DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
There is a lot wrong with this film. I will not lie. I will say that most of the problems feel like they stem from a budget that was chopped out from underneath the flick, and some bad hack job editing.

This is not Office Space. Do not go in expecting Office Space levels of comedy. It is very funny though. It is a mess, but very funny at the same time. A funny mess of a film. In the way that Caddyshack is funny. A mess of unrelated funny scenes filled with some very annoying unfunny scenes.

It works as a whole though, and it certainly deserves a wide release. This is the best commentary on the Wal Mart/ Starbucks/ MTV nation you could hope for. The very fact that a film is exploring the idea that dumb people are breeding at an alarming rate while the intelligent people are not, is great in my book. Not very politically correct but worth at least some debate.

Sentiment: positive
I won't go into detail about why this movie deserves an awful rating, plenty of other people have already done that. Suffice it to say that out of the over 400 movies that I've owned on DVD, this is the ONLY one that I got rid of- it was so worthless that I couldn't see ever wanting to watch ANY of it again.

However, I do have a comment on the ridiculously high average rating of 2.9 (as of 3-15-06). While skimming through the 4 pages of reviews I saw no rating higher than 3 stars. Looking at the voting history, 78% of users rated the movie as 4 stars or less. It looks to me like a few people are stuffing the ballot box to keep this movie off of the IMDb "bottom 100" list. It would be interesting to see how many of the 30 users who rated this movie as 10 stars (none of who wrote a review of the movie) are actual active users.

Don't be fooled, this movie isn't worth your time.

Sentiment: negative
I first saw this movie in the mid 80's and thought it was a funny movie. As I have gotten older I watch this movie for different reasons. I like to view it when I'm feeling sad/nostalgic for my "lost youth". I was a teenager (14) at the time of the release of this film so I can identify with many of the same problems/dilemmas that the campers/CIT's in this movie have. I enjoy seeing the clothes that were worn at this time and hearing the same old urban legends such as was told on the overnight canoe trip. The film is also full of funny one liners. I highly recommend this movie to anyone that was a teenager in the late 70's to early 80's.

Sentiment: positive
Abhay Deol meets the attractive Soha Ali Khan and greets her "Hello Sister"!!!. This sets the tone for a remarkable debut film by Shivam Nair. Soha, a middle class girl has run away from her home in Nainital and come to Delhi to marry her lover, Shayan Munshi. But Shyan doesn't turn up leaving Soha heartbroken & alone in the big bad world. . Abhay, the lower class next door guy turns protective towards the vulnerable Soha and helps her get a job & shelter in an old age home. Slowly romance blooms and Soha agrees to marry Abhay. Then Shyan re-enters into Soha's life.

A sensitively made film with a very unusual story, lovingly shot in Delhi, revolves around the delicate Soha. This well crafted film has moments which will forever remain etched in one's memory  the awkward first kiss & Abhay's swift apology; Abhay describing Soha as "class wali ladki" & hastily adding "that he doesn't love her"; his gifting a churidar to Soha & asking her out for a date.

The music is good & the background music excellent. In a scene where Soha rushes & embraces Abhay the sound track disappears. The stillness conveys both the awkwardness & tenderness of the relationship.

The poignant ending makes for a bitter sweet film, the memories of which will linger for a long long time.

A must see I will rate it 8.5/10

Sentiment: positive
I fail to see how anyone who has actually read the M. Didius Falco mysteries could make such a mockery of them. An Aussie has no business in Ancient Rome. Nothing of the books is in this film except the setting and characters, and they are wasted on a plot thin enough through which to read the silly script. Kevin Connor and Lee Zlotoff have a lot of nerve displaying their names in the credits.

Sentiment: negative
You sit there for a half an hour and watch a story, believing it all, then watch another half an hour of the same story utterly unraveling... and then put back together again. Brilliant.

One of the most exciting feature films at the San Francisco International Film Festival is a documentary. I don't know if - other than Andrew Jarecki's "Capturing the Friedmans" - there has ever been anything like Anna Broinowski's "Forbidden Lie$." It features, exposes, defends, reveals, and questions everything about Norma Khouri, author of "Honor Lost," the acclaimed and lambasted 2001 bestseller about honor killings in Jordan.

What is quite incredible and what makes the film so exceptional is that this "exposure" of Khouri is made with Khouri's full participation.

For the initial portion of the film, Khouri presents her story about the supposed honor killing of a friend of hers in Amman, the story of the book. She sounds completely believable, convincing.

Then her story is taken apart, exposed, by eminently believable and convincing people, such as women's rights activists in Jordan, investigative reporters there and in Australia, where Khouri lived for a while.

Khouri comes back and denies the accusations, taking a successful lie-detector test in the process. There comes another segment of devastating exposures - not to be specified here because that would lessen the shock value... and then Khouri comes back and faces the accusations (not all, but the essential ones in the matter of the book).

And the Houdini act continues, with round after round in this heavy-weight, seesaw prize fight, surprise after surprise - and there is no "happy ending" in the sense of resolution. Brilliant.

Sentiment: positive
I suppose you could say this film has a grain of potential, but nothing more, because boy did the filmmakers botch it. The plot is practically incomprehensible, the pacing is lethargic and the acting is pathetic. And what the hell is a trade rat? Worst of all, though, this movie's climax is the anticlimax of all anticlimaxes; plus the title doesn't seem even remotely accurate. The only redeeming feature of this film is the pretty dark-haired woman... well, the blond girl was pretty too, but she was annoying and not as good looking as the brunette. Anyhoo, as with a lot of movies, this is one to be seen only on MST3K.

Sentiment: negative
Being a former MST3k watcher, even I found this movie unwatchable. The awful attempts at humor-heck the awful attempts at acting. Nobody needs to read a harangue on this piece of junk.

I just like how all the positive reviews were clearly written by cast members or family friends. Just click on their other reviews and wow--they are all reviewing Modern Vampires. Give me a couple of bucks and I can make a movie better than this. One of the most incompetent pieces of film-making I've ever seen and that's saying something. Watch at your own risk.

Rating: 0/10

Sentiment: negative
What a piece of junk this movie was. The premise was okay, but even in the beginning with crappy effects to blend in a giant with normal sized people (even the effects in Hercules was better) I knew this would be bad. But the really awful part of the movie is the dialogs. It's completely incoherent, silly and stupid. I felt like it had been written by some 9th grader in creative class and gotten a D-. I want to slap Casper van Diem and the other actors for following this movie through.

I've had my share of cheesy and bad movies (I love the tremors series), but this... I do not recommend it at all. It's silly and the totally flabbergastingly bad dialogs will make you cringe.

Sentiment: negative
Sports movies have never been my thing, but a small handful of them work for me. The best are the those which focus less on the sport and more on the character, such as Raging Bull, the Wrestler and Girlfight. This is a great directorial debut for Karyn Kusama, and an outstanding first performance for Michelle Rodriguez. Girlfight feels is both realistic and involving, that is enough so to make it a memorable film.

The plot is strait forward enough. Diana Guzman, is in her fourth year of high school, but due to her picking fights in the hallway she is close to expulsion. As a possible means of unleashing her anger, she signs up for Boxing lessons at the club where her brother is training (at the wishes of there father).

In the course of ninety minutes, we the viewers see something extraordinary. Diana almost literally changes from a girl to a woman. We see it in her body as well as her behaviour, especially when one of the boys at the club finds himself drawn to her, and she gets into it. There is not a bad scene or a lame/contrived moment in the film. The only error that I would say could be corrected is that one of the subplots ends on what feels like an unfinished note. Aside from that, Girlfight is a great movie.

Sentiment: positive
Director and playwright Richard Day adapted his own stage material for the screen, clearly inspired by Rock Hudson's real-life dilemma from the 1950s: what to do with a screen idol who is secretly homosexual? Marry him off to an unsuspecting woman in order to quell the gossips (and keep him working). Wispy-thin idea given some energy by the good cast and retro production design which amusingly resembles a greeting card by Shag. The dialogue isn't very clever, and there's some slapstick goofing around near the beginning which fails to work (spitting out food, etc.). Still, when a serious tone comes over the final act, it is handled with great taste--and is far more welcomed by the viewer than all the klutzy silliness. Matt Letscher does good work as movie hero/male whore Guy Stone, but are his experiences here enough to strengthen his character, or would he be right back at the bar the next night? The movie seems not to know--or care. Day wants to get off a few one-liners and one carefully written pro-gay speech--a plea for tolerance--but he has no other agenda. For audiences who invest their time and interest in these people, the sentimental bow on this thing can look like nothing more than a prank. *1/2 from ****

Sentiment: negative
1st watched 11/7/2002 - 2 out of 10(Dir-John Bianco): Pretty lame gangster movie about a Godfather-like family in Brooklyn who like to say four-letter words a lot and kill people. The only thing of interest here was their attempt to show the feds being a lot like the gang. This is the only attempt at good film-making. The rest of the movie was predictable, and cheaply-made. The quality of the photography on some of the scenes inside bars and floozy joints almost made you think there was a problem with your DVD player because of the bad contrasts and some of the actors were hard to hear at times because of the bad sound. The acting was pretty-much characatures of all your favorite gangsters from better movies with corny names like Vinnie `Knuckles' and Jimmie `Tattoos', and the plot pretty much followed those patterns as well. So, go see a better gangster movie before you put your money out for this one.

Sentiment: negative
Don't look for an overdeveloped plotline here....just sit back with some popcorn and enjoy this one. A gallery of stars pop up as the classic cartoon character's villains in this live action comedy, which features incredible makeup and set design, not to mention knockout performances from Beatty, Madonna, and Pacino. Great fun for kids and adults alike.

*** out of ****

Sentiment: positive
I think a great many viewers missed entirely the fact that this is obviously a parody of western films.

This is not a bad movie - it is a clever tongue in cheek take on westerns. I don't believe this film was taking itself seriously for a moment.

What makes this film even more unique is the fact it is centered around 4 strong, beautiful women, two of which are black, one Asian, and a Mexican/Hispanic character.

These aren't your usual western women--they're tough--they can draw fast and shoot straight.

They're so tough even the bartender is shaking when he pours their whiskey.

The plot which moves this story along is typical of westerns--in the vein of "you shot my brother--so I'm gonna get you!" Only in this western, a woman's sister has been shot and she's out for vengeance on the gang who did it.

So she goes and rounds up her old cronies from her bank robbing days.

One of them, Maria, is not really all that interested in avenging Rachel's sister, but she is motived by the fact there's gold and jewelry hidden in the town where they're headed.

There are a couple of scenes that don't quite make sense, not that they interfere that much, they can be ignored, but I wondered why they were there. So the film could use a little tightening, but over all, this is a well made film that has failed to find an audience that recognized what it is.

My only disappointment was that the only lesbian in the film is a villain--of the "heroines", one is obviously straight, the others sexual orientations are never disclosed.

7 Stars

Sentiment: positive
102 DALMATIANS [Walt Disney]: I wasn't a fan of the previous installment and this effort has all the weaknesses of the first, a silly padded storyline, terrible over acting by Glenn Close, who hams up every scene as though she's playing for her own amusement, and incredibly borring and uninteresting lead actors. Once more the dogs are the only "actors" that seem "real" and thats a stretch. Another wasted effort here. GRADE: D

Sentiment: negative
I love a good war film and I fall into the "been there, done that" category. So I would like to think my review is an accurate one (IMHO). Having just watched this film on DVD I can safely say that it was a pile of rubbish. There is no way I can recommend this film to you.

It started off with me shouting at the TV saying "you wouldn't do that" etc...but I soon realised that having a bit of job experience would be a hindrance so I chilled a bit. But on the opening scene when the trailer wheel fell off I got a nasty feeling that this film would be a predictable dud...I was right.

There simply wasn't any logic to the EOD scenes. I just know that the army team had some of the most patient insurgents ever at the other end of the command wire or remote trigger. So much so I was left scratching my head all the time. Then just when you think you know where the story is going the guys in the Humvee are off out on their own driving around the desert. One of the most valuable assets in theatre out on a jolly bumping into some SAS wannabe contractors.

The sniper scene was just so laughable. It just made no sense at all and made me want to switch off there and then. Then for them to drag it out so long really did test my patience.It started with the "Contact Right" and went down hill fast. If you had a Brit accent then you got shot but if you were part of the EOD team then suddenly you were a great shot and saved the day. Then just as you thought it was over it stretched on for an inexplicably long period without adding anything to the story at all. You are just left watching and asking why hasn't it ended yet?

Then we had the booze scene where they just hit each other for a laugh..another scene where you just wanted it to end. It added nothing to the film.

Then just as my life seemed very dull the main star went outside the wire to hunt someone down. This most be the most ridiculous scene I have ever watched. It defied all logic and ability to write a good storyline...it was senseless and awful. I still don't understand why they wasted time on it. Then to watch him just jog through the busy streets heading back to camp had me rolling on the floor with laughter. Pure comedy :)

The sad fact is that this storyline is all over the show without really deciding what it wants to be. I thought it was going to be stupid illogical EOD scenes but then it kept going off on tangents trying to be something different. But as hard as it tried it just bored me to death. All I wanted was for it to end. It was a messy compilation of stupid scenes mixed into a batch of stupid, senseless, action(ish) scenes.

There is no way I can recommend this. Maybe my work experience compromised the enjoyability but even the naive must realise this just doesn't make sense. The only thing more stupid than this film is the artificially high IMDb rating...which must be the 24/7 work of the box office PR team who seem to use this website as a way of making everyone think it is good. Sorry folks...it just ain't!

Not recommended...it will just bore you.

Sentiment: negative
Dana Andrews stands "Where the Sidewalk Ends" in this 1950 film that also stars Gene Tierney, Gary Merrill, Karl Malden and Neville Brand. Andrews plays New York City Detective Sgt. Mark Dixon, a cop with a bad temper who has gotten into trouble in the past for beating suspects. When a man is murdered at a gambling club owned by a mobster, Scalise (Merrill), Dixon and his partner go to investigate. Scalise blames the murder on Ken Paine (Stevens), who has now left the club after fighting not only with his wife, Morgan (Tierney) but the victim. Dixon thinks the victim won a lot of money and was killed as a result by the mobster's men. He goes to see Paine and, not realizing he has a plate in his head from the war, knocks him to the floor and inadvertently kills him. Now he must cover up the murder. As a further complication, he falls for Morgan; her father (Ken Tully), who went to Paine's apartment after he saw that Paine had hit his daughter, is arrested for the crime.

This is a really terrific, gritty noir with some good performances. The ruggedly handsome and weathered Andrews is convincing as a tough yet nervous detective who has to stay one step ahead of his colleagues. The movie reunites him with his fabulous "Laura" costar, Gene Tierney, and she looks lovely as a model with bad taste in men who apparently is used to being roughed up. Little does she know, she's got another one on her hands. Ken Tully does a terrific job as her father, who protests his innocence despite some damning evidence. Karl Malden is very tough as Dixon's boss.

My only problem with this well-directed, fast-moving and absorbing film is the ending. Pure Hollywood and, putting myself in Tierney's place, I doubt I would react the same way. A minor criticism for a film written by Ben Hecht and directed by Otto Preminger. I didn't find it as awe-inspiring as "Laura," but few things in this world are. If you like film noir, this is a must-see.

Sentiment: positive
I really enjoyed the film. It was really cheesy at times. (They destroy the villain with hair driers--but where are they plugged in?) It's a unique film though, and I enjoyed the acting of Courtney Draper and Tamara Hope. I also enjoyed Fanuel (however you write it...) liking Megan's charecter because she called him a dweeb. Besides the acting, the "rewinding" and showing what happened on Ariel's and then Megan's point of view was quite interesting. I saw it twice and I'd see it again

Sentiment: negative
This movie plays out like an English version of an ABC after school special, with nudity. It makes you wonder who the target audience was supposed to be. It's not as though the writers were too preoccupied with selling a plausible plot either. While it does possess a certain watchability, Virtual Sexuality is fluffier than dandelion meringue. It's a good movie to watch if you're snowed in, the cable's out, and it's the only tape you've got.

Sentiment: negative
This film was so well-paced that I don't think I actually blinked while watching. One intense situation after another kept me glued to the set. However, I would have liked to have seen Corey Feldman a lot more in this picture. He just steals every scene that he is in. This could be my favorite grown up Corey performance. The ending was clever and unlike other films which back away from severing body parts of likeable supporting characters, this film goes for it! I liked that it was not graphic blood and gore but left more to the viewer's imagination. Bravo. I literally had to wipe sweat from my forehead during this particular torture scene with a paper cutter. Ultimately, the film works because of its likeable lead character and the awesome presence of my all-time favorite bad guy, James Remar(48 Hours, remember?) I strongly recommend this film for anyone looking to break a sweat.



Sentiment: positive
What a horrible movie. This movie was so out of order and so hard to follow.It was so hard to follow and was just confusing. The whole time I was watching it I was wishing it would end!!I felt like I wasted 2hours of my life that I will never get back. Save your money and don't rent this movie. I now see why Sarah Michelle Gellar was barely in the movie. The first movie was great but this was just sucked. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. Save your money and watch the trailer because that is about the only thing that is worth seeing with this movie. This movie had no real story to it either. I am still wondering what I watched.

Sentiment: negative
Irwin Allen put all his talents behind this one: he's co-screenwriter, producer and director of this cartoonish "epic" about an atomic submarine and its efforts to reduce a ring of radiation circling the Earth. Potentially exciting story fails to take off, despite an eclectic cast. Varied players from Walter Pigeon and Joan Fontaine to Frankie Avalon and Barbara Eden are interestingly intermingled and provide a dash of color, but this soggy sci-fi is pretty cheesy. Good for a few stray laughs, but Allen didn't seem to know the difference between strong, solid adventure and campy nonsense. Later a popular TV series. ** from ****

Sentiment: negative
Firstly, I am a huge fan of crap films. B grade is always good for a laugh. Unfortunately this film is just plain bad. I dressed up as a Zombie for a party and my make up looked better than the ones in this film. Especially the big guy at the beginning, it just looked like a kid had drawn on his face with crayons.

The acting is so bad I need not comment on why. The effect are also extremely amateurish, with obvious blood tubes firing a straight jet of blood out the back of zombies heads when they get shot. 

It also seems many people commenting on this movie are trying to boost the rating. Nobody without their finger in the pie would rate this film above a 5/10. Frankly it is disgraceful that people who worked on this film are boosting their own ratings.

I suggest everyone avoid this movie, it isn't worth wasting the 90 minutes of your life.

Absolutely awful.

Sentiment: negative
Unfortunately I think this is one of those films that if you or I took it to the studio and said, 'can I make this great movie with my friends Mary, Mungo and Midge from school?' the studio would have you kicked to death on the spot. However, if a bunch of massive Hollywood names say, 'look, I fancy a jaunt to Italy with my mates, how about it?' the studio writes a cheque.

We kick off with the casino boss from Ocean's 11 tracking down the robbers who made off with his cash, and then Brad Pitt is shagging Catherine Zeta Jones, and then there's some monkeying about in Amsterdam and Italy and such and such and then it all ends somehow.

The film does, however, include the most shameful moment of both Julia Roberts' and Bruce Willis' careers, which is a cinematic gem. I nearly vomited in my lap and tore my eyes out when Julia Roberts, playing Tess in the movie, pretends to be (you guessed it) Julia Roberts! Bruce Willis stands about clearly wondering when he can leave, and how much the cheque will be.

Ah well, to be fair, I'd have done it for the cash, so I suppose I can't really criticize the poor loves, but I'm a penniless slob not a Hollywood legend. I guess what really annoys me about this film is not that it is boring and pointless and has a terrible story, but that I think the actors probably all had good fun doing it! I think the actor's entire job is to project emotion outwards...I feel like I paid to go to the party, but had to stand outside in the rain. Booo!

Watch it if you like Como, or fancy CZJ or something, but otherwise go for a walk.

Sentiment: negative
Matthew Aldrich. This is a name worthy of remembrance. This is the individual that took fingers to keyboard and came up with one of the worst scripts of all time. Cliché. Predictable. An insult to the public's intelligence.

Is he the sole beneficiary of blame? Of course not. Renny Harlin took this abysmal excuse for a script and made it into a movie. Sam Jackson and Ed Harris actually read it (or not) and chose to star in it. Culpability abounds.

This is the Denise Richards of film scripts. There aren't enough Razzies in the universe to give proper recognition to how truly horrible this writing really is.

In all fairness, Samuel Jackson's profession is incredibly novel and the manner in which it's presented is highly creative, but, at the end of the day, it's all just trimmings. Pretty trimmings.

Package it any way you want- garbage writing is still garbage writing.

Sentiment: negative
A singularly unfunny musical comedy that artificially tries to marry the then-cutting edge rock 'n' roll explosion with the middle-class sensibilities of a suburban sitcom. The result is a jarringly dated mish-mash that will satisfy none of the audience that went for the music, but will at least keep their parents sated.

A quick glance at the promo write-up on the back of the video release should give some idea of the content. Tom Ewell is a drunken agent, overplayed with so little comic ability you almost expect him to bellow "hi honey, I'm home!" The blurb sites him as "So funny in 'The 7 Year Itch'". It sounds almost like an excuse. What other film would sell itself on the fact that a leading player was good in something else? It reads like "So funny in 'The 7 Year Itch' ... but he's rubbish in this".

Mansfield, a beautiful girl with rumoured 50-inch assets, is, unfortunately, a bargain basement Monroe with all the acting ability and comic timing of a rotting haddock. Her wooden delivery combined with Ewell's OTT double-takes make this a comedy partnership from Hell. For her part, the sell gives us: "[Jayne Mansfield] whose more obvious talents are the cause of many of the film's biggest laughs!" As you can see, a movie sold on the idea that it's lead has a big chest is not the most sophisticated of things. Most of this "humour" is men literally falling over themselves, their glasses cracking upon site of Mansfield, etc. Only the Freudian nightmare of a milk bottle overflowing casts doubt upon its "U" certificate.

For the musical side, the most adenine of players are chosen. Would you really care to see Eddie Fontaine offer: "I love your eyes, I love your lips, they taste even better than potato chips" in a song called "Cool It, Baby"? Only the incendiary Little Richard breaks out of the MOR, though is forced to sing some of his more dad-friendly songs in a four-minute sequence. And how come all the acts sing without a single microphone? Attempted satires on the industry are broad and childlike in their conception.

Technically, the picture was quite advanced, with special effects (including a ghost-like Julie London) and deluxe color (Which now looks flat and artificial. In fact, with its reds that bleed and fake-looking flesh tones, it resembles a colorised movie). Direction, though, isn't outstanding, and the sound quality is also quite poor.

Perhaps it comes down to it being so old. A time when men still smoked on screen, sickeningly cute child actors made adult remarks and black servants only got to cook and dance. (All of which happen here). Yet Some Like It Hot, The African Queen, Ben Hur and many, many more stand as examples of films from the period that can still be enjoyed today, so the "good at the time" argument doesn't really stand up. At its heart The Girl Can't Help It is a cynical and patronising venture that doesn't bear close inspection. 4/10.



Sentiment: negative
OK, first off there may be a SPOILER here since i don't know what constitutes giving out too much information. My subject line says it all but surely people will want to know WHY it's so stupid.

First off, this film follows a bunch of Yuppies as they go to a sports game in Chicago but wind up taking the wrong exit and winding up in the ghetto. Scary, huh? Well, first of all, Emilio is driving everyone in the world's most overblown RV/Winnebago, tricked out with satellite dishes and crap like that on it. So these guys are GOING to a sports game (i forget which, though likely the Bulls or the White Sox since they're near the oh-so-scary ghetto), yet they can't even make it down the freeway without having an onboard viewing command center that would put ESPN to shame. Yet they're smart enough to earn livings that would pay for the stuff, but are such sports fans that they don't even know which exit to get off at on their way to the game they so love.

I gave up on the movie within a half hour after that, but the reasons were plentiful. They wind up IN THE GHETTO, yet their main danger to their existence is DENIS LEARY. A WHITE GUY. I'm no racist, but COME ON. In anything RESEMBLING reality - and this film WAS trying to be an urban nightmare - Denis Leary would not be trying to kill Emilio Estevez, he'd be hitching a ride to get the f*** out of Dodge himself!!!

This is easily one of the dumbest movies ever created, although I'm not familiar with much of the rest of the world's cinema. If MST3K were still on, they surely would have devoted an episode to this one.

Sentiment: negative
I'm sorry, but they did leave the impression that these commandos fought zombies before. But they sure didn't act like they even seen a zombie before. Jumping and turning their backs on them like amateurs. Second, the characters are pretty badly written. The actors did the best they could with what was given, I blame bad writing and bad directing. Lastly and here is where the spoiler warnings are highest. They loose the sample twice and the girl Jennifer Holland doesn't know if she's been bit or not. How stupid is that? As much as it hurts to be bitten, one would think you would know, plus gallons of blood leaking from your body is a good clue. Dumb, the first movie had it's flaws but it has re-watchablity, unlike this disaster of a movie, which I could barely get through once. I give the HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2: NO GUTS, ALL STUPIDITY THE CRAP-O-LANTERN

Sentiment: negative
I don't know why I even watched this film. I think it was because I liked the idea of the scenery and was hoping the film would be as good. Very boring and pointless.

Sentiment: negative
No ,I'm not kidding. If they ever propose a movie idea, they should be kicked out of the studio. I'm serious. Their movies are exactly the same in every one, and they only consist of traveling to foreign locations, having a problem which they easily resolve, hoping to be popular, and getting new boyfriends. Think about it. If you have ever seen a movie starring them with a different plot, contact me and tell me its name. These "movies" are poor excuses to be on TV and go to other countries. There is a reason that the movies never go to theaters. I'm sure that when they were really young and made some O.K. movies, some studio boss bought all their rights for 15 years, or something, so that now that they're, what, 17, they can make movies in other countries whenever they want using the studio's money. Let me advise you, STAY AWAY FROM MARY-KATE AND ASHLEY! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!

Sentiment: negative
In what is arguably the best outdoor adventure film of all time, four city guys confront nature's wrath, in a story of survival. The setting is backwoods Georgia, with its forests, mountains, and wild rivers.

The director, John Boorman, chose to use local people, not actors, to portray secondary characters. These locals imbue the film with a depth of characterization unequaled in film history. No central casting "actors" could ever come close to these people's remarkable faces, voices, or actions. I don't recall a film wherein the secondary characters are so realistic and colorful. As much as anything else, it is this gritty realism that makes this film so amazing.

Another strength is the film's theme. Nature, in the wild, can be violent. How appropriate that the setting should be the American South. Very few places in the U.S. are, or have been, as violent as redneck country. In a story about Darwinian survival of the fittest, the film conveys the idea that humans are part of nature, not separate from it.

"Deliverance" is very much a product of its time when, unlike today, Americans expressed concern over a vanishing wilderness. The film's magnificent scenery, the sounds of birds, frogs, crickets, and the roar of the river rapids, combined with the absence of civilization, all convey an environmental message. And that is another strength of the film.

At an entertainment level, the tension gradually escalates, as the plot proceeds. Not even half way into the film the tension becomes extreme, and then never lets up, not until the final credits roll. Very few films can sustain that level of intensity over such a long span of plot.

Finally, the film's technical quality is topnotch. Direction and editing are flawless. Cinematography is excellent. Dialogue is interesting. And the acting is terrific. Burt Reynolds has never been better. Ned Beatty is perfectly cast and does a fine job. And Jon Voight should have been nominated for an Oscar. If there is a weak link in the film, it is the music, which strikes me as timid.

Overall, "Deliverance" almost certainly will appeal to viewers who like outdoor adventure. Even for those who don't, the gritty characterizations, the acting, and the plot tension are reasons enough to watch this film, one of the finest in cinema history.

Sentiment: positive
This is the very La Nouvelle Vague.One of the best films of the New Wave and I dare say one of the first ten ever made! Why? The atmosphere, the story,the actors (actress) are all brilliant. This is the theater, a fairy tale, the life, the film.Paris. Thank you Mr.Rivette.

Sentiment: positive
First of all, let me say this film isn't for everyone. It has a very strange subject matter. A spinster living alone and living a boring life discovers a young man in a park just across the street from her townhouse. She notices him sitting out in the rain and invites him in to dry off & warm up. The man does not speak and the woman assumes he is deaf mute. Still, she is fascinated with him and sexually interested in him. He finds her odd and continues his silence although we find out later that he isn't mute at all and that he reports to his sister everything that is going on between him & the woman. I won't give away the rest of the plot. If you can find this film watch it. You cannot take your eyes off of it. What makes it so interesting? Well, it is totally unique. I've never seen anything like it and watching these two together is very uncomfortable. Especially when you find out what this bland, boring, obsessive spinster is capable of. You won't forget it soon.

Sentiment: positive
I sat last night to see this film being played in Greek television because of the upcoming Olympic Games hosted by my city.Knowing that it is an American film, i had already expected it to focus more on the American athletes story.And i was really ready for it. But what i saw was..., too much!I mean, when a movie has such a title ("First Olympics: Athens 1896"), even being of American origin, you would not expect it to be so propagandizing and, on the same time, ignorant towards other countries' athletes and efforts.The American athletes seem to have all the gifts of nature (strength, smartness, generosity, kindness, politeness...), in contrast to their "sin-athletes" in the Games, who seem being unable even to... speak their thoughts or express feelings.The number of times the American anthem is played during the film must be an all time record in filmography.Megalomania at it's best!It even uses fictionalized facts which ridicules the Greek nation, such as Greek citizens serving the foreign Marathon athletes with wine, in order to help the domestic ones win the race.So much for the Olympic spirit.

Think of it.Being a Greek and putting a bad mark to a movie whose title is also Greek is something that doesn't make me happy at all.But according to what i have seen, i cannot give it more than 4 out of 10 (being pretty generous actually).

Sentiment: negative
"Traffik 1989" is an Emmy award winning six part miniseries out of the UK which was the inspiration for the Oscar winning "Traffic 2000". The five hour film breaks down the opium/heroine trade for the viewer from the handcasting of poppy seeds in an Afghanistan field to the "head rush" of a mainlining junkie in a flat in England. Not only does "Traffik" offer entertainment value through interleaved dramatic stories it also provides an overview of the international drug trade at all levels answering the who, where, how, and why questions of the age old and unstoppable narcotic supply/demand machine. Synergistically entertaining and educational, "Traffik" will prove to be time well spent for teens and up. (A)

Sentiment: positive
Everyone agrees about the technical excellence of this film by Jutra (whose life ended short so tragically). As for the content, of course it makes a difference if you're a Quebecker, and this explains some of the divergence of opinions. For me, it is to cinema what Vignault's "Mon pays, ce n'est pas un pays" is to song. In addition, Jean Duceppe was himself a part of legendary Quebec.

This film can be contrasted with "CRAZY", a current Quebec release that is successful enough to be showing here in Spain and is also about the 1960s. Urban Quebec (Crazy) vs. rural Quebec (Antoine). But also a film that must be something very different for foreigners and for people who know Quebec from the inside.

Sentiment: positive
Rose and the good Doctor find themselves in a space station that is on a planet that's quite impossibly hovering in orbit right below a black hole. The crew of the station is just as perplexed at that as the two new inhabitants are. Suitably spooky in it's atmosphere and gets better as the Doctor and Rose find themselves stranded due to circumstances out of their control and speaking through the submissive alien race of the Ood, something quite dark is coming from below the crust of the planet. Not haven seen the second part of this two-parter I can't vouch that the end is as strong yet. But it does make for one hell of a beginning.

My Grade: A

Sentiment: positive
All I can say is, before watching the movie I did not have a hint indication who Annemarie Schwarzenbach was or what was her life story..and I have to confess that the movie was hardly a help to reach these data.. and even it was not successful to persuade me to do some research by typing few words on google website; however, all I can say is that the actress Jeanette Hain was great with her mute facial expression she really played well and showed a deep depression mental status, as it is in real.

After all , based on the script the movie has happened in turkey and Tehran as well as Afghanistan.. but believe me I am familiar with the area , it was all about an Arabic desert in morocco.. Turkish people and persian people are completely different in face and culture as well as in language which is not arabic..

I suppose for making a film like this- documentary type- a thorough research about all these minor elements is mandatory..

Sentiment: negative
When I was little my parents took me along to the theater to see Interiors. It was one of many movies I watched with my parents, but this was the only one we walked out of. Since then I had never seen Interiors until just recently, and I could have lived out the rest of my life without it. What a pretentious, ponderous, and painfully boring piece of 70's wine and cheese tripe. Woody Allen is one of my favorite directors but Interiors is by far the worst piece of crap of his career. In the unmistakable style of Ingmar Berman, Allen gives us a dark, angular, muted, insight in to the lives of a family wrought by the psychological damage caused by divorce, estrangement, career, love, non-love, halitosis, whatever. The film, intentionally, has no comic relief, no music, and is drenched in shadowy pathos. This film style can be best defined as expressionist in nature, using an improvisational method of dialogue to illicit a "more pronounced depth of meaning and truth". But Woody Allen is no Ingmar Bergman. The film is painfully slow and dull. But beyond that, I simply had no connection with or sympathy for any of the characters. Instead I felt only contempt for this parade of shuffling, whining, nicotine stained, martyrs in a perpetual quest for identity. Amid a backdrop of cosmopolitan affluence and baked Brie intelligentsia the story looms like a fart in the room. Everyone speaks in affected platitudes and elevated language between cigarettes. Everyone is "lost" and "struggling", desperate to find direction or understanding or whatever and it just goes on and on to the point where you just want to slap all of them. It's never about resolution, it's only about interminable introspective babble. It is nothing more than a psychological drama taken to an extreme beyond the audience's ability to connect. Woody Allen chose to make characters so immersed in themselves we feel left out. And for that reason I found this movie painfully self indulgent and spiritually draining. I see what he was going for but his insistence on promoting his message through Prozac prose and distorted film techniques jettisons it past the point of relevance. I highly recommend this one if you're feeling a little too happy and need something to remind you of death. Otherwise, let's just pretend this film never happened.

Sentiment: negative
This was a weird movie. It started out pretty good. A solid sound track behind flash images of gore and mayhem as our psychopath did his thing.

Next comes his "down fall" Here i could tell I was in for a real cheesy "B" movie. Poor acting , I mean how hard is it to hold a gun and act like a cop? These guys could not. After the death scene of our psychopath we get the opening credit and the movie starts...

From this point on it is bad acting big boobs, the occasional bucket of blood and poorly done death scenes.

That said I gave the movie a four because in spite of its flaws it did maintain a sort of creepiness that I just could not quite shake off.

I do not recommend this movie but I have to admit I have seem worse.

Sentiment: negative
I heard this film was much more stylistic than the films director Guy Ritchie (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch) had directed before, the problem is, it is possibly too stylistic. Basically Jake Green (Jason Statham) is released from prison after seven years in solitary,and within two years he gambles loads of his money. He is ready to seek revenge against the violence-prone casino owner who got Jake sent to prison, Dorothy 'Mr. D' Macha (Ray Liotta). In the process, doctors tell Jake that he has three days left to live as he is dying from a rare blood disease, oh, and Macha puts hit men on him. Loan sharks Zach (Vincent Pastore) and Avi (André Benjamin) are demanding Jake pays their cash back, and do some odd jobs for them. The film is filled with Jake narrating through some flashbacks, and through his last three days before coming to the big revelation about Zach and Avi, and Macha, well, I assume that's what it was. Also starring Terence Maynard as French Paul, Andrew Howard as Billy, Mark Strong as Sorter, Francesca Annis as Lily Walker, Anjela Lauren Smith as Doreen and Elana Binysh as Rachel. The are sequences involving a little bit of animation, repeating lines twice in different perspectives, and changing speeds for moments, and all of these are irritating to the point of confusion and boredom, making it a silly crime drama. Pretty poor!

Sentiment: negative
I have seen the movie at the Viennale a few years ago, where the audiences liked it. I liked it as well, Summer Phoenix performance still haunts me, that´s why I decided to write a comment.

The story unfolds in London around 1900, where a jewish girl decides to become an actress. She tries desperately to become one, but it isn´t before a man treats her badly that she realizes on stage, that she has talent and that she connects with the audience and emerges as a stronger human being.

There were certain reviews, were her performance was smashed, they accused her of being dull, not able to bring life to her character. I think that´s her strong point, that´s exactly what Esther Kahn should be and Phoenix makes a brave decision to make her Esther a rather boring girl. So her transformation at the end is more powerful than it could have been otherwise. 

The cinematography is great, the images of London around the turn of the century are very dark and sad, you can see how unpleasant life was back then. 

The only fault in my opinion is the length of the movie, you loose touch with the characters, after all it´s only about finding the actor in yourself, so there are no dramatic actions in the film. It´s Phoenix credit that we don´t loose the interest in the movie after the first hour.

Sentiment: positive
If this is film noir, then noir must be French for glacially slow. Take a cast of completely unlikeable characters, give them nothing to say, punctuate the whole thing with gratuitous ultra-violence, and you've got the formula for an aggravated Dash. Could be subtitled "Sleazy Hollywood types attempt to make money from Chinatown rip-off". Bruce Dern's one minute part is orders of magnitude better than anything else in this flick. By the way, I didn't like the film.

Sentiment: negative
If you're going to put on a play within the prison walls why not go for the top playwright William Shakespeare? And if you are going to choose your cast from a whole lot of criminals serving long sentences for the most heinous crimes, you can be sure there will be plenty of time for rehearsals. In a Kentucky Correctional Prison a courageous project such as this was undertaken with amazing results. This film shows how it was all done.the casting.the rehearsals.the set and costumesand the final presentation of Shakespeare's play "The Tempest." It had not occurred to me before but there is an analogy between the setting of the play and the correctional prison. In the play the ship-wrecked characters are confined to an island with no contact with the outside world. Prison life too is much like that.

With a simple painted back drop of a surrounding seascape, the characters in a most pleasing assortment of costumes bellow out their lines to an approving audience, may be not quite as Shakespeare intended but with good heart and true sincerity for sure.

More interesting than the play itself were the little cameos of each man behind his character. One inmate saw the play as a lesson in forgiveness another as a redemption of his sins. It was quite moving to see the men wipe away a tear as they spoke of murder, shooting and strangulation. One had the feeling that they would all like to wind back the clock and reconsider their brutal actions. However (as someone said) the past was past, and the present was the beginning of a new future. At least the play gave temporary relief from the depressing thoughts of past events.

The prison authorities should be applauded for allowing the play to take place. Such an event would put Kentucky on the map and hopefully other prisons might follow their good example. It seems to me that everyone stands to benefitnot only the Kentucky prison but the prisoners themselves who need to find new confidence and self esteem and be prepared for the day when they go out on parole.

Sentiment: positive
Why?!! This was an insipid, uninspired and embarrassing film. The embarrassment comes from being from the city where they made it...Pittsburgh PA! Why did they let these people do such a BAAAAAD movie there?

When this movie was originally to be released...it was more of a romantic comedy...and no ROBO-anything. That all got changed along with cuteness courtesy of Disney. WHY???? They did a terrible interpretation of this classic comic character. Seeing Matthew Broderick make fun of his own movies was not fun either. Sheesh!!

Sentiment: negative