DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Daniel Day-Lewis is the most versatile actor alive. English aristocratic snob in A Room With a View, passionate Irish thief in In the Name of the Father, an impudent, violent butcher in Gangs of New York (in a performance ten times stronger than Adrian Brody's in the Pianist) and as the outrageous Cristy Brown with cerebral palsy in My Left Foot (just to name a few). His roles all influence eachother, but each is seperate, and utterly unique. He changes completely, with each character he takes on. And I'm beginning to believe that he can act as anything. Anything.

As Cristy Brown he is stunning. He does not ridicule the character, and he does not pity the character. A difficult achievement. And Cristy Brown comes to life. A smart man. An outrageous man. Human.

This movie, despite small scene-transition faults and the like, is an inspiration. Yes, it's predictable. But is it stupidly sentimental? No. I laughed. I cried. Not a single moment of cheese. Proof that this isn't a Hollywood movie.

My favourite scene is the scene in the restaurant, when Cristy is discussing painters with Eileen, Peter and her friends. Here's where Daniel Day-Lewis reaches an acting climax. "I'll kick you in the only part of your anatomy that's animated." "Wheel out the cripple!" And his performance never slows down, never falters, and is beautiful. Simply. He has a lot of screen time here. I watch it again again, and I never get tired of Cristy's perspicacious eyes, twitching and guttural speeches.

A must-see. Fo sho, yo!

Sentiment: positive
can someone please help me i missed the last view moments and i don't want to pay money to see the whole film again. i got to just where they are in the train carriage and she says 'what about that drink now?' and smiles. what happens after that? is there anymore dialogue or action? surely it doesn't just end there? i was a bit bored in the film and kept hoping it would get better. i love Kristen Scott Thomas does anyone remember the UK TV series she was in about some nuns? i am wanting to know the name. Sean Penn was brilliant Madonna eat your heart out! everybody else in fact the film a bit predictable, it was a 'spot a star cast'. the ending took me by surprise i really thought she had burnt her boats.....if you are a fan of any of the stars its worth watching.

Sentiment: negative
Oh dear!What a disappointment. I've been watching old Westerns on British TV for decades, and I wasn't aware of this one until its showing yesterday - most other Scott Westerns come around every few years or so and are usually worth watching again.

The rich colour and outdoor sets were good, but that's all I can say about this film. I have to agree with most of the other negative comments already made. Several times I felt like turning it off, and finally I did, halfway through, something I hardly ever do.

Scott seemed unusually oily in charming the girls, his two sidekicks were annoying and so was the Mexican bandit lad. And I've a feeling the army uniforms were 20 years or so too modern, not that this has bothered makers of many other Westerns.

Perhaps it got better in the second half, but I couldn't be bothered to wait and see.

Sentiment: negative
Hard to believe that director Barbet Schroeder once did the majestic and very funny Maitresse (1976), and now only seems to do "by the numbers" Hollywood thrillers.

This is very lightweight John Grisham material, crossed with the plot of a TV movie. Bullock is Cass Mayweather, a feisty and independent crime investigator specialising in serial killers. Ben Chaplin is her reserved police partner Sam Kennedy, and together they make an uncomfortable duo. Not good, when two unbalanced college maladriots (Gosling and Pitt) decide to send them on a wild goose chase - by planting very clever and misleading forensic evidence at a crime scene.

Fair enough, but while Bullock and Chaplin fail to create any sparks, we also have to endure a several dull overly-melodramatic flashbacks illustrating an important event in Cass's history. Then of course there are the frequent shots of a cliff-side log cabin where there's absolutely no doubt the OTT ending will be set. Oooh... the atmosphere.

Watch any episode of CSI instead. It's to the point and far more exciting.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was released in all major cinemas in Australia. I watched the movie on the weekend of 7th AUG and I thought is was absolute nonsense (and I am using that word extremely litely). How it got released to every major cinema no idea. The plot seemed simple enough about the world being divided into subclasses and people needed identity cards and the actor Tim Robbins playing an investigator who goes to shanghai to investigate a employee stealing ID cards, which turns out to be the actress Samantha Morton.

You think from that summary the rest of the story should intertyne but it doesn't it just confuses the audience even more with different storyline that don't relate.

If you thinking of seeing this movie let me save u the trouble DO NOT GET THIS MOVIE.

Sentiment: negative
Sorry, folks, but all of you that say this is a great documentary... and that award it won at Sundance... well, you've all been duped. I've heard for a few years how I had to see this documentary and I finally watched it. Maybe in 1999, when it came out, and reality TV didn't have such a dominant presence in the industry, this movie would have seemed entertaining. But Mike and Mark are so obviously playing themselves, Mike and Mark. At times they are funny and some of the lines seem off the cuff, but mostly they do not ring true. They are the reality version of Jay and Silent Bob. Yes the people are real, they are not actors, but it's put on, it's exaggeration of themselves, and it's so obvious that it's hard to believe so many people think it's the real deal. I wasn't fooled so it was actually a tad boring. Mildly amusing, but not missing much if you miss it.

Sentiment: negative
I sat with my children as we watched this film. We all found it to be a very entertaining movie.

When Billy goes to a new school, a fifth grade bully starts stuff with him and this is what leads to the eating of worms.

A bet is made and Billy has only so much time to eat 10 worms or else. From this point the bully and his friends try to come up with nasty ways to cook, fry or bake the worms to try and get Billy sick so that he will lose the bet.

Billy stays strong and eats his way into becoming liked more and more by everyone, even the bullies friends.

I wont tell you if he wins the bet or not...you will just need to watch it to find out but I will think that if you like good family movies you will like this one.

P.S. Let me add that this movie is not just for boys, I have all daughters and they really liked it a lot.

Sentiment: positive
"Lets swap Murders- your wife, my father"- seemingly innocent conversation between two strangers - Bruno Anthony and Guy Haines when they meet over lunch on a train journey. Guy, a solid, respectable tennis player, whose problem is that his wife, the flirtatious Miriam, won't divorce him so he can marry senators daughter Anne, laughs the whole conversation off as a joke. The following week he isn't laughing any more. In a scene of classic Hitchcock suspense, Bruno stalks Miriam through a carnival and strangles her. As he does, her glasses fall off and we see the murder eerily reflected twice through her lenses. Cold hearted and amoral Bruno, his part of the deal completed, approaches an appalled Guy expecting, even pressuring him into 'doing his bit.' Matters are not helped when Anne's precocious and outspoken younger sister turns up suspecting Guy of Miriam's murder. So accused of a murder he didn't commit and expected to commit another, what is Guy going to do? The power of this film is in the presentation of human beings as having a murderous side to their nature - and this Hitchcock does to perfection.

Sentiment: positive
All the hype! All the adds! I was bummed that I missed this on the big screen. Where this film worked was in the little details. In EVERYTHING else it failed. Arnold has done so many better performances in the past few years. I thought the days of Commando and Last Action Hero were gone from our lives. Sadly this film panders to the lowest common denominator and reduces Arnold to a bellowing, grunting, face contorting muscle that just knows how to shoot guns and blow things up. In a cliche last moment (and at one other time), that was predictable from the start, we see a glimmer of the actor that has proven he is more than what he got paid for early in his career. I was unimpressed with the film as it never broke new ground or went anywhere but where you expected it to.

Sentiment: negative
This film is so bad and gets worse in every imaginable fashion. Its not just the poor acting and script nor is it the lame and perverse time one wastes on watching it. What really puts this film in my hall of shame is the apparent struggling that the writers and producers do with the film to try and make it funny. The actress replacing Jean Reno's descendant is to old and learned her lesson in the first film so they add a new girl who is to be married. Nearly all of the original extras and gags return however this time makes me want to ripe my eyes out of my sockets because it's a waste of perfectly good film. The torture of the constant camera cuts and shots in any scene in this movie can put the viewer into violent convolutions. This second film takes the successful original and drags it out of its coffin and parades the corpse out in the public square and perversely degrades not only the original idea and its legacy but our intelligence as well. This film unlike the spruce goose could not fly for it had no plot in the principals returning for a 'necklace'. No script since it was apparently written and added to daily. No attention to camera or shots in mind. Poor lighting and special effects done for the sake of doing so. This film would not even pass for a student film in basic Film 101. How this pile got through no one can tell. It was a big loosing investment and it appears that no one had the strength to put this unnatural cruel mistake out of our miseries. This movie has one good part ...its END! This film is my #1 worst film of all time, finally "Howard The Duck" is no longer the goose.

Sentiment: negative
I had the pleasure of seeing Saltimbanco live before seeing the video version of the show. While nothing can compare to actually being there, the people behind the video did an amazing job of capturing the flavor, the feel, the sensation and so much more. The wonderful performances of Saltimbanco's stunningly amazing troupe are beautifully captured throughout. The video flows as smoothly and artfully as the production itself. A wonderful experience.

Sentiment: positive
So tell me - what serious boozer drinks Budweiser? How many suicidally-obsessed drinkers house a fully stocked and barely touched range of drinks in their lonely motel room that a millionaire playboy's bachelor-pad bar would be proud to boast? And what kind of an alcoholic tends to drink with the bottle held about 8 inches from his hungry mouth so that the contents generally spill all over his face? Not to mention wasting good whisky by dousing your girlfriend's tits with it, just so the cinema audience can get a good eyeful of Elisabeth Shue's assets.

Cage seems to be portraying the most attention-seeking look-at-me alcoholic ever to have graced the screen while Shue looks more like a Berkely preppy slumming it for a summer than some seasoned street-walker. She is humiliated and subjugated as often as possible in this revolting movie with beatings, skin lacerations, anal rape and graphic verbal abuse - all of it completely implausible and included apparently only to convey a sense of her horribly demeaned state and offer the male viewers an astonishingly clichéd sentimental sexual fantasy of the 'tart-with-a-heart'.

Still - I did watch it to the end, by which time I was actually laughing out loud as Shue's tough street hooker chopped carrots in the kitchen wanly, pathetically smiling while Cage - all eyes popping and shaking like like a man operating a road drill in an earthquake - grimaced and mugged his way through the final half-hour...

Sentiment: negative
I remember seeing this at my local Blockbuster and picked it up cause I was curious. I liked movies about mythological creatures. I like movies about werewolves, vampires, zombies, etc. This is based on half-caste, a half-human half-leopard creature that preys on the people of Africa.

The movie is horrendous! The actors are terrible! There is no script whatsoever! It's all improvised! The whole thing is filmed at night because they say that is the only time you ever see it. It's obvious bull*bleep*! They film at night to make it scary. But, they have failed to scare me. After the first person was killed, I put this back in the case and took it back to Blockbuster. One of the most boring movies I've ever seen.

Now you are probably saying I have no right to review a movie if I haven't finished it. Well, this is one of the films that didn't deserve to be watched all the way through.

1 star out of 10. This is really BAD!

Sentiment: negative
***1/2 Out of ***** While I am not concerned with the fact that this is an English dubbed version as some reviewers have mentioned, it should be noted, as it seems to reside in many Quebecois native hearts. However, this was a movie as a child that I was a fervent admirer of; keeping in mind now that it was made for children, I rate it on a relative basis. The story is of children on winter break building an awesome snow fort, and jostling back-'n-forth for control with weapons such as snowballs and other concoctions, as idle hands and free time equal winter break lessons. If I had children, this definitely is a film I would try and get them interested in, as the snow fort wowed me when I was young, and I think even children today would agree, albeit with Pixar and all the computer animation, maybe I am out of date and just don't realize it. In addition, the movie's message is wonderfully allegorical and a positive one at that, for children (and adults alike).

Sentiment: positive
Not only unique for its time but one of the greatest Science fiction films of all time. Made without CGI on a very lean budget in today's adjusted figures. Stanley Kubrick made this film without the high shooting ratio he normally has. Stanley Kubrick is without doubt the greatest director in History thus far.

This film was cut from five hours to two hours and twenty minutes and the art direction was superb.

Stanley Kubrick and the great Aurthur C. Clarke collaborated to write this time less classic.

Aliens a special message on Earth at the dawn of Human Kind and one on the Moon which modern man finds .

Finally Humans accompanied by the most advanced computer ever made set of to Jupiter the find the next monumental message which turns out to be a gateway.

Any one who studied film and/or wishes to be a part of the film industry or just enjoy great films must experience this film .

If you don't like it then you belong to Bollywood or your a true Aussie.

Sentiment: positive
Zombi 3 has an interesting history in it's making. Firstly, it is a sequel to Fulci's hit Zombi 2, with Zombi 2 itself being of course a marketing ploy to trick people into thinking it was a sequel to George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead aka Zombi. Confusing enough? Basically, none of the films have anything to do with one another, but who cares when they make money. I guess Fulci himself starting to not care about the production about half way through Zombi 3 when he decided to walk out. Bruno Mattei was brought on board to help pad the film with additional scenes to lengthen the running time.

Zombi 3's plot is your typical zombie fare. Scientists develop a serum on an island in the Philippines, terrorists steal it unleashing a plague, and zombie run amok. The scientists want to create an antidote, while the military is set on mowing down everyone without prejudice. There are also brief inserts of a Radio DJ preaching about how we treat the planet. 

Overall, I actually liked this film. I heard horrible things, but I find the goofy dialogue quite enjoyable. The film seems to be an attempt at raising awareness about pollution, corrupted military, Man playing God, etc. I get the feeling this was at one point a serious film, but it veered off in a weird direction, presumably when Mattei came on board.

Besides ripping off other zombie flicks, this was very reminiscent of Romero's The Crazies. You hear the Radio DJ breaking the good news with, "When you see the men in white suits & gas masks, Run to them for Help." This is of course played to the images of the men in white gunning down zombies. Later, they straight up steal a scene from Crazies in which one of the regular, uncontaminated people is killed by mistake.

The gore factor is pretty good in this one with zombie hordes around every corner. How is it cool? Let me count the ways1. Zombie Birth 2. Flying Zombie Head 3. Zombie Birds. 4. Zombie with no legs swimming in a pool. My favorite zombie was the machete-wielding maniac at the gas station. He was bad ass and nearly tore down the entire building trying to kill a girl.

Favorite Quote  When a sergeant insists on cremating a zombie, the scientists asks, "Don't you think that once the ash is in the air, it will fall to the ground, and contaminate everything?" To which the Sargeant boldly replies, "Now you're talking science fiction." He also continues to mention the "Science Fiction" told by the scientists even at the end when everyone dies.

Extras: Gallery, Trailers, and Interviews, most notably the one with Mattei where he insists he directed 40% of the scenes, yet cannot recall which ones or any other significant details.

Bottom Line: A must see for zombie and Fulci fans.

Rating: 7/10

Molly Celaschi www.HorrorYearbook.com MySpace.com/HorrorYearbook

Sentiment: positive
I really think that this movie is great, personally. But, in every movie there is a downer. Now, some of you may not have watched Hilary Duff's 'Raise Your Voice', but If you think about it, those two shows are very very similar, if you know what i mean. In 'Brave New Girl', Holly wants so bad to get into Haverty Conservatory. In 'Raise Your Voice', Terri wants to go to a conservatory in L.A.(don't remember the name of the conservatory there). They are both in the music field, and they both have to sing at the ending of the semester. It's really funny how these two films are alike. I personally like 'Brave New Girl' better than, 'Raise Your Voice' though.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is a bad attempt to make original fans feel complete. The one thing people have forgotten is the fact that the reason the original won such acclaim, was strictly do to the fact that it was supposed to make you feel incomplete.

This movie makes me want to go to the washroom. I am not a negative type of guy, but man the acting in this flick is.... no comment. The plot was a bad reflection of the life of Carlito Brigante and I am sorry to have had two hours of my time and my money wasted on this flick. I still love the original and will do my best not to let this movie ruin my opinion about it.

Sentiment: negative
Albert Pyun presents his vision of the lost city of Atlantis - and it's a vision so cluttered up with claustrophobic settings, weird costumes and noisy, "quirky" minor characters that one thing is for sure: you want to get the hell outta there as soon as possible (unfortunately, it will take you about 80 minutes). The "Alice in Wonderland"-like story is meandering and uninteresting, and there was probably no actress in the world who could have turned this into a good movie, though Kathy Ireland makes an appealing (annoying voice and all) attempt. (*1/2)

Sentiment: negative
This late-ish effort from Freda plays as a modern day (70's that is) Gothic thriller, but comes out short of thrills. Certainly it's not a dreadfully bad film, it's jut got that feeling which many of Freda's later films have of someone who has given up when he's seen the first daily's. It starts out good enough, almost giallo like in tone, then takes a turn into Gothic territories with a decent (albeit terribly cliché) set up. Then suddenly Freda seems to have lost interest in the film and all we get is prolonged shots of Camille Keaton and burning candles. Then circa an hour into the film we get some sort of violent climax with decent-to-poor special effects. This is followed by a slow paced outro with a very obvious twist ending (If it's even intended to be a twist?). And throw a few very halfhearted explanatory scenes along the way and you got Tragic Ceremony. Thus in parts it's got its qualities. But then suddenly stumbles and collapses in front of you. A pity.

btw stay away from the SHAROMA DVD, a useless murky pan& scan edition which kills of what could be a good visual experience.

Sentiment: negative
I can not quite understand why any of the "reviewers" gave this documentary "0" other than for political reasons. No, the film did not investigate both "sides" of the story, but then surely one film in favour of Chavez against the tides of propaganda against him should be seen as an attempt to balance out the narrative overall (especially given A. the history of CIA involvement in Latin America in fermenting civil unrest - google National Security Archive and B. the coverage in that country and elsewhere of the clearly faked scenes of Chavez supporters shooting non-existent opponents). What is most amazing about this film is the fact that the film makers stayed in the presidential palace all of the way though the coup - surely a first in documentary making - images of a coup from both sides!!!

Sentiment: positive
While to most people watching the movie, this will be of little interest, but out of the many hundreds of movies dealing with magic and the occult in one form or another, this one is probably the best in many ways.

From The Golem to The Craft the subject seems to be of endless interest to the movie industry. The majority of movies which touch on it in any way do so childishly (for example "Witchboard", a true piece of utter garbage in every way) either taking the transcendental elements as cheap excuses for cheesy special effects or cardboard cutout villians (cf "Warlock"). More frequently the subject comes up in an hysterical religious context (in the various Revelations-oriented movies, the antichrist is inevitably an advocate of some kind of new-age style practice). Rarely, a movie seems to show at least some passing experience with magic as it is practiced in real life, but the presentation of the occult in such movies can at best be described as allegorical and not literal, or symbolic, or ... just not quite right.

I watched this movie again after many years tonight. I had seen it before on VHS; it is a dark, moody piece, and after watching it on DVD, I would say if you have any intention to watch this movie, watch it on DVD, don't watch it on VHS.

The darkness and moodiness are overpowering in VHS but in DVD the movie takes on a very different tone. I think Weir pushed the dark aspects intentionally for style, but when the movie is converted to the lower color medium of VHS this goes over the edge. DVD brings the movie to life again and I saw it differently.

Anyway, seeing it as if for the first time, I realized that the treatment of magic is extremely good in this movie. It's difficult to go into all the reasons why, I don't care to take the time to do so.

For anybody who's curious, anyway, if you want to see what it is like in real life, this movie is just very right on countless levels.

And for anybody who isn't, you really wasted a lot of time reading to this point.

Sentiment: positive
First: I like S Segal! But in this movie, he has hit rock bottom and started to dig!

THE PLOT What plot? Very strange and unbeliveable plot.

THE ACTIONS WAY below Segals standards!

THE GOOD PARTS Mr Segal is a pro. And shows it. That's it.

SUMMARY I could write (and have done so) a better script for Mr Segal. In case you read this Stephen, mail me, I'll give you a better script to do a better movie! The only realistic part is the one where... (see spoiler part).

SPOILER PART (stop reading here if you plan to see the movie!) - - - Gas leak? Wow. Disecting a 'Black-box'-recorder in a hotel room? I work in the industry, laughable! The bad guy 'get's away', that much is true in life!

Sentiment: negative
This movie is about a cop (Ching Wan Lau) trying to catch a super-clever thief (Ekin Cheng) who blackmails an insurance company headed by a Kelly Lin. Basically, whatever plans the cop tries the thief somehow knows them beforehand. This movie, covered by handsome lead actors, beautiful lead actress and good camera shots of Hong Kong scenes, really has no substance at all. It's all flash, and the flash quickly becomes dull too. I lost all interests a third of the way into the movie, and there is no redeeming quality after that, except for the cinematography, which looks good. Only consider seeing this movie if you can do so for free. Also, consider stopping watching the movie 20 minutes into the movie because it's all the same to the end: BORING. 6/10

Sentiment: negative
This is the question that astronauts Roy Thinnes and Ian Hendry ask themselves when they discover a parallel world of Earth always hidden on the far side of the sun in this 1969 cult science fiction melodrama, released here in America as JOURNEY TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN. The plot of the film was devised by British writers Gerry and Sylvia Anderson, the creators of such TV shows as "UFO", "The Thunderbirds" and "Space 1999". It is exceedingly weird at times, betraying the influence of "The Twilight Zone" and even Stanley Kubrick's classic 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. The visual effects work of Derek Meddings, who would also later work on SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, holds up surprisingly well under the last three decades of special effects advancements; and while they are not really on the same exalted level of the Kubrick film, they are very superb. If you don't anticipate a STAR WARS-type of a film and can overcome the occasionally trite dialogue, DOPPELGANGER is a good film; it was good enough for me to rank it a '7' and consider it an undiscovered sci-fi gem.

Sentiment: positive
Starting with a tearjerking poem and images of american missiles, starving children and mutilated palestinians I quickly realised that this was not going to be a objective documentary. 5 youths convicted after the gothenburg riots are interviewed and give a very confused explaination why they had to trash the citycenter and then (oh my god) actually have pay for what they have done. I kept watching and many questions are raised, were the trial properly done and did the cops have the right to do what they did? Lots of questions asked... and then dropped. No interviews with judges or going through documents about the trial.. nothing.

In short: Nothing new from what every Swede has seen on tv a hundred times - just poor propaganda.

Sentiment: negative
Valeria, an elegant and pretty young lady lives in a world surrounded by the walls of her shyness and depression. Although she may have a one-night lover or if someone lives with her, it makes no difference of being completely alone. Valeria is also a passionate woman who can take actions to approach that special man, Massimo, and at the same time the fear that allows her to answer his questions only with a "yes", "no" or "I don't know". The way to accent the loneliness of the character is magnificent. An example would be the distance of both, Massimo and Valeria taking a coffee in the same room, separated by subtle divisions and not seeing each other. I could mention several sequences, however, it is better to see the movie. It is impressive to watch that not a single detail is out of control by the director. Although all actions are performed in slow movements, no shouts are necessary not special effects, but only great acting and a touching well written story. I loved it.

Sentiment: positive
After finally viewing this movie in its entirety, I am completely mystified by the adoration it has received by critics and online users alike. Is it the worst Western ever? No, I wouldn't say that. But "the last great American Western", a phrase I saw applied to it more than once? Not even close.

A movie that tries to tell a story like this needs believable characters that speak believable dialogue, and the dialogue in this film is among the most hackneyed and clichéd that I've ever seen. The movie can be measured in groaners per minute; as in, how many times is an actor or actress forced by the script to say something that no human being would say in real life? There's so many instances of this that it's distracting. Cheesy lines come at you in waves; predictable, unoriginal, and often. 

If bad dialogue doesn't bother you, then how about bad gunfights? Few Westerns can show you gunfighting that's completely unbelievable while desperately trying to make you take the action seriously. It's okay if there's a comic edge to such gunfighting, such as in Silverado, but in Tombstone the very staged and very stiff choreography of the early gunplay is just another reason to leave this movie off the list of good Westerns. The final showdown somewhat redeems the director on this score, but by then, I was so disinterested in the movie that it was beyond saving.

Other than those flaws, I can say the visuals are stunning - the movie's well shot and the settings all look great. The acting is passable, especially considering what the actors were given to work with. However, if you're looking for the last great American Western, do yourself a favor - go rent Unforgiven instead.

3 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
Although a made for cable film by HBO, it is an enjoyable movie and a fascinating look at the back-stabbing and double-dealing world of television. Allowing the viewer to peek behind the scenes of the so-called late night talk show wars in the early 90s, as Jay Leno and David Letterman competed for the coveted position as host of the Tonight Show. Kathy Bates gives a bravo performance as Leno's mercurial manager Helen Kushnick and one can feel empathy for what Leno/Letterman endured at the hands of tv executives. It is just as timely now, considering the recent events involving the failed attempt by ABC to replace Nightline with Letterman. No matter how many times I have seen this film, I still find it as much a pleasure to watch as I did when it first aired. If this should ever be released on DVD, I would certainly add it to my collection.

Sentiment: positive
Years ago "MA2412" the feature film tried to be some kind of "regional Blockbuster" in Austria. One thing's for sure: I hope no one outside will ever have to see this one. Perhaps if you are familiar with the original sitcom it could be interesting to watch what director Sicheritz made of his series. I think he missed his chance and wasted time and money.

So far many director's and writers have failed to make a series concept compatible to a 90min movie (consider Alf, Inspector Gadget...). You can see how hard this is by watching "MA 2412". The result of this attempt in my opinion tastes like a never-ending TV-Episode (and not a good one). It fails to deliver a plot, the humor tries too hard and the directing seems very unfocused - as holds true for the visual style.

So summing up I'd clearly not recommend this one...

Sentiment: negative
I never trust the opinions of anyone regarding a film. That goes for critics as well. Sure, if it gets positive reviews that's OK and a plus, but most films that get critical rave I hate. I enjoyed this film for what it was, an entertaining film. It takes you out of your life for a couple hours and into a fictional character...that being Catherine Trammell. Sharon Stone is awesome in this role, just like she was in the first one. Anyone who says she is horrible in this film must have felt the same in the first one b/c she is back acting the same way she did in Basic Instinct 1. Catherine is hers and she plays her to perfection. Her one liners are great, much like in the first one. Who can forget in the first film when she tells the cops, "If you're gonna arrest me do it...otherwise get the f**k out of here!" Great scene, and believe me, she does it again in this one. I was captivated by her. Her outfits, the way she smoked her cigarettes, believe me, its worth the price just to see Stone's performance. I cannot wait for this film to be released on DVD, uncut, because I can only imagine how much better it is going to be. And yes, there are lots of twists, as in the first one, including the ending!

Sentiment: positive
I watched this basically for the sole reason that it was supposed to have Third Reich references in it. It turned out a pretty brainless and predictable slasher film that appeared to be made to appeal to feminists or something.

Let me tell you something, if you wait an entire movie to see the attractive female lead's breasts, the last thing you want is a "tastefully" done sex scene with annoying camera angles that don't show anything. Her busty friend didn't get hers out either, but we saw plenty of men's butts and pubic hair and guys with their shirts off. And at the end you have our heroine magically dodging the scalpel thrusts and swings of the villain (who turns out to be the hunk, funnily enough) and she easily out fights him (uh huh) while her male love interest is tied down and waiting to be rescued. The funniest part was when she picks up a chair and "swings" it at the guy and it breaks over him. Now it'd be about as much as she could manage to lift the chair let alone smash it against a person with enough force to break it! It looks ridiculous, she basically brushes it against him and it falls apart. If you are going to do this sort of "role reversal" rubbish (which has already been done to death) then you have to at least make it semi plausible.

There was one good bit though. The bad guy did get the better of her slutty friend, teaching her a lesson for being such a tramp and sleeping around. That's not exactly something feminists would like.

Pretty stupid really. Not that American slasher flicks are generally much better, but you have to wonder why they bothered. It brought nothing new to the genre at all.

5/10

Sentiment: negative
"Cut" is a full-tilt spoof of the slasher genre and in the main it achieves what it sets out to do. Most of the standard slasher cliches are there; the old creepy house, the woods, the anonymous indestructible serial killer, buckets of gore, and of course the couple interrupted by the killer while they're having sex (that's hardly a spoiler).

The set-up is simplicity itself: film-school nerds set out to complete an unfinished slasher "masterpiece", unfinished because of the murders of a couple of the cast. This also neatly - okay, messily - disposes of Kylie Minogue in the first reel. They are joined by one of the survivors of the original film, played by Molly Ringwald who absolutely steals the film because she gets all the best lines. The rest of the cast fit their roles well, especially the lovely Jessica Napier, who plays it straight while the mayhem and gore erupt around her.

There are plenty of red herrings and fake suspenseful moments, and there is very little time to try to work out who the killer is because the film moves at such a fast pace. It also has an appropriate low budget look, including some clumsy editing which is probably deliberate. Good soundtrack, too. If there is a difficulty with this film it is deciding whether it is a send-up of or a homage to the slasher genre. Probably a bit of both.

Sentiment: positive
I am a huge fan of David Lynch. This film, however, was a quite disappointing experience. Apart from the ambient background music  which really sets the mood of the film  it lacks almost all the qualities that I've come to associate with Lynch's work. The visuals are dull, to say the least, and the dialog is to vague and monotone to be of any interest.

This feels more like a film students awkward try to do an arty dogma movie than the work of an experienced director. I've seen a lot of amateur movies with far superior camera-work, scenery, sound and script. This film lacks almost all artistic qualities. I feel as though I'm watching one of Davids home videos, produced during a weekend trip with some friends.

Sentiment: negative
Not that many films have truly exploited the fear of going to the dentist that many people have. Those in the profession have some genuinely intimidating looking instruments. Give writers Dennis Paoli, Stuart Gordon, and Charles Finch for deriving maximum make-you- squirm-in-your-seat shock value from their premise.

Corbin Bernsen, in a nicely nuanced performance, is Alan Feinstone, dedicated dentist whose train jumps off the tracks early on. An unbalanced obsessive-compulsive, he starts dwelling on thoughts of decay, even imagining it where there isn't any, and also equating decay with corruption of society in general. Having witnessed his unfaithful wife Brooke (Linda Hoffman) getting it on with their pool boy, he determines to punish her. At the same time, he's under pressure from a smarmy I.R.S. agent (Earl Boen, best known as Dr. Silberman from the "Terminator" franchise) to do a favor in exchange for the agent keeping his mouth shut about Feinstone's financial affairs. Feinstone starts to perceive everybody around him as decayed in one way or another, and he goes on a murder spree as police detective Gibbs (the always welcome Ken Foree) picks up his trail.

Director Brian Yuzna clearly has great fun with the script. It allows for some genuinely nasty and remarkably entertaining gore scenes that do just as well as creating sympathy for the victims as thrilling the audience. The script gives the Feinstone character some fine lines of dialog and is overall quite sly and amusing, with large doses of pitch-black humor (such as Feinstone ordering a victim to "get their tongue out of the way!"). Brooke and the I.R.S. agent figure in particularly effective torture scenes. The makeup effects are for the most part quite good. And the film does a fine job of maintaining its forward momentum, as Feinstone, with his relentless drive for perfection, switches from respected professional to unhinged killer in record time.

Foree, always cool and fun to watch, is rather wasted in a standard-issue detective role, but there's some enjoyment in watching Boen play his slimeball part to the hilt. Hoffman and Christa Sauls provide very appealing eye candy. And a pre-fame Mark Ruffalo can be seen in a small supporting role. But this is all very much Bernsen's show as he sinks his teeth (pardon me for using that expression) into his plum leading part with total conviction.

"The Dentist" ranks as one of the more original and interesting horror films to come out of the 1990's.

8/10

Sentiment: positive
Jack Webb's portrayal of the Marine drill instructor shaping new recruits in basic training requires no interpretation. Straight forward, direct, up front, are all applicable to this classic. In a time when parsing the statements of our leaders is a necessity in order to understand what they are saying, this movie that plays no games with our language or our moral fiber. Right and wrong are clear and easily defined. If you like clear, well understood dialog in a disciplined military setting, this movie should suit you.

Sentiment: positive
Anyone remember the docudrama THREADS ? It's a drama documentary which shocked Britain in September 1984 . Whilst not exactly wholly entertained by Mick Jackson's nuclear holocaust horror film I could respect it . Unfortunately I can't respect this docudrama broadcast 20 years later which deals with terrorists letting off a radioactive dirty bomb in the centre of London 

The problem I have with it is that director Daniel Percival production values are far too good when in fact this would have benefited from rather cheap production values . The cinematography is superb but in this type of speculative drama do we need superb and well lit Oscar standard cinematography ? What we certainly don't need is a musical score as the survivors of the blast slowly stagger out of the smoke . Neither do we need vaguely well known cast members . Did anyone else sit there asking themselves " Hey what was he in ? I know that face " several times ? I know I did and it's very distracting . 

Perhaps the biggest production flaw with DIRTY WAR is that someone decided to make it a docudrama with too much stylistic emphasis on the drama . In THREADS the action cuts away from the action in Sheffield umpteen times and becomes an edition of HORIZON on the effects of nuclear war before cutting back to the fictional protagonists again and THREADS is very effective because of this . Here the information presented suffocates the drama which drowns in expositional and totally unconvincing dialogue . The characters in the teleplay aren't really characters they're just cyphers there to inform the audience what happens when radioactive material is exploded . It would have been better for the action to cut to captions to convey this type of information ala THREADS . The worse thing is that director Daniel Percival used the same technique as seen in THREADS a couple of years ago with his docudrama about smallpox . He should have used the same style with DIRTY WAR

I should also lay my cards on the table and state that while I don't consider most Muslims are terrorists I am getting slightly fed up of TV productions like THE HAMBURG CELL , THE GRID and DIRTY WAR having to point out this fact to me by whalloping me over the head with it which is somewhat typical of patronising PC attitudes in TV companies nowadays

I managed to miss the studio debate that Bob mentions here but I have also heard it discussed elsewhere and I can't help thinking it makes better viewing than DIRTY WAR itself with its heated arguments between differing factions of the political spectrum . If DIRTY WAR is remembered twenty years from now ( Highly unlikely I know ) it may well be remembered for the discussion it caused more than anything

Sentiment: negative
As a lover of bad movies, I definitely hit paydirt with this one. The plot isn't really that bad, but there are a few instances where you really have to ask yourself "what the heck is going on here?"

There are many many things that make this the funniest bad movie ever. First off, Rudy Ray Moore had gotten so fat and slow when this movie was filmed that the special effects consist of speeding up the fight scenes to double time. There are also scenes where there is a slow-motion instant replay, jumping onto a ten foot high wall (by playing falling off of it backwards), naked men walking out of huge letters, and sex that literally brings down the roof (with the cable holding up the roof catching on fire).

Of course, no Rudy Ray Moore movie would be complete without a completely gratuitous and random comedy club scene where Rudy makes fun of all the customers, interposed with people doing some odd dance. There are so many things bad about this movie, but they're bad in an entertaining way, and if you take your eyes off the movie, you might miss another mistake.

Rating: 1/10 for actual value, 10/10 for cheese factor, 10/10 for picking out mistakes and goofs, averages out to 7/10.

Sentiment: positive
And a hard spot somewhere else. I haven't seen this movie since i was quite young, maybe 12 or 13, who knows. But what i do know is this is the movie that taught me how to masturbate. I kid you not. I have no idea if it is any good by any real standards of today, but for me, back then, it was everything.

The only reason i feel comfortable writing this is because i'm sure no one will ever get around to reading it. I mean, really, who is going to look up this movie these days?

I just discovered that i have not yet used up the ten line minimum for the amount of length i most take up in a review. i had no idea there was such a minimum length, but there i go, like a student trying to fill up a page in a journal, my ten lines. thank you very much.

Sentiment: positive
I knew absolutely nothing about Chocolat before my viewing of it. I didn't know anything about the story, the cast, the director, or anything about the film's history. All I knew was it was a highly-acclaimed French film. Had I known more, I probably wouldn't have viewed the picture with an open mind. On paper, the premise doesn't sound interesting to me. Had I known what Chocolat was about ahead of time, my interest while watching would have been limited. However, not knowing about the story helped me enjoy it. Throughout, I had no clue has to where the story would go, what the characters would do, and what the end result would be. It was, if nothing else, not a predictable film. Indeed, it could have been as the story is told in flashbacks. Telling a story in flashbacks is often a risky move on the part of the filmmakers. Since the lead character is seen in present day, the audience knows she will remain alive. By using the flashback technique, director Claire Denis is able to ensure the audience that the young girl makes it to adulthood without any serious physical damage, giving the viewer the sense that Chocolat is a story more about emotions than what is on the outside. A lesser filmmaker would give France a haggard-looking face, one that screams of a confused and unusual childhood. Instead, Denis presents France as a beautiful girl, someone who looks fine on the outside. 

It could be argued that Chocolat is more about France's mother since she is given far more screen time, though I believe it is ultimately about France. To me, what Chocolat is really about is how a mother's actions affect her daughter. It is about how parents' behavior stays with their offspring. France is not ruined by her mother's actions in the story, yet her mother's actions clearly made an impression on France. Had France not been affected at all by her mother's actions, the flashback aspect would be irrelevant. 

For a movie that deals with two time periods, the past and the present, Chocolat was a very well paced, there were no scene of excess fat. None of the scenes felt gratuitous or out of the place. The film had nice rhythm, the editing crisp, leaving only what was necessary to tell the story. With a well told story, solid editing, and organized directing, Chocolat is one of the better French films I have seen. It was responsible for launching Claire Denis' career and with good reason: it's an incredible directorial debut.

Sentiment: positive
Wow...what can I say...First off IMDb says this is in the late 60s...which means Carlito would be very close to going to prison, He got out in 75 and said he was in for 5 years. They used a bunch of nobody actors, and a story that didn't even make sense. They bring back only one actor, Guzman, and hes playing a totally different guy. Why did it end with him and this Puerto Rican chick? Wheres Gale? He said he was in love with her before. Wheres Kleinfeld? He said he knew him forever...You'd think he'd have been in this one. And if this made sense, where are Rocco and the black dude in the first one? It was all just stupid...This is an insult to Pacino and the first film.

Sentiment: negative
Big Fat Liar is a great watch for kids of all ages, even adults. I had a great time watching this movie and recommend this to kids of 10 years and under. The laughs never end and the adventurous plot is pretty good too! Frankie Muniz is funny and Marty Wolfe is hilarious! Overall, a nicely made film for kids to enjoy and just have a great time.

Sentiment: positive
This movie truly captures the feeling of freedom.......and what the freedom of your own integrity is worth....in the most delightful, light-hearted way. Not a serious, but hilarious adventure.

The story mirrors life. We don't always get what we want right away but we find out we get what we need to to understand why we didn't get what we wanted....which results in us getting more than we thought we would get! You will get this once you see the movie. 

And this movie is truly about finding love and knowing one has found it and that it totally changed one's life.

It is one of my all time favorites......not easy to find but worth the hunt.........I guarantee you will watch it more than once!

Sentiment: positive