DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This was Gene Kelly's breakthrough, and that alone makes it memorable. Throw in Rita Hayworth as his love interest and comedian Phil Silvers of all people as his sidekick and you have the ingredients for a real crowd pleaser, which is exactly how it turned out.

Kelly plays Danny McGuire, a nightclub owner in Brooklyn (Brooklyn is always the "wrong side of the tracks" in '40s films) whose star attraction and love interest is Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth). Rita is lovely, and even plays a dual role as Rusty and Rusty's grandmother. Rusty has a chance at the big time through the machinations of John Coudair (Otto Kruger), who romanced and lost Rusty's grandmother.

The plot revolves around Danny cutting Rusty loose, to the detriment of his club, because she has a chance at success that he can't give her. But, naturally, that's not what Rusty ultimately wants, because, as usual in films of that time, the right guy is the only thing on the girl's mind. There are no surprises, but everybody does their thing well.

Kelly does the first of his amazing trick dances, this time with himself as a reflection from a glass window. He was the master at that sort of dance, and one still has to wonder how they timed everything so precisely so that he really does seem to be in two places at once. The melodrama gets a bit thick, and there are some gratuitous war references thrown in that do little but provide the opportunity for a song or two, but Kelly takes this film to the next level. This was before he became a mega-star and too smooth perhaps for his own good. An underlying edge of rawness to his character lends it a believable and almost wistful air.

Kelly's character in the 1980 "Xanadu" also was named Danny McGuire. This film was the beginning, that film the end, of a terrific run for a dancing genius. Clearly, this film meant a lot to him. Highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
American expatriate Jules Dassin makes an award-winning French gangster film. The plot involves Tony the Stephanois, a hoodlum just out of prison, who takes his band of thieves on a $240 million jewel heist. Unfortunately, his ex-wife's relationship with a notorious gangster named Grutter, an Italian safe-cracker named Cesar with a weakness for women, and the missteps of his own friend Jo cause the successful heist to turn into a bloody race against time as Grutter holds Jo's son hostage for the cash in typical "crime never pays" tragedy fashion.

The "rififi" in the title is explained in a song to mean slang for basically violence and sex, and the full title, "Du rififi chez les hommes" means roughly "Some naughty in the house of men", which is pretty much where the fatal flaw of the characters take place. Leave it to a gangster film to place most of the emphasis on the missteps on the women, but this time Jo's wife gets the last laugh (if you could call it a laugh) when she predicts "All of you are just going to kill each other." The characters aren't the most sympathetic and the women are mostly weak, but Dassin still builds an extremely well-crafted suspense film out of them as they pull off a heist that requires the utmost quiet, hide the goods, and then attempt to survive what basically becomes a cross-country cat and mouse game. In the mix are some very amazing photography and a fine attention to detail in editing, leading to a pacing and visual experience that well overstates the otherwise generic plot. It's not only easy to see why this is held as a classic, it's also easy to see why it's among the top 250 on the IMDb: it's suspenseful, visually magnificent, full of sex and violence, and maintains that classy gangster attitude we film buffs like so much.

Sentiment: positive
I wanted to love this film so badly...I really did. But it was a horrible disappointment.

I read Jennifer Egan's novel in 1996 and was enthralled by the story. In fact it remains one of my favorite books of all time. Mind you, the book had much more depth than this movie, in plot and emotional resonance. It MADE you care about the characters. It painted a complete picture of Phoebe, unlike the utterly poor characterization of the young girl in the film.

Though beautiful and showing *some* promise in her burgeoning career, Jordana Brewster was as flat and hollow in this performance as was the script. And Christopher Eccleston (Wolf) was just an awful choice for the role of Wolf, both physically and logistically. What an awkward looking couple. Wolf should have been more of a dark brooding character, and more physically alluring, like he was in the book. What's more, the chemistry between the two actors was painfully forced.

Cameron Diaz, however, deserves utmost praise for her performance. She took an impossibly mediocre script and gave her character life, a real spirit. She is simply gorgeous and her careful mannerisms make her very believable as a hippie. It's too bad her talent was squandered on this forgettable film.

In the book-to-movie category, this is a dreadful translation, almost as bad as Message in a Bottle with Kevin Costner. But don't get me started on that one...

I am not usually so harsh in my critiques but I was so disappointed here, because I really cared about the story and wanted to see it told right. It did not deliver...



Sentiment: negative
Im a huge M Lillard fan that's why I ended up watching this movie. Honestly I doubt that if he wasn't in the movie i would of enjoyed it as much or even watched it but once I did watch it realize the story was pretty decent. A bad ending I must say but I did see it coming. It's a low budget movie and some of the actors weren't really good but all in all I rated this movie 7/10.

The suspense of wondering what Lillard was actually up to was what really keeped me interested in this movie.

Its a good rental!

7/10

Sentiment: positive
The original Thunderbirds earned a place in TV history. It was, and still is, much beloved - indeed, the entire first 10 minutes of the Wallace and Gromit movie (the Wererabbit) is a direct lift of Thunderbirds, down to a direct replay of the original Thunderbird 2 launching sequence (if you don't believe me, get the movie, and then get a copy of the original episode where Thunderbird 2 is launched).

This movie was a crass attempt at making a kids' movie - when the original was loved and enjoyed by kids and adults alike! In the original, the Thunderbirds spent all of their time rescuing people who were often trapped when Mother Nature or Technology went horrible wrong (yes, there was also the occasional criminal act). The Thunderbirds put their own lives and resources at risk for no reward - the very essence of heroism and selflessness. There was little physical violence. The Thunderbirds challenged the imagination to a degree - how many of us would dream of someday building a Thunderbird 2? And don't underestimate the power of entertainment to do this - many Japanese attribute their fascination with humanoid robots to the old Astroboy cartoon.

But this movie was a poor re-image of the original. This movie came across as a meld between Thunderbirds and Loony Tunes - I mean, we have Anthony Edwards as Brain imitating Porky Pig's stuttering????? Much of the action consists of Kung Fu/Power Rangers type fighting. Indeed, there were funny sound effects when someone got nailed on the head with a frying pan. The tech that fired our imagination was absent - instead we have these kids running around, using a plot device that was NEVER in the original series (having the entire team take off at once, leaving the base occupied by the kids and Brain). Then there was a dose of "Use the Force Luke" mysticism thrown in when TinTin would levitate something or another, coupled with the The Hood using aerodynamics that looked like they were lifted from "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". About the only thing missing was for The Hood to go "TinTin, I am your Uncle" with a breath mask voice. The heart that made Thunderbirds unique was GONE.

The only bright point was Ron Cook's portrayal of Parker - he caught it perfectly. But the actress playing Lady Penelope came across as a child - HUH???? 

And this is why we hate this movie. When someone puts out something that was popular to a fan base, and expects the fans to shell out money to watch, and then delivers something than wasn't even close to what the fans expect - well, I am sorry, that is just plain WRONG! OK, so if they were making a kids' movie - fine - next time distribute it straight to video, where many of these belong. But don't package something up in a familiar wrapper and change the innards.

Sentiment: negative
Many people like to point to this TV movie when arguing with the vast legions of Hanks-philes out there that Tom did in fact make crappy films (I think "Bachelor Party" was great, but that's another story). The movie focuses on a "Dungeons and Dragons-style game" that eventually drives our young Gump to hallucinatory madness. The story is charmingly early 1980s, focusing as it does on the imminent threat to our youth posed by those evil role-playing games.

I, however, prefer to view "Mazes and Monsters" as the turning point in the "Whatever Happened to Chris Makepeace?" story. we all remember him as 'Rudy the Rabbit' in "Meatballs" and as the hapless Clifford in "My Bodyguard", where he gave us all a vicarious thrill by beating the crap out of Matt Dillon. Few could argue (especially those of us who read "Dynamite!" on a regular basis) that great things were in store for him.

And then came Rona Jaffe. The line between bad acting and bad writing is razor thin, so I leave it to you to decide whose fault Makepeace's performance in this is. All I know is that the last major release I saw him in was "Vamp", and that was 1986. He had a small role as Sean Penn's brother in "Falcon and the Snowman", but by that time the Brat Pack torch had been passed to others with straighter hair and flashier resumes.

I can't in good conscience recommend this movie. Watch it if only to see a younger, more idealistic Chris Makepeace, before Rona Jaffe feasted on his soul.

Sentiment: negative
Great Woody Allen? No. Good Woody Allen? Definitely. I found myself, along with the audience in attendance, laughing hard and often at some of the best Woody Allen lines we've heard in a while. The aging Allen created an appropriate role for himself as Scarlett Johansson's "father" ... well, sort of. Some have said Johansson plays "a young Dianne Keaton." I beg to differ. She plays Woody's dialogue, which, in his comedies, always has a very similar feel...like, well, a Woody Allen comedy. That's fine for us Woody appreciators. She certainly did Woody's dialogue far better than the young cast of his last comedy, Melinda/Melinda. Some may find Woody's humor tiresome, but for those of us who love it when it's done right, we look forward to the next.

Sentiment: positive
The Man with Bogart's Face sets it self up to mine the viewers nostalgia for the late 30's-late 40's film era. It fails miserably for several reasons. First, Sacchi, while looking reasonably like Bogart and even speaking like him on occassion and using his mannerisms, completely lacks any of Bogart's charisma or acting ability. This is really apparent whenever Sacchi is not clearly imitating a scene from one of Bogart's films. Second, the film does not have the first rate character actors Bogart was able to work with. There are no Peter Lorre's or Sydney Greenstreet's in this one, folks. Sure we are treated to performances by Victor Buaeno, Olivia Hussey and George Raft amongst others, but they just aren't of the same caliber (or aren't given enough screen time or are miscast). Third, the attempts at "modern" humor all fall through. All of the underwear jokes, having Marlowe almost *never* remove that damn hat and trench coat (even though Bogart would have), etc. just aren't funny and really pull down this film. Fourth, I've never heard a goofier theme song this side of Mitchell. Finally, the film's false reverence for Bogart (and other classic actors work) is truly irritating. Bogart almost *never* played a straight hero, on those occasions he was a hero. He played complicated characters. This movie makes Bogart out to be a trigger-happy, moralistic do-gooder. While this may have been true about some film characters, Bogart's characters rarely fit that bill. It's movies like this that make people unexposed to the cinema of the past think that all of it is hokey, "good guy beats the bad guys and gets the girl" crap with low production values.

Sentiment: negative
This should not have been listed as a Colombo because in my opinion it does not resemble any of the other Colombo ever made. This should have been listed as a movie starring Peter Falk and not playing the caracter of Colombo because it does not do justice at all to our great lieutenant Colombo.

Sentiment: negative
I, being a fan of Rupert Grint, rented this film a few months ago. I thought it was a very well written movie with a bunch of great actors. It was entertaining, and showed that Rupert Grint could play more than his most well known character of Ron Weasley. His subtle portrayal of Ben and everyone else's great acting made this film very likable.

Ben, a very shy boy with a extremely religious and sensitive mother, is looking for a job. He finds one and becomes the, I guess you could call "assistant" to Evie, a retired actress. At first, it is just a way for him to earn some money. But after a while, he and Evie seem to develop a friendship. Evie helps Ben break out of his shell a little and gets him to have fun and be happy with himself, and in the end they both seem to need each other.

Whether you are a fan of Rupert Grint or not, this movie is a really entertaining one with some very cute and moments. I highly recommend it to anybody who wants to see a great movie with great and talented actors.

Sentiment: positive
This surrealistic, absurdist movie is the first film I have seen of cult Swedish Director Roy Andersson. He is a veteran filmmaker who has made his living filming commercials, directing only four feature films in the last forty years. This background shows: the film seems like a collection of fifty 2 minute arty commercials. There is no story interconnecting these vignettes, though some characters appear in more than one vignette (there is a theme throughout underneath them, though: the absurdity of modern life). Some of the film's mannerisms (having the actors appear in light white makeup) are more irritating than illuminating. Some of the skits amount to very little (a man unsure in which queue to stand?). Other skits are better, though. The best is the one about the rock chick dreaming that she goes on honeymoon with her rock guitarist bride on a house that turns on something akin to a train (you have to watch it to get it). A film worth seeing, even if comparisons made by some film critics with such great filmmakers as Keaton, Tati and Kaurismaki seems overwrought: Andersson lacks the vision of them and the lack of a story interconnecting the vignettes is fatal to this film's pretension of being a masterpiece.

Sentiment: positive
Rock n' roll is a messy business and DiG! demonstrates this masterfully. A project of serious ambition, and perhaps foolhardiness, the filmmaker is able to mend together seven tumultuous years of following around two unwieldy rock groups. With that said, the abundance of quality material ensures the film's ability to captivate the audience. If you've ever been interested in any realm of the music industry, this movie will undoubtedly be an arresting viewing. the music in the film, although it suffers minimally from requisite cutting and pasting, is worth the price of admission alone. the morning after i saw DiG! i went straight to the record store to pick up a Brian Jonestown Massacre album (i was already initiated to the Dandy Warhols' sounds). Primarily defined by its exploration of rock music, the film succeeds at other profound levels. DiG! is a sincere, and sufficiently objective, glance into the destructive and volatile nature of the creative process and the people that try to wrangle those forces.

Sentiment: positive
It's so fake! The plot seems like a generic adaptation of the average blaxploitation film. The common themes of blaxploitation like racism, oppression and fighting for the integrity of your community are outlined so simplistically/shallowly. And the jokes aren't even funny! Dolemite does these stand up monologue comedy routines that are really painful. All the people around him deliver this canned laughter. Even the soundtrack sounds like it's fakin' the funk. For far better comedy in a blaxploitation try "Coffy" & "Friday Foster" with Pam Grier. For a more realistic blax experience try "Black Heat".

Sentiment: negative
Running Man isn't a great movie, in fact it's kinda silly. But it delivers what you want in an Arnie movie and that is action and entertainment. I don't see how anyone couldn't enjoy this picture, it's so silly and over the top, that it almost makes fun of itself. By the way, this is probably one of the most quotable Arnie movies out there.

Sentiment: positive
'Umi wa miteita' ('The Sea is Watching') was Akira Kurasawa's swansong to film: his adaptation of his favored novelist Shugoro Yamamoto's story into a screenplay he intended to film was his final mark he left on a brilliant career. Director Kei Kumai pays homage to both Kurosawa and Yamamoto in presenting this visually stunning transformation of word to image.

Set in 19th century Japan, the story explores the lives of the women of a Geisha house whose sole purpose in life is to earn money by pleasuring men. The house is run by an older couple who are genteel and the geishas are an enchanting group of women who know their trade and take pride in their careers. Each has a reason for turning to the life of geisha. Oshin (Nagiko Tono) supports her family who live in a neighboring village, Kikuno (Misa Shimizu) has customers both good and evil whom she manages to sustain with her stories of her higher caste. Oshin befriends an endangered samurai, falls in love with the gentle fellow, only to find that he must not marry out of his caste and leaves his pleasures with Oshin to marry his promised betrothed. Oshin's heart bruises easily but is always supported emotionally and physically/monetarily by Kikuno and the other geishas.

A handsome samurai Ryosuke (Masatoshi Nagase) enters Oshin's life and develops the first trusted and devoted relationship with her. Kikuno is beset by problems, deciding whether to accept the humble love of an old man who wishes to marry her, and coping with a rich but abusive customer. All the while the sea is watching and as a typhoon destroys the geisha house and street, Oshin and Kikuno sit atop the roof waiting for the promised rescue by Ryosuke. The manner in which the story ends is one of sacrifice, love, and devotion. The sea is watching and will find protection for true love.

The photography by Kazuo Okuhara is breathtakingly beautiful: night scenes with glowing lanterns and colorful geisha interiors are matched with recurring glimpses of the sea both calm and turbulent. The acting is a bit strained for Edo art, but the characters are well created and keep the story credible. The one distraction which is definitely NOT something Kurosawa would have condoned is the tacky Western music score that sounds like cheap soap opera filler except for the isolated moments when real Japanese music on authentic instruments graces the track. But in the end there is enough of Kurosawa's influence to imbue this film with his brand of dreamlike wonder that will always maintain his importance on world cinema. Grady Harp

Sentiment: positive
If you want to waste a small portion of your life sit in front of this predictable zombie film. It fails at the first post by not being scary OR funny. It is a dull grey movie that I guess went straight to video. Hammy and tongue in cheek acting leave a sour taste in the mouth. If you want to watch a poor but still watchable recent zombie film watch Diary of the Dead. Poor special effects, school level script. Zombie films work if they have a moral point or even a political point . This movie has nothing, there is no worthy point that zombification underscores. This is as thrilling and convincing as a Republican Convention, no sorry watching the Republican Convention would be a better example of a Zombie movie.

Sentiment: negative
Thank God for the Internet Movie Database!!! When I first got this movie I watched it every night just before before bed and was getting something different out of it every time. But no matter how I sliced it, it came up disturbing. The black and white and all the twitching really freaked me. You stare at the screen unsure of what you are looking at, and just when you think you got it, it becomes clear and it's something completely different. The imagery is VERY disturbing, twitching and straight razors do not sit well with me in any movie. Still everytime I watched it, I was interpreting it somewhat differently (there is no dialogue, ya know), so I decided to check the IMdB for the plot summary. Boy that throws me for a loop, I had no idea that was supposed to be God. Now I'm going to watch it with this in mind and see what happens....

Sentiment: positive
they should make terrorists watch this video as torture, and not just for the disturbing final scene in which tying up and beating a woman with mental problems is apparently a source of comedy. about a half hour of this would convince even the staunchest fundamentalist to spill the beans rather than sit through even one more minute of this disaster.

This movie is awful. I rented it because a friend said it was hilarious, only to find he was talking about the blowhard director doing the commentary rather than the movie itself. I guess if you find unrestrained arrogance funny, you'll like this. It apparently is true that he goes on and on about chicks he's "banged", the most tasteless example being when the lead actress comes on screen.

Actually CJ Stacy was the only good part of this movie - her charisma shines like a diamond in this horrid dung pile. This apparently is the only movie she's done according to IMDb, I hope she is involved with theatre or indie stuff as I think she has the talent and natural beauty to really be an asset to any production.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is pretty predictable nuff said....from the delayed kissing scene to the inevitable coming around of grandpa...this is a great movie for the 10-12 age group but beyond that it has no market..i give it 4/10 only because it achieved exactly what it set out to do and nothing more.

Sentiment: negative
This is a piece of celluloid CRAP. You can tell when you are watching a "wanna be" mafia film....and this is it. This made NO SENSE at all, didnt start at the beginning of his life, charactors were all over the place...and the TERM "GODFATHER" didnt even EXIST until PUZO wrote the book!.....THEN, the real mafia, borrowed the PHRASE and made it their own AFTER the movie.....THIS piece of claptrap would have one thinking that the phrase (representing the mafia don) was used back in the 20's...when these people were only called "DON"....outside of the original Godfather movie, if you want to see another decent mob flick, check out Puzo's The Last Don (part 1) part 2 sucked.

Sentiment: negative
I'm a bit conflicted over this. The show is on one hand awful, the acting is terrible (even when we get actual name actors like Brad Pitt and Bill Moseley in one episode), the dialogue is moronic and the premise/moral of each episode feels like something lifted out of a 50s educational short. There's no way you'll be scared for a moment from any of these episodes, and Robert Englund's cameos are short, pointless and corny in a sort of a Bob Saget on America's Funniest Home Videos kind of way.

On the other hand this is one of the funniest things to ever be on television. The 80s fashions, the soft focus makes the actors look like their on the set of The View at all times, the premises lend the material more to self-parody than scares, so we're left with an episode where a high school kid is afraid if he fails his SAT's his girlfriend will dump him and his parents disown him, another is afraid she'll be locked up in prison because she's a substandard mom (her husband is played by Brad Pit), another is afraid that all the parents in the world are in league against him when he runs away from home, another is afraid she'll be confused with her socially-retarded twin, another is afraid if he doesn't break up his mom and step-dad he'll get killed for having a party at his house. The list goes on and on.

Being that these are dreams I suppose you could look past the ludicrous plot points and devices, but they're so out of left field that there's no opportunities for the writers to actually scare the audience. You have characters dressed like something out of a 80s-themed nightmare wandering around delivering bad dialogue in very hammy fashion and making illogical decisions that serve no other purpose but to move the story to the next weird plot point (typically watching as a peripheral character does something uncharacteristic of a sane person while our main character stares aghast and too shocked to do anything about it).

If you're looking for something that'll scare you stay away. If you're looking, on the other hand, for one of the funniest things to come out of the 80s ever. Watch it.

Its been showing on Chiller TV lately (pretty much every day) and I've been watching, earlier out of morbid curiosity, and now just so I can get a good laugh in each day. With Arrested Development and Extras off the air this is officially the funniest thing on television right now.

Sentiment: positive
...would probably be the best word to describe this film (in my opinion). besides one great heck of a fan service for fan girls (well, that was redundant~), it was the story that blew me away. hurray for Takahisa Zeze and Gackt! and i know some people will disagree with me on this one, but it wasn't any of the big three actors (the guys that played Sho, son, and Kei) that gave the best performance (for me, anyway). it was Taro Yamamoto, boy #5 from battle Royale! 

don't get me wrong, i like Hyde, i worship his voice, but the problem was that some of his scenes came a little bit 'off', but i loved that scene where he danced with the dead guy's body killing the other guys. and Gackt wasn't at all that bad too, i preferred how his character was kind of aloof from the start. nothing much i can say about my background on lee-Hom Wang, i won't pretend to know him, but he carried his own weight with the star-studded cast. 

this movie paved the way for one of the best collaborations I've ever heard, Orenji No Taiyou (forgive my spelling if it's wrong). while the complete song lasts about nine minutes, you wouldn't notice the length because you'd be enjoying hearing Gackt and Hyde together. 

anyway, this movie is a must-see not only for the fans (huge fan base~) but for those who enjoy sci-fi, futuristic movies, Asian-style.

Sentiment: positive
I'm not surprised that this film did well at the Hamptons Film Festival. It is a shallow film that would appeal well to shallow people. Two actors pretending to be actors in a relationship who fight and look for a lost dog. The film is allegedly exploring the dynamics of the relationship, however, the relationship is far too petty to merit any such exploration. This couple has one dimension: they fight, they tease, then they make love and fight some more. There brief moment of tenderness does not reveal any possible reason that these two would be involved with each other given their venomous and volatile relationship. Beautifully shot, excellent score, but without anything of merit in the script or characters, this short is just that.

Sentiment: negative
..especially by Lambert. This is the essential Burrough's Tarzan that I grew up reading when I was a kid. I have read a few negative reviews on this film and couldn't help but wonder what their issue was. They obviously didn't see the movie I did or they were expecting something that was more akin to the Saturday afternoon serials.

This was the Tarzan that was of the novel and the film makers should be applauded for tackling the source material and taking it seriously. Lambert was excellent. I still think he is one of Hollywood's most under-rated actors. This was a movie that he shines in.

The photography and the apes, done by Rick Baker both were amazing. You definitely felt the since of the jungle. The 2nd half, Tarzan's attempt at being civilized really pulls you into the emotional conflict he had was forced to resolve.

I highly recommend this film

Sentiment: positive
Starring an unknown cast which seem likely to remain that way, this "film" is yet another cheap slasher flick which amazes me how this was released. I have no problem with horrors and slasher flicks in particular, in fact they are my favourites. But when they are done THIS BAD, it really does take the monkey and its no wonder the genre has such a hard time. The story is as clichéd and without imagination as possible with a bunch of people in a cabin out in the woods being slashed and hacked up by this zombie/ghost guy. Its not the story that sucks the most, its the atrocious acting and dialouge, home made directing quality and an awful soundtrack. Not to mention laughable effects and some incredibly lazy film making - these morons are outside in clear daylight yet we are meant to believe it's night?? What the hell was the director thinking with this move? What, he had only one day to film all this in? He was scared of the dark? ( Is hilarious seeing a cop walking around in pure daylight with a torch acting as if its pitch black, though)

I guess the positive side for the actors is they look like people who work in the local supermarket so at least they could possibly escape from this film without ever being noticed. Im sure one of the "teens" plays bingo down the local pub - but she's 40-45.

Anyway, good for a laugh but just another waste of film and time.

Sentiment: negative
I've seen this film on Sky Cinema not too long ago.. I must admit, it was a really good Western which features 2 of the big names.. On one side, there's Charlton Heston, playing the infamous and retired lawman Samuel Burgade. On the other.. The late James Coburn playing the villainous Zach Provo.. seeking revenge on Burgade no matter what the cost..!

The good thing about this film was there was some really good characters.. Most of the actors played it out really well.. Especially James Coburn, who I find that he was really mean in this film.. But that how it was..

Christopher Mitchum, who I've seen everywhere in other films.. Playing Hal Brickman.. I felt his character was left out in the cold, but he manage to get himself back in by teaming up with Burgade, to bring down Provo's posse's!

All in all, it was a great film.. Very good to watch.. Great score from the late Jerry Goldsmith..

Wonderful piece of Western persona..! 8 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
Alright, let me break it down for ya... Haggard is probably one of the funniest pointless movies you'll ever see. It's got a mixture of a unique storyline about a guy having girl troubles and everything going backwards for him mixed in with countless humorous scenes that will keep you laughing throughout the whole movie, basically, if you've seen jackass or the CKY series, you'd know what to expect for humor, considering it has most of the people from those movies. Overall... i just had to give it a 10/10 because its one of my favorite movies of all time.

~F0rs4k3n

(P.S.) Haggard rules!

Sentiment: positive
"Revenge of the Zombies" is a pretty weak and barely passable zombie effort.

**SPOILERS**

Traveling in the Bayou, Larry Adams, (Robert Lowery) and Scott Warrington, (Mauritz Hugo) are informed that a friend has deceased. Meeting with local Dr. Von Altermann, (John Carradine) he repeats the notion that they mysteriously died. While they are staying there, they realize that the help consists of zombies, reanimated dead people who are doing the bidding of their master. As the bodies pile up, he reveals that he has been making the creatures for use in various experiments and all try to stop him before it's too late.

The Good News: This here gets very little right. The opening is easily it's best, as it's got several great marks for it. From where it starts, with the creepy silhouettes walking in the dark all the way through to the revelations, this one works wonders for both it's mystery and great imagery. The big one is a really scene where the creature emerges from a coffin in a long, slow and creepy shot. These here are all done before the opening credits and is a fun sight. The scenes in the middle where the creature reawakens inside the coffin is pretty chilling and looks really great. The last big positive is the really fun ending. With the sort of ending that feels reminiscent of so many Universal attempts, this one fits in with that style. From the creepy reanimation to the real action involved near the swamp, this one is fun and really works with the others to give it's only real positives.

The Bad News: This one here only has a couple flaws, but they are major ones. The first one is the film's major boredom from inactivity. Almost nothing happens in here, mainly due to the tendency to do everything with talking rather than anything else. There's only intermittent scenes relegated to the zombies, yet there's nothing here that devotes any action to the film. This one simply doesn't have any action, and that's what hurts the film. It rarely generates a scenes that keeps the interest going, and at times this makes it feel a lot longer than it really is. The last flaw in the film are it's pathetic excuses for zombies. Those used to more modern fare will have a hard time getting any fear out of these creatures, and they really only serve several scenes. This here doesn't treat the zombies as threats, making them even less frightening. Little screen-time, nonthreatening nature and un-modern behavior from these zombies really destroys this one. These here are what really hurt the film.

The Final Verdict: With bad zombies and hardly anything worth watching, this one here is a curious effort. Those used to modern zombies will find little of interest in this one and come out the same as this one is, while only classic horror fans are advised to give it a shot.

Today's Rating-PG: Mild Violence

Sentiment: negative
As the film reviewer for a local gay magazine I automatically get sent any dreck if it happens to have a homo in it. Chicken Tikka Masala is churning on in the background as I write this. I gave it my undivided attention for 53 minutes before I found myself involuntarily shouting - like a Tourrette's sufferer -"This is the sh**test film I have ever seen". We're just coming to the emotional climax where the son is giving some coming out speech to his father at his wedding. Father seems to be taking it quite well. An attempted honour killing at this point would at least have livened the film up a bit. And made it funnier. 

I didn't particularly like Beautiful Thing, for example, but could at least see why other people did. It was made with some professionalism and I seem to remember it had at least a couple of good lines. The lack of wit in this film is quite astounding - even the most mediocre sitcom will tend to have recognisable jokes. The nearest this movie got to being funny (at least in its first 53 mins) was the subtitled comment delivered to the fat unattractive female lead "Look at her with her legs wide open - she's like the Mersey Tunnel." Completely witless and I didn't crack a smile but I could imagine someone with a low IQ (who perhaps works in a chip shop) enjoying it.

I'd imagine it's some Lottery-funded atrocity. If not I can at least console myself with the fact that the backers will lose a substantial amount of money as even a low-budget British film will still set someone back a couple of million. Seriously, if I met the most handsome bloke in the world and, on going back to his place to make sweet love, I found a copy of this in his DVD collection ("Man, I love this film") I'd probably kick him in the nuts and leave forthwith. And this from someone who's gone about six months without any of the aforementioned sweet love. 

Oh Lord I hate this film.

Sentiment: negative
Saw the film at it's Lawrence, Kansas premiere. This wavering story about a group of disgruntled highschoolers killing off the competition for prom queen was just awful. It fails for many reasons - bad acting, bad script, no clear point. But mainly it just felt like the filmmakers said to themselves - "Hey I have some money, so let's make a movie!" - without really thinking it out. Sorrowfully most indie films that don't make it suffer from just that mentality. They just don't seem to realize that it takes more than money to make a good movie... or in this case, even a watchable one. With this film I do not feel ashamed to say, that if I didn't know some of the crew, I would have walked out. Simple as that.

Sentiment: negative
Used to watch this when i was very little, then used to watch my videos. Now i watch the DVDs, i love this. Ray Winston is 'The Dude', the rest of the cast is all good and even with the changing of Robin Hood it all works. Great stories, twists and the way it was shot - to the untrained eye (not that mine is trained) can be miss-interpreted as being ropey but it adds to the films absorption of the audience. With the green hillsides and the contrast of the lush sunny lit forest to the dark corridors and dungeons of the castles - Its great. Personally the definitive interpretation of the Robin Hood legend. I cannot stress how much i think you should watch this, if you get a chance then YOU MUST WATCH IT.

Sentiment: positive
One of the first of the best musicals, Anchors Aweigh features several memorable musical sequences, such as Kelly dancing with Jerry the mouse, Kelly dancing with 7-year-old Sharon McManus, Sinatra singing with Jose Iturbi playing piano, Kathryn Grayson singing with Iturbi conducting, and much more. The Technicolor is perfect, with some innovative camera work such as seeing a piano played from beneath, through transparent keys, and Grayson singing, seen through the finder of another camera. The plot is thin, but you get involved from Kelly's & Sinatra's enthusiasm. Sailor's on leave, they have to take home a runaway boy (Dean Stockwell) and Sinatra falls for his aunt. To set him up with the aunt (Grayson), Kelly suggests that Sinatra can get her an audition with Jose Iturbi. But Sinatra's young and naive in this one, and in his own sung words falls in love too fast. While they're trying to contact Iturbi, who's never available, he starts to fall for another girl (Barbara Britton); but Kelly's now falling love with Grayson. Anchors Aweigh is most often remembered for the combination live-action / cartoon sequence with Tom and Jerry, but there's a lot more here that's worth a look. I'm giving it nine stars because, while it's not quite as good as the best musicals - Singin' In The Rain, The Music Man, Oklahoma - it is one of the first of their class of Technicolor big productions (perhaps Meet Me In St. Louis was the first), and better than most others.

Sentiment: positive
A charming boy and his mother move to a middle of nowhere town, cats and death soon follow them. That about sums it up.

I'll admit that I am a little freaked out by cats after seeing this movie. But in all seriousness in spite of the numerous things that are wrong with this film, and believe me there is plenty of that to go around, it is overall a very enjoyable viewing experience.

The characters are more like caricatures here with only their basis instincts to rely on. Fear, greed, pride lust or anger seems to be all that motivate these people. Although it can be argued that that seeming failing, in actuality, serves the telling of the story. The supernatural premise and the fact that it is a Stephen King screenplay(not that I have anything specific against Mr. King) are quite nicely supported by some interesting FX work, makeup and quite suitable music. The absolute gem of this film is without a doubt Alice Krige who plays Mary Brady, the otherworldly mother.

King manages to take a simple story of outsider, or people who are a little different(okay - a lot in this case), trying to fit in and twists it into a campy over the top little horror gem that has to be in the collection of any horror fan.

Sentiment: negative
This is by far my favorite film of all time. That's mainly because it's not afraid to delve into some very politically incorrect topics (such as spanking and female submissiveness) that other mainstream films are just too timid to touch. Nothing seems to be off-limits in this film as the director freely develops the story without any concern given to possibly offending the viewer. However, I don't think anything was done here purely for shock value or to purposely offend anyone. Sean Young turns in an excellent and courageous performance. Most established mainstream actresses would not have taken on this role or would have asked for some major script changes before accepting it. The other cast members do a fine job as well.

Have you noticed that this movie hasn't appeared on pay cable since an obligatory brief run a year after it hit the theaters? Have you ever wondered why? The obvious reason is that it just doesn't fit today's political atmosphere. It seems quite ironic to me that some premium channels now carry softcore porn (that's getting closer and closer to hardcore porn) but will not carry a mainstream movie like "Love Crimes". Sadly, even though this movie is only 11 years old, it could probably not be made today.



Sentiment: positive
I caught this on Showtime tonight and was amazed by how a movie with such a interesting premise could wind up being so unbelievably awful. WHO'S YOUR DADDY? stars Brandon Davis as an adopted high school senior Chris Hughes, a geek who inherits the heir to a porn empire left to him by his biological parents. Though the premise sounds like the movie could be a lot of fun, it is ruined by inept directing from first-time director Andy Fickman, a clichéd and predictable screenplay, and acting that is even bad by direct-to-video standards. Even the normally funny Charlie Talbert turns in a surprisingly dismal performance as the best friend. Ali Landry is the only good part of this lame and unfunny dud. 1/10

Sentiment: negative
"GEORGE LOPEZ," in my opinion, is an absolute ABC classic! I haven't seen every episode, but I still enjoy it. There are many episodes that I enjoyed. One of them was where Amy (Sandra Bullock) walked into a moving piece of machinery. If you want to know why, you'll have to have seen it for yourself. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, even though new episodes can currently be seen, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good.

Sentiment: positive
Why couldn't the end of the movie have been Sean Connery's men fighting the French instead of the Germans. Ever since the French had occupied Algeria in 1830, the tribes from Morocco and those of Algeria were making raids on the French military and civilian settlements. This movie could have been a continuous of that historical aspect where the French had seize the Rasuadli so his followers would not be raiding Algeria, and then his followers would have attacked the French to free him.

The movie is still stereotypical of shootouts between the Germans and the Americans. When the Americans shoot the Germans, their guns (even the pistols) make loud noises, create large bloody bullet wounds, and their enemies are screaming after being shot. When Germans shoot at the Americans, their guns don't make large sounds, do not create bloody wounds, and their enemies make little or no sound after being shot.

In real life, the American Krag rifle was the worst rifle America had ever produce until the early version of the M-16 came along. The Krag was hard to maintain, not reliable, and the rifle bolt was always jamming. The German Mauser was one of the world's finest rifles. We were so impress by it during Spanish American war, that we made a copy of it and call it the Springfield rifle.

Finally, the people of Morocco must had a word for artillery since the French were using them in their raids against Morocco. I didn't like it when they made the Rasuldai feel stupid that there was no word for artillery in the Moorican vocabulary. Instead, the Rasuadli stated that the Europeans had guns on wheels that make the ground shake.

Sentiment: positive
Being from a small town in Illinois myself, I can instantly relate to this movie. Considering the era it was made in, the townsfolk look uncomfortably like a lot of people I grew up with. Yes the plot is so-so. And yes, the Acting is not going to get nominated for an Oscar anytime soon. But that isn't the point. The point is to suspend reality and just have FUN. And this movie has Fun aplenty. From the greedy,uncaring banker to the well meaning,but dimwitted deputy, this movie was made to poke fun at the SciFi genre and small town living at it's best. Who can't smile at the sight of the Enforcer Drone or the Vern Droid? and I LOVED the FarmZoid. Wish I had one when I was growing up. Overall, considering the technology they had available at the time, this is a pleasant romp into one's childhood, when you could sit back on a Saturday afternoon, Popcorn in hand, and laugh at the foibles of small town living. This is a movie I would watch again and again, if for no other reason than to poke fun at myself and my small town ways.

Sentiment: positive
Personally, I absolutely love this movie and novel(I read the book first and decided to see the movie). First of all the plot is truly original and one of a kind. The acting is also great and i love the cast. Judd Crandall (plays Fred Gwynne) fits his role perfectly and really sells it to you. There are also a few corny lines thrown in there (Idk if they were meant to be corny), but they really will lighten up the mood and provide a good laugh. The Maine atmosphere is really a perfect spot to film this movie and it kind of draws you in throughout the movie. Not only will you love it but you'll want to see it again and again, I recommend this 100% to any horror fan!!

Sentiment: positive
First: The recent campaigning of this movie is a huge hoax. Judging from the cover you'd think this was some kind of scandal movie about Kylie playing a character having sex, taking drugs and whatever. This is just a cheap market-scheme. She's barely in it and does neither of the things. The marketing here is unbelievable, and I'm surprised the filmmakers hasn't objected. 

The movie itself was to me a huge disappointment. It seemed like a Sunset Beach episode directed sloppy-handed by a teenage Quentin Tarantino. And thats not meant as a compliment, mind you. 

I think the weakness of the movie first of all is the story. It seems to be about nothing. Just about cool teenagers tripping around living 'on the edge'. The characters themselves does have some personality though, but the movie doesn't use its potential. As said, there's no story of any substance here. It seems to elaborate too much on cool dialog and ends up looking like a colorful MTV ad. It definitely has that feeling. 

Still though, I guess some people might enjoy it, but I'd say there's far better movies like this around.

Sentiment: negative