DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
The movie adaptation of Heart of Darkness is disappointing, both as a movie and as a representation of Joseph Conrad's classic story. 

There are several small differences between the book and movie, but that's expected in any book to movie transition. Kurtz dies in a different location; the manager does not accompany Marlow on his voyage; Kurtz's mistress spends much more time with him than in the story. The real issue is the amount of footage that's put into the movie but has no basis in the actual story. For some reason, the director finds the need to "spice up" a few of the scenes, adding drama or actions that seldom make any sense and are always unimportant to the story. Some examples that come to mind are Kurtz's "mistress" beating Marlow over the head and knocking him out. Nothing happens while he's unconscious and Marlow didn't even provoke the attack. A couple hours pass and he wakes up: total waste of time. Kurtz has a pet monkey which, for some random reason, he kills on a whim. Also, when Marlow leaves Kurtz's station, he makes the "noble" decision to leave behind all the priceless ivory he had obtained, for no real reason at all. One other flaw is Kurtz's character. John Malkovich is a terrible choice to play the man who is described as tall and inspirational: a man with a commanding presence. He practically whispers all of his lines which, in a more capable actor's hands, could have been very thought provoking. I can't remove the image of John Malkovich playing a mentally disabled farmhand in Of Mice and Men when I'm watching him botch the role of Kurtz. Over all, I would rate the movie at 3 out of 10 stars. It's a good movie if you've read the book and want to see it in movie form, perhaps to help you visual the scenes, but as a source of entertainment, I would never recommend it.

Sentiment: negative
My husband and I watched this last night...It was wonderful....For once he was wrong in guessing ahead of time the suspenseful ending. It moved along very quickly and the acting was superb.. I adore Tom Wilkinson anyway. He has never made a bad movie as far as I'm concerned. The above description of his acting hits the nail on the head... The facial expressions are incredible. Even the picturesque scenery is awesome. We have just finished watched all of the Prime Suspect series and I am convinced that the British have a way of capturing the audience. There is no doubt that I would recommend this movie to anyone who wants to get a few hours of thorough entertainment.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the best movies on the French Revolution ever produced. Being a person well versed in the the period I was amazed at the level of detail. The costumes are spot on. Even the detailed little day to day items such as ink wells, serving plates etc are all perfect. As an American living in France who has access to the sites in the movie through his membership in various historical associations such as the Napoleonic Alliance I can not over state how impressed I was with the visual accuracy of the film.

The dialogue where known is virtual quotations and the where not recorded is in character. I was extremely pleased with this movie and am disappointed that it is not out on DVD yet. This is how historical drama should be done. Must see....

Sentiment: positive
One of my favorite movies I saw at preview in Seattle. Tom Hulce was amazing, with out words could convey his feelings/thoughts. I actually sent Mike Ferrell some donation money to help the film get distributed. It is good. System says I need more lines but do not want to give away plot stuff. I was in the audience in Seattle with Hulce and director , a writer I think and Mike Ferrell. They talked for about an hour afterwords. Not really a dry eye in the house. Why Hollywood continues to be stupid I do not know. ( actually I do know , it is our fault, look what we watch)Well you get what you pay for guys. Get this and see it with someone special. It is a gem.

Sentiment: positive
the only enjoyable thing about this highly mockable movie is playing "guess" that location. What Toronto landmark will stand in for what American/international location.

who knew that the anti-christ would be russian? obviously he can't be american since we need the yanks to save the day - oh Buck... you'll tell us all the truth... you'll show us the light... and the way outta the building should those nasty anti-christers get their way.

Five golden raspberries. Faith is not enough to hope they don't make another of this ilk! We don't gotta prayer.

Sentiment: negative
This is just a long advertisement for the movie "The Death Tunnel". Although it is an interesting history of the Waverly Hills Sanatorium, the whole ghost theory is up to your interpretation. More "Ghost Orbs" which you can duplicate with dust in front of a flash camera, and the "Ectoplasmic Mist" is just someone's cigarette smoke lit up with the camera flash. I couldn't see any "Shadow People" until they drew an outline around the blurry distortion of the image. No scientific explanations were suggested for the phenomena, only paranormal. Perhaps these are only events one would have to see to believe, so be sure to make plans to visit the Sanatorium on your next vacation in Louisville, Kentucky.

Sentiment: negative
when fellini committed 8 1/2 to film many commented that it was the most personal vision ever to find its perfect expression. when dante cast betrice to the flames of his undying passion many were aghast at the honest brutality of his unrequited feelings for a younger woman. when onur tukel, and a merry band of wickedly talented and misfited filmmakers--from the mecca of movie-making insanity--band together, during the course of two chilly weeks in december 2000, many commented that nothing more sophmoric had ever been committed...much less on film.

well, to the doubters out there, watch this original piece and find out why the ID is both a charming and powerful thing. and if that doesn't getchya, roll over and rub one out...it's probably time you did so.

kudos onur on a great piece of art

Sentiment: positive
Combining the conventions of both Western and Gothic horror, and often directed as if it were an art movie, this is one of Siegel and Eastwood's best collaborations. 

Eastwood plays a Yankee soldier who, after being wounded during the Civil War, takes refuge in an isolated Southern seminary for young women. Shut away from the world, the women project their romantic fantasies on to him, and he responds with callous, male manipulation. But jealousy and resentment raise their heads, and he finds himself in a world of brutal revenge. And boy is the revenge brutal.

Beautifully shot by Bruce Surtees, and carefully paced, "The Beguiled" is a haunting, elegant work that seems to have influenced the troubled sexuality of Eastwood's own "Play Misty for Me" and "Tightrope". 

The film is a gripping depiction of a fierce battle of the sexes and oozes a dreamlike mix of horror and sexuality. All the characters are ambiguous, displaying traits of both good and evil, leaving it up to us to choose whom we should root for.

Don Siegel left quite a legacy of fine films behind. Everything from "Invation of the Body Snatchers" to "Dirty Harry". But though his early black and white pictures have aged well, the majority of his colour films seem grainy, dated and badly shot. His gritty "realism" must have seemed fresh and kinetic 40 years ago, but when viewed today, I just don't think they've stood the test of time.

"The Beguiled", however, is in a different league. Mature, ambiguous and starkly shot, it's a shame it isn't more widely known. While evolving technology and technique have rendered the majority of Siegel's tough, masculine action thrillers obsolete, "The Beguiled" still entrances audiences today due to it's surreal atmosphere and unique subject matter.

8.5/10 - Better than the similarly themed "Black Narcissus", this is, in my opinion, Siegel's best film. Part horror, part drama, part sexual odyssey, "The Beguiled" is a surprisingly arty film (especially when considering that Siegel viewed his films to be, quote, 'meaningless'). A large part of the film's artistry is due to Clint Eastwood, who would, from this point onwards, make an effort to choose mature material.

Sentiment: positive
I just watched this film this morning and I found it to be a great showing of the richness of faith. Babette gave them another way to look at life; not a replacement, but an enhancement. She shared all that she had with those who gave what little they had to her. I see the story of God in here. He sent his only son to man. Man could not possibly give anything that would equal that. So, for our small sacrifice, we are given an ultimate treasure and are transformed because of it. In this film the bickering townspeople have so consumed themselves with a small interpretation of God. Babette showed them that life and God can indeed be beautiful in it's fullest sense. The love that God's son showed to man is the love we should show to one another and our lives will be the richer for it. Even the film is a metaphor. It seems slow in the beginning, but the investment of time and attention to detail is rewarded in the end. It was truly a feast.

Sentiment: positive
This is a hilarious film. Burt Reynolds is a NASCAR star who signs a sponsorship contract with Ned Beatty's Chicken Pit restaurants. The contract has all sorts of humiliating clauses in it, such as forcing Burt to wear a chicken suit during the race! Jim Nabors is his (not quite convincing) chief mechanic. Loni Anderson (oh, yeah!) is assigned by Beatty to keep Reynolds honest and strictly adhering to the contract. This is a funny film in which Burt proves that he ain't too proud. I like it!

Sentiment: positive
When Northfork debuted at the Cannes Film Festival, many people didn't like it because they felt it was boring and too slow. While I agree that it was slow (one of the slowest movies of the year), in no way was it boring. As Roger Ebert said, `there has never been a movie like Northfork.' I usually don't agree with Ebert, but for once he speaks the truth. Although John Sayles' Sunshine State may have some of the same immediate themes, nothing that I have ever seen or known of can even compare to the striking originality of the Polish Brothers' Northfork.

Northfork is a perfect example of how many times it's better to trek an extra few minutes to go to an art-house film instead of the latest Jack Black movie. The plot isn't some hackneyed, cookie-cutter plot; it's just so strikingly original. A small town in Montana named Northfork has a dam nearby that is about to be taken down. Therefore, the entire town must be evacuated. Some people, however, just don't want to leave. In a side plot, a young orphan (Duel Farnes) is very sick and bedridden; he's being taken care of by Father Harlan (Nick Nolte). The boy imagines himself as a fallen angel, so to speak, who help him out through his time of sickness.

Although much of the movie is straightforward, some of it could give David Lynch a run for his money. There's odd weather patterns, a weird, wooden, huge dog thing, and symbolism that would make Fellini proud. It's not as overall confusing as a Lynch film, but it's still quite odd. That's what makes Northfork so great: it's so out of the ordinary and yet so simple and plausible.

Northfork has a magical feel to it: it's almost like you're watching something you're not quite sure what it is but you feel entranced by it. As I said earlier, I agreed with Ebert on how this movie is unlike any other. However, I disagree when he says that it is `not entertaining'. He goes on to say it's just `enthralling.' Perhaps he just thought he should give it good reviews because everyone else is, but in lieu of how slow it was, I still thought it was very entertaining, something many dramas now can't do.

Northfork may not be the quickest movie or the most popular movie, but if you can get to and through it, you'll be extremely surprised, as I was.

My rating: 8/10

Rated PG-13 for brief sexuality.

Sentiment: positive
This is a clever story about relationships and a display of three main categories of players in the game of relationships: playboys (Max), manipulative women (Alice) and the fools who may be indeed in love (Lisa, Muriel and Lucien).

Max and Alice are very unlikeable and perhaps despicable characters but who are always in control in the game leaving their partners around in the dark. But as the profusely discussed ending tells us, as veteran players as Max and Alice were, they would be happy to part ways anytime they see fit as if the game was just announced to be over and each one of them could not care less to get on with his or her own life and play another game with some other anonymous people when another opportunity presented itself. Lisa, Muriel and Lucien might be the ones who felt like investing something real in a relationship, only not being able to realise that they were the baits in the game and the ultimate losers (as far as what we were shown is concerned....who knows if they are also advance players of some sort in their worlds not shown to us on screen).

This is a very fast-paced, delicately crafted and seductively witty story with an enticing execution by the cast. It also deserves some deeper thinking: how much is real in a game of relationship?

Sentiment: positive
I wish I could tell you that this film is as exciting as the theories it espouses. But I can't. Another species could have come and mutated while I waited for some action. For such a controversial man, Darwin lived the most conventional life. If you didn't know about the mad theories, you could almost mistake him for a stamp collector.

The film-makers have cast Darwin as a dullard which does him a disservice. Even when he briefly loses his mind due to his tireless theorising, it wasn't interesting to watch. Maybe great thinkers are dull people? I don't know what I was expecting: a forehead-banging eccentric with wild hair and eyes espousing his love of all things simian, the glint of madness straining from a furrowed brow? A long-haired hermit who babbled to animals? A head-cradling lunatic with eyes lit up like beacons of truth? All of the above would have been great. This is the movies for Scorsese's sake.

But there was none of that. No lightning, no thunder, no wonder, no awe. Just Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly fresh from the Subtle as Breath School of Method Acting. I imagine that someone with Darwin's ideas had a brain like a speeding train so why did this film just pootle along - chug chug chug - like a slow winter? The disappointment is immeasurable.

Sentiment: negative
Oh, man, I hated this movie. Granted, the site locations were great, but that's about the ONLY positive thing I can say about it. Now, I'm going to state right at the beginning that I am VERY critical of the way weapons, especially firearms, are both portrayed, and handled, in movies. Being a war flick, portrayal was fine, but the shoddy weapons handling in the movie would have NEVER been tolerated by a real SEAL Team. The acting was more wooden than my first sailboat, the equipment carried (or lack of it) was laughable, and the dialogue was, shall we say, lacking in ANYTHING interesting. Well, with the exception of the journalist, which was actually prescient. Watching this movie was comparable to watching "Palmetto" with Woody Harrelson, where each scene was so bad you just couldn't turn it off, because you had to see if they could get worse with the next scene. Like Palmetto, they certainly did. The scene in the water, where, after shooting the first of the enemy, they BLOW THE DAMN BOAT UP, thereby having to face possible drowning, made me laugh so hard, that for a millisecond, I almost thought it was worth waiting through the movie for. Then Charlie Sheen decided to drag the surviving enemy down to the depths of the ocean (the way it was filmed, with the many camera cuts, it looked like they went down about 80 feet. Nice continuity there....) before slashing his throat was so damn stupid, I was stunned. Then again, so was the whole damn movie. I enjoy action movies, but not this one. NOTE: The version I watched was a TV version, pan & scan. I can't imagine that made a difference, except for making the whole thing blessedly shorter!

Sentiment: negative
There is a uk edition to this show which is rather less extravagant than the US version. The person concerned will get a new kitchen or perhaps bedroom and bathroom and is wonderfully grateful for what they have got. The US version of this show is everything that reality TV shouldn't be. Instead of making a few improvements to a house which the occupants could not afford or do themselves the entire house gets rebuilt. I do not know if this show is trying to show what a lousy welfare system exists in the US or if you beg hard enough you will receive. The rather vulgar product placement that takes place, particularly by Sears, is also uncalled for. Rsther than turning one family in a deprived area into potential millionaires, it would be far better to help the community as a whole where instead of spending the hundreds of thousands of dollars on one home, build something for the whole community ..... perhaps a place where diy and power tools can be borrowed and returned along with building materials so that everyone can benefit should they want to. Giving it all to one person can cause enormous resentment among the rest of the local community who still live in the same run down houses.

Sentiment: negative
I really truly enjoyed this movie. (Which is why it surprised me that it got such a low rating from so many users at this site!) I am not saying that it is a cinematic masterpiece but it was a great way to spend a cold, snowy Saturday night. It is funny, poignant, and a great tales of the ups and downs of female friendships lasting through difficult times and the bad things that female friends tend to do to each others! (fess up ladies, we have ALL BEEN THERE!) Bill Paterson shines as the Reverand Gerald Marsden and Andie McDowell proves that she can be a fine actress when the role is right and she puts her mind to it. (And truly, there is the best "wedding escape" that I have ever seen or dreamed up in this film ... more guts than anyone I have ever known!) You will laugh and you will cry --- ignore any marketing campaigns and how this film is being marketing .... it is a hidden gem that should have done TONNES of box office. (now I have to look around to purchase a copy!)

Sentiment: positive
Soapdish may go down as one of the single most under-rated movies ever made.

A stellar, unselfish cast who understood exactly where the movie was going and the roles they played in it. While everyone hammed it up, there was no one-upmanship. Kline showed wit and great physical comedy, Goldberg and Downey knew how to carry on a funny conversation while someone else was talking, I could just go on.

Do not pass this movie by!

Sentiment: positive
We should have been suspicious to discover that with only two minutes to lights out we were the only ones there. Only five others joined before the movie began.

There is nothing at all to redeem this movie. The acting is awful (especially Ms Hurley). The script is banal. The effects we've seen a million times. The film direction the worst that we've seen. Meandering and disjointed. No-one laughed including the kids.

We left after 25 minutes. It would have been sooner if my wife hadn't gone for a hot-dog!!!

Do not waste your money on this film. If there's nothing else to watch at your cinema then buy some drinks, popcorn and hot-dogs and do some people watching. You'll have a much more enjoyable time!!!



Sentiment: negative
I strongly dislike this show. I mean, like, basically everyone at that school is perfect, and rich, and I doubt a boarding school would look as cool as that. And why do they suddenly allow girls into the school? Isn't that just a little weird? anyways, Jamie Lynn spears CANNOT act. She always has the same facial expression, which really annoys me. She is basically emotionless, and all the guys seem to like her.

and shouldn't chase tell her he likes her? its not that hard! really! None of this show is real life, and she isn't "a girl like me" because majority of the regular girls do NOT go to boarding school, do not have designer clothes, and do NOT live by the beach.

fake fake fake.

Sentiment: negative
There are some great Canadian films. There are some crappy ones. Last night, I watched one of the crappy ones. It wasn't the typical Canadian film where it tried to be so different by being arty. This film tried to be some type of Hollywood gangster movie. It was terrible.

From the beginning I had a sense that it would be a bad movie. It had some of the cheesiest dialouge a movie can have. There was this voice over for one scene and then it never returned. That always bugs me, when filmmakers just use voice over when they can't think of another creative way to tell a story.

I know being in the Canadian film industry, I should support my fellow brothers, but this movie is junk. The premise is something like a Soprano's episode only not realistic. Some banker's mafia boss dad is on his death bed and orders the son to make the business legit. Not so original. And the workers complain about it, but they just take the fact that they will soon be out of jobs like nothing. To make it legit they use extortion. Irony. But not the good kind. Then some freak show girl who had an awful Elvis wig and birthmark that covered half of her face robs the main character and kinda rapes him. Anyways, this guy for whatever reason now likes to dress up as girls. Then this banker hooks up with a hooker, when he has a beautiful future wife at home. But he falls for the hooker because the hooker dresses like a man and puts make-up on him. She blackmails him with some photos of him wearing bra and panties. Yet, he still loves her. He also has no reason to leave his fiancé, but he does in order to be with the hooker.

For a movie about organize crime and sexual fetish, there was neither action nor sex. It was like a late night Cinemax porn movie without the good stuff. The would-be sex scenes weren't hot or sexy. It was all too amateurish. The movie had nothing going for it, just the lame plot.

I don't think it was the actor's fault. I think they had a terrible script to work with. What stuck out the most was the ridiculous characters. The bad guy's name was Uncle Bunny or something. But the name wasn't important. It was they all were cliché. The dialouge was laughable throughout the movie, and fellow movie-goers laughed aloud at some of the movies "serious" moments. Then, the worst of it all. It had to be the cheapest ending. If you can ever remember playing shoot out as a kid with either imaginary guns or toy guns. That was basically the ending of the movie. But I was more than happy it ended, and I had to warn my fellow Canadians to not waste time or money watching this film.

Sentiment: negative
This show proved to be a waste of 30 minutes of precious DVR hard drive space. I didn't expect much and I actually received less. Not only do I expect this show to be canceled by the second episode, I cannot believe that Geico will ever attempt to use the cavemen ad campaign EVER again. I would have preferred spending a night checking my daughter's hair for head lice than watching this piece of refuse. I wonder what ABC passed on to make this show fit into the '07 fall schedual, perhaps a hospital/crime/mocumentary reality show featuring the AFLAC duck? In the event that I failed to express my opinion about this show let me be clear and say that it is not too good.

Sentiment: negative
Why is it better? Because it's true to the dark vision of the comic. Because the imagery is inventive and, unlike the first, there are real moments of fear and pathos in this one. The first one had too much of Jack Nicholson's shtick, too much Prince music, and an awkward "romance." Here, instead of one villain, there are three. No Robert Wuhl, and the leading lady is more than just a pretty face. In fact, Pfeiffer is the #1 attraction of this film. Her transformation is what drives the running theme, teetering on the edge of sanity and insanity, good and evil. She becomes truly fearsome. The costumes and makeup are excellent. Danny DeVito's Penguin is inspired and anguished, not just a nut. His circus gang posse is the one element of comic relief (besides that giant duck). Max Shrek is the only character I'd have toned down, Walken is pretty hammy as the ruthless businessman. Danny Elfman's score is a perfect fit as usual, and the Siouxie and the Banshees song ("Face to Face") is easily the best of any of the songs from any of the films, a perfect match of musical artist and film soundtrack. The least campy of the films, it is macabre, doesn't pander, and demands second and third viewings like an amusement park ride. Bravo Tim Burton and cast!

Sentiment: positive
This is an excellent movie. As a Canadian who grew up with a rural lifestyle much of it is familiar , the winter, canoeing , trapping , hunting and the like. It is easy to take the familiar for granted but after watching this film a few times it has grown on me .

The story of Grey Owl is well known to many Canadians credit to director Attenborough and screenplay writer Nicholson for expanding the story.

Brosnan does well portraying a complex man , a very fine performance. Annie Galipeau is lovely in her first large role. The rest of the cast is solid.

Sentiment: positive
This film takes you to another time when there was a different pace to everyday life. We get an idea how families had to deal with the war and how quickly we sent young men off to fight. A very touching look at the past and a reminder that casualties of war don't just happen on the front.

Luckily many of us have never had to go through what our great-grandparents, grandparents or parents went through during a war. This film, I think, is a small thank you. Peter Outerbridge looks amazingly like a young Peter O'Toole and Russell Crowe is absolutely charming and as Australian as he can be. It's definitely worth listening to him recite "High Flight" and makes me wonder what he might accomplish with Shakespeare.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was on the Romance channel, and I thought it might be a goofy 80's movie that would be enjoyable on some level, so my brother and I watched it. Boy did it suck. Boy gets crush on girl--correction, his *dream*-girl (apparently there is a difference; and I'm surprised he realized she was his dream girl--he was smitten with her from over 30 feet away. I guess that just goes to show the power of dream-girls), boy ends up masquerading as a female to be near dream-girl (creative in the sense that it's a far-out plan, but un-creative in the sense that there are probably better solutions one might think up), awkward situations ensue, a match is made (all of which takes seems to take place around late afternoon--either the location was somehow responsible for this odd lighting, or the actors had to wait until they got off of their day-jobs to come to the set; I suspect the latter). Very clumsily done, very pathetic. It's almost never even amusing *accidentally*, so there really is nothing to redeem it. Unless you're interested in seeing Chad Lowe's early days, before he finally got his piece of the pie with his role as the HIV-positive gay guy on the series "Life Goes On", or Gail O'Grady who was on NYPD Blue and probably got to stare at Dennis Franz's buttocks). But those are unlikely motives--I'd say "systematic derangement of the senses" would be a more justified purpose. I'm surprised I watched it all. I guess it's the kind of thing where, halfway through, you find yourself *still* watching due to some morbid, self-flagellistic inner-issue, and think you might as well finish it so you can tell your friends and family that you actually sat through such a horrible movie, on the off-chance that it'll garner you some sympathy for the questionable state of your mental health. Can *You* Take the Challenge?

Sentiment: negative
**SPOILERS AHEAD**

It is really unfortunate that a movie so well produced turns out to be

such a disappointment. I thought this was full of (silly) clichés and

that it basically tried to hard. 

To the (American) guys out there: how many of you spend your

time jumping on your girlfriend's bed and making monkey

sounds? To the (married) girls: how many of you have suddenly

gone from prudes to nymphos overnight--but not with your

husband? To the French: would you really ask about someone

being "à la fac" when you know they don't speak French? Wouldn't

you use a more common word like "université"? 

I lived in France for a while and I sort of do know and understand

Europe (and I love it), but my (German) roommate and I found this

pretty insulting overall. It looked like a movie funded by the

European Parliament, and it tried too hard basically. It had all

sorts of differences that it tried to tie together (not a bad thing in

itself) but the result is at best awkward, but in fact ridiculous--too

many clashes that wouldn't really happen. Then the end of the

movie--the last 10 minutes--ruined all the rest. Why doesn't Xavier

talk to the Erasmus students he meets back in Paris? Why does

he just walk off? Why does he just run away from his job, is that

"freedom"? And in the end, is the new Europe supposed to rest on

a bunch of people who smoke up and shag all day? Is this what

it's made up of? 

Besides, the acting was pretty horrible. I can't believe Judith

Godrèche's role and acting. Why was she made to look like

Emanuelle Béart so much? At first I thought Xavier was OK but

with retrospect I think he was pretty bad. 

And that's all really too bad, because technically (opening credits,

scenes when he's asking what papers he needs) it was really

good (except for sound editing around the British siblings), and the

soundtrack was great too. So the form was good, but the content

pretty horrible.

Sentiment: positive
This was the very first movie I ever saw in the theatre by myself. I was 7 years old, and to this day it is one of my favorite movies. It's pure smarmy cheese. The cartoon was marketed towards young girls, selling dolls with soft bodies and big plastic heads, one for every colour of the rainbow, with their own special animals, 'sprites' and even a talking rainbow horse. Typical of the time period, each show was about how hope, togetherness and magic can make 'everything all better'.

The movie concerns the coming of spring, when all the light and colour returns to the world, but this time it just isn't happening for our lovely hero. A spoiled Princess plots to overtake the soul lightgiver (and implied life giver)of the universe, which happens to be a giant diamond, for her own devious purposes, with no regard for reality, and now Rainbow and her newly found friends Orin, Onyx and Chris must save the universe. As I said before, it's cheesy, but it's cute, and it's exactly like all of the other cartoons from that time period, like the CareBear movies, Strawberry Shortcake, Rose Petal and the Smurfs. All movies created to sell dolls to kids. And it works. :)

Sentiment: positive
I was a huge fan of the original Robocop.

But to say I was disappointed by this first sequel would be an understatement.

The problems are many.

Glossy though the film may look there are plenty of bloopers on screen for all to see, wires, cameramen etc, something I find wholly unacceptable from someone of Irvin Kreshner's pedigree.

Robocop has become a robot. There is no spark of humanity to be found in the character here. A true disappointment when one considers that his "soul" had returned by the end of the first movie. Here his attitude shows no human side and makes him hard to sympathise with.

Caine is a poor villain. OK I know Boddiker from the first film was better than the average, mainly thanks to Kurtwood Smith's performance, but the usually solid Tom Noonan creates a character who you couldn't care less about one way or the other.

What's happened to the Old Man????. I appreciate that he didn't get to where he is by being "nice" but the change in his character here is nothing short of dumbfounding. In the first movie it's made clear he despises Dick Jone's tactics and attitude and yet here he's no better than Jones. It makes no sense.

Doctor Faxx is a poor replacement for Bob Morton's charismatic, if unpleasant, OCP resident genius.

The action sequences, save the sequence where Murphy is stuck to the side of Caine's truck, are harsh and nasty and repel rather than entertain.

And finally. What is with the musical score?. Don't tell me Poledouris couldn't have done it simply because he was working on Total Recall at the time. A series (TV or Movie) soundtrack is part of its personality. Part of its character. When you remove that it harms the familiarity of the characters we're watching. So it's bad enough but shame on Leonard Rosenman. His score here is lurid, camp and downright cringe worthy.

The story has its moments to be fair. There's a lot of originality in here. But it tries too many new things to take in with one film. Hob is a well realised villain and the only truly dis likable "villian" in the move, Thumbs up to Gabriel Damon there.

The final showdown between Robocop and Robocop 2 is fun as well.

But for the vast majority of its overlong running time this is a serious disappointment.

Sentiment: negative
I was shocked at how bad it was and unable to turn away from the disaster. This made 'Major League II' and 'Blues Brothers 2000' Oscar-worthy in comparison.

I have tried to remember watching anything as bad as this in my life and was unable to come up with anything even close.

Sentiment: negative
I had tried to rent this on many occasions, but was always with the girlfriend, who, as a general rule, usually rejects heist flicks and ensemble comedies with the comment "Uhm... looks good, but i'm not in the mood for that movie." Thus entereth the "Almighty Solo Movie Night"!

Anyway, I found Welcome To Collinwood a rather enjoyable movie. While ultimately fairly forgettable, it does have moments of fun and a few laugh out loud moments. I was unfamiliar with the fact that it was a remake, and as a general rule watch movies trying to ignore that fact and watch them on their own merits anyway. George Clooney puts in a humorous and brief cameo as a wheeled safe cracker that, for the most part left me wondering two things... 1. wouldn't every comedy be better if Mr. Clooney put in a strange 5 minute cameo? and 2. How do they make fake tattoos that look old and faded, and how easily do they wash off? The cast, all fine actors in their own right, put in a great job, and you get the impression that they had a good time working together which is fairly important in a movie like this. Needless to say all does not go as planned in this movie, both plot-wise and humor-wise, but it made me check out the special features and consider watching the original, so I consider it a success! Rent this one for a good time, maybe grab a few friends and a pizza. you'll have a good time.

***7/10***

On a side note, the soundtrack is spectacular. It's great to hear the far under appreciated Paolo Conte used, and it left me humming snippets of the score long after the credits rolled.

Sentiment: positive
(Synopsis) In the year 2055, the rich are able to travel back in time and hunt a live dinosaur for a huge price. Sonia Rand (Catherine McCormack) has developed a machine that can take people back in time. Charles Hatton (Ben Kingsley) has taken this technology and opened a business know as Time Safari. Anyone with the money can travel back millions of years and shoot a dinosaur. Dr. Travis Ryer (Edward Burns) leads his team together with the big game hunter on a floating walkway to a spot where they can kill the dinosaur. The trip protocol is that they must stay on the walkway and not disturb the land or anything creature around them. Unfortunately for the human race, one hunter steps on and kills a butterfly. This insignificant act causes major impacts to the earth's climate and creates new species of animal life. The course of evolution as we know it is now being changed by time waves. Travis and Sonia try to stop the changing process before it becomes permanent, and man becomes extinct.

(Comment) The movie was a little slow and the concept of going back in time and changing things was a little overdone. The death of a single butterfly causing the tremendous changes in the world's atmosphere and evolution is simply ridiculous. They changed the skyline of Chicago to look modern, but the new cars of the future were silly looking. You can wait to see this fantasy on DVD. (Warner Brothers Pictures, Run time 1:43, Rated PG-13)(4/10)

Sentiment: negative
I saw this little Belgian gem two days after seeing 'American Teen'. Make no mistake about it, adolescence is a roller coaster ride, be it American or European. 'Naissance des Pieuvres' (or as it is being called in the U.S. 'Water Lillies')is a tale of a young 15 year old girl (played by Pauline Acquart,who at times resembles a young Scarlett Johansson)acts the cool, withdrawn girl who wants to be on the school swim team, just to be close to another attractive girl (Adele Haenel). It's more than obvious that Marie is more than attracted to Floriane. Figuring among all of this is Marie's rather plump, unattractive friend, Anne, who just wants a boyfriend like any other girl her age. Along the way,we are shown the usual array of teen pastimes (broken hearts,shop lifting,alcohol and/or drug use,casual sex,etc.). This is a quiet little film that takes time to work it's way into your system (Michael Bay fans,take note:the pacing here is s-l-o-w,so steer clear),but if you have no problem with this, Water Lillies is a charmer. No rating here,but would pull down a hard "R", due to language,nudity,adult situations.

Sentiment: positive
what a waste of time! i expected better from cameron diaz! i guess it wasn't really her fault for being in a terrible film. the film does not capture the beauty of europe.....and wasn't successful in leading the audience into suspense or wonder. weak attempt at storytelling and narrating -- dialogue is dull and wasn't able to convey what i sometimes think simplicity is beauty. no love, energy, electricity on screen. too bad!!!!!!!!1

Sentiment: negative
This show has everything you could ever want from a prison drama. There are twists and turns all the way till the season finally. The characters are very strong, and it gives the show a lot of power. When watching the show you feel for not only the prisoners, but the prison staff. The actors who play prisoners on this show have done a very good job portraying a prisoner. Also if you like law and order svu or law and order criminal intent there are many actors from this show that appear in those shows. The only problem with Oz is that it was not long enough. This show could of easily had nine to ten seasons without getting old. Even after the season finale i sill find myself watching Oz all the time on DVD. This show is easily one of the best shows on television. Don't be a fool, go watch Oz.

Sentiment: positive
The key to the joy and beauty, the pain and sadness of life is our ability to accept that life basically is what it is so we don't constantly struggle against that single compelling truth. In so doing, we find peace. Elegant in its simplicity but so hard for most of us to grasp.

In this film, the director shows us this truth but allows us to discover it in our own way. This is a beautiful yet simple story, more of a fable, which is played very well. Watching the actors is more like being in a room with real people than it is just watching actors.

I struggled with how to write a review of this fine film so others would be motivated to see it. I'm at a loss. The story is about men in a bath house. Sounds like a real turn off, right? But, nothing could be farther from the truth. The American title for this film is The Shower but that is almost an antithesis to a major thematic element in this film, which is the bath. I'm still at a loss. Talking about the story or the characters will not do them justice.

So, I'll just tell you how much I enjoyed watching this movie and how touching and moving the experience was. I was also quite entertained. I cared deeply for the characters and I cared deeply about what happened to them. For any story, that is the highest form of praise.

If you were moved by movies like The King Of Masks or Not One Less, then make sure you see The Shower. Netflix has it and the DVD video and sound quality are excellent. I watched it in the original lanquage with well done and well placed English subs.



Sentiment: positive
Calling this film a decent or enjoyable horror tribute is far too optimistic. Heck, you can't even refer to it as a nice spoof of the genre because it's way below average ( it's funny, but not "haha-funny, you know). But still I'd say to give it a look. If only for the huge amount of trivia elements in it. By the way, all those people who're complaining about this movie here in their comments have only themselves to blame. When you see the DVD-cover of this film, you should already know that it's not going to be on the same level as "The Piano" for example, so don't come complaining afterwards...

Evil Ed could've been something but the totally screwed it up. I suppose the main idea behind this film is criticism towards the growing 'cutting-committee' in horror nowadays. It shows an editor named Edward who's slowly (well,not too slowly) going nuts by seeing all the violence and gore in the movies produced by his company produced. The big boss is named Sam Campbell...Funny, isn't it ? Personally I also expected a character named Bruce Raimi, but to my surprise there wasn't. Anyway, this guy became rich by making movies called "Loose Limbs". They feature ( and I'm not kidding you! ) scenes in which a girl is getting raped by a BEAVER (?) and then gets shot in the head by a bazooka !!! Now, who says horror isn't original anymore ?

With all the gore and the 'loose limbs', it's hard to believe it but it really gets boring very quick. After a decent first 25 minutes, Evil Ed turns into complete boredom and never recovers from that. The only think left to do then ( besides pushing the eject-button, of course ) is look for the obvious amount of references to other, much better horror films. I saw scenes obviously stolen from The Evil Dead, Silence of the Lambs, Braindead and several others.And there's a huge amount of classic horror posters on the walls to admire as well.

Evil Ed finds it origin in Sweden. I'm convinced there's a lot up talent there, far North ( take the Danish "Nattevagten" as an example )...but none of them talents joined the cast or crew of Evil Ed. Only to see if you're in a dumb mood and you don't want to use your brain at all.

Sentiment: negative
I couldn't even...I mean...look....okay...

Wow.

Not even a bunch of my drunk friends trying to make fun of the movie could enjoy themselves in the least bit.

I can only think...how. How do independent film makers everywhere go years without getting noticed (or even their lives) and con-artists like the guy who made this get a DVD on a shelf? It seriously looks as if some guy with a home movie camera went out with some guys he met at Subway and made the worst thing he could think of.

"Hey guys, give me some ideas. Start with a corn-field and work backwards." "Well, you've gotta have actors straight out of high school, and some broken corn stalks with shreds of clothing attached. And boobs." Thanks, guy, I'm sure that you and Windows Movie Maker will be side by side on your next anxiously awaited project.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is nothing but a religious tract promoting classic Hinduism and New Age Occultism dressed up with Western images to be swallowed by those who are ignorant of foundational religious comparisons. Basic tenants of Hinduism contain elements of reincarnation. (Some of the characters appear both in the present time and also in the 1600's) obviously reincarnated. God is an impersonal force. Animal life and plant life are all the same. (This is Pantheism). Redfield has tried to mix Eastern Mysticism with Western Christianty. His attempt at syncretism may fool or confuse those who are not seekers of truth but this movie is a feeble excuse for any ultimate reality. As the ad in the old Berkeley Barb used to say for $10.00 will show you how to start your own religion. As one famous prophet has said, "Use the Force Luke".

Sentiment: negative
This has some excellent spots but the length of the film can not sustain the wafer thin plot. It is another sailors on leave film, zippier than Astaire's 'Follow the Fleet' but not as good as 'On The Town'. 

Kathryn Grayson is bland but Kelly and Sinatra work well together. Their 'If you Knew Susie' number is hilarious as they make up the song as they sing it. 'I Begged Her' is also fun with Sinatra showing how adept he was at hoofing. Sinatra's solo songs are dull and seem to be inserted to show off his singing rather than as part of the story. Fortunately there are accomplished supporting actors like Grady Sutton, Rags Ragland, Carlos Ramirez and Pamela Britton and an unlikely but impertubable Jose Iturbi as himself, to keep one watching.

Kelly is the star of the film, although third billed and it is interesting to see him interact with children, which Astaire never did. Dean Stockwell plays a child who wants to be in the navy and latches on to the Kelly character. He also visit a school resulting in him telling the children a fictitious story of his life in the Pomeranian (!)navy which leads to his wonderful dance with an animated Jerry Mouse. In another scene he dances a charming Mexican Hat Dance with a sublimely grave faced little girl, Sharon McManus, that is entrancing and sweet. 

Very pleasant then but a bit too long. A taster of better musicals to come.

Sentiment: positive
While it's not "perfect", it's close. Love Barbara Stanwyck, SZ Sakall, Sidney Greenstreet, Dennis Morgan, Robert Shayne (Superman's police chief), the housekeeper, the waiter at Restaurant Felix, and the judge......I can go on and on. This movie has been part of my family's holiday tradition since I was a youngster, and my children grew up with it, too! "The baby swallowed the watch" was always my son's favorite line.

Sexy Barbara Stanwyck in pants and gowns stole the show along with the cuddly, funny S. Z. Sakall. Dennis Morgan has a few great songs, too.

I highly recommend this movie and suggest you skip the remake (blah).

Sentiment: positive
Okay, I had reasonably high expectations for this. The controversial subject matter was a good concept. As a horror fan I admit I was fascinated and very excited about this.

It turns out they had a great idea, but it was terribly executed. Let's see. This movie seems to run in 3 modes: Happy, Sex and Dark. The problem is that the movie never decides what it wants to be. The "Happy" parts I believe were meant to contrast with the "Dark" parts, but it doesn't work. The soundtrack is one of the reasons.

The movie transitions between these 3 modes very badly, I can't even begin to say how much the directing and editing suck. There's sex in the most unappealing and unerotic way. I'm not complaining but even for Horror standards they were unnecessary and filler.

The characters are all unlikeable with the exception of Paula (Potente). Her friend from Munich is a slut and possibly one of the most annoying characters in movies I've come across recently.

There's a bit of plot which I won't go into detail... It's not stupid and in more talented hands would make a good movie. There's even a nice twist and a cool conspiracy going on. Don't try to understand everything because there are giant plot holes here.

It's all so shoddily done that you don't care for the victims, the perpetrators, anyone. And to think this could have been great. I can say ONE good thing about it which is, the movie shed some light on today's unethical medical procedures. With genetics and controversial sciences advancing, this could have been a great philosophical film that raises and discusses these questions. But you won't find that here, just a series of scenes loosely pasted together with people and things that you don't care about.

Skip this and go watch Flatliners instead, you're welcome.

3/10

Sentiment: negative