DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
What Irving Thalberg did in making this film today would never be attempted again. Making a Chinese story with occidental players even if they are of the caliber of Paul Muni, Luise Rainer, Charley Grapewin, and Walter Connolly among others.

Perhaps it's partly because the story was written by a westerner, Pearl Buck who got a Pulitzer Prize for her novel in 1932. Ms. Buck, daughter of Chinese missionaries, probably brought China closer to the consciousness of America than any other person. Not the political struggles of China, but the lives and toil of the every day people we find in The Good Earth. Unfortunately later on, Pearl Buck became an apologist for the Kuomintang China of Chiang Kai-Shek in all its virtues and excesses. The rest of her literary output never matched The Good Earth.

In The Sundowners there is a great description of comparing China to Australia by Peter Ustinov. When asked the difference, Ustinov said China was very big and very full and Australia was very big and very empty. That's what you see in The Good Earth, China very big and very full of people, more than she can deal with at times.

The Good Earth tells the story of Wang Lung (Paul Muni) as a young man who purchases a wife from a large house where she was a slave. The woman O-Lan (Luise Rainer) bears him two sons and sees him through all the good times and bad they have, drought, famine, revolution, and a climatic locust plague.

Luise Rainer won the second of two consecutive Oscars for portraying O-Lan. She may have set some kind of record in that it has to be the leading player Oscar performance with the least amount of dialog. Everything she does practically is done with facial expressions, her performance could have been on a silent film with very minimal subtitles. I think only John Mills in Ryan's Daughter had fewer words and he was playing a mentally retarded man.

Muni is not always appreciative of how supportive she is in that male dominated culture. Rainer helps in the field, bears and raises the kids, does the housework. When Muni becomes a man of property he takes a Chinese second trophy wife who causes him a lot of grief. Still Rainer stoically bears it all. Still Muni is not a bad man and it's a tribute to the film and his acting and Buck's writing that you don't hate him and the culture gap is bridged. 

We've got a group of oriental players now who do more than just Kung Fu movies. I'm surprised The Good Earth of all films has not been remade at this point. I'll bet the Chinese government would even let some American company do it on an actual location.

Till then we've got this great classic to appreciate and enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
Many horror fans complain that horror has scarcely progressed in the last twenty years. I was inclined to agree with this until the influx of Asian horror films, a trend which has admittedly grown dull. However, it has produced some true classics, and A Tale Of Two Sisters, for me at least, stands out as an exceptional piece of cinema, and perhaps the best horror film in a very long time.

Based vaguely on a Korean folktale, it tells the sad story of two mentally-troubled sisters residing with their father and stepmother. After experiencing a few problems on their first night back at home, they determine to stick together and deny their stepmother access to their close relationship. The tension rises and there is the inevitable snap. But what happens after this requires more than a pair of eyes, as the story takes several twists, and the scares become more emotional and quite real. By the end, you may need a few moments to absorb it all and piece it together in your own mind, but it is exactly this pairing of horror and mystery that pushes it beyond the definitions of these genres and makes it an instant classic. One to watch again and again, if only to work it all out.

Sentiment: positive
I get the impression that I was watching a different movie to the majority of other people I know who have seen this film. It's not really that I found the film offensive or anything - just that the script was unbelievably amateurish for a film that had obviously had a bit of money thrown at it. I really respected Paul Haggis' work on the Million Dollar Baby script and was bitterly disappointed to see how bad this script was. It was clear to me that it was desperate to be the 'racism' version of Traffic, but I don't think Traffic was really a film worth ripping off in the first place. 

The worst feature of thisfilm is the way it shamelessly spoon-feeds its audience. Does Haggisreally think we are so dumb as to require a shot of the blanks? Do wereally need to see the phone book sitting on Farhad's dashboard, withthe address circled in black texta? Can we not be left to make someleaps in logic for ourselves? 

I also had a major problem with the dialogue which was so 'on the nose'. I have heard one critic say that the quality of dialogue is deceptively high, because even though people may not speak this way, they certainly do think this way. That is irrelevant. It is the job of a script like this to utilise dialogue in a way that helps add to the characterisations and believability of the (in this case highly implausible) situations that are set up. These characters all speak using the same voice and all they ever talk about is racism. 

Surely the purpose of a film like this should be to promote the fact that race should not really be an issue in these situations, but by making it the sole focus of every scene, doesn't it become innately racist itself? Characters walk around spouting their philosophies and conveniently memorised statistics on race relations as though they're regurgitating extracts from the research essay they've just written. It's utterly unconvincing and obvious. 

A film should reveal its meaning gradually, not slap us in the face with it in the opening scenes and then never let up. I can see that Haggis' intentions with this film were honorable, but dare I suggest that by directing his own script he has not been able to identify and, therefore, overcome its flaws. I really hope that writer/directors will be really careful in future when approaching this 'mosaic' style of narrative. It has been done well a number of times, but getting the balance between the personal and the political right is very difficult. And Robert Altman will not be outdone in that department.

Sentiment: negative
I watched this film on the advice of a friend who assured me it was one of the funniest things he'd ever seen. Sadly this person is completely lacking a sense of humour and I was forced to endure two hours of the worst film making I have ever seen. Please do not watch this film. 1/10

Sentiment: negative
Since this picture is classified a "pure entertainment" work and since there are already many comments on it, I'd like hereby to address something relevant to the abuse of humour. We can see that Marlon Wayans is playing the joker role in this film. Certainly as long as he has been involved in the casting job, he has always been acting as a little man-an actor can change his customary dress but can hardly change his physical appearance-and the latter one can be an advantage when necessary. However far away from what I expected, I saw an image very disguising, pretending to expose different aspects of the baby life by mistake of a forty-year- old criminal. And with a ridiculous happy ending. So what is the point? Many elements are mixed up, some principal ones are violence, sex and criminal activities, amongst which the story is badly composed and to some extent, lack common sense: where is Vanessa when the peace of her house is violated and her husband's life being pursued? In addition the diamond is even bigger than the world's No.1 Cullinan! But the most sickening facet is the continuous attempt to make up the little man as a superman by showing his physical weak points. And they call it humour. A diamond is precious, hard and fragile; it cannot be cut by any other material but only be conquered by the hot blood of a male goat. Hence it's no more a diamond but pieces of debris.

Sentiment: negative
One of the all-time great science fiction works, as visionary and thought-provoking as Blade Runner or even Gilliam's own Brazil. Willis gives his best performance here, but he's outdone by Pitt's incredibly frenetic turn that's unlike anything he's done before or since. Even Stowe isn't out of her league here, though. The story is very layered and offers quite a lot to think about. The climactic scene is beautifully magnificent, and the last lines fit perfectly. The scenes in the mental hospital are creepy and yet so funny in their own way. Lots of dark humour on display here. Fantastic production design and suitably bizarre cinematography. In my top ten.

Sentiment: positive
This movie starts out brisk, has some slow moments in the middle, but generally moves along well, has a few very good moments, then peters out at the end of Act 3. I was able to get to see this in LA premieres 2 times (with 2 different endings). Jason Lee is a star, but he is not tomorrows leading man. He is humorous and holds his own, but he is better served as a supporting actor. Julia Stiles does 'ok' in a comedy role, new for her, but she doesn't 'steal' this movie, the way a star of her caliber should. For an actress who has so much potential(10 Things, Save the Last Dance, O), it is hard to watch her continue to do roles that are so 'average', and then not have her take the role and run away with the movie (like Daniel Day-Lewis did in 'Gangs'). Selma Blair is a good young actress as well, and does an 'ok' job. I didn't expect an academy award performance from her, and she didn't deliver one, but, her performance was adequate. Chris Koch delivers another film that is 'above average'. Perhaps the problem lies in the script more than anything else. I 'did' like this movie! But, it is not a movie where you walk away and say...'that was great!'...This 'story' has been done so many times before and there was just not much new here. The rehearsal dinner scene was probably the best in the movie, and Larry Miller gives an incredible performance in a supporting role (he could be the best surprise of the film). If you want to go see a movie that will make you laugh a few times, and have an enjoyable evening, I can still recommend this film, but unless they have changed the ending...again...leave during the church scene, or you will surely be disappointed.

Sentiment: positive
I rented this film just to see Amber Benson, though after reading the box I thought it sounded like a good story.....however the first problem was that there really wasn't a story...or actually there was a story but it made absolutely no sense. The second problem was there was no set up for these characters...yes I got that they all went to school together, but within the first 3 minutes of the film you realized they had nothing else in common and didn't like each other...so why did they keep getting together. Flaw number 3...the director though long pauses and tight camera shots equaled suspense (especially with the typical suspense music dubbed in)...he was sadly mistaken. It was painful to watch a terrific actress like Amber Benson waste time trying to bring this back to life....my only hope is the money she made here was put toward producing her own film.

Sentiment: negative
One of the worst things a film studio can do is exploit the tragedies of others, commercializing a 'shock' or 'gore' factor in order to sell tickets to be able to buy their Birch a new diamond necklace. Another worst thing is to totally misrepresent the true facts of an incredible saga by fabricating events, dialog and images to the director's own liking. Lastly, one of the worst things a film studio can do is to use bottom-of-the-barrel actors and shoot it all on a sound stage that was rented for fifty cents a day. All three of these travesties the makers of this film are guilty of. This is, hands-down, the worst movie I have ever seen, and I've seen thousands. A score of '1' is too good for this waste of celluloid. Not only should the filmmakers be ashamed for making it, they should be ashamed for negatively exploiting the heroes of this story, which are the people who experienced this tragedy firsthand, both the living and the dead.

Sentiment: negative
i remember watching an elizabeth montgomery movie when i was maybe 5 years old (if that) and to this day i can remember this movie (in just bits and pieces). it was the movie i remembered all throughout my life because i was sooo scared. I think i remember the story part of it and the house constantly being dark. the main part that was the most freaky to me was Elizabeth walking around the house all dark and then there was someone in the field outside. At the time I thought i was an old witch but the memory of it is now way hazy so i can't really remember who it was but it was someone definitely in a field outside lurking...and that part is what freaked me out the most. i really wish i could see this movie again. if anyone knows how to get a copy please email me at valid908@yahoo.com

Sentiment: positive
The first series of Lost kicked off with a bang... literally and slowly decreased in pace. This may have put some viewers off and people who started to watch halfway through would either be bored or just plain confused. 

I would advise people new to the world of Lost to simply watch from the beginning and don't get pt off by the slower episodes. The acting throughout is excellent but why have 5 series' planned... WHY??? All this means is that there will be no answers for at least 4 years, oh well, i'll keep watching if it keeps the tension up and dialogue flowing.

Sentiment: positive
The casting (and direction) in Undercurrent is more insipid than inspired in this noir clunker that fails from the outset to get off the ground. Robert Taylor's wooden style poses a roadblock almost immediately for the highly affected Kate Hepburn and it's bad chemistry from the outset.

Naive and innocent Ann Hamilton (Hepburn) falls for handsome airplane manufacturer Alan Garroway (Taylor) and rushes to the altar with him. She soon finds out there is a lot she does not know about him. As Alan becomes more remote she delves further into the murky past and Ann soon finds herself living a nightmare instead of the American dream.

Undercurrent resembles a few Hitchcock plots but Vincent Minnelli rapidly establishes he is no master of suspense. Hepburn is no shrinking violet and she is a hard sell for a character more suited to the reticent styles of Teresa Wright or Joan Fontaine. Minnelli never really succeeds in getting Kate to defer in desperate fashion to Taylor's limited abilities as an actor. Her attempts come across as silent Gish while Taylor's wide descent into madness takes on restrained Bela Lugosi. Robert Mitchum completes the miscasting as the sensitive brother. Talk about piling on.

Cinematographer Karl Freund provides some highly stylized noir interiors but Minnelli and cast utilize the atmospherics meekly and the tension remains tepid. With Minnelli far from his forte (musicals) and Hepburn's victim role fitting her like a bad suit Undercurrent drowns all involved.

Sentiment: negative
the movie is precious, and cage is a babe. 

but will anyone agree with me in saying that the punk representation in this movie is ATROCIOUS?!?! 

where's the clash? the ramones?? misfits? social distortion? the cramps?? sex pistols?! ANYONE?!?!?!?! the music is this movie is incredibly disappointing! at LEAST they play the cure.

plus, randy's feathered hair and pleated khakis...

this definitely looks like a movie about "punks" the way that a bunch of movie industry squares see punks.

although it's a 90's movie, SLC punk paints a much more accurate picture of the punk rock scene in the early 1980's. just sayin'.

Sentiment: negative
I was watching this movie at one of my usual time, which is real real late at night. Usually if a movie doesn't interest me, I start falling asleep and have to raid the fridge to stay awake.

At first I thought that's what I had to do since this movie's pacing started off slow, along with the fact that its shots tended to linger with the character for a long time. But after a bit, I start getting more into the movie, as more is revealed about the main character through his story telling. By the end, you feel like you've known him your whole life. The movie kept my interest so much that I didn't even know the sun was about to rise.

Not much of Lynch's bizzare style, but there is enough of quirky characters to make the film amusing.

Sentiment: positive
For years I remember reading about this show "Trouble With Tracy" in the TV Guide. CFTO-TV Toronto every Saturday morning at 6 am! I lived about a two-hour drive north of Toronto and we couldn't get CFTO, but you know how it is - we always want what we can't have.

Well, I knew what I wanted and what I wanted was to see what this "Trouble With Tracy" was all about. Did it have a beautiful girl in the starring role? Was there nudity? Was there suspense? Was it a comedy? It would've been fine if there was some promotion of the show. At least I could've known what I was missing. But, NO! The mystery drove me bonkers, until CTV affiliate CKCO built a re-transmitter in Wiarton, Ontario and began to broadcast "Trouble With Tracy" at the same time as CFTO....Saturday mornings at 6 am!! One Saturday morning I got up and turned the TV on at 5:59 and at last I got to see what "The Trouble With Tracy" was. Yes, the "Trouble With Tracy" was that it was Canadian content and stuck in the harmless 6 am spot so no one would ever see how awful it was.

Talented Canadian Actor Steve Weston died a few years afterward, but many would argue he effectively "died" the first time he appeared on this show. When I saw it for the first time that cold Saturday morning and fell despondent back into my bed, part of me died, too.

Sentiment: negative
All movies that contain "goofy sound effects" should be shot. If there is one thing I HATE, it's gotta be the use of a "whoop whoop whoo" when somebody gets hit one the head. The only movies I have seen to do this is Ghoulies IV and Hobgoblins when they are in the bar, and Pixie is hitting the guy in the red suit with a beer bottle... or rather, fanning him with a beer bottle, because she never really hits him with it. Yes Ghoulies IV does suck. But I have to wonder, did they MEAN to not make the so called "Ghoulies" mouths move when they supposedly talked? Their faces are almost as static as the masks used in Trolls 2. Hell, I can make a better mask out of construction paper, some rubber cement and a handful of glitter. This sucked.

Sentiment: negative
Okay, I was bored and decided to see this movie. But I think the main thing that brought this movie down was that there would be a hour of footage, then basically that same hour repeated 4 times. It consists of 1. Gathering the troops and discussing the attack plan, 2. Flashbacks to the men's wives 3. The approach of the troops marching in a long line 4. Men running up hill and shooting, usually the first getting shot in the head then 3 other men rescuing him. 5. Defeat of the enemy and calling to base to tell of success 6. Men flashing back to wives and singing 10 minute songs. That was the basic movie, and that same order of events happened about 4 or 5 times. and every time it did a flashback to the wives, it would show the man, then his wife and him. There were about 10 men or more who would have a flashback so this took up tons of time. Other than that, the men couldn't kill their enemy except with either bayonets or grenades. I liked the music and there was a lot of action, though the action was repetitive. Overall, I probably wouldn't see it again, but it wasn't too horrible.

Sentiment: negative
I've never seen a Bollywood film before but I caught the first ten minutes of this, laughed myself silly and hit the R button on Sky+. I'm glad I did!! I hope I don't insult anybody (because basically, the BF and I loved it!) but we couldn't take it half as seriously as the actors did - especially the obsessed one (who, I understand, is a huge Bollywood star because we've seen him on the cover of lots of dvds since and i even saw a doll of him today in Hamleys!! The BF keeps on about this bloke - I am beginning to think HE'S obsessed! He keeps saying that it's strange for the traditionally good looking one to be the anti-hero of a film! But then we do like films that aren't your stock predictable Hollywood fare).

It was completely over the top but really good fun. If all Bollywood films are like this then we're watching more. I have had that bloomin' song in my head all week and I can't speak a word of Hindi! PS any recommendations would be appreciated!

Sentiment: positive
A truly terrific, touching film. Female melodrama at its finest, with a lot of comedy: great dialogue, characters and writing. Any woman can relate to the story because it's a classic: you're in love with "Mr. Right" but he has no interest in you until some guy who seems completely wrong comes along and you fall head-over-heels in love. But of course, it's not that simplistic. The characters are real and all of the performances are perfect. The movie is hilarious as well, every scene skewers society. I'd recommend this film to anyone who loves a well-written screenplay of humor and melodrama. You can relate to every character and the plot moves in unexpected directions. A great, underrated movie.

Sentiment: positive
This sequel is quite awful to be honest. I'm a fan of kung-fu movies and this is by far the worst I've seen. Bride with White Hair 1 was actually quite good and this is a huge disappointment. BWWH 1 was brilliant in some ways with an unique odd-ball evil bad guy.

The couple from the first movie played a small role in this movie. Instead the movie revolves around a bunch of uninteresting characters trying to seek revenge on their fallen clans. But there's no antagonist in this movie so the revenge is mute.

The worst part to this movie is the kung-fu or lack there of. They literally had a street style knife fight. The character at the end refused to fight because there was lack of choreography.

Sentiment: negative
Killjoy 2 surpasses the first movie by just a little bit.The stuff that improved in here was the acting,the Killjoy make-up,and story.This one is more of a gore fest,it doesnt have the supernatural elements like the first one did.In this installment,Killjoy kills his victims in more normal ways,he doest set them on fire,and he doesnt shoot them with bullets that were in his mouth.The only thing I didnt like about this movie,was that the ending was a little half assed,in fact it was half assed,they killed Killjoy in a very cheap way.I would strongly recommend this to anyone who like horror movies.Seriously,the first movie was good,but the second is better.9 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
Oh boy, where do I go with this one? Herendous acting, weak plot, stupid deaths, pointless nudity...

This isn't entertainment...this is hell.

Hell.

Don't waste your money, time, or life on this pit of evil.

It's just...god damn is this movie awful! Tom Savini, WHY?! Why would you waste your life on this crap? This movie not worth it. I'd rather snort crack and smash my head up against a wall than watch THIS...this sinful act again!

Please take my advice and stay the f#@k away from this elephant turd of a film. No, you know what? I shouldn't even have to call this thing a film! Just stay AWAY!

Sentiment: negative
First off, this is not supposed to be a brilliant and thought provoking film like so many other reviewers seem to compare it to. the first review says something along the lines of anyone who likes this knows nothing about horror cinema, apparently its the other way around. If one were to look back after the film it really wasn't meant to be convincing, it was a low budget ipecac. But really thats all it was aiming for, it was meant to blow viewers away with sheer shock value (and all the flaws it its visuals were much less noticeable back in the original VHS versions). 

I gave this one a high score because it reached its goal and even though it was not downright horrific (in non-shock sense) it did make me slightly sick and thoroughly paranoid/pessimistic(i didn't trust anyone for about a week because i didn't want to wake up strung up and tortured)

Sentiment: positive
I won't bore you with any synopsis, chances are you already know them. And hopefully you are already familiar with Park Chan-Wook's work.

I STRONGLY disagree with some of the other commentators in saying that "Park has not moved on from the vengeance trilogy blah blah blah." Because you know what? He HAS!!! The vengeance trilogy were different from each other in style to begin with, how can you even compare the sombreness and subtlety of "Sympathy For Mr Vengeance" with the frantic and extravagance of "Oldboy"? Park Chan-Wook has incredible style, but his movies don't all share the SAME style! That has been true and remains true with the release of "Thirst". 

"Thirst" is an incredible picture, it literally has EVERYTHING you want in a movie. Jaw-dropping violence, tasteful gore, great humour, incredible suspense and even very realistic sex scenes. The story is so crazy that at no point can you guess what will happen next. I'm so happy to say that Park is back in top form with this fantastic dark-comic-vampire-love-story. Watch it as soon as you can!

Sentiment: positive
I wasn't expecting "Citizen Kane" but I was hoping for some extreme guilty pleasure! The script is bad, but the school exterior shots were obviously done with the same 5 extras on the same day & the dorm exterior shots were easily shot during a hurricane.

The wardrobe was swapped around so much, I hoped the wardrobe mistress had some good strong soap to wash the panties. I know the budget's time but do you think they could have bought a couple of DIFFERENT styles of underwear? What oversexed up vampiric hot chick would wear boy-leg panties under latex trousers? I was relieved to see one appearance of thong in the penultimate scene.

Good points: the actors were all *very* attractive, and the girls had natural boobs. Too bad they never took the bras off.

The special effects were neither effective and could only be describes as special, if they rode the short bus to the edit bay. The final scene in particular is horrifically, laughably bad.

-Lizzzzzzzz

Sentiment: negative
This is a great movie. Some will disagree with me but , if you know anything about the bible you know it is. I think everyone should see it!! I agree a new updated version like be nice but the message is still right on. If you can see this movie. Is not a "scare the hell of you movie",it is truthful with the Bible. I think the U. N. will play a major role in the world government to come. The last days are lining up with the Bible. Look at what has happened with the chip for dogs and cats that now has come to light to protect on children from being kidnapped. It's the size of a grain of rice. This I feel is the fore runner of the mark of the beast spoken of in the Bible. Without the mark you can't sell or buy, with this chip that small in the future there is no telling how much info can be put on it.

Sentiment: positive
After seeing the credits with only one name that I recognize and that was the preacher in this film (Russ Conway), I did not expect much from this film and I was not disappointed. A man is planning on killing his new wife by convincing other people that she is insane and will take her own life. Unbeknown to the husband is that the plastic looking skull that he uses, in contrast, a ghost of a woman apparently his first dead wife has revenge on her mind and uses a real skull. A simple plot with a twist of irony at the end. If you are tired late one night and in need of sleep, this will help you to sleep that sleep.

Sentiment: negative
This show is dull, lame, and basically rips off all sorts of various things in order to make it "original." First off: The animation is so ugly... Johnny's hideous... and everyone's annoying. The twins look like teen female Dexters from "Dexter's Lab," and Johnny is almost like a more intelligent male Dee Dee (also from "Dexter's Lab.") Secondly: The plots... are painfully lame, making them hard to follow. The gags are corny, and nothing really makes me feel compelled to laugh a little bit... especially when it tries to be funny. I only saw two episodes, but those alone turned me off.

Third off: The whole theme song starts off by ripping off the tune to Green Day's "American Idiot." And, while I am not a big fan of that band, I find it really dumb that they would take the same opening melody, and then subtly change it, in order to make it their own.

Case in point... it's a big fat ugly bore. 1/10

Sentiment: negative
Steven what have you done you have hit an all new low. It is weird since Steven's last film shadow man was directed by the same director who did this trash. Shadow man was good this was diabolically bad so bad it wasn't even funny Steven is hardly in the movie and feels like he is in a cameo appearance and when he is in the film he is dubbed half the time anyway. As for the action well let's just say the wizard of oz had more action than this trash there is hardly any action in the film and when it does finally arrive it is boring depressing badly shot so called action scenes. Seagal hardly kills anyone unlike his over films where he goes one man army ie under siege 1 and 2 and exit wounds. the plot is so confusing with so many plot holes that it doesn't make scenes sometimes. flight of fury better be good what a shame i wasted 5 pounds on this garbage 0 out of ten better luck next time

Sentiment: negative
Here are some examples of Pat Robertsons dubiously claimed "relatively good track record" on predictions

In his widely reported comments from the January 2 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, during which he predicted that there would be "very serious terrorist attacks" and "mass killing" in the United States in the "second half" of 2007, host Pat Robertson boasted that he had "a relatively good track record" on earlier predictions. But a review of Robertson's 2006 New Year's predictions undermines that claim. He predicted, for example, that:

* "President Bush is going to strengthen." WRONG

* "The fall elections will be inconclusive, but the outcome of the war and the success of the economy will leave the Republicans in charge." WRONG

* "The war in Iraq is going to come to a successful conclusion. We'll begin withdrawing troops before the end of this year." WAY WRONG

Further, as a January 3 Associated Press article reported, Robertson has a history of making dubious predictions:

The broadcaster predicted in January 2004 that President Bush would easily win re-election. Bush won 51% of the vote that fall, beating Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. WRONG

In 2005, Robertson predicted that Bush would have victory after victory in his second term. He said Social Security reform proposals would be approved WRONG YET AGAIN! 

He claims to speak directly with god... If so god has quite the sense of humor watching Pat make a fool of himself again and again..

Sentiment: negative
What else is left to say?

I've read all the reviews here and most are right on. . However, one person even went so far as to call this movie evil and that Satan tainted it (or something along those lines). Evil?! Wow, what a shocker. . I mean, TBN basically made this film. Open your eyes please.

Anway, this was the very lowest grade of propoghanda nonsense that has come along in years.

The most terrifying thing about Omega Code is how much money they spent to make it. If this movie can be made, there are no limits, and therefore, we have no choice but to get ready for "Yentl 2", and "Ernest Loses the Omega Codes."

For those of you who are into the biblical stories, the new movie Dogma will pickup where Omega Code never started.

Sentiment: negative
didn't sound like it was from a fantasy film. The film is dark, with dark overtones. The soundtrack way too uplifting to the point it intruded on the visuals. I'm sure they were aiming for something militant, but it just didn't work. The scene when Astin is attempting to escape is a perfect example. Why does it sound like the Goonies? There is no comedy, there is no brightness to this!! 

The idea of the movie is great, and the acting is very good as well. I enjoyed everyone's performances. It's available on Netflix's online viewing. 

Definitely worth a viewing, but write your own soundtrack!!

Sentiment: positive
I've seen a lot of bad movies in my life. Date Movie. That was bad. But this...this is just...it's not good. House Party 4 is the worst movie ever. It's as simple as that. It's basically Ferris Bueller with black people in it. Oh, and it's not funny. It's awful. So awful. Chris Stokes may be a superstar on BET, but he's an idiot. He can't write a comedy. Or a horror movie. I like to refer to him as a blacker, lesser-known Uwe Boll. Except Uwe Boll's films are funny awful, if you know what I mean. You can invite some buddies over, pop in Alone In The Dark, and have a great time laughing and eating snacks with your buddies. Chris Stokes is like that, except if you invite friends over to watch House Party 4 with you, no one will be laughing. Not even the biased token black guy or the illiterate jock. I'm serious, I didn't laugh once throughout this whole movie. The acting is terrible, and the movie looks like a bad indie film. What was the budget for this movie? 5 damn dollars? I mean, what the hell? This movie just sucks; don't waste your time with this crap. It's disgusting.

Sentiment: negative
I found this a good movie to pass your time, but not by any chance of any historical value. The portrayal of Cleopatra reminded me a cheap soap opera.

The twist of the facts is... funny! She gave birth while feeding her people!?!? O please... A pregnant Queen of Egypt (especially this one) would not bother to go from one room to the other for that reason! They tried to make her appear a saint for God's sake! And the way they tried to justify her murdering her own sister... beyond description.

Cleopatra was the greatest politician of her time. Her decisions were based anything but her feelings and morals. She did everything for only two reasons: Power and self-preservation! She was borne in a family where she had to straggle for survival, something she did very well. Anything that stood on her way was either murdered (her brothers and sister) or seduced (Ceasar and Mark Anthony).

Unfortunately Octavian was too powerful to kill and too... gay to be seduced. So, he was her end...

Sentiment: negative
What's there not to like?

I caught this again tonight and marvelled as to Hugh Bonneville's capturing of the essence of Philip Larkin without resorting to tics and caricature.

There are many layers to the depiction of the complexity of the main character and Hugh brings them to life. His prudish mother, his unresolved issues with his father and his inability to commit to one woman. 

His poetry is interlaced throughout and some scenes are caught in his recounting of them to the wife of a friend whom he later propositions but quite casually, almost innocently. It is not difficult to see where his attraction lay for the many women who fell in love with him (and knew about each other, to boot, and continued to see him!) 

Cerebral, fun-loving, jazz aficionado, loyal friend. It is always more than looks, women moved beyond his baldness, deafness and short sightedness. And a beautifully nuanced performance by Eileen Atkins as his mum is an added bonus.

9 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
The Menagerie parts one and two was the only 2-parter during the 3-year run of the original Trek series and it was because Roddenberry was able to insert most of the footage from the 1st pilot "The Cage." The move was made out of necessity, to combat deadline problems in getting episodes produced (such a sf show back in the 1960s was a hassle to get done on time). One positive outcome back then was that audiences, unaware of the pilot produced almost a couple of years earlier, were treated to a whole new crew and captain for these two episodes on top of the regular cast of characters, as if the producers had spent double the money on these episodes to present a TV epic spanning a dozen years of Starfleet history (though they still used terms such as 'United Space Fleet' in these early episodes).

The wraparound story begins as a space mystery plot: the Enterprise is diverted to Starbase 11 for unknown reasons and very soon Spock is a suspect in these shenanigans. Astonishingly, though even McCoy belabors the fact that Spock's Vulcan heritage makes subterfuge on his part impossible, it does turn out that Spock is indeed acting out some mutinous scheme to shanghai our precious starship and kidnap his former captain, Pike, now horribly crippled. Well, Spock is half human, we tend to forget. Or has he simply gone mad? It may very well be, for he's directing Enterprise to Talos IV, a planet so off-limits it's the subject of the only known death penalty on Starfleet's books. When the jig is up, there's a great scene of Spock surrendering to a flabbergasted McCoy, as Uhura looks on in shock. Even Kirk, usually steady as a captain should be, doesn't know what to make of his first officer's illogical conduct.

In the 3rd and final acts, we begin to see transmitted images of a mission of the Enterprise from 13 years prior, when Capt. Pike was commanding and Spock was one of his officers. We really don't know where all this is going and what Spock hopes to accomplish - and that's another thing that makes this a very good 2-parter - we really need to find out what it's all about in the 2nd part. Not only is Spock facing severe penalties, but it looks like Kirk's career may be finished, as well. Double jeopardy, folks. This is also the 1st televised episode to feature one of those shuttlecrafts (none were available in the earlier "The Enemy Within" when the crafts were really needed). There's also one of those neat matte paintings to convey the ambiance of a futuristic starbase - this was the only way to visualize such things back then. Finally, check out Kirk's smug approach at the start of the episode - boy, do things go sideways on him as the story progresses.

Sentiment: positive
I can't understand why so many peoples praised this show. Twin peaks is one of the most boring titles I have ever seen in my life.

Now I have seen all season 1 episodes, and seeing season 2 episode 1. Simply I can't take this show anymore.

1) Where is the proper induction in criminal investigation?

In season 1, there was a scene that agent Cooper throws stones to a bottle. Can you guess why he did that? He just want to identify murderer by doing this 'joke' while mentioning supernatural ability given by Tibet dream. Wow!!!

2) There are too many unnecessary scenes in this show.

For example, season 2 started with a 'funny' scene that a dumb old man serves agent Cooper with a cup of milk while Cooper are laying down on the floor.( He got the gun shoots in his belly already. ) This old man is doing nothing but saying some dumb comments. That's all.

This scene is really boring and even long ( 3 min 30 sec.... It's like Hell. )

I would read some comic books rather than see this show anymore.

Sentiment: negative
Absolutely one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time! It starts off badly and just deteriorates. Katherine Heigl is woefully miscast in a Lolita role and Leo Grillo manfully struggles with what is essentially a cardboard cutout character. The only cast-member with any enthusiasm is Tom Sizemore, who hams it up as a villain and goes completely overboard with his role. The script is dire, the acting horrible and it has plot holes big enough to drive a double-decker bus through! It is also the most sexist movie I have ever seen! Katherine Heigl's character is completely unsympathetic. She's seen as an evil, wanton seductress who lures the poor, innocent married man to cheat on his wife. It is implied throughout the movie that she's underage, and the message that accompanies that plot-strand just beggars belief! At the end, she isn't even able to redeem herself by shooting the man who's obviously (ha!) become demented with rage and guilt, but the script allows him to kill himself, thereby redeeming himself in the eyes of males everywhere. Horrible. Don't waste your time.

Sentiment: negative
Film dominated by raven-haired Barbara Steele, it was seen when I was seven or eight and created permanent images of pallid vampiric men and women stalking a castle, seeking blood. Steele is an icon of horror films and an otherworldly beauty, and the views of the walking dead pre-date Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD shamblers, unifying them in my mind.

I don't see the connection between this film and THE HAUNTING, which is clever but ambiguous about the forces present. LA DANZA MACABRE is a b-movie without pretention, daring you to fall in love with Barbara Steele and suffer the consequences. There's no such draw to HAUNTING's overwrought Claire Bloom. The comparisons to the HAUNTING are superficial.

And no, this movie does NOT need to be remade. Not only is it a product of the Sixties, but the large percentage of talentless cretins in Hollywood cannot fathom MACABRE's formula for terror. That formula is based on one overriding factor: GOOD WRITING. Low-grade classics like CASTLE and Corman's Poe films with R. Matheson and Tourneur's OUT OF THE PAST share a commonality of strong writing. It's simple. Get a real writer like Richard Matheson or Steve McQuarrie and let them put a plot into today's cinematic mess. Besides that, let Hollywood attempt some original material for a change, and stop exploiting the obviously superior product of the past.

Sentiment: positive
Not many reviews, hence thought i would add one.

DO NOT GO BY THE OTHER REVIEWS! This was a excellent movie.

RKS is one of the very few Indian directors that can actually put together a really good movie.

AB and Akshay given yet another example of great acting, as does bhoomika too, which was a little unexpected, but great to watch.

Am surprised there has not been much hype around release.

Or filmfare/other awards nominations, considering how good the movie was.

Better then Khakee i thought and i thought Khakkee too was good movie.

Is a fairly long movie, but definitely worth it and while watching it, definitely does seem long.

Cant wait for RKS next movie and the next AB, Akshay movie they always seem to do well together... e.g. waqt.

Bhoomika too has acted really well in the movie and should do really well if she continue in the same fashion in the future.

Sentiment: positive
A really cool flick. A must for any music snob. You don't really have to know about the bands to enjoy the movie. Before the movie, I only heard only two songs from the Dandy Warhols. The only thing is required is an open mind. 

The movie centers around the Brian Jonestown Massacre. The Dandy Warhols have a role in the film, as the 'rival band,' but they are second fiddle to the BJM. The Dandy Warhols don't play as big of a role in the film as I originally guessed, but then again, they didn't have the element of excitement and unpredictability of the BJM.You can't help but be fascinated by the band and its very charismatic front man, Anton Newcombe. By itself, it's an insightful film and study on the music industry. Just watch this film and enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
If you are in search of a masochistic thrill, rent this movie, and show it to a group of your friends sober. This movie is just plane lame, but there not completely without value. The brief tits are nice, and there is one victim's death that is funny as hell. Other than that, this is straight garbage. But it is still better than "Grim" or "Spookies"

Sentiment: negative
I at first thought this little fantasy excursion would be a little entertaining. I was wrong. 

A good cast (Roy Scheider as the president) didn't help it any. The story had every conceivable possible worst-case scenario that could take place in a terrorist nuclear disaster. And none of it could POSSIBLY happen! 

True -- the kidnapping of the President could only be accomplished with the inside help of a traitor in the Secret Service (ala Air Force One), but everything they depicted regarding the FOOTBALL and the helplessness of our country if were to fall into enemy hands is ludicrous to the Nth degree. Seriously, not even the President can fully over-ride our missile control. The case is only used to relay orders. In this situation, our system would have completely deleted the codes and the whole thing would go nowhere. The destruction of Beijing couldn't happen -- there would not have been a missile launch because the silo-crews would have been instructed not to (communications include a hardwired system). There are just too many safe-guards to prevent such a thing from happening. 

True, film's like FAIL-SAFE and STRANGELOVE gave some credibility to the concept of us losing control of THE SYSTEM. But this film goes too far and fails to suspend my concept of the unbelievable. And that makes the experience a waste of the viewer's time. This film is a failure.

Sentiment: negative
Not the best of actors' movies.The director has concentrated on projected actor's stardom rather than giving a good entertainer. May be hero himself, his family and his sincere fans can enjoy it.But definitely it's not worth for neutral audience.The fight sequences are a total comedy.The dance moves in the song sequences are pathetic. The music is average.This film was the biggest flop for the actor. Inspite of the hype created over the movie, the movie failed miserably. Don't even think of watching this move even if you want to kill time. You can watch some cartoon instead.A good movie buff cannot digest this crap for 2 1/2 hours.

Sentiment: negative
In the many films I have seen Warren Oates, I have come to a definite conclusion, here is one talented individual. I first saw Mr. Oates back in the 1960's television series called Stoney Burke. From then on, I followed his career closely and felt he was destined for great roles. That happened in 1974, when Sam Peckinpah gave him top billing in a film called 'Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia.' Of course, his biggest claim to fame was his magnificent role in 'The Wild Bunch'. I have always thought he was quite able to bring any character a certain magic, that is until I saw him in this flop. The movie is called " Chandler ", a tribute to the iron fisted detectives of the 1950's created by Raymond Chandler. Because, the synopsis said it was about a hard nose Private Eye, I was immediately interested. However, I sat patiently through the entire film and found it to be a dull, dis-interesting, slow pace, twisted, confusing saga which if it had a theme or plot must have been left on some dark back room self. Collectively and with some of Hollywood's best supporting stars, such as Alex Dreier, Mitch Ryan, Gordon Pinsent, Charles McGraw, Richard Loo and Scatman Crothers, this movie had enough power to reach Mach five, however, it fizzled on the launchpad and went no where. As a result, one of my favorite actor's got stuck in a poorly made vehicle which never got off the ground. **

Sentiment: negative
Leslie Nielson is a very talented actor, who made a huge mistake by doing this film. It doesn't even come close to being funny. The best word to describe it is STUPID!

Sentiment: negative