polsci/sentiment-polarity-dataset-v2.0 huggingface dataset:
around the end of 1998 , a japanese cartoon came to the usa television , and really wasn't that big . 
in fact not many people even knew what pokemon was , but in 1999 it hit big with kids and adults alike , and became one of the biggest franchises and merchandise seller of all time . 
in fact it even spawned a big screen adventure pokemon : the first movie which for what it was , wasn't all that bad . 
it grossed $31 million in its opening weekend , and went on to make almost $90 million . 
fans thought it was great and now is a second movie in the pokemon craze , " pokemon : the movie 2000 " which is far inferior to the original animated movie . 
first up is the plot , which there really isn't much of , in fact the plot what there is : a bad guy trying to destroy the ancient never before seen pokemon , lugia , is about it , except the fact that ash kethcum the worlds best pokemon trainer must try and stop him before he destroys this one pokemon forever . 
well there you go , of course ash is followed by his friends misty , brock , gary and his pokemon friends , pikachu , squirtle , charizard , the usual . 
even though the first movie wasn't a great film , it was definately an enjoyable well-made movie with an actual thin storyline . 
this new movie however is nothing but garbage , there is nothing good to it storywise , and its only good thing comes from some plush animation and colors . 
compared to the first film , this movie is awfully bland , from its opening titles , to the end titles it tries its best to work , but fails miserably at every corner . 
the characters are 1-dimensional , the story thin as chicken broth , and the writing very lame . 
even the so called action scenes are extremely lame , and falls before it even gets a chance to go . 
the voices even aren't that good and almost feels like the stars don't want to be there , like they can tell that this is an extremel bad movie . 
which it certainly is . 
the film has one thing going for it and that is the animation , although not up to disney standards , it is still very good with some interesting cgi's and very colorful animation , the colors jump out at you very fast , and seem very nicely put on film . 
why a film this bad got such a good treatment with its animation is still a question to be answered , hopefully pokemon 3 next year will be much better than this trash . 
for now watch the first one . 
its much much better .
its a stupid little movie that trys to be clever and sophisticated , yet trys a bit too hard . 
with the voices of woody allen , gene hackman , jennifer lopez , sylvester stallone , and sharon stone , this computer-animated yak-fest ( think toy story [1996] filled with used merchandising ) is one for the ant-eaters . 
the main story is the independence of a worker named z ( allen ) . 
he wants more to life than just digging away underground for the colony . 
when he finds out about ``insectopia , " a mythical place where all insects can run free , z , along with his colony's princess ( stone ) , journey out into the world to find a meaning for life . 
about 15 minutes into the picture , i began to wonder what the point of the film was . 
halfway through , i still didn't have an answer . 
by the end credits , i just gave up and ran out . 
antz is a mindless mess of poor writing and even poorer voice-overs . 
allen is nonchalant , while i would have guessed , if i hadn't seen her in the mighty and basic instinct , stone can't act , even in a cartoon . 
this film is one for the bugs : unfunny and extremely dull . 
hey , a bug's life may have a good time doing antz in .
after the recent animated debacles of , " a rugrats movie , " and " a bug's life , " i am seriously considering raising my highly negative rating on dreamworks' other insect film from october , " antz . " 
i hated that movie , and yet , it is so much better than these latest two excursions . 
 " a bug's life , " is the second animated insect film in the last two months , and i hoped for the best , considering it was done in the wonderful style of pixar's last film , 1995's " toy story , " but in no way does , " a bug's life , " even remotely match up to that . 
flik ( david foley ) , an ant , who along with his many comrades , has the job every year of gathering up the seasonal harvest , only to have to give half of it away to the dominating grasshoppers , led by hopper ( kevin spacey ) . 
flik , however , feels all alone and unwanted in the world , especially after he accidentally loses all of their food , and the ants are threated by hopper to gather up a whole other season's load by the time the last summer leaf falls from the trees . 
banished from ant island , flik leaves the colony in search of some strong reinforcement to help out , but through a misunderstanding , returns with a handful of helpless circus bugs , including a walking stick ( david hyde pierce ) , a dung beetle ( brad garrett ) , a gypsy moth ( madeline kahn ) , a male ladybug ( denis leary ) , and a caterpillar ( joe ranft ) . 
 " a bug's life , " has one thing going for it . 
only one thing . 
with its glorious , bright colors , the computer-generated animation is a spectacle to look at . 
the film itself , unfortunately , is a lifeless , unamusing contraption without any of the flair or excitement of , " toy story . " 
the characters in , " a bug's life , " are an assortment of either unlikable or dull insects without any charm or personality , other than to stand around and recite arbitrary and thoroughly unfunny one-liners . 
the thin story was also stretched out to a nearly unbearable 94 minutes , and it often felt as if they ran out of ideas throughout , and so they made up pointless scenes to pass as time-filler . 
after giving such scathing reviews to the animated films from this year , i was beginning to think that i had simply outgrown them , but then i realized this is just not so . 
i still adore almost all of the older disney films , and many of the newer ones , such as 1989's , " the little mermaid , " 1991's , " beauty and the beast , " 1993's , " the nightmare before christmas , " and yes , 1995's , " toy story . " 
maybe this has just been a bad year for children's films , and hopefully , the upcoming , " the prince of egypt , " will not be a disappointment . 
as for , " a bug's life , " i did not enjoy anything about it . 
not the story , not the characters , and not even the voiceover work , which was far more lively in , " antz . " 
 " a bug's life , " goes down as yet another failure for disney , and it is a sad state of affairs when their best film in the last two years has been the minor jonathan taylor thomas picture , " i'll be home for christmas . "
the year is barely a week old , and there is already a candidate for the worst of 1997--the relic , a would-be chiller that's more successful at making the audience laugh than scream . 
in this ridiculous film from uberhack peter hyams ( whose last two pictures were dreadful jean-claude van damme vehicles ) , a creature that feeds on the hypothalamuses ( hypothalamii ? ) of humans and animals goes on a killing spree in a chicago museum . 
how did this creature come into existence , and why does it feed on hormones ? 
the " scientific " explanation cooked up by the four--yes , four--credited screenwriters ( amy holden jones , john raffo , rick jaffa , and amanda silver ) takes " suspension of disbelief " to new heights , even by monster movie standards . 
but as cockamamie as the science is in the film , it isn't quite as hard to swallow as the casting of the clueless penelope ann miller as a brilliant molecular biologist who specializes in evolutionary genetics . 
miller acts as if she wants an oscar nomination , turning every scene that requires the slightest display of emotion into an overblown oscar clip , complete with piercing wails and glycerine tears . 
give it up , penelope--it's a _monster_movie_ . 
on the flip side , tom sizemore just phones in his performance as a police lieutenant , but his role is so thankless that it's hard to imagine it being played any more effectively . 
it's quite funny to see a film indulge , with the straightest of faces , in all those cheesy horror movie cliches that wes craven lampooned so well ( and so recently ) in scream . 
for example , in one early scene , a museum security guard goes into a bathroom stall late at night . 
ok , we all know what's coming , but as if we didn't need any more confirmation , he pulls out a joint and starts puffing away . 
everyone knows what happens to people who do drugs in a scary movie . 
and later , miller frantically runs out of a museum exhibit after she hears some suspicious heavy breathing . 
does she make a beeline for the front door ? 
of course not--she runs into the ladies room and cowers in a stall . 
with all the cliches , it is only fitting the film's climax offers what is perhaps the most overused one in recent film : that of someone outrunning a fireball . 
if the relic is truly " the next evolution in terror " as the poster states , then the horror film--and humanity--is in even worse shape than we thought .
susan granger's review of " two can play that game " ( screen gems ) 
since the success of " waiting to exhale , " there have been several romantic comedies about african-american professionals . 
this female revenge fantasy , vivica a . fox plays shante smith , a stunning ad exec who seems to have reached the pinnacle of success : a mansion , a sporty car and an idyllic relationship with a hunky , hot-shot lawyer , morris chestnut . 
she's at a point in her life when she dispenses advice to her grateful girl-friends ( mo'nique , wendy racquel robinson , tamala jones ) . 
 " when your man messes up , no matter how small it is , " she smugly decrees , " yuh gots to punish him . " 
so when she catches her hot man dancing at a bar with a smart and sexy rival , gabrielle union , she devises her own version of " the rules , " a 10-day " tough love " emotionally punishing plan to get him back . 
unfortunately , writer/director mark brown ( " how to be a player " ) breaks the cardinal rule of romantic comedy : you have to like the protagonist - and shrill , self-congratulatory shante smith is a smirking , superficial , spiteful shrew who doesn't realize that rational rules cannot always be applied to love . 
having her talk directly into the camera gets stale very quickly and the " day one , " " day two " title-card device underscores the tedium . 
comic anthony anderson scores as chestnut's boisterous best-friend , and singer bobby brown does a cameo as a scuzzy mechanic who's given a smooth makeover by ms . robinson . 
but the out-takes over the closing credits contain more humor than the film itself . 
on the granger movie gauge of 1 to 10 , " two can play that game " is smarmy if slick 4 , filled with misogynistic attitude and blatant product placements ( coca-cola , miller genuine draft ) but little else . 
in this r-rated ( for explicit sexual language ) , pseudo-hip battle of the sexes , the audience loses .
susan granger's review of " glitter " ( 20th century-fox ) 
there's less here than meets the eye . 
or , put it this way , if you thought madonna was awful in " shanghai surprise , " mariah carey's worse in this reworking of " a star is born . " 
she plays billie frank who , despite being abandoned by her singer/alcoholic mother ( valerie pettiford ) , believes she's destined for greatness because everyone tells her she is . 
 " you've got this amazing gift , and you gotta use it , " her roommate says . 
 " your voice - it's incredible , " says another singer . 
 " i ain't never met anyone like you , " proclaims julian " dice " black ( max beesley ) , the hot new york dj who becomes her svengali-like producer/lover . 
problem is : her signature song , " i didn't mean to turn you on " is wretched . 
and when she fumes out of filming her first music video because the director wants to " exploit " her by having her wear a bikini , the audience bursts into laughter . 
exploit mariah carey , who chooses to wear as little as the law will allow ? 
come on ! 
writer kate lanier's script is fatuous and director vondie curtis-hall doesn't have a clue how to handle the glitzy pop diva and , as a result of their incompetence , whispery-voice'd ms . carey seems to be embarrassed on-screen . 
she almost cringes when the camera comes in for a close-up , pursing her lips and averting her glassy eyes . 
talented british musician max beesley appears equally inept , and as cinematographer geoffrey simpson pans around the manhattan skyline , there's an audible audience groan when the twin towers of the world trade center come into view . 
perhaps one of the reasons ms . carey suffered her highly-publicized nervous breakdown this summer is because she saw a preview of this clunker . 
on the granger movie gauge of 1 to 10 , " glitter " is a pathetic 1 . 
right now , it's tops on my list of the worst of 2001 .
perhaps if the impostors didn't have so much going for it , it wouldn't have been such a tremendous disappointment . 
written , directed , and produced by one of its two stars , stanley tucci , whose last picture was the indie smash hit , big night , the impostors almost never catches fire . 
sputtering like a two-day old campfire , the story plays like an ad-lib sketch that was never polished or completed . 
the film's other star , oliver platt , was hilarious as the senator's aide in bulworth . 
the bloated supporting cast is a veritable cornucopia of acting talent , including woody allen , steve buscemi , hope davis , alfred molina , campbell scott , lili taylor and tony shalhoub . 
all are wasted save allen , who plays a theatrical director who stares in disbelief at the bad acting before his eyes . 
 ( the audience will easily identify with allen's sentiments . ) 
with the exception of a single original joke involving mirror-imaged subtitles , the movie engenders little genuine laughter . 
the stale humor is so embarrassingly bad that you will find yourself laughing sporadically at the picture rather than with it . 
the plot for the movie involves two starving actors , maurice ( oliver platt ) and arthur ( stanley tucci ) , who accidentally end up on a cruise ship . 
in order to escape an angry shakespearean actor ( alfred molina ) , who is chasing them , they dress up as ship's stewards . 
the over-the-top script has the subtlety of a sledgehammer . 
when the leads hide from their pursuers , arthur covers maurice's mouth as he suffers an unending sneeze . 
at other times , we have the typical zany comedy routine where everyone chases everyone else , while darting in and out of staterooms . 
with the film's chapters introduced like placards at a vaudeville stage , it is clear the movie wants to be taken as farce . 
the press notes describes how everyone that came on the set remarked at what a good time all of the actors were having . 
too bad they weren't more concerned with the audience's potential enjoyment . 
the jokes , frequently framed in silence , fall like stones with such intensity that one can almost hear them hitting the ground . 
one wonders if anyone ever viewed the film's dailies . 
surely , if they had , they would have realized what leaden results they were producing . 
it is tricky having good actors play bad ones , but , if they couldn't pull it off , they should have just given up . 
 " the show is over for this fella , " steve buscemi's character says towards the end . 
the mystery is why they didn't all give up in the beginning . 
there must have been a better script somewhere for such a wonderful cast . 
the impostors runs 1 : 42 . 
it is rated r for a little profanity and would be fine for kids around 12 and up .
this was the last carry on movie ( if you discount 'carry on columbus' as a carry on movie ) and was made by a new production company . 
based in central london , this movie is about the attempts by emmanuelle prevert ( suzanne danielle ) to bed her husband emile the french ambassador ( kenneth williams ) . 
when he seems unwilling , she is given his permission to bed anyone she likes , such as the prime minister and the u . s . ambassador . 
her antics get her into trouble and the british press spread these rumours all over their front pages . 
she is invited to talk on television to set the record straight but only confirms the rumours instead . 
meanwhile , theodore valentine ( larry dann ) is in love with emmannuelle after a chance encounter in the toilet of the concorde and is determined to marry her . 
however , she is only interested in restoring her husband's ardour which seems a little difficult after emile's accident with a church spire ! 
this film is the second worst carry on movie , the worst being 'carry on england' . 
it is embarassing to see some of the remaining regulars struggle through this diabolical script by lance peters and try to pull off some of the crude and tasteless jokes that he has written . 
newcomers suzanne danielle and beryl reid ( as mrs . valentine ) are mildly funny , but larry dann as theodore is excruciatingly bad . 
kenneth williams only appears in a few scenes and his lacklustre performance is warranted , given the script . 
the small parts for jack douglas as lyons the butler , joan sims as mrs . dangle , kenneth connor as leyland the chauffeur , and peter butterworth as richmond , are worthless and embarassing . 
in fact , all four parts are surplus to requirements . 
however , the only humourous scene in the film is when the four of them and emmannuelle talk about their most amourous escapades . 
an awful script , a terrible collection of jokes , very poor production values ( especially the scene where emmannuelle takes her clothes off at st . james palace ) , a ludicrous and cringeworthy musical score , and a non-existent plot or storyline . 
its just a succession of awful set pieces about who emmannuelle will bed next ! 
jack douglas is not so annoying but is more boring , joan sims and peter butterworth are wasted , and kenneth connor and kenneth williams put in some poor performances as leyland and emile . 
a complete waste of time , this movie was trying to catch up with the new sexually permissive seventies . 
it was a certificate 15 film but by 1978 , there was little interest in this kind of film and it flopped at the box office and was only given its premiere on uk terrestrial television in april 1998 ! 
avoid at all costs !
suicide is pointless , everyone should know that . 
so what's this movie like ? 
you guessed it . . . 
pointless . 
the virgin suicides focuses on the lives of the five lisbon sisters , from the perspective of the teenage boys who are fascinated by them . 
when the youngest lisbon sister commits suicide , it sets in motion a series of events that will change the lives of many people forever . 
that's what the press materials for the film probably say . 
now here's what i say : the virgin suicides is a huge waste of time . 
boring , arty , pretentious junk that is about as entertaining as . . . 
well as committing suicide . 
the movie lost me early on , immediately following the scene where the younger daughter jumps to her death from her bedroom window . 
the girl's father ( james woods ) holds her lifeless body in his arms as their horrified family looks on . 
then , as the scene ends , the lawn sprinklers come on . 
is that a joke ? 
is that supposed to be amusing in some way ? 
from then on , the movie failed to draw me back in . 
performances are the only saving grace of the virgin suicides . 
woods plays the only character who would actually interest me when he came onscreen , but the performance of kirsten dunst as the next youngest daughter lux is worth mentioning as well . 
dunst has the potential to be a big star , if she chooses her projects well . 
and while this film is awful , she manages to come away from it virtually unscathed . 
there are also a few cameos in the film here and there , which only frustrate the audience as they leave you wanting more . 
as a result , they all seem rather pointless ( although there's a brief role given to michael pare from eddie and the cruisers which turns out to be his best role since . . . 
well since eddie and the cruisers ) . 
perhaps the virgin suicides would have worked had the story not been told from the point of view of people who had very little access to the main characters . 
we never get any significant insight into the girls and why they might be feeling what they're feeling . 
all we really know is that mrs . lisbon ( kathleen turner ) is strict and keeps them on a short leash . 
what mother doesn't ? 
it's certainly no reason to commit suicide . 
with the godfather part iii , sofia coppola proved that she had no business being in front of the camera . 
with the virgin suicides , she proves she has no business behind it either . 
having family connections doesn't entitle you to be allowed to make movies . 
so attention film directors . . . 
stop letting your daughters pout their way into the industry . 
just because they share your dna doesn't mean they share your talent . 
[r]
i've got to admit it . . . 
i'm a huge jim carrey fan . 
i loved the first ace ventura , as well as the mask and dumb and dumber--and even in batman forever ( which was a pretty awful movie ) , carrey was one of the few people to come off looking reasonably good . 
until i saw ace ventura 2 , i had no idea how people could find the guy annoying . 
sadly , ace ventura 2 shows just how irritating and annoying carrey can be . 
carrey goes through the same schtick he went through in the first ace movie , but this time it is no longer funny--it is just a rehash of many of the same jokes used in ace i . 
the plot sees pet detective ace ventura retiring after failing to save a raccoon ( in a reasonable cliffhanger spoof ) . 
soon he is called out of retirement to find a bat which was kidnapped and , if not returned in four days , will cause two warring african tribes to destroy each other . 
once again , it's up to ace to save the day , using his uncanny detective skills . 
those who have been disappointed by carrey's more restrained roles in the films following the first ace ventura may be glad to see him over-acting to the best of his ability , but some may be disappointed by the fact that this sequel doesn't capture the feel of the original . 
the original benefited from what looked to be carrey's constant hyped-up improv sequences , which were hysterically funny . 
here , however , the tighter script ( which is reminiscent of the old disney telemovies ) takes the improvised material from the first , and shamelessly recycles it in the new movie , giving carrey little chance to improvise . 
instead , his extremely funny manner has been reduced to just walking around stupidly . 
but one of the biggest problems i had was with the character of ventura himself . 
in the first movie , he was always cool , and one step ahead of every one else--perfect for carrey's off-the-wall approach . 
but here , ventura is made to look a lot stupider , and is often made out as the straight guy--a role which is definitely not carrey's style . 
there are definitely some very funny moments , but they are few and far between . 
they are also nowhere near as funny as anything carrey did in the first ace ventura , or even dumb and dumber .
every now and then , reviewers are faced with the films that are hard to be properly reviewed . 
most of the time it happens with films that leave so overwhelming impact , either good or bad , that in the end reviewers must work hard to express his thoughts or feelings . 
but , sometimes it can happen for rather trivial reasons . 
i love trouble happened to be one of such occasions for the author of this review . 
the impression left by the film wasn't overwhelming - on the contrary , there were hardly any impression at all , since i had real trouble keeping myself awake while watching it . 
which surprise me to this day , because the movie theatre was full , i was close to sound speakers , the show wasn't late and i didn't lack sleep before the show . 
such things happen very rarely to me , and , after many years , the closest thing to solution to this mystery is probably the quality of the film itself . 
the plot revolves around two rival chicago reporters - old peter brackett ( nick nolte ) and young , aspiring sabrina peterson ( julia roberts ) . 
two of them are assigned to cover the train collision . 
as soon as they meet , they start scooping each other , but during the process they both discover sinister plot involving cancerogenic milk , and also the romantic feelings they have for each other . 
the plot in this film is rather secondary to its real raison d' ? tre - romantic pairing reminiscent of classical screwball comedies starring spencer tracy and katharine hepburn . 
movie author , director and screenwriter charles shyer , who had some experiences with turning the screwball spirit into modern setting with father of the bride , tries again , this time pairing old nick nolte with young julia roberts . 
however , although there is some chemistry between the two , soon it stops to arouse any interest . 
it probably happens due to poorly executed genre mix , that collides light-hearted romantic comedy with rather uninteresting plot suitable to pure action thrillers . 
shyer as director fails to make the proper transition between the two , and fails in both areas , making the story cliched and predictable . 
the end result is rather forgettable effort , which convinced me not to watch movie again . 
i'll give it the benefit of the doubt , though .
the only two really good things that i can say about tarzan and the lost city are as follows : jane march was very cute as jane , and the movie was thankfully under 90 minutes in length . 
if you haven't already figured it out , i didn't like this movie very much . 
the plot was boring and contrived to the extreme . 
tarzan ( casper van dien ) has now left the jungle and living in civilized society . 
he is just days away from his impending marriage to jane , played by the aptly named jane march . 
back in his former home of africa , a group of looters has found the key to locating a lost city . 
 ( mind you i never really figured out why they actually wanted to find this city . ) 
anyway , tarzan's old jungle friend appears to him in a vision . 
tarzan realizes that he must return to africa to help stop the bad guys from finding the lost city . 
he leaves jane ( his first mistake , in my opinion ) and travels to africa . 
of course , jane is hot on her ape man's heals . 
the two of them are reunited in africa where they do battle with the bad guys . 
sound like a dumb explanation of the plot ? 
it's actually an improvement over the real thing . 
the acting is just plain awful . 
i'm not quite sure what casper van dien was doing in this film , but it wasn't acting . 
jane march wasn't a heck of a lot better , but at least she is easy on the eyes . 
compounding the bad acting was the fact that in many places the dialogue had obviously been re-recorded , and i've seen better dubbing in some old bruce lee movies . 
added to the sound problems was the cinematography . 
this film was filled with beautiful african scenery . 
but the panoramic scenery shots looked overexposed to me . 
quite frankly , i think you could probably do a better job capturing the beauty of africa with a camcorder than this bunch did with professional film equipment . 
then we have the special effects . 
 " special effects in a tarzan movie ? " 
you are no doubt asking yourself ? 
yes friends , the writers injected some very out of place supernatural elements into the story . 
probably for the sake of using cgi , since it did nothing but hurt the story . 
in most parts , they weren't bad , just nothing special . 
but , they were more than a little on the hokey side . 
except of course , when we got to the ridiculous climax of this movie . 
the grand finale's special effects went right into the toilet at that point . 
it almost looked like they had run out of money . 
these effects were of noticeably lower quality than those in the rest of the film and looked like something in an amateur video production . 
i took one lesson away from watching tarzan and the lost city -- ape men and bones that morph into skeletal warriors don't mix . 
stay far away from this version of tarzan .
silly performances and some huge gaps in logic mar an otherwise interesting tale of an eclectic group of people stranded at " the last stop cafe and motel " due to heavy snowfall . 
one of the stranded is a colorado state highway patrolman ( adam beach ) who discovers a murder scene and a bag full of cash from a recent bank robbery . 
someone amongst the group of strangers is a bank robber and a murderer , but is it the same person or are there multiple criminals ? 
adam beach unfortunately was the wrong choice for the lead in this film . 
he doesn't play the role with enough seriousness to be believable or enough goofiness for it to be funny . 
his performance is stuck somewhere in the middle , and this film really needed it to be on one side or the other . 
rose mcgowan is cold and unpleasant to the eye as always , and jurgen prochnow . . . 
what on earth is he doing in this ? 
best performance comes from william s . taylor as a cheesy ( yet still somehow cool and confident ) wayne newton drifter type . 
the last stop is available on dvd from sterling home entertainment . 
as usual with sterling , they've filled out this dvd with extra features . 
the disc contains the film in its original aspect ratio of 1 . 85 : 1 , a choice of 2 . 0 dolby surround sound or 5 . 1 dolby digital surround sound , a full length audio commentary track with director mark malone , interviews with the cast and crew , the original trailer , and the usual cast and crew biographies . 
the film itself might not be the greatest , but sterling's effort of adding decent extra features while keeping the price affordable ( suggested retail of $19 . 95 ) makes this dvd worth the money . 
[r]
so i went and saw this film right , it was called " battlefield : earth " , i was never interested in the previews , and never too terribly interested in the book , nor do i find scientology interesting , but after reading advanced reviews of how bad this film really is , i had that weird urge just to watch it . 
well let me be the first to say , and so far in my view it's safe to say : battlefield : earth might be the worst film i have ever seen , yes even worse than " mr . magoo " , " blue in the face " , or " jaws : the revenge " . 
roger christianson whos credits include set direction , and art direction for such great films as " alien " and " star wars " , directs this film with such amateurism , that the film looks and feels and in fact sounds so dumb , that it's quite depressing . 
the look of the film , is dark and drabby at times , but then bright and happy at other times . 
the sound is terrible , and has the worst surround sound effects i've heard . 
the acting is nothing , the dialogue poor , and the make-up effects hideous . 
here's the so-called plot : earth 3000 . . . . man is a endangered species , while aliens from the planet psychlo ( the aliens are named psychlo . . . i 
wonder why ? ! ) are invading earth , destined to put an end to those " man-animals " to an end , and destroy earth once and for all , of course we have our typical hero ( played terrible by barry pepper , who was great in a small role in 1999's " the green mile " ) who is destined to go out , and save his planet ! 
one thing : he has to go up against , terl , the chief of security psychlo , who is played frankly , quite bad by john travolta , whom with dreadlocks , a big head , and green eyes just doesn't work . 
of course the sidekick to terl , is played by ( lol ! ! ) 
forest whitaker , who looks like a deformed werewolf of some kind . 
our friendly human johnny ( barry pepper ) looks just as bad as well , with long scraggly hair . 
i'm not really sure how to quite explain the badness of this film , except just to say it's terrible . 
everything in this film is imcomprehinsable , from the make-up effects , which by the way aren't good , to the phony looking special effects , everything in this film is faulted . 
in fact i don't remember one part in this entire movie where i was having a good time , or enjoying myself . 
in fact there is no part in the movie that i liked or enjoyed . 
throughout the entire 127 minute running time , i was dying , constantly looking at my watch , and hoping maybe the projectioner would blow a bulb or something , sadly it didn't . 
my advice to hollywood : get new scripts , new acting classes , better directors and damnit , make films like american beauty more .
by phil curtolo " madonna - antonio banderas - jonathan price - in an alan parker film - with music from andrew lloyd weber - and lyrics by tim rice - evita . " 
now i have to admit , the trailer for this rock-opera-turned-major motion picture is almost breath-taking for some . 
the soundtrack is wonderful to listen to . 
so why wouldn't the movie be wonderful to see . 
simple , a little over 2 hours of constant singing can almost drive you insane . 
the story of eva duarte ( madonna ) , evita is full of drama that's trapped inside by all the notes and chords . 
she was an orphaned child who ends up becoming a hooker , then goes into the field of acting , and finally meets juan peron ( price ) , the soon-to-be first president of argentina . 
they fall in love and eventually marry . 
sounds pretty good , doesn't it . 
well the story gets better , as eva goes on the " rainbow tour " across europe , trying to win respect . 
eva duarte was a wonderful lady . 
however , all of the drama-packed moments above were never understood because the actors and actresses sang to fast to be understood . 
i went into theater 4 at magic cinemas with the attitude that evita was going to be terribly boring and i left with happy , because i was right . 
they only thing that kept me awake during the movie was the loud bangs of the drums and strums of the guitar . 
although it did come off as dull , the beautiful cinematography is eye-catching , as was madonna's performance . 
as the " spiritual leader of argentina , " madonna would have definitely been an oscar-contender had she spoken a single line . 
but her chance was taken away with the stubbornness of making an exact replica of the broadway musical a film . 
don't get me wrong and don't look at my grade . 
i am not a big fan of musicals on the big screen . 
if you're going to pay to see a movie , you want to see a movie . 
now i have to admit , it's a lot cheaper to pay $5 than $200 plus to see the play , but that's what did me in . 
all this review contains is my opinion and my grade was set before i even saw the movie . 
now you may be saying , " what kind of critic is he ? , " 
and you're right . 
as a critic , i should have given the movie a chance . 
but as a 17-year old quentin tarantino fan , it was way too hard . 
 ,
i have never seen a man so in love with himself than george lucas . 
with the overt success of the three original star wars films , lucas has become , not necessarily a filmmaker , but the head cheeze at a huge toy company , with the phantom menace the new product on the shelve . 
only this toy was made for $115 million , but every kid wants it , and , like all other expensive toys , falls apart within an hour after playing with it . 
the product in question , star wars episode 1 : the phantom menace ( jeez ! ) , is pure and simple : its about the money , baby ! 
no one in their right mind would create such a fiasco if they knew it wouldn't make a ton of money before its fourth week of release . 
i come to the sw franchise as a stranger , since i have absolutely no idea why the sw movies are so popular . 
i find them rather boring and full of nothing but eye candy . 
phantom menace is like the first sw , minus 10 . 
nothing in the whole concept is remotely enjoyable . 
even the special effects seem rather bland . 
the story in this new one is a mindless mess . . . the 
acting wooden . . . and the action sequences like something out of a video game . 
sw : phantom menace is one of the worst films of the year so far . 
with a title like sw e1 : tpm , lucas has one big head on those shoulders . 
i thought chris carter did for releasing an x-files movie , although , that movie adaptation was an excellent way to spend two hours . 
pm is one long headache .
an affluent horse breeder's past comes up to haunt him ; an ages old cover-up and blackmail comes back to haunt him at the hands of one of his accomplices . 
that's pretty much the essence of the movie and i have to say that it becomes quite boring at times and is very slow . 
that aside the story was well presented and probably quite close and representative of its source . 
the acting in particular i found very good , the character development was also quite interesting but alas the story simply did not hold my interest enough for me to get into the movie . 
a few things about the story didn't sit very well with me for example the original scam and cover-up heavily involved the character played by sharon stone , yet in the end her character played a relatively small role and it seems she should have been utilized more to further the story along better . 
on the flip side the character played by catherine keener i found to be very interesting and i thought that it was developed very well and helped the story a lot . 
the character's aside this movie had some interesting merits but in the end it lacked in story and pacing . 
as far as the acting and casting for this movie is concerned i have to say that the choices of nick nolte and jeff bridges were great as well as that of catherine keener . 
all these people acted their parts admirably , as for the part that sharon stone played , she played it well but the part was not utilized enough . 
the directing for this movie is something that i have to comment on because for once in a long while you see a director actually add a very distinctive flavor to a movie , this is one of those occasions . 
matthew warchus in my opinion added an interesting touch and spin to the movie and i think he tackled a touch subject ( i myself wouldn't be able to look at horseracing and make a movie out of it ) . 
there is a certain flavor about this movie and i think that the direction of the movie is the reason for this . 
the one flaw that i do have to comment on is the pacing , the subject matter in my opinion wasn't interesting enough on its own to have this kind of flavoring and directorial touch about it . 
i certainly hope that the director makes more movies as this does show promise even if i myself don't like it . 
all in all i found this movie boring and very slow , the acting was good but the story just didn't evolve enough and wasn't captivating enough to make simpatico an enjoyable movie to watch . 
although there is much going for the movie i didn't find it good even though i see the merits and style used and can compliment the movie on them . 
i wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone but if you are a horse fanatic or a racing fanatic then you will most likely enjoy this movie .
a fullyloaded entertainment review : website coming soon ! 
hunter s . thompson's fear and loathing in las vegas , written in 1971 , is already an american classic ; not merely because it was an unadulterated journey through the post-psychedelia of the 1960's , but also because it ushered in a new form of journalism known as " gonzo " . 
soon after the book was written , hunter s . thomspon became the basis for a character in doonesbury known as uncle duke . 
and that is the problem with fear and loathing in las vegas ( the movie . ) 
although the book is one of my favorites , i now agree with thompson's own assessment of the novel as " unfilmable . " 
the main problem is that the book , although detailing wild drug use and tripped-out adventures , was not written on the road . 
it was written and edited by hunter s . thomspons , relatively sober , at his home . 
so although the book depicts drug use and still more drug use , it is told with a sense of aloofness and some humor . 
hunter s . thomspon , the narrator , while always drugged out , still has a grip on reality , and can still tell , with journalistic ability , what is going on around him . 
not so with the characters in fear and loathing in las vegas . 
despite name changes and one minor scene from the book dropped , the movie is an exact duplicate of the book , in terms of dialouge . 
unfortunately , this can get annoying , in the form of johnny depp's ( who plays thompson ) excessive narration . 
and the characters , while having vivid personalities , are played as 2-d characers on the screen : dr . raoul duke ( johnny depp , the name raoul duke was an alias of thompson's ) and his riding companion , dr . gonzo ( benicio del toro ) , who is a large samoan lawyer , have no personalities or emotions at all , save for stoned . 
the film is very faithful to the plot ( what there is ) of the book , in that dr . raoul duke is sent by sports illustrated to cover the mint 400 , and takes along not only his samoan lawyer but also car trunk full of drugs . 
from there , one set of stoned adventures after another happens , including one of the few good scenes in which depp , high on acid , watches all the people in the bar around him turn into , literally , lounge lizards . 
while the movie has its moments ( few ) , it is almost unwatchable at parts , especially towards the end . 
despite a lot of celebrity cameos , the stars never get off the ground . 
the set decoration and costumes are great , and probably deserve an oscar nomination . 
however , as we all know , it's not sets or effects that make a movie , its the characters ; and quite frankly , these characters are no good .
filmmakers will use all manner of tricks to flesh out and brighten up a dull , dreary , and overused idea . 
doug liman ( swingers ) , director of the ultra-hip and severely dark comedy go , is an example of just such a filmmaker . 
in his latest , he gives the viewers a raucous , neon-lit backdrop as cinematographer and points the audience down a drug-infested path of misadventure as director . 
but he fails to come up with any parallel structure in his multi-tiered movie and he fails to connect with the audience on any level , bringing the worth of his efforts to nil and the value of go to about the same . 
his movie is produced anthology-style -- telling the same story from multiple ( three ) points of view , much as an author might write a serial novel . 
consistent with this ethic , liman and screenwriter john august provide a bit of an overlap at the beginning of each narrative and insert brief connections to other narratives . 
the thread that laces the three stories together is a drug deal and the events thereafter . 
in story a we have checkout clerk ronna ( sarah polley ) looking to score some rent money and turning to drug trafficking to do it ; in story b we have regular drug dealer simon ( desmond askew ) gone to las vegas giving ronna her opportunity ; and in story c we have gay soap actors zack ( jay mohr ) and adam ( scott wolf ) working undercover for the police to bust said drug deal . 
neither of the three stories have much substance , and the movie has the feel of a campfire story ( albeit a rather strange one ) that could be told in five to ten minutes . 
 ( in fact , the movie was originally a short film entitled x expanded to feature length . ) 
the early april release date is too mistimed to capitalize on the movie's christmas setting , and the los angeles/las vegas nightlife is something too far from the mainstream for most theater-goers to attach themselves to . 
the characters are shallow to the point of prerequisite , and performances from little-known players like polley , askew , and taye diggs don't help or hurt the roles . 
in fact , even bigger names like mohr , wolf , and katie holmes don't have enough time to make substantial success . 
although that's almost expected for lack of continuous screen time , the success in the picture should come from a thread that binds the stories . 
go doesn't have this , and it suffers because of it . 
as far as teen movies are concerned , go represents the absolute bottom , for its constant stream of indecipherable light and sound mean nothing without some sort of common theme . 
 ( the following do not count as common themes : drug deals , people attempting to have romantic interludes with drug dealers , people resorting to drug deals for alterior motives , or people not involved in drug deals stumbling into them . ) 
at times , the humor in go is sickly funny , and on a low night , almost watchable ; but for the majority of its running time and for most viewers , this movie will best be left to teens at blockbuster on a saturday night .
it's a rare treat when a quality horror film is released in the theater . 
and unfortunately with man's best friend , we'll be waiting a while longer . 
the film stars ally sheedy and lance henrikson in a tale of bio-genetics gone wrong . 
sheedy plays a nosy reporter whose need for a " good " story provokes her to snoop inside of emax , a poorly guarded million dollar bio-lab that she finds herself effortlessly intruding . 
the result : she unleashes the experimental wonder dog named max , a german shepherd with genetic recombination allowing it to swallow like a snake , camouflage like a chameleon , climb trees like a leopard , and attack with the strength of tiger . 
max takes a liking to sheedy , and she finds herself protecting the animal from the cruel technological realm of emax , owned by henrikson . 
well , it doesn't take long before the hormonally unstable biohazard unleashes his jowls upon the unsuspecting suburban landscape which offers max juicy leg of mailman , etc . . . 
sheedy is a boring non-presence on the screen , tripping through the enormous plot chasms neglected by the writer/director ( i apologize for a lack of credits . 
i suppose i was eager to leave the theater , and in my rush , forgot to take note of the director , writer , producer , etc . . . ) . 
henrikson offered the only relief from the contrived narration of the script , giving his character as much development as he could considering the flat dialogue plaguing the film . 
the movie depends upon it's ability to impress the audience with animal special effects , but all it presents is a dog that can growl , open door handles with his paw , sit , roll over , play dead , and sick . 
the rest of the special effects were so poor , i found them offensive . 
the film attains sub-mediocrity , an unambitious film at best . 
horror fans might find that cujo offers a better bite .