DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I cannot understand why this 1971 Hollywood production is currently only available through an Australian video company,but such is the unfortunate obscurity of this Peter Sellers classic(Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide continues to grant it the same BOMB review they gave it in the 1970's).With so many scene stealers on display,Sellers comes through with what may perhaps be his most hilarious role.It all begins with his discovery of a patient who expired at 11:15AM,but Sellers argues that the corpse is still living due to the fact that the new day doesn't start until noon! The final straw for the beleaguered hospital commissioner comes in that very room,the DO NOT DISTURB sign still on the door; once he exits the room(handkerchief holding his nose),there is a brief conversation with the doctor with him- DOCTOR:"We can't save them all! That man was at least 85! COMMISSIONER: "How old was he when he died,63?" Harold Gould plays an inept surgeon who shuts his eyes when the knife digs in,Richard Lenz(whose "pompous ass" reporter in "The Shootist" was booted in the rear by John Wayne)plays the patient who exposes the fraud(he only came in for a chest x-ray,until they discovered he owns a house).Also in the cast on screen(and supplying some excellent country-flavored music)is Keith Allison,former guitarist for Paul Revere and the Raiders,who also worked with Michael Nesmith on a few Monkees recordings(and co-wrote "Auntie's Municipal Court" with Nesmith on 1968's "The Birds,the Bees,and the Monkees").Alas,there is some missing footage from this print,including a topless sequence with Uschi Digard near the end,also a scene with actress Kathleen Freeman(who wants to use green stamps to finance her operation),who gets locked by Sellers in his office,never to be seen again(in the uncut version,he returns to his office to find that she has written in large letters on the wall "UNFAIR PRICK" ; his response? "you misspelled price!").

Sentiment: positive
This film is bad. Not so bad it is good. Just bad. It is however hilariously bad. I watched it out of some morbid curiosity and never intend to watch it nor any other Chuck Norris film ever again. If you have to choose between this film and death, you should happily choose this film, however, as it is is a masterclass in terrible film making (hence the hilarity).

It is a constant depression to me, as I grind away at my desk job, that some people get to be involved in movie-making and decided to produce things such as this.

1 out of 10. Still better than "Starship Troopers" however.

Sentiment: negative
The movie uses motifs that could be plagiarized from "Wait Until Dark" (1967), a much better movie by Terence Young, starring Audrey Hepburn. "Dead Silent" is a pale paraphrase. There is nothing new here -- the hidden object in the doll, the bad men wanting it, the bad guy posing as a good guy. The disability, though, has shifted : Audrey Hepburn couldn't see, the child in DS cannot speak. But both stories hinge on the handicap. Where "Wait Until Dark" built up unbearable suspense, "Dead Silent" lets you guess the outcome, the story being such a stereotype.

Sentiment: negative
I went to this movie at a cast and crew show cause my friend, whom is a producer on the movie invited me. Forget what you have seen in the commercials, forget what you have heard, go see this film for yourself. I was more than surprised by it. In a world of The Grinch, Charlies Angels, The 6TH Day, Unbreakable, here comes a film that is worth your hard earned bucks! Glorious scenes, wonderful cinemtrophy and a cast you want to eat with your heart. I found this to be one of this years most orchestrated powerhouse films and with reason. Robert Deniro deserves an oscar nod. If you could give an oscar to everyone involved as a package, this would be the film.

Sentiment: positive
I gave this movie a 2, and though I consider myself a science fiction fan, I found this movie very difficult to take seriously. It was on AMC one late night, and I'm glad I saw it for free. This movie is probably good for a few laughs, but not much more.

The special effects are about average for the time period - not awful, but not great, either. Of course we know more about Mars now than we did back then, but we really can't hold that against this film. The main reason I did not like this movie is because of the story.

There were several parts of this movie that I wish would have been explored in a little more detail - the astronaut's injury/condition, the city on Mars, the creature in the lake, etc. Overall, the movie is much like a lengthy episode of the 1960s version of The Outer Limits - complete with a cheesy ending.

Sentiment: negative
When you're used to Lana Turner in the Postman Always Rings Twice, and compare it to this low budget, low talent, low quality film, well, I was just embarrassed for Ida Lupino's 'singing' (more like talking) and non-piano playing scenes. When the first non-singing scene started and all the people just stared flatly at her, I was positive they were all going to roll their eyes and start leaving or at least talking among themselves (She stinks, c'mon let's get out of here). The actors are flat - emotions are deflated. And Ida is a real spoiled bi-otch throughout - just a 100% turnoff. This was like Betty Boop on conscious sedation meets a gas station attendant in nowhere's ville USA. The story was flat, the music was flat, the acting was flat, her chest was... no never mind. I felt sad for the rest of the actors. Perhaps if the right actress was to have been given the lead role, and the men actors had more emotion, then the film could have had a chance. Sorry for offending those of you who thought it was out of this world. I wouldn't have minded if it stayed out of this world.

Sentiment: negative
Although the concept of a 32 year old woman portraying a 12 year old girl might be a stretch for today's 

sophisticated audiences,in the 1920's this was what the fans of Mary Pickford desired and expected from their favorite star. The opening scene displays Annie's tomboyish character as the apparent leader of a multi-ethnic street gang in comic "battle" with a rival group. The sight of a young girl being socked in the jaw and kicked may be a bit crude, but the scene is played in such an "Our Gang" fashion that it would be hard to take any of this seriously. Anyway, Annie can dish it out as well as take it. Once Annie returns to her tenement home and replaces her street duds with more girlish attire, it becomes more difficult (especially in close-ups) to imagine this beautiful young woman as a street urchin. However, for those who can muster the required suspension of disbelief, the rest of the movie has it's rewards. Vacillating between comedy (Annie's gang puts on a show) to sentiment (Annie plans a birthday surprise for her Irish policeman father) to tragedy (her father is killed on his birthday), the film gives Mary ample opportunity to display a range of emotions that would please her fans of any era. 

Of course the requisite "happy ending" is eventually achieved; the evildoers are apprehended with the help of Annie's friends and rivals and she is last seen in the company of her pals riding down a busy thoroughfare on a sunny day. Which is a good a way as any for a Mary Pickford movie to end. 



Sentiment: positive
Water shows the plight of Indian widows in the late 1930s, says in the end that the problem still exists largely by giving statistics in the end, refers to Gandhi several times in the movie before finally having a scene depicting him and does nothing extra ordinarily innovative or new in the movie. Yes, the cinematography is pretty impressive but that cannot be the soul of any movie for me. 

India has had several problems like many other nations but it has got rid of many of these problems at large. What if a movie is made on racism in America in a particular year which ends with 'x number of Americans still experience racism today'. 

a) How would it be relevant, and, b) How would it be some thing so extra ordinary being depicted in cinema.

A view I read from a Deepa Mehta interview was that this movie is being interpreted as a voice for the marginalised every where. From reviews I read every where, the common thing I am hearing is how the director did a great job and was brave in bringing a problem to the world. The movie is more about a specific problem a society faced (and has got rid of through reforms at large). 

I do not see any thing earth shattering about the movie. Moreover, the movie lacked soul and shifted between the plots of Chuiyya and Kalyani. Sarala, the young Sri Lankan actress, portrayed the role of Chuiyya superbly and that was the only thing which impressed me about the movie, sadly.

Sentiment: negative
so altogether i found this documentary to be strange and really pointless. i know it got awards and things, but i personally did not enjoy it too much. there was no humor or drama in it to keep you interested, just a bunch of wierdos and their jobs. some of the people in are rather different which isn't a bad thing, it just didn't leave a good impression on me. i was thoroughly bored by this movie, no offense to my creative writing teacher. the circus theme throughout the whole movie was kinda cool but i didn't get it, and robotics and lion taming is definitely not my thing. the green animals thing was neat, i really liked the garden lots of colorful flowers, but how did these four jobs connect? it just didn't make much sense to me why someone would make a movie about that. But if you are into stuff like this you might enjoy it. who am i to stand in your way. I am just forewarning you about possible suffering.

Sentiment: negative
Hello again, I have been thinking about this movie all my life. I saw it when I was 5 years old in Los Angeles, California in 1942. What a wonderful story of being good to one another, kindness, and charity. You forget it is the bugs relating to one another. It was just as if they were people. I love this movie and so do my adult children. Such beautiful color in this movie.I need to see this movie again. There is a story about an envelope in the movie, that I just can't remember the "why" of it.

Thanks for listening.

Sentiment: positive
Riveting drama, scripted by William Mastrosimone based on his stage play, in which Farrah Fawcett plays Marjorie, attacked in her car by rapist Joe (James Russo). She manages to get away but the cops inform her that there is nothing they can do. She realizes, however, that Joe did get her wallet and knows where she lives. When her housemates Pat (Alfre Woodard) and Terry (Diana Scarwid) are off at work, Joe pays her a visit to finish what he started. After Joe humiliates and degrades her in a variety of ways, she gets a chance to strike back at him and imprisons him. Knowing full well she's in another "his word against yours" situation and that no rape technically took place, she has no intention of taking it easy on him until he confesses to Pat and Terry what his intentions were.

The movie ultimately amounts to a showdown between its two opponents. As it goes on, Marjorie displays such ruthlessness that one has to wonder if she hasn't become as unhinged as her nemesis. Fawcett does a creditable enough job, while Russo is truly excellent as the depraved creep who does his best to manipulate the situation. With only two characters on screen for much of the running time, the film has an intimate nature that does suggest that it would work even better on stage. Director Robert M. Young doesn't shy away from the uglier and more exploitative elements of the situation; the film does become uncomfortable to watch at times. And by the time Marjorie has the upper hand, things change enough so that it no longer becomes quite so easy to encourage her to go for blood, and one hopes that Pat can make her see reason.

"Extremities", I felt, was a pretty good movie that at least maintained interest and a fairly high level of intensity. Woodard and Scarwid are both fine in support (Scarwid has a great moment where Terry reveals herself to be a rape victim), and the pace is consistent. Granted, the dialog isn't always very sharp, but the material is compelling every step of the way.

8/10

Sentiment: positive
Niñas Mal is not a movie is a bad episode of a cheesy badly conceived soap opera. 

The acting is not a bit better of that in soap operas, I guess the writer and director has seen too many Mexican soap operas and can't conceive anything remotely different. 

Give it up, go back to your soap operas so that you have an audience to please. 

Stop waisting our time and money and giving a bad name to the once respectable Mexican film industry. 

It is NOT an OK or good movie, it's a mediocre soap opera!

Sentiment: negative
I enjoyed the first reviewer's comment far more than I did the film when I saw it at a second-run theatre in the early '80's. I was impressed then by the care taken to create costumes modelled so closely after the Tenniel drawings. But to me, the cast was largely squandered, their personalities muffled by the masks, while the direction I think of as being unusually static, and the photography murky. The rating jotted down at the time was a nought, which means "not worth sitting through even once".

Still, I too would jump at a chance to have a second look.

Sentiment: negative
The notion of marital fidelity portrayed in the film seems outdated today, but it is exactly the main characters' adherence to that notion which makes the entire story so touchingly tragic. It is this notion that ennobles them and allows them to stand out, to, as they refer to their respective spouses, "not be like them".

As Tony Leung said in the film, love just happens. There doesn't need to be a rational explanation as to how it happens, it simply does. Despite their not wanting to stoop to their respective spouses' level, it happened. Fidelity, social mores, and timing all conspired against this relationship coming into fruition. Simply being in love is far from enough.

I had the misfortune of sitting beside a young couple (still in university from the snippets of conversation they kindly shared with me throughout the entire film, and uninitiated to the pains of lost love and missed opportunities). Their gross inability to digest the subtleness and the deeper emotions evoked made me realize just how much a film such as this, as well as other Wong Kar Wei's work, is wasted on the local audience.

Sentiment: positive
Wow.this is a touching story! First i saw 'Rescue Dawn'.I didn't 'like' it. And now i have seen the person , Dieter Dengler , about whom this story is being told by Herzog.Very Impressing.Dieter is a driven human being who encountered the most opposite emotions in his live on this earth.what an extraordinary life this person has led. His tale about the capture by the Patet Lao/Vietcong and thus his suffering is horrifying but what's most impressive is his incredible will to survive.How could he find the strenght ? In a haunting way , Dieter is telling us in full flowing sentences about his terrible ordeal during his captivity... he is a great storyteller and Herzog does him the justice this brave man deserves.

In my opinion.'Little Dieter needs to fly ' tells it all ! , leaving nothing to the imagination , thus making ' Rescue dawn ' a superfluous film. The horror doesn't get more real than in the words of Dieter Dengler himself.He totally succeeds in painting the picture.

Sentiment: positive
Red Rock West (1993)

Nicolas Cage gets embroiled in a deadly crime without at first knowing it, and the dominos lead to increasing peril, adventure and misadventure in the wild forlorn American West of the 1990s. Red Rock West is often brutal and sometimes hilarious, and Cage pulls off the mixture with his usual sardonic wit and wary ease. 

Is the plot over the top? Yes. Is Dennis Hopper perfect as a crazed, almost likable killer? Yes. Does Cage stand a chance? Well, you have to watch and see. It never lets up, and it took me by surprise the first time I saw it. On second viewing yesterday, I was surprised at how well it held up, how well constructed it was, and how macabre and funny it was at the same time.

Director Ron Dahl (who also helped write) is known more for his TV work, but with Rounders and this film he shows a deft hand with sensational plots. It's saved by its humor by the way, and by the caricatures. The bar is sleazy, the cops questionable. And don't miss a really inspired cameo by Dwight Yoakam as a truck driver.

Sentiment: positive
1989 was already a year in where Eddie Murphy wasn't that longer hot and started making movies that soon would be forgotten. Funnily enough, it was also the year in where Murphy directed his first film, but it also would be the first and last experiment. "Harlem nights" wasn't exactly what you can call a success even if it was great to see the two best black comedians together namely Murphy and Richard Pryor. Don't blame it on the actors as they all played their roles like you expected them do, even if you have to face (again) the typical Murphy-laugh. The worst thing from "Harlem nights" are both the scenario and its terrible decors. Everything is set in the roaring twenties and everybody has their profit from the forbidden clubs. Sugar Ray (Pryor) and his adopted son Quickie (Murphy) are gathering easily 10000 dollar per day but of course soon the mob and the corrupt police come around the corner to claim their part of the cookie. Sugar and Quickie aren't guys who give their money for free and have their own plans. You can watch "Harlem Nights" that's for sure, but if you puke from the moment you hear the name Murphy you better avoid as after all this movie is nothing but a lame excuse to see some good jokes.

Sentiment: negative
Man, what the hell were the people who made this film on? And more importantly where can I get some? The opening scene sets the tone for the film: a woman writhing naked in a circle of fire, transforming into a werewolf. And this is no Rick Baker 'American werewolf' transformation, folks. We're talking some of the worst makeup ever captured on film here. I can just imagine some stoned Italian spreading glue on naked Annik Borel (who plays Daniela, the film's protagoness (is that a word?)), and asking her to roll in fur. That's how bad it is.

From here on in it doesn't get much better. Minutes are wasted as the scenery chewing male actors waffle on about Daniela and her condition or something (I can't remember, but the dialogue is so bad if you don't laugh at it you'll cry).

The funny thing is Daniela isn't even a werewolf, she's a psycho who goes mental whenever there is a man around (understandable, as she was raped as a child) so she thinks she becomes a werewolf like her ancestor (the opening scene). She can't help but tear out the throat of every man she meets, and she only wants to be loved! Things start looking up for Daniela as she meets and falls in love with a buff stuntman who doesn't trigger her 'episodes'. Check out the montage here, one of the cheesiest you'll ever see (laughing and hugging after diving headfirst through a window).

Daniela's luck doesn't hold out as the film takes a brutal turn, she is suddenly viciously beaten and raped by a group of thugs who kill the stuntman. Reminiscent of "I spit on your grave", Daniela extracts bloody vengeance on her rapists.

This is 100 minutes of my life I will never get back. But hey, that's the game you play when you're a film geek.

Sentiment: negative
The films of UPA are surprisingly well rated on IMDb despite the fact that the animation quality is light-years behind that of Looney Toons, Disney and MGM at their prime. Sadly, due to rising costs in making pretty cartoons with high frame-rates and lovely backgrounds, the UPA style (which debuted about 1950) began to dominate in the late 50s and 60s. After all, the films were dirt cheap to make and they'd received several Oscars to "prove" that the cartoons were now mainstream. So as a result, lousy animation was becoming the norm and this trend wasn't reversed until the 1980s.

This UPA film is one of the early ones. The characters are very simply drawn (any simpler and they would have used stick figures) and the backgrounds were ugly--simple line drawings with colors added in a very slap-dash manner (often with a sponge and rarely completely filling the items).

As for the story, it's a jive story with a strong jazz style attitude. Some will love this, others will just find it very, very loud. It's the traditional "Frankie and Johnny" story and because of the shootings and all, it's probably not a great film for the kids. Heck, because of the animation and jazz, it's not a particularly good film for me, either! Some will read my review and no doubt think I am a crank (which I am, to a degree). However, I love animated films and a little of this minimalistic UPA style goes a very, very long way and you can't seriously consider them great works of art--just very, very quickly made cartoons. Ignore the Oscars and try watching some classic cartoons or something--anything else!

Sentiment: negative
"Xizao", is the tale about the clash of modern life and ancient traditions, and its effects on a family in China. Da Ming (Quanxiu Pu), is a businessman who returns home when a letter sent by his brother Er Ming (Wu Jiang) makes him believe that his father Liu (Xu Zhu), has died. He founds that his father is still alive, as well as his old neighborhood and his father old business, the public bathroom.

The movie centers around Da Ming's family, and how he has to learn the importance of his father's job, something he always had considered an old tradition that had to die soon. Also, the movie explores his relationship with Er Ming, who is mentally challenged, and the problems of the small community and how the bathroom is a place that purifies not only their bodies, but also their souls.

The two main themes of the movie, the family and the problems of progress, are incredibly well handled, and the movie never loses the point it is trying to make, both themes are very good developed and we get a glimpse of Chinese society and customs.

The director, Yang Zhang, tells his tale in a simple way, letting the characters characters do the job. It is a very simple approach, but it fits the movie perfectly, and I highly doubt that another style would fit the movie this good. Zhang has enormous potential, as he can tell a story without the aid of visual flare or camera tricks.

The acting is outstanding in its naturalistic approach, everyone acts in a very natural way and it almost looks as if they were real persons being filmed. The three lead characters give remarkable performances, and Wu Jiang as Er Ming surely steals the show.

Even when the movie could had sticked to a patronizing "old days were much better" message, instead it takes an attitude of equilibrium, like saying that progress is good, and we must move on, but we must not forget where we came from, and keep an equilibrium between modern life and the traditions of old.

An awesome, and touching film. 8/10

Sentiment: positive
Henry, a veterinarian (Paul Rudd), and his bossy fiancé, Kate (Eva Longoria) are looking over the last minute arrangements for their reception. It is the morning of their wedding and Kate is in a frenzy, giving the caterers an earful about her demands for food presentation. But, horror of horrors, the "angel" ice sculpture, ordered by Kate, arrives without wings. In an ensuing fight with the sculptor, the heavy "ice" maiden falls on Kate and sends her to the hereafter. Now, one year later, Henry's sister arranges for a psychic to tell the young vet that Kate would have wanted him to starting dating other ladies and move forward. Yet, the lovely medium, Ashley (Lake Bell) becomes interested in Henry herself, much to the chagrin of her catering partner (Jason Biggs). More importantly, Kate returns from the other side to create havoc for Ashley, as she has no intentions of letting another woman get her hands on Henry. Can anything be done to return Kate into heaven for good? This is an abysmal romantic comedy, one of the worst this dedicated fan has ever seen. No, its not the cast, as they try gamely to make things work. Longoria is beautiful and funny as the overbearing fiancé and Bell has an offbeat style and humor that is likewise infectious. Biggs, a funny thespian, too, is totally wasted. As for Rudd, a very gifted performer (see Anchorman, Knocked Up, or Clueless, please) he tries hardest of all and, in truth, is the main reason to see this clunker. His charm, looks, and easy wit go a long way in making the film bearable. But, nothing can turn a mindless script and terrible direction into a winner, absolutely nothing. So, if you are a dyed-in-the-wool fan of romantic comedy, think long and hard before you fork over any money for this one. Even were free tickets to fall into your lap, be warned that this movie is a near-death experience for those who adore love-and-laugh cinema.

Sentiment: negative
This is a film that everyone who lives in Sweden should watch. The film shows the political riots who took place in Gothenburg in 2001 from a new perspective. It features interviews with those who were convicted where those people gets the first chance after the riots, to tell their side of the story and why they think the world can be a so much better place to live in and be a part of. I react emotionally when I see this, since I just feel so mad about how those people were treated both during the riots but also after the riots.

I hope as many as possible gets to see this movie, as it really gets your mind thinking: Is this possible? In Sweden, a democracy, in 2001?

Sentiment: positive
This is one of my favourite kung-fu films and is regarded as one the most popular Shaw Brothers from the late 70's. The plot is interesting and twisty, the characters are cool each with their own style - toad, snake, lizard etc. The action is limited in comparison with other Chang Cheh / Venoms films but what is there is interesting with different kung-fu styles on display from the various characters. I recommend this film to those who think all Shaw Brothers especially Chang Cheh's films are the same, most of his films usually focus on the 10 tigers and Shaolin vs Manchu conflicts. This film is breath of fresh air in comparison.

Sentiment: positive
Having grown up on westerns and considering the present dearth of westerns on TV and at the theater, I was really looking forward to Commanche moon.

After watching two nights, and not another, it appears to be have been shot on a tight budget. Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones level stars are conspicuously absent. There is Val Kilmer, but what the heck is going on with him? Four or five buildings on either side of the street plus the Scull mansion make up the entire town of Austin. The capitol is never seen, only the inside of the governor's office.

The dialog is often times hokey, meaningless rambling. The plot line disjointed. Altogether, completely forgettable.

Sentiment: negative
The title is a reference to the destruction of the remnants of a harvest, like rice husks, by farmers who burn them creating fires on the plains. This is a bleak tale of the destruction of the Japanese soldier.

The story is set in the closing days of the Philippines campaign as a soldier with TB who returns from a hospital because since he can walk, they have no room for him. His superior officers don't want him around since he's really too sick to work or fight. Abused by his officer he's sent back to the hospital with orders to either be admitted or kill himself. They still won't take him and he's soon left to wander across the war ravaged landscape trying to find help or a place to stay or even just food. Its a bleak journey with no hope in sight and only death and man's inhumanity to man at every turn.

Billed as a harrowing journey into the dark heart of man and war this is also a very funny movie. This isn't to say its not horrifying, it is at times, but its also darkly comic. How could it not be? Here is a film where madness and insanity run rampant, people are constantly trying to hustle tobacco leaves for food, trying to get even a slightly better pair of shoes, trying to remain a Japanese soldier in the face of absurdity by marching constantly but never getting anywhere and you can't help but laugh. To be sure things go darker as it becomes clear that cannibalism maybe, literally and figuratively, the only way to survive, but at the same time there is something uncomfortably funny about the human comedy.

Hailed as a great anti-war film its stark photographic style makes clear the insanity of war even as it dazzles our eye with its beauty. Here we see landscapes full of bodies that include the soldier and the civilian. set amid fields forests and trees that would otherwise be, and to some extent still are, quite beautiful. Its a jarring sensation.

What intriguing is that I read that this is based on a novel about the redemptive power of Christianity. The director removed all over the religious references to hope and salvation and instead used it as to show that life stinks, war stinks worse and that there is, ultimately no hope.

Intellectually I admire the film, emotionally I don't. Part of it is a strident downbeat score which, for me over accentuates what we are seeing on the screen. Its almost gilding the lily since the imagery is so strong it doesn't really need to have the music force you into feeling one way or another.

Is it a great film, thats for you to decide. For certain its unlike any other war film, bloody, horrific and real in ways that big budgeted films claim to be but never are. This is not for those adverse to blood and gore since its here in spades.

Definitely worth a look.

Sentiment: positive
I never want to see this movie again!

Not only is it dreadfully bad, but I can't stand seeing my hero Stan Laurel looking so old and sick.

Mostly I can't stand watching this terrible movie!

Frankly, there is no reason to watch this awful film. The plot is just plain stupid. The actors that surround Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are really really bad and Laurel and Hardy have been funnier in any of their earlier films! 

I warn you don't watch it, the images will haunt you for a long while to come!

Sentiment: negative
Paris, je t'aime (2006) is a film made up of 18 segments. You can do the math--18 segments in 120 minutes means each director had seven minutes to tell her or his story. The movie is based on the premise that you can, indeed, tell a story in that short amount of time. The premise works. Almost all of the segments are powerful, complete, and satisfying. Each presents a different aspect of the Parisian experience, and almost every director draws forth outstanding performances from a cast of great and near-great actors.

There were so many powerful portrayals in this film that it's hard to pick one or two favorites. Probably the most memorable to me were Juliette Binoche as a grieving mother in the segment "Place des Victoires," Gena Rowlands as an aging beauty in "Quartier Latin," Catalina Sandino Moreno as a maid in the segment "Loin du 16ème" and Margo Martindale as a Colorado mail carrier who has learned to speak French so she can visit Paris ("14ème Arrondissement" segment). 

Special mention must be given to Gulliver Hecq, probably the meanest little boy to ever harass an American tourist in a Parisian Metro Station (segment "Tuileries").

This is an outstanding movie. My wife and I decided to rent it in a few months so we can catch some of the subtle points we surely missed. However, Paris is photographed so beautifully that I would suggest that you try to see it on a large screen. In any case, don't miss it!

Sentiment: positive
This is an entertaining look at the Gospel as presented by Johnny Cash (adorned in black, of course) who sings a lot and narrates a bit also. If you like Johnny Cash, this film is quite enjoyable. Also note the blonde depiction of Jesus in this work...just for fun, try to think of five Jewish men who have blonde hair...? Anyway, its a fun presentation of the greatest and most important story of all.

Sentiment: positive
I, like many horror fans, have been force fed the same banal big budget Hollywood remakes and MTV high school slasher tripe for the last 20 years. Here, at last, is an original horror genre movie that ticks all the right boxes.

You want a hot lead actress, you want vampires, you want cool weapons, you want cool vehicles and you want blood, lots of it, by the bucket load - you got it.

With excellent fight choreography and a supporting role from the Hammer Horror scream queen herself Stephanie Beacham, this really is fantastic stuff.

Despite it's low budget, by opting to use 35 mm stock and adding quality CG effects to the mix, director James Eaves has created something that feels much bigger.

A must for old school horror fans.

Sentiment: positive
This film is cringingly bad. You can tell that all the actors are embarrassed to be associated with such a truly terrible movie. There are obvious budget constraints but with a little thought and attention to detail the movie could have been so much better. For example: check out the scene where Mickey first goes to the mortuary and is talking to his friend the pathologist whilst the murdered taxi driver is lying on the slab. You can actually see the corpse breathing! What, couldn't they afford to hire a half-decent extra that could hold his breath for a 2 minute scene?!

Sentiment: negative
I Love Ernest Goes to Jail. It's one of my top 3 favorite Ernest movies. The others being Ernest Scared Stupid and Ernest Goes to Camp. In this movie Ernest (Jim Varney) works as a janitor for a bank but he wants to be a bank clerk. Soon he is assigned jury duty but soon winds up in trouble when the evil murderer Felix Nash (Varney also) knocks him out and switches places with him! Soon Ernest is in jail and is forced to act like Nash or else Nash will kill Charlotte Ernest's love interest. When they take Ernest to the electric chair thinking he's Nash he gets so electrocuted he winds up breaking out and goes off and saves Charlotte from the evil Nash! Filled with hilarious scenes and comics Ernest Goes to Jail is a movie that'll make you laugh so hard! It still does to me! Jim Varney was such a fantastic actor! He did a good job playing both good guy and bad guy! Varney was like his Toy Story Co star Tom Hanks. No matter what role they played their roles were memorabilia and that's one of the things that Varney's gonna be remembered forever for! R.I.P. Jim Varney 1949-2000. Thank you for bringing Ernest and other fantastic characters to life! 10 out of 10!

Sentiment: positive
Just finished watching this one after getting sick of getting ready for the Michigan Bar Exam. I wanted something that was mindless and that I could just sit back and say, "what the hell were they thinking?" I was not disappointed in this undertaking, but had I been watching this one in a serious mood, I would have been irate. The company that made this thing just spliced CGI footage from the first Octopus and added a little footage with a fake octopus that makes the one used in "Bride of the Monster" look like a masterpiece of special effect footage. Since when does an octopus have fangs? The plot is that an NYPD diver is investigating some murders/disappearances on the Hudson River shortly before the Fourth of July. He and his partner (who is soon to be transferred, or soon to be munched on by a fig bucking octopus) investigate in a rather inept manner (all the while believing that a huge octopus will kill people) and are occasionally accompanied by a female lackey from the Mayor's office. Of course on one believes that an octopus can get that big until the thing attacks the cop and the girl from the mayor's office. Surprisingly, all hell doesn't break loose and only a few cops and a few more civilians are killed.

Really lame. Don't bother with it.

Sentiment: negative
Drew Barrymore is such a great actress when it comes to these kind of movies. She stars wonderfully and gets away with the quirks and jokes. Romantic comedies like this suit her and I believe that she's done her best so far. Check out her other romantic comedies. You'll see what I mean.

Sentiment: positive
Man, I loved this movie! This really takes me back to when I was a kid. These were the days when the teachers still showed classroom films on reel-to-real and if you were good, they would rewind the movie slowly so you could watch it play backward. I still remember one of the opening lines...."Tutazema was his name, and he was an Orphan. He lived with his sister so and so in the village." This is a great movie for kids and as enduring as the red balloon. At the end the other Indian boys in the village attach the feathers to Tutazema and he becomes an eagle himself. He gets to live the way he always wanted to. He gets to soar the heavens.

Sentiment: positive
The making of The Thief Of Bagdad is quite a story unto itself, almost as wondrous as the tale told in this film. Alexander Korda nearly went broke making this film.

According to the Citadel Film series Book about The Great British Films, adopted son of the United Kingdom Alexander Korda had conceived this film as early as 1933 and spent years of planning and preparation. But World War II unfortunately caught up with Korda and the mounting expenses of filming a grand spectacle.

Budget costs happen in US films too, only Cecil B. DeMille always had a free hand at Paramount after 1932 when he returned there. But DeMille nor any of his American contemporaries had to worry about enemy bombs while shooting the film. Part of the way through the shoot, Korda transported the whole company to America and shot those sequences with Rex Ingram as the genie in our Grand Canyon. He certainly wasn't going to get scenery like that in the UK. Korda also finished the interiors in Hollywood, all in time for a release on Christmas Day 1940.

The spectacle of the thing earned The Thief Of Bagdad four Academy Award nominations and three Oscars for best color cinematography, best art&set direction for a color film, and best special effects. Only Miklos Rosza's original musical score did not take home a prize in a nominated category. Korda must have been real happy about deciding to shoot in the Grand Canyon because it's impossible to get bad color pictures from that place.

The special effects however do not overwhelm the simple story of good triumphing over evil. The good is the two young lovers John Justin and June Duprez and the evil is Conrad Veidt as the sorcerer who tries to steal both a kingdom and a heart, both belonging to Duprez. This was Veidt's career role until Casablanca where he played the Luftwaffe major Stroesser. 

Of course good gets a little help from an unlikely source. Beggar boy and thief Sabu who may very well have been one of the few who could call himself at the time an international movie star. Literally rising from poverty working as an elephant stable boy for the Maharajah of Mysore he was spotted by Alexander Korda who needed a native lead for one of his jungle features. Sabu captures all the innocence and mischievousness of youth as he fulfills the Arabian Nights fantasy of the boy who topples a tyrant. Not a bad message to be sending out in 1940 at that.

The Thief Of Bagdad holds up remarkably well today. It's an eternal tale of love, romance, and adventure in any order you want to put it.

Sentiment: positive
Surprisingly enough does movie does have some redeeming quality in it when it moves toward its end. For the other part this movie is being a really bad and lame one, with a small budget, insultingly bad written script and everything that goes with it.

It's silly that with all the money going around in the Christian circles they never can seem to get sufficient funds to make a decent movie with. I'm not a religious, so I couldn't care less really but film-making does some like a good tool to reach a new audience for churches and getting people more interested and curious in reading the bible for instance. In that regard these movies always seem like a wasted opportunity.

The low budget does really hurt the movie and brings it down. It makes the movie laughable to watch with its effects and it just gives the overall movie a campy B-movie like feeling.

But what's hurting this movie more is its writing. The stuff that just happens in this movie is just insulting to the intelligence and then I'm not even complaining or talking about the religious aspects of the whole story. The way the movie progresses is just so improbable and the people within this movie do such highly unlikely things that it's being insulting to its viewers.

I also hated how the movie was being like a soap opera at times. Seemed to me that they simply had a hard time turning this into a full length movie and they added in some characters and dramatic developments just to fill things up. I just couldn't cared less really at times.

Still it needs to be said that the movie gets more solid and steady toward its end, when its story gets more focused on its essence. Still it remains predictable all but it prevented this movie from being a complete wreck to watch and as far as these type of movies are concerned, there are far worser one to watch out there, though I don't think this movie will win over any new souls.

4/10

Sentiment: negative
I was 5 years old when I saw this musical movie while on vacation with my family in St. Thomas in 1977 and immediately fell in love with it. 27 years later, it is still an original inspiration for achieveing my goals that I have set to accomplish since that time!

This tragic story of a hard-core "behind the scenes" of the entertainment industry during the late 50's, "Sparkle" successfully portrays the struggle of three young sisters looking for their place in the sun. This story could simply become the biographical story of many young aspiring artists about what could materialize when things seem to happen too fast and role models are not available to lend a helping hand.

The phenomenal music written and composed by Aretha Franklin and Curtis Mayfield, the soundtrack carries the plot with every song. From being subjected to situations that almost leave no choice for strong long-term decision-making, to making the ultimate sacrifice in order to get ahead, all three young girls, Sparkle, Sister, and Delores, represent the different routes that one could take when you set out to achieve your ideal opportunity as your contribution to society.

This movie could have possibly spawned the ideas of creating "Dreamgirls" on Broadway, and Mariah Carey's "Glitter," 25 years later. As an original audience member of both productions, I have seen a lot of similarities in both stories to "Sparkle," as well as in "Saturday Night Fever," "Fame," "Flashdance," and the off-Broadway smash hit "Mama, I Want To Sing."

Sentiment: positive
Mediocre at best. Slow, but probably more entertaining to the younger viewers. A young boy(Chris Miller) is haunted by an Indian spirit and horrid monster in the cellar of his father's new home. Also in the cast are Patrick Kilpatrick, Suzanne Savoy and Ford Rainey.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this film on 19SEP2009 at the Cambridge Film Festival. 

The Beagle's only in a couple of short flashbacks, the whole thing is about Darwin's life from 1841 to 1859, when he was ensconced in Kent with his growing family, 200+ pages of Origin had already been drafted and he was wondering whether to complete the book. 

The script is based on Randal Keynes's book Annie's Box (Annie, Charles's daughter, died when she was 10). It is mostly a family drama, but does include sex scenes - however, the participants are married, both on and off screen. Not too exciting, not much science but a well-made film that's pleasant to watch and pushes the right emotional buttons. A bit of a romantic weepie, actually. I suppose the conclusion is that you can be an agnostic free-thinking scientist from an atheist family background and still be an emotional romantic as well as an excellent father. 

Some of the characters and Darwin himself state or wonder whether he "killed god" but the viewer is able to doubt that. What is beyond doubt, given the deadly struggle for survival and the web of predation on the meadow-bank (well-known before Darwin and completely uncontroversial) and the failure of Darwin's prayers is that the idea of a kind, providential god who loves "his" creatures is untenable. 

I really cannot see many Americans objecting to it very much. Some may have problems with the title, which is probably the most controversial thing about the film, or with the fact that Bettany does not have horns, a tail and a pitchfork.

Sentiment: positive
Michelle, Anicée Alvina, was so nice, and I really fall in love with her. She died a few months ago! Friends? Really the best movie of my youth. The "seasons reprise" of Elton and his arranger Paul Buckmaster sings in my head forever... Please, if you know where i could find a VHS of the film, mail me!! My husband of 26 years & I saw this as Juniors in HS. Yes, he was my boyfriend then and still continues to be. I think we both cried our eyes out. I think possibly we were drawn to the movie by the Elton John music in it, but were then swept away by the teenage angst of it all. Paul and Michelle were just about our ages when we saw the movie- so very easy to identify with!! It is wonderful to hear that Sean is doing well, I am also in the "helping professions" (an RN). I thought his performance was good and very believable. "Michelle" came across as very sweet, fragile and vulnerable. I think the main theme is that if they didn't have to deal with the "real world" then they could be happy and continue to be in love. How many times have all of us wanted to just have a "Calgon moment". If we all had no outside worries and could just deal with our "basic needs" it could be somewhat easier. I have a 15 yr old daughter and wouldn't have a problem with her seeing this movie.. Kids see so much worse these days that this is very tame. For those of you who are trying to locate the CD my husband (a huge Elton John fan) was able to get a 2-CD set which came out in 1992. It is called, "Elton John-rare masters" Polygram studios. This has all the friends songs as well as many others. As far as we know this is the only CD with the "Friends" music. We also had the LP years ago and were thrilled to find the CD. Good luck. I recommend this movie for anyone who loves the "young love" theme. I only wish it was on DVD now!!

Sentiment: positive
Okay,I'm a history buff,and okay,I'm a action film junkie,so of course,this film is on my top ten of all time.I really love the action scenes,and the unique weaponry of the period.I sort of have doubts about fighting two-handed sword from horse-back,and the Raisuli sword seems more katana-like than scimitar-like,...oh well,I've never fought from horse back,either.

I love the attempts at philosophic proverbs,too.The typical desert tribesman probably couldn't read the Koran,so they'd take his word for it.Several writers have criticized Connery's brogue;well,on vacation as a youth,I met a family of South Africans in our west,Dinosaur National Monument,and although they spoke Africaans between themselves(yeah,second generation Germans can hear the difference),they spoke English with a Scottish brogue.Seems that who teaches you affects your pronunciation.Scottish Missionary?

Sentiment: positive