DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Even though this was set up to be a showcase for some kickboxing and swordplay, "Vampires: The Turning" (VTT) could have aspired beyond that. Because it doesn't even aspire to be a good vampire movie, VTT fails to deliver any punch that it may have been attempting to.

Using the idea of an 800-year-old thai vampire was interesting, but the story about progeny she mistakenly brought into existence (and now must wipe out) actually reminds me of Gizmo and his plight in "Gremlins," and that isn't a good thing when it come to a vampire flick.

Stephanie Chao is attractive and serves as the "good" vampire very well, but her lack of any accent grates when you realize that she's an 800-year-old vampire. Added to that, when she tells Connor he's "a young soul," she doesn't deliver the line with much of the weight you would expect from an "old" soul. Attractive, but not believable.

Meredith Monroe was more believable in her role but, for a "Dawson's Creek" alum, you would think she would have more screen time. The question of whether Amanda succumbs and "turns" is the most compelling reason to continue watching this movie, and you never get it. You get a tease of it, but you never actually get any type of development out of the characters for that plot device. It's a cheap way to play your audience, folks.

If you want something that is a good vampire movie, go find Lugosi's "Dracula," and if you want a sexy vampire movie, you have dozens of flicks from Hammer with a lot more strength than this one. In the end, if you want good or sexy, this isn't the place. This is just forgettable.

Sentiment: negative
This film is the freshman effort of Stephanie Beaton and her new production company. While it suffers from a few problems, as every low budget production does, it is a good start for Ms. Beaton and her company.

The story is not terribly new having been done in films like The Burning and every Friday the 13th since part 2. But, the performances are heartfelt. So many big budget movies just have the actors going through the motions, its always nice to see actors really trying to hone their craft.

The story deals with the murder(and possible return) of a disfigured classmate. The others are sworn to secrecy, but the trauma of the event sends each person in different directions in their lifes. Ten years later, the friends are murdered one by one by a gruesome stalker known as "The Bagman". Who will survive? You have to watch.

If you are Roger Ebert or any number of arrogant critics, you probably shouldn't bother. But if your taste run more towards Joe Bob Briggs and you want to see a group of people honing their craft, then check out "The Bagman".

Sentiment: negative
Pretty.

Pretty actresses and actors. Pretty bad script. Pretty frequent "let's strip to our undies" scenes. Pretty fair F/X. Pretty jarring location decisions (the college dorm room looks like a high-end hotel room - probably because it was shot at a hotel). Pretty bland storyline. Pretty awful dialog. Pretty locations. Pretty annoying editing, unless you like the music video flash-cut style.

This one isn't a guilty pleasure - this is more an embarrassing one. If you must watch this, pick a good dance/techno album and turn the sound off on the movie - you'll see the pretty people in their pretty black undies, and probably follow the story just fine.

The cast may be able to act - I doubt that anyone could look skilled given the lines/plot that they had to deal with.

Sentiment: negative
I felt compelled to write a review for Space Cobra as it has received a good score of 7.3 stars but only a few of the reviews at the time of me writing this were particularly positive. A strange situation and hopefully my positive review will point people towards this old and mostly forgotten Anime movie. Space cobra is the funky tale of a smuggler and rogue who becomes involved with the three sisters of an ancient and dead planet and an evil force who wants to harness the planets powers. This is an old movie and the animation shows, but what it lacks in modern sophistication it makes up with an abundance of charm. Space Cobra is very much geared to a western audience and very easy to watch. There are few if any references to specific Japanese culture and great for Anime novices to watch and enjoy. Space Cobra himself is witty and likable. I cannot say how much of this is due to the English dub or the intentions of the maker, but this is one of the few Japanese comedy characters that I find truly funny. The style is very sixties Barbarellish with a fantastic soundtrack by Yello. The style is colourful and imaginative and there is constant action to move the story along. The strangest aspect of this movie is how it begins as a comedy and ends on a very downbeat dramatic note. I cannot think of another Anime or general movie that has been able to do this so seamlessly and convincingly. You barely realise that it is happening, but it is done so subtly and seems perfectly natural. You also really feel the characters went on a journey and they're lives were changed by the whole experience. Check out if you can.

Sentiment: positive
This adaptation of Pearl S. Buck's film is certainly a classic. A true Hollywood epic, it has all the things a great Hollywood film has: Birth, death, happiness, sadness, exhilaration, despair, and so on. There is only one thing that irks me. I know it was a sign of the times, but neither of the two main characters are played by Asian actors. Paul Muni was a great actor, and he does an admirable job as Wang Lung, the owner of a farm in China. Luise Rainier plays Olan. She does not even look Chinese! I think she tried to get the role, but they should have put Anna May Wong in the role. I know why they didn't, and Ms. Rainier is very good in the film, but they hardly tried to make her look "authentic". Stillm its a great film, especially if you read the book (I did in high school, decades ago). Its a must see, just look beyond the casting. I think you can.

Sentiment: positive
Bedknobs & Broomsticks is another one of Disney's masterpieces. It was filmed with sequences of animation and the actors and actresses interacting with the animations. (A similar concept was used in Mary Poppins when the children and Mary disappear into the sidewalk art.) I am mainly rating this film through child's eyes because I have not seen it in years. Back then, it was one of my favourite films. It was magical and mystical, and the last scenes (the conflict beginning with the ghostly armour walking into battle) were my favourites. There was also a lot of stop-animation used with the spells (ie, people turning into rabbits), which may be a little dated and silly now. (Also, I believe that the film starts off slowly.) Through the eyes of a child, this is a fun film and it is easy for children to put themselves into the places of the children in the film. It is an imaginative film which is sadly largely-forgotten today.

Sentiment: positive
While walking to buy cigarettes, the professional dancer Daniel (Tom Long) is abducted and forced to have kinky sex along many days by three hooded women. When he is released, the director of his company Isabel (Greta Scacchi) has already replaced him in the play and his girlfriend gives a cold reception to him. The disturbed and humiliated Daniel leaves the dance company and travels obsessed to seek out the abductors. Daniel has sex with many women that he suspects that might be the kidnappers. 

"The Book of Revelation" is a weird movie with a promising beginning that loses the initial power and becomes a sort of too long erotic soap- opera or soft-porn chic. The production is classy, the cover of the DVD is awesome but the characters are not well-developed and the trauma of Daniel seems to be excessive since most of the men would fantasize with the dream-situation that he was submitted  to become sexual object of three sexy women. The melodramatic development with the illness of Isabel does not add any value to the plot; the open conclusion is very disappointing and there are no explanations for the motive of the women or the title. It is very clear that the screenplay about a man's feelings was written by a woman. It was good to see the still beautiful Greta Scacchi again and her make-up in the end is impressive. There is a saying in Portuguese that could be translated to English as follows: "If the rape is inevitable, relax and come." Daniel should have done this and spared me of watching almost two hours of a pointless story. My vote is four. 

Title (Brazil): "O Livro das Revelações" ("The Book of Revelations")

Sentiment: negative
In the 70's in Afghanistan, the Pushtun boy Amir (Zekeria Ebrahimi) and the Hazara boy Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada), who is his loyal friend and son of their Hazara servant Ali (Nabi Tanha), are raised together in Amir's father house, playing and kitting on the streets of a peaceful Kabul. Amir feels that his wise and good father Baba (Homayoun Ershadi) blames him for the death of his mother in the delivery, and also that his father loves and prefers Hassam to him. In return, Amir feels a great respect for his father's best friend Rahim Khan (Shaun Toub), who supports his intention to become a writer. After Amir winning a competition of kitting, Hassam runs to bring a kite to Amir, but he is beaten and raped by the brutal Assef (Elham Ehsas) in an empty street to protect Amir's kite; the coward Amir witness the assault but does not help the loyal Hassam. On the day after his birthday party, Amir hides his new watch in Hassam's bed to frame the boy as a thief and force his father to fire Ali, releasing his conscience from recalling his cowardice and betrayal. In 1979, the Russians invade Afghanistan and Baba and Amir escape to Pakistan. In 1988, they have a simple life in Fremont, California, when Amir graduates in a public college for the pride and joy of Baba. Later Amir meets his countrywoman Soraya (Atossa Leoni) and they get married. In 2000, after the death of Baba, Amir is a famous novelist and receives a phone call from the terminal Rahim Khan, who discloses secrets about his family, forcing Amir to return to Peshawar, in Pakistan, in a journey of redemption.

I am not familiar with the Afghan culture and I did not read this novel in spite of the recommendation of my daughter, and yesterday I decided to watch this movie on DVD. I found a good story of loyalty, cowardice, betrayal and redemption, with a brief insight in the recent history of Afghanistan, from a peaceful period in the 70's to the present days with the Taliban. The actors and actresses have great performances, giving credibility to the realistic story. The arid locations in China recall the images we see in television from Afghanistan. In the end, I found "The Kite Runner" a good movie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Caçador de Pipa" ("The Kite Chaser")

Sentiment: positive
I am usually a big fan of Pacino (Scarface, Serpico, Devils advocate) but since Scent of a woman he pretty much plays the same role and shouts a lot. This movie had no endearing characters to warm to. Brandon played by Bongo McConnahey is the least likable of the bunch. He nowhere even approached a real human being. Pacino was hopelessly unlikeable and my goodness how old is Renee Russo? The only high light of this wretched mess was the hot hooker with the perfect lipstick and she has like 10 lines total. Even the usually reliable Jeremy Piven was utterly unlikeable.

Note to writers of movies, they do not usually work unless one of the main characters is at least a bit likable (noteable exception Scarface). As the movie closes and old Brandon is at the airport my only thought was, please let a plane crash into the airport and kill Brandon.

Sentiment: negative
Having discovered the Ring trilogy, I have been greedily gobbling up all those other Japanese and Korean films that are either on or following the bandwagon.

I don't have an easy definition of horror, but this film certainly pushed some of my buttons, even though I can't claim that the film makes a lot of sense. I'm squeamish so there were several points in the film when I just didn't want to watch what was happening on screen. The film unnerved me so I became apprehensive of seeing things that I thought I was going to see.

It's an imaginative film offering a great deal visually. It also provides food for thought. And plenty of material to argue about when the film is over.

The characters are well-defined to say the least. Could they make films like this in the West?

So it doesn't make sense in the end, but when one has an appetite for the occult, the supernatural, the bizarre, the otherworldly, then no film is going to deliver a final all-explaining pay-off.

Sentiment: positive
While I count myself as a fan of the Babylon 5 television series, the original movie that introduced the series was a weak start. Although many of the elements that would later mature and become much more compelling in the series are there, the pace of The Gathering is slow, the makeup somewhat inadequate, and the plot confusing. Worse, the characterization in the premiere episode is poor. Although the ratings chart shows that many fans are willing to overlook these problems, I remember The Gathering almost turned me off off what soon grew into a spectacular series.

Sentiment: negative
Aside from the discotheque scenes that epitomize the swinging sixties (especially with everyone dancing to instrumental versions of Monkees hits), I am surprised how well this lightweight farce holds up 37 years later, but indeed it does thanks to the breezy execution of its deception-based plot and the sharp interplay of the three leads. Directed by the redoubtable stage-to-screen expert Gene Saks, this 1969 comedy is about Julian Winston, a successful Manhattan dentist and confirmed bachelor, who pretends to be married in order to avoid long-term commitment with his young girlfriend of a year, Toni. In response to Toni's half-hearted suicide attempt, Julian agrees to marry her, but Toni first insists on meeting his wife to alleviate her conscience. Enter Julian's devoted nurse Stephanie to play the wife, and the inevitable complications ensue with white lies growing into major whoppers that lead to presumed couplings and de-couplings.

As Julian, a relaxed Walter Matthau dexterously plays the deceptive dentist in his typically sardonic manner, but he lets his two female co-stars walk off with the picture. In her big screen debut, a pixyish 24-year old Goldie Hawn is still retaining her giggly "Laugh-In" persona but provides unexpected savvy and depth as Toni. She and Matthau have great, unforced chemistry in their scenes together. Screen legend Ingrid Bergman, still serenely regal at 54, is obviously having a ball playing Stephanie, initially starchy and quick-witted but blossoming into a liberated spirit as the story evolves. I particularly like how casual she appears after her overnight romp. There is nice supporting work from Rick Lenz as Toni's bohemian neighbor Igor and Jack Weston as Julian's smarmy actor buddy Harvey. Billy Wilder's longtime collaborator, I.A.L. Diamond, provides the sparkling screenplay and opens up the story beyond its stage-bound origins for Saks, who is not the most cinematic of directors. Other than a couple of trailers, there are no significant extras with the DVD.

Sentiment: positive
Yes, I was lucky enough to see the long-running original production of Michael Bennett's hit musical. It was an amazing experience and I paid to see the movie when it hit theatres back in 1985. It is awful. Almost everything fails. First off, Attenborough (a fine actor, a good director with the right material) is a sorry choice - almost as bad as when John Huston was hired to mangle ANNIE. The camera is always in the wrong place - they chop up the songs and the CASTING!!! They are awful - the power of the play was these dancers - these hungry, talented performers just wanted a chance to show what they could do and when they got their chance - you couldn't take your eyes off of them. But this cast just gets by dancing, does a "nice" job singing but none of them spark one bit. In fact, look up the cast on IMDb - none of them really went on to do anything much. (OK, OK, Janet Jones married Gretzky - sheesh). So this cinema trainwreck does not capture for one second the magic, the desperation, the passion of the stage musical. A total strike-out! (But even though they try to smother the music - the great music still rises up at times and reminds people how great the score was).

Sentiment: negative
As other reviewers have noted, this is an unjustly neglected Depression-era film. Directed by Frank Borzage (two Oscars) and written by Jo Swerling (Leave Her to Heaven, The Westerner, Lifeboat, etc.), it is a tough-minded, well-structured and -realized move about denizens of a New York City shantytown. They're grifters, beggars, and women forced into prostitution, but they're a community of people both good and bad, with loyalties as complex as any group's.

Perhaps primary among this movie's many admirable qualities is the contrast between Spencer Tracy's character, Bill, and Loretta Young's Trina. He tough-talking, physically aggressive, and evidently fearless-- but Bill is not the character who gives this film its steely sense of survival. While he blusters, Trina actually hangs tough (if that term can be applied to a character so ladylike). Her devotion to him is obvious, and complete. When she becomes pregnant, she says she will raise it herself if he wants to leave, or "I'll even give up the kid if you'll only be happy." Such is the dignity of Loretta Young's performance (at age 20) as a quite simple character, that she seems neither weak or dependent, but rather a woman who recognizes happiness when she finds it, and wants nothing more.

Sentiment: positive
This is a pretty well known one so i won't get too deep into it. The basic story is about two teens who find out about a slimy alien blob of goo that arrives to earth via meteor. Human contact with this slime ball burns through flesh like acid. It also absorbs human bodies making it grow bigger. Nobody believes the teens (Steeve McQueen and his girlfriend) and when they finally do it seems that the blob can't be stopped. It's really well done for it's age and unlike a lot of other 50's flicks the pace is pretty fast. The story is very unique making it and a must see for any fan of old sci-fi and monster movies. If you can dig the gooey gore of 80s horror be sure to check out the remake from '88 as well.

Sentiment: positive
i L-O-V-E this movie... everyone and their grandmother's sister's lawyer's dentist needs to own it! its witty, devilish, thrilling, comedic, and full of toasty action-packed goodness! with this movie, those amazing people at troma offer you a whole new perspective into the story of romeo and juliet in ways you never would have thought to be possible! it has all the makings of an instant classic-- car crashes, deliciously lewd sex scenes, feuding families, street fights, amazing music, severed heads, and lemmy from motörhead narrates the story line! and thats only a taste of what it has to offer! every single person i have watched this movie with now owns their own copy or longs to... A+++++ and ++

Sentiment: positive
Model Chris McCormack (Margaux Hemingway) is brutally raped by a teacher (Chris Sarandon) of her sister Kathy (Mariel Hemingway). He is brought to trial but goes totally free. He then rapes Kathy!

Objectionable and sick rape film. This movie was advertised as an important drama dealing with rape. What it is is a badly written and (for the most part) badly acted drama. It purports to be sympathetic to the victim of the rape but shoves the scene in our face. To be totally honest however, Hemingway's acting is so bad in that sequence that it loses any real impact it might have had. The trial scenes were boring and predictable. And the movie just went too far when 15 year old Mariel is raped (thankfully that wasn't shown). I do admit though that it did lead to a great ending when Margaux grabs a gun and shoots Sarandon dead. But seriously--having a young girl raped is just revolting.

Acting doesn't help. For instance, Margaux was no actress. She was certainly a beautiful woman (and an actual model I believe) but her acting left a lot to be desired. It lessens the film. Mariel was just OK but this was one of her first films. Sarandon does what he can as the rapist. He wasn't bad but the terrible script worked against him.

I do remember hearing that at a screening of this back in 1976 some women stood up and cheered when Sarandon was killed so maybe this works for some people. I found this boring, simplistic and REALLY sick. A 1 all the way.

Sentiment: negative
I almost didn't rent this because of all the bad comments but did anyways.I thought it was similar to darkness falls which i also liked. The only part i hated about the tooth ferry was the 2 red neck brothers at the gas station.They were funny and the dialog made me laugh but this was not a comedy. It ruined the movie a bit for me because it was unnecessary.The rest of the movie was the way a horror or suspense film should be. The make-up was good and I have seen way worse movies then this one. It was a simple story with believable acting.It's not the scariest or goriest movie, but I wasn't ticked off or wanting a refund after watching it. On the DVD there was previews of other movies that all look good and i'm gonna check them out.

Sentiment: positive
MGM tried pairing up and coming young men with the Divine One to give them exposure and try them out as leading men. Gable and Garbo had chemistry in SUSAN LENOX but it was a lousy film. Here in INSPIRATION there is no chemistry whatsoever between Garbo and Robert Montgomery and the script is poor as well. What were they thinking? The modern, fast-talking, wise-crack-snapping Montgomery and the long-suffering Garbo? It is a tale like CAMILLE. Young student falls for woman of the world and is repelled by learning of her past, rejects her, takes her back, rejects her.... you get the picture. Garbo is completely believable as a top Parisian artist's model and completely at home, although bored, with her life at the top of society amidst her artistic friends and their loose morals. Suddenly she is fascinated by this innocent. She finally gives up her life for him and sinks into poverty, only to be rescued by him and set up in a house of her own. Ironically, he intends to marry and keep her on the side - so much for his pure moral ethic of earlier.

The scenes are incredibly dull and boring and nothing much happens. Only Marjorie Rambeau as Lulu is able to inject life into the proceedings with such lines as "Unfortunately weak women have strong appetites" and "Odette, Where is thy sting?"

Only for Garbo fans.

Sentiment: negative
Another sequel! Why on earth do they keep making these? This has got to be the weakest 'franchise' ever, yet it is still being funded and spawning sequels. SCARECROW GONE WILD - which I only watched so I could officially trash the whole series - brings back the evil straw-man who, again, butchers up some college kids... That's basically it. The acting sucks (as usual), the death scenes are beyond pathetic, and don't be fooled by the title, this thing doesn't have as much nudity as you may think. A couple nice topless girls, but nothing too pants tightening. Let me just conclude my continuous insult (or review) on this movie by saying: if I come across a SCARECROW IN SPACE or a FREDDY VS SCARECROW on the video store shelves, I'm going to be in absolute awe...

Sentiment: negative
While watching this movie, I came up with a script for a movie, called "The Making of 10 Items or Less":

Producer: I've got good news and bad news. The good news is, we can get Morgan Freeman!

Writer: That's great! But what's the bad news?

Producer: We can only afford to hire him for one day. I guess we'll have to get someone else.

Writer: So we hire him for one day. A movie is an hour and a half long. A work day is eight hours long. I fail to see a problem.

Producer: But... he'll have to spend time getting into character.

Writer: So we have him play a character who is essentially himself.

Producer: But he'll still need to understand his motivation and all that. You're not saying we have him play a big-name actor that's doing a low-budget movie, are you?

Writer: Why not?

Producer: That's ridiculous! But fine, at least we'll have Morgan Freeman in our movie. And I guess we have to set the movie in Los Angeles too.

Writer: Of course.

Producer: This script is a load of crap. We'd better make money on this. Just in case, have Morgan Freeman's character plug Wal-Mart or Target or one of those stores, so at least someone will want to sell the DVDs.

Writer: Sure thing!

Producer: Wait a second... what's this about a tiny bodega with a "ten items or less" express lane?

Writer: Oh, I guess that is pretty weird. But we can't change the title now!

I doubt my script actually bears much resemblance to reality, but then neither did "10 Items or Less". This is a case of good acting, but bad writing, and I hate to see it happen. When watching an independent movie, you expect it to try to convey some sort of message. I think they might have been trying for the tired old "don't let anything hold you back" message that has been done to death in much better films. In any case, with "10 Items or Less", the only message I got was "Look! Look at Morgan Freeman!"

Sentiment: negative
There is not much of a plot to this movie. There is a wealthy baseball team owner who dies and whose wife is going to sue the hospital for neglience. Not much more than that, but .... IT DOES NOT MATTER!

It does not matter because you have some real actors giving their dialogue life, and because of the cast you have yourself some hysterically funny scenes and even if you're not cracking up laughing, you have a smile on your face. 

Matthau plays Charley, whose wife recently passed away, and who finds himself the object of desire of several women at the hospital. He is delighted to taste everything on the menu available to him. Then he meets Anne Atkinson (Glenda Jackson) who, at first, is a patient in the hospital (their first scene together is very funny) and then they meet up again on a television panel discussion show, where they disagree on nearly every topic that is discussed. 

Charley begins to like Anne, and vice-versa, except that she is very big on monogamy in the men in her life (her husband was a cheater) and they decide to give it a shot - two weeks of faithfulness. 

I will not give away anything else, but I want to mention the chemistry that Matthau and Jackson have on screen. She is usually not the first person anyone would think of for a romantic, middle-aged comedy, but her touch with comedy is very light and agreeable. She is matched every step of the way by Matthau, who is more charming than ever. He does not have to play Mr. Sensitive or Mr. Macho to get the girl, he just has to be himself. 

Art Carney is a riot all by himself as a practically senile doctor. The scene where the baseball team owner's ashes are buried at home plate is priceless. He also has a very funny scene in a parking lot with Richard Benjamin. Richard does not have much to do in this movie and more often than not is just the straight man to Carney and Matthau; the role does not tax his considerable talents, but he had to have had a good time making this comedy. 

Very much recommended...8/10

PS. FYI -- Matthau presented Jackson with her first Best Actress Oscar, and Jackson presented Best Actor to Art Carney for his role in 'Harry & Tonto'..

Sentiment: positive
i completely agree with jamrom4.. this was the single most horrible movie i have ever seen.. holy crap it was terrible.. i was warned not to see it..and foolishly i watched it anyway.. about 10 minutes into the painful experience i completely gave up on watching the atrocity..but sat through until the end..just to see if i could.. well i did and now i wish i had not..it was disgusting..nothing happened and the ending was all preachy..no movie that bad has the right to survive..i implore all of you to spare yourself the terror of fatty drives the bus..if only i had heeded the same warning..please save yourself from this movie..i have a feeling those who rated it highly were involved in the making of the movie..and should all be wiped off the face of the planet..

Sentiment: negative
I really hate this show! I had watched one episode, and I knew this show is really terrible. The story lines are both poorly written and executed and the jokes are really bad...I mean it is just a sh++ty rip-off of Dexter's Laboratory and Johnny Quest, 'bout an obnoxious boy with flamed blond hair with his twin genius sisters and talking dog; a stay-at-home dad and a smart, super-busy mom...Like oh-my-flippin'-God! Their dad is a mother-f**kin' crazy home-maker, isn't that so gay! If my dad is a home-maker, I would personally die! Of shame that is...Really I would.

I have nothing else to about this...this travesty but only 3 word; count them 3 words to describe it:

· Lame, · Stupid, and above all... · F**K UP! That's all I could say folks, it is definitely making my list of worst animated series EV-ER! If I had one that is.

Sentiment: negative
Young spinster, who doesn't associate with women her own age and is eyed by gentleman from the retirement set, invites an apparently mute young man into her apartment on a rainy day. Nervous and overly-polite to hide her own sexual insecurities, she is most pleased when the boy makes himself to home in her guest bedroom...but not so happy when he begins sneaking out the window at night. Sandy Dennis is not a hapless actress, but why she was attracted to these sad-sack roles I guess we'll never know. Based on a book by Richard Miles, and about as far removed from a commercial drama as one could get, this lurid material not only attracted Dennis but also director Robert Altman (whose work is static, at best). The narrative seems almost a sex-reversal of "The Collector", a tag which may have sold the film-rights but which doesn't turn out to be a good idea cinematically. Even the film's best sequence (Dennis shopping for a prostitute to satisfy her prisoner) doesn't quite come off, with Sandy acting both ill and indignant (whose idea was this plan?). Michael Burns is quite good as the kid who uses this frumpy, pasty-sick woman just for her comfy digs, but he's handled too bashfully by Altman, with lots of strategically-placed towels and flesh-colored undies (Altman clearly wasn't ready for a mature picture with adult themes at this point). Sandy Dennis has a handful of very good scenes; she doesn't chatter away mindlessly here, she thinks before she speaks and she's alarmingly careful in her actions. Unfortunately, the role itself is a bummer, with an apparent slide into mental deterioration which seems to happen off-screen. As such, the abrupt finale is maddening, and the overall results tepid. *1/2 from ****

Sentiment: negative
Let me start out by saying that I am a huge fan of Abbie Hoffman and have read Steal this Book and Steal this Urine Test. Also am a even bigger Jerry Rubin fan. But his movie was a discusting pile of rubbish that made a very PG version of Abbie Hoffman. The director took no chances into making Abbie Hoffman interesting in this movie. They despicted Stew Albert as a F***ing cartoon chjaractor devoid of intellegence, the man was a proffesor at Berkley for christsakes. Ok they did a horrid casting job for Anita Hoffman, did a Horrible job casting for the Jerry Rubin character. I just guess the movie doesnt fit the news flashes that I have seen of Abbie or the books that he wrote. The movie just didnt fit and upset me. Oh yeah and theat is the absolute worst voice over I have ever heard of Richard Nixon. This is one of the few movies that I have ever rented that I could not sit all the way through because, I have a passion for Abbie Hoffman and his discruntled band of Yippies and this movie was just plain badly done. And it hurt me that now when people see a movie about the yippies they will see a terrible adaptation, and not get a true sense of reality. Instead they get a hollywoodized palanthra of crap.



Sentiment: negative
There is nothing original,humane or insightful in this film. The acting is average, images are amateurish, the writing lacks subtlety and the scenes are very basic...something close to a soap.

In 2:37,a suicide is used to turn the film into a suspense drama. We watch, partly, because we want to know who dies. The various characters each have a problem, and the film shows how bad each problem is for them, but only as a way to get them each to a place where you think they might kill themselves. Despite the different points of view offered by the camera on the key events, there is NEVER another way of seeing the events themselves. So in 2:37, the arseholes are arseholes, the angels are angels. This is simple stuff.

Without this complexity, the film emerges as a voyeuristic tale of youth sex and violence. You hardly get to know the kids as much as the breasts, bodies and limps that the filmmaker passes off as characterisation.

In the end, if you know ANYTHING about film in the last 5 years, 2:37 is just an immature rip off of Elephant - not a meditation, not a progression. Yet while the filmmaker and distributor use the alleged suicide of a friend at every chance to give the film some legitimacy, they never talk about Gus Van Sant or Elephant. The positive posts on IMDb curiously avoid any mention of this, or simply don't value originality. If you do want something with heart and voice - avoid this piece of youth exploitation. I was surprised by the filmmakers age when I found out after seeing this film - I had assumed a 13 year old had made it. The Twenty Somethings I've always known are too busy trying to express something real in them to lift the work of an old man.

Sentiment: negative
Made with film stock left over from the production of Nana, 1927's Sur un Air de Charleston is described as a holiday film for all concerned, and that's the best way to view it. Jean Renoir seems never to have thought enough of it to even edit the footage together. The plot is a simple reversion of racial stereotypes  in 2028 a black explorer travels to a post-holocaust Paris where a white native girl teaches him the Charleston (naturally he assumes she's a savage whose dancing is a prelude to her eating him before giving in to the seductive beat of 'White Aborigine' music). There are plenty of surreal touches, be it the pet gorilla eating the flowers in Catherine Hessling's hair, the angels the girl telephones (Renoir and producer Pierre Braunberger among them) or the fact that black performer Johnny Huggins plays his part in minstrel blackface while Hessling's dancing ability is almost completely nonexistent, and there are some interesting occasional experiments with slow motion, but there's not really enough to sustain it for two reels. An additional air of surrealism is provided by the fact that this silent musical has absolutely no score at all on Lions Gate's new DVD

Sentiment: negative
There's some nice scenery to look at here,if you can keep your eyes open long enough to see any of it.I'm a big fan of slice-of-life movies,but these people are just plain bland.Although there's nothing political here,the entire film can be looked at as a political statement,in that it shows how Communism destroys the individual,making everyone the same bland animal that just spends its life sleeping,eating,and occasionally making love.

Sentiment: negative
Mr. Moto's Gamble has a fairly straight forward plot - when a boxer is murdered in the ring with a mysterious poison, it's up to the even more mysterious Mr. Moto to solve the case.

I'm shocked at the number of positive reviews for Mr. Moto's Gamble on IMDb. Because to me...well, I found it extremely disappointing. I enjoy Mr. Moto and I enjoy Charlie Chan, but I can't say I cared for this mish-mash of the two. For those unfamiliar with the story behind Mr. Moto's Gamble, it was originally intended to be a Charlie Chan film. But when Warner Oland backed-out, some of the scenes and action were rewritten for Peter Lorre and Mr. Moto. As I indicated, the end result left me underwhelmed. Mr. Moto is not Chan. He's more mysterious, he's more athletic, and he's more exotic. So trying to put Moto in a Chan film is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole - it doesn't work. And listening to Lorre/Moto try to deliver one of Chan's trademark euphemisms just ends up sounding silly. Add to that the fact that almost 10 minutes of the already brief 72 minute runtime is made up of boxing scenes (something that I never seem to enjoy) and you end up with a movie that I couldn't help but dislike. If I have to say something positive I would point to the performance of Keye Luke. But even he's not near enough to save Mr. Moto's Gamble in my eyes.

Sorry, but a 4/10 is about the best I can give this one.

Sentiment: negative
I didn't want to write this movie off on the reviews and critics in the western world, I mean how wrong have they been about Asian cinema that has now become a staple diet of the Hollywood remake monster? Plus Jet L is pretty damn cool, and he's made some interesting movies in Asia. So with an open mind I was surprisingly averaged out by this movie.

There are good points. The story is very clever, using M-Theory as a base to bring forward the plot that there are multiple universes each with their own versions of worlds, and most likely you. Each time one of you is destroyed the rest share the energy and power amongst them. The idea that someone might try and purposely become the only version of themselves in all the Universes to find out if they become a God.

There's also Jet Li, and he's not a bad actor and pretty nimble as a martial artist, plus Jason Statham who is an all round good actor. As for the special effects, some of them are really cool, a mixing of bullet time, and slow motion with normal speed, very cool to watch in places.

The bad points? Well Statham's accent is appalling, and some of the effects aren't as comparable as others, so it's quite apparent that money was spent on some of the main shots and not on others that were probably deemed as too short on screen or they just plain ran out of budget.

A big sore point for me is the close cropped camera action that Hollywood has long favoured, something that Jackie Chan has often talked about. Filming fight scenes close up serves two purpose. It gives greater emphasis on a single punch or movement, making it look harder and more real than it really is, and it also hides what is going on around the camera lens. For example people holding a fake arm or the face of a stunt double, etc.

What Chan always said was that he tried to open out the camera and show the audience what was going on, let them see the people fighting properly rather than a close up of a face and a fist, cutting to someone falling into frame. Showing the whole picture is more effective, and it's more impressive.

So the close cropped shots were just more annoying than anything, you failed to see the impressiveness of Li's fighting skills, and you found it hard to see some of the action. Slow the cuts down and pan out the camera Hollywood Directors! The biggest problem was the story though, despite having such a strong base on which to build, they seemed to loose the sense of the plot and concentrate on the action scenes. There are some serious plot building and explanatory moments that are just totally overlooked and covered in the space of a few sentences, yet these could have formed some excellent and complex character development.

It just all held together too weakly, and not enough was made of the story. All in all, not a great movie and it's potential was badly spoiled.

Sentiment: negative
**Warning! Mild Spoilers Ahead!**

(Yes, I realize it's tough to spoil an historical documentary, but I do reveal some of the backstory and methods.)

This is an exceptional documentary not just because of the remarkable footage, but also due to the story behind it. Because the Naudets did not set out to tell the story of 9/11, but rather that of a rookie firefighter, the men's emotions and the viewer's connection with them are more real and powerful than they would be in a standard retrospective. 

In a filmmaking sense, "9/11" is textbook. If the events were an actual script, they would be superb, as the characters are established, then thrown a curve to which they must react. This is all the more amazing considering the pain and emotion of the raw footage that the directors had to wade through to piece this story together. 

The first portion of the film provides a glimpse of life inside a fire station; specifically, how a rookie assimilates himself into a crew of veterans. That part alone is quite good, and had the documentary been allowed to run its intended course, it probably would have been solid. The brothers appear to realistically portray the process of becoming a NYC firefighter. 

Then of course, all hell breaks loose. The chaos following the WTC attacks is vividly seen, as various characters that we have gotten to know are thrust into terrifying situations. Seeing not only the attacks, but also the first-hand reactions is a very moving picture of extreme human emotion. 

The aftermath, in which firefighters are discovered to be lost and found, is human drama at its peak. Life and death hang in the balance. Unlike many movies, the viewer not only doesn't know who will live and die, but genuinely cares about them. 

The only negative thing I have to say about this is that the Robert DeNiro (whom I like) blurbs were uninformative, unnecessary, and didn't advance the story at all. They were probably added just to attract more television viewers.

Bottom Line: The best documentary I've ever seen. Nonpareil portrayals of raw human emotion and drama. 9.5 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
I had watched several days film shooting of this movie that summer,the end result was just two scenes in the movie. The location was Sylvan Lake in the Black Hills. Bring the wagon,stop the wagon etc . So this Dakota youth looked forward to seeing the movie and was not disappointed. The local buffalo herd was being culled so the shooting scenes were for real. (yes Doris, animals were hurt during filming) I think the ending was copied by Jack Nicholson in the Shining? A great western/social comment from the 50's. This should be in the same class as High Noon for real western drama or used as a social statement like Blackboard Jungle or Rebel Without A Cause was for 50's youth.

Sentiment: positive
I agree with the majority of the comments I have seen written. I grew up watching Seseme Street before a lot of the people who have written comments were even born. I was born in 1964, so I was 5-yrs-old when Seseme Street was introduced to television. The show taught me my numbers (The Count), spelling (the Muppet), and about life. I liked all the old characters (Big Bird, Oscar, Grover, and Cookie Monster) and don't quite understand why they had to change. I understand that everything has to change in some way, but to make Cookie Monster into a "veggie monster" to promote healthy eating. The show has introduced new characters and monsters since it's inception, why not make a separate "veggie monster" that talks/discusses the benefits of eating a varied diet with Cookie Monster. But, back to my point. I grew up watching the very beginning of Seseme Street, my now 20 yr-old daughter grew up watching SS with me along side her, and we discussed Mr. Hooper dying, although he had died prior to her being born, as well as other topics on the show. I saw the episode as a older child, and still remember how well they portrayed the event, much like real life. And I'm sure it hit the cast extremely hard as all deaths and losses effect families. You saw this on the show and it allowed parents and children to discuss very difficult events. The show has talked about traditional families, adoptive families and combined families. It's one of the few shows that actually discusses these scenarios. I now have a 5 yr-old daughter who really doesn't watch SS. I've tried to watch the show a couple of times, but, it really is not what it used to be. The Elmo 1/2 hr with Mr. Noodle is absolutely ridiculous. Like many people have said, it doesn't teach anything. It's geared for the less than 18 month old (maybe), and isn't even funny. I always prided myself on watching SS as a child, teen, and adult with my own child. Now on my second go-round, I really have a hard time watching SS. The topics that were discussed: death, marriage, non-traditional families, new to neighborhoods, moving away were related to children and adults in a manner easy for 2-99 year old to understand and relate to. Now, there are NO concepts taught, minimal counting, only the occasional mention of the alphabet. It is NOT the same SS, from an original watcher of the show. PLEASE if any producers from the show read these comments, return the show to its foundation. New concepts have never been a problem with SS, they just used to have a better way to incorporate them into the show.

Sentiment: negative
Roman Polanski is considered as one of the most important directors of our time, as the mind behind classics such as "Rosemary's Baby" and "Chinatown". Probably what makes Polanski's cinema a very interesting one is the fact that while he is capable of creating commercially attractive films such as the afore mentioned masterpieces, he is also fond of making low-key movies that are of a more personal nature. "Le Locataire", or "The Tenant", is one of those movies; a horror/suspense story about paranoia and obsession that is among his best works and probably among the best horror movies ever done.

Polanski himself plays Telkovsky, a young man looking for an apartment in France. When he finally finds one, he discovers that it is empty because the previous tenant, Simone Choule, attempted to kill herself by jumping out of the window. After Simone dies of the injuries, Trelkovsky begins to become obsessed with her, to the point of believing that her death was caused by the rest of the tenants in the building.

While sharing the same claustrophobic feeling of his other "apartment-themed" films ("Repulsion & "Rosemary's Baby"); this film focuses on the bizarre conspiracy that may or may not be entirely in Trelkovsky's head, the catastrophic effects the paranoia has on his mind, and the bizarre obsession he has with the previous tenant.

Trelkovsky's descend into darkness is portrayed perfectly by Polanski. While at first his performance seems odd and wooden, slowly one finds out that Polanski acts that way because Trelkovsky is meant to be acted that way; as a simpleton with almost no life, who traps himself in this maddening sub-world that happens to be inhabited by a collection of bizarre people. The supporting actors really gave life to the people in the building creating memorable characters that are very important for the success of the film.

Also, the beautiful cinematography Polanski employs in the film helps to increase the feeling of isolation, and gives life to the beautiful building that serves as cage for Trelkovsky. The haunting images Polanski uses to convey the feeling of confusion and madness are of a supernatural beauty that makes them both frightening and attractive.

If a flaw is to be found in the film, is that it is definitely a bit slow at first. this may sound like a turn-off but in fact the slow pace of the beginning works perfectly as it mimics Trelkovsky's own boring life and how gradually he enters a different realm. Also, the convoluted storyline is definitely not an easy one to understand due to the many complex layers it has. However, more than a flaw, it is a joy to face a thought-provoking plot like this one.

While "The Tenant" may not be for everyone, those interested in psychological horror and surreal story lines will be pleased by the experience. "Le Locataire" is really one of Roman Polanksi's masterpieces. 10/10

Sentiment: positive