DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Lets make a movie about a talk show that already exists and basically have everything that happens on the show! Well if that idea doesn't intrigue you, which it shouldn't, stay away from ringmaster. I had the displeasure of seeing this in the theater and actually being able to sit through this mess of a movie. I guess jerry springer doesn't play himself as it shows from the cheap props for his show (yes it looks even cheaper than the real jerry springer show) and he is only known as jerry in the film. The plot (if you can call it that) is about a daughter while living with her mother decides to start sleeping with the mother's live in boyfriend. So the mother's brilliant idea is to call the jerry springer show as well as getting it on with her daughter's boyfriend. (Is it any coincidence they live in a trailer park). Meanwhile somewhere else in america a woman finds her cheatin' man with her friend in bed together. So of course call america's therapist Jerry springer! I'd talk about the rest of the film but even thinking about the film now is giving me a headache. Jamie Pressly who plays the daughter looks totally unattractive in the movie. And remember Michael Dudikoff the kick ass karate master from the american ninja series? Well take a look at him now as a white trash drunk. The thing is he really looks too horrible and out of shape to call it "getting in touch with his charecter". But if your idea of fun is seeing Jerry Springer sing a country song about his own show or guys hooking up with transvestites...well...JUST WATCH THE SHOW INSTEAD! ... at least steve was smart enough to stay out of this flick.

Sentiment: negative
It gives the ordinary guy/girl the chance to be on television singing as their favourite stars.

For the majority of the time, they sound like the singer they are meant to be portraying.

Another twist to it - A team of make up people and costumers dress the contestant up like that singer. They might not look like them but the likelihood of getting someone that sounds like a person looking exactly the same as them are very slim.

It's a load of fun for your Saturday night - and the contestants aren't raging wannabes like they are on another TV singing show. The fact that there are no prizes involved and it is for fun means that it will attract a different type of person.

The only gripe i have is with the Kids version - it looks like they have done the round of stage schools- what happened to the normal kids?

Sentiment: positive
Saturday Night Live, National Lampoon, and SCTV alumnus are all together in a sometimes funny sketch film.

However, it is very interesting to watch now, at the start of 2005. Twenty years after this movie is supposed to take place, look at how many of their gags have become absolutely true: There is a mock movie trailer, that probably wasn't even clever at the time, for something called "The Pregnant Man" which came true with Arnold Schwarzenegger's dumb movie "Junior" There is a commercial spoof, that probably wasn't even clever at the time, for something featuring Sammy Davis Jr. and Jackie Onasis called "Celebrity Wrestling" which has now come true with a popular show called "Celebrity Boxing" There is a mock movie trailer, that probably wasn't even clever at the time, that features John Candy in a movie about a severed head. Watch this trailer and look how similar it's shots and plot are to Frank Hellenlotter's Basket Case!! And finally there is an ad for a late late show documentary about "a dead dream, the only two left ..." The name of the documentary is ... THE LAST HIPPIES! LOL.

Four prophecies come true!

Sentiment: negative
This show has an amazing plot with good and recognizable actors (like the girl from Boston Legal and Boris the Butcher from Snatch). Even the extras and the kid, whom i thought from the commercial might be a weak link, surprised me with his skill. It's just the little things that the director needs to tweak. Like the guy who does the recap of the last episode at the beginning of each new episode needs to be fired. Having a narrator tell you what happened kind of ruins the story. The only other small problem I had was that sometimes they take too long to do things, but no where near as long as some shows like Prison Break. Anyone know when they will resume the season??

Sentiment: positive
This is a very funny Ealing comedy about a community in central London who, through an unusual set of circumstances, discover they are not English, but are an annex of the French province of Burgundy.

The film features comic actor Stanley Holloway (best known as Alfred Doolittle in MY FAIR LADY), as well as a host of other classic comic actors of the period.

The story was apparently based on a news item at the time, when the Canadian Government "officially" gave a hotel room to a visiting European member of royalty. The idea actually reminded me of the real-life case of the Hutt River Province in Western Australia, where a landowner "seceded" from the Australian Government due to a wool quota dispute. (It was never acknowledged by the Western Australian or Australian Governments).

This is a great script that plays with a lot of political and economic issues, rather like the TV show "Yes Minister"; as well as being a great little eccentric character piece as well.

Sentiment: positive
Comparing Oceans Twelve to the 2001 Oceans Eleven, did anyone else notice all the things that stayed the same?

- All the stars returned for Twelve, and Zeta-Jones was added;

- Twelve had the same director;

- Twelve had the same producers;

- Twelve had the same production designer;

- Twelve had the same music director;

- Twelve had the same film editor.

Did anyone notice the things than changed once the "Oceans" franchise was established?

- Twelve's budget was $25 million (30%) greater;

- Eleven got great reviews, but Twelve largely got panned;

- Eleven made $450 million but Twelve dropped to $362 million;

- Domestic box office for Twelve dropped 32%;

- Soderbergh teamed with a different screenwriter.

Movies are a director's medium, of course. I almost forgot.

Sentiment: negative
This film takes what could have been a good idea, a mummified 2000 year old witch and completely destroys it. Nora and Jim are alcoholics who go to Ireland to dry-out. They go to stay with her Nan and Uncle. The uncle has discovered a 2000 year old witch preserved in the peat. He revives her and she takes the form of Nora. She cannot be killed conventionally,(more is the pity). Nora, however, works out a way to do so.

This is a Gothic horror movie that has been done on the cheap. It is a sprawling mess. I have to ask why anyone would want to make such a bad film. I am tempted to learn witchcraft in order to make it disappear.

AVOID AT ALL COSTS

Sentiment: negative
If this is based on the true-life relationship, as purported, between Ms. Curtin and Mr. Levinson, I'm thrilled I do not know them personally. This is painfully slow, and both characters take stupid pills liberally throughout the movie while the theme song gets played into the ground. Many stupid scenes with people acting stupid does not make for a comedy.

Sentiment: negative
It's nice to see Julie Andrews trying a straight dramatic role here--something she hadn't done in awhile--but her character of Judith(wise they didn't try to pass her off as a 'Judy')has the old refined manners and tomboyish hairstyle of yore, and Andrews enacts 'grown-up' as any other actress would interpret frigid. It's a surprisingly bland drama set in Barbados involving Omar Sharif(not the liveliest leading man around--not even in 1974!)hoping to make Andrews a spy while also slowly leading her into the proverbial bedroom. Unmemorable outing does have some camp value: the James Bond-like credits at the beginning are a cheesy hoot. As for Julie: she's quiet and contemplative, but that doesn't do much for the audience, or for the film. Blake Edwards paces the freakin' thing like a funeral. * from ****

Sentiment: negative
After watching this film, I was left with a two very annoyances about this film: why did they make Chen's character this "McGuyver hit-man" and Lee's character such an incompetent idiot? Chen's character's background is that he was raised in an underground Cambodian orphanage for blood thirsty fighter where they learn to brawl it out to the death like wild "dogs." This detail is pushed early on during a scene where he gets into a cab and as it starts to drive, he shows how he is unfamiliar with a seat belt. Soon after this scene, he has a similar situation at a dim sum restaurant. Not only is he uneducated, he is starving. This is not a reference to Chen's scrawny physique but to the two early scenes in the film where he is scarfing down food, one of which, being rice porridge off the floor of the lower deck on an old ship. Si in the first ten minutes of the film, it is established that Chen is malnutrition-ed, unmodernized,and has only thing going for him, his "dog" brawling fighting style of some sort. Despite this situation, Chen manages to out-shoot every policeman (even managing to ricochet a bullet off a metal pipe to hit a guy in a head, whom was holding Chen's girlfriend hostage) and has somehow attained a super human strength (swings a 50 lb block of concrete, plastered on the end of a metal pipe, to the head of the police chief AS he is getting shot in the chest, by said chief).

Now Lee's character...okay, I get it, he's depressed, he's got some baggage, but wow, can he do anything right? One moment, they try to make him cool, composed and ready to take care of business, and the next moment, he just got beat again. First scene he runs into Chen, and he manages to misses him, from approx 15 ft, multiple times. Toward the end of that scene, Lee watches Chen as his close friend and coworker gets slowly stabbed in the neck with a long knife for a good full 5 seconds, while holding a gun to Chen face, at a 10 ft distance. Even at the end of the movie, Lee manages to get stabbed to death and fails once again.

And my biggest problem with this movie is that it is presented in a manner that film makers are trying to get the audience to sympathize with Chen's character and that he is just "killing to survive." That would be a lot easier if I didn't just watch Chen kill innocent people throughout the whole awful movie. Of the numerous people he killed, only two people had the intention of trying to kill him, the police chief and Lee. Others were just people who were eating, boat owners, taxi drivers, and policemen trying to arrest him, not kill. Overall, Chen's character is a just a cold blooded killer who kills for what he wants, even if its just a free ride. (Did I mention he is carrying a wad of hundred dollar bills throughout most of the film?) My 3 stars go to some of the interesting director/camera work who got in some nice shots.

Bottomline: One made for the nut-hugging Chen fans. For me, "Dog Bite This DVD"

Sentiment: negative
The operative rule in the making of this film seems to have been "never make a 1 minute scene when you can make it a 10 minute scene." This was a principle set right from the start with an interminably long portrayal of the graduation of the Harvard class of 1870. The point of that scene, I suppose, was to introduce some of the primary figures in the story and give a bit of their background - which is somewhat effective when comparing the idealism of the Harvard graduation ceremony to the realism of life in Johnson County, Wyoming, but it just keeps going and going, and that sets the stage for a film that features repeated stretches of mind-numbing nothingness, made even worse by the fact that I found a significant amount of the dialogue to be almost incoherent. In the end, I couldn't even watch this in one sitting. I got through about half of it and had to set it aside for a couple of days before I could drag myself back to see how it turned out.

My reaction to this movie in many ways is a shame, because there are positives here. The performances are generally of a high calibre, especially from Kris Kristofersson as Averill, Christopher Walken as Champion and Isabelle Huppert as Ella. The basic story - interspersed as it is around that ever-present mind-numbing nothingness - is potentially interesting, focusing on the efforts of immigrants to establish themselves in Johnson County and a local cattle company's efforts to stop them by killing a number of them in collaboration with the government and the military. There's also some absolutely breathtaking scenery shots. Having said that, the whole thing could frankly have been done in half the time - and should have been. In the end, all those potential positives are washed out by - again - the mind-numbing nothingness that the movie seems to revolve around. Seriously - 2/10.

Sentiment: negative
Dreary. Schlocky. Just plain dreadful and awful. Let's be honest, when you sit down to watch something called The Double-D Avenger you aren't expecting great art or even mild mainstream entertainment. You are probably expecting a cult film type and maybe get some good looks at some impressive busts. You don't get really either of these in the video. The story, as it consistent with most of these types, is inane: Kitten Natividad runs a local pub, finds out she has breast cancer, flies down to South America for a fruit that claims to be a panacea for any ills and a super-human abilities giver, returns and fights, dressed as the Double-D Avenger, a group from a local strip club wanting to edge out the competition. As stories go, I have seen a lot worse, but as another reviewer noted the execution is horrendous. The action sequences lack zip, drive, motivation, and are tissue thin. The acting isn't even properly campy and the dialog is the pits. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING is funny from the wincing puns to the heavy-handed boob references. All could be forgiven if the girls could make up for it, but they all fall way short. Kitten, Haji, and Raven de la Croix are all quite older(still lovely in their own ways) yet expose nothing and become the antithesis of what they are trying to be: older, campy caricatures of their former selves. Instead, they look so lame and desperate - more because of the vehicle they are "starring" in rather than their own abilities. There are some other lovely ladies, but you really do not see much of anything. PG -13 definitely could be an appropriate rating for this. The material, the actresses, and director are all tired, tiresome, and dated - and again - NOT FUNNY! It was a brutal hour plus sitting through this, and that is a shame as I was expecting something campy and fun. The guy playing Bubba by the way was the only real laugh for me. Not that he was good at all mind you, but every time he opened his mouth I kept thinking how truly awful he was. The lone bright spot here at all is seeing Mr. Sci-fi himself, Forrest J. Ackerman, play the curator of a wax museum and chatting to his wax Frankenstein affectionately called Frankie. Other than that this is a complete bust - now how is that for another tired, dreadful, trite pun!

Sentiment: negative
There I am sitting at home in the morning, suddenly my brother flips on what appears to be the stupidest looking movie i have ever seen. Considering it was the 70's and special effects weren't to sharpe, this movie just about equaled the definition of crap. The stupid monsters, the stupid story line, and the stupid setting made this the worst movie I have ever seen. So bad in fact I didnt even finish it, I made it up to a certain point then proceeded to see how long I could go without putting a rope around my neck and hanging myself. (im just kidding haha) AWFUL MOVIE

Sentiment: negative
In the sequel to the brilliant Bill and Ted's excellent adventure, Bill and Ted are under threat from the future, as the evil Chuck De Nomolos sends two evil robots, disguised as Bill and Ted to earth to kill human Bill and Ted, in order to change the future.

In a great comedy pairing, Winter and Reeves excel to deliver delicious humour to the audience in this entertaining sequel. Though lacking the sharpness of the first, Bogus Journey still has the great catchphrases and dialogue from the leading pair, not to mention an hilarious performance by William Sadler, who brings a humorous side to the figure of depth, the grim reaper. Watch for the games sequences, the best moment in the entire film, but one of many great techniques used to justify the genre.

Though still packed with humour, this film has a more dramatic film towards it, with stakes being more serious and situations more risky. 

This gives the film great dimension and another lovable feature. The creators also stretch the boundaries of the fantasy genre and the use of realism, with hell and heaven being heavily symbolic and present in the plot. The fantasy genre is again spot on with the use of that amazing time travelling machine, though again somewhat confusing at points with the use of timing, and objects and situations being placed before it happens in the present, as is evident in the final couple of scenes.

The first watch I hated this sequel, but the second time was a real joy as I appreciated the jokes and story more, and though the jokes and plot aren't as strong as its predecessor, Bogus Journey has enough feel good motives, jokes and a fairly steady plot to make it a good natured family film.

Sentiment: positive
This film resembles in many ways `Enemy of the State' with Will Smith and Gene Hackman, as we have an innocent (black) man being pursued by the `government' with all the modern technology known to man. Usually when storyline is copied like this the result is a disaster. That does not apply here. Of course I love everything David Morse does, so maybe my comments are not fair, but there were more good things about this film then that. The main baddy, played by Doug Hutchison, was brilliant, and the story flowed with excellent extras such as David Paymer and Robert Pastorelli. Our hero, Alvin Sanders (played by Jamie Foxx), was however irritating most of the part. He is so out of place, cracking bad jokes, evoking no sympathy from the audience. Or not to begin with, the strange thing is that he kinda grows on you (and on his followers as well!). I didn't expect much when I rented it, but was surprised with a good solid action movie with comedy bits. 7/10

Sentiment: positive
This movie got extremely silly when things started to happen. I couldn't care less about any of the characters; Susan Walters was so annoying, and the leading actor (forget his name) also got on my nerves. Can't quite remember how it ended and so forth but the whole idea of aliens possessing human bodies and all just seemed stupid in this film, things didn't quite carry off. My dad told me it's s stupid movie...I should've listened to him.

Sentiment: negative
I gave this movie a chance only because it had very good reviews. After seeing the trailer I thought - what an unfunny movie full of clichés. But I decided to give it a shot because trailers often don't portray the movie very well. What a waste of time... The movie is worst than the trailer and after spending 2 hours watching it, I couldn't recall one single line that made me laugh. The funniest parts of the movie were the CSI parodies, but that also is pretty passé. I couldn't relate to any of the characters nor hope that they will be together, because I found them utterly stupid. The plot is extremely predictable and inconclusive. Unintelligent comedy for people who are either still in high school or feel that way mentally.

Sentiment: negative
This is one entertaining flick. I suggest you rent it, buy a couple quarts of rum, and invite the whole crew over for this one. My favorite parts were.1. the gunfights that were so well choreographed that John Woo himself was jealous, .2. The wonderful special effects .3. the Academy Award winning acting and .4. The fact that every single gangsta in the film seemed to be doing a bad "Scarface" impersonation. I mean, Master P as a cuban godfather! This is groundbreaking territory. And with well written dialogue including lines like "the only difference between you and me Rico, is I'm alive and your dead," this movie is truly a masterpiece. Yeah right.

Sentiment: negative
WEBS is a pretty odd movie, albeit slightly watchable. Richard Grieco plays an electrician who gets suck into a parallel Earth overrun by mutant spiders, or something like that. The film itself was made with a modest budget, which explains the limited locales, and the somewhat tedious screenplay that manages to do very little with quite an interesting premise. Basically a 90 minute episode of the TV show "Sliders", and nothing more.

4 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review and reviews of other films in the genre)

Sentiment: negative
In 60s Hong Kong, a man and woman move in the same day into adjacent apartments with their respective spouses. Soon they suspect their ever absent spouses of having an affair with one-another. A strange bond emerges between the man and woman as they cope with their sadness by taking turns playing each other's spouse, before a more complex bond emerges...

No summary can do it justice, for Hong Kong auteur Wong Kar-Wai's "In the Mood for Love" is nothing short of a miracle. A story about sadness that manages to be touching and at times funny. A romance that never feels forced or fake. No doubt the director's method has a lot to do with that.

Directed from an inexistent screenplay (though the concept largely flows from a Japanese short story) to favor improvisation, the film is immediately set apart by the freshness of it's performances. All the film revolves around that and the rest is pure enhancement. At the core of the film are two characters that will ease into your heart and stay there long after the end credits roll: Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung are simply amazing and no language barrier undermines a single fragment of immediacy and truth they display. The additional material is also top-notch: the films is magnificent to behold (in part lensed by "Hero"'s Christopher Doyle) and the music is heartbreaking.

This is something everybody must see, if only because it is by far the most heartfelt, mature and authentic "love story" out there. Unmissable.

Sentiment: positive
This film is without a doubt the worst action film I have ever seen. I am sorry, but it is just pathetic. In fact, the best part of the movie (this movie is supposed to be a serious one) is when a chicken speeds across the road, on foot, at about 100 miles per hour. This pathetic editing mistake makes the film absolutely hilarious for approximately 2 seconds, then it is back to "non stop, on the edge of your seat, as you try to find a comfortable position to sleep in, action!"

Sentiment: negative
After what I thought was a masterful performance of two roles in Man From Snowy River, WHY was Kirk Douglas replaced by Brian Dennehy in the sequel? It just wasn't the same without Spur and Harrison, as portrayed by Douglas. Maybe he recognized how poor the plot was--Jim returns after extended absence, to find Jessica being pursued by another man. He could not expect any girl to wait that long with no contact from him, and not find competition. For a Disney movie, this contains foul language, plus the highly unnecessary part when Jim & Jessica shacked up without being married--very LAME. Quite an insult to viewer intelligence, according to members of my family. I'll stick with the first one, and try to forget I ever saw the sequel!

Sentiment: negative
As much as I love the story of David Copperfield, I cannot claim to have enjoyed this movie. It was probably the second worst movie I have ever seen. One problem I see is that the magnitude of the novel asks for a miniseries of several hours, rather than a regular movie. It is just impossible to capture a significant amount of the events that take place in the story in two hours. I dis not enjoy the brooding flashback format. It was disjointed and would be impossible for someone who did not already know the story to fully grasp. Also, I don't think the filmmakers interpreted Copperfield's personality correctly. The idea of him strolling around on a beach moaning about his life seems inconsistent with the proactive, forward-thinking nature Dickens gave him in the novel. Agnes also bothered me. She came across as a ditsy household decoration, rather than a strong woman. Dora was perfect, however. This movie was fraught with problems, and I wait eagerly for someone to make a decent screen version.

Sentiment: negative
No serious spoilers, but some very minor ones.

"Acacia", a Korean contribution to the ever popular Asian horror wave, concerns a husband and wife who decide that they're getting on a bit and decide to adopt a child. The child, who has an usual obsession with the dead tree in the family's garden, eventually disappears when the couple eventually have a child of their own and the aforementioned tree seems to hold a grudge against the family itself.

And that's about it. The film moves at a snails pace, clocking in at over 100 minutes with 80 minute material. It is essentially a thin family drama with a creepy tree, and there is very little in the way of scares, just shots of the tree with weird mumbling noises playing over the top. However, the idea of the tree being the child's mother is a pretty original one, but it isn't exactly exploited to its full potential. This sort of separates "Acacia" from much of the new wave it belongs to: films like Ju-On and Ring tend to do the opposite, and milk bland ideas until they are red in the face.

The film does begin to get going towards the end; however the realisation of the child's fate and the parent's actions not only dampen the earlier curiosity of the story, but are revealed with such machine gun editing that it's difficult to take in all at once. The final sequence is undoubtedly creepy, however it feels like too little too late.

Overall, the film does not feel too much like a Ring cash in, however with the "film renaissance" that Korea is currently going through, I couldn't help but feel this film could have been so much more.

Sentiment: negative
This is one awful movie!! Some people told me that it was not that bad actually but I sure disagree! The monster is amazingly cheap (and funny) looking but this is something we all knew I guess. In addition to that, the dialogs are awful and the writing is just plain terrible.

As bad as it is, this movie as the quality of being entertaining. Not always for the good reasons but it's a good "so bad that it's fun" flick.

By the way, there's no such thing as "La Castagne". According to a secondary character in the film named Pierre (described in the movie as a French Canadian), there's a legend among French Canadians about a giant bird know as "La Castagne". As a French Canadian myself, I can assure you that I never heard of such a legend. It sure made me laugh though... :))

Sentiment: negative
What a time we live in when someone like this Joe Swan-whatever the hell is considered a good filmmaker...or even a filmmaker at all! Where are the new crop of filmmakers with brains AND talent??? We need them bad, and to hell with mumblecore!

This movie is about nothing, just as the characters in the film stand for nothing. It's this horrible, so-called Gen Y, that is full of bored idiots, some of which declare themselves filmmakers with out bothering to learn anything about the craft before shooting. Well, Orson Welles was a filmmaker. John Huston was a filmmaker. Fellini was a filmmaker. Dreyer was a filmmaker, etc. Current films like these show just how stupid young, so-called "filmmakers" can be when they believe going out with no script, no direction, no thought, no legit "camerawork" (everything shot horribly on DV), no craft of editing, no nothing, stands for "rebellious" or "advanced" film-making. Nope, it's called ignorance and laziness or just pure masturbation of cinema (and there actually is an in-your-face "jack-off shot," so be ready). 

Look at the early films of any accomplished "indie" filmmaker: Linklatter, Morris, Allen, Lynch, Hartley, Jarmusch, Jost, Lee, or Herzog...none made anything as tedious and aimless as this, yet Swan-whatever the hell, is still going to SXSW every year and hailed as some kind of gutsy, new talent. It's crap! I can't imagine anyone liking this, and everything else this so-called filmmaker has done (all seen by me) is just as bad (the newer stuff clearly made to appeal to a more mainstream audience, one of the sitcom calling). Steer clear, unless you're a friend or family member of those involved...on second thought, if you're a family member or friend you'd probably be embarrassed to see a family member or friend in such compromising situations...

Utter garbage. This isn't art. This is the ultimate opposite of it.

Sentiment: negative
This complicated story begins fairly simply, with an English journalist accepting a wager from Edgar Allen Poe and his friend Lord Blackwood that he cannot spend a night in the haunted Blackwood castle. Once there, the writer wanders around the dusty rooms and corridors, until music and a glimpse of a waltzing couple lead him into an empty room. He sits at the harpsichord and starts to play the tune he has heard, and is surprised to be tapped on the shoulder by the stunningly beautiful Elizabeth Blackwood. She informs him with an ambiguous charming/eerie manner that she has prepared his room upstairs and that someone is always expected on this night...the Night of the Dead. Thus begins a startling series of supernatural events that bewilder the journalist all the rest of the night. SPOILER AHEAD: it probably won't surprise too many viewers to learn that the lovely Elizabeth is actually a ghost. This doesn't prevent her from falling in love with the journalist, but it does make things more complicated for them than for the average couple. This is a fun movie, with absolutely everything: ghosts, the spooky castle, repeated visions of past events, sex and violence ( though both have been toned down in the version most Americans have seen over the years.) The alluring, captivating Barbara Steele is the main reason to see it. She has a strange charisma unlike anyone else you've ever seen in the movies. Recommended!

Sentiment: positive
It has been since 1972 that I saw this movie and I still remember it as one of my favorite all time movies. I would buy a copy if it were on DVD and it is too bad it isn't. You would think that anything starring Peter Sellers would be brought back. Much better than "Being There" and as good as the Pink Panther series. Uschi Digard had a small part for such a well endowed performer. She is bonus in this movie. I think the medical field may not appreciate this film as it really makes fun of the profession and it also makes one appreciate that Sellers was never available to treat them as his bed side manner sucked as well did his analysis of urine samples.

Sentiment: positive
There is an old saying that relates to the rousing new film by Joe Johnston that goes something like this: "The man who thinks he can and the man who thinks he can't are both right." That is a highly presumptuous statement referring to self motivating and belief in an individual, which, in this movie, stand true even after road blocks and family trouble stand in the way.

"October Sky" is about a young man who believes in himself named Homer Hickam, growing up in a strict, traditional family in the 1950's. Homer loves in a small coal mining town where nearly every man grows up to be a miner. All of his friends, Quentin, Roy, and O'Dell all think that their life after high school will be like everyone else's. Homer is not exited about that future.

One night, while everyone stares at the sky, a Russian space craft called Sputnik passes overhead. This is something new for Homer, and he finds it spectacular and overwhelming. From this point on, his look at life will never be the same.

First, he tells everyone that he wants to work in the rocket scientist area for an occupation. Flabbergasted at what he says, his family passes that idea over their heads and continues with life as usual His friends, however, think that this idea may have some potential. After all, Quentin is a very smart individual when it comes to this kind of thing.

When the four friends start to test model rockets, and blow a white picket fence to smithereens, then what seems to be a forest fire is scared by them, they're forced to end their progresses.

The performances in this movie are absolutely riveting from start to finish. All of the actors give performances as if this is the real mumbo jumbo here. Standing out in all of the glory: Laura Dern as Miss Riley. This very well may be Academy award material if the judges can remember back to the beginning of the year when this film is released.

The characters are also extremely well developed. Not only to the filmmakers give clear, apparent reason why Homer is interested in the subject, but they also explain to the audience how they are succeeding in their studding of rocketry. We clearly understand all of the characters' motives and beliefs, especially the father, who is bent over on everlasting tradition.

The film, unfortunately, loses some of its momentum at mid-point because of a silly, recycled romantic sub-plot involving Homer's love interest and how his brother stole her from him. This type of this is becoming so awfully common in high-school movies, not that this film is aimed at high-schoolers. The actors stare at each other mindlessly, like the are in a trance. I put up with it without complaining in 1997's "Inventing the Abbots," but I have had just about enough this.

But that is just a minor complaint. With an authentic looking time period, cinematography worth an Oscar and clips of the real life Homer and friends at the end, whom all hit it big with their dreams, especially Homer, this is the first great film of 1999.



Sentiment: positive
If you like stupid jokes and a terribly predictable storyline, then perhaps this movie is for you. Courtney Thorne-Smith, Jack Warden, and several other members of the supporting cast actually have talent, but it was completely stifled by the paper-thin script. This is a generally boring and joyless time waster of a movie.

Sentiment: negative
Worst movie of all time? Wow, whoa now. You cannot be serious.

Maybe it's all about what you expect a movie to do to you. I live in Oregon, so I got to enjoy the beautifully-filmed shots of familiar yet still amazingly beautiful Smith Rocks and other areas in Central Oregon (as well as the sweet cameo of our own Ken Kesey and Ken Babbs looking down on baby Sissy's cradle at the beginning of the movie). Those alone were enough to spur me to give the movie a better than "average" score.

Or .... Maybe it's all about what expectations you have. Having read the book AGES ago, and thinking to myself "goodness, no one could ever make a movie out of this interesting, quirky, weird book ... especially 20 years later, when mores (MORAYS -- can't put in the accent mark online) have changed" -- I was actually quite pleasantly surprised when I first watched the movie when it came out in 1994 and even liked it more today watching it again.

Sissy was exquisitely cast, and I don't care what you all say, I was also pleasantly surprised at Rain Phoenix's and John Hurt's performances. I am not a lesbian nor bi nor trans, but have met many folks who are similar to the folks they were supposed to portray -- and those "real" folks kinda acted the same way as these actors acted. Stilted a bit, stage-ey -- always a bit "on." Gus Van Sant is one weird native Oregonian but by garsh he done a good job adapting this crazy book, IMHO.

Sentiment: positive
There are similarities between Ray Lawrence's "Jindabyne" and his last movie "Lantana"  a dead body and its repercussions for already dysfunctional lives. But whereas "Lantana" offered some hope and resolution, "Jindabyne" leaves everything unresolved in a bleak way that will leave most viewers unsatisfied, perhaps even cheated.

The storyline - the aftermath of a fisherman's discovery of a corpse floating in a remote river - is based on a short story by Raymond Carver. It became an element in Robert Altman's classic 1993 ensemble "Short Cuts". Lawrence uses this theme for an exploration and exposition of relationships within a small Australian community under stress. The movie poses some moral questions "Would you let the discovery of a dead body ruin your good weekend?" and more poignantly for Australians "Would it make any difference if the dead person was an aboriginal?" The acting, especially by Gabriel Byrne and Laura Linney, is commendable. And there are elements of mysticism reinforced by haunting music, not unlike "Picnic at Hanging Rock".

If all this sounds like the basis for a great movie - be prepared for a let down, the pace is very slow and the murder is shown near the beginning, thereby eliminating the element of mystery. And so we are left with these desolate lives and a blank finale.

Sentiment: negative
For a movie with a plot like this I would normally smell "tearjerker" in the first ten minutes and turn it off, but this was very well made, with emotional subtleties, great acting, and some genuinely funny moments. It was also interesting to see a different culture - a vanishing one at that. My wife and I both dug it!

Sentiment: positive
While not as bad as it has been made to be (I have seen MUCH worse), this is still a very lame movie. Basically a rehash of Siegel's "Coogan's Bluff", with the main difference being that Clint Eastwood's hat has more charisma than the whole of Joe Don Baker, an unappealing actor if there was one.

However, Venantino Venantini is great (and great fun) as the bad guy, sort of a budget Vittorio Gassman. He is the main reason to sit through this steampile, as the rest of the cast deliver mostly terrible acting, specially the girl. Poor old Rossano Brazzi, hard to believe he was once a romantic lead (watch "Mondo Cane" to see him running away from women). Looking here like a second-tier Ben Gazzara, he's given next to nothing to do. It's all Joe Don's show, unfortunately. And all of it scored to generic 80's "action movie" music that couldn't be more boring.

Greydon Clark can make good B-Movies ("Without Warning"), but here he trips, falls, breaks his nose and loses three teeth. Well, at least the Malta locations were nice, and there's Venantini to try to save the day. 3/10.

Sentiment: negative
i am 13 and i hated this film its the worst film on earth i totally wasted my time watching it and was disappointed with it cause on the cover and on the back the film it looks pretty good, but i was wrong its bad. but when i saw delta she was totally different and a bad actress and i really didn't know how old the 2 girls was trying to be i was so confused. the film was in some parts confusing and i didn't enjoy it at all but i watched all the film just to see if it was going to get better but it didn't, it was boring,dull and did i say BORING.and i don't think many other people liked it as well as me.boring boring boring

Sentiment: negative
Excellent episode movie ala Pulp Fiction. 7 days - 7 suicides. It doesnt get more depressing than this. Movie rating: 8/10 Music rating: 10/10

Sentiment: positive
...the child actors were annoying. Also it seems as if the makers on this film were struggling to fill 90 minutes. Decent death scenes, though. If not for the death scenes, this movie would have a very Disneyish feel to it.

The main child protagonist didn't seem nearly as scared as she should have been. If I was in the middle of the woods with a tooth fairy ghost killer type individual, you can bet your arse I wouldn't be out wandering around and riding my bike.

Overall, I've seen worse (i.e. It Waits) but it's nothing I would watch again, or recommend anyone bothering with it unless you're an avid horror collector.

Sentiment: negative
I'm no horror movie buff, but my wife's nieces and nephews are. So, I saw the first movie. It was gruesome, and tense, but not my taste. Still good though. For similar reasons, at this very moment, I am being exposed to a sequel.

The premise itself is beyond absurd. I can buy that disasters occur in the desert. I can buy that mutants exists. I can even buy that the events might be so weird and strange that the military may decide to get involved. It is unlikely, yes, but I'm willing to suspend my belief.

HOWEVER, under no circumstances am I willing to believe that the military squad assigned to recon such an area would be unable to fend off the mutants. Being a member of the United States Army, I can assure that while fresh recruits may lack the seasoned eyes and experience of combat soldiers, any such recruits would be integrated into a capable squad.

A squad of armed soldiers is not about to be taken out by a few mutants with knives. That's just the way it works. Squad movements, vastly superior firepower, and of course, radio support, would ensure nothing less than total victory. I'm not saying you wouldn't have casualties, but as soon as the area was verified as hostile, military training would take precedence, no-one would go off on their own even to use the bathroom.

And if it were discovered that the area was so infested with hostiles that the squad was unable to handle the danger, they would radio in for backup. And believe me, their radios would not be jammed, if there was a chance that normal radios would not do, the squad would have a military issue satellite phone. Chances are, if they were unable to check in every hour, a search would be called.

In order to accept this movie, you must accept that our soldiers are incompetent fools, with incompetent leaders, and an incompetent chain of command. While it may still be true that the most dangerous thing in the world is a lieutenant with a map and compass, our military forces are filled with intelligent, well-trained, competent soldiers. Mutants with knives are far below our ability to deal with.

With the whole execution of the movie depending solidly on the impossible to imagine, the film fails to deliver. Instead, we are expected to believe that our soldiers, sailors, and airmen are incapable of dealing with even the most mediocre threats.

As a combat veteran, I find the movie insulting.

Sentiment: negative
SPOILERS FOLLOW - and I haven't even seen it.

Let me guess... the murder is related to the evil property developer wanting to develop the riverside, and Dickens was murdered because he was trying to uncover a similar dastardly plot. If anybody who's seen it could let me know if I'm half right, you'll have saved me the time it might take to watch something worthwhile and the rest of us will know to steer clear of both this film and its enthusiastic reviewers. On the other hand, it *sounds* intriguing; but if it was any good would it *really* be given away with a Sunday rag? And what sort of track record does Foley have anyway?

...So, as a public service, I managed to sit through it. It's worse than 'Swept Away'. Really. I've read stories by eight-year-olds with more drama than this. Truly awful. And I was half right.

Sentiment: negative
Naturally Sadie sucks big time, I have no idea what the people were thinking about when they wrote this garbage. This is not funny, its not cute in any way shape or form, its just disturbing and a waste of money. Sadie is such a bad actor. I lost all my brain cells watching this show, it honestly seemed that this show is forced, it was such a huge over hyped pile of crap.

This show sucks.

Its a waste of time, and money, don't bother watching this garbage. The characters are so stupid and ridiculous. In the first season its just dumb and stupid then when i saw the second season i just couldn't take anymore, it made me want to kill Charlotte Arnold. The second season is juts absolutely a disgrace to Disney This show is also a racist piece of sh**

Sentiment: negative
This movie was made only 48 years after the end of the Civil War--most likely in anticipation of the 50th anniversary of the end of the war. In the film there are recreations of battles and the people of the era that look rather impressive and realistic. It also provides a different and more balanced view than just its contemporary, BIRTH OF A NATION--a patently absurd and racist film. Because of this, this short film would be excellent for use in the classroom to discuss the war and tell the story of a very young man that runs away to enlist as a drummer. The boy makes good and is a hero, though the film ends rather melodramatically--a definite convention of the day. Not a great film, but a decent plot, decent acting and little of the over-the-top acting you often saw in other films of the day.

One annoying aspect of this film was the too frequent use of title cards to describe or set the stage for stuff that was really obvious. It got annoying from time to time.

Sentiment: positive
I'm not a sports fan - but I love sports flics! So, why ... what is a great sports flic ... this one. And the storytelling style, is very fine.

If you are looking for a reliably fantastic 2 hours of entertainment, "Greatest Game" qualifies mightily. Here is a movie that moves. Bill Paxton has gone to the same Director school as Ron Howard - a.k.a. Richie Cunningham, "Happy Days". That is not bad. Look at the immense body of fine work that Ron did after moving behind the camera.

Bill like Ron was a great actor, but will be a superstar director if "Greatest Game Ever" is the indication of things to follow.

Wonderful cinematography - fantastic direction - fine acting, especially by Elias Koteas, Shia LeBeouf, Marnie McPhail, Josh Flitter, Stephen Marcus, Justin Ashforth.

This is a must see film not just as "feel-good", nor "sports film", this is very good cinema.

Sentiment: positive
Worst show I've ever seen. The story is about a group of teenagers who, for some inexplicable reason, have super powers, and when they use some special device, they morph into strange, poorly designed suits. The acting when they're not in the retarded-looking suits is decent. Definitely not good, but not the worst acting I've ever seen. However, when wearing their suits, the actors' acting goes from bad to worse; much, much worse. The hyper-animated idiots have a myriad of unnecessary motions they do. Even when they talk they look like they're having seizures. The villains are stupider than the Rangers. Every episode, some weak, idiotic villain comes up with some plan to destroy the Rangers. He/she then sends a force of hyper-animated aliens to attack the Rangers. The Rangers then initialize their 10-hour transforming animation, then they annihilate the aliens. Then, the poorly designed villain, which can either be an armored villain that actually looks and acts evil, to a humanoid ladybug-like creature with trumpets attached to its back that shows obvious signs of mental retardation. The Power Rangers fight the villain off, then the villain turns into Godzilla, whether it be by a rain cloud or a nuclear missile (yes, they fire nukes at the creatures and the creatures turn into giants). The Power Rangers spend 5 minutes acting hyper-animated and summon their Zords which are obviously toys that the producers of the show used special effects on to make them look real. The Power Rangers win, the villain gets mad, they all teach a "valuable" lesson, and the show ends. That's it. Twenty-five minutes of brain-washing, fake kung fu fighting.

Sentiment: negative