DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Typically elaborately crafted HBO production with a first-rate cast, a rich small-town atmosphere and some nice narrative vignettes, graced by above average production values.

But, and that's a huge 'but', the various subplots, peopled with some likable, mostly annoying caricatures, are paper-thin and go and and on in dull stretches for over three long hours.

The often silly story veers uneasily between melodrama, without being entertaining enough, and personal drama, without being profound at all.

A shame, because some scenes really shine. Two or three, that is.

4 out of 10 grubby Paul Newmans

Sentiment: negative
The stuff dreams are made of. A complete retelling of the play as a dream of vengeance: will baffle purists, but will delight the open-minded. A superb effort: great cinematography, acting, and script. 11-stars...***********

Sentiment: positive
When Braveheart first came out, I was enthralled, and was admittedly one of the most rabid fans of the film. When Rob Roy came out, I was intrigued, and although I enjoyed the film I did not think it was a great film. However, as time has gone by, my appreciation for Rob Roy has grown, and my enthusiasm for Braveheart has diminished. Braveheart is great entertainment, to be sure, but there are flaws as well. The most significant, in my view, is the unflattering portrayal of Robert the Bruce, who was without a doubt Scotland's greatest king. Another is the historical inaccuracy of the film, which tarnishes the film in proportion to the many historical distortions. I think I am also bothered by the fact that it was in this film, seen only (at least by me) in retrospect, that the beginnings of Mel Gibson's egomania can be seen clearly for the first time. In contrast, Rob Roy has grown on me over the years. Partly because it largely avoids the faults I mind most in Braveheart. But also because Rob Roy is like fine wine, growing more mature and complex with each viewing.

Sentiment: positive
"Tourist Trap" is a genuinely spooky low-budget horror film that will surely satisfy horror fans.It contains extremely strange atmosphere and there are some quite unnerving moments of total dread and fear.Some scenes are downright bizarre for example there is one scene when Chuck Connors sits down to have dinner with a mannequin that comes to life and starts conversing with him before its head falls off.There is very little gore,but the violence is quite strong for PG-rated horror film.The mannequins look very sinister and the climax is horrifying.David Schmoeller returned to make several other genre films including "Crawlspace","Puppet Master" and "Netherworld".Still "Tourist Trap" is definitely his best horror film,so if you want to be scared give this little gem a look.9 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
This film is close to be my favorite piece of celluloid. There is really not much I'd need or want to say here. Except maybe "See this film" and "Enjoy the excellent work by Daniel and Pascal", who carries you through this neat, funny and heartbreaking story about 'spending your eighth day' - your own day! 

Seeing this film made me think seriously about how I spend my eighth day = my life! It appears, that some of us are wasting precious time doing things we think we need to do. Either if it's pleasing a career or just consuming TV-shows and ballgames. What we tend to miss is the satisfaction of being something for another person - make a difference. About taking room and time to be spontaneous and live - NOW! (on the eighth day)... At least that was what I got from 'The Eighth Day'.

Sentiment: positive
Even Sophie Marceau's presence and the few (very few) good French gags are unable to save this otherwise slow and boring movie! A disappointment. The story is weak and so is acting. This movie was advertised as the French version of The Mummy, but the Mummy has at least spectacular and enjoyable effects...

Sentiment: negative
When I first saw the movie, I thought it was sweet - a family movie. For the rest of the night and over the next couple of days, though, clever moments and funny lines kept creeping back into my thoughts and our conversation... There's a lot going on, classic elements of farce, good character acting, and Wendie Malick's story line is just hysterical. Labelling it a "feel-good movie" belies the wit and fun - it's smarter than it seems, just like "It's a Wonderful Life" is.

Sentiment: positive
"De Dominee" is based on the life of a real dutch gangster,Klaas Bruinsma! In the movie he is called Klaas Donkers! I have my doubts that events presented in the movie have something to do with what really happened! But that doesn't really matter! Because it failed to grab my attention! This movie bored the crap out of me! It lacks substance and style! The substance part could have been forgiven if the acting was any good and if the director tried to do something original! Without the substance you at least have to bring some style or decent action! Don't we need to be entertained? It would have helped if the director had seen more gangster movies! It is obvious that he didn't! Otherwise he wouldn't have made this the way he did! This movie got a lot of publicity because of a little scandal surrounding Klaas Bruinsma and a member of the Dutch Royal family! This scandal has nothing to do with the movie what so ever! Without it "De Dominee" never would have been successful! I am sure of it!

Sentiment: negative
wow! it's even better than I expected! the best animated Astérix movie ever! and it feels so good to hear Roger Carel doing the voice of Astérix again! I surely recommend it to everyone who likes the comic books of Astérix! but I suggest that you go to see the french version, cause it surely is the best and you hear the original cast! did you know that Roger Carel has played Astérix for nearly forty years? i think he did a marvelous job! and the song from Céline Dion at the end fits rally good to the end credits! the music is good, the drawings are good, the actors are wonderful... in a word: a masterpiece! go to see it! you will not regret this!

Sentiment: positive
I thoroughly enjoyed Bilal's graphic novel when it came out, and was amazed when I saw the trailer for this film, and even more so when I found that Bilal had directed it himself. The film, however, was a major letdown. The visuals are nowhere near the rich and gritty texture of the original artworks, and the story is poorly told. Bilal seems to have chosen to focus on the more esoteric aspects of the graphic novel, and he doesn't do a very good job at it, either.

The most enjoyable part of the original graphic novel was the friendship-hate relationship between Nikopol and Horus. They were both out of their right time and place, forced together by circumstance. Most of all, they were funny and likable. Not so here. Nikopol has no discernible personality whatsoever, and Horus is a pompous twit who just wants to get laid. Even though the film is French, Horus doesn't have to be!

We have all seen films we enjoyed, but wouldn't recommend to everyone, for some reason or other. I wouldn't recommend Immortel to anyone, except maybe as a warning not to overreach your talent and resources. Bilal's a master storyteller, but obviously not a master of every visual medium.

Sentiment: negative
"Imperium Nero" is the second movie of the series of six productions named "Imperium". I have already unfavorably commented the first one: "Imperium Augustus". This second TV movie produced and broadcast last weekend by the Italian state owned network has the same defects. In addition contains a considerable number of historical errors. Some examples: Nero is a child and Agrippina calls him: "Nero, Nero". At that time is name was Claudius. He was named Nero after his adoption. Nero did not meet Acte when he was young as in the movie but after his marriage with Octavia and his nomination to Emperor. When becoming Emperor his sons where not adults: Britannicus is one month old and Octavia one year old. And many many more. If you are fond of ancient roman history you can find yourselves other examples. "Imperium" series will continue with four more movies : "Titus", "Marcus Aurelius","Costantinus" and"The Fall of the Roman Empire". Finally!

Sentiment: negative
I watched this movie alongwith my complete family of Nine. Since my younger brother has recently got married, we could connect with the goings-on. The movie stands out for the classical touch given to the romance of the engaged couple. Thankfully this time all Indian locales like Ranikhet Almora etc have been used, which have been already visited by most of the urbanites, hence adding to the connection with movie. The dialogues are much better than those in the "Umrao Jaan Ada" - a supposedly dialogue based movie. The background music is augmenting the "soft focus" of the movie. It somehow remind me of VV Chopra's "Kareeb", in which neha and to some extent Bobby did full justice to the character. Same here, in that the lead pair does not disappoint in any department-looks or acting. The Supporting cast are too good. I rate the actress playing the role of Bhabhi in the front league. The situations of family interactions portrayed are real and you smile when you find yourself in place of one of the characters. Songs were too suiting the scenes and going along well with the movie. However, though I respect Ravindra Jain for his body of work from movies to Ramayana, I missed Ram Laxman badly.

It had no double entendres(Sivan category), no bikinis, no intrigue, and no nonsense. You would comfortably watch the movie with your parents except if you're already or going to be soon engaged. I want to express on candid thing here that though Suraj proposes that the marriages is between families and not only individuals, his approach is totally individualistic. The movie is only about Prem & Poonam, rest of the characters are incidental. Art immitating life? The "peripheral characters" are consigned to the background and the only protagonists are the lead pair. 

Coming back, Everything was almost great. Except, for the drama part. The situation of tragedy was artificially created. The outcome, the sacrifice and the ensuing heart change are not compelling at all. That is why it lacks the emotional punch-the very purpose of this turn of events. But, a twist in the tale was necessary to transcend the movie from a beautiful pre-marital video to a 'feature film'. But I kept waiting for the punch and it never came. The preaching by Mohnish Bahal and later by Alok Nath on dowry was out of place and it made things too overboard. May be this will help the movie a tax-free status. But the plot could have been made more interesting and non-linear than what it was.

There were too question in my mind when the movie ended: 1 Has the movie really ended? 2 Has the movie ended?

Sentiment: positive
Kill Me Later" has an interesting initial premise: a suicidal woman (Selma Blair) on the verge of jumping off the top of an office building is protects a bank robber (Max Beesley) who promises to "kill her later."

The actual execution of this premise, however, falls flat as almost every action serves as a mere device to move the plot toward its predictable conclusion. Shoddily written characters who exhibit no motive for their behaviors compromise the quality of acting all around. Lack of character depth especially diminishes Selma Blair's performance, whose character Shawn vacillates from being morose to acting "cool" and ultimately comes across as a confused dolt. This is unfortunate, as under other circumstances Ms. Blair is an appealing and capable actress.

Compounding matters for the worse is director Dana Lustig's insistence on using rapid cuts, incongruous special effects (e.g. look for an unintentionally hilarious infrared motorcycle chase at the end), and a hip soundtrack in the hopes of appealing to the short attention spans of the MTV crowd. Certainly Ms. Lustig proves that she is able to master the technical side of direction, but in no way does her skill help overcome the film's inherent problems and thus the movie drags on to the end. Clearly, Lustig has a distinct visual style; however it is perhaps better suited to music videos than to feature film.

The producers (Ram Bergman & Lustig)can be commended for their ability to realize this film: they were able to scare up $1.5 million to finance the film, secure a good cast, and get domestic and foreign distribution. This is no small feat for an independent film. Yet given the quality of the product, the result is a mixed bag.

Sentiment: negative
I first saw this movie at a Saturday matinee when I was very young. I thought it was cool and often thought about it. Well I finally resaw it on DVD. It was still very entertaining but in a different way. It has to rank as one of the goofiest, campiest, 1950's sci-fi movies. It seemed filled with stock military footage. The dialogue is stilted and effects are crude. There is one line of dialogue that had me in stitches. The line Jeff Morrow says while on the beach with the babe. Rent it if you need a movie to watch with a bunch of drunken friends. It is a classic.

Sentiment: negative
I don't know any idiotic rock'n'roll cliché not used in this movie. Ouffcourz , rock enroll life is only sex drugs and parties and tons of supermodels trying to ride with you. Say it to stupid young boys. The filmmakers seemed to have read too much Guns'n'Roses or Motley Crue stories. I have seen everyday life of usual rock band closely and there are nothing to do with reality in this movie. If you are successful enough your life is touring touring touring. Its means that you are mostly in a bus and trying to sleep. Just sleep. Because you must be fresh, sober and clean in evenings. After live you have a little time to discharge your stage excitement. Then you have a bit time to have fun. But its not any luxury or dream. Artistically this film was zero. Stupid characters and idiotic dialogs. The ending of movie was funny -- main character left heavy metal band and formed a grunge band! Yeah, what a moral. Real 90s.

Sentiment: negative
Movies about dinosaurs can be entertaining. So can Whoopi Goldberg movies. But Whoopi AND dinosaurs?

After the first 20 minutes of "Theodore Rex", I had come to one conclusion: this movie is evil. Evil, vile, wicked and reprehensible in its spite for the audience. Nothing this bad is made by accident; this is the visual equivalent of a torture chamber.

First of all, Whoopi does not make good action movies (watch "Fatal Beauty" if you think I'm lying), but the film makers don't care - she's a tough cop here, yet again. 

Seen a million cop buddy flicks this week? Well, here's number one million and one, pal.

Don't like cute, humanistic animated dinosaurs since that Spielberg TV show about them? Too bad, here's another one and he's a cop, too!

You one of those people that hates car chases, shoot-outs, sloppy dialogue, boring futuristic FX and seeing talented people (Goldberg, Mueller-Stahl, Roundtree) stuck in a movie that looks like a tax write-off? A BIG tax write-off?

And you read this review all the way to the end. You DESERVE a sequel. Seriously.

No stars, not a one. And if they really make a sequel to "Theodore Rex", Hollywood deserves to be attacked a whole herd of wise-cracking foam rubber dinosaurs.

Now, I'd pay to see that.

Sentiment: negative
My favourite story from 'tales from the crypt'. Brion Jones was born to play the part of the maniac lumberjack,axe swinging madman Steve Dixon.Having seen him before in Tango&Cash I can state this actor never got the proper credit he deserved. A jealous husband takes offence in his wife showing an interest in a hunky young worker he's just employed.And you know when Dixon finds out there's gonna be hell to pay!The young worker Ted(Billy Wirth)receives an almighty beating from Dixon leaving him blind.Now how is a blind lumberjack supposed to work? A tribute to black humour if there ever was one! The co stars do a pretty good job too supporting Ted when Dixon when he has his initial suspicions about his wife desiring another man.Dixon's behaviour making the bond stronger closer between the colleagues.One even stated he became a changed man when he got married.Though Ted should have done the wise thing and left when he could!

Sentiment: positive
How much do I love this film?! Now I'm not a fan of bad films, but I do love a film that is so bad it's good. This is one of those. Juan Pablo Di Pace has a great butt, looks fab on screen, and definitely doesn't make a bad turn at his acting debut (I believe). Billy Zane is suitably mean and moody, though I still constantly feel that there is something more in him. I felt it in Titanic, the look on his face when La Winslet spat on him for example, totally broken, shocked, and put-down ... fierce! Kelly Brook is a pretty face ... no seriously, I think that's it! It's worth catching this to see one really hot guy, some big bra fillers from Brook, nasty growling from Billy, laugh at the dialogue, revel in the scenery and madness of the whole affair ... I'm gona go watch it again now - yes, I bought it!!!

Sentiment: negative
Nicolas Mallet is a failure. A teller in a bank, everyone walks all over him. Then his friend, a writer who's books no one likes, has a plan to change his life. Our hero tells his boss he is quitting. He intends to spend the rest of his life making a great deal of money and sleeping with a great many women. And he manages to do just that.

If it were not for the amount of death (murder/suicide/natural causes) in the film, this would be a farce. There are numerous jabs at marriage, politics, journalism and...life.

Jean-Louis Trintignant is a likable amoral rogue. Romy Schneider is at her most appealing. Definitely worth a look.

Sentiment: positive
I liked the first movie, but this is a textbook example of a sequel that would have been better of left on the drawing board. The general idea in the first movie was, if not great, then at least very interesting. This sequel tries to build upon the idea and the characters from the first movie, and though Christopher Walken is still good as Gabriel, the whole idea suddenly gets a bit ridiculous. If you haven't seen any of these movies, then get the first movie and forget about the sequels, they can take away all of the joy from the original.

Sentiment: negative
This kid is rather bad, but in no way do they make him the type that outsmarts adults and can foil experienced thieves at every turn. No, he is not so much a brat, as he is a kid with severe emotional problems. A nice couple looking to adopt get rather suckered into adopting him and while the husband is a bit more willing to give this kid a chance the mother is not. Through in a bizarre Michael Richards character and the always annoying Gilbert Gottfried and you have yourself a rather bad movie with a few laughs in it here and there. I actually prefer the sequel to this film as I like the fact they brought Amy Yasbeck back as a different more likable character as there are one to many characters in this film that are thoroughly unlikable as it is. Even the kid is rather annoying at first in this one, and they kind of chill him out in the sequel too. The plot is simple enough though as the prospective parents go to adopt this kid that they think is great by the way the orphanage is throwing a party as they depart, they soon realize they have themselves a little hellion. Add to that this little hellion getting into contact with a convict of some sort. Not sure about this character, at first I thought it was supposed to be his real father or something. Not all that good, but I will pick this ahead of that Culkin kid any day of the week.

Sentiment: negative
I loved this film when I was little. Today at 17 it is one of my all time favorite animated films. Beautiful animation and appealing characters are just two of the things to like about this film. Although many people might not enjoy some of the songs, most of them are well-done and go along with the story. It focuses on Charlie, a roguish handsome German Shepard who may seem unlikable to some at first... but eventually will win you over.

Not a kiddie film by any means. Often very dark and frightening at times. A treat for Don Bluth fans and animation buffs. But do keep a tissue in handy. ADGTH never fails to make me cry and will do the same for those who are movie sensitive. Arguably one of the greatest non-Disney animated films of all time. Along with Watership Down and My Neighbor Totoro.

BOTTOM LINE: A heavenly masterpiece.

Sentiment: positive
I didn't know what to except so I think it was a lot better not having excepted much. Don't get my wrong its not a bad short film. Tess Nanavati is a relatively new directer and writer so I think she deserves a lot of kudos for making this film. You can tell that it has been an act of love for her. The acting (outside of Dominic) is a little cheesy and the quality of film is not great either but for a really low budget film its good. There was times when the story line gets convoluted and there are parts that drag on, though I don't feel it greatly detracts for one's ability to understand the film. If you love Dominic Monaghan as much as I do, I say go for it. The gag reel was fun, I won't spoil it but there is a particular scene that makes buying the DVD worth it just so you can watch it over and over. If you like the film then check out The Pink Mirror, a film also done by Jagged Edge. I know fans of Dominic will enjoy this little piece of heaven.

Sentiment: positive
Down Periscope is not a "Great Movie". But then again very few flicks are. So if your looking for entertainment instead of great wisdom this is a "great movie", without the capitals. No sharp sexism or graphic violence spoil this light comedy about a bunch of misfits who are assigned to a antique submarine. They are set to fail their tasks so that a general can get his extra star. They must take on the entire US-navy with it's nuclear submarines. But they are underdogs and this is a comedy so you can guess the outcome. But you root for those underdogs and this makes it a very entertaining movie. Watch and enjoy ******** (eight stars that is)

Sentiment: positive
Big splashy film of the Broadway music. Nathan (Frank Sinatra) loves to roll the dice and organize illegal crap games. Blonde loving Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) wants to marry him IF he gives up craps. He decides on one last game when Sky Masterson (Marlon Brando!), who bets big, is in town. He bets Sky that he can't get mission worker Sarah Brown (Jean Simmons) to go with him to Havana. That may sound like a strange plot summary but so is the movie!

This is a real mixed bag--there's some wonderful stuff here. The songs are all good and the dancing is incredible. The real show stopper is at the crap game at the end. Also Brando is really quite good here--it might seem strange to think of him singing and dancing but he pulls it off. I have to admit seeing big, bulky Brando pulling off some difficult dance moves was a lot of fun! Also Sinatra is pretty good and Blaine is just wonderful as his long-suffering girlfriend. Her song and dance numbers are definite highlights here.

Now for the bad parts--Jean Simmons is a wonderful actress but she's stuck with a drab colorless role and can't do much with it. The movie is far too long at 150 minutes--the scenes between Brando and Simmons really drag and should have been shortened. Also most of the characters speak in very precise English--contractions are never used. Maybe it's trying to be amusing coming out of the mouths of gangsters but I found it jarring and it kept throwing me out of the movie.

It's worth catching for the songs and dances but the over length of it does get to you after a while. I give it a 7.

Sentiment: positive
In "Anne of Green Gables" (1934), Marilla Cuthbert (Helen Westley) and Matthew Cuthbert (O.P. Heggie), middle-aged siblings who live together at Green Gables, a farm in Avonlea, on Prince Edward Island, decide to adopt a boy from distant orphanage to help on their farm. But the orphan sent to them is a precocious girl of 14 named Anne Shirley (Dawn Evelyn Paris-a veteran of Disney's series of "Alice" shorts who later would adopt her character's name). 

Anne was only 11 in Lucy Maude Montgomery's source novel but the same actress could not credibly go from 11 to college age during the course of the story. The movie suffers somewhat from this concession, as many of Anne's reactions and much of what she says are more entertaining coming from an eleven-year-old that from a teenager. As in the book, Anne is bright and quick, eager to please but dissatisfied with her name, her build, her freckles, and her long red hair. Being a child of imagination, however, Anne takes much joy in life, and adapts quickly to her new family and the environment of Prince Edward Island.

In fact Anne is the original "Teenage Drama Queen" and the film's screenwriter elected to focus on this aspect of her character. Which transformed the basic genre from mildly amusing family drama to comedy. A change that delighted audiences and that continues to frustrate reader purists. 

Since the comedy is very much in the spirit of the Montgomery's story I can see no reason to take issue with the changes, but let this serve as fair warning to anyone expecting a totally faithful adaptation. The comedy element is the strength of the film as it is one of the earliest self-reflexive parodies of Hollywood conventions. The actress Anne Shirley was one of Hollywood's all- time beauties and the film is in black and white. So much of the amusement is in seeing the title character's endless laments about her appearance and hair color contradicted by what is appearing on the screen. Anne regularly regales her no nonsense rural companions with melodramatic lines like: "If you refuse it will be a lifelong sorrow to me". Perhaps the funniest moment is when she corrects the spelling of her name on the classroom blackboard. 

Tom Brown does a nice job as Anne's love interest Gilbert Blythe and Sara Haden steals all the scenes in which she appears as the Cuthbert's pompous neighbor. 

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

Sentiment: positive
There isn't enough space to explain the many ways this movie is a disappointing mess. Silly special effects and an incomprehensible plot are the least of this movie's problems. The film looks like it was conceived in the mid-eighties and just stewed until it could finally be made in the early nineties. The mullet-headed "hero," (complete with fashionable "Miami Vice" three-days shadow beard), the ham-fisted slams at Ronald Reagan, it would be funny if it didn't take itself so seriously. As it is, the movie is just pathetic. I actually feel sorry for the poor actresses who wasted their fine nude scenes in this awful movie.

Sentiment: negative
Every movie Quentin Tarantino has made has become progressively worse. I'd like to believe that most people would agree with that statement, but seeing as "Inglourious(sic) Basterds(sic)" has an 8.5/10 from over 100,000 ratings, it doesn't seem like the general movie-going public has any sense. Even his best work, Reservoir Dogs, wasn't a 'masterpiece.' The trouble is that claiming that you like Tarantino's work has become trendy. As soon as that happens, you get boatloads of people ready and willing to hop on another bandwagon. They will ignore laughably terrible acting, and utterly self-indulgent writing just so they can be part of the exclusive club called "everyone." This movie is so terrible, that I swear it must be some sort of twisted joke by Tarantino to see how much torture his fans will tolerate and still praise him. Like another reviewer has already said: "Previous Tarantino movies were from a guy in love with other movies. This one is from a guy in love with his own writing." I couldn't agree more. This movie is nothing more than self-indulgent and in-joke riddled writing paired with acting ability taken right out of a high school play. But, thanks to the general movie going public, I'm sure it will still go down as one of the best movies ever made. Bravo, Tarantino. You've pulled-off one of the best practical jokes of all time.

Sentiment: negative
Normally, I don't watch action movies because of the fact that they are usually all pretty similar. This movie did have many stereotypical action movie scenes, but the characters and the originality of the film's premise made it much easier to watch. David Duchovny bended his normal acting approach, which was great to see. Angelina Jolie, of course, was beautiful and did great acting. Great cast all together. A must see for people bored with the same old action movie.

Sentiment: positive
"Jag är nyfiken  Yellow" is a lot of fun. Like at least one other reviewer, I was, on numerous occasions, laughing out loud. Yellow is energetic, playful, self-aware, explorative. Don't expect Bergman here. This movie is about a youth in the early- to mid-60s in Sweden and about the issues, read *contradictions*, that the nation and the world were facing. At times Yellow appears to be an earnest social-political documentary, with Lena, the main character, and others interviewing both common people and politicians (e.g. Olaf Palme at home). At other times, Yellow seems to parody this kind of documentary. All the while, Yellow acts as a personal documentary exploring Lena's life - her home life, her loves, her political views, her view of herself. She is a complete person  complex, flawed, contradictory, happy, sad, curious. And placed over all of this is the wonderful additional dimension of the director, Sjöman, and his crew documenting themselves documenting Lena. It is this that, for me, really gives Yellow wings. Not only do they suddenly appear at some very funny times and in some funny ways, reminding the viewer that this is fiction and artifice, but their presence is itself another layer of the film; they are filming themselves filming themselves. I am reminded of a Bjork music video with this same quality  a music video about the making of a music video, ad infinitum, with each iteration getting weirder and more cartoonish. I think Sjöman may have had something similar in mind. While "Jag är nyfiken  Yellow" may not be everyone's cup of tea, it is certainly intelligent, witty, refreshing, ebullient, and authentic.

Sentiment: positive
I had high expectations following "My Beautiful Laundrette", "Bend it like Beckham" and (less so) "East is East". The histories of British Asians fitting into their adopted home has had many good runs on the big screen, as well as a number of excellent TV and radio series (Goodness gracious me, etc). This one falls flat. Inspite of a good start it rapidly went down hill.

Ultimately this was a horribly typical BBC effort, complete with strong regional accents, whacky over-acting characters, a "those were the days" soundtrack, and lots of "issues" in an attempt to be worthy.

I found myself cringing at many points during this film. The writing is predictable. Every possible cliche was dragged out and aired. In fact, I have trouble thinking of any cross-cultural/cross-generational devices that could have been used that weren't. The characters were thin and cliched: the eccentric non-conformist minister; the well meaning but ultimately racist old woman; the over weight, overbearing aunt; the pushy Indian parents; the working class neighbour; the 'wise' profound grandmother; the motorbike riding thug. The script was weak, with every chance to shock the audience with overt racist dialogue from the two dimentional racist white characters taken. And why it had to be set in the 70's (apart from needing an excuse for a 70's soundtrack) is a mystery. Possibly it make unbelievable characters slightly more believable to people born after 1979. I don't know.

Even these things aside, good acting could have carried this into respectable obscurity. Instead, the usual "BBC comedy" suspects were wheeled out to ham it up. "Bend it like Beckham" had far better comic acting (and serious acting, in fact) than this, with a virtually unknown cast.

In summary, a lazy cliched script, over acted, in a dull predictable story. Give it a miss.



Sentiment: negative
This sci-fi masterpiece has too many flaws after the editors had butchered it after its opening in 1936. Visually it is a wonder to behold, but the script allows too many intellectual speeches about war and progress.This gets very corny when the actors are given to recite a lot of high minded messages at all times.Raymond Massey and Cedric Hardwicke,both great actors,come off as quite a pair of fanatics. Ralph Richardson is very good as the "The Boss" a megalomaniac warlord. The prediction of World War II was very eerie considering that the world was on the brink of the most devastating conflict in human history at the time. I'm sure glad that war didn't turn out as it did in the movie. There are some visually stunning montage sequences bridging the leaps of time between the movie's different episodes. Although its not as entertaining as I hoped it would be,this movie sticks in your mind long after you've seen it.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is extremely funny and it also contains the best looking girl, this young man has ever seen. Tiffani-Amber Thiessan is a great actress and she has the looks that stop traffic. Tiffani completes this movie, which contains funny scenes put on by Shore.

Sentiment: positive
"This film is great! I watched it with some friends and we thought it was proof that a film doesn't have to see commercial success to be a hit!" ...is what I would love to be able to say about this film. In the words of the film itself "you are very very bad!" I went to see an unlicensed acupuncturist once so generally agree with the moral of the film though.

i'd include a spoiler, but the lack of plot makes this very tricky. overall, a cinematic disaster.

quotes; 'you're not a leper at all!' 'you're beautiful, and i bet you're nice too' 'have you ever seen a naked man's body?' 'you couldn't break a piece of straw.'

cameos in dubbing; Micheal cane x3, harold bishop, steve erwine, benjamin netinyahoo, yoda.

Sentiment: negative
This was a very brief episode that appeared in one of the "Night Gallery" show back in 1971. The episode starred Sue Lyon (of Lolita movie fame) and Joseph Campanella who play a baby sitter and a vampire, respectively. The vampire hires a baby sitter to watch his child (which appears to be some kind of werewolf or monster) while he goes out at night for blood. The baby sitter is totally oblivious to the vampire's appearance when she first sees him and only starts to put two and two together when she notices that he has no reflection in the mirror, has an odd collection of books in the library on the occult, and hears strange noises while the vampire goes to talk to the child. She realizes that the man who hired her may not be what she thought he was originally. She bolts out the door, the vampire comes out looking puzzled and the episode is over. I don't know what purpose it was to make such an abbreviated episode that lasted just 5 minutes. They should just have expanded the earlier episode by those same 5 minutes and skipped this one. A total wasted effort.

Sentiment: negative
This has got to be one of the best episodes of Doctor Who that I've seen since it came back last year. There is a brilliant mix of amusement, fear and tenderness all mixed up which equals one amazing episode. The ood were brilliantly designed and I'm pretty sure there' going to be a lot of ood jokes in the next few weeks. I myself am guilty of that already.I particularly liked the way that we saw a different perspective of Rose's and the Doctor's relationship and the ending;well, it's the first time I have ever hidden behind a cushion! I cannot WAIT until next weeks episode to find how they get out of this mess.

Sentiment: positive
This is the best French movie of the year ! I saw it twice and I found it great both times. I didn't think it boring at all even though it is very long (3 hours). I'm seventeen so I obviously didn't get to live the events of may 1968 that marked an extremely important turn in French history, but it doesn't really matter since I still really enjoyed the film. It's actually quite universal : people of my parents' age can identify to the characters and so can people my age. Garrel seems to perfectly understand young people, the way they think and the complications of love as well as the loss of illusions concerning the possibility of changing the world. Maybe that's because the character played by Louis Garrel (his son)is actually meant to represent Philippe Garrel himself. Well anyway, great movie, no action (have to be honest on that point) but so strong feelings that you can't possibly stay indifferent to it. If you're looking for a relaxing Sunday-evening movie, don't waste your time on this, you'll be disappointed. But if you like cinema, you'll like Les Amants Réguliers which is a bewitching movie close to those made in the 50's and 60's by the Nouvelle Vague artists.

Sentiment: positive
As much as I love Ellen Barkin (who is really underrated) I have to boo this movie. If you can't tell who did it AND why in the first half hour you obviously have never seen a psycho-sexual thriller or have never watched 20/20. It's like the filmmakers and actors didn't care that they way they were shooting it and they way they were playing the characters would be a dead giveaway.

Overall, this movie serves to turn-on the dirty perverts who like to mix violence and sex. Not a fun movie to sit through, although if you like Ellen Barkin it's nice to see her place a tough lady.

Sentiment: negative
The 1930s. Classy, elegant Adele (marvelously played with dignified resolve by Debbie Reynolds) and batty, frumpy Helen (the magnificent Shelley Winters going full-tilt wacko with her customary histrionic panache) are the mothers of two killers. They leave their seamy pasts in the Midwest behind and move to Hollywood to start their own dance school for aspiring kid starlets. Adele begins dating dashing millionaire Lincoln Palmer (the always fine Dennis Weaver). On the other hand, religious fanatic Helen soon sinks into despair and madness.

Director Curtis ("Night Tide," "Ruby") Harrington, working from a crafty script by Henry Farrell (who wrote the book "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" was based on and co-wrote the screenplay for "Hush ... Hush, Sweet Charlotte"), adeptly concocts a complex and compelling psychological horror thriller about guilt, fear, repression and religious fervor running dangerously amok. The super cast have a ball with their colorful roles: Michael MacLiammoir as a pompous elocution teacher, Agnes Moorehead as a stern fire-and-brimstone radio evangelist, Yvette Vickers as a snippy, overbearing mother of a bratty wannabe child star, Logan Ramsey as a snoopy detective, and Timothy Carey as a creepy bum. An elaborate talent recital set piece with Pamelyn Ferdin (the voice of Lucy in the "Peanuts" TV cartoon specials) serving as emcee and original "Friday the 13th" victim Robbi Morgan doing a wickedly bawdy dead-on Mae West impression qualifies as a definite highlight. David Raskin's spooky score, a fantastic scene with Reynolds performing an incredible tango at a posh restaurant, the flavorsome Depression-era period atmosphere, Lucien Ballard's handsome cinematography, and especially the startling macabre ending are all likewise on the money excellent and effective. MGM presents this terrific gem on a nifty DVD doublebill with "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?;" both pictures are presented in crisp widescreen transfers along with their theatrical trailers.

Sentiment: positive
When my own child is begging me to leave the opening show of this film, I know it is bad. I wanted to claw my eyes out. I wanted to reach through the screen and slap Mike Myers for sacrificing the last shred of dignity he had. This is one of the few films in my life I have watched and immediately wished to "unwatch", if only it were possible. The other films being 'Troll 2' and 'Fast and Furious', both which are better than this crap in the hat.

I may drink myself to sleep tonight in a vain attempt to forget I ever witnessed this blasphemy on the good Seuss name.

To Mike Myers, I say stick with Austin or even resurrect Waynes World. Just because it worked for Jim Carrey, doesn't mean Seuss is a success for all Canadians.



Sentiment: negative
1st watched 10/28/2007, 8 out of 10(Dir-Jesus Ponce): Simple, sweet story of a homeless couple and their daily adventures surviving in the everyday world without a roof over their heads. The movie starts with the woman in the story(played by Isabel Ampudia)being released from prison but we don't know what she was in for or how long she was there. She runs across the anti-hero of the story and her boyfriend, played by Sebastian Haro, as he's parking cars for change. They shack-up together underneath an old dilapidated building with nothing but each other's warmth and a small mattress to their possession. He is a drug addict who just tries to make it from one fix to another, but she has a strange, obsessive attraction to him as a person, which we eventually accept. He also has some sort of sexually-transmitted disease, so sex for them is out of the question but this doesn't appear to be a problem for either of them. She loves this man as he is, without question, and without him having to change, which is a rare find anywhere. She earns her keep by carrying a bucket around and washing shop windows. They eat a bakery roll every day and consider it a feast. Isabel's character dreams of a normal life but doesn't expect it to happen and doesn't expect to fit into that role so doesn't think much of it. Both characters come from extremely broken homes and therefore the audience has sympathy for them despite their imperfections. Without giving up much of the story, Isabel's character continues to persevere while the man gets worse and worse in his drug obsession. There is a nice melodramatic conclusion to the story that lifts it up for the masses to enjoy, but overall this is a wonderful independent film about a relationship between un-worldly misfits that keeps you interested until the end.

Sentiment: positive
I am a big fan of this film and found the TV mini series "Children of The Dust", the version fans should look for. At least 20 minutes or more are cut on the DVD version of this film.

I would also suggest viewers who enjoyed this film to check out the book there is a more rounded storyline with Corby/Whitewolf and Rachel, more on Black History and Buffalo Solders. There were two many storylines for the series or this film.

Sidney Poitier only shows he gets better with age, the talent just keeps growing the chemistry between his character of Gypsy Smith and Regina Taylor were wonderful viewing. I also enjoyed the Billy Wirth/Joanna Going storyline, they seems to play off each other well.

Billy Wirth is of course the "Model of Indian Vision". The look, the attitude, the dream of every woman who was wanted to be carried off in one of those romance novels by a native hero. Worked for me also.

Much more could have been done with this storyline but it did give the viewer a brief glimpse of racial problems back in the 1880's, white take over of native schooling, lack of Black pioneers to setup towns in the west. Michael Moriarty (Maxwell) as always a great actor comes across as a very caring and confused teacher, not sure if the "whites" should be interfering with native culture.

For anyone who enjoys characters and watching them change this film is for you. I thought the chemistry between Poitier's character and that of the orphan Whitewolf very moving and thought Wirth and Poitier worked very well together. Billy Wirth did some of his best scenes when working with Poitier.

Going got on my nerves sometimes when you want to just stop and shake her or give her a " wake-up and grown-up" call. But on the whole it was a great evening of entertainment.

Look for the two tape version of this mini series if you are a fan you will really see the difference.

Sentiment: positive
Stilted, stagy, strange and opaque, if visually striking ... a wannabe-erotic fantasy. Really boring, way too much male nudity (including father-son incest), and just a sort of shameless pointlessness. I will confess, however, that certain passages of dialogue, taken on their own terms, do have a lulling, haunting quality.

Sentiment: negative
Sri Lanka... not a country I've ever given much thought to, I have to admit. I didn't even know it was near India, let alone that there has been a bloody civil war going on there since 1983. It seems that the rebels of the Tamil minority have been in an ongoing conflict with the military regime that runs the country for many years, causing many deaths and widespread suffering on the island.

Mani Ratman's latest film, A PECK ON THE CHEEK, tells the story of a young girl named Amudha, who is separated from her Sri Lankan parents by the war and raised by a young Indian couple. Amudha is a bright and mischievous girl, whose life is turned upside down when her parents tell her that she was adopted as a child. Although her adopted parents love her as much as could be, and have raised her without prejudice along with their biological children, Amudha cannot help but want to learn more about her biological family.

Mani Ratman is probably best known for his 1998 film DIL SE, which hides a story about terrorism and politics inside a love story (or is it the other way around?). A PECK ON THE CHEEK inhabits similar territory, but is perhaps more ambitious in the ground it covers. The central theme that binds the movie is of love between all the various members of a family, and especially that between a child and her adopted parents. It's a pretty honest and open look at feelings, that can be extremely touching and heartwarming at some times and quite painful at others. It's an emotionally complex film, with characters that are somewhat idealised but still behave in a very human way.

The film revolves around 9 year old Amudha, played with charm and vivaciousness by young actress P.S. Keerthana in her first and only acting role. She's a princess and a monster, always getting into trouble but so disarmingly charming nobody can stay mad at her for long. The young actress is perfectly cast for the role, and does a tremendous job in the various and often difficult emotional scenes required of her.

A PECK ON THE CHEEK has such an innocent name I was quite unprepared for the intensity of the experience. Never has such a small act come with such an enormous emotional impact, I dare say. The film is a bold and artistic effort to explore issues that are not frequently covered on the silver screen.

Mani Ratman's direction is superb, very confident and mature - the most sophisticated work I've seen from this director yet. The film is visually very stylish, with some excellent camerawork and imagery. A.R. Rahman provides the film's soundtrack, which is not as good as his classic DIL SE or BOMBAY music (based on first impressions at least) but still shows his great musical talent.

I'm not aware of a DVD release for the film yet - I saw it in Tamil with English subtitles thanks to the San Francisco International Film Festival, of which the film was undoubtedly the highlight. The production is a truly world class effort, and I am sure it will be popular with western audiences as it begins to receive wider exposure.

Recommended.

Sentiment: positive
OK. I know that the wanna-be John Hughes movies of the 80s were all unilaterally flat, so the expectations for this film ran pretty low.

Still, after sitting through this crap there's one key thing I can't seem to get out of my head:

I just sat through an 80s Rob Lowe movie that had no nudity and only hints of sex in them.

The acting is awful, the characters boring and flat, the portrayal of Oxford an absolute insult, and the rowing scenes unexciting, uneventful, and inaccurate.

Unless you've got some wierd Ally Sheedy or Amanda Pays (or I guess, Rob Lowe) fetish, there's really no reason to see this one.

Sentiment: negative