DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I saw this originally on Channel 4 (UK) and it was a fantastic film that left a great impression on me. However I saw it on Irish TV recently and there was an added narration by Roy Scheider ("we're going to need a bigger boat!"). This ruined the film for me. His droning monologue adds absolutely nothing to the film, and if anything takes from the films brilliance. I wonder at the new DVD version that has no Roy (due to legal reasons?) would stop people from buying it. Well believe me, the film is much better for it!

Cheers

Damian

Sentiment: positive
I Am Curious is really two films in one - half of it is the sexual experimental side of Lena and the other half is her curiosity with political/socialism. Whatever the director's intention, the two don't really mesh together. The director should have just stuck with the romantic side of Lena and made a separate movie for the politics. There is a bizarre mixture of political/war rallies, Dr. King, serious political interviews, flopping breasts, and pubic hair. The film feels more like a fictional documentary than a movie. Other than the interesting sex scenes, you'll be bored dry watching this film. Unlike many other reviewers, I think the nude/sexual scenes are overdone for what it is. If you want to see real porn, I'm sure there are better choices. The pervasive nudity is a major distraction from whatever plot there is. I think the cast did a fine job however. They played their parts believably. There is little of the over-the-topness I'm so used to seeing in the American films during this time.

Sentiment: negative
I think together all the reviewers have captured this film really well. I have seen it many, many times, but I still feel a sense of joy and warmth just as I did the first time. My emotional response to this film never seems to fade. The final scene certainly brings me to tears, but so does the scene between Perks and The Children on his birthday. And as for the Kindly Gentleman. Something else is going on with that character. The generous provider and solver of problems. He knows everything about everything and has connections everywhere. A perfect father to run to and make us feel safe. I do not know how the film does it, but it touches something very English deep inside, which has long gone from our daily experience, but yet we all instantly recognise and yearn for again.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was strange... I watched it while ingesting a quarter of psilcybe cubensis (mushrooms). It was really weird. Im pretty sure you are supposed to watch it high, but mushrooms weren't enough. I couldn't stop laughing.. maybe lsd would work. The movie is a bunch of things morphing into other things, and dancing. Its really cheesy for todays standards but when it was released im sure it was well... one of a kind. I could see how some people would think this movie was good, but I didn't think it was very interesting, and I was on mushrooms at the time. If your having a party or something and everybodys pretty lit, pop it on you'll get a few laughs.

Sentiment: negative
I do not think that this movie deserves the low rating that most will give it. It's one of the best "teenager" horror films I've ever seen; and that's saying a lot. Nothing is left without an explanation to back it up, the characters and plot break countless horror movie stereotypes, and it has got nothing to do with some other horrible pieces we've been submitted to lately. (A clear example is the mindless "Saint Ange".) The first 30-40 minutes might be downright boring with the exception of the beginning, although some minor light mistakes can be easily spotted. After the arrival to the village, though, the horror -a different, twisted kind of horror- begins.

With the plot and the details, goofs are minor; the characters are this movie's strongest point, given that so many clichés are broken in it. For example, the two main male characters, Nick and Wade, are not by any means the idiotic types we're used to; although Dalton might fit better in this stereotype, not is he the only one to pay for this lack of consciousness. Some scenes are truly, satisfyingly horrible, making up for tense moments scattered around all the film. And, in the end, and although everything is decorously explained, it's easy to see that things won't go so easy to the surviving characters.

The only errors I can see, and which do not imply continuity (IE, Carly not finding her own cut finger in the unconscious Bo's pockets) is the illumination, which is somehow annoying during the first, boring 30 minutes. Although, plot and effects-wise, everything is drastically and cruelly twisted with the arrival of the main characters to Ambrosia, that little village in the midst of nothing, so I'll give it that. It's been pretty much argued that about 70% of the movie is illogical; "How can two people build an entire house of wax?", "Where do they get all the wax from?". These wouldn't be uprising questions if people would have paid more attention to the movie. The Sinclair brothers did not build the House of Wax; their mother worked making actual wax figures, and they were exhibited at the museum. And the scenario where Paris Hilton's unfortunate character meets her untimely death is the answer to the second question; what is with all the personal objects (mobile phones, cars, clothes) of the dead people? Using their third brother as a connection with the exterior, it's pretty much arguable that the Sinclair twins should obtain the money necessary to buy the wax, in a WWII-type fashion.

So, that aside, I think the movie deserves a lot more than it gets, and nobody should lose the chance to watch it. So go see the House of Wax. Right now.

Sentiment: positive
With all thats going on in the world sometimes we need an escape. Curly Sue is just that. Not a complicated plot or deep meaning; however it is not devoid of substance. There is more than furious action or heart pounding dramas. There are the charming little shows you can watch with your kids and have enough substance to enjoy with your date. Try it you may like it more than you think. The little girl is really smart and cute. The "Dad" and the girl go thru some slapstick routines. When a jealous boyfriend steps in, trouble brews for Curly and the life shes known may be torn asunder. Fred Thompson and Kelly Lynch play good roles as the upper crust and Alison Porter and James Belushi are a interesting fable like duo portraying street wise homeless drifters. Their worlds collide and comedy ensues.

Sentiment: positive
Final Score: 1.8 (out of 10)

After seeing 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back' I must have been on a big Eliza Dushku kick when I rented this movie. 'Soul Survivors' is a junk "psychological thriller" dressed up like a trashy teen slasher flick - even to the point of having a masked killer stalk a cast of young up-and-comers like Dushku, Wes Bentley (American Beauty), Casey Affleck (Drowning Mona) and likable star Melissa Sagemiller. Luke Wilson is also in there, ridiculously miscast as a priest. The movie, the brainchild of writer/director Stephen Carpenter, seems like a mutant offspring of 'Open Your Eyes' or 'Vanilla Sky' and movies where a character (and the audience) is caught in a world of dillusion caused by an accident/death. The movie keeps churning out perplexing images and leaves us in a state of confusion the entire running time until this alternate reality is finally resolved. I don't think these movies are that entertaining- by their very nature- to begin with, but 'SS' is rock-bottom cheap trash cinema any way you slice it. The visuals, the script, the acting and the attempt at any originality all are throwaway afterthoughts to movies like this. Plus, it's PG-13 so it doesn't even deliver the gore or T&A to sustain it as a guilty pleasure (even the unrated version is tame). I had heard that the movie contained some "hot" shower scene between Dushku & Sagemiller. As the movie fell apart in front of me and all other entertainment seemed to be lost I found myself waiting patiently for the shower scene - at least I would get something out of this. Then it comes: the two girls get paint on their shirts, they jump in the shower fully clothed and scrub it off. That's it. People thought this was hot? 'Soul Survivors' is one of those drop-dead boring movies that is so weak and inept that it is hard to have ANY feelings at all toward it. It puts out nothing and is hardly worth writing about. In the end it leaves us empty. Carpenter's finale is a mess of flashing light and pounding sound and that's probably the most lively part. It will no doubt be making the rounds as a late night staple on USA or the Sci-Fi Channel, due to it's low cost and PG-13 rating - and that's probably best for it.

Sentiment: negative
I was privileged to have seen some snippets from Aardman's original run of this show in the UK. It was always fun and always funny. None of the charm has been lost in translation--it's as fresh as the people interviewed--whether some of it is scripted or not, as has been rumored, is beside the point. It's always entertaining.

Aardman Animations shows great imagination in the characters used for each voice, the single aspect that I probably love most about the show and its concept (the hostility between the pandas, the porcupines discussing fear of needles, the painting ape). Regulars really grow on you as well, such as the horse and donkey teens from Maryland, most every married couple (the parrots, the insects, and the cats to name a few) and child-voiced character, and I've really come to dig the ferret! Monday's finally become a day to which to look forward.

Sentiment: positive
This is a good family movie with a few laughs. I wish it didn't have too much of the school stuff like the bully in it to fill the movie up. Also, it seems a little too easy to save a piece of land from being built. I mean, the it just flowed too easily. It does make you aware of the wildlife. It had a cute way of introducing the piece of land which the fast runner but a little too slow for me. A little too hokey for me and it reminded me of going back to school. Oh, the DVD is chock full of goodies so don't miss out. 7 out of 10 for the movie 10 out 10 for the DVD with the extras that is well worth to watch. Well worth your time to see this!

Sentiment: positive
Most reviews say that this is the weakest point in Hamilton's short movie career. This movie is a bit different from the rest, and considering it the best or the worst depends on what you expect from a movie, and what you expect from Hamilton.

Knowing Hamilton as a photographer, you can be slightly surprised. While Bilitis looks like his books in a movement with all those young girls discovering themselves and relations with each other on the edge of lesbian, with a plot connecting these scenes, Laura concentrates on few characters what enables developing relations among them (male-female, artist-model) but though we see beautiful photos, many of them better than his average, their number is reduced for the sake of the plot. Tendres cousines is different from both, it is only Hamilton's movie that looks more like a film than like a collection of moving photos. Because of that it can be acceptable to wider audience than Hamilton's fans, looking like an erotic comedy (but not German soft-core type - "Schulmädchen report" fans would be very disappointed). You won't laugh a lot, but you can smile (and that's something you don't often get from Hamilton). Unlike all other Hamilton's movies the age of female varies. Unlike other movies main character is a boy. Unlike his usual works this one isn't put out of place and out of time. We have characters that live their life, have their destiny and don't lead us only from one photo to another, from one nude girl to another.

Unfortunately, Hamilton (again) gets lost with a script in his hands. Girls on beaches, under shower, in low-light rooms, in gardens, under tents, in front of mirrors, regardless of the amount of clothes - this is his territory, he can shoot minutes and hours, and whatever he does you'll always feel the artist's eye and hand behind it. But when he has to present us average everyday life he stops being Hamilton and becomes average director who just follows the script. Hamilton is best known for his nudes, but they are just a part of his work. And in Tendres cousines we have a reverse situation: his girls are not in the best shots. Nature, garden, house remind us on Hamilton's work (often neglected part of it), while girls, even when nude, don't have anything special in the way he presents us. Maybe Hamilton was confused having a boy in front of camera, maybe he was thinking about a line that censorship would accept, maybe he was really trying to make something new (and no one dared to tell him he shouldn't), but he neglected what he was mostly praised for.

Sentiment: positive
1st watched 10/10/2009 - 8 out of 10 (Dir - Billy Wilder): Spectacular rendering of Lindbergh's famous flight by James Stewart as Lindbergh and Director Billy Wilder. There isn't really a whole lot of background built into this story but that's OK because Wilder makes the event really remarkable as it comes directly from Lindbergh's perspective since he used his book as the basis of the movie. This early movie about flying has to be one of the best about the act itself as well. Stewart talking and thinking to himself during the flight gives you so much insight into what Lindbergh went thru in this 33 hour solo flight across the Atlantic. And he did the whole flight without sleeping the night before -- which is amazing!! There is a little backstory about how he purchased the plane and got the financing, and some flashbacks about his life during the flight but the movie is mostly about the flight. The story is also beautifully made and photographed and is a joy to watch despite it's age. I appreciate the fact that they didn't throw in a lot of fluff and just let the story tell itself. Well done throughout. This is a classic movie that should be viewed by all.

Sentiment: positive
Great music, but ain't these people PATHETIC?!? A true period piece of The Trippy Sixties, and it left me depressed. The director paints the wrong side of the jetset life and it stings as a hornets nest. If the culture of the time led people to do these things, it appears to me that it was all a journey of no discovery, only despair. I tried, really tried, to like this film, but these people aren't anywhere on my page. Yes, it would be nice to see the world, go away for awhile, but I always plan to come BACK. Drugs aren't the cause of these characters' downfalls, it's their lousy attitudes  these guys passionately drink their cup of poison. They cheapen their lives, and in the end, cheapen the journey that is life. Has romance ever been so dark?

Cheers: Interesting scenery. Wonderful soundtrack by Pink Floyd.

Caveats: Dated. Drugs. Depressing. Thoroughly unlikable characters; they aren't flower children.

Only for the curious, since most packages swoon The Pink Floyd connection. ( Rare Floyd tracks many will have never heard before, as FM ain't what it was. )

Rating: Two Stars.

Sentiment: negative
I don't know who wrote the script for this movie, but from the first moment on, I was irritated. Of all possible decisions they could make up in the mountains, why do they make the decision, which is the most dangerous of all? Why do the criminals act dumb, although they managed to get a huge amount of money out of a bank and get away with it? Why doesn't the main criminal land the helicopter, shoot Stallone, grab the money and fly away with the chick as a hostage? And there are more cases of illogical behavior. I'd give this movie 5 points for nice action and great landscape scenery, but due to the illogical behavior of the characters, I just can give this movie 1 point...

Sentiment: negative
A number of brides are mysteriously murdered while at the altar, and later their bodies are stolen en route to the morgue. Newspaper writer Patricia Hunter decides to investigate these mysterious killings. She discovers that right before each ceremony, the bride was given a rare orchid (supposedly from the groom) which contained a powerful drug that succumbed them. Patricia is told that the orchid was first grown by a Dr. Lorenz, who lives in a secluded estate, with his wife. In reality, Dr. Lorenz is responsible for the crimes, by putting the brides in a suspended state, and using their gland fluid to keep his wife eternally young. Patricia, along with Dr. Foster (who is working with Dr. Lorenz on the medical mystery surrounding his wife) try to force Dr. Lorenz's hand by setting up a phony wedding, which eventually leads Patricia into the mad doctor's clutches. This movie had a very good opening reel, but basically ended up with too many establishing shots and other weak scenes. The cast is decent, Walters and Coffin deserved better, but that's life. Russell steals the show (even out hamming Lugosi- who does not give one of his more memorable performances, even considering his Monograms) as Countess Lorenz playing the role with the qualities of many of the stereotypical characteristics of many of today's Hollywood prima donnas. Weak and contrived ending as well. Rating, based on B movies, 4.

Sentiment: negative
Just saw this at the Madison Horror Film Festival and was disappointed. A few shocking, funny moments (fisting the hollow Carla, a urinating harpy in the Dreamland) and two competing interesting premises (similar to New Nightmare with belief bringing a mythical character to life and also Lost Highway with a man living out a fantasy in his head) but had long stretches of no movement and incoherent plot development. Just because you use the framework of dreams or a mental fugue state doesn't make it Lynchian. You need the compelling visuals and creepy performances.

Positive things: Dr. Maitland had real comic timing and all the girls were very cute. Carla's Father, Chalmers, and Ingrid Pitt looked like they were having some fun. And Tom Savini at least looked like he had his lines memorized and we couldn't see if he was just reading cue cards.

I get the Hammer references, but it looks like the director realized the script was a snoozer and just added some shocks to try and get some laughs out of whatever footage he could put together. But they don't work because they're too few and far between and create an inconsistent tone. Condense this to 30 minutes of all the fun parts and you could have a surreal goofy short, but at feature length, skip it. It's not "so bad it's good" it's just "so bad it's boring".

Sentiment: negative
This movie makes Canadians and Brits out to be asinine, moronic idiots. The men get stoned/drunk, and then they yell/beat each other up in almost every scene. The women are superfluous to the story  I do not understand what they are there for  they spend every scene causing a ruckus, or worse, milling around like mesmerized cattle. Apparently, Canadian women are either quarrelsome vulgar tramps or hulking hippie chicks. It's the standard knocked-up girlfriend, her loser boyfriend and his wicked mother ludicrousness that we have seen in countless movies before.

Every character here is a carping, infantile stereotype. Not to mention that they all looked like they need a shower! And the idea of any kind of scene implying sex with George Wendt  shudder  is enough to make anyone gag! I watched the movie because Samuel West was in it  but I cannot understand why he would have accepted a role like this. Maybe he needed the money. Ian Tracey is a superb actor - the only one with a vague redeeming moment, but his talent is wasted here.

As for the rest of the plot  the three imbeciles trying to get their dope back  yawn - or Karl  who is dead, but who is actually a character very much alive in the minds of those left behind (almost like Rebecca in Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece  although I am ashamed to even have thought to compare these two films), why even bother? Karl is so galling that you find the circumstances of his death gratifying.

By the end of this wretched movie, I thought they would all have been better off going down with him on that boat!

Sentiment: negative
Even though I'm quite young, The Beatles are my ABSOLUTELY FAVOURITE band! I never had the chance to hear their music as it was releases but have loved them since I can remember.

It's the sort of film that is worth trying the once. I can see why it wasn't released in the cinema but it is certainly a great film to put on the TV. I was flicking through my TV guide and happened to see this film, it didn't much details except something like, 'John Lennon and Paul McCartney meet after The Beatles have broken up, Jared Harris Stars'. I'd never heard of him (he played John) or Aiden Quinn who played Paul. However they are certainly underestimated actors!

The film had a slow start but as it developed, I could see how well Quinn but especially Harris played their characters. As a huge fan, I sort of know what the real Lennon and McCartney are like. The script was brilliant and Harris got Lennon's accent, personality and mannerisms spot on! Quinn played McCartney quite well but sometimes went into his Irish accent. THe make-up artists made them look excellent.

THIS PARAGRAPH MAY BE COUNTED AS A *SPOILER*:

As I mentioned before, it got off to a slow start but soon developed and became quite an emotional film. I found the bit in the park a total waste of time and quite out of character for both of the musicians. As for Lennon's rude line in the Italian restaurant, totally unnecessary. The ending was very poignant and brings a tear to my eye whenever I watch it.

It is quite different from the other biographical films I've seen where it's about how The Beatles got together and became famous, and those never really did the characters that well. E.g. 'Backbeat'.

In conclusion, I would say, if you're a Beatles or John Lennon or Paul McCartney fan, give it a chance you may have pleasent surprise. At only about 95 minutes long, it's worth waiting for the film to develop.

If anyone does know whether the meeting of 1976 really did happen please send it to the 'comments page' for this film, I'd be very interested.

Sentiment: positive
**SPOILERS** Since the disappearance at sea of her favorite niece Phyllis murder mystery writer Abigail Mitchell, Ruth Gordon, has strong suspicions that it was Phyllis' husband Edmund Galvin, Charles Frank, who was responsible for her death. In fact Abigail is convinced that he murdered her and made it look like a tragic accident.

Knowing that there's no evidence to have Edmund arrested for Phyillis' death and deciding to take the law into her own hands Abigail cooks up this elaborate plan to do him in and make it look, like Phyllis' death, a tragic accident. Getting Edmund to secretly come over to her mansion to give him the combination to her walk-in safe, as she's about to leave on vacation for New York City, Abigail tricks him into going inside locking the startled and surprised Edmund in. With the safe being soundproof nobody at the mansion the butler maid and Abigail's personal secretary Veronica, Mariette Hartley, hear him screaming for help and the next day Edmund is found suffocated to death. Veronica discovered Edmund's body as she was about to put away, for safe keeping, Abigail's latest murder mystery manuscript.

Lt. Columbo, Peter Falk, is called on the case involving the strange death of Edmund Garvin to determine if it's a murder or a tragic accident. Going through Edmund's apartment Columbo is puzzled to find out that he doesn't have a single photo of his late wife, who's been missing for just a month! This ties into what Abigail always felt about him in Edmund not being in love with Phyllis and also a suspect in her, in Abigail's mind, murder. 

Columbo a big fan, together with his wife, of Abigail's murder mystery novels has a hard time realizing that she in fact was responsible for Edmund's death. All the evidence points to Abigil including a pair of missing car keys that was Edmunds. This all proved that Abgail was in fact in the house, not on her way to the airport, when Edmund was locked inside the walk-in safe.

Going through all the evidence Columbo comes up with this strange conclusion that Edmund must have left some evidence inside the safe in writing to who his killer is. That conclusion is quickly checkmated when it's found out that Edmund didn't even have a pen or pencil as well as light, with the safe light-bulb burned out, on him to write it. There's also something very odd that's inside the safe that has been on Lt. Columbo's mind ever since he came on the case. This has to do with the black paint residue that was found under the dead Edmund's fingernails and on his belt buckle! 

It's that evidence, when put together with a number of other items in the safe, that in the end hangs Edmund's murder on the tricky and very cunning mystery writer Abigail Mitchell. Edmund let Abigail unknowingly convict herself in his final attempt as the air in the safe was being used up, by his breathing, in using burnt out matchsticks to write on Abigail last manuscript who murdered him: Abigail Mitchell!

Sentiment: positive
This film stands as one of the most amazing examples of compelling and artful film-making I've every seen. Herzog seems to capture the almost transcendent tragedy and beauty of Dieter's story, as well as his endearing personal character. By the end of the film, I was left wishing that I'd had the opportunity to meet Dieter before his passing.

On a technical note, the cinematography is intimate and astoundingly beautiful. The narrative is intricately woven, with great awareness of the subject and his capacity for reliving and reenacting traumatic events. Few documentary directors have so strong an ability to so thoroughly invest the audience in the character. This film is a must see!!!

Sentiment: positive
Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are brilliant as Sir and his Dresser. Of course the play is brilliant to begin with and nothing can compare with the immediacy and collegiality of theatre, and I think you listen better in theatre; but on the screen we become more intimate, we're 'up-close' more than we are in the theatre, we witness subtle changes in expression, we "see" better as well as listen. Both the play and the movie are wondrous: moving, intelligent, illuminating--of the backstage story of the company, of historical context, of the two main characters, and of the parallel characters in "Lear" itself. If you cannot get to see it in a theatre (I don't imagine it's produced much these days) then, please, do yourself a favor, and get the video.

Sentiment: positive
A truly unpleasant film. While Rick Baker's special effects are quite impressive (if stomach-turning), it has no other redeeming features. Like many 70s movies, it leaves you feeling as if you need to take a long shower, and scrub the slime off of yourself. The characters are uniformly unpleasant, and plot makes no sense.

Sentiment: negative
If Mulder was looking for his real father here he is Darren McGavin, the first X Files, pity it was only one season long the producers of this show didn't know that they had the makings of a classic on their hands and in 1993 along came Chris Carter with what i call the follow up to the Night Stalker, The X Files. Both will go down as classics is my opinion the two shows taking the viewers to a level of experience that only comes along once in a while and who should appear in the X Files years later Darren McGavin, as Agent Arthur Dales helping our two favorite hero,s solving cases. Paying homage to the man i think so, well done Chris Carter bringing back a forgotten TV show in the form of David Duchovny as Darren McGavin if it wasn't for watching The X files and that particular show i would have never known about the Night Stalker.

Sentiment: positive
In THE FAN Robert De Niro plays Gil Renard . Or is it Travis Bickle ? or Rupert Pupkin ? Or Max Cady ? You see the problem with this type of role is that De Niro has played very very similar characters in TAXI DRIVER , THE KING OF COMEDY and CAPE FEAR and unfortunately the characters were better developed and had better scripts . I found it slightly difficult to believe that Renard would have started out as a frustrated obsessive sports fan into being an out and out psycho

The character arc isn't the only problem with this script - It also lacks a character focus ( A problem I had with THE UNTOUCHABLES where De Niro should have been superb but ended up slightly flat ) , for several stretches of the movie I kept thinking that Bobby Rayburn was the main character then the story switches back to Renard . It also seems to have disappointed a lot of sports fans who seem to think this should have concentrated a bit more on baseball . I'm not sure if this was meant to appeal to baseball fans originally but again there are elements which hint it might have if the producers had made up their minds has to who and what the story should focus upon 

I will admit I was entertained by THE FAN ( Especially by the soundtrack ) but it is a very flawed film and it should be remembered that by the mid 1990s characters being stalked by nutters as in SINGLE WHITE FEMALE , UNLAWFUL ENTRY etc had run out of steam a long time ago

Sentiment: negative
This movie was bad. This movie was horrible. The acting was bad. The setting was unrealistic. The story was absurd: A comet that appears once in eons is set to appear one night. Most of the world's population decided to watch this comet. Then, the next morning everyone but a select few of people has been turned to dust from the comet's radiation. People's clothes are still intact, there are plants which are still alive, but the people were turned to dust. No bones, nothing. Thats ridiculous. How can radiation incinerate people but leave their clothes and other biological substances intact?

Even better, the comet mutated some people into zombie flesh eating monsters. Their makeup would not have even looked frightening to a newborn child. The Insane Clown Posse scare me more...and they're supposed to look stupid.

Then there were the survivors. People who had been surrounded by steel when the comet passed were spared from zombie-dom and death. How can steel block a comet's radiation that supposedly incinerates people in their tracks?

Equally insulting is the 60's horror music playing in the background through parts of the movie, or the 80's hair rock which serves no purpose in the film and makes you want to shoot your television.

The stupidest part of the movie, however, are the characters it focuses on: two Valley Girls and Chakotay from Star Trek: Voyager. These three characters were totally unrealistic. Who would go looting the day after an apocalypse with flesh eating mutants running everywhere? There were four 5 minute horror scenes in the entire movie, and most of them were dreams. In between these scenes is unsophisticated dialog which makes South Park seem intelligent. The silence in between the elementary dialog was painful. I could have made a better movie with four monkeys and a bag of Cheetos. Don't see this movie, ever.

Sentiment: negative
Simply put: the movie is boring. Cliché upon cliché is confirmed and story lines never come together. It seems as if the director was unsure whether to make a movie or a documentary. The main plot is very thin (a CIA agent is ordered to kill an oil prince, gets caught and then warns the prince (why?)) and therefore some elements were added to make the movie more interesting. So, a kid dies, which results in the "natural" response of the father: freely advising the person indirectly responsible for his son's death. The lawyer has a drunk "friend" and keeps him around, why, no one knows. Some kids become suicide terrorists and blow up a ship.

All in all, this is one of the worst movies I have seen in quite a while. I was neither entertained nor intellectually challenged. I neither laughed nor cried, I did not gain an understanding nor was I compelled to learn more or take up a cause. It meant nothing to me, which in my eyes is the worst one can say about a movie.

Sentiment: negative
This movie tackles child abduction from the point of view of a Mom (lisa Hartman Black) who acts like a man would in an action thriller. Unlike other movies where the focus is on the Police, here the Mom is tracking down her ex-husband who kidnapped their son. She gets help from her lawyer who eventually falls in love with her.

Before finally catching up with her son, a lot of bizarre things happen. The Mom tries to take a child that looks like her son from a local Children's Play at a community theater. She gets caught, and then realizes it is not her child. That alone would have gotten most people put into the Mental Ward or a few months in jail waiting for trial. However, in this movie the Mom is release after a couple of hours because the victim's parents feel sorry for her. A little while later Mom breaks into her mother-in-law's house and then the Police arrive and they have their guns aimed at her but they let her run away because they recognize her (and feel sorry for her?).

At another point in the story they have found the child, but when the Police arrive to search the house it turns out they left out the back door and got into the river on a dinghy that apparently the Dad kept around just for such an emergency escape! The Mom gets someone to lend her a raft, and even though it must have taken some time (in a real world), she and the lawyer-boyfriend, and the Police catch up to the other raft pretty fast and it is upside down in the water by landfall. Instead of getting out of the raft to search for the Dad on the land, Mom presumes he drowned the boy and she jumps into the water when she sees his life-jacket. Of course, she cannot swim and sinks like a rock. The lawyer saves her, but they miss a chance to run after the Dad. At one point the Mom is told her son died at a Clinic in Mexico. On and on it goes, and where it stops nobody knows! In some ways, this movie really exploits child abduction and it is not very positive. On the other hand, seeing a woman do all the crazy things that men do in these kind of movies was fun (or funny?).

Sentiment: negative
This is really terrible.

The only redeeming feature about this movie is that the next time people ask me what is the worst vampire movie I have ever watched, I would have a suitable reply.

I think it is filmed on 35 mm so it is already tacky like hell. I wouldn't have bothered commenting but I noticed some fanboys (probably connected to the movie) had claimed that this was the best movie since the Matrix. Let me debunk the myths and lies.

There is nothing good in the movie. Everything yells tacky. The actress is ugly. The fight choreography is the worst I have ever seen. The fight scenes are unbelievably amateurish. Imagine a girl flailing her arms around in a circle helplessly and delivering weak kicks which wouldn't hurt a kitten. Obviously, the director just pulled people off the street to give them roles in the movie.

I know the director did not have much budget for the movie but still better movies have been made on smaller budget before. Unforgivable.

Sentiment: negative
The rating is only a 5 because it's a movie that could have used better acting and direction (or at least music!). However, for the achievements of Walt Whitman, it deserves a 10. A previous poster calls the movie cheesy, however, I think it's a simple case of not seeing the forest for the trees. The film makers were apparently more interested in getting the story out there than to have a Hollywood shiny feature film. And for this, I applaud them - the fact it is non-mainstream reflects the life of Whitman as well. This film is more documentary than for the sake of acting. To be fascinated with a story such as this, when you rarely hear of these types of stories that shape current day mental health, is the most important thing. I found it a highly enjoyable look at history.

Sentiment: positive
Paul Verhoeven has one of the strangest oeuvres of any major director: he started off making art-house films in his native Netherlands before moving to Hollywood where he began making subversive genre pieces which are often seen as mere entertainments by the mainstream crowd. 1983's The Fourth Man was the last film he made before moving to the U.S. and it seems to have been a transitional film for him.

From the beginning of The Fourth Man it's clear that the film will be seen from the perspective of the famous albeit impoverished author Gerard. In a seeming homage to Carol Reed's similarly titled 1949 film The Third Man the film begins with an author making a trip to speak to a crowd of literature enthusiasts. The similarities end there, however, as Gerard runs into no major complications before arriving at the auditorium and the speech itself goes fairly smoothly. In spite of the relative ease with which he completes this function we know that the author is somewhat troubled as he has realistic fantasies about murdering his roommate before leaving his house and he also has a surreal fantasy involving a hotel he sees advertised and a detached eyeball growing out of a door's peephole. That he sometimes has trouble keeping his fantasies separate from reality is made all the more clear when an anecdote he tells is exposed as untrue and he admits that he "lie{s} the truth until {he} no longer knows whether something did or didn't happen." 

The Fourth Man is full of surreal fantasies and dreams which are made all the more disturbing because it's very easy to see how they relate to events which we have seen occur and because they sometimes foreshadow events which haven't occurred yet. Between the effectiveness of the unreal sequences and Verhoeven's careful editing style this ends up being the most atmospheric film this side of Don't Look Now and like that film this one is full of ambiguity. Unlike that film The Fourth Man is also perversely funny as Gerard's deeply held Catholic beliefs seep into every aspect of his life including sexuality. He naturally associates a female hair stylist he knows intimately with the Biblical Delilah though he fears she'll remove an even more important symbol of masculinity with her scissors. In an erotic fantasy sequence that would make Luis Buñuel blush he substitutes a man he's attracted to for a life size statue of Christ on the cross.

The Fourth Man is a horror film which manages to bring the viewer into the mind of the protagonist while still maintaining a certain ambiguity: it certainly seems as if Gerard is in danger but it may just be more of his "lying the truth." The film is also full of both subtle and not so subtle visual symbolism which helps make it a unique and satisfying cinematic experience.

Sentiment: positive
Anyone who will pay to see Troma movies knows, and appreciates, what they are going to get. Having said that, I didn't think it was possible to make a movie this bad, and still be compelling. I found myself watching just to see how much worse it could get before the end. First off, it's an Indonesian action movie with an American main character who looks and acts like the bastard son of "Taxi"'s Christopher Lloyd and Rambo. He puts posters of himself dressed up like Sly's "Cobra" all over the place and even has a custom built firing range (with action-posed cutouts of his greatest enemies)in Jakarta although he's in the CIA and has just arrived days earlier. There is a lot of action involving gun-play(no muzzle-flashes on those M-16s, only sound effects), motorcycles(that bust through walls), karate(where no one makes physical contact) and even some sex(where all the actors are ugly). The main plot of an epic like this should at least be reasonably plausible, but not here. It involves the world's most dangerous drug cartel going all out to find a "drug detector device". Why would they need it? That is never revealed, why not kill drug-sniffing dogs? Makes no sense, but, it is taken seriously. The actors are to be commended because they really seemed to think this movie would make them all famous and tried hard to "act". Best line? "Now dance to your grave you dirty whore!" Best scene? Rambo jumps onto flying helicopter, pulls machine gun out of baddie's hand, let's go, falls, shoots helicopter as he's falling, helicopter blows up, cut to mannequin thrown in water. F**king genius! If you can't appreciate trash, don't watch it. If you can, it's awesome. One last thing, did I mention it was directed by the three Punjabi brothers?

Sentiment: negative
Actually my vote is a 7.5. Anyway, the movie was good, it has those funny parts that make it deserve to see it, don't misunderstand me, is not the funniest movie of the world, and its not even original because its a idea that we have seen before in other movies, but this one has its own taste, a friend of mine told me that this was a film for boyfriends... I think that not exactly but who cares? Also there is another movie that show us almost the same topic, Chris Rock appears in it, the name is Down to Earth, men, that one its a very funny movie, see both if you want and I know that you will agree that Mr. Rock won with his movie. I would liked that the protagonist male character were given to Ashton Kutcher, however, the film is good.

Sentiment: positive
This film was so bad it became enjoyable. If you want to see a soap opera cast decide to do an action film, this is for you! Overacting, irrelevant incidents, implausible dialogue - it has it all. The main character has a split personality and can not make up his mind whether he is thief, a loving father or a hero who will risk his life for others. He is plausible in none of these roles. This sets the standard for many of the other characters. The boss of the company whose building is set ablaze displays the same unpredictability, and so does his wife. And the punch line - who has taken the "chip" - beggars belief. I found myself laughing heartily and for that reason, I recommend you watch it.

Sentiment: negative
One of the most provocative films ever with excellent cinematography backed up by Mc Clarens lisp and stunning quote "do you believe in love at first site?".

A trace of expressionism was evident in this picture, further catapulting the films flawless integrity. Gabby (AKA Joey) played by Eva Longoria clearly loved the movie and role she played so much that she couldn't even be bothered giving it mention in her filmography. Lol.

the best part of the movie would have to be without a doubt, the heroic rescue by MC clure as he saved the young 'Handicapped' kid with the speech impediment.. Which i may add was acted to perfection! James Cahiil's use of sound effects is unmatched even to this day. The drug bust he performs early in the film is pain stakingly realistic. When i watched this movie for the first time i was so compelled with the intense lack of respect for the Gang Inthused brothers from the Southside gang and the CTM (Cut Throat Mafia). This was by far one of the most encapsulating crevice Cahill has committed to filming.

Personally this film holds sentimental value to me and i will be downloading it in the near future. Thats if i can find it anywhere, LOL!

Sentiment: positive
I first learned of the Wendigo many years ago in one of Alvin Schwartz's "Scary Stories" books: according to that story, the Wendigo - after calling your name in the wind - drags you along, and then pulls you up into the sky and pulverizes you. While it sounds like a pretty bizarre notion, Schwartz's story turned it into a fairly coherent idea.

The movie "Wendigo" doesn't. It basically consists of every horror flick cliché: family moves to new house and strange things start happening, anyone who harms them is asking for it, and everyone had better listen to the old Indian guy. I've seen this stuff so many times that I no longer bother to count.

Anyway, avoid it. Patricia Clarkson and Erik Per Sullivan (Dewey on "Malcolm in the Middle") have done far better than this.

Sentiment: negative
The End of Violence and certainly the Million Dollar hotel hinted at the idea the Wenders has lost his vision, his ability to tell compelling stories through a map of the moving picture. The Land of Plenty seals the coffin, I'm afraid, by being a vastly unimaginative, obviously sentimental and cliché'd film. The characters are entirely flat and stereotyped, the writing, plot and direction are amateurish, at best. For the first time in quite a while, I was impatient for the film to end so I could get on with my life. The war-torn delirium of the uncle, the patriotic abstract gazing at the sky at the conclusion...it all just struck me as being so simple and pathetic, hardly the work of a filmmaker who once made some compelling magic on screen. What happened? The days of experimentation, perceptive writing and interesting filming possibilities are long behind him, I'm afraid. Let's hope he finds his inspiration again... At the Toronto film festival, which is where I saw the film, Wenders was there to introduce it. Completely lacking in humility, he offered us the following: "I hope...no, wait...I KNOW you're going to enjoy the next two hours." I'm afraid he couldn't be more wrong...

Sentiment: negative
Watching this movie made me think constantly; why are they making such a problem out of some broken brakes? There are a million options to slow down the car! In the movie Speed the writers a least thought of a good reason why the car wasn't able to stop...

There aren't many good things to say about this film; all the usual narrative cliche's make their appearance, the actors are very bad, the story is as leak as a sieve etc. That makes this movie a waste of time and money.



Sentiment: negative
While a bit preachy on the topic of progress as the saving grace of mankind, this is still a stunning film that presages the science-fiction special effects blockbusters that would take another 40 years to arrive on the silver screen. It predicts the global chaos of WWII, but expands on the premise by having the conflict last 30 years, and then tells the epic tale of man's struggle out from under the rubble and into the wilds of space. The acting seems wooden and strangely sterile, but this is perhaps a result of its contrast with the visuals which must have been utterly breathtaking at the time of the movie's release, and which still impress today. This is a film not to be missed by anyone at all interested in the SF genre.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is beautiful in many ways: the plot, the depth of the characters, the stunning photography and acting, the kolossal-like scenes of battles (no computer graphics here, just thousands of people). Someone said the story has something to do with the Sheakespearian tragedies. I find some connections with the Greek tragedy tradition, too.

The emperor, extraordinarily acted, struggles between power and love, but he is forced (for the greater good, for the will of his ancestors) to choose the power (and the loneliness, the hate of his subjects and kins) as his destiny. He, like Creon in Antigone, was a good guy before becoming emperor. Once gained power, he has to be merciless and cruel (with innocent children, his mother, his father, etc.) to defend and expand the empire. Entrapped by power he becomes a monster. Overall, The Qin emperor is a majestic Greek tragedy figure.

The assassin evolves towards a different direction: from pure evil to heroism and morality. Even this character is forced towards his destiny by love and by his new ethics. This character is really unforgettable, too.

Lady Zhao, a wonderful Gong Li, is the uncorrupted morality, nor by power or love or hate. She is morality against power, somehow like Antigone. Her conspiracies (for and against the emperor) have always a moral rationale.

In conclusion, a wonderful movie. If you love cinema and you want to try Chinese movies you can start here.

Sentiment: positive
One of the great classic comedies. Not a slapstick comedy, not a heavy drama. A fun, satirical film, a buyers beware guide to a new home.

Filled with great characters all of whom, Cary Grant is convinced, are out to fleece him in the building of a dream home.

A great look at life in the late 40's.



Sentiment: positive