DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
An interesting thriller that has Paul Winfield as a detective on the case of a murder. Paul Winfield was an underrated actor who pulled off all his roles with such ease, it was hard to tell the man was even acting. Maybe most known by younger viewers as the voice/narrator of "City Confidential", Winfield ends his career with a so-so movie; but as always, Winfield shines. A treat to watch.

Erika Eliniak is well, Erika Eliniak, nice to look at but leaves a lot to be desired in the acting department. Though, to be fair, this is one of her better efforts.

Bottom line: a watchable thriller that shouldn't be missed by any Paul Winfield fan. A decent telefilm to help send Paul Winfield off to celluloid heaven. What an actor. He will be missed.

Sentiment: positive
I have to say that there is one redeeming speck in regards to this "film". It firmly establishes the bottom of the barrel. Now filmmakers know what to aim above when making a movie. Other than that I regret watching this debacle. What shameless abandon the making of this "film" was. What a waste of $100,000 (that's right folks, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND dollars). This "film" reminds me of that "Adult Video Awards" show in which of group of "industrial prostitutes" stand up a praise themselves, believing that they are real actors, actresses and filmmakers. Ironic then how I've watched blue movies with better acting, directing and writing. I also found it funny that the Executive Producer, Justin Ament, just had to be in the "movie". He plays Deputy Jake Barker. I'm sure his "acting" career has taken off... Ted Pfiffer, the writer, has a part. He no doubt was wallowing in the clichéd glory he created. It should be noted that Carrie Finklea has a lead role in the movie. You might remember her from Gus Van Sant's 'Elephant'. Though I'm not too sure that she'll want to write this film on her resume. And I'm not sure which is a more depressing point; money was spent to make this film or people are going to watch it. Along with 'Torque', 'Godsend' and 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow', one of the worst films, IF NOT THE WORST FILM, of 2004.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is based on a Stephen King novel in which mysterious new shopkeeper Leland Gaunt (Max Von Sydow) offers each citizen of Castle Rock the item he or she most desires - but there is a heavy price to be paid for these transactions. Local sheriff Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) is soon forced to deal with a variety of brutal deaths and suspicious circumstances.

Below average for Stephen King cinema: I can see why some people would think it was boring. It plods along without offering genuine scares and forces the viewer to spend time (yet again) with a bunch of repulsive losers whose hatred of each other is spooky.

I do enjoy the novel and don't believe that this lackluster movie does it justice. There are too many unfortunate changes from book to screen.

Von Sydow makes Gaunt much too charming. We're supposed to be SCARED of Gaunt at the right times, not amused by him. I also hate it that the sheriff's primary deputy (Ray McKinnon) is written and portrayed as such an annoying, Barney Fife-type moron. Star Ed Harris looks as if he was forced into doing this picture by his agent, but professional that he is, he really sinks his teeth into his dialog. Bonnie Bedelia (as Pangborn's love interest Polly) and Amanda Plummer (in one of her standard mentally unbalanced roles) come the closest to creating characters who are likable.

Yet it is also foul and mean-spirited.

Although I'll be darned if it didn't feel a little cathartic watching a bunch of unlikable movie characters tear each other to pieces. The climax has some good explosions.

I often give movies a better rating than they probably deserve, but in this case I feel I should really be honest and just say: 3/10.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was so very badly written. The characters had no depth. They should have never made a movie of this. My 11 yr old son could write a better screenplay then Hyung-rae Shim.

The only actor that didn't suck was the zoo guard. He was the only funny and believable one of the lot.

I love movies and try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this one was up there on my lame list at number 2. Number 1 being Demonicus.

For those of you who actually thought this was a good movie, you are in serious need of brain surgery.

Most of the creatures in the movie weren't even dragons...so why did they call D-war?

Sentiment: negative
As a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 fan, I can withstand ANY motion picture that can be foisted upon me, but there is absolutely no reason for this.

Rated "Super Action" in the Blockbuster Video section and given the dreaded "Restricted Viewing Sticker" I'm assuming these are the only methods that film maker (HA!) Robert Napton could use to get at least 4.50 from one unsuspecting person.

Shame on you Robert Napton! Shame on you for exploiting these poor Mexican actors who you probably promised hopes for making it big in American cinema. You are a disgrace!

There isn't one moment in this movie that holds the slightest bit of action. Did you use snot on these people? Oh, look, they're having a rave in a field! Like all 6 of them. And isn't that an Asian guy in the background? Why is it always daytime? Why did it take 1/2 of the movie to show anything.. and more importantly why did we watch the other 1/2?

PS: You owe me 4.50.

Sentiment: negative
Rex Reed once said of a movie ("Julia and Julia" to be specific) that it looked like it was shot through pomegranate juice. I was reminded of that as I snored through Purple Butterfly. This one appeared to be shot through gauze.

The story was boring and it was not helped that for large portions of scenes actors' faces were literally out of focus or would only come into focus after extended periods of time. 

Also, everyone looked the same so it was hard to distinguish among the characters. I call this the "Dead Poets Society" syndrome.

There was nobody to care about, nobody to become interested in dramatically, and the movie shed no historical light on a very interesting period of time and set of circumstances.

A total disappointment.

Sentiment: negative
Words alone cannot describe the sheer beauty and power of this film.

Think "Toy Story". Now, think "Toy Story", circa 1934. Now, imagine the animation looks as lifelike, as fluid. Think of the movie not as something adults and children can enjoy, but imagine it as a filme-noire.

Imagine trying to do something like that back in 1934. Somehow, "The Mascot" delivers. In a story where toys come to life, and one of them is trying to deliver an orange to his sick owner, Starewicz delivers a level of animation completely unexpected. It's so fluid, you will wonder for a long time whether what you see is really stop-motion animation. 

Comparing "Toy Story" and "The Mascot" is an excercise in futility, plot-wise: while "Toy Story" is a children's story adults can enjoy, "The Mascot" is a dark, chilling story aimed at adults. Meaning, NO, your kids won't like it. One bit.

Still, get it if you can. You might be able to find it along "Vampyr" in DVD and LaserDisc. And prepare to be stunned at what Starewicz was able to do back in 1934 with a couple of puppets.

Sentiment: positive
Dialogue: stilted, clichéd; Acting: hammy, clichéd; Plot: predictable, clichéd.

Just what are Christopher Plummer Nastassia Kinski doing in this "B" rubbish? Plummer was well established decades before this movie was made, Kinski had masterpieces like "Tess" and "Cat People" behind her... Must have been desperate.

The bad guys all have bad-guy accents - *bad* bad-guy accents! (Plummer especially! Where *did* he learn to do "German"?) and most of them have bad-guy sneers as well. The innocent bystanders all overdo their panicking enough to make you laugh. The good guy survives, amongst other things: * a 5" throwing knife buried hilt-deep in his shoulder - just pulls it out and seconds later is using the arm with no difficulty at all; * marines' machine-gun fire (I think someone referred to a .50) in the leg which he sorts out by tying a bandage around his pants leg and thereafter he barely has a limp; * several fist-fights in which he sustains multiple punches to the face as well as being run cranium-first into a door frame; * a fall, backwards, from what looks like the third floor, onto paving, without the slightest sign of a twisted ankle or any other such trifling inconvenience. The script has exactly 3 clever lines, the rest of the time it's all so dull and boring.

OK it's not all bad. Plummer does bring a certain class to his part, and is undoubtedly the best actor in this flick. Of course that doesn't say much, but he can do the callous villain without resorting to the ham techniques most of the villains use here. He delivers his "Ve haff vays and meance" type lines with some menace, but you are always aware you are watching Christopher Plummer acting the villain.

This movie is truly an awful waste of time. The acting, such as it is, is sort of 70's 007 movies wooden line delivery meets Bruce Lee's very obviously faked fight scenes, but it's not even anywhere near as good as either a Roger Moore 007 or a Bruce Lee film. Don't bother.

Sentiment: negative
Eric Clapton, Jack Bruce and Ginger Baker re-unite to play all their songs from 35 years ago when they formed a trio called "Cream." Those were the psychedelic days of England and America and these guys looked it: all skinny, very long hair, wild clothes and loud music. They played a combination of rock and blues and it was, for the most part, good stuff.

Well, these guys are now 60-something years old and they can still sing and play at a high level as this wonderful DVD concert disc shows us. I was always extremely familiar with Clapton, of course, who has never been out of the limelight, but I didn't know what to expect from Bruce and Baker, neither of whom I hadn't seen in decades. They surprised me. When he was young, Baker was so gaunt he looked like a speed freak near death. Now he looks healthy, in shape and his drum playing was solid. Bruce looked a bit haggard but his voice is great, as good as ever and a pleasure to hear on these old songs. This is just excellent material and performing from guys who know what they're doing.

Some people criticized this show for being low-key. I don't agree with that. I have no complaints. The concert sounded very good. The second song, "Spoonful," was outstanding, the highlight of the concert for me.

Highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
For all the Homicide junkies out there, this movie was great! Every single character that ever was on the show made an appearance in the movie. It helped to resolve some (but not all) issues from the series. Unfortunately, unless you actually did watch the series, most of the enjoyment would be lost, as the movie made heavy references to every season of the show's existence. This probably would have been appropriate as a series finale as opposed to being a separate movie, but we gotta take what we can get. I hope they make more movies, and continue to feature Homicide characters on Law and Order.

Sentiment: positive
Wow, I was told this would be a B movie worth watching. I feel that I was misled after seeing this preview event. The plot is a twisted make of several films at best. Even the title is a take on another film if you can give the movie that much credit. I am sorry to say that I was taken to the cleaners. I wouldn't waste your time on this one. This movie appears to be a bunch of wannabes who got together and made a poor idea of a movie on a weekend with a borrowed camera. Being in the entertainment business, I can judge a decent film and this one deserves to be shelved or discarded. My advice, stick to a classic like the 1979 Dawn of the Dead. On a scale of 1 to 10 even a 1 is being nice to producers because this movie BLOWS. (Below Limit Of What Sucks) The producers need to stay with their daytime jobs. If you do view the movie please be honest in your posting, this one seems to have been hyped up and inflated by a few. There are a few who have seen this for what it is and posted correctly. Sorry, but, I have to say this is one to be skipped.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was horrible. I swear they didn't even write a script they just kinda winged it through out the whole movie. Ice-T was annoying as hell. *SPOILERS Phht more like reasons not to watch it* They sit down and eat breakfast for 20 minutes. he coulda been long gone. The ground was hard it would of been close to impossible to to track him with out dogs. And when ICE-T is on that Hill and uses that Spaz-15 Assault SHOTGUN like its a sniper rifle (and then cuts down a tree with eight shells?? It would take 1000's of shells to cut down a tree that size.) Shotguns and hand guns are considered to be inaccurate at 100yards. And they even saw the reflection. What reflected the light?? I didn't see a scope on that thing. Also when he got shot in the gut and kept going, that was retarded he would of bled to death right there. PlusThe ending where he stuffs a rock or a cigarette in the guys barrel. It wouldn't blow up and kill him. The bullet would still fire kill Ice T but mess up the barrel.

Sentiment: negative
Your mind will not be satisfied by this nobudget doomsday thriller; but, pray, who's will? A youngish couple spends the actual end of the world in the hidden laboratory of some aliens masquerading as Church people.

Small _apocalyptically themed outing, END OF THE WORLD has the ingenuity and the lack of both brio and style of the purely '50s similar movies. And it's not only that, but EOTW plays like a hybridnot only doomsday but convent creeps as well. The villain of the movie is a wellknown character actor.

This wholly shameless slapdash seems a piece of conventexploitation, that significantly '70s genre which looks today so amusingly outdated. Anyway, the convent's secret laboratory is some nasty piece of futuristic deco! Christopher Lee is the pride of End of the World; but the End of the World is not at all his pride!

Sentiment: negative
This film doesn't know what it wants to be: is it making fun of action movies in general? Is it satirical? Is it supposed to be a black comedy? This is truly one of the worst films ever made.

Lori Petty is annoying. There, I said what everyone else is thinking. It's bad enough that she's such a terrible actress (Route 666, Bates Motel), but she doesn't even qualify as a mediocre b-movie actress. Her screechy voice, strange mannerisms, and poor comic timing dot this film from start to finish, until you just want to put your head in a vise and end the pain.

Do yourself a favor and avoid this movie at all costs. You'll be glad you did.

Sentiment: negative
We don't have to lose this movie, this is one of the greatest I have ever seen. Jean Pierre Leaud is amazing (more than usual) and the movie is one of the most unforgettable of the nouvelle vogue. Jean Eustache is no more on this earth, we just have this black and white images to remember one of the greatest and most subvalued french directors. You just have to love this masterpiece. I'll never forget it.

P.S.: sorry for the english...

Sentiment: positive
Compelling and Innovative! At the beginning of this criminally underrated Whoopi Goldberg flick the writers draw a parallel between Theodore Rex and the 1941 Orson Welles classic "Citizen Kane". The writers are justified in drawing such a seemingly disparate parallel, but the viewing public is too often hoodwinked into seeing overly hyped Hollywood schlock to appreciate the subtle similarities between these two movies. In "Citizen Kane" Charles Foster Kane is feared and admired by his colleagues and his underlings, much like Whoopi Goldberg in this movie. This movie is about finding love in everybody's differences. It is an epic examination of the fear of abandonment and the need for love and acceptance in a society that is dominated by greed and self-absorption. Whoever paired Whoopi Goldberg and Theodore Rex formulated a dyad for the ages, with the only justifiable comparisons being Bogey and Bacall, Hepburn and Tracy and Hall and Oates. If you would love to watch an uplifting, celluloid philosophical examination of some of humanity's deepest drives; Bergman-esqe but not as depressing, Theodore Rex should be viewed immediately!

Sentiment: positive
This is a family comedy -- in the very best senses of the term. Uncomplicatedly about faith and family, Ann Blyth, with the help of everybody's favorite Grandpa, Edmund Gwenn, gets divine help in lifting the O'Moyne's above the would-be vengeance schemes of Goldtooth McCarthy (John McIntire). Pure fun.

Sentiment: positive
This movie features a pretty decent FX sequence of an earthquake for 1936. The reason you haven't seen it, is because audiences in the 30s were enamored of the "Jeanette MacDonald picture;" in which the eponymous star warbled her way through countless songs, while plots came to a complete standstill. The FX cross time very well. MacDonald's songs do not, and the awkward insertion of said songs to show off her only typical talent is not good. 

The hoary device of two friends growing up to become a priest and a hoodlum is given another run through the machinery (Manhattan Melodrama, The Departed). At the 30 minute mark, you've already heard the song 'San Francisco' three times. Entertainment in the thirties is generally an accumulation of irritation. Only Grand Hotel from the decade foregoes annoyance to the degree shown in San Francisco, Dinner at 8, Little Caesar, Stagecoach, All Quiet on the Western Front, Les Miserables etc..

Sentiment: negative
Elizabeth Ward Gracen, who will probably only be remembered as one of Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" (they have pills for that now!) is probably the weakest element of this show. It really continues the tired formula of the Highlander Series- The hero immortal encounters another immortal with flashbacks about the last time they met, but there is some conflict, and there is a sword fight at the end where you have a cheap special effects sequence.

Then you have the character of Nick Wolf. Basically, your typical unshaven 90's hero, with the typical "Sexual tension" storyline. (Seriously, why do you Hollywood types think sexual tension is more interesting than sex.) This was a joint Canadian/French production, so half the series takes place in Vancouver imitating New York, and the other half is in Paris... Just like Highlander did.

Sentiment: negative
Telly Savalas hams it up as the Mexican revolutionary (though he's matched by Chuck Connors as a military martinet) in this jokey yet rather boring pastiche on the famous historical figure's life and times. An earlier attempt, VILLA RIDES! (1968) with Yul Brynner in the role and co-starring Robert Mitchcum, dealt with these events more soberly and on a grander scale. As such, PANCHO VILLA is an all-too typical European venture and an undistinguished one at that, despite its credentials; the end result is more often silly rather than amusing - though a few moments, most notably the action set-pieces and a scene involving a brawl inside a church, offer some mild pleasure. Oh, and Savalas even gets to sing over the end titles!

Sentiment: negative
First of all, this is an art film and a good one at that. I loved the presentation and way it was shot. Very cool. Certain scenes were some of the more graphic horror sequences I've ever seen. This film did scare me, not because of suspense or shock, but because I was deathly afraid that I'd soon see something REALLY appalling. That did happen in a few places, but mostly at the beginning. This film also dragged and the 74 minutes seemed long. However, if you're into film you have to see this. To date, I've seen nothing like it. 8/10

Sentiment: positive
"Dogmatic," as another reviewer described this film, is a fitting word. The director's idea was to present Bach without plot, acting, fun, theatrics, dialog, narrative, or drama. Mission accomplished, Monsieur Straub. "Pretentious?" Yes. "Cinematic?" No way. This is anti-cinema. No one moves. Hardly anyone talks. The camera holds static shots for 10-12 minutes at a time: very very occasionally the camera will dolly in. You may catch a glimpse of Gustav Leonhardt's fingers moving over the keys. That's it.

If you like the idea of staring at the back of a harpsichordist's (bewigged) head for 7 minutes at a stretch while listening to Bach, this is the film for you. I'd rather listen to Bach on my stereo with my eyes closed.

Sentiment: negative
This is the kind of film one watches in gape-jawed, horrified silence, and yet continues to watch, mesmerized, as if watching a train wreck in slow motion. And yet, in the back of your mind, thoughts are churning: "Who on EARTH green-lighted this garbage?"

Some of the preceding user comments say things like, "A good way to introduce children to Laurel and Hardy" -- an insult to children everywhere. That children would need some sort of training plan to learn to love slapstick comedy shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of children the world over. Others have commented on the faithfulness of the two stars' characterizations of Laurel and Hardy to which I would respond: so WHAT? One would think that the rash of movie BOMBS based on beloved series (Rocky and Bullwinkle, Avengers, Flipper, Mod Squad, ad nauseam) would have taught Hollywood that there are some things that simply can't be recreated. The films of Laurel and Hardy are readily available on video: why bother with this?

As for F. Murray Abraham, a fine actor of stage and screen... well, all I can say is, he must have been in trouble with the IRS.

Run, don't walk, away from the television if this trash comes on!

Sentiment: negative
There is nothing mean spirited or evil about this movie. It's just terribly dull. Dull is the photography--- the film stock appears old and faded and washed-out. Maybe it was even 16mm blown up to 35mm, dunno. Dull is the script, which is tedious and 'Jules Pfeiffer'-ish. That is, kind of 1960s bossa-nova cocktail party cool. Like our beatnik grandparents might have spoken if they were trying to appear really straight. The 'slice-of-life' characters were mostly annoying. True, they were real to life, but hey, if I wanted to see truly ordinary people doing really mundane and ordinary things, I'd just watch myself. I wouldn't trapse all the way down to a cinema and blow five quid, and an evening, watching someone else do it.

I expected a funny, bright rom-com. What I got was more like what two intelligent and moderately talented 19 or 20 year-olds might have produced on their first day with a new video camera.

I gave this a 4 out 10, because it appears that someone tried, at least.

Sentiment: negative
actually, it was pretty funny... in a "god, how the hell did this movie get made" kind of way. if you life making fun of movies... which i kinda do... go ahead and watch it... but if you're actually thinking "is this a good movie?" eff off.

this movie sucked from the very beginning scene with the worst acting i've ever seen in any movie.... usually they get five minutes into it before you realize "this movie might suck".. but no, you know right off the bat. this movie talks about edgar allen poe... never tried to explain it though, to people who haven't memorized poe's life story... so i don't know if any of what was said is fact.

this movie is about a writer "ethan poe" hookin up with his cousin "ann".... they're both descendants of edgar allan poe... or are they?!? apparently, people give a what their ancestors did. this guy ethan poe is actually ethan "usher", who is supposed to be descendants from the story "the house of usher" that was written by edgar allen poe. ann's brother shows up sometimes to try to rape her... ann's also being stalked, at one point in the movie, by three different people on the same street (seriously, three... they're like right behind her glaring at her and she doesn't even realize). the characters that are being murdered throughout, show up at the end to try to save the day.... but they can't. at the end, ann shoots ethan while he's trying to kill her best friend. of course, before she shoots him she has to scream out "nevermore!" this movie should be seen nevermore!

Sentiment: negative
The quality you're likely to remember after viewing The Big Knife is how claustrophobic it is. It's pacing is sacrificed to a uniform texture of dialog. It's talky in the extreme. Modern viewers will feel every point has been made (and then some) but the movie will still not move on, or do the viewer a favor and change the scenery. It's very inert. At the 45 min mark I was sure I had watched two very slow hours. My beleaguered response was, "Good God, where is this going?" It feels like Odets was paid by the word...

This is a good place to note the decline of drama from it's high point in the 40s through the conceit-laden projects of the 50s and 60s until actual filmic merit was rediscovered in the 70s, only to vanish again. Here we get show-offy, conventional, emotional outbursts from Steiger, Lupino et al. and camera moves pre-arranged to meet over-practiced blocking. This is due to the rise of the Method; the regrettable trend of sacrificing every other merit of film, to grant actors their most selfish wishes. "Great acting," ho-hum, has killed thought in movies.

Jack Palance's forehead & pompadour retract and thrust forward every time he reacts to something. It's disturbing.

This is awfully boring stuff.

Sentiment: negative
I'm a fan of the series and have read all 7 books. I wanted to see this just to see how it was done. All i can say, is that the only people who should watch this are ones who have already read the series and are curious about it. Its pretty bad, and will turn you off reading them. Not to be mean, but Lucy is so ugly it detracts from the movie. Was she the directors daughter? Seriously, I'm sure the beavers in the movie were jealous of her teeth. She had an overbite that would put any beaver to shame. The movie just loses so much in translation. CS books don't translate as easily as the Tolkein LOTR books, or even Harry Potter.

One thing they did right! Aslan! very well done. Although the other human actors with painted faces ( beavers, wolf) look silly, Aslan was really well done since it was not just a human actor walking around. ( i guess its like that old horse custume? 2 people inside? ) Also, i would be curious what kids think of this movie. Maybe they would enjoy it? But as for adults, safe bet they wont, even if a CS fan.

Sentiment: negative
The best British Comedy Film ever! For years English comedy television programs have turned into films and have flopped, 'Are You Being Served?' 'Dads Army', the list goes on. However the popular dark humoured BBC television show; 'The League of Gentlemen' has managed to not only create a film which has managed to not be a flop but has also managed to be the best British Comedy Film ever! With its dark and horrific twists and turns The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse is British Talent at its best! Its intriguing demonic storyline written by the League of Gentlemen (Mark Gatiss, Steve Pemberton, Reece Shearsmith and Jeremy Dyson) matches with the Gents (and guest cameos) superb acting! This I hope is not the end of Royston Vasey, not after this great success anyway! Don't think that if you have not seen The League of Gentlemen on the telly that you will not understand whats going on. Its all well explained and by the end of the film you will be happy with the result but you are still left hungry for more... Mmmm, Special Stuff.

Sentiment: positive
Everyone wants Duvall and Jones back, come on! Viewers are saying things like, Zahn and Urban aren't as deep...Puhlease! Were you as deep when you were young? That's the whole point: They have a lot to learn. Zahn and Urban pull off the shallow innocence they were directed to act, and with superb commitment to preserving the nuances of Duvall and Jones' input into the characters. Zahn is flagrantly perfect as the early Gus, and Urban is subtly perfect as the early Woodrow. What a bold move it must have been for them to take on such a position in the entertainment industry. They must have known they would have everyone coming down on them for not actually being the beloved originals, yet they clearly put the best effort forward. I gave it a 7 because the editing was choppy in places, and time-lines were sketchy, but the acting was a joy to watch. Val Kilmer was absolutely great. One more thing: I expect audiences would have been more accepting of the mysticism implied by the appearances of a jaguar and blue and gold macaw if more effort had been put into the way they appear and are so simply accepted by the characters.

Sentiment: positive
As predictable as a Hallmark card, but not without merit, The Rookie makes for a solid outing. Dennis Quaid, the most reasonable jock actor working today, is absolutely perfect as the science teacher turned baseball player Jimmy Morris. The film is never dumbed down for the children, as would be expected from a G rated film. As a sports film, The Rookie is one of the best I have seen since Any Given Sunday.

Sentiment: positive
First love. Teenage love. We all have experienced it even if it was not as sweet as the one the protagonists share. "Friends" could be considered an adaptation of the classic "The Blue Lagoon", originally from 1949, and its remakes from 1980 (the most popular one, with Brooke Shields) and 1999 (with a young Milla Jovovich). While "The Blue Lagoon" puts the two young lovers in a desert island, with no contact with civilization, "Friends" goes the opposite route and it is sure to ring much more true and be a more difficult movie with contemporary audiences. Paul and Michelle who, for different reasons, turn their backs on family and the adult world to end up living together in a small cottage in Southern France. Having only each other and their childhood innocence, their friendship slowly develops into much more as they struggle to sustain themselves, in this sweet coming of age story. This film even to this day is controversial since the actors are teenagers and they certainly look the ages that are stated in the movie (15 and 14 1/2). The movie does contains a hint of child molesting, nudity, depictions of teenage sex and teenage pregnancy. But the real controversy is not the subject matter but the fact that Paul and Michelle's love is presented as a natural and healthy relationship. While this worked fine for stranded lovers in another time and in a desert island, having them in a modern setting presents some very difficult moral issues. Laws prohibiting consenting sex between minors are in effect in almost all countries and lack of sexual education in teenagers is seen as one of the causes for the rise in unwanted teenage pregnancies and abortions. Is a movie like this one just child pornography or a slap in the face to make us face our own hypocrisy, regarding a modern society that does not cater to teenage parents and laws that clearly go against human nature and hormonal development but that are needed to prevent child abuse? Is hormonal development parallel to emotional growth? These are not easy questions and most of us will feel uncomfortable with them. As an artistic piece, this movie is really a forgotten and rough gem. The script progresses with extreme simplicity, albeit some sappiness, but never pulling any punches to state its message, although by today standards, it is somewhat slow. The photography is beautiful and it has scenes of great beauty. The acting of the two protagonists varies from really awful in some scenes to marvelously innocent and credible in others. Pop music, unlike most productions nowadays, is used tastefully and sometimes the lyrics speak the thoughts of the protagonists. Overall, this is a delightful piece, even if the moral values are not in concordance with your own.

Sentiment: positive
Sarah Silverman is really the "flavor of the month" comic right now. Is she really worth all the hype? Yes and no. She is funny at times, sometimes hilariously so (her standup routine is actually quite interesting, though not always funny). Other times, you're feeling cheated by the media for overhyping yet another performer. She is one of those really cute comedians that men especially flock to, saying that they dig her intelligence and wit. But if you corner them, most men will admit that they just want to sleep with her, and that's why they watch her. She reminds me of why many men flocked to Margaret Cho and Janeane Garofalo, even though neither of them are really "hot" now in terms of popularity. Sarah doesn't drink or smoke (at least cigs), so she should be hot when she's 60, so her fans (especially the male ones) can rejoice.

As for this show, it's very much like her comedy. When it works, it's hilarious. When it doesn't, it's full blown tedium and very, very boring. The AIDS episode here is the best one. It's consistently funny, and has some really good satire in it. Brian Poeshn's character has an unhealthy obsession with Tab in one episode, and it's hilarious seeing him in a Tab T-shirt. But they never really go anywhere with it, and it eventually wears out its welcome. Sarah's character in the series is rather annoying, the gay couple (Brian Poeshn and some other guy) seems tacked on and never really does anything for the show as a whole, and the supporting players (including Sarah's real life sister, Laura, who doesn't look a thing like her) are OK. When the jokes hit, they're brilliant. When they don't, they're awful, and I mean really awful. There's also an obsession with coprophilia here (aka poop jokes), which seems to have replaced actual wit and intelligence in comedy today. So should you watch this show? If you have a crush on Sarah, go for it. You can gaze at her and pretend she's yours. As for her show, it's ranges from good to absolute zero.

Sentiment: negative
In Everything Is Illuminated, Elijah Wood plays Jonathan Foer, a Jewish American who is looking for the woman who saved his grandfather during WWII. In a sense, the woman that saved his entire family.

This is a heart-felt tale about someone who is on a seemingly hopeless journey. A stranger in a strange land so to speak. Jonathan is not entirely prepared for this adventure, he sticks out like a sore thumb in the Ukraine (he would probably stick out like a sore thumb anywhere). But what he discovers is more, much more than he anticipated. This movie will make you laugh and will make you cry. Elijah Wood is really good in this film, based on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer.

From someone I talked to, this movie is somewhat different from the book. A book I gather is really good. Nevertheless, this is a good movie, it has something for everyone and I really enjoyed it. Can someone say Oscar?

Sentiment: positive
We'll never see this movie broadcast by HBO in the near future if at all. If anyone somehow comes across it in a video store just grab it before someone else does, because I doubt if it ever will be re-released again. 

An unbelievable and timely movie about the first attack on the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 and how the government agencies who's job it is to identify and stop terrorists from doing harm and damage to American citizens and American property completely fell down on the job and unwittingly allowed it to happen.

Bone chilling since we all know now that the terrorists who were apprehended at the end of the movie weren't going to be the end of our nightmare that resurfaced on September 11, 2001. 

The film brought out everything that went wrong back in 1992-93 that allowed that first tragedy at the WTC to happen. Still it took another eight years to realize that we should have learned from that first WTC attack to be more vigilant and ready to prevent the second and far more devastating assault on the World Trade Center to happen. I found this movie harder to watch after the events of 9/11 then the video of the attacks of 9/11 themselves. 

All I can say about this film is don't watch it alone. The very ending itself is so powerful as well as prophetic that it would leave you in a state of shock in knowing what we know today and possibly in need to have someone who's with you, but not watching the movie, to call for medical attention.

Sentiment: positive
What we have here is a film about how the pursuit of money & revenge can corrupt your soul... or something like that. Guy Ritchie, a director known for his reworking of the gangster genre, bites off more than he can chew with this one.

His use of modern film noir to tackle the theme of a man setting himself free by swallowing his pride, being nice to his enemy & giving away all his money falls flat on it's face. When Jason Statham's character no longer fears Ray Liotta, it apparently drives Liotta crazy enough to blow his head off in the final scene. Why? Basically you cannot set up a mafiosi like the Liotta character, who has presumably got to his station in life by displaying the kind of ruthless behaviour evident throughout the film, only then to have him driven to suicide by nothing more than a pitying smile on the face of Statham's character.

Before anyone starts to say I'm missing the point... I'm not. I get it OK? Opt out of the quest for riches & you'll find true happiness and inner peace. Be nice to your enemy and this will confuse him into self-destruction. This seems to be the gist of the movie and in itself this is not a bad premise for a story, although hardly original. The problem is that Ritchie simply doesn't have the skill as a movie maker to carry it off. At the moment when even Guy Ritchie realises this, he appears to get bored with the story and begins to insert red-herrings: The scene when Statham gets knocked over by a car - Why? The shooting of some scenes as Marvel comic animations... again, why?

There are so many loose threads & unanswered questions left at the end of the movie you could get all 2001-ish about it and try figuring them out, or simply accept that there are no answers & each viewer will interpret things in their own way. Myself? I was so bored with the pompous tone of the film that I simply didn't care. Frankly the ending couldn't come too soon so that I didn't have to sit through any more of this pretentious psychobabble.

A waste of two hours of my life.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is just plain terrible!!!! Slow acting, slow at getting to the point and wooden characters that just shouldn't have been on there. The best part was the showing of Iron Maiden singing in some video at a theater and thats it. the ending was worth watching and waiting up for but that was it!! The characters in this movie put me to sleep almost. Avoid it!!!

Sentiment: negative
Cannot believe my eyes when read quite a bunch of other comments and reviews. As if it were a mediocre movie of some run-of-the-mill dudes.

The movie is great, funny, crazy, over-the-top violent though with minimum gore, and all the way energetic to the core. Loved every single bit of it. Can't remember anything insane like this made for laughs and martial art showing off. And now the most important thing (at least to me): it is computer effects free. When I watch some Hollywood actors duking it out on screen in modern high-resolution and damn high-budgeted action "fuflo" (a Russian word that means "bull*beep*"), I understand that any *beep* child can do it - you can adjust the wires to the body, add some cute PC effects, and stuff it into the action film. Here it is different. I don't think that there will be even a dozen of physically advanced action stars worldwide, who can repeat the brawl that takes place at the end of the film or the "Chinese football" play. And it is just a little Hong Kong cinema made for fun, not pretending to be "Star Wars".

Having a DVD with English soundtrack is not a problem with this movie. It does not spoil the atmosphere to me.

Can't help mentioning a very neat theatrical play. Some of you, suppose, won't like it. As to me - it's amazing. Have a look at the Dragon's friend who is talking in a brave manner to the criminals and all of a sudden gets a fist punch in his left side of the head. His face expression changes into something whimsical and he comes up to Dragon with a baby expression. And take a look at the menacing size of his mouth - it's nearly from one ear to the other long when he makes grimaces.

This movie deserves a higher rating and a thousand comments from people all over the world. Very thankful to our Russian industry for the releases of classic Jackie Chan movies. His modern ones are much weaker in my humble opinion and do not deserve much hype.

Total 10 out of 10 - a legendary movie in its genre. Thank you for attention.

Sentiment: positive
Simon West's remake of the 1979 horror classic is a pathetic attempt to bring old school thrills to a contemporary audience. Starring talented teen Camilla Belle, When a Stanger Calls fails to even elicit a shocked, or even surprised face. Poor attempts at scaring the audience range from blurred coats that look like people to building the tense music up for a cat running out of the shadows. The plot follows Jill Johnson (Belle), a teenage girl that has to pay off a bill to her father via babysitting. She is invited to work for the night at a house by the river, and thinks it a perfectly easy way to make cash. But little does she know, a stranger lurks in the house, and constantly harasses Johnson via the phone. A pathetic excuse for a film.

Sentiment: negative
In my opinion, this film has wonderful lighting and even better photography. Too bad the story is not all that good and Mr. Cage sometimes loses his accent. But two thumbs up for lighting and the DP!

Sentiment: positive
Well, I don't normally think there's such a thing as a HORRIBLE movie, but this is pretty damned close! The best acting performance in the whole thing was Snoop Dogg, who has one line in a 10 second scene. I agree with the "glad it was short" review. The music videos at the end were cool though.

Sentiment: negative
Horror movies can be a lot of fun with low budgets, bad acting, and a bit of panache. I think the film is just missing panache, because, one thuddingly dull scene after another, people make laughably harmless claw-handed grabs at the air. If it weren't so boring, it might be funny.

A horror film can go a long way with a tired concept like "college kids in a haunted house," in much the same way the Evil Dead movies had a lot of fun with a similar standard plotline. Hallow's End, unfortunately, doesn't go a long way. Actually, it doesn't go anywhere. It spends the better part of an hour setting up faceless and anonymous characters with what seem like endless interpersonal drama. I have nothing against character development, not even in a horror movie, but these are strictly one-dimensional characters (the alpha-male, the milquetoast, the... um... throwaway characters that exist mostly for sex scenes.) Spending forty-plus bloodless, droning minutes with them was more horrific than when the bloodshed started.

Well, implied bloodshed anyway. When the college kids turn into whatever they dressed as for their haunted house (one's a vampire, one's wearing O.R. scrubs and some white pancake) they look pretty much the way they did in their amateur haunted house costumes; The Dead Hate The Living, using a similar theme, is a masterwork in comparison. There isn't really any gore to speak of, nor are there any real scares.

I've thought about this one from almost every approach. If it was supposed to be a tight, suspenseful horror movie (which would explain why things moved so slowly), the pathetic sex scenes and cheap monsters would invalidate it. If it was supposed to be a genuine blood & guts horror movie (which would explain the schlock)... where's the blood and guts? And the anticlimax is one of the unexciting endings to a movie I've ever seen. It's the kind of movie that, though it doesn't have a narrator through the film, is bookended by voice-overs because all of the meaningless dialogue just wasn't enough.

This was a hard one... coming out of it, I wonder if I've just sat through a christian horror film. Maybe the "I know hell exists" of the opening wasn't meant that way, but there are some hints (or misdirection-- I'm not sure which). For all the profanity in the film, a line like "gosh-darnit" comes off a little absurd, and so does most of the crucifix worshipping, god-fearing, and satan-dreading, especially after some lecherous T&A sex scenes (one heterosexual, one lesbian).

If it a christian company (Highland Myst's logo even has a bit of a crucifix resemblance), then this film weighs in heavily for the atheist camp. An omnipotent being can't be this bad a filmmaker.



Sentiment: negative
This movie was awesome!! (Not quite as good as the Leif Garrett masterpiece Longshot) but still awesome!! I thought Ashley looked freakin' huge compared to Mary-Kate in this film. I wonder why. Who woulda thought they could swith places like that and almost get away with it. Dad was kinda a jerk though and Mom was a little too chummy with Helmit Head. I give it 4. Any one who likes this movie shoudl check out Longshot.

Sentiment: negative
I think this show is screamingly funny! It's not for every taste, and I'm not going to elevate or denigrate the folks that don't get it. I'm sure they're wonderful bright people that operate at a different wavelength. But if you like it, you REALLY like it. Sarah plays a self-infatuated loser named "Sarah Silverman" who often finds her self in Homerian predicaments (that's "Homerian" as in "Homerian Simpsonian").

I remember Sarah Silverman from her brief gig on Saturday Night Live in the early 90's. I liked her immediately then and I go out of my way to check out anything she's done.

This show is choke-on-your-food-and-wet-your-pants funny. Therefore I always fast before watching it and wear adult diapers. Check it out!

Sentiment: positive
I had never heard of this film until I came across it by accident when browsing IMDB. I saw it had gotten many awful reviews containing very colorful expletives on how much it stunk. Of course this meant I had to see it. I was pleasantly surprised as Whipped is actually rather a good movie. I watched it with a group of friends and we laughed more than we had at many recent highly acclaimed Hollywood fluff comedies. This is an independent film and as such portrays its subject matter (sex and dating) without the usual Hollywood fakery. I distinctly suspect that people's opinion of this film will depend very much on their experience of life. If you've never dated or partied much you won't get this movie because you won't have met people like these characters. If you have, you'll recognize many of the situations that portrayed here in comedic fashion. The ending was also good, as it did not portray women as unreal, helpless, virginal romantics in contrast to many Hollywood movies.

Sentiment: positive
If you lived through the 60s, this film can be at times painful and other times quite joyous. It's all there but the small print in the counter culture tabloids prevalent at the time. These are the roots of a social revolution that is still playing out: "don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spin, for the times they are a-changin'". While the film focuses on the revolutionary nature of LSD and it's dissemination at the time, that alone played a tremendous hand in the evolution of the intelligentsia, influencing engineers, scientists and aiding in the hyper-development of computer related activities. A salute to the filmmakers from one who was there - you've captured the era better than I've seen before.

Sentiment: positive
This fabulous movie must be viewed knowing that millions scraped together 10 cents to see it and forget the gloomy day-to-day economic conditions during the 30's. Remember, 10 cents bought a loaf of bread back then, so this was a minor luxury for many people. It's testimony to how Hollywood did its best to make the USA feel a little better about itself. You'll note that with the studio system in Hollywood at the time many of the actors and actresses were type-cast in similar movies, e.g. James Cagney, William Powell, Ruby Keeler, Frank McHugh, Joan Blondell and Guy Kibbee . Then too, branches of the U.S. military were always respected with enthusiasm and patriotism as in the use of military precision marching by the great choreographer, Busby Berkeley, at the end.

Sentiment: positive