DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Sad in every aspect, this poor excuse for a career boost for Connery was neither that nor the hit Warners wanted it to be. Overlong by 20 minutes and filled with embarrassing moments for everyone involved, this film and "Robocop 2" are proof that Irvin Kershner did not have any real control over "The Empire Strikes Back." Connery hadn't been in a hit since he bowed out from Bond in 1971, but this didn't bring him back at all. "Octopussy" was released several months before this film, and easily outgrossed it. Imagine that - a Roger Moore Bond not only better than a simultaneous Connery release, but outgrossing it (and compared to "Never...," "Octopussy" is on par with "2001."

The worst Bond theme song, even worse than "The Man with the Golden Gun," pointless scenes that drag on pointlessly (with the worst example being that ridiculous video game sequence - MY GOD - WHO CARES?!), and the most atrocious collection of non-talent as far as the fabled "Bond Girls" go. Does anybody SERIOUSLY think Kim Basinger is attractive in this movie? There were girls in my high school who could never get dates who looked better than she does in this. And Barbara Carrera - just plain stupid - but the way Kershner has directed her to prance around all the time didn't help her out any. She is the seedling that would become the very impressive "Onatop," which was about the best feature of "GoldenEye," but that doesn't mean anything as you laboriously struggle through this film.

Casting Leiter as a black agent was an excellent idea, but the buddy-loke interaction Connery and he are supposed to have is awfully bad. Two actors never appeared so clumsily linked together - witness the scene where, to escape local authorities, they strip to their boxers and pretend to be out exercising - I can not imagine another scene in any movie that tried so hard so fruitlessly to get a laugh.

Sentiment: negative
This movie was by far the best ever... I think whoever shot it with the Sony hand-held camera was a genius and the special effects were spectacular especially the chicken breast heart...thank goodness this movie only cost me a dollar to rent.. Also the green toxic boob discharge was amazing......I could have shot this movie with my friends in high school. .................................................................... I would not recommend this movie to anyone ... you might want to kill yourself instead of watching it..... I also feel like this was a move for porn stars trying to make it into the legitimate movie business............give it to her Larz

Sentiment: negative
Ann-Margret did the best job she has ever done in her history of film making. I felt as if she WAS Mrs. Frey. There might be one or two films of Ann-Margret's I have not seen since her film debut in "Pocket full of Miracles" with Betty Davis in 1961. I feel she has been totally under-rated in the industry. Though she was nominated for an Emmy Award for this role in "Who Will Love My Children," she was overlooked. Like she was nominated for an Academy Award for her roles in "Carnal Knowledge" and "Tommy," she was snubbed. Over all, I think everyone did a superb acting job including all the children in "Who Will Love My Children." Yes, it is a sad movie (as true stories can be), but well worth the time. Thank you.

Sentiment: positive
I get the feeling that those involved in making "Surviving Christmas" didn't put much thought into the movie. The characters are so inconsistent and the plot makes so little sense that the movie played like a rough draft of a script thrown together with little but the one-liner concept of a rich guy paying a family to let him spend Christmas with them.

Ben Affleck portrays Drew Latham, the typical Hollywood image of a wealthy, egotistical advertising executive who buys his way through life. His girlfriend, Missy, leaves him shortly before Christmas because she's disgusted that Drew wanted to take her to Fiji for Christmas, which she calls "the family holiday," and the fact that Drew has never introduced her to his family. We later find out that Drew's father left when he was 4 years old, and his mother is dead, so it's a mystery why he doesn't just say that he has no family, rather than allow his girlfriend to believe that he doesn't care about his family.

Out of fear of being alone on Christmas, Drew tracks down Missy's shrink (why? I have no idea), who suggests he do a forgiveness ritual at his childhood home. When he meets the family living in his childhood home, the Valcos, Drew offers them $250,000 to pretend to be his family, so he can relive his fond childhood memories. He gets angry when he later finds out that they have an adult daughter, Alicia (Christina Applegate), because he "doesn't have a sister," and even goes so far as to write a script for the family to follow so that they act more like his "real" family. None of this makes any sense once Drew reveals that he grew up with no family but his mother.

Also inexplicable is the character of Alicia, who is annoyed that her family accepted Drew's money, and refuses to play along with his fantasy. But for no good reason, she suddenly starts to like Drew, and in a matter of minutes goes from hating his guts to acting like his girlfriend. Drew is such a complete jerk throughout the movie that even his sad story about the lonely Christmases of his childhood evokes no sympathy; I almost wish he had finished with, "Just kidding! The real reason I don't see my family is that they all have restraining orders against me!" (2/10)

Sentiment: negative
I don't like using the word "awful" to describe any work of the cinema for which a great deal of time, effort, talent and money is spent in its creation but Zefferelli's attempt to adapt Charlotte Brontë's novel 'Jane Eyre' is a total waste of time.

The script is lacking in finesse and power, everything explained to the viewer in no uncertain terms, leaving little to the imagination. The lead actors are woefully miscast, clearly hired for their star names, and the musical score drippy and dull. Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt have absolutely no chemistry with one another at all. She is like a wet noodle, worse even than Joan Fontaine, who at least was capable of some modicum of emotional involvement in what should be a story of frustrated passion. And William Hurt acts the entire film on one tone and that tone is flat and devoid of energy. Of course the limp and vapid script does not aid any of these otherwise fine actors in their efforts to bring any whiff of life to this flick.

Joan Plowright's Mrs Fairfax is like some Disney creation who keeps popping up to sweeten scenes in which she would have been best left out. 

There is no mystery surrounding the story of Rochester's first wife. The role of the would-be second wife, played like a Barbie Doll by Elle MacPhearson, is an empty cipher.

Fiona Shaw, a very great actress, is completely wasted as Jane's Aunt, Mrs Reed. She would have been better-cast as Mrs Fairfax. Only Amanda Root, as Jane's beloved school teacher, evokes any authentic sympathy or believability. 

I saw this version of 'Jane Eyre' after viewing Robert Young's for British television, made in 1997, starring Ciaran Hinds, Samantha Morgan and Gemma Jones. There is no comparison. Young's vital, romantic and deeply moving version is like an exploding nova compared to Zefferelli's wet squib.

I will be interested now to see the 1970 version with Timothy Dalton, about which I've read some very good things on this web-site. I am amazed at how many people liked Zefferelli's Yorkshire picture book. 

About all I can say good about this film is that the house is beautiful and the cinematography vividly colored, beyond that it is a complete dud.

Sentiment: negative
As a big Dostoyevsky fan, I had always been disappointed with Hollywood's halfhearted attempts to get into the Russian romantic aesthetic -- case in point, Yul Brynner as Dmitri Karamazov. I had thought the whole problem was a poor casting decisions, but then I saw Yul as Major Surov and changed my mind. When given an intelligent script to work with, he suddenly came alive and was as noble, sexy, and conflicted as you could ever want a Neurotic Russian Officer to be! So he was a better Dmitri as Major Surov than he was as Dmitri. But that's because writer Tabori actually gave Yul, as the Conflicted Russian Officer, the kind of Conflicted Russian Officer lines that are worthy of real literature, and that have real meaning and pathos in them. For example, a propos of folk music, he says musingly, "You hear a man crying in the dark. And if you listen carefully enough, you know what he cries for. You look surprised, Lady Ashmore. Despite what you may have heard, tractors and Marxism aren't the only things the Russian cares for. There is always time for music."

Brilliant!!

Sentiment: positive
I absolutely love the first three movies, they were great! I once caught Part 5 on VHS 10 years ago, and I was disappointed. But perhaps that was because I never saw the fourth one, because they were shot back-to-back. but after finally viewing a copy today, I have to say it was no way better than number 5. My expectations weren't high to begin with, but this is cheap direct-to-video stuff, not even a horror movie, it's PG-13. The acting was not convincing, the story was rather dumb without any excitement and there were not many effects. But the main problem is that there were no kills or any gore (the annoying kid who gets killed in his car was supposed to be the highlight, but come on..)

Surprisingly, both Parts 4 and 5 were directed by Sequel-director Jeff Burr who gave us the excellent Stepfather II and Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III. I liked Puppet Master: The Legacy, even if it was nothing else than a tribute with the best scenes from all movies.

Overall, Puppet Master is very much like the Hellraiser Series: A great trilogy but forget the rest..

Sentiment: negative
You know the people in the movie are in for it when king-sized hailstones fall from a clear blue sky. In fact, the weather stays pretty bad throughout this atmospheric thriller, and only lawyer Chamberlain has the answer. But he's too much the European rationalist, I gather, to get in touch with that inner being that only reveals itself through dreams.

Darkly original mystery heavy on the metaphysics from director-writer Peter Weir. Already he had proved his skill at flirting with other dimensions in Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975). Here it's the arcane world of the Australian Aborigines that confronts that the tightly ordered world of the predominant whites. Something strange is going on inside the Aborigine community when they kill one of their number for no apparent reason. Yuppie lawyer Chamberlain is supposed to defend them in a white man's court. But the more he looks into things, the more mysterious things get, and the more interested a strange old Aboriginal man gets in him. And then there're those scary dreams that come and go at odd times.

Well structured screenplay deepens interest throughout. One reason the movie works is the background normalcy of Chamberlain's wife and little daughters. Audiences can readily identify with them. And when their little world runs into forces beyond the usual framework, the normalcy begins to buckle, and we get the feeling of worlds beginning to collide. Chamberlain underplays throughout, especially during the underground discovery tour where I think he should have shown more growing awareness than he does. After all, it's the picking up of the mask that holds the key (I believe) to the riddle, yet his reaction doesn't really register the revelation. 

Of course, the notion of nature striking back has a certain resonance now, thirty years later. In the film, the notion is wrapped in a lot of entertaining hocus-pocus, but the subject itself remains a telling one. One way of bringing out a central irony in the movie is the symbolism of the opening scene. A big white SUV barrels past an aboriginal family, leaving them in the historical dust. The terrain looks like an interior tribal reservation of no particular importance to the coastal fleshpots where industry dwells. Yet, it's also a region most likely to survive anything like a destructive last wave. Perhaps there's something about past and future to think about here.

Anyway, this is a really good movie that will probably stay with you.

Sentiment: positive
One of my favorite movies of all times, have seen it three times already. It does a great job of summing up the Isrelai walks of life, Israeli humor, and seriousness, and much of the problems Israelis go through. Universal theme of wanting to be accepted, and be accepted for who you are. Good subtle humor, and it's the charisma of the characters, that makes this movie magic, and says a lot about Isrlaei culture, and the irnonicness, contradictions, and humor, with a great actor in it, Oshri Cohen. I highly recommend it to anyone, and it's a movie perfect for practically anyone, family movie, boyfriend/girlfriend movie, and also says apart from Israeli culture, wanting to be accepted, most of all, how important family is, with all its diversity and imperfections.

Great great movie.

Sentiment: positive
Not since "8 Heads in a Duffel Bag" and the "How High" previews

have I laughed so little at something that the film makers thought

would be hysterical.

Jerry Lewis is the richest man in the world. He is rejected as 4-F

by the army, and decides to use his money to raise his own army-

of about half a dozen. He then impersonates a Nazi commander in

Italy, and eventually tries to kill Hitler. That is the description of the

flimsy plot.

This film is as funny as a heart attack. This film makes "Hogan's

Heroes" look like Shakespeare. If the money men of "The

Producers" had really wanted to lose their cash, they should have

shown this film. I cannot stress how bad this thing is.

Lewis' direction consists of two different cameras shooting the

action from two different angles, then being edited together. This

sitcom type of direction works on television, but here it is an

obvious attempt to cheat the audience. He ends most of his

scenes with a still shot, as if giving the viewer a chance to double

over in stitches before going to the next tired set up. I spent most of

the movie doubled over in abdominal agony, accompanied with

severe flatulence, over this thing.

Lewis, the director and producer, sets the film in 1943, but makes

no attempt to use period costumes or sets. Everyone wears the

latest style and has the latest interior design...for 1970. The

supporting cast is lost as Lewis goes off on his patented tangents,

which last as long as major surgery and are just as painful to

watch. When Lewis becomes the Nazi commander, he spends the

last half of the film screaming at the top of his lungs in a

performance so odious as to stink up any good will you try to bring

in at the beginning.

The final embarassing shot has Lewis and his cronies trying to

put one over on the Japanese. They wear buck teeth, squint their

eyes, and talk in a "funny" accent. It may be one of the most

blatantly racist occurrences since the internment camps. I was

slack jawed at what Lewis did through this whole thing, but that put

me over the edge. Watch for Kaye Ballard's very tasteless scene

where she tries to attempt suicide over and over again.

"Star Trek"'s George Takei has two small scenes, then wisely

drops out of the picture. This has less laughs than Mel Brooks' last

three films combined. There is nothing sadder than watching a

formerly respected comedian screw up a project so horribly, you

actually feel ashamed for them. Jim Carrey learned that with "The

Majestic," but Jerry Lewis still shows up on television once in a

while pulling the same unfunny schtick. I feel sorry for him.

"Which Way to the Front?" is cheap, unfunny, offensive, and stupid.

I feel bad for everyone involved, and anyone who must endure this.

I do not recommend it.

Though rated (G), this contains some physical violence, some gun

violence, and some adult situations. If your child shows interest in

seeing this, please consult professional help.



Sentiment: negative
NBC should be ashamed. I wouldn't allow my children to see this. I definitely would tell my church to stay away. This movie is proof as to why NBC has always been a 3rd rate network The producers, actors, and writers should get on their knees and beg God's forgiveness for making this work of fiction. There were no pirates. Noah's wife didn't parade around on the deck of the ark. The ark had NO deck. Lot wasn't even born when this event took place. Did anyone attached to this project try reading the Bible? There were more than two animals of each type taken. Read the story in Genesis. How could anyone bring this to any screen, small or large!

Sentiment: negative
New Yorkers contemporaneous with this film will recall how reflective of its time it is and how well cast and crew captured America, New York City of that era.

Norman Wexler's script delineates the different worlds the various sub groupings live in and Avildsen's direction brings out phenomenal performances all around. Peter Boyle's prodigious talent is on display as never before nor since. Clearly it is the best character portrayal the always likable Dennis Patrick ever accomplished.

What I will always remember about JOE is the feeling of having been in a virtual state of shock coming out of the theater. Knowing that what the screen portrayed was seething under the surface in neighborhoods throughout the five boroughs of the City of New York.

This film needs to be remembered.

Sentiment: positive
For the first forty minutes or so, Luna is a real pleasure to watch. The characters and their situation are interesting and the photography and locations are beautiful to look at. Then Jill Clayburgh discovers her son Matthew Barry is using heroin and the movie starts to unravel and then becomes outright laughable in its sickness.

Clayburgh asks him why and when he started using the drug and she nor the audience ever get a straight answer, which would be a bit helpful. He mentions not caring about anything but that's not right because we see clearly in the amazing early scenes that he has a good deal of interest in his mother's singing, baseball, sex, and apparently cared enough to turn down marijuana. This movie is for people who think junior gets into hard drugs because mom and dad were workaholics who missed his piano recital. I think such a dangerous and emotionally volatile drug like heroin was chosen as some sort of intellectual catalyst for the later scenes of incest. There's a lot of discussion about the mother's love for the son but it's really about Bernardo Bertolucci being pretentious. Luna would have been great as a quaint little family drama.

How old was Matthew Barry in this movie? I was more concerned over the bizarre things he had to do as an actor for this film than for anything his character was going through. ** out of ****

Sentiment: negative
I'm a huge fan of both Emily Watson (Breaking The Waves) and Tom Wilkinson (Normal) and was amused to see them upstaged by Rupert Everett (Dellamorte Dellamore) in this shockingly rather minor movie that had all the ingredients to be so much more. The too brief scenes in which he portrays a languid, infinitely entitled, worthless son of a rich Lord are spot-on and entertaining. But for a love triangle there was remarkably little chemistry to speak of between anyone. The music was annoyingly movie-of-the-week quality, and the voice-over jarring and totally unnecessary. Clearly the work of a first-time director with a small budget who either lacked or didn't sufficiently heed good advice. Too bad.

I can appreciate how the people you kind of hate at the beginning are the ones you kind of like at the end, and vice-versa, so there is some sort of character arc, at least in terms of perception. For example, Watson's character, while refreshingly honest to her husband about her feelings for another man, began to grate on me near the end, particularly when she announced to her husband that she simply had absolutely no control over her actions, and later when she simply declared that she would be moving back into their marital flat, with no asking of permission, no apologies offered. And I went from disliking Wilkinson's control freak / moral relativist character to sort of understanding him and not really wanting him to change (unlike his wife).

This movie awkwardly morphed from a whodunit to a "Love Story" or "Steel Magnolias" illness drama without sufficiently informing me of the fact, so I was left distractedly guessing what the next plot twist might be long after they had all been revealed (Was it the Lord driving the car? The Lord's dog?). The scene where the Lord visits Wilkinson and relates how brave Watson is, the bestest nurse any dying boyfriend could ever ask for, Florence Nightingale incarnate, etc. was OK until he started over-the-top sobbing like a baby. Good God! If you ask me she's just another flitty rich person with way too much time on her hands, and so she drives her hard working, well providing spouse crazy with unnecessary drama. Her screwing around was just another way to occupy her empty life; the dying guy thing was an added bonus for her as it somehow made her previous actions completely above reproach.

Look, everyone would have been better off if Wilkinson had just left her for his secretary, who seemed to appreciate him for who he was. Instead he acted like an abused dog, his open craving for his wife's affection increasing with every kick she gives him. I'm not anti PC or anything, it just didn't ring true, even after taking into account all of the harsh realities of middle age we all tend to face. The ending for me was (and not the director's intention I am certain) depressing. The movie spent the last 80 minutes convincing me that these two people just don't belong together, so I found no joy in the promise of their relationship continuing. I'm not above wanting my emotions manipulated by a story, it just has to be somewhat plausible and not hackneyed. Is that asking too much?

My score: 4/10

Sentiment: negative
Plot is not worth discussion even if it hints at corruption, murder, power and the rest of thriller related topics. Characters are interesting though sometimes. Not realistic but interesting nevertheless.

Development is slow like tea drinking ceremony. Visuals not stunning, but good enough to ease the eye strain. Good movie to watch after dinner before going to bed - nothing shocking too much, nothing overexciting. Movie sitcom style.

I liked Woody - excellent performance. Had to fight the plot inadequacy and did the job pretty good. The rest are bearable though very predictable. The whole is watchable and better than most TV shows.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this with high expectations. Come on, it is Akshay Kumar, Govinda, and Paresh Rawal, who are all amazing at their comedy, I was really hoping for a laugh riot. Sadly, that is not what I got at all...

Unfortunately, nothing in this movie really made me laugh out loud. There were times when I chuckled at one or two things, but nothing really made me laugh. In short, it was badly attempted comedy, and in a way, a bit of a Hera Pheri wannabe.

Out of the three main guys, I think Paresh Rawal's role was the most powerful. It wasn't the biggest role, but it certainly stood out more than Govinda or Akshay. Their performances were okay I guess. Nothing special, just mediocre. Though Govinda stole the limelight from Akshay in more than a few scenes. Lara Dutta and Tanushree Dutta also make appearances in this film, and both of them were pretty bad. Lara's role did not move me, or make me laugh, and Tanushree Dutta's character just got on my nerves! The music seems to be the only good thing about Bhagam Bhag. My favourite song is "Tere Bin", followed by "Afreen", which I really liked. "Signal" and the title song "Bhagam Bhag" are also worth a listen.

You either will like it or you won't. And judging by the poor comedy and lack of direction, I don't think you will.

Sentiment: negative
While it comes no closer to the Tarzan of Edgar Rice Burroughs than, say, the Johnny Wiesmuller flicks did it does have it's own peculiar, and entertaining, slant on the story. Its a well done Tarzan movie. Nice scenery, good photography, workable continuity, and a Tarzan yell that echos the one described by Burroughs. The players all perform well. The only bad points I found were, I think, related. It moves slow in places. That slow movement? Makes this picture to long. It could easily have been 15 to 20 minutes shorter, which I think would have helped with the natural flow of the plot line and the character development. But the rest of the film works well enough to carry it over these two rough spots and still leave the viewer satisfied with the flick. Short version of all the above ... Its a very GOOD Tarzan movie.

Sentiment: positive
I have no words to really describe this series.

The premise behind this concept (a highly hyperactive girl with a very eccentric personality which ends up whirling up a team of oddballs into her own rendering of the world, which after all was a creation of Haruhi, since she wants a world with aliens, espers and time travelers) is a breath of fresh air in a world ridden with repetitive anime series and non innovative TV shows.

Characters are well developed, and you will end up loving them, some less than others. The word to describe the animation job does not exist, since "excellent" would really fall short to describe how was done. There are many funny situations which either will make you smile or put you into deep thoughts. Don't fall for the impression of the first episode, since that's only the tip of the iceberg, as the novels are yet to come.

The only problem comes due to the lack of chronological order in the episodes, but you can solve that problem, no? 

Conclusion: Unquestionably, one of the best series of 2006.

Sentiment: positive
"Problem Child" was an okay movie, but did it really merit a sequel? I don't think it did. The original movie's only redeeming asset was Gilbert Gottfried, and he wasn't even good in this sequel.

I can't really put my finger on why this movie was bad. For starters, it just wasn't funny. Even when I saw this as a nine-year-old, I didn't sympathize with Junior (Michael Oliver) at all. His character came off to me as whiny, self-loathing, and perhaps most importantly, a rebel without a clue. He appeared to hate every woman that his father Ben (John Ritter) dated for the sole sake of hating them. It also doesn't send a good message to kids with divorced parents (who constitute over half children in the U.S. these days) when the one woman Ben decides to (almost) marry is a Southern aristocrat who is vindictive and who happens to hate children as it is.

And as cool as I thought it would have been to see original SNL cast mate Laraine Newman come back to the big screen, she couldn't even save this movie. I also found it strange that she was a white Southern débutante whose name was Lawanda. That sounds more like an African-American woman's name. But of course, that has nothing to do with why I disliked this movie.

I think the movie didn't work because you had antagonists you were supposed to hate, along with protagonists you weren't supposed to hate. John Ritter's character was supposed to be a good parent who tried desperately to teach his child right from wrong without conforming to authoritative parenting. Instead, he came off not only as a wimpy parent, but also one who was desperate to find a wife in a matter of days, regardless of how well he knew the woman. Did I mention this sends a bad message to children of divorced parents?

In a nutshell, the rest of the things that went wrong with this movie included Amy Yasbeck unnecessary and unexplained return to play an entirely different character, that young girl who was even more obnoxious than Junior, completely uncalled for toilet humor, and even more outrageous and outdated homophobic humor (involving the dog catchers). The movie was just a mess, and really doesn't deserve a DVD release if it hasn't been given one already. It should just rot on VHS along with all the other bad, forgettable 90's comedies.

Sentiment: negative
Thank god for this movie. It's a document of talent that, three decades later, seems even more unique and rare in retrospect.

The music is just extraordinary, packed with so much talent in writing, performance, arrangement and production that it's absolutely infectious. The lyrics and vocal arrangements are incredible. The performances by under-appreciated talents like Nell Carter and Ren Woods uplift my spirit every time I hear them. While the film may be different from the stage version, I prefer the soundtrack to the cast album, which I find truly grating and under-developed. Here the arrangements are filled out and expanded into dynamic pieces that couldn't have been produced in a stage setting.

But the music isn't the only thing extraordinary about this movie. The juxtaposition of almost hyper-realist dialog scenes (reminds me of Altman films) intercut with exuberant musical and dance numbers, really works. All the talent in this movie--directing, writing, photography, editing, music, choreography, casting, acting, costuming, art direction--merge perfectly into one of the best musical films I've seen.

I think it's amazing how much we know about the characters in "Hair," based on very little information or plot. They're not drawn as caricatures, but as realistic and very human people. We see little glimpses of where they come from, but the portrait is completed by vignettes that draw the characters to the surface through accomplished acting, directing and editing. There's an undercurrent theme of the misogyny of Berger and Hud which colors their characters by exposing their reckless macho-hippie ideology. The scene of Berger's home life reveals important details about his psychology, and the brief glimpse of Claude's home tells us volumes about his background through the simple, realistic and genuine interaction between Claude and (presumably) his father.

I love the fashion in this movie. It defiantly mixes sixties ideas with VERY seventies looks (one does have to overlook Treat Williams' hair extensions...). It's a document of how chic much of the late-seventies was, contrary to the conventional wisdom that the era was all about bad taste. Claude's beige knitted tie was a hot trend of 1979, and the hair and clothing of the singers and dancers (particularly those in white during the Central Park scene) mixes up the decades in a way that suggests the timelessness of the musical's themes. These elements merge with Twyla Tharpe's extraordinary state-of-the-art choreography in a way that enhances the artistry of both.

"Hair"isn't a film that rewards cynicism. If you come to it with expectations, then you're most likely going to be held captive by artists who aren't bound by your rules. For me, it opened my eyes and ears and spirit to an insightful and passionate musical dialog about war, friendship and family that transcends its time and is still meaningful and relevant to me to this day.

Sentiment: positive
i am working at a video store so i got to see this one for free- thank god, had i paid for it my review would be less forgiving.

well, the major idea of the film (geeky girl takes bloody revenge) isn't all that original, there are several parallels to "carrie" (playing a mean practical joke on a loser, except for one nice girl that is actually sorry for her, tamaras and carries bad family background). i still think it's a fun idea for trashy teen horror flick unfortunately they didn't take much advantage of the potentials that are here and rather put an emphasis on all the wrong things.

what worked: i liked the actress that played tamara. she looked great (when she was hot) and her catty lines were fun ("Sean can't come to the phone. he's f**king patrick!").

what didn't work: the whole wicca thing was silly. i generally prefer rational explanations (she could have ploted the whole thing with her teacher or one of the boys to get her revenge). there were a lot of logical wholes and the gore looked really bad (when the boy is cutting of his ear and his tongue- please!!!)

the whole idea wasn't bound for Oscar buzz, but i just think they wasted the comedic and the suspenseful potential they had. it was bearable but far from good!

Sentiment: negative
This is one of the classic TWILIGHT ZONE episodes, where with the simplest of situations the viewer was drawn into a seemingly symbolic conflict, only to find the solution surprising and strangely acceptable. Five figures are inside a container/prison: a Major, a ballerina, a bagpiper, a clown, and a tramp. They are certainly an odd choice of types to be in this isolation chamber, but they are all in it (nevertheless) and they are trying to figure out why they are there. What have they in common? None can figure it out. But gradually the Major organizes them into working to bet out by standing on each other's shoulders. And the Major, going to the top of the line of figures does reach the entrance, and .... I'll leave it like that, although one of the other critiques on this thread actually gives the story away.

The title seems to be suggested by SIX CHARACTERS IN SEARCH OF AN AUTHOR, Pirandello's famous play. Whether the actual purpose to the show was to spoof that play is questionable: Pirandello's characters analyze their roles and relations with each other. But the five characters here, while they try to understand their situation, are totally in the dark - they are not in the situation of the six characters in Pirandello who know their current situations. This uncertainty of what is going on allows the viewers to think it is an abstract drama.

The actors, William Windon as the Major and Murray Mattheson as the Clown in particular, give good accounts of themselves. And the conclusion, whether planned as a spoof or not, is quite effective.

Sentiment: positive
In the "goofs" section for this film there's a comment to the effect that there is a mistake in continuity where Auguste's car is seen to be parked in a different place from that seen in a previous shot in the same scene. This is incorrect. One of the views is from Auguste's flat, the other is from Valentiné's flat across the street. The whole purpose of this segment is to show how Valentiné and Auguste - who may be made for each other - almost cross paths (as happens several other times) but never quite do so, until circumstances throw them together on the ferry at the end of the film. (And here there is the implication that Joseph has manipulated things so that Auguste is on that ferry, having inspected Valentiné's ticket to see which sailing she is booked on.)

Sentiment: positive
Woody Allen has lost his ability to write dialogue or characters that are clearly distinguishable from each other. This is the case with "Melinda and Melinda," where all the characters speak with Allen's generic pseudo-sophistication and have problems and points of view that are not relatable to anyone outside of a four block radius of where Allen lives. They also share the same curious condition of being able to afford multi-million dollar Manhattan apartments that appear to have been designed by professional decorators regardless of their financial situation or what they do for a living.

The only character who exists outside of this dull mindset is Will Ferrel as the obligatory Woody Allen surrogate. Although he does not simply come off as merely doing a Woody Allen impression (like Kenneth Branagh in the god-awful "Celebrity"), Ferrel lacks the charm or charisma that the real Woody had when he was playing the part himself in his best movies.

The end result is another in a string of self indulgent bores from a once-great filmmaker who has been trading in on his former reputation for years.

Sentiment: negative
Watching this movie is like eating a banquet of nothing but meringue. It initially looks great but ultimately provides NO satisfaction--none.

The plot is a muddled mess about a toy factory and the forces of evil. So, how is it possible that with this basic plot AND Robin Williams that the movie still turns out so badly?! It's because the picture is all appearance with no substance whatsoever--much like the terrible Popeye picture Williams did at the beginning of his film career. The film must have cost a fortune but perhaps there wasn't enough money left over to hire writers who had graduated grade school.

The film is one unfunny joke that goes on and on and on and on. I really am unsure why it was made in the first place--it certainly wasn't made to provide any sort of entertainment.

Sentiment: negative
Soldier Blue is a movie with pretensions: pretensions to be some sort of profound statement on man's inhumanity to man, on the white man's exploitation of and brutality towards indigenous peoples; a biting, unflinching and sardonic commentary on the horrors of Vietnam. Well, sorry, but it fails miserably to be any of those things. What Soldier Blue actually is is pernicious, trite, badly made, dishonest rubbish.

Another reviewer here hit the nail on the head in saying that it appears to be a hybrid of two entirely different movies. What it is basically is a lame, clichéd, poorly acted "odd couple" romance - Strauss and Bergen overcoming their prejudices about the other's lifestyle and falling in love (ah, bless) - bookended by two sickening massacres which wouldn't have been out of place in a Lucio Fulci splatter flick.

There is no excuse for the repulsive, prurient, gore-drenched climax, in which cute little native American children are variously shot, sliced, dismembered and impaled in loving and graphic close-up, and large-breasted native American women are molested, raped and strung up - no excuse, that is, except box office. (The massacre itself, whilst repulsive in its misplaced intention, is very badly staged and shot; a bunch of actors lying around with bright red paint smeared on them, intercut with a few special-effects sequences of beheading/dismemberment - dismemberments, incidentally, which utilised real amputees in their filming. Now that's what I call exploitation.)

Forget all the pap you've heard (including the ludicrous commentaries that begin and end the movie) about this being a "protest", an indictment of American brutality towards the native peoples. This film doesn't give a stuff about the plight of the Cheyenne; had it done so it would have featured some involving native American characters, would have led us to get to know and to care about the nameless, faceless innocents who get slaughtered at the climax. Instead what we get is the silly white bread romance of Bergen and Strauss (lousy actors both, in this at least), with plenty of blood, guts and severed heads thrown in to attract the curious.

Which is a terrible shame, because there is a movie to be made about the Sand Creek massacre, about all of the real life massacres the US (and Britain, and all so-called "civilised" nations) have participated in over the centuries (Iraq?). this just isn't that movie.

Sentiment: negative
OK, I admit that I still associate Sophie Marceau with La Boum. That was the main reason I went to see this film. But it was so boring, that I nearly felt asleep. Sorry, but her talents as actress are not very convincing. Furthermore, this film was presented as having outstanding special effects and CGI. Yeah, for a B-Movie it is not that bad. After having seen her in "Marquise" some years ago (also a very crappy film), I thought that she would play more convincingly. But La Boum (and may be the James Bond "the world is not enough") seem to be the only good films with her. Is it her "talent", does she have a bad taste when choosing her films or simply bad luck ?

Sentiment: negative
Not really worth a review, but I suppose it's my duty to warn you all - especially since there are some pretty good reviews of this Canadian bomb floating around out there... Bad acting and a slow moving, absolutely atrociously boring 'coming of age' tale in which 3 boys lives are turned upside down when a man on the run shows up at their clubhouse in the woods. At firs the boys make good with the intruder and at one point even view him as some sort of a role model... However all this changes... and you still won't care. You will recognize Chris Penn, whose biggest cinematic impact is Corky Romano, and a young Devon Sawa, whose career peaked at 'Casper'. I was hoping for a '12 and Holding', 'The War', or 'Lie' and all I got was a waste of time. This film struggles to keep it's audiences attention and never makes an impact or maintains a note of anything remotely interesting.

Sentiment: negative
This guy is a real piece of work. An angry, immature boy in a grown man's body, packing all the charisma of a rock, he goes around to places most people would only wish to visit and does his best to be as miserable as possible.

Give this job to someone else who actually appreciates it.

I could go down an endless list of all the stupid things this guy does in his "episodes," though I'll just highlight the worst: Crete. While the locals are putting up seaside picnics in his "honour," this clown has the gall to act like a petulant, spoiled child. He complains about everything, including the fashion sense of the people who live there. What an imbecile.

When he went to Sweden, he spent at least five minutes feigning incredulity at a bunch of chefs (who probably had better things to do than talk with some dimwit American, like work) because they didn't think Abba was horrible. Everywhere he went, he brought up Abba. This is the kind of talk you'd hear from 13-year-olds who watch too much MTV.

When he was in New Orleans, he got upset that a certain restaurant had better-tasting fries than his, so he "accidentally" spilled some wine on them in order to ruin them. What a strange, emotionally unstable person.

The worst of it all are his clumsy voice-overs, where he attempts in vain to add some kind of perspective on a situation he was too thick and ignorant to appreciate. He tries to use all these "big" words in order to sound like an author, but he's really just a pretentious hack whose lack of awareness has convinced him he has something to say. That, by the way, is probably the one good thing about this joker's TV show. It goes to show you, no matter how inept you are, as long as you take yourself seriously enough, the world will as well.

Then there's the way he speaks with local guides whose English is obviously only rudimentary. He'll use vocabulary any writer--as he believes himself to be--would instinctively know will most likely not be understood by these people. Does he care? No. Self-important schmucks like this Bourdain clown do not use language to communicate; they use it to make themselves look important.

Mcg13jthm's review on this same page is a perfect example of the kind of mind Bourdain attracts--that of a low IQ social misfit. Observe how the reviewer attempts to justify Bourdain's sociopath nature with simple-minded, childish excuses that hardly make sense. "Bourdain may complain but he goes through 'a lot' and, not only that, he was 'forced' to do this show but is trying to redeem himself." A dolt attracts dolts, and reading Mcg13jthm's review should let you know perfectly well whether or not you are the kind of person who'd enjoy this utterly useless, pointless show.

Finally, to add a bit of "fairness" to my diatribe, I admit Bourdain would have been momentarily amusing had I met him in a bar. But as a TV host of a travel show whose purpose is to show the viewer the beauty of other places and cultures, Bourdain is a miserable, abject, hopeless, grim and depressing failure.

A failure.

Sentiment: negative
I found this to be a tremendously disappointing version of a charming story. I thought the acting was on the whole quite good. Reginald Owen did chew the scenery, as mentioned by others, but I found him moderately amusing in his brief scenes. TCM has made an Ann Harding fan of me, and I thought she was fine as usual here. Jessie Ralph had a field day as the old battleaxe, ordering everybody around, and Frank Morgan, as always, played Frank Morgan with a twinkle.

For me, the problem was the script and/or the editing--transitions were awkward, motivations were murky. The movie was just too darned short to convey the story properly! I felt completely let down, particularly since I had such fond memories of the later version.

Sentiment: negative
This is a extremely well-made film. The acting, script and camera-work are all first-rate. The music is good, too, though it is mostly early in the film, when things are still relatively cheery. There are no really superstars in the cast, though several faces will be familiar. The entire cast does an excellent job with the script.

But it is hard to watch, because there is no good end to a situation like the one presented. It is now fashionable to blame the British for setting Hindus and Muslims against each other, and then cruelly separating them into two countries. There is some merit in this view, but it's also true that no one forced Hindus and Muslims in the region to mistreat each other as they did around the time of partition. It seems more likely that the British simply saw the tensions between the religions and were clever enough to exploit them to their own ends.

The result is that there is much cruelty and inhumanity in the situation and this is very unpleasant to remember and to see on the screen. But it is never painted as a black-and-white case. There is baseness and nobility on both sides, and also the hope for change in the younger generation.

There is redemption of a sort, in the end, when Puro has to make a hard choice between a man who has ruined her life, but also truly loved her, and her family which has disowned her, then later come looking for her. But by that point, she has no option that is without great pain for her.

This film carries the message that both Muslims and Hindus have their grave faults, and also that both can be dignified and caring people. The reality of partition makes that realisation all the more wrenching, since there can never be real reconciliation across the India/Pakistan border. In that sense, it is similar to "Mr & Mrs Iyer".

In the end, we were glad to have seen the film, even though the resolution was heartbreaking. If the UK and US could deal with their own histories of racism with this kind of frankness, they would certainly be better off.

Sentiment: positive
The film portrays France's unresolved problems with its colonial legacy in Western (Francophone) Africa through the befuddled and complex psychoanalytical prism of a young woman, France (herein symbolically representing her nation). It is an often engaging and challenging portrait of a young woman's desire to come to terms with a traumatic moment in her past, in particular, and a nation's desire to reach out to the 'other' it once 'owned' and moulded. This is reflected in the way in which it centres entirely around the notion of travelling (or being in transit) from the present to the past; remembered realities to undeniable contemporary political and economic actualities.

The characters all play a symbolic, albeit a limited and unconvincing role. France, meant to be a visual as well as a totemic representation of contemporary French society, leaves one indifferent to her plight as she seems still to be imbued with the same naiveté she enjoyed as a child-in fact as a child she seems more in possession of her reality. The rest of the rag-tag ensemble is just forgettable. The black Africans are, to say the least, offencive impressionistic portraits of former colonised peoples now colonised by the director's poor handling of her material. They are no more than a dark and moribund backdrop against which the blythe-like France wonders seeking a world she never knew, and hoping for one that can never be found in Cameroon.

Sentiment: negative