DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
It's remarkable that for 'Young Mr. Lincoln's' supporting players Ford cast lesser known, other-than-star actors. This not only heightens his film's focus on the central character of Lincoln, but it also affords the audience a refreshing insight into Lincoln as a man of his place and time, a man embroiled, as each one of us inexorably is, in the issues and sentiments of his time and seeking his way to resolving them. It's not so much through Fonda's Lincoln's words and actions but in the faces, the reactions of the supporting players that Ford tells the story of the formation of the young Lincoln's worldview, sense of place in society and polity, and of how the people responded to Mr. Lincoln's words and deeds and placed their trust in this man whom they deemed to have earned their respect and heeding.

Give this a try: instead of focusing on Henry Fonda, next time you view 'Young Mr. Lincoln' shift your focus to the supporting characters - you will, I expect, be handsomely rewarded with a more profound appreciation of both Lincoln and Ford. I like to suspect that Ford's storytelling through the supporting characters' reactions to Fonda's Lincoln may have appealed to David Lean when he directed Omar Sharif in 'Doctor Zhivago', in which it's the supporting characters' reactions to Zhivago that actually tell about Zhivago.

Sentiment: positive
The first thing you see in this film is a static angle(one which will be repeated later in the film), depicting the chaos going on(unseen to the audience) in a studio that airs news. Soon after, Fonda's character's typical story is shown, in that same angle. Don't let this mislead you; the film is not about a female reporter, a woman struggling to succeed in a male-dominated profession. That is merely a lead-in, a way of starting the film(though it's used later). The actual point to this production is revealed gradually, and the first we see of it is in a deliberately long scene early on. The entire film has that pace; not slow or drawn-out, but deliberate. It's never really fast, even in the few sequences that one would normally expect to be so. This pacing(especially because it seems to slow down further as the plot is revealed, as the disturbing, unsettling nature of the film is unraveled) is strong, almost painful to the viewer. It inspires you to, if it had been possible, jump into the screen, grab the people responsible by the collar and yell at them to *do* something about it, to remedy the situation. Never once did I feel like getting up or even taking my eyes off the screen for a moment. The subject is extremely important to be aware of, and it's handled perfectly here. No over-dramatization(well... very little, anyway), just an accurate presentation of the issue. The direction is astounding. The empathy felt for Lemmon's character is profound. The editing is masterful... one scene near the very end illustrates that perfectly. The editor, judging from his filmography, is vastly underrated. The writing was excellent. The acting was great, in particular by Lemmon, Fonda and Douglas(who also produced it). The lack of a score is perfect; no music is needed to enhance. The ending is sublime and effective. The movie does have a few negative points... among them, some of the dialog is obviously and undeniably mainly exposition, one particular part of the film, whilst dramatic, doesn't seem to mesh with something that follows it. Not everyone will watch the film because of two features of it which are commonly (and rightfully so) attributed to bad movies; the pacing(which can be mistaken as being slow) and the (lack of) score. One could argue that to be a negative thing, as everyone ought to consider the points it presents, but maybe it's better this way; handling the heavy subject with the intelligence and respect(for the topic as well as the viewer)... something like this, maybe it shouldn't be spoon-fed. I was mesmerized with the film, and left very taken aback. I recommend this to anyone who believe themselves strong enough to handle it. 9/10

Sentiment: positive
My girlfriend has the habit of going to Blockbuster and choosing movies no-one has ever heard anything about. Admittedly, at times, it has led to some fun discoveries. Often times, the best that can be said is they definitely run an hour and a half.

She brought home "Advice From A Caterpillar." She was excited because the box said it was funny. Lucky for us, the propaganda on the boxes never lie.

This movie was an exercise in patience. This is one of those movies where, unless you are a pretentious and shallow person who likes watching movies about yourself, you will hate every character in the movie. Until the introduction of the one nice character. Which the lead annoying pretentious character will fall in love with and act in such a way that, in the real world, would drive anyone away.

MILD SPOILERS FROM HERE ON

So a bunch of emotionally vapid, stuck-up, pretentious artists swear off love and find success in their careers. Then, they meet a nice, intelligent, emotionally mature and loving character (an almost perfect guy). We then watch the woman, the annoyingly pretentious artist (in her 30's?) freak out as she falls in love. So she tries to flee from the nice, intelligent, emotionally mature man and stay with the married man with whom she's been having great but empty sex. She is rude to the man and does everything in her power to drive him away. In the real world, she would have been quite successful. I certainly wanted to flee from her and I wasn't even in a relationship with her!

Although its nice that the man 'fought for his love', I never wanted her to have him. (Nor did my girlfriend) She didn't deserve him. And, why I wonder, did the director think that the 'almost perfect guy' should be punished by having to win a relationship with her? When the artist was asking the 'almost perfect guy' to leave, we were screaming for him to leave too. There's a problem with a movie when the heroine of the film is so annoying, childish and stupid that you want her to fail.

Beyond that, let me say that Andy Dick made me laugh a few times even though his character was also pretentious to the point of annoyance. Regarding the other characters, they were well acted, morally bankrupt and annoying characters.

It is a comedy and I can say I did laugh a few times in the film. Unfortunately, not much laughing happened until the last 10 minutes or so. But by the time I had those laughs, I had been praying for the movie to end for far too long. I needed to get these vapid characters out of my life.

If you want to watch people you hate struggle with a love for people they don't deserve, then this is the movie for you.

Sentiment: negative
I found this movie to be a simple yet wonderful comedy. This movie is purely entertaining. I can watch it time and time again and still enjoy the dialog and chemistry between the characters. I truly hope for a DVD release!

Sentiment: positive
the film itself is absolutely brilliant, its that buzz, that rush that makes you just want to go out, blow your wages and loose yourself. It's what the weekend is all about, its our sanitation where we can come together as one and be ourselves without a care in the world. The film is layered in depth and the dialogue in places is just spot on, especially with Jip. The characters themselves are instantly likable, one in particular is obviously dyers character and his views on what "Star Wars" is really about, genius.

If ever you've got an hour to kill before going out, stick on this, you'll immediately feel yourself growing in confidence, definitely recommend it.

Sentiment: positive
If you want to see a movie with nudity, sex, drugs, alcohol, brutal beating of a woman and child rape, this movie will satisfy you. If you want to see a man creatively exact revenge on the treasure of a wife who left him, this movie has it. You've already heard the wonderful music that keeps the raw emotion going. The surprise is that in a story of violence, action and music a climax can come in a moment of silence, without a pedantic speech, which transforms the movie. Look for a final scene that is an unexpected evidence of a wounded person healing. Perhaps we who wonder why we wallow in the abundant profane will learn that love can be located above the loins in the heart. From the pumping pounding follow the rhythm to where where love is sacred.

Sentiment: positive
666: The Child starts as a plane crashes, the only survivor of flight 666 was a young boy named Donald (Boo Boo Stewart) who is adopted by news reporter Erika (Sarah Lieving) & her cameraman husband Scott Lawson (Adam Vincent) after they covered the incident for Channel 6 news. At first Donald seems like any normal kid but death seems to follow him around, after warnings from a Nun & Vicar Scott begins to believe that Donald is evil & the cause of all the deaths...

This straight-to-DVD horror flick was directed by Jake Perez under the pseudonym Jake Jackson & one has to say 666: The Child is really rather poor. Whenever I see The Asylum is responsible for a film I get worried, I get very worried since their track record is awful. They seem to specialise in making &/or distributing low budget horror films which are usually rip-offs of some recent successful big budget horror film & in the case of 666: The Child you don't need a degree in rocket science to realise that it's a complete rip-off to cash in on the recent The Omen (2006) which was released the same year. The script by Benjamin Henry & Austin Laurel is terrible & simply can't match the ambitions of the the Hollywood equivalent, I mean just what exactly does Donald the Antichrist expect to achieve from a middle class family in a small town? It's hardly a great starting point to bring about the destruction of thew world is it? Every character in 666: The Child is some form of the main character's from The Omen, the adopted parents, the Priest who tries to warn them & the sinister babysitter. There's a real lack of incident, there's barely any gore & the plot is poor. I mean Donald killing a dentist because they were trying to fix his teeth is just so random & needless, what were all the disgusting pictures Donald drew all about, where did the babysitter come from & there's just nothing that ties everything together & it's just a disjointed mess that just becomes very boring very quickly. The references to the number 6 also becomes annoying & are very unsubtle.

Director Perez does alright I suppose, it's competent if nothing else. There's virtually no blood or gore, there's a few sprays of blood, a cut off hand & someone gets a circular saw stuck in their face but it sounds a lot better than it looks on screen. It's certainly not scary, there's no atmosphere thanks to a throughly bland contemporary setting in a suburban house & there's no tension because we never really know what Donald is trying to do & there fore there's no threat from him.

Technically the film is alright, it's reasonably well made but since the actual film is so poor it makes little difference. The acting isn't that great but at the same time I've seen worse.

666: The Child is a poor mans The Omen rip-off, I'd sooner watch either the original or the remake over this any day of the week. Not good & definitely not recommended. Followed by the sequel 666: The Beast (2007) which also went straight-to-DVD.

Sentiment: negative
Anything that might have been potentially interesting in this material is sunk in the first few seconds with a disclaimer that the events we're about to see can't ever be known and "This is the whisper [rumor] most often told" about one of Hollywood's most sensational "mysteries."

Okay. So we're not getting anything new (and E!'s "Mysteries & Scandals" gives you a better foothold on the particular incident...and that's not much of an endorsement). What do we get?

We learn that Hollywood is a nest of viper's and decadents. No big news there. More interesting we learn what a washed up director is willing to do to regain his position of power in the entertainment industry and/or political establishment. It raises the question of whether Peter Bogdanovich is speaking from his own experience through these characters. But what's told is so cynical and ugly and muddled, we're left feeling guilty for witnessing a bunch of hooey that passes itself off as history.

The tone of the film has a curious madcap quality that I found more irritating than fun. We're not empathetic with anyone. And the great "Citizen Kane" polishes off the relationship between Davies and Hearts in a much more convincing way. In "The Cat's Meow" we're not ever sure of Davies motives for being with Hearst. As soon as we're told one thing, she's off doing the other.

And are we to believe that Davies was the love of Chaplain's life? Or is he just trying to cockold one of America's most powerful--and apparently moronic--citizens. The film never makes it clear.

What is convincing are the production values. There's a glorious recreation of the yacht and period costumes. I got more out of looking at the construction of some of the lapels on the men's jackets than following a story that libels many of the the most well-known personalities in Hollywood history. No one will remember that the screenplay is pure fiction. The disclaimers that frame the film only make it all the more tentative and unsatisfying.

The performers can't be faulted, although Meg Tilly goes way past parody here. Kirsten Dunst never disappoints. She gives the most sincere performance in a sea of scenery chewing. Only Joanna Lumley rises above the material, but so much so that she seems to be distancing herself from the whole enterprise rather than narrating it. One of her first lines is, "I'm not here!" And I'm sure she wishes she wasn't.

This isn't on par with Bogdanovich's trashy, so-bad-it's-good "At Long Last Love." It's perched on attempting something serious, but hesitates and stumbles chiefly because it's so full of bitterness towards "the beast" named Hollywood. This is "National Enquirer" filmmaking. And it not only soils the names of those who the film places on board the Oneida that weekend, but the audience gets pretty dirty as well.

Sentiment: negative
I won't give anything away by describing the plot of this film other than to say that it begins with the return to Israel of a young blind woman whose closest friend and companion has just committed suicide. It unfolds like a detective story as the blind woman tries to figure out why her friend ended her life. As she pursues her investigation and the information accumulates, it leads inexorably to a devastating conclusion. The film is expertly paced and the acting, especially by Talia Sharon as Ya'ara, the blind woman, is excellent. Israeli film has definitely come of age and is now fully competitive with other foreign films, though few have found a large audience in the U.S.

Sentiment: positive
When I rented Domino I was expected it to be very dumb. I hate films that have really flashy editing and cinematography and Domino also just got very bad reviews. The only reason I watched it is because I like have liked Keira Knightley, Mickey Rourke, Christopher Walken, and Tony Scott on other occasions. I also just enjoy based on fact adventure stories. Yes the editing and cinematography were frantic, the story was weak, and the acting was mediocre, but I still loved this film for some bizarre reason. Domino was very, very entertaining and often very funny. It was horribly underrated when it was released I think because everyone wanted more of an emotional journey like Scotts last film Man on Fire and instead just got wonderful entertainment. I actually understand why everybody hated Domino so much, even though I loved it and recommend it.

Sentiment: positive
Medical student Paula Henning wins a place at an exclusive Heidelberg medical school. When the body of a young man she met on the train turns up on her dissection table, she begins to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding his death, and uncovers a gruesome conspiracy perpetrated by an Antihippocratic secret society operating within the school. Disturbing and gross, lots of scary parts. It even has a good script and ending. But it has a one poor part. What else could you see from this movie? It's a good mystery and horror movie. But, of course, if you like it, Go buy it. If you don't, there still is not reason to waste your money on this.

Rated R for Extreme Graphic Violence, Sexual Situations and Profanity.

Sentiment: negative
Very much a film from the times -- extremely long sequences with no dialogue, bad flashbacks, and an almost entirely male cast. The two women who appear have a total of under 10 lines and exist only as romantic interests for men.

O'Toole is riveting whenever he speaks; unfortunately, he spends much of his time peering through shrubbery. Alastair Sims is always a joy to see but he, too, is terribly underused.

The film has one additional positive aspect, in that it depicts many aspects of British fascism and fascist sympathies (such as the casual appearance of the Mosley graffiti) that many people today are unaware of. Too many of today's films about WWII paint the Allies as all-good and the Axis as all-evil, when history tells us people are far more complicated than that!

This would be a good movie for when you're recovering from the flu and are bundled on the couch and not able to absorb anything too complex. If you just need something to pass the time while your electrolytes stabilize, this is the movie for you.

Sentiment: negative
I'm so sorry, but I have to tell this film was the most terrible I have ever seen before. I thought that it will be a good film after 8mm. WHAT A SELL!!! There were nothing interesting in it, except the beautiful Hungarian women. Everything might be known forward. It's a miracle I didn't sleep trough all. I don't understand how might you let make it!! I'm so sorry, but I have to tell this film was the most terrible I have ever seen before. I thought that it will be a good film after 8mm. WHAT A SELL!!! There were nothing interesting in it, except the beautiful Hungarian women. Everything might be known forward. It's a miracle I didn't sleep trough all. I don't understand how might you let make it!!

Sentiment: negative
Don't drink the cool-aid.

This is an opinion piece disguised as a documentary. And to title it as a "truth" is just plain crap. The debate over global warming is far from over, and will only be over when the eco-zombies start acknowledging the mountain of evidence contrary to their beloved theory. Just Google "Global Warming" and "Hoax" or "Junk Science" and you will find a river of information refuting nearly every link in the chain of logic that Gore sites. The reason it is so important for people to educate themselves is the disastrous economic impact that global warming prevention measures would have. Wake up people. Anyone with a computer, a little time, and some common sense can find many many reasons why this theory is not even close to credible. Don't just read articles that support your present opinions, read everything you can find. There is no in-depth analysis to make, really. There is simply too many alternate possibilities and counter-evidence for the theory to have even the most basic level of scientific credibility. It is so uncredible, in fact, that it may be the single biggest hoax in the course of human existence. It's time for people to start speaking out against this kind of propaganda, and it's time for people to admit to themselves and others that you can be a both a conservationist AND recognize the glaring conclusion that global warming hysteria is a big lie.

Sentiment: negative
"The Apartment Complex" is a campy comedy full of kookie characters created in lieu of a real story which tells a young psych student (Lowe) who takes a job managing an apartment complex and becomes embroiled in a murder mystery...um, if you can call it that. This low cal watch contains no suspense, no thrills, no drama, no action, precious few funny moments, a dash of nudity, and almost no romance. "The Apartment Complex" is passable, forgettable junk food for only the most needy couch potatoes.

Sentiment: negative
I really liked this movie. One thing I have noticed is that Korean TV drama's are way better, as far as giving you the whole story. I watch movies when I do not have the time or feel like going through 16-30 episodes. Movies are seem to be rushed and if you do not watch carefully, you may miss something. 

I do feel this one was rushed and I had to rewind a few parts to try and find what I missed, especially towards at the end. If you like nice love stories, I still think this is cute, and if yo have the extra time, I still think this is worth watching.

It is always nice to go back follow the actors in different movies as we do not get to follow them from when they begin, as we do the actors producers and directors in our own countries.

Sentiment: positive
one of best movies ever...Fire...it is not much about sociological description of India today...it is the mind blowing use of light that never stops, never becomes...normal...even when...in this sense the movie is almost unique...both leads are of very good quality...the origin of Das as a street performer are pretty obvious...her performance is a superb "cammeo"...but the use of the light...I have look at it and looked at it, again and again...still mind blowing after ages...nothing torrid in the story...rather "pure" way of facing the subject...in a way it is sad that in the bizarre world we live today, a major art work is usually known as a gender film...Fire can stand face to face with Dryer's Jeanne D' Arc or Ichikawa's Biruma no Tategoto or some of the major Kurosawa movies, just to name "some". Wish my input could help a little this movie to its deserved way to fame.

Sentiment: positive
This was not a well done western. You've got this nut riding around in the blazing sun in a buggy with a parasol over it, killing people for his own reasons. You've got this same person sitting in a snow cave during a blizzard, cutting off pieces of his anatomy which have been frostbitten. Then you've got some woman in a house out in the middle of somewhere shooting wolves that are not there. What is the point of this film? Couldn't Bruce Dern find something better to do? This was a waste of film.

Sentiment: negative
"STEP BY STEP," is my opinion, is a pure ABC hit! I can't recall every episode, but I still enjoyed it. It's hard to say which episode was my favorite. However, I think it was always funny when a mishap occurred at school. I always laugh at that. As a matter of fact, I think just about every single one of J.T. (Brandon Call) and Cody's (Sasha Mitchell) lines were funny. It would have been nice if Penny (Patrika Darbo) had stayed on the show throughout its entire run. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, I hope it never stops airing in syndication.

Sentiment: positive
A quiet, sweet and beutifully nostalgic movie on how it is to be confronted with old friends and surroundings from your youth with all that memories and the problems and sorrows of the present with you. A movie that makes you feel good. All the ingredients are here: old jelousy, rivalry, friendship and loyalty. Mischief, nightly fridge-raids and all the other fun stuff that we all remember from our summer camps. All the characters get the opportunity for a week to experience this again as the old camp-leader now is retiring and want to meet the children from the golden years of the camp. All of them are now in their thirties and in the middle of their careers.

Sentiment: positive
Not just because of that theme in the movie. Which was one of the lame excuses for something reminiscent of plot. No.

I watched this, knowing I would not like it. I HATE numerology. Whenever someone starts going off about patterns with numbers I feel the urge to slap them. My own brain starts hurting out of empathy. And fully aware this is a movie just about that topic, I couldn't resist the urge to watch it and maybe get a good laugh. But it wasn't funny. Just exactly the dumb sort of "Isn't this totally scary and yet amazingly cool?! I can turn any crap into 23!" dialog I was afraid of. As soon as the son started to chime in, I knew this movie is a turd, no matter what happens. But I hardly ever stop watching a movie I started. I sat through it. I enjoy the pain.

The movie pretends to mock numerology under the disguise of showing how obsession can end badly. But it rides that wave as much as it's supposed to crush it. I don't see that message. I only see characters raving about a stupid number with little plot to justify. 

Top that off with the usual "surprises" - trying to put another twist to throw you off, that makes no sense, and you almost believe it due to the quality of the narration up to there - and you get one hollow piece of movie-making. That just happens to be centered around the topic I despise. If only it did not try to be serious and rather had been some hilarious movie with actors I don't give a damn about. But I was starting to like Carrey...while it's not his fault, he is trying. It's not even good for watching with a bunch of friends and mst3k the hell out of it.

My expectations were low enough for someone to trip on them, but this movie managed to live up to be one of the worst I've ever seen.

Sentiment: negative
This was another great Tom Berenger movie.. But some people are right it was like another SGT BARNES character but it was still awsome.. Tom Berenger played a great sniper in the jungles Of Panama! Billy Zane was a wuss at first just like Cpl Upham from Saving Private Ryan but then he got a little more aggresive in the end! Sniper was awsome and action buffs should watch it.. I remind you it wouldnt have as much action as a reg action flick.. i got this one on DVD too and it is excellent!

Sentiment: positive
I am a VERY big Jim Carrey fan. I laughed my ASS off during Liar Liar and Ace Ventura. I also like him in his serious movies, especially Truman Show. This one is a cross between his VERY funny side, and his serious side. He is of course VERY funny in this movie, but there are parts that are very serious, and he pulls it off with a lot of ease. he is truely a multi-function actor.

As for the rest of the cast, I was happy with Jennifer Aniston's acting. I think she is more than just a couple of nice tits and great ass. Morgan Freeman makes a VERY cool God. As for Steven Carell, his limited scenes are VERY funny, especially in the anchor scene.

Overall, I would have to rate this a 9. Good acting, funny script, and some very serious situations make this a very good film.

Sentiment: positive
I was still living with my parents when they aired this on dutch TV. Usually I was the one watching movies with the other's not caring. But somehow we all sat down and watched this movie. This kinda movie used to be aired at Wednesday-evening. It is the story of a woman who'll die soon. But before she dies she wants to make sure her ( many ) kids will have the best possible foster-parents. So we were watching this and my dad ( the most emotional of the four of us) started to cry. I followed almost immediately and before long my sister and mother were teared up too. There we were, totally moved by this simple but heartbreaking story. If you want a good cry, this is the one for you!

Sentiment: positive
Call me stupid, but I absolutely loved the 2001 horror movie, Valentine. It was so well-made, well-written, well-acted, well-directed, etc! Everything about it was wonderful! There were parts that were relatively routine (Lily's death), very funny (www.Bleed-Me-Dry.com), completely horrifying and creepy (Paige's death), and just plain heartbreaking (the first scene). I think the entire cast did a great job, especially the three leads: David Boreanaz, Denise Richards (both of whom I met, and got autographs from, during the filming of this movie - VERY nice people!), and Marley Shelton.

I am very sick of people calling this movie "another Scream clone". This movie is, in no way, a Scream clone. In fact, this film runs rings around Scream. It actually makes SENSE! Scream was also NOT the only movie to feature a masked killer in it. Excuse me, but it looks like Scream was also a clone too (ahem..., Friday the 13th, Halloween, and many other scary movies also featured masked killers). I also think that the novelty of the cupid-masked killer is brilliant. It's so strange to see a sweet, cupid face doing all of these horrible things. Another novelty (the nose bleeding) makes way for a fantastic ending! The ending gives me chills every time I see it!!!!! So, even if you didn't like it the first time, watch Valentine again and give it another chance!

PS- Keep an eye out for my new website (WWW.LOVE-HURTS.ORG)! Coming soon...

Sentiment: positive
One minute into THE UNTOLD and it`s already ripped off techniques from THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and PREDATOR . Does this mean we`ll be seeing lots of trees ? We sure will . Will we be seeing an Austrian bodybuilder blowing things up ? Well this film has the budget of a TVM so the answer is a resounding no . Does anyone like these soft porn shows like BEDTIME STORIES ? Good because there`s a scene in this that resembles these type of shows . Unfortunately the only thing you see is cellulite . Do you like it when the screen fades to black during a TVM ? Great because this happens between every scene in THE UNTOLD . In fact it happens during every scene too . Did you enjoy MILLIONAIRE - A MAJOR FRAUD ? Fantastic because one of the characters looks like a bearded Major Charles Ingram the contestant who tried to swindle the show out of one million pounds . Seriously one of the characters looks like Major Ingram . I kept expecting him to say " It`s bear. It could be a bear . But it might be a bigfoot < Cough , cough > , yes it`s a bigfoot < Cough > , it`s definately a bigfoot < Cough > Yes I`m going to shoot it . Final answer Chris " 

Oh and have I mentioned that all the above are the good bits ?

THE UNTOLD isn`t the worst bigfoot movie I`ve ever seen , that accolade firmly goes to NIGHT OF THE DEMON which I saw over twenty years ago and I think I`ve only seen less than a dozen films that are worse in all of that time . But that said THE UNTOLD is still a very poor film in just about every aspect , especially editing . As some other reviewers have pointed out it feels like whole chunks of the film are missing while there`s other bits where scenes are spliced together in the wrong order . This is a really bad film that deserves far less than its rating of 5.1. I give it 3 out of ten and I`m being very kind

Sentiment: negative
I know that so many reviews on IMDb are extreme, with reviewers either praising a film to the hilt or inarticulately tearing it to pieces. I find neither of these kind of reviews helpful, and so I do not give this film the awful review I am about to, lightly. The film is art-house science-fiction of the worst kind dressed up as a Hollywood blockbuster. The trailers draw you in by showing you what appears to be a cohesive plot, but is actually just a tiny part of a wilfully baffling series of events which are never properly resolved. I like films which challenge the viewer and I do not need to be spoon-fed a plot, and so my complaint against this film is not that it is too highbrow. No - the film is just terrible. As the credits roll you will feel genuine anger at having wasted your time on Cameron Diaz's wooden acting and a faltering plot-line. Avoid.

Sentiment: negative
When I saw this movie, I was amazed that it was only a TV movie. I think this movie should have been in theaters. I have seen many movies that are about rape, but this one stands out. This movie has a kind of realism that is very rarely found in movies today, let alone TV movies. It tells a story that I'm sure is very realistic to many rape victims in small towns today, and I found it to be very believable(which is something hard to find in other rape centered movies). I also thought that Tiffani Theissen and Brian Austin Green were awesome in the parts that they played. I definitely recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys movies that have a bit of a harsh reality to them. I enjoyed it very much.

Sentiment: positive
Another decent offering from the pen of Vince Gilligan.

A pre-"Malcolm in the Middle" Bryan Cranston plays Patrick Crump, a deranged guy who eventually hijacks Mulder via gunpoint and has him driving west at high speeds. It has something to do with his severe head ringing (& possible deadly combustion--his wife just experienced it), and the pressure only seems to be relieved by heading towards the left coast. Only Mulder could relate to this guy's plight, and actually bond with his captor before the all night ride is completed. 

Meanwhile, Scully seems to have solved the case with a possible remedy for Mr. Crump, and will meet them at the ocean. Check it out to see if our Dynamic Duo can hook up at the Pacific and somehow rectify Mr. Crump's big problem.

Sentiment: positive
If you have seen the Sholay of 1975, Don't watch this movie. If you have NOT seen the Sholay of 1975, Go WATCH IT. But do not watch this movie. This movie has all the ingredients that could possibly have gone wrong with making a remake of Sholay. 

Amitabh 'Babban' Bachchan plays the role of a psycho villain to the best (Probably the only 40 mins of the reel that shouldn't be burnt). If you remove the rest of the movie and just watch amitabh play around with his character, it would still be worth a watch. But as Insp. Narsimha, Mohanlal doesn't do justice to his talent. Ajay Devgan(Heero) is extremely mundane and the only reason i think, they cast Prashant Raj in the role of Raj is because he has a striking resemblance to Amitabh of his young days. Sushmita Sen carries herself well, with grace and make-up. But the award for the "WORST performance and any role till date" must go to Nisha Kothari. She manages to degrade her acting to such levels that even high-school drama would would outshine her performance.

If you have a mortal enemy, take him to this movie. :)

Sentiment: negative
WORTH IT FOR: If not for Mick Molloy's work, then for Judith Lucy. She brings her usual classy style of unbridled foul-mouthery to the role, and steals the show in parts.

IMHO: I'm not much of an autograph hunter, but I have collected 3. The first is Samuel L. Jackson's, the other 2 are in this movie: Tony Martin and Mick Molloy. Altho Martin only makes a cameo appearance, Molloy not only stars but co-wrote and co-produced this flick. I've been a fan of their for years now (apparently I was the only one laughing during the on-set urination in the first episode of the short lived The Mick Molloy Show), so I went in to this with high expectations. I'm happy to say I wasn't disappointed. With Mick doing a lot of the work on this thing there's plenty of his usual trademarks. Phrases like "blow it out your arse" and "these bowls are s***house" are all over the place, aswell as plenty of Winnie Blues being sucked down. It's also the sort of stupid, original story you'd expect from someone like him. This is like one of those cliqued, American, sporting comedies where they make a baseball team out of prisoners or something. But rather than trying to make a dull American sport like baseball or gridiron interesting, this movie focuses on a sport usually left to grey army: Lawn Bowls. But the main difference between this and other sporting type comedies is that this is actually very, very funny. What's even better is that even tho the subject of this movie is a young lout joining an old folks game, it's never insulting to the elderly, and it never gets sickeningly soppy or anything. It's just good laughs at genuine 1972 prices. Mick is great in the first real acting role I've ever seen him in, as is Judith Lucy and the rest of the cast, but then most of them have had a lot of practice... This is the best Australian comedy I've seen in a long time. Go see it and learn the joys of Lawn Bowls!

IT'S A BIT LIKE: Major League?

SCORE: 8 / 10

Sentiment: positive
I'm a historian. This movie is so wrong it hurts. Tried to watch with an open mind, but if you're going to delve into a movie or anything for that matter of this nature at least do some homework regarding history, locations, church protocol, et cetera. Stop playing to the dumb audience, please. There are those of us out there that actually put on our shoes and venture out to the theatre when something of this nature, worthy of a theatrical release comes to town. A little research, all I'm asking. But then again, the book it's based on is somewhat of a joke in itself. So basically, they took a novel with many errors and decided to make it into a screenplay, pour millions and millions and millions of dollars into it and make an incredibly promoted world distributed theatrical release and at no time have anyone take the time to do a little research on the lot of it. I know several of my colleagues who would have done it for just the credit alone or at least given it to a body of students as an assignment for several weeks to research various aspects or just pay someone knowledgeable a couple of bucks just to run through it because trust me, there are plenty of starving historians out there who would have jumped on the opportunity if it had presented itself.

Sentiment: negative
I feel this is one of the best movies I've seen,I'm an older male and love most westerns. I love movies based in part at least on facts,If I am not mistaken this is such a movie. I also like revenge type movies,This qualifies there as well in my opinion.Some of my favorite parts of the movie were the opening scene with the whipping and the barn shooting scene. I felt the corral beating scene was a little overkill but did not affect how I feel about the complete movie. I saw what I think is a continuation of this movie in a gun smoke episode. I also enjoyed that.I recommend taking the time to watch this movie ,I will watch it again. I also felt the romance parts of this movie were well played. I thought it was so out of character for Randy Travis to play a villain type ,but I always enjoy his acting.

Sentiment: positive
Just to let everyone know, this is possibly the WORST movie I have ever seen, and I've seen pretty much everything. If you're thinking of renting it, DON'T!!! It's not worth the cardboard container that it came in....

Sentiment: negative
We gave up at the point where George Clooney's character has his finger-nails extracted. We were not squeamish - having sat through an hour of this drivel we just knew what it felt like. To say this film was incomprehensible, boring, pretentious twaddle would be to over-praise it! How did people manage to sit through this confusing, slow, depressing pseud's corner of a film, let alone nominate it for an Oscar? Clooney looked as ill as we felt watching him. What was he thinking? Oh .. and what was with those subtitles? - did we just have a dud DVD or was the original film done like that - sentences left hanging in mid-air? The film was hard enough to follow without that as well. I pity the cast, who obviously did their best with the material available.

Sentiment: negative
A bumbling error at the Ministry Of Education results in Nutbourne Boys School having to share with St Swithin's School For Girls. This bemuses the respective head teachers of each school and leads to all manner of chaotic goings on, however the two are forced to come to an uneasy alliance in the hope of averting major trouble.

The Happiest Days Of Your Life is based on the John Dighton play from 1948, with Dighton writing the part of Headmistress Whitchurch specifically for Margaret Rutherford. Replacing George Howe from the play in the role of Headmaster Pond, is Alastair Sim, and here in lies the crowning glory of this filmic adaptation, Sim & Rutherford are perfectly wonderful, bouncing off each other to keep what is basically a one joke movie, highly entertaining. Directed by the gifted Frank Launder, and produced by the equally adroit Sidney Gilliat, The Happiest Days Of Your Life is a quintessentially British movie, obviously a precursor to the St Trinians franchise, the film entertains the children with it's high jinks clash of the sexes heart, whilst tickling the watching adults with its very saucy undercurrent. Thankfully the chaotic ending cements all that has gone before it to leave this particular viewer with a grin as wide as Nutbourne Rail Station, great fun 8/10.

Sentiment: positive
Despite being released on DVD by Blue Underground some five years ago, I have never come across this Italian "sword and sorcery" item on late-night Italian TV and, now that I have seen it for myself, I know exactly why. Not because of its director's typical predilection for extreme gore (of which there is some examples to be sure) or the fact that the handful of women in it parade topless all the time (it is set in the Dark Ages after all)it is, quite simply, very poor stuff indeed. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it may very well be the worst of its kind that I have yet seen and, believe me, I have seen plenty (especially in the last few years i.e. following my excursion to the 2004 Venice Film Festival)! Reading about how the film's failure at the time of initial release is believed to have led to its director's subsequent (and regrettable) career nosedive into mindless low-budget gore, I can see their point: I may prefer Fulci's earlier "giallo" period (1968-77) to his more popular stuff horror (1979-82) myself but, even on the latter, his commitment was arguably unquestionable. On the other hand, CONQUEST seems not to have inspired Fulci in the least  seeing how he decided to drape the proceedings with an annoyingly perpetual mist, sprinkle it with incongruent characters (cannibals vs. werewolves, anyone?), irrelevant gore (we are treated to a gratuitous, nasty cannibal dinner just before witnessing the flesh-eating revelers having their brains literally beaten out by their hairy antagonists!) and even some highly unappetizing intimacy between the masked, brain-slurping villainess (don't ask) and her slimy reptilian pet!! For what it is worth, we have two heroes for the price of one here: a young magic bow-carrying boy on some manhood-affirming odyssey (Andrea Occhipinti) and his rambling muscle-bound companion (Jorge Rivero i.e. Frenchy from Howard Hawks' RIO LOBO [1970]!) who, despite being called Mace (short for Maciste, perhaps?), seems to be there simply to drop in on his cavewoman from time to time and get his younger protégé out of trouble (particularly during an exceedingly unpleasant attack of the 'boils'). Unfortunately, even the usual saving grace of such lowbrow material comes up short here as ex-Goblin Claudio Simonetti's electronic score seems awfully inappropriate at times. Fulci even contrives to give the film a laughably hurried coda with the surviving beefy hero going aimlessly out into the wilderness (after defeating one and all with the aid of the all-important magic bowso much for his own supposed physical strength!) onto his next  and thankfully unfilmed  adventure!

Sentiment: negative
I've no idea what dimwit from San Francisco came up with this stupid plot, but apparently they need to get off whatever drugs they are taking and put their analyst on danger money -- NOW.

Yeah, this is a plausible story, if you regard the alien abduction sequence in "Life of Brian" as plausible.

This film is little more than a leftist pipedream. Had the US and USSR give up nuclear weapons, the result would've been to eliminate the only real obstacle that kept the two from engaging in a war. Bad as Korea, Vietnam and other wars of the era were, they were "proxy wars" fought to keep the superpowers from a direct engagement.

This film makes me think about how realistic it was when some group of high school kids would go on a hunger strike against nuclear proliferation. As if someone would say "Mr. President, some kids at Drastic High are not eating!" and Ronald Reagan would reply "My God! I'd better revise my Defense policy!" Right.

Like this film? Wouldn't it be better if the Soviet Union would've collapsed because they could not support their massive arms build... wait, that happened!

Sentiment: negative
A fabulous book about a fox and his family who does what foxs do. that being stealing from farms and killing prey. until a trio of farmers decide they've had enough of this fox and try in various ways to have the problem "solved". They are of course "out foxed" at every turn and while the trio are camped out at the fox hole the family perform raids against the three farmers land.

The"film" version ,and I use the term film very loosely, is more of a god awful pastiche of American heist movies particularly the Oceans movies. They they even have George clooney as Mr fox to to add to the insult and manage to miss the point of the story quite completely. So kudos to them .They'll make lots of money and destroy another classic Roald Dahl children book.

Sentiment: negative
To Die For (1989) was just another d.t.v. feature that made an appearance on cable ad nasuem during the early nineties. The only thing notable about this feature was the last movie Duane Jones appeared in. Other than that there's no reason to watch this vampire flick unless you like pseudo chick flicks masquerading as a horror film. A tired vampire longs for love and searches the back streets of L.A. looking for it. Will he succeed or will Vlad just strike out again like he has for the last century?

This movie must have been big because a couple of sequels soon followed. They're so bad they make this one look like a classic. I know this is a movie about vampires but the film makers could have used to lighting.

Not recommended by me because I didn't like it.

'nuff said?

Sentiment: negative
Without a doubt one of the worst movies I've seen in recent years. The story focuses on four women driven to robbing banks who we are somehow supposed to sympathize with. It's tough to sympathize with characters who keep making such stupid decisions. Oh no, the cops are on to us, they know who we are, what do we do?...Let's rob one more bank then we're outta here! What!?! Every character is a stereotype and it's easy to tell who's gonna end up dead.

Sentiment: negative
Despite its pedigree, the most interesting things about this series are not the animatronics or puppetry, which, while charming, are little more than sideshows, at least in the story I saw, A STORY SHORT. In fact, loathe though I am to admit it, the programme's chief pleasure lies in that most ancient art, storytelling.

John Hurt, in Rowley Birken QC-mode, grotesque, medieval make-up, relates a story about story telling, seated by the fire, accompanied by a cynical dog. One winter's day, starving and poor, he spots a fellow beggar thrown out of the Royal Kitchen by the nasty cook. The Story Teller tricks this latter into giving them an excellent soup. Furious, the Cook pleads with the King for permission to boil the villain, but, pleased with the Story Teller's wit, the monarch offers him a reprieve - for 100 nights, he must tell the King a new story: if he fails to do so, he will hand him over to the cook.

The story may be old, but it's told with great gusto. Anthony Minghella's script is excellently dramatic (as befits a playwright), witty, and with some disturbing concerns beneath the fun, such as fears for the self, or the culturally self-generating power of storytelling, linked to the continuation of ideological power. For a programme aimed at children, it is bracingly self-reflexive (with little nonsense about film being the new oral culture); despite the Americanised style, there is a charming sense of medieval bustle, its grotesqueness and arbitrary terror, as well as its magic and power.

Sentiment: positive