DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This adaption contains two parts: 

1. The "now" time, when Gulliver is at home in England and soon is put into a mental asylum by the Evil Dr. Bates 

2. The "described" time, in which Gulliver describes his travels.

The times are interspersed with a very choppy tempo, which makes willing suspense of disbelief far more difficult than it would have been if the movie simply would have discarded that part, and followed the book as written. In the book, there is no Dr. Bates, no asylum, and Mrs Gulliver gets very little mention. The travels - in plural - are depicted as one in the movie. There are several movies covering the topic of sane people dumped into asylum by some nasty person out there, look at them if you want that stuff. The "now" time part adds absolutely nothing to the story's value, is a complete invention by the movie adapters, and takes valuable time from the real story. All the time when this was going on I was longing for the next bit of real travel to be shown.

So much for the drawbacks. The parts which actually are part of the real story are well done, and the CGI is really well done for its time. Many small (and a few medium-sized) parts of the real travels are simply cut out, but that does not make the story halt. This is AFAIK the only version which depicts all four travels, and for that the movie should get special mention. 

The two interspersed parts get approximately equal time. I rate the first part 0 out of 10, and the actual travel coverage as 8/10. Averaging out, I give it a 4/10. If only they would have cut the rubbish and focused 99% on the actual travels, since that cut would have freed up a lot of time much better spent on filling in the details cut from the travels. 

Why some adapter think that he is gifted enough to improve upon Swift's work, I do not know. My best guess is that CGI was so costly back in 1996 so that the movie company felt a need to incorporate a lot of filler which did not need elaborate sets, GCI, etc. in order to keep total costs under some limit, while at the same time producing a mini-series which clocked in at some set number of minutes.

Sentiment: negative
I smiled through the whole film. The music is great. The story-telling is great. It's a wonderful film. This picture is made with respect and a true love of the sixties.

Sentiment: positive
I think the biggest disappointment in this film was that, right until the end, I expected the acting instructors of the cast to break in and apologize for how poor the acting was. When you consider the powerful subject, the brilliant scenery and the effort made in creating a wonderful set and spectacular images, it is a shame that little attention was given to acting.



Sentiment: negative
This is a must see for independant movie fans, but it also holds up well against mainstream movies. I think we have the makings of the next Woody Allen or

Trentin Tarrentino here.

The budget is painfully low. No special effects whatsoever, and they seemingly used ambient lighting (shot in digital video.) -And yet this movie grabs hold of you and never lets go. The screenplay is somewhat bizarre, yet the actors and director pull it off with complete realism. It has humor, it has intrigue, and it has pathos, and it all works together.

No point in describing the details. If you want to see an independant

masterpiece, a virtual lesson in how to make a low budget flick that really works, see this one.

-Oh yeah, it's also REALLY entertaining.



Sentiment: positive
FC De Kampioenen's only reason for existence is it's local popularity. It has caused this sitcom to run for over 15 years (and still counting).

It deals about an amateur soccer team with the emphasis "amateur". Every storyline deals with the same subject: some misunderstanding that takes ridiculous (and predictable) proportions, to get resolved in the end.

The show's been running for over 15 years now, and the production probably decided not to change a winning team. Which means that the show has had minor changes over the course of years (besides a couple of actors getting replaced (they nearly all left by themselves rather than being thrown of the show)). The humor hasn't changed a bit over the years and it was already outdated when it first aired in the first place.

I guess you have to be Flemish to get this, and over 60 years old, to enjoy such an old fashioned TV show as this.

Sentiment: negative
Take away all parts of the movie that were "present" day and stick to the flashbacks. Then you would have had a great story. Faith and Wolf's story and their relationship was the best part. Diaz and Eccleston were wonderful. Brewster was ponderous to sit through. Surprised to see Blythe Danner as mom. She was great. Also look for Patrick Bergen as the father, always like him (Sleeping with the Enemy). This is a very hippy, save the world, kind of film. Don't care for it much, but I recommend seeing it for Diaz's performance alone. She has excellent range and it should be used more. Eccleston is, as always, compelling. He's wonderful!

Sentiment: positive
I first heard of Unisol 2 when I drove past a cinema when I was on holiday in America. I really did not take much notice of it until I bought the original on DVD which led me to find out about its three sequels. I subsequently started to read about The Return on the IMDB and asked friends what they thought of it. Despite their horrific criticisms of it, I still went out of my way to see it and was on the brink of buying it until I saw it for hire on DVD. I wasn't expecting much but thought that it must have been half decent to get a theatrical release in the US, after all, how often is it that you see Van Damme on the big screen? Well, nothing could have prepared me for this. It is so bad I almost cried. What a total waste of 80 minutes and £2.50. It is hard to explain how bad this move is. Honestly. This is idiotic film making. No, it's more than idiotic. I just cannot believe how this got made. I cannot believe that someone out there has not murdered Mic Rogers. How stupid can people possibly be - firstly, Van Damme actually thinking the script and finished film was good. Secondly, the fact that Xander Berkley, of Terminator 2 and Air Force One status, commited himself to this film. I simply cannot believe the stupidity of this movie. It takes itself so seriously but comes across to the audience like a spoof. Here is an example: JCVD's daughter (yes, Luc is now a human again)- "I want my Daddy", SETH- "So do I". Oh yeah, and some guy tries to shut down SETH by pulling three huge levers with - wait for it - ON and OFF written on them. The acting all round is like playschool acting. I'm sure Mr Director modelled Luc's reporter girlfriend on April O'Neil from the cartoon Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles - she refuses to go because she '...needs her story'. I mean come on - how many cliches can a film possibly use? Please listen to me fellow IMDB users - don't touch this with a barge pole. To conclude, Universal Soldier: The Return has no relation whatsoever to the first movie. In fact, if they weren't called UniSols then you would never know it was a sequel. Luc is now a human again - what the hell!?! The only place in which he can access the internet is in a stripclub. All the new Uni Sols look like they were dragged off the street, they are that unconvincing. This is pure torture to watch, so do yourself a favour - don't torture yourself. P.S - Best part of the movie: Romeo jumps off a building and shouts 'Oh sh*t'.

Sentiment: negative
I admit - I was lured to this one from the hype - and I didn't stop to consider the sources. "one of the best indie exploitation flicks of the year (1999)", shocking", and " a must have ".

Well - I wasted my money. But not all was bad in this movie. THey at least got the gore right, as well as some of the most unique methods of murder seen in a long time. There is even a storyline (kinda) and that is about it.

But for an exploitation film there is a surprising amount of content - but no exploiting. We get gay sex - sorta. We have 3 inter-racial babes - maybe. We have a psychotic Vietnamese hooker - nice back, oral sex (ok that made me wince) and some female version of Gene Simmons (I don't get that part). We have an honest to goodness Capone - rates among the best of the actors in this film - that is not a compliment. And finally we have a government conspiracy thrown in to - I don't know - try to connect the vengeance/random/theme killing by Jimmy boy to make the Vietnamese psycho seem sane??????? If nothing else this movie proves that the Italians and the Americans do not have a lock on this type of movie. The Latinos can make crap as well as the rest of them. Kudos goes to anyone involved in this accomplishment that overcame it and made a career for themselves.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this film a while ago on a Video CD.

I will 1st mention the good points.

The movie, at first, at least tries to appear that it is not biased, like not showing one character as black and the other as white. Both main characters are friends and co-exist very well in an country and economy that is not booming while at the same time not failing. Their families get together and have parties and they practice their favorite sport, Sport Rifle shooting, as comrades not as competitors.

But, after the 1st 15 minutes the plot runs into a fork in the road. The audience is expected to believe that for some unknown reason these friends must hate each other. That for some unknown reason Bosnia is now on a path to conflict. Sure, the script adds in TV footage which the characters appear to be watching live news programs in English, but the clips are from 1993 not 1992 when the war began.

The history, the 1990 elections, the people who caused the war are not mentioned. The movie tries to place the blame with Karadzic, who had been a Presidential candidate and leader of the Bosnian Parliament's 2nd Largest Party(SDP). According to the Constitution of Bosnia, the SDP was to have the Presidency in 1992, but there was a Coup in January. The Bosnian Islamic Democratic Action Party seized total control and held a segregated referendum in March in which it declared itself the law in Bosnia and announced Secession.

The history of the IDAP begins with Bosnian Muslim Alija Izetbegovic, a man suspiciously absent from "STtH". He was a student of Nazism in WW2. He even wrote his own "Mein Kampf" in which he stated: "It is not in fact possible for there to be any peace or coexistence between 'the Islamic Religion' and non-Islamic social and political institutions".

In 1990 he lost the IDAP elections to "pro-Yugoslavia Moderate" Fikret Abdic, a Bosnian Muslim, that worked with Christian Serbs during the Civil War, and who treated his supporters like brothers. Abdic was prevented from taking power by Izetbegovic, who lost the elections but seized the seat of power.

The events from above are missing from the movie, but they are the factual events that lead to the war.

There were problems with props too. Serb soldiers in the movie were wearing Soviet WW2 helmets, which they did not use. Also the one soldier was holding an M-1944 WW2 rifle only used by USSR not Yugoslavia.

The Director and Script Writers had a chance, but they chose to re-write history.

Sentiment: negative
Baba - Rajinikanth will never forget this name in his life. This is the movie which caused his downfall. It was released with much hype but crashed badly and laid to severe financial losses for its producers and distributors. Rajinikanth had to personally repay them for the losses incurred. Soon after its release, he tried venturing into politics but failed miserably. Its a very bad movie with horrible acting, bad-quality makeup and pathetic screenplay. Throughout the movie, Rajinikanth looks like a person suffering from some disease. I'm one of the unfortunate souls who saw Baba, first day first show in theatre. The audiences were so bored that most of them left the theatre before the intermission. Sorry, I'll not recommend this one to anyone.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of those films that looks so "dated" that being that way is part of the fun. You see and hear things you would NEVER see or hear on the silver screen today. Some of that is good; some it too corny for words, some of it bad (depending on your viewpoints on certain cultural issues.)

For instance, in this short (68 minutes) 1931 film you have:

The grandpa of the family that is featured in this story extolling the value of patriotism and why one should speak up against criminals for the good of the United States (picture that in today's films!)

A district attorney (Walter Huston) almost begging for death penalty sentences and the populace shown as supporting it 100 percent (once again, picture that in modern-day movies.) 

Along the way you have some shocking violence, such as a young boy being picked up a few times and literally thrown head first into a closet, and his father being picked up and swung repeatedly head-first into a wall. This is a tough stuff, to say the least. 

Yet the film is dotted with comedy, mostly by the patriotic grandpa, memorably played by Charles "Chic" Sales. There are a bunch of laughs for all those who view this unique crime film. And, for soft touches, there are the two young boys, one of whom - Dickie Moore - went on to become a pretty famous child actor in his day. Here, he is just a little tyke of about 5 years of age who, understandably, is far from being a polished actor, but you can see stardom for him on the horizon. In fact, he did just that the following year with a solid performance in "Blonde Venus," starring Marlene Dietrich.

Anyway, this is an entertaining film because of an effective mixture of violence, comedy and sentimentality....and it has a nice feel-good ending and a thought-provoking message. It was up for an Academy Award, too, for "Best Writing, Original Story." I am sorry to say it is only available for viewing on cable TV as it has never been put out on VHS or DVD.....and that's a shame.

Sentiment: positive
I am surprised people, after such lousy movies getting to be in the top 250 or just being in the 7.0's, I thought more people would get a kick out of "Throw Momma from the Train". This was a great comedy by two terrific comedic actors, Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito. Together they made a great duo of insanity and obsession. Billy is a man who just lost his million dollar story to his ex wife and repeatedly wishes her dead, Danny has an insane and senile old mother who just abuses him. When Billy gives some "misunderstood" advice to Danny, Danny offers a proposition to Billy, if he kills his ex wife, Billy has to kill his mother. This is a crazy and funny story that can always get a good laugh. Please, sit back and enjoy this movie, people! It's a good one!

7/10

Sentiment: positive
This was such a great film. It was done with such beautiful design, such symmetry. I love the way the classical music tied in with the classical art of earth, space and beyond. It was such a fluent, and thought provoking masterpiece. I loved the way the monoliths never changed, although primate, earth and space did. I loved how it was a question of "Do you need me/us now"? The movie expressed desire, peace, love, curiosity, finesse, gentleness, courage and innocence. What more could you ask for from a mere movie? Perhaps a complement movie. Any appreciator of 2001: A Space Odyssey will find the movie 2010 is 2001's complement movie. 2010 is more story orientated than 2001.

Sentiment: positive
Okay, I'll admit it--I am a goof-ball and I occasionally love a really silly comedy. While I have seen more films by Kurosawa, Bergman and Truffaut than practically anyone on the planet, I still have a soft spot for a dopey comedy that doesn't try to be sophisticated but is simply funny. A few such films that immediately come to mind are MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL, UHF, START THE REVOLUTION WITHOUT ME, STRANGE BREW and the Bill and Ted movies. They all lack snob appeal but only a zombie or professional film critic could dislike them.

While BILL & TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY isn't as wonderful as the original Bill and Ted film, it still is great fun. Also, unlike the original, it actually seems to improve with repeated viewing. I remember not loving the film the first time I saw it--possibly because the other movie set such a high standard for laughs. But, every time I see it again I am amazed at all the great moments--particularly those involving the Grim Reaper. And, by the way, this reaper is about as different from Bergman's in THE SEVENTH SEAL as you can get!! In addition to a lot of laughs, this film features some excellent music--one way that it's actually better than the first film. The Kiss anthem at the end is great but so are the rest of the hard rock tunes--provided you aren't an old killjoy like De Nomolos. Great viewing for kids and adults alike.

Sentiment: positive
Even though this was a made-for-TV production, there's absolutely no excuse for the rock bottom results of the finished product. This movie DID have a budget and it had a casting department, so, if you're going to make a movie about a true life story, and actually put "the true story" in the title, shouldn't some effort be put forward to try and capture some realism ? First of all, this movie is absurdly cast. These actors belong in daytime television soaps, or in those ridiculous Lifetime channel movies, and not in a real-life gangster/criminal tale. Everything about them, from their looks to their mannerisms, just screams of the 90's-shopping-mall-alt-rock-listening generation. What about the script ? Two words describes it - stupid and insulting, and again it's way too 90ish sounding. I don't think the real Clyde Barrow ever uttered the words "I'm outta here." It's as if a bunch of "New Kids on the Block" fans got together and decided to make a really "kewl flick" about Bonnie and Clyde, you know, one that would be totally rad and rockin'. Well, this sticker doesn't even rank on the rad and rockin' scale. Everything that can be wrong with any kind of film is wrong here, from the casting and acting to the editing and music. Every single thing is grossly wrong....and it's infuriating that the parties responsible for this atrocious turkey had the nerve to put "the true story" in the title. It's certainly NOT the true story, but even worse, it's not even remotely entertaining as a mindless popcorn flick that's accepted on its own terms. Like I stated in my heading, it's simply horrible beyond words, on every level imaginable. Trust me on this, or watch at your own risk.

Sentiment: negative
'Hitch' is a nice surprise: A romantic comedy that actually has romance and comedy. Most romantic comedies for me range from mediocre to horrible because they are not funny or romantic. 'Hitch' takes actors like Will Smith, Kevin James, and Eva Mendes into a fun, light-as-a-feather journey that actually had me laughing and, yes, a little "aww, how sweet!".

Meet Alex Hitchens (Will Smith), aka Hitch. He's a self-proclaimed 'Date Doctor'; he helps hopeless guys like Albert (Kevin James) win guys like Allegra (Amber Valletta). Unfortunately, Hitch has to deal with Sarah (Eva Mendes), a gossip columnist bent on breaking the Date Doctor...

'Hitch' is actually pretty funny, and it even makes the standard slapstick scenes work simply because the cast is so energetic and clearly having fun. I have to wonder why Will Smith hasn't made more movies like this. His sharp, rapid-fire delivery is perfect for this genre, and his chemistry with Mendes and James is wonderful. James is a real discovery; I have never seen his show 'The King of Queens', but he is funny and heartfelt, and he proves once more that fat white men cannot dance hip-hop (Smith's responses to his attempts are hilarious). Mendes is hot and bouncy (not that way, geez) as Smith's perfect match, and Amber Valletta is sweet as Allegra.

'Hitch' isn't perfect; it's a tad too long, and things get too "dramatic" near the end (although this is redeemed by the happy ending filled with funny dancing). But's it a great refresher from the cookie-cutter romantic comedies that keep littering theaters.

Sentiment: positive
i will like to order this movie for the women in treatment. i feel that this is a great movie for them to watch. i can't fine it no were i have been on ebay and all the other website to order this movie. now i am asking you for help to fine out where i can oder this movie at or what to do to get one. i will love to show this movie. yes i was like this movie and a lot of peoples here in treatment in to see how people can change there life around and move on. i think Markie Post played that move very well she is a great actor i love her movies. and if you have any other movie about addiction i will like to order them of the treatment center of women and men so that can look at other people go through what they go through in life.

Sentiment: positive
While I don't agree with Bob's and Tammy's decision to give up baby Jesse, and it's something I'd never do, they were trying to do what was best for the baby. The way this movie is written, you see yourself becoming wrapped up in the story and asking yourself what you really believe, from all different aspects. Patty Duke? Antagonist? Almost unheard of, as far as I'm concerned. But during the movie, she really convinces you that she's psychotic, or at least, that there's something seriously wrong with her. Her character is the meaning of "emotionally disturbed." The movie seems to end quickly, leaving things somewhat unresolved. But other than that, this movie is really great. It really makes you think. It's not a movie to watch when you just want to kick back and relax and watch something cute that'll make you laugh. But it is a good movie to see when you want to challenge your own beliefs, see things from others' perspectives, and discover a little something about yourself. Caution: you may even grow while watching this movie! And it's all worth it, in the end.

Sentiment: positive
I ticked the "contains spoiler" box, in case I say anything that is a spoiler and don't realise I've said it until I re-read it after I've posted. So it's just in case.

Anyhow, back to reviewing this film.

I saw this film on skymovies earlier on this afternoon, and by the description Sky gives you (these people must be on acid) it sounded pretty good, but then when I actually got about 30 minutes into it, I was appalled. This film, in my opinion, has the worst scriptwriting and actors/actresses - ever. The young girl who falls in love with the boy from L.A after about 3 hours, is a really stupid, lame character, who has an annoying, whiney voice, and boff hair. -.-. Then there's her lover, who's an idiot, and is also very whiney. Actually, maybe they suit each other. Then there's the boy's mum, who's with him on holiday, and surprise, surprise - she's a doctor, and - oh my god, wait, there's even more unsuspected surprises! A virus suddenly breaks out on the island and she knows all about viruses! =O. SHOCK HORROR! Yeah, right. Lol. Then there's this insane religious lad, who keeps going on about "'erbs" or something, and how the Lord knows all. Everyone on the island seems to love him, yet he's actually a stubborn, arrogant, steroid-pumped (you really need to watch this film just for the scene where he comes out of the sea after a swim, his head is like tiny, and his body is MASSIVE. it's hilarious) buffoon who's had way too much to drink.

Anyhow, after all these weirdo characters, including a stoned-looking taxi driver, the religious lad finally gives in to the doctor, and she takes a blood sample, and they get straight to work on finding the cure from that, because for some reason he's dramatically been saved, all down to "'erbs and God". AND OH MY GOD. YES, THERE'S ANOTHER Surprise!! YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHAT!! Just in the nick of time, with 11 minutes to go before everybody on the island drops dead in-fact, including her son and his girl, she finds the cure, and injects everybody, and it's all resolved!!! What a pathetic film. I mean, I knew it sounded an obvious ending from when I first started watching it, but I actually though it'd be good and have some sub-plot twists somewhere, but no-no, it was just boring and dry.

Don't watch this film. You'll end up like me - stunned for 3 hours and then demanding the hour and a half you spent of your life watching it back.

Sentiment: negative
"The Muppets Take Manhattan" is different in a lot of ways to every other Muppet Movie made so far. For one, it remains the only Muppet film not owned by Disney. As of 2008, the film still belongs to 20th Century Fox (CBS Fox at the time of its release) even though Disney owns the rights to the Muppets. Also, this film has a story line that's very non-linear, and events that are otherwise unpredictable.

Of course, it's very hard to beat the original "Muppet Movie" from 1979, especially since that movie had more memorable songs than "Manhattan" does. However, one way in which "The Muppets Take Manhattan" is better than "The Muppet Movie" is perhaps the surprisingly realistic scenarios. In the first movie, all the Muppets really have to do is go to Hollywood, walk into an agent's office, and they are immediately given a "Rich & Famous" contract. In this movie, the Muppets learn that they actually have to work for their desired success, and it's a lot harder to do that, especially in the entertainment business, than they initially thought. That's an important and often times overlooked message, provided one is willing to suspend the disbelief that the Muppets, being small and made of cloth, don't necessarily have to live in a spacious place or even eat respectively. Above all, their struggle to make it after graduating college creates a very good story. Another note: The celebrity cameos in the movie were cool, and they surprisingly managed not to take away the spotlight from the Muppets. That ability right there is a testament to Henson, and how appealing the Muppet characters were even to adults.

Where "Manhattan" falls flat, and this is where I'm sure people will disagree with me, is with some of the key songs, especially in the end. I thought the wedding song "He'll Make Me Happy" was too somber for such a happy occasion as a wedding. It sounded more like a song that's played at a funeral. Every time I watch this movie, hearing that song makes me unusually depressed, especially when the film begins on such an upbeat number as "Together Again" and ends happily for that matter. "Saying Goodbye" was a sad number too, but it fit better into the movie because the Muppets were disbanding and weren't sure they were going to see each other again. That last song was such a let down, and perhaps even added to younger viewers' misery of seeing their favorite Muppets leave the big screen.

"The Muppets Take Manhattan" is overall a good film, and one that marches to the beat of a different drum than the other Muppet films, including the newer ones made after the deaths of Jim Henson and Richard Hunt. Fortunately, the film marches in the same direction as well. I just wished the film ended on a better song that wasn't quite so melancholy. Plus, Disney should have gotten its hands on this film's copyright and given it a proper DVD release. Maybe it will someday. We'll see.

Sentiment: positive
This is a wonderful film. The non-stop patter takes several watchings to fully appreciate. The musical productions of Busby Berkeley will never be duplicated. I think this movie easily outdoes all of his other efforts. Joan Blondell and James Cagney are incredible together. Some of the humor would almost push the boundaries of today's movies. Put rational explanation of how they did it aside and enjoy it for the spectacle that it is.

Sentiment: positive
Brilliant actors and brilliant picture!! I love the chopper scene with the music in the beginning, it is just SO touching and at the same time real but at the same time surrealistic! The Vietnam War was far from human and I believe this movie kind of shows have terrible human beings can act under certain circumstances. Modern war movies are spending so much money on effects. This is just a straight forward smart movie that takes you beyond your imagination. A movie that really pictures evil and hate mixed in fearness and fate. How insane the world is and the power of will and friendship, love and passion. A must seen movie and without any doubts the best war movie ever! Many tried to copy but still there are no movie even close as good as this!!

Sentiment: positive
full of surprises, beautiful, cruel at times. just like life itself. leaves one asking for more. the best parts are of course the action scenes and chases. have to really wonder how much work these guys put into making some scenes (whale chases, polar bear hunts, etc). it is a wonderful experience and not to be missed by anyone who dives, surfs, or goes to the beach once in a while. the music is enticing and the narration is superb and extremely well paced. definitively one of the best documentaries ever made and worth not less than a very respectable 10 (for its kind). some of the footage is very cruel and might not be recommended for people with weak stomachs (every killer whale footage is cruel).

Sentiment: positive
How pointless, hideous characters and boring film. Saved by brief sex scenes, mad witch, gorgeous desert island and Brooks body. The plot is tenuous, the characters are shallow and unlikeable. Having said that I did manage to watch it all, mainly because I was totally transfixed by the jiggling and kind of hoping that her character would come good in the end. The film was well shot, well directed but perhaps the casting let it down in some ways. Disappointing. Really summed the review up in the first line but this website dictates that you need to write 10 lines minimum. It would be better to spend the time watching another film.

Sentiment: negative
Fear and Desire is of interest mainly to Kubrick obsessives, who can plumb this pretentious clap trap for signs of his still-to-come greatness. Kubrick was right in seeking to ensure that the film was not screened or available on legitimate video. He considered it embarrassing and amateurish, and he was correct in his evaluation. This is a weak and tedious film--at 68 minutes it still seems longer than "Barry Lyndon"!--it nevertheless is of historical interest, and has its genuine absorbing moments. It's a difficult film to find (only "unofficial" copies are in circulation), though perhaps this may change if Kubrick's estate relents and has it released on video. Recommended only for Kubrick enthusiasts.

Sentiment: negative
"Vanilla Sky" was a wonderfully thought out movie. Or rather, "Abre Los Ojos" was well thought out. I watched that movie late one night, excited about what was to come. I wasn't disappointed. By the end of the movie, I was awstruck. I couldn't get it off my mind. The whole idea of it just blew me away. The ending, was more of a surprise than Shyamalan could ever do. The plot line was also something that kept me interesting through and through. The cast, superb. It was an all around wonderful movie. The kind of movie you can watch again and again and always find something new. I've seen it four or five times and I'm always finding something new. It's a movie to keep you interested forever.

Sentiment: positive
The series finally hits rock-bottom with this lousy fourth installment, which was (thank God) the last one. None of the three sequels did justice to the highly entertaining original, but this particular film is nothing more than a shameless attempt to exploit the name of the "Magnificent Seven" and Bernstein's rousing music theme. The production values resemble those of a made-for-TV movie and the characters are forgettable and indistinguishable: in parts "II" and "III" you couldn't remember their names, here you can't even remember their faces. Lee Van Cleef was an inappropriate choice for the role of Chris, but nobody could have replaced Yul Brynner in our minds anyway. Don't waste your time.

Sentiment: negative
Do not waste your time watching this! Unless you want to study it for all the wrong things you shouldn't do to make a good film. I am not one to usually review a movie, but this one is personal. I wasted precious time which they cannot give back. I feel compelled to write this report to warn others not to waste their time watching this crap. If this was a student project, i would have to say not bad, but only for the first 15 min... after that it gets annoying. the screaming, the bad audio, the bad video (a good camera man could have made it much better). and yes, whats with the Blair-Witch effect? no budget? I was hoping it was going to get better, but it doesn't. Now how the hell did it deserves a 4? 2 is more fair but 1 for wasting my time! I have said my peace.

Sentiment: negative
I don't know why this has gotten any decent reviews as it could be the weakest horror comedy I've ever seen. Englund is just in it for a cameo and his performance is as unnecessary as most of the lame attempts at jokes (and scares). The direction is terrible and the acting is worse. It seems like every year producers are trying to make another Evil Dead but these weak unoriginal attempts are just stepping on the memory of a true horror classic.

Whether its filmmakers saying,"this isn't a remake but its an 80s throwback (which is just as unoriginal in my opinion - Hatchet) or people trying to plug this with other horror classics, Its still misleading and wont make up for the lack of scares, horror, comedy, or even a decent movie for that matter.

AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!!

Sentiment: negative
It is a risky business to film such a lavish production of "The Merchant of Venice". It could be a stodgy, wooden, period piece, or it could be laughable for its excesses. This version is neither. While I am not completely sold by Al Pancino's very restrained Shylock, he does give a competent and honorable performance. Jeremy Iron's Antonio, is as always with his tortured-self roles, riveting. Some of the lesser roles seemed to be a little to much in the spirit of boisterous fun, "a boy's own Venician adventure story", but the central plot is efficiently and sympathetically moved forward through the film.

It goes without saying, that the location shots, costumes, and interiors were breathtaking, almost to the point of distraction.

One thing, on which I do not wish to comment on, is the anti-semetic content of the play. The film is as sympathetic to the predicament of the Jews as possible while still portraying Shylock as the instrument of his own self-destruction. It is a sad comment that four centuries later, the director of this film found it necessary to comment on his nuanced view before the premiere screening at the Toronto film fest.

This is a beautiful film, and I look forward to several viewings.

Sentiment: positive
Renoir's tale of Paris,the Cancan,a washer-girl and the Moulin Rouge.A more subdued,but highly entertaining version of the opening of the Moulin Rouge. Jean Gabin gives his usual excellent performance.The Technicolor photography on the print I saw was exquisite.An easy evening's viewing. chris w galla

Sentiment: positive
Dr. Markoff is a mad scientist who is experimenting , trying to find a cure for a viral cause of acromegaly. When he attends a piano concert, he is stricken by the beautiful daughter of the pianist and sets out to woo her. But when she wants nothing to do with him, he infects her father with the acromegaly virus in an attempt to extort money and his daughter in exchange for a cure.

That is the basic premise for this B-grade low budget thriller. I have to say I was underwhelmed by this movie. Not that it was terrible-it wasn't, but there was nothing particularly noteworthy about it either. It was entertaining enough for a viewing but is not one that will stay in my memory.

The dialog is a bit corny at times and the acting is just mediocre. The story is fairly predictable and doesn't really give us anything new. Of course, I can't complain too much about a movie that has a guy in a gorilla suit who serves almost no real purpose and a doctor with a Svengali-like stare that fails to mesmerize his victims.

It may be worth a watch if you like this sort of movie, but don't go into it with too many expectations.

Sentiment: negative
My mom and I have just recently become addicted to this show, laughing our butts off! I've only seen about 10 episodes, and I am disappointed that I didn't pay attention to this hilarious series before they were canceled! The story line is very funny, the characters really have great personalities (or, not so great, but they're still funny!). I TiVO every episode of What I Like About You. Amanda Bynes and Jennie Garth, as well as all of the cast, never leave me bored while watching! There is some unsuitable language for children and some sexual content, but with a parental guide near, you shouldn't have too much problems. There is some sort of 'Friends' type of relationship that attracts me to this show. I really enjoy it.

Sentiment: positive
I watched it with my mom and we were like...

What the hell? We didn't get it at all. I may have this wrong, but a chair had something to do with the death of this woman's father. That movie was terrible! This is not a movie for those who love a good suspense movie. Bad suspense movie! *shakes cane at movie* I'm never seeing it again. And I'm a big fan of lifetime movies, too! They kinda need to quit trying to make movies outta books. It's driving me crazy!!!

And Whit was butt-ugly and yet, she loves him more than Hugh, who was a TINY bit nicer-looking.

My rating: 1/10

Sentiment: negative
RAINBOW BRITE AND THE STAR STEALER, in my opinion, is an excellent masterpiece. I felt all warm and tingly when Rainbow Brite (voice of Bettina) and Krys (voice of David Mendenhall) set out to get revenge on the princess (voice of Rhonad Aldrich). If you ask me, the princess was absolutely bitchy and diabolical. To me, she deserved to have Rainbow Brite and Krys seek revenge on him. However, I liked her castle as well as the rest of the setting. In addition, I thought that Lurky (voiec of Pat Fraley) and Murky (voiec of Peter Cullen) were diabolical. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone was perfectly cast, the direction was flawless, and Disney has scored a big hit. In conclusion, I highly recommend this excellent masterpiece to everyone who hasn't seen it, especially die-hard fans of the TV series. I guarantee you you'll enjoy it.

Sentiment: positive
After the reasonably successful MASTI which was tad better Inder Kumar returned again with a comedy PYAARE MOHAN based on the Hollywood film SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL 

The film reminds you of HUM HAI KAMAAL KE(1994) where Kader and Anupam play the blind and deaf

This movie is a tedious exercise

The film has jokes of such nonsense that you don't feel like laughing like Snehal Dabi's head getting stuck in the back of the horse and all those type comedies which we don't laugh at now but mock 

The film starts off in a clichéd manner and some scenes are funny sadly such moments don't last long as the story never moves in this half even the comedy gets boring The twist is well handled and the second half becomes an action film where the blind guy and the deaf go to rescue the heroines and we have all OTT chase scenes and fight scenes

Direction by Inder Kumar is bad Music is okay, one song stands out I LOVE YOU MY ANGEL

Vivek is awful in the comic scenes, his timing is very bad and is okay in serious scenes For some reason he keeps doing comedy and ruined his career Fardeen Khan is tad better but too wooden Amongst the rest Esha and Amrita are the heroines Boman Irani annoys here Snehal Dabbi is okay

Sentiment: negative
This is an absurdist dark comedy from Belgium. Shot perfectly in crisp black and white, Benoît Poelvoorde (Man Bites Dog) is on fine form as Roger, the angry, obsessive father of a family in a small, sullen Belgian mining town. Roger is a photographer who, along with his young daughter Luise, visits road accidents to take photos. He is also obsessed with winning a car by entering a competition where the contestant has to break a record - and he decides that his son, Michel, must attempt to break the record of perpetually walking through a door - he even hires an overweight coach to train him. Michel dresses as Elvis and has a spot on a radio show called 'Cinema Lies', where he describes mistakes in films. Luise is friendly with near neighbour Felix, a pigeon fancier. Roger is a callous figure as he pushes Michel right over the limit during the record attempt, which almost results in his death. Interspersed throughout the film are Magritte-like surreal images. It's undeniably charming and well worth your time.

Sentiment: positive
I am very impressed by the reviews I've read of this film - generally well-read, thoughtful and informed - obviously by people who like and think hard about films. I couldn't add a thing to the excellent reviewing job that IMDb members have already done. If I may, I'd like to correct a small but widespread misunderstanding that appears in many of the reviews: Mr Baseball was American and behaved in an ugly fashion but he was NOT an Ugly American. The original Ugly American was Homer Atkins, one of the heroes of the eponymous 1958 novel by Burdick and Lederer, and the exact opposite of Mr Baseball. Homer was an archetypal American, and an archetypal engineer - he went to Vietnam to work with people, he respected and liked the people he met, he used appropriate, sustainable technology in cooperation with his hosts, and he was liked and respected by them precisely because he exemplified democratic values and American virtues. His ugliness was purely facial, merely skin-deep; his personality and his humanity were deep and genuine.

Mr Baseball exemplifies all the crass, ignorant, insecure boorishness that we Europeans and Americans so often inflict on other cultures; Homer Atkins, the Ugly American, was the other side of our coin, representing our humanity and decency. I believe that the Ugly Americans still far outnumber the Mr Baseballs; they are still our last, best hope.

Sentiment: positive
This one is quite a nice surprise. Cute little story of the heroine's quest, very surprising metamorphosis of the four-eye prissy soon-to-be-spinster type into a raunchy DD-cup sex queen. 

Visually a sight for sore eyes, not only for two quite stunning actresses but also for (most of) the costumes and make-up of the actors. An unnecessary bit of cheapness came in some ridiculous castle imitation.

Back to the positives: The movie is spiced with some unusually explicit camera-shots which you would not expect in a soft core. Loved that scene with the icicles, absolute classics potential. A slight minus only for (very) few odd scenes where bad acting by minor casts shortly suspended the suspension of disbelief. 

9/10 including an extra credit for the serious drooling effect.

Sentiment: positive
Alone in the Dark is Uwe Boll's kick in the nuts to Hollywood after House of the Dead's punch in the face.

If anything it proves just how much of a master manipulator Boll is. After forcing Artisan out of business over the flop that was House of the Dead, one can only assume the normally credible Lion's Gate Films only released AITD under contractual obligation after acquiring Artisan's assets. Because AITD is an even bigger example of complete lack of coherent film-making ability, plot exposition and just plain stealing poorly from other movies because it was supposed to look cool instead of because it fitted within the movie's framework.

But then that's the point, isn't it. Boll isn't trying to make a coherent film because he isn't trying to direct Alone in the Dark. He's just trying to manipulate Hollywood.

Alone in the Dark, like House of the Dead, Dungeon Siege, Far Cry, Bloodrayne and the other 3 or 4 projects that are "announced" or in "pre-production".

These aren't movies to be directed, but investment portfolios. Every single one of them rushed into production under the pretence that the tax law Boll and his investors are exploiting may be closed within the next 2 to 3 years. The more bomb projects he can release within that time-frame, the more money he and his investors can gain. Why bother making a good movie when a bad movie's making you a mint anyway? The result is movies like the awfulness of Alone in the Dark.

Alone in the Dark, like all his other movies are just a cynical exploitation of Hollywood's current trend for lazy film-making.

And to those who support Boll by calling him misunderstood or the next Ed Wood, congratulations, by making a cult figure out of the man, you're just making it easier for him to get investors but giving him notoriety.

For more information, read here: http://www.cinemablend.com/feature.php?id=209 http://www.cinemablend.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21699 As an aside, just don't ask me how he's getting his cast-lists together. Unless the actors are in on the investment-scam somehow, that mystery has still to be uncovered.

Sentiment: negative
If any movie stands out extremely with the actors' acting skills, this is probably the one. I've never seen dialogues be spoken in such a rough way, but having a strong feeling. The movie was disturbing at moments. However, the movie was terrible at editing. The movie tries to go the commercial way by adding comedy and songs, yet they feel out of place. Like Karisma is getting beat up, and the same time SRK is fighting (comically) with the police officers. The Ishq Kamina song was very out of place. On top of that, the movie is overly glossy in the beginning. The direction was not bad, but certainly nothing one can brag about.

I have to say that the actors' were chosen very wisely. Without them, this movie would not have an impact. Karisma Kapoor has given her best role to date, and this looks very good on her record after Zubeidaa and Fiza. She looks pretty in the first half, and I've never seen an actress scream of emotion and anger as well as her. What is most ironic is this is probably her weakest written role to date. Nana Patekar was excellent as her father-in-law. Not much to say about him, besides this is a role made for him. Deepti Naval as the mother-in-law was excellent especially in her final scene. Though she doesn't have much to say, her facial expressions and body language was good. The other good performance was the little kid. He was adorable, and is sure to bring tears to the viewer's eyes. The movie was probably saved desperately by their performances. Sanjay Kapoor was all right, but he didn't have much to do. Shahrukh Khan was wasted in his bad boyish type role. 

One thing that brought the audience to the theater was Ishq Kamina. The song picturization and dancing is perfect for the crude lyrics of the song. And boy Aish is mad hot. However, the song belonged to be in another movie only because it came at the worst moment ever. People may have come to the movie for Aish, but they won't brag too much about it after-wards. Hum Tum Miley was properly paced, but seemed to drag as the suspense mood was leaving throughout the movie. Damroo Bhaje was boring and nothing to rave about. Dil Ne Pukara is too boring of a song to get the mood of the movie. Despite the poor editing, the performances alone make it a must see.

Sentiment: positive