DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
First things first: I'm not a conservative. And even though I would never refer to myself as a liberal or a Democrat, I was opposed to the war in Iraq from day one. I think it's safe to say John Cusack and I would probably see eye-to-eye on politics, in fact, I'm sure we'd become drinking buddies if we ever got to talking about how great Adam Curtis' BBC docs are. My point is this: don't discredit this review by thinking I'm not a part of the choir Cusack is preaching to in War, Inc. There's no question WI's politics are tailored to appeal to my demographic, but the problem is, the tailoring is substandard and the the film Cusack co- wrote, produced and stars in, fits worse than a cheap suit.

As they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Cusack, his co-writers, director Joshua Seftel and even the actors involved, no doubt had every intention of making an anti- war film every bit as biting and funny as Robert Altman's M*A*S*H, unfortunately for the viewer, they ended up with one as unfunny and unintelligent as Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.

The current state of US politics, foreign policy and the war "effort" is already absurd and, as a result, tragic, pathetic and, regrettably comical -- just watch The Daily Show and see for yourself. The bottom line is: you can't write material as funny as what the Bush administration provides us on a daily basis, so why try to compete?

The main problem with WI is that it feels it was put together in a hurry. To get it done, Cusack basically cannibalized Grosse Pointe Blank (one of his best films), changed the setting and crammed in a shopping list of ideas lifted from the collected works of Naomi Klein. Most of these ideas are rammed down your throat in the first twenty minutes of the film and what makes them so obnoxious is none of the jokes or gags or deliberately obvious references to Halliburton, the Neo-Cons and the US occupation of Iraq, are imaginative, clever or funny. The writers are so blinded by their own dogma they felt that by simply referencing these issues the film would be funny and subversive. The trouble is...it isn't. By now these ideas are yesterday's news and unless you've been living under or rock or are so blinded by ignorance, denial and sheer stupidity (read: a right-wing Christian), these jokes insultingly simple.

Perhaps WI would work if it was more nuanced, subversive, offensive and fattened up with detailed research/insights into the Occupation. As it is, the jokes and sight gags are all surface and are so bad, with so little finesse, subtlety or satirical wickedness, they did little more than make me groan. Homer Simpson once said "It's funny 'cause it's true" and The Daily Show proves this every night; War, Inc. however proves that just because it's true doesn't make it funny. The bottom line: hyperbole isn't required when it comes to lampooning US/Neo-Conservative politics...it's already a big enough joke.

http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/

Sentiment: negative
As far as cinematography goes, this film was pretty good for the mid 50's. There were a few times that the lighting was way too hot but the shots were generally in frame and stayed in focus. The acting was above average for a low budget stinker but the direction was horrible. Several scenes were dragged out way too long in an attempt at suspense and the effects were non-existent. The attack by the skull in the pond should have been completely removed from the final cut and every attempt to bring life to the skull was obvious with stick pokes and strings. I also couldn't help but think the budget didn't allow them to furnish the house so they kept making references to the movers and that all the things in storage should be coming soon. Honestly...it would have been more entertaining if it were a worse movie. It wasn't bad enough to be a "good-bad" movie but wasn't good enough to be "good" either. Get the MST3K version...it's more fun.

Sentiment: negative
This is a movie that gets better each time I see it. There are so many nuanced performances in this. William Tracey, as Pepi, is a delight, bringing sharp comic relief. Joseph Schildkraut as Vadas, is the only "villian" in the movie, and his oily charms are well used here. Frank Morgan, is delightful as the owner of the title shop, Mr. Matuschek, and his familiar manner is well used here. I especially liked the performance of Felix Bressart, as Pirovitch. Very believable in every facet of his role.

The two leads are equally accomplished, with Margaret Sullivan doing an outstanding job of portraying a slightly desperate, neurotic, yet charming and attractive woman.

This movie belongs to Jimmy Stewart though. The movie is presented from his point of view, with the action rotating around him. Mr. Stewart is more then up to the task of carrying the movie, with an amazing performance that uses a wide range of emotions. Just watch Stewart, when he is fired from his job, because of a misunderstanding. He is able to convey the shock, anger, fear and embarrassment that so traumatic an event causes, so perfectly. In my estimation, James Stewart is, without question, the greatest film actor in the history of the medium. There is no one else that has ever been captured on film that is able to so completely convey what he is feeling to an audience. At the time he made this movie, he still had most of his career ahead of him, yet he is completely the master of his craft. This is one of Jimmy Stewarts best movies, and also one of the sweetest, most enjoyable romantic comedies you will find. I greatly recommend this movie, especially for those that appreciate the work of Stewart.

Sentiment: positive
Corny! I love it! Corny - just as the TV show was about 40 years ago! Adam and Burt rekindle the same on-screen chemistry that never seems to have left! They re-live old memories, plus the actors that play them from the 1960s show some behind-the-scenes things which are quite interesting to know. 1960s TV was corny escapism for so many of us back then, and this DVD is no exception, if you are familiar with the original TV show. The fight scene with the written Boofs and Bams or whatever is fantastic!! The movie theater scene shows clips of the villains who passed away. At the end Frank Gorshin makes an appearance. He passed away not too long after this DVD was made, I believe, so it is to his great credit that he came back to again play a villain to Adam and Burt, just as he did to Batman & Robin so many years ago. He didn't lose his touch! Thanks to Julie Newmar to re-living a villain role, also. In conclusion I think that this DVD is for great memories, and I wish to thank both Adam and Burt for coming back and recreating these memories for those of us who remember the original-!!! Thanks, Guys!!!

Sentiment: positive
A deplorable social condition triggers off the catastrophe: An impoverished Giovanna has ended up in the gutter, but still has an ace up her sleeve: beauty and youth. Bragana, a fat-bellied gas station tenant, who has been getting on in years, picks her up from the street and offers her bed and home together with his clumsy affection. But the physical contact that Giovanna is now exposed to only gives her feelings of disgust, and consequently she does not see a benefactor in him but a tormentor whom she has to get rid of.

The arrival of Gino, a young migrant worker, finally provides her the longed-for opportunity. And you don't have to ask her twice: At the very first encounter she gives him the feeling of being physically desired, and a little later she lets him seduce her without offering any resistance.

The developping partnership has to submit to the strict rules drawn up by Giovanna though. Gino's yearning for freedom is suppressed, his desire to leave the place with Giovanna and start a new life far away from the fatso is pushed aside. Giovanna aims at another goal: to get Bragana killed, to inherit and, in addition to that, to collect the insurance premium. In her hands Gino degenerates into a self-sacrificing tool. Being completely at the mercy of this woman he turns into a cold-blooded killer.

But in contrast to Giovanna he questions the committed crime on a moral level. The very taking over of Bragana's place, which includes the sleeping in the bed of a dead man, causes a deep loathing of himself. And later, after he has found out about the forthcoming payment of the insurance money and seems to see through Giovanna's cunningly devised plan, he also executes a physical separation from his lover and finds comfort in the arms of a prostitute.

If Visconti's film ended at this point, it could easily be classified as a condemnatory portrait of a cool, calculating and unscrupulous woman with a slight touch of social criticism. But then the last sequences make this carefully built construct of ideas collapse. At last Giovanna feels remorseful about what she has done, and by the uncompromising revelation of her innermost feelings she succeeds in inflaming anew Gino's love. Her violent death by an absurd road accident then does not only leave him helpless at the mercy of an arbitrary fate. It also affects us, while we realize that none of the acting characters is to be made responsible for their disaster. The culprit is just the state of a society that determines the way of the individual unalterably right from the start.



Sentiment: positive
I saw this independent film when it was in Philadelphia and it was a pleasant surprise. I left the theater with a smile on my face. One of the things that made it so funny was that it was based on a true story -hilarious! It has some great character actors in it too. Mindy Sterling is in it and is very good. I loved her in Austin Powers. Howard Hesseman is also terrific. I remember him from Head of the Class. I am tired of all the dark edgy movies that keep getting made. This is fun and light, and I can watch it with my family and not be embarrassed. I keep checking to see when it will come out on DVD. I will definitely buy it.

Sentiment: positive
I notice that the previous reviewer (who appears to be still at school) gave this movie a very good review and I can only assume that this is because the reviewer hasn't seen the far superior 1989 BBC adaptation of this classic novel. The major problem I had with this (1999) version was the casting of Anthony Way as Tom Long. Anthony Way was a talented boy treble who shot to fame after appearing in the TV mini-series "The Choir". I can only assume that he was cast for the role of Tom Long on the strength of his excellent acting in "The Choir". Unfortunately the small boy who appeared in "The Choir" had grown into a tall and gangly youth by the time "Tom's Midnight Garden" was filmed and as such Anthony fails to convince as schoolboy Tom. It is too far a stretch of the imagination to believe that Tom (as played by Anthony) would befriend the far younger Hatty. In the 1989 BBC version Tom and Hatty are much closer in age and the development of their friendship is so much more believable. For a 1999 movie even the special effects fail to convince and are not any noticeable improvement on the 1989 TV effects. The casting and acting of this version are inferior to the earlier adaptation and all in all the movie was a lack lustre version of a true classic. As a final observation I would point out that the VHS of the 1989 BBC version fetches well over £20.00 second hand whereas a new DVD of this version can be bought for under £5.00, need I say more?

Sentiment: negative
I saw this film in its entirety in the 1960s & 70s, yes it IS gruesome, and could be the progenitor of the "Faces of Death" series popular in the 80s & 90s. Considering the state of so-called "driver education" these days, this one should be required viewing for everyone preparing to learn to drive. When you see violent death in all its gore & horror, you certainly (if you have any sensibility at all) get a truer perspective on the responsibilities required to drive safely, what one instant of thoughtlessness or inattentiveness at the wheel can do. I worked for Bell Telephone in the 70s & 80s, and at one point was assigned to conduct a safety class. I found this film in the company library, showed it at the session, a number of people got physically sick and had to leave the room! Incredibly, most of them later said "I never knew a car accident could be so terrible!" This film, and another, "RED ASPHALT", is certainly reality in its most graphic form. I'll never forget it, I only wish I could have found a copy when my children were attending "driver's ed" in high school!

Sentiment: negative
This is easily the most underrated film inn the Brooks cannon. Sure, its flawed. It does not give a realistic view of homelessness (unlike, say, how Citizen Kane gave a realistic view of lounge singers, or Titanic gave a realistic view of Italians YOU IDIOTS). Many of the jokes fall flat. But still, this film is very lovable in a way many comedies are not, and to pull that off in a story about some of the most traditionally reviled members of society is truly impressive. Its not The Fisher King, but its not crap, either. My only complaint is that Brooks should have cast someone else in the lead (I love Mel as a Director and Writer, not so much as a lead).

Sentiment: positive
This was a typical grade B movie in 1940s Hollywood and yet it succeeded way beyond its expectations. Why? It has a wonderful plot and backed up by Nina Foch, George MacReady and Dame May Witty, as a female villain, of all people.

When a young lady answers an advertisement for a secretary, she certainly gets more than she bargained for. The only talents her employers are seeking are those which will lead to her demise. Seems that Witty and MacReady want to pass her off as their daughter-in-law and wife, respectively. MacReady killed his real wife and wants to do Foch in as well so that a body can be claimed.

The film deals with how Foch tries to get town people to believe her and how she is thwarted in practically everything she does. Why don't people believe her?

Sentiment: positive
I am fully aware there is no statistical data that readily supports the correlation between video games and real life violence. The movie is false and phony because it is in complete contradiction of itself, which is what I tried to emphasize in my original review. The movie fails, not necessarily because I really do think these kids were influenced by video games, but because the movie sets it up as "random" and doesn't follow through. Let me clarify. In Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer, you can see her claims about the police and being controlled by radio waves are ridiculous, yet she is so troubled, she really believes them to be true. The viewer can make the distinction however. In Zero Day, the 2 kids keep saying how they are not influenced by anything environmental, which is obviously false since everything they do contradicts this. Neo-nazism, talking about going on CNN with Wolf Blitzer (which is laughable not only because they know his name, but its a shameless attempt by the filmmaker to get coverage of his bad movie)..etc. This movie doesn't depict 'reality', it shows nothing but phoniness to prove a point. Unfortunately you fell for the bait and didn't see this, and you didn't pick up on it from my review either. The entire movie is just taking Michael Moore's hypothesis and applying it to something "real life" in hopes of validating and it fails, not necessarily because the hypothesis is wrong, but because the movie is wrong and doesn't support it. Of course I don't think kids that play video games are more likely to kill people, but if I'm not mistaken, didn't video tape exist of the Columbine kids (or some teen killers) shooting guns in the forest claiming how much they looked or acted like the weaponry in Doom? Hmmmmmmm, the distinction is kids are most likely aware of the media, influenced, but obviously balanced or intelligent enough that its not even an issue. Zero Day is a bad movie not because I really believe a correlation exists, but because the film maker doesn't know what hes trying to say, and the movie does more to disprove his point then support it. It's almost as if the new ratings given to video games made someone upset so they came up with 'Zero Day' in retaliation. If you want to see the 'mindless' teen killer theory pulled off right, go watch Bully.

Sentiment: negative
This movie has been done before. It is basically a unoriginal combo of "Napoleon Dynamite" and "Sordid Lives." There are some funny bits, but otherwise it is a cliché bore. It is a good first film attempt and the director (who also stars in and wrote the feature) shows a lot of promise. But the writing was kind of choppy and the story was not very original. I swear I had heard some of the lines in other films. However, the acting was very good and the film was shot in an interesting way. It is also refreshing to see gay-themed movies not be so bogged down with political correctness and tired stories of angst. The main character seemed fairly well adjusted for a gay teen in rural Texas so no saccharine, coming out drama here!

Sentiment: negative
This film just doesn't work. No two ways about it. I saw it for the first time back in '98 when it was released and I didn't like it. I just bought it on sale a couple of days ago, 'cause I thought "whatta hell, I'll give it a try". I don't regret for the money I put out for Hamilton, but the fact remained the same.. this movie is pointless, dull and uninteresting.

Stormare is usually a delight, but that's when he's making films in the US. Back home he doesn't do the trick. Sure the movie is well made (if you forget the odd stock footage here'n'there), but in the end the only thing that REALLY lifts Hamilton above one star garbage, is Hamill's turn as the bad guy Hawkins. He seriously has fun with the character and is also responsible for the only two good moments in the movie.. "Swedish intelligence, huh? Now there's a contradiction in terms" and when he allows Hamilton to have a word or two with his wife over the phone towards the end of the flick. And that's really pretty much it.

** / *****

Sentiment: negative
This film is stale, and misses the mark. It is far off compared to the 89 Batman that it tries to coppy. That women singer whats her name can not act, and we see why her film carrier died. Notice how this film died in the box office no one see this film on tv either. My uncle and dad were expecting Batman, and the films impression is more like Cop Rock. Not worth renting 3/10

Sentiment: negative
This movie is awesome. If you take it too seriously, of course you will hate it; however, it's quantity of "dudes" and "right ons" brings laughs and faint memories of about 15 years ago. I like its ability to make me simply chuckle at obvious jokes and silliness, and its ability to make me want to watch its precursor, "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" (1989). If you are looking for a film full of multifaceted jokes, and totally mature humor, don't watch it; however, if you want a film that is humorous and silly, yet intelligent and engaging, you will enjoy it. I actually wish more of this sort of picture showed up in today's theatres. And hey, it's Keanu Reeves acting the way everyone parodies him as acting...right...doesn't get much better than that :)

Sentiment: positive
Based on a Stephen King novel, NEEDFUL THINGS provides the intrigue and eeriness to keep you in your seat. A mysterious man(Max von Sydow) comes to town and soon becomes the most talked about citizen. Could it be that the devil himself has set up shop as an antique dealer in a small town in Maine? von Sydow is masterful and dynamic in this role that dominates the screen. Also starring are Ed Harris and Bonnie Bedelia. Harris is steady and Bedelia is deserving of your attention. Also in support are J.T. Walsh and Amanda Plummer. Not the best, nor the worst adaptation of King's horror on the screen.

Sentiment: negative
May I start off by saying that Casey Affleck is a very talented actor and I respect his work very much. I wish he was in more movies that showcased his talent. With this said, Soul Survivors was a very, very bad movie. Very bad.

I would have to say that I lay almost all the blame on the poor script. Affleck is a very talented actress, Wes Bentley had an outstanding performance in American Beauty, Melissa Sagemiller did well, and Eliza Dushku is currently the it girl in Hollywood. I don't think any of the actors really got into the script, and I understand why. To say that this movie belongs to the horror genre is an overstatement. It did have the twists and turns you would expect, but they just didn't lead anywhere... except to more confusion. I just found the ending very anti-climatic, because it just didn't seem to make any sense or really answer any of the questions that I had about the storyline.

I wish I could give this movie a good review, but I can't. In all honesty, the only thing I think you will find scary about this movie is that you paid for it.

Sentiment: negative
I'm a male, not given to women's movies, but this is really a well done special story. I have no personal love for Jane Fonda as a person but she does one Hell of a fine job, while DeNiro is his usual superb self. Everything is so well done: acting, directing, visuals, settings, photography, casting. If you can enjoy a story of real people and real love - this is a winner.

Sentiment: positive
And that goes especially for lawyers & cops. Puerto Rico,which boasts of a small,but potent film production firm,brings this multi layered tale of corruption,due to the on going drug cartel that starts in South America,makes a pit stop on the island commonwealth,and then northbound into North America. Steven Bauer,the most recognizable face on screen here,leads a cast of top notch actors,in a story of "can you spot the only respectable face in the crowd?". Ricardo Mendez Matta moves up from directing mainly action adventure fare for American television,in a screenplay written by Matta,along with Poli Marichal. The rest of the cast (Elpidia Carrillo,Magda Rivera,Jose Herredia,Luz Maria Randon,to mention a few)turn in oh so fine roles,in a film that will keep you wondering "is there any respectable characters here?". Spoken in Spanish with English subtitles. Rated 'R' by the MPAA,this film contains outbursts of vulgar language,brief flashes of nudity,adult content & violence,some of which is quite lurid.

Sentiment: positive
The Crater Lake Monster is easily one of the most awful, amateurish film I've ever seen - ranking right up there with Manos, the Hands of Fate in terms of poor acting, useless direction, and kindergarten-level production values. In this movie a silly-looking claymation/stop-motion animated dinosaur wakes up after a meteor hits a lake in Bumblebum, CA, and begins dining on the local hayseeds. In the thrilling climax, the creature, described by one local as "a giant alligator with flippers", drags it's ponderous bulk over the ground to chase its would-be lunch, before a bulldozer bumps it a couple of times & it dies from boredom. Every character in this moovie is a complete moron. One pointless subplot shows a hick go into a liquor store to purchase a $4.75 pint of Ripple; instead of simply buying the bottle, the idiot shoots the cashier and another bystander, shoots at a cop, gets chased towards the lake, all so that he can eaten by the monster. Unfortunate close-ups of the monster reveal it to be nothing more than a piece of styrofoam. There's a fake magician struggling with a phony British accent (to make him seem more legit), two overly-bumbling redneck boat renters, some cheesy "pre-historic cave art" done in crayon, and annoying banjo-pickin' background moosic. In one painful scene, the fake magician and his dopey wife/girlfriend/accomplice manage to pad the movie an extra 4 minutes by cowmenting on how may stars they can see in the night sky, even though it is clearly day time still. Even on constant fast-forward, this moovie hurts, and hurts bad. MooCow says call the fumigators, 'cause this cow pie really stinks! :=8P

Sentiment: negative
This fake documentary is flawed on a lot of points, it's badly made, has uninteresting characters but the biggest problem I have with it is the basic premise.

This film uses the idea that H.P. Lovecraft has traveled to Italy and that some of his work is based on real supernatural events that he witnessed. I'm willing to go along with the notion that he traveled to Italy (only for suspension of disbelieve) but that some of his work is based on reality and that Insmouth exist is total nonsense.

First of all, Lovecraft didn't believe in the supernatural, in his letters he clearly states that he considered himself a mechanical materialist, his monsters where there to show that humans weren't so special after all. Another myth used in this film is that Lovecraft was an expert on the occult, he wasn't, all his knowledge on the subject came from the most basic sources.

So we end up with a film about people jelling at each other a lot and when we finally see the monster, it's so bad that you can't even laugh at it, you just feel a pain in your love for horror.

After seeing the film Frankenstein Lovecraft said that he felt sorry for Mary Shelley because he felt that her work was butchered. I feel sorry for Lovecraft.

Sentiment: negative
After seeing the terrible, terrible, terrible BATMAN: DEAD END I knew I had to see this as soon as I heard about it.

Pressing play to view the trailer I thought I was in for another hideous short from what so-far looked like another bad wannabe film-maker trying to bring new depth to an existing character. But was instead greeted with a GREATLY put together trailer for a movie that sadly doesn't exist, as I would LOVE to see a finished movie even if it was only 30 minutes long.

WORLD'S FINEST makes up for BATMAN: DEAD END and then some.

I look forward to the next short!

Sentiment: positive
When you watch a Seagal movie, you expect good action. You expect fighting, not just a lot of shooting like in this flick. And: you expect a rather simple story. OK, I can live with a more complex story even though it's a Seagal movie. But this one, this is, I don't know what to say. It's very, very confusing indeed. At the end of the movie, I had major problems figuring out what had happened. And I know I'm not the only one. The story lacks so much information and is so full of plot holes that it's nearly impossible to keep track of what's happening in the movie. There are many people in the movie, people change sides all the time, and it switches locations too often. Terrible. I just don't understand why it looks like Seagal is making a sort of sequel to this one.

Sentiment: negative
If you want to truly experience the magic (?) of Don Dohler, then check out "Alien Factor" or maybe "Fiend", but not this. Alien Factor is actually rather imaginative considering the low budget and it's fairly creepy, but "Nightbeast", which I guess is sort of an updating of Alien Factor, is just plain dumb. Actors sleepwalk through their roles, especially Mr. Monotone sheriff, and the monster is some dumb Halloween-mask kind of thing instead of the wildly imaginative (but kind of stupid) looking critters from Alien Factor. A spaceship crashes on Earth and there's a critter inside, of course, who runs around vaporizing people. And ripping off arms, etc. And he has a cool ray gun that he uses to vaporize people too, until it gets shot out of his hand. And that's really about it. "Alien Factor" beats this mess hands down, if you really want to see a good Don Dohler movie, check that out instead. And RIP Don Dohler, 12/2/06.

Sentiment: negative
When I saw the Dentist, I thought it was very cool. But this movie is not for everyone, especially people who do not like gory scenes as the Dentist has lots of gory scenes. That's why it has it's R18 rating. It's about a beverly hills dentist Dr Alan Feinstone, who finds his wife Brooke cheating on him with the poolman. It's best to go to your dentist "before" you watch this. But if you don't like going to the dentist already, then it's best not to watch this as you may be put off going for life. the Dentist has the best bloody revenge in it that I've ever seen. Who has ever seen a movie that has a dentist (Spoiler) pull out all his cheating wife's teeth and cut out her tongue with no anesthetic? Overall awesome flick, but not for everyone.

Sentiment: positive
I really loved this film, yes, I know it was fairly far fetched, there is no way that Shelby car could have managed to stay on the road as well as the 540i with all it's traction control and other gizmos but other than that the whole film was well put together. Cage was excellent as usual and the rest of the cast were also pretty good with the exception of the Brit Bad Guy, he was a little "too" much don't you think? Anyway, great film, great cars and great acting. I for one made sure my car was locked and alarmed in my remotely controlled garage that night. :)

Sentiment: positive
This film was the worst film I have ever seen. It was a complete waste of money. If I had not been in the cinema was my two young cousins (who also thought it was disappointing, but not as terrible as I thought), I would have left the cinema. There were two points in the film that I almost laughed, but the rest of it was either boring, ridiculous or painful. I thought it would be a spoof on all superhero movies (which I love), but in fact it was mainly based on Spiderman, with a few oblique references to other superhero movies such as Fantastic Four and Batman. I really cannot think of one good thing to say about this film. Do not waste your money with this film-there are many other better films out there!

Sentiment: negative
When Stanwyck's husband-to-be is murdered on the eve of their wedding, she retreats to a mountain lodge, where she slips (sort of) off a cliff and is rescued by wealthy attorney Morgan. Morgan falls in love with her, leading to a definitely one-sided marriage, spent on a huge estate in Chicago (which appears to be surrounded by mountains!). Stanwyck is tempted by dashing Cortez, but eventually returns to Morgan, in a very subdued and unconvincing story resolution.

This film has a great cast (Morgan in particular is one of my favorites) and a great director, but the script is meandering and seems pointless at times. I was so ready to enjoy this movie but I was ultimately disappointed. Still worth watching for the cast, and it's good for anyone who likes 1930s films.

Sentiment: negative
Ah yet another Seagal movie.In no less than a few mere months arrive to populate the video store shelves.As bad as Submerged?No.But that is not saying much.Like perfume on a pig.

Seagal is professional thief who wants to quit,but goes for one last job only to be double-crossed by his boss.He lands in Prison and is befriended by a Gangster who helps him to break out and seek payback.

Its good to see Seagal finally not playing an agent,cop,or what he usually plays.We actually get a USA Location in Las Vegas it seems. Then an eastern European territory as usual. There is no wire-Fu either here.Don Fauntleroy does an okay job.

However most of the action and fight scenes with Stevie are clearly doubles.Scenes from other movies,a lack of realism and logic in even tiniest situation.Seagal and Treech make a so-so team inspiring(unintentional) laughs one minute.Sighs the rest.

Several notable faces turn up to slum it.. sleepy Kevin Tighe is a long way from his emergency days.Nick Mancuso shows up in sleepwalking mode to take a check.No more rappers.Please?

At this point the action scenes and plots are more predictable and recycled generically more than ever.Its a stale scene that Seagal needs to get out of or hang it up.He should have gotten out a while ago.

Sentiment: negative
As a writer and a lapsed Orthodox Jewish woman, I was let down tremendously by this movie. The dialogue is hackneyed and wasteful, the characters, too engaged with lines ranging from the wrackingly prosaic to the stunningly melodramatic, aren't allowed to expand into genuinely textured individuals. The one-trick musical score tries to make up for the blandness, swooping portentously into the silence to jar the viewer and the script out of protracted catatonia.

Like an adolescent revolutionary on a self-righteous tirade, this film is blown away by the wisdom of its revelation--patriarchy is wrong--and thoroughly squanders its energies, hammering on this point. The resultant artistic crime is a complete lack of imaginative development; the moral crime is the reduction of human beings to caricatures: martyrs and grotesques.

Sentiment: negative
This movie's one of my favorites. It's not really any good, but it's great to laugh at. The dialogue can become incredibly ludicrous and poorly acted (eg, "Manji, can we ask you a few questions?" "Sure." "We think you can help us with the answers.") Any fighting is more or less surrealistic. Make sure to watch for Brock, the oafy white guy who attacks the main characters. He only has two lines, but he's one of the best guys in the movie!

Sentiment: negative
Sequels hardly ever live up to the original. This definitely proves true in this case. However, if you're a big fan of the original than definitely give this a watch. Although the camera work is lacking, Brian Krause's character is annoying, and the plot is clique, it's much more funnier than the first and that is what I find entertaining about it. 

Don't see this movie expecting the same performance as in the first film. Quite frankly it's a bit different. Rather than sitting in his cabin writing screenplays, Stanley is off in Hollywood trying to direct his dream project, Cabin by the Lake. This movie has a much different feel but it's still great to see Stanley back in action.

I'm giving it a 6 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
Firstly, this is simply the funniest movie I have ever seen. It incorporates perfectly-timed slapstick, sexual humour, and cleverly-thought-up stand-up. But it goes deeper than that. The Souler Opposite is an original love story (something we don't see that often) that gave me hope that there is love out there;that two people who love each other can work through their adversity; and that such a comedic take on life (something I believe we all should have) can be accepted by the people that really matter. Chris Meloni gives a such a convincing performance as Barry Singer that he should have won an oscar. The film is brilliantly written and I hope we will be seeing more films from everyone involved in the future.

Sentiment: positive
I think this movie has got it all. It has really cool music that I can never get out of my head. It has cool looking characters. IS REALLY funny(you know, the kind that you'll crack up on the ground and you'll keep saying the funny parts over every day for three weeks).Despite the bad acting, bad cgi, and bad story(about cops going after a robot), its really cool. Its one of those movies you and all of your family can watch, get together, eat pizza, laugh like crazy, and watch it two more times.

There are so many funny parts, like when Kurt was trying to get Edison's attention and gave him the finger, and then threw a paint ball gun at him so they could play paint ball. On that part, I kept saying "Remember, Remember?"to my cousins who saw it and showed them what happened. There was also a really funny part when Edision ran into the room and Kurt was there(just before they fought) and Kurt was talking about his "Strange dream" and how he was "Superman". I LOVED that part, although it has been a while since I saw it, so I don't remember that part. Everything the actors said were funny, like how Kurt says, "I worship you, like a GOD!" to the robot.

Although there was some bad things, in all it was a GREAT movie. Man, I can't stop laughing. I wish I had that movie. );

Sentiment: positive
The recent DVD release of Good Humor Man labels the film as comedy. It's hardly a comedy, rather a dull indie film about a group of losers. Supposedly set in the 70s, there is scant attention paid to period details, with overly muted color correction taking its place. The monotonous soundtrack only serves to accentuate the repetitiveness of the film (perhaps that is the point, but it does not add to the enjoyment of the viewing experience.) Apprarently the clique of losers only like to hang out at one location, the bleachers. It seems like the packaging of the film as a comedy is meant to deceive people into renting or buying this film, which is a complete waste of time.

Sentiment: negative
Well I too had heard read all the breathless reviews and comments about how this movie might deserve the Best Picture Oscar so I went to see it today. What a major disappointment! 1) If you read the other reviews you will learn from members of the U.S. military who served in Iraq how unlikely the events of this movie are. They mirrored my own thoughts; as the movie played I - a complete civilian - kept thinking to myself, "say WHAT? there's no way that would happen like that.." 2) There's very little that actually happens in terms of plot. A new bomb disposal guy shows up to replace one who was killed (a death that isn't really clearly explained). The new guy gets an adrenaline rush from his work. His attitude puts others at risk. THAT'S IT! 3) This movie is nowhere near as suspenseful as claimed. If you want suspense try one of the Bourne movies. If you want to see a war movie that's emotionally powerful, try renting Go Tell The Spartans, which is about the Vietnam War, and stars Burt Lancaster (who told me PERSONALLY in a serendipitous supermarket encounter that it was a film he was immensely proud of and one he viewed as some of his finest work, and which he was still upset had been largely ignored in the wake of the over-hyped Apocalypse Now), or an old WWII black and white classic Sink The Bismark, which, especially for an English film, is unbelievably heart-wrenching. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME ON Hurt Locker.

Sentiment: negative
Way back in 1955, the British made a comedy called Simon and Laura, with Peter Finch and the brilliant Kay Kendall. To this day, it stands as one of the finest examples of British comedy and, more particularly, about how television sitcoms become so popular. It was, and is, an excellent example also of self-referential cinema.

So also Soapdish, a film I'd never heard about until a few nights ago when I caught it on late TV. I was a bit dubious at first simply because comedy is so difficult to do well, as you know.

However, I was pleasantly surprised and delighted to watch a very clever satire about daytime American TV. In fact, it's been a while since I laughed so heartily. So, if you like satire, I'd recommend you see it.

The main actors  Sally Field, Kevin Kline, Robert Downey and Cathy Moriarty  quite simply do an excellent job, revealing just how bitchy and shallow the business of acting is. As I watched it, I kept thinking to myself: just how much of this bitchiness carries over into real life? That is, if actors ever do have a real life? As you probably know, Peter Sellers, for example, was notorious for hiding his true persona behind a multitude of characters, so that nobody really knew the real person. So, as I watched Sally Field playing Celeste Talbot playing Maggie, I thought again about that earlier British film with Kay Kendall playing Laura playing a character in a TV sitcom opposite Peter Finch...

Is it any wonder that some actors have nervous breakdowns? And that feeling was crystallized when Celeste finally confronts her daughter (Lori, played by Elizabeth Shue) and, in an emotional moment, repeats the fictional lines she'd used, on a prior episode of her daytime soap, when confronting her fictional daughter in that show! Are you confused? Well, it's not all like that, but the dialog is stunning for originality, comedy, bitchiness, anger, depravity, duplicity, and even...love.

The story? Well, there are many stories in this film, all interwoven, and which all come together at the end (of course  but not like a Robert Altman film, okay!), and not all of them are resolved finally. Life's not like that anyway, right? The pace is almost frenetic, and you really do have to watch and listen carefully to catch all the sight gags and subtle jokes. Spend the 97 minutes from your life and watch it; you won't regret the time usage.

The rest of the cast all perform well, although I've never taken much to Whoopi Goldberg. Perhaps the funniest exchanges are between Robert Downey and Cathy Moriarty and, for my money, the latter steals so many scenes from others, she gets my vote as the outstanding player. I kid you not, she gives the term bitch an entirely new face...

Sentiment: positive
Buster Keaton was finding his feature length voice in "Three Ages." There are some fine sequences, but it doesn't quite hang together. The "chariot race" in "Three Ages" is hilarious. Included are 2 shorts, one of which, "The Goat," is excellent.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie at the 18th Haifa film festival, and it is one of the best I've seen this year. Seeing it on a big screen (and I mean BIG, not one of those TV screens most cinemas have) with an excellent sound system always enhance the cinematic experience, as the movie takes over your eyes and ears and sucks you into the story, into the picture.

The movie presents a set of characters, which are loosely inter-connected. Their stories cross at certain points, and the multiplicity of story lines reminded me very much of the great Robert Altman and his exquisite films. But the true hero of the movie is obviously the city of Madrid, which provides the backdrop for the entire movie. It houses the characters, contains the pavements and roads on which they walk, and sets the background atmosphere for all the events, all in beautifully filmed scenes.

The movie returns again and again to certain themes (shoes, for instance), and in essence Salazar makes his metaphores more and more understandable to the viewer as the movie progresses. He combines the views of the city with the shots of the characters, and elegantly matches the feeling of the scene to the background. A set of talented actors helps him portrait a wide variety of characters. One excellent example is the scene in which Juaquin takes Anita across the street for the first time. It might not work on a small screen, but it gave me goose bumps easily on a big screen.

The message of the movie is very positive, and accordingly the movie is light and funny at times. The music along the movie is usually pop, with a few instrumental pieces (I hope to put my hand on the soundtrack one day, although I seriously doubt I will).

All together, I came out of this movie with a sensational feeling, and I'm not easily impressed (you'll have to take my word for it). For this and more I give this movie a solid 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
Dahl seems to have been under the influence of Wenders' The American Friend. Innocent Nick Cage gets recruited for a hit. Dennis Hopper plays a real Hit Man. Lara Flynn Boyle is dangerous. The Hero gets more entangled the more he tries to extricate hisself. And small town America does not seem all that safer than the Big City. Like it's predecessor mentioned above, this movie has lots of plot twists and turns that seem improbable, but all lead to the cathartic self discovery.

Sentiment: positive
Fido is a story about more well mannered zombies who have been trained to serve the human race. All falls apart though, when young Timmy's zombie Fido eats the family neighbor. From then on, disaster (well, maybe not disaster, but to some extent, chaos) occurs. Most of the people treat their zombies with fairness, and one such character sleeps with his zombie (very funny part of the movie, if not also very disturbing too). And we find the loving Fido whatever he may do. This is a very funny and unique film, especially for the zombie genre. It is also probably one of the least violent of zombie movies (no negativity in this statement). I very much recommend it to people who are looking for something funny and different. I rate this 8/10. Rated R for zombie related violence

Sentiment: positive
Who would've imagined -- Hal Hartley creates a filmic corollary to Syriana while retaining his signature idiosyncratic style. The fusion is highly entertaining.

Having not seen a Hal Hartley film for about a decade, I approached this one with some caution. His brilliant productions of the nineties had impressed critics and audiences with their unique style and dialog. The director's earlier films featured colorful characters and offered close observations of life -- often in the region of Long Island, New York or in New York City itself -- that were offbeat and insightful.

My initial caution stemmed from the description of this movie as a "spy thriller". To my pleasant surprise, Hartley manages to mesh his well established style and focus to produce a highly original drama of international intrigue. It works in more ways than one might imagine. Hartley's film retains the dialog and character focus that are his trademarks, along with a singular cinematographic style.

Moreover it is highly appropriate given the current situation in the world and the state of war that has been fostered by dark elements on all sides. Hartley has brought all his skills to something new -- a political film worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Syriana. Truly he is coming into his own. The cast does a fine job of interpreting Hartley's vision and style. Fans of Parker Posey will see her in full bloom here, still with us and more ripe and gorgeous than before.

Sentiment: positive
This is a complete Hoax...

The movie clearly has been shot in north western Indian state of Rajasthan. Look at the chase scene - the vehicles are Indian; the writing all over is Hindi - language used in India. The drive through is on typical Jaipur streets. Also the palace is in Amer - about 10 miles from Jaipur, Rajasthan. The film-makers in their (about the film) in DVD Bonus seem to make it sound that they risked their lives shooting in Kabul and around. Almost all of their action scenes are shot in India. The scene where they see a group singing around fire is so fake that they did not even think about changing it to Afgani folk song. They just recorded the Rajasthani folk song. How do I know it because I have traveled that area extensively. They are just on the band-wagon to make big on the issue. I do challenge the film makers to deny it.

Sentiment: negative
I found the characters mediocre and the story uninteresting. I never had to read this book (thankfully), or it would have been a painful experience. I got the tickets to the preview for free but it still wasn't worth my time, or my friend's. I think this story is not worth telling. It's like saying that old people have a past before they got old (no kidding). The lives of the main characters were painful to watch, one generation no better than the next at avoiding stupid mistakes. However, I think the actors did the best they could with a lame story. I've always been a big fan of Ellen Burstyn. I'm writing this review to counteract the positive reviews given, which unfortunately convinced me to give this movie a try.

Sentiment: negative
This is a kind of movie that will stay with you for a long time. Soha Ali and Abhay Deol both look very beautiful. Soha reminds you so much of her mother Sharmila Tagore. Abhay is a born actor and will rise a lot in the coming future.

The ending of the movie is very different from most movies. In a way you are left unsatisfied but if you really think about it in real terms, you realize that the only sensible ending was the ending shown in the movie. Otherwise, it would have been gross injustice to everyone. 

The movie is about a professional witness who comes across a girl waiting to get married in court. Her boyfriend does not show up and she ends up being helped by the witness. Slowly slowly, over the time, he falls in love for her. It is not clear if she has similar feelings for him or not. Watch the movie for complete details. 

The movie really belongs to Abhay. I look forward to seeing more movies from him. Soha is pretty but did not speak much in the movie. Her eyes, her innocence did most of the talking.

Sentiment: positive