DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This sports a nice, deep cast but for a thriller you better deliver more than name actors and talk. The first third of this movie was nothing but talk, and more talk. Most of that was a bunch of women bitching about everything to each other. 

The first five listed actors in here are women so that verifies that it's really a "chick flick" and little else. This probably plays on the Lifetime network.

There was a quick murder scene and then more talk. By halfway through, they had lost me. 

By the way, Sally Field looked about 15 years old in here.

Sentiment: negative
Clever, gritty, witty, fast-paced, sexy, extravagant, sleazy, erotic, heartfelt and corny, Footlight Parade is a first-class entertainment, what the movies are all about.

The realistic, satirical treatment gives a fresh edge to the material and its pace and line delivery are breathtaking. To think that they only started making feature talking pictures 7 years before this! The brilliance of the dialogue cannot be matched anywhere today, especially considering that "realism" has taken over and engulfed contemporary cinema.

This film was made at a time when the Hayes code restricting content was being ignored and the result is a fresh, self-referential, critical and living cinema that spoke directly to contemporary audiences suffering through the depression and the general angst of the age. I'd recommend watching any film from this period, that is 1930-1935, for a vision of what popular cinema can potentially be.

Sentiment: positive
My son, an avid skateboarder, sat me down and made me watch this with him. As I love documentaries, it didn't take a whole lot of pressure on his part. The whole amazing story of it all - a bunch of dirt-poor kids drift together and end up creating something revolutionary out of thin air - well, more out of some wood, wheels and lack of waves to surf - it just floored me. It still does. I didn't think I would enjoy it the way I did, nor did I think I would tear up watching Stacey Peralta tear up over the fate of Jay Adams. And just watching Jay Adams himself.....the sheer genius of the kid skating and the shrug of the adult remembering. I watched it again last night for what has to be the 10th time and I still get goosebumps watching him fly down the hill with Jimi Hendrix's "Freedom" playing in the background. And I teared up, again. Not too many movies have the same impact with me after several viewings. Brilliant.

Sentiment: positive
It's funny how your life can change in a second... To attend ''The Waterdance'' for the first time it was an unforgettable experience, the way you need to get used to a new way of life it can seem frightening, and to notice that there are other people going by a similar situation it can help you to go on. 

Eric Stoltz's performances and mainly of Helen Hunt (oh man!, Helen is the purest and graceful woman in earth...) are wonderful, Wesley Snipes also surprises in one of your last serious roles. A film simple and at the same time deep that doesn't get to leave us indifferent to the message that is transmitted: enjoy each moment of your life...

Really to a film as that the any hour is not attended!!! (sorry, it's a Brazilian expression...).

Sentiment: positive
I caught the North American premiere of this at the Chicago International Film Festival. I was beyond disappointed. From the mood in the audience, I wasn't the only one.

The film takes a long time to get to the conflict, and then refuses to resolve it, opting instead to tell us the story is "To Be Continued". Is it a spoiler to reveal that a movie has no ending? I consider it more of a warning. This is, at best, only half a movie- and not the good half.

Sentiment: negative
I generally LIKE watching Burt Lancaster's films--especially when he is needed to go nuts with his imposing screen presence like in Elmer Gantry. However, his greatest strength, his magnetism, was occasionally also his greatest weakness as he rarely, if ever, underplayed ANYTHING. And it is this lack of subtlety that really hinders The Rainmaker. Now I understand that his character was meant to be a sort of showman but how Katherine Hepburn could fall under his spell is completely inexplicable. She is supposed to be smart but doesn't seem so when Lancaster's blarney is being thrown about the screen! In addition to this, the story is perhaps one of the most stagy looking films I have ever seen and it is way too obvious that this is a movie based on a play. It just looks like it was mostly filmed in a sound stage instead of in the great wide open West like it was supposed to be.

Overall, a very overrated film.

Sentiment: negative
Magnificent and unforgettable, stunningly atmospheric, and brilliantly acted by all.

I really cannot understand what sort of people are panning this masterpiece and giving the preponderance of votes as 8 (and nine ones!)

This, along with Grapes of Wrath, is John Ford's greatest movie. I would say that Long Voyage Home is next in line, though quite a way back.

Rating: 10. It deserves a 12.

Sentiment: positive
Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) and Professor Moriarty (Lionel Atwill) engage in a battle of wits for control of a Switz inventor's newest bomb-sight creation. Holmes wants to safeguard it for the British while Moriarty isn't above selling out to the Nazis. 

While no doubt many fans will be disappointed to see Holmes updated to the 1940s war-time setting, this particular film proves light-hearted fun which doesn't wallow in wartime propaganda as it might well have done. Dennis Hoey's Inspector Lestrade and Nigel Bruce's Dr. Watson do tend to steal the show as their characters bumbling methods consistently provide delightful comic relief. The sparring between Holmes and Moriraty is colorful and well thought out to boot. Atwill does well enough as Moriarty even if he's not as memorable as some others who played the role. 

While this provides nothing especially new or thrilling for fans of the series, it is a wonderful escape from reality, somewhat appropriate for 1942 in my opinion, that mirrors many movie serial adventures of the 1930s and 1940s but boasts a more compact, less repetitive plot. And all this is done while still remaining true to the basic spirit of Sherlock Holmes.

Sentiment: positive
The powerhouse cast pulls the crowd in the theatre, despite the ominous title. Jake Gyllenhaal guested on Conan O'Brien to promote the movie and explained that 'Rendition' was a euphemism for obtaining information via torture. Since 9/11, 'extraordinary rendition' allowed the government's intelligence agency to extricate people unquestioningly without due process and use any means necessary in exchange for information.

Gyllenhaal plays rookie CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (note the irony) who is torn about his assignment which renders him as a mere observer to unorthodox interrogation proceedings at an underground detention facility outside the US. 

Omar Metwally plays the suspected terrorist Anwar El-Ibrahimi, Egyptian national and green card-carrying hubby of American Isabella Fields El-Ibrahimi (Reese Witherspoon). Isabella and her son wait for Anwar to come home from a scientific conference when he suddenly disappears from the plane's passenger manifest. She seeks help from her college friend who works in government and learns that the Head of Intelligence, Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep) is behind it all. 

Rendition is directed by Hollywood newbie Gavin Hood (who is set to do X-Men Origins: Wolverine), and begs the question of whether such 'extraordinary rendition' is exercised in real life. The movie was released locally in the wake of the Glorietta explosion (bombing/mishap?), and a pivotal scene in the movie is when a bomb explodes in a public plaza, so that must have sent chills up every moviegoer's spine. Seeing the exploding tableau with a lone red and yellow sign Aajala (Ayala?) on the upper right hand of the screen, plus the effect of silence and slow-moving images magnified the impact of the scene's real-life coincidence. 

There are lessons to learn from this movie and it all boils down to personal decisions we make, daily. We all have choices we can exercise at will, and we often do not always (want to) see how these affect others, who may end up as hapless victims of circumstance. What 'the greater good' is should not have to be a forced choice our leaders have to take if we each already decide correctly at the source. Now that's a utopia worth building.

Sentiment: positive
I love Lucy, but this movie is so wretchedly bad that I was squirming in embarrassment for all concerned within the first ten minutes . . . and it just got worse from there. Lucille Ball's "singing" is downright painful and the attempts to make her appear more youthful through the use of soft focus had me reaching for my reading glasses. It's bombs like this that give bombs a bad name.

Sentiment: negative
This flick is worse than awful! It took a good story plot and turned it into schizophrenic cinema. The photography is EXTREMELY amateurish . . . looks like a 5th graders home movie project filmed with malfunctioning 8mm kiddie cameras . . . the editing appears to have been done by somebody having psychotic flashbacks (while on drugs and booze), with scenes cut short, followed by other, unrelated scenes, then chopped segments of scenes pasted in . . . totally unnecessary and gratuitous nudity . . . missing scenes . . . daytime scenes inexplicably turning into night-time scenes, then suddenly back to daytime . . . obviously no continuity. Tom Skerritt, Wendy Hughes and James Mason's good acting skills are wasted, as are the talents of the "key" supporting cast - (forget the villain and the Anderson women - very amateurish acting). This movie is a good candidate for a remake, even with Skerritt and Hughes . . . just have it professionally done this time.

Sentiment: negative
What a moving film. I have a dear friend who is in her sixties and for the past 15 years has told me that people don't see her anymore, and she longs for companionship. Being in my late 40s I am beginning to see what she has been complaining about. You are no longer youthful, beautiful or touchable. When May says "...this lump of a body..." wow. How our bodies change and how we are told it is no longer beautiful. I love when she begins to change what she wears...the colorful scarf...no longer the frumpy wife.

It is a sad and wonderful picture at the same time. Sad in that May betrays her daughter's trust...beautiful in that she finds herself through the difficulty of the affair, and chooses to move on and finally have her own life. I love the character's daring to even initiate the love affair.

Mostly I love the movie because finally it is a picture that shows the intricate nature of relationships, be they familial or not. We see Paula's vulnerability, yet she will have what she wants at all costs...(when she tells her mum that she will have a baby for Darren whether he wants one or not after her mother asks if Darren even wants a child). The movie hits the mark on the how relationships can change, and yet reveals what has been there all along, dormant. May has stifled her own creativity to raise a family. A family that she didn't really want, but was "something you just did when she was young". I love the scene when Darren calls her an old tart, and she smiles and says "I was never called that before". It was truly a gem of a movie.

And Daniel Craig. Well, i just love him. I was pleasantly surprised. Not only is he pleasant on the eyes, he is a real talent. What a neat role. He is much more than any 007 that is for sure and I look forward to seeing him in more roles of this nature. The scene where he is pleasuring May and the look he gives her is sort of a look of wonder that he has such control over this woman, and also one of pleasure of being able to give this to her. He is actually enjoying giving her pleasure. A wonderful scene. The contrast is the love scene with Bruce. Bruce is totally absorbed with his own pleasure...two completely different men.

Alas...I wonder where is my Darren?

Sentiment: positive
Every movie I have PPV'd because Leonard Maltin praised it to the skies has blown chunks! Every single one! When will I ever learn?

Evie is a raving Old Bag who thinks nothing of saying she's dying of breast cancer to get her way! Laura is an insufferable Medusa filled with The Holy Spirit (and her hubby's protégé)! Caught between these harpies is Medusa's dumb-as-a-rock boy who has been pressed into weed-pulling servitude by The Old Bag!

As I said, when will I ever learn?

I was temporarily lifted out of my malaise when The Old Bag stuck her head in a sink, but, unfortunately, she did not die. I was temporarily lifted out of my malaise again when Medusa got mowed down, but, unfortunately, she did not die. It should be a capital offense to torture audiences like this!

Without Harry Potter to kick him around, Rupert Grint is just a pair of big blue eyes that practically bulge out of its sockets. Julie Walters's scenery-chewing (especially the scene when she "plays" God) is even more shameless than her character.

At least this Harold bangs some bimbo instead of Maude. For that, I am truly grateful. And if you're reading this Mr. Maltin, you owe me $3.99!

Sentiment: negative
Chesty gringo Telly Savalas (as Frank Cooper) is a US-Mexico "Border Cop". He serves as a father figure to young immigrant Danny De La Paz (as Benny Romero), who wants Mr. Savalas to be best man at his impending wedding. Savalas is tough, but boss Eddie Albert (as Commander Moffat) may be tougher. Tough is what you need to stop smuggler Michael V. Gazzo (as Chico Suarez). Alliances may be in flux.

If you find the possibility of hearing "Kojak" and "Oliver Douglas" uttering expletives to be repulsive, you ought to steer clear of "The Border". If not, you may not have the stomach for the "realistic" cow slaughtering scene. Although it doesn't end up being worth much, Mr. De La Paz and Cecilia Camacho (as Leina) steal the show. 

** The Border (1979) Tony Richardson ~ Telly Savalas, Danny De La Paz, Eddie Albert

Sentiment: negative
In "Hoot", a new kid arrives to Florida from Montana. He first faces the usual problems of blending in and dealing with the local bully. Soon, though, he becomes aware of a bigger problem: a franchise restaurant chain is trying to build a site in the town, right where a number of burrowing owls live. This movie has the look of a family film, but it is pretty more radical than it seems, as it shows sympathetically how Roy and a couple of friends do not shy away from lawbreaking (including vandalism of private property and briefly kidnapping the manager of the chain of restaurants) in the name of environmentalism (to save owls, no less). Now, one might agree or not with those actions, but at least the movie has the courage from not shying away from its convictions. A good, solid film, all in all.

Sentiment: positive
George Lopez never caught my interest in his stand up comedy and he still doesn't. But this show is a work of art. It's not ever show where the jokes keep you laughing every time you remember it (and jokes that re memorable at that). This show just has an upbeat look to it and the characters range from an old, short drunk to an dyslexic teenager. I don't know who writes this show but that person does a great job. If they had just continued the show I'm sure that it would get a positive response from the critics of this great country. If you are looking for a good, traditional comedy, then George Lopez is the show for you! The one bad thing is the title. George Lopez? Really? Imagine the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air being "Will Smith". C'mon man! But otherwise, this show is genius! 10/10

Sentiment: positive
I get it the Diehl character is s'posed to be a microcosm of America itself - seeing Arab terrorists under every rock, only to find out at the end that it's his own actions all along that got him into that siege state and truly if he practices good-will to all men everything will be rainbows and lollipops. Sorry Wim you have made amazing movies in the past that stay neutral of the politics and for good reason, polemics are your weak point and they weaken this a well-made, amazingly filmed movie with absurd characters, dialog and plotting. Better luck on your next flick. Another thing that yanked my crank was the belabored point of the homeless section of LA being there for reasons of hunger, these people don't get enough to eat. Truly these folks aren't eating regally but the real hunger these folks is a spiritual hunger, an emotional hunger, a mental hunger. They need self-respect, self-worth, dignity which you can't give a man. Yeah those folks are hungry and if they need it it is available. Less the center for hunger in America, I would say it's more the center for alcoholism, drug-abuse, mental suffering and economic devastation. Dealing with hunger although a noble endeavor is band-aiding a more profoundly systematic societal and age-old human problem of homelessness. Bill Diehl was good though and Michelle Williams was cute as the young yet (cliched) old soul.

Sentiment: negative
Just because an event really happened doesn't mean that it will make a good screenplay/ movie. The Cat's Meow, by Peter Bogdanovich claims to be based on actual events which happened on a cruise hosted by William Randolph Hurst. The writer paid more attention to creating a bizarre cast of characters than taking time to create a story for the bizarre characters to inhabit. The key moments of the story seem implausible; for example, when Hurst accidentally shoots the producer, believing him to be Chaplin. Basing a key element of a story on someone wearing the wrong hat is trite and contrived. The story attempts to be a dark comedy, but The Cat's Meow misses an important piece of this equation, comedy. There is also a lack of empathy for any of the characters. It hardly matters who is shot, who is killed, who is guilty and who is innocent. There is not a strong character to cheer for. As a result the conflicts are difficult to care about and the eventual outcome is incidental.

Sentiment: negative
An extremely dark and brooding show with an excellent cast. One of the few shows that I try to watch on a regular basis. Glad to see Bebe Neuwirth in a recurring role, but feel Andre Braugher is underutilized. He is one intense actor! Hope CBS gives it a better time slot next season.

Sentiment: positive
It is not every film's job to stimulate you superficially. I will take an ambitious failure over a mass-market hit any day. While this really can't be described as a failure, the sum of its parts remains ambiguous. That indecipherable quality tantalizes me into watching it again and again. This is a challenging, provocative movie that does not wrap things up neatly. The problem with the movie is in its structure. Its inpenetrable plot seems to be winding up, just as a second ending is tacked on. Though everything is technically dazzling, the movie is exactly too long by that unit. The long-delayed climax of Leo's awakening comes about 20 minutes late.

Great cinematography often comes at the expense of a decent script, but here the innovative camera technique offers a wealth of visual ideas. The compositing artifice is provocative and engaging; A character is rear-projected but his own hand in the foreground isn't. The world depicted is deliberate, treacherous and absurd. Keep your eyes peeled for a memorable, technically astonishing assassination that will make your jaw drop.

The compositions are stunning. Whomever chose to release the (out of print) videotape in the pan & scan format must have never seen it. Where is the DVD?

It is unfathomable how anyone could give this much originality a bad review. You should see it at least once. You get the sense that von Trier bit off more than he could chew, but this movie ends up being richer for it. I suspect he is familiar with Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent in which devious Europeans also manipulate an American dupe and several Welles movies that take delirious joy in technique as much as he does. All von Trier movies explore the plight of the naif amidst unforgiving societies. After Zentropa, von Trier moved away from this type of audacious technical experiment towards dreary, over-rated, un-nuanced sap like Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.

Sentiment: positive
This is simply the funniest movie I've seen in a long time. The bad acting, bad script, bad scenery, bad costumes, bad camera work and bad special effects are so stupid that you find yourself reeling with laughter.

So it's not gonna win an Oscar but if you've got beer and friends round then you can't go wrong.

Sentiment: positive
it got switched off before the opening credits had even finished appearing. The first joke was just so appallingly lame and dreadfully acted that it had to go. You shouldn't really decide to watch this based on my review or not. I saw so little of it I shouldn't even really be commenting but suddenly it all became clear why the video shop guy was sniggering at us paying money to see it.

Couldn't they have just made Earnest does Dallas?

Sentiment: negative
In an interview, David Duchovny said he hasn't been able to watch even the first hour of this film - and neither should you. The scene where he asks the owner of a house where a murder was committed if he can look around - change the name he gives and he could had lifted his performance from just about any episode of the X-Files. He's on autopilot for the whole film. Brad Pitt overacts appallingly.

Sentiment: negative
This is easily the worst movie i have EVER seen. I'm not exaggerating, I told the guy at Blockbuster that they should take it off the shelves. The only thing interesting about this movie is the box. On the box it says "from the director of the boogeyman" so I figured...eh whatever, if this was made recently I'm sure the directing at least won't be TOO bad :-\, but after I saw the movie and looked at what "boogeyman" they were talking about, it's some nonsense from the early 1980's that he made. Great way to rope in unsuspecting viewers.

ANYWAY, I think that they just liked the name "Zodiac Killer", and didn't bother to research any of the actual Zodiac's crimes or his MO, or even the years that he was active. All of the crimes they talk about have nothing to do with the Zodiac and the "stories" about the original Zodiac take place several years after the actual Zodiac's crimes did. They also compare the Zodiac to "Vampire of Dusseldorf" Fritz Haarman throughout the movie and talk to Fritz's "son" quite often. The Zodiac and Haarman were nothing alike, and it makes more sense to compare him to BTK who also shot people, not a man who killed people by chewing through their necks. None of the Haarman facts are correct either, just a bunch of jumbled nonsense. His son even says "Don't forget, his name was Fritz Haarman with 2 t's"...His actual name just has one! I think that the writer/director simply typed in a google search for serial killers and the quickest ones that came up were the Zodiac Killer and Fritz Haarman. "Ooh those sound like cool names, let's make a movie about them without doing any outside research! great idea!"

Perhaps my favorite inconsistency in this movie is the way that the experts as well as the young killer describe suffering from DSM-IV and getting cured of it. "I was also diagnosed with DSM-IV and have since recovered", etc. For those of you who don't know, DSM-IV is the psychological manual for mental disorders. If anybody suffers from the book itself then they must have some SERIOUS problems! Haha.

Anyway, my point is that this goes on the bottom of my top 5 worst movies of all time list, and it's rare that a movie ever reaches that point. But, if you are interested in watching a totally non-fact based story about serial killers that happens to be nothing more than boring, full of inexperienced actors, and not completely rational, I'd say check out this movie.

...Oh, and I liked how the killer "tear gassed" a few of his victims with dry ice. Nice touch...

Sentiment: negative
As it turns out, Chris Farley and David Spade only made three movies together ("Coneheads", "Tommy Boy" and "Black Sheep"), but this was truly the "Citizen Kane" of their pairings. Farley plays Thomas Callahan III, the dimwitted heir to an auto parts company. His father Big Tom (Brian Dennehy) hires mild-mannered Richard Hayden (David Spade) to look after him. Big Tom is getting married to a "ten" (Bo Derek), so everything has to be in order. After Big Tom suddenly dies, Tommy and Richard have to try to sell half a million auto parts to save the company from bankruptcy. From then on, the movie is pretty much an excuse for Chris Farley to do what he does best: make a mess of everything.

When this movie first came out in the theaters, I saw it with my grandfather. He figured out early on that the Bo Derek and Rob Lowe characters were hiding something. But you can completely ignore that and simply luxuriate in Chris Farley's antics. Nothing is safe around his stomach, and hell hath no fury like his happy-go-lucky attitude. The scene where he sets the cars on fire, and later the deer scene, make for a pure laugh riot. Chris Farley and David Spade were truly the John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd of their era. It's a pleasure to always be able to think about "Fat guy in a little coat" time and again.

Sentiment: positive
As someone who usually despises Ali G, Ali G Indahouse was absolutely brilliant. When I was watching it, I was in a hysterical fit. Yes it is sexist, rude and extremely crude, and I loved it. As some comedies are only have one or two comical scenes, this movie was laugh-a-thon. I have never seen a comedy as original as Ali G Indahouse.For a comedy starring Ali G, this would be worthy of an 8 out 10. Absolutely Brilliant.

Sentiment: positive
A Thief in the Night has got to be the best out of all the end times thrillers. I have no clue what people are complaining about what people are whining about when they say that these movies scared them into accepting God. They just needed to find an excuse and blamed A Thief In The Night. Do not listen! These movies do not only tell of one of the many possibilities of the tribulation, but they're also fun to watch in their simplicity. They are in fact low-budget and that is a little obvious, but not all too obvious upon first viewing. I had no clue because I really assumed that a lot of movies like these made in the 70's included low-budgets all the time.

A Thief in the night tells the story of young and cynical Patty Myers who lives for what comes her way, until her husband, and nearly all her friends disappear in the prophetic rapture everyone warned her about. At first, the movie isn't all based around her until the rapture happens. What it leads up to are showing that everyone else around her are becoming christians and believing in Christ, which is usually what happens to a lot of people. Everyone around them they once knew and loved will be gone forever, and the one who is left behind is the one who blames everyone but themselves. No one can ever blame themselves because they're always right.

Just like these whiners who complain about the movie. These people must be full grown adults. I'm thirteen, and you don't see me whining, especially since I was exactly like Patty before I re-accepted Christ into my heart. For those who haven't seen it, if you want a little bit of everything tossed into a Christian movie instead of stereo-typical everyone else is wrong movies, than you'll enjoy A Thief In The Night. Don't knock it before you try it. Something new is always good. Trust your own instincts.

Sentiment: positive
OK.... I just have 3 words - cheesy, cheesy and CHEESY! The only redeeming feature of this movie is Dean Cain. Other than that - it's CHEESEBALL SUPREME!!!!

The movie DOES have some promise in the concept - an underground lab creates a real live fire breathing dragon - basically giving us more of "Jurassic Park" meets "Reign of Fire"..... There are some great possibilities, but they just don't follow through.... The special effects are decent - even though you KNOW the dragon is CGI, it doesn't horribly LOOK like CGI.... 

I wouldn't lay the blame on Dean Cain (although he IS one of the producers), I'd lay more of the blame on Phillip Roth - the director and writer. It's HIS job to make this film.... and, unfortunately, he failed.

Sentiment: negative
This is not the worst movie I've ever seen. I did not feel like I wanted to remove my eyeballs forcibly after watching Galaxina. It just is not good. The jokes are almost funny, but fall short. All of them. The few gags that come close are beat back down by repeating them over and over. The production values are, well, non-existent. The sound is bad, the lighting is bad, ... it just seems cheaply made; overly so. The dialog ... well, often it is missing - many awkward silences; they are all just standing around, and it seems like someone should be saying something. The film even seems ambivalent about what it wants to be - it is not always clear that it was intended as a comedy - like maybe that developed after shooting started. It feels like someone's film project that they threw together the night before it was due, and if they had put two weeks into it, it could have been good.

And I'm easy to please. I thought "Mom and Dad Save the World" was a hoot. I like "Pluto Nash". "Mystery Men" is one of my favorite movies. "Spaced Invaders" is well nigh unto a classic. This turkey just doesn't do it. "Space Truckers" was more believable.

Avery Schreiber, who can be very funny, tries too hard. His part calls for a straightman, and he plays it leaning toward sitcom. Dorothy Stratten is OK in her role, but not particularly noteworthy.

Oh, yeah, the "My watch is always slow." line was funny. I'll give this movie all the kudos it can get, it needs it.

The space vehicle models are not bad, but they are few and are not used effectively. The space scenes are vague. No sweeping passes, no close up detailed fly-bys, not even appropriate action scenes when they dock. (The Infinity does crash land very oddly at one point.) The flight dynamics are terrible; worse than anything you've seen, they're jerky, not smooth. The initial battle is stilted and static; even though the two ships have just shown that they can maneuver in their jerky fashion, they trade (slow) shots at close range in a manner that is more reminiscent of a 16th century sea battle, except not as exciting.

The aliens - imagine if all of Star Wars was the cantina scene. That many rubber masks could get dull rather rapidly, no? A few are used as sight gags that work OK the first time, but not the fifth.

Mercifully, if you attempt to watch Galaxina, you are likely to fall asleep. (I got busy doing something else and missed the last ten minutes, and did not feel like it was worth replaying it. If that doesn't say "It sucked", I don't know what does.) Sadly, there is a lot of potential, and this could easily have been a good movie. It would be easy to remake this and have a decent film.

MadKaugh

Sentiment: negative
Visconti's Death in Venice qualifies as one of the most beautiful films ever made. While watching, we acknowledge we are in the hands of a visionary genius. Endlessly opulent Death in Venice surely is; but in other important ways, it's an unsatisfying film. Thomas Mann writes with contempt and from a distance of von Aschenbach's literary career and output; of his imperious manner, his layer-upon-layer of programmed, self-conscious behavior. When Tadzio appears and obsession arises, it's evident that Aschenbach hasn't the slightest idea who he is beneath his Gilded-Age trappings and carefully lived life. In fact, upon seeing Tadzio, the 'Solitary,' as Mann sometimes calls him, splits in two. Aschenbach No. 1 absorbs the sight of a beautiful 14-year old boy, then attempts to intellectually process the giddy jolt in blood pressure as he would a work of art - a 'divine' work of art. But Aschenbach No. 2, emerges as a stalker who takes control of, then replaces, the rational Aschenbach No. 1. Like the original Aschenbach, his sexual-doppelganger is mortified to make human contact with the object of his obsession - and thus Tadzio remains a far-off ideal. Thomas Mann has no mercy for this game. Every shred of self knowledge comes too strong and too late; the excitement of sexual flush is too great to resist. That Venice is gripped by disease means nothing to Aschenbach - except that his game now has higher stakes. When he finally whispers beneath his breath 'I love you,' he knows that all is lost, and the abyss awaits. Is any of this filmable? Perhaps, and Visconti creates a visual feast impossible to look away from. But there are errors: He and Dirk Bogarde create Aschenbach as sympathetic; Mann, again, did not. Aschenbach's POV dominates the film and we are expected to identify. But nowhere on screen is there a man being torn apart from within. Bogarde toggles between the sublimely controlled and the ridiculously temperamental with ease - but what's underneath? Bogard's reactive performance has no mooring. Mann writes a character who is, in his imagination, doing the Dance of the Seven Veils, all too aware of the consequences such freedom invites, yet unable, unwilling to resist. Also, Visconti's screenplay creates a character not in the original - Alfred, a friend of Aschenbach's - to dramatize Mann's discussion of Art and Artists. These scenes are badly written disasters, and the actor who portrays Alfred is difficult to watch. Also, Visconti's Aschenbach is a Gilded-Age Teutonic composer, which I think works for the film; and the symphonies of Mahler substitute for Aschenbach's novels. Mahler's great music unfortunately is badly recorded and very badly played. So Death in Venice, as Visconti hands it to us, is not the complete success it might have been, but as a purely visual experience its power cannot be denied. All students of film, especially cinematography, will want to take a look.

Sentiment: positive
Like those who listened to radio reports about the attack on Pearl Harbor, every one who has ever seen PINK FLAMINGOS can tell you exactly where they were when they first saw it--and some thirty years later the movie is still one of the most unspeakably vile, obnoxious, repulsive, and hilariously funny films ever put to celluloid, guaranteed to test the strongest stomachs and the toughest funny bones.

Filmed with a close-to-zero budget and some of the shakiest cinematography around, PINK FLAMINGOS tells the story of two families that compete for the tabloid title of "The Filthiest People Alive." Just how filthy can they be? Plenty: the film includes everything from sex with chickens to what I can only describe as a remarkable display of rectal control to a heaping helping of doggie doo, and I guarantee that you won't want to eat an egg for at least several weeks after seeing it.

The cast is either wonderful, atrocious, or atrociously wonderful, depending on how you look at it. The star, of course, is Divine... and to describe Divine as the BIGGEST drag queen on the planet would the understatement of the year. She is a mammoth creature given to BIG eye makeup, BIG orange hair, and BIG expressions--she is the Charleton Heston of drag, and whether she is almost running down a jogger, pausing to use the bathroom on some one's front lawn, or startling real-life shoppers by taking a stroll along a Baltimore sidewalk she is both unspeakable and unspeakably funny. Others in the cast include Mary Vivian Pearce, Danny Mills, and the ever-appalling Edith Massey as members of Divine's family; and Mink Stole and David Lochary as the white-slaving, baby-selling couple who challenge Divine's status.

It should be pretty obvious that PINK FLAMINGOS is not exactly a movie that will appeal to just every one, and viewers who know director John Waters only through such later films as HAIRSPRAY and CRYBABY will be in for a major jolt. But if you want to see something so completely different that even Monty Python couldn't imagine it, this is the movie for you. Just make sure you eat before you see it, because you probably won't want to eat afterward--and you might want to keep a barf bag handy just in case.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Sentiment: positive
I first saw this movie when I was in elementary school, back in the 1960s. I was fascinated with the character played by Ingrid Bergman and it was my introduction to the French Quarter of New Orleans. The first part of the movie is the best as she comes back to exact some revenge on her father's wife and daughter (her mother had been driven out in disgrace). During this time she meets the wonderful Clint Maroon, played by Gary Cooper. The chemistry between the two is great. The second half of the movie takes place in Saratoga, NY (the Saratoga of the title) and I never enjoy it as much as the New Orleans setting but it's still very good. I give this movie a ten - partly out of nostalgia but mostly because it's just a darn good movie and the characters besides those of Bergman and Cooper are equally wonderful (Flora Robson comes close to stealing the scenes from Bergman). It used to be shown on TV periodically but it's shown rarely if ever - it would be a good one for one of the classic movie stations to pick up and put into their programming cycles.

Sentiment: positive
Brilliant Biographic FILM..

Well this certainly is one of my very fav. Biographic movie. This movie came as a Total Surprise to me. I had been avoiding this movie for a very very Long time. Now that was because I am not a fan of Jamie Foxx. I still am not a Big Fan of him But I sure am a FAN now.

Well He deserved every BIT of that Oscar. His performance is one of the BEST performances I have seen in a Long Long time. He is truly Sensational!

Well the narration, or the Flow of the story is Brilliant for a Biographical movie. I am a DRAMA fan so I wasn't bored at all.

I was way too much surprised to have being liking the movie so much that I did not see any flaws in the movie. I think there isn't any flaw in the movie. Maybe some Events errors But hey who Cares?

The performance by the woman who plays ray's Mother was also really GOOD. And well Kerry Washington  she has so much Potential.. if given the right role She might just be the Next Oscar winner.

Well the Story of them movie was so EMOTIONAL so TOUCHING.. I Cried I Cried very Badly

I don't give a damn if the things were mad- up or not cuz this movie mad me cry And that's a lot for me!

All in all a SUPERB FILM. One of the very best of this century!

10/10

Sentiment: positive
What distinguishes some of the 'Lone Star' films (and many others in western and adventure films of the early thirties) was their lack of what we recognize as formulaic story telling. To be sure they had good vs. evil (the basic element of any Western), boy meets girl and some stock characters, such as the old rancher and his beautiful daughter or grand daughter, and sometimes the evil banker or other businessman, but the way the action played out was often different from film to film.

'The Lawless Frontier' features Earl Dwire in his big star turn (not) as (for some inexplicable reason) Pandro Zanti, a 'half Apache, half American posing as a Mexican who speaks the language fluently.' His biggest posing as a Mexican seemed to be his outrageous mariachi clothes. The only plot seems to be that he wants to steal Ruby, the granddaughter of "Old Dusty" (Gabby Hayes). When meeting her for the first time, Dwire gives her a long once over look that puts him in the big leagues with sexual predators. You'd think that because the opening scene shows Zanti killing John (Wayne) Tobin's father off camera, it would play a bigger part in the film. It doesn't. Too much chasing back and forth between heroes and villains.

We get many good stunts, though, from Yakima Canutt, including pulling Ruby up on his horse when he rides by, jumping on 'renegades' and knocking them off their horses, a horse leap off a cliff into a lake, and even the same slide down the sluice sequence that was in "The Lucky Texan" (1934), although this time the Mighty Yak uses a body surfing log instead of straddling a tree bough, and its inclusion is just as illogical this time too, since they are in a desert.

The high point is clearly John Wayne's measured and methodical well photographed walk across the desert after the fleeing and stumbling Zanti with those fantastic basalt cliffs of Red Rock Canyon (seen in countless serials, westerns and science fiction 'moon' movies) framed behind him. No final gun duel at fifty paces with the heroine running from the wooden steps of the bar to embrace and kiss the conquering hero in this movie! When John Wayne finally catches up with him, Zanti drinks poisoned water from a waterhole and dies.

After a couple too many chase sequences, Zantai's gang is finally captured in Dusty's cabin, emerging one by one from behind a swivel cabinet that apparently leads to a canyon, now blocked off by having been dynamited. No riding off into the sunset or obligatorily kissing the girl: The final shot is Ruby, now Mrs. John Tobin, on the telephone to the now Sheriff John Tobin, "What would Sheriff Tobin like for dinner?" The film also has poor lighting and editing at the beginning, the pacing is slow, some parts with the sheriff cause it to drag, and the horse chases fill up the film. So despite the different and unusual elements, it comes off as one of the weaker Lone Stars.

Sentiment: negative
I realize that alot of people hate this movie, but i must admit that it is one of my favorites. I happen to like it better then its predeccesor and happy to like it better than alot of movies.

First off, I think that people never give the story any credit, much like Back to the Future, Time Travel is hard to write, and in this movie they included Time Travel and a Spiritual Journey.

I also feel that Keanu and Alex were on there best performances in this movie, they looked cooler, acted cooler, and said cooler things.

The set design of this movie is awsome as well, The sets are quite detailed and massive at times and it can be hard to believe that these sets were made for a movie about two teenage buds who can hardly spell...but isnt that the genius of the whole franchise, making these two idiots bigger than life characters that are responsible for the entire utopian future of earth.

The costume design was awsome as well. Bill and Ted actually look cool in Bogus Journey, where as in Excellent Adventure they look rather like, well as they would put it, FAGS!!!

Even the music in this movie is awsome, the score especially. There so much i could say about this film, cause i love it. But this is one of those movies i grew up watching and everytime i did i liked it more, so i can understand why people hate or just think its Bogus compared to Excellent adventure (which i also love by the way).

GET DOWN WITH YOUR BAD SELF!!!!

Sentiment: positive
It is often hard to decide what the best film is that you've ever seen, since this may vary by genre, preferences for actors/actresses, or even the mood you're in on a particular day! Having said that, this movie is by far, in my opinion, the WORST movie I've ever seen!! I thought the acting was terrible (was there any?), the plot was just idiotic, and the props were totally fakey. Could a lower budget production be created without being an amateur production? I don't think so. Even the friends I watched the movie with agreed that it was the worst video we ever rented, and to this day we still joke about the night we saw this movie.

Sentiment: negative
I watched this film a few nights ago and it was awful! 

Awfully long - even though they managed to skip through the majority of his life!

Awfully boring - the parts they included were long-winded, and for some reason the director chose to cut away from some of the action and left huge parts of the film unexplained! 

Awfully inaccurate - the whole'mystical' side to this film was a joke, and last time I checked Ghengis Khan wasn't exactly a nice guy! 

Awfully acted - I found several of the characters hard to believe, they were very two-dimensional and lacked and kind of depth! 

A saving grace of the film was the cinematography. That is why I gave this film a 2 star-rating rather than the bare minimum! However, if you want to look at something pretty I would recommend buying a picture instead! 

All in all this film was an awful waste of my time and money! Please do yourself a favour and give this Mongolian turkey a miss!

Sentiment: negative
This was the very first kung fu movie that I have ever seen. The dubbing is not the greatest but alot better than some that I had seen. The plot is much better than some that are made today. It is gory at times but that is what gives it that special push. Academy award material is it not. But if you like to watch fights and a decent story backround, this is for you!

Sentiment: positive
I haven't seen BSG, I tried to watch it once in the middle of the show but couldn't get into it. However, I saw Caprica Rebirth yesterday I felt a little lost, so I decided to watch the Pilot today and I must say I was pleasantly surprised. I think this is a promising show and the only side effect it had on me is that now I want to watch BSG as well.

But what I really liked is that I didn't have to be a hardcore BSG fan to understand what's going on in Caprica. From what I have read in the net, they were trying to reach the female population since BSG reached way more men, and at least in my case it worked.

However, I suggest that if you are trying to watch the show do it from the beginning starting with the Pilot.

Sentiment: positive
This movie has the most beautiful opening sequence ever made. I've seen this movie for the first time a week ago, since then every day I see the opening and every time I feel as thrilled as I felt the first time I heard David Niven uttering the immortal words from Sir Walter Raleigh's The Pilgrimage:

Give me my scallop-shell of quiet, My staff of faith to walk upon, My scrip of joy, immortal diet, My bottle of salvation, My gown of glory, hope's true gage; And thus I'll take my pilgrimage ()

Do you know why it would be a truism to say Michael Powell's and Emeric Pressuburger's lives are thoroughly justified for having crafted such a wonderful opening? Because they had been already admitted in the Paradise of Poets long before they made this movie.

I imagine both of them facing trial during Doomsday and saying nonchalantly to an irate God: I beg your pardon, Sir. So, do You want to know what have we done during our lifetime? Well, well you'll see: We've written directed and produced: I know Where I'm Going, Colonel Blimp, Red Shoes do you think that enough Sir? It is rather obvious that these two great artists had already fulfilled their duty with God, Nature the Muse or Whatever you may call It when they shot A Matter of Life and Death. The fact that other people's lives would be justified for their deeds could be not apparent to everybody, notwithstanding I feel my life would have a meaning had I never done anything else that to see this movie.

Of course old-timers will be tempted to say: They don't do movies like this one any more. They'll be partially mistaken; they didn't make movies like this in the past times either.

I've have already quoted Keats here, but I'll repeat his words: A thing of beauty is a joy forever.

Sentiment: positive
I think this movie was made backwards, first they shoot a whole lot of scenes and action, and explosions, and then the story-writers got to work trying to find a story to tie all scenes up together. this movie is without any doubt the worst movie I have ever seen, your average porn movie comes with a much better written and much more coherent script. The movie makes NO sense. Seriously, even IF you are a Segal fan there's no reason you should EVER want to see this movie, except if you're one of those folks that like to stare at accidents, because this is a horrible accident, and should never have been released upon this world.

Boran.

Sentiment: negative