DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Oh dear. this was quite possibly the worst film i have seen in years. I mean what more can be done with the old "woman inside mans body" storyline? it was full of cliches, eg the nerd coming into his own sequence, the "lad" getting whats coming to him etc. im not calling these spoilers because any one could guess what happens!! the only thing it had going for it was Laura Fraser, who gave an average performance. and as for the "dream" boy, that was the wettest piece of acting ever. even the bad guys were instantly forgettable.

terrible movie.

Sentiment: negative
If at all possible, try to view all five of the Universal "Mummy" films in order, not so much for the continuity between films, but for the very evident lack thereof. Of course it goes without saying that the original Boris Karloff classic "The Mummy" really shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as the so called "sequels", all of which come off as campy or cultish. 

This time around, it's revealed that the mummified remains of Princess Ananka have made their way to the United States. And once again, as your eyes deceive you, Kharis the Mummy didn't really die for the second time in "The Mummy's Tomb", but is alive and searching for his lost love Princess Ananka, with the help of the rhetorical nine tana leaves brewed during the cycle of the full moon. To complete the mythology, Kharis needs a caretaker, ably filled by a gaunt John Carradine as Yousef Bey, entrusted with the task by George Zucco's Andoheb, high priest of Arkan. 

Kharis and Ananka are to be returned to their final resting place in the hills of Arkan in Egypt. But as we've seen before, being entrusted with the duty of a high priest is a sure bet to end in failure, with Carradine's character falling for the reincarnation of Ananka, Amina Monsouri (Ramsay Ames). It's shocking to see Yousef Bey and the PO'ed bandaged one come to blows over the gorgeous Amina. 

Riddle me this - in both "Tomb" and "Curse", Lon Chaney portrays the Mummy with a limp right arm folded helplessly across his chest. When he encounters the fainted Amina, he lifts her up in both arms with no problem; as soon as he puts her down his right arm returns to it's crippled position once again.

The ending of the film is most notable - the monster gets the girl! But it's a short lived victory, as the Mummy and his kidnapped bride succumb to a swampy grave, an ancient Egyptian curse is fulfilled - "The fate of those who defy the will of the ancient gods shall be a cruel and violent death".

Sentiment: negative
I am normally skeptical about watching films or mini-series based on novels because the screenplay is always different from the novel. Fortunately, I was wrong! The screenplay was very close to the novel (I guess it helps that the author was an executive producer and writer, huh?)

The cast is outstanding. I can't describe how much I enjoyed seeing such a wide range of actors (from Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee to Robert Ri'chard and Bianca Lawson).

The location setting... I was expecting to see the homes and cottages I imagined in my mind: what I saw on screen was slightly different. However, it wasn't enough to make me dislike the mini-series.

I recommend this for anyone who has read the novel: you will not be disappointed if you have. 8 out of 10 stars!



Sentiment: positive
The 1979 film musical of HAIR was loosely based on the infamous 1960's Broadway musical that became famous because of its infamous nude scene. The stage musical isn't really much more than a group of skits strung together with some amusing musical numbers; however for the film director Milos Foreman (who won an Oscar for directing ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST) and the writers have taken the basic premise of the play and the score and constructed a real story to make the show more "user friendly" for the big screen. In the film, naive farm boy Claude Hooper Buchowski (John Savage) is about to go into the army and decides to spend a couple of days in New York where he meets a group of aging hippies (Treat Williams, Dorsey Wright, Annie Golden, Don Dacus)who get him involved in a group of nutty misadventures, including the pursuit of a snooty society girl (Beverly D'Angelo). The story divides into a series of vignettes that range from the ridiculous to the sublime, but it is all gorgeously photographed with a clever use of NYC locations and imaginatively staged musical numbers (outstandingly choreographed by the legendary Twyla Tharp). Treat Williams lights up the screen as Berger, the unconventional and free-spirited hippie who does his best to get Claude to loosen up and is matched scene for scene by Savage as Claude, who brings a lovely sweetness to the role of Claude. Annie Golden is a charmer as Jeannie, the pregnant hippie who is pregnant by Wright or Dacus, doesn't know which one is the father and doesn't seem to care. There is one outstanding musical number after another here..."Aquarius" is a tour through Central Park which includes dancing horses...Treat Williams disrupts a fancy dinner party in "I Got Life"..."Black Boys/White Boys" features the late Nell Carter and Ellen Foley extolling the ethnic virtues of men and "Easy to be Hard" is a powerful rendering of one of the best songs in the show by original cast member Cheryl Barnes, who plays Wright's ex-girlfriend and mother of his child. This is a beautifully photographed, well-acted sung, and danced psychedelic acid trip of a movie that must be seen and once seen, will initiate multiple viewings as this dazzler has to much to offer to catch it all in one showing.

Sentiment: positive
The best Batman movie of the 90's no doubt about it. This movie takes place in a city filled with insecurity and nightmares.

Although the villains are somewhat cheesy, they fit perfect for the movie's tone of colorful but nightmarish cinematography. 

The performances are really great and the comic tone behind them really delivers expectations. 

Don't get fooled by the cheesy outfits, this is a movie in the pure style of Burton. That can't be described; Burton is a sui generis director that took the Batman franchise to another obscure level but not forgetting about it's comic style past. 

Recommended for fans of action cinema and best of all, if it deals with super heroes.

Sentiment: positive
For a movie like this, there's always something to follow by in years to come. Clive Barker, the man who brought "Hellraiser", makes a horror movie that is part-Goth, part-Mythology, and all horror in-between. "Nightbreed" are a bunch of mutants who only come out at night, and roam the place called Midian. Now a man name Boone(Craig Sheffer) claims to suffer hallucinations he goes to this shrink Dr. Decker(David Croneberg) who "helps" Boone with his problems. Unaware of this situation, Decker claims to be a purist which he's only a hate-monger in disguise. Boone however, goes into Midian and make the claim that he's one of the mutants there. But a mutant named Peloquin(Oliver Parker) sees Boone as meat! His bite however, spares Boone so after he is killed by a gauntlet of fire arms, he's one of them now. After being mislead by Decker, Boone does everything in his power to protect Lori(Anne Bobby) from him. Lori saves a mutant from the sun, and in return helps the others as well. I liked the lady mutants one who gives a smoky "kiss of death" and the Porcupine Woman who dreamed Boone show off her power that is so seductive and deadly at the same time. I've enjoyed this horror movie all the way, and the rule of it is, never trust a shrink! Rating 3.5 out of 5 stars!

Sentiment: positive
This was probably one of the most well-made films of the 40's - Warner Bros. at the very height of their style. The photography by Sol Polito is arguably his finest achievement - gorgeous compositions and lighting with delicate shadowing. Max Steiner contributes one of his most complex and beautiful scores - the epitome of his classical leit motif method. The music adds great emotion and excitement to the plot and is exquisite and memorable. It's interesting to note that the same production team that made this movie went right on to make "Now, Voyager" later that year - a fine film which won honors and awards and went down as a historical favorite, ciefly because it starred Bette Davis. IN my opinion, "The Gay Sisters" is a much better film - better made in all departments, and more interesting, complex and enjoyable. A most unusual film which entertains those who take it for what it is, rather than project their own modern creative sensibilities or their advanced and demanding standards of hyper-critical perfection. Each thing has to be judged in it's own time reference and for what it is trying to achieve on its own terms. Most of the complaints I've read in these reviews are so childish and totally missing the point. If you're hungry for a perfect filet mignon, don't go to the bakery counter and start whining and complaining about the fluff pastry. The art of film criticism is truly lost on a large segment of the population. Sorry folks - maybe if this movie had had a score by the Rolling Stones and a hundred intricate and soul searching subplots, you'd all be gleefully gratified. I'll take an old movie without modern intellectual pretensions an day of the week!

Sentiment: positive
Excellent documentary, ostensibly about the friendship and subsequent rivalry between two West Coast retro rock'n'roll bands: The Dandy Warhols and the Brian Jonestown Massacre. What it actually turns out to be is a portrait of a borderline psychopath - Anton Newcomb - and his tortured relationship with the rest of the world. Interestingly, for a music documentary, there is hardly any music. What there is - snatches of songs, more often than not aborted by the performers - is incidental rather than central. Although the protagonists are musicians, the story is not about music but rather about a particularly American version of a British myth of a cartoon lifestyle, ie, one where nobody has to take responsibility for behaving like spoiled adolescents on a full-time basis. Tantrums, drugs, violence, grossly dysfunctional attitudes, egomania on a truly epic scale - all of this is excused or positively encouraged because it conforms to some collectively held idea about what rock'n'roll is about. As a film this is a first-class documentary but it raises more questions than it answers. For example, why is Anton's music so conservative? For someone so wild and outrageous (and he IS wild and outrageous) his music never seems to have progressed beyond the most obvious derivations of his 60s idols (The Stones, Velvets etc.) For someone who claims to be able to play 80 instruments he has never bothered to learn to play any one of them beyond the most rudimentary level. Similarly, the Dandy Warhols burning ambition is based on a vision of rock'n'roll which is astonishingly fossilised in 1969. Nothing wrong with pastiches, of course, but surely there's more to musical life than perpetually acting out a cartoon from the late 60s. Why don't they take some risks with their music - in the way that their role models did? Because, one suspects, this is not about music. Music is just an accessory, a prop, or an excuse, to lead completely dysfunctional and irresponsible lives. But why? In the Dandy Warhols case, the answer is obvious: to make lots of money and be famous. Big deal. Anton Newcomb's case is more interesting. He is obviously very talented, but every time he is given an opportunity to reach a wider audience he sabotages it, usually in the most dramatic way possible. He is terrified of success, and at the same time, deeply resents anyone else who has it - especially his former friends the Dandy Warhols. Fascinating movie. Highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
I have been living in Istanbul for 24 years and I (a 39 years of experience would suggest) do know what Istanbul has gone through all those years.

Faith Akin is still quite young (born in 1973) and falling in the great mistake of being ORIENTALIST when looking at Turkey (just as his other movie Gegen Die Wand did) This movie SERIOUSLY LACK contemporary urban Turkish life AND MISLEADS the audience when giving out (quite false) clues as to the geographical and cultural spreading of Istanbul.

Anyone who could speak Turkish could easily attest that many underground bands & groups depicted in the movie (Siyasiyabend for one ) are SO MISERABLE and their members cannot even speak a proper language that they cannot be taken as 'representatives' of the contemporary Turkish music. Much less a piece of crap which many Turkish listeners even do not know about at all.

We Turks have long been accustomed to 'superficious' westerners who look at Turkey with some Orientalist point of view: trying to fit the actual Turkish image into their mind molds.. What is new in this movie is the fact that now a Turkish originated director (Faith Akin) is making the same mistake: Looking at Turkey with some false western glasses and scrambling to depict it as if he understands better. All of a vain effort.

Just ask any Turkish friend of yours: What sort of a musical documentary is this without mentioning the names : Zeki Muren, Baris Manco, Ajda Pekkan, Teoman, Muslum Gurses, Ibrahim Tatlises, Ferdi Ozbegen?.. and many others who have SHAPED so far the real MUSIC we are listening today?

Faith Akin has a long long lesson to learn before babbling away and confusing other people's minds with false images about the contemporary Turkish Music.

Sentiment: negative
The opening was a steal from "Eight-legged Freaks", a film that is everything this one isn't. Stilted and pedestrian are the words that apply - along with others that can't be repeated..! Drifter type returns to his home(?)town, meets up with old friends etc.... the usual annoying kid, single mother,local loudmouth and so on..Bad special effects, alien ship, atmospheric disturbances, (hey, didn't the Director see "Close Encounters"?). Good acting? Good story? Good camera angles? Good cutting? Not here! Do not rent, unless you are sharing the cost and have a lot of beer handy. Do not watch on TV, go and drink a lot of beer instead - you'll enjoy it more!

Sentiment: negative
Generally, I am not a huge fan of stop-motion films and at first RUKA didn't capture my attention. However, knowing that this film was made in the repressive Czechoslovakia during the Soviet-domination era, the more I watched the film, the more I realized just how subversive this innocent looking little film was. This subtext really made the film come to life and gives it real staying power as both a work of art and a political statement.

The sad little film is done without any dialog, but it's pretty clear what is happening. A cute little wooden man is making a clay pot and having a lovely time when suddenly a meddling animated hand appears and destroys the pot--making it into a sculpture of a hand instead. Well, the wooden man tries again and again to chase away the hand and do his own thing. However, over time the hand becomes more and more insistent and eventually cages the man. And, by the end, the man is dead thanks to the meddling hand and the hand, in a sign of real hypocrisy, gives the man a hero's funeral! 

As I said, this film is an obvious attempt by the brave Jirí Trnka to criticize his domineering government. Not surprisingly, though Czechs loved the film and gave it critical praise, the state (i.e., the hand) banned this little parable. Sadly, Trnka did not live to see his nation liberated a little more than two decades later during the co-called "Velvet Revolution".

Sentiment: positive
I don't really mind the creative ideas interjected in these movies, but seriously. There isn't one coherent part of the game in this movie. That seems to be the trend, buy the rights and then just make a movie that has zero to do with what the fans want. This butchering is almost entertaining because you know you are getting away with hiding behind a lack of skill, and control of money (not yours) that allows you to do this. Play a game, or hire someone to, and please make a real movie, or stand in the boxing ring and have your butt handed to you as you so claim won't happen.

wow, 9 lines of text and i was done. had to add blah to bug you, sorry

Sentiment: negative
Some people think of Sweden in a negative way: too neat, too clean, too serious, too organized and too Northern. A people tortured by their own religious fate and history, sometimes leading to depression and compulsive heavy-handedness. This need not be a problem for a filmmaker, as for example the late Bergman has shown us what can be cinematic possible under these conditions. Bergman used his identity as a starting point and did not explicitly comment on this identity as such.

Andersson however does the reverse: He comments only on this identity hereby dissecting his people to the bone: In his world Sweden is equivalent for hell on earth. But he does not take this any further and for me this is just not art but merely annotation. Despite the exceptional amount of time it took to make this filmmaker has serious limitations he clearly cannot step out of.

Compared to his previous movie Sånger från andra våningen / Songs from the Second Floor, there is also not much progress to be observed. The intention was that this was more accessible, but the difference is minimal and the few scenes that try to please a larger audience aren't the best in the movie. The same absurdism and minimalism also still apply, there is the one-shot camera position and the (lack of) action in front of this shot. Yes, the stills are well done, some of the scenes actually work and the coloring and positioning is amazing. But does that make an interesting movie? Thinking in a negative way, this is cinema taken a step backwards.

Andersson's background as a maker of commercials shines through in the elaborate setup, but I find his movies about as empty as those commercials. There is a message about mankind, but it is trivial and without much depth.

Sentiment: negative
Two things -- too long and totally lacked credibility. This movie didn't make any sense and was excrutiating to sit through. I am usually pretty patient, but man... It just doesn't keep your attention at all! I think I am being nice here even! You keep thinking it's almost over only to find out it's still got another half hour! Good actors.

Sentiment: negative
Before watching this movie I thought this movie will be great as Flashpoint because before watching this movie Flashpoint was the last Jenna Jameson and Brad Armstrong movie I previously watched. As far as sexual scenes are concerned I was disappointed, I thought sexual scenes of Dreamquest will be great as Flashpoint sexual scenes but I was disappointed. Except Asia Carrera's sexual scene, any sexual scene in this movie doesn't make me feel great (you know what I mean). The great Jenna Jameson doesn't do those kind of sexual scenes of what she is capable of. Felecia and Stephanie Swift both of those lovely girls disappoint me as well as far as sexual scenes are concerned.

Although its a adult movie but if you aside that sexual scenes factor, this movie is very good. If typical adult movie standards are concerned this movie definitely raised the standards of adult movies. Story, acting, direction, sets, makeups and other technical stuff of this movie are really great. The actors of this movie done really good acting, they all done a great job. Dreamquest is definitely raised the bar of quality of adult movies.

Sentiment: positive
This is truly one of the most awful movies of all time. It's dull, ponderous, badly acted, and teeth crawlingly pretentious.

I watched for about an hour waiting for some kind of drama to unfold, before realising there wasn't any. The shot on a shoe string budget was particularly painful. These have to be the worst day for night shots since Plan Nine from Outer Space.

The only barely redeeming feature is the ludicrous 'demons' wandering around the countryside with a plastic cat basket. How scary is that? And I did like the moggys used as extras, I suppose they are least cheap. Though it did seem a bit obvious that they had been enticed into camera by the careful placement of some tuna.

This film is so dreadful, it should have a public health warning. There was a queue at my local video store when I took it back, of people demanding their money back. I kid you not!

Sentiment: negative
I bought the DVD a long time ago and finally got around to watching it.I really enjoyed watching this film as you don't get the chance to see many of the more serious better quality bollywood films like this. Very well done and but I would say you need to pay attention to what is going on as it is easy to get lost. When you start watching the movie, don't do anything else! I would actually advise people to read all the reviews here...including the ones with spoilers, before watching the movie. Raima Sen gave her first great performance that I have seen. Aishwarya was easily at her best. All performances were strong, directing and cinematography...go watch it!

Sentiment: positive
You know you're watching softcore with the wrong attitude when the poor dubbing bothers you. I'm okay with the crappy lip syncing but the sound mix is really of too. Every time someone says anything it sounds like there's a narrator. Either way, this is pretty much the purgatory between boring French professionalism and the heavenly campy Joe D'Amato flicks involving cannibalism and whatnot. Don't get me wrong, there's a fair dose of exploitation in this one, but there's always room for more. Laura Gemser stars, and that's good because she's hot. It's a bit freaky how at times you can see her bone structure, but she still rules over her white counterpart. You can also make a cool drinking game of how often she takes her kit of. Often. Every reason is good. Every person is good. Every location is good. One scene even involves an entire hockey team, whatever they are doing in Africa. Sometimes the plot gets in the way, and the supporting cast consists of some really vile looking people, but there's enough Laura Gemser for all.

Sentiment: positive
"Problem Child 2" was a complete waste of my time. The original film wasn't very good but its a classic compared to this film. The first film went over the top with its scenes of a devilish child wrecking major havoc in the lives of everyone he's around. Here, it goes even further over the top. And one scene in this movie proves that theory. That carnival ride sequence was too much for me to stomach. It's awful. This movie shouldn't have been made.

1/2* (out of four)

Sentiment: negative
Gritty, dusty western from director Richard Brooks, who seems thoroughly engrossed in the genre while keeping all the usual clichés intact. Early 1900s horse race attracts a low-keyed cowboy (Gene Hackman), a suave gambler (James Coburn), a cocky kid (Jan Michael Vincent), and even a FEMALE (a surprisingly game Candice Bergen). Once the preliminaries are out of the way (with the predictable arguments over whether or not a woman should take part), this becomes a fairly engrossing entry, though one which breaks no new ground (it instead resembles something from Gary Cooper's era). Good-looking, if overlong piece has macho verve and a fine cast, yet the mechanisms of the plot get tiresome rather quickly. ** from ****

Sentiment: negative
This film was a new direction for Natalie Portman. A much more adult role, though she comes to it from the traces of a child in the movie itself. Ann,(Portman) and Susan Sarandon, who plays her newly divorced mother, Adele, travel from a small town in the middle of nowhere to Beverly Hills. There these tortured souls try to come to terms with their new life and their new relationship as Portman's character grows up. Unknowingly at first to Adele, she grows up and becomes a better mother for it.

Ann sees her mother telling her she wants to be an actress, or so she thinks. Adele uses that crutch every time there are problems in their lives. We see their struggle as mother and daughter come to terms between themselves and with being alone, having left their old lives behind.

The acting is top notch from both of them. They seemingly become mother and daughter before your eyes. You can almost feel there is a bond there beyond the actual movie.

Though this movie really doesn't take us to any new ground in these types of films, the fact that the acting is well done, and the story isn't too flawed, let's me recommend it.

I will say however, it will probably go away soon, I don't believe it can have the staying power needed for a huge Christmas season of movies starting in a week or so. See it now before this happens if you like either of these actresses.

Sentiment: positive
A very engaging documentary about Scottish artist Andy Goldsworthy, whose work consists mostly of ephemeral sculptures made from elements from nature. His work is made of rocks, leaves, grass, ice, etc., that gets blown away when the tide arrives at the beach or the wind blows at the field. Thus, most of Goldsworthy's works don't really last, except as photos or films of what they were. Now, one can argue that Goldsworthy's works are a reflection of mortality, or words to that effect, but isn't it easier to say that what he does is just beautiful art. And at a time when the stereotype about artists is that they are mostly bitter, pretentious, often mentally unstable people who live in decrepit urban settings, Goldsworthy seems to be the opposite: a stable, unpretentious, family oriented person who loves nature and lives in a small village in Scotland (of course, I'm sure those are the same reasons why he's shunned by some people on the art world who found his works fluffy or superficial).

Sentiment: positive
First off, I would just like to say what a big fan of Bette Midler's I am. Stella is a very good movie with a wonderful cast (Bette Midler, John Goodman, Trini Alvarado, Stephen Collins, Marsha Mason) This is one of my favorite films of all time. It deals with a mother raising a child on her own, she goes through a lot of things that are out of her way to bring up her daughter Jenny played wonderfully by Trini Alvarado. This movie is very good and I suggest that you pick up a copy to watch it. Roger Ebert gave is 3 1/2 stars! And it deserved 4! WONDERFUL! I give it 4 out of 4!

Sentiment: positive
This film has some pretty gorey parts like a boob getting bit off and a other big bites. Castle Freak himself is a good monster. I would be scared to pieces if he was coming after me. However, the movie had some dumb parts about it.

A husband goes drunk driving and kills his 3 year old son and blinds his teenage daughter. I suppose death is a greater damage than blindness, but you'd never know that the parents actually feel bad about their daughter being blind. All they care about is that "J.J.'s dead!" While their teenage daughter walks around running into things and talking about how she'll never be able to drive a car. The parents are like - "honey, stop walking around without a guide, you know better than that," and then they cry and don't ever stop being depressed because JJ's dead. Sounds like favortism to me.

 The lines of dialogue are not very realistic or well done. For example, when a giant crash is heard in the castle, everybody runs down into the basement to see what it was. It was a huge mirror that crashed to the ground and shattered. The husband runs to the broken mirror in horror and plainly says, "The mirror broke." I don't know, I would say a little more than that if a giant mirror mysteriously crashed to the ground in my castle.

 The husband and wife have some major relationship problems and it's funny to watch how dumb they are with each other. No one ever believes the blind girl. Advice: If a blind girl says she hears things, believe her and don't tell her to shut up. I think this is the moral of the story. Listen to people when they tell you things or else you might end up killing yourself to prove your point.

 Lastly, I thought the best character was the main police officer. He was the best actor and character. Everyone else (besides Castle Freak) was pretty run of the mill. 3/10

Sentiment: negative
This film is about a party put together by the high school "scary girl." Per the illogic of these sorts of films, she gets permission to hold the party at a house which used to be a crematorium, a dubious place long shut down and locked up. Apparently the history of this piece of property is one of those town secrets best left unspoken of among proper folk though the legend does get whispered about among the young.

Why was this crematorium really shut down? What actually happened there in the past?

I like these kill-kill-kill films of a supernatural nature as long as there is something in them not copied from a hundred other films. The highlights of this film are a petty theft "7-11" robbery by distracting the clerk with a vivid view, the changing clothes scene by the "good girl" witnessed by her jerk younger brother, the eventual demise of the ugly neighbor who hates the holiday, the spooky mirror scene and the concept of running water being a barrier against the supernatural; the best part of this film is when the possessed party sponsor dances to BAUHAUS in front of the fireplace; that scene rocks.

Sentiment: negative
Domini Enfilren (Marlene Dietrich) has spent most of her life caring for her father. Now that he has died she is free--but doesn't know what she wants. Boris Androvsky (Charles Boyer) is a monk who has fled a monastery to taste more of life. They meet accidentally in Algiers, fall in love and get married. But he can't leave his past behind and she can't live without him...

WAY overdone romance full of hysterically bad dialogue and situations. Dietrich and Boyer do their best to give good performances but NOBODY could get away with some of their lines! Still, in a way, it is a classic. It's shot in gorgeous Technicolor (try to see it on DVD) where every frame is breath-takingly beautiful. Dietrich is always dressed to the 9s (even in the middle of the desert) and strikes hysterical poses to show off the clothes and her body. Boyer just walks around looking stricken (no shock there). Still I was never bored. It was wonderful to look at and the non-stop stupid dialogue kept me in stitches. The end almost had me falling out of my chair because I was laughing so hard! Now I love corny romances and give them plenty of space but really---this is unbelievable! It also runs a very short 80 minutes.

As a camp classic I give this an 8. As a serious movie--a 1.

Sentiment: positive
This is a disaster-movie, in both meanings of the word. Every character, every role, every conversation, every twist, everything in this movie stinks big time. It's a shame to see Dennis Hopper's talent wasted in this dreadful movie. I can give you 100's of examples but see for yourself.

Or rather : don't.

Sentiment: negative
As someone who has read the book, I can say that this is vastly inferior to the big American version starring Gwyneth Paltrow. There are various reasons for this. Firstly, Emma is too unpleasant. Yes, she has faults, and isn't the easiest person to like - but the viewer shouldn't downright start to despise her. Secondly, Mr Knightly is miscast. His brooding and melancholy in this version are better suited to a Bronte or Gaskell adaptation than Austen, and throw the mood of the whole affair "off". Thirdly, Samantha Morton is too strong an actress to be relegated to the role of Harriet; and why was she made to look so sickly? Harriet is supposed to be blonde and blooming - not to look as if she's going to be carried off by consumption in the next scene. Fourthly, the structure has been mucked up and scenes cut. At the end, when Emma decides she loves Mr Knightly, it comes across as utterly baffling because this narrative hasn't been adequately shown and carried along throughout the film. Fifthly, what was going on, exactly, with Mrs Elton's accent? She went from sounding like an American actress trying to suppress her own accent at the beginning, to all out American half-way through, and then back to English at the end. Finally, this dragged at the end. The book and the big film version end with the wedding of Emma and Mr Knightly. This version drags on confusingly after the announcement of the wedding without actually showing us the ceremony.

All in all, a rather haphazard attempt. Read the book or rent the Paltrow version instead

Sentiment: negative
This is definitely the worst bigfoot movie I've ever seen and quite possibly the overall worst movie I've ever seen in my life. The actors and actresses were horrible and it seemed like they were trying way too hard to play their roles as dorks, tough guys, jerks, know it alls, etc. And the bigfoot itself was terrible. It appeared to be some kind of computer generated image from the days of Atari & Intellivision. At one point near the end of the movie as an army of sasquatches were chasing after the remaining survivors, one gets shot and as it's running it looked like a poor man's version of donkey kong himself! And one gets hit by a bullet and the blood that comes out of it was just awful animation. Another thing that was annoying was the music. Way way way too much music (classical score or whatever you call it) throughout the entire film. It was never ending. Oh yeah, the movie is boring too. Absolutely one of the worst films I've ever seen. I highly recommend taking your $3 or whatever they charge to rent this movie and spending it on a gallon of gas or a value menu somewhere. TRULY AWFUL!

Sentiment: negative
The movie takes place during the year 1940 and the French are about to loose the war.

The movie includes all genres: comedy, romantic, murder and history. It is probable the historical part may be not as probable as the rest.

It is not, however, a big laugh movie but the occasional large smile!

Sentiment: positive
This is a truly great film, with excellent direction. The core plot element, the painting of mila's ass is captivating. I really can't express in words just how much I enjoyed watching Mila getting her ass painted repeatedly.

Connor

Sentiment: positive
I'm a Petty Officer 1st Class (E-6) and have been in the USCG for 6 years and feel that this movie strongly represents the Coast Guard. There were only a few scenes that were far fetched. The most far-fetched was when PO Fischer (Kutcher) went down inside of the sinking vessel to pull the vessel's captain out of the engine room... that would never happen. Swimmers are not allowed to go inside of any vessel no matter the circumstances. Second, the Command Center (supposedly in Kodiak), it looked more like a NASA command center... we don't have any gear that hi-tech. Third, the Captain of the Airstation would not be running the search & rescue cases with like 10 people on watch. In reality it would be an E-6 or E-7 as the SAR Controller and maybe 2 other support personnel like an assist SAR Controller & a Radio Watchstander. Otherwise the movie was dead on, I think they should have incorporated more of the other rates in the CG and their roles in search & rescue instead of just Aviation based rates. Some of the scenes from "A" school reminded me of my days their and the dumb stuff I did and got in trouble for in my younger days.

Sentiment: positive
A competent comedy that delivers the laughs for fans of Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau. I suppose this film was made for those who enjoyed the two GRUMPY OLD MEN films, as there seemed to be a bunch of these buddy team-ups spotlighting the comical duo in their twilight years. The idea is a sure-fire one: Matthau, a bumbling gambler who's thousands of dollars in debt, connives his unsuspecting friend Lemmon into taking a free cruise with him where they can meet rich old ladies; the catch is, they've been signed on as Dance Hosts and Matthau can't dance.

OUT TO SEA is a funny film, and not all of the chuckles are to be found courtesy of Lemmon and Matthau. I found Brent Spiner (best known as Data from STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION) to be very humorous as the snobby ball-busting dance coordinator. As the prissy boss of the two aging actors, he manages to match them in the laughs department. Though the film doesn't really need any, there's also a a love story or two to be found here as well, involving Dyan Cannon (who looks pretty fine for her years).

Sentiment: positive
This is a musical adaptation of Dicken's "Oliver Twist". For the most part, the original story has been maintained, though for the flow of the film certain subplots (such as the summer he spent recuperating and the half-brother) are omitted. The biggest difference in the film and the story is that by the end of the book, Fagin is hanged--an ending very different from this musical film.

This is a one of a kind musical--one whose style and scope really hasn't been matched before or since. Not only are the songs often quite singable and memorable, but the choreography of the film is a sight to behold. Whereas in most musicals a few people or perhaps even a small group are choreographed dancing, here the numbers often run into the hundreds or perhaps more. It's truly a sight to see and I was fortunate enough to have seen it in the theater when it debuted and is one of my earliest childhood memories. Having just seen it again a few moments ago, I would have to say that the film only got better over time. Great sets, wonderful acting and singing--this is a special treat that is hard not to love.

By the way, when I saw the film again tonight, I was surprised by just how high and feminine Mark Lester's singing was for the film. Well, according to IMDb, his singing was dubbed by a girl and this would definitely account for his voice.

Sentiment: positive
After a cold sex scene, between Andy and Gina, in South America, we know that Andy is a payroll manager who finds himself in a hard economic situation where he badly needs some extra money We also discover that he has been stealing from his job and using the money to his drug habits He's also attempting to keep up with his wife, who just might be having an affair 

To solve all their problems, he persuades his brothera likable loserto join him in a plan to steal their own parent's small store Their parents are happily married and proprietors of a jewelry store situated in New York's Westchester County Sixty thousand dollars is all they'll need to get their life out of desperation 

Three main characters are important in this movie

First the two brothers Each of them is a complex individual, threatened with multiple motivations, and sunk into doubts and disappointments The two are desperate characters, financially and emotionally

Andy is selfish He feels that he has never had the love of his father He is the corrupting influence, turning his brother into an assailant, and his beautiful woman into an adulteress

Hank is a puppet too weak to resist his brother's wishes His ex-wife is one of the reasons he needs money as he owes her hundreds in child support. He longs to regain the confidence he once had with his father 

The third character is their weary and deplorable father Charles Hanson (Albert Finney), especially in the haunting climactic scenes

Telling you more about the details could lessen the impact of the film, and therefore the entertainment...

Tomei's performance conveys great depth and emotion even with her look, her touch, her particular move

Lumet's direction is firm, fresh and brutal.

Sentiment: positive
This su*k! Why do they have to make movies that they must know su*k from the beginning? I mean, look at Alien from 1977. If the movie you´r about to make is not better than anything made billions of years before, why make it? I had problems with the plot and who the main character was. That's not good either.

Sentiment: negative
In my opinion, a good documentary - especially one dealing with controversial political issues - should be informative and as unbiased as possible. The point should be revealing the truth. This means, in particular, having among the interviewees experts on the subject and representatives of all sides. This film is a failure in this regard. Most of the interviews included in this film consist of "men off the street" expounding on the question of peace in the Holy Land. The wall itself, the supposed subject of the film, is given no serious treatment at all. For most of the interviews, the interviewer simply waits to be approached and asks general questions such as "what do you think of the wall?" - she does not approach random people near the wall and ask them how they have been directly affected by it. Outside of one interviewee, the Israeli general in charge of the wall's construction, we have no "experts" on the subject to provide us with the wall's context (e.g. how and when the project began, whether it has been successful, which groups are for and which against the project, etc.)

Outside of the interviews, a very large portion of the film consists of extended shots of uneventful scenes, such as head-on shots of the wall, construction of the wall, and people getting off a bus. These shots take up far too much time, in my opinion. It's nice to see what the wall looks like, but the 20-30 minutes of head-on filming of the wall (and only the wall) are excessive. Clearly, these shots (accompanied by Arabic music that conveys a sense of mourning) are included for the sole purpose of arousing in viewers feelings of loathing for the wall.

Sentiment: negative
One of America's most brilliant film directors was without question Elia Kazan. His directorial genius was not particularly suited to taut thrillers, since Kazan needed more room to breathe and to be slower and more subtle. However, 'Panic in the Streets' is a first-rate social thriller and is if anything more relevant to today than it was to 1950 when it was released. The themes of illegal immigrants, people-smuggling, imminent plagues, rapid transmission around the world of diseases (a worried Richard Widmark says: 'I could be in any American city in ten hours and in Africa tomorrow.'), ethnic isolation and ghettoism are today's concerns more than ever. This film features a spectacular film debut by Jack Palance, and a wonderful performance by Barbara Bel Geddes, two casting strokes of genius. Richard Widmark is allowed not to be a psychopath for once, and is a deeply caring, warmly loving, intense hero of the people. He leads basically a one-man campaign to stop an epidemic of pneumonic plague in New Orleans, struggling to convince sluggish politicians and complacent policemen that there is a problem. There is a race against time to find the small-time crooks who have contracted the plague from a dead illegal immigrant within 48 hours, before the whole city, and as they are always reminding us, the whole country, are endangered with the worst thing since the 1919 flu. One amazing scene where Jack Palance, who is infected, is prevented from climbing aboard a ship by a rat-barrier on the rope is ironic in the extreme, reminding us in the most gruesome terms that humans can be the worst carriers and vermin of all. The highly dramatic chase scenes in what they call 'the coffee factory' at the wharfs rivals the most inventive climax scenes of Hitchcock, and with just as spectacular a setting. Many non-professionals appear in the film, which has the gritty realism of, well, something called reality. Kazan really takes the cameras into places where even people rarely went, and where even rats would have thought twice. This film was a major feat of social realism. If it lacks the electricity of the most highly charged thrillers, it is because Kazan took it so seriously that he could not hype it up, for after all, the threat of plague is serious enough to scare anybody without the need for extra guns and molls. The only unfortunate thing about the film is the title, which gives a false suggestion of superficiality. But Kazan was anything but superficial. He clearly considered this project a public duty, to alert us to genuine possibilities. If only those possibilities had diminished today, but alas, they are getting worse every day. One day, after a worldwide plague, this film may be shown to a few survivors as an example of how an outbreak was contained on film, but its lessons were forgotten.

Sentiment: positive
This was an interesting movie...half-comedy, half-political thriller. It had a lot of good elements, although it was a little predictable. 

Robin Williams stars as Tom Dobbs, a popular comedian with a hit show in which he gives political commentary. Think Daily Show With John Stuart. During the taping of one of his shows, a female in the audience tells him he should run for president. That, followed by a few jokes taken seriously, were all that was needed to get the ball rolling and start Dobbs' political career. 

He runs independently, and opposes democrats and republicans equally. He is straightforward and honest, and becomes increasingly popular--but maybe not popular enough to actually win. He's clearly the underdog in this election. 

Meanwhile, a corrupt software company has created a program to make voting much quicker and easier for the common people--but there is a glitch. The glitch is discovered by a young lady named Elanor (Linnley) who is appeased by the software developer with a lie that he fixed the glitch before the upcoming election. 

Election day comes around, and lo and behold Dobbs is declared the winner. (Big Surprise!) Elanor knows that he is not really the president--he didn't win legitimately--She decides to tell the president...but complications arise. Her company went as far as poisoning her in order to silence her. In addition to that, she quickly takes a liking to Dobbs. 

The plot takes a few twists and turns, before reaching it's slightly predictable conclusion. But, it never got boring. Robin was great as usual, and Christopher Walken often stole the show as Dobbs' manager-turned-political-adviser and best friend. 

It's an entertaining film, and it has a good message. I recommend it if you're in the mood for dark satire, or something that makes you think. Overall I give it a 7/10.

Sentiment: positive
I first saw this film when I was flipping through the movie channels on my parents DirecTV. It was on the Sundance channel and was just starting. I love music, especially late 60s and this is what the BJM sounded like (The Dandys are alright). Everything about the Brian Jonestown Massacre intrigued me from the music, to Anton and Joel's personalities, to the illicit drug use. It was funny because as I was watching the first party scene when everyone is doing lines my parents walked by and decided to watch (The look on their faces were priceless). Anyways this is definitely one of my favorite movies because it introduced me to The Brian Jonestown Massacre who is now my favorite band of all time.

just watch it... seriously

Sentiment: positive
William Russ is the main character throughout this made for TV movie. He left his family behind to only reappear and begin paying off his debts. But he tries to keep away from his family. Thats where Peter Falk (Colombo) comes in, playing several different roles, to convince him to come home.

The story is average and they actually managed to get a former star (Peter Falk) and use him to a fairly nice degree. But William Russ wasn't truly a star. However, it appears his acting is still OK.

I found the delivery and story very cheesy in how everything was predictable. In fact, the last 20 minutes I could almost dictate word for word before it happened. A good movie should never be like that.

Overall, it was a sub-par movie. In a letter grading system, it would receive a "D".

Sentiment: negative