DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I once promised never to walk out of any film ( a personal policy that made me suffer through the most different kinds of dreck, such as Rambo 3, Baise Moi, Deep Impact) - but Mr. Seidl almost succeeded. Hundstage was a truly awful experience. Anyone who sees this movie will think that Austrians are a miserable, pathetic bunch of retards. It shows a world where love and humanity don't exist, a world where people humiliate each other only for one reason - to distract from their own miserable existence. By choosing a documentary-like style with non-professional actors (most of them look like straight from the imagination of Austrian shock-cartoonist Deix) director Seidl wants to make us believe that this is real life in Austrian (European? Western?) suburbs. The viewer is confronted with depictions of sex orgies, violence against women and handicapped people, madness and degradation. But this isn't social criticism. This is just pure shock without any aesthetic value. Instead you get bad acting, bad cinematography, bad filmmaking. If anybody needs a film like this to realize that there are things wrong in our society then this person must have walked through life with closed eyes. This is pseudo-social criticism with a sledge hammer. And it looks down on people in a disgustingly condescending way. It shows ugly people - that is not the reason why I hate it. But it depicts average people in an ugly, misanthropic way. And this is why this film is truly despicable.

Sentiment: negative
Well, what's wrong with the title "Separate Lies" (accused elsewhere of not being "exciting"). It's cunning, subtle and a bit poetic. (Of course there's a Phil Collins song and a James Belushi film called "Separate Lives", which are alluded to here.) 

But the real point is the ethical dilemmas of telling lies at different levels that the film probes. OK, it's not an "in-your-face" hilarious title, but then it's not an in-your-face hilarious film. Please give British films like this a chance. They do try to make people think about important things, as here: how far do you go to protect your life (even if it is a bit rotten) against unexpected disaster. Maybe you tell lies. Maybe you ignore your loved ones' lies. That can wear a lot of people out. 

American movies on this theme are abundant, but they usually go much further by involving the use of firearms, which are not a part of everyday life here in Europe. 

Maybe we're not so "exciting" over here, but we don't expect slogan-like film titles for films that are not aimed at a massive public.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of those movies which get better with each viewing. I watched it three times and actually registered on IMDb because I wanted to comment on it. Movies "about food" have been done before, some of them are really good - as, for instance, a certain Japanese comedy which aficionados of Asian cinema will know anyway. But this one really is in its own league. At its core is a protestant Christian parable symbolizing the ideal of kindness but, far from being dogmatic, it also addresses the "good" in each and every of us, regardless of our religious beliefs or lack thereof. There is a pervading understatement and refinement in Babette's Feast but this makes the message of the movie, if anything, stronger, not at all weaker. If you cannot attend the extraordinary physical banquet offered by Babette, you're still welcome to this feast of the soul. Highly recommended!!

Sentiment: positive
I stumbled on to this site while looking for a video or DVD of the 1959 version Porgy and Bess with Sammy Davis as Sportin' Life. If anyone finds this on a home movie format please let me know. I talk to my daughters all the time about things that they think are new which, actually have already been done. We went to see a live theater of version a couple of years ago and all I could talk about was this film. Sadly my daughters cannot remember seeing Sammy Davis Jr. in any production, although they have heard of him. Needless to say, they're not familiar with the other great actors in the film. It is a major oversight not to have this classic film (because of the cast) on a home movie format for collectors and for future generations. Anyway, in my opinion this version was the best!

Sentiment: positive
I was aware of Man of the Year's critical pans and unremarkable gross, but was prepared to give the film the benefit of the doubt because I know good pictures can fall under the radar during the crowded release schedule of the Fall months.

What I found out was that the movie is surprisingly uninspired. Surprising is an understatement considering Barry Levinson's gift for political satire (demonstrated in Good Morning Vietnam and Wag the Dog) and Robin Williams' obvious comic gifts. Robin Williams, in fact, is mysteriously underused. On the "Making Of" featurette that comes with the DVD, Barry Levinson talked about how sometimes he let Robin Williams improvise off the script, like it was some naughty secret of his. Umare you really that much of a moron, Barry Levinson? Whenever you have Robin Williams in your film and want to use him for his comic abilities (basically, every movie he's been in other than Insomnia or One Hour Photo), don't cage him within a script. Let him ad-lib whatever he wants because he is the funnier than anything anyone else can write for him and his uncontained comic rants can instantly raise the bar on any mediocre movie like RV or Patch Adams. What I found even more baffling in his failure to make use of Robin Williams was that back in 1987, Levinson used this exact formula to perfection in Good Morning Vietnam, injecting Robin Williams' bursts of comic zaniness into a war picture to make a resounding political piece.

So the film isn't as much of a laugh-fest as it could be and feels awkwardly lost in its tone. If the film had potential to work as anything, it might have made one of those thrillers from the mid-'90s in the style of The Pelican Brief, The Fugitive, or one of those Jack Ryan films. Its plot centered around an employee at a Silicon Valley company uncovering a glitch in a system that reveals that the country elected the wrong president and the efforts of the CEOs to eliminate her before the secret gets out, so if you replaced Robin Williams with some Harrison-Ford-type actor, or perhaps even Harrison Ford himself, added a couple more explosions, and maybe that's where the movie was trying to go. I'll never really know and it's not worth it to try to find out.

Sentiment: negative
One of Bolls better attempts. Just shows that if you do something long enough you have to improve just by chance. It is still not good but it is at least watchable which is an improvement over the bloodrayne. The main difference between Bloodrayne and FarCry really is that the story from Farcry wasn't the games strong point whereas Bloodrayne had a strong story and thus Boll had more chance to mess it up.

The action in this movie is actually fairly good. Occasionally a touch overdone but in a good way and worth a watch just for that.

Acting wise it was pretty decent. Most of the actors are pretty good but you can tell they aren't taking it seriously based on comparisons with other performances. But the lighter mood this gives to the film actually helps.

While I think sticking a little bit closer to the story of the game might have made for a slightly better film the changes made are pretty practical and not big enough to make a difference. Especially given the plot of the game was hardly Oscar winning just a vehicle for FPS carnage. Would have liked it set in the Jungle as that was a pretty integral part of the game but Canada doesn't have a great deal of Jungle and it is at least set in a kind of rainforest.

Why Boll feels the need to change already professionally scripted and directed game plots I don't know but he does. And until he starts letting the source material speak through his adaptations will always be lacking. Watch the film for a laugh its good for that and maybe for watching during a party as drinking party fodder.

Sentiment: negative
I did not see this film in the theater. I confess to an anti-Vinnie Barbarino bias. Who the hell was John Travolta to be making movies? I remember the Oscar broadcast that year, with Travolta looking absolutely devastated when he didn't win. How dare he, when there were "real" actors in the running? I'm sorry John, you should have won. After catching this film on cable years ago, I fell in love with the entire movie. Bud, Sissy, Uncle Bob, Wes, all wonderfully done. I, also, confess to never passing it by when I channel surf. I HAVE to stop and watch. Over the years, I've learned to do most of the dialogue, dance with my thumbs in my waistband, and learned to appreciate Travolta more. The only disappointing thing to me was the oversight, on the soundtrack, of some of the music from Urban Cowboy. "Looking for love" defines the film, but Urban Cowboy was chock full of classics that DIDN'T make it to the soundtrack. It should have been a double CD........

Sentiment: positive
Why do people bitch about this movie and not about awful movies like The Godfather. Titanic is the greatest movie of the 21st Century.With great acting,directing,effects,music and generally everything. This movie is always dumped by all because one day some one said they didn't like it any more so most of the world decided to agree. There is nothing wrong with this movie. All I can say is that this movie, not only being the most heavily Oscar Awarded movie of all time, the most money ever made ever and sadly one of the most underrated movies I've ever seen. Apart from that it is truly the best movie of all time. The only movies that come close to being like all the Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings trilogy or anything by the masters Hitchcock or Spielberg or Tim Burton. These are all good movies and directors but none match up to James Cameron's Masterpiece TITANIC.

Sentiment: positive
This is a excellent start to the film career of Mickey Rooney. His talents here shows that a long career is ahead for him. The car and truck chase is exciting for the 1937 era. This start of the Andy Hardy series is an American treasure in my book. Spring Byington performance is excellent as usual. Please Mr Rooney or owners of the film rights, take a chance and get this produced on DVD. I think it would be a winner.

Sentiment: positive
This eloquent, simple film makes a remarkably clear statement about a teenager and his father. Though a theatrical release, it has a "made-for-TV" quality. We can attribute this to the director, John Frankenheimer, who learned his craft in the early days of live television in New York City. Indeed, he directed the teleplay on which the film is based, "Deal a Blow," on the CBS drama series "Climax." "Young Stranger" represents his Hollywood debut. After a hiatus of four years, during which he would do more television, he returned to direct "The Young Savages" with Burt Lancaster and, a year after that, "All Fall Down" with Warren Beatty and Angela Lansbury.

The casting is competent with James Daly and Kim Hunter (particularly good) playing the parents of the title character performed by James MacArthur (his first theatrical film) who played the same role in the television version which was his first appearance on the small screen. Look for James Gregory and Whit Bissell in supporting roles.

Sentiment: positive
Unless you are already familiar with the pop stars who star in this film, save yourself the time and stop reading this review after you've reached the end of the next sentence.

FORGET YOU EVER STUMBLED UPON THIS FILM AND GO WATCH SOMETHING ELSE.

But if you insist on reading, consider: 

Lame vehicle for Japanese teen idol pretty-boys featuring nonsensical, convoluted "plot" that drags out for an insufferable amount of time until you're ready to scream.

Nothing in this film makes sense. It's an endless series of people expressing various emotions, from joy to anger, from happiness to tragedy, FOR NO GOOD REASON. We can obviously see something incredibly "dramatic" is happening, but we just don't GIVE A CRAP WHY 'cause there's no backstory.

By the time this film is over, you will be sick and tired of these stupid, lanky, girly stars' faces. You'll be revolted at having spent all this time watching them smile, sneer, cry, look mysterious, be "serious," and any other pointless expression they slap on their faces.

That some moron would ever go so far as to refer to this piece of insipid trash as being the "soul" of any of its "actors" should prove to you beyond the shadow of a doubt what the trailer and countless adoring comments on this site will not tell you: 

Only the "converted," mindless minions will like this film, the majority of them teenage girls with a pathological adoration for anything androgynous. Freud would have a field day.

Unless you're one of these mindless "fans," stay the hell away from this abomination.

Sentiment: negative
me and a coupla friends form university - alberto lopez, dave hall, celina alcock (we graduated from uea, norwich, uk in 1997) still get together and watch b-movies once a month.

We are consummate experts in the art of bad movie-making, and this film was quickly placed in the top 10 of awful/brilliant movies.

so if you've just got the beers and weed in, and need a film to laugh like a drain at, DROID GUNNER aka PHOENIX 2 is the film for you! Marc Singer is totally aware he's in a turkey of a film here, and milks it for everything he can! Matthius Hues is sublime in his wooden acting and musclebound moronity (is that a word??) as he grunts "But I want my 20 thousand!" Pure Shlock Gold! If you liked this, also see: TRANCERS, THE RUNESTONE, DOLLMAN and anything by Charles Band or Fred Olen Ray.....(but be warned: some of their films are completely and utterly without merit and you'll be screaming for those lost hours of your life!!!?!).

Sentiment: positive
A man wakes from a nightmare about bats. He and his wife go out into the desert for a picnic on their honeymoon. He seems to hear a strange noise, and she is disturbed by the sight of a bat crawling across their picnic blanket. He wants to go on a tour of a cave, which has something to do with some kind of work he is doing, but she wants to enjoy their honeymoon. She relents. They go on the tour, but leave the group to make out. She falls down a slope, where she is disturbed by insects. He follows her. He hears the strange noise again, and seems to know a bat is approaching; one does, and gets in her hair. He fights it off her, and it attacks him, biting his forehead.

They get out of the cave, but when they are in a gondola at a ski resort, he starts having seizures in which he has hallucinations or visions of bats attacking people. He becomes angry when this happens. He's unable to drink alcohol without spitting it out. His wife worries about rabies, and he starts a Pasteur treatment for that, but reacts violently to the injection.

And then some people are killed. We see parts of the man's transformation into a bat person. It seems it is not just in his mind. Whether the bat bite causes these transformations is not clear, since he already was having some symptoms prior to the bite.

While the title seems inappropriate, the implication at the end is that the same thing is happening to another person. Not a very good movie, but I liked the variety of the desert, cave, and ski-slope locations, and some of the weirder scenes. I didn't think this was as bad as other people do, and I didn't think the 1999 movie Bats was as bad as others think either (I rated that one a 5/10).

Sentiment: negative
this was a real guilt pleasure ... i saw the trailer and all the advertising, so i figured 'why not check out this vh1 movie?' and, as they used to say on t.v., 'i can't believe i watched the whole thing!' quinn and harris were believable beatle boys, and, although the accents were sort of over-the-top and difficult to decipher at times, i found the dialogue believable as well. the film touched upon the tenuous relationship of len/mc and showed how, deep down, they were simply two guys who grew up close together and shared a passion for music - coming at it, though, with different sets of issues and personal needs. you find yourself wishing they'd hopped in the cab to snl for an impromptu reunion that would have knocked the world's socks off, but you also gain a greater appreciation for why they didn't

Sentiment: positive
Time and time again, I've stated that if people don't want remakes or sequels made, they should stop seeing them and instead venture into the world of independent film. Having said that though, the last time I saw an independent film myself must have been easily six months ago. So here's a review for an indie that I had my attention drawn to on Youtube; the Cure.

Right away, you can tell that the film is going for an avant-garde film approach which is telegraphed in its use of extreme close ups, scopophilia and fast editing. It is proud of the way it looks - and it has a right to be. For the most part it is a very nicely composed little piece, save for one inexcusable disregard for the 180 degree rule and a comically bad gunshot effect which is a phenomenon that seems to be THE calling card for self funded projects.

Still, despite these amateurish mistakes the majority of the shots are actually a pleasure to look at. We're presented with a good use of props and locations, good visual acting and some very atmospheric, fluid editing, which is made more commendable as this is definitely something you won't see very often at all from a Youtube submission. The plot is fragmented and although the basic premise is fairly simple some may find it hard to follow exactly what is happening, but what we are seeing here is avant-garde storytelling at work; you can't really expect a straightforward three act structure and if you do you might not be ready for this kind of movie.

Where the film is unfortunately let down however is the sound. What you're going to hear throughout is a distorted voice-over which often sounds insincere and worse still is the continuous background music, which goes through minimal change and doesn't add much to anything. So much attention is paid to the visuals that the audio frankly sounds neglected, and this becomes really apparent when you realize you've just missed about four sentences of the narration and have to backtrack to pick up what slipped past your attention.

So, give it a watch, but do it with the sound turned off.

Last thought; was anyone else reminded of the cover for Doug Naylor's Red Dwarf novel "Last Human" early in the film? If you have the book you know what I mean.

Sentiment: positive
When I saw the trailers I just HAD to see the film. And when I had, I kinda had a feeling that felt like unsatisfied. It was a great movie, don't get me wrong, but I think the great parts where already in the trailers, if you catch my drift. It went very fast and it rolled on, so I was never bored, and I enjoyed watching it. The humor was absolutely great. My first contact with a sloth (..or something like it).

Sentiment: positive
Whenever Hayao Miyazaki does the "tri-fecta," (writes, directs, and animates a movie) he makes a classic film for the ages. He has done it again with Gake no ue no Ponyo.

The story is about a girl fish who is kept on a very tight leash along with her younger sisters by her father, a bitter ex-human wizard named Fujimoto. The fish escapes from her father and rides a jellyfish to shore, where she is caught up in a dredging operation and finds herself stuck in a bottle. This underwater sequence must be one of the most elaborately drawn animated scenes ever undertaken and stands on its own as a reason to search out the theatrical release. Miyazaki, who shows no fear of having a busy scene, has outdone himself. There were literally hundreds of individually-drawn sea creatures of every imaginable size all in motion at the same time.

When the fish escapes the dredging operation while still trapped in the bottle, a five-year old boy named Sousuke spots her in the water and is able to break the bottle, saving her. Since she is the result of her father's magic, she is capable of magic herself--and her father actively tries to retrieve her. The boy names the fish Ponyo. Just when Sousuke learns that Ponyo can speak, her father successfully retrieves her back into captivity.

After a war of wills with her father, Ponyo manages to escape again with the ability to change herself into a human. She meets up again with Sousuke in a storm and the story continues from there in many interesting ways. There is a cuteness factor in this film rivaling and arguably surpassing that of Tonari no Totoro. Joe Hisaishi, once again, provided outstanding musical support.

The story itself is simple--as are Miyazaki's films in general--and should appeal to a broad spectrum of viewers. While I haven't viewed it enough to be sure, the film doesn't seem to be one which will keep scholars in long discussions as Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi did. Nonetheless, this is the ultimate feel-good entertainment movie. I gave the movie a ten out of ten rating.

Sentiment: positive
I ran across this movie on a local TV channel last night. Frankly, I have never heard about this movie before. Simply, I lost track of Seagual's recent movies, for each one is worst than the previous one. Here, again we have a dull Seagal as if he was insisted by his girlfriend to make this movie and he accepted forcefully. The plot is ridiculous, acting is below zero, and there is no single aspect the movie is not falling apart. I simply don't have any idea why Seagal did this movie. Man, it is even worst than "Out for a kill"! If you watch this movie you will start feeling sorry for Seagal. He seems to be running out of ideas, enthusiasm and money. Avoid this movie and do something worthwhile.

Sentiment: negative
It seems like anybody can make a movie nowadays. It's like all you need is a camera, a group of people to be your cast and crew, a script, and a little money and walla you have a movie. Problem is that talent isn't always part of this equation and often times these kind of low budget films turn out to be duds. The video store shelves are filled with these so called films. These aren't even guilty pleasures, they're just a waste of celluloid that are better off forgotten. Troma Entertainment is known for making trash cinema, but most of their films are b movie gold. However, some of the films they've put out they had nothing to do with making and some, like 'Nightmare Weekend,' didn't deserve any form of release at all. 

Pros: The cast members do the best they can with the lousy material. Some unintentional hilarity. Moves at a good pace (Should at 81 minutes).

Cons: Awful writing, which includes putrid dialogue and countless plot holes. Poorly lit, especially the night scenes and the ending, which you can't make out at all. Doesn't make a lick of sense. Badly scored. Cheap and very dated effects. Total lack of character development and you won't care about anybody. This is supposed to be a horror film, but it's lacking in that area and isn't the least bit scary. Nothing interesting or exciting happens. Loaded with unnecessary padding.

Final thoughts: I never expected this to be some forgotten gem, but I never imagined it would be this bad. I don't know if it's the worst film ever made, but it's a definite contender. Troma should have let this film rot instead of giving it a release. Don't make the same mistake I did and let your curiosity get the best of you.

My rating: 1/5

Sentiment: negative
This "tragicomedy" written by famous Serbian theatre/film writer Dusan Kovacevic is probably one of the best movies ever made in the comedy category. And yet, its appearance of a theatre play transformed into a feature film takes nothing of its value. A masterpiece one should not miss to see (preferably with subtitles, and not dubbed).

In an aged bus en route to capital Belgrade, a looming war decides the passengers' behaviour. Two Gypsy musicians sing of their miserable life but also foresee a tragedy to come; their singing both divides and connects stages in this extraordinary road movie (real life Kostic brothers are amateur actors, but together with Stanojlo Milinkovic as farmer who's plowed the road give a real-life performance).

The spectrum of characters gives a brilliant image of a society facing a war, an insight into nation's collective person: everyone is aware that war is just about to begin but they try to live their own lives the best they can, hoping that ignorance might avert the tragedy. Using a simple movie language, director Slobodan Sijan paints a picture of society torn by previous war (World War I), but also highlights personal portraits with success: provincialism of a singer, inexperience of the newlyweds, seriousness of the Great War veteran who is on way to visit his recently conscripted son, and gloomy predictions from a man who seems to be a German spy.

Brilliant in its narration, with memorable soundtrack (especialy the Gispsy songs) and adjusted atmosphere, well photographed and edited, this feature (Sijan's feature debut) was only an introduction into a series of the directors bitter-sweet comedies that will define Serbian cinematography of the 1980s: "Maratonci trce pocasni krug", "Kako sam sistematski unisten od idiota", and my other director's favourite "Davitelj protiv davitelja").

Sentiment: positive
This version of the Gulliver stories is definitely bizarre. The production adds a frame story (that's what it's becoming famous for) of Gulliver returning to his wife and son. In one vieweing, incredibly overlong and sometimes fails to hold attention throughout, but the odd images and diverse cast will keep you looking. Mary Steenburgen does the best job of the cast. Danson seems a bit out of place with his American accent. The whole asylum thing is awfully disturbing often, but is nonetheless interesting and holds the journeys of Gulliver together well. Danson's character really does seem insane, however... he should have worked on being a little more believeable to everyone, in my opinion. Also confusing is going from present to past. Anyone else think the Yahoos are the ugliest things ever to grace a television screen (or in line for it)? Confusing, sometimes boring, but still highlighted by some good acting, overall wonderful visual effects, and a few enjoyable parts. NBC's first of many event films from Robert Halmi, Sr. See it for yourself to decide how it goes for you, however I give it * * * 1/2 (out of 5 stars).

Sentiment: positive
This early film from director Bob Clark ("Porky's", "Black Christmas", "A Christmas Story") didn't really pump my nads like I expected. In fact, it straight up annoyed me. It's about a theater troupe who sail to a burial island, consisting of dead criminals, where they plan to conjure some evil forces and resurrect some corpses... The leader of their group, a conceited black-magic enthusiast and possible homosexual, attempts to summon Satan's help with the re-animation of an exhumed body, which fails so they take the corpse to the nearby, deserted caretaker's house and play with it... Nothing interesting happens until the last fifteen minutes or so when the undead finally spring from their graves and go after the desecrater's. The make-up effects are okay, the gore is VERY minimal (PG rating), and the extremely irritating characters are focused on way to much, which really got on my nerves. I guess having group of terrible actors bickering for an hour was suppose to equal some "comedic" status, yet I found no humor in it, whatsoever. The entire concept is just ridiculous - how these kids are willing to dig up and monkey around with a dead body for as long as they did. The characters are stereotypical and bland and the movie is just plain boring... Don't waste your time with it...

Sentiment: negative
Went to the premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival in NYC and I absolutely loved the film!!! I am Diane's #1 biggest fan and of course, as always, she gave a magnificent performance!! I have seen every single one of her movies and I must say that this is one of my new favorites. Diane was funny and moving and just took my breath away. Donald Sutherland was surprisingly humorous but also a good amount of serious. Anton Yelchin is just a wonderful young actor and gave an amazing performance. All in all, I recommend this film to anyone who can appreciate an excellent movie. 10 thumbs up!!! I would definitely go see it again and again and again. This is the best film of the year so far!!!

Sentiment: positive
If it was possible to give negative stars I would for this stinkburger.

Don't get me wrong I LOOOOOOVVVEEEE a good crappy movie. I am a big fan of films like Octoman, Wizard Of Mars, Queen King and others. Real classics of B-Cinema.

But this film actually makes Jack Nicolson and Boris Karloff in The Terror look like an academy award winner!! The Dialouge is so needlessly long-winded, and mostly inappropriately used. (ie. "I will now Condensened (yes, condensend!!) to your wishes. The acting might have been a lot better if they had some more logical lines.

The story? What story, A count is exiled because his wife had leprosy? I'm still not sure on that count. A (Rich?) Fleet one and the Captian of one of his ships crash on the island? People acting unnaturally? OK, I like camp in b-films a lot, there lies a lot of it's charm, but this was just dumb..plain dumb. A salty sea Captian who sounds as well versed as a college professor? A fleet owner who is as clueless as they come (I felt this guy had no idea of how to play it, one scene he's Spanish acting, the next English/European)? The count, who's not sure if he's a reincarnation or really DeSade (Don't ask me how DeSade figures into this, after 4 beers my wife, friend and I still couldn't figure it out.

The scare factor? I could show this turkey to my small grandkids and only worry about them sleeping through it. I like a lot of early 60's horror movies, and some still have good shocks, but this thing...never had a shock, or even a hint of of a scare.

On the info on the back it says, "This Movie contains scenes that are so vivid and degrading that they will surpass your worst nightmare." The ONLY degradation is WATCHING THIS MOVIE. It's 90 mins.(The case says it's 74 mins.) of your life you do not get back.

I paid only a buck, yes one buck, for this and another film. I still feel like I am owed .50 cents for even sitting though this.

To sum up Dungeon Of Harrow had NO ONE Named Harrow in it, but, it did have a lovely cardboard dungeon.

Sentiment: negative
John Wayne's first starring role just blew me away. Televised letterbox style on AMC, I had to check and make sure I had the right date. Sure enough, this 1930 film was made using a 55 mm wide-screen process. Aside from that, it features some of the grittiest, most realistic footage of the trek west I've seen. Wagons, men and animals are really lowered down a cliff face by rope. Trees are chopped by burly men -- and burly women -- so the train can move another 10 feet. The Indians are not the "pretty boy" city slickers who portrayed them later; they're the real deal. A river crossing in a driving rain storm is so realistic, it has to be real (In fact, I understand that director Raoul Walsh nearly lost the entire cast during this sequence). I could smell the wet canvas. Each day is an agony. The various sub-plots are forgettable but the film as a whole is not. I can't think of another title that can beat The Big Trail in evoking a sense of living history on the trail to Oregon. Bravo.

Sentiment: positive
The banter and humorous rescue scene help to make this one of my favorites of the 14-movie series. Wonderful acting, great cast. And this movie contains one of the few oft-noted facts about Sean Bean's career. The part where he and Alice Krige fall off the horse into the water was not scripted but was left in since they both went right on acting after it happened.

This is a good follow-up to the intense ending of Sharpe's Enemy.

Sentiment: positive
This show is unbelievable in that . . . what it represents and what it focuses on and . . . words cannot describe how insane ET is. They will report anything. If a celebrity is even remotely indirectly connected to the story ET will report on it. If a dog poop in the Tom Cruise's yard they will report on it. If a celebrity dies . . . they will talk about it for weeks on end to the point where the public envy that celebrity. If a celebrity is on trial . . . ET will report it for MONTHS on end. There is no end to what this show will reports and no time frame that dictates how long they will focus on a story. Is it even considered legitimates reporting? The reports are so dang annoying too, with harsh rambling voices and end with an unnecessary pause to convey a sense of important. I cannot watch this show without questioning humanity's existence. ET is one big reason I avoid pre-evening shows in general. I regret that IMDb can only allow a minimum of one star rating and not zero or even in the negatives. For this show deserve -10 Stars.

Sentiment: negative
Hadn't really heard too much about this movie so I went and saw it. I realized that this movie only appeals to someone who has not lived in the real world. And even those people would think this movie moved too slowly.

When the movie opens up, you see Nicole Kidman going to a nudist camp. Whoa. Shock. That scene, the dialouge, were all great. And then the movie went downhill.

While I respect the vision the filmmaker must have, this movie sucked. It was too slow, too predictable, and not moving enough. Robert Downey Jr. is great, as usual, but this movie is not good enough to sit through. It tries to be shocking and abnormal but makes poor use of the talents of all the actors.

Don't waste your money, even the sex scenes were boring.

Sentiment: negative
Either or, I love the suspension of any formulaic plot in this movie. I have re-visited it many times and it always holds up. A little too stylized for some but I fancy that any opera lover will love it. Norman Jewison, a fellow Canadian, takes enormous chances with his movies and his casting and it nearly always pays off in movies that are off centre and somehow delicious, as this one is. I have often wondered at the paucity of Cher's acting roles, whether she has chosen to minimize this part of her life or she does not get enough good roles to chew on. I have found her to be a superb actress who can retreat into a role, as in this particular one or be loud and daring and fierce as in "Mask". I found the comedic strokes broad at times ( a hair salon called "Cinderella")but this was the whole intent of both the writer and director. Nicolas Page plays the angst ridden tenor of opera, all extravagant gestures, at one point demanding a knife so as to slit his own throat. The Brooklyn scenes are magical, this is a Brooklyn under moonlight, romanticized and dramatic, just like opera. All in all a very satisfying film not to everyone's taste by a long shot, I loved the ending, everyone brought together like a Greek Chorus, every part subtly nuanced and blending with the others, the camera pulling away down the hall, leaving the players talking. 8 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
"The King of Queens" could be divided into two eras.

The first era, constituted of the first few seasons portrayed the issues of everyday life of a man and his wife making it through life in the city paycheck by paycheck.

The second era, increased the scope of the show, addressing current popular culture and marital issues with a humorous spin.

But besides all of that...

This show was freaking hilarious.

Kevin James, when not doing crap comedy films with Adam Sandler, is a genius of laughter, and his chemistry with Leah Remini was unparalleled on TV.

Jerry Stiller as the psychotic live-in father in law added his own unique style of quirky humor, and Patton Oswalt as the "man-child" Spence Ulchin was amazing, (he's a great comedian too) "The King of Queens" was the final sitcom of the 1990s to go off the air, and it's a damn shame. Now, all we have to watch are the idiotic sitcoms full of untalented actors and actresses whose only appeal is their physical appearance. I like many fans of actually funny TV shows am now in a state of mourning

Sentiment: positive
I found this film to be an utter dissapointment. The talent available to the director- notably Stanley Tucci, Chris Walken, Hank Azaria and Alan Arkin (without even mentioning the four main leads)- have been completely wasted on an unfunny, mediocre story, whose conclusion one couldn't really care about once introduced to the dire, stereo-typed characters. Julia Roberts is feeble, Zeta-Jones is just plain annoying (appearing to reprise her role from high fidelity, minus the humour), Crystal just plays his same old hyper-active, neurotic, annoying alter-ego and Cusack simply walks through his part, apparently bored with the whole project.

For what is supposed to be a 'Romantic comedy', there is absolutely no romance between the central characters, let alone chemistry, and as for the comedy- (possible SPOILERS)well, the only moments of mild humour came off the back of Cusack's role in Grosse Pointe and his relationship with Alan Arkin- the scriptwriter obviously unable to show any originality whatsoever. (Spoilers) Azaria was reasonably amusing as the Mexican lover and Walken did quite an amusing turn as a parody of an arthouse-maverick-Dogme type director- but these parts constituted very little screen time and instead (Spoilers) we were treated to Billy Crystal having his groin sniffed by a dog. Pure genius.

For a huge fan of the majority of John Cusack's work, not to mention the rest of the fantastic cast, I was completely let down by a film with plenty of good ideas, and at the same time completely unwilling to explore or elaborate on any of them, instead resorting to the same old genre cliches and even lowering itself to the depths of almost 'gross-out, teen-movie' humour at times.

A very poor 4/10.

Sentiment: negative
As with most Rosalind Russell movies, this one is very entertaining -- it's fun all the way through. It's definitely one of the last of this genre of film -- just good wholesome entertainment. Give it a try - I don't think you will be disappointed.

Sentiment: positive
Very low-budget police procedural film about homicide detectives trying to solve the murder of a woman whose body turns up in a stolen car in Central Park, and their only clue is a tattoo on her arm. Although released by RKO, this has the look of an independent production that was picked up by the studio for distribution. The cast and crew, with a few exceptions--among them a young and uncredited Jack Lord, director Edward Montagne and cameraman William Steiner--are comprised of complete unknowns, and it shows. The performances are universally sub-par and wouldn't pass muster in a high school training film, the direction is stodgy and choppy and, as mentioned previously, there's no chemistry whatsoever between the lead actors. However, despite the film's many shortcomings, it does have a few good points. The location shooting in New York City, and the film's ultra-low budget, gives it a gritty authenticity much like that of the far superior "The Naked City", a shootout in a dark basement is decently handled, and some of the investigating procedures are clever. Otherwise, it's not much to write home about. It is worth a look, however, for a glimpse at the seamier sections of New York City in the early 1950s, and old-car buffs will be ecstatic to see the legions of '30s and '40s cars in the streets.

.

Sentiment: negative
In what could have been an otherwise run of the mill, mediocre film about infidelity in the sixties (the subtle "free-love" period), the creators of this film pile on ridiculous scenario after ridiculous scenario and top it all off with a trite little cherry on top, happily ever after ending. At no time did I ever feel sympathy for Diane Lane or Anna Paquin in their troublesome middle-class care free life, nor did I feel for the emasculated Liev Shrieber. The story line plods along slowly to its predictable, pathetic conclusion and the only thing interesting and watchable about this film is the stunning Diane Lane topless. Here's a hint, it occurs about 30 minutes into the film. Fast forward to that part and skip the rest.

Sentiment: negative
Throughout this film, you might think this film is just for kids. Well, it is mainly pointed towards them, but it's also well-rounded enough with the jokes pointed also at the adults in the audience. This time around, the Muppet gang try to get on Broadway, with the dire straits keeping them from getting it produced, leading them to splitting up. But Kermit won't stop, and his determination keeps things moving along until after getting the deal together he gets hit by a car and sent into amnesia! 

It's a send-up, in part, of those old starring vehicles from the 40s with musicals actually as the topic of a musical, only here there's the usual lot of zaniness and wonderful moments thrown into a pot of hysterically funny moments (Lou Zealand's boomerang fish; Gonzo's water-stunt display, the whisper campaign, among many others), but also with a lot of heart too. The Muppet writers aren't shy of the conventions, on the contrary, they embrace them to the point where it's almost refreshing to see such a 'lets put on a show' story where through thick and think the characters will meet their dream. 

While not as totally original in scope as the Muppet Movie, it's got many catchy and memorable songs, excellent locations all over Manhattan, and even some intonations of inter-species dating (and marriage)! Cameos include Liza Minneli ("a frog?"), Elliot Gould (as the cop), Brooke Shields (propositioned by a rat), Edward I. Koch, Gregory Hines and Joan Rivers. So get ready to sing-along, or just have a lot of big laughs and romantic (yes romantic) times with one of the best Muppet movies.

Sentiment: positive
A warm, touching movie that has a fantasy-like quality.

Ellen Burstyn is, as always, superb.

Samantha Mathis has given many great performances, but there is just something about this one will haunt your memory.

Most of all, you've got to see this amazing 5-yr. old, Jodelle Ferland. I was so captivated by her presence, I had to buy the movie so I could watch her again and again. She is a miracle of God's creation.

Judging by the high IMDB rating, I'm not the only one who was mesmerized by this young actress.

Sentiment: positive
No one should ever try to adapt a Tom Robbins book for screen. While the movie is fine and the performances are good, the dialogue, which works well reading it, is crap when spoken. Or, to put it another way, no one would be likely to suggest that hearing someone else's name was like seeing it written in radium on a pearl.

Overall, the movie feels like a badly-adapted Cliffs Notes to the book - most of the parts have been hacked down to a fifth of their size in the book, in terms of backstory and current story, and the ending is wildly (and unpleasantly) different from that of the book. Most of the plots from the book have gotten lost, including the one that makes everything make sense at the end, and there's more than one reference that makes sense in the book that makes the viewer say "Huh?" Not a worthy effort, unfortunately - the script should have been read, compared to the book, burned, and all the actors sent off to do something far better. I admire Gus Van Sant tremendously, but not even someone of his calibre could have made a decent movie of such a complex book without making a miniseries.

Sentiment: negative
Years ago I did follow a soap on TV. So I was curious about this movie, and I was so rewarded for finding it. It's a marvelous spoof of soaps, with jealousies, the usual actors' insecurities, and all sorts of lovely excesses. But more than anything - an amazing cast and an incredible script. How did someone get all those top-notch actors to play in such a silly sort of movie? And how did this little movie get writers to write the perfect lines? I never hear anyone talk about this movie or even admit hearing of it, but it's marvelous and I highly recommend seeing it. Sometimes I'll throw it on while doing housecleaning, and end up sitting on the couch, watching, laughing and thoroughly enjoying the whole wonderful thing. Many congrats to all who made it.

Sentiment: positive
Although this was the first Hunter S. Thompson documentary I have seen it was average at best despite the involvement's of huge star appearances such as Johnny Depp, Bill Murray, Gary Busey, and a few others. I was let down by this and yet it was still a little interesting. What kept me watching was some of the old clips from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Where the Buffalo Roam. Not that good mostly because of the old guys rambling and things any fan would already know. I still think they were milking it because it could have been compressed down by at least half. Still if your a fan I would you'll like anything that has to do with hunter. best regards

Sentiment: negative
What is there to say about an anti-establishment film that was produced in a time of such colourless void, social indifference and authoritarian contentment. Cassevettes first major independent film was not an instant box office success and still has not received the critical attention it deserves. I draw comparisons to this wave of American independent projects consisting of such 'Beat' filmmakers as Robert Frank and Harry Smith with the burgeoning scene emerging in Paris in the late 1950's known as the French new wave.

They discussed poetry and philosophy and vulnerability at a time when the rest of the culture was obsessed with rediscovering American cultural supremacy; even at this stage this peculiar, highly spontaneous brand of filmmaking fought against the establishment of such political lexicons and bigots that held the development of the arts in check in the mid twentieth century.

Cassevettes film examines race relations and portrays man as weak in the face of love because we, as a culture, are blinded by our own race bias and prejudice. The great element to most of Cassevettes work is that his films have almost a reversal minimalist effect; a mental reaction is evoked through subtle character relations, not so much imagery. This is why his work seems to linger because he takes a more intimate approach to defining charcters that rely less heavily on explicit actions and more upon interpretation.

Although my favourite Cassevettes film is 'Husbands', this one is his most important.

Sentiment: positive
A surprisingly good movie! It has quite a few good jokes thru out the whole movie. The only negative thing is that some scenes go to the extremes to show just how stupid the two main characters are. We get it, stupid blondes, get on with it! 

The plot just barely dodges being called "corny". And boobies are always a plus altho the movie for some strange reason doesn't play with that card very much even tho the plot line introduces two black haired women who act as the evil counter part of our two blondes.

So all in all, a good movie to watch. I almost gave it an 8/10, but let's not get crazy.

Sentiment: positive