polsci/sentiment-polarity-dataset-v2.0 huggingface dataset:
it's amazing how a comedian can have the some of the funniest stand-up around but completely fall flat in the movies . 
take adam sandler . 
on the basis of his first two cds ( " they're all gonna laugh at you ! " 
and " what the hell happened to me ? " ) , 
he's the best thing to hit comedy since robin williams . 
but when you put him in front of a camera , it just isn't the same . 
i kind of enjoyed happy gilmore and thought that it warranted a marginal recommendation , but his latest film , the waterboy is about as funny as a root canal . 
seriously , i'm willing to wager than there were more laughs in saving private ryan than there are here . 
in fact , i found this movie to be more depressing than comedic . 
the first half hour generated not one smile in me , with it's scenes of emotional abuse towards adam's character of bobby boucher not only by the cruel football players , but also by his very disturbed mother ( kathy bates - what is the world coming to ? ) . 
granted , after the film gets rolling , there are a few mild chuckles throughout ( i'm even willing to admit that it actually had me laughing once or twice ) , but not nearly enough to sustain the waterboy for it's nearly hour and a half running time . 
you're all familiar with the plot because you've seen it at least a million times before ; everyone picks on the hero until he shows a hidden talent and leads the underdog team to victory over the champions , in the process not only winning the respect of his teammates but also getting the woman he loves . 
and believe me , i'm not giving anything away by saying that sandler's team wins . 
if you would actually feel any degree of suspense watching this movie , then god be with you . 
the only things that keep this bomb from getting the big banana are the winning performances from henry winkler as the insecure coach and the severely underrated fairuza balk as bobby's love interest . 
i mean , they should be lending their talents to some loftier purpose , but they do extremely well with what they are given here . 
kudos to both of them . 
my advice to adam is to try and follow in the footsteps of veteran comedians like williams and steve martin , who made a very smooth and successful transition from stage to screen . 
rely more on actual comedy rather than strange voices and rude noises to make people laugh . 
or maybe even show what dramatic talent he might have , like jim carrey did with the recent truman show . 
with the obvious and considerable talent that he possesses , he just can't keep going on like this .
at times , you'd think edtv would be an entertaining film . 
i mean , who can resist the story of your average joe becomming a celebrity by having his life filmed every minute of every day ? 
but this average joe , ed perkuny , ( matthew mcconaughay ) , is a sappy , lifeless creation that wanders around , trying to solve everyone's problems and settle his own . 
mcconaughay is awful , especially because he is trying to pull off his usual hollywood charm with a 3 week beard and torn jeans . 
frankly , he had more charm in the devestating flop the newton boys . 
he overacts in every way : his overexaggerant body language , obsession with kissing women every second he gets the chance , and that cliched scene where he loses someone in his life , and drops to his knee and cries . 
the rest of the cast is very good ; especially martin landau ( as ed's step-father ) , who plays a cute role as the close-to-death old guy that makes all the witty comments . 
jenna elfman is good , ( but a little overemotional ) ; her main problem is that she keeps getting sucked into bad films , i . e . 
can't hardly wait , and krippendorf's tribe . 
woody harrelson , as ed's brother ray , does his usual egg-headed role , with his comic wit as well ( he wrote a book entitled , " my brother pissed on me . " ) 
elizabeth hurley is perfectly cast as the easy slut , and dennis hopper , in a quick cameo as ed's biological father , is a nice choice ( ironically coming after the role he turned down as christof in the truman show ) . 
ellen degeneres stood out as the executive who , after awhile , decides the show must not go on much to the opposite of the head exec , rob reiner's opinion . 
i hate to compare this film to the truman show , but the fact is , i was ashamed to see this movie . 
it felt that i had dropped from college to kindergarten after seeing truman and ed . 
edtv had no real wit or genius ; it was typical hollywood . 
extracting the tv part of the movie , you have the simple plotline : man steals brother's girlfriend , girlfriend leaves town , man gets new slut girlfriend to feel like he can move on , slut breaks up with him , real girlfriend comes back , and voila , you have a romance . 
i got so restless during this movie , i almost walked out . 
the only reason it doesn't drop below a " c " grade is because of the fine supporting performances . 
ad2am " i almost lost my nose . . . and 
i like it . 
i like breathing through it . " 
-jack nicholson , chinatown
five years after his directorial debut based on stephen king's writings called the shawshank redemption ( 9/10 ) , writer/director frank darabont returns to the big screen with another prison film based on the famous scribblings of stephen king . 
unlike the latter film , this one is a big , long , laborious bore . 
plot : a seven-foot death row inmate is discovered to have secret healing powers . 
critique : this film is slow , drawn-out , boring , uninteresting , unexciting , predictable and topped with a couple of one-dimensional " evil " characters . 
its only positive attribute lies in its actors who all do credible jobs and its message of hope and belief in miracles . 
the real miracle of my night was the fact that i did not fall asleep during this straightforward , unimpressive film about a guy with special powers who we never truly understand or care about . 
of course , much like all other death row cell blocks , this one is filled with decent inmates who all happen to be " misunderstood " , except for one cookie-cutter crazy guy who is evil personified . 
and let's not forget all the guards on death row , who also happen to be angels from the heaven above , except for one cookie-cutter crazy guard who is also evil personified ( and is there any reason why there are about six guards when there appears to be no more than three inmates ? ? ? ) . 
am i supposed to identify with anyone in this film ? 
or even more importantly , am i supposed to give a rat's ass about anyone in this film ? 
well , if i was , i sure missed that boat , because the only thing that i ended up caring about during this entire picture was the obscene amount of fat that tom hanks has been able to burrow under his loose chin . 
furthermore , there is absolutely no reason in the world why director frank darabont needed to take three hours and ten minutes out of anyone's life to present this story . 
in fact , the story is empty within itself . 
i truly did not get anything out of the film other than the fact that there is a guy on death row who has special powers to heal , and we are left wondering if he should still be executed or not . 
wow . 
how interesting . 
the plot's utter predictability is also at fault here with one guess as to whom is to get healed by the gentle monster in this film ( we are told that one certain lady has a tumor early on in the movie ) . 
whip out those thinking caps , kids ! 
hmmm , and i wonder what will happen to those two cookie-cutter " evil " guys who have nothing in their system but hate and negativity . 
hmmmm , now think hard here , boys and girls . 
what a crock ! 
i am guessing that this film was supposed to be some three-hour exercise in spirituality , but unfortunately for me , it was neither spiritual or the least bit engaging . 
in fact , it was one big bore . 
i didn't see the point of the movie , i didn't see the point of the story and i certainly didn't see the point in tom hanks' big double-chin . 
all in all , a bad movie starring some great actors doing solid work , especially michael clarke duncan as the man of the hour , john coffey . 
give that man an award or something !
susan granger's review of " mulholland drive " ( universal focus ) 
whatever david lynch is selling , i'm not buying . 
from the writer/director of " blue velvet " and " twin peaks " comes another dark , mysterious thriller that opens with an automobile accident on mulholland drive , the serpentine street that twists high in the hollywood hills . 
dazed , a beautiful brunette ( laura elena harring ) emerges and stumbles down a hill , slipping unobserved into a '30s-style apartment as the tenant leaves for a trip . 
the next morning , a dewy blonde ( naomi watts ) from deep river , ontario , arrives in la with dreams of stardom in her suitcase . 
her aunt owns the apartment and the two women meet . 
the brunette has amnesia so the blonde tries to help her discover her identity along with her latent lesbian lust . 
meanwhile , a hotshot director ( justin theroux ) , whose wife is in bed with the poolman , is forced to cast a certain actress in his new film and there's an assassin ( mark pellegrino ) roaming the city . 
the tortuous paths of these various characters - and others named cookie , coco and cowboy - intersect at various points but the plot remains elusive because , midway through the story , lynch has the brunette and blonde play two different women in an alternate reality , leaving a huge wad of cash , a blue metallic key , a paralyzed mogul and a lot of questions that go unanswered . 
elena harring and particularly naomi watts are gifted actresses , effectively making the subtle switch . 
the same cannot be said for former m . g . m . 
dancer ann miller who's stiff and self-conscious , speaking - like most lynch players - in staccato tones . 
on the granger movie gauge of 1 to 10 , " mulholland drive " is a frenzied , frustrating 4 . originally designed as an episodic tv pilot , this surreal triumph of suspenseful style over substance is packaged as a puzzle with several of the key pieces left out .
georges polti once wrote a paper called " the thirty-six dramatic situations , " in which he asserted the fact that all drama could be defined by no more than thirty-six different situations . 
this may be the modern restatement of the biblical prophecy from ecclesiastes , " there's nothing new under the sun . " 
the faculty , the latest movie by from dusk till dawn director robert rodriguez , certainly proves this in typical hollywood fashion . 
there's not a measureable fraction of original material in this unworthy outing . 
drawing elements from both the puppet masters and invasion of the body snatchers , screenwriter kevin williamson ( of scream 2 credit ) gives us a horror tale set in middle america ( ohio ) one eventful fall . 
making use of a cast of unusually stock characters , williamson designs an alien invasion that will not be done independence day-style but rather " through the back door . " 
parasitic aliens take over the faculty of a run-down high school and soon have infested most of the student body , leaving it up to the ensemble of principal characters to win the day . 
the lack of gusto is the movie's major stumbling block . 
even though the genre has seen movies that have a lack for quality such as this , they've been saved by an energetic approach . 
this casts more than a shadow of a doubt on williamson's ability , who enjoyed success with the wes craven-directed scream but couldn't pull anything solid in for this outing or i know what you did last summer . 
although he designs the faculty with more of a sci-fi bent than his typical slasher picture , it still comes down to the same results : throw the stock characters in a steel cage match and see who comes out alive . 
on that level , the main roles are played by virtual unknowns . 
only the recognizeable elijah wood ( deep impact ) is at the front ; other than that , the screen veterans are saved for the minor roles of the alien teachers . 
perhaps williamson has it in mind to champion these up-and-comers to the fame that their scream and last summer counterparts achieved ; but to do that , they'd all need to star in their own wb television show about the horrors of puberty a la " dawson's creek . " 
needless to say the acting is far from top notch , nor does necessity ask that it should be . 
there is a moment or two of genuine horror , but unfortunately williamson and rodriguez did not take the story far enough in the sci-fi direction to make any use of it . 
in sum , the faculty was just one long shot that did not pay off .
the most popular trend of the last couple of years has been the twist ending . 
watching one of these movies , everything seems to make sense until suddenly you are blown away by an unexpected surprise . 
when the film ends , there is a moment of confusion , then recollection , then some more confusion , then possibly a second viewing for clarification . 
this is a description of an ideal twist that perfects everything it sets out to do and more . 
good surprises make movies fun to watch . 
then there are the bad twists . 
you either know what is going to happen ten minutes into the movie ( i'm talking about you reindeer games ) or you did not guess the ending because it is so outrageously stupid . 
screwed perfectly suits the latter description . 
what starts out as a dumb guilty pleasure which should be fun to mock with a group of friends ends with a complex finale with way too much going on . 
by the writers of man on the moon and the people vs . 
larry flynt , scott alexander and larry karaszewski leave milos forman behind and take a stab at film directing . 
whoops . 
screwed is an inane christmas carol gone berserk with few genuine laughs and many acting embarrassments . 
norm macdonald stars as willard filmore , a hard working chauffeur who just wants a little respect from his rich , old , insidious boss , miss crock ( elaine stritch ) . 
when he overhears her plans to fire him on christmas day , willard is convinced by his best friend rusty ( dave chapelle ) to kidnap crock's beloved dog and hold it for a ransom of one million dollars . 
too excited to pay any attention , the hapless losers' plan goes awry when the dog escapes and returns home . 
now crock thinks willard has been kidnapped and the two friends , realizing they can make even more money , decide to stage the fake kidnapping . 
of course , everything that could go wrong does . 
the first forty-five minutes of screwed is harmless entertainment - a guilty pleasure that should be enjoyably bad . 
but the convoluted script eventually builds into a disaster that is impossible to bear . 
the more idiotic these characters get , the more reckless the script becomes . 
at one point , i wanted to get out of my seat and yell at these characters : " no , you idiot ! " 
i'm not just talking about willard and rusty , who were extremely annoying , i'm also talking about the cops in this film . 
a monkey could have solved this case within an hour but these guys ( headed by murder one's daniel benzali ) were just too clueless to forgive . 
they give real cops bad names . 
also poor danny devito apparently does not know how to turn down a role these days . 
looking almost identical to his penguin in batman : returns , every time he appeared on the screen i had to shake my head in disbelief . 
he just didn't belong in this movie . 
macdonald and chapelle are veterans at these kinds of movies but devito made the film much worse than it already was , gross out humor is certainly not his forte . 
if you're a fan of norm macdonald's other chaotic comedy , dirty work , you might actually love this near-sequel . 
otherwise , don't get screwed out of your hard-earned money .
" spice world " is just one long promotional film for the british girl band the spice girls . 
sure there's a hint of humor in there every once in a while . 
actually , there's a couple of pretty good jabs at the spice girls . 
but overall , who cares ? 
not me . 
if you don't know by now , the spice girls sing songs of love and friendship and responsibility and girl power , yet dress like streetwalkers from a lower middle class neighborhood . 
in " spice world " they ride around in their big tour bus , whining about having to do photo shoots and give interviews . 
amazingly , all the talk they do about keeping commitments and upholding responsibilities only really applies to fun things , things they want to do , not things they are required to do to keep earning money . 
and they keep babbling about " girl power " when they should really be talking about " cleavage power " . 
i mean , if all it takes is girl power , then why are they only one thread away from bursting out of their skimpy outfits ? 
the film is pg , but really with only some very minor dialogue changes and scene extentions , you'd have yourself one raunchy adult film . 
by the way , there's something in the opening credits which says " based on an idea by the spice girls " . 
wow , they got idea credit ! 
i certainly wish that was a new trend in hollywood . . . 
giving credit for simply having the thought " say girls , let's make a movie ! " 
the supporting cast fares well . 
roger moore ( the real james bond ) mockingly plays the cliche-spewing " chief " of the spice girls , and darn it all , he's fun to watch . 
mark mckenney also is good as a screenwriter trying to pitch film ideas to the band's manager ( richard e . grant ) . 
one question though : george wendt ? 
you'd think that " spice world " would envoke one of two reactions in people . 
if you like the spice girls , you'll like them even more afterwards . 
and if you can't stand them ( like me ) , then " spice world " will really make you sick . 
oddly , the audience i saw the film with , roughly 50 twelve year-old girls , sat in silence for the entire film . 
well , not the two who sat directly behind me . 
they kept muttering " this is stupid " over and over again . 
maybe there is hope for humanity after all . 
[pg]
" an intimate , character-driven drama about a troubled youth at a crossroads in his life , " read the press notes for _reach_the_rock_ . 
i'm not really sure what film that statement is describing because those words bear little resemblance to the slow , completely uninvolving bore i saw--at least , it certainly does not describe what goes on for most of the film . 
alessandro nivola plays robin fleming , a troubled , directionless 21-year-old who has a penchant for breaking storefront windows in a small town . 
police sergeant phil quinn ( william sadler ) takes him in , and what ensues for the first 70 minutes is a tedious series of sneak-outs and sneak-ins where robin slips out of his jail cell , breaks a window , then returns , all without quinn ever noticing . 
also added to the pointless proceedings is some would-be humorous shenanigans involving quinn's dimwitted deputy ernie attempting to engage in clandestine patrol car sex with his girlfriend donna ( karen sillas ) . 
with a half hour ( if even that long ) remaining , director william ryan and writer john hughes ( yes , john hughes of '80s youth films and _home_alone_ ) finally approach something close to a point . 
turns out robin still pines for his high school sweetheart lise ( brooke langton ) , who has long gone on with her life , and hughes's main concern at long last reveals itself as a tired " live in the present and for the future " message . 
most moviegoers , however , will likely be asleep by that time . 
wide awake , however , is the cast , who individually tackle their showcase dramatic scenes with energy and skill--thus revealing the _real_ purpose behind this listless enterprise : to serve as a series of acting exercises . 
such a glorified workshop may have its rewards for the actors , but it leaves audiences with a booby prize . 
 ( opens october 16 )
vampire's is a rude , chauvinistic movie where women are portrayed as pawns of abuse , present only to pleasure men , feed vampires , readied to be bashed or beaten - till one's sensibilities is shocked by the low iq and mentality of this regressive movie . 
to make matters worse , the buffoons that go hunting vampires are all rednecks , and deserve to have their heads bitten off , if not , their bodies carved in half . 
the dilemma of hating the ? heroes' as much as the ? villains' , makes one wish that the ? hand of god' would suddenly appear and blast both parties into oblivion . 
james wood portrays jack crow , a man obsessed with killing vampires , whose soul reason for living is based on revenge ( they killed his parents ) , but this is not a good excuse for being more obnoxious than the vampires . 
as for adam baldwin , he is nothing more than a stooge who is ordered to beat women when the director shouts ? action' , and the script should have been reworked to avoid much offence against the female sex . 
as for the claims that the catholic church created ? dracula' , well that is the second most sacrilegious suggestion , outside the fact that priests and monks bear the brunt of the vampire fury , with enough blood spilt to make the inquisition look tame . 
an awful movie on all counts , my suggestion is to bring back buffy and bury this group of incompetent , rude vampire slayers .
the army comedy genre has never turned out a truly good movie ( if you don't count neil simon's biloxi blues ) . 
year after year , more predictably cliched military movies come out -- most recently sgt . 
bilko -- and none of them ever manage to be anything more than a rehash of the last . 
i thought stripes would be different . 
with ivan reitman as director , bill murray as star and harold ramis as co-star and co-screenwriter , it seemed like it would be ghostbusters in the army . 
instead , it was a bunch of unfunny crap in the army . 
murray , about as funny and sophisticated here as he was in meatballs , plays a loser cab driver who sees the army as his only chance for success , and convinces his friend ramis to enlist with him . 
so he does , and we get the obligatory drill sergeant from hell , head-shaving and marching/singing sequences , more mind-numbingly stale here than ever . 
the characters are even less original , ranging from underachieving slob john candy to incompetent captain john larroquette . 
all the big name stars in stripes ( and even larroquette ) fall victim to the lame , rehashed material and are never really likeable , murray in particular . 
he only gets a few decent lines in , although those barely-funny one liners pale in comparison to the hilarious peter venkman character he played three years later in ghostbusters . 
he was even better in caddyshack , for crying out loud . 
as with a lot of the late 70's / early 80's comedies , stripes is a completely juvenile movie only a child would like but is so sex- obsessed no child should be able to watch it . 
i'm sure it seems funny on paper to have candy pay over $400 to mud wrestle five beautiful women , but while watching it all that was coming out of my mouth was the admonition " dear god ! " 
every few seconds . 
stripes isn't the playful kind of sex comedy , either . 
most of the time it seems downright misogynistic , as when larroquette uses his telescope to peer into the women's showers or murray lifts a female m . p . 
onto the stove and , with an i-know-what-you-like look on his face , says he's going to give her the " aunt jemima treatment , " which means shoving a spatula under her butt repeatedly . 
you don't want to stick around as the scene progresses and he uses an ice cream scoop on her genital region . 
 " i'm not enjoying this , " the woman protests . 
my sentiments exactly .
it's not a bad thing to update old stories . 
it's done all the time in the oral tradition . 
the difficulty with this film is not that the tale has changed , it's that it's dry . 
the new cinderella , danielle ( drew barrymore ) is not sitting around waiting for her prince to come . 
she's a woman of the late twentieth century albeit situated in sixteenth century france . 
when her father dies , she stays on in his house even though she is mistreated by her wicked stepmother rodmilla ( anjelica huston ) . 
she works by day , but reads sir thomas more by firelight at night . 
although the story is updated , you know the plot . 
danielle meets prince henry ( dougray scott ) , goes to a ball disguised , is later found out and they live happily ever after . 
the movie is often like watching a filmed play . 
theater in real life is engrossing . 
theater on the screen is usually lifeless . 
there doesn't seem to be much going on . 
the camera can be a star of films . 
here it's a co-conspirator . 
danielle's convictions are compromised . 
a socialist and a feminist , she pretends to be royalty to get her man . 
a kind woman , her last act in the movie is one of revenge . 
the most enjoyable characters are the most cartoonish . 
the fairy godmother stand-in , leonardo da vinci ( patrick godfrey ) is fun to watch as the eccentric old man who advises danielle . 
huston is enjoyable in her over-the-top wickedness . 
in all fairness , my companion loved the film . 
maybe it's one of those " chick flicks " that men don't like . 
it is certainly a date film . 
nearly the entire audience was couples . 
oh well , maybe it's good for something .
i have always been a fan of director neil jordan , from his early work , such as 1984's " the company of wolves , " to 1992's " the crying game , " and 1994's " interview with a vampire . " 
his latest film , " the butcher boy , " is a return to his roots in ireland , but unfortunately , it is not a successful homecoming . 
told through the eyes of a 12-year-old irish boy , francis ( newcomer eomann owens ) , this peculiar film follows him as we learn a little about his decidedly unstable life . 
his father ( stephen rea ) is an indifferent alcoholic , his mother ( fiona shaw ) is mentally ill and always in and out of hospitals , and francis himself delights in terrorizing the mother of one of his friends after he is forbidden to see him anymore . 
francis is the type of boy who always has a lot to say , but mostly fluctuates between sarcasm and frightening honesty , and it quickly becomes apparent that he may very well be a little psychotic , even capable of brutal murder . 
the premise of , " the butcher boy , " is one that could have very well been turned into a thought-provoking , disturbing motion picture , but somehow nothing works . 
francis is in almost every scene , but we learn very little about him , as if the film was distancing itself away from him when , i suspect , we were actually supposed to sympathize with him . 
this is definately not young owens fault , however , because he gives a brilliantly accurate performance , and is able to also seem menacing as well . 
the fact that we don't get close to his character is because of the sloppy screenplay . 
the supporting characters are no help , though . 
rea is wasted , and has practically no scenes where he actually talks to his son , or to anyone else for that matter . 
he usually seems to just be sitting watching the television throughout . 
shaw has a little bit more to work with , since she has one touching scene in which she talks to francis in a time of despair , but is out of the picture just as we are beginning to know her . 
and singer sinead o'connor appears rather effectively as the virgin mary who occasionally gives francis advice . 
the pacing is all off in , " the butcher boy . " 
although the story could have been dynamite , it moves at a deadeningly slow rate , and i found my mind wandering every once in a while . 
it is also very episodic , because the developments in the story fly by with no satisfying payoffs . 
at one point , francis is sent away to a juvenile prison , and an odd , possibly sexual relationship begins to develop between a priest and himself , but nothing comes of it . 
i'd rather think of , " the butcher boy , " as a brief diversion for director jordan , rather than a total misfire . 
he has already proven to be a strong director , but he lucked out with this latest film . 
what could have been a courageous , unsettling character study of an emotionally disturbed young boy , only manages to be an ineffective , uninvolivng bore .
as you should know , this summer has been less than memorable . 
with a total of 4 decent films , it's not a surprise that these big budget failures keep appearing . 
with that said , you can pretty much predict what my opinion on " the 13th warrior " will be . 
the film is based on the michael crichton " eaters of the dead " , in which ahmed ibn fahdlan is banished from his country for looking at a wife of a king . 
after tarveling for many months , he comes across a gang of norsemen , who are forced to pick 13 men to protect a town from mythical monsters who travel in the fog . 
so , they start picking men , and are left without 1 , thus ahmed is choosen . 
so far it sounds interesting right ? 
not when all of this takes place in 15 minutes . 
after that , they basically run around killing . 
that alone shows how much a script is needed for a film , because once your story is introduced , you have the rest of the film to start developing it . 
obviously that's not the case here . 
even if you are going into the film expecting an action packed adventure , you will be disappointed . 
since all the action takes place in fog , it is constantly hard to see a scene clearly due to those circumstances , and to poor camera work . 
can't the camera men sit still ? 
i'd like to actually watch a film in focus , but again , they failed to deliver that as well . 
the film moves on and on until the point , where you can care less about anything but the popcorn you're eating . 
with corny dialogue , that the characters laugh at for some odd reason , a script that goes nowhere , dull action sequences , a predictable ending , and worst of all weak characters , there's basically nothing to like here , except for maybe the set designs . 
that's the only thing that honestly caught my interest . 
when i heard that john mctiernan , the director , wanted his name kept out of the project , that made me wonder why ? 
well now i know . 
crichton's greed forced mctiernan to edit his finished product , which led to a big arguement . 
what's there to argue about anyway ? 
the film couldn't be saved , no matter how much they spent or casted . 
seeing films like the haunting and big daddy making money , i wouldn't be surprised to see " the 13th warrior " become a hit . 
please do me a favor and save your money at all costs , or else you will be lost in the fog , like the film itself .
for timing reasons having to do with baby sitters , we recently went to a multiplex and saw undercover blues . 
i would give it one half of a star for guts . 
anyone in a movie this bad would have to have guts . 
i later read a ny times review that said kathleen turner and dennis quaid had gotten so plump they looked like they had the mumps in the show . 
the script was the worst part . 
they had characters who talked with funny accents in an attempt to make you laugh . 
they had lots of " great " sight gags like two people trying to go in a door together and therefore bumping shoulders against the door . 
turner and quaid both kept smiling like some idiots on a game show . 
the good news is that we were smart enough to vote with our feet and left . 
buy some tickets and give them to your worst enemies . 
tell them the show is great and smile a lot . 
 * * * * = one of the top few films of this or any year . 
a must see film . 
 * * * = excellent show . 
look for it . 
 * * = average movie . 
kind of enjoyable . 
 * = poor show . 
don't waste your money . 
0 = one of the worst films of this or any year . 
totally unbearable . 
review written on : september 29 , 1993 
opinions expressed are mine and not meant to reflect my employer's .
the obvious reason for producing a sequel to an immensely popular movie is to acquire continued profits . 
the rationale is sound , but in many cases of this and recent years , the sequel is a shoddy product that's exposed for the cash-milking vehicle it really is . 
last year's speed 2 and scream 2 , as well as this year's species ii have all been products that have been decisively less than satisfactory . 
in some cases , a sequel can even discredit its predecessor , as with the latest neo-slasher flick , i still know what you did last summer . 
whatever uniqueness the original might've had now seems trite and overplayed when paired with this abominable thriller . 
julie james ( jennifer love hewitt ) and ray bronson ( freddie prinze jr . ) are back from the original to star in i still know , reprising their roles in typical fashion . 
julie and ray experience a rather predictable falling-out at the beginning of the movie , leaving the door wide open for newcomer will benson ( matthew settle ) . 
will and julie hit it off , and along with friends karla ( brandy norwood ) and tyrell ( mekhi phifer ) , the foursome heads off to a radio station-giveaway vacation in the tropics . 
unfortunately , things aren't so peachy once they arrive , and with a regularity you could set your watch by , the infamous fisherman ( muse watson ) is back with his hook . 
it's another bloody showdown , complete with cliffhanger ending . 
there's not much that's original about i still know , and with the market saturated by gen-x thrillers like this one , it's unlikely that i still know will get any recognition other than that of a bad sequel . 
for die-hard fans of the genre , this will be required viewing material , but the bottom line is that the material here is just recycled from the original i know what you did last summer . 
the aura of thrillerism surrounding the plot isn't heightened by skillful scripting or camera work , but rather a tense , string-based score and manipulative editing . 
the man with the hook ends up becoming very belittled this time around when the script gives him too many lines of dialogue -- he goes from being a scary figure to a nutcase in a few short and painful moments . 
much of the mystery is dropped for the sake of getting the point . 
the whole reason the plot exists - julie and karla must guess the capital of brazil in order to win the trip from the radio station - is a dead giveaway , lessening suspense and creating a hurry-up-and-wait timing problem . 
and , whereas the killer's identity might've been a question in the first movie , it's almost a given here , which changes the dynamic of the movie drastically . 
three or four teens run automatically from a man in a rain slicker they nonchalantly refer to as " the killer . " 
they're almost used to it , and the performances show it - not hewitt , nor prinze , nor brandy , nor phifer give a decent show . 
and so , in the end , it's left wide open for a third movie and - most likely - a brand new supporting cast . 
god help us .
there have been bad films in recent years : 'mr . 
magoo' was by far the worst ever made , the spectacularly bad 'blue in the face' , the horrible 'baby genuises' and now 'i woke up early the day i died' . 
it may not however be the worst movie made but it certainly ranks as one bad movie . 
the film's acting ( if that's what you want to call it ) is well mediocre to me . 
loaded with a sensational cast you would think that the cast would at least save the film a bit , boy was i wrong . 
after escaping from a mental institution 'the thief' played by billy zane goes out in the real world and finds that it is pretty harsh and gritty . 
he turns to burglary to survive , robs a loan back , kills the loan officer and runs with thousands . 
a country-wide man hunt is on for him to catch him and bring him down . 
he ends up in a cemetery where he puts his money in a coffin to keep it for later , comes back and realizes that someone took it and put it somewhere . 
now he is determined to kill all the visitors at the funeral earlier that day until he gets his money back , ultimately leading to a finale that is less that satisfying . 
a film which was based on a 'long-lost' script by ed wood , i have only one question : no dialogue , only music and movement where exactly is the point ? 
the film moves along at a rather slow pace , but does have one advantage : the soundtrack which is catchy and vibrant except the first song which can be offensive to some . 
it opens with a fun , innovative opening credits sequence and quickly goes downhill after that . 
some of the low points are when 'the thief' steals a woman's purse , and then she faints , sandra bernhard as a dancer and tippi hendren as a deaf woman whom 'the thief' kills to the music of 'psycho' . 
come on people get some new ideas already ! 
what's even worse is that the film has no plot at all . 
well to a certain extent it does , but who cares by the time the middle of the film arrives we're bored out of our mind and ready for something fun and exciting to happen . 
'i woke up early the day i died' is a perfectly bad film . 
it shows us how low filmmakers get sometimes just when desperate to make a movie . 
even with the huge cast talent , the film is a waste of my time and certainly a waste of yours .
the main problem with martin lawrence's pet project , a thin line between love and hate , like any fatal attraction variation where the protagonist is a man , is that his character is an irresponsible jerk , and if that is the case , it doesn't seem to do anything except justify the woman's actions . 
that is especially the case in lawrence's darnell wright . 
he is one of those macho guys with women lined up a mile long . 
now don't think i condone this just because i'm male . 
my philosophy is , if you are one of the few heterosexual males lucky enough to get your hands on a beautiful , kind girl , you should treat her like a princess and respect her . 
darnell doesn't think like this . 
he sleeps with these girls once and dumps them . 
and by the period in the film he discovered that his newest target , beautiful , wealthy brandi web ( played nicely by whitfield ) who runs a successful real estate business , is out to kill him for dumping her for his childdhood friend mia ( king ) , i found myself thinking , " i'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy ? " 
after all , it is largely darnell's fault . 
if he is lining up all these women , you'd think he'd have enough common sense to think it would backfire on him one day , as his mother says it does . 
but he doesn't , so you get the sense that he's not only irresponsible , but also pretty dumb . 
you especially get this sense that he's dumb after brandi tells him she killed her husband for allegedly abusing her . 
 ( i'd put my pants on in two seconds after that ! ) 
now , brandi is a psycho bitch , but it's hard not to agree with what she says to darnell during the finale about guys like him treating her like garbage . 
one final flaw , though , is letting brandi fall for darnell to begin with . 
brandi is a classy , intelligent woman with an mba from harvard , who initally resists darnell's " immature play " as she calls it , as any woman like her would in real life . 
but all of a sudden she says yes . 
but when you listen to darnell's four letter word vocabulary watch his actions , you wonder why such an intelligent woman would fall for a guy like darnell period , much less have such an unhealthy obsession for him ! 
lawrence can be good when he wants to , but in order to prove it , he needs to let other people write and direct his movies . 
look at this movie . 
four writers , as a result it's too long ( two hours , when it could've easily worked at ninety minutes ! ) and it has a lot of subplots and characters that appear and disappear as quickly as they came ( which makes me think the writers didn't get along ) , all of which isn't necessary . 
there are some bright spots , though . 
whitfield , regina king , della reese , and bobby brown all do what they can with lazily written parts , and they help it out a lot . 
and there are some funny parts ( like , for example , the scene where reese attempts to fight whitfeld for harrassing her son and damaging her property ) , but they're just not enough to sustain the film .
capsule : lesbianism examined in the same hushed and reverential tones reserved for a terminal illness . 
potentially interesting idea made stagy and boring . 
claire of the moon is such an impossibly serious and sober movie that i was waiting for someone to sneeze , just to break the ice . 
it's a perfect example of what my wife calls an s . f . e . 
movie , where s . f . e . 
means so f * * * ing earnest . 
movies like this need wit and brashness to be absorbing . 
claire is one strained speech after another , written delivered with all of the energy and spontenaity of a dmv clerk . 
claire takes two women , claire and noel , both writers , and throws them together in the same cabin at a women-only writer's retreat . 
claire wrights light comedy , while noel is a scholarly authority on porn and sexual behavior . 
obviously , the two of them are going to have plenty to talk about , and for the entire one hundred and twelve insufferable minutes of this movie , that's all they do : talk . 
the movie sets up its ( microscopic ) plot with beat-a-dead-horse-into-glue obviousness . 
the evening talks at the camp are chaired by a motherly type named maggie , a self-professed lesbian , and when noel owns up to also being a lesbian , claire looks like she's been hit with a sockful of wet sand . 
the movie then quickly degenerates into lots of scenes where noel glances at claire with significance , and claire looks out over the water reflectively . 
 ( ugh ! ) 
the most amazing thing about the movie is how people so intelligent can talk so much and yet get so little through their thick heads . 
all of this , of course , leads up to a scene of complete inevitability : claire and noel , in a scene that should have come an hour earlier , because then the movie ends without even the benefit of reflection about what's just happened . 
we never get a hint about how any of this has changed anyone , only how they felt about things that didn't even happen yet . 
the problem with claire . . . 
is not lesbianism as such , but the leaden way it's handled . 
why is it that any " serious " ( a better word would be adult or at least thoughtful ) examination of sex in a movie almost always winds up producing a movie that's unwatchably boring ? 
the way this movie deals with lesbianism , we might as well be watching an overheated docudrama about aids . 
many other movies have used the same subject in ways that are a thousand times better -- more engaging , more creative , more intellectually and artistically interesting . 
look at john sayles' lianna , or the interesting and little-seen desert bloom ; both of them have more life and vibrancy than claire . 
what this movie needed was a good swift kick in the pants .
the premise of turbulence is i'm sure very familiar to us all . 
we've seen it before in passenger 57 , executive decision , and countless other flicks that are good in there own way . 
you know , terrorists take over a plane , ask the police on the ground for what they what and so on . 
turbulence starts out with a " convict " ray liotta being accused of a crime . 
you think there is no way he could have done it , he's so open and kind . 
he is taken in and is subsequently transported on a commerical plane to la . 
this is already a problem . 
there is no way that convicts would be transported on the same commercial flight that normal passangers would be on . 
anyway , it is christmas eve and everyone is waiting to get to la and spend christmas eve there . 
well , convict one manages to stop the flight in its proverbial " tracks " and liotta , still as calm as ever , takes the other convict out . 
he also has eyes for lauren holly , a flight attendent , and seems to grow closer to her . 
 " the plot stops here " 
i didn't like this movie because it seemed to be a rip off of every other airplane movie i've ever seen . 
at one point , mr . liotta looked exactly like jack nicholson in the shining ( i'm serious ! ) . 
it was like they stole for every other movie down to a " t " . 
the only reason i did not give this 0 stars is because it had some okay stunts . 
don't even bother !
if only austin powers : the spy who shagged me had been just half as original , zany , silly and totally enjoyable as its predecessor , it would have easily been one of this summer's biggest pleasures . 
if only . 
in fact , the spy who shagged me is the exact opposite of the original ; instead of refreshing the audience with one clever parody after another , the filmmakers bombard us with used-up , tired jokes taken directly from the first one . 
take the scene where austin powers ( again played by mike myers , but with only a fraction of the giddy enthusiasm he displayed previously ) confronts a henchmen on the side of a cliff . 
after being pushed off the ravine , the bad guy is of course assumed dead . 
but suddenly , we hear a pleading voice coming from down below ; he's only injured . 
a similar scene played very well in the original international man of mystery , but here i was insulted by it . 
did the filmmakers really believe the audience would laugh at a rip-off ? 
apparently i overestimated the intelligence of the average movie-goer , considering that the film has pulled in over $200 million in domestic theatrical grosses alone . 
do i hear the sound of a franchise heading our way ? 
having said that , though , i still cannot deny the film its merits . 
the basic plot was delightfully silly enough to sustain my interest somewhat ; dr . evil ( mike myers , in the second of his three roles ) , having constructed a time machine , goes back to the year 1969 in an attempt to snatch austin power's " mojo " ( don't you just love that word ? ) 
whilst he is cryogenically frozen . 
when austin gets wind of this ( after a great intro explaining the absence of elizabeth hurley's vanessa kensington ) , he too travels back in time to re-claim his sexual drive , accompanied by the hot-to-trot felicity shagwell , played by heather graham . 
this sounds stupid , i know , but in the movie it starts to make some kind of weird , off-the-wall sense , and it worked for me . 
then there's mini-me ( verne troyer ) , a . . . 
petite clone of myer's dr . evil , exactly 1/8 in size . 
troyer's persona alone gains the film an extra half-star , contributing to one particularly hilarious scene where he attempts to nibble on his own mini-mr . 
bigglesworth . 
just try to ignore the fact that , at 2'8'' , he would make dr . evil's height rise to just over 21 feet . 
no matter . 
however , there are only about four hearty laughs throughout the entire hour and a half ( the most notable being the now infamous tent scene ) , and that just isn't enough to warrant even a minor recommendation . 
if there is in fact an " austin powers 3 " , they should just kill off secret agent powers and put the emphasis on dr . evil and mini-me . 
unconventional , yes , but there's no denying that it'd make for a better movie .