DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
There is no artistic value in this movie to deserve any award. Well, it does not deserve an audience as well. Ironically, one of the awards is for cinematography but frankly, the camera movements are disconcerting to say the least. Every frame, you feel you are getting the "full picture", its like someone is "cropping your view" from the edges. The story is pathetic. Well, I will be honest, I could not bear to watch the entire movie. The part that sucked the most was when I saw the soldiers partying in their barracks and one of the soldiers coaxed to drink liquor. These and many other similar scenes reminded me so much of Steven Seagal.

Take my advice, stay away from this piece of crap.

Sentiment: negative
I for one was very anxious to watch this movie.

Though I knew it was going to be another type of movie in the style of Revenge of the Nerds, I was still impressed.

There is plenty of truth to the fact of this type of learning and believe very strongly that it should be allowed in a "new style of schooling".

Conventional teaching methods do not always teach students what they need to know or should know or want to know.

This approach to teaching should be further sought out in true academic courses.

While there still was too much of the partying scenes, it obviously had to be thrown in there - for Hollywood's sake of making a comedy about college...even though we all know that life isn't really like that by any means.

A touch unbelievable, still funny and with a killer ending.

Awesome ending. Crucial to the entire story and very surprising.

Without the final scene, the movie would have been half as good.

I liked this movie and it didn't have to have overly amounts of swearing or nudity or gross out jokes for it to be good.

Great crew and cast, story and even the generic typecasting of the obligatory "Hampton frat members" was well done.

American Pie 1, 2 3 and American Wedding or whatever clones it makes doers not measure up to this by 1/3.

Far better than most comedies about first year College with no demeaning stupid jokes to make somebody throw up with.

I liked it, even though it was simple...it was interesting and even had heart...my only regret for watching this movie is that it wasn't longer.

Sentiment: positive
In the opening scene of "Malta Story" Mr A.Guinness bore such a startling resemblance to Noel Coward that I fully expected his first words to be "Certain women need striking regularly - like gongs" or some such world - weary bon mot.Unfortunately his dialogue is hardly deathless prose and even the Master would have had trouble bringing it to life.Indeed Mr Guinness wanders through the picture as if looking for a focal point and failing to find one.And therein lies the fatal weakness of the whole movie.Mr J.Hawkins likewise gives up early on and ends up giving a "Jack Hawkins" performance without an ounce of individuality.It could have been spliced from any of a dozen British war movies.Many of the early fifties usual suspects turn up and do their schtick to very little purpose. The Luftwaffe failed to bomb Malta into submission in much the same way as it failed to bring London to its knees.The courage of the Maltese people in the face of incessant danger was recognised by the King and the island was awarded the George Cross.A worthy subject you might think for a movie,but "Malta Story" does not even qualify for the term "worthy" in its most patronising sense.It gives the appearance of being hastily cobbled together to meet a deadline,perhaps before the actors lost the will to live.

Sentiment: negative
Ok, at the beginning it looked like "Shrek" - the loner that is persistently followed by the comic relief. Then it evolves into something really compelling, as the gauntlet is set. And the result is an enjoyable movie, which has moments that I agree that are a little too dramatic for kids to watch (Manny's past, for example). The premise has been obviously worked for a long time, so that they can suceed in making a movie set with almost no different sets (only ice caps and rocks), and three characters. It's a good thing to know that they succeed in doing something emotional out of it. As I said, it can be tear-jerking at some times, so, kids, be warned. The real letdown is the animation. This wasn't so souped up like the toy story movies or shrek, and it shows. The humans are unrealistic, and we have seen better examples of CGI before. But don't let this stain the record: as a solo effort, "Ice Age" is commendable. And it will gather many fans, I have no doubt. Oh and yes, the moments with that small mouse are priceless, and show-stealing.

Sentiment: positive
I like Noel Coward, the wit. I like Noel Coward, the play write. I like Noel Coward, the composer and singer, but I loathe Noel Coward the actor.

To me this is a man who should have stayed firmly behind the scenes, writing his plays and composing his music and making his profound and hilarious observations. He should never have been allowed in front of a camera.

Make no mistake, he is one of the top outstanding talents of the 20th century but the man just couldn't act, and his voice...with it's rolling R's and it's overly round tonal quality...well it could quite easily grate cheese in my opinion.

This is one of my least favourite offerings from Coward, as he unconvincingly portrays a psychiatrist embarking on an affair with a much younger woman, made worse by the fact that the much younger woman is an old school friend of his much younger wife.

Celia Johnson is as much a joy to watch as ever as Cowards wronged wife. It is her performance that saves this film from abject dullness. I suppose her own little fling in Coward's Brief Encounter four years previously qualified her for this role as she must have raised a few eyebrows playing a such a promiscuous woman and this gave her the chance to win back a few fans and gain some lost sympathy.

She was such a wonderful actress and you can see why Noel Coward used her so much in many of his productions.

However the rest of the film is drab, badly acted, predictable and on the whole boring to almost arse-clenching level.

If its Noel Coward you want then take the time to watch In Which We Serve, Blythe Spirit or This Happy Breed instead. Three Noel Coward treasures. With lovely films like these I suppose we can forgive him for this turkey.

I have given this four stars purely for the addition of Miss Johnson, but on the whole I'd avoid this one like the plague.

Sentiment: negative
When I saw the film for the first time in the early 1970s, I was in awe of this film. Visually it was stunning and the events on campuses in Europe and USA made you relate with what Antonioni was trying to say so well visually in the final 15 minutes of the movie: blowing up in your mind the "tyrannical" establishments and big business interests. The repeated blowing up of the beautiful house in the middle of a desert, the lead female character enjoying the natural stream of cold water, painting a plane in psychedelic designs (even the staid British Airways did it a few years ago) are some of the images that were copied by advertising personnel all over the world for decades. Even Pink Floyd increased their fan following after the film was released.

You see this film some 30 years later and you begin to wonder why the same film has lost its appeal. Today anti-establishment films have more substance--facts, documentation, fine performances, and superb screenplays. Antonioni seems to be out-of-date; a flawed genius. Even viewing Antonioni's "Blow Up" today gives you the similar feeling that he is passe.

"Zabriski Point" has to be evaluated for what it was when it was released. It was a great film if you were to see it on a wide Panavision screen as opposed to the dwarfed TV screens. The visual and aural (Mick Jagger, Kieth Richards, Pink Floyd, et al.) allure of the film still remains. The lead pair were not great actors but they were cute and natural. One of them (Mark Frechette) died in prison in USA extending the reality of the non-conformist values he personified in the film.

Today, Antonioni seems out of "sync." But watch carefully and you will appreciate the muted sounds of the regular actors--Rod Taylor, G.D. Spradling, the ladies at the swimming pool, the cops at the air-strip. The real sounds in contrast are from the non-conformists. Antonioni was relevant 30 years ago but his grasp of the medium cannot be questioned even today. He knew what he was doing.

Sentiment: positive
Allow yourself to be transported to a different, old school kind of storytelling. Scoop is classic Woody Allen.

Allen's latest muse, Scarlett Johansson (who also appeared in last year's Match Point, also by Allen), is surprisingly able to tone down her sultry sex kitten appeal and transform into a normal looking student-type with the aid of nerdish glasses and outfits but still fails to make the audience believe how Hugh Jackman's lordly character can be so smitten by her, given the royal's background (don't worry, no spoilers here). There are no grand transformations for Johansson's character here, as she consistently plays the same character throughout despite the script saying otherwise. You even forgive her character's apparent lack of logic, continuing an affair with a suspected serial killer, simply because he is His Royal Hotness Jackman, who is refreshing to see sans the Wolverine duds.

If anything, consistency is what the 70-year old Allen is all about. He continues to tell his stories on celluloid in the same way he always has; as if he's never been exposed to modern film-making, which is probably what makes his quiet, simple films appealing. They never seem to aim for a specific market; as if Allen makes movies to his taste alone, whether the public likes it or not.

Sentiment: positive
Now isn't it? Considering all the good work done by danzel,Clive and Jodie, the movie never grew into something more than a horrible die-hard/heist movies copycat. Yes a couple of jokes, no absolutely no unpredictable twists, to be honest the only unpredictable moments are there because both director and editor made some stupid mistakes, it is a shame for them and a waste of time for us. IF someone can tell me why on earth were they digging a hole inside that safe, who the hell is the Rebe and how on earth did they know that the diamonds were in the particular cell, it could just make my day, but it seems that Spike asks us to take too much things in this one for granted, and do not raise our eyebrows when something looks stupid...its just another studio contract movie relax and enjoy...

Sentiment: negative
Highly enjoyable, very imaginative, and filmic fairytale all rolled into one, Stardust tells the story of a young man living outside a fantasy world going inside it to retrieve a bit of a fallen star only to find the star is alive, young, and beautiful. A kingdom whose king is about to die has said king unleash a competition on his several sons to see who can retrieve a ruby first to be king whilst a trio of witches want the star to carve up and use to keep them young. These three plot threads weave intricately together throughout the entire picture blended with good acting, dazzling special effects, and some solid sentiment and humour as well. Stardust is a fun film and has some fun performances from the likes of Claire Danes as the star(I could gaze at her for quite some time) to Michelle Pfeiffer(I could gaze at her at full magical powers even longer) playing the horrible witch to Robert Deniro playing a nancy-boy air pirate to perfection. Charlie Cox as the lead Tristan is affable and credible and we get some very good work from a group of guys playing the sons out to be king who are constantly and consistently trying to kill off each other. Mark Strong, Jason Flemyng, and Ruppert Everett plays their roles well in both life and death(loved this whole thread as well). Peter O'Toole plays the dying killer daddy and watch for funny man Ricky Gervais who made me laugh more than anything in the entire film in his brief five minutes(nice feet). But the real power in the film is the novel by Neil Gaiman and the script made from his creative and fertile mind. Stardust creates its own mythology and its own world and it works.

Sentiment: positive
In the recent movement to bring Asian films over to America, this is THE LAST movie that should be released here. Being a big fan of asian movies from all genres, I was browsing the net and came across this soong to be re-released into the US market so I decided to check it out ahead of time and rent this at a local video store.

Trust me...the action scenes are incredibly disappointing, Crouching Tiger and Iron Monkey completely blew this movie out of the water. Jet Li would fall asleep watching the fighting sequences. If you're looking for martial arts entertainment, your time would be better off with a Jackie Chan flick!!!

Moreover...you think you're going to watch a martial arts with about a girl engulfed in vengence for her parents death BUT SURPRISE!!! A good hour of this movie in the middle has is filled with dialogue, an absense of action, the lack of devloping a tangent plot, pretty much NOTHING to do with the premise we are exposed to. It has more to do with the relationship between her and the boy, and the boy with his conspiracy group in which the producer/director dedicated no time in elbaorating, and yet dedicated a portion of the film dragging the issue. Would of been much better off if they had just cut that whole hour and developed the story in itself through another film and focus on the martial arts aspect.

Speaking of which, I really don't believe the choreographer of Iron Monkey, did the action sequence in Princess Blade. I was completely insulted in the frequent usage of slow motion and quick camera changes to portray the assassins physical swiftness. I just didn't buy it.

Please...I'm warning you to PLEASE do not waste your time/money with this movie. The premise is intrigueing, and the trailer might even tempt you but I am positive that this movie is NOT suited for the public (maybe in Japan but not in the states) and will be the worst film brought over to the states from the Asian film industry.

Sentiment: negative
I know i loved this movie when i was 12-14 years old. Now that i am 24 i watched it again, and i wished i hadn't. Because all the things i laughed at when i was younger, is no longer funny. so this is an hour and a half without fun. For me the jokes were lame, not funny or just too childish. So the same thing i loved about the movie when i was a kid, is now the things i don't like about it. Besides not being funny it is not actually believable at all. The evil character is very poorly done but i guess that is the kind of movie it is. And the last 20 minutes of the movie is pretty lame with bad fighting sequences and so on... But if you are young you will probably love it. I rate this movie 4/10

Sentiment: negative
Couple having financial trouble gets a box delivered to their door. If they push the button they get a million dollars but someone they don't know will die. Do they push the button? 

This is an odd film based on a Richard Matheson short story has a few chills but mostly is a messy affair. The trouble is that there is so much going on it feels as though writer director Richard Kelly didn't know what sort of movie he was making. Is this a straight out horror film with supernatural overtones? At times it seems like it with talk of moral choices, damnation and the afterlife. Is it a science fiction film? Possibly, there are lots of questions about that Mars project. And what are the strange looks that people seem to have as if in some grand conspiracy? Is this Invasion of the Body Snatchers or a demonic take over film? Don't know, maybe. And that's the problem there are lots of questions, most of them intriguing, but there are too many. Little seems to have been explained and when we get to the end of the film things seem more to stop then to conclude (even in an open ended way). I'm all for making a film rich with themes and points but writer Kelly fills his script with simply too many that director Kelly can't handle, or does so in such away that each theme or plot thread gets its ten minutes of screen time and for those minutes it hold court before its cast off the next bit. It made me crazy. (I won't get into the two leads, Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, who aren't very good or more likely don't know what to make of the material which is so ever shifting ) 

It's a heady mix that doesn't work (there are ultimately too many holes). I got to the end and suddenly realized I had no idea what I just saw. I really didn't like it, but its more in a this isn't good because it just misses sort of a way rather. I'd take a pass or wait for cable where its not going to cost you anything

Sentiment: negative
One of the requirements of science fiction, at least before it starts to become satire, is that it be somewhat plausible. I would think that an anti-matter bomb would do considerably more damage than for what it was intended. But I'll leave that to the physicists who might have seen Solar Crisis.

It is a crisis the earth is facing because solar flares are getting totally out of hand. They're getting close to Earth, so much so that it's become unseasonably hot, as if the entire Earth were Death Valley. The answer is an anti-matter bomb which a space ship will have to take to the sun and explode it there. That will divert the flares off in say the direction of say Mercury providing it's not in direct alignment with the Earth. 

Who to deliver it, but captain Tim Matheson and his crew. That is if he can keep his mind on the business at hand and not on runaway son, Corin Nemec. Taking care of the personal side of the family problems is admiral Charlton Heston, Matheson's father, and Nemec's grandfather.

There's a villain here too, Peter Boyle who is the CEO of a multi-national corporation which in this crisis is trying to control the world's food supply for the survivors. The idea he might not survive doesn't enter into his thinking. He's doing his best to sabotage Matheson's mission.

Solar Crisis seems like a bad mix of 2001, A Space Odyssey and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. Boyle seems to be taking his cue from Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor in Superman, apparently he's the only one in the cast who realizes he's in a turkey and overacts accordingly.

The rest of the cast are stalwart, true blue and dull. Except possibly desert rat Jack Palance who finds Nemec and cares for him. 

The key here is that the film was directed by that noted Hollywood purveyor of flop films, Allen Smithee. The film gets as much as four stars for the cast involved and it was out in time for a Thanksgiving carving.

Sentiment: negative
When I was in 7th grade(back in 1977), I was asked to read the novel that this was based on as part of my English class studies. I can remember being very touched by it and excited when a TV version came out a year later.

Kristy McNichol was a popular TV actress when this film was produced and was already playing a daughter in a dysfunctional family on the hit TV series "Family". It was clear that she had the range and ability to pull off this part. I recall her as being a bit "stiff" at times, but over all she does a good job. She carries the movie well.

Esther Rolle is fantastic as the domestic who appears to be the only one in the household that seems to truly care for her. Barbara Barrie as the somewhat frightened and slightly neurotic mother is also good, as is young Robin Lively (who would eventually appear as the black widow Lana Milford in "Twin Peaks")as the sweet younger sister who seems to be the focus of the parent's affection. Bruce Davidson is also appropriately appealing as the German soldier of the title

The best performance, however, belongs to Michael Constantine. It is truly powerful and merited more recognition than it got at the time. The bitterness and coldness he expresses makes the scenes in which he appears difficult to watch, but makes it much easier to understand the quiet desperation of the rejected daughter. Constantine gives everything the right intensity and seems to have a good understanding of the underlying psychological motivations.

The film differs from the book only in some small ways. It is wonderful and inspiring to watch, and I hope that it gets released again on to video or DVD.



Sentiment: positive
I have seen just about all of Miyazaki's films, and they are all beautiful and captivating. But this one rises above the rest. This movie totally impressed me!

I fell in love with Pazu and Sheeta, and their sweet, caring friendship. They were what made the movie for me. Of course, the animation is also superb and the music captures the feelings in the film perfectly. But the characters are the shining point in this movie: they are so well developed and full of personality.

Now, let me clarify: I'm really talking about the Japanese version of the movie (with English subs). While the English dub is good (mostly), it simply pales in comparison to the original language version. The voices are better, the dialogue, everything. So I suggest seeing (and hearing) the movie the way it originally was.

Sentiment: positive
William H. Macy is at his most sympathetic and compelling here as a hit-man and loving father who wants to step out of the family business without angering his overbearing parents. Treads much of the same territory as TV's "The Sopranos" in terms of the mid-life crisis of a criminal theme (here too he visits a shrink) but is still worth watching thanks to some taut direction from Brommel (I look forward to what this guy directs next), an excellent script, and all around great performances. Macy is excellent as always. This is probably his best role since "Fargo." Donald Sutherland is at his creepy best as the domineering father. Tracy Ullman gives a surprisingly riveting dramatic turn as Macy's wife. Young David Dorfman is excellent as Macy's bright and sensitive son (many of his lines sound ad-libbed and are wonderful). Even Neve Campell (who I usually find abhorrent) is compelling as the troubled young woman who captures Macy's eye. All of this is punctuated by a moving score and crisp pace that lead up to a predictable but still powerful climax and meaningful and touching aftermath. This film deserved a much wider release, as I suspect it would have connected with audiences.

Sentiment: positive
By the time it opened, "Heaven's Gate" had become, to its detriment, more a cultural phenomenon than a motion picture. At a time when concern about excessive budgets and directorial arrogance were growing, it was a convenient target, as it was a far-over-budget work by the latest "auteur" to hit Hollywood, who had not yet established the track record that would have given him the benefit of the doubt among critics and the industry alike. As someone pointed out at the time, no one was going to jump on Warren Beatty's even-more costly and dark "Reds," because Beatty was "one of us," while Michael Cimino had not achieved that status.

But "Heaven's Gate" was also affected by a cultural change taking place at that time, the political move rightwards and toward a more unquestioning patriotism and enshrinement of the myth of the West (and the Western). A few years earlier, Cimino's demythologizing of the frontier might have seemed timely, fresh, and a necessary corrective. But by 1980, in the wake of the Reagan Revolution, it was thought of as nearly un-American.

Which is a shame, because the film, seen from the vantage point of several decades away, is a fascinating and thought-provoking look at that particular time and place as a world where life was, in Hobbes's words, "nasty, brutish, and short." Kristofferson plays James Averill, an upper-class Easterner who, in search of adventure, becomes a sheriff in Wyoming, where he finds himself having to lead a resistance by the settlers and squatters against an attack by a mercenary death-squad hired by wealthy landowners, including Averill's lifelong best friend. In a more innocent time, Averill and his rag-tag "army" of poor farmers would emerge triumphant; but this is anything but a traditional Western, and when the U.S. Cavalry joins the fight here, it isn't on the side of the "good guys."

Much like "The Deer Hunter," Cimino's previous film, "Heaven's Gate" spends a great deal of time building up the details of the lives of its principals, giving the film an at-times leisurely pace that nevertheless leads to a gripping conclusion. With excellent acting, a fine musical score, and the visual texture that makes one believe one is actually seeing the "Old West" through new eyes, "Heaven's Gate" is a film that rewards repeat viewings. I only wish that MGM would put out a new DVD, with an improved transfer and a commentary by Cimino. Nonetheless, the current version is satisfactory enough to let viewers see what critics in 1980, possibly blinded by the film's cultural subtexts, managed to miss...that "Heaven's Gate" is a great film.

Sentiment: positive
Samuel Fuller brings his customary playful and stylish direction to this seedy, pulpy story and manages to create one of the undiscovered gems of 1950s cinema.

Richard Widmark plays a petty thief tough guy (a role he perfected over the course of many movies), who snatches a young lady's (Jean Peters) wallet on a New York subway and with it a piece of much-wanted microfilm. This is 1953, so of course the microfilm is property of Commie spies who will stop at nothing to get it back. When the girl shows up at Widmark's waterfront shack, sent by an abusive boyfriend to reclaim the film, Widmark senses the opportunity to shake her and her "comrades" down for big money. The plot thickens, people start dying, and Widmark and Peters fall in love.

Fuller handles the love story clumsily, but more from a sense of indifference than bad writing or direction. It's as if he included a love story under duress, and so made it intentionally unbelievable, as love stories so frequently were and still are in Hollywood films. Peters gives a remarkable performance as a tough New Yawk cookie, part gangster moll and part damsel in distress. When violence occurs against her, we genuinely care about her well being, and it's typical of Fuller's renegade, ahead-of-his-time style that a happy ending is not necessarily a foregone conclusion.

But the ultimate success of "Pickup on South Street" rests squarely on the world-weary shoulders of Thelma Ritter, who plays Moe, a feisty lady who makes money any way she can, whether that be selling neckties or acting as a police informant. Ritter gives the performance of her career; in a breathtaking monologue, she conveys without ever directly addressing it the entire sad trajectory of her character's life, and the hopelessness she feels waking up every morning to a world of struggle, crime and hardship. It's as if every character Ritter ever played converges for one brief instant to give vent to all of the emotions they weren't given a chance to vent in those other movies. The scene is the highlight of Fuller's film, and a highlight of 50s cinema, period.

Grade: A+

Sentiment: positive
honestly.. this show warms my heart, i watch it EVERYDAY on fox family and now that the new season has started i'm even more hooked than before.. the characters are so well-developed and their relationships are so real.. i would recommend this show for any woman or mother and daughter.. the Lorelei's are super fast talking witty girls that will, truly inspire you and the show is hysterical at times and never too too serious, but serious enough for it to be completely addicting.. it's an hour long which is a major PLUS because you can't ever get enough Gilmore! even in one hour.. Emily and Richard Gilmore are KICKS (loralie's parents, Rory's grandparents) they're you're average rich parents.. Emily president of the DAR and Richard a well known lawyer and Yale alumni st.. Rory is following in the footsteps of her grandparents and this could not make them any happier, of course, Rory's mother is so very proud of her but her whole life has worked on ultimately defying her parents and Rory going to Yale did not help her on that journey but believe me, every episode she does get closer ;)

Sentiment: positive
This is by far the funniest short made by the two comic geniuses. From the time they walk in, to the time Hardy just falls off the roof, this keeps me laughing hysterically. I highly suggest that every fan of Laurel and Hardy should see this short. I also recommend all of the Ghost Series. If you are looking for laughs, see this movie and you will be happy.

Sentiment: positive
How could this get a 6.0 rating? Are we as horror fans so used to horror films being so utterly bad these days, that when one comes along that has some, and i repeat 'only some', redeeming quality's, we get much too excited and give a rating that is just a wee bit too high? The director has a certain visual flair. No doubt about that. But in between some decent shots he forgot a good story, mood or scares. It had a very slow first act, lazy killing scene's, annoying and flat characters and a very stupid and very unbelievable twist. And what's with the portrayal of American teenagers in so many of these kinds of films? Do they always have to be this stupid, irritating and so godd#mn superficial. I don't remember teens being like this when i grew up here in Holland. All things considered, in can't give this film anything more that a 4 out of 10 rating.

Sentiment: negative
The production value of AvP2 can be described by one adjective: AWFUL

The script is ridiculous, even in the fictional area of AvP: What are the facehuggers good for on the Predator's ship? Why is the Predator cleaning up all signs of his influence and than wasting precious time with eviscerating and even presenting the body of an insignificant human cop? Why is the Predator alone? Why is the Predator equipping himself only on earth but on his home planet? Why does the Predator make his job so uneasy for himself by hunting down the Aliens rather than bombing the whole countryside like the humans do in the end? Why is the Predator dropping more & more of his few weapons rather than collecting them to keep them together after using one. In the end he is even dropping his armor before fighting the Predalien in hand to hand combat: what a bad plagiarism of the first predators final fight between Arny and the Predator. The Predator's gestures are so exaggerated that he is moving more like a Japanese sumo than like highly skilled extraterrestrial-safari-hunter. As one can see immediately the whole story is a mess. But it gets even worse because this botched-up job is filled up with boring patchwork of senseless interludes like a lengthy pizza ordering episode or some detailed information about the criminal past of the two brothers (Dallas & Ricky). The Sheriff is of course the friend of these two criminals who he puts regularly behind bars. (not convincing & absolutely superfluous for the plot).

In addition to that the cast of actors is horrible. Compared to the high class of directors & actors of the former Aliens or Predator movies AvP2 is an embarrassingly bad piece of crap.

At last the action of the movie is really poor. There is not a single scene of action combat in which the audience can see the whole set. Each and every fight is filmed in short & shaky bursts with close up zoom at nearly full darkness. That results in an atrocious experience for the audience because one can mostly see nothing but a dark shaky screen.

I suggest the two directing brothers Strause to buy themselves a steadycam and get a lesson in modern CG so that the next film contains some visible action of visible figures and might not need to disguise their bad directing abilities in such a manner.

I would advise anybody (even die hard AvP fans) against watching this film: prefer the first one or the original Aliens or the original Predator films but avoid disappointing yourself by wasting your precious time on this failure.

Sentiment: negative
Okay, when it comes to plots, this film is far from believable and also a bit silly. Yet despite its many deficiencies, the film manages to work--provided you turn off your brain and just let yourself enjoy the zaniness of it all. If you can't, then you probably won't like this film very much at all.

In one of the oddest plots of the 1930s, Robert Montgomery plays a guy living near the Arctic Circle at a wireless station. How exactly he came to such a remote outpost is uncertain but into this very, very lonely and isolated existence come a steady string of guests--even though it had been years since he'd seen anyone but Eskimos.

First, Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy arrive when their plane crashes. They are supposedly on their way to Montreal--how they got THAT far off course is beyond belief! Reginald is a stuffy and dull fellow who is really worried about Montgomery, since Robert hasn't seen a woman in a very long time and Owen seems in constant dread that Montgomery is out to steal Loy for himself. As for Montgomery, that's EXACTLY what his plans are! For the longest time, you never really understand why Loy is engaged to Owen--since he is about as appealing as soggy bread.

Soon, Loy and Montgomery fall in love but this is all for naught when, out of the blue AGAIN, Montgomery's old fiancée arrives to announce she's there to marry him!! Considering that for over two years she never wrote and refused to follow him, Montgomery naturally assumed the relationship was over--but the chipper and annoying fiancée's sudden arrival is enough to destroy the plans Loy and Montgomery were making.

How all this is resolved is something you can just see for yourself. As for the film, that the plot is very silly and contrived--I can't defend this. BUT, it also is pretty funny and charming and I see this film as a kooky comedy that is just a step or two below contemporary films like BRINGING UP BABY. Silly, slight but also very charming. It's worth seeing despite not being especially believable.

Sentiment: positive
This was the worst movie I saw at WorldFest and it also received the least amount of applause afterwards! I can only think it is receiving such recognition based on the amount of known actors in the film. It's great to see J.Beals but she's only in the movie for a few minutes. M.Parker is a much better actress than the part allowed for. The rest of the acting is hard to judge because the movie is so ridiculous and predictable. The main character is totally unsympathetic and therefore a bore to watch. There is no real emotional depth to the story. A movie revolving about an actor who can't get work doesn't feel very original to me. Nor does the development of the cop. It feels like one of many straight-to-video movies I saw back in the 90s ... And not even a good one in those standards.



Sentiment: negative
I have to agree with the previous author's comments about the excellent performances and plot. Started watching this movie by accident...(lazy Sunday afternoon clicking channels to see if anything good was on)...and was mesmerized by Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez. Wow! Gut wrenching! Kudos to everyone (have always admired Martin Sheen) but was particularly impressed with Emilio! Excellent job of acting and directing...simply superb! So why have I never heard of this movie before? I'll have to spread the news.

Sentiment: positive
Nothing more than a soccer knock-off of The Mighty Ducks, this film proved to be annoying in most aspects. This was one of those times where you're parents ask you to take your younger siblings just so they don't have to deal with them for a few hours. To say the least, my younger sisters liked it, but it proved to be too much like the far superior Mighty Ducks. Oh well, at least Olivia d'Abo was hot and Steve Guttenberg still had a job at that point in time.

Sentiment: negative
The world at war is one of the best documentaries about world war 2. 

The 24 episodes cover the war and what it was like in the countries involved in it. The first episode tells us how the Hitler came to power, and how he was able to build up one of the strongest armies in the world. They also fucus on the military actions taken during the war, and the holocaust. One of the strongest and best documentaries ever made. All of you must watch this. Perfection! 10/10



Sentiment: positive
This movie starts out very VERY slow, but when the action finally gets started, it's a little had to follow. I couldn't understand why some of the events were taking place, and a lot of events happened before they were explained, making them sort of confusing. The only thing it really has going for it is the massive amount of blood/gore it has, although most times the special effects are lacking. Blood looks like red Kool-Aid. Skin tearing sounds like somebody is stepping on a pile of sticks. Again, the story has a sort of amateur feel to it, like the writer didn't take a long time to perfect it. I feel like it could be a much better movie if the effects were done better and more time was taken on the script. I honestly wish I hadn't watched it, not because of the gore, but because I feel that i wasted 90 minutes of my life. If you like extremely gory movies, this is for you, if not, stay away.

Sentiment: negative
I was surprised to discover Michael Moore or Bill Maher wasn't involved with this "movie". An American leftist laundry list of axes to grind, with a distinct sparseness of democrats in Hell. Mao Zedong and Karl Marx didn't make an appearance in Hell, but Ronald Reagan is in the same room with Hitler? Perhaps we'll have to wait for these California spin doctors to butcher Paradiso for them to show all of their pet ideologue political figures.

Cheap shots at religion, right-wing politicians, corporations and their lobbyists, Fox News, even SUVs. All the radical leftist talking points were too completely covered - while conspicuously omitting references to wrongdoing from the "other side of the aisle" - to not have been a conscious effort. The singular exception I noticed, in the hour and a half, is JFK has to have sex with Marilyn Monroe for eternity: The token inclusion in these propaganda pieces in a pathetic attempt at appearing non-partisan.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was so bad I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I had high hopes for Horrorfest that year, which was also the first year I attended Horrorfest, and I have to say Horrorfest and all of its films take false advertising to a whole new level. Mad kudos to the advertisers because I'm sure they tricked a lot of people into spending money and seeing those movies that year. The Hamiltons was easily the worst one of the ones I've seen (the other ones I saw were Unrest, Dark Ride, and Reincarnation). The movie cover and trailer made it seem like a family of cannibals terrorizing the neighborhood which I thought was a rather interesting plot, only to be disappointed at the end discovering that it was some 'coming of age' tale about a boy's transition into being a vampire. Which is why drama prevails over any sense of horror in this film. And to make the plot even more ridiculous, they add in a set of horny twins who can't wait to take a 'bite' out of one another, and some deadly creature locked in the basement, which if I had discovered what 'it' was had the secret not been revealed at the very end of the film, I would have left the theater halfway into the movie.

Complete waste of money and time. Cut forty minutes out of this film, and make it into an episode on some show like Smallville or Charmed or Supernatural and it would have received more praise than this. Absolute rubbish! So bad that two years later, I have to come back to IMDb and write a review about it because it still stands out in my memory as one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Also, while you're reading this, steer clear from the rest of the Horrorfest movies in the future. The most you could do is rent them from Blockbusters or watch it online somewhere. Horrorfest features movies from independent filmmakers who can't make it onto the big screen, and all the crap about 'stuff they don't show you in theaters', they weren't referring to blood or guts, or horror...they were referring to the movies themselves. Because they're horrendous. Think of Horrorfest as a less renowned version of Sundance Film Festival, but for horror movies.

Sorry for all the 'hate', but next time think twice before you cheat costumers out of their money.

Sentiment: negative
The first hour of the movie was boring as hell. There is no suspense, no action, not even a plot. The movie went no where. I mean they could have made the movie in 15 min short film. Overall, the movie wasn't good at all, and I don't recommend it.

Sentiment: negative
It starts a little slow but give it a chance. In the spirit of the "Wackiest Ship in the Arm" and the "Pink Sub" this movie is about a not so orthodox group engaged in not so orthodox methods to outwit everyone. Rob Schneider is priceless as a LT that takes himself way too seriously which results in a failed mutiny attempt and "pirate" crew makes him walk the plank. In contrast Kelsey Grammar(similar to Cary Grant)does not take anything to serious except the job. This movie is more about lines than plot. From the "beered up" fisherman in Charleston harbor to the "whale" decoy, their antics took me by surprise and I laughed out loud.

Sentiment: positive
Beautiful attracts excellent idea, but ruined with a bad selection of the actors. The main character is a loser and his woman friend and his friend upset viewers. Apart from the first episode all the other become more boring and boring. First, it considers it illogical behavior. No one normal would not behave the way the main character behaves. It all represents a typical Halmark way to endear viewers to the reduced amount of intelligence. Does such a scenario, or the casting director and destroy this question is on Halmark producers. Cat is the main character is wonderful. The main character behaves according to his friend selfish.

Sentiment: negative
I had to walk out of the theater. After an hour, all I was seeing was people cheating on wives, schtupping like dogs in a rut, and using the f-word like a diabetic using Equal.

No thanks.

It was especially frustrating because the movie could have done a lot. Any one of the characters could have been quite interesting if they were given more to do than fornicate, talk about it, and swear at each other.

The few times that it looked as if there were about to be some sort of character development, all that happened was another sex scene. Plot development in the 1st hour can be summarized as 1)several murders occur, 2) Vinnie sees murder scene 3) Vinnie stares moodily across Atlantic/East/Hudson River 4) Vinnie cheats on wife, and 5) Joey (most sympathetic character in the show) gets kicked out of his parents' house. More than that, I didn't wait to see.

The photography and the interplay between the characters were superb, but THERE WAS NOTHING for them to DO. The flood of sex and vulgarity was hardly worth waiting another hour for SOMETHING to happen.

Sorry, Spike. Take some lessons from Notting Hill, or Shawshank Redemption. Either one is a better study in community and interpersonal relationships.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is great entertainment to watch with the wife or girlfriend. There are laughs galore and some very interesting little nudist stories going on here. The actresses are all very interesting and definitely worth watching in their natural beauty. Maslin beach life is full of diverse nudists and personality types. The Australian coast scenery is, simply, splendid to see. What a place to visit, to say the least, and one day it may become my hideaway. I really enjoy this movie and every time I watch it I enjoy it more. I would love to see more of these characters and I always wonder what became of them. Although the plot is somewhat soft, this movie is, of course, a great excuse to just sit back on the couch and enjoy the wonderful and famous Maslin beach with these wonderful nudists and their own personal stories.

Sentiment: positive
This is by far one of the best movies I have seen in a very long time. Top 20 of my lifetime. I laughed more than I have since Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and cried more than I have since I saw The Notebook. If you are looking for a touching movie without the sappy edge...this is the one. It is real and powerful. See it and you won't regret it. I was reluctant at first and I only watched it because I had to do a school project about speech disabilities. But this movie is so much more than that. It is about life, free and independent from the way the world would have you held down. Its about the disabilities that each of us have that keep us from see ourselves and what we miss but letting everything else get in the way.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is all about reality, submarine warfare in WW2 was not a clean precise science. There were no computers giving exact enemy details, there was no precise instrumentation to 100% control the sub. Not all the crew went to fight with a song in their heart, and a smile on their dial.

People with expectations of seeing a "pretty war" in this movie will be grossly disappointed, .............. GOOD, they deserve to be disappointed, they deserve to have reality shoved into their face.

War is not clean, exact, fought by people about to break into song. It is endured by scared, cold/burnt, hungry, desperate people willing to do anything to survive.

"We Dive at Dawn" is a fine example portraying a desperate situation needing desperate actions.

Sentiment: positive
I could barely keep myself from either nodding off or just turning off this turd, but I decided to stick it out if only for the reasoning that maybe *something* would happen. This is the work of a writer/producer/director/special fx, Kenneth Herts, who wants to make a statement on ecological damage while making a monster movie. That's what he wanted, anyway. What it turns out to be is a lot of acting, either slightly hammy or just mundane and without much merit, and scenes that seem to repeat themselves as the monster ATTACKS in the river waters (oh, and what luck, a woman just happens to be naked in it... even though there have already been DISAPPEARANCES!) 

This is just nonsensical stuff, but I suppose it's not too harmful; it's not very obnoxious at the least and once or twice we get a semi-interesting peek at Brazilian "culture" (which is the father walking through town with his flock or other pieces of a semblance of 'hey, this is NOT America!'). But whatever hope the director had in casting Mitchum or Carradine is squandered on at best pedestrian and at worst excruciatingly banal and dumb dialog. It doesn't help that when we finally get something of a good look at the monster and the "action" happens, it too is stupidly staged and with only sleazy appeal. Usually I would feel sorry for a filmmaker who had a lot of problems getting a particular picture finished- in this case it took the better part of the mid 70s- but with Monstroid or Monster or whatever it's called... nah.

If you happen to get the Elvira DVD double-feature of this (bad print with bad transfer quality) with Blue Sunshine, make sure to skip this one. Unless, of course, you're an Elvira die-hard and can't help yourself to hear her luscious commentary; personally, I'd rather get Joel or Mike Nelson with the robots from Mystery Science Theater on this roast turkey.

Sentiment: negative
The Kite Runner was beautiful, poignant and very moving. I particularly loved the two child actors in the film as well as the actor portraying the father. It really made me want to go back and read the book again.

The music was a wonderful part of the fabric of the movie. If there is a soundtrack coming out for the film, I will buy it to accompany my second reading of the book. It is also a visually stunning film. The cinematography was gorgeous and really added to experience.

The Brazilian word 'saudades' is very descriptive of how I felt at the end of the film..."it is a deep feeling of longing for someone or someplace, which is very sweet but also tinged with an inescapable sadness" (definition provided years ago by Antonio Carlos Jobim).

Saw it at a small cinema here for an advance screening. I would love to see it again on a really large screen with a tricked out sound system.

Can't wait for the formal release. I will definitely recommend the film to friends.

Sentiment: positive