DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Well, I saw this movie during the last San Sebastian Film Festival. The reaction to it was...let's say as funny as the movie unintetionally is. It happened that they showed a copy with terribly wrong spanish subtitles. They seemed to be a translation from chinese to english and then to spanish. It was all confusing, the genders were switched (girls appeared as boys and boys as girls), and my friends and I remember great lines... but because they were so absurd. All in all not a good movie, but if they ever show it on tv, and you have nothing to do, and if you want to laugh (again, not so much with the movie) then go ahead, "Visible secret" is your film.

Sentiment: negative
Edge of Madness is a tale about a woman in the 1800's who gets hand-picked by dirty Scotsman who can't keep his penis in his pants. He just so happens to have a younger brother who is against rape and kills him, but continuously says it was an accident. This makes his wife go crazy, she gets delusional and she takes the fall because she loves George too much.

Like I said, this type of thing has been done before. This is just more "artistic" because it's Canadian and it's an indie production done on a low-budget with hardly known actors (except that one kid from Lassie, yea, he's in it). I dunno' whether this was going for Oscar bait, but it was sure as hell boring. And this is based on a 40 page short story. Half of that short story is incorporated into this flick, and I'm glad. Otherwise, I'd bore to death. Unfortunately, I had to watch it in my Media Fundamentals class, and I had an assignment on it. Read the short story and compare and contrast the flick to the story. BORING.

You know, it's harder to answer movie questions when you don't like the movie. Ah well, I hope this is the last type of assignment me and my class get. For what it's worth, Annie Herron was totally hot, she had a nice, soft ass and I liked the nude parts of her in the movie.

3/10 for boring, Oscar bait performance and graphic sexuality..plus nudity.

Sentiment: negative
Reporter Kimberly Wells presents the minor side of the news; puff pieces that don't hold much news merit. While shooting footage on alternative energy at a nuclear power plant, an accident occurs. Friend and cameraman for Kimberly, Richard Adams illegally films the men controlling the incident in the control room. Jack Godell, head of the control room, prevents the reactor from disaster. After an investigation into the incident shows nothing is wrong, Jack can't help but feel something isn't right. On discovering that the weld seals on the generator pump are cracked, Jack with Kimberly and Richard seek to tell the public and shut down the unsafe plant.

Nearly made thirty years ago, The China Syndrome is a riveting drama that still holds so much relevance today. Nuclear power has always been a hotly debated subject, whether it is the safest source of alternative energy, radioactive waste, and are nuclear plants waiting to be the next Chernobyl. Just not about nuclear power, The China Syndrome explores freedom of speech, right of press and big business. On Jack's findings of falsified information, his knowledge halts a massive investment on the construction of another nuclear plant, which many men seek to profit from. Kimberly, desperately wanting out on the puff news, sees the fight for truth is more important than boosting her career; constantly pushed by Richard, never wanted to be silenced demanding the public be told of the accident.

Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas and Jack Lemmon are simply flawless. Fonda shows Kimberly as a fragile woman on her exterior, yet emotionally hard and determined to reveal this cover-up. Douglas brings a strong performance as Richard, fighting for honestly and truth. Lemmon shines over all as Jack., his performance is highly charged drama.

The China Syndrome is riveting viewing, that still holds much relevance today as it did when first released.

Sentiment: positive
publicity got me to the theatre

advice will take you away from this waist of time.

very bad everything.

do you really want to see a monkey talking with a technological device?

X

Sentiment: negative
OK - as far as the 2 versions of this movie. There were 2 people involved in the making - John Korty and Bill Couterie (George was just the producer - he really didn't have any kind of say so in the film - just helped with money) - the 'Adult' version was made possible by Bill Couterie. John Korty didn't like or approve this version (as it was done behind his back). Thanks to Ladd films going under, they didn't advertise this movie and threw all their advertising cash for "The Right Stuff", hoping it would pull them through;... and it didn't. SO, this movie never really had a chance. When "Twice" made it to cable (HBO) - they showed the reels with Bill's version and John threatened to sue if it was shown anymore (did you notice how the 'adult' version wasn't on for very long?). Showtime got the 'clean' version. The version on the videotape and laser-disc is the version approved by John (who holds more power than Bill). It's a pity, really, as the 'adult' version is actually better and DOES make more sense. But it's VERY doubtful that it will ever be released in that version onto DVD (or any other format short of bootleg). Sorry to disappoint everyone. I know all this info as I used to be the president of the Twice Upon A Time Fan Club (still have numerous items from the movie - used to own a letter-boxed version of the 'adult' version, but it was stolen - only have a partial HBO copy of it now). 8 stars to the 'adult' version - 5 to the 'clean' version. Any other questions, just ask.

Sentiment: positive
Knowing how old a film is, ought to prepare the viewer for a few things, and, with those things in mind, perhaps the movie'll be more tolerable. So it was when I watched Revolt of the Zombies. The heavy reliance on tedious dialogue and corny movements should be expected, as should the primitiveness (or absence) of special effects in those days. A great deal is asked from the imagination of the onlooker - maybe too much, in this case. And the plot isn't easy to follow: Some zombiefied southeast Asian soldiers in WWI performed very admirably. Although skeptical as to why, if true, the explanation should stay out of the wrong hands, so, off goes a group to archaeologically investigate. The key to long-distance hypnosis is learned by a member of the expedition, who uses it to, among other purposes, temporarily dispense with the beau of the gal for whom he has the hots. To prove his love for her, he gives up his hold on everybody, which he shouldn't have done 'cause, once they're all unzombiefied, many want to kill him so that he'll never control them again. Below average, even with precautionary forethought. Recommended for only the extremely patient.

Sentiment: negative
Goldeneye will always go down as one of thee most legendary games in VG history. Their is no doubt about that. But this game, although quite different, could quite possibly be the modern-day Bond champ, of its time.

This was not a bond game based on material from another medium. This was a completely new; scripted game. Which even had its own theme song! (wouldnt be bond without it, haha!) Gameplay was excellent, and if you're a fan of the bond games or films alike, you'll enjoy it.

Unlike some/most games, these cast members portrayed their characters themselves, as opposed to fictional creations for the game. Which gives it that more cinematic feel. With a very 'bond'-able storyline, you feel like you're in the game as much as you get lost in a movie.

Enjoyable in all aspects, from start to finish. Even after beating the game there's still plenty more to be done. With the ranking system and unlockables to be achieved, as well as its multi-player missions, this is a stand-out game. Despite being quite old now, in video game years. It's still a good game that you can pick up & play whenever you feel the need to get a little more Bond in your life. Even now just thinking about it, I've got the theme song stuck in my head. Such a great cast and well-written storyline.

The story comes to life on the screen, almost as if the actors were their in front of you, and is every bit as entertaining as the game itself. Superbly done, in true bond fashion. Which can only be named Awesome, Completely Awesome.

I've gotta go throw this game on now. If you haven't played it yet, you're missing out!

Sentiment: positive
Oh my God... where to begin? "Chupacabra Terror" is one of the worst B-Horror movies ever made. This crap makes "Demon Slayer" look like "The Exorcist". Special note: A Horror B-movie needs to have at least one sex scene. Don't expect even a hot girl in this one. With that inexcusable mistake, I should begin with the complete bash.

First of all, if you're going to make a Horror monster movie, you should spend big part of the budget in creating a "cool" monster outfit. The monster in this movie looks like a $10 Halloween costume. There is no way the Chupacabras (yes, this is how it is spelled) looks menacing in the movie. It's an actor in a Halloween outfit please!! it looks so cheap it makes me mad. 

Second, the gore effects are the spinal cord of any direct to video monster Horror movie. Again, the producers decided not to spend for decent gore effects. The blood looks damn fake! Please take a close look at the guy that gets chopped in two. That's probably the best scene in the movie and it lasts for about ten seconds. The ending is a very poor scene that won't leave you satisfied. 

The acting is the last thing you should expect to have quality in these kind of movies; but in this movie it's beyond terrible. A cast of nobodies with no acting experience make the fool out of themselves for about 85 minutes. Special mention deserves a blonde guy with curly hair that tries to convince SWAT members that he is sick. The coughing he fakes is beyond laughable. He's probably the worst actor ever in a B-Horror movie, no kidding. Also, Captain Peña delivers a terrible performance in the first ten minutes of the flick. 

The TRUE story behind the Chupacabras is not even told. All you get to know is that the monster sucks goat's blood. Why bother with this piece of crap? Plesae, do not even watch it even if you have the chance. Not even if it airs on cable. 

I usually support low budget Horror movies because the people involved in them at least try to do something "different" than Hollywood but that doesn't means that Horror fans like me should accept this kind of garbage.

Sentiment: negative
I Won't say anything about music, because this topic can be so deep that it can become one huge separate review, so let's concentrate on movie that is brilliant... No doubt, one of the best works of Forman.

The simple story about love, friendship, freedom and ideals... oh yes, the ideals for which even pacifists are ready to go in war...

There is not a single fake word, single fake character, single fake feeling in the story, because the love, freedom and friendship isn't something complicated for the characters of movie. These things aren't something that "everyone can view from different angle" These aren't things that need much thinking to understand... their love is simple, their friendship is simple, their ideals are as simple as the word "simple" itself and that's why these characters are so deep.

Berger, the leader of a hippie played by Treat Williams is a guy who lives to live and that's the biggest happiness for him... he has his ass - (as he sings in one of the scenes in the movie) and that's enough to make him happy with his property...

Berger never accepts that something can't be done... and his right... If he wants to go to some rich guys' banquet in his dirty old clothes and huge long hair, he will do it... if he want's to go to another state to just see his friend, he'll do it... he never thinks twice... he just do it.

How? why is he so powerful? the answer is simple: because he is FREE.

Just watch how the wind makes the hair wave in this movie and you will understand it all, maybe you will even free yourself too.

Sentiment: positive
I've had this movie on tape for years and started watching it again this morning (while waiting for my laundry --- how ironic!) mostly because I wanted to hear Benjamin Frankel's title music again. I ended up sitting through about the first half hour, entranced by how wonderfully assured the direction, writing, and performances are. The movie is like a who's who of 50s British character stars: Cecil Parker, Michael Gough, Miles Malleson, Duncan Lamont, and particularly Ernest Thesiger, great as the dessicated old giant of the textile mills. Not to mention Alec Guinness and Joan Greenwood, not character players as such but charming, charismatic leads. This is science fiction in its purest form and droll comedy as well. An all-time classic, and I hope no one ever tries to remake it!

Sentiment: positive
I was not nearly as smitten with this as many other reviewers. Sure, it has a pair of lovely girls playing erotic, lesbian vampires. Marianne Morris and Anulka D. play these two lovely sirens with razor teeth that run up to cars on a road out of the way, hitch to their home(at dusk), and invite their prey...sex-starved men to their boudoir. What happens there...well, after they disrobe and kiss each other mostly, they kill their visitors. Director Jose Ramon Larraz does have some flashes of brilliance with his camera. Some scenes are quite eerie and effectively shot, but sex alone does not hold a film up(no pun intended...at least consciously). There really isn't much of a story here. We have the two girls. We are shown some inexplicable and unexplained beginning where we see them shot with pistol. Why? What does it mean" Why do we have the guy that stays for several days greet a guy at the hotel that insists he knows him from years ago? Does that have a purpose? Of course I have even more general questions like what is a couple of nice-looking girls doing as vampires in the English countryside and having a wine cellar filled with wine from the Carpathians? Anyway, the script is riddled with such flaws. It is also very sparse on the action outside of catch victims, wine and dine them(quite literally), and then go to bed in the crypt. The end gets going with some juicier scenes, but it is anti-climatic. There are, as I said, some effective scenes by the director...I particularly liked the way the girls dressed and were filmed in the woods looking for their prey. The house is also a most impressive set. And both girls are as I said very lovely. Marianne Morris in particular stands out - in more ways than one. For you older film fans, silent screen veteran Bessie Love has a brief cameo at film's end.

Sentiment: negative
"Love and Human Remains" is one of those obviously scripted, obviously acted, obviously staged flicks which is so obvious that the escape velocity from its contrivances and fabrication is beyond me. Not worth explaining, this amateurish flick tries to cram every clever line, every misanthropic overtone, every peculiar sexual predilection into one film with an absence of concern for making the pieces fit. In short, sensationalistic crap without the sensation...which pretty much just leaves crap.

Sentiment: negative
Rupert Friend gives a performance, as Prince Albert, that lifts "The Young Victoria" to unexpected levels. He is superb. As we know, Queen Victoria fell into a dark, deep depression after Prince Albert's death and looking into Ruper Friend's eyes I understood. The film doesn't take us to his death but to an incident that may very well could have cost his life. An act of love. I believed it, or I should say, him. I believed what he felt was real. Nothing or anybody gets anywhere near the delicacy and profundity of Friend's characterization. Emily Blunt is good but I didn't believe for a minute she was Victoria. No real sense of period. It may no have been her fault but her prince deserved the crown.

Sentiment: positive
This film is where the Batman franchise ought to have stopped. Though I will concede that the ideas behind "Batman Forever" were excellent and could have been easily realised by a competent director, as it turned out this was not to be the case.

Apparently Warner Brothers executives were disappointed with how dark this second Batman film from Tim Burton turned out. Apart from the idiocy of expecting anything else from Burton, and the conservative cowardice of their subsequent decision to turn the franchise into an homage to the Sixties TV series, I fail to understand how "Batman Returns" can be considered at all disappointing.

True, it is not quite the equal of the first film - though it repairs all the minor deficiencies of style found in "Batman," a weaker script that splits the antagonism between not just two but three characters invites unflattering comparisons to the masterful pairing of Keaton and Jack Nicholson as the Joker in the first film. Yet for all this it remains a gorgeously dark film, true to the way the Batman was always meant to be, and highly satisfying.

Michael Keaton returns as the Batman and his alter ego Bruce Wayne, tangling with nouveau riche tycoon Max Schreck (Christopher Walken, named in honour of the 1920s German silent actor), his partner-in-crime Oswald Cobblepot, the Penguin (Danny DeVito in brilliant makeup reminiscent of Laurence Olivier's "Richard III"), and Selina Kyle, the Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer), whom Wayne romances both as himself and as the Batman. The four principals turn in excellent performances, especially Walken and DeVito, while together Keaton and Pfeiffer explore the darker side of double identities.

There are some intriguing concepts in this film. About the only weakness I can really point out is a certain limpness to the script in some places, which I think is due mostly to the way this film is a four-cornered fight. There simply isn't enough time to properly explore what's going on.

Nevertheless, this is a damn good film. I highly recommend watching this in conjunction with the first, and then weeping for how good the series could have been had it continued under Burton and Keaton.

Sentiment: positive
The idea had potential, but the movie was poorly scripted, poorly acted, poorly shot and poorly edited. There are lots of production flaws ... for example, Dr. Lane's daughter who never ages despite the passing years. Wait for video, but don't expect much.

Sentiment: negative
Besides the fact that this guy is a liar, he is also a total idiot, and a thief in the comedy community. Once when I attempted to watch this excuse for a television show, I believe i actually threw up in my mouth a little. I can't help but feel a little bit dumber every time is see one of his horrid commercials while I am enjoying great comedy central programs like Reno 911 and American body shop. It shows like this that make me worry about the continual existence of mankind. It's hard to believe that even Joe Rogan can make someone look like an moron. Please begin praying now that comedy central will realize their mistake and end this show as soon as possible. Haven't we suffered enough?

Sentiment: negative
This has got to be the worst case of over acting since the silent era. Not just one or two actors but virtually the entire cast. Lee Majors and Bo Svenson were fine but the rest of them look like their first time acting.

So the budget was not tremendous. Much of the costumes and set were believable but there were many things that jump out at the viewer to let us know that they couldn't double check or get all of the props to match the period.

I can't think of one aspect of the film that I liked or didn't shake my head. Your time will be better spent burning lint collected from your bellybutton.

Sentiment: negative
Well, I'll begin with this: I love horror-movies, not even the worst plot or the most insanely terrible acting will ruin the experience as long as there is a certain amount of gore and suspense present. Second; this is the worst movie of all times. It even beats Mean Guns, and the attack of the killer tomatoes. And for that I pay it homage.

However, the involuntary humor was only funny until half the movie had passed, after which point everything was so so sad. To my great surprise, the reviews where somewhat divided; and you guys who rated this piece of C-movie-crap from 7 and up; I KNOW YOU'RE JOKING! GOOD ONE!! HAHAHA! Because if there is any reason in the world, and we have just an tiny bit of the same notion of what quality is; you can't be for real.

Everything worth to be mentioned about the contents has already been summed pretty good up, so I'll leave it. 

MINOR SPOILER ALERT

But the scene where the cloaked rubber mask guy drags the woman back and forth through the dog-kennel for ten minutes, with o so terrible music score and the mind blowing dialog between the two, really does it for me.

Sentiment: negative
49. PAPERHOUSE (thriller/horror, 1988) Sick in bed with a fever 11-year old Anna (Charlotte Burke) has only her drawings to keep her company. Her health progressively worsens as a series of mysterious 'black outs' grip her. In each of these episodes she dreams of a house in a desolate field, with only a sickly-invalid boy named Marc (Elliot Spiers) inhabiting it. When a dark, unknown danger threatens her idyllic "paperhouse", the life of Marc is put in jeopardy. Her life is also in danger as these dreams mirror her own state of health.

Critique: Haunting first debut feature from British director Bernard Rose. Taken from a fable ("Marianne Dreams") by Catherine Storr, it leaves plenty of other 'original' fantasy works in its wake. Whenever a story deals with dreams and nightmares it is hard to give it the mixture of fable and reality to make it work in film form. Director Rose successfully captures the children fantasy world aspect along with a darkness that seeks to usurp them.

Feverishly scored by Phillip Glass, Rose knows how to use music wisely with expertly timed 'jump out of your seat' moments. Most thrillers are very sloppy in this all-important aspect of scaring the audience into not knowing what the next scene will bring. I also like the way he captures suspense and never lets it go or falter sluggishly into the next sequence of events. Also, his mastery of placing objects within the frame (as in his P.O.V.shots) gives the cinematography an added dimension it would otherwise seem to lack. Only in Europe will you find such ominous looking places as the ones presented here: the lonely house, the fields, coastal towns, watchtower etc. 

Rose would follow this film with "Candyman" (1992), a true 'thinking person's' horror gem and bona fide cult horror favorite.

Sentiment: positive
I love the frequently misnomered "Masters of Horror" series. Horror fans live in a constant lack of nourishment. Projects like this (and the similar "Greenlight Project" with gave us "Feast" - like it or lump it) are breeding grounds for wonderful thought bubbles in the minds of directors with a horror bent to develop and bring to maturation food for we who love to dine on horror.

This one began with a kernel of really-kool-idea and ran ... right off the edge of "where in the world am I going with this?!!!".

I don't know how to spoil the spoiled but "SPOILER AHEAD" All of a sudden ... no, there was that light drifting across the night sky earlier ... we have long haired luminescent aliens (huh? ... HUH?) brain drilling males and ... yeah, I get it but ... well ... the worst curse of storytelling - a rousing and promising set up without a rewarding denouement.

Cue to storytellers ... your build up has to have a payoff that exceeds build up. Not the other way around. Storytelling math 101.

End of Spoilers - Big Oops!

Sentiment: negative
The effect achieved in this story about a psychiatrist who becomes involved with con artists is so mannered that I have to assume that that was the desired intent. The sets are artificial and at no time did I not feel that I was watching a movie. It seemed like the actors were just reading their lines, rather than responding to one another. While the film has elements of early film noir (except that it is in color) the approach is so exaggerated that I almost have to conclude that it is a parody of the genre.

Given that the presentation had no appeal to me, I was at least expecting an engaging story. Usually I am pretty slow on the uptake when it comes to stories with plot twists, but you could see what was coming here within the first fifteen minutes. By the time of the, "Gee, I forgot the $80,000," moment, I thought to myself that this thing is truly ridiculous. For a psychiatrist with stated experience in gambling addictions to behave so stupidly is beyond belief. If at any stage she had behaved like a normal intelligent person, the whole story would have fallen apart.

This wooden production left me cold.

Sentiment: negative
A lot has already been written about the film itself, so instead of adding to the noise I just want to say a few words on the two female actors.

It has to be a daunting prospect for any actress to star, in a sense, versus the spectacular Monica Bellucci, but Romane Bohringer pulls it off to sensational ends. A film starring Monica Bellucci where I fall in love with the other girl?? That's not supposed to happen.

It's been said a thousand times, but Monica Bellucci strikes the saddest figure in modern cinema. I have never before seen such innate sadness. She would not be out of place breaking Lon Chaney's heart.

Sentiment: positive
From 2002 on Dutch cinema finally got better again. This movie is still part- and a schoolbook example of the bad period of Dutch cinema.

The story is needlessly told in flashback style. All of the 'present' sequences set in France are completely redundant and add nothing to the story, emotions or power. For some reason European filmmakers often find it necessary to tell the story not chronological. I never understood why, or what the appeal of it is.

The story self also isn't exactly the greatest. It isn't always clear were the movie is trying to go to and what it tries to tell. The story of a young unexperienced boy falling in love with a wild young girl, who later turns out to be quite psychotic might sound good enough on paper and even shows some parallels to Paul Verhoeven's "Turks fruit", to which this movie often was compared to before and at the time of its release. However the end result is far from comparable. The story fails to capture the right emotions, which is also due to the unimaginative performances from the actors. The way the story is told also makes the movie far from always interesting or compelling. I lost interest for this movie at about 40 minutes through the movie.

At the time this movie was made, both Antonie Kamerling and Angela Schijf were promising rising stars, with great potential and ambitions but both their careers have pretty much dried up by now. Angela Schijf seems to give her family more attention than her career (that is not a bad thing of course), while Antonie Kamerling tried to start a career in Hollywood. He never got any further than playing some small bit parts in 2 Renny Harlin flops. To be honest I'm not surprised. It's not that he is a bad actor and he certainly has got the right looks but his English just isn't good enough, to put it mildly. Just listen to him speaking English in the beginning of this movie and you'll understand what I mean. They are really not bad actors but for some reason it doesn't show in this movie. It's probably also due to the poor dialog. I still kind of liked Beau van Erven Dorens. He's been criticized a lot but his acting seems very natural. He always keeps the characters close to who he self is.

It by no means is one of the worst movies ever made but it's not exactly one I would recommend either. Bad and uninteresting storytelling makes this a bad movie.

4/10

Sentiment: negative
its awful i cant believe that one of the greatest nonsenses in the world can be a blockbuster and the favorite movie of millions of people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a movie which has no story,again shahrukh khan has been appeared on the screen with nothing new the same as usual he is trying to make you cry by start scrambling his head for thousands of times,i think this is to much,pretty zinta spouse to act the character of a Pakistani girl i didn't know that there is enough facilities in Pakistan for the Pakistani girls to do so many plastic surgeries on their face and also there are enough make up facilities??!! and also i didn't know that an Indian can cross the March's between both countries,go to Pakistan and start dancing and singing may be Pakistani soldier's were sleeping!!!!!!!!!

Sentiment: negative
Totally forgettable. Specially because of the weak acting. This is the first movie I've seen with Dax Shepard. To my surprise, he's been around since the late 90's. I thought he was a newcomer, since his acting was so bland. I could say the same about Liv Tyler. Although I've seen her do well in other movies, she gave Clare Cooper a strange personality. Liv is not the kind of actress that will give the character a fiery, emotional personality like Diane Keaton would be able to, but it was pretty strange to see her say her lines in whisper mode. It seemed that altogether there simply wasn't a very good chemistry going on between the actors, and I think Diane Keaton sensed that as well. She's a fantastic actress, but seemed just a bit over the top in this movie. It felt like she just wanted to get this movie over as soon as possible. I wouldn't blame her.

Sentiment: negative
My grandad gave me this DVD. With friends like these. The front cover looked quite scary thought i'd watch it. What a bloody mistake.

Basically the film follows three people on a bus and what happens to them involving friends.

The first one is about a guy who buys a car that talks to him. The second is a about a guy who wakes up to find a cassarole clone in his fridge. And the third is about a woman who does online dating but it turns out he has a robotic arm.

The DVD case rated this film 18 but even a 5 year old can watch this and not be scard or entertained. The film should be rated 12 for slight scares and the swear word bloody.

All in all this film is utter shite don't go near it.

Sentiment: negative
John Heder was absolutely horrendous in this movie. I felt like I was watching a bad college kid act for the first time in a student film. Anna Farris was par for the course, not good, but not horrible (plus she's cute). Dianne Keaton should have known better. Jeff Daniels was the only saving grace in this movie (even though it was poor judgement on his part as well). 

All in all, I would avoid this at all costs. I'm just glad I didn't pay to see it! 

John Heder will forever be stuck in the typecast role of' the dorky kid,' unless he does some SERIOUS work on his acting chops.

Sentiment: negative
the real plot...

A group of post-Civil War prostitutes seek alternative housing in FORT BOOM. Lacy Everett and a close-knit family of call girls have been eating date expired sausages for days and plan to move into the former Fort McMillian. Locals warn the women of eating more of the dated sausage. Because there is a vicious pyromaniac loose in the area and he refuse to shuttle them out to the property. When they finally arrive at their destination, they discover their stomach is full of gass after all the bad sausage. It is not long before they learn why their new home is called FORT BOOM.

Sentiment: negative
A few thoughts before I get to the heart of the film: 1) I have never seen so many bare breasts in a film before, displayed in so many non-sexual scenes -- it was weird; 2) Joseph Fiennes, where have you been? You charmed us in *Elizabeth* and *Shakespeare in Love*, and then you went away for awhile. Mainstream American wants more! Okay, I'm a college English professor, I have read this play many times, and this is probably the best film version I've seen of it. While individual aspects of other productions may have stood out, this is the overall package put together well. Pacino is no Olivier, but he doesn't need to be, so get over it! The film's cinematography is stunning and not just because of the bare breasts. Venice is portrayed amazingly, and you do get a feel for really being there. Portia's residential island is amazingly beautiful, and the lighting is always tinted the proper way for the scenes' appropriate moods.

The anti-Semetism in this film/play is hard to watch, especially at the end. Pacino's dropping to the knees and clutching his religious artifact is perhaps the most powerful moment of his on film since *The Godfather Part III* (when Michael's daughter is gunned down on the opera steps). Is the play anti-Semetic? Sure. Is *Othello* racist? Sure. Take it for what it is: a commentary on the Elizabethan era, not a commentary on today.

Fiennes is underutilized in the film, but still a pleasure to watch. The women in the film are alright; no one really stood out here, but they do blend in nicely with the scenery. Jeremy Irons and Pacino are excellent in the two juiciest roles, adversaries until the end. I've always felt Irons was underrated (I still get chills when I hear his voice from *The Lion King*), and Pacino is Pacino.

Sentiment: positive
This movie grabbed me with the incredible opening sequence which tricked me into a complete reversal of perspective, so I was hooked by the time the title came on. The theme of this movie is that everyone is acting, trying to re-invent themselves, but not in a tricky way like Identity or the Usual Suspects, but in the way we all try to make whatever banal life we find ourselves in a little more interesting. The scenes in the chicken warehouses are spectacular. At one point Jorgen (who owns the chicken farm) attends a seminar in laughing, where he's the worst student. His discomfort at this lets you see the depth of his yearning to change himself. The movie made me wonder about the hidden mysteries that lie behind the surface of the most commonplace people I see every day. There's not a lot of plot here. Guessing the old man's secret is pretty easy, but the fascination lies in trying to guess what all the other characters will do when they figure it out. This movie appealed to me in the same way that Sideways did, although the characters couldn't be more dissimilar.

Sentiment: positive
Brought to you by the following among others:

1- Yigal Carmon (Hebrew יגאל כרמון) is the president and founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)

Yigal's Career: 

Colonel, Israeli Army Intelligence from 1968-88 Acting head and adviser on Arab affairs, Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria, 1977-1982

2- Raphael Shore is an Israeli-Canadian film writer, producer, and Rabbi employed full time by Aish HaTorah. He is the founder of The Clarion Fund, a non-profit organization that seeks to advance the idea that the United States faces a threat of radical Islam. Shore is also a regular critic of the media coverage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, coverage which he alleges is regularly anti-Israel. (LMAO)

3- Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Funny how ADL supports this hateful propaganda. You can never tell by reading their "Anti-Defamation" name title.

Use your mind and see how objective these people are. They have their own agenda!

I think, therefore I am.

Sentiment: negative
If you liked watching Mel Gibson in Million Dollar Hotel then you might enjoy watching Burt Reynolds in yet another film so bad it could never be distributed. I can only attest to the DVD version so maybe the VHS version is better quality wise but the movies night and dark scenes have been so poorly done that everythings seems red. I first thought my DVD players was messed up. It wasn't. If you insist on watching it I recommend you adjust the color on your TV until it is black and white. If you don't you will never be able to get through the film. If you do it will simply remind you of a poor film students attempt to revist the style of Pulp Fiction.

Sentiment: negative
I was wondering if there was a place or a link that someone can send me or post for me so i can watch this show . it seems to be a missing show i have been looking for years now its about oz and a girl who has to help save it . it was really good . but i found a good oz type thing on the web but i cant find it again or seem to remember a lot of it due to being years and was thinking that this one maybe it and from reading all this it sounds good and maybe the missing show that i really liked please someone help me thanks so much so please anyone that can help me or give me a link that would be so helpful again thank you so much....or if anyone has an oz based good videos please post as well.

Sentiment: negative
I liked most of this film. As other reviews mentioned it has a good cast, the plot is interesting enough. All in all it is fun to watch.

But the ending, I feel, is completely botched, it left me bewildered. Yes, you expect people crossing and double-crossing each other in this sort of movie, but quadruple-crossing? Well, if it's justified by the plot then why not? 

But that's the bad part, there's completely no need for it. After a certain point it's all scheming with completely no meaning. (here comes the SPOILER). After the airport scene Enrico and his accomplices already HAVE the money. I couldn't understand the need for the rest of the scam. Is it all necessary just to rub Federico's nose in the fact that he's been fooled? I don't buy it.

So 6 out of 10 for 3/4 of the film and 2 out of 10 for the ending.

Sentiment: negative
I realize the line on my summary is not too polite.

This film written & directed by Scott Caan & starring Giovanni Ribisi,Don Cheadle & himself runs a long 88 minutes.

There is a dog in this puppy of a movie., he is cute.

The movie opened in 2 U.S. theatres in late April 2007,for one week & grossed all of $ 914. It quickly went to DVD in early August 2007.

We were only able to take about 40 minutes before we turned the DVD off.

This was the type of movie that played on lower half of double bill. You saw the main film & figured lets see what this one is like, You might have walked out before we shut it off.

The 3 actors & the young ladies in the film all have done & deserve better than this..

Ratings: ** (out of 4) 54 points (out of 100) IMDb 4 (out of 10_

Sentiment: negative
The plot is predictable. It has been done many times in other movies. You have competing summer camps in this one: the rich kids vs. the underachievers competing for "bragging" rights in the typical camp contests, while the kids and consolers pursue pranks, sex, and "a good time!" "Are You Ready For The Summer?" Meatballs is the first (and best) summer camp movie for feel-good comedy. As others have posted, it's no Citizen Kane, but this type of movie isn't meant to be. The film works because of the wonderful comic timing and classic one-liners of Bill Murray. His scenes with a camper where he tries to raise the kid's self-esteem are very good. Bill's one-liners throughout the film are very funny.

I also like that this movie isn't dirty or explicit like so many other "teens at camp" movies today. There is some mild sexual innuendo and maybe one or two cuss words in the entire film. But Meatballs is the type of teen movie that is actually appropriate for the younger crowd. It's rated PG.

This is a movie that you have to see a few times to get all of the jokes! When Bill Murray is on the screen or making one of his classic "PA Announcements" you are drawn to the film. Bill seems to carry the movie all by himself. But he does it so well, that when you see Meatballs, you will realize that this is the film that made him a star! A side note to this review is to avoid ALL of the Meatball movie sequels. They are horribly bad.

Sentiment: positive
One of the many vigilante epics that flooded the market by the mid-80s. The routine plot has echoes of "The Magnificent Seven" (believe it or not), the action scenes are lamely handled and the special effects are non-existent. You COULD do worse....but the film is still just a waste of time. (*1/2)

Sentiment: negative
Have you ever, or do you have, a pet who's been with you through thick and thin, who you'd be lost without, and who you love no matter what? Betcha never thought they feel the same way about you!

Wonderful, wonderful family film. If you have a soft spot for animals, this is guaranteed to make you cry no matter your age. I used to watch this movie all the time when I was a little kid, and I find that now, at age sixteen, I love it as much as I did then. I could never decide on a favorite character then, and I still don't think I can! I love all three of the animals. The dialogue seems very real and comfortable, like a loving, but feuding family. I do love Chance, and how at the end he says that he has a family at last. Cheesy, yes, but one must remember that this is meant to be a family film, and it fulfills that role perfectly. Sassy has just the perfect dose of "sassiness" and Shadow is the perfect leader/role model to the young, adventurous Chance.

The animals way outshine the humans, but of course most of the teary moments are to be had during an interaction with them (ie. rescuing Molly, and the end). Not to mention the incredible soundtrack that gives each moment even more emotion, and an accompanying heart-swelling feeling. I give this 9/10. To be compared to (and even rated better than) Cats and Dogs and Babe.

Sentiment: positive
Time travel into the past is tenuous at best as a topic. In this episode a man who has been thinking about the possibility, finds himself at the date and location of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. He tries everything he can think of in the short time available to him with predictable results. Of course, he is thought to be quite mad. He is arrested and eventually remanded to the very man he is attempting to stop. Serling was bright enough to let him return to the present, but is the present the same? This is kind of a precursor to "The Time Tunnel" where time travelers on a weekly basis were given the same task, overcoming what had already happened. Unfortunately, the implications of the distortion of time and the future always negate the result. Unless you have something like Ray Bradbury's "The Sound of Thunder."

Sentiment: positive
This wretched movie shows that not even some of Gollywood's best can salvage a true landfill deposit..

I could spend much time describing everything that was bad about this effort, but that would require more time and I've already wasted 91 minutes watching...IT.

Looking at it now, after Brando's death, shows how tragic the life of one of our greatest actors had become.

Donald Sutherland? Why? 

I have to fill more lines to get this accepted. I have to fill more lines to get this accepted. I have to fill more lines to get this accepted.

Don't waste your time with this movie. I'm overdue to do something interesting. Bye.

Sentiment: negative
Another popular screening for a British picture at Coalville's Century Theatre. A well crafted, solid drama with an ever developing plot and ongoing 'twists in the tale'...as the lies piled up! A masterclass of acting by a flawless cast, well marshaled by first time director Julian Fellowes. Outstanding performance, as usual, by Tom Wilkinson but good turns by all concerned including supporting actors Linda Bassett and John Neville. Our audience was engrossed by this film, which includes a couple of shock incidents which really make you 'jump'. A good tight production at around only 80 minutes, probably produced on a very limited budget, but a success, which should see Fellowes directing again for the big screen. Some publicity for the film seemed to suggest it was set in the 50s (as per Nigel Balchin's novel)but obviously this is not the case. Recommended viewing.

Sentiment: positive
You'd think the first landing on the Moon would be dramatic enough without needing to make up stuff about it. However, this documentary seems to need to cast everything in the scariest possible light. It talks about the risks associated with the lunar module and mentions Armstrong's nearly fatal accident with the training vehicle, as if the trainer and the spacecraft had anything to do with each other. It makes the computer overload problem (the 1202 and 1201 alarms) encountered during the final landing sequence sound like a near-catastrophe when it was just an annoyance and not a risk to the crew at all. And it takes the "thirty seconds" call to mean thirty seconds of fuel left before running out, when it's actually thirty seconds before an abort is mandatory.

If you want to see a documentary or dramatization of Apollo 11, go for "From the Earth to the Moon" or one of the PBS documentaries, but skip this one.

Sentiment: negative
Where to start. The film started out pretty well, but after the 30 min mark i caught myself watching the clock. The horror at the start of the film was good but then the story kicked in. It just got stupider and stupider as time ticked by.

The actors gave an average performance in this movie however, i got a bit bored of Vinny Jones constant scowling in the film.

As the film dragged on, and take my word for it, it dragged on, it just got more and more far fetched.

*** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** Just when i thought the film could not get any worse, towards the end loads if skeleton looking monsters turned up, just to eat the dead people which made no sense at all. It turned out to be some sort of flesh eating cult and the good guys die at the end. The ending in fact just made me laugh at how bad it was. Once the lead role disposes of Vinny Jones, he becomes the new killer.

In closing, this film made Creep look like the best horror film ever made. I gave it 1 star because the female lead did a pretty good job but even she could not save this train wreck of a movie!!

Sentiment: negative
I had high expectations for this indie having perused the many thumbs up reviews. Then....

Here's my additional 'two cents' to the already posted, excellent 'lost in translation' review. Premise: Morgan is 'stuck' in a dusty small town where he meets lovely Scarlet who is working in the local supermarket. Can Morgan help elevate the lovely Scarlet from her trailer trash life?

Realistic dialog? NOT. How about that shopping in Target. First, Freeman looks at the Target interior as if he's walked into Harrods. Then, he's bowled over at a T-shirt rack confirming he has NEVER been in any store visited by lovely Scarlet. Morgan is detached from any and all aspects of Scarlet's reality and is portrayed as gleeful in his ignorance of everyone and everything in Scarlet's life.

One reviewer enjoyed the Scarlet and ex-hubby fight scene where her survival, a car in this instance, requires she physically attack her ex hubbie. Does Freeman run to her defense....naw...he's cowering in disbelief and totally incapable of dealing with such a blunt aspect of her very real, sorry lot in life. 

Freeman's character believes a car wash and new very revealing, tight fitting blouse is the key to Scarlet's job interview. Another sign that Freeman is CLUELESS. Freeman's endless 'stage talk' where all aspects of Scarlet's reality are reduced to one or another stage related Freeman experience was irritating. 

Freeman is right to emphasize that Scarlet is young with her future ahead of her and then conveniently ignores the brick walls she faces vis a vis: uneducated, no white collar skills or experience, VERY POOR, no family support and a lifetime of low self esteem. Scarlet learns such life lessons from Freeman as: some people pay $100 for a T-shirt and a revealing blouse may open doors in lieu of her lack of education and white collar job skills. In the end Freeman offers Scarlet little more than strange diversion with a 'star',not even paying for gas for Scarlet's dead of night return to her unchanged life in a town the name of which Freeman cares not to know.

Sentiment: negative