DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I saw this at the San Francisco Independent Film Festival and liked it a lot. It worked for me as a slightly weird comedy, because I don't like horror, but there were only a couple of minutes I had to close my eyes.

The dialog was good, the costumes and settings were not far off BBC-quality, which is amazing for an indie film. I liked the way the plot twists and even meanders, it kept surprising me in good ways. I even warmed up to the Willy Grimes character, who I quite disliked at the beginning. It would have been better if there'd been any motivation for the woman to be so interested in going to the island: that felt very much like a plot device.

I am fond of Dominic Monaghan, and he did a good job at pratfalls, horror, and at the more thoughtful moments. Nice voice in the narration, too.

This would be a fun and unusual date movie.

Sentiment: positive
After being a big fan of the ten minute T.V episodes of 'Stella Street', I awaited this film with excitement and anticipation. Unfortunately I was left feeling very disappointed.

I was dismayed by the way that nearly all of the gags and one liners were directly lifted from the T.V Episodes, and delivered with much less enthusiasm and comic timing, as if the actors had said them once, and couldn't be bothered to say them again. I bought my copy on DVD and felt cheated that I had parted with my hard earned cash to watch the same jokes over again.

*SPOILERS* The plot of the film starts with Stella Street (a normal English street in Surrey), gradually being populated by 'some of the most famous people from stage and screen of the last forty years', including Michael Caine, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson and The Rolling Stones. All the celebrities in the street end up being conned out of their entire fortunes by a local fraudster, and are forced to live like tramps and common working class people. There are some nice moments, but on the whole, the writers manage to take an interesting idea and make it pretty boring. *END OF SPOILERS*

In the T.V Episodes, all the characters are performed by John Sessions and Phil Cornwell (including females), but in the film Ronni Ancona is added to the cast. I think this was a mistake. Her impersonations weren't funny, and it felt like her characters were included in the story just to give her something to do.

If you were not a fan of the episodes of Stella Street, you may find this film entertaining. But if you were a fan, I think you may walk away feeling a little bit cheated. 4/10

Sentiment: negative
This movie is really stupid and very boring most of the time. There are almost no "ghoulies" in it at all. There is nothing good about this movie on any level. Just more bad actors pathetically attempting to make a movie so they can get enough money to eat. Avoid at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
I have seen "Chasing the Dragon" several times and have enjoyed it each time. The acting was superb. This movie really makes you realize how one bad choice at a weak moment can change your life.

Sentiment: positive
Probably my all-time favorite movie, a story of selflessness, sacrifice and dedication to a noble cause, but it's not preachy or boring. It just never gets old, despite my having seen it some 15 or more times in the last 25 years. Paul Lukas' performance brings tears to my eyes, and Bette Davis, in one of her very few truly sympathetic roles, is a delight. The kids are, as grandma says, more like "dressed-up midgets" than children, but that only makes them more fun to watch. And the mother's slow awakening to what's happening in the world and under her own roof is believable and startling. If I had a dozen thumbs, they'd all be "up" for this movie.

Sentiment: positive
Tarzan and his mate(1934) was the only Tarzan movie I didn't see when I was a kid. It sounded boring. Now I have seen it. I have seen the ape man(1932) about a hundred times and I keep a copy on my drive. It's a remarkable movie. It's almost flawless. Tarzan and his mate(1934) however, falters. It's not harmonic and it's parts tend to live a life of there own. The parts themselves are often very good and the action sequences are great. Big budget expensive. Tarzan himself is co-starring. Jane dominates. She have developed and have become a jungle girl so sexy I tend to forget about criticism and sing her praise instead. Well. She let her be duped by a crock who steels a kiss from her and later murder an elephant. She insists Tarzan to carry a bracelet who belonged to her father. Forever. The thing would split to pieces the moment he went about his businesses in the jungle. Stupid? Later someone founds it in the river. Well it's supposed to proof Tarzan is dead. Some cheap drama. The crocks who has an obvious interest in a dead Tarzan convince Jane that he is gone. She takes their words for granted and want to be taken away(to England). Stupid Jane seems to have forgot how tough Tarzan is, how hard he is to kill. The caravan is leaving and Jane go along. Again a pothole. She could easily make the caravan rest for a few hours or more, to pick up a few things and say goodbye to the jungle and her dead husband. She could be smart. She could dive where they found the floating bracelet, check the banks for traces. She can make fire in 15 seconds and swing in Liana's. Picking up traces shouldn't be too hard for jungle Jane. She could talk to the apes, and so on. If she get home to England without have done this she would become miserable. Jane is smart but cheap drama brings her down. And why on earth is she letting the kiss rapist get away with "I blame myself as much as you". A punishment for being vane perhaps? Nonsense. Struggle, a hard slap and telling Tarzan would be appropriate. Still. This movie is far from bad even if the potholes are many and sometimes deep. Just lean back and enjoy. It's Tarzan and Jane for God sake.

Sentiment: positive
I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. I have always been a fan of Whoopi Goldberg and this movie only emphasizes it. She portrays a housewife in an African-American family which is moving up the social chain due to the husband's (Danny Glover) success as an attorney. She moves to an all white neighborhood where the people are friendly, yet a little awkward toward her. The various events that arise during the course of the movie make for SOME laughs but mostly appeal to the other emotions. This movie is not so much a comedy as a drama. I give it a strong 8/10. I highly recommend you catch it on TV or rent it soon.

Sentiment: positive
this is awesome!!! there is no partnership quite like Errol, and Olivia. there love is genuine! I'm 24, yet this flick is as captivating now as I'm sure it was 60 years ago. Raoul Walsh is an under-rated genius, his direction is so sweeping, so broad, yet so intimate. the last scene between colonel custer (Flynn), and his wife (de havilland), almost brought me to tears (Not easy for a 24yr old guy!!), its so heart-wrenching. there is also a deep Christian message implicit here, the faith Custer has in taking your glory with you, and the trust, and fidelity of his wife to the extent of letting him go, in order that he fulfils his moral duty to protect the innocent civilians from certain massacre. there is no movie that deals with these issues quite like this. a must-see for anyone who wants to look at this defining moment in American, and military history, from the inside. patriotic, for all the right reasons. i knew Errol Flynn was a star, and De havilland was a screen legend-this only confirms my suspicions that they are among the very greatest!

Sentiment: positive
This movie is lame and not funny at all. The plot doesn't even make sense. Some scientist who works on the fringes of science opens a doorway to another dimension (maybe hell???) and his daughter gets sucked through it or something, then one day for no apparent reason she comes back and now she has big breasts and wears a skimpy outfit (I guess the demons in the other dimension made it for her?) The main character is a guy who wants to marry his girlfriend but she is gay so obviously she's more interested in her new girlfriend, and they stumble upon this witch spell book (they want to be witches or something???) and the evil spell ends up getting read again which is how the evil demon comes to earth which only the bikini top girl and the spurned guy in love can stop apparently. There is topless scenes for no reason and a guy in it who my boyfriend says is a well known wrestler but his part is completely unnecessary, obviously they made something up just to put him in it because then maybe wrestling fans will actually watch this pointless movie. I'm sure the topless girls doesn't hurt there either. The extra features on the DVD were even more confusing than the rest of the movie, I thought it might help explain what was going on but it actually just made things more confusing. Who are these people and what are they doing? Basically this is a go-camping-to-make-out-then-fight-a-monster movie but there are a bunch of things (like the other dimension and book seller) than make it confusing. I didn't like the movie but it was only like five bucks so big deal. I don't recommend watching it though it was just too stupid, I can't think of any part of the movie that was good.

Sentiment: negative
In one word: excruciating. I was advised to read some articles about this film's philosophical meanings afterward, but, having sat through the movie's interminable 115 minutes and being slowly crushed beneath its bloated symbolism and lava-flowing oppressiveness, it seemed better to just report my reactions to the movie. After all, who goes to see a movie with a syllabus in hand? And this flick was dismal. Lead actor Claude Laydu, from the film's opening to its end, wears the same wearying and annoying mask of agony as to be practically indistinguishable from the film's eternal, dreary voice-over. Filming one over the other might have worked better than subjecting an audience to both, as they basically say the same thing: The priest of Ambricourt is a wretched human being. The story, about a persecuted priest who tries to help out a troubled rich family, does nothing toward making its characters remotely interesting or sympathetic, as the family are a bunch of unpleasant weirdos, and the priest, himself, comes across as a nosy pest. The last 30 minutes suggests some breath-taking message about grace and one man's suffering equaling that of others, but due to all the indulgent close-ups of a suffering Laydu and the vague subtext in Robert Bresson's script, all I felt was, Finally, it's over, let's have some ice-cream. Interesting for fans of Bresson fanatic Paul Schrader, just to see how many elements of character and setting Schrader carried into in his own scripts and movies, especially "Taxidriver", "Raging Bull" and "Light Sleeper".

Sentiment: negative
Bah. Another tired, desultory reworking of an out of copyright work never designed to be filmed.

On the plus side, Toni Collette is superb as always (being an actual actress, you see), and there are some nicely handled handover cuts between scenes. There are even a few genuinely funny lines, and the filmwork, score and editing is competent, apart from a bizarre lapse into voiceover and speaking to the camera towards the conclusion.

But, ah, but. Much of the cast seems to be on autopilot, and they are almost all very clearly too old (and in one case too young) for their declared ages. Worse, they are all speaking "Austinese", that peculiar falsetto self satisfied sing song that couldn't be further from the way people actually spoke in Austen's day (think Yosemite Sam, I kid you not). This is particularly sad, considering that we seem to finally be seeing the demise of the equally farcial "Fakespearan" that Olivier and his cronies were so fond of bellowing at the top of their lungs.

And worst of all is Gwyneth Paltrow. She's only ever played one character in her films, and she stays true to form here, running through her entire range (smirking to sulking) in the first ten minutes, then just repeating herself for the rest of the overlong film. There is absolutely no chemistry between herself and any of her admirers, nor any apparent reason why they would be interested in her apart.

In short, there is very little reason to watch Emma. It's an amiable enough adaptation, but if you're going to pack a film full of anacronisms (i.e. an appalingly thin lead who can't shoot a bow or handle a period accent) then you might as well do it properly, as with the vastly superior "Clueless".

Sentiment: negative
The Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu (1976) is a vastly underrated early work by director John Woo. The film stars Dorian Tan (Tan Tao-liang) and features Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung and James Tien in significant supporting roles. Many people believe, or have been lead to believe by deceptive advertising, that this is a Jackie Chan film. This is not a Jackie Chan film, Dorian Tan is the star but Jackie gives one of his best (most serious) early performances.

The Hand of Death is about a Shaolin disciple named Yunfei (Tan) who is sent on a mission to assassinate a Shaolin traitor named Shih Xiaofeng (Tien) and protect a revolutionary named Zhang Yi (Woo). Along his journey Yunfei meets up with a young woodcutter named Tan (Chan) and a disgraced sword fighter (Chang Chung) known as "the wanderer." Both men have suffered at the hands of Shih and want to take revenge. The three team up to defeat Shih and his eight bodyguards and escort the revolutionary to safety.

The martial arts action is above average under the direction of Sammo Hung. Dorian Tan uses his trademark high kicks very effectively as the "Northern eighteen styles kicks" along with some "Southern five styles boxing." Sammo Hung and Jackie Chan provide excellent martial arts performances as well. James Tien is not the greatest martial artist on the Jade screen but does an acceptable job. Some of the early fights are a bit slow and seem over choreographed but the final showdowns featuring Chan, Tan and Hung are very good.

Director John Woo provides plenty of interesting character development in the film, which is refreshing. The cinematography by Leung Wing Kat is very stylish, unique and beautiful for a kung fu film of this era. Joseph Koo's music: a combination of soft flutes and 70's "Shaft" style orchestral pieces is kung fu cinema at its best. Hand of Death is not Jackie and Sammo's usual kung fu comedy. Hand of Death is a serious, straightforward revenge driven story.

Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu is an underrated classic in the old school kung fu genre. The film is one of the best artistically of its time and a preview of the great things to come from Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung. Hung's great choreography is put on display here before his directorial debut and Chan's early charisma and talent can be clearly seen.

Hand of Death is a solid, stylish old school kung fu film and a brilliant early work of the legendary John Woo.

Kung Fu Genre Rating 7.5/10 

Wanderer to Tan (referring to his new weapon): "The Little Eagle Wing God Lance." 

Tan: "Just a knickknack."

Sentiment: positive
Swinging bachelor Matthau, a successful dentist, is stringing along his blond mistress Hawn, having told her that he's a married man with three kids. After she attempts suicide Matthau decides to get responsible and marry the girl. Worried that she's going to be a "homebreaker", bright eyed Hawn wants to meet his wife and explain everything to her. Matthau employs his faithful nurse Bergman to act his wife and that's when things really get complicated.

A farcical comedy with irresistible leads quite often hits the mark but isn't for one second believable. The script asks us to believe that us men are such one-dimensional turds that it's truly beyond belief. But maybe this comedy doesn't need to be analyzed too deeply, just sit back and enjoy the ever so funny Matthau, the ever so charming Bergman and débutant Hawn, who here basically created the dumb-blond girl role.

Sentiment: positive
Here is one the entire family will enjoy... even those who consider themselves too old for fairy tales. Shelley Duvall outdid herself with this unique, imaginative take on nearly all of the popular fairy tales of childhood. The scripts offer new twists on the age-old fables we grew up on and they feature a handful of stars in each episode. "Cinderella" is no exception to Duvall's standard and in my opinion it's one of the top five of the series, highlighted by Jennifer Beals (remember her from "Flashdance"--and she's still in Hollywood today making a movie here and there) in the title role, Jean Stapleton as the fairy godmother with a southern accent and Eve Arden as the embodiment of wicked stepmotherhood. Edie McClurg ("Ferris Bueller's Day Off") and Jane Alden make for a hilarious duo as the stepsisters. Matthew Broderick is an affable Prince Henry. You'll all keep coming back for this one!

Sentiment: positive
I saw Anatomy when it came out and recently bought it and the 2003 sequel and as I watch a lot of foreign films in various genres, you have to watch movies in their original language for sure. Not only is it annoying to know the voices don't belong to the actors, but they always seem cheerful, like the whole movie is one big long toothpaste commercial or something. It makes an otherwise awesome movie seem horrible and I have had to convert a lot of my friends who used to think foreign films aren't as good as North American films - that they aren't "Hollywood enough". Also, they translation is never right, it's too literal, and screws up the vibe of the movie, even if it's basically saying the same thing. I watched Anatomy by myself the other week in German then with subtitles with my roommate because he was on his laptop and didn't want to have to miss parts when he couldn't see the subtitles because he was typing. 30 mins in and he begged me to let him finish his work then start the movie over with subtitles. He loved it! Both movies are awesome as intellectual horror films! Kelly

Sentiment: positive
An attempt at crossover to appeal to those who don't appreciate opera, exploiting the fame of one of the greatest opera singers of all time, it fails badly. All that is desirable in this movie is the opera, and one can best find a recording of Pavarotti doing what he does best. The plot revolves around a romance with a doctor who heals his throat which has suddenly become troublesome. 

Only because it came out so long ago is it largely forgotten. Like most opera stars, Pavarotti is a decent actor and has stage presence aside from his singing talent, and nothing that he does in this movie negates that opinion. His culpability lies in not rejecting the horrid script. Perhaps because great operas can have silly stories he tolerated this one.

Who knows, except those involved? Do we need to know? 

The plot is weak and trite. This movie is like trudging through cold mud to pick off a few juicy tidbits (the opera music) hanging above the mud. We have other ways in which to appreciate the great Pavarotti, and this one isn't one of them. Just get one of his many superb opera or vocal-concert recordings and recognize the master tenor where he is most suited.

It would be one of IMDb's 100 Worst Films if more people remembered it and gave it some votes; it would fit neatly in a list including several efforts of singers, actors, models, and athletes to exploit their popularity through film. Very often it all goes badly wrong due to incompetent acting or a horrible script. Pavarotti would have been a decent actor had he not shown such a superb voice. However effective he is as an actor (opera requires it), not even Jimmy Stewart could have rescued this turkey of a script.

I give it a polite 3 of 10 because someone may have become a fan of Pavarotti's singing and of opera because of this movie.

Sentiment: negative
Generally I like something light and fun, so this film shouldn't have appealed to me. But it grabbed me from the start. The story of a family's choices and challenges seem obvious, but it raises the question over and over: "What if it was my family? My choice?" I cried and laughed when they did because I really felt what the people involved felt. It was in places difficult to watch, but more difficult to turn away. The story is true, and life is sometimes difficult to watch! It shows what film-makers can do without sex, violence, or special effects: a good story is a good story all by itself. The best and most unpredictable stories are all true ones. Like real life, you really don't know what'll happen next, or why people do the things that they do!

Sentiment: positive
To have to actually own up to making such a horrible movie! Actually, I'm more embarrassed that I sat through the whole thing. It looks like an old 80's sci-fi movie complete with super-fake looking "special effects", queer imagery, and very cheesy dialogue. Maybe that's the way they wanted it to look, maybe they think it's cool to do movies in 80's fashion like it will come back in style. Who knows...

If you think the promised eye-candy will save the film, you're in for a disappointment--the so-called "babes" are manish and downright ugly. They can't act at all, I don't understand why they couldn't at least get good looking chicks if they want babes with no talent! But I guess when you're making a film this stupid, you don't get very good choices, hot chicks aren't just lining up to do this kind of pitiful crap!

Sentiment: negative
Road to Perdition, a movie undeservedly overlooked at that year Oscars is the second work of Sam Mendes (and in my opinion his best work), a director who three years before won Oscar for his widely acclaimed but controversial American Beauty. This is a terrific movie, and at the same time ultimately poignant and sad.

It's a story of a relatively wealthy and happy family from outward appearance during difficult times of Depression when the, Michael Sullivan, a father of two children, played by great Tom Hanks (I'm not his admirer but ought to say that) is a hit-man for local mafia boss, played by Paul Newman. His eldest son, a thirteen years boy Michael Sullivan Jr., perfectly played by young Tyler Hoechlin, after years of blissful ignorance finds out what is his father job and on what money their family live. Prompted by his curiosity and his aspiration to know truth he accidentally becomes a witness of a murder, committed by John Rooney, son of his father boss. Such discovery strikes an innocent soul and it caused numerous events that changed his life forever. The atmosphere of the period, all the backgrounds and decorations are perfectly created, editing and cinematography are almost flawless while the story is well written. But the main line of the movie, the most important moments and points of the movie and the key factor of the movie success are difficult father-son relations in bad times. They are shown so deeply, strong and believable. Tom Hanks does excellent and has one of the best performances of his career in a quite unusual role for him and all acting across the board is superb. Finally worth to mention a very nice score by Paul Newman and in the result we get an outstanding work of all people involved in making this beautiful (but one more time sad) masterpiece. I believe Road to Perdition belongs to greatest achievements of film-making of this decade and undoubtedly one of the best films of the year.

My grade 10 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
I've seen enough of both Little Richard in interviews and in performances and enough of poor Leon pigeonholed into these 50s/60s musical bio pics to know that Leon was not the right actor for this role. Leon was so right as David Ruffin in The Temptations, but fails utterly to capture the essence of Little Richard in this film. 

Actor Miguel Núñez who played Little Richard in "Why Do Fools Fall in Love?" was a much more suitable choice, having pulled off the musician's powerful but effeminate persona. 

If the performances are unconvincing then the film will be as well. And this is what has happened here. Glossed over or missed entirely are LR's forays into homosexuality and voyeurism. What "The Temptations" did so well in capturing the rise of the group, warts and all, this film misses by a wide mark.

What is going on with director Robert Townsend who started off so well with "The Hollywood Shuffle"? He's a talented, funny guy but hasn't delivered anything near that first effort.

Sentiment: negative
"Curse of Michael Myers" is a very frustrating piece to deal with for a fan of the Halloween series. After a very disappointing letdown in Halloween 5, the series reached a near ebb in plot lines, with a silly devolution into witchcraft and a teenage cult dedicated to the worship of Michael Myers. "Curse of Michael Myers" ups the ante in blood and gore, but really represents a decay in the series' integrity. It's too bad to, as this is the last movie for Donald Pleasance as the character of Dr. Loomis. Pleasance has some good screen moments (precious ones if your a fan of the series) as the now very aged and as he says "very retired doctor". Sadly he died before the movie was completed, and it is very apparent at the conclusion of the film that the stories original climatic scene was never realized. Right from the beginning credits, Halloween 6 has more of the feel of a made-for-TV movie then that of the block-buster horror flick that it started out as in 1978. Any loyal Halloween alumni should have demanded more from this film,... Dr. Loomis and Donald Pleasance deserved more.

Sentiment: negative
Overrated mob comedy. Director Demme makes the actors pause after some funny lines to let audience laugh, and not miss next line. Seems odd - this director did "Silence of The Lambs" - now there's the way to use pauses! Casting seems off. Mathew Modine too young for FBI agent and Pfeiffer's love interest! Dean Stockwell is doing a Jack Nicholson-thing with a squint, and he gets a nomination for it! Plus we have to accept Pfeiffer and Stockwell as Italians? Charles Napier as a hairdresser and Al Lewis as a mob lawyer are underused with only one line each - they should be the bumbling hoods. Song score by Chris Isaak is totally out of place - better for a flick like "Pretty In Pink." Re-make this movie, it's worth it, but with proper casting and director and the satire will come through... even the often repeated "Forgedaboutit."

Sentiment: negative
This movie was trying to something, but failed miserably. All the attempts at suspense were cheap, and there were so many tired gimmicks and plot holes I ended up laughing and making fun of it the whole way through. At least I was entertained. 

The ghosts are attempting to warn the family, so why do they attack the girl, whose name I didn't care to remember. And what was with the black and white at the beginning? I know what they were trying to do, but they fell far short. And where the heck did that guy (John Corbett's character) come from? He just waltzes in from no where in a vast field. And why did he suddenly lose it again when the ravens came? And if the ravens were a manifestation of the spirits of his family, then why did they attack him if it would make him try to kill the family? Makes no sense. So many things in this movie just don't make sense, and the acting ain't too pretty on the part of the main girl character. It's not terrible, just a little like her kiddy movie days. 

So all in all this movie wasn't brilliant, but I had a good time ripping at it, and sometimes that's all a horror movie needs to do. Rent for entertainment not quality.

Sentiment: negative
I agree with the Aussie's comments for the most part. However, there id seem to be a fairly decent plot, if unoriginal. Christina (Kelli McCarty) inherits a rural property that she intends to open a mountain lodge. She gets reacquainted with Chip (Bobby Johnston) whom she had known when she was growing up in there. The plot thickens when James (Paul Logan) arrives with his new stripper friend, Shene (Devinn Lane) because Christina had been James' stripper friend in years gone by, and the implication is that James had done her wrong somehow. To add interest to the movie Sophia Linn (Monique Parent) a romance novelist shows up as a guest at the lodge, as do Eric (Sebastien Guy) and Linda (Flower), pair of lawyers from the city. James sicks the local building codes inspector on Christina's business as one of his dirty tricks to shut her down. So the question is, "How far will James go to sabotage the lodge and will he succeed?"

Watch for Devinn Lane here and in "Beauty Betrayed." She seems to be making a transition from the hard core business to the "R" world. Another notable is Samantha McConnell, playing the role of "Bait," clearly the most outrageous character name in the movies!

Sentiment: positive
Rita Hayworth is right there where she should be - as a "Cover Girl" in this 1944 Technicolor film also starring Gene Kelly, Phil Silvers, Eve Arden, Lee Bowman, and Otto Kruger. Rita plays a beautiful showgirl, Rusty, working at a small club owned by the man she loves, Danny (Kelly). Each Friday they go out for oysters with Genius (Silvers), the club comedian. They all hate oysters, but they're looking for a pearl. When they find one, all three of them will have good luck, they believe.

Rusty auditions and wins the role of cover girl for a magazine - she starts off ahead of the other contestants because the magazine owner (Kruger) sees a resemblance between Rusty and the girl he once loved, who turns out to be Rusty's grandmother. Once she becomes the cover girl, the world opens up for her and her dreams of appearing on Broadway come true. Danny wants her to have her success, but at the same time realizes he's lost her.

"Cover Girl" has exuberant dance numbers and songs by Jerome Kern, with Rita dubbed by Martha Mears. Rita is at her best playing both Rusty in the present and her grandmother in the past. For such a sexy, desirable, gorgeous woman, she was apparently very insecure and always under the thumb of domineering men. None of this ever showed on screen, nor did the fact that she didn't want to be a movie star. She is one of the true goddesses and brought everything she did to life. Gene Kelly is in a serious role here, but gets plenty of chances to dance and sing. Phil Silvers is very amiable and funny as the in-house comic and best friend.

This is a very good movie with no dull spots. The only problem I had is the idea that Rusty has to choose between a successful career and the man she loves. When supermodel Jinx Falkenberg, who plays herself in the film, speaks of getting married, she's warned by her boss not to, that she's too necessary to the modeling business. We're not told if Rusty continues with her career or goes back to work at Danny's - but all signs seemed to point toward the Brooklyn club. Why couldn't she have had both? Nevertheless, you can't beat "Cover Girl" for top entertainment, beautiful color, lovely music, great energy, fine performances, and its most fabulous asset, the glorious Rita Hayworth.

Sentiment: positive
While not quite as monstrously preposterous as later works, this slow-moving, repetitive giallo offers some nice touches in the first half, but grows more and more lethargic and silly as it stumbles to its lame denouement.

To be sure, the actors are above average - considering this is an Argento movie - and some moments show the director's visual skills, but whole sequences should've been cut and, basically, it's just the same exploitative trash as ever, wallowing in fake science and abnormal sexual depravity.

3 out of 10 genetic disorders

Sentiment: negative
Shame is rather unique as a war film (or rather quite the anti-war film) in that it not only doesn't focus on the soldiers or politics involved (there is politics but not how you'd think it'd be shown), it deals with its two main subjects as the only two beings that can possibly be cared about at all in this brutal, decaying society they inhabit. Ingmar Bergman, in the midst of his prime, and following two other heavily psychological films, Persona and Hour of the Wolf, is far more interested in seeing what the effect of war has on usually civilized beings, that it brings out the worst in them, and also in a cathartic way is a reminder of what is truly crucial in living. His two key actors are frequent collaborators and friends Max von Sydow and Liv Ullman (as the Rosenbergs oddly enough), who are musicians living on a farm on an island (not too dissimilar from 'Wolf' when one thinks about it).

They see the tanks roll by, and a couple of old friends already getting worn down, but they try not to put it too much to heart; there's a sweet scene where the couple just talk, rather frankly but with heart (all one shot, as is repeated through the film is to perhaps create a sense of being provoked)...Then comes the trouble, including a fake film of propaganda made at gunpoint with the Rosenbergs, the psychological turmoil in being prisoners of war, and the terror involved with a 'friend' in the military (one of Gunnar Bjornstrand's most subtle works with Bergman). Needless to say this is not one of the easier films to go through in terms of Bergman's filmography, however for some it may be one of his more accessible works. His religious themes this time is kept very low key, even as the idea of keeping a sort of faith pervades the film's atmosphere. When there is war action it's shot in unconventional, quick ways (via great amigo Sven Nykvist).

And the deconstruction of the relationship between Jan and Eva is corresponded successfully with the backdrop of a chaotic kind of war-ground where the lines are never too surely drawn. In a way this film, shot right at the height of the worst times in Vietnam, is even more relevant for today; I couldn't help but see chilling, uncompromising coincidences between Iraq and elsewhere with some of Jan and Eva's scenes with the fighters, or those 'in charge'. The very last scene, by the way, is one of Bergman's very best, all around (acting, directing, lighting). It's not the kind of war picture (or, again, anti-war, I find little of the John Wayne spirit in this Svensk production) that I would recommend right off the bat to my friends all into Saving Private Ryan- it has a little more in kinship with Paths of Glory, looking at the effects of the hypocrisy of war. But in reality, like any of Bergman's "genre" films, it stands alone, however one that packs a wallop for the art-house crowd.

Sentiment: positive
There are a lot of 'bad' films out there. Tune in to Channel 5 every night of the week and you might just be treated to a daily, shocking effort from one filmmaker or another. There are possibly films that have caused me more pain - were harder to sit through - than this, but in terms of writing, acting, direction, cinematography and the bare basics of cinema Inbetweeners is a truly, truly appalling effort and should be avoided at all costs. The only laugh it gave me was in the behind the scenes documentary on the DVD, in which the film's geeky director Darren Fisher explains how it was his script that attracted the 'talent' to the project! Never underestimate the power of self-delusion.

Darren Fisher - Britain's answer to Edward D. Wood Jr.!

Sentiment: negative
Usually, I don't think Hollywood productions are fit to be called film, so I call them 'movies' instead. But this piece of elephant manure, is not even fit to be called a movie, hence the quotes in the title.

Where shall i start? 1. If this isn't the start of geriatric casting, it sure is the epitome of it. Stefanie Powers is supposed to play someone even LESS than half her age, she's supposed to play an 18 year old, and she is FORTY effing TWO!!!! 

2. A horrible and stupid mindless portrayal of Paris and France, where we see cliché characters such as: the sympathetic grumpy shop owner, the bitchy queen of models, the fairy god mother ex-queen of models, etc. This film is surpassed only in this respect by the Da Vinci Code, (which reviewers correctly determined was a comedy). 

3. It's highly and utterly ridiculous to have no nudity in a film about a time and a place where nudity was so common place, especially if the whole focus is about that

4. The horrible accents!!! 

5. The Nana Mouskouri elevator-music!!!

I could go on, but i think this is enough. And I was able to make these observations after watching this crap for just half an hour, WHILE surfing the internet and talking to my friends about math equations ... I mean ...!!!!!

I invite everyone to add to my list. :) :P :D

Sentiment: negative
Seeing this film for the first time twenty years after its release I don't quite get it. Why has this been such a huge hit in 1986? Its amateurishness drips from every scene. The jokes are lame and predictable. The sex scenes are exploitative and over the top (that is not to say that Miss Rudnik does not have nice boobs!). The singing is "schrecklich". The only genuinely funny scene is the big shoot out when the gangsters die break dancing, a trait that dates the movie firmly to the mid-eighties. It's really quite puzzling to me how incapable I am to grasp what evoked the enthusiasm of the cheering audiences in 1986 (and apparently still today, reading my fellow IMDBers comments).

Sentiment: negative
I just saw this film yesterday.

My girlfriend wanted to see it only because of Richard Gere.

I feel I wasted my time and money and told my girlfriend it's the last time we go to see a film just because a certain actor/actress is in it. I hope she learned the lesson because I had trouble keeping her in her seat. As of me, since I paid already, I wanted to see the end at least, just in the hope something good would turn up, but I didn't hold my breath, and luckily so cause I would have been a victim of the film just the same.

This is not a black and white film, it's a black and black one. The main character (Richard Gere) is almost as bad as his registrants, and all sex offenders are portrayed as unredeemable hard core criminals and the bad ones among them were really very very bad. Speak of a cliché and the exploitation of a typical US phobia.

Richard Gere's acting was good as usual but the blond girl that's supposed to replace him was wishy washy at best. Totally unconvincing for the job.

The film tries to exploit a popular theme and gives it a cheap, dramatic, and sensational turn that just is unreal. They just use sex offenders as an excuse to indulge in cheap violent acts of murders, vigilante beating, rape and torture - something that almost seems gratuitous. They even have a wolf attacking people in the film - how low can you get.

I gather the film won't come out in the USA and will go straight to DVD. That's were it should have stayed in other countries too, but because it's Hollywood and Richard Gere they just had to show it. Believe me, without Gere, the film is not even worth a B-series movie.

Sentiment: negative
I am writing this review simply because I am a huge fan of the book, Prozac Nation, and was appalled by the film.

I think that if you hadn't read the book, you would have been lost watching the film, as it provided no real back story to Wurtzel's depression. There was no real mention of her childhood (her relationship with her father, her experiences at summer camp, her first therapists (in fact, the film gives the impression that she has never been in therapy until Dr. Sterling)...). That said, if you had read the book, you would have been confused by the amount of editing that had taken place.

I found the book to be a vivid portrayal of depression, highlighting Wurtzel's low points, and the experiences she had along the way. The film however, began at Harvard, and literally threw the audience straight in with no real explanation of what was going on.

Events that, in the book, were important (such as Wurtzel's miscarriage, her summer working in Dallas, her suicide attempt whilst on Prozac) were omitted from the film.

Also, this is pedantic, but Wurtzel did not lose her virginity to Noah. The suicide attempt that was shown in Sterling's office was completely different to the book. For a start, she actually overdosed on Mellaril, as opposed to the para-suicidal gesture shown in the film.

All in all, I would say that if you have read the book and enjoyed it/identified with it, then don't watch the film. Read 'More, Now, Again' (by the same author) instead. Or watch Girl, Interrupted.

The only redeeming feature was the performance by Anne Heche, who I believe portrayed Dr. Sterling very well. Christina Ricci was also good, though her performance seemed a little... stilted. Jessica Lange made for enjoyable viewing, but looked the opposite of how Wurtzel's mother is described in the book.

Conclusion? Don't bother.

Sentiment: negative
Well, what to say...

Having seen the film I still have to wonder what the hell the point of it all really was?? V.Dodgy camera moves in the courtyard at one point... I had to look away from the screen, I was feeling physically sick... Round and Round and Round.... You get the idea...

VERY VERY Strange accents at many points.... "Those that should know, know"

Unless your getting in for free, or being paid to watch it, or your partner is about to make you paint the house or something.. then forget it...

Sentiment: negative
Wow. They told me it was bad, but I had no idea.

We've started a tradition. We found one copy of this movie, and we just pass it from person to person. Whoever has the movie watches it, and then passes it to someone else deemed worthy of seeing this unique, creative, horrible movie. Hopefully it'll travel 'round the world a few times.

It's painful. Really painful. It's even beyond so bad it's funny. Well, okay, sometimes it's so bad it's funny. But most of the time it just gives you that feeling that there's something sucking at your brain from the inside.

Wow. Watch it, then pass it.

Sentiment: negative
The idea was awesome, the actors were incredible, the story could of been very scary, but the writing was poor and there was no depth. I couldn't really get into this movie. I couldn't feel for the characters, there were a lot of cliffhangers, and the movie just ends very weirdly. Was it a happy ending? I don't know. Was it a sad ending? Again, I don't know. You leave the theater feeling unsatisfied. The movie had so much to give, but couldn't. Just because you can edit, doesn't mean you should, right? I wouldn't really recommend this movie because you just can't say that you left the movie feeling like it was completed. You'll just be confused. Trust me, you will probably thank me if you don't watch this movie.

3/10

Sentiment: negative
When "The Net" was first being advertised, the ads made it look ridiculous. Then, when I saw it, it was actually quite good. Angela Bennett (Sandra Bullock) spends her days working on the computer and has never gotten to know her neighbors. Then, through a series of events, her identity gets erased by a cabal of shadowy people, and she can't prove that she exists.

Some parts of the movie are a little bit far-fetched; you'd probably know which parts if you saw the movie. Still, it's a good look into what the existence of the Internet may have wrought on unsuspecting people. I do recommend it.

Sentiment: positive
At the very beginning, the look at a control panel that reads "8 miles of the cost of California", and no, I didn't misspell that, they really did not realize the put of the cost instead of off the coast. These people must have been morons.

It's good if you're into terrible movies, but the sheer fact they couldn't catch a simple spelling issue make me believe they really didn't put any effort into creating the movie whatsoever. The Navy uniforms are not correct at all in any manner whatsoever.

Wow, completely ridiculous, but good if you are looking for something insanely stupid to watch. How these folks made any money off this is beyond me.

Sentiment: negative
I was really looking forward to this movie but sadly it didn't live up to expectation.

A good movie has the audience identifying/empathising/sympathising with the main actor. Unfortunately this was very hard to do with Samantha Morton.

The storyline seemed very disjointed and didn't flow as it should/could have done.

Keifer Sutherland appeared to be little more than window dressing and made me wonder why he agreed to play what appeared to be a bit part. Beautiful scenery and the acting of Tem Morrison and Cliff Curtis was about the only plus.

Maybe by being a kiwi I set the bar higher for locally made films. Maybe the change of director/ supposedly hard to work with main actor has biased my opinion.

Maybe I'm just trying to make excuses for a movie which could have been great.

A lot of maybes which still does not explain why this movie just lacked anything special.

It could have been great, it wasn't.

Sentiment: negative
Wang Bianlian is an old street performer who is known as a 'King of masks' for his mastery of Sichuan change art. Liang is a famous opera performer of Sichuan art and respects Wang as an artist and as a person. Liang is worried that a precious art shouldn't die with Wang and so he sows the seed of an heir in to Wang's mind. The film is about prejudices, male domination, state of art, values and most importantly warmth.

I can't recommend this film enough. The whole film is in loops. Everything has a significance. Its a long story which has been edited so well that the length of the film is just 91 minutes. A total satisfaction. For five minutes it is an artistic film, next five minutes its a sad film, next five minutes its a thriller. It just keeps changing its mood like its protagonist changes his face. Last scene on the rope is phenomenal. Story and script is flawless. Actors are brilliant. Both the protagonists are artists you can tell the way they have performed. Very impressive. It was not even nominated for Oscars. That year 'English patient' got the best film Oscar and in the foreign film category 'Kolya' won. 'Kolya' was just OK and about 'English patient' the lesser said the better. Watch it 9/10.

Sentiment: positive
Right then. This film is totally unfunny, puerile, has gags from other films, has songs from other films (Blink 182's "Mutt", Grand Theft Audio's "We Luv U"), an unlikeable leading man, a ridiculous plot, and lame parodies of films like Mission Impossible 2 and American Beauty. Redeeming features? Shannon Elizabeth and Jaime Pressly. Enough said.

Sentiment: negative
L'Appartement is, I think, a very purposeful Hitchcockian film. The plot was rife with symbolism (ie the white and red roses) and plot twists which wrapped themselves up neatly. The look was very Parisian and pulled you closer to the story. I saw it in London and very much regret that it is not out on video in the states

Sentiment: positive
Now, I love bad, old skifee movies as much as most people. And I understand that a budget is a budget. That said, Planet of the Dinosaurs is as bad as a bad movie can get. The thing has no actors, and only one attractive female whom they kill off two minutes after swimming ashore. There are literally no redeeming qualities to be found in this pile of wasted celluloid. The only thing not wasted was paper...the screenplay must have been no more than four pages long. Surely no one actually WROTE dialogue this pointless. I'm constantly amazed that such movies ever got made, much less released. I'm only glad I didn't pay to see this waste of time. It's 75 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

Sentiment: negative
If you have not heard of this film from Walt Disney Pictures, do not worry about it. It would be classed along the other films by Disney that are meant for educational purposes like "Family Planning".

It was co-produced with Kotex to teach pre-teen girls about Menstruation, supposably. It only educates at a superficial level, so it does not go into heavy detail for the animated "Ram's Head"/ Reproductive System sequence.

The film does show "The Wonderful World of Disney" elements like the turning of the page and the use of animation to tell the story.

This film is impossible to find, so if you can find the film, best luck to you and enjoy.

Sentiment: positive