DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This is the most boring worthless piece of crap I've ever wasted an hour of my life on. All I can say is thank God it was only an hour. Over half of this 'movie' is footage from the original "Criminally Insane". At the very least, I was able to see the highlights from that rare exploitation classic, since for some reality-defying reason my video store only has "Criminally Insane II" (as it had it, "Crazy Fat Ethel II"). But the rest of this movie is some of the absolute worst home-video acting and backyard filmmaking you'll ever see. Why is it my video store has this and not the original? Why does stuff like this actually end up in video stores? Why do people rent it and not immediately burn the copy once they've seen its sheer horror? Why - AAUUGGHH - Why, God, why?

Unless you enjoy seeing annoying fruits eating an entire candy bar in an excruciatingly slow scene, or said fruit getting hung from the stair railing in an even slower scene, or a character getting stabbed sideways (don't ask) multiple times in the back, or brain cell-murdering monologues about giving poisoned tea to one's wife and then complaining that all the talk has made one's own tea go cold, or the mentally-retarded eating fly soup, or just simply want to see Crazy Fat Ethel dancing with a bloody knife in a garden: Don't watch this movie. Repeat: Do NOT watch this movie. Do not rent this movie. If at all possible, do not walk past a shelf in a video store that has a copy of this movie setting on it. You can still be saved, but it is too late for me now. . .

Sentiment: negative
at a Saturday matinee in my home town. I went with an older friend (he was about 12) and my mom let me go because she thought the film would be OK (it's rated G). I was assaulted by loud music, STRANGE images, no plot and a stubborn refusal to make ANY sense. We left halfway through because we were bored, frustrated and our ears hurt. 

I saw it 22 years later in a revival theatre. My opinion had changed--it's even WORSE! Basically everything I hated about it was still there and the film was VERY 60s...and has dated badly. I got all the little in-jokes...too bad they weren't funny. The constant shifts in tone got quickly annoying and there's absolutely nothing to get a firm grip on. Some people will love this. I found it frustrating...by the end of the film I felt like throwing something heavy at the screen.

Also, all the Monkees songs in this movie SUCK (and I DO like them).

For ex-hippies only...or if you're stoned. I give this a 1.

Sentiment: negative
Family Guy has to be my all time favorite cartoon.It is definitely the funniest TV show ever made and is better than The Simpsons.I have never laughed so hard at a TV show in my life The things that make the show so funny is the plot,characters and themes that are dealt with in the show.There are very few themes that have not been dealt with on Family Guy.

I have seen just about every episode of Family Guy ever made and would have to say that the show was better in the first two seasons.My favorite characters are Peter because he is very funny and is the best character of the show.My second favorite character is Stewie because he is the funniest villain to be on a TV show.If you love Family Guiy you should check out American Dad because it is just so similar and is created by Seth McFarlane.I hope this show never ends because it is a comic genius! 10/10

Sentiment: positive
I had low expectations for this movie, but I was looking for something unchallenging for an evening. I walked out of the theatre totally delighted and somewhat surprised. This is a very fine baseball tribute film, and a nice lesson about pursuing your dreams. Dennis Quaid does a masterful job with his role, and I was touched by his performance. Definitely worth a full price ticket and a couple hours of your time!

Sentiment: positive
Well, Killshot is not awful, but it comes close. Production values are decent and the main actors do a pretty good job (except for Rosario Dawson in a wasted role), but the story is just pathetic. I don't know if the Elmore Leonard book had such dumb characters,since I haven't read it, but I'm guessing that the book was supposed to be at least slightly humorous. The movie has no detectable humor. After the first twenty minutes, you'll be yelling at the screen, "Oh, come on! Nobody's THAT stupid!!" In a nutshell, and without any spoilers, everybody acts in a manner convenient to the plot, which makes no sense anyway. A very frustrating and unrealistic movie, which may account for it sitting on the shelf for as long as it did.

Sentiment: negative
Hopalong Cassidy with a horse who is not white & not named Topper? Go figure!

This travesty does a gross injustice to the greatest of all cowboy heroes, Hopalong Cassidy. The actor who plays him is young versus old, blond haired versus white haired and kills people versus shooting the gun out of their hands. Will the real Hopalong please stand up!

One of the worst movies ever made &,believe it or not, by the person who brought us the Grandfather saga!

Sentiment: negative
This fantastic whodunit is an early prototype of what soon became a very popular film genre. I was happy to see William Powell handling a detective story with charisma and charm, and without the silly attitude of his Nick Charles character (from the "Thin Man" series). While the story is good on its own, I think what really makes this movie fun to watch is Michael Curtiz' fantastically imaginative direction. From a visual point of view, this is a richly textured movie, with Curtiz showing an incredible command of the medium; from split screen images, to weird camera angles and imaginative flashbacks, Curtiz demonstrates that he was one of the best Hollywood directors. Highly recommended if you are fan of this type of movie.

Sentiment: positive
Right this moment I am watching this movie on TV here in Tokyo. Beautiful scenery, beautiful sets of biblical proportions, beautiful costumes, beautiful color, beautiful Gina. Great climactic scene when God destroys the Sheban idol and a lot more with de Millean thunderbolts at the moment when Yul and Gina are about to consummate their love. Yul does a halfway decent job of delivering his lines, though he sounds a lot like Yul delivering his lines as Ramses or Taras Bulba. George Sanders sounds like George Sanders playing George Sanders. Given the limited range of acting she is asked to display in this role, Gina does a good job, though by the time the movie ends, she is completely converted into a demure remorseful lass and looks likes she might be playing in a biography of Mother Teresa. I guess thunderbolts will do that to you, but it is almost breathtaking how quickly she jettisons her own beliefs for her new religion. The supporting players are mostly awful, lacking credible emotion and timing. The usual big battle scenes, what passed for lascivious dances in 1959, and an orchestra blasting out plenty of trumpet calls behind a huge chorus singing lots of "Ah's", but none of it quite of topnotch Hollywood quality. The final swordfight between Brynner and Sanders is at the laughingly low skill level of a junior high school play. The film is one big piece of eye candy but not much more.

Sentiment: negative
This film had a distinct Woody Allen feel about it, so if you're not a fan of dry humor, dark humor, or back-handed humor, you probably could find something else to do. If you ARE, however, this is quirky, with some nice twists and a flowing, natural dialog.

The story itself is quite engaging, not quite like a train wreck from which you cannot disengage your eyes, but close. I mean that in the best way possible. The intrigues are plenty, the twists are enough to fully engage the senses, and the characters are downright lovable.

I had a great time with this movie.

It rates an 8.3/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Sentiment: positive
I just can't agree with the above comment - there's lots of interesting and indeed amazing filmic imagery in this one, it has an unusual structure and moves well toward a frightening climactic sequence that is notable for it's effective use of silence. What's more, it explores the odd impulse of suicide in a very frank way, not pulling any punches in what it shows, yet not dwelling and over-sensationalising the subject matter. it has hints of documentary about it as well as horror and art-house cinema, and deserves a place amongst the canon of 'different' horror films like The Blair Witch Project and the original Ring (both of which it predates and could well be an unacknowledged influence on). It's definitely worth seeing if you're interested in the edges of horror cinema.

Sentiment: positive
Words cannot express how poor this film is.

There is no plot, the acting is appalling, basically the whole film is a joke.

With a running time of 97 minutes, it's about 96 minutes too long.

It might have been OK as a short sketch on a comedy show, but the premise is way too flimsy to work for that amount of time without boredom kicking in.

Avoid this one, go rent a good movie instead!

Sentiment: negative
Ludicrous violations of the most basic security regs are only the beginning. It's hard to see how they achieved such abysmal trash on such a low budget. I turned it off once, then got curious to see if it could get any worse. It did.

Sentiment: negative
Like so many other reviewers on here, my memories of this show are universally warm. In fact, so fond are said cherished memories, that I recently purchased the DVD box set in order to revisit that happy and carefree period of childhood, whereby I used to sit utterly mesmerised, as I watched the ongoing quest of Monkey, Pigsy, Sandy, Tripitaka and later Yu Lung a horse/dragon/man (you'll really need to watch it to understand), when the much loved show initially aired on BBC 2 on Friday evenings, as I recall.

Well, I'm pleased to say that even after all these years and now viewing this with adult i.e. more cynical(!) eyes, the show has lost none of its inimitable charm.

Simply wonderful entertainment, from the magical characters and their comical interactions with one another to the perhaps not so special effects (which actually serve to heighten the fun) and of course, not forgetting the hugely memorable opening title sequence from the first season, the passing of time has not in any way, shape or form diminished any of Monkey's spellbinding charm.

As Monkey himself would probably say, 'Oi! You there! Go out and grab yourself some nostalgic fun.'

Sentiment: positive
Bar some of the questionable acting (there musicians at the end of the day), this in the words of Quentin Tarrinno is "The best rock movie ever made...period"

Think 8 Mile, but without the rapping - a young musician, trying to prove himself to the local community, whilst struggling to cope with a broken home and a rival band. Throw in the sex interest and the truly exceptional performances, this is the real 8 mile.

Prince provides a solid performance, as does Morris Day and Jerome Benton. Decent script, good direction, great plot, and spectacular performances. Not forgetting the some of the best rock/pop/funk music you will ever hear.

Sentiment: positive
My dad is a fan of Columbo and I had always disliked the show. I always state my disdain for the show and tell him how bad it is. But he goes on watching it none the less. That is his right as an American I guess. But my senses were tuned to the series when i found out that Spielberg had directed the premier episode. It was then that I was thankful that my dad had bought this show that I really can't stand. I went through his DVD collection and popped this thing in when i came home for a visit from college. My opinion of the series as a whole was not swayed, but I did gain respect for Spielberg knowing that he started out like most low tier directors. And that is making small dribble until the big fish comes along (get the pun, HA,HA. Like Spielberg did. It's like Jesus before he became a man. Or thats at least what I think that would feel like. Any ways if your fan of Columbo than you would most likely like this, even though it contains little of Peter Falk. I attribute this to the fact this is the start of the series and no one knew where to go with it yet. This episode mainly focuses on the culprit of the crime instead of Columbo's investigation, as many later episodes would do.

Sentiment: negative
What a great film! I never knew much about Buddy Holly, but was familiar with his lively and fun music. This is a wonderful biography of someone who helped change the music in the 1950's. Although I never cared for Gary Bussey, he was fabulous as Buddy Holly! I don't know how accurate the movie is, but assume at least for the most part it is accurate, which makes the movie all the more interesting. The music throughout the movie just adds the pizazz to this biography. I don't think I would change a thing in this film, it was all good! What a difference in the stars from the 50's to todays music stars. How can you compare someone like Buddy Holly to Justin Timberlake? or any of the other popular singers of this generation?

Sentiment: positive
"The Chilling" directed by Deland Nuse and Jack A.Sunseri is one of the worst zombie flicks I have ever seen.Why Linda Blair("The Exorcist","Witchery")appeared in this stinker is beyond me.The plot is really dumb:the frozen bodies at a cryogenic lab are revived after lightening strikes and turned into cannibalistic zombies.The characters are completely one-dimensional and stupid,the zombies look horrible and there is no gore.Avoid this cheap piece of trash like the plague.My rating:1 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
I generally don't give worry much about violence in films, or a vast amount of philosophy, symbolism or psychology. All this is very well with me and the film brings a lot of the above to us. There is beautiful pictures especially of the lake and the nature, a good setting of characters, a good direction. This film could be voted for as a good film. However, it is spoiled for two reasons and both of these reasons in relation make this film simply disgusting.

First of all there is violence used against living creatures to make this film. Not movie violence, I am talking about REAL violence. This violence alone maybe could be justified if not and thats reason number two; the message of the film was not mere introspection about the directors twisted relation towards women. Not that we all don't have some real twists with women.(respectively men). But the conclusion of the film ruins it all. 

*spoiler* Our "heroine" finally dies, (by here own hand if I remember correctly I saw this film years ago and it enraged me, now the guy is out with a new film witch I am certainly not going to watch)and is now even more clearly depicted as some kind of natural demon, nature growing over her, in particular her sex.. Of course it is the director who "kills" the women heroine. Women have to die, especially if men are attracted by their sexuality. That seems to be the final conclusion.**end spoiler*

Well, well all that possibly would be fine with me if the director would have kept his view to himself. But to use big pictures, artsy directions cruelty to living creatures, just to say men can be frightened of women, and men are cruel to women. Thats just not enough. I knew when I saw this film it would achieve good critics for the "philosophical, eastern and artistic" and whatever approach. But to me this film is just totally marred.

Sentiment: negative
I very much enjoyed watching this film. I taped it while watching so that i could review it later. I actually enjoyed the second viewing more since i was able to absorb more of the clever dialog between Natalie and Adam, the 2 main characters. I thought the way this story evolved was very thought provoking. I got very intrigued with how Natalie was going to interact with her daughter's friends , at first it seemed that she was going to spew a lot of animosity but once she started interacting more pleasantly i had to see how this visit was going to unfold. i wasn't disappointed . Gradually the secrets that Sara kept from her mother started to reveal a daughter who was not so perfect, a flawed human being like most of us who wanted her freedom from a domineering mother who thought she knew her daughter but unfortunately had to learn in a very painful manner that sometimes to really love someone you have to give them their freedom. The viewers who stuck with this film to the end saw a very touching performance from Diane Keaton (who is always wonderful, even in some of her less well received films-think Town and Country). The closing scene of Diane Keaton driving home was well worth waiting for, revealing that anyone who loves another human being has got to learn that we have to live our own lives, we love others but don't own them and ultimately we have to let go. It's a hard lesson but well worth contemplating now and then.Thank you CBS for this broadcast,it was worth the long wait.

Sentiment: positive
There is no "fun" poking fun at the desperate plight of illegal immigrants! Or the desperate plight of head-shop owners, for that matter! That the richer-than-God Brian Glazer didn't see the irony of having the "heroes" do exactly what the villain does - rob honest, hardworking people of their life savings - doesn't surprise me! Hell, how do you think he got to be richer than God?!

In this alleged satire about greed, these mental midgets reveal their own hypocrisy: the McMansions, the McToys, the McChildren, the McIllegals who are paid peanuts to take care of the McMansions, the McToys, and the McChildren! But the main problem (aside from the revolting bigotry) is the premise: as the former executive of a now-infamous company, Dick would be the Big Scalp for every corporate headhunter in the country! No soup kitchens for him! And, raking in high six-figures, you'd think he wouldn't be caught dead around a Gore/Lieberman poster!

Sentiment: negative
The movie is boring, the characters and scenarios are unrealistic, unbelievable, the action is hilarious. This movie is a big mess. It almost seems like when the action music kicks in, the most impressive stunt is running. Either voice is dubbed over with Mr. McGregor or steven sang too much and it changed his voice. There is way too much dialog in this movie, and extremely bad acting on everyones behalf. The movie is great sleep therapy. The fighting is laughable. The eye shape shift effect on the evil designer drug addict females was decent. The main villain was a joke and his character was poorly developed. The main villain was used to explain the story through interrogation, he would just throw random plots in such as (spoiler) "CTX (his designer drug)is going to be in the water supply" which is never addressed in the conclusion or even mentioned again in the movie. This movie is highly recommended to pass.

Sentiment: negative
Stephen Hawking has one of the greatest minds, or if that's too simplistic to coin for him one of the most curious and daring, that also happens to be trapped in a body crippled by a disease that leaves him in a wheelchair and a computer to communicate. Perhaps I didn't know enough about Hawking going in (I always knew him as 'that guy speaking like a computer who knows a lot about like, the universe and stuff, you know') that he is British, that he was a rather normal kid, and, perhaps most remarkably, the disease that could have possibly left him dead at 21 put him in the position of putting his life in focus.

According to Errol Morris's equally curious and coolly, visually dazzling portrait in A Brief History of Time, Hawking was already brilliant, in spurts (when other Oxford students were faced with daunting algebraic equations, he answered more than three times the amount in an hour's time), but when faced with challenges, mostly from other theories by other scientists, he bounced back with his own. Beneath some of the complex scientific talk- and if you got any less than a B- in astronomy, like me, you'll need to keep your ears especially perked up in explanations of time's possible infinity or the peculiarities of the black hole- there's a human being who just wants to enjoy his goose on his birthday.

Morris captures Hawking just right for those who can't get enough of his theories on how particles may be going in and out of a black hole, or if there is even a creator or not depending on how much one takes into account Einstein and time. But he also captures the back-story on the man and his condition, which creates this as something much more interesting than if Morris had done one or the other. Too much talk about the cosmos would make one's head hurt, and too much about his personal life and one might wonder what all the fuss is about this bloke who's book of the film's title was on bestseller lists for over five years.

Almost in spite of his appearance, Hawking defines what it is to be a conscious entity in a universe which, he observes, he won't be apart of if and when the universe goes kaput another 10 billion years from now. Through it all, in A Brief History of Time, we get a glimpse of a genius and his humility (not to mention his colleagues and family's' ten cents here and there) through an unfathomably hypothetical and mathematical thought process of the universe.

Sentiment: positive
...said a couple exiting the movie theater just as I was entering to watch this. Hmm, not a good sign, but who knows? Different strokes for different folks, after all. Well, nope. They were being kind. Godard has released work that is passionate (Contempt), entertaining (Band of Outsiders), sometimes both (My Life to Live). This is just dull intellectualism, that grates on the nerves pretty quickly. During my showing, literally half of the audience had walked out by the end of the film. If only I had been so wise.

Sentiment: negative
I would have rated the series a perfect 10 for outstanding and consistently high quality story and character development had it not been for the last episode of Season 10! 

The final episode of the 10th season "Unending", where (it would certainly appear that) the Asgard have been killed-off in a very rushed, unconvincing and very unceremonious fashion, left me in disbelief! 

From the extremely rushed end of the series, it's obvious that many of the story arcs were originally scheduled to occur over at least one more season. My guess would be that they rapidly accelerated these stories to position the Stargate SG-1 franchise for the two upcoming direct-to-DVD moves!

Unless the Asgard return in a future SG-1 movie (with a very good explanation of the "apparent" extinction), I think that the fans have been cheated with a poor clean-up of loose-ends!

Poor end to an otherwise brilliant sci-fi series.

Sentiment: positive
As I sat subjected to this televised mediocrity, I wondered why? Why did Dianne Keaton agree to this trash? The movie uses meaningless, contrived plot lines to deliver trash to homes of thousands. The movie takes a political agenda to a new level. The movie was meaningless, and all creditability was lost to the excessive use of stereotype. 

It was obvious that Keaton tried to make this movie worthwhile, but in the end she needs to remember the age old adage that you cannot polish a turd. I hope that you did not waste your New Year's Day watching another mindless made for TV movie. I now know why the networks started airing series on Sunday night, to rid us of trash!

Sentiment: negative
As a community theater actor who works hard at it but doesn't take acting too seriously, I'm always amused by those who treat it as Great Art. This movie skewers the "Actor's Craft" mercilessly while dishing up a lot of good laughs.

A ham actor on location for a movie bears a resemblance to the dictator. When the dictator dies of a heart attack from too much drink and food, the actor is kidnapped and forced to play "the part of a lifetime" by the neo-Nazi head of the secret service. He plays it to the hilt, gets the dictator's girlfriend to fall in love with him and vice versa, and turns the tables on his captors beautifully.

Lots of great shtick by the leads, lots of good work by some unknown supporting actors, particularly the household staff and two members of the palace guard, and fun little cameos abound. Sammy Davis Jr. makes light of himself, Jonathan Winters plays a semi-retired American businessman with something else going on, and Raul Julia, Sonia Braga, and above all Richard Dreyfuss are exceptional.

This is a dumb movie, but it has lots of beautiful locations (in Brazil), a humorous script, and good actors doing their thing and looking like they're actually having fun and not going through the usual existential angst about what is only play-acting!

Sentiment: positive
Tenants Two writers struggle to complete their books in an all but empty apartment house. They at first help each other and then slowly the tension between them begins to build.

This is based upon a Bernard Malamud novel and unfortunately everyone speaks as though they are in that novel. Very little of the dialog is natural, its purple and brimming with shades of meaning. Its as if a college English major with a head full of pretensions wrote the script. It's awful and I found myself instantly immune to anything the film had to say, which is a shame since the film is populated with great performances from top to bottom. Snoop Dog on down are fine form, unfortunately none of them can over come the falseness of the words and the premise.

I can't really recommend this movie. While not really bad, its very preachy and pretentious to the point of making you want to walk away. I lost interest less then a third of the way in and had to struggle to get to the end. If you're interested I'd try it on cable, but I wouldn't lay out good money to see it.

Sentiment: negative
It sounded so promising in the Rental Store, the premise sounded great and I couldnt wait to get home and watch it. It was Apalling the Diologue is Dreadful, The Action is Extremely badly Scripted and the Plot takes a nosedive from the beginning. Gutenberg puts in a pathetic performance, Sean Bean tries his best but with a script this bad there wasnt much he could do.

This isnt even worth watching, even if you can get it for free (borrow it off a friend for instance) Dont as you will regret it and waste 90 Minuites of your life.

0/10

Sentiment: negative
Okay, sorry, but I loved this movie. I just love the whole 80's genre of these kind of movies, because you don't see many like this one anymore! I want to ask all of you people who say this movie is just a rip-off, or a cheesy imitation, what is it imitating? I've never seen another movie like this one, well, not horror anyway.

Basically its about the popular group in school, who like to make everyones lives living hell, so they decided to pick on this nerdy boy named Marty. It turns fatal when he really gets hurt from one of their little pranks.

So, its like 10 years later, and the group of friends who hurt Marty start getting High School reunion letters. But...they are the only ones receiving them! So they return back to the old school, and one by one get knocked off by.......Yeah you probably know what happens!

The only part that disappointed me was the very end. It could have been left off, or thought out better.

I think you should give it a try, and try not to be to critical!

~*~CupidGrl~*~

Sentiment: positive
This is a depressingly shallow, naive and mostly unfunny look at a wildly improbable relationship between Brooks' psychotic film editor and Harold, his vapid girlfriend. The two have ZERO chemistry together - primarily because Harold is incapable of doing anything besides looking pretty at this stage of her career; but also because Brooks' character is neither interesting nor likeable. There are 15 static, excruciating minutes at the beginning where Brooks, having just broke up with Harold, stumbles about his apartment in a depressed, drugged out state - unbearable.

Sappily and unimaginatively bookended by Joe Cocker's "You Are So Beautiful", there simply is not enough material here for a feature film. There is hardly anything going on on the periphery of their relationship to give the appearance that these people exist in a real world. I'm sure Brooks' intention was to shine a white hot spotlight on the affair and, in a way, deconstruct it; but if you're going to do that the writing and acting needs to be far far better than what it is here.

Sentiment: negative
....shut it off. The prologue with Fu Manchu's birthday, and the opening credits of the assassins training, is amusing. Then it drops off faster than hair sprayed with Neat. Look for a cameo by Cato in the beginning, with a figurative wink at the audience.

Sentiment: negative
Why did they unleash this movie upon us? It seems as though they set out to make this movie a total slap in theface to Anne Rice and every self respecting Vampire Chronicles fan. It ignores the ground work laid down by Interview with the Vampire,mutilates the plot of the novel and has Stuart Townsend stumbling around drunk.

Stuart is NOT our Lestat! Our brat prince, our adventurous rebel with the damndest sense of humor. Stuart IS a second rate, boring rip off of Dracula in black leather. He DID NOT read the books or know the character...is he illiterate? Tom Cruise is dyslexic and still he made a point to read the books and know and love Lestat.

Don't kid yourselves, it is not a "Stand Alone" vampire flick it's trash plain and simple.

Sentiment: negative
Tempo Di Uccidere (Time To Kill) by Guiliano Montaldo is a bit of a strange film, but it's good in it's own way.

I won't bother with a summary of the plot. Most that I've read gives the wrong impression and makes me believe that most people who wrote those didn't really understand the film. And you need to understand it to some level, even if you cannot describe for yourself what it's actually about. This film is strange in a "Once Upon a Time in America" way- only shorter.

Many 'Hollywood' stars (whatever that may mean...) have played in lesser known Italian productions. It's known that many actors who are past their prime or slowly rising to it do this. Cage was not yet a real star when this was made. I'm not a fan of him. He's very good in some roles (Raising Arizona, Bringing out the Dead) and weak when he plays the hero. I don't really know what to think of him in this one, but he sure doesn't portray the typical hero main character. This film could have done without him, but the fact that he starred may be the only reason this one ever made it to DVD.

The supporting cast is good. Not one of them looks fake and they act as if they are really there. Solid support.

I have seen 3 films by Montaldo (Marco Polo, Sacco&Vanzetti and this one) and I think he is one of the greater directors of this time. Unfortunately, nobody knows him. This movie was his last in a long time (a break of 19 years). I think that this movie might have failed at the office, but from the way it is done I think that for Montaldo it was a personal project that he really liked.

The production is great. It's always enough. The dusty army camps, the claustophobic cities and the magnificent landscape all play a great part. It all feels very real. In some scenes you can almost feel the heat. The sound itself is nothing special, but the music by Ennio Morricone is very good. It's not a piece that you will whistle when in the shower, but it sure works great.

So this movie looks, feels and sounds just right. It doesn't serve the lessons learned from it on a golden platter, but that may be the biggest difference between Hollywood and euro-cinema all around. It might sound strange to give it an 8 and not recommend it to people, but that is what I do. If you are looking for action; avoid this one! If you are looking for a well made Apocalypse Now in a different time and setting, but with a bit of similar journey into a 'state of mind'(sorry if this sound corny but I don't know what else to call it) you just might enjoy this one a lot.

Sentiment: positive
David Duchovny plays the lead role in this film.Now a lot of people upon finding that fact out wouldn't even bother watching it.Very unfair to say the least.David made his name on the x-files and is a decent actor. Dr Eugene Sands(Duchovny)is a drug addicted doctor struck off for malpractice.By sheer accident he becomes a private doctor for criminal millionaire Raymond Blossom.However the FBI take an interest in using Eugene to snare Blossom. Angelina Jolie is cast in the supporting role of clare-the gangsters moll.She puts in a solid performance. Timothy Hutton playing Blossom is superb and immersed himself deeply into his character. Duchovny himself isn't as bad as many people would think and in the end i would rate his performance his credible.His familiar monotonous tone and straight face is present but dosen't detract too much from the film

Sentiment: positive
I just wondering what is the purpose of making movies like this? the profit? and to whom they are referring what intelligence must use your brain to watch something like this crap? This movie is watchable by under 3 years old children if you are adults don't try to watch it. Thats the reason i think Hollywood started to use cartoons in movies with actors like this you must forget the art of cinema , be sure that you ll have tons of pop corn to consume for time to pass till this movie ends also get many cola's hamburgers your laptop your cellphone this movie can be used easily in a restaurant but for sure not in a theater , my dog who is always next to my family when watching a movie left the building.The sure thing is that this movie is referring to people with no demands from the cinema art.The only thing that this movie can be used is for watching it when making the supermarket shopping list.I am giving 2 stars for supporting the India's cinema efforts but for nothing more or less..

Sentiment: negative
The plot: Four people are caught in an elevator. One is a business man, the annoying kind who is aggressive and complains about everything and everyone and is a walking-talking sample of distilled stress and hostility. Then there's his colleague, a woman who is much more pleasant in her character. A teenage rebel who just broke into a coke machine and by his mere presence drives the businessman mad, and an older guy who just stole 100,000DM make up the rest of the cast...

The movie is all about how they cope with their problem, as time goes on and on without any success in reaching the outside world, as the lights go out, and as the cables begin to snap one after the other....

And yet, it isn't too exciting. The characters are stereotypes. The story is stupid and unlikely (how could so many things go so wrong in just one elevator?). You don't like the characters very much, you just hate one of them. And all the twists and turns in the plot are not contributing to the excitement, they are just stupid excuses for filling yet another few minutes with dialogue as the screenwriters keep running out of inspiration and ink on a full-length movie set in an elevator.

Let's just hope "Phone Booth" will be a better effort...

Sentiment: negative
i love this movie. it focuses on both issues: reality and fantasy. reality because hey, we all wanted a date from that popular guy Billy. and some of us haven't been kissed yet, right? be honest!

another real issue is because of the pain people gain from teasing. and whoa, high school life. remember it? the fantasy is finding your true love, when you're 25 and still in high school. not really fantasy, but close enough!

although some parts are unbelievable, it was a great movie. there are no other words to describe such incredible work. and the story was wonderful. Drew Barrymore did a charmingly wonderful job, same as the hilarious David Arquette. the people who worked in the movie are all wonderful. didn't i just repeat that?

Never Been Kissed is one of the movies that the later generations should watch. it shows reality and some-not issues for people like you and me.

Sentiment: positive
Insane really. Even if you haven't seen the original George Cukor movie with Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Rosalind Russell, Paulette Goddard, Joan Fontaine and a cast of a thousand other stars you may dismiss this forced, politically correct, depressing comedy. Depressing for many different reasons. Meg Ryan for one. What has she done to herself? Her face can hardly move. That alone puts her miles away from Norma Shearer. Annette Bening should be suing the DP and Debra Messing, what the hell was she doing here? Actresses with no connection in the public's subconscious trying to pass for friends, totally unconvincingly. Eva Mendes in the Joan Crawford part is an outrageous piece of miscasting. What a terrible idea! Her character is like a trans-gender performer without any taste or subtlety. Bizarre to think that a woman adapted and directed this women.The only positive things I can mention are a short but very funny appearance by Bette Midler and Cloris Leachman as the housekeeper.

Sentiment: negative
The evil Professor Moriarty plots to gain control of both SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE SECRET WEAPON which could win the war for the Nazis.

Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce return to the screen as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's beloved detective and sidekick, Sherlock Holmes & Dr. Watson, in this entertaining little mystery. Universal Studios wasted no money on either fancy production values or a sensible script, knowing that its two stars would be all the attraction an audience would need. Indeed Rathbone, as the cerebral ego, and Bruce, as the bumbling id, seem to actually become the characters they are creating, gleefully keeping their faces straight while engaged in the most utter nonsense.

Dennis Hoey makes his first appearance as the dogged Inspector Lestrade of Scotland Yard; teamed with Bruce, these two good-hearted but pedantic fellows actually get to save the intellectually superior Holmes' life twice. Lionel Atwill, a master of the sinister who deserves more recognition for his talent, does a fine job as Moriarty, making the wicked rascal a foe worthy of Holmes' steel, relishing the scenes in which he gets to inflict torture & pain.

William Post Jr. and Kaaren Verne play the Swiss scientist and his girlfriend who are at the heart of the mystery, but they're not given much to do. Sweet Mary Gordon makes a token appearance as Holmes' landlady Mrs. Hudson.

Rathbone spices up his already classic interpretation of Holmes by getting to appear in disguise three times during the story, thereby revealing to the viewer that the great sleuth was a bit of a ham actor at heart.

This film--which is based very loosely on elements in Sir Arthur's short stories 'The Dancing Men' and 'The Empty House'--followed SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE VOICE OF TERROR (1942) and preceded SHERLOCK HOLMES IN WASHINGTON (1943).

Sentiment: positive
Boring movie. Poor plot. Poor actors. The movie happens in a room supposed to be in Morocco but actually in some American city! The "Arab terrorists" are the patriots the blonde patriot is the "Arab terrorist"...DAMN!

There is something good about this movie though (that's why the score is 2 out of 10). The director turns the ridiculous stereotype about terrorism the media feeds us every day into the real thing, the terrorists are Americans (or western people if you like).

The movie is divided into two parts. The first part of the movie concerns the Dutchman travel (15 seconds) while the second part is about the staying in the amazing dark brown room (1 hour and something).

The Dutch guy is going to deliver money in Morocco to some "charity organization", gets off the plain, takes the bus and ends up kidnapped in a dark brown room. He is kidnapped with another guy that is shot after telling "They will not shoot at us". The Dutch survivor is forced to play chess with a Morpheus-like Arab guy for so long that you'll learn how to play chess too! At the end the dutch guy reveals his plot not because they cut four of his fingers off but because he is tricked by such a lame game you should watch the movie for!

Good when you are so tired you can't sleep.

Sentiment: negative
First off, I hadn't seen "The Blob" since I was 7 or 8 and viewing it as an adult was an incredible experience. Pages could be written on its influence on horror films even today. And even more could be written on its social subtext with the 50s "fear of teenagers". But this simple little tale of interplanetary horror is still a damn fine scary movie if you let it be.

Sure, it looks cheesy as all get out in our modern world. But "The Blob" packs in some genuinely frightening moments as a band of kids track the unstoppable creature when then adults don't believe them. In fact, there are even some pretty bleak moments in its candy-colored world. And Steve McQueen gives so much more than the story deserved on paper that we the viewers really get caught in the moment and believe in him.

To sum up, if you can take off your postmodern irony filter, there's a lot more to love here than meets the eye.

Sentiment: positive
In this film, the astronauts sent to explore a newly-discovered planet must deal with several dilemmas, and they do so intelligently. The film approaches it's main plot theme in a unique way, and unfolds it gradually, though it can be guessed beforehand.

The acting is very good, though sometimes stiff, as some late-60s acting can be. It can also be somewhat wordy and even melodramatic, especially after the plot theme reveals itself. Visually, it has a scene that resembles one in the previous year's "2001: A Space Odyssey", and that tends to date the movie. Some of the actors went on to star in the 1970 TV show "UFO," which is delightfully campy and worth checking out on DVD.

Despite these small points, the space flight itself is realistic, and considering this was 1969, the scenes inside the cockpit of the spacecraft also had a realistic look. (Look for some 1990s/2000s video technology in use, too!) One thing: I suspect a love scene has been cut, but I can't prove it! It would have been a distraction anyway.

Unlike most Sci-Fi films, this film will make you think about the plot, and that's well worth a look. I'm pleased to have this film in my video library.

Sentiment: positive
Beautiful to watch, but what would be the first thing you would do the moment YOU discovered Atlantis? Explore it! Here was a golden opportunity to take viewers someplace special. Instead, Disney reverted to the same old formula story telling.

Sentiment: positive
think of the most un-film-worthy subject you can and this is 10 times worse. A woman needs to complete as many crosswords as she can in a day. We don't even get to see the questions and think of the words on our own, we just watch her struggle. The woman seems so anxious and in a hurry to do the crosswords, but for some reason she spends the time distractedly walking all around the city when she could be focused at home. The acting is horrible, the actress huffs and puffs as she tried to think of the words, and we are left completely in the dark. The New York scenery is nice but the movie relies on it too much and it gets old fast. The movie plays like a rejected NYU student film. This film has no redeeming qualities and I do not recommend it to anyone, ever.

Sentiment: negative
If anyone is wondering why no one makes movies like they used to, with conversation, character and a simple theme of friendship struggling to evolve into something new, better and different, those folks need to take in this film and see top notch writing, directing, and acting that melds into a wonderful evening of observation on how things used to be in Italy and England. Other days, other times funneled into a terrific comedy of entertainment, made in 1992 with Alfred Molina, Joan Plowright, Polly Walker, Josie Lawrence, Jim Broadbent, Miranda Richardson, and Michael Kitchens in the major roles. Under the brush stroke direction of Mike Newell, these actors accomplish vividly memorable performances that are photographed with a sublimely subtle painter's eye. Reminiscent of the theatrical bedroom farce of the turn of the century, this film might be called a friendship farce that becomes a worthwhile experience in the growth of the romantic nature within each character, and the viewer, too. An artistic telegram on the importance of caring about those around us.

Sentiment: positive
"Black Water" is a movie that in a way surprised me, and definitely exceeded my original expectations. "Black Water" is truly a very well structured, unpredictable, thrilling, well directed, and well creepy movie. The plot is actually somewhat original, and will definitely keep you intrigued with it. One thing I love about this movie is the direction, because mainly on how it surpassed my original expectations. My original expectations of "Black Water" was that it was a crappily made, acted, directed, paced, and boring movie. It really wasn't. Well the acting is nothing to praise because there were times were I feel they didn't show enough emotions, and there are some lines that feel just so scripted. However I love the direction because all of it's shots seem predictable, but arn't. Like when watching it say the camera gets a slow shot of the water, and it goes quite, you're like the croc's about to attack. However the croc's attacks are very unpredictable(which was bad for me who doesn't handle films like this all to greatly), and this does make you jump. Plus I just love that it's one of those horror movies that don't rely on the sudden big sound blast to make you jump, but instead the actual movie. I also like how the story is about people who are trapped in these trees, it made it seem very real, and definitely kept your eyes on the screen. I must say I didn't think the opening 20 so minutes were done well, and I think they made the boat a little heavier than it would have been in real life. Plus I didn't like how they tried their absolute best to make the characters situation seem entirely hopeless when it really wasn't. Also again I just don't think some of the characters actions were realistic. For example I wouldn't have gone anywhere near the water knowing their was a crocodile in it, let alone a killer one. However these problems really arn't that major, and I was still able to enjoy the film. Overall as far as movies go, I've seen better, but as far as animal attack horror films(a genre I get easily scarred at) it's one of the better ones you'll see. And sure it's not perfect, but that doesn't mean it's not worth a shot.

Sentiment: positive
Let us begin by saying that this film's English title "The Power of Kangwon Province" is an absolute misnomer.It is because in Hong Sang Soo's film,there are no actual shots of wars,troubles and conflicts.So the idea of establishing power of a province is neither suitable nor valid in the context of this film.If we were to judge this film by its Korean language title,"Kangwon-do ui him" is going to appear as a cryptic statement about emotional turmoils of its young protagonists whose minds are not at rest.Hong Sang Soo has also directed a highly prolific visual document about erratic choices made by people in their lives.The people in question are a couple of young girls who are constantly in the process of displaying their moods,whims and fancies. If making a film out of nothingness can be claimed as a film maker's meritorious virtue then Hong Sang Soo has to be saluted as a courageous film maker whose films speak volumes about ubiquitous nothingness of human relationships,sentiments and lives.Whether one likes it or not,this is the only fair conclusion that be deduced from this particular film.

Sentiment: positive
The Elegant Universe brings to light many ideas of the universe and existence. After watching this documentary, one can't help but take a step back and rethink their view on the existence of everything. There is a large cast of scientists, mathematicians and others on both sides of String Theory. It is continually brought into question as untested, untestable, and possibly dead wrong. The closest to proselytizing that anyone does is to explain that Quantum Physics, the set of mathematical ideas that give extremely good approximations of what happens to sub-atomic particles, has never made an incorrect prediction. Not so with String Theory; no one is willing to say, on-camera, that String Theory is the truth, and in so doing, the piece retains a certain respectful distance from the subject.

Sentiment: positive