DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
"The seventh sign" borrows a lot from "Rosemary's baby" and "the omen" (it actually blends the two stories).Even its title recalls Bergman' s "the seventh seal" .

Nevertheless,it begins well enough,with all the omens scattered on the whole earth,and in parallel ,a -seemingly- distinct plot with Moore's husband trying to save a poor boy (who killed his parents who were brother and sister)from death penalty.This time,both Christian and Jewish religions are called to the rescue (even the Wandering Jew is involved),which makes the lines sometimes unintentionally funny (Have you ever been to Sunday school? But they taught me that God was love!).The best scene IMHO ,is the short dialog between priest John Heard -who does not seem to take things seriously ,too bad he was not given a more important part because his laid-back acting is priceless-and the young Jew.

Demi Moore probably registered the same desire as ex-husband Bruce Willis :saving the world.She does not save the movie for all that.

Sentiment: negative
A remake can be successful. An adaptation can be successful. It isn't relevant whether its a remake or an adaptation.

A good movie is a good movie and a poor movie is a poor movie, regardless.

Sarkar, I am afraid, was a very poor movie. First of all, just by making characters look dangerous, or macho, they don't bring in an aura about them.

What was so brilliant about Nagre(Amitabh Bacchan's character) that we should have been in aura of his 'power' and what showed the 'benevolence' of the character? Nothing.

This fact was said by a commentator and Amitabh kept giving facial expressions. Now Amitabh can give brilliant facial expressions but why should it mean any thing if there is no history or story to go with it.

There wasn't proper charecterisation of the characters who worked under 'sarkar' too. Just because a man had spectacles, why should we assume he is wise. ] The flow of the movie was generally dullbecause scenes from the Godfather were created (like the policeman slapping Abhishek Bacchan), the older brother being killed by Abhishek (like Fredo was killed on instructions of Pacino) but too much was sought to be packed into the movie with too little story and depth to go with it. That was indeed the problem.

If you try to pack 3 hours of intricate detail like a Godfather in 2 hours and that too with few dialogues, what you get is a highlights show from a cricket match, never making the full impact watching a full match will make.

Sentiment: negative
"Rich in Love" is a slice-of-life film which takes the viewer into the goings on of a somewhat quirky Charleston, SC family. Highly romanticized, beautifully shot, well written and acted, "RIL" washes over you like a summer breeze as its plotless meandering breathes life into the characters such that at film's end you'll feel like an old friend of the family.

A wonderfully crafted character-driven film from the director of "Driving Miss Daisy", "RIL" is a somewhat obscure little "sleeper" which will appeal most to mature audiences.

Sentiment: positive
How can Barry Levinson possibly assemble white-hot comedy talents Ben Stiller and Jack Black, the gorgeous Rachel Weisz, old pro Christopher Walken and still deliver such a humourless stinker?

Stiller and Black are friends until the latter invents a spray to make dog mess vanish and becomes a conspicuous consuming multi-millionaire.

The premises is thin but sound enough in the right hands to have been a springboard for some great bitching between the two stars but all concerned overplay every hand, every chance they can.

Stiller and Black are simply not funny for way too much of the time, Weisz looks sensational as always but is criminally underused and, with the exception of Walken as a batty barfly who urges Stiller's character to take revenge, it's a turgid trudge to the end of this strained farce.

Sentiment: negative
The 1986 TV movie of The Spirit was a pilot for a possible series. However, Spirit creator Will Eisner did not like the film and thus no series was produced. I thought it was a very entertaining film and captured the spirit (sorry) of the comic with a modern twist. I'm sorry it didn't materialize into a series. Sam (Flash Gordon) Jones was a perfect Spirit. Nana Visitor was a nice Ellen Dolan and of course would later go on to Star Trek:Deep Space Nine years later. Maybe with the release of Frank Miller's big-screen version of The Spirit, more people will be able to see this rare gem of Spirit history. It seems that when Hollywood makes a film from an already established character or idea, someone will inevitably seek out previous versions of the property and release it to video in order to make a few dollars. When Antonio Banderas donned the mask of Zorro, we were able to get earlier versions of the masked hero on DVD, such as the great Alain Delon version of the 1970s (although all copies I ever saw were badly edited). Heres hoping someone will release the TV adventure of The Spirit to DVD soon.

Sentiment: positive
So often a band will get together for a re-union concert only to find that they just can't get it together. Not so here. This concert is just shear brilliance from start to finish. These three musicians obviously got together beforehand and plotted and planned what was needed to ensure this was not just a nostalgic bash to satisfy someone's ego. This is obvious from the start, before they even step on stage. Many faces in the crowd weren't even born when these guys first performed. From the first song they capture that old magic that was Cream, 3 men, 3 instruments, no fuss. Clapton, by his own admission, said he had to stretch himself for this concert because there were no keyboards, synthesizers etc so we get to see him at his best. Ginger Baker demonstrates why so many drummers today, speak of him as some sort of drumming guru. Jack Bruce just great. They really managed to put together a piece of magic that will stand the test of time for many years to come. This one's a 10 for me.

Sentiment: positive
Alexander Nevsky (1938) is a brilliant piece of cinematic propaganda. The people of Russia are threatened by two major enemies, the Mongols and the Teutonic Knights of the Holy Roman Empire. In ordered to unite the warring, rival Princes in the Russian Realm, Nevsky takes charge and fights the lesser of two evils (The Teutonics). This influential film was copied many times over and it still holds up to this day. The soundtrack by composer Prokiev and Eisentstein's direction are a sight and sound to behold Many years later, John Milius used many of the movies scenes, set pieces and costumes from this film and incorporated them into Conan.

One of my favorite lines from Conan was taken from this movie. "It's not the strength of the iron in a weapon but the strength of the person that wields it is what matters." The comparisons are unmistakable. The armor that James Earl Jones and the Leader of the Teutonic Knights wear are virtually identical. A true tribute paid from one director to another.

I give Alexander Nevsky one of my highest recommendations. The movie plays like the final Act of Richard III. The presence of Prince Alexander on the screen is truly amazing.

Sentiment: positive
Criminals Perry Smith and Richard "Dick" Hickock believe Mr. Clutter of Holcomb, Kansas keeps a large supply of cash on-hand in a safe.On November 15, 1959 at two a.m. they end up murdering Mr. and Mrs. Clutter and their teenage son and daughter.After a little police investigation the two men are found and sentenced to be hanged.In Cold Blood (1967) is directed by Richard Brooks.Now, I haven't read the Truman Capote novel this movie is based on, so I can't make any comparisons.The movie does a brilliant job telling of those horrific events that actually took place.Robert Blake is excellent as Perry.Of course, Blake had the murder case of his own a few years back, being accused of murdering his wife.He's free now, but we still don't know the truth.What ever that may be, he's still a very fine actor.Scott Wilson does remarkable job as Hickock.John Forsythe is terrific as Alvin Dewey.Paul Stewart is very good as Jensen.Jeff Corey is marvelous as Mr. Hickock.Same thing with Charles McGraw who plays Tex Smith.John McLiam portrays Herbert Clutter, Ruth Storey is his wife Bonnie, Brenda Currin is the daughter Nancy and Paul Hough is the son Kenyon.Great job by each of them.There is much to remember from this film.Let's start from the lighter side.It's pretty great when Perry wants to go hunting for gold in Mexico and says to Hickock: Remember Bogart in Treasure of the Sierra Madre?" And Blake himself was in that movie as a boy! And it's a fun moment when they, giving a ride to that boy and his granddad, collect bottles and turn them in for refund money.Those darker moments are the most haunting ones.The flashback sequence, where you see the murders happening, is extremely terrifying.When Perry goes to kill the girl, Nancy last, and she says "Oh, please, don't"...The brutality of man, it's impossible to explain.Then the hanging scene.First there goes Hickock and then Perry, first talking to the minister.In the last image of the movie we see Perry hitting the end of the rope.Sure movies,and books may try to sympathize these villains.Especially Perry's character is someone you could feel sorry for.He thinks of his mom, and dad who he hates, but still loves.But it doesn't change the fact both of these men these actors portray are brutal murderers, who don't feel sorry for anybody.They go to this house and murder an entire family, in cold blood.How could you sympathize these people?

Sentiment: positive
Dude...I liked Buffy and Angel as much as the next sci-fi freak...but this is too much. The worst lead actress EVER!! Not even David "Hot Pants" Boreanaz is able to save this crap. No wonder I NEVER watch Fox  it blows!! We totally gave it a chance, and it continued to suck. We watched four or five painful, agonizing episodes. I want to kill the execs at the network SO BAD! Why is money being spent on this drivel?!?! I don't get it and I don't support it and you should NEVER waste your time watching this show...unless you LIKE it when your EYES BLEED FROM THEIR SOCKETS! 

Crap. Crap. Crap.

Sentiment: negative
The Thumb idea isn't such a winner the second time round. ThumbTanic wasn't as good as Thumb Wars for a number of reasons. Primarily, I think, Mr Oedekerk had far less to work with in the Titanic send-up. Unlike Star Wars, the movie Titanic hasn't (yet?) become a cultural myth and there are far fewer references to be made which will resonate with the audience.

In ThumbTanic, the holes are filled by one-off jokes which don't really seem related to anything. For example, the hero's insinuation that the heroine isn't clean during the "jump off end of ship" scene - it's not funny. Rather, you just think to yourself, "Did I miss something in the original movie?". There were too many of these type of baseless jokes (cf. arachnid).

By contrast, the send-up of the smarmy ship's designer had meaning and was funny. Also very funny was the send up of the bloke in the movie who wanted to go "faster" as a maniac running around demanding *everything* be "faster" including the sinking of the ship and himself being the first to die. These sort of jokes meant something in the Titanic context and lent meaningful humour to Thumbtanic.

The thumb "media", the faces and the voices, are still amusing. The props and sets and the CG animation are worthy of appreciation. Overall, although ThumbTanic proves that quirkiness alone won't work, this filmette still keeps you amused and chuckling to the end.

Sentiment: negative
My comments may be a bit of a spoiler, for what it's worth. Stop now if you care enough....

Saving Grace should have been titled "A Paper-Thin Excuse for Old British Women to Get High On-Screen." This film is dumb. The incidental music is an annoyance as are the obvious, hackneyed tunes that sporadically pop up to comment on the narrative ("Spirit in the Sky," for example - Oh, I get it!) This is basically a Cheech and Chong movie made credible by its stodgy English setting and Brenda Blethyn's overwhelming power to inflict emotion on an audience using her voice alone. I could literally hear the folks over at High Times magazine receiving their jollies over the enormous "buds" that litter this picture. Worst scene? Easy. Brenda attempts to peddle her illicit wares on the street of London in a blaring white dress-suit. Not funny. Not original. Not interesting. Not a good movie. The 7.2 rating is the result of zealots over-voting. Don't waste your time...

Sentiment: negative
I honestly had somewhat high expectations when I first began to watch this movie, but it turned out to be probably one of the most boring films I have ever seen!

First of all, the pace is incredibly slow, so it seems much longer than it is (and it's not short).I'm sure when Jane Austen wrote the book, she made it several pages long, filled it with description, and didn't intend for people to read in in one day, or it might drag and lose it's appeal, which "Emma" most certainly did. Now "Sense and Sensibility" had this flaw of a slow pace, but at least it had lively lines to make up for it, as well as some good performances!

That brings me to flaw #2, which is of course, the acting. While I don't happen to care for basically anybody involved in this film, I am sure they are capable of good work, but I didn't see much of it in this movie. It was like people were trying too hard to be witty, too hard to be "upper-class", too hard to be British (well, some of them), so they all just came off as a bunch of actors and not as people.

#3. The cast, as I said, seemed only like actors, and not actually like the people they were playing. Maybe that's a good thing, because the people they played really weren't all that nice. Why did everybody like Emma, for example? Sure, she was nice to the rich, handsome people in front of them, but she was an awful gossip behind their backs. If her friends were "ugly", then she didn't even bother to go behind their backs. So, why is this girl so great? Why do people have to tell stories, "just to make her laugh?" Of course the snob couldn't even do that right. I have enough problems with Gwyneth Paltrow as Gwyneth Paltrow, and her "Emma" did not exactly change my opinion.

Well, it's easy to see that I did not care for this one. I'm sure it's a lovely book and all, but some books are really not meant to be made for the big screen, and "Emma" is one of them.

Sentiment: negative
The story idea behind THE LOST MISSILE isn't bad at all, but unfortunately the story does get a bit dull towards the middle and the overuse of stock footage as well as poor special effects sink this film to the sub-par level.

The film begins with a missile heading towards the Earth. In a panic because it's about to strike the Earth, the Soviets manage to deflect the object. This isn't necessarily good, however, as this seemingly unmanned craft has a vapor trail that destroys everything in its path AND the ship is now in a low orbit over the planet. In other words, with each pass it makes, a swath of death follows--one that could potentially kill us all!! So, it's up to the good scientists of the US (led by a very young and hardly recognizable Robert Loggia) to formulate and plan to save us--and especially save New York that is in its immediate flight path! Unfortunately, they aren't able to save Ottawa (I've never been there, so I can't say whether or not this is a big loss) but thanks to good old American know-how, they are able to eventually destroy this harbinger of destruction!! 

So, as you can see, the story idea isn't bad and rather original. But, so many old clips of fighter planes and guys manning radar scopes gets a bit old and it seemed like padding. Overall, a decent but hardly inspired film that extreme fans of the genre may like--all others, see it at your own risk.

Sentiment: negative
This TV show is possibly the most pathetic display of crap on TV today. Horribly predictable, obscene usage of slow motion photography, cheesy story lines. Chuck Norris is an abomination who should never have been allowed to be filmed in anything. The way he chooses to make each episode into a public service announcement is really annoying. His acting sucks so bad that it makes a person cringe with embarrassment. I will give the series some credit though...it does get entertaining at times, but not enough for it make any difference. With all the negative points this series has, i still prefer it over reality TV, it can't really get any more worthless than that.

Sentiment: negative
Ronald Colman plays a famous Broadway actor who has begun to lose his mind and sense of identity. After years of playing a wide range of parts, he can't remember who he exactly is--who are his roles and who is the self. And, much more serious, he begins to see and hear his play even in regular everyday life. So, since he's currently playing in "Othello", he begins to act jealous and suspicious--just like the title character. Ultimately, it leads him to the depths of insanity and murder.

I saw this film years ago and liked it. I just saw it again and loved it. Now perhaps some of my enthusiasm is because I have always liked Ronald Colman and this is a great triumph for him--and for which he earned the Best Actor Oscar. And, looking at the competition that year (Gregory Peck for GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT, John Garfield for BODY AND SOUL, William Powell for LIFE WITH FATHER and Michael Redgrave for MOURNING BECOMES ELECTRA), I think Colman was a very good choice, as he stretched from his usual comfort zone and did a much more demanding role.

Now I noticed that one reviewer hated this film because they hated Shakespeare--and this took up about half their review talking about their dislike for him. However, this film isn't really about Shakespeare, and it doesn't matter at all if you dislike Shakespeare. I am no huge fan of Shakespeare, but marveled at the small portions of the play that Colman re-enacted--though, as I said, this is NOT a really movie about Shakespeare. Instead, it's a wonderful portrait of an actor losing his mind and mixing his stage role with reality. It could have been ANY play, though "Othello" was an excellent choice because of the murder scene--which gets acted out for real later in the film.

Overall, a very clever film due to a lovely script--with some overtones of Film Noir. Fortunately, the acting was terrific also, as Colman had excellent support from Signe Hasso, Shelly Winters and Edmond O'Brien (who was particularly good--he played his part just right). And, considering the great George Cukor was directing, it's no wonder it's a wonderful film from start to finish.

Sentiment: positive
Two years before he wrote and directed "Arthur", Steve Gordon had a minor hit with his screenplay for this crackpot comedic vehicle for Henry Winkler, then TV's "The Fonz". A 1950s college thespian (and all-around jerk) woos a co-ed and gets married without any employment prospects on the horizon; to make ends meet, he turns to the flamboyant world of wrestling, eventually becoming a "Gorgeous George"-like celebrity. Turning likable Winkler into an obnoxious goof-off probably sounded like an interesting idea at the time (and a sure way to separate him from his television alter-ego), but the jokes and situations are often wrong-headed and mean, staged rather sloppily by director Carl Reiner. Particularly crude is a wincing bit involving Hervé Villechaize (of "Fantasy Island") putting the moves on Polly Holliday (Flo from "Alice"). As Henry's beloved, Kim Darby looks a little out of her element--particularly when surrounded by all these TV hams--rendering the romance aspect of the script inconsequential. *1/2 from ****

Sentiment: negative
for a slasher flick,this movie is actually better than a lot in the genre.yes it is predictable-resident nut job goes on killing spree,people die,yada yada yada.however there are some good positives in this film.first off,i really liked the mask the nut job wore.it is definitely creepy to say the least and possibly unique(although i haven't watched every single slasher film ever made)also,the genesis of the bad due is something i haven't seen before,and he way he finally meets his end is a novel concept,as far as i know.i also really liked the weapon of choice employed by Mr sicko,for most of the murders.the murders themselves are not as graphic as most in the genre,but that'a small concern.the movie does not take itself seriously,which is something most slashers suffer from.oddly enough,while watching the movie,i was reminded of the early "Friday the 13th films,which did take themselves seriously.there are a few concerns about this movie.in several scenes,the killer suddenly bears a strong resemblance to one of our horror icons.by this,i mean his movements and his reactions upon being shot,and also the way he walked.of bigger concern,however is a scene very close to the end,where Mr crazy bears a more than striking resemblance(actually a complete rip off)of another famous horror titan.and in the very last scenes,we have our scumbag,once again,looking exactly like the 1st horror icon i mentioned.in fact that last scene is almost a complete rip-off from another icon in the slasher genre. these scenes were weak and unoriginal(obviously).by the way,the movie is set in Australia,so if you're a sucker for a chick with an Aussie accent(like me)you'll be in heaven.if you not,than it just might grate on you.one other great thing about this movie:beautiful Kylie Minogoue(just don't get too attached to her)there is one non Aussie accent,courtesy of Molly Ringwald.overall,there are more reasons to watch than not.i enjoyed it and had some fun.so,i have to give "Cut" 8/10,which may seem too high to some people.

Sentiment: positive
OK, so this film is well acted. It has good direction but the simple fact is that it undermines what all gay and lesbian people have been fighting for all these years. The straight man "deciding to be gay" and the gay man "Deciding to be straight" I did enjoy it up until the last 20 minutes, after that i got really offended. As what usually happens in these films the straight actors play the main parts and the out gay actors play the secondary straight roles. The leads are played by handsome men but don't let that distract you from the fact that this is a a film that leaves you feeling unfulfilled. All the romance and relationships you hope would happen do not. Unless you are a priest that is in which case god bless straight woman who cure our homos.

Sentiment: negative
I love Stephen Kings work and the book was great but I was very disappointed when I bought this movie on DVD. This was one of the worst B-movies I have ever seen. It feels like they had a tight schedule and only took one shot at every scene even if it turned out to be a bad one. And where did they find the actors.

Sentiment: negative
Alfred Hitchcock's Saboteur is not one of his best-regarded films; made between two vastly more popular and critically praised pictures, Suspicion and Shadow Of a Doubt, it's generally regarded as a lesser effort. I agree that the later film is groundbreaking, drawing Hitchcock wholly into the American mainstream for the first time, but Saboteur is in its way at least as lively as Suspicion; its chief flaw being its less than charismatic star players, Bob Cummings and Priscilla Lane.

In Saboteur we find Hitchcock feeling his way around America, literally, as its lead character travels from California to New York in search of an arsonist for whose crime he was accused. Cummings is very youthful here, and quite engaging. His boyishness (but not immaturity) perfectly suits the character he is portraying, and seems appropriate, as the director, though middle-aged, was in the process of reinventing himself, and an older, more established star might have thrown things off. Priscilla Lane's spunky heroine, which not a typical type for the director, was very much a common type in American films at the time; and she and Cummings provide an openness and a youth the director needed both in his life and work at this time. I cannot imagine older, more solid types,--Cooper and Stanwyck for instance--doing any better, as they would have, between them, carried, well, too much baggage.

As is the norm in Hitchcock's films, nothing is as it appears. Where Saboteur differs from his better known films is that the audience is let in on the game early. Though Cummings is an accused arsonist, we know that he is innocent. The villains become apparent fairly soon; and the movie hinges more on its plot than its ironies. What pleasures there are are incidental, and here the Master does not disappoint. There is an interesting, Tod Browningish interlude with some circus freaks, who help Cummings elude capture. In another scene, reminiscent of James Whale's Bride of Frankenstein, Cummings spends some time in the cottage of a blind man, who, as it turns out, is Lane's uncle. Was the director perhaps studying key American films of the previous decade? Whatever the case, these and other offbeat and discursive aspects of the movie give it a playfulness and variety, which, when one adds the factor of quite youthful leads, makes the picture seem like the work of a younger man, still learning his craft.

The film's later scenes, in New York, are more suspenseful and typical of the director, as the picture gradually becomes more Hitchockian as it moves along. In the end I find it a satisfying work; and as neither Cummings nor Lane has a dark side as an actor, neither does the movie have one. It is deliberately lightweight, and I suspect semi-experimental; an attempt by Hitchcock to see if he could pull off, in an American setting, the sort of story he had done so well in England. He succeeded admirably. The next logical step: Shadow Of a Doubt, a film in which the main character travels east to west, and with a wholly different set of values and plans. 



Sentiment: positive
The plot was not good.

The special effects weren't.

The acting was... not very good at all.

Like others, I felt there were numerous holes in the plot that you could fly, well, a space shuttle through.

I thought the ending was rather unbelievable.

By the way guys, about the "blow torch in space".

Blow torches have their own supply of oxygen (Hence the name "Oxy-Acetylene torch"). Two hoses run from the torch: One to an acetylene bottle and one to an oxygen bottle.

So a "blow torch" would work just fine in space.

Sentiment: negative
No this is not an Ed Wood movie. "Angora Love" is Stan Laurel's and Oliver Hardy's last silent movie. The end of an era! In the '20's Laurel & Hardy left a real mark on the silent movie genre with movies that are still popular and being watched and aired regularly, this present day.

It's a shame that this movie is however not among their best.

The premise of the movie sounds good and is good. The boys team up with a goat this time, which of course leads them into trouble and for us some hilarious situations to watch. It however at the same time is extremely silly and just totally unbelievable to watch the boys doing comedy stuff with a goat. Most of the jokes in the movie still work good but the movie just however never gets truly hilarious or memorable. The comedy and story really feels lacking at times and is mostly too simple and predictable.

Of course still good and fun enough to watch for the fans but still a slightly disappointing last silent Laurel & Hardy entry.

7/10

Sentiment: positive
I just saw this movie (mainly because Brady Corbet is in it), and I must say that I was not pleased. 

Of course, the computer graphics were amazing, but the story line needed a little touch-up. Also, I think this movie would have done much better with more curses and blood, as well if it were rated PG-13. 

That would definitely attract more people to see it-->teens. What would also attract more teens (particularly teen girls), would be a large close up of Brady Corbet on the Thunderbirds poster! 

Even though the movie had it's down points, I still saw it and thought it was okay!

Sentiment: negative
I've seen Mystery Men cop a bit of stick in the press and with the general public ( take the imdb vote for instance), but my overall feeling is that Mystery Men is more fun than most films, definitely wittier than most so-called comedy films and very nearly 'clever'.

The cast is superb; Greg Kinnear is excellent, as are Geoffrey Rush and Tom Waits. Kinnear's limo scene with Ricky Jay is perfect 'spoiled movie star' and he imbues his character with the right balance of comic book quality and realism to make him work.

I will admit the pacing is a little off in places, and visuals are certainly very flash bang, possibly to the detriment of further characterisation, but at the end of the day, this is high concept film making - it's about the little moments "What's Up Tiger Lily?" - and there are so many great ones in this film to make it worth repeated viewing.

Sentiment: positive
i was greatly moved when i watched the movie.how jonny could keep such hope and faith was amazing. so many people only care about what they want , and fuss about all the things they don't have . and they are such small things ,like chothes,money a new car . i've seen people in tears because of a blemish. this movie brings everything back to the basics . love,hope the beauty of the simple but so important things in life.it makes our everyday problems seen for what they are Small and really unimportant. you watch this boy and you realize as long as you have been blessed with food ,a roof over your head and your loved ones around you .you are truly blessed.and the saying stop and smell the roses truly has a new meaning.and i know jonny will see this and i want to thank him so much for sharing such faith,strenght,and humor with me .thank you jonny i know you soar the heavens and bring much love and laughter to the heavens above.

Sentiment: positive
This movie represents the times it was made in as much as the original, i suppose. Which is really sad, because at a deeper level, the title 'Vanishing Point' the original, is so ironic. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way, but the original was filmed in 1970, and released in 1971. The REAL 'VANISHING POINT' was the end of an era, which pretty much ended in the early 1970s. 

In this remake, all the counter-cultural elements have been stripped away, and been rendered more PC in an attempt to reach a broader audience, presumably. "Sanitized for your Protection" 

Inserting the American Indian scenes was gratuitous, and the idea of a 'noble purpose' to the trip was subtraction by addition. I'm glad I watched it however, it made me appreciate the original that much more. The original is a cult classic and golden. This remake is dreadful.

Sentiment: negative
This review is for the extended cut of this movie.

I first watched Dragon Lord when I bought it on DVD many years ago. I always liked this movie and you can read some of the more positive reviews of it to get the general idea.

That being said. I've always found the storyline a bit confusing. The movie is, after all, a love story. And it always seemed strange to me that a love story should end with a 20 minute fight scene.

Well, in the extended version this is no longer so. The old "original" version begins off with a huge barrel-climb/rugby-like sequence which is the new ending sequence in the extended version. The opening sequence is Dragon(Jackie Chan) hanging around his house and pretending to be training and reciting whenever his father is around.

Other sequenced have also been shift or prolonged in the extended cut and the story makes a lot more sense when you watch it. The pacing is also better and overall it just works better. It feels more like a love story and doesn't leave you asking questions about why it ends so drastically and dramatically as the regular version does.

I suggest everyone who is a Hong-Kong cinema, or just plain Jackie Chan fanatic to get a hold of the extended version and watch the movie the way it was originally intended.(Or at least that's how I think it was intended. Why else would they make it and rearrange some of the scenes) When I was done watching it, I felt like I had watched a completely new Jackie Chan movie although most of the sequences were the same.

Sentiment: positive
me, my boyfriend, and our friend watched this "movie" if thats what u wanna call it, and we agree with the last person, but we were stupid and bought the damn thing, we thought it really was about diablo so we bought it.

we hate it Really SUXZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so beware: DO NOT BUY THIS THING THEY CALL A MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

we would return it, but don't no if anybody would want this stupid movie.

oh and another thing, the shouldn't call it "The Legend of Diablo" they should of called it "Legend of Azar".

and this movie is rated R????? this should not of even been not rated.

we think that diablo would be crying his eyes out laughing at this stupid movie.

this is a movie that would have been done by a Church.

theses "actors" are never gonna become nothing because this movie.

Sentiment: negative
Not like I went in expecting a lot out of it, but I was at least hoping for a fun dumb big budget movie. This isn't even that. This item ranks in the bottom half of all the vampire movies I've ever seen (and believe me, I've seen a lot of them). Bad acting, zero characterization, little to no thought, almost non-existent plot (and that that's there you can drive semi-trucks through the holes in). Sure, it has action and is loud, and has more action, and more noise, and blood, and action... These things alone do not make a good (or even halfway decent) movie. Beats me how some people can say this is the best vampire movie ever made--all I can assume is they haven't seen many. I suggest seeing Near Dark instead.

Sentiment: negative
044: The Big Trail (1930) - released 10/24/1930; viewed 4/5/06.

BIRTHS: Richard Harris, Harold Pinter, Robert Atkins.

DOUG: In Hollywood, Raoul Walsh unveiled his latest film, The Big Trail, a western about the trek west across the frontier, starring up-and-coming 23-year-old actor John Wayne. In 1930, we are seeing many "firsts" but few "bests." Besides the first John Wayne film, we have here the first widescreen film (although we only watched the full-frame version). Interestingly, the decision to film in widescreen was essentially the same reason that widescreen became popular later: to compete with television, which hadn't yet appeared commercially but was still an emerging curiosity. All the same, this film was extremely good, giving us a harrowing look at the trek to Oklahoma. The opening title cards let us know that this is a western of the most traditional kind, about America, about the land, who should live on it, etc., and is an excellent demonstration of that. Walsh gives us some astonishing visuals of the wagon company out in the wilderness (when they reach a cliff, they must rope each wagon down one by one), and we also get a revenge subplot involving Wayne pursuing the man who killed one of his friends (I seem to recall something similar in Stagecoach). Wayne's tough cowboy routine is at least partly there, and would surely evolve further in subsequent films. Since this film is representing all of Wayne's early 30's work for the Odyssey, we will not see his face again until Stagecoach, but once we do, we will keep seeing him to the end of the Odyssey and beyond.

KEVIN: Ah, our first sound western, and John Wayne's first starring role. It's Raoul Walsh's The Big Trail. This review will be short, since it's been weeks since I watched it. I enjoyed this movie, but it was far from a masterpiece. The mostly predictable adventure had a few surprises, like when the brains of the bad guys, Red Flack (Tyrone Power Sr. in his last role) is killed half way through; I thought he would be the boss at the end, but that ended up being Bill Thorpe (Ian Keith). I remember that I didn't like the way Breck (Wayne) kills Thorpe and exacts revenge at the end. I understood that that's what he was meant to do in the story, but I really didn't like his reasoning when he tells Ruth why he has to do it. I think he had a far greater responsibility to the hundreds of settlers he was leading through the harsh west.

Last film viewed: Animal Crackers (1930). Last film chronologically: Soup to Nuts (1930). Next film: L'Age D'or (1930).

Sentiment: positive
A trooper is on the side of the road making sure every1 is obeying the speed limit (doing his job); he then pulls over a woman who appears she is a mother (there is a child in the back seat); he then is telling her what is wrong and BAM...they get killed. Okay, this is the start of what i personally thought would have been a good movie. When I was watching this movie in the theatre I was with some friends. This was our first night out after the summer so we wanted to go and see a good movie. We all decided to see a suspense/thriller that looked good to everyone in the group...this was one of the biggest mistakes of my life. Not only did I waste $7.oo on a movie ticket, but I had to sit through torture for the brain. This movie started off with mystery and suspense and I seriously thought "this cant be bad"...I was so wrong. The whole problem with this movie is that it makes no sense; even if you can get passed the bad acting, the "not so scary" storyline, and the over all horrible mess this movie was, you will still be puzzled. It's not because you're not smart enough to understand it, it's because no human with a brain could comprehend what this stupid movie is about. Right now you may be thinking "Oh man! I have to watch this movie just to see if it's as bad as this person says it is". GET THAT THOUGHT OUT OF YOUR HEAD RIGHT NOW!!! I'm trying to save you the trouble of watching this movie by telling you that it is so bad that there is no point in even considering seeing it. Please people don't make the same mistake i did thinking that this movie has potential...it doesn't. I give this movie 1 out of 10 (if I could give a zero I would), and I do not recommend anyone to ever see this movie, you'll be saving yourself many sleepless nights trying to think w.t.f. that freaking movie is about.

Sentiment: negative
Like all of the very earliest films, this "movie" is very, very short--lasting about one minute! So, because of its brevity, it's not really possible to compare it to more modern films. But, for its time, it's actually a very remarkable film. Much of this is because the prints were hand painted--making Annabelle appear red and other colors as she does her amazing dance. I've actually seen two different versions--one where she is red and another where she changes color throughout. I think the red one depicted on the DVD "The Great Train Robbery and Other Primary Works" is the best of them. The dance itself is very hypnotic and much like a piece of amazing performance art. And, unlike other one minute (or less) films of the day, this one is one I could see repeatedly--it's just that visually compelling and odd.

If you want to see it online, there is a 36 second version on Google Video (type in "serpentine dance").

Sentiment: positive
The thing I remember most about this film is that it used to air on local KTLA TV (Ch. 5) during every Christmas season during the mid to late 70s, mainly due to the fact that the true story took place on or near Christmas Eve. It was always a bit disturbing to see the hell that this girl goes through, being the lone survivor of a plane crash in the Peruvian jungle. The graphic scene of this young girl pulling leeches out of her infected leg made quite an impression on this young viewer. Not quite the kind of Christmas cheer I was used to seeing at the time. Definitely not a Rankin-Bass production.

Sentiment: positive
Wonderful romance comedy drama about an Italian widow (Cher) who's planning to marry a man she's comfortable with (Danny Aiello) until she falls for his headstrong, angry brother (Nicholas Cage). The script is sharp with plenty of great lines, the acting is wonderful, the accents (I've been told) are letter perfect and the cinematography is beautiful. New York has never looked so good on the screen. A must-see primarily for Cher and Olympia Dukakis--they're both fantastic and richly deserved the Oscars they got. A beautiful, funny film. A must see!

Sentiment: positive
Francis Ford Coppola wrote and directed this stunningly personal story of a married woman's flight from her husband--and the reality that perhaps the youthful glee and excitement of her younger years are behind her. We learn little about this woman's marriage except that she has been feeling her independence slipping away as of late; she's also recently learned she's pregnant, which has further complicated her heart (she doesn't want to be a complacent wifey, despite the maternal way she speaks to her husband over the phone). She meets two men on her journey: a former college football hero who--after an accident during a game--has been left with permanent brain damage, and a sexy, strutting motorcycle cop who has a great deal of trouble in his own life. The clear, clean landscapes (as photographed by the very talented Wilmer Butler) are astutely realized, as are the characters. Shirley Knight, James Caan, and Robert Duvall each deliver strong, gripping performances, most especially since these are not very likable people in conventional terms. Some scenes (such as Knight's first call home from a pay-phone, or her first night alone with Caan where they play 'Simon Says') are almost too intimate to watch. Coppola toys with reality, turning the jagged memories of his characters into scrapbooks we've been made privy to. He allows scenes to play out, yet the editing is quite nimble and the film is never allowed to get too heavy (there are at least two or three very frisky moments). It's a heady endeavor--so much so that the picture was still being shown at festivals nearly five years later. Some may shun Coppola's unapologetic twisting of events in order to underline the finale with bitter irony, however the forcefulness and drive behind the picture nearly obliterate its shortcomings. *** from ****

Sentiment: positive
the only thing great about the movie is its title. In this case, "Snake On a Plane" is example of not judging the book by its cover, the title says nothing about the movie. When I went to the theater, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, I was expecting Independence Day, a movie that's pure popcorn fun, but instead, I got that horrible Roy Liotta movie called " Turbulence" Yes, this is how bad SOAP is. The only thing make SOAP better is its title. And it's not even the apporiate title for the movie, the wasn't even a glimpse of "snake" or "plane" 40 minutes into the movie! What a false advertising! If it wasn't for its title, SOAP would be just another unforgettable cheap B-grade summer movie. And the R rating? It has to be the most undeserved R rated movie of all time! The makers of the movie only add a few f word to make this a R, All of the violence are kept pg-13 level. You know what's really R rated? The R rated superstar Edge! See him at Summerslam instead of waste your money on a snake!

Sentiment: negative
I remember when this film was up for the Academy Awards and did not win in any category. For the life of me, I cannot remember what it was up against, but one thing I can say: It was one of the best movies I have ever seen. And the fact that Steven Spielberg directed the film did not persuade me one bit.

Essentially, it is about a black woman's trials and tribulations as she is growing up from a girl to a woman. There are a lot of insinuations that are disturbing and horrifying, but all of them are needed to see how much this woman has put up with. Along the way, we see other women who have had to put up with their hardships and walk with them to redemption. Whoopi Goldberg gives her best performance ever in this movie. Danny Glover should have also gotten at least nominated for his role in this film. 

And the best part of this movie is that it treats its subjects humanely, not like some sideshow freak shows like the more recent "Beloved" did. I encourage anyone of any race to see this film. 9/10

Sentiment: positive
I have nothing but praise for this movie and cast, especially Ann Margaret. But more importantly I have praise for my in-laws who were (are) the adoptive parents of Warren and Frank in real life. I met most of the "children" at Warren's wedding in 1989. This is an amazing story and is even more incredible to me knowing the family and what everyone went through. It is also enjoyable for me to see how my in-laws were portrayed in the movie. It was pretty accurate. My wife even enjoys seeing some little details such as a toaster that she remembered from her childhood. Yes, it is a hard movie to watch, but so amazing and heartfelt.

The beauty of this story for me is how many of the children passed through my in-laws lives and, as a result of marrying their daughter,and having Warren as a brother-in-law, how many I have met in mine. For the past 20 years this story has been a part of my life because of what my mother-in-law has shared with me. That and knowing Warren. For what it is worth, Warren lives in California with his family. He married his high school sweetheart, who he reconnected with at his 20 year high school reunion.

There was a show in the 1980's called "That's Incredible." They had a reunion of the family who also got to meet the cast of the show.

For anyone's interest, the DVD is available in Great Britain and Australia. It is a tough video to come by here in the United States and I have not been able to find a DVD here, yet.

Sentiment: positive
Vonnegut's words are best experienced on paper. The tales he weaves are gossemar, silken strands of words and expressions that are not easily translated into a world of Marilyn Manson or Jerry Bruckheimer explosions. His words have been treated well once before, in the remarkable Slaughterhouse-5.

Mother night is probably one of the three novels Vonnegut has written I could take to a desert island, along with Slaughterhouse-5 and Bluebeard.

The film version deserves a 10, but the books are so permanently part of my interior landscape that I just can't do it...some of the scenes left out of the film are part of my memory...

Sentiment: positive
Very suspenseful, surprisingly intelligent film about five medical students flatlining themselves and then being resuscitated to share their experiences of death and what lies beyond. Joel Schumacher directs with some skill - creating some very eerie scenes as well as particularly beautiful ones. The visions of death are not what viewers might expect nor is that which awaits us all when we go - thanks to screenwriter Peter Filardi who really did an outstanding job coming up with this story. While the creativity of the story is impressive, the story has many holes as well, particularly in the logic department and believability factors. Notwithstanding all of that Flatliners is a good effective film because of the script, the direction which again is very surreal at times, and the acting which brings four very talented actors and William Baldwin together. This core of actors acts and reacts off each other very nicely. Keifer Sutherland does a very impressive job as the head of the group - the one who comes up with the idea to die and be born again. He also manages to portray a man- a young man - with a damaging, destructive secret from his past. Kevin Bacon is fine as the most pragmatic and skeptical of the group. Oliver Platt is really good as the voice of reason and human fears. Platt has some really good lines and plays the paranoia well. Yes, Julia Roberts is here too and very good. the actors do best though by playing off each other and making us believe they are such good friends. I was duly impressed with much of Flatliners but more than anything else the story affected me the most. The scene with that dog hobbling around the street just one of those powerful images evoked as were many of the "flashback" scenes.

Sentiment: positive