DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Well, "Cube" (1997), Vincenzo's first movie, was one of the most interesting and tricky ideas that I've ever seen when talking about movies. They had just one scenery, a bunch of actors and a plot. So, what made it so special were all the effective direction, great dialogs and a bizarre condition that characters had to deal like rats in a labyrinth. His second movie, "Cypher" (2002), was all about its story, but it wasn't so good as "Cube" but here are the characters being tested like rats again.

"Nothing" is something very interesting and gets Vincenzo coming back to his 'Cube days', locking the characters once again in a very different space with no time once more playing with the characters like playing with rats in an experience room. But instead of a thriller sci-fi (even some of the promotional teasers and trailers erroneous seemed like that), "Nothing" is a loose and light comedy that for sure can be called a modern satire about our society and also about the intolerant world we're living. Once again Vicenzo amaze us with a great idea into a so small kind of thing. 2 actors and a blinding white scenario, that's all you got most part of time and you don't need more than that. While "Cube" is a claustrophobic experience and "Cypher" confusing, "Nothing" is completely the opposite but at the same time also desperate.

This movie proves once again that a smart idea means much more than just a millionaire budget. Of course that the movie fails sometimes, but its prime idea means a lot and offsets any flaws. There's nothing more to be said about this movie because everything is a brilliant surprise and a totally different experience that I had in movies since "Cube".

Sentiment: positive
Collusion Course is even worse than the typical "evil white male corporate capitalist" movie of the week. This movie is less pleasant than a toothache. Jay Leno can act. He's good in his underrated debut movie, The Silverbears, in which he gives a performance consist with the demands of his character. This movie is so bad Leno's character, a sanctimonious buffoon, is less annoying than Morita's character, a sanctimonious fool.

Sentiment: negative
This is absolutely the worst movie I have ever seen. I hope the REAL family and other portrayed characters have lawyers suing the hell out of VH1 for there portrayal. The acting is horrible, the writing is worse and the portrayal of characters is scary. Its supposed to be a drama, but it was a comedy to me, you have no choice but to laugh at the bad acting. I usually like Flex Alexanders acting but this time he has completely missed the mark.

You could argue he took this role for a couple of laughs himself, because it was so horrible. If you really want a dramatic movie for the night, DO NOT CHOOSE THIS ONE. But if you are in for some laughs over bad acting and stupid writing, Tune in. Other than that, don't waste your time.

Sentiment: negative
Sudden Impact tends to be treated as Eastwood's artistic failure at a point in his career when he had established a good reputation as a director. The reason is actually not the film itself but the attitude it takes towards vigilantism which it seems to support. In some places it actually owes more to Death Wish than the original Dirty Harry film. One might argue if that is so- at the end of the day it's a film about guilt, justice and retribution. For me, at the end of the day it's more empathy than sympathy. However, in view of all these arguments it is easily overlooked that sudden impact is an awfully well made film. Forget the "Go ahead punk, make my day scene", that's iconic but not original. But look at the views of San Fransisco taken from the air, zooming in on the city. The first 15 or 20 minutes are quite spectacular. Or have a look at the brilliantly made scene where Sondra Locke's character visits her mentally ill sister in hospital. Eastwood makes great use of the juxtaposition of faces. So all in all Sudden Impact is a very visual film that really shows how mature Eastwood is as a director. And if I remember correctly it was actually the first time Eastwood put that on screen albeit in an action film of debatable ideology. Also, I think this is the first well paced film Eastwood directed. Although Eastwood has enormous talent as a director, dramaturgy has always been his weak point (see Play Misty for me, Breezy etc.) Thepace of the narrative leads to the visual elements being well integrated into the film and not distracting from the story. The only thing that is really annoying is the farting dog.

Sentiment: positive
This movie has not aged well. Maybe it's just the impact and artful characterization, acting, and directing that we've seen with The Sopranos, but I just viewed Prizzi's Honor for the first time, on DVD, alone.

The experience of watching it with an audience 24 years ago must have been quite different, but I have to say, I was just appalled at the ending. Not just the violence of it, but the mere idea that somehow this would be a satisfying ending.

I enjoy a good shocker, but this seemed so out of character... Also, when was this move supposed to be set? The cars all seemed like they were from the 1960s, and yet the World Trade Center towers {completed in 1973} were clearly visible in many cityscape scenes.

Another way in which the film has aged poorly is the mere idea that a passenger could travel coast to coast with a knife on his person.

Somehow, mid-1980s audiences found this film charming and funny. Mid-eighties, meet the late oughts: only of you can live.

Sentiment: negative
Zachary Scott does what he does best, i.e., plays a worm, in "Danger Signal," a 1945 B movie also starring Faye Emerson, Mona Freeman, and Rosemary DeCamp. Scott plays a writer who kills women after he gets their money. On the lam from his last murder, he rents a room in the home owned by the Fenchurch family, Hilda (Emerson) and her mother (Mary Servoss). Scott throws himself at Emerson, and she's dazzled. Mid-romance, her younger sister Anne (Freeman) comes home from a medical treatment. When she mentions that she was Uncle Wade's favorite and he left her $25,000 (big bucks by 1945 standards), Scott loses interest in poor Hilda and makes a play for Anne. Anne looks like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm until she starts sneaking around with Scott - overnight, she ages 10 years and becomes downright nasty to her sister. Finally getting the message that her tenant is no good, Hilda calls in a psychiatrist (Rosemary DeCamp) to psyche him out and advise her.

Psychological dramas were all the rage during and after World War II, and Scott does an excellent job as a smooth sociopath. This was his forte - as a weak-willed sheriff in "Flamingo Road," he exhibited no real presence. As for two-timing, we saw him do that in "Mildred Pierce," where he proved himself particularly good at it. Emerson is a bookish stenographer with her hair pushed off her face and her big glasses, but after hours, she's lovely, and gives a strong performance. DeCamp was always an underrated actress - here, she sports a soft German accent and is delightful.

This is a highly entertaining film though a very routine story. The acting truly elevates it.

Sentiment: positive
This is comedy as it once was and comparing this with the two remakes, THE MONEY PIT and ARE WE DONE YET?, only points out all the more how the 40's movie makers had a flair for comedy which has since, regretfully, been lost.

I was 15 when I first saw this and even at that tender age, there was much I could laugh at. Now of course being familiar with adult frustrations, I see a whole lot that I missed as a youth.

The three main actors...Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas...interacted perfectly, but the core of the movie lies in the frustrations encountered in achieving a dream. It's never as easy and free of unseen complications as one envisions.

All in all, this is a classic comedy which still stands above the attempts to remake it.

Sentiment: positive
jim carrey rocks! if he's in a movie its bound to be good! he did not disappoint me with this one!the rest of the cast was cute,especially little cindy lou who and martha may, i was laughing through the whole thing and cannot wait to see it again!

Sentiment: positive
There are moments in the film that are so dreadful, your teeth ache. But knowing that there were only weeks left before the Code made movies innocuous and bland, Paramount rushed this into production before innuendo and leering went out of style. Vanities is so horrifically anti-female that it's delicious. As Kitty Carlisle sings, women are displayed with price tags that would insult a Bronx hooker. They emerge from clams (nudge,nudge;wink,wink) in postures of absolute submission. Minions of the law, so stupid they cannot find the door, get to look up their skirts and snicker. Bare-breasted chorus girls sit uncomfortably in giant cacti (Could they be a source of hallucinogens, perhaps?) while we listen to "Sweet Marijuana" and watch as blood falls on a chorines's breast.

Sure, Carl Brisson learned his lines phonetically and doesn't seem to have a clue what he is saying. But it's all worth it as Norma steals the show while no one is looking.

Taking one moment of this fragile fluff seriously is missing the point of the whole exercise. Watch this with a charter member of NOW and prepare to justify the whole Hollywood machismo sch tick between body blows.

Toby Wing, by the way, is the icing on the cake. And Duke Ellington doesn't hurt either.

A must stroll down Memory Lane.

Sentiment: positive
Tony Scott directs a thriller sports flick that should attract even the non-sports fan. And some say baseball is a dead sport...boring...too damn slow. Well perk up! On the outside he appears to be a disgruntled salesman(Robert De Niro) while on the inside he is a psychotic San Francisco Giants fan. Along comes a new slugger(Wesley Snipes)and designated savior from the doldrums. Our salesman harbors a murderous obsession when the hard hitting all star falls into the worst slump in his career and the Giants are feared to crumble along with him. De Niro is terror personified. Snipes seems very natural as the ballplayer. Other notables in the cast are: the still attractive Ellen Barkin, John Leguizamo, Benicio Del Toro and Patti D'Arbanville. You are a free agent...so enjoy. Violence and very strong language is to be expected and you get your moneys worth.

Sentiment: negative
When the opening shot is U.S. Marines seriously disrespecting the U.S. flag, a movie has a tough road ahead, but unfortunately it was downhill from there. There is a military adviser credited, who is also apparently a retired U.S. Marine, making it even more baffling that this incredible breach of protocol, and law, went unnoticed. Even more baffling is the way they simply glossed over how a Marine is reported KIA, then buried, in very short order, without the slightest explanation of how they identified the body, or if there even was a body. The U.S. government is still finding the missing from WWII, and it takes months to identify the remains. Military shot down remain MIA for months or years and are only declared KIA when the remains have been positively identified, or after years of red tape. Here we are expected to believe that it happens within a matter of days or weeks. Maybe this happens in Denmark, but not in the U.S. Clearly none of the people involved ever had the slightest involvement with, or respect for, the U.S. military.

Beyond that, there are a number of other utterly laughable moments when characters come up with zingers out of nowhere. There must have been some really extended meetings between auteur and actors as they struggled to find their motivation for such hogwash. Having a script that worked might have helped, but this one seems to have been made up on the spot, working from Cliffs Notes. There's no way to know if the script was this awful originally, or if it was the auteur, or the middle-management kids at the studio who bear responsibility. Either way, this is an awful movie that should have never been made.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is another fine example of what Jerry Bruckheimer, since about 1997, seems to be best at--hyping up a movie a year before its release and not coming through with a quality movie. I'm no film critic, but this movie was as predictable as they come. Every attempt at a joke, every attempt at a touching moment, and the pitiful attempt at a love story, was exactly what I was predicting in my mind. Do yourself a favor and save your money on this one.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was one of the rolling on the floor laughing movies I have ever seen. Danny De Vito plays Owen perfectly. Momma is excellently portrayed, and was one of the highlights of the movie.

At the beginning of the movie it starts of differently then what you would expect. Larry is trying to write a book and is having some troubles. Larry teaches a writing class and Owen tagged after Larry trying to get him to read his story. Owen eventually asks Larry to kill his mother, and in return Owen would kill Larry's ex-wife. The whole movie was really hilarious.

One of my favorite parts of the movie is at the end when Owen writes "Throw Momma from the Train". Larry gets furious because he just wrote a book of similar plot. It turns out that Owen wrote a children's pop-up book.

I would really recommend this movie. I gave it a 10.

Sentiment: positive
Of the many problems with this film, the worst is continuity; and re-editing it on VHS for a college cable channel many years ago, I tried to figure out what exactly went wrong. What seems to have happened is that they actually constructed a much longer film and then chopped it down for standard theatrical viewing. How much longer? to fill in all the holes in the plot as we have it would require about three more hours of narrative and character development - especially given the fact that the film we do have is just so slow and takes itself just so seriously.

That's staggering; what could the Halperins have possibly been trying to accomplish here? Their previous film, "White Zombie", was a successful low budget attempt to duplicate the early Universal Studios monster films (The Mummy, Dracula, etc.), and as such stuck pretty close to the zombie mythology that those in North America would know from popular magazines.

Revolt of the Zombies, to the contrary, appears to have been intended as some allegory for the politics of modern war. This would not only explain the opening, and the change of Dean Jagger's character into a megalomaniac, but it also explains why the zombies don't actually do much in the film, besides stand around, look frightening, and wait for orders - they're just allegorical soldiers, not the undead cannibals we've all come to love and loathe in zombie films.

I am the equal to any in my dislike for modern war and its politics - but I think a film ought to be entertaining first, and only later, maybe, educational. And definitely - a film about zombies ought to be about zombies.

Truly one of the most bizarre films in Hollywood history, but not one I can recommend, even for historic value.

Sentiment: negative
Does anyone care about any of the characters in this film? - Or for that matter what happens to them? - I doubt it. That is the key problem - for a tragedy to work we have to care about at least one of the characters and none of them inspire any sympathy or appear to have any redeeming qualities at all.

What may have worked in the 16th Century, certainly does not work in one can only assume 'post apocalyptic Liverpool' if that was indeed what it was meant to be. The problem is the characters in post apocalyptic Liverpool, whilst still driving around in cars, using mobile phones and watching television, have reverted to speaking in Shakespearian language - with a Liverpudlian dialect. Oh dear! Bad enough you might think - but this often lapsed into pure scouse - with comments such as 'eh lah are you a cockney? And was that a Merseyrail announcement during one of the scenes filmed in the underground? Well the good news is that in Post apocalyptic Liverpool - the trains are still running.

The characters without exception are badly drawn, wooden and more like charicatures on the lines of the Joker/Penguin in Batman and Robin except there is no real storyline to speak of - or if there is - it is one that doesn't work in a modern setting where half the sets are gloomy and 'Blade runnerish' and the other half are fluorescent garish or just 21st century normal. Costumes are also mixed up with half wearing their everyday clothes (Parkers are big in post apocalyptic Liverpool - apparently) and the other half wearing costumes from the leftovers of a fancy dress party?

The film explores the ideas of lust, incest and revenge in the most inane fashion imaginable - the tragedy is that this film was made at all.



Sentiment: negative
This movie was terrible! My friend and I were so bored by it we fast forwarded through the last half of the movie just to see what happened. It's the typical sports thing, she either wins or she loses. The only remotely interesting thing was when the one guy refers to someone as a Veg-e-tab-le. That will be a line my friend and I bring up for years to come reminding us of this colossal cheesy cliche waste of time

Sentiment: negative
Cassavetes was clearly an intelligent, sensitive man with bold new ideas about making films. He wanted to be an auteur, to break away from the confines of the system and bring a new realism to the American cinema. For that, I applaud him.

Unfortunately, as a member of his audience, I cannot applaud A Woman Under the Influence. Cassavetes took what could have been a fascinating topic (an insane woman) and somehow managed to craft a dull film, filled with lengthy, ad-libbed ranting and drawn-out scenes. He seems to have had a gift for capturing the dullest moments of a person's life on film, and it often appears as though he simply turned the camera on his family and let the motor run and run. This tactic would be acceptable if Cassavetes had captured something devastatingly REAL -- or even a kernel of something so real it touched the heart in ways a conventional film could not. Yet I found the performances, particularly Rowlands', to be artificial. I never believed for a moment that she was really insane. I have met people who are truly mentally disturbed, yet I've never seen any of them act quite like Gena Rowlands in A Woman Under the Influence. She played it like a very obnoxious, uninhibited woman who drinks a lot, and even that was confusing because we only see her drink once (at the beginning), but she acts drunk for the remainder of the film. There are some moments in which she taps into something real, but those moments are few and far between; she fails to sustain a seamless mentally disturbed character. Again, I applaud her efforts, but effort alone is not enough to make the performance ring true.

Novice audiences who happen upon this film and see its high IMDb rating will no doubt feel compelled to love it and rate it highly, just to prove that they 'get it.' But don't be brainwashed by the hype -- judge for yourself. You don't have to pretend to like it.

Like Woody Allen, John Cassavetes could be accused of solipsism in his film-making, seeming to find his own psyche and his own life experiences so endlessly fascinating that he couldn't imagine that to others they appeared presumptive and tortuously self-indulgent. But Woody Allen at least has demonstrated a gift for keeping an audience entertained -- he knows that a compelling story structure and a good dose of humor are essential to any movie. If Cassavetes had employed some self-discipline (and a sharp pair of editing shears!), A Woman Under the Influence could have stood a chance. But what's the point of making a 'realistic' film if the only people who can stand to sit through it are the art-house devotees and film students who worship Cassavetes as some sort of anti-establishment deity? Without dumbing anything down, I believe Cassavetes could have made A Woman slightly more accessible by keeping the pace moving with an actual plot, instead of presenting a string of 30 minute-long scenes of ad-libbed arguments. If you just make films for yourself and a few of your fans, you're just reaching the already converted. Watch this movie with your own set of eyes and make your own decisions about it. If you are truly moved and fascinated by it, good for you.

Sentiment: negative
I rented this movie when it came out on video tape and really enjoyed it. I had the opportunity to purchase it on DVD a few weeks ago and have watched it several times since. I would have to agree with others when they said Indian Summer was nostalgic film. When I watch it I wish that I could be 10-14 again. I think that is why we all like the movie to some extent. We all at times wish that we could relive our lives as children with the wisdom/knowledge of adults. Wouldn't it be nice to have all your friends/parents be young again? To not have to worry about your job, being a parent etc...??? I know that I would like to jump into a De Lorean and go back in time. While I enjoyed the film very much my all time favorite camp film though is Meatballs with Bill Murray. I wish that they could make an Indian Summer version of that.

Sentiment: positive
Who gave these people money to make a movie? There was nothing funny about it. The fact that the farting dog was the funniest thing about this piece of sickness says it all. First of all, it has nothing to do with Christmas, it just took the name and counted on all those people who liked the Chevy Chase original. They took Randy 'I have no talent, I m just a fat and sweaty pig' Quaid (the only wrong thing about part 1) and made a 'movie' about him...There are only morons in his family, but not the 'aren't they cute' kinda moronic, but the 'don t touch me' kinda moronic. Watching this pile of dirt helps you hope that everyone who takes part in it DIES! They didn't even bother to get the effects in order...when they re on the boat, the only thing that moves is the fake background...when pigface Quaid is in the water you can tell by the lighting that it's in a studio. This movie was sexist (uncle Nick), racist (uncle Nick) and should never have been made..never...throwing the money into a volcano would have had so much more use.

Well I hope I reached some of you...Nobody warned me and now I m scarred for life Merry F*cking Christmas

Sentiment: negative
Ever since 1981, Nintendo has been making great video games such as Super Mario and Zelda. Most ideas would get a bit boring after 20 years. Games made by Nintendo never seem to get boring because they're always adding something new. It went from arcade games to the Wii and I hear that there's a new version of the Wii scheduled for release in 2011. The thing that makes Wii games so different is the fact that your actually doing something instead of just sitting on the couch pushing buttons. 

And I have more good news. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is to be released in 2010.

Sentiment: positive
Ming The Merciless does a little Bardwork and a movie most foul!

Sentiment: negative
Although it doesn't seem very promising for a long stretch, Renoir's French Cancan ends up being an effortlessly charming film. The story is cliché: a laundry girl, Nini (Françoise Arnoul), is discovered by a night club owner, Danglard (Jean Gabin). Danglard steals her from her baker boyfriend and drops his current girlfriend, both of whom come back for their former lovers. Nini has to choose whether to go back to her humble life with the baker, go on with the show with her employer, oh, or become a princess, as a prince falls in love with her at one point, too. I'm glad the film didn't go for the most obvious choice, as a lesser film certainly would have. The film ends with the opening of Danglard's new night club, the Moulin Rouge, and a couple of gorgeous song and dance numbers. The first of them, "Complainte de la Butte," which also provides the base of most of the film's musical score, is simply one of the most gorgeous songs ever written, and Renoir himself wrote it. If you're a fan of Baz Luhrmann's 2001 film Moulin Rouge!, you'll recognize the tune, as it comes up near the beginning of that film, sung by Rufus Wainwright. Although it isn't very prominent in that film, everyone I know who owns the soundtrack loves it. In addition to having one of the most lovely songs ever written, French Cancan also boasts one of the cutest leading ladies ever to grace the screen. It's hard not to fall head-over-heels in love with that girl. 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
The plot of 'Edison' was decent, but one actor in particular ruined the entire film. Justin Timberlake ruined the film with every line he uttered during the movie. He is by far one of the worst actors I have ever seen, and should face the same fate as the entire F.R.A.T. squad. 

Whether it was an emotional scene, an action scene, or even a silent scene, Justin Timberlake managed to ruin it. 

Do not waste your time watching this film. Don't even bother downloading it, midget porn would be a much better choice.

And Justin, if you're reading this, stick to music. Even though you're no good at that, you've done a wonderful job tricking people into thinking you can actually sing.

Sentiment: negative
David Aames is a rich good-looking guy who lives in New York City. When his 'sleeping partner' Julie Gianni gets very jealous after David falls for Spanish beauty Sofia, she gets David into her car and tells him that he's the only guy she loves and wants to be with, but seeing as he's in love with Sofia, she decides to commit suicide with David in the car with her, by driving off a bridge. David survives the crash, but is left with a disfigured face. He is then charged with the murder of Julie. The thing is, David doesn't know what's real and what's not as he keeps having these strange dreams (Most of which are actually nightmares.) and flashbacks, some of which just don't make sense to him. Everything will soon come back to him though as he's begins to find out the truth.

Well, there's an all star cast here, including Tom Cruise, Penélope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Kurt Russell, Jason Lee and Noah Taylor who all give good performances in the movie. In the movie they all put off different things about there characters, like happiness, sadness, angry, etc. really well. There's also a cameo in the movie from the brilliant, Steven Spielberg.

Vanilla Sky is a well made, different, interesting and original movie which will leave you talking about it a lot after it's finished. It's not just a thriller, but it's a real psychological thriller. The trailer for the movie is really good, but the movie is so different from what it might be made out to be. It's been directed very well and there were a couple of really great scenes here too. All in all, an enjoyable movie which should be really be paid attention too. They are sure making a lot of "Are they dead, if not who is dead" movies recently.

Sentiment: positive
The film Soultaker is essentially an older form Final Destination in which several car wrecked teens have their souls separated from their bodies and must cheat death who is chasing them... The film has its moments, and its concepts, the idea of disoriented souls being separated from their bodies is a pretty nifty idea... If this movie were remade with a few good actors/actresses and some awesome special effects it could turn out to be extremely awesome... As for the actual film, I recommend watching the MST3K version, the pure version might be too boring to sit through, unless you love bad movies staring Martin Sheen's brother...

Sentiment: negative
This is one of Chaplin's First National films from the period between his glorious Mutual shorts and the more mature United Artists features. More opulent than the Mutual films, it continues Chaplin's quest for perfecting his comic expression. Most people forget that the film is actually a dream that Charlie has while awaiting being sent off to the front.

There is plenty of slapstick via the Limburger cheese being used to gas the enemy, and Chaplin's foray into enemy territory dressed as a tree.

By this stage in this career, the great man had become so immersed in filmic expression that his films give the impression of making themselves. Doubtless this was not the case, but still, it gives as convincingly realistic view of life at the front as I can remember, albeit from an ironically humorous perspective.

As far as I am concerned, familiarity with the entirety of Chaplin's work should be a prerequisite for all cinephiles - do not delay!

Sentiment: positive
In these days of ultra-fast processors and the Internet, coming up with a movie like "The Matrix" may seem merely the next step from coining the term 'cyberspace', but do you remember what computers were like in 1974? Right. To come up with the notion of virtual reality back then is truly an amazing feat of the imagination. Fassbinder's movie, of course, has none of the massive gunslinging and pyrotechnics, and a lot of 'artsy' elements instead, but the atmosphere it creates is intense and poses the question how we can know what is real in a dark and gripping manner, making this a chiller and a thriller for the mind. It also takes it up a notch on more recent VR stories: if you get out of one cyberspace, can you be sure you didn't just emerge into another level of virtual reality?

Sentiment: positive
I just want to make one thing clear- I love Michael Vartan! But this film really lets him down. His acting is still superb, he's still as charming as ever, and he still looks great. But the film itself is a load of rubbish! Natasha Henstridge, I'm sorry to say it, comes over bit manly... you're constantly waiting for her to run off with her best friend, who's own sub-storyline is a little weird. Myself and my family (who sat down and watched the film with me) were also put off by the soundtrack to the film; at times the music just didn't fit with what was going on in the scenes. However, even this was not the worst aspect of what I found to be a very disappointing film. I could forgive the leading lady's butch-ness, I could forgive the freakish characters that were thrown in to the mix, and I could forgive the poor choice of musical accompaniment, but whose choice was it to cut out the whole middle section of the film and skip straight to the end??? The ending was obviously planned from the beginning but how it gets there is left untold. If you're a Michael Vartan fan skip this film: buy yourself a poster instead.

Sentiment: negative
I don't normally give movies a "1." Although I am a HEARTLESS critic, I try to find anything that makes the movie worthwhile (that is to say, watchable). The main thing I look for is a coherent plot. If it has that alone, I can watch it! Let me start by saying, this doesn't even deserve to be called a movie, this is more like an elementary school project...gone horribly wrong! And I've seen every Sci-Fi movie special that was ever made.

Many times I've read professional critic reviews that say crap like "This played like a Made-for-TV...(etc, etc)" and I kept saying "Oh come on, I wish they'd think of a REAL criticism." Well this is worse...much worse! This is truly the worst "thing" I've seen that's lasted the length of a movie (if I DID consider it a movie it would be my new worst movie of all time), and I've seen every movie Uwe Boll made! This movie makes Uwe Boll look like Francis Ford Coppola! :) I'd rather watch Jaws the Revenge all day then see this one more time...even 5 minutes of it...there was one good scene and it was the END! ;-P OK enough bashing the works of Ron Hall, now for the serious criticism.

The script is poorly written, the dialog is delivered in a wooden manner, the effects are cheesier than those in a Power Rangers show, and don't even get me started on the screen zoom-in transitions (ugh). Someone actually watched this thing, edited it, and then said, "ok release it"? I would have rather burned this than release it! In closing all I can say is "Thank goodness DVD and VHS players have a Stop and Eject feature!" My advice...don't rent it, if you do, you'll be glad you have stop and eject too! :)

Sentiment: negative
I have become a big fan of the work of Barbet Schroeder, so maybe I am already a little biased by now, but I think this movie is great, although there may be a few lengths. It is a romantic unromantic view of the Great Liberation in the later sixties, stylistically amazingly polished (great set design!) and in my opinion still very watchable.

Basically this is an ironic re-telling of the story of Adam and Eve who are driven from paradise after having tasted the forbidden fruit" which has turned from an apple into a hypodermic filled with heroine. The woman seduces a man into using it thus accelerating his doom. I say accelerating as the guy seems to be doomed and bound for an intensive life and an early grave right from the great title sequence onwards. There is no place for any hope.

Although the story is rather sad, I was captured by the beauty both of the beautiful location Ibiza and Mimsy Farmer. I found her character was at once shallow, enigmatic, endearing, annoying, interesting and boring. Somehow she represents what men see in women in a basic, unoffensive way. Architecture and built artifacts in general are put to very good use  which seems to be a Schroeder trademark of sorts.

There is even some humor, mainly delivered by Stefan, the German main character and his accent. His main nemesis is not a snake but an older German of dubious reputation  and provider of the heroine - called Wolf. Although it is a German name and Stefan is German, he pronounces it verrry English and in fits of jealousy spits the name out at his girlfriend in regular intervals  becoming a boy who cries ... At times Stefan has to work in order to earn a cellery". At one time the guy goes snorkeling and afterward awkwardly clambers up a rock with his rubber flippers  never has male frontal nudity been funnier in movie history.

Sentiment: positive
I remember my parents not understanding Saturday Night Live when I was 15. They also did not understand Rock n Roll and many other things. Now that I am approaching their age, I still remember, and find I understand many of the things my kids love. But this is pathetic. I cannot say I have seen any by Sarah except for a few appearances here and there. They were reasonable. I do not see her as anything special. But this show is just so far below what I expected from her. The IMDb write up made it sound like potential. So, just for that, I started watching the first episode. I turned it off half way through. Anything else is better that that. Jokes that are meant for a 5 year old presented on a supposed adult program. Well, Sarah, this adult is inly moved to turn you off. I just cant believe that someone actually financed this insult to comedy. Only good thing I can say is that there are sooooo many bad jokes deposited here, saving other shows from such an embarrassment.

Sentiment: negative
Possible Spoiler alert, though there's not much to spoil about this film. I saw Project A part II not having seen the first movie. I don't think I missed much. Project A Part Two is not only the worst Jackie Chan film I've seen to date (yes worse than `Fantasy Mission Force'), this film is one of the most unwatchable films the world has ever seen. It's right up there with `Plan 9 From Outer Space' on the sleep inducing scale. The plot is twisted up and knotted like a 50 foot ball of yarn the cat's been playing with and finally left for dead. The `humor' if you could call it that, seems to have been written by an annoying High School freshman, who despite how many people tell him he's not funny, is determined to get his lame humor out no matter how painful a movie is made. And this movie is painfully bad. The plot involves Jackie Chan as a Navy officer recruited by the police force to round up `all known criminals'. He rounds them up in the first half hour of the movie, and I prayed for a quick ending which I didn't get. Why the movie bothers to progress from this point I haven't a clue. The movie drags on and on and on with no purpose, no plot, and attempts at humor that fail so miserably, they make Carrot Top look like a comedic genius. The Kung Fu in this movie is lame, and forgettable. There's better Kung Fu in that movie about the 3 Ninja kids. Project A part II is neither an action movie nor a kung fu movie, it is however a complete waste of the talents of Jackie Chan and Maggie Cheung who have made films worlds superior to this. As Jackie Chan repeatedly escapes certain death, I enter `Blair Witch' mode asking (and wishing) `Is he going to die NOW, so the movie can end? `. An Example of how ludicrous this movie is: Jackie Chan is handcuffed to another man. A gang of pirates (that look nothing like pirates) throw axes at Jackie. Does Jackie grab one of the wayward axes and break the chain on the handcuffs? No! You see that would spoil the `hilarious' gag of him being handcuffed to another person. If you have a friend who laughs at everything, I encourage you to watch this movie with him or her, and watch as even they won't get a chuckle out of this film. If you're an insomniac this movie is sure to put you to sleep. Do not operate heavy machinery while watching Plan A part II. Possible side effects include headache, retinal strain, and death by boredom. 0/9 Stars

Sentiment: negative
At last - I've finally got round to it and managed to see a "clean" copy of Pakeezah! Up until now I've only had a mangled scratchy jerky version taped off Dubai TV sometime in the '90's, with quirky English subtitles, dizzying widescreen coverage and a fluid colour with a mind of its own. Having thought the world of such a poor (and short) copy I find the decent one was well worth the wait and the full 140 minutes even more of a pleasure than I thought possible.

This was the lovely Meena Kumari's film from start to finish, and I believe was planned by her from 1958 on, finally realising it in 1971. What a shame it was that chronic alcoholism finally killed her soon afterwards, and in fact that she was too ill to perform in some of the scenes in Pakeezah, necessitating a body double. In some scenes the strain definitely shows in her face.

The story of Purity versus Adversity I can only treat as fiction having no experience of anything remotely close to it, but I'm led to understand that it faithfully depicts a world now gone that must have been common at one time in India. It's a sparkling and colourful film with a simple relentless epic message, an intense romantic tragedy which is somehow simultaneously feelgood too. But to me it's the peerless golden music by Ghulam Mohammed as sung by the incomparable Lata Mangeshkar - especially Thare Rahiyo - and its part in the unfolding of the story that makes this film so outstanding. I've seldom heard such serious, beautiful, poetic, wondrously sung and played songs on any movie soundtrack. Singin' In The Rain may be my favourite musical film but Pakeezah has my favourite music - yet Lata said that the songs themselves meant nothing special to her. The only pity is that the also unique Mohammed Rafi only had the one song in here, albeit a classic duet with Lata. 

Because of all this but not blind to its faults, Pakeezah is my favourite Indian movie, filmed at a time when the Westernisation of India was gathering pace and watched now when Western values seem to be state sponsored and de rigueur. At the very least watch Pakeezah for a taste of what Indian "pop" music had to offer the world before it was all jettisoned for drum machines, the Bollywood Beat and bhangra.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is a great movie, however it is, as most movie highly predictable. The greatest highlight of the movie of course is the star character Amanda Bynes, who is absolutely gorgeous and hilarious. She is one of very few people in this world who can use all 53 muscles in her face to make the most strangest and gut-busting faces ever made. It's good for the kids, and contains upper male nudity and suggestive nudity towards the end. All in all, they did a good job updating an old classic, and deserves to rest on the movie stand along with O and 10 Things I Hate About You. The other actors also do a swell job, in many of their first time debuts.

Sentiment: positive
First of all, around the time I wrote this comment, I had already read what kittiwake-1 had written about this game and was confused. This is a video game and not an actual movie. I mean, I myself would choose a good Deniro movie or playing a video game any day. But, dude, what are you talking about? Now that I have that out of the way, let's move on, shall we? The video game adaption of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is, as you may have guessed, based on the movie of the same name. What's stranger is that this was released three years after the film was released. Whether that's due to a slow development time or just plain laziness, no one really knows. At least, I don't.

The game allows the player to play as the four main characters of the movie: Jen, Shu Lien, Li-Mu-Bi, and Dark Cloud (Whose story is a secret bonus that is unlocked for separate gameplay.) All four of these characters have fighting styles based on how they fought in the movie. However, the real eye candy is the evasion moves that allow each character to avoid the blows of an enemy's attack in the most impossible and gravity defying ways that were first showcased in the movie.

The story is obviously based on the story told in the movie. The story in the game is told using CG movies and spoken in a subtitled Mandarin language (A nice little touch, considering I preferred the foreign language track of the film over the dubbed one.) The story goes to expand on what might've happened to the other characters during the film and even (No real surprise since pretty much all video game movie adaptions have done this) alters what officially happened in the movie to make the game have more action. I never thought Jade Fox would go so far as to actually go and get hired goons.

The real bonus for the story is the ability to decide how the game ends. What if Jen had all the ingredients to cure Li-Mu-Bi in her possession? What if Jen had not gotten back her comb? What if Li-Mu-Bi had not gotten the green destiny back for the second time? Your actions will decide the outcome of these scenarios and the destiny of the characters in this game. This is truly the best feature of the game.

Yet, for all it's strengths, it also showcases some flaws. The enemies often tend to become a nuisance after a while and the camera angle tends to be fixed on the most unhelpful of spots. Not even the special features (Which are unlocked after beating the game) are good enough to even forgive such hardships that are forced upon the player.

If you loved the movie, you may enjoy the game. However, this game is the only way you're going to be able to immerse yourself into a playable version of such a beautiful and amazing movie.

Of course, you could have just picked a Deniro movie instead.

Sentiment: positive
I gave it an 8 star rating. The story may have fallen short about 3/4 of the way into the picture but the performances remained strong throughout."Men of Honor" was changed from "Navy Diver" understandably so. Anyone who has served in any branch of the armed forces will probably feel that "Honor" is an appropriate word to use in the title.

Sentiment: positive
Sure it may not be a classic but it's one full of classic lines. One of the few movies my friends and I quote from all the time and this is fifteen years later (Maybe it was on Cinemax one too many times!) Michael Keaton is actually the worst actor in this movie--he can't seem to figure out how to play it-- but he's surrounded by a fantastic cast who know exactly how to play this spoof. Looking for a movie to cheer you up? This is it but rent it with friends--it'll make it even better.

Sentiment: positive
Arrrrrggghhhhhh, some people take life far too seriously!!! Watch this film for what it is, sit back, relax and have a giggle. The film does not take itself seriously, so neither should we. If you like James Belushi, you will like this film. If he is not your cup of tea - give it a miss.

I like James Belushi, so I liked this film. So simple isn't it?? :-)

Sentiment: positive
I was pleasantly surprised I quite liked this movie. Witty writing (some "inside" jokes I got, others I didn't - maybe due to actors speaking on top of one another), great acting (notably John Cassini), great cameos, interesting and unique directing. I rented it to see Jeffrey Meek (very disappointed he was in it such a short time, blink and you'll miss him!) but found the movie remarkably entertaining. I'll actually watch it again before I send back to Netflix. I think actors and wanna-be actors will thoroughly enjoy this movie. The ending is somewhat expected but wish they'd done something different (and more positive). Too bad the movie wasn't better received except for in the "festival" market. I suggest it to anyone who loves the acting biz.

Sentiment: positive
I can't believe they got the actors and actresses of that caliber to do this movie. That's all I've got to say - the movie speaks for itself!!

Sentiment: negative
Have you ever seen a movie made up entirely of long wide shots? No? Me, neither. Well, I've finally seen one in "Spring in my Hometown," and I must confess, now I KNOW why people don't do this. The technique is "arty," to be sure, but it's definitely NOT ripe for public consumption. The technique is heavily flawed simply because the viewer has no emotional attachment to the characters, and perhaps that might be the director's whole intentions. I don't know, I can't read minds, and I certainly don't know enough about the director to make a judgement.

But one thing about this movie that IS painfully obvious is its ridiculous anti-American sentiments. As an American, I'm well aware of my country's participation in the Korean War, and I'm very well aware that we weren't always angels, but I'll be damn if I'll take this guy's version of how things happened. According to this blind fool, Americans were not only at the root of the war, we were the CAUSE of the war, and we almost singlehandedly destroyed the country. Whatever, Mister Director. And I suppose you'd still be making this film in COMMUNIST KOREA if we hadn't interfered, right? Talk about forgetting your history. This is almost akin to making the Nazis the "good guys" while turning the Allied forces into the "bad guys." This movie is so historically naive and so factually inaccurate that it's almost embarrassing to watch. For a man who comes from a country that owes its very EXISTENCE to American interference, he sure comes off as high and mighty and judgemental.

Sentiment: negative
Wirey's journey through the final days of bachelorhood, liberally sprinkled with flashbacks to a sexually active and diverse childhood.

It's definitely not a feel-good romance movie. It is a romance movie, but one without illusions. Everyone's an adult here, not your cup of tea if you want another Sleepless in Seattle or Notting Hill.

Sentiment: positive
Despite the title, The Sword Bearer, and the DVD cover (action/herioc poses of The Sword Bearer) this is not a super hero film.

(Minor Spoilers) It follows the tale of Sasha, The Sword Bearer, who is cursed with having a retractable sword in his forearm. Cool you say, but no, this is real life. If you had this power as a child could you control it when, say, faced by a mad man, or when your mum's boyfriend is beating her. And if you don't control it, how do you cope with being a two time killer at the age of 12.

This essentially is where Sasha is when we meet him. Wandering aimlessly after another killing (much like A Bout de Soufflé). He then meet Katya, and the pair fall instantly in love, providing Sasha with a real reason to live and try and changes his ways. However, his past is still chasing him, in the form of two police officers.

That is essentially the story, and there is virtually no action on screen, though a lot if suggested.

I really like this movie. Unlike many Hollywood 'super hero' films, we get very little back story, there is no bad guy (unless you count The Sword Bearer himself) abut there is a lot of heart and good character development.

Worth checking out if you can find it.

Sentiment: positive