DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This movie was made for people who found Gremlins too serious and Critters to hardcore. Like many of the critters/trolls/gremlins movies of the 80's this movie is bad. The sad part is that there's no punchline to that comment. It's just bad and not in a funny way.

The problem with this miniature monster movie is that it actually tries to be funny and ends up being as successful in doing that as Howie Mandell was in Walk Like A Man. What made the other 80's horror movies into classics was that they were genuinely trying to be scary, but were hilarious because they failed so miserably. Someone must have told Bettina Hirsch (yes THE Bettina Hirsch)she had a knack for comedy before she started directing this movie. Unfortunately they were wrong.

Sure seeing a weird little mutated cross between a ferret and a tumor wearing a brown trenchcoat and throwing pool balls at an outcast from the Lost Boys is amusing, but not enough to save the movie.

By far the most annoying part of the movie is the Paul character. His Paul Reiser wannabe schtick is enough to make you start fast forwarding from the time of his first scene until the ending credits only stopping once to see a scene where a munchie throws pool balls at a guy...not that I did that.

So the bottom line is run, don't walk, to your nearest Blockbuster and shake hands with the manager and thank him for not having the grapes to stock this pile of garbage on the shelves.

Sentiment: negative
I grew up in Brazil and I used to visit and marvel at the beautiful coast where the movie was filmed. The area is called "Parati" and is part of the "Green Coast" of the Rio de Janeiro state. It is some 150 miles from the Rio de Janeiro city.

This movie brings back to life the world of 16th century Brazil, where Europeans were barely starting to explore the coastline, which was still in pristine state and sparsely populated by various native tribes. French and Portuguese fought each other for territory and for the upper hand on the Brazil wood trade, all the while negotiating with the natives, who also fought each other for whatever reasons.

One French misfit ("a mercenary") is left to die by his own compatriots but manages to escape and is kept prisoner by an all-naked native tribe. While he is a "slave" of the chief, according to the customs of the tribe, he is allowed to live in relative comfort for months until the time is right for him to be killed and eaten in a ritual of revenge.

What I love about this film is that it recreates in loving detail the natives' villages and their way-of-life (they walked naked and were cannibals) and asks us to recognize and accept the life in those times as it was: in a gorgeous garden-of-eden, life was messy, violent, full of pathetic superstition and bizarre customs. The Europeans arrive and bring their own problems, including more violence with better weapons and greed. There is no romanticized "noble savages" or "heroic explorers" here, it is just people trying to survive in a tough world.

The movie is neither unduly sympathetic nor dismissive of the natives. From what I know of the subject, the depiction is fairly accurate which adds an air of uniqueness to the project: how many movies have you seen regarding the lives of Brazilian natives and their early affairs with Europeans?

Sentiment: positive
I very nearly walked out, but I'd paid my money, and my nearly-as-disgusted friend wanted to hold out. After the endearing, wide-eyed innocence of "A New Hope" and the thrilling sophistication of "The Empire Strikes Back," I remember awaiting "Return of the Jedi" with almost aching anticipation. But from the opening scene of this insultingly commercial sewage, I was bitterly disappointed, and enraged at Lucas. He should have been ashamed of himself, but this abomination undeniably proves that he doesn't have subatomic particle of shame in his cold, greedy heart. Episode I would go on to reinforce this fact -- your honor, I call Jarjar Binks (but please issue barf bags to the members of the jury first).

From the initial raising of the gate at Jabba's lair, this "film" was nothing more than a two-plus-hour commercial for as many licensable, profit-making action figures as Lucas could cram into it -- the pig-like guards, the hokey flesh-pigtailed flunky, that vile muppet-pet of Jabba's, the new and recycled cabaret figures, the monsters, etc., etc., ad vomitum. Then there were the detestably cute and marketable Ewoks. Pile on top of that all of the rebel alliance aliens. Fifteen seconds each on-screen (or less) and the kiddies just GOTTA have one for their collection. The blatant, exploitative financial baiting of children is nauseating.

Lucas didn't even bother to come up with a new plot -- he just exhumed the Death Star from "A New Hope" and heaved in a boatload of cheap sentiment. What an appalling slap in the face to his fans. I can't shake the notion that Lucas took a perverse pleasure in inflicting this dreck on his fans: "I've got these lemmings hooked so bad that I can crank out the worst piece of stinking, putrid garbage that I could dream up, and they'll flock to the theaters to scarf it up. Plus, all the kiddies will whine and torture their parents until they buy the brats a complete collection of action figures of every single incidental undeveloped, cartoonish caricature that I stuffed in, and I get a cut from every single one. It'll make me even more obscenely rich."

There may have been a paltry, partial handful of redeeming moments in this miserable rip-off. I seem to recall that Harrison Ford managed to just barely keep his nose above the surface of this cesspool. But whatever tiny few bright spots there may be are massively obliterated by the offensive commercialism that Lucas so avariciously embraced in this total, absolute sell-out to profit.

Sentiment: negative
Who are these "They"- the actors? the filmmakers? Certainly couldn't be the audience- this is among the most air-puffed productions in existence. It's the kind of movie that looks like it was a lot of fun to shoot TOO much fun, nobody is getting any actual work done, and that almost always makes for a movie that's no fun to watch.

Ritter dons glasses so as to hammer home his character's status as a sort of doppleganger of the bespectacled Bogdanovich; the scenes with the breezy Ms. Stratten are sweet, but have an embarrassing, look-guys-I'm-dating-the-prom-queen feel to them. Ben Gazzara sports his usual cat's-got-canary grin in a futile attempt to elevate the meager plot, which requires him to pursue Audrey Hepburn with all the interest of a narcoleptic at an insomnia clinic. In the meantime, the budding couple's respective children (nepotism alert: Bogdanovich's daughters) spew cute and pick up some fairly disturbing pointers on 'love' while observing their parents. (Ms. Hepburn, drawing on her dignity, manages to rise above the proceedings- but she has the monumental challenge of playing herself, ostensibly.) Everybody looks great, but so what? It's a movie and we can expect that much, if that's what you're looking for you'd be better off picking up a copy of Vogue.

Oh- and it has to be mentioned that Colleen Camp thoroughly annoys, even apart from her singing, which, while competent, is wholly unconvincing... the country and western numbers are woefully mismatched with the standards on the soundtrack. Surely this is NOT what Gershwin (who wrote the song from which the movie's title is derived) had in mind; his stage musicals of the 20's may have been slight, but at least they were long on charm. "They All Laughed" tries to coast on its good intentions, but nobody- least of all Peter Bogdanovich - has the good sense to put on the brakes.

Due in no small part to the tragic death of Dorothy Stratten, this movie has a special place in the heart of Mr. Bogdanovich- he even bought it back from its producers, then distributed it on his own and went bankrupt when it didn't prove popular. His rise and fall is among the more sympathetic and tragic of Hollywood stories, so there's no joy in criticizing the film... there _is_ real emotional investment in Ms. Stratten's scenes. But "Laughed" is a faint echo of "The Last Picture Show", "Paper Moon" or "What's Up, Doc"- following "Daisy Miller" and "At Long Last Love", it was a thundering confirmation of the phase from which P.B. has never emerged.

All in all, though, the movie is harmless, only a waste of rental. I want to watch people having a good time, I'll go to the park on a sunny day. For filmic expressions of joy and love, I'll stick to Ernest Lubitsch and Jaques Demy...

Sentiment: negative
Okay, just by reading the title you would think that it would be a good movie. Well, at least I did. It started out good but became so boring after the first half hour. *spoiler*

It tells a story about a mother that is so desperate for her daughter to become a cheerleader that she will go to any lengths to get what she wants. The only problem is that her daughter's friend is the girl in the way. She always wins the competitions, therefore pushing the mother further towards "eliminating" her. After talking to a "hitman", the mother decides that the girl needs to be roughed up a bit. So actions are taken but she eventually gets caught.

The cast is awful and the movie drags on too long with nothing happening. Don't waste your time watching this.



Sentiment: negative
it aint bad, but it aint good. it is just entertaining.

as a comedy which it is supposed to be, it's dreadful. not many laughs at all as every joke in the movie has been done a million times before.

it's a shame as all the actors in the film are great usually, but none of them really do much. and the ending sucks.

Sentiment: negative
'Dead Letter Office' is a low-budget film about a couple of employees of the Australian postal service, struggling to rebuild their damaged lives. Unfortunately, the acting is poor and the links between the characters' past misfortunes and present mindsets are clumsily and over-schematically represented. What's most disappointing of all, however, is the portrayal is life in the office of the film's title: there's no mechanisation whatsoever, and it's quite impossible to ascertain what any of the staff really do for a living. Granted, part of the plot is that the office is threatened with closure, but this sort of office surely closed in the 1930s, if it ever truly existed. It's a shame, as the film's overall tone is poignant and wry, and there's some promise in the scenario: but few of the details convince. Overall, it feels the work of someone who hasn't actually experienced much of real life; a student film, with a concept and an outline, but sadly little else.

Sentiment: negative
For a while it seemed like this show was on 24/7. Then apparently there was a second season or some other kind of continuation of this horrible show about the two most vapid and conceited people who have ever been filmed. All the other comments have captured the essence of these two selfish, haggish, airheads perfectly. Not much less can be said about them besides what everyone else has said.

I doubt these two ladies have souls, and more than likely they made some kind of Faustian Bargain in order to get their lizardly snouts on a television series. May the fates protect the human race from any more exposure to the Ghastly Girls!

Sentiment: negative
In reviewing this film I can only go by my experiences as a weekend warrior doing my basic training in July, August, and September of 1971 in that garden spot of the earth, Fort Polk, Louisiana. Take the High Ground was not anything like I remember basic training.

But one has to remember at the time this was post Korea which ended in a stalemate, but it was a conventional war as we knew them. It was not Vietnam, a jungle guerrilla war where we kept pouring draftees into an endless pit. The draft at that time was an unwelcome, but accepted as still necessary for the country's defense.

Richard Widmark is a veteran of Korea now assigned state side to train the troops to go overseas. The film is about one of his training cycles and the men of the platoon he has to train. They're the usual kind you would find in just about any war film from the previous decade. 

One thing I will praise Take The High Ground for is the fact that MGM recognized our army was now an integrated one with the presence of William Hazard as a black recruit in the platoon. It was in keeping with the spirit of the times which were a changing.

But I will say that a recruit like Russ Tamblyn would have been cured of his smart mouth from day one. Richard Widmark would have not risked death or becoming a eunuch in order to give Jerome Courtland confidence with a weapon. And no way would have he worried so much about Robert Arthur deserting. He's have just let the MPs deal with him.

Of course being shot in and around Fort Bliss and El Paso, Texas did give Take the High Ground good authenticity. But view it as an army recruiting film and you can certainly understand why the government so eagerly gave cooperation back in the day.

I do remember the drill sergeants having their little conflicts which you could pick up on when you weren't worried about them getting on your case for something which was 95% of the time. But there ain't no way that Karl Malden would have slugged Widmark out in the open during training in front of several witnesses among the recruits. Both would have realized that would have undermined authority, something the military just doesn't let happen.

I wish I could have said something better about Take The High Ground because I certainly like its talented cast, it's talented director Richard Brooks, even the silly theme by Dimitri Tiomkin and Ned Washington, fresh from their Oscar a year before for High Noon. The film actually got an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay and story by Millard Kaufman. It must have been for Kaufman's vivid imagination.

Sentiment: negative
Valley Girl is the definitive 1980's movie with catch phrases filtered throughout this wonderfully acted movie. The characters are so convincing that you forget it is a movie and not a video of an actual "day-in-the-life" of any high school, USA. This flick is to the 1980's what the Brady Bunch TV series is to the 1970's. If you don't like it, well then "Gag me with a spoon."

Sentiment: positive
The only reason I rented the movie was to see Jeri Ryan in it! OMG that was the most boring, pointless movie I've ever seen!!! HOW LAME!!! I mean really, give me a break! After Voyager, I'd hope she'd be offered better roles!!

If I were one of the last people on earth, I would NOT still be living in a travel trailer in the dessert!! This is just such a bad movie!! The thing about the indian tribe and how he compared it every 10 seconds really, really got old. Poor Jeri, better luck next time!

Sentiment: negative
I got hold of a discount copy of this. I had seen it several years ago. My only recent experience had been "Mystery Science Theatre" where it was soundly spoofed. One never really gets a chance to get into these movies because of all the byplay. I love the beginnings of fifties horror movies. They give us a pompous lecture on the defense systems near the Arctic. These were there to protect us from the expected Soviet invasion, but they should come in handy, given the threat of very large insects. 

This particular one flies. For some reason, despite its exoskeleton made of the stuff grasshoppers are made of, they can still fend off air to air missiles and disable fighter planes. 

Anyway, it's more fun--first, the obligatory deranged case who saw the flying thing, cooling his heels in a hospital (it just teaches one--see an insect as big as a house--keep your mouth shut). I wonder if the poor guy got to go home after they found the bug.

Otherwise, this is a pretty ordinary effort. It follows the usual efforts to come up with a way of dissuading the stubborn bug--and leaves us open to other possibilities--the Russians next time. I still get a kick out of these films and this one is serviceable.

Sentiment: negative
John Knowles modern masterpiece, A Separate Peace, are one of many subtle, and subtly is the watch word, themes of love, hate, jealously, denial and regret. The 1972 version does attempt to address this style and what the book is - A love story with war looming in the background. 

The 2004 version does not use subtly at all but overtness in the portrayal of the story. What is staring you in the face when you read the novel - is a love story, and yes maybe it is arguable, a gay love story. In the novel and 1972 film version there are sexual undertones everywhere in the writings and dialog.In the 2004 Showtime film version these tensions were omitted and the actors were in there late twenties playing teenagers which caused for mature acting taking away from any tenderness or hesitation of innocence in youth.

I did not like this remake for more reasons. The hair that broke the camels' back was that Phineas was given a surname on the letters he received from the draft boards! Finny is a character that does not have nor needs a last name. John Knowles did that intentionally.

Though I accept the 1972 version the acting was at times a little amateurish, so what, it attempted to be sincere to the novel by shooting on location at Phillips Exeter Academy that The Devon Acedemy was based on; which also the writer John Knowles attended as a student.

The directors and producers took all teenage Exeter students, with exception of Parker Stevenson whom attended The Brooks School, to play in a Paramount Film! Class act by preppies compared to this Canadian College shot, played with adult actors, politically correct, platonic version. No - Veto on this sham try again. The 1972 film version with John Heyl and Parker Stevenson was the real deal for A Separate Peace on the screen. The Showtime 2004 film made for cable version was not.

Sentiment: negative
Simply one of the best ever! Richard Brooks' adaptation of Truman Capote's non-fiction novel is truly an artistic achievement. Stunning black and white cinematography (that should have won an Oscar), a haunting Quincy Jones score and tremendous performances by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson as the oddly-matched killers. This film was 0 for 4 at the Academy Awards and wasn't even nominated for Best Picture while Dr. Doolittle was. Go Figure! 

Although you don't get to know the Clutter family as well as you do in the book, it was a good decision to focus more on Perry and Dick and the pain-staking process of tracking these guys down. John Forsythe is also impressive as Alvin Dewey. There are simply no flaws in this one. 10 out of 10. Best performance = Scott Wilson with R. Blake a close second. Highly recommended!

Sentiment: positive
As a big fan of Brian Yuzna and the majority of the movies he's been involved in, I guessed I'd enjoy Progeny. I didn't, although in ways it has it's moments. However, if you're expecting something of the calibre of Society or Beyond ReAnimator, you could be in for a shock. In a way this is similar to Society, being a tale of a seemingly ordinary world with a horrific supernatural underbelly...but that's where it ends.

I'm not covering for Yuzna when I say that the fault doesn't really lie with him, as bad direction is bad direction, but the direction is sound. What trips the movie up is both script and acting. Stuart Gordon (ReAnimator, Dagon) has written an intelligent script, but one that doesn't really work with Yuzna's style of direction, leaving him paused on actors delivering lengthy dialogue when really he wants to throw that camera around and get down with his bad self. This matter makes the movie awkward enough as it is, but there's worse.

If the movie had been made with great actors, the movie would have probably held it's own. Unfortunately this is very far from the case. The acting is wooden, shockingly so even for a low-budget B feature. The inexplicably successful and renowned Arnold Vosloo wrecks every damn line with near pinpoint precision, handing in one of the worst performances I've seen in a long while. The man manages to turn every line of well considered dialogue into the kind of ham-line you'll be throwing drunkenly at mates next time you're in the pub. 'Hey Bob! GOOD GOD, AM I GOING MAD! WHAT'S...COME OVER ME! NOOOO!' In fact I may try that one myself next weekend. The last minute addition of genre veteran (and personal favourite) Brad Dourif, instead of enriching the film like it should, almost seems to hand Dourif the movie in a last ditch effort to stop Vosloo from hamming, but quite frankly Dourif looks deeply uncomfortable (possibly waiting for the next assault of bad acting) next to Vosloo, and even an eccentric turn from him fails to resuscitate the film.

If the acting was better, this movie would have been okay. Hell, it might have been pretty enjoyable, but the lack of character makes the movie a soulless affair, and makes the horror element seem tacked on and tasteless instead of an organic part of the film. I found the alien torture/rape scenes a little difficult to stomach already, but the fact that the characters were so lacking made them seem gratuitous as well as unpleasant, leaving a nasty taste in the mouth.

So, if you really like Sci-fi and don't have a problem with bad acting, pedestrian pacing and a really garish, nasty rape scene, Progeny will probably be your cup of tea. But since I do, I'm probably never going to watch it again. Once was enough. On the plus side, this is the only Sci-Fi movie Yuzna ever bothered to make, so he obviously wasn't really that pleased with it himself.

Sentiment: negative
Sure, he became rapidly uneven after this film, but from "Knife In the Water" up till "The Tenant", Roman Polanski could always be counted on to deliver something fascinating and unique. Despite many running themes (alienation, paranoia), no two of his films are really alike. The story of this is somewhat similar to his own "Repulsion" from ten years earlier, but the tone is completely different. "The Tenant" manages to balance darker than dark absurdity (I'm a bit hesitant on calling it humor, even though the protagonists bizarre behavior and dialog was occasionally funny) with some truly suspenseful paranoia. Polanski was always a master at building unease, and moments in this film are almost unbearably creepy. The overall weirdness of the film is also a plus.

In addition to Polanski's exquisite as usual direction, the rest of the cast and crew offer great contributions. Polanski the actor is often overshadowed by Polanski the director, but his performance here truly captures his characters awkwardness and sense of being an outcast. The themes of social discrimination make this film more than just strangeness for the sake of being strange. The rest of the cast offers strong performances also, especially Isabelle Adjani's sympathetic turn, and Melyvn Douglas and Shelley Winters' appropriately annoying ones. "The Tenant" is often underrated because of how ready people are to heap praise on both "Repulsion" and "Rosemary's Baby", but its just as brilliant as either of those classics. (9/10)

Sentiment: positive
"Gespenster" Question of to be cool in the German cinema

There are not many German films in the last ten years, who have made me so interest. Yes, the problem of the most German films are in this film "Gespenster" too. He is on some places to uncooked to be good to see. Special the figure of Toni (Sabine Timento) is too cool. But thats is in German films always so. Everybody must to learns this coolneß - is the realism in this films. Thats difficult to understand. But in this case it makes some sense, because she steals and she lies - she is the kind of girl is better you never love it, because you lose it. Thats not clear for the other girl Nina in this film. She love her - and she would lose her. But Nina lost everything. She will play with soft emotion and a sad feeling. There is no way - but you must take it said Herbert Achterbusch for twenty years. Thats so often the way it goes in German films. Why? Nina (Julia Hummer) is not inside of the laws of society - the is outside - and there she have no chance. This films tries not on every place to gave her a part inside. Thats one of the problems - the stupid break with conventions - the criminal fascination. Throw it all away - and go nowhere! But the actress plays this difficult part very interesting. On the other side - there the parents - who are the pendant to the two girls. The have a car - a hotel suite - the have money and live in world with music of the opera. But the film stand always in some distance to seem. There is no much explaining of them.

In the center of this film, there is one scene you will never forget. The two girls got to a casting. And there they should say how they find together. In this scene Toni will lying on. She said a fantastic story-has nothing to do with her. And then Nina will say the truth. She said it in an introversion way. There is no exhibition in it. She looks to the bottom and said what will happened for here. Thats a great moment. In the next scene on the party with pictures in red this feeling is going on- than Toni goes away...

Okay, The film will end - in the German way of coolneß - rubbish - here the circle of sadness is closing. But there was a moment - where is happening something else - and this moment was important. He is more than German coolneß - and this moments are rare in the German cinema in this time!

Sentiment: positive
I saw it, I agree with him 100%, but I didn't care for his delivery. He just came off as an asshole in a poorly edited, contrived juvenile smear campaign. Edit cuts galore, etc... The camera would be focused on him, and you'd see 2 or 3 edit cuts just over the course of a minute or two of dialog. Add in the constant boom mikes in the camera shot, which is a film no-no.

This documentary hits a topic with so many angles, so many interesting stories, that the movie is just so easily done. Picking on religious fanatics is like picking on the retarded kid. It is so easy it is just wrong. I mean how hard is it to make these people look like nut bags? To make them contradict themselves, you just let them recite more then a verse or two. I do like when he jumped back in forth between people of the same religion and showed them completely contradicting themselves.

I just think he could have done something a little more creative. The part with the neurologist talking about brain activity was never fleshed out. It could have been interesting to show brain scans of people during religious fits compared to drugs, or sex, or ???? He could have played more on the women all rejoicing over the Passion play that looked more like a snuff scene in a new Rob Zombie movie. More could have gone into the history of John Smith, the Mormon founder who had quite the colorful past. Delve into science v.s. religion. One is a very methodical, very strict process for increasing the confidence in theories. It builds on itself from a solid bottom up, a new layer on top of a more proved layer. An enormous burden of proof is required each step of the way. The other starts at the top and comes down with unchallengeable claims. It is so, because well I said so.

Done right I'd say turn it into an HBO original series hit a different religion every week.

It was an eye opener about one thing. I must have been blind. Good ole G.W.Bush... no wonder he got elected. He had the religious majority. And well... now that is the blind leading the blind.

Bill Moyer.. Well.. what can I expect from a guy who hands out at Sutra in Newport beach?

Sentiment: negative
The problem with making a movie like this, though, is that the finale, the crème-de-la-creme of the movie, the battle between the two souped-up ships, must be done well. Disappointingly, this scene in Ironclads is obviously done completely with little model ships in an overgrown tub. There's no tension, little explanation of what exactly is going on and what the timeframe is of the stand-off.

The film takes quite a few liberties with the surrounding story, as all true stories do when converted to a movie, such as the Union traitor and most notably that of Betty Stuart (Madsen), a Virginia belle.

It resorts to making a possibly-decent movie involving an interesting story on the ironclads to preaching about the evils of slavery. It was out of place in this historical drama, and was a cheap ploy to bring in the women viewers. It only succeeded in lessening the positives about the film.

Sentiment: negative
Just Go see this movie. It taps into everything awesome about rock and roll, the band comes up with some great songs (Classico, Pick of Destiny, Master Exploder etc). All this with the Humor of Teancous D makes this the best movie ever.

The Cameos are great right of the back, with Meat Loaf and Dio singing to JB. Ben Stiller and Tim Robbins are great, I really like Tim Robbins character. You also find out who Satan really is! The Music and Musical references are hilarious and Awesome. Playin songs great songs from The Who, Dio, and others just complete it. i personally didn't think the band could top the awesome songs of the D, but they did with songs like Classico and Master Exploder. Seriously awesome music.

Just go see it, its a must for anyone who loves rock!

Sentiment: positive
When I first watched Zoey101 with my sister we thought it was a piece of garbage. No one is that rich and lives at a dorm off the pacific coast. In the show, Zoey is a mega popular rich girl that everyone always go to her for advice. Zoey is always the one with the good idea and everyone agrees with her no matter how stupid her idea is. She is always perfect at everything including her perfect figure. And she is such a dietetic freak she talks about carbs like she knows what they are. When she sees that her friends are eating chocolate she confiscates it. And another thing that ticks me off is that she is always chewing a piece of spearmint every time you look at her. And everyone wants something do with her, for example in one episode that Logan guy bid $4,000 to have her and her friends cheer for everything he does in his pathetic life. And her friend Nicole is an overly perky freak that screams a lot.And Lola dresses like a hoochie Houdini lady. 80s called they want there bushy hair back.Might as well shave off the hair chase. This show sends a bad message to kids everywhere to make them think that if they don't have the latest I-Pods and designer clothes they will hate themselves. 

This show is a big thumbs down. 

We hate you Jamie Lynn, 

Best wishes Ryan, and Kara L

Sentiment: negative
A true masterpiece of the Soviet cinematography. It's a shame for the Soviet Union that Samojlova was never given an opportunity to play in the Western movies -- but then again, she would probably never find herself there. In "Letyat Zhuravli", she is unforgettable. This was one of the few movies where I was crying...

In addition to Samojlova, Batalov and Merkurjev, who are top rate, it was a brilliant work of the director and the operator which made this movie an all-time classics world-wide. Just remember the scenes of piano music and proposal under the heavy German bombardment, or the death of Boris with a swirling sky above his head and his last visions appeared blurred in those skies. The very simple means -- but the great technique added to the emotional weight... Mind you, 20 years before "The Star Wars", 41 years before "Titanic", and with a Soviet budget.

Sentiment: positive
No doubt about it, Rampling is gorgeous -- a classic beauty, here very young. She manages to appear simultaneously sophisticated and poignant. Her two male foils act well too. But seen in 2003, the flic is all

American-trying-to-be-artsy-and-not-be-Hollywood-while-shooting-beautiful-sh ots-of-the-French-Riviera-and-three-pretty-young-people-in-their-cute-old-ca r. I enjoyed the view (both the actors and the nature) but the movie is boring and pretentious while trying to be the opposite.

Sentiment: negative
First, let me say that although I generally appreciate Mike Judge's work, I've been merely tepid in my response to Office Space, King of the Hill, and Beavis and Butthead. I generally prefer more intelligent comedy, and therein lies the irony with respect to Idiocracy.

In a future world where the embodiment of Beavis and Butthead's views, basest instincts, and intellectual capacities are the framework of a chaotic, messy, semi-Mad Max semi-Blade Runner society, where every trailer-trash guy's fantasy becomes reality, a man with even average intelligence is threatening and accused of talking gay, and the mob mentality takes over. And this world is also incredibly funny.

Yes, it's obvious that Carl's Jr., Starbucks, Costco and Fuddruckers executives will be horrified at the twisted values given their products in the year 2505.

There were some missed opportunities with the film, and the relationship between the time travelers - the other being an average intelligence woman who's worried about her boyfriend's (pimp's) retribution - could have been stronger; the chemistry is there. And there don't seem to be too many women in the future.

I did leave with a grin on my face, but the experience is a bit better than the memories. Thus, it's my kind of popcorn film, and it will be fun to revisit on video. Recommended! FYI stay through the credits for an extra scene.

Sentiment: positive
I spent many a sleepless night after watching 2001. Not only because of the psychological horror (of which 2001 is a masterpiece) but also because of the way it brought me (a restless soul) some clarity to the way I observe the universe. It changed my way of thinking in a very profound way. And after reading the novel (by Arthur C. Clarke) I found myself once again inspired (a writer as I am) by the level of imagination.

The Space Odyssey is not something one can just "go and see". One has to be ready for it, or it cannot be understood. In fact I don't think it can be understood at all, at least not all of it at once. It is a philosophical journey to the infinite and beyond, a masterpiece of it's genre and still after 32 years technically quite impressive all the way to the powerful musical soundtrack featuring 'Also spracht Zarathustra' by Richard Strauss and 'Blue Danube' by Johann Strauss.

Take all the time you want, but eventually you are going to have to see this film. If it can bring some order and understanding to the universe of a struggling artist like me, it can certainly do it for you as well.

Or maybe I'm just plain crazy...

Sentiment: positive
I was so offended by this film that I had to write SOMETHING about it, so please humour me.

Its only redeeming virtue, outside of some good acting, is that it doesn't go on past 107 minutes. Even that length is about 30 minutes too long.

Comparisons have been made here to the brilliantly dark 'The Grifters,' but I can't see it. They are two different films altogether. The closest 'Swindled' comes to an existing film is 'The Sting,' made in 1973. It borrows (sorry, STEALS) liberally from this splendid George Roy Hill 'entertainment,' which is exactly what is was. I enjoyed it because it didn't pretend to be anything else.

There are so many red herrings in 'Swindled' that I thought I was in a fish tank. It's very confusing, but that's only one of its many problems. The principal one is this: if you make a film where everyone lies to everyone else, where everyone is conning, we have no 'anchor' to ground us. The inevitable result is a mish-mash of very sloppy seconds from other caper flicks.

Just about everyone in this film is conniving and objectionable. Surely a basic Film 101 class would tell us that the audience has to 'care' for someone. We can't 'care' for anyone here: they're ALL swines. It might have worked as a rakish comedy, but it plays it straight from beginning to end.

IF YOU WANT TO SEE THIS FILM, READ NO FURTHER. BIG 'SPOILER' COMING. SORRY, BUT I HAVE TO DO IT.

There's so much fake blood and so many fake killings that it doesn't strain credulity -- it destroys it. The ending is absolutely ridiculous -- a 'murder' in a crowded airport that isn't really a 'murder' at all? And the 'murdered' guy, blood-soaked, simply stands up, brushes himself off, and walks away, fake blood dripping, with the booty? All while the police and hordes of people are looking on, and no one intercedes? The director must have a lot of cojones if he thinks we're supposed to buy into this. Noirish B-movies from the 1940s did better. 

I'm a great fan of European flicks, but this confirms that schlock doesn't always come from Hollywood. As far as 'Swindled' is concerned, my judgment lies with a famous line from the oft-misspoken producer Samuel Goldwyn, who knew all about schlock: 'Include me out'.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is an amusing and utterly sarcastic view of pop culture and the producers thereof. I was impressed with the photography that consisted of vivid colors and spin doctored settings, especially when you think that this is Zukovic's first large scale attempt.

One warning, do not take the movie's message that seriously. It is not for mass consumption ( and that is not a compliment). The message is a somewhat stylized post-college, neophyte view of society.

I did enjoy the basic plot line of a fictitious 'zine editor verbally whipping the mobocracy of the 90's.

Sentiment: positive
HOW MANY MOVIES ARE THERE GOING TO BE IN WHICH AGAINST ALL ODDS, A RAGTAG TEAM BEATS THE BIG GUYS WITH ALL THE MONEY?!!!!!!!! There's nothing new in "The Big Green". If anything, you want them to lose. Steve Guttenberg used to have such a good resume ("The Boys from Brazil", "Police Academy", "Cocoon"). Why, OH WHY, did he have to do these sorts of movies during the 1990s and beyond?! So, just avoid this movie. There are plenty of good movies out there, so there's no reason to waste your time and money on this junk. Obviously, the "green" on their minds was money, because there's no creativity here. At least in recent years, Disney has produced some clever movies with Pixar.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the worst film adaptations of a musical ever made. The stage version of A Chorus Line is wonderful. This movie misses the mark in almost every way. Even the casting is baffling. Take Audrey Landers as Val. "Dance 10 Looks 3" is Val's song. Val's story is that she is a great dancer but a 3 in the looks department. Yes, she finds a solution, but ultimately she's a great dancer. What do the brilliant filmmakers do? They hire an actress who can't dance and is famous for looking great. Way to miss the boat.

Then there's the choreography. I'm sure Michael Bennett was turning over in his grave. Why didn't they use his choreography? It really can't be improved upon.

Sentiment: negative
I love this film...! I've seen it 1000 x on dvd and I cant say enough about it. It has it all, comedy, awesome action and incredible stunts/fx. Samuel Jackson steals the show here big time. I dont think there isnt a moment that he's in that he isnt funny! "Everyone knows that when you make an assumption, you make an ass out of you and umption"!! The f/x are great! The bridge/truck explosion is incredible, although the sound isnt all that great!When Samuel drives out of the truck, the sound is off a little I think and what he says is priceless!!! For those of you who own it on dvd, put the audio in french!!! It's halarious!!! Even emotional moments are great when the bad guy discovers that Sam's/Charlie's daughter is his, is great... This is a great film that no action fan can do without... I also reccomend Cutthroat Island... Aside from all the negative publicity, it kicks!!!!

Sentiment: positive
This is one of those films that, for whatever reason, just clicked with me. Everything about it is right. Eric Roberts laconic, nice investigator, his voiceover narration, the twisting plot, Dan Hedaya and Denis Lipscomb given good roles, the settings, the paintings in the artist studio scenes, the end credit sequence and the wonderfully haunting theme music that perfectly encapsulates the mood of the whole film. If I have any reservations it is about Beverly D'Angelo as the femme fatale, but she plays her final scenes beautifully. I think that director Matthew Chapman was trying for a sort of 'Chinatown' feel to the whole thing. It didnt work. But as a murder-mystery its a gem.

Sentiment: positive
This is listed as a documentary, it's not, it's filmed sort of like a documentary but that I suspect was just because then they get away with a shaky camera and dodgy filming. This has just been released in the UK on DVD as an "American Pie style comedy" it's not that either.

Basically it follows around a group of teens on spring break as they go to Mexico for cheap booze and with the quest being to get there virgin friend finally laid. Throw is a couple of dwarfs, also on the same sort of quest and you have a non-hilarious tale of drunk teens trying to get some girls.

Considering the 18 Rating this has very little nudity, and practically zero sex scenes, mainly I guess the rating is for swearing of which there is plenty.

If you like crude Jackass behaviour without the humour, then this may be your thing, if you have any brain cells left then I would probably avoid this!

Sentiment: negative
This was a excellent back when it came out. It had some the best talent available and a funny story. Between Candace Cameron and Tatyana Ali, it was hard to choose who is cuter, and add in Carlton from Fresh Prince and all the other big names, and you get a blockbuster. Ok, a made for TV blockbuster, but none the less. If you can find this move, don't miss it.



Sentiment: positive
This 1997 film-blanc classic tale of smoldering passion has achieved its well-deserved legendary status as one of the screen's greatest sagas of a doomed and hopeless love. The pervasive, ongoing and progressive magnetism between Judge Reinhold and what's-her-name is sure to set many a viewer's heart a-flutter with memories of one's own first crush. The brilliant screenplay dangles this embryonic affair-to-be in front of the enraptured audience, sitting transfixed as the abstract, almost-expressionist cinematography deep-focuses on the just-under-the-surface desires that ebb and flow between the principals. You can cut the sexual tension with a dull tire iron. 

A tiny drop of perspiration on the end of a nose catches the bright sunshine, and leaves no doubt as to its significance. Scenes like this abound and bear watching again and again. As with "Jane Eyre" and "Rebecca" (to which this masterpiece is so often compared), the closeups of the actors' faces as they experience the slow dawning of the great love-that-is-not-to-be will haunt you forever. 

The now-classic RC soundtrack score, with its creative and unique use of solo synthesizer, emphasizes the emotion that drips throughout like a leaky crankcase.

If I had any criticisms at all by mentioning what I consider a minor flaw (and dared to risk the wrath of the millions of fans who hold this classic so dear to their hearts), I would say that the hallmark of "Runaway Car" - its sense of mounting sexual tension - is briefly broken by the highway scene, which now after repeated viewings seems just a bit overlong (and probably even unnecessary?) to the eternal, bittersweet tale of Love Interrupted.

Dare I advance what I perceive as the tiniest of flaws in this critically-acclaimed triumph of modern cinema? 'Citizen Kane' had its 'Rosebud' . . . 'Runaway Car' should have its catchword as well. Perhaps the film could have opened with an extreme closeup of Judge Reinhold saying something such as "A car is an extension of its owner!", and the rest of the storyline could then be dedicated to parsing every syllable, subtlety and nuance of that phrase. Had that plot line been done, this film could have topped "Titanic" at the Golden Globes that year, I'm convinced.

My one regret? That I didn't read the novel first.

Sentiment: negative
I am a 20 year old bloke from England. I don't cry at films. But this one moved me. I cried like a girl! This is absolutely the most moving film I have ever seen, even though the story was questionable. Joseph Mazello's little face when he dreams of crying made me sob every time. How could anyone hurt such a sweet looking kid? I'm going to cry now just thinking about it! Remarkable.

Sentiment: positive
What was this, a Zucker brothers movie? I don't mind a little humor in my Holmes (I'm a big fan of Billy Wilder's "The Private Life of SH"), but this version of "The Sign of Four" feels like a Grand-Guignol-esque episode of "Murder, She Wrote" (right from the opening credits, that are of the worst possible kind: a montage of scenes from the movie) as directed by Mel Brooks. Ian Richardson is a fine actor, and certainly looks the part (he's a dead ringer to those drawings from The Strand!), but his interpretation of the character is all wrong and overly humorous, from the silly smile he frequently sports (I thought the drug Holmes was into was cocaine, not weed) to his expressions of comical stiffness in the carnival sequences. Not to mention that when he disguises himself as an old man, he is so over the top that despite the fine makeup we instantly recognize him. David Healy is an unmemorable but, given the circumstances, acceptable Watson, and is not too much of a buffoon... at least not more than the rest of characters. Cherie Lunghi (Excalibur) plays Mary Morstan in an exaggerated ingenue fashion straight out of a 1930s vaudeville.

Story-wise, there are some pointless additions (like giving Tonga vampire teeth, an appetite for raw meat and a carnival pit as a place to live, turning him into a reject from Island of Dr. Moreau), and we are even denied the pleasure of discovering the mystery alongside Holmes, as we are well informed of everything way before Holmes finds out. And this is full of tired clichés: not only we get the infamous catchphrase "Elementary, my dear Watson" (which, as any Sherlockian will know, Conan Doyle never ever wrote), but we are exposed to such blatant commonplaces as having Hindi music pop out of nowhere when Holmes goes to see a white guy in Hindi clothes.

Bottom line: In Britain, in the eighties, two rival TV companies attempted to create a long-running series of Sherlock Holmes adaptations, and produced initial TV-movies as potential pilots. One of them starred Ian Richardson, the other starred Jeremy Brett. Thankfully, the one that got its way through multiple episodes was the good one!

3/10. Travesty.

Sentiment: negative
I strongly disagree with "ctomvelu" regarding Jim Belushi's talent. I happen to like Belushi very much. Admittedly, I was skeptical when he first appeared on the scene, because I was such a HUGE fan of his late brother John. But Jim has an on-screen charm that has gotten him very far -- and he has developed it well over the years.

Curly Sue is one of his earlier films -- his weight is a giveaway (ain't that true for most of us?) -- and I like the film. Yes, it is touching and heartwarming, so if you're into car chases, explosions and gratuitous sex, then you might want to pass on this one -- it is a warm film of three lost soles who find each other. Don't get me wrong, I am all for the three aforementioned keys to a successful film, but I also like a nice, solid tale like this one.

And although Belushi and Kelly Lynch deliver excellent performances, the real star of this film is Alisan Porter -- who is absolutely adorable.

I don't know what happened to her career, but whoever is responsible for dropping the ball (agent? parents? herself?) should be shot. You couldn't ask for a more perfect introduction to fame than this film, and yet nothing of note has been heard from her since.

Another sad Hollywood story ...

Sentiment: positive