DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
As an avid cinema go-er i felt that whilst i was ranking my favourite movies i felt it only fair to rank my most hated films.

I'm afraid i really have nothing positive to say about this movie. It is in fact one of only two films that i have ever walked out on. In fairness I went back and watched the movie again to give it another chance and sat through it only to wish that i should have stayed away.

The sad thing is the movie has a really decent cast and crew...but then even the brightest stars in Hollywood cant bring a dead duck of a script to life.

Stay away...Save yourself from this truly woeful 'film' 1/10

Sentiment: negative
I´m glad that someone has made a movie about how hard it is to risk your heart for a second time. Or third. This movie is exactly what it promises to be - lovely, amusing and it gives you this good feeling around your heart when it ends. The plot might be not very inventive, but there are millions of ways to tell the story and they have not been all used yet. The cast is perfectly selected although Scott Wolf does not look like a father of an eight year old not even when he is wearing a suit. So, the sparks are on all the right places, supporting cast is lovably supporting and although you could probably predict the whole movie you would not want to switch the channel. It is just the right sort of entertainment for a Sunday evening.

Sentiment: positive
First of all, f117 is not high tech any more and it is not a fighter aircraft.

Secondly, the f14's and f18's cannot change their appearances; they are not transformers. 

Thirdly, the f16 has only one m61 cannon, not two. 

Last but not the least, at the end of the film, Seagle selected sidewinder missile. But somehow when he pulled the trigger, the actual missile fired turned out to be a maverick. As I have the experience of seeing f18's and f14's being mysteriously transformed into f16's, this small transformation of missiles is not a big surprise to me. However, there is still one question I have to ask: How did they manage to use an air to ground missile to shoot down a flying f16...

When students hand in really bad work, teachers assign 0's. Now I think for the sake of properly marking this film, IMDb should seriously consider adding a '0/10' option. Otherwise, it is not fair for those who receive 1 out of 10...

Sentiment: negative
This movie sucked wind. I imagine that the other 300 people that gave this movie such high votes must be independent filmmakers. I can't imagine that anyone else could possibly find it funny or even slightly entertaining. I feel like 100 minutes of my life were just wasted.

Sentiment: negative
Many people know how it feels when a loved one is lost. The feelings of pain, grief and sorrow can be unbearable. However, sometimes it is the memories they leave behind that trigger the saddest emotions. This theme is superbly portrayed in the short film 'Tulip', directed by the award winning Australian actress, Rachel Griffths. Described as a movie 'as much about memories as it is about love', a string of sensitivity and sentimentality is expertly threaded into this triumphant 15 minute film.

'Tulip' is a beautifully wrought, touching and heart-warming story of a man's journey in coming to terms with the loss of his wife through the relationship he shares with a very special animal, 'Tulip'. The film opens with a rising dawn, the chirping of birds and a vast landscape, introducing the sense of rustic harmony present throughout the film. A soft music plays, marking the entrance of Ruth (Jean Bain). She wears a flowered dress and apron with a sun hat on her head. She gently pets Tulip, caressing her ears and patting her back. The furnishing of the house is impressive and the attention to detail is creditable (a vase of tulips can be seen on the bench), reflecting the peaceful rural community. Will (Charles 'Bud' Tingwell) greets Ruth as she is spooning the milk from the bucket. They pour the milk and coffee together, a sign of companionship and teamwork. Not a word is said but it is obvious that their relationship is close and affectionate; they paint a perfect picture of happiness.

Sadly, happiness doesn't last forever. The tragic passing of Ruth affects Will deeply. An effective scene of fading cars highlights Will's isolation and vulnerability at the end of the day of the funeral. Soon he sinks into depression and becomes oblivious to his surroundings when everything seems hopeless and lost. At Will's moment of despair, Tulip becomes the symbol of Ruth, the genuine connection Will has with his late wife. It was through Tulip that Will learns to cope with the absence of Ruth and overcome the heartrending feelings of loneliness.

Each of the characters is realistically and solidly portrayed, especially the part of Will. Charles 'Bud' Tingwell brings the character to life through personal investment. The recent loss of his own wife (Audrey Tingwell) is effectively reflected in his acting. Every sag of his shoulder and every frown on his brow make the viewer empathize strongly with the character. The character of Ruth is wonderfully carried out by Jean Bain. Although Ruth does not say a single word throughout the movie, her sweet personality and loving relationship with Will are obvious. Lois Ramsey and Kati Edwards give delightful performances in supporting roles as the friendly Margaret and Mary. They also add a subtle humor to the bittersweet story.

An anecdote from Griffths' childhood, the story of loss and discovery is remarkably captured in 'Tulip'. Beautifully shot and superbly acted, this film will surely make you misty eyed, triumphant or feel like drinking a cup of milk.

Sentiment: positive
I hadn't planned on leaving a review, but seeing some of the other dreadful reviews for this movie, I had to say something.

I'm not going to give away the ending or anything, but I do give away some important plot points in this review, so you should be aware of that. The short (non-spoiler) version of my review - Samuel L. Jackson and Geena Davis both kick butt in this movie, and it's a lot of fun. Watch it.

This movie is one of my favorites of all time. Geena Davis is perfect as the action heroine, torn between her existing life as a housewife and mother, and the memories that are resurfacing of her former life as a CIA Assassin. Her performance is superb as she plays both facets of this relatively complex character perfectly.

Samuel L. Jackson's performance is, as always, also excellent, as the Private Investigator that Geena Davis' character hired to look into her forgotten past. He does a great job of playing the unwitting sidekick to Geena Davis' tough character. Some of the lines he utters in this movie are the best he's ever used in any movie he's been in.

Seriously, if you haven't seen it, do. It's a fantastic story with lots of unexpected twists and turns, and it's extremely well directed and acted.

Sentiment: positive
I bought this video at Walmart's $1 bin. I think I over-paid!!! In the 1940s, Bela Lugosi made a long string of 3rd-rate movies for small studios (in this case, Monogram--the ones who made most of the Bowry Boys films). While the wretchedness of most of these films does not approach the level of awfulness his last films achieved (Ed Wood "classics" such as Bride of the Monster and Plan 9 From Outer Space), they are nonetheless poor films and should be avoided by all but the most die-hard fans.

I am an old movie junkie, so I gave this a try. Besides, a few of these lesser films were actually pretty good--just not this one.

Lugosi is, what else, a mad scientist who wants to keep his rather bizarre and violent wife alive through a serum he concocts from young brides. They never really explained WHY it had to be brides or why it must be women or even what disease his wife had--so you can see that the plot was never really hashed out at all.

Anyways, a really annoying female reporter (a Lois Lane type without Jimmy Olsen or Superman) wants to get to the bottom of all these apparent murders in which the bodies were STOLEN! So, she follows some clues all the way to the doorstep of Lugosi. Lugosi's home is complete with his crazed wife, a female assistant and two strange people who are apparently the assistant's sons (an ugly hunchbacked sex fiend and a dwarf). Naturally this plucky reporter faints repeatedly throughout the film--apparently narcolepsy and good investigative journalism go hand in hand! Eventually, the maniacs ALL die--mostly due to their own hands and all is well. At the conclusion, the reporter and a doctor she just met decide to marry. And, naturally, the reporter's dumb cameraman faints when this occurs. If you haven't noticed, there's a lot of fainting in this film. Or, maybe because it was such a slow and ponderous film they just fell asleep!

Sentiment: negative
To anyone who likes the TV series: forget the movie. The jokes are bad and some topics are much too sensitive to laugh about it.

We have seen much better acting by R. Dueringer in "Hinterholz 8".

Sentiment: negative
Eric Roberts "stars" in this Tommy Lee Thomas debut prison film. He plays the leader of a corrupt ring of guards. Though evil by most people's standards, his character is the kind of guy who is nice enough to give you supporting wires while you hang chained to the ceiling as he tortures you with "Lethal Weapon" electric prods.

The movie has an intricate plot about prison corruption that makes absolutely no sense. Thomas has Clint Eastwood's squinter eyes, Dolph Lundgren's one-liners, the acting abilities of JCVD and the body of the tiniest guy you knew in school who took steroids after graduation.

Martin "Cobra Kai" Kove's career shares this low point with Roberts, in the film it is difficult to tell if Kove's character is supposed to be drunk for the entire movie or if Kove just came that way. I couldn't blame him if he did.

Fortunately for all involved, this movie has a "so bad that it's good" quality that can be fun IF YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BETTER TO DO.

Sentiment: negative
I had a video of the thing. And I think it was my fourth attempt that I managed to watch the whole film without drifting off to sleep. It's slow-moving, and the idea of a mid-Atlantic platform, which may have been revolutionary at the time, is now just a great big yawnaroony. Apart from Conrad Veidt, the rest of the cast are pretty forgettable, and it is only in the action towards the end that things get really interesting. When the water started to spill big-time it even, on one occasion, woke me up.

But give the man his due. No one could hold a cigarette like Conrad Veidt. He doesn't wedge it between his index and middle fingers like the lesser mortals. He holds it in his fingers, while showing us the old pearly-browns. There are a few scenes in this film where the smoke drifts up to heaven against a dark background,and looks very artistically done. But it does not say much about this film if all that impresses you is the tobacco smoke.

Sentiment: negative
Whenever someone tries to tell me that they think a movie is the worst ever (and it's usually some movie that's "cool" to hate, like "Manos, the Hands of Fate" or "The Avengers") I ask them, "is that movie a comedy about an orphan who is constantly trying to murder adults? Does anyone utter the line 'I'd rather eat a turd' in that movie?"

This movie is WAY too infantile and moronic for adults, and WAY too violent and irresponsible for children. Is there that much money in the Beavis and Butt-head demographic to make a series of movies like this? There is a Problem Child 3, but I haven't seen it. I'd rather eat a turd.

Sentiment: negative
There is really but one thing to say about this sorry movie. It should never have been made. The first one, one of my favourites, An American Werewolf in London, is a great movie, with a good plot, good actors and good FX. But this one? It stinks to heaven with a cry of helplessness.



Sentiment: negative
One of my favourite films. It has everything - rocking soundtrack, courtesy of Eddie Clark, ex Motorhead, loads of action, loads of laughs, totally ridiculous plot and the most wonderful '80's stereotypes as characters. Eddie, the put-upon nice guy, who just wants to be left alone to be different, Leslie (about as wet as they come), Nuke (the rock burn-out), Eddie's Mom (pathetic), Roger (the geek) and Ozzy as the preacher (surely he exists in America?). Then there are the boys (rich, vicious and stupid) and the girls (vacant, vain and stupid). What more could you ask for?

Well, first of all, there's Sammi Curr, the rock star, an amalgam of every '80's badass rocker you can think of. What about that rocket firing guitar? Then there's the scene where Sammi pulls the old lady through the TV screen and smashes her up. And what does Roger do? Why, hoover her up, just like a good geek would. My favourite scene is where Tim Hainey gets his long overdue reward from Sammi via the wet finger in the plug - magic!

If you were into rock in the '80's or just love ridiculous films like I do, then check this one out. It's available on DVD and very cheap so (trick or)treat yourself.

Sentiment: positive
I truly hate and despise this film and the filmmakers behind it.

Sure, I'm all for making a hard hitting and honest film about youth and youth culture.1987's "River's Edge" is an excellent example of a well-made teen drama. However, what I take exception to is the infantile, grubby and sensationalist approach that the makers of "2:37" took.

A prime example is how it raises so many issues and yet fails in any significant way to comment or reach a resolution on even one of them.

My other major problem with this film, apart from its complete plagiarism of Gus Van Sant's "Elephant" (surprised Van Sant didn't sue) is its 'bull loose in a china shop' attitude to quite delicate issues such as incest and particularly suicide.

In short, avoid this film like the plague and anything that this filmmaker ever is involved with subsequently. I've heard that his motivation for making "2:37" may or may not be based on lies. Having seen the substandard result, this doesn't surprise me in the slightest. This is a glorified student film exercise that has no place whatsoever being in a cinema or on DVD. Pure and simple.

Sentiment: negative
Although I found the acting excellent, and the cinematography beautiful, I was extremely disappointed with the adaptation.

One of the significant portions of the novella is the fact that Ethan and Mattie decide to kill themselves, rather than go on. This is never presented in the movie, they show it as if it were a sledding accident.

The character changes in Mattie and Zenna are almost non-existent. While in the novella they almost change places, at the end of this adaptation it appears as if they are both invalids.

Lastly that Mattie and Ethan consummate their relationship fully nearly destroys the power and poignancy of the finale.

The change of the narrator being a preacher was one effective change.

Neeson and Arquette are superb in their portrayals. Joan Allen was also wonderful, however her character was much watered down from Whartons novella.

I do not expect films to faithfully portray novels, but this one went to far and in the process nearly destroyed the story.

Overall, I would not recommend watching this film unless you have read the book as you will come away confused and disappointed.

Sentiment: negative
I generally love these 1930 mystery/police Charlie Chan type of movies, and this is no exception. However, something seems bad with this movie. A late attempt to switch from cerebral Moto movies centered around the plot contrivances to a salad bar spoilt by comedy relief that is as relieving as sore feet. A typecast buffoon appears from nowhere impersonating a clumsy Englishman who plays the detective, and even other characters seem entangled into providing comedy relief. The plot may seem odd or a bare excuse to us today, but back then the possibility of epochal archaeological discoveries was not only real, but a commonplace occurrence.

Sentiment: positive
I come to Pinjar from a completely different background than most of the other reviewers who have posted here. I'm relatively new to Bollywood films and was born and raised in the US. So I don't have a broad basis for comparing Pinjar to other Indian films. Luckily, no comparison is needed.

Pinjar stands on its own as nothing less than a masterpiece.

In one line I can tell you that Pinjar is one of the most important films to come out of any studio anywhere at any time. On a mass-appeal scale, it *could* have been the Indian equivalent of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" had it been adequately promoted in the US. This could very well have been the film that put Bollywood on the American map. The American movie-going public has a long-standing love affair with "Gone With the Wind", and while Pinjar doesn't borrow from that plot there are some passing similarities. Not the least of which is the whopping (by US standards) 183-minute run time.

Set against the gritty backdrop of the India-Pakistan partition in 1947-48 is a compelling human drama of a young woman imprisoned by circumstances and thrust into troubles she had no hand in creating. Put into an untenable position, she somehow manages to not only survive, but to grow -- and even flourish.

If the story is lacking in any way, it's in the exposition. Puro's (the protagonist) growth as a person would be better illustrated -- at least for western audiences unfamiliar with Indian culture -- if her character's "back story" were more fully developed in the early part of the film. But that would have stretched a 3-hour movie to 3 1/2 hours or perhaps even more. Because not one minute of the film is wasted, and none of what made it out of editing could really be cut for the sake of time. Better that the audience has to fill in some of what came before than to leave out any of what remains.

I could use many words to describe Pinjar: "poignant", "disturbing", "compelling", "heart-wrenching" come to mind immediately. But "uplifting" is perhaps as apropos as any of those. Any story that points up the indomitability of the human spirit against the worst of odds has to be considered such. And Puro's triumph -- while possibly not immediately evident to those around her -- is no less than inspirational. For strength of story alone I cannot recommend this film highly enough.

Equally inspiring is Urmila Matondkar's portrayal of Puro. All too often overlooked amid the bevy of younger, newer actresses, Urmila has the unique capability to deliver a completely credible character in any role she plays. She doesn't merely act Puro's part, she breathes life into the character. Manoj Bajpai's selection as Rashid was inspired. He manages something far too few Indian film heroes can: subtlety. His command of expression and nuance is essential to the role. He brings more menace to the early part of the film with his piercing stare than all of the sword-wielding rioters combined.

If you only see one Bollywood film in your life, make it Pinjar.

Sentiment: positive
Topical? Certainly. Entertainment? Probably - but only on removal of any shred of the viewer's common sense. Reality? Only in so much that it was made on this planet.

How thousands of people were supposed to have died as a result of a 5-metre wall of water in a city liberally littered with buildings in excess of 25 metres high is quite beyond me. Carlyle's line to the effect of "How could anyone survive that?" when the shot shows forests of buildings with several floors above the water is completely laughable. Further, if someone commits themselves to an area (under water) where one cylinder of air is not enough (i.e. they are going to die), why not use the simple expedient of taking more than one cylinder? Clearly, the writer thinks that people in stressful situations cannot count beyond one (one cylinder, one floor).

Rather than watching this tripe, you would be more informed and entertained by throwing the DVD away and reading the pricing information on the cellophane outer wrapper.

Pitiful, truly pitiful, and a terrible waste of the on-screen talent.

As for the sexist propaganda suggesting that only women can see through the problems to illuminate the solutions to be effected by the expendable men: yet more PC 'tosh'. Small wonder that First Blood, Delta Force, Navy Seals and other such movies of little or no merit will always have a following while this blatantly politically-motivated bilge is peddled.

Sentiment: negative
I kind of liked The Lonely Lady. Give Pia a break. She looks great and she has really nice eyes. What's not to like? The scene where she gets raped by Ray Liotta with a garden hose was kind of gross and cruel. Actually, a LOT of stuff that happens in this movie is gross and cruel. But its a trashy movie. A lot of movies that are trashy are not all bad. I liked this better than Valley of the Dolls, which was not only trashy but boring as well. At least this wasn't boring.

Pia gets naked a lot and seems miscast as a writer. Watching her talk about Pushkin and Byron with a guy three times her age is flat unbelievable. I'm sure Pia's a nice person in real life, she just doesn't project the writer vibe. She looked much happier when she was working as a hostess for that guy from Saturday Night Fever and wearing a glittery disco dress.

A couple of the scenes are funny. The one where she tells the two-timing actor that she's pregnant and he rolls his eyes and snaps at her to "stop hanging around!", all the while he's practically fawning over every bimbo who flounces by.

Pia's nervous breakdown scene is good. It was probably a mistake to go so supernova on it (the vortex of floating faces and freeze-frame scream - whoa!) and her subsequent catatonic stupor is kind of overdone.

The acceptance speech is a hoot, though. I want to see someone do that speech in a drama class.

But, again, this is trash we're talking about. You could find worse on any movie of the week back in the eighties.

Sentiment: positive
This was an awesome movie with flight scenes that were incredibly realistic! I have seen it multiple times and it has kept my attention throughout every time. I myself am a big fan of the Air Force and love to watch any movie where I can get a glimpse of an F-16 flying. If you like Top Gun, then I guarantee you will love this movie also. Except for a few mild curse words, this is an excellent movie for the whole family. It has a great plot and does not have a dull moment throughout the entire movie. Every second is action packed and keeps you on the edge of your seat waiting to see what happens next. So once again I HIGHLY recommend this movie!!!

Sentiment: positive
Obviously, Ponyo can be seen as just not another stupid animated movie that a studio might put out to simply survive. It is far from it, and it can be easily described as a captivating, beautiful movie experience.

Miyazaki has indeed another masterpiece. Now, to many, this has been said to be the least of his achievements in film-making, due to in part of his "certain weirdness factor" not being there. That is true-the morals and insights that are not quite so evident in his previous films are very up front in this picture. Ponyo is not too difficult to understand or comprehend. His idea, I believe, was to make a children's movie that was just as suitable for adults as their kids, and for it not to be too complicated. He accomplished this perfectly, and he also didn't lose any substance along the way, which is the reason it gets a 10.

Besides that, the film itself is so engrossing from the start, and the way its presented is so beautiful, it left me in awe at times because I remembered how they were all hand-drawn by Miyazaki himself. I haven't been so enlightened and happy after seeing a film since I saw Once a while back (another film not to be missed). Everything about Ponyo was absolutely stunning and breathtaking; even the music for it was pure perfection. The only bad thing I have to say about it was its English dubbing. Don't get me wrong, they were good, too, but I had seen Ponyo about 2 weeks before it came out nationally, and I believed that, in some parts, I wish it had kept some of its Japanese dialogue (not all of it, though; did enjoy the "English way" too). All in all, everyone should see Ponyo; it's absolutely flawless and in another league of film-making altogether. Finally, and don't hold me to this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Ponyo got a Best Picture nomination, as there are now 10 films that can be nominated for it. It's just that good.

Sentiment: positive
"Medusa: Dare to be Truthful" is an outrageously funny parody that is a fine companion to the original, "Madonna: Truth or Dare". Julie Brown's brilliant creation skewers Madonna's highly entertaining documentary (although it wasn't exactly daring, insightful, candid, or truthful) with a faithfulness to detail, right down to the packaging. I highly recommend this for Madonna fans, Julie Brown fans, or anyone who enjoys sharp and clever parody.

Sentiment: positive
I first heard about Commander's Log when I was on the concom for the local science fiction convention. Craig Bowlsby, Linden Banks, Sophie Banks, and Brian Oberquell came out to show the video and give a couple of panels on making TV on a shoestring budget. I have to say that I was very pleased when I finally had the chance to see the show. Comparisons with Red Dwarf are inevitable, since the first seasons of Red Dwarf were also shot on a low budget (although Commander's Log has to set some kind of record for the least amount of money spent per minute of air time), and thus have to make up for the lack of "eye candy" with good writing and acting. Linden Banks, who plays Chief Petty Officer Blather, does a particularly good job of presenting an earnest but clueless persona.

Bowlsby's original idea was for the story to be told in two minute "interstitials", shown in between other shows over the course of an evening, although for some reason, Space didn't get how cool an idea this would have been, and so the interstitials were all rolled up into a one-hour show, which Space normally showed in two half-hour episodes. The existing DVD doesn't include episode 3 (which premiered at Cascadia-Con in Seattle in 2005) or episode 4 (which was previewed at VCON in Vancouver in 2006), but if you're in touch with your local fannish community, you may catch news of a showing somewhere near you.

Sentiment: positive
Loved this movie, what a hoot. Rupert and Julie are great together with Rupert being almost poker faced against Julie's animation, which worked well. Laura did a good job as the overbearing mother.Julie of course is marvellous as usual. While this movie will keep you laughing most of the time it also has a poignant side to it as it unravels the secrets in the lives of the main characters. Interesting that it was entitled Driving Lessons as this might lead you to believe this is the main feature of the movie which directly it is not though it certainly could be seen as "Ben" finally being in the driving seat in his own life. Like most things that are funny in life there is always the sad side and there are some moving moments in this movie. Very enjoyable movie and well worth watching.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of those so-called "Hollywood Social Commentary" films that wants to have it both ways. And believe me, in this film, both ways are clichéd and stereotypical. STOP-LOSS is a 21st Century John Wayne Film dealing with some anti-war sentiment but clearly ending on the note that "If you are a MAN in today's society, you get your act together and march off to war with your buddies." In many ways the film was a great sequel to TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE as it portrayed a military equally as insane and out of control, a quasi FRAT PARTY/ANIMAL HOUSE extravaganza mixed in with a Texas Red Neck world of repressed homo-erotic proofs of masculinity. This movie had it all in one scene after another of clichéd imagery. And then rebellious military deserter Ryan Phillippe goes on a "Road Trip" with best friend's girlfriend, an artificial storyline manipulation to visit families of dead servicemen, maimed soldiers in military hospitals, etc. and finally to broach the issue of fleeing to Canada or Mexico. But male honor and patriotism win out in the end, as all freshly scrubbed and handsome, he rides off into the sunset on a bus with his buddies back to Iraq and a world that a few minutes before he assured everyone he could never again tolerate. FULL METAL JACKET meets SANDS OF IWO JIMA . But in the end, John Wayne rides again! And a Hollywood Blockbuster ultimately gets to keep both sides of its audience in the palm of its hand.at least it would like to think so. As far as I was/am concerned, just take me back to the more convincing reality of IN THE GARDEN OF ELAH.

Sentiment: negative
"Kalifornia"is a great film that makes us look at ourselves.The film has a great cast,Brad Pitt(Johnny Suede,A River Runs Through It,and The Legends Of The Fall)as Early Grayce,David Duchovny(The X Files)as Brian Kessler,Michelle Forbes(Star Trek:The Next Generation,Homicide:Life On The Street,and Escape From L.A.)as Carrie Loughlin,Brian's girlfriend,and Juliette Lewis(Natural Born Killers,Cape Fear,and What's Eating Gilbert Grape)as Adele Corners,Early's girlfriend.

Brian Kessler is a writer who is a Liberal,is getting ready to write a book about serial killers.Brian and his girlfriend,Carrie decide they want to move to California,so Brian places an ad at the college for some who wants to go to California,to share expenses on the trip.

Early Grayce is an ex con and sociopath on parole,who recently lost his job at the mirror factory in town,is in debt,owes his landlord money.Early's parole officer stops to visit him and tells him about a job.Early goes to the college and sees the ad,he later tells Adele,his girlfriend about leaving to go to California.Early and Adele meet Brian and Carrie at the bus stop and leave town.Brian and Carrie do not know that he is a killer who just killed his landlord.For a little while Brian and Carrie thought of Early and Adele different but got to know them and become sort of friends,Carrie and Adele become real good friends.

Their journey is a very learning one.Though Brain and Carrie not knowing early is a killer till later on in the movie.The question Brian asks in this film about the difference between killers and us is a very good question.Early Grayce is a sociopath who doesn't see the error of his ways,goes down hill later on and pays the price.

This film is a great movie,I give it 10/10 stars and 2 thumbs up.I love the songs in the movie,especially at the end of the film,the song"Look Up To The Sky"by The Indians.

Sentiment: positive
I bought this game on an impulse buy from walmart. I am glad I did. It was very entertaining listening to Sean Connery and playing the game. I thought the graphics were the best I have ever seen in a movie/game remake. The bonus levels were very hard! The sniper one I think was too hard, it made me so frustrated I didn't play the game for a week and a half. There were too many people shooting at you with nothing to hide behind or life to handle it. 

The only thing I might change was the upgrade system. I didn't notice any difference from un-upgraded equipment to the upgraded, such as buying an armor upgrade didn't seem to make the armor stronger or more filling on my life meter. I really liked the Q copter. I think the developers did a good job.

Sentiment: positive
Anyone notice that Tommy only has 3 facial expressions.

1. The angry eyes look he gives every enemy. 2. The holding of the hands to face, mouth agape and frightened eyes. 3. The smiling Tommy Turnbull.

I have to say that i pretty much hate this show, i don't watch it but it's like Code Lyoko, we've all watched at least one, i must say that this show is borderline racist, uninteresting and pointless.

every episode ends with robotboy winning, except for one exception when robotboy basically let this overly geeky freakazoid fly away on a jetpack.

The jokes are pretty crude too, i think it's mostly people saying the word "Suck" or farting, i think the bullies of the show are quite shocking too.

Isn't there one that hides a bowling ball under his hate, and the other uses a chain, for god sake, what kind of school is he going to. Not to mention his older brother, who is borderline psychopathic and has no other character qualities.

The whole show i feel is ripping off megas XLR and Fosters. Like you could say the trio of coop, jamie and Kiva, as well as Robotboy being similar to Megas where he beats everyone no matter what the odds and he's free spirited despite being a robot.

There is simply no appeal to this show, i'm surprised that it's still running.

Sentiment: negative
Sit back and let Director Bharatbala lead us into a visual and sensual voyage of the mind and spirit of India. When was the last time you could say you really enjoyed a movie? This movie has pace and keeps us moving in directions that may only exist in India. If you didn't want to visit India before this movie will surely make you want to visit it now. This movie has dancing girls, a chase scene, and the mafioso involved. But it has a lot more. Thanks, Bharatbala, for taking us on such a spirited and wonderful tale. I loved the ending. We women don't want illusions in life, we want reality. P.S. I was Carolyn's friend at the Sonoma Film Festival and met you briefly. Good luck with your distribution efforts and I'm talking up the movie a storm.

Sentiment: positive
First,I'll give my rating for the series overall; ******* 7 out of ten stars. I've taken away three for the downhill slide this series suffered after John Amos departed. Don't get me wrong there were hard hitting episodes later but only after Esther Rolle left for a season and returned.

In February of 1974,a really great sit-com (with dramatic overtones)premiered on CBS. It was a TV first,a show about an African-American family living in the Chicago Projects in the 1970s. Created by Norman Lear as a spin-off of "Maude",he once again struck the right chord with viewers. 

Not since this show have I seen a situation comedy directly talk about the struggles of inner-city families. (Well,there was Fox's "South Central" in '94 but was not renewed.) 

John Amos as James Evans Sr. was the ultimate father figure for this family and acted as any father should to keep his family together and his kids from going down the wrong paths in life.

Esther Rolle was a wonderful no non-sense mother figure who was on the same page as her husband when it came to their kids upbringing. 

Ralph Carter as Michael a young but very bright young man for his age but stuck in a school system that doesn't meet his academic needs. His character's name is the same as the show's founder Mike Evans who was Lionel Jefferson on "The Jeffersons". (Mike Evans passed away Dec. 2006).

Thelma is a young girl of 16 or 17 and has to deal with the dangers of being a young woman in the streets of the ghetto. Jimmie Walker as J.J. Evans Jr. is the typical young wise-cracking,jiving kind of young man who does not take life seriously enough.

Simply put,all my favorite episodes are with John Amos,with the exception of the Penny Gordon/Janet Jackson story lines.

After the demise of the James Evans character,the show lost it's stability and viewers departed. Esther Rolle left for an entire year,not wanting to play second fiddle to JJ's smart-aleck "Dyno-mite's"! 

She returned the next season,after securing a guarantee that the writer's would even things out. Florida's neighbor Wilona Woods was a divorced woman who ended up adopting an abused little girl Penny Gordon (played by a then 10 year old Janet Jackson). Penny's abusive mother was played by Totie Fields,Kim Fields' Mother.

In August of 1979 the show came to an end,with all leaving the projects for a better life. JJ the artist had sold an idea to a comic-book company,Michael went off to live on campus at college. 

Wilona & Penny,Thelma & football player husband Keith + Florida all moved into the same building in uptown Chicago. Not the most realistic ending but by that time it didn't matter.

Sentiment: positive
My mother worked with Dennis L. Raider for eleven years, not to mention shared an office with him. When it was announced he was BTK, she was shocked. The whole day was just her telling stories about how she never would have seen him as the Wichita Killer. I've heard her re-tell them many times. I've inquired her about a lot of things, and gone to all the interviews that she was asked to go to. I've read the entire book written about Raider, Wichita is my hometown and I was surprised that such a thing could happen in Kansas.

There was another BTK movie on TV not too long ago, and I thought this one would have been better at portraying Dennis' killings, maybe even have some intelligent touches to his motives.

I'm going to be very blunt with the flaws in this movie. This is based on my mom's portrayal of him, all my readings on him, and the video tapes I've seen of him talking.

First of all, the camera angles were horrible. It looked as though it had been shot on a home video camera. The acting was terrible and I couldn't even bear to watch it.

Dennis Raider never had long hair. Dennis Raider was a "very anal man" and was a "follow the rule book" kind of guy. He wasn't as nice as the movie made him look, he was very polite and abrupt, business like. Same goes for his killings, as far as we all know. If you've seen his confession in court, you can already guess.

And as for the obsession with the slaughter house? No. Never have I read or has Dennis Raider confessed to having a problem with animal cruelty or people squishing bugs. In fact, he practiced on cats and dogs for choking methods. Yet through-out the whole movie he was putting animals in his victim's faces and acting like he cared about the well-being of them.

Dennis Raider never killed the people that he knew, he confessed this, but in the movie in his first killing he tells the lady he knows her also.

I really don't even want to go in to this movie, and I'm already ranting. This is NOT what you want to watch if you are interested in the actual happenings of BTK. This is NOT what you want to watch if you want a good horror movie. If you want a badly shot half-porno with some slaughter scenes served the side, then this is your kind of movie.

Sentiment: negative
A bunch of teen dirt bikers are out in the forest riding around in circles. They're having fun; little do they know nature is about to be unleashed by an emo refugee from a Deliverance or Hills Have Eyes movie. He's armed with matches and fire accellerant. And he's got an eye that's bleeding or something. Why torch a park? I dunno. Maybe he doesn't like Smokey the Bear, or something. But he wears army/navy store fatigues, if that helps.

The rangers send one single helicopter to battle the resulting blaze; that's all you ever see, except a bunch of people in a base somewhere talking a lot about the fire, but doing nothing. Some cop or ranger or militiaman or whatever he is drops from the helicopter on a defective tether.

Everybody now rides their dirt bikes like they're auditioning for motocross. They forever pop wheelies, do Evel Knievel jumps, spin around etc. They argue incessantly. Shots of the fire are as phony as a 3 dollar bill; it's the same footage from a dozen different angles, and the blaze never grows or moves. And you still never once see any fire fighting equipment.

SyFy channel movie which has about 0% science fiction attached to it. What you can expect from this: bad acting, cheap effects, and a story that goes nowhere (like the bikes and fire go nowhere). Laughable insomniac cure.

Sentiment: negative
Let's just say that it might be the worst movie I've ever seen. On the front of the box of the movie it says something about it resembling Reservoir Dogs. I fell for it hook, line, and sinker. This is just a warning message to anyone who might read this. It's not even worth renting when you want something to laugh at.

Sentiment: negative
Extremely boring..I don't care how many avant-garde bones you have in your body, this baby sucks...and don't go and see it because I mentioned that, save it for Warhol's "Empire", it's far more entertaining!! I have seen other Duras films that were far better, so I am dumbfounded why this is considered a "Masterpiece". As an Art Historian, I have had to consider radical works by Marcel Duchamp, Chris Burden, and Damien Hurst, and in these artist I can still see artistic intent , even quality, and an entertaining aspect in the rendering of their art. As for "India Song" -it's not even soft-porn- Anias Nin was almost here - G-rated slide show of sex- and a voice-over that does not relate to the slide show / movie......pure crap and not even campy...sadly just a bore and a waste of 2 hours. To add insult to injury, the print I saw was faded and scratched to hell!!! (Harvard Film Archive), If I want to see "entertaining boring" I watch Bunuel!! Yes "India Song"- hold your head high to late modernism and be truly bored!! Watch a 70's porn film with all the good parts cut out and turn the sound down, you'll get "India Song" but with better cinematography and none of the annoying music or the screams of the Vice Consul!!!.

Sentiment: negative
I've long heard that to get their start in 'legitimate' films, many behind-the-camera types work on porno films.

The people who produced and directed this monstrosity stayed too long.

Poorly paced, staged and written, it uses a lot of perfectly good talent (Diehl, Dorn, Eggert) badly.

Much sexual activity is teasingly implied here by the brassiere-popping host to the alien creature, but it never crosses the line...

You'll still want to shower afterwards, though.

Sentiment: negative
This sleek, sexy movie is a must-see. Only upon multiple viewings can one truly understand the uniqueness of this film. Personally I enjoy the narrator for his intelligent, no subject left untouched, style of narration. The introduction grips you right away, and holds you at the edge of your seat throughout the film. He provides wonderful insight into the world of the trainables and allows the audience to really 'connect' with internal horror this film exhibits. The script itself holds the movie together wonderfully. Not only for kids, but the elderly alike will gain a higher understanding of the trainables and the modern grasp that they have on the sexual experience. Ahead of its time and groundbreaking in cinematography, it surely defines the word 'masterpiece'.

Sentiment: negative
In a bizarre experiment, an astronaut is abandoned on the moon as Alice (Florinda Bolkan), a troubled translator living in Italy, wakes from a nightmare about a lunar mission mixed with an old movie that frightened her as a child. She also has no recollection of the last three days except for a torn photo of the Garma hotel she finds in her apartment. Fired from her job, Alice heads to that resort island to try and piece together the mystery...

Often touted as a giallo due to it's director (THE FIFTH CORD's Luigi Bazzoni) and the presence of Evelyn Stewart, Nicoletta Elmi, and Klaus Kinski, FOOTPRINTS is actually a deliberately paced psycho-thriller with sci-fi overtones. Blurring the distinction between dream, reality, memory and movies, the disturbing story is beautifully photographed by Oscar-winner Vittorio Storaro with a pensive score by Nicola Piovani. It also combines elements of such diverse films as Armando Crispino's MACCHE SOLARI and Lucino Visconti's DEATH IN VENICE in it's depiction of alienation, isolation, hallucination, and maybe madness. Brazilian actress Florinda Bolkan, on screen all the time, does a redux of her Carol Hammond in Lucio Fulci's A LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN as Alice, a young woman thrust into a mystery that makes her question her sanity. The locations mirror Alice's unstable state of mind; the island of Garma, off-season, with it's Arabic influence and ancient ruins, is a lonely, almost mystical place unwilling to give up its secrets. Evelyn Stewart has a bit in the beginning as a concerned friend, Nicoletta Elmi and Oscar-winner Lila Kedrova are hotel guests, Peter McEnery plays a handsome biologist trying to help Bolkan, and the ever-intense Klaus Kinski is "Blackmann" in the film-within-a-film, "Footprints On The Moon". 

FOOTPRINTS is a classy case of "Guaranteed 100% Euro-weird" but not for everyone. There's only one murder toward the end but you won't see it coming as the film starts to come together.

Sentiment: positive
An amazing film, I've only just seen it and I already want to see it again. I'd never heard of Derek Jarman before I saw this film but now I am, I can't wait to see his others. The film takes a whole new perspective of Shakespeare's The Tempest, I'm sure he'd have appreciated it for Jarman's use of the the play's themes of love, magic, darkness and atmospheric tension. OK, OK there may have been a bit of nudity in the film which I hadn't really anticipated but it didn't offend me, it just surprised me and made the film more unpredictable. One Spoiler (for those of a nervous disposition: Fast forward the flashback scene with Sycorax & Caliban and Ariel as their slave, its pretty graphic. Overall, if you are starting to find Kenneth Branagh's Shakespeare performances flaccid and monotonous then you need to see this film. Fantastic and surreal, it'll blow you away, but only if you let it. Have an open mind - and then let this film work it's magic on you.

Sentiment: positive
Henry Fool is a better film. But this is the perfect way to follow-up a film like 'Henry Fool.' To take Henry very seriously, his 'lies' and his mysterious aura. Even the opening shot of 'Henry Fool' when Simon puts his ear to the ground as Henry comes walking over the hill is more fully manifest through 'Fay Grim.' The over-the-top jokes, that are more or less meta-jokes (about the writing of the film and the jokes themselves), are good but the opening of the film is a little saturated in them. Also Hartley's use of Dutch angles throughout the film is jarring, yes, it's intention, but it feels forced and over-used, it goes beyond jarring to, what I'd like to call, annoying. It's a flawed film, but a must see for any Hartley or 'Henry Fool' fan. 

And don't listen to stupid reviews, don't watch this unless you've seen the first film. The intrigue, satire and wit of this movie is totally lost if you haven't seen Henry Fool. It's a sequel. That's just dumb.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was bad to say the least!!! The plethora of superb cars are disgraced to have have been showcased in this LAME movie. It starts off with a race from L.A. to Las Vegas to be completed in 1HR 45min...in a Ferrari F430. I did that in 1HR 50min in a tiny 4cylinder 140HP 1993 Honda Accord. Seriously...this movie does not do justice to these cars. Obviously these writers are just that and probably drive under the speed limit with their hands @ 10 & 2 o'clock. I remember seeing on the news how Eddie Griffin crashed a 1.5 million dollar Ferrari Enzo going 30-40MPH>>> youtube.com/watch?v=cNVrMZX2kms 

And...the director ANDY CHENG is THE biggest SELLOUT!!! He brings shame to his own race. I wonder just how many people he orally pleased just to break into Hollywood. He partook in a movie that portrays Asian Americans in such a negative and FALSE way. Asian women>>cheap money grubbing whores. Asian men>>losing compulsive gamblers & thugs that get beat all the time . What the heck is all the fear about asians?? Why the need to always portray them in such a negative connotation?? I am SO sick of the way Hollywood ALWAYS portrays asians in SUCH a negative and false pretext.

Sentiment: negative