DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I noticed with some amusement that in the end credits, the Detroit PD is thanked for their participation. The Chief of Police even has one speaking line playing himself (and boy, can you tell he can't act). The reason for the amusement is that in this movie the police shoot first and ask questions later. Not the kind of PR, I would think a police force would want. Other than that, this is your standard cops and robbers film dressed up for the '70's with a racial angle. Alex Rocco is given a thankless role of a lifer cop that can't get ahead and is saddled with a mentally ill wife. He makes up for this by hanging out at the local whorehouse. Hari Rhodes is his dashing partner that has a groovy wardrobe and likes to chase after suspects while wearing a trenchcoat. The movie moves along until the penultimate shootout that makes absolutely no sense (why do people that are only guilty of a robbery, take on a whole police force?). Not only do we see one shootout but since there are four bad guys, we get to see four. Then there is a twist ending that is supposed to leave one guessing what really would have happened but only left me thinking how stupid it was. Seeing that director Arthur Marks was also behind the braindead "Friday Foster" and "Bucktown", I shouldn't have wondered.

Sentiment: negative
Knowing what to expect (on the whole) from a Denzel Washington performance - quality, integrity, gravitas, wry humour - will prepare you for what to expect from his directorial debut. Much like Robert De Niro's A Bronx Tale, Antwone Fisher delivers the moving drama of the life of a young man and the effects of key figures in his life. Much as in A Bronx Tale De Niro played one of these key figures to the lead character (himself a character was born to play but was too old too) Washington takes a similar role in this as the fatherly councellor to the titular character - a character that seems like he should be played by a Washington from 20 years ago. Be thankful Washington is too old to play Antwone because if he had we would firstly be deprived of the wonderfully measured and intelligently nuanced performance he gives as the Navy councellor. However more importantly we wouldn't get to see the superb, we can only hope star making, turn from Derek Luke in the title role. Inevitably the character comes across as moulded in Washington's shape, however you get the impression this is not just because Washington directed it, not that Luke was trying to copy him, but that Luke is as genuinely powerful and thought provoking an actor as Washington. It took far too long for Washington to receive the Academy award he deserved for Malcolm X, Philadelphia, Devil In A Blue Dress and The Hurricane, let us hope that Luke does not have to wait so long. Also a great piece of casting was Joy Bryant as Fisher's girlfriend, Cheryl. While the part could have been a forgettable support or a standard 'girlfriend' role Bryant imbues it with life. Tender and intelligent the role transcends stereotyping with Bryant inhabiting it, and she makes the part significant and interesting. It doesn't hurt either that Bryant is possibly the most attractive woman you'll see on celluloid this year - the smile alone could thaw the coldest heart. Acting ability and looks - why isn't this woman in everything being made right now. Providing good support in a small role in Salli Richardson as Washington's wife Berta. Saying more with a silence or look than many Hollywood actresses can manage in an entire film she informs the audience of the entire storylines long before any exposition occurs. As for Washington's directing, as I said, it is the directing equivalent of his acting. Taking the story of a man few viewers will have heard of and making it genuinely interesting is a difficult feat which Washington achieves with aplomb. The film is neither rushed nor showy, but it never feels slow or dull. It is measured and nuanced, balancing the humour and drama perfectly. Antwone Fisher may not blow you away if you like big, explosive, plotless Hollywood films but for those who appreciate a finely crafted character piece, with excellent performances and steady well handled direction, this is for you.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this one on the late, late, late, late show back when MST3K was just a twinkle in Joel Hodgson's eye. I had the privilege of seeing it without knowing exactly how bad it would be. I didn't know that a woman with an arrow in her chest could run "to the ends of the earth" in about an hour and a half (thank God her father gave such specific directions) and then take days to make it back to the castle with help. I didn't know that a sword wielding barbarian-type could run into the forest and create a hanglider and flash powder bombs in under 30 seconds. I had no idea how disjointed a movie could be.

It's a bad thing children, a very bad thing. If you enjoy bad movies, go for it.

Sentiment: negative
This is one of my all time favorite movies, it's great to watch in groups, I find. It's also great for any Alan Rickman fan, he does such a wonderful job. It's engrossing, entertaining, very surprising... you have to watch it twice, at least. I haven't watched it with anyone who didn't like it or at least find it worthwhile.

Sentiment: positive
This is the official sequel to the '92 sci-fi action thriller. In the original, Van Damme was among several dead Vietnam War vets revived to be the perfect soldiers (Unisols). In this one, it's, I guess, about a dozen years later, since Van Damme has a daughter about that age. Now he's working with the government in a classified installation to train the latest Unisols - codenamed Unisol 2500, for some reason. As usual, something goes wrong: the on-site super-computer (named Seth - like the snake in "King Cobra" the same year) goes power-crazy, takes command of the Unisols, and even downloads its computer brain into a new super-Unisol body (Jai White). We're lookin' at the next step in evolution, folks! Most of Van Damme's fights are with one particularly mean Unisol (pro wrestler Goldberg) who just keeps on comin': drop him off a building - no good; run him down with a truck - no go! Shoot him, burn him - forgetaboutit! Much of the humor is traced to how Van Damme is now outmoded and out-classed(he's even going grey around the edges). But, though he takes a lickin', he keeps on kickin'! Most sequels of this sort are pretty lame - pale imitations of the originals, and while this one is certainly no stroke of genius, it manages to be consistently entertaining, especially if you're a pro-wrestling fan.

Sentiment: negative
This is the kind of movie that I grew up on. It is great family fun, that the kids love and the parents enjoy as well. I wish more films like this were made. It's a great story about a little boy who raises a Bull with his mother and sister, and shows it all the way up to the National Grand Championship, where he wins! Then he's scared that someone's going to barbecue his bull, so he kidnaps it and heads home with it. I was really excited when I first saw this film in the theater and was surprised to see George Strait, Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis in this little film. The music was great with all kinds of huge country names like Willie Nelson and the Dixie Chicks. Anyone who doesn't enjoy this movie, doesn't have any children or never was a kid them self.

Sentiment: positive
**May Contain Spoilers**

A dude in a dopey-looking Kong suit (the same one used in KING KONG VS. GODZILLA in 1962) provides much of the laffs in this much-mocked monster flick. Kong is resurrected on Mondo Island and helps out the lunkhead hero and other good guys this time around. The vampire-like villain is named Dr. Who-funny, he doesn't look like Peter Cushing! Kong finally dukes it out with Who's pride and joy, a giant robot ape that looks like a bad metal sculpture of Magilla Gorilla. Like many of Honda's flicks this may have had some merit before American audiences diddled around with it and added new footage. The Rankin/Bass animation company had a hand in this mess. They should have stuck to superior children's programs like The Little Drummer Boy.

Sentiment: negative
I originally saw this movie as a Blockbuster VHS rental. That was quite some time ago, but still remembered it. Blockbuster doesn't have it anymore. Netflix didn't have it and there weren't many copies on the web -- only a few spendy VHS copies. Recently did finally find it available in DVD form on eBay for a reasonable price (in PAL format, but our DVD player will play PAL discs on our NTSC TV).

Wife and I both enjoyed it. The style of the movie is a bit strong, and many if not most of the parts are rather strongly over-played as if amateurs were making it(especially the kids), but it's not bothersome. The contrasts of societies are accentuated in the overplay.

There is a bit of political preaching in terms of saying that the young in Russia shouldn't try to escape their not-so-great life but instead should at least try to make things better first. But that's not dominant. It's fairly humorous most of the time.

Some downplaying of the west commented upon by others isn't that at all IMO, I take it as a comment about expectations of the Russian characters. At least when taken from my western viewpoint. Perhaps it's a downplay of the west from a Russian viewpoint (which it is literally by the characters saying it).

I can't say how literally true to the film the English subtitles are, but I can say that the subtitles were done very well, full of English idioms as if done by a native English speaker -- complete with "colorful" language.

Sentiment: positive
Along with Patrick McGoohan and Robert Culp, Jack Cassidy was an iconic Columbo villain. The very first "proper" episode of Columbo, following two standalone pilots, "Murder By The Book" is not far off classic status.

Jack Cassidy plays Ken Franklin, one half of a murder mystery writing partnership. His partner Jim is the talented one, whereas Ken has no talent other than the gift of the gab and a skill for promoting the books. As soon as Jim has decided he no longer requires Ken's marketing skills, Ken hatches a plot to kill Jim. Except it's not a new plot, it's actually the implementation in real life of a murder storyline originally intended for one of their books.

It doesn't take Columbo long to work out that Ken is the murderer, although unfortunately another murder has to take place (Ken romances and then kills a key witness) before Columbo has enough evidence to secure a conviction.

Nothing whatsoever wrong with "Murder By The Book", but it's not quite top-notch. I would just give "Publish Or Perish" the edge over this: both episodes feature Jack Cassidy and the world of publishing, but "Publish Or Perish" is a fraction more tense and unpredictable. But this is still a great episode.

Sentiment: positive
Two films are useful for scaring people to God, this and 'Event Horizon'. One has a significant and poignant message, the other is as one-dimensional as a religious movie can get. Too bad Paul Anderson went on to the accursed Resident Evil movies, he really had something going.

Thief in the Night is hampered by many obvious independent film attributes (acting, storytelling, dialog, and persuasion) and it's obvious what the film's intentions are from the start. The Christian film industry hasn't learned from the failures of this, so we are stuck with The Omega Code, Left Behind, and the other Tribulation movies. Their underlying element is that they are so concerned with selling their message: "Get saved, folks!" that everything else becomes second to whacking the audience over the head with a Bible.

Overall, I can't believe I'm even writing this much about a movie this ineffective. Skip it entirely and go back to Sam Neil gouging out his eyeballs. 1 out of 5.

Sentiment: negative
This landmark film can now be seen in two different versions on the Grapevine Video release which also includes the English translation of Selma Lagerlof's novel which she based on a Swedish folktale. The first version is the Swedish edit under the title of THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE. The second version is a reconstruction of the way it was shown in the United States under the title of THE STROKE OF MIDNIGHT as released by Metro (before it was M-G- M). The actual US release has long vanished but a detailed review in The New York Times lets us know how the scenes were reordered for domestic release -- and both are fascinating to see. Each version of this film was presented at The Organ Loft in Salt Lake City with live theatre organ scores provided by artist Blaine Gale. A live recording was made of these performances and are included on the Grapevine Video DVD along with the novel and notes about the two versions. While THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE follows the order of Lagerlof's novel, THE STROKE OF MIDNIGHT is in some ways easier to follow. Seeing the two different edits is an education in how silent films could be changed effectively for release in different countries. 

Some viewers look at this film as a horror film which it certainly is not. This is a morality play with shades of the supernatural used to hit home its stark message. The directing and lead performance by the great Victor Sjostrom were way ahead of their time. It's easy to see why M-G-M brought him to Hollywood to direct such films as Lillian Gish in THE SCARLET LETTER and THE WIND as well as Lon Chaney in HE WHO GETS SLAPPED. In America he was known as Victor Seastrom. He would also star in the lead role of Ingmar Bergman's WILD STRAWBERRIES, giving a masterful performance. Bergman was greatly influenced by KORKARLEN or THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE in his earlier days. 

This is a powerful film that is well worth taking some time to discover and study. The Grapevine Video release is an excellent way to do this.

Sentiment: positive
This is from much of the same creative team behind "Better Off Dead", but is not quite as good as that amazing teen comedy. Its a lot of fun, but its all over the place and just not quite as funny. Curtis Armstrong is used to less effect (he was incredibly funny in "Better off Dead", Bobcat Goldthwaite is hilarious, Cusack is good, Demi Moore is Demi Moore (only with better hair here.) Overall its fun, and as a person from Cape Cod, it catches the feeling of an 80s Cape Cod summer very effectively. For some reason, this film feels more "mainstream" than "Better off Dead". There isn't quite as much left field absurdity going on here. Again, if you are a fan of John Cusack and Savage Steve Holland its definitely recommended.

Sentiment: positive
I wanted to love this movie. Everything seemed to be in place for an enjoyable, if not groundbreaking, film. It was set in southern France, good-looking and recognizable actors led the cast, and I really admired the vibrant African costumes, the proverbs and music. Despite all this, I didn't love it. Movies are supposed to convey their meaning at the first viewing, but "Secret Laughter" doesn't do that. Nimi and Matthew, as played by Long and Firth (both of whom have played romantic leads before and should have known better), radiate as much warmth and passion as dried fish. I used 'dried fish' deliberately, because it was one of a few - too few - strong lines and moments sprinkled throughout the film. Another winner was when Nimi catches Matthew snooping around her apartment. He finds a book of hers with her first name written on it and says: "Your name is Nimi. I never knew." Then he insists that she call him by his Christian name. I watched this scene intently as Matthew asked Nimi over and over to "say my name", realizing that up until that moment, they always called each other by their last names. I thought this was a turning point for the film, and expected that it get better. It didn't. Why do Nimi and Matthew always seem to stand at ten paces, even in that "say my name" scene? What does Matthew like about Nimi, aside from her obvious beauty? And why would a sensible woman like Nimi fall for a comic book writer who regards his marriage as something he can put on hold when a beautiful exotic 'adventure' comes along? And I'd like to add that it was a little hard for me to get behind a romance built on adultery. Yes, Jenny is a vicious harpy, but if I were in her shoes, but I'd probably match her Cruella tactics to stop my husband from straying. Believe it. The story hints at Nimi's painful past, but never fully explores it. Some critics say Firth seemed a little awkward here, and I agree. For goodness sake, the actor summoned more palpable longing and passion as that early 19th-century snob Mr. Darcy (and while wearing those hideous britches)! As for Long, who did shine in 'Love Jones', there were times when she seemed to concentrate more on her accent than playing her character. Even so, there were many moments  the 'say my name' scene among them  when she was in total control and came across really well. Yet, 'Secret Laughter' is not without its redeeming qualities, and I've found that it grew on me with more viewings. Nene was well portrayed as supportive and well-meaning, even if she doesn't fully understand Nimi's attraction to Matthew. I absolutely loved it when Nene faced off with Mama Fola in those dueling proverbs scenes. My husband liked it, and usually he's the first to sigh and throw insults at the screen if he doesn't like what is going on. He even chuckled at the scene when Sammy asked Matthew some very frank questions about sex. So there you have it. 'Secret Laughter' was good enough to entertain an avowed curmudgeon like my hubby, but an avid moviegoer like myself will need more than one viewing to appreciate what the director and writer were trying to convey.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the best made movies from 2002. Maybe it is not the best movie, but it looks the best, has great acting and is directed perfectly by Sam Mendes, who debuted with 'American Beauty'.

It tells the story of a gangster named Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) who is seen by his son (Tyler Hoechlin) on one of his jobs. Michael's boss, John Rooney (Paul Newman), thinks things will be okay but his jealous son Connor Rooney (Daniel Craig) sets both his father and Michael up, leading to the death of Michael's wife (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and second son. Michael thinks Rooney is responsible and Rooney has to choose for himself and sends a hit-man Harlen Maguire (Jude Law) to finish the job. Since Michael is a respected man within the organization he tries to win some friends who can help him including mob boss Frank Nitti (Stanley Tucci).

In a way 'Road to Perdition' is a standard gangster movie but it is so well made you almost can not see that. This movie is good in its production design, art direction, sound, music and most of all in its cinematography. All these elements are able to surprise and create suspense although the outcome is pretty certain. That Hoechlin is not a annoying kid and Hanks, Law and Newman know how to act helps, of course.

Based on a comic this movie is so much better than you would expect and although it has it flaws it belongs to the better movies in the genre. Sometimes there are events where you realize you have seen it so many times before, but for some reason it also feels fresh at the same time. The scenes between the adult Hanks and the child Hoechlin help in that area. See this movie that will look familiar at times but is totally new on a lot of areas.

Sentiment: positive
You're Dead is an indescribably awful attempt at a British gangster film. It has not got a single original idea in it, being an atrocious copy of various elements of Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, The Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction. The acting and dialogue are absolutely excruciating, the plot is ludicrous and utterly predictable despite constant attempts at plot twists, and contains nothing but one dimensional stock characters and clichés. It has some good actors in it, but they are off-form, and unable to do anything much with the dreadful material they are working with. It is absolute torture to sit through this drivel.

Sentiment: negative
"Ideas are dangerous." Comment by one interviewee.

DVD Rating: B+ / 4 out of 5 / 8 out of 10 / Worth the time.

A great story for adults / or teen boaters but not for children. None of the stupid violent crime stuff so often mistaken by Hollywood these days as "quality work." And, it can be used as a trainer film on what proper boating preparation is all about, or not about, prior to "sailing the seven seas." The movie starts out somewhat slowly to develop the story as most documentaries do, but as it draws the viewer into the saga, emotions begin to percolate in one's head! Emotions include anger, sadness, and disbelief. The era: late 1960's.

That solo sailing around the globe is dangerous is not surprising. What is surprising is all the twists that viewers wouldn't expect. Its not your average group of guys in a sailing race! Each boat was different as allowed by the race rules. Each solo sailor had different levels of ability as allowed by the race rules. There were well known sailors among them and a few not so well known. One was considered a mystery man as nobody seemed to have any knowledge of his ability at all. Each boat was allowed to depart at will so long as all were underway by a certain date. And this was, of course, prior to modern electronics that allow boaters to communicate with shore about vicious storms, etc.

Actual video and audio recordings are interspersed with interviews of family members and others involved. The mood of the interviewees is always somber despite the years that have passed.

The main character, Don, is the focus of attention & how his journey relates to those who he not only wanted to beat but, due to circumstances of his own creation, HAD to beat. He HAD to win. The story was about what that circumstance did to his life as he moved South West across the Atlantic Ocean over a years time alone on the water.

Do NOT fail to view the "special features" section of the DVD once the film is finished. The entire saga isn't fully understood w/o viewing the 'bonus' stuff.

In the end, once you've watched everything on the DVD, you will likely just shake your head and exclaim, 'wow.' And keep in mind, THAT is why the story has remained alive for the last 40 years.

SPOILER: Do NOT fail to view the "special features" section of the DVD once the film is finished. One sailor who was headed back to England after circumnavigating the globe decided on the fly that, no, he was going for another spin and the film records his spouse's opinions about that decision. The opposite story unfolds as another sailor wishes the race allowed two on board so he could take his wife along and their photos demonstrate a very warm union between them. The interview with an burley ex paratrooper who had actually ROWED a boat across the Atlantic with a friend prior to the solo sail race was incredibly funny as he described not even knowing how to sail and who thought the bad things happening to him were 'normal.' Too many people think that setting sail in the open sea can be an romantic adventure without mishap. Don't you be one!

Sentiment: positive
"Return of the Seven" has a few good action scenes, and Elmer Bernstein's score is as rousing as ever. Nevertheless, it's a boring film, because it simply fails to involve us emotionally. Mcqueen's absence makes a really bad impression, and the fact that his character here is played by a different (little-known) actor is odd - in a bad way. The characters are not developed, so we don't connect with them - and we hardly care when some of them die. This sequel is a passable but poor imitation of the original.

Sentiment: negative
Ivan The Terrible is more a filmed stage play than a "big-screen-opus". Citizen Kane - a similar work in many ways - is quite the opposite (in the way we come to expect such fare) in that it has lots of location shooting for example.

Acting is meant to convey a character's motivations and thinking to the audience; if it succeeds in making you understand the character, what does it matter HOW it was done? And considering the low amount of action, how else is one to express events that influence the story, and consequently the characters' machinations and decisions other than "exaggerated movements"?

As well, there's a historical level why the acting style should not surprise. The rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany and USSR forced film-makers who stayed behind to make films the way they knew how. As they were prevented access to more modern works that showed cinema's evolution and techniques, they only used what they knew.

The Nazi's control of government in Germany destroyed the great German film industry of the 1920's, due to their total control over that film industry. And propaganda films can only "entertain" German troops so much; hence the need for popular German silent films of the 1920's, for example. So a lot of Ivan The Terrible film's techniques would have been derived from such captured German films supplied to the film crew (as mentioned in other comments).

There was no confusion anywhere and though personally it was found over-hyped, it is by no means a bad cinematic experience - and definitely NOT amongst the worse films ever. The acting is fine, and part of the cinematography excellent (even by today's standards; more below). Definitely not a popcorn flick; one can't leave their brain outside this one's door. Dated perhaps and very symbolic - only worth watching on the big screen if one is unable to view the films with the lights off at home, for many of the cinematic elements will be lost in these films' chiefly B&W experience. It all depends upon what expectations one walks in with...

WARNING - SPOILERS: Do not read the following comments, in case they influence your personal view of the film(s).

...and if one does not mind the obvious communist propaganda (as opposed to capitalist propaganda). For Ivan is how Stalin saw himself - obvious in his influence on the film's direction (see other comments) - and anyone with a world historical awareness outside the US perspective will definitely understand this. Maybe Ivan was an earlier incarnation of Stalin, or maybe not; this is more a diatribe on Stalin and his motivations, decisions, loneliness, promotions of lackeys, etc - using the persona of Ivan - than any true historical record of Ivan. Also note the obvious use of particular colours in the sequel: Red (for the USSR) in the banquet scene. And perhaps blue (for the USA) during certain shots when the usurper wears the crown?

But it has many excellent visuals such as the profound use of shadows, or the exterior shot of the populace coming to beg Ivan's return to Moscow.

Sentiment: negative
I watched this movie as I liked the plot, a group of strangers are held captive trying to figure out how they're connected.

The setting and the premise were obviously influenced by the first (and best) Saw movie & although there wasn't much action the story moved at a relatively good pace.

There was comedy relief ion the form of the two bickering 'Alpha males' and it was a welcome surprise (for me anyway)to see Melissa Joan Hart hasn't given up on acting yet.

A few things let it down for me personally; 1. The paedophile was way over characterised making him get turned on by everything from children to dead bodies.

2. MJH's line about her cop ex 'getting her into this' when in reality, he was the least deserving person to be there, he hadn't KNOWINGLY contributed to the events leading up to their capture.

3. The ending..... what sort of movie just ends in the middle of something going on? There was no resolution, no cliff hanger, no obvious end... it just ends.

And for that alone I dropped two stars off my rating. The first 2 points I would let slide but not the end!

Sentiment: negative
Rachel, Jo, Hannah, Tina, Bradley and John are all on top form here. They deserve oscar nominations for their performances. I am a great fan of the tv show aswell. Their music rocks and they're all so talented! I am also a great exponent of SARCASM!!!!!!

IF YOU'RE AN S CLUB FAN DO NOT READ THIS!!!!!

The performances are terribly weak, the dialogue is terrible and the jokes are not even executed properly (i feel sorry for the director). The jokes are so unbelievably bad that 8 little, passionate S Club fans weren't laughing. They thought they could do it better. And they did. They conquered the world. They became S Club Juniors. Paul, "the fat, ugly one who started a mosh band" must be thanking his lucky stars that he left when he did. One of the worst movies ever made. BEWARE OF THIS MOVIE! DO NOT GO AND SEE IT! YOU WON'T LAUGH! YOU WILL CRY! 0/10 RJT

Sentiment: negative
My 3rd-year French classes always enjoyed this film very much. In a multi-cultural, inner-city high school, the film provided many subjects for discussion (in French in class, but I know a lot of discussion went on in English after class). The most obvious is the relationship between Protée and Aimée compared to the one between Protée and France.

I always mentioned that I felt this film had one of the "sexiest" scenes I had ever seen in a movie. One year, a 17-year-old African-American shouted, "Yes!" when he figured out the scene: the one where Protée is helping Aimée lace up her evening dress, all the while both are examining the reflection of the other in the mirror. Directors use the "mirror technique" when then want to focus on the inner conflict on the part of one or more character in a scene: this is a perfect example of the technique, and it is "sexy".

Most students had trouble understanding the end of the film. One suggested that one theme of the movie was "Africanism", and that no matter how much one loved Africa or Africans, one cannot "become" African (like the driver tried to do): one must BE African.

Sentiment: positive
I'm not really a t.v. watcher - except between the ages of 6 and 8 and "General Hospital" still had Luke and Laura - but there are a few exceptions and I definitely think that "King of Queens" is one of them. Every decade has it's classics and I think that this show will (or damn-well should) be amongst this decade's best. Its comedic timing is awesome and can, at times, be down right odd. On a more 'serious' note the actors more than succeed in conveying subtle - and not so subtle :)- complexities in their characters without getting too hokey. One commenter wrote that it may take a couple of episodes to get into it and I agree; it's definitely one that kind of grows on you but once you're in, you're pretty much hooked. And with good reason!

Sentiment: positive
What a disgrace! I was checking this out hoping it would be an undiscovered James Garner gem and what a stinker it turned out to be! The production quality was fine, but the plot was undeniably lame and I can honestly say that I am only a couple hours older and a lot dumber now. The movie really had no redeeming qualities and if this kind of stuff keeps coming out, it will give Hallmark a bad name. For those of you who insist on knowing what it was about, it's about nothing, and in this case, it's not a good thing. We are subjected to watching one old ornery woman who is one of the dumbest creatures ever to roam the earth, who happens to be married to a real sweetheart who is probably the only person alive that could put up with her. She drags him through one mess after another, gets him into one embarrassing situation after another, and is proud of herself the whole time. Then the movie ends. What a relief that was! Not worth the time it would take to watch it, so do yourself a favor and skip this one, you'll be glad you did if you knew how bad this one really is.

Sentiment: negative
My name is John Mourby and this is my story about Paperhouse: In May 2003 I saw Alfred Hitchcock's psycho, I was very scared and deeply disturbed. I began a frantic search for a film that was frightening in the same way. But none where satisfactory. Amongst those tried and failed were The Birds, Night of the Living Dead, The Silence of the Lambs, The Blair Witch Project, Ring, The Evil Dead, The Sixth Sense, 28 Days Later, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Near Dark, Alien, Peeping Tom, The Cell, Rosemary's Baby, Don't Look Now, Witchfinder General, Friday the 13th and The Omen. That should confirm I was desperate! Long after I had stopped searching I found out about Paperhouse .

Paperhouse is based on a favourite book that I own, called Marianne Dreams. Paperhouse had also come up in some of the books I had found on horror films, but they didn't tell me about the link between book and film. I discovered the truth while on the Internet, I bought the film later that day.

I thought Paperhouse would not be faithful to the book and dull. Unfaithal it certainly was but dull certainly not. It was the answer to my prayers Marianne is renamed Anna in the film but most of the original story is the same. One day in school Anna draws a house in her scrap book (nothing remarkable about that) then she becomes ill and every time she faints or falls asleep she finds herself outside a creepy old house (and I mean genuinely unnerving). More she also finds that every time she puts something new in the drawing it appears in the dreamworld, EG an apple tree. Anna draws into the dreamworld a rather sad boy named mark who apparently is a person in the real world. Mark is a cripple but wants to leave the house, obligingly Anna draws in a lighthouse (a place to go to) but still the problem remains mark can't walk. So Anna decides to draw her father in. she gets her pencil out and gets too work, but the outcome is deformed and unsettling Anna particularly dislikes his eyes. Quote "he looks like madman". So Anna tries to rub him out and start again, but the pencil proves indelible (that means nothing can be rubbed out). Then Anna loses her temper and crosses out her father's eyes! I leave you too find out for you self the terrible consequences of the rash action.

Paperhouse truly is the British answer to A Nightmare on elm Street! The viewing of this film left me shocked and upset. But I have found what I was looking for after 2 years. The question is how dose the compare with Psycho? Answer, 1 the old dark house, 2 psychological parental fears, 3 a genuine shock, 4 and very scary music.

Sentiment: positive
In a time of bad, if not plain awful, comedies, King of Queens is more than just a breath of fresh air, it's a complete oxygen tank! It is in my opinion one of the 5 best comedy shows of all times. Nothing has been this good since Married with Children. Kevin James and Jerry Stiller are comic geniuses! And believe me, it takes a lot to make me label someone as comic genius. These guys truly understand what is funny. I could watch ten episodes of Seinfeld and wouldn't get half the laughs from seeing KOQ just once. Other funny people in this show are Carrie, Janet Heffernan, Spence and Doug Pruzan (Carrie's boss). I'm so happy they managed to get so many seasons from this gem. The show has been a hilarious winner in a time of mostly comic losers. Check it out if you haven't!!

Sentiment: positive
RKO studios decided to borrow both William Powell from MGM and Jean Arthur from Columbia, for one of their more big budget efforts to cash in on the popularity of The Thin Man. They succeeded to some degree.

A lot of folks forget that in addition to and earlier than Nick Charles, Bill Powell also played in a few Philo Vance films in the title role. So by this time he was pretty well set in the role. Doctor Bradford is not doing as many liquid lunches as Nick Charles, but the basic blasé Nick is still there. One difference is that while Nick Charles married an heiress, Doctor Bradford works for a living as a physician. That helps in his avocation of detective and in fact it does in this film.

He's got two murders to solve. A jockey falls off a horse coming into the homestretch of a big race and dies for no apparent reason. The trainer suspects something afoot, but he's bumped off by the more conventional method of a bullet. This is after he comes to Bill Powell for help.

Myrna Loy was a more steadying influence on Bill Powell than Jean Arthur was. Arthur plays it as more of a dizzy dame than Loy did. But it works here and she and Powell have good chemistry.

The ever dependable James Gleason is the police inspector in the Sam Levene/Nat Pendleton role. All they needed here was Asta and possibly Eric Blore as Powell's butler was essaying that part.

If Powell and Arthur were signed at this studio we might have seen a whole slew of Bradford films.

Sentiment: positive
The bottom line is: if you come looking for a sci-fi thriller/horror film, The Matrix is what you'll like. If, like me, you long for the rare true science fiction film involving characters with depth and provocative thought about where science will take us, then you need to see eXistenZ.

Sentiment: positive
Even Steve Martin and Dan Aykroyd couldn't save this movie from laying an emu-sized egg. Based on the classic Phil Silvers TV series, it bombed because: A) It was updated to the 1990s, and B) The simple premise of the TV series was turned into a confusing, feeble and silly screenplay.

The original TV series used a small cast of talented actors to portray lovable characters acting out simple yet hilarious pranks. To expand this premise into a 1990s movie was asking for trouble, and it shows. No one could pay me enough to sit through this stinker a second time.

Sentiment: negative
After 66 years "Flash Gordon" still has an appealing scifi/adventure/epic feel that many of today's science fiction adventures strive for and fail to deliver. The only way to fully enjoy this serial is just to sit back and not pick at anything (hokey effects, dialogue, why Flash doesn't go for Princess Aura etc.). And as for you older people who saw "Flash Gordon" back on the serial screen or on T.V. "back in the day", if you want this fine serial to remain appealing to future generations, get your kids/grandkids to watch this when they're young. It worked for me (Male aged 18 or under). 9 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
This masterpiece of lesbian horror comes from exploitation master Joseph W.Sarno.It features plenty of soft core sex,really hot lesbian sequences plus a lot of naked women.The acting is pretty good and the film is quite atmospheric and well-made.Marie Forsa is one of the hottest chicks I have ever seen in a horror movie-it's a visual pleasure to see her wonderful body.Sarno really knows how to pick up hot looking ladies.A must see for fans of sexploitation!

Sentiment: positive
I have looked forward to seeing this since I first saw it listed in her work. Finally found it yesterday 2/13/02 on Lifetime Movie Channel.

Jim Larson's comments about it being a "sweet funny story of 2 people crossing paths" were dead on. Writers probably shouldn't get a bonus, everyone else SRO for making the movie.

Anybody who appreciates a romantic Movie SHOULD SEE IT.

Natasha's screen presence is so warm and her smile so electric, to say nothing of her beauty, that anything she is in goes on my favorite list. Her TV and print interviews that I have seen are just as refreshing and well worth looking for.

God Bless her, her family and future endeavors.

This movie doesn't seem to available in DVD or video yet, but I would be the first to buy it and I think others would too.

Sentiment: positive
Truly awful. Obviously an attempt to cash in on the Star Wars craze, but there's no excuse for this insipid piece of garbage. The storyline gets lost before the middle, the characters are forgettable and the kid is such a non-talent that all he does is pose for the camera. An alien planet they land on is actually the Naval stockyards in Long Beach, California. 

This movie actually made me physically ill watching it.

Roger Corman has made some good, some bad movies in his career, but there's no excuse for this one. 

0/10 - IMDb won't let you score a zero.

Sentiment: negative
I found the movie to be very light and enjoyable. One knows that the story is not real life like, yet the depiction is superb.

Lyrics are really good and John Travolta in his usual style. I like the scene wherein he as an angel gives up his own stuff to bring life back to the dog.

Sentiment: positive
Fascinating and amusingly bad, Lights of New York is the first all talkie feature and one that almost never saw the light of day.

Two naive barbers (Eddie and Gene) from out of town get involved with bootleggers and end up fronting a speak. When a cop is shot by one of the bootleggers the police start to close in, and the Hawk (who shot the officer) decides to pin the murder on Eddie instructing his henchman to "take him for a ride". But it's the Hawk himself who takes the bullet in a twist that will surprise few.

Shot in one week at a cost of $23,000, "Lights" was originally meant as a two reeler but Foy took advantage of Jack Warner's absence to extend it to six. When Warner discovered this he ordered Foy to cut it back to the original short. Only when an independent exhibitor offered $25k for the film, did Warners actually look at the film, which went on to make a staggering $1.3 million.

Seen now this is an extremely hokey piece, with acting that ranges from the passable (Eugene Pallette) to trance like (Eddie's Granny in a particularly risible scene) and much of the playing is at the level of vaudeville. Since it's an early talkie (4 part-talkies preceded it) that's about all the characters do, and very slowly at that. The script feels improvised, visual style is non existent (apart from the shooting scene done in silhouette) and scenes grind on interminably. Title cards are intercut which redundantly announce characters and locales.

Despite all this "Lights" is a compelling experience, as we watch actors and crew struggling with the alien technology, and changing cinema for ever.

Catch it if you can

Sentiment: positive
I bought the DVD version of this movie on the recommendation of my wife who loved the version she saw aired in television. But the version put to DVD was a disaster. The lighting was poor to non-existent and entire scenes were simply excised. In one instance Adele is being put to bed, and we immediately cut to another scene - coming in in mid-sentence - where it's the next night. Characters such as Grace Poole and Mason are never even introduced, leaving one to wonder if they'd dozed off for a few minutes during the movie.

The DVD we saw was produced by Platinum Disc Corp and even at $6.32 it was a gyp.

Be careful which version of this movie you buy! We're sending this one back.

Sentiment: negative
What an excellent movie, made even more so by the fact that my wife and I stumbled onto it so serendipitously, channel surfing on a nice frozen day in North Texas. Kathy Bates is at her usual best leading a cast of very normal and human costar characters thru one of the most wonderful feel good movies we've ever seen. Why this movie wasn't given the attention it deserved on it's release in 2002 is difficult to understand. Why it was head and shoulders above so many of the boring pieces of trash released with greater fanfare and attention is evident in the viewing. It is obvious that we as a general public are being force-fed that which has been deemed "great and wonderful" by the powerful and influential while true gems such as "Unconditional Love" manage to shine thru all those pretenders to really enjoyable cinema. Rent or buy this movie.....you won't regret it!

Sentiment: positive
I just finished watching this film. For me, the most outstanding work in this film was the music score. While many silent film scores work very well with their scenes, I feel that this is the best score I've come across. The mutiny scenes in particular worked extremely well.

Sentiment: positive
*WARNING* Spoilers ahead... The writers of this story knew these men very well. The actors, likewise, portrayed them very well. The result is that by the end of the film you feel like you're actually watching John Lennon and Paul McCartney. The expected tensions are there, especially in the awkward first moments. But as the two begin to loosen up, the old camaraderie that made the Beatles work so well begins to show through. The bitterness is still there, and interrupts at times, but by the time John gets the idea to take Lorne Michaels up on his offer to pay the Beatles the gag sum of $3000 to appear on "Saturday Night Live", the two could be the same boyish pranksters that terrorized Liverpool together as teens, and survived playing the rough nightclubs of Hamburg to rise to Superstardom. But in the end, this wonderful fantasy grounds us gently. We are reminded why a Beatles reunion was most likely never possible even before Lennon's assassination: The two driving forces of the group outgrew each other.

Sentiment: positive
The movie starts little cute. There are a number of revolting scenes. People in toilets. GOOD actors wasted and the original television series has all but ruined here. This did not need to be crude.

Forget it. Find the tv show. Disney at new low.

Sentiment: negative
I remember watching this movie on TV a few years back. It was so bad, I can only remember the scenes that just made me die laughing. The only plot summary I can give you (without any spoilers) is picture a home movie made by college kids who were high.

(Spoiler alert starts here...) When the movie starts, a guy's running, being chased by the "Demon Cop", when in fact, the man was really being chased by a Halloween costume gone wrong. A car pops out of nowhere, hitting the guy who was running. It sends him flying over the top of it, and what does the driver do??? Watches the man as he falls, gets back in his car and drives away. What kind of hair-brained dolt would do that? I would've at least asked if the guy was okay.

Then, some black guy stares the Demon Cop straight in the face, then, later tells reporters, "I didn't get a good look at him." My sisters and I, by then, were almost choking ourselves to death with laughter.

Then, there's some scene in an alley, where this girl with an afro, pulls a machine gun out of her teeny-weeny little purse. It couldn't have possibly FIT!! I can hardly remember certain scenes. Maybe it's because they were just that bad.

Cops in the film can't even jump a fence, and the acting is so wooden, it makes planks of wood look like better actors.

All in all, this movie brings shame to Hollywood, way more than any other flop could. You have to see it to believe its sappy cheesy plot, which it has none of, as far as I can tell.

Sentiment: negative
-only few can understand Leland's character, and to do that u most likely are inborn to see both sides of life,and to face this reality is very hard and can lead some few to bad acts(like Leland's character does)but for such sad and real reasons that his intentions were good,in the sense that the intention to save another from physical or mental(in this case)pain over long time. and it is really sad how mostly everyone in this movie makes mistakes in it, but the one character to make one through good intentions is killed by it. the lesson of this movie is for the unique person to see,realize,face and make right of the real life situation u see and to make right,or inspire one who can make right of a wrong situation. but before that...u have to see both sides of something and rationalize it for the sake of long peace,and tranquility of all human life.aka-Don't BE IGNORANT

Sentiment: positive
as with many of Wong's films, a lot of people find them to be boring and confusing. Well i like them and i like this film too. I went out and rented it on dvd and i watched it 3 times. It is a very subtle movie that provides an intoxicating experience. for those who did not enjoy it...... you just wasted 2 hours of your life.... too bad...muhahahahaha.

Sentiment: positive