DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
When it comes to political movies I usually come out feeling empty. They generally take up some moralistic stance and you have a clear good vs bad story line as if it is some sort of Batman movie.

But with Lumumba it is the first movie I've seen that showed politics for what it is, and the real issues of trying to rule a country of broken people who have known no other rule but violence. There were no good or bad there were just interests and conflicts of interest. This is the only political movie in my opinion that one can come out of it truly learning something. Especially for anyone with their eye on politics as a career this movie shows you, you cannot rule on what you want for a country, but what the country wants from you.

That's why I disagree with a lot of reviews that say everyone comes of bad, I think they come of too idealistic, (the Belgians want the perfect colony, Lumumba wants a perfect Unity Congo, Tshombe wants wealth and riches, America wants the perfect ally against communism, Russia wants the perfect aide for Communism). And the Congolese? They come off used and abused, ( best example in the movie when Général Janssens tells his black troops your government lied to you and it leaves them all in an uproar) they are always being pulled and pushed into supporting this person or another.

This movie shows in politics a mistake can cost you dearly and this movie everyone makes mistake after mistake until it escalates and ends up destroying the country. Their intentions might be good (or at least in the characters opinion), but it's everyone's mistakes that lead to the downfall of Congo. I don't think anyone is bad in this film, I just think they want too much from people sick of giving and want to start taking.

Overall, it's not just the best political film, it is a great film in general. Acting is fabulous (Eriq Ebouaney as Lumumba was perfect casting I really believe him) script flawless, editing perfect pace, and production value higher than I expected for a central African film. A must watch.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie a time ago, because some of my friends wanted to rent it, and I got voted down.. I tried as best I could to get the story, because some moviemag had said that this would be a movie that would be for Rob Lowe, that Pulp Fiction had been for John Travolta... Well.. we can all see that he not only failed, but he fell aaall the way down. This is actually the worst film I've ever seen, and I've seen a great deal of bad movies.. it's just not even worth seeing for free on tv.

Sentiment: negative
This is an excellent, suspenseful, murder-mystery movie. Not only was the plot full of suspense and intrigue but you get to see gorgeous Ryan Gosling for a couple hours, what's not to love! Also, Sandra Bullock is good in this movie - I've always been a fan of hers, (I just wish she hadn't decided to be in "The Lake House" which was horrible, but that's another story altogether). Obviously since there are thousands of other murder/horror movies out there, there are bound to be similarities between them, no need to bash this movie for having some similarities to at least a few that have already been made. Anyway, this is a great movie for those of you that actually enjoy "scary" movies, it's a little dark and twisted but overall a great movie!!!

Sentiment: positive
It is fascinating how this title manages to slip by the average viewer as something new and groundbreaking (quoting some of the comments). Murali K. Thalluri must have thought by himself: "Oh, great! Elephant ... What a fantastic movie! I'll try hard to do exactly the same movie and see if anyone notices!", sadly enough, he even failed with his outrageous idea. The movie turns out a complete failure. Considering that it tries hard to catch the brilliance of Gus Van Sants "Elephant", it makes it look even more ridiculous - a most embarrassing faux pas for a film director.

The movie starts off with the suicide of a student in the schools bathroom. This scene, already, shows the awkward acting skills of each one involved in this scene. You don't buy a single word they say. In carries on, interrupted by short interview-styled bits of the kids who "live on their marry lives" with each bit rather distressing in its plain stupidity on the basis of each worthless monologue. Thalluri means to introduce the characters this way, to give a kind of fast-as-junk-food insight look into their hearts ... and fails once again. Not five minutes later, Thalluri ultimately screams at the audience "Yes, people! I stole this movie and for some curious reason, I am proud of it!" by taking Gus Van Sants most unmistakable narrative style from "Elephant": He shot scenes twice to let the viewer follow each character involved in a scene on his particular way and role in a school situation. Hm, doesn't this seem awfully familiar? To me, this certain level of very forgiving tolerance had been infringed right there to a point at which I couldn't stand this dreadful movie any more. Shame on you, Murali K. Thalluri, I say! I am especially surprised that "2:37" has reached the official selections in Cannes as of 2006, whereas everyone must have certainly remembered "Elephant" (2003) at the very same Film Festival just a few years ago! So, how in the name of the lord did this most disgraceful rip-off end up being shown there? I find myself absolutely puzzled by this mistake.

Directors like Thalluri use the ignorance of audiences who aren't (and cannot completely be) aware of every independent film out there. As Elephant has little to do with mainstream cinema (although it is without a doubt a masterpiece), few people notice that the story as told in "2:37" had been told before! How that is possible at a Film Festival of such importance as attributed to Cannes, I cannot say. It is sad and shameful that such things are passed on and hardly anyone sees the true fraud in it.

2:37 is by all means solely commercial, worthless as an independent film and (on a certain level) rather a phoney parody of its obvious idol, "Elephant".

Sentiment: negative
Musings: Pure delight from beginning to end. Not a laugh riot, but a more subtle, sophisticated humor. What a goldmine of great scenes and character actors, including Reginald Denny, Nestor Paiva, Ian Wolfe, Harry Shannon and Jason Robards Sr.. 

Cary Grant is at the building sight of his new home, which is at that point, being framed. A young carpenter, played by future Tarzan Lex Barker, asks him if he wants his "lallies to be rabbeted", or some such thing that only a carpenter would know. Grant, not wanting to appear ignorant, replies in the affirmative. At that, Barker yells up to his mates, "OK boys, he wants 'em rabbeted, so....YANK 'EM OUT!" A second later you hear the ripping and tearing sounds of about 20 big nails being pulled out of various boards. All Grant can do is moan.

Yes, the movie IS dated. You'd never see that many carpenters working at once on a single family home, and a place like that, in Connecticut of all places, would probably run a few million bucks.

A classic movie that is really a treasure.

Sentiment: positive
I saw the movie late one night on cable and could not believe how bad it was. I usually enjoy bad movies, but this one was so revolting that it wasn't even entertaining. Some of the highlights of this film include the absurd music which is constantly playing throughout the movie, the hideous special effects (when someone is shot with a laser gun they turn neon green and promptly disintegrate), and the disgusting acting. The acting, in fact, is what I feel steals the show. I didn't recognize any of the actors in the movie, and I hope that I never have to see any of them again. Overall, I recommend renting this movie (if you can find it; I can't imagine a video store carrying this garbage) just so that you can learn to appreciate quality films after seeing this trash.

Sentiment: negative
This must be one of the most horribly titled films of all time. The kind of title that ruins a film because it neither evokes the plot nor the characters. A title like this makes a film flop, even the French title is not much better. Too bad - Truffaut & Deneuve must have been enough to sell it..

This is a long film, but largely worth it. Clearly influenced by Hitchcock, we have an intercontinental story about a personal ad bride, her rich husband, a theft, an identity switch, and obsessive love. The plot here is actually very good, and takes us on an unexpected trip.

The thing that works both for and against the movie is the focus on the relationship. It is an interesting study in how these plot developments are played out in "real life relationship" with these two people. Unfortunately, this is what bogs the film down, and makes it ultimately dissatisfying. We do like films to have a real sense of finality, and that is missing here.

It was the case in many of her films that Deneuve became a canvas for Directors to play their fantasies out on, and this time it doesn't work as well. Messy here, is the fact that the Director clearly just wanted to have Deneuve take her top off a few times. Deneuve is an actress who always seems very deliberate and thoughtful, so these attempts to make her seem spontaneous fall flat. 

Basically, the script needed to be worked out better before shooting began, to make this film tighter and shorter and to snap. But Truffaut didn't snap, did he? So - it wanders a bit, but remains interesting.

Sentiment: positive
I loved it, it was really gruesome and disgusting. I thought that the tearing of the human flesh was thoroughly provacative. the way that it was depicting the human crucifix about Jesus Christ was really interesting. The tearing about limbs and jaws was awesome brutally gruesome. Don't watch this if you have a weak heart, you wouldn't be able to stand it.

Sentiment: positive
I am seldom motivated to write a review unless inspired by the quality of the movie. In the case of Comanche Moon I was so uninspired I felt the need to warn others how bad this TV mini series is. Here are a few thoughts.

The Indians: They came across like they were in a Saturday Night Live Skit, making fun of how Indians talk. When McMurtry writes dialogue in his novels it reads so interesting; I am not sure how they ended up with what they got.

Gus McCrae: Looks like Festus from the old Gunsmoke Series. Acting is OK and the mannerisms from Robert Duvall's McCrae are right on, but the look is pure comedy cowboy.

Clara: Maybe you could use a little dirt or sweat on her next time. Ever been in Austin in the summer before Air conditioning? I promise you women did not look like that. Do you think they never saw any episodes of Dearwood?

Gov. Elisha Pease: Again whenever they are in the Governor's office it feels like a Saturday Night Live Skit, and the skit is bombing.

Woodrow Call: Call is the most reasonable character, of course He talks so little how can you screw up that? But hey, what about that hat?

Blue Duck: See above and include the fact that he isn't even a tiny bit scary. They should have gotten Javier Bardem to play the part.

The Rangers: Right out of "O Brother, Where Art Thou" I expected George Cloony to come riding up and them to break into a song.

Perhaps I am premature because the miniseries isn't completed but I doubt I will watch any more of it any way.

I would not expect anyone to be able to duplicate the enthralling feel of Lonesome Dove, but I watch this and it seems like they have no feel for the old west at all.

Sentiment: negative
The only reason anyone remembers this steaming load of fecal matter is because it was scored by Pink Floyd. (Or as they were known then, "The Pink Floyd".) Stefan, a really annoying Eurotrash hitchhiker, hooks up with American model Estelle and they proceed to get high and naked throughout the whole movie...

And the point of this is, what exactly? That drugs are bad? Or only heroin (horse) is? The problem becomes that you don't give a crap about the characters, and for that matter, even Pink Floyd wasn't up to their best work. When Steffan overdoses at the end, you are almost glad to be rid of him because he was so annoying.

Sentiment: negative
It is a shame that this series hasn't been remastered and produced on video by Warner or some other professional movie house.

Copies of most episodes are available, but are usually of poor quality, being copies of copies of copies.

As I understand it, 92 episodes were produced during its run, but only 15 are noted here.

Some of the series writers, such as Richard Matheson, went on to become noted authors.

Excellent series, well written, well staged and well produced.

Michael Weldon,

Udon Thani, Thailand

Sentiment: positive
The success of SCREAM gave birth to a whole new horror flicks wave. I'm happy with that, as a big fan of horror, and I liked most of those new horror films. BOC is a one big pack of horror. Colorful, fast paced and original. I see this movie more like the opening of a new trilogy (much like Episode 1 and Aliens: Resurrection) since it comes up with a new twist. Instead of focusing on the little boy-killer doll relationship we have here a twisted movie about couples. We have the sweet young lovers in contrast with the killer crazy doll-sized lovers. Very inventive!

Sentiment: positive
If all movies had to be destroyed and only one could be spared, Death in Venice would have to be it. It is a monument in movie history. Much criticized for being slow, boring and too obvious in stating it's point (an old man discovers beauty in a young boy and is tragically destroyed, first mentally, then physically), we should appreciate this movie for what it is. 'Morte a Venezia' was shot over 30 years ago, and it portrays a period even further back, at the beginning of the twentieth century.

Life was slow then, compared to now. People were supposed to behave in a certain way, hiding their true emotions even from themselves. Director Visconti and Dirk Bogarde, the leading actor, admirably succeed in showing how the aging composer Von Aschenbach discovers his romantic interest in a young boy. For a man like Von Aschenbach, in his time, this must have been a shock too powerful to come to terms with. We see his inner struggle, mostly on the face of Bogarde, against the beautiful backdrop of Venice and accompanied by the most wonderful music, composed by Gustav Mahler.

This movie is slow, there is no denying it. No special effects, car chases or fights to keep the audience pinned to their seats. No perverted sex scenes either; the interaction between man and boy is limited to stolen glances from afar and the occasional smile.

So, basically, nothing much happens in this movie? Not if you want your senses to be hit like a base drum. If you want them to be played like the strings of a violin in a romantic concerto, this is the movie to do it.

Sentiment: positive
Dull haunted house thriller finds an American family moving into a 200 year old house in Japan where a violent murder suicide love triangle occurred. 

Novel setting is about the only element of interest in this very slow moving horror flick by the director of Motel Hell. The film generates zero suspense and is composed of somewhat choppy scenes that rarely seem to be leading anywhere overall. 

One obvious example is a fairly early scene where the male lead visits a temple after realizing that his house is haunted as the monk had earlier warned. The monk recounts the history of the house (which the viewer is already familiar with from the opening sequence) and then the film simply cuts away to something else. Earlier the monk had offered to help. Well, where is the help? The family continues to stay in the haunted house as things get worse and worse and no mention of the monk is made until nearly the very end when he turns up again to do what he should have done an hour earlier--try to drive the spirits out of the house, although by this time it's difficult for the viewers to care.

There are some (probably) unintentional campy laughs in seeing the American actors at the end become possessed by the Japanese spirits and suddenly start doing bad martial arts, I say probably because the scene is more than a little reminiscent of the chainsaw duel from the same director's Motel Hell which was more obviously meant to be amusing, but on the whole this is a forgettable dud.

Sentiment: negative
I have been known to fall asleep during films, but this is usually due to a combination of things including, really tired, being warm and comfortable on the sette and having just eaten a lot. However on this occasion I fell asleep because the film was rubbish. The plot development was constant. Constantly slow and boring. Things seemed to happen, but with no explanation of what was causing them or why. I admit, I may have missed part of the film, but i watched the majority of it and everything just seemed to happen of its own accord without any real concern for anything else. I cant recommend this film at all.

Sentiment: negative
Seriously, I couldn't find anything that constituted a rational human thought in this movie. For some reason, the writer decided to have a bunch of actors in random places grunting, groveling and yelling like Cro-Magnon bipeds. I understand that this was about gymnastics, but seriously, what's with all the roaring and human bleating ? I also saw at least five actors with overactive terrets syndrome and stage 10 syphilis.

Although this movie has actual human acrobatics, I must say it is surprising that you can make a movie like this without having any intelligible form of human speech patterns. This is truly a milestone in the history of film-making because there was no conscious decision to make the characters express anything more than a timely Urrrrr ! or Rfff ! sound.

Incredible.

Sentiment: negative
The story was well plotted and interesting by itself. However, it is difficult for me to write the review of this film without spoiling you. To avoid that, I am not going to talking the story here.

I regard this film as a good adaption of Sarah Water's book, as compared with the previous one "Tipping the velvet". I read the book first and then watched the DVD later. The film did retain most of spirits of the main characters in the book. Of course, due to the time limitation, the film in the last 30 min seemed to be in a rush to cover the part III of the book. Therefore, it couldn't illustrate well the scene when they all met in the the kitchen of Mr. Ibbs's place and those after that (even the book seemed to me to be a rush on that kitchen scene). Despite that, the film actually did a good job in representing the story. It really worth watching. It's still unclear when BBC-America can broadcast this film. That's pity.

PS: noticed that the ages of Maud and Sue were set to be 20-21 instead of 17-18 in the book; the latter is more reasonable while the former is more close to the ages of actresses.

Sentiment: positive
Fantastic, Madonna at her finest, the film is funny and her acting is brilliant. It may have been made in the 80's but it has all the qualities of a modern Hollywood Block-buster. I love this film and i think its totally unique and will cheer up any droopy person within a matter of minutes. Fantastic.

Sentiment: positive
Some ugly weirdo who had three families, cheated on and neglected all of them, built ugly useless buildings all over which are now unappreciated and crumbling. His bastard half-Jew son runs around interviewing random Jewish senile people who we care nothing about and shows his dreadful narrating and writing skills while tragic piano music plays. This goes on for almost two boring hours and amounts to nothing.

All you shallow hippie people who watch these stupid documentaries, eating salads and yogurt, think all this crap is so important. It's not. Save the whales. No one cares.

Sentiment: negative
This might quite possibly be the worst movie I have ever seen. I knew it was a B-movie before watching it (it was actually the reason for watching it), but I'd never thought it could be this bad. The title promises Dracula in space and does deliver, however, the story makes no real use of the fact that Casper van Dien's character is a descendant of Van Helsing. And watch out for the ending of the movie, it comes at you fast. I've never seen an ending scream out "And now we're over budget!" in a clearer fashion. Their resolution of the movie was rather comic though, the story had so obviously painted itself into a corner. If you feel you have to see it, watch it with a friend who shares your love of B-movies. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have made it to the end.

Sentiment: negative
Just like Final Fantasy brought CG to a whole new level, this is a rebirth for motion capture. Neither movie nor cartoon, this motion picture looks like a homage to the Film Noir, Akira, Sin City, Blade Runner and the new generation of European cartoonists. You see Paris the way it almost could be, the characters seem as real as you and I. They blink, trip, shiver like real actors in a way never achieved before.

Don't go watch it hoping to find a mind twister. You will most likely figure it out before you're half way from the movie. The scenario is certainly too simplistic compared to famous thrillers, but this definitely is bliss for the eyes.

Sentiment: positive
... or maybe it just IS this bad. The plot is a cheap rehash of the first, which is weird, since it's supposed to be a prequel, not a sequel. Pretty much the entire movie seems like a cheap remake of the first, with scenes mimicking the things that happened in the first, only a lot more ridiculous and unlikely. Where the first had a great cast, this one consist of B-list actors and rejects. The acting is mostly horrendously bad. Half of the good lines in the movie are taken directly from the first, as is nearly every major character, including the ones who weren't in the first movie. I realize this was made up by a TV series pilot episode, but that's no excuse. They didn't have to turn the (bad) footage into a movie. Only one thing is marginally good, and that's the erotic sequences. However, as these are nowhere near as good as the ones in the first, even this isn't raising it above a rating of 1. If you have a chance to see it for free, and you're a straight guy, it could be worth checking out, if you want something erotic that isn't porn. If not, avoid at all costs. 1/10

Sentiment: negative
Not much to say other than it is simply a masterpiece. this film contains a myriad of messages that all should take to heart. especially- women do not squelch your man's dreams -honor them -that's why you loved him in the first place! Those who plan for death will live in the grave. Those who carpe diem will awaken those who live in fear. Even our Lord spoke of this when he chastised the the one who buried his talent in fear that he might make a mistake and displease the Master. Take a risk, get out of the boat and you will walk on water. Life is a journey that does not end in the grave but in our minds and souls.

Sentiment: positive
My friends and I were just discussing how frustrated we are with the way movies and especially romantic comedy's are being made. We feel offended by the schlock that Hollywood is serving up these days as they act like all is well.

Well all is not well...with the exception of a few bright spots, like this movie. It doesn't have the big name actors, the big budget, I don't think it had a big release (I rented from Hollywood Video) it didn't really have anything that most big budget romantic comedy's have.

But it did have what most of those lack. It had great chemistry between the love interests, "Parker" (Jonathan Schaech) and "Sam" (Alison Eastwood). Their love story wasn't forced on us like so many. The director took his time to allow these characters to truly get to know each other. Their story reminded me of one of my favorites, "Tootsie".

The supporting cast added not only really funny comic moments, but depth to the story as well. James LeGros' character was absolutely priceless. Sam's gay friend was hysterical. Parker's interaction with his fellow employees in a Psychic Hotline was a lot of fun.

I laughed, I cried, I remembered how great it feels to fall in love.

Sentiment: positive
Well, this is new...Famous Italian horror director Lucio Fulci shoots a film about a famous Italian horror director called...Lucio Fulci. After years and years of witnessing gruesome horror sequences, it becomes hard for Lucio to separate reality from fiction and he often hallucinates about committing violent murders. He quickly descends further into a seemly endless spiral of madness and unverifiable venom. Even the dedicated psychiatrist can't seem to keep Fulci on the right track... Now, when it comes to pure fun and entertainment value, Cat in the Brain certainly is one of Fulci's most pleasant films. The gore is overpowering and copious, to say the least. The amount of filthy massacres is impossible to describe, especially when you manage to get your hands on the fully uncut version (referred to with the aka:"Nightmare Concert"). Decapitations all around, victims ' intestines are spread on all sides of the screen and the chainsaws are working overtime! The film also becomes unintentionally funny quite soon (since it's so exaggerated) and a perfect experience to watch with a group of friends when there's beer in the fridge. Of course, from a more professional viewpoint, this production can't exactly be called a masterpiece! There's not the least bit of tension or atmosphere to detect and the characters are completely empty-headed. In order to make more room for the gore, characters are just being introduced for 5 seconds and subsequently die a horrible death. Especially compared with Fulci's highlights - like "The Beyond" or "Don't Torture a Duckling" - this film looks like a quickly warmed up snack. The best way to interpret "Cat in the Brain" is like a personal statement made by Fulci and a direct attack towards censorship. Perhaps after seeing so many of his films  especially the latter ones  being cut by censorship committees and bashed by pseudo-artistic critics, he wanted to avenge himself by delivering a gory mess that simply can't be cut! If you take out all the explicit violence and the truly sick make-up effects, you only got about 10 minutes of footage left! Especially because the insane killings re-occur later in the film as Fulci hallucinates about them again. You can almost hear our director think stuff like: "Let's see how you're going to censor this now!" Even the entire development of the murder investigation happens in the background. Are the victims missed by any of their friends or relatives? Are there any police officers looking for clues that'll lead them to the killer? You don't know and Lucio doesn't bother to inform you about that, because that would lead to sequences that don't require cutting. Oh, and it's pretty damn pretentious as well! The name "Mr. Fulci" or even "Lucio" is mentioned every 3 minutes (34 times throughout the entire movie, to be exact) and our director clearly enjoys being in the spotlights for a change. Hey, I certainly don't blame him...After over 30 years of delivering amusing movies; he deserved to have a little extra fun. You're a God, Mr. Fulci!

Sentiment: positive
When i first saw the movie being advertised i thought it was going to be another Disney movie that almost goes straight to video. I finally got around and rented it. I thought it was going to be bad because i couldn't see Shia in any other role than his recently cancelled show "Even Stevens". When i turned it on i was ready to turn it off from boredom in about ten minutes. It started a bit slow and i couldn't understand the beginning because the years didn't make sense then they explained that later in the show so i was relieved of wondering about that. All and all i thought it was a good movie and i would recommend it. The cast was top notch and even though i'm not a fan of golf it easily kept my attention with a good plot.

Sentiment: positive
Everyone plays their part pretty well in this "little nice movie". Belushi gets the chance to live part of his life differently, but ends up realizing that what he had was going to be just as good or maybe even better. The movie shows us that we ought to take advantage of the opportunities we have, not the ones we do not or cannot have. If U can get this movie on video for around $10, it´d be an investment!

Sentiment: positive
Given the chance to write, direct and star in my own movie, I would probably choose something about robot women with guns. Anthony Hopkins, however, decided to make possibly the strangest movie anyone has ever seen. "Slipstream" is a movie that is so strange that even David Lynch would probably look at the person next to him and say 'What's going on?'.

This is a movie where, in one scene, a man crosses the road towards a yellow car facing to the right which suddenly changes into a pink car facing to the left. This is a movie where two characters have a conversation interspersed with shots of random people laughing and insects climbing up walls. This is a movie where a man starts talking about "Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers" only for the actor of that particular movie to suddenly show up as himself (and then disappear into thin air). 

This is a movie that decides to throw the need for a coherent plot straight out of the window and use fifteen different edits whilst doing so, as well as changing from black and white to colour for seemingly no reason at all.

I must, however, commend Mr Hopkins for his choice of actors in this movie (some of whom portray multiple characters). All of those involved throw themselves into their roles, even if they probably have no idea what they're actually doing. My favourite here was Christian Slater's thug in a hat who was impressively menacing whilst babbling nonsense and singing the American national anthem. 

Anthony Hopkins has been quoted saying that he did this movie as a joke and that's possibly the best way to sum up "Slipstream". It's a joke on the audience. You'll watch it from beginning to end, trying to understand what is going on and hoping that the answer will come, only to discover that the answer never actually does. What the punchline to this particular joke is, only Anthony Hopkins will ever know.

I mentioned David Lynch earlier and I'm a big fan of that particular director. I would guess that Anthony Hopkins shares my love for the likes of "Twin Peaks", "Blue Velvet" and "Lost Highway". However, "Slipstream" isn't as satisfying as any of the movies of Lynch despite imitating many of his techniques (although I was surprised to discover that nobody talks backwards in "Slipstream"). It's far too chaotic and random - as another reviewer here pointed out, it's the movie version of Alzheimer's disease. No doubt there are a small number out there who are able to watch this and draw something from it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, "Slipstream" quickly becomes an annoying and confusing experience that was only made due to Hopkins' involvement.

Watch at your own risk.

Sentiment: negative
I watched to movie today and it just blew my mind away. It is a real masterpiece of art and I don't understand why most of the people think it's garbage. The main idea of the movie - take your ego away and then you will have true power! This was the main battle at the end of the movie and Guy Ritchie has shown that in a magnificent way. "The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you will ever look" - do you remember this from the movie? Because our true enemy is in us - it is our ego... That voice that always tells us that we are important, that gives us our pride, that tells us not to give, but only to take, that creates our aggression, that wants to be in control, that creates all the negative feelings and thoughts. GR expressed this idea in an astonishing way and has shown that the only way to gain true control is when you loose control and you just let go of your personal importance. A superb movie!

Sentiment: positive
My god this movie is awfully boring. I am a big fan of Gina Gershon, when I rented this movie I expected a romantic drama, and some great performance from Gershon. Gershon is great as always, but she is not right actress for this role, she is too good for Rade Serbedzija. The romance between Gershon and Serbedzija's characters is too unconvincing. And I absolutely hated Serbedzija's character (a wonman organizer), he is not charming in anyway in the movie. How did Dr. Lauren Graham (Gershon) is beyond my comprehension. Maybe Sean Connery, Robert DeNiro or Harrison Ford would have done a better job on this role, but they don't have the European-ish looking I guess. Any way, I was so bored druing the movie. If you are looking for a good Gina Gershon movie, check out Bound, her best film so far. If you are looking for a romantic film about a younger woman and an older man, try some Harrison Ford or Sean Connery movies. Gina Gershon is so underrated, and she deserves better chance than this, I wish her to make better choice in the future.

Sentiment: negative
This obvious pilot for an unproduced TV series features young Canadian actress Shiri Appleby as an amnesiac with some pretty incredible powers that must be put to use when a man-turned-flying demon is let loose on the world. The CGI is par for a TV job, and Appleby is OK as an amnesiac but hard to swallow as a superheroine. Familiar TV face Richard Burgi is along for the ride as Appleby's mentor, but he can do nothing to elevate this dreck above the mediocre level. We see way too much of the cartoonish flying demon right from the start, a bad sign. Also, the scenes where Burgi is training Appleby for battle are actually laughable. They are a bad copy of similar scenes in several other movies, most notably REMO WILLIAMS.

Sentiment: negative
Despite some moments in heavy rain, an encounter with a drunk as well as an organ grinder with a gypsy and a monkey, and a stay in a sanitarium, this Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle silent comedy short with support from Buster Keaton and Al St. John is only fitfully amusing though there is a quite funny sequence of Arbuckle in drag flirting with Buster that's the ultimate in "meet cute" scenes especially since it's one of the few times we see The Great Stone Face smile and laugh in the movies! Also, many scenes seem to have been jump cut edited possibly because of overuse of the film stock. Still, if you're an Arbuckle or Keaton completist, Good Night, Nurse! is certainly worth a look.

Sentiment: negative
Art imitates life imitates art. Atticus Finch is reincarnated into the D.A. in this tragic and suspenseful gripping documentary that plays more like a who-done-it and how did it happen. The authenticity and sometimes reluctant honesty of the individuals make this a compelling story in many layers. Although racism is one of the themes there are other elements such as work ethic, integrity, and coping with grief that have drawn me back to view and review this film again and again. The music is driving but not obtrusive; the pacing and visuals are such that there is no mistaking the fact that these are real people going through an authentic experience.

Sentiment: positive
C'mon, let's put aside the sophomoric humor that we can find in racism and be honest...it isn't funny. I was appalled at the fact that the two main stars would agree to do a film that was so offensive and so detrimental to race relations, and I'm not referring to the obvious black/white commentary in the movie, but to the slams towards other ethnicities, such as Betty White's characterizations of the hispanics. Should we just chalk up her agreeing to do this movie as a sign of senility...is she too old to distinguish comedy from stereotypical trash? Or is it the fault of the writers? How about the third assistant makeup person??? Nope, the fault is with us for perpetuating this kind of crap (in the guise of comedy), that hollywood will continue to feed us until we have the decency to say enough is enough...racism is for real and it isn't a laughing matter. We're all different, let's celebrate that diversity, not poke fun at it and promote divisiveness.

Sentiment: negative
The best thing about camp films in general is that you know what to expect. It's like watching a professional wrestling match or a day time soap opera or a Jerry Springer show: you immediately can follow the skimpy plot, identify the cardboard characters, and watch in satisfaction while all the cliches are being fulfilled. However, at times, the director does something real unexpected. It may be something extraordinarily stupid, or something weird, or something insightful. The director Makinen is up there with the best camp directors, and this is his best movie.

In Yon saalistajat, everything seems to come together. There's nothing good about it, but still manages to be a coherent whole. Not once does the movie slow down - the action flows on and punches keep on coming.

The weirdest thing is that there's no sense of time: some characters seem to take months doing something while other characters have only spent one hour at a bar. This is partially due to Finnish summer where the sun never sets, so you don't experience the day turning into a night at all.

Finally: there is a plot, there, somewhere. You may have to watch the movie three times before you realize it, though.

Sentiment: negative
I wanted to watch this movie because of Eliza Dushku, but she only has a smaller part in it, and her character isn't very likable. However, the main character, played by Melissa Sagemiller, is extremely beautiful and a perfect delight to look at throughout the movie. This is really nothing but a showcase for her looks and talent. She does a very good job.

The story itself is, on the face of it, pretty nonsensical. After a car crash, some friends are possibly dead, but keeps on living their previous lives, while all sorts of mysterious things happen. Some bad guys are after them, but we never really find out who they are (possibly they were the ones in the other car, but we certainly don't hear anything about why they are after them). The final scenes especially seem filmically ambitious, but I can't get anything coherent out of it. The opening scene, where the bad guys (who wear some strange masks) cut a blond girl's wrist and gather up some of her blood is never explained or followed up on. Unless the bad guys are supposed to be a representation of the surgeons who're trying to pull Cassie (Sagemiller) back from the dead... but no, that doesn't seem to work. The bad guys are just bad guys; they really just mess up a story that might otherwise have been interesting. In a supernatural story about death and love and sacrifice, who the hell needs bad guys?

3 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
I really enjoyed Girl Fight. It something I could watch over and over again. The acting was Fantastic and i thought Michelle Rodriguez did a good job in the film. Very convincing might I say. The movie is showing how women should stand up for what they want to do in life. She had so much compassion and yet so much hate at the same time. Dealing with a ignorant dad didn't really help her much. Even though he loved her he was really hateful. Her mother died when she was younger and that also put some sadness in the role. The love story was a part that i really enjoyed in the movie also. I felt the passion the y had for one another. Then again drama sets in and then its like she is choosing between her boyfriend and her life long dream. I thought it ended just right. It was the kind of ending where you have to decide what happened in the future for them.For all you people who likes a movie based on a sport with a good plot i 'd suggest that you check this one out

Sentiment: positive
I picked this up at the video store because of Tarantino's recommendation ("If you don't like (this), go f&^% yourself!") on the box... seemed like a ringing endorsement.... I was expecting something a bit more like "Death Proof"... not much actual violence in this one tho, or plot, of character, or dialogue. 

Look at the poster. It's all there. Stunts, and rock. It goes back and forth. A week or so in the life of an LA band that does a crappy magic show, at a level that you'd maybe see in one of the lesser casinos off the Strip, and an Aussie stuntman new in town finding his feet... They work, they meet girls, they party. End of story.

The band obviously needed all that stuff because they are frankly second-tier, and playing a style that was already dated in 1978. It has to be said that the stunt bits in the film are genuinely spinetingling - that Aussie fellow really is something, and the film seems largely motivated by love and respect for the "art". I hung it there to see what crazy thing he'd do next. Just wish he could have found a better vehicle.

Sentiment: negative
House of Dracula works from the same basic premise as House of Frankenstein from the year before; namely that Universal's three most famous monsters; Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and The Wolf Man are appearing in the movie together. Naturally, the film is rather messy therefore, but the fact that all three monsters are there is usually enough to ensure that the film's sixty seven minutes don't become boring. It's obvious that the idea of making another monster mash came into the writer's head before an actual plot did, as the yarn we're given isn't exactly without holes. The plot sees Count Dracula arrive at Dr. Edelman's home asking for a cure for his vampirism. Then, what can only be described as a coincidence, sees Lawrence Talbot, a.k.a. The Wolf Man turn up asking for a cure for his affliction! It turns out that Dracula is on the prowl for Edelman's daughter, but Talbot really is serious. When it turns out that he can't be stopped from turning into a wolf, The Wolf Man throws himself into the sea...where he ends up finding Frankenstein's Monster.

Overall, this film isn't as good as the earlier House of Frankenstein. The 1944 film put its plot together better than this entry in the series does, as the plot here doesn't give equal time to each Universal monster. Dracula's plot is the biggest at first, but soon fizzles out only to resurface at the end. The Wolf Man is the star of the show, but his story never really develops, and is essentially just another version of the plot he always finds himself in. Frankenstein's Monster is given the coldest hand, as he appears in the movie merely as an afterthought, and an obvious excuse to ensure that all three monsters appear in the movie. The story of the doctor who binds all three together is the most interesting, but this is a little disappointing as he isn't the reason why people will see this film. The acting is good enough, with John Carradine showing his sinister side and Lon Chaney Jr once again making sure that his character is bathed in tragedy. Glenn Strange is given nothing to do, and Onslow Stevens proves the real highlight as Dr Edelman. Overall, this film won't do much for anyone that isn't a fan of Universal horror; but as silly monster movies go, House of Dracula is worth seeing.

Sentiment: positive
if.... is the cinematic equivalent of Sgt. Pepper's: Revered by baby boomers as the pinnacle of creation, and viewed as rather a silly bit of business by preceding and subsequent generations. Now that the children of the middle classes the world over are seemingly super human due to the internet, and view the prospect of boarding school as a wonderful opportunity thanks to the Harry Potter books/films, the relevance of if.... couldn't be further from modern concern. In fact, many scenes appear so alien and exaggerated as to hint at an inspiration for Pink Floyd's The Wall.

One should never hold personal bias against a film while reviewing, and the cemented date of this film aside, there are a few flaws which others have overlooked. Lindsay Anderson was known to be a fan of Luis Buñuel, on top of generally being too smart for his own good. And despite a straightforward narrative through the first and second acts, the latter portion of the piece it taken hostage by cod Buñuel surrealism and strained attempts at symbolism. Anderson wasn't capable of this feat due to his over-intelligent cynicism, failing to see that Buñuel was jovial in his work. I have not found a critic whom champions the 'Chaplain in a drawer', and am almost certain it still gets sideways looks from those who adore this film. The ending is not so much a concise punch to the established class/values system, as a wet slap on a moving target.

The British public school system was firmly for the middle classes (the upper crust being educated at home by private tutors). And the modus operandi of if.... was to check the boxes of public school life which Lindsay believed had been unexplored in film, thereby savaging middle class pretense. Homosexuality, generational cutlery, cold showers et al. In reality, such issues HAD been covered in many other great British films, if.... merely brought them to the fore. The Browning Version was a more oblique damning of such pomp, to name but one.

if.... is oddly quaint, and simply can not be viewed with modern (especially American) eyes. Kudos to Anderson for avoiding Mick and Kieth in favour of African chant, and a few brownie points for the latent homoerotic overtones. Points deducted for pretension, establishing characters who disappear, and inciting a glib revolution which came to naught.

Sentiment: negative
I watched this film last night, i though i would rent a horror/scary film from blockbusters and i got this one out. The opening scenes were so long winded, the conversations between characters seemed not to lead anywhere. 

The story line seemed so poor to me, she gave him HIV and then she goes to meet someone else but she is killed by the man she infected ( i think she may have been doing it for a long time to different people) Then when he dumps the body it just happened to be the man she was going to meet, was in the forest and saw him dumping the body. Then he chased them ( did he ever finish burying the body??) and they got into a car and he somehow found them from a different direction they came from and killed the bloke. 

I think the severed head was the only good thing in the film as it was quite realistic. and then when the woman ran she happened to fall over in front of him so he could stab her with a spade!! AND THEN IT FINISHED!! 

What a relief, It was the most pointless film i have ever watched...please steer well clear of it, it is just so poorly made, i counted only 5 different people in it, and the scene where he kills her is so unrealistic and they only swear in it and thats it!! Thats it from me...

STEER WELL CLEAR!!

Sentiment: negative
I've never saw the first three, but I know they're all better than this...trash. It's about some kid who throws a party. Wow. Sounds amazing(sarcasm). Is it? NOOO! It starts off with a kid laying in bed and he's getting woke up by his mom. So, the kid pretends to be sick so he doesn't have to go to school. He goes to his uncle's house and rounds up some people and throws a party. I didn't laugh at all while watching this trash. I can't imagine someone sitting down and writing down this dialogue thinking "Man, dis !@#$ is gunna be big, yo!" Makes me wonder if they even had a script for this movie. I watched this knowing it would be bad, but usually watching a bad movie makes me feel good because it gives me something to make fun of. This just disgusted me. TWO THUMBS DOWN!

Sentiment: negative
Millions in gold is traveling by train to the US treasury. Traveling along is Lois Lane to report on it. Along the way the train is attacked by masked thieves. They detach the car with the armed guards in it and attack the remaining ones. This leads to a vicious fight between the remaining guards and the thieves. The thieves overpower them but then Lois Lane jumps in. She beats the thieves off the train (at one point using a gun) but the train starts to careen out of control. Lois can't stop it and the thieves will stop at nothing to get the gold. Good thing Superman is on the way!

Fast, exciting, non-stop action. Probably one of the best of all the cartoons. Just great.

Sentiment: positive