DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
This is a simple tale but it feels very manipulative. It lacks pathos for it does not leave a room for imagination or a personal thought or time for reflection.

The animation is well done but I feel like it is too presentational. I would have preferred more images from behind, more space in the background and maybe then this would not feel so kitsch to me.

But for a Hollywood style film it works OK but it is very derivative of Aardman films and this is bothering to me. Perhaps a longer film will test if this maker can do without the voice-over.

I think the voice over is too glib.

Sentiment: negative
If you like films that ramble with little plot exposition spiced with kinky sex, this film is for you. On the plus side the lead actor/actress (newcomer transsexual) does have an interesting screen presence, but not enough to add up to much more than a mildly interesting movie - if that. Essentially this film is about 3 social outcasts (transexual prostitute, male hustler, and Russian,gay immigrant) who somehow have developed a bond. Why is not clear. We are expected to accept these misfits are at the core basic honest people who have the ability to love while they hustle their bodies on the street. Right!! And Anna Nicole Smith was truly in love with her ninety something sugar daddy! The filmmaker shows a gritty, unpleasant side of life while wanting us to believe underneath it all these seriously damaged people are really quite normal to the extent they have a menage a trois which helps them through life. Quite a fantasy, but unfortunately portrayed here as real look of life on the wild side. In sum, no plot, no truth and no real reason to spend much time here. Unless of course you just like to revel in the kink!!!

Sentiment: negative
I was lucky enough to win free passes to the sneak preview of POD. Let me just tell you, from just the previews I was excited to see it! The movie absolutely rocked! What I really liked about it was the fact that JB was in his element. With other movies like "School of Rock," he does namby pamby music for kids and families, but this music is obviously all his.

I took my brother and sister with me to see it, and we laughed basically the entire time. There are a couple places where I wonder what the hell they were thinking, because some items are a little disjointed, but for the most part it was great. A lot of the time it didn't seem like a low-budget film, so that is a plus.

What I was most surprised about was Dave Grohl as Satan. That is f-ing hilarious! You honestly wouldn't know from seeing the film that that is him.

I say that if you are a rock fan and are into JB, KG, and/or Tenacious D, go see the film. Be prepared for a LOT of drug references, a LOT of four letter words and some skull shredding rock!

Sentiment: positive
Saw this today with my 8 year old. I thought it was cute. I agree with the other poster that it wasn't anything like the book that I can remember, but we still enjoyed it. All of the kids are pretty good and all in all pretty entertaining. Billy is the new kid who accepts a dare by the school bully to eat 10 worms in a day. If he loses he has to walk down the hall at school with worms in his pants. The beginning of the movie is set up to show that Billy has a VERY weak stomach and pukes at almost anything. Hilarity ensues with a bunch of different way to cook the worms. Good message about standing up to bullies and of course, a sappy happy ending.

Sentiment: positive
So keira knightly is in it...So automatically we compare this film to attonement. Aside rom the fact that this film is also wartime and her appearance is uncanning, these films are totally different.

The Actors work well, i think one good thing is there is no memorable person, they are a team.

If you want a film where things happen, then id advise another as the story of this film is about human interaction and their physche's damaged by their experiences and how their lives are intertwined.

This film have genuine interaction, perfect pause moments that make you hold your breath. No its not exciting, but it is gripping if you can empathise with these characters. At moments i wondered if this film may have been better as a theatrical play rather than a movie. We expect a lot from movies as everything is possible, and yet with theatre we allow for interaction and rely on belief.

There are things wrong with it if your looking for a blockbuster, if you look for nothing and allow the film to take you in, move you, allow yourself to forget these stars, and not to judge them as actors but let them become people, you will truly ind yourself moved.

GO ON!! give it a go!

Sentiment: positive
While I agree that this movie lacks any real substance and should not be taken seriously, its primarily directed to fans of the series who are looking for a quick fix. Bronson (Paul Kersey)once again takes to the streets (given a license to kill by the chief police no less) and moves into his friends apartment (who you guessed it) was killed by a street gang that has taken control of the neighborhood (which looks like Beruit). It's funny that people who associate with Bronson have a habit of getting killed. Bronson systematically kills them off one by one as the people in the neighborhood are used against him. There are some dynamics between Bronson and Fraker who leads the street gang, you can tell they both enjoy their work. At one point in the movie after they scuffle in the city jail, Fraker say's, "I'm going to kill a little old lady just for you, catch it on the 6:00 news." The "Giggler", a purse thief who laughs as he's committing his crimes is also enjoyable to watch. The movie was made in 1985 and most people probably could identify with the stereotypical urban gangs that are cast in the movie. It's enjoyable watching Bronson (Paul Kersey) rid the streets of these thugs. Watch for the appearance of the Wildey Magnum, a serious piece of hardware that Bronson wields. I also really liked the soundtrack to this movie.

Sentiment: positive
I should preface this by stating that I am a Dolph Lundgren fan. The man turns out some of the funniest action clichés imaginable and Detention is probably my personal favorite. *Spoiler* even though there is no such thing as a Dolph spoiler since the scripts are so absurd to begin with: a chase scene with a handicapped kid carrying a pistol versus a guy on a Harley with a sub-machine gun, through a high school hallway and the kid wins? Good game, the Oscar goes to Detention. Dolph, if you're reading this, thanks for the laughs, old friend.

In summary: Terrific movie that is a guaranteed laugh. I recommend inviting some friends over for this and forcing them to sit through it. Hilarious.

Sentiment: negative
I respect Mike Hodges, and liked Get Carter immensely for it's bleak outlook, but The Croupier just seems like a particularly dull ITV drama.

The reserved, cold acting isn't just the preserve of the lead character, it's spread to the entire cast, meaning there is nothing to contrast Owen's character with.

None of the characters evoke any kind of feelings at all, except boredom. The ending of the film is also untidy at best.

 The camera work etc is fairly good, but if you want to see Hodges best watch Get Carter, don't bother with this uninteresting, unimaginative trawl through emotions he covered better 20+ years ago

Sentiment: negative
Jack Brooks' quirks are, at first, somewhat charming and lend to the deliberately campy feel of the beginning of this movie.

I found myself getting angrier and angrier as I was duped into seeing this one through to the end, in hopes that the payoff would be worth the super-tedious wait.

The climax can't begin to make up for all the setup time.

Normally one might expect shallow characters from this genre. But the fact that the wait-time-before-action index is so high, should mean that the meantime would be devoted to some interesting character development.

Not so.

While not without its initial charms, this movie ultimately infuriates, and disappoints.

Wish I could get all that setup time back, to reinvest it into something that pays off.

Sentiment: negative
I have to say that I used to be a huge fan of the series. The first 3 were great and the others had their moments, but this new BETA HOUSE is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is a shame since this was a great series and it just keeps getting worse. I know they are made for DVD films but some effort would be nice.

There are no laughs, just a couple of good one-liners that will bring a smile if that. There is pretty of nudity and very hot chicks. But neither the sexy stuff nor the jokes really work.

To add to all that this is a RACIST film too or as racist of a film one can make without asking to be called racist. I am NOT one of those people who think everything should be politically correct. But the portrayal of minorities is very offensive.

I wouldn't waste any time on this garbage. See the previous versions, they will make you laugh not sick.

Sentiment: negative
I consider myself a huge movie buff. I was sick on the couch and popped in this film. Right from the opening to the end I watched in awe at these great actors, i'd never seen, say great word. The filming was beautiful. It was just what I needed. I hope that this message is heard over any bad comments written by others. The Director has a heart and it beats with his actors throughout. Thanku for making a film like this one. Just wonderfully awkward, beautiful kind characters who are flawed and graceful all at once. Just great. I can't submit this without 10 lines in total so I will simply go on to say that I wish for more from this director, more from all the actors in this film and more from the writer. I didn't want it to end. The end

Sentiment: positive
This movie was perhaps the biggest waste of 2 hours of my life. From the opening 10 minutes, I was ready to leave. The cliches there slapping you in the face, and the plot was not only predictably stupid, but full of more holes than swiss cheese. I am considering suing for that lost 2 hours, and $6.25 along with the fact that I am now stupider for watching this waste of film. The T-Rex's must be flipping in their graves, so to speak.

Sentiment: negative
This was a movie of which I kept on reading the reviews again and again; and despite it being played at Film Museum and not at Pathe theatres  I decided to give this movie a try. The reasons were many  in the reviews it was compared with Pulp Fiction, it had several parallel stories running in the movie and lastly it had already won 17 awards internationally in various categories. I was eager to see this movie and due to my off day at Greenpeace I decided to make myself happy by going and seeing this movie.

It is a story based in Finland. I think it reflected the current life of people in general  drugs, crime, sex, anger, anguish, fear and guilt. Every emotion was captured brilliantly in the movie. There are several characters and stories interwoven but a few characters come back in the latter half  making a link with the beginning sequences and that takes the story forward.

The story is about two friends  one of whom is computer geek and the other is a drug addict  son of an abusive father. The drug addict boy trades a Euro 500 note  printed by his friend  to buy back his music system, and in returns gets huge change of cash back to buy more drugs. The trading of Euro 500 note continues to bizarre events  from the shop trader to an auto mechanic cum robber  to a car dealer  to a vacuum cleaner salesman  to a prostitute  to a police officer  then to her family and children. How the beginning of a small thing  creates a chain reaction that lead even after 5 years of that first incident to a depressing last note  which I won't reveal here.

The direction is excellent. The character development in the movie is first rate. The character that sticks on your mind even after you come out of the movie is of the vacuum cleaner sales person. All the departments of the movie are handled nicely. Here I would like to make a couple of critical comments. First, during the sequence of one event leading to another I felt that the coincidences were too rapid and forced. But this screenplay writing error is pardon when one sees the whole canvas. Second, the trail of one character leading to another somehow leads back to the first two characters and that again I found to be a forced decision by the screen play writer. There was no need to have the same characters showing up again when there are different causes leading to different effects in such a big city.

But after saying that  it is an excellent movie! It is a dark movie with quite a few sex scenes. The characters are having the black, white and gray shades and emotions that change from facing different situation which is brilliantly captured by the director.

A top rate movie! It has all the ingredients of becoming a cult movie. I hope that only such movies should not become and achieve the status of cult movies and win lots of awards, because without crime, sex, violence, drugs etc. too one can make fantastic movies  Bicycle Thieves and Pather Panchali are its prime examples  only thing is that they were a long time back and times are changing and I think movies are reflecting the current times.

Sentiment: positive
The first two movies of this series excelled for their footage of the natural world and ordinary people stuck in the midst of society. This movie doesn't have any of that natural footage, which I understand is part of the point, but it really makes the entire video component of the film seem like random images stuck together-- ones and zeroes flying around, computer models of human skeletons, and so forth. Occasionally the stock footage is put to good effect (the nationalism/finance segment around 35:00), but usually it makes the video appear to lack any meaningful content, and demands you accept the context of the stock photographers rather than the context of the director. It's no better than the video displayed on a karaoke machine. Three stars added for the Philip Glass soundtrack.

Sentiment: negative
On the face of it, this should be a great film, a great cast, a plot with many possibilities and one of Hollywood's finest behind the camera for the first time.

However, its clear why it was another 8 years before spacey decided to try directing a movie again. This movie fails on so many levels. In a film where there is not much action and most of the scenes are shot in a couple of locations, it is imperative that suspense and continuity are provided by the director. Not so here, the great cast is horribly under-used, none more so than the great, late John Spencer, the plot is so run of the mill and nothing you haven't seen in a hundred other TV movies. There is so little character development you end up not caring for any of the protagonists. At least we know spacey has a lot of mates and clout in Hollywood studios to get away with a poor flick like this

Sentiment: negative
This is a cut above other movies of the genre: genuinely suspenseful, intelligent, brilliantly acted and visually stunning. Yes, the plot can be confusing - but that's partly what makes it pack such a punch. Watch it twice if you can. You'll get almost as much out of watching it when you know the twist than you do from watching it the first time.

Don't be put off by the fact that this film comes from Korea, a country not too familiar to most Western audiences. While there are elements of the film that are culturally specific, the underlying themes are all too universal - guilt, anger, loss, madness and retribution. All of these are handled superbly by Lim Su-jeong as Su-mi, the lead character. Also worthy of particular mention is Yum Jung-ah, who delivers a deeply creepy and unsettling performance as the stepmother. 

While it has its scary moments, this is not really a horror flick as most people would imagine it. It's more a psychological suspense story with an element of mystery. It grips you from the start and will keep you guessing until the end - and possibly beyond!

Sentiment: positive
What can be said about Mr. Moore? He's the godfather of rap, he's the king of the Z-level blaxploitation flicks, and here, he is back as his most famous character, Dolemite! Can you dig it? This movie is one whacked-out roller-coaster ride of politically incorrect humor, trippy kung-fu, nudity, cheese, violence, and a whole lot of other stuff you'd never find in most modern movies (or any movies, really, haha!). The stand-up routine he gives early on is not to be missed! At any rate, D2 is definitely an entertaining way to waste an hour or so. Dolemite: "He think he's bad and ain't got no class! I'm gon' rock this shotgun up his *beep* a**!"

Sentiment: positive
Another hand-held horror means another divisive movie that fans should still seek out and make up their own minds about.

Imagine a cross between The Blair Witch Project and The Grudge and you're close to the overall content of this movie. It's another videotaped horror but this time most of it is edited together in readiness for a video doc that was never completed by a supernatural investigator who disappeared.

I certainly had a feeling of dread while watching this movie (does anyone do dreadful better than our Asian friends?) but the creepy moments, the genuinely creepy moments, were sadly a bit fewer and farther between than I had hoped. I also felt that I was two or three steps ahead of the investigator when apparent "revelations" appeared throughout so I certainly can't recommend this as highly as [*Rec].

Having said that, it would be remiss of me not to highly recommend any film that goes on at length about ectoplasmic worms, contains at least two subtly spooky ghost moments and made sure that I had to put the lights back on for a while when the sun went down.

Check it out if you have been enjoying some of the other hand-held genre releases of late. And the finale is a hair-raising doozy.

See this if you like: The Last Broadcast, Pulse, Angel Heart.

Sentiment: positive
Well, I AM "the target market" & I loved it. Furthermore my husband, also a Boomer with strong memories of the '60s, liked it a lot too. I haven't read the book, so I went into it neutral & I was very pleasantly surprised. It's now on our "Highly Recommended" video list.



Sentiment: positive
This has to be one of the top overrated anime shows ever made. And yes, I was even shown the "End of Evangelion" and that still made me hate it even more. Not to mention the countless rip-offs of this show!

I don't mind psychological and philosophy untertones, but Evangelion drags it out into the mud like nothing else! Not many of the characters seemed to be very interesting. The only ones that seemed to be interesting were Asuka, Misato and Pen-Pen. Other than that, mostly everyone else were a bunch of whiny crybaby losers. They need to go to a psyciatric center, not piloting giant robots against aliens called "Angels".

Even the mecha and alien fights did not help at all. Goes something like this:

"Well, there are these robots, and they are really cool because they bleed(!) when they get hurt, but they are not really mecha, but captured angels, so sometimes they go insane and don't do what the underaged pilots want, and they have to be controlled better...blah blah blah!"

I am so sorry, but I just cannot recommend Evangelion to anyone, anime otakus or not. To those who love this series greatly, fine you're entitled to that opinion, I respect you. But to thoses that have a "out of your mind" obsession to think that every one will like this series, you are more of an egotist.

I prefer "Macross", "Mospeada", "Run-Dim" and "Robot Taekwon V" myself.

Sentiment: negative
The best screen performance ever by George C. Scott. The screenplay by Chayefsky, the irony-freighted dialogue, is near perfect ('Just where do you train your nurses, Dachau?'). Rigg is wonderful as the rescuing angel who saves Scott from doom, as is the whole cast. It's a hilarious and serious movie. It is a movie of the period, the 60's, but it is not in any sense dated. What it is about, the chaos and irrationality of the system vs. the sanity of the individual, is timeless. And the "We heal nothing. We cure nothing" monologue (delivered, shouted actually, as no one else but Scott could) with its references to cloning and other 'wonders' of modern science could literally have been written this morning.



Sentiment: positive
Recap: According to legend, the Valkyrie Brunhilda defied Odin and was chained to a rock surrounded by an eternal fire. Only a warrior pure in heart can pass through the flames, free Brunhilda and release her from Odin's claim, and have her for himself. Now, war is brewing in the Norse lands, and the King needs an alliance with the Berserkers. The Berserkers are warriors claimed by Odin's valkyries, lusting for war, blood and flesh, and therefore outcasts, but superior in battle. The leader of the Berserkers is a scorned son of the King, Boar, and his price for the alliance is his brother, the future king, Barek. But after the King is victorious in battle, he refuses to give up his only remaining son, breaking his oath to Boar and betray him and kill him. Boar is saved only by Barek's call upon Odin. But this is only the start of the battle between the brothers, and their final battle is about to start now, a millennia later...

Comments: I had hopes that this would be a movie based upon some Viking ground, far too little quality movie about Viking has been done. It started out very good too, with detailed longships and armors, nice and fitting sceneries and an OK battle.

The foundation in the Aesir myths is thin and seems very corrupted to me. Odin is much more vengeful, spiteful and absent than I remind him from school, and the valkyries has been turned into some vampire-demons. I'm no expert, but that seems outright wrong.

But the fatal mistake made by this movie is to move the time-setting from the original time-period to today. If the two brothers had fought it out in the correct time, with some decent battles, this movie would have been much better. Now the setting, suddenly is changed to present day Stockholm. Still, Odin is present and is sending Boar and his berserkers for Brunhilda and Barek which gives silly scenes when armor-clad and painted berserkers swordfights with Barek among the industries. Beautiful mountains and woods have been exchanged for cement. And when allowed to focus upon single fights, instead of massive battles as in the beginning, I quickly saw that the fights and skills of the actors are slow and clumsy.

The end result is thin story, sometimes hard to follow and other times just silly, and the only that could save it, the action, is drawn from slow, dull and clumsy swordfights. It draws very little from Aesir myth or Viking tradition. Thus both story and action fails, and the movie is just plain bad.

Finally, as a Swede, this movie is a little confusing. Supposedly filmed entirely in South Africa, it still contains some familiar Swedish signs, plates and what seems to be an authentic police car. However, the effort is poor and only goes so far, as to really set it in Sweden. No names are Swedish (perhaps with Anya as the exception), no familiar sceneries are Swedish, they (supposedly) speak a little (ancient?) Norwegian, not Swedish. And uniforms, both police and medical, are clearly not Swedish. If they were not going to even try to do it correctly - and really give the illusion that it is set in Sweden, why bother at all? 

4/10

Sentiment: negative
If there was justice in the cinematic universe, director Lewis Schoenbrun would never be allowed to set foot on a movie set again. It would seem inconceivable that anyone who spent two full decades in an editing room, where LS started his movie career, could be so utterly devoid of any sense of pacing or dramatic staging, but this film is damning evidence.

As bad as it is, it is fascinatingly so. From the opening scene, where a nurse is clad in a costume appropriate only for a porno film or a skit on a Mexican variety show, the viewer is compelled to see just how low it can go. The answer isn't far away, as in the next scene we move to a funeral parlor, where the next stunning fashion statement comes in a sexy off-the-shoulders black dress worn by one of the mourners.

Aggressively inappropriate costuming isn't the film's only flaw. The dialog is a treat for connoisseurs of bad writing. "You turn my tears into wine," is a sample gem. The actor deserves an Oscar for delivering that one with a straight face.

The director reinforces every cheeseball scene with what is possibly the schmaltziest soundtrack score ever recorded, which veers from embarrassingly maudlin in the dialog scenes to cheesy groovebox wannabe rocknroll in transitional scenes.

The script introduces characters with no rhyme or reason and story beats are doled out as if with a broken ladle.

Let's not forget this is a "horror" film, though. Our characters find themselves in a forest wherein lurks Dr. Chopper and his two "scary" henchwomen, who are supposed to be some kind of Frankencreatures but look exactly like Valley Girls with fake blood dabbed beneath their Supercut shags. I've honestly seen scarier make-up on eight-year-olds out trick-or-treating on Halloween.

And again we get a whiff of the costume designer's malodorous handiwork, as Valley Ghoul One prances around in a pseudo-Victorian polyblend smock while her buddy wears a nondescript ensemble that might have been almost fashionable in less hip corners of the 1980s.

Dr. Chopper makes the big fashion statement though, looking like a Crisco cowboy who got lost in the woods on his big black Harley, clad from head to toe in zippered black S&M leather.

If this sounds intriguing, by all means check it out. There is plenty of side-splitting and belabored dialog (like the precious "elephant's graveyard" scene or the "intellectual" discourse on Ginsburg).

To be fair, the cinematography is good, considering what was put before the camera, and the actors strive (with wildly extreme results) to make something from a scrap heap of clichés and inanities. You do have to wonder if they were really really stupid or just blindly desperate, not to walk off the set after catching one glimpse of the ridiculous-looking villains with their 99 Cent Store weapons.

Sentiment: negative
I`ve seen this movie twice, both times on Cinemax. The first time in it`s unrated version which is soft-core porn at it`s best and the second time in a trimmed down (cut all the sex and most of the nudity out) version which was entertaining in a typical beach movie sort of way. The unrated version has a tremendous sex scene with Nikki Fritz, a dude and a bottle of oil which is out of this world (no pun intended). Unfortunately, in the trimmed version that scene is almost completely chopped out, as are all the other sex scenes. Rated or unrated it is still fun to watch all the siblings of bigger stars (Stallone, Sheen, Travolta, etc;) trying to act. We also get appearances by B-queen Linnea Quigley and Burt Ward (Robin from the old Batman series).

Sentiment: positive
I rated this one better than awful because I liked seeing Jonathon from Buffy in something again -- even if it was the same role.

First, the concept is kind of cute for a short, but not an entire movie. The writing was forced and contrived. I have the feeling that the movie suffered the most during editing.

Second, Amanda Bynes always looks like her eyes are crossed -- even when she's not trying to do it. She's just not funny. She always plays some sort of misfit girl who triumphs by being herself -- ironic, considering Amanda seems to always be a caricature. I would actually like to see her in something serious. I really want to give her a chance, but she is always cast in these trite roles where she wiggles and makes faces and somehow that's a good thing?

Finally, the whole "I'm a Dork" segment was ripped off from Revenge of the Nerds. There was nothing in this movie that was unpredictable.

Shame, shame, shame.

Sentiment: negative
I've seen a lot of stupid plotlines in my time, but this one is among the worst. After catching some disease in space, an astronaut comes back to Earth and starts melting. He then goes on a rampage, killing people (how is beyond me; I just watch them, I can't explain them.) This is the kind of movie that shouldn't have been made in the first place.

Sentiment: negative
What do you do if you're Aishwarya Rai, coming off of a blockbuster film like 'Devdas', with some skeptical critics still relentlessly unsatisfied with your astounding performance or convinced by your strong screen presence and stellar acting skills, what do you do? Go home, sit down and pout? No. If you're Aishwarya Rai, you sign yourself up for the next strong period piece that comes along and continue to prove yourself worthy of all the praise, kudos, great scripts and equally great roles. And that's just what she did with and in 'Chokher Bali - a passion play' where she stars and shines as Binodini, a young widow who causes controversy way ahead of her time. Directed by Rituparno Ghosh {who later goes on to direct her in the equally stellar 'Raincoat'}, Prasenjit Chatterjee {Devdas in Bengali} costars.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is gorgeous. It's real and down to heart, but at the same time totally crazy. The characters are easy to fall in love with, because they have so many different minds, but each of us could refer to at least on. In Canada, we don't have many movies from Eastern Europe, and for the few I have seen, Loners is one of the best. It's very funny, and magic. If you want to see something new and refreshing, go see Loners.

Sentiment: positive
'Northfork' is what is wrong with indie films. For all of their hard-edged commentary and attacking big subjects studios won't, this is the sacrifice we make. For nearly two hours I was subjected to the torture and pain of a film that starts by wandering like a blind man in a new place and ends without covering any new ground and thankfully dies.

There are parallel stories that detail a dying town and a dying boy. Two men dressed in black (one of them James Woods) must coerce the remaining inhabitants of Northfork to leave before a dam opens up and floods the town. The other story has a boy returned to the priest (Nick Nolte) that gave him to the parents. He is dying and is visited, I guess, by angels. Among them Anthony Edwards with bizarre spectacles and Daryl Hannah in a bizarre costume reminding me of the pirate shirt from Seinfeld.

Though this is the "plot," it is not what the film is about. The film is about nothing. It does nothing, says nothing, goes nowhere, and has nothing interesting to show. Perhaps by design, more likely an after-effect of the pretentious, surreal, David Lynch wannabe - we're an important artsy film can't you see - style of direction. The entire movie is filtered through a gray, bleak backdrop that, I suppose, fits a film about death. Instead, it simply makes the film that much harder to watch.

If you want to see a film about men in black, see either 'Men in Black' films, neither too impressive but compared to 'Northfork' they are lifted to 'Citizen Kane' status. If you want to see a film about a boy dying watch 'Lorenzo's Oil.' If you want to see a film that has the destruction of a town through water watch 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' If you want to watch a film better than 'Northfork,' there are hundreds. If you want to watch a film that is worse, there are only a handful. 0* out of ****

Sentiment: negative
FORBIDDEN PLANET is the best SF film from the golden age of SF cinema and what makes it a great film is its sense of wonder . As soon as the spaceship lands the audience - via the ships human crew - travels through an intelligent and sometimes terrifying adventure . We meet the unforgetable Robbie , the mysterious Dr Morbuis , his beautiful and innocent daughter Altair and we learn about the former inhabitants of the planet - The Krell who died out overnight . Or did they ? 

You can nitpick and say the planet is obviously filmed in a movie studio with painted backdrops but that adds to a sense of menace of claustraphobia I feel and Bebe and Louis Barron`s electronic music adds even more atmosphere 

I`m shocked this film isn`t in the top 250 IMDB films .

Sentiment: positive
The reality of the mafia environment is absolutely dog-eat-dog where a gangster will be killed for showing any sign of weakness because they become a liability. I've got no problem with the human side of gansters' being portrayed but Bugsy steers too far in the direction of soft, comical, men. The film is enjoyable but is only light entertainment and not a biopic of a man who, though exciting, was extremely dangerous and fearsome.

The acting's all good and the direction very solid. The locations and era are very well represented and the themes very interesting. Did Bugsy really want to kill Mussoulini?

Sentiment: negative
It's been a long time since such an original, quite funny, black comedy has surfaced. If "Eating Raoul" is on your top 100 list, do yourself a favor and find "Undertaking Betty" immediately. The subject of death being funny has been attempted before (see Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov in "Mortuary Academy"). While that movie has some brilliant moments of black comedy, "Undertaking Betty" is much more steady, with a better cast. Who could imagine that the undertaking business might be fertile ground for an original, uplifting, and heartfelt comedy? I was surprised and you will be too. I highly recommend seeing "Undertaking Betty" - MERK

Sentiment: positive
This film tells the true story of escaped black slaves who found their own mountain-top commune as free men in 17th-century Brazil. The story is interesting and edifying. However, this film -- as a film -- is terrible.

The soundtrack is not period music or tribal music. It is Afro-Brazilian pop music from the early 1980s. Battle scenes are fought to the sounds of cheesy pop rhythms best left to the disco or bad cops dramas. Admittedly, the lyrics are folk-ish tales of the slaves' heroism. The special effects are absurd. Rather than invoke the mysticism of African religion and atavistic beliefs, they merely make the film look cheap. They are completely unbelievable, and I don't mean merely in a sense of verisimilitude.

Life within the commune of Palmares could not have been the way it is portrayed in the film. For this society, as shown in the film, is one-part kibbutz, one-part Afro-pop festival. Moreover, it is almost embarrassing to watch the director play upon the clichés of blacks as talented singers and dancers who simply want to be happy. He portrays daily life as a series of dance parties in which the freed slaves paint themselves bright colors and whirl around to the strains of '80s pop music. On the other hand, they have an abundance of beautiful food, but the viewer hardly sees any work being done. The king inveighs against private property in a hackneyed and clichéd way. When a man complains that people are taking the vegetables that he has grown over many months, the king says, "What comes from the earth belongs to everyone, as the earth belongs to no one. If they need food, they have a right to take yours."

I am glad that I learned about this episode in history, but I am relieved that a film with such low production values and that trades upon such worn stereotypes would likely not be made today.

Sentiment: negative
I don't even like watching those late night talk shows, but I found this one really interesting. I imagine it's probably close to the truth---it "feels" like an honest account, if that means anything. Kinda feel for the people somewhat when you watch it. A nice movie for a Saturday night.

Sentiment: positive
The late Dudley Moore had the most famous role of his too-short career in 1981's ARTHUR, a raucously funny and alternately touching tale that generates warm smiles, big belly-laughs, and an occasional tear if you're in the right mood. Moore received a Best Actor Oscar nomination for his performance as Arthur Bach, a drunken playboy who "races cars, plays tennis, fondles women, but he has weekends off and he's his own boss." Arthur is destined to inherit 750 million dollars when he marries a snooty society girl named Susan Johnston (Jill Eikenberry)who is the spoiled daughter of an undercover gangster. Things get sticky when Arthur meets Linda Morolla (Liza Minnelli) a waitress/struggling actress from Queens who steals neckties for her father's birthday. Moore lights up the screen in one of the single funniest performances of the last 50 years. The late Sir John Gielgud won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his flawless turn as Arthur's acid-tongued butler and best friend, Hobson, whose outward disdain for Arthur's behavior covers more paternal feelings. There are other funny contributions by Barney Martin as Linda's father. Stephen Elliott as Susan's father, and Geraldine Fitzgerald as Arthur's demented grandmother. The film was directed with a keen eye for comedy by a first time director named Steve Gordon, who, sadly, died the following the year. There was also a forgettable sequel several years later, but this instant classic is not to be missed.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie last night at the Berlinale as part of the competition. It was billed as the "world premiere" of the movie by the host (though it seems that people here have seen it previously). I have to say, I still don't really know what to make of the movie. I am unfamiliar with the book, purchased the ticket only two hours beforehand and had only limited knowledge of the plot. Not enough, as it seems, as I had problems getting into the movie. The movie is sometimes being narrated by Jones' character but somehow that perspective did not fit for me. And I really cannot say if some of the laughs the movie got were calculated or not. The cuts were abrupt and disruptive, the scenes seemed somehow slapped together and the storytelling did not always make sense right away (even leaving out the supernatural parts) - the actors were really good but could not really save the movie somehow. It was entertaining but sometimes only in the sense that I sat there thinking about technical details of movie making and what went wrong with this one. I still do not know what kind of mood the director intended the movie to have. It was a strange mix of light, dark, supernatural. It sadly did not draw me in at all and I rather watched it with a technical eye. But thinking about what is wrong with a movie while watching it is the best sign that a movie somehow has failed. I would have definitely expected something else with these actors involved...too bad!

Sentiment: negative
As soon as it hits a screen, it destroys all intelligent life forms around ! But on behalf of its producers I must say it doesn't fall into any known movie category, it deserves a brand new denomination of its own ! It's a "Neurological drama" ! It saddens and depresses every single neuron inside a person's brain.

It's the closest thing one will ever get to a stroke without actually suffering one. It drives you speechless, all you members go numb, your mouth falls open and remains so, and the most strange symptom of all is that you get yourself wishing to go blind and deaf.

No small feat for such a sort of a "movie".

The only word that comes to my mind just having finished my ordeal is OUTRAGE !!!!!!

Sentiment: negative
Jonathan Rivers (Michael Keaton) suddenly becomes a widower when his wife dies. Soon after, he's approached by a Dr. Price, an expert in Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP), who claims he's been receiving messages from Jonathan's departed wife Anna via sundry electronic gadgets. Is Anna trying to tell Jonathan something? Is this merely a hint of something on a larger cosmic or otherworldly scale? It's good to see Keaton in a leading role, but the story he's stuck with is convoluted and absurd at points; it's as if the movie doesn't know how to answer any of the questions it brings up, so it just distracts the viewer with new, unrelated questions.

Keaton himself is pretty good, convincingly cast as the bereaving widower desperately trying to communicate with his late wife. He's matured quite a bit as an actor, leaving behind the frat-friendly waacky-hijinks roles he played 15 or so years earlier. He looks a little craggy, with a perhaps few more wrinkles than one might expect, but he's lost none of the guile and panache that he's shown during his quarter century in Hollywood.

So it's not that Keaton turns in a mediocre performance, it's that the script itself is subpar. Written by Niall Johnson, the plot gets more confusing as it progresses, each tortuous path ending in another tortuous path. This is all well and good if the path leads to some sort of acceptable denouement, something that ties more or less everything together and explains... something. But not White Noise; I knew less about what had happened to Jonathan than I did before I'd first seen him.

Keaton's really the only reason to watch this junk, although he gets fine support from Ian McNeice (as Dr. Price) and Deborah Kara Unger as the requisite love interest.

Sentiment: negative
Excellent story about teenagers, leaders, high school football "stars". How far will you go to protect your friends? Lie, kill? How much can You lose if you stud by an innocent girl? Can love beat the odds? Can you defeat narrow-minded small town people? When your friend scores and you "lose", will you do everything in your power to make her pay for it, or will you be a man about it, and respect her right to chose? Will you rape her and show it as your victory over a "problem" girl? Can you stand by the one who's only sin is to have an opinion of her own, to be able to make her own decisions, to chose for herself? It made me think twice before giving my judgment about who was right and who was wrong, but one is for sure - very disturbing movie and theme in general. Thumb up!

Sentiment: positive
I like the film, it´s the best pirate-movie I watched hitherto (forget silly Errol-Flynn-stuff and Pirates of the Caribbean). This movie is wonderful melancholic. I compare it with "Johnny Guitar" at the sea-side (but 3 years earlier), two women fighting for a man, where mad love might lead one.

The character of the female (anti-) heroine, Anne Providence, is superb, acting without compromise like a child, lost alone on her search for a own female identity in a real man´s world. She´s a quite strange movie-hero, not a funny pirate, as most of her companions in this genre, not making jokes all the time, fighting for the poor and good and only killing the stupid spanish or british soldiers or - better - sly governors, but she´s murdering all the poor prisoners of war, after she captured a ship (look careful at this at the start of the movie), she´s primitive (she can´t even read), she is desperated and she get´s an alcoholic, she looses all her friends as consequence of her obstinacy and she´s wearing rags most of the film. This film shows a pirate "hero" a little (!) bit as he (or in this case "she", but there has been a female "Anne" buccaneer, Anne Boney) might have been in brutal reality.

The film is quite short and the story is told in a breathtaking manner. Certainly, a film from the 1950s has no exciting special effects for present time viewers (the ships swim very obvious in a bath tube), but this real drama about love (that kills), trust, betrayal, revenge, hatred and sacrifice drives one crazy. Maybe, Anne is even supposed to be Judas Iskarioth and Jesus from Nazareth in one person, being betrayed by her friend (the french LaRochelle) as Jesus; after being disappointed by the friend, delivering him to a death penalty (as Judas); than getting remorse about this (like Judas, who commits suicide according to the gospel of Matthew); and in the end sacrificing herself for the rescue of the beloved enemy (as Jesus). But, even if you are not interested in this philosophical questions of guilt and atonement, the film brings a lot of (cheap) action as sword fights and burning (plastic) ships for a very short one and a half hour.

Sentiment: positive
This is right up at the top of my list of the most hysterically funny shows I've ever seen. I laughed so hard, I'm sure I missed half the jokes. This showcases Izzard as the brilliantly gifted comedian he is. What I particularly like is that he seems never to be "dumbing down" the material for his audience. His timing is impeccable and the routine is tied together as a performance piece rather than just a series of gags. Thumbs way up.

Sentiment: positive
Francesca Annis, Michael Kitchen AND Robson Green!! Wow, what a trio...OK, so this is no Anna Karenina, but it is a good love story, very well-written and well-acted by all. Even a few 'laugh-out-loud' moments mixed in with some pretty serious observations on fidelity, age bias, and parental aging/Alzheimer's issues.

Quirky guitar music added to the story as well.

While I have been a fan of Ms. Annis' since 'Lillie' (in the '70s) and Mr. Kitchen's since 'The Buccaneers' and 'Enchanted April', I have only recently discovered Mr. Green ('Me and Mrs. Jones', 'Touching Evil', etc.), making me ask the question - why had I not seen 'Reckless' until recently??!! Admittedly more of a 'chick flick' than something a man will sit through, it is perfect for a rainy afternoon's lazy viewing.

Sentiment: positive
I have had more boring stretches of 80 minutes in my life, but none are coming to mind right now. Hell Ride is based on the retro cult 70s theme that Tarantino brought back, and did right, in movies like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. The problem with Hell Ride is, unlike PF and RD, the story is garbage and so is character development. How many movies does Bishop think he can blatantly steal from? The brief case in Pulp Fiction, the air gun in No Country, etc. etc. Speaking of Bishop what the hell is he doing acting in this movie? I couldn't help but laugh at those scenes where he's standing with his pelvis trusted out, desperately trying to seem like some hardened biker. Nothing in this movie is believable. And why Dennis Hopper? Did they really need the Easy Rider motif too? I blame Larry Bishop, for his horrible plot and dialogue, not to mention his failed attempt at the leading role. Don't bother watching this movie, it's a waste of time.

Sentiment: negative
the characters at depth-less rip offs. you've seen all the characters in other movies, i promise. the script tries to be edgy and obnoxious but fails miserably. it throws in some hangover meets superbad comedy but the jokes are way out of left field, completely forced, and are disreguarded almost completely after they are cracked. the hot chick is old and has no personality, shes just some early thirties blonde chick with a few wise ass non-underwear wearing jokes who is less than endearing. the attraction between Molly (the hot chick) and Kirk (the dorky love interest) is barely communicated. the attraction in no where to be found its a completely platonic relationship until they awkward and predictable seat belt- mishap kiss occurs. afer this they are in a full on relationship and its just incredibly lame. the main focus of this movie is not the relationship, but a failed attempt at making a raunchy super-bad-esquire movie with a semi appealing plot. I could compare this to the hangover, in its forced nature. i wont get into that. i could keep going but its just pointless. just don't pay to see this movie.

Sentiment: negative