DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
COC had its moments. I enjoyed the action sequences, but I despised the screenplay and plot. I hate this film so much, I'll just write about the dumbest part. First of all, the plot would never happen. Second, the bleakness of the Chinese President was uncalled for. That would never happen. Finally, the dialogue. Employing non-Chinese actors to play Chinese roles is understandable, but to write dialogue for them that's TOTALLY OFF is dumb! For those of you who understood the Chinese in the film, you know what I mean.

Sentiment: negative
A sober, reflexive piece, a little miniature which blossoms into a magnificent humane pictorial sequence which goes beyond a mere dramatization for the screen. This quiet little story will hold you enthralled - if you do not have too many problems with the various Spanish accents ranging from Mexican to Peruvian, and Marisa Paredes' more authentic Iberian Peninsular usage! Garcíadiego has accomplished a perfect adaptation from the novel: even the grand maestro García Márquez should be proud of her superb work. And hats off to Arturo Ripstein who has so ably concerted the whole effort into a gem, a ruby, and so refined, so elegant, so sensitive, so touchingly.....

El Coronel - Fernando Luján - is waiting to get his pension, while he continues to live in his ramshackle timber dwelling deep in the Colombian jungle (however, filmed elsewhere, NOT in Colombia) with his fighting cock and his wife (in that order?). And that is all there is to it.

But, oh, so much more.... This film is a rhapsody.

I must see this poetic little piece again as soon as possible. Worth the high side of 8 out of 10, which is very high on my scale.

This is not light commercial Hollywood stuff.

Sentiment: positive
This is another of my favorite Columbos. It sports a top-notch cast, including John Cassavetes, who was never handsomer or sexier, Anjanette Comer, Myrna Loy, and Blythe Danner. Now here's something I've always wondered - had Gwenyth Paltrow been born when this episode was shot, or was Danner pregnant at the time? Thanks to IMDb, I have my answer - she was five months' pregnant. Now I can really feel ancient.

Cassavetes plays a brilliant conductor whose marriage to Danner was apparently to use the social connections of her mother (Loy). He has a mistress on the side, Anjanette Comer, a prominent pianist, but she announces she wants more. She's sick of being back street. On the night of their concert, he gets rid of her and makes it look like suicide. Columbo picks up a few problems immediately. One thing he notices: "You have a beautiful woman here - bedroom eyes - she has money, a body, and a career. Where's the man?" It's wonderful to see Falk and good friend Cassavetes together. There's a very funny episode at the vet with Columbo's Bassett. Everyone in the cast is great.

This is one of the episodes that made Columbo the classic series it became.

Sentiment: positive
Never viewed this film until recently on TCM and found this story concerning Poland and a small town which had to suffer with the Nazi occupation of the local towns just like many other European Cities for example: Norway. The First World War was over and people in this town were still suffering from their lost soldiers and the wounded which War always creates. Alexander Knox, ( Wilhelm Gimm)"Gorky Park" returns from the war with a lost leg and was the former school teacher in town. He was brought up a German and was not very happy with the Polish people and they in turn did not fully accept him either. As the Hitler party grew to power Wilhelm Grimm desired to become a Nazi in order to return and punish this small Polish town for their treatment towards him which was really all in his mind. Marsha Hunt,(Marja Pacierkowski),"Chloe's Prayer", played an outstanding role as a woman who lost her husband and was romantically involved with Whilhelm Gimm. There are many flashbacks and some very real truths about how the Nazi destroyed people's families and their entire lives. The cattle cars are shown in this picture with Jewish people heading to the Nazi gas chambers. If you have not seen this film, and like this subject matter, give it some of your time; this film is very down to earth for a 1944 film and a story you will not forget too quickly.

Sentiment: positive
Apparently, this is what happens when a director allows his 14-year old nephew to rewrite the dialogue on the set while he indulges himself alcoholically in the meantime; as I said earlier, although I've always wanted to catch one of Paul Naschy's werewolf pictures, this atrocity served as my introduction and, as awful as it most certainly is, I still intend to pursue other entries in the series, albeit very gradually.

Despite some high profile disappointments like Joe Dante's THE HOWLING (1981), I love werewolf pictures in general but, to be honest, I quickly lost interest in this film's "plot" and just stood there gazing at my TV screen counting its absurdities as it were. There were far too many to mention them here but I have to say two which struck me as particularly hilarious were the schizophrenic nature of the Werewolf persona (i.e. going from a raging beast in one shot to a dazed, zombie-like state in the very next one - as if he's on a casual midnight stroll in the countryside, and sporting an entirely different wardrobe to boot...and, yes, I did know the reasons for this beforehand), as well as the "Phantom Of The Opera" look of the Wolfstein character! But what do I know - perhaps the elusive full-length version of this mess could very well have been a bona-fide horror classic!

Sentiment: negative
Robert DeNiro plays the most unbelievably intelligent illiterate of all time. This movie is so wasteful of talent, it is truly disgusting. The script is unbelievable. The dialog is unbelievable. Jane Fonda's character is a caricature of herself, and not a funny one. The movie moves at a snail's pace, is photographed in an ill-advised manner, and is insufferably preachy. It also plugs in every cliche in the book. Swoozie Kurtz is excellent in a supporting role, but so what?

Equally annoying is this new IMDB rule of requiring ten lines for every review. When a movie is this worthless, it doesn't require ten lines of text to let other readers know that it is a waste of time and tape. Avoid this movie.

Sentiment: negative
The plot involves a new, hipper franchise barbershop that is moving across the street from Calvin's barbershop. So, he feels like he has to change and improve his shop by getting newer stuff and such. Sounds real exciting huh. As for the rest of the film, a lot of it involves the same material from the first film. The people that work at Calvin's stand around, talk loud, and mouth off to each other and the customers. Once again Cedric the Entertainer was mildly funny, but it is more like he's doing a stand-up routine than anything to do with the movie. And Calvin is faced with another moral issue involving taking a large sum of money. He's already shown that he will do the right thing in the end.

FINAL VERDICT: Nothing new. I don't recommend it unless you thought the first Barbershop was the best thing since sliced bread.

Sentiment: negative
I was blubbing like an idiot during the last ten minutes of this exceptional piece of television. I have to say that the idea of sitting down to view 90 minutes of what was bound to be pretty depressing material on a Sunday, was not a welcome one. The thought of yet another, over worthy, BAFTA winning possibility did not enthuse me......However the end result knocked me for 6. This is some of the best television I have seen in ages. For years I was under the impression that all originality had left the BBC's drama department. Our Friends in the North was the last production that truly blew me away and that was 10 years ago. However faith is restored and honour is satisfied. David Tenant was incredible! So many actors I can think of would have really gone to town on a part like this, but never once did I see Mr Tenant as an actor or as the Doctor, all I saw was Alan Hamilton. I haven't had my heart wrenched this much since Daniel Craigs performance as Geordie Peacock all those years ago. Sarah Parish was also incredible and I really hope this role brings her better roles in the future. All of the cast were great but special mention must go to the director who really placed us inside Alans head. The toaster scene, in particular, made me feel quite queasy.

Sentiment: positive
I must pat myself on the back for watching this movie all the way through because it truly was painful. An incapable painter becomes a fully capable hit-man? This movie was rife with absurdities of which if I mentioned them all I would be giving away the movie. Norm Peterson aka George Wendt must really be in a rut to have agreed to do this movie. The acting was deplorable and the story was even worse. As a sane minded and rational individual, I could not understand where the writer came from nor where he was going with this movie. There was ineptness on the part of every main character, there was a string of hapless and ridiculous events, then the movie ended. One absurd act after another with dialogue doesn't make a movie, it only makes a talkative train wreck.

Sentiment: negative
This is quite a dull movie. Well-shot with realistic performances especially a very good one from Depardieu as a cad and bad boy with realistic locations mood and art-house connotations all over, it fails because the director takes no position, stand or critical commentary on the topic he stipulates. One of France's revered and regular working partner on films with Depardieu - I believe they made 7 together - Pialat fails to engage. It seems to be a treatise on why women fall for the bad boy who will hurt when they have a ready caring boyfriend and good-hearted husband around. Isabelle Hupert who plays the philanderer with nonchalant distinction offers opprobrium answers like "I don't know"; "I like his arms"; "I like the way he makes love" to her inquiring husband who tries to kick her out of the house but palliates and reconsiders because... I assume he loves her. So he accepts and hope for what? That she will one day wake up and come to her senses. Things like this are not answered in Pialat's condescending docu-drama style with long speeches and even longer scenes that don't add up. I know the answers do not add up but please take a stand. Jules et Jim, this is not. The final shot as cold as the movie we have just watched is a heartache and headache only to the most forgiving.

Sentiment: positive
Most of this political thriller presented as a mostly run of the mill movie with a somewhat better development of many of the major characters, that was much appreciated, until the BIG twist and powerful climax that recalled twists experienced in "Silence of the Lambs," or "The Sixth Sense." Reese Witherspoon as the distraught wife of the missing Egyptian husband and Yigal Naor as the strong-armed interrogator offer strong performances. Jake Gyllenhaal unfortunately is handed a more two-dimensional character and has to struggled with a stereotypical presentation of the emotionally torn CIA analyst that has been presented many times before in other movies. Early on there is the nice scene with an explosion that resembles a scene at the end of "Saving Private Ryan," the silent scene that was used so effectively in reflecting one consequence of violence. The script also provides a little more glimpse into the mind-set of the "enemy" but still doesn't allow the audience really much understanding, again permitting the audience to wallow in stereotypical characterization. The cinematography and photography also is somewhat of a letdown because unlike "Jarhead," or "Blackhawk Down," the crisp, raw visceral presentation is missing not allowing the audience to really be there in the movie, there is some distance that keeps the audience from realizing the intensity of the emotions occurring on the screen. However, overall, the movie redeems itself by the end, offering the audience a measured look into the complexity of the United States' use of rendition and the possible complications and consequences that may occur through its use. Eight out of Ten Stars.

Sentiment: positive
People love the original story for its ending. The Hollywood style ending made this 99 version of 'A Dog of Flanders' just for kids movie. I didn't cry this time because the story was too Hollywood. Japanese TV series are much better.

Sentiment: negative
Let me start out by saying this movie has 1 funny point at the very beginning with the exchange between the narrator and George: Narrator:Huh? Wait a minute! Who the heck are you? George: Me new George. Studio too cheap to pay Brendan Fraser. Narrator: How did you get the part? George: New George just lucky, I guess. 

Sadly, that's the only funny part in the entire movie.

It was still entertaining...But then again, i'm easily entertained...

I wouldn't say this is the worst movie i've ever seen (that title goes to the terribly un-funny Disaster Movie...), This movie falls #7 on my bottom 15 list...

If your a small child who is easily entertained, you'll enjoy this movie. If you're a movie-watcher who wants a good, funny movie, You'll end up shooting yourself halfway through this one..

Sentiment: negative
I remember watching this film on Saturday afternoon TV in the 1950s or 60s. It was well presented but I do remember there was a message of hope broadcast from transmitters secreted in lamposts in one of the last maniacal executions for impending liberation. I'm not sure that squares with the facts.

Still the film is well done. The German High Command reports wryly without emotion "The Russians are advancing down The Fredrich Strasse" as if all went according to plan.

it was my impression that this film and a later American made for TV knock-off was based on the British historian Trevor-Roper's account by a similar title Last Days of Hitler. I was surprised to see no credit to Trevor-Roper.

I agree the newest German film on the subject DOWNFALL was as well done as the classic. The American knock-off was a little flat.

Few figures have attracted as much attention from the cinema as Adolph. Yet I find it interesting that none of the many films and books that have come out ever speak of Hitler's double alluded to in passing in John Toland's magnificent historical piece.

Was gibs?

Sentiment: positive
I'm no fan of newer movies, but this one was a real pleasure to watch. Adults and children could watch it together - how unusual! My aunt liked it, too. It had laughter, tears, love, adventure, special effects, good actors - and a talking parrot. It reminded me of a favourite, The Wizard of Oz. The hero, Paulie, an intelligent parrot, is separated from his home and family and goes through many adventures, temptations and disappointments, always keeping in mind his resolution to find his friend, Marie. Highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
I was completely mislead by the comments on this film, mainly by someone saying they saw it at a film festival and loved every minute of it. Expecting this to be a nice run of the mill American pie style film, I was deeply disappointed.

Firstly the camera work is awful, I don't think the director knows that cameras can move around scenes rather than stay still and having the actors move close up and far away of their own accord.

Secondly the scenery! My god I've seen more furnishings in a bird's nest. The club was totally unconvincing with around 3 extras dancing in the back ground at any one time. The flats were bare and lacked personality.

Thirdly the actors. Wow. The director obviously went for the typical "Reaper" character set up, a wimpy main character with a gruff "I don't give a f**k" character that takes pot shots at the main. Everything the main character said and did was a chore, so much so it made me wince.

Overall the plot, the supposedly big revenge theme, lasted for about 30 seconds and lacked any real motivation. The characters acted irrationally and didn't seem to have any real relationship with anyone else. No character had any depth to them, they may as well have been cardboard cut outs walking past the static camera.

A truly horrible piece, worse than a first year students 2 minute short for youtube. Advice to the director? Change your name and deny any association with the film that will probably sell one copy at a yard sale in Ohio.

Sentiment: negative
While out divining for water, a young psychic woman named Jessica Burns (Carolyn Kearney) stumbles upon something else altogether. She discovers a chest that has been buried for centuries on her aunt's ranch. Instead of the treasure her aunt is hoping for, the chest contains the head of Gideon Drew, a devil worshiper who was beheaded by Sir Francis Drake. Telepathically controlling the hired-hand who opened the chest, Drew's head goes on a murderous spree in search of the rest of his body  also buried on Jessica's aunt's farm. While Jessica is certain she feels the presence of evil, can she put a stop to Drew's plans and will she be in time to prevent his becoming whole? 

I thought I was fairly familiar with most of Universal's horror output prior to 1960, but this is one Universal film from the 50s that certainly gets little mention. While The Thing That Couldn't Die isn't what I would call a "good" movie, it does have a few things going for it. First, the film has some interesting ideas and is actually rather ambitious. Director Will Cowan, whether by luck or intention, is able to give the movie some nice atmosphere from time-to-time. And, the special effects involving the head are certainly creepy. But the whole project is undone by the acting. I'm shocked to learn that any of the supposed "actors" in this thing ever appeared in anything else. You would think that this was a "one and done" type of movie for most of those involved. Kearney is the worst offender. She's horrible. Also, The Thing That Couldn't Die may have been a bit too ambitious for its own good. Given the budget and other limitations, there was no way the movie could aspire to its more lofty ideas. Finally, the movie ends rather abruptly. Just as things are starting to get interesting, The End. What's that about?

Sentiment: negative
Boring. Minimal plot. No character development. I went into this movie with high expectations from the book. It COULD have been an awesome movie. It COULD have probably become a cult classic. Nope, it was a giant let-down. It was poorly cast and had horrible special effects. It was difficult to determine who were the bad guys: the rebels or the military or the church or all of them? I am still left puzzled by certain mini-plots from the movie. I am left dumbfounded as to certain aspects of this so-called "prophecy", which is never really FULLY explained. I felt like I was watching a corny episode of a mini-series on the sci-fi channel. It seemed very much like a made-for-TV movie. Don't go see this movie. It is a waste of time AND money.

Sentiment: negative
I rented this movie because the cover was cool looking, the first 15 minutes of the movie are okay and somehow interesting, but once the young woman and her little sister go on their trip everything goes to hell and the movie becomes boring.

Sentiment: negative
Growing up in NYC in the late 80's/early 90's club-scene, I can personally say this is one of the most important documentaries made in covering that place in this time period. No Madonna did not come up with the idea of Voguing but this is where she got it from! Instead of taking out violence on each other or in bitchy cat fights, voguing allowed people to "fight" within the confines of everything short of touching each other (which would warrant an automatic disqualification). Seeing these kind of extraordinarily talented/well orchestrated "throw-downs" in the clubs was nothing short of spectacular and all the big names from back in the day are here...Pepper La Beija, Paris Duprée,Xtragavaganza, etc...all commemorated in the likes of such period-pieces as Malcom McLaren's song "Deep in Vogue"...it didn't matter who you were, or where you were from because when you walked through those doors into this "magic kingdom" of sorts, you became part of something bigger than yourself/you were important/and most importantly the creation of your own moves and imagination...and anybody from anywhere could become King (or Queen) as the case may have been. The words and wit were just as sharp as the moves on the floor. All of the tension, excitement, and magic of that very urban NYC energy is captured in this film. BRILLIANT!!! PLEASE RELEASE ON DVD for the world to see!!! Thank You!

Sentiment: positive
While amiable and amusing for gay audiences, Frank Oz's film "In and Out," about a closeted gay teacher who has been outed on national television by a former student, has been sanitized and deodorized to appeal to the larger and more profitable straight viewers that patronized "The Bird Cage." Although audiences likely patted themselves on the back for being tolerant and liberal enough to see the film, the movie revolves around Kevin Kline's Howard Brackett, who is a grossly stereotyped gay man. The movie asserts that a tendency to dance to disco music, revel in Barbra Streisand movies, and dress well indicates one's sexual orientation. Like "Queer Eye," the film actually takes a backhanded slap at straight men and stereotypes them as slovenly, dim witted, and lacking in taste and culture. OK, so "In and Out" is only a comedy, but even comedies send messages that can hurt.

Unfortunately, at the center of the film's humor lies a somewhat pathetic character. Howard is middle aged, deeply closeted or in self-denial, and evidently has never had a sex life. A three-year engagement to a female teacher in the school where he works is described as a series of sunsets, long talks, and watching "Funny Lady." Fortunately, Joan Cusack plays Howard's intended, Emily Montgomery, and she steals the show throughout. Most of the film's funniest moments belong to her, although Kline's attempts to resist dancing during an instruction tape on macho behavior are hilarious. He is a gifted physical performer, but the film gives him only few moments to shine. Matt Dillon also stands out as the student turned actor, and the clip from his Oscar-nominated film about a gay soldier is hysterical. However, despite the movie's gay theme, there is no boy-meets-boy romance, and only one male-to-male kiss, and that smooch is about as erotic as the one between Michael and Fredo Corleone in "Godfather II." 

Although well intentioned, "In and Out" fails to address the injustices and prejudices that it illustrates. Howard is fired from his teaching job despite his outstanding performance and credentials, yet little outrage is expressed. Most of the characters are more upset about the cancelled wedding than about Howard's self-realization, which seems to take place overnight, and his abrupt and unjust dismissal. Not surprisingly, Howard's parents, endearingly portrayed by Debbie Reynolds and Wilford Brimley, and his students rise to support him. However, the sugary finale is as embarrassing to the audience as it evidently was to Howard Brackett in the film. The movie would have been more refreshing if it had revolved around a gay man who dressed like a slob, was a rabid fan of football, drove a station wagon, listened to country music, and lived on fast food. Despite some good performances and funny situations, "In and Out" perpetuates stereotypes and, whether they be positive or negative, stereotypes should be consigned to the dustbin of social history.

Sentiment: positive
What can you say about this movie? It was not terrible, but it was not good! Two days earlier I had watched Lillies and that was one of the best Gay films I have ever seen. So this was not the best time to watch a mediocre Gay flick.

The story was silly and the acting was OK. It was not bad enough to turn off, but it had some bad moments and some terrible stereotyping. It was not very well cast either.

Would I recommend this movie? No you would be wasting your time and money. I don't understand why movies like these are made and who is funding them. Spend your time Watching Noah's Arc on Logo instead. I think this is where this movie was trying to go but never got there.

Sentiment: negative
[No Spoilers]

Being a David Lynch film, one could have the idea that it depicts that enigmatic mind of his like the majority of his feature films do. But it is a very straight story as the title might hint. Don't except to be caught in the usual Lynchian void of incomprehensibility that usually occurs after viewing i.e. Lost Highway. It is a simple film but it is indeed a great film. That is both from a innovative and an entertaining aspect. It's innovative because it so not Lynch. But maybe that IS Lynch. He likes to twist our minds and therefore puts together a film that might seem very mainstream and far from Lynch himself. Being a very avantgarde director, he might just make a film like this just to tease his regular audience because he knows what they expect but he doesn't give it to them. That would be crafty.

The pace of the film is slow. I would almost say lawn mower speed... Don't expect an action orgy, but the film is truly entertaining for the ones who go with the flow of the film. Look carefully for those small details that Lynch plot throughout the movie for our entertainment. Look for the great cinematography that makes this film come to life. And listen to Badalamenti's score and the main theme that really animates the Iowa and Wisconsin landscapes shown frequently. 

Farnsworth puts in one of his best performances in this film, making him one of the most likeable ol' men ever depicted on film. He doesn't have to say anything to express his feelings and thoughts. His cheerfulness just shines right through him and his acting earned him an Oscar nomination. Need I say that his weak health in this film wasn't acted? He was diagnosed with cancer and shot himself right after this film was complete. That knowledge just puts more emphasis on the film because it becomes more of a homage to Farnsworth. 

All of the above form a very nice motion picture that is suitable for all kinds of people that like a film the way they are supposed to be done. One could ask for homilies that aren't that obvious and a bit naive but it doesn't ruin the overall picture, being that it is a memorable motion picture. 9/10.

Sentiment: positive
GREAT movie and the family will love it!! If kids are bored one day just pop the tape in and you'll be so glad you did!!!

~~~Rube

i luv raven-s!

Sentiment: positive
Director Kinji Fukasaku is perhaps best known, in his homeland at least, for his Japanese gangster films, a series with which this movie shares a number of characteristics. Violence and political intrigue are themes throughout both Shogun's Samurai and Battles Without Honor and Humanity, and both feature a lead character who finds his loyalties challenged by betrayals. Both films also feature a large number of characters who seem to have little purpose but to die, and since so little is done to develop them, their deaths have little impact when they do come. This film has other flaws as well. The makeup, costumes and sound design are distractingly poor, and the battle scenes were substandard as well, inferior to other samurai films of earlier years (Seven Samurai comes to mind). 

Sonny Chiba plays the Sonny Chiba character in Shogun's Samurai, the no-nonsense master swordsman who strides through the film, scowling menacingly. What a guy; he even gets to wear an eye patch. If you were expecting to see the legendary Toshiro Mifune, you may be disappointed; his appearance amounts to little more than a cameo, and just when it appears that his character might do something interesting, he disappears for good. 

Overall, the strengths of the film are its story, which is infinitely more comprehensible than those gangster films, and the challenges posed to traditional concepts of good and evil. Two brothers are challenging for the throne of their recently departed father, who may have had some help on his way out. Early on, it looks as if we will be faced with a couple of characters who couldn't be more clearly good and evil; after all, the older brother stammers and has a birthmark, the sure sign of a villain. Eventually, however, it becomes clear that in a winner-takes-all struggle for power, there are no heroes and villains, only winners and losers.

Sentiment: negative
"Joe" is one of those movies where, although you think that it might go along smoothly, ends up hitting you like...I can't come up with an analogy. It showed not only that America's long-standing idea of unity was moot, but also the various aspects within our society. Melissa Compton (Susan Sarandon) is the ultimate flower child, while her father Bill (Dennis Patrick) is a clean-cut executive. One day, Bill accidentally kills Melissa's boyfriend. In the immediate aftermath, Bill gets acquainted with Joe Curran (Peter Boyle), an ultra-right-wing, rabidly racist working stiff. As a result, the two of them end up associating more and more with the hippies, whom Bill finds unpleasant and Joe outright hates. But in the end, everything has dead serious consequences.

True, some parts of the movie are a little bit dated, but it's a good juxtaposition of America's two sides during the Vietnam War. And rest assured, the residual effects of all that will probably never go away.

Sentiment: positive
SPOILER WARNING

I got this dino-documentarie on DVD at Christmas 2004. I had longed to see it and was by no means disappointed. The score is memorable ( my

favourites were the "Sauropod" theme song and the "Winters Coming" song ). The effects were dazzling, you could almost believe they were there. You actually learn something too ; Stegosaurs MAY have been able to pump their plates with blood. Female T-Rexes MIGHT have gone on a killing spree before laying their eggs. I know there's a lot of people who thought this was based too much on speculation, but there will always be questions that we can only guess at. And there is a lot of hard-core, undeniable FACT as well. We KNOW that some dinosaurs travelled in herds, we KNOW that Diplodocus swallowed stones to grind up vegetation in their stomaches. Despite this "speculation" the series did extremely well. So well in fact, that it spawned a followup, a prequel and several specials. If you're a dino-fan, then this IS for you. It makes Jurassic Park look small and weedy.

Sentiment: positive
Action, violence, sex and coarse language are the things that the characters do during the whole movie. And everything they do is done without reason. Mark L. Lester is (un)known for his violent (without reason)movies (Commando, The Base). The story is weird but stupid. The actors play their stupid characters very well...I'm not telling they are stupid but I mean they are very bad actors. It's another low-budget unknown B series action movie. If you saw something like Operation Delta Force, Drive, The Patriot, Sanctuary or something like these bad movies from the same kind than Misbegotten...don't rent it...and, by the way, don't rent any of the movies I mentioned....I give it 1and a half out of5.

Sentiment: negative
A spoiler.

What three words can guarantee you a terrible film? Cheap Canadian Production. THE BRAIN fits those words perfectly. Terrible script, idiotic acting and hilarious special effects make this a must for every BAD movie fan. The horror is hilarious. The post production team looks like it gave up. What makes THE BRAIN admirable is in the second half, it actually tries to be good! Can a bit of ingenuity and consistency save what is already a joke?

It's around Christmas time. A mother and daughter are murdered by one of the funniest looking villains ever. The day later, a rebel teen gets into enough trouble that he is sent for a psychiatric analysis.

If a cop 's head is chopped off and a stranger with blood on him and a bloody axe told you some kids did it, who would you believe? What begins as funny turns dull and tiring toward the end when THE BRAIN tries to be serious. A child cannot be frightened by the scary moments. THE BRAIN is too funny a concept to try and be gritty. The Psychological Research Institute is larger than major manufacturing plants! Our ugly villain and its cohorts get credit for pulling some of the worst acting I have seen. Viewer discretion advised heavily.

Sentiment: negative
I actually joined this site simply to write in about this movie. I was sitting in my living room and this movie came on one of the local channels. I made it about an hour through before I simply had enough. Curious to see what the general movie-opinionated public thought of this movie, I looked it up on this site. I was absolutely shocked to see that there were an overwhelming amount of people that thought it was great. I needed to have my say, and here it is: This movie is absolute garbage. It was a chore to sit through. The "jokes" were uninspired rehashes from other, better shows and movies, and Leguizamo's manic portrayal of this obnoxious character should only appeal to age ten and below. That actually may be a stretch even for that age. I'm all for slapstick ridiculousness, but there isn't even the faintest hint of wit or cleverness. I have an idea, lets take bad uninspired obvious jokes and play them at twice the speed. Now that's funny. Ha. Ha.

Movies that you should see that take silly humor and add comic timing and originality: The Marx Brothers' A Night at the Opera, Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut,...and the list goes on. Don't lose an hour and a half of your life on unmemorable crap.

By the way, I can only assume that the reason that David Bar Katz (the other writer) did VERY little in film after this movie is because he was instantly blacklisted. I'm actually impressed that Leguizamo was able to recover after this mess.

Sentiment: negative
Russian emigrant director in Hollywood in 1928 (William Powell) is casting his epic about the Russian revolution, and hires an old ex-general from the Czarist regime (Emil Jannings) to play the general of the film, and the two relive the drama and the memory of the woman they shared (Evelyn Brent), of 11 years before.

Try as I might, I feel it hard to warm to 'The Last Command' for all its virtues. 'The Docks of New York' was indubitably a great film, and 'Underworld' is a film I have always been craving to see, but 'The Last Command' is rather heavy-going. The premise is fascinating, but the treatment does really make the script come to life, except in the sequences set in Hollywood, depicting the breadline of employable extras and the machinations of a big movie production with state-of-the-art technology.

Emil Jannings is, predictably, a marvelous Russian general, distinguishing wonderfully between the traumatized and decrepit old ex-general, transfixed in his misery, and the vigorous, hearty officer of yore.

The ending is great and worth the wait, but in order to get there you must prepared to be slightly bored at times.

Sentiment: positive
This is a very long movie, indeed. But it is quite beautiful, and a good example to show why cinema can be considered art. A story easily told cannot be expected in Les Amants Réguliers, but every scene, every silence here tells much more than a hundred dialogs. Touching, different, perfect in its pictures and soundtrack, showing why the close brought by the cinema as one of its main features became the greatest innovation in any dramatic representation. Someone who is used to that kind of movies where everything is told, and action takes place all the time, will find this tiring. But it is worth watching, to find out other possibilities of feeling a story.

Sentiment: positive
Nice, pleasant, and funny, but not earth-shattering. It does a good job of showing the "behind the scenes" world of theater groups and the lives of the actors. The three witches are great- both on- and off-stage. I would assume the movie works wonderfully (lots of apparent inside jokes) if one was involved in theater (which I'm not).

Sentiment: positive
John Cusack stars as Hoops in this silly little movie that has to be one of the best of the eighties teen comedies.Believe it or not Demi Moore is his co star...If you love the eighties,grew up around that time,or are an angst ridden teenage artist get ready to laugh.Wait until you see the cartoons..what a riot....

Sentiment: positive
This is a sort of hidden gem. It has little to no promotion, no fanfare, no classic status, and it deserves all of the above! One of the great directors of cinema, Fritz Lang, has created a real gem in this excellent western. A fine cast led by Randolph Scott (in probably one of his greatest performances), the always sturdy Dean Jagger, Robert Young as a surprisingly accomplished dude plus many veteran character actors: Chill Wills, Slim Summerville, John Carradine, Barton MacLane and others in an exciting Zane Grey story of the laying of the Western Union cable across country. It has tense drama, sprinklings of humor and great effects. It's reminiscent of DeMille in ways and yet Fritz Lang leaves his own stamp on it. At very least this is a damned good western!

Sentiment: positive
Should we take the opening shot as a strange frame??? I guess we have to. Anyway two women are behind a closing umbrella, they walk upstairs to the talent agency and we go with them...and then they are never to be seen again. Okay, how come not INSIDE the place, at the piano, or even outside with the SOUND of the piano, then track inside and over, a la Hitchcock??? So I guess Clouzot is already telling us in a not very subliminal manner that we are following a segment of postwar society: especially how he then uses a Citizen Kane=like song cut up into about five pieces to show the lady singing traveling from the talent agency all the way to her first roses and applause of her Vaudeville debut.

After that we are relentless observers of more or less small disgusting details of a defeated country getting off its war torn tattered knees. And nobody ever handled small disgust better than Clouzot. In fact, too bad he never tried Sartre's Nausea. Almost everything we see after the first few minutes makes us ever so slightly queasy. ....okay, okay I'm grossly overstating that, let's just settle for a general feel of a lot of the film. Look carefully, in fact, and you will even see one of the cops picking his nose. And in how many films has anyone ever done that. Then there is a very loud nose blowing bit in front of the photographer lesbian by the main cop, and notice that she does not, literally, blink an eye or raise an eyebrow.

The point of all this is an almost feverish immersion in contiguity, seemingly, until you can smell practically every scene as well as see and feel it. 

As for the other aspects of the movie, others here have covered them in a lot more detail than I. But forget about the mystery here: this is the ultimate McGuffin. Clouzot is about as interested in the real killer as those two women coming in out of the rain in the first few seconds of the film and are never seen again. From beginning to end all he wanted to do was follow a bunch of people around, not even particularly interesting ones at that, and say, here look at this woman's twitch, that man's hitching of his pants in all their insignificance, years and years before Tina Turner was singing we don't need another hero. \

Even the forced levity of the ending is bleakly done in a dilapidated part of Paris, and rather chilly bare walled apartment. With only the couples love for each other to see them through, as if to say there must be two or three million like you throughout the city, working your fingers off by the day for a little love at night.

From this it was just a short step to Wages of Fear and the ultimate in despair. 

They don't even know how to make films like this anymore in the U.S. For that matter, they didn't even know how to very much in France then, much less now. The relentless detail of gesture makes even the neorealists of Italy look like bad psychologists. Which I guess makes Clouzot a kind of Rosselini on speed. 

Very enjoyable nonsense, this movie. The only flaw, seems to me, and as was pointed out by another viewer, the lead woman is somehow not quite right. Everybody else in the film is just about perfectly cast.

Sentiment: positive
As a child the first installment ("The Little Mermaid") was my favorite movie. It was filled with great characters, songs, and a fun family film. A week or so again I watched this movie for the first time. I believe that this movie was like most sequels and didn't surpass their original. I think that I feel this way possibly because I had high expectations and I have grown up. However, it is not a bad film.

It starts when Ariel has just given birth to a beautiful child, Melody. Eric and Ariel feel threatened by Morgana (Eurselas' sister), so they build a large wall around their house which lies on the sea. As Melody grows up she begins to wonder outside of the walls where she is forbidden to go. Trouble stirs up as Morgana tries to take control of the seven seas.

I don't want to give away any of the movie so you have to see it to find out. I did like that the voices are the same and again wonderful singing. I think this is a good family film though overall!

Sentiment: negative
I think Hollow Point is a funny film with some good moments I have never seen before in action movies. Well,both Tia Carrere and Thomas Ian Griffith aren't so good in acting, but Tia Carrere is nice and good looking girl, isn't it? But Donald Sutherland is superb in his role so-so mad gangster.

Sentiment: positive
Last year's remake of 'The Hills Have Eyes' was one of the better attempts to update the vaguely exploitational horror flicks of the 1970s for a new audience. Alexandre Aja allowed for an admirable degree of character development and when the violence started it was mean and savage and all carried out in a landscape of impeccable photography and production design. I was one of the few people who actually thought that it was better than the original and looked forward to a second visit to the particularly dark and cruel world of the savage desert mutants.

'The Hills have Eyes 2', released just a year after the original, seems a rushed and ill-conceived attempt to cash in on the franchise with little thought to quality. Jonathan Craven's screenplay could have been written in a weekend, and given the speed with which this movie made it into cinemas, probably was. It falls back on every hackneyed genre cliché in the book while offering absolutely nothing new to the desert mutant mythology. I always let out a groan of disappointment when a sequel replaces civilian characters with the military. Soldiers are always so lazily written and never fail to thoroughly bore with crude caricatures of strutting macho bullshit. In my mind, 'Aliens' was the only movie to successfully make such a transition, due to James Cameron's talent, not simply for directing the best action sequences around, but never forgetting that an audience has to care about the people being butchered. He was also ably assisted by some genuinely talented actors. With 'The Hills have Eyes 2', it's clear that video director Martin Weisz is no James Cameron, and the cast of television bit-parters haven't the talent or even the inclination to turn their cardboard cutout characters into anything approaching living, breathing human beings.

Needless to say, every character is a broad and generic cliché. They act in dumb and illogical ways, making dumb and illogical decisions that lead them to predictably dumb and illogical deaths. The latter half of the movie becomes just another tedious chased-through-dark-corridors scenario. 'The Descent' (on which Sam McCurdy, coincidentally, also worked as cinematography) proved that even this most derivative of sequences can still be carried out with genuine originality and suspense, but we see no such innovation here.

'The Hills Have Eyes 2' is just a very lazy movie, devoid of any suspense, tension, or surprise, with not a single individual involved remotely interested in producing anything of quality. It's a tame and tired excuse for a sequel and deserves to spend the rest of its life in a Blockbuster's bargain bin.

Sentiment: negative
Here's yet another blasphemous European story in which they blast the religion of their country. (These atheist filmmakers are relentless.) Here we see a brutal blasting of Catholics and/or the Catholic clergy (and I am not Catholic).

This won actually won an Academy Award for bes foreign film. That's probably because the story made Catholics and religious belief in general look extremely weak. One of the main characters is a priest and he cares more about food than anything else. He's portrayed as nothing but an idiot. No wonder the secular- dominated Academy loved this movie.

Also, there is some overacting fool who plays a guy who renounces his religion so he can marry one of the four daughters featured in the story. The daughters take turns seducing the "seminary" student (who states he studied for six years but says he's an agnostic!). I mean, how blasphemous IS this film??!!!

This is a disgrace and another excellent example of the secular-progressive bigotry of the film business, worldwide (not just Hollywood).

Sentiment: negative
This is a really great short from Hal Roach. This is because of two main reasons: The littlest kids in the short are among the cutest to have ever been on film and the plot has so many funny and well-written elements.

As for the littlest of the Little Rascals, I honestly can't think of a cuter kid than Spanky at about age four. Despite being a rather chubby and unattractive kid in later years, he was just precious here. And, placing the little tiny boy in charge of babysitting the even younger kids was not only funny, but once again high on the cute factor.

After the older kids blackmail Spanky into doing this awful babysitting job, all kinds of funny mayhem breaks loose. The gags are pretty effective and well-done for the time--with an accidental crank call involving a murder and a final scene where Spanky FINALLY gets control of the little ones being the most memorable. I haven't seen these shorts in many decades and I am glad I gave this one a chance.

Sentiment: positive
There are some excellent comments and observations on this film. I was pleased to note the comparisons to Fritz Lang's "M" (forget the 50's abortive remake with lightweight David Wayne). The real villain is not the tortured murderer (extraordinarily fine performance by Jeffery DeMunn), taking out his sexually frustrated anger on his victims-- mostly children. He is the objective. The real villain is the stifling bureaucratic Soviet system, drowning in its own corrupted incompetence. The frustration of an uncompromisingly dedicated man (Rea in his best role since "The Crying Game"), a facile pragmatist who's willing to use the system to his advantage (Sutherland always successful in this kind of role), a hesitant, frightened but determined psychiatrist (the incomparable Max Sydow), the bumbling, boopous bureaucrat of a prosecutor (brilliant Brit actor John Wood) and the quiet, supporting wife of the driven investigator (delightful supporter, Imelda Staunton). This is one damn fine film. Its darkness and bleakness are supported by the portrayal of a corrupt, incompetent system which works against success. The is no need to dip into gore-laden slice 'n dice sensationalism that has characterized so many recent films. Gore is present-- it's a ghastly story-- but it adds to the depicting of a pathologically twisted human being. The success of the story is precisely that: these were acts perpetrated by a person, a human like you or I. Where you and I choose to vent our frustration by reasonable means, Chikatilo took his anger out on the most innocent and vulnerable of us, our children. The superb premise of this story is made manifest by an equally superb cast of excellent actors. --sadly, I note that our Australian friend didn't like the speech and no doubt would have preferred to hear them speaking in Aussie dialect. Well, too bad. This fine film sure worked for me and everyone else I've talked with who has seen it.

Sentiment: positive