DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I don't understand. Not being a critic, i am not evaluating the quality of the acting, which I find believable, a good thing. My confusion lies with the content. Is no one else sensitive to the fact that these two unfaithful women were justifying their infidelity to men who were fighting and bleeding to guarantee the continued freedom of their families and their country. Should there not have been a prologue informing us if the men made it home and if so, what effect their cheating "wives'" infidelity had on them? While these women were bedding their paramours out of a sense loneliness, did they think that their husbands were enjoying being shot at while facing death or dismemberment daily? They didn't think of their husbands at all! Only of themselves. Pardon me, except when they wished their husbands dead.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is not worth anything. I mean, if you want to watch this kind of stuff, flip to Hollywood movies! This totally is a disgrace to the Bollywood name. Neal N Nikki seriously sucked! Never watch this movie. As for the actors, it appears the acting genes skipped a generation. Tanisha couldn't have worn less and Uday Chopra obviously was just picked because he was the director's spoiled son. (All of that Halla Re was amazingly stupid) The songs are eh, and I hope the director did not spend to much money on it...... Bottom line, I hated the movie. Do not let your kids watch it, and if you have it in your house it is a stupid movie so discard it! Buy the CD, if you must. (As I said, the songs are eh.) At least it is better then the movie.

Sentiment: negative
I'm a collector of films starring Ms. Weaver, so I bought this only because of her being in it. I find it really odd that her early career is filled with so many awful movies. She started with incredible promise in Alien but then had a slew of bombs. These bombs include this movie, Deal of the Century, One Woman or Two, and Half Moon Street. She also appeared in The Year Of Living Dangerously, which was not a bomb, but her performance was less than notable. In the time between Alien and it's 1986 sequel, Aliens, the only movie she did that was worth anything was Ghostbusters. before the release of Aliens, I'm sure everyone thought this woman was on her way out. Luckily she wasn't.

Back to Eyewitness though, the film is boring. It doesn't create any suspense. William Hurt seems like a cardboard stand in, and the atmosphere is just to dry. Sigourney is decent but nothing worth remembering.

Watch this movie if you must but don't go in with any expectations of a decent movie. Watch better movies with these two stars like Accidental Tourist and Working Girl.

Sentiment: negative
I chose to see this movie because it got a good score here on IMDb. But a lot of people either have really poor taste or someone's been fixing the score.

Either way it was a real disappointment. The movie is exactly as stupid and far fetched as the title would suggest. There really is no reason to give a summary of the plot - but here goes: it felt like someone had been thinking: "Wouldn't it be cool to make a movie where there were snakes on a plane? And then the snakes for some reason would go crazy and start biting and stuff?!?" And that's about it! The plot is thin and unoriginal. The snakes are bad CGI (but it makes sense to cut corners on a movie that no one in their right mind will recommend to anyone!). The acting is poor, and all people are unbelievable stereo types.

To sum it up: It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen - stay away!

Sentiment: negative
After losing the Emmy for her performance as Mama Rose in the television version of GYPSY, Bette won an Emmy the following year for BETTE MIDLER: DIVA LAS VEGAS, a live concert special filmed for HBO from Las Vegas. Midler, who has been performing live on stage since the 1970's, proves that she is still one of the most electrifying live performers in the business. From her opening number, her classic "Friends", where she descends from the wings atop a beautiful prop cloud, Bette commands the stage with style and charisma from a rap-styled number called "I Look Good" she then proves that she has a way with a joke like few other performers in this business as she segues her way through a variety of musical selections. The section of the show where she salutes burlesque goes on a little too long but she does manage to incorporate her old Sophie Tucker jokes here to good advantage (even though she actually forgets one joke in the middle of telling it, but her ad-libbing until she remembers it is hysterical). Bette also treats us to "Rose's Turn" from GYPSY and the title tune from her smash film THE ROSE as well as a shameless plug for her hit movie THE FIRST WIVES CLUB. She brings the house down near the end with "Stay with Me, Baby" from THE ROSE and her only #1 hit record, "Wind Beneath My Wings" from BEACHES. It's a dazzling evening of musical comedy entertainment and for Midler fans, it's a must.

Sentiment: positive
I don't know what Margaret Atwood was thinking to allow this movie to have the same name as her book. I've always been a big fan of The Robber Bride and was so excited to learn there was a movie in the works. I am aware that the translation of book to movie isn't perfect but this movie was the worst ever. The names of the women are correct and some of the back story is correct but that is about it. I feel like I lost a good portion of my time trying to make it through this movie. This really should have been a mini-series to tell the story the way it was written.

The actors for Roz, Tony, Charis and Zenia were well-chosen even though I was skeptical at first about Mary-Louise Parker. I only wish they'd had a better script to work with because this really had nothing to do with the book at all.

Sentiment: negative
PRC which was the lowest of the low actually struck gold with this moody little thriller. They did the same thing a year earlier with "Detour" which is probably one of the finest low-budget films ever made.

"Strangler" is basically a one set film, filled with mist and shadows, a technique used by most poverty row studios to hide the sets, or lack thereof. But here, it works well. The ghost of Charles Middleton (better known as Ming the Merciless) lurches around the swamp killing those involved in his wrongful execution for murder and generates some sympathy from the viewer. His final victim is to be the daughter of the ferryman.....he concentrates his wrath not only on those directly involved in his fate but their relatives as well.

Rosemary LaPlanche does her usual imitation of someone in a coma that passes for her acting style. She offers herself up to the strangler in order to put a stop to the killing but as a sop to the audience, the strangler sees the goodness of her gesture as a sign that his mission is complete and he returns to the hereafter, somewhat chastened. If Ulmer(who directed "Detour") has directed "Strangler" she would be hanging from the nearest tree and the strangler's job would be done. But who's complaining? It's not the story that is the major attraction but the shrouded sets, lighting and the general moodiness of the piece. It stands, right behind "Detour", as PRC's finest hour

Sentiment: positive
Definitely worth renting! Good clean family entertainment. My 4 and 5 year-olds (and I) loved it. Kept them on the edge of their seats. I recommend parents sit with their younger children to watch this, as it can be quite suspenseful for them. It's not too often you can find movies that you can watch with your children, and so this is a rare find. Some of the acting / realism isn't quite there at times, or maybe is a little corny, but children don't seem to notice or care, they love it. Parts are predictable, but other parts are not - like trying to figure out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. The movie doesn't have any really scary/creepy stuff, and so I doubt it will give children nightmares. It does inspire children to dream, which is something we need to encourage and foster more in our children. Rent and be blessed!

Sentiment: positive
We have moved far beyond this tentative foray into a forbidden area-drug addiction-for the 1950s. As such, the film may seem dated. The Man with the Golden Arm served its function is peeling back a layer of the underside of society, an eye-opener to a Southern country boy in 1955 when I first viewed this film in the theater. After some serious consideration about being too young, I was allowed to go. It was powerful and affecting then and still maintains some sharp, painful moments of the soul stripped naked. As a movie depicting the loneliness at the core of being, it succeeds.

Filled with angst, Frank Sinatra, in his best role, creates a vulnerability that makes him sympathetic to the viewer. He conveys his helplessness and ineffectualness in a beautifully restrained performance. As a voice of common sense in the dead-end urban jungle, Kim Novak as Molly is quite good. She is compassionate and yet stands on solid ground. The interaction between Sinatra and Novak is really good. Darren McGavin plays a slimy character and does it very well. Eleanor Parker is superbly irritating and painfully insecure in her role of the pathetic Zosch, the crippled wife of Sinatra. Arnold Stang is another unlikely survivor of the street. Regarded as pitiful and despicable, his character Sparrow provides tart comedic moments. 

The music is almost the star of this film-brooding, frenetic, moody, poignant. Elmer Bernstein's score perfectly accentuates the tensions of Frankie Machine's spiritual weakness and physical need for heroin. Molly's theme is bittersweet and captures aurally what the film depicts visually. I know of no other soundtrack that effectively complements the tension and defeat within a man as effectively as does this one.

Sentiment: positive
If the themes of The Girl From Missouri sound familiar it should. That's because Anita Loos who wrote the screenplay here also wrote the classic Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. Unlike Marilyn Monroe in that film, Jean Harlow will accept any kind of jewelry from men of means.

And it's men of means that Jean Harlow is after. She leaves the road side hash house run by her mother and stepfather because she's decided that the best way to gain the easy life is to marry it. Her talents as a chorus girl are limited, but she'll be able to trade in on that beauty.

Her odyssey starts with her and friend Patsy Kelly getting an invitation to perform at a party thrown by millionaire Lewis Stone. But unbeknownst to Jean, Stone's just having a wild last fling before doing himself because of the moneys he owes not owns. Still she wrangles a few baubles from him that fellow millionaire Lionel Barrymore notices. 

Lionel's amused by it until Jean sets her sights on his playboy son, Franchot Tone. After that he is not amused and he looks to shake Jean from climbing the family tree.

The Girl From Missouri went into production mid adaption of The Code so it went under peculiar censorship. I've a feeling we would have seen a much more risqué film. Still Jean Harlow as a younger and sassier version of Mae West is always appreciated. What a great comic talent that woman had, seeing The Girl From Missouri is a sad reminder of the great loss the world of film sustained with her passing three years later.

Ironically enough the casting of Patsy Kelly with Harlow was no doubt influenced by the successful shorts Kelly was making with another famous platinum blonde, Thelma Todd. Harlow and Kelly have the same easy chemistry between that Patsy had with Thelma. Todd would also die a year later in a freak accident/suicide/homicide that no satisfactory explanation has ever really been given. 

Don't miss The Girl From Missouri, it's bright and sassy, must be from all that sparkling jewelry.

Sentiment: positive
When I decided to try watching a movie about cryogenic zombies ("cryonoids"), I wasn't expecting a whole lot. That's exactly what I got, and then even less. Aside from a shortage of special effects (squibs?) and a severe lack of any acting talent, "The Chilling" also sports the absolute worst script I've ever seen made into a movie. I had to stop the tape numerous times during the first 45 minutes in order to repair the damage done to my intellect for witnessing such atrocious dialogue as there is found here.

Furthermore, the collection of characters is so formulaic and one-dimensional it's ridiculous: the corrupt doctor; his assistant, played by Linda Blair (we know she's his "assistant" because he repeatedly refers to her by that title); the recently-widowed businessman with a heart of gold who develops a romantic interest with Blair's character; his criminal son; the Blair character's alcoholic, abusive, unemployed boyfriend, whom we are introduced to in the most contrived use of a flashback; and, of course, the rough, tough, bearded security guard who becomes the hero.

Apparently, the preserving fluid which some cryogenics lab uses on its bodies is highly conductive, naturally resulting in disaster when all of the lab's containers end up outdoors in a remarkable sequence of events during a lightning storm (on Halloween night, no less). As for the zombies themselves, if you enjoy watching people in green latex masks walking around in aluminum foil suits, then "The Chilling" is the movie for you. The zombie action is very weak at its best; the zombies' primary killing method seems to be grabbing people by the shoulders and shaking them to death. The businessman and the security guard do most of the zombie fighting, including a highly suspenseful scene of re-freezing the undead with liquid nitrogen. Let me tell you, the steel mill scene in "T2" has got nothing on "The Chilling" in portraying an enemy getting frozen in his tracks like that.

How Linda Blair ended up stuck in the middle of this piece of dreck is indeed a mystery. True, her career didn't exactly skyrocket during the 80s (sadly), but this movie is an embarrassment for her. The script doesn't even have the decency to put her to any good use. The most that her character is given to do is shriek out things like "Here they come", "Do something", "Hurry!". The only thing I can figure is that poor Linda was compensated for her work on this film in rations of food. The hero is played by Grizzly Adams himself, Dan Haggerty. In this picture, he faces stiff acting competition from his beard and the security dog, and he does his best to outperform them both.

The only frightening part of "The Chilling" is the introduction which brings up the factual elements of cryogenics and suggests that "the film you are about to see could happen in your own community". As I was counting the number of times a few of the names are repeated in the closing credits, I was floored to suddenly see Lucasfilm get credited. Fortunately, it was only for the movie's sound production. 1/10.

Sentiment: negative
This film is a great comedy drama. Christopher Walken is tremendous in his supporting role as manager, and his commentary will keep you laughing. Robin Williams plays a great role as a quick wit "Jon Stewart" and will amuse you if you are fans of Comedy Central. The show is good, because if the viewer has half-a-brain, they will see it as a very needed sub-cultural attack on the policies of the current Republican Government and a criticism on the American Democratic Process..., not to mention the means by which most politicians get elected.

I was amused at the sub-plots and found the film to be very fast paced and entertaining, without any of the usual "oh-brother's" I would agree the film is less comedy than marketed, however, without question better than 90% of the garbage in theatres at present. Just my thoughts...Don

Sentiment: positive
I went to see this film with low expectations, but hoping to be charmed by seeing my home town on film. Sadly, that's about all I got. The story covers familiar territory (the high school reunion), but the plot is convoluted and supernatural element adds little to this well-worn theme. Though the quality of the acting was good overall, the content of the film was appalling. The sexism of the film was blatant--women are apparently unfulfilled unless they are married, procreating or both (though this was couched as a post-feminist choice ). Worse still was the racism--the shrill Jewish mother, the black man who still lives at home-- and gratuitous cruelty (tormenting the class geek). We should be ashamed if these characters are thought to represent the inhabitants of the city of Kalamazoo, and the writers should be abashed at having brought such broad and cruel stereotypes to the screen.

Sentiment: negative
The movie is a happy lullaby, was made to make us sleep. And that´s what we do, as we dream about the top beautiful Natasha Henstridge. No screenplay, no deep characters, nothing special. So, let´s sleep.

Sentiment: negative
At times when I watch this movie i start to think that the people who made this movie were on drugs.What's wrong with this film I'll tell you Bad Plot,Bad Jokes.Bad Acting and flat-out characters everything just bad.

The movie is about Pest Vargas a two-bit scam hustler who is given the chance at $50,000 to survive for 24 hours by a German hunter who kills people for a living.so now Pest must think of ways to out think this hunter before he gets killed.

I know what your thinking "What The Hell is this?" a another wannabe Ace Ventura trying to get money really this plot is just dull and confusing at times it changes the story plot and you get lost during the film.

As for the funny scenes this film I had a straight face oh yeah I did smile a couple times but nothing laugh-out loud.besides the jokes are corny and seen before it's like watching Ace Ventura meets Dumb and Dumber but bad.

As for character development it's dry and flat.You don't learn much about the main character Pest all you know is he's a annoying scam hustler but that's it he doesn't change his image or be a little smart just corny.as for The German hunter all you is that he's crazy and wants to go back to Germany.really you start to wonder why is this guy living on an island if has money to go to Germany.The hunter's son Himmel fares better but not much.He's really a coward and is snake-obsessed for reasons by the end He stands Up to his father and sides with Pest.

As for the acting no only were there any memorable perforamces but just over the top.For example John Legizomo is so over the top with performance and dosen't fit in his role he's out of place as for Jeffery Jones who plays the hunter same thing but gives a stereotypical performance as well.as for the rest either just no used enough or just over the top.

overall bad comedy that you'll find for $2.00 at K-Mart.

Sentiment: negative
Was this supposed to be a comedy? The black cape and skeleton mask are hilarious. There is like zero plot. The movie starts out with an archaeologist and his assistant. They make a small mention of their dig site being cursed. And then, lo and behold......in drops Halloween Costume Man, dressed in the shiny black cape, with a skeleton mask face, holding an axe. So, he kills off these two people. Then we cut to the woods with a bad imitation of Predator, only the commandos are being hunted down by Halloween Costume Man who is now riding a horse! More commandos show up, but these people are supposed to be disguised as a hiking group. Yeah, production probably ran out of commando costumes. Can you say, low budget? Anyway, they come upon a lone old Indian guy sitting in the woods. He's just too funny. And he starts babbling about something, but you really don't know what he's mumbling about, so they flashback to some Indians getting killed. None of it really makes sense. And then we go back to our commandos where more of them get killed. And that's really basically the plot. It's so laughably bad, you just can't really look away because you want to see just how low it sinks. You could make the same movie with a camcorder, a Halloween Costume and a bunch of your friends with fake guns. Don't see this thing if you want a horror movie. If you want a comedy, maybe? Or just skip it and get something like the real Predator.

Sentiment: negative
Wow. this movie is the voice of a climbing generation. Director Sam Keith takes us to the darkest depths of Man's soul where we find love, life, and top-roping. World-weary Telly (Leo Fitzpatrick) follows his heart and his anchors through a cerebral journey to find sanity in a post-apocalyptic Colorado. Instead, Telly meets confrontation in Don (Jason Bortz), the embodiment of machismo and a zeitgeist of humanities foibles. The epic film comes to a climbax at a gut-wrenching top-roping competition that will make even the strongest willed viewers squeamish at the dizzying heights.

This movie has it all: Top-roping outside, Top-roping in the gym, Cut-off shorts and sleeveless flannel shirts, Awesome climbing footage (some so good, you see it 2 or 3 times!), Bear and snake attacks.

I gave the movie 8 out of 10 because I wanted to see the romance develop a bit more. It seemed as if the film was leading up to a spicy, top-roped sex scene between Telly and his new lover, but alas, it wouldn't fit into the already jam-packed hour and a half thrill ride.

Fans of Cliffhanger and Mission Impossible II will find this flick to be a diamond in the rough. Overall, if you are ready to challenge your world view on humanity and climbing, this is the film for you!!!1

Sentiment: positive
Advertised by channel seven in Australia as the "untold story", this miniseries undoes itself in the first five minutes by washing over the titular character's childhood and adolescence in less time than a good director will use to set up a single event. This cowardice and self-censorship for the fear of offending anyone permeates the series, and is ultimately responsible for its failure.

Robert Carlyle puts in a valiant performance as the most hated man of the twentieth century, but he is hamstrung by two things. The lack of a decent dialogue coach on the series leaves his Northern-UK heritage shining blindingly through his physical appearance, and the dialogue is at times truly abysmal. Apparently, acknowledging the fact that Hitler was raised in a Catholic family is off limits, but insulting millions of Vikings and their descendants by having Carlyle spew the most ridiculous lines about Valhalla is quite okay. Well, here's a clue for the writers - any person familiar with Viking mythology will tell you that Valhalla is about the embodiment of honour and might in battle, two things that the Nazis quickly eschewed in favour of rat cunning and backstabbing. Until we can wake up to ourselves and realise that the reason Hitler has never been excommunicated from the Catholic church is because it would require the embarassing acknowledgement that he was once a member, we will never learn what this awful period of the world's history has to teach us.

So now that we've managed to insult Vikings and the citizens of Scandinavian countries in this sham, you'd think the series would stop there, but it doesn't. Stockard Channing's listing in the opening credits was particularly eyebrow-raising, given that her voice is heard, and her face seen, for about thirty seconds at the most during the opening credits, making it patently transparent that more footage of Hitler's early days were shot, but not included because of a typical nanny-state fear of offending someone. It is also quite ironic that the films or miniseries which give a far better insight into Hilter's character do not feature him at all.

Until we learn to stop sugar-coating the truth and realise that the citizenry of Germany was mostly unopposed to Hitler's views, and not necessarily through ignorance, we will never learn to deal with the fact that subversions of democracy (yes, Germany was a democracy pre-Hitler) can occur anywhere, we are doomed. That's the one thing this mini-series got right in portraying. Unfortunately, that element is lost in attempts to make Hitler's religious beliefs appear those of a much more valiant people, and the inability to scratch past the surface in any part of the subject matter. David Letterman's show had it pegged when they ran short satirical segments about the series. They really might as well have made a family sitcom with him as the star, that's how badly it was written.

All in all, this politically correct farce of a bio-pic is worth no points, but I gave it two because Robert Carlyle definitely deserves better material than this, and he is about the only thing in it that works.

Sentiment: negative
Spoilers Following: I picked up the book "Evil Angels" when it first came out knowing nothing of the case. Just to give the press and the Austrialian people a break here, I was quite far into it before I began to question the Chamberlain's guilt. The author obviously intended the reader to understand why the public jumped to the conclusions they did. John Bryson told the story just as it was presented to the jurors (and picked up by the press) of the arterial spray, the actelone (??) plates, Dr. James Cameron's certainty that the collar was cut with scissors, that a baby could not be taken whole from her clothes with the buttons still done up, bloody hand print, etc. all quite convincingly. After all, these were experts in their fields who were testifying with no apparent reason to lie, and the fact that the evidence was completely wrong wasn't apparent to me at all. It was also highly technical evidence, difficult for a layman to understand. To this point, beyond some hearsay testimony in the trials, hardly anyone had ever heard of a dingo attacking a human; people didn't believe it was possible. The public was suspicious of the Seventh Day Adventists, whose origins made them appear to be a cult, and all sorts of wild beliefs about them contributed to the appearance of guilt. Were it not for dedicated, selfless lawyers who worked relentlessly to investigate and counter the trial testimony, finding Azaria's clothes later would not have been enough to get Lindy out of jail. The book shook me for that reason, and I've been reluctant to come to a conclusion about anyone's guilt ever since (excepting OJ of course). I was thrilled that a movie was going to be made about the case and don't think it could have been done better. I've always liked Sam, who I could identify with completely, and Meryl was perfect as always. Beautiful photography, haunting music. I think it's not only a very good, but a very important, movie. Too bad it didn't receive more publicity at the time it was released.

Sentiment: positive
Once in a while i like a good horror movie, so i thought this would be a splatter and gore movie. but it was a boring boring movie, maybe because i have seen a cut version, because there where only two things that where a little splatter, one time where some ones cuts someone arm of and where some one shots an arm of, but that where the only things. Wismaster for example had more cool senes then evil ed, its more a boring ed than a evil ed. and some actors where lousy to.o

Sentiment: negative
Best club scenes that i have seen in a long time - atmosphere mesmerising - matthew Rhys's performance is impeccable and faultless. i would recommend this film to any age group. watch out for wonderwoman!

Sentiment: positive
This movie really, i mean REALLY, sucks. Its got plot holes so big, and 30 foot dragon can fit through them. Not to mention the dragon itself, which is inevitably the worst computer generated image ever to be put on the film real. I mean, when you see something like this, you gotta be thinking "Wow, someone actually made this movie. Then released it. That takes guts". Whoever they are, i'm sure they don't work in the film business anymore.

When i hired this movie, it wasn't in on DVD, so i (reluctantly) took it out on video. The first thing to appear, was a Lord of the Rings trailer, for the Two Towers. This was a very clever move, putting this trailer on the video. It justifies me (reluctantly) giving the film 1 star, otherwise i would have given it zero stars. Maybe the producers though the star attraction of Dean Cain (I think thats how you spell it) would draw in the crowds (uh, to the video store that is).

Next they employed split screen technique (like in Hulk) to (i assume) compensate for what an atrocity this piece of crap film is. On the box cover, we see a picture of our hero, and the dragon. Does the dragon look exactly like the one in Dragonheart, or is it just me? Either way, the dragon in the film looks like a reject from Gremlins 2, and has the CGI of a Nintendo video game villain from the early 90's (perhaps worse). Also, not the Dragons movement as it pursues its victims- its the same F##cking monotonous movement- right leg, left leg, right leg left leg- dom, dom, dom, dom DOM, DOM F#$king DOOOOOM! This just pisses me off. Maybe the filmmakers thought this was thrilling and would have the same effect of Jaws. Why not then have a Dragon POV shot. Either way, that was just funny, much like watching a Weebl toon.

Dean Cain gives many puzzled looks during the film (maybe his coming to terms with the fact that this film could end his career). Don't expect Superman here. The first time i saw the trailer for this film, i thought it was an add for a PS2 game.

As for the story, its so so bad, my 5 year old brother can come up with better ones when he's unconvincingly trying to lie about why he was messing around in my room while i wasn't there. Oh, and did i mention that I F@#KING HATE THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THIS INCREDIBLY STUPID STUPID CRAP ATROCIOUS FILM?!!!

Sentiment: negative
Now, I've seen a lot of bad movies. I like bad movies. Especially bad action movies. I've seen (and enjoyed) all of Jean-Claude Van Damme's movies, including the one where he's his own clone, both of the ones where he plays twins, and all three where he's a cyborg. I actually own the one where he plays a fashion designer and has a fight in a truck full of durians. (Hey, if nothing else, he's got a great ass and you almost always get to see it. With DVD, you can even pause and zoom in!) That's why you can trust me when I say that this movie is so bad, it makes Plan 9 look like Citizen Kane.

Everything about Snake Eater is bad. The plot is bad. The script is bad. The sets are bad. The fights are bad. The stunts are bad. The FX are bad. The acting is spectacularly, earth-time-bendingly bad, very probably showcasing the worst performance of every so-called actor in the cast, including Lorenzo Lamas, and that's really saying something. And I'd be willing to bet everyone involved with this movie is lousy in bed, to boot. ESPECIALLY Lorenzo Lamas. 

It does manage to be unintentionally funny, so it's not a total loss. However, I recommend that you watch this movie only if you are either a congenital idiot or very, very stoned. I was able to sit through it myself because I needed to watch something to distract me from rinsing cat urine out of my laundry.

It didn't help much, but it was better than nothing. One point for Ron Palillo's cameo as a gay arsonist.

Sentiment: negative
This movie completely ran laps around the original Dolemite. It had everything that makes a movie great..except for real actors. (Ernie Hudson couldn't do it alone and you KNOW that! LOL) I admit that I have killed my first video tape of this movie and I plan to buy the DVD version again as soon as possible! This movie has so many catchy lines it's pitiful! I am embarrassed to say that I know the theme song backwards and forwards! I love Jimmy Lynch's character to death, and he should have won the Best Supporting Actor Award in Blaxploitation, but the Oscars were NEVER ready for this! This is a random film consisting of Crooked Cops, Breasts, Chases, Bad Editing, and of course martial arts. (Being that it's the 70's and I can say everyone knew some kind of martial arts). I think this movie should be restored and shown one night in the midst of a marathon in local theaters!

Sentiment: positive
This movie really is a mixed bag. On the one hand, the story and concept of the movie are really good, tense and have some nice plot twists in it. But than again on the other hand, it all is told very slow, without style and uninvolved. Still I regard "Just Cause" as an above average thriller simply because of the fine cast.

Maybe Sean Connery was miscast in his role. I mean, he isn't really that believable as a the main 'hero' and father of a young daughter (played by a still very young Scarlett Johansson by the way) and husband of Kate Capshaw. I feel that he simply was too old for the role to be really credible in it. However Sean Connerey is of course a great actor and that is the only reason why he is still able to carry the movie as good as he does. But he of course is helped by a very solid supporting cast that consists out of actors like Laurence Fishburne, Blair Underwood, Ned Beatty, Hope Lange, Lynne Thigpen and Ed Harris. All actors are really good but some of them are highly underused at the same time, which is a real shame, as well as a missed opportunity. Especially Ed Harris is just totally great in his role as a psychopathic serial killer. He's truly chilling and acting superbly. Normally he doesn't play this ruthless, chilling sort of roles in movies, so he really surprises with his role in this one. His performance alone is already more than enough reason to watch this movie. However due to the fact that the story is told without much style and too formulaic, none of the characters in the movie really work out well because it feels all too distant.

It really is the way of storytelling that kills all the movie its fine potential. Arne Glimcher directs the movie with little style and keeps the pace too low at times. Because of this, we as viewers, never really get involved with the story or any of it's characters.

It really is too bad, for "Just Cause" had more than enough potential. A fine cast and a slick story with some unexpected twists and turns in it in which nothing is what it seems. The cast and story are the only reason why this movie is still an above average thriller, that will probably still please the fan of the genre. It however is an eternal shame that the movie is lacking in its story telling and style, or else this movie could had been a real classic in its genre.

7/10

Sentiment: positive
If TV was a baseball league, this show would have a perfect record! With an excellent cast, and a perfect plot, this show gave 8 amazing seasons and a great joy to TV after dinner. With the constant changing of relationships and finding out who Hyde's real dad is, this show was a hit when it started in August of 98, though it was set in 1976. And hanging out in Foremans basement was always the thing to do back then, and it still is today, along with circles.This show gave great laughs in premieres, and it still does during re-runs. If you watch a few episodes of this show, you will get everything and want to get more. Now only is this show one of the best ever created, it is clever and funny.

Sentiment: positive
"Broadcast News" is directed by James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good As It Gets) and has a great cast, including William Hurt, Albert Brooks, and Holly Hunter. Everyone gives a good performance, but they're all too unlikable to really care about them.

Some parts of the film are really brilliant, such as the prologue, and the short scenes with Jack Nicholson. The main reason it doesn't entirely work, is it's a film that relies on the characters being amusing rather than amusing things happening to them.

You could consider it nothing more than a drama, but it's often too silly to be successful there as well. Still, the script makes it worth a watch. Certainly not for everyone.

7.0 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
Note: This should probably be read only after watching the film.

It is very rare to find a documentary or movie that focuses on the loser. Deep Water does just this, making it one of the most thought provoking films in a very long time. It does not provide us with a hero to look up to, but rather an anti-hero who forces us to look into ourselves.

The film is about a group of men who attempt to sail around the globe, singlehandedly, and without stopping. Only one makes it, several die, one decides not to return home, each of them on a psychological journey intriguing enough to merit entire films for themselves. Yet the most interesting is Donald Crowhurst, or rather the way that he is portrayed by the filmmakers and our reactions to him as viewers.

By any standards this man should be considered a despicable character, yet why is he depicted so heroically? Why are we so sympathetic to him? From the beginning he made all of the wrong choices. He risked his family financially to get the boat, he left at a more dangerous time to get more publicity, he ignored all of the warnings despite his lack of experience, he chose to lie instead of admitting defeat, these choices snowball until the inevitable and final one: suicide. All for what? A place in history? A feeling of accomplishment? Perhaps. What is important to consider is whether this mans situation was inevitable.

Each individual must ask himself if his natural human drive for fame and accomplishment would bring him to such recklessness, and I believe that examining your own reaction to Crowhurst's story will offer at least some answer to that question.

Sentiment: positive
this movie was incredibly stupid with meaning what so ever. i fell bad for all the actors and actresses that ruined there career to be in this stupid movie. the entire movie was based on how unrealistic they could make it, to make little like it which made it even stupider. even some of the names were unrealistic. the film is fun to watch which is why it had 2 out of 10 stars. this is probably the 3rd stupidest movie ever made. i got really made after i realized that it had mostly adult actors in it yet in was a kid movie. the most upsetting one was Danny Trejo a horror movie actor who is always dirty. the other actors were pretty much clean as far as i'm concerned.

Sentiment: negative
I love the book, "Jane Eyre" and have seen many versions of it. All have their strong points and their faults. However, this was one of the worst I have seen. I didn't care about Jane or Mr. Rochester. Charlotte Gainsbourg (Jane) was almost tolerable and certainly looked the plain part, but she had no emotion in any of her lines. I couldn't imagine what Mr. Rochester saw in her. 

That brings us to Mr. Rochester. William Hurt had even less emotion than Jane, if that were possible. How two such insipid people could fall in love is a mystery, but it certainly didn't hold my attention. Perhaps the director (Zeffrelli) fell asleep during the production.

The Timothy Dalton (too handsome for Mr. Rochester!) version is far more faithful to the book, but Ciaran Hinds plays the perfect Mr. Rochester in the 1997 A/E version (which is NOT all that true to the book).

Trying to find something positive about this movie: Geraldine Chaplain was perfect in her role.

Sentiment: negative
The Treasure Island DVD should be required viewing in any film production course! It's a textbook example of how NOT to make a movie. Watching the movie and then listening to the writer/director's commentary demonstrates graphically the vast chasm between what he knows about the characters and what he communicates to his audience about them. Call me old-fashioned, but I think of movies as a means of communication, and communication isn't complete if the audience doesn't know what the hell the director is talking about. The director's avowed purpose is to make a movie void of "Hollywood conventions". Among those conventions, alas, is consistency of character and clarity of concept. The director himself realizes that audiences often don't understand points where he has purposely avoided a "Hollywood cliché". However, he never seems to grasp the idea that clichés exist for a reason. They are shorthand for conveying complex ideas quickly and clearly. It's fine to avoid them, but they need to be replaced with some other way of communicating the same idea, not simply eliminated. The film is built on an intriguing premise, rich with potential. Two puppets are assigned to fabricate a personality and background for an unidentified corpse that is to be used in a disinformation mission in the closing days of WWII. Soon each begins to populate their personal fantasies with the character and their invention becomes increasingly real to them. Someone with less disdain for the "Hollywood convention" of traditional storytelling could create a wonderful film with this idea. This film certainly isn't it! The puppets do everything they can to bring consistency to these characters, but they are all too often defeated by the dazed and confused script. In particular, I'm becoming increasingly impressed by Gonzo, who plays the lively corpse. In a number of muppet films, he always stands out as a very charismatic puppet.

Sentiment: negative
Not being the least bit familiar with the characters from the comic book series, I expected this film to merely accomplish the basic: introduce me to the characters and their inherent characteristics, present a plot, and end with the destruction of the main adversary and perhaps hint at the possibility of a sequel. And that's exactly what this movie happens to deliver.

However, unlike with most other comic book movies, I felt that this one did it with a bit of class. Risking a more limited audience with strong language and graphic fight scenes, "Blade" presents a very modern, believable and dismal world whose little nuances effectively managed to elicit a sense of dread--as minor as it may have been--from a viewer who rarely ever becomes involved in a story unless an emotional (i.e., sappy) aspect is concerned.

Yes, the movie has innumerable plotholes, and preposterously unrealistic situations such as a standard female doctor being astute enough to contrive what no one else has been able to for several thousand years. But when you have an enemy as cool as the one in this movie, and fight scenes with involving and exciting camera cuts and special effects such as this, what else matters? It may run a little long, but for what it sets out to do, "Blade" stands out in sharp relief among most other movies in this genre.

Sentiment: positive
I confess--Emma, in my opinion, is the single greatest novel ever written. It is as close to perfection as any mortal creation can be. Jane Austen reaches the pinnacle of her art here.

Unfortunately, this is at best a palimpsest.

Comparison to the Gwyneth Paltrow version is inevitable--that version is far more faithful to the witty spirit of the book and far more enjoyable to watch.

There are some good elements here--Kate Berkinsale (having previously played Flora Poste in Cold Comfort Farm, clearly Emma's smarter spiritual twin) is a wonderful Emma. Raymond Coulthard makes an appropriately decorative Frank Churchill. The production is handsome, but the interiors are far too dark.

However, there are several major problems. The first is Mark Strong--first of all, he doesn't look right for Mr. Knightley. This is perhaps because he plays the role like a censorious Victorian parson. It's badly out of tune.

The second problem is one of length. Simply put, the film is much too short--to get the right kind of feel, it would need to be twice as long.

Finally, and most significantly, there is the quality of the adaptation. Austen is an adapter's dream--all the dialogue is there already. It only needs to be pruned down and arranged properly. Andrew Davies seems to think otherwise. First, this is a rather gloomy film, and the last thing Emma should be is gloomy. More significantly, Davies has seen fit to rewrite the ending as some sort of bucolic feast. What planet, or minor work of Thomas Hardy, is this come from? It is utterly out of the style and spirit of the novel. And I believe that it is hugely presumptuous to try to make improvements upon--perfection.

Watch the Paltrow version, or watch Kate in Cold Comfort Farm.

Sentiment: negative
Ever since `Midnight Cowboy' I have been on the lookout for films with Dustin Hoffman and have mostly not been disappointed. Ever since `Kramer vs Kramer' I have been on the lookout for films with Meryl Streep and have mostly not been disappointed. She gave a superb performance, really one of her best, in `Sophie's Decision' and I lapped her up in `Out of Africa'. That these two actors came together over 20 years ago for `Kramer vs Kramer' was definitely a very good idea: the result is an excellent character drama with a theme which is still very relevant in today's society.

On divorcing everyone has a pretty bad time, though the kids seem to suffer most..Beautifully handled by Robert Benton in some original directing presenting some memorable scenes: even the passageway takes on character and should be included in the cast! And as for the breakfast scene with Billy (Justin Henry), just simply magnificent. Just how do you get an eight-year-old to act? Benton managed it, and of course with Hoffman there seemed to be good electricity: the result is certainly engaging, endearing, and convincing. Justin Henry's performance must rank among the best 5 or 6 kids' performances of all time. The best thing, once again, was the naturalness, there was no going over the top, so frequent these days.

This film came up again on the small screen the other night, though I have had it in my video collection for years: it is still worth watching and paying attention to everything. Around 7½ out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
This so-called "documentary" tries to tell that USA faked the moon-landing. Year right.

All those who have actually studied the case knows different.

First of all: there is definitely proof. When the astronauts was on the moon, they brought back MANY pounds of rock from the moon - for geological studies. These where spread around the world to hundreds of labs, who tested them. And they all concluded that they came from the same planet, not earth: because the inner isotopes of the basic elements are different from those found on earth, but similar to those calculated to be on the moon. I.E. the conspiracy theorists never studies anything: they only take the thing that fit into their theory and ignores the rest.

Another wrongful claim from them is that their was wind in the hangar where they shot the moon landing, I.E. the flag moves. There is a logical explanation: the astronaut moved it with his hand, so it moved. And what proves this: well, if the conspiracy theorists even studied the footage, they would see that the flag NEVER moves after the astronaut have let it be, I.E. the conspiracy theorists are bad-scientists, they cant study a subject properly, or only studies it until they have what they came for, so that they can make a lie from that, and make a profit (I.E. this so-called "documentary").

A claim says that it cant possible have been filmed on the moon because all the shadows come from different places, because there are different light-sources, the artificial lighting from the studio. Once again the conspiracy theorists are wrong (as usual), the same would happen in an earth desert at night, with no light-sources. But i doubt that any Conspiracy theorists have ever been outside their grandmothers basement for more than how many days a Star Treck-convention is held over.

The Conspiracy theorists are in denial, BIG TIME. They only see what they want to see. So they make up all these lies to seem important - that is a fact.

Sentiment: negative
This Showtime cable film features a talented cast and weaves together several storylines involving the darker side of New York... from the naive and innocent tourists' nightmarish adventure to a pair of undercover cops on the streets... to an old friend's betrayal, it has it all.

Well worth a look, as is its sequel.

Sentiment: positive