DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This is how i felt while watching this film. I loved it. It was hilarious. But i did feel a like i was getting sneaky view into somebody's psyche and then laughing as it got twisted around to make an interesting point. A friend put it this way:

"I feel like we broke into somebody's house and are now watching their awful home videos without their knowledge".

Another one of those fact is stranger than fiction pieces of film. "Groovin' Gary", the original "Beaver Kid", is a small town guy who turns up at a nearby TV station in the hope of getting on film - and he certainly does, though not, perhaps, as he initially expected. With high hopes of fame and significance he invites Harris to come and film a truly awful talent quest that he has organised in his home town - headlined by his own drag act "Olivia Newton-Don". 

Director, Trent Harris, does a brilliant job with this slowly evolving story. Some footage of an awkward kid who wants to be someone morphs, over two subsequent reinterpretations, into the story of freedom from repressed sexual identity in small town America. Harris simultaneously critiques the attitudes of small town America, the cult of celebrity, and the exploitative practices of the film and television industry.

Both Sean Penn and Grispin Glover pull out stunner performances. a young Sean Penn is the most evocative - so closely does he follow the actual 'Gary footage', but with strong nuances given to push the sense of the interaction the way Harris wants it to go.

In the end the wide-eyed naivety the original Gary is what moved me - when contrasted against these possible interpretations of his situation.

A film not to miss. I have not seen anything else like it.

Jacob.

Sentiment: positive
not your typical vamp story, not bram stoker or anne rice here. a truly original vampyre story. these vampyres are genetic mutants who the sunlight don't bother. they are pure evil to. 

the film is not perfect. many of the actors are clearly amateurs. the two leads who play van helsing and rally the vampyre chick are pretty good though. the film is intensely violent which may disturb some people. also it is loaded with scientific detail that many will find hard to understand and may get bored with. i was sold on the clever storyline and the couple good performances. no telling how successful this film could be if they had a bigger budget and it got mass distribution

Sentiment: negative
Awful! Awful! Awful! No, I didn't like it. It was obvious what the intent of the film was: to track the wheeling and dealing of the "movers and shakers" who produce a film. In some cases, these are people who represent themselves as other than what they are. I didn't need a film to tell me how shallow some of the people in the film industry are. I suppose I'm at fault really because I expected something like "Roman Holiday".

I'm not a movie-maker nor do I take film classes but it appeared to me that the film consisted of a series of 'two-shots' (in the main) where the actors(!) had been supplied with a loose plot-line and they were to improvise the dialogue. Henry Jaglon makes the claim that he along with Victoria Foyt actually wrote the screenplay but the impression was that the actors, cognisant of the general direction of the film, extemporised the dialogue - and it was not always successful. Such a case in point was when Ron Silver made some remark which really didn't flow along the line of the conversation (and I'm not going back to look for it!) and Greta Scacchi broke into laughter even though they were supposed to be having a serious conversation, because Silver's remark was such a non sequitur. You get the impression too that one actor deliberately tries to 'wrong foot' the other actor and break his/her concentration. Another instance of this is when a producer tells Silver to "bring the &*%#@#^ documents" (3 times). Silver looked literally lost for words. I have seen one other film which looked like a series of drama workshops on improvisation and that was awful too!

The fact that Jaglon was able to attract Greta Scacchi (no stranger to Australia), Ron Silver, Anouk Ami, and Maximilian Schell suggests it was a 'slow news week' for them. Peter Bogdanovich had a 'what-the-hell-am-I-doing-here' look on his face at all times and I expected to hear him say: "Look, I'm a director and screenwriter - not an actor" - which would have been unnecessary to state! Faye Dunaway seemed more interested in promoting her son, Liam. Apart from the jerky delivery of the dialogue, the hand-held camera became irritating even if it was for verisimilitude - as I suspect the "natural" dialogue was - and the interest in the principals became subsumed to the interest in the various youths walking along the strand trying to insinuate themselves into shot. That at least approached Cinema Verite. So that, along with the irritating French singing during which I used the mute button, made for a generally disappointing 90-odd minutes.

I think we should avoid apotheosising films such as this. Trying to see value in the film where it has little credit in order to substantiate a perceived transcendental level to it is misguided. There was really nothing avant-garde about it. It didn't come across as a work of art and yet it wasn't a documentary either. I know, it was a mocumentary but the real test is whether it is entertaining. I was bored out of my skull! It did have one redeeming feature: it pronounced 'Cannes' correctly so I gave it 3/10.

Sentiment: negative
I saw Grande Ecole at its world premiere on the Rotterdam Film Festival. I had no idea what I was entering and if I'd had any idea I wouldn't have entered. This is the most pretentious film I've seen for a long time. It tries to be provocative, yet deep, with its full frontal homosexual sex scenes - it doesn't succeed! It's nothing but another bad excuse of showing naked persons on the big screen. 4/10

Sentiment: negative
Penn takes the time to develop his characters, and we almost care about them. However there are some real problems with the story here, we see no real motivation for the evil brother's behavior, and the time line is screwed up. Supposedly set in 1963, the music is late 60s/early 70s. The references and dialogue is 70s/80s. The potential for a powerful climax presents itself, and Penn allows it to slip away. But even with all these difficulties it is worth the watch, but not great.

Sentiment: negative
This is a entertaingly bad b-movie. Actually it really is much better quality than a lot of b movies. It had a consistent script, decent direction, cinematogrpahy, and I have seen worse acting. The zombies were great, clearly these were Romero zombies, and was really a interesting zombie story. Obviously not Oscar material, and if your not into zombie movies, or b-movies you probably wont enjoy this, but if you are you'll like this movie.

The main clint eastwood knockoff western character guy is pretty good, although they never really clearly explain how he can heal himself from gunshots and zombie bites. But if he has more than a line of dialogue that where his bad acting is really evident.

It was a good ending to, at least I thought so. Romero should be flattered if he ever saw this.

Sentiment: negative
I love the comics. Although I do have problems fully understanding the stories  the visual style is unique with all its dirt, dust and decay. So I thought I knew what I was up for. Surprisingly I understood the main plot  but some extremely poorly decisions where made for its visual style. 

I mean - really bad looking "CG human actors"-in close ups? Why?! It did not work at all!! Horus - and the other Egyption gods - was successfully made in CG and very close to the comic version. 

I think with real actors this movie could have been a cult movie. 

What a shame.

Sentiment: negative
This could have been a very good film, if I had been able to watch it. The hand held camera was very bouncy. From the opening credits I was worried. Several of us watching it felt very nauseous by the end. But we did stay until the end because it was such a charming and interesting film, giving some insight to the young pop culture in South Africa. The black and white film did enhance the artful feeling of it. The acting seemed very authentic. Some of the dialog was a little hard to understand, but a theater full of non-South Africans seemed to find most of it funny. If you get motion sickness at all though, you may seriously consider skipping this film. It's quaint, but not worth the nausea.

Sentiment: negative
The only thing that surprises me more than the number of people who liked this movie is that it was directed by Clint Eastwood, whose work I admire immensely. The leads had absolutely no chemistry. Not for a second could I believe that there was anything deeper than lust between them. The story just didn't ring true. Add to that stilted conversation, tons of stereotypes, and an incredibly slow plot that basically leads nowhere, and you've got yourself a real stinker. Kay Lenz's nude scenes might be worthwhile for those seeking some salacious fare, but otherwise this is a colossal waste of time. My thoughts as I watched the movie was that itwould have been better titled "Cheesy."

Sentiment: negative
What can I say? I think I have to write "Spoiler alert" and then "reveal" they used the F-word a LOT in this movie - like in every two sentences. I did not like this movie at all - too much hints on sexual perversions, sidesteps and cheating. And that swearing was totally out the window. I gave this movie "3" and two of those points are for Mira Sorvino's sexy movements on the dance floor.

Sentiment: negative
Why take a show that millions of us watched and loved as children and make a complete joke of it? They ask why Hollywood isn't making the money it used to. Because they put out garbage and pay actors huge amounts of money to be garbage men and ask us to pay $10 to see their garbage. The TV show was what it was, good people in bad situations where the good IL' boys come out on top. It wasn't Gone with the Wind but it was fun. This movie is garbage! Hollywood can't come up with anything original so they take something that was good and ruin it for some $$$$. I only hope that this movie makes 10x's less than it cost to make. The only one's to have any fun with this crap are the guys who got to drive the General Lee. The audience is the victim.

Don't see it, watch the reruns of the TV show instead. They still hold up 20 years later.

Sentiment: negative
Although it's not as creepy as it's cult classic predecessor (ZOMBI 2) I actually like this one better. This is because of it's faster pace, better settings, and cool 80's soundtrack. It's loaded with action and has sweet gore effects by Lucio Fulci. The zombies don't quite look as nasty as in ZOMBI 2 but they still look good. It was made pretty well but it definitely has it's share of cheesiness; for instance some zombies move really slow while others are as quick as ninjas. some are braindead while others say funny lines, but who expects consistency when it comes to Italian horror? There's even a flying zombie head! How rad is that? Definitely a must see for gorehounds and zombie fans. it'd probably satisfy most fans of action movies as well. Also check out Zombi 4.

Sentiment: positive
As a history of Custer, this insn't even close (Custer dies to help the indians? I am sure the other members of the 7th Cav weren't consulted in THAT decision.) But as a western, this is fun. Flynn looks, and acts, the part of the dashing cavalier. And the "Garry Owen" is always nice to hear!

Sentiment: positive
When I bought 4 DVDs for £5.oo in a local shop it should have been warning enough that this movie was not up to the usual standard of David Selznick Productions. With a cast containing such names as James Stewart and Carole Lombard I was looking forward to a real treat. As many other commentators have said it is an odd mixture of plot and scenes that doesn't quite convince. HOWEVER, I am so glad that I did view this film as I now have the memorable saying 'Never let the seeds stop you from enjoying the watermelon.' to live by. This should sum up everyone's life. Pick out those seeds or spit them out or swallow them - and then enjoy the watermelon - life itself.

Sentiment: negative
This film was bad. Bad acting, bad directing, bad writing. But it wasn't bad in a funny way. It was bad in a boring way. I watched "Surface to Air" because I thought it might be a laugh. It wasn't. Don't make the mistake I did. There are plenty of more enjoyable ways to spend an hour and a half such as watching paint dry or reading the dictionary. Seriously.

Sentiment: negative
Slayer is a mindless vampire movie with a few twists on an ancient plot. Special ops team is sent into south America to hunt down blood sucking natives. Their leader is a real old man who has aged well. There's an environmental twist as the vampires are attacking villages because their rain forest and old diet of wild animals is disappearing because of the greedy corporations and farmers. Lost of fighting and so much blood they just never bothered to wash off the cast for the whole film. It looks like they slept in the bloody clothes and caked on blood. While each member of the cast brought their own talents, it really didn't all click as a film. The effects were OK, except for the vampires dangling from the buildings on wires. If you're looking for lots of blood and violence, this is for you.

Sentiment: negative
I tired on several attempts to sit down and watch this program "Gilmore Girls". It baffled me for I just couldn't put my finger on what this was about. Was this about a young woman having a baby young in life and never growing up? Was this about the daughter being more responsible than the mother? Was this about a rebellious rich girl and her non-rebellious daughter? What the heck is this show about? Finally, I just didn't care. The cast makes me want to scream. The writing is neither "smart" or "intelligent" it's syrupy and tedious.

So why did I watch? Because I heard SO many good things about this and I am not one to voice an opinion until I have watched. Knee-Jerk reactions are usually wrong, so I watched a few times. The first time I watched this, I saw the mother running around like she was 12 and the daughter acting like she was 40. Maybe that is what didn't attract me. I never liked any of the "Freaky Friday" films - not to say this is like that, but there are some similarities. 

Also I have a friend who watches this show every week. So I asked her, "What is this show about?" A very bright young lady, usually articulate she never could give me a straight answer. So I asked others who rave about it - they really don't know either.

Gilmore Girls is turning out to be a TV program that's like an "art house movie". Many of us wont get it, but those that go try desperately to find a meaning where there really isn't one, just to be "hip." Yes, I find Lauren Graham's Lorelai annoying - whine, whine, nasally WHINE. A whole hour of that. Wow. And the rest of the cast is about as memorable as yesterday's cheese sandwich. The town is hokey, the men are wimps, the grand parents are boring, and sadly I find nothing redeeming about any of these characters or care about anything they do. It's like watching paint dry on the wall.

Sentiment: negative
I've had to change my view on the worst film in the world having just seen this one. THIS IS IT!

Make no mistake this film is awful.

Here's a list of reasons:

Hopeless storyline (despite being based on a true story). Dreadful acting (what was Judge Reinhold thinking) Unbelieveably bad stunts. Childish dialogue. Non-existent continuity. Lack of atmosphere.

Get the picture?



Sentiment: negative
Admittedly Alex has become a little podgey, but they are still (for me) the greatest rock trio, ever. I wholeheartedly recommend this DVD to any fan.

I was very disappointed that they canceled their planned recent Munich gig (logistics) and regret not making an effort to see them elsewhere. The DVD is a small consolation - the greatest incentive to acquire a proper DVD playback setup.

Naive perhaps, but I still don't understand the significance of the tumble-driers on-stage; I would be grateful for any clarification.

Cheers, Iain.

Sentiment: positive
WOW!

I just was given this film from a friend of mine, who bought it for 1.98 at Walmart, and he felt that he got taken! It is beyond boring, most of the scenes are filmed in front of a green screen, the acting is somewhat improvised, almost as if they didn't have a script. The Martians are CGI, which look like they were done by a novice, or a Fan produced movie. I cannot stress just how bad this DVD really is!

Example: In one of the scenes, the martians are torturing a local female captive. She goes from a woman in front of a green screen, to a CGI copy of that woman. The change is totally noticeable, and when she is killed, you can see that it is a computer figure, looking like something from a game back in 1990!

If at all possible, avoid this movie like the plague! You can download two trailers from their site, and see how god-awful it really is!

Sentiment: negative
This movie was painfully awful. Most of the movie consisted of people running in the woods, walking thru the woods, or dancing in the woods. More than half, at least. Then two kids who discover two 'horribly mutilated bodies' in the woods, return to the woods the very next night for a romantic walk. ????? There is no time continuity. its day, its night, its day, its really really night, its dusk, its pitch black, its day. All the woods scenes go on like this until you think you will lose your mind. really bad. The sheriff discovers a five foot claw print embedded in the dirt of the woods and theorizes that a super large alligator may have learned to walk upright. Really a silly movie with no real motivation written in for the characters. Might be entertaining for young kids, as an alternative to really graphic stuff.

Sentiment: negative
There are worse ways to spend an evening than watching this movie, although it IS a tad predictable. Drew Barrymore does a very good job of being the outcast nerd in this film - excellent casting choice. What I found a bit hard to believe is that the popular girls finally accept her - in my experience that crowd has a longer memory than that, and knowing how AWFUL Drew's character was (ostrich feathers?) at the start of the school year would have kept them miles away, regardless of what rumors her brother drums up. (And does "Kole Slaw Food" really make HIM all that popular? I doubt it). As for rooting for Drew's character to win big as a reporter - well, I would have hoped she could have come up with a story long before the prom. A bit contrived. Having said all that, it was a cutsie piece of fluff that will be entertaining as long as you don't expect too much.

Sentiment: positive
Honestly, the only reason I picked up this movie from Blockbuster was because Aaron Carter was in it. Okay first thing's first. Do you notice how ugly Aaron Carter has become?? I mean, he used to be so cute but now..with that lanky body and blotchy skin - EW. I think he should stick with singing and the directors of the movie could've found a much better-looking guy who could lip-sync. No offense though. I thought this teen movie was majorly lame - and this is coming from me, being a teen myself. The 'mean girls' in there are oh-so predictable, the acting is so amateurish it makes you cringe at times (especially from Aaron) and overall I just didn't enjoy it. Although, I give out points for the storyline - that was alright, but not at all realistic. Anyway, stay away from this movie by all means you can unless you happen to have wads of cash on hand and have absolutely nothing better to do with 94 minutes of your time. It's not worth the $6.50!!

(P.S; this review of mine may not be applicable to younger kids under the age of 13!)

Sentiment: negative
I just got back from the film and I'm completely appalled. This movie is an absolute mockery to all of mankind. The theatre I was in maybe had 4 other people. This movie was recommended to me and I couldn't believe that this person liked it. I can't believe that any sane human would like it. There was no plot NO PLOT AT ALL. It was a joke. How can you make a movie about nothing. This movie only goes to show why Hollywood is in such a shambles. I can only just look at the spiral of the "Horror Movie" industry and giggle. What a travesty to all filmaking, this is true of all the new "teen horror flicks" Grudge,Boogeyman,Ring,Saw series. It is all such trash. Don't support this kind of hogwash!

Sentiment: negative
I like science-fiction movies and even, low-rated, made for TV, bargain bin, movies I may still find interesting. Well, I found this one in a bargain bin and brought it as a selection to a movie night with a group of friends.

I was, literally, *emabrrassed* that I brought this movie.

Right from the beginning, the acting is bad, the story is bland and the plot is almost non-existent. All this leads right to what the movie really was: A soft core porno graphical movie.

The movie started with a woman prison where the prisoners are all sexy women working in some sort of mine. First clue that this movie is NOT serious: attractive women in a prison being forced to do physical labor. Yeah, right! Whatever. :P Once the "plot" continued, it was overshadowed by pointless scenes of people having sex. Halfway through the movie, my friends and I stopped watching, it was so stupid. The next day, I thought that I would give the movie another chance and watch the rest. I watched about another 15 minutes and gave up again.

If you are looking for a decent, science-fiction or even a sci-fi monster movie DO NOT watch Lethal Target! If you want to see a low-budget, soft core porn that is light on plot, then see Lethal Target.

Sentiment: negative
I rented this one by accident. I lifted the video up and looked at the back and thought "shameless Blair Witch rip-off". Then, in a moment of carelessness, I grabbed 'The Francisville Experiment' thinking it was something else. My horror upon arriving home and realizing my mistake was far more terrifying than anything this film had to offer. Boring Characters, bad acting, and a feeling of 'we saw the Blair Witch Project and could do the same' permeate the action to the point where watching on fast forward will lead you straight to the credits. I'm not one to fault film makers for being lazy or desperate, but after this yawn-fest I felt the need to warn everyone: don't waste your time, you have a life.

Sentiment: negative
CONGO is probably the worst big-budget movie of the 1990s. It is so bad that it is watchable over and over again. A bunch of folks with different agendas probe deep into darkest Africa, where they encounter a temple of riches just like in KING SOLOMON'S MINES -- but with cannibalistic gorillas guarding those riches. On their side, the humans have a "talking" gorilla named Amy who helps save the day at one point or another. So much for the plot. The dialogue throughout is witless, the acting almost uniformly atrocious, certainly campy (Tim Curry and Ernie Hudson are both on hand to assure the ham factor), and the special effects abysmal. Wait until you see the cannibalistic gorillas. And the lava! Oh yes, did I mention there's a volcanic eruption to top off the big finale? Laura Linney of all people is along for this bumpiest of rides. What could she have been thinking? This is right around the same time she appeared with Richard Gere and Ed Norton in PRIMAL FEAR, a movie that helped guarantee her stardom.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is based on the true story of Iowa housewife Lucille Fray, who got breast cancer after the birth of her 10th child. Realizing that the state would take the children away from her ineffectual, alcoholic husband, she devoted the last year of her life traveling around the state to find new homes for each of the children. A terrific script - which still holds up 20 years after it was first made. The grown children, many of whom had not seen each other since their mother died in the late 50's, were reunited on "That's Incredible," prior to the film's airing in 1983. Barbara Stanwyck won the Emmy for best actress in a TV movie or mini-series, but during her acceptance speech, she went out of her way to single Ann-Margret out for her moving performance.

Sentiment: positive
Greetings again from the darkness. Remember all the "What happened to Woody Allen?" jokes? Even Mr. Allen poked fun at the fans who wanted him to continue making his same "funny" films. As with any great artist, Mr. Allen's craft evolved over the years and he lost some fans, while picking up others. Last year's masterpiece "Matchpoint" showed he is still every bit as relevant and poignant as he was in the days of "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan". What is most striking to us 40 plus year fans is that Mr. New York himself seems to have a bit of a crush on the mother country. Apparently he actually likes England!! While filming "Matchpoint", Mr. Allen became enamored with Scarlett Johansson and her real life spirit and sense of humor. This attraction motivated him to write his best comedy in years. Scarlett, while risking overexposure, must be given credit for not just picking films that cast her in some glamorous light. She is unafraid to look and act like a real person. In "Scoop", she flashes some real on screen comedy chops and, in many scenes, delivers the real punchline to Mr. Allen's straight man. Of course, any time Mr. Allen decides to put himself in front of the camera, he will get more than his share of one liners and social commentaries in - which is fine, because few do it better.

Very nice support work from Ian McShane and Hugh Jackman. In fact, Mr. Jackman provides a few glimpses into why many of us thought him the best choice to replace Brosnan as the new Bond. As with most of Allen's films, the star is the script, not the actors. Although Scarlett delivers superbly here and is a nice contrast to the polished Allen and Jackman, what makes this one crackle is the dialogue ... especially the banter between Allen and Scarlett. If you are not a huge Woody the actor fan, fear not. He does limit his screen time and he is quite effective, except in two or three brief scenes that almost seem out of place. Another Woodman tradition is a sparkling musical background and "Scoop" is no exception ... especially the Strauss composition.

"Scoop" is a nice cross between "Annie Hall" and the best of the Marx Brothers films or the Cary Grant comedies. Yes it is an adult comedy, but it is actually very cute ... especially for a serial killer and talking ghost comedy!!

Sentiment: positive
I provided location services on the this film every Sunday we would shoot in London's Berkeley Square. David Niven ever the gentleman thoroughly enjoyed the role, sadly to be his last. we had a moment of panic when a trunk load of fake Krugerrands (cast for the film..) tipped down a storm drain. 

Imagine frantic crew opening all the drains to recover every last one. If you know and love London you'll love this comedy romp - also starts Richard Jordan who sadly died from a brain tumour. A good film, great crew ,superb cast. look for the current stars of coronation street then playing crowd scenes or extras.The car lot and Ivan's retail enterprises were all shot in west London, Chiswick the entire shopping parade and the American used car lot were dressed overnight, the car lot is still there as are the shops. A restaurant was suddenly turned into a funeral parlour. If you see the film on the listings make an effort to see it! By the way Sally Harrison the Bank receptionist was married to the production designer Tony Curtis..

April 2007 Just thought I would add a few extra comments on locations:

Pub: just off Berkeley Square Elke Sommers Cottage: in back Road alongide Twickenham Film Studios Ivans Used Car Lot: along Chiswick High Street and all shop locations near roundabout. Workshops (converting armoured vans)Factory on roundabout opposite Fullers Brewery Jail (see workshops above) Telephone box see Elke Sommers cottage ( it was the wooden studio prop box used in many films, look for the lighting cable at gound level and the wood hinges on the door!!! Computer room Honeywells near Olympia Graveyard - Chiswick - Grave just outside the boundary on common land Bank interiors, ceiling void and strongroom :Twickenham studios

And just to add David Niven ever the gentleman, joked and mixed with the crew, extras and so on......Niven would dine in the Connaught hotel bu join the crew for coffee!

Sentiment: positive
Imagine pulling back the mask of a lethal assassin and finding Barbara Cartland there... that's what happens with this film.

The opening showed promise, but soon it drops all pretenses of being a thriller (or even an imaginative love story) and the only reason they made this story becomes abundantly clear: to fill a gap in their female viewing market by creating yet another re-hash of 'mis-understood, brooding bad-boy' (Andrei) meets 'innocent, whimsical beauty' (Paula). 

Rather than waste any time in creating an original premise, the filmmakers went straight for the money-shot: the bad boy being tamed by said whimsical beauty. Thence follows a string of insincere and heavily-clichéd love scenes sprinkled with pseudo philosophical/poetic fluff. Andrei's admission of being (eponymously) a 'poet' is levered in to round out the perceived qualities a Byronic hero should have - but even when we're told in heavy, underlined writing who and what he is, it's still difficult to believe it - or care.

For a Byronic hero/antihero to work, the story needs subtlety, style and innovation - all of which are utterly absent here. This is not a modern day Phantom of the Opera, it's just what happens when a weak and rather silly woman (with loose knicker elastic) dates a bad man, who, after meeting her, seems as dangerous as bunny slippers.

The performances might have saved this film, had they been any good: the female lead is preoccupied with looking sexy and 'otherworldly', no matter how forced or ridiculous; and poor Dougray Scott appears to have been drugged as he shambles through his part. This is not his best work. The glimmers of interest were brought by Jürgen Prochnow as 'Vashon', and Andrew Lee Potts as the young photographer/brother. A better movie would have offed the sister and kept the brother instead.

Sentiment: negative
Remember H.G. Wells' "The Invisible Man"? Well here's another movie like it, only more extreme. "Hollow Man" is like no one story about invisibility as a weapon of choice. Kevin Bacon plays Sebastian Caine, a scientific genius who goes out into the world of invisibility and making it useful for military purposes. At first making the serum was the easy part, making the person come back was not. Most of the first tries ended up unstable. Until one night, when he perfected the formula. And who else, but Caine would be the lab rat. The gorilla was the first and almost died, so when he came to, it was a close one. So when the did Caine, he decided to use it for fun. Then when he got tired of being not seen, the team tried their best to bring him back to the world of the flesh. However, the visibility formula happens to not work the way it should, and Caine would delve into madness. So he ends up being one mad invisible killer. It would be best to just get out of town instead of taking the lives of people that are close to you. I would care less about the ones who did you wrong. Great movie, plenty of fun. 3 out of 5 stars!

Sentiment: positive
Heart of Darkness was terrible. The novel was difficult enough to understand, but when a production company decides to release a film loosely based on it, then that just messes everyone up. Not only did those in charge decide to change certain characters and completely eliminate others, but the acting was horrid and the overall impression I got from the movie was that it was a complete dud. I watched the film in hopes of understanding the novel a bit better, but it just threw me and my fellow classmates off completely. I think the movie was a waste of time, and I was disappointed to see Tim Roth in such a disappointing film, especially when he has awesome flicks like Pulp Fiction and Resivior Dogs under his belt. Same with the very cool John Malkovich.

Sentiment: negative
Another detailed work on the subject by Dr Dwivedi takes us back in time to pre-partioned Panjab. Dr Dwivedi chose a difficult subject for his movie debut. He has worked on all meticulous details to bring the story to life. The treatment of the subject is very delicate.

Even though we have not been to the region during that time, the sets and costumes look real. Unlike most movies made on partition, this one focuses not on the gory details of violence to attract audience, but on its after-effects. The characters come to life. Priyanshu Chatterjee has given an impressive performance. Manoj Bajpai has acted his heart out showing the plight of a guilt-ridden man. The rest of the cast has done a good job too.

Sentiment: positive
Even with a cast that boasts such generally reliable names as Val Kilmer and Lisa Kudrow, Wonderland fails to yield any sense of depth to this film. It barely brushes the surface of the incidents that happened on that July night in 1981. Kilmer just goes through the motions as John Holmes and Kudrow and Kate Bosworth are both hopefully miscast in the other two lead roles; as Holmes's wife and underage girlfriend, respectively. The rest of the cast has such small roles that it's impossible to get any dimensions from them. The film also stars Carrie Fisher, Ted Levine, Franky G, MC Gainey, Dylan McDermott and a cameo from Paris Hilton.

Sentiment: negative
This film is not really a remake of the 1949 O'Brien film (which is excellent). It borrows the main premise--a man has been poisoned and spends the rest of the film trying to find his killer. But I like that the writers chose an English professor, instead of a private dick, as the protagonist. The plot is also quite original. In general, the film moves along fast enough to keep you awake. But what mars this film is a strange dated quality about it (probably due to the horrendous 80's original music score)combined with an affected "noir" feel. Dennis Quaid grins inexplicably throughout the whole film at odd moments, but he's still compelling in a general way. Meg Ryan is fine as the student helper/love interest. When the film gets sort of bad is when Dex (the prof) meets the British bodyguard/chauffeur and their duels are pretty laughable. The bodyguard works for the rich widow (played by lovely Charlotte Rampling), but those scenes are too self-consciously "noir" to help the film along, even though the family "plot line" is rather interesting. Dex also keeps showing up at the same place and finding this bodyguard, which is rather coincidental. In the latter part of the film,a man is shot by a window, and from the outside you see him jump out of it--that was pretty bad direction. But aside from some of these obvious flaws, I think it still holds OK. I certainly didn't predict the ending, so that was good--there is a twist, and although some posters here think they were misled, I thought it was a fine and believable ending. Dennis Quaid, with his weird smirks and black eyes, is more likable in The Right Stuff, Great Balls of Fire, Inner Space, and Cold Creek Manor. But here as Dex, he's supposed to be somewhat of a jerk, so he did fine. Fairly decent movie.

Sentiment: positive
I admit to liking a lot of the so-called "frat-pack" movies. No matter how bad they are, I can find something to like about Ben Stiller or Owen Wilson or Vince Vaughn or Will Ferrell or Jack Black. But "Envy" just left me about as cold as the white horse that Ben disposed of. This time, it's Ben and Jack Black as a couple of nutty neighbors, one of whom (Black) discovers a aerosol spray to make animal poop disappear and becomes incredibly wealthy while the other (Stiller) writhes in envy. That's supposedly the plot, but then it veers off in other directions that don't really make much sense.

I guess the 'Vapoorize' thing is sort of amusing at first. The problem is, they try to sustain the gag for the whole picture (Black has a license plate that reads 'Caca King') and it gets fairly tiresome. But even Ben and Jack are used poorly; the energy level for both of their performances seems significantly dialed down. The two best performances by far are Rachel Weisz and Chris Walken. Walken's neo-hippie-dippie guy is so offbeat and so well-modulated a performance that it really never suggests any of Walken's other familiar nutcase characters. It's completely unique, yet comes across as unmistakably Walken. And Weisz is about the best actress in the business that nobody knows about. Even with limited screen time, she still dominates every scene she's in.

The whole crux of the so-called drama is that Ben, in a jealous drunken stupor, accidentally shoots Jack's prize white stallion, and then goes to ridiculous lengths to cover it up, fearing his best friend will find out and cut him dead. But the plot twist isn't believable because there's nothing about Jack's character to indicate that he would do such a thing. He plays such a sweet guy that it renders the whole excruciating horse chase null and void. You discount it completely. It's all filler. And what's the point of the out-of-control merry-go-round, except that Barry Levinson wants us to know that he's seen "Strangers on a Train"? The screenplay is painfully bad and the acting of the two leads poorly directed. Someone with Levinson's track record should know better. Maybe someone will invent something to make this film disappear. Oh, wait, they already have.

Sentiment: negative
I absolutely, positively loved the movie. I just saw it and can't wait for it to come out on DVD. It is a beautifully, well-drawn masterpiece. I am always amazed with the intricately drawn work of Ghibli studios. 

Others have commented on Sosuke calling Risa by her first name. He never calls his Father by his first name unless he is speaking about him to someone else. I didn't get the impression that Risa was his mother. It was never even mentioned or implied by anyone. It is quite obvious that she is his step-mother. That is why he makes her promise to come home and why he gets so upset when he finds her empty car. His mother must have died when he was an infant because he mentions being nursed by Risa. This coupled with his father being out to sea a lot is why he has abandonment issues. Everyone also talks about how mature he is. This usually occurs when a child loses a parent.

Sentiment: positive
Venice, in 1596.Jews are separated from the good Christians.Bassanio, a young but poor Venetian loves the fair Portia, who is a wealthy heiress.So he approaches his friend, a merchant called Antonio for three thousand ducats to travel to Belmont and propose Portia.All of Antonio's ships and merchandise are busy at sea, so he turns to the moneylender Shylock, the one of Jewish faith.Shylock does not like Antonio, for he spat on his face.He offers Antonio a three-month loan at no interest, but if he will not pay the money in that time, he will own a pound of his flesh.Also, Shylock's daughter Jessica elopes with the Christian Lorenzo.The Merchant of Venice is based on William Shakespeare's play that's believed to have written between 1596 and 1598.I read the play last summer and now I've seen the movie, made in 2004 by Michael Radford.I liked the play, and I don't quite agree with the accusations of it being anti-Semitic.The Jewish character does not appear as an inhuman monster, even though he's ready to cut a piece of Antonio's flesh.There's a lot of depth in his character, which all comes out in his speech where he asks "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" and so forth.There is much more human in Shylock's character than in one of Antonio's, who spits on the good Jew.Al Pacino is unbeatable as Shylock.He gives such a strong performance.Jeremy Irons is also terrific as Antonio.Lynn Collins is most beautiful and brilliant in the role of Portia.Zuleikha Robinson does great job as Jessica, and Charlie Cox as Lorenzo is also very good.Kris Marshall plays Gratiano, and he does a good job.In the role of Nerissa we see Heather Goldenhersh.Mackenzie Crook plays Launcelot Gobbo.As in Shakespeare plays usually, also this one contains most brilliant dialogue.The movie paints a fantastic portray of the era.It deals with some great issues, in a Shakespearian way.

Sentiment: positive
Yes, thats that i felt after i completed watching this movie. The acting is below-average and the special effects are horrible. In fact, the worst i have ever seen. It is a very low budget movie. There is no way this movie will can scare you, it has no creepy or scary moments. Mr. bone eater was more of a funny creature for me. It could have been much better but oh well they didn't had a big budget. The movie fails to convince you that you are watching a horror movie, lol. I would name this movie The Time Eater (waster). I am sure you would have a lot of better movies/etc to watch. Still watch it if: 1. you have nothing else to watch. 2. you get to watch it for free. Not worth renting at all.

Sentiment: negative
This movie shows a clip of live animal mutilation of an animal getting hacked by a machete and getting its skin ripped off. I know these horrible things happen in the world, but Im watching movies based on the fact that what Im watching is not actually happening on the screen. These live animal clips are not meant to be in movies, they are meant to show people that belong to certain organizations to help the horrible things that humans to do other species.

This should be banned and destroyed. I have also contacted Netflix and other resources to collaborate getting this movie off the market!!

This movie should be removed from the public. The person who made this movie needs psychological help.

Sentiment: negative
A rather disappointing film. The club scenes were ok, but over done. The plot was thin and boring. It's only redeeming features were some of the characters. The Chemist and The DJ were pretty fun characters. Tim Curry's character was just bizarre and stupid.

Sentiment: negative
I've avoided seeing this film for some time but finally picked up a copy. Having been born too late to see 'Hair' in its contemporary setting, I have just been familiar with the UK and Broadway cast recordings for many years; and saw it on stage in the late 1980s where it looked a little creaky but still, great fun.

The film. It drops some of the songs (The Bed, My Conviction, Frank Mills) and cuts others (Walking in Space). However, what is left is presented very well indeed. All the singers and dancers are excellent, and the key performers (especially Treat Williams as Berger, Beverley D'Angelo as Sheila, John Savage as Claude) are memorable.

As a hippy celebration and anthem, 'Hair' manages to be remain potent even in a film made ten years too late. It was no longer the era of peace, love, and Biba, but the time of punk rock ... although watching this film now, in the time of Iraqi problems, gives a new resonance to the Vietnam issues of the 1960s.

Milos Forman, who also made 'Amadeus', did a good job on directing. In its scope and feel it reminds me of Norman Jewison's 'Jesus Christ Superstar', especially with the joy of the 'Aquarius' scene and the intimacy of 'Easy To Be Hard'.

I really enjoyed this film and consider it a good representation of a musical born out of the first truly hedonistic era.

Sentiment: positive
There is NO Esperanto in this movie

I watched this movie specifically because IMDb lists Esperanto as one of the languages used. But IMDb is mistaken about the languages used in this film. There is absolutely no Esperanto at all. It's almost all English with a couple of words of Navajo. Do not watch this film if you're looking for Esperanto movies. Other options instead are "Idiot's Delight" (with Clark Gable) which has a bit of Esperanto, "Incubus" is all Esperanto (although completely mispronounced), and there are some Esperanto street signs in Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator." There was supposed to be some spoken Esperanto in "Gattaca" as well, but I never heard any. 

Aside from that, the other reviewer is right. This movie is a complete mess.

Spend your time elsewhere.

Sentiment: negative
Financially strapped Paramount pulled out all the stops for this '34 stage adaptation entry: big budget, large cast, extravagant production and Mitch Leisen tagged as the director. What happened? Two things: Busby Berkeley didn't work for the out-of focus rock and a murder mystery script that didn't deserve to be in the same trash can as the worst Charlie Chan first draft down the street. I have to believe that the cutting was out of Leisen's hands since the great Duke Ellington's number is savagely chopped, but that doesn't mean that it ain't worth a look: the 'Sweet Marihuana' number featuring topless chorus girls is a mind blower, considering the looming production code and it also has the ravishing Toby Wing (whose unfortunately fed horrible lines and playing the prototype dumb blonde) as a chorion hot for an otherwise preoccupied Jack Oakie. Carl Brisson's acting is bland as Melba Toast but he's a competent singer. MacLaglen reaches for new plateaus as a stereotypical dumb detective. And try to spot Lucy in the chorus. This rates a 7.0 as a curiosity. Feb 2010 re-think: I recently gave the film another look and now feel I was wrong to berate the lack of Busby Berkeley production numbers. I can understand Leisen's argument for more realistic production numbers within the context of the plot. I still have enormous issues with the editing however. Paramount, the raciest major studio in town, faced huge issues with the Production Code at the worst possible time in it's history, financially speaking, and pulled out all the stops on this one (also check out 1934's Search for Beauty). A must see for pre-code buffs.

Sentiment: positive
i saw switching goals ..twice....and always the same feeling...you see the Olsen twins make same movie....they like play different sports and then fall in love to boys..OK now about the movie....first off all such little boys and girls don't play on such big goals...2.football does not play on time outs...3.if the game is at its end the referee gives some overtime (a minute or more)...and the finish is so foreseen....i think that this movie is bad because of the lack of football knowledgement....if it were done by European producers it would be better..and also the mane actors aren't the wright choice...they suffer from lack of authentic..OK they played some seasons in full house but that doesn't make them big stars....you have got to show your talent....and that is what is missing in the Olsen twins

Sentiment: negative