DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This movie was way over-hyped. A lot of the viewers, who thought this was "amazing" must have been into the old school movies, cause the whole movie is set in the past. At first I thought the movie was just showing something from the past, so I was expecting that faded dreamy like lighting on the characters to pass, but it just going. Basically this was a movie trying to mix the future with the past, and the 2 don't mix very well in this movie, even with special effects. You could actually see the blue screen the actors were working with. There are too many movies out there that do exactly what this movie did, so there is no reason for critics to hype this movie up saying "it's the greatest movie ever done". It's just crap on a stick. It also didn't help that the story line was sooo crappy. I don't understand why Hollywood agreed to have this movie produced, and I also don't understand how actors/actresses in this movie are willing to be in a movie like this. It's almost as though everybody read the script and forgot to read the fine print..."It will all be done on a computer". This was a movie that should have been on a movie network, because nothing about this movie was revolutionary. I'm very upset with myself for paying money to see this. Whatever you do, don't waste your time and money on this movie today or tomorrow.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of those unique horror films that requires a much more mature understanding of the word 'horror' in order for it to be appreciated. The main thing people may fail to realize that this story is told through the point of view a little boy and, as with most younger children, he gets frightened easily. Mainly because he simply doesn't understand things, like why his father is hardly ever there for him. From watching the film you can see the husband arguing with his wife the balance between work time and family time and you can easily understand it, but the little boy doesn't. Also one can imagine the boy being afraid of the woods, as it is established early on in the film, that the family is from the city. Also, in the beginning as the family is traveling to the house they hit a deer, then get held up, then they argue with the locals about it, and the little boy surely didn't find this introduction to the woods pleasant at all.

The "Wendigo" is ultimately what his young, innocent mind fabricates to explain all of this. There is the American Indian legend, but when looking at the scene where the young boy hears about about it, it is explained to him like bluntly and simplistically. Not because that's what the Wendigo actually is, but because that is how he understands it. When you look at the film from this point of view you can really begin to appreciate it. Obviously it was low-budget and shot cheaply, but the jumping montages, use of light, and general eeriness more than make up for it. And the final question the film asks is: is it all in your head, or is it really out there? 8/10

Rated R: profanity, violence, and a sex scene

Sentiment: positive
With a story and screenplay that seems to have been written by a high schooler, 'The Art of Seduction' fails to deliver the romantic, sophisticated experience it tries to bill itself as. The two main characters have the potential to be interesting - both male and female lead are "swinging singles (or in the female lead's case, engaged)", but 'The Art of Seduction' doesn't even try. Shirking from a frank examination of these two characters' personalities, 'The Art of Seduction' eschews anything of substance for a basis of thin, lean stereotype. 

'The Art of Seduction' is insulting - insulting to its characters, insulting to men and women, and insulting to its audiences' expectations. It takes the awful beautiful people we all know and plays out their painful interactions while expecting us to idolize them. Ji-wan is an immature, spoiled, manipulative bitch. The viewer is expected to like and forgive her flaws because she's pretty. Min-jun, well, he's exactly the same. Neither are nice people. The "humour" in this film primarily revolve around Ji-wan and Min-jun's outlandish attempts at outdoing each other in the honourable art of lying and manipulation. No character development occurs, and we never learn why Ji-wan and Min-jun are like this. We are simply expected to take them as they are, and not ask questions - they're cute!, and that's all that matters. The copious references to the celebrity of the main actors in azn cinema scenester's reviews may tip you off to 'Art of Seduction's shallowness. 

If you're still in high school, you liked Grease, or you are a yellow fever victim, you may like this movie.

Despite its "Romance" tag, this is not a very good date movie.

Sentiment: negative
I don't know why critics cal it bizarre and macabre. I really don't. Dark -yes, bizarre - no. It i s sad and with lots of emotions, specially with the Pinguin's story. They say it has elements of S&M but I really don't find anything of that sort except for Catwoman's whip.

This movie is deeper than its genre and villains aren't just some crazy freaks dressed like on a masquerade. They have strong motives with strong feelings involved. Catwoman (a great performance by Michelle Pfeifer!) isn't just a sexy chick who likes steeling jewels - she's on her personal crusade and Pinguin... well, by the end of the movie you really feel sorry for him (strong performance by Danny DeVito). Again, I think Michael Keaton is the best Batman and he carries his costume well.

You can totally see that it is a Tim Burton movie, because he has an unusual style and is a very talented guy. But also the music is fantastic and fits the emotions.

Sentiment: positive
First of all, I'd like to say that I really enjoyed this movie. However, that said, I can't say that it was a "good" movie. I went into the theatre with pretty low expectations (something I've learned to do). I'm glad I did, because the plot and development wasn't stellar. The jokes were low-grade humor. But, I was in the right mindset to enjoy them.

I wasn't the only one. In fact, the entire theatre was laughing out loud. I didn't hear anyone complain after the movie came to a close. I even saw one guy fall out of his chair laughing! But again, I have to warn you, Grandma's Boy is NOT a top-quality film. It is a funny (albeit low-brow) movie, and if you go with the right mindset, you'll really enjoy it. Oh, and don't take kids to it.

Sentiment: negative
"Transylvania 6-5000" is an insignificant but occasionally funny and charming mid 80's horror parody with some very familiar names in the cast and a handful of genuine opportunities to chuckle in the script. Two bozo journalist of a gossipy tabloid newspaper are sent, very much against their will, to Transylvania to do a story on the alleged return of mad scientist Frankenstein. There are some adorable little gimmicks and details to discover left and right in the film, like a little guillotine for hard-boiled eggs and laboratory test tubes that are being used to put in cream and sugar at the breakfast table. The wholesome of the film, however, is not as successful as it could and should have been, with jokes and parody situations that are way too overlong. The Roger Corman production "Transylvania Twist", which came out four years after this, is a lot funnier and much more recommended. The film is particularly parodying the classic Universal milestones of the early 30's, so you better make sure you've seen those if you want to grasp all the tiny gags and references. There's a pretty original twist indicating that the Frankenstein character only behaves like a mad-raving evil scientist when he enters his laboratory. It's also revealed that he's actually more of a Father Damien sort of messiah who's only concerned with the condition of exiled monsters. Michael Richards, the freaky guy who plays Kramer in Seinfeld, stars as a psychotic butler who appears and disappears at the most inappropriate moments. I'm pretty sure John Turturro's character in "Mr. Deeds" was inspired by Richards's role here.

Sentiment: negative
This is a story about a journey made by a man who once had a dream and guts. Donald Crowhurst was an English businessman and amateur sailor who competed in the Sunday Times Golden Globe Race, a single-handed, round-the-world yacht race.

I was very intrigued by the story after listening to a radio interview from the producer John Smithson, who is also the producer of "Touching the Void", one of the first documentaries that made a commercial success in 2003. I had gone to the cinema with great hope and not much previous knowledge on the historic event, and I'm relieved that it didn't let me down. For 92 minutes I was led through a haunting story and came out with much to think about.

Without any reenactment, this film made great use of the limited audio and video archive footage they found and turned it into a compelling story which allowed the audience to understand Crowhurst from a personal level. The story unveiled itself as people who had direct links to the events including his wife and his son, and the eventual winner, also the only one who made it back out of the 9 competitors, Robin Knox-Johnston gave their own accounts of what happened almost 40 years ago.

Crowhurst's logs(journals) that he kept during the 243 days at sea are so haunting that it made it much easier for me to come to understand what being in total isolation can do to a man. While Crowhurst's body was never found, the other competitor Nigel Tetley whose yacht sank just weeks before claiming the prize for fastest passage committed suicide three years later after unsuccessful attempts at properly completing a circumnavigation.

Everything could take its toll, especially the sea.

The director Louise Osmond was also at the Q&A session after the showing together with producer John Smithson. I had no idea that it's a female director and that just came as a very nice surprise. The film is getting a limited release in the UK (a couple of days in certain cinemas). Catch it in cinema while you can, unless you have a state of the art sound system that can recreate the sound of the bashing Southern Ocean.. then I'm sure they'll soon have it on DVDs too.

Sentiment: positive
This film has not exactly remained fresh in the minds of film buffs, and it's a crying shame. Its witty screenplay adaptation should have netted Oscar nominations for the great screenwriter I.A.L. Diamond's adaptation, and Ingrid Bergman's flawless performance. It must have been an honor for Goldie Hawn at such a young age to work with Bergman, looking more than a decade younger than her 54 years--fifty four! When she's on the screen, it positively twinkles.

This is a film which may appear dated at first, but it actually made me wish I was around during the swingin' 'sixties. Hawn's fashions are as tacky as Bergman's are chic. (That's one minor flaw--isn't her character a little too soignée for a gal who still lives with her sister? But then again, would we have Ingrid any other way?) And who wouldn't want to hang out at a nightclub called The Slipped Disc?

The best compliments I can pay to this film is that it somehow made me nostalgic for a decade that I never saw, and that it left me wanting more. Speaking of wanting more, I wonder what ever became of sexy supporting actor Rick Lenz? (He resembles Griffin Dunne in this film.) This was his film debut, and I don't see any other major roles in his filmography. As for Goldie Hawn, she's done so much since then it's easy to not be impressed, but I can't imagine any other actor in the role, either.

Since the movie is based on a play, the line delivery may seem a bit stage-y, but it did not inhibit my enjoyment at all. In fact, I am amazed at how funny it still is after over thirty-five years. Because this film represents a bygone era, it has unjustly slipped from the consciousness of film buffs. It is more linked to the era films that came before it than the ones that followed. But don't let that stop you from savoring the delights it has to offer. Grade: A

Sentiment: positive
I just wish I was eloquent enough to say how GOOD this movie is.

I...it's hard to say.

Maybe I'll just say what comes to mind.

I laughed. I really laughed. I couldn't believe it. I laughed, and, it wasn't bitter-laughter. it wasn't cynical laughter. it was the laughter that is generated by genuine joy.

joy. that's a foreign word for me. i don't feel that word often, but, i did while watching this movie.

Will. Maybe it's Will's face. He is a great human being. "Smile on my face and there's a twinkle in my eye." That line in one of Will's songs describes him perfectly. He has "joie de vivre". Trey is a lucky, lucky boy to have a daddy like Will. Jada is a lucky, lucky woman to have a husband like Will. He is someone...special.

Happy. I actually feel happy. It's a strange feeling. I don't feel this way very often. It's just so nice to see, to see...other people really happy. I mean really happy. In this movie, I did. As Will says in the movie, "Maybe I'm not happy with just 'fine', maybe I want 'extraordinary." You know, watching this movie made me think: so do I.

Fun. Being yourself. We all know we're supposed to be ourselves, but, it feels like we're punished if we do so. Maybe it has to be earned. Maybe it's something that we show after having not been ourselves for a long time. That's why I just loved the ending. Will, Eva Mendes, Kevin James, Amber Valleta, Julie Ann emery all dancing at the wedding. Dancing without inhibitions. NO THEY WE'RE NOT DRUNK! except, on actually being happy. I can understand that, at least, I think I can (at least, I enjoyed seeing them happy, really happy).

Women and Men. I don't know anything about relationships, but, I do feel. Watching this movie I feel like connecting with someone, striving, pushing, wanting to be with someone. It seems to make life...something else entirely. I don't really know. I'm just guessing. but, I felt something, watching this movie. I felt like, that connection, must be...must make, life worthwhile.

That's the kind of movie this is. It's FUNNY. It's CLEVER. It's TENDER. It evokes feeling. It made me think, that maybe, just maybe, life is, truly is, a wonderful thing.

Want to LAUGH? Want to FEEL REALLY GOOD! Want to GET SOME ANSWERS ABOUT GIRLS (and Girls, answers about Guys)? Watch Hitch. YOU-WILL-GET-IT-ALL!!!

GO WILL!!! You are a great human being.

Sentiment: positive
Waco: Rules of Engagement does a very good job of not drawing conclusions for its viewers. It simply presents interviews, footage from the standoff, footage of the Congressional hearings, phone conversations, expert testimony, etc. and allows you to draw your own conclusion.

I hardly intend to imply that the data presented here was done with 100% objectivity but it is very convincing. You won't like Koresh any more after you see this than you did before, but I tend to think that you will come to believe, as I now do, there is much that we were not told about what happened before and during the standoff.

Sentiment: positive
I found myself getting increasingly angry as this movie progressed.

Basically, Dr. Crawford (Dennis Hopper) has predicted a meteor will hit the earth. The "powers that be" don't believe him so he sets about building a survival shelter inside a mountain for a small collection of people.

Jake Lowe (Peter Onorati) is a down on his luck reporter for a trashy tabloid who gets a tip from a friend he thought was dead that something is going on in the mountains. He sets out to investigate.

While trying to get into the secret survival shelter Jake spends a great deal of time shooting people to death or beating them to within an inch of their lives. He spends the rest of his time bitching at Dr. Crawford about who gave the doc the right to decide which people should get to survive the meteor.

I found myself wishing Jake would do the future a big favor and turn a gun on himself.

Don't waste your time on this turkey.

Sentiment: negative
Eddie Izzard is a one-in-a-million comic genius. He goes from squirrels to WWII to Stonehenge to religion to Englebert Humperdink and it's absolutely hilarious and it all makes sense! Get a copy of this now, you won't regret it! I give this an 11 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
I'm one of those people who'd crawl a mile through broken glass to see a Hal Hartley film. From TRUST and IRIS to HENRY FOOL and (my Hartley favorite) NO SUCH THING, Hal's unique brand of movies are an acquired taste. Infusing equal parts mystery/espionage with wispy comedy seems to be his forte. The comedy isn't in your face necessarily, and often runs throughout an entire scene before coming to fruition. And that's the case with FAY GRIM, the sequel to Henry Fool.

Parker Posey stars as Fay Grim, abandoned wife of Henry Fool and mother to Henry's only son Ned. Fay lives a quiet life until she comes home one day to find a CIA agent in her kitchen. His name is Fulbright (Jeff Goldblum, MAN OF THE YEAR) and he wants Henry's notebooks. There are many Henry Fool notebooks and they were all previously believed to contain nothing but mad wanderings. Apparently there's much more to them. Secrets weapons research or paths to terrorists? Who knows but Henry. Agent Fulbright tells Fay that her husband is dead but this is quickly surmised as a ruse to get Fay out of her home and searching for Henry (and it works ...but not the way they think).

Fay battles multiple spy rings to gather Henry's notebooks and to seek him out. She also makes a deal with the CIA to get her brother Simon (James Urbaniak) out of prison (he'd helped Henry escape the country in the original Henry Fool film.) Multiple overlapping events occur in rapid succession: spy rings shoot each other to death, Henry is discovered being held in "safety" by a jihadist, Fay frees her brother but unknowingly risks her son's life, and the CIA gets its comeuppance for putting Fay in danger.

Hal Hartley obviously loves to play with themes. And he does so to the extreme here. Even character names (Grim, Fool, Fulbright, Fogg) have implicit meanings of their own that are quite funny. The over-the-top espionage films of ol' are given plenty of screen time, too, as guns blaze in stop-motion sequences, never striking our heroine even though she's right in the line of fire.

Now that I've heaped praise on this creation, I will say that Parker Posey's excessive portrayal of Fay Grim isn't the best part of the film, which is a shame considering how much time she's on-screen. I realize this was probably what Mr. Hartley wanted: an uncurbed woman with hand gestures to the Italian extreme. But it was still painful to watch at times.

Even so, fans will probably devour Fay Grim and beg for more. Though this wasn't my favorite Hal Hartley film, I know I'm ready.

Sentiment: positive
I had been looking forward to How to Lose Friends & Alienate People for months, particularly due to the fact that Kirsten Dunst and Simon Pegg were starring. Simon Pegg is a comedic genius and Kirsten Dunst has always been a favorite actress of mine. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People hit the spot! Of course not perfect, but very enjoyable and funny. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People follows the life of Sidney Young, a smalltime, bumbling, British celebrity journalist, who is hired by an upscale magazine in New York City. In spectacular fashion Sidney enters high society and burns bridges with bosses, peers and superstars. After disrupting one black-tie event by allowing a wild pig to run rampant, Sidney catches the attention of Clayton Harding, editor of Sharp, and accepts a job with the magazine in New York City. Clayton warns Sidney that he'd better impress and charm everyone he can, if he wants to succeed. Instead, Sidney instantly insults and annoys fellow writer Alison Olsen (Kirsten Dunst). He dares to target the star clients of power publicist Eleanor Johnson (Gillian Anderson). He also upsets his direct boss Lawrence Maddox (Danny Huston). Sidney finds creative ways to annoy nearly everyone. His saving grace, a rising starlet Sophie Maes (Megan Fox) who develops an odd affection for him. In time, Allison's friendship might be the only thing saving Sydney from his downward spiraling career. The storyline is very interesting and the acting was top notch with what the actors were given. Simon Pegg is still hilarious as ever! He makes Sydney bumbling, obnoxious, and annoying as real as it gets, but later in time making Sydney not just likable, but also a real character who you root for in the end. Kirsten Dunst and Jeff Bridges were brilliant! Kirsten had some very wonderful acting and hilarious scenes, and Jeff Bridges is just Jeff f*cking Bridges! How can you not like him?! He makes Clayton a very humorous character with some wit and overall you just love the guy. Gillian Anderson, Megan Fox, and Danny Huston were great as the supporting cast. Each had their own personality that were overall pretty unlikable, but that's what just made the film work. One thing I didn't enjoy was how one dimensional some of the characters were. I understand that most were the supporting cast, but some of the cast was underused and could've given the film some more spice to it. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People will never be on anyone's top 10 films ever, or even top 10 comedies ever, but it has a very high entertainment level and some scenes may even charm you as well. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People is definitely one of the better romantic comedies of the year! 8/10

Sentiment: positive
1) If you want to make a movie that deals with social realism it's quite important that the audience identify with the characters that are being portrayed. 2) The audience can't identify with characters that are highly stereotyped or with situations that are to obvious. 3) If you got a bad actor then you can't build any character. Anyway, even if you got nice actors their job will result ridiculous if you force them to speak with a fictitious Andalusian accent.

Jesús Ponce ignores those 3 points and also makes some cheap jokes that are completely out of place. His script is so predictable: a woman comes out of prison, she meets his old junkie boyfriend, life's tough, etc. Whatever, the fact that the story is everything but original wouldn't be that bad if only Ponce weren't a complete incompetent writing and filming.

I wonder how long will they keep giving money from our taxes to make movies such as this one.

*My rate: 3/10

Sentiment: negative
When I saw this movie a few days ago, my eyes were completely fixed to the screen. Its greatness held my attention to such an extent that I focused all of my attention on it for its entire duration. I would recommend seeing it not just to fans of anime, but to anyone who likes great movies period (or who likes really weird stuff). The style of art is beautiful, the sound is perfect, and the symbolism within it is breathtaking. I've heard complaints about the weird insertion of English text in the movie, but I think the way its done is complementary to the strange style of the movie. The self-attributed description of "Hello Kitty on acid" doesn't do justice to this film of absolutely epic proportions. I'd like to find more works by whoever made this, and see them.

Sentiment: positive
I can't honestly believe that this is a sequel or follow up of John Landis classic comedy horror movie from 1981 . I suppose you can't really describe it as an original werewolf movie either since the bare bones of the story steal elements from the one set in London: An American tourist visits a famous European capital , he narrowly survives a werewolf attack that kills a colleague , he embarks ( Pardon the pun ) on a sexual relationship with someone in the medical profession , he turns into a werewolf , he's visited by apparitions of his dead victims , etc etc . and reading the previous line I've just discovered how much the storyline has in common with the original that it seems very similar indeed . The difference lies in how enjoyable and entertaining the Landis movie is 

With this Paris based movie there's no scenes that really stand out . There's no naked man waking up in a zoo wondering how he's going to get back home with no money or clothes , there's no bizarre dream sequence of Naziwerewolves and there's no spectacular climax . AAWIP does try to be funny but is there anything more embarrassing than failed humour ? I'm thinking of the scene where Andy McDermott has to convince someone he's got chewing gum in his pocket and not condoms ! Perhaps the biggest difference between the two movies is that there's no poignancy involved with this dubious follow up . You really do feel sorry for the protagonist's fate and dilemma in the London movie , here you just feel Andy is nothing more than a cypher going through the literary motions of a script . There's also a large number of plot holes visible . Is this the first time The Lunar Club have carried out a massacre ? If not then aren't large numbers of corpses with their hearts torn out been reported in the world's press ? Why haven't the police got leads ?

Everyone else has mentioned it and so will I - The visuals are poor . Look at the bungee jumping scene at The Eifell Tower , it's painfully obvious that it's achieved via some blue screen projection while the werewolf transformation is done by some very cartoonish CGI . I won't put Anthony Waller in the same bracket as Stephen Sommers as a director who totally ruins a movie because of an over reliance on CGI ( The major problem with AAWIP is the screenplay coupled with a high degree of expectation from those who saw the 1981 movie classic ) but I would have preferred the Rick Baker type special effects used for the transformation . To be fair it's reasonable to speculate that perhaps the budget didn't stretch that far . But at the end of the day this is a fairly poor horror movie that didn't need to be made and DOG SOLDIERS is much better entertainment

Sentiment: negative
I love occult Horror, and the great British Hammer Studios, who delivered one of their greatest films with "The Devil Rides Out" (1968), have proved to be more than capable in this field of Horror. This occult tenth episode of Hammer's short running TV-series "Hammer House of Horror" (1980), "Guardian of the Abyss", is indeed a creepy entry to the series. Director Don Sharp, who had previously enriched the Hammer oeuvre with "The Kiss of the Vampire" (1963) and "Rasputin: The Mad Monk" (1966) and furthermore directed two "Fu Machu" movies starring Christopher Lee, is doubtlessly one of the better-known names among the HHH directors, and he also delivers here. Antiques dealer Michael (Ray Lonnen) stumbles over a mysterious old scrying glass. The scrying glass happens to be the object of desire of a devil-worshiping cult, who want to use it for their satanic rites. When he shelters a beautiful young girl named Allison (Rosalyn Landor), who is to be sacrificed by the cult, Michael gets into deeper trouble with the cult and their sinister leader (John Carson)... While this is not one of my absolute favorite episodes of "Hammer House of Horror" (the best one clearly is the brilliant seventh episode, "The Silent Scream"), it is a very creepy and atmospheric one. The plot has several interesting twists, and stays suspenseful and uncanny throughout the film. Ray Lonnen makes a good lead, young Rosalyin Landor is convincing as the innocent beauty, and John Carson is truly creepy as the leader of the Satanists. Overall, "Guardian of the Abyss" is another interesting and creepy HHH tale, and my fellow Hammer fans should not miss it.

Sentiment: positive
SPOILERS Every major regime uses the country's media to it's own ends. Whether the Nazi banning of certain leaflets, or the televised Chinese alternative of Tianamen Square, Governments have tried to influence the people through different mediums since the beginning of time. In 1925 though, celebrating the failed mutiny of 1905, the Russian Communist Government supported the creation of this film, Battleship Potempkin. A major piece of cinematic history, it remains powerful and beautiful to this very day.

Set aboard the Battleship Potempkin, the crew are unhappy. In miserable living conditions and with maggot infested food, they are angry at their upper class suppressors. Now though, after the rotten food, enough is enough. Led by Grigory Vakulinchuk (Aleksandr Antonov), the crew turn upon their masters and fight for their freedom.

As far as propaganda goes, "Battleship Potempkin" is perfect. Presenting a positive light on the first, unsuccessful, communist mutiny, the film was a useful Soviet tool. Eighty years after the films release though, and the USSR has disappeared completely off the map. The amazing thing about this film though is that whilst the country it's message was intended for has disappeared, the film remains a powerful and worthy piece of cinema.

Written and directed by Sergei Eisenstein, the film is surprisingly a joy to watch. It is true, that it is far from what we would nowadays consider 'entertainment', but the film is a beautiful piece of art.

Whether it be the scenes aboard the boat or the often talked about scene on the steps of Odessa, everything about this film is perfectly made. The music is powerful and dramatic, the lighting is flawless, even the acting, whilst slightly overdone, is perfect for the piece. Basically, there is no way to fault this film's end product.

It's impossible to know how the Russian people received this film upon it's release. Praising a country which has not existed for fifteen years, it's difficult for us to know the full spirits that the film inspires. As a piece of art though, it is magnificent. Beautiful from start to finish, it is far from an easy watch, but it is well worth the effort.

Sentiment: positive
Adam Sandler's movies are my favorite comedies. The Silence of the Lambs is my favorite horror movie. The Matrix is my favorite sci-fi movie. Anywhere But Here is my favorite drama.

Perhaps the single most valuable asset that this movie has is it's acting.

Susan Sarandon is absolutely amazing. By the end of this movie I felt as if I knew her character better than I knew myself. She did a simply amazing job.

Natalie Portman also did a great job. I recently rented her first movie, Leon (1994), in which she played a 12 year old girl. I believe that she is a contradiction in terms; she was a good kid actress. Well, 5 years later she is still just as good an actress. In fact, she's much better.

Not only did Sarandon and Portman portray their characters well, but they also worked perfectly together. I mean, even now I can hardly believe that they are not actually mother and daughter in real life as well as in this movie.

This movie is about a 14 year old girl (Portman) and her restless mother (Sarandon) that leave their home town in Wisconsin for Beverly Hills.

At first Portman hates her mother for taking her away from her cousin and friends, and the two begin a very tumultuous relationship that goes up and down over the course of a couple years (usually down, might I add).

Although this explanation is a little vague, the plot can only be summarized vaguely. But when you see this movie you will see that the plot really is not so vague or weak, for it is actually very deep. What I am saying is that the plot is outlined weakly, but then they focus in on it to make it strong.

And it is very strong, but also the plot sequencing is great. And there are a few brilliant scenes that I hope will someday be seen as "classic".

I loved this movie. I laughed. I cried. And although, admittedly, there are a few loopholes, it's still a stellar movie and it really comes together in the end.

Sentiment: positive
All through his career Hitchcock did great films; this was not one of them.

A man knows too much, his daughter is kidnapped to secure his silence, and in the denouement all is resolved to the accompaniment of gunfire and rooftop drama.

Anyone who has seen 1930s Fritz Lang films- 'M' comes to mind- will know how far this urban narrative of crime and conscience falls short of what had already been done in that genre at that time. There is an altogether amateurish air about much of the staging and acting which subverts any sense of menace, darkness, and depravity that Hitchcock might have been seeking to instil.

What it is worth watching out for, however, is the sequence associated with the shooting at the Albert Hall. Once that kicks off it is as if the film has been given a blood transfusion. The camerawork is lively, the cuts are interesting, and the way that everything combines to a climax is masterly. Here you can see the future master: Hitchcock effortlessly orchestrate all the resources to impressive and memorable effect: when the scream comes you really feel as well as hear it.

Sentiment: negative
This is the third Three Stooges short that the team ever made, and like a lot of their early ones, this is absolutely and totally hysterical! Now owning it on DVD as part of the Three Stooges Collection Vol. 1, whenever I feel like it, I watch this! 

In this short film, Moe, Larry, and Curly play these three doctors in a hospital who are trying to help out everyone, but boy, they end up making a mess out of everything!

This short is another one of my all time favorite Three Stooges shorts, I also am a very huge fan of slapstick comedy, and the Three Stooges are the kings of slapstick! 

When I heard that it got nominated for the Academy Award for Best Short Film, I really became curious about this, when I heard that it had lost, I was very disappointed about it! 

This short is one of the Three Stooges funniest by far, I extremely recommend that you see this hysterical riot! 

10/10

Sentiment: positive
I can understand those who dislike this movie cause of a lack of knowledge.

First of all, those girls are not Geisha, but brothel tenants, and one that don't know the difference will not understand half of the movie, and certainly not the end. This is a complete art work about the women's life and needs in this era. Everything is important, and certainly the way they dress, all over the movie means more than words. To those who thought it was a boring geisha movie, I'll suggest you to read a bit about this society before making a conclusion that is so out of the reality. This is Kurosawa's work of is life, and I'm sure that the director understood the silent meaning of Kurosawa's piece to the right intellectual range.

Sentiment: positive
I cannot say enough bad things about this train wreck. It is one of the few movies I've ever been tempted to walk out of. It was a bad premise to begin with, first pregnant male, but then they tried to make it a spoof. What were they spoofing all those real pregnant males??? This was the worst movie I have ever seen. If it had enough votes it would be on the IMDB bottom 100. If it was possible to give it a zero I would, and I would still feel I had given it too much credit.

Sentiment: negative
Indeed, Cynthia Watros is in this movie as Elizabeth talking to Desmond. Though I'm just wondering how she ended up as a 'rehab patient'(?) where Hurley is also in there trying to reduce his weight (as seen from the previous episodes).

Anyway, this last episode is really suspended. The ending is not so understandable. I think the writer did expect the audience that there is a season 3 coming.

I just hope the next season will give light to more unclear/hanging events that were happened.

Just can't wait further for season 3.

Sentiment: positive
Crossfire is a fantastic film noir that is both a product of it's time and a timeless classic. This film achieves this by addressing issues that haven't been brought to the screen before its 1947 release, and by being a high quality film that holds up to this day with a good script, great look, and fantastic performances from it's actors. The first American film to take the issue of anti-Semitism head on, Crossfire is cemented in classic standing. Set in post-World War II America, a lurid whodunit develops after a Jewish man is found murdered.

The story is great, its anti-hatred theme wrapped up in a dark multiple-character crime thriller, and along side the anti-Semitism angle is some great post-World War II dialogue and themes as well. Unlike other mystery thrillers, the audience is alerted to who the perpetrator is almost immediately. However, the film's story is still engrossing because of the struggle of all the great characters involved are going through while trying to make sense of the situation. Outside the great overall story and themes, the entire script is simply smart, complete with meaningful messages and razor-sharp exchanges between characters.

The film's captivating story is played out wonderfully by the its excellent cast. Robert Young is fantastic as Capt. Finlay, the leading investigator of the murder case. Finlay's my favorite character of the film, he's just a cool character - dry as bone and tough as a two-by-four and stopping at nothing to bring the killer to justice. Robert Mitchum is also great in the film, very vivid in his soft-spoken army sergeant character due to his superb screen-presence. Gloria Grahame gives a memorable performance in her small Oscar-nominated role; George Cooper also does a good job as the sick and distressed Corporal Mitchell; Paul Kelly gives an eerie portrayal of a bizarre character; and Steve Brodie, Sam Levene, Jacqueline White, and William Phipps also give strong supporting performances. Robert Ryan ends up being the most talked about performer of the film, giving a chilling performance as Montgomery and also being nominated for an Oscar.

Crossfire has a terrific look. Director Edward Dmytryk does an extraordinary job with the film's execution and cinematographer J. Roy Hunt does a masterful job with its black and white picture. Crossfire's picture is as dark and dank as its themes, covered in shadow with an almost glossy overtone, yet also very raw in parts. Ironically, the film's great look was not the result of hard work - or even intention. Dmytryk wanted to spend more time and money on the actors rather than the lighting - so that's what he did. Less lights, less preparation (around a 6 hour work day), and it resulted in a fantastic looking film. Not just a well done piece of cinematic art, Crossfire is also a great example of a cheap film that ends up a rich classic.

Sentiment: positive
Horror fans (I'm speaking to the over 12's, although if you're under 12 I apologise for what you might deem an insult): In short, if you appreciate having your imagination disturbed by well written, original storytelling, punctuated by unpredictable well planted scares, and delivered via convincing performances, then I can heartily recommend - AVOIDING THESE STEAMERS - made by directors who have apparently long since past their sell by date. It's no accident that almost every episode feels as if it were made in the 1980's. Not to put blame squarely on the shoulders of some of these old boys (or indeed the 80's) because where would we be without certain movies from the likes of Argento, Carpenter, Landis, Dante and Barker (Actually Clive, WTF are you doing in there?! Glad to see Romero had the good sense to give it a miss as I'm sure he was asked to partake...). More perhaps we should point the finger at creator Mick Garris whose credentials include the logic defying and depressingly ill-advised TV remake of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 'The Shining'.

Perhaps it is an indication of the state of television today. Are we so starved of good TV horror that we applaud any old sloppy schlock that the networks excrete onto our sets? Sadly, maybe so.

Normally I wouldn't see the point of adding a comment that doesn't argue the faults and merits of a production, I'd just rate it accordingly. However, as this series is woefully lacking in any merit (with perhaps the sole exception of the theme tune) I write this as more of a warning than a review: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME AND MONEY. If you disagree with me then it's more than likely that you haven't seen enough decent horror. Perhaps the earlier films of some of these directors would be a much better place to start, but if these 'Masters' of Horror were being assessed on these works alone, they'd never have been allowed to graduate with even their Bachelor's degree. Unless of course they were studying for a degree from the University Of S**t.

Sentiment: negative
A good old-fashioned flight-and-revenge western, given a twist and a touch of gravitas by injecting a little black social history into its plot. Lead by Mario Van Peebles, who does OK, the gang of misfits on the run from Billy Zane's (seemingly unstoppable) army bigwig all acquit themselves well, their adventures plausible yet fun and exciting. There're some nice moody flashback scenes setting up the hero's character and backstory, a good shoot-out ending as our heroes defend the town from greedy white landgrabbers, and even Stephen Baldwin isn't bad in this enjoyable, quite powerful western.

Sentiment: positive
Before the days of home video, Stan Laurel's pre-Hardy comedy 'Kill or Cure' was known -- to the extent that it was known at all -- only because a few sequences were included in Robert Youngson's compilation film 'Laurel and Hardy's Laughing 20's'. Youngson knew what he was doing: the best gags in 'Kill or Cure' were brought intact into his compilation, while the rest of this only mildly funny comedy remained on Youngson's cutting-room floor.

Laurel portrays a commercial traveller, hawking a patent medicine cried Professor I.O. Dine's Knox-All: that name is the funniest joke in this movie, which ain't sayin' much. I should point out that this movie dates from 1923, the shank of Prohibition. During Prohibition, quite a lot of Americans purchased patent medicine if it had (ahem!) 'medicinal' properties, so -- if Knox-All contains alcohol -- Stan's job in this movie is less desperate than the one which he and Ollie famously had in 'Big Business', selling Christmas trees in the summer. Too bad for this movie that it's not nearly so funny as 'Big Business'.

We see Stan (but don't hear him, in this silent film) delivering a spirited sales talk to a man who seems to be paying attention ... until we learn that they're standing outside a deaf-mute institution, and this man is deaf. A haughty woman emerges from the gates: Stan quickly tries to engage her attention by wiggling his fingers at her. Of course she's not deaf, and she promptly whacks him with her umbrella. I found this sequence offensive, NOT because it involves deaf people (the deaf aren't the butt of the joke) but because it abets the very widely-held misconception among hearing people that they can communicate with the deaf by merely waggling their fingers randomly and performing Charades without actually learning the highly complex grammar of sign language.

More amusingly, a spinster in this movie has a pet canary named Rudolph (as in Valentino), and there's a gag involving trick photography to enable a man to hide behind an object that's narrower than his body. I've seen this device in several cartoons and live-action movies but 'Kill or Cure' is, I think, the earliest movie to use it that I've seen so far.

Stan Laurel, an under-rated actor, does one bit of physical business here that's worthy of Chaplin or Keaton, in which he conveys his emotions -- and a change in his demeanour -- while walking away from the camera with his back to us. Still, Laurel never really became a first-rate comedian until he united with Oliver Hardy to form the greatest comedy team ever. 'Kill or Cure' barely rates 3 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
Howling II (1985) was a complete 180 from the first film. Whilst the first film was campy and creepy. The second one was sleazy and cheesy. The production values on this one are pretty bad and the acting is atrocious. The brother of the anchorwoman werewolf from part one wants to find out what happened to his sis'. The "scene" from the first film was badly re-created. A skinny plain looking woman accompanies bro' (Reb Brown) to the old country (Romania) to uncover the mystery to her sister's murder/transformation/death. Christopher Lee appears and disappears over now and then as sort of a sage/guide to the two. Sybil Danning and her two biggest assets appear as Stirba, the head werewolf of the Romania. She also suffers from a bad case of morning face, ewww!

Bad movie. There's nothing good about this stinker. I'm surprise Philippe Mora directed this picture because he's usually a good film-maker. The film is so dark that you need a flashlight to watch it (no, not the content but the film stock itself). To round the movie off you get a lousy "punk" performance from a Damned wannabe "Babel". Maybe if they forked over a couple of extra bucks they could've got the real deal instead of an imitation.

Best to avoid unless you're desperate or you lost the remote and you're too lazy to change the channel.

Sentiment: negative
It's amazing that this movie turns out to be in one of my hitlists after all. It is by far the number 1 worst movie I have ever seen.

Not only have I ever been this bored before (luckily not for more then 1,5 hours), the pre-adolescent attempts at humor that feature it are not even close to getting but one of the corners of my mouth slightly tilted. After the first very awkward part, you tend to hope that the other parts will be at least slightly better. You hope in vain, it only goes downhill from there.

The movie has no story worth telling whatsoever and repeats this non-story three times. One can only hope that by some miracle all remaining copies of this movie are lost forever and Trent Harris never lays his hands on a camera again...

Sentiment: negative
Even though this film's trailer and poster imply that Sally Hemmings was an important character, I might not have been as shocked to discover she was just a minor (and I do mean Minor) character if this movie was suppose to being told by Sally's very own family! I mean if you are going to tell the story of a member of your family that has been ignored by history, would you really tell it with the man who relegated her to obscurity at the main character? His other lover (who happens to be white) as the actual love interest? I know I wouldn't! I am as pale as they come and normally a big fan of Merchent~Ivory flicks, but I couldn't stomach this film's treatment of poor Sally Hemmings.

Sentiment: negative
For the most part, I only enjoy the kind of movie that allows one to escape the current time into the future or past. This movie is pure escapism. The dancing starts almost immediately, and Debra Paget in her "purple harem" bikini dress simply has no equal in film in my opinion. Her dancing, while sultry, is surpassed by her dance in Fritz Lang's Tiger of Eschnapur, available on DVD, where she played the temple dancer Seetha.

One problem with the movie is the closed setting. There are few outdoor scenes shot, and they as well as other scenes are a bit claustrophobic. The same locations are used over and over again, but with some interesting secret passages and waterways. Her secret double identity is totally unbelievable with beauty of that magnitude. Debra even wields a sabre and holds 2 enemy soldiers at bay on a staircase, she could do it all.

What does work is Debra Paget as a princess. With her beauty, she certainly would be the center of attention anywhere at any time in history. This movie, when hopefully it becomes available on DVD, will be a must buy. Overall, taken with a bit of humor, I loved it.



Sentiment: positive
I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet. 

The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.

A definite see!

I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet. 

The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.

A definite see!

Sentiment: positive
Every kid has that movie that he pops into VHS when he has nothing to do, or when there is a babysitter around. This was that movie for me.

 I can tell you the whole plot exactly, I must have seen it 100 times at least, and I can say it is a good kids/family movie.

I still have the tape, I haven't watched it in 5 years, but maybe I'll get around to it this week, and be a kid for the day.

 You just have to love the care bears, and their messege.



Sentiment: positive