DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
"Don't bother to watch this film" would be better advice, if you like Marilyn Monroe in her other roles. This was a huge disappointment considering the great cast, not just Marilyn.

The story was just nothing, certainly nothing like described on the VHS box, of course. There simply was no suspense, precious little excitement and too many dull spots, most of them trying to show why "Nellie" (Monroe) was so messed up. This was not a good role for Monroe, even though I didn't need to see this character to know she could act. "Some Like It Hot" alone was good enough evidence for me. But this role just didn't fit her and it's no surprise it wasn't one of her more popular films.

It's also too bad a film had the waste of the talents of actors like Richard Widmark, Anne Bancroft, Elisha Cook Jr., Jeanne Cagney, Donna Cocoran and others. 

Summary: it's not entertaining and entertainment is the name of the game.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is perfect for families to watch together. It is a great film and it deserves more credit. The special effects are stunning and spectacular. Everyone who has children should share this with theirs.

Sentiment: positive
Franco Rossi's 1985 six-hour Italian mini-series of Quo Vadis is a very curious beast, creating an absolutely convincing ancient Roman world shot in matter of fact fashion (very few long shots, no big cityscapes), but playing the drama down so much in favour of allusions to classical literature and history that the story constantly gets lost in the background.

The shifting structure (much of episode one is played out via voice over letters) and lack of narrative urgency makes the full six-hour version simultaneously demanding and undemanding, and certainly far too often uninvolving, but it has something going for it. The two main strengths are the characterisation of Petronius (a thankfully dubbed Frederic Forrest, whose own voice would almost certainly flatten his dialogue) as a man whose spent so long looking for an astute angle to survive court life that he's become incapable of experiencing emotion, and Klaus Maria Brandauer's unique take on Nero as a wannabe actor whose every move and action is calculated on how his 'audience' will receive it. Elsewhere, Max Von Sydow briefly appears in a few episodes, being rewarded with the show's most impressive and genuinely moving scene here he encounters a child as he attempts to leave Rome. It's the kind of thing the show could do with more of, but it seems all too often to flatten every potentially emotional, inspiring or exciting moment under it's relentlessly low-key direction.

Unfortunately Francesco Quinn makes a staggeringly anonymous hero, blending in with the walls and coming over less as a Roman officer than that quiet, slightly gormless but inoffensive guy who works in the same office as you who never says much at office parties - you know, the one who you think is called Dave or something like that. The budgetary limitations are very visible once its Meet the Lions time for the Christians and Ursus battle with the bull is so determinedly low key that it just passes over you before the show just abruptly loses interest and suddenly ends.

Not a trip I can particularly recommend, I'm afraid, but if you do embark on it it's one not entirely without its small rewards.

Sentiment: negative
Dr Stephens (Micheal Harvey) runs a mental asylum. He has a different approach to the insane. He conducts unorthodox methods of treatment. He treats everyone like family, there are no locks on the patients doors and he lets some of the inmates act out their twisted fantasies. He lets Sergeant Jaffee (Hugh Feagin) dress and act as a soldier and Harriet (Camilla Carr) be a mother to a doll, including letting her put it to bed in a cot. Dr. Stevens is outside letting Judge Oliver W. Cameron (Gene Ross) chop a log up with an axe, it turns out to be a bad move as once Dr. Stevens back is turned the Judge plants the axe in his shoulder. Soon after Nurse Charlotte Beale (Rosie Holotik) arrives at the Sanitarium having arranged an interview with Dr. Stevens about a possible job. She is met by the head Nurse, Geraldine Masters (Annabelle Weenick as Anne McAdams) and is offered a trail position. She gets to know and becomes well liked among the patients. However things eventually start to turn sour, the phone lines are cut, an old lady named Mrs. Callingham (Rhea MacAdams) has her tongue cut out and she starts to get a strange feeling that things just aren't right somehow. Then, one night all the Sanitariums dark secrets are violently revealed. Produced and directed by S.f. Brownrigg this film has a great central idea which builds into a cool twist ending, but ultimately is a bit of a chore to sit through because of it's low budget restrictions and a rather slow script by Tim Pope. There are just too many long boring stretches of dialogue by the inmates, not a lot really happens until the final twenty odd minutes. The film has no real visual quality as it's set entirely in the Sanitarium and it's grounds which is basically just a big bland house in the middle of nowhere. There's no graphic gore in it, a few splashes of blood here and there and thats yer lot. There's a bit of nudity, but like the gore not much. The acting is pretty strong, especially Holotik and Weenick. The photography is flat and unexciting and I can't even remember what the music was like. The twist ending is great, but it just takes far too long to get to it. A film that had a lot of potential that was probably held back by it's budget. OK I guess, but I think it would have worked a lot better if the story had been turned into a half an hour 'Tales form the Crypt' episode.

Sentiment: negative
This is a film that has to be taken in context. It shouldn't be seen unless you've seen the first two films, but the sort of people seeing this film will probably own the box set, or at least know someone who does. And you shouldn't go in expecting Blade Runner; the films budget doesn't stretch quite that far, and it's a far more zany ride.

Essentially the film is a science fiction set in future Yokohama (shot in Hong Kong as is obvious) about a society where it's illegal to procreate. Sho Aikawa reprises a similar role from Dead or Alive 2 and Riki Takeuchi is a detective for the birth control cops. Takashi Miike isn't one to give all of his reasons to you on a platter, but one can assume that the law on procreation (enforced by giving people the pill) is there because of over population, increased life spans and so forth. Interestingly the dialogue in the film is mainly Cantonese, whilst Sho and Riki (who play their parts, as always, brilliantly) speak Japanese, and a few speak English. People have criticised the English as being wooden, but I found no problems with it. Also, another person found the homosexuality themes throughout the film to be offensive; said that Takashi Miike was anti-homosexual. He may very well be (and not all artists have to be left-wing), but I can't see this film as an insult to homosexuals. He merely calls back philosophies of ancient Greece when homo or bisexuality was more common. The film contains similar proportions of action-packed and poignant moments to DoA 2, although in this film the action is more martial-arts based, and are done in a very good Hong Kong style. The cinematography in the film is very nice on the eyes, with symmetrical shots, a good control on colours to give the air a polluted look, and it's nice to see uncut, lengthy shots that are so rare in Hollywood these days. Basically, there's a lot to like in this film: a good sense of humour, exciting action and some very beautiful moments. It's a great finish to the series. You could criticise it for being a bit cheesy, but isn't that part of the charm?

Sentiment: positive
As someone else has already said here, every scene in this film is gem. Most films are lucky to have one scene that is perfect, but director Jewison hit a home run every time. The cast got just the right take on the excellent script, and in addition, Dick Hyman's musical settings of the opera and the other music made for a perfect match. Hard to imagine how they kept the precise mood going throughout the long production of a film. The comedy is subtle (mostly), and the camera-work mirrors every little emotional inflection of the narrative. Cher is such a comedy natural, Vincent Gardenia (who I know mostly through his Frank Lorenzo role on All in the Family until I saw him in this and then off-Broadway in the 80's)deserved far greater stardom than he ever got, and Aiello's hapless loser are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to giving kudos to this tremendous cast. Has Jewison ever written about this film?

Would love to read it. Hard to figure out why the average rating here at IMDb is so low...

Sentiment: positive
I saw this version of Hamlet on television many years ago, and have seen every other version since, whether television or movie. However, this is the one that remains the truest depiction of the story for me. Most excellent Derek Jacobi made Hamlet *real* for me. Before I saw this version, Shakespeare was simply gibberish to me and I never tried to understand the Elizabethan English. Having seen Jacobi's Hamlet several times not only increased my knowledge of literature, but also that of my family. I promptly checked the play out of Library and read it, and poured over the accompanying recording. Jacobi's rendition attracted me to a deeper knowledge. And yet, I have been searing for a video of it for years and years to no avail. It gets a very high rating from viewers. Why, then, has it not been released on video? It's the only Hamlet that I'd invest in...

Sentiment: positive
Starts off with Fulci playing a version of himself, writing down some ideas for how people could die. Followed by a fake-looking cat eating what is presumably a brain. The copy I watched was dubbed in English, which I always hate, but I was particularly disappointed not to get to hear Fulci in his own voice.

Fulci is in a sort of feverish state working on his latest horror movie. His stomach turns when he sees things that resemble effects from his movie, and he starts to hallucinate that he is witnessing acts of horror. He visits a psychiatrist, who hypnotizes him and unfortunately he does not have his improved mental health in mind. I was reminded of the psychiatrist played by David Cronenberg in Clive Barker's Nightbreed (1990). The shrink in this one is played by David L. Thompson, who is pretty bad. Probably a real life friend of Fulci's, he has a big toothy grin when he kills people, though this may be Fulci's black humor at work which I thought was pretty poor too.

The movie is composed of a lot of clips from Fulci's movies, either as if Fulci is on the set directing them, watching recordings on TVs, or witnessing the acts. I've never been too much of a fan of clip shows in TV series, and I also think things like Charles Band's Full Moon Entertainment cutting their old films down and putting three such cuts together as new anthologies are pretty lame. I guess they need to make money?

The shrink in Cat in the Brain makes reference to the theory that violence in movies begets violence in real life. One of Fulci's co-workers talks about having a documentary crew follow Fulci to see what his life is like. Lots of self-referential stuff like this.

In the end, some of the characters sail away on a boat named "Perversion."

Sentiment: negative
Jude Law, Nicole Kidman, and Renne Zelwigger. They are all horrible. Especially the star, Jude Law. 

It's directed by the same guy who did the english patient and its based on a best selling novel of a man risking all to get back to his lover but unlike the wonderful English pateint, this movie sucks. It is really bad.

Worst dialogue ever. "But we've only know each other for a moment" "But they were a thousand moments, like diamonds in a bag"

or 

"In some cultures you just have to say I marry you 3 times and you're married" lovey-dovey-"I marry you, I marry you, I marry you, I marry you..."

I'm ashamed I sat through it all. 

the whole movie was awful, horrible....Ughh no words, I'm sick.

1/10 (the one is for the really loud bullet sounds, the sound crew did a good job)

Sentiment: negative
Purportedly made back to back with 'Erotic Nights of the Living Dead' with the same cast and setting but for certain this one does not have Laura Gemser. Much derided by all I rather like this movie. Sure enough the storyline and dialogue are codswallop, but this is so beautifully filmed in such a marvellous setting and I actually like the hardcore. I find it at once naturalistic and exotic, and that doesn't just mean there is a black girl and some limp penises! I find the numerous and varied sex scenes very believable, even if two are set upon a tree trunk at the edge of the ocean with the waves constantly splashing around. The creature does not deign to appear until half hour before the end and is, it has to be said, a disappointment. Still, in the time remaining he manages to kill off all but two of the expedition and in the case of the girls having sex with them first (or afterwards in at least one case!) and this film is not as slow as some maintain. Moreover there are some fine moments of sexploitation, not least the lady scientist and her urge for two 'natives', and the glorious finale when the two survivors speed off in their boat, gaze back at the island they have escaped from, and find there is still time for one last act of copulation.

Sentiment: positive
I thoroughly enjoyed A Man Called Horse when it was released in 1970, but Return played like a typical sequel. Everything about it -- budget, script, plot, casting, and acting -- was inferior to the original. Gale Sondergaard as Elk Woman, an elder of the Yellow Hand tribe, looks nothing like an Indian, and neither do half of the other "Indians," who were played by Italians, Mexicans, and Latinos with cheap wigs. And the old guy who played the chief acted more like a fat old squaw than a fierce leader of warriors. He even used the bow like a woman! Finally, Richard Harris, who did such a superb job in the original, seems to be coasting this time around. I guess he couldn't resist the easy paycheck he got for reprising his role as Horse.

To be fair, there are some interesting moments in the movie, such as Horse's undergoing a painful purification ritual to "find his vision" and rally the Yellow Hands against their Indian enemies and white oppressors, but on the whole, Return is uneven, boring, corny, and predictable -- just like most sequels.

Sentiment: negative
This is apparently the second remake of this film, having been filmed before in 1911 and 1918. And, in so many ways it reminds me of the later film, A YANK AT OXFORD. Both films concern a conceited blow-hard who arrives at one of the top schools in the world and both, ultimately, show the blow-hard slowly learning about teamwork and decency. In this film, William Haines is "Tom Brown" and his main rival, "Bob" is played by Frances X. Bushman. And, in a supporting role is Jack Pickford--always remembered as the brother of Mary. Of these three, Pickford comes off the best, as the sympathetic loser who becomes Tom's pal--he actually has a few decent scenes as well as a dramatic moment just before the Big Game! All the standard clichés are there and the movie, because it was done so many times before and since, offers few surprises. However, it is pleasant film and is enjoyable viewing.

In my opinion, for a better silent college film, try Harold Lloyd's THE FRESHMAN--it's football scenes are frankly more exciting and Harold is far more likable and sympathetic than the annoying Tom Brown. THE FRESHMAN is probably the best college picture you can find from the era. Another reason why BROWN AT HARVARD is a lesser picture is that William Haines played essentially the same unlikable and bombastic character with the same plot again and again and again (such as in WESTPOINT and THE SMART SET, among others)--and if you've seen one of these films, you've seen them all. Well made, but certainly NOT original! And, because it is just a rehash of his other films, anyone giving the film a score of 10 is STRONGLY advised to see these other films.

4/25/08==I just checked and saw this this small film was the highest rated film on IMDb from the 1920!! Talk about over-rated! There are dozens and dozens of better films--how this film got to be #1 is anyone's guess.

Sentiment: positive
Having first watched the movie at 14, I remember being struck by hearing the word 'govno' (sh*t) for the first time ever on the then-still-Soviet TV (I bet it really was *the* first time in history  anyone wants to add this to trivia section?:)... What an open boldness and freedom, I thought! As years passed, I was more and more impressed with the movie and the incredible acting, but my feelings turned to a kind of mixture of enjoyment from a genuine piece of cinematographic art and a bitter realization of a concept diametrically opposite to my 14-y.o. impression: helplessness. There's an air of inevitable catastrophe looming throughout the movie, of primitive degenerate tide (embodied by Sharikov) sweeping the lives of the finest minds advancing humanity in their areas... It's a great metaphor of Russian revolution in general, inspired by intellectuals ashamed of their superiority and hoping to 'upgrade' the lower classes, only to unleash the power of mediocrity and get swallowed by it... An extremely fine and talented piece, wrapping a truly sad idea in a brilliantly satiric and elegant form. Symbolically enough, the movie itself marked the end of the Soviet movie traditions era before the Hollywood tsunami had knocked them over  for good, it seems, judging by most current Russian movies (most of them labeled 'blockbusters' in prerelease!!! trailers and posters:).

Funnily, that 'govno' episode is in no contradiction to Efenstor's comment above re rude language of current generation... From what I've already said it could seem that this might be the movie that showed the way for this, but it was not. A mild word by current standards, it was way too rude back then, and just rude enough to show the true nature of all Sharikovs... BTW, re Efenstor's lament, it is sooo naive to juxtapose being intellectual and using rude lexicon, especially for Russian speakers, where a single cussword could have meanings that take sentences in translation! But I join in regret that ALL the meaning in today's teenager's talk may be expressed by cusswords. I feel that this is the bigger problem than their choice of the medium that's most efficient for the task:) Well, this movie and the book are great food for thought that might change them, or anyone who might have a luxury of watching it.

Sentiment: positive
I read all these reviews on here about how this is a such a good movie. Jeez, this movie was predictable and pretty boring. The acting was below average most of the time, especially by Mckenna. I haven't seen a more pathetic attempt at making someone "badass" in a movie. Oh man, this movie was a letdown. I also read somewhere this might be a cult classic. I know there are followers of the director, but this movie was just a average piece of film.

The script was lame, for the most part the acting was lame, this movie was lame.

Oh and pray for the guy that used to be in Cheers. He looks really bad. 

The best actor in this movie was probably the guy in Office Space, and he was only in this movie for about 8 minutes.

4/10

Sentiment: negative
Fast paced and funny satire about that original "reality TV", the soap opera. The script by playwright Robert Harling is packed with one liners and ridiculous situations. The best of them is the climax, a live broadcast that quickly deteriorates into bad improv and a brain transplant. Keven Kline's murdering of his lines, due to not wearing his glasses, is hilarious. "Her brain will laterally explore within the next few houses." The brilliant cast is on the same page as Kline. Sally Field, Elizabeth Shue, Cathy Moriarty, Robert Downey Jr., Whoopi Goldberg, Teri Hatcher, Garry Marshall, and Kathy Najimy are all perfect. It is a treat to see a cast click like it does in this movie. This is a classic that has somehow slipped through the cracks.

P.S. The score by Alan Silvestri is an added bonus. It fits the soap opera with it's flamboyant and melodramatic air.

Sentiment: positive
I've seen this movie twice with my teenagers who love it. This one ought to be a cult fave! The best line, "Your dress is deeply cool!" says the Prince to Cinderella. Kathleen Turner shines as the stepmother. I also like the 1950's era cars and motorcycles. The melancholy prince is a great departure from the typical swashbuckler. He tries to stay cool, but fails to hide his love for the fairy-tale princess-to-be. Her slipper is not glass (truer to the original story), but Cinderella loses is nonetheless but gets it back from the heir to the throne. My only complaint is that it is not shown more and seems to be almost impossible to get. Hopefully Blockbuster or Amazon will start stocking this one sometime soon.

Sentiment: positive
Lock Up Your Daughters is one of the best high-spirited comedies I have ever seen.

It is misunderstood since it lacks the "social commentary" values that many films of the day (1969) required to be successful.

The characters are over-the-top satires of everyday people and played to that purpose by all of the actors.

Christopher Plummer shines especially bright as Lord Foppington, a noble with hair too big to fit in the door.

The plot involves the usual 18th century stuff; mistaken identities, thwarted romances, corrupt government officials, and jokes at every turn.

It answers the questions: What happens when 4 rambunctious, eager to party sailors are on leave in a small British coastal town? And, who do they get involved with and how does it all turn out?

Despite doing poorly at the box office, it has great costumes, excellent music(based on the Mermaid Theatre musical of the same name), great,lively acting and sets that are obviously authentic.

That it has never been released on either VHS or DVD is truly a shame, since so many bad movies are released every day.

Sentiment: positive
I am appalled at how bad this film is. As a pastiche of early 20th century Hollywood artistes it sets a new low - even past The Moderns or (gasp) Cradle Will Rock & I never thought I'd see a film worse than those 2. Granted they were about a slightly different milieu & period. Nevertheless the intents & results were distressingly similar.

First off there's the horrible casting: Eddie Izzard as CHAPLIN? Excuse me? Peter, did you owe this guy something? Jennifer Tilly as Loulla Parsons?? Kirsten Dunst as Marion Davies??? Holy smoke, these people don't even begin to try to capture the look or sound of the period they are purportedly depicting.

Well, Last Picture Show was a decent film, but this thing is a disaster & the rest of Bogdonovitch's pics haven't been much better. Guess rubbing up against Welles & Hitch & Ford wore off a long time ago. Still good for hosting TCM though.

Sentiment: negative
The Guidelines state that a comment must contain a minimum of four lines. That is the only reason I am saying anything more about Tomcats. Because after all, my one line summary really says everything there is to say. There is absolutely NOTHING remotely entertaining in this film.

Sentiment: negative
If people didn't know who Barbra Streisand was before this,...(is that POSSIBLE?)...they sure knew who she was after!

This show went on to win 5 Emmys, & stands out as one the best things Streisand has ever done.

It's made up of 3 acts....

ACT I...Barbra singing standards from room to room, filled with musicians, including a segment where she is a little girl again,all ending with a splendid version of her signature song,(at the time)..."People".

ACT II....A musical tour of Bergdoff-Goodman,while Barbra Sings poverty songs..it's better than it sounds...

ACT III.....The best part, Just Barbra,musicians,& some great songs,like....."Happy Days Are Here Again",& a "Funny Girl" medley....

all in all, a great part of television history,made by one of the greatest performers in the world!

Sentiment: positive
Just watched this early Bugs Bunny (first time he's named here) and Elmer Fudd cartoon on the ThadBlog as linked from YouTube. This was Chuck Jones' first time directing the "wascally wabbit" and as a result, Bugs has a different voice provided by Mel Blanc than the Brooklyn/Bronx one we're more familiar with. In fact, according to Thad, he's channeling Jimmy Stewart (his "shy boy" type personality of that time). Anyway, after Elmer buys his pet, Bugs goes all obnoxious on him by turning the radio real loud, pretending to die after his master repeatedly throws him out of his shower, and saying "Turn off those lights!" whenever Elmer catches him in his bed. Even with the different voice, Bugs is definitely his mischievous self and I laughed myself blue the whole time! According to Thad, there was an additional scene at the end of Elmer just giving the house to Bugs after the hell he went through but that was probably considered too sad since he suffers a mental breakdown at that point so it's just as well that cut scene is lost. Anyway, I highly recommend Elmer's Pet Rabbit.

Sentiment: positive
This little film brings back a lot of memories, both fond and foul, of what can and does happen when one is a working musician. The not so pleasant accommodations for the band, the management of the venue jumping up and down telling you what to play, the sheer ecstasy of the applause.............. Far from being farcical it is, in fact, very accurate in the way it depicts musicians, professional and otherwise, who have travelled a great distance to perform a season of gigs at a venue. There are those times when everything goes perfectly, there are those other times when you immediately start to miss your partner and wonder what the hell you are doing this far from home. In the end you have to make the best of it because there is no other way out.

Sentiment: positive
How i deserved to watch this crap??? Worst ever. The acting was awful, when i read that this was a comedy i expected at least to smile, once - or twice, but.... If you are wiling to loose hour and a half of your lives, this is the right movie. I recommend just look in a wall or something, anything else but watch this "film". Yoy can even watch a documentary (if you are a guy) about pregnant women, i guarantee it will be more entertaining :)The actor in this one (i forgot his name) is not that bad, and i am surprised how hi accepted the role. Anyway "I want someone to eat cheese with" is the right film if you want to punish someone.

Sentiment: negative
Tim Meadows has to be the most underrated of SNL's recent cast members. What initially was a low-brow look at a sleazy gigilo develops into a thoroughly entertaining 90 minute run, albeit, still low-brow. Don't pop this one in expecting beautiful cinematography or Oscar-worthy performances. Walk into it expecting brilliant silliness with Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell doing what they do best - making the audience laugh.

Leon "The Ladies' Man" Phelps is a naive, likable radio sex show host who knows very little about anything except the ways of the wang. As a gifted Ladies Man, he lays waste to the wives of countless saps who've banded together in order to hunt him down. The director does an inspired job of guiding the actors on a comedic tryst which makes up completely for the lack of plot development. How much plot would one expect from an SNL skit? While some scenes are a little off the mark, for the most part, Meadows' one liners and absurd sexual comments hit the funny bone squarely. For instance, in one scene, Meadows compares himself to Mother Theresa, but for bonin'. Sure it's crass, but don't we all in the privacy of our homes get a chuckle out of his advice to an entire city for "doin' it in the butt"? In another scene, immediately after a heartfelt kiss with the female lead, he suddenly remembers the name of his would be benefactor, a woman he slept with years ago. He stands up in front of the woman who's obviously fallen for him and proclaims that "The Ladies' Man is back," to her obvious chagrin.

Billy Dee Williams hits the ball out of the park as the bartender/narrator. Will Ferrell, the repressed homosexual, rounds out solid performances.

See this movie if you're into adult humor. If not, stay away with extreme prejudice.

Sentiment: positive
This movie is a real thriller! It was exciting from shortly after the start till the very end! If you are a real suspense nut, this is the movie for you! The characters were very well developed and the scenery was beautiful. The story was very well written, similar to some others I have seen, but quite different in several ways. A must see!

Sentiment: positive
I remember the original series vividly mostly due to it's unique blend of wry humor and macabre subject matter. Kolchak was hard-bitten newsman from the Ben Hecht school of big-city reporting, and his gritty determination and wise-ass demeanor made even the most mundane episode eminently watchable. My personal fave was "The Spanish Moss Murders" due to it's totally original storyline. A poor,troubled Cajun youth from Louisiana bayou country, takes part in a sleep research experiment, for the purpose of dream analysis. Something goes inexplicably wrong, and he literally dreams to life a swamp creature inhabiting the dark folk tales of his youth. This malevolent manifestation seeks out all persons who have wronged the dreamer in his conscious state, and brutally suffocates them to death. Kolchak investigates and uncovers this horrible truth, much to the chagrin of police captain Joe "Mad Dog" Siska(wonderfully essayed by a grumpy Keenan Wynn)and the head sleep researcher played by Second City improv founder, Severn Darden, to droll, understated perfection. The wickedly funny, harrowing finale takes place in the Chicago sewer system, and is a series highlight. Kolchak never got any better. Timeless.

Sentiment: positive
This appears to be two movies spliced into one. In the first, ZaSu Pitts is a renegade in a small town. She wants to help the romantic life of Marjorie Woodworth. OK: I'd never heard of her before either. But she and Pitts are in both parts of this concoction.

Before we know it, Pitts is no longer Miss {Polly. She is Emmie. I had to rewind to see if I'd fallen asleep somewhere. I hadn't. She no longer in a small town but on her way to the title Honeymoon destination.

The movie has some cute moments. The first part is better, with roles for what seems to be every third-rate character actress working in Hollywood at the time.

And what of Ms. Woolworth? She sounds a little like Betty Hutton. She sounds a little like Marie Wilson. She's pretty, certainly. But she's no comedienne.

Pitts often was used in very small roles. Here she has the largest role. She's always fun, though this movie made me wonder if a little of her doesn't go quite a long way. (As a comic. When she was a tragic actress in Von Stroheim silents -- "The Wedding March" and Greed" are the two I have seen -- she was brilliant.)

Sentiment: negative
This movie had reminded me of watching the old black and white movies with my dad. More true to life characters looking for love, being in love, and loosing it. Old story fresh view. Larenz Tate was so Cary Grant in style as the character may have been in a clumsey situation, but the actor kept him from looking silly and like a cardboard cut out. Nia Long has always been a favorite of mine she is sweet even when she is tough, almost like a Kathrine Hepburn. This is one of his best work and showing that he is better than always playing an angry black man

This movie is a classic, superb acting, well written, a real love story set in Chicago, what more can you ask for?

SuperB Black Love Story

Sentiment: positive
Lorenzo Lamas stars as some type of CIA agent, who captures some exotic beauty named Alexa, kidnaps her daughter and forces her to fight her former employers. O.J Simpson is also on board to provide a dash of acting credibility for the not so talented ensemble. I must admit i'm not a fan of Lorenzo Lamas, or his movies. He stinks. However when compared to O.J Simpson and Lamas' comatose wife Kinmont, Lamas seems like ah, Jean-Claude Van Damme. I only saw CIA because of the renewed interest around the O.J Simpson trial, you see because if your parents had cable and the extra channels, you couldn't escape this movie. in 1994 you could go to an Amish community and some moron would have this playing in their portable TV. The movie itself is a collection of lame action sequences and would be intrigue although the shock value of O.J Simpson jumping after fireballs and exchanging would be one liners do provide some unintentional humor. Also where was Bobby Knight and Kobe Bryant to make this a complete camp classic? 

* out of 4-(Bad)

Sentiment: negative
What a HUGE pile of dung. Shot-on-video (REALLY crappy camcorder, NOT digital) pile of garbage. It is without a doubt, the stupidest thing ever made. The fact that this crap was actually released is completely asanine. Everyone who sees it will become stupider for having watched it. Seriously. I felt like it killed several brain cells after I watched this garbage. The positive reviews of this a$$crap were obviously made by the "filmmaker" (and I use the term VERY loosely) himself and/or his family and friends because no normal person with the intelligence of a squirrel would honestly like this waste of life. Trust me, stay the hell away from this video. You'll thank me for it. Avoid it like herpes.

Sentiment: negative
It is hard to describe this film and one wants to tried hard not to dismiss it too quickly because you have a feeling that this might just be the perfect film for some 12 years old girl...

This film has a nice concept-the modern version of Sleeping Beauty with a twist. It has some rather dreamy shots and some nice sketches of the young boy relationship with his single working mother and his schoolmate... a nice start you might say, but then it got a bit greedy, very greedy, it tries to be a science fiction, a drama, a thriller, a possible romantic love story, fairy tale, a comedy and everything under the sun. The result just left the audience feeling rather inadequate. For example, the scene when the girl(played by Risa Goto) finally woken by his(Yuki Kohara) kiss, instead of being romantic, it try's to be scary in order to make us laugh afterwards... it is a cheap trick, because it ruin all the anticipation and emotion which it was trying to build for the better half of the film.

I have not read the original story the film is base on (it is the well-known work by the comic-book artist Osamu Tezuka is famous with his intriguing and intricate stories) I wonder if all the problems exsist in the original story or did it occur in the adaption? It is rather illogical even for someone who is used to the "fussy logic" of those japanese comic-book. For instance, how did Yuki Kohara's character manage to get to the hospital in an instant(when its suppose to be a long bus-ride away)to run away Risa Goto's character in front of the tv cameras right after he saw her live interview on the television?

There are also some scenes that is directly copied(very uncreative!) from other films and they all seem rather pointlessly annoying ie. the famous "the Lion mouth has caugh my hand" scene from "the "Roman Holiday"

The film tries to be everything but ends up being nothing... it fails to be a fairy tale and it did not have enough jokes to be a comedy... and strangely there are some scenes that even seem like an unintentional "ghost" movie. Nevertheless, one should give it credit that it has managed to caputured some of the sentiment of the japanese teenager.

It is by watching this film I have a feeling that there might be some films that should have come with a warning label that said "this film might only be suitable for person under the 18 of age", it would have definitly been on the poster of this film.



Sentiment: negative
This is easily the best of the summer camp movies. In fact, few of the others are even fair, let alone anywhere near as entertaining as this one is. 

The film is just simply out to have some good, clean, fun. Many people who went to summer camp as kids will see that it is presented here faithfully to the way it usually was, but with slapstick comedy mixed in. Bill Murray, as the chief counselor of the camp, Tripper, leads a fine ensemble cast, and is usually at the center of the riotous nonsense. Tripper has great one-liners throughout, usually broadcasting his jokes as pseudo-announcements over the camp's public-address system.

Several great supporting actors played the campers and counselors to build a myriad of fun and interesting subplots, all the while sprinkled amongst the many incidents of camp hi-jinx. Spaz (Jack Blum) and Fink (Keith Knight) were two characters particularly well done. The adventures (and misadventures) of these two are hilarious. Each has classic lines, and they are characters you like and root for. Look for Spaz in the scene of disco dance pandemonium.

The girls in the story are realistic characters, too. They're not dumb, naive, freakish, oversexed, nervy, or any of the other overused, abominable teen character stereotypes. Kristine DeBell, Kate Lynch, Cindy Girling, and others make these characters believable. 

The requisite pranks abound, usually at the expense of camp director Morty (Harvey Atkin). The nature of these pranks start at outrageous and progress from there. However, with all the silliness going on, Tripper and the others have their serious sides. For example, Tripper befriends a shy, lonely kid, Rudy(Chris Makepeace), and takes him under his wing.

The story culminates with a sports competition against a rival camp. It's a great "root for the underdogs" finale. When the chips are down, Tripper's motivational "It just doesn't matter" spiel is inspired, and one of the best moments in the movie. And get ready to root: "Spaz. Spaz! Spaz!!!""

Sentiment: positive
It has a bit of that indie queer edge that was hip in the 90s and which places an explicit sell-by date on the visual style. Characters are uniformly apathetic and farcically deadpan. Street hoodlums in Greece wear new clothing out of the box without creases or stains. They all appear to visit the same marine hair dresser. All uniformly exhibit the same low IQ when making their dispassionate underground business deals. When things go wrong its all because they aren't real Greeks - they're pastoral sunshine boys caught in a strange night city world. Makes a big whine about disaffected immigrants but never bothers to actually investigate the problems with Russian/Kazakh/Albanian cultures. If Giannaris had the proper perspective on this project it might have made a wonderful Bel Ami production. The fleeting glimpses of toned boy-beef is the only spark in this generic small-time mobster programmer.

Sentiment: negative
Renee Zellweger is radiant, but the rest of this movie just does not work. It's like a hamburger-jello-mold salad--interesting idea, but who ever thought it would actually work on film? I like director LaBute's two previous films--they were mercilessly honest and chillingly funny. This film manages only to be merciless and chilling--with jumbo dollops of the cutes. (As high concept, think: the Doris Day-Rock Hudson movie Sam Peckinpah might have made--now reduce your expectations to match the present, mass-produced state of Hollywood.) That actors as talented as Freeman, Kinnear, Eckhart, Vince, and Janney ALMOST make their scenes come alive is a testament to the immensity of their talents to rise above material that just does not cohere. I would have found Freeman's corny, feel-good-about-yourself speech at the end of the movie funny (in a Lynchean way) if it weren't for the nagging suspicion that this unconvincingly tacked-on moral is meant to be accepted seriously.

Sentiment: negative
Last night, I saw A PECK ON THE CHEEK (KANNATHIL MUTHAMITTAL with English subtitles). Oddly, it was 137 minutes long--slightly longer than the time listed on IMDb.

At first, I found myself losing interest in this film because the rather confusing style of filming really lost me. The context for what was occurring was missing and I am glad I stuck with it. At the beginning, a young couple is married and shortly after the wedding, war breaks out in their native Sri Lanka and the lovers are separated. Months later, the wife is very pregnant and on board a refugee vessel heading to India. At a refugee center, you see the lady about to give birth--after which the titles to the film finally are revealed.

The entire focus of the film then changes completely--to a young girl who is about to turn 9 in Madras, India. You see her in her home and she talks to the camera about her life and family. None of this seems that interesting or important and you wonder what is missing--what about the lady who was about to give birth? My wife and I debated this and we finally guessed that this little girl was actually the child of the lady in the first part of the film. Somehow or another, she had been adopted and was talking about her life with mom and dad #2--though she did NOT realize these people were not her biological parents.

Soon after this, the parents revealed themselves to be total idiots (one of the complaints I had about the film), as they decided to tell this very young girl the truth about her parentage AND tell it in a way that left the girl emotionally screwed up and confused. Despite a stupid decision and telling her in the worst way, the parents made up for this by agreeing to help her find her biological mother. Seeing the impact all this had on the girl and parents (particularly the adoptive mother) was impressive to watch and sure sparked my interest.

Unfortunately, Sri Lanka has been involved in a very, very long and brutal civil war with Tamilese militants, off and on, for three decades. The family's decision to look for the mom back in Sri Lanka was indeed noble, but also a bit stupid at times--as they took so many risks and nearly got killed again and again by just blindly jumping into the middle of a war! This was all exciting and captivating but also left me wondering about the sanity of the adoptive parents--first you tell her she ISN'T your biological child and now you take her in the middle of a WAR ZONE!!! Sure, the kid really wanted to meet her biological mother, but this really was stupid in hind sight. If it were me, I might have been tempted to pay an unemployed actress to play the part and fool the kid--thus avoiding being in the middle of a war!

Despite my complaints, the film was lovely to watch and was very rewarding. Far from perfect, it sure hits an emotional home run. Also, while I expected this because I have seen several Indian films, many Westerners will be a bit surprised by the vivid songs that seem to come out of no where--this IS standard in most films from India--including those made in Bollywood (Bombay) and Tamilwood/Kollywood (Madras).

Sentiment: positive
this is what you would get if you allowed a 10 year old (manic American) to write a story of a moon trip. Absolute garbage with no redeeming qualities Maybe it held some fascination in the 3D dept. but as a narrative and entertaining animation it held nothing to make wasting an hour and a half worth while. Save your time and money and watch BOLT instead

Damn. Not enough lines, yet I feel that sums it up... well, I agree with an above review - this is like a cold-war propaganda story. Maybe it would have been more interesting if they had made it about the flies uncovering the hoax of the moon landing, or if the flies had died in the first minute. BTW - why were all the main character flies deformed? - not one had the full compliment of limbs!

Sentiment: negative
I was about thirteen when this movie came out on television. It is far superior in action than most movies since. Martin Sheen is excellent, and though Nick Nolte has a small part, he too provides excellent support. Vic Morrow as the villain is superb.

When Sheen "tests the water" in his '34 Ford (COOL) along the mountainous highway it is spectacular!

The ending is grand.

I'm disappointed in the low vote this received. I figure the younger generations have more interest in much of the junk that is coming out these days.

Good taste eludes the masses!

Sentiment: positive
I just saw this cartoon for the first time and recognized the caricatures of famous black entertainers... Cab Calloway, Bessie Smith, (not Josephine Baker or Sophie Tucker, who was white), Thomas "Fats" Waller, Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, Stepin Fetchit (notwithstanding) Louis Armstrong and the chorus girls are out of the famed "Cotton Club" in Harlem. True... stereotypes are there, but this was the way it was... and these cartoons were meant as adult entertainment at your local cinema before the main feature. 

Harmann & Ising cartoons tended to be more "cutesy" and more upscale, (after all... we are talking about M-G-M) than the standard animated short done over at Warners, Paramount, Universal, Fox, RKO or lowly Columbia. Even Disney's very early Mickey Mouse had loads of barnyard humor before Uncle Walt cleaned him up just before he went "Technicolor".

Disney had some cartoons with caricatures of black entertainers as well... for example, 1937's Silly Symphony "Woodland Cafe". But we have to remember that these films are part of a certain time and place. 50 years from now... clips of the Simpsons, Family Guy, and South Park will be also scrutinized, analyzed... and even vilified by future viewers.

Sentiment: positive
I watch a lot of movies - DVD, features, and classics, you name it. The night I watched JERICHO MILE, my wife (who had ordered it on the internet) said she remembered it from when she was in high school, that it had stayed with her all of these years. Somewhat reluctantly I sat down (with our daughter & son), and was riveted from the opening sequence to the end titles. We all were. 

She, who remembered the original, and our kids (18 and 16) who had no idea what the movie was about couldn't believe it. Our favorite scene? Bar none, when peter Strauss so passionately bangs his fist down and says, "i'd do it AGAIN!". It didn't advocate violence because it was a defense crime, but evoked such intensity we couldn't believe it...when his fellow cell mates gave him their food in support of his efforts, there wasn't a dry eye in our house.

Someone please make more movies like this one. UNBELIEVABLE!!

Sentiment: positive
I watched this movie because I like Nicolas Cage and well, I found it strange and completely pointless... so I decided to poke around a little bit and got my hands on the 70s copy of it. Wow. what a difference. The original one was way better. I'd like you all to know it did originally actually make a statement, it's existence did have a purpose. It was really the Christian public expressing their fear of paganism. If you dig deeper into it it also makes comments on life but I don't want to go into details, just, simply put, if you were disappointed and you'd like to know what it SHOULD look like, feel free to watch the 70s version, a little dated, but A lot better.

Sentiment: negative
This is easily the worst Ridley Scott film. Ridley Scott is a wonderful director. But this film is a black mark on his career. Demi Moore and Viggo Mortensen, both totally miscast in an overaggressive film about a girl going to the army. Very stupid. And there is never one scene that is convincing in any way. It is really not difficult to make a film such as this. Everything the crew makes could have been an idea of just anybody. The writers didn't have much inspiration either; many foolish dialogs that made no sense at all; and some brainless action. I strongly recommend to stay away from this rubbish. I hope that the many talented persons involved in this project realize this type of film does not deserve their attention, and that in the future they will work on more honorable and more intelligent movies than this useless mess.

Sentiment: negative