DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Paul Muni and Bette Davis overact monstrously while lacklustre studio hack Archie Mayo seems distracted and oblivious in this racially provocative film that derives its "bittersweet ending" by condoning segregationist attitudes. Heavy handed and poorly constructed the film collapses under its own weight within the first fifteen minutes with an out of control courtroom scene that it never recovers from as Mr. Muni begins to chew up scenery by the yard hollering and howling away in an almost incoherent fashion.

Johnny Ramirez is a Mexican American from the other side of the tracks who through determination and grit attains a law degree from a store front night school. In his first big case involving an auto accident he displays only ineptitude and is quickly made to look the fool by his well heeled opponents and an impatient judge who recommends he be disbarred. Devastated by the setback an angry Johnny takes on a job at a gambling joint where he is befriended by the owner Charlie Roark (Eugene Palette) who likes his style. The owner cuts him in on the place but problems arise with Mrs. Roark (Davis) who also wants a piece of Johnny. She kills Charlie, implicates Johnny and slowly goes mad before he is acquitted and free to be with a high society Wasp who coldly explains to him that they are from "different tribes, savage" and it will never work. When she flees to escape his rage she is run over and killed by a car. Ramirez sells the casino and moves back to his poor neighborhood rationalizing that its best to stay with your own.

In addition to this appalling denouement Bordertown has a series of bad performances to compliment the overall ugliness of the story. Unfair as his plight might be, Muni's Ramirez is so abrasive and arrogant it becomes hard to show sympathy for such a bull headed blunderer. Davis is no better as the less than loyal wife matching the same adolescent emotions of Muni. Her Lady Macbeth mad scenes give no indication that she was about to become the best film actress of her era. Margaret Lindsay as Muni's American Dream is cold, remote and flat.

Bad as Bordertown is (and it is very) it remains an interesting indicator of the times and acceptable attitudes. The rest is just a mishmash of bad acting and uninspired direction.

Sentiment: negative
A March 1947 New York Times article described Crossfire as one of the first Hollywood films of the 1940s to "face questions of racial and religious prejudice with more forthright courage than audiences have been accustomed to expect." While RKO was producing Crossfire, Twentieth Century-Fox was making Gentleman's Agreement, another story about antisemitism. RKO raced to beat the much "ballyhooed" Fox picture to the theaters, releasing Crossfire several months before Gentleman's Agreement. In July 1947, RKO screened Crossfire for representatives of various Los Angeles religious groups. In addition, several surveys, which were designed to gauge the audience's prejudices, were conducted before and after screenings of the film. Crossfire received both praise and criticism for its depiction of antisemitism in America and was the subject of many editorials. Crossfire received an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture, but lost to Gentleman's Agreement. It was also nominated for Best Supporting Actor (Robert Ryan), Best Supporting Actress (Gloria Grahame), Best Director and Best Screenplay (Adaptation). In September 1947, Crossfire was named Best Social Film at Cannes. In December 1947, Ebony magazine, an African-American publication, gave the film its annual award for "improving interracial understanding." Loved this movie. If you get the chance to watch it, see it.

Sentiment: positive
'One-Round' Jack Sander is called that because he's a carnival boxer who fights any man in the audience. If they can last one round, they win a prize--a popular way to draw customers into traveling shows long ago. Jack is in love with the ticket girl, Mabel, though her head is quickly turned when Bob Corby enters the ring to try his chances with Jack. What no one at the fight knows is that Bob is the champ, so he's able to beat Jack--though it takes him some work. As a result, Bob asks Jack to become his sparring partner and give up the carnival circuit. Later, Jack improves so much that he, too, becomes a legitimate boxer. Slowly, he works his way up the rankings until he's nearly ready to take on the Champ.

In the meantime, the Champ and Mabel start running around behind Jack's back--even though by now Mabel has married Jack. So, when the final fight occurs between Jack and Bob, it's very personal and Jack is ready to kill him. Is he good enough? Will rise justifiable rage against Bob help or hinder his performance? Tune in and see.

This film was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and while today this sort of film seems strange for a director known for mystery-suspense films, back in the 1920s, Hitchcock had no fixed genre which he directed or wrote (he did both for this film). In fact, in many ways this film is more indicative of Hitchcock's silent style, as a somewhat similar plot came up in one of his next silents, THE MANXMAN (also starring Carl Brisson as the wronged husband). So, while this seems a lot like a standard boxing film of the day, it was not a radical departure for this great director--even with its rather formulaic ending.

Overall, while a bit predictable and having Ian Hunter playing a boxing champ seems silly, the film works well. While far from a perfect silent, it's well worth seeing and packs a nice punch.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the most laughably bad films I've ever seen. I cannot believe whoever wrote the review above was serious. Perhaps he was connected with making it. It doesn't have anything going for it. There is no suspense, the acting is dire, the direction hopeless. The music score (?) is three trite notes played ad nauseam. The plot (?) must have taken all of five minutes to write. The dialogue is what a 10-year-old would come up with if asked to do a homework project. The only (slightly) redeeming feature is the actor playing the psycho himself, who grimaces, trembles and gurns magnificently and thus is amusing at times. The only reason you would be on the edge of your seat would be if you were suffering from a weak bladder. Don't waste your time.

Sentiment: negative
Tony Scott can make good films and bad, personally I think he can be a bit flashy and trashy and his work obviously suffers in comparison with that of his rather famous brother, but this is quite possibly his best film.

What makes this film so great is that Scott gives Denzel (on scorching form, better than Training Day) and the revelation who is Dakota Fanning time to develop a relationship of real warmth and tenderness. The set up is absolutely NOT boring, although it takes time - it is involving, and takes us on a little journey into the characters - including a superb role for Radha Mitchell as the mother. This all serves to make the action so much more effective, as we are so invested in the characters, for all their all too obvious weaknesses. This film has you on the edge for its entirety, and doesn't cop out at the end either.

The film would of course be nothing without Washington. I often wonder why he seems to get so many duff roles, when he quite clearly is as good as almost any leading man out there (I can only really think of one, Daniel Day Lewis, who has more on-screen power these days). This film should have been huge, given his status and the strength of his performance, and the quality of the film. It just goes to show you that if a studio doesn't back a film to the hilt, it ends up going straight to video. I wish I'd got the chance to see this on the big screen.

Sentiment: positive
I was looking forward to The Guardian, but when I walked into the theater I wasn't really in the mood for it at that particular time. It's kind of like the Olive Garden - I like it, but I have to be in the right mindset to thoroughly enjoy it.

I'm not exactly sure what was dampening my spirit. The trailers looked good, but the water theme was giving me bad flashbacks to the last Kevin Costner movie that dealt with the subject - Waterworld. Plus, despite the promise Ashton Kutcher showed in The Butterfly Effect, I'm still not completely sold on him. Something about the guy just annoys me. Probably has to do with his simian features.

It took approximately two minutes for my fears to subside and for my hesitancies to slip away. The movie immediately throws us into the midst of a tense rescue mission, and I was gripped tighter than Kenny Rogers' orange face lift. My concerns briefly bristled at Kutcher's initial appearance due to the fact that too much effort was made to paint him as ridiculously cool and rebellious. Sunglasses, a tough guy toothpick in his mouth, and sportin' a smirk that'd make George Clooney proud? Yeah, we get it. I was totally ready to hate him.

But then he had to go and deliver a fairly strong performance and force me to soften my jabs. 

Darn you, ape man! Efficiently mixing tense, exciting rescue scenes, drama, humor, and solid acting, The Guardian is easily a film that I dare say the majority of audiences will enjoy. You can quibble about its clichés, predictability, and rare moments of overcooked sappiness, but none of that takes away from the entertainment value.

I had a bad feeling that the pace would slow too much when Costner started training the young guys, but on the contrary, the training sessions just might be the most interesting aspect of the film. Coast Guard Rescue Swimmers are heroes whose stories have never really been portrayed on the big screen, so I feel the inside look at what they go through and how tough it is to make it is very informative and a great way to introduce audiences to this under-appreciated group.

Do you have what it takes to be a rescue swimmer? Just think about it -you get to go on dangerous missions in cold, dark, rough water, and then you must fight disorientation, exhaustion, hypothermia, and a lack of oxygen all while trying to help stranded, panicked people who are depending on you for their survival. And if all that isn't bad enough, sometimes you can't save everybody so you have to make the tough decision of who lives and who dies.

Man, who wants all that responsibility? Not me! I had no idea what it was really like for these guys, and who would have thought I'd have an Ashton Kutcher/Kevin Costner movie to thank for the education? 

Not only does The Guardian do a great job of paying tribute to this rare breed of hero, but lucky for us it also does a good job of entertaining its paying customers.

THE GIST 

Moviegoers wanting an inside look at what it's like to embark on a daring rescue mission in the middle of the ocean might want to give The Guardian a chance. I saw it for free, but had I paid I would've felt I had gotten my money's worth.

Sentiment: positive
Lazy movie made by a lazy director. The characters are grotesque. Despite the tragic of this war, there is no emotion at all in the movie. Symbolism is artificial and inefficient (and old Bosnian woman giving a photo of her son to Arbour will "concretize" her willingness, will awake the super-mother sleeping inside her, a corpse eaten by worms to show the horror of genocide... too much is sometimes worst than not enough).

This movie is only an advertisement, an empty elegy to a woman who is not a hero. She worked for United Nations. Remember UN failed to protect civilians at Srebrenica. Who are the true heroes of this war? A Canadian judge leading post-mortem trial for atrocities that happened mostly because her organization failed to prevent them? Where is the criticism in this movie?

Sentiment: negative
This movie is brilliant. The comments made before is from someone who obviously doesn't get it. The movie is campy- yes! But it is uplifting and fun. This movie is an underground hit and brings comparisons to Absolutely Fabulous. It is a must see!

Sentiment: positive
A previous IMDb reviewer has stated that 'Rafter Romance' is a 'rip-off' (that's the other reviewer's term) of a German musical called 'Me By Day, You By Night'. Apparently that reviewer is unaware that *both* of these films have borrowed their premise from 'Box and Cox', an English play written by John Maddison Morton in 1847. This play deals with two tradesmen who rent the same room from an unscrupulous landlady, each man believing himself the sole tenant. Because the two men have different work schedules, the ruse is not discovered straight away. This play was once so popular in Britain that 'to Box and Cox it' became a common term for an arrangement in which two people willingly shared accommodations meant for only one person.

The innovation of 'Rafter Romance' (and its predecessor) is that the two tenants are now a man and a woman, who inevitably develop a romance. As is usual in these cornball movies, the guy and the gal detest each other until they fall into each other's arms. Hoo boy.

The landlord in this film is played by George Sidney, a character actor who specialised in playing Jewish stereotypes that were meant to be sympathetic. George Sidney was never as annoying as the odious Harry Green (the Jewish equivalent of Stepin Fetchit) but Sidney's depictions of Jewish characters are still exaggerated and embarrassing to watch.

The single most notable thing about 'Rafter Romance' is that, to my knowledge, this is the earliest Hollywood film to make reference to Hitler and the rise of Nazism. At one point in this movie, landlord Eckbaum (Sidney) discovers his teenage son Julius engaged in chalking swastikas on the walls. Eckbaum and his son are clearly meant to be Jewish. Admittedly, nobody in Hollywood in 1933 had any real idea of what Hitler was planning for the Jews in Europe ... still, it's surprising to see a film depicting a Jewish teenager who thinks that swastikas are a joke. His father is, quite properly, angered by this display of the Nazi symbol.

A very shameful aspect of Hollywood history is the documented fact that all of the major Hollywood studios continued to do business with the Third Reich as late as 1939. Hollywood's leading ladies were medically documented as 'Aryan' so that their films could be distributed in Nazi Germany and Austria. For the same reason, Hollywood's leading men were documented as 'Aryan and uncircumcised'. Except for Darryl Zanuck at Twentieth Century-Fox, all the Hollywood studio executives who colluded in this policy were Jewish ... but clearly had no objection to doing business with Hitler. I'm surprised that 'Rafter Romance' contains a scene depicting swastikas unfavourably, as this sequence would have rendered the film Verboten in Germany and Austria. (Maybe the scene was cut out for German release: it isn't crucial to the movie's plot.) Apart from this, the movie contains nothing notable. Robert Benchley does his usual unfunny befuddled characterisation: I've never understood the appeal of this man. I'll rate 'Rafter Romance' 4 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
I think this is probably one of the worst movies I've watched in a long time.

Trying to get the 'same characters' with different people is *such* a bad idea. If they couldn't get Sara Michelle G. and Ryan P. in this one, they should have just cut their losses and said to heck with it. Instead they get NEW actors that are horrible at what they did. I seriously felt like I was at a High School or (bad) College play with the lever of acting these people put forth.

Where do they get some of these people? Was this their first movie? It sure seemed like it.

This movie also parallels the original in a few lines of speech. I had just got done watching the first one and popped #2 in. I was all excited to get to watch the second one and it ended up being the worst show I've seen in a while. I don't hardly EVER *EVER* turn off a movie, but this one definitely went off after about 30 - 40 min.

Sentiment: negative
The story is: a turn-of-the-century troupe of actors, along with producers and theatre-owners, have very complicated relationships. A resident playwright has written a psychological drama. He wants to get a good production on stage, but can't unless he convinces a pariticular reviewer to revisit the production, and give a positive review. If his production does not go on, then the troupe will put on The Doll House, recently written by Ibsen. Many different relationships among the principals are explored; none of them interesting. But the involvement of the characters with one another lead to giving the play by the resident playwrght a second shot.

This movie is purely an excuse for the director and his friends to get together and put on a movie. The story lines are incoherent to anyone who isn't a buddy of one of the stars. The only reason I didn't leave the theatre after about a half hour is that a fat lady was resting a full meal atop her stomach at the end of my row.

Sentiment: negative
I first saw this movie back in the early '90's when it was first released. Room With a View was also newly out. Enchanted April had so much more to offer! I found it much more real and earthy, the characters more believable for being 'normal'. By the end of the film I felt the same as I did when I first saw the BBC production of Pride and Prejudice, I was yearning for the characters to find what they were looking for whether it was isolation, peace, liberty or love. You get a sense throughout that Italy is so far removed from everything they have ever known, that they are so decadent for taking a risk and leaving behind all that is humdrum and constricting. But in the heat of the spring in April, everyone's lives loosen and unravel (in line with the Victorian corsets) and are slowly rebuilt to everyone's satisfaction. What a little gem of a film! How come it isn't more well known?

Sentiment: positive
This proves just how awful the WB Network was in the last few years of its existence. As a homeschooler, I of course deplore this show for its ridiculous, fantasy land, obscure & unfunny stereotypes about the kids being "weird hippies who are so smart they're alienated from the super-cool high school students". Sorry TV writers, the world as viewed from inside your ass (containing your heads apparently when you wrote this show)is NOT the world we talented people see with our eyes as we live in a little thing called reality. As for those who actually liked this show...please, dear sweet Jesus PLEASE rethink the statement that you actually liked this crap over a very long walk. The acting is even more hollow, phony and wooden than the stereotypes the whole show was built around. Thank you WB for doing the right thing and putting this horse out of its beginning-to-end misery. This show never, ever should've even had the privilege of being made, no less having so much as eight awful episodes. I really hope that these actors eventually got a clue and stopped playing roles in garbage TV shows like this as soon as this show ended.

Sentiment: negative
This is the second and best in the Hunting Trilogy! What makes it the best is the clever dialogue!

Bugs: Do you want to shoot me now or wait till you get home?

It was kind of funny how they kept that going through out the short!

Sentiment: positive
Bad acting, bad lighting, bad plot!! This had the quality of a porno movie. I have seen more interesting home video of a boring wedding than this movie...it sucked big time!! Don't waste your time or money on this crap! It's amazing that they allow this kind of smut to even be released on video, it should be a crime!!

Sentiment: negative
i went to see this because i have some friends in the ukraine. but the film moved me beyond what i expected by turning out to be a perfect blend of belly holding laughs (alex's strange use of English) situational comedy and heaviness bordering on depressing. i loved the range. it made me want to jump in to an old car and hit the road for the ukraine. alex (hutz) plays his guide part perfectly and provides a great counterpoint to elijah woods' poker faced earnestness. the film shows the positive side of humanity when ppl of differing cultures can bond and do the right thing when they feel the sincerity of the situation, even when they went into it with preconceived notions and prejudices, and how this can open up doorways into deeply buried memories. there is a lot in this film.

Sentiment: positive
Yes, this bizarre feature was written by John Sayles. Shot in Toronto, it's yet another '80s era feature about the dangers of the urban jungle, where the police fear to go and the homeless and the criminal classes are the only inhabitants. Into this mix comes the myth of Wild Thing, a feral young man raised by a bag lady after his parents were murdered by a dirty cop on the take (Maury Chaykin) and Chopper, the local crime lord (Robert Davi). Stir in the local do-gooders (priest Sean Hewitt and clueless social worker Kathleen Quinlan), and you have a recipe for some rather unexciting action sequences. Davi is the standout amongst the cast, and cinematographer Rene Verzier does a pretty good job. Otherwise this is a rather lumpen action pic that won't satisfy action fans and will leaves Sayles' admirers slack-jawed.

Sentiment: negative
This is a love story set against the back drop of television news. The three main stars, William Hurt,Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks create a love triangle whilst working at the Washington bureau of a TV network.

Tom Grunick(Hurt)is the handsome reporter who is being groomed to be a star.Jane (Hunter)is the producer who recognises that Tom lacks the intellectual gravitas to be a real journalist, but falls for him anyway.Aaron Altman(Brooks)is the man who shares her beliefs in journalistic standards is also the man who truly loves her.

Holly Hunter was nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award ,but lost out to Cher(Moonstruck!).She was robbed! This is Hunter's film.Her character Jane is smart,ruthless and totally driven. She is also hilariously neurotic. Her performance is perfect.Just watch her face when she watches the tape of Tom's interview of a rape victim. The scales literally fall from her eyes.

Wiliam Hurt's performance is less showy.He plays a man who is well aware that he is a himbo and a fraud,but is smart enough to know that his rise will be facilitated by people like Jane.He gives little hints of a man who is extremely calculating.

The film comments on celebrity, journalism,integrity and the commercial pressures on news in a medium that is focused on the bottom line. It predicted that news would be dumbed down, that standards would slowly be lowered due to commercial pressures.

Think about this:this film was released before the end of the Cold War and before rise of reality TV.Yet, it predicted the dumbing down of the news.Paris Hilton's release from jail was treated like a major news story! To see how prophetic this film is,just watch your evening news and note the set, the graphics and the presenters.Tom Grunick and his clones are well and truly alive!

Sentiment: positive
Oh, Yawn. Not another chick flick where the men are all pigs and the women will get even for the abuse they suffered. The only difference is that, in this film, everybody's a pig or has mush for brains. I hated this film for the moral issue of why it's right to send a man to prison for life for a murder he didn't commit. Is that a more immoral act than his abuse and deviousness. This movie shows all the situational ethics of bad writing. I saw it on the CBC's "Best of Britain" series. If this is Britain's best, no wonder the British film industry is in trouble.

The only bright spot in this film was David Tennant, He plays his character as so despicable that I'm likely to spit on the next person who speaks with a Scottish accent. Kate Ashfield tries to play the victim but comes off in the end as immorally devious as David Tennant's character. They deserve each other.

In the mush for brains category are the parents who see nothing wrong with the obviously psychotic Brendan. English policemen are made out to be so incompetent that they're unfit to give out traffic tickets. The British Policeman's Union should sue the makers of this film for defamation.

This film isn't worth the electricity it takes to run your DVD to watch it.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of those movies that's trying to be moody and tense, and instead, ends up tripping all over itself. Having seen it at a queer film festival, I was intrigued by the "young college threesome gone wrong" write-up, however, over-all ended up quite disappointed.

It's hard to critique a "true story" since there's not much that can be done about the plot - but I found this disjointed, melodramatic and wholly depressing. It's dark and almost sinister, painting a darn creepy flash of the seventies with imposing music and jerky close-ups. It just doesn't work - some scenes where so cheesy that instead of hushed awe, my audience was supressing snickers and rolling eyes.

The story has an interesting premise, but this just spins downward into a dark, miserable spiral.

Sentiment: negative
I wanted to watch this movie, but one bizarre ridiculous scene after another forced me to shut it off. Character's don't seem to react to anything. Consider this: Heath Ledger is walking a night (through a cemetery I believe) when he is attacked by spirits, which he drives away. Once past this ordeal he calmly walks away and meets up with a friend that saw it all. When asked what happen he says blandly "attacked by demons, nothing serious.", as if this is only a little more exciting than a flat tire.

I shut it off when they go to ask something-a demon or something, I stopped caring-a ques ion. The answer can only be rented out of someone with the energy of their death, and the priest watch in what appears to be vague annoyance as a man is strung up and hung and they ask his thrashing, dying body question.

0 out of **** stars.

Sentiment: negative
I'm somewhat of a fan of Lynche's work, so I was excited when I found this DVD. Unfortunately, I was very let down. It's a series of short cartoons which attempt to show a disturbing and disgusting sort of humor. The animation is very crude, no doubt done using Macromedia. Each cartoon has a big fat guy beating up his family and generally acting like a jerk to everyone he knows. 

For people who are not familiar with this vein of animation, they will probably be somewhat impressed by it. However, if you've spent much time on Newgrounds.com, like me, then these cartoons will be no different than any of the other stuff you've seen before. Many of the popular amateur artists on Newgrounds are doing much better work than what was shown on this DVD. If Lynch submitted this work to the website, then he would blend in perfectly with some of the better of Newgrounds artists. But, since I saw this on DVD, instead of on Newgrounds, I give it a 4/10, instead of a 7/10, as I would have otherwise. These cartoons are fit for the internet, but with a name like David Lynch on it, I expected better quality both in story and in animation.

Sentiment: negative
It was a doubly interesting experience. For some reason the greatest scientific mind of the 20th Century had never been the central figure in a movie*. The closest I can think of as films with Einstein in them are CHAMPAIGN FOR CAESAR, where (like a "deus ex ma-china") the great man is heard clarifying a point on a radio quiz show, so that Ronald Colman is proved to have given the correct answer after all, and in BULLSHOT where the great Albert is one of a dozen leading physicists and scientists who are drugged with cannabis by the villain, intent on stealing some machines of theirs. It is notable that in those two cases, and in IQ, we are dealing with comedies. So far nobody has tried to do a serious film about the life of Einstein, like John Huston's attempt to do one on FREUD with Montgomery Cliff. I guess it is just too hard to get the world of mathematical equations or the secrets of electro-magnetic field theory into exciting dialog. But then, only three years ago Russell Crowe and Christopher Plummer did A BEAUTIFUL MIND. Maybe nobody really has tried.

(*Subsequently, after writing this, I remembered the successful comedy YOUNG EINSTEIN with Yahoo Serious about ten years ago. But that is an exception and it was a spoof.)

The other surprise was the actor playing the great Albert. It was Walter Matthau, here taking time away from the series of films he did with Jack Lemmon in that last decade of their careers. Matthau was a highly capable and gifted character actor, in both comedy and drama, but normally his comic personas were variants of his "Whiplash Willie" Gingrich from THE FORTUNE COOKIE. They were connivers and gonifs. Later they would shed their criminal propensities because we had grown to like them, but they remained grumpy types. But his Albert Einstein happens to be genuinely sweet. More like his Kotch than like Willie Clarke.

He plays Albert as good old uncle Albert. It seems that Matthau's Einstein is living in Princeton with his niece Catherine Boyd (Meg Ryan), and she is seeing a stuffy professor named James Morland (Stephen Fry). But Fry's car needs repairs, and they take it to the auto shop where Ed Walters (Tim Robbins) works. Robbins falls for Ryan, who is attracted to him - but finds that he lacks the mental equipment that she admires. Good old uncle Albert, aided by his three friends (Lou Jacobi, Joseph Maher, and Gene Saks) decide to give their assistance to Robbins and make him an apparently unrecognized physics genius. This will open the doors of romance between him and Ryan, provided Ryan is impressed and Fry does not spoil things (as he hopes to do).

The atmosphere is sweet, as when Matthau and his chums rig up a super physics quiz that they help Robbins cheat on (by switching the positions of their bodies). The plot eventually leads to the outright lie that the brilliant Robbins has constructed an atomic powered rocket ship - which brings in the interests of the nation in the figure of President Eisenhower (Keene Curtis).

It was a charming comedy, and an interesting stretch for Matthau in that he was not as hyper as normal, but far more subdued.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of those movies that you just don't want to end. The characters are rich like a well woven tapestry. Colorful costumes, music and characters draw you in and tell a tale of the people that lived in a boarding house over the decades around the time of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War. A young man is taken in by a dynamic, big-hearted woman that runs the house and these are stories based on his experiences.

I couldn't believe this was a made for television film. It was so well executed. S. Epatha Merkerson is wonderful as Nanny and she brings so much life to this role. You want to be right there amongst her boarders.

I enjoyed this film so much I bought the DVD.

Sentiment: positive
This is hardly a movie at all, but rather a real vaudeville show, filmed for the most part "in proscenium", and starring some of the greatest stage stars of the day. "Singing in the Bathtub" is an absolutely amazing production number that must be seen-- be sure to wear your shower cap!

Sentiment: positive
Val Kilmer and Dylan McDermott are terrific. I have seen Kilmer on The Doors, however his interpretation of John Holmes is superb. Nothing compared to Boogie Nights which was kind of slow. Wonderland is a movie which is able to show you a horrible crime story from the perspective from a guy who is just indulged in his drug vice and indolent of what ever happens around. At the same time, the John Holmes character shows a very clever hustler who is able to pass through the nastiest and ugliest situations almost unharmed. The movie deserves being watched more than once. The seventies ambiance sensual and full of drugs is amazing.

Sentiment: positive
This is, without a doubt, the single worst movie ever created. There's no arguing here. This is it. End of story. The story is juvenile and sub-moronic, looking like it was created by a three-year-old fascinated with dinosaurs. The entire concept is just plain dumb. It's inconceivable how someone could possibly come up with something so stupid and think it was entertaining. The jokes are also completely lame. If you haven't seen this movie yet, consider yourself lucky. If your morbidly curious as to how bad this movie is, please don't make me describe it. Words can't express how completely awful this movie is. This isn't just bad as in being a bad movie. Even those have cohesion, if not entertainment value. This. . . This is. . . Ugh! Think of the worst story ever told and multiply its badness level by 5,000, and you still haven't come close to how awful this movie is. After giving Pokemon the Movie one point, giving this movie one point seems like nothing short of charity. That's how bad it is. Did the producers and directors even take film classes? Because this is a perfect example of how not to make a film. It looks like some amateur high on paint thinner made this film. If you rented this, please take it back and ask for a refund. And don't even think about renting it again.

Sentiment: negative
I watched this film awhile ago and the only thing i can remember about the film is how absolutely horribly outstandingly bad it was its definitely in my top 5 worst films i have ever seen.And to think i had to persuade my mates to get this film out at the video shop,my reputation has been shot to bits because of this film will my mates ever trust me again?i doubt it,they always say don't judge something by its cover,they were right when i saw the cover to skins/gang boys i thought wow this looks great as it had a load of skin heads on the front cover running riot with metal bars.Don't WATCH THIS FILM.i can't think of anything else to say the acting is bad the story is bad its just bad.

Sentiment: negative
I don't normally feel much of an incentive to comment on films I don't like, but in a case like this one, I just have to say something. This movie is terrible, illogical, and stupid. There are so many flaws in the storytelling that I don't even feel obliged to elaborate on because it's time for me to move on from this experience. The most annoying point is, however, that at no point in the film does anyone explain whether the motivations for Bacon's character's madness are due to a power trip or a physiological reaction to his condition.

Granted the special effects are impressive, and in the past Paul Verhoeven has done some good stuff (the director's cut of Robocop on DVD is great). However, this movie is stupid and generally doesn't come near to explaining the point or technical aspect of the subject matter, and instead settles for predictable action without any enjoyment.

 In short, as many other reviews here say (wish I had read them before...) - Stay away from this film!

Sentiment: negative
I saw this series in 1999 in London TV and was blown away. Like another user commented - This is what i would have liked to see when i first watched "Jurassic Park" - Life and death of Dinosaurs in their natural habitat as a documentary. The CG are very lifelike, and the diversity of dinosaurs and habitats shown makes it also very educational.

The series takes everything factually known about dinosaurs, adds a lot of good ideas on "what it could have been" to make up what then looks like a documentary series. What i missed was some small bar-graph constantly in one corner of the screen, moving between "fiction" and "fact" along with the narration and the pictures, because you often wonder how much is educated guessing, and how much is pure fantasy.

To some clues on facts & fiction, you have to see the 50 minute "Making Of", which is not only very educational about the CG process and collecting and including the paleontologists knowledge into the series, but which also is very funny (Dinosaurs smoking cigarettes and complaining about CG animators).

I highly recommend to watch this series before going into the upcoming Disney Dinosaur movie or watching any Jurassic Park (like) movie again. It will surely make you much more critical towards those movies. The Disney Trailers looked especially bad.

Sentiment: positive
I found it hard to care about these characters, who were either annoying or insipid, all living their fabulously hilariously urban lives.

The dialogue was excruiciating at times, and at other times the narrative seemed hard to follow - was it me or were entire scenes deleted?

It felt like a poor sitcom somehow turned into a film. The stereotypes and jokes about "men's groups" would perhaps have been funny in the early 90s. As it is, this is where much of the humour of the film comes from - and boy, does it get old fast.

Apart from the attractive Irish man - this film was a dud. And not even in a "so bad it's good way". The last 20 minutes were particularly painful. Perhaps if you've never met any gay people or never thought about homosexuality before, then this film might have something meaningful to say. Otherwise - darlings, you'd still be better off renting The Boys in The Band or Beautiful Thing.

Sentiment: negative
This film goes into my "Worst Films Ever Made" file. I have a copy of this film which I watch when I want a good laugh, and this isn't even a comedy. I am disappointed that such great actors agreed to be in such a piece of garbage. This film is inaccurate (in its portrayal of hockey), offensive (to Canadians), and I wasn't even all that impressed with the acting. Even the story was a bit weak. If you have never seen this film, you're lucky. If you have, I'm sorry.

Sentiment: negative
From the beginning of this film,with it's "The Lost boys" rip off opening sequence, to the bad wire work and even worse dialog ending, this movie slimed along at a snail's pace. "The Covenant" came highly recommended from some of my co-workers, who I am thoroughly convinced were playing a practical joke on me. At least I hope that was the intention and their taste isn't that bad! This movie was not much longer than an hour and a half, yet felt much much longer then that. The story was so basic that it could have been summed up in about 15 minutes, maximum. They could have at least filled the rest of the movie with some entertaining magic or fight scenes, however someone decided,(maybe the director, but I don't know if anyone really "directed" this movie) that it was going to be filled with some poorly executed "artsy" camera shots, and nonsensical scenes of the "boys" swimming and getting into bar fights. About half way through this film I thought that maybe bashing my head against a wall would be more entertaining, and partially to rid myself of this horrible dirty feeling I had for continuing to watch it. . So I did bash my head against a wall, and I did enjoy it more then the movie! I watched it all the way to the bitter end, hoping it would eventually offer me more enjoyment. Nope,my efforts were rewarded with "How about I make you my Whee-aytch!" I vomited, and then just felt embarrassment for the screen writer and pity for the poor actor who had to deliver this drivel. The acting really wasn't as bad as other reviewers seemed to think, but even the most talented thespian could not saved this work, and work it did, on my nerves! I give movies a chance, even bad ones because they usually offer some form of enjoyment, and this actually wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen. After it was over I did feel like watching the movie "Stealth" again and WOW it was so much better this time around! Oh yeah Case in point, don't bother with this movie, really, don't. Watch a few episodes of "Charmed", and watch "The Lost boys" after having a fair amount of alcohol, and you will be a much better person. If you do fall into the same trap that I did and watch "The Covenant", make sure to keep all sharp objects far, far away from yourself, you'll thank me for it.

Sentiment: negative
me and my sister saw the premiere last night... it was so good we were glued for the whole thing.. hahaha..i think I'm hooked for the season!!.... they have some really good actors in this thing.. the head coach guy and the player that likes pete were very good and the plot has already got me but i don't really understand how they'll keep it stretched for a whole season.. there will probably be some big twist tho..i cant wait till Tuesday.. finally Jeremy sumpter who is he? i can tell hes going to be big!! he was soo good we fell in love with his character right away.. cant wait for the next episode.. GO Jeremy!

'Aimee

Sentiment: positive
Set in World Depression Era Prague, this is the story of an ambitious store clerk who is falling in love with a mystery woman with whom he has exchanged romantic letters, only to discover that the mystery woman is none other than the sales girl from his shop, who seems to be constantly bickering with the colleague. Add a little twist (the owner is convinced that his favorite employee -Stewart- is having an affair with the owner's wife), leaving Stewart briefly 'fired', along with an admission that the sales girl 'liked' Stewart all along, the happy ending is inevitable.

Although VERY dated (references to poverty and -I have a wife and two kids to consider- are over-used, along with the indication that many small objects of pleasure, like a musical cigar box, are out-of-reach for common people's enjoyment), this film is much more effective (and more credible) than the 1990s re-make "You've Got Mail". In the re-make starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, the actual odds of the chain-of-events are so unbelievable that the viewer's intelligence is grossly offended.

"Shop Around The Corner" is an innocent stroll down memory lane into a less complicated, less hectic, and more romantic time and place known as a novelist's Utopia. Lovers of Classic Romantic Comedies will enjoy this picture!

Sentiment: positive
i watched this film many years ago and have searched for it ever since in my opinion although very raw it is very educational as to what the future can hold i enjoyed the movie and to this this day rate it very high sorry to all those that disagree but a movie should always be judged each to there own and in my opinion its great give it a go with all the cloning and test tube babies that are happening today who are we to judge this film, this may be a dramatised event of what is to become but there you go. All the horrors of today are so far fetched even i laugh but this one gets me thinking and it scares me as a mother what if i was desperate,after watching this movie i would think twice sorry but i love the movie make your own mind up don't watch the movie making- just aknowledge the story and ask yourself this how far would you go for a child?

Sentiment: positive
Poor Jane Austen. This dog of a production does NOT do her wonderful tongue in cheek novel any justice. Starting at the top ... poorly adapted. The screenwriter deserves extra low marks for trying to -- come to think of it, I don't know WHAT she was trying for, but suffice it to say she missed the mark by light years!! Couple that with all the over-acting and awful production values, this is one adaptation that should never have happened. It would have been far better if they just gave all the money they poured into this flop and donated it to a worthy charity. Do yourself a favor, read the book. It is almost certain that you will enjoy it a thousand times more than trying to sit through this excruciating production!

Sentiment: negative
This is a snuff movie. I'm shocked it is even considered to be in the IMDb library. And, Bill, Julia, and all other "professional" actors involved should be ashamed to be part of this sick flick. I thought I was going to view a somewhat classic horror film with a creative end that writers like to invent....that usually make no sense when writing a horror film, but as a viewer, we try to rationalize and understand. This ending was not creative. It was sick and has all the earmarks of a snuff movie. I am shocked it was edited to this ending, and more shocked that it will be out for distribution by the end of June 2009. It should not be shown in a theater. It is harmful to innocent minds on many levels....watch the movie, the ending, and you will understand this statement. Plus, included in the plot is a sweet little girl "not yet 9" her character says. She is not in the snuff ending, but she is an integral part of the movie. Why do directors feel they need to shock with a sick flick in order to get recognition? The director is in the wrong line of work if she thinks this is an art film.

Sentiment: negative
I'm not really sure what to make of this movie, especially after seeing a great film like La Notte. Unfortunately I saw this in German during an Antonioni film festival at the Frankfurt Film Museum, so I didn't get to hear Malkovich's great voice. He is supposed to tie together four stories about couples in Italy. However, as good an actor as he is, Malkovich cannot rescue the most ridiculous of the four stories portrayed here: a woman who comes up to him at a waterside cafe near a shop she owns and blurts out about how she killed her father nearby. Then the two of them go home, have sex, and he leaves. It seems as if Antonioni lost the subtlety had in earlier films (like The Passenger) when dealing with sex and replaced it with blatant nudity.

However nonsensical the storyline is, the film features two things that make it watchable: eye and ear candy. The actors and actresses are all beautiful people, and the cinematography is marvelous - scenes in old Italian cities contrasting with a bit in a tall apartment building overlooking a city (reminiscent of La Notte).

The ear candy, however, is what really makes the film worth watching. U2 and Brian Eno collaborated on "Your Blue Room" and "Beach Sequence," both of which set the mood perfectly in the film. The songs are available on "Passengers: Original Soundtracks 1."

Sentiment: positive
MGM hodgepodge of Jimmy Durante throwing a big party for everybody in Hollywood. No major stars show up--we get the Three Stooges, Laurel & Hardy, Durante and Lupe Velez. I didn't recognize anyone else--they were probably unknowns (for good reason). The movie contains annoyingly unfunny jokes and some truly dreadful songs and choreography. The only things that save this from being a total disaster are Laurel & Hardy's "battle" with Lupe Velez and a wonderful color Disney cartoon called "The Hot Chocolate Soldier". It's a beautiful, very colorful cartoon that gives the movie a huge boost. Otherwise, the movie is a colossal bore. There's no director credited--what does that tell you?

Sentiment: negative
Four stories written by Robert Bloch about various people who live in a beautiful, old mansion and what happens to them. The first has Denholm Elliott as a novelist who sees the killer he's writing about come to life. Some spooky moments and the twist at the end was good. The second has Peter Cushing becoming obsessed with a wax figure resembling his dead wife. The third has Christopher Lee who has a child (Chloe Franks) and is scared of her. It all leads up to a pretty scary ending (although the ending in the story was MUCH worse). The last is an out and out comedy with Jon Petwee and Ingrid Pitt (both chewing the scenery) and a cape that turns people into vampires! There's also a cute line about Christopher Lee playing Dracula.

This is a good horror anthology--nothing terrifying but the first one and the ending of the third gave me a few pleasurable little chills. Also the fourth one is actually very funny and Pitt makes a VERY sexy vampire! Also the house itself looks beautiful...and very creepy. It's well-directed with some nice atmospheric touches. A very good and unusual movie score too. All in all a good little horror anthology well worth seeking out. Try to see it on DVD--the Lions Gate one looks fantastic with strong colors and great sound.

Sentiment: positive