DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Yes, Lifetime has a habit of making the male species look stupid. And this soap opera ain't kidding when they make Perry King, supposedly a well renowned medical doctor, unable to see the evil surrounding him. Puts your trust in doctors, huh? How can anyone not see what's going on? Is he that stupid? And the evil wife, with a face like a horse, goes around killing off his entire family without a trace. How does she acquire all the drugs? That isn't explained. How does she get off being a secretary in a hospital without any credentials? I guess the director, Don FauntLeRoy asks us to just believe it. I didn't. I kept yelling at the screen at the stupidity of King with all right in front of his face. If the wife was that attractive, maybe, just maybe, I'd accept it. But she's not even that. Shannon Sturges is the perfect wife and I tell you she has the face of a horse. I wouldn't cross the street for her, yet our perfect husband does and quickly. After everybody in the cast get knocked off, I wasn't satisfied with the come up pence given to our villainess. She deserved more than she got. William Moses plays the doctor's brother who unfortunately you know his outcome from day one. Pleasure to at least see one pretty face in this clinker. That of Lesley Anne Down. She gives the film a 2 count just on the relief of seeing someone fetching in this mess. Perry King deserved his fate. What a jerk.

Sentiment: negative
"Quit while your ahead" is a phrase they never learn. Typical Hollywood sequel scenario: if the first film was only shocking, the second wasn't, expect the third to be the worst thing to hit the screen this year. Even worse are the prequels, events of which were already explained in detail. If you haven't seen to first two films you will not like this one. It's like starting to watch Lord of the rings or Star Wars with the last trilogy movie. So "stand alone" this film is not.

Remember in the first movie about Lucians revenge? Remember the second about the long lost savage brother? Well if you saw those two 5 min moments and paste them together you would get a 5 min prequel. But the creators ether thought these 5 min were vital historical events or just wanted to give a job to some actors, cast and crew and maybe make some money in the process. "I have a loot of money, I make movies for a living and I'm bored. What will I do? I know! I'll make a movie." So anyway you get this 5 min prequel and you stretch it for 90 min  that's this movie. And you know what will happen to the main "immortal" characters, so there is little suspense. By the way, all the drama of the movie is in those 5 min. The only thing that made my eyebrow rise was mom killing in the begging of the movie. Sick. The rest was Braveheart remix. If you want a comedy, see Braveheart first then this movie.

Now I'm going to rant a bit  the movie put me in the mood. Who invented the concept of "vampire vs. werewolf" in the first place? It's older than I am and got old just as fast. And why do vampires look like Goth girls in heat, while werewolves look like psycho bears? Hiding bad films behind cleavage fails. Isn't it about time we got some sane slimmer werewolves with an upright posture? How can their unchangeable werewolves even breed if they rip everybody into shreds? And why with all their powers the vampires didn't rule the world? Blaa, blaa, blaa What a waste.

Sentiment: negative
Checking Out will be released Friday September 15th, 2006. through the AMC theater chain starting in New York City. Times Square, 66th and 3rd Ave, West 84th Street. This film has been one from the heart, for the heart. Mark Lane, Jon Karas,Richard Marcus, Jeff Hare, Dana Harrloe,Matt Jensen Ed Abrams, Nick Pike, Peter Falk, Laura San Giacomo, David Paymer, Judge Reinhold, all the cast and crew knew from day one that this film was something special. The need to comfort the elderly is intended, the closeness of family is more apparent now then ever. I would recommend this film to all ages and races. This story rings the truth to anyone with or without family.

Sentiment: positive
This is an interesting treatment of a subject that is quite controversial, (just read the other comments on this film). Apparently, you either love it or hate it and it seems most people make that distinction based on whether they believe the tribulation and end times will happen as portrayed in the movie.

Basically, the film - and its sequels - were made for about $1.30 each. The production values are right down there with "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and the acting is about on the same level as "Glen or Glenda", (my apologies to Ed Wood). Putting aside the religious message, the story is as scary as they come. Add in even the slightest thought that the story might actually be close to something that might happen in the future and it becomes even scarier.

This movie, and its sequels, didn't try to bring in the reasons why the tribulation happened when it did. "Left Behind" and "The Omega Code" tried to get in everything "Thief" did and to explain all the politics and maneuvering in the Middle East leading up to it. The net effect was "Thief" did a much better job on the scary part of movie, instead of spreading itself too thin trying to explain what was happening in the Middle East at the same time. 

Forget the politics and watch this movie, and its sequels, for what they are - horror stories. That they may be horror stories told, indirectly, by God makes them just that much more frightening. If it makes you think about the subject, it has done its job - even if you never believe.

Sentiment: negative
This is yet another pseudo-intellectual "let's make the Nazis look real bad" movie. The Nazis were pretty bad, no doubt - most of already know that. However, that does not necessarily make every movie on the theme good. A Discovery Channel presentation of "The Wannsee Conference" would have been much more interesting. 

"Conspiracy" falls on its ass between two categories: documentary and drama. It doesn't cut it as a documentary, the movie is too `staged' and the presentation too `common'. It doesn't cut it as a drama, the characters are too shallow and conflicts too easily `solved'.

Another thing is the tagline: "One Of The Greatest Crimes Against Humanity Was Perpetrated In Just Over An Hour." As the movie shows the Wannsee Conference the meeting had nothing to do with reaching a consensus on the final solution. The decision on the solution had already been taken by the SS. The sole purpose of the meeting was to make all significant stakeholders commit themselves to an already established plan. There were no decisions or plans made at the Wannsee Conference. There was only threats and coercion (some needed less than others).

Finally: One thing the movie does show (although in no exceptional manner) is, man has a tendency to turn to culture and aesthetics in an attempt to hide for himself the fact that he is committing appalling atrocities. This is seen in most powermongering `leaders' and politicians.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is terrible. TERRIBLE. One of the worst movies ever. I cannot even imagine Gigli being worse that this. Previews made us say "NO", but then looking for something amid the dreck out there right now, we decided to go ahead and give it a shot.

STUPID US.

Affleck is NOT an actor. He's an image and can look good with explosions, but not even the kind Bruce Willis got in "Die Hard". If he stripped his shirt and ran around fighting bad guys, it would be a comedy.

The best part was Catherine O'Hara -- she's always good. Gandolfini flops again (if it weren't for The Sopranos, he'd be washed up) like he did in "The Mexican".

Affleck hogs every scene and as others have said -- no character has any motivation whatsoever for their actions. 

AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS.

Sentiment: negative
The long list of "big" names in this flick (including the ubiquitous John Mills) didn't bowl me over to the extent that I couldn't judge the film on its actual merits. It is FULL of stereotypes, caricatures, and standard, set scenes, from the humble air-ace hero to the loud-mouthed yank flyer. The music track was such that at one point, about an hour before the end, I thought the film was over: loud, rising crescendo, grand flourish and finish then silence, but then the movie continued! I found no real storyline, haphazard writing, but smartly-pressed uniforms and the pretty Jean Simmons (pre-nose job) with a rousing little ditty. I cannot say that this picture has any of the ingredients which make a film great. I found it maudlin, mawkish and minor.

Sentiment: negative
What can you say when you see a good French movie which tries to draw a suspenseful story in line with the social background of the characters? The major point is we believe in those characters and once they've met each other we want them to stay together. It's simple and really efficient. The background story is less important. Why does the screenplay go on the side of a half-developed thriller? It helps not to get stuck in those social demonstrations most French film-jerkers like to make. Not too much ambition, right: Sur mes lèvres is only an entertaining French film with good characterization.

For all the clever noir points in the screenplay the end is by far too easy. It goes quite as easy as in Rear Window (an obvious reference and definitely not a noir film) but with a less compelling context. Where I am amazed it's to see that the character of the probation officer has not been erased. He brings very little to the story; when he appears alone we wonder if we've not missed a part before. Jacques Audiard is not a new-comer yet. Strange and weird.

Sentiment: positive
First some background; I am English and have lived in London all my life. I have been to many games at 'The Den' and most other London club grounds. I am familiar with the type of person who gets into hooliganism and I know just how they act and how they speak. Have to say this is a bad, bad movie. I can tell you that Green Street is one of the most unrealistic movies I have ever seen. I spent most of the movie cringing with embarrassment. I felt I should write a mini review because I felt I needed to point out a few things.

a) People just don't talk like that in London in real life; the filmmakers took the whole slang thing too far and made it sound stupid. Unfortunately hooligan types do exist, but those you see in Green Street are more like parodies. b) The actor who plays Pete Dunham (Charlie Hunnam) unfortunately sounded about as 'English' or 'Cockney' as Osama Bin Laden. He's from up north in Newcastle and I'm just amazed any of the other actors could keep straight face acting alongside him - how are we supposed to take him seriously. Why they didn't just get someone from East London to play that part is beyond me. I could have done 'a bang up job' myself, hehe. c) Mr Frodo. I mean how can I be expected to take seriously Elijah Wood kicking the ass of people twice his size and who are genuinely nasty hooligans. He'd be dead. Simple as that. Honestly (as a Brit) it was hard to watch this film. I'm pretty sure this film will bomb here in the UK. It may do a little better in the states because the Americans just wont know (or care) how inaccurate it is. 

Please my American and foreign friends, don't believe a word of this nonsense. Yes these firms do exist but it's all extremely underground and hush hush, and on a vastly smaller scale. The movie only gets a 2 from me because they actually filmed some of it in London. Usually they try to film these things in Cardiff (Wales) or something and expect us all not to notice.

Sentiment: negative
I liked this movie very much. Although this movie doesn't boast of big (or even known) names, its very charming. Its one of those feel good types where you know that everythings gonna be just fine in the end. My favorite scene is with the baby elephant part. I rate this movie at 7.5

Sentiment: positive
When I bought my Toy Story tape when it came out to Video after being released in theaters I saw a trailer for this that said from the creators of Toy Story. As soon as I saw that I knew this was gonna be a good feature! I was right! A Bug's Life like Toy Story is great story, great characters and great animation. My favorite characters are Dim the rhino Beetle voiced by Brad Garrett and Hemlich the Caterpillar voiced by the late Pixar Storyman Joe Ranft. My favorite scene is when Slim the walking stick (David Hyde Pierce) lifts up Hemlich trying to distract the Bird and Hemlich's like You hoo Mr. Early Bird. How about a nice tasting worm on a stick and Slim's like I'm going to snap! I'm going to snap! I just died laughing at that scene. Being a big fan of insects I think A Bug's Life is my favorite Pixar even though I know a lot of people consider it the worst Pixar film ever! I don't know how you could hate a Pixar film! I think they're all pretty good films! Good job PIXAR!

Sentiment: positive
As an old white housewife I can still appreciate that Laurence Fishburne is one of our finest actors. anyone who appreciates his work like in Deep Cover might enjoy watching the incredible acting range of this actor. Since I think this is his directorial debut it might prove even more interesting. All of the acting is quite good. If you can't take lower Manhattan junky worlds or the reality of crime life (not glorified action shoot-em ups) then this is not a film you would enjoy. It is Mr. Fishburne's usual contribution to incredibly subtle relationships. I would love to see Larry and Anthony Hopkins go at each other some day in a movie.

Sentiment: positive
The Color Purple is a masterpiece. It displays the amazing acting abilities of Whoopi Goldberg, Oprah Winfrey, and Danny Glover. Not only is Steven Spielberg the most incredible director of all time but his versatility shines through in this film. If you ever want to see what a movie can do watch this. It's a beautiful portrayal of one of the most moving stories of all time!

Sentiment: positive
David Webb Peoples meets Paul Anderson...if it already sounds weird to you, then you are right, because it is.

Peoples is known for his scripts with moral implications of what is right and wrong, the value of life, etc... He covered these issues in Bladerunner, Unforgiven, and pretty much in all of his screenplays there is something along those lines.

Paul Anderson's first successful movie was a violent thriller. Not surprisingly so have all of his other movies! And here is a violent thriller with moral implications!

Peoples' script is quite apparent in the first half of the movie. Soldiers trained from birth, taught to kill, and never had a normal life. They are replaced by better, genetically engineered soldiers and Todd, one of the original soldiers, is left on a planet and left for dead. There he must cope with a group of refugees, some want him to stay others hate him and there is an interesting drama here. BUT THEN...

...The bullets start to fly as the new soldiers move onto the planet for a military exercise and try to kill all the people. Big, violent, loud action ensues and Peoples' script turns into an Anderson action-fest. It is hard to believe that the script was originally written that way, but the end product is better then I expected. Entertaining, somewhat, though admittedly not very, thought-provoking, and exciting once the action starts. 7/10

Rated R: a lot of violence

Sentiment: positive
I also saw this amazingly bad piece of "anime" at the London Sci-Fi Festival. If you HAVE to watch this thing, do so with a large audience preferably after a few beers, you may then glean some enjoyment from it. 

I found the dialogue hilarious, lodged in my mind is the introduction of Cremator. The animation is awful. It is badly designed and badly executed. It may have been a good idea for the producers to have hired at least one person who was not colour blind.

There's nothing else to say really, this film is a failure on every level.

Sentiment: negative
This film is not only the last piece of the Three Colours trilogy, but also the best of the three and one of the best movies of the 90s. There's hardly another movie that so wisely and consequently asks for humanity and respect for every human being. 

Valentine (Irene Jacob) lives in Geneva, where she works as a model. Though she has a boyfriend, she seems to be rather lonely. One night she has an accident and injures a dog and who leads her to his owner, a retired jugde (Jean-Louis Trintignant), who is cynical and spies his neighbors phone calls. Disgusted by him she cannot go away and they meet again. Two lonely souls meet each other and they become friends and develop a deep love for each other. 

The story itself is too complex to be told completely, there is another connection between them in a young man who represents both the judge and Valentines real love and there is more to their relationship than only friendship.

The actors are wonderful, Irene Jacob and Jean-Louis Trintignant developing a deep and authentic friendship. 

The topics are of an endless validity, Fraternity, not only in contact with each other, but also in the respect for the right of privacy. Alarmingly we seem to loose this right more and more, which makes movies like this one even more important than it might have been in 1994.

Red is one of the strongest colours that exists, representing inner turmoil, love, anger and passion. Used here as another protagonist, it brings a unmatched depth to the movie. A masterpiece!

Sentiment: positive
This is what happens when you try to adapt a play from the theater. Look at the end of the picture, totally theatrical.

With a reminiscent of Les liaisons dangereuses the final steam-less speech try to make us think that the whole (and deep) theme of this matter was the manhood. Who cares by this point? It was about manipulation. And so the audience feels after this movie has ended.

Young directors: A play is told with the words more than actions. A film is the opposite most of the times.

And I'm not talking about the gay theme, overly exploited without a point ('cause there's no explanation of this topic considering the so called "philosophic" or presumptuous basis) to the level that this film should have been called Grand Gay

Sentiment: negative
I watched this film few times and all i can say that this is low budget rubbish and that it does not have anything to do with a real history facts. Actors performances is very poor but it is result of limited acting possibilities. Anyone who watched this film now probably think of Hitler as some crazy skinny lunatic who running with a gun like some Chicago gangster. I can only to say that there is much better films about Hitler and Germany in those years and that Rise of evil is very much under average. I can recommend German film Downfall in which you can see brilliant performance of Switzerland actor Bruno Ganz in a roll of Adolf Hitler.

Sentiment: negative
"Ordinary Decent Criminal" is sad because it is obviously trying to succeed and equally obviously hasn't a chance in hell of making it apparently owing to the absence of a clear sense of purpose. A abysmal failure at droll Irish comedy with Spacey as a thief who enjoys outsmarting the cops and his competition becoming a sort of folk hero in his own mind, this flick manages to be mildly amusing when it's trying to be funny, slightly more than boring when it's trying to be interesting, and forget sentimental or poignant or endearing though it takes shots at those qualities as well. "Ordinary Decent Criminal" has a clumsy screenplay, naive direction, journeyman execution, thin story, poor casting, mediocre acting, and eventually becomes lost in itself and sinks into a mire of hopeless mediocrity. Pass on this one. (D)

Sentiment: negative
I respect the fact that this is a very popular show. However, in comparison with Robert Altman's ingenious, hilarious, zany, and groundbreaking 1970 movie classic, this show was probably destined to be less-than-mediocre... even if it did run for 11 years, that doesn't necessarily make it any good. This show formed an all-too-integral part of my early childhood (it was on re-runs every night, and guess whose parents were watching it and laughing it up), but it's one of the memories I don't miss. And now that I actually have seen the movie, I can give this series an accurate critique. On its own, it's not nearly "2 out of 10" bad. However, the characters on this show are nothing like those in the movie. Some of them technically are the same, but they're only similar in name. For instance, since when is Alan Alda anything like Donald Sutherland? His style of humor is totally different, as are his characterization and outlook. The new characters are not that great; they just serve to make you miss the ones that they're replacing. It's the same with the new actors (including Jamie Farr). The only thing that actually transfers to the series is Radar, who's still (even though played by the same actor) merely a pale imitation of the original. What else? Oh, yeah. With a laugh track (it didn't matter whether it was used in surgery scenes or not), it comes across as creepy, due to what's going on in the other settings. And because it lasted nearly four times longer than the actual Korean War, it takes viewers into this bizarre temporal rift that doesn't work outside the world of cartoons. I've never liked this show, and I never will.

Sentiment: negative
This is just the best movie of all times! Sorry, Hollywood! I've seen it in early 70's, as soon as it appeared on the Bulgarian TV, and I loved it immediately (I was 14 then). 25 years later I bought it on a video tape, and a few months ago it finally appeared on a DVD here in Bulgaria. I live with this movie 35 years already, and so do all my friends and my family. My son was a teenager when he saw it for the first time, and he loved it immediately, too (and this is the generation that grew up watching practically only Hollywood movies and not speaking or understanding Russian at all!). What makes this masterpiece of Danelia so special? It's difficult to say, as it is difficult to describe what the beauty is... But the fact is that you can watch this movie dozens of times with the same pleasure as it was the first time. I can't remember any other such movie, no matter how many millions it cost or how great the cast was... Chapeau, Maestro Danelia! Bulgaria loves you!

Sentiment: positive
A Give this Movie a 10/10 because it deserves a 10/10. Two of the best actors of their time-Walter Matthau & George Burns collaborate with Neil Simon and all of the other actors that are in this film + director Herbert Ross, and all of that makes this stage adaption come true. The Sunshine Boys is one of the best films of the 70's. I love the type of humor in this film, it just makes me laugh so hard.

I got this movie on VHS 3 days ago (yes, VHS because it was cheaper-only $3). I watched it as soon as I got home, but I had to watch it again because I kept missing a few parts the first time. The second time I watched it, it felt a lot better, and I laughed a lot harder. I'm definitely going to re-get this on DVD because I HAVE to see the special features.

It's very funny how that happens. Two people work together as entertainers/actors/performers. They get along well on stage, but really argue off stage, they can't survive another minute with each other, then some 15 years later, you want to reunite them for a TV special. You can find that in this film. Matthau & Burns were terrific in this film. It's a damn shame they died. George Burns deserved that Oscar. He gave a strong comic performance. He was also 78 when this movie was filmed. So far, he's the oldest actor to receive an academy award at an old age. Jessica Tandy breaks the record as the oldest actress. Richard Benjamin was also fantastic in this. He won a Golden Globe for best supporting actor. He deserved that Golden Globe. Although many people might disagree with what I am about to say, everybody in this film gave a strong performance. This Comedy is an instant classic. I highly recommend it. One more thing: Whoever hates this film is a "Putz"

Sentiment: positive
I actually liked this movie. Sure, the acting was flat, there was no plot, and the villain was the lamest that i've seen. Michael Bernardo as Dante is worth laughs in his own right, with an incredibly funny catchphrase and evil laugh. But its worth seeing, just for the WORST explosion you will ever see outside of the Power Rangers TV series. You'll know it when you see it. Honestly, this movie must have the budget of a low grade porno. I almost stopped watching after an hour, but i recommend watching through the whole thing; at the very least, there's plenty of eye candy for all to enjoy. Recommended for viewers with a high tolerance to poor movies.

Sentiment: negative
The Last Hunt is one of the few westerns ever made to deal with Buffalo hunting, both as a sport and business and as a method of winning the plains Indian wars. Before the white man set foot on the other side of the Mississippi, the plains used to have herds of American Bison as large as some of our largest cities. By the time of the period The Last Hunt is set in, the buffalo had been all but wiped out. The 20th century, due to the efforts of conservationists, saw a revival in population of the species, but not hardly like it once was.

Robert Taylor and Stewart Granger are co-starring in a second film together and this one is far superior to All the Brothers Were Valiant. Here Stewart Granger is the good guy, a world weary buffalo hunter, who has to go back to a job he hates because of financial considerations.

The partner he's chosen to throw in with is Robert Taylor. Forgetting Taylor for the moment, I doubt if there's ever been a meaner, nastier soul than Charlie Gilsen who Taylor portrays. In Devil's Doorway he was an American Indian fighting against the prejudice stirred up by a racist played by Louis Calhern. In The Last Hunt, he's the racist here. He kills both buffalo and Indians for pure pleasure. He kills one Indian family when they steal his mules and takes the widow of one captive. Like some barbarian conqueror he expects the pleasure of Debra Paget's sexual favors. He's actually mad when Paget doesn't see it that way.

No matter how often they refer to Russ Tamblyn as a halfbreed, I was never really convinced he was any part Indian. It's the only weakness I found in The Last Hunt.

However Lloyd Nolan, the grizzled old buffalo skinner Taylor and Granger bring along is just great. Nolan steals every scene he's in with the cast. 

For those who like their westerns real, who want to see a side of Robert Taylor never seen on screen, and who don't like cheap heroics, The Last Hunt is the ideal hunt.

Sentiment: positive
Astounding.....This may have been A poor attempt at remaking the already recreated Omen Movie, but I sure enjoyed it.

That last Man who commented is a fool, This Movie was one of a kind, And the Music Dark, Jerry Goldsmith Himself, would had applaud this Movie.

Great recommendations from Myself to Watch or Buy this Film.

I collect horror Movies and Soundtracks, So listen to what I have to say, not that other idiot.

There is only one thing that do not fascinate Me, the endings.

According to Prophecy it is all inaccurate, Including Final conflict, and Left behind.

But My conclusion being.... There great Movies...and should be seen, before the Great Depression falls upon Us, and Before the Democrats Take over the Presidency too.

So Signed....Jacob Eder...A Farmer, with A Mastermind.

Sentiment: positive
"Problem Child" is one of the goofiest movies ever made. It's not the worst (though some people will disagree with me on that), but it's not the best either. It's about a devilish 7-year-old boy who wrecks comic havoc on a childless couple (John Ritter, Amy Yasbeck) who foolishly adopts him. This film is too silly and unbelievable because I don't buy for one second that a child could act as unrurly as the kid does in this film. It's asinine and preposterous although I did laugh several times throughout (I really don't know why). But I can't recommend this film. I know I'm being too kind to it. If there is one positive thing about "Problem Child" is that it's better than the sequel which was just awful. 

** (out of four)

Sentiment: negative
I am a huge Amy Adams fan and have been for many years. I am also a big fan of musicals. With that said this is not a good movie on any level. It is quite dull and the acting overall is very very poor. Amy Adams is awkward to watch act with Scott G. Anderson due to the fact that she is in another league when it comes to acting. All the performances come off as very amateur. The music performances are pleasant, but nothing special. 

Scott G. Anderson is just an bad actor! I assumed he was put in this movie because he has a great voice, but it's just not the case. He has an average voice and sings on key, but that's about it.

I guess I can see why Amy Adams did this movie with the singing element I just wish she had not. I could rant about other poor elements of this movie, but I'll leave it at that.

Sentiment: negative
This film is deeply disappointing. Not only that Wenders only displays a very limited musical spectrum of Blues, it is his subjective and personal interest in parts of the music he brings on film that make watching and listening absolutely boring. The only highlight of the movie is the interview of a Swedish couple who were befriended with J.B. Lenoir and show their private video footage as well as tell stories. Wenders's introduction of the filmic topic starts off quite interestingly - alluding to world's culture (or actually, American culture) traveling in space, but his limited looks on the theme as well as the neither funny nor utterly fascinating reproduction of stories from the 30s renders this movie as a mere sleeping aid. Yawn. I had expected more of him.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. However, the little slave girl, Alice and Jared Harris imitating Christopher Walken is what makes this movie entertaining. Alice's smoking, drinking and uncanny way of showing up when her name is called is strange and interesting. I have to applaud Jared for his Christopher Walken imitation, and Christopher Walken for allowing this to be in the movie.

Sentiment: negative
Let me start off by saying that I didn't watch this movie at first with high expectations. It was recommended to me by a friend with mediocre taste in movies, and "MTV" was pasted on the front cover so I was not expecting much. What i was expecting was a tear-jerker, overly dramatic but at least effective.

I was wrong.

Firstly, let me start off that I had never read the book nor watched any other versions of the movie.

The acting was my main gripe with the film. By god is it AWFUL. The main girl is pretty mediocre, but when compared to the rest of the cast she's Maryl Streep. The main "Hero", Heath, is just plain awful. He can sing decent sounding clichéd songs, but that's about it. His acting broke the 'sad' moments by being so bad at points that I just burst into laughter. The Isabel girl was pretty godawful too, and the brother was just a flat character that was played by an actor that couldn't display emotion whatsoever. And when he tried to, it failed miserably. Neil Patrick Harris was the only decent actor, playing Edward, although it's obvious the direction was bad because even he did not live up to what I've seen him do. Oh, and the father wasn't half-bad to my memory, but he was in the movie for such a small amount of time I can hardly remember.

The story itself was not very good. More breakups than you can imagine. Predictable story (Until the ending, which I barely understood). EXTREMELY one-sided characters with no real depth to them... Overall just not interesting or compelling, nothing we've never seen before done MUCH better, and nothing worth watching here.

The ending is suppose to be a tearjerker. It did nothing of the sort. The ending isn't built up at all, it almost feels like an afterthought. In fact, I had to ask my friends WHY the ending actually happened, which when they explained it to me I must have had a look on my face of "Wait, when did they say that? What?". Never a good sign. The editing was probably the worst I've seen, though I do understand the fade-ins-fade-outs are done because this was originally made for TV, but that's really no excuse.

Overall, the movie is just garbage. I'm a sensitive guy, I cried during two episodes of the Simpsons. I never cried during this crap, not even close. Really, this movie is not worth your time. If you really want to see a tearjerker look elsewhere.

Sentiment: negative
Woeful and unnecessary sequel to a bonafide classic. An American Werewolf in London was, indisputably, a gem of a movie: humorous, demented, with just a dash of romance and so very, very British it made me want to stand up and sing God Save the Queen every time the movie ended. Then came this abomination. You know you are in real trouble when the leads are so utterly unlikeable you are glad when they are slaughtered, and actually start cheering for the lycanthropes. Tell you the truth, folks, I only got about half way through this CGIed travesty before losing the will to live and turning it off. Absolutely pitiful and a putrid waste of anyone's time.

Sentiment: negative
Watching this movie was a waste of time. I was tempted to leave in the middle of the movie, but I resisted. I don't know what Ridley Scott intended, but I learned that in the army, women get as stupid as men. They learn to spit, to insult and to fight in combat, and that's also a waste of time (in my opinion). And, anyway, what the hell was that final scene in Lybia? Are they still fighting Gadafi or is it that it's easy for everyone to believe islamic people are always a danger?

Sentiment: negative
"Still Crazy" is without a doubt the greatest rock comedy of all-time. It has been erroneously compared to "This Is Spinal Tap", which it has no relation to. "Spinal Tap" is a satire (and, quite frankly, not a very good one, in spite of it's "outing" of many rock clichés). Unlike "Tap", "Still Crazy" is populated by great actors, great songs and great human situations. You CARE about the people in "Still Crazy". That's all that matters. Oh, yeah, the music's pretty damn good, too, written by Mick Jones of Foreigner and Chris Difford of Squeeze. American audiences were already familiar with Stephen Rea (The Crying Game), but would only later become familiar with Bill Nighy (Underworld, Love Actually, Pirates Of The Caribbean II) and Timothy Spall (the Harry Potter movies).

Sentiment: positive
THE ODD COUPLE (3+ outta 5 stars)

Like most people I will always feel that Jack Klugman and Tony Randall are the definitive "Odd Couple". Their incredible work on the TV series from the early to mid-70s was a highwater mark for television at the time... easily surpassing the stage and screen versions of the tale. Nonetheless, how can you go wrong with a Jack Lemmon/Walter Matthau pairing? Matthau is in especially good form as Oscar, the slob. Lemmon takes a bit of getting used to as Felix, particularly if you have previously seen Tony Randall's outstanding performance. The script is good... definitely Neil Simon's best. (I will go on record here as stating that Neil Simon is probably one of the worst, most over-rated playwrights of American theatre.) The storyline is simple: Felix, a neat freak and newly separated from his wife moves in with Oscar, the slob who needs some help saving money for alimony payments. Their living arrangement becomes much like a marriage as well, culminating in some amusing tiffs and spats. Lots of fun and some great one-liners.

Sentiment: positive
This is actually great fun. I really enjoyed it, even though it wasn't that original at all, Robert De Niro and Eddie Murphy were great together!. All the characters are cool, and the story is pretty good, plus Robert De Niro and Eddie Murphy are simply amazing in this!. Rene Russo is excellent in her role, and there are plenty of laughs to be had throughout (especially when Deniro spoofs Clint Eastwood and Danny Glover's lines), plus the finale is just great. Yes it's just another run of the mil "Buddy Buddy" cop film, but it works due to the fantastic chemistry between De Niro and Murphy!, plus it had some great car chase scenes as well!. It's nothing that great really, however I found it to be great fun, and a perfect way to pass the time!,however the main villain was very weak and wasn't very good at all. This is far from being the best "Buddy "Buddy" cop film, however it's still a very entertaining one, and I thought it was pretty well made and written as well!, plus the ending was quite funny!. This is actually great fun, I really enjoyed it, even though it wasn't that original at all, Robrt De Niro and Eddie Murphy were great together, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Tom Dey does a very good job here with great camera work, cool angles and keeping the film at a fast pace. The acting is a lot of fun!. Robert Deniro is amazing as always and is amazing here, he is hilarious, very likable, had fantastic chemistry with Eddie Murhpy did his usual awesome stuff, pulled some really funny faces, seemed to be enjoying himself,had some funny lines, and had a really cool character! (De Niro Rules!!!!!!!). Eddie Murphy is also amazing here, he is hilarious, like De Niro did his usual funny stuff, obviously loved being in front of the camera, and while he can do this stuff in his sleep he was still a lot of fun to watch! (Murphy Rules!!!!). Rene Russo is fantastic here!, she had a cool character, and while she didn't have much to do, she added a lot of screen presence, and made her character interesting always, she was just great! (Russo Rules!!!!). William Shatner is funny here surprisingly and didn't overdo it, and brought some good laughs into the film. The main villain is OK, but kind of weak and rather bland, still he did what he had to do adequately. Rest of the cast do fine. Overall I highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5

Sentiment: positive
A patchwork about 911. The 11 stories from 11 directors from 11 countries are sometimes humoristic, sometimes boring (the first one, for example), sometimes used to say to Americans "we have had more deaths than you, and you supported the murderers", sometimes really weird (but highly symbolic and interesting). I really loved the Claude Lelouch (personal live of a couple in New-York, showing that our day-to-day "problems" are unimportant), Shoei Imamura (bizarre, strongly anti-wars in general), and Idrissa Ouedraogo (funny, typical African optimism despite terrible day to day misery), and Youssef Chahine (an Egyptian intellectual, pro-peace, having moral difficulties to accept the U.S. policy towards Arab countries) I am really pleased to see that many Americans liked this movie. It shows that we (or they ? I am still Belgian, but living in Texas for 12 years) are still interested by other cultures, and able to question past and present actions of our government, like we should in a democracy.

Sentiment: positive
Flatliners left quite a noticeable impression in my head. The story is quick paced and leaves you constantly absorbed and at many times quite tense. Its about five remarkable student doctors (notably Julia Roberts and Kevin Bacon) among whom, one of them has devised the mechanism of remaining dead (or getting flat-lined)for a few seconds and then coming back to life.

The procedure is quite 'complex' involving a plethora of medical knick-knacks - injections, electric blankets, oxygen masks and a variety of esoteric medical terms. I strongly suspect doctors coined all these words so that they never need to get layed off. But funnily they follow the KISS (Original version for engineers: Keep It Simple, stupid) (Extended version for doctors: Keep it Stupid, Simple) philosophy as well. At the risk of getting euthanized by some revenge-taking doctor reader, let me continue.

So the first guy who gets flat-lined hopes to find the answers to life which philosophy and religion cannot convincingly answer. He hopes to get it answered (and become famous) through applied science. He flat-lines for around two minutes and then comes back into our world left quite shaken. During death, he has a vision of an incident, when he was young, which left the strongest impression on his life. He killed another boy when he was kid, by accident, and he still feels responsible for it.

With the success of the first flat-liner, the others follow suit each of them extending their flat-line time further and further to test the limits of how long one can remain dead and experience life after death.

Meanwhile monsters from the past and future, keep coming back to haunt them after their flat-line experience. The first flat-liner is haunted by a young kid who tortures him when he is alone. The second who camera-ed all the women he took to bed, sees television sets all over playing his videos. The third is haunted by a young girl who he teased in school. The fourth is haunted by her suicide-dead father, for whom she feels responsible.

All of them are driven insane by these haunting and obsessions and think that the past seems to want to take revenge on them. The main focus on getting flat-lined is that your entire life passes through your eyes, at the moment of 'dying', whatever stage that is, and you are left mostly with the strongest impressions of life in your mind. Since they didn't die these strong impressions have somehow resurfaced and have become the focus of their lives.

All of them somehow come to terms with (and extinguish) their past demons. All of them except the first one who realizes the only way he can move on through life is getting flat-lined AGAIN. During this flat-line session, he sees himself getting flat-lined the first time and also sees the boy he killed, trying to kill him this time round. The boy kills him this time for a few minutes and in doing so has sought revenge. For a few minutes in the movie one is left wondering if he gets to come back. Thankfully (because most of us like happy endings) the boy absolves him of his past and he comes back to life again.

Sentiment: positive
What has to change in today's attitude towards films like Boogie Nights is the approach. The approach is awful! Comparing it to Pulp Fiction, seeing only the pornography, and all its aspects.. come on people, there is more than that in this beautiful motion picture. And to all the sceptics, hasn't Paul Thomas Anderson proved himself worthy time and time again? Magnolia is one of the main reasons I watch American films at all and still have faith in this "Industry" that film-making is today.. And what about There Will Be Blood? That is a film that will stay in film history whether u like it or not! Yeah, you! The so-called consumer.. you know something: F#*k you! you don't deserve this, you don't deserve anything. So many artists today struggle to get recognition and it has become increasingly difficult to make serious films, even mainstream, because people just wanna see celebrities doing stupid stuff.. like that sell-out Britney spears.

Anyway, this was very painful for me to say because I don't want to see this, i don't wanna believe that today all it matters is the adding up of numbers.. sales revenue and sales return.. I want to see magic, the magic that Fellini, Bergman and Kurosawa brought and created through the language of cinema.. Because thats what PTA is doing.. he is creating magic!!

Sentiment: positive
Sure, the concept had already been done with Alf and the Charmings: thrust modern society onto one or more out-of-place characters. But I loved both shows and watched them religiously until they ended in 1990. When I learned about Scorch, I was actually very hopeful for something new, as new TV in the 90's so far hadn't impressed me (but at least Star Trek: TNG and the Simpsons were still going).

What I got was a big disappointment. The acting was awful, but considering the ridiculous dialogue and wholly unbelievable writing, I can't blame them too much for what they had to work with. There were a few humorous moments, but most of the deliberate jokes seemed forced in their delivery. The whole production work on the show seemed too low-budget for what was on TV at the time. In the 80's it would have fit right in.

Still, it was the first episode and had to introduce the characters and establish the entire premise of the series, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. The second episode wasn't as bad, and I started to get my hopes back that once it got into its stride, the show would improve. Sadly, my VCR ended up not recording the third episode aired, I never got to see it, and the series disappeared from the TV listings after that. All I have now are the first two episodes recorded off the air onto a VHS tape.

Sentiment: negative
Lana Turner proved that she could really dance up a storm in this 1940 charmer about the ultimate sacrifice that her sister (Joan Blondell) makes for her.

When both sisters come to New York, they follow Blondell's beau, a wonderful George Murphy, in this film. 

As fate would have it, the director of the show is impressed with Turner but sees nothing ahead for Blondell except a job as the cigarette-girl. Not only does Blondell miss stardom, boyfriend, Murphy (Eddie) falls for Turner as well. So as not to hurt her sister, Turner is ready to marry the producer of the show, a wealthy womanizer who has wed 4 times.

The story concludes as best as possible with Blondell taking a fast exit back to Nebraska. Look for Paul Ford, as a gossip columnist in the film. He is hard to recognize due to the date of the film and the fact that he is much thinner. The film leaves you with the question of whether Ford and Blondell could ever get together.

Blondell, as the devoted sister, sacrifices both career and love, for her sister. This film is sentimental and might have worked better if it had been shot in Technicolor.

Few realize that George Murphy, the future Republican senator from California, was quite a song and dance man in his day.

Sentiment: positive
Shortly after seeing this film I questioned the mental competence of every actor and actress that accepted a role. Elizabeth Shue is a commendable actress, why would she embrace such an overrated opportunity? I must give credit where credit is due, though. Some moments in the movie were unpredictable and rather transfixing, but they hardly made up for the scathing perverse tendencies of Kevin Bacon's character, Sebastian Caine. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, man or woman, that has any form of self-respect to account for.

Sentiment: negative
I happened across "Bait" on cable one night just as it started and thought, "Eh, why not?" I'm glad I gave it a chance. 

"Bait" ain't perfect. It suffers from unnecessarily flashy direction and occasional dumbness. But overall, this movie worked. All the elements aligned just right, and they pulled off what otherwise could have been a pretty ugly film. 

Most of that, I think, is due to Jamie Foxx. I don't know who tagged Foxx for the lead, but whoever it was did this movie a big favor. Believable and amazingly likeable, Foxx glides through the movie, smooth as butter and funnier than hell. You can tell he's working on instinct, and instinct doesn't fail him.

The plot, while unimportant, actually ties together pretty well, and there's even a character arc through which Foxx's character grows as a person. Again, they could've slipped by without any of this, but it just makes things that much better.

I'm surprised at the low rating for this. Maybe I just caught this move on the right night, or vice versa, but I'd give it a 7/10. Bravo, Mssr. Foxx.

Sentiment: positive
It starts off pretty well, with the accident and the decision not to return to LA. But everything falls into place too quickly. There is a decent plot twist towards the end, but so many scenes that don't make sense. Randy (played by Brian Austin Green) comes home angry and ready to confront people and he takes the time to put on the club, when he parks his car in front of his house in the middle of nowhere? I don't want to spoil it, for anyone who does decide to see it, but the last 45 minutes are ridiculous. Even the acting, which wasn't bad early on, turns bad towards the end. Don't bother unless you want to see how bad it is.

Sentiment: negative