DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
We've all got to start somewhere, it was in films like Escape In The Fog that somebody like Budd Boetticher could learn his trade before turning out good films. In fact the film was dated before it even hit the movie going public on June 25, 1945.

The war on Europe was over for almost two months, of course not even Harry Cohn could control the events of history. So I'm wondering why even back then the public didn't question why a Nazi spy ring was helping out the Japanese. Another very bad historical inaccuracy was that the FBI had nothing to do with the Pacific or Asian theater. The cloak and dagger stuff was the territory of the OSS in that part of the world.

When you're an FBI man like William Wright it sure good to have a psychic girl friend like Nina Foch. He's about to go on a mission to the Orient to deliver the names of key underground leaders to start a general uprising in China against the Japanese occupation. Germans who've been bugging Otto Kruger's house learn of this and the whole movie is spent with these guys who've already lost the war trying to help their allies. Who, by the way, they refer to as 'Japs'. When Foch is sideswiped by a speeding car and knocked unconscious she dreams about Wright's danger and sees what is about to happen to him on the Golden Gate Bridge. She goes there and foils the plot. 

All the stuff you'd expect from a nice noir film is there, the foggy atmosphere of San Francisco, the dimly lit sets, Budd Boetticher tried his best as did the cast. But they just weren't convincing, probably because they didn't believe this claptrap themselves.

It's possible, but not likely that Nina Foch's dream and its psychic consequences might have been more developed and the developments were left on the cutting room floor. I think it was just a lousy screenplay. 

And Budd and Harry Cohn at Columbia Pictures had the fast moving events of history going against them here.

Sentiment: negative
I dunno what the hype around this is... This is really a bad movie...it did nothing to me, the only descent scene is where everyone comes together at the party, and a nice song is playing, uplifting beat and nice cinematic shots that make you move....that was the best part of the movie... Otherwise this film lacks everything to suck the viewer in There's no story, there's nothing to think about like some people say, there's no cohesion between the different stories...it was more of an attempt to re-do Anderson's 'Magnolia' which was brilliant, but it fails blatantly... Okay it's light and easy to watch, but that are movieclips too. Maybe first write a story before you make a movie... 4/10 One of the worst Belgian movies I've seen

Sentiment: negative
Really, really bad. How does a film this bad get made? I kept waiting for some redeeming plot point, interesting camera work, or at least some gratuitous nudity but I got nothing. I had just watched Cabin Fever and I thought it was an train wreck (except for the nudity and Pancakes) but it looks like genius compared to this dreck. The best script doctor in the world couldn't have saved this putrid pile of of stinking poo.

The only thing going for this "film" is that it ended.

I've got a headache just thinking about this movie and trying to write something. Ugh! I'm glad I only paid $5 for it and it will soon end up in a landfill.

Sentiment: negative
Martino, a young teacher in the island of Elba, has been formed by Maestro Fontanelli, an excellent educator, to be his own man and to say whatever he thinks, something that gets him in trouble at the school where we first meet him because he is teaching revolutionary ideals. The island is in a frenzy because of the arrival of one of the most influential men in European history of the 19th century. Napoleon is coming to his exile, not exactly a high point in his life.

With surprise, Martino is chosen to accompany Napoleon who is writing his memoirs and is in need of help for his own project. The young man comes from a sea merchant family. His brother and sister want him to go on an commercial expedition, but Martino has decided his place belongs in Elba because he will try to assassinate Napoleon. Little deters him after his mentor Fontanelli is tried for treason and condemned to be shot by a firing squad.

Martino finds his consolation with the much older Baroness Emilia, a beautiful woman. In his own interaction with the deposed emperor, a different kind of man emerges. Napoleon is seen as a more human person who really enjoys the company of Martino, not suspecting with the plans the young man's own plans for him. Unfortunately, Martino is not able to put his design into action because Napoleon has other plans in mind.

Paolo Virzi, the director of "Caterina va in citta", shows why his early promise is still there. Mr. Virzi also collaborated with the screenplay, which is based on a novel by Ernesto Ferrero. The director shows he is as good in intimate drama as well as with this type of spectacle. Alessandro Pesci, the cinematographer, does an excellent job with the images he was able to get.

Elio Germano, a young Italian actor is the best thing in the movie. He is playing against more experienced players, yet he manages to convince us he is the idealist youth trying to get justice to what he perceives is a noble cause. The great Daniel Auteuil is a more subdued Napoleon than one would expect from anyone's interpretation of this larger than life man. Monica Belucci is the love interest of Martino, but she has little to do. Omero Antonutti plays Fontanelli.

Sentiment: positive
2002's undeservedly popular "I Love the 80's" is an inane, idiotic, offensive and downright disgusting pop-culture mess of a show that was the first in a long-line of horrid television programming that ultimately spelled out the end of VH1, which was at one time the only real music-oriented channel left on TV! I used to practically live on VH1 up until the spring or winter, I forget which one now, of 2002 when garbage like this started to appear for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Out of sheer morbid curiosity (I'd guess that's what you'd call it) I had decided that I would go ahead and give it a look-see anyhow the first night it came on even though the advertisements looked like complete crap. At least I can honestly say that I wasn't a bit disappointed by it because my expectations were obviously bottom basement-level to begin with. The emphasis of this show I found out within the first 5 minutes was less on each year of the 1980's and what was and wasn't culturally significant or popular (which is what I was expecting to see), but instead more of an impromptu platform for a whole slew of really god-awful no-name comedians to display what they more than likely think is their comedic skills *rolls eyes*...more like lack-thereof if you ask me! It's pretty easy now to see why no one had ever heard of any of these idiots before they appeared on this show because they are all so terribly unfunny and pathetic in their attempts at so-called "humor" that I swear I could feel my intestines knot up with each and every rancid one-liner they shot off one after another! Altogether, I have no problem in saying that "I Love the 80's" was/is trash of the lowest denominator, and one of the main reasons why I almost never watch VH1 anymore.

Sentiment: negative
As others have noted, this movie is criminally inaccurate in its portrayal of the artist's life and I for one was very annoyed and offended... by its transformation of her rape into a tragic love affair, by the implication that her rapist was responsible for 'awakening her talent,' by its complete disregard for her work, by the way it turned her into a sex object, on and on, you get the idea. Also, I find it disturbing that people who aren't familiar with Gentileschi will see this film and walk away with that kind of impression of her.

Sentiment: negative
This film is an excellent military movie. It may not be an excellent Hollywood Movie, but that does not matter. Hollywood has a reputation of sacrificing accuracy for good entertainment, but that is not the case with this movie. Other reviewers have found this movie to be too slow for their taste, but  as a retired Soldier  I appreciate the pace the movie crew deliberately took to tell their story as completely as possible given the two hours and nine minutes allotted. The story itself has been told and retold several times over, but it remains for a professional soldier  and an African American at that  to report on the story as presented by the movie crew, and as it presents the US Navy to the world. The story of Brashear's work to become a Navy Diver, and his life as a Navy Diver beyond his graduation, is not the only story that is presented. There I also the story of how Master Chief Petty Officer Sunday defied the illegal order of his Commanding Officer that Petty Officer 2nd Class Brashear not be passed in his test dive no matter how well he did, and paid the price of a loss of one Stripe and a change of assignment. It also told the true story how Brashear found the third Hydrogen Bombs lost in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Spain in the 1950's, and how he saved the life of another seaman who was in the line of the snapped running line that would have snapped him in two if Brashear had not shoved him out of the way and took the shot himself. This was a complex story that was worth telling, and I will admit that two hours and nine minutes was not enough to tell the full story, and I can tell from the deleted scenes on the DVD that the crew tried their best to tell a story as full as possible. As a professional soldier, I was proud to see such a great story told in such a comprehensive manner, and to see the traditions and honor of the navy preserved in such a natural and full manner.

Sentiment: positive
Be warned by the line on the back of the box that promotes a story involving "over sexed jocks". There isn't a thing redeeming about Carrie 2. The plot is absurd, the acting terrible, and the ending all too predictable.

I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but I was expecting to be entertained. I wasn't. The only way I could rationalize watching this movie was because I was at a relative's house while waiting for my car to be fixed. Unless in the same predicament stay well away from this film.

Sentiment: negative
I thought this movie was hysterical. I have watched it many times and recommend it highly. Mel Brooks, was excellent. The cast was fantastic..I don't understand how this movie gets a 2 out of 5 rating. I loved it.. I have seen other movies of his and they were also funny but this one really stick out in my mind because of the humor.. His I just can't say enough about this movie. I look for it to be on periodically but it never on enough for me. The people playing the homeless people were by comparison up to the funniest standards also. Please put this movie on more often. I can't see it enough..Leslie Ann Warren also was another favorite of mine, ever since Cinderella. I always thought that she wasn't really funny but loved her acting. In this movie she was very funny..and her and Mel did a great job together. They should put more of his movies on TV.

Sentiment: positive
Excellent ! I have to think back a *very* long time to find a film that's made me laugh quite so much. The writing is top-notch, the story is satisfying, and the entire cast is excellent - Chris Farley has never been better. One of the very best comedies of the 90s.

Sentiment: positive
That's what I found myself saying time after time in the remarkably inept 3rd act of this sorry excuse for a film. First off, the computer effects are absolutely mind-blowing! Those computer wizs' really deserve a pat on the back. The rest of the movie, though...

None of the characters act in a realistic manner, especially in the aforementioned, despicable 3rd act (I promise I won't give it away, but trust me, it's not worth keeping a secret!). A lot of laughs in the film come unintentionally, like when they try to explain that an invisible man's eyelids don't work. Please, give the viewers more credit than that!!!

Some of the sexual aspects of the film were interesting. What would you do, after all, if you were invisible? No one could catch you! These issues were dealt much more intelligently in the classic The Invisible Man from 1933. There is one scene of violence in particular that is so incredibly ambiguous, and is not mentioned once later on. If more attention had been paid it, Kevin bacon's mad scientist might have made a little more sense. 

The movie would actually be much more successful as a porno, since the premise could actually be carried out in a unique and interesting manner. But this piece of work... go see something else. Or don't, and live with the consequences!

3/10

Sentiment: negative
For me it's a case you'll never understand if you didn't live it.. so read this to know why would i have such unlimited anger..

I heard a lot about (Bruce Lee).. my father loved him.. my mother who hates any minor shot of violence loved him ! and how she talks till now about his " The Big Boss" aka "Fists of Fury" , and the experience of watching it at the Egyptian movies 1973 with all the gigantic success.. further to that I watched a real good movie about him (Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story - 1993).. so I found myself crying : where are your movies Bruce ?!! 

I went to the video store.. and it was dumb move.. (you'll know why !).. and waw.. I found a lot of Bruce Lee movies.. I selected one named (Bruce Lee in New Guinea) 

I did it to myself and watched that one.. OH GOD please forgive your servant.. I harmed myself but with no intended decision.. I wouldn't do it if I knew its evil damaging !! its mythical level of hideousness !! 

After that I didn't understand at all what's the big fuss about Bruce Lee as a great immortal star ???.. why anybody would care whether he is here or there.. this hero (whom I've watched !) is not that gifted and not that genius and of course is not that sexy ??? 

Until my father saw THIS star and he asked me to pause at any of his close ups and after he examined his face a little.. he told me in a very definitive way "this is not Bruce Lee" ! so I became too confused to ask : who's this silly guy anyway ??!! 

It was 2001.. 2 years after my first entry to the IMDb database.. therefore I tended to it immediately to know who the hell is that man.. and I discovered the truth.. he isn't Bruce Lee.. No my dear friends.. he is Bruce Li !!! 

And what a huge.. so huge difference !! I just want to know who can love that bad clone ?? Or god forbid .. love his repulsive movies.. I watched 2 of them and couldn't bear finishing the third ! 

After that I ignored all our video stores because its cheap cunning (writing on the posters that THIS IS Bruce Lee !??).. and I've got the original.. The one and only Bruce Lee who is such a great star indeed and Oh BOY he certainly had the right to immortality.. and no less.

Sentiment: negative
This was truly horrible. Bad acting, bad writing, bad effects, bad scripting, bad camera shots, bad filming, bad characters, bad music, bad editing, bad casting, bad storyline, bad ... well, you get the idea. It was just, just ... what's the word? Oh yeah ... BAD!

Sentiment: negative
But certainly a serious contender for one of the worst 10 of all time.

I got this DVD cheap, with Sandra Bullock as headliner on the case. This is false advertising - she's on-screen for almost 10 minutes of the movie.

On the other hand, there was no other selling point for this movie - the dialog was horrible, the editing was apparently done by someone who was strung out on Quaaludes, the directing was ... well, let's just say that my 14-yo daughter could do better, but I hope she never sees such faint praise from me. It's possible that the family cat could have done better.

Sandra does a creditable job for a first film, in the short time she's on-screen - and that's the only redeeming quality of this film. Stupid story, poorly written, and transferred to film as only a 7th-grade Media class should be able to do.

In short, this is dreck.

Sentiment: negative
At one point, Violet (Lucy Liu) tells Neil (Cillian Murphy) that why she constantly seeks out for an adventure. She said "because I'm bore-phobic". It mean that she can't really get on with her life by doing some mandatory activities. Well, I think her reason and the way this film go is very ironic. Because "Watching the Detectives" is a cheer boredom. 

Have any of these characters actually doing something exciting for once? Neil is a geek who runs his own very small video rental shop. He and his other geek friends usually hang out around the shop and watching movies together while debating about them afterward. But Neil's life is completely turned around when Violet walks into his store. She's an eccentric woman who hides a little secret from him. Anyway, after some dates, they decide to see each other. The problem is Violet is a person who keep doing prank jokes on Neil and can't really doing something normal, whereas Neil is completely opposite to hers. The question is. Is they are going to be in love at the end? You bet.

"Watching the Detectives" is a cliché romantic-comedy to its core. And they made it even worst by pretending to be something else. From the first couple of set-up, we know that Neil is pretty laid-back guy who didn't really commit to anything. And then, Violet enters the scene, looking all weird and annoying. So at this point, we all know that we're going to sit though all meaningless situations to find out how they're going to end up in the end. Is it worth waiting for? I would say no.

As I said, they tried to give something more for the audience. "Watching the Detectives" is trying to talk about commitment. To observe how far people go to reach for something they desire. We knew in the end that insane things that Violet has done is all the test how far Neil is ready to go to win her heart (or whatever). Well, I think it is completely bullshit. This movie will end pretty quick if Neil just said to himself "Forget about it, that girl is one of a nutjob !" After collaborating with many great directors recently (Danny Boyle's "Sunshine" and "28 Days Later", Ken Loach's "The Wind That Shakes the Barley" and Neil Jordan's "Breakfast on Pluto" to name a few), it's pretty weird choice for Cillian Murphy to make a movie with one of Broken Lizard comedy troop, Paul Soter. By all means, He's not bad (as usual), but such a talent actor like him shouldn't be wasting his time in the movie like this. On the other hand, Lucy Liu is dreadfully awful as Violet. Her acting is a mess. I mean it's all over the place and so over-the-top. Tony Montana would have been proud.

The last but not least mistake that movie made is a completely irrelevant title. You simply can't really connect a dot between the plot and its title; and then you will end up thinking that it makes no sense at all. In short, "Watching the Detectives" is pleasant if forgettable motion picture that you might have a chance to catch it on cable TV so quick that you couldn't imagine.

BloodyMonday Rating: 1.5/4

Sentiment: negative
This was the worst movie I have ever seen Billy Zane in. I understand that this movie was mainly to showcase the new comers, who did pretty good for newbies, but over all, the movie was not believable.

With all of the gunfire, you would think the police would have intervened. Even the coin being a bug on Sean was stupid. The way Sean suddenly realizes the coin is the bug, was not realistic.

Looks like this movie was slapped together fast. Poor job. Get a better writer.

The count down to the end was not in sync with anything. It took longer to fight. And what a coincidence that each time Billy was going to blast Sean, he'd be out of bullets. Once, I can believe, but not twice. 

Actually, Billy's character was goofy. It was so stupid when Sean punches him out at the end. It was like a comedy. Bad! Bad! Bad!

Sentiment: negative
Good old black and white Graham Greene based people in dangerous times doing heroic and mysterious things. Hardly a shot fired or a punch thrown and a hundred time more interesting than the glop that's being minted by Hollywood today. Bacall lights up the screen of course and Boyer is entirely engaging. They don't make movies like this any more.

Sentiment: positive
RKS after the success of GHAYAL started work on this film which was a comedy The film was in making for 3 years and released finally in 1994 but didn't work for some reason Before this film, DAMINI(93) released and did well 

The film is a mad comic film like most Priyadarshan films nowdays but it is funny and well handled The film has a proper plot unlike today's films and makes you laugh most characters became famous, be it Crime master gogo(Shakti Kapoor), Paresh Rawal and others

The film keeps you laughing throughout it's run time though being too slapstick and overdone yet it's one of the funniest films

Direction by RKS is very good Music is good

Amongst actors Aamir steals the show and delivers his funniest performance, this was his first out n out comedy Salman does well but looks amateur front of Aamir, yet does a good job and their chemistry is delightful Karisma is annoying and sounds like a child Raveena is adequate Paresh Rawal is too funny in both roles, Shakti Kapoor is hilarious in his over the top act Shehzad Khan(dubbed by Ajit) is very good and Viju Khote too is funny rest all are good too

Sentiment: positive
hello everyone, all i have to say is that Human Traffic and all of its characters are so real its funny. I live in Australia (melbourne) and I'm finally out of the clubbing and staying out all weekend lifestyle. This movie explains everything that is currently going on in the world. So exactly that i cant stop watching it.... I used to be exactly like Moff, so my friends said and i hadn't even seen the movie.. I left the weekend partying behind about 3 months ago after 4 years of intense partying to change my life around.. I was at a DVD store when i saw Human Traffic and i remember my old friends going on an on about it, so i bought it to see what all the fuss was about.. I was so into it i watched it 4 times in a row because i couldn't believe that someone had made a movie that explains everything to a T. Anyways this movie is by far the best and funniest movie i have ever seen.. Its funny because its so truthful in everything that goes on in the movie.. AND Moff is a legend!!! Thats all i have to say.. :) Enjoy 11/10 blew my socks off at how real it was, its exactly whats going on in the world.. hr rm i jabber a lot

take care everyone...

Sentiment: positive
Conrad Hall went out with a bang. The great film photographer finished his illustrious career with this movie before passing on. He did himself proud as this is one of the best-looking crime films you'll ever see.

Of course, the acting ain't bad when you have Tom Hanks and Paul Newman playing the leads! The amount of action in here is just right, too: not too much; not too little.

None of the characters in here, frankly, are "good guys" as Hanks is a professional hit-man for town boss Newman. Hanks' only redeeming quality is not wanting his young son to wind up a killer like him, although he does teach him how to be the getaway man in robberies! Huh?

As good as the acting is and as interesting as the story is, the real star of this film is cinematographer Hall, who paints scene after beautiful scene with his lens. His work is just awesome.

Sentiment: positive
My ex wife and I saw and were intrigued by the trailer for this film. We waited for it to come out but when it did it didn't stay in theaters very long. Several years later I bought it on VHS and I am transferring it to DVD so I can preserve it.

I found it to be very moving. It is about real events in a real country. BURMA got such a bad reputation for the political oppression it created that they changed their name.

I find women with little make-up on to be very sexy. Patricia Arquette is in this movie. Frances McDormand and Spalding Gray are in it only briefly.

After coming home to find her young son and husband brutally murdered Laura (Arquette) is afraid of blood. A bad trait for a doctor. Her sister (McDormand) talks her into going on a vacation to Burma. While there she witnesses a peaceful demonstration and has her passport stolen. In a bold (or stupid) move she asks a tourist guide to show her something off the tourist track. Her guide is injured by soldiers and she spends the rest of the movie trying to get him and herself to safety.

Every time I watch this it reminds me that we in the United States forget that to a peasant living under military rule, SOCIALISM, where at least eating is virtually guaranteed, looks pretty darn good.

Sentiment: positive
I really love action/adventure films and this is one of the best. Of course, we love the stars of this genre, Bruce Willis, Sly Stallone, Clint Eastwood, Kurt Russell, Arnold Schwarzenegger and the rest, but its the story that really counts. The best are somewhat feasible but we can tolerate those that are a little "over the top" as in the comic book style of action. The more twists and turns, the more dire situations the heroes are involved in and the more shocking moments in the film; the more we action/adventure fans enjoy them. "In the Line of Fire" has ALL the elements required for a rip-roaring action thriller. It has Clint Eastwood as a near-retirement Secret Service Agent whose one bad moment of failure haunts him. It has one of the most evil, despicable, maniacal villains in John Malkovich, the type in which you can't wait to see him, "get his due". It has Rene Russo as the 'love interest.' It has twists and turns, an occasional shock and even a touch of warmth and humor. It is extremely well paced by director Wolfgang Petersen and even has a score by the great Ennio Morricone. This one is a real roller coaster ride of a thriller! Don't miss it!

Sentiment: positive
the movie sucked, it wasn't funny, it wasn't exciting. they tried to make it so bad that it would be good, but failed. and thinking it's cool to like this movie, next to the hype, are the only reasons that this movie is a success...

the fact that at this moment 50% voted a 10 out of 10 for this movie seems pretty concerning to me, either the movie going public is going insane or this vote is unrealistic which can have numerous causes, and should be dealt with. anyway it is a less than average movie which bloomed through mouth to mouth advertising. It's success can only be described as a marketing marvel.

Sentiment: negative
Yet again, Madhur Bhandarkar takes you on a ride to the wild side. And a remarkable one it is, literally and figuratively.

Mumbai hi-society -- stars and starlets, glam dolls and witch doctors, business tycoons and broker types, yep the whole stinking lot -- are in sharp focus here. In typical tabloid fashion, their worlds unfold, with every colorful story a clever sub-plot in itself.

A struggling starlet dumped by the producer after getting her pregnant, the stewardess and her high-profile husband, the pedophile businessman and his neurotic wife, the reporters and the police captain; all shades on display and countless hues in between.

Bhandarkar does a swell job of digging up the dirt on the drama kings, the dancing queens and the living dead. Atul Kulkarni packs a punch, as does Boman Irani and Sandhya Mrudul. Konkona Sen Sharma is effective as the ex-crime beat reporter, but she could have been dolled up a little in keeping with the job change and the party circuit.

Highly focused (running time 140 min) and refreshingly different film, well worth the money.

Sentiment: positive
As always, controversial movies like this have mixed reviews. You either love it or you hate it, and not everyone will like this movie. This shows the perspective of the killers, which is something I personally feel is something important to consider. You may hate them, you may claim to understand them and feel as though you can relate, but regardless this movie will make you think about school shootings from a different perspective.

The movie is shot entirely using a hand-held camera, something that I think works quite well as it makes it more realistic. It is told completely from the killers point of view, from their "missions" to family outings, all leading up the big day "Zero Day" in which they are planning on a massacre at their school. Zero Day does not offer answers, but merely presents a glimpse at the lives of two troubled young boys and lets the audience decide for themselves. Our feelings towards the boys are something mixed between sympathy and hatred, but yet we are left confused as to why two ordinary young boys would do such a thing. They are shown to be surprisingly normal, typical teenage boys leading ordinary lives, and if we didn't know what they were planning we wouldn't expect a thing (They make it clear throughout the whole movie that no-one else knows about their plan)

The acting is extremely good considering the two actors are complete unknowns. We can only hope to see more work from the both of them in the future. Despite how this is a fictionalized movie, one cannot help but notice the obvious similarities to Columbine. Calvin and Andre are scarily similar to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, (not so much in looks, but in manner) As someone who has researched Columbine very extensively, I could see the similarities and it is almost certainly based on it. 

The actual massacre is shown through surveillance cameras at the school and is one of the most chilling things I have ever seen. I was completely in shock after seeing it, and its a feeling that stays around for a while. It is very realistic and well-done, and it is very difficult to watch.

All in all Zero Day is an excellent movie, and I think everyone should at least check it out. In the past, we have always simply branded killers "psychopaths" and assumed that either they were biologically wired for disaster or had media influence, but as Zero Day shows sometimes the motives are deeper than that, and we can never truly understand why tragedies such as school shootings happen until we have seen it from the perspective of the killers.

Sentiment: positive
This star-studded British/Spanish co-production looks great, what you can see of it. I have three versions, two VHS, one DVD, and all are terribly cropped, so badly that it looks as if buildings are having conversations with each other. Few films suffer as badly from pan and scan as this one, as director Robert Parrish seems to have been so enamored with the widescreen process that he tended to use both sides of the screen at once, neglecting the middle. Another user comments that we see the entire inhabitants of a church massacred at the beginning; not in any of the copies I have. There are some abrupt cuts of peasants firing their rifles, one Mexican officer is shot, Shaw and Landau celebrating, and that's it. We never find out why Shaw has become a priest (if he really is), we never find out what happens to Don Carlos (Savalas) although I suspect he was called home to star in Kojak, as his departure seems arbitrary. And there is a strange flashback sequence where Michael Craig (Mysterious Island) is dancing around in a bowler hat and bad suit in the great old English music hall tradition to the 1960 hit BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS, not sung by Johnny Horton here but with some lyrics I've never heard before. On the plus side, the location is great, a huge old ruined fortress with Escher-style stairs leading nowhere, some nice scenery-chewing by Robert Shaw, and good performances by Stevens, Landau, Lettieri, and Telly Savalas as Telly Savalas. I didn't really like this film, but I haven't exactly seen it. I will seek the widescreen version and make my decision then.

Sentiment: negative
For a movie I was really looking forward to, I was very disappointed. I had no expectations of this being another Amadeus, but did expect a more significant portrayal of Beethovens last years.

The performance by Ed Harris was superb, but the story line was so weak that the film simply moved from one dreary scene to the next with no continuity.

The only enjoyable part of the film for me was the performance of the 9th, and from that point on I could quite happily have walked out without finishing.

I left feeling very dissatisfied and still have the feeling that something important was missed.

Sentiment: negative
I rented this film thinking it was the sobbingly sad 1959 version I saw as a kid. It was not. I was therefore very disappointed with what I felt was marginal acting, poor character development, and most of all, failure to highlight the relationship between the boy and his dog. In this version... the "Dog of Flanders" is just a cute "aside" to the movie. Get the 1959 version!

Sentiment: negative
Chaplin is a doughboy in his final film of 1918, a doughboy who can not seem to get the marching down straight. He spends time "over there" in World War One trenches. Several gags stand out: Limburger cheese as a makeshift grenade for one. The cramped quarters of the barracks in the trenches and when Chaplin and his mates are washed out of their bunks by flooding are highlights. Chaplin ends up capturing several German soldiers single-handed, and he spanks the German commander for refusing a cigarette. When asked how he did it, Chaplin replies that he surrounded them. Chaplin hides behind enemy lines as a tree of all things, and those scenes are very very funny. He escapes to a bombed house where he meets up with a French girl played by Edna Purviance. He's tracked down by German soldiers, escapes from them again, and Purviance is arrested for assisting him. Chaplin is able to pull a fast one by bopping a soldier and using the soldier's uniform. He ends up saving Purviance of course and capturing the Kaiser in the process. Along the way, Chaplin employs some sight gags and slapstick in turning back the German soldiers. With this film, Chaplin explored the location possibilities in filming while maintaining the audience's attention for closer to feature length time, something his contract with the Mutual Film Corporation disallowed him. The film also allowed him to poke fun at the enemy, something he would again do to greater effect in The Great Dictator. *** of 4 stars.

Sentiment: positive
The only reason that I did not give this 10 stars was the DVD format-no menus, extras, etc. However, if you have ever had a dream to do something with your life, this film is for you. If you believe in yourself and your dream do not let anyone or anything stop you. This is one of the most life-affirming films that I have ever seen. And magical. The acting is superb, the plot serves the purpose, and the opening sequence is fantastic. This is one of those films that "cult" status used to be about. I have recommended this film to all of my friends. Some love it, some can't finish it. Whenever I think, or feel , that something is impossible I think about Alan Arkin's role in this film. Sure wish he'd make more films.

Sentiment: positive
I finally saw this film tonight after renting it at Blockbuster (VHS). I have to agree that it is wildly original. Yes, maybe the characters were not fully realized but it isn't one of those movies. Rather, we are treated to the director's eye, his vision of what the story is about. And it does not stop. And to be honest, I didn't want it to. I do believe that Sabu had to have influenced the director's of 'Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels' and 'Run, Lola, Run'. But I absolutely loved the way the three leads SEE the beautiful woman on the street to distract them momentarily. I really need to see this director's other work because this film really intrigued me. If you want insight, culture, sturm und drang, go somewhere else. If you want a laugh, camera movement and criminal hilarity, look here.

Sentiment: positive
Ted Nicolaou made a lot of great horror and fantasy films. I am looking for all his films to see. I could not find this one for 3 year, until I unexpectedly found it in youtube. To tell the truth I wanted to see more ghosts and less talks here. It looks like in 1999-2001 Ted had a crisis , maybe in money. His features of this time look more like real low budget thrash z garbage movies. But I do not claim him to be a bad director this time . Everything happens. The ending has some nice creepy details and suspense but the whole film was long dull dialogues .

only for real Ted's fans.

www.myspace.com/neizvestnostlab

Sentiment: negative
I had been amazed by director Antal's Kontroll back in 2003. His first American project, Vacancy, was less impressive but a decent start. Armored is his second feature and while the visual signature is recognizable, the film never rises above the level of a B movie. 

It's a shame because the main premise has all the ingredients for twists and turns and the ensemble cast featuring many quality actors should be able to deliver. Antal could have made a great heist film but instead goes for an action flick. Then again he could have shot a cool action flick but it doesn't really deliver in that department either. 

What you are left with is one implausible situation after another, a group of poorly sketched characters bicker and fight over a sum of money. If you look past the sharp cinematography, cast and the tight music score, you're left with what could have been a below average direct-to-video featuring Van Damme or Seagal. 

This was probably the most disappointing movie for me in quite some time.

Sentiment: negative
What was this supposed to be? A remake of Fisher King? Why do we care about Sandler's character? What a slow, dreary, boring, who-gives-a-damn-about-these-people movie!!! Just simply painful to sit through, I turned it off before it was over. It's so obvious that Cheadle needs help as much as Sandler; like I said: can you say "Fisher King"? And how does this psychotic character function in his daily life? We aren't supposed to think that deeply, I guess. Why does Cheadle continue to give Sandler a chance to turn violent on him? If they were such good friends, how did they grow apart? If Cheadle is so in control, why does he keep seeking the advice of the shrink on the street? We are never told. That's why Fisher King was a better film on so many levels and why this just sucks. Nearly 8 out of 10 average score? I don't agree. At all. Even the top films are lucky to get such a high average rating, and this crap doesn't deserve to be in the same universe with them.

Sentiment: negative
DANGER: Watch for falling spoilers...

Boy, was this a bad movie. I know that they were going for a "true love conquers all" kind of thing, but about all this film conquered was about 3(which felt more like 9) hours of my afternoon which I will never get back. The movie is about two young lovers named Kai and Gerta who live in a remote town in a fantasy world. Kai is the much-abused bellboy at a hotel owned by Gerta's father. At first Gerta ignores Kai's advances but she eventually warms up to him much to the disgust of (You Guessed It!) Gerta's father. As if this obstacle wasn't enough to overcome, an evil snow queen shoots a shard of glass in Kai's eye and he becomes a mean person treats Gerta poorly. Kai is eventually taken to the Snow Queen's fortress (Which is the same set as the hotel just covered in ice, because the good people at Hallmark like to go all out) and Gerta sets out on a mission to get Kai back. Along the way she runs into the 3 other seasons that are evil in their own special way, but Gerta escapes them with the help of some dull and forgettable characters she meets along the way. (All the while you will want to turn it off, but can't force yourself to do it. It's probably the most evil and most effective spells cast by the Snow Queen) Anyways, I will spare you from the ending because anything you can think up in your head right now is probably better then how they ended it. So, in conclusion, the Snow Queen is an incredibly boring movie, which takes the fan out of fantasy.

Sentiment: negative
I haven't watched this show in months, but for a while I was forced to watch it every day because I had a roommate that liked it. So maybe it's undergone some vast improvement in all that time, although the commercials and the 4.2 rating on IMDb aren't a good sign.

It was clearly just a quick replacement for Chappelle's Show. Even Mencia says so. And while I wasn't even that big a fan of Chappelle's Show, his jokes were at least original and clever (and far edgier than Mencia has ever been). Mencia's jokes are completely unoriginal and stale. If you can't see that, I guess there's just no hope for you. But to be fair, here are some examples: 

--Mencia blatantly rips off Chapelle's Lil Jon skit. Just takes it.

--"South Park" makes an episode about scientology. One week later, Mencia has a joke on his show about how offensive he is to scientologists. Bear in mind the joke isn't ABOUT scientologists, but about how much he's offended them on his show. When up to this point, he has never made a single scientology joke, ever.

--After Hurricane Katrina, two AP photos go around the Internet showing a black man "looting" groceries and a white woman "finding" them. WEEKS later, after millions of people have already seen this, Mencia presents it on his show as if he discovered it and it's being shown for the first time (the Daily Show would have been on something like that in a day). Pathetic.

Even more annoying than the joke-stealing is the way Carlos has promoted himself and his show, claiming he's breaking down some sort of PC barrier (whatever) and that if you aren't laughing, you must be a weak prude who can't handle any jokes about race. Yes, Carlos, it's not because you're not funny, it's because we're all too offended to laugh (if that was really true, then why was Chappelle's Show so popular?). He constantly berates his audience for "not getting it" if he doesn't get enough laughs, and often repeats and EXPLAINS his jokes, a technique most comedians stop using by age 14.

The worst part is that Mencia does not seem to be very intelligent. It's sort of tragic that there are dozens of funnier, more insightful comedians out there trying to make it while this guy is rolling in money. His show is supposedly the third highest rated on Comedy Central, which is baffling (again, it has a 4.2 rating on this site). Where the hell are they getting these numbers?? Comedy Central tries to bill itself as an "edgy" station, but as long as it tries to appeal to the dumbest audience possible, that will never be the case.

Sentiment: negative
Folks! is a "comedy" about a man whose parents beg him to kill them because they're going senile and want to be put out of their misery. Several times he tries to kill them and then changes his mind, saving them from his death-traps at the last minute and losing one of his body parts each time in the process. The movie seems to hate its main character, which makes it all the more painful to watch. There's also the usual tacked-on love-interest and predictable ending.

This movie was also the first time I'd seen Tom Selleck without a mustache, and I remember his shaved upper lip looking weird and making me feel slightly slick. But this might have been just because of the terrible premise and lame execution of the movie.

Sentiment: negative
"Valentine" is another horror movie to add to the stalk and slash movie list (think "Halloween", "Friday the 13th", "Scream", and "I Know What You Did Last Summer"). It certainly isn't as good as those movies that I have listed about, but it's better than most of the ripoffs that came out after the first "Friday the 13th" film. One of those films was the 1981 Canadian made "My Bloody Valentine", which I hated alot. "Valentine" is a better film than that one, but it's not saying much. The plot: a nerdy young boy is teased and pranked by a couple of his classmates at the beginning of the film. Then the film moves years later when those classmates are all grown up, then they're picked off one-by-one. The killer is presumed to be the young boy now all grown up looking for revenge. But is it him? Or could it be somebody else? "Valentine" has an attractive cast which includes Denise Richards, David Boreanaz, Marley Shelton, Jessica Capshaw, and Katherine Heigl. They do what they can with the material they've got, but a lackluster script doesn't really do them any justice. There are some scary moments throughout, however. 

** (out of four)

Sentiment: negative
I wasn't expecting a whole lot when I rented this film, as a lot of independent films seem to be a bit overrated these days (well, Hollywood films too for that matter) but this movie was fantastic, really great, it's too bad it didn't reach a huge audience because it's just superb. I really love Alice's determination, it really makes me look upon my life as a gift, and i see how privileged I am just to have an education. But all of that aside, this movie really proves that a good artist can tell a good story, no matter what the budget, it's an excellent film and everyone should watch it, they will love it and definitely learn something from it. I don't have to be roger ebert to know it's one of the best movies I've seen all year, and certainly one of the most truthful.

Sentiment: positive
I absolutely LOVE this movie and would really like to have it someday. It's just a fascinating legend about an eagle who wears a Turquoise necklace, I loved it and would like to see it again! I don't remember too much about it, but that a Native American boy lives in a nice village with his family, and I don't remember what happens, but he is supposed to go out to the wilderness alone. His sister packs him some food and he goes. While he's out there, some other Indian boys come running out and put some feathers on him, and he turns into an eagle. The legend says that if you ever see an eagle wearing a Turquoise necklace, it is the boy. I was always fascinated with legends, particularly Native American legends and I would love to see this released someday to a DVD, PLEASE RELEASE IT, whoever's concerned!

Sentiment: positive
America needs the best man possible to win "The game" so who do they hire? A gymnast (Oh brother!) played by Kurt Thomas who has the necessary skills to win in a game which involves ninjas, a village of crazies and Richard Norton who is told by Kurt Thomas "to keep his hardware in his pants." (His exact words) I missed this in theaters and it's a good reason because I would have probably been kicked out due to the laughing I broke into at regular intervals. The first thing that went through my mind was just how lame these ninjas are if a gymnast can kick their ass. Kurt Thomas is like 5 foot 4 and he hardly strikes one as "The best man for the job" As to the acting talent of Kurt Thomas, well if you can't say something nice... In all seriousness though one has to wonder how much cocaine was being used to furnish an idea so stupid. Only the decision to cast Tara Reid as a scientist tops the dumbness here. For 18 years though this held the title of the dumbest movie I had ever seen. Not to say I didn't find this unwatchable, I was laughing so hard I almost choked to death. Twice. Only in the 80's could a movie with such a bad idea get made. Although for the record it is the only movie to ever feature a hero so wimpy, he can't even pull a wedged sword out from the ground. This is the wimpiest action movie ever made, and one of the most hilarious also.

* out of 4-(Bad)

Sentiment: negative
I can't say that Wargames: The Dead Code is the worst movie I've ever seen, as it had one or two decent moments, but I can easily say it's the most transparent movie I've ever seen. Not once did a plot device present itself without me guessing it 10+ minutes in advance. There was no subtlety to anything the movie did, no intelligence evident at all behind the scenes. Every spoken or typed line's intent was so glaringly obvious it was impossible to "get into" the movie.

I found myself laughing at the horribly thought out plot line, and the bumbled attempts to reclaim the audience, far more often than I found myself enjoying the movie.

Sentiment: negative