DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
For animation buffs it's a must, but even general audiences will enjoy THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE, a very early example of 'pixilation' by the hard-working pioneer Wladyslaw Starewicz. Starewicz and his helpers painstakingly manipulated a cast of flexible insect figures to tell this story, paving the way for the likes of Willis O'Brien, George Pal, Ray Harryhausen, and legions of modern digital effect creators.

THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE is only about 10 minutes long, but packs in lots of amusing detail as the story follows the amorous adventures of two beetles from their home to a nightclub, a hotel, a cinema, and, eventually, a prison cell. There are two brief dance numbers at the nightclub (performed by a frog and a dragonfly), a scuffle between a beetle and a grasshopper, and a large-scale donnybrook at the cinema, which ends with the projector bursting into flames. Pretty elaborate goings-on for 1912, when even John Bray and Winsor MacCay were just getting started, and Walt Disney was still in grade school!

It's interesting to note, too, what an impact the alteration of a silent movie's title cards can have on the story being told. I've seen two versions of this film offered by two video companies, and watched them back-to-back, and although the image content itself is almost identical, two different sets of intertitles tell two very different stories. (And the plot outline someone provided above tells yet a third story, which suggests that there's another version out there somewhere.) The British Film Institute's print, which has rhyming intertitles, tells the story of two sibling beetles, each secretly married, who hide this information from one another in order to inherit their late father's fortune. The other, Russian print, tells a simpler story of married beetles who are each guilty of infidelity. In the Russian version Mr. Beetle visits his girlfriend at the "Gay Dragonfly" nightclub, while in the English version brother Bill Beetle visits his wife at the music-hall. Personally, I prefer the straightforward-- and spicier --Russian story; the BFI version tries to cram too much plot into what should be a simple tale, and some of the rhymes are a bit awkward.

Still, in any rendition, THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE is a delightful film, and would make an ideal lead-in to that other great animated work which features beetles, YELLOW SUBMARINE.

Sentiment: positive
This may be the only film that actually comes close to capturing on film the essentially uncapturable world of the American college experience of the late 60s-early 70s. Go ahead, name another movie that even approaches this one: "Getting Straight"? "RPM"? These are caricatures. "Return of the Secaucus Seven" has its moments, but that's a retrospective film about (self-obsessed) individuals more than a film about a time and a place depicted *in* that time and place. "Drive, He Said" portrays-- with subtlety and nuance where it should, and a swift kick in the shorts where that's the only appropriate way-- the anti-draft movement, the ambiguity of big-time college sports (especially when there's a war on), the sexual revolution of the period, and the general unreality of the day. Believe me, it was like that.

The whole cast deserves commendation (as does the director, of course) but particular praise should be reserved for Bruce Dern, as the basketball coach, and Karen Black, the hero's very unusual-- except for that time-- love interest. William Tepper, as the lead, also rates a real round of applause both for his perfect capturing of the student-athlete of the period and for actually playing real college basketball in the film (remember Anthony Perkins in "Tall Story"? Yikes!).

All in all, a classic of a kind-- and the last film someone currently in 6th grade should be writing comments on ("boring", "repellent"-- um, right, sonny, please go back to your Arnold movies). Why isn't this film available from imdb?

Sentiment: positive
I sat through this at GenCon only because it was quiet and I could nap. What a waste of time. Beverly D'Angelo and William Katt? WTF? Were the lady who played Flo and Abe Vigoda busy or something?

Truly, a piece of unfunny garbage. The characters were stereotypical without meaning to (I think...) and wooden, most of them seemed like they were on autopilot. The so-called "hilarious" situations described in some of the other so-called reviews were so hackneyed, I weeped for the writers.

I'm confused as to how anyone can find this worth their time, seriously. I'm only giving it 3 out of 10 because in order to be a 2 or 1, it would need to be either five-hours long or feature more Kelly LeBrock.

Sentiment: negative
This soap is worse than bad: it's poisonous. Of the many television shows that have had a corrosive influence on British society over the past twenty years, Eastenders is the prime example. For two decades this show has celebrated the oaf, the thug, the wide-boy, the tart, the gobby, the violent, the sexually-incontinent, the criminal, the ignorant, the unambitious ...

How many times has someone or other remarked that Eastenders "mirrors life"? Life on which planet, exactly? 

It's written about "working-class" characters, as imagined by middle-class people who have taken a course in creative writing. Eager to show to their middle-class peers how familiar they are with the "working-class" they dream up the lumpen rabble that is the citizenry of Eastenders.

This has a toxic effect on some minds less well-equipped than others to handle fiction, and so we find members of the real population assuming the attitudes and demeanour of the inhabitants of Walford.

Thus, it came to pass that Eastenders mirrors life; but only after life had been hoodwinked into mirroring Eastenders.

Other soaps have followed in EE's footsteps, filled to their stinking gunwhales with ugly, potato-faced, shaven-headed, pot-bellied characters, scowling at each other and issuing threats constantly. This is the proletariat as perceived by the writers who produce this trash. The writers will grow rich on the proceeds of such output, and will go on to enjoy the finer things of life in their rarified enclaves. Meanwhile, the burgeoning number of new, TV-induced drones will proceed inexorably toward cultural bankruptcy.

And there you have the new priests and the new creatures of the early 21st century. Much of this is due to the immeasurable power of that illuminated boxful of dancing pixels in the corner of your living-room. It's your fault, gentle reader: that's what you chose as the only window through which to look out from your prison.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie on a fluke.I was standing on 42nd street waiting for a bus to go home and a sister started passing out free tickets for a preview of this movie.I gave it a chance not expecting much.The promotional movie posters I've seen on the subway station walls do not give this film justice at all.

The movie is about a young rocker who goes on a journey to learn the craft and art of heavy metal.I'll leave it there.The movie is a heavy comedy and lot's of fun.If your are old enough to remember when Heavy Metal dominated the music scene in the eighties you are going to love this film.Jack Black is an amazingly talented comedian and actor and assuming he really wrote and performed the songs in this film he is also a talented musician.

Tenacious D is definitely worth a look!

Sentiment: positive
Ah yes, the VS series, MVC2 being the pinnacle. It's been said before, this is what you get when half of the crew fell asleep on the job, unfortunately the gameplay half did. Don't get me wrong, this is fun, but you get tired of mashing buttons. As for the plot summary, AHAHAHAHAHAAAAA... There is no plot. Beat that guy at the end and win! Eh, who plays this by their self anyway?

Sentiment: negative
I almost never comment on movies, but I saw the 5 glowing reviews of this "movie" and decided I had to weigh in with my own review. An instructor of mine received this film in the mail, mixed in with his Academy screeners (AMPAS, aka the guys who vote on the Oscars), and was so floored with how terribly constructed this movie was that he brought it in to our class to demonstrate to us how NOT to put together a movie.

This film has no plot, the scenes are horribly, horribly edited (oftentimes using faux "24" style picture-in-picture techniques), and the performances (particularly the lead, who even fails at acting like a bad actress) are for the most part, obnoxious. Someone truly failed to understand the point of an introduction, namely, the setting up of the plot. There is no setup! Halfway through the movie neither myself nor the rest of the class knew what this movie was supposed to be about. The opening crane shot, which sets up some kind of murder, is never addressed, and now that I think about it, was possibly meant to be a flash-forward, with the rest of the film being a flashback, but it cuts from that scene directly to the next without any indication as such.

Bah, I could really go on and on. At the very least, this movie gives me renewed confidence in my own film-making ability.

Sentiment: negative
Quentin in my opinion has written and directed only really one good movie and that was the multiple award winning Pulp Fiction. However, most of films, especially of recent, have been real REAL turkeys. People still rate him and his stuff today and i really can't see why. There are many other directors and writers nowadays producing far better entertainment in all aspects of their movies. From this point on, i shall not believe the hype that is a Tarantino movie.

Inglorious was too long and worse still you felt it. The humor was, well, minimal and not that humorous. The violence was nothing new (minus the end scene). The dialog was sometimes very VERY drawn out.

For some they'll love this movie; and for others they'll hate it.

... and i thought the subject matter of Nazis was finally put to bed with the awesome 2004 German movie Der Untergang.

Sentiment: negative
In my years of attending film festivals, I have seen many little films like this that never get theatrical distribution, and they end up in the $3 bins at WalMart. I just found DVD of Yank Tanks there, great doc, but how sad for it to end up as a rock-bottom remainder.

I loved this film, wish I'd seen it at the cinema in it's everything. I'd have preferred that New Yorker Films had translated the title directly. It's good for Americans to stretch a little. If the film's title helps the US audience to explore random chaos, all the better. Cinema imitates life & visa versa.

Also, I found it distracting that the subtitles put prices in dollars. Come on! The euro is not hard to figure out, make the gringo audiences do the math. Seeing a film, especially one shot in Paris, the viewer should not have the effect spoiled by being reminded: I am an American watching a movie and they are translating the Euros into dollars for me. 

Looking forward to seeing more of these actors and more from the writer & director as well.

Sentiment: positive
One would expect a movie with a famous comedian in the lead role, to be a funny movie. This is not the case here. I laughed out loud once throughout the whole movie, and that wasn't even during the final comedy-scene (which one would also expect to be the funniest). This is one you can watch when it comes to TV, don't spend any other money renting it.

Sentiment: negative
This is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. I would think you could get that from the title. Also, there is a particular love scene that could be the strangest in the history of film. I can't even remember why I saw this film or when. Only that is an absolutely horrible movie-viewing experience. On the other hand, if you are looking for the absolute weirdest movie to waste two hours of your time, then by all means rent it. Good luck finding it at your local store though. I doubt this movie is in a very wide-distribution. And please do not show this to children by any means as it may warp their impressionable minds forever.

Sentiment: negative
I had been long awaiting this movie ever since I saw the trailer, which made it look like a political drama, starring three of my favorite actors; Al Pacino, John Cusack, and Bridget Fonda. And even though it was directed by Harold Becker, who has done uneven work, he and Pacino did combine on SEA OF LOVE, which ranks among each of their best work. But interference on some level(for starters, several of the scenes in the original trailer don't appear in the movie) and changing of tone(subsequent trailers make it look like a thriller) make this, while watchable, nowhere near as it could have been.

Which is too bad, because I really wanted to like this movie. There was great potential here to be a film about how government can still be worthwhile despite all the corruption, and to make a complex statement about that corruption, not the usual good guys vs. bad guys. And there is good acting here. Pacino and Cusack are both very good, and Danny Aiello gives one of the best performances of his career. But Fonda is wasted in her role, having nothing to do, and while there is merit in the central storyline, when it turns to a thriller, the movie loses its way, briefly recovers in the final scene between Cusack and Pacino, and then falls down completely in the end. I wish I could like this more, but no.

Sentiment: positive
After reading all of the rave reviews about this film and a few that give it a so-so. I finally decided to throw in my no cents worth. I agree with most on the point that if it hadn't been for Lauren Lewis and Chris Ferry it would have been a disaster. Filmed in Mariette OH. just north of Dogpatch where all the real talent fled south down I-77 years ago, at least as far as a tank of gas would allow. I did get a chuckle from reviewers who subtly claim that they cerebrate a little better than most by claiming they followed the plot without an inkling of confusion. This wee tale by the Brothers Crook is like an old record with a skip in it. As an American I understand the difficulties Ind film artists have to face. A trip to Romania would have wiped out the budget for sure. Lets face it this whole film was a loop de loop of Claire in the gas station, Claire on the side of the road, Claire under the bleachers, Claire in the house, Claire in the cornfield, Claire at school. Claire here and Claire there. It almost became monotonous and would have if she had not been the best actor in the cast. Josh and Jeff have to make a living but don't write a two page script and turn it into an hour,twenty flick. Before writing another screenplay about dreaming ghosts watch an episode or two of Ghost Whisperer or something and get a little background. All of the cast except the above mentioned and a couple of others were engaged in their first and last film. Also, there is an appearance by co-director Jeff as he is in all his films. Just like Alfred Hitchcock, eh? One thing the film had going for it is that the cameraman seemed to have a fixation on Lauren Lewis' derrière. Well, with all sarcasm now satisfied I still recommend the film for the horror buff just to see this young actress in the formative time of her career (I hope)and that Chris Ferry has established himself as a villain worth watching.

Sentiment: negative
This movie has a special way of telling the story, at first i found it rather odd as it jumped through time and I had no idea whats happening.

Anyway the story line was although simple, but still very real and touching. You met someone the first time, you fell in love completely, but broke up at last and promoted a deadly agony. Who hasn't go through this? but we will never forget this kind of pain in our life. 

I would say i am rather touched as two actor has shown great performance in showing the love between the characters. I just wish that the story could be a happy ending.

Sentiment: positive
As a Dane I'm proud of the handful of good Danish movies that have been produced in recent years. It's a terrible shame, however, that this surge in quality has led the majority of Danish movie critics to lose their sense of criticism. In fact, it has become so bad that I no longer trust any reviews of Danish movies, and as a result I have stopped watching them in theaters.

I know it's wrong to hold this unfortunate development against any one movie, so let me stress that "Villa Paranoia" would be a terrible film under any circumstances. The fact that it was hyped by the critics just added fuel to my bonfire of disillusionment with Danish film. Furthermore, waiting until it came out on DVD was very little help against the unshakable feeling of having wasted time and money. 

Erik Clausen is an accomplished director with a knack for social realism in Copenhagen settings. I particularly enjoyed "De Frigjorte" (1993). As an actor he is usually funny, though he generally plays the same role in all of his movies, namely that of a working-class slob who's down on his luck, partly because he's a slob but mostly because of society, and who redeems himself by doing something good for his community. 

This is problem number one in "Villa Paranoia"; Clausen casts himself as a chicken farmer, which is such a break from the norm that he never succeeds in making it credible. 

It is much worse, however, that the film has to make twists and turns and break all rules of how to tell a story to make the audience understand what is going on. For instance, the movie opens with a very sad attempt at visualizing the near-death experience of the main character with the use of low-budget effects and bad camera work. After that, the character tells her best friend that she suddenly felt the urge to throw herself off a bridge. This is symptomatic of the whole movie; there is little or no motivation for the actions of the characters, and Clausen resorts to the lowest form of communicating whatever motivation there is: Telling instead of showing. Thus, at one point, you have a character talking out loud to a purportedly catatonic person about the way he feels, because the script wouldn't allow him to act out his feelings; and later on, voice-over is abruptly introduced, quite possibly as an afterthought, to convey feelings that would otherwise remain unknown to the audience due to the director's ineptitude. Fortunately, at this point you're roughly an hour past caring about any of the characters, let alone the so-called story.

The acting, which has frequently been a problem in Clausen's movies, can be summed up in one sad statement: Søren Westerberg Bentsen, whose only other claim to stardom was as a contestant on Big Brother, is no worse than several of the heralded actors in the cast.

I give this a 2-out-of-10 rating.

Sentiment: negative
The only other review of this movie as of this date really trashes the stars and the movie itself. I usually like to read the user comments to give me an idea of what to expect from a movie I don't know much about. It's unfortunate when there aren't many comments for a certain tile, because when there is only one review and it unreasonably trashes the movie and cast, you don't get an idea of what to expect. I read the review before watching this title and I don't know where all the venom for this movie and the stars came from. Douglas and Blondell were both very talented and attractive people who usually delivered, even when the material was not the greatest. I found the movie and the performances fun and enjoyable. It isn't one of the great all-time classics, but a pleasant and funny diversion-much more than you can hope for in most newer movies. If you are a fan of these stars, you will not be disappointed.

Sentiment: positive
Keenan Ivory Wayans is probably one of the worst directors, i swear he has no real knowledge on how to make films. he has made one brilliant film and that is scary movie. scary movie 2 was OK too but everything else Keenan has made are real disasters. avoid such titles like don't be a menace to south central while drinking your juice in the hood..... i know, what a title !!! obviously this film too, just anything that has Keenans name in the credits.

it was an hour and a half on stupid nonsense that never made me laugh. just trust me on this, maybe women might like this film a little because of some of things that happen but on a whole this film will never be liked by anyone with a good taste in films........ 1/10.......j.d Seaton

Sentiment: negative
What surprised me most about this film was the sheer audience it attracted. Similar films such as Anita and Me have never caused as much hype as this film has, though I think that's probably because of the mention of 'Beckham' in the title more than anything else.

It's a brilliant film putting across a brilliant message - you can do anything if you're determined enough, and put your mind to it, which is such a positive message to anyone watching this film.

I think this is one of Keira Knightley's better films, and I think she's a brilliant actress, and was excellent for the role. Parminder Nagra was brilliant too. Sadly, I can't say this for Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, because I don't think that he was that much of a good actor, and to be honest, his eyes were a little scary.

All in all, a brilliant film, and a brilliant story

Sentiment: positive
Sophmoric this film is. But, it is funny as all get out. It shows the "boys locker room mentality" being played by the "other side". It is good to see such tides turned and how silly they are. But that's probably not news to most women, 'cause (just ask one), "they've heard 'em all before".

Watch it with a small group or party of mixed gender and 97.3% of the room will laugh for 2 hours straight. And the other 2.7%...can you ever really please them?

Sentiment: positive
Peter Bogdonavich has made a handful of truly great films, and THEY ALL LAUGHED is one of his best. The cast couldn't be better equipped to play this light but slightly bittersweet screwball comedy. Interestingly enough, the witty, light touch Bogdonavich so effortlessly employs gives the film a rather disarming emotional core. Fresh and immediate, the film starts with absolutely no explanation. There's no soundtrack music to cue us. We meet the characters in action, and as Bogdonavich glides down the streets of New York, the film unfolds effortlessly. Robby Muller's camera captures it all with an understated simplicity that seems accidental, but surely isn't. The cast is terrific. In every way, a classic.

Sentiment: positive
Whoever made this movie must have done it as a joke. I mean, this was the stupidest movie I think I have ever seen!! A killer snowman terrorizes a small town? Give me a break. Love it when he takes off driving the cop car. More like a comedy than a horror movie. If you want a laugh, rent this. If you truly want a horror movie, stay the hell away from this one!!

Sentiment: negative
By far this is the worst Halloween movie ever made. The acting is bad, except for Paul Rudd, and Donald Pleasence. The girl who played Kara (forgot her name) was ok, but overall this movie was basically a big letdown. Nothing moved the story forward, it lacked substance, and the scares that made Halloween and H20 so good. All and all, skip this movie, it's not worth the price of rental.

Sentiment: negative
Probably not the same version as most of the other reviewers because there`s no real hard core sex . What do people mean by hard core sex ? The sort of explicit hard core sex seen in films starring Traci Lords and " Big " John Holmes ? Well anyway this is really poor film , I doubt if I`ve ever seen so many big name actors wasted in a film . The script is really poor and plotless , the directing and cinematography is awful and the editing is non existant . It truly is an absolutely awful film. You could watch this ten times and still not understand what the hell it`s about . The only memorable scene is the one where people are buried up to their necks and a giant lawnmower comes along and decapitates them . Yes you read that right , a film set in Roman times has a scene with a head chopping giant lawnmower !

Trivia point. Many years ago a pirate copy of THE THING ( 1982 version ) was doing the rental rounds on my Island and it been copied onto a rental tape of CALIGULA meaning the pirate version of THE THING starts with the first few seconds of CALIGULA of the man and woman walking through the forest then the title sequence of THE THING starts . This led people who`d seen the pirate tape to believe the forest scene was the opening of John Carpenter`s 1982 film and were very confused as to what it meant. Well that`s what you get for renting pirate videos . But having seen the whole of CALIGULA I don`t know what it meant either

Sentiment: negative
"Zu:The warriors from magic mountain" was and is an impressive classic! You never would have guessed it was made in 1983. Tsui Hark's use of special effects was very creative and inventive. (He continued doing this in the Chinese Ghost Story trilogy and later productions.) Even now it can measure up to other movies in this genre. "Legend of Zu" is connected to "Zu"warriors from magic mountain"! It is not necessary to have seen this movie to understand the plot of this one. The plot is a bit hard to follow. But to be honest it doesn't matter. It is all about the action and adventure! I always was wondering what Tsui Hark would do if he got his hands on CGI. Now we know,he made this movie. Maybe it sometimes is too much but the overall result is so beautiful that I am not going to be critical about that. There is so much happening on the screen,you simply won't believe! I think it is a big shame that this movie wasn't shown in theaters here in Holland. Because this movie is screaming for screen time in cinemas! This movie easily can beat big budget Hollywood productions like "Superman Returns" or Xmen 3. The only thing I do have to mention is the lack of humor! In most of Tsui Harks's movies he combines drama,fantasy,martial arts and humor. Somehow it is missing in this movie. Again I am not going to be picky about these small matters. "Legend of Zu" delivers on the action front with the most beautiful special effects you will see. A true classic!

Sentiment: positive
Carrot Top's "Chairman of the Board" and his AT&T commercials are living proof that fly-blown fecal matter is available in the color orange. Not FREELY available, however, as HBO charges for such garbage. Blehhh! The saving grace of COTB is that it surely fills suicide hot-lines across the country, perhaps providing employment for thousands of telephone therapists who lost their jobs when recovered memory treatment was discredited, although (sadly) Carrot Top probably contributes to his sponsor AT&T's bottom line with the increased phone traffic from devastated HBO viewers. I can visualize the hordes of traumatized TV viewers, phone in one hand and fully loaded .45 auto in the other hand, dialing out of last-minute desperation before walking off the plank of life to escape the specter of COTB's orange-haired monster echoing in their synapses like the agony of searing, irreversible meningeal swelling.

Sentiment: negative
A major moneymaker for RKO Radio, Bombardier stars Pat O'Brien and Randolph Scott as trainers at a school for bomber pilots. O'Brien and Scott argue over teaching methods, while their students vie for the affections of Anne Shirley. O'Brien's methods prove sound during a bombing raid over Tokyo. Scott and his crew are captured and tortured by the Japanese, but the mortally wounded Scott manages to set fire to a gas truck, providing a perfect target for his fellow bombardiers. Stylistically, Bombardier is one of the most schizophrenic of war films, with moments of subtle poignancy (the death of trainee Eddie Albert) alternating with scenes of ludicrous "Yellow Peril" melodrama (the Japanese literally hiss through their teeth as they torture the helpless Americans). Though it can't help but seem dated today, Bombardier remains an entertaining propaganda effort (the film is sometimes erroneously listed as the debut of Robert Ryan, who'd actually been appearing before the cameras since 1940.

Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of this film, please contact me at: iamaseal2@yahoo.com

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie only after hearing raves about it for years. Needless to say, the actual experience proved a bit anticlimactic. But still, Alec Guiness energetically leads a wonderful cast in a jolly, if formulaic, romp through industrial post-WWII England.

This is the familiar tale of the woes of inventing the perfect everyday product. Remember the car that runs on water? Remember the promise of nuclear energy? In this case, it's a fabric that doesn't wear out, wrinkle, or even get dirty! Of course, fabric manufacturers and their workers are horrified at the prospect of being put out of business, and so the plot gets a bit thick.

Guiness makes the whole enterprise worthwhile, and watching him blow up a factory research lab over and over again is quite a blast! (Those Brits ... always the stiff upper lip when under fire.) The film might chug along exactly like Guiness's goofy invention, but it's a good ride all the same.

Sentiment: positive
Clyde Bruckman borrows the premise of this short from Buster Keaton's "Seven Chances," recently tepidly remade as "The Bachelor." In the original, Buster has 24-hours to get married in order to inherit a large sum of money. In this version, musical teacher Prof. Shemp has only 7 hours (After all, it is a short!). This is one of the better Stooges shorts due to the storyline and wonderful routines (Including the telephone booth scene with Moe & Shemp, reminiscent of Laurel & Hardy's "Berth Marks" and the Marx Brothers famous stateroom scene in "Night At The Opera - here the boys hold their own in their variation of this routine). I'm not a huge Stooges fan, but this one should be noted by any student of comedy as one of their very best since the early 30s shorts.

Sentiment: positive
I got this in The Horror Six-Pack from Echo Bridge Home Entertainment. This one is not the worst movie ever made, but it still sucks. In fact, this movie sucked so hard, I don't know how I'm gonna write this review, especially since 1. I popped it out of the DVD player because I couldn't even watch another second and 2. Hurricane friggin' Ike is coming and God knows how long 'til it take for me to get this review done. 

The movie starts off with a scientist and his wife. The scientist receives a valuable artifact and examines it when this supposedly Urban Legend known as the Skeleton Man kills him, and later on his wife. Then... 

I'm sorry, but there's really not much else I can say about this POS except don't bother. I'm currently using the disc as a coaster, and if you see this, you might want to do the same. Casper Van Dien and Michael Rooker must have needed cash...BADLY! 

PS. I'll pretty much be reviewing the movies in the boxset and might do a new review on Ghoulies IV.

Sentiment: negative
The biggest problem with "In Search of Historic Jesus" is that there is very little search to it at all. Shick-Sunn produced these "documentary" films in the 1970s and just into the '80s, which featured interviews with "experts" and discussion of "science" and "facts" to make a case for whatever the title of the film was looking to cash in on.

Sadly, "Historic Jesus" is really little more than a third-rate dramatization of the life of Christ. Unlike Shick-Sunn's more superior "In Search of Noah's Ark" which spends the majority of its running time discussing the possibility that the ark is resting on the earth today and where that might be, this film is basically the story of Jesus with no effort made to prove or disprove his existence. The famed Shroud of Turrin is mentioned, but little other detective work is given much screen time.

For fans of these quasi-documentary films like "Jupiter Menace" and "In Search of Bigfoot", etc., this movie doesn't offer much.

Sentiment: negative
I was quite excited when I saw this film in competition at the Montreal Film Festival. Along with Elephant and a few others, I thought the issue of American gun violence/culture would be treated intelligently and in a fashion compelling for film-goers. The press-release promised (in not so many words) a `Red Violin' for the gun-violence crowd, something to make us ponder our NRA-shoot-em-up mindset in this country.

After waiting until after 9:15 to be seated for a 9AM screening (what technical difficulties they would have encountered is beyond me), we were finally let into the venue to see the film on DV (where did the advertised 35MM print go?). I think I just answered my first question.

The result is an abhorrent mess. We get the "gun", in a vignette with the most unrealistic "biker' I have ever seen (and I do know more than a few). The film then lapses into irrelevant "character development" only because the characters are either a. stereotyped, b. losers, c. stereotyped losers, and/or d. racial caricatures. It takes another 30 minutes to get to the plot movement, and once we are there, we wish for the inane conversations between the couples and/or the bikers and pawn brokers.

The film finds it's conclusion, but not without leaving any cliché untried. I didn't care for the white-trash characters who came in contact with the gun, and the depiction of the minority characters should have the NAACP crying foul immediately. All these people WOULD chase after a gun, because they are at the bottom of the societal trash-heap, and would look for an opportunity wherever it was found. Placing the action a level up would have at least provided some soul-searching on the part of the characters.

The biggest problem is the promise unfulfilled. The plot outline was great. In the hands of a P.T. Anderson or Gus Van Zandt, it could have been a powerful piece. But due either to bad screenplay, direction or both, the thing is an unmitigated mess that needs to be ignored at all costs.

My bigger question is who at the MFF thought this was competition material. Better bury this on Showtime at 3AM.

Art Blose

Sentiment: negative
Let's just say I had to suspend my disbelief less for Spiderman than I did for Hooligans. That is, to say, I have less of a problem believing Toby McGuire can stick to buildings than I do Elija Wood throwing down with toughs in Manchester. I won't get into specifics, as I don't want to write a spoiler, but the idea of grown, professional, British men getting into near death scraps every weekend is, well... funny. And this film is not. The fighting, the idea of fighting, is taken far too seriously. The gravity of the pugilism, the reverence with which the subject matter is treated becomes irritating, as it neither establishes or resolves the conflict. It seems as though the plot, with holes big enough to drive a Guiness truck through, has been slapped together with a contrived "fish out of water" theme so that viewers can gaze into Woods teary eyes as he learns how to become a man ie. hitting other young men of opposing football tastes with blunt objects and then running away as fast as he can. The characters are cartoonish, especially the Americans at Harvard. The character development and story line are telegraphed to the viewer throughout the picture. Unfortunately, the absurdity of the film doesn't reach its height until nearly the end, which by then you'll have spent nearly two hours of your life you are never getting back. Pick up "The Football Factory" or "Fight Club" instead of this corny, and disappointing dud. It doesn't waste time with empty melodrama, the tired old "Yankee in King Aurthur's Court," or weepy, parables of coming of age bullsh*t. They're just pure, dark, and clever fun; the way violence is supposed to be.

Sentiment: negative
I think that New York Times film critic Elvis Mitchell wrote the best one line review of In the Mood for Love when he said that it is "dizzy with a romantic spirit that's been missing from the cinema forever." How true those words are! Truly romantic films are so rare these days, while films that include plenty of sex and nudity (which are often portrayed in a smutty and gratuitous manner) abound. So, given this cinematic climate, Wong Kar-wai's latest film feels like a much needed breath of fresh air. In the Mood for Love is about the doomed romance between two neighbors ("Mr. Chow," played by Tony Leung and "Mrs. Chan," played by Maggie Cheung), whose spouses are having an illicit affair, as they try "not to be like them." But after hanging out with each other on lonely nights (while their spouses are away "on business"/"taking care of a sick mother"), they fall madly in love, and must resist the temptation of going too far.

Several factors are responsible for making In the Mood for Love a new classic among "romantic melodramas," in the best sense of that term. First, the specific period of the film (i.e. 1960's Hong Kong) is faithfully recreated to an astonishing degree of detail. The clothes (including Maggie Cheung's lovely dresses), the music (e.g. Nat King Cole), and the overall atmosphere of this film evokes a nostalgia for that specific period. Second, Christopher Doyle's award-winning, breathtakingly beautiful cinematography creates an environment which not only envelopes its two main characters, but seems to ooze with romantic longing in every one of its sumptuous, meticulously composed frame. Make no mistake about it: In the Mood for Love was the most gorgeous film of 2001. (It should also be mentioned that Wong Kar-wai's usual hyper-kinetic visual style is (understandably) toned down for this film, although his pallet remain just as colorful.) Third, there is the haunting score by Michael Galasso, which is accompanied by slow motion sequences of, e.g. Chan walking in her elegant dresses, Chan and Chow "glancing" at each other as they pass one another on the stairs, and other beautiful scenes which etch themselves into one's memory. The main score--which makes its instruments sound as though they're literally crying--is heard eight times throughout various points in the film and it serves to highlight the sadness and the longing which the two main characters feel. Fourth, Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung both deliver wonderful performances (Leung won the prize for best actor at Cannes) and they manage to generate real chemistry on screen.

The above elements coalesce and work so nicely together to create a film that feels timeless, "dizzyingly romantic," and, in a word, magical. In the Mood for Love, perhaps more than any other film of 2001, reminded me why it is that I love "going to the movies." And I guess that is about the highest compliment that I can pay to a film.



Sentiment: positive
Every second of the film is gorgeous. And that's why it earns a 7, because the plot is not especially devious, and thinking back over the last 90 minutes I never really felt any excitement or investment in the characters. If anything, the luxurious graphics and framing have made certain scenes (the car chase, for instance) more pedestrian than they ought to be - not that they don't look lovely and have some very original design and occasionally novel camera angles - but they are missing the kinetic movement and close-up shots that are part of the language for any normal action/thriller. The first hour plods along, and the dialogue feels very edited and a bit stagey - people wait for each other to finish and don't always react in a natural cadence, which would be a problem of recording each individual's dialogue separately. On rare occasions the emotions in the voices don't quite match those on screen; something that should really have been avoided. The futuristic architecture is very attractive (lots of glass walls/ceilings/screens, lovely smoke/mirage/special effects) and nice-looking cars, but again - it's more an exercise in graphic design, having no real impact on the story. I'd argue that the whole point of using drawn animation (instead of actors/CGI) is to really push the limits of imagination and design; to do that which is too difficult/impractical in other mediums. Although the animation in Renaissance is certainly stunning and incredibly well-accomplished, I never felt like I was seeing something that hasn't been done before.

Immortel, another French CGI film, also suffers from an imbalance of beauty over story & pace. To be fair, some marvellous and engaging French movies also have a languid pace, and lingering shots of the look in someone's eyes or the rain on Paris cobbles can evoke great emotion - but animators need to understand that while animation brings unique strengths, it also has weaknesses when compared to real-life technique. Perhaps it would break from the 'noir' rules that the film wants to stick to, but I think the film-makers also missed a glaring opportunity to explore their future society a bit more - the social strata, the fascistic grip of the corporations etc.

I have no problem recommending Renaissance to anybody who enjoys stylistic design and/or animation ('Manga' fans in particular), but I wouldn't make my other film-loving friends sit through it. Take away the sumptuous visuals and it's a barely average film.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this last night in Fort Lauderdale. In general it was funny and I liked the characters especially Sabrina. The acting is good and the story line was OK except for the ending which left way to many strings dangling and we were like (what?) I wanted to know what happened to the characters and it was a strange ending that could have been done so much better.

The film did portray rule life really well and we laughed throughout. It has flaws that is for sure but for a first time film for Ash Christian I thought it was good. You might want to wait for the DVD on this one. But if you get a chance to see it give it a shot

Sentiment: positive
Well since seeing part's 1 through 3 I can honestly say that they should have NEVER made part 4. Everything from the tacky, and I DO mean tacky score to the really bad acting, I dare anyone to watch this and not be bored out of their minds.

I mean parts 1 to 3 kept the vibe strong on the plot of Damion, but without him around in this one it's just not the same. Sure by the end of part 3 I was getting a little tired of the continued story line's, but it was a good closure at the end of the third one. Again there was no reason for a part 4. Even if there was they could have done a MUCH better job than this sh*t I had to sit through, lol. There goes an hour and a half of my life i'll never see again.

Sentiment: negative
This movie made me very happy. It's impossible not to love the smart and sweet orphan girl who changes the heart of a selfish lawyer only interested in pursuing success in her career. This is a very optimistic movie and I sincerely believe that we need more films like Curly Sue. It touched my heart.

Sentiment: positive
I have been a fan of Pushing Daisies since the very beginning. It is wonderfully thought up, and Bryan Fuller has the most remarkable ideas for this show.

It is unbelievable on how much TV has been needing a creative, original show like Pushing Daisies. It is a huge relief to see a show, that is unlike the rest, where as, if you compared it to some of the newer shows, such as Scrubs and House, you would see the similarities, and it does get tedious at moments to see shows so close in identity.

With a magnificent cast, wonderful script, and hilarity in every episode, Pushing Daisies is, by-far, one of the most remarkable shows on your television.

Sentiment: positive
I simply cannot believe the number of people comparing this favourably with the first film. It moved me to leave this comment! This is just an obvious attempt to cash-in on the success of the first film. The dialogue is appalling and nothing like as authentic or compelling as the original film.

The storyline is ridiculous, the portrayal of the French police laughable and the characterisation of Doyle a mile away from the first film.

How many drug bosses do you think go down to the docks in person to see a shipment come in? The ease at which Doyle finds his guy is just pathetic. Like all the French Police were just drinking coffee until Doyle turns up from America and does some REAL police work. What a joke. Try going to a foreign city and unearthing the biggest crims in the place with a travel map and some tourist pamphlets. Pathetic. 

A truly awful sequel, anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy.

Sentiment: negative
This film actually manages to be mindless enjoyment for 2/3 of the journey. Sadly, the film ends up being too 'confused.' While I know some of the plot contrivances are standard of 'buddy cop' films I got drawn in to the characters who foil each other brilliantly but in the end the film relies too much on chase sequences as a crutch and I lost interest.

The filmmakers did a great job of getting the characters alone and doing their own thing and we got to see who they are and identified with both cops early on. We formed our own opinion instead of being force fed a view of them through constant bickering.

In the end there is too much going on and it detracts greatly from what could've been an enjoyable piece of escapism. Here's what's concerning Joe Gavilan (Harrison Ford) at the end of the film:

1. His real estate deals 2. His affair with a radio psychic 3. He's being investigated by internal affairs 4. The homicide investigation

If you add in Casey's concerns you fond out he wants to be an actor and avenge his father's death. Now some of these things do come together and even come together well but all the plot elements come together amidst this bogus chase that is so long and pathetic that I hardly have time to break my ennui and give a crap about what just happen. The impressive screenwriting acrobatics cannot overcome the bad filmmaking.

As if a ridiculous chase sequence wasn't bad enough, one which has four separate sections and could last close to half an hour, wasn't bad enough, Joe Gavilan fields calls about his real estate deal while chasing the perpetrator with a gun. All these extra-curricular plot lines and jokes make it absolutely meaningless to me whether or not the criminal gets caught. We already forgot or no longer care about the murder plot at this point because multiple plot-lines and eye candy of the chases have numbed us beyond all comprehension.

While I could go on about the chases and how they ruin a decent story, I won't. This could've been a very enjoyable formula film but it got much too big for its britches and it turned into a redundant waste of time. Harrison Ford and Josh Hartnett actually did rather well and a small appearance by Gladys Knight is worth noting. Sadly none of the actors can help this hopelessly misguided film from being forgettable.

While this will probably be better than the likes of "The Hulk" and "Lara Croft II" that still doesn't make this film good. I once heard that Harrison Ford claimed to only make films that eh thought would make money, I'm not sure if that's true or not. What is true is that to get great box office you don't need a great movie or a great actor, this film has neither in its lead roles. My advice to Harrison Ford would be: to stick to Indiana Jones because at least you can still run.

Sentiment: negative
Sergeant Ryker is accused of being a traitor during the Korean War, a hanging offense. A long drawn out court-marshal ensues during which time the Sgt. must remain in a military jail. After much investigation the defense attorney attempts to exonerate the doomed non-com with an eleventh hour ploy. Very good picture.

Sentiment: positive
I love this film. It is well written and acted and has good cinematography. The story blends action, humor, mysticism, and tenderness with great sets and beautiful location shots. See it, buy it, show it to your friends.

The acting is good and Murphy especially does a fine job portraying the reluctant/unlikely hero. I enjoyed all the characters and found them to be interesting and well developed with dynamic interactions.

I cared what happened to these people and, while the outcome was pretty predictable (the good guys win, the hero gets the astonishingly attractive girl and the holy child saves lives--who doesn't see that coming?), it still made me happy when everything worked out well in the end. Thank God this film's dignity was never ruined with a crappy sequel. Grab some popcorn, cuddle up on the couch, and watch this fun, happy and entertaining film.

Sentiment: positive