DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Wow. I thought, Eskimo Limon was the most awful and embarrassing first-sex movie ever. But I had forgotten that Germany always tries to compete. In this case, the well-known German film producer Bernd Eichinger was successful in producing even worse crap. Harte Jungs is stupid, not believable and predictable, and above all: not funny. It's almost a tragedy that so many kids went to see this in Germany (and, I'm afraid, also Austria).

Tobias Schenke, 19, looks too nice to have no girlfriend and too ripe to be 15, and his character is too dumb to be true. Schenke tries real hard to make us believe that he doesn't know ANYthing about sex, but that doesn't help. Harte Jungs seems to be made by someone who watched Al Bundy and took him too seriously.

The best actors in the movie are Sissi Perlinger and Stefan Jürgens who play Schenke's semi-liberal parents. Perlinger and Jürgens are stand-up comedians who are not particularly talented in movie acting. Still, their performances are the `best' and `funniest' in comparison.

A complete failure.

Sentiment: negative
A Lassie movie which should have been "put to sleep".... FOREVER. That's how I'd describe this painfully dreary time-waster of a film. So mediocre in every aspect that it just becomes a dull, uninteresting mess, this is one of the most forgettable movies I've seen. It isn't even an achievement as a "so-bad-it's-good" or "so-bad-it's-memorable" movie. The idea of Lassie turning bad is intriguing but so little actually happens, and so slowly, that you feel your life slipping away while sitting there, watching the non-actors read their lines off cue cards waiting for their measly paychecks.

It's an empty, hollow shell of a movie. Seriously, it's not worth wasting your, or your kid's time on. Unless you're both heavily medicated. That's all I have to say.

Avoid, avoid, avoid! It will drive you barking mad! Hahahah, get it? BARKING! Hahahahahahaha! 

Sorry, I've had a rough week.

Sentiment: negative
Fellow Giallo-fanatics: beware and/or proceed with caution  for this movie isn't exactly what it appears to be. It surely looks like a Giallo, with its juicy VHS cover (showing a busty naked girl and a big bloodied knife), rhythmic title and the names of two veteran Italian actors in the cast (John Phillip & Fernando Rey), but it's basically just an erotic thriller without much of a plot. The version I watched is presumably harshly censored  with a running time of barely 77 minutes  but then still there's a severe lack of suspense, character development and most of all sadistic (and typically Giallo) carnage. "Eyes Behind the Wall" can briefly be summarized as the gathering of a bunch of perverted characters and the extended depiction of their sexuality issues. It's an interesting effort notwithstanding, because writer/director Giuliano Petrelli (his only film) clearly attempted to do something special, but the overall result is unsatisfying and regrettably tame. Inspired by Hitchcock's "Rear Window", the main character is a frustrated elderly and wheelchair-bound writer. He and his much younger lover get their sexual kicks from spying on the single male tenant living across the road. The tenant, respectively, likes to perform gym exercises around the house whilst being naked and clearly has bisexual desires. Wheelchair guy sends his wife over and they have sex. Then, there's also Ottavio the butler who repeatedly rapes schoolgirls. Are there any normal characters in the story? Well no, of course not! The film benefices from a continuously ominous atmosphere, with a moody soundtrack and nifty photography, but none of it ever leads anywhere so it's all just sleaze & sex without significance. There's a truly bizarre twist/revelation at the end of the story, but it comes too late and too randomly to boost up the overall quality. Not recommended to fans of Italian horror/cult cinema, but maybe it is great viewing for psychology students, to analyze the characters Freud-style.

Sentiment: negative
(You'll know what I mean after you've seen Red Eye...) 

Overall, Red Eye was a better-than-expected thriller. It gets off to a slow start, and slowly builds. But by the time it was over, it's a thumper! 

It's hard to exactly define what makes this thriller as... thrilling as I found it. Except that, simply put, the director did a creditable job of pulling you into the action of what would otherwise have been a run-of-the-mill plot. I rather tended to forget I was watching a movie. That says a lot.

Other factors, I think, are the "closeness" of victim and bad guy... and that over time, you begin to really relate to the victim. A scant 8 out of 10, more like a 7.5... but that's pretty good!

Sentiment: positive
Excellent movie in many aspects. Vicente Aranda has succeeded in depicting the time (1830) with meticulous care. The light, the places, the feeling, are perfectly perceived from the very start of the movie. And along with it -in opposite to what happened to "Mad Love" (Juana la Loca), a rather episodic historical movie- all of this beautiful photography/ music/ clothes is wrapping a very fluid screenplay that reaches its climax in the only possible way.

Concerning the actors, Paz Vega as Carmen is outstanding: liar, seductive, agressive, totally sexual, so beautiful Carmen. Sbaraglia is a little less convincing the audience about his instant mad love for Carmen, but he succeeds in conveying the proper tragic mood to the whole movie. I recommend it to everyone: the best spanish movie of the year.

Sentiment: positive
I can admit that the screenplay isn't very good, and that it has some slow parts, but all of you critics of this movie need to learn how to have some fun. First of all, the performances are great (Michael Douglas, Kim Basinger, Kiefer Sutherland, and Eva Longoria. Michael Douglas proves he has still got it, and Kim Basinger plays a very interesting character as the cheating wife. Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria, play the dynamic duo, both adding their incredible talent to the pot. And second of all, this movie is the most fun I have had in years in a Theodore. Its plain and simple, if you want to go to the movies, and have a lot of fun see, The Sentinel.

Sentiment: positive
I guess there are two ways to make a movie with kids as the intended audience. You can either say to yourself a) "Let's make a movie that kids today will love!" or b) "Let's make a movie that I would have loved when I was a kid!" The second approach explains why Steven Spielberg often make movies that appeal to a younger audience. Prime examples are E.T., The Goonies or Indiana Jones. That Darn Cat is an example of the first approach. You see these flat, unbelievable characters saying things that is supposed to be funny but isn't. The plot itself is enough for a ten minute short, but instead it goes on and on. And although I'm not a kid, I don't quite understand what in this movie is supposed to be fun for kids? The clumsy cops chased by a dog, the old lady with a tweety bird or Christina Ricci's sarcastic oneliners? One actor showed a spark of talent with his very acrobatic humour: Doug E. Doug playing the FBI agent.

Sentiment: negative
Raising Victor Vargas is a movie you definitely need to see. It was very heart felt and had a lot of humor that gets you sucked right in. It is so much like real life with what teenagers have to go through. Victor, a cocky teen, but with a good heart at the end deals with love in all the right places dealing with girls and family. At the end Victor learns the true meaning of love after dealing with a old fashioned grandmother and a girl who he wants to use is actually using him too.I recommend people to watch this movie because it will be like you are watching a real family. Thats how much feeling this movie has. One heart felt moment was when Victor's grandmother throws victor out over something simple. Victor was really heart and couldn't believe that she would do something like that. It made me feel real sorry for him like it was real. Overall I give this movie a B+

Sentiment: positive
This has to be my favourite film. The script is sharp and played to the limit by an excellent Miller and fantastic Carlisle! Sharp wit, excellent narrative and no Hollywood polishing; a totally immersible film which has you gunning for the bad guys! Stott excels again as the detestable Chance, while Liv Tyler truly beats her other, lighter performances as the excitement-hungry Rebecca! The soundtrack may not be known to you by name, but anyone who has ever seen Top Gear, watched the football or seen any TV action sequence is probably familiar with it, particularly due to Craig Armstrong's, 'Escape' which must allow him never to work again! The soundtrack on first play may seem out of place in a costume drama/action/comedy, but one re-watching shows it is perfectly at home in giving the the script it's drama.

My one gripe about this film is that it isn't shown enough on TV! Where is it? Truly excellent, sharp and classy - you'll not regret watching it - again and again! (exits to switch on DVD player!)

Sentiment: positive
Stan as a bullfighter, and a good one, is quite a surprise. Usually overshadowed by Oliver Hardy, this silent short allows him to take the lead, and the limelight.

One can only draw the conclusion that his character "Rhubarb Vaselino" was a parody of the many Rudolph Valentino movies of this era.

Be prepared to laugh yourself silly at some of the dialog, and keep an eye on the special effects.

I viewed this on DVD in a Vol.1 & 2 collection.

Sentiment: positive
I was forced to watch this film for my World Reigonal Geography class. This film is what is wrong with America today, instead of figuring out the best way out of hard times or situations we would rather complain about how it is someone else's fault. This film goes through the downfall of Flint, Michigan and blames it 100% on General Motors. In the process of doing so Moore goes to great lengths to make the executives of General Motors out to be villains just because they are doing their job in a capitalist society. Moore films several evictions throughout the film and does not ever even ask once if the person is being evicted because of a GM layoff. Additionally, he never interviews the landlords of the tenants filmed. Moore goes to great lengths to twist historical events to fit his political agenda in this film of pure propaganda.

Sentiment: negative
This show came to Canada via PBS in the mid 90s and I really, really loved it then. Even 10 yrs later watching the various news networks, I cant help but think of the cynical manipulation that goes on in the name of ratings and the various "show ponies" we all see on TV as depicted in various Frontline episodes. The scripts are tightly written and the actors all have impeccable comic timing and none of it is encumbered by an idiotic laugh track. There is a lot of funny material here really well executed and we don't need to be told when to laugh and what to laugh at. I don't understand why this show never took off in North America as its truly a gem! I was really excited to see the DVDs available, even though they are PAL format. I figured I would rip them to my computer and then watch the converted files. I took a chance and ordered it from ABC 6 to 8 weeks later, I had all 3 seasons. Even better it worked on my NTSC DVD player. I suspect any player bought in the past 2 yrs that does xvid/divx will play them. Great stuff! 10 yrs later the episodes all hold up really well! You don't need to know anything about Australian politics to get the humor as it will all be familiar to western audiences. My wife and I had a 10 day Frontline fest and are still chuckling weeks later after watching all 39 episodes

Sentiment: positive
OK. There are people who should not see this movie.

1) Don't see it if you don't like satire or black humour. 2) Don't like it if you got offended by _The Watchmen_. 3) Don't see it if you want a serious superhero movie.

The rest of you, run, don't walk, to see _Mystery Men_. It's funny, it's quirky, it's a delightful sendup of every bad superhero cliche known to man. Occasional forays into junior-high humour don't ruin the tongue-in-cheek low-key fun of Jeanane Garafalo, Ben Stiller, and Hank Azaria, as well as a couple of amusing smaller parts by Geoffrey Rush and Greg Kinnear. (Good to see Louise Lasser getting work, too.) I laughed all the way through. Utterly unserious, somewhat weird, but -good-.

Sentiment: positive
This is a great idea for a film but it, unfortunately, doesn't turn out to be a great movie. What starts out as a sweet and almost goofy romantic comedy about a Fluffer in love with his Fluffee spirals out of control into a bizarre combination of genres and a veritable stew of plots, with liberal borrowings from BOOGIE NIGHTS, THELMA AND LOUISE, SHOWGIRLS, FRISK, and even a curious "dash" of 400 BLOWS thrown in towards the end. (At least the director did his research!) The result is not necessarily boring but, in the end, this slick, well-produced flick doesn't quite add up to anything. However, the actors all do a game job with the material and there are a few good laughs at the behind-the-scenes world of gay porn.



Sentiment: negative
First things first, this movie is achingly beautiful. A someone who works on 3D CG films as a lighter/compositor, the visuals blew me away. Every second I was stunned by what was on screen As for the story, well, it's okay. It's not going to set the world on fire, but if you like your futuristic Blade Runner-esquire tales (and who doesn't?) then you will be fine.

I do have to say that I felt the voice acting was particularly bland and detracted from the movie as a whole. I saw it at the cinema in English, but I am hoping that there is a French version floating around somewhere.

Definitely worth seeing.

Sentiment: positive
Columbo movies have been going downhill for years, this year it may have reached the bottom. Peter Falk gives the same uninspired performance and comes over as creepy in this movie. As is usual in this series, crime scene protocols are unheard of so plausibility is always lacking. Brenda Vaccaro chews the scenery and pulls pantomime faces and Andrew Stephens is a pretty unconvincing lady's man. (His faint, though, was a hoot!)The script was by the numbers and its delivery patronising. They should never have brought Columbo into the nineties, just left us all with one or two happy memories of clever plots, better scripts and sharp characterisations.

Sentiment: negative
The Broadway musical, "A Chorus Line" is arguably the best musical in theatre. It's about the experiences of people who live for dance; the joys they experience, and the sacrifices they make. Each dancer is auditioning for parts in a Broadway chorus line, yet what comes out of each of them are stories of how their lives led them find dance as a respite. 

The film version, though, captures none of the passion or beauty of the stage show, and is arguably the worst film adaptation of a Broadway musical, as it is lifeless and devoid of any affection for dance, whatsoever. 

The biggest mistake was made in giving the director's job to Sir Richard Attenborough, whose direction offered just the right touch and pacing for "Gandhi." Why would anyone in his or her right mind ask an epic director to direct a musical that takes place in a fairly constricted place?

Which brings us to the next problem. "A Chorus Line" takes place on stage in a theatre with no real sets and limited costume changes. It's the least flashy of Broadway musicals, and its simplicity was its glory. However, that doesn't translate well to film, and no one really thought that it would. For that reason, the movie should have taken us in the lives of these dancers, and should have left the theatre and audition process. The singers could have offered their songs in other environments and even have offered flashbacks to their first ballet, jazz or tap class. Heck, they could have danced down Broadway in their lively imaginations. Yet, not one shred of imagination went into the making of this film, as Attenborough's complete indifference for dance and the show itself is evident in his lackadaisical direction.

Many scenes are downright awkward as the dancers tell their story to the director (Michael Douglas) whether he wants to hear them or not. Douglas' character is capricious about choosing to whom he extends a sympathetic ear, and to whom he has no patience. 

While the filmmakers pretended to be true to the nature of the play, some heretical changes were made. The very beautiful "Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen, Hello Love"--a smashing stage number which took the dancers back to their adolescence--was removed and replaced with the dreadful, "Surprise," a song so bad that it was nominated for an Oscar. Adding insult to injury, "Surprise" simply retold the same story as "Hello, Love" but without the wit or pathos.

There is no reason to see this film unless you want a lesson in what NOT to do when transferring a Broadway show to film. If you want to see a film version of this show, the next closest thing is Bob Fosse's brilliant "All That Jazz." While Fosse's daughter is in "A Chorus Line," HE is the Fosse who should have been involved, as director. He would have known what to do with this material, which deserved far greater respect than this sad effort.

Sentiment: negative
Although many Billie Dove fans are delighted with her work here, I have to pass. As a socially prominent member of the British smart set, her British accent is basically non-existent and her line readings sound just like, well, line readings and her emoting seems trance-like and ponderous. Basil Rathbone, usually a fine actor, seems off-kilter throughout and also speaks with a weird sort-of-accent - in his case something like Italian, though we cannot be sure. The script manages to keep his precise ethnicity a secret. He is further hampered by the script which gives him one of those old movie diseases, something to do with nerves, which requires surgery. The only real entertainment is provided by the illustrious Kay Francis sporting a lacquered bob with side curls in her role as a depraved countess who shamelessly devours men, including Rathbone, and then spits them out. She pulls it off with her unique aplomb. She is the only living thing in this dead sea of a film.

Sentiment: negative
Leonard Maltin gave this film a dreaded BOMB rating in his 1995 Movie and Video Guide. What film was he looking at? Kid Vengeance or God's Gun are bombs. This film is a delight. It is fantastic. It is literate. It is well mounted. It is beautiful photographed, making a brilliant use of colors. Right from the opening scene the film grabs your attention and tips you off that this film is a well-done satire of the whole Spaghetti Western genre. The film is played for laughs from the beginning to the end with homages to Douglas Fairbanks, 77 Sunset Strip, and the famous showdown in the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Edd Byrnes, George Hilton, and Gilbert Roland work brilliantly together to make the satire work. It is too bad Mr. Maltin rated this film so poorly as it is undeserved. One can only guess as to his reason. I suspect that he missed the point of the movie entirely and was expecting something more serious than this film is meant to be. Kudos belong to everyone involved in this project. This film is a little gem waiting to be discovered by people who care about literate movies and appreciate satire.

Sentiment: positive
I went into this film thinking it would be a crappy b-rated movie. I came out surprised and very amused. Eva was good, but Lake Bell stole the show. She had amazing comedic timing. The jokes in this film were surprisingly original and really funny with one or two flat jokes in between. The plot was enough to tie it all together, a woman (Eva) dies on her wedding day and comes back to haunt the woman that is going out with her was-to-be husband, its sounds far-fetched but it actually works quite well. 

7/10 - Overall its a worthwhile cinema watch, if not get it on DVD when it comes out.

Sentiment: positive
I believe that this is one of Elizabeth Montgomery's best performances in a movie, and I have seen most of her movies.I saw this for the first time on television when I was around fourteen, and I was so scared.I watch this movie every now and then, and I still enjoy it very much.I know that these days that this movie would probably not scare people too much.That just goes to show that the public movie and television audience has seen too much graphic violence in the last thirty years or so.I love movies that do not show the graphic details, you let your imagination do the work for you. The cast in this movie was top notch. Jess Walton, who played the sister in the story was very good, even though her part was rather small. She also played in a terrific made for television thriller around the same time called You'll Never See Me Again with David Hartman.I got the biggest kick out of Eileen Heckart's performance as the housekeeper. Eileen was so good as a lady with a very bad disposition.George Maharis who played the husband was quite effective.This story obviously had a lot of so called mistakes in the plot, but I love the movie anyway. I highly recommend this movie to people who love a good thriller without graphic violence.I gave this movie a vote of seven.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is not realistic at all, more of a comedy than a serious war film. Very old-fashioned too. Maybe I was just expecting it to be on a same level with "Platoon". I wonder, why 50% of the voters gave it 10? Something must be wrong.

Sentiment: negative
The subject matter seems pretty dated today. Adapted for TV from Rona Jaffe's book; we trip and stumble through a fantasy existence. Four college students get deeply involved playing a live version of the board game Mazes and Dragons (based on Dungeons and Dragons). One player, a young Tom Hanks, enters the fantasy world too deep. His co-players must come to his rescue and save him from self inflicted harm.

David Wallace, Wendy Crewson and Chris Makepeace round out the game's foursome. Support cast is made up of veteran actors like Murray Hamilton, Vera Miles, Anne Francis and Susan Strasberg.

At this date, it seems lumbering and tame. But the highlight of watching is seeing Tom Hanks between his "Bosom Buddies" salad days and his big splash in SPLASH on the silver screen. The youngest of viewer will get most enjoyment.

Sentiment: negative
If you loved the 1993 (erotic, sci-fiction)cyborg film "Nemesis", then you'll love this one. I loved it the minute the Elvis Pompadoured hero pulls out a samurai sword during a shoot-out. Like "Nemesis" its takes place in a post apocalyptic slum of the future. Both are police thrillers where the well armed hero must take on well armed rebels, to solve a conspiracy by the powers that be against the unwashed masses. but thats where the similarities ends. The ambiguous mayor in dead or alive tries to keep the masses sedate on the drugs he sells them. The rebels aided by mercenaries and a cyborg, try to brake his suffocating hold on his subjects. After several failed attempts to brake the rebels back, he sends his top cop to assassinate the rebels. This movie follows the track of most action adventure but isn't afraid to color outside the line.

Sentiment: positive
Happy 25th Birthday to Valley Girl! Great soundtrack, plausible story, wonderful performances...captures the spirit of the 80's; the slang of the mainstreams and the outcasts. A wonderful rendition of high school life and "gritty downtown" from a suburban perspective.

The soundtrack contains songs by Modern English, Felony, Josie Cotton, Sparks, Payola$, Josie Cotton, The Plimsouls, The Psychedelic Furs, Men At Work, The Flirts and Bananarama.

This movie truly is Romeo and Juliet (minus the double suicide) set in 1980's Los Angeles. Julie's dad, played by Frederic Forrest (Sonny Bono, anyone?) is hysterical as a hippie idealistic dad who wonders how he sprung such a materialistic offspring. Yet, he doesn't judge, ya dig??

Sentiment: positive
A difficult film to categorize. I was never giving it 110% concentration & consequently as simple as the plot appeared I couldn't say for certain exactly who was doing what amongst the American FBI characters & what their roles were. Nor could I take the Irwins seriously as film characters when their lines & scenes were all in the style of one of his shows, not acted out.

This is nothing more than a glorified episode of a Discovery TV show, with a largely insignificant sub plot going on, which just seemed to get in the way. However as any Irwin show is always worth a watch, this film is well worth a look too, but not on Christmas Day. Talking of which, I've better things to do too than be on here.

A high 4/10

Sentiment: negative
I wish Spike Lee had chosen a different title for his film. "Summer Of Sam" conveys the impression that the film is about the infamous serial killer, David Berkowitz. It's not. It's a gritty, earthy portrait of NYC street life during the hot summer of '77 when Berkowitz terrorized that city.

The film follows several young fictional characters in an Italian-American neighborhood, and their reactions to the Son of Sam threat. There's Vinny and his wife Dionna; there's Richie and Ruby, and several other characters.

The problem is that these characters are not likable. They are routinely annoying, and at times unbearable. Lee then belabors their high energy, chaotic lives, which are filled with anger, lust, and general turmoil. There are at least two protracted fight scenes between Vinny and his wife, redundant disco dance scenes, countless gabfests ... Over and over I kept wondering: where's the film editor?

Meanwhile, with all that bulk, the film passes up the chance to convey any real sense of fear or dread arising from the Son of Sam menace, which is too much in the background. Lee is more successful at showing a different kind of menace, that arising from neighborhood vigilante groups.

The acting is uniformly good. That, combined with 70's disco music, and lavish attention to costumes and production design, make you really feel like you are in an Italian-American neighborhood in NYC in 1977.

The film's atmospheric authenticity, however, is not nearly enough to offset a rambling, overblown script about the lives of grossly irritating people.

Sentiment: negative
Maybe it was the excessive weight gain Seagal had put on. Or maybe it was the horrible acting of Wayans in an action flick. Or was it the total lack of chemistry between the two leading characters? These and other considerations lead me to conclude that Seagal should have never made this acting nightmare. True, the story line was good. Yet, as an avid follower of Seagal's career and background, his physical appearance was inconsistent with his genre of clean, pure, healthy Zen Buddhist living, notably in his on screen discussions with Wayans. (Then again his real life affair with the "nanny" was inconsistent also!)

If Seagal wants to become a more diversified actor, then he should do what a fellow action figure did in "Kindergarten Cop"...put humorous material or situations in the script where the actor has no choice but to react in a comical way. Otherwise, leave the wise-cracks and the futile attempts at humor out of it while chasing a serial killer. Seagal is not a natural humor type of guy. It did not work.



Sentiment: negative
There is something about this show that keeps me watching and hoping for the future of it. In the writing, the jokes are few and far between, and the story lines are a bore, so I figure it must be the physical comedy and the visuals.

I do enjoy the camera movement, set dressing, and wardrobe. It's amusingly highly contrasted against the dullness that reigns. And I'm pretty sure every time I have laughed it was because of John or Molly's physical comedy. The two of them make a sickeningly cute couple that make me laugh and want to puke at the same time.

So here I go ready to sit down to Kath & Kim one more time tonight to see what path this production will go down (or up as the case may be, looking forward positively).

Sentiment: negative
This film is totally garbage. Some imbecilic intellectual comforting himself by making all his best to claim superiority of aristocrat over working class. Nothing more than a piece of self-complacence catharsis. Disgusting.

If this kind of a movie is set in US, it will sure make itself a big joke. And simply because it comes out from 'the other side', it makes itself a masterpiece, a wonderful amusement for certain brain-washed and/or brain-washing westerns (some George W. maybe:). A typical cold-war sequelae, some kind of joke anyway.

I would say, if this -- like expressed in this film -- is all what Soviet intellectuals had been thinking about all those years, then maybe they deserve all the miseries they claim they had gone through. BUT NO! 'cause like many others, I've read and watched real masterpieces made by real outstanding Soviet intellectuals. For example, something also relevant with dog, "White Bim Black Ear" -- both Gavriil Troyepolsky's book and Stanislav Rostotsky's movie -- is a real masterpiece. Real life, real tragedy, real sad, real pride and dignity, one of the real best of the Soviet era.

Sentiment: negative
I cannot understand the need to jump backwards and forwards to scene set, and pad out the plot. Showing that someone has a skill right before they use it, I believe, is offending our intelligence. It's starting to feel a little contrived, and as though they are making up for being so vague for the first three series. A little disappointing this episode.

Furthermore, using past quirks, like Locke's ability to know when a storm is ending, is frankly insulting... are we supposed to ooh and arr, or laugh at the softer side of Locke?

This episode was all over the place.

Sentiment: positive
I was referred to this movie by a friend. I had never heard of it but I thought it had Christopher Lampbert so I rented it, and come to find out that wasn't Christopher Lampbert it was Thomas Jane who was great it this film. I love that almost the whole movie is set in this suburban house. The characters were great everyone of them and the script was amazing I really wish Skip Woods would write and direct another movie. In my book Thursday is the flawless tale of this guy trying to do the wife and kid thing after a shady past but then his old drug dealer buddy shows up and it becomes quite the Thursday. This is one of my favorite movies and it shows some real potential in Thomas Jane. But this movie is very rare but I have found it in a couple of Hollywood Video's on VHS. So dust off the old VCR and pop in Thursday because it gets Pee Wee's seal of approval

Sentiment: positive
I really enjoyed this movie. I am a single dad with a 17 year old daughter who is smart, athletic and talented. I WISH my girl applied herself so well to solving crimes and helping others! So for me, perhaps this is PG level Fantasyland. I read many Nancy Drew books in my teen years, long, long ago. Sure THIS character was ably played by Emma Roberts but did NOT resemble the Nancy Drew I recall from the books. That is due to script, not the acting.

Emma is an adorable teen, playing a self-confident, industrious and proud character with good manners and good taste. She is not caught up in the trendy competitiveness around her. There are some weaknesses in the Plot, aside from not resembling the Nancy Drew of the Books, and trying to figure out what decade we're in. (like, what is that CAR, Anyway?) 

I read the IMDb overview before seeing the film, as I was researching Rachael Leigh Cook from other movies. This is not one of Her best roles, but I will continue looking for more of her films. Rachael was too old to play this lead, but does a fine job as the grown-up orphan central to the mystery.

I am very disappointed in other reviews written here. Some expect perfect connection with the books, some expect more credible situations or adult action film. I got what I expected! Good entertainment well targeted to young teen girls, And their Fathers who want good kids with high standards of conduct and achievement. This is a Teen PG Movie, not James Bond! Which would YOU Want for a Role Model for YOUR Teenaged Daughter?

Sentiment: positive
Jimmy Cagney races by your eyes constantly in this story of a stage-producer who is vigorously struggling against the upcoming "talking" movies.

This story of love, deceit, women and dancing is presented in such a manner that as a viewer you are never treated to a dull moment. The direction of the mass scenes in the rehearsal rooms was enormously well done. The story never really got lost in this frantic pace.

Some parts of the material presented here have become a little dated but that doesn't matter because when you look at this in a 1933 time-frame it is fabulous to watch this next to a lot of the other drags of movies that were released during that time.

Jimmy Cagney is a sight for sore eyes in this film, never loosing his composure as the ever-working producer of previews made for the movie theaters as intros. In this way he tries to save his ass from going out of business, he was a broadway producer before he started this. Joan Blondell is fabulous as the neglected love-interest, Nan, she gives such a spirited performance that is so unusual for movies of that time, so cool to watch a woman who is portrayed as a strong woman for a change.

The only problem I had with the film were the enormous productions at the end. These were magnificent in itself, beautifully choreographed and wonderfully produced, but they just didn't seem to fit in the story. The only link they have to the main story is that Cagney had to put on 3 previews in 3 days to get a contract and that's what he did. I had a hard time believing that this was what the girls had been rehearsing during the entire movie and that these sets could fit in a movie theater. In this way the "Sitting On A Backyard Fence" was much more appropriate to the story.

The productions at the end seemed to drag this frantically paced story to a halt and that was not a good thing. I was tired after seeing the first Musical sequence and then I realized there were another two coming up. These sequences got a lot a chuckles from the audience as well.

All in all a great film with a sour ending.

9/10

Sentiment: positive
The Cell is weak on plot, filled with holes and has pretty lousy acting as well. but none of this matters, for, director tarsem singh has given us one of the most visually stunning movies ever. the whole plot is just an excuse to let tarsem fool around and take you into the minds of a serial killer, bringing the audience some shocking, pleasing, breath-taking and mind blowing images.

the images from this beautiful movie will stick with you for a long time to come. this movie is a perfect case for the "suspension of disbelief" theory. forget the silly plot, just let your senses be overwhelmed with the images. and J.Lo looks stunning enough to add to the rest of tarsem's work. the cinematography is harrowing, the music haunting & the costumes just stunning. 

the movie is less of a movie and more of a work of art. its just that the medium is not canvas anymore, it is the big-screen and celluloid. one of the most refreshing movies of this decade. The Cell is a must watch. A bold new step in movie making.

an enthralling 8!!

Sentiment: positive
I find it difficult to comprehend what makes viewer's feel this is a powerful movie. I would guess that the main intention of this film would be a character study and the effects of racism in a British community. It is therefore all the more disappointing that all the characters are two dimensional and the acting is at the level of a college performing arts course. I'm always sceptical of "improvisation", another word for being too lazy to write a decent script. I was embarrassed by the performances and sat in an audience who laughed when they surely were supposed to be moved by the story. Racism is a serious issue but I think a subtle approach in cinema works far better than laying it on with trowel.

Sentiment: negative
Sacchi is the best Bogart impersonator ever... dry and droll as Sam Marlowe. The music from award winning composer George Duning [From Here To Eternity, Picnic, The World of Suzie Wong], the cinematography of perfect locations [including the famous Ambassador Hotel] are all right on target as famous tv director Robert Day [Kojak, Streets of San Francisco, The Avengers] guides the most endearing group of well-known character actors through a spoof of every dark detective film every made. See this if you loved all the old serious flicks and have a sense of humor... this one is a hoot.

Sentiment: positive
Miss DeCarlo's starring debut has everything the writers could come up with -- from the Franco-Prussian War to the US Civil War, the great American West, San Francisco in its heyday, ballet, opera, vaudeville, stage coach bandits, and a Chinese junk. Just when you thought the plot couldn't get any screwier, it does. It's magnificent, taken tongue in cheek. DeCarlo's character (here called Anna Marie -- NOT Salome, that's the role she dances) is loosely based on the career of the notorious Lola Montez, who was the mistress of the King of Prussia and caused a revolution when he gave her the crown jewels. She did escape to the American west. There is a town in Arizona called "Salome, Where She Danced," based on the historical fact that Lola Montez did dance the role of Salome there. StageCoach Cleve and the Russian nobleman who fall under her charms are not historically accurate, nor I assume is the Chinese wise man with the Scottish accent -- but it is one of my favorite all time camp classics and DeCarlo is breathtakingly beautiful throughout.

Sentiment: positive
One of b- and c-movie producer Roger Corman's greatest cult classics was the Ramones vehicle (originally designated for Cheap Trick), Rock N' Roll High School. It's just a simple, technically dated story (but would serve up extra doses of nostalgia humor considering these were the kind of things that made Napoleon Dynamite characters funny--see Eaglebauer's van) about teenagers who love rock n' roll.

Students at Vince Lombardi High School are met with resistance by the evil principal, Miss Evelyn Togar (played by cult classic favorite, Mary Woronov) who fears that Rock N' Roll turns kids into uncontrollable, amoral deviants and vows to make a Rock N' Roll-free zone. Actually, she intends to wipe out Rock N' Roll for all students, regardless of whether its at school, and she has the cooperation of most of the adults who might make the plan successful.

But not if Riff Randell (PJ Soles) can help it. A Ramones fanatic, she has written some songs (including Rock N' Roll High School) that she wants to give to the Ramones, and in trying to do so, is rebuffed by Miss Togar who does all she can to keep her from going to see the Ramones play in town. It culminates into an ultimate revolt between the obsolete fun-hating adults and the teenagers (in an ending that is reminiscent of Over the Edge, somewhat). After the years of punk, when the fame of garage rockers, The Ramones (and others) would mark another shift in music evolution, it was great to see a movie that celebrated the fun of it all and in such a humorous, exaggerated way.

It is mostly mild comedy, but a great feel-good comedy nonetheless when you're in the mood for something more laid back to entertain you. With Jerry Zucker (of Airplane fame) and Joe Dante (of Gremlins fame) both taking part in some of the directing, you can get the idea for what kind of humor you're in for (and not to mention, expect to see Dick Miller even if only for a few minutes in the film's finale). The story must've later inspired (and was consequently updated) by the mid-90s comedy, Detroit Rock City, which some minor character changes in the vehicle for aged glam rockers, Kizz.

I would recommend passing on the Corey Feldman vehicle, Rock N' Roll High School Forever, released nearly a decade later. The original is still the best.

Sentiment: positive
It is movie about love,violence,illegal affairs and romanian tycoons. A romanian story combined with an occidental adaption resulting in a modern international film that can be understood both by western audiences but as well by eastern European audiences that HAVE LONG forgotten about the conservative comunist regim over film-making.

A film full of violent fight scenes that are very numerous and create more and more tensed situations as the movie goes on . 

A story that impresses because of its view over the hard life from the neighbourhood. Two young men do illegal car races. They work together as a team and prosper from their occupation ,but when they are asked by a local tycoon to lose one race things start to get messy and the fuse from the bomb lights up creating a very tensionated movie that will keep you close to the screen until the ending of it when you will still be asking yourself a lot of questions long after that.

Brilliant acting both by Dragos Bucur and Dorina Chiriac along with high quality directing and screen writing by the young but talented director Radu Muntean also give a unique charm to Furia. All this and many other elements that can be noticed while watching have created a must see movie by all the filmlovers around the world and its message is clear to all not depending of race ,language we speak or country. It is a real hope for the Romanian cinema as it tries to keep up with the more advanced occidental cinema.

I hope you enjoy watching it as I'm sure that all the people that have seen it liked it and understood it.

Sentiment: positive
I was really stunned how much a film, that's over 60 years old could impress me. It is nearly two hours long, there are absolutely no stars in it, there are subtitles but nevertheless it is interesting and exciting to watch. What impressed me mostly was the realism of the film. You could nearly feel the coldness of the ice, because you could see that the storms are real. This is a relief in a CGI-world like ourdays. I wondered how much work this must have been for van Dyke. I read somewhere that it took 17 months to film it. Now who wants to talk about 'Titanic' anymore? It's a great film with a great message and I would recommend it to future directors to see how great and realistic movies can be if they are only directed with realism instead of visual effects.

Sentiment: positive
This show is the worst show ever! Norris and his family write it, produce it, direct it, etc etc. The only reason I ever see it is because my goofy wife likes it. How many times can Norris fly though the air from plain sight to land a kick on an obviously blind villain? No trees, no building, just whoosh.....thin air. He ALWAYS solves the case or is the best at whatever skill there is. No co star ever gets the glory. Its all Norris. Its truly apparent that Norris is awful stuck on himself and will not allow anyone to one up him in any scene no matter what the content. Terrible acting, terrible script, terrible series.

Sentiment: negative
Two stars 

Amanda Plummer looking like a young version of her father, Christopher Plummer in drag, stars in this film along with Robert Forster--who really should have put a little shoe black on top of that bald spot.

I've never seen Amanda Plummer in a good film. She always plays these slightly wacky characters in films that don't quite add up, and she does so yet again in this one.

Firstly, we have two young women, sisters, who don't resemble in the slightest, who allow themselves to be picked up, separately, by questionable men along the roadways.

Amanda's character, Sandra, does at least have a good reason for allowing Dr. Jake (Robert Forster)to pick her up in the first place. She has been run off the road, seemingly by a maniac, and her car is pretty much destroyed.

Warning - Spoilers ahead! 

However, as we go along, we realize Dr. Jake is not playing with a full deck any more than Amanda is. He makes every decision based on the flip of a coin.

When Dr. Jake and Amanda arrive at a motel, who do we see but the maniac's car, and what does Amanda do but get inside his station wagon and start snooping around. What her motive was for doing this is never clear considering the man is apparently dangerous and might try to kill her. One would think the last thing she would do is place herself in such a precarious situation.

Not only does she snoop around, but she finds some money and takes it.

Shortly after this we have several other things that don't add up.

Dr. Jake, with Amanda as his passenger, runs out of gas, and the two of them abandon his car and begin walking. One would think crossing a desert, he would have checked his gas gauge--this seems a very unlikely thing for him to allow to happen. Then later, he is seen driving the same car. When or how did he get the car back? 

Dr. Jake tells Amanda he knows she has taken the money. Now how would he know that? He didn't see her do it as far as I know, and she didn't tell him she did it.

Then later we have a character named Santini (David Thewlis), the man who was driving the station wagon, give the two of them a lift and I'll be darned if he doesn't know Amanda took the money as well. How would he know that? 

It loses credibility at an alarming rate the further we go.

When Alice, Amanda's sister (Fairuza Balk)gets in the clutches of the killer and decides her fate on the toss of a coin - one would think she would be very, very careful that the coin she swaps for a trick coin would definitely be the trick coin - but apparently it isn't.

It's jarring things like this, that destroy any credibility this movie may have had.

Sentiment: negative
L'Hypothèse du tableau volé/The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting (1979) begins in the courtyard of an old, three-story Parisian apartment building. Inside, we meet The Collector, an elderly man who has apparently devoted his life to the study of the six known existing paints of an obscure Impressionist-era painter, Tonnerre. A narrator recites various epigrams about art and painting, and then engages in a dialogue with The Collector, who describes the paintings to us, shows them to us, tells us a little bit about the painter and the scandal that brought him down, and then tells us he's going to show us something....

As he walks through a doorway, we enter another world, or worlds, or perhaps to stretch to the limits, other possible worlds. The Collector shows us through his apparently limitless house, including a large yard full of trees with a hill; within these confines are the 6 paintings come to life, or half-way to life as he walks us through various tableaux and describes to us the possible meanings of each painting, of the work as a whole, of a whole secret history behind the paintings, the scandal, the people in the paintings, the novel that may have inspired the paintings. And so on, and so on. Every room, every description, leads us deeper into a labyrinth, and all the while The Collector and The Narrator engage in their separate monologues, very occasionally verging into dialogue, but mostly staying separate and different.

I watched this a second time, so bizarre and powerful and indescribable it was, and so challenging to think or write about. If I have a guess as to what it all adds up to, it would be a sly satire of the whole nature of artistic interpretation. An indicator might be found in two of the most amusing and inexplicable scenes are those in which The Collector poses some sexless plastic figurines -- in the second of them, he also looks at photos taken of the figurines that mirror the poses in the paintings -- then he strides through his collection, which is now partially composed of life-size versions of the figures. If we think too much about it and don't just enjoy it, it all becomes just faceless plastic....

Whether I've come to any definite conclusions about "L'Hypothèse du tableau volé", or not, I can say definitely that outside of the early (and contemporaneous) works of Peter Greenaway like "A Walk Through H", I've rarely been so enthralled by something so deep, so serious, so dense....and at heart, so mischievous and fun.

Sentiment: positive