DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Where do I begin? I first saw this film in 1995 and had no idea of what to expect, I was actually at the time searching out films that Elijah Wood had starred in and this one had come highly recommended. I sat down and watched the film once and didn't know what to think. I watched it a second time a few days later and the floodgates just opened. Never before in my life had I ever really cried while watching a film, and I was blubbing, every high and low the film I was riding right alongside, on an emotional roller coaster.

It struck such an emotional chord in me on many levels, the intense sadness and elation we see in the film, the wonder and innocence of childhood, the yearning for a time that once was, but is no more. More than anything, this film reminded me of my childhood (except for the abuse) during a time in my life when I'd shrugged off my childhood some years before and not even really noticed, I'd given it up and moved on to a life entirely devoid of it. The Radio flyer made me wake up and suddenly realise what I'd given up without really even noticing. From that day forward I immediately set about to change my life and myself, and I did.

This is going to sound corny but basically I rediscovered my inner child, I started down a path that has been ongoing over the past 6 years and has changed me so much, so much for the better, embracing and living that part of myself. I've been finding out who I really am. I don't think it was simply a case of the right film coming along at a crucial moment of my life, The Radio Flyer really did something very special, and I still look upon it as an incredible piece of work in all respects, an incredible film.

In closing I cannot fail to mention the music. I am a great fan of Hans Zimmer and this is among his very finest works. The sheer breadth and depth of emotional expression he has put into the score of this film is a huge part of what makes the film what it is to me. Like subtitles to a foreign language film, his soaring music is a crib sheet to the intense emotions this film will take you through. Find the soundtrack at all costs, it was sadly deleted long ago, I never expected to find it but amazingly did, after chatting with someone I met on a Hans Zimmer fansite guest book.

Watch this film, let yourself live the emotions, don't get bogged in trivial nitpicking of the ending, be that child again

Sentiment: positive
I caught a bit of this concert on public television and knew I had to have it. The boys give everyone at the Royal Albert an excellent, often thrilling performance complete in every way. Pure, too - no synth, no smoke-shrouded lasers and strobes, no grandiose entrance (and an unstoned, serious, and appreciative audience, all of whom left their bottle rockets at home).

If you're a Cream fan (or if you've only heard of them); if you're a blues fan; if you're a rock 'n' roll fan; you will not be disappointed when you view and listen to this DVD. You also will never lose this DVD because you'll never lend it to anyone. (This DVD justifies selfishness! Tell them to get their own!) It's too good and too replayable; you'll want to keep it within easy reach.

Sentiment: positive
It's a short movie from David Lynch with just 8 minutes, but it got all the "Lynchian ingredients"! It's mysterious, dark, inconclusive, eerie, and strange; and before the blond girl starts to talk it's even a bit scary! The soundtrack is exceptional to create this odd atmosphere because it's also sinister and mysterious 

About the setting itself, it hasn't the "traditional" red curtains, but it has socking purple painted walls, which give it an equally effect of eeriness.

The plot is about a girl who's locked in a dark room and she cries for help; then comes another girl who starts talking to her in a mysterious way, saying she's there just because of her fault We don't know what did happen or what will happen next it ended unsolved and puzzling, as a good Lynch movie must end! 

It's a great short, despite some amateurish acting. The girls are professional actresses, but I think their acting could have been better in this short.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is scary at times, perhaps no more so than when a naked George Kennedy tells his hooker girlfriend he wants a little more sugar. Thankfully his nakedness is covered by a blanket, but the image is still more horrifying than anything you're likely to find in, for example, Schindler's List.

The dialog in this film was inspiring; it inspired me to watch another movie. In one scene, when a stewardess remarks about male pilots, Kennedy asks, "Why do you think it's called a 'cock' pit?" Charming.

And yes, contrary to what some have written, this film is very, very bad.

Sentiment: negative
I have recently seen this production on DVD. It is the first time I have seen it since it was originally broadcast in 1983 and it was just as good as I remembered. At first as was worried it would seem old fashioned and I suppose it is a little dated and very wordy as the BBC serials were back then. (I miss those wonderful costume dramas that seemed to be always on Sunday afternoons back then) But that aside it is as near perfect as it could have been. I am a bit of a "Jane Eyre" purist as it is my favourite book and have never seen another production that is a faithful to the book as this one. I have recently re-read the book as well and some of the dialogue is just spot on. Reading the scene near the end where Rochester questions Jane about what St John was like I noticed their words were exactly reproduced on screen by Dalton and Clarke and done perfectly. 

All the other productions that have been done all seem lacking in some way, some even leave out the "Rivers" family and their connection to Jane altogether. I also think this is the only production to include the "Gypsy" scene done correctly.

The casting is perfect, Zelah Clarke is like Jane is described in the book "small plain and dark" and I disagree that she looked too old. Timothy Dalton may be a little too handsome but he is absolutely perfect as Rochester, portraying every aspect of his character just right and acting his socks off! I agree with other comment that he even appears quite scary at time, like in the scene when he turns around slowly at the church when the wedding is interrupted, his expression is fantastically frightening. But then in another favourite scene his joy is wonderful to see when Jane runs down the stairs and into his arms the morning after they declare their love for one another. A love that is wonderfully portrayed and totally believable. Oh to be loved by a man like that! There were a couple of scenes that were strangely missing however, like when Jane climbs in to bed with the dying Helen and also when Rochester takes Jane shopping for her wedding things (I thought that one was in it but maybe my memory is playing tricks).

Finally if you never see another production of Jane Eyre - you simply most see this one it is simply perfection!

Sentiment: positive
Let me start out by saying that I used to really like Betty Grable, particularly from "Down Argentine Way", but by the time she got around to this disaster, she had also got "round" and frankly the whole film was an embarrassment. Costarred with Douglas Fairbanks JNr (who must have been fairly desperate) the story was bad, the colours good, and the film far too long. It had some of the old standbys in it like Harry Davenport and Reginald Gardiner to try and stimulate interest but with no success. The music score was woeful, and I have to say not one tune was memorable in any way....as I was such a fan of Miss Grable, I always wish I had never seen this one!

Sentiment: negative
There are movies that are so bad, they're good. Then there's movies like Rest Stop that should just never have been made because they are just plain dreadful.

Bad acting, unlikable characters, predictable plot and a supposedly supernatural twist that adds nothing to the story are all key failures. Some half decent special effects are about the only thing worthy of note. 

I can't even bring myself to write a plot outline because all I really want to do here is warn you not to waste your time and money on this movie. Do yourself a favour and don't even bother with this film at all. It's 1.5 hours of your life that you will never get back. 

1/10

Sentiment: negative
I received this movie as a birthday gift because all of my friends know I'm a big fan of low budget Horror flicks. Kaufman Studios have always made the cheesy gory flicks that delivered. I loved to watch their films at home on rainy nights with my family...until I saw Bugged...WHAT HAPPENED?

This Movie started out with a pretty good concept about mutating bugs and even added some slick comedy but overall the writing is just bad and that was mistake number one. Ronald K. Armstrong should learn to first be a better writer before becoming a filmmaker. After reading the Credits we discover he gave himself the most important role in the film!?! two words Mr. Director "Acting Lessons" OK? Mr. Armstrong joins the ranks of other writer/directors who cast themselves in their own movies and that's mistake number two. 

The only thing that I believed saved this film was the artistic camera work and the musical score, (let's hear it for the crew!) The cast of other actors who in the beginning of this production seemed a bit cold, really warmed up toward the middle and end of this production. Everyone pulled together and helped to pull this film off. Ronald Armstrong may lack the talent to ever become a decent Director or Actor but, I'll say this of him-He seems to know how to organize people to get them all to come together and pull his productions off.

This film, I have to say can be an inspiration to any young filmmaker who dreams of making their own movie because if Mr. Armstrong was able to pull this off, Any one else can too. If you get a chance to see this film, watch it for the sake of getting inspired to do "Better" in the future. Hollywood needs bigger and better Horror Flicks to keep this genre coming back from it's grave.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is a half-documentary...and it is pretty interesting....

This is a good movie...based on the true story of how a bunch of norwegian saboturs managed to stop the heavy water production in Rukjan, Norway and the deliverance of the rest of the heavy water to Germany.

This movie isn't perfect and it could have been a bit better... the best part of the movie is that some of the saboturs are played by themselves!!!

If you're interested in history of WWII and film this is a movie that's worth a look!!

Sentiment: positive
I wasn't expecting to much of this movie when I went into the theater but I had been waiting for it for many years. To sum it up, it was pretty damn good! Chad Michael Murray was pretty good, I thought he was going to be another Chris Flynn from Wrong Turn but I was wrong. Elisha Cuthbert was also good but the best performance has to go to Brian Van Holt. He played the bad guy too well, I mean he was sick, sadistic, and very cruel. The back story between the brothers was good, plus I liked how no killings took place until about 40 minutes into the film. It gave you time to pick the character you wanted to see live and the one you wanted to see die. Jon Abrahams was pretty good as the goofy best bud of CMM. I liked how Chad kind of cried when he found him dead, it was better then just him being like, "Whatever, my buddy is dead, who cares". It showed how he really cared. So overall, this was a darn god slasher with some great effects. Bravo!

Sentiment: positive
One of my favorite "bum" actors, C. Tom Howell, stars in this tepid remake of WOTW. He runs around a lot, while a CGI-generated spider-like machine goes around killing everyone. The budget for this one obviously was pretty low. It also was one of The Asylum productions. Have you seen any of those? Yikes! I am not sure why anyone would have made this while the big-budget Spielberg version was slaying them at the box office. And if truth be told, neither version is all that hot. The George Pal version from the 1950s remains the best representation of the H.G. Wells novel, primitive special effects and all. Perhaps because Gene Barry was much more convincing in the lead than Howell or Tom Cruise.

Sentiment: negative
So much great chemistry between Kristen Scott-Thomas and Harrison Ford, but every time the story about their relationship began to gather momentum the script cut away and dealt with some irrelevant sub-plot that did nothing to advance the story. Indeed, the subplots had nothing to do with the story at all. They were like commercial breaks in which you watched a trailer for another movie. 

The writers (or someone who controlled the writers) obviously didn't trust themselves to write compellingly about relationships and the interior lives of their characters. They seemed to be uncomfortable unless they threw in some gun battles and bar fights. Or perhaps they didn't trust the audience to pay attention to a story about a man and a woman trying to understand their relationship under difficult circumstances. After all, we all know how boring "Casablanca" was. 

Perhaps if the relationship between Kay and Dutch had been developed more and had been allowed to play out, the writers would have know how to end the story. This film is a disappointment for not doing more with its wonderful actors, who gave good performances but could have done more with a better script.

Sentiment: negative
In my mind, this remains one of the very best depictions of Superman on TV, as well as one of the most faithful to a particular comics period.

This series paid homage to both the Superman films of the '70s/'80s and the Superman comics series "reboot" of 1986-onward ("Man of Steel," "Superman Vol 2," "Action Comics," "Adventures of Superman," etc). The opening score and titles were stirring, based on the John Williams score from the films, updated for a Saturday morning action series. Marv Wolfman, one of the main contributors to the comics reboot (writer of "Adventures of Superman") was a perfect choice to be involved in this animated series. Overall, the series had a more mature feel while continuing to be very kid-friendly.

Superman was presented as believable, strong, and iconic. His recurring nemesis was Lex Luthor in his megalomaniac/CEO incarnation. The Daily Planet characters Lois, Jimmy, and Perry were portrayed well. One of my favorite appearances was by Wonder Woman, and the story revolved around her home island of Themyscira ("Paradise Island"). Both her design and that of her mother Hippolyte were in keeping with the similarly rebooted Wonder Woman comic book series of the era, and it seemed like an equally well-done animated series could have been developed for her if handled the same.

The one thing that is hard to believe is that this has not been released on DVD/Blu-ray! It deserves to be.

Sentiment: positive
Tipping the Velvet (2002) (TV) was directed by Geoffrey Sax for BBC television. The basic plot is a coming-of-age story for the protagonist, Nan Astley, played well by Rachael Stirling. As a teenager, Nan works in her family-run oyster house. Everyone expects her to stay at home, then marry an appropriate husband, and settle down to family life. Nan expects this too.

Everything changes when Nan meets Kitty Butler (Keeley Hawes) a beautiful and talented performer who dresses in men's clothes and captures the hearts of her audience. The audience includes Nan, who is sexually attracted to Kitty in a way in which she's not attracted to her boyfriend. 

The remainder of the film follows Nan to London and through her ups (sort of) and her downs (horrible) as a lesbian and sometimes male impersonator. 

As is typical for the BBC, every role, no matter how small, is performed by an excellent actor. The BBC has a depth and breadth of performing artists that is truly marvelous. None of the supporting actors stands out in my mind--they were uniformly good. Both Stirling and Hawes are wonderful, and their acting carries the film along.

It's always sad to be reminded of how difficult life can be for someone who doesn't fit society's mold for what is normal. I know it isn't easy for lesbians even in the U.S., even today. Imagine the obstacles to love and happiness for lesbians in Victorian England. We've come a long way, but we still have a long way to travel.

Sentiment: positive
Not since The Simpsons made it's debut has there been a sitcom that I didn't want to turn of in a matter of 2 minutes. It has of course been said that The Simpsons killed the sitcom. Not this one though.

The first season was so so as the teenage characters were not quite as outrageous as they later became. They even went to school sometimes. The following seasons the character where fledged out. Eric, the sarcastic twit, Donna, his levelheaded girlfriend, Kelso, the dim bulb, Hyde, the conspiracy theorist and anti-establishment punk, Fez, the pervert exchange student and finally Jackie, the spoiled rich floozy. As for the adult characters there was Eric's mom, the "can you believe she is so ditzy" suburban mom, Eric's dad, the straight arrow who of course wasn't such a hard ass as he seemed, Donna's goofy dad and her dumb blonde mom. Everybody are true to their characters but special kudos to Kurtwood Smith who finds the perfect balance between toughness and still makes his Red Forman quite sympathetic without making us throw up with unexpected cuteness.

Topher Grace is of course the main reason why this show is so good. It's a tough character to play because it doesn't allow the actor to indulge in wild overacting like the Kelso character, played competently by Ashton Kutcher. I enjoyed seeing the two characters interact because they are the most different.

Hyde's character is a bit harder to enjoy because he is more realistic and do we really need to see the orphan story for the umpteenth time, although I will say that the writers came up with a brilliant story arc for him in the last seasons.

Jackie, played by Family Guy voice artist Mila Kunis is hilarious and she has a nails on a chalkboard type voice, which actually fits her character. The only sad part is that we didn't see more scenes with her and Eric because they were f...... hilarious together. Too much story was wasted on her relationship problems since we already got that in spades with Eric and Donna.

Last I will say that the casting of guest actors were always great. A few favorites: Fez' humongous girlfriend in the mid-seasons, Pastor Dan, the totally awesome Leo played by the equally awesome Thomas Chong, another one of Fez' girlfriends who is totally certifiable and a special appearance by the teenage witch Sabrina as a slutty catholic girl.

Coming up next on Fox, whatever.

Sentiment: positive
This film contain far too much meaningless violence. Too much shooting and blood. The acting seems very unrealistic and is generally poor. The only reason to see this film is if you like very old cars.

Sentiment: negative
I am a guy, who loves guy movies... I was looking forward to seeing a dragon fighting with the army with cool special effects. All of this happened, however, this movie was the worst movie I have ever seen in my life.

The story was standard, but the portrayal of the story was terrible. The scene transitions were the worst I have ever seen. Why would you walk out to a beach to relax if your life was in danger? The serpent dragon's actions itself was very poorly written... and the serpent dragon's attack capabilities varied widely throughout the movie, several times the main characters should have died.

The director attempted to infuse a love story in the middle of the movie during the most stressful times, this movie was obviously not watched after it was made, I love movies, but had to force myself to finish watching it, thank god I did not buy this, I borrowed it from a friend.

Do not buy this, do not rent it, just watch discovery channel... much more exciting.

Sentiment: negative
The Comebacks is a spoof on inspirational sports movies, and let me just tell you-it is not a good one. Tom Brady (the director) probably found it hilarious that referencing sports films (from Gridiron Gang, Invincible and even Miracle! to The Longest Yard and Dodgeball-yes Dodgeball!) and tossing in a couple of sex jokes, would be the funniest thing since Airplane! Well, he was wrong. They did such a slipshod job, you'd thought it was written in a week. I have found it that if a director loves the genre, the movie will be good. Obviously, Brady does not love the genre he is spoofing. This movie is a rancid piece of garbage not worth viewing, so don't see it!

Sentiment: negative
I actually have a fondness for Christopher Lee, but this just wasn't up to his other performances... and he was one of the better actors.

The film does not live up to its premise. It's not that scary, it's overly melodramatic, and it draaaaaags. Every time I thought, "Oh, HERE comes the good part" the good part never quite arrived.

The Evil Ones aren't at all convincing. Most of the other characters were also lacking in depth.

Perhaps if I'd been in the proper frame of mind, I might have enjoyed some MSTie-fication at this film's expense, but.... Naaahhh... Didn't really seem to be worth the effort. It wasn't really very good, it wasn't really very bad, it was just mediocre.

Sentiment: negative
They really can't get stupider than this film dealing with 3 losers who try to capture the college spirit during the annual spring break festivities at many of our higher schools of learning. The problem is that these losers try to do this 15 years after their college years when one is assigned to watch over the daughter of a woman senator being groomed to be the next vice president.

Trouble is that her daughter is anything but popular, but of course she comes out of all that. The girls go through drunken rages, exotic dancing and other absolute nonsense.

It really can't get much worse than this awful film.

Sentiment: negative
The only thing that makes this one watchable is Corey's performance as the lunatic killer on the loose. What remains is a most impossible tale of revenge and matrimonial discord. During the walkie-talkie scenes I had the feeling that Cotten was squeezing a sweet potato and not a communication device. Another interesting thing about this one is that Alan Hale (the Skipper from "Gilligan's Island") is not yet so fat, and he can still lower his arms below his waist. Other than that there isn't much to recommend here.

Sentiment: negative
Trying to compare or represent this "swill" as anything "Hitchcockian" is an out-n-out attempt to mislead Hitchcock fans to waste $7 on this movie... Weak acting Weak story Weak script. 

No real suspense, no thrills. You wait all through the weakness of this movie for the big payoff or even any payoff...You're left thinking, what the heck was that all about.

And please, enough with the movement to make "alternative lifestyles" HIP and politically correct!!...I can't recommend this to anyone...Did I mention how weak the acting is? Williams did a better job as Peter Pan and "Mork". But those were MUCH more innocent times...........

Sentiment: negative
Sure it takes place in the west, but the title makes it seem like it is a conventional western. Instead, it is a movie of a woman sheriff. Make no mistake though this is a bad movie about a woman sheriff. She becomes sheriff when her husband is gunned down; she is only a tad bit upset by this. Her main goal is to go after the villain who is also a woman, but the villain hires a guy to kill her. So this is what happens, the hero falls in love with the killer and vice versa. Utterly stupid, as anyone killed in this movie has the new sheriff to thank. She had more than a few chances to put the killer behind bars, but I guess because she liked him she wouldn't do it. The killer is also after the mayor of the town for personal reasons that are also rather dumb. This movie is very boring and not really worth watching...it is not one of the better episodes of MST3000 they made. I can not imagine anyone seeing this without them because that would make it that much more painful. Corman is a low budget director, but even he should know better than to have people go into one place and coming out another.

Sentiment: negative
Your first clue that this is a cheesy movie is that it was shot on video, not film. The story is convoluted, and the production is amazingly sloppy. Note, for example, that when the title couple are on a plane ostensibly landing in Vermont, where they've gone to celebrate their relationship in a civil union ceremony, the plane is shown coming into an airport surrounded by palm trees. Their ceremony - in Vermont - takes place in a garden of tropical plants, including palms, which wouldn't last five minutes in the New England climate. On yet another airplane trip, the establishing shot depicts a FedEx cargo plane taking off. Presumably they could only afford to travel in steerage. As for the plot, this movie expects you to believe that Victor, the devoutly Christian brother of Arthur, is kicked out of his church when the congregation learns that his BROTHER is gay. Not only that, but the pastor eventually sets Victor up with a hit man to have Ben and Arthur killed "to purge their souls of sin." Apparently no one in this church has ever heard of the Ten Commandments. Were it not for Jamie Brett Gabel, who is surprisingly effective as Arthur, this movie would have no redeeming qualities at all.

Sentiment: negative
As a collector of movie memorabilia, I had to buy the movie poster for this film which, now that I've finally seen it, has to be the best thing about it. There's nothing more attractive to hang on your wall than a 27x41 inch image of the melting man. However, there's nothing more awful to put in your VCR than an hour and a half long image of the melting man. At first I thought this movie was pure garbage but then I realized that it did have some qualities which made me laugh. The character of Dr. Ted Nelson has to be the most wishy-washy persona ever brought to the big screen. His dialogue is so trite it's unbelievable! ("It's incredible! He seems to be getting stronger as he melts!)

And could somebody tell me please how the heck they know exactly how much time Steve has left before he melts completely and exactly what their plan is to "help" him? If this movie was meant to scare its audience, I think it missed its calling.

Sentiment: positive
(Very mild spoilers; a basic plot outline, no real details) 

IF you go into this movie with sufficiently low expectations. I saw this film at a free screening a few days ago in Maryland, and the only reason I agreed to go...was because it was free. I expected a few chuckles, but as I have never been a huge fan of Tenacious D, not much more then that.

The first ten minutes of the film are hilarious, as we are given a look at Jack Black's humble Christian origins in a Midwest American town. The film then takes us years into the future, to the first meeting between JB and Kyle Gass, the second half of Tenacious D. We see the formation of the band and the genesis of its name. Finally, as the title suggests, the second half of the film details their quest to obtain the fabled "Pick of Destiny." Again, the beginning of the film was laugh out loud funny, and most of the movie at least kept a smile on my face. That said, there were times it felt a bit long; it's only 100 minutes, but it still felt like it should have been a bit shorter. The story is every bit as absurd as it sounds, and this is not a film you see if you want a real plot. Which is fine, except it means that many of the jokes are very hit or miss...and when they miss, they miss bad. Same thing with the songs; it is a musical, but many of the songs lost their appeal after the first minute or so...then kept going anyway.

I will say that the R-rating really saved this movie from bombing; The D's humor simply couldn't work without cussing, sex, and drug references. But unless you're a real fan of the band, or at the very least know you appreciate their style of comedy, I would recommend you save yourself some money and rent. "Pick" will make you giggle a bit...but is it worth 9 bucks? I don't think so. I was tempted to rate it a 6, but since I do think that many would enjoy it enough to justify seeing it in theatres, a 7 seems more appropriate. Just be sure it's your style.

Sentiment: positive
This conglomeration fails so miserably on every level that it is difficult to decide what to say. It doesn't merit one line, much less ten, but to adhere to the rules of IMDb, here goes and I probably won't succeed the first time around and have to type some more to make up for this submission to be accepted. LOL

If I had seen this schlock during the '70s while I was going through my mushroom phase,I would have still considered it unimaginative and shallow. The most exciting shot for me was the long shot when the elevator door opened and closed.I was on the edge of my seat.

One person on here wrote that he had met the creator of this mess, as if that were a red letter day in his life. One can only pray that something far more exciting occurs in that posters life.Get a grip, amigo.

Sentiment: negative
Yes, this film is another remake. Yes, this film can be considered a chick-flick. And yes, this film is not perfect. The Women is however a clever modern update on the social behaviors of all women, with an impressive cast of A-listers including Meg Ryan, Debra Messing, Annette Benning and Bette Midler.

The film revolves around four main characters, Mary (Ryan), her best friend, editor-in-chief, Sylvie (Benning), Alex (Jada Pinkett-Smith) and Edie (Debra Messing) and the out-of-this-world female creature who is responsible for most of the film's drama,named Crystal (Eva Mendez). Mary is trying to deal with her cheating husband (who's never actually seen in the film), by following the advice of both her friends and her mother (Candice Bergen).

Aside from Mary, there's Sylvie who's torn between her social life and her professional life. She has decisions to make that test her moral and ethic values. Then there's writer Alex who's a lesbian, with a lot of spunk, but knows her way with words. And finally Edie with four girls and another baby on the way, who loves children and has a heart of gold, with a hidden secret revealed at the end.

Together the women live for revenge, rely on each other, and give each other life lessons. But it's the cameos by Bette Midler, Candice Bergen, Cloris Leachman, Carrie Fisher, and Debi Mazar, that show the cruel and usual behavior of women. Bergen plays Ryan's mother, she's tough, silver-tongued, experienced, and yet feels she could have become what her daughter does later. There's Fisher who shows how to blackmail and test the boundaries of selfishness, morals, and betrayal. Mazar, the gossip girl, that shows no mercy for what she says and whom she says it to. Leachman who plays Ryan's sassy housekeeper, she knows her place, when and where she's needed, and how to deliver a good one-liner. Finally there's MIdler, who plays Leah Miller, a crazy eclectic but wise Hollywood agent. She's the one character who gives Ryan's Mary an epiphany on who she truly is by discovering "what do I want." Despite Midler's scene stealing performance and memorable quotes, she was underused.

But back to the film, together the women show the audience what it means to live in the 21st century without knowing exactly what you want until the time comes when you answer that very own question. It tackles feminism, what it means to be a woman (fierce, ruthless, bad-ass, tacky, smart, sly, clever, shy, proud, ashame, self-conscious, careless, beautiful, strong, independent); and also what it is that women want, why are women the way they are. It's funny, modern and by all means not a masterpiece. But the Bottom line is, it's worth the money and time to see veteran and younger actresses teach us all about women.

Sentiment: positive
Walking With Dinosaurs is an amazing Documentary, educational for both the Ignorant of Dinosaurs and Dinosaur-Lovers (like myself) alike. I admit, I was very young when I saw this on Discovery, but I was obsessed with it immediately. (Spoliers!!!!!) The series contains 6 episodes, going from the Late Triassic when dinosaurs were just first evolving to the Late Cretaceous, at the end of Reign of the dinosaurs. When I first saw this film, it was like I really had traveled back in time. The majesty of the Diplodocus, the adventures of Opthalmosaurus, and the caring mother version of T-Rex all astounded my family and me. It is an amazing film, and I believe that BBC managed to do just what they set out to do. Awesome job!

Sentiment: positive
European films may be slower-paced and less plot driven than American films, but this takes it way too far. It also show a whole bunch of incompletely drawn characters doing inexplicable things. It's not fantasy, it's not even surreal, it's just awkward and bad.

What's the message here? That people in France are pensive and gaze morosely a lot? That they like to watch other people having sex? They they spontaneously scream or touch a stranger on his neck? Do not wear a watch when seeing this film, as you will be astonished at how little is explained or learned over huge stretches of time.

This is the story of a "police superintendent" who is deeply troubled by the brutal murder of a little girl, though actually he seems troubled before then. He is not merely upset at his own personal tragedies, but apparently mentally quite slow, behaving very much like a learning-disabled six-year old child. He stares blankly a lot, walks with arms rigid like a little kid, speaks in meek, simpering, tones, behaves quite oddly in all of his interactions (though no one seems to notice or care, even when it is supposed to be police business). He's not a troubled cop, more of an outpatient. Picture Andy Kaufman's Latka character on Taxi, but without the humor. He is not only not believable as a policeman he is not believable as an adult. That he won an award for this interpretation of his character is truly amazing -- unless he was playing the part exactly as written and the fault lies with the weirdos who scripted this thing. The plot is clearly secondary. Do not expect to see anything remotely like what police would do if a little girl was found murdered. This not that important, though the implausibility of their behavior is sort of insulting. The problem is that the rest of the film makes no sense either. That leaves the long lingering close-ups of fields, vegetable gardens, people's faces etc. The ending struck me as especially ridiculous -- totally unsupported by the events leading up to it -- unless you think, "What's the worst way this film could end?"

There is lots of sex and nudity, which is supposed to mean something. You want vaginas? You'll see vaginas. Not to worry, it's art. It has deep meaning, what I am not sure. And the protagonist, despite his innocent weirdness, seems to have some sort of homoerotic neck or jowl fetish.

Finally, the subtitles are in white and frequently appear on a white background -- very hard to read many of them. On the other hand, there isn't much dialogue, so this isn't a big problem. There is also very little sound -- not even ambient sounds you would expect to hear -- in the film, contributing to the emptiness of the whole experience. The old Woody Allen would have had a field day parodying this work.

That this is an award-winning film is sad. I would hate to see the losing films.

Enjoy.

Sentiment: negative
A convict serving time comes forward to give the Cold Case unit information about the murder of a policeman, committed years before. The murder of Sean Cooper, a good cop, was never solved. Naturally, the detectives believe the new evidence will help them put together all the pieces of the puzzle that frustrated their colleagues.

In flashbacks we are taken to the baptism of James Bruno's baby. Sean and Jimmy were partners. There is tension as Sean, who is the godfather, arrives disheveled and late for the rite. Eileen Bruno doesn't appear to be happy being there. The real mystery is revealed by her. She caught Sean, who was drinking with Jimmy in the backyard, kiss her husband, and more shocking yet, Jimmy responding willingly.

Somehow at the station the partners become the center of gossip. Sean has not endeared himself to his superior because he discovered the involvement with a criminal in his area who controlled the drug business. Sean realizes this man is in with the drug strong man because he always makes an excuse to free the scum bags Sean and Jimmy haul into the station all the time. The pressure is too much on Jimmy. Sean is comfortable in his homosexuality and wants to be honest about it. Cooper's own father doesn't want anything to do with a queer son. Even his superior McCree wants him out of his jurisdiction, but the case is complicated because Cooper comes from a long line of Irish men serving in the police force. Sean is killed because his homosexual condition, and for knowing too much on his peers' involvement in taking dirty money.

Tom Petit wrote this honest portrayal of the life of a police officer in the closet and his secret love with another fellow cop. We thought it was a frank account of a serious matter no one talked about in those days. Sometimes the people involved with the show, fearing reprisals from sponsors, or the networks, don't dare to present these real situations. Jeannot Szwarc, shows a sensitive approach to this thorny issue, which is dealt without the sensationalism the case might have been shown with a different team.

There is a rare Chad Everett appearance as the older Jimmy Bruno. His take is right on target with a touch of sentimentality that doesn't get out of hand. Shane Johnson makes an excellent contribution to the show as Sean Cooper. The cast is marvelous and it includes good all around performances from everyone under Mr. Szwarc's direction.

In this episode, Nick Vera, gets closer to his neighbor, the mother of the basketball player the detective took his ball away. Nick is heading for romance with the woman!

Sentiment: positive
Bashki should be congratulated for attempting to convert one of the great works of English fiction into a movie, and then slapped silly for this attempt. The animation was poor, the characters looked ridiculous, the music was overwhelmingly blaring, and the film was a ramshackle blitz through the first book and a half of Tolkien's masterpiece. I can still remember my sheer disappointment and loathing for the movie when I first saw it. Now I realize that any attempt to convert a book into a movie is bound to fail in many ways, simply because of the medium, but this movie, regardless of the source of the story, is just plain pathetic. Bashki is capable of much more.

Sentiment: negative
What can I say? I got up this morning and turned on sci-fi and watched half of the first season and figured it all out. Strange, unusual, and brilliant. It gives all potential, and to think at first I said this looks stupid. This has got to be the next best thing since X-Files, but as always nothing will ever take down that show in my opinion. I am telling you, it's scary and then suspenseful and then mellow. Towards the end you have Miles as a love puppy with a weird pet that is a new species. You have two people on the run from authorities. And a killer tsunami about to strike! Wow! And did I mention Miles pet is a potential killer(well the rest of his species is). Surface is a brilliant show with spins and twists that delivers it all.

Sentiment: positive
Recently shown on cable tv the movie opens with a disclaimer distancing itself from any co-operation of real life persons; that in itself is an eye catcher. Yet the script and acting from the main characters is superb and I found myself engrossed throughout.Due in no small way to the crisp, thoughtful and interesting dialogue.The film is about a meeting on one day between two real life musical "legends" who formerly composed together then seperated.The film captures the essence of their lives and philosophies, in a story which proffers an explanation for their initial "split". What is so impressive is that the actors give such seemingly realistic portrayals of the characters they play,faults and all, that this viewer at least was left believing I was witnessing a true event in almost every detail. The great skill of this play is that with astute writing and fine acting a movie basically about "two of us" talking can make an excellent picture. Worthy of at least an 8 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
Possibly the worst movie I ever saw. The person who shot this movie probably never learned not to film directly into a shining light. You can't see anything in this movie. It is way to dark. The parts where you can see something the camera is directed straight at a light source so you get big lens flares. So you still can't see. This movie should have been a radio play or something. Some parts of the movie are actually edited upside-down for some kind of crap effect. Low budget movies can be done so much better then this. And low budget is no excuse for this. An editor should have said something when he started editing and saw that you couldn't see anything. Maybe the makers should have spend some of their low budget on a preview monitor so they could see what they shot. The only good thing about this movie being so dark is that you can't see the awful acting. It also covers up the crappy sfx. People at beginner film schools make better movies then this. Movies shot with handy cams look better then this.

Sentiment: negative
This is a beautiful, yet simple movie about one man, driven to find an answer, an answer he doesn't necessarily need but has structured his whole life around. It is heartrending, it is hilarious, it is glorious, it is tormenting, it is delicate and dynamic, I say it's genius.

I have read Jonathan Safran Foer's book Everything is Illuminated (mainly because I heard Elijah Wood was starring in the movie adaptation), and I was just enraptured by the characters. I laughed out loud more than once. And every time someone talks about what it's about, I hear the same hackneyed response, almost like it's one big long word: "It'saboutaguylookingforthewomanwhosavedhisgrandpafromtheNazis." Yet, this story is so philosophical; it goes deeper than that. That conversation about the ring and "in case." It really gets one thinking. Suddenly, this story merges from a simple quest to an inner metamorphosis, and I find myself looking at things a bit differently now.

I recommend renting this before, if ever, reading it, because the book had many obscene, downright perverted stories that were not included in the movie, mainly the history of Jonathan's family that was not necessary for the film. 

A bit of trivia, I heard, is that Wood's current girlfriend has a cameo in this flick as the drummer in the band that Alex arranges to perform as Jonathan steps off the train into Ukraine.

You spend half of the movie trying to figure out what it's about, exactly, and what Jonathan is about, because his character is so withdrawn, like a turtle in a shell.

It is magnificent, and in my opinion, one of Elijah Wood's best movies.

Sentiment: positive
I watched this movie to see the direction one of the most promising young talents in movies was going. Unfortunately, with this movie, Leelee Sobieski has chosen a path not only well worn, but completely free of any meaningful destination. This movie used every hackneyed trick in the book to leave the screen, tap you on the shoulder and politely ask if it can have your heartstrings so that it may give them a good tug. Romance can be done well, and when it is, the viewer is left feeling the love portrayed on screen. During the emotional climax of this movie, I laughed. Heartily. To save you the time and money, I would suggest, instead of seeing this movie, you have a meal of Karo syrup and Velveeta. It's about the same.

Sentiment: negative
When a film has no fewer than FIVE different titles, it usually means several things and almost always means that the film has major flaws somewhere. Necromancy has major flaws and is just out and out bad. I saw the version on video called Rosemary's Disciples. Yes, I am sure it differs from other versions, but I am not inclined to think that in any way is any other version and the few more minutes it might have - going to be really any better. The story is perhaps the biggest problem: the film opens with Laurie waking up and her husband taking her to a town where he has a new job at a toy factory for occultists(yep, it gets bad this early!). The town is called Lillith and has some guy with a rifle on the bridge to make sure only those selected by the "owner" of the town are allowed in. Soon we find that everyone living in Lillith is a witch and all follow the directives of Mr. Cato - the head of this municipal coven who wants his dead son back(hence the name Necromancy). The people in the town do witch kind of stuff - have ceremonies, some like wearing a goat's head, and promiscuity abounds(not much really shown in this area), but none of these people are very good actors. Mr. Cato is played robustly by the figuratively and literally larger-than-life movie maverick Orson Welles. Welles is misused, but, make no mistake, he is the best thing in this movie. And that is really the saddest part of Necromancy as Welles gives a pretty poor and pedestrian performance with little directorial guidance. In one scene at a party, director Bert I Gordon keeps going back to Welles watching the action of the party using the exact same frames! It looked ridiculous. As did the scene that was repeatedly seen over and over again of a woman's arm centered in swirling flames after a car crash. It looked like the arm of a shop mannequin. The story is never fully utilized as we never really know what happens: many scenes are shot like dreams or hallucinations and never confirmed. This also applies to the corny, hokey ending. The lead Pamela Franklin is pert and pretty and has some talent. Other than her performance, real slim pickings from the rest of the cast sans Welles. The direction and story were both done by Gordon who obviously had little gas left in the engine. This is not a good movie in any way under any name.

Sentiment: negative
Um .... a serious film about troubled teens in Singapore, a country I have not much knowledge on but have the previous wrong impression that all the kids there are highly disciplined and controlled by their family and government. Well, I guess I am wrong, just like other cities/ countries, they also have their troubled teens who also lead the not so surprising rebellious way of life of drugs, fights, bad language, and .... many other obvious signs of being a bad boy. The surprising part of this film isn't really about how these kids running around causing themselves and others trouble, but rather the subtle gayness hidden behind their so call loyalty between them. The bond between these "brothers" may very well originated from an unconscious gay tendency inside these boys. Though it isn't uncommon for str8 guys to have very close friendship with each other, but watch this film closely, it should be entering all sorts of gay film festivals and I would not be surprised that it may win itself a lot more awards toward this direction!

Sentiment: positive