DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
The Hamiltons tells the story of the four Hamilton siblings, teenager Francis (Cory Knauf), twins Wendell (Joseph McKelheer) & Darlene (Mackenzie Firgens) & the eldest David (Samuel) who is now the surrogate parent in charge. The Hamilton's move house a lot, Franics is unsure why& is unhappy with the way things are. The fact that his brother's & sister kidnap, imprison & murder people in the basement doesn't help relax or calm Francis' nerves either. Francis know's something just isn't right & when he eventually finds out the truth things will never be the same again...

Co-written, co-produced & directed by Mitchell Altieri & Phil Flores as The Butcher Brothers (who's only other film director's credit so far is the April Fool's Day (2008) remake, enough said) this was one of the 'Films to Die For' at the 2006 After Dark Horrorfest (or whatever it's called) & in keeping with pretty much all the other's I've seen I thought The Hamiltons was complete total & utter crap. I found the character's really poor, very unlikable & the slow moving story failed to capture my imagination or sustain my interest over it's 85 & a half minute too long 86 minute duration. The there's the awful twist at the end which had me laughing out loud, there's this really big sustained build up to what's inside a cupboard thing in the Hamiltons basement & it's eventually revealed to be a little boy with a teddy. Is that really supposed to scare us? Is that really supposed to shock us? Is that really something that is supposed to have us talking about it as the end credits roll? Is a harmless looking young boy the best 'twist' ending that the makers could come up with? The boring plot plods along, it's never made clear where the Hamiltons get all their money from to buy new houses since none of them seem to work (except David in a slaughterhouse & I doubt that pays much) or why they haven't been caught before now. The script tries to mix in every day drama with potent horror & it just does a terrible job of combining the two to the extent that neither aspect is memorable or effective. A really bad film that I am struggling to say anything good about.

Despite being written & directed by the extreme sounding Butcher Brothers there's no gore here, there's a bit of blood splatter & a few scenes of girls chained up in a basement but nothing you couldn't do at home yourself with a bottle of tomato ketchup & a camcorder. The film is neither scary & since it's got a very middle-class suburban setting there's zero atmosphere or mood. There's a lesbian & suggest incestuous kiss but The Hamiltons is low on the exploitation scale & there's not much here for the horror crowd.

Filmed in Petaluma in California this has that modern low budget look about it, it's not badly made but rather forgettable. The acting by an unknown (to me) cast is nothing to write home about & I can't say I ever felt anything for anyone.

The Hamiltons commits the cardinal sin of being both dull & boring from which it never recovers. Add to that an ultra thin story, no gore, a rubbish ending & character's who you don't give a toss about & you have a film that did not impress me at all.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was not very entertaining, certainly NO WHERE as original or as good as A Christmas Story. The characters (except the youngest) try to emulate the preceding actors, and they fail. The hillbilly neighbors come out of nowhere as they weren't a part of the first movie. This really sucked, might have been good with the original cast, then again maybe not because the story is so weak. Skip it.

Sentiment: negative
I think if you are into the sixties kind of thing, as I am, you are obligated to waste about 80 minutes of your life watching this barely watchable trainwreck. The saving graces of this oddity include a surprisingly apt social commentary on sixties values along with a number of relatively well known actors caught in early (and embarrassing) footage. It's as if the producers of Laugh-In sat down and decided to write a full length film, covering all the high points (and more) of the issues between the flower children and the establishment, then put it in the hands of a couple of hippies and gave them about a $10,000 budget to complete it. Hardly a classic, but in its own way it does capture how truly strange that time was, the silliness, the over-idealism, and the uptightness of the establishment. Clearly not for everyone.

Sentiment: negative
This is the worst movie I've ever seen, and it takes the price of the rotten movie of 2007 (which is made by me), anyway this movie misses every single ingredients of a good movie, I mean come on the actors had a bad performance, the story is just crap. I'm really, really disappointed they could have done better stuff, than this piece of junk. I've just wasted my time and my money on this movie. I wish that the production company could give back my money. Anyhow I'd high expectations on this movie, and I've got disappointed. I don't recommend anybody to watch this. so if u wanna waste ur money on something do it on some thing else than this piece of junk.

Sentiment: negative
Where the hell did VH1 find the scriptwriter for this movie??? Out of high school? This movie tries so hard to be sympathetic to Michael Jackson, but instead, turns him into a horrible, tacky caricature. All the lines are filled with clichés but surprisingly the acting wasn't bad. As usual, this is a bad movie with pretty good actors. The actor that plays Michael Jackson, jeez, I feel sorry for him! I think he did the best he could with the weak script. I didn't mind that Flex did not look like Michael Jackson, I thought he did the best he could, but later on when he had all that white make-up on, oh man, did he look yucky! The other actors that played Debbie Rowe, Priscilla Presley and Elizabeth Taylor were pretty good. Except that the actress that plays Liz Taylor looked too young and healthy to be playing Liz. The actress that plays Diana Ross didn't look at all like her and I couldn't figure out who this woman was until much later on in the movie.

This movie does a disservice to everyone who is on the side of Michael Jackson, or against Michael Jackson. It doesn't do anything to change anyone's opinion. As a matter of fact, the only opinion anyone will have after watching this movie is, oh God, this movie really, really sucks! And where the hell is Michael Jackson's wonderful music and songs? There are none to be found in this movie. I love the soundtrack to this movie anyway and I'll probably purchase it if I could.

On the lighter side though, this is a very funny, campy movie! It's a great time waster if you want to watch something light that won't trouble your brain too much. I'll probably watch it again, because it just is so entertainingly bad!

Sentiment: negative
Meatballs has been a main staple in my family for over 26 years! We saw this movie when it first came out and have seen it dozens of times since. Bill Murray is at his best and is most touching in the scenes where he reaches out to a lonely pre-teen boy and befriends him, while leading his CIT's into once mischievous scheme after another! The cast of characters are fun and zany and you really come to care about them and the relationships they have with each other. This is not another sleazy, dumb, teen sex-fest. It is funny and sweet and just all-around fun. Anyone who sees this will enjoy themselves. It is a must-see. Watch out for Spaz - he is by far the best character! (Especially during the camp social - while Bill Murray hams it up for the camera - just watch Spaz behind him dancing with the poor girl he picks to dance with!) By far, one of my very favorite comedies of all time!

Sentiment: positive
The Man (Gaston Modot) and the Young Girl (Lya Lys) go through the film consumed by passion for each other. They long to be together but their moments together are constantly interrupted. The film is strewn together with imagery and comes to a halt after an hour.........do the lovers find happiness....?..

The film starts interestingly with footage of scorpions but you soon realize that its all a pretentious piece of nonsense. It's made as a silent film with occasional dialogue and it has a non-stop soundtrack playing that at one point is so irritating that you will turn the sound down and want to watch it as a silent film. The continuous drum rolls must have driven cinema audiences mad. There are some genuinely funny moments, eg, when the Man kicks a dog and when he knocks over a blind man. Unfortunately, this humour is carried out in the name of art so its just pseudo nonsense. The film is crap.

Sentiment: negative
Although there were some amusing moments, I thought the movie was pretty lame. The longer it ran, the worse it got. Once the action entered Monument Valley, I found myself watching the magnificent outcroppings more than the increasingly silly and unconvincing interaction of the characters.

The character of the daughter was particularly incoherent. First she's in on the deal, then discovers the truth and she bails. Then she's back again, then deserts them again. Then she's back again. There's no apparent motivation for any of her decisions. There were interesting characters, some interesting scenes, and many missed possibilities. I would have to say the pictures was much less than the sum of its parts. Apparently the people who liked Repo Man were inclined to like this one. Searchers 2.0 is no match for The Searchers.

Sentiment: negative
Steve Martin has always had my respect for being a very funny comedian and a pretty good actor, and I loved "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" and "Bowfinger" --- but "Bringing Down the House" definately isn't one of Martin's funniest works, and it doesn't even seem as if it's trying to be, which is just plain sad...

I don't know; maybe I didn't like this movie because of the fact that I rented it along with "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" and "Phone Booth", both of which are excellent films, or maybe it's because I'm used to so much better from Martin, or maybe it's just because I'm in a frickin' bad mood today...Regardless, this film just wasn't very funny or entertaining, and I never managed more than a smile or a weak chuckle at the film's gags, which is really a shame, since the previews of this comedy were SO promising! I was expecting "Bringing Down the House" to be an all-out comedy bash, and I certainly expected more slapstick comedy and inter-racial laughs from Martin. Instead, we're 'treated' to seeing Queen Latifah jiggle all over the screen, trying to do her best with her totally uninspired character. The funniest thing in this clunker is Eugene Levy, but even he doesn't get the screen-time he deserves.

I would've really liked to enjoy "Bringing Down the House", but I didn't and I'd find it very difficult to recommend it to anyone but the most die-hard Steve Martin fans. Skip this one and rent "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" instead...

You'll have a much better time.

Sentiment: negative
I thoroughly enjoyed this true to form take on the Dick Tracy persona. This is a well done product that used modern technology to craft a imagery filled comic era story. If you are a fan of or recently watched some of the old Dick Tracy b&w movies then you're sure to get a kick out of this rendition. The pastel colors and larger than life characters rendered in a painstakingly authentic take on an era gone by is entertainment as it's meant to be. I personally find Madonna's musical element to be a major part of this film-the CD featuring her music from this movie is one I've listened to often over the years, it's just so well done and performed musically and tuned to that era. In my mind, Madonna's finest moment both on-screen but especially musically. This is sure to bring out the "kid" in you.

Sentiment: positive
Why does this piece of film have so many raving reviews? 

This is amateurish, unfunny and annoying.

The only memorable thing here is the corny title song. 

The production values are low and the "comedic" (if you want to call them that) ideas are weak, they seem like leftovers of leftovers from SNL that even they would not dare to have put on the screen.

I'm beginning to thoroughly mistrust IMDb ratings. 

This is light years away from Kentucky Fried Movie - not even in the same Galaxy.

It's not even possible to write 10 lines about it.

OK, another good thing: ugly street scenes and ugly people - something one doesn't get to see a lot in todays TV and Movies.

Sentiment: negative
What a sad sight these TV stalwarts make, running out the clock on their careers stumbling about a little rusting hulk of a ship - boat might be more appropriate. The whole production feels cheap and shabby, and it's not helped by a "big name" star who is barely capable of spitting out the few lines that he's given in a credible fashion.

At no time do the supporting cast rise above the material; they're clearly watching the clock here. Bang out the scenes, get the pay cheque, go home, and try to forget all about it.

It's not particularly badly scripted or filmed; there are no real clangers, it's just utterly anodyne, and shot in a very limited number of cramped sets with a small cast of extras. The pacing is a little bizarre; an embarrassingly tentative romantic sub-plot is only begun after the main action starts, which makes it feel irrelevant.

Maiden Voyage scores a couple of points for being competently scored, and for being a fun game of "spot the Kiwi bit parters"; most of the cast are graduates of Shortland Street or Xena: Warrior Princess. The saddest thing about this production is that this film probably constitutes their big break.

Sentiment: negative
Not a very good movie but according to the info it's pretty accurate in depicting torture techniques. The purpose of the film was to show the brutality of the NK POW camps and that's done effectively enough, with surprising frankness for the time. Whatever technical flaws exist (and there are plenty) by watching this you'll see a forgotten corner of a forgotten war and some pretty nasty stuff - again, nasty because it's being done north of the DMZ and not in Guantanamo Bay.

I don't think any of the Korean veterans brought up his torture when running for office, and if you watch the movies like this one and Pork Chop Hill in comparison to the Vietnam films. I don't know if it was the people in '54 being trapped in the WWII concepts (the boys tend to wisecrack a lot) or the war or what, but it's interesting to see this from the same system that 16 years later would be making movies like "Go Tell The Spartans".

Sentiment: negative
yes i have a copy of it on VHS uncut in great condition that i transfered to DVD and if anyone one wants to bring back the memories of a Christmas classic please emil me at dmd2222@verizon.net.i searched everywhere and i found nothing on this and i thought that i cant be the only one on this planet that has this classic on tape there has to be other people and if they do i fit in with them being that very very few that has this classic so i consider myself lucky and i have all of the muppets Christmas except one that john denver did with the muppets again i thinks its called a smokey mountain holiday im not to sure but its close.

Sentiment: positive
Bad, bad, movie, so bad it is worth watching. As long as you watch this movie knowing that it is bad and you'll be spending 2 hours of your time watching a bad movie, it's worth it. The special effects are cheesy and the animals look fake and the acting is bad, but watching the faces of the actors as they try to look frightened is just very funny. If your sister is about to be eaten by a giant komodo dragon wouldn't you do a little something to try and save her? If she did get eaten wouldn't you fall on your knees crying your heart out? This guy just sat in a chair and ran his fingers through his hair. How anti-climatic is that? Maybe he was supposed to be in shock or something. He does join his sister in the komodo's belly - oh didn't mean to spoil it for you.

Sentiment: negative
Coen Brothers-wannabe from writer-director Paul Chart relies far too much on ideas lifted from other (better) movies, yet does manage to create a creepy atmosphere that keeps one watching. Robert Forster cuts loose as never before playing a psychopathic psychiatrist (ha ha) who goes on a killing spree in the desert. The film is unusual, but in its attempt to keep one step ahead of the audience, it becomes alienating and off-putting (with a role for Amanda Plummer that is downright humiliating). An admittedly bravura finale, many quirky bits of business--and Forster looking great in the nude--make this a curiosity item, nothing more. Veteran movie-director Irvin Kershner produced, and maybe should directed as well (could Paul Chart be a pseudonym?). *1/2 from ****

Sentiment: negative
I've seen other Guinea Pig films, like Mermaid in a Manhole & He Never Dies, and while they're pretty sick, they at least have a bit of a sense of humor to them (however dark). Devil's Experiment though, is nothing more than filming a bunch of punks submitting a young girl to many methods of torture and violence and there's no plot and no redeeming values to it whatsoever. It isn't remotely scary, except for perhaps the mind-set, but it's definitely disgusting and I certainly would not call it entertainment. Now, I'm not the paragon of good taste in films and I like my trash and sleaze, but this was too much for me, really. I'm all for disturbing, in fact, I seek out things that are disturbing whenever possible, but this was a bit much. The young woman is kicked, beaten, submitted to continuous noise via headphones until she drools, and then pelted with raw meat and innards and left hanging in a hammock out in the woods somewhere. If you think that sounds great, go for it, but it certainly put me off viewing any more Guinea Pig stuff. 1 out of 10, absolutely nauseating.

Sentiment: negative
Okay, I'll admit the casting in the film is REALLY strange--part of this is due to the plot, but I still had a bit of trouble believing Pierce Brosnan playing this lead (though he really did a pretty good job).

It's based on a true story of an Englishman who went to live with the Canadian Indians in the early 20th century. He claimed to be a mixed blood Indian. He was, in fact, so successful and well thought of that people came from all over to hear his lectures and be taken on his wilderness treks--even though he was not a mixed blood Indian and all his knowledge was from books or faked! The movie centers on this and what occurred when the hoax was uncovered.

The acting and settings were great and I really liked the film (once I suspended disbelief about Brosnan). It didn't get widespread distribution--probably because it was pretty cerebral--not a Bond film nor a romance--just a really odd film about a remarkable man.

Sentiment: positive
Never mind the serious logic gaps, never mind the achingly cliche character portrayals, never mind the haphazard writing, and you might like this movie. The main character Alyssa was supposed to be endearing, the heroine who you root for to be saved,(or in this case, save herself) But instead she merely grates, and makes one wonder, are all pro ballerinas really that stupid? Her busybody mother was obviously only necessary to further propagate the illusion that ballet companies are evil monsters ready to snatch your poor, innocent, young girl from your grasp, with an ever present, biting artistic director/villain. And the cliche's! Not only does she become anorexic, bulemic, an over the counter junkie, and a pathological liar, but all in the course of a few months. It's like the writer read every horror story he could dig up about ballet and decided to see how much he could cram into two hours, (with commercials).

Believe it or not, but I am a dancer. This "uprising" or "resurgence" of anorexia and bulemia that is happening is nonexistent at all of the dance schools I have attended. In fact, the teachers are so scared to even suggest that a girl might stand a better chance a few pounds lighter, most of the dancers in my classes would be actually considered minorly overweight. I'm not saying eating disorders never occur, but not to the extent as it was portrayed in the movie.

Another annoying problem this movie had was the means-to-an-end writing style. Her on again off again boyfriend probably had all of half an hour total screen time, all in the first half. The other supporting characters were merely props, decorations to further the story. Given the right dialogue, this would have been a very intricate mind study of a psycological problem. As it is, it turns into a one woman show, and Kimberly McCullough doesn't have the chutzpah to pull it off.

To a non dancer, this movie would be a supposed "insight" into what really goes one behind closed doors at a ballet company. To a dancer, this is a very insulting movie, which portrays ballerinas as stupid and parents as pushy and ill informed. Those adjectives more correctly describe the people who got this on the air in the first place. 3/10

Sentiment: negative
As many agree, Origin is a beautiful anime artistically. The music, graphics, and the world created are gorgeous and it really stands above most other modern animated works. However, if you are looking for more than this, than I suggest looking else where. The beauty stops short of its appearance, and when it really comes down to plot and characters, there's nothing special. Action is slow and minimal and the people are flat, corny at times, and do not act realistically. Not to mention the plot hole here and the plot hole there... So, in summary, oh my goodness, I've never seen an anime as beautiful as this one; and oh my goodness, it's like... -poke- people don't act like that. It took a GIANT step forward in graphics and music in anime, but it also took a few step backs to times of bad characterization, and unfortunately, there's not even that much action to make up for that...

Sentiment: negative
And my children love it now! Granted, I can watch it now and realize the animation wasn't that great, and that the plot is trite. Hey, if every villian introduced themselves by saying "I ammmmm DAAAARRRKK HEEEEAAARRT" I think they might be laughed at, but for young children it is a moral story with catchy music.

Music so catchy, mind you, that I still had the words memorized after not seeing this film in twenty years. I would definitely suggest this one for younger children.

Sentiment: positive
Before I talk about the ending of this film I will talk about the plot. Some dude named Gerald breaks his engagement to Kitty and runs off to Craven Castle in Scotland. After several months Kitty and her aunt venture off to Scottland. Arriving at Craven Castle Kitty finds that Gerald has aged and he has grown meaner. Gerald has certain rules for the castle(the rules have been the same for 200 years). Gerald does not want them to stay but, Kitty insist on staying by making excuses. One night her aunt catches a glimpse of the monster running across the hall. It scares her so much that she faints and (another excuse) they must stay longer. Kitty becomes more worried about Gerald after she tries to go in the maze but Gerald catches her and is even meaner to her. Kitty then sends for reinforcements, she calls their doctor who is actually their friend and his wide. Then to make things not look suspicious they invite a couple other friends(who don't really do anything). Blah,blah, blah Kitty and her aunt end up in the maze where the most suspense of the story is. They somehow get separated and they try to find each other. But the aunt stumbles upon the creature...here it is the moment we've all been waiting for, what is the creature lurking in the shadows?...it is a giant FROG!!! OMG what is better than that! After seeing the aunt the frog literally goes crazy and runs, oops I mean hops up the stairs to the top of the castle. The frog then leaps out an open window. We then go on a shot from the ground and see the frog gall towards us (oh yeah this movie was in 3-D). But you want to know what is funny is the frog that falls out the window is actually a toy because it is 1/10 the size of the frog before it takes the leap. It is then revealed that this was all evolutions fault, blah, blah and Kitty and Gerald get married. Then the last shot of this masterpiece is of the grave of the frog in the maze, the only place where he was ever really happy ;).

Sentiment: positive
If you made a genre flick in the late 80s, you basically had a 50/50 chance it would either be set underwater or in a prison (sadly, we never got an underwater prison flick). Framed for murder by mafia boss Moretti (Anthony Franciosa), Derek Keillor (Dennis Cole) ends up on death row, right alongside the mob boss' brother Frankie (Frank Sarcinello Jr.). But this is the least of Derek's problems as rogue government agent (and mob stoolie) Col. Burgess (John Saxon, who also directs) is using the prison as a testing ground for a new supervirus. This is the only flick Saxon directed during his storied career. For a guy who has worked with tons of directors, it appears the only ones he picked up any tips from were the cheap-o Italian ones. Sure, it is low budget, but that can't excuse the stilted staging, shooting gaffes, or clumsy exposition in the first 15 minutes. To his credit, Saxon did make it slightly gory and he works in a hilarious nude scene (our lead falls asleep during a prison riot only to fantasize about a female scientist). Cole, who looks like a more rugged Jan-Michael Vincent, is decent as the stoic lead and Franciosa - sporting a really bad rug - gives it his all as the cliché mob boss. The end takes place at Marty McKee's favorite location, Bronson Canyon. Retromedia released this on DVD as ZOMBIE DEATH HOUSE.

Sentiment: negative
Rabbit Fever is a mockumentary collection of sketches, each one of them focussing on a female personal device that was made popular by a single 1998 episode of Sex and the City (the latter half of 1998, rather than the early episodes which were all directed by women). From opening statistics that make Rabbit Fever sound like a soft porn movie, we are treated to a sea of predictable sketches with real and imaginary characters in a world run amok with women's addiction to solitary pleasure.

Men, as Germaine Greer rather arrogantly explains, have invented a gadget for women that makes men superfluous in the bedroom. The Rabbit Vibrator (which some statistics suggest accounts for about a quarter of all vibrator sales) is so called because of little rabbit-like long ears which vibrate to stimulate the clitoris, while rotating pearls inside the shaft stimulate the inside of the vagina. The film interviews characters that attend Rabbits Anonymous to help overcome their 'addiction', as well as known people such as Tom Conti posing as a professor or Richard Branson (amid scenes of rabbits being banned on aircraft) saying he would like to provide free rabbits to his first class air travel passengers and ultimately to all of them.

The main weakness of the film is that the idea is not enough to sustain 85 minutes of cinema, the sketches don't have the writing skills of say a Charlotte Church or Ricky Gervais to make them funny enough and, while it might make desultory late night TV, doesn't have a hook to get people to queue up in public at multiplexes to watch masturbation jokes.

Lines like, "It's been nearly a week since you used your rabbit - how are you coping?" wear rather thin after five minutes. The film is based on the idea that the mere mention of the word 'rabbit' will get a laugh . . . and another one, and another one. Frantic midnight drives to buy batteries might be amusing in real life, but here they look rather laborious, and the special emergency delivery service outstays its welcome.

Strangely the BBFC gave it an 18 certificate in spite of zero violence, hardly any explicit sex, and sexual references that are less 'perverted' than any late night comedy show. The company protested the decision, but the BBFC didn't budge. At first sight this seems overkill on their part and their consumer advice now simply says, "Contains frequent strong sex references." One might think that youngsters would find masturbation jokes funnier than the most desperate of hen night parties, and the topic one worthy of debate; but Rabbit Fever does not even have the saving grace of a balanced approach to its subject matter.

The best part is probably The Rabbit Song by Ruocco (who play a band called Thumper in the film). For those who have dozed off and woken up at the end credits, there is a bonus scene at the end of them to reassure them that they haven't missed anything.

Sentiment: negative
Imaginative, quick-paced, satirical! Americans do 'zany', but the Brits do 'witty' -- and they love to poke fun at themselves (ahem: unattractive teeth, large lips/nose, 'veddy' common or 'veddy' snobby, obsession with the 'gahden'). Inside jokes for the older folk in the audience, lots of action for the kiddies. Subtle use of devices from other classic films (watch for 'Back to the Future', 'Indiana Jones..', 'Harvey', 'Tremors'.. and more). Also, a nifty 'buddy' film (Gromit is a quiet, but resourceful sidekick). Add brilliant voice work by Bonham-Carter and Fiennes (is it true? the best acting these days is being done in animation?) - enjoy! I saw it with the grandkids. fun time for all. - canuckteach

Sentiment: positive
This is not a horror film, but a boring sex movie. A very bad movie, to be avoided by any serious horror fan. No plot, awful acting and annoying music. If you only watch the trailer you will know enough... It's a shame that such thing is available on VHS or video while there are so many good movies unavailable. If you like vampires try the Hammer Productions or the Italian Gothic from Mario Bava and Antonio Margheriti instead. Those are masterpieces if you compare this with this trash. Rating = even "1" is too much! And believe me, I am not the only one with this opinion.

Sentiment: negative
Ossessione

Luchino Visconti's debut film, this Italian noir is generally credited with launching the Neorealist movement--well, it says so right on the back of the box--and is a sometimes penetrating, sometimes lugubrious portrait of lonesome individuals in moral flux. Set in Fascist Italy, an assortment of supporting characters--including an ingenuous drifter who espouses Communist virtues--embody the remote desperations of a country searching for its identity from without, drifting phantasms longing for a soul. Although Visconti's compassion for the disenfranchised and his ability to express their lamentable conditions was already well-developed, the spider web of deceit is tenuous--although a staple of noir is to posit a protagonist manipulated by fate and the femme fatale, Gino here is so unhinged to begin with that you fear he might deserve it--the cosmic irony too didactic, the illicit relationship strained with bathos. All the same, it's incisive and essential, although its actual impact on film history is certainly debatable.

Sentiment: positive
Yes, people are racist. People are even racist in college. That's a good point, and the issue of racism has been dealt with many times before in countless films. What sets Higher Learning apart from the pack is that it deals with the issue of racism in the most ham-fisted and predictable way possible, oh yeah it's in college too.

This film deals with this problem of racism the way Frankenstein deals with most problems, it bashes you over the head repeatedly in a brutal and sluggish manner. Most of the characters are cartoonish, one-dimensional, caricatures (lesbian feminist, angry black man), that react to situations as dramatically and predictably as possible. Instead of defying stereotypes this film is overpopulated with them. The angry black men feel cheated, feminists hate men, etc. (one feminist even holds a sign that reads "Dead Men Don't Rape." See what I mean?) I don't want to give anything away, but in this movie if someone seems like a shifty loner or a date rapist they'll probably behave exactly how you expect them to. The changes the characters go through seems obvious to everyone but the people in the movie. The big twist in the plot hinges on whether or not the violent neo-Nazis will act like violent neo-Nazis. I'll guess you'll just have to watch to find out what happens.

Another problem I have with this movie is that it's supposed to be "gritty" and "hard-hitting," but they make Nazis the bad guys. I agree Nazis are evil, but that's my point. Everybody thinks Nazis are bad; we're not breaking any new ground here. Nazis have been portrayed as villains since the 1930's. The film doesn't challenge any viewpoints or make bold statements. It just deals with issues we all know about in a clumsy, after-school-special like, manner. Being anti-rape, anti-racist, and anti-Nazi isn't exactly taking a hard stance on a controversial issue.

Higher Learning is predictable, cartoonish, and in a word stupid. Avoid at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
Okay, so it starts very unimaginatively with a narration from the lead character (Justine played by Laura Fraser - an amazing actress in her own right) but it goes on to become something miraculous. It has silly little things that you really shouldn't find funny but do every time. There is an especially memorable moment that sees your jaw dropping to the ground the first time you watch it when the male body of Jake, containing Justine's female mind, is trying to get used to her new anatomy. I wont spoil it for you, but the second time I watched it was with friends; seeing their faces was brilliant. It makes you cringe, but laugh at the same time. I am also a big fan of the music used. There is a beautiful small band that appears randomly on the street or on a pathway every now and then, but also some gorgeous, yet unknown (often the best), pop songs. It has the feeling of being written for an English cast by an American writer, which does annoy me only a couple of times. Overall, this film is hilarious. I am a massive fan of Laura Fraser's now, after being given his film for my birthday, and expect that, even though some of the cast are little-known to most, you too will enjoy every bit of it.

Sentiment: positive
I just finished this movie and my only comment is "OH! WOW!". Jennifer Beals is ok as the fiancee, but Yancy Butler as the female dance instructor is pure sexual dynamite! Having watched her in WITCHBLADE, I was not prepared for the pure unadulterated sensuality and raw sexual excitement she launches onto the screen.

I gotta see THIS movie again....if only for Yancy Butler as Corrinne!

Sentiment: positive
Reading some of the other reviews of this film, i was reminded of both good and not so good aspects of it. But overall, i have to say it is one of the better films i have seen from any number of genres or countries recently. More than anything else, it avoided many of the typical traps of more recent international cinema, like taking nice pictures of landscapes or being 'hip', 'fun' or imitating American films like pulp fiction. The film is unique in many ways. For one thing, it is a film about relationships in which sex plays no role (unusual, especially for foreign films). It is also a film about two men's relationship to each other (also unusual - not a 'buddy film', no homosexual tension, no ego/phallic competition). It uses little dialogue, but communicates a tremendous amount. It is a simple story, yet full of complex details which are easily understood by any human being and universal in their relevance. I did not find the film dark or depressing (everything would seem this way if you watch Hollywood happy ending films all the time), but rather a true reflection of human emotions. For instance, in the scene where Mahmut realizes his cousin is gone is you see both his feeling of relief, that the cousin is gone and yet regret, that he pushed him away. Who has not felt such ambivalence - when losing a friend or lover, or in some other situation? It's rare to get these kinds of real human emotions displayed on film in a non-cliché way. As far as culture is concerned, or this being a Turkish film, i feel it strikes the very difficult balance between being a 'Turkish' film - about realities which more apply to that place (the greater struggle to make it in a Turkish city versus a European one; the greater contrast between country and city), and a universal, human story which didn't necessarily have to be set in Turkey. In this day and age where people around the world are consuming culture and fetishizing it, this film does not try to entice us as 'Turkish', nor does it try to communicate it as a 'harsh reality', or 'that's how Turkey/Istanbul IS'. And yet the cultural elements are there. I think the comparison to 'lost in translation' that somebody made is quite good. Everyone, at least in the US, was raving about that film. I personally thought it was mediocre at best. It was well put by someone as a vague story which supposedly was supposed to deal with 'disorientation' that happens to people living or traveling overseas. Even if the film was supposed to be humorous, the characters and their motivations or crises were never clear (even for a 'lighter' film or comedy, this is necessary). And i found myself being treated to a typically 'orientalist' story of the alienated Amerian overseas. Going back to 'Distant', as for the idea that this is bad acting, or too slow, or has no plot, I'm sorry but people who say this know nothing about film making and maybe nothing about being human, no offense. You do not have to be a film aficionado or cultural connoisseur to appreciate this film. This film will be two hours of your time well spent!

Sentiment: positive
This film was actually shot and made in 1987 but it didn't hit the theaters until 1990. As I watched this film I could see the good intentions that it had but I'm afraid there wasn't much talent or experience behind the camera to make it work. Story takes place in California in the 1890's and some Italian immigrants who own vineyards are told they have to leave their land so a railroad can come through. Dennis Hopper plays William Berrigan who has offered money for the land but has been turned down. Giancarlo Giannini is Sebastian Collogero and he is to proud to leave and asks the other farmers to stand up and fight to keep their land. Berrigan grows impatient and hires a bunch of thugs to force everyone to vacate. These thugs are headed by a man named Andrews (Burt Young) and he doesn't hesitate to kill anyone who gives him problems. Andrews and his men kill Collogero one night and his son Marco (Eric Roberts) vows to seek revenge and get the land back for everyone. Marco blows up the bridge that the railroad was going to need and they also destroy a tunnel and this sets back the project for several months and Berrigan now starts to get heat from other investors. This film was directed by Peter Masterson and besides "The Trip To Bountiful" he has at best a spotty career in directing. He's a fine actor but here he seems to be in over his head. This was a film that desperately needed more attention to detail and its easy to see that it didn't occur. Roberts hairstyle is perfect for the 1980's but this is suppose to be 1890! The cinematographer is Toyomichi Kurita who ended up being a good cameraman but this was only his fourth film and he certainly had not learned everything at that time. Its not a sharp looking film at all and I noticed in several shots during the day that the sun would be glaring off of something and the scenes just don't have the crispness that would have helped the overall look. The script is just a revenge story and no surprises take place during the course of the film. We know Giannini is going to get it and it seemed just a matter of time. The cast is top notch and they do their best but the whole film comes across as uninspired. This was promoted as Julia Roberts film debut but I'm not sure that is correct. She might have appeared in a film called "Firehouse" before this.

Sentiment: negative
This is exactly the sort of Saturday matinee serial I loved during World War II. I was under ten years of age. And that's the audience this serial is designed for. Looking at it now, one must roar at its ineptitude and stupidity. The budget must have been next to nothing, given the shortcuts and repeats. The acting? Well, this is Republic pictures, 1944. They read the lines....and no doubt had one take to make them convincing.

One and half stars.

Sentiment: negative
I want very much to believe that the above quote (specifically, the English subtitle translation), which was actually written, not spoken, in a rejection letter a publisher sends to the protagonist, was meant to be self-referential in a tongue-in-cheek manner. But if so, director Leos Carax apparently neglected to inform the actors of the true nature of the film. They are all so dreadfully earnest in their portrayals that I have to conclude Carax actually takes himself seriously here, or else has so much disdain for everyone, especially the viewing audience, that he can't be bothered letting anyone in on the joke.

Some auteurs are able to get away with making oblique, bizarre films because they do so with élan and unique personal style (e.g., David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky). Others use a subtler approach while still weaving surreal elements into the fabric of the story (e.g., Krzysztof Kieslowski, and David Cronenberg's later, less bizarre works). In Pola X, Carax throws a disjointed mess at the viewer and then dares him to find fault with it. Well, here it is: the pacing is erratic and choppy, in particular continuity is often dispensed with; superfluous characters abound (e.g., the Gypsy mother and child); most of the performances are overwrought; the lighting is often poor, particularly in the oft-discussed sex scene; unconnected scenes are thrust into the film for no discernible reason; and the list goes on.

Not to be completely negative, it should be noted that there were some uplifting exceptions. I liked the musical score, even the cacophonous industrial-techno music being played in the sprawling, abandoned complex to which the main characters retreat in the second half of the film (perhaps a reference to Andy Warhol's 'Factory' of the '60s?). Much of the photography of the countryside was beautiful, an obvious attempt at contrast with the grimy city settings. And, even well into middle-age, Cathering Deneuve shows that she still has 'it'. Her performance was also the only one among the major characters that didn't sink into bathos.

There was an earlier time when I would regard such films as "Pola X" more charitably. Experimentation is admirable, even when the experiment doesn't work. But Carax tries nothing new here; the film is a pastiche of elements borrowed from countless earlier films, and after several decades of movie-viewing and literally thousands of films later, I simply no longer have the patience for this kind of unoriginal, poorly crafted tripe. At this early moment in the 21st century, one is left asking: With the exception of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, are there *any* directors in France who know how to make a watchable movie anymore? Rating: 3/10.

Sentiment: negative
Sigh... what can I say? 

Why does a horrible script such as this gets approved in the first place. Its not wrong to have a complicated plot but its not explained to the audience properly!

To have the wife explain the plot via flashbacks is bad bad bad. To have such a tight editing for the fight scenes is bad too! Such fanciful editing only appears in trailers. It cheapens the whole look!

And who are the Russian guys at the top of the movie? Who is the guy being tortured? Is he with the CIA? 

This film deserved not to be released in theatre. But it doesn't deserve to be produced in the first place. Its a joke to Hollywood.

Sentiment: negative
The thing about calling "House of the Dead" the worst movie of all time is that it's really not. There are worse movies out there. I watch alot of Hong Kong ninja movies that are basically the result of an unfinished Japanese police drama having footage of ninjas inserted at the end to create something that could technically be called "a movie."

House of the Dead is however one of the worst films I've ever seen at the theatres. Walking out half way through, I actually felt I was somewhat dumber for having set through 45 minutes of this piece of garbage.

Sentiment: negative
With documentary films, the question of realism always crops up. How much of the film is real and how much is manipulated by the film maker? In LITTLE DIETER NEEDS TO FLY, Herzog is far too absorbed in telling the story of a man telling his own story to even address the question of realism versus formalism. From the beginning, Herzog's role as storyteller is obvious. Luckily, he is a master storyteller. LITTLE DIETER is the finest, most engaging documentary I have ever seen. Dieter's story is enthralling, and Herzog's efforts at reenactment, putting Dieter through the paces of reliving his story on location while it is being filmed, are very effective. The story that Dieter tells is real, but Herzog is ever-present, wrenching absurdist commentary from the realism. This film is a must-see for any students of documentary film and/or of Werner Herzog.

Sentiment: positive
Where this movies differs from traditional Hollywood movie is that it shows a true depth of feelings. In Europe for example we've had years of war and though one nation could never eradicate the other, the old enemies always ended living next to each other or WITH each other at the end of the conflict. In the US, the immigrants white population exterminated the aboriginal population to near extinction. the US citizen never had to live with its enemy. This explains in my view the often simplistic nature of Hollywood movie when they try and explain a foreign country's strife. But in this movie, the director and screenplay did not fall into this cliché. It turns out everyone in the story has some right and some wrong. it's a great story of morality, hidden truth and compromise.

Sentiment: positive
I recently read the story to see how these two match up, and if you can believe it, this film improves upon Balzac. The story is moved around, I think, to drive home the idea that Colonel Chabert is a man who has suffered much and yet he comes home, not a hero, but as an outcast.

As someone mentioned, I was initially confused if Chabert was akin to The Return of Martin Guerre. No. It is firmly established by Balzac that Chabert is the real deal. What's interesting, though, is not is he, isn't he, but how his wife, and society, treats him.

I think this is a timeless story of men who go off to fight for their country and when they come home time has left them behind. Chabert is a tragic figure made all the more poignant by the amazing Gerard Depardieu. I don't care that he's been in 1 million films, he's captivating.

Fanny Ardant has a horrible character to play. Once a prostitute, Rose has used her feminine wiles to climb the social ladder. Are her emotions true for Compte Ferraud? I think they are and perhaps couple that with her social standing at the time, and you start to feel some empathy for her.

Fabrice Lucini is slowly worming his way into my heart. He's exceptional here as Derville.

I think if you can get your hands on this gem of a film, you won't be sorry. French cinema at its finest.

Sentiment: positive
I could not take my eyes off this movie when it showed up on cable. The dialogue and costumes are of a quality most readily associated with soft-core porn. In this case the expedient plot serves as a vehicle not for sex but for serial thrashings with nunchuks. (Perhaps for sex as well, but not on Indian TV, anyway.)

Not being a fan of the genre I couldn't place Jeff Wincott, and had no leads to search from. Only once Brigitte Nielsen traded in her futuristic-nurse coif (so mayoral!) for the high-top fade we remember from Beverly Hills Cop II did I make the positive ID on her.

This movie will no doubt entertain any admirer of early 90's couture or nod-and-wink schlock à la Paul Verhoeven. Can we add a genre tag for "so-bad-it's-good"?

Sentiment: positive