DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
How do I describe the horrors?!!! First, some points: First, this review should be taken with a grain of salt -- I saw this over 20 years ago, when I was a boy, at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.

Secondly, I am giving away some scenes and plot points. However, it does not have much of a plot.

Finally, I don't enjoy these type of art films anyway.

This film was directed by proto-auteur Luis Bunuel. He was a surrealist and dadaist. These were modernist themes or movements popular critically in the 1920's and early 1930's. Surealism was the school of art that made things hyper-real, yet often had Freudian symbolism. Dadaism is based on what is supposedly the first word made by an infant -- Dada, or father.

Made in black and white, it was also made by a band of communists (or as they preferred the term, socialists). Bunuel and his group of fellow film-makers and artistes had been working on a number of symbolic ideas and issues in Spain and France between the world wars.

Dadaism and surrealism influenced a lot of artists -- The Police (Doo doo doo da), poet Arthur Rambaud, Edvard Munch (The Scream), Rene Magritte (floating hats in space), Salvador Dali (melting clocks), and even Hitchcock (Psycho). No Norman Rockwell.

Here's what I recall most about this film: a girl meets up with a cow; her eye gets slashed by a razor; clownish men cavort in a meadow. There is not, as I said, much of a plot, but then again, that must be the point.

This was attacked as porn back then, and would be again today. One of the trade-marks of surrealism is a significant anti-feminism.

Sentiment: negative
This film is absolutely awful, but nevertheless, it can be hilarious at times, although this humor is entirely unintentional.

The plot was beyond ridiculous. I don't even think a 2 year-old would be convinced by the ludicrous idiocy that the film-makers tried to slap together into a story. However, on the positive side, some of the horrifically inane plot twists provide a great deal of humor. For example, "Wow, Lady Hogbottom has a giant missile hidden in her back yard!" It gets worse (and even funnier), but I'll spare you.

The acting is generally laughable. Most of the kids' roles are sort of cute, but not very believable. On the other hand, Annie is pretty awful all-around. The adults don't take their roles seriously at all, but this is largely a good thing. If they'd tried to be believable, the film would've been even worse. Which is difficult to imagine.

Once you get past the overall crappiness of the movie, there are actually a few standout moments of almost-not-crappiness. The scene where Lady Hogbottom's son runs away with the maid is surprisingly hilarious, though it's an annoying letdown when they get caught by the police. The butler character, while very minor, is a ray of sunlight that almost, but never quite pierces through the gloom.

Watching this movie actually caused me physical pain. Nevertheless, there were a few redeeming parts that made it almost watchable without beginning to hemorrhage internally. Judged on its good parts alone, the movie would be about a 5; unfortunately, the rest of the movie hardly deserves a 1. Thus, I give it a 3.

That's being pretty generous, I'd say.

Sentiment: negative
****SPOILERS**** The film "Sniper" is undoubtedly based on the exploits of legendary US Marine sniper Carlos "Gunny" Hathcock. The unassuming soft-spoken Mister Rogers look-alike who ran up a score of as much as 300 confirmed and unconfirmed Vietcong and North Vietnamese military kills during his two tours in "Nam".Which shows just how deadly and effective a trained military sniper really is.

Tom Berenger is cool clam and deadly as Sgt.Thomas Beckett who's at the end of his career as a top US Marine sniper but who later in the movie realizes that a life as a civilian will be pointless. Since there's nothing outside for him to do with his skills that he learned in the US Marines unless he decides to become a mob hit-man. Backett reluctantly accepts his fate as a lifetime professional killer for his country.

The story of the film "Sniper" is focused on Sgt.Beckett with the assistance of former sharp shooting silver medalist and US government agent Richard Miller, Billy Zane, being sent deep inside the Panamanian jungle. The two snipers are to take out rebel General Miguel Alveraze, Frederick Miraglittoa, and Colombian drug king-pin Raul Ochoa, Carlos Alveraze, who's supporting him in a planned a military take-over of the country. 

We see earlier in the movie Sgt. Beckett scope and take out a rebel leader which I feel was the best scene in "Sniper". For it shows step by step how Sgt. Beckett with the help of his spotter Cpt. Papich, Aden Young, does his job. There's also a sub-plot that was later aborted in the movie about a rebel sniper DeSilva, Eward Wiley, who was stalking Beckett and who later killed Papich as they were both waiting to be lifted out of the jungle by a military helicopter. You would have thought that a deadly cat and mouse was being played out between the two that would culminate when the movie ended but Sgt. Beckett had no trouble at all in dispatching DeSilva early in the film by using an unsuspecting Miller as bait.

What hurt the movie the most was ironically the last fifteen or so minutes when the story went from a one shot one kill sniper movie to a Rambo-like ending with Sgt. Beckett and Agent Miller fighting off an entire battalion of rebels with bullets flying as thick as a London fog.

"Sniper" is still well worth watching for the fact that it tells the story about a person who until now has not really been glamorized in war movies: A solitary killer who kills with the precision and skill of a master diamond cutter or accomplished neurosurgeon and who does it in total secrecy.

Sentiment: positive
11:11 a.k.a. Hell's Gate (2004) is another bad horror movie that tries too hard to be something it's not. A young girl has an imaginary play mate. One day whilst out in the fields playing with her friends, a couple of fugitives visit her parents and whack them off for no apparent reason. The young girl runs off and hides from the bad men. Years later, the girl grows up into a woman with problems. Losers at her school (looking like repressed homosexuals) flaunt their manhood in front of her when she rejected one of them. The girls hate her and life in general is miserable for her. A secret from her past returns to visit her. Who or what is it? Why does everyone hate her? What's her Guardian's problem with her? To find out you'll have to watch Hell's Gate.

The new title makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I don't know why people are given money to make such bad movies. This film is not even good enough to make fun of. It's a head ache inducing mess that'l confuse anyone who tries to make some sense out of it. Not worth your time.

Not recommended.

Sentiment: negative
I usually like period films but this one just seemed to drag and drag. I'd perk up during Rupert Graves' scenes, but Vanessa Redgrave just put me to sleep.

I was disappointed in the film. It lacked a little "punch" at the end that I'd hoped it would have.

Sentiment: negative
The summary line is some men's wet dream for the ideal woman ... ;o) Seriously though, back to the movie, which has classic cinema written all over it (pun intended and quite literally shown in the picture, too as you'll see)! 

How could someone make a silent movie in this year and age? It's not completely silent for once (take the music for instance). With great cinematography is the answer. And it's no wonder that it did win prizes (as another user stated) in this area! But it's also sometimes it's downfall. Although the pictures are great, it sometimes delves too much in them instead of moving forward (plot and time wise). If you can cope with that, than you'll enjoy it even more than me. I haven't told you anything about the story, but I'll never do that, because I don't want to spoiler anything for you ...

Sentiment: positive
I saw this mini-series when I was in high school. I remember it as being absolutely brilliant and compelling. At the time, I knew none of the British actors in the series, but have since learned that some of today's stars performed in it, including Sean Connery (the original James Bond among many other roles), Judi Dench (Queen Elizabeth in "Shakespeare in Love" among many other roles) and Eilene Atkins (probably best known for creating "Upstairs/Downstairs" but also superb in many acting roles). Like the other commentator, I would like to see it again. I'm certain the production remains timeless, and I would hope that it has been or will be released on VHS or DVD. If you get a chance to see it, do not miss it.

Sentiment: positive
Lubitsch's last production but not his least interesting film. Somehow largely ignored by critics as he couldn't finish it himself and as the movie wasn't co-signed by Preminger who he did most of the staging... A very strange mix of musical (a remembrance of The Merry Widow ?)and classic Lubitsch touch sentimentalism (an impossible love-story like Cluny Brown)yet a very clever and intelligent one yet not to be understood as some nostalgia of some lost world but rather a testament on eternal feelings prevailing on the foolishness of mankind and especially men in times of war with a "moral" lesson still true today as it was in 1948. Billy wilder as an answer to Preminger who grieved at Lubitsch's funerals about having lost a great man replied that we still had his films and that sums it all up about that Lady in Ermine...

Sentiment: positive
I just watched Atoll K-Laurel and Hardy's last movie together and known here in the states as Utopia-on Internet Archive expecting to see some extra footage since the IA version had a running time of 2 hours and 21 minutes. Turns out that it's basically the same version I previously watched on the bargain basement VHS tape from Goodtimes Home Video that ran an hour and 23 minutes (with the exception of no product placement of the Welch's Grape Juice label being inserted when a bottle was shown) with the rest of the running time devoted to dark blank space. While Stan does look like he might be dying anytime soon, he still performs fine physical comedy with Ollie during much of the first 45 minutes or so. Then the plot of taking a yacht with a stowaway and a man with no country aboard-not to mention a charming female French singer also coming to inhabit an uncharted island they all end up on-takes over with eventual complications that pretty much bogs the comedy down and never really recovers despite the familiar ending of Ollie saying for the last time to Stan, "Here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!" before Stan cries uncontrollably before the fade out. In other words, if you're a die-hard Laurel and Hardy fan, this movie is recommended for you to see at least once. Anyone else wanting to get familiar with this classic comedy team should seek their earlier work they did for Hal Roach from the '20s up through 1940 when they completed their final Roach film, Saps at Sea. Come to think of it, even some of the L & H Fox flicks (have yet to see the two they made for M-G-M) from the '40s are better than this one...Update-8/29/09: Just watched some missing scenes that appeared in the Italian version on YouTube. Cherie sings in one and has a conversation with the Captain. In another, that Captain's wife pulls a gun on Cherie. In one more, Giovanni explains why he left his country with a flashback scene. Stan is dubbed in high pitch here!

Sentiment: negative
This is easily one of the worst movies i have ever seen. There is so much at the house that goes wrong that would not happen it isn't even funny. Granted this is a movie meaning things that won't happen in normal life happen here, however this movie is more far fetched than theories that no child left behind is working. All of these people are in the house and nobody has noticed another, not to mention the damn owl that seems to be coming everywhere but in its cage. I could deal with an owl joke the first few times, but after an hour i just can't take it, i would rather kill myself than see that damn owl again. Did i laugh during this movie? no. Not even once? no. Horrible, Horrible, Horrible. The fact that this pile of garbage is capped off with Ashton Kutcher bending his boss over and taking his pants off in front of everybody just makes this movie ever worse. But wait, the day is saved because the damn owl can fly. WOW AMAZING! However, i do give this movie some cred, its not as bad as Epic Movie.....

Sentiment: negative
Don't even waste your time, let alone pay rental for this piece of dreck! How it got made is beyond me. (I don't know why there's a minimum of 10 lines... I've already summarized this trashy movie, but, oh well...) The acting was awful, like they all needed lessons. The plot was weak, the ending... Feh! I think the cinematography was the only thing that didn't totally suck... well, maybe the sound was minimalistically OK. The one good thing is, if they could make this movie, even make some money with it, there may be hope for any screenwriter with a REAL idea. So, you-all take heart! I guess the same holds true of actors... if these people actually got paid, then you can, too!

Sentiment: negative
I am astounded at the positive reviews for this thoroughly uninspiring film.

Often with foreign films I skip over reviews that complain about slow pace and seeming "absence of action" as many of the best international films do not live up to the Western Hollywood model of cinematic storytelling.

I enjoy the frequent artfulness and lack of cliché in the foreign film arena. I enjoy that many foreign films don't tie things up in a neat palatable little bow.

That said, this particular film offered no redemptive value for the time I wasted watching it. No meaningful character development, no engaging story arc, no way to get emotionally involved with any of the characters on screen. 

Synopsis: A bunch of emotionally immature uptight prejudiced colonials mistreat their slaves, and a little girl gets hurt by her only friend when the "house-boy" finally gets fed up and takes his abuse out on her. 

While the above paragraph is poignant and dramatic, this movie will bore you while playing out the scenario. I was so unengaged that it took three sittings to finish it, and I wouldn't have even done that were it not for the positive ratings. 

Unless you have an academic interest in the period I strongly suggest steering clear of this one.

Sentiment: negative
At the time I am writing this I see out of over 15,000 votes it has a 5.8 rating. Something is wrong with that picture. Personally I give it a 10. I can see a 7 at the lowest or a possible 8 if it was rated by people that see this movie for what it truly is. It is a movie based on a comic book hero. This movie won more than it's share of awards. Won 3 Oscars. Another 5 wins & 26 nominations .... right there tells me it's better than a 5.8. Some great acting from some very good actors, some great special effects and in my opinion will be if not already a classic for years to come. If you're looking for pure entertainment be sure to check out Dick Tracy. Definitely a movie you can watch more than a few times. Al Pacino is great as Big Boy Caprice.

Sentiment: positive
I rented this TV movie version of 'Troilus and Cressida' out of my library last thursday, and simply could not believe my eyes. Where should I begin? no effort was made to make the play look remotely like it was about the Trojan war, all the actors were wearing Elizabethan dress. Moreover, most of the actors were too old and horribly miscast - Aeneas (with his white beard) looked older than Nestor, Troilus was at least 30, Hector looked like a Spanish pirate, Ajax was badly played anyway and Thersites was a transvestite.

Likewise the action is poor, the duel between Ajax and Hector is short and amateurish, the camera angle focuses more on Nestor's face, so we can only see what is going on in the background which is frustrating in itself. Nor is the 'battle' at the end given it's due respect. We do not see Troilus and Diomedes fight, nor anyone else for that matter, Paris and Menelaus just seem to mud wrestle in front of Thersites. Even Patroclus death was omitted. All this was a major disappointment considering I waded through a very dull 2 and a half hours of BBC costume drama to get to that point.

Nonetheless, it wasn't all bad. I thought the Incredible Orlando as Thersites and John Shrapnel as Hector were well played, even if they didn't look quite right. I'd say the same about Kenneth Haigh as Achilles, since he didn't have the striking countenance and was a bit dry at times. SPOILER: The climax at the end - the death of Hector - was perhaps the best part of the film, Achilles' dialogue here is excellent and sums up the attitude of a cold, seasoned murderer. However, the gruesomeness of the scene (when Achilles stamps on what was Hector's head)sets it apart anyway.

Charles Gray as Pandarus was delightful as a sleazy old pervert and I thought the actress playing Cressida did an OK job. The war-mongering Troilus, however, was annoying and I think that the play would have been better perhaps if he had been murdered by Achilles instead of a peacenik like Hector.

Conclusion? OK, but could have been better if it had had a younger cast and costumes that at least attempted to look Ancient Grecian, not to mention the lack of action. 5/10

Sentiment: negative
2001 is one of those movies where, if you don't like it, you are told that you don't 'get it' and need to look at the deeper meaning and symbolism. You're told that you clearly have a slow attention span, and just want to see sex, explosions, and have the plot handed to you on a platter.

Let's break down the movie shall we? Three minutes of blackness, with something that sounds like a dying hippo in the background. Then we get the opening credits. A minute of fascinating shots of the Savannah. Then a bunch of monkeys find a black rock and start killing things with bones. Cut to the first of many 20-minute shots of ships doing things while the 'Blue Danube' plays in the background. A bunch of pointless dialogue, and a group of moon scientists find another monolith.

Cut to a spaceship that's too long for the crew complement--three sleeping people, two people named Dave and Frank, who have only slightly more personality than the stiffs in hibernation. And then there's HAL, the 'perfect' supercomputer who runs the ship. Predictably, he snaps and starts breaking the First Law of Robotics. Now this is something that has potential. An evil, coldly ruthless super-mind who controls the surrounding environment and can predict your every move. And what does he do? He lets one guy float into space and turns off the hibernation machines so the three sleeping guys die, leaving Dave floating in a pod. He simply uses the airlock, puts on a spacesuit, and turns HAL off--agonizingly slowly. Then, apparently, there's some psychedelic 'evolution' at Jupiter.

Here's the movie with the pauses taken out: Apes see monolith, kill things. Scientists find moon monolith. HAL kills people. HAL dies; Dave gets a prerecorded message, and evolves at Jupiter.

This is not me 'not getting it.' This is me being bored to tears by long stretches of absolutely nothing. Sure, it's realistic, but I find I have no reason to care. No matter the message, no movie can be good without being entertaining. Frankly, every character could be replaced with Keanu Reeves, and nothing would change.

Sentiment: negative
By my "Kool-Aid drinkers" remark, I mean that these are such devoted fans of the man Pavarotti that they make no attempt to objectively rate this film. Giving this a 10 is akin to giving Wally Cox the award for Mr. Universe or putting a velvet Elvis painting in the Louvre!!! When this film debuted, I remember the savage reviews with headlines such as "No, Giorgio" and some said it was among the worst films ever made. This is definitely overstating it as well. While bad and far from a great work of art, there was a lot to like about the film and the movie's biggest deficit was not the acting of Pavarotti nor his girth.

Believe it or not, the brunt of the blame rests solely on the shoulders of the writers (who, I believe, were chimps). It is rare to see a movie with such clichéd dialog or goofy scenes like the food fight, but even they aren't the heart of the problem. The problem is that the writers intend for the audience to care about a "romance" that consists of a horny married middle-aged man and a seemingly desperate lady. Perhaps European audiences might be more forgiving of this, but in the United States in 1982 or today, such a romance seems sleazy and selfish--especially when Pavarotti tells Harrold that he loves his wife and "this is just fun". Wow, talk about romantic dialog!! Sadly, if they had just changed the script a little bit and made Pavarotti a widower or perhaps had his wife be like the wife from a couple classic Hollywood films, such as from ALL THIS AND HEAVEN, TOO or THE SUSPECT (where the wife was so vile and unlikable you could forgive the husband having an affair or even killing her). Instead, she's the loving mother of two kids who waits patiently at home while her egotistical hubby beds tarts right and left--as Pavarotti admits to having had many affairs before meeting Harrold.

Sadly, even the gorgeous music of Pavarotti couldn't save this film. Towards the end of the film, there are some amazing scenes in New York where the set is just incredible and Pavarotti's singing transcendent. For that reason, I think the movie at least deserves a 3. I really wanted to like the film more, but it was a truly bad film--though not quite as rotten as you might have heard.

Sadly, from what I have read, this film might be a case of art imitating life, as Pavarotti's own life later had some parallels to this film, though this isn't exactly the forum to discuss this in detail.

Sentiment: negative
Over the past year, Uwe Boll has shown marginal improvement as a filmmaker, cranking out the competent "In the Name of the King" (a "Lord of the Rings" clone) and the proudly vulgar, post-9/11 satire "Postal." But then came "Seed," and the counter was reset to Zero, keeping his bid for legitimacy and respect that much further out of reach. And I'm a fan of the guyhis films exhibit a uniquely screwball vision, and are never dull.

Spawned from his frustration over the savage notices his early films received, "Seed" is a colossally misguided attempt at social commentary, and an even worse jab at creating an iconic slasher mythology (Boll often seems to be taking a page from Rob Zombie's successful reboot of "Halloween"). The antagonist is Maxwell Seed (Will Sanderson), a mute, hulking brute who's slain 666 people and sits on death row, awaiting execution; after unsuccessfully frying the beast, he rises from the grave to seek revenge on those who put him there...and so begins a string of wholly gratuitous mayhem.

Trying to create a new-millennium slasher in the vein of Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees, Max Seed is too nondescript and boring to leave an impression, ultimately resembling a washed-up pro wrestler doing "The Toolbox Murders" on a succession of equally boring victims. Furthermore, Seed's character and Boll's "message" run contrary to one another: the death penalty is wrong, sure, but are we really expected to sympathize with a soulless killer who's left a couple hundred corpses in his wake? I think not.

Meanwhile, Michael Pare acts like a listless, long-lost brother to James Remar's character on "Dexter": a cop who sits at his desk a lot, thumbing through newspaper clippings, and watching pointless stop-motion scenes of decomposing animals and people trapped in Seed's lair. By the time he and a bunch of cardboard cops storm Seed's hideout, the sequence is so drawn-out, ill-conceived (the lighting is almost non-existent), and unexciting (despite a healthy dose of gore) that it almost put me to sleep.

The shoddy film-making isn't limited to just that sequence: "Seed" appears to have been shot by a drunken cinematographer, since the camera bobs and weaves endlessly, a technique that's more stomach-turning than the gore itself; these protracted takes of very little happening only draw attention to the meandering, almost non-existent narrative. At 90 minutes, the film is distended enough to be considered a form of torture, which might have been Boll's intent all along.

Pure genius...I guess the joke's on me.

Sentiment: negative
Julie Andrews and Rock Hudson were great in this movie / musical. The opening song by Ms. Andrews, "Whistling Away the Dark," will always be in the back roads of my mind. The plot line during World War I, is great and suspenseful one. If you are a romantic, you will love this movie. This is a movie that I always enjoy to see again and again.

Sentiment: positive
This story is an excellent tale of two boys that do whatever they can to get away from there abusive drunkard father. "Lord of the Rings" star Elijah Wood is outstanding in this unforgettable role. This movie is one of the main reasons I haven't touched a single beer and never will as long as I live. That might make me sound like a nerd, but that's what I have to say. It is a wonder why this isn't hearld as a classic American tale.

Sentiment: positive
Yes, I know I'm one of the few people longing to trample this movie into the dust of oblivion.So let me me tell you why I feel this way. In truth,had it been advertized as a Zombie film or the like,I might have enjoyed it.But right now,I'm totally speechless.

*SPOILER...Though I'm not sure what's to spoil* Let's start with the first HUGE flaw. If I did not know that the movie is called "Darkness - The VAMPIRE Version" and had I not seen some sequences where some individuals seem to be sucking blood, I would not have seen the connection with Vampires. I mean, FANGLESS???? Give me a break!!!

Second bad point: what's with the Metal? It appears that all young people, but mainly those so-called "vampires", are into various kinds of Metal,judging mainly by their shirts! Don't get me wrong, I've been into the more extreme forms of music for almost 15 years, but nobody 's going to scare me by showing me some ridiculous teenagers in Iron Maiden (of all bands!!!) T-shirts running around,pretending to be Vampires! "Pathetic" is the only only word that I could use here.

Third weakness: the actors. Wait a minute. WHAT actors?! You mean the director's wooden friends! Words would be a waste here.

Yes, alright, the movie is very gory, but what difference does that make? It WOULD have been a strong point and something to enjoy if the "briliant" director had not chosen to create an ARTIFICIAL vampire topic in this movie. I wanted to see Vampires,but was treated to some stupid looking kids I would have loved to use my baseball bat on. The Film-makers should simply have advertized the movie saying "cheap B-grade horror with no plot but a lot of gore" !!!

This movie is blasphemy against the whole concept of Vampirism. And it makes me sick.

Sentiment: negative
This is a strange, cerebral, surreal, esoteric film. If there is such a thing as "intellectual horror" cinema, this film is it. I started to get scared and wish there was someone else watching it with me, and it barely has a plot! I'm going to have to see this film again multiple times before I feel I really understand it. If you're the kind of person who likes "My Dinner With Andre" and films by Godard, or if you do a lot of mind-altering drugs, you will probably enjoy this film. Wow.

Sentiment: positive
You know the old saw about a train wreck? The one about how you can't look away? This movie isn't that good. The only reason you're still there is because you brought your kids and you can't leave them alone in the theater. You might catch a nap.

Tim Hill should never work in film again after delivering this awful piece of junk. He manages to take a decent comic actor in Jason Lee and turn him into a robotic, unsure actor in this production.

I didn't have much hope for this movie in the first place, I admit. If it weren't basically the only family film I could take my son to around Christmas, my wife and I wouldn't have gone. God, I wish we could go back in time and stop ourselves. I leaned over to my wife about 10 minutes in to tell her what a stinker I thought it was, but she beat me to the punch.

I'm not kidding. It's putrid. Only David Cross's terrific-as-usual work saves this review from being only 1 star.

The story is cloying, insulting and stupid, as might be expected for a movie in this genre (although the recent "Curious George" was blissfully intelligent and enjoyable). The acting is mostly poor. The decision to "update" the Chipmunks songs for today's audience was inadvisable at best and boneheaded at worst. It does not work.

The chipmunks of old were clever, mischievous and sly. These chipmunks are dumb, somewhat mean-spirited, obnoxious, and in a surprise, needy to the point of uselessness.

Either as a retrospect, a tribute, or as a completely new production, this film totally fails. The final straw? My son couldn't wait to leave. Spend your money renting Curious George instead.

Sentiment: negative
This film is so bad it's hilarious. I watched Hell Ride half thinking it was a comedy, although I couldn't quite work out if they were actually taking the p*ss, or if this really was a serious attempt at making something decent. I notice it isn't listed here as a comedy so they must be serious! It's basically seems to be about a gang of pensioners who ride round on motorcycles shooting at each other and exchanging the most hilariously bad dialogue you can imagine. One scene inexplicably has two characters smashing bottles over each others heads, then showing each other 'get out of jail free' cards that they've made! Also check out Vinnie Jones' accent, where the hell is he meant to be from?!? Oh and there's a load of naked girls in it too, who for some unfathomable reason seem to want nothing more than to have none stop sex with these leathery skinned b*stards! The guy who wrote and directed it - a Pee Wee Herman lookalike with a Greeshan 2000'd beard and an orange sunbed tan - has for some reason cast himself in the lead role, maybe this is part of the joke, I don't know. Actually, the more I think about it the more I'm sure this film is a p*ss take. It's produced by Quentin Tarantino and it's possible he's released this in humour as a bit of a laugh. It is a total rip off of Tarantino's style, but just done really really badly. It is very amusing though, and I guess either way it could go down as a cult classic, either from being an amusing parody of the Tarantino/Rodriguez style, or something that is very very unintentionally funny. Has to be seen to be believed.

Sentiment: negative
I never really understood the controversy and hype this movie caused. Especially in French and the neighboring countries (in Belgium, where I am located, for example), "Baise-Moi" was announced as THE most shocking and THE most thought-provoking social drama you could ever experience. Yeah right! It might be a little shocking, maybe (how often do you see someone getting shot up the arse?), but the weak and pointless plot surely didn't cause me to think much. "Baise-Moi" is another one of those "blame everything that goes wrong on society"-films and they're generally not very convincing. About 99% of the people functions perfectly well in this society so why would you blame this exact same society for the vile and hopeless acts of two deranged nymph-girls? The two main characters and their miserable lives are introduced separately and in flashes. Nadine just killed her roommate; Manu shot her brother and the two meet in an abandoned train-station, late at night. They decide to travel around France together, leaving a trail of sex and blood behind wherever they made a stop. Although we're constantly exposed to pornography and violence, this film is very boring to sit through. Like the girls are indicating themselves all the time, the dialogues are lame and the people they run into (and kill) are very uninteresting. If people want to make porno movies, that's fine by me, but please don't pretend that it's art-house film-making. If you leave out the swearing and the hip camera-work, all there is to see is (not so) arousing pornography. Cool soundtrack, though!

Sentiment: negative
Danton was a hero and one of the founders of the French Revolution of 1789. This movie is set five years later and the revolution has morphed into something ugly. While initially the revolution promised freedom, at this point the small committee running the country is extremely repressive and is a dictatorship. Danton and his friends were angry at how the country wasn't better off in 1794 than it was BEFORE they got rid of their king, so they begin criticizing the government. The movie begins as the printer who makes critical pamphlets concerning the government is beaten and his business is destroyed. So much for "liberty, equality and fraternity"! So, as a result of being silenced this way, Danton et al begin publicly criticizing the government. Eventually, Robespierre (the leader of the committee) and his cronies trump up charges, have a show trial and get rid of the dissent. Some have mentioned that the Polish director, Wajda, also intended this to be a criticism of his own nation--which, at the time, was Soviet-dominated and very repressive as well. This makes sense as you see the movie unfold--especially when the government destroys all dissent "in the name of the people".

The acting is fine, the story compelling and I have no major criticism of the film. However, I really wish the ending had been handled differently. Especially because other than history lovers and French people, most probably have no idea that this execution helped to end the government. AFTER this purge of Danton in April 1794, Robespierre himself was executed in July 1794 because the country had just had enough--plus, those surviving Frenchmen knew that they, too, would face the guillotine sooner or later if this sick system remained in place. Some sort of an epilogue would have been nice--such as showing the soldiers coming for Robespierre. He responded by trying to kill himself first, but he only succeeded in blowing off part of his face--still alive, he was guillotined shortly afterward. This would have been a dandy little epilogue and could have been done in about five minutes. However, not showing a connection between Danton's death and the fall of the government is an odd thing to omit.

Sentiment: positive
Construction workers disrupt the Native American burial ground of a large, hulking skeletal monster which disintegrates it's victims with it's touch, breath, or bone sword! The head honcho over the resort project, Krantz(Jim Storm)orders his construction crew to keep their skeletal findings secret for much would halt the continuing development if the nearby Katona tribe caught wind that remains were being dug up and disturbed. An aging Bruce Boxleitner, likable as always, stars as half-breed Sheriff Evans trying to keep peace between the Katonas and Krantz's crew. The peace was strained, at best, but with that skeletal monster running rampant making it's victims vanish without a trace, soon Krantz wants answers to why members of his crew are missing..Evans begins losing citizens as well. Evans is warned by Katona Chief Storm Cloud(Michael Horse)that an ancient demon, the Bone Eater, has been loosened and can only be stopped with a sacred war axe(..the axe was removed by a worker who found it's remains with the weapon lunged inside)now in the back seat of his daughter Kelly's(Clara Bryant, who wears tight jeans and shirts to reveal how daddy's girl has grown into quite a striking lady)boyfriend's truck. Evans must somehow defeat the demon if the killing will stop..and this must occur before the Eclipse or it's power will become too strong for anyone to vanquish.

A solid cast, floundering in an embarrassing horror outing. The CGI, isn't very good, although the monster could've been quite threatening if done with a better budget. It rides a horse made from dust chasing after it's prey, for Petesake! Some cameo appearances include BUCK ROGERS Gil Gerard as Evan's deputy Big Jim, STAR TREK's Walter Koenig as a coroner, & HOUSE's William Katt, as a Country Doctor attending to the wounds of Evan's deputy. None of these cameos last longer than one minute or so..sad, really. Adoni Maropis, impresses in an underwritten role as a brooding Katona, Johnny Black Hawk, who wishes to use the Bone Eater to drive the white man off his tribe's land. Jennifer Lee Wiggins portrays Kaya, a tasty dish of a Katona female whose against Black Hawk's hatred for the white man and wishes for Evans to follow his Indian blood regarding putting an end to the Bone Eating monster. This might be worth sitting through if just to see Boxleitner dressed in war paint and Indian garb. I felt for the actor, to be honest, as Bruce tries to keep a straight-face in such a terrible movie. In yet another over-worked and tiresome cliché, Bruce's sheriff has an estranged relationship with his daughter, whose 17, hot, and wanting to date the "bad boy"..although this winds up being an underwritten sub-plot as is most of the plot concerning the killing skeleton and many of the poorly developed characters.

Sentiment: negative
Famed filmmaker Werner Herzog's "Fata Morgana" is breathtakingly unorthodox. Although characters appear in the film from time to time, there is no actual story. The film is also not an educational or historical documentary. It's a film without an accompanying screenplay.

The film consists of curious background music and a somewhat illogical narrative VO, the combination of which overlays a long string of images from mostly, though not exclusively, the Sahara Desert. Some of the images are wonderfully odd, and out of the ordinary. The camera captures ghostly images, or mirages, optical illusions that tantalize and mesmerize.

This general cinematic trend is punctuated by occasional observational asides on serendipitous topics. For example, in one sequence a man wearing goggles gives us a mini-tutorial on lizards. And in what for me was the most captivating and bizarre sequence, a small inset room contains a man with dark goggles who sings in a voice that is totally distorted by the microphone he's using, accompanied by an old lady who plays a punchy tune on an old piano. Neither the man nor the old lady seems to enjoy what they're doing. How baroque.

"Fata Morgana" does have an underlying concept, one that unites the wide assortment of strange images and eclectic sounds. But that concept is so subtle, so opaque that you'll never figure it out without help. From this subtle theme the film does indeed make sense. Without that point of reference, however, the film can seem tedious and unending, a pointless parade of random earthy images and esoteric narrative gibberish.

Unapologetically redundant, thematically baffling, and cinematically heretical, "Fata Morgana" will likely either make you swoon with delight, or cause you to throw up. You'll either latch on to the film's Zen-like qualities or be tempted to smash the DVD into a thousand pieces. One thing that most viewers will agree on: "Fata Morgana" is ... different.

Sentiment: positive
For 50 years after world war 2 the United States was in a state where key segments of the economy were dominated by military interests. At the same time, because of the draft and wars, everyone in society had served, or was connected to someone who had.

This allowed for a minigenre based on the notion of American cleverness in the midst of an inflexible military machine. Sometimes that machine was non-US military, for example in prisoner of war situations. Once removed are stories in other machines: science fiction and corporate, but they always reference this military genre, and indeed the testosterone shots of action even reference their comic sibling.

You can trace it, I think, perhaps starting in the comic, meaning Amrican, sections of "The Great Escape," which immediately spawned TeeVee offspring in "Gomer Pyle" and "Hogan's Heros." Then a second wave triggered by "Catch 22" and "MASH," both of which had been real life, then books, then movies, and in the MASH case, then TeeVee.

But before all that, there was the "Phil Silvers Show," about a Sergeant Bilko and this followed from "Mister Roberts." A happy con man, who only committed harmless crimes, and then only as response to an overly crude system which attempted to limit his life. This was in the day when TeeVee shows mattered. You absorbed them instead of merely carrying them to work to chatter about. It wasn't particularly clever in any way, except in finding that crack between what we wanted in control and freedom. 

Its one large zone where Americans worked out how they think about forgivable, even endearing lies in a military context, a zone that has been appropriated by one of our political parties here.

Because its big, it sometimes pays off in laughs. "Stripes" was pretty darn funny I thought. It had the twist of the misfits actually defeating serious foes, sort of folding in some "Dirty Dozen." And sexual adventure.

Now this, well before the cultural wars escalated. It tries to touch that sweet spot, like other remakes that manhandled Steve Martin. It is so unfunny, you actually root for the Army to be the stronger player. Yet another way to track how societies work out the handles on military power.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Sentiment: negative
I've seen this movie countes times now and still can't get sick of it. It's like a frickin' drug. I know a lot of people don't like it but there's something about it that just draws me in. Every single performance is spectacular, but Aaliyah is the one who steals the show. She not only played the role of Akasha she became it. Her body movement and beauty was captured exceptionally well. It's also nice to see that a black girl was chosen for the role of an Egyptian Queen (No, I'm not predjudice against white people, I am one). True it's not known what color the ancient Egyptians really were but this was a nice change. Stuart Townsend completely made me forget about Tom Cruise's portrayel of Lestat and Marguerite was striking once again. All in all it was a good time at the movies. For those who haven't seen it, be sure to watch it with an open mind and not take it too seriously. I mean, it's a movie about a vampire who becomes a rock star. Take it as that.

Sentiment: positive
This film is so bad, you can't imagine. The acting is terrible, even worse than in third class soap operas. An it is a shame that this movie was the most successful in the past 20 years in Switzerland. The interactions between the soldiers didn't make any sense at all. The story could have been taken out from a bravo photo-story, the dialogues were as wooden as Treebeard and the plot holes were bigger than the black hole in the middle of our galaxy. But nowadays it doesn't need much to satisfy the audience. The actors were handsome for example the former Miss Switzerland and the main character was even hung (woah!!) and there certainly was much abuse of drugs. That's real cool man! Particularly for 12 and 13 year old teens. But the media created an atmosphere in witch you was not allowed to reject the film because they manipulated the peer group dynamics by telling implicitly that you are a nerd if you don't go along with the other `sheep' and say.yes that is exactly what it was like when I was in the army/ that's exactly what I'm going to do when I must go to the army.. to every cheesy action that had to do with drugs and coolness. And don't think I like the army. I was there and I hated it but this film is worse than cleaning up the sticky toilet with a teeth brush (which I was forced to do because I offended an lieutenant) It is not necessary for every film to be sophisticated. Sometimes you only want to be entertained for a few hours and forget about problems and I think its not a bad thing. But this kind of films influence teenagers to much by showing them a cool lifestyle which in fact is only stupid and turns them into brainless ignorant and egocentric idiots. But since I now that my opinion isn't very popular I will be quiet now and recommend you to avoid this terrible flick at any costs and for that to save your wits!

2/10

(sorry for my bad English)

Sentiment: negative
Undoubtedly, the least among the Spaghetti Westerns I've been watching lately: basically a low-brow rip-off of Leone's THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY (1966) with three disparate characters outwitting one another (and occasionally forming shaky alliances) in their search for hidden gold. Leonard Maltin rated it a BOMB; while it's harmless enough, it's also totally routine and, fatally, the three main roles are stereotypes, that is to say, uninteresting: Eddie Byrnes is a bank employee with ideas regarding his consignment being transported by train; Gilbert Roland is the "legendary" but ageing Mexican bandit (his frequent lapses into Spanish when excited are quite corny!) who, apparently, is still irresistible to women; George Hilton as an enigmatic bounty hunter tries too hard to emulate Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name figure. Director Castellari - whom I saw at the Italian B-movie retrospective held during the 2004 Venice Film Festival, where he came off as the most pompous of the cult movie directors present! - shows little genuine feeling for the Western (on the strength of two above-average Franco Nero efforts in the genre, I ordered his collaboration with Castellari KEOMA [1976]...I'm keeping my fingers crossed now!) and the film's tongue-in-cheek approach is equally lamentable.

Sentiment: negative
I love and admire the Farrelly brothers! How come I only got to see this great movie 3 years after it's release? It made me laugh, it made me cry and it reeeaally warmed my heart. Big Time. It's hard to describe in my rotten English - but I have to try anyway:

The cast is excellent throughout - from the lead- to the supporting roles, the acting is great, the dialogs are great and the film is perfectly directed and edited.

I think that the Farrelly brothers movies are often underestimated - they are not light comedies - they're deeeeeep! They talk about what life is all about (I won't tell YOU!).

In my case, this movie affirmed to me what relationships are all about:

If you love somebody: Set them free, let them be - try to share the passion and the pain and always be true to each other.

I'm not a sports-hater, but definitely a sports ignorant. But in this movie - the vibes get you. I could smell the atmosphere of Baseball. Finally, this movie explained to me what being a sports-fan can mean to you and what cool fan-families there must be out there.

Thanks so much, Pete & Bob!

P.S.: If you haven't seen it - please check out KINGPIN!

Sentiment: positive
Lexi befriends Jennifer, a thin, intelligent girl at her new school. Lexi's parents have just split up. Soon, Jen tells Lexi of her eating disorder, and the two begin dieting and exercising together. They both are in the school's volley ball team. Lexi's mum becomes aware of her daughter's illness, as she is losing lots of weight. Lexi is admitted to hospital. She is diagnosed with Anorexia nervosa, and is made to gain weight. Her father visits her in hospital, and orders a feeding tube. She is better and is allowed out of hospital and she tells her mum that Jen has bulimia. This leads to the two falling out, as Lexi's mum tells Jen's mum her suspicions.

At a party Jen is hit by a car, and because her heart is weak it kills her. Lexi's condition worsens, as she blames herself for her best friend's death...

Sentiment: positive