DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
WE FAW DOWN 

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Sound format: Silent

(Black and white - Short film)

Stan 'n' Ollie get mixed up with a couple of floozies (Kay Deslys and Vera White) after setting out to visit a theatre which burns down in their absence! Needless to say, their tyrannical wives (Vivien Oakland and Bess Flowers) are not amused...

Leo McCarey's OK comedy laid the narrative framework for William Seiter's masterpiece SONS OF THE DESERT (1934), with L&H playing brow-beaten victims of circumstance, forced to tell a monstrous lie which backfires in spectacular fashion. Much of it is very funny, especially the scene in which Stan is teased by Deslys, leading to a violent game of push and shove. However, some of the fun is undercut by Oakland and Flowers, playing their roles completely straight, which adds an element of unpleasantness to the 'henpecked husband' scenario. Originally released in the UK as WE SLIP UP.

Sentiment: negative
The people who bash this movie were looking for it to be as cool and slick as the first one, which this isn't. This movie was supposed to be the complete opposite as Ocean's 11. This has been said by a lot of the cast members and also the director, Steven Soderbergh. Ocean's 12, while it did lack a gripping plot, is being bashed because it was different then what people wanted. If it were released before Ocean's 11, it would be taken much differently, not as a failed sequel. The problem with sequels is people go into it with a preset idea of what it should be like it and have lots of expectations. They should go into this movie with an open mind and not expect it to be "Ocean's 11, again".

Sentiment: negative
Excellent exercise on multiple plans:

- showing the not yet ended colonialism spirit in France 

- more generally the boring mindset of superiority from all western people

- a renewal of the spy and thriller movies: OSS 117 is uncultured and stupid!

The good idea is that, in spite of all these messages, it is a funny film, plenty of jokes and gags, very light and sparkling.

Special mention to Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo.

Definitely worth seeing. Wonder how it will be appreciated in US?

Seems to be a success in France, so probably a next version will come.

Sentiment: positive
All in all a good film and better for the fact that had the film not been made the story might remain hidden to the masses. Brosnan does a good job as the native American with a hidden past and the photography is stunning. To some, this may be too whimsical, to others boring - for me it is a gentle, well-told tale and perfect for family viewing. Now that's not something you get a lot of recently.

Sentiment: positive
The strawberry blond has a great script, But I just wish Errol Flynn was in it instead of James Cagney, he's not the person for the part. I do think Olivia did a great job. This movie is also a day dream wrap around, so it's hard to follow. I don't like the male character attitude; the way Cagney presented it was just off. I give it a 3 for poor acting by main male character. ( If you like tough ruff men that like to fight all the time and argue then this is your movie). The Strawberry blond would have been better if the main character had more of a positve attitude, and change the script so he is happy he's with Oliva.

THis movie points out Money does not bring happiness, women right jokes. Plain and simple not the best movie, but every one must decide for themselves.

Sentiment: negative
Charlie Chaplin responds to open auditions at Lodestone Studios. Rival Ben Turpin arrives at the same studio, obviously another unemployed comedian! Turpin tries to horn in on Chaplin's action after the studio head hollers, "Next!" Chaplin manages to walk in over Turpin, however. Charlie amusingly manages to botch jobs as an actor and carpenter. In the end, he manages to get a big break, but will a star be born? 

There are a lot of jokes involving the buttocks. The initial scene involving slapstick from Chaplin and Turpin is a relative highlight. Note that Gloria Swanson is the typist in the far background left on your screen, in the film's opening. Agnes Ayres also appears. 

*** His New Job (2/1/15) Charles Chaplin ~ Charlie Chaplin, Ben Turpin, Charlotte Mineau

Sentiment: negative
When I took my seat in the cinema I was in a cool mood and didn't plan on changing it. But this movie is a dramatic powerhouse. I was all in sweat and needed a shower afterward. So what have we? Theoretically a coming of age story of a teenage Turkish girl living in Copenhagen, Denmark. It came to my mind soon that the plot seemed pretty much completely borrowed from "Bend it like Beckham", where we had an Indian girl playing football and spoiling the wedding of her sister. Here we have it transferred to a Turkish girl spoiling her brother's wedding by doing Kung Fu. And we have a love story and a competition of course, too. After I accepted this, this really turned out to be a gripping, emotional drama and it shows off some beautiful Kung Fu (I'm not an expert, though). The lead actress Semra Turan is not only Denmark's female champion but she also delivers an excellent performance, so that it appears to be safe to assume that we have quite some autobiographic impressions here taking into account that this is her first movie and that she has no education as an actress. Rest of the supporting cast is okay, camera good, Kung Fu intense. Sidenotes: - The male Turkish audience showed respect so that they must have done something right. - The audience burst into cheers when our heroine finally fought back and attacked the boys who were gravely beating up her brother in revenge. - Xian Gao, a Chinese cinematic Kung Fu instructor/actor (Hidden Tiger, Crouching Dragon) played the lead role's master

If you get the chance to see this in cinema do it, you'll probably have a good and intense experience and I don't know if this works on small screen as well

Sentiment: positive
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning 

Former New Orleans homicide cop Jack Robideaux (Jean Claude Van Damme) is re-assigned to Columbus, a small but violent town in Mexico to help the police there with their efforts to stop a major heroin smuggling operation into their town. The culprits turn out to be ex-military, lead by former commander Benjamin Meyers (Stephen Lord, otherwise known as Jase from East Enders) who is using a special method he learned in Afghanistan to fight off his opponents. But Jack has a more personal reason for taking him down, that draws the two men into an explosive final showdown where only one will walk away alive.

After Until Death, Van Damme appeared to be on a high, showing he could make the best straight to video films in the action market. While that was a far more drama oriented film, with The Shepherd he has returned to the high-kicking, no brainer action that first made him famous and has sadly produced his worst film since Derailed. It's nowhere near as bad as that film, but what I said still stands.

A dull, predictable film, with very little in the way of any exciting action. What little there is mainly consists of some limp fight scenes, trying to look cool and trendy with some cheap slo-mo/sped up effects added to them that sadly instead make them look more desperate. Being a Mexican set film, director Isaac Florentine has tried to give the film a Robert Rodriguez/Desperado sort of feel, but this only adds to the desperation.

VD gives a particularly uninspired performance and given he's never been a Robert De Niro sort of actor, that can't be good. As the villain, Lord shouldn't expect to leave the beeb anytime soon. He gets little dialogue at the beginning as he struggles to muster an American accent but gets mysteriously better towards the end. All the supporting cast are equally bland, and do nothing to raise the films spirits at all.

This is one shepherd that's strayed right from the flock. *

Sentiment: negative
I watched this movie the other night, and I have to admit, it was quite possibly the best film of this generation. Turns out I wasn't born until 1988, but I can relate to this motion picture like Cary Grant can relate to having an STD, or Burt Reynolds to being a burnout. Marky Mark did not decline in awesomeness after his brief stint in New Kids on the Block, which I will from here on refer to as "the best band in the world (aka BBW). Like, it's totally a morality tale about fargin' trannies an' poop, so pay attention! I love all y'all, and continue to support Marky Msrk because he needs us now more than ever. He's the only boyee who survived the De-sharted.

Sentiment: positive
My 15 year old daughter asked me to watch this movie with her on Cable TV. As someone who saw Revenge of The Nerds in a movie theater, I found this movie to be an extremely predictable remake of it. The Nerds were simply replaced by Dorks. I drove her crazy by being able to predict precisely what would happen in each scene. The cast was cute, especially Amanda Bynes.

Screenwriter Chad Creasey should be ashamed for writing such an obvious remake of an early 1980's flick. The title should have simply been "Revenge of The Dorks." Perhaps the sequel will be Revenge of the Dorks 2.

Sentiment: negative
It might be a stretch saying this as a die-hard Carlin fan, but the material, both written and as performed, in It's Bad for Ya is some of the best late-era material yet. At 70 Carlin bounces back from the level of despair (and some of the stumbles in the act itself) from Life is Worth Losing to a special that is firmly structured but loose and playful- or as much as the "old f***" can get- and is continuously, ceaselessly, funny. And funny as in reminiscent of what some of us had going on when watching Back in Town or 'Diseased' the first time. The material, even if sounding at times a tinge of the previously done (i.e. the whole bit on children in school and camp like the Children segment in Diseased), is always fresh and with such a sting of truth to everything that it scalds the mind while (here goes) tickling the funny bone.

Going from the topic of death (how long to wait to scratch off a name from the book? six weeks, unless if on the computer scheduler), the facets of communication, looking down from Heaven, spots of God (naturally), kids, and just troublesome gestures involving hats in religion and if people really have "Rights" make up the bulk of the special, centered around the premise that what's bad for you, plain and simple, is BS. Total, complete BS, which as we also learn (or if you've really learned it you're like the kid waiting at the street corner for a week following dropped off not-quite randomly by the parent) holds the country together. Carlin isn't necessarily angry though, even if disdain seems to spout out at most turns, even just to observe how horrifying children's teeth coming in look. It's skepticism tinged with the feeling that everything is NOT going to be "fine".

What it comes down to is this: Carlin is to dirty, witty, cautionary stand-up comedy what Yoda is to Jedis everywhere, which is a small spark of hope via crystal clear wisdom in a world where it's pretty damn hard to get any. At the least, we get classic GC - outrageous lines and bits from the man's 13th (or is it 14th) comedy special, including as far as an eyebrow-raising observation on people who play Mozart music during a birth!

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film at the Santa Barbara Film Festival, and there was not a dry eye in the house. It is incredible to see not only what a great person Darius is, but how admirable the rest of the team is too and at such a young age.

It also made me think how disgusting MTV was, and how on being given an opportunity to involve and inspire in a positive way, they declined. Shows you whether they really care about the youth and their viewers at all.

It's a wonderful and heart warming true story...take your tissues but it's great to see how caring and inspiring youth of today can be.

Sentiment: positive
How sad it is when a film as wonderful as "Jurassic Park" slowly nosedives into hackneyed and mediocre territory throughout its franchise. The newest sequel, Jurassic Park III, has given no thought to characters, a story, or pretty much a script, and instead relies on non-stop dinosaur action, which is neither thrilling nor very interesting to watch. The dinosaurs seemed to look incredibly fake compared to the 1993 technology, after 7 years of CGI advancements, it only gives you more of the feeling that the film was pumped out for the summer relying only on its name. The introduction of a pterodactyl does not a great movie make.

Go see "Shrek" again.



Sentiment: negative
Hollow point is an alright movie worth a half price rental or if nothing else is on a good time waster with no thought required. There are the requisite explosions and hammy acting and pretty ladies. A pretty good cast with Donald Sutherland, John Lithgow, and the lovely Tia Carrere. This cast plus a light hearted touch make for a not a great movie but a fun one..on a scale of one to ten ..a 4

Sentiment: negative
CRIME BOSS is directed by Alberto De Martino; an Italian crime drama partially filmed in Hamburg, Germany. An easily forgotten movie. Even in spite of a good car chase sequence, this flick seems to lumber on almost aimlessly. A new Don takes over a powerful Mafia family and finds himself fighting for his own life. Unwritten laws and ethics of the Mafia code make it hard to trust in anyone especially when millions of dollars are at stake. Brutality and violence breed the same in return. This can not be put on a shelf with the real gangster epics. Just the look of the film brings back memories of American drive-in fare. Even the popular American actor Telly Savalas can't boost the calibre of this crime drama. Antonio Sabato also stars with:Paola Tedesco, Guido Lollobrigida, Serio Tramonti and Piero Morgia.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this on TCM recently and, through the IMDb I found that there were seven "Crime Doctor" movies with Warner Baxter as the psychiatrist-detective. Baxter is a bit long in the tooth compared to his stolid performance in 42nd Street a decade earlier. Not noir, and a bit campy today, the movie also has a touch of the possible supernatural. The plot, black and white cinematography and characters are far more complex than those of the Mr. Moto and Charlie Chan series. There are subplots, unexpected twists and appearances by a number of B movie stalwartly we all should recognize immediately (none ever made it to the A status). It is a wonderfully unpredictable 70 minutes.

I would love to see a boxed DVD series of these films.

Sentiment: positive
I am very open minded. I watch all kinds of programs to the end...good or bad...just to give them a chance and learn from the good aspects and bad ones. This show had potential to be good. But my god, what were the writers, casting director, and director thinking? The cast of actors are terrible...with the slightest exception of Meryl (Mimi Rogers), and Darcy (Joy Osmanski) being given occasional good lines with the best execution of the lot.

The rest of the cast kill the show. It is the same story line in every episode. Sam has plans to do something. His boss disrupts these plans by assigning him ridiculous work projects. Then the foolish ways Sam tries to accommodate both in a manner that is primarily stupid and lacks any real intelligent humor. This is EVERY episode. It gets very tiring.

Season 2, they ditch the eye candy. The 2 "hot" girls in the show get written out (yet the brother stays? explain that casting cut to me please). I can see why they wrote them out...they had no substantial role...but they didn't add anyone better to replace them.

The cocky Derek Tricolli character is given a continuous appearance in season 2. His acting (along with everyone else's) resembles many poor sitcoms from the 80's...might have been funny then...but painful now.

the show could have been so much better with a few good writers and some people who had any talent to execute them. This show lacks everything. Production quality is the only good aspect of the show. It is great in that regard...unfortunately the content is painfully sad.

My god. FOX, was there really nothing better to choose from? I'm sticking with shows like "It's always Sunny in Philadelphia" or "30 Rock" for now. The bar should be set by programs like these that actually assume the audience are intelligent and aren't continually drooling on themselves using all their brain power on continuing to breathe.

Sentiment: negative
When THE CHINA SYNDROME was released, plenty of right-wing critics and pro-nuke supporters blasted this film, particularly since its three leading stars were all known for their liberal politics and their overt distrust of nuclear power. But it only took two weeks and a near-catastrophic accident at Three Mile Island to shut those critics up.

Fonda and Douglas are the L.A. news crew that witness a potentially nasty accident at the Ventana nuclear power plant. Douglas films the event through the plant's soundproof glass; but the TV station will not air the footage, fearing a massive lawsuit. It is thus up to Fonda and Douglas to get at the truth, despite a massive attempt by the plant's owners to cover up the accident.

But a conscientious shift supervisor (Jack Lemmon) has uncovered certain defects in the plant's pump support structure. He believes that these defects were the cause of the accident and that, though it would be extremely costly and lengthy, if repairs aren't made, the next accident could be apocalyptic. But he can't get anyone who works with him to believe his story. The result is a nightmarish climax that pulls various political, technological, and human interest stories together in one disturbing package.

While obviously quite politically liberal in nature, THE CHINA SYNDROME, well directed and co-written by James Bridges (THE PAPER CHASE), is also fundamentally a message movie about the inherent dangers of putting technology and nuclear power together. Fundamentally, nuclear power can NEVER be made safe because people can NEVER be perfect. That is what the film is saying; and in a highly entertaining and suspenseful way, it says it brilliantly.

Sentiment: positive
If you are a Christian or a Jew hoping to see an accurate Biblical (or Torah) portrayal of the events in Exodus, you will be disappointed by this movie. In typical Hollywood fashion people who are not even in the Bible have been "created" for supporting characters and play a large role in the movie. Jethro's role is changed completely and he becomes nothing but an untrusting father-in-law instead of a Shepherd priest who gave Moses excellent advise. God is largely removed from the movie, and instead viewers are given the impression that Moses had to figure things out for himself. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This movie is a typical Humanistic twist on Biblical things and attempts to put most of the responsibility on Moses for trying to understand what God wants and what he should do. Those who know the book of Exodus well will see not only inconsistencies in the movie, but outright glaring changes to events. Most importantly, they will see a near total absence of God's dialog with Moses, which determines everything Moses does after the burning bush. Far from being alone as portrayed in the movie, Moses is guided by God with detailed and direct communication.

Even Hallmark apparently can't acknowledge God's direct role, and without his spoken words to Moses many events make no sense. To compensate, Hallmark has actually changed some things. For instance, after the golden calf God plagues the people and they must look upon a symbol of a serpent to live. Hallmark creates a civil war instead and the Israelites pick sides, then slaughter each other. Moses side wins of course.

There may be minimal value in this movie to unbelievers since it may cause them to seek answers, but believers should stay away. The twisted events and changes make this a danger to anyone who doesn't know their Bible. Read Exodus for yourself, there is no substitute.

Sentiment: negative
It's one of my favorite movies as much because of the location and music as the story line. Don't matter how many times I watch it, it doesn't seem to ever get old. I can almost say all the lines along with the characters now. The movie is supper funny and really sweet.

Sentiment: positive
I happened to spot this flick on the shelf under "new releases" and found the idea of a hip-hop zombie flick far too interesting to pass up. That's how it was billed on the box, anyhow, and I thought to myself, "What a great idea!" Plus there's a "Welcome to Oakland" sign on the cover, too. How could I resist? Unfortunately, the hip-hop part only lasted for as long as the opening theme. Neither hip-hop music nor hip-hop culture had much of a role in the movie. Having lived in Oakland myself, I know that there are many aspiring hip-hop artists there, so the low budget of this flick was no excuse not to have a fitting soundtrack. Any number of struggling artists would have jumped on the opportunity to contribute to this flick. Why the Quiroz Brothers didn't take advantage of this is beyond me.

Once the film got rolling, it was a completely typical zombie movie with a cast that just so happened to be completely black and Latino. You might think that this would put an unusual slant on the movie... but it didn't. Somehow, the Quiroz Brothers vision of "urban culture" boils down to drive-by shootings and dropping an F-bomb in every line in the movie. The rapid-fire use of the word "fuck" is probably this movie's most distinguishing characteristics; there were single lines that contained the word three or four times, and no line didn't contain it at least once. I'm not at all squeamish about swearing in a movie, but the feeling here was that it was the result of a lack of ideas on the part of the writers (also the Quiroz Brothers), and the script was generally very poor.

The film was generally a disappointment. It would have been interesting to see a genuinely "urban culture" zombie flick, but "Hood of the Living Dead" doesn't deliver on that count. The characters in the movie could just as easily have been white or eskimo or anything else. There was no distinct flavor to the movie. It's just another run-of-the-mill low budget flick with bad acting, lousy writing, amateurish direction, bland cinematography, a cheap soundtrack, and nothing at all to recommend it.

Sentiment: negative
I've seen this movie at least 8 times, and I still laugh every time. The movie is about how an intelligent and motivated man, against all odds, can cheat the entire over-self-confident system.

This movie is for all people, who like a funny movie.

The action and comedy is well mixed into a brilliant film, that I hope to see on DVD soon.



Sentiment: positive
This movie is one of those I regret having invested 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back in. The premise is really interesting - essentially it's a zombie flick from the perspective of the undead (let's not split hairs as to whether they're actually dead or not}. Unfortunately, they fail to deliver a compelling story within this framework. The nearly unbearable monotony of the lives of the central characters may add to the realism of the film, but it sucks all the entertainment value right out of it. If they had put a little more effort toward keeping the viewer engaged, it would have been much more likely that they drive home the social commentary.

Sentiment: negative
It's not a terrible movie, really, and Glenn and Keitel are top-notch actors. Further, they do an acceptable job with the very weak script. The scenery is lush and the plot has some interesting twists. Further, I umderstand why these actors and the crew made the film, they are professionals and they get paid for it. But I do wonder why studios spend the time and money to make a film and then don't release it for theater audiences? Even if a film is a box-office flop, surely it makes some money. If you are a fan of Keitel or Glenn, rent the video or catch it on TV, as did I. Granted, the movie won't help solve the immigration quandary with Mexico, but the experience is far better than 90% of the standard TV fare of today.

Sentiment: negative
From rainy, dreary late winter England of early 1920s...

---where there is still sadness and many young widows and disabled vets from the great slaughter of men and killer of their womens' dreams--- known now as World War I...

Four women share this lovely small sunny Italian castle on a hill; one a young widow who is drowning her sorrow in frantic partying, two women who will rediscover their own husbands, and a fourth woman who is tired of her famous dead friends...

...These four women will come together with two husbands and a former soldier - almost blind - to get a spiritual "makeover" for one great April vacation in early 1920's Italy.

NOTE to would-be filmmakers. Study this film for how mood and beauty can tell a story. (Probably not a film to please many men...)

NOTE: Stock up on coffee & hot chocolate and invite the girls over on some dreary late winter day...Spring is coming...Enchanted April promises you!

Sentiment: positive
Eliza Dushku is a very talented and beautiful actress. She manages to be the rock-steady centre of "Tru Calling" but that's not enough to rescue her TV series from mediocrity. It's a real shame that a woman as attractive and talented as Dushku should go from a meaty supporting role in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to this clunker. 

Unoriginal and desperately trying to be hip, "Tru Calling" fails to excite on any level above hormonal. The eponymous heroine spends a lot of her time running hither and yon across what must be a very small city, in order to avert the deaths of good-looking corpses-to-be that she's already met in the mortuary where she works. Despite all the running she does, she always arrives looking like she's just stepped out of a portable air-conditioned dressing room. 

In every episode, Eliza Dushku and the rest of the cast struggle to breath life into the bland, characterless screenplays but it's a pointless exercise. "Tru Calling" just lies on the slab, gazing lifelessly at the ceiling.

Sentiment: negative
My first opinions on this movie were of course bad.I was expecting a horrible, crappy acting, bad entertainment, ridiculous special effects movie.What I got was actually not that bad.The special effects were absolutely horrible, but I found the movie itself quite interesting, and the script was actually pretty good and decent.The acting wasn't THAT bad, and overall I had fun watching this movie.It's still a pretty bad film, but it's not completely worthless like I thought it was going to be, and I'm pleased to know that this movie managed to wow me, even when it wasn't that good.Overall, it's a film that should be avoided, but to me it wasn't as bad as I was expecting it to be.

Sentiment: negative
Why do I like DISORGANIZED CRIME so much? Why do I chuckle or laugh out loud any time I think of a dozen or more scenes from this movie? It's kind of hard to explain, but I'll give it a try. First of all, it's very funny indeed - in contrast to what lots of "official" reviews want you to believe. But then again, that depends entirely on your sense of humour, so there is no sense in arguing about that. Often the humour is in the dialogue, and often it is situational comedy. There is for instance this very hilarious scene in which the 4 gang members have been given a lift in the back of a truck. When the farmer drops them, they just stand there by the road, covered all over with cow s*** or whatever. They are totally unnerved; then, realizing the humour of the scene, they one by one start laughing about themselves, and Ruben Blades (as Carlos), looking (and certainly smelling) terrible, nonchalantly takes out some mouth spray to at least do something about his breath (simply describing the scene here makes me chuckle again!). Which leads to the second point: the acting. Fred Gwynne, Lou Diamond Phillips, William Russ, Ruben Blades and Corbin Bernsen (okay, the latter overdoes it a bit at times) all fit and play their parts beautifully - in fact, you get the feeling they must have been enjoying themselves too when shooting the film. Thirdly, there is the plot . Jim Kouf, the director and screenwriter, is very laid-back; he takes his time to let the plot unfold and have the individual characters establish themselves. More often than not, there is no real action, and yet you enjoy these 4 very different people - who attempt to rob a bank although their boss (Bernsen) does not seem to turn up - grumble about each other and even-tually, grudgingly, like each other. The movie is a fantastic parody of the typical bank robbery plot - totally impossible with all its twists and coincidences, yet utterly convincing in its love for ironic details. Incidentally, the title of the film is one of the best I have ever come across, because it per-fectly summarizes the plot in a very ironic way. Therefore, take my advice: watch this film, but if you don't chuckle, grin or smile during the first 10 minutes, forget it - it's not your type of film. PS. The only negative thing about this movie is that there seems to be no way to get hold of the screenplay - if you happen to know how, do tell me.

Sentiment: positive
You will be able to tell within the first 30 seconds of this film whether you want to finish watching it. The film opens with images of planes landing at an airport, one plane after another diving into a mirage-filled runway. You will be able to accurately guess that this movie is not about a "story." At first viewing, it's even easy to think the opening images are repetitive shots of the same plane. The initial drama is in the acuteness of your perception, which is built on your willingness to experience the film simply as a series of images. If after this opening, you want to see the movie, you will not be bored. You may even be mesmerized. The movie may be an emotional experience; it may be an intellectual experience; it may be both. Judging from the DVD commentary, which is essential, it was primarily an emotional experience for Herzog, and, at one point, he talks explicitly about how the film is a collaboration between filmmaker and viewer. There's plenty of room for the viewer to make of this film exactly what he or she wants to make of it. Take a gamble?

Sentiment: positive
"Welcome to Collingwood" offers some of the most hilarious dialog in recent memory. Watching this comedy directed by the brothers Anthony and Joe Russo reminded us of maybe another film we had seen in the past, but since we missed the opening credits, we had to wait until the end to discover that what we were reminded of, was the 1958 Italian film "Big Deal on Madonna Street", directed by Mario Monicelli.

The Russo brothers put together a magnificent cast to portray all the characters in the film. Anything with William H. Macy, Luis Guzman, Sam Rockwell, Patricia Clarkson, the late Michael Jeter, in it, can't be bad. Since this is an ensemble piece all characters get an opportunity in which to shine.

The film presents us a group of inane would-be safe crackers from hell. No one could think these men could carry on a job like the one they undertake. Whatever could go wrong, and more, is what they succeed in doing. George Clooney makes a small appearance as the master safe cracker who is also seen impersonating a rabbi, only to be confused with a priest by the gang members coming out of Cossimo's funeral.

The best way to enjoy the movie is to sit back and relax, and let all these small time crooks do their thing. Let their funny lines make you laugh, as anyone can see this gang is doomed from beginning to end!

Sentiment: positive
It was a fascinating story waiting to be told. FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY takes us inside the trials and tribulations of a group of top American scientists handed a lofty task during the Second World War: beat everyone else to the atomic bomb. Sequestered in a heavily-guarded New Mexico compound, the brainiacs slowly turn the idea from ambitious concept into immense reality.

FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY is one of those films that requires your close attention. It's a real thinking person's movie, not only from the scientific aspect of developing a seemingly impossible weapon, but also the moral implications of contributing to killing on a massive scale. Characters are constantly torn between that reality and their wartime duty as Americans. The film is never preachy about, however, leaving us free to marvel at the enormity of the inner turmoil these men face. The performances deserve special mention as well. Paul Newman delivers one of his great, understated performances as the Pattonesque general in charge of delivering the ultimate big stick for the Allied Forces.

Where FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY loses much of its traction is in the unnecessary romantic component. Dwight Schultz as the leader of the scientific team struggles with his affections for his family and his relentless obsession with his big project. Director Roland Joffe apparently felt the need to explore the more human angles of this story, but the romantic overtones serve primarily as a distraction. Besides, it's the interaction among the scientists and their military hierarchy that give us the greatest insight into the thoughts and feelings of these brilliant men.

Still, it's difficult not to recommend FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY. It's a largely forgotten gem that puts a human face put on one of the most intriguing stories in human history.

Sentiment: positive
It's impossible to make a film based on such a book as the "Brothers Karamzov" by F.M. Dostojevsky.

Richard Brooks is a great director, but that film is on a very low level.

The worst part of the film was the ending. Well, let's think of the book. In the end we have the "guilty" Dimitrij Karamazov. Afterwards they sent him to Siberia. In the end, the famous epilogues of Dostojevsky, the friends and family making a plan to save him. But that's it ... a nd now the film takes two steps more and shows us an illusion ending of the escape of Dimitry and Gruschenka(I think). just from the moral point I'm sure that Dostojevsky would finish the book with an open end because one the one hand he is not guilty(Smerdjakov is the real murderer) and so he have to be a free man. But on the other hand he goes to his father to kill him, so he has decided to commit the crime... that's a moral dilemma and so the following point is an open end...well, for real ,it's just not full open.

William Shatner as Aljoscha Karamazov... I'm sorry! --> NO!!!

The others characters playing in a good performance as we have to expect it from such great actors ... In front of course a superb performance of Yul Breynner as Dimitrij. I think that there are not many actors who can play this part in a better way.

But as I said in the beginning: This book is unadaptable. It never should be film in two hours that's impossible. I think that there are some 'longer films, so maybe they could do the right thing... But I just keep the opinion that this book can't be adapted.

So - 3 points:

A point for the great director Richard Brooks 

A point for a superb performance of Yul Brynner

Finally: A point for one of the greatest writers of all time: Dostojevsky

Sentiment: negative
A "sleeper". I had never even heard of this movie until I was channel jumping one night. I've been a police officer myself for 25 years and thought this was a true to life movie. Non-police critics are rating the movie purely from a critic's point of view and not from a police officer's point of view. This is real.

Sentiment: positive
I was really excited when I read "The Canterville Ghost" would be shown on TV. However, I was deeply disappointed. I loved the original story written by Oscar Wilde and sadly nothing of that was transferred by the movie.

Sentiment: negative
Maybe it is unfair for me to review this movie because I walked out well before the end. That's odd, because I usually like Shakespeare on the screen and I enjoyed Midsummers Night's Dream once, many years ago, when I saw it on the stage.

 I think that two things did me in: that squeaky twerp with the Shakespearian name, Calista Flockhart, and Michelle Feiffer sitting in a giant clamshell. Well, I suppose you could say it supposed to be a comedy -- but when the scenery is funny and the actors aren't, I'd say we have a bad movie on our hands....

Sentiment: negative
What does this movie have? Lots of gunfire and expensive effects. Nothing makes sense on any other level.

Watching Arnold cry is seeing acting so bad that it is laughable. The plot is ludicrous.

If you think the Devil will be impressed by a bad actor with a machine gun, well, this movie is for you!

Sentiment: negative
.. is the Princess Bride meets... well Trainspotting. But wait, really, it's a good combination! This was definitely one of the better movies I've seen in a long time... it has the kind of witty dialog I associate with The Princess Bride or Cemetery man, along with the disgusting scenes of violence of a horror movie... the heroic feel of Princess Bride combined with the (this is odd) lack of any really good guys that Trainspotting had.

I'm not saying it was as GOOD as the Princess Bride, but it was in the arena, and it rocked. Some of the dialog transcends pleasing to brilliant, the plot is interesting, the characters - while SLIGHTLY anacronistic - are anacronistic not due to their intrinsic nature (there WERE flamboyantly gay people in the 18th century, contrary to a previous reviewer's remarks) but just in a bit of the language they used. The anachronisms made it fun, though, and NOT cheesy and easily dismissed.

If you've ever read any Simon R. Green, or Gleen Cook's Garrett series, you know EXACTLY what this movie is. Check it out. It's great.

Sentiment: positive
Uggh! Hanna-Barbera of the 60s and 70s! What lousy and unwatchable cartoons that were thrust upon us by these hacks! It's a shame really, as in the 1940s and 1950s "Hanna-Barbera" meant quality--because they produced so many wonderful Tom and Jerry cartoons. However, with the major cost-cutting efforts of the late 1950s, cartoons in general began to look pretty poor and budgets were slashed. In fact, William Hanna and Joseph Barbera were fired by MGM and replaced by a team of Czech animators who had never even seen the original cartoons! So, in the late 50s, the team was out of work and decided "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"--and began producing horrid little cartoons themselves--with horrible animation, backgrounds and writing.

It's unfortunate, but the team's production of crappy cartoons worked too well---making them rich and the most successful producers of cartoons of the 60s and 70s. During this time, again and again, bad production values was their norm and a long list of VERY forgettable cartoons were created. In this case, the amazingly bad INCH HIGH PRIVATE EYE--a completely unfunny and stupid idea. If you want to know what the show was about, the title says it all.

Rotten to the core and strong evidence that the production team had total contempt for us kids!

Sentiment: negative
This film plays like a demented episode of VH1's "Where Are They Now", or "Behind The Music". In the first half of the movie (that depict his "glory days") Abbie Hoffman is unintentionally portrayed as a sort of delusional rock star. You know the kind; the poseur lead singer, the pretty boy, who didn't write any of the music, doesn't have a clue, but gets all the glory for nothing and chicks for free. Consequently he takes his success for granted, abuses it, and ultimately destroys it along with himself. Indeed Hoffman's glory days ended abruptly when he was busted for dealing cocaine, skipped bail, and went into hiding. 

The second part of the movie deals with that time in hiding. In it we see Hoffman as a pathetic crybaby endlessly blaming everyone, anyone, but himself for his downfall. Eventually the times pass him by completely; and he can never to come to grips with that. How sad. THE END. End credits roll and OH NO! We learn that Abbie Hoffman eventually committed suicide in 1989.

I'm sure this is not the image the filmmakers intended for Hoffman in making this movie. Given that Tom Hayden and Gerald Lefcourt were involved, I'm sure they intended this film as some kind of homage to the life of a man who was after all, an icon of the 60's and of the Left's anti-war movement. In this they have failed miserably. The film presents Abbie Hoffman as a mindless caricature. We are never told about what drives him. How did he arrive at his views? How did he manage to capture the imagination of a whole generation? How did he organize such a vast movement? Why at the height of his fame did he get involved in dealing cocaine? Why? Who knows, and since the filmmakers don't seem to, ultimately who cares?

Sentiment: negative
It is true that some fans of Peter Sellers work may be disappointed with this, his last venture. But surely any fan of Sellers will find delight in all of his films, simply because of the man's huge talent. and The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu is certainly no exception. Unfortunately this would prove to be Sellers last film, (it was even released after his death), but it's still nice to see how the man had managed to keep his irreplaceable talent right until his untimely demise. And not only do we get one Sellers, but we get to, for Sellers plays not only the title role but also his nemesis, the equally bizarre Nayland Smith, the detective on the hunt for the crazed 168 year old Fu. The story is equally outlandish as we follow Fu's outrageous antics to make his age-defying elixir and also Nayland and his group of associates trying to prevent him. Just like any of Sellers greater films, the film comes with a guaranteed impeccable performance from him, as well as many of his familiar-faced co-stars - David Tomlinson, Sid Caesar, John Le Mesurier, Clive Dunn and Helen Mirren to name a few. It's also nice to see Pink Panther stalwart Burt Kwouk (Cato) enjoying a cameo with Sellers - albeit playing the same role, but still nice. The story is indeed pretty ridiculous, as are many of the characters involved, which classes this as a film strongly under the Goon influence. And, although it never reaches the heights of Goon comedy, there are plenty of amusing jokes that seem to point in the right direction. The film failed commercially on it's initial release due to the entire world mourning after Sellers' death (the film was released less than 3 weeks after)and there is always that sorrowful thought lurking in the back of your mind when viewing it that this was Sellers last film. It's far from a great film - it's often slow, too ridiculous, and sometimes the jokes simply aren't there - but it is nevertheless enjoyable - if only for another top rate performance from Peter Sellers.

Sentiment: negative
William Hurt scuba diving scientist??? US agents running the investigation abroad? The sick contaminated man kicking butt after falling 20 feet on his back and running away? Sniper missing and not killing Hurt (just wounding him) but the second "kill" shot is dead on ? Waste of time. To compare this to falling down as other reviewers did is ridiculous. Oh and by the end of the movie they decide to start wearing gloves on their hands except for the "evil" agent and Hurt decides to kill him by giving him the "virus handshake". What? BTW...when did IMDb require 10 lines of text? I'm just babbling here. Doesn't this just dillute the content of reviews if you are required to have x amount of lines?

Sentiment: negative
While "The Jackal" [remake of the excellent "Day of the Jackal"] has better esthetics [and a boatload budget], this film nails the actual persona of "Carlos" down...

Quinn excels as the Naval officer enlisted to impersonate the wiley Jackal to draw him out of hiding and, at the hands of Kingsley and Sutherland, turns himself inside out to do so. Risking his family, his career and all that he believes in, he takes on the task, albeit utterly unwillingly.

To say more would spoil it... this is an excellent film.

3 1/2 Niro~Stars [of 4]

Sentiment: positive
Yes I admit I cried during this movie. It was so incredibly disappointing, that I couldn't help myself but cry. TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) has done it again. First with having the Million Dollar Man (ex-professional wrestler) on their program, and now this.

The Omega Code follows a stream of sketchy religiously oriented movies. It was quite amusing, yet at the same time it was disturbing to find it so biblically inaccurate. The movie follows what is known as "the bible code" rather than following actual biblical scripture. This film is extremely poorly made; from its writing to its directing to its hilariously horrible acting. Its depressing that people actually put effort into this movie. It appeared more like a late night movie someone would watch on the USA channel or a straight to home video rather than a theatrical released movie.

I highly recommend you do not watch this movie, even if your life depended on it.

Sentiment: negative
Susan Seidelman seems to have had a decent career with a few top notch credits under her belt. I'm certainly glad she bounced back from this film which seems to have its admirers. I'm not one of them.

I've seen better acting in high school plays than I did in Smithereens. The plot such as it is involved young Susan Berman who is ambitious to make it in the world of music and is willing to do just about anything to get there. She even rejects the sincere advances of a young artist who is living out of his van off the East River played by Brad Rijn.

Young Mr. Rijn contributes the worst performance in the film, in fact one of the worst acting jobs I've seen in a long time. No wonder he's not gone anywhere.

I will say that Seidelman's eye for the camera is a good one in capturing the familiar East Village locations where the film was mostly shot. But her work with her live performers didn't measure up. I'm not sure she had that much raw material to work with.

Look fast and you'll see a very young Christopher Noth before Law and Order and Sex in the City as a street hustler.

If you like punk rock, you might sit through this for the soundtrack. I'll stick to Bing Crosby.

Sentiment: negative
This film is bad, yes, but had the producers used a REAL KANGAROO, it would have killed the actor it was boxing with. I am an Australian and I have seen two seven foot tall male 'Roos fighting each other, it is not a pretty sight as the object is for one or the other to kill it's opponent,(this is there way of securing the herd of females) and there are incidents where someone has boxed a kangaroo, and been injured or killed, so when you see a kangaroo on TV or Film it is likely to be a female, or Animated, as it is a good idea not to injure actors (they might be annoyed at losing the ability to breath). There is a strange idea that Australian animals are cute and cuddly, that is false, many are dangerous (10 of the 12 most deadliest snakes live here)and most are just plain ugly (Koalas are as soft as steal wool). So if you come to Australia BE CAREFULL!!!

Sentiment: negative
Space Camp, which had the unfortunate luck to be planned around the time of the Challenger accident, deserves such luck. The "stars" make a mockery of acting, Lea Thomson actually being turned sideways, when asked for more than her usual wide-eyed innocent smile, presumably to mask her risible attempts. The movie is at times hilarious, when it begins to ask far too much of you. A small boy keeps a multi-million dollar robot in his closet which breaks when given too many commands by the hordes of cliched dorm-mates. This hackneyed and unlovable machine, "Jinx", is a major player in the ridiculous premise of the movie, which seems part Short Circuit, part 2001 by the Airplane team. I shan't bore you with this, suffice it to say you can only laugh when faced with it. Having said all of this, it is enjoyable to watch, in a SeaQuest, Saved by the Bell kind of way. The romance and technology, beware, are as unbelievable as each other. Also, if you're an eighties freak, its unmissable for the amusing performances of Kate Capshaw (Willie from Temple of Doom) and, obviously, Lea Thompson. Also, Joaquin Phoenix puts in a dodgy turn as a sort of wannabe Goonie who befriends Jinx. Do not go near this movie if you are not a fan of trash.

Sentiment: negative