DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Yes, I realize that half a dozen other reviewers have called this movie "Copying Amadeus", but it cannot be said enough. Scenes seemed to have been lifted directly from Milos Forman's script with only superficial changes. You can expect to see:

-The maestro's arrogant scene ("I am the voice of god. Everything else is meaningless!")

-The maestro making fun of the mediocre composer's work (complete with raspberries & simulated flatulence, just like in Amadeus)

-The mediocre composer's dialogue with god ("Why do you instill me with music but deny me the ability to compose?")

-The musical dictation from the deathbed scene ("Common time. Begin with the violins... cough cough")

-and the list goes on...

The problem is even worse. Not only were these scenes shamelessly copied, they weren't even done very well. Jeepers, if you're going to rip off an original, at least you should try to improve upon it in your own creative way.

No wait, there's something even worse than that. It's the fact that the director tried to beat the story of Mozart into the story of Beethoven. Folks, Beethoven was not a crass, vulgar slob the way this movie portrays him. Furthermore, Beethoven was not a babbling idiot who takes pointers from his copyist, a 23 year old music student. Unfortunately, films like this are responsible for butchering history.

And another thing, Beethoven (in real life) never called it the "Moonlight Sonata" the way he does in the movie. That name was given by a confused critic some years AFTER BEETHOVEN DIED, and unfortunately it stuck. But Beethoven's original title was "Quasi una Fantasia".

AND ANOTHER THING, when Beethoven (in the movie) yells "B-flat! B-flat! B-flat!" and hits the note on the piano, he's hitting a white key!

AND ANOTHER THINGGG!!! Beethoven (in real life) was completely deaf for several years before the composition of his 9th Symphony. This movie shows him as having barely a minor disability (saying "what?" every other line, just enough to be annoying).

AAAND!! ANNNOTHER!!! THINGGGG...!! The American accents...! Oh never mind. Just... never mind. I've wasted enough time on this already. Go see "Amadeus" again. Then, if you want to see an interesting biopic on the life of Beethoven see "Immortal Beloved" which takes poetic liberties, but at least they're interesting ideas. Lastly, if you want to see something on the lighter side, check out "Impromptu", a film about Chopin. But aside from those three, I've never seen a good homage to a classical composer.

Sentiment: negative
Unlike the previous poster, I liked the celluloid treatment. It looked good, and made the movie that much more enjoyable to watch. To me, it didn't detract at all from the power of the documentary's content. In fact, I felt the slickness of the look allowed me to just lose myself that much more in the content. The previous poster was fair to liken the style to a Nike commercial; it definitely has that look. But for my tastes, it worked really well (and I am far from a fan of Nike commercials).

In my opinion, this is how documentary film-making should be done. I can't wait to see the next installments from these promising filmmakers.

Sentiment: positive
The gate to Hell has opened up under Moscow. A priest, played by Vincent Gallo, goes to the city to find a friend who has gone missing in the tunnels under the city in an attempt to find the gateway. Wandering around underground he and his colleagues have to deal with the tunnels inhabitants both human and demonic. Good idea with a good cast of second tier actors goes nowhere much like the tunnels that are its setting. I've watched this twice now and I still have no idea why this is suppose to be scary when not a heck of a lot happens other then people talk about the evil and we see shadow forms. Nothing is clear and honestly I didn't see the point of it all other than provide a pay check for those involved (Second billed Val Kilmer is in a couple of fleeting scenes that don't amount to much other than to allow him to be billed as in the film.) The idea is really good, the performances are fine, the script goes nowhere. Take the advice of several of the characters in the film and don't cross the river to see this.

Sentiment: negative
It's really just terrible. Quaid overacts more than Shatner. The part where Elvis walks in and says "You can have it all" just kills anything that might have been good in this movie that's bad enough as it is. Drug use was completely snow coated, the only thing that had anything to do with his life was the bit about him wedding his cousin. Quaid also looks nothing like Lewis and has dark roots and eyebrows. I wish this could be re-made in the future with someone who doesn't try so hard. A bigger budget wouldn't hurt and maybe more about his actual life. I was very, very disappointed in Quaid. Don't watch this movie or you will be too.

Sentiment: negative
If you have seen this movie, then you will know that it is one of the worst Bollywood movies ever made. Bollywood is known to copy Hollywood movies. Who would of known that they will copy Terminator 2. The difference between both Film industries are Hollywood spends millions and Bollywood spends 100 thousands (Average). Thats the problem with this film, if you want to make a T2 style movie, then do it properly. The director added a bogus fantasy storyline about a reincarnated snake who finds his long lost girl (in the previous birth) dead by 2 guys, but the blame goes to 10 people. She suddenly reincarnates into a ghost and together they want to kill the 10 people they blame for her death. Not to mention, the Reincarnated snake guy or villain has some kind of super powers. He can transform into anything, he can fly, disappear, fire power, wind power, you name it, he has it. He even gets bazookered and survives the T1000 style. You are probably wondering how he survives. its best not to ask, and its best not to waste time and money on this movie. Its Best just to forget this film even came out. I think its a shame to use a big starcast for this outrageous movie with a nonsense storyline.

Sentiment: negative
Yes, I call this a perfect movie. Not one boring second, a fantastic cast of mostly little known actresses and actors, a great array of characters who are all well defined and who all have understandable motives I could sympathize with, perfect lighting, crisp black and white photography, a fitting soundtrack, an intelligent and harmonious set design and a story that is engaging and works. It's one of those prime quality pictures on which all the pride of Hollywood should rest, the mark everyone should endeavor to reach.

Barbara Stanwyck is simply stunning. There was nothing this actress couldn't do, and she always went easy on the melodramatic side. No hysterical outbursts with this lady - I always thought she was a better actress than screen goddesses like Bette Davis or Joan Crawford, and this movie confirmed my opinion. Always as tough as nails and at the same time conveying true sentiments. It is fair to add that she also got many good parts during her long career, and this one is by far the least interesting.

The title fits this movie very well. It is about desires, human desires I think everyone can understand. Actually, no one seems to be scheming in this movie, all characters act on impulse, everybody wants to be happy without hurting anybody else. The sad fact that this more often than not leads to complications makes for the dramatic content into which I will not go here.

I liked what this movie has to say about youth, about maturing and about the necessity to compromise. The movie I associate most with this one is Alfred Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt, it creates a similar atmosphere of idealized and at the same time caricatured Small Town America. The story has a certain similarity with Fritz Lang's considerably harsher movie Clash by Night, made one year earlier, where Stanywck stars in a similar part. I can also recommend it.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was completely stale and uninspired. The central premise of this movie was basically a bunch of stereotypical black people sitting around a barbershop exchanging painfully unfunny repartee. I did not laugh one time during the entire movie. I could have sat in any barbershop in America and have heard this banal banter, and maybe have even come out with a decent haircut. I cannot understand why this mess got any favourable reviews, much less why so many people have wasted money on this. None of the characters here were funny or worth caring about. I really didn't care whether the rival barbershop across the street would cause Nappy Cutz to go out of business. Don't waste your money on this one, folks, as that is the only way to get Hollywood to stop churning out these shambolic pieces of rubbish. 1* out of 5

Sentiment: negative
The eight Jean Rollin film I have watched is also possibly the weirdest; the intriguing plot (such as it is) seems initially to be too flimsy to sustain even its trim 84 minutes but it somehow contrives to get inordinately muddled as it goes along! A would-be female vampire (scantily-clad, as promised by the title) is held in captivity inside a remote château and emerges only to 'feast' on the blood of willing victims (who are apparently members of a suicide club) As if unsure where all of this would lead him, the writer-director ultimately has the human villain  actually the blank-faced hero's kinky father  ludicrously revealed as a mutant(?!) from the future! The languorous pace and dream-like atmosphere (the cultists wear hoods and animal masks to hide their features from the sheltered girl) are, of course, typical of both the film-maker (ditto the seashore setting at the {anti}climax) and the "Euro-Cult" style, as are the bevy of nubile beauties on display. Personally, the most enjoyable thing about the whole visually attractive but intellectually vacuous affair was watching familiar character actor Bernard Musson (who appeared in six latter-day Luis Bunuel films) crop up bemusedly through it from time to time!

Sentiment: negative
Gosh, I am learning pretty fast that sometimes when you see a film as a youngster and then again 20 years later you gain a different view -- primarily because in 20 years you learn more. For example, I had no idea who George Cukor was - how great of a director he was and how much of that made this film fly. All I can say is..I really liked this film for it touched on an area that paralleled my life: lifelong friendship between two women. Can that EVER exist? Well, in certain doses, yes...and this film let out in a bit on ... "how".

Being a youngster with not a lot of life experience at the first time I saw this so I focused more on the "rich" and "famous" part between the two. At the time, I had no idea there was a difference and what would happen to two women who discovered there was...and how that would effect their friendship. Through their men, their career, the decades that defined them. And coming to realize one thing remained stronger than anything else...their friendship and knowing each other more than anyone else could have.

Then I got older, studied film a bit... and watched this film again with my best friend from High School. We do understand the 'rich' and 'famous' angle ... and we are still the best of friends...but this film is not a cinematic masterpiece...it can be seen as a bit campy at times...a little over the top at points (kinda on a 'Dynasty' and 'Dallas' level to me..) and honestly I can identify with the "teddy bear" scene for we do share a bear that means a lot more than a stuffed fun toy through our trials and tribulations with men/careers, et al..so its not as over the top as it seems....! As many already said, seeing Meg Ryan and Matt Latanzzi and Dack Rambo and David Selby are great in this 1981 piece. this is a nice "chick" flick!

Sentiment: positive
Joan Fontaine here is entirely convincing as an amoral beauty who is entirely incapable of feeling love for anyone but herself. Her husband (Richard Ney) has lost all his money through a combination of his foolhardiness and her extravagance, and they are reduced to living in a tiny room, with little or no prospects. They continue to put on the most amazing clothes and go out and socialize as if nothing were wrong. He is a charming, feckless, but wholly amiable fellow. However, Fontaine decides he has to go, as he has outlived his usefulness. So she resolves to poison him when she realizes he does not want to divorce her, so that she can move on. She has meanwhile had a lover (Patric Knowles) whom she decides to drop because he is not rich either. She meets the aging Herbert Marshall, who has a yacht with all the trimmings and more money than even Fontaine could figure out how to spend. She targets him and decides he will do nicely. He is all too eager to be eaten up by the young beauty. He certainly isn't very exciting, and has about as much sex appeal as yesterday's omelette. But Fontaine is one of those gals who has eyes only for money, and the man standing between her and it is transparent, so that she doesn't even notice or care what he looks like, she looks through him and sees what she really wants and goes for it. She proceeds to poison her husband, and dispatches him very neatly and satisfactorily, so that everything is going well. But as always happens in the movies, and sometimes even in life, some unexpected things begin to go wrong, and the tension rises appreciably, so that Fontaine begins to sweat. Fontaine is particularly good at looking wicked and terrified, and as the net begins to close in on her, her rising sense of desperation is palpable and has us on the edges of our seats. Hysteria and fear take over from cool calculation and cunning. But she finds a fall guy for her crime in the person of her cast off lover, who is an innocent victim of her scheme to set him up. He is condemned to death for murder, because the husband's death by poison came to light unexpectedly. But Sir Cedric Hardwicke, playing a grimly determined Scotland yard inspector, thinks there may be something amiss, and begins to doubt the story and suspect Fontaine. He closes in on her, and some of the scenes as this happens are inspired portrayals of the wildest panic. But will the innocent man's life be saved before he is executed? Will Fontaine worm her way out of this one? Will Herbert Marshall protect her to safeguard his infatuation? This film is expertly directed by Sam Wood, and the film is a really superb suspense thriller which I suppose qualifies very well for the description of a superior film noir.

Sentiment: positive
Although Kurt Russell was and is probably the closest person to look like Elvis in show-business, so many things were false in this film. First of all, the makers claimed Elvis opened his famous live shows in '69 after a 9 year hault for films by wearing a white jump-suit made in 1972. Also they claimed he sang 'burning love' which he first sung in 1972 and 'the wonder of you' which he first recorded in 1970. They also claim that he got his first guitar for christmas when all Elvis fans know he got it for his birthday. I know all movies based on past have something false but these things are so obvious to people who like Elvis.

Sentiment: positive
As far as I know the real guy that the main actor is playing saw his performance and said it was an outstanding portrayal, I'd agree with him. This is a fantastic film about a quite gifted boy/man with a special body part helping him. Oscar and BAFTA winning, and Golden Globe nominated Daniel Day-Lewis plays Christy Browna crippled man with cerebral palsy who spends most of his life on the floor, in a wheelchair and carried by his family. He has a special left foot though, he can write with it, paint with it and hold things with it. He learns to speak later in the film, it is very good for a guy like him. Also starring Home Alone 2's Oscar winning, and Golden Globe nominated Brenda Fricker as Mrs. Brown and BAFTA winning Ray McAnally as Mr. Brown. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Director for Jim Sheridan, Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium and Best Picture, it was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Film, Best Make Up Artist and Best Adapted Screenplay. Daniel Day-Lewis was number 85 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 20 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, he was number 9 on Britain's Finest Actors, and he was number 15 on The World's Greatest Actor, and the film was number 28 on The 50 Greatest British Films. Outstanding!

Sentiment: positive
"Men of honor" - true story about a proud and persistent black navy diver (fabulous Cuba Gooding Jr.) is definitely a great movie that both touches and entertains and it's part of the absolute cream of the new millennium cinema. Wonderful acting is the main reason to make this movie something truly special and pretty enjoyable, splendid experience. Charismatic Robert De Niro is marvelous as rough, fierce and pitiless chief Billy Sunday - role is practically written for him. This film alongside with fantastic "15 minutes" (2001) are two of the latest proofs that he's still one of the very finest actors of our time. On the other hand "Men of honor" includes a fine performance from Cuba Gooding Jr. who has been one of the most promising young black actors since "Boyz n the hood". "Men of honor" goes straight into the company of "Jerry Maguire", "As good as it gets" and "Instinct". Cuba Gooding Jr. is a skillful and fantastic actor and I'm prepared to get lots of more terrific movies from him. "Men of honor" has also quite an excellent story-line and probably the most exciting diving sequences of the movie history. This is a great, fascinating movie and I can only recommend it.

Sentiment: positive
Watching this movie and then listening to the commentary, it's clear that Michael Radford doesn't understand this play. The first clue that he fails to fully grasp the work is that he takes pains to set the film in seventeenth-century Venice. Which sounds truly odd, yes, that misunderstanding the film would mean trying to make it as accurate to its location as possible. But anyone who's studied Shakespeare knows that, while he set most of his plays in exotic locals, the culture and values are always contemporary England. This doesn't hurt the film, but it displays a lack of necessary knowledge.

Where Radford kills the film is in making it so dead serious. He manages to suck every joke out of the script, leaving the whole production flat. Every ounce of passion is beaten out of the characters. Even Shylock's 'Do we not bleed' speech is a mild, awkward ranting from a choleric who seems to only be saying and doing what he does because he's supposed to. The lovers are solemn and far too restrained (Joseph Fiennes delivers some of the most romantic lines in the cinema this year in a barely audible whisper), Gratiano (who has to promise to behave at one point) is more sober and collected than Bassiano (who makes him promise to behave), Jessica is reluctant to leave her father and spends her life with Lorenzo pouting.

In the commentary for the bland and watered-down court scene, the director voices his shock that an audience laughed at Portia's 'A pound of flesh, no more, no less' sentence; ultimately concluding that it had to tension release laughter. 'The Merchant of Venice' is a comedy and Radford scoffs at the idea that the most absurd and hysterical portions of the story are anything but the most daringly provocative drama.

The film has no intelligible focus, yet cuts out some of the most entertaining scenes. The characters are forced into high drama veils, so they come out sounding like Ibsen characters reading Victorian poetry. And the comedic ending, where all of the good guys go to bed happy, is drowned in a dignified despair that feels like they're finding stiff- upper-lip peace with impending death, rather than reconciling with lovers. Even Lancelot and Antonio exit the film holding their hats like aristocratic mourners.

The film is poorly done because the creative powers that be don't understand the script. It is stern where it should hysterical. It is reserved where it should be passionate. It is Michael Radford where it should be William Shakespeare.

Sentiment: negative
A Great show.

First, to the people who don't like it..Don't like it, then DON'T WATCH IT...

This is(was) an awesome show. Better than According to Jim (A favorite of mine). It shows a REAL family household (As opposed to 8 simple rules,etc, where everything goes peachy).

They're loud, they're messy....I can sympathize with their dragging all the garbage into the kitchen. It happens in real life..Sorta like the "Portal to hell", and everyone growling like dogs over the fast-food boxes.

It's a "Been there" show....You know what's coming, but fun to watch, because YOU have been there before.

A good cast, they work great together, a admirable enough show to warrant a DVD release. Mel Gibsons "Safety videos" were a highlight of the series as well.

Opinion? Good show, REALLY deserving of a DVD release (Deserving to not be canceled as well).

Sentiment: positive
Honestly, I was a big fan on 'Stay Alive' trailer when it got released even some months before. I kept on telling my friend how this movie has a great story plot - and perhaps a good one. Anyway - this movie is somewhat below my expectations.

The plot has a great potential, but how the story unfolds, along with the acting , directing and bad CGI - this film is a disaster. The ghost doesn't make any sense, and including the killings - its all just too hurried, creating a sense of 'unrealistic' in the audience's mind.

This film could be scary for some audiences - but fear in a sense of shock (Due to the sound effect, etc) rather than enduring fear due to certain valid factors in the movie.

You should re-consider watching this movie.

Sentiment: negative
When I went to see Bon Voyage, I expected a good, skillful multidrama on the order of Grand Hotel (1932) and Les Enfants de Paradis (1944). It was better than that. With few exceptions, none of the characters were totally good or totally evil--just as in real life. The acting was wonderful, especially those who played Frédéric, Raoul, and Camille. The photography was amazing, as it recreated the period perfectly and managed to be shot in/around Bordeaux during a time of new public works but managed the "look" of June 1940. Costumes and make-up were accurate. There is so much in this movie that it's worth a second viewing. It's exciting, funny, and, ultimately, touching. N.B.--Be sure to see it in a theatre with good quality projection. It's in wide-screen, and in the theater where I saw it (the Clairmont in Montclair) the first 30 minutes had the subtitles at the bottom in focus but the actors' faces slightly fuzzy! This was ultimately corrected but detracted from the pleasure of the film.

Sentiment: positive
I have to say that I really liked UNDER SIEGE and HARD TO KILL.

watching Seagal doing his funny martial arts on people. I have

been always looking forward to Seagal-Movies and, unfortunately, I was first disappointed by GLIMMER MAN, which I found really bad. THE FOREIGNER is probably one of the worst Seagal has ever

acted in. Horribly boring, badly edited, wrongest soundtrack and so on! Dear reader, do yourself a favor an stay away from this!

Honestly: Stay away!

Sentiment: negative
There's nothing new for me to say: 4 hours of people dying over and over in the same hill. The cast was stellar, but unfortunately the producer/director/editor/God goofed. He should have eaten humble pie (if not for his own sake then for the men who died in Kargil), hired one of these brilliant Bollywood directors, hired a real scriptwriter, hired a real editor, hired a musician that wasn't related to him in some way (and who seemed to have listened to some bad version of "Apocalypse Now" on some cheap Indian drug), hired a real professional crew, thrown away all the fireworks and told a real story. Unfortunately he, like the bigwigs of the Indian Army, made decisions that were terrible for his actors, and terrible for his audience. We all died over and over. 

Please don't do that again, Sir! Sushma Kathmandu, Nepal

ps: Next time an Indian director decides to glorify the Gurkha regiment, I suggest he hire more than one Nepali to represent the team. Surely there are plenty of Nepali men working in Bombay--last count was 40,000 to half a million.

Sentiment: negative
I really enjoyed this movie. The humor was a bit absent at times but I enjoyed how the story moved between dramatic and serious throughout the film. This is the only the second movie where I saw Verdone acting (the other was 'Un sacco bello'), and I can see why Italians find him tiresome, but he think he played his role well as the loving father.

My one drawback with this movie was that I knew it took place in Italy - somewhere in the center or south, I presume, but I felt like there was no representation of a place. This movie could have taken place in New York, Boston, Melbourne, New Dehli...I always think it is important for movies to have a place to give the viewers something to relate to. (Maybe I missed something?) :) If you like Italian films, then I think that you will enjoy this. It's not a Fellini or a Rossellini - it's not realism or neo-realism. It's a comical story with serious moments that could really happen to any of us.

Sentiment: positive
I happened to leave HBO on last night following Six Feet Under. What ran next has left me speechless. What an incredible piece of work. I don't just recommend this, I MANDATE that you see this. It's better than anything Hollywood could ever ruin. I just hope they never get their hands on it.

Sentiment: positive
Trite and tiring, the one-liners almost made me cry. My 4 year old left the room and ended up doing a puzzle. I don't know what age group this was written for, but the writer himself/herself didn't even want credit. As for the song, it's mildly amusing. At least it was a decade ago. There are many Christmas movies to watch. Although I've seen some many more times than this, they are still enjoyable. Whenever this comes on, I try to encourage my child to watch something else. One positive note, that allowed a vote of 2 instead of 1, is that it encourages good moral values. That would have been encouraging, if anyone were watching.

Sentiment: negative
Please, help the economy - spend your money elsewhere! The synopsis of the movie is: the First Lady has her husband assassinated because he was cheating on her. That's it. Undetected by anyone, except Cuba and Angie, she designs and implements a vast assassination conspiracy which no one knows about...and gets away completely free.

Some specific points are particularly hilarious: While standing in front of the president, Cuba a deflects the assassin's bullet...which then enters the back of the president's head.

Cuba and Angie watch film from a news camera, and they see...a clue. They go to great lengths to protect the film, believing that they are the only people that have a copy of this very public film.

Cuba speaks with a presidential staff member. The PSM comments that there was no conspiracy. Cuba claims there was more than one person involved. The PSM then rants that the conspiracy includes the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA. Gosh, I wonder is the PSM is involved.

Ms Archer, the First Lady, is a craptacular artist. Cuba can't make out a painting, and she says, "You're too close...stand back...look from a different perspective, look from my perspective." Can anyone miss THAT clue?

Sentiment: negative
When I checked out the review for this film after I'd watched it, I was surprised that there were people giving it good ratings.

This is a film of bad camera-work. Everything 'frightening' happens off screen, usually accompanied with a closeup of someone yelling "Did you see/hear that?" Well, no, we didn't see that! We can't! And when there weren't any close-ups, the camera was doing something weird like rotating upside down, or shaking back and forth really, really quickly, to either convey action or to make us physically sick.

The characters were unlikeable because every two minutes, they started screaming the same thing over and over again. I don't care if that's what it would 'really' be like, I did not rent a scary movie to see reasonable things! I expect unreasonable things, like aliens, demons, or good acting! They were stupid, too- Let's go have intimate relations in a cave! With all of our clothes on! Speaking of which, the ending somewhat contradicts what Domingo said immediately before he died. This bugged me a bit, though not nearly as much as the fact that the ending resulted in a... serious invasion of one girl's privacy.

No plot, no climax, no good acting, terrible camera-work. What's left? Oh, right. The ending may have had a 'twist' but generally with horror movies, the twist at the end actually has understandable relevance to what occurred during the film. Sixth Sense does- it explains a lot. Hide and Seek did, too. But the Cavern had a lame twist that served as an 'explanation', if you could call it that as it doesn't. Explain. Anything.

Don't see it. Please.

Sentiment: negative
Just what we need! Another remake of vintage Hollywood cinema, with Eddie Murphy miscast again in his second time around after THE NUTTY PROFESSOR (1996)! This shows why we're running out of special ideas in making a quality movie, ladies and gentlemen! It has some signs of hope for its likeable and delightful imagery of animals who can act and speak with humans. Things can only get more worse, unfortunately. Bathroom jokes and sexual references kill this piece of "family" funfare instantly. Even parents and children saw the trailer ad on The Family Channel, which was followed by utter angst and disgust in the movie theater. Sad to say this is the more progressive pre-millennium era, but enjoy it while it lasts 'cause things can only get worse with time. More went wrong with the all-new DR. DOLITTLE. It is absolutely plotless, feeling too flat. I also hate that irritating voice of Chris Rock!!! We need more talented voice-overs than a bunch of overpaid celebs who don't want to declare bankruptcy. I'll have to agree on my local newspaper giving this among the top five worst movies of 1998. Then again, the original version wasn't any good, either. Murphy's next project could be PATTON if he's not careful!

Sentiment: negative
This movie is rich with action and gore. The story line is strong enough to support the action sequences. The English version needs a tad bit of help in the dubbing department but it was still enjoyable. This movie ranks among my personal favorites next to "Hard Boiled" ...

Sentiment: positive
Imagine a woman alone in a house for forty five minutes in which absolutely nothing happens. Then this goes on twice more. The writing is flat and lifeless, and jokes unfunny, and the bad acting keeps you from caring about any of the characters, even when they battle wolf packs and get beaten up by fraternity goons. Anyone that ranked this movie higher than a two is not fully sane.

Sentiment: negative
I initially tuned in to Paranormal State because I (more or less) find the paranormal search genre to be interesting TV, if nothing else.

I really enjoy Ghost Hunters because well over half of their investigations result in total debunking, and find Most Haunted to be hilarious with its use of mediums and frumpy British women with Paris Hilton day-glo eyes fainting from fear/demonic presences all shot in lovely night-vision green.

Paranormal State has none of this appeal. It feels like it was cobbled together from "leads" that Ghost Hunters rejected. The episodes ranged from trailer trash families and single mothers with emo adolescents sitting around and scaring themselves, to an "interview" with a 5 year old about the monster who lives in his room (the monster goes RAWRRR, we are told). All of these people calling upon a college club to solve their problems. The whole show is about Ryan and his partner, his enormous ego. He leads his troupe of doe-eyed coeds around, except when a case is deemed "too extreme" and orders them to remain at the hotel HAHAHA. Better leave it to the pros, ie himself.

The unwitting comedy of this show is all in how gullible the participants are. Ryan spins his tales of being hunted, followed, etc by a demon that he first encountered when the Catholic Church recruited him to assist on a case. Sorry, but the Catholic Church has people who can do that, they don't need the day-shift manager at Quiznos to chip in his 2 cents.

This show is awful, shame on A&E for bankrolling this silliness, trying to follow in the footsteps of some much better paranormal-themed shows. It's almost unintentionally funny, except that Ryan is so arrogant and devoid of charisma that watching the show long enough to mock it isn't worth the trouble.

Sentiment: negative
A really great movie and true story. Dan Jansen the Greatest skater ever. A touching and beautiful movie the whole family can enjoy. The story of Jane Jansens battle with cancer and Dan Jansen love for his sister. Of a important promise made by Jansen to win a gold medal to prove his sister Jane was right to believe in his talent in speed skating was justified. This picture is well worth the time. I wish they would make more films of this quality. Thank you for a great film with excellent actors and an excellent story. It is a very touching story about a beautiful family support and faith for their children and a special dream for their youngest son and his sister.

Sentiment: positive
If you loved the early-60's version of "The Time Machine", don't waste your time; as with last year's "The Planet of the Apes", this has been "reimagined", and not for the better. And, just as with "Planet...", its lead actor is woefully miscast and leaden; Guy Pearce, a terrific actor of great range, is all wrong for this role, giving a one-note performance that elicits zero sympathy; he's so dour and serious, and lacking in awe of the (supposedly) amazing things he sees that you don't believe for a moment that he's experiencing them. Worse yet, whose idea was it for him to resemble the love child of David Spade and Calista Flockhart?? A handsome actor, here he is sickeningly gaunt, which is, believe it or not, a major distraction. Frankly, the man looks gravely ill and is photographed cruelly. He shares absolutely NO chemistry with anyone on the screen, a direct result of a performance that is out of sync with anyone else's. Sadly, even with a proper leading man this movie doesn't stand a chance for it is fatally burdened with both a totally inept director - whole scenes go nowhere and are poorly realized - and a screenplay that is utterly inferior, scattered and at times incoherent - not for a single moment do you care about anyone in this film, for the single fact that there is NOTHING in the way of character development! In the original, you got to KNOW the Eloi, so therefore you felt for them, and felt their terror of the Morelocks; here, as the movie stresses several times, they are nothing but sheep and act accordingly. Unless you're a member of PETA, scared sheep are HARDLY the stuff of entertainment! 

Samantha Mumba does as well as possible, in her movie debut, but, like everyone else in this mess, most especially Jeremy Irons (if he's the leader of the Morelocks [who look like rejects from "The Mummy Returns"], why then does HE look like Edgar Winter's long-lost brother?) is COMPLETELY WASTED. Also wasted was the money spent on the endless 'special' effects, which belie the $70M spent on the film; they are uniformly lackluster, obvious and unconvincing. And then there's the look of the film: poorly photographed, its art direction and sets are just "there" and its costumes are typical in design. There isn't an original thought or idea expressed behind or on the screen. Most of all, it isn't even fun! (The filmmakers use the now-ubiquitous Orlando Jones as "comic relief" but, as usual, Jones is irritating, and just HOW does his electrically-driven character survive in a world seemingly devoid of electricity?)

All in all, this is an empty, lifeless, dull, sterile and confused affair: didn't they ALREADY REMAKE "Planet of the Apes"??? (At least THAT had the fortune of some strong performances!) 

*SPOILER!* The final insult (beyond a head-shakingly terrible, not to mention convenient, ending)? Not only do they BARELY feature the changing dress-store figures, they make even the time machine itself an anachronistic, gaudy glass-n-chrome bore! (If "The Sopranos" had a time machine, THIS is exactly what it would look like.) Pathetic...

Sentiment: negative
This is possibly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't care what the critics say, it's bad. I think the problem is with Kundera's novel. It's not that it's unfilmable; it's just that like 99% of his work, it's pretentious and overdrawn. He seems to be enamored with himself,his characters come off as navel-gazing, and his novels as a whole are misogynistic. I have read many of his works (even his Socialist Realist poetry. That was truly awful) -- I just don't understand what the fuss is about. Characteristics (like the self-absorption) in his novels make for infuriating reading. In a movie, all the things that I dislike about Kundera were magnified. Maybe I just missed something, but I don't think so. On a side note, I cannot believe that this is a Criterion Collection DVD. No way is this movie THAT essential.

Sentiment: negative
I am shocked. Shocked and dismayed that the 428 of you IMDB users who voted before me have not given this film a rating of higher than 7. 7?!?? - that's a C!. If I could give FOBH a 20, I'd gladly do it. This film ranks high atop the pantheon of modern comedy, alongside Half Baked and Mallrats, as one of the most hilarious films of all time. If you know _anything_ about rap music - YOU MUST SEE THIS!! If you know nothing about rap music - learn something!, and then see this! Comparisons to 'Spinal Tap' fail to appreciate the inspired genius of this unique film. If you liked Bob Roberts, you'll love this. Watch it and vote it a 10!

Sentiment: positive
Relesed from Troma (which is my favorite movie company)Unspeaksble is a messy horror film that can be interesting but very dark and twisted.

Unspeakable starts with a family in a car, they get into an accident which leaves a daughter dead and a mother deformed. the father eventually goes crazy and slashes prostitutes. He sees his daughter in other people. He kills for her. Meanwhile his now deformed wife is being raped by her orderly. These are sick people! 

Unspeakable tries to be sick and disturbing and it does manage to do that as a good horror flick this is not. Most Troma movies have a sense of humor to them but however this one doesn't.

Sentiment: negative
This is the absolutely worst show in the history of Nickelodeon. First of all, no boarding school has a Sushi Bar, Flat screen TVs, and gives every student a laptop. This makes the show so unrealistic, and boring. The plots are pointless, and incredibly boring. The actors are so bad, it makes me want to take my own life. I really hate the fact that in the show, Zoey is the most popular girl in school, and the prettiest, and smartest, and gets the best grades without doing any work. She never has any real problems, and every guy wants to date her. She is so perfect. There isn't anyone like that. Also, I hate that everyone would do anything for her, and everyone picks her for every team, or club. It is so annoying. Quinn is so obnoxious. Her experiments are pathetic, pointless, and fake. Chase is such a wimp. He says he loves Zoey, but if he told her, it would ruin their friendship. How pathetic. Michael tries to be funny, but he never accomplishes anything. Nichole is so perky, and screams a lot. She is never seen doing any work, or studying, but she is a straight A student. Lola thinks she is an actress, but she sucks (Excuse my language). Need I say more? I think no. For your own good, stay away from this show at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
The Great Caruso displays the unique talents of Mario Lanza. He shows great acting capacity and is in top form as a lyrical singer, paired with Dorothy Kirsten, soprano of the Metropolitan Opera. Indeed, I dare to say that he performs some songs better than Caruso (check A'Vuchella from Tosti and La Danza from Rossini). The MGM art and music departments also did a good job. This movie could be perfect, were it not for the awkward presence of Ann Blyth; we see that she is trying her best, dressed in the fifties style in scenes just before 1920 - unforgivable. Lanza deserved a better leading lady, and Blyth should stick to less demanding productions. Also notice that Ms. Kirsten sings most of the opera duets of the film with Lanza, giving the wrong notion that Caruso had a kind of permanent leading soprano.

Sentiment: positive
Just got back from a free screening and I'm very glad I didn't pay to see this very sub-par film. The theater was full and the crowd was a mix of kids and adults. It seemed like it was just the kids who were laughing at all the slap-stick and fart jokes though (good god they loved to hit these poor mice in the crotch a lot!). The movie is pretty juvenile, unintelligent, predictable, and mostly annoying. The characters just seem to be thrown together to fill in empty space and the relationships between them all seemed very forced with no charm at all.

Visually, the film is about average with nothing that really stands out. They did a decent job of mimicking the clay look from Wallace and Gromit, but other than that it's very forgettable imagery.

Although I was really bored throughout the whole film, I chuckled a couple times. It's not an absolute failure, but I most definitely would not want to watch it again. If you're a parent with kids (and you don't care that your kids see mindless cheap-jokes) then feel free to take them to see it, but everyone else shouldn't waste their money.

Sentiment: negative
I really wanted to like this movie. The previews looked marginally funny but I figured they put most of the funny stuff in the previews. In this case, they not only did that but they twisted the clips so that they appeared much funnier than they were in the real film. I like John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Vince Vaughn, The Rock, Cedric the Entertainer, etc. so I wanted to like this movie but it just never seemed to do anything.

I saw Get Shorty and did not particularly care for it. Too slow and unfunny for me. This movie is certainly no better and, if anything, is worse. There were a lot of opportunities for some good comedic moments but it took none of them.

The acting was okay but even John Travolta seemed toned down. Cedric was okay but he was too reigned in to be really funny. Vince Vaughn and the Rock were pretty good and ready to be funny but they just let it all pass them by. I wish they had been given a chance to follow through with the funny things they set up but instead it just kept going back to the same old thing and back to just setting Vaughn and Rock up to be funny (though never allowed to really deliver that punchline or comedy).

Overall, this was a very disappointing movie and I am glad I only saw it on video. At least it was cheaper than the theater.

Sentiment: negative
Kaige succeeds in this beautifully done film. The pace matches the story, the direction is superb, and the casting/acting is perfect. The only draw back are one or two slight editing errors. I love film and I am a confessed stickler.

Sentiment: positive
Lame. Lame. Lame. Ultralame. Shall I go on? There is one, I repeat *one* funny scene in this entire, drawn-out, anti-amusing Amateur Hour Special of a film: Fares Fares' fat father knocking someone over with his beer gut. That's it. The rest of this shockingly mediocre pile of nothingness consists of the usual trademark bored-looking Swedish "actors" delivering dialogue which goes into one ear and out of the other, a banal story, sloppy direction and, well, little else worth mentioning. Nepotistically cast Fares Fares is as charismatic as a chartered accountant and his nose rivals even that of Adrien Brody in terms of sheer ridiculous hugeness. Torkel Petersson should only work with Lasse Spang Olsen. The rest of the cast is, luckily, easily forgettable, whereas Fares' humongous, titanic nose will forever haunt me in my dreams.

Josef Fares helps ruin Swedish cinema. Don't support him and his nonsense. Jalla Jalla is to comedies what Arnold Schwarzenegger is to character acting, Kopps would have been much more respectable if it had been a no-budget Youtube video, and Zozo was simply the most pretentious, pseudo-touching garbage ever unleashed by a Swedish director. Wake up and smell the roses: Swedish movies can be so much better than this, so stop pretending Fares' flicks are worth watching simply because they're "good to be Swedish". Please.

Sentiment: negative
A sweet-natured young mountain man with a sad past (Henry Thomas) comes upon an abandoned baby girl in the woods and instantly falls in love with her. The town elders generally support him in keeping the child, though a local temptress (Cara Seymour) thinks little of the new family. A determined little girl on a long walk and a sinister travelling salesman (David Strathairn at his creepiest) have parallel stories which converge in a fateful way. This is a charming slice-of-life in the Ozarks in the same vein as "Where The Lillies Bloom" & "The Dollmaker". All three were shot on location in those beautiful hills and cover the lives of simple-living -- but not simple-minded -- American folk. A minimum of strong language and brief but pointed violence make this fairly-safe family viewing.

Sentiment: positive
I want to say I liked this film, I really do, but when it boils down to it it was just far too boring. It starts off looking promising, and even once they get inside the mines the creepy atmosphere and mood is great. The problem is the monster, or lack of it. As people have said it's a stop-motion monster, but that's not the problem (stop-motion can look great if done properly). The problem is that we don't see enough of it and we don't get to see any deaths. This is meant to be a horror film so a lack of monster and a lack of deaths equals boredom. There were some scenes I liked, such as when one girl is using her camera in the dark and the monster is coming towards her. There are also a few other creepy scenes but they are far too few to hold your interest and definitely not worth watching the film for. It's a shame, because I can see that had it been handled correctly it would've been an effectively creepy horror flick. The saddest thing is that films like this will never be made again, because film makers over-polish their films these days and rely on crappy CGI effects.

Sentiment: negative