DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Good Times was a groundbreaking comedy about the first nuclear black family living in the Chicago projects. Whether or not, you live in the inner cities, ghettos, suburbs, or rural countryside, this show is still a treasure to watch and observe a family being just a family rather than a show about a poor black family. But they don't dwell on it. They find humor and have strong family values and morals. Despite the story behind the scenes, this show was worth keeping on the air except I didn't like them killing off the father which I agreed with Esther Rolle who fought hard to keep the family together. But despite all the fights behind the scenes, Good Times was a show about a family. We all loved JJ's dynamite and his antics. We watched Janet Jackson's Penny grow up a little. This show was groundbreaking to show despair in drugs, gangs, and alcoholism. Without being to preachy, The Evans always tried to do the right thing rather than do something wrong to get out of the ghetto.

Sentiment: positive
As you probably already know, Jess Franco is one prolific guy. Hes made hundreds upon hundreds of films, many of which are crap. However, he managed to sneak in an occasionally quality work amongst all the assembly line exploitation. "Succubus" isn't his best work (thats either "The Diabolical Dr. Z" or "Vampyros Lesbos"), but it has many of his trademarks that make it a must for anyone interested in diving into his large catalog. He combines the erotic (alternating between showing full-frontal nudity and leaving somethings left to the imagination) and the surreal seamlessly. This is a very dreamlike film, full of great atmosphere. I particularly liked the constant namedropping. Despite coming off as being incredibly pretentious, its amusing to hear all of Franco's influences.

Still, there are many users who don't like "Succubus" and I can see where they're coming from. Its leisurely paced, but I can deal with that. More problematic is the incoherency. The script here was obviously rushed, and within five minutes into the film I had absolutely no idea what was going on (and it never really came together from that point on). Those who want some substance with their style, look elsewhere. Also, if its a horror film, it never really becomes scary or even suspenseful. Still, I was entertained by all the psychedelic silliness that I didn't really mind these major flaws all too much. (7/10)

Sentiment: positive
I didn't have much faith at the beginning, but as a Costa Rica's citizen I can confirm that the movie shows the reality that we live day by day, and shows a lot of things of our culture, such as our way to speak, our music, our way of standing up for our rights without any fear, without any weapons.

I'm really proud of the job they did and of how they didn't forget along the movie the message they wanted us to receive, not caring for the money, but actually working with a short budget, letting us appreciate the beautiful scenarios and the great photography.

I strongly recommend seeing this movie, you will not regret it.

Sentiment: positive
Some movies want to make us think, some want to excite us, some want to exhilarate us. But sometimes, a movie wants only to make us laugh, and "In & Out" certainly succeeds in this department.

Indiana high-school teacher Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) is going to be married to fellow teacher Emily Montgomery (Joan Cusack) in three days, but the whole town is more excited about the Oscar nomination of former resident Cameron Drake (Matt Dillon). But when Cameron wins an Oscar for playing a gay soldier, he thanks his gay teacher, Howard, for inspiration. What follows is Howard denying it in an hilarious set of mishaps in a truly screwball fashion.

Kevin Kline is great, exuding gay stereotypes. Joan Cusack really has a knack for screwball antics. Debbie Reynolds is utterly hilarious as Howard's mother. And Bob Newhart is also a hoot as the homophobic principal.

Gay screenwriter Paul Rudnick really achieves a delicate balance here. He knows the stereotypes and exploits them in a way that's mostly tolerable to conservative Midwesterners and yet mostly inoffensive to the gay audience. It's not exactly progressive, but it's funny and inoffensive, and definitely a step up from the previous year's "The Birdcage."

Sentiment: positive
Utter dreck. I got to the 16 minute/27 second point, and gave up. I'd have given it a negative number review if that were possible (although 'pissible' is a more fitting word...). Unlike the sizzle you could see and practically feel between MacMurray and Stanwyck in the original, the chemistry between dumb ol' Dicky Crenna and whats-her-face here is just non-existent. The anklet becomes an unattractive chunky bracelet? There's no ciggy-lighting-by-fingertip? And I thought I'd be SICK when they have a mortified-looking (and rightly so, believe you me) Lee J. Cobb as Keyes practically burping/upchucking his way through the explanation of his "Little Man" to Mr. Garloupis. No offence to the non-sighted, but it looks as though a posse of blind men ran amuck with the set design of both the Dietrichson and Neff houses. The same goes for those horrid plaid pants that Phyllis wears. And crikey, how much $$ does Neff make, that he lives overlooking a huge marina? This, folks, again, all takes place in the first 16 and a half minutes. If you can get through more of it, you have a much stronger constitution than me, or you are a masochist. But please, take some Alka-Seltzer first, or you WILL develop a "little man" of your own that may never go away. Proceed with caution, obviously.

Sentiment: negative
by saying that,I mean that this is not a well made movie but it's a very good version of the real event and the best depiction so far.and if you are a WW2 buff then this is a treat for you,cause there are three out of four saboteur members playing roles in this movie. It's theater acting at best but then this is still as said before a semi documentary.

Me personally am a die hard fan of our nearly over-human heroes of the second world war,and there should be hundreds of these movies showing us what they did so it won't get forgotten by next generations.Cause nowadays kids doesn't read books,they watch movies.

So if you want a action extravaganza,rent Private Ryan,this is the truth about lingering pain,outrageous endurance and the will to fight when all seems lost.

Sentiment: positive
We saw La Spettatrice last night @ the Chicago International Film Festival & we were both immensely moved by it. This is a haunting tale of loneliness & missed connection in which the longing for intimacy conflicts with our fear of revealing too much about ourselves to another. The three leads (Barbora Bobulova as Valeria, Brigitte Catillon as Flavia, Andrea Renzi as Massimo) are all excellent and the dynamic between them is very surprising. 

After all the movies which devalue older women, it's wonderful to see Flavia (who is a law professor at a university in Rome) presented as beautiful & sensual as well as seductive & powerful. We're conditioned to believe that when a younger woman enters 'the mix,' the older woman will become jealous of the younger woman, the man will leave the older woman for the younger woman, etc, etc. In this film, however, emotional truth is considerably more complex. Highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
A very charming film with wonderful sentiment and heart. It is rare when a film-maker takes the time to tell a worthy moral tale with care and love that doesn't fall into the trap of being overly syrupy or over indulgent. Nine out of ten for a truly lovely film.

Sentiment: positive
Hi folks

Forget about that movie. John C. should be ashamed that he appears as executive producer in the credits. bon jovi has never been and will never be an actor and the FX are a joke.

The first vampires was good ... and it was the only vampires. This thing here just wears the same name.

Just a waste of time thinks ...

JAKE Scorpio

Sentiment: negative
Historical movies always take liberties -- conversations are concocted where no one could actually know what was said, customs are adjusted to be comprehensible to modern audiences, etc. However, historical films about actual historical personages should make at least a minimal nod to history. This film does not. The only scene I actually remember is when our hero surprises an assassin who creeps into his chamber at night. He confronts the dangerous intruder with, "I don't remember sending for room service". The main entertainment value is in its badness; I recommended my local video story put it on the "Turkeys" shelf.

Sentiment: negative
This neo-film noir is one of a genre of late twentieth century American films that all seem to involve corrupt characters, fast cars, a ribbon of highway and, of course, plenty of guns wielded by people who appear never to have taken a gun safety course. The actors are the best reason to see "Black Day, Blue Night." There is the late, great J.T. Walsh ("Swing Blade," "Pleasantville," "Red Rock West," "The Last Seduction," and many more), who did many neo-films noirs (See also "Breakdown"). Then there is Michele Forbes of the TV series "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and "Homicide." (In a supporting role, there is even the late Bejamin Lum who also appeared on a Star Trek episode titled "The Naked Now.") A spoiler of sorts--a clue really: Only the most innocent survive, but innocence is a very relative term in a movie like this, and you probably won't guess who is innocent before the final reel.

Sentiment: positive
This movie was Jerry Bruckheimer's idea to sell some records . No seriously it was . The thinking behind it is that if you made a film full of pop songs you could stick the tracks on a LP , sell it and make even more money for the studio . You could also release a few tracks as singles and intercut the promo video with clips from the movie so that when MTV play a track you're actually getting free advertising for the movie . This is a good business deal but an artistic disaster because many of us still have nightmares about Hollywood movies from the 1980s and I rate the mid 1980s as the poorest time in artistic terms for American film making and FLASHDANCE opened the door to this " Let's make a 90 minute pop video instead of a movie " type film making

Jennifer Beals plays Alex Owens a dancer who works as a welder to make ends meet and right away logic disappears with this career choice . Welding is a fairly sophisticated trade , it's not something you walk into and learn in five minutes . There's other gaps in logic like ballet dancing and " flashdancing " being somehow similar . ie if you apply to be a ballet dancer and do some hot , dirty flashdancing the male judges might want to meet you after the audition but you won't get the job . it's kind of like saying that screen writing , novel writing and play writing are somehow the same when they're not 

But I guess none of this mattered to Jerry when he asked director Adrian Lyne to make the movie . Actually Lyne almost makes a very sexy movie , JenniferBeals is very sweet and innocent looking . Fortunately I sussed out why her face is brightly lit in close up while her silhouette is darkly litin long shots except when the camera cuts to close ups of her heavenly toned body . That's because a body double is used most of the time and frequently the body double is a man ! I bet there's a few naughty boys who are feeling guilty not to mention slightly disgusted to know that

Sentiment: negative
This is the movie I've seen more times than any other (I believe I saw it on average once every year since it was released). And every time I see it, it is equally fantastic and always reveals something new to me. The cast was most probably a combination of the very best there ever was in ex Yu cinematography. This movie is an absolute must for any self respecting movie lover. In the same league: Maratonci trce pocasni krug, Balkanski spijun and Otac na sluzbenom putu. This is a poker of movies everyone should have in his private video collection.

Sentiment: positive
It's literally the Three Stooges all over again, without the charm. This show's nothing more than the worst slapstick. I'm surprised they actually have writers. The so-called jokes are completely haphazard, and 'controversial' for no other point than trying very (very) hard to be controversial. And people think this is 'edgy'?? Get a clue: this show takes absolutely no thought, time, effort, money, or creativity/originality to produce. Any references present are geared toward anyone between the ages of 6 and 16 who would occasionally browse People magazine. But I suppose this is only what all the kiddies want, like and need today.

Sentiment: negative
A movie theater with a bad history of past gruesome murders reopens. Of course, the bloody killings start anew. Written, directed, shot, scored and edited with an appalling lack of flair and finesse by the singularly talentless Rick Sloane (who later disgraced celluloid some more with the absolutely atrocious "Hobgoblins"), this horrendously ham-fisted attempt at a slasher spoof strikes out something rotten in every conceivable way: the excruciatingly lethargic pacing, the painfully static, grainy cinematography (there's a stinky surplus of drab master shots featured throughout), an annoyingly droning and redundant hum'n'shiver synthesizer score, the flat (non)direction, a tediously talky and uneventful script, the groan-inducing sophomoric sense of lowbrow humor, the bloodless murder set pieces, a pitifully unscary killer (he's just some wrinkled-up old guy in pasty make-up), the uniformly obnoxious and unappealing characters, a dissatisfyingly abrupt ending, and lifeless performances from a noticeably uninspired cast all ensure that watching this schlocky swill is about as fun and rewarding as eating rancid raw eels drenched with sour vinegar. This crud totally lacks the necessary crude charm and sleazy vigor required to be enjoyable junk. Instead it's just a bland, plodding and meandering stiff that never catches fire or becomes even remotely amusing in a so-shoddy-it's-smoking sort of way. Only a smidgen of nudity and the delightful presence of the always dependable Mary Woronov as a snarky, sardonic secretary provide a little relief from the overall crumminess of this lousy loser.

Sentiment: negative
There really wasn't much of a story in this film. It loosely based itself off the events in the first Lion King movie. It is supposed to be how Timon and Pumbaa met via their aloneness. But there isn't much more than that.

It mixes some scenes from the original, then it ab-libs about how this movie changed them a little bit. But still, is that it? I was hoping for something a little more. Instead, all I have to show for it is an empty plot with little explanation.

I guess if you wanted to see other meerkats in the Lion King universe, then this is it. But other than that, it does little justice for the animators. Disney really should stop these direct-to-video productions. It really was quite boring and could have used Jason Statham. "D-"

Sentiment: negative
This movie is not worth seeing, at least not at a cinema. The story is hard to follow and understand (it starts with 10 minutes of something happening 3 years earlier). It's hard to know if this movie is trying to be a comedy or just is so bad/weird that it sometimes seems like it. American sirens and lights on Swedish police cars is just one example. The acting of Persbrandt and Bergqvist is good as usual, but I think Jenny Lampa acting as Jasmin acts very poor. Zara Zetterqvist acts pretty well, she's not been seen as an actor in Swedish movies for a long time. If you still want to see it, wait until it's released on DVD or is shown on TV.

Sentiment: negative
I raced to the library to check out this miniseries after having just finished listening to the marvelous "talking books" unabridged version of the book. The first half of this TV version is really very good, but it stumbles quite a bit in the second half. The relationship with the trustee is overplayed and conflicts are inserted between Jean and Joe that don't exist in Shute's story, unwisely in my opinion, as they greatly diminish the power of their love story. I was disappointed to find that the wonderful Bryan Brown's Joe seemed a lot cockier and much less appealing than the man in the book, but Helen Morse's Jean was really quite good. I think they would have had to make this a 10-hour miniseries to develop the outback story properly. But all that said, I did watch whole thing in more or less one go and did appreciate its merits, all the while wishing that someone would do a less soapy remake.

Sentiment: positive
Well, where to start? I stumbled across this one in 1993 and just hit "record" on the VCR out of habit, more than anything else. "Citizen Kane" it sure isn't...but if you've had a bad day and are in the mood for crashing out in front of something not too intellectually stimulating, then I tentatively suggest this might just be your "thing".

We have the lot here - great title track, more stereotypes than you could shake a stick at, unconscious comedy, the bitchiest fight scene of all time and more, more, more! David Hemmings plays the diametric opposite of his role in the 60s classic "Blow Up" - still a photographer, still hormonally stimulated but not "quite" the same.

John Philip Law is easy to slam as an actor who makes a log appear unwooden but that wouldn;t be fair seeing as how he had about 5 minutes notice before accepting the role.

Wexler as "Amanda"? Suffice to say it was her one and ONLY film role! The real star of this movie, though, is Ethel Evans who plays a, shall we say secretary (?), with the morals of an alley cat and an ambition to match. The way she manages to reconcile her present life with that of a future with her comedian husband-to-be is actually quite touching in an earthy, gritty, what-is-to-be-will-be way.

I actually love this movie when I'm in the mood for it.......and wouldn't touch it with the proverbial bargepole when I'm not.

Kudos to the cast for keeping a (relatively) straight face when filming.

A "classic" in the Edward D Wood school of cinematic endeavours!

Sentiment: positive
Since the last horrid Astérix film and the fact that we only get the Swiss German version in cinemas, here, I went to watch it with quite a bit of trepidation... Unfounded, as I was happy to discover ^____^

The film is funny and modern, has good gags, a good animation, an amusing character interaction, a good voice cast (Note: I can only speak for the Swiss German one!) except for the Viking chief's daughter Abba (her name is great, despite the not very inspired voice actress)...

I especially liked the character Justforkix (Goudurix in French, Grautvornix in German. He's the young man who is supposed to be put in shape...). He's a very amusing portrayal of a mollycoddled, urban teenager; but he's very likable, despite the teenage mannerisms... XD The interaction between Astérix & Obélix and their young charge is fantastic and thoroughly entertaining.

It shouldn't be compared to the old films, since this one is quite different... Which surprisingly doesn't make it bad. On the contrary. When they tried to modernize the last film (twelve years ago), they completely blew it. This film, however, proved that it can be done just fine... ^-^

I came out of the theater cheerful... Always a good sign ^_~

Sentiment: positive
I give this movie a ONE, for it is truly an awful movie. Sound track of the DVD is so bad, it actually hurts my ear. But the vision, no matter how disjointed, does show something really fancy in the Italian society. I will not go into detail what actually was so shocking , but the various incidents are absolutely abnormal. So for the kink value, i give it one.Otherwise, the video, photography, acting of the adults actors /actresses are simply substandard, a practical jock to people who love foreign movies.Roberto, the main character, has full spectrum of emotions but exaggerated to the point of being unbelievable.however, the children in the movie are mostly 3/4 years old, and they are genuine and the movie provides glimpse of the Italian life..

Sentiment: negative
Irene Jacob is mesmerizing in this final installment of Krzysztof Kieslowski's trilogy and the story is infinitely satisfying as it succeeds in tying all three films together. I am simply in awe of the amount of talent it took to do one of these stories, let alone all three. Everything seems to fit together so precisely, all the elements of filmmaking so eloquently executed, and the end result so much greater than the sum of the individual parts. Trois Couleurs is epic in nature and belongs on any list of great cinematic achievements. Simply brilliant!

Sentiment: positive
If you don't like bad acting, poor editing, ridiculous dialog and unbelievable characters you will hate this movie. If you like all of the above, that is to say if you are a Lynch fan, then you will love Mulholland Drive. This is quite possibly the worst film to be rated above an 7.0 on IMDB.

Outside of Naomi Watts work, you will be hard pressed to find any competent acting in Mulholland Dr. The other female lead went to the "hide your face with your hands when you don't have the chops" school of acting. Given the script they had to work with it's a wonder all of the actors weren't holding their heads in their hands.

Characters wander in and out of the film that do nothing to advance the storyline. You have a hitman, a mysterious cowboy, an adulterous wife and her cliche'd poolman lover, a mafioso type figure sitting in a darkened room who speaks through an external voice box and a host of others too numerous and tedious to mention. Suffice it to say that they manage to do little more than fill up screen time.

This isn't so bad however in that it distracts the viewer from the fact that the movie has no discernable plot. You will wait and wait for for all of the loose threads to come together and in the end you will be abysmally disappointed. The hardest thing for a writer to do is to bring everything together in a believable fashion at the end of a movie in a way that leaves everyone feeling fulfilled. The easiest thing for a writer to do is to create a lot of odd characters and put them in scenes that are not connected to the movie as a whole and then to take what few coherent threads there are and jumble them up at the end for the sake of surprise. Guess which way Lynch goes. SURPRISE!!

You know you have a bad script when you have to resort to dream sequences to make any sense out of it. After all, a dream sequence covers all sins. Dreams don't have to make sense. Anything can happen in a dream.

The editing is similarly disjointed. Let's just say good editing does not call attention to itself. Much of the way this film is edited seems to be done for the sole purpose of calling attention to the editing. "Look at me... You can see my editing... Aren't I a genius?" Uh, well... NO! This movie has all of the earmarks of the worst and most self-indulgent French films.

So why is this movie so popular? My theory is that it is just another sign of the decay of our culture. Melodies are hard to compose so let's listen to rap. Plots are hard to follow so let's dispense with them. Pictures are difficult to paint so let's pee in a cup and stick a crucifix in it. These are the symptoms of our times and Mulholland Drive is just another part of the affliction.

Sentiment: negative
This has to be one of the best comedies on the television at the moment. It takes the sugary-sweet idea of a show revolving around a close family and turns it into a quite realistic yet funny depiction of a typical family complete with sibling and parent spats, brat brothers, over-protective fathers and bimbo sisters. I'm almost surprised it's Disney!

To its credit, '8 Simple Rules' knows it's a comedy and doesn't try to be more. Too many shows (eg, 'Sister, Sister' and 'Lizzie McGuire') think just because its lead characters are now teenagers then they should tackle social issues and end up losing their humour by being too hard-hitting. This is a trap '8 Simple Rules' has avoided; it does tackle some issues (such as being the school outcast) but it has fun while doing so. In fact the only time it has really been serious was understandably when it sensitively handled the tragic death of John Ritter and his character.

And I think, although John Ritter will be sadly missed since he was the reason the show made its mark, '8 Simple Rules' can still do well if it remembers its humour and doesn't make Cate's father a second version of Paul Hennessy.

Sentiment: positive
I don't recommend watching this movie. It's a movie in which a movie is being filmed, with no attraction between actress and actor being played. The sex scene at the end of the movie which is to explain the reluctance of the actress (being played in the movie) to cooperate with the actor (being played in the movie)in it is a blunt repetition of the same scene in the Breillat movie Fat Girl. Everything there was played with more delicacy, if you can attach delicacy to a sex act like that. A typical French expression for the the thing happening in Sex is comedy is Oh la la! In Breillat's film Brief Crossing there also is sensitivity. In Sex is comedy I don't see real sensitivity and also a clear plot for the movie is not being developed so that there is a rather loose story with the disillusion of the end.

Sentiment: negative
My brother plays "Moose" in this film. Although most of his scenes were left on the cutting room floor. The funniest line is the movie is "nothing wong with stat." So anyway, this is filmed in Portland, OR, where we grew up. The dance club is/was called "Up Front FX". What I loved about this movie is that the main character (who is not named on the box because Bolo brings more clout) is supposed to be a police detective...a great opportunity to drive around in a red convertible Porsche. I need to get a copy of this, preferably the director's cut, so I can see all the scenes my brother is in. The only scene he is in is the beginning when they are in the dance club. He got the spot because he was dating this cheerleader from a semi-pro football team called The Oregon Thunderbolts. It is interesting because his name comes up as the first entry in IMDb. Fame has him, fortune, not so much.

Sentiment: negative
There are two ways to turn a TV series into a film.

The first, most common, and least successful, is to basically make a feature-length TV episode- see the disasters of the Steptoe & Son movie. The second is to do something else- something quite different, à la Monty Python.

Thankfully, the creators of the cult TV series have gone for the second option, and they've come up with something unique, clever and funny- it couldn't feel less like a TV episode.

Try to get your head around this- the writers, playing themselves, are confronted by their Royston Vasey alter-egos, played, of course, by them, and told to continue writing the series, otherwise apocalypse will befall the village.

High-concept, contrived and easy to screw up? Yes, but somehow they managed to pull it off. Not for every taste, perhaps, and the ending does drag, but fans will be delighted, and it might even win over the uninitiated.

Sentiment: positive
I think this is a lovely family movie. There are plenty of hilarious scenes and heart-warming moments to be had throughout the movie. The actors are great and the effects well executed throughout. Danny Glover plays George Knox who manages the terrible baseball team 'The Angels' and is great throughout the film. Also fantastic are the young actors Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Milton Davis Jr. Christopher Lloyd is good as Al 'The Angel' and the effects are great in this top notch Disney movie. A touching and heart-warming movie which everyone should enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
I absolutely loved this movie! It's my number one favorite. Although there were a few flaws (what movie doesn't have flaws?), this movie was very well written, directed, and produced. The characters in this movie are very real and believable. They made all of the characters fit into a specific role. I think that the most apparent thing about "Here On Earth" was the love triangle as well as the other emotional situations brought into the movie. It's not one of those movies where you just can't seem to relate to anything, because in it are situations that everyone is or has been in. There are so many different things going on in this movie that it is hard not to relate to it. I am just 18 years old and I can even relate to it. It was heart warming and wrenching at the same time. "Here On Earth" will make you laugh, cry, and sometimes angry. I give this movie an excellent review and recommend it to anyone who loves romance and passion!

Sentiment: positive
I have to congratulate the genius who approved this one. Edward Furlong, you're not as good as you think mate, you can't grab on every piece of low-cost amateur crap, which sole intention has to be to get some bucks.

The filming is bad, and I mean BAD. Anyone with a camera would get the same result, or better.

The acting, lets just say: don't go to the supermarket looking for actors. The good ones usually come with a degree or, at least, have some damn experience! The director.. Mr. Jon Keeyes, please find your purpose in life, as a director you simply suck. Your directing is poor, the angles are all messed up (not in a good way), the lines seem as if they're being read out of toilet paper, and the damn music.. it always comes up when it shouldn't and goes out for no apparent reason. And don't go for writer either, by the way. Making movies isn't like serving on a coffeshop, it requires art and skill, things I really doubt you'll ever have.

Instead of making a badass shootout movie, you should've shot this one back to oblivion and wait 'till something good came up.. Or just go find a job on a coffeshop. You'll have less stress and you'll save movie goers some money and a bad night.

vote: 1/10 (my first one)

Sentiment: negative
And a few more "no"s on top of that. Voodoo Academy is, without a doubt, the least ambitious film of all time. What exactly is it trying to do? Tell a story? Obviously not; as has been pointed out, most of it's just barely-legal guys rubbing themselves. Could it, then, be an attempt at subversive homoeroticism? Well, maybe, if not for the fact it never ever ever goes beyond the most innocuous and nonthreatening forms of male contact. (Which is, to the delight of none, repeated about eighty thousand times.) Well, it is sort of a horror movie; is it trying to scare us? Not unless the director meant to do so through the utter tedium and vacuousness of his "work."

Never in my life have I enjoyed a movie less. This is the most boring and unnecessary thing I've ever seen. It's like Voodoo Academy takes the genres of horror, zombie, and gay movies, puts them in a grinder, then runs them through a coffee filter--only instead of it being the kind of coffee filter that filters out coffee beans, it's the kind that takes out everything vital, edgy, or in any way interesting. The result is 74 minutes of film every bit as exciting as a glass of warm water--only without the ability to rehydrate you after the 10-day gin binge that will inevitably befall you if you watch this abomination of human effort.

Sentiment: negative
The authors know nothing about Russians prisons, the movie is absolutely cockamamie, has nothing common with the reality. They also don't that the foreign prisoners in Russia have a special prison so the foreigners NEVER live together with Russian criminals. The uniforms in this movie look if they were stolen somewhere in Latin America. Prisoners in Russia also don't work outside the prison. Each kill in Russian prison is a subject of investigation so the prisoners kill each other only if there some very important reasons. Playing soccer is also forbidden in the prisons, contacts between the prisoners are very restricted, no chance for bloody combats etc etc etc. So this movie has Nothing common with the reality.

Sentiment: negative
The two leads, an Englishman and an Aussie filming an American Civil War story in Romania, have not the slightest spark between them, are utterly unbelievable as lovers, and wholly unsympathetic. There is no story, no characterization, virtually nothing to keep the eyelids separated during this interminable bore fest. Renee Zelwegger, also hopelessly miscast, practically chews the fence posts, but at least watching her embarrass herself provides some comic relief. Nicole Kidman is a decade too old for the role and has not the slightest idea what's going on. Jude Law's moron role could have been played equally as well by any of the Romanian extras. The only requirement is to wander about the forest looking stupid while watching a parade of guest stars steal the show. Not that it mattered, because all of the guest star roles were completely unnecessary as they did not advance the so-called plot by one iota. And as if all that wasn't enough, the auteur felt it necessary to throw in some spinning, whirling, kung fu jumping off horses. What was that about?

Sentiment: negative
I gave this movie a 10 simply out of my sick obsession with Ingrid Bergman:) lol. I really think she was the best actress to ever grace this earth with her talent and all of her movies are absolutely wonderful (even when they are awful) because SHE is in them. If it hadn't been her and Vivien Leigh (as it had originally been desired I hear) I would have given it a 9.0 Simply because I love Viv but probably not as much as I love Ingrid. And any other actress would have made it maybe a 6. It's a good story, two wild people falling in love in a society where it bad to be bad. Reminds me a little of GWTW except laced with a more highbrow attitude. Gary Cooper is very handsome as usual and of course his voice never changes the entire film, but hey Ingrid makes him seem so amazing and dashing and 20 times hotter than he probably should be.

Sentiment: positive
If you think it's beautiful to be obsessive about who you are in love with, then I can imagine giving it a good rating... but I cannot imagine that this theme of obsessiveness and having little respect for others (such as the way Paulie treats the teachers who try to help her) is anything you would want to teach your children. Yes, it's also bad the way Victoria treated Paulie, but guess what. That's life. Isn't it a more important lesson to learn how to get past these disappointments and make the best of your life? Or is falling off the roof a better lesson to teach our children? Secondly, when Mary's father didn't show up for the dinner, and Paulie helped Mary release her anger, that Mary even said she wished he were dead... Somehow I don't think this is a good message either that you deal with your disappointments through anger.

Sentiment: negative
With the little respect it deserves, I would like to state that this movie was horrible. The filmmakers had good intentions, but the overall quality of the direction and production value was obviously lacking a great deal. I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes a good hard laugh and then wasting two more hours of their life enduring a truly painful experience. I'm surprised I even found this movie on the $1 DVD rack where it was aptly placed. I thought maybe it was going to be good and that I might discover some amazing independent film - I was wrong. I wish I had never seen this movie. My 3-year-old cousin couldn't make a worse film. I'm glad I saw the film because I can finally tell people I've seen the worst movie ever made, and be sure of it.

Sentiment: negative
An archaeologist (Casper Van Dien) stumbles accidentally upon an ancient, 40 foot mummy, well preserved underground in the Nevada desert. They are determined to keep this a secret and call in a Jewish translator to assist in figuring out the history of it. The mummy, as explained at the beginning, is the son of a fallen angel and is one of several giants that apparently existed in "those days". In order to save his son from a devastating flood which was predicted to kill everything, he mummifies his son, burying him with several servants for centuries - planning to awaken him years from then. In our present, the fallen angels still walk the earth and the mummy is resurrected and a ritual is expected to take place. Most of the movie is slow, having to do with a lot of biblical crap and a couple lousy, air-punching fights. The mummy is decent looking but isn't shown nearly enough. It should have had more to do with that but it dragged on a great deal so... eh. Don't bother.

Sentiment: negative
I was pretty surprised with this flick. Even though their budjet was obviously lacking still you have to be impressed that this movie took 7 years to make and still turned out good. The acting was pretty impressive and the story really captivated me. My only complaint would be that the ending really was a little too abrupt for my taste. But hey if your audience is left wanting more then this movie has succeeded.

I would really recommend anyone in Hollywood to look up Antonella Ríos who is an excellent Spanish talent (something hard to find now days with all the bad novela over acting). Antonella Ríos truly is a star on the rise.

Sentiment: positive
Please, If you're thinking about renting this movie, don't. If you're thinking of watching a couple of downloaded clips, don't. If I had my way, nobody would even have to read this summary.

The acting, despite being one fo the high points of the movie was still pathetic. The director was probaly a sadist. The witty one liners were something you'd expect from a room of highly paid anti-social 7 year olds that eat paint-chips for breakfast.

The problem with this movie, is that it tries to be a movie like "Evil Dead 2"(do not under any circumstances associate these 2 movies) in that it's so bad it's funny. But it also tries to be funny at the same time, and fails so overwhelmingly to do so, that your sense of humor is left too crippled to do anything but set off your gag reflex in an attmept to save itself.

I could go on for much much more, detailing just how awful it really was, but I think it would strip me of my will to live just to continue to think about it. If you need me, I'll be off trying to boil myself so that I might feel clean again...

Sentiment: negative
Awful, simply awful. It proves my theory about "star power." This is supposed to be great TV because the guy who directed (battlestar) Titanica is the same guy who directed this shlop schtock schtick about a chick. B O R I N G.

Find something a thousand times more interesting to do - like watch your TV with no picture and no sound. 1/10 (I rated it so high b/c there aren't any negative scores in the IMDb.com rating system.)

-Zaphoid

PS: My theory about "star power" is: the more "star power" used in a show, the weaker the show is. (It's called an indirect proportionality: quality 1/"star power", less "sp" makes for better quality, etc. Another way to look at it is: "more is less.")

-Z

Sentiment: negative
Since my third or fourth viewing some time ago, I've abstained from La Maman et la putain while I wait for the DVD. In the meantime, I've read the french screenplay as well as Alain Philippon's monograph on Jean Eustache. The latter ends with a frustrating filmography, eleven films, fiction, doc, and in-between, impossible to see or, in the cases of Mes petites amoureuses and Le Père Noël..., re-see.

A few questions that hit me this moment: Polish Véronika's French is plenty colloquial (un maximum d' "un maximum d'"). Even so, does she have an accent? I think I can tell she does. What does the absence of color add, especially at the single spot the fringe of the city is glimpsed? How does this fringe differ from the sleep and journey that separates worlds of The Tempest and The Winter's Tale? Ditto Alphaville. We may imagine the elapsed years since have done it, but does Eustache deliberately circumscribe the film's milieu? Is this an enchanted isle? Is Alexandre's a fairy tale? Alexandre's always choreographing himself, worrying about how or where to stand or walk, what to say when, announcing these decisions to who have to care less than he does what he does. Or is this his way of trying to choreograph others by doing it to himself? How different is he from Vertigo's Scottie? (I say, I think, very.) What's the difference, and is there one, between Eustache's Léaud, and Truffaut's, and Godard's? How different is the present Léaud? Isn't he still doing it, whatever it is, in recent roles, Irma Vep, Le Pornographe, whatever, approaching old age? Once I arrived early for one in a series of mostly Antoine Doinel (Léaud's character) Truffaut films. For a long while, every three or five minutes, down the aisle would come a twenty-something male in scarf, tweedy coat, Léaud hair, with a direction-seeking nose. I have no idea whether this was conscious or unconscious mimicry. I was that age, but have no idea what I myself looked like then. No scarf, at least. I do have a brother, though, who seems to have learned his carriage from Bresson.

Sentiment: positive
I do agree with everything Calamine has said! And I don't always agree with people, but what Calamine has said is very true, it is time for the girls to move on to better roles. I would like to see them succeed very much as they were a very inspirational pair growing up and I would like to see them grow as people, actresses and in their career as well as their personal life. So producers, please give the girls a chance to develop something that goes off the tangent a bit, move them into a new direction that recognises them individually and their talents in many facets. This movie that is being commented is not too bad, but as I have seen further on in their movies, their movies stay the same of typical plot and typography. When In Rome is good for audiences of younger generation but the adults who were kids when the twins were babies want to follow the twins in their successes and so hence I think we adults would like to see them make movies of different kinds, maybe some that are like the sixth sense, the hour, chocolat, that sort of movie - not saying to have just serious movies for them, humour ones too yes, but rather see them in different roles to what they have been playing in their more recent movies like this one and New York Minute. (Note: I am from Australia so excuse my weird spelling like reognise with the s instead of z)

Sentiment: negative
I have watched this film twice now and think its quite good for the limited equipment used to create this film. (filmed in 1947) Dr. Heyerdahl explains his theory about the migration of south American Pre-Colubian Indians to the Polynesia's islands by way raft fell of large balsa trees. This documentary follows Dr. Heyerdahl and crew as they select balsa trees in Equidor and float with them down river to the pacific for assembly in Peru. They launch off on a 101 day sea adventure testing the strength of their primitive raft surviving only by means available to natives of that era. See for yourself, a real adventure!

Sentiment: positive
This is a masterpiece. 'The Big Snit' is a crazy, weird, hilarious and eventually touching look at an old married couple and their quiet life, who argue over sawing and scrabble while a nuclear war rages on outside. Everything in this great animated short stands out as memorable: The eye shaking of the wife, the vacuuming binge, the husband's saw fetish (keep an eye on those backgrounds!), the very verbal cat, the demented game show, the "informative" news anchor, the "beautiful" accordion serenade and the moving and memorable ending. I am so glad I found 'The Big Snit', which is hands down one of the greatest works of film ever produced.

Sentiment: positive
I just saw "If" I can remember the advertisements for the movie from 1968, so I was interested in finally seeing it. It may be the perspective of an American who never went to a British public school and misses some of the social references, but I thought the movie was awful. For one thing, as others have pointed out, it takes almost the entire movie for the much ballyhooed-at-the-time revolt to break out. For another, whether the last scene is real or imagined, what occurs isn't a revolt, but a shooting rampage. There's quite a difference.

I know it may be bad form to judge a movie on subsequent events, but one cannot avoid doing it here. One person wrote a message board posting asking us not to compare the end of movie to the incidents at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech. But if there's a scintilla of difference between Klebold, Harris and Cho on the one hand and Travis (Malcom McDowell) on the other, I simply can't see it. All four of them were under the delusion that their gunfire is going to purify a f___-ed up world that they arrogantly take no responsibility for.

Which brings me to: why the hell are Travis and his chums even in a school they so despise? They are adults, or close to it. They're not in a military prison, like the inmates in "The Hill," a much better British film from about the same time. No one is forcing them to go to College and take beatings from the the whips, except maybe ambitious parents in need of a wake-up about the nature of their sons. I had the opportunity in college to join a frat, except I couldn't stand to be given silly, cruel orders by delinquents claiming to be my prospective "brothers." I took the consequences of not having the "in" with the Establishment that frats provide, and I can't say I regretted it.

If Travis fancies himself the second coming of Lenin (whose unbearded picture hangs prominently in his room) he's free to go out and organize a fitter's union or work for Michael Foot in the next election. If he wants to be Jack Kerouac, then get on the road and start writing. What possible benefit is he giving the world in joyriding a motorcycle and getting drunk in his room?

Sometimes reviewers have to be like the person who responded to the scene in "Last Tango In Paris" where Brando mopes about having had to go on a date with cow manure on his shoes. In the real world, the person said, a listener would say "Why didn't you scrape it off? Change your shoes?" --Don't allow fictional characters to lay a self-pity trip on you because you don't dare point out an common-sense alternative course of action for them. So it is here.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the weirder movies I have recently watched. That's because it seems less like a movie and more like an experimental film. Kurasawa's experiment was to take a variety of individuals who live at a garbage dump and weave their experiences into a tapestry that offers glimpses of their generally harsh existences. Not every episode is depressing and harsh, but overall this is definitely the tone. Let's see,...we have a case of incest/rape, attempted murder, wife swapping, alcoholism, infidelity, death of a little boy after eating tainted fish, a man with severe depression (he never talks during the movie and looks very scary), a hopeless dreamer who would probably be diagnosed with schizophrenia, a mentally retarded young man who thinks he is a street car conductor and spends all his waking moments "driving" his street car through paths among the garbage piles, a man married to a total shrew (I think I liked her character even less than the incestuous rapist!), etc., etc. In fact, it is depressing enough that it seemed almost like an Ingmar Bergman movie set in Japan, as Bergman made MANY movies that tended to deal with mental illness and the hopelessness of life. Is it any wonder that after making this film Kurasawa tried to kill himself?! So, did I like it? No. It was not a fun experience. But, it was a very well-made movie that definitely kept my attention and as a result, I really wanted to see what happened to these people. It was sort of like watching a train wreck--you don't WANT to see all the carnage but you can't help but watch! Of all the vignettes, I think that the older man who tended to look out for everyone and who didn't really seem to fit in (he was too well-adjusted and wise to be living in a garbage dump) was perhaps meant to represent Kurasawa himself. Maybe. I dunno.

If you've seen a variety of Kurasawa films and have a high tolerance for strange art films, give this one a watch. However, do NOT make this your first experience watching his movies--it's sure to scare away many viewers!

Sentiment: positive