DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I wonder if I could take sitting through a whole musical comedy from Russia or East Germany or other countries that for decades put out almost always propagandistic film, anti-fascist films, anti-war films (as this documentary points out) that just reflected the dark, grueling times under Stalin and life behind the Iron curtain. It's fascinating then to see the other side of the coin, the sorts of clowns and rebels with music at their side to try and please the masses more often than not stuck in the Socialist walk of life. One film actually seemed rather impressive, called Jolly Fellows by the pioneer of the very small group of musical filmmakers, Grigori Aleksandrov. From the clip(s) I saw of that film, I'd wager that it was one of the only works to actually step out of itself and go into just wild, manic, make-you-laugh kind of mode. But as this film shows, if you were a filmmaker looking to entertain, it better be with a 'message'.

Through interviews, some occasional quasi-dramatizations (of Russia/Germany/etc's sort of motion picture association) at the censorship table, and clips, one gets the full picture of what it was like- both behind the scenes and on the screen- to just make sheer entertainment for the masses. Some of the films (well, most of them, as apparently only 14 screened over 40 years in the countries mentioned) made a good chunk of change, but for what purpose really? One also gets drawn into the culture of it all, how it differs greatly from the American way of 'if it works, make em while they're hot' attitude. But at the same time, perhaps out of this repression, some interesting, funny, and (from what I saw) up-beat films were made. They might've been fairly typical of what was asked to be shown to the masses, under Stalin's fond but demanding terms, like life with tractors. It gets to be even juicier a story though as we get shown what it was like in the 60's, the last wave of musical comedies, as rock and roll and pop tunes finally hit their airwaves.

In short, some good stuff...but only if interested, really. I was shown the film in a class on documentary films, and half the class fell asleep. So be warned on the one hand, though on the other if looking for it, it can make for a really rewarding trip into European film history.

Sentiment: positive
You don't see the meaning of the title till much later, but you get the point of it in the first few minutes. This directorial debut from Golden Globe nominated (for actor) Danny DeVito, also playing Owen/Ned 'Little Ned' Lift, is a terrific Hitchcock-like film about one man's hate for his wife's book (she stole his), and one man's hate for his mother. Basically, Owen wants to be a good writer, like his teacher Larry Donner (Billy Crystal), and he inspired by murder stories. Larry suggests he see a Hitchcock film, quite ironic, and that is when Owen has the idea to kill Larry's ex-wife, Margaret (Star Trek Voyager's Kate Mulgrew). Owen is inspired by 'Strangers on a Train', swapping murders, so Larry must kill Owen's horrible Momma (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Anne Ramsey). Larry was convinced Owen killed Margaret, and also that he had to/wanted to kill Owen's Momma, but there is a happy ending when months later both Larry and Owen bring out books, Momma died naturally, and they went on a holiday with Beth Ryan (Kim Greist). Also starring Rob Reiner as Joel and Oprah Winfrey. With hilarious moments, a great director/actor and his support, this is a must-see comedy. Very, very good!

Sentiment: positive
I felt drawn into the world of the manipulation of mind and will at the heart of the story. The acting by Nolte, Lee, Arkin and the supporting cast was superb. The strange twists in the Vonnegut story are made stranger by odd details.

Sentiment: positive
Almost no cinema experience can beat a good thriller with a sense of humor. Geena Davis is a schoolteacher housewife who suffers from amnesia. She'e even on the PTA! But then an auto accident awakens the woman she used to be, and it's HOT! Samuel L. Jackson is hilarious as the low rent private eye who tries to help Davis find her past, only to find out he's in way over his head. Davis has some hilarious lines too, and the interaction between her and Jackson works surprisingly well.

Look for Brian Cox, the original Hannibal Lechter, and David Moorse finally managing to shed his St. Elsewhere TV image. The film is directed by Davis' husband, who almost seems to have built the whole film around her, but it works.

I pull out this DVD and rewatch it often. I still love the makeup scene. Is Geena hot or what?

Sentiment: positive
It is always great to see a movie that teaches us about history in Africa as they are definitely too few. However, the movie depicts Lumumba as a political leader who wanted the new independent country to be the same as the old colonialist one..., I felt it hard to sympathise with this kind of leadership, yet the movie is somewhat like a homage to the man. There was too little content, explaining how the man got to rise in the first place, and the whole context of Belgium "letting them go". So it is certainly worth going to see as the acting and photography are excellent, especially Mobutu himself. I would just have liked a better political analysis.

Sentiment: positive
Paul Verhoeven's De Vierde Man (The Fourth Man) is one of the most compelling thrillers I have ever seen. It really was a pleasant surprise. The story concerns bi-sexual writer Gerard (Jeroen Krabbe), as he is lured into a relationship with beautiful hairdresser Christine (Renée Soutendijk), but in the twisted mind of Gerard there could be more to the story. Verhoeven and cinematographer Jan De Bont create a beautiful and thick atmosphere full of surreal and sickening sexual imagery, this really pulls you into the story, you don't want to watch, but you can't turn yourself away. This is by far Verhoeven's best film (maybe second only to Robocop). True The Fourth Man isn't for everyone, some of the sex scenes are quite gratuitous (just ignore them, but trust me, if you watch for at least ten minutes you'll be hooked. This is one of those films that you need to know how it ends, a true whodunit it in the Hitchcock tradition, compelling, controversial and thrilling. I even like the spider metaphor.

 8/10

Sentiment: positive
I had to shut this off after about 15 execrable moments..

I was hoping it might improve,

What I saw was badly acted, directed & written.

This movie should never even have been released directly to DVD,.

The lead character who is a bride top be from HELL has an huge Ice sculpture fall on her killing her. She was such a revolting person I was not even sorry for her. She winds up there in a sort of heaven, & was still repulsive, I left shortly after.

Eve Longoria portrays her & I hope I never see her again, she cant even act.She is just plain annoying.

Paul Rudd an actor who normally can do no wrong also was in this dud.

Jason Biggs ( no longer a teen) is also present,

I do like comedies BUT not stupid ones about stupid people.

Rating: * (out of 4) 30 points (out of 100) IMDb 2 (out of 10)

Sentiment: negative
I gave this a 10 because it's the best film of its kind...a good old-fashioned T & A film in the shadow and spirit of "Animal House." I saw this with a similar film called "Swap Meet" and both were good of their type...a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon. Let's be honest...there are more breasts in this movie than one could imagine for an R-rated movie. From beginning to end, they just seem to keep showing up on screen (sunbathing scenes, bedroom scenes and, of course, the climactic football game). Also, a memorable kissing booth (kiss me, Clutz!) Everybody seems to be having a good time in their roles (several Playboy Playmates, Danny Bonaduce, several familiar TV and movie actors, etc.). The only complaint I have to register is that Lisa London's character is called by her last name "O'Hara" and not a good 1970s name like "Olivia" (or even Ora or Ona or O...??!!). I saw this again in the late 1980s with my now ex-wife (pretty well endowed herself) and she couldn't believe I was actually enjoying the movie!! She was probably jealous!! Again, this movie is a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon...just don't think too hard!

Sentiment: positive
The 3-D featured in "The Man Who Wasn't There" stands for DUMB, DUMB, DUMB! This inept comedy features lousy 3-D effects that makes the 3-D effects in "Jaws 3", "Amityville 3", and "Friday the 13th Part 3" look better by comparison. Not to mention the movie is asinine to the extreme. This was one of many 1983 movies to feature the pop-off-the-screen effects. Steve Guttenberg and Jeffrey Tambor got trapped in this mess, but at least it didn't kill their careers. Tambor would go on to star on HBO's "The Larry Sanders Show" and Ron Howard's box office smash "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", while Guttenberg followed this flop with "Police Academy" and "Cocoon". What them in those projects instead of them here in "The Man Who Wasn't There". If you do, you'll regret it.

1/2* (out of four)

Sentiment: negative
Two Hands is a highly enjoyable Aussie crime caper, which ultimately succeeds by the way the film easily combines tense dramatic moments, with very funny characters and situations, to give the film the right balance and feel. The comedy of the film occurs naturally, and the laughs haven't been set up too elaborately & haven't been too worked at. It really is very funny, thanks to the fact that each character in the movie is excellently cast, and that each actor/actress recognises and can relate to the Aussie humor. They portray it very well and very realistically. Of course, they're helped out immensely by a fantastic script by writer/director Gregor Jordan. I was reading another review of this film by an American who had seen it, and he heavily criticised it, basically passing it off as a Pulp Fiction clone. I think that that's just rubbish. This film isn't trying to be Pulp Fiction, the feel and style of each of this excellent films are totally opposite. Without wanting to sound superior or arrogant, I think to fully understand this film; the humor, the sincerity, the characters, etc....you have to be Australian, or at least understand the culture, which the other guy obviously didn't have the faintest clue about. Some Americans, whose reviews of certain non-American films, seem ignorant to (and have trouble comprehending) anything that isn't an American product. It's a real shame, because this is a really great film. The love story featured between the main character and the girl is also portrayed in a very real, sincere and sweet way. I'm very proud to have this film in my collection. 4.5 out of 5.

Sentiment: positive
Working-class romantic drama from director Martin Ritt is as unbelievable as they come, yet there are moments of pleasure due mostly to the charisma of stars Jane Fonda and Robert De Niro (both terrific). She's a widow who can't move on, he's illiterate and a closet-inventor--you can probably guess the rest. Adaptation of Pat Barker's novel "Union Street" (a better title!) is so laid-back it verges on bland, and the film's editing is a mess, but it's still pleasant; a rosy-hued blue-collar fantasy. There are no overtures to serious issues (even the illiteracy angle is just a plot-tool for the ensuing love story) and no real fireworks, though the characters are intentionally a bit colorless and the leads are toned down to an interesting degree. The finale is pure fluff--and cynics will find it difficult to swallow--though these two characters deserve a happy ending and the picture wouldn't really be satisfying any other way. *** from ****

Sentiment: positive
If I hadn't been forced to watch this for work reasons I never would have made it past the first 10 minutes. And even then I admit I fast forwarded through parts. The '63 film version was vastly superior in all regards. Yes, I've read this one is more faithful to the original play, but what a wise thing it was for the writer to change the script in '63! It's overlong, it drags, the songs that are in this version and not in the film version are boring and unimaginative. The version of "Kids" in the '63 version was very funny and a true classic of sarcastic parent humor. In this version the Kim is way too old, the Conrad is *absolutely horrible* to behold (when someone ripped his shirt off him I shuttered in disgust...the director of this version has no idea what sexy is.). This Conrad can't dance, can't sing (he can't even stay in tune) and is simply repulsive. If Elvis Presley had really been like that his career would have been over before it began. As for the other actors, well I kept waiting for Alexander's toupee to fall off as he danced and Daly was totally over acting as Momma. See Stapleton's performance in the film version to see the same role properly executed by someone who understands comic timing. This TV version is nothing but a total waste of anyone's time.

Sentiment: negative
Somewhere, out there, there must be a list of the all time worst gay films every made. One's that have overlong camera shots of the stars sitting and staring pensively into space, or one's where they focus unbearably long on kitty kats eating spaghetti. This motion sickness picture is a story of a boy and a boy and they live and love and swim and get stuck in grottos and one of them has a depressed mother and another has no mother and they talk and walk and swim and have sex and get drunk and then break up and someone goes to the hospital for eight days and then gets out and there is a lot of fast forward and rewind and there are long pensive shots of one of them looking into space or just sitting and doing nothing. I think it's some sort of gimmicky film making technique or maybe it's that the film is so bad they have to fill it up with long, wasted shots because otherwise if they had to rely on plot or story the film would be about 14 minutes. Don't get me wrong, this is about the 30th gay film I"ve watched in the past 6 months and some of them (most of them) have been very formulmatic, predictable and boring but this is one is really a terrible waste of time. The best one so far was "Beautiful Thing". So, I watched this and after the very first opening shot which lingered and lingered I thought "Oh, no, its going to be creative sinny mah" But I gave it a chance and watched it and then when it ended I tossed the DVD in the trash. Sorry I didn't like it and if you did, sorry if I offend.

Sentiment: negative
If i could have rated this movie by 0 i would have ! I see some ppl at IMDb says that this is the funniest movie of the year , etc etc excuse me ? are you ppl snorting LSD or ........? There is absolutely NOTHING funny about this movie N O T H I N G ! I actually want my 27 minutes back of my life that i spent watching this piece of crap. 

I read someone sitting on an airplane watching this movie stopped watching after 30 minutes , i totally understand that , i actually would have watched snakes on a plane for 2 times over instead of watching this movie once ! 

DO NOT watch this movie , do something else useful with your life do the dishes , walk the dog , hell... anything is better than spending time in front of the TV watching hot rod.

Sentiment: negative
When HOPPITY GOES TO TOWN he discovers nothing but bad news for his little insect neighbors in the Lowlands. Can this honest, good-natured grasshopper save his sweetheart, Miss Honey Bee, from the machinations of the evil C. Bagley Beetle - and also lead his friends to a safe new home - before it's too late?

While not one of the great animated features (a very new art at the time this film was created) HOPPITY is an enjoyable film which should bring pleasure to uncritical viewers. Technically it is well made, with animation of a generally high quality. The movie's main drawback is that none of the characters really have any `heart' - they don't come `alive' on the screen in the way Jiminy Cricket did a year earlier in PINOCCHIO.

However, it is ultimately unfair to compare the Fleischer Studio output with that of Disney. Max & Dave Fleischer had their own star to follow; their contribution - and it would be a considerable one - would be in the realm of the one-reel cartoon. With their POPEYE and BETTY BOOP series they created alternate realities as viable as any produced by other cartoon studios. HOPPITY was their second experiment with feature length animation (after GULLIVER'S TRAVELS in 1939), and henceforth they would expend their energies again on the cartoon short subject. In fact, the first in the highly acclaimed SUPERMAN series was already in release.

HOPPITY'S story owes a great deal to Frank Capra, with it's energetic, go get em hero up against powerful societal forces. Indeed, the film's original title was MR. BUG GOES TO TOWN, which immediately puts one in mind of Gary Cooper or Jimmy Stewart and their Capraesque adventures.

Jack Mercer, famous as the voice of Popeye, here speaks for two very different characters, old Mr. Bumble & Swat the Fly. Movie mavens should be able to catch veteran voice actors Pinto Colvig & Mae Questel, both in uncredited roles.

The film has some pleasant songs supplied by Hoagy Carmichael & Frank Loesser, of which `Be My Little Baby Bumble Bee' is the most familiar. `We're The Couple In The Castle' is a fine romantic tune which deserves to be rediscovered.

It is unfortunate that the film's initial animation, with its sweep out of the heavens and past the in-depth New York skyline, is obscured behind the opening credits.

Sentiment: positive
Turning Isherwood's somewhat dark and utterly brilliant novel into light comedic romp could easily have been a recipe for disaster, but somewhow it wasn't . The story moves at a zanily rapid pace and the black and white imagery is gorgeous, as are Harvey and Harris as they ham their way through a wacky Weimar Berlin. Fun!

Sentiment: positive
This movie is really nerve racking Cliffhangin movie!Stallone was good as always!Michael Rooker put on a surprising performance and John Lithgow play a excellent villain!The music is fantastic especially the theme!The movie is action packed and never dull!If you are a Stallone fan then watch Cliffhanger,you won't be disappointed!

Sentiment: positive
Richard Attenborough who already given us magnific films as "A Chorus Line" and "Gandhi", once more surprise us making a beautiful hymn to the Nature. Indeed, the vast and (in that time) unexplored territory of Canada helps to compose the stunning beauty of the landscapes picked up by the motion picture camera. If the movie is really based on a true story, once more becomes evidente that "men of vision" are, in truth, men that lives beyond their time, with a historical perspective that only the Time will give them reason. The cinematography is magnificient, such as the cast lead by Pierce Brosnan, whose performance is due to Attenborough's master hands. A pleasing surprise is the appearance of Annie Galipeau in the role of Archie's beloved. Movie that must appears in a list of those who really loves the Nature...

Sentiment: positive
An egotistic major league baseball player is forced to continue his career in Japan, he contends with a culture that is alien to him, an apparently humorless manager, an attractive Japanese woman and his own professional and social insecurities. There is a certain subtle charm that flows through Tom Selleck's performances. There is humor, sometimes softly understated, as in this film, sometimes slapstick as in "Folks!", but always there seems to be some higher purpose involved. Throw in an individual full of self doubts who struggles to solve his personal difficulties while holding fast to "doing the right thing," and you end up with a film both funny as well as thought-provoking. The cast fits together like a championship team, and even if neither cast nor film win awards for their efforts, they will leave the viewers feeling good (and maybe that's the best results after all). You'll want to watch this film more than once, and each time, Mr. Baseball hits a home run.

Sentiment: positive
This is a story of the Winchester Rifle Model 1873 "The Gun That Won The West" To cowman, outlaw, peace officer or soldier, the Winchester 73 was a treasured possession. An Indian would sell his soul to own one...

Winchester 73 is the first collaboration between director Anthony Mann and actor James Stewart, a duo that would go on to create a run of superior Westerns that added a new, psychological depth to the genre. The story sees Stewart as Lin McAdam pursuing the man who killed his father. Riding into Dodge City with his trusty friend, Johnny Williams {Millard Mitchell}, Lin runs into Dutch Henry Brown {Stephen McNally}, the man he wants. But with Wyatt Earp {Will Geer} having taken all the guns from those entering the town, both men are unable to have the shoot-out that they are ready for. The men instead square up in a competition to win a Winchester 73 rifle, a competition that Lin eventually wins. But before he can leave town with the magnificent prize, Dutch ambushes him, steals the rifle and skips town fast. As Lin sets off in hate filled pursuit of both man and rifle, the rifle will changed hands a number of times, with each time adding another dimension as the day of reckoning for all approaches.

Very much a benchmark for what became known as the so-called "psychological Western", Winchester 73 is basically a story of a decent man driven to borderline insanity by an event in his past. Tho shot in black and white {the only one of the duos Westerns that was} the landscapes are still breathtaking feasts for the eyes. The tone is set with the opening scene as Lin and Johnny on horseback, and in silhouette, amble over a hillside as they make their way to Dodge City. It's just the starting point that would see Mann use his vistas as a way of running concurrent with his characters emotional states.

Stewart gives one of his finest and most intense performances as McAdam, proving once and for all that he was one of Americas finest and most versatile actors. The support cast isn't too bad either. Shelley Winters is excellent as the sole female in amongst the machismo, while Mitchell, McNally, Geer and the always great Dan Duryea add further class to proceedings. There's even bit parts for Tony Curtis and Rock Hudson in here, tho the latter playing an Indian brave is a stretch too far.

Originally the film was a project for Fritz Lang, who even had the script ready to run. But Lang walked away from it, something that proved to be a blessing for Western fans. For as great as a director that Lang was, with Mann directing {and with a new script from Borden Chase & Robert Richards in hands} it set the wheels in motion to alter the course of the genre. Not only with the further efforts that Mann & Stewart produced, but also in who they influenced. The likes of Budd Boetticher, Nicholas Ray and Sam Fuller were all taking notes, and gleefully for the Western purists, they followed suit and carried the psychological torch still further.

A big hit at the box office back on release, Winchester 73 is a magnificent film that still packs a punch in the modern age. 9.5/10

Sentiment: positive
I'm a big fan of the first Critters movie. The second episode is good,but it's not as good as the first Critters. The third episode is a little bit boring,but lovely. And WHAT IS THIS?? What a crap! It's stupid and really,really boring. It's the worst of the series. I can't watch it again,because I felt asleep at the first watch. And Ug's evil side...eeewww...that's one of the most horribble moments of the movie. In the first 50 minutes,we can't see the little,furry monsters,that's the reason why the audience fell asleep at the beginning of the movie.

It could have been much better.

2/10

Sentiment: negative
I have to admit that although I'm a fan of Shakespeare, I was never really familiar with this play. And what I really can't say is whether this is a poor adaptation, or whether the play is just a bad choice for film. There are some nice pieces of business in it, but the execution is very clunky and the plot is obvious. The theme of the play is on the nature of debt, using the financial idea of debt and justice as a metaphor for emotional questions. That becomes clear when the issue of the rings becomes more important than the business with Shylock, which unfortunately descends into garden variety anti-Semitisim despite the Bard's best attempts to salvage him with a couple nice monologues.

Outside of Jeremy Irons' dignified turn, I didn't think there was a decent performance in the bunch. Pacino's Yiddish consists of a slight whine added to the end of every pronouncement, and some of the better Shylock scenes are reduced to variations on the standard "Pacino gets angry" scene that his fans know and love. But Lynn Collins is outright embarrassing, to the point where I would have thought they would have screen-tested her right out of the picture early on. When she goes incognito as a man, it's hard not to laugh at all the things we're not supposed to laugh at. With Joseph Fiennes standing there trying to look sincere and complicated, it's hard not to make devastating comparisons to Gwyneth Paltrow's performance in "Shakespeare in Love." The big problem however that over-rides everything in this film is just a lack of emotional focus. It's really hard to tell whether this film is trying to be a somewhat serious comedy or a strangely silly drama. Surely a good summer stock performance would wring more laughs from the material than this somber production. The actors seem embarrassed to be attempting humor, and unsure of where to place dramatic and comedic emphasis. All of this is basically the fault of the director, Michael Radford, who seems to think that the material is a great deal heavier than it appears to me.

Sentiment: negative
Unfortunately producers don't know when to leave well enough alone, or are into recycling to the point that every scrap of trash that Hollywood generates is up for rendering into Alpo. It seems that every sci-fi action adventure flick must endure a sad list of follow-up films, and Robocop is a tragic example. The first film, under Paul Verhoven's direction was a wild, stylish ride, even finding time for a little social commentary on what the dark side of bio-tech is capable of turning us into. This film has none of that, aside from maybe telling us that drugs are bad for you and could make you do things you'd regret when sober. Robocop 2 lacks the vision, the profoundly scary vision of what we are becoming, and instead clumsily takes us on a boat ride into how nauseating drug dealers and their victims really are. Social commentary be damned. This one really bit the big one for me. If you don't care for anything but the SFX, go to it, my friend. Otherwise don't waste your time with this yeastless sour cake, and preserve the first film's accurately measured, heavy-weighted pumpernickle hot out of the oven. It's that simple.

Sentiment: negative
This is a brilliant film. The story starts off in Romania,where Billy Crystal stars as an agent who can talk anybody into doing anything. There is a really funny scene here, where Crystal is a child, and talks his father, who is a rabbi into eating pork (you filmophiles may know that this is a parody of Crystal's religion). He is mainly a talent scout, and he's trying to find a suitable villain for his latest movie. After finding out that the whole film has a terrible crew, he accidently falls into a small river. Believing he is dead, some huge hands come out to reach him. HE later thinks he is in heaven. He finds out that he isn't, but that he is in a monastery. Believing God saved him, he becomes a monk, searching for who saved him. He later finds a 7 ft 7 in man, who he casts as the perfect villain (he also recites Shakespeare!). See the film and find out the rest!

Sentiment: positive
You have to have lived in Japan for awhile to enjoy the beauty of this movie! I lived on Okinawa for over 2 years, and northern Honshu for 4. Believe it or not, what you see paints a very good and accurate picture of contrasting east/west mentalities, both from a sports as well as personal relationships perspective. A funny, funny, and heartwarming movie that deserves better than Americans viewing it can ever judge. 8+ out of 10!

Sentiment: positive
This game is an action/adventure with combat. There are quite long periods with no combat but other times, you have to get rid of various kinds of monsters. The monsters are not like anything you would see in real life, and they have to be gotten rid off in order to continue with your quest. The whole game is a quest. You play Adam Randall whose father contacts him from the beyond and asks him to come and save him. The game is from the mid 1990's and has to be played in DOS. I used Dosbox and was able to play the game quite well. The graphics are not as good as some games even of the time, mainly because the resolution is not high and some scenes look quite blocky, but others look batter, but don't let that put you off the game. The game is very imaginative, its long and can make you jump when unexpected monsters appear out of nowhere. Not for young kids who likely wouldn't be interested anyway, but over 13 or 14 might like this game. Its a horror\mystery\action\adventure\combat combination.I thought it was a great game. Its had to find now. maybe Ebay. But remember its a DOS game and you would not be able to play it on todays faster computers. would be hard to play on fast computers unless you use Dosbox. Oh, and the acting is very good too.

Sentiment: positive
This movie looked like it was going to be really funny. I was very excited to see it but was very disappointed. It was very unrealistic. The plot was also pretty weak. I was expecting it to be really funny but the jokes weren't even that good. I was also really disappointed with the ending. I would not recommend this movie to anyone.

Sentiment: negative
Uta Hagen's "Respect for Acting" is the standard textbook in many college theater courses. In the book, Hagen presents two fundamentally different approaches to developing a character as an actor: the Presentational approach, and the Representational approach. In the Presentational approach, the actor focuses on realizing the character as honestly as possible, by introducing emotional elements from the actor's own life. In the Representational approach, the actor tries to present the effect of an emotion, through a high degree of control of movement and sound.

The Representational approach to acting was still partially in vogue when this Hamlet was made. British theater has a long history of this style of acting, and Olivier could be said to be the ultimate king of the Representational school.

Time has not been kind to this school of acting, or to this movie. Nearly every working actor today uses a Presentational approach. To the modern eye, Olivier's highly enunciated, stylized delivery is stodgy, stiff and stilted. Instead of creating an internally conflicted Hamlet, Olivier made a declaiming, self-important bullhorn out of the melancholy Dane -- an acting style that would have carried well to the backs of the larger London theaters, but is far too starchy to carry off a modern Hamlet.

And so the movie creaks along ungainfully today. Olivier's tendency to e-nun-ci-ate makes some of Hamlet's lines unintentionally funny: "In-stead, you must ac-quire and be-get a tem-purr-ance that may give it... Smooth-ness!" Instead of crying at meeting his father's ghost (as any proper actor could), bright fill lights in Olivier's pupils give us that impression.

Eileen Herlie is the only other actor of note in this Hamlet, putting in a good essay at the Queen, despite the painfully obvious age differences (he was 41; she was 26). The other actors in this movie have no chance to get anything else of significance done, given Olivier's tendency to want to keep! the camera! on him! at all! times! 

Sixty years later, you feel the insecurity of the Shakespearean stage actor who lacked the confidence to portray a breakable, flawed Hamlet, and instead elected to portray a sort of Elizabethan bullhorn. Final analysis: "I would have such a fellow whipped for o'er-doing Termagant; it out-herods Herod: pray you, avoid it."

Sentiment: negative
This twisted comedy is well acted and directed. Very funny and the production quality is outstanding. It is easy to see why this short film has been accepted into so many festivals and won awards.

Everyone can identify with Calvin having a bad day, bad week, bad life. Travis Davis plays the role superbly! Richard Moll as Tim brings darkness and foreboding that gives this film just the right twistedness. The old man adds to the humor of the story. And who wouldn't love the suicidal goldfish!

This short will bring lots of laughs. And don't miss the credits as they are playing at the end!

Sentiment: positive
I love this movie. It is the first film Master P have ever done. It is based on the story of his life. It is low-budget, but it is very good. It shows how Master p grew up in projects in New Orleans.

Not only did Master P start in this movie, he also was the writer and director with Moon Jones. The DVD also has The No Limit ice cream party on it. This movie shows how Master P goes from bad too good and how he had to deal with the things around him. It also has many of The No Limit Records roster in this film. You should buy or rent this film.

It is a great movie to watch is you like rap, or is a Master P fan. I will not spoil this movie for you. Go get this movie as fast as you can and watch it. You will like it.

Sentiment: positive
With this movie, it's all about style, atmosphere, and acting. True, I didn't believe all of the plot developments, but it didn't matter- the terrific acting, the unexpected plot twists, and the wonderful atmosphere sucked me right in, and carried me along for the ride, and I had a great time. Kenneth Branagh is not only a great actor but a master of accents, and he proves it once again with a flawless Georgia accent. He's surrounded by so much talent in supporting roles (Robert Downey, Jr., Embeth Davidtz from Schindler's List and Fallen, Tom Berenger, Daryl Hannah, and Robert Duvall) that I was simply blown away. I recently bought a copy of this movie, and I never tire of watching it. Simply one of the best thrillers of the year. If you've ignored this movie (and chances are you have), then I suggest you check it out.

Sentiment: positive
Let me first state that while I have viewed every episode of StarTrek at least twice, I do not consider myself a Trekker or Trekkie. Those are people who live in their parents basement and attend conventions wearing costumes with pointed rubber ears. I gave this movie a seven casting aside the fiction historical errors. The acting was better than average, but the plot held no surprises. They tried very hard to reverse engineer the technology but still the special effects were just to great a temptation. Now as to the historical errors, if you call them that, the first Capitan to pilot the Enterprise was Commander April, then Capt. Pike, Jim Kirk, etc.. According to a statement made by both Riker and Kirk we dicovered the Klingons and educated them and gave them the technology (that's the reason a prime directive was created) but like I said these are no reason to discredit this fine series. I hope the plots will get deeper, and then special effects can take a backseat.

Sentiment: positive
First of all yes I'm white, so I try to tread lightly in the ever delicate subject of race... anyway... White People Hating Black people = BAD but Black People Hating White people = OK (because apparently we deserved it!!). where do i start? i wish i had something good to say about this movie aside unintended comedy scenes: the infamous scene were Ice Cube and co. get in a fight with some really big, really strong, really really angry and scary looking Neo-Nazis and win!!! the neo-Nazi where twice the size :), and the chase! the chase is priceless... This is NOT a movie about race, tolerance and understanding, it doesn't deliver... this is a racist movie that re-affirm all the cliché stereotypes, the white wimpy guy who gets manhandled by his black roommate automatically transform in a skinhead...cmon simply awful I do regret ever seeing it.

Save your time and the dreadful experience of a poorly written ,poorly acted, dull and clearly biased picture, if you are into the subject, go and Rent American History X, now thats a movie

Sentiment: negative
Much to her adult children's chagrin & nearly immediately after Elizabeth's (Dame Judy Dench) husband's death, the widowed, attic tenor saxophone player becomes bent upon openly returning to her musical hobby. Now that George is dead, Elizabeth no longer has to practice playing sax in the attic. As she grows more pleased with playing in the open, Elizabeth takes a stroll along memory lane, remembering when she was a 15 year old member of a jazz swing band, "The Blonde Bombshells": supposedly, an all-girl WWII group of talented jazz swing musicians. One of the "Blonde Bombshells'" band members was a womanizing, cross-dressing drummer, Patrick (Ian Holm), with whom Elizabeth remained friends.

Both Patrick & Elizabeth's 12-year-old grand-daughter, Joanna (Millie Findlay), press Elizabeth to round up the former band members & take up performing together again; this time as a bunch of sexagenarians. Among the band members she finds are the (still foxy!) bass playing, Madeleine (Leslie Caron); Dinah (Olympia Dukakis), a trumpet playing, alcoholic & out-spoken, money-grubbing divorcée & widow living off of wealth from her many (ex)marriages in a Craigievar Scottish castle; Gwen, (real life US star jazz singer, Clio Laine), having at the lead vocal; Annie, (June Whitfield), as the Salvation Army trombone player; Betty, (the late piano player, Joan Sims), who's located training the ivory keys in a Hastings pub.

As Elizabeth, Patrick & Joanna scout the world for members of the 1940's band & try to convince them to resume performing together, Elizabeth is oft times beside herself as she learns more than she wants to know about their adult lives--including her own--while having a blast playing terrific music with the last of the living 'Blonde Bombshells'.

Amusing, nostalgic, historical, sentimental, multi-generational entertainment that is seriously fun. The actors deliver wonderful performances. Regardless of their ages, they are still Bombshell entertainers who put on quite a show. (The DVD is now out & worth owning because of the bonus features & Dolby Digital sound). Surely as a fan of any of these terrific actors the VHS is a collector's item.

Sentiment: positive
Did Beavis and Butthead make this movie? It is just that bad. Truly an uneven and unfair portrayal of "bad" vs. "good" in the wine world. Did you notice the filmmaker trying any of the wines from the featured protectors of individual wines and terroir. The camera work is dizzying at best while the content may put you to sleep before long. This is not insightful journalism. What I got from this movie was that the filmmaker was trying hard to make a point about the globalism of wine by showing, for example, that the Mondavi family owned wineries in all parts of the world. Okay, that is a good start. So, how do these wines compare? Does the Mondavi Napa cab taste like their Italian wines. We never find out because no one in the film comments on this. Instead, there is a lot of innuendo about Nazi's and fascism. Well, those things don't grow grapes. Hmmmm.

Sentiment: negative
Aro Tolbukhin burnt alive seven people in a Mission in Guatemala in the 70's. Also he declared that he had murdered another 16 people (he used to kill pregnant women, and then he set them on fire).

This movie is a documentary that portraits the personality of Aro through several interviews with people that got to know him and through some scenes played by actors based on real facts.

"Aro Tolbukhin" is a serious work, so analytical, it's not morbid at all. Such a horrifying testimony about how some childhood trauma can turn a man into a monster.

*My rate: 7/10

Sentiment: positive
The biggest surprise in this movie was the performance of Daryl Hannah. Rather than playing the stereotypical ditzy blonde roles that she usually does she plays a street-smart, intelligent, world-weary character. She doesn't have a huge role but she does a great job portraying Lois Harlan as a woman tired of, although used to, covering up for her boss' indiscretions.

Sentiment: positive
To a certain extent, I actually liked this film better than the original VAMPIRES. I found that movie to be quite misogynistic. As a woman and a horror fan, I'm used to the fact that women in peril are a staple of the genre. But they just slap Sheryl Lee around way too much. In this movie, Natasha Wagner is a more fully-realized character, and the main bad guy is a gal! Arly Jover (who played a sidekick vamp in BLADE) is very otherworldly and deadly. Jon Bon Jovi... okay, yeah, no great actor, but he does OK. At least he doesn't start to sing. Catch it on cable if you can. It's on Encore Action this month.

Sentiment: positive
Between the ages of 30 and 51, when he died of a brain tumour, Zachary Scott made 70 films. He was introduced in 1944 in Jean Negulesco's 'The Mask of Dimitrios', where he played Dimitrios. The next year, 1945, he made three films, of which this is one. He is best remembered by cineastes as the star of Jean Renoir's 'The Southerner', one of the 1945 films, where he had a sympathetic role. However, he often played creepy characters, and in this film he is a sociopathic killer of women for money. So what happens here? He lives in a house with three women, so watch out! Faye Emerson, who also appeared in 'Dimitrios', plays the older of two daughters in the house. She falls in love with Scott and they become secretly engaged. Then her 'cute kid' younger sister (played effectively by Mona Freeman, who resembles Bonita Granville both in looks and in behaviour) returns from boarding school and reveals casually in conversation with Scott that she has inherited a tidy sum, so Scott turns his sights on her instead, with all the torrid jealousies seething in the household which that was bound to arouse. Things get tense, and then they get tenser. Meanwhile, plans for murder are going forward in the mind of the calculating Scott. But it turns out that he is not the only one with such intentions. He is also being searched for as a result of his last kill, with which the film has opened, so that we know his back story. James Wong Howe gives effective noirish cinematography to this tale, which was directed by Frenchman Robert Florey who had moved to Hollywood some time earlier. The film is an effective psychopath-in-the-house mystery which can cause a bit of wear of the edges of some seats, for those of such an inclination.

Sentiment: positive
I really, really didn't expect this type of a film outside of America. How anyone can take the subject of sexually abusing children and turn it into a "thriller" is just sick. Auteuil (whom I had previously admired) going around like some sort of child-saving Rambo was ignorant and insulting to all the children being sexually exploited around the world.

What's doubly depressing is that the stunning and ground-breaking film "Happiness" came out the year BEFORE this film. Menges and his cohorts should be ashamed of themselves. It's admirable to read some of the comments by the more intelligent viewers out there. They were able to see the shoddy and ridiculous handling of this topic. Those of you who think this is great cinema display a disgusting amount of ignorance and you need to watch "Happiness" to open your minds to the true horrors of pedophilia.

Do you think your child is more likely to be kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery or be molested by a neighbor, teacher, friend or even a relative? Hmm...I wonder. If they are going to make a film about international child slavery of whatever kind they owe it to everyone to make it realistic and emotionally involving instead of this button-pushing crap. 1/10

Sentiment: negative
A story of obsessive love pushed to its limits and of a lovely swan whose beauty is the very ticket to her own premature demise. Placed at the beginning of talkies, PRIX DE BEAUTE walks a thin line in being a full-on silent film -- which is still is at heart -- and flirting with sound and sound effects. The effect is a little irritating for anyone coming into this film because the recorded audio is extremely tinny and just doesn't help it at all. Hearing sound stage conversation edited over the beginning sequence which takes place in a beach, for example, is as part of the movie as the actress who dubs Louise Brooks' dialog and in doing so robs the audience of a fine performance. Other than that, the movie rolls along more or less well, with little jumps in continuity here and there -- something quite common in films from this era -- and has that vague sped up feel typical of silents. In a way, this is an experiment of a movie, and closer to the style of Sergei Eisenstein in visual presentation and near-intimate closeups that elevate it from what would be a more pedestrian level. Louise Brooks here plays a character less flapper than what she was known for: she's a stenographer who on a lark decides to enter a beauty contest despite the furious opposition of her extremely smothering boyfriend. Her role is quite Thirties and contemporary for its time; the last of the flapper/Jazz Baby roles were being shown on screen and now, with the onset of female independence, women as professionals were being represented in film. That Brooks's character decides to leave her boyfriend (even if she does "reconcile" with him later) is also a little ahead of her time. However, her character's fatal flaw is its willing to believe what isn't there -- that her boyfriend wants her to succeed -- and this is what leads to her end at the movie theatre. This final sequence looks like something straight out of Hitchcock in its heightened suspense (seen in THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH) and cuts from Brooks, her image on screen, and the murderous boyfriend. Even more dramatic is the placement of the still singing "live" Brooks with the now dead one -- a chilling effect to a chilling, powerful movie.

Sentiment: positive
I consider myself a big fan of low budget horror movies. The more bizarre and imaginative the film, the more blood and guts, the better, and i really fall in love with cheaply done flicks if they are done right. Luther starts out well enough... his origin at the circus, a creepy run at a supermarket, an attack of an old lady, and his disturbing occupation of a woman's farmhouse all set the mood nicely. A hot sex/ shower scene ensues when the woman's daughter and daughter's boyfriend arrives at the house. When Luther steals the boyfriends motorbike the movie takes a turn for the worse. 

The characters are presented with numerous opportunities to: A) save their loved ones, B) get the police to help, C) escape, or (most importantly) D) KILL LUTHER!!! I can't feel empathy or fear for characters that are too stupid to help themselves. Chareters snub chances to arm themselves with guns and knives while Luther is away. A policeman eventually arrives and is equally ineffective in stopping Luther, even though at one point he has a rifle squarely aimed at Luther while Luther clucks and does his rendition of the polish chicken dance. I found myself futilely coaching my television: "Make sure he's dead!", "Hes gone, get out of there!", or "Just kill him already!" 

Luther is a bloodthirsty savage, but he is hardly Hannibal Lecter. If you can't outsmart this egghead, you deserve what's coming to you. By halfway through the movie you'll be so lethargic to the fates of the half-wits that only morbid curiosity will sustain you to last to the mildly amusing ending. This movie was noted as one of Fangoria's 101 greatest movies you've never seen... well Fangoria is half-right in the case of Luther the Geek.

Sentiment: negative