DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This film has its detractors, and Courtney's fey dresser may offend some folks (who, frankly, need a good smack upside the head) -- but the film is top notch in every way: engaging, poignant, relevant. Finney, naturally, is larger than life. Courtney makes an ideal foil. I thought the performances to be terribly strong in both leads, and Courtney's character provides plenty of dark humor. The period is well captured, the supporting cast well chosen. This is to be seen and savored like a fine cordial. I only wish it were out on DVD already...(*sigh*)...

Sentiment: positive
Good work by everyone, from scriptwriters, director, and cast; a lovely fun film that becomes believable for sentimental reasons only; a good film for television on those cloudy, cold wintry days when you just want to sit back and enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
Frightmare begins with a horror movie icon killing a director and then his servant before he is laid to rest. This icon, who has some Christopher Lee qualities to him, then continues to haunt those around him when a group of horror film society students steal his corpse from the mausoleum he is in.

The first ten minutes is well-filmed, good writing and lots of potential for murderous mayhem. But the film drags in the middle (although thankfully not as much as "House of Death") and never really gets that initial spurt of energy back.

Lots of the deaths are confusing, as they seem to have people just falling over scared when they see a floating coffin or other odd things. Twice we see poisonous gas being used. But the box promises that this horror star will be the embodiment of all the monsters he has played. Boy, is that false advertising, unless he spent his career playing boring old men who take naps and watch "Matlock".

The general principle of the film is decent: horror society kids stealing a corpse of a dead icon. A modern equivalent (digging up Vincent Price or Peter Cushing) would make a great film. Maybe a remake is in order if that wouldn't be too disrespectful. Sometimes theory doesn't come across as well in application, and this film offers that example.

The only redeeming quality of this film (besides the beginning) is the brief appearance of a very young Jeffrey Combs. I saw him and thought "that's Jeffrey Combs" but felt I was mistaken as the box never mentioned him. But sure enough, Combs was present. (A note to this movie's film-makers: mention Combs on the cover of the DVD, you'll sell more copies if if you would be deceiving customers.) If you're a Jeffrey Combs die-hard, check out this early role. Otherwise, I cannot offer this as a great selection for a horror movie marathon. Let me suggest "Intruder" or "Popcorn", as those are both pretty decent and will stand the test of time.

Sentiment: negative
I waited for this movie to play in great anticipation. Assuming it would be more accurately portrayed like the movie, "The Christmas Box" based on the book by Richard Paul Evans. I sent out many emails to friends and family asking them to please watch this show, hoping they would better understand a tiny amount of my "new" life. After seeing this movie I was so disappointed. As a mother who lost her only child in November 2003 and REALLY knowing the pain, I had hoped that this movie would shed light to parents who "think" they understand the grief a parent goes through who has lost a child. This movie was a very light hearted movie and the silliness of Diane Keaton was a slap in the face to parents who have buried a child. It was VERY unrealistic from start to stop. I had a few calls after the movie, each call the same, "That was so off the mark and made it appear that in a short time you are back on the road and listening to songs on the radio and life is back" What a bunch of bull! It is clear that the director and Keaton have never lost a child because neither would have EVER made the movie to be so off the mark. I guess that's Hollywood.

Sentiment: negative
Do not watch this movie, go see something else ... I was very disappointed, I cannot rate this movie any better than 3. The acting was quite good and I really liked William Dafoe as the villain, but I cannot see why this movie made it to the big screen. The story was old and has been shown in 100+ other movies and 1000+ TV series/movies. The main problem was basically: Nothing is happening. Take a kidnapping, let the villain make the wife of the kidnapped man deliver the money, make the police look stupid and boring and extend this to 95 minutes, you got your "Clearing" movie. The only 2 reasons I did not rate this a 1 was a) Dafoe and b) the "plan-B-ending". There are not many endings you can give a kidnapper movie ... 75% of these kind end with ending A, 20% end ending B and 1% ends with something unforeseeable. Boring, boring, boring.

Sentiment: negative
The two new OSS 117 movies has a kind of humor which is both intelligent and dumbed-down at the same time, which I find extremely amusing. It really reminds me of the classic Pink Panther movies with an almost as good leading man as Peter Sellers in Jean Dujardin. And unlike Steve Martin completely ruining Clouseau, Dujardin is quite brilliant.

The comments regarding the movies' being anti-semitic, are obviously a case of a complete lack of humor and therefor understanding.

Whether you will enjoy or hate this movie really comes down to what kind of humor you have. I can't wait for the sequel!

Sentiment: positive
Garam Masala is one of the funniest film I've seen in ages. Akshay Kumar is excellent as the womaniser who has affairs with 3 girls and engaged at the same time. John Abraham is Amusing at times and this is one of his best works so far. Paresh Rawail is superb as usual in most of his films. The director Priyadarshan has delivered great Movies in the past. Hera Pheri, Hungama and Hulchul being some of the Best. Garam Masala is his funniest film he has made. The three newcomer actresses are average. Rimi sen doesn't get much scope in this movie. I was impressed to see how Priyadarshan made a movie with a simple storyline of a guy having a affair with 3 girls at the same time. All 3 girls have a day off in the same day and end up in the same house. Packed with loads of Laughs, this is one Non stop Entertainer.

Sentiment: positive
Ok the film wasn't going to win any awards and it is pure bubblegum, and it is a modern update on "It's a wonderful life". But it's just come out as a cheap release on DVD and there are a lot worse ways of blowing $13. You get a film that has a surprisingly strong cast but for most they were still a year or two from becoming B list celebs. However it's an enjoyable way of passing an hour and half just don't think too much in it.

Sentiment: positive
What is worth mentioning that is omitted in the other reviews I have read here, is the subtext of how the law shaped the lives and behaviour of gays in the era portrayed in the film. While Courtenay's character is evidently gay, he is not the only one: the often talked about Mr. Davenport-Scott is the other, and the reason that he is never seen, the reason alluded to that he has disappeared seems to be that he has been detained by the police for homosexual activity - a criminal offense in England at the time.

We can read under the surface that this recent event has unsettled Norman, Courtenay's character: and we can also see in a passing remark by Oxenby, the Edward Fox character, the quick renunciation of any connection to such a person when the law is involved: the fear of association affects many of the characters, and is part of the portrait the film paints of a time and the people who inhabit it. The abandonment of Courtenay at the end by Sir has been anticipated all the way through, if this subtext is included: it also makes sense of both the otherwise inexplicable omission of his Dresser from the list of those he gives thanks to. The flamboyance combined with the fear of exposure produces the combination of yearning and fear that Courtenay has to 'step into the footlights', as he does when he makes the announcement about the imminent air raids, a scene that would otherwise be gratuitous, but that is both a symbolic and literal depiction of the man's inner torment.

So while the drama is of the decline of Finney's Sir, a great deal of the tragedy of the film and play comes from the 'fatal flaw' of Courtenay's gayness, and makes this a film about him, as the title suggests.

The art direction, pacing and cinematic style of this film seem to come from another time, more distant than the eighties and, in some ways, even than the second world war. The implicit portrait of a society still clinging to an older moral order, and the sympathy of the character racked and ruined by the cruelties of that order, of necessity trapped in the enclosed world of the theatre; and the knowledge we have of how much of it all would be swept away after the war makes this film all the more poignant, for all its flaws.

Sentiment: positive
Just want to inform you guys that this movie was actually pretty good !!! 

Thought it was a lame ass movie, but not at all, many moments in this movie wore pretty horrifying. 

This movie has enough blood, gore, and some sexy make out scenes of course, to keep any horror buff like me 100% satisfied! The cast was also pretty good IMO. 

Even though its not a high budget movie, the effects wore definitely kinda creepy sometimes. 

Worth watching if u like a kick ass horror movie thats for sure!!

- Tom

Sentiment: positive
This movie has got to be one of the all-time lows of Michael J. Fox's generally respectable career. I should have known how awful this movie was when I rented it and found the movie only half viewed and not rewound by the previous renter. Never a good sign! Fox plays a grown up child star who's now an agent for other show business kids. His character is delusional in that he still believes that everyone should love him for being Mikey. His big break comes when he meets Angie Vega, a talented child. Vega is abrasive and not at all likeable. In fact, the only likeable character in the whole movie is Cyndi Lauper as a Brooklyn accented receptionist for the agency. One of those movies that makes me want to stick a post-it note to the box warning others not to waste their time!

Sentiment: negative
"Erendira" is a film from Mexico that is rarely talked about. The film only exists in a low quality VHS format. It's a shame this film hasn't been given a DVD release. "Erendira" is stunning and gorgeous with its magic-realist images. "Erendira" is based on a short story from the novel "100 Years of Solitude". Erendira is constantly daydreaming and accidentally burns down her grandma's house. Her evil grandma, played by Irene Papas, forces her into prostitution to pay for the damages. The whole town gets a piece of Erendira, so to speak. Although the subject matter sounds harsh, the film doesn't exploit sexuality. It's done in a mature artistic manner. The film also has some amazing costumes. Some of the more surreal aspects of the film that stand out the most, are the origami birds that morph into real birds, and a golden orange with a diamond in the center. Erendira is an amazing film, that even manages to throw in humor. This is definitely a film that deserves a special DVD release. As they'd say in espanol, "Es muy muy bien !!! Excellente!

Sentiment: positive
One of the few comedic Twilight Zones that's actually really good. We have Floyd The Barber from Andy Griffith Show,The stock in trade Old Geezer dude from Many old westerns,and lovable old Frisby. It also has that cool spacecraft interior that I believe was used in the Sci Fi classic Forbidden Planet.Or else The Day The Earth Stood Sill.Plus the new guys in town are driving an exotic Renault(I think) sports car back in the days when European automobiles were known as "Foreign Jobs" in the U.S.. The whole idea of harmonica as weapon is a hoot.And the fact that Frisby's buddies love him despite being the fact he's a total BS artist is a heartwarming moment.

Sentiment: positive
Spectacular Horror movie that will give you the chills once you get settled with it. The atmosphere is very creepy and stylish, the score is chilling, but the best about the movie is it's performances. It's rare to get scared by performances and this movie's solid acting plays an important part in the scare factor.

The story is very interesting and gets your attention since the first minutes. Though the woman in black does not have much screen time, she makes the necessary appearances to chill the audience in some brilliant scenes. The dialogs are very descriptive and make your imagination work and that's when it becomes really scary. 

If you have the chance, watch this on theater it's a totally different experience but as scary as this movie.

This is one of the best Ghost movies ever and it's directed for people that want to get scared.

Sentiment: positive
This show stinks. For parents, they usually want their kids to watch something good for them. It is usually educational, funny, and bright.

Is it educational? No. the Doodlebops sing and that's it. They usually sing about themselves, they don't try teaching anything.

Is it funny? No. The Doodlebops instead say something which is not intended as a joke, and laugh at it.

Is it bright? It's so bright, it's painful. As far as color,s everything is extremely bright, so that's good. But NOTHING is ever wrong in the world of the Doodlebop's. Therefore, they are always happy. a kid in trouble will become depressed because they have never been exposed to being sad.

The show is also extremely cheesy. Every syllable is said to the highest level of exaggeration and very corny. It's overkill.

For kids, it's entertaining, but past the age of 2 you won't want your kids to see it. They'll never know how to grow up.

Sentiment: negative
By the numbers story of the Kid (Prince), a singer, on his way to becoming a star. Then he falls in love with Apollonia (Appolonia Kotero). But he has to deal with his wife-beating father (Clarence Williams III!) and his own self-destructive behavior.

I saw this in a theatre in 1984. I was no big fan of Prince but I did like the three big songs from this movie--"Purple Rain", "Let's Get Crazy", and "When Doves Cry". The concert scenes in this movie are great--full of energy and excitement. Unfortunately that's a VERY small portion of the movie.

The story is screamingly obvious and have been done many times before--and much better too. The subplots are, to put in nicely, badly handled. The love triangle between The Kid, Appolonia and Morris Day was so predictable and tired that I actually became insulted. His wife beating father is needed for the story, but the scenes are so badly handled (in acting and direction) that I couldn't believe it. The script is terrible--lousy dialogue and some truly painful "comedy" routines. And there's tons of misogyny here--The Kid's mother getting beaten; The Kid hitting Appolonia and (for no reason) Appolonia strips and goes topless to swim in a dirty river. Also Williams' and Princes' characters treat women in a horrible manner constantly.

The acting is where this movie REALLY fails. Appolonia is sweet and beautiful--but no actor. And Prince is (easily) the WORST actor I've ever seen. His blank face and wooden dialogue delivery are so bad I couldn't believe it. This movie only comes to life during the concert scenes but there aren't really that many. The "dramatic" scenes are so badly acted and handled that they make this movie a chore to sit through. They should have just made this a concert film. I give this a 2--only for the music.

Sentiment: negative
I love this movie!!! Purple Rain came out the year I was born and it has had my heart since I can remember. Prince is so tight in this movie. I went to a special showing of Purple Rain last night and it was like a concert i was glad to see some true fans cause this movie is so undervalued, it is really one of the greatest movies of all time. The music is untouchable. The movie is about "The Kid", played by Prince, his family is dysfunctional, his band is the hottest act in town, and he has his eyes on the Apollonia, an aspiring singer. There is no question why purple is my favorite color I can thank "The Kid" for that. So if you have not seen this then you are need to asap. This is a classic - 4ever!

Sentiment: positive
I was expecting a documentary covering the 1950 to 1965 era of Sci-Fi and received a big ol' commercial laced with leftist political innuendo by James Cameron and movie mogul baby boomer's pushing the own works. 'Watch the Skies' has in the past referred to the 'Giant Bug' and 'Space Exploration' movies from the 1950's including such favorites as "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers, "Thing from Another World" and "Forbidden Planet" as well as "Them", "Deadly Mantis" and "Tarantula". There are lower budget examples that rarely get mentioned like "Space Monster", "12 to the Moon" and "Cosmic Man". 

This would have been a much better documentary had the few remaining actors, directors, stunt men and collectors plus the non-Hollywood 'boomer's from the era been interviewed. I only wish there was a "0" rating available since a "1" is much to generous.

Sentiment: negative
This movie tells the tender tale of a demented scientist who, after his fiance is decapitated, goes around ogling strippers so that he can find a suitable body to attach her noggin to. Everyone in this movie exudes more slime than a snail, particularly our protagonist.

Sentiment: negative
I was fortunate enough to meet George Pal (and still have my DS:TMOB poster autographed by him) at a convention shortly after the release, and asked him why he chose to do the film "camp". Before he could answer, two studio flacks intercepted and lectured me on how the studio "knew best" and how "no one will take such a film seriously". I had been reading the Bantam reprints for a couple of years thanks to a friend (ComiCon attendees of the 1970s will recall Blackhawk and his band? I was in a couple of years of that with him), and had higher hopes than what we got.

The flacks insisted that no high adventure would ever be done seriously, and so doing 'camp' was the only way. Several other fans jumped in on my side, with Pal listening as best he could. At the end of the little event, Pal came up to us and apologized, wishing he could have done more and better.

STAR WARS put the lie to the flacks, and a year after Pal's death, Spielberg and Lucas proved that Doc Savage could have easily been the next major movie franchise...if it hadn't been for the flacks.

Tear out the memory or history of Doc, and the film would have been worth a 6/10 rating as nothing more than a mindless popcorn seller.

But destroying the legacy like that was no less an abomination than killing a baby in the crib.

Doc Savage can still come to the screen, and survive the inevitable comparisons by the ill-informed to Indiana Jones, but it would have to be done in all seriousness and earnest to reclaim the glory that we should expect from the First American Superhero.

SIDENOTES: Yes, there was a second script for ARCHENEMY OF EVIL, and it's a lot more serious. Yes, there was simultaneous footage shot, but mostly establishing shots and very little with actors. And, yes, there _is_ a one-sheet of Ron Ely leaping over a brick wall and blasting at something over his shoulder with a specially built bronze pistol. Ely's wearing a duster over a button down white shirt with a bronze tie, and the words "DOC SAVAGE: ARCHENEMY OF EVIL...Coming Next Summer!" POSTSCRIPT: If anyone knows who the studio flacks were that accompanied George Pal in 1975 to San Diego for the convention, smack the idiots up the side of the head and call them the idiots that they are. At the time, they were doing dorkknobs and Fu Manchu in stripes and baggy canvas pants, and carrying Paramount portfolios.

Sentiment: negative
'Utter Crap' pretty well sums up what this...."movie" was. I'd rather examine the colon of an African elephant with a penlight than sit through this again. I think I've wasted enough time watching this "movie" - I don't need to waste more by commenting on it further......

Sentiment: negative
This mini series, also based on a book by Alex Haley as was `Queen', tried to use similar formulas, that is, constructing a long history following the lives of a family over many years. Whereas in `Queen' the result was masterful, here in Mama Flora the inspiration was lacking. Firstly perhaps in the book itself, and most certainly in this TV production. Too much is put in with too much haste over the years, such that the unfolding saga is shallow, superficial, not nearly so authentic as in `Queen'. Full marks for the scenification in the earlier parts of the film, which was prepared with great care, but as the film progressed it seemed to degenerate into a kind of dallasian-forsythian unpalatable mix in the last third of its three hours or so duration. I had hoped for more; but evidently Haley was less inspired with this tale than his near-biographical `Queen', and Peter Werner III is no match for John Erman. Only recommendable for those who have an appetite for these lengthy tales of generations growing up.

Sentiment: negative
It is sad that some find this film worth watching. I am Russian, and I am disgusted. There is nothing in this film that deserves praise, except cinematography. However, I am not one of those who find beauty in death or perversion. I think this film is poorly designed and directed. There is nothing more irritating and even enraging than shameless speculation in art (if you can call this garbage art). Balabanov wanted to shock the viewers by pervasive evil, and he succeeded in creating a hopelessly dark film. But the biggest shock is Balabanov's primitive directorial work. I would never advise any of my friends to watch it. Huge disappointment!

Sentiment: negative
The first half of this movie was quite good. It was interesting and suspenseful. The second half was pretty bad. The comic book revenge story came full circle and we see lots of comic Nazi characters and some badly acted "good guys" blowing them away. There's a lot of violence in this movie. I'm not squeamish about violence but I think it should at least have some purpose in a movie. There was little purpose to the violence here except to create a genre film where we see lots of people getting mowed down with rifles. We're somehow supposed to be amused by this.

I watched Reservoir Dogs recently. There was a movie where violence was employed effectively. It was realistic within the world the movie created. There were never any over-the-top sound effect. It was a crime movie which played it straight. Inglorious Basterds should have played it straight but didn't. I was rolling my eyes at how the violence was exaggerated with sound effects and extra bullets to the head and face.

None of the back-story of any of the Basterds is really explained either, they're simply Nazi hunters. We don't really get to like any of them either because they're too busy cutting scalps off and shooting people in the face. It's all about "revenge" and very little else.

There was 2 1/2 hours to work with here but few of the Basterds were really examined in depth. This seems like it was simply a revenge flick pure and simple. We saw that in Tarantino's last flick, "Death Proof" which I didn't care for either. It suffered the same problems. The characters were almost interchangeable.

The first half again, was pretty good. I wanted to see the exploits of the Inglorious Basterds across Europe. I was presented with a much lamer movie about the resistance movement plotting revenge against some comic book Nazis when they all go to one movie premiere in France.

Sentiment: negative
I love Westerns. I could watch them all day. "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" is my all time favorite. I watched "Silverado" for probably the 8th time just the other day because it was being featured on CMT. However, this movie, Shiloh Falls is without a doubt the worst Western I have ever watched. The acting was terrible all around. They explain nothing at the end of the mysterious compass looking thing. The only good part I can think of is the good-looking cantina girl. The very noticeable long pauses between the dialog seemed intentional just to make up time to make the movie of acceptable length. This movie wasn't even worth the new rental fee I paid at our local movie rental store. I felt like I was robbed and deserving of a rental refund if there was such a thing. Only reason I finished it was because I hate to not see a movie through to the end. I turned it off half way through because it was so bad. To the director, please do a better job if you decide to make another. This is the kind of movie that has the potential to turn people off to Westerns.

Sentiment: negative
Business vs. personal conviction. Profit vs. art.

As with any documentary that pits the capitalist large corporations against the small producer, the viewer will invariably have to take the side of one or the other based on their own believes. This is as much a documentary of the new standardized way of doing things that globalization is bringing us, against the old traditional ways where character and the art of making things matters almost more than getting the product sold.

If you have to remember one thing from this movie, it is that the masses can no longer decide by themselves, they just follow the taste of one or a couple of critics that tend to equalize and standardize taste in the same way as MacDonalds used to do for the fast bite (something Parker himself admits to in the film against a backdrop of a Burger King sign). "It is all about image" against content as another interviewee says. That is the easy way, the standardized way. Easier than taking the time for a nice wine to mature, easier than to forge your own taste by trying and trying yet over again. Controlled branded taste is easier.

There is a glitter of hope when even some of our cousins across the ocean agree that a few people are "levelling" the taste of wines to maximize the profits and ensure a maximum of it gets sold to the "grey masses". Individuality and difference is sacrificed for the extra buck. It is nice to see that not everything or everyone is giving in to standardization, even across the ocean.

As in many other areas of today's world, dominance of a few and reduced freedom of choice impacts us all... let everyone make up their mind and decide what to go for. Too much standardization kills the mind and taste; difference brings innovation and healthy competition and will allow for choice - and not just vacuum-packed "more of the same". Standardization sells easily and a lot, and brings everyone to the same level - the lower one.

On this, I am going to open up a nice bottle and wish you a hearthy "sante".

Sentiment: positive
In my opinion, this is a good example of the movie that could have been much better if it had been short 10 years earlier. I doubt it would benefit from modern technologies, but it would have looked much better if it was at least 90 minutes instead of 70.

The artists and animated did a great job. In my opinion, this movie can boast the best background art and one of the best character design. Animation are extremely smooth and realistic. For the duration of the movie you believe in the world you see, so everyone did a great job. It can also boast one of the sexiest female animated characters, if not the sexiest, that beets typical anime girls with ease.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of bad thins about this movie that will make it not so appealing at the moment. First, the plot and execution is comparable to contemporary adventure movies, and is really old-fashioned by modern standards. Second, due to the duration time it would benefit a lot from extra 20 minutes of dialogs. Finally, the setting is not so popular at the moment.

Conclusion: a great alternative to another short story about Conan the Barbarian, but not to a novel.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is definately one of my favourite movies in it's kind. The interaction between respectable and morally uncorruptable characters is an ode to chivalry and the honour code amongst thieves and policemen. It treats themes like duty, guilt, word, manipulation and trust like few films have done and, unfortunately, none that I can recall since the death of the 'policial' in the late seventies. The sequence is delicious, down to the essential, living nothing out and thus leading the spectator into a masterful plot right and wrong without accessory eye catching and spectacular scenes that are often needed in lesser specimens of the genre in order to keep the audience awake. No such scenes are present or needed. The argument is flowless and honest to the spectator, wich is an important asset in a genre in wich the the suspense is often achieved through the betrail of the audience. No, this is not miss Marble... A note of congratulations for the music is in order A film to watch and savour every minute, not just to see.

Sentiment: positive
In 1993, "the visitors" was an enormous hit in France. So, the sequence was inevitable and unfortunately, this sequence ranks among the worst ones ever made. 

This is a movie that doesn't keep its promises. Indeed, it's supposed to tell a sole story. Jean Reno must go in the twentieth century and take Christian Clavier back in the Middle Ages so that time can normally follow its course. The problem is that Clavier feels completely at ease in the world of the twentieth century, and so make him get back in the Middles Ages is rather hard... Instead of this, the movie goes on several other stories without succeeding in following the main plot. As a consequence, the movie becomes sometimes muddle-headed, sometimes a bit of a mess.

But the movie also suffers from the performance of nearly all the actors. Reno and Clavier fall into the trap that however they could avoid in the first movie: they're going over the top and become annoying. Then, why did Jean-Marie Poiré the film-maker engage Muriel Robin in the female main role? He made a mistake because she seems ill-at-ease and is absolutely pitiful. The other actors aren't better: Marie-Anne Chazel is nonexistent and Christian Bujeau, unbearable.

 Of course, the movie contains a few good moments with efficient gags but it often falls into vulgarity and easiness. Certain sequences and dialogs are affected. It also appears hollow because Poiré takes back elements that secured the success of the first movie. Thus, a young girl takes Reno for a close relative of her family and asks him to take part in her wedding.

A labored and disappointing follow-up. Anyway, what's the interest of this movie otherwise commercial?



Sentiment: negative
Roy Scheider is not Steve McQueen or Clint Eastwood but then who is? The Seven-Ups is one of the better cop movies, even today, and is second only to McQueen's Bullitt and the Dirty Harry series, which isn't bad company. There are three things that seem to make a good cop movie: Believable script with great acting, great car chase scenes, and some heavy action. This movie has all three and the car chase scene is better than that in Dirty Harry. Scheider plays the head of a group of cops out to get NY's bad guys sentenced to seven years or more; hence the name Seven-Ups. Overall, not quite up to Dirty Harry or Bullitt but far better than all of the cop movies made since the Dirty Harry series. 9/10.

Sentiment: positive
Considering the appalling track record of Mick Molloy since going out on his own, I had rather low expectations of Crackerjack. Even the promotional posters for the movie had me nervous. In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that I'd received free tickets to the preview, I would have resisted the pressure from the missus (who thinks Mick's a hunk - there's a worry) to pay money for it.

The first few minutes of the movie had me worried - it starts with one of Micks tired "get angry at insignificant things" routines, but that was given a neat touch, which at least made it a little refreshing. The rest of the script was pretty good, and very light hearted - even the typical Mick Molloy (and Judith Lucy) humour was delivered well and whilst I never had to pick myself up from the aisles, it generated a lot more chuckles that I was expecting (and it was consistant).

There's nothing new in the plot - pretty predictable, but it moved along quickly between one-liners and other jokes - I never felt it harboured on any element too long or too short; Mick must have worked hard on polishing his script. There were a one or two "Late Show" in-jokes, and one or two jokes that only Melbournians would get - but certainly there's plenty of generic stuff in there for a wider audience.

Something that I found disappointing was the relative unfunnyness of John Clarke - he just didn't seem to work as the bad guy, but that doesn't detract from the movie too much.

Over all, I enjoyed this Australain comedy, and was pleasantly entertained for the duration of the movie. I left the cinema with a decent sized grin - a pretty hard thing for an Australian comedy to do in my books. 7.5/10



Sentiment: positive
Steven Seagal has made a really dull, bad and boring movie. Steven Seagal plays a doctor!!!!!!???! This movie has got a few action-scenes but they are poorly directed and have nothing to do with the rest of the movie. A group of American Nazis spread a lethal virus, which is able to wipe out the state of Montana. Wesley(Seagal`s character)tries desperately to find a cure, and that is the story of The Patriot. The Patriot is an extremely boring film, because nothing happens. It is filled with boring dialogue, and illogical gaps between events, and stupid actors. Steven Seagal has totally scre#¤d up in this movie, and I would not recommend this guff to my worst enemy. 3/10

Sentiment: negative
Pretentious claptrap, updating Herman Melville (!), about a young man's vaguely incestuous relationship with his aristocratic mother getting transferred to his long-lost sister who has been raised by gypsies. Or something like that  not that anyone really cares to unravel its multi-layered plot decked out with pornographic sex scenes, pseudo-symbolic imagery (the siblings swimming in a river of blood) and other bizarre touches (a gypsy child repeatedly insults passers-by in the street until she is anonymously beaten to death, the deafening music of a rock group utilized in the demolition of old buildings). Considering the source material and the presence of Catherine Deneuve (who at least gets to bathe in the nude), I was expecting a lot more from this one; apparently, there's an even longer TV version of POLA X out there

Sentiment: negative
Sandwiched in between San Francisco and Captains Courageous two of Spencer Tracy's greatest parts is this very curious film about war and the effects it has on some people. They Gave Him A Gun stars Spencer Tracy and Franchot Tone in the only film they ever made together and Gladys George as the woman who loves them both.

Tracy and Tone are a couple of World War I draftees, Tone is a weak character who almost goes over the hill in boot camp, but Tracy stops him. Tracy is still playing the lovable blowhard, younger Wallace Beery type that MGM envisioned for him when they signed him away from Fox. 

Over at the front Tone gets an opportunity and takes it when during a fight he manages to get to a church tower that peers down on a German machine gun nest. He's learned to shoot by now and he does a Sergeant York. But Alvin C. York was never changed by the war the way Tone has.

Wounded in the fight Tone convalesces at a hospital with Gladys George looking out for him. Tracy goes AWOL himself to visit his pal and he and George get something going. Later on when Tracy is reported missing in action, Tone and George marry. Tracy's brokenhearted when he comes back and learns of the marriage, but takes sit in stride. 

The rest of the film is dealing with Tone applying the the wartime skills he's learned to the gangster trade. He's a hit-man now and George doesn't really know what he does for a living. I think you can figure the rest out.

The part of the film that gave me some trouble is that I can't believe Gladys George couldn't figure it out. She's a street smart girl, her part is very much like the one she played in The Roaring Twenties opposite James Cagney.

Speaking of The Roaring Twenties, Humphrey Bogart's character development there is similar to Tone's although he was not the central character of the movie. In fact there are elements of They Gave Him A Gun that are to be found in Taxi Driver and in Clint Eastwood's classic, The Unforgiven. 

The World War I battle sequences are very well staged by director Woody Van Dyke. For some reason Leonard Maltin panned this film, I think it's a lot better than he gave it credit.

Sentiment: positive
One of the major aspects of "Malenkaya Vera" (called "Little Vera" in English) is that it was the first movie from the Soviet Union that featured a sex scene, albeit a short one. The title is important: Vera is the Russian word for "faith", identifying that punk Vera (Natalya Negoda) has little faith in the Soviet system. And as the movie shows, there's not much faith to be had in it. The opening scene shows the bleak industrial town of Zhdanov, nearly a hell on earth. When Vera's lover Sergei (Andrey Sokolov) moves in with her family, it leads to some unexpected events.

Like in many Russian movies, people's names describe their characters. For example, there's Viktor (remember that "victor" means winner). All in all, this is a good look at the Soviet Union while it was collapsing - and we can see why it was collapsing. Really good.

Sentiment: positive
How could they take such a beautifully animated gem like Don Bluth's All Dogs go to Heaven and bastardize it with a charmless, cheesy, uninspired sequel. The haunting music and delightful characters are gone, now replaced with tacky animation and an unimaginative plot.

The Pros: Charlie Sheen is sometimes fun as Charlie, but he lacks the charming tough guy attitude that brought him to life by Burt Reynolds. I did particularly enjoy the songs "I will always be with you" and "It's too Heavenly here".

The Cons: There seems to be no connection between this and the original. In the beginning Charlie is chums with Carface, but wait a minute. Isn't this the same character who was responsible for Charlie's murder and kidnapped the sweet little orphan he loved? I guess that all changes in Heaven but why isn't Anne-Marie even mentioned? If Itchy makes it to Heaven, wouldn't Flo and Killer make it too? What is with Annabelle the whippet's voice? In the original it sounded feminine and charming and in the sequel it sounds like a whiny, bitchy, parrot. The new characters aren't all that great (except Sasha). And the animation is better compared to a generic Saturday morning cartoon. The constant cartoony "humor" is flat and unfunny and the "heart" just doesn't work when compare to the original, which had such a moving unsubtle touch that makes me cry every time.

All Dogs go to Heaven is one of my all-time favorite films. How Don Bluth allowed this sequel to be made is beyond me.

BOTTOM LINE: Not all sequels go to Heaven.

Sentiment: negative
This movie took the Jerry Springer approach to super-human power. "Wilder Napalm" is the kind of theme-based movie that I love, addressing the idea that prodigies in America are defined either by their gifts or by attempts to hide them. At the same time, the movie points out that every prodigy is only human, and no more to be feared or worshipped than any other human being. This was a great comedy, fun and human with that slight satiric edge.

Sentiment: positive
***SPOILER*** Do not read this, if you think about watching that movie, although it would be a waste of time. (By the way: The plot is so predictable that it does not make any difference if you read this or not anyway)

If you are wondering whether to see "Coyote Ugly" or not: don't! It's not worth either the money for the ticket or the VHS / DVD. A typical "Chick-Feel-Good-Flick", one could say. The plot itself is as shallow as it can be, a ridiculous and uncritical version of the American Dream. The young good-looking girl from a small town becoming a big success in New York. The few desperate attempts of giving the movie any depth fail, such as the "tragic" accident of the father, the "difficulties" of Violet's relationship with her boyfriend, and so on. McNally (Director) tries to arouse the audience's pity and sadness put does not have any chance to succeed in this attempt due to the bad script and the shallow acting. Especially Piper Perabo completely fails in convincing one of "Jersey's" fear of singing in front of an audience. The only good (and quite funny thing) about "Coyote Ugly" is John Goodman, who represents the small ray of hope of this movie.

I was very astonished, that Jerry Bruckheimer produced this movie. First "Gone In 60 Seconds" and now this... what happened to great movies like "The Rock" and "Con Air"? THAT was true Bruckheimer stuff.

If you are looking for a superficial movie with good looking women just to have a relaxed evening, you should better go and see "Charlie's Angels" (it's much more funny, entertaining and self-ironic) instead of this flick.

Two thumbs down (3 out of 10).

Sentiment: negative
I was really horrified by this eerie movie. What an unusual dark atmosphere. And such a creepy musical score. Really promising! Indeed, after ten minutes you really start sweating, and feeling uncomfortable, for you start fearing the worst. This movie has the atmosphere of a true nightmare, and what's worse-it all comes out. For one hour and a half I have been trying to fight complete boredom and falling asleep, but the monstrous soundtrack kept me awake. Nuit Noire is a truly horrifying picture - for your eyes, your ears, your intelligence, and most of all: your wallet, since the thought of spending precious money on a movie ticket for this cheap amateuristic homevideo is the biggest horror of all.

Sentiment: negative
Henry Thomas was "great". His character held my attention. I was so "into" the story that I forgot it wasn't real. I wanted him to keep the baby and see what a special person he was. The other people in the story were essential in the makeup of his character. The way they banded together to help one another was truly awe inspiring. I love movies that show the real side of human emotions without having to hit you over the head, in that you are not smart enough to figure things out for yourself.

Sentiment: positive
Dear Readers, 2001: A Space Odyssey is Kubrick at his best...although I really can't say that as Space Odyssey is his only film I've ever watched. But still, it's a good film. Strange, but good.

The movie is in three acts, much like the novel...which is unsurprising since the author wrote the screenplay. Anyhow, we first start out with the simple yet spectacular opening with Also Sparach Zarathustra blaring on the speakers. Then comes the boring beyond belief 'Dawn of Man' sequence. Then there's the odd 'Finding of the Monolith' sequence on the Moon, played to Strauss's Blue Danube. Finally things get good with the Spaceship scenes and HAL going berserk and killing people. After that things die down and we have the 'Entering the Monolith' sequence which was WAY too long and the ultra-strange ending. Even though, 2001: A Space Odyssey is a good film. It's not Star Wars, Stargate, Terminator, or The Abyss, but it rocks. My compliments to the chef, Mr. Kubrick.

Signed, The Constant DVD Collector

Sentiment: positive
It seems evident from this adaptation that he did not. Not only did he leave the plot behind, he made up his own! The things that he chose to leave in were so ridiculously unbelievable that I was happy he chose to leave out some of the most important parts of the novel. The plot was hazy, inconsistent and choppy to say the least. I don't want to say anything mean-spirited about the actors, but they can't act! Dickens is difficult, of course, but this is pathetic! Micawber was nothing more than a mid-nineteenth century Kramer, and the less said about Betsy Trotwood the better! If you want to see the real Copperfield, watch the wonderful 1999 BBC adaptation. As for the screenplay writer,I think he read the Cliff's Notes!

Sentiment: negative
This might be the poorest example of amateur propaganda ever made. The writers and producers should study the German films of the thirties and forties. They knew how to sell. Even soviet-style clunky leader as god-like father-figure were better done. Disappointing. The loss of faith, regained in church at last second just in time for daddy to be "saved" by the Hoover/God was not too bad. Unfortunately, it seemed rushed and not nearly melodramatic enough. A few misty heavenlier shots of the angelical Hoover up in the corner of the screen-beaming and nodding- would have added a lot. The best aspect is Hoover only saving the deserving family and children WHO had "proven" their worth. Unfortunately, other poor homeless were portrayed as likable and even good- yet the Hoover-God doesn't help them. A better approach would have been shots of them drinking spirits to show the justice of their condition. Finally, bright and cheerful scenes of recovery (after Hoover saved the country from the depression) should have rolled at the end. We could see then how Hoover-God had saved not just THIS deserving family, but all the truly deserving. Amateurist at best.

Sentiment: negative
Although it isn't mentioned very often, "Don't Look in the Basement" is a very interesting film and is definitely worth a watch. The story follows a young nurse, Charlotte Beale, who is hired at Stephen's Sanitarium to replace Dr. Stephens, after he is murdered by a patient. Many patients begin to torment Miss Beale, and her boss, Dr. Geraldine Masters, acts as if she's hiding something...

This movie has many appealing characters that you actually end up caring about, and have sympathy for during the climax, which doesn't happen very often in horror films. The musical score is great and is reminiscent of "Dark Shadows," the performance from Rosie Holotik, Rhea McAdams, and Bill McGhee are all great, the story is very intriguing with a great twist ending. This movie has a campy atmosphere around it that no other film I have ever seen has been able to capture. Many horror fans have never seen or even heard of this film which is really unfortunate because it could have been a horror classic. "Don't Look in the Basement" is definitely worth watching for all fans of 1970s drive-in films.

Sentiment: positive
First of all, no one with any law enforcement experience (Not ER or EMT, but real law enforcement) takes this show seriously. Walker would be drummed out of any police force in the US for his illegal and totally unprofessional tactics. On top of that, he is a comic book character---no acting ability, incredibly trite lines, no character development. The fact that Alex Cahill loves him shows just how dumb blondes really are. And Trivett is the ultimate clown in black-face. Come on---if you think Walker is a heartfelt show without bias, then explain why JT is treated as a dolt, always is the subject of Walker's jokes, never is allowed to be the one to solve the crime, and never rescues Walker, who should be dead 50 times over for the stupid things he does. While it may be true that many criminals are even dumber than the detectives who go after them (and believe me, most cops are dumber than dirt), the smart ones Walker comes up against never seem to get the point that once Walker is captured, the jerk needs to be put of his misery. But then again, Norris produced the show as well as starred in it, so how could he willingly get rid of himself or even show how stupid his tactics are. As if six guys are going to wait around to take him one at a time. What a terrible series! It is more demeaning than any of the hokey westerns like The Lone Ranger, Roy Rogers, The Cisco Kid, and Wild Bill Hickock, though I would imagine that most of you on here are far too young to remember those shows. But like those shows, in the same way as those shows, Walker TR is just as insulting and just plain silly.

Sentiment: negative