, but it were Pacha and Kuzco in drag that woke me up at the end of the movie. (I'll ignore Rudy... for as far that's possible).

Anyway, great movie, just not my style and as they say, you always have to be true to your groove.

Sentiment: negative
I love cinema so what I'm about to confess embarrasses me deeply. I had given a thumbs down to "Che, Parts 1 and 2" without having seen the film. Terrible I know. But I felt into a trap perpetrated by...who? I don't really know but there has been a negative word of mouth that spread like wild fire and, no matter how smart I think I am, I fell into it. But, thankfully, I bumped into an Argeninean film director, Martin Donovan, a man I love and admire. When I told him I wasn't going to see it because I knew the film was a failure he looked at me as if he was ready to punch me right on the face and Donovan is a pacifist! He took me aside and told me how much he loved the film and why. I went to see both parts straight away and, "Che, part 1 and 2" is the best film I've seen in 2008. It is, of such purity that it will remind you of the work of some of the great masters of the past. The regard for its audience is something that we're not used to anymore. I don't know if we ever were. Riveting, moving, without concessions and Benicio del Toro is just extraordinary. We can see his soul, we can actually perceive it. The humanity of the man is overwhelming. So, thank you Martin Donovan once again for educating me so honestly. Bravo Del Toro, Bravo Soderbergh and everyone involved in this landmark film. Don't commit the mistake I was about to commit. Go see it, now, on the big screen

Sentiment: positive
One would think that a film about a young person's coming to terms with his burgeoning homosexuality would be anything but boring. Think again. This production should be bottled and sold as a cure for insomnia because it's about ten times as potent as any sleep aid on the market. It's almost as if the film maker *considered* making a movie, but got lazy and decided instead to run a series of random (and randomly BORING) images and go-nowhere scenes, throw in a couple of actual scenes featuring actual acting, pretend that good lighting ins't important in the film-making process, and wrap it up under the auspices of an "arthouse" film. This is exactly kind of crappy product that makes it easy for a lot of traditional film-makers to poo-poo the indie film movement, and which keeps the general public from more easily embracing indie films.

If you're interested in films covering this subject matter, you'd be much better off tuning in to some of the great short films available at Logo's website or renting Get Real. Better yet, read Stone Butch Blues. Whatever you do, skip this long-winded piece of dreck.

Sentiment: negative
If you have never heard of Jane Austen, seen the original movie or the 1995 BBC adaptation, or even seen a pop up version of the book, then this farcical attempt to show this classic love story may be considered vaguely endurable.

From the opening scene, this film must be remembered for its awful acting, abominable miscasting and complete lack of the classic wit of Jane Austen.

Whoever decided to cast actors (with the exception of the excellent Judi Dench) who have obviously never heard of Jane Austen, let alone read her, should be punished! Keira Knightley grimaces and grins through every scene, and came across as being so obnoxious that no-one would want to marry her! Darcy looked as if he was trying to remember his lines throughout the whole film and the rest of the Bennet girls were interchangeable in their lack of portraying their characters as they were originally written.

This version failed to show the proper Pride and Prejudice that both Darcy and Elizabeth suffered from and, at the end of the longest two hours of my life, who cared whether they got together or not! Absolutely abysmal - even the too few minutes of Judi Dench cannot save this rubbish. I cannot think of anything good to say about this film apart from that it eventually ended!

Sentiment: negative
I have heard an awful lot about 'The English Patient' and I finally decided to get the CD and find out what all the ballyhoo was about. What I found out was a cinematic delight and should, I repeat 'should' always be watched with an open mind. If you are a religious, moral zealot, I am afraid this is not a film for you as you will fail to see the beauty of this cinematic masterpiece as you will keep on harping on the moral dilemmas this film creates. As I remember correctly before I watched this film I read the review in this site and was thoroughly disgusted by the views of that person who I quote said 'that the protagonists thoroughly deserved what they got'. When it comes to morality I agree with him but this is not the way to comment on a film of this magnificence. 

I must admit rarely have I seen such a wonderfully crafted film. I keep on hearing the background soundtrack in my subconscious. First and foremost this is a love story and yes it's an extramarital affair (moralists beware) but lets not keep focusing on that. Instead let's focus on how the story was told. It's an admixture of flashbacks and the present. Its set in the world war II and tells us the story of a survivor of a plane crash (Count Almazhy played wonderfully by Ralph Fiennes) who is looked after by an army nurse (Juliet Binoche) in war torn Italy just before the beginning of the end (defeat of the axis powers). The burn scarred patient very much in pain kept on remembering the torrid affair he had with an English woman Katherine (Kristin Scott Thomas) shown in flashbacks set in pre-war Africa. The past and the present are interwoven so adroitly in the story that you're sort of transported in the story and get the feel of a first hand viewer. The locales in the desert and in Italy are beautiful and so are the characters. I am a romantic and am not ashamed to say I had tears after it ended. Watch it with someone you truly love. The movie starts and ends with the same shot of the desert where the sand dunes twist and curves like a woman's body and it was breathtaking. The sense of loss and grief was conveyed so overwhelmingly by the actors that it makes me wonder why god! Why do we have wars that destroys beauty and the most unforgivable of all, the destruction of Innocence. 

Anyway it deservedly won a bunch of Oscars and I will go hunting for other works of director Anthony Minghella.It kind of brings back the romanticism in the David Lean genre of films.It almost reminds me of 'Lawrence of Arabia' which was also based in the desert.Happy viewing folks.

Sentiment: positive
I didn't really care for this. Had they gotten rid of the comedy/slapstick and focused on the dramatic/philosophical aspects of the script, this might have been worthwhile.

The more the film went on, the less I liked the protagonist/mailman. He does have interesting things to say, but he's also a hypocritical, insecure jerk.

3/10

Sentiment: negative
There is a lot of obvious hype associated with this film. Let's just face it, though, the main reasons why anyone would watch it would be for Leo and Cate, who are not necessarily the best actors in this film. I'm not saying they're not good actors, I'm saying they stunk in this film. The special effects were decent (and I will say the film makers did a good job making the ship eye-pleasing), but IT even has several major flaws. For instance, right before the ship goes under, you can see an unfinished blue-screen image behind your main characters.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the story of the REAL Titanic, but I find this movie an insult to that story. Editing was atrocious--there's no reason for any film to be over 2 1/2 hours (with the exception of MAYBE a biographical movie), and the writing and screenplay was horribly stilted.

I will say that the music was perhaps better than I could have predicted (and not just the "My Heart Will Go On" song either). There is one scene that stands out to me when the ship is sinking and pounding bass music is heard. That could very well be the highlight of the film. As for the mood throughout, it was extremely dull. I was more relieved than sad when Jack died, which I know cannot be what the director intended.

In a nut shell, I find it horrible that they turned the beautiful story of the Titanic into an over-hyped chick flick.

Sentiment: negative
I gave this 9 stars out of a possible 10. If it had had just a teensy weensy bit more plot line I would have given it 10.

Nonetheless it is a highly interesting film.

Judith Ivey, playing a likable old floozy, should have been given the Oscar for her performance.

Emily Grace (portraying Alice), whom I had never seen before, also does an excellent job and has THE sexiest body I think I've ever seen on film.

In a beat to heck old car, Alice has lit out from the n.e. for Florida where she has a friend (or maybe it's her sister, I'm not sure, and that's my fault, not the film's), and high hopes of going to college, which she and her family can't really afford.

She seems rather vulnerable out there on the road alone, and sure enough she encounters some slightly rough looking characters and shortly after that it's discovered there's a hole in one of her tires.

She is at a rest stop at the time and is assisted by a woman named Sandra and her husband, Bill, an older couple who are traveling in an RV.

They're going south, to Florida, and take her under their wing, but is everyone quite the way they're presenting themselves? Flashbacks and paranoia enter the story as our young heroine learns some new lessons about life.

Sentiment: positive
The thing which makes "Fire" even more appealing to watch apart from its magical artistry, is its touch of femininism and rebellion. To my mind, the very character played by Shabana Azmi is a symbol of the Indian feminine protest against the Indian society. The name of the movie and the scene when Radha walks through flames in her kitchen are symbloic of Hindu Mythology's Lord Rama's wife Sita's walking through fire for the proof of her immaculacy, as per the same narrative which appears in the film too. The film could be a great inspiration for women, particularly those in the subcontinent, to search for their liberties and to attain control of their lives.

Sentiment: positive
Kenneth Branagh's "Hamlet" hits all the marks. The acting is magnificent, the 70mm cinematography is gorgeous, the Oscar-nominated costumes and sets are stunning, and Patrick Doyle's score (also Oscar-nominated) is sensitive and moving. Oh yeah - the screenplay, by some guy named Will S., isn't too bad either. Film critics ribbed Branagh for receiving the films' fourth Oscar nod for "adapting" the screenplay, but his decision to use the full text was a gutsy one. I can't think of many better ways to make four hours fly by.

Nearly every decision Branagh makes works brilliantly: the use of England's Blenheim Palace for exteriors, the Edwardian dress, and the staging of "To be or not to be" in a hall of mirrors, to name a few. The casting of Hollywood luminaries such as Robin Williams, Billy Crystal and Jack Lemmon in minor parts can be distracting, but that's nitpicking. The principal cast excels: Derek Jacobi captures the conflicted nature of Claudius; Kate Winslet acutely depicts Ophelia's descent into madness; Julie Christie brings passion to her portrayal of Gertrude; Richard Briers is pitch-perfect as the conniving Polonius; and Nicholas Farrell elevates the potentially thankless role of Horatio to the apotheosis of true friendship. Every speech, every line, every word is delivered with passion and conviction; there isn't a wasted moment in the entire film. The final scenes magnify the extent of Shakespeare's tragedy in a way not possible with theatrical adaptations.

Branagh's "Hamlet" is a bold, ambitious, and ultimately successful attempt to match the grandeur and poetry of Shakespeare's language with equally eloquent imagery. It's arguably the greatest Shakespearean adaptation ever filmed  strong praise, but well deserved.

Sentiment: positive
I can't decide whether this is one of my favourite movies. It is a good thriller and has an emotional core but still I can't decide. I definitely liked it. This is the first movie of Terry Gilliam that I have seen. My first impression? I was engaged till the very end and it is not all that complex(to be confusing).

The movie is set in the future. A man James Cole(Bruce Willis) is sent from the future in order to get some information from the past(1996 to be specific). A virus killed 5 billion people. He is sent from the future to get some information about it. Also involved here are a psychiatrist called Kathryn Railly. The love story is portrayed beautifully and you can really feel the longing in this love and longing for a regular life. The loose ends are tied up in a very interesting manner at the end.

One thing I liked about this movie is that unlike other post-apocalyptic movies, the movie didn't prefer to give any boring social commentary and instead focused on this one guy and his longing for a regular life. "You want to see the ocean, be with her" is especially a poignant line in this movie. It chooses to focus on the tension and confusion in the person's mind. Therefore this is not exactly post apocalyptic movie but instead it could be described as a romantic sci fi movie with themes that range from time travel to blurred realities and so on. This is what makes this movie a special movie of the 1990's. The complex plot flows smoothly without adding too many characters.

The performances are quite good. Bruce willis surprised me here as he didn't act the regular tough guy here but he gave a good performance of a confused man who is in love. His desperation in certain sequences is portrayed beautifully. I have to check out his other movies. The gorgeous Madeleine Stowe is quite a treat to watch. EVer since I saw this movie, I have become so obsessed with her. She has given a great performance of a woman who sympathises with her patient and finally falls in love with him. Brad Pitt is the real surprise though with his portrayal of a crazy man named Jeffrey Goines. His Oscar nominated performance is quite surprising considering that he doesn't have many critics who have kind words for him.

The end is quite chilling and that is also another reason to watch the movie. The length or complexity is not as big a problem because this film is quite fast moving and there are enough incidents to keep people interested. And every incident in this movie has a meaning and nothing is there that is unnecessary.

Good thriller 10/10

Sentiment: positive
Without a doubt, the best Burt Reynolds film ever! Even better than Smokey and the Bandit. This was probably the first real bloody cop thriller of the 1980s and delivered the perfect blend of humor, action, mystery and style that is missing in today's films.

This one has it all: A psychotic Henry Silva jacked up on PCP, $1,000 a night call girls, ninja assassins and Burt Reynolds getting his fingers sliced off, one by one, with a butterfly knife. The film is based on the novel by William Diehl who also wrote PRIMAL FEAR, another one of my all-time favorites. This movie is worth watching just to see Henry Silva get shot six times, crash through a window, and fall thirty stories from the top of an Atlanta high-rise. This is probably the coolest stunt in Hollywood history, performed by legendary stuntman Dar Robinson.

Robinson also played "Moke" in the Elmore Leonard movie STICK, also starring Burt Reynolds. Stick features another great Dar Robinson stunt. Robinson falls from a Miami apartment building and unloads all six shots from a .44 magnum on his way down. Very cool stuff.

SHARKY'S MACHINE is my favorite police drama. I never understood why this film flopped the way it did. If Burt did more films like this, he would've built a better reputation for himself. He proves to be a talented director with Sharky, as well as a gifted actor. Burt is supported by Brian Kieth, Charles Durning, Bernie Casey, Richard Libertini, Rachel Ward, and everyone's favorite bad guy Henry Silva. PLEASE remake this classic film! Get Affleck and Samuel L. and some other hot actors and you've got a great movie just waiting to be filmed.

I give it a 9 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
Destined to be a classic before it was even conceptualized. This game deserves all the recognition it deserves. At a time when first-person shooters like Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament are garnering all the attention of computer gamers, graphic adventures are a dying breed. With great pun and humour, The Curse of Monkey Island is a game that people of all age groups would enjoy. Life can only improve after playing The Curse of Monkey Island. *prediction* the sequel Escape from Monkey Island is already destined to be a classic too. I guarantee it.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is totally wicked! It's really great to see MJH in a different role than her Sabrina character! The plot is totally cool, and the characters are excellently written. Definitely one of the best movies!!

Sentiment: positive
SPOILERS

I love the Simpsons, and I have seen every single episode that had ever come out. I must admit, season one is by far the most underrated season, and this is the most underrated episode in season one.The episode begins with the family playing a game of Scrabble to get Bart ready for an intelligence test he needs to take at school. He says the game is stupid and he doesn't want to play it, but he needs to. He spells out a word that angers Homer and he chases Bart around the house. The next day Mrs. Krabappel reassures the class that the test isn't part of their grade, just a test that would tell them what their future would be like. Bart can't answer one question. He thinks fast. He quickly switches test with Martin Prince, the smartest one in class. Later that day Marge and Homer are called to go to the Principal's office to discuss Bart's behavior. Suddenly, out of nowhere, the school psychologist comes and tells Skinner and Homer and Marge that Bart is a genius and should go to a special school for the gifted. Bart agrees to go since he wouldn't need to do any homework. The next day Homer drives Bart to the new school. He is introduced to everyone and everything. Unluckily, his day isn't very good. The smart students take his lunch smartly, he can't read any comic books, but he does anyway, and he is criticized by his fellow students. Luckily for Bart, he and Homer start to have a great time together, but Marge bought tickets to an opera. They go to the opera, and make fun of it. The next day he goes to his old school but is made fun of by his friends. They call him a point dexter. While at his new school, Bart is told to do a Chemistry Experiment. He does it wrong and blows up the school, leaving himself green. Bart is told by the psychologist to tell him why he did it. Instead, Bart tells him he wants to go undercover and go back to his old school to observe other kids. The psychologist is intrigued and he asks Bart to explain it on a piece of paper. He finds it too hard and instead writes a confession that he really isn't a genius. He gives it to the psychologist. All he cares about is that he spelled the word confession wrong. That night Homer bathes Bart and Bart tells him that he really isn't a genius and that he cheated on the test. Homer gets angry and chases Bart around the house as Lisa and Marge look at them casually.

Overall, this is a very underrated season one episode.

8/10

Sentiment: positive
Slim Slam Slum is a sad and disappointing picture. There is absolutely no reason to this sorry excuse for a picture. Don`t go there, what ever you do, don`t. Watch TV-Shop for 10 hours straight instead. That way you will be slightly amused.

Sentiment: negative
I can't believe that there are people out there who voted 10 for this garbage! Have any of you gained access to a computer in the madhouse where you are undoubtably kept, or is there a special colony where especially crass people are secretly imprisoned that I don't know about?

If I was to say what I really thought of this film, none of it would get published.

To begin with its 'star' is a no talent idiot who acts like a bad impersonator of Jim Carrey who has hoovered enough angel dust up his nose to resurface the Sahara desert. His name will be a total guarantee that I will not watch a future film with him in it - even if he plays a rock hidden by a crowd.

As for the 'plot'. One more crime that we can chalk up to the Nazis is that they were so awful that they can be considered fair game as 'baddies' in tripe like this; mere criminals and murderers would have the audience on their side in a trice.

To the people who made this movie - Give up making films and if not then confine yourself to making advertisements, where your efforts will at least have the virtue of being fleeting in duration.

Finally, a criticism of IMDB - Why don't you have the facility to vote 'Zero' for a film? Or perhaps not. To express my contempt for this tripe I would then have to vote double zero, or something.

Sentiment: negative
Pixote is directed with barely a shred of sentimentality. And yet I more than imagine Hector Babenco owes some of his film-making chops with this film to Vittorio De Sica's neo-realist style, in particular Shoeshine (that film, as with Pixote, takes place mostly inside a children's prison). And yet while I might still prefer De Sica's film if it came down to deciding between the two it's so close because it is, no pun intended, like choosing between two children. They're both marvelous works of raw drama, and with Pixote Babenco has an extra edge and harrowing quality to deal with in that this isn't filmed in conditions brought on after a world war. This is how it was in Brazil- one would see it with slightly more flair and awe in City of God, perhaps in some of the same locations- and these children were on the streets before and after the film was made. Some aren't alive some 20+ years later, for all anyone knows.

The "star", pre-teen street kid Fernando Ramos da Silva, plays the title character, a youth without a father or really any family who will look out for him, and placed among dozens of other street kids and delinquents in a reformatory for boys. The conditions couldn't be much worse, and are made even more unbearable as two children are killed one after the other by some cause of the guard duty. There's a riot, and an escape, and halfway through the film we find Pixote with a few other youths, including Lilica a practical transvestite not even 18, and they become pickpockets, drug dealers, whatever to get by. None of this, I should repeat, is shown with a kind of ham-fisted earnestness- certainly you would never in a million years see Ron Howard or Paul Haggis direct this kind of picture- and yet there's an emotional honesty to everything exactly because nothing is trivialized.

Nearly every scene is significant to showing how fragile life is for Pixote, and how he could be killed or die some way at any turn, and so without even reaching puberty yet he has to be on the level of those around him who are a little older (though not by much at all) and become things that will haunt this person forever. Despite Babenco's usage of a tender and mournful musical score and one or two scenes with people crying a lot, nothing feels forced. As with De Sica, maybe more-so given the consistent conditions of San Paolo and Rio street kids, he's a natural director of children, and coax's out of Ramos da Silva and Jorge Julião and others some really fine work that provides just the right touches of "cinematic" drama (that is not so real that it becomes documentary, which isn't a bad thing per-say) and even subtlety in some scenes.

Pixote may not be as well known as it's later 21st century Brazilian films that look back on the horrors of Rio, or even neo-realist films, but it should be. Anyone wanting to get a good, hard glimpse at what it was like should seek it out at a library or other and soak in what is the best foreign film of 1981.

Sentiment: positive
Read the book, forget the movie!

Sentiment: negative
First, the current IMDb plot description seems to be misleading, the movie is about a group of girls who pick up a misogynistic hitchhiker, who plans to kill them all. They stop at a small motel, where he holds them hostage, but develops an intense attraction for one of the girls. Violence ensues.

I picked this up by mistake thinking it was the other 2007 movie "The Hitcher". Not that The Hitcher is any better, and I was looking for a crummy movie to watch anyway, but this was almost unbearable at times. I think I could have vomited on a piece of paper and come up with a better plot than this.

I can't even count how many movies I've seen with virtually the same storyline, so this was almost painfully predictable at times, but what really made it awful were a few scenes that ... well let me give an example. At one point a door is covered in (what is very obviously) blood, and two police officers, at the scene because of a 911 call, are looking at it from 30 feet away, see a man, also covered in blood, walk out of the door, agree that it looks suspicious, but decide to not investigate further.

But, however ridiculous it may be, the movie was never boring, was well produced, directed, and acted, complete with good special effects, gratuitous nudity, and violence. I probably would not recommend actually spending 90 minutes of your life sitting down to watch this movie, but it turned out to be perfect to have on while I cleaned my basement. Also highly recommended for fans of crummy movies, and would be a good movie to watch with friends when you plan on doing more talking than watching.

Sentiment: negative
A made for television version of the Heart of Darkness seemed like a good way to add more insight to the book, well, that was the wrong assumption. The movie made it even worse. I was highly disappointed about almost everything in the movie. I hoped that the movie would possibly help put the pieces of the book together that I didn't comprehend, but it did no such thing. It still left me confused and hanging. It is one of those movies that makes one feel like it would be more fun to watch the grass grow instead of watching the movie. Not exactly anyone's cup of tea. It was an overall dreadful, boring, and slow movie.

To begin with, Nicolas Roeg must have been pretty desperate when he decided that he wanted to undertake the task of making the already boring book into a movie. It's a guaranteed loss. It's like going into a knife fight, but forgetting the knife on the kitchen counter. The knifeless person is going to lose; and in the case, the knifeless person was Roeg. All I've heard about the movie are bad things, and the movie deserves those bad things to be said about it. From watching the movie, I got the impression that the people who made the movie, just skimmed over the book to get the key points.

Furthermore, although the movie did follow the main story line of the book, it left out quite a few details, and it also changed the ending. I am not a fan of that. Roeg left out when Marlow and his crew came across the Russian sailor's camp, and at that camp they found the book. Also it didn't show when at the camp they came across the sign that says, "Wood for you. Hurry up. Approach cautiously" (Conrad 110). Also, at the end of the book Kurtz dies on the boat, not at the inner station.

On the contrary, Nicolas Roeg did one good thing while he was making his movie; he managed to hire some pretty decent actors to play in the movie. For instance, he acquired Tim Roth and John Malkovich, both of whom would later go on to have successful careers. In doing so, he added a little something to the horrible movie. Also, though I am ripping his book to shreds, I do have some respect for him, because it takes a lot of courage to try to take on The Heart of Darkness. It isn't exactly the easiest novel to portray into a film. Twus a valiant effort, though! In conclusion, if for whatever reason someone actually wants to watch this movie, I suggest the reading of Heart of Darkness first. This way, you'll get all of the scenes that were left out of the movie and you won't be completely lost when you watch it. But I really suggest you don't read the book and that you really don't watch the movie; both will be a complete waste of your time. Trust me. I was forced to do both by my English teacher, and now I wish that the book and the movie didn't exist. If either the book or the movie are pursued, good luck!

Sentiment: negative
Anyone who could find redeeming value in this piece of crap ought to have their head examined. We have the submissive, heroin-addicted, part-time hooker wife with lacerations all over her body, lacerations received from repeated beatings by an abusive son. Now, she is squirting breast milk all over the kitchen floor, the release so gained somehow akin to Helen Keller placing her hands in running water. We have the husband who starts out by patronizing a prostitute who just happens to be his daughter (she's upset with him because he came too quickly)and ends by murdering his female colleague, having sex with her corpse, and then chopping her up. We have the kid who is relentlessly bullied by his classmates and who comes home and beats his mom. You see, it's all circular. Deep, huh? The only decent moment in this horrendous pile of tripe is when the dad murders his son's tormentors. It's a good thing this turkey was shot on video because otherwise what a waste of expensive film it would be. If that guy who thinks artists ought to be interested in this slop is really serious, no wonder most people think artists are insane. We saw this lousy movie, then put on "Zero Woman, The Accused." Oh my God, it was a tossup as to which one was worse. What is going on in Japan these days? Sick, sick, sick.

Sentiment: negative
Recap: Ron is about to marry Mel. They are deeply and love and certain they are perfect for each other even though they met just a few months ago. Todd, Ron's brother in law to be is not so happy. He is afraid the marriage is a threat to his cushy job in the family business and decides to arrange Ron's bachelor party. But his real plan is to put Ron in a compromising situation, get evidence and break Ron and Mel up.

Comments: Supposed to be a sequel to a comedy classic but it isn't funny at all. It is mostly a pubertal show and a juvenile excuse to show scantily clad women. Actually, in a way, it is almost impressive have many you can put in there, because they are everywhere. Unfortunately that is also one of the signs of a movie that can't support itself. It simply isn't good enough.

It has three redeeming points though, or actually three actors that is worth a better script than this. It is lead actor Josh Cooke who actually manages to give an impression of some common sense. Sara Foster I know has more talent than to do movies like this, and Emanuelle Vaugier seem to have a lot more talent than this movie.

What is suspiciously absent are good jokes. Actually, bad jokes are rather scarce too. It just isn't funny.

3/10

Sentiment: negative
Director Warren Beatty's intention to turn Chester Gould's famous comic strip into a live-action cartoon (with Beatty himself cast in the lead as the square-jawed detective) had sweet overtures of innocent nostalgia--quite unusual and intriguing coming from Warren Beatty. Unfortunately, the picture is requisite ham, fun for awhile but eventually tiring. Dick Tracy attempts to bring down mobster Big Boy Caprice, aided by loving Tess Trueheart but tripped up by evil Breathless Mahoney. For the first half-hour or so, the Oscar-winning art direction and set design are wonderful to absorb but, as the plot creaks along predictably (with no real sting in the writing), things begin to congeal. Al Pacino got a surprise Supporting Oscar nomination as bad boy Caprice, and Madonna (who is mostly used as a decorative prop) gets to sing Stephen Sondheim's "Sooner or Later (I Always Get My Man)", which copped the award for Best Original Song. Lots of heart, thanks to Beatty--who was dedicated to his vision--but the picture is too cool and calculated. It lacks heat. *1/2 from ****

Sentiment: negative
This movie doesn't even deserve a one. This was an utter waste of time. It was a waste of film and money. It was not offensive but everything was provocative and disgusting. My spoiler is one that I think should be read by everyone. There is full frontal nudity and disgusting language. But not only that, there is NO plot line, the actors are terrible, the accents are horrible, the actors are small time and I was even EXCITED to watch this movie! 

The only reason I rented it was for Brian van Holt (who got only a fifteen second part, by the way). I think this might have been a mistake on the directors and editors parts but they repeated the same segments two or three times, adding only a new sentence.

A film similar to this is Eraser Head, possibly the most disturbing movie in existence. There is no plot line, and is not funny. Although it isn't trying to be funny. DO NOT WATCH EITHER MOVIE.

Sentiment: negative
"Spin it!"

The 90s opened up with a clever Disney favorite, "TaleSpin," the TV cartoon series that featured characters from "The Jungle Book." Join Baloo and Kit Cloudkicker as they fly the Sea Duck like you've never seen it before: out of Cape Suzette, to Louie's, up mountains, through jungles, on water, in volcanoes, looking for adventure, looking for treasure, looking for fun, all in one action-packed cartoon adventure!!!!!

This was a favorite of mine as well as my family's. This ran on The Disney Afternoon the entire first half of the 90s until the original cartoons moved to the Old Disney Channel in 1995, which I have seen on vacation once in 1996 before getting cable in March 1997.

And good news: today the DVDs are here!!!!! Relive the fun and excitement of "Dun, dun, dun, TaleSpin!!!!!"

10/10

Sentiment: positive
The Man Who Knew Too Much{1956}is a remake of a film that Alfred Hitchcock made in England in 1934 with the same name. In my opinion, his later effort is far superior. Many critics and fans of Alfred Hitchcock will argue that the remake is mediocre and doesn't have the spine tingling suspense of the original with Peter Lorre. In both films the plot is essentially the same, except the original is set in Switzerland and the remake in Marrakech . It tells the story of a married couple {James Stewart and Doris Day}vacationing with their young son and meeting a suspicious man, that is very curious about their past. It just so happens, he's an agent that's looking for a couple involved in a plot to assassinate a world leader.Then he gets stabbed in a Marrakeck market because of it being found out that he's a spy,and proceeds to fall into Stewart's arms.Dying,he tells him the whole story of the assassination plot.Stewart and Day then find out that another couple they met were the couple the agent was looking for and have kidnapped their son.The film contains excellent performances by Stewart and Day,in a straight dramatic role,as worried and frightened parents.This film proved that Doris Day could act in suspenseful dramas as well as carefree musicals.The direction by Alfred Hitchcock is top-notch.The film keeps you on the edge of your seat every minute.The scene in Albert Hall is a classic.The original is so slow-paced and drab.I don't know how people can compare the two.Just watch the remake and you'll enjoy it.I give the movie a 9 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
This is a typical college comedy and its very average. The story is OK but not very entertaining. Its about a unlucky guy named Reno who looses his job, gets his car ripped off and then his uncle dies in a stripbar. His got a girlfriend though (a nice one btw. :-). Anyway this uncle gives him his mansion in LA and mercedes as heritage and soon Reno and his girlfriend moves to LA to this new house. The problem is that they would need some roommates in order to pay the high rent for this house and so the film unfolds... 

The movie starts OK and has a few funny jokes here and there, but the suddenly the movie takes a turn straight down to hell... The ending is BAD. Really BAD. It destroys everything about the movie. You will know what I'm talking about when you see the movie...

2/10

Sentiment: negative
A SOUND OF THUNDER. One of the greatest short stories ever written. By one of the grandest Grand Masters of Fantasy, Ray Bradbury. What a great story.

But what a vomitous movie! 

In Bradbury's science fiction short story, a company called Time Safari offers big game hunters the opportunity to go back in time and kill dinosaurs. Rule Number One is: Stay On The Path, a floating metallic walkway that ensures no interaction with the prehistoric environment. During a hunt, a man steps off the path and inadvertently crushes a butterfly. When the hunting party returns to the present - the world as they know it has drastically changed. Though there are paradoxes in any time travel story, Bradbury's tale was a quick jugular stroke, a parable of the ripple effect.

A Sound of Thunder was published in 1952 (according to Wikipedia, the most republished science fiction story of all time), and illustrated Chaos Theory, Darwinism, and The Butterfly Effect (which would only be coined in the 1960s by Edward Lorenz). In Bradbury's story, the wonder of time travel was overshadowed by corporate greed, in turn overshadowed by the mortal danger to humanity's existence itself.

While in the movie, A SOUND OF THUNDER (directed by the uneven Peter Hyams, CAPRICORN ONE, 2010: ODYSSEY TWO), a clutch of bad actors goes through the time portal again and again to try to rectify their mistakes, like an excrement version of BACK TO THE FUTURE. The movie has nothing to do with Bradbury's powerful tale, except the initial jolt of the time traveling prehistoric hunting party. Egregious liberties are taken with Bradbury's story - baboon-faced reptiles, plants overrunning Chicago's concrete, time waves rippling through the city, CGI insectoids - for which Bradbury should sue the pants and underpants and ass-hairs off the filmmakers.

Novice writers Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer and Gregory Poirier should start a Big Balls Agency, for thinking they could actually add elements to a Ray Bradbury story that would improve it. How do these guys walk in a straight line with balls this big? Ben Kingsley is the corporate owner of Time Safari, with a hairpiece so bad it looks like a hairpiece, Edward Burns is his lead hunter, Travis, and Catherine McCormack (who was Murron MacClannough, in BRAVEHEART) is the scientist with the best breasts.

I can't possibly relate the hundreds upon thousands of egregious stupidities and asinine pieces of dialog, but here is just one, spoken by David Oyelowo as some kind of "scientist": he refers to the Pleiades star cluster, "The Seven Sisters, they look like stars, don't they? But each of them is a whole galaxy." Uh, no, idiot scientist, they're actually, uh, stars.

Those three morons who rewrote Bradbury's story forgot they didn't know anything about physics or astronomy. Or writing.

Best part of the movie is Catherine McCormick's chest straining against her disheveled one-size-too-small blouses.

--Review by Poffy The Cucumber (for Poffy's Movie Mania).

Sentiment: negative
Tipping the Velvet has just three weeks ago been released in the UK and already I watch as countless letters flood to the national papers and TV guides, claiming that it possesses a thin plot, weak performances and an even weaker script.

You find me incensed. This is heresy.

I would really like to dispel all doubt by first congratulating Andrew Davies on enabling Geoffrey Sax to create this wonderful dramatization of Sarah Waters' novel by cushioning him with such a fantastic script. Kudos. But I fear I must now change tack.

I saw one of the premiere TV guides here in the UK (which shall remain nameless) relentlessly describing Tipping the Velvet as a "lesbian love story". If they are, and I assume they are, trying to promote interest in the film, then this is completely the wrong way to go about it (aside from the phrase being a disappointingly inaccurate description). By saying such a thing, they are either a) turning away those who would instinctively be repelled by "that" subject matter or b) attracting a class of people who will only watch to see some "serious girl-on-girl action". Buy a video! Through this display of serious inconsideration, this and other magazines are cheapening what is a brilliant adaptation of one of recent literature's greatest works. Tipping the Velvet is a story of love, of passion, of moving on, of loss, and of heartbreak. It's not a lesbian love story. No siree.

The end result is a stylish affair, with excellent performances all round (particularly from Stirling, Hawes, Chancellor and May). Direction-wise, it's intoxicating and immersive - sometimes, fast-paced, sometimes not - but it never ceases to be anything less than compelling. As a whole, it's polished and well delivered, the sex is undertaken with tenderness and delicacy - and although many will not class it as a real "film", it will remain among my favourites for some time to come.

Sentiment: positive
The reason the DVD releases of this film are in black and white is because nobody can get their hands on a color print of this public domain film, a modest sea story at best.

Distributed for television thru Allied Artists, DVD's (or VHS) on the market at this time for this title are all coming from the same 16MM television print. Films distributed for television prior to 1963 were often distributed in b/w prints, because the bulk of viewers did not have color sets anyway. Striking b/w prints for television was also cheaper, as it often involved quite a few prints to cover all stations running a film on a syndicated basis.

Sentiment: negative
I usually come on this website prior to going to the movies, as I like to see what other people think of the movie. I read many reviews which said 'thriller not a horror movie'. This prompted me to give this film a try. I really must take issue with these 'thriller/horror' statements, as it was neither! I almost went and asked for my money back, and if you lot of reviewers enjoyed this rubbish....well you must be easily pleased! At the end of the movie, the people behind me said out loud "what a waste of time" and I turned to them and replied " I couldn't have summed it up better". I kept waiting for something to happen...but it didn't. There was the potential for a lot of good scares (or thrills if you like) but none happened. Williams acted the part quite well but I felt he was short changed by a poor script which dithered around and went nowhere. Save your money folks, this is a turkey which will be featuring at a DVD store 'bargain box' near you in the very foreseeable future!

Sentiment: negative