DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This movie is one of the most provocative Jesus movies I have ever seen. It does not seek to tell the whole story, but only to portray an interpretive expression of the last day of Jesus Christ. It is darkly witty, playful and seriously faithful to elements of the Jewish tradition and to modern scriptural interpretation. Judas is much more ordinary than other portrayals, not the dark and sinister evil that we sometimes imagine, but a grossly mistaken man, horribly misguided in his zeal. Chris Saranden's Jesus is playful and serious, faithful and committed--very human while also divine. The final dialog is thoughtfully done and serves as the kind of small talk that two powerful men might do when they have just committed an atrocity. I would watch this movie again and recommend it to others.

Sentiment: positive
As most of you, I've watch a lot of great movies; In between those we often either voluntarily or mistakenly also find those movies that are so pointless that we think of reasons as to why anyone would make it. This is exactly what I can say for Dead man's bounty....

The very least I can do is try to "warn" some of you. If you enjoy being entertained by a motion picture because of the story, acting and intensity than you might want to chose something else. Now, it's not all bad.....In fact, if all you want is creative film editing, and unique angles along with original music ambient than you might think it's OK. As someone that values movie plots, acting and being entertained by a film, the truth is I thought this movie was so terrible beyond words. I could easily find a spot for it on my list of worst movies seen in a while. 

As for having Val Kilmer in this, the truth is he was casted probably as a favor to the director; As a fan of some of Kilmer's films, I can't understand what his motive for this was. The movie seems part western part romance.........In the end, I'm sure most of you can agree with me that it simply is a rude waste of our time. In case you haven't seen this movie, my recommendation would be to avoid it completely.

Sentiment: negative
This one gets better with each new look. Certainly one of Paul Sorvino's best roles. Outstanding music score which was also outstanding on sound track LP (so why no CD?). One the very early dolby stereo sound film releases. By the way, the original 35mm theatrical trailer for this is really GREAT!

Sentiment: positive
Not only is it a disgustingly made low-budget bad-acted movie, but the plot itself is just STUPID!!!

A mystic man that eats women? (And by the looks, not virgin ones)

Ridiculous!!! If you´ve got nothing better to do (like sleeping) you should watch this. Yeah right.

Sentiment: negative
Every time you think you have a handle on Deathtrap, another plot twist comes along. Best to just sit back and enjoy the ride on this one. Most noted for its on screen kiss between Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve (which was unfortunately cut from the televised version I saw), this movie has a great deal more to recommend it.

Sidney Bruhl (Michael Caine) is a very unhappy man. Once a successful playwright, his last several plays on Broadway have flopped. And while his wife Myra (Dyan Cannon) is nothing but supportive, in both the monetary and emotional sense, this does little to make Sidney feel any better. To add insult to injury, young playwright, Clifford Anderson (Christopher Reeve), has just sent Sidney a play to look at. It's Anderson's first, and Sidney can see that the young man is a gifted writer. He jokes to his wife that he should invite Anderson over, kill him, and submit the play as his own. She laughs with him at first, but when Sidney actually invites Anderson over for dinner, she worries that he may really be putting his scheme into action. And her fears just may be justified...

It's a brilliant script. There are twists and turns all through the plot, and they come faster and more furious as you get closer to the end. It's the kind of film that has you on the edge of your seat from the beginning, and keeps you there the entire time. An absolute masterpiece of suspense and mystery.

The acting is excellent. Caine gives his usual excellent performance, and he does exhibit a knack for playing cultured, refined, and intellectual men. Reeve also gives an excellent rendering of a man who isn't nearly as wide eyed or innocent as he seems. Cannon's franticness works well for Myra. And Irene Worth gives a nice performance as a nosy neighbor who is also a psychic.

This is a film with an ending you'd never expect, and repeated watchings help to pick up on things missed in earlier viewings. An unsung classic that is unfortunately only remembered for a scene which ruffled some sensibilities at the time - and that is a real shame.

Sentiment: positive
This is the best version (so far) that you will see and the most true to the Bronte work. Dalton is a little tough to imagine as Rochester who Jane Eyre declared "not handsome". But his acting overcomes this and Zelah Clark, pretty as she is, is also a complete and believable Jane Eyre. This production is a lengthy watch but well worth it. Nearly direct quotes from the book are in the script and if you want the very first true 'romance' in literature, this is the way to see it. I own every copy of this movie and have read and re-read the original. The filming may seem a little dated now but there will never be another like this.

Sentiment: positive
I'm a fan of independent film. Dialogue driven, character study pieces are where it's at for me. Some of the other posts are right: "Wannabes" isn't going to rival "The Godfather" for best mob film ever. On the other hand, "Wannabes" is a well-written and well-directed picture that has surprisingly good performances from every actor/actress. My problem with one of the other reviews:

- Conor Dubin stands out as the only Irishman in a cast of Italians

- Dubin is a Jewish last name, and as such has a dark complexion, not a traditional ruddy one of an Irishman. He doesn't stand out at all, rather, delivers a great performance.

This didn't win many awards, but it is deserving of a Saturday night with a bowl of popcorn. I found it for 7 bucks at Blockbuster and was pleasantly surprised to say the least! Highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
I'm pretty sure Poe would have considered this a travesty. The first two stories are decent, nothing spectacular. And then there's Toby Dammit. What on earth was Fellini thinking? It's a rambling, random, dull piece, with little to recommend it. One should feel frustrated at the lack of backstory or conclusion, but there's only relief that it's over.

Sentiment: negative
Think "stage play". This is worth seeing once for the performances of Lionel Atwill and Dwight Frye. COmpare the Melvyn DOuglas in "Ghost Story" with the Melvyn DOuglas of this film. Are there vampires at loose in this 'Bavarian' village, or is there a more natural, albeit equally sinister, explanation? Dwight Frye is Herman, a red herring, who is cast as an especially moronic character. It's fun to look at his different facial expressions in what is really a stock character. NOt much happens for a long time, but then we discover that Atwill's pipe smoking doctor is the real murderer. There is too much 'comic relief' but that is par for the course for this era. Fay Wray looks really good.

Sentiment: negative
Home Room deals with a Columbine-like high-school shooting but rather than hashing over the occurrence itself the film portrays the aftermath and what happened to the survivors, their trauma, guilt and denial.

*Spoilers* The shooting itself is treated as a foregone conclusion, with no action footage other than the reaction of an almost teenage SWAT commando after shooting the high school killer. The film has three protagonists; the detective investigating the crime of which no guilty parties are left to convict and two teenage girls surviving the incident, played by a very young Erika Christensen and Busy Philipps.

The two girls having nothing in common besides the shooting are put together because of it and the drama ensues.

Erika Christensen, though only 24 has been around the block so much that film viewers are pretty much acquainted with her solid and reliable style of acting. Busy Philipps, three years older than Christensen and altogether unknown to me, blew me away with her overwhelming dramatic strength and screen presence. This girl was the part.

It's a great movie and it connects to you with its intimate focus on the fragile yet growing relationship between the two traumatized girls. Gus van Sant's Elephant (2003) though good, seems almost superficial and paltry compared to Home Room when it comes to dramatic flair and acting. What I can see this film got very little screen time and exposure - so much more a loss for an equally traumatized America.

Ten out of Ten

Sentiment: positive
I took my 14 year old to see this movie. We left after 15 or 20 minutes. It was absolutely awful! This movie should be rated R at the least. I am not that strict with movies but, this was just too much. It was a waste of money. I thought it would contain some comedy and I knew the comedy would probably be crude but, this was WAY beyond crude. I was sitting there watching and reading (a certain subtitle at the beginning of the movie was what really got me) and I could not believe how crudely sexual it was. I could not believe that it would be OK for a 13 year old to read and see this content. I don't understand how the rating system works.??

Sentiment: negative
1st watched 2/9/2008, 4 out of 10(Dir-J.S. Cardone): Sexual political thriller that doesn't really succeed in any of these areas very well except early on where there are some interesting soft-core scenes. The movie starts off portraying a couple exploring their sexual fantasies amidst their work environments or wherever and whatever suits their fancy. The couple takes an excursion to a retreat and bathhouse where they run into a woman that's willing to be a part of a three-some and fulfill some of their fantasies. At this point, we only know that this couple is well off but we don't know until they return that the fiancé is part of a well-to-do political family. The man hopes to be on the rise to the point of possibly getting a congressional seat after the marriage. They then receive a package in the mail from an anonymous source with explicit pictures of their encounter at the bath house and their qwest begins as to how and why they were filmed, who sent the package, what they want, and how to clear their names before any of this gets out. This qwest becomes an obsession that leads them deeper into seedier worlds and takes a lot of their time, to the point where their friends & family wonder what they're doing all day and why they look rundown all the time. This movie is interesting at times but drifts into ridiculousness as they personally seek out the problem instead of getting the police involved early on because of their pride. This mistake, of course, keeps the movie going. The performances are fine despite the no-name cast but the lunacy of the situation overrides and the movie starts to become ho-hum about ½ the way through. And of course, they throw in a twist at the end that defies and challenges everything that happened prior(as is the norm these days when they don't know what else to do to spice up the movie). This doesn't help this movie one bit, though.

Sentiment: negative
I checked this movie out when it still had 6 votes and it said like 7.2 or something, but seriously this is a horrible movie. Lets break it down. The first thing you notice about this movie is that it was filmed on a hand-held digital camera owned by a freshman at a community college. the next thing you'll notice is that the actors, are all friends of said freshman (he probably met them at the pub the night before. Third on the list you will notice that the musical editing is horrible, and they try to cram many songs into this movie, at 30 second intervals... also all digital editing is done on said freshman's home PC... probably using windows movie maker. This movie was horrible... pretentious, had an undeniably bad script, and acting that followed suit. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone I know, but I do sentence the writer and director to watch this movie in hell for an eternity.

Sentiment: negative
This blaxploitation classic about a kung fu mama who travels to Hong Kong to avenge her brother's death offers everything you learned to expect from the genre. Playmate Jeannie Bell (with a giant afro) really kicks ass and usually loses her clothes very quickly. If you don't take it all too seriously, the movie is great fun to watch. Stan Shaw gives a solid performance, Jeannie Bell is a little less convincing. Pam Grier she ain't.

This is where Quentin Tarantino got his idea for the light switch scene in "Jackie Brown" from.

The soundtrack by Don Julian is a gem and is frequently used in rap songs.

Sentiment: positive
i stopped this movie at 48 minutes and change... i don't know...maybe it's because i'm not Swedish...or french(the cannes commenter)...or any of those OTHER sleepy places from which the previous reviewers held forth... born and raised in NY. lived near san francisco for a quarter of a century. and now Holland. i love a good independent film as much as the next movie enthusiast... but this, in a word, isn't funny. see? now THAT's funny...that you're thinking that i made a mistake. i said, 'in a word' but then said, 'isn't funny'... nope. no mistake. if this is your type of humor, i'd say you haven't really had much of a life... consider your appreciation of this film a symptom... and PLEASE don't EVER write another review...i have a tendency to believe them when they're unanimous. even if there only were about 3 reviews before mine...i figured i might ACtually be able to save someone ELSE the boredom...the anticipation of laughter that never materializes... i DID smile once or twice, though... when i started the movie...and when i stopped it. that should be 10 lines.

Sentiment: negative
I had the greatest enthusiasm going in to the advance screening for this movie. After all, this is one of the oldest and most complex tales known to mankind, and it was one of the first epic tales I read as a kid (even before Tolkien). I must say that IT WAS A HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT. They completely made the plot into a joke and turned the thing into one long soap opera. The elements that WERE faithful to the plot were sprinkled throughout in such a haphazard manner that the audience was laughing at many times at the silly script that just paid lip service to this battle of all battles. It was a huge disappointment to see a complex character like Achilles (who has a strange combination of nearly Matrix-like powers, utter ruthlessness and male lovers in the original poem) turn to "Fabio on the beach" in the guise of Pitt (who with a good script and more effort could have turned this into the most complex and original warrior figure Hollywood has ever produced). The actors were actually decent, trying to make the best of a ridiculous script. It was actually a waste of so much talent (Peter O'Toole stole the show, and Orlando Bloom and Sean Bean were pathetic). Compare it to LOTR or Gladiator and it doesn't even hold a candle to them. Plenty of hunks for the ladies to goggle over but not enough battle scenes for a movie that is about one long battle and siege. I wouldn't recommend that anyone pay to see this story dragged through the dirt like one of the characters was (at least they got that part right).

Sentiment: negative
This movie wasn't that bad when compared to the first two sequels to the original. It's directed by Martin Kitrosser of Friday the 13th fame. The acting is very bad indeed, but the gore and special effects help make it interesting. Thats one thing I like about Screaming Mad George (make up effects artist for the film), his effects are so off-the-wall and bizarre that they will keep you watching a bad movie just to find out how crazy they're gonna get. The movie isn't really all that gory, but there is an EXTREMELY nasty eyeball-munching scene in the middle involving a toy maggot (what!?!) Mickey Rooney makes a guest appearance that he probably wasn't too enthusiastic about but needed the money at the time, possibly? If you liked the weirdo 4th installment (my favorite of all 5), you'll probably like this one. I liked it better than the Matrix! Enjoy.

Sentiment: negative
I grew up with H.R. Pufnstuff and the dashingly talented Jack Wild and now my daughters are adoring fans of Jack Wild too. This movie is exactly what movies should be: fun and entertaining. This movie is not limited to children either. A lot of the dialogue is directed to adults and Witchiepoo's performance is something you do not want to miss. The music in this movie suited Jack Wild and Mama Cass beautifully. And as a Jack Wild fan, I would never miss the chance to watch him dance or hear him sing. Knowing the hard life that Jack had now makes this movie even more wonderful especially when he sings the opening song "If I Could". It makes me pause in loving adoration for him for giving me wonderful childhood memories that I am now passing on to my children. Let's all go to Living Island where there is friendship and fun! And keep Jack Wild's memory alive by passing Pufnstuff on to others.

Sentiment: positive
A complete and utter waster of my precious two hours. The entire movie could have been made in less than 60 seconds by simply showing people getting coked up, a car crashing, people getting more coked up, people having sex, people crying, and people getting more coked up. The tagline for this movie should have read "Come see how f*cked up our characters are! They're stoned! They're coke addicts! They're a mess! Who are these people? Do you really care? Does it matter? Just give us your money please, because we sure don't care about anything else!" An absolutely terrible movie. It never went anywhere, you never got to know the characters (they never even said what these people did to earn such a big house and so much money and cars and coke), and it was just downright boring. You might like the movie a little more if you're a stoner yourself, but for the vast majority of us that aren't, this movie is a waste of film and of time.

Sentiment: negative
A good movie for horse enthusiasts and most others. It's a horse racing movie, and it's a "little man gets his chance" movie, and it's a "how far would you go?" movie. Walter Mattau once again proves his adaptability as an actor. He fits right in as Lloyd Bourdelle, a Louisiana Cajun horse bum. This movie gives you a rare screen glimpse of Lousiana Cajun horse drag racing. He has a young quarter horse who is a top racing prospect. "had nothing but a filling station and a good horse." The Bourdelles seize the opportunity to make it big by taking the horse, Shadow, to Ruidoso, New Mexico, to get ready to run in the All-American Futurity. But how far will Lloyd go to win the fame and fortune? Also memorable from this movie are scenes of Lloyd spitting tobacco juice and waiting for his truck to start.

Sentiment: positive
I can't see the point in burying a movie like this in sulfuric sarcasm, when it is in no way intended to be anything more than a vehicle to entertain children and prepare them for the next line of merchandise to beg madly about.

 This is a fun movie. My children sat quietly through the entire thing and loved every minute of it. Granted, the villain is a bit over the top with his silly costume and maniacal laugher, but this is a lot more easier to take than the dark, gloomy, and very morbid Pokemon 3.

 My children have been watching Pokemon since it started and they are soon getting to the ages where they will "put off the childish things" and move on to others. I am glad that we got to enjoy this together.

Sentiment: positive
I had to suffer through this movie three times while I was a zombie extra in the director's new movie After Sundown. The first time that I saw this movie the director was standing next to me and a clearly fake and cheesy looking hand popped out of nowhere and grabbed one of the characters. I could not take it any more I busted out laughing right in front of the guy. The movie has no direction whatsoever and the one thing that could make this movie decent (Female Nudity) was nowhere to be found. I am a fan of low budget horror movies, but this was just too much for me. The worst part was that I had to watch it so many times. Also do not expect the new movie to be any better.

Sentiment: negative
If you read my review of SyFy's "Dinoshark", you know that I can appreciate the low-budget schlock that these made-for-television movies can provide. They're stupid...they're silly...but they're still pretty fun in a "so bad, it's good" kind of way. So, still smacking with guilt for liking (and recommending) the undeniably hokey "Dinoshark", I sat down to watch "Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy", a SyFy Original Movie about a half-man, half-hammerhead monster terrorizing people on an island. With the SyFy Channel's sure-fire recipe for creating B-movie creature features and a cast that includes William Forsythe and Hunter Tylo, how could it possibly go wrong? Well, to my surprise, it actually misses the mark...not by much, but enough to make me not recommend it. Why? Well, first of all, its titular monster, the dreaded hammerhead-human hybrid, takes a backseat to a bunch of faux-military thugs who really become the movie's primary villain. Though the hammerhead does rack up the body count, he (or it or whatever you call the thing) only arrives just before someone is going to be munched upon and leaves directly after. The rest of the movie is filler, pitting our heroes against the aforementioned soldiers. That, to me, is just not as compelling as watching a walking hammerhead eat people! 

Please Read The Full Review On My Blog: www.horrormoviejournal.blogspot.com

Sentiment: negative
It is difficult to imagine how the engaging Dan Brown novel "Angels and Demons" could misfire as badly as this film version. Here are ten reasons why the film was a failure. Due to the spoilers, please do no read on unless you have already seen the film.

(1) In the film, there was no love relationship between Robert Langdon and Vittoria Vetra. Worse still, there was not even any chemistry between the two leading actors. 

(2) The breathtaking locations in Rome, as described in the novel, were not realized visually in the film. I am aware that director Ron Howard encountered difficulties in filming on location. But there are superior photographed depictions of Rome on The History Channel than in this film where the Eternal City was presented in eternal stock film footage. The great art works described in the novel were only briefly depicted in the film. The magnificent Bernini sculpture of the "Ecstasy of St. Teresa" was only momentarily glimpsed, and the West Ponente relief in Vatican Square was not visible at all.

(3) The most tasteless choice made by the film-maker was in the depiction of the deceased pope who actually resembled the beloved John Paul II. In the novel, the pope is clearly fictional with no resemblance to any real pope.

(4) One of the most colorful (and important) characters of the novel, Maximilian Kohler, Director of CERN, was cut out of the screenplay.

(5) There were numerous instances when the lines of dialog were inaudible due to extraneous background noise.

(6) There were moments when the faces of characters were not visible due to the shadows and chiaroscuro film lighting. This technique worked in "The Godfather" films, but Ron Howard is no Gordon Willis.

(7) The College of Cardinals was quite a motley crew with one of the electors speaking in a Southern drawl. This dude would have been more at home on a Texas ranch than in the Sistine Chapel.

(8) The crucial relationship of the Camerlengo and the deceased Pope was not defined in the film. This relationship was central to the theme of science vs. religion and the relevance of the Illuminati to the plot against the church.

(9) In the novel, the character of Hassassin was an unforgettable villain. In the film, that assassin character's role was a cardboard cutout villain. 

(10) As a whole, the filmmakers did not trust the workings of the successful novel.

In the novel, Langdon makes an impossible fall out of the sky and into the Tiber River. In Ron Howard's film, it was the movie itself that landed in the Tiber.

Sentiment: negative
This film is just as bad as "The Birdman of Alcatraz". I do not refer to the acting but rather the premise of both films, which try to portray psychopathic criminals as heroic figures. Moreover it disturbs me when well respected, revered actors like Alan Alda (and Burt Lancaster) play such roles, because their status tends to lend credibility to the director's intent to elevate the film's subject, a societal outcast.

I was in junior high school during the last years of Caryl Chessman's life and his death penalty appeals and books were very much in the news. I remember the groundswell of opinion that the death penalty was wrong and Chessman was the victim.

Get a grip people. Read the history. Chessman was a criminal and sexual predator. He drove around the LA streets at night with a stolen police light in his vehicle. He stopped cars with attractive women inside under the ruse of making a traffic arrest; then abducted and raped the women. Rape is the worst trauma a woman can experience and many victims say they would prefer death to its horror and humiliation.

Chessman got exactly what he deserved, it just took a decade too long. No sympathy for the devil here.

Sentiment: negative
***THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILER(S)*** 

I'm not a big fan of Chuck Norris as an actor, but I worship him in all other ways. He also have his own fan web site with "Chuck Norris facts" that is really entertaining. But this movie looks like someone was joking with the audience putting all those "facts" into one movie. I really don't remember when I wasted my time more than with this "action". I don't know what's the worst this movie can offer you: unoriginal and thousand-times-made plot of terrorists who are trying to nuke US by smuggling nuke on US soil or perhaps that "great" dialogs and Chucks words of wisdom about life and everything else. Someone may find the worst that terrorists actually speak English in everyday life. It's a never ending list of crap. Not to mention huge amount of archive footage used in film, that is kinda annoying. The chief terrorist send his comrades message through the media when he is captured and the only guy smart enough to see the treat is: Chuck Norris, of course. NO ONE else in America is not smart enough to see that! And the whole action in capturing chief is just ridiculous. One man is sent to walk through a whole terrorist camp UNARMED (I'm lying, he had a KNIFE), escapes his stalkers with JET PACK and then para glides for few hundred, maybe even thousand kilometers to nearest shore (Afganistan border is 450 km far away from nearest shore), where he is rescued by submarine. I hoped that at least fighting scenes will be good, but that's even more funny than the plot. If you didn't know, 85% of terrorist are masters of some martial art, but Chuck and CO beat the sh*t out of them. Not only they kill them easily, they can kick and throw them away by a single move and the bad guys fly few meters like dolls. You may ask me did I watch this movie to the end? I did. Why? Because I just wanted to see who, of these two super heroes, will defuse the nuclear bomb of few hundred megatons and size of a MICROWAVE. And then I realized what fool I am. Of course, it's Chuck's movie after all. And not only he singlehandedly defuse nuke with tweezers, but he do it - TWICE!! I could write a book about all the stupid things in this movie, but I would spend my life spawn.

So, makers of this movie made another Chuck Norris fact to be added on his web site: Can Chuck Norris defuse nuclear bomb? Yes and he can do it twice!

Sentiment: negative
I was so impressed with Doug McGrath's film version of the Jane Austen novel "Emma," and I loved the music score by Rachel Portman so much, that when I went to the video store one day and discovered the two had re-united for "Nicholas Nickleby" I immediately rented it without any other consideration.

I have read the book, and for those overly-critical fans of this Jane Austen adaptation, I don't know what else McGrath could have done to more perfectly capture the spirit and major plot elements of Miss Austen's work, especially given the limitations of a two hour movie (which some have complained about being too long!). And as far as Gwen Paltrow's accent is concerned, I must confess I wasn't too familiar with her when I saw this at the theater initially, and I was absolutely convinced at the time that she was an English actress!

I am taken aback by those who criticized the film for its lush scenery. That is one of the things I enjoy and look forward to seeing in period pieces set in the English countryside. The film's beautiful backgrounds are a major contributor to its appeal and success. If your idea of escapist fare is something bleaker, then perhaps you should rent something like "Death Wish III!"

The English country settings are as attractive and charming as the cast, and combine with the story and soundtrack for entertainment that makes you not tire of repeat viewings. McGrath is a wonder at choreographing the interplay of subtle expressions that are so essential in conveying the complicated romantic intrigue that occurs in this story.

This refreshing movie could also be a clinic on how enjoyable a film can be minus sex, violence or even a villainous antagonist. The story is often amusing, endearing, and at times, quite touching.

I have seen many competent Jane Austen book adaptations but this is without question my favorite.

Sentiment: positive
A bit of Trivia b/c I can't figure out how to submit Trivia: In the backdrop of this performance, one of the images is

George Serat's "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" painting (seen best in chapter 18), this painting is the subject of a Sonheim musical Sunday in the Park with George.

A bit of Trivia b/c I can't figure out how to submit Trivia: In the backdrop of this performance, one of the images is

George Serat's "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" painting (seen best in chapter 18), this painting is the subject of a Sonheim musical Sunday in the Park with George.

Sentiment: positive
This review has been written by someone who has read it (several times) and knows what they are talking about!. Firstly I have read others comments and noticed that some of the objections were really quite stupid. People who have read the book and other Jane Austens or for that matter any good book, will know that sticking to the book is vital you have to trust an author with what they do. If the viewer does not like it BECAUSE it sticks to the book well it shows they do not understand Jane Austen and obviously are not a true fan.

Firstly if the viewer truly loved the book or Jane Austen in general, watching it for four hours should not prove difficult. Secondly, their society did care a lot for looks and so big, fancy hair styles would show off how rich you were, which in their day was a key factor for getting along in "good" society. I have to confess the female costumes were not brilliant but there were only a few bad ones and the males made up for it, also this prejudice for the Naval men not in their uniform is in nice words very silly!, today people do not go out with their uniform away from school or work because they have casual clothes and it was just the same in the 19th century. Also as it goes the acting is very good, it is subtle because that is how Jayne Austen writes! and the scene at the end is beautiful. You can not compare the filming to that of the 1995 version as technology has improved so much since them it is ridiculous to compare them in that. The actress who plays Ann is too old but her air of acting and how she does it makes up for it.

People seem to prefer the 1995 version for some reason that I can not comprehend!. It does not stick to the book at all and so is flat, the ending is sentimental, they change major scenes, the only good actors are the leads and they I give you did a good job for what was given to them. Obviously the people who really, really like it are (I am sorry) stupid as they do not understand Persuasion and so need it to be overdone. The 1971 version is beautiful, romantic, was written by an excellent script writer (same who did Inspector Morse), had very good actors and really it is a film you can watch many times and during each you can be delighted with it.

Sentiment: positive
A fine ironic visual gag takes place in front of the spectacular backdrop of a twirling windmill. But who are those people who rush across screen at the end: customers? relatives? One of the earliest enigmas in cinematic history perhaps. Well worth a minute of your time.

Sentiment: positive
On June 22nd, 1941, the city of Przemysl, Poland is divided between German and Russian. When the German invades the city, the Nazis send the Jews to a ghetto. The young Catholic Fusia Podgorska (Kellie Martin), alone with her young sister, lodges and hides many Jews in the attic of her house along two and half years until the end of the war. "Hidden in Silence" is another good story of human sympathy in World War II. This film looks like "Rescuers: Stories of Courage", and is also based on a true story. Unfortunately, the actress Kellie Martin performs a strong and powerful lead character, but she is very weak for such a role. In many dramatic situations, the expression of her face is not convincing. I have noted that many IMDb Users liked her performance, but I am not sure whether they like her wonderful character or her performance indeed. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Ocultos no Medo" ("Hidden in Fear")

Sentiment: positive
Full House is one of the worst TV series ever! Why?Because all the characters are so irritating that it's impossible to bear.The best character is Joey an even he is pretty irritating occasionally.An that girl DJ,who wrote her character?I want to kill my self every time she speaks.Not to mention when Danny start's with his philosophy.

Example: DJ won around ten thousand dollars or more in the casino.However,she's not eighteen so she shouldn't gamble according to law.However the casino was ready to pay her the money but then Danny,her father cought's her and don't let's her raise that money because she is not eighteen.Oh come on,give me a break,will ya?Since i've seen that stupid and childish scene i instantly turned off the television.Some of the thing's they say in this series not even a child would bought.Who in the world could think that Full House is entertaining and funny?Every single word they say in this series seem's like Shakespeare wrote it.Except that Shakespere knew how to write and except that he wouldn't be that childish and stupid to write something as stupid as they wrote in the script for the Full House! 

For everyone who has a bad heart or any kind of bad medical condition or any will for life or any sense of the real world,i deeply recommend 'Do not watch the Full House'!Not even one episode as a try out.Avoid this series.Save your self from stupidity and nonsense.This is the worst television show ever!I'd rather watch Teletubbies then this.'Do not watch this'.

Sentiment: negative
Bedrooms and Hallways gives its audience a look into the mind of a man who thinks he's found himself, only to find out that he's not so sure he found the right guy. If you think that all gay comedies are the same, check this one out. Although the movie ends without much resolution, the hilarious one-liners, peculiar situations, and quirky characters are sure to satisfy.

Sentiment: positive
Another great movie by Costa-Gavras. It's a great presentation of the situation is Latin America and the US involvement in Latin American politics. The facts might or might not be accurate but it is a fact that the US was deeply involved in coups and support of Latin American dictatorships.

Despite this though the spirit of the movie follows the typical leftist/communist propaganda of the Cold War era. Costa-Gavras is a well-known communist sympathizer and his movies are always biased. For example he presents the US actions as brutal and inhumane, while representing Tupamaros' extremist activities as something positive.

As it turned out it was a blessing for Uruguay and the rest of the Latin America that the US got involved. Europe is filled with poor East European prostitutes. I never heard of poor Uruguayan or Chilean girls prostituting themselves en masse as it happens in most East European countries. The US was fighting a dirty war and god bless us all the monster of Soviet Communism was defeated. It is unfortunate the US had to do what it did in Latin America (and elsewhere) but sometimes you need to play dirty. This is not an idealistic world as Costa-Gavras and Matamoros like to believe. Had Matamoros come to power in Uruguay, we would've had another Ukraine in Latin America.

All in all this movie follows corrupt and bankrupt leftist ideology of times past and tries to pass it as idealistic and morally correct.

Sentiment: negative
I was pleasantly surprised to find that How to Lose Friends and Alienate People was nowhere near as 'gross-out' a comedy as the trailer had led me to expect. I rapidly became absorbed in the unfolding of the narrative and remained engrossed throughout. Pacing of the more visual humorous content was, I thought, spot on. (I mean I got the impression I was witnessing Pegg's attempts at restoring lost control very much 'in real time', so to speak.) At other moments there was time allowed to share the main protagonists' (i.e. Pegg's and Dunst's) reflection on how events were affecting them and what had led them to where they now found themselves. All the characters were well cast, to some extent interesting in and of themselves, and generally quite likable. (Any apparent ruthless ambition displayed tended to be tempered by a corresponding good natured resilience.) An entertaining, intelligently scripted, brilliantly directed and superbly acted film that I would thoroughly recommend.

Sentiment: positive
The movie has very much the feel of a play right from the start - I think it would make a better play than a movie because the set and dramatization make a movie version seem a bit too artificial. But, still, it's carried out fairly well, and the story & especially the dialogue are interesting. They've taken the dialogue pretty much exactly as is from the actual play. Perhaps it's a good introduction to Shaw's plays.

The main character Raina has her head in the clouds & and a flair for the dramatic, and Helena Bonham Carter's acting does a good job here. Her fiancé, Serges, is a bit too cartoonish when he is really supposed to be an extremely handsome dashing figure. Her parents are entertaining enough.

Sentiment: positive
For any wrestling fan, this is the wrestlemania to forget. No logic to the matches, some garbage gimmicks (doink the clown, and the Giant Gonzalez) this was a forgettable PPV something rare for the WWE(F). The logic of Hogan winning the world title at the end made no sense, and many people feel that alone help put the nail in the PPV. From the meaningless gimmicks of the roman soldiers, to simply some real bad wrestling (doink vs Crush being the worst match) to simply bad match making (Scott "Razor Ramon vs Bob Backlund, how can you have one of the greatest mat wrestlers, making a comeback, and working his first wrestlemania, face a power wrestler who was undefeated at the time), this is a PPV that even the WWE has since admitted, was way below what the expected. just all around a stinker

Sentiment: negative
I didn't have very high expectations about Just Before Dawn. I don't know why I keep buying these slasher movies when I know it's all the same every time. Maybe I'm a bit masochistic? Anyway, I'm glad I bought this one. Yes, it's all the same. No, it has nothing original. Yes, it's about a little group of teenagers going in the woods to camp, drink and have sex. Yes, they get killed one by one by a maniac. And you know what? It's just magic! It's one of the best experiences I had watching a slasher movie. The places where it's shot are so wonderful. You see mountains, waterfalls, rockies. It's just amazing. It takes a very long time (except for the opening scene) before the killer starts killing, but I didn't care! It was enjoyable to watch enough not to care. What I mean is, you won't be sitting there waiting for the murders to start because every thing that happens is enjoyable because of the beauty of the film itself. The ending is a bit weird, but I won't tell you anything more about it. You'll know what I mean. Another thing I enjoyed: you care about the characters. They're not just a bunch of jerks who spend their time bitching each other. Sure, they are pure stereotypes of usual slasher characters but, there's something special about them. Anyway, it's a great horror movie and I hope you have a pretty good time watching it because I really did!

Sentiment: positive
This movie awed me so much that I watch it at least once a year. At times I find it uncomfortable. At times I find it empowering. And I always find the characters human and real. It is a movie that shows you the gritty reality of life in LA, starting with the recurring helicopter search lights scanning for the dangers lurking so close to the ordinary lives being carried on by the characters. It is also a movie that shows you how the kindness of a stranger can change your life and empower you to make a difference. Grand Canyon reminds you that every action you take, whether intended or not, has powerful repercussions. I found this movie to be similar in many ways to Robert Altman's film Short Cuts. Both had a star-studded roster of perfectly cast actors & actresses and both movies allowed you to gradually see how the the characters interrelated with one another and affected each other, for better or worse. Grand Canyon did a better job of providing a cohesive message, (hope in the face of despairing reality), than Altman's film, although I found them both intriguing in their own way. This film is a definite must see!!!

Sentiment: positive
Cliff Robertson as a scheming husband married to a rich wife delivers a razzie-worthy performance here if there ever was one; it's as if director Michael Anderson kept yelling "dial it down; think zombie, only less lively" through his little bullhorn as he coached Robertson's effort. The rest of the cast is barely better; Jennifer Agutter of LOGAN'S RUN fame is hardly seen in what should have been fleshed out as a pivotal role. If the quality of the acting was three times better; if some of the more gaping plot holes were filled; and if the pacing were given a shot of adrenaline, then this yawner might be brought up to a standard acceptable to the Hallmark\Lifetime TV channel crowd. As is, its rating is so inexplicably high one can't help thinking chronic insomniacs are using DOMINIQUE to catch a little snoozing time. Perhaps the late-night TV telemarketers are missing a major opportunity in not shilling it as such.

Sentiment: negative
During filming, was Vanessa Redgrave taking mogadon? It was like she was reading from an autocue. I've seen more life in a wooden spoon. Or perhaps that was all part of the character? whatever, it was very very annoying, I kept wanting to shake the screen to hurry her up. I read the book a long time ago & didn't like much about it except that Septimus's descent into madness was very well done - but I don't think Rupert Graves showed this very well, his acting was all on the surface. The connection between his life and Clarissa's is not very well done either but I suspect the attempt is to show the sacrifice soldiers made to enable people like Clarissa to continue their vapid lives. The film is very bitty and has no real unity to it. Hated it.

Sentiment: negative
Shame really - very rarely do I watch a film and am left feeling disappointed at the end. I've seen quite a few of Ira Levin's adaptations - 'Rosemary's Baby' and 'The Stepford Wives' - and liked both them, but this just didn't appeal to me.

When I read the plot outline - an award winning playwright (Michael Caine) decides to murder one of his former pupils (Christopher Reeve) and steel his script for his own success - I was excited. I like thrillers, Michael Caine's a good actor, Sidney Lumet's a good director and Ira Levin's work is generally good.

I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, but all I'd say is there are LOADS of twists and turns. So many its kind of hard to explain the film's plot line in detail, without giving it away. I enjoyed the first ... 45 minutes, before the twists and turns began to occur and at that point my interest and enjoyment began to fade out. Though I have to give Lumet credit for the very amusing ending which did make me laugh out loud.

The main cast - Michael Caine, Christopher Reeve, Dyan Cannon and Irene Worth - were all brilliant in their roles. Though Worth's obvious fake Russian accent got on my nerves slightly (nothing personal Irene, I think any actor's fake accent would irritate me). Not sure if Cannon's character was meant to be annoyingly funny but Dyan managed to annoy and amuse - at the same time.

Anyone reading this - I don't want you to be put-off watching this because of my views - give it a chance, you may like it, you may not. It's all about opinion.

Sentiment: negative
A delightfully unpretentious send up of Romeo and Juliet. Approach with no expectations other than having a good time and you will enjoy this one. A talented group of comic actors let go and have a riot in this light-hearted performers' vehicle. Bad reviews were due to a snobbishness about treatments of Shakespeare. Some people feel that all film must be "important" ---If you share those views, don't bother. The credits read "introducing" Angelina Jolie, which is not even close to being true, but she is astoundingly beautiful as the Juliet character, and, as always, her acting is wonderful--- and, considering her age at the time, even her dialect is pretty good. Recreating this classic tale with feuding Italian families in the catering business in New York results in great fun. See it in the right frame of mind and you will laugh out loud.

Sentiment: positive
A great animation movie that really gets up to the level of oldies like "The Lion King" . 

I went to see this with one of my best Belgian friends who also watched the series on TV . I was lucky because I didn't know people in Belgium were aware of "Wallace and Gromit" . 

When it started and that good old theme started it started to bring back memories of me watching it when I was 5 .

The humor itself was very funny . Some nice sitcom style scenes , some wordplay or just plain jokes . The animation isn't as impressive if you have know the series but it is still fun to watch is you realize how it gets done. 

My Conclusion : Not only can it keep my happy and entertained , some of the humor can easily appeal to older people so I say : Go and watch "Curse of The Were-Rabbit" as soon as you can .

Sentiment: positive