DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I must admit, at first I was worried about Farscape. The opening segment was not very strong, and I began to worry about what was to come. However, once it set in to familiar Henson territory with the wry sense of humor, the unique and enduring characters, and the compelling story combined to create an excellent piece of science fiction. The story follows John Crichton (played by Ben Browder) a scientist who has developed a spaceship and theory that rely on slingshot propulsion. However, during the first test, his craft encounters an unknown magnetic field, and he is propelled into an unknown galaxy, where he finds himself in the middle of a struggle between escaping prisoners (on the starship Moya) and the Peacekeepers (human enforcers). He is quite literally drawn into the prisoners ship, and after many twists and turns finds himself united with the prisoners (Ka D'argo, a Luxom warrior; Pa'U Zhaan, a Delvian priestess; Rygel XVI, a deposed ruler; and Aeryn Sun, a Peacekeeper who has reluctantly joined the crew). With excellent special effects, moderate make-up, and puppets and robots that exceed the Henson standard of perfection; as well as a very well written story, and character driven plot, FarScape looks to be a fantastically original, creative, and clever science fiction series.

Sentiment: positive
Oh it really really is. I've seen films that I disliked more, due to whatever reason, but never have I seen a film that just fails in every single aspect of film making. It even fails to fail at film making, in a Way the Hercules in New York could be said to do. It's not the film I like the least, but it is the very worst film I've ever seen.

The acting is the first thing that strikes you. I've never seen a worse acted film outside of pornography. In fact I've plenty of pornographic films that are acted a damn site better than this. It really is awful.

Technically, it's terrible. The camera-work is amateurish. The editing is nonsensical. I presume they couldn't afford proper sound equipment, and this meant that every scene in a car (and there's a lot of them) has them driving at about three miles per hour and every scene set outside by the same patch of woods (and there's a lot of them too) is actually dubbed from a studio, again lending more to the bad porn vibe.

The plot is nonsensical, as many have pointed out. I'll defend vampires walking in daylight by the fact that despite it being popularized by Nosferatu, this was never originally an intrinsic part of the vampire mythos.

Speaking of vampire mythos, the writer had evidently read Carmilla, or at very least seen The Vampire Lovers. I'm not sure how I feel about this, swaying from impressed that a movie this dire has at least some aspirations to a Gothic novel I'm very fond of; or annoyed by its at best sledgehammer references and at worst total desecration of source material. At very least 'the General' is an insult to Peter Cushing though.

It gets two stars however, merely because I can't bring myself to vote one star for a film that has, or at least purports to have, both vampires and zombies in it. Incidentally I watched Lifeforce (another film that tenuously has vampires and zombies in it) on the same day as this, and despite being a rather flawed film itself, really comes out a masterpiece compared to this.

So in the end, this is not a film so bad it's good, or so bad it's in any way enjoyable, even drunk. It's just a mess, and worth no-one's time watching.

Sentiment: negative
I will admit my ignorance of this film's existence, until I saw it advertised on a cable outlet. I was very impressed with the novelistic structure of the film. The film, which is in a language I do not understand, shone with intelligence and nuance for me. I think this speaks to the film's quality. It was visually stunning. The acting was visually entrancing. The Chinese theater traditions of movement, used to enhance the delivery of dialogue, is so compelling after watching Western film, where actors traditionally focus more heavily on the dialogue. The action in this film comes right at you, without a lot of explosions to get your attention. It is human action that is so affective here. The added advantage that the film taught me history about one of the world's greatest tourist attractions, the funereal clay army of China's First Qin Emporer, was very impressive. It seemed to give the film an international relevance beyond the film's great ethical themes. This is a film I can comfortably recommend to a wide variety of friends and acquaintances.

Sentiment: positive
This movie captures the essence of growing up in smalltown America for a young girl on her own. The realism and subtle nuances, offered to Ashley Judd's character, Ruby, by the storyline, capture what can only be described as a true to life setting in the panhandle of Florida. From the slam of a screen door, to the lack of work, the echoes of what life is really like on the "red-neck riviera" provide rough choices for the young girl. Paradise did not come easy. But she slowly overcomes obstacles and deceit, and learns to be her own woman, with a strength that flows from within. Ashley Judd's winning smile, and infectious gait exude warmth and command respect and admiration. The careful pace of the character development resembles that of "Ulee's Gold" in 1997, starring Peter Fonda, and also directed by Victor Nunez.

Sentiment: positive
It all begins with a series of thefts of seemingly unrelated objects in a hostel for students on Hickory Road, London. Concerned for her sister, who is the housekeeper there, Miss Lemon asks Hercule Poirot to look into the matter. He agrees, but soon the stakes get higher when a girl, who had admitted that she was responsible for most (not all) of the thefts, is found murdered.

"Hickory Dickory Dock" is a solid brain exercise, without being as mind-numbingly complicated as "One, Two, Buckle My Shoe". Murder, theft and diamond smuggling are the crimes involved, and the final twist that ties everything together is revealed only in the last 2 minutes! The characters are interesting, particularly the psychology student Colin McNabb and the mysterious American girl Sally Finch, Inspector Japp has his funny moments (in perhaps the closest this series has come to "toilet humor"), and Miss Lemon gets a more integral part to the story than usual. (***)

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film at Amsterdam's International Documentary Film Festival and was privileged to meet both the directors and Tobias Schneebaum, all of whom are lively and outspoken New Yorkers. The film's title in Amsterdam was Keep the River on Your Right, making the sensational aspect of cannibalism somewhat less prominent. Equally important was the loving - and gay - relationship Tobias Schneebaum had with members of the groups he studied as an anthropologist. His reunion at nearly 80 years of age and inevitable leave-taking were very moving. I can only highly recommend this film to anyone looking for a moving story that is anything but pedestrian.

Sentiment: positive
...Ever. This is the bottom. I am not joking. The theater should've had a warning of some kind. 'Abandon all hope ye who enter here' would've been fitting.

I don't have the words to describe accurately the hell that this movie is. Its debilitating stupidity even fails to amuse. This movie is definitely aimed at some of the slower turtles in the sandbox. The story was blatantly stolen from a 10 minute Bugs Bunny cartoon and then stretched like Mr. Fantastic to 90 excruciatingly painful minutes.

I remember when the Wayans's were funny. I guess the pressures of Hollywood for them to produce produce produce are to blame for the poop that churns out at a consistent rate. I'm sad and offended that they think we are stupid enough to enjoy 90 minutes of kick-in-the-balls jokes with a thin plot based on a cartoon.

I disliked nearly everything about this movie. I won't spoil anything but the baby is actually a midget with Marlon Wayans's face poorly superimposed over the midget's body. What I DID like was the ending. Not the movie's resolution, but the actual end where we all stood up and walked out.

I gave this movie one star, but it clearly deserves less. I don't feel that the six minutes they spent writing the script is worth a star. This does deserve a Razzie and I pray to God it gets it.

When are people going to learn; if you stop paying to see this idiocy they will stop pooping it out. Seppuku is a reasonable alternative to this film. Avoid it at all costs. You have been warned.

Sentiment: negative
Cinematography--Compared to 'The Wrestler,' a degree of verite and cinematic skill that disarms the viewer, and then hypnotizes as well.

Acting--The dialogue is minimal, but the pauses and silence poignant.

Story--The conflict in a 'balkanized' Denmark is volatile, as we saw recently jihad murders in the Netherlands and riots in France. While I harbor no love for Islam, the departure from the West from Christian values holds no cause for celebration.

The director of this film managed to mirror the two societies in a way that belabored neither, emphasizing the development of Aicha as an individual who became a champion, not so much in the ring, but to all those around her. Even her worst . . . I will stop here to avoid the spoiler.

Sentiment: positive
Why did I waste my money on this on the last day of Sundance? I want a refund... Can I have my $16 back? While I was watching this film I kept waiting for something to happen, nothing did happen. The only way I even knew what it was supposed to be about was by reading the plot, which was not really like the film. why did the director zoom in with their handy cam and then zoom out? It was not very artistic. Why did the director show Lulu filing her nails for fifteen minutes? Why is it when the actors tried to speak they sounded like they were reading? Or was that the point? I felt like Phantom Love had no story at all, and to be honest I felt like my friends vacation videos had a much higher entertainment value than this film.

Sentiment: negative
Paul Rudnick (Jeffrey, Addams Family Values) wrote this frothy tale of a mild mannered school teacher (Kevin Kline) who is outted on the Academy Awards by a former student-turned-actor (Matt Dillon). The rest of the film deals with the absurdities revolving around this setup -the effect on the town, his fiancee (Joan Cusack), himself- and climaxes with an everybody-loves-everybody finale.

 If you're an angry gay rights activist or a naive youth looking for an accurate portrayal of a man's struggle to come out or a 'true' depiction of gay life, then save yourself the trouble and rent something else (maybe Beautiful Thing) or read a book (Giovanni's Room). If you are able to understand that this film was inspired by the piousness of Tom Hanks's speech on the Academy Awards when he won for Philadelphia and pokes fun at Hollywood culture and small town ignorance and you have a fondness for '30's screwball comedy (Bringing Up Baby, Holiday, The Palm Beach Story) then enjoy! Far from being a biting satire, the film tries for the exuberance of a Preston Sturges farce and comes damn close. No, it's not 'deep' or 'powerful' -neither were Romy & Michelle, 9 to 5, or Young Frankenstein- and it doesn't pretend to be; it keeps it's tongue-firmly-in-cheek. It gets too preachy and maudlin for its own good toward the end and sure some of the jokes are a bit stale (there's also a locker room scene that could have been cut) but after sitting through countless comedies that misfire, it's like a breath of fresh air.

 Kevin Kline and Tom Selleck are wonderfully game while Debbie Reynolds and Wilford Brimley add fine support. The excellent Joan Cusack's award winning performance is stellar and the great Bob Newhart is, well, Bob Newhart. 

 The fact that many have been offended by In & Out is as absurd as the mentality of the townsfolk it pokes fun at; personally, I was more offended by Philadelphia. I'll take harmless fluff over sanctimoniousness anytime.

Sentiment: positive
I rented a copy of this one from Netflix -- big mistake. The DVD version titled "The One-Armed Swordsmen" was produced by madmen who thought that the fighting sequences would be appreciated better pasted all together in one big chapter than as part of a consistent, sequential story. Some of the story was left in separate chapters, which you can select from the main menu, but the DVD is still a mess. Don't rent or buy it. Not that there was anything wonderful about the original story, an absurdly complicated piece of nonsense. Much as I liked seeing Wang Yu in his prime again after all these years, this one is an utter waste of time. I've had dish detergents that made a better film than this. What the chopped-up DVD version shows us is that no matter how silly a Chinese script may be, you have to see some sort of story to care about how the fighting sequences turn out.

But "The One-Armed Swordsmen" does offer you do the chance to see both Wang and Shaw Brothers stalwart Lo Lieh beating up smirking pretty boy David Chiang -- it's always a pleasure to see that happen. Lo plays a sort of second-string villain here, and serves as a prime example of why some people really need orthodontists. he film is also graced by the participation of Taiwanese actor Chang Yi as the magistrate. 

Another comment above mentions the obligatory fight-in-the-inn scene (there are two, in fact) where Wang and Chiang are attacked by a pack of comical barbarians using what look like cavemen weapons, making Bruce Lee noises while they fight. None of this makes any sense, but that's okay if you're not expecting any clarity or common sense. It was fun to watch anyway.

Another peculiarity of this production is that there are no significant women characters. There are a couple of female roles, but they play no serious role in the action or the plot.

If you can find a copy of the original Shaw Brothers One-Armed Swordsman movie, the one which explains why he has only the one arm and why he uses a broken sword, go for it.

Sentiment: negative
Otto Preminger, completing a noir cycle at Twentieth Century Fox, reunited his "Laura" leads for this stark, gritty detective drama. Dana Andrews again portrays a cop, but this time he's hardened, cynical and has been accused of police brutality by his superior - "You don't hate hoods, you liked to beat them up!". Mark Dixon (Andrews) despises criminals, as his own father was a crook. He doesn't want to be "Sandy Dixon's kid" so he became a policeman, but his methods are harsh and hated.

One night, investigating a murder, he unknowingly punches a suspect, Ken Paine (Craig Stevens) so hard that it kills him. A shaken Dixon does his best to cover it up, intending to frame a hated thug, Scalise (Gary Merrill) for the crime. However, the blame falls on Paine's father-in-law, Jiggs Taylor (Tom Tully), whose daughter, department store model Morgan Taylor (Tierney) is estranged from her husband but keeps getting drawn into his gambling schemes. Paine had slapped his wife, enraging her father, who did show up at his son-in-law's apartment, but not until Dixon had departed with the body. With no better suspects, Jiggs is arrested and charged.

Riddled with guilt, Mark falls for Morgan and offers money for an attorney. He decides to take on Scalise anyway but leaves a letter to be given to the department in the event of his death, confessing everything. In the end, he cannot live with the knowledge with what he has done, and he permits the letter to be read by his superior and by Morgan. Despite all the tragic circumstances, Morgan professes her love for Mark and will wait for him.

It was great to find this film on DVD, after so many years of televised obscurity. Eddie Mueller, a film noir historian, provides the commentary and does a good job, but I find his assertion that audiences wouldn't have caught the significance of the casting of the two leads, since "Laura" had been made six years earlier. In that respect, he is mistaken because they had appeared in "The Iron Curtain" two years prior to WTSE and the film was a box-office success.

Andrews and Tierney were fabulous together, and Ruth Donnelly is tremendous comic relief as restaurant owner Martha, fanning the flames between the detective and the dame.

The night cityscapes give the film an air of menace. Gary Merrill is great as the low-life Scalise, who had a criminal past with Dixon's dad ("Your father liked me," he taunts Mark). Karl Malden and a young Neville Brand are terrific also. And Tom Tully is just touching and funny as Morgan's unjustly accused pop.

A watchable film noir with a fantastic cast.

Sentiment: positive
Have previously enjoyed Wesley Snipes in several action flicks and I had expected a lot more, even from a score of 5.8 IMDb, the movie fails to entertain and even though the story is thin and unoriginal, the acting is most unfortunately thinner and goes to mimic a "worst case scenario" of playing "strong" feelings accompanied by some bad acting... Don't waist your time this movie ísnt entertaining, if you wanna cry it might suffice though, even though your tears will be wept due to seeing Wesley Snipes in the tragic action film wannabe comedy...

I give this 2/10 it really was awful, if you wanna see a decent movie go see shooter or rent it, its all the good things this movie isn't.

Sentiment: negative
In a way this is the disaster Fellini has been working towards all his life. The line between absurd masterpiece and free association bullshit is very small, and what category a film will ultimately fit in will often just depend on personal feelings. That said, "Casanova" left me in cold admiration for its sets and little more that cannot be summed up more adequately by Bukowski: 

"Casanova died too, just an old guy with a big cock and a long tongue and no guts at all. to say that he lived well is true; to say I could spit on his grave without feeling is also true. the ladies usually go for the biggest fool they can find; that is why the human race stands where it does today: we have bred the clever and lasting Casanovas, all hollow inside, like the Easter bunnies we foster upon our poor children." 

As far as I could make it out, this is the position Fellini takes regarding his subject; granted, with more empathy, but disgusted nonetheless.

Casanova's environment is made from decay and incestuous behavior, themes Fellini dealt with more pointedly in "Satyricon". The succession of plot is characteristic of soft porn, just without the coherence; and Donald Sutherland is ugly and slimy to the point of distraction.

Yet, there might just be a point in portraying Casanova as an unsightly fool. And I challenge anybody to formulate this point without being obvious; Fellini couldn't. More than ever he seems here like a dirty old man - a maestro, for sure, but one whose impulses satisfy himself more than anybody else. I find it hard imagine an audience who enjoys this film. It was a story not worth telling.

Sentiment: negative
Perhaps you won't care for the social commentary, or the film makers point of view (I myself am mystified at the insignificance' angle Kasdan seemed to promote  when clearly, the actions taken in the movie promote CERTAIN significance. The ending confused me). However, there's absolutely no denying the manner in which the story is presented; the magnificent symbolism throughout; the threaded character arcs; visuals; dialogue  is absolute masterwork. I've watched the movie dozens of times, and I still marvel at its perfection. There's not a moment, action, cut, or line that doesn't have everything to do with the theme. Realistic human performances from all the actors. Scene to scene it's woven fantastically.

I have a pretty level sap-meter. The buzzer never went off during this film. If you're a thinker (rather than a casual viewer)  this movie delivers. Exponentially. Absolutely mesmerizing. (Do you have to agree with the message to appreciate the display? Who cares if it made you warm and fuzzy or not, was it interesting?)

Personally, the movie affected me  significantly. In my top 5.

Note: The front-page reviewer clearly speaks from a flawed African American perception. What he may have failed to recognize, is, there was a hand  shake. Not a hand - out. The spiritually dead white man', simply saw a man to respect, and admire. And he did something about it. The fact he was black had little, if anything, to do with it (color is simply used to draw the parallel. And the chasm. It's no accident the opening sequence shifts from black and white to color either). If you view the blacks in this movie as token'  you may want to reassess YOUR angst. You may be seeing only black and white yourself, eh. Just a thought.

Sentiment: positive
My only minor quibble with the film I grew up knowing as STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN, is the fact that the wonderful RAYMOND MASSEY is relegated to the last twenty or so minutes in the trial scene. And the trial itself, IMO, is the least interesting portion of this fascinating fantasy.

David NIVEN and KIM HUNTER are wonderfully cast as the young lovers, but it's ROGER LIVESEY who gives the liveliest and most credible performance. French accented MARIUS GORING is a delight (he even gets in a remark about Technicolor) as the heavenly messenger sent to reclaim Niven when his wartime death goes unreported due to an oversight. Goring has some of the wittiest lines and delivers them with relish.

Seeing this tonight on TCM for the first time in twenty or so years, I think it's a supreme example of what a wonderful year 1946 was for films. The Technicolor photography, somewhat subdued and not garish at all, is excellent and the way it shifts into B&W for the heavenly sequences is done with great imagination and effectiveness.

The opening scene is the sort that really draws a viewer into the fantasy aspects of the story--and Niven's tense talk with radio operator Hunter while his plane is crashing toward earth, unexpectedly leads to a memorable romantic encounter. Truly a marvelous film from beginning to end, another triumph for Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is so bad, they wouldn't buy it back at my local used CD/DVD store. I only own it because it came in a box set which I bought for the masterpiece "Deadfall". The store bought back the other two movies I was selling from the four disc set, but they wouldn't buy back Underworld, and those other two movies redefined rank, so what does that say about this movie? So I tried to sell it back to another store, that even bought back budget DVDs that you could buy for a dollar at a local store, but they wouldn't buy back Underworld either. This movie is bad on every level, and is one of those that came out in the post-Tarantino-clone glut of the mid 90's. The only slightly redeemable element is Dennis Leary telling Joe Montegna, that he's a "stinky friend" and calls him "Mister Stinky Friend". That line is so delightfully horrible, that I can't help but quote it at least once a week when describing a stinky friend. But now that I've enlightened you with that quote, you don't have to go thru the pain of watching this movie.

Sentiment: negative
Simply put, this is a simplistic and one dimensional film. The title, The Rise to Evil, should tell you that this isn't going to attempt to be anything deep or do much with Hitler's character. Rather, from the first minutes of the movie where we see baby Hitler looking evil with evil music playing the background, we are given a view of Hitler that presents his as a cartoony supervillian, seemingly ripped right out of a Saturday morning TV show. The film REALLY wants to make its case that Hitler was evil but does anyone need a movie to convince them that Hitler was evil? Ultimately, making him such a one-dimensionally evil character is both boring and confusing (one must ask how the inept, phsycotic character in the film cold ever persuade a nation to follow him or be named Time's man of the year). This film had a great opportunity to take a figure who has committed some of the most horrible acts in the 20th century, and try to delve into his mind. Instead, it basically just says, "Hey! Hitler was evil! Just thought you might like to know..." over and over again. The great irony is that the film still was attacked for presenting too sympathetic a view of the character. Give me a break.

Sentiment: negative
The film begins with a dandy gunfight, where three bandits are quickly gunned down by a bounty hunter--a bounty hunter who bears more than just a superficial to the Man With No Name from the Clint Eastwood trilogy (FISTFUL OF DOLLARS, FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE and THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY).

Immediately after, you see this man in a gold train filled with Union soldiers. Naturally, the shipment is attacked and the soldiers all fight like blind guys, so they are quickly neutralized. However, in a twist, one of the bandits cheats the gang leader (Gilbert Roland) and rides away with the gold. Soon, Roland catches up and is about to find out where the gold is hidden. But, just at that moment, the army turns up and kills the traitor....bummer. However, the Man With No Name wannabe thinks Roland knows about the treasure and perhaps a medallion given to Roland by the traitor holds the key. A strange banker, also is thrown into the mix. All three want the gold and all three seem pretty macho.

Overall, this is not a particularly distinguished Western. Much of it is the plot, some of it is that George Hilton (a Uruguayan despite the American sounding name) isn't as interesting as Eastwood or some of the other premier Spaghetti Western stars but most of it is because the soundtrack simply sucks. So often the music doesn't even come close to matching the acting and it seems almost randomly added. Plus, it just isn't very good stuff as well. This clearly isn't the work of Ennio Morricone--music master of the Spaghetti genre.

Overall, just a time passer--and not a particularly good one to boot.

Sentiment: negative
!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!

The premise goes like this : A store gets burnt down and assistant Sergio is asked by the father of the man who started the fire to take the wrap to which Sergio agrees .

So far so good , but there`s a fair lapse of logic involved Sergio agrees to do this for the sum of 25,000 dollars but why ? Come on guys if you were a good looking white boy would you run the risk of getting a long spell in a tough jail ( A very real possibilty for arson ) for the sake of 25 grand ? I know I wouldn`t , and seeing as you`d have a criminal record no employer would want to touch you with a barge pole so is $25,000 dollars all that much for a life of workfare and welfare cheques ? There`s also something else that seems to have gone without notice from the premise , since Mister Lumpke has told Sergio that his son did the fire he seems unware of the possibility that he may know too much . Wouldn`t alarm bells be ringing in your mind about someone wanting to keep you quite if they told you something ? 

I guess we`re not suppossed to think about such details since A PYROMANIAC`S LOVE STORY isn`t suppossed to be an intelligent thriller , it`s a light hearted romantic comedy/ chick flick that`s probably best apprieciated as a girls night in . Looking through this comments page it is obvious that the movie has its defenders but as a cynical male I wasn`t too impressed and William Baldwin does go way over the top

Sentiment: negative
My gosh, this movie was nothing more than filmmaking by numbers. Struggling salesman can't make a go of it in New York, mentor with a heart of gold takes him under his wing, struggling salesman moves to California and makes it big, then loses it big, then bounces back with the simple life, then hits rock bottom trying to get back to the top. I don't think I can remember any part of the plot that took more than five seconds to develop. Case in point (spoiler?): When the John Kapelos character calls to say he and his girlfriend were coming to Santa Cruz to visit, and James Woods says there's practically no chance he would come, you knew with 100% certainty they were coming in the next scene or two.

On the other hand, Sean Young sure looked good.

Sentiment: negative
The retelling of a classic story is set to the music of Burt Bacharach and lyrics of Hal David. The actors seem like real people in this fairytale of the outside world meeting with mystical Shangra-la. It is a joy to watch Bobby Van, whose acting puts me in mind of Red Buttons, and, as always, George Kennedy (Cool-Hand Luke) who always manages to carry gravitas in his roles. 

The surprise here is Charles Boyer as the elder High Lama. Who would have known? 

All-star cast including Michael York and Olivia Hussey makes this work a keeper for those of us who cherish people.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this on TV so long ago that I can't remember when it was, but it still stands out as one of the scariest, most unnerving films I've ever seen. There is a simultaneously subtle but intense dread induced by the woman in black lurking at the edge of the frame, not quite clearly visible, so that you feel (like the solicitor hero), unsure whether its just imagination or not. It is also one of the few films which has really made me fearful to keep watching. "Production values" be hanged, good films are about a director's ability to create atmosphere using film, actors, locations/sets, music, attention to detail, and ...imagination. A real gem.

Sentiment: positive
I loved this movie when I was a kid. I saw it theatrically. Randy Edelman did a good composition of the soundtrack. David Seville is the Chipmunks' father and recording manager. The Chipmunks consist of Alvin, who is best known for playing the harmonica, Simon, who is a bright and studious chipmunk & Theodore, who is the youngest and is always hungry. There is a lady known as Miss Miller, who looks after the chipmunks and has 3 daughters known as Brittany, Jeanette & Eleanor, who all have the same character as the Chipmunks. My favourite songs from this soundtrack include "Diamond Dolls", The Girls of Rock & Roll", & the touching "My Mother". Alvin really wanted to see Europe when Dave had to go there for business. The Chipmunks meet the Chipettes playing the Around the World in 30 days video game which led them to race each other doing the real thing.

Sentiment: positive
Simply put, the only saving grace this movie has is settings, costumes and an OK punk concert. How H.R.Giger must feel about his cyborg picture on the cover of this movie, I wouldn't like to know. Right away, all I could do was make sardonic comments about the films protagonists, I was hoping that the "freaks" in this movie would execute them in gory fashion. I sense SPOILERS a comin'! I was wondering if this film in the spirit of the first 20 min. was intended to be as humorously half-baked as the rest of it? Examining all the obvious political outcries (Police trying to rape a "freak", the discussion of superficialities between the "freak" and the frat boy and the punk concert w/ the female vocalist) and the use of slow-motion in the fighting sequences (which screams "martial-arts coordinator") I just don't know. The character named "Steve" irked me since he tries to pick fights w/ people off the street (he shoulda been mugged and raped) and looks bad when he broke that guy's neck towards the end (want me to show you how to do it?) I must say this though, if they would've developed other characters better than they did "Splatter", this might have gone somewhere. If there was a 0 to give this movie, it would've got it, but alas it's a 1.

Sentiment: negative
When I first saw this film on video in a department store... it intrigued me. Considering the fact that I thought I was in love and I was the same age as the youths in this film at the time (although I realize they are now old enough to be my parents), plus the soundtrack being written by Elton John & Bernie Taupin just before they "made it big" here in North America... I figured I had nothing to lose in buying it. I was not disappointed.

So far, I have shown it to many guys I have dated since, and to my current boyfriend... obviously, they didn't find it as lovely as I do... preferring to call it a "chick" movie... but I still laugh and cry. This film was vastly overlooked. It's good to see it's available to rent at one of the local video stores around here so that other people can share the magic. 

So maybe it's a bit far fetched... but it gives you a lighthearted sense of innocence... and a renewed faith in love.

Sentiment: positive
Cheesy script, cheesy one-liners. Timothy Hutton's performance a "little" over the top. David Duchovny still seemed to be stuck in his Fox Mulder mode. No chemistry with his large-lipped female co-star.He needs Gillian Anderson to shine. He does not seem to have any talent of his own.

Sentiment: negative
SPOILER Wolfcreek meets Texas Chainsaw Massacre....if you've seen those, don't waste your time with this one. Typical slasher movie, nothing new here except for the SPOILER "visions" which just add fluff to an already weak plot. I would recommend this movie if you have absolutely nothing to watch and it's either see this movie or stare at a bare wall for 1.5 hrs. The only semi-interesting part SPOILER is when the chick starts drinking in the empty sheriff's office, I say it's interesting because at least she made good use of that liquor instead of stereotypically using it to start a fire to kill the bad guy, although she did go that route towards the end. All in all, lame, bad, and not worth effort.

Sentiment: negative
This is the best 3-D experience Disney has at their themeparks. This is certainly better than their original 1960's acid-trip film that was in it's place, is leagues better than "Honey I Shrunk The Audience" (and far more fun), barely squeaks by the MuppetVision 3-D movie at Disney-MGM and can even beat the original 3-D "Movie Experience" Captain EO. This film relives some of Disney's greatest musical hits from Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, and others, and brought a smile to my face throughout the entire show. This is a totally kid-friendly movie too, unlike "Honey..." and has more effects than the spectacular "MuppetVision"

Sentiment: positive
Back when musicals weren't showcases for choreographers, we had wonderful movies such as this one.

Being a big fan of both Wodehouse and Fred Astaire I was delighted to finally see this movie. Not quite a blend of Wodehouse and Hollywood, but close enough. Some of the American vaudeville humour, the slapstick not the witty banter, clash with Wodehouse's British sense of humour. But on the whole, the American style banter makes the American characters seem real rather than cardboard caricatures.

Some inventive staging for the dance numbers, including the wonderful fairground with revolving floors and funhouse mirrors, more than make up for the lack of a Busby Berkley over the top dance number. They seem a lot more realistic, if you could ever imagine people starting to sing and dance as realistic.

The lack of Ginger Rogers and Eric Blore don't hurt the movie, instead they allow different character dynamics to emerge. It's also nice not to have a wise cracking, headstrong love interest. Instead we have a gentle headstrong love interest, far more in keeping with Wodehouses' young aristocratic females.

Sentiment: positive
You can survive Surviving Christmas. I thought the television version was a bit edited way down. I like Ben Afleck. He plays Drew Johnson, a family-less adult, who is willing to pay complete strangers. The Valcos starring James Gandolfini and Catherine O'Hara as the parents and Christina Applegate as Lisa Valco, the daughter. Drew is lonely around the holidays because he doesn't have a family of his own so he rents out a family in the Chicago suburbs for a quarter million dollars. Bill Macy who I best remember for playing Maude's husband Arthur is hired to play Duda, the grandfather. When the whole situation comes crashing down, the truth can be painful. The Valcos household is crumbling apart from the Drew situation. Drew's rich girlfriend and her parents make a surprising visit. You can't buy what you wish for! The acting and writing is mediocre but the first rate cast pulls it through to the final scene.

Sentiment: positive
I know what you're saying, "Oh man, Pinochio is not scary!" but this movie goes beyond alot more than a maniacal pinochio. Behind it tells the story of a mother and her daughter who is oddly attached to her doll Pinnochio who seems to talk to her. The only weird thing is that noone else can hear the doll except her. In the end is shocking revelation that, as did I, will shock you. Watch it. Give it a try.

Sentiment: positive
The threesome of Bill Boyd, Robert Armstrong, and James Gleason play Coney Island carnys vying for the hand of Ginger Rogers, a working gal who sells salt water taffy. With the outbreak of World War I, the threesome enlist and pursue Ginger from afar. The first half of this RKO Pathe production is hard going, with the three male leads chewing up the scenery with overcooked one-liners and 'snappy' dialogue that quickly grows tiresome. The second half concentrates on action sequences as the US Navy pursues both a German merchant cruiser and a U-boat. These sequences are lively and well-filmed, but overall this is an overlong and unsatisfying comedy-drama with a flat ending. For fans of the stars only.

Sentiment: negative
Two L.A cops track down a serial killer nicknamed "The family man" who has wiped out whole families and when one of the police officer's wife takes the deep six, questions are raised and it turns out that a serial killer isn't responsible but rather mobsters. The idea of Seagal in a serial killer movie is an interesting concept, indeed one could see Seagal play a good serial killer however making him a cop who has a ridiculous penchant for prayer beads and razor sharp credit cards comes off more stupid than likably ridiculous. Also a running joke involves Wayon's enjoyment of eating powdered deer penis and well this raunchy material is utterly out of place. Not to mention the beginning of a school being taken hostage, due to a boy's breakup with his girlfriend. After Seagal neutralizes him, the girlfriend tells the young lad that she loves him. Now there is a lesson to be learned from all of this, if you want your girlfriend back, taking the school hostage may get you back on her good side. I myself would think flowers or the old fashioned phone call might work, then again though, i'm old fashioned. Besides who am I to put a damper on somebody else's brilliant reconciliation plan.

* out of 4-(Bad)

Sentiment: negative
This movie can best be described as a very long episode of a very bad sitcom. How many vaguely humorous misunderstandings can you cram into just one movie? Notes are misplaced, bags are switched, conversations are misheard, people get mixed up, situations are misinterpreted, and somewhere along the line people are supposed to laugh about something. The writers are really struggling to keep everything going, which makes the dialogues feel really forced. If anyone in this movie acted like a real person all this would be resolved in around two minutes or so and everyone could go back to their lives, but they have to keep the misunderstandings going. At times this movie also tries to go for some juvenile laughs, but all those do is remember you about how funny "American Pie" was. The scene with the nerd telling the hooker (who he thinks is a foreign exchange student) to "eat his sausage" goes on forever, not one second of it is funny. I've got to give this movie some credit though: because of the subplot about stolen money, it's not as boring as it could have been. It also has a laugh here and there, but then sadly goes back to yet another character misunderstanding stuff. Overall this movie is just way too lame.

Sentiment: negative
Each frame in the movie is a lesson to new directors or existing directors to know how a movie should be taken. Hats off to Sekhar. He is underestimated in Indian film industry. The director has got all the qualities in taking this movie in the range of Satyajir ray, Adoor.. Every character is portrayed effectively in the movie. Though it's simple story, it's been taken to such extent it can be considered to one of the best in India. I don't have enough adjectives to praise the movie. Just as the way the life goes in day-today atmosphere, the movie has been taken. Though the songs in Indian movies are considered to a weak area, songs in this movie has given extra energy to the potential of the movie..especially background score..it's amazing

Sentiment: positive
2054. Paris is an Escher drawing with people and vehicles scurrying along at multiple levels in an obvious homage to Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Paris is both ultramodern and crumbling into decay. And in the blink between surveillance sweeps, a pretty young medical researcher is kidnapped just after leaving her sister in a seedy nightclub. A tough police captain investigates. Shown in stark black and white, with the gloomy corridors, shadowy alleys and single source lighting characteristic of the most hard-boiled of film noir, comparisons to Sin City are inevitable. But the story owes more to Masamune Shirow and William Gibson than to Frank Miller, as high tech surveillance, near-invisible stealth suits and ruthless super-corporations are as much a part of the landscape as guns and cars. The film never quite generates the doom-laden atmosphere of Gibson's cyberpunk vision, with its tech-heavy marginal characters clashing with industrial types from corporations that all seem to have their own Ministry of Fear, but the viewer definitely gets the sense that future Paris is no Utopia and future science is less than benevolent. And as the police procedural plot line unfolds we are taken into the darker recesses of individual ambition beneath the shiny veneer of Avalon corporation's cultivated PR image. The motion capture process used here produces a look somewhere between B&W comic books and next generation rotoscoping, and is either captivating or intrusive depending on your tastes. Nevertheless, a great visual sense is on display here, and future Paris is filled in down to the tiny details giving the picture a unique look which is in turns both spartan and baroque. Worth a look.

Sentiment: positive
What an atomic bomb of a movie. The story goes nowhere and comes fron nowhere. It leaves the theatre goer with ones arm up saying "is this it". What happened to Redford. He was once a fair actor. Now he thinks that he can show up on the set and make a few scenes and it's a take. Wrong. What an unemotional film. I don't mean to be so so cruel, but what crap of a movie. Unbelievable amateur crap. If I was in this movie I would be so embarased that I would not show my face. I tell you what, if I was associated with this movie, I am in big trouble. This movie will go down in the annals of movie making as the king of bombs with which all others will be compared to.

Sentiment: negative
I love basketball and this seemed like an intriguing movie. However, in the first ten minutes of the movie I knew that it was going to be lousy. It was poorly acted and much too slow. On top of that it was very, very racist, sexist, antisemitic and homophobic. Sometimes putting in racial, ethnic and other types of slurs has a point, illustrating the bigotry that exists. In this movie there was no point to the horrible bigotry and no one learned from what was being said. Part of the problem is that it was an adaption of a play and a remake of a 1982 movie that dealt with a basketball team from the 1950's. Having this movie take place earlier in time would have made a little bit more sense. It didn't translate well to modern times and the writing was horrible. I don't know how the play was originally written but I can't believe that any movie as bad and as hateful as this one has made it to television and video in 1999. It was disgusting. Don't waste your precious time on this one.

Sentiment: negative
The violent death of Fernando Ramos Da Silva only eight years after the completion of this film, only adds to the poignancy of dierector BAbenco's powerful message. The film is split into two halves - the first in a reformatory where a group of youngsters are abused and violated by the violent law enforcers and guardians. The second backdrop is the city where they are confined instead by their own actions and morality, which includes mugging, pimping and killing different characters who enter their lives.

The differing gender and sexual roles in the film allow for constant changes in the characters as they interact with other people. Particularly interesting is teh character of Lalica, a transvestite who is mother and lover to some of the children. Her reaction to the arrival of Sueli, a prostitute is both poignant and tragic. 

There is no happy ending to this story and i reccomend to watch it with caution as there are some very uncomfortable scenes to watch especially in teh opening twenty minutes. But whilst watching it, it is important to remember that this is not just a fictional tale. The actors are not trained professionals but instead boys selected from the streetsof Sao Paulo. They actually lived this life that is portrayed so vividly on screen and in da Silva's case, died at the hands of the police who are depicted so brutally. A documentary? A piece of fiction. It borders on both but it certainly makes for heart wrenching material and is a film that actually leaves you breathless and thinking long after having watched it.

10/10

Sentiment: positive
Otto Preminger directs this light as a feather story. Bohemian Jean Seberg and her equally bohemian widower father David Niven holiday in the South of France with nutty Mylène Demongeot. Things are fine until family friend Deborah Kerr shows up. Nivens, a degenerate womanizer, finds the conquest of Kerr too hard to resist. That's fine with Seberg, as long as Niven loves her and leaves her (as he's done with all the women in his past...including Demongeot). When it appears as though she's becoming second banana in Niven's life, Seberg exact revenge on Kerr. Preminger tells the story in flashbacks from Seberg's perspective and cleverly combines black and white with sunnier color scenes. The cinematography by Georges Périnal is stunning. The film features some of Preminger's least heavy-handed direction, although he rarely allows any close-ups, which makes it difficult to make out what the actors are really feeling. Arthur Laurents wrote the script and it's full of acidic dialog and funny scenes (mostly involving bird-brained Demongeot). Seberg acquits herself fairly well, but Niven is at his least appealing...and he shows no chemistry with either Seberg or Kerr. Preminger really mis-steps with that casting. It's a role that seems tailor made for someone closer to Charles Boyer. With Geoffrey Horne as Seberg's would-be suitor and Martita Hunt as his daffy mother. Juliette Gréco, playing herself, sings the title song in a Paris nightclub. The great titles are by Preminger regular Saul Bass.

Sentiment: negative
of watching this as a child. Although I'll probably find it god-awful now, it was kind-of spooky stuff as I was only seven or so. I also recall working on a Saturday-afternoon puzzle while watching it, so I wasn't really paying much attention. However, the scene with the rolling boulders has been burnt into my mind ever since. I've asked numerous people if they've seen this flick but to no avail. 12 years ago, one person mentioned that, possibly, he had seen it, but he thought it merely a dream; a fanciful piffle like wind. It's no dream, my friend. No dreaming now. Again, I haven't seen it since then, but I can't wait to find a copy and stuff it into my VCR. Anything that can stay embedded in my mind's eye for 23 years deserves a '10'.

Sentiment: positive
I'm sorry but this is just plain pathetic. The little girl was a brat, their were no enjoyable characters and the plot sucked. Besides it wasn't even a gator as the film would like us to believe. If you check out any complete guide to reptiles you will find that it really is a Crocodile, not a gator. Obviously they didn't hire a real animal expert or they would know that the creature is a croc. It is a sad excuse for a movie. Especially the ending. I nearly fell asleep with this one.

Sentiment: negative