DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
NO SPOILERS!!

After Hitchcock's successful first American film, Rebecca based upon Daphne DuMarier's lush novel of gothic romance and intrigue, he returned to some of the more familiar themes of his early British period - mistaken identity and espionage. As the U.S. settled into World War II and the large scale 'war effort' of civilians building planes, weaponry and other necessary militia, the booming film entertainment business began turning out paranoid and often jingoistic thrillers with war time themes. These thrillers often involved networks of deceptive and skilled operators at work in the shadows among the good, law abiding citizens. Knowing the director was at home in this espionage genre, producer Jack Skirball approached Hitchcock about directing a property he owned that dealt with corruption, war-time sabotage and a helpless hero thrust into a vortex of coincidence and mistaken identity. The darker elements of the narrative and the sharp wit of literary maven Dorothy Parker (during her brief stint in Hollywood before returning to her bohemian roots in NYC) who co-authored the script were a perfect match for Hitchcock's sensibilities.

This often neglected film tells the story of the unfortunate 25 year old Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) who, while at work at a Los Angeles Airplane Factory, meets new employee Frank Frye (Norman Lloydd) and moments later is framed for committing sabotage. Fleeing the authorities who don't believe his far-fetched story he meets several characters on his way to Soda City Utah and finally New York City. These memorable characters include a circus caravan with a car full of helpful 'freaks' and a popular billboard model Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) who, during the worst crisis of his life as well as national security, he falls madly in love with! Of course in the land of Hitchcock, Patricia, kidnapped by the supposed saboteur Barry, falls for her captor thus adding romantic tension to the mix.

In good form for this outing, Hitchcock brews a national network of demure old ladies, average Joes, and respectable businessmen who double as secret agent terrorists that harbor criminals, pull guns and detonate bombs to keep things moving. It's a terrific plot that takes its time moving forward and once ignited, culminates in one of Hitchcock's more memorable finales. Look for incredibly life like NYC tourist attractions (all of which were recreated by art directors in Hollywood due to the war-time 'shooting ban' on public attractions). While Saboteur may not be one of Hitchcock's most well known films, it's a popular b-movie that is certainly solid and engaging with plenty of clever plot twists and as usual - terrific Hitchcock villains. Remember to look for Hitchcock's cameo appearance outside a drug store in the second half of the film. Hitchcock's original cameo idea that was shot (him fighting in sign language with his 'deaf' wife) was axed by the Bureau of Standards and Practices who were afraid of offending the deaf!

Sentiment: positive
This was the third time I tried to watch this film. The previous two times, I found the beginning so sickeningly sweet and "schmaltzy" that I just stopped watching. However, now that I am a little older and more compulsive, I forced myself to watch all the film and I was very surprised to see that I actually liked it quite a bit. So, I look at the movie much the same way I would look at swimming in the ocean when the water temperature is 70 degrees (that's about 21-22 degrees Centigrade for all those metric-lovers out there). Sure, the water is terribly cold and shocking at first, but if you FORCE yourself to stay in the water, you'll get used to it--so resist that urge to jump out right away!! 

The film begins with a lengthy exchange between Flynn and his daughter, played by a lispy Patti Brady. Some may find there conversations very cute and endearing, though others may find them a bit hard to take since these moments are so gosh-darn sweet! In a way, it was some amazing acting by Flynn because it's hard to imagine him in real life having kids or acting domestic especially that he wanted to be faithful to one woman in this film--now THAT'S ACTING!! NEVER SAY GOODBYE concerns the divorced couple, Flynn and Parker, and their mutual desire to remarry. Since they both love each other as well as their lispy kid, it seems like a foregone conclusion that they will once again tie the knot. However, there are some serious problems standing in their way: Lucille Watson (who plays her usual over-bearing and controlling mother-in-law character), Flynn's girlfriend (after all, he is Errol Flynn and he is divorced, so you gotta expect him to have a girl SOMEWHERE) and a marine (played by Forrest Tucker).

Not unexpectedly, all this does get worked out by the end and everyone lives happily ever after. However, despite it being formulaic and predictable, the film is a winner because it is so much fun to watch. Flynn, despite his reputation as an action-adventure hero, is very good with comedy-romance and it's just a lot of fun to watch him. Also, the film has the ever-scene chewing Cuddles Sakall--he's just so gosh-darn cute and sweet that he is perfect in this type of film. And, despite the sweetness, the film is pretty well-written. The bottom line is the film is FUN.

So my recommendation is that you DO watch this film and force yourself not to retch at the sickeningly sweet aspects of the film. Once you've gotten over this, the rest of the film is a picture that is well worth your time.

Sentiment: positive
I saw the first House of the Dead and expected a root canal to be more pleasant to attend, so when it wasn't as bad as that, I was delightfully surprised.

Unfortunately, I then got my hopes up that the second one might be okay as well...and I was wrong.

Apparently I'm one of the few people who saw this movie that thinks it was bad.

I don't know whether to watch it again and force myself to see whatever all the people who gave it good reviews saw, or wonder if I saw the wrong movie.

Ed Quinn as Ellis and Emmanuelle Vaugier as Alexandra 'Nightingale' Morgan did a great job in roles that were way beneath them. They deserve to be in better movies.

The special effects were okay and some of the characters likable/hate-able and that made for a tolerable watch, but for the most part, this movie was just a waste of time.

Oh and I have to ask this because I found myself asking it aloud ALL the way through the movie...did anyone not know how to close doors behind themselves so zombies wouldn't just wander into the rooms? Only once did it happen, (zombies wandering in) and I found that a little convenient...soldiers walk into a room, leave the door wide open, pay little to no attention to same said door so the zombies can just walk in if they feel like it (with the hapless "livings" being cornered with no way to escape) and yet only once did zombies follow them in.

Nitpicky? Maybe but honestly...if I was fighting for my life, the last thing I'd do would be to walk into a room and leave the door wide open so zombies could swarm in and eat me.

That is really the only thing *bothered* me throughout the movie, and just the movie for the most part was a bad sequel to a not totally abominable original.

Sentiment: negative
This film never received the attention it deserved, although this is one of the finest pieces of ensemble acting, and one of the most realistic stories I have seen on screen. Clearly filmed on a small budget in a real V.A. Hospital, the center of the story is Joel, very well-played by Eric Stoltz. Joel has been paralyzed in a motorcycle accident, and comes to the hospital to a ward with other men who have spinal injuries. Joel is in love with Anna, his married lover, played by Helen Hunt, who shows early signs of her later Academy-Award winning work.

Although the Joel-Anna relationship is the basic focus, there are many other well-developed characters in the ward. Wesley Snipes does a tremendous job as the angry Raymond. Even more impressive is William Forsythe as the bitter and racist Bloss. I think Forsythe's two best scenes are when he becomes frustrated and angry at the square dancers, and, later, when he feels empathy for a young Korean man who has been shot in a liquor store hold up. My favorite scene with Snipes is the in the roundtable discussion of post-injury sexual options.

The chemistry between Stoltz and Hunt is very strong, and they have two very intimate, but not gratuitous, sex scenes. The orgasm in the ward is both sexy and amusing. There is also another memorable scene where Joel and Bloss and the Korean boy take the specially-equipped van to the strip bar. It's truly a comedy of errors as they make their feeble attempts to get the van going to see the "naked ladies."

The story is made even more poignant by the fact that the director, Neal Jimenez, is paralyzed in real life. This is basically his story. This film is real, not glossy or flashy. To have the amount of talent in a film of such a small budget is amazing. I recommend this film to everyone I see, because it is one of those films that even improves on a second look. It's a shame that such a great piece of work gets overlooked, but through video, perhaps it can get the attention it so richly deserves.

Sentiment: positive
"The Incredible Melting Man" is a fantastically gross, trashy and energetic Z-grade production that every self-respecting camp-horror freak simply has to see for him/herself! The ideal way to describe this low-budget 70's gem is like a shameless copy of Hammer's "The Quatermass Xperiment" ...only a thousand times filthier! Astronaust Steve West is the only survivor of a disastrous space-mission, but turns out the carrier of a horrible disease that makes him radioactive and ... causes him to melt! In shock after seeing his face in the mirror (can you blame him?), Steve busts out of the hospital, leaving a trail of sticky pus and fallen off body parts behind. Doctor Ted Nelson has to find him urgently, as the disease also set Steve up with an insatiable appetite for human flesh. The premise may sound utterly stupid but this flick is enormously entertaining and contains great make-up effects from the hand of Rick Baker. The melting dude's face looks like a rotting pizza and his heavy breathing makes him sound like Darth Vader! Another big advantage is that William Sachs' screenplay doesn't waste any time on tedious scientific explanations or emotional speeches. The repulsiveness starts right away and lasts until the very last moment of the film. Just enjoy this silly horror gem and try to switch off your brain activity as much as you can because, if you start contemplating about the many stupidities in the script, you'll miss out on all the campy fun!

Sentiment: positive
I saw Borderline several years ago on AMC. I've been looking for it ever since. It was haunting: visual, textural, sensual. This movie took me somewhere like a dream and I didn't care where. I will never forget the curtain blowing in the breeze. I still remember the way it made me tilt my head. I remember my facial expression when I saw it. I didn't know what had happened when the movie was over, but I find life is that way. It didn't bother me. The unfairness of the ultimate rejection of an innocent character strikes me as sadly real. I loved the faces, the way the camera dwelt upon them. The camera gazed at the set with the unfocused eyes of a daydreamer. Borderline was real to me in a way movies aren't. It was exactly the lack of explanation, color, sharpness that made it enter my consciousness like a thief in the night. I love this movie. Someday I will own it.

Sentiment: positive
My daughter liked it but I was aghast, that a character in this movie smokes. As if it isn't awful enough to see "product placement" actors like Bruce Willis who smoke in their movies - at least children movies should be more considerate! I wonder: was that intentional? Did big tobacco "sponsor" the film? What does it take to ban smoking from films? At least films intended for children and adolescents. My daughter liked it but I was aghast, that a character in this movie smokes. As if it isn't awful enough to see "product placement" actors like Bruce Willis who smoke in their movies - at least children movies should be more considerate! I wonder: was that intentional? Did big tobacco "sponsor" the film? What does it take to ban smoking from films? At least films intended for children and adolescents.

Sentiment: negative
I really liked this movie I saw the original classic a few times but could hardly remember any details. I think this movie is much better than the cartoon its not so black and white as it. I specially liked how they made the grinch such a complete character and gave a cause of why he was the way he was, the villain in this movie was not the actual Grinch but the Major, much different than the original cartoon. Jim Carrey was perfect for the part all in all a great movie made for both kids and adults alike.

Sentiment: positive
I didn't enjoy this film. I thought the acting wasn't very good and the story was boring. A 20year old computer saving the day? I thought that this was just slightly far fetched, even for a film. I couldn't figure out why they couldn't just turn it off, why not take a sledgehammer to it.

Its a shame, but after the original film from the 80s you expected so much more than what was actually delivered. This film could have been a 21st century version of the old film, it wasn't. If that is what you want to watch, do not watch this film! 

Even if the old computer hadn't have turned up to save day, this would still, in my opinion, be a very very cheesy flick..

Sentiment: negative
This film has the kernel of a really good story. The work of the men and women of the Coast Guard, especially in the North Pacific, is the stuff of heroes and legends. This film mucks up a good story with three endings (none satisfying), a couple of unneeded and pointless bar fights and two alleged "romantic" relationships that have as much spark as dead campfire. The rescue scenes are great - even if the computer generation is hokey and the scenarios are pretty unreal - but the backstory is lame and disappointing. Costner is good - especially his hand acting (watch for it). Ashton Kutcher is flat but not terrible. The main female characters are one dimensional. The best female is one of the Coast Guard sailors in the rescue center and she's on camera for about two minutes in the whole film. It could have been an excellent film - and Costner needs one!

Sentiment: negative
This film, which I rented under the title "Black Voodoo" should be avoided. I was expecting a blaxploitation/horror flick; but what I got was a very dull, standard "ghost extracts vegence". In this case the ghost was that of a religious cult leader who tried to refuse treatment, but who's plea was ignored and he died in an operation. The result: his spirit posesses Nurse Sherry and forces her to commit acts of murder. The only voodoo connection was to one of the three black characters, in this case a blinded ex-football player, who's mom practiced voodoo. The film is very slow and very dull. There is a very standard ending that provides on excitement, followed by a horrificly stupid ending (warning: SPOILER)

In which a woman actually manages to defend herself against murder charges by saying she was possessed. This movie is slow, and bad in a non-funny, just stupefying way. Avoid it at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
If this film were to be rated on a scale of 1 to 10, one would need to create a new rating system, as this one should not even qualify. The film's plot, (if you can call it that) revolves around Charlie (Stephen Baldwin), an ex- special operatives agent who is being targeted by the brother of a man he killed while he was still working for the US gov't. If this sounds like an interesting scenario, please don't be fooled, as this film will not deliver that which its action-themed story suggests.

Comedian Chris Rock once said that when one sees an actor doing a bad film that it makes one want to send the actor $50, given that the actor must be desperate for money to be doing such poor quality work. After watching this film, you may want to send Stephen Baldwin $100. 

It appears that Baldwin did not put any effort into his role in the film. In the film, Baldwin is forced to run all over the city of Los Angeles in order to protect his "honeycomb" (wife) from being murdered by the brother of a man he previously killed. However, throughout the picture it appears that Baldwin can barely pull off maintaining a light jog. His laid back performance succeeds in subtracting from any suspense that the film might have intended to portray. 

If you are the type of person who enjoys watching very bad films and laughing at their shortcomings, than this film is for you. However, if you are looking for a well made action thriller, it would be best to look somewhere else rather than renting this film.

Sentiment: negative
OK, this doesn't compare to the explosive tempo of the first part's opening sequence; nor to its visual shock value; nor, for that matter, to the melancholic suspense of the second installment. No, it's surprisingly and refreshingly different (apart, of course, from the two main actors). The tongue-in-cheek futuristic scenario drives the characters towards each other across genres and languages with an almost gravitational force. The moment of impact-conclusion is your choice of: a)Shakespearean metaphor of life and humanity in a cartoon costume; b)sublimation of violence into homo-erotics; c)humorous detonation of an impossible buildup. Everything up to then is even less unequivocal.

Highly recommended to indiscriminate movie buffs who don't mind following foie gras with a hot dog; caution to those with more refined palates.

Sentiment: positive
Mild Spoilers

....and that's 'top ten of all time.' I stumbled across 'Two Hands' by accident (maybe that made it all the more special -- no inflated expectations) on IFC one night, and couldn't believe that I hadn't heard anything about it. Now that Heath Ledger is getting more famous in the USA, I'm sure it's more available. At the time, I was telling friends about the film, and no one could find it anywhere except the occasional IFC showing.

Anyway, in the black-comedy/gangster genre it fits in well with my other favorites, and everybody in the film really seems to end up with what they deserve. Bryan Brown is hilarious as the main gangster who makes origami with his small son and plays scrabble with his henchmen. Also hilarious is the quick-edit fate of a random car thief. Even Heath was pretty good in it. At the time, I vaguely remembered him from a short-lived series on Fox called 'Roar.' Hopefully Gregor Jordan will make another hit, but as far as I'm concerned, this is his best yet.

Sentiment: positive
I really can't remember who recommended this, but they said it was one of their favorite films. It is certainly a strange one - like rubbernecking at a highway accident.

Someone said that truth is stranger than fiction, and the truth here is something to see. I really can't understand how a fictionalized account of this documentary is to be released this year. How can you improve on this? The aunt and cousin of Jackie Kennedy remove themselves from New York Society and hide in the Hampton's. In the process they become recluses and what is best described as "crazy cat ladies." They would have stayed hidden had not the city move to condemn the property for the filth and the subsequent rescue by Jackie. This film was done after that rescue. All during, you couldn't help but think, "how bad was it before?" It's a look at high society from the darker side, and it is utterly fascinating.

Sentiment: positive
Very bad. Very, very bad. As a fellow who aspires to make, be in or - at least - sniff the catering table at a movie set, I find it hard to criticize independents who actually got a movie of any sort made. However, this movie ... oh dear.

Realizing Frightworld doesn't aspire to anything more than crude exploitation (an honorable thing in itself) and to try to make it conform to more mainstream standards is a mistake. And to be fair, it is more entertaining than - say - Red Zone Cuba ... but not by much. So I won't try to critique, just let me ask throw out some observations.

1) If gore is the point of the movie, shouldn't you be able to see it?

2) If you have hire three sound men make sure at least one knows how to operate the equipment.

3) In a horror movie your lead maniac must be scarier than a smurf doll. Difficult I know but really...

4) There is a lot of talented videographers in the Buffalo/Rochester area, most you can hire really cheap. Get one who knows how to frame a scene.

5) Just because you have someone who knows how to use After Effects and other cool programs doesn't mean he should do so every two seconds.

6) Kudos for getting the girls to take off their tops but next time, get girls who's tops we want to see taken off.

7) Editing should help tell the story or set a mood. At the least in this sort of movie editing should sell the gore gags. A chainsaw suddenly appearing in a characters stomach is not scary, it's sloppy.

Some good things. Not all the acting was bad. Jack was pretty good and I liked Acid once she started fighting back. There was some neat imagery, unfortunately it was thrown up on the screen without rhyme or reason. "Acid Poptart" is a name that deserves a better movie. I like the moxie of Frightworld too. Next time, now that they have a movie of sorts under their belts, I hope all involve aspire to something better than Colman Francis. Upgrade at least Ed Wood.

Sentiment: negative
A low-rent, cheaply made police thriller that's kept bearable by some fair humorous bits, the nice chemistry between the two leads and, especially, by James Remar's satisfying turn as a narcissistic, psychopathic (and, naturally, indestructible) villain. Obviously a low-quality picture, both visually and dramatically, with a rather resigned Burt, but not unwatchable. (**)

Sentiment: negative
I, for one, absolutely loved this movie.

It is not a "typical Asian horror" where you would see a gruesome looking ghost (usually a woman) that is going around scaring people. You barely see any ghosts for a majority of the film, but the way this movie keeps you interested in the plot and characters is genius. This is not the movie for you if you're into gore (e.g. Saw, Hostel) or "surprise scares" where stuff pops out at you (Hollywood horror, slasher films), but this movie has an underlying "creepy" factor throughout the entire movie which I loved. Noroi is a progressive and somewhat experimental approach to horror amongst the ridiculous remakes and unoriginal crap being released by Hollywood in today's society.

Please don't let the documentary-style of filming turn you off (why should it?!). It is far superior to the Blair Witch Project because, for one, the acting in Noroi is brilliant and it really makes you really feel like you're watching something you're not supposed to be seeing.

Noroi is definitely one of the best horror movies I have ever seen. Only a few films have made it into my Top 5 horror; and this movie holds a solid #1 spot on my list.

Sentiment: positive
Oh dear! The BBC is not about to be knocked off its pedestal for absorbing period dramas by this one. I agree this novel of Jane Austens is the difficult to portray particularly to a modern audience, the heroine is hardly a Elizabeth Bennet, even Edmund is not calculated to cause female hearts to skip a beat. However I must say I was hoping for an improvement on the last and was sadly disappointed. The basic story was preserved, but the dialogue was so altered that all that was Jane Austen's tone, manner, feeling, wit, depth, was diluted if not lost. If some past adaptions may be seen as dated the weakness of this one must be that it is too modern ('his life is one long party'?????) The cast was generally adequate, but I think Billie Piper was the wrong choice, it needed someone more restrained, I gained no impression of hidden depths beneath a submissive exterior, she was more like a frolicking child. I see I must wait for the BBC to weave its magic once again.

Sentiment: negative
The sopranos was probably the last best show to air in the 90's. its sad that its over, its was the best show on HBO if not on TV, not everything was spelled out for you throughout you had to think, it was brilliant. the cast was excellent. Tony (James Gandolphini) is a great actor and played his character excellent, as well as the others. Each character had flaws thats what made them so real and allowed the viewers to connect with them and thats one reason it lasted so long. The last episode was good, I'm not sure how to take it many different things can be construed by the ending id like to think that tony didn't die but meadow walked in and sat down with them and that the blackout was just for suspense. Tony will have to go to trial and deal with that hopefully is not dead thats how i feel... Long live the Sopranos and Tony Soprano.......

Sentiment: positive
Now that's it's 2008, who really has a care in the world about a guy like DB Sweeney, even back then he wasn't a big deal.

Two Tickets to Paradise is an outlined story that's well and true where three friends hit the road under each of their personal circumstances. Again, a proved plot. The problem with this film, other than it's 'so bad it's compelling' title, is the script.

Cliché after cliché three guys do the same things you've seen in every other road movie... and blow up vanna white's house.

John C. McGinley's acting job is superb, especially compared to that of the late DB Sweeney's. (His career is dead, hence the late. though i hear he's moving to TV, good for him). Also, John C likely has the least awful character in the film.

The score is so generic it actually feels like you're watching a third rate film from 1993, or Jeff Anderson's movie Now You Know (also set me back a few years, but at least that was more entertaining.) I mean, yah, i guess i enjoyed parts of it. But, the nerdy guy is annoying, DB tries to be this cool failed guitar player (with some rough influences, like some of the worst of classic rock) who has some strange relationship with a stripper, and John C is a gambler who's wife and kid leave him after the death of his father as well as a visit from one of his bookie's henchmen.

I keep thinking up ways to make this movie better. But i think burning the script would have been a healthy start.

But, as i've hinted this whole time, it's not the worst movie ever. And any chance i have to see McGinley in a starring role, i'll take it. Hopefully he starts getting some better projects.

Sentiment: negative
"Boy Next Door" is a hilarious romp through male neurosis. In just over fifteen minutes, the film takes us on a journey that most full-length features can't even match. Great performances, excellent camera work and editing---this short is a classic from start to finish. Kudos to Travis Davis for pulling double duty as both director and star. He's the funniest nebbish since Woody Allen. And what a treat to see Richard Moll back again. If you thought all he could do was play "Bull" the bailiff on "Night Court", think again. This gem of a film showcases the brilliantly funny writing of Stephen Garvey. Remember that name. Forget Charlie Kaufman, Steve Garvey is the true current king of quirky comedy.

Sentiment: positive
Carlos Mencia just plain isn't funny! His show is painful to watch because of that. His sketches/parodies are all very horrible, and this really just feels like a filler for the Chapelle Show, which while I'm not a big fan of that, it is much funnier than this trash. Carlos Mencia gives the stupid speeches and he all too often depends on finishing his monologues with a retarded voice and going "der, der der." It's just not funny. He often, when talking to others, makes puns. They are horrible and painful. When people don't laugh, he blames them...why would anyone laugh, he's not funny. He has an immature sense of humor in everything he does on this show, it's amazing that anyone but 3 year olds watch this. One of my least favorite things he does, is water down every topic and make it seem like a joke! I hope that this racist idiot gets taken off the air as soon as possible because he's dumbing down a station that doesn't need to be dumbed down anymore.

Sentiment: negative
My 10/10 rating of course applies only if you're willing to get completely and utterly grossed out*. Because you know that only John Waters can do that. In "Pink Flamingos" (his directorial debut), he portrays two families locked in combat to see who can be the filthiest person alive. What Divine famously does at the end pretty much answers the question. But even aside from that, the movie is basically an excuse to shock people beyond what anyone would usually imagine. You had better have a very strong stomach to watch this movie. Even some of the lines are rather mind-blowing.

*Otherwise, avoid this movie like you would the ebola virus!

Sentiment: positive
One of the best war films I have ever seen, if not the best. It is very hard to talk about such films as it is very difficult to point at any film mistake made. The "problem" is as it looks too real and by that drags you in to the ruins of Stalingrad and make you suffer for both sides. This is for the reason that this film unlike the most of Hollywood films doesn't glorify the war or the heroism of the main characters. Instead of that, the film makes them heroes only for being human and by that is anti-war as much as the reason can offer. Extremely convincing war scenes and so impressive acting, most of the scenes look like isolated theater pieces. Also, German army is played by Germans which is so convincing as well. The film is produced and realized by Germans where you can see their love for details to perfection. This is the reason why "Stalingrad" is one of the films I can watch million times and never feel dull. I watched the film with my father who fought in WWII and the first thing he said was: "This is like real, this is how the war against Germans looked like". This is the place you can see how did it look to be a soldier in the worst nightmare of warfare in human history and turning point of WWII: Stalingrad.

Sentiment: positive
I have seen some bad movies (Austin Powers - The Spy Who Shagged Me, Batman Forever), but this film is so awful, so BORING, that I got about half way through and could not bear watching the rest. A pity. Boasting talent such as Kenneth Branagh, Embeth Davitz and Robert Duvall and a story by John Grisham, what went wrong? Branagh is a big-time lawyer who has a one-night fling with Davitz. Her father (Duvall) is a psychopath who hanged her cat, etc, etc, so Branagh has him sent to a nuthouse, and he promptly escapes. Somehow (I couldn't figure out how) Robert Downey jr, Daryl Hannah, Famke Janssen and Tom Berenger are all mixed into the story which moves slower than stationary. I wanted to like this, and, being a huge Grisham fan, have read all about this movie and I (foolishly) expected something interesting. This is honestly the WORST film I've seen to date and I wish I could have my money refunded. * out of *****.

Sentiment: negative
This movie should have NEVER been made. From the poorly done animation, to the beyond bad acting. I am not sure at what point the people behind this movie said "Ok, looks good! Lets do it!" I was in awe of how truly horrid this movie was. At one point, which very may well have been the WORST point, a computer generated Saber Tooth of gold falls from the roof stabbing the idiot creator of the cats in the mouth...uh, ooookkkk. The villain of the movie was a paralyzed sabretooth that was killed within minutes of its first appearance. The other two manages to kill a handful of people prior to being burned and gunned down. Then, there is a random one awaiting victims in the jungle...which scares me for one sole reason. Will there be a Part Two? God, for the sake of humans everywhere I hope not.

This movie was pure garbage. From the power point esquire credits to the slide show ending.

Sentiment: negative
Utterly predictable silly show about a man who has killed his wife by mowing her down when driving and claimed he had blacked out. Why was he still driving a car? Why did he still feel able to drive a car having killed his wife with one? This question has not occurred to the writers. The story then witters on about a psychologist and her failing marriage which is tied into the failing marriage of wife-killing blackout driver. An omniscient mother and one dimensional child are thrown in for good measure, and the whole builds up to a predictable denouement and crashing finale. Are police psychologists so easily taken in? Deadful writing that the actors do their best with, but they are doomed to failure. This is on a par with a Harlequin Romance. Don't waste your time watching this one unless that's what you are aiming for.

Sentiment: negative
Although the wonderful soda counter in the local drugstore no

longer exists, and the clothes are definitely l946 immediate

post-war vintage, and good and evil are easy to understand, and

those old planes are really dated, this movie will never be dated. 

The human adjustments and problems post-war, the beautiful

love stories, the wonderful acting (especially Harold Russell and

Dana Andrews) are as moving today in 2002 as they were in l946. 

I was one of the young women who welcomed our marvelous

veterans home from World War II. Like so many, my memories of

the war years and the homecomings are as fresh today as if they

took place yesterday - this movie is very relevant for our times.

Sentiment: positive
If you would like to watch an example of how not to make a film, then you need to watch this. I, myself, with no film making experience could do better. The script is laughable with a weak plot and there is no effort to be seen for any intelligent structure. In order to make up for this flaw, you would think the action would be decent, wouldn't you?

As the acting, editing and overall piecing together of the film is appalling the only saving grace is the dreadful performance by the lead actor. The reason why he is the saving grace, is because he is so genuinely bad at acting, that he should win an Oscar for it. At least some recognition for making me laugh at him so much.

Toss in a dead woman's body after an all male shoot out (where did she come from?), pull the semi automatic trigger tens of times while the soundman pulls off two gunshot effects, reflection of the camera crew in Kool Mo Dee's shades, one and only ONE music track for the WHOLE film, an unoriginal script that has no logic; is a perfect recipe for a really, really bad film. Its actually more fun spotting the errors than actually trying to find something positive. Avoid at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
This has to be one of the most outrageously stupid movies I have ever seen in my entire life. Just when I think I have seen the stupidest scene in history, along comes an even dumber and more bizarre scene. I think the transvestite poodles did it for me, or better yet, her talking tongue...or perhaps the guy getting the virgin mother statue mounted to a jeep windshield caught in his throat. Decisions, decisions...

Sentiment: negative
I first saw "Death in Venice" 1971) about 15 years ago, found it profoundly moving and often thought about it. Watching it again few days ago, I realized that it is close to the top of the great works of cinema. With hardly any dialog it captivates a viewer with the beautiful cinematography, the fine acting, and, above all, the Mahler's music without which the movie simply could not exist.

"Death in Venice" is a stunning Luchino Visconti's adaptation of the Thomas Mann novella about a famous composer (in the novella he was a writer but making him a composer in a movie was a great idea that works admirably) Gustav von Aschenbach (loosely based on Gustav Mahler) who travels to Venice in the summer of 1911 to recover from personal losses and professional failures. His search for beauty and perfection seems to be completed when he sees a boy of incredible divine beauty. Ashenbach (Dirk Bogard) follows the boy everywhere never trying to approach him. The boy, Tadzio, belonged to very rare creatures that own an enigmatic and inconceivable power which captivates you, enchants you, conquers you and makes you its prisoner. Ashenbach became one of the prisoners of Tadzio spellbinding charms. He became addicted to him; he fell in love with him. Was it bless or curse for him? I think both. He died from unreachable, impossible yet beautiful love which object was perfection itself. The last image Ashenbach's eyes captured was that of the boy's silhouette surrounded by the sea and golden sun light. Nothing could compare to the beauty and charm of the scene and to take it with you to the grave is the death one can only dream about. If he could, Ashenbach probably would've said, "I was able to witness one of the faces of perfection, I could not bear it but I was chosen to learn that it exists here, in this world and I can die in peace now because it did happen to me." 

Unforgettable music, Gustav Mahler's haunting adagietto of his Fifth Symphony found perfect use in a perfect movie. It reflects every emotion of a main character - it sobs, it longs, it begs for hope, and it summarizes the idea that once you are blessed to encounter beauty you are condemned to die. I may come up with hundreds movies that use classical music to perfection but nothing will ever compare to "Death in Venice". I dare say that Mahler's music IS its main character - it would change and sound differently depending on what was happening on the screen. It sounded triumphantly when Ashenbach returned back to Venice, to what he thought would be his happiness but turned to be his death. It sounded gloomy when he first entered Venice from the sea. You can hear so many different feelings in it - tenderness and adoration, confusion and self-loathing, worship and melancholy, but always - LOVE that gives the purest happiness and breaks the hearts (literally). The movie for a viewer is similar to what the boy was for the aging composer/writer/Artist. We are enchanted and captivated by its power and beauty as much as Achenbach was by the boy's mysterious charm.

Sentiment: positive
(SPOILERS AHEAD) Russian fantasy "actioner" (and I use the term loosely) that I've been trying to watch for over a year. I've finally gotten to the end and now I wish I didn't put in the repeated effort.

In an effort to save two hours of your life I'm going to tell you he plot- a guy who has the ability to project a long blade out of his arm returns home to see his mom. Things turn ugly after he is beaten up by the mafia boyfriend of an old girl friend. He takes revenge on the guy when he brings the girl home. The guys mafia mom sends her men out to get revenge while the cops begin looking for him as well.

Very little is said. no explanation is really given for anything (like why they lock id girlfriend in an asylum) and the action, for the most part is all off screen. The film essentially consists of a guy who looks like Adrian Brody looking intense and not saying anything, killing people (off screen-most of the action happens off screen). It looks good, is well acted and had there been some form of reason for what is going on it might have been a good film. Hell, I would have liked some sense of real character development or back story (all we know is that the guy was picked on as a kid). The movie runs the better part of two hours and it feels like its six. If they weren't going to tell us anything they could have at least picked up the pace so it seemed like it was moving too fast. No instead we get the hero on a boat. The hero in a bus, the hero walking, the hero looking disturbed.Hero with his girl. It really annoyed me since I think this could have been a good film if they had simply done something or had someone actually say something meaningful other than give instructions to "get this guy".

4 out of 10. Its about four hours (all my attempts to see this) I'll never get back. Only for those who want to see a brooding Russian action film with very little action

Sentiment: negative
This 1919 to 1933 Germany looks hardly like a post WWII Czech capitol. Oh sorry, it is the Czech capitol and it is 2003, how funny.

This is one of the most awful history movies in the nearest past. Röhm is a head higher than Adolf and looks so damned good, Göring looks like 40 when he just is 23 and the "Führer" always seems to look like 56. And the buildings, folks, even buildings have been young, sometimes. Especially 1919 were a lot of houses in Germany nearly new (the WWI does not reach German cities!). No crumbling plaster! Then the Reichstagsbuilding. There have never been urban canyons around this building, never. And this may sound to you all like a miracle: in the year 1933 the Greater Berlin fire brigade owns a lot of vehicles with engines, some even with turntable ladders, but none with a hand pump.

One last thing: What kind of PLAYMOBIL castle was this at the final sequence? For me this was a kind of "Adolf's Adventures in Wonderland"

Sentiment: negative
This 'schlock-buster' should carry a government health warning. If you play it in your DVD machine, you are in serious risk of opening a rift in the space-time continuum and disappearing without trace into it - so bad is this 'movie'.

The fact that this movie was so successful is evidence of the true desperate state of modern Hollywood cinema, and the continual commissioning of films that appeal to the 'lowest common denominator' - although I truly dread to think of the 'lowest common denominators' that this film actually appeals to!!

I think Hollywood were just conducting some kind of proving trials when they made and screened this film! I can imagine the executive boardroom meetings at the studio ... "Just how bad a film can we actually get away with making - and STILL make loads of money!??! Holy cow, I didn't realise we could go THAT bad!! Woooo hooooo!!"

The only films worse than this that I can think of (and trust me it is close) are Die Another Day (RIP the Bond franchise as I knew it) and Independence Day!

AVOID - AVOID - AVOID!!!!

Sentiment: negative
As I am from Hungary I have heard many people saying better and better things about Üvegtigris so far, but actually I don't understand the reason of all the fuss.

I liked many points of the movie, some of the quotes really cheered me up, but the stereotyped characters are present again, like in every Hungarian film, and the story is also pretty dull. I liked the first half, but then I started to get bored, and then I found the whole film just BORING.

Rudolf Péter is good as always, Reviczky is brilliant also, but the others are just there... doing nothing.

How many years still have to pass for a GOOD Hungarian film???

Sentiment: negative
A good film with--for its time--an intense, sprawling, rather dark story somewhat reminiscent of John Ford's "The Searchers" though not so brutal. The story starts fast and doesn't let up, with several scenes of really good dialog between (Stewart's) Jeff Webster, Ronda Castle and Sheriff Gannon. This film is in some ways reminiscent of "Bend of the River" (1952), also a Mann-Stewart work, but I found it far less sentimental and more interesting. There are a few caveats: a too-quickly wrapped up (and rather sentimental) ending; 24-year-old Corrine Calvert is not very convincing as a naive French teenager, and of course the film takes place in the Mythic West, a land of fable where the real laws of nations and physics don't apply. But these are trivial concerns. James Stewart is surprisingly good as a dark, disengaged man who thinks he cares for no one but himself, and the mountain scenery can't be beat. A fine Western costume drama.

Sentiment: positive
This movie took me by complete surprise. I watched it 2 or 3 times. I really liked this film. There were many truths this movie brought up. I love all the characters in this film as well. This movie makes a lot of sense because as society "becomes more advance" What does the culture loose? Not to sound preachy. I can really relate to this movie from my child hood and loosing apart of my life that will never come back or ever been the same. This film is on my top 5 movies I have ever watched. There is just such a raw truth that I feel when I watch the movie and its not the kind of truth that you have to dig for its right in front of your face. The creators of this film did a great job and I enjoyed this movie very much. This movie may not be for every one but if you have an open mind I think you will love it.

Sentiment: positive
****Excellent

***Good

**Fair

*Poor

`Go Ahead, make my Day!' 

The fourth picture in the series is directed by Eastwood himself (Who was rumored of directing most of Magnum Force) and he brings back the violent society from the first two films. However, the film still lacks impact and believability. This film was released in the early `80s, the time of Regan and the young republicans. The premise of a raped woman taking vengeance on her rapist doesn't appeal to this time frame. This plot would have been better for the Enforcer, which actually would have made it a good movie. What Sudden Impact needed was a plot like in Wall Street but with Dirty Harry in the middle. 

RATING: 3 STARS

Sentiment: positive
2 stars for Kay Francis -- she's wonderful! And she didn't deserve this horrible tripe that Warner Bros. threw her way! 

The two-pronged premise that this movie is based on is ridiculous and unbelievable in the extreme. Kay is a small-town wife and mother who yearns for something bigger: she wants to be an actress. When a big-shot actor comes to town and invites Kay to his hotel to talk about possibilities, Kay tells her husband she's going to the movies. The hubby's biddy of a mother puts a bug in hubby's ear that Kay's not being truthful, and he sets out looking for her. He finds her w/ the actor in the hotel (they are only talking!) and he slugs the guy, who falls over a railing, lands face-first in a pond (lake?), and dies. Now here's the two unbelievable premises upon which the rest of the movie is based: 

1) the judge tells the jury that if it's determined that the man died *before* his head went into the water, that they must find the hubby guilty of first degree murder. (Whaaaaa?????? I think slugging a guy in a fit of rage would count for manslaughter or murder 2 at the most, not FIRST DEGREE murder. Give me a break! But the plot required him being found guilty of murder 1 so that he could be sent to prison for life. Whatever.) 

2) the hubby's lawyer, after the conviction and sentencing, tells Kay that it's all HER fault. His reasoning is that if she hadn't gone over to the actor's room, then her husband wouldn't have had to go after her and slug the guy and kill him. He tells her that she's the guilty one, not her husband, and she nods and agrees. What. The. Hell?!?!?! The rest of the movie is all about Kay trying to achieve fame and money in order to get her husband released from prison and right the wrong she committed by causing him to kill the actor dude in the first place.

I can't even go on with this review. The movie was just all too painful. Four years earlier, in the pre-code days, you'd never have caught Kay playing such a wimp! In true Kay Francis fashion, though, she did do her best to make us believe that this woman was a believable character. I give her much credit for trying to breathe some life and credibility to this thankless role. This character was a far cry from pre-code Kay roles and real-life spitfire Kay Francis.

Steer way clear of this one! There are much better Kay Francis vehicles out there! (From personal experience, I can highly recommend Mary Stevens, MD and Jewel Robbery; also good are Dr. Monica and One Way Passage. I'm sure there's other great Kay flicks as well, but I'm only mentioning the ones I've seen and can recommend.)

Sentiment: negative