DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
The opening scene keeps me from rating at absolute zero. I wish the entire movie was as gritty and real as the intro.

In order to enjoy some movies, a lot can be forgiven,(hand guns with 60 shots, hero's with super human powers, all women are gorgeous AND half naked) but Puuuuleeese this "Assault On My Intelligence 13" is so far fetched that I'm surprised the cast showed up for a second day of filming.

Firstly, how did these guys get to be cops? Based on stupidity I guess. How do the main female characters justify being half naked in the middle of winter in Detroit or wherever the heck they are. As a matter of fact no character reacts to the elements whatsoever in this movie. No windows, no electricity(which miraculously returns unexplained)during the storm of the century and they are all comfy as bugs in a rug. What technology exists which disables all cell phones, radios, and brain function. This must be the same power which causes Maria Bella to walk from her disabled car knee deep in snow with no coat and hardly any dress.

Sentiment: negative
THE CRIMSON RIVERS is one of the most over-directed, over-the-top, over-everything mess I've ever seen come out of France. There's nothing worse than a French production trying to out-do films made in Hollywood and CR is a perfect example of such a wannabe horror/action/buddy flick. I almost stopped it halfway through because I knew it wouldn't amount to anything but French guys trying to show-off.

The film starts off promisingly, like some sort of expansive horror film, but it quickly shifts genres, from horror to action to x-files type to buddy flick, that in the end, CR is all of it and also none of it. It's so full of clichés that at one point I thought the whole thing was a comedy. The painful dialogue and those silent pauses, with fades outs and fades ins just at the right expositionary moments, made me groan. I thought only films made in Hollywood used this hackneyed technique.

The chase scene, with Vincent Cassel running after the killer, is so over-directed and over-done that it's almost a thing of beauty. The climax on top of the mountain, with the stupid revelation about the killer(s) with Cassel and Reno playing "buddies" like Nolte and Murphy in 48 HRS, completely derailed what little credibility the film had by then.

It's difficult to believe that the director of THE CRIMSON RIVERS also directed GOTHIKA, which though had its share of problems, doesn't even come close to the awfulness of this overbaked, confused film.

Sentiment: negative
I just watched I. Q. again tonight and had forgotten how much I love this movie. It is wonderfully entertaining and leaves you feeling that all is right with the world. I love the allusions to Mozart all throughout from the opening with "Einstein" playing "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" on the violin to him humming Eine Kleine Nachtmusik during the IQ testing of the Ed Walters. I love that a woman is portrayed as intelligent and encouraged to have a career, an especially unique situation for the 1950's, the time in which this movie is set. (I myself have been a teacher but stayed at home to raise my children, so please don't think I am some staunch women's libber.) It's wonderful how a man who is "only a grease monkey" is finally seen to be just as important and worthy as Catherine's fiance, a clinical behavioral researcher. The message to me is that we are not what we do, but who we are is defined by so much more - no labels. There are so many little gags and one-liners that are almost throwaways if you don't watch and listen carefully.

I did catch a few things in the movie that are not listed on the goofs page. In the scene when Ed Walters is to speak at symposium, there are 3 instruments (protractor, ruler, etc.) hanging on the right from the chalk ledge. In the next camera shot, there only 2. In the credits on our video, it lists Tony Shaloub's character as Bob Watters, not Bob Rosetti as he introduces himself in the movie and is listed here on Imdb.

I highly recommend this movie. It may be a piece of fluff in some estimations, but has lots more substance than many give it credit for. Not only that, what a great cast is assembled here. Watch it and enjoy!

Sentiment: positive
The original review I had planned for this movie was perhaps a little over-harsh, so I'll preface with the good: Sleepy Hollow is a perfectly acceptable beer-and-pizza or sleepover movie, the kind you watch with a good group of people when the mood is light and no-one's really focusing on the movie. The visual elements are beautiful, and it is kinda fun, in parts. But horror, my friends, it is not. I made the mistake of watching it expecting something to shiver at with all the lights off. If this is your intention, send me a personal message and I'll offer you a list of alternate recommendations. (That's a serious offer, by the way. True horror fans deserve better.) Now my complaints, complete with SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS Why bother even making a movie "based" on a classic story if you're not even going to attempt to stay true to the sense, feel, tone, or theme of the original? Listen carefully between the lines of ill-written dialogue and you'll hear the slow churn of Washington Irving rolling over in his grave. I will even accept the Big-City Detective bit, but... Ricci drawing warding-hexes around the bed? Come, now. Not only is there nothing even vaguely like this in "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow", but it's historical BUNK. I don't care what neo-pagan axe you have to grind, but in the 18th century, "witchcraft" meant selling your soul to the Devil in exchange for diabolical powers; this whole fluffy white-witch goddess-worship "an'-it-harm-none" approach to witchcraft dates back, historically, about as far as the British Invasion. (Parties interested in real old-school pagan practices are referred to James Frazer's "The Golden Bough", if you don't believe me.) This creates such a discordant element thrown into the context of the film that the very framework of the Sleepy Hollow legend is shattered. So we wind up with a totally different story altogether. If that was Burton's idea, I wish he'd warned us in advance. Also, I wish he'd come up with a better story than the rather pedestrian one witnessed here. And he might as well have dropped the Irving pretensions altogether. And, at any rate, the movie isn't scary. Not once. Not at all. The warped tree came close, but was more than counterbalanced by the laughable effect of the Hessian's farce-comedy bellowing. And finally, yes, I too wanted Christina Ricci for Christmas, but God clearly never meant her to be a blonde.

Sentiment: negative
Dare Rudd (John Wayne) and sidekick Dink Hooley (Syd Saylor) are itinerant cowpunchers who can't seem to stay in one place very long. In "Helltown", the boys are headed to Montana, where they meet up with Rudd's cousin Tom Fillmore (Johnny Mack Brown), who offers them a job. It's a hoot to see the boys wearing aprons as they start out as cooks with the herd, although Dare becomes self conscious when Miss Judith (Marsha Hunt) rides into camp. Judy is Tom's girl, but the attraction between her and Dare is evident early on.

Fillmore has a cattle herd to move, and promotes Dare to running the drive, partly to prove to Judy that he may not be up to the task. Meanwhile, bad guy Bart Hammond (Monte Blue) has his eyes on Fillmore's cattle, but when his henchmen fail to rustle the herd, he figures it's easier to win the money that Dare was paid at the end of the trail. Conning Dare into a rigged card game with his man Brady (James Craig), Dare's money begins to evaporate hand after hand. It's only when Dare fails to show up back at Fillmore's ranch that Tom goes out to find his cousin. Exposing the cheats, Tom, Dare and Dink high tail it before the bad guys can get their revenge.

"Helltown", also known as "Born to the West", was released in 1937 by Favorite Films Corporation, a couple of years after Wayne's series of Westerns for Lone Star Productions. It only slightly alters the Lone Star formula; Wayne does get the girl at the end of the film, but here he was trying. There's a great runaway horse scene where Wayne rescues Marsha Hunt, in which Johnny Mack Brown's horse does a complete somersault spill. Syd Saylor does a nice job as the comic relief pal, doing his best to sell lightning rods to unsuspecting victims. He replaces familiar faces George "Gabby" Hayes and Yakima Canutt here, staples of the Lone Star films. John Wayne's charisma is beginning to develop here, preparing him for the leap to super star status that he eventually achieved. 

"Helltown" was based on a novel by legendary Western author Zane Grey. If you're looking for more films based on Grey's stories, try "Fighting Caravans" with Gary Cooper, "The Light of Western Stars" with Victor Jory, "Drift Fence" with Buster Crabbe, and "Heritage of the Desert" with Randolph Scott.

Sentiment: negative
What an uninteresting hodge-podge. It could have been something more but no imagination seems to have gone into the script or the direction. A man is framed for murder by his wife and her lover. The conspirators do a pretty thorough job of making him look guilty. But the man (Richard Thomas), whose psychiatric records reveal him as "stable" and "unimaginative", manages to escape from jail, beat it to the conspirator's beach house, and secretly record a conversation between them in which they reveal their guilt. Then he accidentally drops the tape recorder with all the evidence on it into the sea water but manages to retrieve it. He shows a heck of a lot of creativity and improvisational skill for an unimaginative guy, if you ask me.

The tape is now damaged goods but it's enough to break down the wife's lover and he sobs out his confession. Bad people are punished. Good people are saved.

The location shooting is impressive. The beach house is nothing more than a wooden exterior thrown up on the grounds of Fort Fisher Battlefield on the Cape Fear peninsula. The house was torn down immediately after the production wrapped.

It's a pretty place. Unfortunately it's a little hard to see because someone seems to have shot every scene through a pair of pantyhose stretched over the camera lens. It's all very fuzzy. And for all the natural splendor of the location the viewer never gets a real sense of place, of what the sand feels like, of the texture of the gray bark on the stunted evergreens.

The acting is okay but the performers have nothing much to work with. The best performance, as is often the case, is given by Dick Olsen as a sleazy but not unsympathetic defense lawyer. Virginia Madsen radiates infidelity with every beat of her eyelashes. Ted McGinley is within his range as an immoral weakling.

The musical score neatly blends the ominous with the mysterious and is effective. If you want to hear the original, from which this was ripped off, rent Hitchcock's "Vertigo" and listen to Bernard Hermann's suspenseful theme.

I can't think of any particular reason to catch this one except utter boredom.

Sentiment: negative
You might think that a show about regular teens with superpowers would be interesting, but it's far from that. Take the concept for example: the main character(s) have a big secret that they hide from they're peers. It's just like Hannah Montana and That's So Raven. Next, the acting is just average. Selena Gomez seems to be half asleep through many scenes. Lastly, the jokes are either cliché or boring. If they're not using they're colorful, yet strange dialog to make us "laugh", they are throwing various props around the room. I really wish this show would use more original and entertaining material. In conclusion, Wisards of Waverly Place is a disappointment.

Sentiment: negative
Doctor Mordrid is one of those rare films that is completely under the radar, but is totally worthwhile. It really reminds me of the old serials from the 30s and 40s. Which is why I'd have loved to see follow-up movies... but judging by the rest of Full Moon's output there simply weren't enough tits to satisfy the typical audience. Unfortunately, thanks to a completely superfluous sacrifice scene there two too many for a family audience - which is unfortunate, because without em' this could have been a Harry Potter-style magicfest that kids would have eaten up. Both Jeffrey Combs and Yvette Nipar are great - I wasn't sure if Ms. Nipar hadn't wandered off an A-list picture onto this film, she was very believable. No, seriously! Anyway - it's a shame they didn't have the bucks to license Dr. Strange, because I think this could have been a total kiddie phenom.

Sentiment: positive
Never, ever, have I been as impressed by a film as this little piece about four groups of people, that faces a crisis, or many. In some ways a little like Short Cuts, but totally different, at the same time.

There are a heap of lead characters, whom we all learn to know very well as their stories unfold, and they are, as persons show their good and their bad sides, their weaknesses and their strengths, with lots of drama and laughter.

The closest equivalent in a US movie, I can think of, which then is far weaker in every respect, is the Royal Tenenbaums. 

Four Shades of Brown, as the title would be in English, tells the story about a stressed out hotelier and his wife, and his elderly parents (who are traveling magicians); about the receptionist at an animal crematory and his family misadventures; about the members of a cooking course (who mostly talk about their sorry lives) and fourthly about the funeral for a womanizing trotter jockey, who tries to continue orchestrating the family from beyond the grave, by singing and appearing in 3D during the funeral, thanks to high tech equipment that has cost his entire fortune (the family gets nil, not even the famous horse is given to the family)!

There is a warmth and compassion in this film, that is filled with grief and laughter, that I've never experienced before.

Most actors were new to me, except Robert Gustafsson and one or two more, but they all deserve the big slam the film took at the Swedish Guldbagge extravaganza (= the Swedish "Oscar" Awards) a week ago!

Male, female and male supporting actor prizes went to this film, plus a few more, to boot!

If you have the chance, go and see it - the hours float by very quickly!

Sentiment: positive
It's quite simple that those who call this movie anything below "decent" do not know their cinema. "The Doll Master" creates a sense of dread and suspense rarely seen in movies outside of Asia.

Think of a mixture of "Manga" and "Ringu" rolled into one and this is what its all about.

First rate acting, first rate direction, first rate sets and effects.

This is right up there with the best of Asian horror cinema; Ringu, Dark Water and A Tale of Two Sisters.

An absolute must. 

Take it from a guy who knows his movies.

Sentiment: positive
i don't care if you'd like my comment or no but i think that you who write that the movie isn't good..you're so obsessed by the films of Hollywood that you can't see how good is this movie i'm not a fan of Jay Chou but i like his play and not only his... and may be you think that there is not a big sense in the idea and may be you think it's not so interesting but look deeply there is more than action in the movies more than love and passion and tears there is more than USA in the world and it's good :) really good. And it cost a lot to do it so please don't criticize the actors the directors cause you don't know how hard they work for you to be happy in this hour and a half watching them thank you :)

Sentiment: positive
I am of "the Christopher Reeve Generation" it is fair to say that he was the best actor to play Superman yet, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying other actors in the role, and George Reeves makes a pretty good bid to knock Chris off the top, though he just barely falls short. That doesn't stop me from enjoying this film, it has a lot going for it. It has all that a movie needs, a plot with beginning, middle, and end, plus all those parts are intelligently written. The film is edgy both in acting and storyline, something a film-noir but with tights. The story is both exciting and meaningful, this is a movie with a message that isn't too preachy. I am still amazed this was shot over 12 days, oh the glory days of Hollywood, when we didn't have to wait 5 years just to see if the movie would fall into development hell... The film is polished and expertly made, directed by Lee "Roll'em" Sholem, best known for directing with both speed and efficiency. It never lets the constraints of technology slow it down, in fact there is some creative things done to create the effect of flight, including putting a camera on a boom on a truck and shooting high and traveling fast to make it look like we are seeing it from Superman's point of view, also a few closeups of George in process work, and a long shot of an animated Superman. 

This is now available on DVD as an extra feature on the first season of the George Reeves Television series. A DVD worth owning in its own right, the inclusion of the film as its original whole, is icing on the cake.

Give Blood Today God Bless!

Sentiment: positive
this film was shrouded in scandal for so long that it became a very sought after item...the outrage, the mystery, etc. it had everything to be a great piece of film-making, but ultimately fails in every extent. it's a terribly bad comedy, a pathetic horror movie, a lame erotic film.

the 2 disc DVD includes a gorgeous booklet with stills, interviews, essays on bestiality, etc. as well as an extensive interview with the more-than-pretentious director. for those who have heard about it but never seen it, the package will seem fantastic until one actually sees the film. disc 1 contains the edited film, badly translated to English but with good visual quality. disc 2 contains the director's cut, in an awful transfer, in french.

what can I say about the actual beast? a hand puppet of Kermit the frog would have been more effective and shocking.

Sentiment: negative
This film is a great disappointment. Director Vicente Aranda has provided many interesting films throughout his long career, some of them were highlighted by strong and powerful performances by Spanish actress Victoria Abril. In JUANA LA LOCA, he relies on a gifted actress as well , newcomer Pilar Lopez de Ayala, but this is barely the sole positive element in an otherwise terrible mess of a movie. While Lopez de Ayala tries hard to portray Juana as a romantic and passionate young woman, completely obsessed by love to her handsome husband, it seems as if she weren't able to develop her character over this one-dimensional feature; Juana was an important figure in Spanish history, and politics of that time were essential in her storyline... but here she's introduced as a romantic leading lady out of a soap opera; this is a real pity, and the film a missing opportunity to show the way personal lives can influence History and vice versa. Worst of all, Italian actors Daniele Liotti and Manuela Arcuri turn out in real bad performances, which, in the case of Liotti is a real problem as he portrays Felipe el Hermoso, a pivotal role in this story. It seems a clear choice to attract young audiences, as both of them look like top-models of this era. On the other hand, talented actors such as Giuliano Gemma and Rosana Pastor are completely wasted in supporting roles clearly underdeveloped. Even if this was a big-budgeted film, little care was taken in bringing a good screenplay or creating "period pieces" on the screen. Costumes are particularly grotesque in some of the group scenes, as if they were taken from stock material,without regarding of a real coherence. All in all, the main problem with JUANA LA LOCA (and this is what makes the difference with far superior historical films as LA REINE MARGOT or ELIZABETH) is the lack of a director's point of view. This a strange turn in Aranda's career, as he was able to develop it in other works (LIBERTARIAS and AMANTES come to my mind), creating very personal and interesting movies, while this JUANA really is no more than a routine academic historical piece... and a not very good one at that!

Sentiment: negative
I found the pace to be glacial and the original story blown way out of proportion to the content. My wife slept through most of it and I did not try to wake her because I felt she was not missing anything.

When Holmes and Watson enter the house and then are potentially caught, it is unclear how they could hide all of their entry and burglary tools so quickly. It is also unclear how the door to the study is locked, preventing the servants from getting in.

The thing that puzzled me was right at the end when there was a glint in the eye of the broken statute. I have no clue what this was supposed to represent.

Sentiment: negative
I read somewhere (in a fairly panning review) that this is something of a live-action mecha anime, and I think they're on the right lines. I first watched this movie when I was very young and I've been dying to see it again, and when I finally did just recently all the memories came flooding back. I don't think this is to be taken too seriously - it's just a bit of good old 80's almost-a-TV-movie fun (it is set against the backdrop of a fairly dark future, although this point isn't stressed too much). What I admired most about this movie was that the dialogue didn't sound generic - no clichés, no predictable lines - all in all just good fun! Maybe time hasn't been kind to this little movie, but still I can find appreciation for it in me. It's by no means perfect, but it's entertaining and doesn't try to be anything other than that. Let the nerds and comic-store-guys worry about technicalities - who cares? See it for yourself and make your own decision. No-one else's opinion matters.

Sentiment: positive
This film was bad because there was nothing interesting about it. It was sort of a remake but then again, not really. I was very disappointed considering the tools that Tim Burton has at his disposal. He had great make up and CGI available and lots of money ($100 million) but can you honestly say that what we got was as good as the original film that was made for less than $6 million? Heck no. So in that regard, the film fails.

At least in the original film, the statue of liberty scene was shocking but there was nothing shocking in this film even the end scene because you could kind of see it coming. And, by the way, if you give it some thought, and I did, you can figure out how the ending could come about. I just wish I had back the time that I wasted thinking about it.

This film would have been brilliant and fun if it stayed along the lines of the first film and adopted part of "Beneath the Planet of the Apes". Here's how I would have written it:

An astronaut (it really should have been more than Marky Mark because he's not good enough to care a film all by himself so I would have put in three guys) that would land on what they would think would be another planet, encounter humans (not mutes), a city ruled by apes, were hunted, made friends with some good apes, discover that they're on earth via finding some destroyed ruins, end up running into crazy mutant humans living beneath the earth, a war breaks out between the mutant humans and the apes, and then....well, let your imagination run wild on how you want to end it.

But my point is that there could have been so much more to this film. Sadly, Tim Burton really knows how to wreck a good thing. Consider what he did with the Batman series. He's a rotten director inspite what of people think. He's trendy so he must be good goes the thinking. Sorry, but no. If anyone else had done this film, it would have turned out far better and would have been far more satisfying.

Sentiment: negative
John Huston's Wise Blood was a more horrifying misrepresentation of Flannery O'Connor's book than I could have imagined. From the utterly terrible acting performances (and don't you, "Oh that was done on purpose, you just don't get it" me!) to the musical score that was more suited to an episode of Rockford Files, this film was revolting. I viewed it with no ill-will at the outset, and, in fact, expected a pleasant experience. But the misrepresentation of the southern characters, from the ridiculously fraudulent southern drawl to the lilting, comedic way their faith was portrayed, was inexcusable. Right down to it's end, which was completely devoid of any character sentiment, it failed in every place that O'Connor's book shined and resonated. The actors portraying the "southern" policemen may as well have been eating smothered hot-dogs from NYC street stands and quoting Godfather. The one redeeming acting performance was Ned Beatty's lively and dead-on representation of Hoover Shoates, a religious con-artist who hears Moates preaching the Church of Christ Without Christ and sees dollar signs and business opportunities. O'Connor's powerful book is most well-known for it's creepy, religious undercurrent that jibes the seemingly lifeless cadaver of "Faith". Mr. Huston's film is a shameful mockery of the author's intentions, as they are understood by me and most of her fans, if I may be so bold as to say so. While I acknowledge that I can't know exactly what the author wished to convey, I have enough affection for her and her works to desire to remain a fan. If I viewed Wise Blood the way Mr. Huston apparently did, I would have thrown it in the trash. For Flannery's sake, and mine, I forgive you, John Huston. The forgetting....that will take some time.

Sentiment: negative
An absorbing (although repetitive and rather didactic) analysis of exploitation and despair in a situation where there is no way forward or up, where the attempts to make yourself feel better by violating and putting down whoever is below you seems to be the only option. But even here, in this desolate wasteland of lost dreams and no future, that does not work, and reaching out to something or someone to comfort and share with, a simple act of charity, gives some reward, even if it just makes the present bearable by reviving memories of the past.

Although there is little actual on screen violence, this is a harsh and brutal film about the small mindedness of oppression (politically and personally) that does not make for easy entertainment. Clearly based on a play, with a small cast, a broader more expansive relation to the general social and political environment would possibly have helped the film to reach a wider audience.

Sentiment: positive
An excellent film depicting the cross currents in the lives of a multi-ethnic mix of not so ordinary people in the rural Pacific Northwest. Solid directing and writing along with fine acting, especially the performances by Kwami Taha and Dan Stowe. Interestingly, this film was made in the same year as the highly successful "Crash," written and directed by Paul Haggis. The pace of the action may not be as frantic as that in urban Los Angeles, and the characters may seem to be better acquainted with each other in "Apart From That," but the personal relationships of the characters are as flawed and troubled and their stories as resonant as any of those in "Crash." For those viewers who appreciated "Crash" this is a must see film. Also, fans of Jim Jarmusch and John Cassavetes will like this movie.

Sentiment: positive
I grew up watching and loving TNG. I just recently finished watching the entire series ST Voyager on DVD, which may have heightened my sense of disgust with this episode, as the difference in style and approach between the two shows couldn't be more stark. The idea may have been good if used as an opportunity to further expand Riker's character, which is how it probably would have been treated on VOY. They could have featured memories that would be "new" to the audience, rather than simply regurgitating old show clips. The in and out transitions between the "memories" and the "present" in this episode start as cliché in the beginning, and very quickly become intolerable as the tired pattern wears on and on. Bar none- worst episode ever.

Sentiment: negative
This comedy with much underlying pain and sadness succeeds where most others fail. There have been many films of this genre with more notable actors attempting to achieve this elusive mixture which haven't come anywhere near the depth and deftness of this one. This is surely because the exceptional cast with outstanding performances by Reg Rogers and Ally Sheedy seem so spontaneous that the reality of their characters rapidly grip your interest and emotions and hold them throughout the film. At first, the action seems rather off-the-wall and harebrained but one gradually learns that these two rather pathetic damaged people are desperately and unwillingly trying to heal themselves, even if grudgingly, through each other. Rogers' heartrending facial expressions of numb hurt and Sheedy's angry outbursts are so eloquent that one feels them as one observes them. You will care about these two likable but deeply suffering people and hope that they will succeed because it's in doubt and all hangs on a tenuous emotional thread. Hopefully audiences will get to see more of Reg Rogers and Ally Sheedy as this film proves their merit as very accomplished actors beyond doubt.

Sentiment: positive
This film entered production before WW2 began, but was not released until it was well under way. With significant fascist-sympathy in the US, and Chaplin himself being suspected as a communist sympathiser, The Great Dictator was a very courageous endeavour. Such risks in film-making - thinly veiled political statements - would be almost inconceivable today. Imagine the fallout if someone were to make an equally satirical film today which criticised the USA's foreign policy?

This film is hilarious, poignant and tragic. The tragedy is that Chaplin makes a plea for the madness to end, but it is already to late - for him and for us. A must see if you have any interest whatsoever in history, film-making, politics or sattire as an art-form.

Sentiment: positive
William Lustig's followup to "Maniac" proves conclusively that, without Tom Savini's spectacular effects and Spinell's convincing performance, "Maniac" would never have become the cult hit that it did. "Vigilante" is badly directed, with a simple-minded script that spells everything out for you and is predictable at every turn, and also mediocre performances by all the actors. Judging from the sense of "deja vu" this film gave me, Lustig had watched "Death Wish" several times too many before making this! (*1/2)

Sentiment: negative
The first thing that struck me about this movie was the terrible acting. The whole cast was so uniformly inept at delivering their lines that I started laughing at the awful dialog midway through the film. An even bigger issue with this movie is that at no point do we ever find out what motivates the actions of each character. The one somewhat redeeming aspect of the movie is Halfdan Hussey's innovative visual effects. However, as eye-catching as they may be, they do little to make up for the gaping flaws mentioned above. A dreadful script mixed with community theater level acting does not make for a pleasant viewing. I was honestly shocked at how bad this movie was.

Sentiment: negative
According to the book The Last of the Cowboy Heroes which is about Joel McCrea, Audie Murphy, and Randolph Scott, the author says that Albuquerque was the only film he personally did not review because he claimed it was lost. Hadn't been seen in years.

Good thing for western fans somebody was doing some spring cleaning at Paramount because a print was apparently found and now it's out on the open market. Albuquerque is a pretty good western too with Scott involved in a family feud with Uncle George Cleveland.

George Cleveland sends for his nephew Randolph Scott with the intention of making him part of his freighting business, headquartered in the fast growing settlement of Albuquerque. Cleveland is more than just a business owner, he's the town boss which he runs from a wheelchair. He even has the sheriff in his pocket. 

Randolph Scott is not a cowboy hero for nothing. That includes not backing relatives up when they're villains. He goes to work for a rival outfit headed by brother and sister Russell Hayden and Catherine Craig.

Cleveland is full of all kinds of tricks and he even sends for a western Mata Hari in the person of Barbara Britton to worm her way into the confidence of his rivals. Barbara's great as the homespun vixen who develops her own agenda.

Randolph Scott's original home studio was Paramount, it was where his first studio contract was with. Albuquerque marked the last film he ever did for Paramount and they gave him a good one.

Note also Lon Chaney, Jr., who is George Cleveland's chief henchman, a rather loathsome bully of a man and Gabby Hayes, who is just Gabby Hayes.

Albuquerque must have been loved by Republicans across the nation in 1948 with its chief villain as a town boss who rules from a wheelchair. A certain Democrat from a wheelchair had made hash of them for four straight presidential elections and he was gone. They had high hopes of winning the White House that year too, but things went awry and they had to settle for an ersatz boss getting his comeuppance in Albuquerque. I'm not sure why Cleveland was in a wheelchair since nothing was really made of it in the plot. My guess is he was injured and played the part that way because he had to.

Still Albuquerque must have had great appeal to the GOP market.

Sentiment: positive
What a show! Lorenzo Lamas once again proves his talent as a cop who committed the worst crime a good cop can commit, by being a good cop. Then, again, he shows how sensitive a cop can be, displaying a range of emotions like no other actor can except, maybe, himself in Terminal justice.

HUGE ENJOYMENT!

Sentiment: positive
My interest in Dorothy Stratten caused me to purchase this video. Although it had great actors/actresses, there were just too many subplots going on to retain interest. Plus it just wasn't that interesting. Dialogue was stiff and confusing and the story just flipped around too much to be believable. I was pretty disappointed in what I believe was one of Audrey Hepburn's last movies. I'll always love John Ritter best in slapstick. He was just too pathetic here.

Sentiment: negative
Not the best of the WIP's, but not the worst either. I honestly feel guilty laughing at this film considering it had to be career lows for all involved. Yet the acting, dialogue, preposterous scenarios, and the ever present boom mic get to me everytime and certainly add to its bad movie charm. As much of a Linda Blair fan I am, top (or topless) honors go to Sybil Danning. Also, special kudos to Henry Silva, who's the only one in the cast who doesn't play his role too seriously. Viewing, the film now, though, makes me look at Stella Stevens character more closely. She plays the head officer, and I have to wonder if this where Hilary Clinton decided to adopt her current look and demeanor. After all, I'm sure she had to look no further than her husband's video collection to find this film. Not that I'm judging. I've seen it several times myself, and it all makes me wonder what would've happened if Mr. Clinton had been allowed to install a hot tub in the Oval Office. Hmmm.

Sentiment: negative
In spite of many positive reviews this is a very slow film with three essentially good actors improvising the most banal dialog you will ever hear. This is another road movie that really goes no where. The camera frequently goes out of focus and the constant panning in some of the over long scenes is annoying.

The three characters are attractive but note likable. The cast also sets what must be an intergalactic record for the use of the tired word "dude". (Even Howard Stern has abandoned this tired pesudo pronoun).

The three primary actors and one supporting actor show great promise. They are clearly comfortable and bravely allow themselves to be depicted as shallow and even goofy. The character actors all seem as they are plucky amateurs who generously volunteered to speak a few lines.. Indeed they all physically fit their roles well.

All in all a dull 90 minutes that seems more like an eternity. This is among my ten worst films of all time.

Sentiment: negative
It has taken several viewings for me to fully appreciate this film. Initially, I was struck by the stylized sets, but found the rest slow going and dull. I thought that such a sensational subject needed the Ken Russell treatment to take it way over the top. I now find the enforced restraint (placed on the production by Mishima's widow) to be an asset. Some of the more lurid aspects of Mishima's life are reiterated and dramatized by corresponding themes from his novels. I think it helps to be familiar with the novels - that's what finally made the difference for me. Still feel the film overall could be a little tighter and warmer, but it's genuinely unique, and deserves serious attention. Love the fact that the Japanese characters speak Japanese - not English. The Philip Glass score is mesmerizing.

Sentiment: positive
This is an interesting little flick made in 1967, with cool jazzy twangy soundtrack music and a plot that will make you laugh...OK, it's not really stupid but it's cheesy fun. I saw many similarities between this and 'Creature with the Blue Hand' (AKA The Bloody Dead) and they do have the same director! Scotland Yard's finest is investigating the murders of young ladies at a college. Seems that criminals are being let loose from a local prison to do the bidding of some evil person and then returned when their work is done. There's a nifty device hidden inside a bible that squirts prussic acid, and there's another device that is neither nifty nor clandestine, it looks like a large squirt gun and the victim must be pretty near soaked before they expire. Joachim Fuchsberger plays an Inspector and he mostly chews gum and looks off into the distance. There's a "monk", and how anyone identifies this thing as a "monk" is beyond me, it carries a whip and dresses in a red outfit with a red hood, more of a Klan member of a different color than a monk. There's all kinds of nifty devices like a fireplace hearth that goes up and down to admit the monk, and it steps right over the fire without setting his robe alight, a nifty trick right there. This is an odd combo of crime drama with goofy overtones, and while it's rather silly at times it is fun to watch. 7 out of 10, not bad....

Sentiment: positive
Suburban kids meet the forest. Killjoy is better in this part. He is more wicked and stronger as well. Nevertheless, most part of the acting is bad as well, like in the first one. Sometimes the characters say things to each other that do not make sense and are not convincing. I made an error to watch this one sober. You'll probably enjoy it more if you are not ;-). If you did not already stop loving clowns after the first movie, you definitely will after the second.....;-)

Problem kids and their watchers are on their way to a camp in the forest. And what a coincidence, their car broke right in the middle of a forest and.....at night? That's just their luck. They find a house and one got shot, one of the watchers stays behind (why I do not know) and the rest eventually finds another house. In that house a voodoo priestess lives.....but she is not responsible for the resurrection of Killjoy. Who is it then? Well, you better watch the movie and find out for yourselves....

Sentiment: negative
This was Charlie Chaplin's first all-talking film. Yes, there had been a little bit of sound and speaking inserted into his previous film, MODERN TIMES, but it was still essentially a silent film. So, it wasn't until 1940 that the public got to hear Chaplin speak on film.

The movie is incredibly famous and has a stellar reputation. While I enjoyed the film, I was not nearly as impressed by this as Chaplin's other full-length films of the mid-20s and 30s. That's because I really felt annoyed by some of Chaplin's dopey over-acting when he played Adenoid Hynkel--especially when he was giving his speeches. The silly pseudo-dialog just seemed akin to something a lesser comedian would have used (such as the Three Stooges). Plus, playing a funny Hitler is hard for me to take.

However, when Chaplin played the Jewish barber, he wasn't especially funny (he really wasn't intended to be a funny character) but he was a tremendous voice for reason and decency. This film should not be remembered as a comedy (especially since it doesn't really excel there), but for its excellent acting and humanity. The final speech by the barber (impersonating Hynkel) is brilliant and almost brought tears to my eyes. Watch the film for this reason alone.

Sentiment: positive
I understand that people have different expectations of low-budget, arthouse movies. I also know that John Sayles has a sort of glow about him, that earthy, intellectual anti-hollywood vibe, a la Tim Robbins, the Coen brothers and Atom Egoyan, that makes him a darling with the critics from the get-go.

But this is not a good movie. I'm sorry, it just isn't.

It meanders. It has too many characters. Its tone is uneven, its point of view is muddled, the acting is all over the board, from naturalistic to over the top. It lingers for long moments with minor characters we don't care about and cuts away from tense scenes just when things are getting good.

It misses the mark.

The worst flaw in the movie is that the two closest things to a protagonist, Edie Falco's Marly and Angela Bassett's Desiree, are straight-jacketed in characters that have no drive. Marly is an apathetic drunk, steeped in her life's own inertia. Desiree is a woman trapped in her own repressed pain. When your two main characters' world-views can be summed up with the phrases "I don't care" and "I want to leave here," why should the audience give a rat's patootie?

I'll be plain: Sayles writes funny dialogue. He's very adept at crafting a scene. The problem is, these scenes don't go anywhere. There's no spine to the movie. No drive. The movie doesn't create rooting interest in any of the characters. In my opinion, he's also too preachy about big bad corporate America gobbling up the little guy. 

If you want to see a quality "small" movie, see David Lynch's "Straight Story." Pass this one up.

Sentiment: negative
Shia LaBeouf has impressed me before with his acting ability, but I can honestly say that I very much look forward to his next efforts...his portrayal of Francis Ouimet, a 20 year old caddy who ignores his father's insistence that golf is not his place in life and enters the 1913 US Open tournament in his hometown...the beginning of the movie does drag a bit, but it's necessary to set up the underdog subplot that Shia works so well...the entire cast is well-chosen and they work very well together in a story that, based on the actual event, has an ending everyone can discover before seeing the movie...but even knowing that information doesn't spoil the fun...Josh Flitter is delightful as Eddie Lowery, Francis' caddy, who keeps him grounded and loose while at the same time proving to be an invaluable part of Francis' effort...Stephen Delane is outstanding as Harry Vardon, the legendary British golfer who Francis idolizes yet does not fear...and who knows the background Francis comes from as he, too, had humble beginnings...Bill Paxton takes a formulaic movie and makes it worthwhile...bravo Mr. Paxton, and bravo to the cast...from the imagery to the story to the people who bring it alive, this is a movie to get, enjoy, and revel in...it's nice to have movies like this that we can feel good watching...

Sentiment: positive
Ice Age is not only Animation of the Year (in my eyes) it's also the best animated feature I've ever seen!

The teaser excited me last year and I've spent many happy hours on the website. Scrat is cool! And so are the rest of the Sub Zero Heroes.

The animation is superb. Your heart really goes out to the characters in this film. They have good lines of dialogue and are well developed. It's hard to say which one really steals the picture.

I experienced their journey with laughter, tears and amazement. Nothing was forced or over done. The emotion was genuine, especially in the dramatic second half. The last film to affect me this deeply was Anastasia in 1997, also a Fox Production. And before that it was The Land Before Time 1988. All possess real charm and seek to entertain all the audience, not just the cynics. 10/10 



Sentiment: positive
This film captures the true struggle with identity that is ongoing in our teenage years. It is really moving and it feels strangely like a documentary-not contrived but very real. It is very interesting and unsettling

Sentiment: positive
- Bad Stuff: This movie is real crap. Bad stunts for one thing, they looked so fake I thought this was "The Twilight Zone". The flashbacks are pretty much useless. One part of the movie he thinks taking his anger out on a window will make his life better. I wanna know the casting director and if he was high because the acting, even from the adults was horrid. A kissing scene in this movie even sucked. This movie killed the book. The book was great. I highly do not recommend this movie. Not even for educational purposes. 

- Good Stuff: I don't know what I can say really. There is some suspense parts that get you going, but they are quickly shot down by the bad stunt work and acting. 

- My Verdict: Do not watch.

Sentiment: negative
For years i've had a distant memory of watching this film , i looked on the net to find it somewhere and couldn't find it anywhere so i thought it must have disappeared.

UNTIL...my gran showed me a box set she sent off for in the Daily Mail and i though nah there wont be anything decent in there, but to my great surprise there amongst other gems was The Water Babies! I hadn't been that excited ina long long time! Its a great light hearted film, the songs aren't memorable probably if i was a child during the time it came out i would have stuck in my mind more. Sadly it was just a film i watched at my grans 10 years ago when i was a little spud. And watching it back now the animation is terrible! and the re-recored voices they do to get a richness to the sound in films is totally off! But who cares when your a kid you never think of those things, even if they lead boy is about 10 and sounds like a boy in the middle of puberty.

Great classic kids film!

Sentiment: positive
Brian De Palma's undeniable virtuosity can't really camouflage the fact that his plot here is a thinly disguised "Psycho" carbon copy, but he does provide a genuinely terrifying climax. His "Blow Out", made the next year, was an improvement.

Sentiment: positive
Alain Chabat is a fine actor, writer and director but maybe a trifle misguided to take an 'idea' credit for a story that probably had them rolling in the aisles when Aristophanes was still learning that it's 'i' before 'e' except after 'c'. But, like I said, Chabat is a fine actor and he can do charm when he needs to. I'm also gradually overcoming an aversion to Charlotte Gainsbourg who also turns in an accomplished performance. If you absolutely insist on knowing, the 'plot' is the one about the guy well into his forties and more than content to be single. This doesn't sit well with his mother and five sisters and to get them off his back he makes an 'arrangement' with the sister of a colleague to pose - for fifteen thousand euros -as his new girlfriend, allow the romance to come to fruition with a wedding and then jilt him, thus getting him off the hook. Naturally they wind up together but along the way there's some sub-Benedek and Beatrice duelling and all things considered it's a pretty painless ninety minutes and performing so well at the French box office that a sequel may not be out of the question.

Sentiment: positive