DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I was pretty enthusiastic about seeing this movie when it came out. Commercials for it made it look quirky and I generally like Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock, and the combination of the two seemed like an interesting idea. Sadly, I was terribly disappointed with Nurse Betty.

Personally, I've usually found that graphic violence and comedy don't go all that well together, and the only directors that have ever combined the two successfully, in my opinion, are Tarantino and the Coens. There isn't that much violence in Nurse Betty, but what violence is in it made me feel kind of weird when I was supposed to laugh. Of course, for me, part of the problem was also that there didn't seem to be many places where I was being asked to.

The film doesn't much work as a drama, either. Renee Zellweger's Betty, the story's protagonist, is clinically insane and impossible to relate to in any real way. I will say Zellweger acts the role quite well, and Freeman, Rock, and Greg Kinnear all do good jobs too. The problem is in the writing; Freeman is the only person that gets to play an interesting character. It's really too bad. 3/10

Sentiment: negative
While the 'special effects' and technical attributes of this movie may in fact be laughable to some, I have never been able to erase the images this movie etched on my young and impressionable mind when I first saw it at around 8 years of age. The story of this girl's survival and of the trials she endured have stayed with me all these years, and I have thought back on more than one occasion about how the girl made it out of situations far beyond anything I have seen.

The fact that this is a true story, and the fact that I was only a child when I first saw this may be the reason behind my high rating of this movie. Each time this movie aired on television in the 70s and 80s I would be riveted to the television, drinking in each scene with an interest I cannot explain. I suppose watching this for the first time as an adult (and with a jaded view of the world) it may not be as enjoyable to some. I actually went out of my way to obtain a copy so I could show this movie to my son.

This, like many other movies, is not for everyone. If you are impressed by remarkable human survival stories, are partial to Peru/Macchu Picchu and/or the Amazon, then I believe you might enjoy this movie as much as I have been enjoying it for the past 30 years.

Sentiment: positive
I bought this film from e-bay as part of a lot of about twenty horror flicks, all about a dollar a piece. When watching this, my first impression was that it probably was from the late 80s. Later on I began thinking - the Linkin Park posters on the wall and everything else seemed to hint that I was dealing with a more recent film. Realizing that, the flick became an unbearable torment. The last 3 minutes were the longest in the movie history - the film just refused to end. Is there a genre such as "horror for children"? In that case this film is definitely it. If there are parents, perverse enough to want to introduce their offspring to horror, I suggest this would be perfect for kids of about 6-8. The only thing I really liked was Greg Cipes who was much too good an actor for that kind of nostalgic retro bottom part of a drive-in double-bill.

Sentiment: negative
Save some very early Norris, "Breaker, Breaker" has nothing to offer which can't be found ten fold better on any broadcast channel. A pathetic attempt at film making, this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. In spite of that, I did watch it, thumbing the fast forward button, because the acting was so awful it was comical. Of course, the film is supposed to be an action/drama but turned out as a treatise on how NOT to make a movie. Everything which could be wrong with film is on screen in this "dog". If you happen across it, give it a peek. It's so bad, it's funny.

Sentiment: negative
Tired, garbled dreck. The chemistry between Argento and Madsen was as exciting as a wet doughnut. Their dialogue was dramatically uninteresting. The storyline was a mess. The acting forced. The cinematography lingered on the uninspired. Lazy and pointless. Kim Gordon and her character had no reason to be there. Nor did anyone else for that matter. I couldn't have given two farts for any of the 'characters'. Their emotions skipped and jumped like a junkie who hates his heroin. Empty and dull. Why do I have to write ten lines of text on here to make my point? I think I summed it up in the first three words. But, obviously it's not enough. I think this is the last time I'll bother to waste my time critiquing a film. Anyway, I saw 'Clean' and thought that was quite ineffectual as well. Again, I cared not for the characters, whether they lived or died.

Sentiment: negative
OK, here it is: "Nazi mountaineer befriends the Dalai Lama." What we do is, first we get a major star with no idea whatsoever how to do a Germanic accent, and we let him flounder around between French, German, American, and British for over 2 hours. Then we concoct a series of wildly improbable events and space them apart very widely, so that the plot inches along almost imperceptibly. But just to make sure the viewer doesn´t fall asleep, we throw in details which are shockingly absurd, such as our hero smoking a cigarette at an altitude of 22,000 feet. Naturally, we must also remember that our target audience does not want to read too many subtitles, so we have every character, even the lowliest peasant in the forbidden closed-off city of Lhasa in 1943, speak perfect English, also with dubious accents. Of course, the trickiest part is how to handle the spiritual and political aspects of the story, so what we do is this: we have the Dalai Lama befriend the now-reformed Nazi because the latter is so good at fiddling with film projectors, radios, antique cars, and any other devices with represent the freedom of the capitalist west. In return, our hero learns from his young protegé a kind of vague, undefined Buddhism which is never really brought out or treated in a serious fashion. We also have lots of scenes with the hero flaunting all the marks of respects and protocol which the rest of the Tibetan society accords the Dalai Lama, even as we pretend that the hero has deep and profound reverence for these people and their spiritual leader. In other words, we just expect the audience to believe that this guy is now a Buddhist, sort of, in his own way, even though we ourselves don´t seem to know what his transformation entails or how far we want it to go. And last but not least, we hang a statistic onto the end of the film about how appallingly the Chinese have treated the Tibetans (which is certainly true), thus opening ourselves up to charges that we have made a "political" movie, even though it is nothing of the sort. So, zat ist my idea. Vat do you zink? Can ve make zis movie?

Sentiment: negative
This movie should be called Blame it on the Script. Directed by Stanley Donen, of Singin' in the Rain fame, this celluloid mid-life crisis is not all bad. It's got some lush scenes of Rio de Janeiro and various scantily clad extras cavorting with each other and romping around the beach to the sultry sounds of samba, but there is just something about watching fifty-something Michael Caine get it on with whiny teenager Michelle Johnson that makes you feel...well, sleazy. This storyline is a complete stretch, too. Nobody but pervy and vain old studio execs in Hollywood could have green-lit this embarrassment. Maybe they are so used to having young bimbos as arm candy that they forget it's their fat wallets that hold the key to their appeal, not their huge Larry King-style spectacles and yellow cigar-stained teeth. It's one thing for a nubile young sexpot to have a crush on an older man, but on her best friend's father who happens to be married? And then to throw herself at him shamelessly? Ugh! There's nothing entertaining about that. It's rather pathetic and grotesque. Take note of a young Demi Moore's budding *cough* talent.

Sentiment: negative
I remember that show. I still remember that kick ass fun song "America's Funniest People." Frankly it should've been titled American's lame or unfunny or downright disgusting People. Dave couldn't save this show and neither could Bob Saget or the replacement hosts for AFV that came later. The Jackalope segments were hilarious and yes Dave could make some good voice overs that were better than Bob's. But this show went to hell because of the lame crappy videos people submitted. Also it developed as somewhat of a variety show with lame guest stars including the Olson Twins. Plus AFV was in it's prime before they started picking the drooling ugly as sin babies as the winner. Did I mentioned the videos were disgusting and lame? But still the theme song rocks!

Sentiment: negative
I rarely shut a movie off after the first 10 minutes but that is what I did with this one. What turned me off was it was so obvious that the only purpose of this movie was to expose as much skin of as many B actresses as possible, and nothing else really matters.

Don't get me wrong; I like pretty actresses and sex scenes, and sexploitation movies have their own scale of merits, but this director does nothing else right.

For example, take the scene where the two cops (of course one guy one gal and OF COURSE there is all this supposedly witty banter between them) are talking over while standing over the first dead body. The camera pans between them for each line, (there's more than one screen-width between them!) and you end up wondering whether you're seasick from that or the clueless dialog.

Well, it MIGHT have gotten better after the first 10 minutes, but I wouldn't know. I declined the sucker bet and found something better to do.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this interesting film back to back with the Chinese/French film "2046" at the recent Dubai Film festival. Both were intelligent works made the same year (2004/2005). Both had the main characters living in a "hotel". In both films, the hotel is more a metaphor of exile than a location. Both dealt with love between a man and a woman. Both had wonderful music and riveting performances. What a coincidence and yet how the two films differ in treatment of the subject! Somewhere at the beginning of the film, a man walking on a pavement turns to look at a woman and in doing so hits a lamp post. The audience erupts into a volcano of laughter innocently. But isn't that brief shot the synopsis of the film, that entertains you for 2 hours? While the film is a wonderful blend of black comedy (e.g., using a stethoscope to listen to neighbor's conversation), the film builds on what Buster Keaton and Jacques Tati had introduced to cinema earlier--stoic faces that leads to comedy quite in contrast to the equally intelligent world of Robin Williams or the heartwarming Danny Kaye. A sudden frenzy of activity transforms an otherwise stoic character while moving money from the hotel to the bank is reminiscent of Tati's works.

But the film is not mere comedy. The anti-automation statement (cash counting and the reaction of the bank staff to the statements relating to it, the dummy that acts as an ineffectual warning to the speeding lady, the reference to "Moulimix" as the fictitious "company" he works for, etc.) are several cues that the director is offering a loaded comedy to the viewer. Laugh, yes, but reflect on it and enjoy further..

The movie's strength lies in is brief, staccato script (by director Paul Sorrentino) that offers comedy that is mixed with philosophy ("Truth is boring," "Dad is dead, but nobody told him," "Bad luck does not exist--it is the invention of the losers and the poor". Then the director goes on to provide you with a fascinating lecture from the main character on insomniacs. You will not sleep through this lecture.

Sorrentino provides entertainment pegged to the subject the Italians know best--the Mafia. It is an existential mafia film.

Since "Truth is boring", the director provides a dessert as part of the fine meal of superb acting (Toni Servillo), good music, clever camera-work (Luca Bigazzi), a beautiful, enigmatic actress (Magnani, grand-daughter of the great Anna) and powerful script. The dessert is for the viewer to figure out whether what preceded in the film was the truth. It would have been boring, if it was, wouldn't it?

Sentiment: positive
I have to say I was really looking forward on watching this film and finding some new life in it that would separate it from most dull and overly crafted mexican films. I have no idea why but I trusted Sexo, Pudor y Lagrimas to be the one to inject freshness and confidence to our non-existent industry. Maybe it was because the soundtrack(which I listened to before I saw the film) sounded different from others, maybe it was because it dared to include newer faces(apart from Demian Bichir who is always a favorite of mexican film directors) and supposedly dealed within it's script with modern social behaviour, maybe because it's photography I saw in the trailers was bright and realistic instead of theatrical. The film turned out to be a major crowd pleaser, and a major letdown. What Serrano actually deals here with is the very old fashioned "battle of the sexes" as in "all men are the same" and "why is it that all women...;" blah,blah,blah. Nothing new in it, not even that, it uses so much common ground and clichè that it eventually mocks itself without leaving any valuable reflexion on the female/male condition. Full of usual tramps on the audience like safe gags about the clichès I talked about before(those always work, always) and screaming performances(it is a well acted film in it's context)..and by screaming I mean, literally. The at first more compelling characters played by Monica Dionne and Demian Bichir turn out to be according to Serrano the more pathetic ones. I completely disagree with Serrano, they shouldn't have been treated that way only to serve as marionettes for his lesson to come through...he made sure we got HIS message and completely destroyed their roles that were the only solid ground in which this story could have stood. Anyway, it is after all, a very entertaining film at times and you will probably have a good time seeing it (if you accept to be manipulated by it).

Sentiment: negative
The premise of this movie is ugghhhh. The guy is married and yet everyone on this site seems to think, "Yeah, this is funny, cute, and a good movie." What the Hell?!?! What is funny about immature girls fornicating with a married man with a new baby? What is cute about the fact that he is cheating on his wife? What have been wrong with them finding some teenage boys to have sex with before starting college? Noooo, that is not good enough, the guy has to be married, off-limits, off-the-market, that's the one we gotta have. Dumb-ass GIRLS! Then one of the girls decides that she "loves" the guy. No, she just "loves" the way he makes her feel. Two of the girls are having fun with it, they think it is funny and no one seems to have any moral problems with what they are doing. It just shameless, but yeah this is all good with everyone one this website. The dark-haired girl even has the audacity to have her dad pick her up from the guys house, under the ruse of baby sitting. This is a morally disgusting movie and where is the wife? Poor woman working and paying the bills while he screws the baby sitter.

Sentiment: negative
My brother brought this movie home from the rental store and I remember expecting it to be such a bore. I think the title especially put me off. I can't ever remember starting a movie with such low expectations and being so completely won over. I watched the movie twice before I let my brother take it back to the store. It is very infrequent that a movie speaks to me the way this one did. I was completely caught up in Ruby's situation as she tries to make her way through her life. The bad thing about this movie is that it seems to end so quickly. I could have kept watching for hours. Another downside is that I have been unsatisfied with everything Ashley Judd has done since. She is so perfect in this movie. This film is easily in my top ten favorites of all time.

Sentiment: positive
Kevin Spacey is very talented, but unfortunately directing is not his forte. I had high expectations about the film before I rented it and maybe that is why I disliked it so much. I admire Spacey's attempt at making a film that takes place mostly in one small setting, but it's not the attempt that counts. I found the film dull, boring, and stretched out. The acting was nothing spectacular. Gary Sinise has done much better, especially since he is conscious in most of his other films. Skeet Ulrich was disappointing, but this was one of his first films (I did get a kick out of how young and chubby this Scream star looked). The only thing that impressed me about this film was the one shot of the car wreck from above. The center line of the road was perfectly centered and the camera moved on along the line and past the wreck. However, that shot was very "Usual Suspects"ish and my guess is Spacey got the idea from that earlier film of his (which is very good mind you). If you want to see a fabulous film that takes place in one small setting, watch Hitchcock's Lifeboat. Maybe Spacey should have watched it before filming this.

Sentiment: negative
Like many others, I had been attracted to the combination of Pollack, Ford and Scott-Thomas. I had enjoyed the work of Pollack and Ford on Sabrina, a well made film and a careful rewrite of the old material. On hearing that this film was in production I ordered and read the book. Immediately it seemed that this would be a more difficult story to film. The characters are not always sympathetic, there is little if any humor and the author makes numerous plot shortcuts to focus on his principal theme: that, since each would see the other as the only one sharing the unique combination of loss and betrayal brought on by the air crash, the adulterers' completely surprised spouses would seek each other out. Moreover, he imagines that resolution could come to both through a bitter exploration of the adulterers' hidden lives and that this experience of "thick and thin" could yield a deeper love than each had previously. Although much of the book deals with their bitterness and their building hatred of their former partners, in the end acceptance and forgiveness are found. The film script retains only the air crash and the shared predicament of the spouses. Where the woman is the research aggressor in the book, it is the man in the film and the woman is never a willing co-researcher. The film has a completely new dramatic sub-plot for Harrison Ford which seems even more contrived than the double coincidence of the air crash. The "congresswoman up for re-election" sub-plot for the woman is also new, yet it works better. Audience the expectations of pure romance or romantic comedy cannot be met because this story focusses on a very bitter pill. Where resolution and forgiveness is achieved in the book, however, lifting the burden of bitterness from the reader and permitting levity, there is no corresponding moment in the film. Although forgiveness is never hinted at, we are left to surmise that healing following a shooting does double duty. Ford's character need not be such an unentertaining man of few words and Scott-Thomas's accent change is a little disconcerting at first. This film is not the dead loss suggested by others. It is, however, a difficult film to appreciate because the rewrite and adaptation to the screen is below the standard previously achieved by the director cast.

Sentiment: positive
Kim Basinger and Mickey Rourke star in this controversial story of a wall street exec and an art gallery employee who hook up and begin a very experimental sexual relationship.While the acting by Rourke and Basinger is ok, the flim doesn't allow their characters to truly form. Allegedly there was a lot of film left on the cutting room floor that delved deeper into the characters and the effects of the relationship on them - Basinger's character considering suicide - that would have made the characters more involved for the viewer. As is it is a glossy, well produced, with MTV style editing piece of soft core voyeurism. 4 of 10

Sentiment: negative
A horror picture set ultimately to parody but still in it's play out could scare a few of those that are frailed nerved or easily disgusted when they see whats under their skin. I laughed at it though. It was easy to decipher the true killer and his acting didn't help. This only led to Potente looking even better. Anatomie is not much of a horror picture for those foreign of the genre but those contained should get a few unintentional laughs and an interesting peak at German horror cinema. 6/10

Sentiment: positive
Full House is a great family show. However, after watching some episodes over and over again I've realized that they're incredibly boring and they seem to shelter themselves from the outside world a lot. Yes, there is a lot of comedy, but there are times when it's incredibly cheesy. It's not like I hate it, but just don't watch them over and over again because they get old quick. Probably the best season is the first.

Full House is about widower Danny Tanner(Bob Saget)and his three daughters D.J. (Candace Cameron) Stephanie (Jodie Sweetin) and Michelle (Mary-Kate and Ashley). When Danny's wife dies the he is in need of some help. So, his best friend Joey (Dave Coulier) and the girls' Uncle Jesse (John Stamos) moves in with them. Once they live there together they find they can't live without each other. 

Full House reminds you just how important family is and that you can always go home again.

Sentiment: positive
The movie starts off as we see a footage of a huge drought back in the 30's in America. Then a short story is shown about a creepy - looking farmer Elija who made a deal with Satan , to get good harvest. Elija hired young men to work in his garden , killed them , and used as scarecrows. He also fed the ground with their blood. Some time after 2 cops come to visit him. One of them gets shot by Elija , another one kills the farmer himself... After that , the present day is shown , and some guy named Sean is told that he has an old farm left as inheritance. He decides to go there with some friends to see what's up. Little did Sean know that the next night is the "Payback Night".....

As for me this movie had a good story for a horror flick , but low budget and poor special effects just ruined it. "Dark Harvest" is a perfect example of lazy film making. For example we see a scarecrow (a usual guy wearing a funny , cheap mask) chasing a girl. When he raises his hand we get to see a normal human skin below his glove, instead of some rotting flesh. The gore is not very impressive as well. There are some nasty killings by our "lovely" scarecrows but everything is very cheap and unrealistic. Surprisingly the acting is somewhat OK in this flick , or i better say its believable. Some nude scenes are presented as well for the fans (even a lesbian scene) ,but those scenes don't save it.

Verdict : Good music, good story, solid acting. But awful effects , cheap gore and plot holes slow this movie down. Not really recommended.

Sentiment: negative
Dirty Dancing - I think everyone has seen this movie at one time or another. I can remember as a kid I loved this movie and watched it over and over again without tiring of it.

Now that I'm a little older, I bought the DVD recently and STILL wasn't disappointed with the performance.

Swayze and Grey create the atmosphere for this movie, even though it's claimed they don't get along, the chemistry in the movie is unbelievable! As the movie proceeds, we are sucked into their relationship, and believe every single one of their actions. 

The soundtrack is amazing, the music only adds to the romantic mood of the movie and adds to the relationship between Baby & Patrick.

The last scene makes this movie, who can ever forget the famous line "Noboby puts Baby in the corner." The song is perfect and the dancing is amazing! 

I would recommend this movie to anyone, at any age, it's just a fun movie anyone can enjoy 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
A slight, charming little movie to be sure, but a superbly-crafted one. Gwyneth Paltrow shines in this early showcase for her British accent, and the cast assembled around her all lap up the dialogue. This came out around the time of Sense and Sensibility, and I'm sure I don't know why that one garnered all the Oscar attention. Emma is Jane Austen's most accessible and least stuffy story, told well.

Sentiment: positive
I went to see Random Hearts with 3 friends, and at first, I thought maybe it was just me who wasn't enjoying the movie. After all, I didn't like As Good As it Gets and that movie won all sorts of awards. Well, it wasn't just me...none of my friends liked it either. It was unbelievable slow, much like getting teeth pulled. The only action that is in the movie is what is in previews. We didn't walk out of the theatre because we all assumed something more would happen. We weren't as smart as the 7 or 8 people who did walk out. I have never walked out on a movie in my life, but I definitely should have. This is all tough for me to write, considering I am relatively easy to please when it comes to movies. It takes a lot for me to think a movie is awesome, but not much for me to just like it. This movie didn't even come close in the like category. Not only was the movie about 2 hours too long, but it was like two separate trite stories in one, but they weren't smoothly sewn together. Plus, the "soundtrack" if you could even call it that was so annoying. Like Seinfeld has the same riff that is played over and over again (difference being that i like Seinfeld)..this movie had this jazz riff that it kept playing, which sounded highly inappropriate at times, especially when people were dealing with the deaths of the plane crash. Hard to explain what I mean, but trust me it was awful. I cannot say enough to make people not waste their money. After I left the theatre, I honestly wanted to write to the movie company and demand my $7 back..sheeesh, I could have gone bowling or something for that money.

Sentiment: negative
Like his elder brothers, Claude Sautet and Jean-Pierre Melville, Alain Corneau began to cut his teeth in French cinema with a series of fine thrillers: "la Menace" (1977) and "Série Noire" (1979) among others. "Police Python 357" is a good example of how Corneau conceived and shot his works at this time of his career. They had a splendid cinematography, painstaking screenplays and a sophisticated directing elaborated for efficiency's sake.

The police superintendent Ferrot (Yves Montand) is a cop with unconventional methods who usually works all alone. He makes the acquaintance of a young woman Sylvia Léopardi (Stefania Sandrelli) and becomes her lover while ignoring that she has another lover: his superior Ganay (François Périer). When the latter learns it, he kills her in a fit of anger. Ferrot has to investigate the murder and all the clues are inexorably against him...

One could deem that this kind of far-fetched story isn't exempt from glitches and sometimes, one can see right through it but Corneau's pedantic directorial style helps to conjure up a stifling, dusky atmosphere. The first part of the film before the night of the murder might seem uninteresting and however, it is crucial for what will follow this key-moment. Corneau falls back on a sober treatment with rather sparse moments and short appearances by secondary, minor characters whom the viewer will see again during the investigation. In spite of drawbacks, Corneau and his scenarist Daniel Boulanger penned a deft story. Ménard (Mathieu Carrière) who sometimes expresses his surprise because Ferrot keeps a relatively low profile during the investigation. But his superior knows that he usually works alone. Actually, Ferrot has to find solid tricks to muddy the waters and so to exonerate himself. Eventually, the chief idea of the film concerns Ferrot himself. He's a cop who bit by bit loses his identity and finds himself in the heart of a terrible depersonalization. It is epitomized by the moment when he throws himself acid on his face so that witnesses won't recognize him when he is brought face to face with them.

The backdrop of this thriller, Orléans is efficiently enhanced by Corneau's camera and helps to inspire this eerie thriller its pernicious charm.

Sentiment: positive
No, *Hitch* is decidedly NOT a romantic-comedy about bilious (and bibulous) former-Leftist-pundit-turned-reactionary-pundit Christopher Hitchens, though it sure would've made for a funnier movie. A dumpy little Englishman, teeth stained black from cigarettes and Guinness, barking out advice -- and acerbic political commentary -- to lovelorn men: "Look into her EYES when you speak to her, you nutter! And remember: calling someone a 'neo-conservative' makes you a de facto anti-Semite! Can't you get anything straight, you liberal pantywaist?"

Oh well. Instead, we get Will Smith, whose continuing success remains a mystery to me, at least. I am apparently alone in this regard. Smith is the most powerful man in Hollywood as of this writing: Americans just can't help throwing their money at him. I, on the other hand, find his smugness insufferable, unmitigated by a scene here (spoiled by the trailer) where he suffers a drastic allergic reaction to seafood. We know Smith will bounce back to his bland, over-muscled good looks, because there's a fat sit-com actor (Kevin James) on hand making a fool of himself. We're supposed to laugh hysterically whenever the slob starts dancing like a jackass (cue "Everybody Dance Now!" by CC Music Factory), but why would a straight-arrow accountant behave in such a way? I've worked with several straight-arrow accountants for years, and I can tell you that if, in Norman Mailer's memorable phrase, "tough guys don't dance", neither do straight-arrow accountants. Am I taking all this too seriously? Or -- and here's a daring thought -- perhaps the writers couldn't conceive a logically-drawn character to save their lives?

Speaking of the writers, they come up with a lousy idea for Smith's love interest: a writer for a tabloid (Eva Mendes). Since when do tabloid creeps deserve love? What universe am I in, anyway? -- everyone here at IMDb is actually gushing over this tripe. Either you all need to raise the bar, in terms of entertainment value for your buck, or I'm just a skunk at the garden party. (Me, and about 150 million other long-suffering boyfriends and husbands.) In any case, if I may imitate Smith's Hitch and offer my male readers some smooth advice: when you're dragged to see *Hitch*, say to your Better Half, "Hey, that was pretty good" after the movie is over. Don't be overenthusiastic; don't rave about it -- she'll know you're lying to her. Praise it in a lightly surprised way, as if the movie was better than you expected and wasn't the agonizing time-waster that it actually was. But what am I saying, eh, fellas? -- we dudes know all the moves. 

1 star out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
Mr Michael Jackson is an artistic phenomenon. His short movies, i.e. music videos, are simply the best. I do not care if I get a sane sci-fi feature from this man, but I do care to get a medley of his crazy dancing, shriek yells, cool crowd choreography, and some bits of CGI and animation. There also should be a few uninterrupted videos. Everything I've mentioned is here. Stupid plot and over-the-top "vanity fair" are not a problem when I witness Mr Michael Jackson in action. To me he will always be the ultimate king of music videos (not "king of pop" which sounds moronic, especially for us, Russians, because "pop" sounds like the Russian word for "arses" and MJ is definitely not "king of arses"). I can re-watch his best music videos (which are artistically beautiful) and I never get tired of them.

My first impression of this film was "What is this...?" (bits of different videos, some drawn images, unsettling jumps from one theme to another, absence of any cohesive plot line, some kids fooling around, etc.) but as I watched it till the end, I could tell that it was great and really nothing like anything else shown on TV nowadays. What I like here too is that it never shows any shameful material and can be watched by kids easily.

Without Mr Michael Jackson the universe of music videos would be rather poor. Even the best classic videos of other artists cannot come very close to the energetic hyperbole of MJ musical insanity and artistic quality. He knew how to get the audience of different ages and he knew how to remain a man with moral principles.

When I see a proper DVD release with Mr Michael Jackson videos I know that it deserves to be purchased even if some clips have already appeared in some other previous release. "HIStory I", "HIStory II", and "Moonwalker" are all great, though only "Moonwalker" is more like one movie (with a solid "Smooth Criminal" theme, "paparazzi" topic, and a few weird spoofs and twists).

Being no fan of MJ I can still give this "film... like no other" a solid 9 out of 10 (I've been hit by "Smooth Criminal" for sure and my major complains are the following: initial segments of the movie could have been dropped while the main "MJ anti-drug campaign" should have been given more "sky-rocketing insanity and stress" and there should have been more "moonwalking" itself of course). Thanks for attention.

Sentiment: positive
"The Quickie" tells of a decadent Russian mob family who lives in Malibu and...well, frankly, this awful attempt at drama isn't worthy of commentary.

Jason Leigh introduces herself to Mr. Mob-guy as being from "Pacific Exterminators" with huge letters in plain sight on her back which say "West Coast Exterminators". Eventually the mob-guys get suspicious because she was exterminating in a bedroom. (duh).

In another scene Mr. Mobguy plays Russian roulette giving a hooker $4000 to bet whether he'll live or die. She has 5 chances out of 6 of keeping the money if she bets "live". Well, she bets "die". (double duh) Later she complains it wasn't fair and wants to play again. (Triple duh).

The list of flaws just goes on and on while this intelligence insulting film stinks and sinks in a quagmire of lousy music, mediocre camera work, poor direction, boring story, etc. Pass on this loser. (D)

Note - The barebones DVD which I rented had no English same language subtitles or closed captions.

Sentiment: negative
This is my favorite Jackie Chan movie and in an interview, Jackie said it was his favorite as well. It contains some unbelievable stunts and jaw dropping fight sequences as well as some very funny scenes as well. This movie was a favorite of Brandon Lee, who used parts in Rapid Fire, and was also lifted in Tango and Cash, which used some of the opening scenes.

Jackie plays a policeman in Hong Kong. The story immediately jumps into a fantastic chase through a shanty town and continues as Jackie slides down a hill and jumps onto a moving bus to catch the evil Ku (who is one of the greatest villains in any Jackie Chan movie.) You can expect some very funny scenes as Jackie tries to balance his duty as a policeman with his girl friend, played by Maggie Chung. His job is to protect Ku's secretary who has enough information to take him down, but even that poses many problems. Jackie is at his absolute best here. The last fight scene at the mall is my favorite fight scene by anyone - period. It was the most intense fight I have ever seen Jackie do and climaxes in a slide down a pole amidst exploding lights. All in all, one of his greatest stunts he ever did and left him with skin pealed off his hands. He was fortunate he was not electrocuted as the person in charge of the stunt used high voltage instead of a lower voltage.

All in all, another Chan classic and definitely one of his greatest movies. By the end of this movie, you can tell he held absolutely nothing back and neither did his stuntmen. So many of his stuntmen were injured during this movie that nobody would insure them anymore - Jackie had to take responsibility himself. There are no gimmicks, wires or stand-ins - it is all true-life action that is a treat to watch. It is this type of action that made him the phenomenon that he is and it is a movie that will amaze people 100 years from now. If you have not seen this movie and are a fan of Jackie Chan or action in general, give yourself a treat and watch this movie. It is truly sensational.

Sentiment: positive
Louis Khan was one of the most influential architects of our time, and this film speaks volumes about how little everyone really knew. His son's desire to find out who, and more importantly what he was is moving, and emotional.

This film captures the spirit of what architecture is really about, what good design is, and the emotional price that is paid for it. Equally haunting is the sound track. If you see the film, and then listen to the sound track you can revisit the film simply by listening. As a practicing architect of over 30 years, my heart ached and rejoiced over the film and its very straight forward, albeit emotional honesty and sincerity.

I had the honor of seeing this film previewed in Chicago at the National Convention of the American Institute of Architects. The film was introduced by Daniel, and he was kind enough to do a question and answer session afterward. During the entire presentation of the film, not a sound, not a cough, not one distraction took place. The entire audience sat mesmerized, and the real treat, was Daniel's mother was present during the showing of the film.

I will always remember the film, and play it over constantly in my mind every time I listen to the soundtrack...

Sentiment: positive
I thought this movie was absolutely hilarious. I already knew it was going to be a funny movie, but it was funnier than I expected. Sure there were some lame jokes, but they cracked me up. I thought the actors were going to turn out to be pretty bad, but the actors were good in acting out this comedy. I have to give kudos to Amanda Bynes, she looked surprisingly like her brother and pulled off an awesome performance as a boy. As for the other actors, they were funny as well. Of course there were moments where you yell at the screen "how can you not tell?", but that's all part of the fun. In the end the plot turned out pretty well. There's a happy ending, but what'd you expect. 

Overall,just hilarious.

Sentiment: positive
My brother-in-law and his wife brought the movie over one night to watch on video. This should have given me the first clue that it would be horrible. It was. From the very first frame to the last this movie is terrible. It does not even quite register as a "B" movie. Maybe an N or a P. One of the worst 5 movies I've ever seen. From the rubber raptor-on-a-stick to the still-breathing corpses in the car to the beyond horrible closing lines, this movie isn't worth watching if you've received it for free.

Skip this one altogether--unless you want to play Mystery Science Theatre with your friends, it will provide good ammunition.

Sentiment: negative
In Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean, the owner of a cigarette factory Louis Mahé (Jean-Paul Belmondo) is engaged through correspondence with Julie Roussel and he does not know her. When Julie arrives in the island to get married with Louis, he waits for her in the docks but Louis does not recognize Julie in the passenger vessel and finds that she is totally different from the picture she had sent to Louis. They get married and Louis shares his bank accounts with her. When Julie's sister writes a letter to Louis asking her sister to write to her, Louis discovers that the woman is not Julie that is missing. Further, he finds that the woman has cleared his bank accounts and left the island. Louis and Julie's sister hire an efficient private detective Comolli (Michel Bouquet) and Louis travels to France seeking the woman, but he has a nervous breakdown in Nice and is submitted to an intense sleeping therapy in a clinic. He recovers and finds that the woman, actually Marion Vergano (Catherine Deneuve), works in the Phoenix Club Privé in Antibes and lives in the low-budget Monorail Hotel. Louis breaks in her room and when she arrives from the club, she tells that she was happy with him but her former dangerous lover Richard had blackmailed her. Louis is still in love with Marion and escapes with her to the countryside. But Comolli is chasing Marion in France accused of murdering Julie.

"La Sirène du Mississipi" is a film-noir by the great director/writer François Truffaut, with an unconventional love story of passion, murder and love that hurts. The femme fatale Catherine Deneuve is astonishing, probably in the top of her beauty and is delightful to see her face and the topless scenes on the road and in the room. Jean-Paul Belmondo is very athletic, and the sequence when he escalates the wall of the hotel is impressive. Catherine Deneuve makes this film worth and gives credibility to the passion and lust of Louis. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "A Sereia do Mississipi" ("The Mississippi Mermaid")

Sentiment: positive
Obvious attack on Microsoft made by people who don't appear to understand intellectual property or market economies generally.

Loony liberal tim robbins plays a painfully obvious caricature of bill gates, and is a cartoonish corporate villain ordering murders right and left.

While microsoft may engage in some anticompetitive activity at times, it's unlikely they actually murder people. Therefore, the film is over the top and ridiculous from the beginning.

The "deeper" point is apparently that major tech innovations should be free to the public, and not subject to intellectual property laws. However, this ignores the fact that most major innovations would never have been developed if not for the market incentives (and rewards) provided by intellectual property.

It's one thing to be opposed to anti-competitive conduct -- that's common sense. It's quite another to be opposed to market competition in the first place, which is what the film's mantra ("knowledge belongs to mankind") represents.

Yet another example of Hollywood being completely out of touch with reality.

Sentiment: negative
The Good Earth is perhaps the most boring film I've seen in my life. The plot is slow and lacking. The acting is borderline comical. While I love Paul Muni, I can now say i have seen a film that does not do his true ability justice. The only saving grace I found with this film is it's production value. The use of hundreds of extras throughout the film creates a very believable and interesting environment. Also, the beautiful effects used to create the illusion of millions of wasps sells easily and was revolutionary at the time. Other than the production value I can say little else that is good or entertaining about this film.

Sentiment: negative
It seems no matter what I see her in, Christina Ricci seems full of promise but fails to deliver. Sure she can cry and scream, but Prozac Nation sees Ricci totally out of her depth, perhaps I'm being too harsh.... okay, I'm shifting the blame to the director. Jessica Lange is outrageous and almost reaches Faye Dunaway heights of megadramatisation. Unfortunately I think Lange peaked with Frances and it was all downhill from there. There was every chance of this film being slick and witty while tackling depression head on. What we get instead is poorly acted hysteria dressed up with a stereotypical try hard eighties veneer. I really had no sense of the films eighties backdrop, since I was unsatisfied with the lame attempt at making believe it was the eighties just because ms Ricci wears a madonna inspired dress to her "lost my virginity" celebration. Cmon everyone, you are ALL better than this. The filmmakers should hang their heads in shame, and as a result of disappointment, Elizabeth Wurtzel could probably make a bundle if she sued for "irrepairable emotional damages" as a result of the finished product. go on lizzie, sue! I would

Sentiment: negative
I was a fan of Buffy and hoped it would come to a proper end when Angel got only one more season. But when the end came closer I was exited to see that. And what did we get? This episode called "NOT FADE AWAY" was the very last one.

I was so disappointed by this episode. This is absolutely the worst way to this series. Why couldn't it get a happy ending? Why did have a few of the main characters to die? Why did Angel not become a human and was reunited with Buffy again? No. Angel has to sign this bloddy piece of paper that he'll never become a human. How stupid.

And the end is a cliffhanger.

What could have been worse? The Buffyshow began so great, such as Angel, but the hole Universe ended so crappy. Somebody should put a spell on the man who wrote the screenplay to this episode and make sure he get's lost in hell.

So don't bother watching this, it's so bad, it hurts! Totally 1 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
This seems like one of those movies that we think we should like, but I didn't. It seemed to be trying way too hard to be 'artsy'. All flash, with no content. It has some beautiful scenes, and any one of them are nice to watch, but tack them all together and it becomes an arduous task just to sit through it. I rented this because of the glowing reviews on the video carton, and the fact that I'm a big Shakespeare fan, but I was very disappointed. I just found it a bit pretentious and, at times, boring.

Sentiment: negative
The eighties produced a lot of gory little horror flicks, most of them within the slasher sub genre - thus putting this film ahead of most of the rest of its ilk. Night of the Demons is something of a cross between the ultimate gore film, The Evil Dead; and haunted house-cum-slash flick Hell Night. Films like this usually feature a deranged/deformed madman as the lead bad guy; but here we have bloodthirsty demons, which is always more interesting than a lunatic if you ask me. There's also a lot of comedy in this film, and the first third of the movie could easily be the set up for a straight comedy film. But once the characters enter the central location; a sinister funeral home known as 'Hull House' - the film morphs into the horror film that you would expect given the title. The plot line is as simple as you'd expect it to be, and we follow a bunch of kids that decide to put on a Halloween party inside said funeral home. This turns out to be a bad idea, however, once it transpires that the house is possessed; and the demons start to inhabit the kids' bodies! Their only salvation lies on the other side of the underground stream...but finding the gate to the grounds isn't as easy as it sounds.

The film's centrepiece is the Gothic mansion where the action takes place. This creaky old house makes for a great horror film location; the fact that it used to be a funeral home only adds to this. Director Kevin Tenney shoots the house well, and a particularly good job is done of establishing the fact that the house is in the middle of nowhere and escape is difficult. The comedy towards the start of the film is generally very funny, and I was hoping it would keep up the laughs once the horror starts. The film does have its comedy moments when the kids enter Hull House, but it's never overly funny and it's obvious that horror is the film's main aim. Not that this is a problem; but the Night of the Demons could have been a lot better had it fused these elements properly. The characters are pretty much what you'd expect from this sort of film; but the acting suits the movie well, and it's clear that the young cast had a good time making this movie and it translates well to the screen. The effects are good in that they suit the film well, and as most of the death sequences are well executed; it's a good bet that most people won't get bored watching this. This isn't a classic or must see film; but I can highly recommend it as it offers a good time and will appeal to fans of silly horror fodder.

Sentiment: positive