DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I just finished up this unofficial adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's "The Lurking Fear" that was shot in Louisiana. Outside of a few changes (names, setting), this follows the short story point by point for the first 70 minutes but then tries to inject its own "twist" ending that you could see coming from a mile away. Either way, it is a much better adaptation than Full Moon's THE LURKING FEAR. Too bad it is a terrible film. Director David McCormick shoots the thing with all the flair of an industrial short. I swear I counted maybe two camera movements. The creature design is cheap (we're talking store bought masks here) but shot in a dark manner (intentional or not) where they are somewhat creepy. The most impressive thing in the picture is the abandoned mansion but McCormick fails to exploit that as well. File this one under good adaptation, poor execution.

Sentiment: negative
This film was slated to be a blockbuster film, and it really is. This is the type of movie that is made to eat popcorn to and watch the flashy graphics. With that in mind, the movie delivers, perhaps not as well as the ultra flashy Iron Man, but well enough. Outside of the popcorn munching action and special effects, the film drops off of the cliff faster than Wile E. Coyote.

Many viewers, myself included, will complain about how most of the characters were severely altered, but that only makes the film a poor adaptation, not a poor film. This film is unsatisfactory for other reasons. The makers focused more on making it appealing to the eye than they did to the mind. The characters that have been long awaited and promoted are reduced to 4-scene cameos. The main characters of Wolverine, Victor Creed (never called Sabertooth in the film) and Colonel Stryker are well developed. I was pleasantly surprised by Liev Schriber's performance. The rest of the characters are tossed to the wayside to make way for the all important eye-candy. Wolverine's character is fully developed after 30-minutes, as is Sabertooth, though Victor does pull off some surprises late in the film.

The "final boss" of the film is a twisted and perverse adaptation of the original character and barely gets any development to show just why he is the way he is. The filmmakers obviously felt that all they really needed to do was create a bad ass character who could do anything they wanted and slapped on the name of a popular character.

Very disappointing...

Sentiment: negative
If you want to see women's breasts, get a porno. There is no plot, but the last 45 minutes of this movie focus on resolving some sort of dangerous plan. The only value this movie has is that sometimes its so bad its funny, and, yes, boobs are boobs.

Sentiment: negative
this movie is the worst ive seen.. nicole kidman really dissapointed me.. this movie has nothing. i would not watch it again even if it were the last movie on earth. great actors but bad script.

Sentiment: negative
The King of Masks is a beautifully told story that pits the familial gender preference towards males against human preference for love and companionship. Set in 1930s China during a time of floods, we meet Wang, an elderly street performer whose talents are magical and capture the awe of all who witness him. When a famous operatic performer sees and then befriends Wang, he invites Wang to join their troupe. However, we learn that Wang's family tradition allows him only to pass his secrets to a son. Learning that Wang is childless, Wang is encouraged to find an heir before the magic is lost forever. Taking the advice to heart, Wang purchases an 8 year old to fulfill his legacy; he would teach his new son, Doggie, the ancient art of silk masks. Soon, Wang discovers a fact about Doggie that threatens the rare and dying art.

Together, Wang and Doggie create a bond and experience the range of emotions that invariably accompany it. The story is absorbing. The setting is serene and the costuming simple. Summarily, it is an International Award winning art film which can't help but to move and inspire.

Sentiment: positive
The film successfully gives a graphic portrayal of the suffering of forced sex labour, but nothing more. The leftest agenda behind this movie could be seen a mile away and leaves viewer so embarrassed while watching if you know that feeling. So, the women are kidnapped and sent to ex Yugoslavian territory to work as sex slaves because (take a deep breath) the American military institution is corrupt and looks away while their private security contractors are selling people abroad. You don't need half a brain to see the relevance to Iraq war and Black Water Company.

What a load of leftest excrement! Looks like I have been fooled all my life into thinking that this problem and many others were a direct result of Communism's grip on this region for 45 years. But no, it was the American war on Iraq, which is also responsible for earthquakes, tropical storms, and the constipation I had last week.

The film ignores the fact that 95% of the sex trade is women willing to sell their bodies for money and entry to the western block. You also see scenes that are so stupid you want to pull your hair. We have someone chasing down a woman in the streets of London in broad daylight, beat her up, then somehow drags her unconscious body half a mile back to the apartment where he rapes her. No one sees this or calls the police, and the running woman does not care to scream during the chase. Even better, we later see 4-5 women lined up in the centre of London in -again- broad daylight to be sold, one of them has a smashed face, and people are shopping in the background as if nothing was happening. You can't make this stupidity up.

I used to think that such trash was exclusive to Hollywood, but apparently I was mistaken.

Sentiment: negative
As usual, on IMDb, going by the majority vote instead of the "weighted average" is far more indicative of the movie's entertainment value. In this case, the majority gives it a "one". How right they are! To start my review, I'll first admit that I am completely clueless as to why this movie is titled "Alien Intruder". It does involve space and even an "alien" (I suppose), but there's no rhyme or reason (at all) for anything in the long run, at least, no actual plot basis or resolution that I can make out anywhere.

There are quite a few scenes that are so atrocious (with regard to both the lines, the timing, and how they are spoken), that it far exceeds the weird feeling you get when watching similar really bad movies. I have no idea about that part near the beginning where an electronic Bugs Bunny seems to be ranting about something.

The "plot" solely involves an area of space known as the G-Spot, sorry, make that G-Sector...and a virtual reality program infected with some sort of alien(?) virus. I think it is alien since the image of the otherwise normal Ariel appears as a photographic negative.

For most of the movie, we see people getting shot with space weapons, falling out of lofts, and seemingly endless, pointless close shots of "Where's Ariel?", "Can't find Ariel" (pointless because most of the other shots INCLUDE interaction with Ariel, anyway - whatever) on a computer monitor. Commander Skyler (Billy Dee), sits and watches each fantasy of the convict's VR programs hoping to find this Alien virus and become one with it...??? Or maybe I missed something...

Billy Dee Williams took a few courses on "how to act in despair" prior to the filming of this. We know this because he spends a lot of time moving his fingers down over his face and looking mournful.

The docking scene with the nose of one ship going into the rear of the other was semi-hilarious at least, and provided for a laugh in addition to the early scenes where we see several shots of the ship as it is just spinning in a circle, looking much like a Lego experiment gone awry.

It seems everyone dies in this movie, so why bother? Even the VR females get killed, as if that is supposed to mean anything (especially since everyone else dies anyway)...outrageous.

Because of the money I save on groceries, I won't rant about wanting my money back that I paid for the DVD of this. The dollar that I saved on that bag of vanilla wafers paid for this reviewer's time.

I'll just add that the story itself, at least as a novel, and with far more detail added, could probably be quite interesting with the right author.

1/10

Sentiment: negative
"In April 1946, the University of Chicago agreed to operate Argonne National Laboratory, with an association of Midwestern universities offering to sponsor the research. Argonne thereby became the first "national" laboratory. It did not, however, remain at its original location in the Argonne forest. In 1947, it moved farther west from the "Windy City" to a new site on Illinois farmland. When Alvin Weinberg visited Argonne's director, Walter Zinn, in 1947, he asked him what kind of reactor was to be built at the new site. When Zinn described a heavy-water reactor operating at one-tenth the power of the Materials Testing Reactor under design at Oak Ridge, Weinberg joked it would be simpler if Zinn took the Oak Ridge design and operated the Materials Testing Reactor at one-tenth capacity. The joke proved unintentionally prophetic."

The S-50 plant used convection to separate the isotopes in thousands of tall columns. It was built next to the K-25 power plant, which provided the necessary steam. Much less efficient than K-25, the S-50 plant was torn down after the war.

Concerned that the Atomic Energy Commission research program might become too academic, Lilienthal established a committee of industrial advisers, and during a November visit to Oak Ridge, he discussed with Clark Center, manager of Carbide & Carbon, a subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation at Oak Ridge, the possibility of the company assuming management of the Laboratory.

Prince Henry (of Prussia) Arriving in Washington and Visiting the German Embassy (1902). Evidently, with Prince Henry of Prussia according to the principles of science and its dangers their were already concerns with the applications of new science with military applications. The Hohenzollern (1902/II), "Kaiser Wilhelm's splendid yacht at the 34th St. Pier, New York. Taken at the exact moment of Prince Henry's arrival, and the raising of the royal standard." If Royalty knew of these necessary precautions to citizen welfare then what was the necessity of the warfare WWI and WWII. The quality of management control I presume?

Thus, did the commandos of Operation Swallow volunteer for a military mission, or a business plan, based on the security principles of Laboratory management? Because supposedly their were no survivors, and the ones who were caught in Europe ordered to be executed. Of the 400 man commando team the survivors who were captured were executed under orders of the German Army against subversion, and espionage acts of the State of Germany. 

The Führer No. 003830/42 g. Kdos. OKW/WFSt, Führer HQ, 18 Oct. 1942, (signed) Adolph Hitler; Translation of Document no. 498-PS, Office of U.S. Chief of Counsel, certified true copy Kipp Major, declassified DOD 5200.30 March 23, 1983, reproduced at the U.S. National Archives.

The OSS Society® 6723 Whittier Ave., 200 McLean, VA 22101

Sentiment: positive
How does an usual day start in Point Place, Wisconsin...

First of all, Red, the tyrannical father of the Forman family and a WWII veteran, sits at the kitchen table and reads his newspaper while his overjoyed wife Kitty serves breakfast. Then comes their skinny son, Eric, he sits at the table as well, and his father starts his daily yelling, usually involving placing his foot in Eric's behind if (insert reason here). If his promiscuous angel-faced sister Laurie is at home, she comes along, then Red stops yelling and kindly talks to her, making Eric feel left out of the family.

Once this daily (painful) ritual is over, Eric rushes down to his basement, where all his friends are already hanging out. And when we get to see them, it becomes obvious Eric and his redhead tomboy girlfriend, next-door neighbor and childhood friend Donna Pinciotti are the sanest people around. Meet Steven Hyde, the conspiracy theorist who hates disco and doesn't really care about what's around as long as it's not funny to watch; Michael Kelso, the kind of guy who thinks that he will get through his life only by his looks and that carrots grow in trees; Jackie Burkhardt, the one who thinks of herself as the prettiest girl around, spoiled kid of a rich father, and, of course, cheerleader; and Fez, a naive but oversexed foreigner who loves candy and can't keep a secret. At first they simply hang out, gossiping and making fun of Kelso, but then they all sit in a circle and let the real fun begin... before going out doing something they'll regret later.

Meanwhile Red goes out and meets Donna's weirdo parents, Bob and Midge. He's rude, but they don't mind, as they think he's joking. Somewhere around is Leo, an aging hippie, who's constantly confused and makes word plays without even noticing.

Did you imagine that seemingly peaceful neighborhood with all these awesome characters? Of course, most seem "clichéd", but the show takes the cliché to a new level. Now throw in some of the most wicked story lines a sitcom can offer, sit down and enjoy one of the best TV shows ever. The one that never does two times the same thing and which is, compared to most sitcoms that are "cute funny", purely hysterical. If you get hooked, don't let this show let you go. Bite on the hook over and over and, man, you will see the sitcom genre from a whole new prospective.

Sentiment: positive
Despite a small handful of nicely executed scenes, this entry (the fourth) feels tired. Toshiharu Ikeda, who directed the superb MERMAID LEGEND and the seminal Japanese splatter film, EVIL DEAD TRAP, shows little enthusiasm for the stale premise.

A miscreant becomes obsessed with an outwardly conservative woman who reluctantly appeared in a porno photo shoot. Predictable stalking, harassing, assault and rape ensues.

The staple of roman porno is sex. And sex mixed with violence. Both potentially exciting subjects, to be sure, but not when so little effort is made to make them fresh. A masturbation scene in which a woman forces pencils up her opening (via condom) is too little kink to late.

The series' rain motif continues and the film's final scene brings relief.

Sentiment: negative
Final Justice has the great Joe Don Baker running around Texas, shooting people who shoot people. Then he's off to Malta where he shoots more people. He gets locked up many times for shooting people. Then he gets into a gunfight with the bad guy, who is dressed like a monk. There is a boat chase, and Joe Don winds up in jail again. Finally Joe Don, with the help from Elaine from "Seinfeld" kill the bad guy, blow up a boat or two and someone gets shot with a flare. All this and a catchy theme song, just like Mitchell!

Sentiment: negative
Oliver Stone hits the bull's eye with this film, aided chiefly by Bogosian's electrifying screen presence and biting, brilliant screenplay. Every moment crackles with a steadily-growing tension, climaxing in a truly, memorable movie-going experience. If there was ever an indication of a writer and a director's ability to meld two highly volatile temperaments into a seamless union of creativity, then this is it! The result is a powerhouse achievement, made more timely now perhaps because of our culture's disturbing fascination with celebrity, and it's distorted interpretations of fame.

An ultimate indictment of our society's increasing morbidity, and self-sickening hunger for the next big thrill.

A film not easily forgotten. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the darker side of human nature.

Sentiment: positive
I had heard that this film was stylish and intriguing, but I just found it annoying. It's been a while since I've seen it (and hopefully I won't find out all my memories are wrong and I'm unjustly condemning this movie), but my memory is that the filmmakers tried to portray Leopold and Loeb as victimized by an anti-gay society, and that this somehow caused their horrible crime. I totally disagree with this point of view, and think it's unfair both to homosexuals and to Bobby Franks, the real victim of the story. I can't imagine why anyone would want to claim those two as martyrs. I also thought L&L were portrayed as a bit more sophisticated than they actually were--after all, they were teenagers who lived at home. The film places them in a kind of fantasy world that seems like it should be scored by Morrissey.

I just read an interview with one of the filmmakers that implied the film's anachronisms, such as the push-button phones that characters used, were meant "to add Brechtian distance". They certainly do that, but I happened to find it highly irksome.

Apparently a number of people found this movie interesting, but I would have preferred a less "stylish" and more realistic examination of the part homosexuality may have played in the Leopold & Loeb case.

Sentiment: negative
Hello, I was wondering if anyone has a copy of the movie Broken Promise?? I loved this movie growing up and watched it every time it was on. It has been YEARS since I have seen it and would love to get a copy. I have checked all of the internet and have been unable to find it. If anyone has a copy to trade or sell em please email me at NoelGypsy@Yahoo.com... Thank you and have a great night!! Christine --------- The "broken promise" was made to eleven-year-old Melissa Michaelsen, whose parents have deserted her and her siblings. Taken in by the County, Michaelsen has had to watch helplessly as her brothers and sisters are split up and farmed out to different families. One of the kids is even institutionalized. Juvenile court officer Chris Sarandon joins Michaelsen in her struggle to reunite her family under one roof. Broken Promise was originally offered as a "General Foods Golden Showcase" presentation. It was first telecast May 5, 1981.

Sentiment: positive
CANNIBAL FEROX (1+ outta 5 stars) Miserable excuse for a movie... which you might enjoy if you really like boring, nonsensical jungle movies spiced up with scenes of graphic violence. A pair of drug dealers on the run from the mob travel to the jungles of Paraguay to search for emeralds and cocaine. They meet up with another young traveler and his two hot babe sidekicks, one of whom is an anthropologist seeking to prove definitively that cannibalism does not and has not ever existed. One of the two dealers turns out to be a bit of a psychopath and he tortures and kills a couple of natives in order to get them to tell him where they hide their jewels. (And how they could even tell him when he doesn't seem to speak their language in the first place?) Well, the natives are suddenly not too thrilled with white folks in their jungle and capture them all for some retaliatory torture. Poor acting, poor plot and poor direction. Not a decent moment of suspense in the whole dreary 90 minutes. Even the special effects are not particularly convincing (though a couple of shots will still make most viewers cringe). The only good scene in the whole movie is when the two women are imprisoned in a mud hut and seem to touch the hearts of the natives with their rendition of "Red River Valley". The following is a quote from the movie but I wouldn't be surprised if many viewers weren't saying exactly the same thing by that point: "Oh God, please let her die soon. Oh, let her die soon. And let me die soon too, please."

Sentiment: negative
'Thunderbirds' was an immensely popular Sixties show that has transcended the years and generations to the point it is still as popular now, with both adults and children alike, as it was in its heyday. So, one would deduce the chance to produce a live-action feature film with a million pound Hollywood budget was an excellent opportunity to revive the series as has been done with 'Spider-Man' and 'The X-Men'. But a terrible storyline and bland acting obliterated this opportunity and it was soon apparent all that was destined for this film was a trip to the bargain bin of the kiddies' section.

Instead of a film focusing on the five Tracey sons, their father and trusty geek Brain striving to rescue people and protect the world from villains, our hero in this drudge is a malcontent and bratty thirteen-year-old Alan Tracey, fourteen-year-old Tin-tin and ten-year-old brain-box Fermat, son of Brains (yes, Brains' son despite this being a man who could surely never score a woman if he tried; maybe he grew the kid in a petri dish). As one can tell from a run-through of our three lead characters, this 2004 remake 'Thunderbirds' was clearly aimed at entertaining only children under twelve instead of trying to appeal to a broad age-range as those involved in the much superior revival of 'Spider-Man' did. The plot itself was so bland with clunky, awkward dialogue and weak jokes that probably wouldn't amuse brighter pre-teens. The scriptwriter seemed more interested in ripping off 'Spy Kids' (which was at least quirky and original) instead of remaking the show people know and love.

Although Sophia Myles and Ron Cook were excellent as Miss Penelope and Parker, they only had about three lines between them so their presence was barely felt. Bill Paxton's Jeff Tracey was just boring and there was only the slightest of mention of the other four Tracey boys while Anthony Edwards and Ben Kingsley, as Brains and the Hood respectively, were just embarrassing. The Hood, in particular, is not at all threatening or sinister and instead comes across as a campy, two-bit stereotypical villain as limp as a piece of rotting lettuce.

Brady Corbet, who plays Alan Tracey, may well be a good young actor but it was hard to see that in a film where he plays a whinging brat who just grates and the same goes for Vanessa Anne Hutchinson as Tin-tin since the most she gets to do is look pretty and be all for 'Girl Power'. Ironically, it is young Soren Fulton's Fermat who is the only interesting character of the film as Fulton delivers a natural and relaxed performance.

'Thunderbirds' the series will be forever remembered as an excellent show that proves puppets can give solid performances! 'Thunderbirds' the film will be forgotten by most and remembered by a few as one big flop.

Sentiment: negative
The Movie I thought was excellent it was suppose to be about romance with a little suspense in between.

Rob Stewart is a wonderful actor I don't know why people keep giving him a bad rap. As for Mel Harris she is a great actress and for those who thinks she looks too old for Rob it's only by five years.

Rob had a lead role in his own TV series as well as one on the Scifi channel. I'm sure you remember Topical Heat aka Sweating Bullets and PainKiller Jane.

He also starred in a number of TV movies and is now making a TV Mini series.

They need to give him more leading roles that is what he is best at.

Sentiment: positive
I can't believe John died! While filming an episode he collapsed on set! read this, (out of his biography online):John Ritter was Born In Burbank , Calafornia , On September 17th 1948. 

He landed his last television role in "8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter" (2002), based on the popular book. On this sitcom, he played Paul Hennessey, a loving, yet rational dad, who laid down the ground rules for his three children. The show was a ratings winner in its first season and won a Peoples Choice Award for Best New Comedy and also won for Favorite Comedy Series by the Family Awards! While working "8 Simple Rules", he also starred in his second-to-last film, Manhood (2003)

That Same Year , While John Was Rehearsing for The 4th (3rd series) Episode of 8 Simple Rules (Now Shortened), he fell ill. Henry Winkler described it as "John Looked Like He Had Food Poisoning".Then He collapsed on the Set, he was quickly rushed to a Nearby Hospital, The Same Burbank Hospital Where He Was Born ,he was diagnosed with an aorta dissection, an Unrecognized Heart Flaw, he Underwent Surgery but did not make it. John Ritter Died At Age 54 , just 1 Week Away from His 55th Birthday , leaving His Wife Amy Yasbeck and 4 Children.

Sentiment: positive
What people fail to understand about this movie is that it isn't a beginning, middle, and end, it is just the conclusion of a 26 episode long TV series. So remember that when you all talk about how the world wasn't explored enough. That was all done in the TV show.

As great and stunning as the visuals are, I think the ***SPOILERS*** argument between Lian-Chu and Gwizdo near the end of the film was what really made me love this movie. Seeing characters I had followed through 26 episodes fight like that was agonizing, and seeing Gwizdo walking sadly off by himself amidst the floating ruins while Lian-Chu sharpened his blade was almost tear-jerking. 

Then we got a total contrast with Lian-Chu fighting these insanely awesome dragons (Which had been featured before in the series) while Gwizdo is babbling insanely and indirectly threatening to kill Zoe. *Shudder* I'm surprised that this particular scene hasn't been mentioned more in the warnings. Any kid that has a lick of sense will be able to see that Gwizdo wasn't himself and was fully intent on strangling that little girl. It was enough to bother me, and I'm 15.

The world is amazing, the plot is a lot better than most multi-million blockbusters, and it was a nice way to see some of my favorite characters go. Check it out. :)

Sentiment: positive
The first half hour of the movie had a steady pace and introduced the characters. however all of a sudden everything was happening too quick, a lame reason for Akshey Kumar to date 3 girls, very loud over acting by both Akshey and John Abraham. Neha Dupia was the highlight of the movie, Paresh Rawal did well but not as good as his performance in Hera Pheri. overall this movie was the biggest disappointment the film does no justice to its trailer. save your money and don't watch this movie, watch Hera Pheri and Hungama again!

summarising it: a cheap stage show performance and appearance to the film no story or substance, the plot was extraordinarily non-sense good music by Preetam the man who bought us Dhoom! keep it up! movie shot all in one room, new comers (female cast) were okay as it was their first film but established actors like Akshey and John totally disappointed an established director like Priyadarshan gives his worst movie ever!

Sentiment: negative
Avoid this crap at all costs. Bad script, bad directing, bad acting, bad editing, bad sound, and bad music. Get the idea? This movie tries to be western flavored, it's not. It tries to be hard core violent, it's not. It tries to present a fresh look at an old genre, it doesn't. The actors try there best, and my heart goes out to them. But with such inane material to work with it's hard to make something shine. To me this has all of the looks of a "fresh outta film school gonna set the world on fire" first attempt. Freshmen film makers often bite off more that they, or their budget, can chew. The best thing they can do is to take a few steps back, reassess what is possible, and work within their limited budget the next time out.

Sentiment: negative
I have to agree with some of the other comments and even go a step further. 

Nothing about this film worked, absolutely nothing. Delmar our central character makes the decision to become a surrogate mother in order to earn enough money to buy a restaurant but along the way fall for a wise ex-jailbird. At the same time her friend Hortense is trying to get her lawyer boyfriend to finally marry her. She also happens to be sleeping with Marlon who is desperately in love with her. Then there's Delmar's brother Jethro who gets involved with a former coke addict, Missy who reveals she was sexually abused by her adopted father. On the sidelines we also have the eccentricmother who has an assortment of equally odd friends, one of whom dies on the couch at the beginning of the film. So far so good but after introducing these characters and story lines addressing life, death, grief and love in the first half, the film simply loses direction. 

If the writer had only selected one or two characters and allowed us to follow their stories maybe things would have been fine but equal screen time is given to all with the result that no one story or character is fully developed. For instance, why does Delmar think she will be able to hand over her child in exchange for money, especially when the prospective parents are a creepy bigoted lawyer and his semi alcoholic and depressed wife? Why is Hortense so desperate to marry a man who is a jerk and clearly doesn't love her? How is it Missy manages to kick her coke habit overnight? Is Jethro regularly drawn to women with overwhelming problems, or is Missy the exception? Has Delmar and Jethro's mother always been on the eccentric side, or is it a more recent development? Why is Jethro so keen on Cadillacs that he has one in the middle of his living room? Why did Moses spend years in prison for stealing a car, a relatively minor crime? How does Delmar manage to end up giving birth to Moses' baby when there is no suggestion that they ever had sex? 

These questions are posed in the screenplay but sadly are never answered. I can only assume they were answered in the original novel and that is why the writer felt the need to include it all in the script. Big mistake. Losing several subplots especially the Hortense and Marlon story, which adds nothing to the overall film, would have tightened things considerably and allowed more time to develop the Delmar, Jethro and Moses characters who are clearly more central to the plot and underlying themes than anyone else. 

Add to that the most pedestrian directing style seen outside of the average soap opera and the result is a huge missed opportunity for all, including Jorja Fox who does her best to rise above the material. I'm not surprised that this appears to have been the director's last film as this effort shows no evidence of a visual style or ability to tell a moving and intelligent story.

Sentiment: negative
Has anyone been able to buy this movie? My Uncle "Hutch" was a Real (not Reel) pilot who is seen tossing his wings in the air and then snatching them with his fist as he was awarded his pilot's wings. 

He's only on screen a few seconds but my family would love to have the movie. He was killed in a dogfight over Italy, he was only 24 at the time. Do we know the film studio that made it?

Or has anyone seen it at a video store, like Blockbuster? I wish they would make entire catalogs of these old movies available as it is so cheap to make DVD's these days.

Please email me at nfny40@yahoo.com if you know where I can buy a copy. Thank you.

Sentiment: positive
Although this film put Davis on the map due to her brilliantly intense performance as the illiterate guttersnipe waitress/prostitute Mildred Rogers, this film is strangely unsatisfying to me as a whole. The acting is indeed fine in most every respect. What I cannot fathom for the life of me is just how or why Phillip, a sensitive, well-bred young man would take the constant abuse this tramp constantly dishes out towards him: I find his naive tolerance quite ridiculously unbelievable in certain respects. Yes, I know he is a sensitive club-footed, introverted intellectual. But Davis is such a venomous witch that nobody that cultured would tolerate her attitude or actions and make it believable. Davis is astounding in her role: yes, she may go overboard in her histrionics now and then, but it's a vividly creative portrayal any which way you look at it. Too bad she wasn't playing a gangster's moll. Her character would have been completely believable as a tramp among low-lifes!

Sentiment: positive
I really wanted to like this film. The second film in the series had this silly, drive in movie feel to it that was fun (of course, I was also drunk). I watched this film with the highest expectation of a similar experience of high cinematic hilarity, a-la- Mystery Science Theater 3000. I WAS WRONG!!!!! This movie is a god awful waste of film, and I LIKED THE SECOND ONE!!!! From the effeminate villain with the David Bowie fright wig, to the tacky, obnoxious female villains with laughs that could strip the paint off a garage door, this whole thing was just a painful mess. I actually felt bad for Sue Price, because the material was beneath an actress of her stature (that pretty much says it all). An awful, awful film (that's not a recommendation).

Sentiment: negative
The Outsiders is undoubtedly a classic Australian TV series. Well defined characters, tight scripts, varied and interesting locales, great guest stars and a filmic ambiance all combined to make this series a special one.

Sadly, Andrew Keir has passed on & Sascha Hehn from Germany does not appear (unfortunately) to have enjoyed small screen success in his native country. The ABC has repeated the series many times yet a DVD release is yet to happen.

The series is one which is timeless. It is as likely to strike a resonant chord with viewers today as it did in its own day. Come on ABC...release The Outsiders on DVD!!!!!

Sentiment: positive
Wow...I don't know what to say. I just watched Seven Pounds. No one can make me cry like Will Smith. The man is very in-tune with the vast range of human emotion. This movie was skillfully and beautifully done. Rare to find such intense humanity in Hollywood today. I would compare it to "Pay it Forward" and "Crash" as far as the show of both light and dark in such a raw way. Definitely sticks with you for a long time and gives you a lot to think about. I have a deep love for and passion about movies like this one. Not usually one for a "bad ending" but rather a truth seeker that embraces emotion, raw life and something more than the shallowness that exists in abundance all around. Therefore I do not mind a little pain at the end. It is true to life that there aren't always happy endings. Sometimes its just not the happy ending you think it should be. Many people were able to live happy lives though love and life of one was lost. If you are someone who looks a little deeper than the rest you'll love this movie!

Sentiment: positive
Usually I love Lesbian movies even when they are not very good. I'm biased, I guess! 

But this one is just the pits. Yes, the scenery and the buildings are beautiful, and there is a brief but beautiful erotic interlude, but otherwise this movie is just a complete waste of time. Annamarie alternates between sulking and getting high/stoned/passing out on whatever drug or booze is handy, and Ella inexplicably puts up with this abominable behavior through the entire movie. At no time are we given any insight into why this is so, or even why Annamarie is so depressed and withdrawn.

If there had at least been some kind of closure in the (potentially romantic? we don't even know!) relationship between the two, there might have been some kind of satisfaction. But although Annamarie at one point asks Ella "why do you love me?" Ella doesn't even acknowledge this. It's never really clear whether this is anything more than an (ill-behaved) Lesbian on a boring road trip with a straight woman.

Even the interactions between the two women and the local people they meet on the journey, which could have been lively and informative, are instead flat, tedious and mostly incomprehensible.

There is one good joke in the movie, although I'm sure it was unintentional. The women travel in a two-seat Ford coupe with a middling sized trunk. Yet when they set up camp, they have an enormous tent, cots, sleeping gear, and even a table, chair, and typewriter! On top of that, when they board a ferry, we see piles of luggage, presumably theirs, presumably also carried in the little Ford's trunk! 

And through the entire film, we never see one gas station, or anywhere that looks like it would actually have any place to buy gasoline. Mostly they travel through endless miles of desolate desert. So where did they get fuel?

There may not be too many Lesbian films out there, good or bad, but there are plenty that are better than this, and very few that are worse. Leave this one in the rack.

Sentiment: negative
I have loved this movie since I saw it in the theater in 1991. I was 12 then and Wil Wheaton was my favorite actor and adolescent crush. I am now 23 and I still love this movie. The best part about it is whoever I am dating loves it too because it is a total macho-guy movie! It is wrought with enough action and mayhem to keep men with the shortest attention spans glued to the screen. I only wish that it was available on DVD!

Sentiment: positive
This was my favourite film as a child, and I have been in the stage production a few times so it will always remain my favourite muscical and I doubt anybody could ever re-make the story of Oliver Twist on screen, any better than this one did.

My all-time favourite ''bad guy'' has to be Oliver Reed as Bill Sikes. Not only did he scare the life out of my when I watched it as a 6 year old, but now as a woman I can empathize more with Nancys character, the bar maid/prostitute who helps Oliver get the life he deserves.

Jack Wilde as the artful dodger, was fantastic, and I don't think anybody could ever out-do him, as the street-pocket picker, and best friend of Fagin. The music is fantastic, especially Fagin's numbers, I'm also quite thankful they didn't give Bill Sikes a musical number, it wouldn't of worked with him being such a sinister character.

I think Carol Reed did an excellent job of Nancy's sticky ending, keeping it a G rated movie by disguising her beating, but giving enough away to show the violence of Bill towards her. 

This movie is both charming, and charismatic as a musical sing-along, as well as being a moving drama that follows a young boy as he tries to find where he belongs in life.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie once, and I thought it was OK. Then my friends at work said "Watch it again, it's better". So I did. And to my surprise, it was WORSE on the second time! There's a word limit, so I'm going to get the ball rolling here.

-The bombing scenes were all so stupid. Why on earth would anyone WAIT to trigger the explosion??? -None of the characters here are even remotely likable. Not on the first time, not even the second.

-Oh, and last time I checked, a car does not explode from a single gun shot, nor can a fire THAT huge be put out with a tiny fire extinguisher... did the above 3/10 viewers actually watch the movie??? -The camera is so shaky, I can barely tell what is going on. That opening scene with the robot had my stomach off-put, the rest of the movie was not much better.

-The sniper scene. The McManus Brothers (from "The Boondock Saints") would roll their eyes, it was so stupid. First off, why did the guy plant his gun where one person had gotten shot? Furthermore, why would he spend THAT much time cleaning the bullets, reloading, aiming and NOT get shot, when there was so much chaos going on around him? -SAS types RUNNING instead of staying and fighting back?????? Huh????? Are the soldiers... gay...??? I didn't mean to sound homophobic, but honestly, that scene was so ridiculous.

-Too long for its own good, yet too short for the amount of material crammed into it. Bigelow seems to think that the more action, the better. Looks like she is wrong- the movie is full of superfluous action scenes thrown in there to distract you from the lack of a central plot. I know Watchmen is longer at 163 minutes, but at least that movie didn't drag. This movie, on the other hand, does, and for it, feels longer.

The only good thing was Renner, who was satisfactory at best. But do yourself a favour, just skip this, and don't give into the hype.

Sentiment: negative
A horrendous film, ill-conceived and crude. The acting of Anne Heche and Vince Vaughan is so inferior to that of Perkins and Leigh in the original version they have to be seen to be believed. There was no reason to make this picture, which only highlights how accomplished and brilliant Hitchcock was, and how inimitable. Also, there's a creeping, pervasive insensitivity in the film that isn't there in the first film. Hitchcock's Psycho was scary and shocking, but one could genuinely feel for all concerned, even the pitiful Norman Bates. There were moments of pathos, irony and fey humor the remake doesn't have. One of the best things about Hitchcock's film was its incredible and intuitive depth and sense of nuance, of when to cut away and when to show something, on whether to use a close-up or long shot, on whether to make an actor sympathetic and when to make him frightening, and so forth. The remake has none of these qualities and doesn't even try for them. It's an idiotic exercise that I'm amazed even got released.

Sentiment: negative
The Frogs Who Wanted a King or Frogland is Ladislaw Starewicz's most cautionary tale about people wanting government to solve their problems that I've ever seen. The ironic thing is that they pray to the god Jupiter for their answers. Jupiter responds first by sending a tree stump and then a stork. Neither works out and the stork is especially dangerous to the amphibian creatures! The frogs have some human qualities when we see them dress in the latest fashions of the day and we see some take pictures or use a movie camera when the stork arrives! Like I said, this short is very much a political allegory more suitable for adults than children. In fact, I first saw this on the Rhino VHS that had Bambi Meets Godzilla. That alone should tell you what to expect here!

Sentiment: positive
when i saw the movie at first i thought that it was boring because nothing was happening but when all the scary things started to happen like when church dies and is brought back to life and also gage and his mom die and there idiot dad has to bring them back to life even though he nows the warnings and ignores Jud.this is not Steven kings best work. i thought that his best work was the shining. i don't think that people who see this movie and comment on how awful it was are wrong because all they think is that what were they thinking. as if that person can do a better job in making a horror flick. i mean making the gage evil and how he kills Jud is genius. making the most innocent most unsuspecting character into one of the killers is cool. people who didn't like the movie are dumb because all it is a scary movie and nothing all. don't expect something from a movie that it isn't. it still in a general area wasn't that good. i still recommend people to watch the movie

Sentiment: positive
I've watched the movie actually several times. And what i want to say about it is the only thing that made this movie high rank was the Burak Altay's incredible performance, absolutely nothing but that. Not even those silly model named Deniz Akkaya and some of these popular names at times in the movie... Burak is definitely very talented i've seen a few jobs he made and been through. Even though this is kind of horror movie, he's doing really good job in comedy movies and also in dramas too. I bet most of you all saw Asmali Konak the movie and TV series, those two would go for an example... All i'm gonna say is you better watch out for the new works coming out from Burak then you'll see.. Keep the good work bro, much love..

Sentiment: positive
...intimate and specific. Yes, a bit of a cinderella story, but only after many convoluted turns, earning it's way deeper and deeper into Antwone's psyche. Only superficial viewing can condemn this film as superficial. This is the stuff that heals nations, this is one of our great national stories. Antwone's path to emotional health encompasses a whole breadth of family history, the history of slavery and its aftermath. In his first directorial effort, first of many I hope, Denzel Washington confirms once again, that he has a truly beautiful mind and soul.

Sentiment: positive
When I first saw this movie, I thought it was the typical "love thy neighbour" stuff....The more the movie was going on, the more I got involved. Acting is magnificent from both actors, direction was great, the story unusual. Cried my eyes off, first time in my life for a movie. A real must have in any serious videoteque. 11 out of 10

Sentiment: positive
Believe it or not, at 12 minutes, this film (for 1912) is a full-length film. Very, very few films were longer than that back then, but that is definitely NOT what sets this odd little film apart from the rest! No, what's different is that all the actors (with the exception of one frog) are bugs...yes, bugs! This simple little domestic comedy could have looked much like productions starring the likes of Chaplin, Laurel and Hardy or Max Linder but instead this Russian production uses bugs (or, I think, models that looked just like bugs). Chaplin and Laurel and Hardy were yet to be discovered and I assume Linder was busy, so perhaps that's why they used bugs! Using stop-motion, the bugs moved and danced and fought amazingly well--and a heck of a lot more realistically than King Kong 21 years later! 

The film starts with Mr. Beetle sneaking off for a good time. He goes to a bawdy club while his wife supposedly waits at home. But, unfortunately for Mr. Beetle, he is caught on camera by a local film buff. Plus, he doesn't know it but Mrs. Beetle is also carrying on with a bohemian grasshopper painter. Of course, there's a lot more to this domestic comedy than this, but the plot is age-old and very entertaining for adults and kids alike.

Weird but also very amazing and watchable.

Sentiment: positive
This is my first review on IMDb.com and probably first ever written review of a film I've done of my own accord - not for some class assignment. I think that fact alone says something about this movie... not a good thing! I am no seasoned journalist or critic (though I have seen my fair share of movies), but I found this particular film so terribly painful to watch, it was necessary for my own peace of mind to vent about the experience. Where better to do it than IMDb? As I forced myself to sit through the movie, physically writhing from the inability to connect-the-dots, I was sure there would be some "light at the end of the tunnel" - a revelation to explain what in samhe.-.ll was going on. The movie ended and I was as enlightened as dog****. After several rewinds to review certain scenes I still could conclude nothing sensible. I found myself wanting to yell "Does this make sense to anybody?" I would recommend to not waste your time, but then again if I were you I'd probably want to experience it myself. If that's the case, bring a crossword puzzle or something so you don't get bored.

Sentiment: negative
I didn't expect much from this movie, it was just one of those movies I thought I'd just watch because it was on television. i certainly underestimated this movie. 

It's about a guy who kills his girlfriend and brags to his friends. I was very happy with the acting, they had the characters played well. It was a particularly great scene when Feck(Dennis Hopper) and John(Daniel Roebuck) are talking to each other about why John killed Jamie. It's upsetting to hear how he explains that he wanted to feel control and thats why. But Feck had loved the girl he had killed. Feck felt remorse while John felt nothing, hell he was proud of what he'd done. It really makes you think about people. Keanu Reeves did a great job as Matt, and Ione Skye was good. It's weird to see her as a valedictorian in 'Say Anything' and her as Clarissa. Every actor did great at .....acting. It was real nice for a change. It was a great movie and I would definitely say I recommend it.

Sentiment: positive