DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
It wasn't good. The characters were underdeveloped and the only personality were from the memories I had of the previous movie which contrasted with the 'new' personalities (or lack thereof). I seriously thought the opening scene was a nightmare by Ariel because of how absurd it was. It was serious. It just reminded me of all the annoying characters on the Disney channel-everyone is hyperactive and the story jumps from action to embarrassing scenes without any really connection.

The most disappointing part was the horrible songs-not catchy, not amazing. In the original Ariel had an amazing and powerful voice and all the song are catchy and fun. You remember them and want to sing them. But the songs in this movie weren't creative in the least; it's as if they're talking in a annoying sing-song voice-quite weakly, disappointing. I don't have that want-to-sing-them feeling you normally get from a Disney movie.

It's as if not one wanted to do this movie, so they barely made an effort . . . this movie would needs a new story line, new catchy songs and more warmth and enthusiasm without the annoying "look at me! look at me! I'm so annoying!" mentality of this generation of Disney. :'(

Sentiment: negative
This movie was a major disappointment on direction, intellectual niveau, plot and in the way it dealt with its subject, painting. It is a slow moving film set like an episode of Wonder Years, with appalling lack of depth though. It also fails to deliver its message in a convincing manner.

The approach to the subject of painting is very elite, limited to vague and subjective terms as "beauty". According to the makers of this movie, 'beauty' can be only experienced in Bob-Ross-style kitschy landscape paintings. Good art according to this film can be achieved by applying basic (like, primary school level) color theory and lots of sentiment. In parts the movie is offending, e.g. at a point it is stated (rather, celebrated by dancing on tables) that mentally handicapped people are not capable of having emotions or expressing them through painting, their works by definition being worthless 'bullshit' (quote).

I do not understand how the movie could get such high rating, then again, so far not many people rated it, and they chose for only very high or very low grades.

Sentiment: negative
Caught this film at the Arizona International Film Festival. I wasn't expecting a lot (though the festival's director told me it was one of the best films submitted). Five minutes into it I was sold. Shot in B & W on a shoestring budget, this film is hilarious. The acting is solid, the writing is solid and the look of the film is solid. The acting is probably the biggest revelation, since most films shot on low budgets tend to have amateur or stagey acting. Not this one. It features one of the most convincing, endearing and funny portrayals of a character with Tourette's Syndrome I've ever seen. The plot is convoluted without being confusing and raunchy without being gratuitous. If you get the chance, see this movie. Filmmakers like Majkowski (hope I got that right) deserve the chance to strut their stuff to a wider audience.

Sentiment: positive
Curiosity led me to this "masterpiece". Unfortunately, I didn't rent it, I bought it! The most disturbing thing about this film is that it's not so disturbing. For reasons known only to them, the makers of this film set out to show the human side of Jeffry Dahmer. Are you kidding me? The man gave new meaning to the term "finger lickin' good"! And with all the flash-backs and flash-forwards I had trouble following the story. All in all Jeremy Renner's performance wasn't too bad. You can catch him in "S.W.A.T.", in which he plays a disgruntled ex-cop. Anyway, I would rate this as a 1/10. It only got a 1 because of Renner's so-so performance. There are plenty of books and tv documentaries out there that do a much better job of covering Dahmer's crimes. Avoid this one.

Sentiment: negative
Seriously - avoid this movie at any cost. I just saw it in my first "sneak preview" ever and although I paid non-refundable money for it, I walked out of the cinema after a mere 15 minutes. Which already includes 2 minutes of discussion among my friends whether or not to leave. First time EVER I walked out of a movie. And I lived through some pretty bad ones.

It's one of those films that is dubbed (and badly so) even though it is shown in its original language. It relies on the oldest, simplest and cheapest jokes in the book. On the military ("What do we do once we reach the fighting zone?" - "You get out of the car and die"; actually, it's much funnier to read here that the way it was delivered in the film), on drugs (a guy eats some "space cookies", behaves really silly and misses his wedding or has to live through it while high - all badly written and acted), on women in the army ("Why do we only get trumpets? We were promised guns!" - "That's the way it is, that's the way it'll stay")... Argh. Okay, you might actually find these genuinely funny, but in that case you seriously scare me.

Additionally, I have seen better acting in the kind of soft porn films you get on European late night TV. So it had lame jokes (delivered badly), beyond lower average acting, lacked pace, was badly dubbed and edited  It just didn't work. At least not on any level used as a measure for films.

I would even be so bold as to say that this flick proves that there are people who can be a lot less funny zan zee Germans. And that's saying something if you like stereotypes. (Which I don't, it's nice to play with them, though. Just in case somebody thinks I'm not being PC enough.)

Instead of going to see this film, do something useful. Try to teach crocheting to prawns, paint your toenails in a really irritating colour, disassemble your bicycle, change some light bulbs, try to understand Einstein's theories, convert to a different religion and back - in fact, go and listen to "Last Christmas" by Wham! on endless repeat. Anything, but don't watch this awful flick.

Sentiment: negative
This slightly ponderous late 50's sci-fi-horror schlock isn't entirely a loser. It's about a manned space rocket that crash lands in a remote area. A bunch of scientists go to investigate and discover that the astronaut is in some kind of coma; he's being kept alive by alien embryos that have been mysteriously implanted in him. Anyway, the title alien monster soon raises it's head causing general havoc, including partial head removal.

The main problem with the film is it's pacing. It takes quite a while for the Blood Beast to appear, and he really only comes into his own in the last 20 minutes or so. He is undoubtedly a completely ridiculous creation but that's really not a problem as he provides a fair amount of comic relief. At the end of the movie where we have the final stand-off and this ludicrous creature starts talking with the voice of the doctor he killed earlier, you will be doing well not to have a giggle. So too in the brilliant x-ray scene where we see the alien embryos floating about in the astronaut's body - it's just too funny for words.

But unfortunately, the fun moments in Night of the Blood Beast come too few and far between. If you're a 50's sci-fi nut though then it's well worth checking this one out. Just don't expect too much.

Sentiment: negative
This wonderful 1983 BBC television production (not a movie, as others have written here) of the classic love story "Jane Eyre", starring Timothy Dalton as Rochester, and Zelah Clarke as Jane, is the finest version that has been made to date, since it is the most faithful to the novel by Charlotte Bronte in both concept and dialogue. 

A classic becomes a classic for very specific reasons; when film producers start to meddle with a classic's very lifeblood then that classic is destroyed. Thankfully the producers of THIS "Jane Eyre" approached the story with respect and faithfulness towards the original, which results in a spectacularly addictive concoction that is worth viewing multiple times, to enjoy its multi-layers of sweetness and delight and suspense. The performances are delightful, the music is just right, even the Gothic design of the house and outdoor shots are beautiful, and set the right tone for the production. 

My only criticism, though slight, is that this version, like every other version ever made of Jane Eyre, ignores the Christian influences that built Jane's character and influenced her moral choices. In today's modern world a woman in Jane's situation wouldn't think twice but to stay with Rochester after finding out he had an insane wife and was still married to her. "Oh, just get a divorce", she would say to her man, or she would live in sin with him. But Jane Eyre knew she couldn't settle for this course in life and respect herself. Why? This decision was based on the foundations of the Christian faith she had been taught since childhood, not from the brutal Calvinist Lowood Institution, but from the Christian example of a true friend, Helen Burns, who was martyred rather than not turn the other cheek. Someday I would like to see some version depict these influences a little more fully in an adaptation. A classic novel that ends with the heroine writing "Even so, come Lord Jesus!" should not have the foundations of that faith stripped out of it.

Sentiment: positive
Alright, friends, a serious movie buff is expected to watch all kinds of movie, the bad as well as the good, and this movie put me to the test. I won't mince words. This movie was bad. The story was bad. The acting was bad. The always wonderful Sissy Spacek did nothing to make this movie better. Indeed I asked myself why did I even bother to see this rotten trashy movie? Why did I waste my time and money on something that I suspected would be bad? The answer is, of course, that I am a movie buff and therefore cannot avoid what otherwise should be avoided. I will not waste your time explaining what exactly was wrong with this amateurish movie, except to say that the quality of the acting was, to put it politely, subpaar. A serious movie buff may want to take on the responsibility of watching this movie. Otherwise. stay home, don't waste your time, read a book, take take of chores or have yourself a good sandwich.

Sentiment: negative
To surmise, this film involves two actors (Caine and Moran) trying to con a gangster. The plot is flimsy at best as several plot holes occur throughout. However this normally shouldn't matter as the comedy should carry a film like this. There are some genuinely funny bits (mostly provided by Dylan Moran). However, other times, there are long melodramatic scenes that fail to add anything to the movie. Caine's character seemed overdone to me. Especially at the start, he continually quotes Shakespeare and acts like a pompous actor. One could say he was playing the part properly but the character seemed to me flat and unfunny. Overall I would say see only if a fan of the actors involved. Otherwise wait for video or tv.

Sentiment: positive
This is a cute film starring Spanky, Alfalfa and Buckwheat from the "Our Gang" comedies. Set in the South during the Civil War, it may seem a little odd to see Buckwheat as Spanky's slave, but this film is as charming as the best of the shorts with the same cast. This was the only Our Gang feature film, and I highly recommend it over The Little Rascals remake from 1994.

Sentiment: positive
as an actor I really like independent films but this one is amateur at best.

The boys go to Vermont for a civil service yet when the plane lands it flies over a palm tree - were the directors aware that palm trees are not in Vermont? Pines yes - palms no. And the same for the wedding service - again nice grove of palm trees.

When the boys are leaving VT they apparently could not get a ticket on any major airline since the plane that is filmed is Federal Express. Did they ship themselves Overnight in a crate? Come on guys little details like this separate an indi film from totally amateur.

The Christian brother is far gayer than Arthur with his bleached hair and tribal band tattoo. The two should have switched roles.

The minor characters are laughable and overact something terrible.

Applause to the directors for making a gay film but pay some attention to your locations and casting next time

Sentiment: negative
Book of Revelations starts very well. Daniel, an egomaniac dancer is kidnapped, abused and sexually raped by three masked women.

After that, nothing else really happens. There is some hint of rediscovery but the movie gives nor explanation nor a real ending. Daniel reactions after the abuse are very basic. He quits dancing, has sex with every women around and finally starting a relation with very simple and common woman.

I have seen a good share of art-house movies but this has something missing in it.

The main leads are fine; but some characters does not seems to be completely defined.

Sentiment: negative
I've enjoyed watching Lost from the beginning and endured a few bad actors in poorly written episodes because when Lost is good, it's really good! But this episode that features Mr Echos demise had so many drawn out scenes with lingering closeups of bad acting that I found myself tapping the fast forward button. This episode stood out so far as by far the worst. In fact, the variation in quality of Lost has been so inconsistent, I find myself often wondering how many writers they are using.

I will continue to watch but hope things get better and hope I stop secretly wishing for the sub-par actors in the series to die off.

Sentiment: negative
Horror films are a curious thing, sometimes they manage to stumble across a formula that works very well, sometimes they try valiantly to tell a worthy story despite time and budget problems, sometimes they're so bad they're actually kinda fun...and sometimes they're "The Cavern".

A good horror/suspense film should contain vagaries that keep you guessing, they should allow you to be interested in the characters and their motivations so that you actually have some sort of reaction when they die. However, The Cavern chooses instead to introduce elements that work at first, only to be negated by it's own lackluster storytelling.

All the characters are completely forgettable and any actual back story that might make any of them even remotely interesting is blurted out within a 30 second monologue, making it impossible to do anything more than laugh as characters are picked off almost at random and on more than one occasion in the least possibly frightening way.

(To spoil a scene a bit, one victim is taken during a complete blackout which might have been a little frightening if the sound effect used to indicate his killing wasn't reminiscent of stirring a pot of too thick Macaroni and Cheese) Add to this formula the camera that work makes me think the director saw one too many Nine Inch Nails videos and an ending which in an attempt to be shocking serves almost no purpose but to annoy and confuse the viewer and you have an almost completely unwatchable horror film that fails on every level.

I'll be honest with you, if you want a claustrophobic caving horror movie go watch "The Descent", and I feel weird saying that because I didn't particularly enjoy that movie either.

Sentiment: negative
This documentary is not only one of the best documentaries I've seen, but also one of the most moving and quietly beautiful movies I've seen period. It follows the lives of two Sudanese young men, Peter and Santino, as they try to make their way into the American culture. Peter and Santino are friends at first, but they gradually drift more and more apart, as Peter goes to Kansas City, and Santino stays in Houston ("a land called Houston"). Santino's beauty is in his eyes. He takes people onto his back, he supports an apartment full of other Sudanese, paying the rent, doing everything for other people. He is a quiet sufferer. Peter looks out for himself, getting a high school education while playing basketball and making Christian friends. It seems that director Megan Mylan did not know what she was getting herself into with the beauty of this tale. Peter and Santino are amazing characters that move you. But the real strength in this movie lies in its commentary on American society. It is not judging. It shows the strengths and weaknesses of our world, and how difficult it can be to outside people. I suggest you find this film, and look at America through the lives of these two fascinating and beautiful people.

My grade: 10/10

Sentiment: positive
Colorful western.

Wyoming cowboy James Stewart moseys on up to the Yukon Territory to dig for gold, sell his steers, and try to get a date with pretty saloon-owner Ruth Roman if he can shake the tail of crooked sheriff John McIntire who wants Stewart's cattle. Beautiful cinematography in a collaborative effort by William Fritzsche and Bill Daniels. Good Technicolor adventure from Universal-International, directed by Anthony Mann.

Also starring Corinne Calvet, Connie Gilchrist, and Walter Brennan as Stewart's sidekick.

Sentiment: positive
I have seen about a thousand horror films. (my favorite type) This film is among the worst. For me, an idea drives a movie. So, even a poorly acted, cheaply made movie can be good. Something Weird is definitely cheaply made. However, it has little to say. I still don't understand what the karate scene in the beginning has to do with the film. Something Weird has little to offer. Save yourself the pain!

Sentiment: negative
An enjoyable game, which offers fun and easy game play and fair replay ability. Staying true to the comic and providing a low learning curve gives this game something not seen in most action cartridges today. Also, the narration and animated scenes used (though lengthy animations are replaced by slide shows on the Nintendo 64 version) use full advantage of the platforms' capabilities.

Sentiment: positive
Six teenagers go to an old remote abandoned school where 27 years ago a horrible massacre took place for a night of fun and pranks. Instead the kids run afoul of the vicious crazed security guard (excellently played with supremely creepy menace by Spanish horror icon Paul Naschy) who committed the nasty killings. Director Carlos Gil relates the intriguing story at a brisk pace and does an adept job of creating a compellingly spooky and mysterious atmosphere. The witty script by Tino Blanco and Mercedes Holgueras offers a clever and inspired blend of slasher and supernatural elements that keep the viewer guessing to the very end. The slick cinematography by Fernando Arribas makes expert use of light and shadow. David San Jose's moody score likewise does the trick. The attractive and appealing young cast all contribute lively and engaging performances, with especially praiseworthy turns by Carlos Fuentes as ringleader Ramon, Olivia Molina as the panicky Maria, Zoe Berriatua as obnoxious joker Jordi, and Carmen Morales as spunky goth chick Sandra. The murder set pieces are every bit as bloody and brutal as they ought to be. Terrific whammy of a surprise dark ending, too. A solid and satisfying shocker.

Sentiment: positive
Watched this on DVD in original language with English subs. Either the subtitling was very poor or the actual dialog doesn't make much of story and give any character development. There are quite a few HK stars in this but the movie doesn't need their presence to make it better or worse. It's just bad. The bright and colorful scenes done in CG are attractive for the sheer colors and brilliance but it can get overwhelming before long. If anything this makes me think of a child's movie with its nonstop barrage of cg, fight scenes, and crap plot. I'm certain I grasped what took place in the film but the whole delivery of the story was rather lousy.

Sentiment: negative
Watched this French horror film last night and pretty much liked it. The whole movie takes place in a prison cell with basically three prisoners who find a hand written journal in a wall from a serial killer that had escaped the prison 20 years earlier, somehow without leaving his cell. As they look through the diary, they discover it delves into the black arts and commands that might be their way out of the cell and to freedom. What they find out, is something completely different, and horrifying to say the least. I like low-budget horror films, that deliver the goods in a fairly quality way, and tell a good story. This movie does just that, despite taking a while to get going. The result and the horror they unleash is very interesting to me, and I enjoyed the ride. Not a lot of gore, but that wouldn't fit the story, although the gore it has is pretty good.

Sentiment: positive
When a friend once lambasted me for my first movie (a pretty bad videotaped affair), I argued that I could grow; Orson Welles' first movie, indeed, was even worse. He challenged me that it couldn't be, so I pulled out the Criterion laserdisc of (I think) CITIZEN KANE and played HEARTS OF AGE. My friend lasted just a few minutes before conceding the point.

There is a little humor in this short, but it's basically as pretentious as (and perhaps a collegiate answer to) BLOOD OF A POET and other avant garde films of the time. It is what it is: a succession of images with a vague theme, and unless you really enjoy any footage of Welles (in heavy makeup, to boot), this isn't really even worth tracking down.

Sentiment: negative
Its incredible to me that the best rendition of this amazing story remains a cartoon made by Walt Disney in the 1940s, but its true. Here another clumsy attempt sputters confuses and alienates would be viewers with admirable effectiveness while successfully antagonizing those of us who have actually read the story. Irving's original work is short by any measure and making a feature length film is bound to be a challenge. One can either completely rewrite the story a la Tim Burton which is a discussion for another time, or pad the bust-line of the old girl with unintended detail. The latter is what is attempted here, and if I may say, pitifully so. Unimaginative and thoroughly modern new facets to character personalities such as religious zealotry in Crane or wanderlust in good old Bram Bones ruin the story's intent and betray a severe lack of talent by the filmmakers. By the time the tale's famous climax approached, I had completely lost interest. Its the kind of film where you expect to see a stagehand smoking in the background.

Sentiment: negative
This movie starts out as if it were a comedy. It almost appears that the actors are reading off of cue cards, especially in the airport sequence. William Smith plays the role of "Caribe," a hunter, who is quite twisted and deranged. Smith seems to always play villains such as in "The Ultimate Warrior" (1975), and "The Frisco Kid" (1979) to name a few, although in this film the villainous role seems laughable. This is one of those films where senseless things take place only to fill up screen time, such as the girl chasing sequence at the beginning, and the long silly motorcycle race. I give this film 1/10. I would have liked to see this film on "Mystery Science Theatre" it would have been hilarious.

Sentiment: negative
I just watched Lonesome Dove, Return To Lonesome Dove, Streets Of Laredo and Dead Man's Walk. All excellent. This sorry hunk of junk is cheaply done and poorly acted.

In the previous series, Captain Call and Gus McCrae come off as tough respectable cowboys. Despite the fact that Caption Call is played by a different actor every time each one quickly won me over. In Dead Man's Walk the boys are believable as the younger versions of the experienced Texas rangers. In Comanche Moon they are just a couple of chubby rednecks. I had to stop watching.

I suspect many of the glowing reviews for this show were written by the people who made this stinking pile. It's a sorry end to an otherwise great franchise.

Sentiment: negative
Not long enough to be feature length and not abrupt enough to a short, this thing exists for one reason, to have a lesbian three-way. There are worse reasons to exist. One sad thing is that this could have made a decent feature length movie. Misty fits snuggly into her outfit and is a very cocky girl and when people are so infatuated with a game character, like Lara Croft, that they make nude calenders of her, you know that a soft-core flick is set to explode. Unfortunately, this is pretty pathetic. Especially the painfully fake sex scene between Darian and Misty, where you can see her hand is fingering air. Watch this if you just can't get enough of Misty or Ruby, who makes a nice blonde and has zee verst jerman akcent ever.

Sentiment: negative
I just got back from seeing, "Comedian". It was...alright. It kept me looking at the screen. Its just not the type of thing I like to go pay $7 to see.

Now don't get me wrong, it'd make a great HBO feature. If this were something I was watching on TV, i'd be hooked right in. It gives an amazing look at what comics go through before and after getting on stage. It will interest anyone who likes watching comics.

But when I go to the movies, I like to be entertained. I'm not there to be educated. Now I know what its like for Jerry Seinfeld before he goes out on stage....great. But truthfully, I'd rather just laugh at his jokes than worry about any of that.

One more thing: With the bad attitude Onry Adams has; I'd expect to see him taking my order from Burger King before I see his HBO special. He wasn't funny. He's the kind of person that you love to hate.

Sentiment: negative
The Custer Legend, a la Warner Brothers Epic. There's no casting against type here, with the flamboyant Flynn as the flamboyant Custer in this rousing tribute, not only to Custer, but to the men of the 7th Cavalry. The story traces the life of the famed 'Boy General" from his turbulent days at West Point to his final fight at the Little Big Horn. Great liberties are taken with facts here, and we are presented with a Custer that is much more sympathetic to the plight of the redman than history relates. But this one is done on such a grand scale, the battle scenes alone provided employment for every extra in Hollywood. Down beat ending and all, this is great fun!

Sentiment: positive
I saw SEA OF DUST as part of a NYC screening audience several years ago. I enjoyed the film at that time, so I was a little confused by some of the amendments that had been made since. Perhaps it's my memory, but there seemed to be chunks of exposition missing from the version that was shown at the Rhode Island Film Festival. I'm really not sure which version I prefer, but I can honestly say that I found something to appreciate it both.

Let me begin by warning everyone that this is not a popcorn movie. Although it's been promoted as a Hammer Films tribute, people expecting a showdown between Van Helsing and Dracula are going to be sorely disappointed. There's some cleavage, but no nudity (a staple of the British production house's later movies). And while SEA OF DUST is filled with gorgeous eye candy (it really is shot like a sixties film), and features Hammer starlet Ingrid Pitt, it's not like any of the company's pictures in tone or execution. This film is very dark, very confusing, and (at times) very funny. I don't remember the earlier version being quite as nutty as this one, but that's not a bad thing (especially the showdown in the Black Forest that plays like a Three Stooges short). And some of Ms Pitt's rantings are quite entertaining. It's like somebody wound her up and turned her loose.

The uniqueness of this film doesn't lie with the borrowed details, though. It's in the ideas. As an occasional Sci Fi Channel viewer, I've regularly taken the network to task for its one-note variations on a theme (CGI monster kills, then gets destroyed). SEA OF DUST is so full of ideas that you start to trip over them after a while.

But don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining. If anything, I applaud these guys for making such an enterprising low-budget picture and for having the courage to pack it with so many concepts. It's not going to be a picnic for people who hate to think at the movies (you know who you are). But for the rest of us, those of us who are tired of the formula of modern horror films, the predictability, the lack of respect for the audience, this may just be your ticket.

Sentiment: positive
No one in this movie has very much to do. This is probably the longest 65 minutes I've ever spent watching a movie. The makeup effects on the pianist with macromeglia are pretty good, but that's the only thing that keeps this from being rate a 1. The doctor's assistant goes through extreme mood swings from passivity to hysteria in seconds and then seems to forget where she was in the next scene. The director assembled a lot of the right ingredients for a mad-doctor movie, but somehow forgot the skeleton of a story to hang them on. Unless you know someone in the cast or crew, I wouldn't recommend even sampling this one.

Sentiment: negative
After watching Ingmar Bergman's Skammen, I had many feelings, but most notably, I felt unsatisfied. I have heard so much hype about this movie but I came to find it lacking. Don't get me wrong, I can fully appreciate the artistic value of such a film, but as far as depth and emotion, I was not so impressed. I found the characters to be disagreeable and unrealistic, which detracted from the dramatic effect. In addition, the fact that the war was fake led me to feel that the emotion was not real. Dramatic war movies, in my opinion, are much more effective if the events (not necessarily the story itself) really happened. I find that of all the movies that try to show the brutality this one falls in the middle as far as effectiveness.

Sentiment: positive
I can't think of much to say about this film. 

This was an awful movie...I can't even tell you what made me decide to view it. It had SO few redeeming qualities that I don't even know where to begin.

The plot moved from implausible to downright absurd. My entire body was tense throughout the duration of the movie because I could not wait for the awful thing to be over and done. By the end of the movie, I found myself feeling beyond relieved. 

The editing was poor, the acting was sub-par, and the storyline was weak. Francoise Robinson was cast as a Native American, even though she does not even closely resemble someone of Native American heritage. 

If a movie is going to be this idiotic, it should be laughably stupid -- at the very least. It wasn't. It was just pathetic.

Sentiment: negative
Mel Gibson's Braveheart was a spectacularly accomplished film, but it left a sour taste in the mouth. Rob Roy, by contrast, is slightly less polished, but a better film by far. This is a historical film which combines timeless themes with truly historical values, whereas Braveheart put a gross and unpleasant comtemporary gloss on an ancient tale. What makes this film is the cast. Liam Neeson plays the hero, in a role he basically reprised (in a watered-down fashion) in the Phantom Menace. The character is heroic, but is neither the greatest fighter nor the most demonic lover. Admirable yet human, he commands the screen. Against him are set a selection of equally human adversaries including Tim Roth's Cunningham, obnoxious but brilliant, and John Hurt's morally bankrupt laird. Also to praise is Jessica Lange, as Rob's pragmatic wife: also strong and noble, but 300 years away from a modern heroine, which is only as it should be. This is not the most original film you will see, but it has the courage of its own convictions, and the strong performances make you care.

Sentiment: positive
Don't get me wrong - I love David Suchet as Poirot. I love the series as well as the movies but enough already re: Death On The Nile. Everyone has done this one! We know who dies. We know why they die. We know who the killer is. We know how it was done. So I say enough already! Mr. Suchet could have used that awesome talent in another one of Agatha Christie's novels. I will say that the acting by all the actors was superb. The sets were terrific and very realistic. I especially liked David Soul but I was surprised at how 'awful' he looked. I hope he doesn't look that way in 'real' life! I honestly can't remember from other movies whether the very end was the same. Somehow I don't think so. I thought that was a rather brilliant touch whether or not Ms. Christie wrote it that way. I would much rather have that ending then wasting away in prison!

Sentiment: negative
Watching Smother was perhaps the longest not-quite-90-minutes of my life. There wasn't a laugh to be had; in fact, I don't remember ever cracking a smile. Diane Keaton was horridly unfunny as a middle-aged chain-smoking dog hoarder, the textbook overbearing mother character, a relentlessly irritating woman who clearly suffers from some kind of personality disorder. She is manipulative, conniving, melodramatic, childish, narcissistic, and worst of all, boring.

I suppose I should briefly mention the other characters, but why bother? It was just a long string of movie clichés--the dippy, socially inept distant relative who's just trying to break into "The Industry", the gruff and long-suffering but somehow still lovable father, the mild- mannered wife who just can't take it anymore (but eventually moves beyond the discord and resignedly comes home), the herd of unhousebroken dogs who like to chew throw pillows while everyone is away, etc.

God, what a snore. I've never been a Diane Keaton fan and Smother only reminded me why. Overacting is overacting, no matter how many pictures you did in your prime. Her attempts at physical comedy were especially humiliating. What was the director thinking?

While I like Dax Shepard and can even sometimes tolerate Liv Tyler, their performances were so lackluster and dull that it was clear that neither actor gave a damn about this movie. That was okay, because neither did I. Keaton's endless self-absorbed prattling was intolerable and at times Shepard's dislike for her seemed genuine. By the end of the movie I wanted to slap her myself.

Awful.

Sentiment: negative
"Two Hands" is a hilarious Australian gangster movie set in really sultry Sydney. I bet tourists never envisage Sydney and Bondi to look like it did in this film: all sweaty bodies, oppressive nighttime and gangsters in nylon shorts and jandals. Heath Ledger plays an amateur boxer with an eye on becoming part of the local King's Cross boss's gang. He looked rather magnificent in his green wife beater and blue patterned budgie smuggler. A sweaty tattooed bod does become him. I always had him down as a "Home & Away" boy, and he has been in that soap, which is a little sweatier than the Weetbix-insipid "Neighbours". The film is really worth watching for its combination of sardonic humour and nasty violence - the drowning scene is expected to give me nightmares soon. Totty awards: Country girl love interest city brother and tattooed streetkid.

Sentiment: positive
Unfortunately, this movie never made it to DVD. I saw it when it was first released to the theaters in 1983, and then again when the VHS was released in 1992. When I recently saw a VHS copy at a flea market, I immediately bought it. I was not disappointed. First, the obvious: Claudia Ohana is beautiful and a joy to behold. But then, the film takes you into an unreal world where you have to reflect on your values and decide what is really important to you. The movie is about a lot of things. It is about how the World Bank and large corporations exploit and enslave developing countries with their capitalist schemes to force them into a debt that they can never repay. It is about how our economic system exploits us by forcing us into debt with credit cards, mortgage, and car payment. It is about trying to save an innocence that maybe we have never really had and maybe we cannot really save. It is about good and evil and about how hard it is sometimes to tell one from the other. It raises a lot of questions but does not give answers. I think sometimes this is good. For this reason, this is a film really worth saving and seeing.

Sentiment: positive
It's highly stylized, but this movie shows that real people appear on these shows and what seems like good fun and a chance to appear on television can have serious consequences.

Yes, i's mostly comedy, but there are some sad moments.

Sentiment: positive
I was bored one night and Red Eye was on and thought why not.

Red Eye is one of the best movies in a long time.

I mean I just got into the movie cause it was just so brilliant.

The story is new and different.

The movie also has two great leads in the movie with Rachel Mcadams as Lisa Reisert and Cillian Murphy as Jackson Rippner.

The acting is just brilliant and you get the feel for the people in the movie.

The music is just excellent, it give you chills and can also make you feel relax.

I just love how the movie was just so well done and it never gets boring.

Red Eye is just phenomenal. Nothing more and nothing less.

It's a excellent thriller.

Overall, I enjoy Red Eye so much that I can watch it over and over again.

If you like Red Eye, then I recommend Elektra and Cry Wolf.

I give Red Eye 9 out of 10.

Great movie

Sentiment: positive
Well, was Morgan Freeman any more unusual as God than George Burns? This film sure was better than that bore, "Oh, God". I was totally engrossed and LMAO all the way through. Carrey was perfect as the out of sorts anchorman wannabe, and Aniston carried off her part as the frustrated girlfriend in her usual well played performance. I, for one, don't consider her to be either ugly or untalented. I think my favorite scene was when Carrey opened up the file cabinet thinking it could never hold his life history. See if you can spot the file in the cabinet that holds the events of his bathroom humor: I was rolling over this one. Well written and even better played out, this comedy will go down as one of this funnyman's best.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was a major bait and switch. I rented it because of Rebecca St. James, a popular Christian singer. I have met her and wondered what she would be doing in a UFO movie. Well.......

I think that she starred in this movie to help out a friend, or a friend of a friend. My first clue that this movie wasn't what it was supposed to be was when I witnessed the special effects of the UFO encounters. Cheesy! As the movie progressed, I noticed how plastic the actors were. It was funny how almost everyone in the movie wore solid colors. (There are a few exceptions).

Rebecca was verrryyy disappointing. She is always found in the house and doesn't show the realistic facial expressions of one whose husband has return to the fold. Doesn't she ever leave the house? 

I had to turn off the movie several times in order to finish it. I hope that Rebecca doesn't believe the message of this movie - believe in what we believe or suffer and go to hell. Jesus spread a message of love and hope. His message inspired others to change OUT OF LOVE, NOT FEAR.

Sentiment: negative
Stalker is right! Girl sees guy, girl wants guy, girl contrives mundane ways to keep bumping into him, girl won't leave him alone, girl pretends to be a patient, girl can't stop talking about him, girl pretends to love another guy (or two), he doesn't pay attention to her because she's annoying, girl STILL won't leave him alone. Played right, Drake's character could have been charming but she's completely, wholly, unrelenting in her pursuit of Cary Grant's character, her girlfriend-in-cahoots is dull, and sadly, Drake's attempt at playing, "charmingly screwball" comes off as, "disturbingly demented." Grant is himself, as usual, which is fine for Cary but it's as close to a phoned-in performance as I've ever seen from him. The direction is lackluster and the dialog is just plain dim.

Screwball comedy is very difficult to do successfully and when it fails, like in this stubbed-out butt of an attempt, it just stinks. Worse still, Drake spends the entire film in need of a lot of Valium and a restraining order. She ruins any humor to be found in this drier than mummy dust relic.

Sentiment: negative
Yes, this movie was just hilarious and the acting was top notch from the whole cast. Except Shelley Winters German accent wasn't that great but then that doesn't matter as she is hardly in the film. So if you're a fan of hers beware! The two main stars of this film are Laurence Harvey and Julie Harris. Now before this film, I'd only see Miss Harris in East of Eden with James Dean and I own an audio tape of The Glass Menagerie that she did on stage with Monty Clift and Jessica Tandy, so I wasn't sure how she'd be in this role and BOY, did she impress me. How hammy was she? I love ham! ;-) Mr. Harvey, he tickled my fancy! I am now a full time Laurence Harvey fan! That hair!!! *cackles* OMG! It's almost like Burt Lancasters, that crazy messy look, it doesn't get better than that. He is young and so innocent in this film. SEE IT NOW! It's definitely in my top ten! :) I am SO glad I found a copy that is all mine! Unfortunately this movie is out of print and very hard to find on video. :(

Btw, watch out for the hospital hotel room scene!!!!! It's one of the best parts! Or when Mr. Harvey has convinced himself he's ill and he's trying to get his knee to kick, you know how Doctors do with that little rubber hammer ;-) Well he does it himself and his leg kicks and it kicks the table *squeals* Check out the look on his face, so innocent!!!! I can't describe it but to all those people who say he couldn't act very well and other cockamamie comments, see this film and you will see what a GREAT actor he really was. You'll be bowled over! If you aren't, then I'm afraid there is nothing I can do for you, you're hopeless. ;-)

Sentiment: positive
THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI is proof that the great genius Orson Welles could direct a "mainstream" movie if he wanted to. By comparison to his other, more artistic works, this film has only a moderate amount of craftiness, and almost no esoteric elements.

The exception being, of course, the final scene in the hall of mirrors, widely agreed to be one of the greatest scenes in the history of film. It alone is worth the cost of a rental.

The sweet surprise was the superb acting by the beautiful Rita Hayworth. Her acting during the beginning and middle of the film is so excellent, she made the other actors appear as caricatures instead of characters. Even the great Mr. Welles.

Sentiment: positive
Following the release of 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937),' Walt Disney Productions has continued to produce quality animated feature-length children's film, many of which I still haven't had the pleasure of seeing. 'The AristoCats (1970),' directed by Wolfgang Reitherman, was the twentieth film in Disney's official canon, and is a romantic musical comedy revolving around a family of aristocratic cats living in Paris, France in 1910. In the mansion of the elderly Madame Adelaide Bonfamille (voiced by Hermione Baddeley), her loving feline pets  including Duchess (Eva Gabor) and her three young kittens  are the most important residents. When the bumbling butler, Edgar (Roddy Maude-Roxby), learns that the cats stand to inherit the old lady's entire fortune, he sets about disposing of the pets, dumping them in the countryside far from the big city. Lost and confused, Duchess and her children strike up an acquaintance with a sweet-talking alley cat, Thomas O'Malley (Phil Harris), who agrees to show them the way home.

Animation-wise, 'The AristoCats' isn't anything particularly notable, with much earlier Disney films such as 'Snow White' and 'Fantasia (1940),' demonstrating a similar, or even superior, visual style. However, the story is interesting and exciting  particularly for younger audiences, I'll wager  and the musical numbers {which I wish were more numerous} are terrific. For the sake of trivia, I'll name my two favourite songs as "Thomas O'Malley Cat" and "Ev'rybody Wants to Be a Cat," the latter of which is a psychedelic throwback to the late 60s, with a swinging jazz band and delirious flashing colours, led by a trendy feline called the Scat Cat (Scatman Crothers). The family's journey back to Paris is eventful and adventurous, and we meet such friendly characters as Amelia and Abigail Gabble {two talkative geese}, Uncle Waldo {the pair's drunken relative}, Georges Hautecourt {Madam Bonfamille's ancient but sprightly lawyer} and Napoleon and Lafayette {two dim-witted hound dogs with a hunger for the butler's rump}.

Sentiment: positive
This movie tells about the real life story of Ramon Sampedro, who lived for 27 years lying in bed after having broken his neck, and fights a battle to get legal permission for someone that can assists with his death.

Javier Bardem is one of best actors of his generation. Consider this: he has to carry this movie with only his face! Unbelievable that he didn't even got an Oscar-nomination. Now we can all see that the Academy is a joke! The supporting cast was terrific! The optimistic Rosa, his lawyer Julia, the rest of the family...Each and everyone has his/her own opinion about the fact that Ramon wants to die.

Whether your for or against euthanasia, put your opinions aside, because this movie deserves to be seen by people all over the world! Half way through the movie I started crying and it didn't stop until the credits rolled. This movie is so heartbreaking but also wonderful to watch and I can't wait to see it again. I give it a 9/10, and in my opinion it is by far the Best Film of the year so far.

Sentiment: positive
Written by brilliant Monkees' TV writers Gerald Gardner and Dee Caruso,WHICH WAY TO THE FRONT was the last of the "Jerry Lewis" movies until "Hardly Working" almost a decade later. Jerry's comedy is evidently an acquired taste, and admittedly he can occasionally be his own worst enemy when he helms as producer/director--but even in the dreariest of his films, there are always moments of brilliance.

WHICH WAY manages to be amusing,entertaining and yes,quite funny. It is somewhat unlike any of the typical Lewis films.The pace is very upbeat and ther are lots of excellent supporting players--a kind of JERRY DOES HOGANS HEROES.The whole thing looks kind of like an unsold TV pilot and you will either love it or hate it---but hopefully YOU VILL LAUGH

Sentiment: positive
It's been a long time since I last saw a movie this bad.. The acting is very average, the story is horribly boring, and I'm at a loss for words as to the execution. It was completely unoriginal. O, and this is as much a comedy as Clint Eastwood's a pregnant Schwarzenegger! 

One of the first scenes (the one with the television show - where the hell are you?) got it right - the cast was 80% of let's face it - forgotten actors. If they were hoping for a career relaunch, then I think it might never happen with this on their CV! The script had the potential, but neither 80% of the actors nor the director (who's an actor and clearly should stick to being an actor) pulled it off. Fred Durst was the only one who seemed better than any of the rest.

I'm sorry, but if you ever consider watching this - I highly recommend you turn to something less traumatic, because not only it's a total loss of time, but also a weak example of what bad cinema looks like.

Sentiment: negative