DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
The championship game is only a couple of days away, but things in New Orleans aren't as they should be. From players with marital problems to drug overdoses to gambling problems to a killer on the loose, life is getting in the way of what should be a memorable, wonderful time. Can things be put back into order and a killer stopped before the big game is ruined? 

Despite what you might think when you first read about Superdome, this is not a football movie. In fact football is nothing more than a plot device and an after thought. Instead, Superdome is another of those lousy soap opera-ish 70s made-for-TV movies populated with Hollywood has beens and those that never will be. The cast sleepwalks its way through the thing with no one really looking good. The best (or worst) example is Van Johnson in a very small role looking generally lost as to why he's there. The plot is dull, uninteresting, and unbelievable. Donna Mills as a hit"man"? Yeah, right! It's about as believable as the affair she has with the liquor soaked David Jansen. The movie also lacks any pace. Trying to get all four or five story lines into the film zaps whatever flow Superdome might have had. With no drama or suspense in sight, Superdome ends up being a very poor example of a 70s made-for-TV movie. The lone highlight for me was the voice-over work from the late Charlie Jones - a sportscaster I miss listening to. The eloquent way he overstates the intrigue and over-hypes the atmosphere in New Orleans is pure cheese at its finest.

Like most others who have seen Superdome, I also did so courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. It may be one of the KTMA public access episodes, but it's one of the best examples of the shows early start. So even though I've only rated Superdome a 2/10, I'll give this episode a generous 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.

Sentiment: negative
In spite of having some exciting (and daring) sequences, NBTN just never gets going. There are exploding boats, hat pin murders, mass suicides, pathologists with body parts, and all sorts of classic mystery/horror scenes, but they're interspersed with extended periods of pure exposition. Everybody in the movie looks bored. This is a shame because many of the sequences would be considered daring at the time this was filmed.

Add to this the "too-proper" Brit characters and you feel like you've drifted into a Sherlock Holmes movie.

Finally, the cinematography is very ordinary. There are lots of opportunities for beautiful shots of of the countryside, or complex shots of someone being pulled into a huge bonfire, but the whole thing is unimaginative and dull.

Definitely only for Lee and Cushing fans.

Sentiment: negative
I did not intend to write this review, but having read the default review that shows up on this movie's URL, I felt compelled to write a rebuttal. The movie in a word is superlative. It does not deserve the slanderous review that the writer has written. I think the writer has totally missed the point of the movie to a large extent. In fact, I too was turned off by the excessive show of Evangelist devotions that occupied the middle of the movie to a large extent. However, I must beg to differ with the reviewer in that, this movie in the end is not a propaganda piece for evangelist action. I think, what the director has shown is that how religion is not enough to find all the answers, how religion is to a large extent incapable of providing answers to basic, simple questions that one may ask and all that religion has to offer is sometimes just banal platitudes of one kind or another. This does not demonstrate a value judgment on religion as we have to remember that religion is transmuted and expressed by ordinary, mostly well meaning, basically good people and they usually have no monopoly on truth and thus religion can not in the end provide the ultimate answers to some questions in life. Ultimately, it is a matter of faith. You have to take it on faith and that's all. And if you are given to faith, then you can appreciate any show of faith. And if you are not given to faith then any show of faith is tiresome. It is thus at the same time, instructive to note the reviewer reaction to the movie. In any case, the director shows us that one can choose not to accept the religious interpretation of events and answers to questions and in spite of that life goes on and there are 'secret sunshine' in this world that awaits all wounded souls, regardless of their religious orientation. And that's just the core message of the film! Please note the last scene of the movie, if you don't get this! In the end, the movie is a great one and very thought provoking and confronts you - the viewer with questions that you have to answer for yourself. Thus it is a work of art that is challenging to you personally. I do agree with the reviewer in that, the Evangelical stuff was a bit too much. However, given the above interpretation of religion as shown in the movie, I think the director was trying to balance the act whereby he might not be called an Evangelist  basher! The actor Kang-ho Song was great as always. He's so balanced and just perfect that he's just amazing. He's my favorite Korean actor no doubt. I know the actress Do-yeon Jeon got the Cannes award for best actress for this movie. However, I did not find any specialty in her acting. It seems that to get awards you just have to act really convincingly in crying and hysterical scenes and all All in all a great movie. If you don't like it  please watch it again and see if you get it! If it leaves you dissatisfied or uncomfortable or asking questions then think, if that was not what the director was actually aiming at through this movie in the first place!

Sentiment: positive
Artemisia Gentileschi, the daughter of Orazio Gentileschi, showed an early promise as a painter. Taught by her father, Artemisia was born in an era that denied talented women the right to have their work seen side by side art created by men. Her tragic life is chronicled in this biographic film directed and co-written by Agnes Merlik.

Having read the novel "The Passion of Artemisia" by Susan Vreeland, made us investigate more into the life of this woman, her work, and her legacy. We also read Mary Garrard's "Artemisia Gentileschi", which should be a must read book by all art lovers.

"Artemisia" presents the fictionalized facts we have read about showing the early life of the young woman as she starts to paint. She was clearly influenced by the work of her father, by Caravaggio, Agostino Tassi, and other Florentine painters of that period. Her relationship and love affair with Tassi is the basis of the film. Artemisia, unfortunately couldn't go as far as she could have because of the prejudice against women in the arts. It didn't help either she caused a scandal where she is accused of being raped by Tassi. She had to go to Rome in order to distance herself from that unhappy time of her life.

Valentina Cervi makes a beautiful Artemisia. She is a gorgeous creature who awakened passion in men. Michel Serrault plays Orazio, her father. Miki Maojlovic is seen as Tassi, the man who wanted Artemisia, but ended up in jail. Emmanuelle Devos appears for a moment.

The film has a glossy finish that the camera work of Benoit Delhomme captures in all its splendor. The scenic locales of the film offer an idea of what inspired that school of painting to show in their canvases. The music by Krishna Levy serves well what we see. Agnes Merlik directed with sure hand showing a visual style of her own.

Sentiment: positive
Grey Gardens is a world unto itself. Edith and Little Edie live in near total isolation, eating ice cream and liver pate in a makeshift kitchen in their (apparently) shared bedroom. Cats loll about while mother Edith insults her daughter's elocution. This is a Tennessee Williams play come to life and should inspire screenwriters and playwrights, as the bizarre and overlapping dialogue is 100% real.

The situation in the house reminds me exactly of how my grandmother and her 50-ish daughter lived for a decade (other than that they were poor and clean). They would bicker all day, grandmother talking about her gloriously perfect past while her daughter continually blamed her for missed opportunities with men, work, and self-expression.

This film is a must-see for anyone writing a mother/daughter relationship of this kind. It is sad and voyeuristic, but the filmmakers did an amazing job getting the Edies comfortable enough to expose themselves so recklessly. It is rare to see true life this way and all the more special considering the context--remnants of a powerful family fading into nothingness in the skeleton of their own mansion.

Sentiment: positive
That's right, you heard me this movie is a freaking' ABOMINATION. First off, the band, who the hell is going to go see or listen to a band called "THE NAKED BROTHERS BAND"?!?! Not only is the name terrible but so are the musicians, they can't even play anything! Also, the lead singer sounds more girly than Geddy Lee, and even more his voice is horrible! Not only are they terrible musicians but they're terrible actors. Led by a crappy director and thin plot, this has got to be the dumbest movie ever. I wish this website would let you use a vote of ZERO OR BELOW out of 10, because giving this filth a 1/10 is being WAY too generous.

I'm not sure that you can call this a comedy film. If you're looking for comedy with music, go to that "Weird Al" Yankovic guy 'cause he does it a whole lot better than these untalented tweens.

Sentiment: negative
This is a made for TV movie by Hallmark. Hallmark has always made quality movies that are family orientated. Just Desserts is a boy and girl fall in love while working together movie. Two bakers competeing for a $250,000 prize against a field of professional bakers. It is fun and light hearted. The desserts look great. The movie has a catchy, upbeat little song played during the competition. I assume that it is a made for the movie song by Roger Bellon. To bad that no soundtrack is available. I would really like to get a copy of the song. I don't even know the name of the song, because the credits are squished at the end of the movie to make room for hundreds of promos. Anyway, the cast is great. It is always nice to see Brenda Vaccaro. She is very bubbly and upbeat. Lauren Holly is always a plus and Costas Mandylor rounds out the good guys with a wonderful performance. Professional chef Wolfgang Puck has a guest appearance. The movie is worth watching.

Sentiment: positive
Wow, what a racist, profane piece of celluloid garbage, and what an insult to the great genre of Westerns.

Exploitive? Sex scenes abound, profanity abounds, violence and gore abounds.....everything that gives modern movies such a good name, especially among those who prefer classic-era movies. This is the kind of sleaze that gives the old folks ammunition against today's films. 

Somehow I just can't picture nude male bathing scenes in Randolph Scott or Gene Autrey films. Nor can I picture hearing "motherf---er!" exclaimed here and there. I sincerely doubt that word was even around over 100 years ago. Yet, the f-word is so prevalent here you'd think you were watching a story centered in today's urban areas, not the old west of the 1800s.

Prejudice? Well, what if all the white characters were good guys and every black person was the nasty, brutal villain? Do you think someone might complain about a racist movie? Home come we don't hear an outcry when the reverse - as demonstrated in this film - is shown in hundreds of theaters across the country?

Mario Van Peeples wrote, directed and starred in this bomb. Remember that name. Apparently, he is the "Ed Wood" of today's filmmakers. Even Spike Lee wouldn't be this racist. You can't get much worse than this movie.

Sentiment: negative
This is a very bad western mainly because it is historically inaccurate. It looks as if it were shot on a back lot in California instead of where Jack Slade lived and died, Idaho, Colorado Territories, and Montana. It fictionalizes everything that is known about this mysterious 'bad man,' 'good man.' The script is horrible; there is very little direction, and lousy acting. Dorothy Malone is completely wasted as his wife. Mark Steven never seems to know how to portray this mysterious Jack Slade. In real life, Jack Slade was a very good stage line superintendent. He was feared by his local townsmen for his hard drinking. When drunk he would start fights and cause other problems in Virginia City, Montana. To insure that he could never terrorize them again, vigilantes lynched Jack Slade after he ignored their warning to leave town immediately. This is a horrible movie. I can not recommend anyone to watch this movie other than to see how Hollywood butches history at will, even to this day.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is one of the funniest I have seen in years. A movie which deals with death and funerals without being depressing, or irreverant. Christopher Walken provides much of the comedy in this charming romance and I could hardly breathe for laughing so hard.

I saw the movie a preview, and when it was over, the audience not only applauded, but cheered. I am telling all my friends to watch for it's arrival in the USA. I definitely plan on seeing it again in the theater and purchasing it on DVD as soon as it's available.

Sentiment: positive
What a great gem this is. It's an unusual story that is fun to watch. Yes, it has singing, but it is very nicely crafted into the story and is very melodic to hear. It was so pleasant to watch; I enjoyed it from start to finish! 

The movie takes place in England during World War II. It is about an apprentice witch who is searching for a missing portion of a spell that she needs. She uses her rough "magic" to transport her and 3 children under her care to various destinations to find it. They are joined by her correspondence teacher, who is surprised to learn that the lessons from his school actually work! 

Although the special effects may seem a little dated at first, once you get used to them they become part of the charm of this movie. In fact, the movie won an Oscar for these effects! 

The movie is innocent and fun - and it's hard not to like the tuneful songs. The characters are wonderfully interesting to watch. I think anyone at any age could find something to like about this movie.

Sentiment: positive
admittedly, I first picked up Ranma 1/2 when I was around twelve. I was in the library and searched desperately for something good to read. Then, I went to the Comic/Manga section and spotted this book. At my first few reads through the chapters I didn't really know what was going on, but I knew that I LOVED it. I even took it home for a few more reads over. Frankly, I wasn't getting anywhere. And then, about five months (I'm 16 now) ago my friend was watching some anime series and I remembered about this Manga. I couldn't remember what it was called, but recalled that the author was Rumiko Takahashi, creator of Inu Yasha. I Googled it, and then made a rash decision to watch all 161 episodes. At first I was a little thrown off by the 1990 graphics, but it didn't really matter in the end. No anime has ever made me laugh so hard and rewind, watch again. I once watched 45 consecutive episodes within a day. I don't know how I did it... but I couldn't stop. Eventually, after about two days, I grew obsessed. I even dreamt--as crazy as this sounds--about watching Ranma. Never have I found a series so enjoyable, so funny, and so heartwarming to watch. To this day 161 episodes are not enough to keep me satisfied. Of course the cliffhanger ending was enough to make me go bonkers, but the series alone was enough to make me continue reading. 

Ranma 1/2 is about a boy named Ranma Saotome and his dad Genma Saotome. INTENSE martial artists. They are so intense, that they went to the ancient training grounds in China and became 'cursed'. The grounds were full of different pools of springs, and if you land in one, you take the shape of whatever drowned there when doused in cold water. For Genma, that was a PANDA, and for Ranma that was a... girl! It's a very crafty fun loving story. On top of that, Genma promises his friend that Ranma will marry one of his daughters to keep the Tendo dojo alive. 'Course the one he gets matched up with hates his guts and the feelings mutual. Obviously they start to like one another, but both way to stubborn to admit it. But.. Genma has a history of doing this. He promised Ranma to many girls. 

Trust me. It's worth watching. It's humorous, heartwarming and all around amazing.

Sentiment: positive
...but the actress playing the daughter just doesn't come across as credible.

It doesn't work for me when I see an actress of about 25 years playing the role of a 12-year-old... Other commentators have suggested that this is one of the messages of this film, that children may sometimes seem more adult-like than adults, but with the casting as it is in this film, it just doesn't work for me.

you might want to check other comments to find out what this film is actually about, because i couldn't bear watching it to the end.

i agree that the premise for this film is beautiful though - I wish another director would try to pick up this story again.

Sentiment: negative
The costumes and make-up were grand, there were some exceptionally funny lines, and the role was made for Jim Carrey. Carrey did as good a job as could be done given the rather disappointing script writing. Sure this was mostly a movie for kids, but if you are going to spend this much money making a movie you really ought to at least give the story enough body to go beyond that of Dr Seuss. I expected more from Ron Howard. It's worth a see, but it lacks the necessary qualities to become a major classic, by any measure.

Sentiment: positive
Curiously, Season 6 of the Columbo series contained only three episodes and there is very little evidence of quality in at least two of the scripts, based on this outing for the "man-in-the-mac" and also "Fade into Murder".

Furthermore, it is not a coincidence that Peter S. Feibleman penned both the aforementioned scripts (incidentally he plays the part of the murdered security guard here).

This adventure is very rarely compelling and many of the performers just look disinterested with the material. The story is rather weakly developed with some protracted periods of boring conversation.

Columbo is also shadowed by a colleague here(similar to "Last Salute to the Commodore") but the entertainment value is minimal. To add to this, Celeste's Holm characterisation, which is intended to provide comedy, induces embarrassment rather than laughs.

The script wavers off to deal with the family history and the murderess does enough to gift Columbo the case, though there is never a credible discussion relating to the motives of her crime.

Ironically, what turns out to be, arguably, Columbo's worst adventure produces the funniest moment in the series. He quizzes a male hairdresser and has a haircut/manicure at the same time. The next 5 minutes are hilarious - it's just that Columbo's hair is so perfectly groomed, then he can't afford to pay the bill and then, when he makes enquiries at a jewellers he keeps glancing in the mirror to admire his hairstyle!

Sadly, this is the only decent moment from a script that looks like it has been cobbled together in ten minutes. 

For Columbo completionists only.

Sentiment: negative
I really wish I had read everyone's review before going to see the movie... it was one of the most excruciating films that I've ever seen. I was ready to leave the theater 5 minutes into the movie; I should have followed my instinct. The movie offered nothing new or clever, it was boring and very cliché. I was surprised to find that it was directed by a woman! The characters did not represent any women that I know, they were boring, bitter and melodramatic. The movie was unrealistic and depressing and a waste of time and money. And the actors looked tired, poor make-up and hair styling. It was recently compared to the Sex and in the City movie; it was not even half as good. My suggestion, do not see this movie!

Sentiment: negative
The problem with family dramas is that, outside of TV movies on channels like Lifetime, most people don't want to watch them. And the ones that do get watched tend to be sensationalized and about current or topical problems or issues in the news (or recent news). Movies that explain or explore the human condition aren't popular. Particularly with the young crowd that would be Miss Lohan's fan base or the younger crowd that tends to make movies not simply popular but financially successful for studios.

The specific problems I had with this movie is the cartoonishness of some of the characterizations. It was a bit much to blame all of the Lohan's character's acting-out (wrecking the car, drug use, etc.) on what her step-father did to her. While not improbable,it's just a bit much to expect the audience to swallow. Additionally, other aspects, such as her giving the young Morman boy, oral sex, or that she would actually make a good assistant to the vet, who coincidentally happens to have a thing for her mother, etc., all these elements just did not really help this movie along. It placed it more in the element of a situation comedy trying one of their "special dramatic episodes" then it did for a fully realized, well-written feature film.

When you watch the DVD and listen to the commentary, particularly for the various alternate endings, you can really see all of this is sharp focus.

Sentiment: negative
Knowing Enki Bilal's comics for quite some time, I had to see this movie. I have thought this would be a good way for the artist as Bilal to spread his art and ideas to wider audience. I have also thought this would be a good movie to recommend, and I thought I will enjoy watching it... I was wrong! The movie was a true torture to watch. The idea has potential... but, movie leaves way too much to be desired, and basically everyone who sees this movie is left with impression that he could do it better. I will not make suggestion whether you should see this movie or not. Chances are if you're reading these pages that you have already seen it, or that you're gonna see it - but be prepared for very bad 102 minutes.

Sentiment: negative
I wanted to give Drawing Blood the benefit of the initial doubt. The opening moments, with a naked woman sprawled out and an painter, Diana, about to paint her and then sucking her blood to drain out so she can use it for her art, give the impression that this could be a kick-ass artsy-vampire flick. Turns out this initial impression turns out false. Oh, Troma, the mark of some kind of lack of quality: sometimes they'll offer up something that is trash but funny and with at least some competence to the junk-food craft (or, sometimes not). This is a case where it's not even a whole lot of fun to watch since its attempts at humor (i.e. the protagonist's father is an old vaudevillian who does Jimmy Durante impressions?) are weak at best, and any unintentional laughs are undercut by Sergio Lapel's bargain basement direction.

And it's not without him trying, oh Lord no. He does try a lot, which is a big part of the problem. He and his producers had money for lights, sure, but the way they're used in the movie made I, a former student filmmaker and aspiring director, sulking in my seat: if I saw this in a theater I would have to blind my eyes in many instances, and would wonder whether or not his DP understood really the basic 3-point lighting set-up. While this, along with a very lackluster sound design (or just lots of random loud humming like in the art gallery scene), shouldn't be something that comes to attention during a Troma release, it should be something *basic* that a filmmaker can tackle even if the script isn't very funny or scary (and it isn't) or if Lapel does a weird mixture of songs placed at bizarre moments.

It's not a good movie by any stretch, and perhaps if you're a vampire die-hard (or just a vampire period) it might have some appeal as a low-rent bargain basement alternative to Near Dark, or as a slight improvement over, say, 1972's Blood Freak. You have better ways to waste your time, overall.

Sentiment: negative
The worst movie i've seen in years (and i've seen a lot of movies). Acting is terrible, there is no plot whatsoever, there is no point whatsoever, i felt robbed after i rented this movie. they recommended it to me mind you! a disgrace for terrible movies! stay away from this terrible piece of c**p. save your money !

Sentiment: negative
I bought this movie for 1 euro, not knowing what it was all about. I thought "hmmm, a movie named mutilation man must be if not very funny at least filled with gore". It wasn't funny alright. It was disturbing. Very disturbing. And I don't mind disturbing movies but this one just didn't mean anything, except that child abuse is not a good thing to do. hmmm... The quality of the images were terrible. The acting...there was no acting. Just some fcked-up fcker mutilating himself for over 90 minutes. This is probably material for sicko's jurking off on extreme gore.

Don't watch this. It's not worth your time. Its just awful. I wish i never bought this.

They should mutilate the guy who made this

Sentiment: negative
This is a really good film and one that I've enjoyed watching several times. Michael Caine's awesome as always. Michael Caine has received kind of a reputation for taking any role in any movie no matter what the quality or lack of same but he does a good turn in playing Sidney. From the start it's so well written. Who would have thought that Ira Levin who wrote such creepy stuff as The Boys from Brazil and Rosemary's Baby could write something this witty. Let's face it - Michael Caine, Chris Reeve, Dyan Cannon, Henry Jones... how are you going to go wrong with a cast this good directed by Sidney Lumet.

I'm really reticent to go on because if anyone were to give away anything about this film it would be a crime. Just watch it and adore it.

Sentiment: positive
Historically accurate? Hmm... Perhaps... if you squint, and light falls upon the subject just-so. But core accuracy is no compensation for a dismal, patchy and inconsistent plot, reams of cardboard dialogue and an unsatisfying conclusion. The principal characters are merely characterizations; embarrassing stereotypes that range from the 'enigmatic and noble' American Indians through to the 'stuffy but sadistic' British officers. A wretched and unworthy rendition of a fascinating period in American history. I want my money back.

Sentiment: negative
I must admit, out of the EROS MOVIE COLLECTION, this has to be the one that I love the most as well as one other that I have also reviewed. The story is something that really keeps you watching. A lot of the EROS films have a plot that looks like a hammer broke it in pieces before production when you watch it. All centering around sex, and who can get with how many different people come the end of the film. And oh dear god, never watch one of these films when someone pulls out a gun. It does not work that it is almost laughable, but you do not want to waste the energy to do so.

"Losing Control" is exactly as its name comes on. The protagonist, the leading character (the wonderfully talented and beautiful Kira Reed). The control is the control a person has over their senses, their body and feelings. And one man changes everything for her, makes her a different woman almost. But the mirror is shattered at the same time. This makes for a great film that I wish I had come up with first!!

10/10

Sentiment: positive
I don't agree with one of the reviewers who compared this film to the American International Pictures. Basil Deardon has directed a brutally realistic film with an honest attempt to portray the rise of juvenile delinquency in post war England (but without the sentimentality of "Blackboard Jungle"). The cinematography was excellent as it really captured the scariness and isolation of the huge housing estate. The estate looked like an old prison. Stanley Baker was excellent as the hardened detective, reassigned to the juvenile division - "Urgent, urgent - Larceny - five iced lollies"!!!! He finds he is the butt of many jokes. David McCallum showed that he was one of Britain's top young talents of the fifties. (He had a very different role in another Stanley Baker film "Hell Drivers"). His portrayal of Johnny and the fanatical following he inspired was very frightening. Ann Heywood was also very good as the cynical Cathie. I wouldn't say there was a romantic subplot in it.

Detective Jack Truman is investigating a string of arson attacks by someone labeled the "Firefly". Just as he finds evidence which could lead to a breakthrough, he is assigned to the Juvenile Division - he is pretty disgusted at what he feels is not proper police work. Amid all the heckling he gets his first call out - the 6 year old Murphy twins are working a scam at the local lolly shops!!!

Taking the twins home he meets their brother, the charismatic Johnny, and their embittered sister Cathie. He starts to appreciate how life on the ghastly housing estates can turn young kids into criminals. As he gets more involved with the family, he realises there is a strong link between the fires, Johnny and a frightened Chinese youth who works for a laundry. The local priest (Peter Cushing in an unusual role, away from the Hammer horrors) explains that when Johnny was younger he had rescued some people from a burning building and had been hailed a hero. He wanted to recapture the feeling of importance and being useful and felt he could by lighting fires. The school siege was filmed in a very real way and the viewer felt the children's fear - the teacher (thinking only of her own safety) runs off and locks them in the room with the frightened gunman!!!!

I thought it was a really excellent film that tried to show some of the social problems Britain experienced after the war.

Highly Recommended.

Sentiment: positive
The wind and the lion is a marvelous sweeping motion picture. It is a monument to what filmmaking once was but is no more.

Connery, despite the thick scottish brogue, plays the Raisulu very well. He inspires the viewer in a way many lead characters cannot.

 Candice Bergen, in one of her early roles, is marvelous as the kidnapped socialite Mrs. Pedacaris, showing courage in the face of adversity (and plenty of humour as well). A marvelous film, rent or buy it and you won't be disappointed.

Sentiment: positive
The penultimate collaboration between director Anthony Mann and star James Stewart (excluding the few days Mann worked on Night Passage before parting company with the star under less than amicable circumstances), The Far Country belies its mainstream look to offer another portrait of an embittered man dragged unwillingly to his own redemption, fighting it every step of the way. This time he's a cattle driver whose response to labour problems - challenging troublesome cowhands to a gunfight at the end of the trail - results in his cattle being confiscated by John McIntire's larcenous judge of the Roy Bean school of law and order. Stealing them back and taking them across the Canadian border, he soon finds himself unwillingly drawn into the growing conflict between prospectors and the judge as he cheats or kills them out of their claims...

While it's no great surprise which way Stewart turns at the end, he's a surprisingly callous critter along the way, even using his desire to just be left alone to excuse not warning a group of prospectors of an impending avalanche when he has the chance because it's not his problem. For most of the film there's really only a hair's breadth between him and McIntire, something the judge recognises immediately, revelling in the company of a kindred spirit even as he's genially planning to lynch him. In many ways the townspeople who put their faith in him probably recognise it too - despite their appeals to his dead-and-buried better nature, there's an unspoken acknowledgement that the only person who can stand up to the judge is someone almost as bad as he is.

As usual with Mann there's an exceptional use of high country locations, though for once the final showdown takes place on level ground, and the film is almost perfectly cast with strong support from Walter Brennan, Harry Morgan and Ruth Roman (though Corinne Calvert's young romantic interest veers to the irritating). Sadly the great cinematography of the Canadian Rockies is done few favours by a distinctly average DVD transfer, with only the theatrical trailer as an extra.

Sentiment: positive
An under-appreciated, unseen gem. Estevez does a remarkable job of illustrating in poignant, heartbreaking fashion, the tension that arises between a son who's been to hell and back, and his parents, who can't begin to understand the emotional scarring left behind. It's not unlike Born on the Fourth of July, in that it deals with a soldiers' emotional and mental breakdown after serving in Vietnam, but while that one focused more on the politics of post-Vietnam (anti-war speeches, etc.), this one deals with a much more personal topic: Family. One man's struggle to return to normalcy after a life-altering experience, and his parents' failure to see the change that has occurred.

Estevez delivers a smoldering performance as Jeremy Collier. You can sense the pain and frustration bubbling beneath surface. There to match him inch for inch is his real-life father, Martin Sheen. It's a trip watching these two act off of each other, as you get the sense that they're constantly trying to one-up one another. It's like the presence of each other inspired the pair to do their best, and their performances triumph because of it.

Recommended to anyone who appreciates solid acting, writing and directing. And to any Vietnam war buff. 

****/***** (8/10)

Sentiment: positive
I feel that this movie is different from so many others in that it shows a family of girls who actually care about each other. They may have faults, but bitterness and put-downs have no place with these girls. Try to find that on TV or in the usual movies. It is a breath of fresh air to see girls being feminine--wearing beautiful, feminine dresses and shoes. Contrast that with the apparel in stores today, i.e. raggedy and faded jeans and jackets, etc. The story line has an evil thread running through but that is what makes it more realistic and interesting. I know that it is animated, but it still gives you a feeling that families can stick together and come out okay. I would recommend this movie for boys and girls alike.

Sentiment: positive
No way this overly simplistic script, with basically one character, should be interpreted as feature entertainment. In reality it has about enough material for an eighteen minute short, and even that would seriously tax your attention span. Zero characters beyond Noble Willingham are developed. The never ending closeups of lips and telephones are sleep inducing, and the script is so underdeveloped that a chimpanzee could have written it. In fact this whole sad thing shouldn't have even been put on film. A tape recording would have been more than sufficient to put you to sleep. Definitely not recommended. - MERK

Sentiment: negative
mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation in his quest for India's freedom struggle ignored his own family and son, this movie is about his son Hiralal who feels neglected because of mahatma Gandhi's service to the society. The movie starts off in South Africa where Mahatma Gandhi works as a barrister and fighting the cause of India's freedom against the British. Hirarala arrives in South Africa to help his dad who is a barrister, since gandhi was involved in the freedom struggle, he wanted his wife and children to join in too as a service to the society and as a result hirarlal does not get a chance to complete his education and fails his exams, he gets married to his love gulab (bhoomika Chawla) against his father's wishes. Hiralal has ambitions to travel to england and become a barrister just like his dad but his own dad refuses to grant him a scholarship offered to his family by a businessman and instead gives it away to another person saying that the scholarship should not be limited to his family and should be open to the most deserving student living in colony. This angers hiralal and the rift between father and son increases, hirarlal hates his father for neglecting him and blames him for being uneducated and unemployed. Hiralal struggles to make ends meet and lands up on the streets through failed business attempts and in huge debt, he loses his wife and children. Akshaye Khanna has give a stellar performance as Hiralal gandhi.. all kudos to him, the direction and the script is fantastic, the picturization is excellent. overall an Excellent movie and a must see. I give it a 10/10

Sentiment: positive
The basic premise of Flatliners is fairly simple. Several medical students put themselves at the point of death in order to find out exactly what the brain does during the fact. It sounds like something a mob of bored students would do for a joke, but it forms the basis of some very creepy substories. In today's world, where Hollywood has to mine foreign markets for the ideas to make a horror film, Flatliners is one of those rare gems that show Hollywood can make something different when it tries hard enough.

What separates Flatliners from a lot of films based on this premise that would come out today is that it does not stoop to being condescending or arrogant. Flatliners recognises that people go to films to be entertained, not moralised to. In this kind of supernatural thriller, the difference this restraint makes is really incredible. What's even more incredible is that Julia Roberts appears without being annoying or demonstrating that she can only play Julia Roberts. The theory of obscurity, that performing artists do their best work with the smallest audience, is in force here.

The subplots concerning what the characters find during their loss of pretty much everything that makes them alive, and how it comes back to intrude on their present time, are done surprisingly well. The moments when William Baldwin's character finds his personal videotape collection coming back to haunt him are especially intriguing. That William Baldwin seems so perfectly cast in the role says a lot either about the script or the direction. I am not sure which.

Kiefer Sutherland, on the other hand, really shines as the lead. One really feels for him as the mystery of what past experience is intruding on the present and why unfolds. As Kevin Bacon's character goes to find an old school pier whose life he made hell and tell her how sorry he is, it becomes clearer what the film is about. We can try to change the past as much as we like, but it's what we do with the present that matters most.

Another good aspect of Flatliners is how it achieves an atmosphere without the use of expensive, elaborate visual effects. Quite unusually for what is essentially a horror film, Flatliners did not expend its budget in places where it did not need to. Much of what we see during the more surreal sequences is a case of professional pretending, simple trick photography, or stock footage. Sometimes the simplest things are the best.

If there is a problem with the film, it's that it feels about ten minutes too short. The ending seems more perfunctory than conclusive, as if someone in the studio asked the director to wrap the film up so they can bring it out at a certain market time. Of course, many films have been left with sore spots for this very reason, so Flatliners shouldn't really need to be any different. The hundred and fifteen minutes we do get is highly satisfactory, though not overly brilliant.

I gave Flatliners a seven out of ten. It works well as a date flick or a kind of late-night popcorn film. That aside, it makes a good reminder that low-budget horror shows weren't always sad pieces of garbage.

Sentiment: positive
Yes, some plots are a bit hard to follow, and The Bill does have a tendency to get violent, but it is actually an engrossing show, that I try not to miss. A vast majority of the episodes are very exciting and quite tense, and the acting is fairly good, though I do miss Roberta Taylor as Inspector Gina Gold and Todd Carty as Gabriel Kent. I will admit, I prefer the older episodes to the newer episodes, and it is a bit of a shame that the programme is now after the watershed, as I found it easier to watch when it was at 8.00. Still, why I like The Bill is because not only it is engrossing, but the cliffhangers at the end do make the next episode unmissable. It is true though, that it is more melodramatic than it was, but I really like this programme as a programme that doesn't try to take itself too seriously. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Sentiment: positive
The title is a misnomer:the movie depicts barely one year of the so-called "divin marquis" .Twas a hard time for him 'cause he was threatened by the guillotine :the quiet joys of the reign of Terror .

Historically speaking,the background is rather sketchy: "the fête De l'et re supreme",Robespierre's failed attempt to create a secular religion,his downfall ,a heaven sent opportunity for showing Doctor Guillotin's sinister machine at work (full speed).

As far as Sade is concerned ,it's a downright mediocre affair :he's waiting in a former nunnery with other nobles ,a golden cage if you compare it to ,say,Marie-Antoinette's or scientist Lavoisier's fates,and he exchanges futile conversations with a young virgin about death,love and other trivia.There's the obligatory "daring" scene but you've got to be patient because it's a long time before it comes on the screen.And anyway ,by today's standards ,can we call that risqué? Cy Enfield's "De Sade" ,which enjoys one of the lowest ratings of the IMDb ,is at least entertaining ,and Keir Dullea was a more credible marquis than the aging Auteuil.And it featured John Huston.

Sentiment: negative
Really, truly, abysmally, garishly, awful. But actor Clayton Moore (the movie Lone Ranger) acquits himself competently as an actor. He's the only one.

A rare treat, for five minutes, if you want to plumb the depths of grotesquely transparent special effects, southern California as "the moon" (again and again and again), and acting so woodenly inept that it may be a spoof . . . except that it's clear that it isn't--no humor here, except unintentionally.

The dialogue may be worse than any of these other aspects, and the costumes . . . well, enough said. Plot? What plot? Bad guy (well, head bad guy) and his henchmen, including his earthly agent called Krog (listen carefully or you'll suspect it's a spoof on the name of McDonald's founder Ray Kroc)and his unbelievably inept gunsels (who, however, have handguns that never need reloading; as does Commando Cody, so there are numerous firefight standoffs).

Enjoy.

Sentiment: negative
Saw this flick on ENCW last nite for the third or fourth time. Enjoyed it so much I ordered the DVD. This really is a standout and of course the first of the Mann-Stewart pairings. More here than the usual oater, although not quite as powerful as The Searchers. Lots of obvious symbolism about achieving manhood but mainly it's the acting by Stewart, his partner Millard Mitchell, Shelly Winters and the Waco Johnny Dean- Dan Duryea. Steve Miller (not The Joker) is interesting as a handsome would be hero who's interested in Lola but too yellow . Like Stewart in The Man Who Killed Liberty Valance, he's practically reduced to putting on an apron and serving his enemies coffee. Decaf no doubt. Tony Curtis from the Bronx Cavalry and Rock Hudson behaving like no Indian I've seen on screen have interesting cameos.

Special performances by John McIntire as a too lucky card dealing/gun trader who hangs out at a very low grade Western version of Rick's American Cafe. Nobody wants to spend the night there. Jay C. Flippens out over a kiss from Lola (Winters) and has some nice scenes with Stewart before he gets to Bend of the River and Far Country. Will Geer as Wyatt Earp and the Indian Chief who takes Walter Brennan's teeth from him in Red River are pleasant sightings. This is the kind of western that only Stewart, not Wayne nor Scott could have pulled off. Worth the shot, I repeat. :-)

Sentiment: positive
Luckily I did not pay to see this movie. Also, I cannot even reveal any spoilers because I willingly WALKED OUT after forty minutes of the movie. It was that bad. I laughed once, when the Yahoo! billboard fell on the guy, and the theme song came on. However, that was only because I thought it was making fun of it, but then I realized it was yet ANOTHER product placement. 

I loved the cartoon. I used to watch it almost religiously. (although i missed the last episode. I heard that they show Dr. Claw and it was nothing more than a Claw, somebody comment on the show's page) The cartoon had Penny and Brain alot more than the movie had, as to that point. I hated the setup of the whole thing, reminiscent of Robocop. Then Broderick screws with the whole feeling of Inspector Gadget. He is not nearly as clumsy as the cartoon was. Another fact is his gadgets actually work to the point I saw, except for the oil slick. He also screwed with the tone of "Wowsers" which used to be in an excited tone. I felt so disappointed that they slaughtered the cartoon so badly. Everybody else felt that way too. Us 14-17 year olds remember the cartoon fondly and we loved every minute of it.

I went into the movie with an open mind, knowing that they would have screwed with the cartoon. I was taken aback at how retarded the movie was. It relied on sight gags, and stupid dialogue for humor. Disney relies on pain and physical humor to push a kids movie along. Product placement is pointless in this film, and it shows. The wise-cracking car is not that good at cracking wise. The gadgets look nice, but they were almost overly glossy. The cartoon was a better look. The silly scenes were crap. In the 40-45 minutes I watched the movie, not one laugh was heard, and they laughed at the Dudley-Do-Right preview. This movie should not be watched by people who want intelligence in their family entertainment. I highly recommend "The Iron Giant," which was sad, but very very good. This movie is a travesty to the whole family drama.------------1

Sentiment: negative
To make any film about the supposed end of the world, there should be some facts & realism 1. We are never told why these people believe this. 2.Location is New Years Eve In Toronto Canada . SO PLEASE SOME ONE TELL ME WHY WAS THEN STILL SHINING AT MIDNIGHT & WHY(based on the costumes) DID IT SEEM LIKE SEPTEMBER

3. The acting was in that neo-au-natural style, that needed a director who knew how to do it.

4. the individual story pieces were all dreary & without any purpose. I could go on, But I do not want to make this as boring as the film.

 rating *1/2 (out of 4) 2 on IMDB scale

thank you I am as always

 JAY HARRIS (aka)SIRBOSSMAN

Sentiment: negative
"Smithereens" is the kind of worthless flick which just hangs out among the cable channels taking up space like a cheesy dime novel in the public library. A worthless bit of tripe and first effort for mediocre director Seidelman, the film is fraught with bad acting, bad sound, bad camera work, and poor quality in all aspects of the film. Many better films never make it to market and why junk flicks like this one do and never seem to go away is one of life's great mysteries. (D-)

Sentiment: negative
The premise may seem goofy, but since Murphy's character doesn't take it seriously, it helps ease the audience into this mix of mysticism and modern-day hard-boiled child abduction. Excellent cast, particularly Charles Dance and Charlotte Lewis, and Murphy is at the height of his 80's peak in comedy/action. There's also some great F/X, a very surreal dream sequence, and a fairly original plot. Often overlooked in the pantheon of Murphy flicks, but this one is worth a look.

Sentiment: positive