DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I truly despised this film when i saw it at the age of about 6 or 7 as I was a huge fan of Robin Williams and nothing he could do was bad. Until this. This complete trash ruined Robin for me for a long time. I'm only recovering recently with his funny but serious part in Fathers day but then he went on to create another mistake, Bicenntinial Man i think it was called but the point is. Robin should be getting much better jobs by now and now he has returned to performing the slime that originated with this 'classic'.

Sentiment: negative
i originally seen the flash Gordon serial on PBS,and thought it was fun and awesome,i overlooked the special effects of the rocket ships with sparklers,and the big dragon monster with lobster claws,who cares this is 1936 and it was a serial,so each week they would show a new chapter, buster Crabbe played flash Gordon 3 times,in all 3 serials.then in 1939 he played buck rogers,in 1933 he played Tarzan the fearless.he was a very busy actor.beautiful jean rogers played sexy dale Arden.frank Shannon as professor zarkov,and Charles Middleton played the evil ming the merciless.he makes Darth Vader look like a boyscout.the serials were very close to the Alex Raymond comic strip.space travel was just a pipe dream at the time.not to mention ray guns and television.this one stands out as the best serial ever.the sequel flash Gordon's trip to mars is 2 chapters longer,the next flash Gordon conquers the universe is only 12 chapters.and then there's the natives of mongo..,hawk-men, lion-men,shark-men.the feature version leaves out the shark-men scenes. for the full effect you must see the complete serial.i heard George Lucas was inspired by flash Gordon when he did star wars.flash Gordon was from universal studios.and the music on the soundtrack is from many universal movies like bride of Frankenstein,werewolf of London,Dracula's daughter,etc;even today flash Gordon continues to delight people young and old.10 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
If it wasn't for the performances of Barry Diamond and Art Evans as the clueless stoners, I would have no reason to recommend this to anyone.

The plot centers around a 10 year high school reunion, which takes place in a supposed abandon high school(looks more like a prop from a 1950s low budget horror flick), and the deranged student the class pulled a very traumatizing prank on. This student desires to kill off the entire class for revenge.

John Hughes falls in love with his characters too much, as only one student is killed as well as the lunch lady(Goonies' Anne Ramsey). We're led to believe that the horny coupled gets killed, but never see a blasted thing! This is a horrible movie that continued National Lampoon's downward spiral throughout the 80s and 90s.

Sentiment: negative
Cinderella was one of the first movies I ever saw, and to me it is timeless. It is a lovely looking film, with gorgeous animation. My favourite animation scene was the dress scene- I just love those mice. The songs are also lovely, not as good as Snow White's, but they are a delight to sing, and are reminiscent of Tchaikovsky. A dream is a Wish and So this is love? are standouts. The characters are also a delight. Cinderella is idealistic and strong, and the mice provided great comic relief. The stepsisters were also well done, as well as Lucifer. But I loved the stepmother the best, she was really evil, in comparison to a great character in the name of the Fairy Godmother. It is true, the movie drags slightly, with the antics of the mice, but they were genuinely funny, so I don't care. I don't think it is overrated, underrated don't you mean? It rarely plays on television, but the really bad sequel does on Cinemagic on a regular basis. if you want a great Cinderella adaptation, try the wonderful Ever After, or the lavish Slipper and the Rose, which isn't as good. But whatever you do, avoid the sequel, which I have the mistake of owning, because you'll thank me. 9/10. Bethany Cox

Sentiment: positive
Sloppily directed, witless comedy that supposedly spoofs the "classic" 50s "alien invasion" films, but really is no better than them, except of course in the purely technical department (good makeup effects). And any spoof that is worse than its target is doomed to fail ("Casino Royale", "Our Man Flint" are worse than almost any James Bond movie). After two hours of hearing the screeching voices of the aliens, you'll be begging for some peace and quiet. (*1/2)

Sentiment: negative
The story takes place in rural Germany on the eve of the second world war, a unique setting, with a couple of British agents being held by the Germans in a farm house. Since they aren't technically at war yet, it seems as if both sides must have realized what was coming. Both agents (Bruce Lester and Ray Milland) escape into the countryside and split up. Milland happens upon gypsy woman Marlene Dietrich one evening as she's alone at her camp preparing dinner. Their encounter is an amazing and captivating scene, not so much for Milland but for Dietrich, who takes sexy sultriness to a whole new plane. Milland disguises himself as a gypsy in order to hide from the Germans, but he remains committed to his mission, to do with locating the scientist who knows the formula for a new poison gas but who also isn't a committed Nazi. The Hollywood take on gypsy life and customs is predictably portrayed, but the underlying knowledge that they would be one of the targets for extermination by the Nazis adds a certain tension. The film straddles the line between being a serious story about the poison gas and the urgent search to get the formula, and a colorful though not too convincing love story between Milland and Dietrich. However, they're both very good; it's the fault of the film that didn't give them or their relationship enough dramatic realism, relying on and exploiting obvious cultural differences for questionable comedic purposes. Nonetheless, there are some tense and interesting points here and there, the surprise meetings with German soldiers and Gestapo agents, where Dietrich does a great palm reading and Milland nearly as good faking one, and a dinner party of Germans of various stripes at which the announcement comes over the radio that Germany had been attacked by Poland and everyone stands and does a stiff arm salute. Mitchell Leison may have missed some opportunities here and there, but he fully took advantage of others.

Sentiment: positive
Five fingers of death: Although previous Shaw Martial Arts epics had shown the influence of the American cowboy genre, none had paid such open tribute to it as this one, especially in the saloon fight scene. And though Shaw Bros. films had borrowed from the Japanese chambara (swordfight) genre before, none had done so with such success as this one. i suppose some of this had to do with the fact that the director originated from Korea, and thus brought a non-Chinese perspective to such borrowings, which certainly raises some interesting questions about culture; but in any event, this film presented real innovations in technology and technique in Hong Kong action films. for the first time in Hong Kong, the camera was given access to the whole of any given set, which meant shots from many different angles, such as the low-angle interior shot showing the ceiling of a room (the original American innovation of which usually credited to John Ford), or the high angle long shot that allowed visualization of a large ground area, or the frontal tracking shot.

It is true that this was not the first hand-to-hand combat film of real cinematic substance - that remains Wang Yu's 'Chinese Boxer'; but on a commercial level, Shaw Bros. were right to choose 'Five Fingers' as their first major release to the West because, one might say, it was the 'least Chinese' of their action films, that is, the least dependent on purely Chinese theater traditions. Although this made no impression on the American critics at the time (who universally trashed the picture), it wasn't lost on American audiences, especially among African Americans, whose culture had always been - by necessity - an eclectic patchwork of borrowed elements and innovation. In 'Five Fingers' they were given the opportunity to discover the core of the story, in the earnest young man forced to make the extra effort to overcome social barriers and betrayal in order to have his merit recognized. This seems to be an issue universal to Modernity, but each culture has its own way of expressing and resolving it; 'Five Fingers' presented it in a way many Americans could relate to as well as Chinese.

So is the film now only of historical value? Certainly not. For one thing this issue hasn't gone away. Secondly, some of the innovations leave much of the film looking as fresh today as it did on first release. Also the action is well-staged, and the performances, though a little too earnest, are crisp. The film is a might over-long, but the story does cover a lot of ground. And there are marvelous set-pieces through-out, such as the saloon confrontation, the fight on the road to the contest, the odd double finale.

definitely looks better on a theater screen, but still impressive for home viewing: recommended.

Sentiment: positive
Bill Maher's Religulous is not an attack on organized religion. It's an attack on Christianity and Islam. Apart from ridiculing a bunch of Rabbis inventing warped machines to get around Sabbath regulations, he really doesn't attack Judaism and seems enraged when a Rabbi actually challenges the existence of the State of Israel. If Bill Maher followed his hypothesis to its logical conclusion, he would realize that the very creation of Israel in the Palestinian Territories is based on the so called 'holy books' of organized religion. This is evidence of his complete and utter lack of objectivity or focus in the creation of this film.

I find it really hard to believe that the man is atheist or even all that intelligent. Anyone can go up to a religious person and laugh at them and call them stupid for their beliefs but what do you have to offer them in return? Nowhere does he actually tell them why he thinks they're stupid. What makes him the "rational" person in the room? In a way it reflects how he really isn't and in the process ends up looking just as stupid as those people.

If you want to watch a good movie/documentary about the actual evils of religion and how religion can actually be detrimental to the human civilization, watch Richard Dawkins' 'Root of All Evil?'. It is a brilliantly researched documentary, clearly outlining what it hopes to achieve and how.

Bill Maher's Religulous is not funny, poses no interesting questions nor does it provide any insight on so controversial a topic. It seems to be the rantings and ravings of an old man disgruntled with his Catholic upbringing. I almost feel sorry for him.

Sentiment: negative
Once big action star who fell off the face of the earth ends up in a small town with a problem with drug dealers and a dead body of a federal agent. Reuniting with some former co-stars to clean up the town.

Low key, often to the point of blandness, "action" comedy mostly just doesn't work. Part of the problem is the casting Chris Klien as a former action hero. he's not bad, but he's really not believable as some one who was taken to be a tough guy. As I said he's not bad, he's just just miscast for what his back story is. The real problem here is the combination of the script, which really isn't funny and seems artificial at times, and the direction which is pedestrian to the port of dullness. There is no life in the way things are set up. Its as if the director had a list of shots and went by that list. It makes for an un-engaging film. And yet the film occasionally springs to life, such as the in the final show down that ends the film. That sequence works, but because the earlier parts of the film floundered its drained of much of its power.

I can't really recommend the film. Its worth a shot if you're a fan of the actors or are a huge fan of independent cinema in all its forms, but otherwise this is just a disappointment.

Sentiment: negative
A number of factors make it easy for me to state that I still think this is the most important science fiction film ever made, despite some of the acting, outdated dialogue etc.

First, there is the scale of imagination in describing the Krell, a humanoid race native to the planet, now all dead, who were 1 million years more advanced than Earth humans(us), and their technology, particularly the 8,000 cubic mile machine.

Second, there is the music and sound effects, which are inseparable from each other. It creates an eerie, unearthly feeling, unlike "2001", which had traditional classical music.

Third, its "monster" is not only the most powerful and deadly ever envisioned, it's also based on real science and doesn't break the laws of physics and biology.

Finally, and most importantly, Forbidden Planet is the only movie ever made that attempts and, more incredibly, succeeds in making an honest, intelligent and mercilessly logical statement on the limits or ceiling of human (or any other biological entity's) development, no matter how long we survive as a species.

In other words, it predicts our inevitable destiny.

Sentiment: positive
I seem to be disagreeing with a lot of folks here. but I really did not find this movie as scintillating as the reviews I read claimed. It was no doubt a touching story and the partition background provided the scope for an epic. but, the movie was a let down. specially for neone who has seen 'gadar'. inspite of the lead being played by sunny deol and the incessant songs, I must say gadar is the better of the two. the story being virtually the same. partition failed to create any depth in its characters as well as the scenes that were supposed to hav an impact. over looking kristin kruek's accent and the smallvile image, which in itself wasn't an easy job. the characters just did not seem too real. not that I am criticizing the acting by any of the lead. it just did not work. the atmosphere was well drawn up, but the movie really lacked in substance. not that I am die hard rambo fan, but some action cud have seen the movie through, or some character development. it all seemed like a rush to the finish. and the ending only added to the viewers dissatisfaction.

nonetheles, I must say that it was at least a good effort in seemingly unfamiliar territory by the director. and if U haven't seen gadar, then u mite even like it.

Sentiment: negative
In this truly fascinating, dark film, a young impoverished student sells his soul to the devil for a lot of money, in return the devil takes his mirror image (this is done brilliantly in the movie and eerily presaged when Balduin, the student is earlier practicing swordsmanship in front of the mirror), a visual metaphor for a "man at war with himself" which portents his immediate future. The student enjoys his money, but the woman he loves is unattainable (he has made a pact with the devil, he is cut off forever from love and other riches of the soul) you can have love or you can exchange your soul for money, you cannot have both. Balduin is haunted by his double (the intertitles express this beautifully as does the action. Some of the scenes are incredible, the sense of doom when the Devil disappears with Balduin's mirror image is amazing, as is the sense that his pact has forever cut him off from human society (the scene where he runs away from his double and ends up in the 'wasteland' at the edge of the town, no longer entirely human (he has lost his soul) he is like a hunted animal outside of human society. There are so many other things to say about this incredible film. Paul Wegener was an amazing actor and director, a cultural hero of mine. It helps if you know a bit about German history at the time this film was made and about German doppelganger tradition (don't google it, get a proper book)Just remember, it's a very early film, it's a little clumsy at times, but considering what it has to say and it's tragic finale, it's one of the best ever (yes it Is!)

Sentiment: positive
It couldn't have come out at a worse time--just as the nation was entering the Reagan years, the boom-boom 80s, the time of no regrets, no concerns. It got no word of mouth, and opened poorly. The studio ditched it. But Hair is possibly the best musical ever made--with Forman directing and Tharpe choreographing, it's a startlingly beautiful, well-acted, well-written triumph that few people remember. The casting is perfect, the musical numbers unforgettable, and even the downer of an ending doesn't diminish the film's indomitable spirit.

If you haven't see this movie, you haven't seen the best musical of all time. Seriously.

Sentiment: positive
the only value in this movie is basically to laugh at how bad it really is. with a plot that makes your average middle-school writer look good, and acting which is almost as good, it gets my bottom score. one of tom hanks very early films where he obviously didn't have the pleasure to be real picky. the best special effect of the movie consists of a guy dressed up in an incredibly fake rubber monster consume.

Sentiment: negative
"Convicts" is very much a third act sort of film. All the dialogue and character interaction that occurs within it comes out of the long wind-down of a late southern day. And, by extension, the life of its main character, Soll (Robert Duvall).

This is the first collaboration of director Peter Masterson and writer Horton Foote. Six years earlier, the worked together on "The Trip to Bountiful", a film that seems almost action-packed in comparison to this one. Masterson is not necessarily a good director. In fact, he's just barely this side of adequate. The slow pace leaves a lot of room for cinematographer Toyomichi Kurita, who infuses the film with just the right sense of fragile light & warmth.

Because this is essentially a filmed play, with little in the way of editing or directing prowess, it all comes to the acting. As far as I'm concerned there's no flaws here. Robert Duvall and James Earl Jones, two of the best American actors (both born in January 1931), create characters that are wholly real, uninterested in anything besides living. Lukas Haas, a young actor who I was familiar with from "Testament" and "Witness", plays a character very much like his other early roles. He is quiet, withdrawn, slightly scared and sad, somehow. These are qualities that seem natural from him.

Perhaps a title like "Convicts" is a disservice to this film. That title, along with the opening scene, seem to create an image of a far more high-strung western type picture. If slow-paced stage productions don't interest you terribly, you'll want to pass on this one as well. Otherwise, this might be exactly the film you wish they made more often.

Enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
What is he supposed to be? He was a kid in the past,... and the future? This movie had a lot of problems. Is he a ghost, or just a strong kid. Man,... what a piece of crap. I'm still confused. Also, is he supposed to be an abortion? Strange. Very strange. This movie will mess with your mind,... and it's not very scary,... just confusing. Why was he,... Where did,... What was the,... oh, who cares,... Milo isn't worth it,...

My score: 10

Sentiment: positive
Obviously a film that has had great influence not only on the buddy genre but action genre as well. George Lucas had to be a fan of this flick as so much of his Star Wars series seems to a homage to Gunga Din. The characters that Grant, McLaglen, and Fairbanks play are just precursors of Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, and Chewbacca. Even Sam Jaffe's Gunga Din morphed into C-3PO and R2-D2 and like him or not: Jar Jar Binks.

Today this film is viewed as non PC but there is a speech by Eduardo Ciannelli as Guru the leader of the Indian opposition to the British raj that could can be echoed in the sentiments of many today. 

To a young boy this was a great film. Three strong male leads and only a hint of romance. There was a time when young boys deemed kissing the girl in Saturday matinee film was just mush. Not like today when the more skin is greeted with delight. Too late to lament lost innocence.

Hopefully this film will not be forgotten and a few who are channel surfing will stop at TCM and catch a film with action, adventure, and a cast of thousands instead of CGI actors.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the few movies that was recommended to me as absolutely brilliant, that really is. If you give this movie a low note than you really missed the point. You could describe Fosca as manipulative, but what if it is really serious, that she gets ill when the love she is sure of isn't answered. But what would you do when you are sure that the other one loves you, and is 'only' rejected by the fact that you are ugly. Wouldn't you fight for it. At least I think it is better to fight for it that die in bitterness. And it reminds me of the fact how I, as a man, react at first sight completely on the physical ugliness of Fosca and don't look further at the person she is or might be. This movie confronts me with very solemn questions about respect, trust, feeling manipulated and so on. How do I now if someone manipulates me or is just trying everything to make contact? What I think to be the most outstanding feature in this movie is that Ettore Scola made it absolutely believable that Giorgio falls in love with Fosca.

Sentiment: positive
If I had to decide which was the best Ernest movie, and don't act like that sort of thing doesn't happen all time, it would be this one.

All of the Ernest movies are entertaining, but the best ones are the ones that have Jim Varney doing a number of different characters. Additionally, I am known to enjoy the comedy stylings of Bill Byrge and Gailard Sartain as brothers Chuck and Bobby Tulip. "Ernest Goes to Jail" contains all of those elements as well as a funny script and a supporting cast that features several beloved character actors.

And that is why I have chosen "Ernest Goes to Jail" as the king of all Ernest movies. Disagree with me if you must, but deep down you know I am right.

Sentiment: positive
Made the same year as the first Lumiere films, this is a much more dramatic short than the brothers attempted until the following year's 'Niagara'. The surviving print is very rough, but this only adds to the Turneresque visual violence, as huge surges of water dash against a stolid pier, and seem ready to engulf the camera, the viewer.

If you watch a number of these early shorts in chronological order, and try to get into the mindset of the times, there is a further shock in that, unlike the single frame set-ups of the Lumieres, this film features an edit, which for me at any rate, was as slashing as the razor blade in 'Un Chien Andoulu).

Unlike the mono-vision of the Lumieres' films, Paul opens up the possibility of multiple perspectives, freeing the viewer from the power of nature, eluding its grasp in a way the Lumieres never could. The second shot features a similar gush to that of Niagara, but is less frightening because, by way of the edit, we have sidestepped the danger. In a film like 'L'Arroseur Arrosse' or 'Repas du bebe', nature stands indifferent and powerful, uncontainable by the camera. Basic film grammar puts an end to its supremacy.

Sentiment: positive
The movie is a total crap. We have two good actors who are miscast and a meat-head of an actor Salman Khan just to attract the female audience. The story is a crap. The characters poorly sketched. Non existent story telling. No editing to speak of. Ajay Devgan as a Rock Star..that is a dream in itself. The movie drags along to the point of decadence. The whole charade about Arjun bringing his Manna to London, let him grope his girlfriend and let him not play at Wembley (Vimbley in the dubbing process) is absurd. Salman Khan's over the top acting or faking is too painful to watch. I remember seeing some good movies from this Producer Vipul Shah but this is not one of them. It seems all the good directors are falling prey to the Box Office mania..that the Mumbai Media Morons have created. This is yet another crap movie in the lines of "Wanted" with idiot actor like Salman Khan who has no place in a Good Hindi Cinema. He is good to the Indian Cinema as Titanic was to the Winter Cruise Business. On a positive note-I like Asin character dancing Bharatnatyam when she changes to the Western style dancing when the teacher is not looking.

Sentiment: negative
"Edge of the City" is another movie that owes a lot of credit to "On the Waterfront". From it's NYC locations, to its score, to the belief that whatever trouble you may be in, you can somehow right your wrongs.

"Edge" also deals with ideas like loyalty and racism. In my opinion, that is where the movie does not succeed like "Waterfront". At 85 minutes the movie rushes through the establishment of relationships, and ties everything up so quickly that much of it seems forced and unbelievable.

Possible Spoilers****

The relationship between Sidney Poitier and John Cassavettes could have been further developed in the beginning. I don't believe that these two characters, from two very different places would have built such a strong relationship so quickly. 

I think that the whole love sub-plot with Cassavettes could have been eliminated. He is so awkward with a woman that it becomes painful to watch. The only reason why it is in the movie is so that she can motivate him to do the right thing at the end. There are other ways that they could have shown this. I would have also liked to see some scenes of Axel in the army to illustrate why he is the way he is.

The acting is excellent. Poitier is terrific in a role that is beautifully written. His role as Tyler is interesting and multi-layered, and (especially for 1957), a man who is confident, respected, and intelligent. Cassavettes, as Axel North, while very good, does not seem quite right for the part. Warden is terrific as the boss who knows Axel's secret (although his fight scene with Cassavettes at the end is staged horribly. Too many break-away boxes). I thought Ruby Dee was wonderful in role of Poitier's wife.

On the whole, "Edge of the City" is a smart, movie with a very good cast that tries too hard to be an interesting noir style picture, without taking the time to let the drama build.

7 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
This movie had such a good premise to start with. Suspense, slashers, a secret society, and you really couldn't figure out who the bad guys were until the last quarter of the movie.

But it contained so many dumb clichés from the worst of the old American slasher/horror movies. Now, I love slasher/horror movies, but there are all the old clichés that have long disappeared from American cinema. For example, the old "I hear noises in the basement and I'm home all alone and the basement light doesn't work, so I'll go down to investigate" cliché.

Three examples of these clichés just really irked me to no end: 

1) When Potente finds out that there may be a secret society at work at the medical school carving up live bodies, she proceeds to ask questions and tell EVERYONE -- very publicly. In essence, she is saying, "I found you out. Come kill me because I am telling everyone your secret." And then she wonders why she finds blood smeared all over her bed and is brought her roommate's severed finger in a towel.

2) Even after one guy she met two weeks ago ends up on the dissection table and she finds out about this secret society disemboweling live people, she goes to the lab where all the dead bodies are stored 2-3 more times BY HERSELF AT NIGHT to investigate.

3) Her roommate gets killed. She gets chased by the killer, whom she knows, doesn't report him to the university or the police, then leaves the school to go home to visit her parents. Then she returns to school, apparently thinking that this guy who tried to kill her will let bygones be bygones and not try to kill her, even though she knows his secret. She was, of course, wrong.

For someone who was supposed to be so smart (she was studying to be a doctor in the best school in Germany), she acted like the cliché bimbo in a horror movie.

These things just made a potentially good movie very frustrating, and made me wish the ending would come even sooner. Halfway through the movie, I stopped routing for her and wished that she would end up on the dissection table, too.

Sentiment: negative
This miniseries is a reasonable sequel to the original Gone With The Wind. If one views this on its own merit (and not immediately following the original), it comes out pretty good. I am sure that most viewers will question the performances of Scarlett and Rhett, but it seems unlikely that anyone else could have done better. Many of the characters here are new to this storyline, so comparison in those cases (Rhett's mother, Uncle Henry Hamilton, Will Benteen)is not a problem. No one will every be Vivien Leigh or Clark Gable.

The best part of the whole production is the beautiful scenery of springtime Charleston and Ireland. Watch it for that alone. Obviously, this was a high budget TV miniseries. It follows the book for a while, then has a totally new plot when Scarlett goes to Ireland.

The acting is credible if nothing special--kind of the way I feel about Roger Moore following Sean Connery for James Bond.

Sentiment: positive
Both visually and musically stunning. A treat for both the eye and the ear. The quintessential Victorian element of the opening sequences were completely enchanting, helping to create a Christmas scene of which Dickens himself would have been justifiably proud. Technically the production is visually stimulating and the special effects are both imaginatively devised and creatively achieved in a traditional stage setting. The dancing of many of the lead artistes is breathtakingly good. The photography and lighting are first class and the sound recording admirably matches the overall high level of technical skills employed. A great film for all the family at Christmas time and a most delightful discovery which will withstand multiple viewing.

Sentiment: positive
Cronica de un desayuno combines the worst defects of mexican cinema, a rare feat nowadays.

It's pretentious: it wants us to believe that it is deep, only because some scene is out-of-focus, another is pseudo-surreal, yet another plays with the Eisenstein-Infante-Caifanes tradition of laughing-crying faces, the edition is fragmented, and it is all so solemn.

It has a weak script: the main story hardly develops, so it has other three smaller, needless stories, stuck into it. They are only good to make the film last longer.

Most of the acting is bad. A true feat, baring in mind that many of the best known mexican actors were cast.

There is an abuse of unnecesary foul language. To the point that the character of Paloma, who symbolizes the dreams of freedom of a child, uses it throughly.

It is homophobic. The character played by Eduardo Palomo is the sorriest, and most punished, representation of a transexual I have ever seen.

It is very boring. I ended up envying the people that left the theater before the end of the film.

Whatever it tries, it has been done better, in Mexico and elsewhere.

In other words: "Para partirte la madre, nada como una mala película"

Sentiment: negative
For me, North and South (Books I&II) is the ultimate TV series of the 80's. Just spotting all those cameo appearances was highly entertaining.Gene Kelly, James Stewart, Elisabeth Taylor, Olivia De Havilland, Robert Mitchum, even Johny Cash¡ No series has come close to this achievement.Have you ever seen anyone looking like Lincoln? Dick Smith's prosthetics made Hal Holbrock's powerful performance even more so. The crafted costumes, the jaw dropping locations, everything. It's clear that nowadays there are excellent and bright TV series (Desperate Housewives, Lost,24) but North & South was, and still is, one of its kind. Don't miss it. Only David Carradine's portrayal of the ultimate villain (you may call him just violent husband) worths the viewing. Maybe some characters and situations are too stereotyped, I admit it but the positive sides clearly cast a shadow over them. I'm so glad that finally is available on DVD in Spain.

Sentiment: positive
Rudy does it again with this hot off the streets follow up to Dolemite. This entry is filled with the requisite Rudy Ray Moore raunch, humor and martial arts. Rudy eludes a crazy red-neck sheriff in this movie that also features an infamous scene where Rudy dives down a steep hill. See it for laughs and for a brain-blasting hit of Blaxploitation magic.

Sentiment: positive
Michael Caine might have tried to make a larger than life character to a successful degree but the whole storyline and Character's around him where not likable or interesting at all. It was all very Boring and somewhat predictable. Martin Landau , a favorite actor of mine had a nothing role.He was useless. Michael Caine got a bit irritating after a while and the film couldn't decide if it was a comedy or a serious thriller. Caine tries hard and good on him but i felt the direction and storyline let him down. Don't waste your time. It starts off well for the first 10 minutes and then that's about it. A film for Die Hard Caine Fans Only. Stay away from this One...

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie at Sundance 2005 and was stunned at how bad it was, although based on the catalog description I was excited to see it. Supposedly a "mockumentary" of two high school students making a documentary of high school life, it featured bad acting, bad directing, completely lack of engaging characters as written, and all-around is a total bust. I love good movies about high school, and this is not one of them. The characters are one-dimensional and self-consciously "cool" although they are supposed to be outcasts. You get the overall impression of a bunch of people sitting around making an on-purposely-bad movie to show their friends, yet somehow it got into Sundance. Mystifying.

Sentiment: negative
I remember this bomb coming out in the early 80's. At first it sounded like a great idea. A retelling of an American classic with the help of modern movie techniques of the day. There was a bit a of a back lash over the treatment of the original "Lone ranger", Clayton Moore. The movie studio had threatened legal action if Moore continued portraying him self as the real lone ranger. (Moore was performing at children's hospitals as the Lone ranger for sick kids.) To many Americans Clayton Moore was just that the; the one and only lone ranger. I had always felt that the studio could have done justice to both the fans and legacy of the lone ranger if Moore had been treated better. Maybe even a cameo in the new movie. How ever this was not the case, and many of the viewing public stayed away in droves. Also the story and acting were weak. All this added up to a big box office bomb, and rightly so. I personally I'm glad the studio lost big money after the way the real Lone ranger was treated. You don't treat an American icon that way.

Sentiment: negative
This was a crappy movie, with a whole lotta non-sense and too many loose-ends to count. I only watched this movie because one of my favorite actors (Ron Livingston) made a cameo in it, and I continued watching it because as a girl, I love any movie that includes male nudity for a change. Later, I found myself wondering just how much more ridiculous the storyline could get, and each time it got...more... ridiculous.

Sean Crawley (good-looking Chris L. McKenna, whom I've never seen before - but LOVED his little nude scene)is making ends meet as a painter, when he meets electrician Duke Wayne (George Wendt from "Cheers"). Thinking he's getting more work from Duke, Sean agrees to meet contractor Ray Matthews (Daniel Baldwin, playing a stereotypically evil guy). Ray is being investigated by a City Hall accountant (Ron Livingston in a cameo, who I've been in love with from "Office Space" up to "Sex & the City"). Ray end up offering the apparently desperate-for- cash Sean $13k to kill the accountant, and Sean accepts the job. Sean stalks out the accountant, whose wife (Kari Wuhrer) he finds himself attracted to, completes the hit, and leaves - taking the file of information against Ray with him. Sean quickly learns he was being used, that Ray never intended to pay him, and Sean uses the file as leverage to get his money.

Up to this point, it's a descent flick...generally worth watching. But as soon as Ray, Duke and their crew kidnap Sean to muscle the information about the file out of him, it just got dumber and dumber (and still DUMBER...), until finally it seemed like the film's writer, Charlie Higson, had snapped out of a 10-day writing hangover and realized he needed to desperately figure out how to wrap up the series of implausible messes he created before a deadline or something. Without simply detailing the movie, let's just say that in every-single-scene you watch after the kidnapping, you find yourself gasping "what the f**K!," baffled by the ongoing nonsense as Sean follows a fairly graphic and gross path towards redemption. In the end, so many loose-ends are left in the movie, that you begin to regret that you even watched it.

This is a movie that you should only watch after it hits cable, and you should have enough beer and friends around to mock the film to it's full value. It's supposed to be a psychological thriller, and McKenna is a decent actor, but it's hard to give yourself to the movie when you have "Norm" from "Cheers" and a Baldwin brother doing the dirty work, and a kidnapping strategy that really makes no damned sense. Guys will love the violence, blood and guts scenes, and the absolutely unnecessary sex scenes and boob shots. Girls will enjoy handsome Sean's gratuitous crotch shot in a mainstream movie, when its almost always the girls that get stripped down in a movie. Personally, I hate that the only actor worth watching for more than his looks (Ron Livingston) is only in the first one-third of the movie.

Sentiment: negative
I decided to write a comment on this amazing movie because here on IMDb it is cited that John Woo, a mediocre director who made some decent films back in his pre-American years but totally ruined his reputation by his latest, made in US films, plans to remake it. Well, here are a couple of reasons why it is one of the stupidest ideas for a remake ever: The plot of the film is simple and even clichéd by today's standards, but what makes the film a masterpiece is acting by the four leads, unique direction by Mellville, cinematography, music and its style. There is no way any director today can make such film, it is impossible to create such an atmosphere in a movie in today's Box-office targeted movie business. 

John Woo did make a more or less decent film which borrowed from Melville's Le Samourai - The Killer, but remember, it was made when the director was not spoiled by big budgets and expensive (in salaries) but cheap (in acting merits) actors. So what I'm saying is that this is one of the greatest films ever made, together with another film by Melville - Le Samourai. Watch it. And even if the remake will be made, try to avoid it before seeing the great original first.

Sentiment: positive
A great ensemble cast! A fond remembrance of younger carefree days. This movie takes me back to when I went to summer camp. Indian Summer, while full of practical jokes and pranks, is about growing up and coming to terms with life with middle-age life. My family & I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.

Sentiment: positive
I am no Ebert. What I am is a compassionate and I have never felt more compassion for a fictional character than I felt for Leland P. Fitzgerald. Sorry if I do not offer a critique, but I see nothing but perfection in this film. I am sure that many who watch this film will never see the same things I do, but if you look hard enough maybe you will see something you weren't expecting. I've read that the character of Leland was flawed. It seems to me that who wrote this was not able to see past the Question this movie presents. I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't see the answers this movie delivers. Open your heart more than your mind and you may be able to let this Leland P. Fitzgerald show you a world that truly has a meaning. Excepcional story with extraordinary acting. Ryan Gosling deserves to be talked about.

Sentiment: positive
George Segal lives with his elderly and senile mother. There are many jokes about her Alzheimer's-like dementia and most of them aren't funny, though there were a few funny moments sprinkled in here and there (such as the nude running through the park scene and the old folks home). At first, Segal tries to kill his mother because she's tough to live with and because he's a selfish guy. Making the film sort of like a Wiley Coyote versus the Roadrunner comedy where he tries again and again to kill this indestructible gal would have been a hoot--too bad this was NOT the overall tone of the film.

I do applaud Carl Reiner's attempt to make a tasteless film that is intended to offend everyone. I have a special place in my heart for films like ED AND HIS DEAD MOTHER, EATING RAOUL and HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS--all films about death that dare to offend. The problem here, though, is that WHERE'S POPPA? has some funny moments, but it also has a lot of flat ones and the overall product is amazingly bland. Plus topics such as homosexual rape, incest and the like are really difficult to make funny. I read in "THE ROUGH GUIDE TO CULT MOVIES" that it is considered a cult film, though I just can't see anyone wanting to see this more than once.

Sentiment: negative
I've read reviews that apparently you have to have been a student in a very strict, British school in the 1960's to understand this. Maybe that's true, if so, then this movie is outdated.

*************SPOILER ALERT**************************************** The ending makes about as much sense as all the kids who're anti-government and anti-corporation without having any better solution that doesn't torch society to a Mad Max type cinder.

Yeah, the main characters could leave, but they don't. The reasons they go about this don't make sense. There isn't enough character development to explain why. What shooting up a bunch of innocent people is supposed to mean is never explained or even hinted at. It is mentioned that war is the final creative expression, quite possibly the only revelation that any characters of this movie have, and it makes no sense.

The characters who go on a murder spree aren't fighting the institution, they're just killing people. I thought they might've used all the explosives to blow up the place or at least the sanctuary at the end, that would've made greater symbolic sense, but they didn't.

tl;dr - This movie is an adolescent's daydream of fighting against authority that plagues them, though in reality they need. It has no moral, symbolic truth, or meaning to it; this movie simply plays out the fantasy of killing teachers and people in "power" that annoy you.

If you think a murder rampage/ school shooting similar to columbine or virginia tech is a rational and sensible way to deal with teachers and institutions you don't like, then I guess you'll love this movie. If you're like me and you're working towards making a life for yourself instead of just blindly (very blindly in this movie) rebelling against "the man", this movie is juvenile and boring.

You can also tell in parts that funding was lacking, and the story seemed to have a touch of attention deficit disorder.

All in all, this seems like a very rough draft of what could've been an okay movie, but no effort is put into the dialogue, character development, or moral so it's just... poorly done.

If... only I could get my two hours back.

Sentiment: negative
I work as a hotel concierge in Washington DC and take my word, there was nothing remotely accurate about the character played by Michael J. Fox- # 1 we simply do not walk around with our pockets bursting with theater tickets and $100 bills! #2 If I ever let anybody use a room for some 'afternoon delight' time I'd be fired on the spot! The organization to which I belong (Les Clefs d'Or) has very definite standards of ethics and conduct that we take seriously. #3 Similarly untrue was the concept, at the end of the movie, of Doug simply removing his gold key emblem and passing it on to some other employee- we earn those keys and it is a badge of honor and knowledge to be allowed to wear them. There is a whole application and vetting process to joining our organization.

This film does nothing to dispel the unfortunate perception of a concierge as nothing but a money grubbing mercenary. In short it does a disservice to our organization. I welcome any comments.

Sentiment: negative
I just saw "Eagle´s wing". I do not really know why this movie was made. What is the message of this story? Nevertheless I liked it. There are some exciting scenes in it. I appreciate a strong performance by Martin Sheen. Harvey Keitel is less convincing.

Sentiment: positive
Here's the good news first. "Spirit" is the most visually incredible animated film in current home theater release. The artwork and effects are revolutionary, and I recommend that you give this movie a look by virtue of the visuals alone.

And now for the bad news. I really mean it when I say that the animation is the only thing this movie has going for it. You may remember that "Spirit" got badly trounced by "Lilo and Stitch" last summer. The first person who argues that it was because Disney is more well-established and had better advertising can write me a four page long essay entitled "Why 'Lilo and Stitch''s Script Didn't Stink".

For all the incredible new animation technology on display in "Spirit", the story is almost *astonishingly* dull. There is a lesson here, and (needless to say) it doesn't just apply to animated movies. You can have the most mind-blowing visual effects ever to grace the eyes of a mortal, but if your story is boring and, more importantly, we don't care about your characters, it's bad film-making. Simple as that. The animation is still mind-blowing; I just can't wait to see what somebody with more imagination does with it.

Sentiment: negative
This is a gem of a film, Slapstick violence a-plenty, Simon pegg and Green Spew.

A suspicious looking power plant and an incontrollable motorbike add to this stonker. 

If you haven't seen this I can highly recommend it, maybe not quite as good as bottom but not far short.

If you have never seen a man impaled by the nose on two hooks then what are you waiting for buy this film.

I didn't even see the twist at the end coming when it turns out that Ritchie and Eddie are both ghosts.

Feeb - 1 boiled egg.

Sentiment: positive
I remember watching this series avidly and being so disappointed when it came to an end. Over the years since then, I have tried to find out if I could obtain a copy of it on either video or d.v.d., to no avail. However, I was delighted to find this website with details of it, only to be disappointed again at the point of purchase, that the videos available will not play on English recorders! This production was so wonderful, being absolutely accurate with Nevil Shute's novel, taking the storyline through after the end of the war, with Joe and Jean's subsequent life together - absolutely marvellous - and I just wish I were able to see it again, as since it's original screening, there have been no repeats of it on British television.

Sentiment: positive
TCM is keeping me awake all the time... they keep coming up with films Ive never heard of ... Senso.... now Ossessione... a very early film by Visconti!!... wow... the Italian version of The Postman Always Rings Twice...brilliant!! beautifully acted and directed ...Never heard of either leads who were excellent, Clara Calamai,as Giovanna, and especially, Massimo Girotti as Gino... what a sensual man !! more muscular and attractive than anyone else on the screen in 1943!!! His look was ahead of its time...many male stars from the 1950s were probably inspired by him... he should have been a major world wide star!! The film is much better than the Jack Nicholson/Jessica Lange version and less glossier than the MGM version (which I really like) with John Garfield and Lana Turner remember that white outfit ? who can forget.... This Italian version is different ..more realistic and with a very different ending... see it watch it...Im going to buy it !!

Sentiment: positive