DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Horrible acting, horrible cast and cheap props. Would've been a lot better if was set as an action parody style movie. What a waste. Starting from the name of the movie.

"The Enemy" Naming it "Action Movie" would've made it better. (contributing to the parody effect). The cop looking like a 60 Year old player, the blond girl just having the same blank boring look on her face at all times. Towards the end of the movie him and her are working together to take down the bad guys and every time they exchange words it just feels like the cheap lines given before a sex scene in a porn movie. Horrible. Don't waste your time.

Sentiment: negative
A really wonderful cast and very talented technical crew wasted their valuable career time, and our equally valuable leisure time, by bothering to support this utterly predictable and plainly formulaic piece of commercial junk. The movie is based upon a really good and very topical idea but both the producers and the director simply applied the standard Hollywood 'disaster movie' formula and thereby ruined any potential value from the production.

An unusually high tide and very strong gale conditions combine to produce a record high storm surge that overwhelms London and floods most of the Thames Valley. The plot centers around a heroic scientist (Tom Courtenay) who alerts the authorities of the danger and ultimately saves the day, a glamorous female police chief who runs the entire show and an embattled Deputy Prime Minister (David Suchet) who tries to look important.

But it's all so unreal that one feels like an extended tea break after just 30 minutes. The young glamorous female Police Commissioner demands complete authority over the army during a declared State of Emergency and gets it (as if!). The experienced General is just pushed aside like a complete moron who has to lick her boots because of her obviously superior capacity. The trouble is that our female supremo, whilst now responsible for millions of lives, spends most of her time worrying over the fate of her two daughters who have taken a trip to South West London and haven't telephoned to say they were alright. So our mighty woman sets her staff to look for them and decides that the sole priority for all the army and the rescue services must be South West London and not any other quarter of the city. Of course the Minister, the Army and the entire entourage accept her prioritization without question. One can only assume they all had property there. When her children are eventually found after endless reports and efforts by her staff she is told by our male hero, 'Thank God they're safe, that's the main thing'. Never mind about the millions of others or all the other responsibilities she was supposed to control; as long as her own kids were safe everything was alright. 

This film is just another excuse to push the same old female chauvinist sexist clap trap that women are the clever, mindful, caring and clearly able leaders whilst men are good for nothing except physical bravery, mindless strength and very specialist knowledge. And yet the one simple instruction that she could have given the populace; namely to go to the nearest tall building and calmly go up to the 4th floor or above and await instructions when the waters recede was never given by this female super hero - or indeed anyone else. The whole problem was so simple to solve and yet millions of people apparently didn't think of simply going upstairs! Pathetic rubbish.

Sentiment: negative
The unfunniest so called comedy I've ever seen

Not a patch on the naturalism of the hilariously dare Twin Town

Vegas I ;like normally but this script is so dire so predictable so well English in the worst way (In recent years the English films have been awful all of them) Ireland at least produced the commitments, Scotland with Braveheart and Trainspotting 2 stand out great movies and Wales had Twin Town, Zulu, Last Days of Dolwyn , Torchwood, Doctor Who and Under Milk Wood etc

The comedy is paint by numbers, the actors are dead men walking because there is no characterisation and no originality and it's just so unfunny

England is falling behind no matter how many grim up north movies they produce. It's the old class system that destroys English films. The Oxbridge graduates spewing endlessly clichéd scripts about working class people they've never lived with. It is pathetic. Monty Python wasn't funny, neither was anything from Oxbridge.

Let guys like Jonny Vegas and Peter Kay, Rob Brydon, Billy Connolly or write their own dialogue and forget the archaic failed class system let the working class people and the real talent that comes through the system properly take over the writing and the British and English film industries will rise again what next prince Edward to write a modern day Oliver Twist?

Sentiment: negative
Really, I liked it. The premise was good, the story fit where both respective series left off, and here's my favorite part. Mary and Valerie aren't bitter! They aren't like others who become synonymous with a certain series and then refuse to talk about it, or do possible reunions (A prime example is Susan Dey, "The Partridge Family"). In fact, Valerie was saying that she'd be thrilled to do another movie, and then Mary said the same thing later, so I would be on the look for another...but if that doesn't quite work out, then they can re-run this one.

Sentiment: positive
I watched this movie when it was released and being really young and not too much into cinema it was one of the most fascinating cinematic experiences I ever had and it really left a mark inside me.At first I didn't quite understand the story and probably failed to make the necessary correlations between past and present as the movie presents them to the viewer.

Years after I first watched I managed to watch it again and this was the time that I fell in love with 'The English Patient', it touched me so deeply and for me it became the best film ever made.

Anthony Minghella made an absolutely stunning film, all the locations are amazing and through his camera he manages to create unbelievable emotions inside you.

Of course, the music of the film is such a big part of the whole emotional journey of the characters and the film would not be the same without it.

But personally the best thing was the fragile performance that Ralph Fiennes gave in this masterpiece. He plays so well the man that falls in love slowly but so deeply with Katherine Clifton,opens up his heart and dives into this prohibited affair.

The most heart-breaking scene for me will always be the one where hurt Katherine is carried by Almasy towards the Cave of Swimmers and she wears the thimble that he bought her.She says 'I always wore it.I always loved you' and at that moment he starts crying with such pain flowing from inside him.

Juliette Binoche is also amazing in her performance and really deserved the Oscar she won.

Overall, this is a film that anybody who proclaims himself a cinema lover should watch in their lives.

Sentiment: positive
Everything that you need to know about the pornography of the late 70s and early 80s is all wrapped up in Paul Thomas Anderson's BOOGIE NIGHTS. Although the film is completely fictional, it is actually supposedly based on the story of porno kingpin John Holmes.

In Southern California in 1977, Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg) is working as a busboy in a nightclub. One of the regular customers is pornographer Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) and two of his starlets, Amber Waves (Julianne Moore) and Rollergirl (Heather Graham). Jack and Eddie meet and Jack realizes that Eddie is well...a little...gifted.

So Eddie stars in Jack's films under the pseudonym of "Dirk Diggler." He becomes a "big" porno star (no pun intended) and seems to be on top of everything. Then comes the 80s when video replaces film and Jack's porno empire begins to collapse, along with Dirk Diggler and everybody else working in the field.

BOOGIE NIGHTS is a really well-filmed drama. There is a little bit of violence, but P.T. Anderson makes it more stylized. And it kind of is a scathing approach to the degradations of pornography, especially when VHS became the standard medium for making pornos.

A lot of bizarre and unique characters are introduced. William H. Macy has an interesting role as someone working on the films, whose wife keeps having sex with everybody. I especially liked Don Cheadle's role as Buck the stereo salesman. The best performance is BOOGIE NIGHTS was definitely Burt Reynolds. A 90s classic!

Sentiment: positive
Peter Watkins' rarely seen Punishment Park is a brutality-laced, uncompromised political weapon set across a never ending desertscape. An unapologetically left leaning anti authoritarian abuse fest, the escapades at first appear to be so over the top militaristic and sickening that it could come off as some distant fantastical dystopian alternate history, one Harry Turtledove would even enjoy. But once we delve deeper in and really pay attention to the abhorrent diatribe spouting out of those presiding over the tent topped tribunal, as well as the shotgun toting guards overseeing the bloody affair, our eyes are truly opened. Suddenly we realize just how prescient Watkins' film-making is, as much of this is the kind of neo-con talking points about youth culture and the legality of divergent thought tossed around by politicians today. Granted, much of it was drivel pouring out then as well, but it really shows us how little has changed, and informs of how, in some ways, we are closer to such a world where Punishment Parks would be a real and frightening operation.

The main players in nearly every scene are seasoned non actors, mostly chosen for their rash political views and desire to get them on camera. This lends an unprecedented heap of authenticity to the entire experience as we never, even for a second, question the reality of all the chaos. Shot documentary style with 16mm film, this appears like a gritty documentation of some despicable government test project that was classified until found years later. At least it appears to have that history to it now, maybe not as much when it was (barely) released. But this gives an added weight to all the proceedings and helps draw you into this incredible not-so-alternate universe of torture for convicted dissidents.

Sentiment: positive
My wife and I saw this in the theater when it first came out.

There were only 3 couples there and we all walked out about the same time.

This is the only movie I have ever walked out on.

It was just painful to sit through.

The theater actually stopped us on the way out and asked if we wanted a refund.

Never had that happen before or since Pleae do not rent this You will really regret it I am really sureprised by the vote summary Perhaps personal tast has something to do with it

Sentiment: negative
THE PERVERT'S GUIDE TO CINEMA (2007) **** 

If Loving Cinema Makes Me A Pervert, So Be It!

If you are a true 'moviefreak' like me then I'm sure you can't get enough of films about film-making and I don't mean necessarily the dry documentary know and then. I mean a total discourse on the film viewing experience. Well if that's the case have I got a lulu of a film experiment for you.

In Sophie Fiennes (sister of Ralph & Joseph if you were wondering) has noted philosopher cum cinephile Slavoj Zizek give his analysis on cinema with some impressive (and often outrageous) takes on everything from the silent era of Chaplin thru the modern age of the Wachowski Brothers analyzing, probing, and pontificating about the psychosexual underpinnings, socioeconomic, political and of course indefinable magic of the film going experience with his unflagging, determined and near-frenetic dissertations. To go from explaining how The Bates' house in PSYCHO is actually the mirrored psyche of the conflicted Norman Bates with each level as his Ego, Superego & Id is one thing but then to suggest the same thing about each Marx Brother in barely a beat is a remarkable test of faith that wins over the skeptic layman.

Although I had no idea who Zizek was  he resembles a hybrid of filmmaker Brian DePalma, European actor Rade Serbedzija and the hyperkinetic energy of filmmakers Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese  with his sibilant tongue and passion, the host comes across as a mad prophet. 

Fiennes cleverly inserts Zizek into several of the film clips' backgrounds peppered throughout making for a humorous tone but still lets the ranting and raving continue full throttle giving pause for argument in three acts covering the gamut of films by the likes of Kubrick, Lynch, Hitchcock and films as diverse as THE WIZARD OF OZ, THE RED SHOES, and FIGHT CLUB. 

There's something for everyone and if one man can provoke an argument or at least a reason to discuss a film's themes  even if they are Freudian/Jungian to a fault  then I say this collection of film theory is worth the watch. Seek it out now if you can before it comes to home video; it's the only way to appreciate it.

Sentiment: positive
Even in the 21st century, child-bearing is dangerous: women have miscarriages, and give birth prematurely. Seventy-five years ago, it was not uncommon for women to die during childbirth. That is the theme of "Life Begins": a look at the "difficult cases" ward of a maternity hospital. Loretta Young plays the lead, a woman brought here from prison (what crime she committed is not germane to the plot) to give birth; she's conflicted about the fact she's going to have to give her baby up after birth. She's in a ward with several other women, who share their joys and pain with each other.

Although Loretta Young is the lead, the outstanding performance, as usual, is put in by Glenda Farrell. Farrell was one of Warner's "B" women in the 1930s, showing up quite a bit in supporting roles, and sometimes getting the lead in B movies (Farrell played Torchy Blane in several installments of the "Torchy" B-movie series.) Here, Farrell plays an expectant mother who doesn't want her children, since they'll only get in the way. She does everything she can to get in the way of the nurses, including smuggling liquor into the ward (this of course during the Prohibition days), and drinking like a fish -- apparently they'd never heard of fetal alcohol syndrome back in the 30s.

Interestingly, unlike most movie of the early 1930s, it's not the women being bumbling idiots getting in the way of the heroic men -- that situation is reversed, with the expectant fathers being quivering mounds of jelly. (Watch for veteran character actor Frank McHugh as one of the expectant fathers.) "Life Begins", being an early talkie, treats the subject with a fair dollop of melodrama, to be sure, but it's quite a charming little movie. Turner Classic show it, albeit infrequently; I've only seen it show up on a few days honoring Loretta Young. But it's highly recommended viewing when it does show up.

Sentiment: positive
This is a great, dark, offbeat little film, a modern day adaptation of the quest for the Holy Grail myth. It's a sleeper if there ever was one. I saw it on cable some years ago and taped it. I've loaned it to many of my friends and everyone loved it.

Sentiment: positive
it's hard to make a negative statement here after all this raving about how great deed poll is, how wonderful the actors did and so on and so on. i did not like the film. it's crappy!

there are orgies, they have taboo sex (gay sex, bi sex, oral sex, rape, anal sex, masturbation, brother-sister-sex, brother-brother-sex, sex on drugs, sex without drugs, sex, sex, sex seems to rule their world. i guess the director is desperately in need of a getting laid.) the story is just dirty and shameful. i wonder what made those people get up with this story. and above all: who cares?

the technical stuff didn't satisfy me as well. the sound is poor, so is the editing and the "direction" is absent. the actors are admittedly fine, but guess what! it's their job! their job is to act! no need to jump off your seats if an actor did a decent job. do you applause when a bus driver brings you home safely? see?

i gave it 2/10 because after all this thing had something that i can't put in words. b movie charm? camp fun? nudity? i don't know.

Sentiment: negative
When you typically watch a short film your always afraid that the person creating the film tries to throw too much into it. That's not the case with this one. A great story about a young girl who's had enough and other worldly forces trying to help make things right.

Eric Etebari does a wonderful job of representing the spirit of twisted justice and helps to convey the complexities of the blurred line of right and wrong.

Both the young girl and the father give great performances in this wonderful short film, but Eric's performance is definitely the show stealer in this story.

I definitely recommend this film for it's complexity, performance, and great over all story.

Sentiment: positive
I have never seen a B movie like this one... on the part that the nanny Sofia is being killed... a hand of a woman appears on the tape handling the stick... how bad is that??? LOL, I seriously laughed and wanted to stop seeing the movie, but I kept watching it to see if this movie could get worse...LOL...it is bad for itself... poor Pinocchio.. the only nice bit is the first time you see some special effects of Pinocchio's face moving... apart from that the whole movie is awful... it's not really worth your time if you don't really have much to spare! But if you have nothing to do... go on... treat yourself with some "Z" movie cos B-movie is still too good for this one...LOL

Sentiment: negative
For fans of Chris Farley, this is probably his best film. David Spade plays the perfect cynical, sarcastic yin to Farley's "Baby Huey" yang. Farley achieves strokes of comic genius in his monologues, like the "Let's say you're driving along the road with your family..." bit, the "Jo-Jo the Idiot Circus Boy with a pretty new pet, (his possible sale)" speech, or the "Glue-sniffing Guarantee fairy" brake pad sale. The sappy moments in the film contrast sharply with Farley and Spade's shenanigans. Even after many viewings, it's still fun to see Farley pour everything he had into the role. "Richard, what's HAPPENING to me?!?!"

Sentiment: positive
I'm the sort of person who went down to the local library and read books on Babbage's difference engine whilst my schoolmates were playing football etc.. So, if there is any such thing as a target audience for this film, then I guess I'd probably be included in that.

Maybe I just need to watch it again. A previous reviewer mentioned not to watch this film whilst being tired. Maybe that was my mistake.

I tried my best to enjoy this film, and there are aspects of it that I do like, but overall I found it amateurish and quite plodding.

Being somewhat of a self confessed computer nerd, I just can't help but pick up on the exact time frame when the movie was actually made, and how the employed graphics reflect that time (i.e. 1997). Having played games of the era c.f. "Mind Grind" to cite one example, this film cannot escape that 16-bit colour low res multimedia explosion of that time. Now thankfully this has somewhat lessened in more recent years in the gaming world at least, in favour of actual game play.

Having to resort to watching this movie via a German FTA satellite channel (as I don't think it's ever been aired on UK FTA TV, well not recently anyway), I was mildly amused to see the end credits note Gottdog (God dog) had 4 people working on it's design. Maybe it's mean spirited of me to be amused by this, given that ten years have elapsed since the movie was made, nevertheless the end result makes movie graphics from the eighties look good by comparison.

But, as for the main story, I agree that the format isn't the best idea. Like others I agree that Ada deserves a film without the sci-fi angle, and a more straightforward biographical approach would perhaps be better suited to covering the life story of this remarkable lady.

There are fundamental mistakes that undermine my enjoyment of this movie. First of all the underlying idea that somehow lost real-world information from the past can be accurately reconstructed through some sort of extrapolation via software based intelligent agents, seems somehow ludicrous.

Also, the theme running through the movie that a computing device can indeed predict the mechanics of all things through the course of time (e.g. the winds) is now known not to be the case.

OK, so the Victorians may have held this view, but the 20th century works of Gödel proving that no mathematical system can be complete, Turing's works on the limits of computability, not to mention chaos theory and quantum mechanics, have all completely undermined these ideas, which seem central to how the modern day researcher's software is supposed to work.

Finally, the clicking of the mouse in the air to mean "programming" is also just plain wrong, as previously mentioned.

This film maybe could have been OK, but at least some technical and scientific consultation would have given the film some much needed credit in the believability stakes.

I won't forget the film though, as like "Pi", it is clearly a unique work, but with too many fatal mistakes for me to truly enjoy it, 3/10 from me.

Sentiment: negative
The fact that there are positive comments about Dan in Real Life on the IMDb just makes me realize that their junket staff are hard at work trying to get people to watch this utterly horrific film.

I have no words, no idea where to start to describe the truly awful film I sat through last night - Dan in Real Life. Steve's characters in previous films led me to believe that I would feel something for his character and enjoy the dialog but like other posters I felt uncomfortable and embarrassed for the cast.

The dialog was so contrived, the family was this cookie cutter Walton's family and the film has been so many times before that I am shocked someone thought it was an original idea.

Do yourself a favor and take a pass on this terrifyingly bad movie and don't believe everything you read on the IMDb since the first comments were clearly written by folks sitting in a different theater watching a GOOD film.

Sentiment: negative
As a Westerner watching another culture's view and tradition of marriag, I found Just Married mesmerizing and delightful. The idea of marrying a stranger through the mutual arrangement of parents is difficult, especially in this modern age. Yet this is the case in this Hindi film. Told with humor, and fresh perspective, we learn of Abhay and Ritika who have only met once and are now on their traditional five day honeymoon. As said, it is difficult to believe in this cell phone affluent age that such an archaic custom as an arranged marriage still take place. We see the awkwardness that this young couple feels as they come together on their first night, and how they try to forge a bond, even though they do not know one another. We see different views of marriage and commitment as presented by the other couples also on holiday, from a couple of forty years married to others still unsure of making marital commitment. There's song, witty dialog, poignant moments, blending and comparison of new ways and tradition. Watching the movie with subtitles definitely loses some of the trueness of the story, yet it is still a delight to watch. Granted some of the plot is a little trite and the bus incident a bit drawn out and contrived; however the overall movie was worth watching.

Sentiment: positive
this is one of my favorite movies ever! along with casablanca and cannibal holocaust, this is near perfect cinema. rex allen narrates this wonderful tale of a cougar who just needs a little loving. contains action, adventure, suspense, comedy, and riverbed chaos! SEE THIS MOVIE IF YOU HAVE TO KILL TO DO IT!!! you will not find a better cat picture anywhere, with "cat from outer space" coming in as a not so close second. charlie's performance is magnificent. even includes animal cruelty and intense logging! gotta love disney, for all moral failures!

Sentiment: positive
I think the "Bone Snatcher" should go after anyone associated with this movie. Watching this will seem like the longest 90 minutes or so of your entire life. The plot is boring and stupid. There were no scenes that were horrifying, even remotely. If you manage to endure this fine piece of cinema art all the way to the end, you're either going to be highly disappointed or die laughing hysterically. I bought this movie based on some other reviews I'd read. I wish I had my money back. What a skunker. If you're looking for a horror movie that will hold your interest, watch "U Turn". It may be based on a kooky plot, but it's full of those creepy scenes that keep you jumping from beginning to end.

Sentiment: negative
Good actors, good director, well acted, well directed but...Where's the movie? Did they have an script or just improvised it all? At least it is a short-length movie (only 80 minutes, including credits). Nothing seems to happen in this film, nothing at all. A couple of small time drug dealers caught in small time troubles, but you'll never get a clue of what's happening, nor even what are they talking about in some sequences of the movie. Tons of "f***'s" and "motherf*****'s", but nothing else...

For the people who love Abel Ferrara's films such as The Funeral, 'R Xmas is going to be a big disappointment, as it's been for me. What was he thinking about? Did he really think that this was a good movie? And if he didn't, then why did he made it?

Sentiment: negative
A surprisingly effective thriller, this.

David Duchovny and Michelle 'Ensign Ro' Forbes are a successful, professional couple, he a writer, she a photographer. Forbes is desperate to move to California and, in an act of compromise, Mulder agrees to the move on the condition that, along the way, they visit sites of historical interest concerning famous serial killers. His idea: he writes the words, she takes the pictures, with the end result a bestselling coffee table book that will set them up for life. To help finance the trip, they decide to car share and advertise the fact. As their bad luck would have it Brad Pitt sees the advert and, shortly after killing his landlord, he and his girlfriend, Juliette Lewis, meet the writer couple and begin their cross country trek. Inevitably, mischief ensues.

Pitt is outstanding as the genuinely chill inspiring Early Grayce and is capably backed up by Lewis playing her customary white trash character that seems to be her default setting. Duchovny and Forbes make for a convincing double act too and, as events spiral out of control, you as the viewer are sucked into their plight and can feel the tension ratcheting.

Intelligent, sinister and beautifully shot, this deserves recognition beyond its current status. A top movie.

Sentiment: positive
Anton Newcombe and Courtney Taylor are friends, they both are the leads in their own respective bands; Anton with The Brian Jonestown Massacre and Courtney with The Dandy Warhols. What's interesting about their friendship is that they are rivals; its a love hate relationship. At times you both hear them praising one another, but the next second they are complaining at how stupid and self absorbed they are. While the Dandy Warhols went on the reach commercial success, BJM still was stuck in the underground scene; and for good reason why.

The focus of Dig! is more towards Anton and the BJM, as they have a lot more substance. They are the most dysfunctional band. During gigs they will fight and bash each other. Anton will hit other members if he feels they aren't performing correctly. With the amount of drugs an alcohol they consume, fight was always waiting to happen. You know how people go to car races just to see if a huge car crash happens; that's why people would go to their gigs, for the fights. 

Anton is very unstable. Always thinking himself as a music messiah, he wants to change music and create a revolution, but he could never get out of the underground. He is a very talented musician, its amazing how many instruments he can play and with such skill. But his draw back is he cant escape the world he created; a prolific musician stuck in a black hole drugs, alcohol and depression. On the other side, the Dandy Warhols were having their own troubles. They didn't find much success with their first album and were constantly fighting with their record label. But they found huge success in Europe. But Courtney keeps being sucked back into the world of Anton. Its interesting that both Anton and Courtney both had what the other needed. Courtney always wanted to be musically talented as Anton, though Anton wouldn't say it, he needed the commercial success that the Dandy's had, to make his revolution.

Over the seven year course the film crew followed these two bands, there is a lot of footage. There is never a dull moment in Dig!. It is constantly moving along as it doesn't have time to slow down as it has to much to say, seven years of story telling in the 1h 45mins is a hard job. Ondi Timoner has done a great job of piecing together one of the best music documentaries that makes you always wanting more. Even if you don't like the bands it still deserves viewing; it transcends the music to reveal a great story of a successful failure.

You wont be disappointed.

Sentiment: positive
This film was made thirteen years before I was born but I still think it is the wittiest, dottiest, most harmless piece of fun ever made. It simply could not go wrong with the cast of superb British character actors it boasts.

Where to start? Alastair Sim-peerless; Margaret Rutherford-ditto;the wonderfully alkward, innocent Gossage, played to perfection by the imperious Joyce Grenfell. The caddish Victor Hyde-Brown (a Guy Middleton special) and the rest of the staff sum up post-war middle-class England to a tee.

The humour is sometimes obvious, but it is of that special "Ealing" variety and is never offensive.

I have watched this film more times than I care to remember and still laugh like a drain at the antics every time. The storming of the dorms occupied by the girls school, the magnificently-planned but ultimately doomed twin tours of the school and the chaotic ending involving the arrival of a third school to add to the anarchy, are priceless.

It's an old cliché I know, but they really do not make them like that anymore. How I wish they did. If you haven't seen it, please do, you won't be disappointed.

Sentiment: positive
Well, what can you say about a Barbara Cartland adaptation?

There are some amazing actors in this (Oliver Reed, Sarah Miles, Christopher Plummer) but they clearly are clocking up the money.

Lysette Anthony and Marcus Gilbert have appeared in two other Cartland epics - Anthony with Hugh Grant (who looks suitably embarrassed) and Gilbert with Helena Bonham Carter.

If you really want to see a "watchable" adaptation of Cartland, the Bonham Carter one is the one to go for ("A Hazard of Hearts" - what a title!!). Gilbert is the weak link in that, but Bonham Carter is suitably beautiful and of course can actually act, and the rest of the cast play it to the hilt with tongues firmly in cheek (Edward Fox & Diana Rigg)

Sentiment: negative
What a waste of talent. A very poor, semi-coherent, script cripples this film. Rather unimaginative direction, too. Some VERY faint echoes of _Fargo_ here, but it just doesn't come off.

Sentiment: negative
I really do not know what people have against this film, but it's definitely one of my favourites. It's not preachy, it's not anchored by it's moral, it shouldn't be controversial. It's just God. Any possible God, no matter the religion. And it's really funny.

Jim Carry plays Bruce Nolan, a TV reporter usually stuck on the lighter side of the news, desperate to prove himself (more or less TO himself) that he can be taken seriously and do a good job in an anchor job. This drive is what is slowly driving his beautiful girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston) away. When the final straws are executed, he's quick to not laugh, but yell in the face of God, who in turn gives Bruce his powers. Bruce then makes his life better for himself, until he's guilted into helping others, where he then continues to miss the point of his powers. Meanwhile, his constant excitement about his own life makes him more selfish, leaving his relationship on dangerous ground.

OK, that was kinda long. But as a plot, it works well. The step-by-step fashion in which we meet the challenges of being God is much better than clustering his problems together, and is able to hide itself fairly well.

As you probably know from hearing about this movie in the first place, Carrey's pitch-perfect acting stays in character (which, luckily enough, is him), and controls and gives atmosphere to the movie scene by scene. Whether they would admit it or not, the role was written or rewritten exclusively for Carrey. Without him, the humour would turn flat, as humour is half execution. And the humour is very good in the first place. But without Carrey, it would kinda feel like a It's a Wonderful Life wannabe.

Jennifer Aniston is great and, no matter what some may say, does not act like the only excuse for the third act. At least, you don't think that when you see her. She gives a heartfelt performance and makes you forget you're watching a movie, she and Carrey feel very much like a real couple.

The movie feels ggooooodd (see the movie to understand), has a very nice feeling, tackles the idea appropriately and better than expected and overall should never have been called slapped together just to save Carrey's career (which wasn't goin' anywhere.).

Sentiment: positive
As a devotee of Ms. Frank, I remember being so excited that the play was being re-made for TV. That is, until I saw it... This film is a prime example of how IMPORTANT casting is, and how directing plays such an important part in creating the sense of purpose. The casting of any CENTRAL role is CRUCIAL to a production of this sort...shows like AUNTIE MAME and MAN OF LA MANCHA are totally dependent on the charisma of the lead actor. And in the cast of this movie, the whole thing is destroyed by the atrocious casting of Melissa Gilbert in the lead role. There is not ONE SINGLE MOMENT that Ms. Gilbert even comes close to inhabiting the sensitive, mature spirit of Anne- Ms. Gilbert is "white-bread" throughout the movie... the only time I was close to tears was during the reading of Anne's most haunting line: "I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart"- this is spoken by Ms. Gilbert so rushed, so lacking in conviction, that she might has well burped and achieved the same effect. Film and dance legend Marge Champion was the dialogue coach for this production- she should have refunded her salary! Despite Ms. Gilbert ruining DIARY, other performances are satisfactory for the most part- special kudos to Joan Plowright as Edith, Scott Jacoby as Peter and Clive Reville as Mr. Dussell. Maxmillian Schell does not have the deep-rooted soul and spirit as Otto as does the creator of the role on stage and film(Joseph Schildkraut), but he's okay. Doris Roberts and James Coco as The Van Danns are relatively superficial in their parts- they're shrill and bombastic, but again, only on the surface. This COULD be due to the fact that the pacing of the project is way too rushed(as noted in previous postings)- this film clocks in 45 minutes shorter than the film version- the difference owing to the pauses for dramatic effect, which apparently is necessary to propagate the appropriate MOOD for the story. This is NOT mandatory viewing, especially for youngsters learning about Anne Frank for the first time- stick to the original film version, and or even better, the TV production of ANNE FRANK: THE TRUE STORY starring Ben Kingsley, which is the CLOSEST thing to capturing the heartbreak and reality of Anne's situation ever filmed! Note: Especially appalling is the fact that Melora Marshall, who plays Anne's sister Margot, is NOT included in the opening credits along with all the other members of The Secret Annex... she's listed in the post-credits along with the actors playing Miep and Mr. Kraler. If I was Ms. Marshall, I would have SUED!

Sentiment: negative
Back when in the States, I was like about 7 or 8, I always woke early, just to watch this, together with a whole bunch of other cartoons like HootKloot, The Road Runner Show, The Pink Panther. But this was perhaps one of the most memorable and funny animated works out there, and I still find it very funny today, I'll never forget the episodes, like the one where two aardvarks were fighting over the can of chocolate ant pudding? or the one where the aardvark is trying to reach the island where all the ants are at, and my personal favorite, the one where the ant, the aardvark and a dog end up in an animal hospital, which would later be the basis of a similar Looney Toon cartoon with Sylvester, Tweety and the bulldog. This is one of the most unforgettable cartoons out there in which anyone would love to revisit, I would. An excellent series.

Sentiment: positive
This is a re-imagining of Tarzan in the era of the Soloflex and Apocalypse Now. There's nothing inherently wrong with using films eased moral constraints to portray an erotic side to the Tarzan legend. There's nothing inherently wrong with the premise that Tarzan doesn't speak. There's plenty wrong with suggesting a woman who could get herself to an African jungle in 1910, could be this offensively stupid and plastic. Bo has as few lines as possible when bodies are explored because this movie is merely a video-centerfold, as neutral as possible so that you can project yourself and your lecherous fantasies into the project. If it succeeds anywhere it's in the implication that National Geographic has influenced the way the imagery of a Tarzan movie might be constructed.

It would be ridiculous to argue that movies shouldn't employ the sexual tease as ONE of many tools to draw in viewers. Some really great film moments incorporate it. But this move is at the opposite end of the spectrum - the tease is the only thing going on here; at the time of its release and now. You sit through awful, dumb scenes that offer no interest, and miles of footage of bad acting to drool over the next peek at either of two bodies. Yes... Bo Derek and Miles O'Keeffe are beautiful (um, congratulations on having a working libido.) but if that's your excuse for giving this schlock a good rating you really should visit a porn store and stock up. There's only a hairs-breadth difference between the two formats and (I'm just guessing here) a horny viewer would probably really enjoy the latter. The question is whether a mainstream movie is the best venue in the marketplace for viewers to seek out products that satisfy lust alone.

As a showman, John Derek successfully capitalized on the sexual mystique developed over wife Bo in the movie "10"; and created a media event out of a shallow project whose only merit was the hotness of the two leads. The movie itself was beside the point. He was about 20 years ahead of his time in thinking audiences would applaud him for making an insipid, shallow movie that was only about showcasing superficiality.

As a director, John Derek appears to require only that Mrs. Derek look pleasant, empty and hump-able in every scene. It's hideously shot. The camera placement is annoying. In terms of editing, the entire 'wipe' catalog is exhausted. The credit sequence is garish. And it's a toss-up as to who commits the worse screen offense; Bo Derek who's such a bimbo that she can't even figure out how to play a bimbo, or Richard Harris who shouts every line (as he likes to do) until you want to shoot him. At least with Bo you can imagine her blaming some horny writer for shortchanging her.

Sentiment: negative
I watch this movie every time it plays on TV. A simply brilliant film. Three men return home from war and try to return to civilian life with great difficulty. All three led opposite lives during the war (Executive Banker became an army corporal, a soda jerk became an Air Force Captain and the High School Football hero loses both his arms in battle)and now each must reconstruct his life and connect with a new reality. The homes they return to, with grown children and independent, working women along with a depressed economy, only add to the strife. It's the scenes just off camera and the unspoken dialog which resonates the most loudly, however. The awkward intimacy of Frederich March and Myrna Loy and his struggle to return to his place as leader (both at home and at work) are heartbreaking.

Dana Andrews is riveting as the handsome, decorated Captain who struggles to keep his life together without the uniform.

The film is filled with honest characters and each is portrayed by a gifted actor.

This film, however, took on a whole other level after seeing, "Saving Private Ryan." The reality and magnitude of what these men lived through for love and country......and obviously it didn't end on the battlefield.

This is an essential for any collection.



Sentiment: positive
This is one of my favorite Govinda movies of all time and best film of 1994. David Dhawan does a great job in directing this movie, he makes it funny and adds family drama. Govinda is Excellent as Raja Babu and gives a great performance. Karishma Kapoor is an actress i hate, this film she is a little less annoying but still annoys in some scenes. Kader Khan is a maestro in acting and yet gives a superb performance. Aroona Irani is terrific as the mother and gives a outstanding performance. Shakti Kapoor is brilliant as Nandu the sidekick. This film has Comedy, action, family drama and romance a full on entertainer.

Sentiment: positive
**************Possible spoilers********** There is only one reason why I saw this movie and that was because I have a massive crush on Richard Belzer.(I don't know that much about humor) There were some part that were funny Like the Barbie and Ken Spoof and the dealers and the president skit. Mind you this is sometimes raunchy(Dare, I say crude?) It was at times funny, but it could have been better. Probably if they spent more time in the humor and less time getting women undress, the movie would had been funnier. Some skits just make you want to gag, and cringe, others skits make you laugh and oddly enough think. Sadly this movie is dated. If you have a mad crush on Richard Belzer(So worth it) it's worth checking it out and seeing chevy chase.

Sentiment: positive
I really wanted to like this movie, but I just couldn't. It had the potential to be a really cool, hip remake of a cool show, but that's where it fell apart. It was too hip, too cool. First of all, all the cool lines and scenes were showcased in the preview trailers, which I'd seen lots of times. And the editing was very disjointed, so that the scenes didn't seem to flow together and they all seemed out of place. Claire Danes, who I love as an actress failed to make this her break through to the beyond high school acting roles. The only bright spot was Giovanni Ribisi as Pete. His slightly stupid, yet actually smart style was funny and refreshing. Overall though, I'd recommend just watching the previews instead of seeing the movie and wishing it was more.

Sentiment: negative
Two things are always signs that you`re going to be watching a bad movie :

1 ) If you`re instantly reminded of other movies like THE TERMINATOR, HARDWARE or BLADE RUNNER during the title sequence 

2 ) If there`s a death during a sex scene straight after the title sequence

There`s actually a third warning sign and that`s a caption indicating lazy exposition warning the poor ignorant naive audience of the dangers of corporate greed . Guess what ? CYBORG 2 starts with a caption warning us of corporate greed in the future , followed by a title sequence that reminded me of THE TERMINATOR , HARDWARE and BLADE RUNNER followed by a death during a sex scene ! Hey you don`t suppose I`ll be watching a bad movie by any chance ? 

As you can guess this is a bad movie . It`s basically a series of action scenes written around a thread bare plot of a cyborg on the run from a greedy corporate company . It`s badly written , directed and acted and most especially it`s badly lit which means it`s very difficult to see what`s happening on screen , though I`m not entirely sure this is actually a bad thing . The only interest to be had is that it`s the film debut of Angelina Jolie who plays the cyborg on the run and who says the prophetic line " They`re lovely , I wonder if they`re real ? " which is something I ask myself whenever I see one of her movies

Sentiment: negative
Movies like these do not need sequels. Part of the advantage of Don Bluth moving away from Disney is that he didn't need to suffer their endless tirade of straight-to-video, poorly animated cash-in sequels. But apparently it was someone's brilliant idea to make a sequel to "All Dogs Go to Heaven," so we get this.

Charlie Sheen replaces Burt and he's not really as good. Most of the film is just a poor excuse for a sequel and it isn't nearly as dark, different or entertaining as the original.

I feel sorry for future generations who are going to have to suffer endless sequels like this without ever knowing what it was like to have a time when Hollywood didn't totally rely on successful films as a crutch to release banal crap.

Please, no more sequels to kids films that don't need 'em.

Sentiment: negative
This UK psychological thriller is known in the United States as CLOSURE. Exploitation of X-Files' Gillian Anderson, who plays an attractive middle aged businesswoman of substance named Alice. She must attend a business party and invites Adam(Danny Dyer), who just installed a security system for her, to be her escort. On the way home, speeding through the woods on a narrow lane, Alice's auto collides with a deer. After pulling the wounded animal off the road, the couple is savagely attacked by a drunken gang of thugs. Adam is beat to a pulp; Alice is gang raped and both are emotionally and physically devastated by the ruthless attack. When the identities of their attackers are discovered, Alice and Adam set out to exact revenge...brutal revenge. The couple at times find themselves at odds on how to deal with the ruthless attackers. Their final decision is to avenge with no mercy. Let there be no mistake, payback IS hell. Also in the cast: Anthony Calf, Ralph Brown, Francesca Fowler and Antony Byrne. Brutal violence, disturbing images, nudity and graphic rape.

Sentiment: negative