DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
The Battleship Potemkin was said to have been a favourite of Charlie Chaplin. It presents a dramatised version of the mutiny that occurred in 1905 when the crew of the Russian battleship Potemkin rebelled against their officers of the Tsarist regime.

The film is a textbook cinema classic, and a masterpiece of creative editing, especially in the famous Odessa Steps sequence in which innocent civilians are mown down in the bloodshed; the happenings of a minute are drawn into five by frenzied cross-cutting. The film contains 1,300 separate shots, and in 1948 and 1958 was judged the best film ever made by a panel of international critics. The Battleship Potemkin is in the public domain, in some parts of the world.

Sentiment: positive
I gave it a 10, since everyone else seemed to like it and it would have been churlish not to. The reason I'm troubling you is to add a personal observation on Castle's work.

I've seen "Homicidal" and "The Tingler" (the version with the clever colour sequence where everything except the blood is in black and white) a few times and "The House On Haunted Hill" many times.

Even I am not old enough to have seen them when Castle was up to his showman tricks, thus I can appreciate them for their own merit. And while most pass him off as second-rate, schlocky, hammy, etc., I believe they do him a disservice.

The end sequence of "Homicidal" is GENUINELY shocking and works today - and the premise of "The Tingler" while silly, was highly original.

But "The House On Haunted Hill" was a TRIUMPH. Having used that Frank Lloyd Wright house as its exterior, the great Vincent Price and a solid cast, plus a good score and production values - when I first saw it at a packed late-night showing in the late Sixties, it produced an audience reaction I'd not seen before and have not seen since.

It was the bit where the heroine is alone in the basement (if you've not seen the film, stop reading NOW) and we are waiting to hear the hero on the other side of the wall.

With NO telegraphing of what is coming, the camera slowly pulls back, forcing the AUDIENCE to switch their gaze to... I'm saying no more (my "spoiler" declaration above only covers THIS movie).

The point is, I believe this ploy was DELIBERATE - not accidental - and when it happened, the WHOLE AUDIENCE SCREAMED (including most of the men!) It took the audience about TEN MINUTES to calm down.

Now THAT is superior film-making. A flamboyant showman he might have been, but "House" and the other two films I've mentioned were GOOD MOVIES. Castle may not have been a Hitchcock, but he was no Ed Wood, either.

It's easy to concentrate on someone's quirks and forget to examine their TALENT. So I hope this documentary acknowledged that. I look forward to seeing it.

Sentiment: positive
This film features Ben Chaplin as a bored bank employee in England who orders a mail order bride from Russia, recieves Nicole Kidman in the mail and gets more than he bargained for when, surprise, she isn't what she appears to be. The story is fairly predictible and Chaplin underacts too much to the point where he becomes somewhat anoying. Kidman is actualy rather good in this role, making her character about the only thing in this film that is interesting. GRADE: C

Sentiment: negative
Sometimes Hallmark can get it right - like The 10th Kingdom - but many of their fantasy films plod, and this falls into the latter category. The version I saw may have been cut (a demon [?] shown in the trailer and publicity stills didn't appear), but anything that made the movie shorter can only be a blessing.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS IF YOU ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE ORIGINAL FAIRY TALE:

Anyway, the film updates the story to the early part of the 20th Century (?), and makes Gerda and Kay (here called Kai - being a Lexx fan, I kept expecting him to say, `The Dead do not solve puzzles') 18 year olds. Hans Christian Andersen's basic story is followed: the boy gets a shard of ice in his eye, goes bad, is taken off by the Snow Queen to solve a puzzle in her palace and Gerda goes to find him, having various adventures on the way.

As the two main characters are older than in the original, a lot of time is spent getting them together and `in love'. Unfortunately, I was never convinced that they were particularly in love, and certainly not enough in love to make sense of Gerda's quest. By the time the main plot kicks in, the movie's pace has slowed to a crawl. Alas, when Gerda begins her search for Kai, it only manages to pick up the pace to a leisurely stroll.

There are a few odd additions to the story that seem to go nowhere. At the start of the film the Snow Queen kills Gerda's mother, but no explanation for this is given. A polar bear living in the Snow Queen's palace is more than he seems (though this is possibly because the producers realised that the bear's feelings towards the Snow Queen would be OK in a Fairy Tale, but not in a modern film). Again, this is never explained. Also, hints that the Snow Queen has an erotic desire for Kai are dropped, but never followed through. The script is also full of anachronisms that really jar you out of the `fairy tale' mood.

The production looks good, though there is evidence of penny-pinching: the Snow Queen's palace is the hotel where Gerda and Kai lived covered in ice. The three main characters are played with varying degrees of success: Kai comes across as bland as does Gerda initially, but once she sets off to find Kai you warm to her. Bridget Fonda looks great as the Snow Queen, but seems to be in a different movie to everyone else.

Ultimately, the film is unsatisfying. It looks good, but drags and lacks magic.

Sentiment: negative
This is the episode that probably most closely relates to it's partner law, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," in that it directly brings up the ever controversial issue, "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong?" This issue is presented in two parts within the episode: before the killing, when the film shows the dichotomy between the idealistic up-and-coming lawyer and the street thug so caught up in his ways that his life is merely a representation of what he's supposed to do, followed by the period after the trial and before the execution, when both are made to suffer for the deaths they feel responsible for and thus share.

One of the great things about the way these episodes work are in the both small and big ways the story is fully developed, so that we understand both the motivations and histories of characters we're only able to spend slightly less than an hour with. For all his criminal intentions and mockery, the killer is still very sympathetic, revolving the most important part of his actions around a history of accidental death. His way of killing is more a desire to control death than it is any desire to actually destroy. Similarly, the lawyer's idealistic naivety shows one unwilling to allow death to happen in a world where he can't control it. Their meeting is, indeed, important; they both have to give in to it while not propagating it.

As an aside, it's interesting how much this episode affects viewing of Rouge, Kieslowski's later completion of the Trois Colours trilogy. One of Kieslowski's biggest influences seems to be the idea of justice, and considering that the Decalogue is a meditation on something that represents Divine Justice, this one seems almost the most self-conscious.

--PolarisDiB

Sentiment: positive
Movie about a small town with equal numbers of Mormons and Baptists. New family moves in, cue the overwritten dialog, mediocre acting, green jello salad with shredded carrots, and every other 'inside Mormon joke' known to man. Anyone outside the Mormon culture will have a hard time stomaching this movie. Anyone inside the Mormon culture will be slightly amused with a chuckle here and there. You'll be much better off watching Hess's other movies (Napoleon Dynamite, etc..) than trying to sit through this one. The acting is mediocre. Jared Hess has had his hands on much more quality films like "Saints and Soldiers", and "Napoleon Dynamite". I would recommend both movies over this groaner.

Sentiment: negative
I just recently discovered this fantastic series and I just can't seem to get enough of Garner's laid back PI. The shows continually display excellent level of writing and suspenseful episodes.

This episode, Sleight of Hand, is a little different. Forsaking humor in favor of a more serious turn for Rockford as he searches for his missing girlfriend.

The mystery is great and it's unraveling is convincing enough. It's based on a book (can't remember the name) and it could easily have been stretched to a feature length episode. Garner excels here as Rockford gets tough and really means business. This has a "noir" feel to it all the way, the dark lighting and overall mood echo the great dark thrillers of the 40's and 50's.

Really good episode in a Class A series. Easily deserves a 10.

Sentiment: positive
I bought this a year or more ago for $2 (yep, $2), left it on the shelf for ages, now watching DVDs while holed up with a cold.

This is a haunting movie. Brilliant performances by all involved, especially the 6yo boy (about the only smiles you get in this movie).

Plot reminds me of perhaps my favourite movie ever, Grosse Pointe Blank, but obviously that's lighthearted, this is heavy hearted.

As a psychologist, a clinical and forensic psychologist, a shiver went up my spine when the identity of the new contract was revealed. Scary stuff! Brilliant work all round.

Pete

Sentiment: positive
Naming the absolutely most pathetic piece of crap in cinematic history is not an easy task, candidates being so abundant, but Nemesis 2 has been my personal favorite ever since I saw it. It was so funny we had to rent it again the next day, and again I laughed so hard I was literally rolling on the floor. (This usually only happens when I see Monty Python's "Scott of the Antarctic".)

Throughout the whole movie, an overwhelming what-the-heck-feeling firmly grasps the viewer. I'm utterly confounded that this clumsy home video ever made it to production stage. It's supposed to be a sequel, yet has no apparent connection whatsoever with the first film. The hero has the same name, but this time "Alex" is female, although it took us half way into the movie to stop guessing, what with all the muscles and the barbarian-nomad outfit!

There is really no plot at all, it's merely a prolonged chase scene, only it's so slow-paced and senseless that calling it a chase scene makes it sound way more interesting than it really is. There is almost no dialogue, which is just as well considering the quality of it, and then the film suddenly just comes to an abrupt end after a blatant action scene with lots of gasoline explosions, without ever really explaining what it was all about. Luckily, it never gets boring, because there's something silly and phony going on at all times!

Terrible movies are usually just tedious, but Nemesis 2 is such a perfect mixture of over-seriousness and utter nonintentional wackiness that it's truly entertaining. Rent this film, or buy it even, you won't be disappointed!

Sentiment: negative
All but the youngest Americans are probably familiar with the iconic call of "Laaaaaa-sie!" from little Timmy, or whatever the kid's name was, wailing his little tow-head off for his border collie friend. These same Americans may or may not be familiar with the fact that Lassie made the leap from television to movies (or was it the other way around? I'm clearly too lazy to do any research here), and The Painted Hills is one of those. It is irresistible to make a "this movie has gone to the dogs!" pun, so I won't (even though I technically just did). But in a way, it has. Lassie (playing Shep, man's best friend) gets top billing. THE DOG GETS TOP BILLING. Now, I'm not familiar with how actors or their agents negotiate contracts, but here's how it plays out in my mind: 

MOVIE MOGUL: Okay, Lassie, in the credits, it's gonna be, "and with Lassie as Shep!" LASSIE: Rrrrowf! Grrrrrrr. MOVIE MOGUL: Ha, ha, kid, calm down, calm down! LASSIE: Rrroo rrrrooo roooo. MOVIE MOGUL: Okay, I think I see. Co-lead billing? LASSIE: Rawrf! Rawrrrrff rawrf! MOVIE MOGUL: Oh God! Let go of my arm! Top billing! Top billing for you, now let go of my arm!!! 

So, the dog gets top billing, and with the rest of this shell-shocked cast, I suppose it's understandable. We get lovable old grumpus Jonathan the prospector, his young, whiny and apparently orphaned friend Tommy, sketchy loser Lin Taylor, and lovable old religious grumpus Pilot Pete. The meat of the plot here could be summed up in a few sentences, so I'll save you the actual pain of watching the movie. Jonathan is a prospector with a dog named Shep, and his partner dies while he is at his claim. He gets a new partner named Lin who becomes obsessed with the gold, and Jonathan for some reason gives Shep to whiny little crybaby Tommy. Lin kills Jonathan, Shep sees it, and Lin tries to kill Shep. Then Lin tries to kill Tommy. Then Tommy whines, it gets cold, and Shep carries out an elaborate plan to get revenge on Lin, which he (or she?) does. The end.

Unless you have a deep, unsettling need to see a Lassie movie (even then, there's got to be a better Lassie movie than this), just avoid The Painted Hills. When it's not dragging on, marveling at Lassie's limited ability to 'act' (similar in style, perhaps, to Keanu Reeves - always the same facial expression, only the body moves), setting up the obvious using several minutes of film, or insulting Native Americans everywhere with its white-actor-in-facepaint "Ugh! How! Me Running Bear!" stereotypes, The Painted Hills is fit only for Lassie fetishists or people who have some kind of connection to prospecting through their days as a grizzled old prospector lookin' fer that consarned vein of glittery gold!

Sentiment: negative
I thought that Eastwood's most unusual role was that in The Bridges of Madison County, but that was until I saw The Beguiled. He manages to pull it off, giving a very good performance and so does the rest of the cast. The direction is imaginative given that the film was made in 1971 and had there not been some plot holes - which the director seems to struggle to cover up at times - we would be talking about an excellent film. It remains powerful, nonetheless.

8

Sentiment: positive
If you're familiar with the work of auteur Johnny To and his band of filmmaking cronies over at Milky Way, you know what to expect with this latest production. All the familiar elements are in place: the strong camaraderie between two characters: usually a cop and a baddie, the coincidences and chances that turn on a dime and pay off handsomely in the end, and the humor that arises even in the most dire of situations.

Andy Lau plays a man who has 72 hours to live and decides to rob an insurance company. Lau Ching-Wan (also brilliant in other Milky Way films like "Longest Nite," "A Hero Never Dies," and "Where A Good Man Goes") portrays a hostage negotiator/cop who is on the robber's tail, even as the robber sets up a series of tricks and clues that he must follow in order to get his man.

Funny, poignant, and cool while being subtle, "Running" is actually one of the most entertaining Milky Way films to date. Don't miss the performances by the two leads, esp. Andy Lau, usually considered an average actor who has rarely been this natural and fun to watch. This film is one to go out of your way to see.

Sentiment: positive
This television show is stereotypical and far-fetched in many of its aspects.

First of all, the setting. All of the characters attend PCA, this unbelievable boarding school with painted, stylish dorms. The campus seems to have no reasonable rules - for instance, the boys are often seen in the girls' dormitories, and vice versa. But this may be simply because the dorm adviser, a silly character that basically bores the viewer instead of amusing them, as I assume her purpose is supposed to be, sits around and does nothing. I have friends in boarding schools, and they laugh at many aspects of the school in this show.

Next, the characters. I was so disappointed to discover that Nickelodeon wasn't creative at all with the personalities in this show. They all represent on characteristic which is exaggerated to the extreme: Zoey is supposedly perfect in everything she does (looks, grades, sports, guys, judgment, creativity, etc), Michael is the jock, Logan is the arrogant jerk who basically does nothing aside from aggravate all the characters as well as us poor viewers, Nicole is the preppy idiot who knows nothing but somehow maintains straight-A's, Dana was the tough girl, Quinn is the unrealistic 'smart kid,' whom they consistently make fun of, Chase is the guy who is afraid of confessing his 'true feelings' which really aggravates me as the show continues, and that new girl- Lola or something- is just another clone of Nicole.

The main two characters that aggravate me the most are Zoey and Quinn. First of all, I just do not understand Zoey's character. She was obviously created to be the 'perfect' character as I said above, but she seems to be the most flawed out of all of them- in most of the episodes she creates a problem, then has to fix it. What's frustrating is that we are supposed to love her and think she is amazing when they haven't even created a very realistic character to begin with.

Quinn, on the other hand, bothers me because she is exaggerated to the point at which her character is absolutely insulting. The impression I get from Nick concerning her character is that 'geeks' and 'nerds' are people to laugh at, to criticize, to mock. In the spring break episode they did a year ago, they introduced two more 'nerds' who the characters had to make 'cool.' I found this highly offensive and stereotypical. What kind of message is Nick sending to these kids? Is it: Don't do well in school, don't get good grades, don't study hard- you'll end up being a geek and we will mock your profession in future television series! Because that is definitely the message I get from these poorly constructed characters, and it is an awful message through and through.

All I can do is hope that Nick one day realizes that by putting down the intelligent folks in our world, they are not doing anyone any good.

Sentiment: negative
The film begins with people on Earth discovering that their rocket to Mars had not been lost but was just drifting out in Space near out planet. When it's retrieved, one of the crew members is ill, one is alive and the other two are missing. What happened to them is told through a flashback by the surviving member.

While on Mars, the crew was apparently attacked by a whole host of very silly bug-eyed monsters. Oddly, while the sets were pretty good, the monsters were among the silliest I have seen on film. Plus, in an odd attempt at realism, the production used a process called "Cinemagic". Unfortunately, this wonderful innovation just made the film look pretty cheap when they were on the surface of Mars AND the intensity of the redness practically made my eyes bleed--it was THAT bad!! Despite all the cheese, the film did have a somewhat interesting plot as well as a good message about space travel. For lovers of the genre, it's well worth seeing. For others, you may just find the whole thing rather silly--see for yourself and decide.

While by today's standards this isn't an especially good sci-fi film, compared with the films being made at the time, it stacks up pretty well.

PS--When you watch the film, pay careful attention to Dr. Tremayne. He looks like the spitting image of Dr. Quest from the "Jonny Quest" cartoon! Plus, he sounds and acts a lot like him, too.

Sentiment: negative
Japanese animators have a unique freedom with animation, which is why they tend to be able to come out with movies like these, movies that ultimately end up on anime-fans hard-drives and college student's floors, but get completely ignored by pretty much anybody outside of its country of origin. Cat Soup is one of those films that, from Western eyes, is supposed to be experienced on drugs or deeply analyzed. Really, it's just a beautifully detailed surrealist journey.

There's no real dialog, which makes it easy to pass on to other interested parties uninterested in things like subtitles. A cat and his half-dead (brain-dead?) sister travel through various landscapes of imagination and association. There's a general theme of water, or lack thereof (possibly because of the cat drowning at the beginning? Possibly because of the title?). There's an interesting sort of Genesis take. There's a pig that gets to eat itself. An elephant made of water. And it's gorgeous, compelling, exciting, and fun--provided you don't watch it around druggies who cannot experience anything visually unique without comparing it to an acid trip. Eventually the movie turns itself off, adding another compelling self-reflexive level to the proceedings.

--PolarisDiB

Sentiment: positive
The movie is apparently based on a popular French horror novel, by Arthur Bernède, from 1927. Not that I had ever heard about it before but Belphégor has been a popular subject before for movies and mini-series. The first movie got released way back in 1927, simultaneously with the novel. Arthur Bernède was a part of a group of writers who wrote and produced films and novels simultaneously. The character Belphégor is one of his best known creations.

Once upon a time Sophie Marceau was a promising new European actress who would conquer Hollywood. She has now however dropped back again to movies like this one. Nothing wrong with playing in French quality movies, since it's the country she originates from but this movie is just ridicules.

Problem is mostly that the movie relies on its special effects, to make the movie good and scary. Well, horror and special effects never really have been a good combination though, with some exceptions here and there. It's not like the special effects are bad in this one. Especially for an European movie it is simply good but it;s just misplaced, since the movie gave the feeling it could had easily done without its effect. It would had actually made the movie a better and scarier one to watch, no doubt about that really. 

The movie is just not ever tense or engaging to watch, also since the movie seems to have difficulties picking the right approach. At times the movie picks a light and just less serious approach, while at others it clearly attempts to be a good scary horror movie. This is mostly the reason why the movie just doesn't work out on any level. You can say that the movie is even a bit boring. It all also definitely gets worse toward the ending. After a while you just stop caring about this movie and its story and you start wishing you had decided to watch something else instead.

The editing seems totally off. It uses too fast cuts, without much style, while the fast editing was obviously intended to give the movie a good, modern style. Also the time-line is just plain messed up at times, as if some sequences got edited in the wrong order.

The musical score is also really annoying and at times doesn't even sounds to fit the movie, as if it all long got scored before the movie finished shooting. I can't believe composer Bruno Coulais is an Oscar nominated composer. The musical score is almost just as annoying as the movie its sound effects.

The movie is filled with many characters, which you however just couldn't care less about. It also just seems very unlikely that a woman like Sophie Marceau would ever fall for a man such as Frédéric Diefenthal. The movie also features Julie Christie, which is nice but just doesn't add much to the movie.

A horrible watch.

3/10

Sentiment: negative
Me being one was probably having a brain fart at the time for renting it. Anyone who actually buys it, will enjoy using this as a coaster. Perhaps a frisbee? This is a dvd I actually found up front where the kids could get to it. Since dvd's don't seem to be in the position to be put in that tell tale back room with all the big box vhs tapes are, I find it rather annoying they stuck this up next to a disney film. Yep, going from Dinosaur to Erotic Ghost has shown what we all think of Disney right? I havent' stooped that low just yet. There's no acting in here. The only thing interesting is the old 1973 movie trailers for ollllld ancient erotic films that I'm amazed have escape from being burned to hell.

1/10 (if imdb allowed zero's it'd be 0/10)

Sentiment: negative
I am usually disappointed by network movies. Even flix that attract big name actors are usually ruined by the TV people. However, this one is the worst of the worst. The screenplay is weak and the acting, especially that of Tracey Pollan is abominable. I've trudged off to see my kids'high school plays and been treated to better acting. Pollan acts as if she is reading the script as she speaks. When she tries to express fear, anger or grief, it's extremely hollow. Because of the overall quality of the production I found it difficult to take it seriously. If you decide to brave this one just be prepared for a big disappointment. Scary things won't scare you, sad things won't make you sad, romance won't make you feel warm and fuzzy and you will likely be as anxious as I was to see the end arrive. "First to die" says a lot about this movie.

Sentiment: negative
Two movies back to back which dealt with Indian POWs; Veer Zaara and Deewaar. Although Veer Zara was a love story of a guy who gives everything up for someone, Deewaar focuses on the main subject itself. It is not hidden that many Indian POWs are rotting in Pakistani Jails for years - for whom neither Indian Govt. has time or sympathy nor the other side. I'm sure some of Pakistani POWs are in India as well, but let's focus on the movie. Full of actors. Some were stage actors like Raghubir Yadav, Rajendra Gupta, etc. Amitabh Bachchan who plays the role of a Major, acted well. Akshaye Khanna did his part well. There was nothing for Amrita Rao to do than a few giggles and couple songs. I think Sanjay Dutt's role was most solid even though it wasn't too long. He acted really well here and his dialog delivery was also impressive. If you compare it to LOC, which was nothing but a day long movie with story going in all directions (if it HAD a story) - Deewaar is a well directed movie that keeps a good pace and does justice to all actors. 7.5/10

Sentiment: positive
A first time director (Bromell) has assembled a small but powerful cast to look at the world of a middle aged, middle class, depressed hit-man and his struggle with his relationship with his father. This film in less than 90 minutes presents an incredibly interesting contrast in human nature. David Dorfman as the 6 year old son of William H. Macy is the most refreshing little actor I've seen in awhile. Macy is brilliant in a part that almost seems written for him as a self tortured sole struggling to break the reins of his father and his business. It's always great to see Donald Sutherland and here he's wonderful as the callous father of Macy. The films alternate audio track is well worth it to hear the director explain how he picked the cast, locations, and filmed the movie. The basic dolby 2 channel sound is adequate for this film and well recorded. The cinematography creates the mood along with a very subtle musical background. Any film buff or observer of human nature will enjoy this one especially if he's a fan of contradiction.

Sentiment: positive
A clever, undeniably entertaining romp starring Peter Ustinov as a career embezzler with his sights set on a US conglomerate in London. He's abetted by foxy (and deceptively sharp) Maggie Smith and threatened with exposure by jealous company man Bob Newhart. This is a heist film with a lot of brains. Ustinov is exceptional as is Smith and Newhart is quite funny. The real surprise is Karl Malden, as the pill popping "executive vice-president." Malden has seldom been so loose. Cesar Romero and Robert Morley pop up in some funny cameos. The excellent music score is by Laurie Johnson. Eric Till's direction is brisk and the script by Ustinov and Ira Wallach is first-rate & very smart. A swinging good time!

Sentiment: positive
Florence Chadwick was actually the far more accomplished swimmer, of course. She swam the English Channel both directions. She swam from Catalina Island to the California coast. Marilyn Bell's is a sweet story, but the usual glorification of us Canadians in the face of a superior world. Another sample of our inferiority complex. Our political system works pretty well and the health system allows people not to die in hospital lobbies. That's pretty good. Better than Lebanon. What should we do about hockey though...? And curling. The notion of calling this a sport, of its inclusion in the Olympics...! ah, but we digress...

Sentiment: negative
I haven't seen this funny of a show on fox in a long time, and the wait was worth it. The kids in the show have something that i can relate to on every episode, and even my dad will sit down and watch it. It is a show not for all ages that doesn't dumb down for kids. It is like still standing but to the next level. The stuff that everyone says is stuff that everyone says and actions that everyone does. It says stuff that we all think, but in a well rounded way of presentation. The first time i saw the show i could not believe that it was on fox, and that it was allowed to stay on the air after a few episodes, from Hilary's boyfriend choices to Kenny's boyfriend choices, it is well worth the watch.

Sentiment: positive
well, the writing was very sloppy, the directing was sloppier, and the editing made it worse (at least i hope it was the editing). the acting wasn't bad, but it wasn't that good either. pretty much none of the characters were likable. at least 45 minutes of that movie was wasted time and the other hour or so was not used anywhere near its full potential. it was a great idea, but yet another wasted good idea goes by. it could have ended 3 different places but it just kept going on to a mostly predictable hollywood ending. and what wasn't predictable was done so badly that it didn't matter. the ending was not worth watching at all. sandra bullock was out of her element and should stay away from these types of movies. the movie looked rushed also. the movie just wasn't really worth seeing, and had i paid for it i would have been very mad. maybe i was more disappointed because i expected a really good movie and got a bad one. the movie over all was not horrifibly bad, but i wouldn't reccomend it. i gave it 2 out of 10 b/c i liked the idea so much and i did like one character (justin i believe, the super smart one). and it also had some very cheap ways to cover plot holes. it was like trying to cover a volcano with cheap masking tape, it was not pretty. anyway, if you see it, wait for the $1.50 theater or video, unless you like pretty much every movie you see, then i guess you'll like this one.

Sentiment: negative
For their credit, this is one of their more competent pieces of trash, and that's because there's considerably good gore, and an interesting take on ripping off "Snakes on a Plane." But, if there's any more of example of the inconsistency behind Asylum's newest rip-off it's the two characters at the beginning whom are illegal immigrants and can't understand nor speak English to a Texas man sneaking them across the border, yet when they get on a train and meet a friend, they begin understanding and speaking perfect English.

Aside from being a pretty bad depiction of a Hollywood formula, "Snakes on a Train" is utterly boring. At least, with "Snakes on a Plane" we were given the chance to watch actors wax comedic and attempt to be remotely interesting. The Mallachi Brothers installment features some of the most boring characters I've ever seen, from an electrical engineer (gee, I wonder how he comes in handy later on), to some stoner surfers, right down to our two main characters attempting to fight off the snake curse that lurks in the husband's wife.

"Snakes" is never entertaining, and even when it's very gory, it's still never as good as it has the chance to be, because "Snakes" could have been a funny short film, and instead just takes itself much too seriously, and never camps it up at any moment. Instead of taking their small budget and making original films that can set a precedent, they instead force their small budget to work against them in these knock offs. While the Mallachi brothers seem to be trying, the train just looks incredibly artificial.

It seems almost like a stage play with these inconsistent and awfully bland set pieces that try desperately to look like actual train cars, while every so often it shakes, the background of the windows are blurred, and the sound effects go off every now and then to let us know they're actually on a train; not to mention that in such a large extended train there only seems to be about ten passengers on it. And beyond the train fight, and a drawn out sex scene, we're forced to be subjected to a plot that makes zero sense. And not even the directors can work around the fact that the "lethal" snakes that go on this train look far from venomous or dangerous.

The rest of the film staggers onto only about a minute of snake carnage and a bad subplot of an ex drug agent trying to molest a passenger. All of this dull exposition ends with a really ridiculous climax in which a poorly computer generated snake (I saw better animation on the Super Nintendo) completely swallows the train whole, and is then dispensed in a method that should have been exercised from the very beginning. Asylum scores again.

Asylum scores yet again with a hackneyed, lazy, horribly directed, and boring rip-off of another better film. "Snakes on a Train" takes itself way too seriously, and that's why it's never entertaining or memorable.

Sentiment: negative
This film made for French TV deals with the tragic effect it has for a close knit family. When Leo, the young man at the center of the story is diagnosed as having the AIDS virus, announces it to his parents, they just can't believe it. The film is a character study on how this family deals with its subject.

The director, Christophe Honore, has to be congratulated for bringing this frank account to the screen. Nowhere but in France could this story make it to the movies because of the subject matter.

The news has a devastating effect on Marcel, the young brother who hears about what Leo has contracted, in spite of the way the parents want to shelter him from reality.

Yaniss Lespart and Pierre Mignard do a convincing job in portraying the brothers.

Sentiment: positive
Well where do i start? i think it's very insulting to the original Annie with Aileen Quimnn. I love the film Annie, and i was expecting this to be a brilliant film, but i was so disappointed! the acting is awful, the original Annie came out a few years before i was born, I'm now 25 and Annie is still one of my favourite films, So i was really excited to see Annie 2. The acting was awful in the film, were any of the characters original? very badly written, directed and acted. This is not a film i wish to see again, and any Annie lover i recommend that you don't watch this film because it will only leave you very disappointed. The young girls singing isn't bad but still doesn't compare to the original

Sentiment: negative
I found the first bit of stop motion animation intriguing and the mostly live action short with the girl going about in whatever country it was kept my interest, but the other 11 odd shorts really didn't pique my interest or make me think of anything at all. The music and 8mm footage all seemed to be so random that it all just seemed random. I would not recommend this to any one unless you get to see it free.

As for the music being so in step that didn't come across either. I rented the DVD because I thought it was all stop motion animation or SMA mixed with live action and only the first short was SMA, the second had a little stop motion mixed with mostly live action. There was paper cut-out stuff in one, and the rest was outdoor shots from an 8mm camera with the music bed. Just didn't have any meaning to it I could see.

Sentiment: negative
This has to be one of the biggest misfires ever...the script was nice and could have ended a lot better.the actors should have played better and maybe then i would have given this movie a slightly better grade. maybe Hollywood should remake this movie with some little better actors and better director.sorry guys for disappointment but the movie is bad.

If i had to re-watch it it would be like torture. I don't want to spoil everyone's opinion with mine so..my advice is watch the movie first..see if u like it and after vote(do not vote before you watch it ! ) and by the way... Have fun watching it ! Don't just peek...watch it 'till the end :))))))))) !!

Sentiment: negative
I only watched the first 30 minutes of this and what I saw was a total piece of crap. The scenes I saw were as bad as an Ed Wood movie. No, it was a hundred times WORSE. Ed Wood has the reputation of being the worst director ever but that's not true; the idiot who directed this junk is the WORST director ever.

The American cop has a German accent! The "police station" was a desk in a warehouse with a sign "Police Station" hanging on the wall. There is a fist fight where the punches clearly miss by about TEN FEET.

This cop pulls women over, cuffs them and leads them to a warehouse. He tells his cop partner to wait in the car. Then he comes out of the warehouse carrying a duffel bag. The cop partner thinks maybe something is not right, that his partner might be a bad cop who is murdering these women, but he isn't sure if that is what's happening because - he's a moron! The dialog is totally stupid, the acting is awful, and the characters act in the stupidest manner I have ever seen on screen. It is totally obvious to the cop's partner that he is illegally abducting these women and he is slapping them and taking them into a warehouse and returning to the car with a duffel bag with a body in it, and yet, the partner, who is there all along, doesn't know what is happening! 

The director of this film is a total hack. I stopped the movie at 30 minutes because I couldn't take it anymore. It has to be one of the WORST movies I have ever started to watch and I won't waste anymore time on it writing this review. 

Absolutely WORTHLESS.

Sentiment: negative
True, the setting in Paris is great. The actors are fine. The story is a twisted morality play. Is it supposed to say that if you want someone badly enough, it's OK to hurt everyone else along the way? In a real romance, you sort of want less cliché than the man who has become bored with his wife and is willing to dump his family, and the woman who is OK with encouraging him to do this. So what if they are decent looking and if Karen Allen shows off her body? The characters are still self-absorbed and reprehensible. Maybe the moral of the story is "you get what you deserve". I give it a 4, only for the fast scan potential through the "male interest" bits.

Sentiment: negative
The complaints are valid, to me the biggest problem is that this soap opera is too aimed for women. I am okay with these night time soaps, like Grey's Anatomy, or Ugly Betty, or West Wing, because there are stories that are interesting even with the given that they will never end. However, when the idea parallels the daytime soaps aimed at just putting hunky men (Taye Diggs, Tim Daly, and Chris Lowell) into sexual tension and romps, and numerous ridiculous difficult situations in a so-called little hospital, it seems like General Hospital...or a female counterpart to Baywatch. That was what men wanted and they had it, so if this is what women want so be it, but the idea that this is a high brow show (or something men will watch) is unrealistic.

Sentiment: negative
There is nothing remotely scary about modern "horror" which is an insult to the word "horror". Freddie Vs Jason, the Scream movies, Cabin Trash, and especially Stephen King's infantile attempts - he's recycled every story from The Monkey's Paw to whatever, often in the same story - at horror in both writing and on film (except for Kubrick's version of The Shining which actually was scary, unlike King's books which are as frightening as my big toe - the left one, which still has the nail.

But The Woman In Black is that rare modern film that will make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end. This is the way it should be done; the director creates tension, and the scariest ghost ever actually seen simply by having her suddenly turn up standing still somewhere or other with that incredible look on her face. Then he brings it all to a ghastly disturbing close. He's learned his lessons from the masters who knew how to make horror - Val Lewton (original Cat People) and Robert Wise (a Val Lewton disciple and director of the Haunting and The Body Snatcher), Jacques Tournier (another Val Lewton disciple who directed a truly horrifying zombie film, not the gross rubbish Raimi did (gross isn't scary, folks, it's just gross), and Lewis Allen (The Uninvited), and of course Jack Clayton's turn on Henry James The Innocents, and the way the master of suspense, Hitchcock, can still bring you to the edge of your seat even with a slow-building and burning period piece like Under Capricorn.

TEN STARS...

Sentiment: positive
I have yet to watch STARCRASH (1979) - that notoriously cheesy Italian take on STAR WARS (1977) - but it can't be much worse than this misbegotten piece of junk which, suffice it to say, makes Mel Brooks' so-so SPACEBALLS (1987) look like a veritable work of art! In fact, the main reason why GALAXINA is remembered at all nowadays is because of the tragic fate which befell its leading lady - Playboy centerfold Dorothy Stratten who was killed by her insanely jealous estranged husband - before the film had even had its official premiere! 

Although Statten (who subsequently had two biopics made about her wherein she was portrayed by Jamie Lee Curtis and Mariel Hemingway) plays the title role, for the first half of the film she is reduced to being propped up in a chair ostensibly driving a spaceship on a 27-year journey to some planet or other; in fact, Galaxina is an all-purpose android who also serves the wacky crew their snacks, gets them all hot under the collar and even goes scouting for the Blue Star (cue choral music) once they land! Having said that, Statten certainly looks luminous in her white attire and, even if her role hardly demands much exertion of any acting talent she might possess, it's not exactly demeaning either.

Still, it's ironic that for a film which bears her name, she is overshadowed by the campy and would-be zany antics of her fellow crew members, especially the annoying Captain Cornelius Butt (which gives you the idea of the level of comedy on display here), a long-eared, wing-sporting colored guy, a pot-smoking, proverb-quoting old Chinaman and, best of all (relatively speaking) a foul-mouthed, rock-eating, hairy alien creature they hold prisoner. The villain of the piece is a metal-clad non-entity who does, however, have the best laugh in the film when, upon hearing the choral music following his every mention of the Blue Star, exclaims, "What is this s**t?" There is little point in listing the sci-fi classics which are mauled by this stinker in its ludicrous attempts at spoofing the genre since they are not only lame but obvious; incredibly enough, a chest-busting but ultimately benign alien is apparently played by diminutive Hollywood veteran, Angelo Rossitto!

For what it's worth, then, the scenes shot on the planet they visit (which looks more like a Western set than a planetary landscape) have a yellowish, sun-like hue and its inhabitants are 'human gourmets' (delicacies on their menu include Skin and Tonic, Scotsman on the Rocks, Thigh Pies, Baked Alaskan, etc), not to mention a motorcycle gang who serve their own particular deity (the Harley Davidson) and when our heroes escape on the back of it, they dare not shoot at them for fear of hitting their "Lord". God(awful) indeed...

Sentiment: negative
When I first saw the cover of this movie (a giant bug chasing a few nurses) And the name "Blue Monkey", I knew I wasn't in for any big Hollywood movie. I was pleasantly surprised to see Steve Railsback in this cheese-ball flick, who always does a good job in whatever role he tackles.... The FX are pretty corny, there isn't too much of a plot, and I'm still not sure why this movie is called Blue Monkey, because there is nothing in this movie to do with monkey. But come on people, what did you expect?? It's not really as bad as it seems.... If you enjoy the old 50's style black and white bug attack movies, this one is basically an updated version, without the updates special FX

Sentiment: negative
I found the first 90 minutes of this film to be very interesting, even though a few parts of it were ridiculous (i.e.. Philip Seymour Hoffman's character). The last 60 minutes were distasteful and I began to lose interest in the film. The last hour lasted forever, it seemed.

The movie is nicely acted and I can see why Rene Zellweger won an Academy Award since her character was so interesting. The movie also is beautifully filmed and the story is an emotional one. However, I found the message to be a bad one: not surprising these days in Hollywood. In this story, "Inman" (Jude Law) deserts the Confederate Army during the Civil War. His reason: his girlfriend misses him and wants him home. He's also getting disillusioned with war. (Can you imagine if every soldier who was in a similar boat deserted the army in the two world wars??!)

Yet, in this film of course, all of that is perfectly acceptable. Then again, what Liberal filmmaker has ever had a nice thing to say about the U.S. military?? To add to their left-wing slant, they portray a vigilante-like posse going after deserters as cold-blooded sick killers. Well, in the world of films, as we know: good is portrayed as bad and bad is good.....and only Liberals would portray deserters as heroes.

Sentiment: negative
Working at a video store I get to see quite a few movies and on occasion I try to watch some of the not so big movies. Proud happened to be one of them. The initial idea of telling of the story of a primarily black crewed ship during WWII had some merit. However in less than 10 minutes of watching the movie you find out that the primary point of the movie was to tell about racial tension in WWII. The underlying story is about the ship, the crew and their exploits in the war. This primary point is hammered at you to the point of excessiveness all throughout the movie. I commend the men that served on the USS Mason for their triumph in the face of adversity and for the hardships that they endured. A movie should have been made focusing on the accomplishments these men did for themselves, the Navy and for their country and not making a movie whose focus is racism during WWII.

Sentiment: negative
Anyone who sees this film will notice that the makers threw a lot of money at this film. It's interesting they titled it "The Hole"! The production values are good for a short film. The hole tries to look big budget and does in some ways but is hampered by the video format it was shot on. I speculate if this was shot on 35mm it would look incredible and would elevate the content somewhat. Many hollywood movies look good and that's enough for an audience regardless of story and content.

My honest opinion, 3 out of 10 for this effort. Maybe Ishimoto's next film will deliver.

Sentiment: negative