DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Okay, so I'm Singaporean and I would like to say that it's time to stop stereotyping Singaporeans and making such films. Some of the actors/actresses actually have talent, but sadly it wasn't shown much in this film. I was fidgeting in my seat when I watched this, being quite young at that time, my parents dragged me along to see it. Honestly I could say that I was going to fall asleep. And there was this arrogant westernized boy whom just got on my nerves. Overall a boring film, and a general waste of the actors' talent. I have seen better Singaporean movies than this. Chicken Rice War was good. However, I cannot believe that this one would be considered a better Singaporean film. Sorry, I wouldn't recommend it.

Sentiment: negative
The Unborn is a pretty good low-budget horror movie exploiting the fears associated with pregnancy. It's very well acted by the always-good Brooke Adams and b-movie stalwart James Karen, although the supporting cast is pretty average for a b-grader. The music, by Gary Numan of all people, is good too. Henry Dominic's script is quite intelligent for this sort of thing, although there is a hint of misogyny about it. Rodman Fender's direction is merely adequate, and there are some unnecessary cheap scares. If you're a fan of Adams, whose movie career is nowhere near as illustrious as it should be, check it out; she's great, as always.

Sentiment: positive
La Teta y la Luna is a symbolic spain film. Everything that in this film occurs has a symbolic meaning. It is totally different to the usual movie that one has access.

This film is good but it will be good only for the people who want look for the meaning of everything in the film's tale. I must advice that this is not a sample film.

Please enjoy!!!

Sentiment: positive
There is no way to avoid a comparison between The Cat in the Hat and The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, so let's get that part out of the way. First of all, let me start by saying that I think Grinch was an underrated and unappreciated film. Cat was... well, just awful.

Jim Carey was cast because he is a brilliant physical comedian, and fearlessly commits to over the top, outrageous characters. Mike Myers fell back on his old bag of tricks.

Why, why, why Mike Myers?? The kids could care less, and the Austin Powers demographic isn't going to spy this film. So, what was the studio thinking?

The Cat was also apparently related to Linda Richmond. Can we talk? Why a New York Accent? Not entirely consistent with anything Dr. Seuss has ever written. Myers was even allowed to sneak in his Scottish shtick. I wonder how many different voices the director and the studio tried to edit out of before they just gave in and said "as long as you don't say fahklempt', you can keep the accents." Meyers never seemed to find any sort of comfort, either with the costume, make-up, or dialogue.

The jokes, what few there were, were crude and age inappropriate. When Myers picks up a garden hoe and delivers to the camera: "dirty ho", everything but the rim shot was missing, and even that wouldn't have helped.

The same folks who created 'Whoville', clearly had a hand in the creation of the town and the houses in 'Cat'. The sets and props were very appealing, giving the viewer a much needed distraction from the bad writing, direction, and Myers.

There was some fun to be had with Alec Baldwin and Kelly Preston. Dakota Fanning was the only actor who seemed to be aware she was in a movie based on a Dr. Seuss classic, and stayed true to the genre.

Call the SPCA. This Cat should be neutered and never be allowed to reproduce again. Please, please, no sequel.

Sentiment: negative
The first 30min of the flick was choppy and hard to know just what was going on (unless you read the book - which I had not).

If you can stick with the first half, the second half is sweet - predictable, yes, but sweet none-the-less.

The way it was shot one would think it was produced in the early 80's, not 2005.

No stand-out moments, bland, but it moved along without boring me.

I would like to know why Keaton selected this role, her part would have been better cast with a player more at the level of the other actors to keep the balance.

Sentiment: negative
A man discovers that his parents were part of a nuclear experiment in the 50's and that he now has the power to... burst into flames! 

I was really geared up for this film, what with being directed by the great Toby Hooper and staring wild card Brad Dourif. Unfortunately it didn't rise above the average individual-with-violent-powers movie. Spontaneous Combustion has an interesting premise behind it, unfortunately it never seems to live up to its potential and prolongs its plot too much. The special effects aren't bad though and help to carry the movie to the finale.

The cast isn't bad, Dourif does steal the show.

All around, no classic but it's not the worst of its kind either.

** out of ****

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the funniest movies I have seen. I watched it on DVD, and the disc does not have any special features, or even a menu, but that is not necessarily what I care about. 

I tend to judge movies on a case by case basis, depending on, among other things, if it is a big studio production or a smaller film. This is a smaller film and I am willing to forgive minor things. That said, I believe it has one of the most imaginative and original title sequences that I have seen.

I enjoyed the acting of all of the major players. I especially enjoyed Til Schweiger and Alan Arkin. Alan Arkin has most of the funniest lines. The character portrayed by Claire Forlani might come across as unrealistic to some people, but I have personally known real people with emotional problems that very readily look at life's decisions as her character does. That helped me pick up the nuances where her hurts could come out through the veneer of her humor.

This is not a movie for children, obviously, but it does NOT engage in gratuitous sex and nudity. There is quite a bit of adult language, though, but it can sometimes be very funny. (In particular, Alan Arkin's character, who can't even swear correctly.)

Also watch for the cameos from known character actors.

Sentiment: positive
I have to say that some of the other reviews of this film I have read show very little understanding of it or the original TV series it stemmed from. Dad's Army was a sitcom and therefore had humour and so is bound to have put a smile on the face of the dire situation. However the series carried very many serious messages such as the episode 'Branded' about the bigotry and ignorance that was attached to conscientious objectors. The film was faithful to the series and was simply like an extended episode. So I'm afraid the reviewer who claimed that Columbia improved the humour was quite wrong and let's face it - the BBC sitcoms of this period beat anything that came out of America hands down. Also comments referring to propaganda were also way off the mark. The Homeguard were people considered unfit for frontline service who still wished to serve. They were very brave men who knew they were sentenced to death as soon as they signed up as Hitler announced that anyone who did so would be executed if and when Britain was invaded. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to set the record straight as it is always good to actually speak and comment on what has been seen rather making it up as you go along I find.

Sentiment: positive
I, having both read and watched Gone With The Wind, found it very difficult to not compare this movie with the original. Although I thought Scarlett, the novel, was superb, the movie didn't add up. It was a completely different story. Of course, there will never be another Scarlett and Rhett besides Leigh and Gable, but the new actors did a fine job, considering. I loved the way the book and movie wrapped up the story of Gon With the Wind, because after reading it I felt a surge of disappointment because it just stopped and left the readers to wonder what happened. Scarlett finishes the story very well, and Alexandra Ripley did great on the book. I just wish the movie followed the story more, although it is great in itself.

Sentiment: positive
Oh my, from the box description I thought it would be LA-crazy like 2 Days in the Valley or Hugo Pool. Ulrich Seidl must be a very strong man. Most, after directing this, would have driven off a cliff or at least committed a mass murder. I confess to only watching the first half hour (for now). Reading all the comments here, I have a lot to look forward to. Professional reviews often mention the Swedish film Songs from the Second Floor as a parallel but that's graced with humor and fantasy and this is unrelenting in its dour realism. What hath the Marshall Plan and the EU wrought? Seeing this in a theater with anyone I know would have only resulted in an enforced departure after many fewer minutes than I got through on DVD. There's a more annoying creature in the universe than Jar Jar Binks - the Hitchhiker from Hell. Whatever happens to her, it isn't enough! Soulless suburbia that I thought only existed in Arizona and Florida thrives in Lower Austria. Oh no! I thought sex clubs had ceased to exist even in New York and San Francisco, and here they are in suburban shopping malls? Was it Mahatma Gandhi or Jawaharlal Nehru who said when asked about Western Civilization, 'why that might be a nice idea'? If the world were truly like this film, bring on that black hole, we're ready.

Sentiment: positive
I can't believe this is on DVD. Even less it was available at my local video store.

Some argue this is a good movie if you take in consideration it had only a 4000$ budget. I find this funny. I would find it very bad whichever the budget.

Still more funny, I read the following in another review: "Dramatics aside, if you love horror and you love something along the lines of Duel (1971) updated with a little more story and some pretty girls thrown in, you'll love this movie."

What?!? This is a shame comparing those two movies.

I give a "1", since I can't give a "0". I just don't see any way this movie could be entertaining.

Sentiment: negative
Higher Learning says its OK for blacks to torment white people because they're all oppressors. most blacks in this movie are portrayed as ignorant savages. Stunning that this is supposed to be a positive movie about race. Incompetent acting, direction, and production values all contribute to this toothache of a flick. An appalling piece of trash. the perpetrators of this dreck should be ashamed. Higher Learning says its OK for blacks to torment white people because they're all oppressors. most blacks in this movie are portrayed as ignorant savages. Stunning that this is supposed to be a positive movie about race. Incompetent acting, direction, and production values all contribute to this toothache of a flick. An appalling piece of trash. the perpetrators of this dreck should be ashamed.

Sentiment: negative
While Fred Schepisi's "I.Q." doesn't really have any important qualities, it's still worth seeing. Walter Matthau plays Albert Einstein, trying to help mechanic Ed Walters (Tim Robbins) fall in love with Princeton mathematics doctoral candidate Catherine Boyd (Meg Ryan). Probably the funniest scene is when Dr. Frizzyhead and friends (Lou Jacobi, Gene Saks and Joseph Maher) try to make Ed look like a scientist: he ends up looking like a French impressionist.

Obviously little of the movie is historically accurate, but that's not the point. It's not intended as anything except a light comedy, quite the opposite of Robbins's most famous movie from 1994 (The Shawshank Redemption). A movie about Einstein's whole life would have to focus not only on his scientific achievements, but also his political activism, namely how he wrote a letter on behalf of the Scottsboro Nine and came out against nuclear weapons (it got to the point where the FBI kept a file on him).

So anyway, this one is acceptable. Also starring Stephen Fry, Tony Shalhoub, Frank Whaley, Charles Durning and Keene Curtis.

Sentiment: positive
INFERNO starts off with a fairly impressive for a TVM starscape effect . We`re also introduced to a scientist who`s called Heller . Don`t you get it ? Heller , Hell-er , Inferno . So I guess someone on the production had some intelligence . However it does become more and more obvious as the TVM progresses that intelligence has been discarded throughout the storyline in order to appeal to an American TVM audience 

The story itself is overwhelmed by subplots featuring umpteen stock TVM characters like the tough liberal schoolteacher who`s trying to save a home boy from a life of crime , the doctor who`s lost his medical licence etc . In fact the story concentrates far more on these characters than the approaching disaster that all the potential tension and drama the scenario might have had soon goes up in a puff of smoke , and being a TVM we just know that there won`t be a downbeat ending 

There is an onscreen problem I noticed and that is everytime there`s an explosion there`s a massive fireball which looks ridiculous not to mention physically impossible . Look at the scene where the national guard are in a fight with a gang . A soldier fires a grenade into a tower block and the whole building explodes in a fire ball . What a small greanade containing no more than a few ounces of high explosive can do that ! No it can`t . There`s also another scene of army engineers blowing up a dam with plastic explosive and the same fireball effect is seen . Can directors please note that high explosive is not the same as napalm 

Having said that I did find INFERNO highly watchable for a TVM and at no time did I find myself wanting to turn it off . It did have some potential and let me repeat the special effects are fairly good considering the budget and it`s not as bad a TVM as some people are making out

Sentiment: negative
An astronaut gets lost in deep space and finds himself traveling through unknown territory on board of a living spaceship accompanied by a group of alien-outlaws. This incredible plotted and enjoyable TV-installment comes along as a positive birth-fantasy. The individual characters, in conflict at the beginning of the series, have to learn to get along with each other and evolve into a powerful group at last. Most of the action takes place inside the womb of Moia, the living space-ship (who even gets pregnant and gives birth to another ship!). While science-fiction-stories are usually interested in negative birth-fantasies (watch the 'Alien'-movies for example, especially the fourth part 'Resurrection') this comes as a surprise. Also enjoyable is the absence of military hierarchy on board of the ship and the positive attitude towards sex and the human (and alien) body. One of the female characters who is actually a plant experiences 'photogasms' while being exposed to sunlight. The crew even has to go to the toilet. Wouldn't that be impossible in 'Star Trek'?

Sentiment: positive
Basically this is an overlong, unfunny, action/comedy. First of all I'd like to say that I did enjoy the Wayans brother Scary Movie (1) and the sequel had it's moments. Unfortunately white chicks doesn't even deliver HALF the laughs. 

The humour in it is absolutely crude. If you like burping, farting, stupid catchphrases you should probably look at this. When it isn't crude it's idiotic. The first 10 minutes of the film gave everything away to me, totally unfunny, simply idiotic. 

However I watched the whole thing since I was with a friend (otherwise I wouldn't have bothered). The story is undeniably thin, it was in scary movie too but there at least the laughs were quick and constant. I think this is probably one of the main problems too with this film, the laughs don't come quick enough. Some jokes are dragged out too long when they're more disgusting than funny in the first place. If you prefer your comedy with a few brain cells then just avoid this. If you want a silly comedy with more laughs then look at scary movie, airplane, hotshots 1 + 2. 

1/10 Completely unfunny, Thin storyline, A film that seems to be based on one idea (i.e. what if we dressed up as white chicks for a film?) but simply didn't have enough material.

Sentiment: negative
I only gave this film a 4 because I saw it in 3-d. If you don't see it in 3-d, I give it a 2. This movie is so bad it's not funny. Anyone can make a film like this for a weeks pay. Bad acting,effects and story!!! But it was cool to watch in 3d. Why can't they make good movies in the 3-d format???

Sentiment: negative
In comparison to other "sand and sandal" fare, The Egyptian leaves much to be desired. The film is very LOOSELY based upon Mika Waltari's well researched novel, which centers around the Egyptian physician Sinhue's adventures at the court of Akhnaton as well as his travels throughout Canaan, Minoan Crete and Africa. Unfortunately, due to the moral strictures of the time, much of Sinhue's story (which is rife with romantic and sexual exploits) remains on the cutting room floor and instead, the audience is treated to reels and reels of Victor Mature's wooden acting. Even Gene Tierney  a leading lady "staple" of the time  can not manage to look nor act her best in this flick and gives a rather somnambulistic performance which can only be justified by the fact that the actress was having some serious psychiatric problems at the time. There is a great deal of rhetoric and theological machinations over the idea of monotheism vs. polytheism, but Michael Wilding is so tiring as the revolutionary Akhnaton, that one is surely cheering for someone to off him and restore the old religion before the second reel. My advice: buy the book from E-Bay, rent something more entertaining like Solomon and Sheba and then call it a night!

Sentiment: negative
OK, let's see... a handsome young stranger is new in town, and walks around on the local boardwalk. He meets a pretty girl, meets up with the obnoxious leader of the local hip young vampires club, is dared by them to follow them into this cave, gets into a conflict over the pretty girl, an epic fight ensues...

No, it's not Lost Boys, although you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference, since I think even some of the carnival music is the same. (Do you have to pay royalties for sampling a movie?) Even the ending of this stinkbomb is ripped off from Lost Boys. The make-up is below par, even for a low-budget thriller, the characters are one-dimensional, and just exactly how many "Oh, I had this horrible experience" scenes of teen angst does one movie need? The humor is flat and stupid, and everything else is sadly predictable. Yawn.

The only scary thing about this turkey is the promise (threat) of a sequel, an idea that hopefully every distributor in the country will drive a stake through.

Sentiment: negative
I thought this movie had absolutely no moral. I mean, how would you feel if your fiancé left you on your wedding day for your cousin??? I would be heartbroken!! It's classified as a comedy but I didn't find it funny at all. I thought it just mostly found cheap laughs and took them. I normally love Julie Stiles movies, but this is an exception. Jason Lee stars in another disgraceful show, which once again proves that class and decent morals are not relevant in todays society. It had a complete lack of taste and I despise movies like this. I understand that people will defend this movie and it's morals because it is 'Just a movie', but I still stand by my mark that this bad behaviour shouldn't be allowed on screen. I'm not trying to say that if you enjoyed this movie, you are a bad person, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and parts of this movie were enjoyable, I'm just saying that in real life, people acting like the characters in this film were doing is shameful.

Sentiment: negative
I really enjoyed this drama from Sidney Lumet. The best word I could come up to describe it with is insane. It throws the viewer around for an hour and fifty minutes and doesn't let you breathe until the credits start to roll at the very end. Trust me, this movie will keep you guessing the entire way through.

The story is very well crafted and almost brilliant. It's almost like a more complicated Tarantino type story. The acting is all amazing from all of the leads and even the small parts, excellent cast. I also loved the cinematography, it gave it the real feeling as if it were an independent film. It was all great.

This movie is excited, exhausting and heartbreaking. It's almost hard to watch but you'll be glad that you did.

Sentiment: positive
In my mind the best of the Ealing comedies and one of my favourite films of all time. The theme of workers v. management (with lots of talk of unions and rights) perhaps dates the film a bit now as it's no longer a subject discussed all that much but that doesn't stop "White Suit" from being a show stopping classic.

The plot, about a man trying to create a revolutionary new fabric which ends up putting the textiles industry into turmoil, doesn't sound exciting when written down but the film retains that essential spark of fantasy mixed with reality that marks it out as a true Ealing comedy. The fabric repels dirt and can never wear out! The titular white suit that Alec Guinness wears throughout the second half becomes the centrepiece for several iconic images and sequences, such as Guinness being able to use his indestructible thread to scale a sheer wall! The script itself is full of dry wit - "Is he all right?" "Yes." "Pity." - and characterisation is first rate. I'm always astonished by the wonderful direction in these films as well. Comedies of later eras would adopt a "point the camera at the actors and let it roll" mentality but the Ealing films always attempted interesting lighting and angles and innovations. This film is no exception.

Of course, it's the cast that lifts the material to dizzying heights. Alec Guinness gives a fantastically understated performance, with eyes that convey wonder, joy and crushing defeat whenever the story demands it. Stratton is a man oblivious to everything except his work. Such an insular character could quickly have become boring or irritating but Guinness effortlessly makes him likable, so much so that the closing stages of the film generate a real sense of urgency as Stratton tries to come out on top in a world that wants to bury everything he's ever worked for. Joan Greenwood plays another of her strong female roles and is an absolute delight to watch as usual, as are befuddled Cecil Parker and slimy Michael Gough; everybody gets laughs without even trying to. It's comical British understatement at its finest.

"The Man in the White Suit" is 81 minutes of sheer brilliance, with a great plot, great cast, sparkling wit and healthy dollops of cynicism. Absolutely top notch.

Sentiment: positive
Hollywood always had trouble coming to terms with a "religious picture." Strange Cargo proves to be no exception. Although utilizing the talents of a superb cast, and produced on a top budget, with suitably moody photography by Robert Planck, the movie fails dismally on the credibility score. Perhaps the reason is that the film seems so realistic that the sudden intrusion of fantasy elements upsets the viewer's involvement in the action and with the fate of the characters. I found it difficult to sit still through all the contrived metaphors, parallels and biblical references, and impossible to accept bathed-in-light Ian Hunter's smug know-it-all as a Christ figure. And the censors in Boston, Detroit and Providence at least agreed with me. The movie was banned. Few Boston/Detroit/Providence moviegoers, if any, complained or journeyed to other cities because it was obvious from the trailer that Gable and Crawford had somehow become involved in a "message picture." It flopped everywhere.

Oddly enough, the movie has enjoyed something of a revival on TV. A home atmosphere appears to make the movie's allegory more receptive to viewers. However, despite its growing reputation as a strange or unusual film, the plot of this Strange Cargo flows along predictable, heavily moralistic lines that will have no-one guessing how the principal characters will eventually come to terms with destiny.

Sentiment: negative
I would say this is a background movie. Play it the background as your tending to busy work (laundry, checking email, etc). I thought this was a film that was done before Amy Adams became successful after Enchanted. Wrong! It was done in 2009! The screenplay/script is pretty awful. I love musicals but the singing is just average and doesn't move the plot along. Ughh. It almost seems like it's a made for TV movie based on the cinematography. Am I watching a TV show? 

Even the secretary breaks out into song. What the f@#$ is going on?! Actually she seemed to have the best voice. Amy Adams was so great in Enchanted. Lead actor is average. Disappointed for sure. This movie would have been good for lifetime, but that's about it. :(

Sentiment: negative
"After the atomic bombs carried by a shot-down Soviet bomber explode in the Arctic, the creature 'Gammera' is released from his hibernation. The giant prehistoric turtle proceeds on a path to Tokyo and destroys anything in his path. The military and the scientific community rush to find a means to stop this monster before Tokyo is laid to waste," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. 

The re-produced for American audiences version of this, the first film in the "Gamera" series, adds English language material that is even funnier than the regularly dubbed Japanese fare. Clearly, the monster is following in the footsteps of "Godzilla". Taking his cue from ABC's faddish "Batman!" TV series, musician Wes Farrell's ludicrous theme song heightens the US version's camp appeal.

*** Gammera the Invincible (12/15/66) Sandy Howard, Noriaki Yuasa ~ Dick O'Neill, Brian Donlevy, Albert Dekker, John Baragrey

Sentiment: negative
I watched "9 souls" in Athens' 12th International Film Festival (September 2006), where Toshiaki Toyoda, the films's director was also present and answered many questions of the audience. This road film is about 9 fugitives, all very different characters from each other. They decide to stay together travelling with their red van across Japan. Every time the van stops, we see these 9 fugitives trying to escape from their past in order to build up a new life or to fulfil a dream. However, no matter how hard they try, it seems impossible and their violent past comes after them and leads them to their final destruction.

Though a very pessimistic film, it is not a dark film. On the contrary, it is full of beautiful pictures, surreal elements and elegant humor. Toyoda's heroes cannot escape their "prison" and they face a divine(?) punishment for their "crimes". They are small pieces of a beautiful painting, where the tower of Tokyo depicted as a huge knife turned upside down prevails!

Sentiment: positive
There was no characterization in this movie and really shows how much this talentless hack who directed this needs to learn his craft. All his characters in this movie were so unlikable and I could care less. The best point in this movie was the end credits and the hour long shower after this cause I felt so damn dirty that I wasted money on this stinking load. Hey genius....triads and yakuza are from two different places learn something about Asian culture. The dog scene in this felt so tacked on and useless. This DVD does prove useful I do love my new coaster.

So kids don't waste your cash on this crap buy Hostel instead.

Sentiment: negative
The first time I ever saw this movie was back in the 1980s as a wee lad. My dad actually recorded it off the TV. I must have watched is over 20 times, before the relatively recent release on DVD.

I of course bought and watched the DVD and was taken aback by how much the dialogue had changed. In the first version, which I still have on VHS, the mood of the film, thanks to the dialogue, was actually very dark. However the new version, featuring Van Der Beek et al, is more comic.

To put it another way, it's like watching the original US release of Akira with that dub, before watching the remastered version with the literal translation of the Japanese.

I'm in no way complaining, the story and quality of animation are not detracted from, but it does raise the question of whether Miyazaki intended for a lighter or darker narrative and theme in his film.....

Sentiment: positive
I had the misfortune of seeing this crapulous effort on television a few years ago. Suffice it to say Michael Gross phones in his performance, and Hasselhoff is the least convincing thief/psycho...EVER! If you have a couple of hours to kill, watch it and prepare to laugh.

Sentiment: negative
Well, well....Roeg touched a bit of a nerve there, didn't he? He was a genius while he was cataloguing his various characters' descents into psychosis for a couple of decades, but as soon as he has the bad taste to suggest that redemption (or even some good advice) might be found in the bad old Catholic church, the hipper-than-thou alternative movie crowd gets extra vicious. Worse still, Theresa Russell's character - faced with experiences that nothing in her avowedly rationalist outlook has an explanation for, is unwillingly forced to deal with those experiences on another level - that of the spiritual. You know, the realm of the ignorant and superstitious, the sort of thing that the art-house cinephiles are supposed to be above. Oh, the horror... So she finds her marriage - the idea that it might be a uniquely important commitment - affirmed by what seems uncomfortably like divine intervention. People who find this idea prima facie offensive could maybe ask themselves why they instinctively jump into attack mode at being challenged to take seriously the idea of a spiritual dimension to their lives. But they probably won't. Sure, this film has some problems, notably Talia Shire's delirious hamwork as the overwrought nun, 1950s-style attire and all. And the dialogue between Marie Davenport and the young priest in their last scene is straight out of the Spellbound School of Glib Interpretations (though Hitchcock's movie escaped similar charges due to the source of wisdom having impeccably secular credentials as a Freudian psychoanalyst). But, sadly, Nicolas Roeg appears to have copped a critical mauling as much for even asking the question as for the possible answers this film presents.

Sentiment: positive
I have the good common logical sense to know that oil cannot last forever and I am acutely aware of how much of my life in the suburbs revolves around petrochemical products. I've been an avid consumer of new technology and I keep running out of space on powerboards - so I know that even the energy crunch associated with Peak Oil will change my life appreciably.

The End Of Suburbia shows, in a rational and entertaining manner, just how much my whole family's lifestyle will have to change in my lifetime. I am particularly concerned for the future generations who will have to pick up the tab for our excesses, however the film-makers do offer a glimmer of hope in that they acknowledge human resourcefulness and determination - and the sense of community that tends to be engendered by shared hardship.

There is no point in trying to pretend that Peak Oil is baseless propaganda - or in treating it like the approaching radioactive cloud in "On The Beach" (i.e. with suicide pills at the ready). Even with our best efforts, times will get harder all over, and I'm hoping there's enough compassion and humanity to go around.

Sentiment: positive
You know, this is one of those "Emperor's New Clothes" films. It's like, so off the wall and strange that you're SUPPOSED to like it if you're really into film. Well, I think that's a bunch of bologna. Films like this which hide under the cloak of Dada or surrealism make me nuts. Some person has this bad dream, perhaps brought on by eating the aforementioned bologna right before going to bed, remembers most of it (unfortunately) and then puts it on film and we're all supposed to marvel at their creative genius. I have bizarre dreams too, sometimes, that make absolutely no sense but I don't feel the need to put them on film, expose everybody else to them and call it art. Weirdness does not, in of itself, mean something is interesting. True Dada or surrealistic expression has SOME intent and intellectual thought behind it. If other people don't get it, that doesn't make it profound, it just makes it incomprehensible. Bizarreness for bizarreness sake, for me, is not good, let alone great, art. And comparing "Tuvalu" to "Delicatesen" is like comparing "The Godfather I & II" to "The Godfather III"---same genre, NOT in the same league.

Sentiment: negative
ONE DARK NIGHT is a highly overlooked and little known film from the early 80's that deserves an audience that I fear it will never get, and that's a damn shame. I have seen this film compared to others that have gotten a bigger name over the years, most notably PHANTASM, HELL NIGHT and MAUSOLEUM. This is a much different film than those and I don't see the comparisons other than the mausoleum, which is a bit similar to the one in PHANTASM, but not enough to make any real comparisons. I'm not sure how this one slipped through without a broader acceptance. Maybe it's all in the marketing, I don't know. Perhaps a remake would breathe new life into it, unless Raymar drained all the life out of it that is. I'm not too big on all the remakes that are abundant these days, but I think they do work well with lesser known films (except for the awful GHOST SHIP remake, which other than the opening scene and Mudvayne's Not Falling blaring, was utter crap). So if a remake of ONE DARK NIGHT would happen to fall into the right hands, I think it would make a lot of people go and watch the original. I know that's what I do if there's a remake of a film I haven't seen before. So anything short of a remake, I fear, would not bring this film back to life. Unless, of course, Raymar got his eyes on it.

Anyways, ONE DARK NIGHT is a must see for horror fans, especially 80's horror fans ('cause we all know that's when the best horror movies were made). Creepy setting. Fairly good acting. Very good story. Campy. What more could you want from an early 80's horror film? What's that... nudity and gore? Well, sorry. No nudity or gore in this film, but it's still great nonetheless! A solid 8 out of 10. Enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness is a dark, profound, and lasting novel that portrays the futility and irony taking place in Africa. If you are looking for a great book to read over the weekend this is not the book for you. Conrad holds nothing back when describing 19th century imperialism, but the novel is meaningless without giving it the reflection and consideration it deserves. If I read this novel looking for a great adventure story I would say that I wasted my time, but looking at in the perspective of explaining the futility of 19th century civilization, I would say this is one of the most significant novels I have ever read. Because of the fact that I read this novel in my English class, and we analyzed every page, I think I appreciated the book more than someone would who was just reading it for entertainment. I am not going to lie, this book was difficult and it challenges the reader to dig deep into this novel to find the true meaning. The movie on the other hand I found tiresome and boring. The movie, "Heart of Darkness" comes no where near giving the book justice. The movie left out many key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story. If you are having difficulty understanding and visualizing the novel then the movie might be a good recourse but I would not recommend seeing the movie as an alternative to the novel or even a different perspective.

Sentiment: negative
Two little girls strike a friendship. One tries to convince the other she's a witch. The other is a pushover who bends to the would be witch's will. On and on the movie drags with the pointless interaction between the two little girls, with many a dramatic cut away as they pose "shocking" questions. You know, the kind sweet little children shouldn't ask, such as, "How do you make a deal with the devil"? Oooh... creepy.

In the end, the pushover is sick of being controlled by her witchy friend. Her belief that her friend is a witch leads to a tragic end. But by the time it comes, you won't care in the least.

I can imagine this film may have been frightening to a very religious 1960s Mexican moviegoer, but it doesn't even hold up as a charming relic. It merely drags on. It is boring. It is pointless. It is not to be watched.

There are many here who have a lot of good things to say about it, based on their knowledge of the director's other works and, of course, that common denominator everyone says about pointless films: "Ah, the cinematography is wonderful!" Those reviewers probably have a point. But for the ones who found this movie with no prior knowledge, who don't care about its "photography," its "atmosphere" or its...whatever else it has -- for these viewers, then, who just want a *good* movie that will entertain them for an hour and a half, do yourselves a favour, folks: 

Skip it.

Sentiment: negative
Beautifully filmed, well acted, tightly scripted suspense movie. Had me on the edge of my seat. I liked the lead actress very much, and thought the villain was very well done. Not much to chew on here in the way of a theme, but if you just get in your seat, turn your brain off, watch the fancy camera work, and enjoy the plot, you will have a great time. The plot is well worn, and regular movie goers will probably know more or less what to expect by about ten minutes in. But that didn't bother me, as I enjoyed watching it unfold. In the old days, they might not have focused so tightly on just two characters, and there were some enticing moments when I hoped they were going to let some other people have a few lines. But these folks were probably right to keep the movie so tightly focused. The plot got me by the throat fairly early on, and never let go. It's not a good idea to think too much either during or after the movie. as I'm not sure it makes a great deal of sense. Just sit back and enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
If you are hoping for ANYTHING new, you have chosen the wrong movie. Who can think that a movie that is a virtual replay of it's predeccesors can be good. Maybe the producer and maybe the director but hopefully they were not serious when they made this THING. This whole movie is like making a greatest hits DVD of the 1st 3 films, but changing the actors. BHHAAAAD.

Sentiment: negative
Geez! This is one of those movies that you think you previously reviewed but you didn't. I mean, you didn't give a crap about it but somehow it came to your mind.

To be honest and brief; this is one of the worst, boring, and stupid slashers ever made. I can't say anything good about this piece of crap because there are barely decent sequences that could tell it's made by professional film makers.

The death scenes are horrible, bloodless, stupid. The plot is somehow good taking in account that it copied "Popcorn" from 1991.

To make things even worse, this isn't a movie so bad that it's good. It's just plain bad.

Molly Ringwald tried to do her best but it wasn't enough.

Sentiment: negative
I was looking forward to seeing this movie, unfortunately I should have listened to my daughters advice. This should have been a spoof, but it took on a realism that corporations had a lot to answer for.

Jim Carrey after all the work he has done is still Jim Carrey and his comedy does not get any better, his co star was not able to back him up. Their son in the movie was invisible.

The life of crime was a blink, and that was the missing link of the movie. The film showed 2 or 3 robberies and they were richer than before, that where it lost it for me.

I did laugh in some parts butthrough the whole not good enough, AlecBaldwin I felt was there to add some weight to the film. His character was not strong enough. There were just too many gaps to make this a smart and tight movie.

Sentiment: negative
I first watched this in black and white, circa Christmas in the early Sixties, when it was shown on British television. I was absolutely hooked, and watched it over again whenever it was repeated on TV (possibly two or three times only, as it happens - if only we'd had video recorders then!).

As outlined by other contributors, the plot describes the return of Hoppity the Grasshopper, after a period spent away, to a Forties American city. He finds that all is not as he left it, and his good insect friends (who live in the 'lowlands' just outside the garden which belongs to a songwriter and his wife) are now under threat from the 'human ones', who are trampling through the broken down fence which prefaces the property, using it as a shortcut.

Insect houses are being flattened by their feet, and are also often burned by cast away cigar butts and matches. Old Mr Bumble and his beautiful daughter Honey (Hoppity's childhood sweetheart) are in grave danger of losing their Honey Shop to this threat.

To compound their problems, devious insect 'property magnate' C. Bagley Beetle has romantic designs on Honey Bee himself, and hopes, with the help of his henchmen Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito, to force Bumble to give him her hand in marriage.

Will the heroic and fearless Hoppity win the day, and manage to save the community of bugs from their dastardly fate, and especially his precious Honey from hers? Enjoy the classic songs ("Katy Did, Katy Didn't" is a superb, swinging, upbeat example), and the colourful visuals, as the tale unfolds.

Time has not blunted my fascination for this masterpiece of animation and story-telling, and I was much pleased to find that it had been released to video, although I later found out that it was in NTSC PAL format. Never mind, I sent off for the video immediately, and only then bought a portable TV/video combination (complete with NTSC playback).

I have enjoyed many nostalgic viewings since then, and have even discovered that the TV rights have switched from BBC (who informed me they were unlikely to ever show the film on any of their stations) to FilmFour, who have (at last!) been showing it on their digital stations in early 2007.

My granddaughter (aged three) was absolutely entranced while we watched it together - and this is a child who has been influenced by the digital age and the resulting computer-generated productions!

I would thoroughly recommend this film for any age, and especially the youngest of viewers.

Give Max Fleischer a posthumous Oscar!

Sentiment: positive
"Secret of the Lens" is perhaps a pretty campy all-time favorite of mine. The best and funniest from Kajawari Yoshiaki, who is known for splatter anime and sleazy hentai-ecchi anime. I wish he did more campiness like this.

My favorite scenes are the psychedelic CG sequence, the parts where Lord Helumis blows up his failing henchmen, the party riots that Bill causes (one of the funniest scenes) and whenever my favorite character, Worsle appears.

Check this out.

WARNING:This is not for serious sophisticated Anime fans!

Sentiment: positive
I'm not sure why this film is averaging so low on IMDb when it's absolutely everything you could ever want in a horror film. This is the definition of being a horror film. I consider myself to be a big horror fan and I must say that this house delivers the goods. House of wax Is the story of a group of college kids on their way to a football game whom decide to camp out for the night and have a run in with a local weirdo. Upon waking the next morning they make a gruesome discovery and decide to go into town for a broken car part. The town is creepy and I'm just gonna stop there. Because thats when the truly gruesome mayhem begins. trust me when I say if your looking for a horror film go see this you will love it. It's wonderfully diabolical and inventive with it's killing scenes, the story is interesting and the characters are decently drawn with the actors giving them gobs of personality. Paris Hilton included whom does quite well with her part. the film lies a little on the shallow side but it's so much fun and who cares. This movie should eat up the box office and all horror fans should have part in it. Go see House of Wax the film that features skin being peeled, super glued lips, dead animal carcasses, hot wax sprayed on a still living person, a finger being cut off, a decapitation, a pole through the head and much more. I was lucky enough to witness this film at the Tribeca premiere and all the actors were on hand to promote the film. And boy do they have something to be proud of House of wax is the scariest roller coater ride of the year! 9/10

Sentiment: positive
Grand Canyon is a very strange bird. It's a completely unique urban piece, where relating the entire plot would fail to convey much.

It's central theme seems to be the inherent uncertainty life holds for people of every race, background and station. But to proclaim that THE theme of the film would be to horribly understate its scope. Similarly, to pigeonhole it in a particular genre is futile.

The film has volumes to say, though likely different volumes for every viewer, and says it all in such a non-preachy way from so many angles, that in the end, i can't even define its central message for myself.

Nevertheless, it does it's business with such laser precision; every prop, line of dialog, and bar of background music contributing to it's pervasive mood and powerful message, that i'm pleasantly surprised, and come away very thoughtful after every viewing. Still it doesn't feel at all stuffy. A sparkling film with a great cast and everything working.

Sentiment: positive
WARNING SPOILERS***** A really stupid movie about a group of young excursionists in Italy that find an armor of mythical warrior with a demonic souls. One of them wears it and becomes possessed by the spirit of a demon. It's killing time and several of his friends die under his blade to revive the demon corpse.

A waste of time for the viewers, as the fine young ladies in the movie leave their clothes on, the gore is ludicrous at best, and the acting is terrible, perfect pairing for such a bad script



Sentiment: negative
You'll notice by the stars I've given this GREAT film that '...before you see it the first time,' is implied. I had never before heard of this film and happened across it just because this week (and last) was a very slow rental experience (not much great coming in). I'm not sure how this movie slipped past me -I love Lucy Liu and Jeremy Northam is great too. Still, it did.

This movie is an awesome example of what to do if you don't have a large budget. It had just the right amount of plot and dialog to make it very interesting and keep the viewer in the dark; just enough. The entire film is you (the viewer) trying to figure out the plots many twists and turns. I would have given this film 10/10, however some of the shots were pretty fake looking. I don't hold that against this film too much, but I don't think it deserves a perfect score.

Lucy Liu is beautiful and mysterious (as always). I think she's pretty underrated as a serious talent. Nevermind her beauty (which is difficult), she really takes her roles seriously and doesn't rest on her appearance to drive her through scenes of sophisticated emotion. And she can seem cold and even lifeless if needed, as well.

Jeremy Northam does really well, at first, as quite a geeky corporate rat, willing to run through any maze to prove himself. However, as he changes throughout the film, it's like night and day. I know some fans of Clive Owen, Jude Law, or other hopefuls to become the next James Bond will hate me for this, but Northam would/could/should fit that bill. He's suave and cultured. He's got a great Bond posture and voice. I think he too can be cold if the situation calls for it, and rather down-to-Earth, as well.

Great film and definitely this movie-buff recommends it to be seen at least once if you like corporate espionage films.

Sentiment: positive