DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Every great gangster movie has under-currents of human drama. Don't expect an emotional story of guilt, retribution and despair from "Scarface". This is a tale of ferocious greed, corruption, and power. The darker side of the fabled "American Dream".

Anybody complaining about the "cheesiness" of this film is missing the point. The superficial characters, cheesy music, and dated fashions further fuel the criticism of this life of diabolical excess. Nothing in the lives of these characters really matter, not on any human level at least. In fact the film practically borderlines satire, ironic considering all the gangsta rappers that were positively inspired by the lifestyle of Tony Montana.

This isn't Brian DePalma's strongest directorial effort, it is occasionally excellent and well-handled (particularly the memorable finale), but frequently sinks to sloppy and misled. Thankfully, it is supported by a very strong script by Oliver Stone (probably good therapy for him, considering the coke habit he was tackling at the time). The themes are consistent, with the focus primarily on the life of Tony Montana, and the evolution of his character as he is consumed by greed and power. The dialogue is also excellent, see-sawing comfortably between humour and drama. There are many stand-out lines, which have since wormed their way into popular culture in one form or another.

The cast help make it what it is as well, but this is really Pacino's film. One of his earlier less subtle performances (something much more common from him nowadays), this is a world entirely separate from Michael Corleone and Frank Serpico. Yet he is as watchable here as ever, in very entertaining (and intentionally over-the-top) form. It is hard to imagine another Tony Montana after seeing this film, in possibly one of the most mimicked performances ever. Pfeiffer stood out as dull and uncomfortable on first viewing, but I've come to realize how she plays out the part of the bored little wife. Not an exceptional effort, but unfairly misjudged. The supporting players are very good too, particularly Paul Shenar as the suave Alejandro Sosa.

Powerful, occasionally humorous, sometimes shocking, and continually controversial. "Scarface" is one of the films of the eighties (whatever that might mean to you). An essential and accessible gangster flick, and a pop-culture landmark. 9/10

Sentiment: positive
I remember disliking this movie the 1st time I saw it, but it has grown on me. I love the costumes and poses the actors make, the humor, the cinematography, the soundtrack. The scenes are very rich, and it moves very quickly. Every time I watch it, there is something new that catches my eye. Aaliyah as Akasha is probably the only thing that ruins it, but not enough.

Also, the Lestat in this movie IS different, it is not the same character. You can see that the character Armand has been given Lestat-like qualities because I'm assuming Anne wanted it in. But there is no reason to trash this movie just because it's not like books, it's a fascinating by itself.

Sentiment: positive
Let's just say it in simple words so that even the makers of this film might have a chance to understand: This is a very dumb film with an even dumber script, lame animation, and a story that's about as original as thumbtacks. Don't bother -- unless you need to find some way to entertain a group of mentally retarded adults or extremely slow children. They might laugh, especially if they're off their meds. There's a special kind of insult in a film this ridiculous -- not only do the filmmakers apparently think that children are brainless idiots who can be entertained with claptrap that cost approximately zero effort, but they don't even bother to break a sweat inserting a gag here and there that an adult might find amusing. This film, frankly, ticked me off royally. Shame on you for stooping so low.

Sentiment: negative
Something not-so-great. "Silence of the Lambs" remains Demme's only good film, and I'm of course including all the overrated, left-wing exercises in big-screen indulgence some of which I haven't seen - and never will.

This is a light comedy that takes a thriller turn somewhere half-way. The first half is a little hard to sit through; it's neither funny nor particularly interesting. Daniels plays an over-the-top dumb-as-dirt naive moron who is so gullible and trusting that it defies belief. His animated acting is often annoying, and barely funny. He actually lies to Griffith at the outset and tells her that he is married, with children, when in fact he is divorced! In all the history of mankind and movies any man who is married and meets a woman he likes will lie - if he lies - and say that he ISN'T married. (Later on, the not-at-all credible or believable rationale behind this was revealed: he wanted to "protect (himself)". What a load of crap...) The fact that his character makes all the wrong decisions and does all the dumb things in the movie made me actually look forward to Liotta pounding on him when he caught up with him in the former's apartment.

What then happens in Daniels's apartment is the classic end-of-movie fight-to-the-death which the good guy - albeit the very dumb good guy - predictably wins. Still, at least the last half-hour has some action, something going on, and Daniels isn't given any more the opportunity to be animated. The film lacks credible characters (whether main or marginal), and the feel of it is too 80s which means the movie has a rather bland look; visually ugly. Sayles yet again makes a cameo as a policeman. The film is also perhaps a bit too heavy on the coincidences side. Griffith once again plays a soft-talking dumb-sounding bimbo, but, as usual, she is convincing because she IS a soft-talking dumb-sounding bimbo. This was an earlier film, before her lip-enlargement and breast-enlargement surgery; compare the natural breasts she exposes in this film to the ready-to-explode balloons she briefly flashes years later in "Nobody's Fool".

If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Griffith and other Hollywood intellectuals, contact me by e-mail.

Sentiment: negative
For some reason, TV Guide gave this two and a half stars, plus Faye Dunaway is in it, so it definitely looked like something to see. My, oh, my, this may be the worst film I've ever seen. Ever. From its horrid acting (every time the girl asks the boy what's wrong with him, I shouted to the TV "I can't act!" When she asks what he needs, I yell "I need acting lessons!" to the unbelievably bad dialog ("Give me back my organs!").

And the Brian DePalma wannabe ending, too, it was all just beyond awful. I wanted to like it. Dunaway is one of the best actors ever. And the production values were pretty good.

But wowzers, this had me laughing, LAUGHING!, most of the time.

Don't even bother out of curiosity, that was my first mistake. Staying with it was definitely my second, and third and fourth.

Sentiment: negative
This is a thoughtful film that lays bare the inequities of the so-called upper class and those who work for them, the haves and have-nots. Robert Shaw does a creditable job in his role as the obliging, correct chauffeur, Steven Ledbetter, who helps Lady Franklin (Sarah Miles) overcome her mental depression at the outset. However, Steven has many mixed feelings regarding this lady of the upper class. He inevitably falls in love with her, which of course is overstepping the societal boundaries that separate them.

I have not read anything prior to this and only judge the movie as I have seen it. I consider it a very honest story about the realities of daily living and the conflict of what we might wish or expect from life and what we get. It's a fine drama worth seeing again.

Sentiment: positive
Uzumaki, which translates into "spirals", arriving within this new wave of Asian Horror films following such hits like Ringu, Ju-On and The Eye (two of them with remakes.. and much more coming like Dark Water and Tale of Two Sisters), falls short of the spooky, supernatural thriller element so characteristic of the other movies, the only thing that remains is weirdness and not in a Tim Burton or David Lynch kind of way, but in a irrelevant and dull way. 

Its start with a girl, some other kid with a crush on her, her best friend and his dad who's obsessed with Uzumakis! Everything that happens concerns Uzumakis, people die and you see Uzumakis. So okay, It'll go along with it, I'm kinda amuse by spirals myself, characters don't seem to go anywhere, but I'll play along. We find out the town is cursed by Uzumakis, people start screaming at Uzumakis and the point is Uzumakis are everywhere, the movie is a disaster, it doesn't know where to go, except to show you the power of Uzumakis!!!!!!!!! There are some cool concepts like when the mother cuts her fingers because she sees Uzumakis on her fingerprints but then there's another scene where she hears her husband (from beyond the grave!!) tell her that she also has Uzumakis in her ear, the way they handled that scene was just laughable, not even cheesy fun, there are also some (a little bit) of cool visuals, like the collection the father has of Uzumakis and the girl with the Uzumakis hair.. yep, Uzumakis hair, its out of context though, its seems like it was taken out of a Fruit Snack commercial where if you eat an Uzumakis fruits snack, its taste is so incredible your hair turns into Uzumakis, now if this wasn't bad enough, suddenly, out of nowhere there are Snail Men.. or ManSnails whatever and you know why? right? Because in their shells they have Uuuuzuuuumaaakiiiis. That only left time enough for a crappy anti-climatic ending and by that time I was sick of friggin' uzumakis.. uzumaki here uzumaki there, sure, look around you, how many Uzumakis can you find If you want to see a movie about spirals go see PI (3.1416) now there you'll find some pretty cool uzumaki concepts in between the meaning of life and Dark City has also a little bit of a spiraling thing in there.

This movie could have worked as a music video, it has already garnered a cult following and thats why I was compelled to see it, but after doing so, I'm not sure why people think it's great. I was truly disappointed.

Sentiment: negative
What can I say about this movie that has not been said by all the other comments here, they pretty much sum up everything, the people who love it cherish it, the people who hate it... well, they loathe it. This is the movie equivalent of Marmite.

I personally have committed every second of it to memory, it is cyclical, claustrophobic, introspective, magical and stands as being one of the most unique films ever made. Despite what many have stated, I believe this truly is a cult movie, it is a diamond in the rough just waiting to be discovered, once unearthed it's fantastical psychedelic visuals and incredible soundtrack will be unforgettable, which is an achievement in itself. One of my friends who watched it likened it more to a musical, and in many respects to those who do not fully appreciate the context in which this film is made, would probably get more out of it to view Head as such.

I was always fond of the Monkees, especially the T.V. show back when it was repeated during the 80's. My mum had recorded Head for me when it was shown on T.V. late night, as she knew I liked them, I watched it a day later and it lodged in my memory until I was able to find a copy on DVD about 2 decades later, what I would love now is a special edition, it would be fascinating to get a greater insight into the making of this masterpiece. We can only hope.

Sentiment: positive
The brilliant Chuck Jones, master of Warner Bros. cartoon comedy, brings us the first (?) Pepe LePew cartoon. An alley cat, tired of being pushed around, paints himself in the colors of a skunk, and with a healthy dose of Limburger, turns the tables on his tormentors. Then along comes Pepe, and you know the rest. Many of Pepe's famous gags were born here, including his chase/hop, in which he hops casually along while his prey runs himself to exhaustion.

In my opinion, Warner Bros. cartoons became less inventive and more ho-hum in the 50s. This 1947 'toon is one of the few examples of Mel Blanc putting his absolutely crazy voice into Pepe's mouth. But the kicker is the ending, where Pepe is revealed to be an American "wolf in skunk's clothing"! A must see! Classic Warner Bros...

Sentiment: positive
Now I had the pleasure of first viewing Contaminated Man when it premiered on TV back in December of 2000.

An infectious disease expert (William Hurt) looses his family when an unknown disease enters his home and kills them. Now some years later he is now in Russia or someplace. I'm not sure where exactly, all I know is it takes place somewhere in that area. Anyway, because of budget cutbacks at an infectious disease laboratory, they are forced to lay off most of their workers. One of them, a disgruntled security guard named Joseph Muller (played Peter Weller, best known for his role as the indestructible Robocop) goes in there and demands that they give him his job back. He needs this job because he is divorced and he needs it to pay child support. So he goes in there, a fight breaks out, and some things get knocked over, dangerous things. It's soon discovered that Muller has been infected with a deadly pathogen. In fact it's so deadly, one drop of his blood will kill a person in matter of seconds. Soon word gets out and the disease expert (Hurt) is called in to investigate and he later teamed up with an American reporter. Now Muller is determined to get home to see his wife and son and will stop at nothing even if he has to infect the entire Russian population.

Now as I said before this film is a lot like Falling Down. We have a disturbed person (Weller here, Michael Douglas in Falling Down) who will stop at nothing to accomplish there goal even if they have to kill a few people in the process. Next we have a hero-type person (Hurt here, Robert Duvall in Falling Down) who is both sympathetic and determined to stop the antagonist.

Contaminated Man is in fact a very good film with a good story line and some very good performances.

8/10

Sentiment: positive
This movie literally had me rolling on the floor (well at least on the couch) laughing. I didn't think I would like it, but it came on cable TV one afternoon, and I watched the whole thing and thoroughly enjoyed myself. Since then, I've also seen Black Sheep, which was pretty good, but not as non-stop-funny as Tommy Boy.

Sentiment: positive
Comparison with American Graffiti is inevitable so save your money and time by renting that timeless classic. Speaking of timeliness, there was an episode of Cheers where Norm and Cliff competed on who can find the most anachronism in a movie. They would have loved this movie everything from some of the songs and some of the clothing were wrong. There were sly reference such as 'they paved paradise to put up a parking lot'. The filmmakers hoped to elicit some smiles from us but basically made me groan.

The characters in this movie are incredibly politically and socially astute for teenagers. Almost as smart as the people who were in their thirties and forties when they wrote the darn movie. Very little of what the characters said were believable. Combine the bad writing and bad acting this movie just totally fail. Although, there were two exceptions Kelli Williams liven things up as the future flower child and, despite what another reviewer said, Rick Shroeder was quite good. Showing that brooding characteristic that would come to full boil in his eventual appearance in "N.Y.P.D. Blues".

Sentiment: negative
Let me first state that I enjoy watching "bad" movies. It's funny how some of these films leave more of a lasting impression than the truly superb ones. This film is bad in a disturbingly malicious way. This vehicle for Sam Mraovich's delusional ego doesn't just border on talentless ineptitude, it has redefined the very meaning of the words. This should forever be the barometer for bad movies. Sort of the Mendoza line for film. Mr. Mraovich writes, directs, and stars as blunt object Arthur Sailes battling scorned wives and the Christian forces of evil as he and his partner Ben "dead behind the eyes" Sheets struggle for marital equality. As a libertarian I believe gays should have a right to get married. Ben & Arthur do more harm to that cause than an army of homophobes. The portrayal of all things Christian are so ugly and ham-fisted, trademark Mraovich, that you can't possibly take any of them seriously. Arthur's brother Victor, the bible toting Jesus freak, is so horribly over-the-top evil/effeminately gay that you have to wonder how he was cast in this role. That's because Sam "multitasking" Mraovich was also casting director. The worst of it all is Sam Mraovich himself. When you think leading man do the words pasty, balding, and chubby come to mind? Sam also delivers lines like domino's pizza, cold and usually wrong. The final tally: you suck at writing, directing, acting and casting. That's the Ed Wood quadruple crown. Congratulations you horrible little man.

Sentiment: negative
Flawlessly directed, written, performed, and filmed, this quiet and unpretentious Danish film is an example of cinema at its best, and if a person exists who can watch BABETTE'S FEAST without being touched at a very fundamental level, they are a person I do not care to know.

The story is quite simple. In the 1800s, two elderly maiden ladies (Birgitte Federspiel and Bodil Kjer) reside in remote Jutland, where they have sacrificed their lives, romantic possibilities, and personal happiness in order to continue their long-dead father's religious ministry to the small flock he served. One of the women's youthful admirers sends to them a Frenchwoman, Babette (Stéphane Audran), whose husband and son have been killed in France and who has fled her homeland lest she meet the same fate. Although they do not really require her services, the sisters engage her as maid and cook--and as the years pass her cleverness and tireless efforts on their behalf enables the aging congregation to remain together and the sisters to live in more comfort than they had imagined; indeed, the entire village admires and depends upon her.

One day, however, Babette receives a letter: she has won a lottery and is now, by village standards, a wealthy woman. Knowing that her new wealth will mean her return to France, the sisters grant her wish that she be allowed to prepare a truly French meal for them and the members of their tiny congregation. The meal and the evening it is served is indeed a night to remember--but not for reasons that might be expected, for Babette's feast proves to be food for both body and soul, and is ultimately her gift of love to the women who took her in and the villagers who have been so kind to her.

The film is extraordinary in every way, meticulous in detail yet not overpowering in its presentation of them. As the film progresses, we come to love the characters in both their simple devotion to God and their all-too-human frailties, and the scenes in which Babette prepares her feast and in which the meal is consumed are powerful, beautiful, and incredibly memorable. There have been several films that have used food as a metaphor for love, but none approach the simple artistry and beauty of BABETTE'S FEAST, which reminds us of all the good things about humanity and which proves food for both body and soul. Highly, highly recommended.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Sentiment: positive
This movie is a lot of fun. The actors really make the movie go the distance though. Without giving away the plot, I would describe it as a new Princess Bride cult favorite that should stand the test of time. You get to see a whole different side to Robert DeNiro in this movie! (Worth the price of admission just for that!) All the elements are there from adventure to romance, and well placed comedy.

People of all ages will enjoy it. (My parents even did!) Good special effects, may be scary for the little ones. Good date movie. Great for some escapism.

Deserves an A. (Hope it does well at the box office)

Sentiment: positive
Have I seen a worse movie? No I can't say that I have. This was pathetic. If the director is still alive: 1. He shouldn't be. 2. He should be ashamed. 3. God, how I would like to take out my 2 completely wasted hours of time on his a$$.

To give you guys a few pointers of the "film": 

1. (I'm a male) and I would rather give myself a papercut on the opening of my urethra before viewing this again (seriously).

2. It does have a few known names in it (Casper Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio). They don't help, and their careers in cinema after this "film" are officially over by the way.

3. The dialog is the worst I've ever heard. "I want to ejaculate on your bozonkas."? What kind of writer did they have on this film? Was he still using hooked-on-phonics and just got his letters mixed up to make these horrible sentences?, or was he trying to get the Director killed by the few people who saw this? 

4. Watch this "film" backwards. Because I PROMISE you that you do not want to watch it forwards.

5. This "film" would make Helen Keller get up and walk out of the theater.

6. The set of the movie looks like an adult sized McDonald's playplace. I was just waiting for this so called "Dracula" to fall in the ball pit at some time in the movie.

7. Also, I like that in the year 3000 they still have headsets with wires that go to their mouth. No bluetooth, no wireless headsets, no chips placed in the brain, but they use headsets borrowed from a telemarketing agency that went out of business in 1983(Nice job Set director on this one. Real professional. I hope you're currently unemployed and reading this.) 

8. I don't know who was in charge of special effects, but I could have done better in my backyard with my VHS camcorder that doesn't have a battery.

9. I was a devout Catholic before this "film". But since viewing it, I know there is not a God, because if there was, he wouldn't have let this film be produced. I am now an atheist.

10. I'll be honest I can't talk about the ending. Last time I tried to explain it I fell into a coma.

Folks however bored you get, however curious(or brave) you are, however many laughs you THINK you will get out of this movie, please DO NOT WATCH THIS. It has literally ruined my life. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!

Comment to the director: I hate you. You have ruined my life. After viewing this I feel empty inside. My wife and kids have left me and hate me because I couldn't speak or hardly move after seeing this. I lost my job, my dignity, and above all my pride. I will never forgive you in this life or the next(which is not looking good from my newfound beliefs) .

Sentiment: negative
Just PPV'd this. I don't want to waste too much time on this as most of the posters here put it better than I ever could, but I did want to say a few things.

I didn't know which was funnier: Redgrave chasing tiny moths and tripping over her nurse; Close wailing that her "precious" boy (whom she and the Mr. had decided was a drunken loser) has been turned into roadkill; that the tone-deaf Ann schmoozed with Peggy Lee; or the horrid CGI of Crypt Keeper Annie gazing at her younger self!

I never bought Danes as the younger Redgrave. I didn't buy Richardson and Collette as sisters, either. If Meryl Streep's daughter wants to be an actress, she better get Mama to give her a few lessons! I had zero idea why any girl (or Buddy) would make fools of themselves over vapid stud du jour Harris! Ann's daughters are as whiny and thoughtless as she, Luc is a retarded slacker on crack, and I didn't give a rot about any of them! Evening gives Chick Flicks a bad name!

Sentiment: negative
Henri-Georges Clouzot's film is quiet an example of the french transition cinema. A film between the realism of the postwar cinema and the full-of-magic and symbolism nouvelle vague. With some spots of the American classic films (but not imitating it) the director tales us a story about love, crime and the importance of points of view. We can find great actors too (Suzy Delair is impeccable).

Is interesting too, how we can find aspects of this film nowadays. Quai des Orfèvres inheritance is palpable in Woody Allen tradition. Plunging a crime situation in a picturesque environment. The naive ending is also typical in Steven Spielberg's good-ending films. And finally I would like to point out, the deja voo sensation during the photography session between Jenny Lamour (Suzy Delair) and Dora Monier (Simone Renant) in which the first one confess that she thinks her husband is being unfaithful and exactly with the woman who is photographing her. That scene is exactly the one between Natalie Portman and Julia Roberts in Closer (Mike Nichols, 2004).

Sentiment: positive
Family is about two families who are after each other's blood.

Viren Sahay (Amitabh Bachchan) is an underworld don, operates from Bangkok. He has a family in India. Once by mistake he kills Shekhar (Akshay Kumar). Like Viren Sahay, he also has a family (a brother, wife and parents). Aryan (Aryaman), Shekhar's brother is out to take revenge of his brother's death. He kidnaps Viren Sahay's family for the same reason.

The film has got one turning point (Amitabh Bachchan). Second half of the movie belongs to him completely where instead of his dialogs, expression matters more. Akshay's minuscule role has also put him at par with Amitabh. I didn't understand what Bhumika Chawala was doing in this movie.

There were a few loose points in the script; like; Amitabh has been shown as the most wanted criminal of the city still he walks scot-free in the city. Kidnapping of his family is also seemed vague. How can the family of such a big don doesn't have any security cover?

Sentiment: positive
I happen to have bought one of those "Legacy of Horror" 50 movie pack collections and would you believe I'm still looking through them to find a good HORROR movie in it. Sometimes you find an enjoyable yet campy one like The Devil's Messenger or The Devil Bat, or one of the great Alfred Hitchcock's films (some aren't horror however and are only on there because Hitchcock directed some horrors and suspense) but other times it seems that they put movies like The Island Monster and this on because they can't accept the fact they would easily be forgotten and should be for that matter.

So we open up to sort of a Westing game idea. The rich yet cruel and abusive father played by Carradine (the one standing feature of this) has died and left his inheritance to his children and servants who he still hates. Carradine gives a good enough performance as always, but he's left mainly in a voice recording and flashback sequences leaving us to sit through the mediocre/terrible performances. The rest of the cast either overacts or underacts in scenes. Given this was an independent film of the 70's the lighting and effects are pretty limited. It's hard to build a lot of tension when the viewer can't see what's happening that well in some scenes. Some actors like the servants Igor and Elga give an effort at least and I'm ashamed to admit kind of left me chuckling at the end mainly for the sheer stupidity but still with some very minor happiness that they pulled some version of a twist to an otherwise pretty obvious who-done-it but not enough to enhance the quality of the film. You aren't meant to like the characters as they are either selfish and cruel or psychotic, but it takes it to a whole new level and makes many unwatchable. The death scenes are pretty bad and the suspense is not really there. It proves that you would probably enjoy the 20 movie pack "Chilling" containing films like House on a Haunted Hill, Little Shop of horror's with Jack Nicholson, and Night of the Living Dead over it. This is best avoided.

Sentiment: negative
There were at least a half dozen silent-film versions of Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice," and there have been several television productions. But no one has ever gotten around to making a big-budget theatrical feature from the play . . . until now. Given the nature of the play/s most memorable character, Shylock the Nasty Jew, it's a good guess that the little unpleasantness that transpired in Europe in the late 1930's and 1940's may have dampened filmmakers' enthusiasm. Sure the main motivation for Michael Radford's new film is to provide Al Pacino with a chance to shout, bray, brood, mutter, and be tormented - all of which he is quite good at. Like Richard III, the role of Shylock is a scenery-chewer's dream. It is ridiculous to call Shakespeare an anti-Semite, since he never met a Jew. Jews were banned from England from 300 years before his time to some decades after his death; and its unlikely that he ever traveled abroad. On some level, Jews might as well have been a mythological race to him. But, while Shakespeare may not have been anti-Semitic, his play certainly is. Pacino gives Shylock a strange accent that is probably meant to suggest the slightest hint of Yiddish. Unfortunately, the result is a 16th-century moneylender with the unmistakable diction and cadences of Fozzie Bear. Radford's version begins with a crawl about the wretched teratment of Jews and then spot Antonio (Jeremy Irons) gratuitiously spitting on Shylock (Pacino), who's really just standing around, minding his own business. Will buy it when it comes out on DVD, for sure! Sarge Booker

Sentiment: positive
I realize it's a small statistical sampling (8 votes as of this posting), but 5.9 out of 10? I'm giving this movie a 3 and even that's generous. I've tried to watch this movie three times now (the Saturday night 9 p.m. premiere on SciFi Channel, and the Saturday night at 1 a.m. and Thursday night re-broadcasts) and I've fallen asleep all three times before the movie ends. Which leaves me with a laundry list of unanswered questions. For example, is Lance Henriksen that strapped for cash that he has to keep playing supporting roles in these god-awful "Pumpkinhead" sequels? Is Henriksen contractually banned from doing any non-"Pumpkinhead" movies? Can't the creators of this franchise do better than a monster that looks like a geriatric, emaciated "Alien" who walks like he has a stick jammed up his a**? When are the hick characters in these movies going to realize that handguns and rifles don't hurt the "Pumpkinhead?" Why don't they try jamming another stick up this thing's a** instead? And, lastly, are the writers of this movie so creatively challenged that they couldn't come up with names for the two feuding families more original than the Hatfields and the McCoys? While you're at it, why not write a screenplay about a fictional president and name him George Bush? Someday I may have the mental stamina to watch this movie all the way through without drifting off to sleep. Until then, if somebody has the answers, please let me know.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is beautiful in all ways. It is visually stunning, and this is a good thing since the dialogue would only take up a page or two of paper. The acting is superb; it is subtle, passionate and intense. Ben Daniels does a fabulous job of turning himself into an animal, and mixing that wild nature with a man's overbearing passion and honor. There is not one flaw, not one mistake or wrong moment to be found anywhere. It is completely perfect, but only if you understand what you're going to experience. It isn't a movie for anyone who wants normality.

Sentiment: positive
With Al Jolson at the height of his popularity and Warner Brothers's the Jazz Singer having been the highest grossing film of 1927, it was inevitable that the other studios would churn out a few vehicles for their own Jolson-esquire characters. But while the Jazz Singer was a sensation for its being the first part-talkie, the Matinée Idol lacks the singing voice of its star (the now obscure Johnnie Walker), and has to make do with just his visual antics.

The Matinée Idol was an early directorial assignment for the renowned Frank Capra. Capra's first couple of full-length features for Harry Langdon reveal a very showy, excessive style, which made Langdon's already mediocre slapstick almost unwatchable. A couple of pictures later and Capra has learnt to ease off a bit, with some fairly regular and decent camera-work. However he still shows no aptitude for shooting physical comedy. The longest comic routine - the stage performance - seems to have a few good gags, but it's all cut up into lots of different camera angles, and there is no chance for the comedy to flow naturally from the performances. Theoretically, a good portion of the jokes are in the intertitles, but there are far too many of these and none of them is especially funny.

Of course, Capra would eventually mature into a fine dramatic and romantic director, and you can see him beginning to develop in this respect. He cuts down the line, closing in on Walker and Bessie love in the scene where she first lays eyes on him in his Don Wilson get up, neatly establishing the wordless connection between them. Then there is some beautiful and tender framing of the couple in their scene together at the masquerade, which is all very reminiscent of the love scenes in Capra's early 30s output.

Johnnie Walker, Columbia's answer to Al Jolson, is not an exceptional talent. His comic timing is good but there is nothing to make him stand out. Bessie Love on the other hand is a pretty good actress too, with a very expressive face. Kudos to her for getting involved with the physical comedy and losing her dignity with the boys. There's also a good role for Lionel Belmore, that rotund and jolly character actor who seems to turn up in absolutely everything in the late 20s and early 30s.

The Matinée Idol is one of those pictures that has gained more than its fair share of attention thanks to its director later having made a handful of masterpieces. In and of itself it is a very uninteresting piece, and like most of Capra's work before he met Robert Riskin, a disappointment.

Sentiment: negative
I just returned from viewing this academy award-nominated doc, and I was thoroughly touched and interested in exploring the works of this fellow I'd never heard of before. Of course I'm someone who's captivated with beautiful architecture, so I realize others won't care.

We can only imagine if there had been a couple more visionaries in Philadelphia back in the late 60's when Kahn's plans were a possibility, what a wonderful city center there would be. If you wonder whether you'll see more about the Bangladesh building at the beginning of the movie, be patient, for there it will provide the climax of the film at the end. 

His son's personal discoveries in the process of making this film are quite interesting, sometimes touching, and even funny at times. There is one of the most comical anti-visionary rants ever captured on camera.

Rounding out the good points of this doc is a touching musical score with some excellent expressive string music. And expressiveness is a major point to be found in Kahn's architecture. The points made by other architects about the spiritual nature of matter, and how Kahn's buildings brought that out tie together the overall experience of this movie.

Sentiment: positive
It's remarkable and quite praiseworthy how writers and directors continue to make great movies out of one of the oldest and most (over)used story lines in cinema! "Dog Bite Dog" is basically not much more than just the simple story of an lone copper obsessively chasing a brilliant criminal, only Pou-Soi Cheang distinguishes his film from the rest by being extremely violent & relentless. This is unquestionably one of the grittiest and most uncompromising movies I've ever seen, with an atmosphere of constant nihilism and characters that seem to come walking straight out of hell! Not even the installments in Chan-Wook Park's trilogy of vengeance (with the exception of "Oldboy", perhaps) or any other infamous Cat-III film ever released were as sadistic and brutal as some of the events depicted in "Dog Bite Dog". Pang is a young and ruthless Cambodian assassin who lands in the crowded streets of Hong Kong to eliminate the wife of an eminent judge in a restaurant. When the police arrives at the place, young officer Wai sees how Pang hastily flees from the scene of the crime and follow him. The first actual confrontation between the two rabid dogs results in a gigantic blood bath, as Pang mercilessly kills several hostages and even Wai's long time friend and colleague. From then on begins a thrilling and action-packed cat and mouse game between the frustrated cop and the professional killer. The latter also saves a young girl from the constant sexual abuse of her father and stays with her at her shed in the local garbage dump. What makes this routine action/thriller so fascinating (apart from the explicit violence) are the main characters' backgrounds! Pang, the hit-man, is a Cambodian orphan and has been trained to fight & kill for money ever since he was a child. He knows no restrictions, has no mercy and barely speaks a word. Wai, the cop, became particularly ruthless and unorthodox ever since his role-model father (also a cop) lies in a coma after a drug-related incident. Lai doesn't question suspects and witnesses; he yells at them and he's prepared to sacrifice everything in order to stop his brand new nemesis. People with a weak stomach or tangled nerves are advised to stay away from this film, because the cruelty and shocks featuring in "Dog Bite Dog" can easily cause nausea. It's not the type of violence where bloodied heads and chopped off limbs fly through the air, but more like the intense and utterly disturbing type where people attempt to crush their opponents mentally as well as physically. The filming locations are effectively dark and eerie and the extremely sober music makes the already harrowing tone of the movie even more petrifying. The performances are terrific! I wouldn't be surprised if Edison Chen and Sam Lee treated each other like enemies on the film set as well, because their on screen hatred and disgust feels a little too legitimate. "Dog Bite Dog" is a powerful and unforgettable film, highly recommended if you can stomach it. If you fear you can't, just wait a few years for the inevitable American remake which will unquestionably soften the premise a little.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is one of my all-time favorites. I think that Sean Penn did a great job acting. It is one of the few true stories that made it to film that I really like. It is in my top 10 films of all-time. I watch it over and over and never get tired of it. Great movie!

Sentiment: positive
TOM BROWN'S SCHOOLDAYS 

Aspect ratio: 1.78:1

Sound format: Stereo

In late 19th century England, young Tom Brown (Alex Pettyfer) is sent to the public school at Rugby where he experiences the reforms of a radical new headmaster (Stephen Fry) and stands up to the school's resident bully, Flashman (Joseph Beattie).

Already the subject of numerous screen adaptations - most notably Gordon Parry's superior 1951 version - Thomas Hughes' evergreen novel gets the early 21st century treatment, courtesy of screenwriter Ashley Pharoah (TV's "Where the Heart Is") and director David Moore (THE FORSYTE SAGA). It's pleasant enough, and watchable, but it's also rather staid and dull, distinguished only by Fry's sincere performance as the new principal determined to sweep away some of the school's most dubious 'traditions', and by the introduction of a possible new star in 14 year old Pettyfer, a talented kid with the kind of effortless charm and vivid good looks that should take him all the way to Hollywood and beyond. Otherwise, this is typical UK TV fodder, the kind of stuff favored by executives eager to fill the schedules with 'prestige' product, even one as thoroughly unremarkable as this. The UK publication 'Radio Times' described it as "daintily odd" and raised a querulous eyebrow over "all of that fagging and brutality and a handsome, rakish villain torturing the life out of sweet young boys". Quite.

Sentiment: negative
I sat through this on TV hoping because of the names in it that it would be worth the time...but dear Gussie, whoever thought this script was worth producing? The basic idea is excellent but the execution is appallingly bad, with a constantly illogical sequence of scenes, an ending that is almost laughably melodramatic and poor Rock Hudson wanders through this with an understandably confused look on his slightly sagging face. Looks like a bad B movie from the 40's...

Sentiment: negative
It started off weird, the middle was weird, and the ending was weird, but I really, really liked it. A modern day version of Homer's Odyessy but that is really irrelevant. Interesting story and casting. Clooney was great and I applaud him for taking on such an adverterous role - so unlike anything he has done or ever will do again. Lots of surprise stars - why isn't Holly Hunter in more. Do something different tonight and watch this really different and unexpected flick.

Sentiment: positive
Larry is a perfect example of the Democratic Party in the United States, of which he is a staunch member. King used to be somewhat fair and unbiased and had a variety of guests on. The Party used to be centrist, too, but that was another era. Now, like, Larry, it's Far Left. 

At least 90 percent of all the guests on King's show in the past year or two are Liberals who sit there and bash President Bush and every Conservative they can think of.....night after night. Bill Mahar, one of the more viscous ones, is - and you can look this up - the most frequent guest in the history of King's TV show. You can count on other outspoken Left Wingers to be on King's show each week, but don't hold your breath waiting for a Conservative. They are few and far between.

King was also one of the innovators of the media overkill. That all began with the O.J. Simpson trial. Night after night after night that's all you ever saw back in the mid '90s. Whatever latest gossip on Anna Nicole Smith, or the Petersen murder case, or Paris Hilton, Britney Spears or some other tabloid subject, you can bet Larry will beat it to death. Sadly, all the other networks do the same thing now. Larry was a leader in that regard.

King also has the nerve to sometimes give advice, such as on marriage. I am not kidding; I 've heard him say it. The joke is that he has been married and divorced a half dozen times! This man has few scruples, believe me. When it comes to morality, he is clueless. Maybe that's why he has Dr. Phil on, to explain some facts of life to him regularly. Larry will nod, but he doesn't understand any more than when Billy Graham used to talk to him.

King also is becoming famous for the "softball" interview, meaning he asks no hard questions. That is a lot due to the fact that most his guests are of his political persuasion. People know being on King's show is liking having an hour public relations gig.

What all this has meant is a serious decline in ratings the past five years. People see through him and his Liberal-and-tabloid-TV mentality and switched over from King and CNN to Fox News.

Sentiment: negative
After sitting through this god-awful 82-minute excuse of a film, and having previously wanted to gouge my eyes out after having watched another James Toback-directed mess called "When Will I Be Loved", I've come to the conclusion that he has the best agent in the world. How else can these horribly written, painfully-directed pieces of trash get made in the first place.

I like Robert Downey Jr., but perhaps being in this movie drove him to substance abuse.

Heather Graham has to be embarrassed about her zombified performance. Half the time the camera is on her she just is looking off in a daze.

Such a crappy script. Prepare yourself for Hollywood name-dropping galore (example: five minute meandering discussions on Denzel Washington's acting....etc.)

There's a great character in Joseph Heller's novel Catch-22 named Dunbar. He spends most of the time in the novel shooting skeet, which he abhors. When asked why he shoots skeet all the time if he hates it so much, he replies that it makes time CREEP by, and he'll have a longer life. Well....if you really want to feel time creep by, watch this film! I swear...the 82 minutes will feel longer than a 4 hour David Lean epic. It goes on and on and on and on...

I hope I never watch another James Toback film again. If I could give this NO STARS, I would.

Sentiment: negative
Julie Brown hilariously demolishes Madonna's attempt at a rockumentary with gut ripping humor and truly original and catchy songs that rival Madonna's own. Cinematography and sets are top notch.

Kathy Griffin and Chris Elliott offer their own injections of comedy that enhances and compliments this film. Appearances by Bobcat Goldthwait and Wink Martindale, as themselves, is an added bonus.

It's hard to tell if Brown's performance is meant to insult or playfully tease Madonna, though I hardly think the Material Girl would find humor in it.

My Favorite line: "Why don't you come here (to the Phillipines); all they eat is dog and I'm a vegetarian."

Sentiment: positive
How sad there is no option to post a mark lower than 1. I watched this piece of nonsense and could barely believe what i was watching. Every single part of the film was awful. Music, acting, direction, story, everything, simply everything. I actually found myself laughing out loud at various points in the film. I particularly loved the bit where our hero is dashing through the hospital in soft focus slow motion, and knocks the clipboard out of the nurses hand, because, .............well. Just because. Product placement? Crucifix's (crucifi?) everywhere. If you are of a Christian persuasion and very easily satisfied, you may like this movie. If you do like this movie, you really need to get out more.

Sentiment: negative
All the other comments already said what I was going to say, here goes anyway. I thought this was Italian at first, sorry about that, Italy. I wasn't bored because I kept waiting for something to happen. Who did that song about Dr. Tarr and Professor Feather way back when? Was it Alan Parsons? Saw this on a Brentwood 10 pack and the quality was as expected, terrible. Full of streaks and stuff. The movie was an incoherent mess. Goofy music and clueless characters. The main guy should have known in the first minute that the doctor was nuttier than the patients. I thought the "doctor" directing the "battle" scene was never going to end. Had some good looking babes though. It seems these dumb ass movies always throw in a naked chick or two and that gets you hooked. I gave it a 2 for the nekkid women. That bird people dance made me want to pull out my own eyeballs. Poe probably did about 3,000 rpms in his grave when this thing came out because it was loosely based on a story of his.

Sentiment: negative
real love. true love. mad love. beautiful love. ugly love. dirty love. sad love. happy love. silly love. smart love. gorgeous love. dumb love. love love love. minnie moore understands that what she really needs is a man who trust her, trust her and love her madly. of course when this man comes along... she tries to run away but seymour, wonderful seymour, he trusts her, he believes in her so he is going to fight for her against her. i want to be like seymour moskowitz. i want to be that kind of man. a man willing to love without been afraid to fail but willing to fail. that's a kind of hero. that's my kind of hero... and minnie moore is my kind of woman. long live cassavetes and all his lovely bunch!

Sentiment: positive
OK so it's not great either, but only because of how great Laurel and Hardy have been in the past. If this film received a total overhaul, with picture quality enhanced, add new dubbing to the badly dubbed voices and added a nice unobtrusive background music then this film would truly start to take shape. As it is, it does have it's problems. People do slate it for how old the boys look. Quel surprise! they were in their 60's and had led a 'life'. However, to me, they still came across as having bucketfulls of charm, and while this doesn't even come close to tickling the feet of their classics( I gave it a 4), it's worth a watch simply because it's them. To think otherwise would be impostorous!!

Sentiment: negative