DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Altman is very proud of the fact that people in his movies talk over each other, because, he says, people do that in life. Well, people also cough, burp, go off on tangents, etc. The point is that just because people actually do something doesn't make it compelling cinema. That's one issue.

The bigger issue is that this just isn't a very clever or direct or hitting or relevant satire, in 1988 or 2004. Garry Trudeau is still living in the 1960s and thinks everyone except a small core of Republican elected officials is a 60s-style hippie liberal. I mean the guy still trots out Zonker in his strip - a character that is a complete anachronism, yet Trudeau still employs him as if he is representative of a large stripe of American youth.

Don't get me wrong. I am a conservative, but I'm not saying that this is bad because it's got a liberal bent. It could take a liberal tack and be funny and relevant, but it's not. It is mainly a vanity piece with a bunch of prominent celebrity liberals (including the odious, repellent Ron Reagan, Jr.). At times it feels unscripted, and the rest of the time it has a snarky air of self-importance and "aren't we oh-so-clever?"-ness.

Someone said that this show insists it has a cult following. I think its cult status is more wished-for than actual. I'm certain there are two or three people out there who taped all the original episodes in 1988 and still have them, but if that is the standard, then every show ever aired is a cult classic to some degree. If Tanner didn't have the names Altman and Trudeau attached, it would be another forgotten HBO production from the 1980s. Instead, it's presented as hard-hitting, incisive political commentary from guys who are at the top of their game. The reality, however, is about as far from that as possible. Pat Paulsen's presidential satire is more relevant than Tanner ever was, and he's been dead for a decade.

Sentiment: negative
This film starts as it ends and ends as it starts. What is in the middle is a collection of comedy, philosophy, music, observations, commentaries, mini stories, colour and lots more. It looks at the world and our lives and tells The Monkees story from the view of the group members themselves. It also looks at television and film and makes a visual commentary. It shocks also, with scenes of war and shows how we are just pawns in a big game. It says all this and much more, but if you don't look at it objectively you won't see much more than scenes strung together to join up the music. It's the sort of film that can never get boring because it's so cleverly done.

Sentiment: positive
If I could give it less that 1 I would. Do not bother to rent; if someone gives you the DVD burn it.

This is horrible movie making. A total waste of even digital "film". I have seen better on Youtube made by 12 year old boys. Lommel claims to have written this, if that is the case he is a classic case of someone who is illiterate in two languages. The story line is none existent, the dialog is mainly screaming, the camera work is some sort of attempted arty flairs with nonsensical cutting of totally unrelated jumps to either industrial transportation scenes or some sort of odd angry young woman rift.

I can usually follow a less than obvious plot or see the purpose in a "creative" film - I like David Lynch.

This one is either so far beyond my limited powers of comprehension I missed it or it is totally pointless. I think this is a "lets see if we can grab a title that will be coming out soon and do a weird rift on it and see if we can grab some of the bucks" con job.

I cannot see why Lionsgate even bothered with this. Totally worthless, it is so bad I will not rent any other by this same director.

Sentiment: negative
Turkish-German director Faith Akın ("Head-On" & "The Edge of Heaven") follows German musician and "Head-On" soundtrack composer Alexander Hacke of Einstürzende Neubauten to Istanbul for this documentary which delves into the modern music scene of the city from arabesque to indie rock and was screened out of competition at the 2005 Cannes Film Festival.

Alexander Hacke makes for an amiable guide as he travels around Istanbul with a mobile recording studio and a microphone in hand where he runs into and records the likes of classic rocker Erkin Koray, rapper Ceza, Kurdish singer Aynur Doğan, Arabesque singer Orhan Gencebay and pop star Sezen Aksu as well as rock bands Baba Zula, Duman and Replikas.

The director has pulled together a diverse collection of popular performers and ground-breaking acts from what was at the time a highly competitive short-list to give an eclectic account of modern Turkish music as seen from the streets of its cultural capital which will enchant and entertain even if at times it seems a little rushed and unfocused.

"Music can reveal to you everything about a place."

Sentiment: positive
I saw this at a drive-in when I was 9. All I remember are a few scenes (the ones where the main character Elle is being chased by a guy in a mask) and being scared spitless. Seeing it now, my opinions have changed. It's a pathetic "horror" film about an ophanage run by Gloria Grahame (sad) and dealing with a young, talentless girl Elle who is sent there after her mother, the town tramp, was beaten to death with a hammer (graphically shown). The film has adolescents (actually actors in their 20s) being beaten, tortured, killed, starved, attacked with meat cleavers, raped etc etc. The brutal hammer murder is the opening scene and then it gets worse and worse. There is NOTHING to recommend about this crap. The plot is stupid, all the dialogue is bad and the acting...the less said the better. How did this sickie get by with a GP (now PG) rating? It would get an R now. Worthless. One last thing...a truly repulsive twist ending suggests incest!

Sentiment: negative
The Dune miniseries opens with a "flashforward" montage of action sequences. The realisation quickly dawns that these are the *best* scenes out of the 265 minute running time, and they're not good. Not good at all. Oh dear. 

But let us not judge a book by its cover (even though that's exactly what we're being invited to do). Let's give Dune a chance to redeem itself.

Well, here's the expected watery opening on Caladan. But who's this petulant, strangely ugly man? Paul Atreides? *This* is Paul Atreides? This generic plastic puppet? And why does he look so old? What's that? The actor's only 25? Well, he doesn't *look* it, and that's way too old anyway.

But at least he has charisma, right? Wrong. Alec Newman is a stumbling, mumbling buffoon. I'm picturing him being discovered sitting in the dark in a remedial acting class because nobody liked him enough to tell him the class was over, and he's just too dumb to realise it. When your Paul Atreides has all the screen prescence of soggy toast, and an acting range from "petulant" to "blank" your production of Dune is doomed from the start.

The other actors take pity on poor Alec though, and give uniformly insipid and incomprehensible performances so that he doesn't look too bad by comparison. At least, I *assume* that is what they are doing. Because I'm charitable, you see.

To be fair, they are clearly being given no direction at all. Random gestures, blank or inconsistent deliveries, missing their marks, it's all here. This is like a master class in how not to do it.

And sure, there are more elements of the book in this miniseries than there are in the 1984 movie, but there aren't twice as many, because of all the. Pauses. To fill. Time.

But we can forgive all this because of the small budget of $20 million, or only $5 million per hour. Nobody could be expected make quality science fiction on that sort of budget.

Except perhaps "Stargate SG-1" which makes do with $1.4 million per 50 minute episode, or "Farscape" at $2 million. And frankly I'd rather watch four episodes of either of those while being punched in the kidneys, than have to sit though the travesty that is Dune the miniseries again.

Sentiment: negative
Having read the other comments on this film, I would like to share my own view that this is one tough movie to see unless you are a total Brooksophile. I am not.

When looked at by a purely objective observer, the film is an unbalanced narrative that presents us with more undistilled neuroses than are capable of being absorbed in one sitting. It is quite difficult to watch. The Brooks character (Robert Cole) is so unsympathetic and unpleasant that it is hard to relate to him---let alone root for him as he stumbles from one dysfunctional self-absorbed situation to the next. And he should NEVER do a topless scene and expect to be taken seriously in a romantic context. No man could have that much exposed foliage and be supposed to turn on a babe like Kathryn Harrold----unless, of course, he is Albert Brooks in an Albert Brooks-controlled production.

"Modern Romance" has its amusing moments-----but they are fragmentary and infrequent. More often than not, I felt as if I were on a confined journey with a thoroughly dislikable person and wishing that it would end already. It confirms the problems that can develop when too much control of a film is placed in only one person---someone who lacks the self-discipline to be able to step back from it and see what is clearly happening.

As most people probably know, James L. Brooks, who played the director in this film, is in fact what he portrayed. Six years later, he cast Albert Brooks in the very successful "Broadcast News." James showed us how Albert can shape a credible and entertaining comic performance. Albert allowed us to see James (generally not cast as an actor) do a rare comic turn in a surprisingly effective manner.

Fans of "Modern Romance" will by now have moved on to the next laudatory comment about it. To you I say-----there is enough pain in the world without having to find it in a film intended as an entertainment.

Sentiment: negative
I felt like I was watching the Fast and the Furious again, but with different actors and a little bit different plot. I will say the cars in the film are very cool. So, if you like fast cars, then you will probably find this movie mildly entertaining. I also liked Nadia Bjorlin because I've seen her from Days of our Lives. She is a really good singer, but too bad they gave her such lousy songs to sing in this movie. I mean songs about cars; not exactly what you would here on the radio. Since it is a Hollywood film, you have to give this story a little lee way, but in real life I don't think any average joe would come across such a hot girl as Nadia Bjorlin who can drive a race car, fix a car engine, and be a lead singer. It's just all very silly.

Another side note, any one willing to wager 25 million on a car race is a nut. But it was kinda of cool at the end when Natasha stops right before the finish line and screws Michael over. Priceless.

FINAL VERDICT: This movie is for car freaks. So, if you like fast cars, then I'd recommend this.

Sentiment: negative
Yes there are great performances here. Unfortunately, they happen in the context of a movie that doesn't seem to have a clue what it's doing. During the first 45-60 minutes of this all the music takes place as realistic performance. Suddenly, about an hour in, the characters who, until this point, had always spoken to each other, suddenly start singing to each other. To further confuse things, a little further in, out of nowhere, they actually do about 15 minutes of sung-through dialog, then seem to drop that idea and move on to other things, such as a number that begins in a jazz club with a drummer and two electric guitars suddenly turning into a fully orchestrated piece with a massive unseen string section. On top of all this inconsistency in how the music is used, is the composers' clear inability to actually write music in the style that is supposedly being portrayed. While the first couple of pieces do sort of mimic the 1950s Motown sound, the rest of the film is just (bad) Broadway show music. Then there's the pure silliness of snippets of a group doing a bad Jackson family imitation and Eddie Murphy morphing from Little Richard to James Brown to Lionel Richie. When he started channeling Stevie Wonder I couldn't help laughing out loud. This was clearly one of those films that make me appreciate how little time I have on earth and resent that I wasted two hours of it watching this film.

Sentiment: negative
"Wild Rebels" was probably a fun second film at a drive in movie triple feature 40 years ago. It hasn't aged very well, but it was never meant to age well; it was obviously intended to be disposable, forgettable fun from its inception. Taken on that level, it's a good example of the biker flick genre.

Several elements help distinguish it from the dozens of similar films being churned out at the same time. The 'hero', 'Rod Tillman' (Steve Alaimo) comes off as somewhat of an unimpressive 'Everyman' - he's not especially brave, tough, talented, or handsome (although he does win a fight with a tough biker gang member halfway into the film, and the girl gang member chooses to help him over her fellow gang member at the end of the film). The soundtrack is quite well done, featuring a nice 'Ventures' style bass/drum riff that keeps things moving and saxophones and brass charts that pep things up quite a bit. And although the script is pretty shallow, all the actors inhabit their cardboard characters convincingly and with a fair amount of energy.

There are plenty of careless technical gaffes: terrible 'day-for-night' scenes that occur in broad daylight, squealing tires in a swamp, fire sirens mistakenly stuck on the soundtrack instead of police sirens, a bank sign made of duct tape on a ceiling tile, a Luger that sounds like a Winchester 30-06, shotgun blasts that cut down people 100 yards away, a detective killing a biker on a 3rd floor landing from the ground with a revolver with a 2 inch barrel.

There are a whole bunch of goofy story elements : Linda (the girl gang member) disables a bank guard with a drug-filled syringe, the final shootout takes place inside a lighthouse (!), police roadblocks don't actually block roads, the police apparently never heard of ducking, and the police detectives apparently never heard of planting bugs or having their undercover guy wearing a wire.

But the plot chugs along, the cameraman knows what he is doing, the pacing in most scenes is pretty good, and there are some nice, zippy one liners and dialog exchanges here and there that keep the energy level up. (My favorite: "Man, you're messing with private stock! (ie, Linda)" So no, don't seek this one out or anything, but if a copy of the MST version should fall in your hands, you should have some good, shallow fun watching it. Vastly superior to "Five the Hard Way" or "The Hellcats" or even 'Girl In Gold Boots' (three other MST covered counter culture movies).

Sentiment: negative
The chemistry between Sally Hawkins and Elaine Cassidy was incredible. They were thoroughly convincing and genuinely likable in their roles. Imelda Staunton played the conniving Mrs. Sucksby brilliantly. Despite the fact that she was a dastardly opportunist, she somehow managed to have you sympathizing with her in the end. Rupert Evans played the slime-ball gentleman with sheer charm and snark. He was a scene stealer. The story itself was very unique, as was the manner in which it was told. The Victorian England setting featuring two lesbian lead characters was intriguing and delightful. There were some fantastic and unexpected twists and turns that really kept the audience engaged in the story. A wonderful cast and excellent story made this film superb.

Sentiment: positive
Alfred Hitchcock invented any kind of thriller you could think of:he set the standards so high that any director who makes a suspense movie will be fatally compared to him.

The main subject of this Bullock vehicle ,all the ideas,almost everything was already in Hitchcock's classic " Rope":the two students who commit a gratuitous crime, Nietsche's philosophy,and the clues that the boys disseminate ,the Master was the first to transfer them to the screen.And with an eighty-minute movie which was a technical riveting tour de force.

"Murder by numbers " does not take place in a single room,like "the rope" ,mind you.And ,what a supreme originality,it pits two cops against the evil youngsters;and ,you would never guess it,these two cops are very different:actually,Bullock plays the part of woman living like a man ,and her partner (Chaplin) is as shy as a clueless girlie.The two boys' performances are not really mind-boggling ,not as good ,as ,say ,that of Edward Norton in "primal fear" .

Well,you know ," Rope" was so good ....

Sentiment: negative
The beginning of this film is a little clunky and also confusing , but sit tight, because you are in for the ride of your life. The concept is compelling, with interesting devices utilized to tell the overall story. There are fine performances all around, with Phillip Seymour Hoffman's being the best of the cast-no surprise there. Ethan Hawke also deserves credit for a very strong performance as well. The Direction by Mr. Lumet is outstanding. The film has a Seventies feel in the respect that risks are taken in the telling of this story, but unlike the majority of trite films that populate the landscape today, this is a thriller that is sincerely based upon relationships rather than special effects or product plugs. You will be greatly rewarded for the time invested in this film.

Sentiment: positive
This film has to be as near to perfect a film as John Ford made. The film is magic, a masterpiece, the reason Ford was, well Ford. If you want to know why Ford was great this one explains it.

The photography of course is superb, black and white as black and white should be, wonderful shots, not an over the shoulder conversation in it, pure Ford, great moments, big and little. The famous ripped pants of Ward Bond. Apparently two dogs kept invading the set and fighting so Ford wanted to use them in the fighting scene, but instead of fighting one dog ran away and the other attacked Ward Bond and ripped his pants, which caused Ford no end of mirth. A whole scene around plaiting a rope. The way Ben Johnson burn then snuffs his rope, wonderful foreshadowing and anticipation of the final. Harry Carey's naive courting of Prudence. The usual ford line about being scared and not showing it. Bond's horse accidentally falling in him and its left in the film. Johnson and Bond are fantastic in that scene. Lord help any Ford actor who does not stay in character while the camera is rolling even when a horse falls on top of you.

A couple of very sweet romances, not intruding on the whole focus, two very likable leads, not to mention for the girls, the number of times the cameras focus on Ben Johnson's rather delightful backside.

Lots of old time stuntmen getting lines and roles, Cliff Lyons, Frank McGrath. Some wonderful character studies mostly of faces staring, all the villains and main stars. A set of villains to rival any group in any western.

Many many Fordian shots of faces, groups, children, women, small things happening, foals in the background (Ford seems to love images of foals), women in aprons, allowing the moment as wagons cross rivers and the camera lingers.

This is probably not a western as much as an artist's picture that happens to be set in the west.

Lucky the film was made in 1950 because it is impossible to imagine such a film could be ever made again, but then it is such a work of art that it would be a sacrilege to attempt it

Sentiment: positive
This was a really funny movie.

Every 1 in the movie was trying to be serious that is what made this movie so funny. I mean come on a shark's head on a human body. Can it get any funnier. Good job Sci-Fi keep the comedy movies coming. I never thought movies could get anymore retarded. If they keep it up they will have to rename the sci fie channel the comedy sci fi channel or something like that.

I cant wait 4 the next blockbuster movie from sci fi.

Ill be ready with a bowl of popcorn and a case of beer or a bottle of liquor and Ill be ready to laugh it up again!!!

Sentiment: negative
It feels like swedish movies are trying to become more american and I just don´t get it. In this movie the performance of some of the actors is horrible and the script is nothing special. Don´t waste your time!

Sentiment: negative
I've just seen this movie, and it made me cry. It's a beautiful drama about two brothers falling in love, and i think it's a good idea, especially for the closed-minded, to watch this one. I have come to love the short-film genre after just having seen a couple, because they have to make an impression on you so fast, and i have to say that this one definitely sat it's mark. It described some things, that i haven't ever really thought about that way, incest for one.

I have to admit that i did not care too much for the ending. Just once i would like to watch a gay-themed movie without wanting to kill myself after wards. They seem to pretty much always end in tragedy. It was 'cute' though, how that they had to be together, even if it was in death.

I gave it eight stars, and i recommend it too everyone, cause i think it gives an 'inside-look' in the world, that this movie make you enter.

Thanks for listening, enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
Okay, note to the people that put together these horror acting legends DVD-collections: I truly am grateful and I hugely support the initiative, but  have you even watched the films before selecting them as part of the collection? When I purchased the Boris Karloff collection there were several films in which the star only played a supportive and unessential role ("Tower of London", "The Strange Door"). "The Invisible Ray", however, is part of the Bela Lugosi collection and here it's actually Boris Karloff who overshadows Bela! This actually would have been a great title for the Boris Karloff collection instead! Bela Lugosi's character is quite possibly the most good-natured and earnest one he ever portrayed in his entire career and good old Karloff actually plays the mad and dangerously obsessed scientist here. "The Invisible Ray" features three main chapters. The first one, set in Dr. Janos Rukh's Carpathian castle is pretty boring and demands quite a lot of the viewer's patience, but of course the character drawings and the subject matter discussed here are fundamental for the rest of the film. Dr. Rukh (Karloff) demonstrates to a couple of eminent colleagues (among them Bela Lugosi as Dr. Benet) how he managed to capture extraterrestrial rays inside a self-manufactured device. The scientists are sincerely impressed with his work and invite Rukh and his lovely wife Diane along for an expedition in the heart of Africa. There Dr. Rukh isolates himself from the group, discovers the essential element "Radium X" to complete his medical ray and goes completely bonkers after being overexposed to the meteorite himself. The third and final act is obviously the best and most horrific one, as it revolves on a good old fashioned killing spree with ingenious gimmicks (melting statues) and a surprising climax. Karloff glows in the dark and, convinced the others are out to steal his discovery and even his life, he intends to eliminate them using his deadly touch. The narrative structure of "The Invisible Ray" sounds rather complicated, but the film is easy to follow and entertaining. The story is rather far-fetched but nevertheless compelling and director Lambert Hillyer provides several moments of sheer suspense. Boris Karloff is truly fantastic and so is Lugosi, even though he deserved to have a little more screen time. Their scenes together are the highlights of the film, along with the funky images of the glowing Boris.

Sentiment: positive
The TV guide described the plot of SEVERED TIES as thus : " An experiment on a severed arm goes awry " so right away I thought this was going to be about an arm that`s got a mind of its own as seen in THE BEAST WITH FIVE FINGERS or THE HAND or someone getting an arm transplant as in BODY PARTS . Both premises are tried and tested , or to be more accurate tired and tested so I was curious as to how the producers would approach the story . I actually thought they were making an arthouse movie like PI down to the use of B&W photography at the start of the film but the makers seemed to have tired of this approach after 20 seconds and decided to make a splatter comedy similar to THE EVIL DEAD . I`ve very little to say on this except that I disliked THE EVIL DEAD movies and I disliked SEVERED TIES and it seems really unfair that films like this use an obscene amount of rubber when the third world is crying out for condoms

Sentiment: negative
This movie looks like it was made for TV . For years I waited for some movie to be made about Rubin Carter, because I loved to see him box at the old MSG, and to see this movie was very disappointing.I have alot of respect for Mr Washington, but he was awful and boring.There is really nothing good to say about this movie except I did like the song.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was recently shown subtitled not dubbed, on Australia's Special Broadcasting Service. I thought I read here that there is sometimes an assumption that *Revenge of the Rats* is a sequel. In fact, the rats are getting revenge for something that is done within this movie, or in human history. There is no prequel as far as I know.

Now, let's get The Pied Piper of Hamelin out of the way. Perhaps this tale crossed my mind when I was watching the film, but that's all. There was the use of the word "coffers" at the end of the movie. A dazed mayor tries to justify her actions by saying "the coffers were empty". "Coffers" isn't a word you hear around much these days, unless you read folk tales to your children, as I do. Since seeing *Revenge of the Rats*, I've read two versions of The Pied Piper of Hamelin. Now I see the comparison. A metaphorical fat but literally ugly mayor promises more than the city can afford, to get rid of the rats. This is about as far as I can follow the analogy. The children are not led to a door in a mountain, with one lame boy left behind to tell of a land of winged horses and fountains, where it is always spring and everyone is always happy.

There's a lot that is quite mainstream about this movie. The romance and the resolution especially. The female characters have potentially powerful roles in society but are really quite impotent. Where this film is quite rebellious (as compared with American cinema) is that it is anti-authoritarian. The helicopter pilot is sacked by the mayor for "doing good". The mayor and local government are portrayed as corrupt and pandering to big money. Finally, it is left to one doctor in Frankfurt to solve an epidemic of a fatal and contagious disease. Apparently there is no national Infectious Diseases authority to co-ordinate things or send in back-up.

I'm not a horror aficionado, so any horror I do see is usually mingled with humour. Right from the rat in the blood bank you can see this is going to have the right balance of horror and comedy for most viewers; the huge number of rats is impressive and the horror fans seem to be satisfied too.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the most amazing stories I have ever seen. 

If this film had been directed by Larry Clark, then this story about a school shooting probably would have been shown through the eyes of the killer and whatever led that person to go insane in the first place.

Instead, the plot focuses mainly on the aftermath of a school shooting, and how it effected the victims who survived.

I had seen Busy Phillips in other films before, but her performance in this movie is by far, her best. The only other movie that I've seen with Erika Christensen is "Swim Fan" which made me almost not want to watch this film, but she turned in a very good performance herself.

This is one of the few movies I have seen that was actually able to make me cry. Trust me when I tell you, that doesn't happen very often.

Home Room is a beautiful film, and that's all there is too it...

Sentiment: positive
I recall seeing this film on TV some years ago and not paying full attention, maybe even missing the first half, so I came to the conclusion that it was dull and over rated. I decided to revisit it last night to see if I had missed anything the first time. I certainly did. This is one of the most disturbing and amazing films of all time and it has clearly had much influence on films today and probably will forever. I can't believe I thought this film was boring! 

A young Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds give the performances of their careers and are supported by Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox. This story will leave you with a sense of disgust and dread long after you watch it, it is truly horrifying. Oh, and did I mention that the theme song is great, as well? Well it is, and this movie should be seen by movie fans everywhere.

Everyone should see this movie for the experience. Just don't expect a picnic.

Sentiment: positive
Greenaway seems to have a habit of trying deliberately to disgust his viewers. This film opens with incest--and purposeless, meaningless, casual incest at that. That's Greenaway's big problem. He prefers parlor tricks to shock over actually doing anything meaningful. Technical skill isn't enough. He's just a bit perverse for the sake of perversity.

Sentiment: negative
Mani is back wit a Rathnam(gem) he manages to capture the mental trauma of a small girl searching 4 her mother they way he goes about showing the problems-in Ceylon is a treat.. .. Tis movie is a must watch.the musical score does enhance the viewing pleasure.. Rahman a find of Rathnam has given some great tunes the lyrics r apt 4 the movie the locations used for the movie are very good and makes viewing pleasant the movie starts of in a light manner moves over to capture the feelings of the girl finally goes on o shed light into the life of people in war torn places across the world this is yet another classic from ManiRathnam

Sentiment: positive
I can't say how many times that one line has made me laugh or how often I've described that scene to folks not familiar with this film. I saw it the year it was released, I was 19. I don't think there were a dozen people in that East Village theater that night. For years I thought we were the only ones who saw it. Nice to see here that others found it as hysterical as I had, and see it's lasting value despite the time gone by. Rent it, buy it or steal it.... a must see.

Sentiment: positive
THE TENANTS began as a 1971 short novel by the now deceased Bernard Malamud - writer/philosopher - examining the conflicts between Jews and African Americans in the incendiary atmosphere of Brooklyn at the time the book was written. As a novel the story was gut wrenchingly real: as transcribed into a screenplay by novices David Diamond and Danny Green (who also directs) it is more of a cerebral dissertation that gradually erupts into action in the final moments.

Harry Lesser (Dylan McDermott) is a Jewish novelist with one book under his belt but currently attempting to finish his 'newest' book ten years into the writing. Convinced that he must complete the novel in the same environment where it was started. he is the sole tenant in a condemned Brooklyn tenement owned by Levinspiel (Seymour Cassel) who constantly tries to 'buy out' Harry's lease so that the filthy dilapidated building can be demolished. Into this atmosphere enters another Black militant quasi-anti-Semitic writer Willie Spearmint (Snoop Dogg) whom Harry befriends, hides, and offers help to the nascent novelist's attempt to write about the death of all white people. Harry's attempts to help Willie lead to conflict, not the least of which is Harry's meeting Willie's girlfriend, the white Jewish Irene Bell (Rose Byrne) at a less than friendly gathering of Willie's militant black brothers and sisters. Willie and Irene are on the skids and Harry gradually falls in love with Irene and they plan to leave New York as soon as Harry finishes his novel. When Willie hears of the assignation and is further critiqued by Harry, Willie explodes and begins the downward descent of not only a delicate friendship but also a competition between writers. The ending 'reveals the slippery nature of the human condition, and the human capacity for violence and undoing'.

The actors do their best with a script that is a bit awkward but despite scripted lines that border on preaching they create believable characters. The cinematography enhances the story, keeping the mood dank and dense and primarily confined to the condemned building. The musical score appropriately makes use of the solo jazz trumpet and blues piano to underline the tension and isolation of each of these groundless characters. Though it takes some patience to make it through the cerebral ramblings, the film in the end is worth watching. At least it attempts to recreate Malamud's bizarre look at life in the big city. Grady Harp

Sentiment: positive
Though I've yet to review the movie in about two years, I remember exactly what made my opinion go as low as it did. Having loved the original Little Mermaid, and having been obsessed with mermaids as a child could be, I decided I'd take the time to sit down and watch the sequel.

Disney, I've got a little message for you. If you don't have the original director and actors handy...you're just looking to get your butt whooped.

In the sequel, our story begins with a slightly older Ariel and her daughter, Melody. My first big issue was that Eric and the rest of the crew sang. Yes, I understand that Disney is big on sing-and-dance numbers, but really, that's what made Eric my favorite prince. He was calm, collected, and a genuine gentleman that knew how to have fun. And he DID. NOT. SING.

And then there's the villain. Oh, how could we forget the shivers that coursed down our spines whenever Ursula slunk onto the screen, terrifying both Ariel and audiences around the world? Unfortunately, that gene was not passed on to her seemingly useless sister, Morgana. Nothing was ever, EVER said about Morgana in the first movie; she just pops out of nowhere, trying to steal the baby. Oh, how cute. The younger sister is ticked off and instead of going after the trident, decides to kidnap a month-old baby. Gag me.

Other than being a flat character with no sense of originality in her, Morgana was just very unorthodox. The same plan as her sister, the same minions (who, by the way, did not scare anyone. I had a three year old on my lap when I watched this movie, and she laughed hysterically.) She had no purpose being in there; I'd like to have seen Mom be the villain. I'm sure she would have done a better job than Little Miss Tish over there.

King Triton held none of the respect he'd earned from me in the first movie, and don't even get me started on Scuttle, Sebastian and Flounder. Triton was a stern but loving father in the first movie, and in the second, it's almost like he's lost his will to knock fear into the hearts of his subjects. Scuttle, once a comic relief that made everyone laugh with his 'dingle-hopper' (yes, I'll admit it; I did call my fork a dingle-hopper from time to time after that). In this film, Scuttle's all but forgotten. A supporting character even in the first, he at least added something to the movie. He was rich with a flavor the others didn't have, and in the sequel, they all but stripped it from him entirely. Sebastian was still the same, but twice as worrisome as before. Disney, don't do that. Don't even try to mess with our favorite crab. Or our favorite little fat fish, who becomes a dad and has a multitude of very annoying children. He's fat, and he's bland, and he looks like he's going to flat line any second.

The walrus and penguin were unneeded, and after a while, you just start to resent everyone. Especially Melody, who has no depth to her whatsoever.

And one of these days, Disney, I'm kicking out of my life.

If I didn't love your originals so much.

Sentiment: negative
Priyadarshan- whenever a person heard his name, his first thought would be 'comedy'. That is what this man is known for, or rather, was known for. After giving stupendous blockbuster comedies like Hungama, Hera Pheri and Hunchul, his train derailed slowly with movies like Chupke Chupke and a few others whose names I can't recollect for now. Now with hideous films like Dhol, the first word that would strike our mind after hearing his name would be- 'torture'.

Dhol is a mixture of bad, unfunny toilet jokes, somewhat of drama, poor suspense and idiocracy. The only good thing about Dhol was one or two of the scenes which were funny, though not witty, and secondly, except for Kunal Khemu and the hysterical grandma, the acting was decent. 

Speaking of the acting, I felt that Rajpal Yadav and Sharman Joshi were at the top (if you compare them with the others in the movie), then came Tusshar Kapoor, then Tanushree and at the last the two idiots mentioned above. The flaw in Kunal Khemu was that he was loud in his jokes and even in his acting. The grandma, firstly resembled a ghost, plus she was not funny at all but rather silly.

The plot was the same, seen before one. Four boys behind girls and in need of money, but with a few twists. There is a 'bad' man who is preposterously stupid and dumb. And at last, the good wins over the bad and everything is fine. The idea of having a Dhol with a tone full of cash in it is simply not witty.

The worst thing about the movie is its length. After an hour or so, you get exhausted and want to leave the theater. But being a critic, it is my responsibility to tolerated the whole two and half hours of the movie. THe movie goes on and on and the same kind of jokes are repeated again and again and the situations are perennial just at a different place.

If your mother-in-law has arrived to your house and starts mocking you at everything, then send her for this movie and have fun. 3 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
Richard Brooks excellent 1967 film of Truman Capote's novel IN COLD BLOOD is a perfect companion piece to Philip Seymour Hoffman's Oscar winning performance in the 2005 CAPOTE. They really play well together (try them on separate nights). It is unusual to find films made 38 years apart that mesh so well. These two truly enhance each other. Even though different actors play the roles of killers Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, the two pieces blend well. Only the part of the writer (played by Paul Stewart) in the Brooks films is weaker, as they give him a different name then Capote. I'd suggest watching CAPOTE first, followed by IN COLD BLOOD. It makes for a powerful experience!

Sentiment: positive
Jodie Foster, Cherie Currie (the former lead singer of the seminal all-girl rock group the Runaways in her remarkably able acting debut), Marilyn Kagan, and Kandice Stroh are uniformly believable, splendid and touching as the titular quartet, who are a tight-knit clique of troubled, fiercely loyal adolescent girls with negligent, uncaring, self-absorbed parents who do their best to grow up and fend for themselves in the affluent San Fernando Valley, California suburbs. The girls are forced to make serious decisions about sex, drugs, alcohol, commitment, and so on at a tender young age when they're not fully prepared to completely own up to the potentially harmful consequences of said decisions. Foster, giving one of her most perceptive, affecting and underrated performances to date, is basically the group's den mother who presides over the well-being of both herself and the others; she's especially concerned about the good-hearted, but reckless and self-destructive Currie, whose carelessly hedonistic lifestyle makes her likely to meet an untimely end.

This picture offers a poignant, insightful, often devastatingly credible and thoroughly absorbing examination of broken, dysfunctional families which exist directly underneath suburbia's neatly manicured surface and the tragic net result of such families: tough, resilient, but unhappy and vulnerable kids who have to confront the trials and tribulations of growing up on their own because their parents are either too inconsiderate or even nonexistent. Adrian ("Fatal Attraction," "Jacob's Ladder") Lyne's direction is both sturdy and observant while Gerald Ayres' script is somewhat messy and rambling, but overall still accurate in its frank, gritty, unsentimental depiction of your average latchkey kid's nerve-wrackingly chaotic, capricious and unpredictable everyday life. Leon Bijou's soft, dewy, almost pastoral cinematography properly suggests a delicate and easily breakable sense of tranquility and innocence. Giorgio Moroder arranged the excellent score, which makes particularly effective use of Donna Summer's elegiac "On the Radio." The top-notch cast includes Sally Kellerman as Foster's neurotic, insecure, peevish mother, Scott Baio as a sweet skateboarder dude, Randy Quaid as Kagan's rich older boyfriend, British 60's pop singer Adam Faith as Foster's feckless, absentee rock promoter father, and Lois Smith as Kagan's smothering, overprotective mother. Appearing in brief bits are Robert Romanus (Mike Damone "Fast Times at Richmont High") as one of Foster's morose ex-boyfriends and a gawky, braces-wearing Laura Dern as an obnoxious party crasher. Achingly authentic, engrossing and deeply moving (Currie's grim ultimate fate is very heart-breaking), "Foxes" is quite simply one of the most unsung and under-appreciated teen movies made about early 80's adolescence.

Sentiment: positive
i think it is great one of my favourite films as a kid and who said there songs were unforgettable they were mint i can still remember them now WORD FOR WORD the film remains a favourite with my family and my younger cousins are now addicted to it too they even know the songs this film is great and a enjoyable film for kids it has a moral lesson so don't say its not good because it shows how lying gets you nowhere ill leave with a parting comment: this film is amazing love me xxx P.s i would like the soundtrack but i cant and yes the animation is good the jokes are humorous and the action never stops.This film will go down in children's film history and in my opinion one of the only remaining safe films to show children.

Sentiment: positive
breathtaking, this is without doubt the best anime cartoon ever made. i first saw castle in the sky in the late 80s as a child and it left a lasting impression. years went by and i forgot the title of the film, and only by chance browsing on the internet i found this masterpiece again. after reading other peoples reviews and analysis I'm not surprised it has such acclaim and touched so many because it does leave an impression. a true fantasy adventure, a must see for all children and adults. its best not giving the story away so i would say watch this movie will a clear and open mind. if you have kids treat them to this i promise you they will love it. there's not much to say about this piece of art but if you've not seen it watch it and enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
There must have been some interesting conversations on the set of Eagle's Wing, with Martin Sheen straight off Apocalypse Now co-starred with the actor he replaced on Coppola's film, Harvey Keitel. A real unloved child of a movie, dating back to the last major batch of Westerns in 1979-80, it was much reviled at the time for being made by a British studio and director (conveniently ignoring the fact that many of the classic American westerns were directed by European émigrés), which seems a bit of an over-reaction.

The plot is simplicity itself, as Martin Sheen's inexperienced trapper finds himself fighting with Sam Waterston's nonosyllabic Kiowa warrior over the possession of a beautiful white horse, the Eagle's Wing, across a harsh and primitive landscape in a time "before the legends began." Aside from Caroline Langrishe's captive Irish governess, the supporting cast have little to do (Stephane Audran never even gets to open her mouth) and it is a little slow, but Anthony Harvey's film does boast terrific Scope photography from Billy Williams and a good score from Marc Wilkinson.

Sentiment: positive
I had an uncle who committed suicide after serving in Vietnam because of mental problems he experienced after coming back. So when I saw part of this movie one night on a pay-for-view channel I was intrigued. I wanted to know what my uncle went through and felt as he got ready for Vietnam. I went out and rented this movie and I have to say it is the most heart-wrenching film I have ever seen. I bought the DVD immediately after renting it. The way it pulls you in so many different directions emotionally is something I've never experienced with any other film. As far as Vietnam subject films go, I think it is the best one, although Platoon runs a close second. Besides all of that, I think it is also Colin Farrell's best performance as an actor. I like him in most of his movies but in this one he was incredible. I gave this a 10 rating because it is one of my top five favorite movies.

Sentiment: positive
'The Luzhin Defence' is a movie worthy of anyone's time. it is a brooding, intense film, and kept my attention the entire time. John Turturro is absolutely stunning in his portrayal of a tender, eccentric chess Grandmaster, and Emily Watson is spell-binding as the gentle but rebellious daughter of a highly respected Russian family. The chemistry between Watson and Turturro on screen is obvious from the moment their characters meet in the story. All in all, this movie is one of the best in-depth looks at the life of a chess Grandmaster, and Turturro and Watson add a whole non-mainstream, non-cliche feel to the film. Most people will come out of the theater thinking, and feeling somewhat touched by this brilliant look at the most unlikely of love stories.

Sentiment: positive
This movie had the potential to be a very good movie in my eyes, Nicholas Sparks is a great romance author and this movie had every chance to be just as great as The Notebook but whats sets the two apart is the notebook had a dream team of leads in McAdams and Gosling but here the balance is thrown miserably off by the inept acting of Channing Tatum

I felt a lot of the scenes were uneven purely because of his performance, a lot of the emotion in various scenes is lost because he cant act, leaving an awkward and uneven situation, Amanda Seyfried given a great performance only to have Tatum drop the ball and the mood is lost and the scene cant recover.

This story deserved to be cast right, but what it got was a pretty boy who cant act. Tatum should stick to what hes good at, movies that are more about his physical ability, albeit horrible, like GI JOE, step up, and Fighting. The less he talks the better.

Try not to think of me as a jaded hater of Channing Tatum I went in to this movie with an open mind, because I've been surprised many a time by the likes of Adam Sandler in Reign over Me. I gave the same chance to Tatum I didn't view him here as the sum of his past roles, purely just by his performance in this movie, which sadly was a letdown

Sentiment: negative
This is, in my opinion, a very good film, especially for Michael Jackson lovers. It contains a message on drugs, stunning special effects, and an awesome music video.

The main film is centered around the song and music video 'Smooth Criminal.' Unlike the four-minute music video, it is normal speed and, in my opinion, much easier to watch.

The plot is rather weird, however. Michael Jackson plays a magical 'gangster' that, when he sees a shooting star, he transforms into a piece of machinery. Throughout the film, he transforms into a race car, a giant robot, and a space ship.

The robot scene in particular is a bit drawn out and strange. I found it a little out-of-whack compared to the rest of the film.

A child is kidnapped, Michael tries to save her, is tortured and beaten, and suddenly turns into a giant robot that blows up all the bad guys. A little weird? Yeah.

But besides the bizarre robot scene, it's a very good movie, and any Michael Jackson fan will enjoy both the Smooth Criminal music video and the movie.

Sentiment: positive