DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I saw this film last night at a "pre-Code" film festival, and I have to tell you that when Gary Cooper turned his head for his introductory close-up, the entire audience gasped. He was just that beautiful.

Cooper's looks aside, this film displays Rouben Mamoulian's directorial artistry to perfection. Wonderful scene-fades, creative camera angles, symbolic allusions--Mamoulian just keeps exploring the directorial medium and coming up with innovation.

This was Sylvia Sidney's first role in Hollywood, after her success on the New York stage, and she is just as lovely as a Gary Cooper leading lady ought to be. It's nice to see her in a role with a harder edge than many she was given--so often she looks like she's afraid she's about to be hit by someone.

There are lots of familiar faces in this film, including the wonderful Wynne Gibson. Most striking is Guy Kibbee, best known for playing fatuous rich men, as a grinning and mendacious hit-man.

There aren't nearly enough of these pre-Code films available on VHS or DVD, so if you can't find a pre-Code festival near you, try campaigning Turner Classic Movies for a broadcast! As for the reviewer who believes Gary Cooper was too stupid to have dialogue more complex than "Yep" or "Nope," he should perhaps consider Coop's performance in films such as "Mr Deeds Goes to Town" or "Meet John Doe." Although heaven knows anyone who looked that good shouldn't have to be smart as well.

Sentiment: positive
This first time writer/director comes across as a season pro with "Two Coyotes". Most action dramas are all about the action first then the story. But this picture works the other way around. If this is just the beginning for this director, then Hollywood will soon be making room for this rising star. Independent movie making has once again reached a new level.

Sentiment: positive
This film has slipped through the cracks of film history. It is by far much better than some other New York films of the same era such as: "The French Connection" or "The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3". There is a gritty reality to this film which also manages to effectively use humor to further the plot line. It's engaging from start to finish and hasn't tarnished with age as is the case with the above two examples.

Ron Liebman turns in a bravura performance as "Batman" and it's a shame his career didn't take off as a result of this project.

Gordon Parks directs and, coming as it does after "Shaft", it at first appears to be a strange choice. Yet it is the flip side of that earlier effort and approached with just as much in your face machismo.

Unfortunately this film has not been made available on either DVD or VHS in the United States. United Artists really has a gem on their hands and it's a shame they're not doing anything with it.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is an embarrassment to film-making. I can't believe it was even listed as a comedy - not funny. Not only was the script atrocious, but the casting people should be shot. Gail O'Grady is just a great actress, but beyond that... %99 of the rest of the cast...ouch. Pretty much everyone else...wow it is hard to even...wow. Here is the number one rule about comedy "DON'T TRY TO BE FUNNY". There are a lot of very talented actors in Canada who can do drama and comedy - none of them were used in this film. Canadian nepotism and casting directors are helping to perpetuate bad film-making in Canada. I realize this is technically a "US" film, but look at the director, actors, location, etc. I just saw this on Bravo - they should be ashamed that they bought the rights to show this film. Again, there are a lot of great films out there that can't get airtime and they show this crap.

Sentiment: negative
Imagine, its, say 12-1am - your at home, your bored, your not tired. This scenario occurred about, say 4 or so years back..I turned on the TV and flicked over a few channels and found that this film was on. OH MY WORD this is the worst film I have ever seen! A runaway car that cant be stopped (cos the brakes have been cut or something) in caning it down the freeway - whats gonna happen?! This film was so bad its actually funny - I think the stunts cost about $2 to make, there was one instance where a baby/small child is being winched from the car by a helicopter - in an attempt to excite the viewer - a conveniently placed bridge is nearing ahead...THIS IS THE BEST BAD BIT OF A FILM EVER - it shows the child narrowly missing the bridge but it looks so bad - you can almost see the make of the dummy that they used - total low budget classic! Cant remember the end of the film, though but I bet it was GREAT

I doubt they will ever show this film again so I'm glad I got to see this piece of trash!

Sentiment: negative
One of the more prominent/popular episodes, but clearly one of the worst. A red-shirt female falls for Khan (instead of dropping dead - for a change) and then proceeds to betray Kirk and the Enterprise as if loyalty were a non-existent character trait on the ship. Makes one wonder what kind of psychology tests this supposedly brilliant Starfleet uses to test people when hiring. We have the same kind of absurd lack of loyalty in "Wink Of An Eye", when a red-shirt male takes the enemy's side just because he falls in love! Same as in SS. (However, in that episode the betrayal plays a tiny role in the overall plot.) This is very silly because it once again makes Kirk's crew seem like a bunch of soft-headed, easy-to-impress morons, who - once they fall in love with the enemy - are capable of doing just about anything. The fact that McGivers switches back to Kirk's side doesn't ameliorate the illogic in any way. Lord McGiveth and the Lord McTaketh...

Why is Khan kept behind a regular door when they know he has superior strength? That's one of several ST plot-devices that undermine Kirk's intelligence. Why does Khan hold a knife against McCoy's throat? If Khan is of such superior intelligence then one would expect him to be more wily with the way he carries himself. And what's with a Sikh being played with a Latino accent? Montalban should have been provided with a vocal coach. I was half-expecting to hear "the plaaain! the plaaaain!" in the background at any moment. Why the hell would Kirk (or any ship captain) provide limitless use of the ship's library concerning the innermost technical details of the Enterprise to ANYONE? Is the Starfleet an institution solely consisting of idiots? 

SS is a very cartoonish, silly episode, so no wonder Trekkies love it. It doesn't have too many sci-fi elements in it, which is what Trekkies hate the most. It also figures that the ST franchise chose to revive this dull character for the second movie, that way pleasing rabid Trekkies, who were so very disappointed with the first movie which - you guessed it - had far too much sci-fi for the average tiny Trekkie brain.

Sentiment: negative
What a GREAT British movie, a screaming good laugh and sexy Gary Stretch too, and oh, lots of bikes and lovely Welsh countryside.

Members of our club the ARROWHEAD Bike and Trike Social Club appear in it as extras! Hooray!! 

There are some genuinely hilarious bits, good acting, a good idea.

Met the director, Jon Ivay at a showing in Wareham, Dorset. A great man, down to earth and a good laugh. This film must be supported, as all great Brit movies should!

So please go and see it if you can, they have a website with cinemas that are showing it , so find one near you!

I can't wait to get the DVD. Some of our biker friends have seen the film two or three times already and can't get enough of it.

Amanda

Sentiment: positive
all the acting done in the first season has been really amazing. the first look you get of Max and Zach is through Geneva Locke and Chris Lazar or as i like to call them the minis. the minis do the best acting job that i have ever seen kids do. the main actors and actresses i.e. Jessica Alba Michael Weatherly etc. make you forget you are watching a fictional t.v. show they seem to make this show come alive. all in all this is the best show i have ever watched

Sentiment: positive
I mean, come on! Now my countrymen have started to make westerns! Is it not enough that our cinema sucks already? Now you need to infect English-language movies with Polish acting and no sense whatsoever? Please, stay away from this movie, do not waste your eyes on it. A 5-year-old baby could make a movie that makes more sense. I am from Poland and I am ashamed this title might actually be watched by you. Please, I am begging you, do NOT watch this movie and if you do, do NOT judge Polish people and Polish movies based on what you see there. We had some good movies in our history and we had some bad ones but this one - it is like nothing worse that I have seen in my entire life. Keep away!!!

Sentiment: negative
this is the worst film i have ever seen and what disappoints me the most is that this is yash raj film so at first when you see the promos you think yes thats definitely another yash raj hit But when you see the film your eyes will water with disappoint the storyline is stupid and dumb we've seen it many times boy is soon to marry and falls in love with a girl blah blah blah. if you do see this pathetic film don't go with you family there is too much exposure and kiss scene. i don even see why you would go to see it on your own. overall this is a disgraceful disgusting and anything else which is bad and starts with a d film don't go to see it you'll end up hating yash ji and yash raj films

Sentiment: negative
I saw this recently on a faded old VHS tape, and remembered it dimly. Looking at it now, it seems charming.

When it was first released, it was recognized by pretty much everyone as a spoof of coming out as a gay teenager. To hammer the point home, the mother is seen reading a paperback copy of "1 Teenager In 10", the most popular coming out book of the time. David Warner hams it up as the persecuting vampire hunter [= gay-hating evangelist], who is of course a self-loathing closet case. The list of sight gags and in-jokes that were included to make sure nobody missed the point would be too long to go into. The producers were having some good-natured fun, and hoping, no doubt, to lighten-up as well as to enlighten.

But I have no clue how a teenage audience would look at this film, nowadays. In some places, where there is education and culture, the terrifying ordeals that gay teens had to go through are a thing of the past. But I'm sure there are plenty of dark, nasty corners of our continent where it's just as bad as it always was.

Sentiment: negative
I have nothing but good things to say about this tasteful and heartwarming film. I think that the effort of the film's director/writer is courageous as well as inspirational. I loved this film not only for the fantastic story (which needed to be told), but also for the way the actors delivered the story. This is not another shallow "gay movie" that depicts stereotypical characters in humorous situations. This was a memorable and flawless effort to show people that love truly knows no bounds, and love is still as beautiful and wonderful as it always was. 

Another thing that touched my heart was how well I could relate to the emotion portrayed in this film surrounding the coming out of one of the main characters. We all have to go through similar situations living in the society that we live in and feeling that feeling of detachment from everything that is "right" and "normal". I give my most heartfelt praise for this fabulous and courageous story.

Sentiment: positive
I have never seen a movie so bad. It's not even entertaining enough to be a drinking game.

It's SO bad, I don't even want to talk about it... and that's the whole point of this, isn't it? PLEASE. Don't bother to see this movie. 'Nuf said.

Sentiment: negative
Another FINE effort by America's most UNDERrated filmmaker. His knowledge on the subject of racism is STAGGERING, and IMPRESSES me on more than one level. Accusations that Lee is really just a devious little racist, a poisonous dwarf who opportunistically exploits Hollywood's Affirmative Action system to make movies of inferior quality is utter NONSENSE, mere Right-Wing propaganda. The very notion that Lee would resort to misusing the current climate of political correctness in America in order to produce hate-filled anti-white movies is simply FALSE and malicious.

Some of Lee's detractors even go so far as to suggest that GOTB glorifies African-Americans, while putting down other races: obviously, another FALSEHOOD disseminated by people who are AGAINST peaceful co-existence between different races in America and elsewhere.

My favourite scene in the movie is a lengthy dialogue early on between the rich black Republican and the others in the bus. The views presented by that man are simply WRONG - all across the board. 100% UNTRUE. He LACKS education, unlike the brilliantly INFORMED guys who quite DESERVEDLY throw him off the bus.

TERRIFIC performances, and an INTELLIGENT script make for a viewing experience that has been RARELY rivaled by any political movies made since.

I also want to point out the incessant LIES that the Million-Man March had only 80,000 people taking part in it!

(And now all you have to do is take the antonyms of all the words written in capital letters...)

So what message does Lee send here? If someone doesn't agree with your political views, you simply apply violence and throw him off the bus. I thought the movie said "get ON the bus"...?

Apparently, Mr.Lee is for bus-segregation after all, i.e. is no different than those KKK lunatics before him: the bus is only for those blacks who are in line with the Democratic Party's line of thinking. So much for "freeing the slaves"...

The end-credits: "This movie was entirely financed by black people." And distributed and marketed by a major Hollywood studio run by Jews and whites whom Farrakhan despises...

Sentiment: negative
I'm afraid this one is pretty dreadful, despite several good performances and generally competent acting-for-the-camera direction. It's a first and last attempt by writer-director Soo Lyu. "Rub and Tug" (2002) is one of the unfortunate by-products of Canada's program to promote home-grown film-making. While the program encourages worthwhile efforts like "New Waterford Girl" it opens the door for untalented novices like Lyu who did not have to aggressively pitch this project but was green-lighted without an adequate examination of her script or her credentials. 

You don't mind the low budget because the shabby production design, bad lighting, poor audio, and dreary docu-style shot selection is consistent with the subject matter; the workers in Canadian massage parlors. But the dialogue and the plotting doesn't give the actors anything to work with, the editor much to assemble, or a viewer any mental challenge other than suspension of disbelief. When your story is this simplistic the last thing you need is a muddled storytelling technique; even though nothing happens, the movie is hard to follow and point-of-view impossible to pin down. 

Don McKellar's performance as Conrad is several notches below his similar characterization in "Exotica". Lindy Booth's Lea is her standard quirky airhead; as always she is likable but here she is little else. Kira Clavell's Cindy is a pleasant surprise, a kind of Asian Shelley Duval. The only other role of any consequence, Tara Spencer-Nairn's street-wise Betty, more than cancels out her excellent performance in "New Waterford Girl". Her shallow performance in "Rub and Tug" should curtail any tendency to seek out other films in which she has appeared; unless you need further confirmation of "Waterford" director Alan Moyle's skill in working with young actors. 

You quickly conclude that Lyu's reptilian brain cannot grasp concepts like plot complexity, so the need to insert a lazy and lame "deus ex machina" device toward the end is hardly a surprise. Still it could be worse, the listless story has so little internal logic anyway that the unlikely ending is not as painful as would normally be the case. 

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

Sentiment: negative
Having decided some time ago to collect the films of Billy Bob Thornton (on the strength of class movies like "Sling Blade", "A Simple Plan" and "The Man Who Wasn't There" amongst others), it was inevitable that there would be the odd turkey in there. What I didn't realise however, was that there could be one THIS bad. I'll give you an idea how incredibly poor this film is - the funniest dialogue in it goes like this: "Knock Knock", "Who's there?", "The big stinking man", "The big stinking man who?", "The big stinking man - is YOU!". Yes folks, it really is that bad. Billy Bob is only in it for about two minutes (I guess he needed the work at that time in his career), and the rest of the movie is painful. For some reason though, although it's undeniably awful, I don't hate it. That's probably because I save my ire for any high budget, special effects laden junk like "The Fast and the Furious" and not a "no-budget" flick like this one. 2/10 at a push.

Sentiment: negative
Well! What can one say? Firstly, this adaptation is far too long at 4 hours, for the complexity (or lack of such) of the plot. The actors try really hard to make something of this film but there is too little content for the time available. Swayzee is really NOT a Quatermain character at all. After seeing Sean Connery's interpretation of the great man in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", Swayzee really does not make the grade. This chap with the winchester repeating rifle has none of the strength, stature, subtlety, or humour needed for the part, and is upstaged by everyone including the witch doctor, who incidentally seems from my point of view to be more convincing as an actor than the rest of the cast. Some of the vistas are pleasing but there are silly mistakes in the cinematography. For example. When the happy team arrive at the water hole in the middle of the desert, their tracks are visible down to the oasis, just waiting for them to walk in them. Climbing out of the mine leads to an exit (on the next shot) nothing like the exit seen from the passage they have climbed through, et cetera. I was waiting for Doug McClure to appear at any moment. In some ways I wish he had. 

The leader of the Russians pursuing Quatermain is a shoddily created stereotypical character who just shoots at everything. 

Swayzee does quite well as the sad father, returned to London, who is unable to obtain the custody of his son. Swayzee should stick to that sort of thing. He is not able to carry the part of a courageous gentleman with a stout heart, experience of life, and sense of fair play.

4 out of 10. Barely

Sentiment: negative
I got a DVD of "Bogeyman" and this stunker was an extra feature. I assumed that it was "Boogeyman II" because it was paired with the original. But you know what they say about those who "assume": it makes an "ass-" out of "u-" and "me." I had read before viewing that BII contains a lot of footage from the original and that it starred actress Love. While watching "Return of the Boogeyman," I decided to stick around through the original footage to see the notorious death-by-toothbrush scene. Before I knew it, the film was over. Rip-off. I think that I thought this was BII because this has a similar title to one of BII's alternate titles. Oh well, at least this was just an extra feature, right? 

Let me stop talking about my mistake and start talking about the movie's mistakes. Many, many, mistakes. Who does this guy Ulli Whatever think he is? Does he really think the same movie will sell in different forms. There is nothing original holding Part III up. It is basically a flashback of the original through the eyes of a psychic, who is giving us a gruelingly boring play-by-play as everything happens. That's the movie. Oh, and one death-by-stereo scene, but you can read that off someone else's review. My interest in "Boogeyman II" is forever lost.

Final Note: This is not a series of films to watch back to back.

Sentiment: negative
This film is bone chilling in a way that is hard to describe. While it is fairly accurate in its description of the events leading up to and the subsequent investigation regarding the first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993, seen now post 9/11, it is almost unbearable.

It would be a mistake to call this film prophetic, but it certainly makes the common playground wisdom of "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" come alive.

Our government learned nothing from the 1993 attempt on the World Trade Center and subsequent readings of the 9/11 Report show that many of the mistakes that led to the bombing in 1993 were repeated.

Some people have criticized the First and Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution as being partly responsible for the Islamic terrorists being able to carry out their evil plans, but that is wrong headed in every possible way.

Surely the people making this argument are not supporting a ban on Free Speech, a free press or freedom of religion? I certainly hope they are not supporting our government officials being able to break into any person's home or office to search without cause or without a warrant.

The fact is, the FBI, the INS and even the local police could have gotten warrants based on the information they had in their possession, but they chose not to for a variety of reasons. Besides, no matter how distasteful or ignorant it is, it is not illegal to speak badly about America or its leaders. Likewise, it is not illegal to either own guns or to pray toward Mecca.

Consider this, until Lee Harvey Oswald actually fired his rifle at President John Kennedy, he wasn't really breaking any laws. Living in a free society has its drawbacks.

Still, Path To Paradise is a must see film that I am afraid will never be seen by that many people. As far as I know, it is not on DVD and 2007 is its tenth anniversary and there are no known revivals of it.

I'm not really surprised, people don't like to document their failures and this film certainly shows that the various agencies that were supposed to protect us did not do their jobs right and for the pettiest of reasons, like jurisdictional squabbles and a refusal to share information.

This is a shame as Path To Paradise is well done and gripping and as many have stated before, the final scene where Ramzi Yousef (played by Art Malik), the bomber who built the truck bomb that was used in the first attempt at destroying the two towers is flying past the World Trade Center after his capture and extradition simply says "Next time we will bring them both down", is a film moment that froze me in place for several minutes.

Sentiment: positive
If we could have "Separate Tables," why not "Separate Lies."

This becomes somewhat involved. A housekeeper's husband is killed when he is hit by a car while on a bicycle. The culprit turns out to be the woman she cleans for. The latter was having an affair with a friend and was driving the car with the lover in it when the accident occurred. To complicate matters further, the housekeeper once worked for the guy's parents and he had her jailed for stealing. Therefore, people will hesitate to believe that it was his car that caused the accident. Sounds like she wants revenge.

This all becomes convoluted. When our housekeeper discovers that her boss was driving the car, she recants her testimony much to the dismay of the officer who is working on the case.

As if this isn't enough, several months later, our lover (Rupert Everett) becomes terminally ill and our lady (Emily Watson) leaves her husband (Tom Wilkinson) to care for him.

The acting is quite good here despite the never-ending "Peyton Place" like theme. Tom Wilkinson, is a solicitor, who tries to protect his wife.

The film is a good one, but we could have done without the terminal illness. O well, the marriage ended anyway.

Sentiment: positive
I'm not a fan of scratching, but I really dug this movie. It gave me a real insight into a world I never had a clue existed; and what else is a documentary for? Funny, clever, hip - just like Pray's previous film, Hype! about the grunge music scene.

Sentiment: positive
"Scarecrow Gone Wild: He's the Death of the Party!" Need I say more? Scarecrow gone wild got four out of ten stars from me for one simple reason: aside from the terrible acting, plot holes, cheap special effects, and anti-climactic whistling, it was cinematic gold! I think that this movie could have actually been really good, had the scarecrow turned out to be the baseball coach (as portrayed by the ever-so-brilliant Ken Shamrock). But then again, they would have had to cut those AWESOME "Return of the Jedi" electricity special effects.

While watching this movie, my friends and I were convinced that it was in fact written by one of our friends, a stereotypical teen-aged boy. This movie has topless women, miserably fake gore, and dialog that could not have talked its way out of a paper bag, or in this case, a cornfield.

If I could ask the filmmaker one thing, it would be this; "How much did you have to pay the teenager that wrote this for you?"

Sentiment: negative
Well, no, not really. Its not really a good movie, but its not as bad as I thought it was going to be. I really didn't feel ripped off of my rental money, and sometimes thats all you can ask for. The plot is OK, nothing brilliant or new, the acting is pretty bad, but the cast is pretty. The directing is passable, but the effects are horrible, especially the werewolf effects, which in a werewolf movie, is a pretty big problem. There was a fairly decent amount of nudity, which to me is a pretty good thing, but it wasn't all that hot. All in all, its a fairly average direct to video movie, not the worst film I've ever seen and if you're bored a genre fan, check it out sometime. I'd even watch it again.

Bonus fact for horror geeks, Kane Hodder (Jason Vorhees in a few of them) plays the werewolf.

Sentiment: negative
Arthur is middle aged rich 'kid' who drinks like a fish. Arthur does what he feels like and says whatever comes into his mind. He likes to boast about his riches and knows that he is a spoiled brat. He spends money on people he don't know and finds everything funny. Arthur must marry a high class girl to inherit a big fortune but he falls in love with a poor waitress Liza Minnelli (she looks really weird).

This is a damn funny film. I watched this film because a very famous Indian film 'Sharabee' is based on the character of Arthur. Although 'Sharabee' is definitely inspired by 'Arthur' I think they are two different films. 'Arthur' is just fun. Its very corny at times. There are so many fantastic one liners in the film. Its not a laugh riot but it has some fantastic moments. My favorite scene is when Arthur meets his fiancé's father and he keeps talking about the 'moose'. Duddley Moore sure has some comic timing. He is very good with words and body language. I loved the scene where he talks standing to a seated couple in the hotel about a 'small' country and he keeps talking to husband and wife in two different directions. John Gielgud got an Oscar for this film. I don't know that actor. I don't think he did a great job but may be if I watched more of his work I may agree in future. Movie has some flat patches but not very long ones. looking forward to watch the sequel.

Sentiment: positive
I had high hopes for this movie, because I enjoyed the book so much. However, I don't think I would have understood the premise of the movie if I hadn't already read the book. The movie is a noble attempt to show the despair of people trying to break the bonds of overpowering government rule, but the book portrays the suffering much more thoroughly. The corrupt government officials have comfortable, almost luxurious lives, while the common people struggle to obtain the bare necessities for survival. Perhaps most people feel this way toward their leaders and rulers regardless of whether or not they are actually oppressed or repressed. Orwell's dystopia seems as if it could exist in many places in our modern world. It has been several years since I've read the book, but one hears references to Big Brother, the Thought Police, and Newspeak frequently in the media and casual conversation. Probably many people using these terms don't realize where the terms came from. I strongly recommend that you read the book.

Sentiment: negative
The show had great episodes, this is not one of them. It's not a terrible episode, it's just hard to follow up "The man that was death.", "All through the house", and "Dig that cat, he's real gone."

This episode is about a couple that has just been married Peggy (Ammanda Plummer) and Charles (Stephen Shellen). In the first five minutes you find out that Charles only married Peggy for her money. The two go on their honeymoon and their car breaks down on a dirt road and they have to seek refuge in an old abandon mansion. Charles soon finds out a secret of Peggy's family...

In my opinion you should watch this episode, but just don't expect the same feeling as the rest of the episodes in the first season.

Sentiment: negative
this movie was horrible. I could barely stay awake through it. I would never see this movie again if I were payed to. The so-called horror scenes in it were increadably predictable and over played. There was really nothing about this movie that would have made it original or worth the $7.50 I payed to see it. Don't go see it, don't rent it, don't read about it online because any of these things would be a complete waste of your time. Sarah Michelle Geller gave a lackluster performance and really should be ashamed of herself for sullying her good name with this movie. Shame on you Sarah for being associated with this horrible, horrible movie. Horrible movie, no need to ever see it.

Sentiment: negative
Spoilers abound. You have been warned.

I was thoroughly disappointed, this being my first STREET FIGHTER movie I have seen (I dare not go near the 1994 joke yet). Very little grabs your attention in STREET FIGHTER ZERO (ALPHA) as opposed to most japanimation. The fights are hilariously done over board (Shun versus Zangief was a laugher) and the dramatization is far too moody especially toward the end when Ryu has to control everything in his fight against his brother.

The main street fighter, Ryu, has been weakening to a far darker version inside of himself. Frustrations in controlling this darkness are further complicated by the sudden arrival of a younger brother! A shady street fighting tournament is held with more than just fighting on the promoter 's mind.

What is with the artist 's drawing of feet? Any anime drawn above the stomach is impressive. The story 's soft nature makes the STREET FIGHTER genre far too intelligent, and places far more emphasis on a character (Shun), that is not even a fighter in the video game! A character study on more than just the core stars of the original STREET FIGHTER is completely ignored. How many times did you catch Rolento? Adon? Guy? STREET FIGHTER ZERO lacks the imagination of the video game.

Sentiment: negative
I decided to watch this one because it's been nominated for Oscar this year. I guess as many folks here I really wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and disappointed. First scene was OK but the whole rest of the movie in "shaky hands" camera mode is really annoying.

i guess the main reason for making such a movie and nominating it for Oscar is this:

American "military machine" (people, who makes money on war) urgently need an excuse or justification of war in Iraq by bungling up something (sort of) patriotic.

why these "heroic" efforts of director and the main character to _inspire_ the audience with an idea of "loving-war-like-a-drug"?.. Oh, please, come on! what a bore! 

watch this to get an idea of how low the movie academy can fall...

Sentiment: negative
This movie set out to be better than the average action movie and in that regard they succeeded.This movie had spectacular cinematography featuring spectacular mountain snow and heights,a very fit Stallone putting in a good performance as well,an exciting plot,and a great performance from it's main villain becouse he will really shock you with his evil ways.The movie does not rank an all time great becouse of the weak screen play.The plot and story cries for this movie to make Stallone an extra special human,much like the Rambo or Rocky or Bond movie characters.They chose to humanise Stallone's character in this one which is ok but considering the plot's style,weakens the excitement factor.Also,the dialogue was cheesy and carelessly condescending at times.The script should have been more realistic and less "talky".Another weak point was the unrealistic shooting scenes.The movie makers should have been more carefull how they hadled the shooting hits and misses.They should have continued the quality of the scenes of the shooting sequences during the plane hijacking early in the movie.Instead,they decided to water down a lot of the shooting sequences (ala "A-Team" TV series) as soon as the villains set foot on the mountain tops.This movie had a lot of all time great potential.Crisper action sequences,better dialogue and more Rambo/Rocky style emotion/determination from Stallone would have taken this movie to a higher level.I know this was not Stallone's fault.I sense the movie's director wanted to tone down Stallone's character and try to steal the movie by taking credit for his direction which was not all that great if not for his cinematographer.Sill a good movie though........

Sentiment: positive
This could have been a good episode but I simply had to turn it off. The British representation was horrible to watch. Have the makers ever set foot in Britain prior to filming? At least set foot in England?? I don't think any British person have had such an accent apart from a comedy skit of The Royal Family! Also with the 2 English boys... well I don't think any English boy has acted, spoke or dressed like any English kid in the history of the British nation since Prince William and Harry's preteen public appearances. To American film makers.. There is more than 1 country in the UK. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.. meaning more than 1 culture! I can handle some stereotyping but this was so bad I could not watch it. Fire looked cool though!

Sentiment: negative
Interesting topic. Pathetic delivery - script and direction. 

Our hero, Miles, thaws out and has his emergency world-first life restoration surgery. This is where the fun begins. The underlying issue is that Miles has NO SOUL!!! This is used to explain his quasi-erratic behaviour of being indirectly responsible for two deaths (I believe this to be the total number of deaths in 104 minutes). 

On the livlier side, Miles prefers the odd glass of brandy, blazing fireplaces and his young, maturing female cousin. The finale does indeed do justice to this film.

Some thoughts: 1. Producer $$$ were parted with to create this tripe. J.D. Feigelson was the script writer and a (or sole) producer. Looks like he did not learn a lesson on "how not to bring an interesting idea to life" when one views his other writing credits. This will support the credibility of this script.

2. Now available on DVD!!! This IS truly scary. Should be forever "Bottom of the Shelf" in VHS format.

3. A re-incarnated human without a soul will default to an evil entity. 

4. The score offers minimal support. Not even an in-form Jerry Goldsmith could save it.

5. Deserved the 0230 time slot on TV and a touch more entertaining than the infomercials + test patterns it was competing against at the time of my viewing.

6. Thankfully did not spawn any sequels ala Wes Craven's "Nightmare" franchise. Chiller Too: The Return Return of Miles, or something like that.

Despite my rating of 1, I still recommend this movie as a great example of how to kill an acting or script-writing career. This should apply to directing, however Wes Craven will eternally be exempt due to his sole good piece of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" 1984.

Sentiment: negative
Any screen adaptation of a John Grisham story deserves a mainstream Hollywood approach, and Robert Altman is about the last director I would go to for a mainstream take on anything. But this southern-fried pot-boiler is pretty good. While it's not among Altman's best, it certainly isn't among the films he's made that leave you scratching your head and wondering what he was thinking.

Altman had tipped his hat to the mystery thriller with noir overtones before, in his 1973 film "The Long Goodbye." "The Gingerbread Man" is nowhere near as good as that film, but it holds up fairly well on its own. Kenneth Branagh is a cocky attorney who finds himself framed for murder after he gets involved with a client (Embeth Davidtz) who has enlisted his help in protecting her from her cuckoo father (Robert Duvall). The film is set in Savannah, Georgia during the approach of a tropical storm, which lends the film an oppressive atmosphere that I very much liked. The twists and turns toward the film's end become clunkier and clunkier, and Altman proves himself to be not all that adept at staging shootouts, but overall the film is not a bad addition to Altman's canon.

Also starring Robert Downey, Jr., Daryl Hannah, Tom Berenger and Famke Janssen.

Grade: B

Sentiment: positive
The Rookie kept me smiling from beginning to end. Dennis Quaid played the role to perfection. The little boy that plays his son was fantastic. He made this a father-son movie to remember. The messages are good ones. Follow your dreams. Failing at the pursuit is alright as long as you try. The excitement is palpable. I believe this movie will be a classic.

Sentiment: positive
"The Devil in the Dark" is William Shatner's favorite episode. It is also one of my favorite episodes. The program is pure Star Trek because it deals with one of the series' main themes: the respect for other life forms. I do not think one could get a clearer example of one of the show's most interesting ideas. In this episode, Kirk and his crew have to confront a monster that is killing miners on a distant planet. The story is an excuse to explore the right that humans have to destroy creatures that are a vital part of the environment. Today's concerns with environmental causes make the show more relevant now than ever before. It is extremely well written and performed with gusto by our beloved cast. One memorable sequence involves Spock joining with the mind of the monster. Plenty of tension between Spock and Kirk (they want to solve the problem using different methods) adds to the fun. Shatner and Leonard Nimoy do some of their best work here.

Sentiment: positive
Anybody who thinks this film is great, desperately needs their head seen to. It strikes me that this film was made as a joke. It has no good points whatsoever. The props cost about $10 and the entire set looks like it could fall down at any time. Why do films like this get made in the first place? This also had two of the most annoying characters I have ever come across in the young boy on the spaceship and the redneck from the twentieth century. This film is almost as bad as "Cool as Ice" starring the incredibly talented Vanilla "misunderstood" Ice.

Sentiment: negative
An example of all of the worst gay stereotypes all in one movie.

And Charles, why do you speak in that weird pseudo British/high-brow accent, and insist that the kid speak that way too? Did anyone else notice that all of the soundtrack music is exactly the same? You should stick with the good old Hollywood camp drag stuff that you are so good at! Die Mommy Die II, the Sequel!! I don't see the value of spending time and money on a project like this; there are so many REAL life gay youth stories to be told and we should be seeing those, not this garbage. Sheesh, what a waste of time. Embarrassing example of gay cinema.

Sentiment: negative
This is a 'sleeper'. It defines Nicholas Cage. The plot is intricate and totally absorbing. The ending will blow you away.

See it whenever you have the opportunity.

Sentiment: positive
Rented(free rental thank goodness) this as supposedly filmed in CT where I live....could have been filmed in a tunnel for all that matter! Dark ninety percent of time, and just an awful attempt at a low budget flick, which can be good if done right. In a nutshell about a bunch of young adults who witness meteor fall, and subsequently fall prey to aliens on a lighthouse island, assisted by keeper and wife. Analysis:

- acting = dreadful

- writing = uninspired

- story = done a million times before with different settings

- production values = okay (lighting) for budget

- effects (creature, digital, other) HORRIBLE,VERY CHEAP LOOKING

So, you get the gist of it. To add insult to injury, end credits has bloopers of filming - really now......who cares! Distributed under a Universal company, shocked they would even do so after viewing.

Finally as alternative, try "CREEP". Low budget, but well written, well acted, and fairly, well, creepy!

Sentiment: negative
If anyone at National Lampoon is reading this PLEASE STOP THE CRAP YOUR PULLING OUT OF YOUR BUM, really now! Why the hell are you doing movies like these? They're not funny and watching it for the sexual content is a complete waste of time, really. It is such a horrible movie you may want to shoot yourself while your watching it. I am serious here, guys, it makes Harol and Kumar go to blah blah blah look like an actual good movie (and we all know that H&K is one of the worst movies ever made) It really sucks, it REALLY does. How bad it is? Well, even losers that actually like National Lampoon shall hate this movie...they'll want to murder the director, I swear to God. I hate you, National Lampoon, die already. Die.

Sentiment: negative
I first saw this film when I was in the 8th grade and I remember that it had a profound affect on me then. I saw in again about a year ago (I am now 29) and it still moved me in similar ways. This is a great movie that personifies the struggle of "principle vs. pragmistism". Voight's character is the idealist teacher that won't give in to any psuedo-racist leanings of the Superintendent, Mr. Skeffington. That story also personifies the struggle of how older people often resist change, and more specifically, cultural change. Often at the expense of children. When these battles finally come to a boil, Pat Conroy loses and pragmatism reigns triumphant. Or does it? The children that he has to leave are better off for knowing him, more exposed to the "real" world and to classical music. The other teacher at the school gained respect for him and he learned much about himself. A great film with a heart-breaking ending. I recomend that anyone who enjoyed the film to read the book, "The Water is Wide", by Pat Conroy. It will stay with you!

Sentiment: positive
I like the good and evil battle. I liked Eddie in this movie better than any movie he has ever done. He wasn't The smart, cocky, know it all he usually plays. He shows heart and a more humble humor. The fact that it shows there are stranger things in Heaven and on earth than we can think of gives me hope.

Sentiment: positive
It's just one of those films, you're either love it or hate it, my girlfriend and me loved it, told my brother to rent it and he hated it, said it was too flashy and colloquial, then again he only usually goes to see big action movies, so probably not enough explosions left him disappointed. There were some great new talent (I'd never heard of the leads before anyway)? Des Brady (the directors brother?) was especially good. Playing a right dick at the start I thought he never would redeem himself but he managed to crawl out of the dark hole he had created and by the end I was really routing for him. A very surprising film with a whole lot of heart, if you can live without a body count and explosions then this one is very original. Yashimo. Brixton in the UK.

Sentiment: positive
Wow. I have seen some really bad movies in my time, but this one truly takes the cake. It's the worst movie I've seen in the past decade - no exaggeration.

As a US Army veteran of the war in Afghanistan, I found it nearly impossible to even finish watching this ridiculous film, not because it brought back memories - far from it - but because there was absolutely no attempt at "authenticity" to be found anywhere in the film. Not so much as the tiniest little shred. It seemed like it had been written by an 8 year-old child who got all his notions of war (and soldierly behavior) straight out of comic books. The film was made in Honduras, which should have been a clue, but even that can't fully explain the atrocious production values of this cliché-ridden piece of trash.

I could try to list all the endless technical flaws, but it would take virtually forever. From the ancient unit shoulder patches which have not been seen or worn since WWII, and the character's name tags, like "ColCollins" (worn by the character "Colonel Collins"), which was actually spelled using the reversed, mirror-image "N" of the Russian alphabet (not the US alphabet) the list just goes on and on. The uniforms, the equipment, the plot, and most especially the behavior of the characters themselves -- every single scene was just chock-full of ridiculous flaws, inaccuracies and utterly mindless clichés.

Neither the storyline itself nor the characters were the least bit credible or believable. It was all laughably childish, in the extreme. This was obviously a movie that was meant to appeal strictly to pre-pubescent boys, and I have little doubt that even they would find this film utterly absurd.

In short, this film has absolutely NO redeeming qualities at all. It's a total waste of time. I'd strongly advise anybody reading this to pass this garbage by; it's truly not worth wasting a single moment of your time for.

Sentiment: negative
The folks at Aardman have done a cool, cute and wild adaptation of their short films of Wallace and Gromit to feature length, as the man and his dog, inventors who seem to have more of the intelligence (or practicality) for the latter. In this case they've invented a machine that can capture all of the bunnies that are eating up the crops all over a quiet English village. In particular for Mrs. Tottington (or 'Totty' for those who are 'intimate'), much to the chagrin of Victor Quartermaine, who just wants to kill all the rabbits with his trust rifle. Wallace and Gromit seem to have success with their machine, but Wallace has a mix-up: a machine he's made to make more food suddenly criss-crosses himself with a rabbit - the curse is on! 

A lot of this is about as much light-hearted fun that a kid's movie could ask for, but it also tips its hat to the oldest tradition in classic cartoon slapstick: Looney Tunes, which in turn is indebted to much silent comedy and vaudeville. Granted, the Aardman guys (Nick Park and Steve Box) have a bunch more gimmicks and tricks and ingenuity with their material. It's never less than amazing to see how they put the stop motion to use, even when a joke or a gag might be a little on the funny "ho-ho" not funny "ha-ha" side (a tired criticism but I'll say it). Curse of the Were-Rabbit works so well on all fronts for the audience, in its warped story and sudden dips into exposition (the Golden Bullet story is a doozy), Park and Box and company never lose sight of glee in the material.

It's fuzzy and warm-hearted and completely off-the-wall for the kids (even the very youngest will love the adventures and strange gadgets, such as the truck Wallace and Gromit drive around in), and for adults there's little barbs of funky, absurdist tones in the midst of a classic English farce. Only (and I'm probably a minority opinion here) when compared to Chicken Run it's almost a little slight a work- there's less any plot than there is a series of running gags, and of course lots of puns involving bunnies and monsters and carnivals and cheese (and horrible men with egos in their guns like the Fiennes voiced Quartermaine). But when it strikes best, it's one of the most entertaining films of 2005. It gives me a big goofy smile anytime it's on TV.

Sentiment: positive