DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Men of Honor stars Cuba Gooding Jr., as real life Navy Diver Carl Brashear who defied a man's Navy to become the first African American Navy Diver. Sometimes by his side and sometimes his adversary there was one man who Carl Brashear really admired. His name was Master Chief Billy Sunday (Robert DeNiro). Sunday in a lot of ways pushed, aggravated and helped Carl become the man he wanted to be. 

I loved Cuba in this film. His portrayal here is as liberating and as powerful as Denzel Washington was in The Hurricane. Through every scene we can see his passion, motivation and stubbornness to achieve his dream. We can see the struggle within in him as he embarks to make his father proud. I also loved how the director created and brought forth a lot of tension in some of the key diving scenes. Brashear's encounter with a submarine during a salvage mission is heart-stopping and brilliant. 

The only fault I could see would have to lie in the supporting cast. Cuba and DeNiro's characters are very intricate and exciting to watch. Which does make you a little sad when they have to butt heads with such two-dimensional supporting characters. The evil Lt. Cmdr. Hanks, Sunday's wife (Charlize Theron), the eccentric diving school colonel (Hal Holbrook) and Cuba's love interest are the characters I found to not have very much depth. What could have made these characters more substantial and more effective was a little more time to develop them. Why was that colonel always in his tower? How come Sunday's wife was so bitter and always drunk?

Another curious question has to be this. What happened to Carl Brashear's wedding? I mean if this film is chronicling this man's life wouldn't his wedding be an important event? Maybe it's just me. Men of Honor, however, is a perfect example of the triumph and faith that the human spirit envelops. This film will inspire and make you feel for this man's struggle. Which I do believe was the reason this powerful story was told. My hat goes off to you Carl Brashear. I really admire your strength.



Sentiment: positive
Having read some of the other comments here I was expecting something truly awful but was pleasantly surprised. REALITY CHECK: The original series wasn't that good. I think some people remember it with more affection than it deserved but apart from the car chases and Daisy Duke's legs the scripts were weak and poorly acted. The Duke boys were too intelligent and posh for backwood hicks, the shrunken Boss Hog was too cretinous to be evil and Rosco was just hyper throughout every screen moment. It's amazing the series actually lasted as long as it did because it ran out of story lines during the first series.

Back to the movie. If you watch this film in it's own right, not as a direct comparison to however you remember the TV series, then it's not bad at all. The real star is of course the General Lee. The car chases and stunts are excellent and that's really what D.O.H. is all about. Johnny Knoxville is his usual eccentric self and along with Seann William Scott as Cousin Bo the pair make this film really funny in a hilarious Dumb-And-Dumber sort of way the TV series never achieved. The lovely Jessica Simpson is a natch as Miss Daisy, Burt Reynolds makes a much improved Boss Hog and M.C. Gainey makes a believably nasty Rosco P. Coltrane, the way he always should have been.

If you don't like slapstick humour and crazy car stunts then you wouldn't be watching this film anyway because you should know what to expect. Otherwise if you want an entertaining car-action movie with a few good laughs that's not too taxing on the brain then go see this enjoyable romp with an open mind.

Sentiment: positive
Russians never dropped children's toys filled with explosives over Afghanistan, that never happened!!! Who did invention of that?? Hollywood portrays Russian army as horrible, dreadful troops of evil! That is disgusting!! United States President Jimmy Carter had accepted the view that "Soviet aggression" could not be viewed as an isolated event of limited geographical importance but had to be contested as a potential threat to the Persian Gulf region. The uncertain scope of the final objective of Moscow in its sudden southward plunge made the American stake in an independent Pakistan all the more important. A great deal of damage was done to the civilian children population by land mines.

Sentiment: negative
I'm so glad I only got this movie for $5. Anime is expensive, no doubt about that. I've had my eye on this one for awhile and finally I saw it on sale. I grabbed it immediately and took it home only to hang my head in disappointment. This movie sucked. I've heard people talk about how gory and violent this movie is. It's really not that gory or violent. I've watched it three times, and I think I've wasted enough of my life on this. The demons get a point for being unique and kinda cool at times. The sex gets a point since it's almost non-stop. The horny old man gets half-a-point for being horny and still having the sex drive. And the main character (who's name I've erased from my mind) gets half-a-point for the cool design of his gun. I saw major connections between this movie and Demon City Shinjuku. Both have same style animation, that's obvious because of the director, both have lame soundtracks which suck like the Antichrist, and both have terrible endings. Avoid this movie unless you're into anime sex.

Sentiment: negative
You just got to love opening sequences like the one in "Seven Women for Satan"  During the intro there's a naked girl running through the woods, chased by a hunting dog and a malignant looking dude on a horse, until she falls off a cliff and splits her head open on a rock. Then the camera zooms out on the face of the guy and we notice how he's simply sitting behind a desk whilst his secretary waiting for him to sign some papers. "Oh I'm sorry, I was lost in my thoughts" he then says! Sweet, I have stumbled upon yet another completely bonkers movie. Even if you only understand a minimum of French and have a look at the original title, you immediately know that "Seven Women for Satan" hasn't got anything to do with Satan or ritual sacrifices, but simply revolves on the flamboyant escapades of a perverted and mentally unstable count during his weekend in the countryside. This is, in fact, another sleazy variation on the classic milestone "The Most Dangerous Game" about a lunatic's disturbing hobby of hunting people  preferably hot naked chicks - in the forest for sports. Well actually, this is more than just a variation on the 1932 classic, as writer/director/actor Michel Lemoine had the pretension to directly link his protagonist to Leslie Banks' legendary villain in "The Most Dangerous Game". Count Zaroff supposedly is the original Count Zaroff's son but he exchanged his private island for the remote French countryside. He also can't afford to be unemployed anymore, so he's an office clerk from Monday to Friday and a maniacal killer during the weekend. Zaroff is a genuine weirdo who hallucinates about dancing with deceased woman but actually runs his car over the live ones. His butler once pledged to prevent the Zaroffs from killing, but he's obviously doing a lousy job. There isn't any depth in the screenplay and the build-up certainly doesn't pay attention to suspense or sinister atmosphere. Really, the only useful thing to do during this film is count the girls that are lured for Zaroff's deceptive trap and hope they'll reach seven rapidly. Half of the film is pointless and tedious padding footage, like the overlong erotic dance act in which a statue inexplicably transforms into a muscular black guy (???), and the other half exists of psychedelic sleaze that eventually grows tiresome as well even though all the girls look ravishing. I have the impression that it was Michel Lemoine's intention to imitate his pal Jean Rollin and make a deliriously kinky sex-thriller. "Seven Women for Satan" is a French production, so inevitably it also stars Jess Franco regular Howard Vernon ("The Awful Dr. Orloff", "Zombie Lake"). Lemoine himself surely has the looks of a crazy killer, but not the talent to depict one.

Sentiment: negative
There is nothing good to say about this movie. Read Revolution For the Hell of It or any of his other writings. Abbie was often dismissed as the clown-prince of the '60's, but he was a man of ideas who used his cleverness, his sense of humor and pop culture, and his flamboyant personality to get attention to his ideas. The media too often concentrated on the man, not the ideas, and that's the problem with this movie, too. Later in his life he did suffer from depression. But this flick is like a National Enquirer version of Abbie. He deserves better. If you don't know Abbie or his times, this movie won't help.

 This film lies. I give it a zero. 



Sentiment: negative
This movie was like a bad train wreck, as horrible as it was, you still had to continue to watch. My boyfriend and I rented it and wasted two hours of our day. Now don't get me wrong, the acting is good. Just the movie as a whole just enraged both of us. There wasn't anything positive or good about this scenario. After this movie, I had to go rent something else that was a little lighter. Jennifer Tilly is as usual a very dramatic actress. Her character seems manic and not all there. Darryl Hannah, though over played, she does a wonderful job playing out the situation she is in. More than once I found myself yelling at the TV telling her to fight back or to get violent. All in all, very violent movie...not for the faint of heart.

Sentiment: negative
For me, it just didn't seem like GI Joe at all. When I watched it as a kid, I just didn't care for it. In fact the part I liked best about this one was the opening credits. They change so many facts around and turn the story around as well. Cobra Commander is supposedly part of this stupid race of reptile people in Antarctica or somewhere that is frozen. Though I always thought he was a normal guy considering every time you saw his eyes in the series they were surrounded by normal colored flesh and not the blue his face was here. There is just too much crap in this one to try and make this a spectacular movie, but for me it just ruins what I watched the series for in the first place.

Sentiment: negative
There's nothing left undone about this Perry and Croft masterpiece - as good as any of the best episodes, thankfully it was still filmed in time before the late James Beck sadly passed away to be included in it to show his talent.

It shows right from the start, how the platoon is formed from the state of national emergency, showing the boys as inept under Captain Mainwaring (Arthur Lowe) and Sergeant Wilson (John Le Mesurier) as they usually are through the series.

Along the way, Mainwaring does his usual longing to show authority but the chaps can't help but let him down at every turn, during wargames and suspecting an invasion. They have a chance in the film though to redeem themselves when they actually capture the Nazi airmen who take the church congregation hostage.

That was a nice finale especially as Mainwaring had been able to prove himself to the General, being given one last chance to shape up. A great film, plenty of good lines and laughs, it's another one for the DVD cupboard - I'm glad the BBC is repeating it - and on this day 2.8.08 they deservedly had 'Dad's Army Night'. Not to be missed!

Sentiment: positive
"Who Done It?" contains many surefire laughs and gags. It is not only one of the best Stooges films with Shemp, it is one of the finest short comedies Columbia produced. Director Bernds originally wrote the screenplay in 1946 for the Stooges, but when Curly Howard suffered a career-ending stroke, it was tailored for the Columbia comedy team of Schilling and Lane (their version was released as "Pardon My Terror.") It obviously was too good for the Stooges to pass up, and it was finally filmed by the Stooges at the end of 1947.

Old Man Goodrich calls ace detectives Shemp, Larry, and Moe out of fear that he will be murdered. When they arrive at his home, Goodrich has disappeared, and his niece and assorted goons try to get rid of the Stooges. Will they find Goodrich and bring the niece and goons to justice? 

Shemp is particularly funny in this film. His reactions after being given a mickey by Christine McIntyre are superb; he gives his trademark sound (eeeb-eeeb-eeeb) and Miss McIntyre is noticeably trying not to laugh! Other funny scenes: the close-up of Moe's mug looking through the camera lens; and the in-the-dark fight with all cast members involved.

Nikko the goon (played by Duke York) is one of the most unusual looking characters ever portrayed in a Stooges film. With his kinked hair, he could almost pass for a Stooge, if he didn't tower over everyone else! "Who Done It?" is a gem among the Stooges films with Shemp. Even die-hard Curly fans will enjoy this one! A true Stooge classic. 9 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
Contrary to what those who hate Christianity, the 700 Club provides real answers as well as inspiration. It also provides reliable news, logical commentary and a different view than what ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS thinks is best. Unlike other programs, which provide social and faith-related commentary, those who are behind the 700 Club provide help for those in need, such as feeding the hungry with Operation Blessing, providing medical help to those living in poverty-stricken communities and giving hope to those who need hope. It's not at all hateful. If the 700 Club offends you, I suggest reaching for the remote control and turning the channel on your TV set. I do the same thing when I find CNN Headline News or for that matter, programs which I find biased or offensive. What I find offensive is the way that the ABC Family inserts the disclaimer that the views of the 700 Club do not reflect those of ABC Family.

Sentiment: positive
Visually cluttered, plot less, incredibly mind-numbing rubbish. Not even close to Greenaway's better work. Avoid at all costs!

The overlapping 'split screen' effects do nothing more than confuse, the film is very dark for a lot of the time and the 'artistic' composing of images is pretentious in the extreme.

There is absolutely nothing to recommend about this film; even the nudity is incredibly unerotic, which seeing it fills a large part of the film soon gets very boring.

Plus, how anyone can say that the acting of Ewen MacGregor is brilliant is beyond me. He showed more ability in the Star Wars series, and that's saying something.

I've not been so unimpressed with a film since I saw 'Darby O'Gill and the Little People'!

Sentiment: negative
Take 4 couples whose relationships were already on the rocks and put them on an island paradise where they'll be tempted by 26 singles. This was the premise of the show, simple yet outrageous & funny. Leave it to Fox to throw morality out the window & let the debauchery flow. It was like a real-life version of Melrose Place. The good thing about the show is that it wasn't about people conniving & manipulating each other for a cash prize. It was about lust & temptation, pure and simple & the ultimate test for a relationship.

People either loved the show or hated it. It was kind of like slowing down to look at a horrific traffic accident. You know you shouldn't watch, but you can't help but look. Drama aside, there was a lot of eye candy.

Sentiment: positive
My girls 4 and 6 love this show. We stumbled across it on a PBS station and they always ask when its on now. It reminds them of their Grandma that takes care of them everyday in the summer. Its funny too and sometimes they can't stopped talking about one scene or another. I would definitely recommend this show to all young kids. It is very clean and shows you to slow down and its not about watching TV all day long. When Nana reads a story it is slow and she talks about each page with Mona. It reminds me to slow down when I read the next book to my girls at bedtime and talk about the book instead of going through it quickly just to get them to sleep.

Sentiment: positive
If you're a fan of the original series, do NOT see this movie.

I should have been skeptical from the previews when Aeon expresses her motives for murder. In the series Aeon had no family and no motive for her adventures save selfish interests. Obviously the chimp-writer in charge felt the movie needed to cater to the "bad grrl" demographic by making the character deadly, but have a good reason to kill people.

You wouldn't have thought it possible, but the movie is more two dimensional than the cartoon. The characters are all portrayed as inherently good with some conflict of interest that eventually gets resolved. All dogs go to heaven, and same for every character that dies in this movie.

The selfish,twisted,perverted, dominating personas of Aeon and Trevor are nowhere to be seen. In the end they literally develop into a cutesy couple ala Annie Hall. The only character who remained true to the show was the Relicle, the floating machine in the sky. I suppose if you ever thought "gee, I like Aeon Flux, but I wish it were more like every other faceless good-v-evil sci-fi Hollywood slop out there", then you are in for a treat.

They didn't even get the look right. I suppose a black metal bikini was too much to ask for, but the whole setting is wrong. 400 years into the future sure looks like 30 years into the past. Instead of a distinctly urban post-apocalyptic world, the viewer's eyes are offended with a 70's mod-squad frutopia of egg-shaped furniture, wood paneled walls, earth tones, and lots of plants. Bregna was a dystopia, not a utopia.

Speaking of Bregna, that's the only city on earth according to the movie. The show is clear that there are two cities, Bregna and Monica, which used to be one. In the movie, the "Monicans" are just Hollywood storybook freedom-fighters. They also have as much technology as the Bregnans, which is not the case from the show.

The only possible conclusion is that the real writer for this movie was a high school kid, and that he wrote it the day before it was due to the studio execs, and he's never seen an entire Aeon Flux all the way through. The overwhelming amount of inconsistency with the cartoon is baffling. Beyond using certain names like Aeon Flux, Trevor Goodchild, and Bregna, the movie is nothing like the show.

The actual bulk of the movie seems to try to blend the colorful plots of soy-lent green, blade runner, Logan's run, and tomb raider, which came out a dull brown mess.

Sentiment: negative
Be warned! 

This is crap that other crap won't even deign to be in company with because it's beneath them! Okay, got that out of the way, let me say something more substantive.

I've seen Ashes of Time a very long time ago thinking it was a fresh take on the material which is based on a highly revered wuxia tome of a novel due to the emerging reputation of the director, Wong Kar Wai. Well, despite of all of that WKW hasn't succeeded at adapting the novel on screen according to a lot of wuxia fans; mostly it is just shots of dripping water, beads of sweats, legs of horses running, etc. I couldn't sit through most of the movie.

Fast forward many years later when I wanted to give Mr. Wong's movies another shot after hearing many praises, especially from Cannes. I was intrigued by his latest, 2046. A friend told me to start w/ Chungking Express because it is his most accessible movies. So wrong! I was just p.o. that I got duped into wasting my time and money on this piece of pretentious nothingness. Some professional reviewers mentioned it as a meditation on alienation and loneliness in a modern big city, blah, blah, blah. It's all fine if the director has a point of view with something to say as to why these things happen and tell it. But no, he merely shows what is. Faye Wong's acting is very typical of Hong Kong's style: garbled enunciation, deer in the headlight wide eye expression, try to be cute and girlish kind of acting; the rest of the cast is equally uninspired.

I think the word, Auteur, is a euphemism for a director who tries something new and different, which is to be applauded, but not one who hasn't yet mastered the art of cinematic story telling, which is what Mr. Wong is, for the last 17 years!

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie in the theater when I was a kid and always remember it as my first experience with getting ripped off by a horrible movie with a good commercial. The commercial was great, but it I found out later that it had every explosion or 'special effect' in the entire movie (about 4) and even some that weren't in the movie. There was some sort of plot relating to the aliens but the aliens were never actually shown in the movie as far as I remember. It was clearly a case of someone making a buck off a cheap movie designed to scam people. I guess my world of innocence ended that day, when I found out there were bad people out there who make bad bad movies.

Sentiment: negative
Just too many holes in this movie to be enjoyable AND WORSE OF ALL a bizarre almost Hollywood-like ending that is completely out of context with the rest of the movie (this is not a spoiler as you will never guess how it ends!).

YOu will also need to be thick skinned to all sorts of politically correct undertones. The conflict between whites and blacks was highly contrived and one sided. I didn't understand why the author had the local black communinity behave in such an unacceptable manner, is he / she trying to be racist?

A truly bizare movie. Only watch if you like to be really annoyed by holes in the plot and like to debate all the things that may or may not have supposed to have happened.

But on the positive side the filming and acting is excellent.

Sentiment: negative
I like Peter Sellers, most of the time. I had never seen him portray an upper-class Brit until this movie. He pulls it off pretty well, although you see bits of Inspector Clouseau in the mix. It doesn't get interesting until Goldie Hawn arrives.

I never expected the youthful Hawn to deliver such a solid performance. Her timing was great and her expressions were priceless. The way she alternately shoots Sellers lecherous character down and seduces him is beautiful to watch. Verbal sparring like I've seldom seen from a movie of that era.

The last thirty minutes of the movie DOES fall flat. It is worth the let down just to see the first sixty. Hawn is nude for a few glorious seconds early on. Enjoy it...

Sentiment: positive
Nothing is worse than the genocides of our world's history. This film attempts to describe the horror faced by one particular family - a common narrative device - in the atomic bomb world of Hiroshima. The most memorable parts are the graphic and saddening images that the people of Hiroshima face in the aftermath of war. The story, however, becomes more concerned with the effect on a specific group of people and how they cope with getting on with their lives; in other words, if you don't really care about them, the film grows boring. It's hard not to care, though, when a family's homeland is wrecked. I'm not sure if I would recommend this film, because it says very little politically and, honestly, did not keep my interest in the family's troubles.

Sentiment: positive
Eddie Murphy for best supporting actor??? What an insult to Alan Arkin and Djimon Hounsou. 

Jamie Foxx (who can act) walks through this film like a zombie. 

Beyonce ??? That was acting??? 

This movie pales in comparison to CHICAGO or just about any other recent musical. 

If it were not for the great singing and performance of Jennifer Hudson I would have given this a ZERO.

And no I never saw the stage play so I am not making the typical Broadway vs. Hollywood rap.

Sentiment: negative
A group of teens have their car break down in the middle of nowhere. They seek shelter in a farmhouse. But three murderous convicts are there killing the owner of said farmhouse and his family. One of them accidentally brings zombies around by knocking over a scarecrow. Cue blood, gore, carnage, bad acting. Better than the first but only by default. I still wouldn't wish it on my arch-enemy, bob. In the end the filmmaker wants it to be a parable about how we us Americans are killing ourself and our forests (huh? OK, whatever buddy) Dude I'd rather chop down forests then have my braincells diminish and my Grey matter leak out of my ears. In other words become a simple-minded idiot Liberal.

My Grade: D-

Sentiment: negative
This movie was an excellent acted, excellent directed and overall had an excellent story. Ive had real life experiance with a boy like 'Radio'. At the football program in my town, weve had a mentally challenged boy every year practice, travel, and have fun with the football team. This movie is really true and i can identify with it 100%. A boy like 'Radio' just needs to feel like they belong to something; they need to feel like their life is worth living. Thats how 'Radio' feels and thats why that type of program is set up at my high school. This is a very touching movie that im glad has been brought to the big screen. My dad and I loved it and i will always remember this for being a movie that tells a riveting story of the goodness and kindness of man!

Sentiment: positive
This was without a doubt the worst movie I have ever sat through. And that's saying alot, because I've seen my share of horrible movies.

But I have never seen a movie in which every single character portrayed was an unintelligent loser. Seriously, there was not one respectable character in the entire script. How fitting that the plot was equally lame, lacking any intelligence whatsoever.

I can't believe that Keanu Reeves and Cameron Diaz would even consent to participating in such stupidity. And while I haven't seen all of their other movies, I've always enjoyed their performances until now. It's not that the acting was bad, just the entire story line was moronic.

Sentiment: negative
Let me start by saying how much I love the TV series. The nature of class war was always going to be a subject worthy of poking fun at, but this TV series exploits it better than most. The chemistry between Yootha Joyce and Brian Murphy was always electrifying and the writers wrote almost entirely flawless episodes every time. In my opinion, it is the best British sitcom of the mid to late-1970s, surpassing the likes of RISING DAMP, ROBIN'S NEST, ARE YOU BEING SERVED? and so on. With the ON THE BUSES series having finished a few years earlier, GEORGE AND MILDRED became the next pride and joy of ITV (or ITV 1 as it's now known), enjoying a four-year run on the channel.

The movie however is absolutely terrible in almost every respect. The general essence of the TV series has almost entirely been stripped by the writers of this abysmal movie (who anyone will immediately notice are not the same ones who worked on the series). As one commenter has already pointed out, Mildred lacks the sharpness she had on the TV series and does not come across as anywhere near as overbearing.

The plot, instead of focusing on the class war with the Fourmiles that was the very foundation of the TV series, actually writes out the Fourmiles almost entirely after the first half-hour. The plot, if you can call it that, consists of George and Mildred going on holiday to some hotel and getting mixed up with gangsters. First rate talent in the form of Stratford Johns, Kenneth Cope, David Barry and Sue Bond are all wasted here. Most of these are well past their heyday and all of them look very embarrassed as if they very well know that the only thing worth hanging around for is a paycheck (which probably won't be much).

The jokes and gags in the movie (if you can call them that) rely heavily upon traditional British farce, including mistaken identities, embarrassing situations, poorly-timed slapstick, characters losing control of what is happening to them and general confusion. And it all fails miserably. As another commenter has pointed out, it seems as though the writers of this movie have never seen an episode of the TV series and instead crafted out a something resembling a CARRY ON romp. The scene where George is stripped down by Sue Bond's character is particularly out of context.

A mystery surrounding this movie is the BBFC certification provided - 15. Just why is it rated 15 when all there is to see is harmless, non-vulgar entertainment?

Not surprisingly the era of sitcom spin-of came to an end not long after this movie was released (shortly after the sad death of Yootha Joyce). And the company behind this movie, Hammer, well known for producing first rate horror movies back in the 1950s to mid 1970s, soon disappeared into total obscurity.

All in all, the movie is a near total washout. My advice - skip this and stick to the TV series. You won't be missing anything, I assure you.

Sentiment: negative
I had expected a fairly straightforward R-rated graphic, sexual, crude teen-comedy when I sat down to see this... it turned out to be fairly accurate... only it was far more sick and disgusting than I would have thought. I don't know if the director/writer Gregory Poirier is sick or deeply messed up sexually, but I doubt that a normal person could have made a movie like this. I could probably have taken it if it was just that, if the only thing that was wrong was it was that it required a tough stomach... but it isn't. The film is also horribly mean-spirited and disturbing... every single character that has more than one full second of time on-screen is an extreme... sexually, mentally or physically. I don't know if this is just the director's sense of humor, but I just found it to be... wrong. Just wrong. Even in a comedy, there is supposed to be some seriousness. The plot is stupid. The acting is bad. The characters are inconsistent and poorly written... all of them. There isn't one single likable character in the film. The humor is disgusting and goes way too far. The film is just so incredibly poorly done that I really don't think it's worth anyone's time. If you like R-rated, crude comedies with plenty of sexual innuendo and graphic stuff, watch The Groomsmen, or, better yet, American Pie... or Road Trip, my personal favorite. But don't watch this. I can't possibly describe to you how bad it is... you would have to experience it for yourself. However, this is one of those times where I'll say that you're better off wondering. That way you can just imagine that this film goes very close to the bottom... without knowing that it goes through it, and far lower than that. This movie most of all looks like a group of horny teenage guys got together, put together a film crew, and every-time one of them got an idea, they filmed it, and later put the entire thing together. It lacks structure, consistency and taste. I recommend this only to horny teenage guys who have seen every single other R-rated crude teen comedy and who don't care about quality. Everyone else... do the sensible thing; avoid this. It's not even worth it to see the booty. Believe me. 1/10

Sentiment: negative
Recently, I had opportunity to view a working print in Kansas City (Olathe, KS.) of this title. It is difficult for me, being a lover of the art as I am, to report the following, but, the truth sometimes hurts, and quite frankly after sitting through this tripe (I'm using the slang definition here - worthless statements or writing) for an hour and a half, I feel obligated to share (WARN) any interested parties. Let's begin at the beginning, a good place to start as always. The first 15 minutes are not really that bad, a couple of laughs, and decent development, but then it is downhill from there. This is the story of a woman, in her mid thirties, that (as the writer would like for you to believe) is dissatisfied with her life and unfulfilled. The first major difficulty occurs when if you don't know that fact going into the movie, you won't know it when she suddenly risks it all for, in my opinion, a very unkempt and unlikely fling with a local salesman. There is little development (drastically insufficient development) to justify her actions for the affair she has, and when it occurs, one feels, as I did, that she is just of low moral character. The word "slut" comes to mind, hopefully, they'll let that pass the review and post the comment. This, in my opinion, is the first fatal flaw of the film. If you're married or have ever been in love, irregardless of whether you are male or female, its going to turn you off. Quite frankly, I feel that it would have made a much better "blue movie" - that's the level in my opinion of which the screenplay is deserving. The second fatal flaw is the casting, Diane Lane just didn't work for me here, and Viggo Mortensen is not the right man for the job, believe me. The only saving grace to the entire film is Anna Paquin, the depth of her ability as a fine actress shines in places, conveying a subtle yet very blunt (I apologize for the dichotomy but it is accurate) portrayal of an emerging teen. Bravo, well done. I'm not going to give the ending away, but I was disappointed, being billed as a slice of life romance is one thing... but an ending like that.... Well, if that teased you enough to see this picture, don't say I didn't warn you, but you better look fast - if this celluloid is released, I doubt it goes four weeks before bursting into flames. I'd say wait for the video, but the free sex education tapes at most video rental outlets have more entertainment value. Hmmm, Dustin Hoffman produced this, you think he'd learn after Ishtar. This film once carried the working title "Blouse Man" and should have been left on the rack. If you've never in your life wanted to walk out on a film, give this one 35-40 minutes, the only thing worth staying for is Anna Paquin, if you can stomach the fact that you'll find your mind drifting to whether or not you took out the garbage before you left home, which is probably where you should have stayed in the first place if you're off to the movies to see this one. That's my two cents, for what it is worth.

Sentiment: negative
'Iedereen Beroemd' has everything we can expect from a straight to video-movie. It's the story about a man who believes his daughter could be a star. The only thing he needs is to get her on stage, surrounded by cameras and reporters. A simple plan for which he has to kidnap and do some blackmail. The problem with the movie is not the basic plot, but how it is made. Everything is supposed to be funny, but it isn't. It is trivial and clumsy, the characters are shallow, and the end-sequence is totally without climax or emotion. The last sequence is probably the only scene where you feel like laughing, but only at how pathetic the whole set-up is.

Sentiment: negative
'The Luzhin Defence' is a good film with fine central performances, but too much of the novel and not enough of the filmmaker's craft shines through. It felt through most of the film that the characters just helped to push the narrative along. Marlene Gorris could perhaps have examined the psyche of Luzhin, rather than depicting him as a tortured innocent victim torn apart by the cruel motives of others.

Adapting literature for the screen is clearly a difficult task, especially a novel written in the early 20th century. This film does not go deeply enough into the relationship between Luzhin and Natalia. Natalia's rift with her mother comes across a churlish disagreement by the mother rather than a dramatic flashpoint in the film. I felt that I was put through Luzhin's torment and eventual tragic end, without being given the pleasure of having his unusual and complex personality unravelled. However, this was a moving and enjoyable film but certainly not a great one.

Sentiment: positive
One wonders how FLYNN could have failed so badly as a cinema release in 1997 with Guy Pearce aptly in the lead role. It is not often that the casting of someone so famous is so exactly right. FLYNN was a stumbler at the box office and did not end up on cinema screens in Australia...even after LA CONFIDENTIAL...! From a dazzling nude scene in the first few minutes (presumably by Guy Pearce) FLYNN gets off to a fairly robust and interesting start. Sadly, FLYNN runs out of steam after about the first 35 minutes and with the entrance of hammy Steven Berkoff in a detour to New Guinea, (looking and acting like he wanted the Klaus Kinski role in FITZCARRALDO) the film starts to resemble a tele movie rather than a major cinema biography. Believe it or not, by about the 70 minute make, it is boring and you are glad to see it over. But such promise! Pearce IS Flynn! But the movie caused a mutiny at the box office and unlike The Bounty, sank without trace.

Sentiment: negative
I have read the 28 most recent comments by various people regarding this movie and was surprised that no one mentioned the fact that the first victim, shown on the bed with the "missing eyelids", as the camera pans up and away from her face, blinks! Yes, BLINKS! I recorded it as it came on HBO this past weekend and when I saw this I literally had to replay it several times, focusing on one eye at a time to make sure that I was not seeing things! Of course, after that, it was hard to take the movie seriously although there were a few interesting and intense scenes with Julian Sands. Very disappointed and give it a 4 mostly due to the fact that the 1st victim blinks in one of the last frames as the camera pulls away from the body/face. Too bad.

Sentiment: negative
That's what I kept asking myself while watching this film. I mean the amount of nudity and sex was one thing but another part of the movie which gave its genre to the adult industry was its lack of storyline. Really I just wanted to get up and leave during the whole movie, but I persisted. I persisted in the hope that maybe the storyline would get better, that there might be a good twist at the end. However I couldn't have been more wrong. In the end I persisted because I figured I could write a bad review for it if anything after watching it. 

I mean don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with beautiful, sexy and vibrant women, but when the director only shows that along with a shitty story thinking it's what the viewer wants to see, it insults us all. To think we are all so shallow to only want to see burlesque from rep ratable, big movie industry players is preposterous. My advice: hire a different movie.

Sentiment: negative
The one line summary is actually the punch line of a very old joke that begins "what is a Jewish porno film?"

While this film had its interesting moments, it was far too slow moving and did not do enough to explain to those of us in the audience unfamiliar with orthodox Jewish custom, exactly what was going on and why? How many people who came across this film would know that the bathtub the female characters were washing in is in reality called a "Mikveh" which is a ritual bath used to cleanse spiritual uncleanliness? The same question might be asked of why the bride was walked around the groom a dizzying number of times while her face was covered just prior to the marriage vows being performed. These two examples are but two of a large number of such moments that remained completely unexplained to the uninitiated audience.

This film does have its touching moments along with expressions of great love and emotions. The characters are presented very authentically right down to the number of garments an ultra orthodox Jewish male must wear as well as the religious rituals he must engage in upon awakening in the morning to begin his day. The attitudes orthodox Judaism has towards women in general and wives in particular is both intriguing and at times maddening. This is another reason why more explanation is needed if this story is to be understood in context.

I recommend this film to people who are familiar with orthodox Jewish tradition and ritual as well as those who might be interested in getting a brief peek at what the lives of people who practice this way of life is like.

The story itself about two sisters who in their own ways rebel against "the system" is of moderate interest at best.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this fine flick shortly leaving college. As I sat there happily watching Alice go from repressed virgin to sexual adventurer, I got to wondering why her sexual encounters seemed familiar. Then I remembered-- Intro Psych 101 Lecture! One of the lectures dealt with the Psycho-Sexual Stages of Developement, basically the shift over time on what part of the body and its attendant stimulations gets our main attention, as well as the changing emphasis on what gives us pleasure. Alice's first encounter is being bathed, with emphasis on the genitals and bottom. Her next encounter is an oral one with the Mad Hatter's dingaling. I forget the rest of the lecture and the order of Alice's encounters, but I do remember how well they matched. It's interesting to see a skin flick with some brains behind it, rather than the cliche "I'm here to deliver your pizza. Let's screw."

I don't see how Kristin DeBell's career could be wrecked by this film, as it was her first film. And Reagan's tiresome hypocrisies had yet to mar this land when it was released, but in a way he and his stooge Meese did affect Ms DeBell. When Meese was staging his anti-pornography commission (to distract people from his own criminal activities), Meese hired the services of an anti-porn activist named Judith Reisner. Reisner was obsessed with images she perceived as child pornography. She saw the "Alice" cover Ms DeBell did for Playboy and promptly announced she had scientifically proven that Ms DeBell was in fact a photo collage of parts from several grown women and the face of a ten year old. Yeah, right....

Sentiment: positive
As this movie is completely in Swiss dialect, it's probably hard for most German speakers to really follow this movie. I'm not from Switzerland, but I worked there for some years, so I had the chance to understand this great spoof of the Lord of the Rings. I've seen a lot of movies of this kind (eg. Scary Movie, loads of Scifi spoofs etc.) but this one is the best one of that kind, I've seen so far. I give a 9 of 10. The only reason I can't give a 10 is, because there are some little details which could have been done better and because they supplied no subtitles in any language on the DVD, so there's almost no chance for non-Swiss to understand.

Sentiment: positive
Never cast models and Playboy bunnies in your films! Bob Fosse's "Star 80" about Dorothy Stratten, of whom Bogdanovich was obsessed enough to have married her SISTER after her murder at the hands of her low-life husband, is a zillion times more interesting than Dorothy herself on the silver screen. Patty Hansen is no actress either..I expected to see some sort of lost masterpiece a la Orson Welles but instead got Audrey Hepburn cavorting in jeans and a god-awful "poodlesque" hair-do....Very disappointing...."Paper Moon" and "The Last Picture Show" I could watch again and again. This clunker I could barely sit through once. This movie was reputedly not released because of the brouhaha surrounding Ms. Stratten's tawdry death; I think the real reason was because it was so bad!

Sentiment: negative
Four teenage girls in a suburb of Los Angeles get into all kinds of trouble: parties, drugs, cops, mixed-up parents, older boyfriends. Jodie Foster, sort of the mother hen of the pack, tries keeping everyone together like "a family" (like the family unit she's never had), and the heartbreaking thing about the movie is that she can't. Slowly, everyone grows up and goes away. THAT precise plot point, though underscored throughout, is unfortunately tampered with. Did we really need a long sequence with Scott Baio outracing a car full of thugs on his skateboard? Or an even longer sequence--also with Baio--where Foster has a strange soliloquy about the "pain of illusion". Some of the dialogue in fact is downright loopy, and I didn't much care for an edit late in the film that segues clumsily from a death to a wedding. But these are nitpicks in what is basically a very sensitive story about the loss of a tight bond. And Jodie's face at the ending speaks volumes. If viewers do get choked up at the end, the movie has earned this. It doesn't pander for tears or ask for sympathy. It shows us an example of friendship and hopes we understand. *** from ****

Sentiment: positive
higher learning is a slap in the face for those of us that have been in the closet too long regardless of ethnic background. it's a subject most of us would like to ignore but we cannot afford to if there is to be a real progressive change in the way we HAVE TO be able embrace and understand diversity.some have criticized this film as hateful or dumb but the fact of the matter is, ignorance reigns supreme in the world and several continue to help it dominate our society.everyone involved in this film has done a good deed in showing what steps must continue to be done in order to not have to make anymore films like higher learning.sure it sounds like a pipe dream but we have to start somewhere and this helps.

Sentiment: positive
Awful in a whole new way, ANYTHING BUT LOVE probably should be seen by movie buffs--if only as a cautionary measure that proves all that can go wrong with a "vanity" production. I am guessing a vanity production, since there is no other reason on god's green earth to cast as talent-free and not particularly attractive non-singer/actress as Isabel Gold in the leading lady role--vied for yet by the likes of "lookers" like Cameron Bancroft and Andrew McCarthy--except that she also helped write this bizarre little movie. Her singing leaves much to be desired, and yet, unbelievable as it is, all the other characters in the film think she's terrific. There are a few moments here of actual charm or humor, but VERY few. Otherwise this is a silly, sad fiasco that veers from paint-by-numbers to paint-by-wrong-numbers. You know how it is when people look at a piece of modern art and someone says, "My kid could do better than that!" Well, this is a movie, the likes of which your--or anyone's--kid might do better.

Sentiment: negative
This could have been a good movie if more things were explained. Way too many plot holes to find this enjoyable. The ending in particular is off left field. SPOILER ALERT: How did the kidnapper get back to Dundee so fast and Dundee shows up at the house in a matter of two minutes? Way out of wack here. How did Anna get hold of the money? No explanation at all. If the Pete the cop knew Lancaster was in danger, why didn't he have a cop at the door in the Hospital. This and many more questions remain. Too bad because the premise was there, just bad writing and execution.

Good cast is wasted here. DeCarlo goes from bad to good to bad? Lancaster's character lacks development and Dureya is just blah as the "bad guy".

This could re-made with a cohesive story line and better writing. Of course it would be much more violent with lots of gratuitous sex and everything. The editing would be jerky as well I guess, so let's leave well enough alone.

Sentiment: negative
I believe this film was made for the not so princely sum of £8000 but that didn't really show. There wasn't anything amateurish about the production or the acting, the characters were gritty and real and the location could have been any desert area in the world instead of a not too warm beach just north of Aberdeen. The actors were quite easily acceptable as a bunch of mercenaries stranded on a mysterious, deserted and uncharted planet, none of them seemed to be particularly friendly with each-other but were willing to fight to keep themselves and their comrades alive. There weren't any great explanations of what was going on, which can be really contrived, so a lot of the plot was left to your imagination rather like The Big Empty which was a film I also enjoyed. I found that I quite warmed to most of the characters, there were some perhaps unintentionally amusing moments, the men were so ordinary that you felt you could empathise with them and the film's climax and ending were quite poignant. I think Mr Stirton and his crew should be quite proud of themselves I've seen worse films with a budget of millions.

Sentiment: positive