DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This movie is awful. It creates characters not in the book, and some of them are ethnic or racial stereotypes. Including an obnoxious little Jewish boy and a politically correct little black girl. Not to mention the Yiddish speaking elves. The book was a simple story about belief, and this movie is a dark, ugly, and needlessly scary movie about nothing.

The animation is superb, but the story has been ruined by Hollywood.

The good thing is that this movie will take a bath in the box office and maybe producers will learn to keep from tampering with a story that needs no improvement. Hanks was overdone and i don't see why there couldn't have been other actors' voices be used.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is simply wonderful! It's got it all: laughter, sorrow, beauty, poetry, truth. All in a simple yet intense story--like life! You won't get distracted for a second.

10/10

P.S. Somebody tell Hollywood you need a good story to make a good movie, and there are so many good stories out there.

Sentiment: positive
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Released in 1956,and considered quite racy at the time, Douglas Sirk's over the top candy colored melodrama is still a wonderful thing. The plot concerns the goings on in an oil rich dysfunctional Texas family that includes big brother Kyle, who is insecure, weak, wounded & very alcoholic, played by Robert Stack in a very touching & vulneable performance and his sluty sister Marylee played in an extreme manner by Dorothy Malone. Ms. Malone's performance is telegraphed to us via her eyes, which she uses to show us her emotions, which mostly consist of lust (for Rock Hudson) and jealousy (for Lauren Bacall). Malone is the only actress I've ever seen in movies who enters a room eyes first. Now don't get me wrong, her performance to say the least is an absolute hoot, and is one of the supreme camp acting jobs of the 1950's. But it is also terrible, because as likeable and attractive as Malone is,she's not a very good actress, and she's not capable of subtly or shading. Her performace is of one note. She does get to do a wicked Mambo,and in a great montage, as unloving daddy played by the always good Robert Keith falls to his death climbing a staircase, Sirk mixes it up with an almost mad Malone doing a orgasmic dance as she undresses. Stack,(who should have won an Oscar) & Malone, (who won the award, but shouldn't have) are the real stars of the film, the ones who set all the hysteria, both sexual & otherwise in motion, while the "real stars" of the film, Hudson & Bacall fade to grey & brown,which are the colors that they are mainly costumed in. Hudson who was a better actor then given credit for plays the childhood & best friend of Stack's, and the stalked love interest of Malone's who moans & groans over Rock through most of the film. But Hudson wants no part of her,and instead is in love with Bacall who is married to Stack. No one is very happy & no one is happy for very long. The Stack-Bacall marriage falls apart big time after a year, and Stack pretty much drinks himself into oblivion because he thinks he is sterile, and can't give Bacall a baby to prove that he's a man. Sirk who was a very intelligent man, and had a long & fascinating career both in films and theatre in Germany, ended his Hollywood career at Universal in the mid 1950's with a series of intense vividly colored "women's movies" or melodramas. Although they were mainly adapted from medicore or trashy source material,in Sirk's hands they became masterpieces of the genre. Sirk had a wonderful sense of color & design which he brought to play in these films filling his wide screen spaces with characters who played out their emotional lives among weird color combinations & lighting, make believe shadows, and lots of mirroed reflections. In "Written" the characters are always peeking out of windows, listening at doors or sneaking around. So in the end, after much violence, an accidental murder, a miscarriage & more Sirk ends the movie with a final & startling scene of a "reborn" and reformed Malone in a man-tailored suit, sitting at a desk foundling a miniature oilwell.

Sentiment: positive
Out of all the parodies of Star Wars I've seen, this is probably the funniest. Not because of the premise, Star Wars with simple electronics instead of spaceships, but because of how poorly acted it is. This is purposely overacted, and it makes it hilarious, and since everyone knows its purposely overacted, no one complains. The special effects were also purposely as awful as can be, and include a toaster on a visible string that shoots toast, and an egg beater on a string. This short is funny for any fan of Star Wars (which I'm not), or anyone that has 15 minutes to kill. Great short!! 

My rating: *** out of ****. 13 mins. Not rated.

Sentiment: positive
Did I waste my time. This is very pretentious film. In the beginning you will think there's something going on but by the time some 30 minutes go by you realize nothing is happening. I waited for another 20 minutes and by then i was so frustrated that I started reading reviews on IMDb and realized that the director has wasted precious time of so many people. 

Unbelievably boring pointless film. Stay away. So many good soundtracks. I will give one point for the police inspector joke because that worked for me. I laughed for a long time but otherwise a very bad film. Stay away.1 on 10.

Sentiment: negative
This shorter movie is the epitome the expected results when the imbecile runs the asylum. It is sad how the futures of these young people were rolled down a craps table when neither Saddam Hussein nor the people of Iraq, God rest the souls of the 350,000 plus that have been killed, had anything to do with terrorism nor al-Quida.

Following this movie the astute viewer will need to pick up or download a copy of "Loose Change." This movie is available free on the internet, until the Bush cabal locks it down, by googling-up the very title, as indicated in parenthesis.

God Save our country. This will not be done by following the Christo-fascists that controlled the Halls of Congress for over 10 years prior to November, 2006!

Sentiment: positive
I went to see this movie at our college theater thirty years ago because I liked Bruce Dern in Silent Running and Family Plot. To this day (sorry Jack Nicholson), it is still the dullest movie I've ever seen. It just went on and on with no discernible point and then - it just ended. The lights came up and I watched everyone looking around in confusion. Had the projectionist missed a reel? I've never had the urge to find out. All I remember about the movie is that it was a non-drama about some annoying college basketball players and their coach. The most enjoyable part of the movie was watching the totally mystified audience afterwords. Fortunately, this was just an exception for Jack, Bruce, and Karen Black.

Sentiment: negative
Another demonstration of Kurosawa's genius, his first colour film is a darkly surreal look into the tragic lives of Tokyo slum dwellers, essentially a series of interweaving vignettes depicting several groups of people eking out a perilous existence in a harsh and uncaring post-war shanty town. Swinging from comedy to tragedy and back, this film shows how people deal with the worst kind of life each in their own way, mostly retreating into themselves and living in the fantasy worlds of their own heads, withdrawing emotionally from those around them or drowning themselves in alcohol. Mixing kitchen-sink realism with Kabuki-esque theatrics, Kurosawa toys expertly with the emotions of his audience, drawing tears and laughter with equal deftness. A wonderful, draining experience.

Sentiment: positive
As many have detailed here with a level of seriousness that I find amusing, this is *not*: 

A FILM. (cue dramatic music) 

It's just a so-bad-it's good, totally surreal, Jackie Chan stunt-for-all. The women fighters are totally kick-butt and Jackie is definitely put in his place. 

This is the movie you want to see with some good friends on a Sunday afternoon -- surrounded by munchies, ready to roar with laughter, cheer on the good guys, boo the bad guys, and continually yell, "WHAT?" when something totally bizarre happens. Great fun!!

Sentiment: negative
(May contain spoilers) This movie is the epitome of weirdness. I rented it hoping for a film so bad it would be funny. However, I still honestly can't decide if this film was intended to be scary or humorous. It combines the emotions in a rather disturbing way. Apparently this is trying to be clever but in actual fact it isn't. For instance, when the knife comes out and tries to kill the teacher, it starts playing happy music. When we go to Toxico, we have up-beat, quasi-Mr. Roger's Neighborhood music. However, when the little kid's dreaming of falling in "blood" and when he finds the leg, these are clearly intended to be tense. So, watch this film, and decide for yourself. It is too weird to be described in words and for that I say, kudos.

"Nose-dive... WOW!"

Sentiment: negative
This isn't the best romantic comedy ever made, but it is certainly pretty nice and watchable. It's directed in an old-fashioned way and that works fine. Cybill Shepherd as Corinne isn't bad in her role as the woman who can't get over her husband's death. She has a sexy maturity. But I can't say much for Ryan O'Neal as Philip, because he is, at best, nondescript. He may be adequate in the role, but that's not good enough.

However, I get the feeling that some of the characters, particularly Alex and Miranda, are not written with enough in-depth thought. We don't know anything else about them because minutes after they appear the story gets thick, and the writers don't tell us much beyond what happens. But that problem was salvaged because Mary Stuart Masterson has a fresh-as-a-daisy sweetness to brighten it up, and Robert Downey Jr. is so charming that he melts the screen. Even his smile is infectious. And it so happens that his big dreamy eyes are perfect for the deja vu and flashback scenes.

Anyway, this movie is light and easy and if you like them that way, why not give it a try.



Sentiment: positive
I've seen this movie during a festival here in munich with a huge crowd of real fantasy fans. At about the middle of the movie one part of the audience was sleeping and the other part was booeing. Boring dialogues, badly choreographed fighting sequences, a terribly dumb story and even worse special effects. Well, at least the actors hadn't much to do, except for looking concerned or (in case they were female) showing their breasts in the right light. Even Götz Otto, who was among the audience admitted afterwards that ge could understand the disappointment of the viewers. Be warned, folks, of the cheapest fantasy movie ever........

Sentiment: negative
The Woman In Black is fantastic in all aspects. It's scary, suspenseful and so realistic that you can actually see it happening in real life. I first saw this on the TV back in 1989, and with all the lights off and the volume turned up, it was probably the most creepy experience of my entire life. I managed to get hold of a copy, and now, I make sure to bring it out every Halloween and show it too unsuspecting family members, who have no idea what they're in for, and all I can do is laugh with glee. As for the film:

It starts out with a young lawyer named Arthur Kipps, who is assigned by his firm to go to the market town of Crythin Gifford to settle the papers of a recently deceased client - Mrs. Alice Drablow. 

This film starts off as a reasonably solid and interesting ghost story. But then, Arthur attends the funeral, and from that scene on, we do not feel safe. We are constantly on edge and biting our nails, and that goes on for the next hour or so, until the final, thrilling finale.

A warning to all new viewers though: do not watch this alone...

Sentiment: positive
This film is about a teen who is struggling with his social status in school. He is a "Good Christian" and feels that he is missing out on all the fun in high school. So he wishes he had never become one. After getting his wish and trying a worldly lifestyle he realizes that his quality of life has been dramatically diminished and wants to go back to being the person that he was. Good family-oriented film with a positive message of being proud of who you are even if you're not the most popular.

Sentiment: positive
I have been a fan of Amanda's since All That, and she is still funny. Too me, it's as simple as that. If you like the Bynes, you will like this film. It's harmless fun and quite funny in parts. Vi's wacky Sebastian accent and mannerisms are entirely unrealistic but made me laugh so hard at some points I almost choked on my popcorn. 

And anything that gets teens reading Shakespeare (maybe) is a good thing for me. 

On a shallow note, Tatum Channing is quite *ahem* freaking hot. He also does a good job with some of the film's tougher scenes. 

Some of the side characters are VERY broad, but they are broad in "Twelfth Night" so it's cool.

Sentiment: positive
Neatly sandwiched between THE STRANGER, a small film noir picture that proved Welles can do a formidable genre work on budget and on time and ironically proved his biggest box office success in the forties, and MACBETH, a no-budget Shakespeare adaptation shot in old western shets in 23 days, comes THE LADY FROM SHANGAI, a dark film noir woven from the very same fabric of Wellesian mythos that covers THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, MR. ARKADIN and any other film the director didn't manage to save from the clutches of studio bosses.

Six years after THE MALTESE FALCON, with the post-war craze of the film noir in full swing, Welles, always ahead of his time, a true visionary director of tremendous artistic integrity, envisioned a labyrinthine world of shadows that is already darker, more sinister, paranoid and serpentine than anything his contemporaries were doing at the time. It's no wonder the movie was so misunderstood at its time, to the point that one full hour of footage was forever left in the cutting room floor, and it was once again Europe that championed it as another Welles classic.

Certain set-pieces stand out. The aquarium scene with its flickering light and ominous shadows, and of course the Funhouse/Hall of Mirrors finale that is as classic a piece of Wellesian bravura as any in CITIZEN KANE or THE TRIAL. The only faults I find with the movie is Welles' ill-advised Irish accent and perhaps some of the erratic editing in the first act. The story however unfurls in a progressively mesmerizing manner, which the cuts only serve to intensify. I believe the heavily chopped versions of Shangai and Ambersons attain a surreal quality for that matter.

Welles would exile himself in Europe for ten years and return in 1958 to deliver yet another stonewall classic, the monumental TOUCH OF EVIL, perhaps the crowning jewel of the film noir that was already in its waning days by that time. Shangai was not the box office success a star vehicle for Hollywood's premiere star of the time, Rita Hayworth, ought to have been, and Welles marriage with Hayworth ended before the movie was even released. Sixty years later and one hour of footage less, Shangai is still one of the best film noir pictures one is likely to discover. Surely that must count for something.

Sentiment: positive
I began watching this movie with low expectations, as a matter of fact i only noticed it because it was an adaptation of a S.K. novel ( a novel i never read).

I'm glad my expectations were low because the movie wasn't nothing close to good, but it manages to keep you interested. What really drags this story down is the work done by the director and the actors. The movie is overlong, hasn't no "nice" shots and no scares, the dialogs are dumb and the special effects are crap.

The only things good are that, as i said, it keeps you interested ( i guess the book must be good) without using much horror cliches.

My Vote 4/10.

Sentiment: negative
This film is just another waste of time. The plot is ridiculous, forced USA drama. The characters were all really weak, especially the uncharismatic Goya and the bad interpretation of Bardem, who only was alright in his classic interpretation, when acting as french ally.

Just another chance lost of have spent the money in a good film. I guess it was no a low budget film. Definitely not recommended. Maybe the director's should think a bit whether the film has sense or not before wasting so that money. Maybe they do not bother as they have profits before launching them in the cinema.

No more hope in cinema...

Sentiment: negative
I used to think that "It Came from Hollywood" was the worst movie I had seen that showed clips from horror, sci-fi, crime and drama movies. Of course, I hadn't seen THIS beauty yet.

What's wrong with "Terror in the Aisles"? Four things:

1) It assumes that most of the great moments in shock cinema history began in the '70s when directors like John Carpenter and Brian De Palma came along. And what bones are thrown to the true classics (i.e. - the black and white films) like "Frankenstein", "Dracula" and "The Wolf Man" are either shown with Martin and Lewis or Abbott and Costello alongside or not at all!

2) The clips are most times so brief and out of their originals' place that they just give a momentary shock to the viewer and, for those unfamiliar with these films, will make no sense at all (indeed, the moment where the shark jumps out of the water at Roy Scheider in "Jaws" is shown much to the effect of a sight gag. Whereas, in the original's context, it had power.)

3) Did we really need Pleasance and Allen in the audience reminding us that "it's only a movie" or that most of the violence in the horror movies "is, sadly, against women"? So, is that an indictment against the movie-makers for adding those scenes or the movie-goers who tromp into the theaters and watch the same kind of fodder time and again? Sorry, that's a whole can of worms to open for a more deserving movie.

4) And most importantly, why is the movie so SHORT? It isn't like there wasn't enough of these kinds of movies to use. If they had just opened up their resources and used EVERY available film, they could have had a "That's Entertainment!"-style movie that would have been comparatively more entertaining. Heck, even drag out Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing (Cushing was alive then, mind you) and better yet, even Vincent Price would have been more than willing, I'll bet! What a cheer THAT would have gotten from the audience!

But no... all we're left with is a dreary little flick that pretends to pay homage to these movies but all it does is leave the viewer feeling cheated out of less than 90 minutes with which they could have went and watched a REAL movie. Don't get me wrong; it was good to see what clips they did show, but if they could have just done more with the goods!

Two stars. Another good idea left laying "in the Aisles".

Sentiment: negative
Helen (Kate Capshaw) owns a bookstore in the sleepy, coastal town of Loblolly by the Sea. Divorced, Helen has a young daughter who is going to camp for the summer, giving mother a bit more freedom. Working at Helen's store are the manager, Janet (Ellen DeGeneres), a man-crazy village-gossip girl who has eyes for the handsome fireman, George (Tom Selleck), and two young college students, Jennifer (Julianne Nicholson) and Johnny (Tom Everett Scott). One day, Helen stumbles across a romantic, tender love letter and she suspects that Johnny has written it for her. Throwing caution to the wind, Helen and Johnny begin a small-time "thing". But, the letter subsequently lands in others' hands, including Janet's, who thinks George has sent it to her, and Johnny's, who imagines Helen has penned it for him. And, on and on the letter goes. But, in truth, George possibly has eyes for Helen and Jennifer has fallen hard for Johnny. The town's museum curator, too, may have a secret love. Will tangled affairs like these ever straighten themselves out? This is a cute movie with a gorgeous setting and capable stars. Each of the main actors gives a pleasing performance, including the addition of Blythe Danner and Gloria Stuart to those mentioned previously. Then, too, the coastal scenery is most lovely, the costumes quite well-chosen, and the photography very nice indeed. There are a few surprises, including a subtle gay plot development, which may not please all viewers. But, for those who love romantic comedies, this one should be included on any list of good choices for the genre.

Sentiment: positive
Every movie critic and metal head hated this movie but I enjoyed it. I saw this as a child on TV somewhere and was amazed by the scene where Sammi comes on stage and plays Trick or Treat by Fastway.

The movie itself was typical 80's, guy gets pushed around by bullies and enlists supernatural help to beat up the bullies but goes to far and has to be destroyed.

Matt from Melrose Place picks on Skippy from Family Ties so Skippy gets a record of Tony Fields from Gene Simmons to comfort him and all hell breaks lose, the highlight being where Tony sings (lip-synchs) and dances to a metal song before the shyt hits the fan.

There were a lot of errors and stuff but the music and the overall imagery was enough to keep my fists pumping 8 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
I can remember a college professor commenting as to how disturbing this film was, reflecting the apathy of adolescents (this was before Generation "X").

In a way, most of us are products of the same consumer culture; these high school kids spend their time drinking, getting high and wondering what to do about the body left on a riverbank.

What would they do today? Would things be different?. Some very important questions. There are some excellent scenes with Keanu Reeves, and the dysfunctional family he lives with; his 11 year old brother going out to get wasted; the mother has no idea what to do- spends her time drinking with her boyfriend.

This film was a bit before its time in that it addresses the problems in lower class American society; these kids had no outlet; what is available for them in this dirt-water town? . All in all a few interesting social commentaries are presented, and there are no solutions. 9/10.

Sentiment: positive
i was intrigued to see how a little-seen 2008 film had somehow won the Oscar for best picture of 2009 and thus went to see The Hurt Locker. sadly, all i got for the two hours invested was the grim confirmation that this film had won awards purely for off-the-screen reasons.

the direction and visual style of this film is some of the weakest you will ever see. when it's not busy being yet another Bourne Identity homage with dire, annoying "shaky cam" visuals, it shows off all the hallmarks of a second rate daytime soap opera in terms of lensing.

the "plot" is threadbare, the characterizations are about as well developed as rejected Beetle Bailey comic strip ideas and the dialogue - on the instances where the film gives up on being "minimalist" and for no apparent reason turns one or two soldiers into right chatterboxes - is some of the worst ever recorded. in fairness, the actors do the best they can in the circumstances, just not enough to obscure how bad the project is.

the whole film has the feel of it being intended as some kind of "mockumentary" that they clocked was bereft of humour and thus re-edited as best they could so as to pass it off as a serious drama.

if you spend two hours on this film they are two hours you will never get back, and two hours wasted that you will regret for the rest of your life.

Sentiment: negative
How important is the director, anyway? In this film, made in the politically tumultuous times of the late 60s where questions of social organization were prime conflicts, asks that question by making a movie that turns the camera away from the action and only begs to reveal the director, William Greaves. It is an important work, as it shows like no other movie shows the difficulties in blocking, organizing, and setting the scene; it reveals the role of the crew, something most directors frankly would like to disappear completely and that the invisibility of is essential for suspending disbelief; and it also puts into consideration the role of performance and scripting and how they match/don't match reality and what that has to say about how the director ultimately influences reality (if at all).

The documentary, or pseudo-documentary, or fictional narrative (whichever you prefer, via your interpretations of the themes) has its brain in the over-educated, over-intellectual crew, its guts in the lost performers struggling to understand the vague and ambiguous directions, and its heart in the director, who stands in as the desire to portray, to represent, to express without any idea how to do any of those things or why he wants to do it. It's a film that purposefully repeats banalities just to see if they can become more than banalities. It's a film that sometimes shows the multiple shots simultaneously, just to leave the editing to the audience and also reveal how disturbingly different shots change perspective.

It's an important work, and something that everyone interested in the industry and process of film-making should watch and understand. It, like many experimental films, has no real mass-audience appeal--it's not for them. It's for the industry, and its for the 60s, asking what to do with a group-effort medium that still relies on a single "voice" and "author".

--PolarisDiB

Sentiment: positive
This is a badly made, poor remake of Bimalda's classic Parineeta. The story is based on Sarat Chandra's book of the same name and it is a distortion of the original. Well one can appreciate some degree of creativity but not sham creativity. The acting by everyone is affected and the entire movie is a sham. Shekar's father's choice of words in abusing Lolita ( Balan ) sounds cheap and morbid and destroys the spirit of the original story. Again the scene where Shekhar ( Saif ) slaps Lolita is quite out of place with the flow of the movie and the characters, is quite jarring to the senses, and could have been easily avoided. Similarly the sex scene between Saif and Balan is quite unbecoming the movie and a cheap gimmick to attract the audience. When a creative work is not faithful to the original and destroys it's spirit, the work falls apart. The song "piyu bole" is quite OK. Another silver lining in the dark cloud of this movie is the scene where Saif stands up for himself and rebels against his father. This is a positive departure from the original and deserves credit. On these counts this movie deserves 3 stars. The song and dance by Rekha smacks of artifice and it is a put on. The song is tuneful but I remember having heard it somewhere before and if Iam not mistaken the tune appears to have been plagiarized. 

Well, agreed the times have changed from then to now. But then this movie is not even reflective of the modern times.

This is what happens when the modern Bollywood film makers get increasingly obsessed with impressing the NRIs and grabbing the lucrative NRI entertainment market. Such movies end up neither belonging to India nor to any other part of the world.

Sentiment: negative
I really liked this movie, it totally reminds me of my high school days. The soundtrack is awesome. I am a huge nic cage fan and this is my favorite movie that he is in. I love the storyline, it is a total love story, against the odds kind of thing. I think anyone who graduated in the early eighties (1980-1984) should see the movie. It totally brought back memories of high school for me.

Sentiment: positive
GOJOE takes a little getting used to at first, but the final result is very satisfying. The tale, about a murderous samurai who seeks to redeem himself by opposing an effeminate, but dangerous samurai, is worth more than a watch. There is a lot at stake here, from physical survival to soulful salvation. The movie may seem a bit similar to other anime-inspired Samurai film at first, but it does eventually delve into more mature/adult territory soon after.

Not to be missed. GOJOE is one of the better samurai movies to come around post-Kurosawa.

8 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of the movie and reviews of other foreign films)

Sentiment: positive
"The Invisible Ray" is part science fiction and part horror. It was also the third of seven Karloff/Lugosi features. In this entry the dominant role goes to Boris Karloff.

Through specially designed astronomical equipment, Dr. Janos Rukh (Karloff) demonstrates to colleagues Dr. Felix Benet (Bela Lugosi), Sir Frances Stevens (Walter Kingsford), his wife Lady Stevens (Beulah Bondi) and their nephew Ronald Drake (Frank Lawton), that a meteorite containing a powerful element, landed on the African continent many millions of years in the past. Rukh impresses his guests who invite him to accompany them on an expedition to Africa to find the mysterious element.

Rukh goes off on his own and discovers the place where the meteorite landed and the element which he names "Radium X". Due to Rukh's long absences, his comely young wife Diana (Frances Drake) becomes attracted to Drake and the two fall in love. Meanwhile Rukh becomes contaminated by Radium X to the point that anyone he touches will die instantly. The contamination causes his skin to emit a bright glow in the dark.

Rukh goes to Benet for help. Benet devises an antidote which if taken on a daily basis, will provide temporary immunity to the element. Unfortuneatly, the deadly element also affects Rukh's brain, slowly turning him into a vindictive murderer.

While Rukh is continuing his work, Sir Frances takes news of the discovery back to France. Diana and Ronald accompany him. When Benet informs him of this action, Rukh accuses the party of betraying him and his discovery and secretly plans his revenge. When he returns to France he learns of the healing power of Radium X as he cures his mother's (Violet Kemble Cooper) blindness and of Benet's work in curing the maladies of his patients.

But Rukh's madness intensifies. First he murders an innocent man whom is identified as Rukh. Upon hearing of Rukh's apparent demise, Diana and Ronald marry. This angers Rukh and he begins to exact his revenge on the five other members of the expedition. One night he is lured into a trap set by Benet and...........

Karloff is excellent in the lead role moving from a happily married ambitious scientist to a raving maniac. Lugosi has a straight role for once and does what he can with the limited part.

At 79 minutes this film was the second longest of the six Karloff/Lugosi collaborations. Karloff's film all the way.

Sentiment: positive
The first thing I noticed about this movie was how well everything was set up. A quality movie all round. 

I suppose you could love this film just for its action, but I liked it for more than that.

This is a pure thriller/horror movie. It offers a more fully-fleshed script than most horror films do. I thought, at least the U.S. version, ended brilliantly, and was great throughout. The story felt honest and brutal.

The film has an excellent, tight script that keeps the action moving, with believable characters in largely believable situations.

Sentiment: positive
Full House came to me when I was about 9. I remember seeing re-runs of America's Funniest Home Videos with Bob Saget, and one day my mom told me that he was also in a show called Full House. One day, I was lucky enough to catch an episode while visiting family. It didn't seem too interesting at first, but as I watched more and more, ever night at 9:00, I would just be so into it.

This show really makes you want to be there yourself, hang out with the girls, go places with them, and maybe even join in their little family "sing-alongs".

The thing I like most about Full House is that it's a great show for kids AND adults of all ages. There will be some parts that are more for adults, then parts that are meant for kids, so that the whole family will enjoy it. No matter how cheesy it can be, it's still a great show, and I would definitely recommend it to anyone.

10/10

Sentiment: positive
Despite the famous cast this animated version of Dickens tale is the borest I've seen. Enough that I zapped away in he first commercial break. The characters didn't appeal to me at all and the animation is looking cheap.

I'll give this movie a very low rating. Give me the Disney version anytime.

Sentiment: negative
Recently had the pleasure of seeing this emotionally charged film by Director Mani Ratnam at the 2002 Toronto International Film Festival. I have bestowed my highest honour of the Film Festival on this feature. Make sure that you do not let an opportunity to experience this cinematic gem pass you by ... but be forewarded: this film will make you shed a tear if you belong to the species known as homo sapien! A 10 !!

Sentiment: positive
HANA-BI has many quiet moments and fairly slow pacing. Unfortunately, during the many thoughtful interludes the viewer is left to ponder about the recent scenes just watched and many questions surface and annoy.

For example, why didn't the wheelchair guy drown in the ocean when he was stuck in the sand and the tide came up around him? There was no rescue seen or hinted at.

Can it be true that Japanese police are so inept and unskilled at arrest procedures as to not first remove the suspect's ability to reach for a weapon? These detective-level Japanese police seemed to have no experience dealing with a suspect.

Why doesn't the right eye of the lead character blink? Having one eye blinking was distracting and it went unexplained.

What exactly was the lead character spending all his money on to have to borrow so much from loan sharks? He was not seen gambling. Being a non entry-level government employee his wife must have had full health insurance.

What was the single man doing all by himself in the middle of nowhere in the nature park? What was his reason for being there?

How in the world could the gangsters find the lead character and his wife up in the far off nature reserve? It made no sense.

And again, how could the gangsters later find the lead character and his wife up in the remote Mt. Fuji resort? There were absolutely no clues available for these gangsters to even know which country the lead character and his wife were in, let alone the correct specific location at the correct specific time!

And a third same question, how could the junior detectives know which few feet of the Japanese coast line to find the lead character and his wife? The Japanese coast line must be vast. Were all of these characters supposed to have psychic powers?

Two final questions: The cute girl trying to fly a kite on the beach -- WHERE did she come from? She seemed to have no transportation or companions with her. And why in the world did she still keep attempting to fly what was left of her kite after it was ripped in pieces?! This was weird. Unintentionally Python-esque.

On the positive side, I loved the background music. It was dramatic and flowing and added much to this movie. The photography, imagery and art were pleasing to the eye.

One final point, the wife was overly pleasing to the eye. Not once did she ever come close to looking like a dying sick person. She looked very healthy. If anything, these people seemed depressed and mentally ill and not physically sick. The husband treated his wife as perhaps a newly outed gay man would treat a respected wife... a love of friendship, but not close tenderness.

A mixed movie for sure.

Sentiment: negative
OK....so, by minute 15 in the film, there's still no dialogue.

This film arrived to me in a padded sack from Down Under, with Sharpie encrypted info on the front. I am a programmer from a North American fest, and MOD LOVE was sent thru to me by our chief as a potential starter having preem'd at the far-away Moscow/Karlovy Vary interface.

Straight away I thought "this film is not for us" (no dialogue by minute 15??) but kept watching anyway. Well, well, well. It built and built and built, and half way in I was involved in this film, because, like when you go to the zoo, at first you're reticent, but by the time you get to the dangerous snakes bit, you're totally 'there'.

This film has a dangerousness, not at all like the much hyped WolF Creek, but because it is so totally 'other' in every way shape and form, and seems to weave a web made up of all the fantasies of most independent first-time helmers ie. - gloomy weather, red-neck intrigue, odd splicing, eerie music, and a plot which, though imperfect and basic, has a bit in common with one of the 'great Aussie Movies' ie The Cars That Ate Paris, by Wier. But MODERN LOVE is actually not really a very Aussie movie in the sense of Ocker-ishness and playful self-deprecation that pervades many of that country's films. It works on a more nightmarish realm from the start. No cell-phones, no brand names, no i-pods, no gritty urban middle/class angst - just a dude married to a good-looker, an old Volvo, and a little boy (son) who has weird teeth and chucks stuff around. Oh and it's set in weird sea-side village where people all look slightly 'wrong.' Photographed by Nick Matthews (2:37) and music by Tom Huzenroeder (Ten Canoes) MOD LUV succeeds where many Aust. movies fail - ie it stands up without regard to the "god-forsaken" country that it comes out of. Instead, it revels in a warped but entertaining riddle which the film itself cannot solve - and herein lies the weak link...what on earth does this film have to do with "Modern Love"???? The final minutes of the film seem to give an answer, or at least hints at one....and as I sat and drank a coffee and ate my Hershey's afterwards, all that I could surmise was that this film's helmer, Alex Frayne, will prob have a lot of fun with this one./

Sentiment: positive
This odd little film starts out with the story of Bruno (Alex Linz) in a catholic school who has no friends and gets beat up everyday. He likes to wear dresses and his obese mother Angela who is a dressmaker doesn't think their is anything wrong with what her son likes. Angela complains to Mother Superior (Kathy Bates) but gets ignored and as the two of them walk back to they're car they are harassed by the other kids and are pelted with eggs. Bruno's father Dino (Gary Sinise) is divorced from Angela and is totally disgusted by his son being a sissy and practically disowns him. Bruno meets a new student at school named Shawniqua (Kiami Davael) who is a free spirit and dresses like Annie Oakley with cap pistols. Angela has a heart attack and Bruno's grandmother steps in to take care of him when Dino refuses.

The film starts out with a very hard and unsympathetic look at all the characters involved. Angela has a great deal to do with Bruno wearing dresses as she practically encourages him. Dino was told when he was a young boy by his mother that he was a sissy because he liked opera and now he refuses to help Bruno when he needs it. The catholic school that Bruno attends is very unruly and all the kids run rampant and even call Shawniqua the "N" word. Once Shirley MacLaine steps in the film shifts and becomes more family oriented (So to speak). ****SPOILER ALERT**** The ending after the spelling bee is incredibly contrived and "feel good". Hugs and cheers for Bruno as reporters follow him and take his picture for their papers. All the while Shirley MacLaine is acting like the "tough old broad" who snaps at everyone. There is one thing about MacLaine's character in the film that no one has mention in these comments and it has to do with the masculine nature of her. I think the character of Helen might be a lesbian! She's very tough and strong and at one point in the film she shares a shot of whiskey with Bruno and smokes a cigar at the same time. I don't remember anyone in the film mentioning who her husband was or if she was ever married at all! This is why I think her character might be gay. Lots of other good actors appear in the film as well. Joey Lauren Adams, Jennifer Tilly, Brett Butler, Gwen Verdon and Lainie Kazan all should have taken a better look at the script before they signed on. I guess when they heard that MacLaine was directing that it would be an honor to be part of it. Very difficult to feel any remorse or understanding towards any of the characters and the subject matter is probably impossible for most to relate to. The actors are not bad but what exactly was MacLaine aiming for? Tolerance towards a young boy who wants to wear dresses and freedom of expression? We get that in the first 10 minutes, the rest of the time I was trying not to cringe.

Sentiment: negative
This is yet another tell-it-as-it-is Madhur Bhandarkar film. I am not sure why he has this obsession to show Child moles***ion and g*y concepts to the Indian filmy audience, but I find some of those scenes really disgusting! What's new? It is a nice piece put together by Bhandarkar, where he shows the story of an entertainment reporter played by leading lady in the famous film, Mr & Mrs Iyer. What makes this movie different is, that it also covers the stories of people that this reporter interacts with or is friends with, such as her roomies, her colleagues, film stars, models, rich people and others featured in the Entertainment Page#3 in her newspaper.

Noticeable: It is another good performance from Mrs Iyer. She is likely to be noticed for this role. She does selective roles but shines in them. She is noticeably de-glamorized and less beautiful in this film. But then, entertainment reporters are not supposed to outshine the people they cover, right? Verdict: Madhur has come up with another good movie, that brings social issues to the limelight very nicely. However, this movie loses focus and one is not sure what the director is trying to convey.

Is he trying to show us the glitz and glamor of the rich people? or is he trying to show us the life of an entertainment reporter and contrasting that with the life of the REAL crime reporter? Is he trying to tell us how the government and rich folks rule the press? or is he trying to illustrate the issues with child abuse and g*y folk. The other concepts brought forth include the unwritten rule that young women have to sleep with directors or co-stars, if they wish to enter Bollywood.

In addition, he talks about how flight assistants get sick and tired of their jobs after a while and resort to extreme measures by marrying much elder people, etc. He also talks about unhappy women and spoilt kids in rich families.

This was all okay for me.. but might be too complex for an average movie-goer, who just wants to relieve some stress from day to day work

Sentiment: positive
I actually went to see this film in a theater, but what a complete waste of time and money! Bad acting, I'm sorry to say, did not help to enjoy this rather sticky screenplay.

Some friends told me to go and see this film, since James Redfield, the author of the book, was very heavily involved in the screenplay. They had really enjoyed the book, so the movie just had to be perfect. Well maybe I had my hopes up a bit too high, but I absolutely hated this movie! It was predictable, too sweetish to a point that I actually left I had to vomit and worst of all there is going to be a sequel! Do the world a favor and stop this abominable crusade.

Sentiment: negative
The dead spots and picture-postcard superficiality of "Out of Africa" just about buried any interest I might have had to read Isak Dinesen. So when my brother bought me "Babette's Feast," and knowing it was based on a Dinesen story, I didn't exactly race to the VCR. But as the titles rolled, it became clear that this was no ordinary movie. Jutland (where it's set) is not Africa; the chill mist that collects on the camera shots is not inviting. The cold, forbidding sea; the heavy, gray clouds; the pale, icy green cliffs--translate to hardships that show on the faces over which director Gabriel Axel draws the curtain. The craggiest is Bodil Kjer's as Philippa; amid the myriad merits of this movie, the most memorable is that face. It stands like a map laying before us the cherished wonder of her minister father's apostolate; like a maze of long-overlooked fjords where the complications of her congregation's perseverance and commitment hang like gleaming escutcheons.

I gather it's Dinesen's point how the world is drawn inexplicably to Christian dedication, when Philippa is rejected by her only serious suitor (because he fears he'll never measure up to the rules and rigors of her small religious clique), and he returns to find her mistress of whom he regards as the greatest chef on the continent. I figure it's also her point that Christ answers the doubts and regrets of those who give up worldly success (Philippa's sister Martina rebuffs efforts by a visiting baritone (Jean-Philippe Lafont whose jolliness creates an uplifting counterpoint to the sparsity of spirit that surrounds his discovery) to turn her into an opera star; the title character leaves France and an enviable reputation and seeks sanctuary as the servant of two spinster sisters) to pursue artistic triumphs for only God and those closest to Him to witness. But it's Axel who weaves the asperity of these people's lives with the richness of Martina's voice and Babette Hersant's table and effects a sumptuousness you'd never expect from a movie about sacrifice, faith, and religious conviction.

What sets this movie apart from other religious movies is its sly humor. "Babette's Feast," that is, the banquet itself--a posthumous commemoration of the minister's 100th birthday--is a beautifully orchestrated clash of sensibilities that delivers comic moments by an ensemble of actors that are unparalleled in their subtlety. It's just this deft comedy that enriches the solemn sentiments at closing. Together they do something pious movies seldom do. They leave a believer tremulously hopeful and unexpectedly resolute and humbled.

Sentiment: positive
From the critical acclaim, I expected more from this movie and from Tamara Jenkins. The story just meandered along and didn't seem to have a point or a plot. And I find it hard to believe that a 14 year old girl (mature for her age or no) would be so blase about getting the loss of her virginity "over with." Maybe I am too young to relate (I was four years old in 1976), but I didn't have any problems connecting with the stories of Shakespeare in Love or Life is Beautiful and I wasn't alive for either of those settings. The cast is very good but unfortunately for them the script did not alow them to engage the audience. Overall, Slums had its moments but unless you are yearning to reminisce over halter tops and tube socks, I would say skip this one.

Sentiment: negative
****SOME SPOILERS****

There's nothing in this movie that you haven't already seen browsing the net. Nothing is shocking about this film. In the film a man sodomizes a goat, there's a bulldozer decapitation, and a lesbian's face gets burnt off. All of these scenes of "extreme violence" are so fake, it makes one wonder why anyone would even want to resurface this piece of trash. I simply cannot believe I spent hard earned money on what certainly has to be the worst film ever made. Don't let reviews fool you, this film would be a shame for ANYONE to own...except maybe prisons who want to torture inmates. For a REAL exploitation classic, look to Bloodsucking Freaks or even the more recent Doom Generation. Island of Death sinks to the bottom of the movie toilet and needs to be flushed out of existence.

Sentiment: negative